Benchmark Survey on Farm Mechanization Status in ...

Benchmark Survey on Farm Mechanization Status in Irrigated Lowlands of Regions 1, 2, and 31 Romeo B. Gavino, Ma. Celia M. Fernando, Helen F. Gavino, Emmanuel V. Sicat, and Michelle M. Romero2

ABSTRACT The level of farm mechanization in the country has been considered low compared to other neighboring countries in the South East Asian region. Mechanization was often misconstrued to mean modernization beneficial only to industrialized countries. However, the meaning of low machine utilization must be evaluated and explained in a manner which can be best understood by the stakeholders in order to identify the mechanization advancement of the Philippines. This paper documents the extent of farm mechanization in irrigated lowland of Regions I, II and III. Four hundred fifty farmers were interviewed on the following aspects: machine and equipment ownership; source of power and labor in farm operation; mechanization priorities; problems and constraints; demand for machinery and training skills; source of farm information; farm financing and credit information; and infrastructure accessibility. Collected data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences. Results of the survey showed that land preparation was almost 100% done through the use of machinery, particularly the handtractor, though the ownership of such machines accounts only to 50%. It can be drawn from such outcome that custom servicing has displaced manual labor on that particular farm operation. Conversely, the operation on crop establishment remained manual labor dependent while for crop care and maintenance, the irrigation activity was the only activity rated as high priority for mechanization. Harvesting and postharvest activity have also distinct level of mechanization. Threshing was largely handled by contracted mechanical thresher while services of milling machines were hired for the purpose. Harvesting, hauling and drying remained as manual wherein the labor sources were contracted and family, respectively. Furthermore, results revealed the farmers’ ideas which in a way or another impede the facilitation of farm mechanization such as displacement of labor, manual labor efficiency, etc. Likewise, real issues on the farmer level were brought out which partially explained the limited reception of the farmers to the idea of mechanizing the farm system. On the other hand, there are positive indications that given the favorable assistance and encouragement, farmers also recognize the importance of and would like to go into farm mechanization. Conclusively, the cost, speed of operation, and ease or tediousness of the activity were the three major factors considered in facilitating farm mechanization.

Keyword: farm mechanization, irrigated lowlands Abbreviations: PhP - Philippine Peso, FWT - Four-wheel tractor, HT - Handtractor, hp horsepower, km - kilometer.

1

2

Paper presented to the 4th PSAE International Convention and Exhibition on April 17-21, 2006, Balanghai Hotel, Butuan City, Philippines. Director, Planning Assistant, Filipino Counterpart/ Expert (Presentor), Chief, Agricultural Engineering and Mechanization Division and Research Assistant respectively, of the Philippine- Sino Center for Agricultural Technology, CLSU, Science City of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija

1

Concepts and Definitions: Farm mechanization – the employment and adoption of agricultural tools, equipment, and machinery in farm operation. Machine, equipment and farming utilities ownership – the manner of possession of farm machine, equipment and farming utilities. Source of power – the supply of energy in the farm that will prime the machines which maybe man, animal, engine, electricity, water, wind, and other non-conventional services. Source of labor – the supply of work force in the farm which maybe family labor, contract, hired, exchange or combination of any. Mechanization priorities – the area/s or farming operation/s that are preferred for mechanization. Demand for machinery or training skills – the need for farm machinery and training skills; it covers the farmers’ plan, perception, priority, hindrances, and technical know-how in farm mechanization. Source of farm information – the media and materials sought to acquire knowledge and information about farming systems. Farm financing and credit information – the sources of loan, paying schemes and farmers’ means to finance farming operation. Infrastructure Accessibility – the proximity of the farmers to enterprises or institutions that cater to their mechanization needs such as machine manufacturers and dealers, repair shops, spare parts centers, seed sources/centers, agricultural chemical supply centers, trading/buying stations, and banks/credit access.

INTRODUCTION The Philippine agricultural mechanization has been consistently rated low compared to its neighboring countries. This leads to the unrealized potentials of increased rice production, diversified farm products, and additional employment and livelihood. This reminds one that farming system is an aggregate of stakeholders from various walks of life and different orientation linked at a certain cross point. It is high time that the meaning of low agricultural mechanization be synthesized and interpreted in a manner that could be best understood by many. How low is low? It is deemed important that the state of agricultural mechanization in the Philippines be defined in a term simple enough for the stakeholders to understand and pinpoint where in the ladder of agricultural advancement the country is.

2

OBJECTIVES 1. To determine the state of farm mechanization in the rice-based irrigated lowlands of Regions 1, 2, and 3. 2. To define the farmers’ concepts, perceptions and opinion on farm mechanization. 3. To present the results of the survey in readily understandable figures, graphs and charts. 4. To recognize measures in facilitating farm mechanization.

