This article was downloaded by: [North Dakota State University]On: 15 October 2014, At: 21:04Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Development in PracticePublication details, including instructions for authorsand subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cdip20

The use of donkeys in theMexican central highlands: Agender perspectiveAlix Von KeyserlingkPublished online: 01 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Alix Von Keyserlingk (1999) The use of donkeys in the Mexicancentral highlands: A gender perspective, Development in Practice, 9:4, 437-448, DOI:10.1080/09614529952918

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09614529952918

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,

sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:04

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Development in Practice, Volume 9, Number 4, August 1999

The use of donkeys in the Mexicancentral highlands: a genderperspective

Alix von Keyserlingk

A historical study of migratory patterns in central Mexico shows that rural communities have

seen shifts in popula tion ratios as well as in the type of activities and responsibilities

undertaken by men and women. This has also affected women’ s use of livestock, particularly

the donkey. In this case study from the State of Mexico, the use of donkeys is analysed using

PRA methodology. The donkey was found to be appropriate to needs of women and men, but

is unlikely to be locally accepted for productive activities such as cultivation or breeding, as

it is viewed as an animal reserved for household (reproductive) activities.

Introduction

Over the last 15 years, development thinking has recognised that production systems are

de® ned by not only economic but also by social parameters. Factors such as culture, gender,

or local government systems in¯ uence the success of any development. Agricultural systems

are no exception: as development paradigms settle into post-Green Revolution thinking, the

value of indigenous knowledge, appropriate technology , low-cost, and sustainable systems

are becoming increasingly pertinent. In many cases, a clear understanding of traditional

dynamics will enable a more effective and acceptable solution to local problems to be found.

This study looks at the donkey as one example of an environmentally-sound and

sustainable technology. It is used as a means of transport and power-harnessing around the

world in a multitude of cultures, and occupies a niche which is dif ® cult to ® ll with either

mechanical means or another source of animal power. Yet its use differs according to how

it is traditionally valued and whoÐ whether women, men, or childrenÐ most use them.

In Mexico, the donkey enjoys high acceptance in many rural areas both as a pack animal

and as a draught animal. However, not only is it mostly used by women, but also most of

the tasks it is asked to perform concern the maintenance of the household rather than

income-generating activities. This study analyses this situation in a practical study carried out

in San Pablo Tlachichilpan in the State of Mexico: a study undertaken from a gender

perspective, taking historical background into account, and seeking to put into perspective the

development of the donkey as a valuable resource.

ISSN 0961± 4524 print/ISSN 1364± 9213 online 040437± 12 Ó 1999 Oxfam GB

Carfax Publishing

437

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:04

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Alix von Keyserlingk

Background study

Women in rural Mexico: a historical perspective

In a typical Mexican subsistence farming system, the traditional division of work by gender

was relatively rigid. Women were exclusively responsible for all reproductive activities, such

as storage, conservation, transformation and preparation of food, rearing and education of the

children, paramedical and psychological attention to family members, and domestic work

such as cleaning, washing, and ironing. They were also expected to assume social activities,

which are very important in subsistence communities where solidarity, sharing, and social

exchange may mean the difference between successful survival and failure (Arizpe and Botey

1986) .

However, rural farming systems are not static. In Mexico, the Agrarian Reform in the

1930s initiated a strong agricultural growth, improved nutritional levels and led to a decrease

in child mortality, and fostered the social integration of communities into domestic pro-

duction units. Then, in the 1950s, the government’ s emphasis moved from rural to urban

development, and from subsistence to export-oriented production. The farmers in the

highland rain-fed regions, who were already marginalised, did not receive signi ® cant

government support and their situation worsened. Even when CONASUPO (CompanÄ õÂa

Nacional de Subsistencias Populares) was set up in order to regulate the national market of

foodstuffs and to support the nation’ s poorest farmers, it was the northern, export-oriented

commercial sector which bene® ted, and the subsistence maize producers were neglected

(Barkin and SuaÂrez 1985). Owing both to the increased dif® culty of making a living in the

highland regions, and to the distortion of prices (prices for processed foodstuffs in Mexico

