Table 4.
Proportions and mean resource endowments of farm types in the rapid survey (RSF) and case study farm (CSF) samples studied in Pallisa District, Uganda
| Farm typea | Proportions in | Household size | Farm size | Cattle | Oxen | Goats | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RSF | CSF | RSF | CSF | RSF | CSF | RSF | CSF | RSF | CSF | RSF | CSF | |||
| (no) | (%) | (no) | (%) | (no) | (no) | (ha) | (ha) | (no) | (no) | (no) | (no) | (no) | (no) | |
| LF | 10 | 11 | 6 | 20 | 11(5–17) | 11(7–17) | 5.9(2.5–12.7) | 6.2(2.4–12.7) | 9(2–19) | 12(3–19) | 2(0–4) | 3(2–4) | 4(0–12) | 6(2–12) |
| MF | 27 | 30 | 6 | 20 | 7(2–15) | 8(2–15 | 1.6(0.1–4) | 3.1(1.6–4.9) | 3(0–4) | 4(3–6) | 1(0–2) | 2(1–2) | 1(0–4) | 2(0–4) |
| SF1 | 35 | 39 | 10 | 33 | 8(2–15) | 9(6–17) | 1.1(0.2–3.6) | 2.2(0.7–4.2) | 1(0–2) | 1(1–4) | 1(0–2) | 1(0–2) | 1(0–2) | 2(0–4) |
| SF2 | 18 | 20 | 8 | 27 | 6(1–12) | 7(2–16) | 0.8(0.7–2.0) | 1(0.4–2.8) | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1(0–7) | 1(0–7) |
a LF Larger farms, MF Medium farms, SF1 Small farms with cattle, SF2 Small farms without cattle, values in parentheses are ranges