Cane Farming in the Trinidad Sugar Industry 
by 
Dayanand Maharaj 
This thesis is submitted for the degree of 
Ph.D., in Geography, Faculty of Social Sciences, 
The University of Edinburgh. 
September, 1969 
ABSTRACT 
Cane Far ming in then Trinidad Sugar Industry 
Sugar cane is being produced in the Caribbean under both the 
plantation and peasant systems of agriculture. This dualism is not 
only characteristic of Trinidad and the Caribbean, but also of other 
sugar cane producing countries in the Tropical world. Current problems 
facing Caribbean territories, namely increasing populations, unemployment, 
limited land resources and lack of capital for industrialisation make it 
necessary to study systems of cultivation so that development can be 
purposefully planned. 
Historically, in the Caribbean, export crops based on the planta- 
tion system have dominated both agriculture and the entire economy. The 
provision of an infrastructure and services were directed primarily to 
the benefit of the large estates. This equally applied to the provision 
of labour supplies, for the peasantry of today grew out of the needs of 
the plantations and was consequently affected by their requirements,with 
tenurial rights in some islands remaining almost the same as in the pre - 
183$ era. This left little scope for the development of prosperous rural 
communities. Today the sugar industry is experiencing a critical period 
in its history, as with current cost conditions the plantation sector 
strives to attain full -scale mechanisation. In this respect policies 
have to be formulated that will prevent serious social dislocation which 
could derive from mechanisation. The aim must also be to create vibrant 
and progressive communities able to attain reasonable Tiving standards 
while utilising scarce resources efficiently. The dilemma in rural progress 
in social and economic terms, is in deciding what form development should 
take for both plantation and peasant, or what is an acceptable balance 
between the two. 
This study provides a view of peasant cane farming in Trinidad. Its 
development is traced briefly, followed by a description of the operation 
of the whole industry and its impact on the landscape. This is followed 
by a more detailed treatment of cane farming in which consideration is 
given to the physical, structural and institutional framework within which 
peasant cane farming operates. Sufficient information was not available 
from documentary sources so it was necessary to carry out field studies in 
the form of the construction of a land -use map and a questionnaire survey 
among the cane -farming population. 
From studies of the data collected, it is the opinion of the present 
writer that size of holding is the major factor affecting production in the 
peasant sector. This is shown through the interaction of farm -size, capital 
inputs, yields and other related variables. It is suggested that integrated 
attempts at planning must be made in order to transform peasant producers into 
efficient users of limited land resources and that haphazard and laissez - 
faire attitudes should be reformed. 
In a changing Caribbean scene where social and economic objectives 
are sometimes contraposed, it is necessary to chart courses carefully. Both 
types of objectives are now being considered more closely than earlier in 
the history of these islands. It is hoped that this study portrays some of 
the constraints which prevent the development -of the most important form of 
peasant commercial agriculture in Trinidad, and also in the entire 
Caribbean region. 
CONTENTS 
Page 
List of illustrations iii 
List of tables vi 
Acknowledgements ix 
List of abbreviations xii 
Introduction 1 
PART I 
Chapter I. A study in retrospect 18 
Chapter II. The operation of the sugar cane industry 44 
Chapter III. Land use in the sugar cane producing areas 
of Trinidad 82 
PART II 
The Questionnaire 121 
Chapter IV. The factors of production 129 
Chapter V. Agricultural production 181 
Chapter VI. Institútional restraints and agricultural 
development 213 
Chapter VII. The factors affecting peasant cane farming 236 
Chapter VIII. Conclusion 249 
Sources of maps and diagrams 259 
Bibliography 261 
Appendix I. The questionnaire and the sample of 
cane farmers 279 
Appendix II. The land -use map of the sugar cane areas 285 
Appendix III. Statistical tables 288 
ii 
Page 
Appendix IV. (a). The farmers' cane price formula 295 
(b). Duties of Cane Farming Departments 29' 
Appendix V. Statistical appendix to Chapter VII 301 
In Pocket 
Figure 17. Land -use map of the sugar areas of Trinidad 
Copy of questionnaire 
iii 
List of Illustrations 
Figure Following 
page 
1. Trinidad: a general map. xii 
2. Trinidad: Percentage of canes produced by farmers and 
estates, 1900 
- 1967. 1 
3. Farmerstproduction of sugar cane, 1939 - 1967. 2 
4. Trinidad: Percentage contribution of agriculture to 
real G.B.P., at factor cost. 1G. 
5. Trinidad: Sugar production, 1$99 - 1967. lß 
6. Largest estate: Percentage of acreage and tons cane 
per acre for plant and ratoon canes, 1947 - 1967. 1,3 
7. Variety trends of sugar cane on largest estate, 1960 - 1967. 52 
$, Incidence of froghopper damage and relative costs per 
acre for producing ratoon cane. 56 
9. Average production of sugar cane per farmer and total 
number of farmers, 1939 - 1967. 60 
10. Trinidad: Cumulative percentages of cane farmers and 
cane production by classes of farmers, 1939 - 1467. 61 
11. Trinidad: Sugar cane - Price paid per ton of farmers* 
cane and Tc /Ts ratio, 1944 - 1967. 64 
12. Trinidad: Cane farmers - Average production per farmer 
by purchasing points, 1967. 69 
13. Trinidad: Cane farmers - cane production, 1967, by 
classes of farmers and purchasing points. 70 
l4. Trinidad: Cane farmers - aggregate production, 1967, 
by purchasing points. 71 
15. Names of sugar cane purchasing points. 72 
iv 
Figure 
16. 
17. 
Following 
page 
Caroni Limited: Estate and farmers - daily deliveries 
of cane, 1966 - 1969. 75 
Land -use map of the sugar areas of Trinidad. (in pocket) 
1$. Trinidad: Relief. 93 
19. Trinidad: Geomorphologic stereogram. . $4 
20. Trinidad: Climatic zones. 95 
21. Trinidad: Annual rainfall and rainfall distribution. 46 
22. Trinidad: Effective rainfall. 87 
23. Trinidad: Land utilisation, 1946 - 1959. 91 
24. Trinidad: Land utilisation by counties, 1963. 91 
25. Trinidad: Population per square mile by wards. 91 
26. Trinidad: Net internal migrants of towns and counties. 91 
27. Trinidad: Sugar areas - forests with tree crops, other 
crops and clearings. 93 
29. Trinidad: Sugar areas - pasture, scrub and cleared land. 101 
29. Trinidad: Sugar areas - swamps, rice, other crops and 
inland water. 104 
30. Trinidad: Sugar areas - vegetables and non -tree crops. 107 
31. Trinidad: Sugar cane - estates' cane, farmers' cane 
and other crops. 109 
32., Trinidad: Sugar areas - built -up areas. 114 
33. Trinidad: Sample survey of cane farmers. 127 
34. Trinidad: Number of holdings by county and by holding 
size, 1963. 139 
35, Trinidad: Cane farmers - percentage of farmers growing 
other crops commercially by purchasing points, 142 
V 
Figure Following 
page 
36. Trinidad: Cane farmers - percentage of non -full- 
time farmers by purchasing points. 1k4 
37. Trinidad: Cane farmers - percentage of farmers with 
tree crops by purchasing points. 144 
33. Trinidad: Cane farmers - percentage of farmers with 
main crop not sugar cane, by purchasing points. 14k 
vi 
List of Tables 
Table Page 
1, 1967 
- Farmers' production of cane by classes 4 
2. Stratification and size of sample of farmers 11 
3. Sugar estates and sugar companies, 1797 - 1967 23 
4. Mechanical and semi -mechanical harvesting of sugar cane 51 
5. Reaping results for Caroni Limited, 1966 55 
6. Estates' and farmers' canes according to sugar mills, 
1956 - 1966 66 
7. Cost of administration of Cane Farmers' Departments per 
ton of sugar produced from farmers' cane 77 
$. Distribution of land held by Caroni Limited 113 
9. Comparison of farmers' production of sugar cane for 
1963 - 1967 and 1967 and 1967 by classes of farmers 126 
10. Distance of main sugar plot on a holding from 
purchasing point by classes of farmers 132 
11. Cost of transporting one ton of sugar cane from field to 
purchasing point by classes of farmers 134 
12. Farmers' yields per acre by classes 136 
13. Average farm size and average sugar cane acreage by 
classes 136 
14. Percentages of farmers by farm size and classes of 
farmers 137 
15. Types of off -farm occupations by classes of farmers 13$ 
16. Farmers who claim sugar cane to be their main enterprise 
by classes of farmers 141 
vii 
Table Page 
17. Acreages under 'other crops' or non -tree crops, not 
including sugar cane, by classes of farmers 143 
18. Farmers who grow other crops commercially by classes 
of farmers 145 
19. Acreage under tree crops by classes of farmers 114.6 
20, Number of fragments on holdings by classes of farmers 147 
21. Mean farm size, number of fragments and average size 
of fragments by classes of farmers 149 
22. Tenure of farmers' holdings by classes of farmers 152 
23. Months spent on holding by classes of farmers 156 
240 Months spent on sugar cane by classes of farmers 15'7 
35. Months spent on all other crops by classes of farmers 158 
26. Average gross incomes for farmers from sugar cane for 
1964 -1967 and 1967 by classes of farmers 160 
27. Operations and estimated costs of production per acre 
of farmers' cane 162 
2$. Farmers already in or would go to full -time jobs if 
available by classes of farmers 163 
29. Age groups of farmers by classes of farmers 166 
30. Size of households and number of families by classes of 
farmers 167 
31. Number of individuals 16 years old and over and under 
16 years, providing unpaid help on holdings by classes 
of farmers 169 
32. Ownership of agricultural equipment by classes of farmers . 172 
33. Type and ownership of transport by classes of farmers 173 
34. Utilisation of paid labour by classes of farmers 176 
viii 
Table Page 
35. Age of oldest ratoons grown by farmers in 1967 by 
classes of farmers 189 
36. Percentages of farmers who attempted to control the 
froghopper by classes of farmers 192 
37. Fertiliser usage by farmers according to classes 19k 
38. Source of fertiliser by classes of farmers 195 
39. Fertiliser received on credit by classes of farmers 195 
40. Weeding practices by classes of farmers 2.00 
41. Road conditions in vicinity of farmers' holdings by 
classes of farmers 200 
42. Practice of intercroorning by classes of farmers 204 
43. Farmers growing other commercial crops and the marketing 
of such crops by classes of farmers 206 
44. Distribution of livestock units according to classes 
of farmers 209 
45. Advice received on the use of fertiliser and sources of 
advice by classes of farmers 215 
46. Receipt of other agricultural advice by classes of 
farmers 216 
47. Awareness and applications for froghopper subsidy by 
classes of farmers 222 
48. Farmers who are growing or will grow other crops 
given reasonable marketing facilities by classes of 
farmers 230 
49. Farmers - Length of credit by classes of farmers 230 
ix 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
A study of this type could not have been completed without the help 
of many people, but undoubtedly, my greatest debt is to the hundreds of 
cane farmers in Trinidad who provided me not only with the information on 
which this thesis is based, but also with considerable hospitality. It 
would have been too much to expect willing cooperation from all individuals 
approached, but in general, working among cane farmers was for me a very 
pleasurable task which assisted me greatly in a closer understanding of the 
farmers, their practices and working conditions. Although the list of 
farmers lending assistance runs into several hundreds, I am forced to single 
out Mr.Pahalad Tancoo on whom I lent heavily during my period of work 
in the southern areas of Oropouche. 
A great deal oî assistance was also obtained from organisations 
involved in the sugar industry, from the University of the West Indies and 
from the Trinidad Government. The Trinidad Islandwide Cane Farmers' 
Association (TICFA), through its Chairman, Mr.S.Sookhoo, its Manager, 
Mr.S.N.Girwar, its Secretary, Mr.H.Outar and its office and field staffs, 
gave very willing help in several ways. Perhaps the most important of 
these were introductions to Branch Secretaries of TICFA and to individual 
farmers, and the long periods of valuable discussions on a multitude of 
topics relating to cane farming. 
Valuable assistance was also received from two of the three sugar 
estates, Messrs. Caroni Limited and Mes-,rs.Trinidad Sugar Estates Limited. 
Through their Cane Farming Departments I was able to meet many farmers at 
the sugar cane purchasing points and also make use of private office 
facilities belonging'to the estates. Messrs. Caroni Limited permitted me 
the use of its private roads without hindrance so that Tourneys were 
shortened considerably in some cases. Many individuals in both estates 
x 
were of assistance to me, but I must make special mention of Mr.?'.C.Hobson, 
the head of Caroni Limited's Cane Farming Department, for his unstinting 
cooperation in giving me advice on all aspects of cane production and esp- 
ecially on cane farming. I am also grateful to Mr.Hobson for permitting 
his staff to assist me in checking farmers' returns. Among the other 
estate employees to whom sincere thanks are due are Mr.Harry Kantapersad 
and Mr.George Ramoutar. . 
I am also indebted to the Sugar Industry Control Board for 
providing me with a small grant to cover part of the expenses for printing 
the questionnaire used in the survey. The Ministry of Agriculture also 
provided valuable suggestions and my sincerest thanks are due to 
Mr.Frank Barsotti, senior economist in the Ministry. The Trinidad 
Sugar Manufacturers' Association and the University of the Nest Indies 
both permitted me use of their libraries, the former also supplying 
statistics relating to the industry. Members of the staff of the Social 
Sciences Faculty of the University of the West Indies made many helpful 
suggestions and spent considerable time in discussing with me specific 
problems confronting peasant cane farming in Trinidad. Special thanks 
are due to Dr.Eric St.Cyr of this staff. 
I would like to express my sincerest appreciation to both my 
supervisors, Professor J.T.Coppock and Dr.D.N.MacMaster,for their 
critical reading of the final draft of the thesis and for the r.onstructive 
and valuable suggestions they made at all stages of the work. I am also 
grateful to other members of the staff of the Geography Department of 
Edinburgh University and to my fellow post -graduate students who 
willingly discussed problems and made suggestions whenever possible. 
My thanks are especially due to Mr.T. ".Waugh B.Sc., Mr.G.P.Chapman M.A. 
and Mr.R.L.Hodgart M.A., who all assisted me greatly in the use of 
computer facilities. Thanks are due to Mr.Roy Middleton of the Edinburgh 
xi 
Regional Computing Centre who also assisted me in the use of computer 
facilities. 
At Edinburgh University, my thanks are due to Dr.P.R.Fisk and 
Mr. C.W.D.Peare of the Statistics Department 'who offered valuable advice 
on the questionnaire format and the use of the data collected. My tasks 
were also made more bearable by the painstaking help given to me in data 
preparation by Mr.J.Nimmo and the staff of the Social Sciences Research 
Unit of Edinburgh University. 
The Directorate of Overseas Surveys provided me with air photographs 
of Trinidad and permitted me to use them in Edinburgh. Members of the staff 
of the Directorate also gave valuable advice on the construction of the 
land -use map. Thanks are also due to Mr,Bruce Currey and Miss Linda Morrison 
for transforming some of my rough sketches into presentable form. 
This work could not have been attempted, but for the leave facilities 
granted to me by my employers, the Government of Trinidad and Tobago, and 
the funds supplied by Commonwealth Scholarship Commission of the Association 
of Commonwealth Universities. I am deeply indebted to both. 
I must also acknowledge with deep appreciation the encouragement and 
assistance given to me by my many friends and relatives in Trinidad. Lastly, 
I must express my thanks to my wife, Vidia, and children, Asha and Vindra, 
for enduring patiently my period of study and for their loving encouragement. 
It is incumbent upon me at this point to mention that although I 
was assisted in many ways by a large number of people, any failings in 
this thesis are my own responsibility. 
Dayanand Maharad 
September, 1969, 
University of Edinburgh. 
xii 
List of Abbreviations 
B.C. - Brechin Castle mill. 
C.F.D. - Cane Farming Department. 
C.S.A. - Commonwealth Sugar Agreement. 
F.P. - Forres Park mill. 
I.C.T.A. - Imperial College of Topical Agriculture, now the 
Faculty of Agriculture, U.W.I. 
I.S.A. - International Sugar Agreement. 
I.S.E,R. - Institute of Social and Economic Research, U.W.I. 
mort. - million metric tons, 
MX. - Mamoral Crossing. 
na. - not available. 
nd, - no date. 
negl. - negligible. 
Tc /A. - tons cane per acre. 
Tc/Ts. 
- ratio of tons cane required to make one ton of sugar, 
T.I.C.F.A. - Trinidad Islandwide Cane Farmers' Association. 
T.S.F. 
W. L. 
- Trinidad Sugar Estates' mill, the Orange Grove mill. 
- University of the West Indies. 
- Woodford Lodge mill. 
One pound sterling a %&.80 TT,(Trinidad ?c Tobago dollars), 
One dollar TT : 1/2d sterling. 
F
I
G
.
 
1 
INTRODUCTTION 
The purpose of the study is to investigate the organisation and 
operation of peasant cane farming in Trinidad in broadly geographic 
and economic terms. The peasant system of cane farming is part of 
the typology of Caribbean agriculture which generally exhibits two 
main systems of organisation, the other being the plantation system. 
The plantation system is characterised by large scale units employing, 
traditionally, a great deal of cheap labour and a considerable degree 
of metropolitan control. Production is destined almost exclusively for 
export, with sugar cane being the main crop. The major features of the 
peasant system are its large numbers of small holdings, its employment 
of both family and hired labour, the latter where a crop is grown for 
commercial purposes by peasants, and its system of mixed production., 
but verging on monoculture in certain areas. Other features of the 
West. Indian peasantry are its recent. origin, for it had no chance of 
developing prior to 18381, and its combination of various other 
activities with agriculture; for supplementary employment in trades, 
shopkeeping and agricultural work on plantations are characteristic of 
the peasantry. For historical reasons resources are unequally 
distributed between both systems and there is also great disparity in 
the productivity of peasants and plantations, with peasants being in 
the weaker position. This situation emanates directly from the 
unequal distribution of resources.2 
1. See Marshall, W.K., "Peasant development in the West Indies since 
1938" in Social and Economic Studies, Vol. 17, No. 3, 1968, University 
of the ';est Indies, for a discussion on the development of the 
peasantry in the Caribbean, pp. 252-263. 
2. Beckford, G.L., "An appropriate theoretical framework for agricultural 
Planning" in Social and .economic Studies, Vol. 17, No. 3, 1968, puts 
forward the hypothesis that 'underdevelopment in the Caribbean 
emanates directly from ... the plantation system of resource organis- 
ation. And the problem of development is one that must involve 
changes in that structure." p. 242. 
1 
PE
R
CE
NT
AG
E 
O
F 
CA
NE
S 
PR
O
DU
CE
D 
BY
 
FA
R
M
ER
S 
AN
D
 E
ST
AT
ES
 
19
00
-1
96
7 
6 
o
 
ES
TA
TE
S 
.
-
.
11
1I
M
II 
.
.
11
-..
...
...
- 
-
 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
 
:-
_
- 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
 
_
 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
 
-
 
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
 
9 1 
o
o
 
fo
 
io
 
3'
0 
41
0 
5'
0 
6'
0 
Fi
g.
 2
 
Until the 1880s, the Trinidad sugar industry consisted 
essentially of a plantation system in which sugar cane planters each 
owned milling facilities. From the depression that the sugar industry 
underwent in the last two decades of the 19th Century, developed the 
cane -farming or peasant sector of the industry. This sector consisted 
initially of a few farmers in the southern areas who grew cane for 
sale to the former New Colonial Company which operated. the Usine Ste. 
Madeleine. Some planters were against this development. When it was 
found that cane farmers were growing cane more cheaply than the estates, 
because of the farmerst use of their own labour, the peasant sector of 
the industry was encouraged to expand. Expansion was so great that in 
the 1920s over 20,000 peasant farmers were growing about one -half of 
the total canes produced in Trinidad (figure 2 ). Subsequentily, although 
numbers of farmers decreased, the total output of this sector continued 
to increase even during the years of the Great Depression. A decrease 
in production came during World War 2T. Since then, the entire industry 
has expanded, with numbers of farmers remaining stable and their 
production increasing (figure 3). The plantations, or estates as they 
are called in Trinidad, have expanded in production even more than the 
farmers, and have also introduced a great degree of rationalisation in 
their section of the industry. The result of the rationalisation is 
that there are now fewer estates and fewer mills than in the immediate 
post -World War TT period. In recent years the estates have grown on 
average about two -thirds of Trinidad's cane and the farmers produce 
the remaining one -third (figure 2 ). 
The rationalisation that came to the estates was the result 
of deliberate attempts by commercial firms to produce cane as 
economically as possible. No such attempts were made to improve the 
structure of the cane- farming sector, so that although farmers have 
decreased in number, there are still about 10,000 farmers who sell 
CO 
3 
canes to the estates. There is a preponderance of small producers 
with few of them farming viable holdings (table 1). The causes of 
this size structure of cane farms are discussed in this study, with 
the thesis being that size of farms is the main factor influencing 
production of sugar cane among cane farmers. The influence of size 
of holdings, together with all the limitations of a peasant form of 
agriculture and the lack of a suitable infrastructure to service the 
farmers' needs will be seen to result in generally poor land 
management. The low yields on farmers' holdings, the size of the 
farms and the low incomes derived from agriculture tend to push 
farmers into off -farm employment. The tendency, therefore, is for a 
large number of cane farmers to become non -full -time farmers, depending 
to an increasing degree on supplementary incomes from either non- 
agricultural pursuits or as agricultural workers. Indeed, for many 
it is the holding which provides the supplementary income. This 
tendency is further aided by the general attitude of contempt for 
agriculture of the peasant type. 
It is thus realised that no single factor is responsible for 
the relatively poor state of peasant cane farming as compared to estate 
agriculture, but that it is the interaction of a multiplicity of 
factors which contributes to the general under -development of cane 
faring. However, it is hoped to show that size is the most important 
factor influencing cane farming. Further, while some facets of cane 
farming in Trinidad have been investigated in the past, no attempt has 
ever been made to obtain a macroscopic view of the cane -faring 
com .unity. It is also the purpose of this study to fulfil this need. 
Outline of the thesis 
First a short review is made of the little published literature 
existing on the subject. This is followed by an account of the 
approach adopted in the study, the basis for selection of farmers 
interviewed and the type of information collected. Some aspects of the 
T
a
bl
e 
1:
 
19
67
 -
 
F
a
r
m
e
r
s
'
 
p
r
o
du
ct
io
n 
o
f 
s
u
g
a
r
 
c
a
n
e
 
by
 c
la
ss
es
. 
C
la
ss
es
 o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
N
u
m
be
r 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
 
o
f 
t
o
t
a
l 
n
u
m
be
r 
T
o
n
n
a
g
e
 
de
li
ve
re
d 
`
+
 
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
 o
f 
t
o
t
a
l 
t
o
n
n
a
g
e
 
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
 
t
o
n
n
a
g
e
 
p
e
r
 
fa
rm
er
 
,
 
1 
1 
0 
-
 
5 
t
o
n
s
 
62
5 
6.
33
 
3,
27
5 
0.
48
 
5.
24
 
2 
6 
-
 
20
 
"
 
2,
42
1 
24
.5
3 
32
,4
44
 
4.
79
 
13
.4
0 
3 
21
 
-
 
50
 
"
 
3,
03
9 
30
.7
9 
10
3,
25
7 
15
.2
4 
33
.9
8 
4 
51
 
-
 
10
0 
t
1 
1,
94
3 
19
.6
9 
13
8,
63
6 
20
.4
6 
71
.3
5 
5 
10
1 
-
 
50
0 
"
 
1,
76
6 
17
.8
9 
32
3,
49
1 
47
.7
3 
18
3.
18
 
6 
50
1 
-
 
1,
00
0 
"
 
59
 
0.
60
 
37
,4
17
 
5.
52
 
63
4.
19
 
7 
o
v
e
r
 
1,
00
0 
"
 
17
 
0.
17
 
39
,1
91
 
5.
78
 
2,
30
5.
35
 
T
o
t
a
ls
 
9,
87
0 
10
0.
00
 
67
7,
71
1 
10
0.
00
 
68
.6
6 
So
ur
ce
: 
Su
ga
r 
M
a
n
u
fa
ct
ur
er
s'
 
A
s
s
o
c
ia
ti
on
, 
T
r
in
id
ad
. 
5 
operation of the survey are also discussed here, but other aspects are 
dealt with in the main study and the more technical facets in two 
appendices. Next some indication is given of the importance of 
agriculture and especially sugar cane in the Trinidad economy. 
The rest of the thesis is divided into two parts, the first 
providing a general background to the sugar cane industry in Trinidad 
and the second, a more detailed assessment of the cane -farming sector. 
In Part I, there axe three chapters, the first of which is a brief 
survey of the historical development of the industry. The second 
chapter deals with the structure and organisation of the whole sugar 
industry. The last chapter in Part I is a discussion of the land -use 
characteristics of the sugar canegrowing areas of Trinidad. It is 
hoped that Part Z of the thesis would provide sufficient background 
against which the cane -farming sector of the industry can be viewed. 
The second part of the thesis consists of five chapters for 
which almost all the data are derived from a questionnaire survey 
that was carried out among cane farmers. The first of these chapters 
deals with the factors of production as far as the data permit. The 
second discusses the agricultural production of peasant farmers and 
the third, the services and infrastructure provided for the cane - 
farming community. The fourth chapter in Part ZI is an attempt to use 
the multivariate statistical technique of factor analysis to determine 
the major factors affecting sugar cane production among peasant 
cultivators. Finally, the study is summarised and the general 
implications for the development of cane- farming discussed. 
Review of the literature 
Although cane farming is possibly the best documented form of 
peasant agriculture in Trinidad, little published material exists on 
the subject. The published literature relating to cane farming is 
restricted to four types. There are reports of several commissions 
of inquiry; a survey report presented to the Legislative Council of 
6 
Trinidad in 1933, also called the Gilbert Report; some case studies of 
Trinidad peasant agriculture published in the Journal, Tropical 
Agriculture, and lastly, the journal and records of the Cane Farmers' 
Association. Some interesting information exists in unpublished 
form, mainly in Government files and reports and the records of the 
sugar companies. 
The first commission to mention peasant cane farming in its 
3 
report was the West India Royal Commission of 1897. Its recommend - 
4 
ations were piously repeated by two other commissions in 1930 and 
5,6 
1945. These commissions all recommended the settlement of a 
peasantry on the land and the great need for extensive rehabilitation 
and development of existing farming communities, not only in Trinidad, 
but also in the rest of the Caribbean. Very little action was taken 
to ameliorate conditions of peasant farmers, in spite of the poor 
plight revealed by these commissions. The situation existing at the 
time each of these commissions was set up is described in the next 
chapter on the history of the sugar industry. 
Since 1940, three special commissions have investigated 
various aspects of the Trinidad sugar industry. The first of these 
7 
was the Benham Committee which recommended that subsidies be paid to 
both farmers and estates for planting sugar cane. The industry was 
3. Report of the West India Royal Commission, 1897,Cmd.8655, BMSO. 
4. Report of the West Indian Sugar Commission, 1930, Cmd.3517; HMSO. 
5. Report of the West India Royal Commission, 1945,Cmd.6607, HMSO. 
6. Report on agriculture, fisheries, forestry and veterinary matters._ 
Professor F.L.Engledow, Cmd.6608,HMSO. 
7. Benham Committee Report, Council Paper No. 1 of 1944, Trinidad. 
7 
facing serious labour shortages during World War IT. A few years 
8 
later, in 1948, the Soulbury Commission was set up to investigate the 
entire sugar industry. Its recommendations, expecially those relating 
to a subsidy for the use of lime, the price paid for burnt canes 
belonging to farmers, the conditions of roads and traces and the use 
of the rehabilitation fund of the industry, have not been implemented. 
9 
In 1959,another commission, called the MacKenzie Commission , was set 
up to investigate the cane -farming sector of the industry. The one 
important feature in all the evidence submitted to these commissions 
is that whereas the estates were able to submit documentary evidence, 
the investigations on the farming sector depended on data supplied by 
the estates and,generally,from impressions of cane farmers and other 
interested individuals, such as politicians representing constituencies 
in the sugar belt. 
A report presented to the Legislative Council of Trinidad in 
1933 that was based on material collected from a survey carried out 
10 
among cane farmers is the Gilbert Report of.1933. This report was 
concerned solely with cane farmers in the southern area of the 
Naparimas and in the Caparo Valley. A large number of farmers were 
interviewed and much useful information was collected. The major 
recommendation of the survey report was that "the least efficient 
producers be dispensed with ".11 The report concluded that such 
8. 
of the sugar industr 
Report, 1948, Government 
Report of the Commission appointed to enquire into the worhi ng 
y in Trinidad, or the Soulbury Commission 
Printing Office, Port -of- Spain, Trinidad. 
9 
industry of Trinidad, or 
10. Gilbert Committee Report 
11. Ibid. No. 84., p.46. 
Report of the Commission of enquiry into the cane farming 
the MacKenzie Commission Report, 1960. 
as Council Papers Nos. 84 and 135 of 1933. 
producers were generally those who sold less than 50 tons of cane. 
The report also suggested that the farmers who should be encouraged 
were those who were tenants and workers on an estate because "it 
would be unwise in connection with labour requirements of the estate 
to dispossess them" 12 Thus the interests of the estates were basic 
to the recommendations. Gilbert also recommended that it was worth 
encouraging those holders who farmed five acres of cropland, with 
sugar cane, livestock and food crops. He was, therefore, suggesting 
the encouragement of a system of mixed farming. Gilbert stated 
further in his report that "it seems desirable that a definite ratio 
of estates' cane to farmers' cane should be fixed for each estate for 
a period of years so that a farmer may have a feeling of security that 
is so essential to good work ". 13 Gilbert listed some of the pre - 
quisites for development of peasant agriculture. These included the 
improvement of agricultural practices, a system of collective marketing, 
the use of better plant varieties and chemical fertilisers and the 
provision of adequate advice to farmers. 
A series of intensive case studies of a small number of 
farmers, including non -cane farmers, was carried out during the period 
1943 
-54. Three of these case studies were on areas where sugar cane 
is grown. Studies of peasant farming in the Bejucal 14 and Oropouche 
12. Ibid. No. 84., p.48. 
13. Ibid. No. 135., p.22. 
14. Jolly, A.L., "Peasant farming in the Bejucal area of Trinidad ", 
Tropical Agriculture, Vol. XXII, No. 5, 1945, pp.83-88. 
9 
15 16 
Lagoon areas by A.L. Jolly, and on the Las Lomas area by 
C.C. Parisinos, C.Y. Shephard and A.L. Jolly described the activities 
of some cane farmers. These surveys pointed to the general problems 
affecting peasant farming, and one, the Las Lomas area survey, 
recorded the serious loss of time incurred by farmers during sugar cane 
harvests because of overcrowding at the scales where farmers' canes are 
purchased. These surveys made no specific recommendations but rather 
discussed problems. At about the same time, A.L. Jolly set up a pilot 
cane farm on which he showed that with a relatively small acreage, a 
17 
peasant and his family could obtain a reasonable income. Its success 
was partly due to the intensive nature of supervision provided, and 
subsequently little else was done to transmit the management techniques 
used in the pilot project to the cane -farming population. 
The last major documentary sources on cane farmers in Trinidad 
18 
are the journal and annual reports of T.I.C.F.A. While providing 
detailed reports of an administrative nature, the organisation,through 
its journal,provides the main avenue for farmers problems to be voiced. 
Generally, farmers' points of view are portrayed. 
In general, the total published literature, is small, though in 
various ways the studies have covered different facets of cane farming. 
The most thorough study was the Gilbert survey, but this was undertaken 
15. Jolly, "Peasant farming in two districts of the Oropouche Lagoon, 
June, 1944-45 ", Tropical Agriculture,Vol.XXV, Nos. 1 -12, 1948, 
pp. 23 -32. 
16. Parisions, C.C., Shephard, C.Y.,Jolly, A.L., "An economic survey 
of the Las Lomas district of Trinidad ", Tropical Agriculture, 
Vol.XX1, No. 5, 1944, pp.84-99. 
17. Jolly, "Report on peasant experimental farms at the Imperial College 
of Tropical Agriculture ", British West Indies Economic Series Memoir, 
No. 2., I.C.T.A., 1954. 
18. The Cane Farmer is the journal of TICFA. 
10. 
at a time of severe depression over three decades ago. Since 
that time, the number of farmers has decreased to less than two- thirds 
the total in 1933, and conditions have changed, but no study has been 
done to take note of the results of subsequent developments. 
Methodology. 
The study could have been undertaken in an intensive way, but 
this would have restricted its geographical content. It was thus 
decided to carry out a survey involving accepted sampling techniques 
and covering a large number of farmers. This meant that little time 
could be spent on each interview, which limited the type and scope of 
the information that could have been collected. The result is a general 
assessment of the existing situation which helps to bring into 
focus underlying patterns. Although this type of survey cannot 
provide an entirely adequate basis for detailed recommendations, it is 
hoped that the major problems will be discerned and,that those facets 
of cane farming that demand further investigation will become evident. 
The questionnaire ingìr iry is supported by a land use survey of 
the areas in which sugar cane is grown. From this survey a land use 
map was produced, which is intended to portray synoptically the 
juxtaposition of estates and cane farmers, to help to illustrate some 
of the constraints of peasant farming as obtained in the Trinidad 
sugar belt, and to show how these are depicted on the landscape. The 
land -Ause map is intended as an adjunct to the questionnaire survey, 
and reference is made to it mainly in its relevance to cane farming 
and not for land use per se. 
Selection of farmers 
The only criterion used in defining cane farmers was the 
official definition of a cane farmer as "a person who cultivates or 
contracts with a cultivator to cultivate cane for sale to a 
11 
manufacturer, but does not include a manufacturer who cultivates canes 
19 
on his own lands." A defined population was then available and the 
names of all such people were obtained from the manufacturers and the 
Cane Farmers' Association. The farmers were then stratified according 
to tonnages of cane sold. It was thought desirable to obtain such 
tonnages on the basis of a five -year average, but this was not done 
because individual figures for all farmers from all estates were not 
available for the five -year period ending in 1967. For one estate, 
figures were obtainable for only one year, 1967. As the latest 
figures available for all the farmers were for production in 1967, 
the figures for that year were used as a basis for stratification and 
selection of the sample. A comparison is made between production for 
1967 and for other recent years at the beginning of part I. 
The stratification used for delimiting the classes of farmers 
is that used in official publications of the industry. This 
stratification was adhered to for purposes of comparison and is shown 
together with the size of the sample as follows: - 
Table 2: Stratification and size of sample 
Sampling 
fraction 
7.7% Class 1 0 - 5 Tons 
Total 
farmers 
1967 
625 
Sample 
size 
48 
Class 2 6 20 " 2,421 121 5.0% 
Class 3 21- 50 " 3,039 194 6.4% 
Class 4 51- 100 " 1,943 139 7.2% 
Class 5 101- 500 " 1,766 203 11.5% 
Class 6 501- 1,000" 59 33 55.9% 
Class 7 Over 1,000 " 17 11 64.7% 
After the strata were further divided according to the buying 
points at which farmers delivered canes, samples were taken for each 
19. Production of Cane Ordinance, Chapter 23, No. 12 of 1946. 
12 
category at the buying points. These buying points are also called 
scales, outside stations or purchasing points. All the buying points 
for the two smaller estates, Trinidad Sugar Estates (TSE) and Forres 
Park Limited,are combined and regarded only as two separate points 
located at the respective mills. A few scales belonging to Caroni 
Limited, which are located close to each other and used by the same 
group of farmers during a harvest, are combined on some maps. All 
other buying points for Caroni Limited are shown separately. Tables 
of random numbers were used to choose the farmers to be interviewed 
at each point. A random stratified sample was obtained according 
to buying points, thus giving a satisfactory distribution for some 
geographical interpretation. However, as the sample at each point 
is relatively small, it cannot be used according to buying points in 
analysing the data (figure 33). The entire sample is discussed 
according to classes of farmers, and only where other relevant 
evidence supports a distribution are the buying points used to 
portray the data. An attempt was made to divide the datelareally 
into a few large sections, but it was found that no worthwhile purpose 
was served, and it appeared that divisions were being made areally 
only for the sake of doing so. In the final chapter on the 
questionnaire all the survey data is pooled, and the statistical 
technique of factor analysis is used to interpret the material. 
A total of 789 interviews were completed,. but 40 of the 
completed questionnaires were rejected because of serious inconsist- 
encies. Thus 749 farmers, or about 7, of the cane -farming 
population are included in the survey. Most of this work was done 
between February and July, 1968, with interviews being done either at 
farmers' homes, on their holdings or at the purchasing points. Most 
13 
interviews were completed in one visit, but some required as many as 
five sessions. Interviews varied in length from 45 minutes to three 
hours. 
The Questionnaire 
The information collected covers most facets of cane farming. 
Data on actual money incomes and expenditure were not collected 
because it was feared that this would cause farmers to give false 
answers, not only to these questions, but also to the ze st of the 
questionnaire. Moreover, as most farmers do not keep records, it 
would be difficult to obtain reliable information on incomes and 
expenditures. Information collected relates mainly to 1967, and 
includes data on the farmer, his household, the holding, cultivation 
practices, acreages under different crops, time spent on and off the 
farm, paid and unpaid labour employed, livestock,credit, advisory 
services, transportation and social activities and attitudes. In some 
cases cross -questions were deliberately included in order.to check on 
the consistency of replies (see Appendix I and the questionnaire). 
At the beginning, a draft questionnaire was produced and a 
pilot survey of ten farmers was completed. Afterthe pilot survey was 
completed and the questionnaire was discussed with several individuals 
and organisations in the industry, a few changes were made on the 
questionnaire before the main survey was begun. Difficulty was 
experienced at first in persuading farmers to respond to questions, in 
spite of farmers being given the assurance that the information would 
be treated as confidential. However, field officers of the sugar 
estates and the Cane Farmers' Association assisted immensely in 
persuading farmers to be co- operative. Generally, the response rate 
was high, for 9C of those farmers approached answered questionnaires 
14 
that are used in the analysis. 
The accuracy and validity of the data are discussed at the 
beginning of Part 2I. 
Agriculture in the Trinidad economy 
Since its discovery in Trinidad in the early decades of this 
century, oil has overshadowed agriculture in the economy. Judged by 
reference to agriculture's contribution to the Gross Domestic Product 
and to exoor t earnings, agriculture appears to assume a minor role 
which has been declining even further in recent years (figure 4). 
Its contribution to the Gross Domestic Product at factor cost is now 
just over 8% and to export earnings about 14 %, while the equivalent 
figures for petroleum and petroleum products are 255 and 8Q 
respectively. The major agricultural products are sugar, cocoa, 
coffee and citrus, which form the basis of export agriculture (see 
Appendix III, table 1). There is another branch of agriculture 
producing crops mainly for the local market and which is termed 
domestic agriculture. Cane farmers contribute to both export and 
domestic agriculture, for they grow food crops as well as sugar cane. 
The production of sugar cane is the principal agricultural 
activity occupying about 100,000 acres of land, about three -fifths 
cultivated by the estates and the rest by cane farmers. Sugar also 
contributes one -quarter of agriculture's share of the Gross Domestic 
Product, 9% of the value of total net exports, and employs over 
24,000 workers, including cane farmers and estate employees. Under- 
employment is a feature of the industry during the non -harvest period. 
The major recent developments have been factory expansion, the 
building of bulk -loading facilities at Point Lisas, and the 
introduction of completely mechanised harvesting on part of its 
holding by the largest estate. 
20
- 
15
- 5-
 
-
 
Pe
rc
en
ta
ge
 
Co
nt
rib
ut
io
n 
o
f 
Ag
ric
ul
tu
re
 
to
 
R
ea
l 
G
DP
 
0 1
95
1 
a
t 
Fa
ct
or
 
Co
st
 
'5
5 
'6
0 
'6
5 
19
68
 
Fi
g.
 4
 
15 
Cocoa, cultivated mainly in the areas east and south of the 
cane belt, has shown a downward trend in production with an average 
annual crop of 20,000,000 lbs., during the 1950s, decreasing to just 
over 10,000,000 lbs., in 1967. It is realised by the State that 
"domestic production of this commodity has been held down by low 
yields per acre, arising from inefficient cultivation and the fact 
20 
that too ouch of the cultivation is carried out on unsuitable soils." 
Production of this crop also suffers from some of the limitations 
caused by size of holdings. 
Of the two other major export crops, one, citrus, has shown 
erratic trends in recent years and the other, coffee, has shown 
generally increased production (Appendix III, table 1). Citrus has 
suffered in its main outlet, the British market, from competition by 
United States and Mediterranean producers, while coffee has been 
favoured by the International Coffee Agreement through which Trinidad 
has been assigned a quota of 13.2 million lbs., a target which has not 
been reached as yet. 
Domestic agriculture 
Agricultural products aimed at the local market have shown 
significant advances in recent years as compared to crops grown for 
export. Root crops, vegetables, pork, poultry and milk have shown 
increased production, mainly because of various forms of State 
encouragement such as guaranteed prices. 
Agriculture's importance to the economy must not be assessed 
solely in terms of its contribution to the Gross Domestic Product and 
to export earnings; firstly, because the official statistics do not 
take into account a substantial quantity of produce which is not 
20. Government of Trinidad and Tobago, Draft third five -year plan, 
1969 
-73, p. 28 
16. 
exchanged against money and is not valued for national income purpose; 
and secondly, agriculture and allied occupations such as forestry, 
fishing and hunting, employ about 22', of the labour force of 305,000 
21 
workers. With unemployment existing at an acknowledged rate of 
about 14 %22, a labour intensive agriculture is of great importance 
in providing employment opportunities. However productivity and 
incomes are low in agriculture as compared to other sectors of the 
economy, and if agriculture is to become attractive, investment, 
incomes must rise. Yet, agriculture plays an important social part 
in spite of low incomes. Lastly, the role of agriculture is also 
that of food production. Trinidad, in common with most other 
Caribbean territories, has traditionally imported a considerable 
amount of its food supplies, because the economy has been export 
oriented. The production of food crops for the local market would 
help lower the present dependence on imported foodstuffs, help the 
balance of payments and save foreign exchange. 
Agricultural policy and relevance of the study . 
The basic objective of the government's agricultural policy is 
"to modernise and diversify the agricultural sector, in order to 
reduce the country's dependence on traditional export crops and to 
provide a greater proportion of its food requirements from domestic 
sources.i23 In its plan the government further states that there is 
no real conflict between the goals of promoting domestic agriculture 
and encouraging export agriculture. The aim in planning for 
agriculture within this framework, it states "is to attempt by means 
of a rational and co- ordinated approach effectively to diagnose the 
21. Ibid., p.26. 
22. Ibid., p. 21. 
23. Ibid., p. 239. 
17 
constraints to development, and to remove the impediments to structural 
change and expansion in this vital sector of the nation's economy. "24 
Because one of the aims of this thesis is to ascertain some of the 
constraints which inhibit the development of cane farming, the most 
important form of peasant production in Trinidad, its relevance to 
contemporary Trinidad agriculture is evident. 
24. Ibid. 
PART I 
18 
CHAPTER 1 
A STUDY IN RETROSPECT 
Present -day agriculture and land use in Trinidad are 
unintelligible without an appreciation of the historical events which 
have influenced the development of the island since its discovery by 
Columbus in 1498. One must examine the consequences of the colonial 
policies of the metropolitan countries which controlled the affairs 
of the island and determined its mode of development. The Spanish 
obsession for precious minerals, the decimation of the indigenous 
Amerindian population, the introduction of French settlers with their 
slaves and their embarkation on commercial sugar cane production,marked 
the period of Spanish rule. The island passed into British hands in 
1797. Britain was faced simultaneously with an intractable labour 
problem in the colony and the Abolitionist movement at home. The labour 
shortages became worse after the abolition of the Slave Trade in 1807, 
and even more acute after Emancipation and the end of the Apprenticeship 
system in 1838. The labour shortages led to the introduction of 
indentured immigrants from several sources, but mainly from India. The 
consequent development of plantation agriculture, and later the growing 
of sugar cane by ex- slaves and their descendants and by ex- indentured 
labourers, marked the entry of the Trinidad sugar industry into the 
modern age by the end of the nineteenth century. The present century 
has also brought its experience of anxiety, but after some rational- 
isation the industry expanded considerably in the period following the 
Second World War (figure 5). This expansion has taken place under the 
protection offered by the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement signed in 1951. 
All these developments have helped to shape the present -day sugar 
TR
IN
ID
AD
 
SU
G
AR
 
PR
O
DU
CT
IO
N 
18
99
 -1
96
7 
Su
ga
r 
pr
od
uc
tio
n 
Es
ta
te
s' 
ca
n
e
 
50
 
Fa
rm
er
s' 
ca
n
e
 
1.
40
 
19
 
0 
19
60
 
19
67
 
Fi
g.
 5
 
19 
industry of Trinidad, and must be considered in any attempt to explain 
the contemporary sugar scene of the island. 
The period of Spanish Rule, 1498- -1797. 
The Spaniards were disappointed by their failure to discover 
precious metals in Trinidad. They made little attempt to establish 
commercial agriculture and succeeded conversely in destroying the 
Amerindian economy and, in turn, the Amerindian population itself. 
The indigenous inhabitants were collectors and subsistence agricul- 
turists, cultivating patches of ground on the higher river terraces. 
By forcibly being made to work in an unaccustomed way, by being 
transported to labour in the mines on the Spanish Main and the 
northern islands of the Caribbean, and by succumbing to introduced 
diseases, the natives dwindled, so that by 1797 there were only 1,082 
1,2 
left. The Spaniards undoubtedly were pre -occupied on the mainland, 
and for most of its stay under the Spanish flag, Trinidad had an 
almost non -existent economy. Besides the quest for gold, there were 
other factors which precluded development. High excise duties were 
collected in kind upon the arrival of sugar in Spain, while Spain's 
own earlier version of the Navigation Laws placed trade restrictions 
which forced producers to send all their exports first to Seville. 
In addition, the restrictions upon the importation of slaves by means 
of a lucrative licensing system further inhibited development. 
Although cacao was planted in the Amerindian intermixture of 
crops, it wasnot until 1686 that commercial cultivation of this crop 
was begun by Capuchin Fathers using Amerindian labour. Tobacco was 
another indication of development, and in 1701 the first Negro slaves 
entered the island. Cacao was increasing until collapse 
1. Bowen, N.P. and Montserin, B.G., Trinidad and Tobago Census Album, 
1946, Government Printery, Port -of- Spain, 1948, p.12. 
2. No accurate figures are available for the original native population. 
20 
came in the form of a 'blast' 3 in the late 1720s which destroyed the 
crop. Later the more hardy forastero variety of cacao was brought 
from Brazil, and after 1755 this was the variety generally cultivated. 
So far the history had been one of maladministration with all 
its at';endant evils. This continued until the latter half of the 
eighteenth century when French settlement produced changes. Up to the 
time of French settlement, however, development had been at best 
sporadic and unharmonious. In describing the period under Spanish rule, 
E.E. Williams says, "this, until 1777, was 'Trinidad under Spanish 
Colonialism - poor, undeveloped, a showpiece of metropolitan 
incompetence and indifference ". 4 
In the last two decades of Spanish rule came a period of 
activity to change the dismal scene. It was at this time that the 
history of commercial sugar cane began in Trinidad. 5 In 1781 a 
Cedula6 by the Spanish intendant at Caracas, into whose province 
Trinidad has passed in 1742, and amplified by a more famous Cedula 
issued in Madrid in 1783, invited settlers to Trinidad. The proposals 
were to permit mainly the settlement of French planters in the island. 
In a few years, the coincidence of the French Revolution with this 
scheme to relieve Trinidad's labour shortage, helped considerably in 
securing settlers from French Caribbean territories. 
The new settlers had been raised in sugar economies, and it 
was to this crop, rather than to the island's main crop, cacao, that 
they turned. This change from a tree crop to a field crop created the 
3. This 'blast' was either a hurricane, or more probably the effect 
of a plant disease, 'Phytophthora oalrnivora'. 
4. Williams, E. History of the People of Trinidad and Tobago, Andre 
Deutsch, London, 1964, p2.27 
-28. 
5. The date of introduction of sugar cane to Trinidad is not recorded, 
but might have been in the early eighteenth century. 
6. A Cedula was a decree, proclamation or order issued by the Spanish 
Government. 
21 
need for more labour, and although the French settlers had brought 
slaves with them7 the labour shortage was further aggravated. Never- 
theless, by the time British occupation came in 1797, the French had 
made considerable progress in agriculture, and sugar cane was pushing 
cacao into the valleys of the Northern Range and further eastwards. 
Sugar cane, first grown in the environs of Port -of- Spain, 
spread along the western shores of the island, along the Gulf of 
Paria. This western lowland area it still occupies today. The 
usines, or grinding mills, were situated along the Paria coast, but 
some were also in the Mayaro- Moruga area. Excessive rainfaill and 
inaccessibility resulted in the abandonment of the latter area in 
the early nineteenth century. The importance of these developments 
was not only that they1 irtually demarcated the areas of the present - 
day industry, but also that within a short period of two decades, 
Trinidad's economy depended mainly on sugar. Its fortunes were then 
bound up with those of the older sugar islands. As such it was to 
feature, like the other colonies, in European trade, politics and 
rivalry, and the extension of the slave system, the pre- requisite of 
development. It was Trinidad's involvement in European bickerings 
that resulted in its bloodless seizure by the British in 1797. Spain 
was now not only indifferent, but also weak. 
The foundations of the present sugar industry were laid, then, 
in the last years of Spanish rule. The area of location, first around 
Port -of- Spain, later spread to most parts of its present -day area. 
The development of the industry had to combat the most intractable 
problem during the period of British occupance, the problem of perennial 
labour shortages. In the last two decades of Spanish rule there were 
7. Although statistics are not available, Borde, P.G.L. gives a 
figure of 300 slaves for 1782 and 10,100 in 1789, Borde, P.G.L., 
Histoire de l'Ile de la Trinite, Maissoneuve, Paris, 1883, p.277. 
22. 
two major improvements, made through the initiative of the last 
Spanish Governor of the island, Don Jose Maria y Chacon. He 
reorganised the administration of the country, reformed the laws 
relating to tenure and land grants. "This proclamation of Chacon in 
1785 ", says Williams, "represented one of the most decisive and 
constructive efforts ever made in the West Indies to deal with the 
problem of latifundia or plantations which had throughout the seven- 
teenth and eighteenth centuries impeded the full development of other 
colonies... "8 The proclamation was based on the principle that 
planters would have a right only to lands which they were capable of 
cultivating. Chacon also drew up a Cedula, the Code Noir of 1789, 
for theprotection of slaves. 
The period of British Rule up to 1838 
In 1797, at the beginning of British rule, the population was 
about 18,0009, composed of the following: 
Whites Free Coloured Amerindian Slaves 
2,086 4,466 1,082 10,009 
Most landowners were Europeans and numbered about 280 proprietors.10 
The situation was, at that time, unique in the West Indies in that 
absentee landlordism was unknown. Of the 468 estates owned by the 
proprietors, 159 grew mainly sugar cane (table 3 ),producing 7,800 
hogsheads 11 of sugar.12 With few exceptions though, estates were small 
8. Williams, op.cit., p.45. 
9. Bowen and Montserin, op.cit., p.15. 
10. Borde, op.cit., p.277. 
11. A hogshead was a measure of 14 -18 cwt. 
12. Borde, op.cit., p.277. 
23 
Table 3: Sugar Estates and Sugar Companies 1797 -1967. 
Estates Estates 
(mainly individuals) (mainly companies) 
1797 159 190) 21 
1801 192 1905 17 
1807 214 1910 14 
1840 180 1930 10 
1365 154 1940 9 
1887 90 1950 6 
1896 56 1960 5 
1897 39 1967 3 
Source: Sammy,R.V.A. The development of commercial su ar cane 
agriculture in Trinidad, :.A.Thesis, Univ.of Alberta, 1967,p.137, 
and with few slaves, but the development achieved in the two previous 
decades was remarkable. 
The expansion of agriculture could not proceed as quickly in 
the following years. In Britain, the principle had been accepted 
that the slave trade should be abolished. Furthermore, the fight 
against slavery itself was on. Planters in the older colonies of the 
north suddenly became protagonists of one of the aims of the 
Abolitionists, that slaves should not be sent to new territories, 
fearing expansion of the system. Nest Indian planters were quick 
to suggest that slaves should not be sent to Trinidad and their other 
new rival,British Guiana. They feared that with virgin soils and 
an influx of slave labour to these two territories, competition 
would becov,e too great. For these reasons it was difficult for 
Britain to permit any mass movement of Negro slaves to Trinidad. 
Scarcity of labour which had faced the Spaniards was again a 
major problem. 
The fear of the Abolitionists that the acquisition of Trinidad 
would mean an extension of the system of slave labour was borne out 
24 
immediately. Between 1797 and 1802 the slave population doubled to 
almost 20,000.13 Thereafter, the rate of entry dropped. The abolition 
of the slave trade by Act of Parliament in 1806 effectively restricted 
the purchase of slaves from other West Indian islands,as well as 
cutting off the supply from Africa. However, the purchase of slaves 
from other islands was very expensive and only a few estates could 
have afforded it. The planters in the other islands also realised 
that they had labour supplies which, if sold, could not be replaced. 
The alternatives were the immigration of free labour and, on 
occasions, the settlement of Negroes who had been freed from slavers 
still engaged in the trade. In 1806, 192 Chinese were brought in, 
but a lack of Chinese women discouraged permanent settlement. Most 
returned to China and those that remained went into occupations other 
than agriculture. In 1815 -16, a number of free, coloured ex- slaves 
from southern United States were settled as a reward for help to 
British soldiers in the war of 1812.14 Lost of these settled in the 
towns, and so the agricultural labour force did not grow. There was 
also sporadic and unsuccessful settlement of disbanded soldiers and 
refugee planters from Grenada and Dominica. In the meantime, slaves 
were being smuggled in at the rate of 2,000 a year.15 Further 
restrictions on slaving activities continued and in 1824 the remnants 
of legal sanction disappeared. Moreover, the new obligations 
as regards housing, health, food and working hours made slavery more 
expensive. Manumission became easier and female children were manu- 
mitted compulsorily. There was thus going to be a steady reduction in 
the &lave labour force, matched by a growth in the numbers of free 
coloured, who had no obligation to remain on the estates. 
13. Deerr,N. The ciistory of sugar,Chapman & Hall, London, 1950,p.279. 
14. De Verteuil,L.A. :.., cited in Harvey,D.R. Economic aspects of the 
historical geography of Trinidad, ï .Sc.Econ. Thesis, Univ. of 
London, 1955, p.17. 
15. Trinidad, CO. 295/34, February, 1814. 
25 
Emancipation of slaves came in 1834, but the full effects 
were delayed by a system of compulsory apprenticeship for a period of 
four years. By this Act the planters, and not the slaves who had 
suffered, were paid a compensation for their loss of property. 
Compared to the other West Indian territories, Trinidad had few slaves 
who were thus more valuable. The average claims for compensation in 
Trinidad was for seven slaves, valued at about £50 per slave, compared 
to 23 in British Guiana, 24 in Tobago, 21 in Antigua, 20 in St. Vincent, 
and 15 in Jamaica.16 Some of these slaves were domestic and not field 
workers. The total slave population at Emancipation was only 17,539.17 
The presence of so few slaves showed that Trinidad was not as yet a 
plantation society. It was a society of small planters. The lack of 
labour, the relative size of the island compared to its slave population, 
the productive capability of its still only slightly -used soils, and 
the fact that many of the ex- slaves were unwilling to work on the terms 
and down on the sugar estates, led 
to the development of the next phase in the history of the island, the 
introduction of indentured workers. 
Many of the 17,000 emancipated slaves began to squat on 
Crown Lands which were readily available all over the island. These 
labourers were forced to squat rather than buy lands because they 
were effectively barred from purchase by that fact that Crown Lands 
could only be disposed of in parcels of 320 acres and over.18 Thus 
the ex- slaves were prevented from becoming a class of small land- 
owners. Those who did not squat on Crown Lands turned to the trades 
16. Williams, op.cit., p.84. 
17. Deerr, op.cit., Vol.11., p.306. 
18. Williams, op.cit., p.85. 
26 
that were open to them forming later the'bulk of the artisan class. 
Some went to work on cacao estates where conditions were better. 
But the planters still needed labour, and because they had been paid 
compensation, and were able to repay their debts, could offer 
relatively high wages to attract workers. In spite of this, however, 
the labour shortages continued, awaiting solution by some other means. 
The tasks of the planters were then to try and retain some of 
the ex- slaves on the estates by persuasion, to transform them into a 
dependable work force under new circumstances, and finally to augment 
the labour supplies either as replacement or for expansion. When wage 
rates were raised to attract workers, the planters for a time could 
afford this. However, in the 1840s changes took place in Europe, which 
led to the reduction of preferential duties on British West Indian 
sugar, and prices fell. Consequently, wage rates followed suit, and 
another reason for the movement of labour away from the sugar estates 
was provided. Thus slavery had ended and left its aftermath. It 
could be seen that it had a short history, which, possibly only 
because of its brevity, did not bring the tragedies that had taken 
place in the older sugar islands. The places of the slaves and then 
the ex- slaves on the sugar estates were to be taken by a new 
imigrant in another - and this time more successful - attempt to 
solve the problem of labour shortages that had plagued the island up 
to then. 
The period of indentured labour 
The magnitude of the labour problem in the 1840s was colossal. 
But in spite of all the pointers to the situation, the planters were 
not prepared to face the changes. In Trinidad, labour was scarce. 
The Planters were employing labourers of low productivity for higher 
wages than obtained in the other islands. Planters went back in debt, 
27 
sold estates in parts or abandoned some altogether, and by 1849 nearly 
all were heavily mortgaged.19 Cheap labour was the one remedy that 
could save the planters. This was now their main pre -occupation. 
Although several attempts had been made to introduce new 
settlers to Trinidad, it was not until the post -emancipation labour 
problems that the most concerted effort was made to attract labour. 
India became the main source of indentured labour. At first the 
planning involved was either negligible or unenlightened. The immigrants 
were either not accustomed to agricultural work or unfamiliar with the 
food, implements and animals available. But the planterspreferred to 
have cheap labour which they thought the next best thing to slavery, 
rather than improve through technological changes. 
As a dependable labour supply was not forthcoming either from 
Africa, Europe or China, or from the other Caribbean territories where 
there was excess labour, ?0 it was in 1844 that the British Government 
agreed to the immediate movement of workers from India. During the 
course of this immigration between 1845 and 1917, 145,000 Índians went 
to Trinidad, and 238,000 to British Guiana. Lesser numbers were taken 
to the other territories, and in all nearly half a million Indians were 
brought into the area. One -third the cost of passages was met by 
public funds, so that this was subsidised labour for the planters. 
Conditions of work for immigrants 
Many rules were formulated during the period of immigration in 
order to regulate conditions of work for indentured labourers. These 
were consolidated by an Ordinance of 17th July, 1899, from which the 
following section was extracted. Although wages soon after emancipation 
were of the order of about 50/- per month, wages for immigrants from 
19. See Beachey, R.W. The British Nest Indian Sugar Industry in the 
late nineteenth century,Basil Bladwell, Oxford, 1957, pp.1 -39. 
20. Williams, op.cit., pp.112 -115. 
28 
India were set at about half this amount. The planters were now seeing 
that their problems could be solved if they could be provided with a 
adequate supply of such cheap labour. By the Ordinance of 1899, the 
legal wage for an able -bodied immigrant was set at not less than 
25 cents B.W.I., or 1/01, or at about 30/- per month. 
Various parts of the Ordinance governed the immigrants arrival, 
allotment to estates, dwelling, food, health, labour, wages, leave and 
desertion. Imprisonment and fines were to be applied for every slight 
misdemeanour. Williams describes the regulations as follows: "The 
grand discipline of slavery and the principal incentive to labour was 
the whip. The grand discipline of the system of indenture and the 
principal incentive to labour was the jail. Indentured labour was ... 
slavery plus a constable. "21 
Although many of the regulations were meant to favour the 
working and living conditions of the immigrant, in most cases such 
regulations were not enforced.22 Health and leave benefits also were 
not administered in the immigrants' favour. The labour force became a 
sick and inefficient one, using passive resistance whenever possible. 
The planters thus failed to obtain the objective of an efficient and 
willing work force. They rejected improvements both in field and 
factory for cheap labour. They were laying the foundations of the 
crisis which was to come from beet sugar competition in the late 
nineteenth century. Later this resulted in the fact that as peasant 
farmers the immigrants could produce sugar cane at a lower cost than 
the estates. 
It must be noted that during the period of Indian immigration 
to the Caribbean, there was a movement of "an even larger wave of Negro 
emigration,r23 to the Panama Canal, Costa Rica, the United States and 
21. Williams, op.cit., p.105. 
22. Personal communication with ex- indentured workers who are still 
alive. 
23. Williams, op.cit., p.115. 
29 
Cuba, where working conditions and wages were better. There was thus, 
in the West Indies, sufficient labour, but it was not cheap enough.24 
Consequently, one must conclude that the system of indentures was 
carried on possibly because, in the opinion of the planters, these 
workers could be the more easily kept in a state of semi -servitude and 
at low wages. Furthermore, it was a system subsidised by public funds. 
Why did Britain permit this system to be started? The 
Industrial Revolution permitted or possibly demanded that Britain 
should expand her trading links to countries outside her Empire. The 
Equalisation Acts, which were first passed in 1846, made more liberal 
in 1852, and culminated in the wider Free Trade policies of the 1870s, 
showed that Britain had revoked its policy of protection for colonial 
products on the British Market. The West Indian planters were faced 
with open foreign competition and they fought for protection. They 
argued that, up to that time, their competitors had been poor customers 
of British goods, that money hadflowed from the West Indies to Britain, 
and that Britain owed a duty to maintain the economy of her oldest 
colonies. Free Trade policy continued, but West Indian interests had 
to be placated in some way. Cheap labour was the concession, partly 
financed by public funds. The planters did not seem to care about the 
inefficient use they were making of cheap labour, nor of the low 
productivity of the labour.25 
In spite of the circumstances in which the immigrants found 
themselves, they managed to achieve a considerable degree of 
24.. See also for Jamaica, Paget, E. "Land use and settlement in 
Jamaica," in Steel, R.W. and Fisher, C.A., Geographical essays on 
British tropical lands, George Philip & Son, London, 1956, p.209. 
25. For a discussion of cheap labour policy see Myint, H., The 
economics of developing countries, Hutchinson, London, 1964, 
pp. 54 -57. 
30 
independence after their periods of indentureship ended. Because of 
the problems facing Caribbean sugar, owing to Britain's Free Trade 
policy, and the simultaneous availability of bounty -fed beet sugar 
from Europe, sugar prices were 1pw. At the end of indenturesh.ips, 
labourers were offered a chance to settle in Trinidad, or also to 
renew their indentureships on better terms. This was done in order to 
cut the costs of repatriation, which, in spite of being subsidised could 
not be met. This development meant that ex- indentured workers could 
not only obtain land, which the emancipated slave was effectively 
barred from doing, but also could later sell sugar cane to the estate - 
owned usines. Moreover, they would remain in the island to continue 
to form part of the agricultural labour pool and in addition not 
require a return passage. 
The results of Indian immigration to Trinidad were that sugar 
cane was provided with á labour supply and hence was able to retain 
its importance; and wages were depressed, sowing the seeds of early 
discontent between immigrants and ex- slaves. While the planter had 
so far successfully fought the battle against peasant farmers, the 
fortunes of sugar forced him to capitulate and permit the ex- indentured 
workers to form a class of small farmers. But more important still was 
the eventual permanent settlement of the indentured workers, to form 
part of the island's social and economic systems.26 
Yet another development during this period was the transformation 
of the industry from one of relatively small owner -plantations at 
Emancipation to fewer, but larger estates, the true plantations, by the 
end of the nineteenth century (table 3). In the 1830s sugar exports 
were about 10,000 tons from over 200 estates, while in 1897, 54,000 tons 
26. For a discussion of Indians in Trinidad see Williams, op.cit. - 
for Guyana, see Nath. Dwarka. Indians in British Guiana, Nelsons, 
London, 1950. 
31 
were exported from 39 estates. 27 This decline in the number of estates 
was in part a result of the problems of unprofitability ensuing from the 
lack of protected markets and in part,due to the availability of labour 
to permit an extension of the industry. Thus Indian immigration was one 
of the instruments which assisted in the formation of a plantation 
system. But also important was the fact that from 1882 the Indians 
were able to grow canes themselves, thus forming a peasant sector in 
the industry. This was acceptable either because of continued labour 
shortages when the Indians settled on their own plots of land28 or 
because the peasants could grow and supply cane at a lower cost than 
the estates.29 Whatever the reason, however, that he was permitted 
to sell cane to the estates enabled the Indian to make his contribution 
to Trinidad society. Williams says that "the Indian cane farmer in 
Trinidad, cultivating cane on a small plot of land which he had been 
allowed to buy in exchange for a return passage to India, represented 
a challenge in Trinidad to the traditional method of production in the 
British sugar colonies in the West Indies. To that extent the inden- 
tured immigrant ... constituted one of the most powerful social forces 
for the future in the struggle for the establishment of a proper 
social structure and modern indhstrial relations. "30 Lastly, a plural 
society was created, and endowed with the attendant problems of 
integration which accompany such a development. 
The period 1880 to World War I 
The last two decades of the nineteenth century brought another 
in the series of crises to affect the British West Indian industry. 
This period saw the increased effect of British free trade policies, 
27. West India Royal Commission, 1897. Hi\iSO, p. 100. 
28. Beachey, op.cit., p. 116. This work also discusses all aspects 
of British Caribbean Sugar in the last century. 
29. West India Commission, 1897, p. 14. 
30. Williams, op.cit., p. 121. 
32 
greater competition from the more efficiently organised and bounty- 
supported beet -sugar industry, as well as competition from Cuba. 
Relief came temporarily in the form of a change in markets. A new 
outlet was found in the United States. In the 1890s the problems 
were so great that it was feared that a total collapse was imminent. 
This led to the setting up of the Royal Commission of 1897. Never- 
theless, the problems did bring some good results in that they 
forced some amalgamations and improvements in field and factory. 
The United Kingdom, under her liberal trading policies, 
became the largest importer of cheap bounty sugar. The re- introduction 
of duties.in Britain in 1901 could give little relief, since they 
applied to all suar, regardless of origin. Even the removal of bounties 
by the Brussels Convention of 1903 could give little relief, for by this 
time the British West Indian Producers had lagged too far behind. 
Production ceased in many islands including Tobago. In Trinidad 
production fell from an average of 60,000 metric tons in the period 
1880 -1885, to 50,000 metric tons in 1910 -1915.31 In most of the other 
West Indian islands production either stagnated or declined. 
In the 1880s Trinidad became dependent on the United States 
market. The British public and industry benefitted from the influx of 
cheap beet and cane sugar. For the first time more than half of 
Trinidad's sugar went to the United States rather than to Britain. 
For the quinquennial periods 1886 -189u and 1891 -1895 32 exports to the 
U.S.A. were 67% and 55% respectively of total exports. But this 
outlet was unreliable. Sugar producers in the U.S.A. were becoming 
more vociferous. They wanted to expand their own production. Further, 
Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Phillippines came under American control 
31. International Sugar Council, The World Sugar Econo, Vol. II, 
table 16, p. 29. 
32. The West India Royal Commission, 1897, table III, p. 329. 
33 
after the Spanish- American 4ar. These areas would now receive 
preferential treatment in the American market° American capital for 
re- organisation was also available. Thus this outlet was only 
temporary and, once more, problems arose. 
The West Indian Royal Commission of 1897 stated that "there 
can be no general or early recovery from that depression unless either 
(1) prices rise or (2) the cost of producing sugar in the West Indies 
be reduced." 33 The first suggestion of a rise in prices was out of 
the question, for it would cost the British consumer a considerable 
sum of money each year.34 The ideas of countervailing duties and a 
grant of bounty on West Indian sugar were also dismissed. In order to 
achieve a reduction in costs the Commission recommended improvements, 
such as the establishment of central factories, better cane varieties, 
and the encouragement of peasant cane- growing.35 In addition, they 
recommended diversification, substituting "other profitable agricultural 
industries for the cultivation of sugar cane. "36 Thus diversification, 
or at least less dependence on sugar cane, which could have been more 
easily accomplished in 1838, was to be the answer, for Britain could 
now do without West Indian sugar. 
The higher costs and market difficulties brought the closure 
of some usines and amalgamytions of others, leaving only 39 sugar 
estates in 1897, compared to 56 in the previous year.37 Some estates 
were put under coconut cultivation, and those in the environs of Port- 
of-Spain and San Fernando were sold for housiig. Others closed 
because they could not afford the capital necessary to replace obsolete 
equipment. These latter were only equipped to produce muscovado sugar. 
In 1897, there were only 7 muscovado producers left, compared to 
virtually the entire industry in the 18308.38 The other producers were 
33. Ibid., p. 8. 
34. Ibid., p. 13. 
35. Ibid., pp. 14-15. 
36. Ibid., p. 17. 
37. Ibid., p. 100. 
38. Ibid. 
34 
manufacturing either centrifugal muscovado or vacuum pan sugar.39 By 
this time all the estates were over 500 acres in size, and vacuum pan 
sugar accounted for more than half total exports.40 
Subsequent to the visit of the Royal Commission, improvements 
which had begun in the 1880s were continued. The fall in sugar prices 
and the resultant crises forced the amalgamation or abandonment of 
holdings. Now larger cultivated areas had to furnish canes for the 
improved mills. Where usine capacity exceeded that of cultivation 
within an estate, planters sought to buy canes from peasant farmers. 
Improvements did not stop at the mill. New varieties of cane from 
. Barbados and British Guiana, replaced the old Bourbon variety. In 
order to cope with the transport of cane over long distances to feed 
the larger capacity mills, light railways were constructed, having 
been rejected earlier. Nevertheless, the improvements fell short, 
for it was not until the 192us that mechanical ploughs were used: 
As yet the industry could not compete with Cuba. Plantations were 
still small as com2ared to those in Cuba, and grinding capacity, 
extraction rates, mechanisation and use of steam power all lagged 
behind developments in Cuba. All these features were applicable to 
the entire British Caribbean. It was only the internal disturbances 
in Cuba and the effects of the Spanish- American War that saved the 
British West Indies for a short time. The great expansion in Cuba 
was prevented only for a few years, for soon American capital and 
preferential treatment resulted in Cuban sugar replacing B.W.I., sugar 
in the United States. Consequently, there was a fall in local prod- 
uction by about 15% between 1880 and 1914.41 The period of depression 
came to an end with the greater demand for caca sugar in Vorld tsar I. 
39. Ibid. 
40. Ibid. 
41. International. Sugar Council, op.cit., Vol. II, table 16, p. 29. 
35. 
This brought new hope in the British West Indies. Rising prices 
resultefl in abandoned lands being brought under production again. 
The period 1914 to 1_212 
During this period, world sugar production showed three major 
declines, one during each world war and the other during the 'Great 
Depression'. Each decline was followed by a rise in world output, but 
by 1945 world centrifugal sugar production was only slightly higher 
than in 1914. In the British Caribbean, the years up to 1920 marked a 
phase of relative prosperity, but once more, as in the 1890s, the 
industry was faced with extinction, and another commission, The West 
Indian Sugar Commission of 1929 
-30, was formed to "enquire into the 
causes of the present depression ".42 It rep:ated the recommendations 
of the 1897 Commission. Although it was a period of depression, or 
possibly because of this, there were further improvements in cane 
varieties and mechanisation, resulting in higher yields. At this time 
in Trinidad, peasant farmers were supplying about 50h of the total 
canes milled. Internationally, this period was marked by the re- 
establishment of a degree of colonial preference, the re- emergence of 
beet sugar as a competitor in the 1920s, and the abandonment of the 
principles of the Brussels Convention. Two major attempts to regulate 
world trade and production of the commodity, through the Chadbourne 
Agreement of 1931 and the first International Sugar Agreement of 1937, 
ended in failure. 
Although the effect of World War I on world sugar was a 
decline in total production, this decline was only in beet sugar, 
which in 1914 
-15 accounted for 54.2> of total world centrifugal 
sugar production as compared to 26.6`h in 1919 -20.43 Cane sugar not 
42. Wiest Indian Sugar Commission, 1930, P. 3. 
43. International Sugar Council, op.cit., Vol. II, table 30. p.45. 
36 
only increased its share of total output, but it also expanded from 
7.6 million metric tons (mmt) in 1914/15 to 9.1 mmt., in 1919/20. 
In Trinidad, production: rose from 43,003 mt., in 1913 to a peak of 
72,016 mt.,in 1917.44 Generally over the British West Indies, 
although expansion was not as great as in Cuba, production was more 
than one -third greater in the quinquennial period up to 1920 as 
compared to the similar period up to 1914. At the end of the War, 
prices rose sharply and reached their peak in 1920. The steep drop 
that followed in 1921 brought chaos to the Trinidad estates. 
Advances had been made to farmers on the basis of prices prevailing 
in 1920. Farmers could not repay, and hence estates could not 
recover money advances. Competition by millers for farmers' canes 
was partly responsible, and in order to prevent this from recurring, 
and also to eliminate haulage over long distances, the millers agreed 
in 1922 "to restrict the purchase of cane within defined areas. "45 
From the low prices in 1921, there was a slight recovery up 
to 1924. Thereafter, continued over -production caused a general 
decline in prices, culminating in the crises associated with the 
'Great Depression'. Over -production was achieved partly owing to the 
recovery in beet sugar in countriesvhich suffered fighting during 
the War, and partly to the continued expansion of cane sugar. in 1919 
an Imperial preference of 3 /8d per cwt., was established for British 
Colonial sugar. This proved beneficial, but was not sufficient to 
combat the re- introduction of bounties for beet sugar. In addition, 
Great Britain itself in 1925 instituted a system of subsidy for home- 
grown beet sugar. According to the Sugar Commission of 1929 -30, 
44. Deerr, op.cit., Vol. I, p. 202. 
45. Shepherd, C.Y. The Sugar industry of the British West Indies 
and British Guiana with Special Reference to Trinidad, Lemoirs 
of the Imperial College of Tropical Agriculture, Trinidad, 
Economic Series No. 1, ùáay 1929, p. 12. 
37 
interference in world prices also came from the "temptation to Cuban 
producers to use their United States tariff preference to enable them 
to dump surplus sugar, and by the temptation to Java to take 
advantage of her low dosts of production to drive other competitors 
out of the world's free markets. "46 Because of the crisis facing 
West Indian sugar industries, certain estates were abandoned and the 
Commission reported that the "representation that there is grave risk 
that the owners of many estates may be compelled to cease cultivation, 
must, we regret to say, be accepted as true. "47 The Commission also 
reported that while in colonies such at St. Kitts and Antigua the 
entire population would be affected by the loss of the sugar industry, 
the proportion in Trinidad would be one-third. The Commission's 
opinion was that the "primary cause of the present depression is the 
"48 During this amalgamations period several  over -production of sugar.   
were carried out in Trinidad. Yet production showed a slight upward 
trend. Through the use of new cane varieties, inorganic fertilisers, 
the introduction of mechanical ploughing and land preparation, and a 
more successful fight against the froghopper pest after 1926, yields 
and production expanded. Estates and farmers increased production in 
absolute terms, but farmers increased their percentage contribution 
to about 50%. The Commission was of the opinion that "while 
improvements can be made in particular cases, the present depression 
of the West Indian sugar industry is not due to any lack of efficiency 
and cannot be remedied effectually by improvements in methods of 
production alone. "49 This Commission, like its predecessor in 1897, 
46. West Indian Sugar Commission, 1930, p.11. 
47. Ibid, p. 13. 
48. Ibid, p. 13. 
49. Ibid, p. 15. 
38 
recommended the settlement of a peasantry on the land, and drew 
attention to the large food import bill of Trinidad and Barbados 
especially. The Commission emphatically repeated the view of its 
predecessor by "expressing our strong concurrence in the view of 
Sir. H. Norman's Commission that no reform affords so good a prospect 
for the permanent welfare in the future of the West Indies as the 
settlement of the labouring population on the land as small peasant 
proprietors; and in many places this is the only means by which the 
population can in future be supported. "50 But because it saw the 
sugar industry as relatively efficient, the Commission also recommended 
a continuation of preferential treatment on a larger scale, and that 
the British Government should work towards international. accord on this 
commodity. By implication, the Commission placed blame on former 
British Governments rather than on the West Indies sugar industry. 
The effect of the 'Great Depression' on world sugar production 
was a decline from 25.4 mmt., in 1930/31, to 21.8 mint., in both 1933/34 
and 1934/35. Production in Trinidad did not follow this trend and 
continued to expand slowly (figure 5). After 1934, world production 
increased till it reached a peak of 27.1 mint., in 1939. The effect of 
World War II was to produce another major decline in world output. 
Contrary to the rise in production of cane sugar during World War I, 
in World War II the response was in sympathy with world trends. 
As alluded to above, the occurrence of low prices in the late 
1920s and early 1930s resulted in several protectionist measures being 
taken. M,ny beet producing countries abandoned the principles of the 
Brussels Convention, and assisted their industries through import 
duties, bounties and subsidies.51 The general trend of over -production 
50. Ibid., p. 57. 
51. International Sugar Council, op.cit., Vol. II, pp. 32 and 37. 
39 
stimulated by the return to protectionist policies, necessitated some 
form of international co- operation. In 1931, the Chadbourne Agreement 
set out to restrict production among the participating countries of 
the Agreement. It failed to produce much long term stability owing to 
increased output by non -participants. In 1937, the first Internat- 
ional Sugar Agreement was signed, but because of the high levels 
at which quotas were set, it had no pronounced effect. Furthermore, 
this Agreement operated only for a short period before being 
suspended during World rear II. 
The last major decline of the modern period of Trinidad sugar 
save a drop from 131,609 tons in 1941, to an average of about 74,000 tons 
in the years 1943 
-45. The most important reason was the lack of labour 
for the industry. For the first time in this century the industry 
suffered extensively from what had proved to be its major problem 
in the previous century. Agricultural workers found more lucrative 
jobs on the United States' military bases set up in the island. In 
addition, it was difficult to export sugar and import fooästuffs as 
was done in normal times. Some land was given over to food production 
for local consumption. The problems were investigated. by the 
Benham Committee, in whose recommendations a system of planting 
subsidies was advised and adopted. Thus, whereas the effect of 
World War I was an expansion in Trinidad's sugar, the effect 
of World War II was a contraction by almost half. 
This period also marked the beginning of mechanisation of 
some field operations. Prior to the 1920s, land preparation was mainly 
manual. In 1924, the first mechanical ploughs were used by a local 
estate. There was a continued expansion of mechanisation in the 
1930s, but this was only true for the estates. All cane farmers 
40 
continued land preparation manually until after World War II. 
It may be noted that throughout the period 1895 -193o, cocoa 
had replaced sugar as the major agricultural export of Trinidad. It 
was a combination of disease, the depression and West African competition, 
which led to a decline in cocoa, which had to be 'rehabilitated' after 
4orld 'rear II. After 1930, sugar again became the major agricultural 
export, but was now displaced by petroleum and petroleum produdts to 
second place among all exports. The fact that sugar displaced cocoa 
was not due to an increase in acreage. Sugar cane acreage in 1896 was 
33,80552, and in 1929 the Olivier Commission recorded 32,874 acres,53 
Production in 1896 was about 60,000 tons and in 1929 about 30,000 tons. 
The increased production was, then, the result of improvements in 
yields and extraction rates of sugar, with the one reservation that 
the entire farmer acreage might not have been taken into account. 
The post -Jorld V.ar II period 
This present period in the development of Trinidad's sugar 
industry has been the greate:_t expansion the industry has ever known. 
This parallels the general world pattern in both cane and beet 
producing countries. According to the International Sugar Council, the 
principal force behind this process has been the general world 
economic development. 54 High prices that prevailed at the end of 
World 'czar II also accelerated expansion. For Trinidad, the main 
features of this period have been the further reduction in the number 
of estates and mills, the stability derived from the outlet provided 
by the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, and a continued period of 
reasonable prices in the early 1950s. The removal of Cuban sugar 
from Western markets produced a considerable rise in prices in 1953, 
but, subsequently, over -production and the development of new sugar 
industries in various parts of the world, have resulted in very low 
52. nest India Royal Commission, 1897, p. 100. 
53. West Indian Sugar Commission, 1930, p. 105. 
54. International Sugar Council, op.cit., Vol. II, p. 47. 
41 
'freemarket' prices, with, in spite of a rising world consumption of 
sugar, a glut of the commodity. 
In the quinquennial period 1945 -50, world production 
averaged 24.6 mmt., compared to 51.3 mmt., in the quinquennial period 
ending in 1963.55 This was an increase of over 100%. World produdtion 
in 1968 was estimated at about 68.0 mmt. in Trinidad, the earlier 
five -year period showed an average of 130,000 mt. and the latter an 
average of 217,900 mt. The 1963 -1967 period showed an average output 
of 226,540 mt.6 or an increase of about 75% over the immediate post- 
war period. 
Whilst in the early post -war years there were 10 mills run by 
nine firms, at the present time there are only 6 mills run by three 
operators. The estates, who own the mills, have increased their 
acreage and production over this period. As far as farmers were 
concerned, they continued to expand their production in absolute 
terms, but could only maintain their percentage contribution to just 
above 30 %, compared to about 50% in the early 1920s, and over 40% in 
the 1930s. Yet, it has been within this period that farmers have 
started mechanising land preparation, and making use of inorganic 
fertilisers. One of the three large estates has embarked on a 
programme of mechanical harvesting since 1962. 
Expansion of the industry in this phase of its development 
has been vainly attributed to the benefits of a stable market at a 
reasonable price for about two- thirds of production, under the Common- 
wealth Sugar Agreement. This Agreement, together with the two 
International Sugar Agreements of the 1950s, helped considerably in 
stabilising the situation for a time, but massive over -production 
nullified the benefits that could be derived from international 
55. Ibid., table 39, p. 57. 
56. Information provided by the Sugar Manufacturers Association of 
Trinidad. 
42 
accord. Although over- production did not affect prices paid under 
the CSA, it has resulted in lower prices for residual exports sold 
on the 'free fLarket'. The most important event of the present 
decade has been the removal of Cuban sugar from the American and 
other Western .aarkets. This has meant that, recently, Trinidad has 
been able to obtain bigger export quotas to the United States, at 
prices that are higher than 'free market' prices. The possible return 
of Cuban sugar to the American market could prove catastrophic to 
Trinidad and other Caribbean producers if adequate arrangements are 
not made to obtain reasonable prices elsewhere. 
At the end of 1963, a new ISA was reached which became effective 
in January, 1969. This agreement has, as one of its goals, the attain- 
ment of minimum prices for 'free market' sugar of £33 per ton. This 
price was achiéved and, by the second quarter of 1969, prices reached 
up to £38 per ton. Since then there has been another slump with prices 
falling below the minimum set by the agree;ent57For Trinidad a welcome 
development was the decision of the British Government to continue 
the CSA indefinitely, and not to terminate it in December, 1974, as 
was feared by some Commonwealth exporters. For developing countries, 
two important aspects of the new agreement are that withdrawal of the 
negotiated price quotas is subject to six years notice, and that 
nowhere is the termination of the arrangements dientioned, as in former 
agreements. This latest agreement ap;ears to be more flexible, so that 
changes can be introduced gradually without the threat of a sudden 
abrogation of the agree.:ent. 
Conclusion 
If the period between 1498 and 1783 is dismissed as being 
insignificant in the history of Trinidad's sugar, one can see that, 
57.Czarnikow,C.Ltd., SuSar reviews, 1969. 
43. 
unlike most other Caribbean territories, Trinidad has experienced the 
vicissitudes attached to this commodity for less than 200 years. Yet 
it is this history which has affected the present -day society more 
than any other single factor. Although it is over -shadowed by 
petroleum in the economy, sugar is still the most important 
agricultural export crop. Furthermore, it is the largest employer of 
labour in the island. The composition of the heterogeneous population, 
too, is a direct result of the needs of the industry historically. 
From the preceding account, one sees a few flashes of prosperity, but 
more generally, prolonged periods of difficulty. Nevertheless, the 
island depends on the industry to a considerable extent, both as an 
employer and for export earnings. Recent production trends show that 
production may stabilise at about its present level, but general 
opinion in the industry is that it should be expanded.5b How is 
production or any expansion of the industry to beishared between its 
two main sectors, large estates and cane farmers? For the well -being 
of the industry and the country,it is necessary to know this. Before 
this can be discussed, one must have a knowledge of both types of 
production. The characteristics of the plantation sector, with its 
large capital outlay and resources, and application of modern 
mechanized processeslare better known. It is to the cane -farming 
sector that greater attention will be given in this study, but before 
this is attempted, the present organisation and operation of the industry 
will be discussed. 
58. TICFA, The Cane Farmer, Vol. 10, No. 3, March 1969, p. 2. Also 
other issues. 
44 
CHAPTER II 
THE OPERATION OF THE SUGAR CANE INDUSTRY 
An historical examination of the sugar industry of Trinidad 
has shown that, up to 1882, it consisted only of the planters who 
owned their mills or 'usines'. Since the depression) of the 1880s, 
the industry has had a dichotomous existence with the peasants 
increasing their contribution to over one -half of the canes produced 
in the 1920s. Subsequently, although farmers increased their 
production, their percentage contribution fell. Some commentators 
have said that the peasant sector grew out of the need to settle 
workers in the sugar growing areas to provide laboui,2 and others that 
it was because farmers would be able to produce cane more cheaply.3 
But cane farming created its own requirements for labour, contributed 
to labour shortages for the estates and caused them to depend even 
4 
more on farmers. It has been accepted that both sectors of the 
industry are important contributors, and must be regarded as partners5 
in the industry and are both dependent on a large group of workers, 
who also have their own representative labour union. It is difficult 
1. Girwar, N. describes the peasant sector in Trinidad's sugar 
industry as 'a child of the depression' in "The Economics of 
Trinidad Cane Farming ", TICFA, Combined Annual Reports, 1963, 
1964, 1965, p. 129. 
2. Beachey, R.4., op.cit., p. 103. 
3. One view is that peasant production of the crop is encouraged 
during times of depression, TICFA, Combined Reports. 1963. 1964 
1965, p. 135; Also that farmers could produce the crop cheaply was 
supported by 1897, W. India Royal Commission, 1897, p. 14 para. 93. 
4. Gilbert Report, op.cit., No. 84, p. 6. 
5. For discussion of the relationship of the farmers and estates in 
Trinidad, see Girwar, N., The relationship of the cane farmer and 
sugar manufacturer in Trinidad. A paper presented to the British 
Caribbean Cane Farmers' Association, 1963. 
45 
to draw dividing lines between those workers who provide labour for 
the estates, those who work for farmers and the cane farmers them- 
selves. Some farmers, in addition to supplying their own cane, also 
work for the estates, either in the fields or in transport; they may 
also work for other farmers; and estate workers may also provide part - 
time labour for farmers. The Government has always had some interest 
in the industry, but more recently this has been increased and is 
evidenced by the formation of the Sugar Industry Control Board and by 
6 
Government's purchase of one of the sugar estates. In addition, the 
Ministry of Agriculture maintains an extension service, which, 
unfortunately, does not seem to have reached the farming community 
( see p.214). These,then, are the several sectors which make up the 
sugar industry. However, it is the estates or large plantations and 
the cane farmers who are involved in production operations. 
The dichotomy that exists in the industry is reflected in the 
characteristics of each sector in the various aspects of cane produc- 
tion, from land tenure and land preparation through all the 
cultivation activities to harvesting and transport. Admittedly, there 
are some producers in Trinidad who are cane farmers by definition 
because they do not own their milling facilities, but who use 
production techniques similar to the estates and may not be truly 
regarded as peasant producers. Yet since these producers are 
regarded as cane farmers in Trinidad, they will be regarded as 
belonging to the cane -farming sector. Generally, though, cane 
farmers can be said to be constrained by the multiplicity of problems 
which affect peasant cash crop agriculture. The Government recognises 
this when it says that: 
6. The Orange Grove Factory, together with about 4,000 acres, was 
bought by the Trinidad Government,during 1968, from Messrs. 
Trinidad Sugar Estates Ltd. 
46 
"The dominance of the plantation in the country's agriculture 
has resulted in a type of development geared to metropolitan 
interests, and the creation of a dualism in the agricultural 
structure. 
"The basic problem of agriculture derives from the dichotomy 
between peasant and plantation agriculture. ?ef.sant agriculture 
is characterised by under -capitalisation, low yields, and the 
lack of application of science and technology to the productive 
process. Plantation agriculture uses relatively large inputs of 
capital and has relatively high productivity per acre as a 
result of the organised application of scientific research. ". 
These).then; are some of the problems facing Trinidad's agriculture and 
especially its sugar industry. As most of this work will e:itail a 
study of the cane -farming sector, in this chapter the processes 
applied in estate agriculture will be described. The changes that 
have taken place in the structure of both sectors, especially since 
World War II, will also be considered, together with a discussion on 
farmers' deliveries of caneand its alleged irregularity,8 and the 
proportion of farmers' cane ground at the various mills. The purpose 
is tò provide some insight into the organisation of the industry and 
the extent of its dichotomous existence. Although this section on 
farmers will in some ways anticipate what comes in later chapters, it 
must be mentioned that in this chapter most of the data was obtained 
from documentary sources, while in later chapters information is 
derived mainly from field work. 
The estates 
It has been estimated (table 3) that at the beginning of 
British rule in 1797, there were about 160 sugar estates in Trinidad. 
This number increased to over 200 before Emancipation, but, thereafter, 
estates decreased in numbers. Through the many vicissitudes since 
then, amalgamatións and closures have resulted in this total being 
7. Government of Trinidad, Second draft five- ear development .lan 
1964 -68, p. 173, paras. 3 and 4. 
8. This refers to the daily, weekly or monthly fluctuations in 
farmers' deliveries of cane to the mills. 
47 
reduced to the three large estates which exist today. One of these9 
is by far the dominant producer, growing more than half the total cane 
produced and manufacturing over 80%, and in some years over 90% of 
the cane ground, including farmers' cane which it buys. This firm 
operates four mills and in the words of the Cane Farmers' Association 
it "strides like a colossus on the local sugar scene. "10 Of the 
remaining two mills, one is now Government owned and the other 
pr'ivately owned.11 
It has been shown how the large number of mills declined 
progressively from the 1830s. The main reason was at first labour 
problems and,l.aterllow prices, which led to a shortage of capital 
among the small planters. The consequences were either amalgamation 
of estates or abandonment. Lack of capital also meant that obsolete 
equipment could not be replaced, the money required being difficult 
to raise especially for the smaller planters. Moreover, modernisation 
in all its phases demanded that units of production should be larger. 
The need to modernise the industry and to maintain and even improve 
efficiency resulted in there being fewer and fewer mills and planters. 
It also led to company operated estates instead of estates.owned by 
individual planters. This process of "consolidation either by merger 
or by the gradual absorption of the smaller and less economically 
successful units by the larger and more prosperous ones has been 
9. Caroni Ltd. is the dominant producer, owning four of the six 
factories, and most of the land under estate cane. This firm is 
a subsidiary of the Tate & Lyle Group of Companies. This fact, 
that the firm is linked in all stages of production and marketing 
of the crop, has provoked criticisms from the Cane Farmers' 
Association. See TICFA. Submission to Commission of Inquiry into 
"The existing method of computing the price of canes and matters 
connected therewith ", 1965, pp. 41 -50. 
10. TICFA, Ibid., p. 47. 
11. Messrs. Forres Park Ltd. 
48 
consistently taking place in the Trinidad sugar industry ever since 
the middle of the nineteenth century. "12 It was out of this process 
that the present -day industry developed. In 1948 there were 10 mills 
being run by nine firms; at present there are only 6 mills being run 
by three operators. The mills that were closed were two very small ones13 
(Craignish and Hindustan) and two of medium capacities14 (Waterloo 
and Esperanza). Their holdings are still under cane cultivation by 
both estates and farmers. 
The mill- operating firms also grow sugar cane and produce about 
two -thirds of all the cane grown. in 1967, out of an estimated acreage 
of 87,82315 under cane, 56,539 acres of estate cane were reaped at an 
average of about 26.13 tons of sugar cane per acre (figure 6). In that 
year 10.87 tons of cane were required to make a ton of sugar, or the 
tc /ts ratio was 10.87 :1. This means that the estates produced an 
average of 2.4 tons of sugar per acre. This was the lowest sugar yield 
per acre since 1945, at least for the estates.16 As no separate figures 
are kept for farmers' canes, no figures are available for cane yields 
and sugar yields per acre for farmers. Some estimates have been made 
and are accepted as being correct by both estates and farmers. A cane 
yield of 18 tons per acre for all farmers has been suggested,17 but this 
does not hold true for all farmers, as is shown later in the results of 
the survey (table 12). However, with the assumption that this is so, 
and also that sugar yields from farmers' cane ¡.nd estates' cane were the 
same in 1967, farmers would have produced 1.66 tóns.of sugar per acre 
12. Caroni Ltd. "Caroni Limited in Trinidad ", c. 1964, p. 9. 
13. Craignish had a maximum milling capacity of 384 tons of cane per 
day. The figure for Hindustan was 480. Soulbur Commission 
report, 1948, p. 11. 
14. Waterloo had a maximum capacity of 1,800 tons cane per day. The 
capacity for Esperanza was 1,200 tons. Ibid., p. 11. 
15. Trinidad and Tobago, Annual Statistical Digest, 1967, Central 
Statistical Office, Port -of- Spain. Dec. 1968, table 113, p. 102. 
16. Trinidad and kcIpagP, Annual Statistical Digest 1962, Central 
Statistical Office, Port -of- Spain, 'May 1964, table 109, p. 102. 
17. Personal communication with Cane yammers' Association and Messrs. 
Caroni Ltd. 
LA
R
G
ES
T 
ES
TA
TE
 
