I'llllllli'.l. “(VETS # LIBRARY Michigan State u'“"""’_ This is to certify that the dissertation entitled The Development of Vegetable Production and Marketing in Peninsular Malaysia: an Economic Analysis of Recent Trends and Potentials presented by Mohamed Hatta Dagap has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. degreein Agricultural Economics Dam March 9, l987 ”(III-n- A“‘_o.' A ‘ 1' 1m , y . . o-‘m1 'lVlESI.J BEIURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LIBRAR1£S remove this checkout from —_‘—. your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. ._———_____———-—.. — l THE DEVELOPMENT OF VEGETABLE PRODUCTION AND MARKETING IN PENINSULAR MALAYSIA: An Economic Analysis Of Recent Trends And Potentials BY MOHAMED HATTA DAGAP A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Agricultural Economics 1987 ABSTRACI’ TEEDEVEIOHIENTOPVEGETABLEPWION ALDMARKETDGINPENINSULARMAIAYSIA: AnEcmicAnalysisOfRecentTraadsAndPotentials By Mohamed Hatta Dagap The growth of the vegetable industry has been sluggish and has been beset with problems. The value of imported vegetables is increasing. Few studies had been made of the vegetable subsector in Malaysia due to more emphasis on major export crops. This calls for an exploratory study with the following specific objectives: (1) To describe the vegetable subsector with respect to recent trends in the production, distribution, domestic consumption, export and import through focus on eight of the most popular vegetables. (2) To evaluate the expected changes in domestic demand for vegetables. (3) To evaluate the potential for increasing vegetable supply and farmers' income in four vegetable growing areas. (4) To evaluate constraints in the market system faced by participants. (5) And draw implications from the analysis for strategies to develop the vegetable subsector. This study used secondary data obtained from local and international reports. Primary data was obtained from two surveys, namely, a census of farmers and a stratified random samples of 128 farmers conducted in four areas. Ten representative farm models were constructed to analyze cropping pattern and income potentials . National vegetable production growth is slower than population growth. Vegetable consumption per capita is on an upward trend. With the present trends the production of vegetables is not likely to fulfill consumption needs in year 2000. At the farm level vegetable production is constrained by small farm sizes, pests and diseases, control of soil problems, prices and marketing. Vegetable farmers have scope to increase income by increasing the intensity of farming, and increase crop yields. Operation of the markets at the wholesale and retail level was found to be generally competitive . At the national level vegetable prices were found to be intergrated between regions . Vegetable marketing margins were comparable to those in other countries. However, farmers pinpointed prices and marketing as perenial problems . To My Wife Kamariah 0thman iv ACKNCM'LEDGD‘IENTS I would like to express my gratitude to Professors James T. Bonnen, Glenn L. Johnson, Anthony Y. C. K00, and 0. Donald Meaders for serving on my graduate and thesis ccnmittees . Very special acknowledgements and thanks are due to Professor Robert D. Stevens, who acted as my major professor and thesis supervisor. I am fortunate that he was always willing to give generously of his time, suggestions, and personal encouragement. I also want to gratefully acknowledge the financial support received throughout the period of my graduate program from the Public Service Department, Government of Malaysia. The Director General of the Department of Agriculture, Malaysia has kindly extended his support and provision of study leave to me to pursue my studies. I am also grateful to officers and staff of FAMA, MARDI, Department of Statistics, and Department of Agriculture for invaluable help in providing information and physical support in the course of data collection. I also want to express my thanks to all persons that provided data and information for the research. Encik Mbhd th Samik and staff at the computer Section of the Department of Agriculture have extended their help in computer services. Special acknowledgment is to Encik Lau Chen Chee for assistence in data coding and retrieval work in the ealier phase of the research in Malaysia. Finally, I want to thank my wife, Kamariah 0thman, for bearing all the hardships and sacrifices for the duration of the program of studies. She has gracefully survived great neglect during this period. All members of my family sacrificed greatly and provided support, and to them I am very‘ grateful. vi TKBLE OF'CONTENTS Page LIST or TABLES............................... ........... xii LIST OF FIGURES............ ...... ..... .................. xvi ABBREVIATIONS USED IN THE DISSERTATION .................. xvii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................ ........ 1 1.1. ROLE OF AGRICULTURE IN EOONOMEC DEVELOPMENT................ ................. 1 1.2. DEVELOPMENTS IN THE FOOD SUBSECTOR .......... 4 1.3. THE IMPORTANCE OF VEGETABLES.. .............. 7 1.4. TEN MOST POPULAR VEGETABLES.. ............... 8 1.5. POLICIES ON VEGETABLES PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION......... ........ ................ 8 Policies on vegetables In General. ..... ... 8 vegetables Production Promotion ........... 13 vegetables Production Credit ..... ......... 14 Marketing Promotion And Infrastructure.... 14 vegetables Price Policies.. ............... 14 Research And Extension .................... 16 1.6. PROBLEM STATEMENT..... ...................... 17 1.7. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY ..................... 21 1.8. REVIEW OF LITERATURE.. ...................... 22 1.9. SCOPE OF STUDY.............. ................ 24 1.10. OVERVIEW OF THE DISSERTATION ................ 25 vii CHAPTER 2 2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. 2.5. 2.6. 2.7. 2.8. 2.9. 2.10. 2.11. CHAPTER 3 3.1. 3.2. 3.3. SURVEY METHODOLOGY .......................... 27 INTRODUCTION................ ................ 27 OVERVIEW OF SOURCES OF DATA.. ............... 27 LISTING OF FARMERS .......................... 28 DEFINITION OF PRODUCTION'ADN’MARKETING REGIONS.............................. ....... 28 OBJECTIVES OF SURVEY ........................ 3O SELECTION OF AREA AND RESPRESENTATIVE FARMS........ ...................... .... ..... 31 SAMPLING FRAME AND SELECTION OF FARMS ....... 32 QUESTIONNAIRES .............................. 33 PRETESTING AND VALIDATION OF QUESTIONNAIRES................... ........... 34 FIELD METHOD ................................ 34 DATA PREPARATION AND ANALYSIS....... ........ 35 DEVELOPMENT IN THE VEGETABLE SUBSECTOR ...... 37 OVERVIEW................ .................... 37 VEGETABLE PRODUCTION ........................ 37 Trend of Aggregate Vegetable Production................... ............. 37 Pattern of Production ..................... 39 Stability In Production ................... 43 Trends In Productions For Selected vegetables ............................... 46 INTERNATIONAL TRADE IN VEGETABLES .......... 52 Imports.. ................................. 52 Exports. .................................. 55 viii 3.4. 3.5 CHAPTER4 4.1. 4.2. 4.3. VEGETABLE (DNSIMPTIONH ..... 55 Trend of Consumption.. .................... 55 WYOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 60 MC ANALYSIS OF VEGETABLE PRODUCTIONAT FARM LEVEL........... ......... 64 Immm1m.................. OOOOOOOOOOOOOO 64 VEGETABLES FARMING IN MALAYSIA: SURVEYS RESULTSooooooooooooooooooooo0.0000co 65 Farm Sizes... .................. ... ........ 65 Tenureship...... ..... . .................... 65 Perm.Labor................. ..... .......... 65 Wbrking Capital And Credit ................ 69 Farm Assets And Durables. . . ............... 70 Crops Planted... ................. . ........ 71 Cropping Frequency Per Year........ ....... 75 Returns From Vegetables Production. ..... .. 77 Farmers' Problems. ......... .. ............. 77 EWIC ANALYSIS OF VEGETABLE FARMS AND CONSTRAINTS TO EXPANSION. . . . . . .......... 82 Methodological Issues ..................... 82 Overview of Basic Models.... .............. 85 Choice of Representative Farms ............ 85 Structure of LP Models.... ................ 88 Activities and Objective Ennction va1ues..............OOOOOOOOOOO 00000000000 91 Resource Supplies And Requirement......... 106 ix 4.4. 4.5 4.5. CHAPTERS 5.1. 5.2. 5.3. 5.4. 5.5. 5.6. CHAPTER 6 6.1. 6.2. 6.3. 6.4. 6.5. 6.6. RESULTS OF LP NDDELS LP ANALYSIS OF REPRESENTATIVE FARMS.......... .............. 109 Overview......... ......................... 109 Farms in Johore.. ......................... 110 Farms in Perak.... ........................ 118 FarmsinSelangor..... .......... 121 Farms in C. Highlands. ................... 123 SENSITIVITYANALYSIS............. ........... 124 SUMVIARYOF FINDINGS.... ......... ............ 127 POTENTIAL FOR INCREASES MARKET SYSTEM PERmm...............................O. 130 INTRODUCTION............... ................. 130 MARKETING CHANNELS. .......... . .............. 130 MARKETSTRUCTURE.............. ...... ........ 134 MARKE'TINGMARGINS.......... ................. 139 NATIONAL MARKET INTEGRATION. . . . . . . . . ........ 144 PROBLEMS FACED BY MARKET PARTICIPANTS ....... 147 PROSPECTS OF PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION ..... 151 OVERVIEW......... ........................... 151 RELATED STUDIES. . ........................... 151 SOURCES OF DATA. . . . . ........................ 152 PROJECTION OF PRODUCTION. . . . . . . ...... . ...... 155 EMPIRICAL DEMAND FOR VEGETABLES ............. 163 FORESTED CONSUMPTION AND PERSPECTIVE DEMAND ..................... ................ 167 X 6.7. THE POTENTIAL FOR SELF SUFFICIENCY ......... 171 CHAPTER 7 SUMVIARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR STRATEGIES TO DEVELOPMENT OF THE VEGETABLE SUBSECTOR. . . 175 7.1. SUMARY...... ..... .. ........................ 175 Objectives And Methods USed In The Study. . .......... . .................... 175 Results ................................... 177 7.2. IMPLICATIONS FOR STRATEGIES TO DEVELOPMENT THE VEGETABLE SUBSECTOR ......... 179 Strategies That Effect The Farm Level..... 180 Intensified Farming....... ............. 180 Expansion of vegetable Lands. .......... 180 Strategies At The National Level ......... . 181 Yield Improvement ...................... 181 Improving Extension.. .................. 183 Improving Marketing .................... 183 Reduction Of Price Uncertainty ......... 184 7.3. FUTURE RESEARCH. ............................ 186 APPENDIX A...... ........................................ 188 APPENDIX B........... ................................... 196 APPENDIX C .............................................. 198 APPENDIX D .............................................. 233 APPENDIX E .............................................. 254 APPENDIX F .......... . ................................... 273 APPENDIX G .............................................. 287 APPENDIX H .............................................. 291 BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................ 296 xi Table 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 2.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 LIST OF’TABLES Agricultural Growth Rate (1960-1983) ............... Food And vegetable Imports (1971-82) ........ . ...... Export-Import or Food And Vegetables (1975-80) ..... Types Of vegetable Grown Commecially In Peninsular Malaysia. ............................... Ten Most Popular vegetables Consumption Per Capita Per Year, 1985..... .......... ............... Total Imports Quota Approved For cabbages 1982-84.. vegetables Exports Peninsular Malaysia 1975-82 ..... Yields and Returns For Selected Crops (1978) ....... Sample Size of Different Regions..... .............. Indices of Vegetables Production, Total Agricultural Production, And Population, P. Malaysia, 1973-84 ............... . ............... vegetable Production P. Malaysia (1971-84) ......... Indices of Total Area And Total Production of Selected vegetables, 1974-82. ................... Cbmparative Share Of Total Production From Different Regions 1974-75, 1976-80, 1981-82 ........ Indicators of Stability of the 1974-82 Selected vegetable Production Trends ............... Average Annual Production, Growth Rate And Regional Share For Selected vegetables, P. Malaysia, 1974-82 ............................... vegetables Imports 1972-83 ......................... Share of Total Fresh vegetables Imports 1972-83.... Exports of Selected vegetables, P. Malaysia 1975-83 ..... . ...................................... xii Page 2 5 12 15 18 20 33 38 4O 41 44 47 48 53 54 56 3.10 3.11 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13s 4.13b 4.13c 4.13d 4.13s 4.13f 4.13g Index of Consumption of vegetables Selected Years, 1966-83............ ............. . ........... 57 Index of Per Capita Consumption Of Selected vegetables, 1984-82........................ ........ 58 Distribution of vegetables Farms According To$1288........OOOOOOOOOO0.0.000...000...... ...... 66 Tenureship of vegetables Farms In Selected Ares.... 66 Family Sizes And Vegetables Farm Labor In Selected Ares, P. Malaysia......................... 68 Average Labor Utilisation Per Hectare vegetable Per SGMOO0.00000000000000............OOOOOOOO... 69 Proportion of Farmers Who Took Credit For FemomntimEOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.000... ....... 70 Ownership of Agricultural Machinery, Equipments And Fixtures, In Vegetables Farming, P. Malaysia... 72 Average Size Planted of Selected Vegetables........ 73 Average Yield of Selected vegetables......... ...... 74 vegetable Cropping Frequencies ..................... 76 Average Cost And Returns Per Crop For Selected vegetables, P. Malaysia..................... ....... 79 Problems Faced By vegetables Farmers, P. Malaysia.. 81 Key To Labels LP Model Farm LP Model Farm LP Mbdel Farm LP Model Farm LP Model Fanm LP Model Fanm LP Model Farm In Basic Size 0.4 Size 0.8 Size 1.6 Size 0.4 Size 0.8 Size 1.6 Size 0.4 Tables........ .............. 93 Hectare--Johore... .......... 94 Hectare--Johore. ............ 95 Hectare--Johore ............. 96 Hectare--Perak.. ............ 97 Hectare--Perak.... .......... 98 Hectares--Perak... ........... 99 Hectare--Selangor ...... . ..... 100 xiii 4.13h 4.131 4.131 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 LP Model Farm Size 0.8 Hectare--Selangor. ........... 101 LP Model Farm Size 1.6 Hectares--Selangor... ........ 102 LP Model Farm Size 0.8 Hectare--C. Highland.... ..... 103 Crap Mix Of Representative Farms In selectwmas' 1985....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO. 00000000 104 vegetables crops And Cropping Frequencies MACtiVitiesInTheLPOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 000000000000 105 Comparison Of Activities In Optimise LP Solution And Actual Activities Of Representative Farms ....... 111 Price Level For Choice Enterprices To Be In The Recommended Enterprises....................... ..... .125 Percentages Drop In Prices And Yield.Allowed By Recommended Enterprises. ........ ....................126 vegetables Buyers In Selected Areas - P. Malaysia...133 Place of Sales Of vegetables ........................ 135 Distribution of vegetable Wholesalers by Regions....136 Farm Retail Price Spreads for Cabbages In Selected Markets .................................... 142 Farm-Retail Spreads for Tomatoes In Selected metSOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...00.0.00...O. 000000 143 Marketing Costs And.Margins for Cabbages ............ 144 Ranges of Price Correlations Between Markets For $61-6th vwetables.0.00.00.00.00...0.0.00.000000000146 Consumption Per Year And Income Elasticities of Demand for vegetables In Different Countries ........ 153 Income Elasticities of Consumption.of vegetables of Different Countries.................. ...... . ..... 153 vegetable Areas By Regions Projected To 1990 and 2000 ..................................... ...... 157 vegetables Yields In Various Regions Projected to 1990 and 2000 ... ................................ 160 xiv 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 6.9 Projections to 1990 and 2000 of Selected vegetable Production, P. Malaysia ................... 164 Estimates of Income Elasticities for Different Types of vegetables. ................................ 166 Forecast Consumption Requirements of Selected vegetables in 1986, 1990, and 2000 ..... . ............ 168 Prospective Demand For Selected vegetables 1986, 1990, and 2000 ................................ 170 Projected Production, Consumption And Self Sufficiency 1990, and 2000 .......................... 172 LIST OF'FIGURES Fig. Page 1 Peninsula Malaysia: Major Urban Areas And Vegetable Growing Areas .................. 29 2 Marketing Channels For Vegetables ............ 132 §§E FAMA FAO FELDA USDA ABBREVIATIONS Agricultural Bank Of Malaysia Department of Agriculture Department of Statistics Federal Agricultural Marketing Authority Food And Agricultural Organisation Federal Land Deve lopnent Authority Federal Land Consolidation And Rehabitation Authority Farmers Organisation Authority Gross Domestic Products Guranteed Minimum Prices Govermtent of Malaysia Linear Programing Malaysian Agricultural Research And Development Authority Ministry of Agriculture National Agricultural Policy United Nation United States Department of Agriculture. xvii GIAPTERGE INTRODUCTION! 1.1. Role of Agriculture In The Economic Development. In.Malaysia the agricultural sector has for several decades played a major role in contributing to the rapid growth of the Malaysian economy. During much of the 19603, total output (GDP) rose by nine percent per annum in real terms. Agriculture played a significant role as the output of the sector grew at slightly more than seven percent per annum. However, as shown in Table 1.1, while total output continued to grow in 1970s at an annual rate of seven to nine percent, agricultural output increases have slowed down to less than five percent per annum in recent years. Agricultural contribution to total output is still significant, comprising about a quarter of the total GDP. Agriculture is still the largest sector in terms of employment, thirty six percent of the work fbrce is still in agriculture. Agriculture contributes about one third of the export earnings(GOM, (1984); USDA,(1985)). The Malaysian agricultural sector can be separated into an export subsector and the food production subsector. The export subsector supplies the world market with rubber (thirty six percent of the world's production in 1984), palm oil (fifty four percent of the world's production in 1984), and cocoa (six percent of world's production in 1984). Malaysian strong comparative advantage in producing these commodities enabled the export subsector to be robust and vigorous. It is the main focus Table 1.1: Agricultural Growth Rate (1960 - 1983) Year 1961-70 1971-75 1976-80 1981-83 Annual Growth Rate (%) / a 1976 1980 1981 1982 1983 GDP Industry /b Services /c Agriculture /d 9.0 14.5 6.3 7.1 7.2 8.4 8.0 5.0 8.6 11.1 9.0 5.5 6.0 6.9 7.5 3.7 11.6 16.8 8.1 12.2 7.8 8.4 10.1 3.1 7.1 5.9 10.6 4.2 5.2 5.6 5.6 6.3 5.8 9.3 6.2 0.5 Notes: /a All growth rates are measured in (1970) constant Source: prices. Period growth rates are annual averages. /b Includes manufacturing, mining, construction and utilities. /c Includes transport and communication, trade, financial, business, real estaste, government, community and personal services. /d Includes agriculture, livestock, forestry and fishing. WOrld Bank (1984), Sector Report Malaysia (Table 1.1). of agricultural developnent. The food subsector consists of crops such as paddy, pepper, coffee, tea, fruits and vegetables. While the agricultural sector contributed about twenty three percent of the GDP in 1982 (Appendix A, Table A1) , the food subsector contributed only about ten percent of the value added (Appendix A, Table A2) . The food production subsector has suffered from lack of attention. Historically this subsector was dominated by the need for subsistence; the sale of produce was incidental as a result of subsistence surplus, and rarely the result of deliberate market planning. Apart from small scale intensive vegetable growing, paddy growing in some specific areas and scattered fruits orchards, the food production subsector maintains a large number of farmers whose activities, until recently, were outside the mainstream of the country ' s market economy. Currently, the government has considerable interest in the food subsector, not only to encourage and ensure adequate food supply, but in order to reduce poverty in the subsector which‘ is characterised by smallholders constituting more than thirty four percent of the poor in 1980 (Appendix A, Table A6). Eradication of poverty is among the top priorities of development plans of the Malaysian Government. This was established in the Third and subsequent Malaysian Development Plans (COM, (1976); Gm, (1981)). The new National Agricultural Policy (NAP) emphasizes poverty eradication, and at the same time is aimed at providing food security, crop diversification and continued increase in the production of exports crops. The central objective of the NAP is to maximize income from agriCulture while revitalizing the sector's contribution to overall economic development. This would require increasing productivity of traditional export crops , further developing other export crops such as cocoa, and greatly expanding production of food crops such as rice, fruits and vegetables (Gm, (1984)). 1.2. Developments In The Food Subsector. The Malaysian food import bill has increased by fifty four percent in the decade 1973-1982 (Table 1.2), from M390 million to M31404 million in 1967 constant value. The food imported were grains (rice, wheat and maize), sugar, and fruits and vegetables. Rice constituted about twelve percent of the annual food imports, while wheat and maize shares were about nine and five percent respectively of the annual food import. bill. Sugar imports averaged at about sixteen percent per annum . Vegetable imports constituted about seven percent of the total annual food imports . The import of vegetables increased 2.75 times in current values in the last ten years from M872 million in 1973, to M$156 million in 1982. During 1975-80, the deficit of imports over exports of vegetables increased by nearly forty five percent from $41 million to $59 million in constant 1967 value (Table 1.3). Table 1.2: Food And vegetable Imports (1971-82) (M31000)1/ Total Fruits & Food vegetables vegetables vegetables as % Year Imports Imports Imports of Fbod Imports 1971 703227 86793 50837 7.2 1972 691382 86323 51734 7.5 1973 910012 95819 61033 6.7 1974 1139565 100384 66821 5.9 1975 953829 104965 65615 6.9 1976 962752 107769 84516 8.8 1977 1048977 124108 75331 7.2 1978 1201151 138743 81289 6.8 1979 1190123 153016 79674 6.7 1980 1322856 170822 86951 6.6 1981 1412490 222076 93746 6.6 1982 1403830 234622 89770 6.4 Notes: 1/ All figures are in M31000 deflated with CPI 1967 = 100. Data was originally in current USS converted into MS at exchange rate given by FAO Trade YearbOOk. For example in 1982 US$1.00 = M$2.320. Source: UN Commodity Trade Statistics Series D. YEAR mm mm EXPORT IMPCRT NETIMPORTS Table 1.3: amour—m OF ma: AND W (1975-80) FOOD* (in mt 361000) 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 (in $1M) belated with CPI 1967=100) 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 * CamoditiesmderSI‘I'COOconsideredasfood. Notes: Sources: UN Carmdity Trade Statistics Series D. PAC Trade Yearbook. 410643 529865 621580 622188 698281 753138 285168 358743 401537 383122 414902 419574 1392293 1439995 1645661 1978509 2052891 2410405 966870 974946 1063088 1218293 1219786 1342844 981650 910130 1024081 1356321 1354610 1657267 681702 616203 661551 835171 804884 923270 VEGETABLES 35812 44981 41842 45894 47232 48829 24536 30454 27029 28259 28065 27202 FigureswereinUSScorwertedtoNS. ratewereobrtainedfronFAO'IradeYeam. arrange 1980 US$1.00 = 162.176 Net Inports = Imports less Exports. 94484 124831 120403 132011 134092 156076 65615 84516 75331 81289 79674 86951 58672 79850 78561 86117 86860 107247 41079 54062 48302 51609 59748 Thirty four percent of those under poverty in 1980 were in the food subsector. The high incidence of poverty in the food subsector and the increasing trend of food import bill, suggest a need for more government attention to the development of the food economy. Malaysian development programs have implemented major irrigation and drainage investments, new land development schemes, farmer resettlement, and technical and financial supports . Besides targeting programs to rubber smal lholders, these programs focused on the development of paddy and coconut farmers, with less emphasis on fruit and vegetable cultivators. There is an urgent need for the development of the fruit and vegetable farmers as more than sixty four percent of these farmers are in poverty (Appendix A, Table A6). The current trend of increasing vegetable imports calls for increased vegetable production, and is consistent with the government objectives in the NAP. The improvement in Malaysian vegetable production could save foreign exchange and improve the living conditions of its people . 1.3. The Inportance of Vegetables Fruits and vegetables form a substantial proportion of the monthly food expenditure of Malaysian households. On the average, individual manbers of the household in Peninsular Malaysia spent about sixteen percent of the total food monthly expenditure on fruits and vegetables. This amount was six percent of the total per caput monthly expenditure in 1973. The proportion of the total food expenditure per caput per month spent on fruits and vegetables ranged from ten percent to eighteen percent . This was observed in income groups with total household expenditures per month of M$50-$99 to over M$800 (Appendix A, Table A8). Plant products supply a major portion of calories, nutrients and vitamins in the Malaysian diet. According to Food And Agricultural Organization's (FAO) estimates in 1980, ninety percent, seventy six percent and sixty six percent of the supply of calories, protein and fat per caput daily intake, respectively, were from plant products (FAO, (1980)). Vegetables form one of the main source of nutrients and vitamins. 1.4. Ten Most Popular Vegetables. Many kinds of vegetables are grown in Malaysia. Thirty four commercially grown vegetables crops are shown in Table 1.4, and the ten most popular vegetables are listed. in Table 1.5 . These ten most popular vegetable crops grown are enumerated in the order of their popularity based on per capita consumption in kilograms. l. 5. Policies On Vefitables Production And Consumption. 1.5.1.Policies On Vegetables In General. Although vegetable crops constitute a significant portion of the agriculture sector, they have always been neglected in the past. This is largely due to the fact that most of the vegetables produced were domestically consumed, with Table 1.4: Types of Vegetables Grown Comercially In Penirsular Malaysia. ClmnmNane EnglishLocal l . Angled Petola (Luffa) 2. Bell C1111 Pepper Bulat 3. Bitter Paris 4. Bottle Labu 5. Brinjal Temng (Egg plant) 6. Cabbage Kobis (English Cabbage) 7. (211111- Kobis flower Bunga 8. Carrot Lobak 9. Celery Sadri 10.011111 Cilli (Caym) (lada merah) ll.Chinese Kobis Cabbage Cina (mite (Wong Cabbage) Ngab Luffa aartangula Capsicun anmm Mmcrdica charantia Lagenaria vulgaris Solanun melmgena Brassica oleracea Brassica oleracea varbotrytis Daucuscarota Apiun graveolens Capsiamannum Brassicachinmsis varpekinmsis Family Cucurbitaceae Solanaceae Cucubitaceae Oicubitaceae Solanaceae Cruciferae Cruciferae UnbelIiferae Unbelliferae 50181130838 Cruciferae 10 Table 1.4 (ocn't): Types of Vegetables Grown Cmuercially In Pminsflar Malaysia. ChmrnNane BotanicalNane English Local 12.011nese Kucai Alliun tuberosun Chives Alliun odorun 13.011nese Kailan Brassica alboglabra Kale 14.Chinese Sari Bunga Brassica juncea Mistard (Sawi Hijau) (Choy San) 15.01am Tinun Calais sativus l6.Fra\ch Kacang Phaseolus vulgaris Bean Burris 17.1ndian Sad Pahit Brassica juncea nastar'd (Kai (1101) CV. rugosa 18.Kidney Kacang Dioliohos lablab Bean Kara l9.Leek Leko Alliun porun 20.Letb.|oe Salad Latica sativa 21 .1019 Kacang Vigna sesquipedalis Bean Panjang 22.0cra Bendi Hibiscus esculmtus (Ladies Finger) 23.?mpldn Labu Cwurbita maxima Manis 24.Radish Lobak Raphams sativus Putih 25.Snake Petular Trichosanthes anguina Fanily Alliaceae Cruciferae Cruciferae Cucurbitaceae Cruciferae Alliaceae Corpositae Malvaceae Cucurbitaceae Cruciferae Cummbitaceae 11 Table 1.4(om't): Types of Vegetables Grown Connercially In Peninsular Malaysia. Comm Name English Local 26.Spinach Bayan Hijau (Bayan Merah) 27.8pring Daun mien Bawang 28.Squash Labuair 29.Sweet Kacang Pea Manis 30.Sweet Quaker Shoot mania 31.Tanabo Innate 32.Water Ranging Spinach 33.Wax Kundur Gourd 34.?hite Sawi MJS‘tardPutih Botanical name Amaranthus gangeticus Amaranthus vividus Allium cepa var. asoolmicum Oicurbita pepo Pisun sativun Samopusarxirogyms Lycopersioai emilentum Imponeareptans Inpcnea aquatica Benicasa cerifera Brassicachinensis Fanily Amaranthaceae Alliaceae Cucrnbitaceae Solanaceae Ccnvolvulaceae Cucurbitaceae Cruciferae 12 Table 1.5. Ten.Most Popular vegetables Cbnsumption Per Capita Per Year, 1985. vegetable Kgm. Chinese Mustard (Sawi Hijau) 4.188 Cabbage (Kobis Bulat) 4.106 Long Bean (Kancang Panjang) 3.859 Cucumber (Timun) 3.432 Spinach (Bayam) 2.758 water Spinach (Kangkong) 2.476 Tomato (Tomato) 2.370 Okra (Kacang Bendi) 1.565 Chilli (Cilli) 1.502 Eggplant (Terung) 1.398 note: Name in bracket is the local name. Source: FAMA (1986), Household Consumption Survey,1985. 13 imported food consumption, the need for more diversification in exported commodities, and the incidence of poverty among farmers led the Government of Malaysia(GOVl) to realise that vegetable crop were becoming more and more important to the Malaysian economy and it began to look into this subsector very closely. The launching of the NAP put vegetable crops into proper perspective. The NAP also identified among other objectives the expansion of vegetable production for local markets and exports. 1.5.2. Eggetable Production Promotion. The Department of Agriculture (DOA), a division of the Ministry of Agriculture (MOA), carries out promotion programs approved and budgeted for by the MOA. Starting in the early 1970's the DOA implemented vegetable subsidy programs in some states in Peninsular Malaysia. This subsidy program was aimed at expansion of areas under production and encouraged farmers to enter or expand vegetable production. In kind subsidies for fertilisers, insecticides and seeds were distributed to reduce the costs of production and at the same time to encourage farmers to use new imputs. The "Green Book" programs carried out in 1974 (Phase 1) and 1976 (Phase 11), were also input subsidy programs to produce subsistence vegetable needs and to encourage farmers to expand production of commercially grown vegetables. 14 1.5.3. V_egetab1e Production Credit. The Agricultural Bank of Malaysia (ABM) is a quasi- government bank under the mA, and provides subsidized loans to farmers to produce a number of crops including vegetables. Before 1984 these subsidized loans were charged a four percent annual interest . Currently the ABM charges zero interest to bona fide farmers in the poverty group. 