SCOPE AND COVERAGE There were four hundred fifty farmers (450) interviewed for this survey, fifty (50) for each provinces. They were selected purposively with the prime qualification that they are engaged in rice farming on irrigated areas. The data were gathered using a questionnaire administered through an interview. The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS).

LIMITATIONS OF THE DATA The data hereto presented focused on the aspect of mechanization, which involves farm implements driven by engine. The user of the data presented on this report should bear in mind that the data are results of sample survey and accordingly are subject to sampling inequality because observations were not taken from the total population. Survey estimates may also be affected by uncontrolled errors such as intentional under or over reporting of acquisition cost of farm machinery. Likewise, the valuation of the market prices of the farmers owning was derived from the index of the particular locality of the respondents interviewed during the year in assessment (2002). Thus, the market value itself may be highly variable itself. Moreover the users of the data should take note of the localities covered as well as the period the data were obtained.

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Farm machines were introduced to the country dated back the colonial regimes of the Spain and United States of America, however it failed to do well due to inappropriateness to local conditions. The four wheel tractor was introduced after the World War II around 1960, though the use of these machines were concentrated in the sugar industry while during the year, power tillers were introduced to rice growing areas and mechanization started its swinging growth. There was a resurgence from 1971-1975 due to numerous factors like land 3

reform programs, availability of credit support introduction of locally made, low-cost power tiller models and outbreak of foot and mouth disease that affected draft animals (AMMDA, 2005). Likewise, the introduction of the Central Bank- International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (CB-IBRD) loan program, mechanization of the Philippine agriculture shifted towards rice (PCCARD, 2002). To date, the level of mechanization in the Philippines at 0.52 hp/ ha was considered low (Rahman 1994 as cited in PCARRD, 2002). The birth of the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA ) of 1997 (Republic Act 8435) paved way to agricultural mechanization by being one of its subcomponent in modernizing agriculture towards global competitiveness. Though various researches confirmed that level of agricultural mechanization in the Philippines moves, it is consistently way behind the other Asian countries. Gavino et al. (2005) cited the current status and trends of agricultural mechanization in the Philippines by which can be attributed to the following: (1) High cost of machines, (2) Lack of promotion – lack of farmers’ awareness of new mechanization technologies, (3) Pure quality of machines due to low capability of the local manufacturing industry , (4) Lack of access to formal credit facilities, (5) Low income of farmers/ decreasing farm size – mechanization has been concentrated on small equipment with engine size seldom exceeding 15 KW (Bautista 2003).

METHODOLOGY The survey was conducted in November 2002 to February 2003. Four hundred fifty farmers (450) were interviewed using an interview guide (questionnaire). Fifty respondents were taken from each province of Pangasinan, Nueva Ecija, Bulacan, Tarlac, Pampanga, Bataan, Nueva Vizcaya, Isabela and Cagayan. Data analysis includes frequency count, percentages and averages. The data gathered includes: • • • • • • • •

Machine and Equipment Ownership Source of Power and Labor in Farm Operation Mechanization Priorities Problems and Constraints Demand for Machinery and Training Skills Source of Farm Information Farm Financing and Credit Information Infrastructure Accessibility

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Machine, Equipment and Farming Utilities Ownership An inventory of farm machinery ownership of 450 farmer-respondents was initially done to determine the level of mechanization in Regions 1, 2, and 3.

4

Farm Tools and Draft Animals Ownership

 Farm tools Six farm tools surfaced as usually owned by greater than 50% of farmers. These were: Panabas (91.60%), Bolo (91.30%), Shovel (88.2%), Hand operated sprayer (73.8%), scythe (66.90%) and hoe (51.30%).

Farm tools

Figure 1. Distribution of farmers according to farming tools and draft animals they own. Panabas Bolo Shovel Hand Operated Sprayer Scythe Hoe Carabao Trailer Animal Drawn Plow Animal Drawn Harrow Cartwood Wooden Pl ank Animal Drawn Parag us Rake Cow Bareta Axe

91.60 91.30 88.20 73.80 66.90 51.30 30.90 24.70 21.60 17.80 11.60 8.20 7.10 2.40 1.80 0.20 0.20

0.00

20. 00

40. 00 60. 00 Perc entage

80. 00

100.00

Farm Machinery and Equipment Nine provinces in Regions 1, 2, and 3 revealed that on the scale of machinery ownership, 55.6% of the farmers’ (highest registered ownership) ownership accounts for HT (Fig. 2). The rest of the enumerated farm machines registered a very minimal ownership. Figure 2. Distribution of farmers according to the most important machine, equipment and farming

utilities they own.