PE
R
CE
NT
AG
E 
O
F 
AC
RE
AG
E 
AN
D
 
TC
/A
: 
PL
AN
TS
 A
N
D
 
R
AT
O
O
NS
 
? 
:4
 .
24
1 
.
2&
$. 
i 2 
,
27
1 
Fi
g.
 6
 
'6
6 
19
67
 
49 
in that year. 
It is also estimated that estates and farmers occupy 
roughly similar acreages,18 but that the estates produce about two- 
thirds of the crop and the farmers the remaining one -third. Another 
estimatel9 gives the estate acreage reaped in 1967 as 57,823 acres, and 
for farmers a figure of 30,000 acres. Obviously these two estimates 
are at variance. If the yield per acre is accepted as 18 tons for 
farmers, then the first estimate would have resulted in farmer 
production of over 1,000,000 tons of cane. If the second estimate is 
to be accepted, then farmer production in 1967 should have been about 
540,000 tons. In 1967, farmers produced just over 673,000 tons of 
cane. It will appear, therefore, that farmers, if they occupy a similar 
acreage to the estates, have a lower average yield than that suggested 
by the estates themselves; if they occupy about 30,000 acres then 
they would be expected to have a higher yield per acre. If the 
figures for a number of years are taken instead of figures for one 
year, then both estimates are still at variance. It is more probable, 
as will be shown later, that farmers in general may have yields 
as suggested above, but that they occupy less land than suggested 
in the first estimate, and more than the 30,000 acres of the second 
estimate. The fact remains, though, that farmers produced about 
one -third of the cane milled, but.at a lower intensity of land 
utilisation. 
As is to be expected, the plantation sector is heavily 
capitalised and uses highly integrated and rationalised systems of 
18. Caroni Ltd. Quarterly Bulletin, "The Sugar Industry in Trinidad 
and Tobago," January 1966, p.2. 
19. Trinidad and Tobago, Annual Statistical Digest, 1967, table 113, 
p. 102. 
50 
land preparation, crop cultivation, harvesting and transport, milling, 
export and marketing. There is an increasing amount of mechanisation 
in almost all phases of. production. This is especially the case with 
the largest operator and less so with the two smaller plantations. 
These latter depend on the former for various services, such as machine 
shop work, and bulk- exporting facilities, which their own resources 
cannot provide.20 
Land preparation for the estates is completely mechanised and 
increasing mechanisation in the harvesting stage is resulting in 
changing cultivation practices. Formerly) almost all cane in the flat 
areaswere grown across on cambered beds to facilitate drainage. 
Wherever mechanical harvesting is being undertaken, the fields must 
now be planted in long rows, a modified Louisiana Bank System,21 in 
order to permit mechanical harvesting and mechanical application of 
fertiliser and herbicides. Some areas are also under the Woodford 
Lodge System22 of fields, also a method of planting which uses long 
rows on cambered beds, but with surface run -off rather than the furrow 
drainage of the Louisiana System. The rate of change to cultivation 
practices which mechanisation requires is not available in exact 
figures, but it was estimated that by 1967 about 7,000 acres3 had been 
converted. As some 5,000 acres4 are prepared annually for re- planting 
(by the largest estate only), it may be assumed that an increasing 
proportion of this will be converted to the requirements of the 
machines. This applies mainly to fields in the flatter areas, which 
cover 57% of the holding of the largest estate.25 
20. All information on estate practices was provided by Messrs. Caroni 
Ltd. 
21. Sugar Technologist's Association of Trinidad and Tobago 1967 
Conference. Paper No. A /7, p. 5. 
22. $eport of a Commission of enquiry in to the sugar industry of 
British Guiana, 1949, Col. No. 249, líi1,6O, London, p. 37 for 
detailed description of Woodford Lodge System. 
23. Caroni Ltd. Paper prepared by Hanschell, D.T. 1967,. p. 3. No 
title given. 
24. Ibid. 
25. Ibid. 
51 
The lands of the northernmost estate are also flat, but the rest of 
the lands of the largest estate and all of the lands of the other small 
estate are slightly to severely undulating. The undulating lands Permit 
only partial mechanisation of harvesting. In these areas, the cutting 
process will, with the present state of technology, continue to he done 
by hand, and self- loading trailers will be used to remove cut canes. 
The following table shows the increase in mechanised harvesting for the 
major operator only. The two smaller estates do not use fully 
mechanised harvesting, only mechanised loading. 
26 27 
Table 4:, Mechanical and semi -mechanical harvesting of sugar cane 
Mechanical harvesting 
Years Tons reaped 
Self- loading trailers 
Years Tons reaped 
1962 2,302 
1963 2,770 1963 17,290 
1964 3,593 1964 24,462 
1965 9,022 1965 41,034 
1966 20,625 1966 119,002 
1967 26,444 1967 298,381 
1968 97,517 + 1966 165,000 
+ estimated 
Source: Caroni Limited 
28 
Production meth des 
Each year, about 5,000 acres are prepared for replanting by 
the largest firm. Land preparation is carried out by crawler tractors. 
For the estates, planting usually commences shortly after the onset of 
26. Mechanical harvesting refers to harvesting that is fully mechanised. 
From 1962 to 1966, three different kinds of mechanical harvesters 
were used by Messrs.Caroni Ltd. They are Massey- Ferguson 155, Cary 
and Duncana harvesters. 
27. This refers to cane that is cut by hand and packed in bundles, 
which are winched mechanically onto trailers drawn by tractors 
28. This material was supplied by Messrs. Caroni Ltd. 
52 
rains in June and is completed within six weeks. The land preparatim 
is completed in the dry season because of the greater mechanical power 
available. Formerly, in some areas, land preparation was carried out 
after the rains had softened the soil, because the power available was 
not sufficient. Fields vary from four to 30 acres in size, but are 
normally 10 acres. On the hilly lands cane is planted in continuous 
contoured rows spaced five feet apart. Some farmers in these hilly 
areas still plant their cane in roars which run up and down hill rather 
than along the contours. 
Cane varieties 
The varieties of canes grown by all the estates are bred at 
the West Indies Central Sugar Cane Breeding Station in Barbados. 
Although sugar yields per acre is the main aim of variety selection, 
there are other factors that must be considered. The prevalence of 
froghopper (Aeneolamia varia saccharine) attacks reouire that in the 
drier areas, where this pest is a more serious problem, resistant 
varieties are more acceptable. Sugar conteht per ton of cane is also 
extremely important, for the tc/ts ratio considerably affects the cost 
of production. In order to cut costs also, better ratooning varieties 
are desirable. As far as the estates are concerned, compromise is 
accepted except where special soils, or pests and diseases dictate 
otherwise, A more recent factor that has to be taken into account is 
mechanisation. It has also been possible to grow varieties with harder rinds, 
which are difficult to harvest manually, because now the mechanical 
cutters can more easily cope with this problem. This development has 
accounted for an increase, since 1964, in the planting of B40119, a 
high -yielding variety (figure 7). In order to regulate the reaping 
period more efficiently, some attention is being given to producing 
100.0 Others 
60. 
5 
40. 
30. 
20 
10. 
B 3337 
37172 
B41227 
1î60 '61 '62 '63 '64 '65 
'66 '67 
VARIETY TRENDS : LARGEST ESTATE 
1960 : 1967 
Fig. 7 
53 
29 
varieties which will mature at varying times during the harvest. 
The pattern of sugar yield during the harvest is one which shows a 
30 
lower sugar content at the beginning and end of the harvest. If 
varieties can be developed which will mature early, during mid -season 
and late in the harvest, then a higher and more even sugar yield 
will be achieved, for it is the high sugar content at maturity that 
can provide the best sugar yields. Thus, although many improvements 
have been made, much work still remains to be done in variety 
improvements. Farmers are only permitted to plant certain accepted 
varieties under the terms of their contracts (see p.185). 
Weed and pest control 
Formerly, all weed control on estates was done manually. 
Now chemical weed control is organised on a large scale and modern 
herbicides are used both for pre -emergence treatment and after weeds 
are established. Application has been mainly by knapsack sprayers, 
but recently the estates have been using aerial spraying to combat 
weeds. Aircraft are also being used in the control of fires as well 
as in the fight against the froghopper. In the case of froghopper 
control, aerial spraying has been used since 1965, and in 1967 
farmers' canes were treated as well in this way (see p.191). 
Fertilisers 
The use of fertilisers has also changed over the years. 
During the 1920s "the green manures Bengal Bean, Wooly Pyrol and 
Canavalia were grown and forked in. Pen manure was applied at 15 tons 
31 
per acre, and Sulphate of Ammonia at 2cwt. per acre." Today no 
29. Vlitos,A.J. "Agronomic problems facing sugar cane cultivation 
in Trinidad ", paper presented to the Third Annual Convention of 
the Caribbean Cane Farmers' Association in Trinidad, 1Q62,p.5. 
30. Similar problems are faced in other cane producing areas. See 
Report of the sugar enuiry commission (1966), Jamaica, 
October, 1967, Ch.B, p.81, para.15. 
31. Sugar Technologists Association of Trinidad and Tobago, 1Q67 
conference, Paper No. A /7, p.l. 
54 
green manures are used and very little pen manure, because of the great 
cost of application. Sulphate of Ammonia is now applied at the rate of 
4 cwt. per acre, generally by hand, to both plant canes and ratoons. 
In the case of plant canes, the application is split, the first being 
made just after germination, and the second some six weeks later. One 
application is made to ratoon canes. It has been found in field trials 
that the application of more than 4 cwt. of Sulphate of Ammonia does 
not result in compensatingly higher yields, though some farmers apply 
more than 4 cwt. In the north -central areas, potash deficiency is 
remedied by an application of 2 cwt. per acre of Muriate of Potash to 
plant canes, and l cwt. per acre to ratoons. In the south, some 
soils show responses to phosphate treatment, These soil types are 
32 
mainly the Princes Town, Talparo and Freeport Clays, and receive 
2 cwt. per acre of 40% Superphosphate at planting. Superphosphate is not 
applied to ratoon crops as it has been found that there is no further 
response. Mud press from the mills and some bagasse are also used 
by the estates, mainly during land preparation, when application 
is less expensive. Many farmers tend to follow estate procedures, 
but their fertiliser application methods cover a wide spectrum from 
no fertiliser applied in a few cases, to more than is required (table 37); 
Harvesting 
Almost the entire crop is harvested annually, except in certain 
years when acreages planted in the fall months are reaped as 'stand -over' 
cane some 16 - 18 months later. This practice is decreasing. Plant 
cane is 9 - 10 months old at reaping. The difference in yields of sugar 
cane per acre between 'stand -over' and 9 - 10 month plant cane is 
considerable as the results for the 1966 crop show (table 5). The 
former yielded L4.37 tons per acre as against 26.04 tons for the latter. 
32. See Chenery, E.M. et al. "Soil map of Central Trinidad," Tolworth, 
Directorate of colonial Surveys, 1954, 1:50,000, 4 sheets. 
T
a
bl
e 
5:
 
R
e
a
p
in
g 
R
e
s
u
lt
s 
19
66
 
C
r
o
p
,
 
fo
r 
C
a
r
o
n
i 
L
t
d.
 
A
c
r
e
s
 
11
ea
pe
d 
¡ 
o
f 
A
c
r
e
a
g
e
 
T
o
n
s
 
C
a
n
e
 
o
f 
T
o
t
a
l 
C
a
n
e
 
R
e
a
p
e
d 
T
o
n
s
 
C
a
n
e
 
P
e
r
 
A
c
r
e
 
F
a
ll
 
P
la
nt
s 
(2
 
Y
r
.
 
P
la
nt
a)
 
1,
42
1.
72
 
3.
05
 
63
,0
36
.0
1 
4.
62
 
44
.3
7 
Sp
ri
ng
 
"
 
(1
 
Y
r
.
 
P
la
nt
s)
 
2,
29
0.
11
 
4.
92
 
59
,6
45
.4
3 
4.
36
 
26
.0
4 
T
O
T
A
L
 
P
I
U
 
Z
T
S 
3,
71
1,
83
 
7.
97
 
12
2,
73
1.
44
 
8.
98
 
33
.0
6 
1s
t 
R
a
t
o
o
n
s
 
6,
05
2.
56
 
14
.7
2 
21
4,
23
9.
48
 
15
.6
8 
31
.0
6 
2n
d 
R
a
t
o
o
n
s
 
6,
84
0.
95
 
14
.6
9 
19
0,
52
7.
48
 
14
.5
3 
29
.0
2 
3r
d 
R
a
t
o
o
n
a
 
6,
70
4.
93
 
14
.4
0 
18
6,
57
1.
19
 
13
.6
6 
27
.8
2 
4t
h 
R
a
t
o
o
n
s
 
6,
82
9.
99
 
14
.6
7 
19
4,
65
7.
94
 
14
.2
5 
28
.5
0 
5t
h 
R
a
t
o
o
n
s
 
6,
70
3.
83
 
14
.4
0 
19
4,
63
6,
69
 
14
.2
5 
29
.0
3 
6t
h 
&
 
O
ld
er
 R
a
t
o
o
n
s
 
8,
91
5,
81
 
19
.1
5 
25
4,
76
3.
81
 
13
.6
5 
28
.5
7 
T
O
T
A
L
 R
I
T
O
O
N
S 
42
,8
48
.1
7 
92
.0
3 
1,
24
3,
39
6.
59
 
91
.0
2 
29
.0
2 
T
O
T
A
L
 
C
R
O
P
 
R
E
A
P
E
D
 
16
,5
60
.0
00
 
10
0.
00
 
1,
36
6,
12
.0
3 
10
00
0 
29
.3
4 
So
u
-f
oe
: 
C
.
,
.
r
o
n
i 
L
im
it
ed
. 
56 
However, more than 95% of the crop is harvested annually. Among the 
advantages claimed forthis are the greater freedom allowed in planning 
the reaping programme and a lessening of the worry of damage from 
froghopper in two -year plants, in which it has been virtually 
impossible to control. The froghopper attacks occur mainly in the wet 
season, and show three main periods of increased vigour (figure 8). 
Froghopper control has also been a serious problem with ratoon crops 
and,with the increase in the amount of ratoon cane, annual reaping is 
more desirable. It is possible that with the greater mechanisation of 
harvesting, damage to cane stands may force quicker replanting than is 
presently practiced, with a consequent lessening of froghopper damage. 
The cane is burned33 before reaping by the estates for both 
manual and mechanical operations. Farmers regard this as a sore point, 
because they have been penalised for selling burnt canes by being 
given a lower price than for fresh cane.34 The cane is traditionally 
cut and topped by hand, loaded into carts, drawn either by water - 
buffalo or mules, and carried to a mobile crane which either transfers 
the cane to rail cars, high -sided lorries or tractor -drawn trailers, 
or stacks the cane for later transport to the factory. Transportation 
is on a 24 -hour basis. On the hill lands, animal -drawn carts are 
being replaced by tractor -drawn self- loading trailers (table 4). This 
method is partially mechanised for the cane is cut and bundled on 
chains by hand and the bundles are then winched on to the trailers for 
33. It is interesting to note that in Jamaica cane cutters ask for 
higher wages to cut burnt canes. See Jamaica Commission, 1966. 
'op. cit., p. 89, para 50. 
34. There is considerable controversy over this matter. Farmers are 
faced with a deduction of 60 per ton of burnt cane delivered. 
All the estate cane is burnt before harvesting and so farmers 
consider that they are treated unfairly. ILoreover, farmers charge 
that the revenue se collected is not further accounted for (see 
pp. 215 -16 in TICFA Submission cited above). The Commissions 
of enquiry in 1948 and 1960 pronounced opinions on this matter, 
which in general sought that no fines should be made if farmers 
conformed to some rules. £ +o action has been taken and only 
individual arrangements between some larger farmers and the 
estates were in operation. In 1968 this was spread over a larger 
nu::;ber of farmers, but arrangements are still made individually. 
80
, 
60
- 
20
, 
Ju
ne
 
t 
Au
gu
st
 
O
ct
ob
er
 
D
ec
em
be
r 
6o
ZR
ea
pi
ng
 A
nd
 
Tr
an
sp
or
t 
1 
7X
 F
ro
gh
op
pe
r 
Co
nt
ro
l 
12
 Z
 M
an
ur
in
g 
n
 
%
W
ee
di
ng
 
An
d 
D
ra
in
in
g 
R
el
at
iv
e 
Co
st
s 
Pe
r 
Ac
re
 F
or
 
Pr
od
uc
in
g 
R
at
oo
ns
 
Fi
g.
 8
 
57 
transport to the crane site. This method has met resistance from 
cutters as cutting and bundling are now regarded as one operation, 
while formerly cutting and loading were considered as separate 
operations. In 1967, 69 such units were used and assisted in the 
reaping of almost 300,000 tons (table 4). On the flat lands, which 
have been converted to the modified Louisiana Bank System, the movement 
is towards the use of combined harvesting machines. These cut and 
load the can lirectly into tractor -drawn trailers. In 1967, just 
over 26,000 tons were harvested in this way. This figure was almost 
quadrupled in 1968, as almost 98,000 tons were reaped by the combines. 
Mechanical harvesting is being used to reduce costs, but many people 
fear the social consequences of this. Government, through the findings 
of its Industrial Court,35 has agreed to a system of phased mechanis- 
ation and the sugar estate has agreed not to retrench workers. It is 
hoped that the normal rate of attrition in the work force will make way 
for mechanisation. This is obviously a troubled question, and at the 
present time a Commission of Enquiry is investigating its implications. 
As mentioned above, this method of harvesting cannot be used over the 
entire estate -owned acreage, for undulating and hilly topography militat 
against the use of combines. 
Further crops of cane are reaped after the plant cane has been 
cut. Shortly after the harvest new shoots appear, fertiliser is applied, 
weed and pest control measures are taken, and about 12 months later 
such fields are reaped as ratoon crops. No cultivation is practiced 
on ratoon crops except in those ridge fields where the ridges 
require moulding or shaping. This means that, with little or no 
further cultivation required for the ratoons, there is a great reduction 
35. An Industrial Stabilisation Court set up in Trinidad in 1965, and 
a decision handed down by this court in a matter between Messrs. 
Caroni Ltd., and the All Trinidad Sugar Estates and Factory 
Workers Trade Union, whereby a system of phased mechanisation was 
accepted. 
58 
in costs, and a change in the various proportions of expenditure applied 
to plant and ratoon canes (figure 8b). (Equivalent figures for plant 
canes were not available, but some idea of relative posts for plant 
canes can be found from table 26.). With the aim to lower costs of 
production, the tendency has been towards an increase in the 
proportion of the crop reaped from ratoons. Up to 1950, this proved 
difficult because froghopper damage could not have been controlled on 
a wide scale. Up to that time,.just over half the crop was reaped as 
ratoons (figure 6). Subsequently, except for a setback in 1954, frog- 
hopper has been controlled on a field scale. The application of benzene 
hexachloride dusts to the soil around the cane stool was generally 
effective in controlling froghopper nymphs until 1957 -58. Thereafter, 
'trithion' dusts were used, followed by a rotational system, using three 
insecticides 36 in the control of froghopper in order to prevent 
resistance developing. In 1965, aircraft were used, first helicopters 
then fixed wing aircraft, spraying Sevin and Malathion L.V.C. This 
has continued successfully since then with a saving in cost. The 
average yield per acre has been maintained and there has been further 
increase in the number of ratoons carried (figure 6). At the present 
time over 90% of the harvest is from ratoons. Length of ratooning 
varies, but is now generally to six or seven ratoons (table 5). In 
1966,about 8% of the crop of the largest operator was harvested from 
plant canes, the rest being from ratoons, averaging just over 14% of 
the acreage harvested for first and subsequent ratoons up to the 
fifth, with little reduction in the yield per acre. This has only 
become possible because of the control of the froghopper, the 
fertiliser application programme and improved management in the field. 
36. Vlitos, A.J. and MERRY, C.A.F. "Control of the sugar cane 
froghopper ", World Crops, December 1961, pp. 471 -2. 
59 
Thus, while yields averaged 18 TC /A (tons cane per acre) in the 
immediate post-war years, they increased to 26 TC /A in the 1950s, and 
are now slightly above this figure, even reaching 30 TC /A in some 
years (figure 6). The longer ratooning permits the re- assignment of 
available tractor units to land conversion to meet the requirements 
of mechanised harvesting. 
Thus far, the activities of the large estates have been 
described. The major characteristics of this sector are shown to be 
a high degree of capital intensity, as borne out by mechanisation of 
land preparation, and increasingly of harvesting, and the rational- 
isation of the .processing activities. Aerial control of froghopper 
and fires, together with increasing attempts to mechanise other 
activities such as fertiliser application and weed control, are 
supported by intensive research into all aspects of production. These 
are only possible with the resources of a large company. Intensive 
production methods on a large scale, with optimum land utilisation, 
characterise the estate sector. For the peasant sector of the industry, 
such characteristics are applicable to a few only. 
The farmers 
Farmers, who are sometimes described as peasant farmers, cane 
farmers or peasant cane farmers, are those growers of sugar cane who 
do not possess their own milling facilities and who have contracted 
to supply sugar cane to mill operators. The contribution made by 
farmers is not restricted to the mere production of canes. It covers 
a wide spectrum, both economic and social. According to the Cane 
Farmers' Associatidn37, cane farming promotes the development of a 
class of "sturdy independent citizens" who contribute to the general 
37 TICFA, Submission, 1965, op.cit., pp. 6 -7. 
60 
stability of the society, and who provide revenue to the state through 
direct and indirect means. Farmers also provide employment to the 
agricultural labour force and are, therefore, important as employers 
in rural areas. Moreover, farmers provide the millers with a third 
of their raw material, without any capital expenditure on their part. 
To the extent of their production, the farmers relieve the millers of 
problems relating to cultivation, reaping and transport of their 
share of the crop. 
An analysis of production of cane sold by farmers between 1939 
and 1967 shows that there has been an increase in the average tonnage 
supplied by each farmer (figure 9). In 1939, the average production 
per farmer was 30 tons. Over the five year period ending in 1945, 
average production was also 30 tons per farmer. For a similar period 
ending in 1950, average production per farmer was 42.6 tons. In the 
five -year period ending in 1967, the war -time average was more than 
doubled, re4hing 72.5 tons. The lowest recorded average since 1939 
was 24.5 tons in 1944, and the highest 77.9 in 1965. Average 
production per farmer, however, is not sufficient to provide a clear 
picture of the changing size structure of the cane -farming sector. 
As statistics are compiled annually in groups classified according to 
size of production, 38 it may be more meaningful to examine the changes 
that have taken place in each production group since 1939 (figure 10). 
The first production class of farmers, those selling up to 
5 tons of cane, numbered 3,605 in 1939, representing 27.9% of the 
farmers, but produced only 2.8% of cane sold. For the period 1939- 
1945 (inclusive), a period of seven years, this group com -)rised on 
average 25% of the farmers and supplied 2.5% of cane. The average 
38. This is discussed in Appendix T. 
13
,5
00
 - 
12
,5
00
 - 
11
,5
00
 - 
10
,5
00
1 
9,
50
0 -
 
8,
50
0-
 19
39
 
-
75
 
-
60
 
-
45
 
-
 
30
 
-
15
 
AV
ER
AG
E 
PR
O
DU
CT
IO
N 
PE
R
 
FA
R
M
ER
 
19
67
 
Fi
g.
 9
 
61 
number of farmers in this group, at this period, was 2,755. For a 
similar period between 1961 and 1967, this group decreased to about 
a quarter of its size, averaging 683 farmers, comprising 6.2% of the 
farmers and supplying 0.3% of cane. 
The second group of farmers, those selling between 6 and 20 
tons, showed also a general decline both in numbers and percentage of 
production when the equivalent periods are compared. In the earlier 
wartime period, this group supplied on average 15.7% of farmers' cane 
and comprised 39.7ío of the farmers, numbering on average 4,505. In 
the more recent septennial period, they supplied only 4.41 of farmers' 
cane and comprised 23.370 of the farmers, numbering on average 2,530. 
The third class of farmers, those supplying between 21 and 50 
tons, show an increase in the,number of farmers, from 2,580 or 22.9% 
in the earlier period to 3,310 or 30.5% in the later period. However, 
they showed a decrease in the proportion of cane supplied in the two 
periods, from 23.2; in 1939 
-1945, to 14.6% in 1961 -1967. 
The fourth class of farmers are those who supply between 51 
tons and 100 tons of sugar cane. This group showed increases in 
percentage of cane supplied in absolute numbers of farmers and in 
their proportion of the total. In 1939 
-1945 they supplied 17.1% of 
the cane, comprised 7.7% of the farmers and numbered on average 870. 
In 1961 -1967, they supplied 22.44 of the farmers' crop, comprised 
21.6% of the farmers and numbered on average 2,352. 
A similar, but stronger, trend was shown by the fifth group 
of farmers who sell between 101 and 500 tons of cane each. In 1939- 
1945 they numbered on average 437 farmers or 3.8% of the total, and 
supplied 21.3% of the cane. In the later period they increased to an 
average of 1,917 farmers or 17.6%, and became the most important 
lo
 
_
:
M
M
 =
li
p 
I::
:s
==
s;
sO
D:
: 
.
 
r
 
r 
A
I
'
®
 
-
.
41
 
_
l_
 
_
.
_
_
 r/r
=/
l I 
_
 
JI
\II
 
\ 
u
iiI
III
III
lII
Ill
hI
III
I 
II
llk
IH
III
IO
hu
uI
III
 
/A
f1
11
11
11
11
=1
11
1 
w
 
/.\
IN
SI
III
M
M
III
M
IN
IM
III
1 
r 
'A
V'
 
'/1
1 
11
11
11
M
IIR
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
11
1 
.
 
' M
 /11
1M
l! 
V
A
7N
1I
IIM
I 
11
11
W
1/
11
11
11
1 
W
.4
 
40
- 0 19
39
 
I
 
1 
I
 
45
 
'5
0 
'5
5 
FA
R
M
ER
S 
60
 
65
 
45
 
'5
0 
55
 
'
60
 
19
67
 
PR
O
DU
CT
IO
N 
TR
IN
ID
A
D
 
Cl
as
se
s 
o
f 
Fa
rm
er
s 
7.
 
O
ve
r 
i.0
00
 t
on
s 
6.
. 
50
1 
-
 
1,
00
0 
5.
 
10
1 
-
 
50
0 
4.
 
51
 -
 
10
0 
3.
 
21
- 
50
 
2.
 
6 
-
 
20
 
1.
 
0 
-
 
5 
Cu
m
ul
at
ive
 
Pe
rc
en
ta
ge
s 
o
f 
Ca
ne
 
Fa
rm
er
s 
a
n
d 
Ca
ne
 
Pr
od
uc
tio
n 
by
 
Cl
as
se
s 
o
f 
Fa
rm
er
s 
Fi
g.
 1
0 
i 
62 
group, supplying on average 46.0% of all farmers' cane. Farmers in 
this, and the following two categories, are thought of as 'true cane 
farmers' because they depend on this crop for most of their income. 
The sixth group of farmers, those selling between 501 and 1,000 
tons, showed a similar movement to the two immediately preceeding 
groups. For this group the proportion of cane sold increased from 
4.3% in the earlier to 5.97in the later period. There were on average 
22 and 68 farmers accounting for 0.2% and 0.6% of the farmers in the 
respective periods. 
For the seventh group of farmers, those supplying over 100 
tons, there was a slight decline in numbers from 25 to 22, but 
comprising 0.2% of the farmers in the two periods. The proportion of 
cane supplied by this class decreased considerably from 15.9% in the 
earlier period to 6.4 in the more recent one. 
Generally one can see, therefore, that there has been some 
degree of rationalisation in the cane -farming sector of the sugar 
industry. This is reflected mainly by the increase in average 
production per farmer (figure 9) and the fact that the smaller 
producers have decreased in number (figure 10). The two groups of 
farmers who individually supply the lowest tonnages, that is, below . 
20 tons, showed steady decline since World War II. In the first group, 
there are now only about one -quarter as many farmers as there were in 
the early 1940s. For the second group of farmers, numbers are just 
over half what they were in the early 1940s. The third group of 
farmers increased in numbers by just over a third, but decreased in 
its production. The next three groups, that is farmers selling between 
51 and 1,000 tons, all increased in terms of absolute numbers of farmers, 
63 
percentage of farmers and percentage contribution to production of 
each class. Together, these three groups now grow almost three - 
quarters of the total farmers' crop. The last group of farmers, 
individually supplying over 1,000tons of cane, showed a large 
decrease in their percentage contribution to farmers' production. 
The same points are shown if one looks at the average aggregate 
production for each class for the two periods being considered. It 
can be seen that the first, second and seventh classes decreased in 
absolute terms, while the other four classes increased their absolute 
aggregate production. The average number of farmers was 11,194 over 
the earlier period and 10,881 over the 1961 -1967 period, in spite 
of the move to other employment during World filar II. 
There has been no concerted effort to rationalise the cane - 
farming sector as has been the case with the estates, either on the 
part of farmers or Government. It is worth noting that the Cane 
Farmers' Association has not tried to encourage rationalisation, that 
is, has not encouraged a decrease in the number of small cane growers, 
the reasons possibly being that it is anathema to think of fewer 
farmers belonging to the Association, and possibly that the greater 
the number of farmers, the greater the bargaining position of the 
Association will be, and consequently the greater the interest of the 
public in the industry. However, the Association encourages farmers39 
to increase individual production rather than advises the smallest 
suppliers to opt out of the industry. 
It is worth noting too, that in 1939 there were 12,914 
farmers and numbers were maintained at about this level up to 1942. 
Subsequently, other more lucrative employment, especially on the United 
39. Personal communication with officers of the Cane Farmers' 
Association. 
64 
State., military bases, caused a decline in numbers, which reached their 
lowest point in 1945 (figure 9). The cessation of war meant that 
labour would return to its former occupations, and this together with 
the fact that a planting subsidy, recommended by a Committee of 
Inquiry40 and adopted by Government, served to increase the numbers 
again after the War. The rise in prices owing to the Korean War and 
the guaranteed outlet provided by the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement of 
1951 also cleared the way for expansion in the industry, and encouraged 
farmers to grow sugar cane. High prices in 1957 owing to the Suez 
crisis and in 1963, owing to the withdrawal of Cuban sugar from 
Western markets, resulted in increased numbers of farmers (figures 9 
and 11). Low prices have prevailed since the last boom year of 1963, 
and numbers of farmers have declined. In 1968, prices were once more 
regarded as reasonable and this may result in an increase in the cane - 
farming population. Moreover, at the end of 1968, the Commonwealth 
Sugar Agreement was given a new lease of life, providing a guaranteed 
outlet for Trinidad sugar. A new International Sugar Agreement was 
also reached which has as one of its objectives a minimum market 
price which will not be far below the cost of production as has 
previously been the case (see p. 42). Lastly, in Trinidad itself, 
there was one major change as far as cane farmers were concerned. 
On recommendations made in a scheme suggested by the newly appointed 
Sugar Industry Control Board, farmers sell their cane in a more orderly 
manner than previously. The general opinion has been that up to now 
the.farmers had to waste quite a lot of time waiting in long lines to 
sell one load of cane.41 Sometimes, only one cart load could be sold 
in two days. Under the new system, it was found that the turn round time 
40. Benham Committee Report. 
41. MacKenzie Commission Report, op.cit., pp. 19 -2U. 
TRINIDAD 
SUGAR CANE 
$ TT 
-17.0 
Price paid & Tc /Ts ratio 
-15.0 
1944 - 1967 
-13.0 
Price paid per ton farmers' canes 
-110 
- 9.0 
Tons 
cane 
11.0 -r 
- 7.0 
10.5- 
- 5.0 
Tc/ Ts 
10.0- ratio 
9.5- 
90--1 
1944 '50 '55 '60 
r T 
65 1967 
Fig. 11 
65 
at the purchasing points was reduced considerably, so that farmers 
could sell two or possibly three loads of cane in one day.42 In the 
opinion of the farmers, 1968 was the best year ever for the purchase of 
their cane.43 With the prospect of reasonable prices and the removal 
of some of the internal difficulties facing farmers, one can see a 
possible increase in the number of farmers growing sugar cane. More- 
over, it seems that not only the Cane Farmers' Association, but also 
the estates are encouraging farmers to grow more caneat the present 
time.44 
It must be also noted that although farmers have decreased 
their percentage contribution of sugar cane, that their production has 
increased in absolute terms (figure 3). The farming sector makes a 
lower percentage contribution to production than earlier in its 
existence because farmers have not been able to expand production at 
the same rate as the estates, for lack of resources. The estates' 
superior resources permitted them to make use of mechanised processes, 
extend their land holdings, and benefit from the findings of research. 
This resulted in a greater expansion of estate production. It is 
worth nottñg that estates began to increase their share of production 
in the 1920s, when mechanisation of field practices began. 
It has already been seen that at present about one -third of 
the total canes produced is sup2lied by farmers. However, the 
percentages processed at the various mills are not uniform (table 6). 
42. Field work. 
43. "This year witnessed the smoothest reaping year in living memory ", 
. The Cane Farmer, December 1968, TICFA, Trinidad. 
44. This seemed apparent from interviews the author had with 
personnel in both sectors of the industry. However, the charge 
is still made by TICFA that the estates only enoourage farmers 
during times of depression and that they use the contract system 
to stifle the growth of the cane -farming sector. TICFA Submission 
1965, p. 203 and TICFA, Combined Annual Reports for 1963, 1964, 
1965. p. 135. 
,
 
t
O
 
rlu;-= 
mills 
1956-196G0 
t
.
.
.
v
.
.
 
-
 
_
 
C
:
-
r
o
ni 
Limited. 
O
r
a
n
c
,
e
 G
r
o
v
e
 
F
o
r
r
e
s
 
P
a
rk 
U
sine 
S
t
.
I2adeleine 
R
eform 
r
:
r
,
chin 
C
a
s
tle 
o
odford 
L
odge 
Y
e
a
r
 
E
s
t
-
e
s
 
.2azmers 
E
s
t
a
t
e
s
 
T
a
m
e
r
s
 
E
s
t
e
s
 
,
 
F
a
r
m
e
r
s
 
E
s
t
a
t
e
s
 
F
a
r
m
e
r
s
 
E
s
t
a
t
e
s
 
F
r
r
m
e
r
.
,
 
E
s
t
a
t
e
c
 
r
m
e
r
s
 
1956 
*305,643 
*263,430 
517,113 
144,213 
129,535 
71,429 
83,060 
29,803 
16,962 
59,915 
1957 
'
'
'300,578 
*161,779 
553,246 
12,320 
162,396 
67,611 
72,714 
32610 
13,347 
41,926 
1958 
*360,.096 
*287,625 
684,771 
181,175 
167,311 
04,815 
80,923 
39,572 
16,902 
47,774 
1959 
*314,430 
*307,129 
614,081 
172,243 
173,474 
34,963 
,
 
104,664 
30,707 
14,671 
52,100 
1960 
*373,550 
*355,766 
755,185 
213,111 
185,967 
101,436 
119,337 
36,121 
14,977 
51,976 
1961 
*405,109 
*426,815 
822,594 
228,521 
198,773 
106,625. 
130,924 
40,372 
19,351 
76,567 
1962 
*404,031 
*367,992 
637,196 
197,472 
215,437 
59,196 
115,553 
29,041 
17,570 
58,970 
1963 
*546,958 
*415,366 
728,313 
217,003 
170,214 
40,766- 
123,639 
35,465 
25,972 
75,271 
1964 
*521,317 
*333,973 
684,579 
243,902 
216,697 
36,703 
98,528 
32,660 
24,998 
65,220 
1965 
406,027 
269,096 
86,450 
65,990 
760,221 
379,397 
233,442 
41,494 
123,381 
30,184 
34,443 
68,257 
1966 
236,248 
329,075 
94,274 
53,7501 
782,970 
242,340 
203,748 
40,199 
130,067 
129,468 
35,204 
57,465 
I
 
*
 
I
n
cludes 
c
a
n
e
 
g
r
o
u
nd 
a
t
 
R
eform 
mill, 
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
 
T
I
C
F
A
 
A
n
n
u
al 
R
e
p
o
r
t
.
 
67 
For the largest cane -milling operator, if its four mills are considered 
together, then the global figure holds good. The different mills of 
this firm vary considerably in the percentage of farmers' cane milled. 
The farmers' share is relatively high at Reform and Ste. Madeleine 
Mills. Until 1960,farmers provided one -third of the cane for the 
Woodford Lodge mill, but since then the percentage has dropped 
considerably. At Brechin Castle between 1956 and 1966,only in one year, 
1965, did farmers provide more than one -third of the cane. The aver -age 
for this period at Brechin Castle was 23.4 %. At Orange Grove, the 
'northernmost mill, the proportion of farmers' cane has been about a 
quarter to a fifth of the total milled, but at Forres Park, in the south - 
central area, twice as much farmers' canes are supplied as estates' canes. 
Forres Park thus depends to a much greater extent on farmers' canes 
than any other mill. Since 1963, however, there has been a decrease 
in the percentage of farmers' canes crushed at Forres Park. This 
is mainly due to an increase in estate grown cane, rather than a 
decrease in farmers' production. In absolute amounts the Orange 
Grove mill processes less farmers' canes than any other mill. 
It can be seen that the three northern mills receive à lesser 
proportion of farmers' canes than the three southern mills. This 
reflects the general system: of development and land occupance, job 
opportunities and topography over the areas as a whole. The northern 
areas are nearer to Port -of -Spain and are,on their northern edge, 
contiguous to the urbanised belt between Port -of- Spain and Arima 
(figure 17). There is,here,a demand for crops other than sugar cane, 
mainly market garden products and root crops. In the Orange Grove 
area, farmers generally rent their holdings from the estate, which has 
converted some of its lands for urban development.45 Because of this, 
45. For the development of a new town called 'Trincity'. 
68 
and also because of proximity to the largest urbanised belt in the 
country, land values are high. This makes it unattractive to grow a 
low income crop on such lands. The result is that farmers who were 
tenants are being evicted from estate owned lands.46 Some of these 
lands have been used for building purposes, retained by the estate 
itself, or are producing vegetable crops. This estate is too small 
to take advantage of all the benefits of mechanisation, but it 
occupies lands which are generally flat and can be effectively 
mechanised. Its scale of operation, with a holding of about 4,000 
acres, iS not large enough to permit mechanisation up to the level 
used by the largest operator. 
In the norta and central areas most of the flat lands are 
owned by the largest operating firm. Because its holdings in these 
areas are flat, it is here that the greatest degree of mechanisation 
has been used. The system of mechanised harvesting has so far been 
used only in these northern areas. With their greater resources,the 
estates, through the historical past, have progressively occupied these 
flat lands, resulting in the fact that all the northernlmills are 
located, in the classic sense, surrounded by large acreages of flat 
land, producing estate grown canes. It may also be mentioned that 
the estates have used their superior resources to reclaim swamp lands 
for agriculture and to use relatively poor soils productively. Some 
farmer occupied lands are also owned by the estate. Cost of this 
north 
-central area is less than twenty miles from Port -of -Spain and 
the urban areas of the north. A market, is, therefore, still 
theoretically available to farmers in these areas. Some farmers as 
46. Farmers, during the course of field interviews, considered that 
they were being evicted, because they said that though they were 
being paid some compensation, they considered this too small. 
The estate thought that the compensation offered was adequate. 
69 
far south as Couva make use of this, and the vegetable growing in the 
Bean area is proof of this (figure 35). :,,oreover, Chaguanas and 
Couva are themselves market towns providing outlets for crops other 
than sugar cane. One can expect, therefore, that in the northern and 
central areas farmers will tend to produce less cane than the average, 
and that there will be more small producers of sugar cane (figure 12). 
The lack of sufficiently large peasant holdings, and the relatively 
insecure tenure, which are partly responsible for the above, make the 
farming community feel the pressures brought by urbanisation even 
more. Proximity to the largest urban population in the island results 
either in growing crops to meet the demands of this population, or 
provides opportunity for other jobs causing cane farming to be 
regarded either as a part -time or spare -time occupation (see Chapter V). 
The fact that the farmers in the northern areas do not have to depend 
solely on sugar cane for their income, results in poorer husbandry of 
the crop as compared to southern areas. More recently, the topography 
itself has affected practices in these areas, resulting in less 
farmers' cane being milled in the northern factories, especially the 
Woodford Lodge area. î+:echanisation of harvesting has been possible' 
and hence the greater emphasis of mechanised estate agriculture is in 
these flat lands. The drop in farmers' cane milled at Woodford Lodge 
factory is partly due to this. These then are the factors that are 
reflected in the relatively low aggregate contribution of farmers in 
the northern areas (figures 13 and 14). 
In the south- central and southern sugar cane districts the 
three mills are Forres Park, Reform and the Usine Ste. Ladeleine 
(figure 15). Statistics available (table 6) show that Forres Park, 
has been dependent up to recently on farmers to supply three -quarters 
TRINIDAD 
Cane Farmers 
5uE- medien 
L 
lr: quartile 
relues Ith 
/ao tons 
toa ton, 
too 
50 t 
a 
Average Prodttion Por Farmer 
Al Flxctteeino Pons 
II 
OS 
FIG. 12 
iss 
ll 
` \ 
70 
of its cane. Since 1963 there has been an increase in the estate's 
own production, but even now the farmers' contribution is more than 
half. This firm has a relatively small acreage in an area that is 
undulating. Because it is a small concern, with lands that are not 
suitable to complete mechanisation, it appears to find it more 
convenient for farmers to stand the risks of growing the crop. 
Returns for the other two mills are shown together for all but 
two years. The areas from which they both draw their supplies are of 
the same type, mainly areas of undulating topography. As these two 
mills are owned by the largest operator, and their land holdings are 
very extensive, one would expect that a similar situation would occur as 
in the areas supplying Woodford Lodge and Brechin Castle mills, except 
for the degree of mechanisation that the topography would permit. 
However, this is not the case as can be seen from the contribution of 
farmers (table 6). Figures that are available for the mills 
separately show that the smaller Reform mill grinds a larger proportion 
of farmers' cane than the Usine Ste. Madeleine. In the two. years 1965 
and 1966 the farmers' shares for Reform were 43.3% and 36.3iß and for 
the Usine St. Madeleine 33.3% and 23.6;6 respectively.' Although the 
low figure at Ste. Madeleine.for 1966 is attributable to problems 
involving the new equipment at this mill,47 it is still true to say that 
the smaller Reform Mill grinds a higher percentage of farmers' cane. 
As this small mill usually produces the best tc /ts ratio when comparing 
all the mills, it is suggested by farmers that this is partly due to 
the higher sucrose content of their cane. 
There is one obvious reason for higher farmer aggregate 
41. New equipment was installed at trie Usine St. Madeleine in 1965- 
1966. There were teething troubles in both 1966 and 1967 
harvests. In 1968 there were fewer breakdowns than in the two 
previous years, and this also contributed to the smooth running 
of the harvest mentioned above. 
TRINIDAD 
CANE FARMERS 
CANE PRODUCTION 1907 
By Classes of Fun,, at Purchasing Points 
e5000 
CLASS 1 
F 05555 
40.000 
atim- 
25000 ----- ..... 
7 
100 50 0 50 too 
FARMERS: Parcentagee: PRODUCTION 
No Farmers in Class 
71 
production in the southern areas and,that is,that there are more 
farmers and a greater acreage of farmers' lands under sugar cane in 
the south than in the north. Moreover, soils are thought to be 
generally better in the south. Yet, there are other possible reasons, 
among which must be the fact that the system of peasant cane production 
began in these areas, and hence has stronger traditions here. It was 
in 1882 that a director of the former New Colonial Sugar Company, 
which operated the Usine Ste. Ladeleine, founded the cane- farming 
industry. This company and,now also,the present owners, have a 
greater share of their lands rented to tenant -cane farmers, with a 
more secure tenure. This is not to deny that there have been threats 
of eviction in the central and southern areas as there have been in 
the north. Such instances occurred in 1956 and 1957 at Dow Village 
and Bronte' areas.48 There have also been accusations that the 
Usine Ste. Madeleine has treated farmers very harshly.49 However, 
this mill has organised 22 Agricultural Credit Societies in its 
hinterland region, and the farmers who belong to these give the 
impression that they have benefitted from this association with the 
estate. It is possible that had the estates not supported these 
Credit Societies, they would have become as moribund as those 
societies that exist in the northern sugar areas. It can be said 
that this encouragement from the mill operator caused cane farming 
to be more entrenched and organised in these areas. As far as 
farmers are concerned, this may produce too great a dependence on 
the manufacturer, and it has been suggested that with a Cane Farmers' 
Association in existence,this body could now assume some of the duties 
performed by the manufacturer. This would lead to a greater 
48. Trinidad Guardian reports on 24th July, 1956 and 27th June 1957. 
49. TICFA Submission, 1965, p. 97. 

