Crop-livestock integration exploits the synergies between cropping and livestock systems, mainly by using animal excreta as an organic crop fertilizer or using crop products as animal feed. From an environmental and economic point of view, crop-livestock integration is thought to increase system autonomy and resilience. However, little research has addressed its social impact and particularly the relationship between crop-livestock integration and work organization although, like most agroecological practices, crop-livestock integration was considered time-and labor-intensive. Here we used quantitative indicators based on the "Qualification and Evaluation of Work" method coupled with qualitative interviews with farmers to understand how implementation of crop-livestock integration practices is affected by work characteristics (perception, organization, duration, and arduousness). This framework was implemented on 14 farms selected from a typology of mixed crop-livestock systems in Guadeloupe (French West Indies), where high labor costs heighten the tension between work organization and agroecological practices. Our results show that three patterns of crop-livestock integration shaped work organization: family farms with strong crop-livestock integration (Pattern 1, n=6 farms), farms with moderate crop-livestock integration (Pattern 2, n=5 farms), and intensive productivity-driven farms (Pattern 3, n=3 farms). We also show for the first time that farmer perceptions of work, especially with animals, influences level of implementation of crop-livestock integration practices. In Pattern 1, work with livestock is done by the farmers themselves or by skilled and trusted persons from their inner circle. In Pattern 3, livestock was considered a source of on-farm income, and work with livestock, including crop-livestock integration practices, is readily delegated to employees or volunteers. Whatever the pattern, the time burden of collecting crop-products and excreta was cited as a primary barrier to further implementation. Actionable opportunities for further implementation of these patterns of croplivestock integration practices are discussed.