1 . 5 .4. Marketing Promotion and Infrastructure . Marketing activities are generally the responsibility of the Federal Agricultural Marketing Aurthority (FAMA), a statutory agency under the MOA. FAMA instituted projects such as providing marketing information on current market needs and on daily prices. FAMA constructed cold rooms and product distribution centers in strategic areas. These centers were intended to store produce before being transported to ma j or urban markets. 1.5.5. Eggetable Price Policies. Price intervention in the market is conducted by FAMA from time to time in its effort to stabilize the market. However, FAMA' 3 activities were limited to stabilizing cabbage prices, and acting as a last resort buyer especially during certain vegetables ' glut periods . Cabbage price control is an ongoing program coordinated with the Ministry of Trade. The program is implemented to allow periodic cabbage imports as Malasian production is irregular and insufficient. Table 1.6 shows 15 Table1.6:TotalInportsQ\otaApprovedForCabbages 1982-84 TotalQuotasInTcxs. 1982 1983 1984 W Jan 1402 1710 2360 Feb 1300 1510 2740 1460 1470 2830 Apr 1290 1400 2490 1170 2240 2530 June 1200 1650 2970 July 1540 1830 2400 Aug 1425 2200 2351 Sept 1350 1550 2190 Oct 1020 1540 2740 Nov 870 1873 2920 Dec 1800 2660 3120 Total 15845 21633 31641 Source: FAMA, (unpublished data). 16 quantities of import quotas approved by the Ministry of Trade and Industries . Other market intervention activities by FAMA were limited to procuring, storing and subsequently disposing of tomatoes and Chinese mustards during their respective glut periods. FAMA also carries out integrated marketing programs in identified targeted areas. These programs aim at promote vegetable growing in economical 1y depressed areas suitable for vegetable production. The essence of the program is to provide reasonable prices and ensure market outlets for the farmers ' produce. This program is identified as Guaranteed Minimum Prices (GMP), FAMA acting as buyer of last resort to implement the procurement programs. However, the participation in the program is limited to vegetable areas identified from time to time by the FAMA . 1.5.6. Research and Extension. The vegetable research and improvement program is carried out by Malaysian Agricultural Research And Development Institute (MARDI). Currently there are four major vegetable research stations: Jalan Kebun, Klang; Serdang; Cameron Highlands; and the Integrated Peat Research Station, Pontian. These stations represent the different type of areas in which the vegetables are grown. Vegetable crOp research in these stations mostly relate to cultural practices and varietal trials. Little research is concerned with plant breeding . Varietal improvement 17 is generally done through plant selection. vegetable crop promotion and extension is carried out by the Department of Agriculture (DOA). The DOA has its own nurseries located in the different states for plant propagation and distribution of planting materials to farmers in the areas. Pest and disease control services are also the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture which has crop protection units located in every state. The distribution of information and transfer of technology is done by agricultural technicians within the states through the Training and Visit. (T&V) System whereby the agricultural extension technician provides advisory services to groups of farmers at least once every two weeks. 1.6. Problem Statement. Increasing vegetable production in Peninsular Malaysia seems to be desirable. The trend of increasing vegetable imports suggest an increased need for vegetables. In recent years 'Malaysia faced a deficit in its balance of payment (COM (1984); Khor(1984)); thus, production that substitutes for imports would save foreignlomfluurnn Vegetables have export potential as Singapore and other Asian nations bought an average of M844 million per year from Malaysia for the period 1975-1980 (Table 1.7). The expansion of exports over the last ten years also suggest potential for incremmaenqruts. 18 Table 1.7: Vegetable Exports Peninsular Malaysia 1975 - 82 Year Tons /a M$'000 /b 1975 57342 35327 1976 62711 44987 1977 68549 41834 1978 36311 45887 1979 69036 47236 1980 71930 48830 1981 79940 61688 1982 72839 51625 1975-80 /c 60980 44017 1981-82 76390 56657 Notes: / a Cabbages, tomatoes( fresh), and other vegetables (fresh or chilled) as classified by FAO. /b Values converted from.US$ to MS at exchange rate given by FAO Trade Yearbook 1982. /c Periodic data are annual averages. Sources: MOA-Malaysia, Food Trade Statistics (1975-82). UN Cbmmodity Trade Statistics Series D (1975-82). FAO Trade Yearbook 1982. 19 Expanded vegetable production, especially through increased productivity, would benefit thousands of smallholders currently in poverty. Although increasing production is not sufficient to end poverty, it could contribute to reducing it. Greater vegetable production is consistent with the government objective to enhance agricultural production. The NAP has also specifically emphasized the expansion of food production, including vegetables. Because vegetables provide a main source of vitamins and nutrients to the Malaysian diet, imports of vegetables will to the urban population continue to ensure good nutrition. Imported commodities tend to be consumed in urban areas which have better infrastructure, including cold storage and efficient transportation for these perishable products. Greater local production of vegetables can increase nutrient availiability in rural communities. The weak development and low productivity of vegetable growing in rural areas not only deprive rural Malaysians of good nutritional balance but also of a decent income. vegetable production appears to be lucrative (Table 1.8). A study by T. S. Tee(1979) provides estimates of net return per hectare from vegetable crops higher than those from traditional export crops. Despite the oppportunity and relatively higher return to vegetables, it is a puzzle why the area planted with vegetables has dropped from 9500 hectares in 1972, to 7600 hectares in 1982 (Appendix A, Table A3). 20 Table 1.8: Yields And forums For Selective m1978). Cztp Muslim Est. Merage Gross lbbmn/ Est. Net Faded" Yield Wolseale ra/seasn (bet/ha morn/ha (daYS) (t/ha) mks/t) ('(IJOVS) ('ooms) ('oooe) a/ vegetables Brinjal 90-180 14.9 496 7.4 2.5 4.9 Bitter (bird 35-12) 29.8 414 12.3 4.9 7.4 carnage 100 17.9 579 10.4 3.0 7.4 (11111183 m—150 14.9 1406 21.0 4.9 16.1 (1mm: 35-50 22.3 331 7.4 2.5 4.9 Girger: 2'70 29.8 82'7 24.7 9.9 14.8 th (land 90 44.7 165 7.4 1.2 6.2 Lang beans 50-120 10.4 496 5.2 2.5 2.7 French has 53-12) 14.9 496 7.4 2.5 4.9 napkin 90 14.9 331 4.9 1.2 3.7 acre 60-120 8.9 496 4.4 2.5 1.9 Sweet mtato 120 17.9 413 7.4 2.5 4.9 'Itnsto 53-90 14.9 496 7.4 3.9 3.5 Oder crrpsb/ Rutter - 1.1 160) 1.7 0.4 1.3 Oil Palm - 18.8 124 2.3 0.6 1.7 (bona - 1.8 1200 2.2 0.4 1.8 * 'neramgivmreferstotineoffirstlmvestuptnfliefiml honest. Source: a/ Table2z'1ee, S.T., vegemblePrOdnUmmMalaysia, Acta Whites, 119.101, 137.1979. b/ Rudd 83141984) Important 21 questions related to the development of the vegetable industry include: Why has the acreage devoted to vegetable production declined? What constraints hinder increased production? Do marketing systems impose constraints on increasing production? All these factors can influence the farmers' choice these issues. of crop enterprises. This study will explore 1.7. Objectives Of The Study. This study 1. ii. iii. iv. has five specific objectives: To describe the vegetable subsector with respect to recent trends in the production, distribution, domestic consumption, export and import of the eight most rmportant vegetables to Malaysia. To evaluate expected changes in domestic and foreign demand for vegetables. To evaluate the potential for increasing vegetable supply and farmers' incomes in four vegetable growing areas. To identify constraints in the market system to increased vegetable production. To draw implications from the analysis for research, extension, price and other policies for the development of vegetable production and marketing system in Peninsular Malaysia. 22 1. 8. Review of Literature Relatively little knoxdedge has been developed about the economics of vegetable production and marketing in developing countries like Malaysia. A survey of published research yielded few studies in Malaysia. Among those identified was a general overview of the vegetable industry by T. S. Tee (1979), and a specific analysis of cabbage marketing problems by W. Y. Loh (1974). The Ministry of Agriculture research arm MARDI(1981), has provided some agro-economic information and data on the status of technology adoption. The Ministry of Trade has released unpublished papers on market potential of vegetables in some importing countries occasionally through Trade Camision Offices (Malaysian Trade Conmission, 1984.) The lack of research on vegetable production and consumption in developing countries led Hormann (1984) to advocate a comprehensive research approach. A comprehensive approach is chosen over a partial approach, since many substantial features of information have to be sacrificed to the abstraction when the partial approaches are applied, since their quantification is not possible due to reasons of methods and organisation. At the exploratory stage a comprehensive investigation provides a broader scope of knowledge but will also contribute to a comprehensive basis for advice . With the comprehensive approach, attempts are made to identify problems and barriers to improved performances in the 23 industry. On the production side, Johnson and Wittwer (1984) indicated that growth in agricultural productive capacity results from the progress made on four fronts: technological improvement, improved institutions , human skills and improved and expanded capital (physical and biological) base. All these factors are essential to market growth. No one individual factor is growth inducing. Technological advance is crucial but is not sufficient alone for agricultural progress. Complementing institutions must be established in order to enhance agricultural capacity. Improvement in human skills and capacity is required to achieve and manage the improvements. The cumulative improvement in biological /physical capital further enhances productive capacity. Contentions similar to those of Johnson and Wittwer were made by Hayami and Ruttan (1971, 1984), but they have emphasized the importance of developing the capacity to generate an ecologically adapted and economically viable agricultural technology. This was achieved through a dynamic process of adjusting to resource endowments and technical and human capital accumulation during the development process . Consequently, it involved a continuous adaptive response on the part of cultural , political and economic institutions. With these sources of increased agricultural productivity in mind, the increased supply of agricultural commodities in developing cbuntries does not lie primarily in the behavior of farmers, their aversion to work, or their inability to take risks 24 or plan fer the future. Rather, the enviroment in which farmers operate--availiable technologies, supply of inputs, provisions of infrastructure, marketing outlets, the attractiveness of non- agricultural employment, and incentives for production and investment--largely determine their supply behavior (Harrison (1974); Tee (1979), Krisna (1984), Ruttan (1984), World Bank (1984)). Studies conducted in the tropics indicate the following two specific constraints as bottlenecks in vegetable production: poor technological base which result in poor yields and great variations in yields. Production technologies sometimes do not adequately reflect the relative costs of inputs. Price variations make peak price season production profitable and offseason production risky. Lastly, market and distribution systems are inadequate (Loh (1974), Calkins (1978c), Tee (1979)). The performance of the industry must be evaluated in terms of growth prospects, ability of supply to meet demand, and the potential for sustained employment with reasonable income (profitability) (Harrison (1974)). With the aforesaid constraints and barriers, possible needed roles for public stimulation and facilitation of an improved production-distribution system needs to betmqflrued. 1.9. Scope of Study The research focus is restricted to the eight most popular vegetables grown and consumed in Peninsular Malaysia. These 25 vegetables are Chinese mustard, cabbage, cucumber, spinach, water spinach, tomato, chili, and eggplant. long been and okra two of the ten most popular vegetables, are not covered in this study due to lack of data. The analysis of production focuses on vegetables grown in three regions and the highlands are represented by the following specific areas: Perak, representing the northern zone; Selangor, representing the central zone; Tangkak, Johore, representing the Southern zone; and Cameron Highlands, representing the highlands. The investigations cover both production and marketing aspects of the vegetable subsector in the economy. The research is exploratory in nature. Inferences drawn from micro level data for national policies must be interpreted and generalized with caution. 1. 10. Overview of The Dissertation. Chapter Two provides the survey methodology for the research. It includes objectives of the survey, definitions of production and marketing regions, sources of information, how the survey was conducted and the preparation and analysis of data. Chapter Three describes the current development in the vegetable subsector with respect to vegetable growing areas and growers and trends in vegetable production and imports. This chapter also describes current vegetable consumption . Chapter Four provides an analysis of vegetable production at the farm level. There is an analysis of returns to vegetable 26 production and a linear programing analysis of representative farms. Chapter Five looks at the potential for improved market system performance . The marketing aspects of vegetable production and distribution are analyzed with respect to marketing channels, structure, intregration, and problems perceived by farmers, wholesaler, and retailers. Chapter Six examines the prospect for production and consumption for the years 1990 and 2000. Projections of production were made and the consumption demand forecasted. This chapter looks at the potential for self sufficiency in vegetables. Chapter Seven provides a sunmary of methods, results and implications for development strategies for the vegetable subsector. mm SURVEYW 2 . 1 . Introduction. This chapter provides the survey methodology for the research. It includes sources of information, definition of production and marketing regions, objectives of survey, how the survey was conducted, and preparation and analysis of data. This study draws on both primary and secondary data. Information used for the first two objectives were from published and unpublished data from a number of government and international agencies. These sources of data are listed in Appendix 8. Primary data were obtained with a number of survey instruments administered with the cooperation of the Department of Agriculture (DOA). The DOA carried out a listing of farmers and, at the same time, collected some pertinent information with respect to farmers' background. This data source was utilized to get background information on vegetable cultivators. A stratified random sample survey was conducted on vegetables farms and a survey of representative farms was administered in four regions . Informal interviews were conducted with assemblers, wholesalers, retailers, and government officials involved in the vegetable industry . 27 28 2.3. Listggs 9; Farmers. The DOA conducted a listing (census) of farmers for Peninsular Malaysia. This exercise was conducted to enumerate all smallholders(1/ ) in all extension service areas identified by the DOA. It collected pertinent information, including farm family demographic statistics, amount of farm labor, crop cultivation acreage, land tenure of farmers and their main sources of income . The questionnare used may be found in Questionaire 1 in Appendix C. This census provided good information for the study and also served as the listing frame to select the sample. 2.4.Defination 93 Production and Marketing Regions. The vegetable consumption centers were located in ma j or urban areas. These major urban areas are Alor Setar, Georgetown, Butterworth, and Ipoh, in the North; Klangp Shah Alam, Petaling Jaya, Kuala Lumpur, Seremban, and Malacca, in the Center; Johor Bahru in the South; and in the East, were Kota Bahru, Kuala Trengganu, and Kuantan. The vegetable production areas are located in certain concentrated areas with some small commercial home gardening done by part time farmers located in areas surrounding major urban centers. Major production areas are Cameron Highlands for highland type of vegetables; Tangkak and Kulai,(Johore); Banting and Tanjung Karang (Selangor);and; Taiping, Chui Chak, Sungei Siput, and Kampar (Perak). 29 -. IHMLAND P L. w‘ 3““‘1 o . 0 - Mot 8th E .- ,‘ Kola Bow can"! .../4., } Goorlflown . V- ....- . PJWAN5 ’H‘tuoflh | “:24:- ' mom. KELA M". ""‘°""“ T'CNRIT 3~=x -\) ~m_,\f “‘90“ 7 c «on .- £35 m‘ncud \ "a 85:. ~00 ohmhw an» A m 5:11.? Kolano . a; 3.. 80: ~ ‘8 CENTRA 4“ SOUTH ‘ Ponunn . when Anna O - - 0 Vegetables Ann . : INGAPORE - 83“. boundrloe I: ...- International boundrlu Figure]: Peninsular Malaysia: Major Urban Areas And Vegetables Growing Areas 30 For the purpose of this study the vegetable production and marketing areas were zoned into regions. The classification of regions was consistent with the Government of Malaysia zoning as indicated by the Fourth Malaysia Plan (1981). The term "region" refer to a relatively contigous land mass which is a more or less uniform stage of developnent, has similar resource and economic activities and is dominated by a single metropolitan area. A region, therefore, may encompass an entire state or a group of states. In this study Peninsular Malaysia was divided into four regions (Fig.1): Nbrthern: Kedah, Perak, Perlis and Pulau Pinang. Central: Federal Territory of Kuala Lumpur, Negeri Sembilan, and.Malacca. Eastern: Kelantan, Trengganu and Pahang. Southern: Johore. 2.5. Objectives 9; Survey. The general object of the vegetable farmers's survey were to of increasing understanding of vegetables production in Peninsular Malaysia. The survey was mainly on crop production activities with limited inquiries on marketing aspects of vegetables. The following were specified objectives of the survey. 1. To obtain information on input levels, yields, cropping pattern, and social economics constraints in vegetables production. 31 2. To gather information about factors limiting the expansion of vegetable production. 3. To obtain specific input/output information on sampled farms to help identify and construct representatives farm nodal . 2.6.Selection 9; Areas And Representative Farms. Visits were made to major vegetable growing area to gather reconnaissance informations before conducting the survey. Discussions with DOA staff members and site visits helped to identify the survey areas. .A decision was made to restrict the survey to areas that concentrated on vegetable production rather than to include those :rufll.scathmmxiareas:flmufilin'Uuagmuipheryanurbantaxman This decision was based on limited expansion potential of these peripherial areas due to urban encrouchment and their relative small size per unit (less than 0.15 hec.). One stratified random sample was selected from each of the :flmn:regions; NoruL,<3unzel, South, and the caneron Hughlami areas. These sample were from Perak (Nbrth), Selangor (Central), Johore (South), and Cameron Highland. These areas were purposively selected as they had intensive commercial vegetable cultivation and potential for future growth. Farms in each of the selected areas showed similar infrastructure, similar soil and exposed to similar socio economic enviroment. Thus, informations from these farms helped in forming a good perception of the 32 representative farms to model . 2.7.Sampling Frame And Selection o_f Farms. The sampling frame was established from the DOA's list of farmers for the different extension areas(2/). A list of vegetable farmers was extracted for the four areas. These lists were verified by area level extension workers and community leaders. Farmers who stopped cultivating vegetables were struck off the lists and new farmers were added. The extension agents and conlnunity leaders verified the farm size of operations. Stratification of farms was based on size. Three categories of farms were established. These were small (less than 0.40 hec. ), medium (0.41 to 1.00 hec.) and large (more than 1.00 hec.). Farms with less than 0.40 hectare were considered small as the farm family. resource could be utilised on a larger size farm. The meditnn category practiced more intensified vegetable farming and the desirable size for a family farm is expected to be in this category. Not many vegetable farms were expected to be more than 1.00 hectare, as such this category was classified as large according to current standard of operation of vegetable farms in Malaysia. A stratified random sample was extracted for each area. These stratified random samples have proportionate representation of farms in each categories. There were 165 farmers listed in the samples and 128 respondents successfully completed the 33 questionaire. Table 2.1 shows the number of farms in each sample. Table 2.1. Sample Size of Different Regions Region Area Sample Distribution According Size(n) to Farm Size. Hectares g _-_-_ 0.40 0.41-1.00 >1.00 North Perak 30 15(50) ~ 9(30) 6(15) Central Selangor 32 13( 41) 13( 41 ) 6( 18) East C.Highland 28 - 28( 100) - (Highland) South Johore 38 10( 26) 17( 45) 11( 29) note : The figures in bracket denotes the proportion of farms in each categories. 2. 8.Questionaires. The farmers background informations were obtained from the Questionaire 1 in Appendix C. This questionaire was used by the DOA to collect information from 343052 farm families throughout Peninsular Malaysia. The survey instrument was used to collect farm family demographic data, size of farm operation, type of crop cultivated and farm assets and structures . Questionaira 2 was used on the stratified sample to obtain information about the operation of the farm in the previous 34 seasons. These collected information provided the statistics for the selection of representative farms in each category and also provide the general picture of the operation of the farms with respect to their operation and problems. The same questionaire was used to collect information from the representative farms. 2. 9. Pratasting And Validation _O_f_ Questionaira. The questionaire 2 was pretested by the researcher with the help of extension agents in Tangkak, Johore. The pretasting was done to ensure the clarity and ease in collecting data using the instrument. Feedbacks were obtained from the respondents and the extension agents with respect to their understanding of the questions. The agents were also requested to provide feedbacks in term of ease in using the survey instruments . 2.10. Field Method. The data was collected by the researcher and enumerators . These enumerators were briefed and trained on collection techniques and the use of the survey instruments. Field verifications were done imadiately after data collection. All informations missed or doubtful were checked with the respondents immediately. The respondents provided the informations based on memory and records kept by them. Thus, the information gathering was done once on each respondents. This single collection and memory based information was done due to lack of time and fund. 35 Secondly, most of the respondents have been visited by different researchers for almost similar type of information such that more frequent or continuous information collection would not only took a lot of the farmers time but result in hostile respondents(3/). Field extension agents were used to enumerate due their fimiliarity with the area . The collected informations were verified with other data already collected by the DOA's farm management section. 2.11. Data Preparation and Analysis. The questionaire were coded and cleaned while in the survey area. This was aimed at checking and immediate action of verification. The information collected by the DOA on Questionaira 1 were coded and punched onto cards and stored on tape with the use of a minicomputer - Data General MV 4000. The informations were retrived and processed using SPSS-x. Information collected on questionaire 2 were coded and kept in floppy disk using spreadsheets software. A Zenith-PC was used to handle the data processing from this questionaire. notes : 36 (l/) A smallholder is defined, as the COM administrative defination, as that of a farmer who operate lands, contigous or non contigous, aggregating not more than 100 acres (40.5 hec.) in area. (2/) An extension area is an area serviced by an (3/) extension agent under the T & v system of extension. The area normally covers a ”mukim" (sub unit of district) with 600 to 800 farm families. Surveys were recently conducted by DOA, MARDI, and IADP office to collect information for basic statistics as well as for monitoring and evaluation of projects. IOWEHERlflfiEB WHMWW 3.1. Overview This chapter will describe and analyse a decade of development in the vegetable subsector . The trend in aggregate and individual vegetable production will be analysed using historical data. Patterns and stability of production will be examined. Vegetables are traded internationally, as such the trends of export and imports are explored. Lastly, the chapter will explore the development of vegetable consumption in Malaysia. 3 . 2 .V_egetable Production 3.2.1. Trend of Aggregate Vegetable Production. One meaningful measure of trend was to compare the index numbers of annual aggregate vegetable production(1/) with indicas for all agricultural production, food production and population. In the period of 1973-84 vegetable production increased by 24.5 percentage points (Table 3.1). In comparision population increased by 31.5 percentage points, . while agricultural production and food production increased at much higher level which were 38. 51 and 48.66 percentage points respectively. 37 38 Table 3.1. Indices Of vegetables Production, Food Production, Total Agricultural Production, And Population, P. Malaysia, 1973-84. Year vegetable Food Agricultural Population Production Production Production 1974-76=100 1974-76:100 l974-76=100 1974-76:100 1973 85.36 90.26 91.92 95.07 1974 97.85 97.01 97.50 97.48 1975 100.00 99.04 98.35 100.06 1976 102.08 103.95 104.15 102.46 1977 104.53 106.61 106.05 105.16 1978 100.52 102.85 103.12 107.65 1979 104.31 118.41 115.58 110.36 1980 108.77 120.93 116.57 114.46 1981 111.67 130.91 124.17 117.37 1982 112.78 135.89 128.35 120.47 1983 108.55 128.08 122.74 123.48 1984 109.88 138.92 130.43 126.57 notes: vegetables include melons. Source: Based on data from FAO, Production Yearbook (1973-84); GOM, Dept. of Statistics, Vital Statistics of P. Malaysia(1973-84). 39 The production of vegetables increased from 383, 000 to 493,000 tons per year from 1973 to 1984. This was an average increase per year of two percent. Population grew on the average at 2.6 percent while agricultural production increased by four percent annually. Until 1978 the contribution to expansion in production was solely contributed by increase in area. Fluctuation in production level after 1978 were caused by both area and yield variation. Table 3.3 canpares the index of aggregate acreage of selected vegetables. In 1978 production increase by 73 percent of that average level of 1974-76, out of this increase 50 percent was contributed by increase in area, with yield increase contributing the remaining 23 percent. However, after 1978, yield increase did not contibuta as much as the previous increase, variation in yaild increase was between seven to fifteen percent in the years between 1979-82. 3.2.2. Pattern of Production. There was not much of regional specialization in production of individual vegetables in Peninsular Malaysia. However, cool seasons vegetables still thrive better on the highlands. The introduction of heat tolerance variety of cool season vegetables had ceased the monopoly of the highlands for these vegetables . Table 3.2. Vegetable Productim P. Phlaysia (197l-84)/a Etru: Production. Annual Grcmdix .Rate /b (1000 tons) (Peromt) 1971-75 /b 407 '4.2 1976-80 467 1.7 1981-84 496 0.3 1980 488 4.2 1981 501 2.7 1982 506 1.0 1983 487 -3.7 1984 493 1.2 1971-84 454 2.0 Note: a/ Vegetables included melcns . b/Arnialgrowuiforaperiodwasthe averagearnmalgrowthrata. Source: FAO, Productim Yearbook 1971-84. Wbrld.Bank (1984) op. cit. 41 Table 3.3: Indices of Total Area and Total Production of Selected Vegetables, 1974-82. 1974:76=100 Year Area Production 1974 87 88 1975 103 103 1976 110 . 109 1977 99 95 1978 150 175 1979 134 142 1980 218 233 1981 229 256 1982 136 155 Source: Based on data from MOA, Misc. Crops Reports, 1974-82. 42 The distribution of vegetables in the respective regions will indicate the ability of the region to be self sufficient in its own supply. Vegetables are perishable and bulky; thus, storage and transportation costs are high, which deter temporal and spatial movements of the commodities. However, when price difference between regions can cover transport cost, vegetable will be moved from one location to another. Changing pattern of production and area of concentration of vegetable production will indicate readjustment in the area with respect to crop choice and mix. This will indicate whether a region has expand production of a commodity or maintain status quo. Consequently, identifying expanding and declining regions will provide indications for factors that contribute to growth and impediments of growth in individual vegetable production. The pattern of production was analysed from the share of total production contributed from each regions . Trend analysis of concentration of production will indicate which area are becoming more dominant in the production of the commodity. Due to limitation of consistence data, only data from 1974 to 1982 were used to indicate the changing pattern of production (Appendix D: Table D4). These years were segregated into three categories to standardise potential impacts of specific programs as they were implemented in the Five Year Development Programs of the Ministry of Agriculture. Thus, averages for 1974-75 were categorised as in the Second Malaysia Plans, 1976-80 were in the Third Malaysia 43 Plan while 1981-82 were in the Fourth Malaysia Plan. Comparative share of total production for the three periods is summarised in Table 3.4. With reference to Table 3.4, the analysis of share showed that the eastern and the southern regions lead in producing a large proportion of the vegetable produced in Peninsular Malaysia. During the period observed the southern zone exhibited an increasing share of production of all vegetables. On the other hand the northern region suffered declining production share of all vegetables. The eastern region suffer from declining share with exception of four types of vegetables: chinese mustard, cabbage, spinach and tomatoes . The central region was observed to have increasing share of cucumber and water spinach production, while, decrease in chinese mustard, spinach and eggplant production. The share of production in chil 11 and tomatoes were constant. 