City were less than the price of maize for the producer due to CONASUPO subsidies),

migration of labour became a coping mechanism for subsistence farmers. In the north of

Mexico, this involved cross-border migration of farmers to the USA, while in other areas,

such as the State of Mexico, rural±urban migration was common. In such a situation, the ® rst

group of people to migrate were often very young girls, sent to work as domestic servants

in the growing cities. These were soon followed by sons, who left to work in commercial

agriculture, or emigrated to the USA. Finally, the husbands migrated to Mexico City, often

working in the markets and small industry, and leaving the women on the farms (Young

1978; Arizpe 1989). This situation led to a crisis characterised by a shortage of labour on the

subsistence farms which had hitherto been the main producers of the country ’ s main staple,

maize.

During this time, women on farms where the male heads of household had migrated were

forced to widen their own activities in order to secure their livelihood. In other words, the

entire responsibility of all agricultural and livestock activities for subsistence fell to these

women, on top of the domestic and reproductive tasks already their duty (Arizpe and Botey

1986). As a result, the strongly de® ned gender roles which may have existed before the start

of migration became diluted and the boundaries between men’ s activities and women’ s

activities became less de® ned. It became more acceptable for women to `help’ men in the

® elds, in particular in the production of cash crops, and men to `help’ women in domestic

tasks such as fetching water and ® rewood.

Women in a rural environment: gender roles and needs

The South is comprised of many different farming systems. Ester Boserup (1970) began

characterising these farming systems by gender, indicating what kind of work was done by

men, what kind by women, and giving some indications as to the reasons behind this1. Since

438 Development in Practice, Volume 9, Number 4, August 1999

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:04

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Donkey use and gender in Mexico

then, many other authors have analysed the roles that women and men play in the division

of household labour. In most societies, there is a very de® ned gender-based division of labour

and activities. These roles have been divided according to how they work towards the

livelihood of the household: the reproductive activities, which concern the maintenance of

the family (food provision, housework, and childcare), the productive activities, which

increase the wealth of the household (production of cash crops, income-generating activities,

off-farm labour) and social activities, which ensure good cooperation and help between

households of a community (traditional and religious festivals, the management of collective

community resources, and exchange of community information in formal and informal

meetings) (Moser 1989).

Although in different cultures, these roles are attributed to women and to men in varying

measure, in many cases the women assume more responsibility for the reproductive activities,

and the men for the productive activities. In the case of the social role, men usually assume

the formal community politics, while women assume the informal management of com-

munity resources (Fernando 1997). It is also true that the gender roles are more de® ned in

rural settings than in urban environments, where there has been a stronger `Western’

in¯ uence, which leads to a less traditional cultural system.

Women and livestock: an ambivalent situation

In an intact farming system, women are very often responsible for smaller livestock, such as

chickens, ducks, goats, and sheep, but very rarely are they responsible for the larger animals

such as cattle and horses (Arizpe and Botey 1986; Sylwander and Mpande 1995). Table 1

shows some general trends in the gender division of labour in livestock production. It

underlines the ® nding that in many societies, women are more involved in small-scale

subsistence livestock rearing, and men are more likely to be involved in large-scale,

cash-generating production. As a result, women’ s work with livestock is often not valued.

Their capability to work with the large animals, which are used for animal traction, is

doubted, so that their access to them is voluntarily or involuntarily restricted (Sylwander and

Mpande 1995; Sachs 1996). However, because of their reproductive roles in the household,

women are very often required to care for sick, pregnant, new-born, and settlement animals

as well as the small stock. They also may need to use the larger animals to accomplish some

household tasks, such as carrying ® rewood or water, or even ploughing the ® elds. This

necessity can lead to a breaking down of barriers, and increased access to the larger animals.

Donkeys as working animals

In this context, donkeys play a midway role, between the large and the small stock. Although

they are used for animal power, donkeys are not regarded in the same light as cattle or horses.

They can accomplish a wide variety of tasks and are therefore used by a wide range of

social groups and in different economic contexts (Pearson, Nengomasha and Krecek 1997).

