Content uploaded by Douglas William Hume
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Douglas William Hume on Feb 20, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
REPORT OF THE ETHNOGRAPHIC FIELD SCHOOL
IN BELIZE (JUNE 2015 SEASON)
CENTER FOR APPLIED ANTHROPOLOGY, NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITY
Prepared, published, and copyrighted by the Center for Applied Anthropology, Northern
Kentucky University, May 1, 2016.
Written by Douglas William Hume, Clara Maxine Bone, Hannah Grace Howard, Charlee
Hutchinson, Stefan Kienzle, Marguerite Kinne, Samantha Louise Krieger, Katie Nicole Ragland,
Cassidy Ann Reeves, Linette Sabido, and Rachel Lee Tidwell
Primary Investigator Contact Information
Douglas Hume Ph.D., Director
Center for Applied Anthropology
Northern Kentucky University
1 Nunn Drive, Landrum 228
Highland Heights, Kentucky 41099, USA
humed1@nku.edu 001-859-572-5702
http://cfaa.nku.edu/
We acknowledge the partnerships with the following agencies and individuals that made this
field school and research possible:
Jerry Barnaby, Executive Director
Cooperative Center for Study Abroad
Western Kentucky University
Tate Page Hall, Room 104
1906 College Heights Blvd
Bowling Green, KY 42101 USA
info@ccsa.cc 001-270-745-2231
Nigel Encalada, Director
Institute for Social and Cultural Research
National Institute of Culture and History
Corner Constitution Drive
Belmopan City, Belize, Central America
iscr@nichbelize.org 011-0822-3307
François Le Roy Ph.D., Director
Office of Education Abroad
Northern Kentucky University
1 Nunn Drive, University Center 330
Highland Heights, KY 41099, USA
studyabroad@nku.edu 001-859-572-6908
Marcos Osorio, Director
Sugar Industry Research and Development
Institute
Mile 66-1/2 Phillip Goldson Highway
Buena Vista Village, Corozal District, Belize,
Central America
sirdi.belize@gmail.com 011-501-677-4734
Chris Strobel (On-site Administrator)
Electronic Media and Broadcasting
Northern Kentucky University
1 Nunn Drive, Griffen Hall 465
Highland Heights, KY 41099, USA
strobelc@nku.edu 001-859-572-1426
Antonio Novelo
Jungle River Tours
20 Lover’s Lane
Orange Walk Town Belize, Central America
lamanaimayatour@btl.net 011-501-670-3035
Mark Neikirk, Executive Director
Scripps Howard Center for Civic Engagement
Northern Kentucky University
1 Nunn Drive, Founders Hall 536
Highland Heights, KY 41099, USA
engage@nku.edu 001-859-572-1448
We also appreciate the assistance of Bryn High
and Zachary Lawrence, Northern Kentucky
University Electronic Media and Broadcasting
students, for their assistance during the field
school. In addition, we also thank Sarah Hume
for editing drafts of this report, although any
errors still contained within are our own.
Funding for this project has been provided by the NKU Undergraduate Research Council Award
Table of Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Methods .......................................................................................................................................... 2
Attribute Analyses .......................................................................................................................... 3
Sugar Cane Types ...................................................................................................................... 3
Soil Types .................................................................................................................................. 3
Pest Types ................................................................................................................................. 4
Insecticide Types ...................................................................................................................... 4
Herbicide Types ......................................................................................................................... 4
Fertilizer Types .......................................................................................................................... 4
Community Perspectives ................................................................................................................. 5
Froghopper Mitigation .............................................................................................................. 5
Sugar Cane Price Drop .............................................................................................................. 5
Protective Gear .......................................................................................................................... 6
What should we be asking? ....................................................................................................... 6
Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................... 6
Appendices
Appendix A: Sugar Cane Attribute Table .................................................................................. 7
Appendix B: Soil Attribute Table ............................................................................................. 8
Appendix C: Pest Attribute Table ............................................................................................. 9
Appendix D: Insecticide/Pesticide Attribute Table ................................................................ 10
Appendix E: Herbicide Attribute Table .................................................................................. 11
Appendix F: Fertilizer Attribute Table .................................................................................... 12
Appendix G: Froghopper Mitigation ........................................................................................ 13
Appendix H: Sugar Cane Price Decrease ................................................................................. 14
Appendix I: Protective Gear .................................................................................................... 15
Appendix J: What should we be asking? ................................................................................ 16
Appendix K: Informed Consent Statement – English ............................................................. 17
Appendix L: Informed Consent Statement – Spanish ............................................................ 18
Sources Cited ................................................................................................................................. 19
1
Introduction
This report documents the findings of the ethnographic field school organized by the Center
for Applied Anthropology (CfAA) at Northern Kentucky University (NKU) in Orange Walk
District, Belize, during June 2015. The Sugar Industry Research and Development Institute
(SIRDI) facilitated ethnographic research in the communities of San Antonio, San Estevan,
San Lazaro, and Yo Creek. The aim of the ethnographic field school was to train students in
basic ethnographic methods as well as collect data in collaboration with SIRDI and the
farming associations (i.e., Belize Sugar Cane Farmers Association [BSCFA], Corozal Sugar
Cane Producers Association [CSCPA], and Progressive Sugar Cane Producers Association
[PSCPA]) to use in their agricultural and economic development programs. This field
season’s research focused on the following broad topics: attribute analyses of sugar cane
farming knowledge (i.e., types of sugar cane, soils, pests, insecticides, herbicides, and
fertilizers as well as methods of controlling the froghopper pest) and community
perspectives on issues related to sugar cane farming (i.e., impacts of a decrease in sugar cane
prices, why protective gear is not worn when spraying agrichemicals, and what questions the
community suggests be asked).