3 . 2 . 3 . Stability in Production. Stability in production of each type of commodity is one of the creteria of good performance (Harrison, K; at. al. 1974). This ensures that adequate supply will be provided to the consumers. The trend in each type of vegetables production has been relatively unstable. Vegetables are expected to have great variation in production as they are greatly influenced by weather, past and diseases. Two vegetables, spinach and water spinach, were observed to domastrate a stable production trend, Table3.4:CmparativeShareofTotalProductimFron Different Regions 1974-75,1976-80,1981-82. Periods South. North. East Central (percent) Cldrlraalnustarde 1974-75 11 28 26 35 1976-80 28 18 27 27 1981-82 43 15 25 16 M 1974-75 1 1 97 1 1976-80 22 2 85 - 1981-82 1 1 97 1 Clxnmdxr: 1974-75 13 31 41 6 1976-80 34 19 37 9 1981-82 41 14 31 13 m 1974-75 9 30 45 17 1976-80 29 21 35 16 1981-82 36 15 36 14 (oont'd...) 45 Table 3.4(ocnt'd): Periods South Ikrflil East Central (percart) water M 1974-75 9 37 46 7 1976-80 29 25 31 13 1981-82 43 20 23 12 Trainings 1974-75 28 12 57 4 1976-80 33 4 58 5 1981-82 38 4 55 2 Chilli 1974-75 14 38 39 10 1976-80 18 31 39 12 1981-82 24 36 30 11 M 1974-75 10 28 48 10 1976-80 30 20 37 6 1981-82 32 23 35 5 Source: Based.on.data fromlMOA, Misc4Crops Reports, 1974-82. 46 whereby the 122 was more than 0.75. Cabbage showed a fairly stable relationship. Generally, leafy vegetables domestrate greater annual stability due to shorter cropping periods which give more crops per year . Fruited vegetables, such as chillies and eggplants, with longer cropping periods resulted in less crops per year. Their production which is determined by the farmers decisions to plant is influenced by the previous crops returns. For fruits vegetables the impacts of poor returns are compounded when farmers are reluctant to plant and the cropping periods are longer. Table 3.5 shows the relationship of production with time. 3.2.4. Trends In Productions For Selected Vegetables. There a considerable fluctuation in the level of production of each of the selected vegetables. Despite the erratic f luctuatim of the individual vegetable production, the aggregate vegetable production increased constantly at about two percent annually. The large expansion' of one vegetables production was compensated in some proportion by the contraction of another resulting in stable aggregate production of all vegetables. Growth rates of leafy and yellow vegetables were observed to be higher than the fruited vegetables. High value crops such as tomatoes and cabbages experienced a higher growth rate, however, chilli which is also a high value crops did not exhibit similar performances (Table 3.6). 47 Table 3.5: Indicators Of Stability of the 1974-82 Selected vegetable Production Trends./a vegetables b Std. Error R2 t-value Chinese Mustard -0.70 /c 0.30 0.45 2.32* Cabbage 0.18 /d 0.06 0.57 3.07** Cucumber 0.13 /d 0.04 0.56 3.04** Spinach 0.09 /d 0.02 0.75 4.53** Water Spinach 0.08 /d 0.02 0.75 4.58** Tomato 0.77 /e 0.25 0.57 3.05** Chilli n.a /f Eggplant 0.05 /d 0.02 0.49 2.60* notes: /a See text note 2. /c /d /e /f * ** Log-inverse function. Semilog Function. Log-log Function. No significant trend. Significant at 95 percent. Significant at 99 percent. Source: Based on data from MOA, Misc. Crops Reports, 19 74-82. 48 Table 3.6: Average Annual Production, Growth Rate And Regional Share For Selected vegetables , P. Malaysia, 1974-82. vegetables Average Annual Average Share(Parcent) Total Growth Production Rate Nbrth South East Central (tons) (’15) (5%) (35) (if) (35) Chinese Mustard 16520 4 19 28 26 26 Cabbage 25875 17 2 7 1 90 Cucumber 12583 6 20 31 9 36 Spinach 4760 10 22 26 16 36 Water Spinach 5720 6 27 28 11 32 Tomato 15866 12 6 33 4 57 Chilli 11804 -1 34 18 11 38 Eggplant 5775 2 22 25 6 39 Source: Based on data from FDA, Misc. Crops Reports, 1974-82. 49 Chinese Mustard: This vegetable increased by 39 percentage point from 9209 to 14950 tons in the period 1974-82. The increase was about four percent per annum. Production was observed to fluctuate over time . The index of production expand better when compared to index of population. Comparing the growth of the different vegetables chinese mustard expanded much more slower than other leafy and yellow vegetables. Production of chinese mustard were distributed evenly within the Peninsular, with the northern region having on the average about 19 percent share of total production with the other regions having between 26-28 percent individually. Outstanding growth was observed in the southern region which was the lowest producer in 1974 but surpassed other regions to be the main producer in 1982. cabbage: Cabbage production increased to 35815 in 1982, 2.73 times higher than the average level of 1974-76 production. The average rate of growth per year was seventeen percent which was higher than the population growth rate. This growth rate was the highest among the vegetables studied. A drastic increased in production occured in 1978 whereby the production level was more than five times the level in 1977. This was the result of the government ' s subsidy program and the introduction of heat tolerant cabbage varieties on the lowland. On the average ninety percent of the cabbage production was from the eastern region especially from the cool area of the Cameron Highlands. Cucumber: The growth rate for cucumber production was six percent per year. The level of production of 11048 tons in 1982 50 was 1.51 times higher than the average production of 1974-76. From 1974 to 1980 there was an increase in production. But production dropped in 1981 and 1982. The production of cucumber in 1980 was twice the 1979's level. The average rate of increase was higher than that of the population. Spinach: Increase in production of spinach was from 3147 tons to 6116 tons in the period 1974-82. This was an increase of 92 percent. This growth in production was an average of ten percent per year which far exceed the rate of population growth. More than one third of the spinach produced was from the eastern region. The north and south region together have half of the total production of this vegetable. Water Spinach: Again the eastern region was the was the lead producer of this vegetable. Its share was on the average about 32 percent . The south and north region together on the average have 52 percent of production . The growth in production was six percent per year with total production of 6123 tons in 1982, an increase of about 53 percent above the level in 1974. Within the period studied, total production of water spinach increased, stabilised and increased again. 'The rate of growth of six percent per year was higher than the population growth rate . Tomato: The average increase in production of tomato from 1974 to 1982 was at the rate of about 12 percent per annum. This resulted in one hundred percent increase in total production to the level of 12189 tons per year in 1982. The eastern region have 51 more than half of the total annual production whereas the southern region share was 33 percent with the north and south region together having only about ten percent of the total production. The rate of increase in production was higher than that of population growth. Chilli: Chilli exibited a downward trend in total production. Total production in 1982 dropped 15 percent than the average level of 1974-76. The rate of increase on the average was negative one percent per year. In the period 1977 to 1980, production seemed to stabilised, only to drop the next year. If the trend continue to persist, than, fresh chilli will be one of the vegetable that would be insufficient for domestic requirement provided that current level of intake continued. The eastern and northern region shared about 71 percent of the total annual production based on annual average . Eggplant: This vegetable showed a weak rate of growth of two percent per annuam, with total production in 1982 just fifteen percent higher than average level in 1974-76. The eastern region have a major share of total production while the northern and southern region together have forty five percent of total production in the period 1974-82. Increasing trend of production was observed in the southern region; while all the other regions experienced a declining trend. 52 3.3. International Trade In Vegetables. 3.3.1. Emgrts. Total vegetables imports(/3) doubled in the period 1972- 83, from 81339 tons to 172158 tons, valued at M$24.1 millions and M3137 millions at current value respectively (Table 3.7). The growth of imports in physical forms was on the average at seven percent per year, and eighteen percent per year in monetary terms. In the same period of 1972-83, the trend of imports was stable (/ 4) with only tomatoes showing a downward trend . The main imports were potatoes and alliageous vegetables which constituted about eighty-one percent of total physical imports (Table 3.8 ) . Imports of the eight selected vegetables were limited to cabbages, tomatoes, and chilli. Imports of cabbages was subjected to import quota (refer to Chapter One): Imported cabbages increased from 9561 tons per year to 25053 tons per year in the period of 1972-73. This formed about ten percent of total imported fresh vegetables. The average growth rate per year was fourteen percent for cabbages. Tomatoes showed a decresing rate of imports which fall from 1673 tons to 167 tons in the period 1972-83. This showed that Peninsular Malaysia was moving toward self sufficiency in her tomato needs. Chilli showed an upward trend in imports which increased from 355 tons to 1485 tons in the period of 1978-1983. The average rate of increase was thirty- four percent per year. Table D5 and D6 in Appendix D showed the trend of these imported vegetables. 53 Table 3.7: Fresh vegetable Imports 1972-83. Year Amount Value of Imported Imports 34% m 1972 81289 (91) 24108 (58) 1973 91502 (102) 30937 (75) 1974 89878 (101) 36279 (88) 1975 90430 (101) 43156 (104) 1976 87588 (98) 44716 (108) 1977 95321 (107) 57228 (138) 1978 108136 (121) 65361 (158) 1979 129039 (145) 66751 (161) 1980 156018 (175) 78810 (190) 1981 147189 (165) 100604 (243) 1982 162962 (183) 126862 (306) 1983 172159 (193) 136904 (331) Average 1972-83 117630 66976 notes: Exclude preserved, prepared and canned vegetables,mushrooms, and canned tomatoes (puree, pasteand concentrate) NUmbers in brackets are index 1974-76:100. Source: MOA, Import Export Trade In Food and Agricultural Products, P.Malaysia, 1972-83. 54 Table 3.8: Share of Total Vegetable Imports 1972-83 Crop Amount Amount Average Average Imported Imported Amount Share of 1972 1983 Imported Total (tons) (tons) 1972-83 vegetable (tons) Imports . 1972-83 ( percent ) Cabbage 9561 25053 12572 10 Potatoes 22175 43626 32241 27 Tomatoes 1673 167 541 1 Alliageous 43548 81863 55813 54 Frozen 365 1401 655 1 Others 3967 11975 7620 6 (fresh) Total 81287 172159 109442 100 Notes: /a Exclude preserved, prepared and canned vegetables, mushrooms, and canned tomatoes (puree, paste and concentrate). Source: MOA, Import Export Trade In Food And Agricultural Products, P. Malaysia, 1972-83. 55 3.3.2. Expgrts. Exports of all vegetables in physical terms increased by forty eight percent in the period of 1975-1983 from 57342 tons to 85081 tons. On the average the increase was at five percent per year. In monetary tam the amount of earnings from exports of vegetables increased by eighty nine percent at current values in the same period of 1972-83 (Appendix D : Table D7 and D8). The exports of all vegetables showed an increasing trend. Tomato, cabbage and chilli were the major export of the eight selected popular vegetables. These three vegetables form about thirty one percent of total exported vegetables. Although aggregate vegetable exports was on the upward trend, only tomato was exhibiting similar trend. Cabbages and chilli were on the downward trend (Table 3.9). 3.4. Eggetable Consumption. 3.4.1. Trend of Consumption. Aggregate vegetables per capita consumption fluctuated in the period 1966-1983. The per capita consumption was estimated to increase from.33.8 kilograms per year to 60 kilograms per year in 1983. The trend was that per capita consumption of all vegetables increased in 1960's but dropped in the 1970's only to gain again in 1980's (Table 3.10). 56 Table 3.9: Exports of Selected vegetables, P. Malaysia, 1975-83. (tons) Average Average 1975-80 1981-83 Cabbage 6802 (2572) 5688 (2475) Tomato 5730 (2341) 7059 (3064) Chilli 6535 (4326) 5931 (3865) Others 41313 (34777) 60608 (50680) Total 60980 (44017) 74903 (60083) notes: Figures in brackets are average annual value of exports for the period in Thousands Malaysian Ringgits at current values. Source:Basad on data from.MOA, Import Export Trade In Agriculture Products, P. Malaysia, 1975-83. UN, Commodity Trade Statistics, Series D, 1975-83. 57 Table 3.10: Index of Consumption of vegetables Selected Years, 1966-83. Year Consumption of Index All vegetables./a (1974=100) (kgm. per capita Per year) 1966 33.80 81.25 1970 41.60 100.00 1971 37.10 89.18 1975 27.00 64.90 1980 58.40 140.41 1981 45.10 108.41 1982 28.20 67.79 1983 60.00 144.23 1966-70 /b 38.10 1971-80 33.90 1981-83 44.40 notes: /a All vegetables include melons, consumption is calculated from disapperanca where production plus import less export is the total avaliable for consumption. /b Periodic average is average of the period. Source: FAO, Production Yearbook, 1966-83. FAO, Trade Yearbook, 1966-83. MOA, Imports Exports Trade In Agricultural Products, P. Malaysia, 1983. 58 Table 3.11: Index of Per Capita Consumption of Selected vegetables, 1974-82. (1974:100) Year Chinese Cabbage Cucumber Spinach Mustard 1974 - 100.00 100.00 100.00 1975 100.00 117.07 106.85 93.75 1976 107.69 73.52 93.15 106.25 1977 69.23 53.31 ‘117.81 143.75 1978 132.69 63.41 130.14 168.75 1979 130.77 206.27 150.68 112.50 1980 116.35 176.31 308.22 140.63 1981 122.12 127.18 271.23 193.75 1982 78.85 119.51 126.03 159.37 (cont'd....) 59 Table 3.11(cont'd): Water Tomato Chilli Eggplant Spinach 1974 100.00. 100.00 100.00 100.00 1975 95.00 91.56 85.53 94.12 1976 117.50 96.89 98.68 96.08 1977 130.00 99.11 90.79 90.20 1978 130.00 94.67 82.89 92.16 1979 127.50 98.67 86.84 103.92 1980 150.00 94.67 86.84 135.29 1981 195.00 101.78 89.47 131.37 1982 127.50 99.56 68.42 92.16 Source: Based on data from.the following: FAO, Production Yearbook, (1974-82). FAO, Trade Yearbook, (1974-82). MOA, Miscellaneous Crops Reports, (1974-82). MOA, Imports Exports Trade In Agricultural Products, P. Malaysia, (1983). 60 Consumption of individual selected vegetables studied showed fluctuation of per capita intake. Tomatoes showed a stabilised consumption while eggplants and chinese mustard consumption fluctuated and showed no growth in the average annual growth rate for the period of 1974-82. Chilli decline in term of per capita intake for the whole period studied. The other vegetables showed positive average annual growth rates (Table 3.11). ' 3.5. Sunmgy. 3.5.1. This part will summarise the observations on trends of production, consumption, and foreign trade . The trend shows that vegetable production grew at lower rate than population and aggregate agricultural production. Growth of production was due to increase in area and not much increase in yield. The southern region damostrated a greater rate of expansion and has gained a greater share of the market. The is due to closeness of this production area to the export market of Singapore. Consumptions of vegetables per capita are on the upward trend with fluctuations in different type of vegetables consumed. This is due to substitution among different type of vegetables brought about by changing relative prices. The rate of growth of per capita consumption is higher than the per capita production growth rate. Thus may lead to shortages. In the international scenario, imports of all vegetables grew at greater rate than population growth. Cabbages and chilli show upward trend in 61 imports, while tomatoe imports declined towards self sufficiency. Aggregate ‘vegatable exports were increasing' but among those studied only tomatoes showed a similar trend. Cabbages and chilli showed a declining trend. 62 Notes : 1/ Vegetables includes melons as defined, and statistics provided, by FAO. 2/ This parts draws on works done by Bachman and Paulino (1979) . Trend estimations were done by ordinary least square with quantity as the dependent variable. Functional forms were choosen according to the best fit. Statistical measures in assessing the stability of production trend were calculated from regression equations that were used in relating production and time . This was R2 of at least 0.67. An R2 of the estimated trend line of 0.67 would indicate that at least two thirds of variation in output during the observed period were associated with the trend variable. With the number of observations in the study,this creterion also implies a t-statistics of regression coefficient of 1.86 or larger, this would suggest that the calculated coefficient is significantly different from zero at 90 percent level of confidence. 3/ Exclude persarved, prepared and canned vegetables. Also excluded were mushroons and processed tomatoes (puree, paste, and concentrate) . 63 4/ The trend relationship was PHYIMP = -l7226697 + 8770.8T where PHYIMP Amount annual imports (tons). T = Time The R2 of 0.88 is more than 0.67 defined before to be level for stability and t-value for regression coefficient is 8.547 which is highly significant. mm ECONGVIIC AMLYSIS OF VEEE‘I‘ABLE PRODUCTION AT FARM LEVEL 4.1.Irrtroductim. This chapter will be divided into five sections. The first section will provide results of the survey. It will reveals characteristics of vegetables farms, farm households, and farm operations in the production of vegetables. These will relate to resources avialable on the farm: farm tenureship and sizes, farm labor, working capital and credits, and farm assets and durables. Crops yields, cropping frequency, and returns from crops are also revealed by the survey. Problems faced by the farmers are highlighed in this chapter. The next section of the chapter describes the setting of the linear programing (LP) models for the representative farms. These farms models will provide informations on what are the best choice of crops combinations under the prevailing conditions. The choice of activities, the constraints encountered and the input output coefficients of the linear programming models are based on the survey data. The LP models are set to find the best choice of crops combinations under the prevailing conditions. The third section of the chapter will provide the results of the linear programing exercises. It shows the best combination of crop enterprises and what are the constraints experienced by the farmers. Finally the fourth and 64 65 fifth section is a sensitivity analysis and summary of findings reapectively. 4.2. _V_egetable Family In Malaysia: Survey's Results. 4.2.1. Farm Sizes. The farmers' listing shows that the average size of vegetable farms at national level is 0.49. hectares. Vegetables farms in the eastern region are smaller than the national average, whereas, farms in the other regions are above the national average (Table El, Appendix B). Table 4.1 shows the proportions of farms in the selected vegetables areas. Selangor and Perak have most of the farms to be less than 0.4 hectares. On the other hand Johore and Cameron Highlands which have larger farms had majority of their farms in the 0.41 to 1.00 hectares groups. 4.2.2. Tenureship More than two thirds of the vegetable farms are owned by the vegetable farmers. Perak had the least proportion of vegetables farms owned by the operators . Rented areas formed about twenty-five percent of operated vegetables areas. Some of the area Operated are illegally occupied areas and this category is classified under others in Table 4.2. 4.2.3. Farm Labor. The importance of labor as a production constraints should not be overlooked especially in a highly intensive farm operation such as vegetable farming. Often labor was one of the 66 Table 4.1: Distribution of vegetables Farms According To Sizes. Size Category Percentages In Each Size Category (hectares) Johor Perak Perak C . Highlands n=684 n=250 n=250 n=1020 Less 0.4 26 48 41 17 0.41-1.00 45 30 40 59 1.01-2.00 13 14 13 24 Greater than 2.00 12 7 6 - Average Farm Sizes 0.90 0.72 0.64 1.13 Source: Survey Table 4.2: Tenureship Of vegetables Farms In Selected Areas. Type of JOhore Perak Selangor C.Highlands tenureship n=641 n=229 n=502 n=28 ..... percent ....... Owned 70 66 71 68 Rented 25 31 24 25 Others 5 3 5 7 Source: Survey 67 major factors in deciding enterprise in the crop mix. In Peninsular Malaysia the major source of farm labor was traditionally the farm household. Average size of farm family varies from 4.4 in the Cameron Highlands, to 6.9 in Selangor (Table 4.3). The survey reveals that the proportion of active working population age (the 13 to 55 years age group) ranged from fifty five percent in Cameron Highland and Perak to fifty eight percent in Johore. The average number of family members who worked on the farm range from 2.38 in Johore to 2.70 in Selangor. As such more often there are at least three people who contributed their labor to the production of vegetables on the fann. The survey reveals that vegetable farming is of a family oriented enterprise. The use of hired labor was relatively small. Selangor's farmers were the main employer of hired labor, they employed on the average 47 mandays of hired labor per year. But, only thirty nine percent of the Selangor's vegetables farmers used hired labor (Table 4.3). Less than twenty percent of vegetables farmers in other areas utilised hired labor. Labor utilization per crop was as in Table 4.4. The data for labor was collected by one time survey, as such the validity of the data was questionable due to possible recall problems by the respondents. As such comparision was made with data provided by MARDI (1985) in their farm mananagement studies which established crop enterprises budgets. The data collected by the survey differ from Mardi's data by about five percent. The 68 Table 4.3: Family Sizes and vegetables Farm Labor In Selected Area, P. Malaysia. thor nz641 Average Family Size 6.8 Family'Members In Age Group 13-55 years As Proportion of Total Farm Population (percent) 58 Average Number of Farm Family Who works On The Farm: 2.38 Farm.Family Who Hired Farm.Labor (percent) 19.5 Average Number of Hired Labors used on The Farm Per Year (mandays) 24 Source: Survey Perak n=229 5.8 55 2.68 7.7 29 Selangor n=502 6.9 56 2.70 39.1 47 C. Highland n=28 4.4 55 2.47 14.3 43 69 maximum variation was observed in chinese mustard whereby the survey revealed, on the average, a 36 percent less labor utilization than that estimated by MARDI. Fruits vegetables showed to use more labor than leafy vegetables. Chilli and eggplants utilized more than 300 labor mandays per season per hectare. On the average green and yellow (leafy) vegetables utilised only about 200 mandays per hectare per season. Table 4. 4: Average Labor Utilisation Per Hectare Vegetable Per Season. vggetables Estimates Of Labor Used (mandays) §E£Z§Z “3391 Chinese Mustard ns38 217.5 345.0 Cabbage n=24 195.0 170.0 Cucumber n323 260.0 221.0 Spinach n=18 192.5 n.a Water Spinach n=18 192.0 n.a Tomato n322 272.5 345.0 Chilli n=17 380.0 366.0 Eggplant n=15 308.0 351.0 Source: Survey. MARDI (1985), 'Estimates of Costs And Returns To Crops And Animal Enterprises.‘ 4.2.4. Working Capital and Credit There is not enough data solicited by the survey instrument on working capital. However, most of the working capital was from personal sources as not many farmers obtained credit for input required by their enterprises. Table 4. 5 shows 70 the proportion of farmers who obtained credit for the farm operation. A high proportion of the credit takers obtained their credit needs from supply dealers who at time also operate as wholesalers or assemblers for their products. A small proportion took loans from banks. Table 4. 5: Proportion Of Farmers Who Took Credit For Farm Operations . Credit Takers Non Credit Takers percent.. ...... Johore n=38 19 81 Perak n-30 26 74 Selangor n=32 9 91 C.Highland n. a n. a n.a =- not availiable Source: Survey 4.2.5. Farm Assets And Durable Investments in durable inputs are expected in fast developing economies especially when there are incentives for farm operators to replace relatively higher priced labor and land with various forms of farm and nonfarm produced capital. In the United States it is well documented that economic fixity of resources provides problem of investments and disinvestments 71 adjustments (Edwards, C. (1972); Quance, C.L. (1972)). In P. Malaysia readj ustments problems are observed in the permanent crops enterprises due to long gestation period and high investments incurred in the enterprises . Heavy investments in the durables especially if these are very specialised durables will pose problems of resource adjustments if farm operations are to change in order to establish a new crop mix. In the vegetable enterprises which are very intensive, the contention of potential problem of heavy investments in labor and time saving durables appears promising. On the contrary this is not true as the survey revealed that investment in durables were very small and only among a small proportion of vegetable farmers. Table 4.6 shows the investments in different durables on the vegetable farm. Heavy investment were observed only in basic necessities such as mean for transportation and land preparation: motocycles, bicycles and simple equipnent for land preparations. These equipments are not speciallised 'durables. The other durables were owned by less than ten percent of the farmers, with the exception of two-wheeled tractors owned by twenty two percent of farmers in Cameron Highlands. 4.2.6. Crops Planted The survey reveals that in each area there are a number of crops planted, but for the purpose of this study the mean acerage of the selected crops are given in Table 4.7. Table 4.6: Ownership of Agricultural Machinery, Equipments and Fixture, In vegetable Farming, P. Malaysia. Type of Equipments/Assets Equipment shed 4 wheeled tractor 2 wheeled tractor Plow Rotary cultivator Harrow/rake Other equipment for land preparation water pump Powered sprayer 4-wheeled trailer 2-wheeled trailer vehicles for transporting goods (vans, pickup, lorry, etc.) Motorcycles Bicycles Boat/canoe 72 Jehor n=684 -------------- percentage-------------- 2.6 1.5 2.2 0.8 1.0 1.5 60.0 8.5 10.8 10.1 72.36 78.9 1.0 Perak n=250 n=567 nil -/a 4.4 -/a 1.6 3.4 0.4 7.8 nil 1.0 -/a 1.9 24.4 41.1 6.4 17.1 1.2 7.6 nil nil -/a -/a 1.2 7.6 48.4 69.3 83.2 87.5 11.2 0.9 0.8 2.3 22.4 _/a 6.5 2.5 43.2 12.1 6.8 46.0 _/a nil the: /a equipment were found to be used by farmers but did not constitute a substantial number (less than 0.5 percent). Source: Farmers Listings And Survey. Selangor C.Highland n=28 73 Table 4.7: Average Size Planted of Selected Vegetables. (hectares) crops Jehore Perak Selangor C. Highlands n-38 n=30 n=32 n=28 Chinese Mustard 0.21 0.17 0.15 - cabbage 0.45 0.27 0.20 0.50 CUcumber 0.40 0.16 0.27 - Spinach 0.12 0.05 0.10 - Water Spinach 0.12 0.10 0.05 - Tomato 0.42 0.40 0.42 0.48 Chilli 0.48 0.37 0.25 - Eggplant 0.34 0.21 0.14 - notes: Other vegetables planted in Camerom Highland are Chinese Cabbage(0.50), Bell Pepper(0.25) Sweet Pea(0.48), and Lettuce(0.48). Figures in brackets are average size. Source: Survey. Table 4.8: Average Yield of Selected vegetables Chinese mustard cabbage Cucumber Spinach water Spinach Tbmato Chili Eggplant Notes: source 2 Yield Range 9-17 10-32 11-20 9-18 12-17 10-26 6-11 10-17 /a units: tons/hec. Johor Perak Selangar C . Highland n=38 n=30 n=32 =28 13.17 12.47 10.23 -- 15.47 14.13 16.13 25.0 14.54 16.54 13.21 -- 14.45 12.81 14.45 -- 15.00 15.27 15.27 -- 15.76 12.13 15.76 21.2 8.00 9.35 9.21 -- 13.00 12.83 11.17 -- Other vegetables yield on the highlands are as follows: Chinese Cabbage (23), Lettuce (12), Bell Pepper (13), and Sweet Pea (12). Survey 75 4.2.7. Cropping Frequency Per Year. Vegetables cropping frequencies differ due to different length of cropping periods. Table 4.9 provides the average observed frequencies among cultivation of the selected vegetables. The short term leafy vegetables were observed to be more frequently planted than fruit vegetables which took longer cropping periods. However, lowland cabbages and cucumber which were medium length cropping period (16-18 weeks) vegetables have low frequencies of planting. MARDI(1981) attributed this lower frequency of planting cabbages to its susceptibility to the diamond-back moth (Plutella spp.) attack and incidence of bacterial rots. Thus, high frequency planting would aggravate the problem. Among reasons given by respondents for different cropping frequency, thus different cropping pattern, were easiness to plant a crop compared to another, availiability of markets for products,potential of good returns due to high price expectation and less problem with pests and diseases. Another factor that was observed to affect crop frequency was the cropping system. Majority of the vegetable farms were planted solely with vegetables, but, some vegetables were planted as intercrops . Some farms were devoted to a single crop but others maintained a combination of crop mix. Some farmers observed some crop rotation with field crops such as corn. Table 4.9: VEgetable Chinese Mustard S Cabbage (lowland) Cabbage (highland) cucumber Spinach water Spinach TOmato (lowland) Tomato (highland) Chili Eggplant n=38 n=12 n=18 n323 n-18 n=20 n=7 n-16 n=23 n=19 Source: Survey 76 vegetable cropping Frequency EEQEE$23 Period (weeks) 6.5 13.3 18.0 10.1 5.8 6.3 15.3 18.6 34.0 21.7 Frequency Per Year 4.6 1.2 1.4 2.1 5.1 4.2 1.3 1.2 1.0 1.6 77 4.2.8. Returns From Vegetables Production. The survey revealed that the return to labor from vegetables enterprises were lucrative . However, it should be borne in mind that labor inputs constituted one of the major costs of vegetables production. If labor costs were substracted from the return to labor, the net return obtained would be much smaller than the reported returns to labor. Table 4.10 shows the returns from vegetable enterprises in each area. Gross returns were obtained by multiplying the average yield and average reported prices. The material costs were obtained from sunning up costs of seeds, fertilisers, pesticides, .weedicides and other materials inputs. The returns to labor was gross returns less material costs. Among the lowland vegetables chilli and cabbages provided the highest return to labor. However, net return to chilli may not be too lucrative as the labor costs, especially for harvesting would be high. With exception of Perak, all areas showed that leafy vegetables should provide high return and would take shorter time, hence higher intensity of cropping. 