Because they are relatively cheap, donkeys are often used as a cost-effective alternative by

poorer people instead of horses, mules, or oxen. In Africa, their main use is as a draught

animal for transport, although they are also used in teams of between two and four for light

agricultural tasks, and as pack animals for grain and ® rewood. In Asia and Latin America

they are used almost exclusively as pack animals, both for commercial and for household use.

They are often used by women for household duties such as fetching ® rewood and water,

thus reducing their workload not only in terms of transport burden but also in terms of time

spent on household tasks. Donkeys do not have any of the `masculine’ characteristics

439Development in Practice, Volume 9, Number 4, August 1999

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:04

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Alix von Keyserlingk

Table 1: Women’s and men’s animal production systems

Women Men

Type of animal Poultry, small ruminants, Large ruminants, cattle,

goats, sheep dairy cows

Number of animals Small Large

Products/uses Non-meat, milk, eggs, wool Meat, draught power

Value per animal Low High

Feed source Scavengers, household waste Pasture, grains

Range Free-ranging, near household Pastures, range lands, distant

from household

Land needs Minimal Extensive

Source: Sachs (1996) .

associated with wealth and status (Fernando 1997). Therefore, it is not surprising that they are

more accessible to women than are their larger counterparts. Since donkeys are cheaper, and

women, especially women heads of household, often have less access to cash, they are more

likely to purchase a donkey than another draught animal. Furthermore, the donkey is easily

handled and well-suited to women’ s physical strength, both in terms of docility and in terms

of the size of the loads carried.

None the less, it is rare that women actually `own’ donkeys, especially in a male-headed

household. In most cases, the woman will have free access to the donkey but cannot decide

upon its purchase or sale (Fernando 1997).

Donkeys in Mexico

In Mexico, the donkey has a long tradition as a working animal. Its main uses have been for

carrying water, ® rewood, charcoal, construction material, animal feed, harvest produce, locally

brewed pulque (a fermented drink made from the maguey cactus), and other market produce.

It is often used for transporting market goods over longer distances, for example from hotter

to cooler zones and vice versa, and for carrying the traction implements to the ® elds (S. de

Aluja, Chavira and Lopez 1994). Most of these loads are carried, although in some areas,

donkey carts are widely used. In recent years the donkey has also been used extensively in cities

in order to cart scrap metal and rubbish. In some areas, the donkey is also used as a draught

animal, especially for ploughing in light soil, seeding and weeding, or harnessed alongside

mules or horses to increase the overall draught output. However, in many working situations

in Mexico, the donkey is poorly looked after, and suffers due to poor husbandryÐ such as lack

of hoof care and de-wormingÐ or mistreatment and sore harnesses (Svendsen 1989; S. de Aluja

et al. 1994) .

440 Development in Practice, Volume 9, Number 4, August 1999

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:04

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Donkey use and gender in Mexico

Materials and methods

Over the last decade, CICA (the Centro de InvestigacioÂn en Ciencias Agropecuarias), which

is linked to the University of the State of Mexico, has been looking at various ways of

promoting livestock as a means of improving agricultural production in the relatively poor

State of Mexico. One of their main areas of research has been the use of animals for ® eld

cultivation and transport. The present study was part of a feasibility study towards promoting

donkeys for animal traction, taking into account production parameters (not discussed in this

paper), and socio-economic parameters. An RRA (Rapid Rural Appraisal) approach using

some participatory methods was chosen, in order to ensure that local and indigenous customs

and knowledge would form the basis of the study.

The ® eldwork for this study was carried out by the author in `La Era’ , a community of the

village San Pablo Tlachichilpan, in the municipality of San Felipe del Progreso in the State

of Mexico. This community traditionally works with animals, and was chosen by CICA for

its representational quality for highland rural areas of the State of Mexico. `La Era’ consists

of 105 households, which are spread over an area of approximately one square kilometre,

with houses built on both sides of a valley.