Background
While the educational aim of the ethnographic field school is to train students in basic
ethnographic methods, the applied purpose of the field school is to collect and analyze data
that can then be used by SIRDI, BSCFA, CSCPA, and PSCPA in the development of programs
for betterment of the sugarcane farming communities in northern Belize. As posted on the
field school’s web site:
Students will learn about the local culture by doing participant-observation and
conducting ethnographic interviews in a community-based research project. Students
will learn research ethics, unobtrusive observation, participant observation, field note
writing and coding, ethnographic and life history interviewing, ethnolinguistic data
collection, community mapping, rapid assessment procedures, qualitative data analysis,
and other ethnographic methods in addition to basic ethnographic writing. After
successful completion of this course, students will have:
● developed a basic understanding of Belizean culture,
● formulated an understanding of ethical and validity issues in ethnographic
research,
● practiced skills in research design and ethnographic methods of data collection,
● applied basic ethnographic research methods in a non-western culture,
● engaged in a community-based research project, and
● analyzed ethnographic data resulting in an ethnographic monograph. (Center for
Applied Anthropology at Northern Kentucky University 2016)
Since the literature review was written for last season’s report (Hume et al. 2015), there has
been one notable anthropological publication related to farming in Belize, titled Q’eqchi’
Maya Swidden Agriculture, Settlement History, and Colonial Enterprise in Modern Belize
(Downey 2015). In addition, another recent publication focuses on the link between
economy and environment in managing the Cockscomb Basin Wildlife Sanctuary, titled
Governing though the Market: Neoliberal Environmental Government in Belize (Medina
2015). Finally, a book, Pesticides and Global Health: Understanding Agrochemical
Dependence and Investing in Sustainable Solutions (Dowdall and Kotz 2014), has been
published that reviews the effects of agrichemicals within farming communities in
2
Guatemala that includes a literature review of recent research on the effects of agrichemicals
on human health among socially and economically marginalized farming communities.
Methods
Upon arrival in the villages of San Antonio, San Estevan, San Lazaro, and Yo Creek, Antonio
Novelo (Jungle River Tours) introduced the field school members to village council
representatives and explained our collaborative research project to gain local approval for
our presence in the community. Each village council gave their permission and was
supportive of our efforts to learn about their communities. We presented the councils of San
Antonio, San Estevan, San Lazaro, and Yo Creek with printed copies of last year’s report
(Hume et al. 2015).
Participants of the field school (Clara Maxine Bone, Hannah Grace Howard, Charlee
Hutchinson, Stefan Kienzle, Marguerite Kinne, Samantha Louise Krieger, Katie Nicole
Ragland, Cassidy Ann Reeves, Linette Sabido, and Rachel Lee Tidwell) conducted house-to-
house interviews in a census sampling methodology. The Cooperative Center for Study
Abroad hired Antonio Novelo (Jungle River Tours) as the field school’s land agent. He
served as both as cultural liaison and research assistant during field research in the
aforementioned communities. Mr. Novelo would explain our general purpose and introduce
students to community members. Students would then present the informed consent
statement in English (Appendix K) and Spanish (Appendix L) and upon agreement to
participate, have the informant sign a copy (on file) and were offered an unsigned copy for
the informant’s records.