72 
independence of farmers and consequently a better bargaining position. 
Farmers have, however, benefitted from the assistance offered by this 
estate. Nevertheless, this alone cannot account for the greater 
farmer contribution in the south. 
The southern districts are not in proximity to an urban 
population which is as large as the one in the north. San Fernando 
and its suburbs form the major urban area of the south, but it is 
relatively small. It,therefore,takes fewer farmers to meet the 
requirements of this poulation. Most of the vegetables sold here 
are produced around the edges of the southern Oropouche Swamp in the 
Debe- Penal area. Here too, as in the north, the farmers depend to a 
lesser extent on one crop, sugar cane, and the average production per 
farmer is lower th:_n in most other southern districts (figure 12). 
It is also true that with a smaller urban population, there is not the 
same demand for agricultural land to be used for building purposes. 
Furthermore, although the petroleum producing and refining industries 
are located here, there are not the varied job opportunities that 
exist in the north. The oil industry is faced with retrenchment 
problems. The net result of all these factors is that there are more 
farmers in the south producing a greater amount of cane, which is 
reflected in the higher proportion of farmers' canes processed in the 
three southern mills, and in the number of farmers and their 
listribution according to size groups (figures 12 and 14). 
Purchase and deliver of farmers' canes 
The purchase of farmers' cane is organised by the three operating 
firms in such a way that there are about 70 purchasing points,called 
'scales; spread over the entire sugar producing area, at which farmers' 
cares are bought (figure 15). Six of these scales are operated by 
TRINIDAD 
Purchasing Points 
.Qenoe Grore 7SE 
`.Man Jobur 
--48rmduQS 1 
Go.pie 
A Sauced 5 W l4iene 1 
1. BBelu[a1 
prpP 
JrrYrh. Inchon 
*Caroni S.+.m.h Road 26 
`Vara Sad Pit 28 
.G... V.8.7 
PSI M.ryk 9 
.TOddk Road 29 
.&.a.ra 30 
Mena Pod 8 
eCNCil. r Chbklyd 10 
yard Scale BC 12 
I 
rece 
OPrdv A M rF 14 3 
Ighbeouha 68 
Erc,d'gá4P 
Clatton Bey 15 
r 
Broth.. Rod 68 
Nib CYO 68 
T.ah 78 
P -iP 4T31 lÚ 1 y 
k 
Waned 50 0 
FIG. 15 
73 
the northernmost estate, six by Torres Park, and the rest by the 
largest firm. Scales are also located at the mills, except at 
the Usine Ste. Madeleine. The Malgretoute scale, which purchases 
more farmers' cane than any other, is located about two miles 
from the Usine and effectively operates as a 'yard' scale. 
The average tonnages sold by farmers at all scales are worth 
considering for their distribution needs explanation (figure 12). 
This distribution is the result of several distinct situations. 
Generally, in those areas where crops other than sugar cane are grown 
commercially, average production per farmer is lower. Such 
situations can be seen at the edges of both the Caroni and Oropouche 
swamps, where the Bejucal No. 2, Jerningham Junction, Bernard Road, 
Caroni Savannah Road, Dumfries, Devil Hole and Woodland purchasing 
points,show averages that are within the range of the lowest quartile 
in the distribution. Penal, to the south -east of the Oropouche Lagoon, 
is the one major exception. Where vegetables are grown for urban 
markets, such as TSE, McBean (the St. isïary's scale) and a few southern 
scales near to San Fernando and Princes' Town, and where tree crops 
are grown, especially in eastern areas, such as Caparo- Todd's Road, 
Tabaquite, Brother's Road and Rio Claro, averages are also low. 
The average shown at TSE is anomalous to a certain extent because of 
the effects of two individual returns. One large suoplier,whose 
holding is nearer the Woodford Lodge mill in the north -central areas, 
sold over 9,000 tons of cane to TSE in 1967. Another sup.)lier of over 
1,000 tons to TSE was the Government's experimental unit which should 
not be regarded as an individual farmer. The average at TSE as sh.:wn 
on the map is about 66 tons per farmer, but would be about 35 tons if 
the two largest suppliers were omitted. This would put the average 
74 
for TSE farmers within the lowest quartile range. 
Another cause of low average per farmer in the north is that 
some farmers sell cane to both TSE and Caroni Ltd., so that by sharing 
their output the average is depressed. Such a situation also exists at 
Forres Park's borders with Caroni Ltd., as at Claxton Bay and Reform. 
The latter is also affected because some larger producers within the 
hinterland of the Reform mill sell their cane at Malgretoute because 
of the faster turn round at Malgretoute. Similarly, at Montrose, 
Chase Village, Arena and Calcutta in north -central and Cedar Hill No.1, 
Esperance, Cooper Grange and Cocoa in southern areas, the larger farms 
with mechanised transport sell their cane at scales which can accept 
mechanised equipment and where turn round is faster, such as at 
Woodford Lodge, Malgretoute and Cedar Hill No.2. Generally, almost 
all other scales show averages per fan er that are above the overall 
average and median value which are both about 69 tons per farmer(table 
1 and Appendix III, table 4). These are generally in areas where 
farmers are dependent mainly on sugar cane. It will be seen that all 
these situations outlined are supported by the distributions shown 
on figures 35, 37, 38 and 17. Other evidence used to distinguish the 
causes for the distributions such as the individual returns of 
farmers and the sharing of individual output between two mills, 
were obtained partly from field investigations and partly from 
information supplied by the estates. 
The percentages of farmers and production in each class for 
1967 are shown on figure 13. The anomaly noted for the Orange 
Grove mill is better illustrated here. 
It has been suggested that deliveries of far -ers' cane over 
the course of a harvesting period are very irregular.50 However, 
50. Ibid., pp.201-2133, and Sammy,it.V.A., op.cit., p.144. 
75 
although this may be so (figure 16a, b, c),figures for three years show 
that for one estate (four mills are combined) similar irregular daily 
fluctuations are shown. This alleged failure on the part of farmers 
is considered by the Cane Farmers' Association to be unfairly placed. 
They say that the estates themselves are partly responsible because 
they regulate transport facilities to the benefit of themselves and 
that sufficient transport is not provided at all times.51 The claim is 
that farmers are provided with adequate transport when it is raining 
and the estates cannot burn and harvest their cane.52 Whatever truth 
there is in the above, it is true to say that great difficulty is 
experienced by all,because of the large number of small farmers who 
all want to harvest their crop as quickly as possible. However, it 
seems that both farmers and estates show severe fluctuation in their 
deliveries, with the estates contributing more to the toil fluctuations. 
There are a great number of subjects that concern the relations 
between both sectors of the industry that can readily be reviewed here, 
but attention will be restricted to only two of them. These are the 
two most important and can be regarded as the source from which many 
smaller problems arise. They also affect agricultural practices 
and could also possibly affect factory efficiency. They concern 
firstly, the purpose of the Cane ?arming Departments (CFD) attached 
to the estates and the expenditure involved in maintaining these 
departments, and secondly, the charge by farmers that the formula for 
sugar care prices, on the basis of w hica farmers are paid for their 
deliveries of cane, is not one which is fair, nor one which will 
encourage improvements by farmers.53 
51. TICFA, Submission, 1965, p. 212. 
52. Ibid., p. 215. 
53. Ibid,, pp. 122 & 124. 
SUGAR CANE 
,000 tons 
16 
12- 
CARONI LIMITED (4mills) 
Estate & Farmers 
Daily Deliveries of Cane 
1966 - 1968 
Trend line 
Actual deliveries 
3 Total -2nd order trend line 
2 Estate -2nd 
1 Farmers -2nd 
Q. I I I I I I 
27 
II +-+- + - l' 
2 9 16 2 I 13 20 13 20 I3 10 17 24 8 15 22 5 12 19 26 r3 
Jun. Jul. (a) 1966 Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May 
16 
12 
8 
3 Total - 4th order trend line 
2 Estate -5th 
1 Farmers -4th 
4 
0 /1 (b) 1967 Jan. Feb. 15 22 291 5 12 11: 24 5 112 19 Mar. 
¡ I1' , ; , , 
,: 16- 
.e ' 
12- 
2 
Apr. May 
h 
4 
Q 
7 14 21 28_ 
(C) 1968 Jan. Feb. 
r rf ll 
Í 
II 
Jun. 
3 Total -4th order trend line 
2 Estate -6th 
1 Farmers -4th 
4 11 18 25 3 10 17 24 t 7 14 21 J 5 12 19 26 I2 9 
Mar. Apr. May Jun. 
Fig. to 
76 
The Cane Farming Departments 
These departments of the estates exist primarily for the 
purpose of purchasing farmers' cane, but are also supposed to cover a 
wide field of related activities connected with same, and also some 
activities that are more diverse (see Appendix tV (b) for list of activities). 
Although these departments are run by the estates, the expenses inr'urred 
in maintaining them are charged directly to the farmers. Much work is done 
by the CFDs in terms of fertiliser distribution (table 11) and the . 
provision of planting material. A variety of activities are listed as 
being performed by these departments, but the Cane Farmers' Association 
is of the opinion that not all of these are performed for the benefit 
54 
of farmers. Perhaps the most important thing that emerges from the 
bickerings involving the Cane Farmers' Association and the CFDs is 
that the estates recruit staff and run these departments ostensibly for 
the benefit 6f farmers, that the expenditures involved are charged 
against farmers, but that the farmers, through their association have 
no authority whatever in the running of these departments. Although 
there are, in the opinion of the author, some men in these departments 
who genuinely have the farmers' interests in mind, the author could 
not fail but get the impression that most farmers regard the CFDs as 
arms of the estates, rather than as departments performing services 
for them. Farmers feel that as the full cost of operating these 
departments is deducted from the price they receive for cane, they 
should have a voice in ensuring that these services are Provided as 
efficiently and as economically as possible. "The companies, however, 
argue that they must decide for themselves what they consider the 
minimum number of staff required and the grade on which these 
55 
members of the staff will be Placed." The MacKenzie Commission felt 
514.. Ibid., pp.96 
-97. 
55. MacKenzie Commission Report, 1960, p. 16, para. 175. 
77 
that it would be an imposition to dictate to management how a business 
is to be run and how much it should cost, but conceded that " the 
amount of these costs to be debited to the formula should be those 
that would be regarded as reasonable having regard to the becessity both for 
56 
efficiency and economy." Such a result, the Commission suggested, 
could be achieved by the exercise of the Governor's (now this will 
57 
refer to the Cabinet's) powers. However, this provision was already 
58 
written in the relevant ordinance and, even when it appeared that 
there were great disparities in the expenses involved in the separate 
mills (see table 7), nothing was done to explain the differences to 
farmers. It is, therefore, easy to understand why farmers should 
be disgruntled over this matter, considering that the price of their 
product is affected directly. It seems apparent that there is lack of 
information and consultation with farmers, and that if this were 
improved, there would be greater chance of changing the atmosphere. 
Tellaja Ad.inistration .f Cane Farmers' Departments per ton of sugar 
produced from farmers' cane 
Usine Ste. Madeleine Caroni Ltd. Woodford Orange 
(Brechin Castle Lodge Grove 
mill 
Forres 
Park 
1954 3.74 3.95 9.80 21:73 3.19 
1955 4.20 3.03 7.80 20.02 2.99 
1956 4..22 3.90 10.52 21.98 2.62 
1957 5.10 6.84 9.32 l8.95 3.37 
1958 3.84 4.39 9.29 18.45 2A8 
+ includes Reform mill. 
Source: Mackenzie Commission Report, 1960, table XIX, p.35. 
56. Ibid. 
57. Ibid. 
58. Ordinance No.61 of 19L6 and unchanged in the Third Schedule to 
Chapter 23, No.12, Trinidad and Tobago. 
The Cane Price Formula 
The present formula was instituted in 1946 (see Appendix IV (a) 
for formula). It is a costs plus formula and, as such, guarantees a 
profit to the mill operators. Objections are raised by farmers against 
several aspects of the formula, but it is not the intention here to 
discuss in detail all of these. Only those aspects that affect agri- 
culture, factory efficiency and strongly affect the price paid for 
farmers' cane are reviewed. 
The problems arise firstly, from some inherent defects in the 
formula and secondly, from some which are apparent in its operation. 
The major inherent defect is that the formula is a costs plus one with 
the millers being guaranteed a small profit. This means that there is 
no risk involved in this aspect of the estates' operations and that 
all risks are loaded on to the farmers who share a residual sum, 
The Cane Farmers' Association contends that this defect is an 
59 
invitation to the estates to inflate their costs. It also contends 
that this is done by transferring costs so that certain expenditures 
that should be rightfully met by the estates themselves, are accounted 
in such a way, that farmers have to meet either some or all of these costs, 
Whether this is true or not, the farmers do not feel that their 
interests are being managed properly by the State, which imposed the 
formula, for they feel that no detailed accounting is checked by the 
61 
State. Moreover, the tendency has been for costs to rise faster than 
revenues from sugar and, with the formula being on a costs plus basis, 
moneys received by farmers are being constantly eroded. This could 
eventually lead to the demise of the cane -farming sector and is 
possibly one of the reasons why most farmers indicated during the 
survey that they wanted to leave farming altogether, or would consider 
growing other crops (table 2e). 
Of the defects that are due to the operation of the formula, 
59. TICFA, Submission, 1965, D. 116. 
60. Ibid. 
61. Ibid., pp. 117 
- 
11$. 
60 
79 
the most important are those dealing with the various deductions made' 
under the formula. These concern overheads, the expenses of running 
Cane Farming Departments and moneys for the rehabilitation fund from 
which the farmers have not benefitted. These deductions are made 
before the final price is computed. Further ground for discontent is 
provided because the estates have different accounting practices, and 
expenditure is not shown under the same headings by all estates. The 
institution of a common accounting system for all estates could reduce 
friction. The revenues from by- products also cause discontent. 
Of all the by- products, only the revenue from molasses is considered 
as part of the revenue due to farmers. The contention by farmers is 
that they should also benefit from the revenues of other by- products.62 
As far as agriculture is concerned, the formula does not 
encourage the farmers to grow canes of high sucrose content. Farmers 
are paid by the tonnage of cane sold, and although the sucrose content, 
or ti-le tc /ts ratio, ultimately affects the price received, the farmers 
are encouraged to grow canes that will yield a high tonnage, be it 
fibre or sweet juice. One of the results of this was that the Bx or 
'crac'kers' variety, which produces a large tonnage per acre, but Of 
low sucrose content, was widely planted by farmers. This produced 
bad tc /ts ratios until the estates had to remove this variety from the 
approved varieties as set down on farmers' contracts. 
Where the factories are concerned, because processing costs 
are deducted from sugar value, if the low dost is due to efficient 
machinery, then the farmers benefit. The converse may be also true. 
These may cancel each other out, but this is wrong in principle. 
However, the estates have no particular incentive to increase the 
effieiency of processing farmers' cane for if it does then the 
62. Ibid., p. 195 and from the author's discussions with officers of 
the Cane Farmers' Association. 
80 
farmers will benefit. Efficient cultivation and processing of the 
crop are thus not encouraged by the formula, but it must be conceded 
that the mills have installed new equipment at regular intervals. 
Lastly, the formula accepts the principle that two prices should be 
paid for sugar cane, one for the farmers, whose receipts are 
calculated through the formula, and one for the estates, whose canes 
fall outside the formula. If farmers are to be considered as partners 
in the industry, then the same price must be paid for all canes, or at 
least the price paid must be dependent upon the sugar content of the 
cane. In general then, one can say that these differences as they 
exist will have adverse effects on the cultivation of the crop by 
farmers and on mill efficiency. 
The purpose of this and the previous chapter is to provide a 
general background to the development and present position of the 
Trinidad sugar industry. The relatative contributions of the two sectors 
of the industry have been outlined and the major characteristics of 
estate agriculture described. It has been shown that the estate sector 
has achieved ,ahigh degree of rationalisation, but that the peasant 
sector is still burdened with too many small producers, though it too 
has seen some rationalisation and has experienced some structural 
changes between World War II and the present time. Some of the 
difficult problems involving the relations of both sectors are 
discussed, but no attempt is made to provide definitive statements on 
the various subjects. Some of these problems are engaging the 
attention of a Commission of Inquiry.ó4 In the past, relations 
between the two sectors can hardly have been described as good, but 
this must not cause one;t'odeny that each sector has benefitted from 
the other. The next chapter deals with land use in the sugar cane 
64. The Commission of Inquiry into "The Existing Method of 
Computing the price of Canes and matters connected therewith." 
This Commission was set up in 1965, but has not concluded its 
deliberation nor investigations, owing to several changes and 
at times ladk of members on the Commission. 
81 
growing areas of Trinidad, and portrays how both sectors are 
juxtaposed spatially. 
82. 
CHAPTER III 
LAND USE IN THE SUGAR CANE iiRCDUCING AREAS1 GE TRINIDAD 
An examination of the history of Trinidad would show that 
development proceeded most quickly in the western part of the country. 
To a great extent this was the result of environmental factors, and 
later of socio- economic processes. Because the conditions under 'A-Lich 
sugar cane can be grown commercia'ly are met mainly in this part of 
the island, because development in the eighteenth and nineteenth 
centuries in the Caribbean meant sugar cane, and because the Trinidad 
economy had its beginnings at that time, it is not surprising to see 
that development took place in the areas that met the requirements of 
this crop. No complete land -use map has been published at any time, 
so that it is difficult to ascertain the extent of changes that have 
taken place since sugar cane was first produced commercially in 
Trinidad, Initially, the crop was planted around Port -of- Spain. 
Later its production spread eastwards and southwards to cover the 
flat western Paria coastlands, the area it occupies at the present 
day. In the latter :;art of the nineteenth century and in the first 
two decades of this century, cocoa occupied parts of the present -day 
sugar areas, but in the years following the depression of the 1930s, 
and in the post -World t;ar II period, cocoa has been pushed further 
eastwards. Little is known ;f the detail and extent of these move- 
ments. Nevertheless, it can be said generally, that in the most recent 
period, except for changes at its boundaries, the sugar producing 
lands of Trinidad have remained on the western side of the island, 
the area covered by the map (figure 17 in pocket). This chapter 
1. By 'sugar cane producing areas' is meant areas on the land -use 
map, figure 17. 
vJ. 
describes the present land -use patterns of this part of the country 
and examines some of the factors which have contributed to its 
present state (also see p. 10). 
Some aspects of the Physical environment 
The sugar cane grousing lands of Trinidad cuver most of the 
western side of the island, from the foot of the Northern Range to 
within a few miles of the south coast. The actual sugar producing 
belt varies in width from six miles, where it abuts on the Central 
Range, to fifteen miles in the Naparima Plain. The area being 
considered in this work is greater than the actual sugar lands, and 
comprises part of the county of St. George and almost all of counties 
Caroni and Victoria. This area is generally about twenty miles from 
east to west and about thirty -five miles from north to south. It is 
formed of the western sections of three major physiographic provinces. 
These are the Northern Plain, the Central Range, and the Southern or 
Naparima Plain (figures 18 & 19). These are flanked on the north and 
south by the Northern and Southern mountain ranges. Generally, the 
areas which comprise the sugar belt are well settled and road 
communications are relatively easy over most parts, except for access 
roads. Almost the entire area is drained to the Gulf of Paria. 
The Northern Plain 
This was the first area of widespread post -Columbian settlement. 
It is composed of Upper Itiiocene and Quaternary deposits of sands 
and clays, with alluvial terraces of Pleistocene age in the north. 
There are two major basins which occupy these lowlands. To the 
east is the North Or"opouche River which flows to the Atlantic and 
is outside the sugar belt. The western areas of this plain are 
drained by the west- flowing Caroni River which enters the Gulf of 
Paria throug., the Caroni Swamp. This swamp is just over twelve 
Fig. 18 
84 
square miles and it "represents the last stage of infillihg of the 
Caroni embayment. "2 The maximum elevation of the plain, about 200 feet, 
occurs on the edge of the plain. Low relief results in considerable 
meandering of the river, and artificial levees have been built along 
the lower reaches to prevent flooding. Flooding still occurs in some 
areas. 
The south -west dorner of these lowlands does not belong to the 
Caroni basin. It is a zone of gently rolling hills drained by north- 
west flowing rivers from the Central Range. 
The Central Range 
This pronounced feature extends in a north -east to south -west 
direction, from Pointe -a- Pierre in the west coast to P3anzanilla on the 
east. It,therefore,has an oblique trend as compared to the other two 
mountain ranges. It has an average height of under 800 feet and 
varies in width from five to eight miles. The Range is of Tertiary 
origin, having developed during the Pleistocene. It is assymetric and 
has a complex and inadequately know geologic structure. All of the 
producing oilfields are to the south of this range. 
At present, erosion is active, but conservation measures Are 
being applied. The western sections, which belong to the si.ar belt, 
are well settled, but the eastern areas are mainly under forest or tree 
crops. Some of the forested land has been used under land rotation 
methods, and it is in these areas that erosion provides the greatest 
hazards. 
The Southern Plain 
This is a peneplain, now divided into two main basins to the 
east and west. It is generally undulating with elevations of 150 -200 
feet. According to Suter "it is urine abrasion surface which has 
2. Suter, H.H., The General and economic geology of Trinidad, HMSO, 
London, 1960, p. 10. 

cut across formations of various ages, and its stage of dissection is 
variable. "3 Some hills overtop the lower -lying areas, tree most 
imposing of which is the Naparima Hill (586 feet) of San Fernando. 
Y.arine clays and foraminiferal marls cover much of the west, and 
interbedded with or replacing these, in certain parts, are some 
shallow, sandy deposits of deltaic origin 
4 
The South Oropuche River drains most of the western basin into 
the Gulf of Paria. This river was used for transporting sugar from 
inland in the late nineteenth century, for which purpose it was 
straightened. Later it became silted, but more recently drainage 
works in the swamp have resulted in canalisation of parts of the river. 
Low hills reach above the swamp level to provide small islands of dry 
land, some of which are settled. :;lost of the sugar cane grown in 
Trinidad is produced in the western part of these southern Lowlands. 
The climate 
Trinidad lies in the inter -tropical belt and, according to the 
Köppen system of climatic classification, it has an Am climate. Aspect 
and physiography are responsible for variations locally, and Trinidad 
has been clan- ified under seven climates,5 though most of the island is 
put under the 'wet- seasonal' category. According to Beard, the three 
main climates are (i) the Seasonal, (ii) the Coastal, and (iii) the 
Montane. These three are divided into sub -ty :es (figure 20). The 
seasonal or 'wet -seasonal' climate is the major regional type and the 
entire sugar cane area falls within this. There is a dry season lasting 
from January to Y.ay and a wet season lasting from June to December 
(figure 21). There are local departures from this pattern, mainly in 
the east. 
3. Ibid., p. 9. 
4. Waring, G.A., The geologm of the island of Trinidad, 
(Baltimore), John Hopkins Press, 1926, p. 25. 
5. Beard, J.3., The natural vegetation of Trinidad, Oxford Forestry 
Memoirs, No. 20, 1946. 
Fig. 20 
86. 
Teerature 
In Trinidad high air - temperatures prevail throughout the year, 
and pose no difficulties for plant growth. The average monthly 
maximum temperatures have a range of about 4 °F, varying between 86 °F 
in January and 90°P in Iay. The average monthly minimum temperatures 
also show a low range between 67 °F in February to-16°F in September. 
Over the sugar areas temperature differences are slight. 
Relative humidity 
Relative humidity is always high. It commonly approaches 
100; at night, decreasing to 60 on a dry season afternoon and 75`rß on 
a wet season aftern -Jon. Sunshine averages six tù seven hours per day 
and there are few sunless days even in the wet season. With the high 
average tem eratureso evapotranspiration rates are expectedly high. 
Winds 
The island lies at the southern edge of the path of the North - 
East Trades, from which direction the winds come in the dry season. 
During the rainy season wind direction is mainly from the .south -east. 
Although not normally subject to hurricanes, for it lies along the 
southern edge of the usual hurricane tracts, Trinidad has suffered on 
various occasions. The last two occurrences were in 1933 and 1963. 
On neither occasion were the sugar areas affected, 
Rainfall 
The seasonal nature of the climate derives from the period- 
icity of rainfall due to a shift in the winds from north -east to 
south- east following the transit of the sun. üsaxima of rainfall are 
in August and :+ovember, the minima in February and October (figure 21). 
(This refers mainly to the western part of the island). The rainy 
season is interrupted by the 'petite caréme', a short dry period in 
September and /or October. During this short dry season the drought is 
less intense than in the dry season proper. In various parts of the 
N
011(18181SIa 
TIdJN
Id2:1 
: QdQINI2:1l 
G
 
N
 
O
 
S 
d 
r 
r 
W
 d W
 
f 
'sul 01.09 
-
 
Ie}ol 
saeaA
 
u
a1 
ao} 
spaoD
aa 
saw
ls3 
iuoae 
-0 
1 
su1 
87 
sugar belt the 'petite caréete' is ued to advantage for quick -growing 
vegetables or for performing cultivation tasks in sugar cane. 
Comparing rainfall over the whole island, one sees that there 
is a general decrease westwards (figure 21). For agriculture, 
however, it is not only the total annual precipitation that matters. 
Rainfall reliability, length of dry period, the amount of rain in the 
dry period and tue incidence of the rain are all important. Rainfall 
reliability is greatest in the east. 'Westwards, as the annual amount 
of precipitation falls, so too does its reliability, and the dry season 
becomes longer and more intense (figure 22). For sugar cane the longer 
dry season makes for the concentration of sucrose and easier transport 
conditions especially in the fields and access roads. According to 
Bain,6 4 inches of rain per month must be regarded as the minimum amount 
for normal vegetation growth in Trinidad. Most of the rain in excess of 
this amount is lost as run -off.7 In the eastern areas, only one 
month may fall below this figure is some years, while in the west 
four or five months have less than four inches of rainfall.. About 
10% of precipitation fall in the dry months in the west, while in the 
east the figure for a similar period is about 3u7h. The average 
figures tend to be misleading, for wide variation occurs from year to 
year in all areas. In the six -year period 1935 to 1940, figures in 
the east (at Mt. Harris) varied between 86.42" and 157.92 ", and in the 
west (at Port -of- Spain) between 50.93" and 90.14 ". Moreover, 
considerable variations have been recorded in dry season precipitation. 
During the dry season of 1951, 32.94" fell and during the same period 
in 1952 only 5.95" were recorded in the west. In the western sugar 
areas the average rainfall varies from 50" to 60" near the coast to 
6. Bain, F.ì,;., Rainfall of Trinidad, Trinidad, 1934. 
7. There are, of cJurse, a variety of complications such as the 
distribution of rainy days in each month, but as a generalisation 
a figure of 4 inches is used. 
EF
FE
CT
IV
E 
R
AI
 N
FA
LL
 
(B
as
ed
 
o
n
 
M
oh
r's
 
Sc
he
m
e) 
So
d 
H
um
id
ity
 
D
ry
 P
er
io
d 
W
et
 
Pe
rio
d 
m
o
n
th
s 
CO
NT
IN
UO
US
LY
 
M
O
IS
T 
n
o
n
e
 
12
 -
8 
W
EA
K 
D
 
R
 
Y 
SE
AS
O
N 
I 
9 
-
7 
M
AR
KE
D
 
D
R
Y 
SE
AS
O
N 
2 
-
 
3 
9 
-
7 
ST
RO
NG
 D
R
Y 
SE
AS
O
N 
4 
-
5 
7 
-
6 
D
ry
 P
er
io
d;
 
m
o
n
th
ly 
ra
in
fa
ll 
2.
1 
iri
s.
 o
r 
le
ss
; 
e
va
po
ra
tio
n 
e
xc
e
e
ds
 
ra
in
fa
ll. 
'N
et
 
Pe
rio
d;
 
m
o
n
th
ly 
ra
in
fa
ll 
4.
0 
in
s.
 
o
r 
m
o
re
; 
ra
in
fa
ll 
e
xc
e
e
ds
 
e
va
po
ra
tio
n.
 
Su
pe
r 
ca
n
e
 to
 w
e
st
 o
f 
th
is
 l
in
e 
Ca
ca
o 
a
n
d 
fo
re
st
 t
o 
e
a
st
 
a
n
d 
so
u
th
 
o
f 
th
is
 l
in
e 
FI
G
. 2
2 
88 
70" to 80" further inland. 'Then heavy rains fÁ11 during the dry 
season, the harvesti.zg period for sugar cane, considerable difficulty 
is experienced in reaping the canes because fields and unsurfaced roads 
become impassable. W.oreover, the estates cannot burn their canes and 
the cane stools are damaged, resulting in lower ratoon yields.8 An 
early onset of tae wet season will have a similar effect, and may even 
cause both estates and farmers to leave some canes unharvested. Drought 
conditions do affect the canes on certain occasions, but irrigation 
is not necessary. Only a s all acreage in the Bejucal area is 
irrigated. 
Soil erosion varies with the rate of precipitation more than 
with the quantity or duration of the rainfall. On steep slopes in 
areas where there is a distinct dry season, as in the western parts of 
the Central Range and certain areas in the :laparima Plains, erosion is 
a real threat to agricultural potential. Soil loss is greatest with 
torrential rain, and there this falls on bare patches of steep land, 
the effect is disastrous. soil is washed away, water retention. 
capacity is lost nd 'flash floods' result, as occur in the Caparo 
Valley. Tne difficulties are, therefore, flooding and erosion in the 
wet season and in certain parts of the sugar belt, insufficient 
supplies of water in the dry season. There have been several 
instances of crop losses owing to flooding near the Oropouche and 
Caroni bwamps. During the course of the writer's fieldwork, severe 
losses came to water -melon and vegetable growers .in the floodplain of 
the South Oropouche River and around the Oropouche Swq:np. 
Soils 
High temperatures and the amount and incidence of rainfall are 
the major factors cited in differentiating temperate from tropical soils.9 
8. This has led to charges by cane farmers that when the estates 
cannot burn and reap their own canes then more adequate 
transport is provided for farmers' canes, so transferring costs to 
farmers. 
9. Eyre, S.R., "pieetation and soils" Edward Arnold, London, 1963, 
Chapter LIV. 
89. 
Within the tropics, however, topography and drainage may be better 
indicators in determining differences between various types of soils. 
E.E.Y. Chenery 
10 
classified the soils of Central Trinidad, which 
include most of the sugar lands, into the following main types: - 
a. Soils on flat land with slow external drainage 
(i) Low flood plains (swamps) Elevation 3' to 25' 
(ii) Intermediate flood plains Elevation 2' to 50' 
(iii) High flood plains Elevation 25' to 75' 
b. $oils of undulating land with slow external drainage 
at elevations of 50' to 190'. 
c. Soils of hilly land with moderate to fast external 
drainage at elevations of 150' to 250'. 
d. Soils of steep land with very fast external drainage 
and at elevations of 250' to 1,000'. 
This classification is based on topography and external 
drainage, for in Trinidad topography is considered the main factor in 
soil differentiation.11 'Steep land' soils within this area are 
widespread in the Central Range only. 'Hilly land' soils are found on 
low hills and the southern dissected peneplain. 'Undulating land' 
soils are found on detrital terraces, mainly in the north. 'Flat. 
land' soils are found on lower terraces, drained plains and swamps. 
Examples of all these are found in different parts of the sugar belt 
and require different responses. The major response has been to 
drainage, and it is for this reason the cambered bed system, the 
modified Louisiana Bank System an the Woodford Lodge System of 
cultivation are used in the flat northern areas (see p. 50). They 
facilitate quick drainage. In the steeply and geat.ly sloping lands 
contoured cultiva ion is used on estate owned lands as well as by some 
10. Chenery, E.M., "The soils of Central Trinidad ", Government 
Printer, Trinidad, 1954. 
11. Hardy, F., "The soils of Trinidad ", Unpublished script,. U.W.I., 
"The factor which has impressed soil formation most in Trinidad is 
topography. Next in importance is time and next, parent rock. Climate 
and vegetation being almost uniform have not been prominent in 
differentiating soil." p. 1. 
90 
farmers. The variety of cane planted is also a partial response to 
soil type. i:.echanisation, pests and diseases also determine the 
variety of cane to be planted on any particular soil. A wide variety 
of soil types are found and sugar cane is plante.c1 on all of them, but 
to a lesser extent on the Piarco and Long Stretch Fine Sands which 
belong to Chenery's 'undulating lands'. 
These then are some of the aspects of the physical environment, 
the ecological framework of which provides the background to the .study 
of its agricultural geography. Differences in soils, topography and 
climate make for some changes within the area, but mainly on the 
periphery. dowever large parts are sufficiently uniform to appear 
homogenSus. Various events in the historical development of the area 
have also caused changes in agricultural patterns, which when examined 
with the environmental controls, account for the differences in land 
utilisation. 
Land use 
An understanding of the present land -use pattern in the sugar 
areas of Trinidad must relate to the historical develópment of the 
industry, which has already been described. From a perusal of the 
available literature it seems true to say12 that the pattern of land 
use was basically established by the end of the last century. The 
pattern shown on the map (figure 17), therefore, is one that has 
existed for a long time in its broad outlines, and has changed only 
in detail. Before exahirling, the land -use patterns within the area of 
the r,ap, it is necessary to place the area in its Trinidad context, 
and to comment on the boundaries of the map. 
12. See Harvey, D.R. op.cit.; Sammy, op.cit.; and Young Sing, G.E., 
The evolution of the present pattern ofricultural land use in 
the island of Trinidad in the West Indies, Ph.D. Thesis, 
unpublished, Queen's University, Belfast, 1964. 
91. 
Trinidad 13 has a total area of 1,192,844 acres or 1864 square 
miles. This map covers about 500 square miles of the western central 
part of tiffe island. Global figures of land utilisation are available 
for Trinidad and Tobago14 (116 sq. miles) combined. They are available 
for the period 1946 to 1959. If figures for the utilisation of 
surface areas are com:)ared for tiffe end years 1946 and 1959 (figure 23)) 
it is seen that the major change was an increase in the area under 
cultivation, compensated by a decline in the areas under semi -derelict 
crops. Another survey15 which so far has produced results which 
relate only to "holdings of one or more acres, excluding Government 
holdings1 16 shows a more recent, but restricted picture of land 
utilisation (figure 24). It presents only some aspects, which show 
clearly that most of the non -tree crop agriculture is practised in 
the two counties, Caroni and Victoria, which form the greater part of 
the map. Most of this non -tree crop agriculture is sugar cane. The 
eastern counties are mainly under tree crops and forest. 
A map of population density (figure 25) also shows the western 
areas to be more densely settled than the east. There are two densely 
settled parts of the island that do not fall within the boundary of 
the map. These are between Laventille and Diego Martin (includes Port - 
of- Spain) and the Point Fortin area of St. Patrick County. Rural -urban 
drift has been known to exist but no exact measurements are available 
as to the extent of this. A map produced in a recent official study17 
(figure 26) shows that the two most urbanised counties of St. George 
and Victoria, have been increasing their populations at a faster rate 
than the rural counties. 
13. This excludes Tobago. 
14. For land use in Tobago, see Niddrie, D.L., Land use and population 
in Tobao, 1961, World Land Use Survey, Ionograph 3. 
15. Trinidad 2,griculturat Census, 1963. 
16. Ibid. Publication No. 3. 
17. Harewood, J. "Estimates of internal migration and of current 
population distribution in Trinidad and Tobago ", in Research 
Papers No. 3, Central Statistical Office, Port -of- Spain, 
Trinidad, 1967, pp. 45 -75. 
nIsed dwems ealy drhire 
Nouvsniin CINV1 
ROM 
eingro0v 
1-1!4N9 
pupi 
pauopueq V 
1 puei 
giniinDP6V 
SISOJOA 
6S61 
CIVCIINI1t11 9V61 
TRINIDAD 
Non-Tree Crops 
Fallow 
Pasture 
Forests 
Non-Cultivatable 
Land Utilisation by Counties 1963 
cres 25,000 5000 100,000 
Fig. 24 
POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE BY WARDS,1965 
TRINIDAD 
751 & over 
201 - 750 
!II 
O 200 
Fig. 25 
N
ET
 
IN
TE
R
N
AL
 M
IG
RA
NT
S 
O
F 
TO
W
NS
 
AN
D
 C
O
UN
TI
ES
,1
96
5 
!b
 Po
rtó
f S
pa
in
 
-
35
.5
 
M
ig
ra
tio
n 
G
ai
n:
 
M
ig
ra
tio
n 
Lo
ss
: 
M
ig
ra
tio
n 
R
at
e 
1:
10
 
Sa
n 
Fe
r 
St
 P
at
ric
k 
-
37
 
TR
IN
ID
AD
 
Fi
g.
 2
6 
92. 
The boundaries of the land -use map 
The purpose of the map is to portray the land -use patterns of 
the sugar producing areas (figure 17). Its boundaries were, therefore, 
chosen with this in mind. The northern boundary, in the county of 
St. George, is arbitrary. Effectively, it is the urbanised area 
between San Juan and Arima, beyond which rise the mountains of the 
northern Range and north -westwards, part of the built -up belt to Port - 
of- Spain. There are only a few small areas of sugar cane to the north 
of the settled strip. The eastern boundary is a line connecting Arima 
with the north -east corner of the county of Caroni. Further east, 
there is sugar cane at Guanapo. The rest of the eastern boundary 
is formed by the eastern borders of the county of Caroni and part of 
that of Victoria county, continuing more smoothly southwards in a line 
which includes nearly all of the sugar producing lands within the map. 
This arbitrary line is continued along the southern boundary into 
St. Patrick county. In general, to the east and south, a border of 
forested lands marks the limits of sugar cane cultivation. The western 
boundary is generally the Gulf of Paria coastline, but in the southern 
stretch is the western limit of Siparia ward in St. Patrick County. 
Only three small areas where sugar cane is grown, Guanapo) Brother's 
Road and Rio Claro, are not shown on the map (see Appendix II). With 
these exceptions, the map shows all the sugar producing lands of 
Trinidad. 
The land use classification 
The classification used is intended to show relations between 
sugar cane and other classes of land use (see Appendix II). It is not 
identical with those used either in the Agricultural Census of 1946, 
or in that of 1963. It includes all forms of land use, but emphasises 
agricultural land use and, within agriculture, that of sugar cane. 
93 
Within the main areas of sugar cane, the tree crops, citrus and coconuts, 
are shown separately. Within the broad forested belt, citrus is shown 
separately, but because there are only small coconut groves within 
this area and they were difficult to distinguish on the air photographs, 
coconuts are shown,here,together with other tree crops and forest. 
The areas shown as 'forest and other tree crops' are covered mainly 
by forest and cocoa trees, some of which are derelict or semi - 
derelict. Pasture and scrub are taken as one class (see Appendix II). 
All cleared land is shown together, whether it is to be used for 
agricultural or non -agricultural purposes. Not all classes which are 
shown separately on the map are discussed separately in the text. 
The land -use classes 
Forest and tree cross and forest with open cleari.nas (figure 27). 
Forest still covers about 40% of Trinidad, mainly in the 
mountain ranges 18(figure 23). When the island was discovered by 
Columbus at the end of the fifteenth century, it was almost completely 
covered by forest. The Northern Range was covered with a four -tiered 
rain forest on the highland, flanked to the north and south by ever- 
green seasonal forest. The evergreen seasonal forest covered most of 
the rest of the island, except the swamps. The areas shown in the map 
(figure 17), were all covered by this seasonal evergreenforest of 
characteristic four -tier structure.19 Only small patches of this 
original cover now survive. In the remai:ider of the forested lands . 
which were not brought under non -tree crop agriculture, either cocoa 
and other tree crops were planted, or small patches were cleared to 
produce food crops. Luch of what is shown as forest is secondary growth. 
18. Annual Statistical Digest, 1967, table 106, p.97. 
19. Beard, op.cit. 
TRINIDAD 
SUGAR AREAS 
2 
miles 
. 
*.c. 
Irk 
Forests,Tree Crops 
Forests with Clearing 
Forests with Food 
Crops & non -Tree 
Crops 
qt,. .. 
r 
,. 
. ' 
. 
. 
y 
(J 
' 
. d ILI. 
\' 
r tl 
d .1... 
r 
,. . 
.- : 
ape. 1,í 
Ir 
.4 
.11 
f A. 
,41 
.;:, 
f 
r 
Fig. 27 
y4 
During the latter part of the last century .rind the early 
decades of the present century, cocoa was planted extensively over wide 
areas which normally experienced more than 70" of rainfall per annum. 
These were mainly eastern and southern areas. Large acreages that 
were put under cocoa were marginal lands not suited to prolonged, 
profitable production of cocoa. The fall in cocoa prices in 1921, which 
was continued in the 1930s, was the beginning of a period of general 
distress in the industry. During the four years up to and including 
1967, cocoa production has been only about one -seventh of 1921 
production of over 75,000,000 lbs. Within the areas of this map (figure 17) 
shown under forest and tree crops, the major cocoa producing areas are 
the sloies of the Caparo Valley, the Montserrat area in the Central 
Range to the east of Couva, and in the areas around Siparia in the 
south. The present estimated acreage under cocoa is about 80,000 
acres.20 Additional land is under abandoned cocoa, for in the 1920s 
the cocoa acreage has estimated at about 250,000 acres.21 Even with 
a rehabilitation scheme in progress over the post -war years, involving 
the planting of new clonal varieties of cocoa, there has been continued 
low production. The highest post -war production was just under 
22,000,000 lbs. in 1956. World prices have given little encouragement 
except from the latter part of 1967. With no international agreement 
on this commodity, a volatile market and competition from larger 
producers, it is not surprising to find that this crop is no longer 
attractive. Diseases and pests also provide problems. Spraying with 
insecticides aid the planting of resistant varieties are producing 
mixed results, with the constant fear that new varieties may endanger 
the prized flavour of Trinidad cocoa. The main diseases are the Black 
Pod (Phytophthera palmivora) and Witches' Broom (Marasmius perniciosus). 
Squirrels and Bachacs are difficult pests. Some derelict cocoa has 
20. Dr aft third five -year development plan, p. 272. 
21. Moll, E.R., Cocoa in Trinidad, Port -of- Spain, 1960, p.1. 
95. 
been cleared and the land put under citrus and coffee. However, 
although no figures are . available, there are still large acreages under 
semi- derelict or abandoned cocoa. Agronomic, physical and economic 
causes can thus be cited as being responsible for the contraction of 
the cocoa lands. 
Much of the cocoa is not in pure stands. Generally it is 
interplanted with coffee. There are about 7,000 acres22 of coffee in 
the entire country. This crop is more attractive now because, 
surprisingly, the International Coffee Agreement favours its 
production. The production quota allocated to Trinidad under the 
agreement has not as yet been reached, and even now a further, 
increased quota has been allocated for Trinidad coffee. Other crops 
that are interplanted with cocoa are citrus and bananas. Bananas are 
specially important for cocoa producers because they are used to 
provide shade for the young cocoa plants. This crop produces a saleable 
product while the cocoa trees are still immature. Koreover, banana 
production is not restricted to any season and, therefore, provides some 
money all the year round. 
The other tree crops that are grown in these areas shown under 
forest and other tree crops, are tonca beans and cashew. Tonca beans 
are used in flavouring aad perfume manufacture, but there is little 
demand for them. This crop occupies small acreages in the cocod areas, 
and in addition there are trees interplanted with cocoa. Cashew is 
grown on sandy soils such as the Piarco Fine Sand% the Long Stretch 
Fine Sands to the south of Arima, and in the Las somas, Ravine Sable 
and Chickland areas. Formerly used for subsistence purposes only (may 
be regarded as a luxury subsistence crop), cashew is now ?roviding the 
22. Edwards, D.T. "Some statistical tables on West Indian Agriculture ", 
1962, quated from Caroni Limited, aua_rterly Bulletin, Sugar and 
the Land, November 1967, Ap_2endix 1. 
96. 
basis for a small internal trade. The nuts are prepared and sold 
locally. Some prepared nuts are ..lso imported. 
The areas of forest that have survived have done. so partly 
because they are on inaccessible interfluvial ridges of the Central 
Range, and partly because much of the high ground is owned and protected 
by the State. Large tracts of forest in the Central Range, namely the 
Longdeuville, the Tr.cNair and Basin Hill reserves, and large acreages to 
the east of Tabaquite belong to the Stag Over the whole country, 
more than 500,000 acres23 of various types of forested lands are owned 
by the State. Relatively little forested land is privately owned 
(c. 30,000 acres). 
As far as their utilisation is concerned, the State forests are 
used both for the protection of watershed areas and for production. 
purposes. Guatacare is used for heavier tasks such as bridge 
construction. A relatively new introduction for production purposes is 
teak. Production of this has more than doubled between 1958 and 1967, 
in which years 61.2 and 126.1 thousand cubic feet were extracted. from 
State forests. It still lies fourth after Flora, Crappo and Olivier in 
volume of production, but while teak production is increasing that of 
Crapao and Olivier has decreased considerably during the 1960s (see 
Appendix III, table 5). Another recent introduction of importance is 
the Honduran Pine. 
In the southern forested areas, especially in the west, but 
to a smaller extent in the east, there are large tracts which show a 
pattern of clumps of trees separated by open clearings. These open 
clearings in the forest are not used for agricultural purposes, but 
mark drilling sites in the producing oilfields. 
A few patches of flat to undulating land, and also some very 
23. Trinidad and Tobago, Annual Statistical Digest. 1967, table 106) 
P. 97. 
97 
steep land, within this forested zone have been planted in sugar cane. 
Such land is found in the Caparo valley, around Tabaquite and in the 
Chickland area of the Central Range. Generally, the peasant farmers 
in these forested areas do not depend entirely on sugar cane (p.205). 
The farmers are usually small to mediux -sized cane producers who 
supplement their earnings, either by working as wage earners on the 
cocoa estates, or by cultivating small acreages of tree crops them- 
selves. This is especially true of Todd's Road, Caparo, Brother's 
Road and Rio Claro. The western edges of the forested zone are 
being nibbled at by sugar cane growers, mainly the estates. 
Generally, it can be said that all the forests and tree crops 
described, are in the east and south. The areas covered are wetter 
than those to the west. Topography varies from slightly to steeply 
sloping. Only in restricted areas are flat lands in western Trinidad 
under this class. Small areas have been cleared to make way for 
land settlements or for sugar cane. Nevertheless, it is true to say 
that these lands, because of climate, topography and inaccessibility, 
all related factors here, will be difficult to bring under. widespread 
sugar cane cultivation. 
Forests with food crops and other crops (figure 27). 
Within the area described above, consisting of the forested zone 
to the east and south, some land is used under land rotation methods. 
The two main areas are the flanks of the Central Range, especially the 
sides of the Caparo valley, and the areas west and south of Tabaquite. 
Thé northern side of the Southern Range and the western parts of the 
Northern Range are other areas that are outside this map which 
experience this type of land occupance. The broken relief and marginal 
98. 
nature of the land, and insecure tenancy produce widespread evidence of 
gullying and soil slip. Some of these lands were abandoned cocoa 
estates and are used to produce both subsistence and cash crops. 
In tae open patches of ground in the forest, crops of ground 
provisions (the local name for root crops) and vegetables are grown. 
The cropping pattern is normally one in which the land is cleared and 
burnt by the end of the dry season. The felled trees are used to make 
charcoal, but this is becoming rare owing to lack of demand for 
charcoal and also the lace of trees of adequate girth. As in other 
areas of shifting cultivation in Trinidad, such as in the Northern 
Range, digging and planting operations take place between May and July, 
depending on the onset of the rains. Clearing is generally done with 
paid help, but the less strenuous tasks of planting and cultivation are 
performed by the holder and his family. A variety of crops is grown, 
including maize, pigeon peas, root crops such as tannias, cassava and yams, 
and bananas, pumpkins, and vegetables such as cucumbers and tomatoes. 
The-crops are generally intermingled, but some cultivators may devote 
plots to single crops. 
Some of these crops are commercialised and find markets in the 
sugar belt towns of Chaguanas, Couva and Princes Town. Cultivators 
growing tomatoes are generally well -placed because the main tomato 
producing area in Aranjuez is low -lying and suffers from drainage 
problems in the wet season, a problem that does not Effect cultivators 
on sloping ground. When their crops of tomatoes are ready for market, 
therefore, prices are high owing to scarcity. Other crops that are 
commercialised are maize, bananas, some root crops and pige,n peas. 
For some of these guaranteed prices are offered by Government (see 
Appendix III, table 6). Cropping may be repeated for two, three or 
four years on the same plot until either returns are too low or the 
99 
cultivator is asked to leave the plot. 
Recently, tobacco has been introduced to these areas. Encouragement 
24 
for this crop came from a local cigarette manufacturer and from Govern- 
ment. This crop is attractive because buying facilities are provided by 
the firm. Contractual obligations are accepted by farmers and the firm, with 
substantially greater benefit being obtained than from sugar cane. Until 
now, the crop has been restricted to sandy loams in the northern forested 
areas of this map. Las Lomas and the Thompson Trace area of the Caparo 
valley are the most important localities. Credit, drying facilities and 
expert advice, are provided by the firm. 
There are certain characteristics which make tobacco different 
from other crops put under this class. The crop is wholly commercial. 
Further, because the growers are under contract if they are to be 
provided with credit facilities, those chosen to grow this crop are 
usually the more enterpria ing farmers who generally have secure 
tenure. The land on which the crop is grown is chosen by the staff 
of the firm in order to ensure that soil and climatic requirements 
are suitable. Fertilisers and bottled gas for drying the tobacco leaves 
are provided, to be paid for when the crop is sold. Net returns 
25 
are about %600.00 TT per acre. It is, therefore, a crop that 
produces a higher net income per acre than sugar cane (table 27) and it 
occupies the land for only four months. Food crops such as maize, root 
crops and vegetables are grown on the same plots for the rest of the 
year. This is generally for commercial purposes and supplements income. 
Again, the education of the farmers benefits. On sloping ground the 
farmers are taught soil conservation methods. Farmers are made to keep 
accounts of receipts and expenditures, which they may have never 
attempted. This crop, too, is intensively grown and, because of this 
24. The West Indian Tobacco Company Ltd. 
25. Draft third five -year development plan, p.278. 
loo 
and the fact that it generates a high income, employment opportunities 
are expanded. The diversification that this crop introduces, the 
educational, financial and employment opportunities provided, are most 
welcome by farmers. If nematode infestation can be prevented, 
expansion seems desirable. 
Citrus and coconuts (included in figure 27) 
The growing of citrus fruit was encouraged as a substitute for 
cocoa earlier in this century. At present, high costs and severe 
competition on the international market affect production. There is a 
local market for fresh fruit, and a co- operative plant processes most 
of the fruit destined for export, although some of the processed fruit 
is consumed locally. There are relatively small acreages of citrus 
within the densely settled sugar areas, because here the crop is 
affected by praedial larceny26 and suffers contraction because land is 
taken for housing purposes. Citrus fruit is easily disposable and so 
suffers immensely fromthe problem of praedial larceny, a problem which 
also affects food crops. Pests and diseases provide further problems. 
In spite of the aforementioned difficulties, the government has 
encouraged production of citrus crops and intends using some Stat e- 
owned lands for expansion27. The main citrus products are grapefruit, 
oranges and limes. 
The total coconut acreage of the country has been estimated at 
between 25,000 and 30,000 acres.28 Yost of this is in the east coast 
area and in the Cedros peninsula. Production cannot now supply all 
local needs of copra and imports come from other Caribbean territories. 
Production has declined mainly owing to the effects of the Red 
Ring disease which has reduced the tree population. Within the area 
26. Larceny related to agriculture. 
2'l. Draft third five -year development plan, p. 275. 
28. Ibid., p. 276. 
101. 
of this map there is a relatively small acreage of coconuts, 
at the northern edge of the Caroni Swamp south of San Juan, near 
Arouca, Chaguanas, parts of the Caparo Valley and to the south of San 
Fernando. In these areas, the effect of Red Ring is not the only 
cause of a reduction in the tree population. As with citrus, coconut 
lands are also being used for building purposes. This is especially 
true near San Juan, Arouca and to the south of San Fernando. Copra 
production in these areas is further reduced because of the demand for 
fresh nuts in the towns. Near the built -up areas, it is probable that 
this crop will continue to decline. A crop, such as coconuts, 
producing a low income per acre cannot retain its place on valuable 
val estate property located near the town. 
It is worth noting that only a few cane farmers have sizeable 
coconut or citrus acreages. Those who do have are generally the larger 
farmers, and these are few. Citrus and coconuts are tree crops which 
require a secure tenure, and this only the larger farmers can afford. 
Generally, production of coconuts is organised in medium to large 
holdings, and citrus in small, medium or large holdings. All rural 
house plots and even some in the urban areas may have a fw citrus or 
coconut trees, but this is only for domestic use. 
Cleared land (figure 28). 
In this western part of Trinidad, cleared land is found mainly 
near the built -up areas, or at the edge of the forest zone. Near the 
built 
-up areas land has been cleared for the acpansion of industry and 
vettlement. Some land which is still under cane is scheduled for 
housing and industry in the north where the Trincity project 
has already started. Near Arima, Chaguanas, Couva and San Fernando, 
land is being taken over. On the edge of the forested zone there are 
a few large patches of cleared land and several small ones (figures 17 & 

102 
28). Most of these have been cleared for agricultural purposes, mainar 
for sugar cane and pasture. Some parts of the Central Range which are 
shown under this class have bare patches of eroded land. Land cleared 
for quarrying is also shown in this category, e.g. Cleared land shown 
in San Fernando, on the Naparima Hill, was forested and is now used for 
quarrying. 
Thin strips of cleared land are shown along the eastern edge of the 
Caroni Swamp, near to Felicity. Mangrove trees have been cleared and 
the wood used for firewood. These strips may be drained and used for 
rice production. Cleared land that exists in small plots cannot be 
shown separately. These plots are usually for building purposes 
and are within the settled areas. They have been included in the 
settled areas on the map. 
Pasture and scrub (figure 28) 
In compiling this map, there was great difficulty in distinguidhing 
between land that is used as pasture and land that is true scrub. 
A relatively small acreage is under planted grasses and this belongs 
to a sugar estate, an oil company, the University of the West Indies and 
Government agricultural establishments. Few individual farmers 
have plots of planted grasses. Both scrub and pasture, whether planted 
or unimproved, are used for grazing animals. The animals are either left 
to graze if the fields are enclosed, or are tethered if the fields are 
open. Generally, there is a divorce between livestock and sugar cane 
agriculture, except for draught purposes (see p.208). 
The areas of scrub within the forest belt are lands which were 
cleared for planting crops under methods of shifting cultivation. 
They are now unproductive and only scrub has been able to develop. 
103 
These are not usually used for pasture. There is one large livestock 
farm near Flanagin Town in the Capa.ro valley, and this land is under 
improved pasture and planted grasses. Large patches of scrub exist 
between Piarcb and Arima. Most of this is on the Piarco Fine Sands 
29 
which cannot easily be converted to agricultural uses. The 
vegetation is a covering of sparse grasses and cocorite palms, Two 
other areas are shown under this class. These are to the north of the 
Caroni Swamp and the Chaguanas -Longdenville -Carlsen Field area. The 
area to the north of the swamp is covered by swamp reeds. This area is some- 
times used by Aranjuez vegetable farmers for grazing livestock. At various 
times in the past, it was also used for rice cultivation. The area near 
Chaguanas (to the east and south -east) was partly under sugar cane 
recently. The section north of Montrose is mainly on Washington Loams 
wh &ch can produce good yields of sugar cane. However, it also suffers 
from dessication. This section is under the ownership of a single 
individual, who has been able to regain the land which was formerly 
rented to tenant farmers. Because of low sugar cane prices, farmers 
were not very unwilling to leave their plots. Some of this land has 
been cleared for building purposes. Further east and to the north of 
30 
Longdehville, poor soils exist on which there are a few groves of 
cashew trees, but such sons can support little more than scrub. The 
largest area of scrub on the map is at Carleen field. This was an 
United States air base during World War II, but has now reverted to 
the Trinidad Government, which has utilised part of it for a land 
settlement. Until 1967, the western part was used by peasant cane 
farmers for growing sugar cane and vegetables. It is part of this 
section which has been used for the land settlement and,conseauently, 
29. Chenery,op.cit., says that "cultivation of these soils has proved extremday 
difficult on account of unfavourable water relationships." P.25. 
30. Ibid.P,26, describing the Long Stretch Sands, Chenery says, "The whole 
profile is extremely acid (pH 3.8- 4..0) and devoid of plant nutrients, 
which combined with unfavourable water relationships, makes these 
soils completely useless for agriculture." 
IVq. 
led to the eviction of some farmers. Others were more fortunate for 
they were allocated 20 -acre farms on the project. Most .)f the disused 
air base, however, is still under scrub, but the projected expansion of 
the land settlement will bring a larger acreage under productive use. 
This area, too, consists of poor soils of the Long Stretch Series. 
Further south, near the Brechin Castle mill, is the pasture of planted 
grasses owned by the sugar estate. 
Swamps and water (figure 29) 
There are two large areas of swamp, the Caroni Swamp and the 
Oropouche Lagoon (swamp). These are both mangrove swamps, and are 
used for the extraction of mangrove wood and the fishing of edible 
oysters. Parts of both have been drained by one of the sugar estates 
and by government. Part of the Caroni Swamp is a nature reserve for 
the scarlet ibis and,as such,is a tourist attraction, providing 
employment for a few beat owners. On the fringes of both swamps, where 
agriculture is practised, this is done so at great risk, for flooding 
frequently destroys crops. Near the Oropouche Swamp this has occured 
frequently in recent years. Impregnation by salt water is a further 
problem. In addition to these two large areas of swamp, there is a 
narrow belt of swap along the coast of the Gulf of Paria. 
The water bodies within this map area are quite small and are 
either reservoirs for supplying potable water to the population, or 
privately owned by the oil companies or the sugar estates for 
industrial uses. Some bodies of water which were too small to be 
shown at the scale of the map have been included in the built -up areas. 
Rice (figure 29) 
Over the island as a whole rice is grown on an estimated 10,000 
to 15,000 acres,31 most of it being lowland rice, usually 
31. Draft third five -year development plan, p. 278. 
TRINIDAD 
SUGAR AREAS 
0 1 2 3 4 
miles 
Swamps 
Rice & Other Crops 
Inland Water 
G 
e, 
Z 
t 
,irgo 
4 '' 
i 
:4,4-4 
rO 
` 
a 
. /IMF s, . 
NIe 
.: 
. 
. ' 
Fig. 29 
105 
grown in small plots of less than an acre. As will be shown, many 
cane farmers grow rice for subsistence purposes. Very little of the 
crop is sold commercially, and over 80% of the rice consumed hastto 
be imported, mainly from Guyana. Because the crop is used for 
subsistence purposes, the mills for processing the crop are very 
small and inefficient. Within the last few years fertiliser trials 
have been undertaken`Oy the local fertiliser manufacturer and the 
University, and new varieties have been distributed. However, small 
acreages, insecure tenure (rice is more frequently grown on land 
that is rented on an annual basis), traditional methods. and low 
returns are problems preventing expansion of this crop. Moreover, 
the fact that imported rice can be bought for reasonable prices 
(usually lower than the price of the local product) has resulted in 
a diminishing number of farmers growing this crop, even for 
subsistence purposes. The difficult, expensive, labour- intensive 
process involved is not attractive. The Government is still 
encouraging the crop, but realises that "a reasonable increase in 
local production of this crop would not in any way preclude 
continuing sizeable imports from Guyana, which is in any event a 
lower cost producer than Trinidad and Tobago. "32 A little hill rice 
is grown, usually as a shifting cultivation crop. 
The two main areas of rice production are the eastern fringes 
of the Caroni Swamp and to the south and east of the Oropouche Lagoon. 
In the northern areas there are nlso smaller patches on low ground, 
especially in the flood plains of the north -west flowing rivers of 
the Central Range, such as the Cunupia, and also along the Caroni 
River and its right ban{ tributary, the Tacarigua. Small quantities 
are planted south of the main Aranjuez vegetable area. Here, as in 
32. ibid. 
106. 
other areas, growing this crop is risky owing to flooding, it 
produces low returns or is used only for subsistence purposes, so 
that with higher incomes from vegetables, the acreage devoted has 
diminished considerably. In Aranjuez, on a limited acreage, rice is 
grown in the wet season and vegetables in the dry season. 
There is a small rice producing area to the west of Carleen 
Field in the low -lying ground of the Chandernagore and Cuesa Rivers. 
Here, too, the acreage under rice is decreasing. 
The other important area is that to the south and east of the 
Oropouoche Lagoon, in a location similar to the lands east of the 
Caroni. Some rice land is along the upper reaches of the South 
Oropouche River, which flows through the swamp, and its tributaries 
such as the Cumuto. 
Over all the areas on which rice is grown, cropping follows 
one of two patterns. Some of the lands are used only for rice and 
thus are in productive use only during the wet season, and remain 
fallow during the dry season. Dessication may prevent the planting 
of another crop. The remainder of the rice lands are cropped also 
in the dry season, producing vegetables and root crops in the 
northern areas, and vegetables and pulses in the southern areas. 
Sugar cane and rice (figures 29 & 31) 
In both the major rice producing areas there are patches of 
land where both crops share an equal proportion of the acreage. 
Formerly these areas produced only rice, but with the post -war 
expansion of sugar cane cultivation, they were partially taken over 
by sugar cane. The crops occupy different parcels of land. Sugar 
cane occupies the land the whole year, but rice takes up only four 
months. During the dry season the rice lands can be used for other 
crops, usually vegetables and leguminous crops, but also root crops. 
107. 
Such areas show a lesser dependence on sugar cane in a manner 
similar to Rio Claro and the Caparo Valley, where tree crops release 
farmers from complete dependence on sugar cane. In these areas there 
is usually a combination of sugar cane on one plot and rice and 
vegetables and /or root crops and /or pulses on another plot. It is 
by no means a system in which crop rotation is practised purposefully, 
but it does benefit to a certain degree from crop rotation. Further, 
it lessens the problem of seasonal unemployment. The major areas are 
Bejucal- Charlieville33 in the north, and Penal -Debe in the south.34 
The lesser dependence on sugar cane is reflected in the larger 
numbers of smalL and medium sized sugar cane producers (figure 13), 
and the generally lower average production per farmer in these areas 
(figure 12). 
Other crops (figure 30) 
This class covers a variety of crops, but of major ir.partance 
are vegetables such as tomatoes, cabbages, egg plant, cucu:ubers and 
other market garden products. Pumpkins, maize, pigeon peas and root 
crops also fall in this category. It is obvious, taerefore, that the 
crops grown in the forest clearings under a system of shifting 
cultivation are also grown in the areas shown under this class. 
The difference is that there is a greater permanency of productive 
utilisation in these areas as compared to the plots under shifting 
cultivation, although not every plot of land in this class is used to 
grow crops throughout each year; over some parts crops may be grown 
only in the dry season, or only in the wet season. Patches of scrub 
or fallow land are interspersed within these areas. 
33. For a description of farming here see Jolly, A.L., "Peasant farming 
in the Bejucal area of Trinidad ", Tropical Agriculture, Vol. 22 No. 5. 
34. For a description of farming here see Jolly, A.L., "Peasant farming 
in two districts of the Oropouche Lagoon, June 1944 -45 ", Tropical 
Agriculture, Vol. 25 Nos. 1 -12. 
 111 
TRINIDAD 
SUGAR AREAS 
j 2 3 4 
Vegetables and 
non -tree crops 
110 
I 
?.r- 'we 
wM . + 
I 
r 
/ r 
. 
:j 
, 
. y,. 
, Vr- ../ 
. 'i' ' r. 
./.4e1 
. ..,,k J , 
- 
e 
.o. 4. -. t r 
, Jr ,' 
f t. . `; /Ar ' ,,. + . 
Fig. 30 
 108. 
In some parts, notably the areas to the south of San Juan, at 
McBean, and along the lower Oropouche Valley, crops are grown mainly 
for commercial purposes, the main markets being Port -of -Spain and the 
urbanised north, the market towns of Chaguanas and Couva in the 
central sugar areas, and San Fernando, Penal, Siparia and Princes Town 
in the south. Kost other producers of these crops do so mainly for 
subsistence purposes, but may have surplus produce which is sold 
either at roadside stalls or in the markets. 
Some of the products included in this class are imported 
during the out -of- seaseon months from other Caribbean territories and 
even from some temperate countries. Cabbages and tomatoes have been 
imported from both these sources. .Within recent years a surplus of 
yams has been exported to North America. Because a large number of 
farmers now depend for most of their income on vegetables and root 
crops, methods of cultivation being adopted are improving. 
Mechanised banking and moulding operations are not uncommon with 
root crops, and fertilisers, pesticides, and improved varieties are 
used in the market- gardening areas. Another group of farmers already 
mentioned, the tobacco growers, who plant other crops when tobacco is 
not occupying the ground, are also making a worthwhile contribution 
to local food crop agriculture (see p. 99). 
One of the major problems of producers of these crops is the 
fact that the market faces alternate periods of scarcity and glut. 
In periods of scarcity, foreign produce is imported and prices are 
very high for both the local and imported products. During periods 
of glut, farmers suffer from low prices received for their goods. 
The reduction of imports, the development of out -of- season varieties, 
the setting up of processing plants, the introduction of a wider 
109 
variety of crops and the institution of proper marketing facilities 
are the declared aims of the Government.35 W'arceting facilities 
and praedial larceny are particularly worrying to farmers and 
undoubtedly appear to affect production adversely. 
Sugar cane and other crops (figure 31) 
This class includes the crops enumerated above and sugar cane. 
All the sugar cane in these areas is grown by peasant farmers. The 
other crops grown are mainly for subsistence, but any surplus is sold. 
In areas shown under this class in the north, especially those 
adjacent to the urbanised strip, production of other crops is mainly 
for commercial purposes (see above). It would appear that, as the 
demand for market garden products grows, mure and more land which is 
under sugar cane may be put under other crops. The present -day 
market garden area of Aranjuez was under sugar cane in the 1930s. 
Today no sugar cane is grown there. Further east, the production of 
market garden crops is expanding. However, because these crops are 
intensively grown, and will take up relatively little land to satisfy 
the local requirements, which are its only outlet, one cannot expect 
a massive expansion of these crops.36 Easy disposal, reasonable 
prices for the farmers and an even supply of market garden products 
throughout the year, are some of the problems awaiting solution. 
Sugar cane (figures 17 & 31). 
This is the major land use. This crop is grown over a wide 
variety of soils under the two systems pf production. 
Land occupied b,y farmers 
These lands are mainly areas shown on the map (figure 17) as 
sugar cane on small fields, rice and sugar cane and sugar cane and 
35. Draft third five -year plan, pp.239 -289. 
36. Discussing the problem of diversification and the growing of 
market garden produce, the 1966 Jamaican Sugar Commission says that 
"the market, moreover, is often limited and quite a small increase 
in the acreage could drive prices down to an unremunerative level." 
P.72. Possibly a similar situation exists in Trinidad. 
TRINIDAD 
SUGAR CANE 
Estates' Cane 
Farmers' Cane 
Farmers' Cane 
& Other Crops 
Fig. 31 
110 
other crops. Not all the small fields are under farmers' cane, for 
in the Forres Park area some estate lands are in small fields, while 
some holdings belonging to larger holdings show patterns of large 
fields, but in general, small fields of sugar cane characterise 
peasant holdings. The main characteristic of the location of these 
farmer -occupied lands is that they are either near settlements, or 
on the periphery of the main sugar producing areas. The effects of 
the latter location are that, it is more costly to transport the 
farmers' cane to the mills because of longer distances and, that by 
comparison with the estates, the land is more often marginal in terms 
of topography. The steepness of the land adds further problems for 
harvesting and transportation. Again, there is a far greater acreage 
of farmers' cane in the south. Much of the farmer- occupied lands 
within the general area producing estate cane, is owned by the estates. 
This was the result of a policy whereby land was rented to workers so 
that their services could be retained on the estates. Another possible 
result of this policy was the profusion of small farmers, more exten- 
sively in the earlier years. For the estates, the type of farmer required, 
was one who could produce a few tons of cane, grow some subsistence 
crops, but not have sufficient land to prevent him from working 
on the estates. The holding must be small enough to make him require 
wage work on the estates (see p.139). There have been rumours and, at 
times, genuine fears that, with the estates capable of growing more 
of their mills' requirements themselves, using less labour, farmers 
will be evicted from estate -owned lands. The degree of truth in this 
cannot be ascertained in a survey of this type, but the circumstances 
do present this posEibility, though the farmers are protected by the 
Agricultural Small Holdings Ordinance (see p.153 ). 
As will be seen, a large number of cane farmers are workers on 
111. 
the sugar estates (table 15) and,hence, have an opportunity of working 
with modern techniques of cane production. They may not have the 
resources to provide the same type of equipment that would permit the 
imitation of all estate practices, but all farmers interviewed, 
whether they worked on the estates or not, accepted that they 
benefitted considerably by observing estate practices. It seems true 
to say that farmers benefitted more from this than from work carried 
out by the extension services (see p.217). 
In terms of land utilisation, it is obvious that the estates are 
more efficient, although this does not refute the claim that there 
are individual farmers who are lust as efficient as the estates. 
However, far too often in the sugar cane lands growing the farmers' 
crops, there is a cover of rather poor cane. This does not happen every- 
where, for some of the best farmers are in the area called the 
Valley Line, which is in the Oropouche Valley. Here, and in most of 
the southern areas, the impression received, during field investigations, 
was that of greater efficiency and better management than in the north; 
this view was supported by the opinion of field officers of T.I.C.F.A. 
There may be a number of reasons for poor management by farmers, but 
among them the following must be important: many farmers do not 
depend entirely on cane; they may not be aware of the best practices; 
they may not afford good management (financially); income from 
the crop has been low for a number of years and hence, it is 
not worth spending much energy on this crop; and lastly, the 
nature of the crop permits maltreatment (or no treatment) and still 
produces a return. One of the above reasons, that of low income, has 
a corollary that farmers are conscious of the returns they obtain for 
their awn or their family's labour. This characteristic is not 
usually mentioned as far as farmers are concerned. In fact, it is 
more often said, in Trinidad and elsewhere, that farmers are unaware 
112 
of, or do not take into account, the large inputs of family labour 
involved in the production of a crop. This has also been seen in 
rice production where farmers found that returns were too low. There 
are exceptions to this general occurrence. Admittedly, these 
practices lead to inefficient utilisation of land, but show that 
farmers, in spite of not keeping accounts, are able to realise when 
they are not obtaining a reasonable return. As is to be expected, 
effort is greatest when prices are high. 
Land occupied by estates: 
The large fields which characterise the estate lands stretch 
relatively unbroken from the far north to the Oropouche Lagoon, with 
a bulge in the Ste. Madeleine area (figure_ 17 and 31). There are two 
major incursions into the east and these are in the south and in the 
Caparo valley. The system of production has been described already, 
and undoubtedly covers the largest area of efficient land utilisation 
in the country. Estate canes are grown on a variety of soil types 
ranging from poor to good. The same is true for all the estates. 
By way of example, the land utilisation of the holdings of the 
largest estate will be described. It has already been pointed out 
that the estates' cultivation cover the flat lands in the north, and 
the undulating lands of the south, generally within easy reach of the 
mills. 
The estate (Messrs. Caroni Ltd.) awns 74,000 acres, of which 
7,800 acres are rented to farmers who grow mainly cane on these 
lands (table 8). Some 1,500 acres suitable for cane is being 
prepared for planting. Of the total holdings over 71% or 52,000 acres, 
are cul'aivated in cane by the estate: If the lands tenanted by 
farmers, those growing estate cane and those in preparation for 
113 
Table 8. Distribution of land held by Caroni Ltd. 
Percentages Agricultural land Acres 
Estates' cane 
Farmers' cane 
52,161 
7,800 
Suitable for cane cultivation 1,454 61,415 83.4 
Other crops: 
Rented for market gardens, rice etc. 266 
Tree crops 259 
Pasture 948 1,473 2.0 
Service Areas 
Factories, distillery, workshops, 
roads and railway 4,995 
Staff Housing, Clinic 594 
House lots rented to employees 836 
Recreation grounds 315 7,740 9.2 
Miscellaneous, including swamp land 3,987 3,987 5.4 
73,615 100.0 
acres 
Source: Caroni Ltd. Sugar and the Land, 1961. Appendix II. 
planting are included, over 61,000 acres, or 83 %, are or soon will be 
producing cane. When one e'onsiders that most of the remainder is taken 
up by buildings or non -agricultural lands such as swamps, and that 
much of the pasture is for grazing mules and water buffaloes used as 
draught animals in the sugar cane fields, it is apparent that the crop 
is grown in a system of monoculture. 
There is no doubt that the estate lands are efficiently 
utilised. A 1957 F.A.O., report on Trinidad recorded that "it must be 
remembered that the sugar estate area, although intensively cultivated 
is naturally poorly endowed for agriculture; the soil is generally of 
low fertility and difficult to drain; in an uncultivated state it 
114 
would appear far less suitable for agriculture than some presently 
37 
uncultivated areas;" The resources of large firms, therefore, have 
been used to upgrade the efficiency of land utilisation. This is further 
borne out by the increase in yields over the present post -war period(figure6). 
The divorce between crops and livestock, except for draught purposes, 
in peasant agriculture will be noted. The use made of the pasture 
lands on the holing of the largest estate is rather similar. The 
estate has a dairy herd of 100 head which supplies its personnel 
with milk. These animals are kept on pastures of planted grasses. 
However, most of the animals owned are water buffaloes and mules, 
used for draught purposes and grazed on unimproved pastures. These 
animals have been used until recently over all areas, but are now 
confined to areas of more difficult terrain for primary in -field 
transport. Animal -drawn carts are used for hauling cane from the 
fields to mobile crane sites where the cane is transferred either to 
mechanised road or rail transport. With the greater use of 
mechanical power, and mechanical harvesting and self- loading trailers, 
there is not the same demand for animal power. One result.of this 
is that the water buffalo is being used as a new source of beef. 
This, together with a small acreage of tree crops, is the extent of 
diversification on this estate. 
Built 
-up areas and settlements (figure 32) 
All the areas shown under this class ( except for small 
kitchen gardens on house plots) are permanently lost to agriculture. 
Housing, industry and communications occupy almost all the areas 
shown. The mapped area takes in just over half the total population of 
37. F.A.O. Report to the Government of Trinidad on the reclamation of 
the Caroni, Oropouche and Nariva areas, No.636, 1957. 