Informal survey on donkey care and use as well as socio-economicissues

A semi-structured questionnaire was used for this survey. Thirty-one women were visited in

their homes (i.e. 30 per cent of all households in the community under study), and were asked

to describe aspects of donkey care and use. They were also questioned about socio-economic

aspects of donkey use. Households questioned were those that both owned donkeys and were

home at the time of the visit. The researcher was accompanied by a member of the

community, in order to facilitate the building of trust for the interview. Additionally, various

discussions during the four weeks spent alongside community members were used to

complement the information gathered from the informal surveys.

PRA methods: priority ranking, daily calendar, wealth ranking, andhistorical matrix

In order to understand community thinking, and in order to involve community members in

the characterisation of the use of the donkey , group discussions were held which enabled a

participatory analysis of the situation under study. Four group meetings were organised, one

with women who owned donkeys, one with women who did not own donkeys, one with men

and women both with and without donkeys, and one with parents whose children were at

school.

The application of the above-listed methods used at the group meetings followed closely

the generally accepted methods used for PRA (participatory rural appraisal) and/or Farming

Systems Research (FSR) (Mikkelsen 1995; Pretty et al. 1995) .

Direct observationThe information so gathered was complemented and, where possible, con® rmed by direct

observation made in the village by the author. For example, one day was spent entirely at the

well, in order to observe who fetches water. One day was spent fetching ® rewood on the

mountain. Ploughing was also attempted, using mules, not donkeys, in order to gauge the

dif® culty of this activity from a gender perspective.

441Development in Practice, Volume 9, Number 4, August 1999

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:04

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Alix von Keyserlingk

Results

Donkey use

The information gathered on donkey use is based on direct observation, weighing of sample

loads of water jugs, ® rewood, a plough , and fresh oats, as well as on the 30 informal surveys

conducted in the community.

Pack work

Donkeys were used exclusively for carrying loads. They were not used for working in the

® elds, which was done by mules and horses. The main uses were for carrying water, laundry,

® rewood, sand and earth, manure, a plough and maize stover (fodder), and bringing in the

harvest in November.

Donkeys’ loads are usually two-thirds of the weight of a mule load. For example, a mule

will generally haul 150±180 kg of ® rewood, while a donkey may haul about 100 kg. These

load sizes compare interestingly with the general capacities of men and women: a man, in

a four-hour day, chops about 200 kg of ® rewood and a woman about 100 kg.

Reproduction

Of the 15 female donkeys owned, only ten donkeys (67 per cent) had given birth, the others

being too young or were said to be sterile. The mean number of foals born to females was

1.71 6 1.54 SD, with a range of 0±5. The median rate of survival of the young was 45 per

cent. Of the six owners that reported death of one or more foals, two (33 per cent) said it

was due to abortion, two said it was diarrhoea, and two said they did not know why.

Preferences for sex of donkeys

No preferences were voiced for using either the male or female donkey . A perceived

advantage of males is that they are stronger. A perceived advantage of females is that they

are more docile. This was con® rmed by the priority games played with the children: 86 per

cent of the children preferred female donkeys because they were calmer. Fourteen per cent

(all boys) preferred male animals because they said they were stronger and could carry loads

for longer periods of time.

Problems of donkey use

In relation to donkey use, a number of problems was discussed in informal surveys and in

group meetings using priority ranking. The main problem mentioned was lack of access to

veterinary help and advice, in particular because many donkeys died of unknown causes in

the community. Further problems mentioned were the `wildness’ of jacks, inadequate caring

of young, low reproductivity of females (mostly linked with lack of adequate fodder), no

adequate hoof care, and generally a shortage of fodder. However, these problems were not

seen as restrictive; in fact, many people did not feel they needed to increase the productivity

of the jennies, or ensure that the donkeys’ hooves are kept in order.

442 Development in Practice, Volume 9, Number 4, August 1999

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:04

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Donkey use and gender in Mexico

Socio-economic issues related to donkey care and use

Who owns donkeys?

Of the 33 households discussed in the wealth ranking, seven were deemed rich (Rank 1),

thirteen were deemed well-off (Rank 2), eight were deemed average (Rank 3), and ® ve were

deemed poor (Rank 4). The majority (72 per cent) of the rich did not have donkeys, while

the majority of the poor (80 per cent) had one donkey. In the two middle ranks, no distinct

tendency was noticeable.