Interviews were generally conducted on the informant’s property (e.g., porch, house,
etcetera) with a pair of students, one serving as the primary interviewer and the other as
observer. The standard method used for this research was the ethnographic interview
(Spradley 2016), which is informant centered (Levy and Hollan 1998) rather than
interviewer centered. Interviews were from five minutes to an hour in length, depending
upon the informant’s time constraints and willingness to be interviewed by the students.
Ideally the interview would flow naturally from topic to topic and would end when the
interviewer or the informant perceived a natural stopping point or when the informant no
longer seemed comfortable or interested in continuing the interview (Levy and Hollan
1998).
During the first week of interviews while at Yo Creek, the students asked descriptive and
structural questions (after Spradley 2016, 120-131) to elicit information about the following
domains of knowledge: types of cane, soil, pests, insecticides, herbicides, fertilizers as well as
methods of controlling froghopper infestations. In addition, students asked the following
open ended questions to elicit propositional statements (after D’Andrade, Basso, and Selby
1976): (1) “Why don't some people wear protective gear (i.e., safety glasses, respirators, and
gloves) when spraying pesticides, insecticides, and herbicides?”, (2) “If cane prices decrease,
what will you do to maintain your livelihood (bills, food, education, healthcare, etcetera),
family, farm, and production?”, and (3) “What do you think we should be asking
farmers/community members about that would help you?”. During the interviews in San
Antonio, San Estevan, and San Lazaro, the students also asked informants to pile sort (after
Bernard 2011, 233-235; Sillitoe, Dixon, and Barr 2006, 154-158) the types of cane, soil,
pests, insecticides, herbicides, fertilizers with the aim of created attribute tables of each
domain of knowledge (after Bernard 2011, 402-406; Sillitoe, Dixon, and Barr 2006, 195-199;
3
Spradely 2016,173-184). Students digitally recorded interviews and took field notes during
and directly after each interview.
During field research, draft attribute tables were developed from the collected data
(interviews and pile sorts). Upon return from the field, Stefan Kienzle analyzed data from
each interview (field notes and digital audio recording) and consolidated the data into the
attribute tables and propositional statement frequencies. Douglas Hume then revised the
attribute tables by removing attributes with only one response as well as calculating the
counts and responses for attributes and types. Hume also consolidated similar propositional
statements and calculating both total and percentage responses propositional statement
table.
Attribute Analyses
One aim of this field season’s research was to begin formally collecting data on domains of
sugar cane farming knowledge central to sugar cane farming and of interest to SIRDI,
BSCFA, CSCPA, and PSCPA for developing educational programs as well as develop cultural
models (see Chapter V: Cultural Models in Hume 2005) of sugarcane farming among
communities in Northern Belize. The findings below are not complete, but serve as a step in
the process of discovering and documenting the shared knowledge of sugar cane farming in
northern Belize.
Sugar Cane Types
The sugar cane attribute table (see Appendix A) shows the cane types and attributes
mentioned by at least two informants. Informants offered the most attributes and
responses for the following three cane types: (1) B79-474 (18 attributes, 68
responses), (2) BBZ (11 attributes, 28 responses), and (3) Blanca (11 attributes, 25
responses). The three most common attributes of cane types were: (1) thick (10
types), (2) matures late (7 types), and (3) matures faster (7 types). The three highest
responses for attributes were: (1) thick (25 responses), (2) most common (15
responses), and Mexican seed (13 responses). The three most common attributes for
specific cane types were: (1) most common – B79-474 (15 responses), (2) thick B79-
474 – (10 responses), and (3) soft– BBZ (8 responses).
Soil Types
The soil attribute table (see Appendix B) shows the soil types and attributes
mentioned by at least two informants. Informants offered the most attributes for the
following three soil types: (1) clay (7 attributes), (2) sandy (6 attributes), and (3)
rocky (6 attributes). The four highest responses for soil types were: (1) black (16
responses), (2) sandy (11 responses), and (3 and 4) clay and rocky (both had 9
responses). The most common attribute of soil types was uncommon (3 types) with
the rest of the attributes being used one or two times. The four highest responses for
attributes were: (1) ideal for growing cane (12 responses), (2) under black soil (6
responses), and (3 and 4) hotter and drains water (both with 4 responses). The two
most common attributes for specific types of soil were: (1) ideal for growing cane –
black (11 responses) and (2) under black soil – white lime (5 responses).
