1. The animal power is a possible - often the sole feasible - alternative to manual labor, the main precondition being that the potential user has already gained experience with or, at least, already has access to draft animals.
2. For substantial and economic reasons, it is recommended that measures for the propagation of animal-power technology should not be isolated but integrated in advisory agricultural programs.
3. The animal power is especially suitable for the expansion and intensification of subsistence farming.
4. Depending on the envisioned application, the availability of draft animals and the efficiency of the animal power, a single animal-powered system can replace the work of 3 to 30 people.
5. In an agricultural environment, animal powers can be used for at least the following purposes: raising water, grinding grain and fodder, chopping, threshing, husking and stripping corn, shelling peanuts, crushing sugar cane, pressing oil-producing plants, grating cassava and cocoa, lifting loads (e.g. in well building), mixing and shaping clay bodies (bricks and banco), etc.
6. The local-market availability of handoperated or mechanically driven machines that could also be suitable for use in animalpowered systems is a matter for case-by-case clarification, particularly with regard to robustness, which can only be determined in actual practice.
7.The user himself must normally bear the initial capital outlay for an animal power. The minimal financial resources of subsistence farmers limit the use of industrial inputs to the absolutely minimum requirement.
8. The prime criterion for subsistence-sector technologies is reliability, not efficiency. Reliability can only be ensured through the participation of local craftsmen.
9. Exchange programs for craftsmen are an adequate approach to the transfer of handicraft technologies. Especially in cases involving craftsmen from different countries and regions, institutions dealing in the transfer of technology are called upon to cooperate.
10. Historical animal powers of industrialized countries or traditional animal powers of other developing countries may serve as patterns for new and advanced models. Cooperation with institutions involved in the colIecting, processing and passing on of relevant information is therefore important.
11. Since animal powers are often operated by children or other persons who are unfamiliar with machinery, safety equipment is a must. Accidents could jeopardize entire propagation programs.
12. Animal powers may be owned and/or operated by individual farmers, cooperatives or public institutions. It would also be conceivable to rent out animal powers or to employ the services of small-scale entrepreneurs for milling, threshing, etc.
13. Since draft animals are usually under the control of the male side of the family most likely the head of the family - animal" power technology may contribute to the marginalization of women and young farmers. The development of animal-powered systems tailored to the needs of those groups (e.g. using donkeys) may help to counter such situations.
14. There are substantial psychological reservations against animal-power technology. Visions of cruelty to animals arouse public suspicion in the donor countries, and its simplicity, seemingly to the point of primitiveness and archaism, has a like effect among the elite of the developing countries.
15. The industrial nations have no direct economic interest in the spread of animal-power technology (no export potential). Nor are any nominal impulses to be expected for the modern economic sector of the developing countries. Thus, it is a precondition for the spread of animal-power technology in subsistence farming that the donor and recipient countries define - and adhere to - a collection of appropriate development goals and planning data.