Who uses donkeys?

Women use donkeys to carry clothes, ® rewood, groceries, water, and harvest. However, men

also use donkeys to carry water, sand, earth, stones, traction implements, manure, fertiliser,

maize stover, grass, and harvest. Children use donkeys for all purposes, according to which

parent they are currently `helping’ .

During the historical matrix exercise it was mentioned that up to about 30 years ago,

donkeys were used almost exclusively by men. When the men began going to Mexico City

for work, women started using the donkey , and now it is mostly the women that use them.

Although it is, by cultural de® nition, a woman’ s job to fetch water, the observations made

during the study period suggested that in San Pablo more men and children do so than

women. For example, on a particular day, 19 children, 14 men, and only 6 women fetched

water. However, it was not possible to analyse this over the course of a year.

Who cares for donkeys?

The daily calendar was used to identify the speci® c roles women and men play in the

household system. The calendars drawn contained only those activities that were typical for

the whole year. While feeding the animals was one of the most important male chores,

women did not draw animal feeding or care into their daily calendars, except for herding

sheep. It became clear that feeding the animal, including the donkey, was the man’ s

responsibility, but that women helped if the men were busy.

Discussion

Discussion of methodology

For the study of donkey use and socio-economic issues, participatory methods were used,

which involved calling group meetings for all interested community members. However, in

the community in which this study was undertaken, people do not usually have meetings,

other than formal meetings for church or to discuss political questions. The idea of informal

meetings is strange, and people were reluctant to participate in the PRA activities proposed

to them. Also, since the author was not integrated into the community, there may have been

scepticism towards her, and regarding `the purpose of the exercise’ . None the less, the author

feels that very important information was gathered in the group meetings, in particular

because in various instances the information derived from these meetings complemented,

clari® ed, or even contradicted that gathered in the informal surveys.

Other researchers working in the Mexican highlands have reported a similar reluctance of

farmers to participate in group activities (Arriaga, BeltraÂn and Vera 1997). As a result, these

443Development in Practice, Volume 9, Number 4, August 1999

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:04

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Alix von Keyserlingk

researchers have concentrated on the RRA methods of informal interviews, life histories, and

key informants as the main methods used for their investigations. In fact, the main emphasis

of these authors is not the involvement of the farmers in the process of development, which

is how PRA is ideally de ® ned (Chambers 1997) , but recognising and using the knowledge

and innovations of the rural community (Reintjes, Haverkort and Waters-Bayer 1992). This

is essentially true for this study as well, in spite of its being based strongly on participatory

methods, because it did not include the farmers in any decision-making and ownership of the

process. Therefore, the author needed to take care not to abuse the goodwill of community

members, who gave of their time and information, but may not have felt (at least in the short

term) that they received anything in return for it (Chambers 1997) .

Donkey ownership

The wealth-ranking exercise disclosed that there may be a correlation between wealth and

donkey ownership. However, an insuf® cient number of households was ranked in order to

give a signi ® cant outcome. It seemed that the poorer people were more likely to own a

donkey, since a pack animal was simply a necessity in San Pablo, for providing water for the

household, and the more expensive mules or horses, which the richer farmers tended to use,

were not affordable.

In household terms, it seems that the donkey does not usually `belong to’ either the

husband or the wife. All women were asked this question, and each said both the husband

and the wife are the owner, and that it depended on who was around as to who made the

decisions about the donkey . This seemed to contradict the direct observations made by the

author that women rarely felt capable of making decisions about whether or not they could

buy or sell a donkey .

Donkey use

Contrary to other parts of the world where the donkey is used to pull a cart, the donkey is

used almost entirely as a pack animal in San Pablo Tlachichilpan. Not only is this traditional,

it is also practical: there are no level roads in this community, and the quality of road

surfacing is minimal.

In a similar manner, the type of work a donkey does differs from that in many other

environments. While in Africa, owners almost all use their donkeys in pursuit of their

livelihoods, in particular for transport (Aganga, Tsopito and Seabo 1994; Fernando 1997), in

San Pablo the reverse is soÐ the donkey is used almost entirely for maintenance (or repro-

ductive) activities of the household, not for the productive activities such as income-generation.