4
Pest Types
The pest attribute table (see Appendix C) shows the pest types and attributes
mentioned by at least two informants. Informants offered the most attributes for the
following three pest types: (1) rats (7 attributes) and (2 and 3) froghopper and
grasshoppers (both had 5 attributes). The three highest responses for pest types
were: (1) froghoppers (19 responses), (2) rats (9 responses), and (3) lupa worms (7
responses). The two most common attributes of pest types were: (1) eats leaves (6
types) and (2) prefer BBZ (5 types). The three highest responses for pest types were:
(1) eats leaves (14 responses), (2) most common pest (11 responses), and (3) prefer
BBZ (7 responses). The most common attribute for specific type of pest was most
common pest– froghopper (10 responses).
Pesticides/Insecticide Types
The pesticide/insecticide attribute table (see Appendix D) shows the
pesticide/insecticide types and attributes mentioned by at least two informants.
Informants offered the most attributes and responses for the following two
pesticides/insecticides: (1) malathion (7 attributes, 18 responses) and (2) Jade 08FR
(6 attributes, 22 responses). The two most common attributes with the most
responses were: (1) effective against froghoppers (8 types, 20 responses) and (2)
effective against worms (6 types, 10 responses). The most common attribute for
specific types of pesticides/herbicides was effective against froghoppers –Jade 08GR
(8 responses).
Herbicide Types
The herbicide attribute table (see Appendix D) shows the herbicide types and
attributes mentioned by at least two informants. Informants offered the most
attributes for the following three herbicide types: (1) 24D/Flash (7 attributes), (2 and
3) Diuron/Durex and Ametryne 500G/L (both with 6 attributes). The highest
responses for herbicides was among five types: (1) Paraquat/Gramasone (12
responses), (2 and 3) 24D/Flash and Diuron/Durex (both with 11 responses), and (4
and 5) Bullgrass and Helosate/Wipeout/Glyphosate/Roundup (both with 10
responses). The most common attribute, both in use and responses was banned (7
types, 7 responses) with the remaining attributes being used between 6 to 2 times.
The most common response for a specific herbicide was Paraquat/Gramasone –
banned (6 responses).
Fertilizer Types
The fertilizer attribute table (see Appendix D) shows the fertilizer types and
attributes mentioned by at least one informant. Initially, when informants were
asked about the different types of fertilizer, they reported urea/salt and a series of
three numbers, such as 20-20-20, which were later discovered to indicate the rating
of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in the fertilizer. Attributes of the different
number combinations and urea/salt were collected, but informants had difficulty
stating attributes of the number combinations. During the third week of data
collection, the three number system of naming fertilizers was changed to the
ingredients of the three number combination, nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium
5
as well as urea/salt. Therefore, the number of responses for the attributes of
fertilizer types is low.
Informants offered the most attributes and responses for the following two
fertilizers: (1) urea/salt (7 attributes, 10 responses) and (2) nitrogen (5 attributes, 7
responses). The two most common attributes for fertilizers were: (1) makes the cane
bigger and (2) makes the plant greener (both with 2 types). The four highest
responses for fertilizer attributes were: (1) can be obtained from sunlight (3
responses) as well as (2, 3, and 4) makes the cane bigger, makes the plant greener,
and helps the cane grow well (each with 2 responses). The three most common
attributes for specific types of fertilizers were: (1 and 2) can be obtained from
sunlight – nitrogen and nitrogen only fertilizer –urea/salt (47-0-0) (each had 3
responses) and (3) helps the cane grow well – urea/salt (2 responses).
The attribute tables described above are not complete. There are several contradictions in
the data, for example, B79-474 is reported as being difficult to cut by seven informants and
easy to cut by four informants. In addition, informants were asked to free-list attributes of
the cane types and not asked whether each attribute was applicable to the different varieties
of cane. During the next field season (June 2016), the attribute tables will form the basis for
specific questions about the attributes to correct errors, verify attributes, and complete
missing data.!
Community Perspectives
The second aim of this field season was to ask specific questions about froghopper
mitigation, responses to the future decrease in sugar cane prices, why protective gear is not
worn when applying agrichemicals, and what questions the community would like to be
asked. The findings below are not complete, but serve as a step in the process of discovering
and documenting the perspectives of sugar cane farming community members in northern
Belize.
Froghopper Mitigation
Informants that farmed sugar cane were asked, “what methods do you use to get ride
of froghoppers?” The majority of the informants (33.33%) reported that they used
whatever insecticides that were given to them by their farmer’s association or SIRDI
(see Appendix E). The next most common answer was that they used Jade as an
insecticide (30.95%). Due to the focus on the attribute analyses and speaking with
few farmers that made decisions about what insecticides are used on their fields to
combat froghoppers, the overall response rate was low (42 responses). In the coming
field season, this question will be asked again to elicit additional responses.