115. 
the island. Generally the eastern areas corresponding to the 
forested areas are sparsely settled. The main areas of settlement 
are the northern urban strip, shown between San Juan and Arima, the 
San Fernando urban area in the south, and the smaller centres such 
as Chaguanas- Longdenville, Couva- California, Princes Town, and out- 
side the sugar belt, Siparia and Fyzabad. The rest of the settlement 
is rural and is characteristically linear (figure 32). This 
characteristic is applicable to all the urban settlements except 
San Fernando and Arima. The main industrial locations are those in 
the urban areas; a fertiliser plant at Point Lisas; the petroleum install- 
ations at Pointe -a- Pierre; the cement factory at Claxton Bay; and 
the sugar mills themselves. There is a dense network of roads 
connecting all settlements and these occupy a considerable acreage. 
The international airport serving the entire country also falls 
within this area. 
The northern urban strip shown on the map was originally a 
string of small settlements situated at the junction of the northern 
range valleys and the Northern Plain. These settlements such as San 
Juan, St. Joseph (the former capital), Tunapuna, Arouca and Arima, 
were collecting points and small market towns. It was along this line 
that communications to Port -of -Spain in the west were easiest. To the 
north of the Caroni Swamp, transportation was sandwiched between the 
swamp to the south and the mountains of the Northern Range to the north. 
Both road and rail transport followed this line therefore. Later, 
because all these settlements were linked by road and rail and hence within 
easy reach of the city, population grew very rapidly. What were 
originally nucleated settlements began to spread along the routeways 
occupying the foothills of the northern range and the terraces of the 
 116. 
Caroni river. The result of this continued east -west expansion of 
these settlements is a massive urbanised area stretching almost 
unbroken for twenty miles between Diego Ia;artin in the west and Arima 
in the east. Now there are incursions in the Northern Range valleys, 
notably the Diego iartin, Santa Cruz and Maracas -St, Joseph valleys, 
the three that are nearest to Port -of- Spain. These perform mainly 
dormitory functions for Port -of- Spain, though,with the spread of 
industry further east this is becoming less so. 
In this entire strip there are relatively few people who are 
cane farmers. Those who are cane farmers still, live in the Arouca 
area and in the south -east suburbs of Arima, towards Guanapo, The 
important type of farming here is market- gardening, which for a time 
was concentrated in the irrigated lands of Aranjuez, but has now spread 
all along the southern edge of the urbanised area. Some valuable 
agricultural land has been lost in the process of urban expansion. 
San Fernando is the second largest town in the island with 
a population of about 40,000, but over twice this figure if its suburbs 
are included. T]is town provides services for its own population and for 
the oil and sugar industries. The largest oil refinery and petrochemical 
plant in the country are at Pointe -a- Pierre, on the northern boundary of 
San Fernando. One of the two largest sugar mills is located at Ste. 
Madeleine a few miles to the east. The headquarters of both the union 
representing the oil -field workers and theaesociation representing the 
cane farmers are located in San Fernando. This ma'es the town a focus 
for both the major industries of the country. The urban population and 
the high w ages of the oil industry have provided an outlet for market - 
garden produce for growers in the surrounding areas. 
There are five small towns within the area of the map, each 
117 
with populations of between 10,000 and 15,000. They provide services 
for far larger populations. Two of these, Siparia and Fyzabad, fall 
just outside the sugar belt and are within the zone of producing oil 
fields. The other three are Chaguanas with the Woodford Lodge mill, 
Couva with the Brechin Castle mill and the main offices of the largest 
estate, and Princes Town near the Usine Ste. Iriadeleine. These three 
latter can be described as sugar towns because they owe either their 
existence and /or growth to the siting of sugar mills. They are all 
almost single street towns, along which activities take place. They 
provide some social services and are also administrative centres with 
wardens' offices and magistrates' courts. They also have cinemas and banks. 
Their main functions, however, are as market centres for the surrounding 
areas. Traditionally, Couva was the more important of the two northern 
towns, but recently Chaguanas has emerged as being of greater importance.38 
Chaguanas possibly serves a larger area than either of the other two towns. 
It catersfor settlements in the Caparo valley as far south as Tabaquite. 
Further south of Tabaquite, services are provided by dio Claro. The 
villages of Las Lomas,Warrenville, Bejucal, Felicity, Orange Field and 
Chase Village, and those settlements between these and Chaguanas are 
served by Chaguanas. Couva and Princes Town both benefit from proximity 
to larger sugar mills and the former from the location of the fertiliser 
plant just to its south. It appears, however, that they are too near 
to San Fernando which provides a greater variety of facilities and hence 
restricts the use of these two towns as service centres. Both are within 
twenty minutes by car from San Fernando. 
The rest of the population within this area is scattered in 
linear settlements along roads and traces. There is a greater density 
over the sugar cane areas than over the forested areas. In the northern 
parts, settlements is usually along the river valleys, but above the 
38. See Rajballie, G.B. Some asr>ects of the settlement geography of a 
Trinidad community, dissertation, Univ. of Alberta., 1966 
This work is a study of Chaguanas. 
118. 
normal flood level. In the southern undulating lands, the roads and 
settlements follow the crests of the ridges. In the Oropouche Swamp, 
there are some very small settlements occupying islands of higher ground. 
Almost all the rural settlement is linear. The disadvantages of this 
type of settlement, such as the lack of a concentrated population 
resulting in greater expenses in the provision of amenities, the 
lack of cohesion and the attendant transportation problems, are not 
discussed here: only those aspects affecting agricultural production 
are considered. 
For an agricultural population, linear settlement of this 
type provides obstacles to improvements in agriculture. This is so 
especially because farmers have not single plots of land, but fragmented 
holdings. This means that farmers find it very difficult to rear 
livestock, for the animals must be taken to and from the fields, often 
causing damage to crops belonging to other farmers, and the animals 
have to be stall -fed at night. Generally, the animals are tethered 
on fallow or waste land during the day and put in stalls during the 
night. The difficulty involved in rearing animals under these conditions 
effectively prevents the expansion of livestock rearing. Praedial 
larceny is also a major problem. As farmers live away from their 
plots of land, they cannot protect food crops from this menace. This 
causes farmers to restrict their planting of such crops to subsistence 
levels. During the survey, the oïinion was expressed on several 
occasions by farmers that "it is all right if they steal, so long as 
they leave some for me." This is an attitude of resignation and is 
directly related to settlement pattern and farm structure. Settlement 
and fragmentation also preclude the efficient use of time and machinery. 
There has been only minimal official restriction to linear 
settlement. A few rather small and unsuccessful agricultural settlements 
119 
were planned, such as Bamboo Grove No.1 and Bamboo Grove No :2, the 
Agostini and Monroe Road settlements. A new land settlement is also 
being developed in Carlsen Field; this settlement seems better designed, 
with farmers living on bigger holdings (20 acres) than were provided 
in the earlier settlements. This settlement is still in its infancy 
and no opinion can be expressed as to its possible success. It may 
be mentioned that one of the main intentions of the new project is to 
diversify agriculture among farmers in the sugar belt. Generally 
though, the linear settlement pattern causes hardships. As provision 
of facilities is expensive, all facilities cannot be provided in these 
villages. This type of settlement burdens the farmers with all its 
disadvantages and few of the advantages of village life. This inefficient 
and wasteful pattern of settlement seems to have evolved from the land 
disposal policy of the estates. The tendency is for these settlements to 
expand along existing lines and the result is greater sprawl. 
Besides the industries directly related to the sugar industry, 
such as the mills, distilleries and a refinery, other industrial land 
users within this area cover a reasonably wide range of manufactures. 
By far the two most important industrial plants are the oil and petro- 
chemical installations at Point -a- Pierre and the fertiliser plant 
at Point Lisas. Most of the other industrial concerns are small and 
are located within the urban areas of the north, in San Fernando and its 
environs, and on industrial estates such as at Plaisance, Streatham Lodge 
and at Omeara, south of Arima. Some industries are located in the 
small towns and villages of the cane belt itself. The largest are cement, 
brick, concrete products and paint manufactures.Furniture, clothing, jew- 
ellery, pottery handicrafts, printing and miniature food processing firms are 
at Chaguanas, Chase Village, Couva and Princes Town. However, the population 
120 
is still mainly rural and agricultural. Turther employment outside 
agriculture for people living within this area, is provided in 
establishments in Port -of -Spain and San Fernando or the industrial 
estates. There is a considerable, but so far unmeasured number of 
people commuting between settlements in the sugar belt and the urban 
centres. 
Road, rail and air communications take up a substantial 
acreage. The greatest density of road and rail links in the country 
are within this area. Railways are now only used for sugar cane 
transport. Airfields are located at Piarco (the main airport), at 
Carlsen Field (a disused U.S. airfield) and at Camden near Couva which 
is used as the base for aerial control of fires and pests by the largest 
sugar estate. It is worth noting that Piarco and Carlsen Field are on the 
Piarco and Long Stretch Fine Sands which are unfavourable for agriculture. 
Camden airstrip occupies very little land on the better Couva loams. 
Connlusion: 
The sugar areas are the most densely settled rural part of the 
island. No sugar growing area can be described as. really remote. The 
,)attern of land use is seen to be one of monoculture of su;-, r cane by 
the estates and near monoculture by cane farmers. The cane growing area 
stretches unbrokenly across the west -central part of the island. Within 
taisv belt is a series of linear settlements, some of which have grown up 
into small towns providing services for the rural population. There are 
also scattered areas of intensive market- gardening and scrub and pasture, 
very little of the latter being improved. Outside the cane lands proper 
there is a forest cover which is broken by scattere' shffting cultivation 
patches to the east and oil drilling sites to the south. There are two 
major swamps, the surfaces of which are effectively barred to 
agricultural pursuits at the present time. Rice fields occupy valley 
lands at the 
121. 
swamp edges. At the fringes of the urban settlements, swamps and 
forests,are patches of land cleared for both agricultural and non- 
agricultural uses. This mosaic provides a synoptic view of a 
situation which developed because of historical reasons and is 
restricted to this part of the island by physical and climatic 
factors. Topography and rainfall appear to be the factors which 
are most important in restricting the sugar lands at their eastern 
borders. A comparison between Chenery's soil map of Central Trinidad39 
and the land -use map (figure 17) would show that sugar cane is planted 
on a wide variety of soils of differing plant nutrient status. Some 
cane is even found on the Piarco and Long Stretch Fine Sands, but 
these are the two soil types that show the greatest acreages of scrub. 
High land values near the urban centres is causing sugar cane lands to 
be taken over for urban expansion or for the expansion of market -gardening. 
Any expansion of the acreage under sugar cane must come fr,;m the eastern 
edges or from the swamp lands, the latter being more expensive to bring 
under production. However, expansion is envisaged mainly from increased 
40 
Within the area as a whole, except for the monoculture of the 
estates, there are different crop combinations which will be discussed 
later, but which can be introduced here. The Aranjuez area now produces 
only market garden crops, but was formerly a sugar producing area. 
Further east on sore of the tenanted lands of Orange Grove, there is 
a combination of sugar cune with market garden crops. A similar 
combination exists at ;,:cBean. On the eastern edges of the Caroni Swamp 
there is basically a three -crop system of rice, root crops and sugar 
cane. A similar situation exists on the fringes of the Oropouche Swamp 
39, Chenery, E.U., et al. Soil map of Central Trinidad, 1:50,000 op. cit. 
40. Draft third five -year plan, p. 270. 
122. 
where legumes are produced instead of root crops. In the Caparo Valley, 
Tabaquite, and the two areas not within the boundaries of the map, at Rio 
Claro and Brother's Road, tree crops and sugar cane supplement each other. 
Over the area as a whole there are farmers who depend mainly on sugar 
cane, but such farmers are concentrated in the central and southern 
areas. Market facilities, physical and climatic conditions are 
responsible for this distribution of crop combinations. It must also 
be noted that, except where rice and vegetables or root crops are 
produced at different times of the year on the same plot, generally . 
crop rotation is not purposefully practised. Sugar cane is grown on 
separate plots from the other crops and for long periods on the same 
plot. Only with plant cane is intercroving of vegetables practised. 
This then is a synoptic view of the sugar producing areas of 
Trinidad. Together with the historical development which has already 
been described, it provides the broad bac'cground against which the cane - 
farming community must be examined. The rest of this thesis is devoted 
to an analysis of the cane -farming population. 
PART II 
2hE QUESTIONNAIRE 
General Observations 
So far this work has been concerned with observations on the 
history and present -day organisation of the sugar cane industry in 
Trinidad. Against this background one can now turn to some detailed 
aspects of peasant cane production. Although there is some 
documentation of the peasant sector, such statistics as are available 
are insufficient in number and type for detailed analysis. Thus a 
sample study, covering 7L-9 farmers, was carried out in order to 
ascertain with some degree of precision the fundamental characteristics 
of the cane -farming population. 
The conduct of the survey and the problems it posed are 
discussed in Appendix I. Here, the adequacy and validity of the 
results will be considered, followed by an analysis of some of the 
factors of production in Chapter V. The two subsequent chapters will 
deal mainly with production processes in the peasant sector and some 
of the institutional constraints which affect farming. The final 
chapter of this part of the work is an attempt to use the multivariate 
technique of factor analysis to view the peasant sector from a 
different angle, and to summarise the discussion. The data used in 
this and the succeeding chapters are derived almost entirely from the 
cane farmers' survey. 
124 
The survey 
The method by which the sar :rile of cane farmers was derived 
is considered in Appendix I. The randomly selected farmers are 
widely distributed over the sugar districts and the sanple is one 
which embraces farmers of varying production'size, wealth and 
education. The survey relates to one year only, 1967, and it is 
necessary to show how farmers' production in this year compares with 
production in other years. For farmers and the industry as a whole, 
1967 can be regarded as a year when production was below average 
(figures 3 & 5). The farmers' proportion of production decreased to 
31.3% from 32.9 % in 1966 and 34.1¡ in 1965 (figure 2). Low prices 
prevailing after the boom year of 1963 were the main cause of this 
decline. The price paid for a ton of farmer's cane in 1966 was 
$10.31TT (C2 2s. 112d). This was the lowest since 1951. The price 
received in 1967 was $11.21TT (.C2 6s. 8-id). The average price paid 
for a ton of farmer's cane over the five -year Period 1564-1968 was 
$11.68TT (r2 8s. 8d). Most farmers consider that prices below 
$12.00TT (£2 10s.) barely cover their costs (table 27). Next, one 
of the two largest mills, the Usine Ste. Madeleine, 's not 
operating at capacity because of the teething troubles encountered 
when new machinery was installed. This not only meant that some 
farmers' cane had to be redirected to other mills, but also resulted 
in increased congestion and waiting at the purchasing scales (but see 
p.64 ). 
If one looks at the total farmers' production for recent 
years, one sees that 1967 production was the lowest in absolute terms 
since 1959 (figure 3) and, as a proportion of total production, the 
lowest since 1957 (figure 2). Average production per farmer was also 
down to 68.7 tons in 1967 compared to 72.6 tons in 1966 (figure 9). 
125 
The five -year mean up to 1967 was 72.5 tons per farmer. however, 
there was no substantial difference between average production in 
each production class in 1967 as compared to the five -year period 
ending in 1967 (table 9). 
Thus, one can see that 1967 was a 'sub- normal' year for 
farmers, but not entirely different from recent years. It would have 
been better to use production over a number of years as the basis of 
the sample, but this proved very difficult (see p.11 and Appendix I). 
The main effect of using the figures of production for a single year, 
1967, is that in this case slightly lower statistics for yields per 
acre for individual farmer's production, and hence for income from 
sugar cane, may have resulted than would otherwise have been the case. 
However, the difference cannot be very great, for a comparison of 
averages from each class for five years with that for 1967, for both 
production and prie received, shows that differences are not 
substantial (table 9). 
A measure used to test the validity of the sample, the 
Carpenter L1 statistical test,1 shows that the sample does not differ 
significantly in its most important aspect, size of production, from 
the population. A mean production of 68.66 tons per farmer is shown 
for 1967.2 The mean derived from the sample is 72.21 tons. The 
Carpenter L1 test showed that the difference of 3.55 tons is not 
significant at the 95% level. Thus, using the major criterion through 
which the sample was chosen, that of size of production for 
1. This is an unpublished statistical test in which L1 tables are 
used for testing whether a sample average differs from some pre- 
assigned value. In this case the pre -assigned value is the 
population mean. The test was originated by Carpenter, R.G., in 
"Tables for instant statistical tests" (unpublished). 
2. Data provided by the Sugar Manufacturers Association of Trinidad. 
126 
Table 9. 
Comparison of farmers' production of sugar cane for 1963 -67 
and 1967 by classes of farmers. 
Classes of farmers Five -year mean 
1963 -67 
1967 mean 
1 = 0 - 5 tons 3.43 tons 5.24 tons 
2 - 6 - 20 " 13.40 " 13.40 " 
3 - 21 - 50 " 33.73 " 33.98 " 
4 - 51 - 100 " 73.54 " 71.35 " 
5 - 101 - 500 " 185.82 " 183.18 " 
6 - 501 - 1,000 " 663.54 " 634.19 " 
7 - over 1,600 " 2,345.92 " 2,305.35 " 
Av. for all farmers 72.57 " 68.66 " 
Source: Compiled from data supplied by SMA. 
127 
individual farmers, it is seen that, with the difference being 
insignificant statistically, the sample should provide a reasonably 
good representation of the cane -farming population. The reliability 
of responses from farmers is discussed in Appendix I. However, it 
is worth noting that in all $31 farmers were approached, 789 of whom 
responded to questions; but that LO of the completed questionnaires were 
discarded owing to serious inconsistencies (see Appendix I), Thus, 
749 farmers are represented in the analyses, giving a response of 
about 90% of all farmers approached. This high response level was 
achieved because of generous co- operation from the Cane Farmers' 
Association and the sugar estates, and the fact that the survey was 
conducted through personal interviews. The distribution of the 
sample according to purchasing points is shown on figure 33. 
Wherever estimates for the population are shown, they are 
derived from the sample statistics. Each stratum in the sample is 
raised by a factor equivalent to 100 for that 
sampling fraction 
particular stratum (table 2). An aggregate is then found for all 
strata and this is used as an estimate of the population. 
As can be seen from the questionnaire, a wide variety of questions 
was asked, but none,except the cost of cutting and transporting cane, 
3 
relates directly to money incomes or expenditures (see p.13). 
Information of a detailed nature on a variety of subjects was not 
asked, partly in order to restrict the length of the questionnaire to 
reasonable proportions, and partly through fear of receiving 
inaccurate answers which could not be checked easily. Such questions 
include details of hours worked, seasonal variation of work, 
3. In addition, a few farmers provided information of detailed costs 
of production. 
INV 
TRINIDAD 
Sample Survey 
of Cane Farmers 
umber of Farmers MerveeeE 
ben of farrows r PurcheeNo Pants 
41 
(.7-) 
O O 
_t- 
O 
O 
666 
0110101.10 
FIG. 33 
i O 
s__ 
I 28 
consumption, income from off -farm occupations, incomes of other 
workers in the same households, and the actual number of hours of 
unpaid labour provided by the farmer's household. Figures of man - 
months rather than man -days of paid labour were collected, but in the 
author's opinion are fairly suspect because of possible memory lapses. 
This type of information can only be reliable if the farmers record 
their expenditure for labour over a year or so. However, in the 
absence of any other measurements, these figures are used. 
As with most samples, the results obtained from this one must 
also be recognised as having inherent error which may possibly pass 
undetected. However, the internal consistency of the responses, the 
agreement of their evidence with the impressions formed during 
interviews and visits, together with the opinions received from 
people in the sugar industry and an analysis of the published 
material available, as well as the test cited above, support the 
contention that the sample provides a reasonable representation of 
cane farmers in Trinidad. Although absolute precision cannot be 
claimed in the results, it is hoped that the main relationships will 
be clearly shown. It is worth repeating that the most reliable 
variable is that of size of production by individual farmers. This 
is because records of all deliveries are kept by the mill operators. 
Even with this though, there are some pitfalls, mainly that a farmer 
may sell sugar cane on more than one contract. He may have contracts 
for different fragments of his holding in the names of various 
members of his family (see Appendix I). Nevertheless, cane 
production must be regarded as the most reliable variable. 
CHAPTER IV 
THE FACTORS OF T_-'RODLCTIOII 
Attention is now turned to a variety of elements which can 
be regarded as the major factors of production. The land, in the 
sense of the farmers' holdings, capital, with the restrictions 
applying as outlined above, labour and management in the person of 
the farmers and their families are the factors considered. Some of 
the most frequently discussed problems of cane farmers have been 
those concerning the lamentably small average size of farms, their 
fragmentation and tenure. 1 Other significant aspects not so 
frequently considered are their location in relation to accessibility 
and topography, which are here considered first. These are 
especially important because they affect transport costs for a bulky 
product, and the greater costs deriving from difficult access eat 
heavily into the profits of cane production. Distance from 
purchasing point and factory is another important aspect of location 
of farms. These are the main characteristics of the farm with which 
this chapter is concerned. As far as the farmers themselveä are 
concerned, the main characteristics considered are the extent of 
their dependence or lack of dependence on sugar cane, on other crops 
and on off -farm occupations, and their age structure, family and 
household size and the type of farm management possible with their 
1. See Girwár, S.N. "The economics of Trinidad cane farming ", in 
1963 -65 Annual Reports of TICFA, pp. 129 -139; and Wilson, T.B. 
"The economics of peasant cane farming in Trinidad ", in 'world 
Crops, April 1954, PP. 135-140. 
2.30 
general lack of proper agricultural training. As was indicated 
previously, no information was collected on actual money incomes, but 
by inference, an attempt will be made to determine the farmers' 
dependence on sugar cane. Some aspects of capital as a factor of 
production will be discussed in relation to equipment owned and 
expenditures for cultivation, labour and transport. Fertiliser as a 
capital input is considered in the next chapter where agricultural 
processes are discussed. The farmers' own and Paid labour and the 
seasonal nature of employment are also considered. 
The Land 
The location and ualit of farmers' lands 
Although no detailed work has been done as regards the nature 
of the quality of farmer- occupied lands, generally it appears that 
farmers occupy relatively poor land. As noted previously, some 
estate -farmed lands are on poor soils, but with the farmers' lack of 
resources and knowledge to improve the productive capacity of their 
soils, the problem is more serious for the peasants. 
From the point of view of accessibility, the land -use map 
shows that, generally, the farmer -occupied lands are peripheral in 
relation to the mills (figures 17 & 31) and much of it is marginal 
in terms of topography and access. It is easy to understand why cane 
farmers' holdings. are located on these lands. Historically, the cane 
farmers were the last claimants for land and they had a comparatively 
low competitive ability for posséssion of the land. Hence,they were 
forced to occupy the generally inferior land. In addition, the 
estates, because of their greater resources and need to have their 
cane producing lands near the mills, came to occupy most of the 
better lands surrounding the mills. Further, with the farmers' lack 
131 
of resources, poor farming ability and insecure tenure, even lands 
that were of good quality would be quickly degraded. Thus the 
farmers' late arrival on the Trinidad sugar scene, their lack of 
resources and inferior farming ability are responsible for the 
peripheral location and poorer lands. 
The peripheral location of the lands also bears considerably 
on access and transport costs and consequently on profits. Even 
when a farmer's plot of land is located near a purchasing point, the 
cane still has to be transported to the mill, the cost of this being 
borne collectively by all farmers through deductions made under the 
price formula. As early as 1933, Gilbert noted this problem and 
found it "difficult to see how a low grade product can stand such 
high transport expenses and still be profitable to the grower 
in particular when carts have to be hired."- 
9 
The distances of the 
main plot of farmers' canes are shown by size groups on table 10. 
This table shows that almost four- fifths of the farmers have their 
main plots within three miles of a purchasing point. However, this 
illustrates the problems in a very restricted light, not Only 
because farmers may have other fragments of their holdings located 
further away, but also because these purchasing points are scattered 
over the sugar belt in some cases over 20 miles from the mills 
(figure 15). The difference in costs of transport from farmers' 
holdings as compared to estates' holdings are correspondingly greater 
when individual and collective costs are taken together because of 
location. In addition, there is the quite sizeable problem for 
farmers who have to transport their canes from four to fifteen miles 
to get to a purchasing point. Farmers in the Rio Claro and Arena 
2. Gilbert, op.cit., No. 84, p. 22. 
T
a
bl
e 
10
: 
D
is
ta
nc
e 
o
f 
m
a
in
 s
u
g
a
r
 
c
a
n
e
 
p
lo
t 
o
n
 
a
 
ho
ld
in
g 
fr
om
 p
u
r
c
ha
si
ng
 
p
o
in
t 
by
 
c
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
(p
er
ce
nt
ag
es
).
 
C
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
0 
-
 
1 
m
il
e 
1.
1 
-
 
3m
il
es
 
3.
1-
 5
mi
le
s 
i 
5.
1-
 7
mi
le
s 
7.
1 
-
9 
m
il
le
s 
9.
1 
m
il
es
 
a
n
d 
o
v
e
r
 
1 
41
.7
 
39
.6
 
12
.5
 
4.
2 
2.
1 
2 
47
.1
 
30
.6
 
12
.4
 
5.
8 
2.
5 
1.
7 
3 
40
.2
 
37
.1
 
12
.4
 
6.
7 
2.
6 
1.
e 
4 
43
.2
 
38
.8
 
9.
4 
6.
5 
1.
4 
0.
7 
5 
30
.5
 
43
.3
 
10
.8
 
8.
4 
2.
5 
4.
4 
6 
18
.2
 
27
.3
 
21
.2
 
12
.1
 
15
.2
 
6.
1 
7 
18
.2
 
45
.5
 
27
.3
 
9.
1 
P
o
p
u
la
ti
on
 
e
s
t
im
at
es
 
'
 
40
% 
37
% 
12
% 
7%
 
2%
 
2`
g 
areas especially, suffer this problem of long distances when the 
scales are being run under a system of spells (see p99 ). For those 
farmers v,ho hire transport, and are located far away from a purchasing 
scale, the cost of cutting and transporting one ton of cane is more 
than half the gross income per ton, and for those who own their 
transport the problem is that the greater distances take a longer time 
to cover. This can mean that a farmer will be able to sell only one, 
or possibly two loads of cane per day. In most cases there is a 
considerable waste of man -power. Thus the marginal nature of the land, 
both in terms of quality and accessibility, further make for uneconomic 
farm units. 
The fact that there are over 70 scales, or purchasing points, 
some of them far away from the mills, has permitted, if not encouraged, 
the growing of cane in areas that otherwise would have been entirely 
uneconomic. In the past, when there were mills dotted over the cane 
belt, cane had to be transported only short distances to the mills. 
The centralisation of the industry's milling sector into six mills 
during the last two decades now means that cane has to be transported 
over longer distances to the fewer mills. This lengthening of 
distances from field to factory has affected farmers more than the 
estates, because the farmers are more peripherally located and hire a 
greater proportion of their transport. Centralisation of milling, 
therefore, has created a situation in which farmers in some cases 
have to pay over half of their gross returns on harvesting and 
transport from field to purchasing point (table 11). 
The result of these two factors, the price formula and the 
provision of purchasing points, is that they provide more farmers the 
opportunity to grow a saleable crop and encourage the growing of cane 
T
a
bl
e 
11
: 
C
o
s
t
 
o
f 
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
in
g 
o
n
e
 
t
o
n
 
o
f 
s
u
g
a
r
 
c
a
n
e
 
fr
om
 
fi
el
d 
t
o
 
p
u
r
c
ha
si
ng
 p
o
in
t 
by
 c
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
(p
er
ce
nt
ag
es
).
 
C
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
N
o
 
c
o
s
t
 
T
r
in
id
ad
 &
:
fo
ba
so
 
5.
01
 
t
o
 
5,
50
 
do
ll
ar
s 
5.
51
 t
o
 
6.
00
 
4.
50
 
&
 
u
n
de
r 
4.
51
 t
o
 
5.
00
 
6.
01
 
t
o
 
6.
50
 
A
.
51
 
t
o
 
7.
00
 
1 
20
.8
 
54
.2
 
20
.8
 
2.
1 
2.
1 
2 
26
.4
 
43
.0
 
19
.8
 
4.
1 
-
 
4.
1 
2.
5 
3 
36
.1
 
36
.6
 
19
.1
 
4.
1 
1.
0 
3.
1 
4 
48
.2
 
27
.3
 
15
.1
 
4.
3 
3.
6 
0.
7 
0.
7 
5 
57
.6
 
22
.2
 
12
.8
 
3.
4 
3.
9 
6 
51
.5
 
15
.2
 
18
.2
 
3.
0 
3.
0 
6.
1 
3.
0 
7 
27
.3
 
27
.3
 
9.
1 
18
.2
 
9.
1 
9.
1 
P
o
p
u
la
ti
on
 
e
s
t
im
at
es
 
39
% 
35
% 
17
% 
O
r
o
 
31
 
2`
 
n
e
g
l.
 
+
I
n
c
lu
de
s 
c
o
s
t
 
o
f 
c
u
t
t
in
g 
a
n
d 
lo
ad
in
g.
 
So
me
 
o
f 
t
he
 
fa
rm
er
s 
w
ho
 
s
ho
w 
n
o
 
c
o
s
t
 
m
ig
ht
 
ha
ve
 p
a
id
 
fo
r 
c
u
t
t
in
g 
a
n
d /
or
 
lo
ad
in
g,
 
bu
t 
n
o
t
 
fo
r 
a
c
t
u
a
l 
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
.
 
135 
in areas which, without the masking effect of the price formula, would 
be too peripheral to produce a bulky, low income crop. This in 
addition reduces the profitability of farms which are better located. 
The better located farms subsidise the transport costs of the farms 
more peripherally located. Rationalisation of the milling sector has 
added to their difficulty. 
Size of holdings 
Today the mean farm size is slightly greater than the 5.4. acres 
shown by Gilbert's 1932 -33 survey.3 The average overall farm size, 
as estimated from the present survey, is 6.5 acres. That farm size 
should increase is easily seen for there are now about 10,000 farmers 
compared to over 17,000 in 1932; farmers' production is about 50% 
greater now than in 1932; and average yields per acre, of between 15 
and 18 tons, were not substantially lower than yields of 17 to 19 tons 
found in the present survey (table 12). If the first four classes of 
farmers are taken together, then the average farm size is only 4.6 
acres. The means of all four groups (table 13) fall below the overall 
mean and these classes form about 80;% of all farmers. Generally, these 
have holdings of 10 acres or less (table 14.). 
Size of holding is possibly the major cause of dependence on 
off -farm income. Just over 60% of the farmers depend on off -farm 
incomes (table 15) and it is interesting to note that almost 60% of 
farmers occupy holdings that are 5 acres or less in size (table 14). 
This does not entirely equate the two proportions, for many of the 
farmers in categories 6 and 7, the larger farmers, also have off -farm 
incomes. A further 25% of farmers occupy holdings of between 5.1 and 
10 acres. Thus only 15% of the cane -farming population have farms of 
more than 10 acres. If what is thought to be a reasonable figure in 
3. Gilbert, No. 84, op.cit., table 37. 
12) 
TABLE 12. 
Farmers' Yields per acre by classes 
Class of farmers Yields per acre Standard Deviation 
1 5.23 tons 5.28 
2 11.79 " 5.90 
3 16.72 " 7.78 
4 19.64 8.58 
5 23.43 " 
8.69 
6 24.66 7.06 
7 22.58 " 8.71 
Population 17 tops per 
estimate acre 
TABLE 13. 
Average Farm size, and average sugar cane acreage by classes. 
Class of Farmer Av. farm size 
(Acre s)(1) 
Sugar Cane Acreage 
(21 
1.36 acres 
(t) ai (i) 
39 1 3.48 acres 
2 4.07 " 1.87 " 46 
3 4.45 " 2.75 " 62 
4 5.97 " 4.35 " 73 
5 12.42 " 9.50 " 76 
6 45.03 " 28.45 " 63 
7 117.80 " 84.91 72 
Estimate of 
total farmer 
holding and 
sugar cane 
acreage 
63,745 acres 42,086 acres 66 
T
a
bl
e 
14
: 
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
 o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
by
 
fa
rm
 
s
iz
e 
a
n
d 
c
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s.
 
C
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
1.
1 -
2.
0 
.
1 -
3.
0 
F
a
r
m
 
3.
1 -
4.
0 
s
iz
e 
.
1 
-
5.
0 
in
 
a
c
r
e
s
 
5.
1 
-
l0
.Ó
 
1 
.
1 
-
15
.0
 
15
.1
 -
20
.0
'2
0.
1-
 3
0.
0 
30
.1
 -
50
.0
 
50
.1
 
-
&
 
o
v
e
r
 
_
 
fa
rm
er
s 
le
ss
 
t
ha
n 
1 
1 
1 
33
.3
 
14
.6
 
16
.7
 
80
3 
8.
3 
12
.5
 
4.
2 
2.
1 
2 
14
.9
 
28
.9
 
23
.1
 
9.
1 
5.
8 
10
.7
 
4.
1 
1.
7 
1.
7 
.
_
 
3 
3.
1 
21
.1
 
21
.6
 
16
.5
 
9.
3 
22
.1
 
4.
1 
21
 
4 
5.
8 
11
.5
 
15
.0
 
20
.9
 
36
.0
 
10
.1
 
0.
7 
_
 
.
_
 
5 
1.
5 
2.
0 
6.
9 
42
.8
 
22
.1
 
12
.8
 
8.
4 
2.
5 
1;
0 
6 
-
 
30
 
18
.2
 
24
.2
 
39
.4
 
15
.2
 
7 
_
 
_
_
_
_
 
27
.3
 
72
.7
 
-
 
_
.
_
.
 
.
_
 
-
 
_
.
.
.
 
P
o
p
u
la
ti
on
 
e
s
t
im
at
es
 
6.
7%
 
15
.7
% 
15
.9
% 
11
.2
% 
10
.2
% 
25
.0
% 
8.
5%
 
3.
71
 
2.
1%
 
0.
7r
 
0.
2 
T
a
bl
e 
15
: 
C
a
n
e
 
fa
rm
er
s 
-
 
T
y
p
e
s
 
o
f 
o
ff
 -f
ar
m 
o
c
c
u
p
a
t
io
ns
 b
y 
c
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
(p
er
ce
nt
ag
es
).
 
(2
) 
(1
) 
(t
om
) 
(5
) 
C
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
64
 
w
o
r
ki
ng
+ 
fa
rm
er
s 
o
r
 
e
s
t
a
t
e
s
 
g
 w
o
r
ki
ng
 
fo
r 
o
t
he
r 
fa
rm
er
s 
% 
w
o
r
ki
ng
 
p
a
r
t
 -t
im
e 
o
n
 
p
u
bl
ic
 
p
r
o
 i
ec
ts
 
% 
in
 f
ul
l-
 
t
im
e 
jo
bs
 
t
in
 s
e
lf
- 
e
m
p
lo
ym
en
t 
in
 
fu
ll
- 
bi
me
 
a
g
r
i-
 
c
u
lt
ur
e 
`
:
 
°
W
n
e
m
p
lo
v-
 
e
d 
fo
r 
3m
th
s 
o
r
 
m
o
r
e
 
1 
16
.7
 
10
.4
 
10
.4
 
8.
3 
27
.1
 
12
.5
 
14
.6
 
2 
17
.4
 
13
.2
 
12
.4
 
14
.0
 
5.
9 
23
.1
 
14
.0
 
3 
12
.3
 
11
.3
 
9.
8 
9.
3 
8.
9 
34
.0
 
14
.4
 
4 
12
.2
 
8.
6 
2.
9 
7.
9 
10
.8
 
43
.9
 
13
.7
 
5 
2.
5 
2.
0 
2.
0 
3.
0 
17
.6
 
65
.0
 
7.
9 
6 
3.
0 
6.
1 
42
.4
 
45
.5
 
3.
0 
7 
_
.
 
_
 
63
.6
 
34
.4
 
_
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
P
o
p
u
la
ti
on
 
e
s
t
im
at
es
 
12
.0
% 
9.
4%
 
7.
7%
 
9.
0%
 
11
.5
`'
 
37
.5
% 
12
.9
0 
+
T
ho
se
 
fa
rm
er
s 
w
ho
 w
o
r
k 
fo
r 
s
u
g
a
r
.
 e
s
t
a
t
e
s
 
in
 a
n
y
 
c
a
p
a
c
it
y 
in
cl
ud
in
g 
t
he
 
c
a
r
t
in
g 
o
f 
e
s
t
a
t
e
s
'
 
c
a
n
e
s
 
o
n
 
e
s
t
a
t
e
s
'
 
o
r
 
fa
rm
er
s'
 
c
a
r
t
s
.
 
terms of farm size is used, that of 20 acres, then a further 12_'i> of 
cane farmers fall within this range. Thus One sees that about 97% 
of farmers occupy holdings of 20 acres or less. The 1963 Trinidad 
Agricultural Census showed that 93.3% of occupiers (for all forms of 
agriculture, but not including government departments) were on 
holdings of 24 acres or less (figure 34). The problem of farm size 
is, therefore, one which spreads beyond the su_;ar industry. Farm 
size is thus an important factor responsible for the vast proportion 
of farmers who supply small tonnages of cane. Admittedly, there are 
other factors, mainly the distribution of improved varietal types and 
cultivation practices which further account for low production. Yet, 
when farra size is again considered in terms of yields per acre, one 
sees that the smaller farmers also have the lowest yields per acre, so 
that size of farm and yield per acre seem to be directly related 
(table 12). 
It has been pointed out that the development of cane farming 
was never planned except for contigency planning during the Great 
Depression and during and just after World War II, and that no. 
determined attempt has ever been rcade to increase farm size. The 
farmers depended, as they still do, on the estates to process their 
cane. It was the double requirements of the estates, those of the 
demand for the farmers' labour and for the farmers' cane, that affected 
not only the growth of the peasant sector, but also farm size, because 
in the early stages of development of cane farming, farmers were 
generally tenants of estates. During periods of depression farmers 
were encouraged to grow more cane, but during periods of prosperity 
their labour was required on the estates.5 Because of this, the 
4. Agricultural Census 1963, Publication No. 3, table 1.1, p..1. 
5. Girwar, op.cit., p. 135. 
TR
IN
ID
AD
 
Ac
re
s 
10
0 
a
n
d 
o
ve
r 
50
 
-
 
99
 
25
 
-
 
49
 
10
 
-
 
24
 
5 
-
 
9 
1 
-
 
4 
N
UM
BE
R 
O
F 
H
O
LD
IN
G
S 
BY
 
CO
UN
TY
 
AN
D
 
BY
 
H
O
LD
IN
G
 
SI
ZE
 
19
63
 
Fi
g.
 
34
 
1'_a 
estates encouraged the small part -time farmer, and was against the 
larger farmers who could compete with the estates for labour. The 
result was the preponderance of small farmers in the Trinidad sugar 
industry. This has become decreasingly so (figure 10), but neverthe- 
less remains true. Unplanned growth, the requirements of the estates 
and the meagre resources of the peasants, then, have been responsible 
for the small size of cane farms. 
From the inadequacy of farm size flow many of the problems of 
cane farming; a low income, bulky crop on a small holding is not 
conducive to full -time employment on a farm, making dependence on off - 
farm income inevitable for many farmers. Yet the problems are made 
even more difficult by other constraints such as the degree of 
fragmentation that exists. Before this is discussed, some consideration 
is given to the proportions of holdings under different crops. 
Acreages of sugar cane and other crops on holdings 
The relative iroortance of sugar cane on farms as compared to 
other crops is very great (table 13). It is seen that, except for the 
farmers in the two smallest categories, most farmers have more than 
600 of their holdings under sugar cane. Overall, 93% of the farmers 
claimed that sugar cane was their most important crop (table 16). A 
global estimate shows that from a possible 64,000 acres comprising 
farmers' holdings, about 42,000 acres, or 66% of the land, is devoted 
to sugar cane (table 13). This finding is not very dissimilar to the 
62¡ found by Gilbert in his survey in 1932.6 It is also shown how 
the proportion of land in sugar cane differs in the various classes 
and how the dependence on sugar cane appears to increase with size of 
production. Thus sugar cane is the major agricultural enterprise for 
6. Gilbert, No. 84, op.cit., p. 31. 
141 
Table 16. 
Farmers who claim sugar cane to be their main enterprise 
by classes of farmers (percentages). 
Classes of farmers % with sugar cane as 
main enterprise 
1 79.2 
2 85.1 
3 95.4 
4 99.3 
5 98.0 
6 97.0 
7 100.0 
Population estimate 93% 
142 
over nine- tenths of the farmers growing the crop and it becomes 
increasingly so with the larger farmers, except those selling over 
500 tons of cane. A drop is shown here in the proportion of land 
under sugar cane because these large producers have been able to buy 
small acreages of tree crops, or must utilise some of their land for 
pasturing animals used for in -field transport. The table shows that 
more farmers in the two lowest production categories claim that sugar 
cane is not their main crop (table 16) . Only 3;a of the farmers 
selling more than 20 tons of cane indicated that other crops provided 
more important enterprises. For the two lowest categories the 
proportion is about 16;. , that is, 16 of the farmers claimed that 
sugar cane was not their main commercial agricultural enterprise. 
These were usually farmers who grew either tree crops or vegetables. 
Other relevant points are, that an estimated 42% of all 
farmers have either no acreage or less than half an acre under 'other 
crops', which include all crops except sugar cane and tree crops 
(table 17) . In all, some 97 of farmers have from 0 to 5.4 acres 
under 'other crops', but about 88% are within the range of 0 to 2.4 
acres. Very few farmers have more than 5 acres under 'other crops' 
and all have less than 25 acres. 'Other crops', or non -tree crops, 
are fairly widespread on cane farmers' holdings, but occupy only 
small acreages and are mainly for subsistence purposes. Only near the 
urban areas and in the Bejucal -Charlieville, Debe- Penal, McBean and 
Orange Grove areas are non -tree crops of commercial significance 
(figure 35). Only one -third of farmers grow other crops, including 
tree crops, commercially. It is apparent, therefore, that for the 
majority of farmers sugar cane is the main crop, but that for most it 
is not a big enough enterprise to provide full employment and 

T
a
bl
e 
17
: 
A
c
r
e
a
g
e
s
 
u
n
de
r 
'
o
t
he
r 
c
r
o
p
s
'
 
o
r
 
n
o
n
 -
t
r
e
e
 
c
r
o
p
s
,
n
o
t
 
in
cl
ud
in
g 
s
u
g
a
r
 
c
a
n
e
,
 
by
 c
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
(p
er
ce
nt
ag
es
).
 
C
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
A
c
r
e
s
 
0 
-
0.
4 
0.
5 
-
1.
4 
1.
5 
-
2.
4 
2.
5 
-
3.
4 
3.
5 
-
4.
4 
4.
5 
-
5.
4 
5.
5 
a
n
d 
o
v
e
r
 
M
e
a
n
s
 
St
an
da
rd
 
de
vi
at
io
ns
 
1 
56
.3
 
22
.9
 
12
.5
 
4.
2 
2.
1 
2.
1 
0.
75
 
1.
18
 
2 
42
.1
 
33
.1
 
17
.4
 
3.
3 
2.
5 
-
 
1.
6 
1.
02
 
2.
02
 
3 
43
.8
 
34
.0
 
11
.9
 
6.
7 
0.
5 
-
 
1.
5 
1.
5 
0.
89
 
1.
57
 
4 
39
.6
 
32
.4
 
18
.7
 
4.
3 
3.
6 
0.
7 
0.
7 
0.
99
 
1,
32
 
5 
39
.4
 
27
.6
 
13
.8
 
8.
9 
3.
0 
1.
5 
5.
9 
1.
32
 
1.
92
 
6 
30
.3
 
27
.3
 
21
.2
 
9.
1 
6.
1 
6.
0 
2.
20
 
4.
34
 
7 
63
.6
 
18
.2
 
18
.2
 
-
 
0.
54
 
0.
12
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
P
o
p
u
la
ti
on
 
e
s
t
im
at
es
 
42
% 
32
% 
15
% 
6%
 
2%
 
1%
 
2`
 
144 
reasonable incomes, resulting in many part -time farmers (figure 36 and 
tables 15 & 26). The distribution of part -time farmers shows that 
such farmers are found almost everywhere in the sugar growing areas, 
but that there are concentrations near the urban areas in the north, 
in the central areas near the mills and near San Fernando, where some 
find part -time occupations in the town or on the sugar estate. The 
occurrence of part -time farming is so widespread that location as 
a factor seems to be weaker than size of holding. Where both 
factors are evident, then, there is a greater concentration of part - 
time or non -full -time farmers. 
It must be noted also that tree crops are relatively unimportant 
among cane farmers (figure 37 and table 19). About 90 1g of farmers 
have no tree crops on their holdings. Only in those few parts of 
the sugar areas, where tree crops and 'other crops' assume commercial 
significance, are cane farmers also dependent on other agricultural 
enterprises. Very few have such crops as their main enterprises 
(figure 3$). It has already been noted that in those areas where 
farmers grow crops other than sugar cane for commercial purposes, the 
average production per farmer is generally lower (figure 12). This is 
related to farm size because,with farms being small, if more land is 
devoted to one crop it will be only if the acreage under another crop 
is reduced or taken over entirely. 
Fragmentation 
Fragmentation of holdings is very widespread. In many cases 
between five and eight fragments make up a farm of less than 15 acres 
(table 20). As is to be expected, the majority of farmers in the first 

 CANE FARMERS 
Numbers 
of 
Farmers 
15 
ILrclasmqM 1 
ä 
_ o Q 
--_ p 0 
FIG. 37 
a 
TRINIDAD 
CANE FARMERS 
01 
Farmers 
PorCMsmp Poil 
-? _ y _7 
C7 
BC 
9 
PERCENTAGE OF 
MAIN CROP NOT 
SUGAR CNTE 
52 
a 
so 
9 
15 
a 
51 
'..., _ ci0 
FIG.38 
145 
Table 1$. 
Farmers who grow other crops commercially by classes of 
farmers (percentages). 
Classes of farmers % who grow other crops 
commercially 
1 37.5 
2 37.2 
3 34.0 
4 30.2 
5 30.0 
6 30.3 
7 18.2 
Population estimate 33.5% 
146 
Table 19. 
Acreages under tree crops by classes of farmers (percentages). 
Classes of 
farmers 
None Acres 
1 - 5 6 - 10 11 and over 
1 91.7 2.1 2.1 4.2 
2 93.4 3.3 0.8 2.5 
3 90.2 8.2 1.0 0.5 
4 86.3 10.8 2.9 5.0 
5 88.7 7.4 1.0 3.0 
6 75.8 9.1 3.0 12.1 
7 63.6 9.1 9.1 18.2 
Population 
estimates 
90% 7% 1% 2 
T
a
bl
e 
20
: 
N
u
m
be
rs
 
o
f 
fr
ag
me
nt
s 
o
n
 
ho
ld
in
gs
 
by
 
c
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
(p
er
ce
nt
ag
es
).
 
C
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
N
u
m
be
rs
 
o
f 
fr
ag
me
nt
s 
fa
rm
er
s 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
a
n
d 
o
v
e
r
 
1 
62
.5
 
29
.2
 
4.
2 
4.
2 
2 
43
.0
 
37
.2
 
14
.9
 
3.
3 
1.
7 
3 
32
.5
 
36
.6
 
19
.6
 
8.
2 
1.
0 
0.
5 
1.
0 
0,
5 
4 
20
.1
 
33
.1
 
28
.8
 
10
.8
 
4.
3 
0.
7 
1.
11
 
0.
7 
5 
9.
9 
22
.7
 
22
.7
 
17
.2
 
1.
9 
12
.3
 
5.
4 
_
 
0.
5 
0.
5 
6 
6.
1 
3.
0 
12
.1
 
18
.2
 
21
.2
 
6.
1 
11
.2
 
6.
1 
9.
1 
7 
9.
1 
9.
1 
18
.2
 
18
.2
 
9.
1 
18
.2
 
18
.2
 
14.8 
category, 62.5% have compact holdings. The other categories show a 
decreasing proportion with compact holdings and, not only an 
increasing number of farmers with fragmented holdings, but also an 
increasing number of fragments. Moreover, not all farmers who farm 
compact holdings live on the farms. Many live on small house plots 
in the villages. The same is also true of farmers who have several 
fragments, that mot only do they farm fragmented holdings, but that 
they may also live in the villages entirely away from any of the 
fragments. This is reflected in the settlement pattern already 
discussed and depicted on the land -use map. The mean farm size and 
average number of fragments of land which constitute holdings are 
shown on table 21 and provide another measure of the extent of 
fragmentation. 
The consequences of fragmentation, which are experienced in other parts 
of the world, also apply here. Farming techniques that can be carried 
out on a single parcel of 15 acres cannot be undertaken on a highly 
fragmented holding of similar acreage. There is inefficient use 
of time and greater problems in transporting tools and fertiliser 
to the several fragments. Moreover, the greatest advantage that is 
claimed for peasant farming, that of close supervision, is lost on 
a fragmented holding. As has already been mentioned (p.109), 
praedial larceny is a serious problem. Although the State is 
instituting legislation to remove this problem, the fact that 
so many farmers live away from their holdings, militates against 
the eradication of this practice. Because food crops for local 
consumption,rather than sugar cane,are subjected to larceny, it may 
also be true to say that fragmented holdings effectively prevent the 
greater production of food crops. There is, however, one unusual, but 
14; 
TABLE 21. 
Mean farm size, number of fragments, and size of fragments by classes . 
of farmers. 
Classes of farmers Mean farm 
size (Acres) 
Number of 
fragments 
Mean size of 
fragments 
(Acres) 
1 3.48 1.46 2.38 
2 4.07 1.86 2.19 
3 4.45 2.17 2.05 
4 5.97 2.60 2.30 
5 12.42 3.56 3.49 
6 8.64 
7 117.8u 4.73 24.90 
Population 
estimate 
6.5 
150 
important advantage which fragmentation brings. This derives from the 
nature of sugar cane as a crop which has a considerable amount of dry 
foliage that can be easily set on fire. During the survey, several 
farmers, when asked if they preferred to have their entire holding in 
one arcel, rejected this idea vehemently. They said that they were 
prepared to waste time moving from one fragment to another, to accept 
a misuse of equipment, to stand higher transport costs and even to 
permit some of their food crops to be stolen, but that they could not 
stand the risk of all their cane being burnt at the same time, which 
is a distinct possibility with a compact holding. They are aware that 
they do not have the resources that are at the disposal of the estates 
to remove burnt cane before deterioration takes place. This is a 
genuine fear which can only be allayed if adequate safeguards are 
provided. Admittedly, the fact that with a compact holding a farmer 
will be living on the farm and so could contain a fire at an early 
stage does minimise the risk, but does not alleviate it entirely. One 
instance in which fragmentation may be unavoidable and thus acceptable, 
is when rice or some other crop which may have different requirements, 
is grown by a farmer on land that meets the demands of the crop. 
Fragmentation is thus a serious problem and there is possibly 
as great a need to consolidate holdings, as there is to increase farm 
size. This will not only make for more efficient farming, but will 
also encourage diversification into food crop production and livestock 
rearing, for the now prevalent praedial larceny can be arrested 
because of the closer supervision. However, the potential danger that 
consolidation of holdings will bring, that of cane fires and the 
consequent necessity to dispose of burnt cane before sucrose inversion 
takes place, could possibly result in ruin to farmers and must be 
151 
provided for. It is worth noting that fires are most likely to occur 
in the dry season when cane is ready for harvesting. 
Tenure. 
The survey showed that only 15% of farmers own all their land 
(table 22). As is to be expected, the highest proportion of such 
farmers is in the largest production category, but even among these 
farmers only 14_5.5g claimed complete ownership of their holdings. The 
same proportion rented land from private landlords. In all the other 
categories, varying proportions from one -fifth to one -eigth of the 
farmers own their entire holdings. With almost 852?.) of farmers being 
tenants of various types, it is obvious that security of tenure is 
another problem which has inhibited the development of the small farm, 
at least until recently. 
Up to 1961, the tenure of the cane farmer was regarded as 
being generally insecure. The two Ordinances, The Sugar Cane Small 
Holdings Ordinance Ch. 23, No. 11, 1928, and The Rents of Small 
Agricultural Holdings Ordinance Ch. 23, No. 20, 1943, which operated 
simultaneously after 1943, failed to give protection or adequate 
compensation to tenant cane farmers. The need for secure tenancies 
in order to improve farming practices and encourage better utilisation 
of the land was acknowledged by the State after the recommendations 
of the Ward Report,7 and a new ordinance, No. 32 of 1961, known as 
the Agricultural Small Holdings Tenure Ordinance, is now in effect. 
The major provisions are that tenancies are to be for a period of 
five years, renewable for up to a maximum of twenty years; tenants 
can be dispossessed for failure to practice good husbandry; in cases 
7. Report of the Ward committee on the securit of land tenure, 1958, 
Trinidad. 
T
a
bl
e 
22
: 
T
e
n
u
r
e
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s'
 
ho
ld
in
gs
 b
y 
c
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
(p
er
ce
nt
ag
es
).
 
C
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
F
a
r
m
e
r
s
 
_
 
% 
E
s
t
a
t
e
s
'
 
t
e
n
a
n
t
s
 
b 
T
e
n
a
n
t
s
 
o
f 
o
t
he
r 
la
nd
 - 
lo
rd
s 
% 
T
e
n
a
n
t
s
 
o
f 
bo
th
 e
s
t
a
t
e
s
 
la
nd
lo
rd
s 
% 
w
ho
 
o
w
n
 
e
n
t
ir
e 
ho
ld
in
g 
1 
22
.9
 
52
.1
 
4.
2 
20
.8
 
2 
28
.9
 
44
.6
 
5.
8 
20
.7
 
3 
30
.4
 
46
.9
 
9.
8 
12
.9
 
4 
30
.9
 
44
.6
 
12
.2
 
12
.2
 
5 
30
.0
 
42
.4
 
14
.8
 
12
.8
 
6 
3.
0 
45
.5
 
23
.3
 
18
.2
 
7 
9.
1 
45
.5
 
I
 
45
.5
 
-
 
P
o
p
u
la
ti
on
 
e
s
t
im
at
es
 
29
% 
46
% 
10
`'
 
15
% 
153 
of termination of tenancies the tenant will be compensated for the 
"unexpired value "8 of the permanent improvements made as well as for 
the crops; for certain tenancies, the loan provisions of the 
Agricultural Credit Bank Ordinance will be applicable. Unfortunately, 
there appears to have been relatively little improvement in farming 
techniques as a result of more secure tenure since the Orrl-ihance has 
been in force. This failure can well be due to lack of integrated 
development of all aspects of agriculture including credit and, 
especially, as the work of the extension services among cane farmers 
seems to have been negligible (see p.217). Generally it was found 
that the majority of farmers were unaware of the provisions of the 
Agricultural Small holdings Tenure Ordinance. 
In terms of the length of tenancies for sugar cane and other 
crops, it was found that most of the farmers who grew rice rented land 
on an annual basis, but that sugar cane lands were held for longer. 
periods. This was also found to be the case in the Oropouche Lagoon 
survey of 1944 -1+5.9 A few cases of farmers who were squatting on 
Crown Lands were found, but as far as sugar cane is concerned, this 
practice does not appear to be very widespread. Generally, although 
farmers are fearful as far as security of tenure is concerned, 
the Agricultural Small Holdings Tenure Ordinance has alleviated many 
of their fears, but the farmers are not all aware of their rights. 
The farmers 
Some of the major physical constraints which affect farming 
have been outlined, but there are some which may be regarded as partly 
8. Ward Report, op.cit. quoted in TICFA, Annual Reports 1957 -1959, 
p. 30. 
9. Jolly, 1944-45, op.cit. 
1524. 
deriving from the _uhysical constraints and others which may be 
regarded as characterising the farmer rather than the holding. 
Reference will be made to the extent of the farmers' dependence on 
Agriculture as a whole and especially on sugar cane. These partly 
derive from the physical problems. Consideration is also given to the 
age structure of farmers, family and household size, and the extent 
of illiteracy among farmers. 
Dependence on sugar cane and other activities 
Of 13,000 farmers analysed by Gilbert in 1932 
-33, only 12% 
were found to be entirely dependent on cane -farming and, generally, 
the proportion of full -time farmers showed increases in the higher 
production classes.10 Although in the present survey it was not 
possible to obtain infolmation of this type, it is possible to infer 
from other information collected that even now, this proportion has 
not changed considerably. In 1967, only 18.7% of all farmers, or 
1,842 in number, supplied more than 100 tons of cane (table 1) . It 
is assumed that none or only insignificant numbers of those who sell 
less than 100 tons of cane depend only on cane for their income. In 
the three categories of farmers who sell above 100 tons of cane, 
over 2Q in each of the classes do not spend any time at all on other 
crops (table 25) and about 30% grow 'other crops' and tree crops 
commercially (table 18). Most of the farmers who grow other crops are 
occupied on these for only three months, and only 1% are so occupied 
for over six months. Thus it is apparent that, while sugar cane is 
the main enterprise of all these larger farmers, some still have other 
agricultural enterprises or other sources of income. Some 19% of the 
three classes combined obtain incomes from other businesses or self- 
10. Gilbert, op.cit., p. 19. 
155 
employment, but very few have outside occupations. In all, 85% of 
these three groups are self- employed either full -time on their farms 
or in other businesses of their own. 
At best, farm incomes for these larger producers will be 
twice that obtained from sugar cane, but normally is only just above, 
for 7C% of the farmers do not grow other crops for sale. If the figure 
of 70 of the farmers in these three groups is taken as the highest 
possible proportion who depend. solely on sugar cane, then, globally 
this amounts to 13% of the cane- farming population. Even among these 
some obtain incomes from other sources. It still seems true, therefore, 
that the proportion of farmers who depend solely on 'sugar cane for a 
living has not changed considerably from that found in the Gilbert 
survey. 
The length of time spent by farmers on their holdings, on 
sugar cane and on other crops also provides some indication of their 
dependence on off -farm income (tables 23,24 & 25). It is apparent 
that the time spent on the farm increases with the size of production 
of sugar cane, and consequently with. farm size. For all other crops 
the time spent is quite short for all categories and is generally less 
than three months. ?,hen one looks at tlose who are full -time farmers 
(table 15 col. 6) it is seen that about 38 of the farmers are occupied 
all the time on their farms. One sees that again the proportion 
increases with size of production, except for classes 6 and 7, where 
other businesses take up the farmers' time. 
So far the discussion has applied mainly to those farmers who 
sold over 100 tons of cane, because these are the farmers who can 
possibly obtain highest incomes, except for those who also grow other 
crops commercially and belong to the other categories. Now an attempt 
T
a
bl
e 
23
: 
M
o
n
t
hs
 
s
p
e
n
t
 
o
n
 
ho
ld
in
gs
 b
y 
c
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
(p
er
ce
nt
ag
es
).
 
C
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
M
p
 
t
he
 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
e
 
o
v
e
r
 
fa
rm
er
s 
1 
10
.4
 
12
.5
 
8.
3 
18
08
 
8.
3 
16
.7
 
2.
1 
22
.9
 
2 
1.
7 
3.
3 
8.
3 
9.
9 
8.
3 
4.
1 
21
.5
 
1.
7 
4.
1 
37
.2
 
3 
0.
5 
3.
1 
2.
6 
7.
2 
10
.3
 
2.
6 
17
.0
 
3.
6 
5.
2 
47
.9
 
4 
1.
4 
1.
4 
2.
2 
2.
9 
1.
4 
1.
4 
12
.2
 
33
6 
10
.0
 
62
.6
 
5 
1.
0 
1.
0 
1.
5 
0.
5 
3.
4 
1.
0 
4.
4 
87
.2
 
6 
.
_
_
_
 
3.
0 
-
 
-
 
6.
1 
_
-
 
3.
0 
87
.9
 
7 
-
 
-
 
9.
1 
-
 
9.
1 
-
 
-
 
01
.8
 
-
 
-
 
-
 
T
a
bl
e 
24
: 
M
o
n
t
hs
 
s
p
e
n
t
 
o
n
 
s
u
g
a
r
 
c
a
n
e
 
by
 c
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
(p
er
ce
nt
ag
es
).
 
C
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
M
o
n
t
hs
 
-
 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9&
 o
v
e
r
 
1 
35
.4
 
16
.7
 
14
.6
 
14
,6
 
2.
1 
8.
3 
2.
1 
6.
3 
2 
1.
7 
14
.0
 
19
.0
 
15
.7
 
16
.5
 
5.
8 
12
.4
 
0.
8 
6.
6 
7.
4.
 
3 
0.
5 
7.
7 
10
.8
 
13
.9
 
16
.0
 
3.
1 
13
.4
. 
3.
1 
90
 4
 
22
.7
 
4 
1.
4 
2.
9 
4.
3 
5.
0 
7.
2 
8.
6 
17
.3
 
2.
2 
15
.1
 
3.
0 
5 
1.
0 
0.
5 
2.
0 
2.
0 
2.
5 
1.
5 
9.
9 
1.
5 
15
.8
 
63
.5
 
6 
3.
0 
_
 
9.
1 
12
.1
 
75
.8
 
7 
-
 
9.
1 
9.
1 
_
.
_
.
_
 
81
.8
 
_
_
.
_
 
_
 
-
 
T
a
bl
e 
25
= 
M
o
n
t
hs
 
s
p
e
n
t
 o
n
 
a
ll
 o
t
he
r 
c
r
o
p
s
 
by
 c
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
(p
er
ce
nt
ag
es
).
 
C
la
ss
es
 
o
L
 
fa
rm
er
s 
1 2 3 4
 
5 6 7 
25
.0
 
14
.6
 
22
.9
 
16
.7
 
8.
3 
22
.3
 
22
.3
 
13
.2
 
9.
1 
10
.7
 
26
.3
 
12
.9
 
20
.1
 
18
.0
 
9.
3 
18
.0
 
11
.5
 
24
.5
 
25
.2
 
10
.8
 
23
.6
 
7.
9 
29
.1
 
20
.2
 
11
.8
 
36
.4
 
48
.5
 
6.
1 
6.
1 
72
.7
 
_
 
27
.3
 
159 
will be made to look at all the farmers. If the average price paid 
to farriers for the period 1964 -68 is taken, then the average gross 
return per ton was $11.68`íT (£2 8s. 8d). For 1967 the price received 
by farmers was $11.21TT (£2 6s. 812d). The average gross incomes for 
the separate groups is seen to be rather low for the first four 
classes (table 26). Even the gross return of farmers selling between 
50 and 100 tons was just over half the average per capita income for 
Trinidad (see below) . The gross income from 100 tons of cane in 1967 
then, was only $1121.00TT (£233 10s. 10d) and the average for 1964-68 
was slightly hither at $1168.00TT (.£24 
-3 6s. 8d). One estimate puts 
the net income of a farmer growing about five acres of sugar cane 
(hence producing about 100 tons), using his own labour and transport, 
at about 11 m $750.00TT 0156 5s.). The average Trinidad per capita 
income, itself a crude measure, is $1230.00TT (£256 5s.).12 Thus, 
even a farmer producing 100 tons of cane is forced to supplement his 
income. Less than one -fifth of the farmers in 1967 produced over 
100 tons of cane (table 1). Some of these, 0.2 or 17 farmers, 
produced over 1,000 tons and 0.6%, or 59 farmers, produced between 
500 and 1,000 tons . 
The figure of 100 tons of cane per farmer has been suggested 
as the minimum tonnage on which "a farmer can live at even a low or 
bare subsistence level. "13 This, of course, assumes that sugar cane 
provides the only source of income. Nevertheless, if the suggested 
amount is regarded as the critical line, then, in 1967 over 812 of 
the farmers were compelled to supLlement their incomes. 
11. Rampersad, F. and Alcantara, N. "Peasant farmers in developing 
countries ", Trinidad, 1966, unpublished. 
12. Draft third five -year Man, p. 21. 
13. Girwar, op.cit., p. 129. 
T
a
bl
e 
26
: 
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
 g
r
o
s
s
 
in
co
me
s 
fo
r 
fa
rm
er
s 
fr
om
 s
u
g
a
r
 
c
a
n
e
 
fo
r 
19
64
-6
7 
a
n
d 
19
67
 
by
 
c
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s.
 
C
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
19
64
 -
67
 a
y
.
 
p
r
o
du
ct
io
n 
p
e
r
 
fa
rm
er
 
(t
on
s)
 
19
64
 -6
7 
a
y
.
 
g
r
o
s
s
 
in
co
me
 
p
e
r
 
fa
rm
er
(S
TT
) 
19
67
 
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
 
p
r
o
du
ct
io
n 
p
e
r
 
fa
rm
er
 
(t
on
s)
 
19
67
 
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
 
g
r
o
s
s
 
in
co
me
 
p
e
r
 
fa
rm
er
(S
TT
) 
1 
3.
44
 
39
.4
2 
5.
24
 
58
.7
4 
2 
13
.3
5 
15
2.
99
 
13
.4
0 
15
0.
21
 
3 
33
.4
7 
38
3.
57
 
33
.9
8 
34
0.
92
 
4 
73
.7
0 
84
4.
60
 
71
.3
5 
79
9:
83
 
5 
18
5.
97
 
21
31
.2
2 
18
3.
18
 
2,
05
3.
45
 
6 
67
4.
64
 
7,
73
1.
37
 
63
4.
19
 
7,
10
9.
27
 
7 
2,
39
3.
41
 
27
,4
23
.4
8 
2,
30
5.
35
 
25
,8
42
.9
7 
P
o
p
u
la
ti
on
 
O
v
e
r
a
g
e
s
-
 
72
.2
8 
82
8.
33
 
68
.6
6 
76
9.
68
 
So
ur
ce
: 
C
o
m
p
il
ed
 
fr
om
 
in
fo
rm
at
io
n 
s
u
p
p
li
ed
 
by
 
t
he
 
SM
A.
 
161 
As most farmers hire labour at harvest time, and the larger 
farmers hire labour for other activities as well (table 33), and if 
the costs of planting, cultivation, fertiliser and transport are 
taken into account, one sees that even for the larger farmers in 
group 5, incomes are not very high. Table 27 gives an assessment of 
the costs incurred in cane production for plant canes and ratoons; 
these figures are only estimates obtained from farmers who were 
willing to co- operate sufficiently with the author. No exact costings 
have been attempted by farmers nor any other persons, so that these 
figures must be used with caution. However, even if the costs are 
reduced, it is apparent that net income per ton of cane is very small 
indeed, and that between 1964 and 1968 it has been very low. In 1963 
earnings were quite high because of abnormal conditions prevailing on 
the world markets after the Cuban crisis (figure 11). However, it is 
very obvious that the farmers belonging to the first four groups, 
that is selling up to 100 tons of cane, must search for supplementary 
incomes. The need is also apparent for some who sell between 100 and 
500 tons. The few farmers who belong to the two highest classes, those 
selling above 500 tons, can earn incomes that are at or above the 
national per capita level. These farmers form about 1% of the total. 
A considerable number of farmers in all classes indicated willingness 
to take up off -farm work (table 28). 
The survey showed that about 35 of fanners have other 
commercial agricultural enterprises (table 18), the proportion being 
slightly higher among the small producers, and overall about 38% of 
farmers depend on agriculture entirely, discounting those who may be 
occupied for less than one month in other activities. All other farmers 
supolement their incomes from off the farms (table 15). This table 
1 
.J,, 
t_ 
TABLE 27. 
Operations and estimated costs of production per acre. 
a) Plant cane 
Operations 
Clearing the land 
Ploughing, harrowing and banking 
Plants and planting 
Breaking of banks (in two operations) 
Fertiliser (4 cwt) including transport and 
application 
Drainage (on low land) 
Weeding 
Rent 
Total 
Estimated cost PT 
25.00 
65.00 (on sloping land 90.00) 
55.00 
27.00 
27.00 
90.00 (on sloping land 15.00) 
25.00 
10.00 
324.00 (on sloping land 
274.00 but additional 
costs for cutting and 
transport) 
An acre so treated should produce about 
30 tons. This will cost about $5.00 for 
cutting, loading and transport of one 
ton giving an additional expenditure of 150.00 
Total expenditure 474.00 
Gross return at five -year average (1964 
-68) 
of $11.68 per ton 350.40 
- 123.60 loss 
In addition some farmers cut fire -breaks around their cane plots, which 
normally costs $10.00 per acre. Further costs are met with the need to 
'supply' plants which have not germinated. 
b) Ratoon cane 
Operations 
Drainage 
Fertiliser 
Weeding and cutiassing 
Rent 
Estimated costs STT 
15.00 
27.00 
50.00 
10.00 
102.00 
Such an acre should produce 30 tons and 
cost $5.00 per ton for harvesting operations 150.00 
Total expenditure 252.00 
Gross return of 30 tons at $11.68 350.40 
98.40 net return 
The same additional expenses mentioned for plant cane are applicable to 
ratoon cane. Farmers who spend correspondingly less obtain lesser returns, 
as most farmers do. The cane may be ratooned for a number of years, normally 
4 to 6 ratoons, after which output starts decreasing considerably. No account 
is taken here of expenses that may be made to control froghopper or any other 
Pests or to treat soil deficiency other than the application of 4 cwt. of 
sulphate of ammonia.. 
163 
TABLE 28 
Farmers already in or would go to full time jobs if available, by 
size groups. 
Clashes of farmers Already in job 
or will go to job 
Will not go 
to job 
No Comment or 
do not know 
1 62.5 33.3 4.2 
2 52.9 42.1 5.0 
3 47.4 49.0 3.6 
4 40.3 55.4 4.3 
5 41.4 54.2 4 .4 
6 48.5 45.5 6.1 
7 45.5 54.5 - 
Population 
estimates 
47% 49% 4% 
1 64 
shows that 11.55 are in other forms of self- emplcyment. If these are 
added to the proportion self -employed in agriculture, it is apparent 
that just under half the farmers are self -employed. All other 
farmers then, or just over half, depend upon outside employment to 
supplement their income, or conversely, use agriculture to supplement 
off-farm income. 
As regards other occupations, table 15 shows that 12g of the 
farmers are occupied for part of the year on the sugar. estates. The 
proportion is expectedly higher in the low production categories. 
Some 9;1 work for other farmers in various tasks, from preparing the 
land to harvesting the cane. here again, the proportion who work for 
other farmers is higher in the low production groups. The case is 
similar for those farmers who are employed part -time on public 
projects and those who are on full -time occupations. These form 8% 
and 9iL respectively of the total. Some 13`X are mainly agricultural 
in occupation, but were unemployed for at least three months in 1967. 
Among these the proportions are again high for the smaller producers. 
In groups 1 and 2, a considerable number of those who have 
other businesses also own taxis. In the other groups, although some 
farmers own taxis, most operated small grocery stores. The rest have 
a wide variety of other types of businesses such as handicrafts 
manufacture, joinery, and in two cases, the ownership of saw -mills. 
If the four lowest groups are combined, then 32% are full -time 
farmers and 105 otherwise self- employed, making a percentage of 42 
for those dependent on their own resources. In addition, about 145 
are employed on the estates, 115 by other farmers, 9% on public work 
projects, 10jß on full -time off -farm occupations and 14j are 
unemployed for three months or more (this refers to 1967 only). As 
1':;5 
shown above, over 837 of groups 5,6, and 7 were self -employed either 
in agriculture or in other forms of self- employment. The inference 
is that farm size is the most important factor responsible for this 
situation. 
Age structure, household size and literacy 
In every production class, it was found that the highest 
proportion of farmers belonged to the age group 50 and over (table 29). 
If these farmers are co_r fined with farmers in the 40 to 49 group it 
is seen that together they form over 71% of all farmers. This is not 
unusual in Trinidad, for if all holdings with individual holders are 
considered, then only 2 of all farmers are 39 or under,14 while 
this survey has shown a percentage of just under 39 for the same age 
groups. It may be true to sayatherefore, that in spite of the 
generally high ages of cane farmers, there are more young farmers in 
sugar cane production than in the rest of agriculture. It-is also 
seen that there are relatively few young farmers who belong to the 
three highest production classes. 
About one -third of all farmers belong to households of. nine or 
more individuals (table 30). The maximum number of individuals 
recorded in a single household was 21, and this household comprised 
five family units. A further one -third belongs to small households of 
five or fewer persons. These latter were normally of single family 
units. No great difference is shown by farmers in the different age 
groups in the relationship between smaller production classes and 
smaller households with younger farmers; though smaller producers are 
generally younger. Almost four -fifths of all households have single 
family units and 18% have two family units (table 30). 
14. Agricultural Census 1963, op.cit., table 1.15, p. 6. 
166 
TABLE 29 
Age groups of farmers by classes of farmers (percentages). 
Classes of Age Groups 
farmers 29 and under 30 - 39 40 - 49 50 and over 
1 12.5 4.2 33.3 50.0 
2 11.6 24.0 23.1 41.3 
3 14.9 14.9 31.4 38.7 
4 13.7 11.5 32.4 42.4 
5 9.9 13.8 28.6 47.8 
6 3.0 18.2 27.3 51.5 
7 9.1 27.3 9.1 54.5 
Population 
estimates 
13% 16% 290 42% 
T
a
bl
e 
30
: 
Si
ze
 o
f 
ho
us
eh
ol
ds
 a
n
d 
n
u
m
be
rs
 
o
f 
fa
mi
li
es
 
by
 c
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
(p
er
ce
nt
ag
es
).
 
C
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
N
u
m
be
r 
.
f 
in
di
vi
.u
al
s 
in
 h
ou
se
ho
ld
 
N
u
m
be
r 
of
 
fa
mî
l,
 
u
n
it
s 
fa
rm
er
s 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
I
 
6 
7 
8 
&
o
v
e
r
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
1 
10
.4
 
6.
3 
14
.6
 
6.
3 
8.
3 
14
.6
 
8.
3 
31
03
 
85
.4
 
12
.5
 
2.
1 
2 
5.
0 
9.
1 
7.
4 
10
.7
 
9.
9 
7.
4 
12
.4
 
10
.7
 
27
.3
 
86
.0
 
12
.4
 
1.
7 
3 
2.
6 
7.
2 
9.
8 
8.
8 
8.
8 
10
.8
 
11
.3
 
12
.4
 
28
.4
 
78
.9
 
17
.5
 
3.
6 
4 
3.
6 
5.
8 
2.
9 
9.
4 
6.
5 
13
.7
 
9.
4 
9.
4 
39
.6
 
77
.5
 
18
.1
 
2.
9 
1;
4 
5 
1.
5 
3.
4 
11
.3
 
6.
4 
5.
9 
11
.8
 
90
9 
!
 
12
.8
 
36
.9
 
71
.8
 
24
.8
 
3.
5 
-
 
6 
3.
0 
3.
0 
3.
0 
3.
0 
9.
1 
18
,2
 
9.
1 
51
.5
 
60
.6
 
27
.3
 
12
.1
 
!
 
-
 
7 
9.
1 
36
.4
 
9.
1 
1 
18
.2
 
27
.3
 
54
.5
 
45
.5
 
,
 
_
 
_
 
168 
It would appear that there is a fairly large potential supply 
of unpaid family or household labour. However, this labour is not 
used to any great extent (table j1). It is possible that the nature 
of the work and attitudes to agriculture are responsible for this. 
The nature of the work involved in sugar cane production is rather 
strenuous, especially at harvest time when most of the labour is 
required. To a certain extent this rules out assistance from children. 
Moreover, many farmers do not want their children to work in the 
fields. There are also farmers who may want assistance from their 
children, but, with the availability of secondary education, it 
appears that children are very unwilling to render any assistance in 
agricultural pursuits because of the stigma attached to these 
occupations (see p.233). It may be mentioned that the State has 
initiated a campaign against such attitudes (see p.2314), but attitudes 
take a long time in dying. Generally, a farmer's wife will help on 
the holding, though not on large holdings where farmers are able to 
employ all the labour that they require. That most of the labour 
is utilised during the harvest, over a relatively short period -for 
individual farmers, forces the farmer to use hired labour. Further, 
once the cane has been cut, it must be milled within a few days or 
deterioration takes place. Deterioration is even faster with burnt 
canes. Thus, although over 6o4 of the households are medium to 
large, that is with more than six individuals, the amount of unpaid 
labour used is not as great as would be expected. 
Although illiteracy is not a very serious problem in Trinidad 
as a whole, it appears to be higher among the older agricultural 
population. The only figures available are those of the 1946 Census 
T
a
bl
e 
31
: 
N
u
m
be
rs
 o
f 
in
di
vi
du
al
s 
16
 
y
e
a
r
s
 
o
ld
 a
n
d 
o
v
e
r
 
a
n
d 
u
n
de
r 
16
 
y
e
a
r
s
 
p
r
o
v
id
in
g 
un
pa
id
 h
el
p 
o
n
 
ho
ld
in
gs
 
by
 c
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
(p
er
ce
nt
ag
es
).
 
C
la
ss
es
 
o
f fa
rm
er
s 
N
u
m
 
e
r
s
 
y
e
a
r
s
 
a
n
d 
o
v
 
r
 
N
u
m
be
rs
 
u
n
de
r 
16
,y
ea
rs
 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
&
o
v
e
r
 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6&
ov
er
 
1 
60
.4
 
33
.3
 
4.
2 
2.
1 
70
.8
 
18
.8
 
8.
3 
2.
1 
2 
_
 
1,
7 
47
.1
 
37
.2
 
9.
9 
2.
5 
1,
7 
57
.0
 
22
.3
 
12
.4
 
_
 
5.
8 
_
_
.
.
 
0.
8 
0.
8 
0;
8 
3 
2.
1 
45
.9
 
37
.6
 
11
,3
 
2.
6 
0.
5 
59
.3
 
19
01
 
11
.9
 
7.
2 
1.
5 
0.
5 
0:
5 
4 
2.
9 
32
.4
 
46
.8
 
10
.1
 
5.
8 
2.
1 
42
.4
 
25
.2
 
15
.1
 
7.
9 
5.
0 
2.
2 
2.
1 
5 
_
 
39
.4
 
36
.0
 
15
.3
 
4.
9 
4.
5 
53
.2
 
18
.2
 
14
.3
 
5.
4 
4.
9 
2.
0 
2.
0 
6 
3.
0 
42
.4
 
24
.2
 
12
.1
 
15
.2
 
3.
0 
75
.8
 
3.
0 
9;
1 
6.
1 
6.
1 
7 
45
.5
 
36
.4
 
9.
1 
9.
1 
90
.9
 
9.
1 
_
,
 
_
 
-
-
-
-
I
 
I 
-
.
 
_
 
_
 
T
a
bl
e 
31
: 
N
u
m
be
rs
 
o
f 
in
di
vi
du
al
s 
16
 
y
e
a
r
s
 
o
ld
 
a
n
d 
o
v
e
r
 
a
n
d 
u
n
de
r 
16
 
y
e
a
r
s
 
p
r
o
v
id
in
g 
u
n
p
a
id
 h
el
p 
o
n
 
ho
ld
in
gs
 b
y 
c
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
(p
er
ce
nt
ag
es
).
 
C
la
ss
es
 
o
f fa
rm
er
s 
N
u
m
be
rs
 
y
e
a
r
s
 
a
n
d 
o
v
 
r
 
,
 
N
u
m
be
rs
 
u
n
de
r 
1 
16
 
2 
w
e
a
r
s
.
 