Handtractor

55. 60 22. 20

Vehicles for hauling

14. 70

Irrigation pump

12. 20

T hresher with blower

9.60

Solar dryer Four wheel tractor T hresher without blower Mechanical dryer

2.90 1.60 0.90

Floating til ler

0.90

Grasscutter

0.20

Drum seeder

0.20

Harvester/ tiller

0.20

0.00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00

Perc entage

5

Farm machinery ownership was relatively low and the acquisition mode was apparently in cash. The number of machinery acquired on installment basis was negligible. Preference for brand new over surplus was apparent except for irrigation pump and lone drum seeder. Only four farm machines recorded noticeable ownership, these are: HT, vehicles for hauling, irrigation pump and thresher with blower.

 Handtractor (HT) Out of 450 farmers, 55.6% have a HT. Some 12.8% have 2 or more HT while a few own as many as 5. Most HT were acquired in 1990’s (60.1%) with the one acquired earliest in 1962. Some 26.4% of the HT operates with 8 hp, the maximum was 14 and the minimum was 7.5 hp. Of the total HT bought as brand new, 97% have implements. Likewise, 91.4 % percent of the surpluses have implements. As of February 2003, the average acquisition cost of HT was PhP 30,443.24 with standard deviation of PhP14, 609.58 regardless of implements, type and year of purchase. The cost of acquisition ranges from PhP 4, 000 to PhP 70,000. The acquisition cost was classified according to type of purchase (brand new or surplus) and presence of implements (Fig. 3). Figure 3. Average acquisition cost of handtractor by type and year of purchase. 42000.00

W 42000.00 W

W 41000.00 37136.69

38500.00

40750.00

W

35000.00 31500.00 27135.19

24500.00

W 22318.18

W

26500.00

W

W W

16062.50

17500.00 13115.38

14000.00

15333.33 12000.00

1990 - 1999

W 8640.00 1980 - 1989

W

1970 - 1979

7000.00

W

W

W W

9250.00

1960 - 1969

10500.00

Brand new with impl ements

19500.00

21000.00

2000 - 2003

PhP

28000.00

C las sif ication of Purc has e W Surplus without implements C las sif ication of Purc has e W Brand W Surplus without implements new without implements W Surplus W Brand new implements withwithout implements W W Brand Surplus with implements new with impl ements

Y ear of Purc has e

The HTs’ average service life was 7 years with a standard deviation of 3.84 years, while the minimum was 1 year and the maximum was 20 years. It can be noted from Fig. 4 that the average service life depends on the type of purchase.

6

Figure 4. Average service life of handtractor by type and year of purchase. 11.00

\ 10.41

10.00 9.00

Years

8.00

7.59 \ 6.87 \

7.00 6.00

\

5.00

4.55

4.00

2.00

\ \

4.93

\

5.63

4.75

Ty pe of Purchase \ Brand new \ Surplus

4.10

3.00 3.00

\

\ \

2.50

1.00 1960 - 1969 1980 - 1989 2000 - 2003 1970 - 1979 1990 - 1999

Y ear of Purc has e

There were 47 machine brands identified. Kuliglig (16%) surfaced as the most purchased brand, but 20% have undetermined brands. The top engine brands were Kubota (30.4%), Briggs and Stratton (18.6%) and Honda (15.5%). Majority (52.7%) of the HT were locally made. These were bought in cash (92.2%) and through installment basis (7%). The remaining less than 1% was through grant and foreclosure.

 Handtractor (HT) Implements In Fig. 3, not all farmers with HT bought it with implements. Fig. 5 shows the distribution of farmers with HT implements. Figure 5. Distribution of farmers with handtractor implements.

The non-ownership of implements might be due to the culture of borrowing.

7

 Vehicles for hauling rice produce Only 22.2% have hauling vehicles. Majority (64%) were acquired in the 1990’s. The average acquisition cost was PhP 159, 353.54 with a standard deviation of PhP 150,912.82, the minimum was PhP 10, 000 and the maximum was PhP 800, 000. Among farmers with hauling vehicles, only 1.8% identified the brand name, place of manufacture, mode of purchase and engine brand. Sarao (25%) was identified as the leading brand while majority (62.5%) was locally assembled. Majority (87.5%) purchased in cash. Likewise, majority operates with the Isuzu engine. Majority (88.7%) were procured as surplus. The average acquisition cost of hauling vehicles according to its kind and type of purchase is shown on Fig. 6. Figure 6. Average acquisition cost of hauling vehicles according to kind and type of purchase. 37079