Sugarcane Price Decrease
At the request of SIRDI, informants were asked, “if cane prices decrease, what will
you do to maintain your livelihood (bills, food, education, healthcare, etcetera),
family, farm, and production?” Of the 350 informants we asked, the majority of
informants responded that they would either plant crops other than sugar cane to
serve as an economic buffer (18.29%), get another job (16.86%), or that they did not
have a plan (10.29%), see Appendix F. Several informants responded that a decrease
in sugar cane prices would not affect them (7.43%). Since the sugar cane prices have
6
decreased by 21% from 2014 to 2015 (Naturalight Productions Ltd. 2015), informants
will be asked how they have responded to the price decrease during the June 2016
field season.
Protective Gear
At the request of the PSCPA, informants were asked, “why don't some people wear
protective gear (i.e., safety glasses, respirators, and gloves) when spraying pesticides,
insecticides, and herbicides?” Of the 134 informants that were asked, the majority of
informants responded that people do not know how dangerous the chemicals are
(19.40%), the protective gear is uncomfortable (19.40%), the protective gear is too
expensive (17.16%), or that they did not know (11.94%), see Appendix G. Since this
question was only asked during the last third of interviews, informants will be asked
this question again during the June 2016 field season to collect additional data.
What should we be asking?
At the request of the Institute for Social and Cultural Research, National Institute of
Culture and History, informants were asked, “what do you think we should be asking
farmers/community members about that would help you?” Many informants
reported that they had difficulty answering this question because they had not spent
time thinking of what questions they would like asked of their community members.
To make sense of the variety of answers informants gave, responses were coded into
categories.
The three most common issues that informants suggested that should be asked of
their communities included “education costs of children” (9.70%), “child labor”
(8.96%), and sugar cane organizations (i.e., SIRDI and BSCFA)” (8.96%). There are
an additional 41 categories/topics that informants suggested be asked of the
community for their responses (see Appendix H).
In the coming June 2016 field season, the topics that were mentioned by at least two
informants will be placed in the following two sentence frames to elicit additional
community perspectives: (1) “What are the effects of (the) __________ in your
community?”, and (2) “What are the problems of (the) __________ in your
community?”.
Conclusion
This report documented the findings of the ethnographic field school organized by the CfAA
at NKU in Orange Walk District, Belize during June 2015. The June 2015 field season
successfully met its goals, to focus on collecting data on cultural models of sugar cane
farming by completing attribute analyses of sugar cane farming knowledge (i.e., types of
sugar cane, soils, pests, insecticides, herbicides, and fertilizers as well as methods of
controlling the froghopper pest) and community perspectives on issues related to sugar cane
farming (i.e., impacts of a decrease in sugar cane prices, why protective gear is not worn
when spraying agrichemicals, and what questions the community suggests be asked). Since
the data collected are not complete nor has the agreement among community members been
assessed, the future field season (June 2016) will continue to explore the content and
variation of sugar cane farming within northern Belize communities.
7
Appendix A: Sugar Cane Attribute Table
Sugar Cane Type
Attribute
B79-474
BBZ
Blanca
CP-26
CP-2086
Piña
Bamboo
Brazil
290
Chalecudo
Purple
Ragna
Chaparo
Q80
B59
BVZ-8240
BVZ-8290
PR
Count
Responses
Thick
10
3
2
1
1
1
1
1
3
3
10
26
Matures late
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
7
10
Matures faster
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
7
9
Mexican seed
1
2
2
6
1
1
6
13
Good for sugar
2
1
3
2
1
5
9
Soft
1
8
1
2
4
12
New variety
2
2
6
1
4
11
Heavy
2
4
1
1
4
8
Tall
6
1
2
3
9
Pest resistant
4
2
1
3
7
Hard
2
2
1
3
5
No longer planted
1
3
1
3
5
Older variety
2
2
1
3
5
Prone to ticks
1
1
1
3
3
SIRDI recommended
1
1
1
3
3
Easy to cut
4
1
2
5
Eaten by rats
1
4
2
5
More vulnerable to pests
3
2
2
5
Short
4
1
2
5
Can be cut early
2
2
2
4
Grows in well rocky soil
2
2
2
4
Grows well in highlands
2
2
2
4
High sugar content
3
1
2
4
Grows well in sandy soil
2
1
2
3
Purple
1
2
2
3
Does not grow well in highlands
1
1
2
2
Grows well in lowlands
1
1
2
2
Limited growth area
1
1
2
2
Most common
15
1
15
Difficult to cut
7
1
7
First variety
4
1
4
Grows like a pineapple
3
1
3
Green
2
1
2
Light
2
1
2
Must be replanted every 3 years
2
1
2
Not often farmed
2
1
2
Count
18
11
11
9
8
7
6
6
4
4
4
4
3
2
2
1
1
1
Responses
68
28
25
14
12
16
9
8
10
4
4
4
3
5
4
2
2
2
220
8
Appendix B: Soil Attribute Table
!