3 
4 
5 
16
&o
ve
r 
0 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
&
o
v
e
r
 
0 
i 
60
.4
 
33
.3
 
4.
2 
2.
1 
70
.8
 
18
.8
 
8.
3 
2.
1 
2 
1.
7 
47
.1
 
37
.2
 
9.
9 
2.
5 
1.
7 
57
.0
 
22
.3
 
12
.4
 
-
 
5.
8 
_
 
0.
8 
0.
8 
0 
:
8 
3 
2.
1 
45
.9
 
37
.6
 
11
.3
 
2.
6 
0.
5 
59
.3
 
19
.1
 
11
.9
 
7.
2 
1.
5 
0.
5 
0ó
5 
4 
2.
9 
32
.4
 
46
.8
 
10
.1
 
5.
8 
2.
1 
42
.4
 
25
.2
 
15
.1
 
7.
9 
5.
0 
2.
2 
2.
1.
 
5 
39
.4
 
36
.0
 
15
.3
 
4.
9 
4.
5 
53
.2
 
18
.2
 
14
.3
 
5.
4 
4.
9 
2.
0 
2.
0 
6 
_
 
3.
0 
42
.4
 
24
.2
 
12
.1
 
15
.2
 
3.
0 
75
.8
 
3.
0 
9.
1 
6.
1 
6.
1 
7 
45
.5
 
36
.4
 
9.
1 
9.
1 
90
.9
 
9.
1 
_
_
_
.
 
_
 
-
.
 
_
 
_
 
_
,
_
,
_
 
Ì 
_
 
170 
which showed that ^6¡ú of the population over 5 years old were 
illiterate.15 Undoubtedly, this proportion has. decreased. considerably. 
Yet, though no question concerning literacy was asked during the 
survey, it was apparent that a substantial proportion of farmers had 
to use their thumbprints instead of signatures in their transactions 
with the estates. It seemed, therefore, that a high proportion of 
farmers, probably about 40;x, are illiterate. This of course, is 
related to the age structure of the farming population. Undoubtedly, 
this has some effect on farming changes and farm management. A 
possible result of this was found in the number of applications for 
the subsidy to control froghopoer damage. There are several possible 
reasons why relatively few farmers applied for the subsidy, but 
illiteracy is one of them, because of the trouble and eaïbarassment 
(see p.223 ). Age, therefore, with the greater degree of 
illiteracy existing among the older farmers, is one further 
constraint to farming development. 
Capital and labour 
Since no information was collected on actual incomes and 
expenses, except those shown on tables 11, 26 and 27, it is difficult 
to formulate any definite statements regarding all aspects of capital.. 
Such information as was collected came from only few farmers (see c.161), 
Consideration is ,therefore, given to transport or cultivating equipment 
owned and to the cost of cutting and transporting cane. On the 
question of cutting and transport, though originally two separate 
answers were required, it was found that, in some areas, farmers who 
15. Trinidad and Tobago Annual Statistical Digest, 1567, table 11, 
P. 10. 
171 
hire labour for cutting and transporting cane could not distinguish 
between the separate costs. It was found necessary therefore, to 
combine the costs of cutting, loading and transporting cane (table 11). 
The size of households, as providing the potential unpaid labour 
supply, has already been discussed, but the seasonal imbalance in 
labour requirements will be taken into account. 
Capital 
Almost all farmers use mechanical equipment in land 
preparation and some use mechanised transport, but relatively few 
farmers actually own such equipment (table 32). Under 10% of 
farmers own a plough. For other cultivating equpment, such as mould- 
boards and bankers, a bare 2% own such equipment. Under 1% own 
lorries and trucks for transporting cane, but about 0 own carts 
(table 32, col. 6). About 114; own tractors, all of whom have one er 
more trailers for transporting cane. A few farmers have more than 
one tractor and there were two farmers in the largest group with six 
tractors each. A similar picture is shown for dusting and spraying 
equipment. The general trend is for ownership of equipment and 
transport facilities to increase with size of the production unit. 
This implies that those farmers who have small individual outputs 
have to pay the larger farmers for services such as land preparation, 
and transport. This provides extra income for some farmers, but has 
the consequence of reducing the incomes of other farmers who usually 
are the smaller producers. 
It was found that almost half the farmers hire all their 
transport, and a further 11 ¡:; use both owned and hired transport 
(table 33). As is to be expected, more than 5-cg of farmers in the 
three sr.allest production groups hire all their transport and very 
T
a
bl
e 
32
 
s
 
O
w
n
e
r
s
hi
p 
o
f 
a
g
r
ic
ul
tu
ra
l 
e
q
u
ip
me
nt
 
by
 
c
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
(p
er
ce
nt
ag
es
);
 
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
s
 
e
s
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
o
w
n
i 
;
 
e
q
u
ip
me
nt
 
P
lo
ug
hs
 
O
t
he
r 
c
u
lt
iv
. 
m
a
c
hi
ne
ry
 
L
o
r
r
ie
s 
C
a
r
t
s
 
T
r
a
c
t
o
r
s
 
Sp
ra
yi
ng
 &
 
du
st
in
g 
e
q
u
ip
. 
1 
2.
1 
2.
1 
18
.7
 
6.
2 
2.
1 
2 
2.
5 
-
 
27
.3
 
6.
6 
5.
8 
3 
5.
2 
_
 
0.
5 
1.
0 
40
.7
 
5.
7 
5.
2 
4 
5.
0 
2.
2 
0.
7 
48
.9
 
12
.9
 
10
.1
 
5 
21
.2
 
6.
4 
5.
9 
47
.3
 
37
.4
 
27
.6
 
6 
48
.5
 
27
.3
 
21
.2
 
27
.3
 
78
.8
 
66
.7
 
7 
81
.8
 
63
.6
 
27
.3
 
45
.5
 
10
0.
0 
81
.8
 
P
o
p
u
la
ti
on
 
e
s
t
im
at
es
 
8%
 
2%
 
1%
 
39
c0
 
14
°P
 
10
% 
T
a
bl
e 
33
: 
T
y
p
e
 a
n
d 
o
w
n
e
r
s
hi
p 
o
f 
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
 
by
 c
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
(p
er
ce
nt
ag
es
) 
C
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
1 
T
y
p
e
 
o
f 
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
 
O
w
n
e
r
s
hi
 
o
f 
t
r
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
 
fa
rm
er
s 
A
n
im
al
 
(1
) 
M
e
c
ha
ni
ca
l 
B
o
t
h 
(2
) 
(1
) 
(7
) 
H
ir
ed
 
(1
) 
O
w
n
e
d 
(G
) 
B
o
t
h 
(1
) 
(0
 
1 
62
.5
 
27
.1
 
10
.4
 
79
.2
 
20
.8
 
2 
62
.8
 
28
.1
 
9.
1 
70
.2
 
25
.6
 
L
.
.
1 
3 
58
.8
 
20
.6
 
20
.6
 
54
.4
 
36
.6
 
8.
8 
4 
61
,2
 
26
.6
 
12
.2
 
39
.6
 
50
.4
 
10
.1
 
5 
43
.8
 
39
.9
 
16
.3
 
15
.8
 
57
.1
 
27
.1
 
6 
3.
0 
57
.6
 
39
.4
 
63
.6
 
36
.4
 
7 
18
.2
 
81
.8
 
9.
1 
27
.3
 
63
.6
 
_
 
P
o
p
u
la
ti
on
 
e
s
t
im
at
es
 
57
% 
1 
28
% 
15
% 
50
% 
39
% 
I
1 
few use both hired and owned transport. This shows that in these 
groups, those farmers who own transport can carry all. their cane 
(except in the case of burnt cane) because their total production is 
Quite low. With increasing size of production, more farmers own 
transport, but also hire some transport either from smaller farmers 
who own carts or tractors, or from the larger producers who own more 
equipment. In all, under 4U¡ß of farmers transported all their cane. 
As has been shown with off -farm employment, there is a direct 
relationship between size of production and ownership of eouipment 
and transport, with the smaller producers being worse off. 
An estimated 5líó of farmers use only animal power for 
transport of canes at harvest and 28 use only mechanical power 
either in the form of tractor -drawn trailers or lorries (table 33). 
The rest of the farmers use both animal and mechanical transport. 
Because a considerable number of farmers grow cane on gently to 
steeply sloping land, they may have to use two forms of transport at 
increased cost. In some cases, access is so difficult that cane has 
to be brought manually to the roadside before being put- on animal or 
mechanical transport. Animals may provide only in -field transport, 
with mechanised transport being used to move the cane to the 
purchasing points, but animals may also be used to supplement 
mechanical transport by carrying cane directly to the scales. Where 
cane has to be transfered from one form of transport to another, the 
additional labour required is considerable, but is sometimes reduced 
by the larger farmers who use derricks for this process. 
From the restricted account given of the equipment and 
transport facilities owned by farmers, it is apparent that few 
farmers can afford to own mechanical equipment for cultivation and 
175 
transport because of the small size of the farms. 
All farmers now use mechanical equipment for land preparation, 
some hiring services at high cost from farmers who own the requisite 
machinery. In the past some of these services were provided by the 
estates, but this is no longer the case. It has been mooted for a 
considerable period that a tractor pool should be formed to provide 
land preparation services to farmers, but this has not come to 
fruition as yet.16 When small size of farms, fragmentation, marginal 
lands, lack of equipment, high cultivation and transport costs, and 
low yields come together in varying proportions, it is apparent that 
the effects of under -capitalisation are considerable and can be 
removed only when all these elements are remedied. 
Labour 
In spite of the fact that farms are small and households 
generally large, so that there is a potential supply of unpaid labour, 
it has been seen that most farmers, even the smallest producers, have 
to hire labour at harvest. Over 70% of all farmers hire labour at 
harvest, with the proportion hiring labour increasing with the size 
of production to 1O0;ó in the two highest classes, and, even among the 
smallest producers, more than half the farmers employ paid labour at 
harvest time (table 34). 
A few farmers, mainly those with permanent off -farm employment, 
do not work on their holdings at all, except possibly in a supervisory 
capacity. These form about 1% of all farmers. About two- fifths of 
all farmers work without any assistance from individuals over 16 years 
16. This is discussed in several issues of The Cane Farmer and also 
the MacKenzie Commission Report, op.cit., pp. 24 
-25. 
T
a
bl
e 
34
: 
U
t
il
is
at
io
n 
o
f 
p
a
id
 l
ab
ou
r 
by
 c
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
(p
er
ce
nt
ag
es
).
 
C
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
 w
ho
 
u
s
e
d 
p
a
id
 l
ab
ou
r 
fo
r 
v
a
r
io
us
, 
t
a
s
ks
 
P
la
nt
in
g 
1 
C
u
lt
iv
at
io
n 
H
a
r
v
e
s
t
in
g 
O
n
 
o
t
he
r 
c
r
o
p
s
 
O
v
e
r
a
ll
 
w
ho
 
u
s
e
d 
p
a
id
 l
ab
ou
r 
1 
20
.8
 
25
.0
 
52
.1
 
6.
3 
52
.1
 
2 
31
.4
 
35
.5
 
57
.0
 
11
.6
 
59
.5
 
3 
44
.3
 
47
.4
 
68
.0
 
17
.5
 
69
.6
 
4 
59
.0
 
60
4 
74
.8
 
23
.0
 
75
.5
 
5 
79
.2
 
82
.8
 
92
.1
 
41
.9
 
93
.1
 
6 
10
0.
0 
10
0.
0 
10
0.
0 
57
.6
 
10
0.
0 
7 
90
.9
 
10
0.
0 
10
0.
0 
45
.5
 
10
0.
0 
P
o
p
u
la
ti
on
 
e
s
t
im
at
es
 
49
% 
52
% 
70
1 
21
% 
76
% 
,177 
old, and a further two- fifths with assistance from one other person, 
usually a husband and wife team. Few farmers have more than one 
worker over 16 as unpaid assistance (table 31). It was not possible 
to determine the amount of unpaid labour used in terms of man- hours, 
partly because this requires records to be kept and partly because 
some of the unpaid help was from children whose productivity it is 
difficult to equate with that of grown -ups. 
About 55% of farmers received no assistance from children 
between 6 and 16 years old. There is a concentration of such farmers 
in the lowest production class and also in the two highest classes. 
This is probably because the small producers have little cane anyway, 
and larger producers, being better off, can afford paid labour or may 
have children over 11 years old in secoñdary schools. Most of the 
remaining 45% of farmers obtain assistance from one or two children 
(table 31). Again, it was difficult to obtain estimates of hours 
worked by children. 
It has been seen that most farmers who employ labour, do so 
at harvest time, either for cutting or transport or both. Some 
farmers also employ labour for short periods for other purposes. Just 
under one -half of all farmers hire labour for planting and a similar 
proportion hire labour for cultivation. About one -fifth hire labour 
for other crops and this in the past was restricted to rice, 
vegetables and tree crops. Those farmers who now grow tobacco must 
also employ labour, for it is a labour- intensive crop. However, in 
general, most labour is required at harvest, for it must be remembered 
that not all farmers replant some of their cane each year. There is 
generally a period of full employmeit at harvest time, and at times 
there is even a shortage; thus, a few farmers complained of labour 
176 
shortages preventing them from harvesting all their canes in 1967. 
In the past labour shortages tended to be more acute because 
the farmers had to compete directly with the estates for labour. The 
estates could provide employment for longer periods at better wages 
and so labour was attracted to the estates. however, with the 
decision to introduce a system of phased mechanisation on the estates, 
there has been a consequent reduction in employment on the estates, 
and farmers may possibly benefit from this situation by the greater 
availability of labour. It is possible, therefore, that because 
farmers require nigher labour inputs per acre owing to the lower level 
of mechanisation, an increase in the farmers' acreage, or in overall 
production, could help to provide some employment for field workers 
who are not now required by the estates. The decline in the 
employment opportunities on the estates may continue or may be 
arrested depending on the findings of a commission now enquiring into 
mechanisation in the sugar industry. At the present time, although 
there is no retrenchment of workers in the industry, few new field 
workers are being recruited. The present labour force is being 
reduced by a process of 'attrition', that is, workers who retire, 
resign or die are not replaced. The problems of mechanising the 
farming sector to any great extent are too formidable to be solved 
in the short term, and for some time to come farmers will continue 
to have high labour requirements. If their production were to 
increase, they will possibly have need for more labour. 
In considering the seasonal element in labour needs, mention 
was only made of the period of great demand during the sugar cane 
harvest. This period corresponds to the dry months and is called in 
these areas the 'crop'. The rest of the year, corresponding to the 
179 
rainÿ months, is called the 'season', when there is relatively 
subdued activity. Planting of sugar cease occupies some labour then, 
but only about half of all farmers use paid labour for either 
planting or cultivation tasks, or for applying fertiliser and, then, 
only for short periods. These are the tasks on which unpaid labour 
is utilised because they are less strenuous. Some farmers who grow 
root crops, vegetables, legumes and rice may have sufficient work to 
occupy themselves and some paid labour as well, but generally, over 
the sugar producing lands, the rainy season is a period of relative 
inactivity. The districts supplying the Orange Grove mill with cane, 
and the Dejucal- Charlieville and Debe -Penal areas where farmers have 
other enterprises, employment opportunities are slightly better than 
in the areas where only sugar cane is grown. Generally though, labour 
requirements are unbalanced over the year. 
Conclusion 
It has been shown that by far the majority of farmers are 
adversely affected by a variety of physical, structural and economic 
constraints within the agricultural system. There are some farmers 
who employ methods similar to those used on the large estates, but 
these are usually only farmers who produce over 500 tons of cane each 
year and who form only 1% of the cane -farming Population. For the 
rest, it appears that farm size is the major limitation, but their 
problems are multiplied when holdings are fragmented and located on 
lands that are marginal in respect of soils,.topography and 
accessibility. The lack of capital resources and the inability to 
employ the best farming techniques make for further difficulties. It 
is also suggested that the Pricing system, although permitting some 
farmers to grow a saleable crop, does lower the profitability of the 
180, 
enterprise to farmers who are better located. Circumstances have 
been made even worse by the low Prices received over recent years 
and the need to employ labour at high cost. This has meant that 
money returns per acre have been very low and, considering the 
characteristic farm size, the result is a low total net return. 
Further, because of the large number of small producers, under the 
present pricing system, handling costs collectively are higher than 
if there were f ewer,but larger producers. This reduces returns and 
affects to a greater extent those who depend for all or most of 
their income from swar cane. It appears, therefore, that even if 
the farmer spends more time and capital on such a low income crop, 
he mill still net be able to obtain a reasonable income from the 
holding. That sugar cane can Produce some ï'eturn, even with minimal 
attention, perms is the farmer to employ his resources elsewhere 
until such time that he thinks that the returns will be better. 
This eventually makes him more dependent on off -farm income. The 
fact that the farmer does not have a heavy capital investment in the 
crop, or in agriculture, does not commit him completely to work on 
his holding. The consequences are that there are a large number of 
farmers who rely mainly on off -farm income. 
CHAPTER V 
AGRICULTURAL P??UDI'CTIaV 
It is very difficult to obtain reliable data on production 
of crops other than sugar cane, for almost none of the farmers keep 
records of their transactions and these records are not available 
from any other source. Returns are available for cocoa, coffee and 
tobacco, but these crops are important to only a few cane farmers. 
Generally more effort is put in food crop production for subsistence 
uses. It is impossible to obtain estimates of this type of 
production on farmers' holdings unless records are kept over a long 
period, and no attempt was made to collect information on actual 
production figures or yields for food crops. The data that could 
have been provided would have depended almost entirely on memory and 
was thus judged to be too unreliable. However, the importance of 
these crops has been gauged through the time spent on such crops and 
the proportion of land devoted to them will be shown to be small. 
No attempt was made to measure incomes from non -agricultural or off - 
farm pursuits, such as trading, working for estates, driving taxis, 
nor for full -time off -farm working, so that no comparisons can be 
made of the importance of sugar cane, other agricultural . and off -farm 
production in terms of money incomes or income in kind and only 
impressions can be given. Livestock production is another facet of 
production which cannot be cornoared with sugar cane in terms of money 
incomes, though the type of livestock and the purposes for which they 
are used can be ascertained. In this chapter, therefore, an attempt 
182 
is made to view the agricultural production of cane farmers within 
the constraints discussed previously. The treatment is, of necessity, 
affected by the limitations of the available data. 
The production of sugar cane 
All the sugar cane produced by farmers is sold to the estates 
for milling, except for negligible quantities used for chewing. The 
price received by all farmers is the same in any one year, except in 
special circumstances such as deductions made for burnt cane and, in 
a feu cases,extra payments made for delivery of cane directly to the 
mills. The production per farmer has risen considerably and has in 
fact doubled since 1916, but as has been shown, most farmers are small 
producers (table 1). In the previous'chapter it was seen that only 
farmers belonging to the three highest production classes have 
holdings that can generally be regarded as viable, and only these 
obtain yields that are above the mean for all farmers and above 
20 tons per acre (table 12). Some of these farmers produce yields 
that are as high as those obtained by the estates, but by far the 
majority of all farmers show yields that are lower than those of the 
estates. There are a variety of reasons responsible for the 
differences in yields among the farmers and between the farmers and 
the estates. They are mainly related to cultivation practices, the 
most important of which are those of land preparation and fertiliser 
usage, though cane varieties, ratooning and land quality also affect 
production. Farming ability, capital inputs and the land are 
fundamental to these problems. 
183 
Cultivation practices 
Very different standards of cultivation obtain among cane 
farmers. Larger farms adopt methods similar to those used on the 
estates, but even some of these and most of the smaller producers use 
inferior practices, owing in some cases to lack of knowledge and in 
others to lack of capital or both. Those who depend on the crop to 
a great extent utilise much labour and capital in its production. 
Others, mainly the smaller farmers who depend for only a small part 
of their income on sugar cane, regard the crop as a side -line which 
may repay efforts in some years, but not in others. ror some of 
these farmers the cultivation operations are either not performed or 
are kept to a minimum. 
Land preparation. 
The main operations involved in land Preparation are clearing 
of the land, ploughing and 'refining' or harrowing the soil, banking 
and draining. The amount and type of drainage required depends on 
the topography, and this affects the cost of this operation, being 
more expensive in the low -lying area (table 27). For the small 
farmers, the clearing operation can be done without paid labour, but 
about half the farmers do use paid labour. Formerly, when the soil 
was prepared manually, the small farmers could also have attempted 
this operation without paid help, but since the early 1950s the land 
has been ploughed by wheeled tractors. It has been seen that less 
than 1070 of farmers own land preparation equipment (table 32) so that 
most farmers must pay for such tasks. The cutting of drains and the 
cambering of beds are still done manually. Small farmers can carry 
out these tasks themselves or with unpaid family assistance. In spite 
of the fact that the major land preparation operations are done with 
182 
the aid of mechanised equipment, the type of equipment used by 
farmers is generally not as efficient as the heavier equipment used 
by the estates and cannot produce the same results. One of the major 
effects of the unavailability of suitable equipment is that the 
farmers who cultivate lands that are gently to steeply sloping cannot 
use contour ploughing as a technique to prevent soil loss, because 
the equipment necessary requires heavy capital outlay. ii-any farmers 
indeed are still not aware of contour ploughing as a technique 
through which soil loss can be prevented, though efforts have been 
made to disseminate such knowledge and farmers can see the technique 
being used on the estates in the southern areas. Thus, even though 
mechanised land preparation is now widespread, there are still some 
problems about the methods used, for low yields and soil loss are 
fairly widespread. 
Plantinn 
Formerly, very little systematic planting of entire plots 
was practiced by farmers. Once a field had been planted, gaps.' that 
appeared were usually supply -planted with new setts, so that a single 
field would eventually have plant canes and ratoon canes of several 
years in various stages of maturity. 'rith the availability of 
mechanised land preparation equipment, however, this practice seems 
to have diminished. More farmers now plant entire plots in one 
operation, although supply -planting is acceptable for a few years. 
The actual planting operations, of cutting the setts, dropping them 
in rows and breaking the banks over the setts, can be done by the 
smaller farmers with small acreages without resorting to paid 
assistance. Yet, it was found that just under half the farmers in 
the first four groups and almost all the farmers in the remaining 
three groups used paid labour for planting operations (table 34). 
The time of planting is variable. Generally it is either 
in the harvest, when plants are available more cheaply but labour 
is scarce, or during the latter part of the year, when setts are 
obtained from more valuable cane that was cut early in the year 
and would have been ready for harvesting early in the following 
year. Thus for late -planting more labour is available, but plants 
are expensive, while for planting during the harvest, labour is 
more difficult to obtain, but plants are less expensive. Plants 
are obtained frcm the estates or from other farmers. It appeared 
that, although farmers did want new and better varieties of cane, 
no concerted attempt was made by any of the connected organisations 
to provide the best varieties of cane for the farmers. 
Varieties 
Farmers have always planted several varieties of cane and 
this is still the practice. On one small plot of land there may be 
four or more varieties grown in an intermixture. The varieties 
grown are stipulated by the estates on the contract agreements made 
with farmers. For 1967 the permitted varieties were B.H.1C(12), 
B.3 1o4, B.156, B.726, B.37161, B.37172, B.4362, B.4098, and 
B.L9119.1 That part of the questionnaire in the survey relating to 
varieties of cane grown by cane farmers was scrapped because in 
many cases farmers themselves could not say what varieties they 
ware growing, nor what proportion of their cane was of a specific 
variety. One variety, the Bx or 'Crackers' variety, is specifically 
1. For sugar cane varieties the letter which precedes the number 
usually refers to the place where the variety was bred. In the 
case of Trinidad, it is apparent that most of the varieties 
grown were bred in Barbados. 
1e,6 
barred by the estates because it has a low sucrose content, but 
produces high yields of cane per acre. For this reason it is 
preferred by farmers. Small quantities of this variety are still 
grown and are mixed with other acceptable varieties in order to be 
sold to the millers (see p. 79 ). 
It has been pointed out by farmers that it is unfair for the 
estates to stipulate what varieties farmers should grow when the same 
stipulations do not hold good for the estates and the farmers have no 
control on the varieties that are grown by the estates. This 
argument may have little substance for it is to the advantage of the 
estates to grow the best varieties. Perhaps it is slightly 
unprincipled for one sector of an industry to make rules which the 
other side must adhere to without any reciprocity, if both are to be 
regarded as partners or 'co- partners' in the industry (see footnote 5, 
Ch. 3). However, a more valid criticism is that when new varieties 
are available a considerable time elapses before plants of the new 
varieties are obtained by farmers. 
Ratooning 
When canes are first planted they are harvested some 12 to 
18 months later as 'plant canes' or 'stand -over plant canes' or as 
'one 
-year' or 'two -year' plant canes as they are sometimes designated. 
The stools are allowed to grow again and are ready for harvesting 
twelve months later, and the process, known as ratooning, is 
continued annually until returns are no longer economic (table 5). 
It has been seen that on the estates the percentage of 
ratoons has increased over recent years because they have been able 
to maintain yields at economic levels. Depending on the returns, the 
estates may obtain five or six harvests, sometimes even more, from 
ratoons, though in some cases this may be restricted to two harvests 
only. Ín the 1930s, harvests from two ratoon crops only were normal, 
for yields decreased markedly after that. It was not until the 
froghcpper pest was effectively brought under control by estates in 
the 1950s that yields of ratoon canes increased on the estates. For 
most farmers yields from all canes, plant or ratoon, continued to be 
low. 
It was difficult to obtain actual figures or even 
approximations of farmerstcane under ratoons of different ages. Only 
the larger farmers planted set proportions of their cane each year 
and only these had a clear idea of the ratoons they were growing. 
The majority of farmers did not replant their cane at set intervals, 
and most could not remember the actual acreages under different 
ratoons. The responses to this question, therefore, do not provide 
reliable data. The only figure that was generally obtainable Was 
that of the age of the oldest ratoon on a farmers' holding. About 
87% of the farmers are estimated to have ratoons that are sixth or 
younger (table 34). Only about 13 ;', have seventh or older ratoons. 
It ajp ears, therefore, that the length of ratooning is generally 
similar for estates and farmers, though the yields obtained by the 
estates are far higher owing to better cultivation practices, and 
especially with ratoon crops, their more efficient control of the 
froghopper. 
It has been shown that plant canes are more expensive to 
grow than ratoons. With plant canes, if the farmer pays for every 
operation, then at best his costs will be barely covered and more 
usually he incurs a loss (table 27). Of course, the farmer may 
carry out several of the production and harvesting operations with 
188 
unpaid labour so that expenses are minimised. Even so, it is 
almost impossible to make a profit from plant canes. With ratoons 
it has been seen that much less expense is involved, for the land 
preparation and planting phases of the crop are not required. Yields 
can be kept high for ratoons, but even rrith a reduced yield it is 
still relatively easy to obtain a profit. Thus it is attractive 
and beneficial for farmers and estates alike to ratoon canes for as 
long as possible. Because the crop is one that can keep on producing 
indefinitely with minimum maintenance, some farmers continue 
ratooning for periods longer than six years. It is worth noting that 
18.V of the farmers in the smallest size group had ratoons older 
than the sixth, and the figures for the next three groups were 17.4 %, 
10.2% and 7.7;x. For classes 5,6 and 7 the figures were 17.7%, 36.4% 
and 45.5% respectively (table 35). It is possible that as the 
fanners in the lowest category do not depend on sugar cane for a 
great part of their income, they will be prepared to ratoon for 
longer periods because the small income they normally get can be 
derived even from older, low- yielding ratoons, without the expenses 
and risks to be incurred in replanting. Increasingly in categories 
2, 3 and 4 farmers begin to depend more and more on incomes from cane, 
so that more farmers have to extract a larger share of their income 
from the crop. Thus fewer farmers ratoon for so long a period that 
the returns become negligible. They must obtain a higher proportion 
of their income from the land and are forced to maintain their cane at 
a better standard than the farmers in the lowest group, who normally 
can afford to wait until prices are more attractive before replanting 
and can accept the minimal returns from older ratoons because they 
have other sources of income, usually off -farm. For the three larger 
T
a
bl
e 
35
: 
A
g
e
 
o
f 
o
ld
es
t 
r
a
t
o
o
n
s
 
g
r
o
w
n
 
by
 f
ar
me
rs
 
in
 1
96
7 
a
c
c
o
r
di
ng
 
t
o
 
c
la
ss
es
 
(p
er
ce
nt
ag
es
).
 
C
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
N
o
 
R
a
t
o
o
n
s
 
1s
t 
R
a
t
o
o
n
 
2n
d 
R
a
t
bo
n 
3r
d 
R
a
t
o
o
n
 
4t
h 
R
a
t
o
o
 
5t
h 
R
a
t
o
o
i 
6t
h 
R
a
t
o
o
n
 
7t
h 
a
n
d 
o
ld
er
 
R
a
t
o
o
n
 
1 
18
.8
 
4.
2 
22
.9
 
10
.4
 
8.
3 
6.
3 
10
.4
 
18
.8
 
2 
5.
8 
5.
8 
11
.6
 
20
.7
 
19
.8
 
7.
4 
11
.6
 
17
.L
L 
3 
2.
6 
4.
6 
14
.9
 
30
.4
 
20
.1
 
9.
8 
7.
2 
10
.2
 
4 
2.
9 
0.
7 
9.
4 
23
.7
 
23
.7
 
11
.7
 
13
.7
 
7.
2 
5 
0.
5 
7.
4 
21
.2
 
23
.6
 
15
.8
 
14
.3
 
17
.2
 
6 
_
 
_
 
12
.1
 
42
.4
 
9.
1 
36
.4
 
7 
_
 
_
_
_
 
18
.2
 
27
.3
 
9.
1 
45
.5
 
P
o
p
u
la
ti
on
 
s
 
im
at
es
 
0 `
 
12
% 
.
,
 
21
% 
1 
11
' 
1 
?
 
190 
production categories an increasingly higher proportion have older 
ratoons. This is possibly owing to the fact that these farmers have 
more land and hence are more likely to have small acreages of old 
ratoons which are possibly still producing economic returns. It 
must be remembered that the relevant question asked was only meant 
to indicate the age of the oldest ratoon and not the proportion or 
acreage under the oldest ratoon. This information could not be 
obtained generally owing to memory lapses and the relatively 
unsystematic methods of replanting. It is also possible that the 
larger farms could maintain yields to an economic level on older 
ratoons, at least as compared to the smaller farms. Because of this, 
then, a higher proportion of the larger producers have ratoons that 
were older than the seventh ratoon (table 35). Unfortunately, a 
large number of farmers appear to perform little or no cultivation 
on ratoon cane, so that a return is obtained at minimum cost, but 
soil fertility is endangered and a wasteful system of land 
utilisation results. On the richer alluvial lands of the. Caparo and 
South Or000uche Valleys adequate maintenance makes long ratooning 
quite acceptable, for costs are kept down and yields are not severely 
affected. There were isolated instances of ratoons that were over 
20 years old in these two areas and the farmers claimed that the 
yields obtained were above 20 tons per acre. 
Froghoppper 
The most serious pest in sugar cane production in Trinidad, 
the froghopper (Aneolania varia saccharine), affects mainly ratoon 
canes. It was seen that for the estates expenditure on control 
measures of this pest is the second largest single item in the.over- 
all cost of producing ratoon crops (figure 8a). For farmers the 
191 
control problem is also very important, for lack of control affects 
yields adversely. It was found, however, that most of the farmers 
whose cane suffered froghopper damage did nothing to oe ntrol its 
effects (table 36) and even fewer of the small farmers applied 
control measures. 
It is estimated that the cost of controlling the pest 
effectively is about $34.00TT per acre, half of which is refundable 
by the State as a subsidy. Few farmers appear to apply for this 
subsidy however (see p.220). It is apparent that the risk of 
committing capital, even when half the cost is subsidised, is too 
great for peasant production of a low income crop of low yields, and 
that the fear of unpredictable froghopper damage encourages neglect 
and results in poor land utilisation. In 1967, for the first time, 
the State, the Cane Farmers' Association and one of the sugar 
estates together arranged for the aerial spraying of farmers' lands 
affected in the Bejucal area. It was claimed that this experiment 
was successful and that it would be continued. There are, however, 
limitations on this approach since it is necessary to have fairly 
large compact areas for aerial spraying to be efficient and not all 
farmers' cane LS so located. 
Fertilisers 
Prior to the mid -1950s pen -manure was used when available 
and little artificial fertiliser was applied by farmers. In his 
1933 survey, Gilbert noted that "artificial fertilisers are little 
known among small farmers, although facilities for purchasing them 
on favourable terms exist with some Lstates. "7 At the present time, 
2. Gilbert, op.cit., p. 9. 
192 
TABLE 36 
Percentages of Farmers who attempted to control the froghopper 
according to :classes of farmers (percentages). 
Classes of 
farmers 
% whose cane was % whose cane was affected 
not affected 
No control 
methods 
used 
Used control 
methods 
1 64.6 31.3 4.2 
2 65.3 30.6 4.2 
3 68.0 22.7 9.3 
4 54.7 30.2 15.1 
5 51.2 27.6 21.2 
6 69.7 12.1 18.2 
7 90.9 00.0 9.1 
Population 
estimates 61% 27% 12% 
193 
however, only negligible quantities of pen -manure are used and most 
farmers are not only aware of artificial fertilisers, but also use 
them (table 37). Facilities exist for purchasing fertilisers 
through the estates, credit societies and the Cane Farmers' Association. 
Over recent years there has been a certain amount of confusion as.to 
which of these outlets handles the distribution most efficiently and 
at cheapest cost. During 1967, T.I.C.F.A. supplied most of the 
fertilisers to farmers though /even then /the estates were supplying 
some 'farmers as well (table 38) . 
The major stipulation for the supply of fertiliser is that a 
minimum of 10 tons of cane should be supplied in the previous year. 
The emphasis is on the recovery of money spent for fertilisers. This 
effectively means that the farmers in the smallest group do not 
obtain such credit facilities in the following year. About 61 of 
farmers claimed that they obtained fertiliser on credit in 1967 and 
about 31;% paid in cash (table 39). Just over 86 used no fertiliser 
at all, almost all of whom belonged to the first three production . 
categories. The type of fertiliser used is generally sulphate of 
ammonia, though a few farmers used super -phosphate on plant canes. 
Very few farmers applied lime or potash. 
It was found that farmers varied not only in the amount of 
fertiliser they applied but also in the time of application (see p.197). 
The figure used for fertiliser applied was obtained by dividing the 
amount of fertiliser bought by the acreage under cane. In a few 
instances farmers who bought fertiliser on credit did not use all 
the fertiliser on their own holdings, but sold it to other farmers, 
so that the amount bought was not in all cases the amount applied. 
It is also realised that practices would vary on even one holding 
T
a
bl
e 
37
: 
F
e
r
t
il
is
er
 u
s
a
g
e
 
by
 
fa
rm
er
s 
a
c
c
o
r
di
ng
 t
o
 
c
la
ss
es
 
(p
er
ce
nt
ag
es
).
 
1 
C
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
N
o
n
e
 
u
s
e
d 
1 
c
w
t
 
p
e
r
 
a
c
r
e
 
2 
c
w
t
 
p
e
r
 
a
c
r
e
 
3 
c
w
t
 
p
e
r
 
a
c
r
e
 
4.
 
c
w
t
 
p
e
r
 
a
c
r
e
 
O
v
e
r
 
4 
c
w
t
 
p
e
r
 
a
c
r
e
 
1 
39
.6
 
6.
3 
10
.4
 
10
.4
 
20
.8
 
12
.5
 
2 
13
.2
 
3.
3 
25
.6
 
20
.7
 
25
.6
 
11
.6
 
3 
6.
7 
6.
2 
27
.3
 
24
.2
 
19
.1
 
16
.5
 
4 
0.
7 
5.
0 
28
.8
 
21
.6
 
19
.4
 
24
.4
 
5 
2.
5 
2.
5 
19
.2
 
23
.6
 
21
.2
 
31
.0
 
6 
9.
1.
 
33
.3
 
15
.2
 
42
.4
- 
7 
_
 
9.
1 
_
 
9.
1 
36
.4
 
45
.5
 
-
 
P
o
p
u
la
ti
on
 
e
s
t
im
at
es
 
8%
 
5%
 
25
% 
2e
 
21
7 
19
 
195 
Table 32. 
Source of fertiliser by classes of farmers (percentages). 
Classes of 
farmers 
Sources No 
ertiliser 
sed 
CFDs of 
estates 
TICFA Commercial 
firms 
Others 
(friends 
and rel 
-atives 
mainly 
1 4.2 22.9 29.2 4.2 39.6 
2 16.5 37.2 30.6 2.5 13.2 
3 19.1 42.8 27.3 4.1 6.7 
4 19.4 58.3 21.6 0.7 ,W.. 
5 15.8 48.8 31.5 1.5 2.5 
6 12.1 36.4 48.5 3.0 
--- 
7 9.1 9.1 72.7 9.1 - 
Population 
estirr tes 17` 451 2$c°_ 8 
Table 39. 
Fertiliser on credit by classes of farmers (percentages). 
Classes of 
farmers 
Farmers who_used fertiliser Farmers who used 
no fertiliser `'redit Cash 
1 27.1 33.3 39.6 
2 52.9 33.9 13.2 
3 61.9 31.4 6.7 
4 74.8 24.5 0.7 
5 64.4 33.2 2.5 
6 42.4 57.6 
7 18.2 72.7 9.1 
Population 
estimates 61% 31/ 8 
1 °6 
where a farmer may apply variable amounts of fertiliser to different 
fields depending on what he thinks sufficient. Generally, however, 
these two situations should not serve to falsify the data received 
to any great extent. 
Some of the 8% of farmers who did not apply fertiliser in 
1967 (table 37) had used artificial fertiliser in previous years, 
but did not do so in 1967 because of lack of capital and credit, or 
because they felt that their time and money could be better used 
elsewhere considering the small returns obtained in recent years. 
A small proportion of farmers, about 5%, used only 1 cwt. per acre, 
about a quarter of the farmers used only 2 cwt., and just over a 
fifth applied 3 cwt.,per acre. Thus about three- fifths of the 
farmers used either no fertilisers or less than the recommended 
amount. About one -fifth used ¿ cwt., and the cther fifth over 4 cwt. 
per acre. Thus two -fifths of farmers apply adequate or more than 
adeq ;ate amounts of fertiliser. 
Several possible reasons can be suggested for the distribution 
of fertiliser usage as shown in table 36. Firstly, it is likely that 
some farmers could not obtain fertiliser on credit nor could they 
find the capital in any other way and so could not obtain fertiliser, 
or could obtain only inadequate amounts. Secondly, the basis on which 
fertiliser is distributed on credit at 2 cwt. for every 10 tons of 
cane sold means that if a farmer is to obtain sufficient fertiliser 
on credit to apply the recommended amount of 4 cwt., he must have 
produced 20 tons of cane per acre. It has been shown that feu farmers 
achieve these yields and, therefore, most farmers cannot obtain the 
required amount of fertiliser which their holdings require. Thirdly, 
some farmers who do have the resources to provide fertiliser lack 
the knowledge to apply it properly and may apply too little or too 
much fertiliser. Lack of adequate farming knowledge and capital and 
the basis on which fertiliser is distributed on credit are 
contributory factors to the problem of fertiliser usage. Inadequate 
farming ability and the fact that many farmers depend on credit for 
obtaining fertiliser result in the fertiliser frequently being 
applied at times which would not result in the prod.:etion of optimum 
yields. Recommended practice is that there should be two dressings 
of fertiliser, one soon after the plants have germinated and the 
other some six weeks later.3 The lack of capital and hence the need 
to await fertiliser sup lies from the credit sources often result in 
the optimum periods being passed. 
Other cultivation tasks 
In addition to applying fertiliser, many farmers perform 
other cultivation tasks between planting and harvesting. Weeding and 
trashing are usually done though there are some farmers who do little 
else between planting and harvesting, besides putting dressings of 
fertiliser. About 8L% of the farmers are estimated to do weeding 
manually and about 15% use both manual methods and chemical herbicides 
(table 4O). Very few farmers use chemical herbicides only. If a 
division is made at 100 tons, it is seen that about 90iß of the farmers 
in the four lowest production categories used manual methods only, 
while for the three groups who sell over 100 tons about 62% used 
manual methods, the rest using combinations of manual and chemical 
controls. Trashing of cane, that is the removal of dried foliage, is 
3. 2.toosai- 1,:aharaj, R. "The use of sulphate of ammonia in sugar cane 
cultivation'. Paper in TICPA Annual Reports, 1957 -59, pp..83 -84. 
1 98 
not now practiced on the estates, but it is still common among 
farmers. Other cultivation tasks performed include the re- shaping of 
rows and cutlassing, which can be regarded as part of the weeding 
operation. As far as labour is concerned, just over 50% of the farmers 
claimed that they used some paid labour on cultivation tasks such as 
weeding, trashing, moulding and fertiliser application. The rest used 
only unpaid labour. As is to be expected, a higher proportion of the 
smaller farmers provide their own labour for cultivation tasks, or 
perhaps do not have these tasks performed either by themselves or by 
paid labour (table 34). 
Harvesting 
This is the operation on which most paid labour is utilised. 
Some 70% of farmers employ paid labour for harvesting. Again, as is 
to be expected, the proportion of farmers employing paid labour 
increases the higher the production class (table 34). The wage rates 
paid are similar to those paid on the estates, and the work is usually 
given by 'tasks', that is a set piece of work of about one -eighth to 
one -ninth of an acre is given for a pre -arranged wage. Sometimes the 
cane cutter is paid an extra wage for loading the cane onto transporting 
vehicles, but the practices employed vary. The cutter may load the cane 
for an all -in wage or the loading may be considered as a separate 
op eration. 
The condition of the fields and the access roads are very 
important at this time for the carts or tractor -drawn trailers usually 
move over the cultivated ground and so considerable damage can be done 
to the cane stools, the drainage system and the bed cambering, when 
the ground is soft. Farther, because most of the in -field transport 
for farmers is done. by animals, the condition of the ground can make 
199 
the movement of a heavy, bulky crop almost impossible and harvesting 
may have to stop. It is not abnormal for this to occur in some of the 
more peripheral areas of higher rainfall in 3,ay or June, because the 
rains have caused the access roads and fields to be impassable. In 
the South Oropouche Valley and on the edges of the swamps, roads and 
bridges require improvement. Even on the main trunk roads potholes 
were quite evident during the 1568 harvest. The access roads are much 
worse; they are not paved and at times become veritable quagmires. 
Just under half the farmers, about 48%, complained that the condition 
of roads affected harvesting to some extent and about 33 claimed that 
the general bad conditions of the roads affected not only harvesting 
of cane, but other activities as well (table 4+1). Some attention is 
being given to this problem as evidenced by reports in the cane 
farmers' journal,4 but the conditions do not seem to have improved 
sufficiently. It was apparent during field work that the marginal 
nature of some farmers' holdings in terms of topography is partly 
responsible for this situation. 
The difficulties faced by farmers are increased when they 
arrive at the purchasing points. The waste of man-power entailed by 
farmers having to wait for the greater part of a day to deliver one 
load of cane has been noted by several observers over the decades. 
The Gilï^ert5 survey and the Soulbury6 and iacKenzie7 commissions 
remarked on the loss of valuable time at the period when it was most 
needed. It was claimed by farmers that for most years up to 1567, it 
4. See The Cane Farmer, Vol. 10, No. 3, and several other issues. 
Published by Trinidad Islandwide Cane Farmers' Association, 
Trinidad. 
5. Gilbert, oo.cit., p. 9. 
6. Soulbury Commission Report, p. )i . 
7. ilacKenzie Commission Report, pp. 19 -20. 
200 
TABLE, 40 
Weeding Practices by classes: of. farmers (percentages). 
Classes of 
farmers 
Manual weeding 
only 
Chemicals 
only 
Combinations 
1 93.8 0.0 6.2 
2 92.6 0.0 7.4 
3 88.1 0.0 11.9 
4 86.3 0.0 13.7 
5 62.6 1.0 36.5 
6 33.3 0.0 66.7 
7 45.5 0.0 54.5 
Population 
estimates 84% Negligible 16% 
TABLE 41 
Road conditions in vicinity of farmers' holdings bV classes of farmers. 
Classes of 
farmers 
` 
of farmers who consider roads to be % who claim 
that road 
conditions 
affect 
harvest 
Good Mediocre Bad 
r--- 
1 43.8 29.2 27.1 33.3 
2 40.5 36.4 23.1 36.3 
3 29.4 35.1 32.5 49.0 
4 31.7 38.1 30.2 46.0 
5 21.7 36.0 42.4 63.1 
6 12.1 33.3 54.5 72.7 
7 45.5 27.3 27.3 54.5 
Population 
estimates 32% 37% 31% 486 
231 
took almost a full day to sell one load of cane. Such a load may be 
of less than one ton if the farmer used a -small animal drawn cart, as 
is quite normal. Various attempts have been made to organise the 
selling of farmers' cane more effectively, but none met with great 
success until the 1968 harvest when the spell system of reaping was 
re- introduced more successfully, having been used earlier with little 
success (see p.64 ). About two- thirds of all farmers complained of 
this difficulty for the 1967 harvest, but almost all farmers agreed 
that the 1968 harvest was the best organised that they could remember. 
During 1968 all the mills operated without serious breakdowns, the new 
machinery at the Usine Ste. Madeleine worked almost at capacity, and 
there was greater co- operation among farmers. These contributed to 
the success of the re- introduced system. Larger farm units would help 
in solving this problem even further, for with larger units more of the 
transport will be mechanised and will thus be able to deliver larger 
loads. It is obvious that there would be less confusion at the purch- 
asing points if fewer farmers delivered the same amount of cane that 
was to be delivered by a larger number of small farmers using animal- 
drawn' carts. None of the farmers who delivered carie to the scales 
located at the Erechin Castle and Woodford Lodge mills complained of 
waiting for long periods. The farmers supplying cane to these scales 
are usually the larger farmers who use mechanised transport. 
Cutting, loading and carting charges eat heavily into the gross 
income. The expenses vary from ,$ .5CTT to ,7.5CTT per ton for just 
over 6C¡ of the farmers (table 11). The rest owned their transport and 
so may pay only for cutting and loading, or may even perform these 
operations solely with the help of unpaid labour. The type of transport 
used has already been discussed in the previous chapter. 
202 
The distance between the holding and purchasing point is 
another factor which affects harvesting. It was shown that about 
three -quarters of the farmers have their main cane plots within three 
miles of purchasing points, but there are others who are located as 
such as 15 miles away from a scale. The operation of the spell 
system meant that some scales were closed at times and that farmers 
were not allowed to cut their cane at anytime they chose. The result 
was that in some cases farmers were unable to sell all their cane at 
one point, since the scale nearest to their holding might have been 
closed before the farmers had completed their harvesting. .:oreover, 
the widespread fragmentation that has been shown to exist means that 
more farmers will have plots further away than three miles from the 
purchasing points. The figures collected refer only to main plots. 
It is worth repeating that the expenses for transporting cane to the 
purchasing scale is borne by farmers individually, and that expenses 
for transport from the scales to the rolls are borne collectively by 
farmers as set out under the price formula. 
There are some other problems which are claimed by farmers to 
affect them adversely or unfairly. These include the standards by 
which farmers' cane and estates' cane are deemed fit for milling. The 
impression gained during the survey was that there was just cause for 
such complaints. It was noticed that when farmers' canes were not 
free of foliage and tops the farmers were made to clean the cane to an 
acceptable standard. This is an acceptable situation if estate ?canes 
were similarly treated, but this was not seen to be the case, for 
estate cane in similar or worse condition was sent directly to be 
milled. A further complaint concerned the maturity of cane when it was 
203 
milled, and it seemed, especially at the end of the 1968 harvest, that 
immature estate cane was being milled. Immature cane has a lower 
sucrose content and so worsens the tc /ts ratio, which in turn affects 
the price paid to farmers, for the divisor in the price formula is thus 
raised. It is possible that the events noted at the end of the 1968 
harvest were due to special conditions at that time and need not 
necessarily be the same every year, though these complaints have been 
made by the Cane Farmers' Association previously. Moreover, it is the 
apparent use of double standards in favour of the estates that more 
often than not threatens to worsen relations between farmers and estates. 
Production of other crops 
Although most farmers grow crops other than sugar cane, for 
about 8Cj practice intercropping of food crops with plant canes, it has 
been seen that about one -third of the cane -farming population appears 
to have other commercial agricultural enterprises. Sweet potatoes, 
maize, pigeon peas ana tomatoes are planted between the rows of cane of 
the 'plant crop' in the practice of intercropping. The crops are 
usually short term ones which have a production cycle of four to five 
months. Although some regard this as a practice which affects cane 
yields adversely, it has been suggested by officers of TICFA and also 
by the head of the CFD of one of the estates, that the practice does 
not affect yields greatly, if at all, and also that it provides some 
farmers with returns, either in kind or cash, if part of the crop is 
sold ±ring the rainy season when the need is greatest. It is worth 
noting that of the 8C% who practice intercropping the highest 
percentages are among the smallest producers (table 1+2). Few of the 
farmers in the two largest groups practice intercropping, because it 
204 
Table 42. 
Practice of intercropping by classes of farmers (percentages). 
Classes of farmers % of farmers who intercrop 
i 85.4 
2 82.6 
3 78.9 
4 84.9 
5 74.4 
6 39.4 
7 9.1 
Population estimate 80% 
205 
appears that they can afford to pay for most of their food requirements. 
Moreover, many of the farmers who do not grow food crops indicated that 
far too great a proportion of these crops was stolen, and so it was not 
worth taking the risk to grow such crops. 
The farmers who grow other crops for sale, one -third the total, 
are spread fairly evenly over all the production categories, except that 
the largest farmers show a lower proportion and the two smallest 
categories show slightly greater proportions (table 43).8 Vegetables, 
root crops, legumes, tree crops and tobacco were the main crops groan 
for sale. As has been indicated previously, there are some crop 
combinations in a few restricted areas, such as Bejucal- Charlieville with 
sugar cane -root crops -vegetables -rice; Fenal -Debe and other parts of the 
Oropouche Valley with sugar cane -legumes -vegetables -rice; the Orange 
Grove areas of Arouca, Tacarigua and Guanapo, and in the central areas, 
McBean, with sugar cane -vegetables; and the eastern areas of Todd's Road, 
Caparo, Tabaquite, Brother's Road and Rio Claro with sugar cane -tree 
crops 
-root crops. The tree crops produced are usually.cócoa,.coffee and 
citrus. In the Las Lomas, Ravine Sable and Freeport areas some farmers 
are growing sugar cane and tobacco, but this is only a recent development 
and no real pattern has emerged. It has been seen that those farmers 
who grow tobacco also produce food crops on the same plots and usually 
for conanrcial purposes. It will be noted that the average production 
8. It will be noticed that there are riscrepancies between tables 17 
and ¿i-2 as regards the percentage: of each production category 
having their commercial agricultural enterprises. The figures in 
table 42 are slightly higher because even those farmers who 'grow 
crops only for subsistance purposes but may sell any surplus are 
included, while these are excluded in table 17. 
T
a
bl
e 
43
; 
F
a
r
m
e
r
s
 
g
r
o
w
in
g 
o
t
he
r 
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
ia
l 
c
r
o
p
s
 
a
n
d 
m
a
r
ke
ti
ng
 
o
f 
s
u
c
h 
c
r
o
p
s
 
by
 
c
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
(p
er
ce
nt
ag
es
).
 
C
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
% 
n
o
t
 
g
r
o
w
in
g 
o
t
he
r 
c
o
m
m
.
 
c
r
o
p
s
 
% 
o
 f
 
fa
rm
er
s 
g
r
o
u
t
in
g 
o
t
he
r 
c
o
m
m
e
r
c
ia
l 
c
r
o
p
s
 
R
e
t
a
il
 o
u
t
le
ts
 
W
ho
le
sa
le
 
o
r
 
o
t
he
r 
o
u
t
le
ts
 
P
u
bl
ic
 
m
a
r
ke
t 
R
o
a
ds
id
e 
W
ho
le
sa
le
 
a
t
 
m
a
r
ke
t 
W
ho
le
sa
le
 
a
t
 
fa
rm
 
M
a
r
ke
ti
ng
 
a
g
e
n
c
y
 
O
t
he
r 
1 
60
.4
 
16
.7
 
6.
3 
6.
3 
4.
2 
6.
3 
2 
61
.2
 
17
.4
 
7.
4 
5.
8 
5.
8 
0.
9 
1.
7 
3 
64
.9
 
15
.5
 
6.
2 
6.
2 
3.
1 
1.
5 
2.
6 
4 
66
.2
 
8.
6 
5.
0 
7.
9 
7.
9 
0.
7 
3.
6 
5 
68
.0
 
10
.8
 
3.
0 
7.
4 
5.
4 
0.
5 
L
.
9 
6 
66
.7
 
3.
0 
6.
1 
3.
0 
21
.2
 
7 
81
.8
 
_
 
18
.2
 
.
_
 
_
 
_
.
.
.
_
 
-
 
P
o
p
u
la
ti
on
 
e
s
t
im
at
es
 
65
% 
14
% 
5%
 
7%
 
5%
 
11
 
3r
 
207 
of sugar cane per farmer at the purchasing points in areas where there 
are other commercial agricultural enterprises is generally lower than 
for most other areas where farmers depend only on sugar cane (figure 17). 
As regards the disposal of these crops, it was found that food 
crops, be they legumes, vegetables or root crops, were mostly sold 
retail either at a public market or at the roadside. About 54% of the 
farmers who grow other crops for purposes of sale, sold these crops in 
one or both of the above ways. About 37¡ sold crops at wholesale prices 
either to wholesalers at public markets, to dealers who come to buy at 
the farms, or to the Central Larketing Agency. About 
. 
sold crops 
through other outlets at what can be regarded as wholesale prices as 
well. These were mainly cocoa and coffee producers who sold their crops 
to licensed dealers; and tobacco producers who had an outlet in the 
local cigarette manufacturer (table 43). It is worth noting that the 
larger farmers who grow other crops commercially sold their crops 
through dealers meaning that the crops most likely to be grown by larger 
farmers were tree crops rather than food crops. 
In the previous chapter, the short period of time spent by most 
farmers on other crops was noted. In terms of acreage also, it is 
estimated that of the 63,000 acres in farmers holdings, about two- thirds 
were under cane and about 10,000 acres, or one -sixth, were under non- 
tree crops, unused land, scrub and pasture and built -up land. Thus, 
both in terms of time spent and land devoted to non -tree crops other 
than cane, it appears that the main purpose for which such crops are 
grown by most farmers is subsistence. 
208 
Livestock 
The distribution of livestock units9 according to size groups 
is Shown on table ¿4. The total units are very small and the average 
number of units increases with size of production. An estimated 4.25' 
of the farmers do not have any livestock. Some of these have poultry, 
but poultry were not included in calculating livestock units. During 
the survey three farmers interviewed owned poultry farms. host others 
had a few poultry, but not for commercial purposes. One -third of the 
farmers have only one livestock unit, and only an estimated 1) +:1 had 
more than five units. In his survey, Gilbert found that in the Naparima 
area in 1932 the average number of units, similarly calculated, were 
about 0.5 per holdirg.10 In the present survey the weighted average 
for all the production categories combined is 1.2 units per holding. 
The type of livestock owned is usually for draught purposes or 
for providing milk for the family or household. It was shown that an 
estimated 57i. of farmers use only animal transport. The animals used 
for such purposes, with the total number of units enumerated in the 
survey in brackets, were water buffaloes (2.41), oxen (73), mules, horses 
and donkeys combined (76). Only 12 units of beef cattle were returned 
in the survey. This is partly because cattle are not raised specifically 
for Ieef production and beef supplies may come from either dairy or 
draught cattle. Further, because most of the farmers are Hindus, many 
will not sell their cattle for slaughtering or may not claim that they 
raise cattle for beef production, though some may sell animals for such 
purposes. 
9. The calculation of the livestock units ,is explained in Appendix 3. 
10. Gilbert, op.cit., p. 37. 
T
a
bl
e 
44
: 
D
is
tr
ib
ut
io
n 
o
f 
li
ve
st
oc
k 
u
n
it
s 
a
c
c
o
r
di
ng
 
t
o
 
c
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
(o
er
ce
nt
m 
e
s
):
 
1C
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
L
iv
es
to
ck
 u
n
it
s 
r
u
n
s
 
S
t
d.
De
v.
 
(u
ni
ts
) 
N
o
n
e
 
0.
1 
-
1.
0 
1.
1 
-
2.
0 
2.
1 
-
3.
0 
3.
1 
-
4.
0 
4.
1 
-
5.
0 
5.
1 
-
10
.0
 
o
v
e
r
 
10
.1
 
(u
ni
ts
' 
1 
58
.3
 
25
.0
 
10
.4
 
4.
2 
2.
1 
0.
75
 
1.
45
 
2 
47
.9
 
33
.9
 
7.
4 
_
.
_
_
 
6.
6 
0.
8 
0.
8 
1.
7 
_
.
_
.
 
0.
8 
0.
99
 
2.
11
 
3 
46
.9
 
29
.9
 
9.
8 
6.
7 
2.
6 
1.
5 
1.
5 
1.
0 
1,
14
 
2.
52
 
4 
32
.4
 
41
.0
 
14
.4
 
7.
2 
2.
2 
2.
9 
1.
23
 
1.
58
 
5 
31
.0
 
32
.5
 
14
.8
 
5.
9 
6.
9 
_
 
2.
5 
5.
4 
-
 
1.
0 
1.
4 
6 
2.
37
 
6 
39
.4
 
18
.2
 
24
.2
 
6.
1 
9.
1 
3.
0 
2.
51
 
5.
10
 
7 
36
.4
 
18
.2
 
9.
1 
18
.2
 
_
 
_
 
18
.2
 
L
.
55
 
P
.
O
L
 
-
 
P
o
p
u
la
ti
on
 
e
s
t
im
at
es
 
42
% 
33
% 
11
% 
6 
3%
 
l 
r
o
 
30
° 
1°
 
210 
The greatest number of units, L75, were of dairy cattle. Most 
of the farmers use their milk supply for domestic purposes and few 
sell milk. Recently, however, it appears that raising dairy cattle 
for commercial purposes is becoming more widespread. The main 
contributing factors in this appear to be the existence of a milk 
processing plant, and government subsidies for better varieties of 
grasses and provision of water supplies for animals. It was noted 
earlier that there is very little good pasture in the sugar producing 
areas. The fact that there are also so many small farmers does present 
difficulties in the way of expansion of livestock production. The 
small size of holdings and their fragmented state result in the animals 
having to be stall -fed, at least for a great part of the time, and at 
other times they must be tethered in open scrub or pasture lands to 
feed on grasses of low nutrient status. Feed supplements are expensive 
and the lack of capital prevents such investment. In addition, for the 
smaller farmers, the size of capital investment required for livestock 
production is far too great to be met from trèir meagre resources, and 
the length of the production cycle also acts as a restraint. The State 
has acknowledged the existence of these limitations and is attempting 
to "take steps to increase the availability of credit to farmers 
(meaning all farmers) for the purchase of stock and the improvement of 
their holdings."' 11 At the present time though, as far as most cane 
farmers are concerned, livestock production is another side -line except 
when the farmer owns draught animals for cane transport. A further 
restriction on the more widespread diversification into livestock 
production is that many cane farmers regard it as a side -line and are 
11. Third draft five -year plan, 1969 -73, p. 280. 
211 
on part -time or full -time occupations off their holdings. Unlike 
sugar cane, livestock need fairly constant attention. Part -time 
farmers will be unable to provide this. however, this problem is 
partly offset by the availability of family or household labour which 
is in fact used for these purposes. Another problem is the lack of 
adequate knowledge of animal husbandry, but it is planned to meet this 
obstacle by providing "efficient supervisory and extension services in 
this field.12 
The most important aspects of livestock ownership are in the 
provision of draught power for farmers, followed by the supply of milk 
for domestic purposes and, to a smaller extent, for sale. One further 
point worth noting, as regards the ownership of draught animals, is 
that not only do they save costs of transort, but they also provide 
some farmers with a means of earning extra income by transporting cane 
for farmers or providing in -field transport on the estates. In the 
past, pen -manure was also used in cane and other crops, but availability 
and ease of application of artificial fertilisers have lessened the 
usage of pen -manure. Relatively few small animals such as goats, sheen 
and pigs are reared, the last named are also the subject of religious 
laws. Some farmers produce these for commercial purposes though they 
may not be raised on commercial lines. 
Summary. 
This chapter has been concerned with the general agricultural 
production of cane farmers. It has been shown that about two- thirds of 
the farmers have only one commercial agricultural enterprise, sugar 
cane, while the rest of the farmers have a variety of enterprises, but for 
12. Ibid. , p. 282. 
212 
most farmers, sugar cane is the main crop. Some three- fifths of the 
farmers own livestock but, except for draught purposes, livestock does 
not seem to form an important part of the agricultural economy. For 
many farmers, both livestock and sugar cane are regarded as side- lines. 
The smaller farmers have fewer animals and on smaller acreages on which 
livestock cannot be easily reared. The various constraints discussed 
in the previous chapter were seen to affect the cane -farming community 
adversely. Size of farm, fragmentation, marginal lands in terms of 
location, topography and soils, the lack of capital and the inability 
to apply the best techniques, all affect output, not only of sugar cane, 
but also of other agricultural production. Because of these it is 
understandable that yields of farmers' cane are generally lower than 
those obtained on the estates and yields of other crops may also be 
low, because these crops are similarly affected. There are other limiting 
factors though, which are mainly institutional. These are discussed in 
the next chapter. 
CHAPTER VI 
I::STImtiTIOI.AL RF.STFcAl?;1S AND AGRICtJTTLRAL DEVF,1,OPi.,'.r1tiT 
In the two preceeding chapters certain limitations on the 
development of peasant agriculture, which can be described as physical 
and structural, have been shown to exist. There are a number of other 
conditions that inhibit the Progress of a community of small farmers 
and which can be regarded as institutional. These are related to the 
provision of services which were and to a great extent,at present, 
still are available only to estates. These services include the 
provision of an adequate agricultural advisory and extension system, 
the organised marketing of crops other than sugar cane and the supply 
of credit, whether directly or in the form of fertilisers or pesticides. 
Deriving from the historical development of agriculture, from the past 
systems of education or lack of education, and from the persistently 
low incomes in peasant agriculture, is an attitude to farming which 
also inhibits modernisation of traditional practices. These problems do 
not affect the estates because these services have been provided for the 
estates by past administrations or by the estates themselves and,anyway, 
the estates can afford better standards of management. This cannot be 
said generally of the cane -farming community. The problems to be 
discussed here, therefore, can be considered as those that form part of 
the general infrastructure of farming, but external to the farm, such as 
credit facilities, extension services and marketing, and those that are 
related to social and individual attitudes to agriculture of the peasant 
type. 
214 
Advisory and extension services 
In any country there is inevitably a limit to the area that 
can be cultivated. This limit will be reached_ relatively quickly in 
a small island such as Trinidad with an increasing population. Once 
the limits of the cultivable area are reached, the only other way of 
expanding production is through the application of more effective 
managerial and agronomic practices on the limited cultivable area. 
Though the limits of the cultivable area have not been reached in 
Trinidad, the time is not too far distant when this will happen. It 
is the stated aim of the Government that the optimum use be made of 
the acknowledged limited land resources.1 As far as cane production 
is concerned it is the opinion of the State that "production from 
peasant acreages can increase from higher yields per acre on cane 
farmers' holdings and from more effective control of the froghopper 
on both estates' and farmers' holdings."2 One of the accepted 
requisites of agricultural development of this type is that farmers 
be taught new technicues which have been tried and known to be both 
feasible and profitable. This calls for an efficient and knowledge- 
able agricultural advisory service. 
The survey showed that relatively few farmers obtained 
agricultural advice of any kind (tables 45 & 46). The two questions 
asked related to advice on fertiliser and other agricultural advice, 
whether on management or agronomic problems. No time limit was 
placed in the questioning as to when advice was received, so that 
advice received five years ago as well as more recently were all 
considered. 
1. Draft third five -year plan, p. 264. 
2. Ibid., P. 270. 
T
a
bl
e 
45
: 
A
dv
ic
e 
r
e
c
e
iv
ed
 o
n
 
t
he
 
u
s
e
 
o
f 
fe
rt
il
is
er
 a
n
d 
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
 
o
f 
a
dv
ic
e 
a
c
c
o
r
di
ng
 
t
o
 
c
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
(p
er
ce
nt
ag
es
).
 
C
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
N
o
 
a
dv
ic
e 
r
e
c
e
iv
ed
 
(t
ot
al
) 
R
e
c
e
iv
ed
 
a
dv
ic
e 
So
ur
ce
s 
o
f 
a
dv
ic
e 
G
o
v
'
t
 
e
x
t
 
o
ff
ic
e 
E
s
t
a
t
e
s
 
F
e
r
t
il
is
er
 
s
a
le
sm
en
 
A
g
r
ic
.C
r.
 
So
ci
et
ie
s 
T
I
C
F
A
 
F
r
ie
nd
s 
o
r
 
r
e
la
ti
ve
s 
_
 
O
t
he
r 
l 
93
.8
 
6.
3 
-
 
-
 
2.
3.
 
14
.2
 
-
 
_
 
-
.
.
 
2 
91
.7
 
8.
3 
0.
8 
1.
7 
0.
8 
1.
7 
1.
7 
1.
7 
3 
87
.1
 
12
.9
 
3.
1 
1.
5 
_
 
0.
5 
3.
1 
3.
6 
1.
0 
4 
85
.6
 
14
.4
 
5.
0 
1.
4 
_
 
0.
7 
2.
9 
3.
6 
0.
7 
5 
79
.7
 
20
.3
 
5.
4 
1.
0 
0.
5 
1.
0 
3.
4 
4.
9 
L
.
0 
6 
66
.7
 
33
.3
 
6.
1 
6.
1 
6.
1 
12
.1
 
1.
0 
7 
45
.5
 
54
.5
 
9.
1 
_
 
18
.2
 
18
.2
 
9.
1 
-
 
-
 
_
 
P
o
p
u
la
ti
on
 
e
s
t
im
at
es
 
87
% 
13
% 
3%
 
11
 
n
e
g
l.
 
1/
 
3 
3`
 
2 
TABLE 4b 
OTTER Agricultural Advice by classes of-farmers (percentages). 
Classes of Farmers Received no 
advice 
Received 
Advice 
1 97.9 2.1 
2 91.7 8.3 
3 93.3 6.7 
4 88.5 11.5 
5 84.7 15.3 
6 78.8 21.2 
7 45.5 54.5 
Population 
estimates 91% 9% 
217 
For advice on fertiliser usage higher percentages received no 
advice among the small farmers (table 45). The proportions receivinc 
advice increase with size of production. It is estimated that only 
of the population got advice on fertilisers. The three most 
important sources of assistance were the Government's extension service, 
TICFA, and friends or relatives, each of which appeared to reach about 
3% of the cane -farming population. The estates, credit societies and 
fertiliser salesmen did not reach so many farmers, possibly about 13 
each. A miscellaneous group of sources falls under 'other', but this 
consists mainly of farmers who claimed that they benefitted from 
working on the estates. 
As far as other agricultural advice is concerned, an estimated 
91j of farmers did not receive any advice. Again, the proportions 
claiming that they received no advice are generally higher among the 
lower production classes (table 46). It appears, therefore, that all 
the major agencies which claim that they have a function of advising 
farmers on agricultural practices are relatively ineffective. It is 
possible that memory lapses might have been responsible for such low 
figures, but if this is so then it is equally likely, though not 
necessarily so, that the advice received had also succumbed to memory 
lapses and thus could be regarded as ineffective. 
It has been seen that advisory and extension services for cane 
farmers are performed by the i,inistry of Agriculture through its 
special cane -farming department of the extension service, by the field 
officers of TICFA, and by the CFDs of the sugar estates. I1ot related 
to sugar cane, but affecting some cane farmers is the work of the 
tobacco advisory service of a commercial firm. In addition, being in 
proximity to large estates, cane farmers are exposed to the modern 
techniques ap lied there, and this has the effect of a large, but 
213 
passive demonstration unit, depending on acute observation if a 
farmer is to benefit. 
The Cane Farmers' Association has on several occassions in 
its annual reports showered. praises on the Government's agricultural 
extension service, for services rendered to cane farmers) Reading 
such passages conveys the impression that all cr most farmers have 
received technical or other advice whenever they wanted assistance. 
It is accepted by the State that there is a lack of adequate staff, 
for it reveals that the service was faced over recent years with the 
problem of a "serious shortage of trained personnel from which to 
draw for this very important and demanding job. "4 The State also 
acknowledges that few extension service field officers were available 
for "work outside the Crown Lands Programme ",5 which does not include 
many farmers. Inadequate staffing of the service,therefore,meant 
that little could have been achieved among cane farmers over recent 
years. Though praise can possibly be attached to the work of a few 
officers, the service as a whole could not meet the requirements of 
the cane -farming population, as the survey showed. 
The other two major agencies offering agricultural advice to 
farmers, the Cane Farmers' Association and the CYDs of the three 
estates, appear to offer this service only incidentally. TICFA claims 
that its presence and that of the extension service of the Ministry of 
Agriculture have "eroded "6 the claimed function of the CFDs of 
providing advice to cane farmers on agricultural problems. Undoubtedly, 
the impression gained during the survey, and supmorted to some extent 
by the data, was that officers of both organisations were more 
concerned with solving the administrative difficulties that arose. 
3. TICFA, Annual Retorts 1957,1958,1959. p. 56; 1960,1561,1962. p. 38, 
P. 62; 77377176-4,1565. pp. 16,48,80; 1566, D. 17. 
4. Draft third five -year development plan, p. 245. 
5. Ibid. 
6. TICFA, Submission 1965, p. 96. 
219 
They were possibly better geared to this purpose than to offering 
advice on agricultural problems. Certainly, none of the agencies 
appears to be justified in making excessive claims.- 
One of the more fortunate occurrences of the last three years 
has been the work performed by an advisory service of a local 
cigarette manufacturer, whose interests lie mainly in tobacco 
production. However, the extension work connected with this seems to 
be more intensive and effective. Those interviewed farmers who grew 
tobacco, agreed generally that the assistance received. in terms of 
financial, managerial and cultivation problems should be acclaimed. 
Though it is mainly associated with tobacco, the benefits of the scheme 
seem to pervade all the agricultural enterprises of the farmers 
concerned, including food crops and sugar cane. 
The problem of illiteracy also affects extension work. The 
dissemination of literature will not be very effective in such a case. 
The extent of this problem is not known, but the impression gained is 
that it is serious enough to require special advisory and extension 
technacues. to neutralise it. This calls for more intensive work on the 
part of field personnel than has apparently been performed in the past. 
Subsidies 
Subsidisation, by encouraging the use of better techniques in 
production, is one of the major incentives employed in transforming 
Peasant agriculture and in assisting the farmer to obtain increased 
returns. The first widespread subsidy scheme operated in the sugar 
in'ustry in Trinidad was that resulting from the deterioration of the 
industry during World 'Jar II (see p.39 ) when the Benham Committee 
recommended that a subsidy be paid for planting sugar cane in order to 
preserve the industry from extinction. t the same period, another 
form of incentive, that of a guaranteed price, was introduced for the 
years 1944 to 1946 inclusive. The cane planting subsidy was most 
probably the major factor in re- establishing the industry and it was 
paid to both estates and farmers. At the end -of the 1950s, in the 
country's first five -year plan, a nloughin¡; subsidy was introduced. 
This subsidy was limited to small farmers, that is those who had 20 
acres of sugar cane or less. This, of course, meant that well over 
90% of the farmers qualified to apply for the subsidy. The subsidy 
was intended to increase the yields of farmers' cane by improved 
mechanical cultivating of farmers' lands, and by reducing the acreages 
of older, low- yielding ratoons. The exact nature of the contribution 
to higher yields made by this subsidy cannot be ascertained because 
no records of yields were known to exist before or after the subsidy 
scheme. It is to be expected, however, that if farmers' lands were 
more adequately prepared before planting, that higher yields should 
result. The fact that farmers were brought into contact with 
agricultural extension officers during the scheme did bring some 
benefit in itself and,in addition, some farmers were advised on 
contour ploughing in areas where this was desirable. The ploughing 
subsidy was brought to an end in 1965 and was replaced by a subsidy 
for controlling the froghopper pest. This scheme is still in operation 
and some data for it were collected in the survey. 
Like the former ploughing subsidy, the present froghopper 
subsidy is meant to help the smaller farmers and is restricted to 
farmers whose cane acreage is 25 acres or under. The subsidy amounts 
to half the cost of treatment up to a maximum of $17.00TT per acre. 
It was found during the survey that only about one -quarter of all 
farmers was aware of the availability of the froghopper subsidy 
(table 47). It is true that more farmers were aware in those areas 
most likely to be affected by the froghopper, but this situation still 
reflects poorly on the methods of dissemination of information, 
whether by the Cane Farmers' Association or by the extension services 
of the ir_inistry of Agriculture. It is estimated that three- fifths of 
those who should have applied were unaware of the existence of the 
subsidy scheme. 
From table 47, it is apparent that fewer of the smaller 
farmers knew about the subsidy, although the scheme was supposedly 
designed to help these farmers especially. Since there is an acreage 
limit most farmers in group 6 and all in group 7 are barred from 
applying for the subsidy. It is also seen that the proportions who 
applied in each class are only a small fraction of those who should 
have applied. It appears, too, that not only were more of the larger 
farmers aware of the subsidy, but also higher proportions, who were not 
barred, applied for payment. It is thought, therefore, that in 
addition to lack of awareness, there were other factors that deterred 
farmers from applying for the subsidy. 
It was quite noticeable during the survey that many farmers 
who were qualified to apply and were aware of the operation of the 
scheme, did not apply for reirrburserrent because of what they claimed 
to be the many difficulties placed before them. One of these is that 
the closing date for applications is September 30th of each year, 
whereas the damage from the pest may not appear until after this time 
(figure 8). Thus farmers whose cane suffer from a late attack cannot 
apply for the subsidy. One of the ingenious devices used in a few 
cases was for the farmer to apply for the subsidy before the closing 
date was Passed even if there was no infestation, and only to pursue 
the application further if damage occurred. This is possible because 
application for the subsidy is in two stages. Firstly, an intention 
to apply is submitted, followed by a formal application for re- 
imbursement of money after the control measures had been taken. The 
Ta
bl
e 
47
: 
A
w
ar
en
es
s 
an
d 
a
p
p
li
ca
ti
on
s 
fo
r 
fro
gh
op
pe
r 
s
u
bs
id
y 
by
 c
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
(p
er
ce
nt
ag
es
).
 