For example, the main activities of the donkey include fetching ® rewood and water, and

carrying groceries and clothes, which clearly correspond to the reproductive activities women

are responsible for in a traditional household. Similarly, a donkey fetching its own fodder

(maize stover, grass etc.) can be classed as a reproductive activity of the household. The typical

uses that men have for donkeys, such as fetching building materials, are likewise reproductive

activities for the maintenance of the household, since small-scale building is usually a response

to an increase in income, rather than a means to increase income. Two exceptions may be the

use of the donkey to carry manure and fertiliser to the ® elds, and the fetching of fodder for

other large animals, as these are directly related to the production of the commodity maize;

however, even these activities are only indirectly productive.

Because of this very distinct reproductive role that the donkey plays in the community,2

the users rarely perceive the donkey as a productive animal, i.e. that it might be used to

444 Development in Practice, Volume 9, Number 4, August 1999

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:04

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Donkey use and gender in Mexico

generate income. Consequently, the concept of using the donkey in productive agriculture for

tillage activities is not easily accepted by donkey owners. Likewise, no value is seen in

breeding donkeys. Although selling donkey foals could be a reasonable source of income,3

the majority of the donkey owners did not see this as desirable. Therefore, although

reproduction rates of the donkeys in the community were very low, with only 1.71 foals per

jenny on average, and abortions were common, not one of the people interviewed mentioned

this as a problem. It was, on the contrary, mentioned that a pregnant jenny could not be rested

during the latter stages of gestation, since this would interfere with work. In general, donkeys

were bought into the community from an animal trader, and this service seemed appropriate

to the requirements of donkey users: the extra price they pay seemed to be justi® ed by the

ease of acquiring a new animal, compared to the breeding of a jenny, which would entail

resting her for up to three months and keeping her adequately nourished.

The wild behaviour of jacks was mentioned as a constraint by women in informal

conversations, but castration, also suggested by Aganga and Maphorisa (1994) as the solution

for this problem, was regarded with much scepticism by women due to risks such as infection

or even death, or that the jack will in fact not better his behaviour. Women also felt that

castration would surely diminish the animal’ s strength. This was underlined by the fact that

most households actually preferred jacks to jennies, since they were not interested in

breeding.

Women and men as donkey usersAlmost all women who participated in this study said that they preferred to use donkeys over

mules, horses or oxen. The reasons given were:

· they are smaller, which makes loading and unloading easier;

· they are much tamer, more docile than either mules or horses;

· they carry loads which are well adapted to the capacity and strength of a woman;

· they are unassuming, and therefore do not create social barriers between women who have

and do not have donkeys.

Although in the past donkeys were used almost exclusively by men, this tendency changed

about 30 years agoÐ the donkey became more associated with women’ s work, due to the fact

that many men were migrating to Mexico City, and women remained behind and were

responsible for all house and ® eldwork (Young 1978; Arizpe and Botey 1986). The donkey,

because of its docility and small size, and because it was easier to use, became the woman’ s

`right hand’ . Mrema (1994) found the same change had happened in Botswana, also due to

men migrating from the rural areas to the mines. There too women opted for the donkey as

the animal most suited to their needs and economic situation.

The donkey’ s gender speci® city suggests another reason why donkeys are not used for

agriculture: as they are now a `woman’ s animal’ , men are reluctant to use them for `their’

® eldwork. Fieldwork, being very heavy work, is not considered suitable for women. None the

less, in San Pablo men will often use donkeys to `help’ their wives with the household tasks.

However, donkey care is the men’ s responsibility. Donkey care was not mentioned at all

by the women while drawing the daily calendar. No time was allocated to the cutting of

grass, hay, or maize stover. In fact, women did not include animal care (feeding, health) in

their daily calendar for any of the household animals. This may indicate that it is either a

negligible activity in terms of time spent (for example, throwing some maize to the chickens)

or may express the fact that it is an irregular activity, shared with the husband. This is in

445Development in Practice, Volume 9, Number 4, August 1999

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:04

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Alix von Keyserlingk

contrast to experiences of other authors examining women’ s relationships with livestock, who

report that women are responsible for the care of those animals which are identi ® ed as `the

women’ s animals’ (Sachs 1996).