Soil Type
Attribute
Clay
Sandy
Rocky
Black
Red
White Lime
Count
Responses
Uncommon
1
1
1
3
3
Ideal for growing cane
1
11
2
12
Under black soil
1
5
2
6
Hotter
2
2
2
4
Drains water
2
2
2
4
Common in San Estevan
1
2
2
3
Needs calcium
2
1
2
3
Common
1
1
2
2
Retains water
2
1
2
3
Needs fertilizers
1
1
2
2
Easier to work in during rain
1
1
2
2
Common in Shipyard and Corozal
1
1
2
2
Common in Pine Ridge
3
1
3
Common in Progresso
2
1
2
Requires more cultivation
2
1
2
Damages machinery
2
1
2
Cooler
2
1
2
Count
7
6
6
5
4
2
Reponses
9
11
9
16
6
6
57
9
Appendix C: Pest Attribute Table
Pest Type
Attribute
Rats
Froghopper
Grasshoppers
Lupa Worms
Chapulin
Peccary
Snakes
Raccoons
Pisotes
Squash Bugs
Counts
Responses
Eats Leaves
1
3
2
4
3
1
6
14
Prefers BBZ
2
1
1
2
1
5
7
Occurs during dry weather
1
1
1
3
3
Eats Roots
1
1
1
3
3
Most common pest
10
1
2
11
Is hunted
2
2
2
4
Eats house structure
1
1
2
2
Not a year round problem
1
1
2
2
Does not occur every year
1
1
2
2
Occurs one year after harvest
1
1
2
2
Dangerous to farmers
3
1
3
Does not eat cane
2
1
2
Every year
2
1
2
May overpopulate
2
1
2
Does not occur during cold
weather
2
1
2
Seasonal problem
2
1
2
Count
7
5
5
4
3
3
2
2
2
2
Responses
9
19
6
7
5
4
5
3
3
2
63
10
Appendix D: Insecticide/Pesticide Attribute Table
Insecticide/Pesticide Type
Attribute
Malathion
Jade 08GR
Regent
Primex
Tamaron
Engeo 24, 7 SC
Landex
Lorsban
Karate
Sevin
Hongos
Aktera
Atana
Counts
Responses
Effective against froghoppers
4
8
1
1
2
1
2
1
8
20
Effective against worms
2
3
2
1
1
1
6
10
Dangerous
3
1
1
2
4
7
Liquid
4
1
2
5
Effective on lumber
2
2
2
4
Expensive
3
1
2
4
Long lasting
3
1
2
4
Spread with airplanes
2
2
2
4
Effective against froghopper eggs
1
2
2
3
Protective clothing required
2
1
2
3
Dangerous - its use has stopped
1
1
2
2
Pellet
3
1
3
Type of fungus
3
1
3
Kills instantly
2
1
2
Mixed with water
2
1
2
Odorous
2
1
2
Counts
7
6
6
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
Responses
18
22
7
5
5
4
3
3
2
2
3
2
2
78
11
Appendix E: Herbicide Attribute Table
Herbicide Type
Attribute
24D/Flash
Diuron/Durex
Ametryne 500G/L
Paraquat/Gramasone
Bullgrass
Helosate/Wipeout/Glyphosate/Roundup
Gessapex
Amigan
Ramazyn
Count
Responses
Banned
1
6
7
7
Expensive
1
2
2
1
6
6
Fair Trade recommended
2
2
2
6
6
Kills grass
2
1
3
6
6
Kills wide leaf plants
3
2
1
6
6
Liquid
1
1
2
2
6
6
Mixed with other herbicides
1
1
1
2
5
5
Kills vines
1
1
2
4
4
Mixed with 24D
3
1
4
4
Powder
1
2
1
4
4
Used outside the field/between fields
1
3
4
4
Hazardous to cane
1
2
3
3
Uncommon
1
1
1
3
3
Kills shrubs
2
2
2
Was drunk by farmers
2
2
2
Used biannually
2
2
2
Rain resistant
2
2
2
Count
7
6
6
5
5
5
3
3
2
Responses
11
11
7
12
10
10
5
4
2
72
12
Appendix F: Fertilizer Attribute Table
Fertilizer Type
Attribute
Urea/salt
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Potassium
Counts
Responses
Makes the cane bigger
1
1
2
2
Makes the plant greener
1
1
2
2
Can be obtained from sunlight
3
1
3
Gives the plants better leaves
1
1
1
Helps a young plant grow faster
1
1
1
Helps cane grow faster
1
1
1
Helps cane grow longer
1
1
1
Helps the cane grow well
2
1
2
Makes soil thicker and more compact
1
1
1
Mixed with other fertilizers
1
1
1
Multiple types
1
1
1
Needed to make cane sweet
1
1
1
Nitrogen only fertilizer (46-0-0)
3
1
3
Used with 2800
1
1
1
Counts
7
5
2
2
Responses
10
7
2
2
21
13
Appendix G: Froghopper Mitigation
What methods do you use to get rid of froghoppers?