C
la
ss
es
 
o
f 
fa
rm
er
s 
(1
) 
% 
a
w
a
r
e
 
t
ha
t 
s
u
bs
id
y 
is
 
a
v
a
il
ab
le
 
(2
) 
% 
w
ho
 
di
d 
n
o
t
 
n
e
e
d 
t
o
 
a
p
p
ly
 
o
r
 
c
o
u
ld
 
n
o
t
 
a
p
p
ly
 
(3)
 
%
 
w
ho
 s
ho
ul
d 
ha
ve
 a
pp
lie
d 
(4)
 
% 
w
ho
 a
p
p
li
ed
 
I
 
% 
o
f 
(4
) 
fr
om
 
(3
) 
1 
14
.6
 
64
.6
 
35
.4
 
2 
17
.4
 
65
.3
 
34
.7
 
0.
8 
2.
3 
3 
14
.4
 
67
.5
 
32
.5
 
1.
5 
4.
6 
4 
28
.1
 
54
.7
 
45
.3
 
5.
8 
12
.8
 
5 
42
.4
 
50
.7
 
49
.3
 
10
.3
 
20
.9
 
6 
36
.4
 
78
.8
 
21
.2
 
6.
1 
28
.8
 
7 
72
.7
 
10
0.
0 
+
 
P
o
p
u
la
ti
on
 
e
s
t
im
at
es
 
23
%
 
61
%
 
39
%
 
4%
 
223 
two stage application itself is another difficulty. Further, because 
some farmers lack the capital for the initial outlay, they are not able 
to apply the recommended. control measures first and then apply for 
reimbursement, as must be done at the present time. This possibly 
accounts for more of the larger farmers applying for the subsidy. 
There is also a body of farmers who are illiterate, and though this 
does not necessarily Prevent them from being good farmers, it does make 
it more difficult for them to fill out the required application forms 
for the subsidy. This difficulty is partly taken care of by the 
farmers' children who have had some education. The Cane Farmers' 
Association and the Government's extension services provide facilities 
to assist farmers, literate or not, but some are undoubtedly embarassed 
to expose their illiteracy. Moreover, such an approach meant that a 
farmer had to go to one of two offices in San Fernando, and this costs 
both time and money. For the farmer who had to apply for a grant to 
cover several acres the cost of applying would be relatively small per 
acre, but for the smaller farmers who could apply for only one or 
possibly two acres, it may not be worthwhile. Difficulties were also 
met in arranging visits by extension service personnel to check that 
the necessary froghopper control measures had been taken, a step 
required before farmers are reimbursed. 
It is possible that most of the farmers who sell less than 
20 tons of cane think that it is not worthwhile spending ,°17.CCTT per 
acre, with an initial outlay of $314.00TTT, when total net return is very 
small, even though control of the pest could increase yields by up to 
12 tons per acre.7 However, as yields are low anyway, the increase 
that should result from effective froghopper control is lost owing to 
other factors. This results in relatively few farmers in these two 
7. TICFA, Annual Reports 1963,1964,1965, p. 78. 
224 
classes applying for the subsidy. 
Although one must concede that the aerial spraying experiment 
(see D. 191 ) prevented some farmers from having to apply for the 
subsidy, this does not detract from the contention that the 
administrative difficulties involved, the lack of awareness, the 
inopportune closing date for applications, the need to find the initial 
capital outlay and a certain amount of indifference on the part of some 
farmere have contributed to relatively few farmers applying for the 
froghopper subsidy. Some of these causes are reflected in the fact 
that three times as many farmers attempted to control froghopper damage 
as applied for the subsidy (tables 36 & 47). Even if those farmers who 
did not Qualify to apply because of the acreage qualification are 
omitted, the ratio still conveys the same message. 
Cane farmers are also able to apply for subsidies designed to 
encourage livestock production, such as the planting of grasses of high 
nutrient status and the provision of water supplies for stock. It must 
be mentioned that the entire system of incentives in agriculture is 
being critically examined by the State to evaluate their contribution 
to agricultural development.8 
Mnrketinz of crops other than sugar cane 
Kany problems have been shown to exist in sugar production. 
They affect most stages of production up to harvesting and sale of the 
crop. However, the fact remains that in most years the farmer is almost 
assured of a market for his crop. The returns are generally low and 
have probably fallen over recent years .then account is taken of 
increases in costs, but the farmers' production is disposed of through 
a definite marketing system. This for the farmer is important and it 
prevents him from diversifying into other forms of agriculture for which 
8. Draft third five -year plan, p. 248. 
225 
no organised marketing exists. Recently, pigeon peas, tobacco and 
milk have found definite outlets and production of these nas increased.9 
For most food crocs, though, there have been serious problems of 
disposal at reasonable prices, and this has no doubt deterred farmers 
from investing in such crops. 
During the survey a large number of farmers indicated their 
willingness to diversify their agriculture providing they could find 
outlets for their products (table 48). It will be noted that high 
percentages of farmers in all production classes indicated that they 
would grow other crops, with the lowest proportions among the largest 
farmers. No doubt this shows that more of the larger farmers are 
satisfied with their incomes from sugar cane, or that they consider 
the problems of diversification too great to be worthwhile. The 
numbers signifying their intention to grow other crops include those 
farmers who already have other commercial agricultural enterprises. 
The increase in the Production of pigeon peas, for which there is a 
guaranteed price, and for tobacco and milk production, is some evidence 
that if arrangements are made for the disposal of other products, and 
other obstacles are not insuperable, that farmers wculd be willing to 
grow other crops commercially. 
A central marketing agency has been set up by the Government to 
provide adequate outlets for all crops in the domestic market and to 
assist in the promotion of new export crops. It is the stated aim to 
modernise, expand and construct rural markets in order to assist 
farmers in the disposal of their crops. Although a system of guaranteed 
prices already exists, except for pigeon peas, by the time the present 
survey was being done, cane farmers seemed to be little affected by the 
other crops for which guaranteed prices were offered (Appendix I.II table 6 
9. Draft third five -year plan, pp. 273-2:2. 
?26 
The lack of planting material seemed to be the main drawback for crops 
other than pigeon peas and sweet ootatoes, but also many farmers did 
not know of the system. 
It has been shown that over half of the farmers who grow other 
crops for commercial purposes sell such crops in retail trade (table )3). 
For 1967, few farmers sold produce through the official marketing 
agency, undoubtedly because this institution was only established that 
year. It was left to the farmers' initiative to dispose of their crops 
as they thought best. The result was that many farmers complained that 
they were virtually chased off the streets of San Fernando and the other 
towns by the police when they attempted to sell their produce. This 
often forced them to sell goods at low prices, which in turn, did not 
give them any encouragement to continue producing crops for the local 
market. 
Rapid fluctuations in agricultural prices are another factor 
which operates against farmers in the present system. This makes it 
difficult to diversify production because, for the local market, except 
where guaranteed prices are offered, prices fluctuate considerably. 
The lack of a proper marketing system, in addition to reducing 
the income of the farmer, has other effects. It was noted that most 
of the farmers who grow other crops for sale dispose of their output 
in some retail method or sell to middlemen. The former practice 
requires that the fanners spend time away from the holding, which 
possibly affects production. Also, there is no guarantee that adequate 
prices will be received (but see above for recent developments). In 
times of glut conditions prices are very low and in times of scarcity 
very high. Because of the lack of information on current prices, the 
farmers selling through middlemen do not always get their fair share of 
the consumer prices. The result is that farmers consider that they are 
227 
better off keeping output to a level that can be easily disposed of. 
It was seen that praedial larceny had a. similar effect (see p.109 ). 
It rust be mentioned that the absence of any linkage between industry 
and agriculture, a feature of most developing countries, also restricts 
outlets and incomes from agricultural production. The absence of this 
linkage is also related to the existence of periods of gluts and 
scarcities and fluctuating prices. 
There are other factors limiting the production of crops for 
the local market, such as size and fragmentation of holdings and the 
lack of expertise, but it is almost certain that, given a reasonable 
return from crops other than sugar cene, farmers will devote more time, 
land and capital to new enterprises. In spite of all the problems 
attached to farming, it is probable that the lack of proper methods of 
disposal for crops other than sugar cane is the most important factor 
discouraging diversification. 
Credit 
The -provision of adequate credit facilities for a farming 
community is one of the key steps, which, if not taken, can jeopardise 
the development of agriculture. However, credit of the right type is 
required, for the effect of money -lenders on peasant agriculture has 
often been seen to be retrogressive.10 koreover, credit must be 
provided for such a duration of time that it promotes rather than 
hinders development. In some countries specialist institutions such as 
co- operatives, agricultural credit societies and agricultural banks 
have been established to provide a service for agriculture. P.' ith few 
exceptions in Trinidad, co- operatives have seemingly made little head- 
way and, except for the credit societies supervised by one sugar comnany,11 
10. '_?yrdal, Gunnar, Asian drama, an inquiry into the poverty of nation, 
Pelican, 1568, op. 1041 and 1,5(-P. 
11. The Ste. Madeleine Sugar Company now plrt of Caroni Limited. 
228 
these also seem to be relatively inactive, at least as far as cane 
farmers are concerned. An agricultural credit bank was formed in 1945, 
but this too failed to service agriculture's needs for it "tended to 
act more like an ordinary commercial bank using commercial banking 
criteria, than as an agency for agricultural development. "12 
As far as cane farmers are concerned in Trinidad, credit has 
been received for a long time from the estates, in the form of 
advances on farmers' crops or in the form of fertilisers. One of the 
estates, now part of the largest estate, initiated and now supervises 
the operation of 22 credit societies in the southern cane producing 
areas. Yost of the farmers who belong to these societies appeared to 
believe that a real need is filled Quite competently be them. These 
societies are the only credit lending agency which appeared to have 
some degree of supervision over the credit disbursed. For commercial 
banks and other lending agencies this aspect does not seem to be 
considered. Their safeguard is that collateral security Avast be 
produced for values in excess of the loan reauirements. This 
effectively restricts such credit to larger farmers, and generally 
prevents even these farmers from borrowing money, for the risks are too 
great. For the cane farmer the most important sources of credit are 
the credit societies, TICFA, commercial banks, the estates themselves 
and relatives or friends. Credit from the estates and TICFA is mainly 
in the form of fertiliser or other inputs, and in the form of cash from 
other sources, with the credit societies attached to the Usine Ste. 
Madeleine factory seeming to provide the most organised assistance. 
One of the major drawbacks of the credit available to cane 
farmers is that it is generally short -term. Almost all the money 
disbursed by the credit societies is repayable within a year, although 
12. Draft third five -year plan, D. 247. 
279 
in practice this :period is usually 9 months. It is estimated that 
over 90:4 of cane farmers who receive credit of all kinds have access 
only to short -term credit, that is, for less than one year (table 49). 
Very few farmers have credit for longer periods and these appear to 
be mainly the larger farmers, who are able to obtain credit from 
other sources and may be better equipped to use such credit. It is 
possible that many farmers may not even accept long -term credit, for 
by lacking the ability to use it they fear that such credit will be 
too much of a burden.13 
Of the estimated 92% of cane farmers who used fertilisers in 
1967, about two- thirds obtained fertiliser on credit only, and the 
other third obtained most of their fertilisers for cash. Some of these 
latter may obtain part of this input on credit, but most made completely 
cash Purchases (table 39). This fertiliser is also given on short -term 
credit. It is distributed nearing the end of a harvest and the money 
is repayable during the following harvest. The normal practice is that 
part .^,ayments are deducted from the sales of cane made by farmers over 
the harvest period. As is to be expected, more of the larger farmers 
obtain their fertilisers for cash and mainly from commercial firms 
(tables 38 & 39). It is obvious that they have more resources 
available and so can buy fertilisers at the right time and this 
undoubtedly enhances yields. That farmers using fertilisers bought on 
credit suffer from the timing element has been seen to exist and is 
acknowledged.14 
The sources from which farmers obtain fertilisera, either 
through credit or cash, are shown on table 38, where it is seen that in 
13. ;:ic riorris, C.S. "Smaîl -farm financing in Jamaica" in Social and 
Economic Studies, Vol. 6, 1957, pp. 6k -65. 
14. TICFA, Annual i eports, 1963, p. 13. 
?30 
TABLE 48 
Farmers who are growing or will grow other crops, given reasonable 
marketing facilities by classes of farmers (percentages). 
Classes of 
Farmers 
Will not 
grow other 
crops 
Are growing 
or will grow 
other crops 
No comment 
or do not 
know 
1 18.8 79.2 2.1 
2 19.8 76.9 3.3 
3 18.6 78.9 2.6 
4 15.1 81.3 3.6 
5 18.7 77.8 3.4 
6 21.2 69.7 9.1 
7 45.5 54.5 - 
Population 
estimate 18 790 3% 
TABLE 49 
LENGTH OF CREDIT by classes of farmers (percentages). 
Classes of 
farmers 
No 
Credit 
Less than 
1 year 
1 year to 
3 years 
Over 
3 years 
1 64.6 35.4 - - 
2 53.7 43.0 0.8 2.5 
3 39.7 52.6 4.1 3.6 
4 25.2 71.2 3.6 - 
5 19.2 71.9 4.9 3.9 
6 15.2 57.6 21.2 6.0 
7 3b.4 45.5 18.2 - 
Population 
Estimates 38% 56% 3% 3% 
231 
1967, TICFA was the most important supplier to farmers. ì.'ïost of the 
fertiliser supplied by this organisation was on credit. The facilities 
of the estates were used by TICFA to recover money payments from 
farmers. Next in importance were commercial firms from which mainly 
cash purchases were made, followed by the sugar estates :rhich offered 
credit. The same pattern would not hold good in 1568, because a loan 
that was normally provided to TICFA by the State was not forthcoming in 
that year. This would have undoubtedly left the estates as the major 
suppliers because of the credit facilities that they offer to farmers. 
These then are the major aspects of agricultural credit that 
affect the greater part of the cane -farming population. There are 
other sources of credit, mainly from shops and grocery stores which 
may let their customers have food supplies on credit during the rainy 
season, to be paid for during the harvest of the following year. A 
few farmers belong to other State run credit societies. A tiny cumber 
of cane growLrs are full -time workers in the oil industry and these 
obtain loans from organisations within that industry. 
The agricultural credit bank established in 1 515 was intended 
to fill the need for a specialist institution for the disbursement of 
credit. This bank did not meet the requirements of the farming 
population. Early in 1566, however, a reorganised bank became 
effective. It is intended to introduce "a system of supervised credit, 
greater flexibility and decentralisation of operations, and more 
emphasis on the provision of medium and long -term credit. "15 The 
reorganised bank is intended to service the needs of the Crown Lands 
Programme and initially its energies may probably be directed mainly to 
projects under this programme. It is hoped that the same services will 
be rendered to existing holdings which so far have had access only to 
15. Draft third five -year plan, P. 247. 
232 
short -term credit. 
It is widely accepted that for most businesses a large tart 
of the funds for capital investment should be self- generated.16 here 
incomes are low, however, as in agriculture of the peasant tyre, it is 
obvious that even if a large proportion of personal savings are made, 
the amount of self-generated finance is still going to be low. This 
means that some investments must come from external sources if 
improvements are to be made, even if a 'bootstrap' operation is 
successful. However, a 'bootstrap' operation is difficult to bring to 
a successful conclusion where a large number of farmers regard 
agricultural occupations as transitory or impermanent (table 28). In 
such a case, self- generated finance will most likely be channeled 
elsewhere. 
Attitudes to agriculture 
It has been said that because of the odium attached to slavery 
and, to a lesser extent, the indentureship system in the colonia or 
ex- colonial territories, most people regard agricultural occupations as 
lowly.17 Contributing to this were the prestige and incomes attached 
to white- collar or professional enrloyment, the path taken by the 
educated. Education, when it became more widely available, was geared 
more to the needs of non -agricultural occupations; agriculture has 
continued to be the most important outlet for the uneducated. It is 
widely known that many farmers spend their capital, which could be 
employed on their holdings, to turn their children into doctors or 
lawyers. The situation became accentuated in the post -World War II 
period 
-; ith the wider availability of educational opportunities at all 
16. : c :orris, on. cit . , n. 87. 
17. Braithwaite, L. "Social stratification in Trinidad; a preliminary 
analysis", in Social and 'economic Studies, Vol. 2, 1953 -4., o. 63. 
233 
levels. This meant that the brighter children had better opportunity 
to improve their educational status. These invariably sought 
professional or non -agricultural employment because of higher incomes 
and greater prestige. This left to agriculture only those who were 
too old to leave it, those who could not get the op?ortunity for 
better education and those who did not 'make the grade'. As far as 
cane farming is concerned, it is accepted by some that people normally 
drift into ít.18 It is worth noting that plantation agriculture 
maintained a high degree of prestige because of the scale at which it 
is run, while peasant agriculture is regarded as 'dirty work'. For 
some people the words 'soil' and 'dirt' are synonymous. Such attitudes 
are a strong hindrance to agricultural development and it is obvious 
that change is required. in Trinidad's peasant agriculture. One can 
note in this context an opinion that "a very important requirement for 
successful farming is that the prospective farmer must have a real 
liking for a farmer's life. lie must prefer it to any other mode of life. "19 
In a crude way this survey indicates that this requirement is 
not net by almost one -half of the cane farmers in Trinidad. Approximately 
1I7., of farmers are either already in full -time off -farm employment or 
are willing to go to such occupations (table 28). Expectedly, the 
proportions are higher in the lower production classes, but otherwise 
are spread quite evenly over the other classes. Though it is relatively 
easy to understand how such a situation has developed, the varied nature 
of its effects on agriculture are not as easy to follow. 
While sociological factors are undoubtedly responsible for these 
attitudes, the various constraints outlined in previous chapters also 
contribute. With incomes in agriculture bearing little comparison with 
18. Girwar, "The economics of Trinidad cane farming ", op.cit. 
19. Jamaica A; ricultural Society, The farmers guide, published by JAS, 
1962, p. 45. 
234+- 
incomes in other sectors of the economy, farmers are drawn to search 
for spplementary employment. agriculture being regarded as 
unattractive employment, the tendency is then fcr the farmers to 
depend more and. more on off -farm employment, but to retain their 
holdin s.20 The holder then cannot practice good husbandry even if 
he had the ability to do so under normal conditions. With farmers 
regarding agriculture as something to leave, possibly retaining only 
a part -time interest and using the holding to provide security in bad 
times, it is to be expected that the land will not be used to its 
productive capacity. The farmers so affected become indifferent to 
the agricultural practices employed and capital, if available, is not 
invested on the farms, for the farmers eventually will not depend to 
a great extent on the farm. 
The State has acknowledged the existence of such a situation 
and it has planned to try to change the attitudes of the whole society, 
including farmers. The year 1969 was designated 'Year of Agriculture' 
under the third five -year development plan.21 The aim is to show "as 
forcibly as possible"2? to the country as a whole, the importance of 
agriculture to its economic life. Changes are also planned. in the 
educational facet of agricultural development by training practicing 
farmers as well as offering vocational courses in agriculture. 
Agricultural training will also be expanded to all levels up to the 
graduate level. This new emphasis should help to change attitudes. 
Success, however, will depend on much more than agricultural education. 
When the farming sector reaches such a stage that there are more viable 
holdings, able to provide the farming community with reasonable incomes, 
20. Dyson, Alice, "Land use and settlement in the Maracas -St. Joseph 
Valley of Trinidad" in Steel, R.W. and Prothero, R.Y. (eds), 
Geofr arhers and the tropics: Liverpool essays, Longmans, 1964 
Pn 371-2. 
21. Draft third five -year plan, D. 267. 
22. Ibid. 
235 
then it is possible that changes would be effected more easily. This 
calls for better farmers, for fewer farmers or for more land, or 
possibly for all three. However, there is such a complex interaction 
between all facets of agricultural development that progress can be 
arrested by failure in any one. A change of attitude of both the 
society as a whole and farmers themselves, should create a more amenable 
atmosphere for develoment. A change should result in more capital and 
better eouipped personnel being encouraged to enter agriculture, some- 
thing that has never happened in the Past. 
ChAPTER VII 
THE FACTORS aF -:7_;;t;TING F.A$AT CARE FARi,_ING 
In the last three chapters, the major characteristics of 
peasant cane farming were discussed, but no systematic statistical 
analysis was done. Certain of the variables seemed to be closely 
related. and, intuitively, connections were suggested. The striking 
features of all the variables considered were those related to size 
of farm and size of sugar cane production. In this chapter, the most 
important aspects of peasant sugar cane ?:roduction, such as the 
characteristics of the farm, those of the farmer, total output, 
institutional and organisational assistance, for which suitable data 
were obtained, are treated with the multivariate statistical technique 
of factor analysis. Through this it is hoped to test the hypothesis 
that size is the most important factor influencing cane farming. 
According to R. J. Rummel, the technique of factor analysis 
is "a means by which the regularity and order in phenomena can be 
discerned" and that "it makes explicit and more precise the building 
of fact -linkages going on continuously in the human mind. "1 Rummel 
further states that not only can factor analysis manage a large number 
of variables, but that it can also "compensate for random error and 
invalidity, and disentangle complex interrelationships into their 
major and distinct regularities. "2 
1. Rummel, R.J. "Understanding factor analysis" in the Journal of 
conflict resolution, Vol. XI, No. 4, p. 462. 
2. Ibid. 
238 
The correlation matrix 
One of the basic requirements of factor analysis is the 
identification of interrelations among the variables. An examination 
of the matrix of correlation coefficients gives some idea of the 
relations that exist between variables (APpendix V, table 2). These 
relationships may be causal and apparently without complications, but 
may not necessErily be so. Only 18 of the 666 values on the matrix 
are above the absolute value of 0.5. The highest correlations are 
between the size variables, that is, total farm acreage, sugar cane 
acreage and sugar cane production. Another group of related variables 
which show high correlations, are those regarding time spent on the 
farm and the time spent on sugar cane production. All of these show 
high positive correlations, emphasising the importance of sugar cane 
on the holdings. The vast majority of values are low and lead one to 
agree with J. Henshall's conclusion on Barbadian peasant agriculture 
that the low values of the coefficients "are suggestive of the 
diversity of peasant agriculture." This is in spite of the fact that 
one crop, sugar cane, is grown in all the farms being considered in 
both Barbados and Trinidad. In the Barbados survey, on average, the 
proportion of land on a holding under sugar cane was just over two - 
thirds ; and in the present survey, just under that proportion. 
Factor analysis of the variables 
The basic variables are made up of two parts; one, the common 
variance represents that portion of the total variance which correlates 
with other variables; the other is the unique or specific variance 
3. Henshall, J. D. 'The demographic factor in the structure of 
agriculture in Barbados°, in Transactions and Papers of the T.B.G. 
1966, Publication No. 38, p. 188. 
4. Ibid., p. 185. 
237 
In this study, each stratum was first considered separately 
and it was found that although the variables in each case were not 
falling in identical patterns, the same general set of factors emerged 
in each stratum. It was felt,therefor.e, that if all the strata were 
pooled it would serve the purpose of condensing the results without 
great fear of creating false relationships. The factor loadings for 
all the variables in each strata, individually and pooled, are given 
in Appendix V, tables 3 -10. Factor analysis is, therefore, used here 
to treat a large number of variables in order that any regularity that 
exists may be discerned. It is used also in order to state more 
explicitly and precisely the relationships which have already been 
discussed empirically. 
The variables 
The variables used are all derived from the sample survey of 
cane farmers. It was previously noted that no information was 
collected on money incomes and expenditures for farmers interviewed, 
so that these variables form no part of the analysis. However, 
variables covering most of the other dimensions of cane farming such 
as farm size, sugar cane production, tenure, agricultural credit, 
advice, occupations and other crops are included (see Appendix V, 
table 1) . 
The technique is based on the assumption that the variables 
relating to a class of objects should correlate significantly, one 
with another. It is assumed further, that the correlations reflect 
the existence of common factors among the objects. These common 
factors are fewer than the number of variables for describing the 
objects. 
239 
involved in each variable which does not correlate with any other 
variable.5 The principal components were found and then rotated to an 
orthogonal position at v.hich they remained uncorrelated, in order to 
make the factors more meaningful. The figures for the percentage of 
total variance explained by any one factor measure the amount of 
information in the original matrix that can be reduced to a pattern. 
According to Rummel, "it measures a pattern's comprehensiveness and 
strength. "6 In this work, it is seen that only a relatively low 
percentage of the total variance is accounted for by the factors 
considered. to be meaningful. This low percentage is possibly due 
partly to the size of the data matrix and minor variations in the sample, 
since farmers covered in the survey vary greatly in their characteristics 
and practices; and partly to the fact that the farmers were spread 
over a wide area over which differing conditions prevail, contributing 
to the diverse responses of the farmers. These both possibly result in 
relationships that are rather complex and cannot be comprehensively 
reduced to simple patterns. 
The original 37 variables were found to produce 11 factors 
accounting for 62`% of the total variation. The first two factors 
account for 23jß of the variation, after which the percentages decline 
sharply (Appendix V, table 3). It is realised that the results 
obtained in such an analysis depends on the variables that are used, 
so that one must always have a reservation that the analysis can produce 
different results if other variables are fed in. However, if those that 
are considered the important variables are used in a series of analyses, 
it would be expected that these will contribute to the strongest 
factors in most cases. It must be noted, therefore, that at the base 
5. rruchter, B. "Introduction to factor analysis ", Van Nostrand, New 
York, 1954, D. 45. 
6. Rummel, op.cit., p. 472. 
?40 
of the analysis there is a great measure of subjective judgement as 
to which variables should be used. A further limitation is the 
availability of usable data. Moreover, :previous knowledge of the 
problem is used in order to arrive at meaningful interpretations. 
This also entails a certain degree of subjectivity, but within the 
constraints imposed by the factor matrix loadings. It will be noted 
that in some cases loadings that are relatively low are also listed. 
It riust be made clear that it is realised that any implications drawn 
from these appear to be reasonable explanations and do not rest on 
the strength of the loadings. 
Interpretation of the factors 
Factor I 
0.886 
0.874 
0.847 
0.821 
0.756 
0.682 
0.523 
Negative loadings 
Intercropping -0.223 
Variables with: Positive loadings 
Sugar cane acreage 
Total acreage 
Tons of sugar cane sold, 1967 
Ownership of tractor 
Ownership of cultivating equipment 
Ownership of plough 
Lan- months of paid labour employed 
This factor can be regarded as a size factor because it is 
associated with a number of primary variables that are related to size. 
This size factor accounts for 14 of the total variation. Sugar cane 
acreage, total acreage and amount of sugar cane sold are the variables 
related to size and which have the highest loadings. This factor also 
shows, as would be expected, a direct relationship between size of farm 
and the ownership of mechanised equipment, as well as the number of 
man- months of paid labour employed. An inverse relationship exists 
between the variables related to size and the practice of intercropping. 
This variable shows the highest negative loading, although it is quite 
low. The practice of intercropping by smaller farmers has been noted 
21+1 
earlier (table 42) and leads one to conclude that the larger the 
holdings, the less likely it is for the farmer to grow crops under 
this system of production. 
Factor II 
Variables with: Positive loadings 
Months spent on farm 0.879 
Months spent on sugar cane 0.797 
Full -time farmer 0.758 
0wnerchip of transport 0.358 
Negative loadings 
Main occupation -0.635 
This factor can be called an occupation factor and it accounts 
for of the total variation. The variable with the highest loading 
is that of months spent working on the farm. There is also a high 
loading on the time spent on sugar cane which shows that this crop is 
the most important one. i.`ain occupation is shown inversely related 
because the variable was coded on a binary scale, in such a way that 
0 was regarded as agricultural and 1 as non -agricultural occupation. 
Thus agricultural occupation has a high loading and consequently, so 
too does the variable relating to whether a holder claimed to be a 
full -time or part -time farmer. Ownership of transport has a :low, but 
still possibly significant positive loading on this factor. Ìt was 
shown that, although more full -time farmers owned transport, many still 
have to use hired transport, and this probably accounts for relatively 
low loading. 
Factor III 
Variables with: Positive loadings Negative loadings 
Sugar cane main crop 0.684 Months spent on other crops 
-0.753 
Growing other commercial crops -0.691 
Acreage of non -tree crops -0.616 
This factor accounts for 6% of the total variation and can be 
regarded as a cropping factor, because the variables loading highly 
are all related to sugar cane and other crops grown commercially. The 
212 
highest loading comes from the length of time spent on crops other 
than sugar cane. This variable is seen to be directly related to the 
growing of other crops cohnercially and the acreage under crops other 
than tree crops and sugar cane. The only variable with a high positive 
loading on this factor is that denoting whether or not sugar cane is 
the main. crop. As seen under Factors I and II, in which sugar cane 
acreage and time spent on sugar cane had high loadings respectively, 
here too, it is seen that sugar cane dominates the agriculture and 
borders on monoculture. 
Factor IV 
Variables with: Positive loadings Negative loadings 
Ownership of cart 0.235 Transport by animals or rnech. -0.711+ 
Cost of cut -load -transport /ton -0.655 
Distance of marin sugar cane 
plot from purchasing point -0.562 
Man- months of paid labour 
employed -0.250 
The fourth factor can be regarded as a transport factor because 
it has the highest loadings from distance, type of transport and cost 
of transport variables. This transport .factor accounts for 5,;: of the 
total variation. The variable with the highest loading is that of type 
of transport showing the imcortance of animal transport for the 
majority of farmers. This is directly related to the cost of cutting, 
loading and transporting the cane over shorter distances. The highest 
positive loading is from the primary variable, ownership of animal 
drawn carts. This shows, therefore, that ownership of carts is related 
inversely to the cost of transporting the cane. A low, but possibly 
still significant negative loading, is shown by man- months of raid 
labour employed. All the variables with high loadings on this factor 
indicate that the farmers who own carts are within relatively short 
2L..3 
distances of purchasing points, have lower expenses for cutting and 
transporting their cane, and employ fewer man- months of Paid labour. 
Factor V 
Variables with: Positive loadings Negative loadings 
Froghopper infested acreage 0.685 nil 
Froghopper subsidy awareness 0.651 
Weeding practices 0.557 
Number of fragments 0.,93 
Man-months of paid labour 0.382 
Hundredweight of fertiliser per 
acre 0.361 
Acreage of plant cane 0.345 
The fifth factor accounts for 6jb of the total variation and 
may be identified as a cultivation factor. The two primary variables 
with the highest loadings on this factor are the incidence of frog- 
hopper damage and the awareness of farmers that control of such damage 
is subsidised. These indicate that the farmers with acreages infested 
with froghopper are more likely to know about the availability of the 
subsidy. However, because weeding practices and fragmentation also 
have high loadings on this factor, and it is known that the larger 
farmers have more fragments of land and use a combination of chemical 
and manual methods of weed control, it seems that awareness of the 
subsidy is greater among the farmers with large holdings. This is 
supported by table +6. Other primary variables with high loadings on 
this factor are man- months of paid labour employed, fertiliser 
application and acreage of canes planted in 1967. All these variables 
are indicative of large hóldings. 
4E4 
Factor VI 
Variables with: Positive loadings Negative loadings 
Size of household 0.769 Cost of cut -load- transport -0.192 
Agricultural workers in fi/h 0.691 
Number of fragments 0.308 
This factor can be called a household. factor. It accounts for 
L% of the variation and is characterised by high loadings from the 
primary variables, size of household and the number of agricultural 
workers within a household. Generally, most of the agricultural 
workers in a household contributing labour to the holding belong to 
that household, but there are some who are agricultural workers on the 
estates and others who perform tasks for farmers. Number of fragments 
also seems to be related to size of household, but not very strongly. 
The variable with the highest inverse relationship is the cost of 
cutting, loading and transporting cane. That there is an inverse 
relationship indicates that costs for such farmers, with large house- 
holds,are lower, because of the amount of unpaid labour used. However, 
the loading is not very high, which possibly shows that the labour 
pool provided by the large households is not fully used or, that, 
because of the nature of the harvest, when the cane has to be sold 
relatively quickly, there is also the need for paid labour or for hired 
transport. 
Factor VII 
Variables with: Positive loadings Negative loadings 
nil Ownership of animal cart -0.855 
Transport hired or owned -0.598 
Livestock units -0.460 
This factor, a livestock factor, accounts for 5 of the total 
variation. Ownership of a cart has the highest negative loading on 
this factor and this is related to the use of hired transport by 
farmers who do not own carts. That both variables, carts and ownership 
245 
of transport, are not each loaded exactly as highly as the other, is 
accounted for by the fact that larger farmers corn mechanical transport, 
and they may alsoiave to hire transport. Livestock units are directly 
related to the ownership of carts and use of hired or owned transport. 
This indicates, as has been suggested. previously (see p. 211), that 
animals are important for draught purposes. 
Factor VIII 
Variables with: Positive loadings Negative loadings 
Main occupation 0.233 Fertiliser advice -0.623 
Intercropning -0.508 
Agricultural Credit -0.378 
Froghopp er subsidy 
awareness -0.287 
This factor accounts for 3' of the total variation and can be 
called a services factor. The variable with the highest loading on 
this factor is the receipt or non -receipt of advice on the use of 
fertilisers. This variable has a high negative loading of -0.623. 
Two other primary variables related to the provision of facilities 
have high loadings here. The availability and use of credit and 
awareness of the froghopper subsidy both show negative loadings. 
Intercropping also has a high negative loading, while the highest 
positive loading, of only 0.233, comes from non -agricultural 
occupations. This possibly indicates that farmers who are mainly in 
non- agricultural occupations, who have been shown to be generally 
smaller producers, are not likely to obtain agricultural credit, 
advice or information, and are also less likely to practice inter - 
cropping owing, possibly, to lack of time or the little time spent on 
the holding. 
2L.6 
Factor IX 
Variables with: Positive loadings Negative loadings 
nil Average yield per acre -0.785 
Hundredweight of fertiliser 
per acre -0.648 
Agricultural credit -0.236 
Tons of sugar cane sold,1967 -0.232 
This factor accounts for of the total variation and can be 
named a yield factor. All the variables loading highly on this factor 
do so negatively, with the highest loading from the variable, average 
yield per acre in 1967. The variable that is closely and directly 
related to average yields per acre is the application of fertiliser. 
It was noted earlier that smaller producers were less likely to obtain 
fertiliser on credit, and this is perhaps further indicated in this 
factor by negative loadings from agricultural credit and tonnage of 
sugar cane sold. The major feature, therefore, is that the smaller 
producers do not obtain fertiliser on credit, apply less fertiliser p cr 
acre, and consequently obtain lower yields. 
Factor X 
Variables with: Positive loadings Negative loadings 
Ownership of lorries and trucks 0.552 Age -0.699 
Distance of main sugar cane plot 
from purchasing point 0.368 
This factor accounts for 3A of the total variation and is the 
only factor in which the variable, ale, has a high loading, a negative 
one of -0.699. It may be coincidental that this should be related to 
ownership of lorries and trucks, but the pattern emerges of the younger 
farmers owning such mechanised means of transport. This may indicate 
that the younger farmers would prefer these forms of transportation 
and are likely to move away from the more traditional forms of 
transport, so that this can per haps be regarded as a progressiveness 
factor. The other primary variable with a high positive loading is a 
21-7 
distance variable and is directly related to use of mechanised 
transport. 
Factor XI 
Variables with:Positive loadings Negative loadings 
Tenure 0.717 Road conditions -0.649 
Livestock units -0.228 
This factor accounts for v of the variation and can be 
regarded as a tenure factor. Complete ownership of the land is 
inversely related to road conditions. However, although road 
conditions are shown with a negative loading, this is only due to the 
coding applied to road conditions, with 0 being regarded as good. 
Thus, it is apparent that those farmers who have the best tenure are 
also favoured by road conditions. The farmers with the best tenure 
rights are usually the larger farmers. Possibly one can infer, 
therefore, that farmers with smeller holdings usually have worse 
tenancies and are serviced by poorer roads. The variable, livestock 
units, shows a negative loading here, possibly accounted for by the 
larger farmers using better roads are likely to own mechanical 
transport, and will have few livestock units. This feature refers 
only to those larger farmers whose holdings are located near the better 
roads and hence near dense settlement. Other large producers generally 
keep livestock, for it was noted that the mean livestock units owned 
by farmers increase with size of production. 
Conclusion 
The factor analysis of the variables emphasises the importance 
of the size factor in peasant cane farming in Trinidad. This factor 
is not only the most strongly identified, but it also accounts for more 
of the total variation than any other factor. It would seem, therefore, 
that size of holding is the most important factor influencing cane 
farming, and that this type of agri.. ulture would benefit most from an 
243 
increase in the size of farms. Second to this is the need for a 
greater amount of time to be spent by farmers on their holdins. It 
is worth noting that, whereas fragmentation is shown to be a strongly 
identified factor in Barbados, it is not so prominent in the present 
survey, in spite of the fact that the average number of fragments per 
holding for Trinidad cane farmers is greater than that for Barbadian 
farmers. It is also noticeable that the last six factors are not 
strongly identified, shoving only two loadings of + 0.5 and over. This 
may be owing to their small relative importance as comçared to size, 
or because all aspects of the subject have not been adequately covered. 
As was mentioned above, reservations mast be held as regards the 
subjective element in factor analysis. however, in several reports, 
drawn up on empirical lines, size of holding has been regarded as being 
of great significance, and this study has shown that it is the most 
important factor. 
CHAPTER VIII 
CONCLUSION 
In this chapter little attempt is made to summarise this 
thesis systematically for such a purpose was partly filled by the 
previous chapter. The discussion will be restricted to the effects 
of smallness of size of cane farms and their location. Some attempt 
is also made to discuss the circumstances which result in a system of 
virtual monoculture and the constraints on diversification. Opportunity 
will also be taken to indicate aspects of cane farming that require 
closer investigation and some of the possible implications of change. 
The main task set in the study was to illustrate that size of 
holding is the major factor affecting cane production in the peasant 
sector of the industry. This was de.ionstrated by the influence of size 
on several aspects of agricultural development. In the previous 
chapter it was seen to be the strongest factor influencing cane farming. 
It is realised that little has been said about differences character- 
ising farmers in various parts of the sugar belt, except where 
different crop combinations and the effects of settlement patterns were 
discussed. These distributions were considered only where evidence 
from the land -use map, or other source, supported that from the 
questionnaire survey, for it was noted that the information collected 
at each purchasing point was statistically too scant to stand by 
itself. Divisions were made areally into large groupings of data at 
several purchasing points, but no specific differences emerged on the 
basis of such areas. No matter where the larger farms were located, 
250 
they always showed similar characteristics and the influence of size 
of holding seemed to be stronger than that of location. This may be 
partly owing to the fact that, generally, farmers' holdings are 
peripherally located and may be similarly affected by location. Hence, 
it was thoughtthat it was not worthwhile to pursue the description of 
such differentiation for its ovm sake. 
Areally, the main distinction was made between those areas in 
which environmental and economic conditions gave farmers the opportunity 
to groti, sugar cane in combination lidth other crops and those areas in 
which sugar cane was the only commercial agricultural enterprise. 
Thus, although it was seen that variation in this sense did occur and 
was diagnosed, and that location is an important aspect affecting 
farming, size of holding appeared to be a far stronger influence. 
The size structure of peasant cane farming is the main factor 
inhibiting the development of viable units of production, able to 
support a fully- employed farming population at reasonable standards. 
It was seen that size of holding had a direct relationship with use.of 
fertiliser and yields per acre. Ownership and use of mechanised 
transport and cultivating equipment were also seen to be directly 
related to size, with about 10% of the farmers, mainly the larger ones, 
ownin` such eeuipment. The actual sale of cane was made more difficult 
by the existence of a large number of small producers. The 
difficulties encountered in the disposal of the cane affect the total 
production costs adversely, though costs and profitability are also 
related to the amount of own or paid labour employed, the cultivation 
practices employed and the peripheral location of farmers' holdings in 
relation to the mills. The survey further showed that extension 
services, credit disbursement of the right type and marketing 
facilities for crops other than sugar cane were inadequate and inhibited 
251 
development. It can be argued that the extent of the problems nosed 
by the existence of a large number of small producers seem to make it 
more difficult for these three institutional functions to be carried 
out effectively, although it appeared that the facilities themselves 
were inadequate. 
The high incidence of part -time and spare -time farming is also 
related to size of holdings. There is, however, another factor which, 
while it does not cause non -full 
-time farming, at least Permits it. 
This is the fact that sugar cane is a crop that can tolerate poor 
husbandry and lack of attention, yet still produce a small return, 
especially with ratoon crops. While money returns are low from sugar 
cane, farmers tend to spend little time and money on the crop. They 
continue to work in other forms of employment and only when returns 
are more attractive is greater attention paid to the crop. While this 
results in poor utilisation of land resources, as far as the farmers 
are concerned, the response is one which results in a more economic 
use 
-of their labour. This, of course, is most applicable to those 
farmers whose holdings cannot sustain them even at the best of time. 
Monoculture and diversification 
By far the most important crop grown on farmers holdings is 
sugar cane which occupies about two- thirds the total area of farms, 
holds the position of main commercial enterprise on over nine- tenths 
of the holdings, and is the sole commercial crop for about two- thirds 
of all farmers. Partly responsible for this importance is the fact 
that most of those Who grow the crop have had traditional contact with 
it. It must be remembered that most of the inhabitants of the island 
can trace their settlement in this part of the world to the fulfillment 
of the needs of sugar cane agriculture. however, the factor that 
appears to be even more important is the fact that sugar cane is a 
marketable coìmTodity that can be exchanged for money incomes. 
Whereas it is realised that environmental factors control agricultural 
production to a Peat extent, it is known that the same conditions 
that exist in the cane belt can support a variety of crops, yet, 
because sugar cane is marketable and readily disposed of, it is most 
widespread. The nature of the crop as outlined above is also partly 
responsible for its production under a peasant type of commercial 
monoculture. 
An important aspect of farming changes in the Present -day 
Caribbean is whether farmers should depend on one crop, historically 
a commercial crop for a metropolitan market, or whether they sfiould 
diversify production with a local and regional market in mind, while 
still contributing to export agriculture. Diversification has been 
stifled in the past, except in a few areas where special conditions 
existed. Even in these areas, such as the edges of the two western 
swamps, sugar cane appears to have become more widespread during the 
post -war period at the expense of rice and root crops (figures 29 & 31). 
The lack of organised markets for crops other than sugar cane 
effectively barred the emergence of other commercial enterprises. 
Even in those areas where a measure of diversified agriculture is 
practiced, farmers indicated that disposal problems posed severe 
limitations on the expansion of other enterprises. 
There are other factors which inhibit diversification. Size 
of holding, because of the physical limitation of the amount of land 
available, also ; revents diversification. The production of several 
crops on a small holding presents the possibility that each of the 
enterprises will be run un- economically and that the farmer will have 
to find a variety of outlets which are not organised at the present 
time. Fragmentation also prevents diversification because of the more 
253 
likely loss of food crops through larceny which is an acknowledged 
problem in Trinidad. 
A further aspect of diversified cropping patterns is the need 
for farmers to learn techniques for raising crops that may be 
completely new to them. The developments noted with tobacco showed 
that farmers are willing and able to learn new technioues if money 
returns are attractive. In considering new crops also, the practice of 
non -full -time farming must be borne in mind. Tobacco 
-growing or 
livestock- rearing demands more intensive attention so that part -time or 
spare -time farming acts as a hindrance. Such agricultural activities 
demand that more time be spent on the holdings by farmers. To a 
certain extent, the existence of large households and families is 
helpful in permitting holders to work in off -farm employment, while 
someone in the household is able to pay attention to the needs of the 
holding. If incomes are improved from a diversified farming, as 
compared to the present system, it is probable that farmers will find 
it attractive to spend more time on their holdings. Diversification, 
therefore, should be attempted only if its effects are beneficial to 
the farming population. If diversification is to be encouraged it must 
not be for the sake of diversification, but in order to assist in the 
development of farming systems that are feasible and profitable. 
On individual holdings, if diversification is to take place, it 
was seen that this must be at the expense of sugar cane. Globally, 
though, diversification seems to be attainable without the contraction 
of sugar cane. In this context it is possible to suggest that targets 
be set for sugar production and for the proportions to be supplied by 
farmers and estates. The target has to be fixed in the light of 
available outlets under the Commonwealth Sugar Agreement, United States' 
quotas, local reouirements and other possible outlets that can buy sugar 
at reasonable prices. With a target production declared and share of 
254 
production decided, development can be directed more purposefully. 
It is worth noting that the suggestion of S. M. Gilbert in 1933 (p. 8 ) 
has still not been implemented and farmers continue to voice fears from 
time to time that they are being pushed out of the industry. 
Undoubtedly, the estates have increased their share of production in 
the most recent period through increasing both the acreage under cane 
and yields per acre. Some farmers have increased yields, but generally 
in the _:easant sector low yields were obtained, remaining at about 
levels reported in the Gilbert and Benham committee reports of 1933 
and 1944 respectively. Increased yields on farmers' holdings, if 
attained, can provide considerable expansion. If they are brought up 
to the levels of the estates, then, from the existing acreage under 
cane, sugar production can be increased by over 40,000 tons, or over 
15 of output in recent years. In other words, this is assuming that 
on the estimated 42,000 acres under farmers' cane, yields will increase 
from the average of 17 to 18 tons to 28 tons per acre at a-tc /ts ratio 
of 10:1. The stated aim of the government is that expansion of export 
crops with precarious marketing problems, should be by increasing 
yields per acre and not by increasing acreages under such crops, so 
that increasing yields on farriers' holdings is one way of achieving 
this, without the need to bring new areas under sugar cane. Such areas 
can be used for production of other crops. 
At the resent time a land capability survey is in progress and, 
from the information obtained, the most suitable areas for growing sugar 
cane will no doubt be found. With the prospect that sugar cane 
production can be increased without increasing the sugar cane acreage, 
and information obtained from surveys of other agricultural enterprises, 
it is possible that target productions will be set for food crops :hen 
the land best suited for such enterprises is demarcated. It may be 
noted that food cross are becoming important not only for the local 
255 
market, but also for a regional market since the initiation of the 
Caribbean Free Trade Area (CARIFTA).1 ith the organisation of markets 
for food crops for the local and regional areas, the _possibility of 
developing a profitable diversified agriculture does not seem too 
remote. 
Implications of change 
In the past, agricultural development was geared to the demands 
of metropolitan interests and farmers aped in a crude manner the 
estates' system of monoculture. Future development will depend more 
upon the institution of government policies which will take into 
consideration the purpose of agriculture in terms of social and economic 
progress of the society. This type of development is already in 
progress, for the recent Town and Country Planning Act makes provision 
for a detailed land -use plan based on the afore- mentioned land 
capability survey. This is to facilitate "the zoning of economic 
activities with a view to the best use of physical space having regard 
to both economic and social criteria. "2 Planning of this type is 
expected to regulate the competition between agricultural and non- 
agricultural users of land. This concept was developed further in the 
Third Five Year Plan 1969 -73, when regional planning areas were 
designated. 
Past. attempts at.imp<roving agricultural practices were usually 
piece -meal and made in times of stress. At the present time there 
appears to be a more comprehensive approach and some attempt is being 
1. C.AFIFTA is a free trade area concerned with abolishing custom 
duties, quota provisions and other restrictions on trade between 
the participating countries. The participants were all formerly 
British territories and are Antigua, Barbados, Guyana, Trinidad, 
the Windward and Leeward Islands. 
2. Draft second five -year development plan, p.15. 
256 
made to understand the interaction of the multiplicity of factors 
which affect farming. The nature and conseouences of such interactions 
must be understood if peasant agriculture is to be developed in such a 
way that it becomes efficient and possibly able to use the land at an 
optimum level. There is, therefore, need for research into farming 
systems that are in harmony with local conditions. Development must 
aim to set up farms that are viable, producing incomes that are 
comparable to those in other sectors of the economy, providing full - 
time employment and growing crops both for export and for local 
consumption. A. L. Jolly's pilot Projects in the 1950s _provided some 
hope that small holdings can be viable. From further research of this 
type and a close study of developments on the new land settlement 
projects, farming systems suited to local needs can be evolved. 
If no purposeful changes are introduced into peasant type 
agriculture like cane farming, then the possibility exists, that, under 
present conditions, there will be little, if any, improvements in 
yields per acre or in average production per farmer. Changes are no 
doubt occurring, but positive action needs to be taken if cane farming 
is not to become degenerate and lead to the estate sector accounting 
for more and more of local sugar cane Prodution. Recent change in 
Trinidad has been directed to the development of new farming 
settlements rather than to the institution of changes on existing 
holdings and, in recent years, little seems to have been attempted or 
achieved among cane farmers. Some type of progressive change is 
required in this the most important form of Peasant production in the 
island. 
Changes are also required in the links between agriculture andd 
other sectors of the economy, mainly the industrial. The setting up 
of processing plants is already in progress or planned. The purpose 
of the Central Marketing Agency in forging these links and providing 
257 
the means of disposing of farmers crops profitably is already realised 
and, in the case of one crop, pigeon peas, has shown some progress. 
There is the possibility that farmers will be able to dispose of crops 
other than sugar cane in an organised manner. The extension of the 
present system of guaranteed prices will also assist in the attainment 
of reasonable farming incomes, which will to a lesser extent depend on 
the chance of obtaining high prices or reasonable returns only when 
scarcities of various commodities occur. 
Judging from the decision of the Industrial Coutt relating to 
mechanisation in the sugar industry, it is realised in Trinidad that 
agricultural development should be such that any strategy for change 
should consider both social and economic factors. The estates have 
been permitted to introduce a system of phased mechanisation which, 
though the effects on the society will be cushioned to a certain extent, 
will undoubtedly mean that in future the estates can absorb far less 
labour than previously. Farmers, on the other hand cannot in the 
foreseeable future mechanise operations to such an extent as the estates 
are able to do. The size structure of cane farming precludes this, 
except if some form of co- operative farming develops. Farmers will have 
need for at least their present labour requirements. If they are 
permitted and encouraged to expand, depending on how such expansion 
takes place, they may even increase their requirements of labour. This 
may help in further conditioning any serious social dislocation 
resulting from agricultural changes on the estates, especially 
considering an increasing population and the present high unemployment 
rate of over 14 existing in Trinidad. This could be a major case for 
the expansion of farmers' production and merits close attention. 
In the long run, the aim of agricultural development is that 
adequate returns are received for products sold and that agriculture 
should contribute to the economy by producing more of the food consumed 
258 
locally at reasonable prices, and export goods at prices that are 
remunerative and competitive on world markets. There is no need for 
a complete change in emphasis from export agriculture to proc.,ction 
for the local market, but there is need for a better balance between 
the t o . The historical emphasis on export agriculture should now be 
shared with agriculture for local consumption. 
This thesis has shown that the obstacles to progress in 
peasant farming are varied and that many of these flow from the present 
size structure of cane farms. It is difficult for farmers to practice 
progressive agriculture under such conditions as have been outlined. 
To a certain extent, though, develotiment will not depend on the efforts 
of outside agencies such as through governmental action, but on the 
initiative and enthusiasm of the farmers themselves. I_ventually, if 
attained, the provision of reasonable incomes will cause a change in 
attitudes to agriculture in general by both the farming and non -farming 
population. The history of cane farming appears to be one -in which 
little real encouragement was given to farmers. They. were left. to use 
their own initiative and7considering that they were beset by a large 
number of constraints, it is still possible to argue that' farmers have 
shown considerable enterprise and have contributed immensely to both 
social and economic progress in Trinidad. Their contribution can be 
enlarged if obstacles are removed and agriculture becomes a dignified 
occupation. 
259 
Sources of Maos and Diagrams 
Figure 1. Compiled from general purpose maps issued by Lands and Surve7s 
Department, Trinidad. 
2. Data supplied by S.M.A. 
3. Data supplied by S'.M.A. 
4. Data from First, Second and third five -year plans. 
5. Data supplied by S.M.A. 
6. Data supplied by Messrs.Caroni Limited. 
7. Data supplied by Messrs.Caroni Limited. 
" 8, Data supplied by Messrs.Caroni Limited. 
9. Data supplied by T.I.C.F.A., and S.M.A. 
" 10. Data supplied by T.I.C.F.A., and S.M.A. 
" 11. Data supplied by S.M.A. 
" 12. Data supplied by T.I.C.F.A., Messrs.Caroni Limited and 
Trinidad Sugar Estates Limited. 
" 13. Data supplied by T.I.C.F.A., Messrs.Caroni Limited and 
Trinidad Sugar Estates Limited. 
" 14. Data supplied by T.I.C.F.A., Messrs.Caroni Limited and 
Trinidad Sugar Estates Limited. 
" 15. Data supplied by T.I.C.F.A., Messrs.Caroni Limited and 
Trinidad Sugar Estates Limited. 
" 16. Data supplied by Messrs.Caroni Limited. 
" 17. Field work (see Appendix II). 
" 18. Map supplied by Map Library, U.W.I., Trinidad. 
" 19. Map supplied by Map Library, U.'.W.I., Trinidad. 
" 20. Map taken from J.S.Beard, The Natural Vegetation of Trinidad. 
260 
Figure 21. Data supplied by Messrs.Caroni Limited and map taken from 
Trinidad and Tobago Census Album, 1946. 
22. Map supplied by Map Library, U.'.4.I., Trinidad. 
23. Data from Trinidad and Tobago, Annual Statistical Digest,1967. 
24. Data from Trinidad and Tobago, Annual Statistical Digest,1967. 
25. Map adapted from J.Harewood, in Research Papers No.3, 1967. 
26. Map adapted from J.Harewood, in Research Papers No.3, 1967. 
27. Field work. 
28. Field work, 
29. Field work. 
30. Field work. 
" 31. Field work. 
32. Field work. 
33. Field work. 
34. Data from Publication 3, Trinidad and Tobago Agricultural 
Census, 1963. 
35. Field work. 
" 36. Field work. 
37. Field work. 
38. Field work. 
261 
BIBLIOGRAPHY 
Ansar, S. R. EastIndian agricultural settlements in Trinidad: A 
study in cultural geography, Ph.D. Thesis, University 
of Florida, Gainesville, 1963. 
Armstrong, E. "Import substitution in Jamaica and Trinidad and 
Tobago", Studies in regional economic integration, Vol. 2, 
No. 5, Part A, Institute of Social and Economic Research, 
University of the West Indies, Jamaica, 1967. 
Atkinson, A. M. ; Quaid, G. ; Deicke, R. '"Mechanical sugar cane 
harvesting in Australia ", World Crops, Vol. 17, iviarch, 
1965, pp. 46 -5o. 
Augelli, J. R. "Patterns and problems of land tenure in the Lesser 
Antilles: Antigua, L.W.I. ", Economic Geography, Vol. 29, 
1953, pp. 362 -367. 
Augier, F.; Gordon, S. C.; Hall, D. G.; Reckord, T.I. The snaking of the 
West Indies, Longmans, London, 1964. 
Bain, F. M. Rainfall of Trinidad with meteorological notes, Trinidad 
Government Printing Office, 1934. 
Barbados, Report of the co:m.:ission of incuiiy into the Barbados sugar 
industry, (Chairman - Professor Rawle Farley), Barbados 
Government Printing Office, 1962 -63. 
Economic Survey, 1966, Barbados Government Printing Office. 
Barnes, A. C. "The sugar cane", World Crops, Vol. 2, ivay, 1950, 
pp. 211 -214. 
"Sugar: I+_airistay of the British West Indies", orld Crops, 
Vol. 2, August, 1950, pp. 325-327, and September, 1950, 
pp. 365 -369. 
, Agriculture of the sugar cane, Leonard Hill, Lo:.don, 1953. 
262 
Beachey, R. W. The period of prosperity in the British West Indies 
sugar industry and the continental bounty system, 1865 -84 
Caribbean Historical Review, No. II, Dec. 1951, Trinidad 
Publishing Co. Ltd.,-Port 
-of- Spain. 
"Sugar technology in the British West Indies in the late 
Nineteenth Century", Caribbean Historical Review, 
Nos. III & IV, Trinidad Government Printing Office, 
1954, pp. 170 -196. 
The British nest Indies sugar industry in the late Nineteenth 
Century, Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1957. 
Beard, J. S. The natural vegetation of Trinidad, Oxford Forestry 
Memoirs, No. 20, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1946. 
Beckford, G. L. "An appropriate theoretical framework for agricultural 
planning," in Social and Economic Studies, Vol. 17, 
No. 3, University of the West Indies, Jamaica, 1968, 
pp. 233 -242. 
Benham, F. C. Report on the sugar industry of Trinidad, as Council 
Paper No. 1, 1944. 
Blans:;ard, P. Democracy and empire in the Caribbean: A contemporary 
view, Macmillan, 1947. 
Bookers, Bookers Sugar review, Guyana, 1954 
Borde, P. G. L. Hi.stoire de l'ile de la Trinite, 1498 -1797, Vol. II 
Maissonneuve, Paris, 1883. 
Boserup, E. "The conditions of agricultural growth: the economics of 
agrarian change under population pressure ", London, 1965. 
Bowen, N. P., and Montserin, B. G., Trinidad and Tobago Census Album, 
1946, Port -of- Spain, 1948. 
Braithwaite, L. "Social stratification in Trinidad: A preliminary 
analysis ", Social and Economic Studies, Vol. 2, Nos. 2 & 
3, 1953, PP. 5 -175. 
263 
Braithwaite, L. The problem of cultural integration in Trinidad", 
Social and Economic Studies, Vol. 3, No. 1, 1954, 
pp. 82 -96. 
Brewster, H. and Thomas, C. Y. The dynamics of West Indian 
integration, Institute of Social and Economic Research, 
University of the West Indies, Jamaica, 1967. 
British Honduras, Reports for 1962 -3 and 1965, HIM, London. 
Brookfield, H. C. "Problems of monoculture and diversification in a 
sugar island, k uritius ", Economic Geography, Vol. 35, 
1959, pp. 25 -40. 
Brown, Leo. P. Ilgricultural credit for Trinidad and Tobago, Report 
prepared by U.S.A.I.E., consultant, Trinidad, 1963. 
Brunt, M. "Making maps for agriculture", part 2, World Crops, Vol. 13, 
Oct. 1961, pp. 391 -394. 
Euchananan, R. O. "A note on labour requirements in plantation 
agriculture", Geography, Vol. 23, 1938, pp. 156 -164. 
Burns, A. C. The history of the British `,;est Indies, Allen & Unwin, 
London, 1954. 
"Towards a Caribbean Federation ", Foreign Affairs, Vol. 34,. 
1955 -56, pp. 128 -140. 
Caribbean Commission, Land tenure symposium, Washington D.C. 1946. 
The sugar industry of the Caribbean, Crop 
Inquiry Series, 6, Washington D.C. 1947. 
Caroni Limited, "Report on crop 18G7 at Brechin Castle and Caroni 
Estates ", Trinidad, 1898, unpublished. 
, Caroni Limited in Trinidad, nd. ca. 1964. 
, Cuarterly Bslletins, 1966- 
264 
Caroni I:imited, Paper No. A/7 of Sugar Technologists' Association of 
Trinidad and Tobago, 1967 Conference. No title is given 
to the paper, but it deals with the development of 
cultivation practices and fertiliser usage from the end 
of the nineteenth century to 1567. Trinidad, unpublished. 
Caroni Limited ", paper written by D.M. Eanschell, 
6 pp., unpublished, Trinidad. 
, "Report and further report on aerial control of cane 
fires", by P. C._kacintyre, Trinidad, 1967, unpublished, 
4 pp. 
Chambers, D. V. "Resource development planning with special reference 
to integrated agricultural feasability studies ", paper 
presented to the Institution of Agricultural Engineers, 
March, 1969, 7 pp. 
Charter, C. F. and Turner, P. E. "A preliminary survey of soil types 
on sugar estates in Trinidad ", Sugar Cane Investigation 
Committee Resorts, Trinidad Government Printing Office, 
1938. 
Chenery, E. M. The soils of Central Trinidad, Trinidad Government 
Printing Office, 1952, (with map in 4 sections). 
Chisholm, M. Rural settlement and land use: An essay in location, 
Eutchinsons, London, 1962. 
Geography and economics, G. Bell and Sons, London, 1966. 
Clark, C. and Haswell, Y. R. The economics of subsistence agriculture, 
MacMillan, London, 1964. 
Clayton, E. S. "Agricultural marketing and cooperatives in developing 
countries," World Crops, Vol. 19, Jan. 1567. 
Collins, tip. G. "Aerial photography applied to tropical land use ", 
reprint from The Chartered Surveyor, Royal Institution 
of Chartered Surveyors, London, 1966. 
265 
Coppock, J. T. "The geography of agriculture", reprint from Journal 
of Agricultural Economics, Vol. XIX, No. 2, May, 1968, 
PP. 153-175. 
, "Agricultural geography in tropical Africa ", reprint from 
Thomas, M. F. and Whittington, G. V. Environment and land 
use in Africa, Lethuen, London, 1969, pp. 9 -20. 
Coulter, J. K. "Soil and land use problems in the West Indies ", World 
Crops, Vol. 15, Sept. 1963, pp. 349 -354 and p. 363. 
Coulter, K. W. Fiji, India in the Pacific, Chicago University Press, 
1941. 
Courtenay, F. P. Plantation agriculture, G. Bell & Sons, London, 1965. 
Cumper, G. E. "Labour demand and supply in the Jamaican sugar industry, 
1830 -1950 ", 'Social and Economic Studies, Vol. 2, No. 4, 
1954, pp. 37 -86. 
"A modern Jamaican sugar estate" Social and Economic Studies, 
Vol. 3, No. 2, 1954, pp. 119 -160. 
(ed). The economy of the West Indies, I.S.E.??. University of 
the West Indies, Jamaica, 1960. 
Czarnikow, C. Sugar Reviews (monthly), London. 
Dailey, F. W. General industrial conditions and labour relations in 
Trinidad, Trinidad Government Printing Office, 1954. 
Deerr, N. The history of sugar, 2 Vols. Chapman & Hall, London, 1950. 
Demas, W. G. Economics of development in small countries with special 
reference to the Caribbean, McGill University Press, 
Montreal, 1966. 
de Verteuil, L. A. A. Trinidad, its geography and natural resources 
administration, present conditions and prospects, London, 
2nd edition, 1884. 
Dumont, R. Report to the Government of Jamaica on planning agricultural 
develoment, F.A.O. 1963. 
266 
Dunn, . S. The location of agricultural production, Gainesville, 
1954. 
Dyson, A. Land use and settlement patterns in the iiaracas- St.Joseph 
and Caparo valleys of Trinidad, Ph.D. Thesis, University 
of Liverpool, 1962. 
"Land use in the Maracas- St.Joseph basin, Trinidad", in 
Steel, R. W. and Prothero, R. M. Geographers and the 
Tropics, Longmans, London, 1964, pp. 261 -276. 
Edwards, Bryan. History, civil and commercial, of the British Colonies 
in the West Indies, Stockdale, 1793. 
Edwards, D. T. "An economic study of agriculture in the Yallahs Valley 
area of Jamaica", in Social and Economic Studies, Vol. 3, 
. 1954, pp. 316 -341. 
An economic study of small farming in Jamaica, Institute of 
Social and Economic Research, University of the West 
Indies, Jamaica, 1961. 
Eriksen, E. G. The West Indies population problem; University :of Kansas 
publication, Social Science Studies, Lawrence, Kansas, 1962. 
Eyre, S. R. Vegeation and soils, Edward Arnold, London, 1563. 
F.A.O. Sugar commodity series, Bull. 22, Rome, 1952 
Fact -finding with rural people, Rome, 1953 
The consolidation of fragmented agricultural holdings. 
Agric. Studies No. 11, lashington, 1953. 
, Report to the Government of Trinidad on the reclamation of the 
Caroni Oropouche and Nariva areas, No. 636, 1957. 
, The world sugar economy in figures, 1880 -1959, Rome, 1961 
, Commodity review, 1966. Rome. 
Agriculture and industrialisation (Freedom from hunger campaign 
Basis study No. 17) Rome, 1967. 
267 
Farmer, B. H. "Peasant and plantation in Ceylon ", l acific Vievmoint, 
Vol. 2+, No. 1, 1963, pp. 9 -16. 
Fox, J. W. Land use survey: General principles and a New Zealand 
example, Auckland University College, Bull. 49, 1956. 
Fruchter, B. Introduction to factor analysis, Van Nostrand, New York 
1954. 
Galletti, R.; Baldwin, K. D. S.; Dina, I. O. Nigerian cocoa farmers, 
O.U.P., London, 1956. 
Garrison, W. L. and Marble, D. F. "The spatial structure of 
agricultural activities ", Annals of the Association of 
American Geographers, Vol. 1+7, 1957, pp. 137 -144. 
Gilbert, S. M. Preliminary report on an economic investigation into 
the cane farming industry of Trinidad, 1932, as Trinidad 
Council Paper No. 84, of 1933. 
Further report on the cane farming industry of Trinidad 
based on field work carried out in 1933, as Trinidad Council 
Paper No. 135 of 1933. 
Girwar, S. N. "Possible effects of Britain's entry into the European 
Common Market on the West Indian sugar industry", paper 
presented to the Caribbean Cane Farmers' Convention, 1961, 
appearing in TICFA, Annual Reports, 1963 -65, pp. 100 -19. 
, "Relationship of the cane farmers and sugar manufacturers in 
Trinidad ", paper presented to the Caribbean Cane Farmers' 
Association's Convention, 1961, appearing in TICFA, Annual 
Reports, 1963 -65, pp. 123 
-128. 
"The economics of Trinidad cane farming ", paper presented to 
the Caribbean Cane Farmers' Association's Convention, 1963, 
appearing in TICFA, Annual Reports, 1963 -1965, pp. 129 
-139. 
268 
Gregor, H. F. '"The plantation in California*', Professional 
Geographer, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1962, pp. 1 -4. 
, "The changing plantation", Annals of the Association of 
American Geographers, Vol. 55, 1965, pp. 221 -238. 
Guerin, D. The Wiest Indies and their future, Denis Dobson, London, 
1961. 
Haicrow, M. and Cave, J. iv_. Peasant a5ricuiture in Barbados, 
Barbados Department of Science and Agriculture, Bull. 11, 
1947. 
Hancock,:R. Puerto Rico: A success story, Van Nostrand Co. 1960. 
Hardy, F. "A provisional classification of the soils of Trinidad ", 
Tropical Agriculture, XVII, No. 8, 1940, pp. 153 
-158. 
, "Effective rainfall and soil moisture in Trinidad ", Tropical 
Agriculture, XXIV, Nos. 4 -6, 1947, pp. 45 -51. 
The soils of Trinidad, (unpublished script), Imperial College 
of Tropical Agriculture, Trinidad, nd. 
Harewood, J. "Istimates of internal migration and of current 
population distribution in Trinidad and Tobago ", in 
Research Papers, No. 3, 1967, Central Statistical Office, 
Trinidad, pp. 45 
-75. 
Harman, H. H. iilodern factor analysis, Chicago, 1960 
Harvey, D. R. Economic aspects of the historical geography of 
Trinidad since 1802, M.Sc.(Econ) Thesis, University of 
London, 1955. 
Harvey, D. W. "Locational change in the Kentish hop industry and the 
analysis of land use patterns", Transactions and Papers of 
the Institute of British Geographers, 1966, pp. 183 -195. 
BIiS.O, Agriculture in the ';lest Indies, Col. No. 182, 1942. 
, Plantation crops, 1560 and 1963. 
269 
Herskovits, M. and F. Trinidad Village, A.A. Knopf, New York, 1947. 
leseltine, N. 'Investment in agriculture ", part 1, World Crops, 
Va. 17, Dec. 1965, pp. 24-31. 
Hill, P. Migrant cocoa farmers of Southern Ghana: A study in rural 
capitalism, Cambridge U.P. 1963. 
Hoselitz, B. F. Economic development and cultural change, Chicago, 
1955. 
Howe, G. M. "A note on the application of air photography to the 
agricultural geography of north -west Cardiganshire", 
Geography, Vol.. 1936, 1951, pp. 15 -20. 
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Rer ;ort on 
Jamaica, The John Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1952. 
Jamaica, Report of the industry ingui ry comrrri.ssion, 1 66, 
(Chairman - Sir John Mordecai), Jamaica, 1967. 
Jamaica Agricultural Society, The farmer's guide, J.A.S. Jamaica, 
1961. 
James, P. E. "Some geographical relations in Trinidad", Scottish 
Geographical Magazine, Vol. 42, No. 2, 1926, pp. 84 -92. 
"Changes in the geography of Trinidad", Scottish Geographical 
Magazine, Vol. 73, 1957, pp. 158 -166. 
"Man-land relationship in the Caribbean", in Rubin, V. (ed), 
Caribbean studies: A sylIxosium, I.S..R. University of the 
West Indies, Jamaica, 1957, pp. 14 -20. 
Jolly, A. L. "Peasant farming in the Bejucal area of Trinidad', 
Tropical Agriculture, Vol. XXII, No. 5, 1945, pp. 83 -88. 
"Peasant farming in two districts of the Oropouche Lagoon , 
June, 1944 
-5 ", Tropical Agriculture, Vol. XXV, Nos. 1 -12, 
1948, pp. 23 -32. 
270 
Jolly, A. L. Peasant farming: Report on Peasant experimental farms 
at the Imperial Colle e of Tropical Agriculture, Trinidad, 
Economic Series i emoirs, No. 2 of I.C.T.Á. 
, "Peasant experimental farms ", in the Journal of the Agricultural 
Society of Trinidad, Vol. LV, part 4, Dec. 1955, Pp. 451 -78. 
, Readings in s.all scale farrain , I.C.T.A. Trinidad, 1956. 
"Small -scale farming in the West Indies ", World Crops, Vol. 3, 
kay, 1956, pp. 173 -176 and p. 202. 
Jones, C. F. and Pico, R. (eds). Symposium on the geography of Puerto 
Rico, University of Puerto Rico Press, Rio Pedras, 1955. 
Klass, M. East Indians in Trinidad: a study of cultural persistence, 
New York, 1961. 
Knowles, C. . Economic development of the Overseas Empire, Vol. 2, 
London, 1930. 
Kuczynski, R. R. Demographic survey of the British Colonial Empire, 
vol. 3, 0..P. 1953. 
Laverie, I. D. and Vlitos, A. J. "Chemical weed control in Trinidad 
sugar cane", Tropical Agriculture, Vol. 39, No. 1 ; 1962. 
Lewis, W. A. "The industrialisation of the British West Indies ", 
Caribbean economic Review, Vol. 2, No. 1, 1950, pp. 1 -61 
addle, R. A. Geolog óf Venezuela and Trinidad, Paleontological 
Research Institution, New York, 1946. 
Lowenthal, D. (ed), The West Indies Federation, Columbia University 
Press, New York, 1961. 
Lucas, C. P. An historical geography of the British Colonies, Vol 2, 
Clarendon press, Oxford, 1890. 
Labogunje, A. L. Urbanisation in Nigeria, University of London Press, 
1968. 
271. 
Maci:iillan, A. A. The development of market -gardening in Pranguez, 
Trinidad, West Indies, Ph.D. Thesis, University of the 
West Indies, Trinidad, 1967. 
i. ac_;a_llan, W. M. Warning from the '::est Indies, Penguin edition, 1938 
McLiaster, D. N. A subsistence crop geography of Uganda, World Land 
Use Survey, Occassional Papers, No. 2. 
i cLorris, C. S. "Small -farm financing in Jamaica", Social and 
Economic Studies, supplement to Vol. 6, No. 3, 1957, 128 pp. 
Marshall, R. C. The physiography and vegetation of Trinidad and 
Tobago, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1934. 
Marshall, W. K. "Peasant development in the West Indies since 1838" 
Social and Economic Studies, Vol. 17, No. 3, Sept. 1968, 
pp. 252-263. 
Masefield, G. B. A short history of agriculture in the British 
Colonies, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1950 
Mayer, A. C. Peasants in the Pacific: A study of Fiji Indian rural 
society, Routledge, Kegan Paul, London, 1961. 
Indians in Fiji, O.U.P. 1963. 
Mayne, J. E. "The small tropical farm and mechanisation", World Crops, 
Vol. 2, Nov. 1950, pp. 465 -468. 
Mohr, E. C. J. and Van Baren, F. A. Tropical soils, The Hague, 1G54. 
Moll, E. R. Cocoa inTrinidad, Trinidad, 1960. 
Ivrint, H. The economics of developing coutries, Hutchinsons, London, 
1964. 
Myrdal, Gunnar, Economic theory and under- developed regions, 
Dickworth, London, 1957. 
Asian drama - an inquiry into the poverty of nations, 
3 vols, Pelican, 1968. 
272 
Nash, F. "Trading problems of the British ',lest Indies ", Social 
and Economic Studies, Vol. 7, No. 3, pp. 120 
-135. 
Nath, D. Ahistory of Indians in British Guiana, Nelsons, London, 1950. 
Niddrie, D. L. Land Use and population in Tobago, World Land Use 
Survey, Monograph 3, 1961. 
Land use and settOlement in the Caribbean: A contribution 
to the historical and social geography of the Lesser 
Antilles with s ecial reference to the ceded islands and in 
particular to Tobago, Ph.D. Thesis, University of 
Manchester, 1965. 
, *Eighteenth- Century settlement in the British Caribbean", 
Transactions and Papers of the Institute of British 
Geographers, 1966, pp. 67 -80. 
Nurkse, R. Problems of capital formation in under- developed countries, 
Oxford, 1951. 
O'Loughlin, C. "The economy of Montserrat: A national accounts study ". 
Social and Economic Studies, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1959;. pp. 1!i7 -178. 
, "The economy of Antigua ", Social and Economic: Studies, 
Vol. 8, No. 3, 1959, PP. 229 -264. 
, "The economy of St.Kitts -Nevis -Anguilla ", Social and 
Economic Studies, Vol. 8, No. 4, 1959, pp. 377 -102. 
, A survey of economic potential and capital needs of 
Barbados and the Windward and Leeward Islands, HLSO, London, 
1963. 
Paget, E. "Land use and settlement in Jamaica", in Steel, R. W. and 
Fisher, C. A. Geographical essays on British tropical lands, 
George Phillip, London, 1956, pp. 183 -223. 
, "Value, valuation and use of land in the West Indies ", 
Geographical Journal, Vol. 127, 1961, pp. 1+93 -1+98. 
273 
Parisinos, C. C.; Shephard, C. Y.; Jolly, A. L. "An economic survey 
of the Las Lomas district of Trinidad ", Tropical Agricul- 
ture, Vol. XXI, No. 5, 1944, pp. 84-99. . . 
Parry, J. H. and Sherlock, P. M. A short history of the West Indies, 
Macmillan, London, 1963. 
Persaud, B. and L. "Impact of agricultural diversification in 
Barbados*, Social and Economic Studies, Vol. 17, No. 3, 
Sept. 1968, pp. 353-364. 
Pim, A. Colonial agricultural production, Royal Institute of 
International Affairs, O.U.P., 1946. 
Platt, R. R. "Economic and social problems in the British i ;est 
Indies'", Geographical Review, Vol. 30, 1940, pp. 672 
-675. 
Proudfoot, M. Great Britain and the United States in the Caribbean, 
Faber and Faber, London, 1954. 
Raeburn, J. R. "Economics of scale in farming ", Journal of 
agricultural economics, Vol. 13, 1958, pp. 72 -78. 
Raga z, L. J. The fall of the planter class in the British Caribbean, 
1763 -1833, Century Co. New York, 1928. 
Rajballie, G. B. Some aspects of the settlement geography of a 
Trinidad community, M.A. Thesis, University of Alberta, 1966. 
Rampersad, F. "Growth and structural change in the economy of 
Trinidad ", Research Papers, No. 1, Central Statistics Office, 
Trinidad, 1963, pp. 82 -176. 
and Alcantara, J. A. Problems of capital accumulation in 
Trinidad, unpublished, 1966. 
Robertson, C. J. "The sugar industry of iauritius ", Economic Geography, 
vol. 6, 1930, pp. 338 -351. 
, "The integration of plantation agriculture in economic 
planning with special reference to South -East Asia ", Pacific 
Viewpoint, Vol. 4-, Pao. 1, 1963, pp. 1 -7. 
274 
Rubin, V. (ed). Caribbean Studies: A symposium, I.S. .. University 
of the ,lest Indies, Jamaica, 1957. 
Sammy, R. V. A. The development of commercial. sugar cane agriculture 
in Trinidad to 1938, M.A. Thesis, University of Alberta, 1967 
Schultz, T. W. The economic organisation of agriculture, LoGraw 
hill New York, 1953. 
Transforming traditional agriculture, Yale University. ?Tess 
1964. 
Economic crises in world agriculture, University of 
Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, 1965. 
Sen, S. R. The strategy for agricultural development, Asia 
Publishing House, London, 1966. 
Shephard, C. Y. "The sugar industry of the British West Indies and 
British Guiana with special reference to Trinidad °, Economic 
Geography, Vol. 5, 1929, pp. 149 -175. 
Soja, E. W. The geography of modernisation in Kenya: a special 
analysis of social, economic and political change, Syracuse 
Geographical Series, No. 2, Syracuse University Press, 1968. 
Starkey, O. P. Economic geography of Barbados: A study of the 
relationships between environmental variations and economic 
development, Columbia University, New York, 1939. 
, "Declining sugar prices and land utilisation in the British 
Lesser Antilles", Economic Geography, Vol. 18, 1942, 
PP. 2.09 -214. 
Suter, H. H. The general and economic geology of Trinidad, Colonial 
Geological Surveys, Mineral Resources Division, HMSO, 
London, 1960. 
Sutton, A. G. A. Report on the geology of Trinidad, Trinidad 
Government Printing Office, 1952. 
275 
Swerling, B. C. International control of sugar, 1918-1941, Food 
Research Institute, Stanford University, California, 1949. 
Symons, L. Agricultural geography, G. Bell &-Sons, London, 1966. 
Tirnoshenko, V. P. and Swerling, B. C. The world's sugar: Progress 
and poii.cc , Food Research Institute, Stanford University, 
California, 1957. 
Tiinp any, h. and Grist, D. H. An introduction to tropical agriculture, 
Longmans, London, 1958. 
Trinidad and Tobago, Census Reports, 191+6 and 1960. 
, An economic survey of Trinidad and Tobago, 1953- 
1558, Trinidad Government Printing Office. 
, Land utilisation and agricultural production, 
1956 and 1957, 2 Vols. Trinidad Government Printing Office, 
1958 and 1G59. 
, Draft first second and third five -year 
development plans, 1958 -62, 1964 -68, 1969 -73, 3 Vols. 
, Annual statistical digests, 1962 and 1967, 
Central Statistical Office, Port -of- Spain, Trinidad. 
, Research -rapers, Nos. 1-4, Central Statistical 
Office, Port -of- Spain, Dec. 1963, Dec. 1965, June 1967, and 
Dec. 1967. 
, Directory of industries 1966, Industrial 
Development Corporation, Port -of- Spain, Trinidad. 
Trinidad Islandwide Cane Farmers' Association, The Cane Farmer, San 
Fernando, Trinidad, 1958- 
, Annual Reports, 1957-1966, 4 Vols. 
, "Comments of the Cane Farmers' Association on 
the Lacfenzie Commission Report ", San Fernando, Trinidad, 
1960, unpublished, 6 pp. 
276 
Trinidad Islandwide Cane Farmers' Association, Submission of the 
Trinidad Islandwide Cane Farmers' Association to the 
Commission of Incuiry into the existing method-of co,nnutinE 
the Trice of canes and -:x-tters connected therewith, San 
Fernando, Trinidad, 1965. 
Vance, R. B. Human factors in cotton culture: A study in the social 
oeo rar,hy of the American south, University of North 
Carolina Press, Chapel hill, 1929. 
Vlitos, A. J. and Lerry, C. A. F. "Control of the sugar cane frog- 
hopper", World Crops, Vol. 13, Dec. 1 961 , pp. 470 -L.72. 
Vlitos, A. J. "Agronomic problems facing sugar cane cultivation in 
Trinidad", paper presented to the Caribbean Cane Farmers' 
Association, 1962, appearing in TICFA, Annual Reports, 
1963 -1965, pp. 156 -162. 
Waibel, L. "The climatic theory of the plantation; a critique", 
Geographical Review, Vol. 32, 1942, pp. 307 -310. 
Ward, R. G. Land use and population in Fiji, HMSO, 1965. 
VVaring, G. A. The geology of the island of Trinidad, British West . 
Indies, John Hopkins Fress, Baltimore, 1926. 
Viatters, R. F. "Problems of development in Fiji", Pacific Viewpoint, 
Vol. 2, No. 2, Sept. 1961, pp. 155-176. 
"Sugar production and culture change in Fiji: A comparison 
between peasant and plantation agriculture ", Pacific 
Viewpoint, Vol. 4, No. 1, ::_arch, 1963, pp. 25 
-52. 
Webster, C. C. and Wilson, P. N. AEricultare in the tropics, 
Long ans, London, 1566. 
Vehecind, L. and Smith, G. W. Trinidad, rainfall and reliability, 
Trinidad Government Printing Office, 1955. 
277 
Wilson, T. B. "The economics of peasant cane farming in Trinidad ", 
World Crops, Vol. 6, April, 1954, pp. 135 -140. 
Wilgus, A. C. The Caribbean at mid -cen tL-a, Uñiversity of Florida 
Press, Gainesville, 1950. 
, The Caribbean: peoples, Problems and prospects, University 
of Florida Press, Gainesville, 1951. 
,(ed). The Caribbean: its economy, University of Florida 
Press, Gainesville, 1954. 
Williams, E. history of the people of Trinidad and Tobago, Andre 
Deutsch, 1964. 
, Capitalism and slavery, Andre Deutsch, 1964. 
Wolf, E. and ;'iintz, S. "Haciendas and plantations in ;riddle America 
and the Antilles", Social and Economic Studies, Vol. 6, 
No. 3, 1957, pp. 380 -412. 
Young Sing, G. E. The evolution of the present pattern of, agricultural 
land use in the island. of Trinidad in the West Ind.ies,. Ph.D. 
Thesis, ;;queen's University, Belfast, 1964. 
REPORTS 
Report of the West India Ro al Commission with a subsidiar re.ort b 
D. Morris, I LSO, London, 1897, Cmd. 8655. 
Report on the sugar industry of the .','est Indies and British Guiana, 
West India Sugar Commission, 1929-30, HLISO, London, 1930, Cmd. 3517. 
Report of the West India Royal Commission (1945), ELSO, London, Cmd.6607. 
Report on a_riculture fisheries forestry and veterinary matters by 
Professor F. L. Engledow, h",.:SO, London, Cmd. 6608. 
Report of the Commission appointed to enduire into the working of the 
sugar industry in Trinidad, or The Soulbury Commission Report,. 
Trinidad Government Printing Office, 1948. 
278 
Report of the Ward Committee on the security of land tenure, 
Trinidad, 1958. 
Report of the Commission of enouiry into the cane farming - industry. 
of Trinidad, or the MacKenzie Commission Report, Trinidad Government 
Printing Office, 1960. 
279 
APPENDIX I 
The Questionnaire and the Sample of Farmers 
The Questionnaire was drafted in Edinburgh and discussed with 
members of the staff of the Geography and Statistics Departments. 
In Trinidad the draft questionnaire was presented to the following 
organisations and individuals: The Sugar Manufacturers' Association, 
The Trinidad Sugar Industry Control Board, the Ministry of Agriculture, 
The Trinidad Islandwide Cana Farmers' Association, Messrs.Caroni Estates 
Limited, members of the staff of the Social Sciences Faculty of the 
University of the West Indies (St.Augustine Campus), and to a number 
of individual cane farmers. After criticisms and advice were discussed, 
a new draft of the questionnaire was prepared and this was used in a 
pilot survey of ten farmers in three different areas. A few changes 
were made in the wording of certain Questions and a section on credit 
was added. The Questionnaire was then printed. Because the survey 
was done by personal interviews with little help from other interviewers, 
full questions were not always written on the Questionnaire. All those 
interviewed faced the same questions asked in the same way and 
ambiguities were clarified as the survey progressed. 
The sample of the cane -farming population chosen was obtained by 
(a) defining the population, (b) obtaining a sampling frame, 
(c) stratifying the population according to production size and 
geographical distribution. For each size group at each geographical 
point, tables of random numbers were then used to obtain the sample 
of the required size. 
Definition of the population: In this survey the 'farmer' is as 
defined in the Revised Ordinance, 1950, "a person who cultivates or 
contracts with a cultivator to cultivate canes for sale to a manufacturer 
280 
1 
but does not include a manufacturer who cultivates canes on his own lands." 
Thus the population is defined as farmers who grow canes and who have 
2 
a contract with a manufacturer, but do not have their own milling 
facilities. 
The Sampling Frame: The names of all farmers who hold contracts with 
manufacturers were obtained from both the Cane Farmers' Association 
and the manufacturers. As the sample was to be drawn according to 
próduction size it was thought best to use a five -year average of 
production for all farmers as the basis for stratification. However, 
such figures were obtainable from only one manufacturer, Mesers.Caroni 
Limited. In order to have comparable figures for all three mill 
operatore, it was found that the figures for one year only could be 
used. The returns for 1967 were the latest available and so figures 
for that year were used as the basis for stratification according to 
size groups. 
The main criticisms of the frame are as follows: (l) In the 
case of areas bordering on the hinterlands of Messrs. Trinidad Sugar 
Estates and Messrs. Caroni Limited in the north, and of the latter and 
Messrs.Forres Park Limited in the central areas, there were instances 
where farmers may have contracts with two firms. Most of the farmers 
failed to admit this, but such an occurrence would generally be brought 
to light during the course of an interview. (2) On some holdings 
more than one person may hold a contract. In most cases, however, this 
was divulged withoùt great hesitation. Moreover, cross -referring of 
I. Trinidad and Tobago Revised Ordinance, 1950, Ch.23, No.12, 
Production of Cane Ordinance. 
2. Ibid., "No farmer shall sell canes to a manufacturer and no manufacturer 
shall purchase canes from a farmer, unless the manufacturer and the 
farmer have entered into a contract as required by this Ordinance." 
P.383. 
2A1 
questions on the questionnaire did assist in resolving this problem. 
(3) In some cases there were farmers who grew canes, but who did not possßss 
a contract, and so must market their canes through farmers who have 
contracts. The main effect of the first two situations is that the 
lists of farmers gave more farmers than there were farms and that these 
farms where the occurrence of such a situation was not divulged would 
tend to show lower average yields. The third situation mentioned had 
the effect of raising average yields. When such circumstances occurred 
or were suspected during the survey, they were further investigated 
wherever possible and adjustments made. The first two situations were 
more prevalent than the third, but in all less than 5 % of the farmers 
interviewed seemed to be affected. 
Stratifying the Population: The stratification according to size groups 
is that which is published officially by the industry. A histogram using 
5 -ton classes was drawn for 1967 from a sample of 2,000 farmers. The 
shape of this histogram did not differ greatly from the shape of the 
histogram constructed from the official stratification. Moreover, as 
such figures are available since before 1939, it was thought that for 
comparative purposes this stratification should be used in the present 
sample..The stratification is as follows: 
Strata 
sugar cane 
Total 
population 
625 
Sample 
size 
1J 
Sampling 
fraction 
7.7" 0 to 5 tons of 
6 " 20 n ti n n 2,121 121 5.0`v 
21 " 50 n It It " 3,039 194 6.41 
51 n 100 " " " " 1,943 139 7.21 
101 n 500 n n n n 1,766 203 11.51 
501 "1,000 " " " " 59 33 55.91 
Over 1,000 " n n n 17 11 64.74 
282 
The sampling frame, as provided, was drawn up with farmers 
registered to sell their canes at various purchasing points. With 
Messrs. Forres Park Limited, a farmer could sell cane at more than one 
point and was recorded separately as having sold cane at such several 
points, but x' ;: Messrs.Caroni Limited and Messrs. Trinidad Sugar Estates 
Limited, although permitting the sale of cane at several points, regist- 
ered all sales from a farmer at one point so that total deliveries from 
a farmer were easily available. Because of the difficulty caused by the 
Forres Park system, Whose farmers form only a small proportion of the 
total, it was decided that,both for the sample and the maps, the entire 
Forres Park purchase of farmers' canes would be regarded as being sold 
at one point only, the Forres Park mill. Total production figures for 
farmers who sold cane at several points were obtained by adding the 
amounts sold at the various points. Because the Trinidad Sugar Estates' 
purchase was a small one, this too was regarded as being sold at the mill 
belonging to this firm. However, for Messrs.Caroni Limited, farmers were 
regarded as having sold their canes at the points where their names were 
registered, even though canes may be sold also at a nearby purchasing 
point. 
The sample, then, was drawn as follows: The farmers were divided 
into seven size groups or classes as shown above. For each group a 
variable sampling frac lion was used in order to obtain sample sizes 
that could be treated statistically (see figures above). For each 
purchasing point a proportionate number of farmers in each group was 
chosen by the use of tables of random numbers. The end result was a sample 
that was stratified both according to size groups and geographical 
points, the purchasing scales (figure 33). Because the samples at 
individual points are very small and do not permit statistical 
analysis, only the size group stratification for.all points combined 
are used in the statistical tables. A geographical spread of the sample 
21 3 
was ensured. The sample is thus regarded as a stratified random sample 
with varying sampling fractions. 
In all 7$9 questionnaires were completed, but 40 of these were 
discarded because serious inconsistencies were detected. The 
inconsistencies in 21 of these consisted of grossly incorrect answers 
to the important questions on farm size and total production of sugar 
cane for 1967. In most of these cases the values given were under 
50 % of the true values. The inconsistencies were known to be such 
because accurate figures for production were obtained from sources 
indicated above. For farm size; the inconsistencies were revealed by 
cross -questions, for example, answers to the following questions on the 
questionnaire would give a reasonable indication of accuracy: 3a,,k, 5a, 
6a, 6b, 6c, 6d, 7d, 10e, 10f, 10g, lld and lle. Eleven of the discarded 
questionnaires showed illogical replies which could not be verified, 
such as tonnages sold being much greater than the tonnages for which 
the farmers were registered. From the writer's assessment of these 
farmers, it was decided that data contained in these questionnaires 
were very unreliable. In the remaining eight questionnaires there were 
refusals to answer questions concerning farm size, acreage under sugar 
cane and other crops, whether other crops besides sugar cane were sold, 
number of cattle and other livestock and cost of transport. There was 
a strong suspicion that the majority of these farmers feared that the 
survey was being used for the assessment of taxes, in spite of being 
given written guarantees that this was not so. In some cases there 
seemed to be the urge to show that they were better farmers than they 
actually were. Both types of behaviour among rural farming communities 
are not uncommon. 
Questions 7k and 11, concerning sugar cane varieties grown by 
farmers and irrigation respectively, were discarded entirely after about 
one -half of the interviews were completed. This was because there was 
284 
virtually no irrigation over most of the area, except in Be;ucal, and 
the obly questions answered on irrigation were regarding Moods. This 
question depended too greatly on memory of occurrences over too long a 
period and was, therefore, thought to be unreliable. As far as cane 
varieties were concerned, most farmers had a mixture of several varieties, 
but did not know the extent of the acreages under each. Obtaining 
reliable information on cane varieties would have required prolonged 
visits to each fragment of a farmer's holding. Some questions were 
included on the questionnaire in order to obtain background information 
and these are not treated in the text, but helped in clarifying certain 
situations. There are also some questions such as 6a, 6b and 6c, which 
are treated in a condensed form. 
Most of this survey work was done between March and July, 1968 
and personal visits were made to farmerst homes and holdings. As most 
of the work was carried out during the harvest period when farmers were 
selling their canes, interviews were also done at purchasing points. 
In some cases single visits were sufficient to complete an interview, 
but as many as five visits were required in others. Except for tray /tiling 
time, interviews took between 45 minutes and three hours each. If 
travelling time is added to the time actually spent on an interview, 
then the time spent on a questionnare would be far greater. The survey 
itself provided an opportunity to discuss the industry with farmers 
and also to appreciate the actual conditions under which farmers live 
and work. 
An uncompleted questionnaire form is included in the pocket. 
285 
APPENDIX II 
The Land 
-use Map of the Su ar Cane Areas 
The land -use map, figure 17, was constructed from a combination 
of interpretation of air photographs and field -checking. The photographs 
were of 1 : 20,000 (approx.) scale and taken by the Royal Air Force in 
1964. T'ne absence of a large -scale land -use map of Trinidad necessitated 
the construction of this map, in order to obtain a reliable account 
of the land -use characteristics of the area under study. 
The resources available to the writer for the construction of 
this map were rather limited and this fact, together with the prescribed 
purpose of the study, dictated the method used in the construction. The 
photographs were obtained from the Air Photographs Library of the 
Directorate of Overseas Surveys, Surbiton. They were loaned to the 
writer in Edinburgh where the first draft of the map was made. 
The aim of the classification was determined by the súbordinate 
role of the map in relation to the questionnaire survey. The 
classification was largely related to the activities of cane.farrners, 
such as the growing of other crops by farmers and the extent of the 
areas they occupy. It was decided after a reconnaissance study of the 
air photographs. The writer's previous knowledge of the area greatly 
assisted in this exercise. 
By means of a mirror stereoscope the classes, as shown on the map, 
were marked with chinagraph pencil on the photographs. With the use of 
a Grant Projector, the classes so marked were transferred on to a base 
map at the scale of 1 : 50,000. This base map was made with a great 
density of roads to help in the alignment of the transferred images on 
to the base map. This preliminary map was taken to Trinidad and checked 
286 
in the field during the period November, 1967 to March, 1963. The field 
- 
checking was made very difficult because copies of the air photographs 
which could be used in the field could not be obtained, though efforts 
were made to do so. The map at this stage was in three sections, north, 
central and south. After the field -checking was completed, and on the 
writer's return to Edinburgh in August, 1968, the three sections were 
then transferred to another base map with the road pattern removed to 
permit greater clarity. The areas occupied by the different classes were 
then shaded. 
The method applied was rather crude but, considering the resources 
available, was the best that could have been used. This method was 
advised by the mapping staff of the Directorate of Overseas Surveys. 
Identification of sugar cane in all its stages of growth was simple. 
Coconuts, citrus and rice fields also had easily recognisable patterns. The 
other individual field crops such as vegetables, proved more difficult to 
identify, as were crops planted in forest clearings. In the forested 
areas it was difficult to distinguish between true forest and tree croos 
such as cacao and citrus which did not produce distinctive patterns. 
Because of the limited time and the purpose of the map, it was decided that 
in the forested areas, mainly to the south and east of the area surveyed, 
tree crops and forest should be treated as one class. The swamp areas 
show as a single class, both those parts that are covered by mangrove 
vegetation as well as those parts that are not covered. 
Pasture and scrub were at first regarded as separate categories. 
However, because so little of the survey area was under planted grasses 
or improved pasture, and much of the scrub lands were used as grazing 
grounds, it was decided to combine these classes for the final map. In 
some cases where cemeteries do not have tombstones (Hindu and Moslem 
cemeteries) and are covered over by scrub and grassy vegetation, these 
287 
proved difficult to distinguish. They are included in built -up areas. No 
category is shown as light forest. Such areas that have a light forest 
cover, or a broken forest cover, are included in the classes 'Forest 
with food crops and other crops' and 'Forest with open clearings.' 
Because of the scale at which the map was drawn, certain areas of 
small extent where sugar cane is grown were omitted. At the scale of 
i s 50,000 only the areas shown could have been represented on thid map. 
The three areas that are not shown and are relatively insignificant 
producers are the Guarapo, Brother's Road and Rio Claro areas, which 
together supplied about 3 % of the total sugar cane produced by farmers. 
During the period of field work it was found necessary to make 
changes in the delineation of the extent of built -up areas and an extension 
of sugar cane in some areas. Since the field work was completed, there 
has been further actual settlement on some lands shown as scrub. These 
changes are mainly in the Carlsen Field area, where there is a Government 
Land Settlement scheme in progress. On the first draft as completed in 
Edinburgh though, no major changes were required. 
It must be admitted that no complex instruments were used to make 
corrections on the map. This means that slight scale distortions are 
inevitable and exact calculations of acreages are not possible. It must 
also be noted that no attempt was made to show the quality of management 
of land. 
288 
APPENDIX III 
Table 1. 
Exports of agricultural products (domestic produce), 1958 - 1967. 
Year Sugar Molasses Raw cocoa Citrus Coffee Tonca 
beans 
Quantity in ,000 lbs. 
1958 351,741 95,692 18,169 23,578 4,249 258 
1959 339,046 102,671 15,885 10,338 5,415 158 
1960 420,773 117,197 15,855 25,797 4,052 552 
1961 481,672 219,615 12,536 17,772 4,990 184 
1962 376,290 139,973 12,894 26,721 3,686 245 
1963 430,726 138,950 14,365 19,241 7,883 134 
1964 432,735 152,787 10,132 15,695 8,218 75 
1965 475,565 139,388 10,729 11,454 7,595 205 
1966 381,506 160,071 10,564 14,227 5,320 233 
1967 359,063 143,933 10,364 13,171 5,683 138 
Value in ,000 4 TT. 
-- .-.-.- 
1958 38,346 1,220 12,745 1,867 2,498 481 
1959 30,896 1,149 10,077 744 2,363 310 
1960 26,295 1,013 8,717 1,576 1,272 1,074 
1961 42,348 2,815 6,496 1,242 1,421 329 
1962 33,479 2,113 8,004 1,853 1,075 313 
1963 46,578 3,133 8,563 1,336 2,991 81 
1964 44,655 3,263 4,878 944 4,658 50 
1965 40,834 1,550 4,282 729 2,954 127 
1966 35,474 2,557 4,264 959 2,707 172 
1967 34,690 3,119 5,498 904 2,768 155 
Source: Table 117, Trinidad and Tobago Annual Statistical Digest, 
1967, Central Statistical Office, Port 
-of- Spain. 
f 289 
Table 2. 
Trinidad: Sugar production and farmers' share of cane production, 
1939 
- 1967. 
Year Sugar 
production 
(tons) 
Canes 
ground 
(tons) 
Farmers' 
share 
Number of 
farmers 
worts 
(tons) 
1939 123,455 1,147,335 33.9 12,914 114,344 
1940 92,192 795,305 36.4 11,247 77,315 
1941. 131,609 1,212,628 43.6 13,0L2 108,313 
1942 104,367 984,462 45.7 13,058 84,418 
1943 70,920 716,783 46.5 11,542 54,L22 
1944 74,262 688,833 33.1 9,299 55,339 
1945 76,347 725,395 32.4 8,O5 59,160 
1946 109,603 1,002,967 34.9 9,441 87,067 
1947 110,068 1,059,724 30.4 9,997 89,664 
1948 115,944 1,156,377 34.9 9,667 95,145 
1949 159.135 1,438,245 35,3 9,880 138,712 
1960 146,508 1,401,931 36.8 10,342 123,553 
1951 140,668 1,432,733 34.0 9,992 117,24.4 
1952 137,358 1,321,444 26.9 10,115 11b,510 
1953 152,618 1,498,981 30.1 9,704 129,685 
1951 172,767 1,659,792 33.0 10,41 119,854 
1955 192,793 1,027,723 35.2 10,967 169,386 
1956 160,230 1,631,103 34.9 10,769 137,1.10 
1957 167,805 1,554,527 29.1 10,261 1L2,200 
1958 184,035 1,995,108 32.1 10,4.51 158,191 
1959 181,131 1,824,318 35.5 10,924 151,315 
1960 217,663 2,207,426 34.4 11,238 188,294 
1961 245,681 2,477,651 35.6 12,638 215,21/, . 
1962 200,742 2,102,460 33.9 11,100 168,034 
1963 227,346 2,372,532 33.6 11,189 192,573 
1964 226,531 2,258,577 31.5 10,34.9 192,770 
1965 250,587 2,503,882 34.1 11,097 212,374 
1966 210,394 2,284,788 32.9 10,427 170,371 
1967 197,918 2,150,583 31.3 9,870 160,346 
Sources:(1) Annual Statisti,^al Digest, 1967. 
(2) The Soulbury Commission Report. 
(3) Unpublished records of SMA. 
290 
Table 3. 
Tons cane per ton sugar and price paid per ton of farmers' 
cane, 1947 - 1967. 
Year Tons cane per 
ton sugar 
Price paid per ton 
farmers' cane Ot, TT) 
1947 9.62 6.52 
1948 9.97 7.25 
1949 9.05 7.71 
1950 9.57 7.77 
1951 10.19 7.99 
1952 9.62 10.86 
1953 9.82 n.36 
1954 9.61 11.81 
1955 9.48 11.97 
1956 3.0.18 10.98 
1957 9.26 14.53 
1958 10.64 11.44 
1959 10.07 12.30 
1960 10.13 11.74 
1961 10.09 12.70 
1962 10.47 12.40 
1963 1048 17.05 
1964 9.97 12.91 
1965 9.99 11;1,2 
1966 10.89 10.31 
1967 10.87 11.21 
Sources: Annual Statistical Digests, 1962 & 1967. 
TICFA. 
291 
Statistical table for figure Table 4. 
Average production per farmer 
Woodford Lodge ) 
Mamoral Crossing) 
Brechin Castle 358.23 
Oropouche No.6 143.27 
Oropouche No.3 129.67 
Cedar Hill No.2 114.53 
Oropouche No.4 107.66 
Barrackpore 102.11 
Oropouche No.7 88.60 
Chickland 84.63 
Oropouche No.2 81.62 
Brothers ) 81.30 
Gobin Village) 
Garth ) 
Buen Intento ) 
Malgretoute 80.69 
Hermitage 80.26 
Inverness 79.80 
Penal 78.32 
Mon Jaloux 78.22 
Williamsville 78.20 
Milton 77.41 
Cunupia 76.97 
Bejucal No.3 76.78 
Oropouche No.5 76.61 
Windsor Park 76.47 
Caracas 71.32 
Oropouche No.1 70.21 
Turab 69.46 
Cedar Grove 69.13 
LCedar Hill No.1 67.45 
365.35 
12. 
by purchasing points, 1967. 
Orange Grove 65.83 
St.Helena 64.47 
Chase Village 60.55 
Reform 58.80 
Calcutta 57.99 
Devil Hole 57.94 
Montrose 54.97 
Cocoa 52.89 
Arena Road 52.50 
Caparo ) 51.77 
Todd's Road) 
Forres Park 49.64 
Esperance 19.50 
Woodland 49.42 
Bejucal No.2 47.86 
St.Mary's 47.51 
Rio Claro 46.31 
Brother's Road 46.15 
Cooper Grange 43.65 
Dumfries 37.44 
Claxton Bay 34.44 
Jerningham June. 34.19 
Benard Road 31.22 
Caroni Savannah 28.56 
Tabaouite 19.79 
Sources: Caroni Ltd. 
Trinidad Sugar Estates DI 
TICFA 
292 
Table 5. 
Record of timber harvested from national forests by species, 
1958 - 1967. (cubic feet). 
Year Mora Crappo Olivier Mahoe Teak Cedar Other 
1958 671,600 450,600 230,400 89,700 61,200 40,700 1,023,200 
1959 529,900 631,500 255,100 96,600 82,300 69,700 1,116,900 
1960 639,900 519,0Q0 222,100 94,400 106,200 76,200 1,129,700 
1961 537,600 412,700 173,700 84,200 124,000 50,200 1,030,200 
1962 544,163 331,680 169,673 78,511 92,090 43,510 947,573 
1963 607,466 342,195 136,615 72,137 85,324 38,084 1,940,279 
1964 594,499 390,415 187,918 80,127 137,863 41,821 1,804,057 
1965 703,840 353,320 170,120 87,220 134,117 27,900 2,112,483 
1966 668,820 221,177 164,902 55,473 102,476 26,600 1,715,352 
1967 812,456 260,578 169,304 68,489 126,120 36,660 1,350,938 
Source: Table 119, Annual Statistical Digest, 1967. 
293 
Table 6. 
Trinidad: Guaranteed prices paid by Trinidad Marketing Board, 1965. 
Item Specification Price (cents TT per lb.) 
Pigeon peas 
Pigeon peas 
Red kidney beans 
Blackeye peas 
Corn (maize) 
Yams 
Plantains 
Cush cush (yampie) 
Tahnias 
green 
dry 
dry 
dry 
dry 
Lisbon 
10 
16 
18 
13 
7 
9 
8 - 10 
14 
7 
+ The Trinidad and Tobago Central Marketing Agency has now 
replaced the Marketing Board and additional crops might 
have been added to the list of crops for which guaranteed 
prices are offered . 
Source: Table 3, p.5, Beckford, G.L.& Guscott,M.H. "Intra- 
Caribbean agricultural trade ", in Studies in regional 
economic integration,Vol.2, No.2, ISER, UWI, Jamaica, 1967. 
2914. 
Table 7. 
The composition of livestock units as used in this thesis. 
Type of animals Livestock units 
Cattle - Dairy 
- Beef 
- Draught 
Horses 
Mules 
Donkeys 
Pigs 
Goats 
Sheep 
1.0 
1.0 
1.0 
1.0 
(a) The young of all animals were counted at one -half the 
value of the full -grown animal. 
(b) Poultry were not taken into account in computing 
Livestock units. 
295 
APPENDIX N (a) 
(1) The formula for determining the price of farmers' canes appears 
in the Third Schedule to Chapter 23 No. 12 and is as follows: 
"Rules for determining the price of farmers' canes." 
"For the purposes of this schedule - 
A - the average price per ton (determined by the Governor) of 
grey crystal sugar f.o.b. Port -of -Spain during the period 
of 1st January to 30th June of the year or such later date 
in the year as the Governor may fix; 
B - the premium per ton on sugar sold for local consumption, 
which shall be taken to be the average selling price of 
sugar (other than granulated sugar) during the period of 
1st January to the 30th June of the year or such later date 
in the year as the Governor may fix (determined by the 
Governor on the basis of returns made by manufacturers under 
section 9) less A, multiplied by the local sugar quota for 
the year, and divided by the total tonnage of sugar manufao- 
tured in the Colony during the year as determined by the 
Governor on the basis of returns as aforesaid; 
C - the value of molàsses in the Colony (determined by the 
Governor) derived from the manufacture of one ton of sugar 
during the period 1st January to 30th June of the year or 
such later date in the year as the Governor may fix; 
D - the certificated preference granted by the Imperial Government 
in respect of sugar manufactured in the Colony, which shall 
be taken to be the total value of the certificates issued in 
the year divided by the total tonnage of sugar manufactured in 
the Colony during the year determined by the Governor as aforesaid; 
296 
E - the total amount received by all manufacturers through the 
Canadian benefit pool in respect of such period of twelve 
months as the Governor may fix each year, divided by the 
total tonnage of sugar manufactured in the Colony during 
such period; 
F - the expenses of handling canes and of processing and 
marketing sugar other than granulated sugar, the rate per 
ton being determined by the CoVernor on the basis of returns 
made by manufacturers under Section 9: Provided that in 
determining the rate per ton as aforesaid the Governor may 
disregard any costs in particular cases which, in his 
opinion, are above the average of the costs of the other 
manufacturers for similar operations; 
G - the total of the funds refunded to manufacturers by the 
Accountant General under sub -section (5) of Section 9, 
divided by the total tonnage of farmers' canes purchased 
by all manufacturers in the Colony during the year as 
determined by the Governor on the basis of returns made 
by the manufacturers under Section 9; 
H - the allowance for depreciation and obsolescence which shall 
be the sum of $804,966 divided by the total production of 
sugar, as determined by the Governor, provided that the 
production exceeds 100,000 tons; 
J - interest shall be taken to be $4.80 per ton of sugar provided 
that the total production exceeds 100,000 tons; 
K - number of tons of cane required to produce one ton of sugar 
as determined by the Governor during the crop year. 
297 
2. The price of canes per ton shall be the amount in dollars 
represented by the following formula: 
- 
+ J) 
K 
- G." 
298 
(b) 
"DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS OF THE CANE FARMING DEPARTMENT` CARONI LTD. 
STE.MADELEINE DIVISION. 
FOR the purposes of this memo, the work of the Cane Farming 
Department is divided into two parts - i.e. Crop Season and Wet Season, 
There is a certain amount of over lapping, as some op evations 
are carried out throughout the year: 
Field Work (Crop Period) 
I. To buy approximately 3,200 tons of cane per day; 
II. To operate 25 scales per day; 
III. To supervise the buying of cane ( caneweighers); 
IV. To supervise the loading of canes; 
V. To see that scales and loading equipment are in proper working 
order, and operating as they should; 
VI. To supervise and take the time of crane and hoist drivers, 
loading attendants, caneweighers, etc. 
VII. To see that transport is provided for the removal of cane 
after purchase; 
VIII. To check on cane slings used to operate scales and loading of 
canes; 
IX. To indent and supervise the issuing of stores, diesolene etc. 
where necessary; 
X. To see about the issuing of reaping passes. 
Office Work (Crop Period) 
I. To calculate the distribution of tonnage to be purchased; 
II. To work percentages of canes reaped and regulate requisitions; 
III. To keep all necessary books, ledgers, pay lists etc., . for 
purchasing approximately 3,200 tons of cane daily; 
299 
IV. To check cane ledgers, cane summaries, daily cane returns, 
comparison of weights, canes purchased and canes milled. 
V. To make deductions for Agricultural Credit Society loans, 
Sulphate of Ammonia, plants and cane slings sold; 
VI. Writing receipts - approximately 600 per week and signing name; 
VII. To balance pay lists and close of same; 
VIII. To fill out 1,700 payment vouchers per week, involving the sum 
of $300,000.00 weekly; 
IX. To make out bank requisitions and bank pay lists; 
X. To post A.C.S., ledgers; 
XI. To make out weekly cane returns, showing estimate, tonnage 
purchased on each scale and the percentage of estimate reaped; 
XII. To make transfers of contracts. 
Field Work Net Season) 
I. Examining areas and estimating crops; 
II. Settling of disputes (crop and wet season); 
III. Marking of boundaries, etc. 
IV. Supervising plant nurseries and issuing cane plants; 
V. Grading of traces (crop and wet season); 
VI. Building of bridges and placing of culverts; 
VII. Supervising, cleaning and repairing scales and scale houses, 
derricks and all gear used for reaping farmers' canes. 
Office Work (Wet Season) 
I. To keep all records pertaining to cane farming up to date, and 
records of individual cane farmers; There are approximately 
5,000 cane farmers, but 7,000 cards have to be retained, as 
there are frequent changes in cane contracts; 
II. To issue cane contracts, transfers of contracts, and 
fragmentation of. contracts, and attending to farmers' identif51 
cation and record books. 
Assuming that each farmer pays at least one visit to the Cane 
Farming Department during the wet season (a very low estimate - two 
would be nearer the mark) an average of LO farmers per day have to 
be attended to. 
III. To make crop totals,i.e. the amalgamation of canes supplied 
by each farmer irrespective of the number of scales to which 
he made deliveries; 
IV. To make pay lists for the balance payment of farmers' canes; 
V. To make lists of farmers' deliveries for the purpose of cess; 
VI. To make statements of farmers divided into tonnage groups; 
VII. To make statements of dates of opening and closing of scales; 
VIII. To make statements of canes purchased and canes milled; 
IX. To make statements - weekly reaping record; 
X. To prepare balance sheeta for 22 Agricultural Credit Societies; 
XI. To prepare ;Srofit and loss accounts and statements of receipts 
and payments for audit; 
XII. Writing and signing cheques for loans - approximately 1,500; 
XIII. Balancing A.C.S., ledgers; 
XIV. Making deductions for the Cane Farmers' Association." 
Source: TICFA, Submission to Cane Price Commission. 1965, Annex S. 
301 
APPENDIX V 
Statistical tables far Chanter V 
Table 1. 
List of variables used in factor ahalysis. 
Variable 1. Age of holder. 
" 2. Main occupation of holder. 
" 3. Tenure of holding. 
" 4. Number of individuals in household. 
" 5. Number of agricultural workers in household. 
" 6. Whether or not sugar cane is the main crop on the holding. 
E 7. When did the holder first grow sugar cane. 
" 8. Whether or not intercropping is practiced on the holding, 
" 9. Whether or not another commercial crop is produced on the holding. 
10, Number of months per year that holder spends on holding. 
" 11. Number of months per year that holder spends on sugar cane. 
" 12. Number of months per year that holder spends on other crops. 
" 13. Whether or not farmer is full -time farmer. 
14. Man- months of paid labour employed. 
15. Amount of fertiliser applied per acre, 1967 (cwt). 
" 16. Whether or not advice is received on fertiliser usage. 
" 17. Weeding practices used on holding - whether manual or chemical 
or a combination. 
" 18. Acreage of sugar cabe affected by froghopper damage. 
" 19. Whether or not holder is aware of the froghopper subsidy. 
" 20. Whether or not a plough is owned. 
" 21. Whether or not any other cultivating equipment is owned. 
" 23. Whether or not lorry is owned. 
" 24. Whether or not a tractor is owned. 
" 25. DI3tance of main sugar cane plot from nearest purchasing scale. 
302 
Table 1. Continued. 
Variable 26. Road conditions between holding and purchasing scale 
- 
whether good, mediocre or bad. 
" 27. Whether holder employs animal or mechanical transport, or 
a combination. 
28. Whether holder employs hired or owned transport, or a 
combination. 
" 29. Cost per ton of cutting, loading and transporting cane. 
" 30, Whether or not holder receives agricultural credit. 
" 31. Number of fragments that make up holding. 
" 32. Acreage of sugar cane on holding. 
" 33. Acreage of non -tree crops other than sugar cane on holding. 
" 34, Total acreage of holding. 
" 35. Cane production on holding for 1967. 
" 36. Sugar cane - average yield per acre in 1967. 
" 37. Number of livestock units owned. 
The computer programme used for the factor analysis was the 
Miami Biomedical programme 'Factor'. It was adapted by 
Mr. Roy Middleton of the Edinburgh Regional Computing centre. 
The factor analysis was run on the Univac 1108 computer of 
the National Engineering Laboratory at East Kilbride. 
303 
ó F 
8. 8e X 
R 
8 : P a 
0 8 g sx 
8 r & X 
8g E'S .. g fK 
8 
8 SI 81 £ El E 8 El E1 g. 
S % ß g 
E 
,. 6. RI X c o 
8 £ ° g 8 a £ .. s ¿ 
a ;' . s . 8aa S' °-1 r 
ßl 8`+ 8 6' ó.". S ß g 
8 6 .. .. £ .. a LI a ^ ° K tx 8 ° >u 89 "S V S ó .. °+ r .+ r F' ó N 7.1 
a.$.. X : . g S 
8 
:5 :+ , a S a a ó R 81 ó R a,. SC ,.' .. 8 ó s a g SI S ó;; ó °. a s . 8« te g .. .. B X 8 8 .. ti.1 
8 S ó N.". ,°. 8 ó .°'. ó a^ ól .°. .. ° 7y a^ 
3 PI « S ó 91 8s 81 a a.. . 8 0 0.. p. 
8 s a . 81 r , q A 
. 
.. . r .. > 5 a 
Xt a R s q$ ó m sgÓ S R Xg .. 
8 a 81 a s a s a a a a s a a og8 aa 86'4 aa as, 
4,`E > 5 o R 5 5 R .. 8 g O S .. 8 1 q % 78 a 0 Ft T. 
m . a o a a a s s s a a o> a a a s 8á1:Sa4saósr£sslósaasSoaaasans 
8 S aa el A4 ó a a Sl 3 81 4 a1 S1 S1 a1 S1 t9 ql ô 4 sg a 81 
8 gi a g> a s a5 5 TX 7 w S Ó 
8 a a a á giog s s q 81 s s ó e4 ó s ó 0 0 ó s31 S 81 'S B Ri a s .°. a 
8 ó s ó o 5 . 5 s s el a s ó e9 or ô as s a ó s1 na a a a s 5 s as 15ó5ass£slór9aS31SSSSSS8aslnasa8s4S 8a1s1s1sasasls8 ssssóasslgslaSaassaaas 
9 S s 4 s1 S1 a s 1 1 4 K 1 sl s1 a S l a s1 s1 a a a sl a a ó sa s44 a s s1 a a a 
a a a S á á ó a ô 81 A as ó o S a a s g 81 s l s a l s s s ô ó a a a 
g 4 O ó 
S 
S 
g 
1 'd ? 9 1 1 15 g; d 
., 
" '" 
> 
". 
.o a 9 1 ::: ., ; 5 .". 5 .°'. R A a « /4 S 18 £ R cl x A x F. r 
<
4.
4G
) AG
L
 