Recommendations

A few recommendations can be made from this study. Generally, the donkey and its use are

well adapted to the needs of the community studied. It shows little health problems, and

solves transport problems of women and men in a culturally accepted manner.

The donkey in San Pablo is used almost exclusively for the maintenance activities of the

household. Thus it is not used for breeding, or for working in the ® elds. It is doubtful whether

an extension programme to improve the reproduction of the donkey would be successful after

external support was withdrawn. Likewise, the use of the donkey for ® eldwork may not be

in keeping with the perceptions of farmers in the study area, as it also is distinctly a

productive activity. Any work on these two uses of the donkey may require a more long-term

extension approach which sensitises people to a new way of looking at the donkey .

Lessons can be learnt from this case study for livestock projects in general. An analysis

of the status and roles of an animal in the community, as well as the more common study

of which gender is more involved in its care and use, can make future development projects

more appropriate and successful. Perezgrovas (1994) writes that a government-initiated goat

improvement scheme in Chiapas in the south of Mexico, gained its entire expertise from local

women who had integrated the goat and its productivity into the whole rural production

system. Another example of a livestock system where the issue of gender roles can be

important is that, now common in Uganda, where an improved dairy cow is donated to a

family in order to provide milk and income: whether this scheme could be successful in other

countries depends not only on the environment, access to primary inputs, and a minimum of

infrastructure, but also on the consideration of `matching’ the right animal to the right people,

and ® tting the production system to traditionally acceptable values. Likewise, the often

advocated setting-up of village animal healthcare systems which rely on para-veterinary

workers, depends on an identi ® cation of who works with which animal, what it is used for,

i.e. whether it is used to make money or to support the household, who is responsible for its

care, and who has the ® nal word about time and money spent on the animals. It is

recommended that a simple study, such as the one described in this article, precedes the

implementation of any community livestock intervention in order to improve sustainability

and economic success of the project.

Notes

1 Boserup de ® nes female and male farming systems: female systems are mostly based on

shifting agriculture, in which the husband’ s agricultural activity is limited to the clearing

of the land, and perhaps soil preparation. Male systems are mostly based on the use of

a plough, a distinctly male domain, and therefore are characterised by less female

participation in agriculture. Female systems are common in Africa. Male systems are

more common in Asia. In Latin America, both systems are found.

2 Here `reproductive’ describes the activities the donkey is used for, not biological

reproduction which, in terms of describing household activities, is in fact a `productive’

activity.

3 With a reproductive life of around 16 years and a foaling interval of about 14 months

(Fielding 1988), it would be possible to produce up to 13 foals per jenny.

446 Development in Practice, Volume 9, Number 4, August 1999

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:04

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Donkey use and gender in Mexico

References

Aganga , A. A. and A. Maphorisa (1994) `Characteristics and uses of donkeys in Botswana’ ,

Improving Animal Traction Technology. Proceedings of ATNESA Workshop, 18±23 January

1992, Lusaka, Zambia, Wageningen: CTA.

Aganga , A. A., C. M. Tsopito and D. Seabo (1994) `Donkey power in rural transportation:

a Botswana case study’ , Appropriate Technology 21:32±33.

Arriaga Jordan, C., L. VelaÂzquez BeltraÂn and E. SaÂnchez Vera (1997) `Experiencias de

investigacioÂn participativa rural en el mejoramiento de la traccioÂn animal en una commu-

nidad Mazahua del Estado de MeÂxico’ , Seminario Nacional de Animales de Trabajo,

Proceedings, 18±20 June 1997, Toluca, Mexico: Universidad AutoÂnoma del Estado de

MeÂxico.

Arizpe, L. (1989) La Mujer en el Desarollo de MeÂxico y de AmeÂrica Latina, Cuernavaca,

Mexico: Universidad Nacional AutoÂnoma de MeÂxico Centro Regional de Investigaciones

Multidisciplinarias.