Count
Percentage
Unspecified insecticides (whatever the association or SIRDI provides)
14
33.33%
Jade (insecticide)
13
30.95%
Bug bags
3
7.14%
Aktera (insecticide)
2
4.76%
Three step system
1
2.38%
Confidor (insecticide)
1
2.38%
Glue covered posts driven into the ground
1
2.38%
Malathion (insecticide)
1
2.38%
Regent (insecticide)
1
2.38%
Karate (insecticide)
1
2.38%
Tamaron (insecticide)
1
2.38%
Hongos (insecticide)
2
4.76%
Jade and Aktera (insecticides)
1
2.38%
Total
42
100.00%
14
Appendix H: Sugar Cane Price Decrease
Answer
Count
Percentage
Plant other crops in addition to cane to serve as a buffer
64
18.29%
Get another job
59
16.86%
Doesn't know, does not have a plan
36
10.29%
Get a second job
27
7.71%
Would not be affected
26
7.43%
Migrate to another area (e.g., United States)
23
6.57%
Start raising livestock (e.g., pigs and chickens)
21
6.00%
Already has a second business
9
2.57%
Commit crime (e.g., smuggling)
7
2.00%
Spend less and only buy basic necessities
7
2.00%
Take out loans
6
1.71%
Sell fields
6
1.71%
Continue to grow cane, as there are not any other options
5
1.43%
Family member would find another job
5
1.43%
Use less fertilizer
5
1.43%
Will not replant cane
4
1.14%
Family member has a job to support them
3
0.86%
Has a pension, so will not be affected
3
0.86%
Reduce educational costs of children (not pay for school)
3
0.86%
Begin subsistence farming
3
0.86%
Already has a second job
2
0.57%
Become a cane cutter/sprayer
2
0.57%
Change cane type and fertilization to increase yields
2
0.57%
Lay off their workers
2
0.57%
Plant more cane to make up for price difference
2
0.57%
Reduce cane production
2
0.57%
Use savings
2
0.57%
Depend upon children
1
0.29%
Diversify farming and finance
1
0.29%
Farm cotton or limes instead of cane
1
0.29%
Go on strike
1
0.29%
Go to the doctor less to save money
1
0.29%
Live in an extended family to share collective income
1
0.29%
No other option, as other crops will not grow in this area
1
0.29%
Encourage girls to acquire education
1
0.29%
Sell equipment
1
0.29%
Share resources among family and neighbors
1
0.29%
Start beekeeping
1
0.29%
Stop using electricity
1
0.29%
Use cane delivery truck to haul other products
1
0.29%
Work more hours
1
0.29%
Total
350
100.00%
15
Appendix I: Protective Gear
Answer
Count
Percentage
People do not know how dangerous the chemicals are
26
19.40%
The protective gear is uncomfortable (hot, too restrictive)
26
19.40%
The protective gear is too expensive
23
17.16%
I do not know
16
11.94%
People are not used to wearing the protective gear
7
5.22%
Farmer's do not invest in protective gear for part-time/daily laborers
5
3.73%
People are careless/lazy
4
2.99%
It is a bad habit - not to wear the protective gear
3
2.24%
People are stubborn
3
2.24%
People do not have the gear
3
2.24%
People have not worn protective gear in the past
2
1.49%
The workers do not have the money to purchase the protective gear
2
1.49%
Farmer's to not care about the workers
1
0.75%
People are confident in themselves
1
0.75%
People are used to the chemicals
1
0.75%
People have not been trained in how to use the protective gear
1
0.75%
People may be allergic to the protective gear
1
0.75%
People not part of a farmer's association do not use protective gear
1
0.75%
People only now know about the risks due to fair trade agreements
1
0.75%
People think that the risks are reduced by spraying lower
1
0.75%
People who only spray once do not buy protective gear
1
0.75%
Protective gear slows work
1
0.75%
The protective gear may only be used once
1
0.75%
The protective gear instructions are only in English
1
0.75%
There is not a law requiring the use of protective gear
1
0.75%
There is too much protective gear
1
0.75%
Total
134
100.00%
16
Appendix J: What should we be asking?