Mot orcy c le 108886 210800

Van/ Car/ Pick up

Vehicle

716667 222500

Type of Purc hase

XLT

brand new surplus

333000 212500

Elf

88915

J eep 349000

0

200000

400000

600000

800000

PhP

 Irrigation Pump (Individual pump) Twenty nine percent of the farmers have individual irrigation pump. Majority (53.6%) were acquired as surplus. The 14.7% own two or more units ranging from two to nine individual pumps. Majority (57.7%) were acquired in 1990’s. The average acquisition cost was PhP 18,011.19 with a standard deviation of PhP 14,905.91 while the minimum cost amounts to PhP 211 and the maximum amounts to PhP 70,000. Figure 7 shows the average acquisition cost of irrigation pump by type and year of purchase. Figure 7. Average acquisition cost of irrigation pump by the type and year of purchase. 34000.00 32000.00

l

33218.18 l

32500.00

l 31693.75

30000.00

l 27888.89

28000.00 26000.00

PhP

24000.00 22000.00 Type of purchase

20000.00

l l

l 18250.00

18000.00

Brand new surplus

16000.00 14000.00 12000.00 10000.00 8000.00

9000.00

l

7645.45

8306.38

l

l

7100.00

l

6000.00 1980 - 1989 2000 - 2003 1960 - 1969 1970 - 1979 1990 - 1999

Year of Purchase

8

The average service life was 7.54 years with a standard deviation of 3.84 years while the minimum was 2 years and the maximum was 20 years (Fig. 8).

Figure 8. Average service life of irrigation pump by the type and year of purchase. 8.81 [

9.00 8.39 [ 8.00

8.18

7.73

7.00 6.00

Years

[

[

5.33 5.00

[

5.00

T ype of Purchase [ Brand new [ surplus

[ [ 5.10

[ 4.40

4.00 3.00 2.00

2.00[

1.00 1960 - 1969

2000 - 2003 1980 - 1989 1970 - 1979 1990 - 1999

Y ear of Purc hase

The common brand of irrigation pump was Sakai (8.8%), while 44.5% have undetermined brands. Eighty eight percent of the irrigation pumps were imported. Majority of the irrigation pumps have Kubota (30.6%) and Yanmar (22.4%) engines. Majority (92%) were bought in cash.

 Thresher with Blower Only 12.2% of farmers have thresher with blower. Of this number, 7.3% have two to four units of thresher with blower. Majority (63.6%) were acquired in the 90’s. Eighty six percent were acquired brand new. In general, the average acquisition cost was PhP 43,722.22 with a standard deviation of PhP 21,128.01. The acquisition cost ranges from PhP 12,000 to PhP 120,000. The acquisition cost was classified according to the type of purchase (Fig. 9). Figure 9. Average acquisition cost of thresher with blower by type and year of purchase. \ 48909.09

\

50750.00

45000.00 39636.36 \

PhP

37500.00 Type of Pur chase

\ \

30000.00

22500.00

Brand new Surplus

\ 20500.00

\ 14000.00

15000.00

\ 1970 - 1979

1980 - 1989

12000.00

1990 - 1999

2000 - 2003

Y ear of Purc hase

9

The average service life of thresher with blower is 7.66 years with standard deviation of 3.69 years and it ranges from 2 to 20 years. The brand new have an average service life of 7.5-8 years while the surplus has an average service life of 5 years. The two leading brands recorded were Agad (25.5%) and Lakas Kuliglig (18.2%). Majority (72.2%) were locally made. The top two engine brands registered were Briggs and Straton (57.7%) and Kubota (17.3). The power of the thresher with blower ranges from 6 to 25 hp, while majority (60.4%) has 16 hp. Ninety eight percent of the threshers with blower were acquired through cash basis and the remaining 2% were given as donation. It was assumed that the length of service life of the machine was based on the actual number of years they were utilized from 1960 to 1999. The high investment cost likewise explains such low percentage ownership of stateof-the-art farm machinery. Kubota was the brand for HT for the majority. For the irrigation pump, Kubota and Yanmar were reported by the majority respondents. Upon verification, however, this brand actually refers to the engines. While this data could be misleading, it may show how knowledgeable the farmers on the logic and principle of farm machine. The engines alone does neither represent the HT nor the irrigation pump itself. Yet, it may mirror how effective the agri-extension program is and how keen the farmers are on their welfare. In terms of ownership, the nine provinces were approximately 10.20% mechanized. The HT-farmer ratio of 1:2 was low considering that it was identified for the land preparation only and a little on hauling activity.

Source of Power and Labor Land Preparation Majority of the land preparation operations were highly mechanized using manmachine. (Fig. 10). To sum it up, the operation on land preparation was 95% mechanized using the mechanical power technology. Figure 10. Level of mechanization for land preparation.