Arizpe, L. and C. Botey (1986) `Las pol õÂticas de desarrollo agrario y su impacto sobre la

mujer campesina en MeÂxico’ , in M. LeoÂn and C.D. Deere (eds.) La Mujer y la Pol õ Âtica

Agraria en AmeÂrica Latina, BogotaÂ: Siglo XXI.

Barkin, D. and B. SuaÂrez (1985) El ® n de la Autosu ® ciencia Alimentaria, Mexico City:

Centro de Ecodesarollo.

Boserup, E. (1970) Woman’ s Role in Economic Development, London : Allen and Unwin.

Chambers, R. (1997) Whose Reality Counts: Putting the First Last, London: IT Publications.

Fernando, P. (1997) `Donkeys and development: socio-economic issues in the use and

management of donkeys’ , in Reader for ATNESA Workshop, 5±9 May, Debre Zeit, Ethiopia,

Reading: Animal Traction Development.

Mikkelsen, B. (1995) Methods for Development Work and Research: A Guide for Practi-

tioners, New Delhi: Sage Publications.

Moser, C. (1989) `Gender planning in the Third World: meeting practical and strategic

gender needs’ , World Development 17:1799±1825.

Mrema, M. (1994) `An economic evaluation of the utilisation of donkeys in small-scale

farming households in Botswana’ , in M. Bakkoury and R. A. Prentis (eds.) Working Equines,

Rabat: Actes Editions.

Pearson, R. A., E. M. Nengomasha and R. C. Krecek (1997) `Improving the management

of donkeys in Africa: issues, experiences and opportunities’ , Improving Donkey Utilisation

and Management, Proceedings of the ATNESA Workshop, 5±9 May 1997, Debre Zeit,

Ethiopia.

Perezgrovas, R. (1996) `Sheep husbandry and healthcare among Tzotzil Maya shep-

herdesses’ , Ethno-veterinary Research and Development, London : IT Publications.

Pretty, J. N., I. Guijt, I. Scoones and J. Thompson (1995) A Trainer’ s Guide for

Participatory Learning and Action, London : IIED.

Reintjes, C., B. Haverkort and A. Waters-Bayer (1992) Farming for the Future: An

Introduction to Low-External Input and Sustainable Agriculture, London : Macmillan and

ILEIA.

Sachs, C. (1996) Gendered Fields: Rural Women, Agriculture, and Environment, Boulder,

CO: Westview Press.

S. De Aluja, A., H. Chavira and A. Lopez (1994) `The use of equids in Mexican Agriculture’ ,

in M. Bakkoury and R. A. Prentis (eds.) Working Equines, Rabat: Actes Editions.

Svendsen, E. D. (1989) The Professional Handbook of the Donkey, Sidmouth: The Donkey

Sanctuary.

447Development in Practice, Volume 9, Number 4, August 1999

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:04

15

Oct

ober

201

4

Alix von Keyserlingk

Sylwander, L. and R. Mpande (1995) `Introduction’ , Gender Issues in Animal Traction: A

HandbookÐ Proceedings of the `Gender in Animal Traction Workshop’ , 1±5 June 1992,

Mbeya, Tanzania, Zimbabwe: ATNESA.

Young, K. (1978) `Econom õÂa campesina, unidad domeÂstica y migracioÂn’ , AmeÂrica Indigena

XXXVIII:279±302.

The author

Alix von Keyserlingk studied agriculture and livestock production in Germany and worked

from 1994±96 in Tete Province, Mozambique as Agricultural Coordinator. Her MSc

dissertation at Edinburgh University forms the basis of this article. She is currently

Christian Aid’ s Country Representative in Rwanda. Contact details: Christian Aid, PO

Box 100, London SE1 7RT, UK, or BP 2831, Kigali, Rwanda. E-mail:

, alix@rwandatel1.rwanda1.com . .

448 Development in Practice, Volume 9, Number 4, August 1999

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Nor

th D

akot

a St

ate

Uni

vers

ity]

at 2

1:04

15

Oct

ober

201

4