4.2.9. Farmers' Problems Vegetable cultivation is a risky business, beset with a host of problems, some which are within the farmers controll while others are not . These problems which are perceived by the farmers will serve as the constraints or impediments towards expansions and development in vegetable production; thus , the 78 progress in the vegetable industry, consequently the wel lbeings of the participants in the industry. The survey reveals that the top five primary problems of concern to the farmers are: pests and diseases (64.1 percent), prices (48.4 percent), land (47.6 percent), finances (42.2 percent) and marketing (35.9 percent). This is shown in Table 4.11. Pest and Diseases: Pests and diseases, which lower yield and quality and hence farmers' income, are some of the major problems encountered in vegetables cultivation. Selangor (93 percent) and Perak (70 percent) appear to have more problems with past and diseases. Prices: Prices received by the farmers hampered crop production. The problem with prices is more often unstable prices and quite frequently farmers are burdened with low prices. With exception of Cameron Highland, all areas have at least fourty five percent farmers experiencing problems with prices . M Soil and land are perceived by the farmers as the third serious problems. This problem may not be highly related to land tenureship, as stated in this section earlier it was observed that most of the farmers own their farms. Thus, this problem exists in term of potential expansion and the availiability of land. The quality of soil and land used for vegetable cultivation could pose problems and limitation in the 79 Tdale4.10: mmmmmmfirm Vamtables,P.mlaysia. ($6 per I-hctare) Type of vegstsme ggg Femrns mane 06st cross Nhrgin (martial (Isa) (Rehm to Lazar) 1. Southern nagim — Jdrze Chums Mstzrd 79m 2102 5&1) (313398 11989 3239 3750 dumber 6688 3784 2904 Saint!) 6936 $98 3638 Water Spinmh 57(1) 31” 2493 mt!) 11741 2&5 8916 Chilli 1631) 3843 12957 w M 3&3 7532 :1. Norm aegim — Ferd: 01m Mstard 9851 2822 7029 (Hinge 13858 2547 11311 Gunter 76m 4667 2941 Spinach 6853 3&5 3523 Water apnea: 6103 3921 2167 ‘Itrlaln 7066 2915 4151 (111111 18466 331) 14766 mm: 9943 3764 6179 80 T3319 4.10 (antined) magma Erbium Naterialaast Rahmtolabor III. mmgim— Selmgtr Chinese Mistzrd 8032 14:!) 6652 Chaim 14678 3162 11516 (umber 6076 3513 2563 gained: 6936 3328 36% Water Spinach 61m 3482 2626 'Itmto 9176 «Bl 5095 Chilli 1%41 IDS 16336 Eggnalt 11561 2403 9153 IV. Higmla'rh - Glam Higila'd /a 031138933 ZED 5436 15054 Interns 132!) 5120 8110 Gaines wings 14260 5231 9029 Lethne 3230 5000 Bell Page: 21840 6975 14865 Sweet Pas 45000 4745 4255 roles: /a.er:sgrm1mCarermI—Iiguaflvereofdiffere1tudx,fius odercrqevereixnltmdtostmmx. Sonoe:Sm:vey 81 Table 4. 11: Problems Faced by Vegetable Farmers P. Malaysia Problem Jol'zore Perak Selanger C. High- Total n=38 n=30 n=32 18:38 n=128 peromt Planting Materials 18.4 23.3 25.0 14.2 23.0 Planting Teclmiques 31.6 26.6 34.0 3.5 25.0 Mechanizaticn 5.2 13.3 6.2 3.6 5.4 Pest/Diseases 60.5 70.0 93.0 28.6 64.1 Soil/Land 21.0 96.6 62.5 14.2 47.6 Water 21.0 31.2 25.0 3.6 20.3 Labor 21.0 36.6 18.75 7.2 21.1 Wtatim 10.6 13.3 9.37 7.2 10.15 Marketing 28.9 53.3 34.4 28.5 35.9 Finances 50.0 46.6 59.4 7.1 42.2 Prices 55.3 46.6 56.3 32.0 48.2 Others 21.0 36.6 34.4 17.8 Souroe:Survey 27.3 81a cultivation of vegetables crops. This problems exist due to many vegetable farms are found on peat and sandy soil. Peat and other organic soil are found in Selangor and thore, while sandy soil is problematic in the mine waste areas of Perak. In Cameron Highland the land and soil problems are related to difficulty and costly preparation of terraces on steep high slopes. Finances: Farm finances is problematic in almost all area excepts Cameron Highlands. However, the survey is short in pinpointing which area of finance is a problem. Informal communication conducted seperately with the farmers, input dealers, and credit agencies, indicates easiness to obtain input on credit at local dealers and loans to bona fide farmers at credit agencies. However, with credit available, the percentage of credit takers is low as described earlier in this chapter. Perhaps, the problem with credit lies in obtaining long term credit for equipment and land expansion. Marketing : Vegetables are highly perishable and marketing problem like lack of buyers can results in substantial lost of income to the farmers. About 36 percent of the farmers reported marketing. of their vegetable produce as being problematic. Marketing problems is more serious in Perak (53.3 percent) than in the other areas. Marketing is highly related to transportation, the survey reveals that transportation is not a major problem. As such marketing problems are related to lack of 82 buyers and mostly likely aggravated at times of glut in the markets . 4.3. Beanie Analysis of Vegetable Farms and Idartifying Cantraints To Expansim. 4.3.1. Methodological Issues This section will discuss the construction of a linear programing vegetable production model of representative farms in selected area in P. Malaysia. The purpose is to describe the constraints and revenue consideration affecting smallholder vegetable production; in a manner amenable to simultaneous consideration. Theoretically, the optimizing framework of linear programing (LP) can help explain why farmers engage in some activities more than others, given the resource constraints they face, the desire they may have concerning production, and the desire to make the most of what they have. There is no contention in the study that farmers are always profit maximizers, however, it is also difficult to portray Malaysian vegetable farmers as not profit maximizers. The aim of these exercise is to identify profitable cropping combination that would contribute to higher farm income. At the same time, plausible explanation would emerge on why farmers did not engage in some enterprise. The LP procedure will highlight the bottlenecks of potential expansion of the farmers activities. Although there are a number of techniques popularly used to determine farm constraints and optional allocation of 83 resources, LP is chosen because it provides more information for the whole farm analysis. It has the capacity to incorporate numerous activities and constraints which are difficult to incorporate in other methods; for example, budgeting. LP has the assumptions as listed below: Linearity or additivity: All inputs are assumed to have a linear relationship with constant marginal physical product. Constant returns to scale and fixed faCtors proportions are assumed. Divisibility: All factors (inputs and outputs) are assumed to be perfectly divisable. Hence labor can be used for a fraction of a unit. Perfect Knowledg: Required inputs and outputs are known a priori. It is assumed that the decision maker has perfect foresight of resources required in the production of a given activity. All coefficients are known with certainty. As such the model solution is deterministic. Non-Negativity: None of the activities can be produced in negative amount nor can resources be used in negative quantities. Linear progranming has several limitations . Among these limitations are that LP does not explicitly take into account the risk factor. Even in more advance techniques of LP such as stochastic programing in which the risk factor is also not fully accounted for. As mentioned earlier, LP maximize income from a 84 set of activities which gives the highest returns. Often farmers may change preferences which alter his planned course of action. LP tells us what an individual should do when faced with a set of constraints and a prespecified decision rule. As such the solution obtained from LP analysis may not exactly similar to the plan of action a farmer follows. The technique oversimplify the real world. Therefore the results should be interpreted with caution for policy analysis. The direction of change is perhaps more meaningful than the absolute values obtained from a model . The accuracy of LP also depends on the extend the model ' 3 constraints and activities approximate the actual situation. It will loose its accuracy if important constraints or activities aue.umrued. Many studies have utilized LP in their analysis. Seketheera (1979) employed LP to find the possibility of incorporating new multiple cropping patterns into the existing farming systems in Thailand. She found that the proposed multiple cropping system.must be rice based. Kamuaga (1982) used LP to test the profitability of improved practices in the rice production system in Mali. His results suggest an optimum farm size and farm income could be increased if row seeding and mechanical weeding techniques were adopted. Amir (1985) used LP model to study the economic consequences of introducing new, more profitable technologies and changing government f actor/ product price policies at the farm level in the Punjab area of Pakistan. His results indicate that there is great potential for 85 incorporation of sun flower and mung bean in rice areas. Linear programming models were not observed to be used in choosing profitable vegetable enterprises in the developing countries. Similarly, no published research was found to use LP on vegetables or other crop production combination in P . Malaysia . 4.3.2. Overview of Basic Models This section briefly discusses the structure of a representative farm nodal for vegetable farm in the selected vegetable areas. Representative far-no data is used to construct the nodal. The basic nodal is a linear function containing 33 to 39 farm enterprises, maximized subject to 39 resource and production level linear constraints. Only agricultural activities are considered directly in the maximand. Social activity, necessary nonagricultural work and domestic work are treated as parameters which require a fixed amount of time at different periods of the year. Detail component of the model will be discussed later in the following sections. 4.3 .3. Choice of Representative Farm The purpose of a farm nodal is to make separate detailed planning for each unit unnecessary. This requires data pertaining to a 'representative' farm. The results of the nodal should be general enough to be applied to as many farmers as possible . 86 There are two approaches in setting up representative farm.model. The first method is the average approach which uses values gathered from the sample survey. This method introduces aggregation bias, as intarfarm differences will be averaged out resulting in totally a different picture of the farm operations. This would be particularly true with respect to labor useage as peaks period on one farm will be offset by a slack period on another farm resulting in.a smooth profile in labor requirements. anxnmm; inamnuvingan:anfannnodeltmumraammundcnslmxxitclba made, and it is unlikely to nodal a farm that represents all conditions on a real farm. The other method of choosing a representative farm is to use the researcher best judgment to seven:atfannvnuch‘MUJ.batunxltolmxku.the15 I flqllIIIOCIN10CII|OIIILCIIILGIG“!OIII I III“ II Inl' I II‘Illfllfilllil wall-ulna: _— a u Ifi" . n 'V «unuuuuuuuuu R.°fla uuuuu RIIIB uuuun .. . “I II an .8 an .8 «a .8 an II «a fill! dddd '3 '0“ d 3333:: ...... nnnnnnnnna .4........ 333:33333833339333339339499192911853353 99 Q ’ C. vv §§ 9! 3 3444333433 a ddddd‘ddddflfl “dd-0" RIB“! RIO“! ...-mu... .3 an. '3 do. u 7‘ . dd “d IE 44 I” l 1 ‘A v LPllrkn.annSst»136lrrnrnen-lirtkz m———x—un: 4.13f [ ‘l' 3 ‘I i 0 ‘7 I 9 :n u.:: a fill! a all! a Ill! 2 as:u Iii! a an a I!!! a “‘0‘“ GOO-III. “dd 33 .3 do" II." fl“ ‘0‘ fl flflflflflfl Hflfldflddflfl‘ 1 3333333333391233339333iinnnannnnniaaafi8 ll’btnhn.ibrrltnnISflza10L4xflbctarau-'Selangor Tabme‘43lag: IIIIIIIUIIIIIIIIIUIIIII ”-98“ “I 100 '""’°'““'3333333333332833883338323383 333333333333333333333333333333333333333 fidddfl‘d‘dflfld RIO“! «4444 5'“ .3. do.“ I.“ ’. dd an .. an ' .. In .. I: .. II .. O 3333333333aazsnxnnnaniiinnn191913338333 modalfiormsizaosneotare—Seim Tbbflatdslflh: 101. IIIIIIIIIIIU‘IIIIIUIIIII 80567., L 3|--333333333_.........--333-3-... —X-n-,I' “ V -uu d‘dddd‘flflfldd dflfl‘d RIC'3 F8088 nun—coon .. not an .. .I . not an .. ' .' do. .! do. . nun: .... nuns .... gas gas gun gun ”I!“ “fl“ “do! “fit! 93 .. 33 an 93 .. 83 an 83 .. BS 33 0088888888 dddddfldddd 393333933333333333339332999391919333838 102 5 3333343 3343 **'*—““99--¢D-*hdflfl—Nh--—-——aD——-—————on -. ' Llertn.fbrlfinnISizeiLdiltrnara-—-salamxzr thina|44131: 80367.9IHIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDIIIII 8883 4...... 3383 4...... ddd ddd clans ..... RICE! nun-on 93 .. 3 93 .. . ‘3 dd d ‘3 dd d ‘a dd d ‘5 dd d ‘3 dd '3 4... BB 44 83 .... .3 dd IO .... p.839. dddddd 9333339333aaasaxnnsnaiiinnna91929383233 IrvuhlfirmesuaOJtham-C.wQMafl “mantra: 103 fifikfigERRRRfiSQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 55555SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS55555 m all: n 13:5 m moan 1'! LI 12 QHNNNMMGQW ‘1 7‘ «mm—x-m-x—m m——-—- «JG—>15 Hdddddflddddfl 3882 3333 3333 .3333 ‘8859 3333 8858 3333 8689 3333 fiBSBS 33333 R3888 33333 RBBS 3333 9888 3333 asasassssaaazsszsnssagfifiany:9! Ar—e‘; Jame (manual-11911311 104 IE FIE-ii 0.4 has) EA (0.2) c. (0.1) c. (0.1) media: (0. ) c. (0.1) c. bastard“ (0.1) 1985 radian Faun (0.8 has) C. Mstard (0.2) Gamma (0.6) Radish (0.) C. (0.2) w. Spmad'11(0.1) C.Hstzrd3(0.2) C. m (0.2) W. (0.1) w. Spinach (0.1) mm (0.6) c. Mstard (0.2) aggnant (0.2) (1111.1. (0.40) C. MEI-Tn (0.4) (0.1) (0.1) Bgmlant (0.2) cam-:51 (0.2) “”4 E813 Spinadxs (0.1) m (0. 2) Spinach (O. 1) (Hinge (0.5) 'Itnal'n (0.3) Datum (0.3) W. Mstard (0.2) 133194.14: Orcpwxct‘muver‘ama inSeJec’cedArea, 105 also included as choice activities to examine its potential to be chosen, and to understand the constraints limiting production in a typical cropping mix. As many of the vegetables are short term crops, their potential to be planted repetitively is by allowing them as possible choice activities throughout the year. The potential cropping frequency is determined by the cropping period and other inhibiting factors that do not allow the desired cropping frequency. Table 4.14 shows the typical cropping mix for the year as practiced by the farmer. The potential crops to be grown include all the eight selected popular vegetables. The potential intensity of growing the crops per year is as shown in Table 4.15. Potential crops grown if not in the cropping mix of the farmer will be included as activities in the Linear Programming procedure. Table 4.15 vegetable Crops and Cropping Frequencies As Activities in the LP. Period per Cropping Number of Season Potential Activities EEQEE (months) Frequency in LP C. Mbstard 2 6 6 Cabbage 4 2 2 Cucumber 3 4 4 Spinach l 12 9 Water Spinach 2 6 6 Tomato 5 2 2 Chilli 10 l l Eggplant 6 l l Lettuce 4 3 3 w. Mustard 2 6 6 C. Cabbage 4 2 2 Source: Based on DOA, Farm.Management Guide, no. 11, 1982. 106 The other activity in the LP model is the sales of labor (household labor) for waged income. This is included in the model to enable household labor to be sold off if the opportunity cost is higher than being put into use on the farm. The potential for waged income is available in an agricultural labor either in neighboring farms or in nearby plantation. Opportunity also exists as construction.workers. The barriers to earn a wage income are sex and age of members of the household. Ladies are not easily absorbed into the labor market, and so do men below 17 years or above 55 years old. The gross margin from one hectare of crop enterprise and wage rate for labor are the values used for the activities in the objective function. The gross margin for one hectare of each crop computed using price received and yield data of the representative farm model. The gross return, material costs and computation of the gross margin is as in Table E3--Appendix E. 4.3.6. Resource Supplies And Requirement The model is based on the distribution of resources; land and labor, for each size of the representative farm. The model is operative for one year as such the allocation of land will be determined by duration of individual crops cropping period . As such land will be allocated by month to accomodate even the shortest cropping of one month by a single crop. The labor supply will be limited to the family labor but with option to 107 'sell' labor if it is economical to do so. Labor is allocated by the months based on labor requirement for the month for the individual crop. The lack of substitutability between labor in different months, which is implicit in LP methodology is Justified by the rigidity of timing requirements for short—term crop needs as in vegetable production. Land availability: The land available for cultivation will be limited to the farmers land as defined by their representative size. There is limited scope for farmers to expand their existing area unless other farmers decide to quit farming. Personal communication with farmers revealed that very unlikely will they lease or rent land a distant from the immediate vicinity of their respective farms for the purpose of vegetable farming. Reascms given was difficulties .to run two vegetable plots far away from each other in terms of labor allocations including the loss of time commuting from one plot to another. As such expanding area by leasing or renting is not considered as an activity, thus, do not constitute extra land supply to the farmer. Consequently, caution is to be. exercise in interpretating the potential return from extra unit of land if make available to the farmer. If the LP model has acquisation activities the result could be more specialisation of a paricular activities due to higher return to a particular activity. Labor Availability: The supply of labor is basically from household members who put time to work on the farm. The estimate 108 of labor availability per month contributed by the farmers' household are the labor cmstraints for the months . The monthly availability of labor is shown on the most right side of each tableau in Table 4.13a...j. More often each active working family member was observed to work the full month on the farm due to intensity of vegetable production. Malay farmers take Fridays as the off days, but Mesa and Indian do not take time off the field unless it is a very important religious holiday. Availability of labor was less in rainy period, but labor needs are lower due to less need of watering, which is a demanding operation with manual facilities. Male and female labor are treated the same due to similar performance of both sexes in vegetable production. For example, in harvesting of crops women are better workers at picking the harvest but slow at transporting the produce to the collecting points. On the other hand men who are poor at meticulous work outshine the ladies in more bulky and strength related work. On the average in term of effective performance, both are equal contributors of labor . Labor for children aged from 13 to 16 years are treated at half of that man. ' Maximum Production Level: The farmers through their experiences would not cultivate the entire farm to a single leafy vegetable such as Chinese mustards, and spinach. This is due to the risk involve in devoting all resources to leafy vegetables which has short cropping period and often overproduced in the 109 market. The existence of glut will deprive the farmers of any reasonable level of income. As such the farmers normally limit their cultivation of leafy vegetables. The farmers usually diversify the crop mix when leafy vegetables such as spinach and Chinese mustards are planted. Apart from risk factor, leafy vegetable require higher labor needs at certain peak period such as harvesting. This exercise limits the production of spinach and Chinese mustard at one quarter of farm size which is consistent with some farmers practice and findings of the survey (refer to Table 4.7). Resource Requirement: The objective function coefficients for crops express the returns per hectare of land. Therefore, the land requirement for achieving a return equal to the maximand coefficient is one hectare. The labor requirements for one hectare of each crop enterprise are taken from amount of labor for different activities in the month for each enterprise. The data fran the representative farm provides the coefficients for each month. Table 132-4 of Appendix E provide the monthly labor requirement for each enterprise . 4.4. Results of LP Analysis of Representative Farms 4.4.1. Overview This section contains the results of LP optimizing exercises for all the representative farms in all the respective 110 areas. The possible maximum gross margins obtained by planting the crop mix from possible choices activities, the marginal values products of limited resources, and possible costs of choosing unrecoulnended enterprises, are highlighted. Limiting resources and constraints in the effort to increase farm income and vegetable productions are also indicated by the model. These results will be discussed by area. Sensitivity analysis with respect to range values that the current activities be choice variables will also be discussed. 4.4.2. Farms In Johore Activities in the Solution: The activities engaged by the vegetable farmers in Johore are shown in Table 4.16. The gross margins are maximize at M312807.35, MS20043.6O and MS44430.42 for the small (0.4 hec.), medium (0.8 hec.) and large (1.6 hec.) farms respectively. Leafy vegetables are popular choice variables in the LP solution. The exceptions are radish which is a root crop, and chilli, long beans, and cucumber in the fruit crops category. The choices of leafy vegetables in the solution are due to higher gross margins and shorter cropping periods with less labor demands. With the exception of a few crops, the choice of crops by the LP procedure is similar to the actual crop mix of farms for 1985. Among the exceptions are radish not being selected in the medium farm (0.8 hec.) model; and eggplant, cucumber, radish, water spinach and french bean not selected in the large farm (1.6 315 Table 4.16: Farm Size (hectare) 0.4 0.8 1.6 111 Gmpariscn of Activities in Optimise LP Solution and Archeal Activities of Representative Farms Activities In LP a Jan Chilli (0.3) Jan Spinach (0.1) Feb Spinach (0.1) Mar C. Mustard (0.1) May Spinach (0.1) Jun Spinach (0.1) July C. Mustard (0.1) Sept Spinach (0.1) Oct Spinach (0.1) Nov Spinach (0.03) Nov Radish (.27) Nov C. Mustard (0.1) Total G. Margin: (812807.35) Crop Intensity: 374.8% Jan Spinach (0.2) Jan C. Mlstard (0.2) Feb Cabbage (0.69) Feb Spinach (0.01) Mar C. Mustard (0.01) Mar Spinach (0.10) Apr (lumber (0.10) May C. Mustard (0.20) June Spinach (0.20) June C. Mistard (0.20). July Cabbage (0.60) Sept Spinach (0.20) Oct. Spinach (0.20) Nov. C. Mustard (0.20) Nov. W. Spinach (0.56) Total G Nbrgin: (820042.22) Crop Intmsity: 458.75% Jan Cabbage (0.96) Jan Spinach (0.34) Nar Spinach (0.36) Apr L. Bean (0.52) May Spinach (0.32) June Cabbage (1.08) July L. Bean (0.15) Actual Activities 1985 /a Jan Chilli (0.2) Jan C. Mustard (0.1) Mar C. Mustard (0.1) May Radish (0.2) July C. Mustard (0.1) Nov C. Mistard (0.1) Total G Margin: (7784.00) Crop Intmsity: 200.00% Jan C. Mistard (0.2) Feb Cabbage (0.6) Mar Radish (0.2) My C. Mistard (0.2) Jun W. Spinach (0.1) Jul C. Mistard (0.2) Sept C. Mistard (0.2) Sept W. Spinach (0.1) Nov W. Spinach (0.1) Total G Margin: (14380.80) Crop Intensity: 237.50% Jan Cucumber (0.4) Jan W. Spinach (0.1) Feb Eggplant (0.6) Apr F. Bean (0.2) Jun Cabbage (0.6) Sept C. Mustard (0.4) Nov C. Mistard (0.4) Farm Size 1.6 0.4 0.8 1.6 112 Table 4.16 (omtinued) Activities in LP a Sept C. Mastard (0.24) Oct L. Bean (0.67) Oct Spinach (0.29) Nov Spimch (0.29) Total G Margin: (344430.42) Crop Intemity: 311.25% Jan Cabbage (0.2) Jan Spinach (0.1) Jan Tanato (0.1) Mar C. Mustard (0.1) My Spinach (0.1) May C. Mistard (0.1) Jun Spinach (0.03) Jun Cabbage (0.27) Jul Spinach (0.(B) Total G Margin: (811365.06) Crop Intaisity: 457.5% Jan C. Mistard (0.07) Mar C. Mistard (0.20) May Spinach (0.20) May C. Mistard (0.20) Jun Cabbage (0.60) ' Jul C. Mustard (0.20) Sept C. Mistard (0.20) Oct Cucurber (0.11) Oct Spinach (0.20) Nov W. Spinach (0.42) Nov Spinach (0.03) Total G Margin: (322942.86) Crop Intensity: 403.7% Jan Chilli (1.14) Jan C. Mistard (0.18) Jan Cabbage (0.06) Jan Spinach (0.17) Mar C. Mistard (0.4) May C. Mistard (0.1) EE ties a ...n 985 Oct L. Bean (0.4) Nov Radish (0.1) Total G Margin: (26109.90) Crop Intaisity: 200.00% Jan w. Spinach (0.2) Jan (lumber (0.2) Jan Chilli (0.6) Mar C. Mistard (0.2) Feb Eggplant (0.2) Total G Margin: (15074.2) Crop Intensity: 125% Jan Chilli (0.8) Jan Eggplant (0.6) Mar C. Mustard (0.1) July Cucumber (0.4) July C. Mustard (0.1) Nov. C. mstard (0.4) Selanger Farm Size 1.6 0.4 0.8 113 Table 4.16 (oartinued) Activities In LP a May Spinach (0.33) Jun Spinach (0.36) Jul C. sttard (0.15) Jul Spinach (0.13) Jul W. Spinach (0.18) Oct Spinach (0.24) Nov Spinach (0.06) Nov C. Mustard (0.4) Nov W. Spinach (0.48) Total G Margin: (340069.21) Crop Intmsity: 438% Jan W. Spinach (0.14) Jan C. Mistard (0.1) Jan Spinach (0.1) Feb Spinach (0.87) Mar C. Mistard (0.1) Mar Cabbage (0.30) Apr encumber (0.10) May Spinach (0.10) Jun Spinach (0.10) July C. matard (0.10) July Spinach (0.10) Aug Cabbage (0.30) Sept Spinach (0.10) Nov C. Mistard (0.10) Total G ° (811512.12) Crop Intensity: 652.5% Jan Spinach (0.04) Jan Cabbage (0.76) Mar C. Mustard (0.04) May Spinach (0.20) Jun Cabbage (0.80) Sept C.Mustard (0.20) Oct Cucunber (0.40) Nov C. Mustard (0.20) Nov W. Spinach Total G Margin: (821871.93) Crop Intmsity: 355% Actual Activities 1985 [a Total G. Margin (27227.60) Crop Intensity: 150.00% Jan Olculber (0.4) May W. Spinach (0.1) Jul C. Mustard (0.1) Jul W. Spinach (0.1) Sept W. Spinach (0.1) Sept C. Mustard (0.1) Oct Cucmber (0.2) Total G Margin: (3967.60) Crop Intensity: 250.00% Jan Chilli (0.40) Jan C. Mistard (0.20) Jan Spinach (0.10) Feb Spinach (0.1) Mar Eggplant (0.2) Apr Cucumber (0.2) Jul Spinach (0.1) Sep Spinach (0.1) Oct Spinach (0.1) Oct Cucumer (0.2) Nov Spinach (0.1) Total G Margin (12120.60) Crop Intensity: 225.00% Highland Lilac—End 1.6 0.8 114 Table 4.16 (cultinued) Activities Jan 011111 (1.15) Sep W. Mustard (0.26) Nov W. Mustard (0.40) Total G " (327163.38) Crop Intensity: 333.00% Actual Activities 1985 [a Jan 011111 (0.4) Jan C. Mistard (0.4) Feb Eggplant (0.4) Mr W. Spinach (0.2) Mr C. Mstard (0.2) My W. Spinach (0.2) My C. Mistard (0.2) Jul 'Itmato (0.8) SQ W. Spinach (0.1) Oct (lumber (0.4) Nov W. Spinach (0.2) Total G Margin (24059.20) Crop Intensity: 218.75% Jan Cabbage (0.5) Jan Tanato (0.3) Jun Lettuce (0.3) Sep W. Mistard (0.2) Total G Margin: (13091.5) Crop Intensity: 162.50% 115 hectare) model. The LP solutions also suggest a higher intensity of vegetable farming in all categories of farms. In order to increase farm income the LP solution suggests the small farm to increase farming intensity by 175 percent; suggests 220 percent increase to the medium size farm (0.8 hec.) and suggests 111 percent increase to the 1.6 hectare farm. The total gross margin to the crop mix selected by the LP procedure is almost than that of actual crop enterprises for the different farm sizes. With reference to Table 4.16, the total gross margins are M$7784.00 (actual) compared to MS12807.35 (LP results) for small farms (0.4 hec.): M$14380.80 (actual) compared to M$20,042.22 (LP results), and MSZ6109.90 (actual) to M$44430.42 (LP results) for the medium and large farms respectively. Higher gross margins for each farm suggests by the LP procedure is accompanied with higher cropping intensity. Thus, the prospect of higher income is to be contributed by more intensified cropping activities, this means that planting more crops and more tight crops schedules . Marginal Value Products of Limited Resources: The acti- vities in the LP solutions are constrained by labor and by land restrictions. The addition of one unit of these resources for the specified period will increase gross margin by the contribution of that additional unit of the resource and other complementing resources avialable on the farm. Caution should be exercised in the intepretation of the contribution of these additional 116 resources as the contribution is for the period specified. If additional unit is available for a longer period, say a year, then the optimum combination of the enterprises might change to take consideration of these extra resources . With the recommendation of the LP solution the gross margin of the small farm (0.4 hec.) will increase if additional labor is available in the month of November and December. The increase to the gross margin is M32.22 and 11312.77 per unit of labor available in the month of November and December respectively. Total gross margin will increase by M33.86, 111312.92 and MS34.61 if additional unit of labor is made available in month of March, May and November to medium size farm (0.8 hec.). Labor shortage is more acute on the larger farm (1.6 hec.) where labor is constrained for almost every month of the year if suggested enterprises proposed by the LP is followed. Additional gross margin per unit of labor available for the different month of the year range from $18.65 to M3118.3l. Land is a more serious constraint in the smaller size farms. For the small size farm model (0.4 hec.) land is restricting in every month of farm operation, with exception of the month of December. The MVPs of land range from M3352.00 in month of April to M$3638.00 in month of January on the 0.4 hectare farm model. Similarly land is the limiting factor in the months of March through September on the medium farm (0.8 hec.). _ The range of MVPs for land is M3600 to $3638.00 for the respective periods. On the large farm land is limiting only in 117 the month of June whereby the total area of 1.6 hectare is operated on. Additional unit of land available in June would bring additional gross margin of M35668.l3. Restrictions imposed on area of selected leafy vegetables grown deprive the gross margin to increase further . Additional hectares of Chinese mustard in February will increase gross margin by M31540.00 on the small farms. The additional value for growing Chinese mustard increase to M33778.09 if grown by medium farm unit in month of May. If the farmer do not restrict growing spinach, the additional gross margin will be from MSl746.00 per hectare on the small farm to M$3638.00 on the medium size farm. Cost of Including Non-Optional Activities in the Solutions : If the farmer chooses to include "unrecoumended" enterprises on the farm, the gross margin will decline by an opportunity cost. In the small farm model, the costs, in terms of decline in gross margin, when "unrecoumended" enterprises are taken ranged from $490.00 for having one hectare of radish in March to M$7518.00 for including a hectare of eggplant crop for the year. Similarly the reduction in gross margin range from 14324.91 for radish in May to M35310.05 for a hectare of chilli for the year on the medium size farm. The cost of having the "unrecommended" crop range is from M3643.78, by planting Chinese mustard in March, to M3433. 12 by planting a hectare of spinach in Febuary on the large farm (1.6 hec. ). 118 The computed cost to the small farm for having radish in May is M$406.00 in forgone gross margin. For the medium farm the loss is MS612.98 due to inclusion of radish in March and water spinach in September and November. The actual practice of the large farm model lead to reduction of potential gross margin by M36175.23 due to adopting unrecommended crops of radish in November, water spinach in January, Chinese mustard in November, cucumber in January, and French bean in April. 