U
C
C
U
P
I
v
 
T
L
N
A
N
T
 
H
U
U
SL
Ii
 
A
bR
WR
K 
SC
MN
C
P 
P
L
N
T
S
C 
1N
TL
It
C 
01
HC
RP
 
M
U
F
A
R
M
 
M
U
C
A
N
L
 
M
O
C
K
U
P
 
F
U
L
L
Y
k 
M
A
N
M
T
h 
F
L
R
(,
WT
 
F
L
R
A
U
V
 
W
L
E
U
P
k 
F
hP
AC
h 
F
f1
PS
Ub
 
O
w
N
P
L
u
 
O
w
N
C
U
L
 
U
W
N
L
T
k 
O
w
N
C
R
T
 
O
w
N
1R
A 
01
51
5c
. 
R
u
A
U
C
U
 
T
hA
1V
AM
 
T
r
t
A
N
H
U
 
C
U
ST
S
C 
A
bR
1C
h 
F
hA
bM
T 
SC
AC
R
L 
N
U
N
T
R
L
 
T
U
T
A
C
k 
St
,T
Uì
VS
 
A
V
Y
I
L
U
 
L
5U
NI
1 
1 
13
.7
o0
 
.
16
0 
-
.
03
2 
.
13
4 
.
04
8 
.
01
7 
-
.
00
5 
.
4c
1 
-
.
24
3 
-
.
00
3 
.
10
1 
.
17
3 
-
.
09
7 
.
16
4 
.
54
3 
.
04
4 
.
21
0 
.
1b
7 
.
09
9 
.
13
6 
.
66
2 
.
75
6 
.
31
9 
-
.
04
6 
.
8c
1 
.
10
9 
.
05
6 
.
24
1 
.
20
3 
.
00
3 
.
04
1 
.
26
8 
.
88
b 
.
09
7 
.
87
4 
.
84
7 
.
06
6 
.
26
5 
2 0.
61
 
.
13
9 
-
.
63
5 
-
.
03
7 
-
.
11
1 
.
16
6 
.
16
4 
.
16
b 
.
07
0 
.
01
7 
.
87
9 
.
79
7 
.
34
u 
.
75
6 
.
26
e 
.
07
3 
-
.
11
1 
.
02
b 
.
14
0 
-
.
00
1 
.
09
5 
-
.
02
5 
.
06
6 
.
19
5 
.
10
e 
.
18
7 
14
5 
-
.
01
7 
.
35
8 
-
.
23
4 
.
28
5 
.
18
3 
.
07
9 
-
.
02
U 
.
05
1 
.
10
1 
.
15
5 
.
00
2 
3 5.
91
3 
-
.
00
2 
-
.
01
9 
-
.
06
9 
-
.
04
3 
.
00
6 
.
68
4 
.
05
5 
-
.
09
2 
-
.
69
1 
-
.
16
0 
.
24
8 
-
.
75
3 
-
.
15
0 
.
05
3 
.
05
4 
-
.
10
0 
.
01
8 
.
00
3 
-
.
01
7 
-
.
06
4 
-
.
05
3 
.
02
0 
.
05
5 
-
.
02
0 
-
.
05
6 
.
08
4 
-
.
05
9 
.
04
6 
-
.
01
8 
.
07
5 
-
.
14
9 
.
08
5 
-
.
61
6 
-
.
06
8 
.
09
2 
.
05
3 
-
.
27
1 
4 4.
60
2 
-
.
04
1 
-
.
05
1 
-
.
10
2 
.
03
8 
.
05
3 
-
.
03
5 
-
.
09
6 
.
13
6 
-
.
12
5 
.
01
4 
.
01
6 
.
02
2 
-
.
01
1 
-
.
28
9 
.
21
4 
-
.
22
5 
-
.
12
7 
.
10
6 
.
07
8 
-
.
00
0 
.
09
0 
-
.
12
2 
.
23
5 
-
.
07
0 
-
.
56
2 
-
.
14
8 
-
.
71
4 
-
.
14
6 
-
.
65
5 
.
01
6 
-
.
19
5 
-
.
12
5 
-
.
04
4 
-
.
08
7 
-
.
16
4 
-
.
10
1 
.
13
2 
T
A
B
L
E
 
5 6.
15
8 
-
.
01
3 
.
06
3 
.
06
2 
.
08
7 
-
.
08
4 
.
15
3 
.
34
5 
-
.
04
3 
.
05
3 
.
09
0 
.
19
3 
-
.
09
8 
.
13
8 
.
38
2 
.
36
1 
.
12
5 
.
55
7 
.
68
5 
.
65
1 
.
18
7 
.
01
4 
-
.
03
2 
.
02
7 
.
17
2 
-
.
05
6 
.
02
6 
.
11
7 
.
21
5 
-
.
09
9 
.
08
6 
.
49
3 
.
08
6 
.
27
2 
.
00
3 
.
11
8 
-
.
10
2 
.
20
8 
3:
 
A
L
L
 C
L
A
SS
ES
 
O
F
 
F
A
R
M
E
R
S 
V
A
R
I
M
A
X
 
R
O
T
A
T
I
O
N
 
6 
7 
A
 
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
 
O
F
 
V
A
R
I
A
N
C
E
 
4.
25
3 
4.
59
2 
3,
33
2 
R
O
T
A
T
E
D
 
F
A
C
T
O
R
 
L
O
A
D
I
N
G
S 
.
13
4 
-
.
04
7 
-
.
03
0 
.
11
1 
.
03
8 
.
23
3 
.
05
6 
.
01
3 
.
11
5 
.
76
9 
-
.
02
4 
.
08
1 
.
69
1 
-
.
08
9 
-
.
16
1 
.
04
4 
.
02
0 
-
.
17
4 
.
20
0 
-
.
00
9 
.
11
3 
.
00
8 
.
16
2 
-
.
50
8 
-
.
01
0 
.
03
1 
-
.
20
9 
.
07
4 
-
.
12
8 
-
.
01
5 
.
13
u 
-
.
14
2 
.
07
9 
-
.
07
8 
.
02
9 
-
.
11
6 
.
03
5 
-
.
09
1 
.
16
6 
.
03
9 
-
.
00
6 
.
19
1 
.
05
1 
.
03
7 
.
04
6 
.
03
3 
-
.
20
3 
-
.
62
3 
.
07
3 
-
.
16
9 
-
.
03
6 
-
.
02
4 
.
10
0 
.
07
3 
-
.
13
0 
-
.
15
6 
-
.
28
7 
.
14
9 
.
12
5 
-
.
07
3 
.
04
9 
-
.
04
6 
-
.
20
1 
.
12
3 
-
.
09
9 
.
00
6 
.
05
3 
-
.
85
5 
-
.
02
5 
.
04
2 
.
11
2 
-
.
01
2 
-
.
02
1 
.
07
0 
.
03
2 
.
12
1 
.
02
2 
.
09
5 
.
06
4 
.
03
3 
-
.
02
3 
.
18
5 
-
.
59
8 
.
01
9'
 
-
.
19
2 
.
14
3 
-
.
04
9 
.
27
3 
.
05
3 
-
.
37
8 
.
30
b 
-
.
24
4 
.
06
3 
-
.
05
2 
-
.
14
8 
.
05
9 
.
23
9 
-
.
05
2 
.
02
5 
-
.
08
1 
-
.
12
9 
.
04
9 
-
.
00
5 
-
.
18
2 
.
08
2 
.
02
0 
-
.
06
1 
-
.
06
5 
-
.
02
7 
-
.
46
0 
-
.
01
0 
11
 
3.
44
4 
.
00
7 
.
04
2 
.
71
7 
-
.
09
6 
.
05
6 
.
01
H 
-
.
08
7 
.
09
9 
.
06
1 
-
.
07
2 
-
.
11
0 
.
06
1 
-
.
02
7 
.
03
1 
.
12
4 
-
.
07
4 
-
.
09
8 
.
12
0 
.
05
4 
.
10
9 
.
03
7 
.
09
1 
.
00
7 
.
05
1 
-
.
13
8 
-
.
64
9 
.
15
4 
.
17
6 
-
.
13
6 
-
.
17
2 
-
.
14
5 
-
.
03
7 
.
07
5 
-
.
01
9 
-
.
04
2 
-
.
04
6 
-
.
22
8 
C
O
M
B
I
N
E
D
 
9 
10
 
3.
87
0 
3.
29
? 
.
17
7 
-
.
69
9 
.
02
5 
-
.
08
5 
-
.
00
3 
.
14
4 
-
.
12
9 
.
03
7 
.
08
2 
-
.
10
3 
.
00
2 
.
11
0 
.
05
2 
.
13
5 
.
23
2 
-
.
07
9 
.
04
6 
.
03
4 
-
.
05
8 
-
'
.
04
0 
-
.
07
0 
-
.
03
5 
.
04
1 
-
.
03
2 
-
.
10
6 
-
.
10
9 
-
.
21
0 
.
06
4 
-
.
64
8 
.
03
Fí
 
-
.
18
4 
-
.
03
2 
-
.
08
3 
.
15
6 
.
03
9 
-
.
14
2 
-
.
07
4 
-
.
05
2 
.
00
0 
.
04
2 
.
10
2 
.
11
5 
.
09
5 
.
55
2 
-
.
02
0 
-
.
02
7 
-
.
05
5 
.
02
1 
.
08
2 
.
36
H 
01
2 
.
10
1 
.
02
9 
.
06
1 
-
.
10
6 
-
.
04
5 
-
.
06
8 
-
.
20
6 
-
.
23
6 
.
09
9 
-
.
04
7 
.
00
7 
-
.
03
7 
-
.
06
1 
.
03
9 
.
10
6 
-
.
00
2 
-
.
01
7 
-
.
23
2 
.
01
4 
-
78
5 
.
04
6 
.
08
6 
.
20
2 
(4
.2
0)
 
TA
BL
E 
4:
 F
A
RM
ER
S 
IN
 C
LA
SS
 1
 
V
A
R
I
M
A
X
 
R
O
T
A
T
I
O
N
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
 
O
F
 
V
A
R
I
A
N
C
E
 
9.
60
9 
9.
22
U 
8.
19
4 
7.
69
1 
5.
18
1 
5.
28
4 
4.
88
1 
5.
68
4 
5.
14
1 
4.
16
7 
5.
05
2 
4.
63
3 
3.
17
4 
R
O
T
A
T
E
()
 
F
A
C
T
O
R
 
L
O
A
D
I
N
G
S 
A
u
E
 
-
.
13
0 
.
19
7 
.
08
7 
-
.
04
1 
.
05
8 
-
.
03
9 
-
.
15
1 
.
00
0 
.
07
2 
.
81
3 
.
04
3 
-
.
04
1 
.
03
5 
O
C
C
U
P
N
 
-
.
19
3 
-
.
09
3 
.
00
b 
.
02
5 
.
10
3 
-
.
11
9 
-
.
51
7 
-
.
01
8 
.
27
8 
-
.
19
5 
.
03
1 
-
.
53
9 
-
.
26
2 
T
E
N
A
N
T
 
.
.
.
L
O
S 
.
1L
3 
-
.
06
7 
-
.
03
0 
-
.
36
9 
-
.
62
2 
-
.
15
5 
.
34
1 
.
04
5 
-
.
06
2 
-
.
04
9 
.
00
9 
.
02
0 
H
O
U
SL
U 
.
55
5 
-
.
29
9 
.
03
9 
-
.
22
1 
.
34
6 
.
10
7 
-
.
14
2 
.
22
3 
.
26
0 
-
.
15
3 
.
06
9 
-
.
27
2 
.
03
6 
A
G
R
W
R
K
 
.
49
0 
-
.
26
3 
-
.
11
1 
.
03
3 
-
.
40
2 
-
.
03
6 
-
.
05
0 
.
27
7 
.
26
7 
.
06
8 
.
06
6 
.
13
7 
.
57
9 
SC
MN
CP
 
.
26
b 
-
.
21
9 
-
.
06
6 
.
18
7 
-
.
32
1 
-
.
01
3 
.
18
9 
-
.
27
6 
-
.
09
1 
.
20
9 
-
.
59
0 
-
.
01
2 
.
08
3 
P
L
N
T
SC
 
.
76
o 
.
13
7 
-
.
03
1 
.
10
5 
-
.
J
98
 
.
23
8 
.
02
8 
-
.
05
3 
-
.
04
3 
-
.
35
7 
-
.
01
1 
.
10
7 
.
20
11
 
1N
TE
RC
 
.
U
4U
 
-
.
0b
0 
-
.
08
2 
-
.
03
0 
-
.
36
6 
-
.
03
6 
.
07
6 
-
.
01
7 
-
.
01
0 
-
.
03
0 
.
00
3 
-
.
02
6 
.
01
0 
W
 
O
T
H
C
K
P
 
-
.
10
1 
.
10
5 
.
09
4 
-
.
09
1 
-
.
07
4 
-
.
02
6 
-
.
01
3 
-
.
11
2 
-
.
00
3 
.
11
0 
.
85
8 
-
.
11
6 
-
.
05
5 
0 
M
O
F
A
r
t
M
 
.
35
0 
.
6b
0 
-
.
23
7 
-
.
12
2 
-
.
18
0 
.
07
4 
.
26
7 
.
23
4 
.
09
9 
.
19
2 
.
20
1 
.
20
3 
.
03
1 
M
O
C
A
N
E
 
.
51
d 
.
22
1 
-
.
29
8 
.
17
1 
-
.
21
1 
.
16
3 
.
20
8 
.
43
6 
.
07
3 
.
18
4 
-
.
22
9 
.
23
A 
-
.
00
5 
M
O
C
K
U
P
 
-
.
0o
7 
.
77
5 
-
.
02
0 
-
.
2ó
8 
-
.
02
7 
-
.
02
3 
.
09
7 
.
03
7 
.
07
8 
.
20
0 
.
41
1 
.
07
5 
.
03
9 
F
U
L
L
Y
K
 
.
lU
U 
.
63
8 
-
.
07
7 
.
13
3 
-
.
1)
26
 
.
09
3 
-
.
00
8 
.
51
2 
.
07
3 
.
32
9 
-
.
12
6 
.
07
5 
.
00
1 
M
A
N
M
T
H
 
.
59
9 
.
21
1 
.
19
2 
.
04
8 
.
15
4 
-
.
13
8 
.
12
3 
-
.
09
8 
.
14
6 
.
06
2 
-
.
24
2 
.
04
5 
-
.
22
9 
F
E
R
C
W
T
 
.
U
Sd
 
.
0b
8 
.
03
1 
-
.
(1
76
 
-
.
09
5 
-
.
18
3 
.
77
7 
.
19
1 
.
16
3 
-
.
32
6 
-
.
13
7 
.
03
2 
.
10
7 
F
E
R
A
U
V
 
-
.
20
9 
.
54
4 
-
.
00
b 
.
11
0 
.
15
7 
-
.
55
8 
.
12
6 
-
.
15
8 
-
.
09
0 
-
.
29
6 
-
.
12
3 
-
.
01
9 
.
07
9 
W
E
E
U
P
R
 
-
.
U
2d
 
-
.
05
S 
.
04
8 
.
04
9 
-
.
16
7 
-
.
10
6 
-
.
28
0 
-
.
05
1 
.
04
6 
.
12
1 
-
.
06
2 
-
.
53
2 
.
54
8 
F
H
P
A
C
R
 
.
U
97
 
-
.
32
5 
-
.
16
4 
.
08
9 
.
44
3 
-
.
49
3 
.
04
7 
.
10
7 
-
.
10
6 
.
18
5 
.
01
0 
.
29
1 
.
06
4 
F
H
P
SU
B 
.
U
46
 
-
.
09
1 
-
.
08
1 
.
06
4 
.
01
2 
-
.
74
1 
.
10
1 
-
.
20
2 
.
03
5 
.
07
5 
.
07
9 
.
02
3 
-
.
08
0 
O
W
N
P
L
O
 
-
.
u
35
 
.
0b
7 
-
.
09
2 
-
.
90
8 
-
.
01
9 
.
00
0 
.
10
6 
.
01
9 
.
05
3 
-
.
07
3 
.
16
4 
.
02
5 
.
13
7 
O
W
N
I
:
U
L
 
.
U
29
 
-
.
05
3 
.
01
4 
.
00
9 
-
.
06
0 
.
14
5 
.
04
6 
-
.
08
6 
-
.
14
6 
.
02
0 
.
10
6 
-
.
69
9 
.
02
2 
O
W
N
L
T
R
 
-
.
U
00
 
.
00
0 
-
.
00
U 
-
.
00
0 
.
J
00
 
.
00
0 
.
00
0 
-
.
00
0 
-
.
00
0 
-
.
00
0 
-
.
00
0 
-
.
00
0 
.
00
0 
O
W
N
C
R
T
 
.
06
4 
.
O
b1
 
-
.
94
7 
.
14
0 
.
04
9 
-
.
08
3 
-
.
02
7 
-
.
00
5 
.
05
2 
-
.
04
3 
-
.
05
9 
.
04
8 
.
05
6 
O
W
N
T
r
t
A
 
-
.
1b
d 
.
19
4 
-
.
01
3 
-
.
70
1 
-
.
01
8 
.
20
8 
-
.
02
7 
-
.
00
4 
-
.
11
3 
.
15
2 
-
.
26
0 
-
.
02
0 
-
.
03
3 
U
1S
TS
C 
.
06
4 
.
29
5 
.
13
5 
-
.
32
7 
-
.
34
7 
.
29
6 
-
.
13
6 
.
05
2 
.
02
1 
-
.
24
0 
.
09
5 
.
47
4 
-
.
08
4 
R
O
A
U
C
O
 
-
.
01
0 
.
14
1 
-
.
03
u 
-
.
01
3 
.
06
7 
.
06
9 
.
14
6 
.
84
6 
.
02
2 
-
.
04
1 
.
01
8 
.
09
5 
-
.
11
1 
T
R
A
N
A
M
 
.
20
7 
.
4b
9 
.
41
1 
-
.
26
0 
-
.
46
3 
-
.
09
5 
-
.
38
1 
-
.
06
5 
-
.
04
4 
-
.
02
4 
-
.
07
1 
.
24
4 
-
.
14
6 
T
R
A
N
H
O
 
.
04
9 
.
08
2 
-
.
94
2 
-
.
18
5 
.
04
0 
-
.
08
0 
.
01
2 
.
00
2 
.
06
9 
-
.
06
7 
.
00
1 
.
05
5 
.
10
2 
C
O
S
TS
C 
-
.
09
4 
.
13
7 
.
72
8 
.
20
5 
.
31
4 
.
03
9 
.
00
3 
-
.
15
0 
-
.
02
2 
-
.
02
6 
.
06
7 
.
11
5 
.
21
5 
A
G
R
I
G
R
 
.
47
o 
.
13
3 
-
.
03
0 
.
14
3 
-
.
05
8 
-
.
08
6 
.
43
8 
.
36
3 
.
03
4 
.
00
3 
.
04
1 
-
.
07
9 
-
.
32
9 
F
R
A
G
M
T
 
.
08
6 
.
19
7 
.
06
1 
-
.
25
6 
-
.
02
3 
-
.
01
0 
.
04
5 
-
.
16
5 
.
78
6 
.
19
3 
.
20
3 
.
05
3 
-
.
00
2 
SC
A
CR
E 
.
86
7 
.
13
o 
-
.
19
0 
.
08
1 
-
.
J
14
 
.
02
1 
.
04
3 
-
.
06
9 
-
.
03
7 
-
.
01
4 
-
.
13
5 
-
.
02
4 
-
.
n
44
 
N
O
N
T
N
E
 
.
00
9 
.
01
9 
-
.
06
6 
-
.
79
8 
-
.
03
4 
-
.
04
0 
.
08
9 
-
.
09
5 
.
28
3 
.
01
8 
.
36
4 
.
08
4 
-
.
14
2 
T
O
T
A
C
K
 
.
34
1 
.
70
0 
.
08
 
-
.
15
4 
.
16
6 
.
10
5 
-
.
04
3 
.
17
5 
.
23
3 
-
.
02
0 
.
04
5 
.
02
1 
.
03
0 
SC
TO
rv
S 
.
17
9 
-
.
20
3 
-
.
38
6 
.
34
7 
-
.
10
2 
.
04
8 
.
22
5 
-
.
11
5 
.
44
5 
.
08
3 
-
.
11
3 
.
02
9 
-
.
24
2 
A
V
Y
I
L
U
 
-
.
52
0 
.
11
5 
-
.
03
.)
 
.
32
9 
.
18
1 
.
26
2 
.
34
7 
-
.
25
5 
.
24
9 
-
.
08
1 
.
20
6 
-
.
02
0 
-
.
06
0 
L
SU
NI
T 
.
04
3 
.
13
9 
-
.
21
5 
.
02
3 
.
04
1 
-
.
01
8 
.
03
0 
.
31
6 
.
71
3 
-
.
09
3 
-
.
10
8 
.
06
4 
.
12
9 
A
G
E
 
O
c
C
U
P
I
.
 
T
L
N
A
N
T
 
H
u
U
S
LL
 
A
v
R
w
R
K
 
S
CM
N
CN
 
P
L
N
T
SC
 
I
N
T
E
R
C
 
O
T
H
C
R
P
 
M
U
F
A
R
M
 
M
O
C
A
N
E
 
M
U
C
kO
P 
F
U
L
L
Y
k 
M
A
N
M
T
h 
F
E
R
C
w
T
 
F
E
R
A
U
V
 
w
E
E
U
P
k 
F
H
P
A
C
k 
F
hP
SU
Is
 
O
w
N
F
'
L
O
 
O
W
N
C
U
L
 
O
W
N
L
T
k 
O
W
N
C
R
T
 
O
W
N
T
R
A
 
O
I
ST
SC
 
R
U
A
U
C
O
 
T
kA
NA
M 
T
kA
NH
G 
C
O
ST
S(
 
A
V
R
I
C
R
 
F
kA
61
MT
 
S
CA
C
RE
 
N
U
N
T
R
E
 
T
U
T
A
C
k 
S
CT
O
NS
 
A
V
Y
I
L
L
 
L
SU
N
IT
 
T
A
B
L
E
 
5:
 
F
A
1M
E3
S 
I
N
 
C
L
A
SS
 
2 
V
A
R
I
M
A
E
 
R
O
T
A
T
I
O
N
 
I
 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10
 
11
 
12
 
P
E
R
C
E
;
4T
 
O
F
 
V
A
R
I
A
N
C
E
 
12
.6
03
 
0.
82
0 
5.
55
2 
4.
45
8 
5.
37
9 
4.
50
2 
4.
35
0 
4.
20
5 
7.
08
9 
3.
78
3 
4.
14
1 
3.
72
8 
R
O
T
A
T
E
D
 
F
A
C
T
O
R
 
L
O
A
D
I
N
G
S 
-
.
01
7 
.
00
9 
.
04
0 
-
.
59
6 
-
.
02
2 
.
22
1 
-
 
12
0 
.
20
4 
.
29
2 
.
16
2 
.
19
5 
.
16
7 
-
.
O
G
u
 
.
63
4 
.
05
5 
.
13
5 
.
11
7 
.
06
9 
-
,
05
2 
.
00
5 
-
.
09
8 
.
12
0 
-
.
26
3 
"
 
-
.
26
6 
.
 
10
2 
.
22
0 
-
.
13
4 
-
.
u
28
 
-
.
12
6 
-
.
13
5 
-
.
01
8 
-
.
01
7 
.
10
0 
-
.
07
9 
-
.
01
6 
-
.
71
5 
-
.
14
4 
.
14
6 
-
.
14
6 
.
03
6 
-
.
00
3 
.
17
8 
-
.
63
4 
-
.
03
6 
-
.
16
7 
-
.
20
7 
-
.
21
2 
-
.
11
8 
-
.
0k
5 
-
.
06
5 
.
06
8 
-
.
00
1 
-
.
14
2 
.
04
4 
-
,
79
3 
-
.
 
69
 
.
10
8 
.
03
9 
.
09
9 
.
11
3 
.
 
02
3 
-
.
16
3 
.
33
6 
.
06
5 
.
24
7 
.
01
3 
-
,
06
8 
.
28
1 
-
.
58
3 
-
.
12
6 
.
16
1 
.
01
0 
.
77
7 
-
.
03
5 
.
03
7 
.
09
4 
-
.
01
1 
.
13
5 
.
12
6 
.
02
7 
-
.
00
8 
.
05
6 
.
07
2 
.
05
9 
-
.
01
9 
-
.
12
3 
.
00
1 
-
.
04
1 
-
.
00
5 
.
01
1 
-
.
04
5 
-
.
04
8 
.
16
6 
-
.
05
0 
.
64
1 
-
.
05
9 
.
10
6 
.
03
7 
.
03
9 
.
02
5 
.
01
8 
.
06
3 
-
,
03
7 
.
21
4 
.
78
5 
.
05
2 
.
00
8 
.
04
8 
.
13
4 
.
82
k 
-
.
09
2 
.
11
3 
-
.
11
1 
-
.
02
4 
-
.
05
4 
-
.
07
2 
.
38
3 
.
01
7 
.
04
0 
-
.
00
2 
.
14
4 
-
.
85
2 
.
06
9 
.
12
8 
-
.
10
4 
.
08
5 
-
.
02
7 
.
09
3 
-
.
21
1 
.
10
2 
-
.
09
2 
.
01
0 
.
10
7 
-
.
30
2 
-
.
15
0 
.
05
0 
-
.
04
3 
-
.
04
5 
-
,
01
9 
-
.
09
4 
.
83
5 
-
.
08
2 
.
08
6 
-
.
08
9 
.
20
7 
-
.
52
7 
.
03
5 
.
02
5 
-
.
08
1 
.
09
3 
.
09
8 
.
08
5 
.
54
7 
-
.
05
(.
 
-
.
11
5 
-
.
25
6 
.
65
1 
-
.
19
3 
.
03
0 
-
.
01
2 
.
18
2 
.
11
3 
-
.
05
7 
.
17
4 
.
12
6 
.
09
8 
-
.
16
6 
-
.
21
6 
-
.
09
4 
-
.
01
7 
-
.
07
9 
.
14
4 
.
02
8 
-
.
14
7 
-
,
03
5 
.
27
0 
-
.
13
7 
-
.
65
2 
.
04
5 
-
.
16
4 
.
27
2 
.
09
2 
-
.
06
1 
.
37
4 
.
15
9 
-
.
20
4 
-
.
10
5 
-
.
02
1 
.
15
4 
.
24
3 
.
09
1 
.
42
7 
.
01
1 
-
.
04
0 
-
.
09
3 
.
67
6 
-
.
10
8 
.
23
2 
-
01
0 
.
19
4 
-
.
03
6 
.
28
8 
-
.
00
6 
.
10
5 
.
13
8 
-
.
17
4 
.
02
5 
-
.
09
7 
.
14
3 
-
.
31
7 
-
,
48
2 
.
53
6 
.
06
5 
.
14
8 
.
02
3 
-
.
05
1 
.
 
04
1 
.
02
2 
-
.
02
5 
.
04
5 
-
.
12
1 
.
02
1 
.
14
2 
.
83
5 
.
03
4 
-
.
04
6 
.
02
3 
.
05
1 
.
03
4 
-
.
07
5 
-
.
02
9 
-
.
08
1 
'
 
-
.
04
5 
.
08
7 
-
,
09
7 
-
.
12
5 
22
3 
05
3 
-
.
76
3 
-
.
0n
7 
.
00
0 
.
00
0 
-
.
00
0 
-
.
00
0 
-
.
00
0 
-
.
00
0 
.
00
0 
.
00
0 
.
00
0 
.
00
0 
-
.
00
0 
.
00
0 
.
00
0 
.
00
0 
.
00
0 
-
.
00
0 
-
.
00
0 
-
.
00
0 
.
00
0 
.
00
0 
-
.
00
0 
.
O
n
O
 
-
.
00
0 
.
00
0 
-
.
1U
9 
-
.
09
1 
-
.
07
4 
-
.
02
2 
-
.
84
1 
-
.
13
7 
-
.
07
2 
.
04
2 
.
05
7 
.
07
8 
.
07
9 
-
.
02
8 
.
71
8 
-
.
08
7 
.
03
6 
.
09
9 
-
.
09
2 
.
13
9 
.
04
2 
.
07
5 
.
07
9 
-
.
09
8 
-
.
32
6 
-
.
02
1 
.
01
6 
-
.
14
2 
-
.
00
5 
-
.
09
3 
.
09
5 
.
73
9 
10
9 
-
.
00
9 
.
05
0 
.
02
6 
-
.
13
9 
.
04
3 
.
 
21
0 
.
10
7 
-
.
18
2 
.
00
4 
.
05
2 
-
.
13
u 
-
,
32
9 
-
.
08
9 
-
.
10
1 
-
.
24
5 
-
.
06
8 
.
53
1 
.
29
3 
.
11
3 
-
.
02
3 
.
06
5 
.
06
4 
.
73
2 
.
00
6 
-
.
02
9 
-
.
00
4 
-
.
07
1 
.
07
9 
-
.
09
6 
.
 