10

HT was the prime machinery used in plowing (87.8%), harrowing (96.44%), and leveling (88.45%) activities while FWT(100%) was the only machine used in rotovating (Fig. 11). Figure 11. Farm machinery/ implements used in land preparation.

The three sources of labor for land preparation for both wet and dry seasons contract (40.4%), hired (21.3%) and family (20.6%).

Crop Establishment Crop establishment was 100% dependent on manual labor. Only 0.3% used drum seeder. Figure 12. Level of Mechanization for Crop

The highest source of labor for crop establishment during wet and dry seasons was contracted labor (38.6%). This was brought by high labor used for pulling and bundling of seedlings (83.9 %) and transplanting (56.9%). The seed sowing (66.4%) and direct seeding (28.3%) activities were mostly done by farmers’ family. Family labor (24.2%) ranked second among the sources while hired labor (21%) ranked third.

11

Crop Care and Maintenance Man was the main source of power for crop establishment particularly on fertilizer application (99.9%) and rodent control (100%). While majority depends on man-machine for insect, weed, and mollusk control, many still employ manual labor for rodent control. The irrigation activity largely depends on gravity (85.5%) (Fig. 13). Figure 13. Level of Mechanization for Crop Care and Maintenance.

Sprayer was the only machine used for insect, weed and mollusk control activity while pump for irrigating purposes (Fig. 14) Figure 14. Farm machinery/ implements used in crop care and maintenance.

For dry and wet seasons, crop care and maintenance registered a majority labor source coming from the family (62%) followed by hired labor with 13.4%.

Harvesting and Postharvest Harvesting largely depend on manual operation using scythe (92.55%). Threshing activity mainly utilized man-thresher (93.90%) while the remaining 6.1% employed manual threshing. Hauling was primarily man-animal (40.55%) dependent while 35% did by man 12

alone. The remaining 23.35% hauled the products through cart (61.55%), jeep and truck, (19.70%) and HT (13.8%). See Figures 15 and 16. Figure 15. Level of Mechanization for Harvesting and Postharvest operation.

Figure 16. Farm machinery/ implements used in Harvesting and Postharvest operation.

In harvesting, majority of farmers employed contracted labor (57.7%) while in threshing, contract for mechanical thresher was predominantly used (51.7%). Meanwhile, majority of the hauling activity was incorporated to threshing (9.2%). The drying was mainly done by family labor (39.8%) through sun-drying in cemented pavements, whereas milling was chiefly hired (99.5%).

Mechanization Priorities Ninety seven percent (97%) of the farmers wanted rice production to be mechanized. Many (22.4%) considered this as a way to ease-up farm operations and generates higher income (13.7%). Land Preparation Priority Land preparation was the topmost priority of farmers to be mechanized. Among land preparation activities which got the highest priority was for plowing (84%) while the least was for rotovating (73.50%). This would mean less physical demand for the farmers (76.7%). See Fig. 17.

13

Figure 17. Mechanization priority on land preparation.

Crop Establishment Priority Crop establishment operation got a low priority. According to farmers, the main reason was “it is still endurable to be done manually” (46%), to mention that “manual labor was more efficient” (45%) (Fig. 18). Figure 18. Mechanization priority on crop establishment.

Crop Care and Maintenance Priority Among crop care and maintenance operations, only irrigation activity got a high priority (45.80%) All the rests got low priority rating (Fig. 19). Figure 19. Mechanization priority on crop care and maintenance.

14

Harvest and Postharvest Priority On harvesting and postharvest operations, harvesting (63.30%), threshing (80.20%) and milling (71.30%) activities registered high priorities (Fig. 20). Drying (47.10%) and hauling (52.40%) were rated low priority. Harvesting, threshing and milling were highly prioritized because of the fast, easy, and cheaper operation (94%). Figure 20. Mechanization priority on harvest and postharvest.

Farm Machinery Priority and Reason for Ownership Handtractor (38.9%) emerged as the machine most farmers wanted to own, followed by harvester (16.4%) and four-wheel tractor (13.10%) (Fig. 21). Figure 21. Farmers’ preference on the ownership of farm machinery, percent. blower

8.00

transplanter thresher

11. 80

sprayer rice mill

3.80 4.20

machine

mechanical dryer individual pump

16. 40 38. 90 13. 10

harvester handtractor four wheel tract or

0.70

floating tiller flash dryer

3.60

dryer

7.10

drum seeder

1.60

combine harvester 0.20

0.70

1.60

3.60

3.80

4.20

7.10

8.00 11.80 13.10 16.40 38.90

mpercent

Percentage

The most common reason for wanting to own farm machine was to reduce the production cost (61.30%), followed by timely operation (52.90%), and the availability when needed (46.90%) (Fig. 22).