4.4.3. Farms In Perak Activities in the Solutions: The different activities for representative farms in Perak proposed by the LP solutions are as in Table 4.16. Small farm model (0.4 hec.) can maximize gross margin at M11335.06 with nine crops and cropping intensity of 457.5 percent. In comparison the total gross margin of actual farm practice is M35008.60 with eight crops and cropping intensity of 300 percent. The choice of higher value crops such as cabbages and tomatoes increase the gross margin substantially. The LP solution also suggests a more intensified leafy vegetables production to put on appropriate mix with cabbage and tomatoes . The medium size farm in Perak has a gross margin of 52 percent higher than actual farm gross margin of M315074.00. The LP solutions recommend a more intensive cropping pattern of 403 . 7 percent, while the farmer is farming at cropping intensity of 125 percent. The farmers specialize in fruit vegetables with employing the extra resources to leafy'vegetables. The LP 119 solution suggests crops combination with yellow and green vegetables with exception of cucumber in order to achieve a higher return. The LP solution recommends cropping enterprises that increase the total gross margin of large farm model (1.6 best.) to MS40069.21 from actual farm return of M327227.60. The cropping intensity is suggested to increase by 288 percent with 15 crops compared to six crops practiced by the farmer. MVPs of Limited Resources: Similar to performances of Johore ' s representative farms, the farms in Perak are facing constraints imposed by land ~on smaller farm and labor on the larger farms. Labor is restricting on the small farms (0.4 hec.) in month of February, October and November. The MVPs for these labors are M348.35, M34.40 and 1431.99 per mandays respectively. Similarly, on the medium farm labor is restricting in the same three months with additional month of December. The MVPs are M$26.38, 1439.51, M318.09, and MS6.18 per manday respectively. But for the large farm (1.6 hec.) model the labor constraints predaninate in almost all months from January to December, with MVPs ranging from M$6.18 to M3158.73 per mandays. Land poses limitation to increase the gross margin on small farms more than larger farms. The monthhly MVPs for land range from $M102.78 to MS3528.00 on small farm and it is the constraints to increase returns in eight months of the year. In the medium size farm, land poses as a constraint to increase 120 gross margin in seven months of the year with MVPs ranging from M3727.00 to M$3528.00 per nonth. On the large farm nodal (1.6 hec.) land is a limiting factor in nonths of March to July. The nonthly MVPs range from 1432959 to 165526.88 par hectares. Restrictions imposed on limiting selected crops to a limited acreage give an opportunity cost ranging from 143332.89 to 1436455 . 11 per hectare. These restrictions deprive the small farms of higher return nora than the larger farms. Sunlnary of the MVPs of each limiting resources in each nodal farm is shown in Table E5, Appendix E. Cost of Including Non-Optimal Solution: Opportunity cost for including ”unrecommand " enterprises ranges from 143136.22 to M327425.04 per hectare of the unrecoumended crop. Details of these reduction of total gross margin are in Table E6, Appendix E. Reduction of total gross margin due to including the ”unracanmended" enterprises varies with type of enterprise and size of farm operation. The reduction in the gross margin is lower in the smaller farm and very much higher in the larger farm. Actual farm practice of model farms lead to "loss" of potential gross margins which could be obtained if the LP optimal solution is followed. For the small farm the loss of potential gross margin is $2011.57 per hectare due to cultivation of cucumber, angle luffa and water spinach in months of January, May and January respectively. On the medium the opportunity cost of 121 having crops of February eggplant is M31551.29 in loss of potential income. The large farm's reduction of gross margins due to planting eggplant in June and cucumber in July is M37560.94 which be obtained if the LP solution is followed. 4.4.4. Farms In Selango_r_ Activities in the Solutions: The crop mixes recommended by the LP procedure for representative farms in Selangor are as in Table 4.16. Increase farm gross margin can be attained on the small farm by increasing crop intensity by 260 percent. Total gross margin will increase from MS3967.60 (existing practice) to M311512.12. On the medium farm (0.8 hec.) the gross margin increases fran 14312120.60 to M32187l.93 with cropping intensity increases by 157 percent. The larger farm (1.6 hec.) will increase crop intensity by 142 percent and gross margin increases from M324059.20 to 14339576.86. MVPs of Limiting Resources: Similar to other areas, land is a nore frequent restricting factor in small farms and labor on larger farms. Labor availability is the restricting factor in the nonth of January and February on small farms, in February and October on medium size farm, and in January to November on the large farms. On the small farms the MVPs are 14310.20 and M318.50 par manday in nonths of January and February respectively. The MVPs of labor per manday on the medium farm is M37.86 in October and 380.31 in February. The large farm has MVPs of labor per manday that range fran M30.3l to M$48.27. 122 On the small farm the contribution of additional units of land range from M3440.00 to M34402 per hectare per nonth. The MVPs of land per hectare per nonth on medium farm range from 1431240 to 1434136. On the large farms, land's MVPs are between 181245.20 to M33608.00 per nonth. Crop limitation constraints, if relaxed can bring» additional gross margin to the farms operations. For the small farm the range is from 143354.00 to M$3608.00 per hectare. For the medium size farm the expansion of September and November's Chinese mustard will bring addition 32800.96 and 1431064.00 per crop, respectively. Expansion of May's spinach will increase gross margin by 1431240.00. For the large farm Chinese mustard in March will increase gross margin by M33502.58, and M$936.75 increase in gross margin if expand June's spinach. Details of MVPs of limiting constraints as in Table ES, Appendix E. Cost of Forcing Non-Optimal Activities Into Solu-tions: On the small farm planting ”unrecoumended" crops will decrease gross margin. The farmer's practice of including May and September water spinach, January and October cucumber, and September Chinese mustard deprive the farm of additional gross margin totalling M$3832.40 which could be obtained by following the LP optimal solution. This amount is alnost the same amount that actually can be obtained by the farmer current practice. For medium farm adopting unrecommended crop enterprises will decrease 123 gross margin by MS4260.66 which is about 35 percent of the actual gross margin of farm operation. On the large farm the lost due to not following the recommended solution and adopting unracoumended crops is 1435986.84 which is 25 percent of current gross margin. The range of value forgone by adopting unrecoumended varieties run from M3252.00 to M313458.02. These are shown in Table E6, Appendix E. Farms In Cameron Highland Activities in the Solutions: The crop enterprises recommended by the LP solutions has total gross margin of M327l63.38 compared to M313091.50 with farmers' actual crops mix. The increase in gross margin is accompanied with increase cropping intensity of 333 percent compared with 162.5 percent as practiced by the farmer. Table 4.16 shows the activities optimize in the LP solution. 4.4.5.2. MVPs of Limited Resources: The operation of 0.8 hectare farm on Cameron Highland is constrained by labor and land. Labor is less restricting as it is a bottleneck in months of July and September with MVPs of M$20.93 and M$17.l3 per manday in different months respectively. Land is restricting in six nonths of the year with MVPs per hectare per month ranging from M31244.00 to M37187.00. This can be seen in Table E5, Appendix E. Restriction on planting of white mustard is depriving the farmer from additional gross margin of M32912.28 and M$6885.00 if 124 additional hectare of the crop is planted in May or November respectively. Cost of Forcigq Non-Optimal Solution: Planting of "unreccrrmendad" crop mix such as one hectare of January tomato and others as shown in Table E6, Appendix E, will reduce the total gross margin by M3302.00 to M39140.00 per crop. The farmers crop of 0.3 hectare of January tomato reduce gross margin by 31022.70. 4.5. Samitivity Analysis The enterprise mix will remain as recommended enterprises if gross margins are within range as shown in Table E7, Appendix E, with other things remain constant. Cost of material inputs are quite stable. Thus, yield of crops and prices will be the prime factors that determine the selection of the enterprises . Crop yields do not change much unless influenced greatly by weather, pests, diseases or biological improvement through introduction of new improved variety. If there is no changes in yields the price receive by farmers will influence the best choice of crop combinations. Table 4.17 summarized the price level above which the different vegetables should be included in the farmers' crop mix in the different area. Water spinach and cucumber are recoumended to be in the crop mix even when price falls below costs to enable farm overall' gross margin to be higher. As shown in Table E7, Appendix E, some vegetables will continue to be in 125 the raconmended crop mix in certain season even when its price falls to quite a low level. Tomato and eggplant do not seem to be choice enterprise in the crop mix. Table 4.17: Price Level for Choice Enterprises to be the Recomnended Enterprises Eggetables thore Perak Selangor C. Highland C. Mustard 370 (140) 358 (217) 474 (140) -- Chilli 2060 (480) 1882 (280) 2078 (326) -- Spinach 226 (227) 273 (259) 244 (229) -- Cabbage 794 (231) 794 (181) 690 (196) 550 (337) W. Spinach 196 (209) 140 (245) 293 (227) —- Cucumber 198 (260) 231 (311) 277 (270) -- Notes: Figures in parentheses are costs per ton The various vegetables will continue to be grown even when prices drop by the respective percentages from current prices as shown in Table 4.18. Most of the vegetables are quite stable to be in the crop mix with exception of chilli and to a certain extend cabbages. Chilli will not be recommended if prices drop by fifteen percent below the current level. Thus, all crops, with the exception of chilli, tomato and eggplant are not very sensitive to prices changes, especially if there is a declining price. 126 Table 4.18: Percentages Drop In Prices And Yield Allowed By Recommended Enterprises. (Percent) vggetables Johore Perak Selanggr C. Highland C.Mustard 30 (23) 6 (27) 21 (32) - Chilli 14 (2) 15 (1) 13 (l) — Spinach 53 (25) 49 (49) 49 (5) - Cabbage 13 (17) 19 (47) 24 (22) 30 (20) W.Spinach 53 (3) 66 (13) 22 (33) - Cucumber 59 (4) 53 (2) 50 (1) - notes: The percentage is out of current price. Figures in parentheses are yield drop in percentages. The percentages denote possible drop in price or yield with one of them remaining constant in order for the enterprises to remain in the optimising solution. 4.4.6.4.The enterprises mix is quite sensitive to yield fluctuation. If yields are to drop by the respective percentage as shown in Table 4.18., than, there will be a new optimizing solution to the recommended crop combination. The most sensitive crops are chilli and cucumber. While the stable crops are chinese mustard, spinach and cabbage. New crop mix will appear if yields are to increase by more than ten percent and relative prices are maintained at the current level. 127 4.6 Sl-nary of Findirfi: 4.5.1. The findings from the survey and linear progranming analysis are listed as follows: 1. The average size of a vegetable farm was comparatively small at 0.49 hectares, when compared with rubber(l.53 hec.), oil palm(1.6 hec.) and rice(1.4 hec.). 2. More than two thirds of the farmers had permanent tenureship to their farms and they were owner operators. 3. Vegetable farming is a family oriented business with less than twenty percent of vegetables farmers employing hired labor. 4. Vegetable farmers financed their own input needs with cash and short term credits from supply dealers and local credit agencies. Less than twenty percent of the farmers were credit takers. 5. Vegetable farming is still predominantly a manual operation with few (less than ten percent) having significants investments in farm equipment. 6 . The returns to labor from vegetable production were lucrative. Lowest return per hectare observed is M32167, and this return is much higher than that from rubber (M31300), oil palm (M31700), and cocoa (M31800). 7. Pests and diseases, which affect yield and quality of vegetables, are anong major problems facing vegetables farmers. Sixty four percent of farmers sampled reported these perenial problems . 128 8 . Farm prices were the next serious problem facing the farmers. 9. Land related problems were the third nost quoted by forty-eight percent of the respondents . 10. Credit was reported as a problem by forty-two percent of the farmers although use of credit was not widespread among vegetable farmers. 11. Marketing of produce was a major problem for thirty six percent of the respondents . 12. Generally, the farmers cropping mixes were similar to those obtained with the LP analysis. However, farmers were planting certain crops which the LP analysis indicated would reduce returns but obtained greater diversity and reduce uncetainty. This restricted farmers from obtaining higher insane through more production of more profitable and shorter term leafy vegetables. 13. Linear Progranlning analysis indicated that farmers might increase their insane by 40 percent to 110 percent. 14. The LP sensitivity analysis indicated that many crops would continue to be planted even their prices dropped up to sixty percent and yield dropped up to forty nine percent. 15. The LP analysis showed that land posed as a major constraint to increase returns on small farms and labor on larger farms. The potential increase return to vegetable farming on large farms is appealing if labor are hired. The prospective 129 return per unit labor is as much as M3118 in Johore on 1.6 hectare farms, much higher than the M315 per man day cost of hired labor. 16. The LP analysis also indicated that there is a good prospect of increase income if crops' yields could be increased. An increased of twenty percent in yield increased farm return by at least twenty five percent. mm POTENTIALS FOR INCREASED MARKET SYSTEM PERFORMANCES 5.1 Introductim This chapter will examine a number of , issues and pertinent constraints in the marketing system. First, a general marketing channels for vegetables will be described. The next section of the chapter discusses general market structures at wholesale and retail levels, using secondary data. This aims at evaluating the ability of the market to provide effective and competitive outlets for the farmers' produce and at the same time provide competitive services to the consumers . A section of the chapter will look at marketing margins of selected vegetables in selected areas. The chapter will also include a section on market integration at national level . Lastly, the chapter will look at what are the problems or constraints visualized by the various level of participants in the marketing channels. 5.2. Marketng Channels Generally the marketing channels used by the farmers are similar in all areas studied. Data from the survey and infomation obtained from FAMA are used to construct the marketing channels for P. Malaysia. A small proportion of farmers sell their product directly to the consumers (Table 5.1). Some 130 131 farmers cater the local market by selling directly to the retailers. The proportion of farmers that sell their produce through cooperatives is also very small. Majority of the farmers (81.2 percent) sell their products to the assemblers or wholesalers. There are two systems being practiced to sell vegetables to wholesalers. First, there is the direct sales to wholesalers. In this system (estimated at 20% of total sales to wholesalers) the wholesalers or his agents meet with the farmers, bargain for a price, and place orders place before the vegetables are harvested. In the second system, the farmers sell their produce on consignment basis, whereby, the farmers will know the prices after the vegetables are sold in the wholesale market. Payment will be made a day or two after the sales. Figure 2 shows the flow of the produce from the farmers to the consumers . As mentioned above nost of the produce goes to the assemblers or wholesalers. The wholesalers distribute the produce to the retailers at major regional market, some produce will go to second level wholesalers in another regional market to be dispersed to local retailers. The retailers distribute the produce either at supermarkets, 'wet' markets or by pedaling on bicycles or notorcycles. 'Wet' markets are facilities provided by the local governments at anuual rent for the purpose of trading perishable goods . Normally, perishable goods such as fishes, meat, poultry, and vegetables are retailed in these facilities. 132 ASSEMBLERS/ TRANSPORTERS/ COMMISSION v----* ...... AGENTS. "’1' : I ' * I ' p . , I WHOLESALERS ‘_’, SECOND LEVEL I r"- "' * " ‘ WHOLESALERS I I ' r I I , I I I I I ' I I (1) (2) I I I ' ' Y I l l ‘ I I- 492 -pgrgenj; ... __ _ J RETAILERS .L L I I I ' ' I + I I I i I _ I I— - 4 ' GROWERS ::’_"'_:| _ + _. I_L_e§_s _t_h_an_1_p_e_rc_en_t _ _ _ CONSUMERS note: (1) and (2) together account for 81.2 percent. FIGURE 2: MARKETING CHANNELS FOR VEGETABLES Source: Survey and FAMA Table 5.1: 133 vegetable Buyers In Selected Areas -- P. Malaysia Area Purchasers/Buyers Wholesalers Retailers Johore n = 38 31 (81.2) 1 (2.7) Perak n a 30 24 (80.0) 2 (6.7) Selangor n = 32 26 (81.3) 3 (9.4) C. Highlands n = 28 23 (82.1) - Total n = 128 104 (81.2) 6 (4.7) Notes: Figures in parentheses are percentages. Source: Survey Wholesalers & Retailers 6 (15.8) 4 (13.3) 3 ( 9.3) 5 (17.4) 18 (14.1) 134 Selling of vegetables is commonly done by farmers at local markets or collecting centers. With the exception of Cameron Highlands, more than fifty percent of farmers sell their produce at these centers. The second most popular location for farmers to sell their product is at the farm. This is very popular in cameron Highland with 78.6 percent of farmers selling produce ex- farms. Table 5.2 shows the location of sales of vegetables in the selected areas. 5.3. Market Structure The market structure will be analyzed at the wholesale level as well as at the retail level. Historical records of vegetable and other wholesale and retail operations published by the Department of Statistics, and records and information gathered from.FAMA and local licensing authorities served as the data for this section. Looking at the number of operators at each level of operation and their size of operation would indicate the degree competitiveness at each level of the market. No attempt is made to imply any productivity or efficiency directly from the analysis and this study does not attempt to study any productivity or efficiency in the market. Hewever, the presence of competitiveness will serve as indicators of the ability of the market to provide competitive service and fair prices to clients. A competitive market at wholesale level provides fair prices to producers and retailers. Similarly a competitive market at retail level will provide competitive services and fair prices to 135 the consumer. Table 5.2: Placsof Salesofvegetables. £3; Place of Sales Local Nadct/ Oillectirg Road FEE m .3193; 9311-”. Johore 01-38) 14 (36.8) 21 (55.6) 1 (2.6) 2 (5.3) Perak (mac) 9 (30.0) 16 (53.3) 2 (6.7) 3 (10.0) Selagcr (tr-32) 8 (25.0) 17 (53.1) 3 (9.4) 4 (12.5) c. Higmand (n=28) 22 (78.6) 6 (21.4) -- ‘ - Total (n=128) 53 (41.4) 60 (46.9) 6 (4.7) 9 (7.0) rote: Figreeinparertheeasarepsmartqa Scream Wholesale: The operation of the wholesale market appears to exhibit pure competition. There is easy exit and entry with mininnnn bureaucratic red tape. There are an ample number of wholesalers dealing with vegetables. They increased from 400 in 1972 to 729 in 1976 but declined to 617 in 1978. In 1985, based on partial records and information gathered from FAMA and local licensing authorities, the number of wholesalers dealing with vegetables was 463. Table F1 of the appendix shows these statistics. The distribution of vegetable wholesalers according to region in 1985 is seen in Table 5.3. 136 Table 5.3: Distribution of vegetable Wholesalers Rggions No. of Wholesalers more: 153 Central 195 South 45 East 70 Total 463 amumxn Surwqy The decrease in the number of wholesalers does not indicate any monopolistic behavior as the number of wholesalers is large enough to provide a competitive environment in each region. Wholesalers still maintain a fair volume of business on the average annually. Average volume of business ranged from M3265,000 in 1972 to M3378,000 in 1978. Comparatively this volume is much lower than the other types of wholesale operation such as general dried food wholesale which gross on the average a 'onomwer of moms duHINEl milLux1gmr'year. On theammnage Ema vegetable wholesale operation operate at about 30 percent of the :nmmegeiofImnrcmhertnmunessImxumudons. 137 small family-run.operation. On the average, there are 3.5 people working in the daily operation of the business. Generally, two family members run the business, and on the average, the wholesale operation hires 1.5 units of labor. For comparison, other wholesale enterprises operate with 1.5 unit of family member and six units of hired labor. There were 7340 vegetable retailers in P. Malaysia in 1978 (Dept. of Statistics--Census). This is an increase of 73 percent from 4251 retailers in 1974. A more comprehensive count of vegetable retailers is difficult to establish now due to inclusion of many new operations in vegetable retailing that exist to complement the traditional vegetable stall operators in the 'wet' market. These new retailers are open air farmers' market operators, grocery shopkeepers who also retail vegetables, hawkers who peddle vegetables in vans , notorbikes and bicycles , and the sophisticated retailers in supermarkets. Generally, vegetable retailers in Peninsular Malaysia can be divided into four main types: supermarkets, grocery shopkeepers, vegetable stall operators and hawkers. Supermarkets are nost recent outlet for vegetables, this type of operation provides graded, better quality and well-package product to more "sophisticated" consumers. The consumers enjoy convenience of site in terms of ease of shopping when purchasing vegetables with other household grocery needs. The consumer also enjoys the dry market environment. The next two types carry out their business in grocery shops or in "wet" markets. These two types of 138 operations thrive on, and improve through good relationships and long service. For this type of operation the advantage of convenient site is not always significant. The last type of operation control quite a substantial anount of vegetable retail sales. Some hawkers have produce stands outside ”wet" market, while others do not stick to specific sites but nova from time to time to nore convenient spots for better business prospects. Other hawkers use pick-up trucks, motorcycles or bicycles to retail vegetables in residential areas. The most recent group of hawkers are farmers who come to metropolitan centers or specially designated areas to sell their products. This "farmers' market" is encouraged by FAMA to provide alternative outlet for the farmers products. The operation of the vegetable retail business is nore of owner operator type with an average of 1.4 unit of family members running the business. There are very few who hire labor in the vegetable retail business. On the other hand other retail enterprise employ on an average of a unit of hired labor with 1.8 units of family members operating the business. The evidence indicates high competition in the retail level of the vegetable distribution system. There is easy exit and entry, the number of operators is substantial , and the average volume of business is low, which indicates an absence nonopolistic tendencies in the market. In 1978 there are 7340 vegetables retailers handling M3153 millions worth of produce . 139 This gives an average turnover of M320,800 per retailer. Comparatively the vegetable retail business operates with much lower volume of business, for other groups of general retailers have an average business of about M3105, 000 worth of product per year. 5.4. Marketing Margins It is nost difficult to ascertain the various marketing margins absorbed by the intermediaries when the produce left the farmers farm to wholesalers either in Kuala Lumpur or other major wholesaling centers and the consumers. This‘ is mainly due to the close system of sales between the wholesalers in Kuala Lumpur, Ipoh, Panang, Johor Bahru and the second rank wholesalers in other smaller towns . The actual marketing margin between these two intermediaries is done in a secretive manner whereby the seller and the buyer know the price of that particular transaction. The farmers, as such, would not be able to know the prices of their produce wholesaled in these centers. The farmers normally collected their returns to the sales from assemblers/transporters one or two days after the sales. Marketing margins analysis need to ascertain the source of the products and the marketing channels the produce went through and consequently to proportion the share of the price the consumer paid to various level participants in the market. In this research are eight vegetables were studied from four regions of production and distributed to more than ten metropolitan 140 markets, thus, there is a need to reduce the scope to highlight impediments and constraints in the market operation if they exist. Due to reasons given above, this part will focus on marketing margins for cabbages and tomatoes from Cameron Highlands to the major metropolitan centers of Kuala Lumpur, Ipoh, and Johor Bahru/Singapore. Cameron Highlands produce almost 90 percent of cabbages and tomatoes supplies in P. Malaysia (Chapter 3, this study). These two vegetables are distributed throughout the (xxuuzy'auxi they were selected not only for easiness of studying due to the majority of supply from a single region but also due to a number of other factors. Problems in marketing cabbages in 1972 and tomatoes in 1980 have given rise to a number of protests from farmers. Cabbage is considered a leafy vegetable and tomatoes can represent the fruit vegetables. Their marketing problem and marketing mode of operation are similar to other vegetables. Generalization of findings have to be done with caution, but it is appropriate enough to indicate problems and possible avenues of solutions. Using data collected by FAMA, the price spread between retail and the farm were analyzed. The price spread seems "reasonable" and do not seem to be exploitive. Farmers share of the consumer "ringgit" (/1) range from 44.61 percent to 59.48 percent for cabbages sold in Ipoh, Kuala Lumpur and thor Bahru markets. Similarly, the farmers' share for the consumer ”ringgit" range from 43.90 percent to 56. 60 percent for tomatoes 141 sold in the three markets. Comparatively, the farmers share is much higher if vegetables fran Cameron Highlands are sold in Ipoh; where the farmers share is 59.48 percent for cabbages and 56. 60 percent for tomatoes. This higher share is contributed by shorter distance from Cameron Highlands to Ipoh, thus, lower transportation costs and lower spoilage on the transported produce. The farmers' share of the consumer price for products sold in Kuala Lumpur and Johor Bahru are almost the same proportion, but wholesalers margin are higher in Johor Bahru. This can be due to higher transportation costs and spoilage. FAMA (1983) estimated that the percentage spoilage on vegetables transported to Kuala Lumpur or Johor Bahru to be between 10 to 40 percent. An informal survey of independent truck operators revealed that the cost of transportation per 100 kilograms of vegetables from Cameron Highland to Kuala Lumpur or Joror Bahru to be 14346.00 and 382.00 respectively. Thus, the wholesalers margins as shown in Table 5.4 and Table 5.5 are competitive when compared to potential cost of transportation and loss due to spoilage are taken into considerations. Retailers margins in Kuala Lumpur are much higher due to higher cost of transportation in the city and also higher cost of facilities used in the city. Comparing the marketing cost and margins at the international ' level, the share of each participant in the marketing channels is similar to that in Korea when figures put up by Mittendorf and Hertag (1982) are examined. The share of 142 the farmers, the wholesalers and retailers are "alnost similar." Wholesalers margin is higher in Korea. Farmers share in Indonesia and the Philippines in the marketing of cabbages are much lower than the Malaysian farmers' share. Wholesalers shares are much higher in Indonesia and retailers ' margins are twice that of the Malaysian counterparts. Table5.4: FarmRstailPriceSmealsforCatbmes inSelectedMadIels (Esperlmldlo) m m ___J- Harm Price Elm-farm (C. Higilad) 91.CD (59.48) 91.0) (45.27) 91.0) (44.61) W' nargirs 18.15 (11.86) 5.55 (12.71) 57.38 (3.13) Price More 109.15 116.55 148.38 totallers' nargins 43.85 (28.66) 84.45 (42.01) 55.62 (27.26) Price Ear-retailers 153.0) (101.0) 231.0) (101.0) 114.0) (103.0) rote: Figx'esinbradwlsareperoartamofpcicssornarginsortof picspaidbycrnsmers Soireezm 143 Table5.5: Faun-Retaiquealsfior'mmln (NBpar‘lEIdJo) m m J 8am PrioeB:-Fann(c.lflgflarb) 90.56(D( 60.90)90m(43. ) 9003(12) Woleealers'nargin 23.19(l4.58.)2518(12.28) 6251(64) Price Ear-Ptolemlers 113.19 115.18 152. 50 Retailers'nargin 45..81(2881) 89..82(4381) 513305.26) Price Wars 159.3) (103.0) 15.0) (1010) 214.0) (103.0) hots: Figuesinbradatsareparcartagsofpricsscrnargirsoxt ofpricspaidbyomemers. Scream 144 Table 5. 6: Marketing Costs and Margin for Cabbages (in percentage of Consumer Price) liem Indonesia _Kgre_a_ Philippines (1977) (1979) (1979) 1. Farmers' shares 18 45 34 2. Wholesalers' margins 70 29 16 3. Retailers' margins 12 ‘ 26 50 4. Retailers' price to consumers 100 100 100 Source: Mittendorf and Hertag (1982) op. cit. -- p. 8. 