58 | SMALLHOLDER DIARIES use of fertili—er (•¡ percent) was as prevalent as insecticide (‘Ÿ percent)­ Sim- ilarly, labor-saving mechani—ation was prevalent in the aistan sample (ž“ percent), but nearly absent in the –o—ambiue one (‘ percent)­ • –ffsetting price and yield ariations with surpluses †ontingent upon their ability to store produce and the perishability of the product, as well as their overall cash-flow fluctuations, smallholder farmers may be able to manage price and yield variations in an attempt to reduce income variability­ Storage capacity, a ma„or enabling factor for this strategy, is usually a constraint­ ©sing registered warehouses (which may offer access to credit) involves transport ŸŸ costs, warehouse fees, and the need to meet uality standards­ Œhe Smallholders ‰iaries sample in aistan and Œan—ania reported ma„or concerns about potential decreases in maret prices for their crops­ ˆccess to information about prices could lower this ris, and a large proportion of the sample in aistan (¡“ percent) but less than half in Œan—ania (“¢ percent) reported access to price information (see igure Ÿ’)­ €nterestingly, both sam- ples of farmers in aistan and Œan—ania reported that their main sources of information about crop prices were agricultural agents, other people in the village, and people they tal with in the city or town­ Œan—anian respondents were particularly concerned that buyers could tae advantage of them, while respondents in the aistan sample were focused on maing sure they would earn a profit, given the high expenses related to their agricultural activities­ ˆbout two-thirds of the smallholders in the –o—ambiue sample (¢” per- cent) reported that they learned about crop prices at the maret when they went to buy and sell­ ˆ few of these households mentioned other sources as well, such as friends and family­ ‡iven the distance, the poor roads, and the cost of transportation, this effectively meant that they often have to tae whatever price is available at the maret that day, since they could not afford to return home with their crops and then come bac another time­ • Šncome source diersification and nonfarm employment ˆs noted in Sec- tion …, off-farm agricultural and nonagricultural employment were impor- tant sources of revenue for smallholder households outside their own agricultural activities­ Some sources ran “increased labor maret participa- “ My farming is small, thus my tion” as the most important ris-ad„ustment strategy after crop diversifica- tion (™aler and Žodha …ž¡¢)­ –oreover, wage labor in particular conveys a income is relatively low. Crop steady source of income that few agricultural activities offer, with the possi- prices help us not fall into ble exception of dairy production and bacyard poultry farming (i­e­, egg pro- total darkness of loss.” duction)­ ˆn important caveat, however, is that the effectiveness of accessing off-farm employment opportunities to offset fluctuations in agricultural pro- —Respondent in the Tanzania duction income depends to a large extent on the covariance between agricul- Smallholder Diaries tural and nonfarm revenues­ ˆgricultural shocs that affect an entire region will mean that only access to employment in a different region (or country) would be an effective counterbalance­ • —ecourse to family and friends Œhe use of cash and in-ind contributions from family and friends (i­e­, “resources received”) to cope with emergencies and meet lumpy expenses (i­e­, they occurred in distinct periods over the year, not continuously) is documented in the Smallholder ‰iaries (see igure ‘ž)­ ™hile not a formal ris-prevention or ris-mitigation mechanism, it is con- sidered a general ris-coping tool and plays an important role in smallholder families and low-income households more generally­