15

Figure 22. Distribution of farmers according to their reason for wanting to own farm machinery. 61. 30

Reduce over all production cost

52. 90

Timely far m oper ation

46. 90

Availability of machine / equipment when needed

40. 00

Oper ation would be less physically demanding

38. 70

Reasons

Reduce man-day

20. 90

Incr ease far m produc tivity

14. 40

sour ce of extra income/ for r ent

13. 60

Cur rent methods are physically demanding

8.70

Cur rent cost are hig h

4.40

Shortag e of female labor

4.00

Alleviate the shortag e of male labor dur ing the land

61.30

52.90

46.90

40.00

38.70

20.90

14.40

8.70

13.60

4.40

4.00

1.30

Cr op losses ar e too hig h

Percentage

Problems and Constraints

Out of 450 farmers, 31% said they encountered problem in hiring labor. Difficulty in hiring labor happened most during wet season (54.4%) while 33.1 % find it difficult on both seasons and only 11.5 % during dry season. Lack of farm laborers was the major problem on the following operations: land preparation, pulling and bundling of seedlings, transplanting, weeding, harvesting, and drying. On the other hand, there were no specified problems on the following activities such as seed sowing, direct seeding, fertilizer application, spraying, irrigating and milling.

Demand for Machinery and Training Skills This section presents the following areas of concern: • • • • • • • • • • • •

Plans of Farm Machinery Acquisition Perception on Farm Mechanization Farmers’ First Priority on Farming Amount to invest for Farm Machinery for the next cropping year Hindrances to Farm Machinery Acquisition Farmers’ stand on farm mechanization Capability of Acquiring new machine Farmers opinion on contracting out major farm operations to farm contractors with machine Know-how on Farm Machinery Operation Farmers’ Preference for training Farmers’ opinion on land forming to accommodate farm machinery Willingness of farmers’ to have field demonstration of farm machinery in their barangay

Positive perceptions (90.8%) on farm mechanization may lead to its adoption and eventual use. Farmers perceived mechanization as a means of increasing work efficiency and

16

eventually to high profitability. Majority (85.3%) believed that mechanization has to be prioritized. Farmers interviewed (65.3%) plan to buy machine. However, financial constraints hinder majority to pursue such plan. Farmers (55%) believed that a group or cooperatives are more capable of acquiring new machine as investment cost would be shared among the members. An option considered by farmers (55%) was the idea of contracting-out major operations to contractors with machine. On the other hand, less than half (45%) opposed this idea lest farm laborers be displaced which may lead to rural unemployment. The skills on the operation of farm machinery is apparently limited to HT (77.8%) operation (Fig. 23). Figure 23. Distribution of farmers according to the farm machinery they can operate, maintain and repair. 7 7. 80

handtr actor

1 5. 60

Farm Machin ery

thr esher

4 .2 0

individual pump

4 .0 0

four wheel tractor

1 .3 0

har vester

0 .4 0

floating tiller r ice mill

0 .2 0 .2 0

0 .4 0

1 .3 0

4 .0 0

4 .2 0

1 5. 60 7 7. 80

P ercentage

For other farm machinery, the technical know-how was low and nominal. This implies a need for training although the demand was low at 30%. Figure 24 shows the distribution of farmers who like or need training on farm machinery.

Figure 24. Distribution of farmers according to their farm machinery training needs. 2.00

all kinds of farm machinery

1.10

combine harvester

0.90

Farm machin ery

drum seeder

19.10

four wheel tractor

33.80

handtractor

5.60

harvester

0.40

individual pump mechanical dryer rice mill

8.20

thresher

15.10

transplanter

0.40

weeder 0.20

0.40

0.90

1.10

2.00

5.60

8.20

15.10

19.10

33.80

P ercentage

A high number (95%) of farmers wished to have farm machinery demonstration in their barangay. They were interested particularly to the transplanter, harvester and FWT as

17

for them, “to see is to believe”. Fig. 25 shows the distribution of farmers according to their preference for farm machinery to be demonstrated.

56.40

46.60

34.60

19.80

18.10

17.20

13.90

8.70

11.10

8.20

7.50

8.00

56. 40 46. 60 34. 60 19. 80 18. 10 17. 20 13. 90 11. 10 8.70 8.70 8.20 8.00 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50 7.50

all kinds of farm machinery harvester transplanter four wheel tractor handtractor any kind of machine thresher combine harvester mechanical dryer land preparation machine drum seeder individual pump weeder seed sowing machine rice mill floating tiller flash dryer dryer did not specify

0.50

Farm Machinery

Figure 25. Distribution of farmers according to their preference of farm machinery to be demonstrated in their barangay.