5.5. National Mrket Integration Two centers are considered to be in the same market when they are closely intergrated with very close novement of prices . The relation between the two prices within the market will not be strictly constant over time: their differences will not be a constant or a constant proportion of one price. Sources of differences in price movement are that quality of good is variable, lot size of transactions varies, and prices do not pertain to the same period. Other sources of price dispersion include errors in reporting price. These dispersion caused the correlation of price novements to be less than perfect even in highly efficient market (Stigler and Sher-min (1985)). Vegetables are perishable and bulky, thus are expensive to transport. The market for vegetables tend to be regional, 145 however, the produce will be transported fron region to region when price differences between regions make it profitable to move the produce. If marketing margin is constant then prices between region will move together with the margin as the only difference. Thus, prices between regional markets are expected to be highly correlated. In order to test whether the vegetable market is regionally intergrated, prices of the eight selected vegetables in the different markets are tested for their correlations. The correlation coefficients of selected regional markets ' prices were calculated using the Time Series Statistical Package (TSP). The data for prices were obtained from FAMA's commodity bulletin. The ranges of values for correlation coefficients are as in Table 5.7. With a certain minor exceptions prices of vegetables in the different regions are highly correlated. Poor correlation of prices are observed for cucumbers in most . markets . Other poor correlations are cabbages's prices in Malacca and Kota Bahru, and some leafy vegetables' pricessuch as Chinese mustards and spinach in Malacca and Penang. Cucumber and leafy vegetables are more perishable, thus, price differences occur to reflect losses after transportation. Prices of vegetables in Kota Bahru are poorly correlated with the other region due to the distance between Kota Bahru and the other metropolitan areas. The northern region is directly out off from Kota Bahru by the highlands in the middle 146 of the peninsula. Thus, transportation considerations might isolate Kota Bahru from the other area. Generally the high correlation of prices between markets indicate the highly integrated market system at national level. Thus, movement of vegetables are expectedwhen price differences allow profit-making. Table F3a - F3k in the Appendix provide the correlation matrix for all prices at different markets for all the different vegetables. Table 5.7: RgggespQ§_Price Correlation Between Markets For Selected Selected Vggetables. vggetables Egggg For Coef. 9; Correlations. C. Mustard 0.01 - 0.68 Cabbage 0.21 - 0.91 Cucumber 0.19 - 0.88 Spinach 0.11 - 0.85 W. Spinach 0.02 - 0.88 Tomato 0.60 - 0.95 Chilli 0.66 - 0.94 Eggplant 0.30 - 0.79 147 5.6. Problans Faced by Market Participants The various levels of participants in the market face different problems or concerns. In Chapter Four the problems of the farmers with respect to marketing were exposed, and these problems relate to uncertainty of market outlet, uncertainty about price, occurrence of very low price, and at times some minor problems with transportation. Generally, the retail and wholesale level participants are very suspicious of formal studies conducted on thou. The usual response to attempts of soliciting for their perceived problems were no problems. However, informal discussion with retailers in "wet” market point out that their concern are low level of profit, too much competition from licensed and unlicensed retailers, and high rents and costs of infra-structures. Some retailers pointed at the poor location of facilities that caused high rents. The wholesalers generally complain of inadequate facilities at wholesale markets. Transports costs, which contribute a substantial amount of the margin, are considered too high. These transport costs are related to high energy costs and also high licensing cost which include road taxes. The wholesalers are also concerned with competition of imported vegetables, especially cabbages. The importations are controlled by government and this leads to uncertainties on the part of wholesalers when required to offer pre-harvest prices to consignment purchases. However these problems and concerns 148 cannot be statistically tabulated due to inadequate numbers of responses . 5.7. Sunary of Findingg The following are important findings from the farm survey and from the census of wl'olesale and retail establishments. 1. The local markets or collecting center are the main point where 46.9 percent of the farmers sold their products. Product is sold ex-farm by 41.4 percent of the farmers. Fifty-one percent of the farmers sell their products to wholesalers and assemblers. 2. Sales to the wholesalers are conducted in two ways. First, by direct sales with price predetermined before the harvest. Second, sales on consignment basis, whereby price is only lmcwn after the products are sold in the wholesale market. 3. Wholesaling of vegetables is still a family operated business with a comparatively smaller volume of business. The numbers and volumes of business do not indicate monopolistic structure. 4. There were 7340 retailers distributing vegetables in 1978. Retailing is also a family operated business with average annual sales of 320,800. The large number and small volume of business does not suggest nonopolistic practices. 5. Price spread between retail and the farm seem reasonable. The farmers share of consumer price ranges from 43.9 to 59.5 percent. 149 6. Generally, intermarkat prices for all the vegetables are highly correlated. This indicates that prices are well intergrated at national level; and that vegetable are transported between markets when economically feasible. 7. Farmers reported uncertainty with respect to market outlets, unstable prices and low prices. 8. Retailers perceived problems were low level of profit, too much competition and high overhead costs. 9 . Wholesalers were concern with high transport costs and competition with imported comodities. 150 Note: 1/ 'Ringgit' is the Malaysian Unit of currency. There are 100 cents per ringgit. One ringgit is equivalent to approximately U330 . 40 . CHNENEISIX PROSPECTS OF PRODUCTION AND CONSUMPTION 6.1 Overview This chapter will attempt to look at future vegetable supply and consumption. The purpose is to look at expected change for expanding production and consumption of vegetables . The chapter will benefit fron the analysis of trends (Chapter Three) and microeconomic analysis at the farm level (Chapter Four) . The first section deals with review of related studies which provide comparative information to this study. The next section provide sources of data and information used in the analysis and projections. The analysis aims at providing indicative projections of vegetable production and consumption, thus the following sections will reveal projection of production through projection of area and yield. This will follow by projection of consumption by looking at empirical demand for vegetables and forecasting consumption and prospective demand projection. 6.2. Related Studies The Food and Agricultural Organization (1967) made projections for production and demand for agricultural 151 152 connodities for 1975 and 1985. The objectives of the FAO study was to look at the nature of the food problem and to assess long- term prospects for world trade in major agricultural comnodities. The study projected the production of a number of crops using projection of area and yield growth, it also extrapolated consumption in the future. The study was based on household surveys and time series data. Table 6.1 shows the consumption per capita and income elasticities for vegetables in a number of countries revealed by the FAO exercise. Librero, N (1974) also studied the demand projection of fruits and vegetables in the Philippines. The estimated income elasticity for vegetables was 0.208, obtained by using time series data. FAO (1984) reviewed income elasticities of demand for agricultural products and estimated the elasticities for vegetables using household consumption and budget survey to be in the range of -0.02 in U.S.A. and 0.68 in Thailand as shown in Table 6.2. The estimated income elasticities for different types of vegetables range from 0.08 to 1.69 (Librero, N [1974]: Ortmann, GF [1982]). 6.3. Sources of Data Data used for projection of production are trends with respect to area, yield and other trend data as exposed in Chapter Three . Secondary data are the main contributors of information for the projections. Details of data and information are as in the following paragraphs . 153 Table 6.1: Consumption Per Year and Income Elasticities of Demand for vegetables inrDifferent Countries (1957 - 59) Consumption countries (kgm/capita) Income Elasticity Canada 76 0.35 Uhited States 97 0.25 France 126 0.40 Italy 128 0.70 Japan 76 0.50 Taiwan 60 0.80 Philippines 30 0.80 Source: FAD, UN (1967): Agricultural Commodities Pro- jections for 1970; Rome.--Table M3 - M4. Table 6.2: Income Elasticities of Consumption of vegetables of Different Countries Countries Year Income Elasticity USA. 1972/73 -0.02 united Kingdom. 1980 0.12 Indonesia 1978 0.40 Japan 1974 0.49 1976 0.37 1978 0.43 Korea 1978 0.63 Thailand 1975/76 0.68 Source: FAD, UN (1984); Income Elasticities of Deman for Agricultural Products Estim- ated FroHousehold Consumption and Budget Survey, Rome (Microfische). 154 Per caLita Vegetable Consumption: Consumption figures on vegetables had been based on the disappearance methods, that is, the quantity produced plus imports minus exports. Farm production of vegetables were estimates from Miscellaneous Crop Reports of the MOA. Data for estimates of production of individual vegetables were limited to the period of 1974 to 1982. The imports and exports figures were from MA, Trade Statistics in Agricultural Products and FAO Trade Yearbook. For calculating per capita consumption, the total available for consumption was divided by the population of the particular year. Population: The population estimates were obtained fron the Dept. of Statistics, Vital Statistics of Peninsular Malaysia. The population estimates were that of end of the year. Income: The per capita income used were that published in the Treasury Reports and World Development Reports of the World Bank. The per capita income were adjusted with the Consumer Price Index published by the Treasury. Retail Prices: Prices of the different type of vegetable used were obtained from FAMA' s Commodity Reports . The retail price of the vegetables in Kuala Lumpur are used as a high proportio1 (13 percent) of consumers are in and around the Kuala Lumpur metropolitan areas. The prices of vegetables were also highly correlated among the different regional markets in Peninsular Malaysia (refer Chapter Five of this study); thus, 155 using Kuala Lumpur's price is a good proxy for the prevailing prices. Wtures Data: Cross section budgetary study data were also used. The per capita total expenditures per nonth and the total amount spent on vegetables and fruits were obtained from UN Review of Food Consumption Surveys, 1977. 6.4. Projection of Production Observations of past trends play a crucial role in the projections. Future projections from these trends are based on what is known about causal relationships between economic variables. Microeconomic informations will provide insights on the projection of vegetable production. However, the use of microeconcmic results for supply estimates at national level will raise an aggregation problem. Consequently, to reduce the aggregation difficulties the analysis is carried out at regional level. These regions are defined earlier in Chapter Two. The procedure used to derive projections consisted of the following steps: 1) Analysis of past trends at regional level; 2) appraisal of interrelationships between economic variables at microeconomic levels; 3) determination of nost likely future course of events, derivation of regional projections, subsequently national projections . Area Projections: Vegetable output is the product of area planted and yield per hectare. Area planted to a particular crop 156 results from farmers ' yearly production decisions . They depend on economic variables, farm structure, price and available technology are generally considered the main factors that influence the production decisions. Changes take place under the influence of shift in relative profitability (yield and price changes) within limits allowed by farm structure (area, available labor and working capital) (Petit, M.J. and J.B. Viallon [1968]). It is shown in Chapter Four that nost of the vegetable will continue to be grown even when prices dropped as much as by fifty percent. The current area will continue to be planted with the reconlnended vegetables even if yield dropped, and will greatly expand if yield increase assuming other things remain constant. Current cropping practices can be intensified to increase effective acreage planted with vegetables. Furthermore, vegetable area can expand if some of the existing idle land, which is estimated at 890,000 hectares (FDA, 1985) are brought into vegetable cultivation. This is possible without heavy readjustment costs, due to the ease of entry into the vegetable business. There is no requirement for specialized inputs or equipnents (Chapter Four has demonstrated this). If trend continues to persist the projected hectarage of the eight vegetable studied will be as in Table 6.3. 157 Table 6.3: vegetable Area by Regions Projected To 1990 and 2000 (hectares) §gg§h Nbrth §g§t_ Central Tgtgl C. Mustard Avg. 1979-81 725 204 285 256 1570 1990 1220 190 450 260 2120 2000 1960 180 500 250 2890 Cabbgges Avg. 1979-81 246 25 1335 30 1816 1990 165 10 2090 40 2305 2000 230 -- 2795 50 3075 cucumbers Avg. 1979-81 569 325 830 279 2002 1990 840 110 370 240 1560 2000 1420 100 440 380 2340 Spinach Avg. 1979-81 172 68 126 55 421 1990 380 80 230 95 785 2000 615 80 310 130 1135 water Spinach Avg. 1979-81 203 90 117 55 465 1990 440 85 100 100 725 2000 745 80 90 150 1065 158 Table 6.3 (continued) Tcmato Avg. 1979-81 1174 39 606 28 1847 1990 1975 50 1175 35 3235 2000 3240 60 1810 44 5154 9211; Avg. 1979-81 333 397 483 176 1389 1990 460 380 280 190 1310 2000 650 330 110 220 1310 Eggplant Avg. 1979-81 241 72 175 26 514 1990 410 80 165 10 665 2000 650 55 165 10 880 159 This is based on the trend of crop grown in the different regions fron 1974 to 1982 (Table G1, Appendix G). All regions has their share of idle land, thus the expansion in area will not be constrained by land. Furthermore, as mentioned earlier, the scope for expansion through nore intensive cultivation is always possible with the small farm using existing family labor or on the larger farms with introduction of hired labor (see Chapter Four). Yields Projection: Generally, yield depends on technology. However, not to forget that economic theory tells us that the amount of input such as fertilizer to use on a hectare of vegetable is such that the marginal value productivity of fertilizer equal to its unoriginal cost} Consequently, the amount of fertilizer to use and the yield of the vegetable depends on both price of vegetable and the price of fertilizer. However, the use of fertilizer by vegetable farmers has been at a very high level (MARDI, 1981). It is generally felt that if yields were to increase, it will be brought about by technical progress. As a result, it is justified to consider that yield of the different type of vegetables are linked to technical advancement. Projections will be done on the basis of past trends and of judgments concerning available technologies and new research efforts. Table 6.4: 160 vegetable Yields in Various Regions Projected to 1990 and 2000 (tons per hectare) C. Mustard South North East Central Cabbgge South Nbrth East Central Cucumber South Nerth East Central Spinach South Nerth East Central W. Spinach South Nbrth East Central Tomato South Nbrth East Central Chilli South Nerth East Central 1986 13.17 12.47 13.00 10.23 15.47 14.13 25.00 16.13 14.45 12.81 14.45 14.45 14.45 12.81 14.45 12.81 15.00 15.27 15.00 15.27 15.76 12.13 21.00 15.00 8.00 9.35 9.21 9.21 2000 15.15 14.35 14.95 11.75 20.10 18.40 26.50 21.00 16.60 14.75 16.60 16.60 16.60 14.75 16.60 14.75 17.25 17.50 17.25 17.50 20.50 15.75 22.75 19.50 10.40 12.10 12.00 12.00 East Central 161 Table 6.4 (continued) 13.00 12.83 11.17 11.17 13.65 13.50 11.75 11.75 15.00 14.75 12.85 12.85 162 Data on yields at the national level are computed by dividing total production by total area (Table D1 and D2, Appendix D). From the trend data it is observed that there is not nnlch change in crop yield. This trend is expected to prevail in the near future with minor increase contributed by more widespread of technology over all the areas. Yield projection to the year 2000 seems quite pessimistic due to poor prospects of breakthrough in yield improvements brought by current research which are under progress. Possible increases could only be in tomato, chilli and cabbages as some research are conducted toward selecting improved varieties. Some of the varieties show promising results, but the increase in yield on the average could not be more than 30 percent due to lack of emphasis of the progrons and also due to time lag for technology adoption to cover all areas. Yields improvement are expected nore in lowland cabbages and tomatoes due to the ongoing trial on heat tolerant varieties. Projections of yields for 1990 and 2000 are as in Table 6.4. Production Projection: The projections of different vegetable production from area and yield projections are given in Table 6.5. These projections are on the conservative side, however, there is no indication that the situation would be more optimistic, unless consumption is increasing, such that increasing consumption with limited supply will drive price much higher, resulting in higher farm prices, and consequently, expanded production. 163 6.5. gincal Donand for Vegetables Trend data in Chapter Three is used to estimate demand parameters . Several trial equations were formulated to determine the functional form which will provide a good fit to the data. Table 6.6 provides some of the estimates of income elasticities using logarithmic functional form. The income elasticities of demand for the different vegetables range from -0.36 to 1.78. These figures seemed to be consistent with elasticities found in South Africa (.28 to 1.69) (Ortmann, 1982). Income elasticities of demand for different types of vegetables consumed in Philippines range fron 0.08 to 0.26, were lower than the estimated elasticities in this study (Librero, N. [1974]). Demand for total vegetables in P. Malaysia is largely limited to size of population and changes in per capita income. However, the demand for individual vegetables, or more specifically, changes in demand for a vegetable will be determined by changes in population and per capita incomes. The demand for a vegetable will also be influenced by substitutions among vegetables when relative prices changes. Changing tastes brought by changing economic status also influence demand. 164 Table 6.5: Projections to 1990 and 2000 of Selected vegetable Production, P. Malaysia (tons) Av. Production 1980-82 1990 2000 C. Mustards South 17080 29695 Nerth 2470 2580 East 6075 7475 Central 2780 2940 Total 19175 28405 42690 Cabbage South 3055 4625 Nerth 170 -- East 52295 74070 Central 775 1050 Total 39662 56295 79745 cucumber South 12770 23575 Nerth 1485 1475 East 5625 7300 Central 3650 6310 Total 19996 23530 38660 Spinach South 5780 10210 Nerth 1080 1180 East 3400 5150 Central 1285 1920 Total 6179 11645 18460 w. Spinach South 6930 12850 Nbrth 1360 1400 East 1575 1555 Central 1600 2625 Total 7370 11465 18430 Tomato South 35750 66420 Nbrth 695 945 East 25280 41180 Central 605 860 Total 30032 62900 109405 Table 6.5 (continued) Chilli South Nerth East Central Total 11805 Eggplant South Nbrth East Central Total 7170 165 4225 4260 3080 2090 13655 5600 1080 1940 1175 9795 6760 4870 1320 2640 15590 9750 810 2120 130 12810 166 Population: Population will be one of the main determinants in the charges of demand for all vegetables and also for individual types of vegetables. Increased in population, with other factors assumed constant, will result in higher demand for vegetables. The population of P. Malaysia had been expanding at 2.6 percent in the period 1965-73, and at 2.4 percent in the period 1973-84 (World Bank, 1986). Table 6.6.: Estimates of Income Elasticities for Different Types of vegetables /a. Income Elasticities $.02 o_f _Delnand EL 8.2 All vegetables /c 0.86 (11.34)** .93 C. Mustard -0.27 ( 0.43) .17 Cabbage 1.54 ( 2.13)** .52 Cucumber 1.78 ( 2.67)** .56 Spinach 1.07 ( 2.44)** .46 water Spinach 1.32 ( 3.86)** .76 Tomato -0.20 ( 1.26) .16 Chilli -0.36 ( 1.80)* .32 Eggplant 0.68 ( 1.89)* .41 Notes: /a The elasticities were estimated using a logarithmic functional form, log Q = a + b log Y + c log P where Q was quantity per capital consumption in kilograms Y was income per capita P was retail price ex Kuala Lumpur. /b The figures are constant elasticity coefficients. Figures in parentheses are t-values * significant at 90% level ** significant at 97.5% level /c These are expenditure elasticities for all vegetables using cross section budget data. 167 Income: Next to population, per capita income is a primary shifter of aggregate demand. As development gets underway income is expected to increase, with increased income demand for vegetables is expected to increase if other factors remain constant . The magnitude of increase in income depends on the income elasticity of demand. Average annual growth of income per capita was 4.0 percent in the period 1960-79 and 4.5 percent in the period 1965-84 (World Bank, 1986). 6.6. Forecasted Ca1sunp;tion and Perspective Dmand Consumption and demand for vegetables will be projected by two methods. The first aims at having a conservative estimates base on projection of consumption using 1985 level of individual vegetable consumption, projections of population, and other things renain constant . The estimates of consumption per capita is obtained from 1985 household consumption survey conducted by FAMA. The data was collected by FAMA through household sample survey for P. Malaysia. Projection of population for year 1990 and 2000 is based on Dept. of Statistics projections (Dept. of Statistics, 1982). Table 6.7 shows the estimated consumption requirement for P. Malaysia and the respective regions in 1986, 1990 and 2000. Table 62, Appendix G, provides the estimates of consumption requirements for the different regions . 168 Table 6.7: Fbrecast consumption Requirements of Selected vegetables in 1986, 1990, and 2000. (tons) Consumption Per vggetables Capita 1985 1986 1990 2000 (Rent/capita/(yearv a C. Mustard 4.20 56309 61190 75776 Cabbage 4.08 54700 59442 71668 Cucumber 3.48 46656 50701 61129 Spinach, 2.76 37003 40211 48481 W. Spinach 2.52 33786 36714 44266 Tomato 2.40 32177 34966 42158 Chilli 2.04 27350 29721 35834 Eggplant 1.44 19306 20980 25295 All vegetables/b 44.40 995270 646870 779920 Nets: /a These data are from FAMA's survey of households for consumptions of vegetables and fruits conducted in 1985. /b Defined as forty-two types of vegetables covered by FAMA's selected commodities household consumption survey 1985. 169 The second method is to forecast prospective demand for vegetables in P . Malaysia taking into considerations population and income given price and price relationship in the long run. Population is expected to increase at 2.1 percent per annum fron 1980 to 2000 (World Bank, 1986). The growth rate of per capita income in the period of 1965-84 was 4.5 percent (World Bank, 1986). This growth rate is expected and 'assumed to prevail in the long run in 19803 and 19903. Table 6 . 8 shows the prospective changes in demand for the eight vegetables studied accumulated over the next years in P . Malaysia with 1982 set at a base 100. These index numbers minus 100 and divided by the number of years will approximate the expected annual change. The aggregate demand for all vegetables is expected to increase faster higher than population. The increamental rate of increase is twice that of population in 1986 growing and to about four times in year 2000. Similar pattern of increase is expected for cabbages, cucumbers, spinach, water spinach and eggplants . The largest increase is expected from cucumber with a rate of change alnost ten items that of population. On the other hand, Chinese mustard, tomatoes and chillies will exhibit a rate of change that is expected to be much lower than that of population growth. 170 Table 6.8: Prospective Demand for Selected vegetables 1986, 1990 and 2000 /a 1982 a 100 vggetables 1986 1990 2000 All vegetables 128.20 162.20 293.66 C. Mustard 104.28 105.43 190.98 Cabbage 138.44 172.24 309.64 Cucumber 147.69 208.41 453.76 Spinach 127.66 161.79 257.23 W. Spinach 137.95 185.30 373.71 Tomato 105.76 100.71 109.19 Chilli 101.37 101.66 97.18 Eggplant 124.40 141.57 262.33 /a note: Index = population ratio [100 + (income change) (income elasticity)] 171 Table G3, Appendix G provides the forecast of consumption base on index of Table 6.8. These projections of demand or rates of change in demand may appear a little optimistic given the restriction on total food consumption on per capita basis. However, the estimates of expected demand of 55 kgms and 82.68 kgm for year 1990 and 2000 respectively is comparable with the US consumption in 1976 whereby 65 kgm was consumed per capita (USDA, 1977). Moreover, slight decreases in consumption of cereals can be offset by appreciable increases in vegetables consumption on a dry matter basis. These projections may be viewed as realistic market potentials with proper consumer education in sound nutrition. There are strong indications that households ' income will increase, this is almost assured in P. Malaysia with current state of political stability and economic policies. 6.7. Potential For Self Sufficiency Comparision of prospective production and consumption suggests that there is likely to be a shortage of most of vegetatables in 1990 and 2000. Tomatoes will be the only vegetables to be in oversupply in these projected periods. This is shown in Table 6.9. The shortages in these vegetables could result in higher prices. These estimates are based on trends and analysis of a few variables. Other variables that might moderate the impact on supply and consumption, and these variables were not considered in the analysis. 172 Table 6.9: Projected Production, Consumption And Self Sufficiency 1990, and 2000. V§getables 1990 C. Mustards Cabbage Cucumber Spinach W.Spinach Tomato Chilli Eggplant 2000 C.‘Mustard Cabbage CUcumber Spinach W. Spinach Tcmato Chilli Eggplant Production (tons) 28400 56300 23550 11650 11500 62900 13700 9800 42700 79800 36700 18500 18500 109400 15600 12800 Consumption (tons) 47800 67000 79300 35500 38000 31700 33500 33100 86600 115000 172600 56400 76600 35400 32000 61400 Level 9; Sufficiency (percent) /a 84 /a 198 /a 40 50 /a 70 22 32 24 /a 309 /a 49 20 notes: /a Include projected exports obtained from trend of exports and extrapolated to year 1990 and 2000. 173 The 1990 and 2000 projected production will be achieved by having 7400 and 10250 hectares of area respectively to be devoted to the eight selected vegetables in this study. This is based on projected area of crops divided by the frequency of cropping on the same plots. In order to be self sufficient and to keep the current trend in exporting the three major exported vegetables; tomatoes, chilli, and cabbages, the desired hectares devoted to the selected vegetables production should be 12150 and 18050 hectares fer 1990 and 2000 respectively. This is an increase of 100 and 200 percent of area devoted to the crops on the average level of 1979-81. CHAPTERSEVEN SUIVMARY AND IMPLICATIONS FOR STRATEGIES TO DEVELOPMENT THE VEGETABLE SUBSECTOR. 7.1. Sumgy. 7.1.1. Objectives And Method Used In The Study. This study arose out of concerns about the growing importation of food in Peninsula Malaysia. Although vegetable imports constitute only seven percent of the value of imported food, less than grains or sugar, the financial drain on the country is substantial. Malaysia does not have a comparative advantage in the production of grains, and has not been very successful in its sugar production ventures . On the other hand, vegetables have damostrated some potential for competitive production, as some are exported. However, the growth of the vegetable industry has been sluggish and has been beset with problems. A review of literature showed that few studies had been made of the vegetable subsector in Malaysia. Most of the research has been on the major export crops; rubber, oil palm, pineapple, and the Malaysian staple - rice. This study is exploratory in nature and had the following specific objectives: 1) To describe the vegetable subsector with respect to recent trends in the production, distribution, domestic consumption, export and import through focus on eight of the nost popular vegetables. 2) To evaluate expected changes in domestic and foreign demand for vegetables. 3) To evaluate the 175 176 potential for increasing vegetable supply and farmer income in four vegetable growing areas. 4) To identify constraints in the market system faced by various levels of participants. 5) And draw implications from the analysis for research, extension, price and other policies for development of the vegetable production and.marketing system in Peninsular Malaysia. This study used secondary and primary data. The secondary data were obtained from a number of local as well as international reports. Primary data was obtained from two surveys. The first obtained data from a census of farmers in Peninsular Malaysia. The second survey obtained information from a stratified random sample of farmers conducted in four areas: Johore(South), Perak(North), Selangor(Central), and Cameron Highlands. The stratified random sample survey of vegetable farmers had the general objective of increasing the understanding of vegetable production. The specific objectives were:- 1) To obtain information on input levels, yields, cropping patterns, social and economic constraints in vegetables productions. 2) To gather information about factors limiting expansion of vegetable production. 3) To obtain input/output information on sample farms in order to construct representative linear programming models of typical farms . 177 Analysis at the macro level included trend analysis to study consumption, production, imports, and exports of vegetables at regional and national levels. At the micro level, the characteristics of farms, the infarnn operations, and the problems faced in vegetable production were summarised from the surveys responses. Linear programming analysis were undertaken of respresentative farms to evaluate ways to increase income and to identify constraints faced by farmers. 7. 1.2. Results. National vegetable production growth is slower than either the population or aggregate agricultural production. However, anong the eight vegetables studied only chilli and eggplant were observed to have rate of growth slower than population. 011111 production is declining. In the last decade increases in production of the seven other vegetables studied was due largely to land expansion rather than to increases in yields. Some areas, especially the southern region, have expanded nore than others, thus, increasing their market share . Vegetable consumption in kilograms per capita is on an upward trend with some variations in the eight vegetables studied. Chilli consumption per capita is declining, while tomato and chinese mustard consumption is stable . Increases in population and income are the ma j or factors that influence the consumption of vegetables. The income elasticity of demand for all vegetables found in this study is 0. 86. Cabbage, cucumber, 178 spinach and water spinach have income elaticities greater than 1.00. The income elasticity of demand estimated for eggplant is 0. 