Answer
Count
Percentage
Education costs of children
13
9.70%
Child labor
12
8.96%
Sugar cane organizations (i.e., SIRDI and BSCFA)
12
8.96%
Large versus small farms
7
5.22%
Sugar cane factory
6
4.48%
Equality (between famers/non-farmers and rich/poor)
5
3.73%
Government assistance
5
3.73%
Job availability/growth
5
3.73%
Agrichemical use
4
2.99%
Village council
4
2.99%
Water quality
4
2.99%
Development
3
2.24%
Farm worker pay
3
2.24%
Happiness
3
2.24%
Mosquitoes born diseases
3
2.24%
Roads
3
2.24%
Street lights
3
2.24%
Youth groups
3
2.24%
Community helping each other
2
1.49%
Farmer ownership of cane
2
1.49%
Farmworker safety
2
1.49%
Field burning
2
1.49%
Health care
2
1.49%
Litter
2
1.49%
National politics
2
1.49%
Weather
2
1.49%
Women's communal activities
2
1.49%
Young people/youth
2
1.49%
Abandoned properties
1
0.75%
Alcohol abuse
1
0.75%
Crop diversity
1
0.75%
Farming manuals
1
0.75%
Food security
1
0.75%
Health education
1
0.75%
Investments
1
0.75%
Library
1
0.75%
Loans
1
0.75%
Police/law enforcement
1
0.75%
Poverty
1
0.75%
Property maintenance
1
0.75%
Quality of production
1
0.75%
Replanting programs
1
0.75%
Rise in sugar cane payments
1
0.75%
Small businesses
1
0.75%
Total
134
100.00%
17
Appendix K: Informed Consent Statement – English
18
Appendix L: Informed Consent Statement – Spanish
19
Sources Cited
Bernard, H. Russell. 2011. Research Methods in Anthropology: Qualitative and Quantitative
Approaches, Fifth Edition. New York: Altamira Press.
Center for Applied Anthropology at Northern Kentucky University. 2016. “Ethnographic Field
School.” Accessed March 9. http://cfaa.nku.edu/ethnographic-field-school.html.
D’Andrade, Roy Goodwin, K. Basso, and H. Selby. 1976. “Propositional Analysis of U.S.
American Beliefs about Illness.” In Meanings in Anthropology, 155–80. Albuquerque:
University of New Mexico Press.
Dowdall, Courtney Marie and Ryan J. Klotz. 2014. Pesticides and Global Health:
Understanding Agrochemical Dependence and Investing in Sustainable Solutions. Walnut
Creek: Left Coast Press, Inc.
Downey, Sean S. 2015. “Q’eqchi’ Maya Swidden Agriculture, Settlement History, and Colonial
Enterprise in Modern Belize”. Ethnohistory 62 (4):751-779.
Hume, Douglas William. 2005. “Agriculture in Madagascar: Conservation and Cultural
Meanings of Rice.” PhD diss., University of Connecticut.
Hume, Douglas William, Colin Bindas, Stephanie Feltner, Gabrielle Locke, Ian Takaoka,
Nicholas Thaxton, Jane Underland, and Gina Yoon. 2015. Report of the Ethnographic Field
School in Belize (June 2014 Season). Center for Applied Anthropology at Northern Kentucky
University.
Levy, Robert, and Douglas Hollan. 1998. “Person-Centered Interviewing and Observation.” In
Handbook of Methods in Cultural Anthropology, edited by H. Russell Bernard, 333–64.
Walnut Creek: Altimira Press.
Medina, Laurie Kroshus. 2015. “Governing through the Market: Neoliberal Environmental
Government in Belize”. American Anthropologist 117 (2):272-284.
Naturalight Productions Ltd. 2015. “Sugar Cane Int’l Prices Down: Threatens Local Industry.” 7
News Belize. November 10. http://www.7newsbelize.com/sstory.php?nid=34274.
Sillitoe, Paul, Peter Barr, and Julian Dixon. 2005. Indigenous Knowledge Inquiries: A
Methodologies Manual for Development. Rugby, United Kingdom: Intermediate
Technology Development Group Publishing.
Spradley, James P. 2016. The Ethnographic Interview. Long Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press,
Inc.