Per centage

Fifty-eight percent of the farmers expressed their willingness to do land forming that will accommodate agricultural machinery (like tractors) for the following reasons: to maximize the efficiency of machinery (48.6%), to improve land structure (15.9%), and to make work easier and faster (12.4%). On the other hand, 42% were unwilling because there is no need for it (65.8%), expensive (6.5%), and land parcels are elevated (4.9%).

Source of Farm Information The information sources included in the survey are: • • • •

Agency/persons consulted on farming-related matters Newspapers and magazines regularly read Farmers’ Radio station preference Farmers’ TV Station preference

A great number of farmers have access to various sources of information such as DALGU technicians, co-farmers and friends, chemical company salesmen, radio, televisions, news papers and magazines. Tabloids have a wide readership (58%) while news programs were the most tuned both in radio (39.5%) and television (57%).

Farm Financing and Credit Information

Sources of Loan Of 450 farmers, 60.2% availed loans. Relatives and friends emerged as the major sources of loan (48%) followed by cooperative (18%) and third, from banks (13%). Fig. 26 shows the farmers’ sources of loan.

18

Figure 26. Sources of loan for farming expenditures.

The average loan amounted to PhP19, 859.29 with standard deviation of PhP62,439.48. The minimum amount borrowed was PhP 300 while the maximum was PhP 1,000 000 (Table 1). Table 1. Average of loan by sources, PhP. Sources of loan

Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Std. Dv. 160292.93392

Bank

58957.8947

700.00

1000000.00

Cooperative

19685.4082

1000.00

100000.00

21230.63715

Traders

16186.5217

1000.00

70000.00

17659.05629

Input Dealers

4550.0000

1000.00

10000.00

3865.66079

Informal lenders

9913.0000

1000.00

25000.00

6583.14165

12250.9160

300.00

100000.00

14966.43149

8971.4286

1800.00

16000.00

5727.62728

Relatives and Friends Others

Loan Period Loan period has an average maturity of 4.86 months with standard deviation of 3.8. The minimum maturity period registered was 0.5 month and the maximum was 56 months (Table 2). Table 2. Average maturity period of loan according to loan sources, months. Sources of loan

Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Std. Dv.

Bank

6.6486

3.00

12.00

3.08415

Cooperative

4.7609

3.00

12.00

1.67577

Traders

4.1739

3.00

6.00

.77765

Input Dealers

5.0000

3.00

7.00

2.00000

Informal lenders

4.5652

3.00

6.00

.78775

Relatives and Friends

4.6154

1.00

56.00

5.07843

Others

3.6429

.50

8.00

2.65698

19

Interest Rate The loan registered an average interest rate of 3.5% per month with standard deviation of 3.09. The interest rates range from 0.14% to 20% per month (Table 3). Table 3. Average interest rate according to loan sources, percent/month. Sources of loan

Mean

Minimum

Maximum

Std. Dv.

Bank

2.6553

.25

10.00

2.15119

Cooperative

1.5931

.14

5.00

1.30039

Traders

4.5941

.25

15.00

3.70814

Input Dealers

1.7302

.86

3.33

1.39023

Informal lenders

4.3442

1.00

10.00

2.69871

Relatives and Friends

4.4820

.17

20.00

3.52178

Others

2.8281

1.00

4.31

1.59212

Repayment Terms Majority (91.7%) of the loan repayment terms were in cash. The remaining 8.3% with repayment terms in kind were the loans coming from traders, relatives, friends and others. Loan for Farm Machinery Acquisition Only 5.1% availed of loan for farm machinery. Majority (57.7%) availed to buy HT followed by irrigation pump (30.7%). Majority (23.1%) availed loan from bank, followed by dealers (15.4%) and relatives and friends (15.4%). The average loan for the purchase of farm machinery was PhP 101,404.88 with standard deviation of PhP 367, 242.78. The loan ranges from PhP 6,200.00 to PhP 1,900, 000.00. The average loan period was 36.21 months with standard deviation of 38.86 and the minimum was 1 month while the maximum was 120 months. The average interest rate was 2.3% per month with standard deviation of 3.2%. The minimum interest rate was 0.8% per month and the maximum was 12%. Ninety six percent of the loan were payable in cash while those coming from the Countryside Development Fund (CDF) were payable in kind. The easy access for loan explains why majority availed it through relatives and friends. Loan maturity period was longer for the relatives and friends. Cooperatives as source of loan ranked second due to its comparatively low interest rate. Only 5% of those who availed loan were properly documented.

Infrastructure Accessibility An important factor affecting mechanization is the proximity of the farmers to relevant enterprises and institutions such as machine dealers, manufacturers, repair shops, 20

spare parts centers, gas stations, seed centers, agricultural chemical outlets, trading stations and banks. This promotes the adoption of modern farming technologies. Difficult and costly accesses to these tend farmers to stick to the traditional way. Region III has advantage in the number and proximity of infrastructures, while Region II appeared to be the most disadvantaged in terms of accessibility to these infrastructures.