68. This study shows that with present trends the production of vegetables in Peninsular Malaysia is not likely to fulfill consumption needs in the year 2000. The only exception is tomato that is projected to be oversupplied in 2000. The estimated national sufficiency of the remaining seven vegetables range from thirty to eighty-four percent in 1990. In year 2000 the sufficiency range is estimated fron twenty to seventy percent, but tomato production will be greater than projected domestic demand for fresh tomatoes. These estimates are based on a limited number of variables . At the farm level, this research found a number of problems and constraints. Farm size is small at 0.49 hectares. About sixty-one percent of the farmers work on farms of less than 0.4 hectares. Although farm production can increased on the larger farms, labor was found limiting as hiring labor was not a connon practice and investment in labor saving equipment was negligable. The vegetable farmers identified additional problems as technical relating to pests and diseases, and control of soil problems. The major socioeconomic and constraints perceived by farmers were prices and marketing. 179 The linear programing analysis indicated that vegetable farmers may have scope for greater income by increasing the intensity of farming. Also increased returns can be obtained from higher farm prices and improved yields. Increasing yield could be obtained through improving pest and deseases control , obtaining improved varieties, and by increases in soil fertility. The research found price formation and the operation of the markets at the wholesale and retail level to be generally competitive . At the national level vegetable prices were found to be intergrated between regions . Vegetable marketing margins were comparable to other countries. There appears to be a need to reduce losses . Farmers pinpointed prices and marketing as perennial problems. These problems are related particularly to unstable prices, occurances of very low prices, and minor problems of transportation. At the retail shop level the problems identified were high rent and low level of profit. Wholesalers were found to experience problems such as inadequate facilities, high transport costs and to a certain extend uncertainty in supply, in particular in cabbages due to uncertain government importation decisions . 7 . 2 . Mication For Strategies To Development The V_eg§able Subsector The prospect of supply not meeting future consumption needs coupled with foreign exchange constraints calls for attempts to increase domestic vegetable production. This study has 180 identified variables that can be instrumental in increasing vegetable production. In this section these alternative strategies are discussed for farm level and the national level. 7.2.1. Strategies That Effect The Farm Level Intensified Farming; What is the potential for increased production on farnns with existing resource base? Assuming that relative price will remain the same and no increase in yields, the linear programing analysis showed that net income may be able to be doubled with increased cropping intensity. This improvement would be brought about by tightening cropping schedules and follow better timing of planting. E_xpansion of Vegtables Land. As shown in Appendix Table El, sixty-one percent of farmers operate on land less than 0.4 hectare in size . Land was a constraint to increased production and income. Potential areas for expansion include the recultivation of "idle land", cultivation 'of peat areas in the south, and exploring vegetable cultivation on bris soil in the east coast. Expanding new areas for vegetable production in the areas mentioned above will require some incentives. Farmers will have to relocate and adjust to the new areas. They will have to work on new soil and with new crops. Subsidized inputs for a limited time period could be used to encourge vegetable cultivation in new areas . Increased productions would benefit consumers through 181 lower prices and adequate supplies. At the same time more vegetable production would improve the distribution of insane in the rural areas. Most subsidies should be temporary for they cause non-optimal input use and output mixes. Subsidies also are a burden on the government ' s budget preventing nore productive use of the resources. The DOA has provided subsidies in the past to encourage use of new inputs and to aid learning by doing. Subsidy also reduce risk and credit constraints to sane extent. 7.2.2. Strategies At The National Levewl. Yield Inprovsment. The Linear Programing analysis showed that improved yield would not only improve vegetable production but would also increase income. The potential for yield improvement is great for nost of Malaysian's vegetables. For example, the yield gap of tanatoes is great when compared to yields in other Asian countries. For the period of 1961-65 and 1973-77, Malaysia only had an eight percent increase in per- hectare yield of tanatoes. In the same period, the Phillipines had an 106 percent increase, and Taiwan a 134 percent increase (Appendix Table H2). In 1975, the tonato yield in Malaysia was 12 percent of that the United States, 24 percent of the Taiwan yaild and 68 percent the yaild in Philippines (Appendix Table H3) . 182 There should be more investment in research to improve yields of vegetable. First, research that improves yield will improve farmer income. Secondly, it will be socially desirable as consumers will obtain nore vegetables at a lower price. Third, as any higher priority to vegetables is consistent with the National Agricultural Policy. If priority were based on value of imports, vegetables will be given the third priority in National Agricultural Plan (Appendix Table H5). In allocating limited resources priorities need to be set with the objective of obtaining the highest rate of return to research. This study suggests that with the exception of tomatoes research on the other seven nost pOpular vegetables would likely to provide high returns to research. Limited research funds often need to focus on a few priority areas to gain momentum and impact. Thus putting emphasis on diffferent crops for specific periods of time would be likely to have higher impact than attempting to do a little research on all crops. Additional way to facilitate cost saving research in improving yield include the establishment of various program of adaptive research on farmers fields. This can be carried out by the private sectors as well as the public sector. Seed distributors should be given incentives to conduct trials and to distribute promising foreign produced vegetables seeds. Government's research agencies such as MARDI should establish a 183 closer link with international research agencies such as the Asian Vegetable Research And Developnent‘ Center to establish collaborative and adaptive research programs for the benefit of both agencies . I_mproving Extension. Research should be sanplemented with extension. The transfer of available technologies in past and disease control and also those in soil fertility improvement would improve farm production. On-f arm reasearch and demostration would improve and facilitate the adoption of technologies. Futher improvement in the transfer of technologies is suggested with training of specialised regional extension agents due to the specialised technologies of vegetable production. Improving Marketing; Marketing operations at the wholesale and the retail levels was found to be adequate and fair in term of providing services to the producers as well as the consumers (Chapter 5) . However, marketing is perceived by farmers to be one of the major problem facing the vegetable subsector. Problems reported by farmers were dissatisfaction with prices received and the manner in which prices were established. Farmers who sell on consignment do not have any say in the prices received and the prices are known to the farmers only a day after the sales. Auction wholesale centers have been proposed to improve prices determinations. Such auction centers could serve as a clearing house. FAMA could supervise and enforce the standard of operation at these centers. Provision of these services could 184 reduce suspicion and canplaints by farmers. Such clearing house could serve as a center for collection of daily production and price data in the different areas. Establishment of grades for all vegetables traded would facilitate trading. Grades help in reducing misunderstandings of about different prices received for different quality products. The survey revealed only a small proportion of farmers that sold their products through cooperatives. The use of farmers groupings such as cooperatives or other farmers organisations are to be encouraged to take advantage of collective marketing, grading activities and other possible actions including vertical integration. Marketing margins were found canparable to other countries as noted in chapter 6 . The marketing margins did not indicate exploitative behavior among the different level of handlers in the marketing channels . However, further reduction in marketing margins would be beneficial to the producers. FAMA reported a ten to forty percent loss of product during transportation, and if low cost plastic basket (boxes) were used to transport vegetables, instead of using bamboo baskets, there would be a reduction of loss up to twenty percent. Similar technology should be developed to reduce marketing margins and generate more income from the sale of more undamaged produce. Reduction Of Prise Uncertainty. Farmers' problems with vegetable prices have been persistent. The survey revealed that 185 prices is the second nost frequent problem reported by farmers. Problems with prices are mainly instability, and at times the occurenca of low prices which do not reward the farmers' efforts in vegetable production. Farmers have reponded to price uncertainty by restricting acreage, hence they have reduced insane . The distribution of information on vegetable prices and status of supplies and demand for vegetable can help reduce prise uncertainty. Provision of outlook and production situation reports would be useful to the farmers in setting expectations, reducing uncertainty and hence would facilitate private planning. FAMA and DOA should provide these outlook and situation studies fran season to season. Price reporting in the different markets should be done on daily basis. 1 Reduction of price uncertainty to farmers can also be achieved through forward contracts . Forward contracts can be made between two specific parties for delivery of the cannodities. These contracts can be significant for vegetables for processing, such as tomatoes and chillies. Forward contracts for fresh vegetables can also be established between producers and large institutional buyers and food caterers . International contracts are possibilities for farmers with buyers in Singapore or other importing countries. Thus, a role for government is to promote these activities by matching buyers and purchasers, providing informations on price and quantity expectations, establishing standard contract forms, and grouping farmers collectively to 186 take advantage of these contract possibilities. 7 . 3 Future Research: Continuous evaluation of the performance of the vegetable subsector needs to be carried out in order to establish cost effective strategies for its development. Evaluation requires a minimum reliable and consistent data base. Therefore, data collection and storage should be carefully planned and implemented through a coordinated efforts between affected government agencies. The importance of continuous data collection cannot be over anphasized especially when time series data are required for estimation of future supply and demand positions. Malaysia does have comparative advantage in producing sane vegetables for foreign markets in South East Asia and East Asia, especially Singapore, due to its location. However, raising labor costs may reduce this advantage related to Malaysia when canpared to Thailand and Indonesia. As Taiwan has experienced increase labor cost and their technology on vegetable production is considered more advance than Malaysian, adaptive and collaborative research with Taiwan or along the lines persued by Taiwan, could be rewarding to increase productivity through use of labor saving devices. Within Malaysia better identification of areas with comparative advantage in production of different type of vegetables would facilitate zonal crop specialization. Studies in a farming system context of part time vegetable farmers, who have pernnanent crops is an area needing research. We 187 do not know much about their potential contribution as major source of vegetables. Studies on marketing costs and margins need to be continued from time to time to indicate the potential for cost reductions through reduction of losses, better transport, storage, processing and market planning. Of particular concern is post harvest crop losses. What are the economics of improving vegetable handling at the farm, during transportation and at wholesale and retail levels. On the technical side, there should“ be evaluation of the potential of producing special varieties of vegetables both for fresh consumption and processing. This is especially important for tanatoes, chillies and other vegetables that can be processed into paste, juice, sauce, and pickles. Advancement in these areas could substitute imports. Lastly, this study was limited to eight most popular vegetables in terms of per capita consumption. There is now a need for studies that focus on other important vegetables that were are not included in this study. MBA TABLES ACCIDMPANYING CHAPTER 1 .1E38 3.333 .33.. 33333 33.33 .33.3 .33.3 ..333 3.3.3 3333. ..3.. .33....33. .33.. .3... -q. ..c. o... coon voo~ vmv~ .wvv vo.v ooo~ onvu _wo oo~ v~¢_ .33. a... _oom .mo. 3.3. «on. one. com. a. new. $320233. we «nu—:3 933.8 a ~mv. ~_m_ o~an .m33 .~_~ aa_~ 3.33 33.3 ..33 .3.3 33. 3.. ..3. .33. .333 3... .33. 3... .33. .... ~¢a_ _ca_ .3.. .ae......3-333.. . .3 .3 .3.3 .ac.....aa.. .ssu o_cc. 3oouscm .oos~=.. ac 3.33.3.3 .3 3.33..... 3. .3933333 .3....3 sees 33.. 33.33c Leena. 3oes.oe. a... onm.. vo~. o.~_ .33 . ace. ~no -.. «on v~o ~m~ ~.~n amen _mu~ _w—~ ova. n~t. .333 ....3 .3.3 3.3. 3.3.. 3... ... 333 . 33. 3.3. 33.. ..3 .33. .... .... .... 33.. ..3.. mm~u. g... ..cm use. «3'. 93.. 33o. 3.33. .3.3. ..33 3..3 .... .3.... .... 3... 333.. ..... .33....3...3.3. .3.. 3333 33.3 ..33 3.33 33.3. 3... .... 33.. .... 3.. .3. .3.. 33.. .33.. 3.. ... .3.. .333 ...... 3.. 333 ... 3.3 .3.. 333 .3. ..3 ... ...: =33 .333.....3.....3.3 .....3. .33. ... 333 333 .....33... 3.. . .3. . 3.33 3333 ..... .33.. .3.. ..... 33.3. ..3. 333. .3.. 3.3. 3... .... 22:3..zc3sascs. . .vco.c_~o_. 3.9—co n¢.a~m=ez. a: mac—9mm pa mag 32233.3 3 3.0.3333 3:23.13... 32...... 38.3.53 .23.: 3 .233 5.5!... 3335.3... 3.. o 3oo..a 3u33s- use new a. 3.3....3 3.33s . . 300.3.33 use-eaosoe 33¢...ose as c.s..oenc.. 333.3333 33.3.3sa.33333e._m...woencs3e..ooaee.. 3em3=33303 3 .ouos.oc333 ..o333.o.~3o.c=. 3so.uso.cs-oo can oos3o33.33ca3es.. . 3.33. as. 3eo.33_o..uoo.u so.3os.33cou oa..s.uo.=co. mucosa use o=.e.: 3.33.3o. 3 33o=3.3..oe33.._..ocs3.so..o. “.3 o_aep 1E39 Table 12. 11115 11151 11 1111 111111111111 51151c1115 1911-12 tconstant 1970 fishillion1 1911 1912 1913 1911 1915 1915 1911 1911 1919 1911 1911 1912 Rubber . 1311 1315 1511 1591 1155 1511 1519 1512 15511551 1551 1551 151. 111 351 135 111 591 113 151 915 1155 1295 1525 1511 2111 Forestry 1 Logging 111 111 911 111 .912 1153 1111 1113 1151 1115 1295 1355 ' Coconut - . _ 125 111- 95 99 112 99 91 11 91 "99 112 115 151 ' ' ,- '5 5 5 5 '5 1 ' 5 5 °‘ 5 5 5 5 F1sheries - 111 313 111‘ 111 111 159 112 511 511 529 555 511 Lgvestocx 291 911--315 111 151 131 312 111. 121 159. 113 119 _ 1115.1155.511" _ _‘ _525 .119 111 911 911 111 .931 111 912 191 151 511 15111 ~' .1192 1115 1531 1951 1111 5311_5121 5511 5151 5225 5515 5925 ‘71 Produced by snaiiholoings 11. paddy. oeooer. éocoa. fruits and Jegetables. Source: Iorio Bank 119841..oo. cit. Table A3: 1.9() 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 pointed tuice.° n.a Data not available .Source: Horld Bank (1981)....op; cit. HDA, Crops Repor1s,(1970-841. AREA UNDER HAJDF CROPS (‘000 hectares) 1975 1977 1971 1979 1920 1911 1912 1915 1981 1981 1997 2003 2022 2010 2017 2018 ' Rubber 2119 2117-2111 1991 1919 1991 111 P11. 291 511 112 172 555 537 713 711 151 paddy 7a 723 715 755 752 711 751 713 723 513 Coconut 311 515 311 315 321 511 310 317352 Cocoa 3 -1 12 11 , 11 11 21 51 _57 . Fruits n.a n.a 1.1 n.a n.a n.a 1.1.-n.a 86.6 ._Vegetables _ n.5 n.a 9.5. 1.1. n.a n.a nla- n.a -9.6 Ila _. 11125911911725 refer-to eh'gctive acreagus d 944 1070 1086 1149 1288 731 751 351 319 92 115 n.a 112 751 332 '121 159 172 n.a 75.5 n.a .7.6 ' ouble cfopping areas are 737 324 .215 Table 14: Rubber 1'000 1on5) Ia San logs_1'000cu.n.1 la Sewn t1|ber (000 cu.l.) Ia P11- 011 1'000 tons) Ia Pal. ternels 1'000 tons) !a Coconut'l'ooo tonsl (a . Paddy 1'030 tons) Ia ' . 51:511'000 1551) la- 2151152551000 tom 75 - Fruits 1‘006 155:1 lib‘ Vegetab1es 1 oelons ('000 tons) 1!b Livestock (1nde21 Ia Food production (index) 16 1969-?03100 Aqri:.Produ:tion Index [1 1969-705100 1971 1972 1319 18015 20605 2991 3507 599 725 125 152 1295 1:25 1117 1137' 7350 351 1 -,7 n.a fl 8 353 .393 53 5° 107 112 105 11= 5 Fruzts 5151515 nelon5.Vegetibles include aelons. £60251 esticated by F10. n.1 Data net available.‘ Seurcssz Ia Hcrlo San} 11°84|...cp. :11. ’5 F10. Froduct1on vearbook, (1°72-341. 1304 1.9731 1973 1974 1542 1525 24024 21358 403 4068 810 1042 169 215- 1254 1178 1990 2095 435_ 526 1975 1459 19125 3810 1257 256 1358 1997 173 .920 449 77 1971 1977 1:72 1512 1591 1512 25152 21315 21220 5:35 5792 522 1590 1511 1715 211, 335 351 1517 1255 1:02 1995 -1991 _1191 .515 517 '515 7 10 917 ' 973' 955 151 159 151 10 93 f 110 111 119 150 136 141 142 1°79 1570 5364 2188 _ 475 1237 2095 595'. 870 159 102 170 154 PRODUCTION OF HAJOR QSRICULTURAL COHEUDITIES (1971-831 1991 1931 1952 1530 1510 27917 30553 6224 10 ;868 465 180 160 5895 2825 590 1207‘ 2147 .'-757 477 112 189 166 1517 32524 34323 6241 3510 3015” 910 834 1240 2041 1983‘ 682 736 ..o m.o m.o n.a —.o _.~ .1572 ... ~.o ..~ .o.‘.u. 3.833338»: 3333: 3.3.1.: .35....2 .33 . .a... .m.... .-_~ me~.. ....“ ven~v -_..A ~...” .m~¢n .m.w~ .a... .._~_ ...oa-_ m,~._~ as: n..... ¢..~__ _-~. cw.._. ~..N.. ~._..= .~.~m ._~.. ._~m~.. is .._v . .m...~_ molmn~.. .m~w.. . ..rwm. . ....2. .....m. ..m_.m . ...wm.. ...~.. . ._.~..~ .oene- . ... n-m.__ .. .. . .._.-. .~.... . . . ....N . ... .-.~ p. . ...- u a ..or.. .. rmmqw. m . m~... .. mm... ..M. . ~.... . ..H 3.9"... . ...._m_~n . ..~..~__.. ... . .awfiw ._ ..rm~._. _ . ..m.. . . ....n . . n.‘ . ”L... . . 0.. .. . “...e... . n.a . . .L.¢ . aJL . ..m. .. 2.... a... .0... ...ov. évyo_n ooelw~ -m~m~ o~moe~ onw_~. . a... . auuegau . ..m=...... mpuaaacg d«-=—aau_qu. he «_uom-_ . «_aasxu um¢ ..aa~ ..g.-m~.. ..oo...._ oa~._ .92. ... ..«m.--... .9 .....m .u_.«_uaam .1... .u_ua..ou ..= .. a; :2... 3......83 :3. ... .... 322.. .2. n.a n.a a~_omon m~¢g-~ amae_- ma....~ ae-e=~ namoco. n.a ~.¢ n.a n.a .~. 3.33.... ....z. .. ...... .33.... . .8. .3....2 .23 m..u.som .o_a~__a.s ace n.a: n.a ~oa. _co_ era. o.¢_ n.a. -a_ o~a_ n.a. v.9. n~o. -o. _~o_ 1.923 9.9:. ~.a~ ..meo o.ca- ..v. w.~. u.~o v.v- ... n.a. ~.ov ...gv v.~ ~.o. ".9. ..ma 0.9 v.~. o.m e.vm ... q.n. v.v~ n.~o. ".9 9.”. a.. V.“ n.a: ~.~m n.9om o.oem. .... ..- ..-. ....m ..m ..m~ n.a" m.~.. o.~ ..m. ..o. a.~v n.a. ..vo «.... ~.-. m.~. ..mm ~.ma . ...m. o.~ a.a~ n.a. ~.qn n.a ~.~ ... w.v~ v.o~ a... a.m~. o.m~v «.mo ..ov ~.mvv ~.noe 11-1.99...1111 .....oa .o.a= boos .o -onaos «n.a: mean. «can: .oo. -oaaog. u 1.9:. .auo— .auop coo. . ..ao. .... ..~_ ..a. m.. m.c.. ... .....~ ... ..n~ m.~ .... ~.e . .... .... ...n v... v.m.. ..~ .. _. .... .. m. a... a. a. .... .. .. ..N a. an ... _. . ..¢~ .. an .... .. n. -..---—--..-p ...».oa boo; .o ace-a cue»: a .. 4.9:. . n.a. <.m.«.<¢ a¢.=ms.-um a. musua.us. »_¢.,o¢ . . . .ca.. a.n>a.a= g..=o. n.a.aon ...... ...._ .... ...... _ ...o. ...... ~.m._. ...m. . .... H.._~ a... ..~=. ..~. .- ..... ... . .... .... .._w~ .... .... .... .... .... ..~. .... a... . ... ~49. . ... . a... ...~ ...~_ m.~ m... .... ...... ..~ .... . ~.. ..... ... ... ...w. ...... .N... .... ..ma. ...=~. ...... ...... .... 1~... ...~_ ...“. ..... ...~. m. . .... .... .‘..c.. ~.¢~ . .... m. . ~... _ ....~ in”. ...~_ ......_ .. ._ .... ~..~. ...... ...__ «.... .. a. . .... ..m~_ ..,._ a... ., ..... _. ~ p.~. e.._. ..N. ... ... . ... .... ..~ ... ..n.~ ..... ..¢~ .... ...- ...m. m...m . . ... . .... .... ..~.. ..~m. ..-r......---. ...---..----- ----...¢..---- 3.2. . . $0.33.. 3.3 . . -ouaog «a.ag been .9 -oaseg .u_og .oo. -..:ag sea-a one»: boo. -.nsog .a.o.. ...c. a ..ue. _auo. .wac. . .. . . . ...“. «o< n.aq. .23 .au0uarfl nuu.,.on . «cob. au.u....= aheamco.. co.uu=..wccu o=_.:uue.:cec o¢.=_= gong: .cuo~a:m mo..um=o=. hog“: «....o. can... cu-.~=a.. obau.=u..mc buc.c 33.2 62... whoe_oe..oaw useage. ...u_oc..ann ...a..= a..=.o=..oau buoo:a o.=u.=u_.o‘ .agaa 1.911 .m-.. 33.. m.~.~. coca" ¢.-n o~ov.vm av..- .93 ~n~.v. «mo.- mmpo.~ o.c- nom.v. .vnao. .moo.n o-.o~. vm.m-. ~ao. .3: _.~n~ m--. . m.¢- on.mn ~mooo~v momma quao mmv~.~ .m.oo ocean. quash $32 .q.~a o~o~.n ~co~.~. $.32 .oo. oooo. mn~<~ a~aa.~ mm~o~ .8: o.mmo.v som.m .~o~.. ..m.e~ o-.~ n.a... $8.. 33.. sauna ..uown 328. n-~... anon. ma... oVVnm. coma. mpm.n .voc.a~ mvmvv oopno ooo~.. m3.» ...... . 3.3 mean. upoo~ maca.n ~nvm.o .muuna . opa. .um: co... «...—eassou .<¢=~.=u.qu< aas¢¢ mo mpaocz. 3v: ~¢m.. -ama nave. mo-~ omoam.~ p~occ amv~o ~m~me. avepm .~n~o 33m ..aom. mo~.~ ...m~m oao~vo ,—.-mm¢ a~a. 83o avc.. ~oom~ vmoo meae~ vmeamm. °~mom 33. Vaqpa campy wags. emwon Nah.” mm~om amm¢- .~¢omo one... -a. mm.mm a~.e. momma a.v.. o~oa. Neoom~. a~mm~ n~o~m .c~nme. -.ov ~vo~o gnom. -~vm .ao.o .~mo¢. o.eomm «spoon n.a. Novvv son.. as}... pc.m. ~vee~ .N..m.. -o~. coemm m.om~. fiwcam ~m.mw avmv~ ~o-e omega Smog. ~m~m~m onm.om «No. .u.u .oo.....vco.. xcom c.5ea ...o-~.¢_. .. ...... .u_u...~um on... ...:o..ou ..= “..u.=em ammo. ~¢mo .33 e'ao. .v.o.. o~mmmm. .mm.m $93 ¢o-e. qm~om envpm aomm~ o.oo¢. 33¢ o~o¢a~ =38 ...omo v~o. ¢o~a~ n~mo ...om .~mvm epoo v.99. .-v va~¢~ .-v -co oevmmp maven. mc~=~ ~m~mm .cho unvo~ ~.~o< ev~v. ~m~me oomec amvm.. a~oomv oeamv~ n.a. aeqw. movq~ omco‘ coca. .~m~m sec. afi~q~ .mvv~ 3:... vac-o~ nv~vo~ -a. 2.. ..a.. mm.m_ _mom vcoo. o~.o o~na u.o~._.u.o. cobauuumacux a.u~...g... uu=.. u.»~...u.u. u.ouu~.. >guc.=unc _o.=._=u..o. “.mmn. u:u¢a.=a. ahoancmbh . >boc.gumt e-n~ o-m~ ou~wm 9‘... mo~a~ a... 3:3 o~oc~ ~..o~ soo~m~ oomcc~ .~o. ”n.auuuwacmg ouuano— . ouuono. ..auauoo. ....c. .muam. «o_aouoou> m._a~..ao, . ...=.. o~.o= 09.. anus. aco.uo.a¢o.m . «_a05ou soc. 28.3 :3 . 82 195 «.0» av.» . an.u 00.» av.n no.» 09.. o-.0 on.» a... u..h 0..» aka an.b ”0’0 00. 09.0 no.“ on.u on.0 no.~ an.” ao.n nu.o 0a.. 4.00 n.a. up.» vvn can I 00— oo.n .0.n no.0 0§.0 00.u on.” oo.n . 00.n a... 00.0 no.0 a... on.h 00.. can .338 8.3.... .. ... 4.8 so. 8338.... 3388.. .38 GA. 9. 0 ...oz 03191;? ...—am He. . 89... 5838.. 8.9.598 .. :93... 35.5... .3. 6.3.. .....9 2.83 1.38.580 do... .a 5.36.48 .93 . . .oousom . 2... 2.» .86 2... :3 5.. =6 :6 3.." ...-.58.. 2.65568 ....” ....u . 3.6 or.” a... a... 3.. :6 on.” .8348 v... ......32. 26. :6 2.6. :6 ....6 6.»... =6 2... :6 coo. 3.6 2.6 :6 . :6 26 :6. =6 :6 £6 :6 .88 68 ..838 S.» . .3.. =6 86 :6 .36 :6 :6 .. :6 .... a... :3 :6 3.0 .2... an.“ 3.. 2.6 :26 26 a... .2... 6.8... .5... 2..» 8.» . 8.» 2.6 .36.. 8.. .2... 3... 26 a... 3.. 86 .. 2.» 8.. 33 .26 . :6 .. .36 no.» .2... 2... 3... ...... :6 :6 a...» .3.. =6 R.» 833.62. I. 3.38 26 :6 :6 :6 3.. .26 26 2.6 :6 ...... . . . o o o O O 3:. 3.. 3.. 8.. 2.: 3.. .3.. 3 o 2 o ... a 3...! no... 8.. 2.. 3.. 3.. 3.. a... . 3.. 2.. a... Luna-u 2.... 2... .2... :6 a... 86 . a... 3.. 5... . o o i. '8. 38 15 .... a... e: «.3 ..3 6.: 3 a o 8 9...: ...... a... . .... a... a... . ...: . a... ...: .... 2.3.38... .38. . . . in 86. z... a... a... . :6 :6 3.» ...» a... .3382! no .3. 98.22 3. . .3 .2 :3 83 2: 3. 2.. .22. .3382... no .38.. .3 . a: a: .3 a: a: . .- 3.. 0 can o 00. o can 0 can 0 can a can u 0. o» s: coca-2‘ 0.369 APPENDIXB SOURCES OF SECONDARY DATA 196 Table Bl:Sources Of Secondary Data Data Agency Reports/Publications/Survey 1. Wholesale Census of Wholesale And And Retail Retail Trades In Urban Establishment, DOS Areas Of Peninsula Malaysia, Vblume of Business, 1972. and Manpower use. Sample Survey of Wholesale And Retail Trades In Peninsula Malaysia, 1974. Sample Survey of Wholesale And Retail Trade In Peninsula Malaysia, 1978. 2. Population DOS Vital Statistics Of Peninsula Malaysia, 1972- 1984. 3. Food Expenditure DOS Household Expenditure Survey, 1973. FAQ Review of Food Consumption Survey, 1977. 4. Retail And Wholesale Prices FAMA "Warta Barangan" , 1980-84. 5. Per Capita Consumption of Selected vegetable Consumption FAMA commodities For 1982, and 1985: Household Survey. 6. Area And Production MDA Miscellaneous Crops Report, of vegetables. 1973-84. RAD Production Yearbook, 1966- 1984. 197 Table Bl: (cont'd). 7. Exports And Imports MOA Imports And Exports Trade In Agricultural Products, 1974-1984. PAD Trade Yearbook, 1966-83. mac QUESTIONAIRE 1 AND 2 Questionaira l - Questionaire USed In Listing of Farmers -Status Survey (DOA). Questionaira 2 - Questionaire Used In The Sample Survey. 198 Questionaire 1 Status Survey Questionaire (DOA Listing of Farmers ) (Translated version) I. Farmers' Identification 1. Name of Household Head:. ....... . ................ . ........ 2. District:................... ....... .. .................... 3. Mukim:................. ............... . .................. 4. Village:....................................... .......... 5. Name of Person Interviewed:.... .......................... 6. Relationship with Household Head: ........... . ............ II. Enumerator 1. Name of Enumerator:... ..... ...... ........................ 2. Date of Interview:................. ........... . .......... 3. Date of Return of Questionaire:. ..... . ................... 4. Time taken to survey:...... ...................... . ....... 5. Name of Supervisor:... ....................... . ........... Checked by:.... .................................................. Signature: ....................................................... 199 Listing of Farmers for Status Survey/ T&v Extension System/ A. Farmer's Background 1. State District Mukim‘Village ID No FDC 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10-16 17-19 2. Name 20-48 3. Year House No. 49-50 51-55 4. Race (Check‘V’ in relevant box) Malay 1 Chinese 2 56 Indian 3 Others 4 (Please state) Age of Household Head ' 57-58 Years Sex (Check ) Male 1 ______ 59 Female 2 H w many family member are there including yourself? No. 60-61 200 8. Fill in the number of family members in each age group (including yourself). (All boxes must be filled. Put a '0' if not relevant). Male Male ( No. of persons ) 6 years and below 7 - 12 years 13 - 18 years 19 - 24 years 62-65 25 - 34 years 35 - 44 years 45 - 54 years 55 and above Female Female (No. of Persons) 6 years and below 7 - 12 years 13 - 18 years 19 - 24 years 25 34 years ______ 70—77 35 - 44 years 45 - 54 years 55 years and above 201 b) What is the minor work of the Household Head? (Check v not more than 3 boxes). Not working Own agricultural activities (eg. padi planter, rubber tapper, vegetable farmer). Fisherman Agricultural Contract worker Permanent Agricultural Laborer Permanent Industrial Laborer Other permanent Laborer Temporary Agricultural Laborer 112—127 Temporary Industrial Laborer Other Tanporary Laborer Businessman Carpenter Tailor Government Servant Producer of Agricultural Byproducts (eg. mats, brooms, food covers). Other work 202 13. a) What is the major occupation of Household Head? Check in one box only). Not working Own Agricultural activities (Padi planter, rubber tapper, vegetable farmer) Fisherman Agricultural contract worker Permanent Agricultural Laborer Permanent Industrial Laborer Other Permanent Laborers Temporary Agricultural Laborers llO—lll Temporary Industrial Laborers Other Temporary Laborers Businessman Carpenter Tailor Government servant Producer of Agricultural Byproducts (mats, brooms, food covers) Other work 203 Completed Secondary School (Ferm l - 5 only) ______ 91-92 Cbmpleted Form 6 ______ 93-94 Comnpleted College/ university 95-96 Completed vecational School/ Institute 97-98 11. Ability of Hbusehold Head to read and write. (You can checkaore than one boxes). Romanised Arabic English Mandarin 99-105 Tamil Others (Please state) Illiterate 12. How many dependents do you have? (All boxes must be filled. Put a '0" if not relevant). No. of persons Own children 106-107 Others (including your wife and relatives) 108-109 9. 10. 204 What is the level of education of Hbusehold Head? (Check in one box only) No education Cbmpleted adult/religious education completed Primary School (Standard 1 - 6 only) Cbmpleted Secondary School (Perm 1 - 5 only) Completed Form 6 completed College/university Completed,vecational/Institute What is the level of education of your family members excluding yourself? (All boxes must be filled.Put a '0' if not relevant). No education Not attending school (children) Attending school (Std. l-Form 6) Attending College/university Completed Adult/Religious School Cbmpleted Primary School (Std. 1-6 only) \JO‘U‘Ib 78 79-80 81-82 83-84 85-86 87-88 89-90 2. Ownership Status According to Crops. (All boxes must be filled. Insert a '0' 205 if not relevant). a) Wet paddy b) C) d) 1) Own land and self operated ii) Rented land iii)Land rented out iv) Abandoned Land Dry Paddy 1) Own land and self operated ii) Rented Land iii) Land rented out iv) Abandoned Land Coconut 1) Own land and self operated ii) Rented Land iii)Land rented out iv) Abandoned Land Oil Palm 1) Own land and self operated ii) Rented land iii)Land rented out iv) Abandoned land 178-181 182-185 186-189 190-193 194-197 198-201 202-205 206-208 209-212 213-216 217-220 221-224 225-228 229-232 233-236 237-240 e) f) 206 Rubber 1) Own land and self operated ii) Rented Land iii)Land rented out iv) Abandoned land Fruits 1) Own land and self operated ii) Rented land iii)Land rented out iv) Abandoned land 9) Coffee h) 1) Own land and self operated ii) Rented land iii)Land rented out iv) Abandoned land Cbcoa 1) Own land and self operated ii) Rented Land iii)Land rented out iv) Abandoned land 241-244 245-248 249-252 253-256 257-260 261-264 265-268 269-272 273-276 277-280 281-284 285-288 289-292 293-296 297-300 301-304 207 B . FARM STATUS 1. Status of Land Ownership (Farm and House). (All boxes must be filled. Insert a '0' if not relevant). a) Size of farm including own 150-153 house lot (excluding T.O.L ownership or rented). b) Size of farm rented. __ 154-157 c) Size of farm rented out. - _ 158-161 d) Size of T.O.L ownership __ 162-165 e) Size of land owned in other manner. __ 166-169 f) Total size of operated land. _ 170-173 g) Total size of abandoned land. 174-177 note: Use two decimal points. a+b-c+d+e=f+g or (a+d+e+b)-c = f+g 14. 15. 208 What are the occupation of all family members excluding yourself? (All boxes must be filled. Put a '0' if not relevant). No. of persons Male Female a) Not working (excluding children 128-129 below 15 years old and senior citizen). b) Own Agricultural Werk 130-131 c) Own NOnrAgricultural WOrk 132-133 d) Fisherman 134-135 e) Factory Wbrk 136-137 f) Werking with government 138-139 bodies or private sectors. No. of youths who have migrated to urban areas. (Fill in the no. of persons involved and insert a '0' if not l40—l41 relevant). 209 16. Reasons for their migration. (More than one box can be checked‘»’ ). Male Attending school Werking 142-145 Marriage Others (Please state) Female Schooling Wbrking 146-149 Marriage Others (Please state) 3. 