34
2 
-
.
13
2 
.
01
2 
.
01
2 
-
.
82
1 
.
10
9 
-
,
08
4 
-
.
04
6 
.
15
2 
-
.
01
1 
-
.
ßg
2 
-
.
lr
i8
 
.
 
31
0 
.
18
9 
.
07
9 
-
.
13
5 
.
55
6 
.
30
8 
-
,
06
2 
.
19
8 
.
09
1 
.
08
7 
.
15
2 
.
i8
4 
.
09
2 
-
.
09
2 
.
18
0 
.
61
6 
-
.
01
4 
-
.
10
5 
-
.
03
9 
-
.
02
5 
.
21
9 
-
.
16
1 
.
14
9 
-
.
02
7 
.
40
7 
-
.
05
5 
-
.
35
4 
.
38
2 
.
09
7 
.
11
5 
11
5 
.
29
5 
.
n
93
 
-
.
10
6 
-
.
00
4 
.
01
7 
.
93
6 
-
.
13
8 
.
04
5 
.
04
4 
.
03
9 
-
.
01
3 
-
,
07
3 
.
13
8 
-
.
00
8 
.
10
0 
.
05
1 
-
.
02
3 
.
 
04
4 
-
.
00
9 
-
.
85
2 
.
03
5 
-
.
04
5 
.
05
7 
-
.
10
0 
-
.
01
4 
.
19
1 
.
01
0 
-
.
18
8 
-
.
00
5 
.
89
1 
-
.
02
3 
-
.
3u
5 
-
.
03
0 
-
.
08
7 
-
.
05
0 
-
.
08
4 
-
.
11
5 
.
19
6 
.
05
9 
-
.
00
0 
.
00
3 
.
 
89
3 
.
02
0 
.
07
1 
-
.
01
3 
-
.
02
2 
01
8 
.
10
2 
-
.
14
0 
.
01
7 
-
.
10
7 
.
10
4 
.
10
6 
.
02
4 
.
06
0 
.
17
1 
-
.
13
0 
-
.
03
2 
.
08
1 
.
23
8 
.
09
2 
.
07
3 
.
71
3 
-
.
09
7 
.
24
9 
-
.
04
0 
-
.
03
3 
-
.
87
9 
-
.
05
7 
-
.
05
3 
-
.
04
0 
.
06
9 
.
03
8 
-
.
03
0 
.
02
4 
.
14
7 
-
.
00
5 
<
4.
2u
> 
T
A
B
L
E
 V
A
R
I
M
A
X
 
61
 
F
A
R
M
E
R
S 
I
N
 
G
L
A
SS
 
R
O
T
A
T
I
O
N
 
3 
1 
c
 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10
 
11
 
12
 
11
 
14
 
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
 
O
F
 
V
A
R
I
A
N
C
E
 
7.
84
5 
7.
81
U 
7.
12
7 
6.
u1
3 
3.
11
1 
5.
16
4 
3.
71
3 
5.
35
7 
4.
05
8 
3.
65
5 
3.
56
5 
3.
48
8 
5.
32
5 
4.
99
9 
R
O
T
A
T
E
D
 
F
A
C
T
O
R
 
L
O
A
D
I
N
G
S 
N
u
t
 
-
.
u
7u
 
-
.
14
8 
.
10
2 
-
.
01
8 
-
.
01
7 
.
04
4 
-
.
01
9 
.
03
0 
.
01
9 
-
.
01
8 
-
.
01
1 
.
21
8 
.
08
2 
U
C
C
u
I
'
N
 
-
.
2U
1 
.
64
d 
.
07
0 
.
09
6 
.
01
5 
.
15
1 
-
.
26
3 
-
.
U
98
 
-
.
04
6 
-
.
12
7 
.
17
1 
.
12
9 
-
.
03
5 
-
.
16
9 
1t
NA
ia
T 
-
.
u
17
 
.
10
o 
.
05
9 
-
.
U
22
 
.
42
6 
-
.
21
5 
-
.
09
0 
.
12
9 
.
03
8 
.
04
9 
-
.
03
5 
.
31
9 
-
.
09
6 
.
27
3 
H
U
U
SL
U 
-
.
U
S
d 
.
17
0 
.
U
86
 
.
03
8 
-
.
u
86
 
.
04
4 
-
.
05
3 
.
05
5 
-
.
79
0 
.
13
7 
-
.
08
7 
.
00
1 
-
.
00
0 
.
01
6 
A
G
kw
RK
 
-
.
1u
7 
-
.
13
5 
.
U
69
 
.
06
3 
.
19
5 
.
16
7 
.
12
6 
.
07
5 
-
.
63
0 
-
.
13
5 
.
17
1 
.
14
0 
.
04
7 
.
09
3 
SC
MN
C
P 
-
.
28
8 
.
U
21
 
-
.
74
5 
.
U
10
 
.
J
09
 
.
01
4 
.
00
7 
-
.
00
4 
-
.
01
8 
.
01
7 
-
.
10
3 
-
.
04
4 
.
07
5 
.
01
3 
P
L
N
fS
C 
-
.
29
2 
-
.
10
3 
.
10
3 
.
32
2 
.
18
3 
-
.
16
0 
.
06
6 
-
.
07
5 
-
.
15
3 
-
.
13
9 
-
.
05
5 
.
13
6 
-
.
02
4 
-
.
51
6 
1N
Tt
kC
 
.
J
43
 
.
0L
9 
.
U
92
 
-
.
09
9 
-
.
U
53
 
-
.
02
9 
.
09
3 
-
.
07
4 
-
.
05
5 
-
.
09
7 
.
79
5 
.
05
3 
-
.
07
1 
.
15
7 
U
T
H
C
kP
 
.
U
29
 
-
.
15
3 
.
23
7 
.
12
4 
.
01
6 
-
.
17
6 
-
.
02
5 
.
00
8 
-
.
07
0 
.
09
8 
.
07
4 
.
05
2 
-
.
A
34
 
-
.
06
9 
M
U
F
A
kM
 
-
.
12
3 
-
.
83
5 
.
11
4 
.
07
8 
-
.
10
1 
.
06
1 
.
01
0 
.
19
4 
-
.
05
7 
.
05
0 
.
08
0 
-
.
02
8 
-
.
07
7 
-
.
13
4 
M
U
L
A
N
t
 
-
.
s
U
O
 
-
.
73
2 
-
.
18
9 
-
.
00
6 
-
.
U
78
 
.
10
9 
.
03
6 
.
19
8 
-
.
04
0 
-
.
2R
4 
-
.
04
4 
-
.
00
0 
-
.
00
9 
-
.
08
6 
M
U
L
kU
P 
.
15
9 
-
.
44
5 
.
46
4 
.
30
9 
-
.
J
70
 
.
01
7 
-
.
11
7 
-
.
03
2 
.
01
8 
.
42
4 
.
19
6 
.
05
2 
-
.
26
6 
-
.
08
1 
F
U
L
L
Y
R
 
-
.
t
w
o
 
-
.
74
1 
.
U
99
 
.
15
4 
-
.
J
55
 
.
20
0 
-
.
19
3 
.
09
4 
.
13
3 
-
.
01
9 
.
06
0 
.
04
1 
-
02
9 
.
06
6 
M
A
N
M
I
H
 
-
.
58
7 
.
02
u 
.
23
4 
.
03
2 
.
11
7 
.
14
4 
-
.
11
9 
-
.
18
8 
.
27
1 
.
23
3 
-
.
06
4 
.
05
7 
.
12
8 
.
16
8 
F
L
R
C
dT
 
.
23
2 
-
.
06
6 
.
U
92
 
-
.
12
2 
.
46
6 
.
48
5 
.
18
1 
-
.
20
5 
-
.
10
2 
.
02
7 
-
.
27
7 
.
19
8 
.
18
6 
.
04
3 
F
t
kA
UV
 
.
15
3 
.
10
U 
.
11
4 
.
20
3 
.
J
61
 
-
.
13
8 
.
72
1 
-
.
00
1 
.
06
8 
-
.
15
5 
-
.
04
7 
.
12
2 
.
01
4 
-
.
00
3 
w
t
t
u
l'
R 
-
.
U
71
 
.
13
7 
.
11
U 
.
15
1 
-
.
J
56
 
.
17
9 
.
14
9 
-
.
16
1 
-
.
15
7 
-
.
11
5 
-
.
39
6 
.
04
1 
-
.
26
0 
.
35
7 
F
h1
'A
LR
 
-
.
40
1 
.
O
69
 
.
13
0 
-
.
07
0 
.
u
71
 
.
24
8 
-
.
03
1 
-
.
05
0 
.
00
4 
.
10
1 
.
12
2 
.
08
0 
.
02
6 
.
41
2 
F
H
P
SU
6 
-
.
u
51
 
.
1U
1 
.
21
4 
.
10
9 
-
.
J
19
 
.
20
4 
.
32
9 
.
08
9 
.
07
4 
-
.
22
3 
-
.
22
4 
.
40
2 
-
.
44
8 
.
16
8 
U
w
N
P
L
U
 
-
.
43
3 
.
04
5 
.
04
2 
.
37
4 
.
U
75
 
-
.
06
1 
-
.
10
0 
-
.
01
4 
-
.
03
6 
-
.
02
6 
.
17
5 
.
10
2 
.
10
0 
.
59
4 
O
W
N
C
U
L
 
.
u
ll
 
-
.
0i
9 
-
.
04
U 
.
90
8 
-
.
03
7 
-
.
00
8 
.
08
1 
-
.
04
5 
-
.
02
3 
.
01
2 
-
.
11
3 
-
.
04
7 
-
.
03
6 
.
13
2 
u
W
N
L
I
R
 
-
.
U
25
 
.
04
3 
-
.
04
4 
-
.
01
4 
.
00
6 
-
.
06
7 
.
03
5 
.
08
0 
-
.
03
2 
.
82
3 
-
.
08
R 
.
06
6 
-
.
n
71
 
-
.
00
9 
U
W
N
C
r
1T
 
-
.
00
5 
-
.
2h
e 
.
02
9 
-
.
00
3 
-
.
J
46
 
.
23
1 
.
03
1 
.
83
7 
-
.
00
4 
.
07
6 
-
.
02
0 
.
01
6 
.
n
16
 
-
.
14
4 
U
W
N
T
K
A
 
-
.
1d
3 
-
.
0U
2 
.
11
0 
.
24
5 
.
10
3 
-
.
14
7 
.
04
9 
.
03
2 
-
.
13
4 
-
.
06
9 
-
.
01
3 
-
.
00
3 
.
00
9 
.
71
1 
u
I
SI
3C
 
.
u
22
 
-
.
14
3 
-
.
U
79
 
.
05
0 
.
14
3 
-
.
53
1 
.
02
2 
-
.
08
3 
-
.
07
1 
-
.
02
7 
-
.
17
6 
-
.
03
4 
-
.
60
6 
.
14
5 
kU
Al
1L
0 
-
.
J
U
3 
-
.
04
.5
 
.
U
74
 
.
0b
3 
.
11
0 
-
.
00
8 
.
02
U 
-
.
03
4 
.
08
9 
-
.
10
3 
-
.
07
7 
-
.
83
3 
-
.
10
0 
.
01
0 
iR
NN
AM
 
.
ù5
5 
.
21
u 
.
26
2 
.
01
6 
.
08
6 
-
.
69
0 
.
08
3 
-
.
08
4 
.
13
5 
.
12
5 
.
11
3 
.
09
0 
.
03
1 
.
11
4 
ik
AN
NU
 
-
.
11
4 
-
.
15
9 
.
11
1 
.
U
83
 
.
03
0 
-
.
06
5 
-
.
00
0 
.
82
2 
-
.
10
2 
.
17
8 
-
.
03
6 
.
04
5 
.
00
7 
.
12
3 
C
65
1b
C 
.
14
9 
.
12
0 
-
.
00
5 
-
.
11
3 
.
02
7 
-
.
58
6 
.
05
3 
-
.
46
2 
.
11
6 
.
01
4 
-
.
01
5 
-
.
05
9 
.
00
0 
-
.
16
4 
A
G
R
I
0R
 
-
.
17
1 
-
.
14
1 
-
.
U
62
 
.
01
0 
-
.
v
45
 
.
07
4 
.
66
5 
.
01
0 
-
.
17
0 
.
27
8 
.
16
9 
-
.
17
8 
.
04
1 
-
.
07
1 
F
l0
k6
r1
7 
-
.
24
1 
-
.
1u
1L
1 
.
55
5 
.
09
6 
-
.
12
9 
-
.
13
5 
.
U
94
 
.
03
3 
-
.
34
1 
.
02
0 
-
.
31
3 
-
.
11
4 
-
07
2 
.
13
7 
SC
AC
kt
 
-
4.
52
0 
-
.
17
4 
.
07
7 
.
05
0 
-
.
J
83
 
-
.
08
0 
-
.
01
7 
.
18
6 
-
.
13
0 
-
.
04
6 
-
.
06
4 
.
02
1 
.
15
5 
.
14
4 
N
O
N
I
-
R
L
 
-
.
22
7 
.
09
9 
.
77
5 
-
.
01
8 
.
J
12
 
-
.
04
6 
.
08
0 
.
03
5 
-
.
02
8 
-
.
02
0 
.
02
9 
-
.
06
6 
-
.
07
2 
.
07
8 
T
O
T
A
C
R
 
-
.
49
1 
-
.
12
9 
.
71
1 
.
01
3 
-
.
U
29
 
-
.
03
9 
-
.
U
42
 
.
16
3 
-
.
13
2 
-
.
05
3 
-
.
01
1 
.
04
3 
.
06
9 
.
07
1 
SC
TU
rv
S 
-
.
J
31
 
-
.
09
0 
.
U
62
 
.
12
6 
-
.
J
39
 
-
.
24
5 
.
08
8 
.
00
1 
-
.
16
2 
-
.
09
2 
-
.
09
4 
.
25
6 
.
61
4 
.
10
7 
A
V
Y
I
L
D
 
.
o
3u
 
.
O
61
 
.
U
44
 
-
.
01
9 
.
i0
1 
-
.
04
2 
-
.
06
2 
-
.
18
0 
.
13
1 
.
06
4 
.
02
6 
.
06
5 
.
17
8 
.
01
2 
L
SU
wl
i 
-
.
u
2/
 
-
.
07
1 
.
05
u 
.
87
9 
.
30
9 
.
03
3 
.
10
4 
.
15
5 
-
.
05
7 
.
00
8 
-
.
04
2 
-
.
02
8 
-
.
n
36
 
.
10
3 
<
4.
cG
) 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
T
A
B
L
E
 
F
A
R
M
E
R
S 
I
N
 C
L
A
SS
 
4 
V
A
R
I
M
A
X
 
R
O
T
A
T
I
O
,
,
 
6 
7 
8 
9 
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
 
O
F
 
V
A
R
I
A
N
C
E
 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
5.
81
1 
7.
98
o 
6.
47
4 
6.
05
6 
7.
91
3 
3.
71
1 
4.
45
4 
3.
82
7 
4.
26
0 
3.
58
9 
3.
74
7 
5.
05
1 
4.
44
1 
R
O
T
A
T
E
D
 
F
A
C
T
O
R
 
L
O
A
D
I
N
G
S 
M
.
 
-
.
01
9 
-
.
10
6 
.
13
a 
.
15
9 
-
.
03
7 
.
04
3 
-
.
02
2 
.
06
4 
-
.
72
5 
-
.
01
3 
.
09
8 
.
n
58
 
O
(;
CU
Pt
v 
-
.
05
8 
.
52
1 
.
13
7 
.
01
5 
.
12
7 
.
03
8 
.
42
0 
.
13
3 
.
14
3 
-
.
04
5 
.
21
0 
.
00
2 
.
24
5 
T
t
N
A
N
T
 
-
.
1U
6 
.
05
4 
-
.
03
7 
-
.
U
10
 
-
.
15
1 
-
.
00
3 
.
13
3 
.
14
4 
-
.
12
9 
.
02
0 
.
68
9 
-
.
03
3 
-
.
07
2 
H
O
U
SL
U 
-
.
09
5 
.
04
9 
-
.
29
6 
-
.
08
8 
-
.
03
2 
.
57
4 
.
10
5 
.
05
5 
-
.
20
9 
-
.
10
9 
.
04
9 
-
.
12
9 
.
28
1 
A
G
R
w
R
K
 
-
.
2U
5 
-
.
14
8 
-
.
11
7 
-
.
11
5 
.
27
9 
-
.
29
7 
-
.
24
4 
-
.
40
0 
.
10
6 
-
.
24
8 
-
.
13
0 
SC
MN
CN
 
.
05
7 
-
.
11
b 
-
.
02
1 
.
04
3 
-
.
06
4 
.
02
4 
.
03
7 
.
05
9 
.
n
31
 
.
01
9 
.
11
3 
-
.
03
6 
P
L
N
I
SC
 
I
lv
Tt
it
C 
.
15
9 
.
05
6 
.
07
1 
-
.
26
9 
-
.
25
7 
.
00
3 
-
.
15
6 
-
.
22
2 
.
11
7 
.
01
2 
.
63
3 
.
02
8 
-
.
03
6 
-
.
24
b 
.
08
1 
.
01
0 
-
.
14
2 
-
.
08
2 
.
11
5 
-
.
51
1 
.
35
2 
.
18
6 
.
24
6 
-
.
03
2 
.
06
6 
.
07
3 
U
I
H
C
R
P
 
-
.
69
5 
.
15
3 
.
14
6 
-
.
11
7 
-
.
09
2 
.
08
9 
.
04
0 
-
.
11
0 
-
.
19
3 
.
00
2 
-
.
12
0 
-
.
05
4 
.
13
6 
M
O
F
A
r
2M
 
-
.
09
0 
-
.
87
b 
-
.
18
0 
-
.
05
7 
.
00
2 
-
.
06
3 
-
.
02
4 
-
.
05
7 
.
13
5 
-
.
07
8 
-
.
01
1 
-
.
00
2 
-
.
10
2 
M
U
C
A
N
E
 
.
22
4 
-
.
86
9 
-
.
10
6 
-
.
13
4 
.
03
9 
.
03
2 
.
04
0 
.
01
5 
.
04
4 
-
.
07
6 
-
.
09
6 
.
00
4 
-
.
04
8 
M
O
C
kO
P 
F
U
L
L
Y
k 
-
.
71
3 
-
.
36
7 
-
.
10
5 
.
02
5 
-
.
01
8 
-
.
06
1 
-
.
14
1 
.
01
6 
.
14
7 
.
04
5 
.
14
5 
-
.
11
8 
.
05
0 
M
A
N
M
T
H
 
-
.
1b
8 
-
.
81
2 
-
.
02
0 
-
.
07
3 
.
05
7 
.
10
5 
.
08
5 
.
11
4 
.
00
8 
-
.
02
3 
.
05
1 
-
.
04
2 
.
11
2 
F
E
R
L
W
T
 
.
04
7 
.
00
0 
.
24
8 
-
.
25
8 
-
.
19
9 
-
.
19
3 
.
36
1 
.
02
2 
.
23
2 
.
12
9 
-
.
14
7 
.
20
9 
.
26
8 
F
E
R
A
U
V
 
.
13
1 
.
03
b 
-
.
06
8 
.
29
5 
.
00
2 
.
17
5 
-
.
01
4 
-
.
01
6 
-
.
11
9 
-
.
00
9 
.
24
7 
.
70
5 
.
05
8 
-
.
40
3 
.
24
4 
-
.
28
1 
.
01
9 
-
.
09
7 
.
06
7 
-
.
09
8 
.
10
5 
.
18
1 
-
.
32
6 
-
.
11
7 
.
15
0 
-
.
23
3 
W
L
E
u
P
h 
F
H
P
A
C
h 
-
.
02
7 
.
09
5 
-
.
08
8 
-
.
32
4 
.
21
7 
-
.
37
3 
-
.
04
6 
.
15
7 
-
.
n
96
 
.
36
2 
U
.
04
3 
.
39
4 
.
10
7 
F
H
P
SU
t3
 
.
00
8 
-
.
11
6 
-
.
10
2 
-
.
28
0 
-
.
14
0 
.
04
5 
.
19
0 
.
28
4 
-
.
27
1 
.
08
1 
-
.
09
0 
.
52
0 
.
21
3 
-
.
U
77
 
.
06
5 
-
.
05
0 
-
.
20
9 
-
.
28
4 
.
03
6 
-
.
06
0 
-
.
08
8 
-
.
02
2 
-
.
10
6 
-
.
20
2 
.
72
5 
-
.
04
5 
O
w
N
N
L
O
 
O
W
N
L
U
L
 
-
.
00
6 
-
.
00
2 
.
01
6 
-
.
04
8 
-
.
85
0 
.
08
5 
-
.
00
3 
-
.
06
9 
-
.
02
3 
.
02
8 
-
.
02
0 
.
09
0 
-
.
01
3 
O
w
N
L
T
h 
-
.
00
5 
.
02
4 
-
.
U
31
 
.
02
2 
-
.
79
0 
-
.
05
1 
.
01
3 
.
06
3 
-
.
07
3 
-
.
05
2 
.
13
4 
.
06
6 
.
03
8 
O
w
N
C
R
T
 
.
04
2 
-
.
05
6 
-
.
14
8 
.
00
7 
.
03
8 
.
11
5 
.
77
9 
.
11
2 
-
.
01
2 
.
10
8 
.
05
9 
.
04
3 
.
01
1 
-
.
03
5 
-
.
13
7 
-
.
85
0 
-
.
06
0 
.
17
8 
-
.
00
6 
-
.
04
8 
-
.
03
8 
-
.
03
9 
.
03
6 
-
.
03
6 
.
09
3 
.
02
5 
U
1v
N1
HA
 
D
iS
TS
C 
.
01
2 
.
04
5 
-
.
03
0 
-
.
17
3 
-
.
81
4 
-
.
04
9 
-
.
00
6 
.
02
7 
.
07
4 
-
.
01
5 
.
18
1 
.
01
3 
-
.
03
1 
R
O
A
U
C
O
 
-
.
1b
7 
-
.
04
1 
.
19
6 
.
01
9 
-
.
08
7 
.
05
4 
-
.
01
2 
-
.
15
8 
.
75
2 
.
02
4 
.
01
4 
-
.
10
9 
.
01
2 
T
hA
NA
h1
 
.
22
5 
-
.
12
4 
-
.
08
9 
-
.
05
0 
.
12
8 
.
08
8 
.
04
1 
.
18
7 
.
65
2 
-
.
09
6 
-
.
08
5 
-
.
10
0 
-
.
06
7 
T
H
A
N
H
O
 
-
.
0o
9 
.
13
6 
.
30
4 
-
.
24
2 
-
.
22
9 
-
.
07
6 
.
49
2 
-
.
12
0 
.
13
0 
-
.
03
9 
-
.
11
0 
-
.
13
4 
C
U
ST
SC
 
-
.
1U
7 
-
.
14
U 
-
.
78
2 
-
.
15
6 
-
.
15
5 
.
00
3 
.
20
7 
-
.
08
9 
.
05
1 
-
.
02
1 
-
.
03
6 
.
04
9 
-
.
07
6 
A
G
H
1C
k 
-
.
26
7 
.
13
6 
.
62
1 
-
.
00
9 
.
23
0 
-
.
08
7 
.
16
3 
.
07
7 
.
25
1 
-
.
12
8 
-
.
10
8 
.
00
1 
-
.
07
4 
F
hA
GA
T 
.
01
9 
-
.
06
u 
.
08
6 
.
u
05
 
.
06
4 
.
77
4 
-
.
02
4 
-
.
01
4 
.
12
1 
-
.
04
9 
-
.
03
2 
.
30
3 
-
.
14
3 
SC
AC
RL
 
-
.
20
5 
-
.
11
1 
-
.
11
4 
-
.
30
4 
-
.
37
8 
.
06
5 
08
8 
-
.
08
9 
-
.
05
4 
-
.
17
8 
.
02
7 
.
16
0 
.
41
8 
.
U
75
 
-
.
14
3 
-
.
07
7 
-
.
93
4 
-
.
06
2 
-
.
01
5 
.
00
5 
.
02
2 
.
03
5 
.
00
2 
.
02
4 
.
01
5 
.
06
0 
N
O
N
T
R
E
 
T
O
T
A
C
k 
-
.
5u
1 
-
.
U
90
 
-
.
U
17
 
-
.
12
g 
-
.
36
8 
-
.
02
9 
-
.
05
4 
-
.
24
4 
.
00
4 
-
.
06
6 
.
22
9 
.
07
4 
.
44
7 
SC
TO
NS
 
-
.
27
9 
-
.
04
0 
-
.
12
9 
-
.
72
g 
-
.
31
0 
.
00
2 
-
.
01
9 
-
.
07
5 
.
01
8 
-
.
05
2 
.
24
0 
-
.
02
7 
.
28
6 
A
V
Y
iL
U 
.
27
9 
-
.
06
9 
-
.
14
2 
-
.
13
3 
-
.
08
7 
.
21
0 
-
.
05
2 
.
44
7 
.
10
9 
-
.
41
2 
-
.
18
3 
-
.
21
0 
.
19
3 
.
05
2 
.
08
9 
.
03
2 
.
64
5 
.
01
7 
-
.
05
5 
-
.
04
6 
.
13
3 
.
02
9 
-
.
15
3 
-
.
03
0 
-
.
08
2 
.
05
0 
L
SU
Iv
IT
 
-
.
07
2 
.
U
O
2 
-
.
21
9 
-
.
23
2 
-
.
02
7 
.
06
3 
-
.
03
2 
-
.
74
3 
.
04
9 
-
.
02
1 
-
.
09
4 
-
.
04
2 
.
22
6 
<
4.
28
> 
TA
BL
E 
CL
A
SS
 
5 
8s
 
FA
RM
ER
S 
IN
 
V
A
N
I
M
A
X
 
R
O
T
A
T
I
O
N
 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10
 
11
 
12
 
11
 
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
 
O
F
 
V
A
R
I
A
N
C
E
 
6.
22
0 
7.
66
9 
6.
79
2 
8.
71
3 
3.
93
2 
4.
23
0 
4.
04
0 
4.
54
0 
5.
64
0 
5.
25
0 
4.
17
4 
4.
18
2 
4.
00
9 
R
O
T
A
T
E
D
 
F
A
C
T
O
R
 
L
O
A
D
I
N
G
S 
A
u
E
 
.
03
3 
-
.
11
,9
 
-
.
22
6 
-
.
02
6 
-
.
18
0 
.
24
6 
-
.
04
4 
-
.
07
5 
-
.
07
6 
.
08
1 
-
.
12
2 
.
28
1 
-
.
62
4 
O
C
C
U
P
N
 
-
.
1U
2 
.
69
7 
-
.
09
3 
-
.
U
b1
 
-
.
J
28
 
-
.
17
8 
.
00
8 
.
03
7 
-
.
02
0 
.
00
7 
-
.
05
4 
.
15
8 
.
17
9 
T
E
N
A
N
T
 
.
10
5 
-
.
02
7 
.
11
62
 
-
.
02
6 
-
.
00
8 
.
09
2 
.
03
7 
-
.
08
1 
.
06
7 
.
06
3 
-
.
78
4 
-
.
11
7 
-
.
02
7 
H
U
U
SL
U 
.
U
34
 
-
.
01
8 
.
06
7 
-
.
03
8 
-
.
41
5 
-
.
11
3 
-
.
74
2 
.
02
1 
.
01
9 
.
11
2 
.
10
4 
-
.
07
7 
.
11
1 
N
G
R
w
R
K
 
.
U
10
 
-
.
1u
4 
.
03
U 
.
07
5 
.
00
9 
.
14
4 
-
.
69
4 
.
00
1 
-
.
01
9 
-
.
26
9 
.
02
9 
.
03
8 
-
.
21
1 
SC
MN
CP
 
-
4b
1.
1e
3 
-
.
04
3 
-
.
58
4 
.
14
8 
-
.
53
2 
-
.
03
4 
-
.
20
0 
-
.
02
0 
.
14
1 
.
23
8 
-
.
14
5 
-
.
10
4 
.
14
5 
P
L
N
T
SC
 
iN
TE
KC
 
-
.
17
0 
-
.
00
2 
-
.
U
29
 
-
.
06
7 
-
.
10
4 
.
20
5 
-
.
55
3 
.
14
2 
-
.
07
3 
.
00
3 
.
23
8 
-
.
15
0 
-
.
20
5 
.
01
2 
.
14
0 
.
22
5 
.
18
2 
.
10
6 
.
06
4 
.
05
5 
-
.
02
9 
.
11
0 
.
07
0 
-
.
15
2 
.
02
8 
-
.
64
7 
O
T
H
C
R
P
 
-
.
U
77
 
-
.
U
59
 
.
71
6 
-
.
0b
7 
-
.
17
5 
-
.
19
7 
-
.
02
2 
-
.
04
7 
.
19
1 
.
06
7 
.
12
6 
.
09
6 
.
n
56
 
M
O
F
A
R
M
 
.
U
U
a
 
-
.
69
6 
.
14
7 
-
.
07
0 
-
.
J
14
 
.
04
3 
-
.
07
4 
.
04
2 
.
01
0 
.
04
4 
-
.
03
7 
.
00
6 
-
.
06
9 
M
O
C
A
W
E
 
M
O
C
K
U
P
 
-
.
07
8 
.
02
o 
-
.
8b
7 
-
.
1u
8 
-
.
27
5 
.
76
9 
-
.
13
1 
.
1u
5 
-
.
J
70
 
.
07
9 
-
.
03
3 
.
05
2 
.
01
2 
-
.
11
4 
.
04
0 
.
03
3 
.
04
6 
.
01
7 
.
02
8 
.
07
9 
.
03
8 
-
.
12
4 
.
01
8 
-
.
02
9 
-
.
03
5 
.
fl
40
 
F
U
L
L
Y
R
 
-
.
12
0 
-
.
76
9 
.
03
3 
-
.
U
72
 
.
J
63
 
-
.
09
1 
-
.
04
1 
-
.
02
6 
.
08
0 
.
04
3 
.
02
2 
.
11
4 
.
12
0 
M
A
N
M
T
H
 
.
19
9 
-
.
U
bd
 
-
.
U
12
 
-
.
65
5 
.
z
00
 
-
.
06
5 
.
21
6 
-
.
12
6 
.
11
1 
.
03
5 
-
.
09
1 
-
.
04
8 
.
03
2 
F
E
K
C
w
T
 
-
.
1.
11
12
 
-
.
16
4 
.
05
1 
-
.
02
7 
.
98
 
-
.
21
8 
-
.
11
8 
-
.
14
7 
-
.
05
0 
.
40
4 
-
.
32
9 
.
36
8 
.
n
81
 
F
E
R
A
U
V
 
.
07
2 
.
lb
b 
.
34
1 
.
02
1 
-
.
49
4 
-
.
00
5 
.
03
2 
-
.
27
4 
.
14
8 
.
16
3 
.
15
0 
.
07
6 
-
.
19
7 
w
E
L
U
P
R
 
-
.
10
0 
-
.
00
0 
.
01
9 
-
.
07
6 
-
.
11
5 
.
10
1 
-
.
03
8 
-
.
01
8 
.
14
5 
.
61
7 
.
10
4 
-
.
23
6 
.
14
3 
F
H
P
A
C
R
 
.
21
U 
-
.
05
8 
.
03
d 
-
.
12
1 
.
19
9 
.
12
9 
.
06
6 
-
.
06
7 
.
01
2 
.
67
9 
-
.
23
5 
.
11
9 
-
.
11
1 
F
H
P
SU
B 
-
.
17
o 
.
01
2 
.
13
3 
-
.
09
4 
-
.
10
2 
-
.
03
2 
.
24
0 
.
04
6 
-
.
02
4 
.
69
6 
.
05
4 
.
14
0 
-
.
07
4 
u
w
N
P
L
O
 
.
17
9 
-
.
15
e 
.
u
6b
 
-
.
13
6 
.
05
1 
.
04
2 
.
01
5 
-
.
00
7 
.
77
9 
.
06
7 
-
.
02
0 
.
07
9 
-
.
00
6 
U
w
N
C
U
L
 
-
.
Se
4 
-
.
U
4u
 
.
04
8 
-
.
09
5 
-
.
16
5 
.
08
6 
.
05
1 
.
02
3 
.
67
3 
.
01
2 
-
.
09
4 
-
.
06
9 
-
.
n
97
 
U
W
N
L
I
R
 
-
.
10
3 
.
01
9 
-
.
03
5 
-
.
15
2 
.
J
33
 
.
02
4 
-
.
05
0 
.
00
2 
.
01
8 
-
.
04
2 
-
.
10
1 
-
.
82
7 
-
.
n
54
 
O
w
N
C
K
T
 
-
.
d3
e 
-
.
U
bl
 
-
.
22
0 
.
25
0 
.
11
7 
-
.
10
6 
-
.
03
9 
-
.
06
0 
-
.
25
4 
.
07
1 
.
02
5 
.
05
8 
-
.
40
1 
(A
NT
RA
 
.
37
3 
.
05
3 
.
07
2 
-
.
38
4 
.
13
2 
-
.
03
9 
-
.
16
9 
.
05
8 
.
61
7 
.
11
1 
.
02
7 
.
05
3 
.
08
4 
U
I
S
TS
C 
.
30
9 
-
.
O
d4
 
-
.
06
0 
-
.
12
9 
-
.
05
7 
-
.
07
4 
-
.
00
1 
-
.
23
9 
-
.
09
2 
.
00
8 
.
20
1 
-
.
54
1 
.
24
6 
R
U
A
U
C
O
 
.
U
72
 
-
.
13
8 
-
.
27
5 
.
01
7 
-
.
J
07
 
.
08
8 
-
.
14
6 
-
.
13
7 
-
.
02
8 
.
04
3 
.
64
0 
-
.
17
3 
-
.
04
7 
T
R
H
N
A
M
 
.
J
85
 
.
03
0 
.
11
1 
-
.
15
8 
.
J
56
 
.
10
1 
-
.
01
3 
-
.
58
8 
.
49
8 
-
.
09
3 
-
.
05
8 
.
21
5 
.
n
39
 
T
R
A
N
N
O
 
-
.
23
4 
-
.
0o
7 
-
.
19
9 
-
.
08
8 
.
14
9 
-
.
11
6 
-
.
14
3 
-
.
62
5 
.
16
1 
.
26
3 
-
.
07
0 
-
.
02
3 
-
.
33
4 
C
O
ST
SC
 
.
00
1 
.
03
2 
.
05
7 
-
.
07
1 
-
.
11
6 
.
08
0 
.
11
1 
-
.
77
8 
-
.
21
8 
-
.
02
6 
.
05
4 
.
01
2 
.
26
8 
A
G
R
I
C
R
 
-
.
02
0 
-
.
04
5 
-
.
08
7 
.
03
5 
-
.
01
6 
-
.
05
5 
-
.
17
6 
.
04
6 
-
.
05
4 
-
.
04
6 
-
.
04
1 
-
.
01
6 
-
.
02
2 
F
R
A
6i
11
. 
-
.
45
3 
.
01
8 
.
01
9 
-
.
31
9 
.
10
0 
.
23
1 
-
.
30
3 
.
03
7 
.
11
6 
.
22
3 
.
23
0 
.
03
8 
.
03
2 
SC
A
CK
E 
.
01
3 
-
.
09
0 
-
.
05
6 
-
.
83
2 
-
.
03
U 
.
28
0 
-
.
03
0 
-
.
07
6 
.
16
9 
.
16
4 
.
00
1 
-
.
15
3 
.
05
8 
N
U
N
T
R
E
 
-
.
24
U 
.
13
9 
.
55
6 
-
.
13
6 
-
.
1J
45
 
.
03
4 
-
.
08
2 
-
.
00
9 
.
08
3 
.
21
4 
-
.
27
7 
-
.
06
3 
-
.
n
25
 
T
U
T
A
:
R
 
.
37
2 
-
.
77
2 
.
03
4 
.
18
6 
.
02
4 
-
.
16
1 
.
05
0 
.
00
2 
-
.
05
2 
-
.
08
2 
-
.
00
2 
SC
IO
NS
 
.
11
1 
-
.
U
:
,
6 
-
.
U
O
3 
-
.
77
6 
-
.
J
6b
 
-
.
44
5 
.
01
7 
-
.
05
0 
.
05
0 
.
07
7 
.
08
1 
-
.
13
8 
.
n
65
 
A
V
Y
I
L
U
 
.
U
40
 
.
07
5 
.
04
3 
.
18
1 
-
.
u
54
 
-
.
88
4 
.
01
2 
.
06
9 
-
.
10
8 
-
.
11
3 
.
01
6 
.
02
9 
-
.
01
0 
L
SU
iv
1T
 
-
.
/.
i9
 
-
.
06
d 
.
24
3 
-
.
02
9 
-
.
01
6 
.
04
7 
.
09
4 
-
.
03
9 
-
.
04
2 
.
05
4 
.
01
6 
-
.
03
2 
.
13
0 
<
4.
4G
) Hu
t
 
U
C
C
U
1'
N 
T
L
N
A
I
J
T
 
H
U
U
SL
G
 
A
u
R
w
R
h 
SC
M
NC
N
 
P
L
N
1 
St
. 
I
iv
Tt
r2
C 
01
 H
C
R
F
'
 
M
U
F
A
kM
 
M
U
C
H
r
I
L
 
M
U
C
kU
I'
 
F
U
L
L
Y
k 
M
A
N
N
 T
H
 
F
t
R
C
W
1 
F
C
R
A
U
V
 
W
L
E
U
P
k 
F
I
1P
AC
k 
F
hP
SU
b 
O
n
N
F
L
U
 
U
N
N
C
U
L
 
O
w
N
L
T
k 
O
r
dN
Ck
T 
U
W
N
T
R
A
 
U
L
S
IS
C 
kU
AU
CU
 
T
K
A
N
A
N
I
 
T
1:
AN
dO
 
C
U
S
IS
C
 
A
G
R
1C
k 
F
hA
bM
T 
SL
A
CR
t
 
N
U
N
I
R
t
 
T
u
T
A
C
h 
SC
Tu
.4
S 
A
v
Y
1L
U 
L
SU
1.
1 
T
 
T
A
B
L
E
 
9,
 
F
A
R
M
E
R
S 
I
N
 
C
L
A
SS
 
6 
V
A
R
I
M
A
X
 
R
O
T
A
T
I
01
, 
1 
2 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10
 
11
 
12
 
13
 
P
L
R
C
E
N
T
 
O
F
 
V
A
R
I
A
N
C
E
 
7.
77
8 
1U
.1
6j
 
7.
52
5 
7.
84
9 
4.
86
4 
4.
80
5 
4.
81
5 
5.
44
3 
7.
17
4 
4.
63
2 
6.
46
6 
7.
83
9 
4.
70
5 
R
O
T
A
T
E
D
 
F
A
C
T
O
R
 
L
O
A
D
I
N
G
S 
.
11
j 
-
.
04
7 
.
15
1 
-
.
03
9 
.
02
4 
-
.
10
0 
-
.
10
0 
.
89
8 
-
.
03
8 
-
.
01
1 
-
.
10
4 
-
.
04
1 
.
03
8 
-
.
06
0 
-
.
63
3 
.
02
7 
-
.
00
3 
-
.
22
7 
.
22
2 
.
13
4 
.
30
4 
.
09
5 
.
06
1,
 
.
15
1 
.
06
1 
-
.
09
8 
-
.
U
62
 
.
20
5 
.
07
9 
-
.
17
b 
.
86
9 
-
.
03
3 
.
12
0 
-
.
U
lb
 
-
.
08
7 
-
.
08
9 
.
08
5 
.
07
3 
.
05
6 
-
.
1b
b 
-
.
11
0 
-
.
13
5 
-
.
,
j0
7 
-
.
11
1 
.
18
3 
.
14
5 
-
.
U
20
 
.
69
5 
-
.
02
9 
-
.
22
4 
.
30
6 
.
11
2 
.
10
9 
.
02
8 
-
.
10
1 
-
.
24
3 
.
13
6 
-
.
23
2 
-
.
01
3 
.
33
2 
.
21
0 
-
.
32
4 
-
.
47
4 
-
.
11
9 
.
33
9 
-
.
09
3 
.
03
1 
-
.
05
1 
.
94
6 
-
.
17
3 
.
05
2 
.
13
9 
-
.
03
7 
.
08
6 
-
.
02
0 
-
.
01
3 
.
06
5 
-
.
05
0 
.
10
4 
.
14
3 
-
.
12
0 
.
17
6 
-
.
00
6 
-
.
16
1 
.
12
6 
.
16
2 
.
72
7 
.
23
3 
.
18
5 
-
.
13
4 
-
.
16
4 
.
22
9 
.
U
64
 
.
29
5 
-
.
15
7 
-
.
09
3 
.
14
1 
-
.
59
4 
.
U
31
 
-
.
10
5 
.
01
1 
-
.
49
8 
-
.
13
8 
-
.
20
4 
.
10
0 
.
11
9 
-
.
56
1 
-
.
30
5 
.
05
5 
-
.
02
0 
.
05
8 
-
.
42
3 
.
06
6 
.
04
4 
-
.
00
4 
-
.
40
0 
-
.
06
7 
-
.
00
3 
.
94
7 
-
.
02
6 
-
.
u
75
 
.
03
4 
.
08
0 
-
.
04
0 
-
.
03
5 
.
07
4 
.
14
0 
-
.
04
1 
-
.
11
2 
.
06
7 
-
.
0U
3 
.
96
1 
.
03
7 
.
03
5 
.
04
1 
.
09
9 
.
00
2 
.
00
5 
.
05
4 
.
12
0 
.
01
2 
-
.
08
0 
.
03
7 
.
14
4 
.
35
5 
-
.
49
1 
-
.
45
5 
-
.
28
3 
-
.
07
7 
.
17
4 
-
.
00
0 
-
.
19
1 
.
05
0 
-
.
20
4 
-
.
19
8 
-
.
10
7 
.
1u
1 
.
73
u 
-
.
17
9 
-
.
U
56
 
.
24
9 
-
.
06
3 
.
18
7 
.
16
7 
.
06
9 
.
06
8 
.
26
9 
-
.
12
2 
-
.
16
4 
-
.
00
3 
.
37
1 
-
.
19
1 
-
.
16
9 
.
13
4 
-
.
00
4 
-
.
1b
4 
.
04
9 
.
17
8 
-
.
00
7 
.
62
0 
-
.
27
3 
.
01
5 
-
.
13
1 
.
07
1 
-
.
21
9 
.
21
5 
-
.
15
6 
.
11
6 
.
14
7 
.
21
1 
-
.
10
4 
.
06
1 
.
18
1 
.
75
0 
-
.
01
2 
.
01
0 
-
.
U
19
 
-
.
23
5 
-
.
16
6 
-
.
07
2 
.
06
4 
-
.
84
5 
.
10
6 
.
09
4 
.
00
0 
.
16
1 
-
.
12
2 
.
17
1 
.
19
3 
.
14
0 
-
.
23
2 
-
.
03
b 
.
04
9 
.
21
2 
-
.
16
6 
.
06
9 
-
.
09
5 
.
00
2 
.
n
82
 
.
00
8 
.
76
0 
-
.
16
9 
.
10
0 
-
.
22
6 
.
U
29
 
-
.
06
6 
-
.
02
7 
.
35
6 
.
24
4 
.
06
9 
.
60
9 
.
03
3 
-
.
14
3 
-
.
16
7 
-
.
03
4 
.
15
3 
-
.
22
1 
.
17
1 
.
23
8 
.
10
U 
.
00
4 
-
.
u
47
 
.
18
6 
.
46
4 
-
.
54
1 
-
.
17
0 
-
.
04
8 
.
84
0 
.
01
5 
.
00
J 
-
.
10
3 
-
.
00
9 
-
.
06
0 
-
.
05
6 
.
07
1 
.
30
1 
.
07
2 
.
05
R 
.
01
8 
-
.
00
8 
.
77
4 
.
05
7 
.
02
6 
-
.
18
7 
-
.
21
5 
-
.
06
8 
.
03
1 
.
05
6 
-
.
11
1 
-
.
15
4 
-
.
12
2 
-
.
27
3 
.
11
2 
.
13
7 
.
17
4 
-
.
44
4 
-
.
37
4 
-
.
10
1 
-
.
20
3 
.
05
3 
-
.
21
7 
-
.
17
1 
-
.
03
5 
.
24
6 
-
.
18
5 
.
24
8 
-
.
14
7 
-
.
06
1 
-
.
79
6 
.
U
27
 
.
06
4 
.
17
3 
-
.
08
3 
-
.
09
4 
.
24
1 
-
.
12
6 
.
06
5 
.
07
5 
.
28
4 
.
 
69
0 
.
05
u 
-
.
0b
3 
-
.
U
01
 
-
.
05
8 
-
.
02
U 
-
.
18
5 
-
.
01
5 
-
.
29
2 
.
28
4 
.
28
4 
-
.
14
6 
-
.
06
9 
.
 
24
1 
.
06
0 
-
.
27
8 
-
.
17
3 
.
00
3 
-
.
16
1 
-
.
35
0 
-
.
45
4 
-
.
22
9 
-
.
03
1,
 
.
08
4 
-
.
13
0 
-
.
55
1 
.
32
6 
-
.
22
2 
.
04
2 
.
02
0 
-
.
66
3 
-
.
12
1 
.
04
7 
-
.
06
7 
.
15
6 
.
06
5 
.
34
7 
.
19
0 
.
10
8 
-
.
31
0 
-
.
22
u 
-
.
07
5 
.
10
1 
-
.
10
7 
-
.
11
. 
-
.
07
5 
-
.
36
9 
.
41
0 
.
13
5 
.
04
7 
-
.
12
7 
.
52
8 
-
.
16
9 
.
14
0 
.
05
4 
.
U
68
 
-
.
05
0 
.
91
1 
-
.
05
6 
-
.
00
8 
.
n
37
 
-
.
05
9 
-
.
07
5 
.
07
5 
.
10
8 
.
 
13
4 
-
.
43
0 
.
17
9 
.
19
1 
.
22
9 
.
62
5 
-
.
10
8 
-
.
18
6 
.
16
3 
.
08
3 
.
09
6 
.
08
9 
.
12
3 
.
20
8 
.
17
3 
.
11
0 
-
.
U
62
 
-
.
12
9 
-
.
04
6 
-
.
14
5 
-
.
12
e 
.
05
6 
.
81
7 
-
.
06
7 
.
03
2 
.
15
4 
.
00
2 
.
15
0 
-
.
20
3 
-
.
04
8 
-
.
12
7 
.
15
5 
-
.
25
7 
-
.
16
u 
.
74
4 
-
.
12
3 
-
.
00
4 
.
01
4 
.
12
6 
.
2u
0 
.
19
3 
-
.
16
9 
.
U
54
 
-
.
05
2 
-
.
05
5 
-
.
03
3 
.
00
4 
-
.
10
6 
.
03
5 
.
36
0 
-
.
80
1 
.
03
5 
.
 
09
8 
.
07
0 
-
.
05
9 
-
.
94
2 
.
04
0 
-
.
06
6 
-
.
11
3 
.
00
7 
.
13
8 
-
.
03
2 
-
.
03
8 
-
.
11
6 
-
.
n
77
 
.
37
2 
.
09
j 
-
.
06
0 
-
.
32
9 
-
.
04
1 
-
.
13
0 
.
14
4 
-
.
15
6 
-
.
48
1 
.
02
6 
.
25
7 
-
.
49
1 
.
07
6 
.
4U
2 
-
.
12
2 
-
.
00
6 
.
18
6 
-
.
06
0 
-
.
00
5 
-
.
03
1 
-
.
26
3 
-
.
04
9 
-
.
14
6 
.
65
0 
-
.
14
2 
.
07
7 
.
 
00
0 
-
.
32
2 
.
19
4 
.
10
7 
.
06
3 
-
.
00
6 
.
07
4 
-
.
24
1 
.
06
9 
-
.
13
5 
.
02
4 
.
81
7 
.
04
8 
.
02
0 
.
06
0 
-
.
60
7 
.
U
67
 
-
.
07
5 
-
.
26
5 
-
.
12
3 
-
.
04
1 
.
18
5 
.
15
1 
.
04
0 
-
.
05
2 
-
.
02
9 
1 
0 
4 
5 
T
A
B
L
E
 l
Ot
 
F
A
R
M
S 
I
N
 
C
L
A
SS
 
7 
V
A
R
I
M
A
X
 
R
O
T
A
T
I
O
N
 
b 
7 
8 
9 
P
E
R
C
E
N
T
 
O
F
 
V
A
R
I
A
N
C
E
 
16
. 
t
i:
.i
b 
14
.u
44
 
10
.8
79
 
11
.u
66
 
8.
47
1 
11
.6
86
 
7.
55
3 
5.
25
7 
6.
65
8 
R
O
T
A
T
E
D
 
F
A
C
T
O
R
 
L
O
A
D
I
N
G
S
 
A
G
E
 
-
.
19
8 
-
.
18
7 
.
34
5 
-
.
79
0 
-
.
11
3 
-
.
04
3 
-
.
22
2 
-
.
19
6 
.
26
8 
O
C
C
U
P
N
 
.
09
3 
.
26
6 
.
32
9 
.
56
7 
-
.
28
2 
-
.
17
1 
.
35
9 
.
07
6 
.
48
4 
T
E
N
A
N
T
 
.
02
5 
.
07
6 
-
.
06
6 
-
.
93
4 
.
03
1 
.
10
6 
.
06
7 
.
28
8 
-
.
04
1 
H
U
U
y
L
L
 
.
17
6 
.
46
5 
.
27
9 
-
.
14
9 
.
09
3 
.
58
3 
.
51
1 
.
18
9 
-
.
08
3 
A
G
R
W
R
K
 
.
77
9 
-
.
22
2 
-
.
11
8 
-
.
16
4 
-
.
16
2 
.
01
3 
-
.
12
5 
-
.
03
2 
-
.
49
2 
S
CM
N
C
P 
.
00
0 
-
.
00
0 
.
00
0 
-
.
00
0 
-
.
00
0 
-
.
00
0 
-
.
00
0 
.
00
0 
-
.
00
0 
P
L
N
T
S
C 
-
.
03
5 
.
42
7 
.
41
9 
.
10
9 
.
42
3 
-
.
05
1 
-
.
34
0 
.
45
2 
.
33
7 
I
N
T
E
R
C
 
.
2b
6 
-
.
12
9 
.
11
6 
-
.
u
80
 
-
.
15
4 
-
.
03
4 
-
.
08
0 
-
09
10
 
-
.
02
9 
O
T
H
C
R
P
 
.
16
8 
-
.
09
7 
.
04
5 
-
.
05
7 
.
92
1 
-
.
28
3 
.
07
6 
.
06
2 
00
98
 
M
U
F
A
R
M
 
-
.
01
6 
-
.
97
6 
-
.
05
5 
-
.
00
5 
.
16
7 
.
09
5 
-
.
06
8 
-
.
04
9 
.
00
9 
M
O
C
A
N
L
 
-
.
01
6 
-
.
97
6 
-
.
05
5 
-
.
u
05
 
.
16
7 
.
09
5 
-
.
06
8 
-
.
04
9 
.
00
9 
M
U
C
R
O
P
 
F
U
L
L
Y
R
 
-
.
06
0 
-
.
04
7 
-
.
11
7 
-
.
88
U 
.
05
0 
-
.
16
7 
.
13
1 
-
.
21
5 
.
90
9 
.
23
9 
.
19
6 
.
19
0 
.
07
0 
-
.
00
8 
.
14
0 
-
.
18
8 
-
.
06
8 
-
.
17
3 
w
N
 
F-
+ 
M
A
N
M
T
H
 
.
00
0 
-
.
00
U 
.
00
0 
.
00
0 
-
.
00
0 
-
.
00
0 
.
00
0 
.
00
0 
.
00
0 
F
L
R
C
W
T
 
.
15
0 
.
08
9 
.
49
6 
.
49
8 
-
.
10
1 
.
67
8 
.
03
6 
.
01
6 
-
.
03
9 
F
L
R
A
U
V
 
-
.
35
1 
.
27
6 
.
02
6 
.
01
6 
-
.
20
9 
-
.
75
5 
.
27
8 
.
28
9 
-
.
16
0 
W
E
E
L
P
R
 
-
.
09
1 
-
.
13
7 
.
25
1 
.
44
0 
.
06
7 
.
49
5 
-
.
39
3 
03
18
 
.
41
2 
F
H
P
A
C
k 
-
.
59
3 
-
.
16
1 
.
26
8 
,
 
.
14
3 
-
.
11
8 
-
.
31
4 
-
.
63
8 
.
06
6 
-
.
07
7 
F
H
P
SU
6 
-
.
11
19
 
.
23
3 
-
.
16
2 
.
15
2 
.
12
1 
-
.
87
1 
.
08
5 
-
.
31
6 
-
.
03
9 
O
W
N
P
L
O
 
-
.
91
1 
-
.
04
5 
-
.
1b
7 
.
19
1 
.
09
5 
.
02
3 
.
16
5 
.
23
2 
-
.
10
6 
O
w
N
C
U
L
 
-
.
77
U 
.
49
7 
-
.
27
1 
-
.
15
4 
.
08
0 
-
.
08
8 
.
09
3 
.
06
3 
.
10
3 
O
W
N
L
fk
 
.
u
44
 
.
84
1 
-
.
08
2 
-
.
29
4 
.
36
1 
-
.
13
8 
-
.
07
0 
.
04
1 
-
.
20
2 
O
W
N
C
R
T
 
-
.
08
8 
.
92
7 
.
13
6 
-
.
05
0 
-
.
13
3 
.
18
1 
-
.
07
7 
O
W
N
T
R
A
 
.
 
-
.
95
7 
-
.
17
6 
-
.
08
6 
-
.
04
1 
-
.
06
7 
-
.
02
4 
-
.
00
0 
-
.
14
0 
.
06
6 
D
I
ST
S
C 
-
.
17
7 
.
21
6 
-
.
90
5 
.
06
1 
-
.
13
2 
-
.
24
4 
.
02
2 
-
.
04
7 
.
10
0 
R
üA
UC
O 
-
.
30
4 
-
.
02
3 
-
.
85
6 
.
22
2 
.
17
8 
-
.
18
5 
-
.
03
4 
.
10
6 
-
.
21
1 
T
kA
NA
Ni
 
-
.
1U
6 
-
.
69
2 
.
38
6 
-
.
00
7 
-
.
49
6 
.
01
8 
.
28
0 
.
04
8 
.
00
4 
T
R
A
N
H
U
 
-
.
45
9 
-
.
31
9 
-
.
29
9 
.
30
2 
.
10
5 
.
08
0 
.
06
0 
-
.
47
6 
-
.
38
6 
C
U
S
TS
C
 
.
u
25
 
-
.
46
9 
-
.
83
2 
-
.
13
9 
-
.
18
8 
-
.
11
8 
.
03
6 
-
.
00
7 
.
12
8 
A
bR
1C
k 
.
16
4 
.
01
4 
-
.
39
3 
-
.
37
8 
-
.
49
9 
.
51
b 
.
10
6 
-
.
13
4 
-
.
32
2 
F
R
A
6M
1 
.
14
9 
-
.
15
9 
.
03
7 
.
04
3 
-
.
20
9 
.
07
9 
-
.
93
9 
-
.
00
3 
.
13
1 
S
CA
C
R
L 
-
.
69
0 
-
.
16
1 
-
.
31
9 
-
.
22
5 
-
.
19
7 
-
.
31
9 
-
.
04
7 
.
08
9 
.
44
1 
N
O
N
T
R
E
 
.
05
U 
-
.
25
6 
.
23
0 
-
.
09
1 
-
.
11
2 
.
91
1 
.
01
3 
-
.
12
8 
-
.
10
7 
T
O
T
A
C
k 
-
.
69
9 
-
.
16
4 
-
.
31
0 
-
.
27
4 
-
.
07
9 
-
.
38
4 
-
.
09
0 
.
09
2 
.
37
6 
SC
I
ON
S
 
-
.
77
0 
.
03
5 
-
.
02
5 
-
.
00
8 
-
.
20
7 
-
.
38
1 
-
.
44
7 
.
10
7 
.
06
8 
A
V
Y
I
L
U
 
.
35
0 
.
12
3 
.
01
2 
.
22
7 
-
.
15
8 
.
03
7 
-
.
01
2 
-
.
12
0 
-
.
87
7 
L
SU
N
I
T 
-
-
.
67
9 
-
.
17
5 
.
23
4 
.
39
3 
.
00
3 
.
07
4 
-
.
48
3 
.
10
9 
-
.
11
2 
County 
Ward 
Scale Purchasing 
Questionnaire Na. 
1. 
TRINIDAD 1968. 
CANE - FARMING QUESTIONNAIRE 
1. a. HOLDER'S NAME 
Address 
b. Age : Under 30 (Tick appropriate Box) 
30 - 39 
40 - 49 
50 and over 
2. MAIN OCCUPATION OF HOLDER 
a. Agricultural 
Non -Agricultural .I 
b. Size of Household 
Number of Family Units 
Workers (Above Age 16) 
Agricultural 
Non- Agricultural 
Dependants 
(under age 16 years old and 
not working) 
(Tick appropriate Box) 
Male 
Number 
Number 
Female Total 
Office Use 
3.
 a
. 
LA
N
D
 T
EN
UR
E 
AN
D
 S
IZ
E 
O
F 
H
O
LD
IN
G
S 
Pa
rc
el
 
N
o.
 
PA
RC
EL
 L
O
CA
TI
O
N
 
A
CR
ES
 
*
N
at
ur
e 
o
f 
La
nd
 
F.
 
Fl
at
 
G
. 
G
en
tle
 S
lo
pe
 
S.
 
St
ee
p 
Sl
op
e 
W
ar
d 
A
pp
ro
x.
 D
ist
. 
fro
m
 h
om
e 
(in
 m
ile
s) 
A
 
O
w
ne
d 
B
 
R
en
te
d 
Sh
or
t T
er
m
 
le
ss
 th
an
 1
 y
ea
r 
C 
R
en
te
d 
lo
ng
 T
er
m
 
o
r 
le
as
ed
 o
v
er
 1
 
yr
. 
D
 
H
el
d 
O
th
er
w
ise
 
E 
Le
t 
O
ut
 
3.
 
b.
 
D
o 
yo
u 
re
n
t 
la
nd
 f
ro
m
 : 
Su
ga
r 
Es
ta
te
 
O
th
er
 O
w
ne
rs
 
B
ot
h 
D
oe
s 
n
o
t 
A
pp
ly
 
(T
ick
 A
pp
ro
pr
ia
te
 
B
ox
) 
*
 
En
te
r 
F.
 G
. o
r 
S 
as
 
re
qu
ire
d 
4.
 
LA
N
D
 U
TI
LI
ZA
TI
O
N 
Pa
rc
el
 
N
o.
 
Si
ze
 o
f 
Pa
rc
el
 in
 
A
cr
es
 
*
 T
en
ur
e 
o
f 
Pa
rc
el
 
A
.B
.C
. D
.E
. 
CR
O
P 
-
LA
N
D
S 
in
 A
cr
es
 
Pa
st
ur
e 
Tr
ee
 
Cr
op
s 
N
on
 -T
re
e 
Cr
op
s 
D
ry
 S
ea
so
n 
W
et
 S
ea
so
n 
N
o 
Cr
op
 b
ut
 
Cu
tiv
at
ed
 in
 
Pa
rt 
Y
ea
r 
Cu
 lti
- 
v
at
ed
 
N
ot
 C
ul
- 
tiv
at
ed
 
la
nd
 
Cu
lti
va
te
d 
W
as
te
 
la
nd
s 
N
on
- C
ul
tiv
- 
ab
le
 
e.
g.
 S
w
am
ps
 
B
ui
lt 
-
u
p,
 e
tc
. 
5 
a.
 C
an
 y
ou
 t
el
l 
m
e 
th
e 
to
ta
l a
cr
ea
ge
 y
ou
 c
u
lti
- 
v
at
ed
 u
n
de
r s
u
ga
r -
ca
n
e 
du
rin
g 
th
e 
la
st 
cr
o
p?
 
n
i ACR
ES
 
5 
b.
 H
ow
: m
an
y 
ac
re
s 
di
d 
yo
u 
ac
tu
al
ly
 
ha
rv
es
t 
la
st 
cr
o
p 
? 
I ACRES 
5 
c.
 I
s 
Su
ga
r -
ca
n
e 
yo
ur
 m
ai
n 
cr
o
p 
? 
Y
es
 
N
o 
(T
ick
 a
pp
ro
pr
ia
te
 E
l 
I_
1 
B
ox
) 
*
 
U
se
 t
he
 s
am
e 
n
u
m
be
r 
o
r 
le
tte
rs
 to
 r
ef
er
 to
 p
ar
ce
l 
o
f 
la
nd
 o
r 
Te
nu
re
 a
s 
in
 Q
ue
sti
on
 N
o.
 3
 
6. OTHER CROPS 
If grown specifically 
/a. 
Tree Crops Acres for sale then tick 
Cacao 
b. 
c 
Bananas 
Plantains 
Coffee 
Coconut 
Citrus Total 
rOrange 
FL Grapefruit 
LOther Citrus 
Other Tree Crops 
Mixed Tree Crops 
Specify 
TOTAL ALL TREE CROPS 
FOREST 
Producing Timber 
Lastro 
Non -Tree Crops 
Rice [Total] 
r Swamp 
L Hill 
Corn 1 Maize] 
Pigeon Peas 
Pigeon Peas & Corn 
Pulses (Excluding) 
Pigeon Peas 
Ground Provision (Total) 
Sweet Potatoes 
Eddoes 
Dasheen 
Yams 
Other or Mixed 
Tobacco 
Vegetables or Mixed 
Other Non -Tree Crops 
Specify 
Acres 
0 
Acres 
Acres 
4. 
Acres 
If grown speci- 
fically for sale 
Total non -tree Crops 
cl. Total Area under cultivation 
7. SUGAR -CANE 
a. How many tons of sugar -cane 
did you sell last crop (1967)? 
b. What was your quota for the 
1967 crop? 
Don't know 
c. How many tons of sugar -cane do you get 
per acre? 
On Average 
Highest 
Lowest 
d. How many acres do you have at present in 
Acres 
Plant Cane 
1st Ratoon 
2nd 1. 
3rd If 
4th 
5th and over i 
e. How old is your oldest 
f. How many acres are 
oldest ratoon? 
Acres 
the 
Tons per 
acre 
normally 
obtained 
from plant 
and ratoon 
canes 
Ratoon? 
under 
Years 
Acres 
I 
I 
g. Of your lands under sugar -cane, do you plant any 
set proportion each year? 
Yes No 
If Yes, What Proportion ? (in'eighths) I 
h. When did you first grow sugar -cane? 
Before 1945 
1946 -1950 
1951 -1955 
1956 -1960 
After 1960 
(Tick 
appropriate 
Box) 
5. 
continued 
i. Do you use any special rotation of crops on your sugar -cane plots ? 
k. 
a. 
b. 
c. 
If YES, Specify 
[e.g. 
Yes ö 
Sugarcane /Fallow/ sugar -cane 
Sugar -cane /Root crops/ sugar-cane I 
What varieties of cane do you have at present ? 
B 37161 
B 37172 
B j41227 
B 4098 
B 49119 
OTHER 
OTHER CROPS 
Variety Acreage 
Besides Sugar -cane, have you ever grown or still grow other crops 
for sale ? 
Yes No. 
If YES, Specify Crops 
El 
Year First Grown 
Tick if 
still grown 
6. 
Where do you sell your produce (other than cane) ? 
Public Market 
Retail [ Road side 
Wholesale 
EWholesalers at Market 
[L who come to buy 
Marketing Board 
Other Specify (retail or wholesale) 
7. 
LIVESTOCK [At date of Interview] 
SPECIES& TYPE 
Cattle r Diary (Primarily) 
for L Beef 3) 
[ Draught (not included above) 
Total 
Water 
Pigs 
Goats 
for 
Sheep 
Horses 
Mules 
Donkeys 
Poultry 
Buffaloes 
Diary purposes 
Meat 
Total 
Chicken 
Ducks 
Turkeys 
Other (for human consumption) 
Total 
Number. I 
10. EMPLOYMENT AND WAGES 
a. How many months are you fully employed per year 
b. 
c. 
on your farm? 
in`sugar -cane ? 
in other crops ? 
Months 
Are you employed on your farm throughout the year ? 
Yes 
I_I 
No 
If NO, What else do you do° during the year? 
Wage -work on Sugar Estate 
Carting for 19 
Wage -work for other farmers (on 
or other crops) 
Wage -work in County Council 
or Public Works. 
Specify Other OTHER 
Other Business 
Unemployed 
cane 
e. 
EMPLOYMENT & WAGES (Cont'd) 
Did you employ for wages last year any workers (who are not 
members of your household) on sugar cane ? 
Yes No Li Tick L 
If YES, how many such people did you employ and for how long ? 
No. of No. of Mths. 
Workers Employed 
e.g. 2 workers for 1 month 
1 worker for 11 months etc. 
f. If any workers employed for wages (above) for what purpose 
were they employed ? 
Tick Appro. 
Box/ boxes 
In S /cane planting 
cultivating 
harvesting 
In work in other crops 
Does not apply 
g. How many people provide unpaid work ? 
Over 16 years 
Under 16 years 
Total 
11. I IRRIGATION 
a. Do you use any system of Irrigation on your farm ? 
Yes No 
b. 
c. 
If yes, what source is used ? 
Pipe borne 
Wells /Ponds /Springs 
Rivers /Streams 
Other, Specify . 
If Yes, what system is used ? 
Sprinkler 
Furrow 
Flood 
Specify Hand watering 
Other, (Including Combination) 
Tick 
Appropriate 
Box or 
Boxes 
8. 
12 FtR 1°ILISERS 
a. Do you use any fertilizer (pen manure or chemical) on 
sugar-cane? 
Yes rl 
b. If YES, when did you first use fertilizer ? 
Pen 
Man - 
nure 
Before 1950 
Between 1951 and 1955 
1956 1960 
1961 up to Present 
easerasmEeme 
Tick appropriate 
Box in, euch 
Column 
if required 
e. Did you use any fertilizer on sugar -cane 
in the past year ? 
d. , If YES Type used : 
Pen Manure 
Chemical a. Sulphate of Ammonia 
b. Super Phosphate 
c. Potash 
Total Chemical 
Lime 
9, 
Chemical 
Yes No 
Tick 
Box or Quantity in 
Boxes Cwt. 
e. How much chemical fertilizer do you use 
per acre ? 
f. 
g 
cwt 
r 
If you used chemical fertilizer last year did you buy it on credit 
or for cash ? 
Credit 
Cash 
Does not Apply 
Tick 
Appropiato 
Box 
If you used chemical fertilizer last year, from whom did you 
obtain it? 
Sugar Factory 
T.I.C.F.A. 
Commercial Firm 
Other, Specify.... 
Does not Apply 
13. 
J 
Do you get any advice about the use 
fertilizer ? 
Yes No *D.N.A. 
If YES, from whom do you obtain said advice ? 
1. Gov't Agricultural Extension Officer I 
2. Sugar -cane Estate 
3. Featilizer Salesman 
4. Agric. Credit Society 
5. T.I C.F.A. 
6. Friends or Relatives 
7. Others Specify 
Do you obtain other agricultural advice from the 
above sources? 
k. If YES, !"about what? 
Pests or Diseases of S /cane 
Cultivation Methods& }Planting' 
t -i 
Transport & Machinery 
Credit 
Subsidies 
Other Crops 
Marketing 
Other, Specify 
a. 
Tick 
ppropiate 
Box or 
Boxes 
Yes No *D.N.A. 
Tick Appropiate 
Box or Boxes 
*D.N.A. DOES NOT APPLY 
CULTIVATION 
Is weeding done by Hand 
by Chemicals 
by Machine 
Combination 
of above 
From whom ? 
Insert 
Numbers 
as in 
12 (i) 
above 
Tick 
10. 
13. b. Did you harvest all your cane last year ? 11 
C. 
Yes II 
If NO, why not? 
Because price of cane was too low 
of lack of transport 
of early closure of factory 
of lack of labour at harvest 
Other, Specify ff 
Tick 
appropriate 
Box or 
Boxes 
d. Did any of your cane suffer frcm froghopper damage 
last year? Yes No 
e. If YES how many acres ? 
Acres 
f. 
g. 
h. 
If your cane suffered from froghopper damage what measures 
did you take to control it ? 
Does not ; apply 
Spray with Sevin 
with other 
Other, Specify.......... 
None 
Tick 
Appropriate 
Box or Boxes 
Do you know about the froghopper subsidy scheme? 
Yes L 
If YES, _'did you apply for the subsidy last year? 
Yes 
No 
Does not apply 
No. 
14. MACHINERY [At Date of Interview] 
Numbers 
Type of Equipment 
Soil cultivating : 
Farm Transport : 
Farm Power : 1. 
2. 
1. Ploughs 
2. Other 
1. Lorries & Trucks 
2. Carts (Animal drawn) 
3. Tractor -Trailer 
4. Other 
Tractors (Wheeled) 
(Crawler) 
3. Other (Animal) 
Spraying & Dusting : 1. Portable sprayer 
2. duster 
3. Other 
Irrigation : 1. Pumps 
2. Other 
Other Agricultural Machinery 
Specify 
15. TRANSPORTATION 
a. 
b. 
c. 
d. 
Owned Used but not owned 
Approximately what distance is your main cane plot 
from the purchasing scale ? 
The roads between field and scale, would you say 
that their condition is ? 
Good 
Mediocre 
Bad 
No Comment I 
Is Transport of cane from field to 
scale done by : 
Animals 
Mechanically 
Both 
Is transportation from field to scale 
Hired 
Owned 
Both Owned & Hired 
12. 
15. e. 
f. 
16. 
17. 
a. 
b. 
c. 
If your cane is transported both by owned and hired transport. in 
what proportion ? 
Owned 
Doer not apply 
Hired I 0 
If you hire transport, how much did you pay last crop to trans- 
port ONE TON of cane from field to purchasing scale ? 
HARVESTING PROBLEMS; 
What would you consider are your main harvesting problems? 
Tick 
a. Lack of Adequate Labour appropiate 
Box or 
b. Bad Roads and Bridges Boxes 
c. Obtaining Cutting Permit 
d. Long wait at Scale 
e. Other, Specify' 
13 
CREDIT 
Do you obtain Credit for your Agricultural Operations ? 
Yes In No 
If YES, from whom ? 
Commercial Bank 
Agric. Credit Soc. 
T.I.C.F.A. 
Any other Gov't Body 
Sugar Cane: Factory 
Other, Specify." 
*D.N.A. 
If you obtain Credit, for how long 
do you obtain credit? 
*D.N.A. - Does Not Apply 
Tick Appropiate 
Box or Boxes 
i 
Less than 1 year 
1 to 3 years 
Over 3 years 
*D.N.A. 
L 
Tick 
17. d. After you have obtained credit, does the supplier supervise how I 
this money is spent ? 
18. I SOCIAL ACTIVITIES 
What would you consider are your recreational activities ? 
Tick Appropriate 
Box or Boxes 
a. 
19. 
Yes 
No 
Does not apply or 
No Comment 
14 
1. Playing Cards 
2. Cricket or Football 
..4 
d 
3. Other 'games 
4. Meeting other farmers 
5. Cinema 
6. Going to the shop for drinks 
7. Other Specify.. 
b. If you answered Yes to (5) Cinema, How often did you go to 
the cinema in the past month? 
.a 
No. of Times I 
ATTITUDES 
Is Sugar -cane the crop you would most like to cultivate ? 
Yes 
No 
Dont know or N.C. 
b. Would you devote more land to another crop if adequate 
marketing facilities were provided for such crop ? 
Yes 
c. Would ycu like 
were available ? 
to remain in agriculture 
Yes 
No 
No Comment or Don't Know 
No 
No Comment 
even if other jobs 
20. Questions You Need Not Answer 
a. 
b. 
c. 
d. 
Do you own the home in which you live? 
The House you live in is it : 
1. A substantially built house with all 
conveniences e.g. lights, water sewerage etc. 
2. Substantially built but with only some convenience 
3. Insubstantially built e.g.' mud house or 
incomplete. 
Do ycu have debts or mortgages which were used 
for either agricultural purposes, weddings, 
building home etc. 
If you answer YES to (c) above would you say that 
your debt or mortgage was a very heavy burden. 
Yes No *R.T.C. 
* R.T.C. - Refuse To Comment 
15. 
FIG. 17 
Bwlt ,ip areas and airfields 
Suyar Cane iffla : arge and Smarr fields 
Vegetables. Food Crops and Other Crops. 
EM Sugar Cane and Rice. ® Sugar Cane and Other Crops 
® Forest and Other Tree Crops 
Il)llfll)11 forest with Food Crops and Other Crops 
Forest with open Clearings 
Swanc 
Constructed from R A F Air photographs 1964 at 1:20,000 (appror .) 
Field iChecked 
S dr t 50000 
IH111&. 
II111 
. 
.