Among the infrastructures, machinery dealers had the farthest average distance of 30.40 km which was about 40-50 minutes drive. For other infrastructures, the average distance were less than 30 km. Cagayan and Isabela had the most number of higher average distances than the other seven provinces. Repair shops, gas stations, spare parts centers, and agri-chemical centers were more frequently visited by farmers than the machinery dealers, manufacturers, seed centers, trading stations and banks. The common means of transportation was public utility jeeps.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Though the ownership of HT was only 50%, land preparation operation was almost 100% mechanized. The need for technical know-how on HT operation, repair and maintenance was higher than its ownership. Thus, it can be inferred that custom-servicing on land preparation has took-off. This was in keeping with the report that contract was the major source of labor for this farm operation. Furthermore, the small percentage of ownership of animal-drawn implements for land preparation was indicative of its diminishing importance. Therefore, mechanization on land preparation has been widely adopted. The ownership preference and training needs for HT and FWT was high. Crop establishment operation has remained as manual labor-dependent. This was confirmed by a low percentage to absence of ownership of machine for this purpose. As farmers rationalized, “it is still endurable to be done manually and manual labor is more efficient”. This notion impedes mechanization for this particular operation, thus, preference for ownership and possession of skills were low and absent, respectively. Irrigation largely depends on gravity while panabas, bolo, shovel, hand-operated sprayer, scythe, and hoe have high percentage ownership. Aside from their wide-ranging use, these farm tools were dependent on human labor. Crop maintenance mechanization was, thus, rated as low. The harvesting and postharvest operations have distinct level of mechanization. A small percentage of farmers owning thresher was reported while none for milling machine. Threshing was largely handled by contracted mechanical thresher while services of milling machines were hired for the purpose. Harvesting, hauling and drying remained as manual wherein the labor sources were contracted and family, respectively. Except for drying and hauling, the rest of the harvesting and postharvest activities were rated high priority and the machines for these purposes ranked second and fourth among the preferred ownership.

21

Contracted, family and hired labors were the three dominant sources of labor. Exchange of manpower or “bayanihan” is still practiced in few areas. From the results, it can be concluded that cost, pace/speed of operation, and ease or tediousness of the activity are the three major factors in facilitating farm mechanization. Unavailability of farm labor was apparently the most common problem brought forth by simultaneous operations among farms. This gives hopes for the advocacy on farm mechanization which should be backed-up by careful strategic planning and promotion. More than half of the farmers availed loan, a clear indication of the non-sustaining status for the majority of the farmers. They called it “bayad-utang” and eventually becomes a vicious cycle. The absence of loan sources would mean abandonment of the farming operation or pawning-in of land parcels. Such state was a contributing factor for nonacquisition of farm machinery, no matter how farmers wanted to mechanize their operations. The loan interest eats up the portion that could be invested for farm machinery. Loan dependence is the bottleneck for farm mechanization. The farmers’ receptiveness to technology is highly affected by their financial capabilities. Farm mechanization based on individual ownership seems ambitious at the moment. The modest alternative is through custom-service system which should not be limited to few operators but in a manner that would give farmers more freedom to decide to meet their specific needs. As such, monopoly in contracting would be avoided. This begets farmers’ empowerment to free them from the bondage of poverty. These posit challenges the advocates of farm mechanization. The issue is no longer whether farmer would accept farm mechanization or not, but rather how.

REFERENCES [AMTEC] Agricultural Machinery Testing and Evaluation Center. 1997-2003. Test Data Bulletin for Small Engines [AMTEC] Agricultural Machinery Testing and Evaluation Center. 1999-2003. Catalogue of AMTEC-tested Machines. [PIDS] Philippine Institute for Development Studies. 1978. Modelling the Impact of Small Farm Mechanization. [PCARRD] Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Development. 2002. R & D Status and Directions (2000 and Beyond). Agricultural Engineering. Los Baños, Laguna. Baustista, E.U. 2003. Mechanizing Rice Production and Postharvest Operations in the Philippines: Present Status, Prospect and Challenges. Paper presented at the National Rice Summit, Philippine Social Science Center Bldg., Commonwealth Ave., Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines. May 28-30. Gavino, R.B., Magno, F.S. and Dizon, M.D. 2005. Status and Prospects of Agricultural Mechanization in the Philippines. A paper presented to the FFTC International Workshop

22

on Small Farm Mechanization Systems Development, Adoption, and Utilization, Oasis Hotel, Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines. June 14-16.

23