210 i) vegetables i) Own land and self operated ii) Rented land iii)Land rented out iv) Abandoned land j) Other crops 1) Own land and self operated ii) Rented land iii)Land rented out iv) Abandoned land Planting Systems and Size of Operation (All boxes must be filled. Insert a '0' if not relevant). a) wet Paddy 1) One season/year ii) Two seasons/year iii)Three seasons/ two years iv) Five seasons/ two years v) One season of padi and cashcrops in the off-season (State type of cash crops- you can check more than one box). vegetables Tobacco Animal Feed Others (Please state) 305-308 309-312 313-316 317-320 321-324 325-328 329-332 333-336 337-340 341-344 345-348 349-352 353-356 357-360 211 b) Dry Paddy 1) Dry paddy only in one year 361-364 ii) Dry paddy follwed by cash crops in 365-368 one year. State type of cash crops - more than one box can be checked. Vegetables Tobacco 369-372 Animal Feed Others (Please state) c) Coconut 1) Coconut as a sole crop ii) Coconut intercropped with coffee 373-388 iii) Coconut intercropped with cocoa iv) Coconut intercropped with other crops d) Oil Palm 1) Oil Pabm as a sole crop ii) Oil Palm.intercropped with cocoa 389-404 iii) Oil Palm.intercropped with coffee iv) Oil Palm intercropped with other crops e) Rubber 1) Rubber as a sole crop ii) Rubber mixed with other crops 405-412 212 f) Fruits 9) h) i) J) k) What are the major problems that you faced in carrying out your agricultural activities? (More than one box can be checked‘»"). a) b) C) d) e) f) g) h) 1) List down fruits planted as a sole crop Coffee as a sole crop Cocoa as a sole crop vegetables only Tobacco only Other crops Quality seeds/ planting materials 413-420 ii) List down two major fruits which are mixed 421-424 Lack of new technologies on crop production and crop protection related to crops planted. Ploughing/cultivation services Drought/ waterlogging Lack of labor Transportation for products Marketing and price Others (Please state). 425-428 429-432 433-436 437-439 440-447 213 C . FIELD INVENTORY 1. Do you own(l), share(2), rent out(3) any of the following: (Check‘V’ only one in each section). 1 2 3 a) Buildings 448-451 House Paddy Store Agricultural equipment garage Animal barn b) Agricultural Equipment 452-472 4-wheel tractor 2-wheel tractor Plough Rotary cultivator Harrow Other land preparation equipment Buffalo/cow for field work water pump Motorized spraying equipment Trailer for 4-wheel tractor Trailer for 2-wheel tractor Transport for carrying goods Motorcycle Bicycle Canoe 5) d) 214 Paddy dryer Paddy thresher Rubber machine Fbot/hand pounder Animal 1) State the number you own, share or rent out. Buffalo 473-478 Cow ____ 479-484 Lamb 485-490 Chicken/Duck 491-493 ii) State the size of fish pond you own or share. Own ______ 494-496 Share _ 497-499 Other facilities 1) Do you own the following? (Ybu can check more than one box) Radio Television Toilet 500-504 Piped water Electricity 215 D. INCOME/YIELD 1. Agricultural Income/Production Per year. 505-559 a) Total wet Paddy Production b) Total Dry Paddy Production c) Total Oil Palm Production d) Total Cbconut Production e) Total Rubber Production f) Total Coffee Beans Production 9) Total Cbcoa Pod Production h) Total Income from Fruits 1) Total Income from.vegetables J) Total Income from Short Term Crops _____ k) Total Income from.animals 1) Total Income from other sources 2. Other Sources of Annual Income 560-564 a) Salaried Employment b) Contract work c) Petty activities including business_____ d) Land rent e) Contribution.from relatives f) Other non-agricultural income 216 Animal (Continued) a) Fish pond 1) Own : Status ii) Share : Status 590-591 (Status Code: 1- Current operation 2- Neglected 3- 1+2 ) b) Brackish Water Raft 592-595 c) Salt water Raft 596-599 Date of Survey: 1) Own : No.of cages ii) Share : No. of cages_____ 1) Own : No. of cages ii) Share : No. of cages 600-605 217 F. (Continued Question 3f) 1. State fruits planted as sole crop (use code) ____ 606-607 2. State major fruits planted.in.mixed orchad .____ 608-609 ._____ 610-611 Code Type of Fruits Code Type of Fruits 01 Durian 10 Duku/Langsat 02 Rambutan ll Mangoesteen O3 Mangoes 12 Chiku O4 Bananas 13 Carambola 05 Pineapples l4 Pomelo O6 Chempedak 15 Orange(limau manis) O7 Nangka 16 Mandarin Orange 08 Duku 17 Lemon O9 Langsat 18 Mata kucing H. T&v Extension Area 1. Service area 612-613 Farm.Group 614-615 Sub-group 616-617 2. Are you a contact farmer? 1 yes 2 no 618 I. Are you a member of the Farmers Association? 1 yes 2 no 619 218 Questionaira 2 Sample Survey Questionaire 1. Farmers Identification: State: Ref. No: District: Mukrm: Address: Name of Household Head: Name of Person Interviewed: Relationship With Household Head: 2 . Enumerator: Name of Enumerator: Date of Interview: Date of Return Of Questionaire: 3. Date checked 219 A. FAMILY BACKGROUND: 1. Name of head of household: 2. Age: 3 . Race: Malay Chinese Indian Others 4. Number of household members including yourself: 5. Fill in the number of family members in each age group (including yourself). (All boxes must be filled. Put a '0' if not relevant). Male Male ( No. of persons ) 6 years and below 7 - 12 years 13 - 18 years 19 - 24 years 25 - 34 years 35 44 years 45 - 54 years 55 and above Female Female 220 (No. of Persons) 6 years and below 7 - 12 years 13 - 18 years 19 24 years 25 - 34 years 35 44 years 45 - 54 years 55 years and above B. LABOR CONTRIBUTION: FAMILY LABOR: 1. How many family members work on the farm: 2. Fill in the number of family members who work on the fanm according to age and sex (including yourself). (All boxes must be filled. Put a '0' if not relevant). Male Male ( No. of persons ) 6 years and below 7 - 12 years 13 - 18 years 19 - 24 years 25 34 years 35 - 44 years 45 54 years 55 and above 221 Female Female (No. of Persons) 6 years and below 7 - 12 years l3 - 18 years l9 - 24 years 25 34 years 35 - 44 years 45 - 54 years 55 years and above 3. How many days per month each family members contribute to the vegetable farm. (including yourself). Name(and age) Sex J F M A M J J A S O N D HIRED LABOR: 1. Did you hire any labor the last 12 months: 2. How many hired labors did you hired: Male: Female: 222 3. For each how many days did they work per month. Name Sex JFMAMJJASOND Total Total/yr C . FARM STATUS 1. Farm Size: 2. Tenureship: Owned: Rented: Others: Specify D . CROPS 1. Existing Crops In The Field Crop Acreage When Planted When Expected To Harvest . i 11 iii 223 iv vi vii viii ix 2. cropping Pattern Per Year. What are the various crops grown the past 12 months: Crop Acreage Cropping When When Period Planted Harvested (For Computer Coding) 3. What are the factors do you consider in selecting a 224 cropping system? Labor avaliable werking Capital Markets Other factors 225 4. Crop Budget: (A Crop Budget Need To Be Filled For Each Crops Listed In 1 and 2) Type of Crop: Acreage : How many time did you plant this crop the past 12 months. Cost and Returns: Items Physical Units 3 Cash Inputs 1. Seeds 2. Lime 3 . Organic Fertiliser 4 . Inorganic Fertiliser 5 . Pesticides 226 6 . Weedicides 7. FUngicides 8. Other Inputs Total Total/Hec. Laborlnputs Activities No. Of Mandays No.of Men No.of No.of Werking;_ Days. Mandays 1. Nursery Preparation of Nursery Beds Sowing of Seeds Maintaining of NUrsery watering of Nursery 2. Transplanting/Sowing of Seeds 3. Thinning 227 4. Putting Supports 5. Weeding (Manual) 6. Weedicide Application 7. Fertiliser Application 8. Fungicide Application 9. Pesticides Application 10. Watering ll. Harvesting 12. Others Other Micellaneous Costs 1. Land tax/rent 2. Depreciation 3. Others Returns 1. Total Harvest Last Periods. 2. Yield Per Hectare 228 3. Price Average Lowest Highest 229 E. FARM CREDIT AND WORKING CAPITAL Did you take any credit the past 12 months. YES NO If yes, from whom do you take the credit? Bank Credit Coop Input Dealers Others How much capital do you need per season? F. FARM agnpms AND s'raucruaas 1. Do you own(l), share(2), rent out(3) any of the following: (Check only one in.each section). 1 2 Agricultural equipment shed 4-wheel tractor 2-wheel tractor Plow Rotary cultivator Harrow Other land preparation equipment Water pump Motorized spraying equipment 4-wheel tractor trailer 2-wheel tractor trailer 230 Transport for carrying goods Motorcycle Bicycle Boat/canoe G. PROBLEMS/CONSTRAINTS What are the major problems that you faced in carrying out your agricultural activities? (More than one box can be checked ). a) Quality seeds/ planting materials (Procurement of good quality seeds) b) crop Production Techniques (Planting Etc.) c) Mechanisation (Land Preparation) d) Pest and Diseases e) Soil and land f) Water (irrigation and drainage) g) Lack of labor h) Transportation for products 1) Marketing j)memsmmmm) k) Prices 1) Others 231 H. MARKETING 1. Where do you sell your products? Farm Local market/Collecting center Road sides Others 2. To whom do you sell your products? Wholesalers Assemblers Retailers Retail Personally Others 3. Problems With Marketing No Buyers/ uncertain of markets Low Prices uncertain of good prices High Discount for spoilage Others 232 I. RESTRICTIONS What are the restrictions faced for expansion of production? APPENDIXD TABLES ACCGVIPANING CHAPTER 3 233 Table D1: Area of Selected Vegetables, P. Malaysia, 1974-82. (hectares) year Chinese Cabbage Cucumber Spinach Mustard 1974 708 506 428 242 1975 1317 511 476‘ 234 1976 1360 615 420 267 1977 831 393 543 368 1978 1352 1954 618 448 1979 1444 978 734 309 1980 1334 1948 1558 395 1981 1941 1989 1401 560 1982 1150 1506 668 470 (cont'd) 234 Table D1 (cont'd): (hectares) Year Water Tomato Chilli Eggplant Spinach 1974 256 300 1278 391 1975 246 430 1244 371 1976 315 362 1451 393 1977 361 449 1316 376 1978 373 692 1226 391 1979 372 706 1324 454 1980 447 2633 1324 619 1981 600 2208 1472 617 1982 401 637 1139 441 Source: MOA, Misc. Crops Reports, 1974-82. 235 Table D2: Production of Selected Vegetables, P.Malaysia, 1974-82. ( tons ) Year Chinese Cabbage Cucumber Spinach Mustard , 1974 9209 12563 7075 3147 1975 17123 12621 7876 3046 1976 17680 14193 6950 3475 1977 10803 7431 8989 4787 1978 17576 45192 10225 5830 1979 18772 21889 12144 4020 1980 17342 36397 25769 5135 1981 25233 46776 23172 ' 7285 1982 14950 35815 11048 6116 (Cont‘d) 236 Table D2 (cont'd): (tons) Year water Tomato Cilli Eggplant Spinach 1974 3190 5324 11502 5013 1975 3761 7183 11199 4755 1976 4813 6222 13329 5039 1977 5512 7971 11844 4821 1978 5699 12864 11034 5017 1979 5680 13134 11916 5828 1980 6821 42141 11916 7939 1981 9165 35766 13248 7913 1982 6123 12189 10251 5658 Source: MOA, Misc. Crops Report, 1974-82. 237 Table D3: Index Of Production Of Selected vegetables, P. Malaysia, 1974-82. (1974-76=100) Year Chinese Cabbage Cucumber Spinach Population ‘Mustard 1974 63 96 97 98 97 1975 117 96 108 95 100 1976 121 108 95 108 102 1977 77 57 123 149 105 1978 120 344 140 181 108 1979 128 167 166 125 110 1980 118 277 353 159 114 1981 172 356 317 226 117 1982 102 273 151 190 120 (cont'd) 238 Table D3(cont'd): (1974-76=100) Year Water Tomato Chilli Eggplant Population Spinach 1974 94 85 96 102 97 1975 90 115 93 96 100 1976 116 100 111 102 102 1977 132 128 99 98 105 1978 137 206 92 102 108 1979 136 210 99 118 110 1980 164 675 99 161 114 1981 220 573 110 160 117 1982 147 195 85 115 120 Source: Based on estimates of production from MOA, (1974-82) , op. cit. 239 Table D4: Share of Total Production of Selected vegetables By Respective Regions Year South Nerth East Central (percent) Chinese Mustard 1974 11 37 28 25 1975 11 19 25 45 1976 16 20 23 40 1977 11 24 38 27 1978 30 16 25 29 1979 42 13 24 21 1980 42 16 26 16 1981 52 11 24 13 1982 35 19 27 20 1974-75 11 28 26 35 1976-80 28 18 27 27 1981-82 43 15 25 16 1974-82 28 19 26 26 (cont'd) 240 Table D4(cont'd): Year South Nerth East Central (percent) Cabbage 1974 0 0 99 0 1975 1 l 98 0 1976 f 4 1 .95 0 1977 13 4 82 O 1978 5 1 94 0 1979 4 2 93 l 1980 35 2 61 2 1981 1 1 96 1 1982 1 2 97 1 1974-75 1 1 99 0 1976-80 22 2 85 1 1981-82 1 1 97 1 1974-82 7 2 90 1 (cont'd) 241 Table D4(cont'd): Year South Nerth East Central (percent) Cucumber 1974 13 37 26 11 1975 12 25 55 1 1976 15 24 50 12 1977 22 24 42 8 1978 30 21 41 3 1979 35 14 33 14 1980 65 8 18 6 1981 63 7 ‘22 6 1982 19 21 39 19 1974-75 13 31 41 6 1976-80 34 19 37 9 1981-82 41 14 31 13 1974-82 31 20 36 9 (cont'd) 242 Table D4(cont'd): Year South Nerth East Central (percent) Spinach 1974 ll 27 41 21 1975 6 33 48 13 1976 10 33 38 20 1977 29 15 40 16 1978 26 18 43 13 1979 36 18 3O 16 1980 42 20 24 14 1981 43 13 34 11 1982 29 17 38 17 1974-75 9 30 45 17 1976-80 29 21 '35 16 1981-82 36 15 36 14 1974-82 26 22 37 16 (cont'd) 244 Table D4(con't): Year South Nerth East Central (percent) water Spinach 1974 10 31 47 11 1975 8 43 44 2 1976 10 37 35 17 1977 32 23 34 8 1978 29 25 31 12 1979 30 19 33 15 1980 43 20 21 13 1981 51 14 23 9 1982 35 26 22 14 1974-75 9 37 46 7 1976-80 29 25 31 13 1981-82 43 20 23 12 1974-82 28 27 32 11 (cont'd) 245 Table D4(cont'd): Year South Nerth East Central (percent) Tcmato 1974 22 5 66 7 1975 33 19 47 1 1976 32 7 55 6 1977 27 5 61 8 1978 19 2 74 5 1979 18 3 74 5 1980 72 2 25 l 1981 68 2 29 l 1982 7 7 82 3 1974-75 28 12 57 4 1976-80 33 4 58 5 1981-82 38 4 55 2 1974-82 33 6 57 4 (cont'd) 246 Table D4 (cont'd): Year South Nerth East Central (percent) Ch111i 1974 12 41 42 5 1975 16 34 35 15 1976 15 29 39 17 1977 11 37 45 7 1978 22 31 39 8 1979 19 3O 37 15 1980 21 30 36 13 1981 32 27 32 9 1982 15 44 28 13 1974-75 14 38 39 10 1976-80 18 31 39 12 1981-82 24 36 3O 11 1974-82 17 34 37 11 (cont'd) 247 Table D4 (cont'd): Year South Nerth East Central (percent) Eggplant 1974 5 25 '47 15 1975 14 31 49 4 1976 14 34 43 3 1977 20 23 37 8 1978 30 16 41 7 1979 37 11 33 4 1980 45 13 28 6 1981 45 14 33 4 1982 17 29 36 5 1974-75 10 28 48 10 1976-80 30 20 37 6 1981-82 32 23 35 5 1974-82 25 22 39 6 Source: Based on data from.MOA, Misc. Crops Report, 1974-82. 248 Table D5: Imports of Selected vegetables, P. Malaysia, 1972-83. /a (tons) Year Cabbage Potatoes Tomatoes Chilli 1972 9561 (100) 22175 (92) 1673 (263) - 1973 12951 (136) 25220 (105) 1477 (232) - 1974 11705 (123) 24257 (101) 1277 (201) - 1975 9817 (103) 24230 (101) 312 (49) - 1976 7038 (74) 23753 (99) 320 (50) - 1977 5115 (54) 29909 (124) 211 (33) - 1978 5245 (55) 33000 (137) 217 (34) 355 (74) 1979 12335 (130) 36726 (153) 478 (75) 513 (107) 1980 16137 (170) 43935 (182) 195 (31) 574 (119) 1981 16261 (171) 37975 (158) 90 (14) 1027 (214) 1982 19646 (206) 42093 (175) 82 (13) 926 (192) 1983 25053 (263) 43626 (181) 167 (26) 1685 (309) (cont'd) 249 Table D5 (cont'd): units = tons Year Alliageous Frozen Others 1972 43548 (88) 365 (72) 3967 (75) 1973 46836 (95) 397 (78) 4621 (88) 1974 47257 (96) 565 (112) 4817 (92) 1975 49958 (101) 626 (124) 5487 (104) 1976 50673 (103) 327 (65) 5477 (104) 1977 53716 (109) 412 (81) 5958 (113) 1978 62482 (127) 529 (105)' 6308 (120) 1979 68664 (139) 606 (120) 9717 (185) 1980 83392 (169) 714 (141) 11071 (210) 1981 81862 (166) 862 (170) 9112 (173) 1982 88175 (179) 1033 (204) 11007 (209) 1983 89937 (182) 1401 (277) 10490 (199) notes: /a The number in brackets are index of physical imports with 1974-76:100, with exception of chilli where 1978-80=100. /b Include onions, garlic, shallots etc. Source: MOA, Import Export Trade In Food And Agricultural Products, 1972-83. 250 Table D6: value of Selected vegetables Imports, P. Malaysia, 1972-83 /a (M81000) Year Cabbage Potatoes Tomatoes Chilli 1972 1548 (71) 4984 (59) 268 (202) - 1973 2982 (136) 7046 (84) 328 (248) - 1974 2682 (123) 8158 (97) 251 (187) - 1975 2185 (100) 8152 (97) 68 (51) - 1976 1700 (78) 8955 (106) 79 (59) - 1977 1770 (81) 12107 (144) 72 (54) - 1978 1517 (69) 13906 (165) 59 (44) 282 (94) 1979 2581 (118) 15288 (182) 100 (76) 318 (106) 1980 3265 (149) 18389 (218) 38 (29) 302 (100) 1981 3098 (141) 21361 (254) 25 (19) 539 (179) 1982 3927 (179) 25741 (306) 39 (29) 504 (167) 1983 6315 (288) 23339 (277) 52 (39) 860 (286) (Cont'd) 251 Table D6(cont'd): (M$1000) Year Alliageous /b Frozen Others 1972 14733 (55) 567 (64) 2008 (63) 1973 17727 (67) 563 (65) 2271 (71) 1974 21778 (82) 978 (110) 2421 (76) 1975 28335 (107) 1034 (116) 3381 (106) 1976 29524 (111) 663 (74) 3795 (119) 1977 37717 (142) 898 (101) 4664 (146) 1978 43409 (164) 1242 (139) 4946 (155) 1979 40375 (152) 1337 (150) 6753 (211) 1980 45541 (172) 1454 (163) 9820 (307) 1981 63080 (238) 1992 (223) 10510 (329) 1982 79533 (300) 2636 (296) 14482 (453) 1983 88440 (333) 3205 (359) ‘ 15553 (486) notes: /a The numbers in brackets are index of value of imports with 1974-76=100, with exception of chilli where 1978-80=100. /b Includes onions, garlic, and shallots etc. Source: MOA, Import-Export Trade In Food And Agricultural Products, (1972-83). Table D7: 252 Exports of Selected Vegetables, P. Malaysia, 1975-83. (tons) Year Cabbage Tomato Chilli Others Total 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1530 7809 7383 9846 6069 6177 6928 5915 4222 notes: (25) (125) (150) (158) (97) (99) (111) (95) (53) 6758 5994 6390 2411 5975 6850 7058 6870 7250 (106) (94) (100) (38) (94) (107) (111) (108) (114) 9090 5315 5500 6864 5985 6458 6255 5919 5619 Figures in brackets are (137) (80) (83) (103) (90) (97) (94) (89) (85) 39964 43593 47276 17190 51007 52445 59699 54135 67890 (92) (100) (108) (39) (117) (120) (137) (124) (156) 57342 62711 68549 36311 69036 71930 79940 72839 85081 index with 1975-77=100. (91) (100) (109) (56) (110) (114) (127) (116) (135) Source: MOA, Imports Exports Trade In Agricultural Products, P. Malaysia, 1975-83. UN, Cbmmodity Trade Statistics, Series D. 1975-83. 253 Table D8: values Of Selected vegetables Exports, P.Malaysia, 1975-83.‘ (M$1000) Year cabbage Tbmato Chilli Others Total 1975 565 (25) 2705 (103) 7620 (164) 24437 (78) 35327 (87) 1976 2955 (131) 2481 (95) 3364 (72) 36187 (116) 44987 (110) 1977 3264 (144) 2667 (102) 2953 (64) 32950 (106) 41834 (103) 1978 3790 (168) 995 (38) 4348 (94) 36754 (118) 45887 (113) 1979 2263 (100) 2380 (91) 3582 (77) 39011 (125) 47236 (116) 1980 2597 (115) 2819 (108) 4091 (88) 39323 (126) 48830 (120) 1981 2938 (130) 3050 (117) 4303 (93) 51397 (165) 61688 (152) 1982 2663 (118) 2942 (112) 3824 (82) 42196 (135) 51625 (127) 1983 1824 (81) 3200 (122) 3467 (75) 58446 (187) 66937 (164) notes: Figures in brackets are indices with 1975-77:100. Source: MOA, Import Export Trade In Agricultural Products, P. Malaysia, 1975-83. UN, Commodity Trade Statistics, Series D, 1975-83. APPENDIXE TABLES ACCGVIPANYING CHAPTER 5 254 Tablem: DisiributimofFamsAooxdirgtp Size W mgim Size my Peroa'rtage in Each Size (abegzy (rectares) Sorth North East Central 'Ibtal n=684 n=1115 n=5874 n=1489 n=9162 les 0.4 26 54 68 54 61 0.41 - LCD 45 27 25 35 28 1.01 - 2.00 17 12 6 8 8 Greater thm 2.(I) 12 7 1 3 3 Total 100 100 1(1) 1(1) 1CD m Farm Size 0.90 0.67 0.39 0.51 0.49 SoJroe: Famers'Idsth‘m 255 nunuflaumflmnknmmntoaan —Jmm;nnkmd&nmu nu.n: n-56 mm ~mmwm sun ) 3331nwu3_4.—‘w—9.—4.‘w an... 9 1 1 o. 0A06AAA_6_O_A.4 2 4 $041408 5 2 mm 37.7m0ul4.511“111—nl.5 amnmammmm 4.0.3 m3 .mnmgmememmwnmm 20.0.0.111111222233 0...._......-... n.a...wmbmmflmmmmaw O.nmo.o.1111122229m 1m& 1m& 1m& m 5080!: Farmer ' a Listing Nbdiun (0.8 has) can? c. Mstard mm udumm [arm (1.6 has) mymw C. Mstzrd (Hm? Camber E 88883588 H 8 Stall (0.4) $3 8888 888 5888 888 Medina (0.8 hec) Chilli Qummd @Qmw Large (1.6 has) Chilli mmmt cmmmd amber 5% 888 8888 8888 88888888 8888 8888 595 U'IIFO 50$; ammo ooobm mm 85555888 5556 888 01 $885 obom 7425 7650 6640 24000 1053) Z75!) 1CD10 7260 6370 888 8888 88888888 58888888 8888 888 8 3513 $3 83 3764 %110 5760 3912 3315 $995 6766 24495 EEHE 31311 (0.4 has) w. Spinach C. Mstmd amber $.33 888 Nbdiun (0.8 rec) 0:11.11 C. Mstard (number mmum Spine!) Lang (1.6 Inc) Eumm w. Spirad: C. Bastard Mama Chilli. (lumbar 8685 88888 888888 888888 8 Cam Farm 8123 (0.8) nga 113mb [stuns H1112 Msfimd calm/a 88888 88888 E 5 13318153 (cattlnad) r555 0N0) 8858. Ullthii 8.8855 oobowm 8GBBN 257 5814 21620 6120 11631 11718 7448 216(1) 7319 19750 15K!) 9010 13570 101112 a W 9 258 8 16m56565650 22 Wylmmdwmacpmises mmdvefqmtadveminmm mm n a a a 8m mm ammfimmmm nmmmmmmm m m m w 1% 16m565650 2622 46567671 m1721545656 567469 mm m mnmm mmmm 259 Tablem (cmtinnd) 101112 9 8 76 71 24181856565650 56565650 m am an $88 ammmmm gmnmm 50527369 M Wm: Brae) m m mam 8 5mm 8 magma mngmm ”mm lanuruaaremtcnlerflarnafis, ratherfiueyare mmam, etc. Rate: Area thore Table ES: Marginal Value Products for Each 260 Limiting Resources Farm.Size (hectare) 0.4 0.8 1.6 MVPs Limiting Resources (MS) Labor (Nev) 2.22 Labor (Dec) 12.77 Land (Jan) 3638.00 Land (Feb) 1892.00 Land (Mar) 3638.00 Land (April) 352.00 Land (May) 3638.00 Land (June) 1892.00 Land (July) 3638.00 Land (Aug) 1892.00 Land (Sept) 1892.00 Land (Oct) 3638.00 Land (Nev) 2111.67 Land (Feb-C. Mustard) 1540.00 Land (NOV~C. Mustard) 1720.00 Land (Feb-Spinach) 1746.00 Land (JunaSpinach) 1746.00 Land (Sept-Spinach) 1746.00 Labor (Mar) 2.86 Labor (May) 12.92 Labor (Nev) 34.61 Land (Feb) 3638.00 Land (Mar) 2884.00 Land (May) 1934.93 Land (July) 3638.00 Land (Aug) 600.00 Land (Sept) 3638.00 Land (Oct) 1626.00 Land (Jan-C. Mustard) 1626.00 Land (May-C. Mustard) 3778.00 Land (July-C. Mustard) 1026.00 Land (Mar-C. Mustard) 1283.43 Land (Jan-Spinach) 3638.00 Land (Jun-Spinach) 3638.00 Land (Nev-Spinach) 2012.00 Labor (Jan) 18.65 Labor (Feb) 118.31 Labor (Mar) 18.65 Labor (April) 29.82 Labor (May) 18.65 Labor (July) 65.27 261 Table ES (continued) Farm.Size Area (hectare) 1.6 Perak 0.4 0.8 LimitinggResources Labor Labor Labor Labor Land (Sept) (Oct) (Nov) (Dee) (Jun) Labor (Feb) Labor (Oct) Labor (Nov) Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land (Jan) (Mar) (Apr) (Jun) (July) (Sept) (NOV) (Mar-C. Mustard) (May-C. MUstard) (July-C. Mustard) (Sept-C. Mustard) (Nev-C. Mustard) (Jan-Spinach) (May-Spinach) (Sept-Spinach) (Oct-Spinach) Labor (Feb) Labor (Oct) Labor (Nev) Labor (Dec) Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land (Jan) (Mar) (Apr) (Jun) (July) (Aug) (Sept) (May-C. Mustard) (July-C. Mustard) (Sept-C. Mustard) (Nev-C. Mustard) (May-Spinach) (Oct-Spinach) MVPs Sis.) 24.76 18.66 18.65 51.79 5668.13 48.35 4.40 1.99 102.78 3528.00 520.22 3528.00 3528.00 3195.11 3139.82 1711.78 2232.00 2232.00 2049.33 2415.14 3425.21 3528.00 322.89 2668.73 26.38 9.51 18.09 6.18 3528.00 3528.00 2092.00 3528.00 3528.00 727.00 3528.00 2092.00 1365.00 997.56 3045.62 3528.00 1672.72 262 Table ES (continued) Farm Size Area (bectare) 1.6 Selangor 0.4 0.8 LimitingResources Labor Labor Labor Labor Labor Labor Labor Labor Labor Labor Land Land Land Land Land Land (Jan) (Feb) (May) (JUne) (July) (Aug) (Sept) (Oct) (Nov) (Dec) (Mar) (April) (June) (July) (Mar-C. Mustard) (Nev-C. Mustard) Labor (Jan) Labor (Feb) Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Labor Labor Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land (Mar) (Apr) (May) (June) (Aug) (Sept) (Oct) (NOV) (Jan-C. Mustard) ( Mar-C. Mustard) (July-C. MUstard) (Jan-Spinach) (July-Spinach) (Sept-Spinach) (Oct-Spinach) (Feb) (Oct) (Jan) (Mar) (Apr) (Jun) (Ju1y) (Aug) (Sept) (NOV) MVPs (MS) 18.09 23.10 18.09 12.48 17.94 22.98 158.73 18.09 18.09 6.18 3528.00 3526.88 1093.43 29.58 6455.11 1959.80 10.20 18.50 3608.00 440.00 3608.00 3860.00 2392.00 1468.00 3254.00 4402.00 1018.65 354.00 2010.00‘ 1618.58 3608.00 2140.00 354.00 80.31 7.86 1240.00 1240.00 2450.00 3690.00 1240.00 2450.00 4136.00 2626.00 263 Table ES (continued) Farm Size Area (hectare ) 0.8 1.6 Cameron Highland 0 . 8 Limiting Resources Land Land Land Labor Labor Labor Labor Labor Labor Labor Labor Labor Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Labor Labor Land Land Land Land Land Land Land Land (Sept-C. Mustard) (Nov-C. Mustard) ( May-Spinach) (Jan) (Feb) (Mar) (Jun) (July) (Aug) (Sept) (Oct) (Nov) (Feb) (Apr) (Jun) (Jul) (Sept) (Oct) (Mar-C. Mustard) (Jun-Spinach) ( July) ( Sept) ( Jan) ( Feb) (Apr) ( Jun) (Aug) ( Sept) (May-W. Mustard) (Nov-w. Mustard) MVPs flail 2800.96 1064.00 1240.00 19.72 7.71 11.96 14.60 15.42 0.31 12.91 12.88 48.27 2196.05 3450.11 3608.00 3099.78 1245.20 1250.59 3502.58 436.75 20.93 17.13 5641.00 1244.00 7187.00 3972.72 3327.68 3972.63 2912.28 6885.00 264 0.8 Radish (Jan) Radish (Mar) Radish (May) Radish (July) Radish (Sept) Radish (Nov) GflmrhMm) (lumber (Mn) am (April) amber (July) Charmer (Oct) w. Spirach (Jam) 9:. Spinach (Mar) w. Spinach (my) 9:. Spinach (July) w. Spinach (Sept) w. Spinach (Nov) mm (Jan) mm (July) Eggplant (Feb) Radish (Jam) Radish (Mar) Radish (May) Radish (July) Radish (Sept) Radish (Nov) Spinach (Jan) Spinach (Mar) Spinach (May) Spinach (July) Spinach (Sept) Spinach (Nov) W (Sept) (lumber (Oct) Spinach (my) Spinach (Nov) 'Itmam (Jam) Tanabo (July) FFFFFF §S§§§§§§§§§E§§§§§§§ I‘S 8883388888928888888888 8’ m 265 Table“ (m) Fun 812. Sagan 0.8 1.6 0.4 QEEEEEEQ Chilli (Jm) W (Pub) 34991“ (Feb) C. Masturd (Jm) c. matard (Mar) C. rusted (July) tonato (Jul?) Chilli (Jan) Qacmber (Jan) (lumber (April) amber (July) Angle luffa (Jan) Angle Luffa (May) Angle Luffa (Sept) w. Spinach (Jan) W. Spinach (Mar) w. Spinach (May) 333 8 83% 8885838288888" E tag 3 §§§§§§5§ §B§§§§§§§§§§§§ fl 8 58385885388 Egg $85 E 266 Tam-£6 (cmtimed) ransa- w. Spinach (Jul) "o Spun-h (W) Spinach (Feb) mm (Jm) mun (July) Eggplant (Jm) Chilli (Jam) Eggplant (Feb) C. Mustard (Jen) Gunter (Jan) camber (April) Quarter (July) Spinach (Feb) w. Spinach (Jm) w. Spinach (Mar) w. Spinach (May) w. Spinad': (Jul) '1- Spinach (5091:) mm (Jan) mm (July) Eggplant (Jan) C. metard (Sept) (lumber (Jan) (lumber (April) (lumber (July) Cuanber (Oct) Cabbage (dupe) Spinach (Feb) Spinad'x (Sept) (1. Spinach (J31) w. Spinach (Mar) H. Spinach (May) W- Spinach (Sept) Mate (Jan) mm (July) w. Spinach (Mar) w. Spinach (May) w. Spinach (Sept) W. Spinach (Nov) C. ulstard (May) C. mstard (Sept) Gunter (Jan) camber (Oct) lifi 8853888688 888888 88883 883% @8838 8888 If 267 Table 86 (W) PannSiae 0.4 Spinach (Jm) 0.8 01111.1. (J81) 1.6 Eggplant (Feb) §§§§§§§§§ §§§§§5 PS 888888 8 888888888888888888 g §§§§§§§§ §s§ 3883 268 Table 86 (attuned) Farm Size 32 She—"1'01 m C. Highland 0.8 mm (Jan) mm (mm) Lettuce (Jam) lettuce (my) w. W (Mar) I“? §§§§§ 82858 269 was): ”dammit-WM humane-mum mu- roast “Cu-“fi- E9. LIES 1291.11 M $2.82 ' 2235. M (118/tn) (tn) (ES/tn) (116/tn) (IS/m1) (uS/tm) I. A. Jim (0.4 Inc) C. bastard (hr) 32 15.0 553) 3390 — 266 C. Mama-(any) 532 15.0 553.) 4966 5882 331 C. Mstzrd (bbv) 52 15.0 5530 3810 - 254 ms: (my) 600 9A 331) 2727 390 290 Chilli (Jan) m 12.5 $110 25758 2765) 230 mm (Jam) 48) 14.5 3638 1892 53) 13) Spinach (Fin) 4:) 14.5 3638 1892 — 130 W (m m 14.5 3638 1892 m 13) W (Jun) 48) 14.5 388 1892 — 130 aninach (Sat) 4!) 14.5 3638 1892 — 1:!) W (Oct) 48) 14.5 3638 1892 42m 130 Spun: (lb!) 48) 14.5 215 5775 145 B. Jdm (0.8 rec) Garbage (Jan) 910 14.0 $56 668 wage (any) ' 910 14.0 1628 752 C. Mstard (Jm) an 14.5 — 50 C. Maud (Par) 53 14.5 5366 370 C. Mstazd (My) 532 14.5 - 102 C. bastard (any) 552 14.5 - 292 C. Matzrd (Maw) 53 14.5 - 274 w. m (MN) m 15.3 m 196 amber (ml) 48) 14.5 $91 198 Spam (F33) 48) 14.5 3'77 226 Spinach (1hr) 4m 14.5 56% 226 Spinmh (Set) 48) 14.5 4956 211 Spirah (wt) 48) 14.5 - 112 C. Jdrre (1.6 Inc) C. Mstard (Set) 490 14.5 4745 4104 5845 ms Gauge (381) 11!) 13.0 12357 10117 - 378 (313333 (3m) 11!) 13.0 1857 lCB26 12916 794 L. Beau (Apr) 920 15.0 9710 9210 13916 614 L. Beau (Jul) 9m 15.0 9W0 9M 1245 606 L. Ben (Oct) 92) 15.0 9770 7605 - 577 W (1hr) annum (mt) II. A. Flak (0.4 M) C. Mstzrd (tar) C. Mstzrd (my) C. Maud (.111) c. Mama (Sept) C. Mstzrd (lbw) Clam (Oct) w. sum (NW) Ghee! (Jan) Chm (Jam) annum (Jam) Spinmh (an) Spam (.111) Spiked! (Set) Spit-um (mt) mined) (lbw) m (J81) B. Peri: (5.5 hac) C. Maud (1hr) C. Mstard (my) C. Mstard (.111) C. Matard (Sept) C. 14312!!! (bbv) Garbage (381) m (an) (lumbar (Oct) Spira:h (Jam) Spinad: (Sept) w. swam (hbv) C. Para: (1.6 Inc) Chilli (Jam) c. rte-hard (Jam) c. Mstard (Iver) C. Mustard (my) c. Mama (M) C. Matard (5%) Cabbage (Jan) 8mm (MI!) 88 8888838888888888 88888888888 88888888 [SKI-11355335 13.0 1.3.0 13.0 13.0 16.0 14.1 14.1 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.8 12.]. O gmmasgmm mammwwoooo QEEEEEEE §§§EEE§§§§§ Egfififififi 1&9 858 gaaggggfi fig 55 ggllgglgggglllll mama 83.8.5. 888888.888888888 88888888888 88888888 w (an) w (an) m (mt) w. Spun!) (an) H. 8pm (Nw) III. A. (0.4 has) w. W (Mr) C. mum (Ch!) C. Mata!!! (Mr) C. mum (My) C. mm (ID!) Gum 0:111) Gibbs- (Mat) Chung- (ha) Spit-mu (am) W (Pin) and: (M) w (W) w (mt) 8' fig) C. Maud (but) c. Mama (Supt) C. Maura (Mar) Qantas: (03:) (21:89! (Jan) Gums (am) w. W (Mr) C. (1. the) w. Splash (.10) w. swam (bur) w. Spinach (M) W. m (.111) N. 3111331511) w. 3mm (MN) C. usual! (but) c. mm (in) 08.1.11 (Jam) abbey! (PI!) w (Jam) Snitch (m) 8888888 8888888888888 88888 888888888888 885955555588 my (mun-d) 1208 12.8 12.8 15.3 15.3 15.3 10.2 10.2 10.2 10.2 13.0 “.1 16.1 14.5 14.5 “.5 14.5 14.5 8888888888 8888888888888 8888888888888 271 88888 88888 88888 8888 88 8 4576 888888888888 888 II88I8888III8 8888888888888 888888888 88888 88888 §II8|I8 3888888 8 4674 ‘888888888888 annum (M) W (m) sum (503) W (mt) mm (.hc Gib? (an) magnum m (Sch) w. MM (.111) w. w (.111) Cc main) §§Q§§§ 14.5 655588 §§§R B§§BE§ §§.§§E samgsg QEER APPENDIX]? WHOLESALE AND RETAIL MARKET STATISTICS, AND INTERMARKETS PRICE (IDRRELATIONS FOR VARIOUS VEGETABLES 273 APPENDIX? WHOLESALE AND RETAIL MARKET STATISTICS, AND INTERMARKETS PRICE CORRELATIONS FOR VARIOUS VEGETABLES Tables F1 and F2 gives principal statistics of vegetable wholesale and retail establishments respectively. Table F3 provides the intermarkets price correlations for various vegetables. Prices in different regional markets are tested for national market intergration by looking at their correlations . The correlations coefficients were obtained using Time Series Statistical Package (TSP). The following abbreviations are for major regional markets in Peninsular Malaysia. ASTR: Alor Setar IPOH: Ipoh JB: Johor Bahru KB: Kota Bahru KL: Kuala Lumpur KT: Kuala Trengganu KTN: Kuantan MEL: Melaka PEN: Penang SBN : Seremban 274 'I‘ableFl:Prirr:ipalStatisticschegetdaleswn1esale W—Inkfixsflarmlaysia (1972-78) 1972 1974 1976 1. Total mm of W: i) all vinlesale mteqrise 7m6 12202 13250 :Li) vegtable & fruit vinlesalers 400 475 729 iii) m of vegetable unle- salers 5.7 3.9 5.6 2. value of 0.1%th (IVS ninjas) i) all vinlesale extant-lees 7044 14578 162115 :Li) vegstdale & fruits Wars 1C5 15) 333 iii) m of (ii) cut of (i) 1.5 1.0 2.0 3. m Value of 331mm 265 316 457 per vegbable mm 4. Total Lam: Force: 1) all Mesale arbarpdse 58717 88666 96841 ii) m umber erployed par wholesale summarise 8.3 7.3 7.3 iii) vegstdales & fruits vtnlesalers 1428 1615 2795 iv) mam umber: arployed per vegetane mm 3.6 3.4 3.8 5. Nnber of Vbrkirg Prqrietczs and Lipid Fanily Latin: 1) all wtnlesale arbaqrise 10639 1%96 21393 1.1.) averam umber per vholesale 1.5 1.6 1.5 iii) vegstdale & fruits Mars 842 957 1369 iv) m m. per vegstdale wtnlesale 2.1 2.0 1.9 g 7.3 3.4 21655 1.4 1157 1.9 Sauce: G.0.M., Dart. of Stadstics (1978a,b), (has of Retail and RulesaIe'Irab umiIquarMaJaysia. 275 Table F2: Pertinent Statistics of Vegetable Retail Business in Peninsular Malaysia 1. Total Number of Establishment i) All types of retail operation ii) vegetable & fruit retailers iii) proportion of (ii) in (i) % 2. value of Output (MS millions) i) all types of retail operations ii) vegetables and fruits retailings iii) proportion of (ii) in (i) 3. Average vol. of Business Per vegetable Retailers (MS) 4. Total Labor Force in Retailing i) all type of retail operation ii) vegetable & fruits retailing iii) av. no. of labor in all types of retail iv) av. no. of labor in veg. retail 5. NUmber of unpaid Family Members in Business 1) all type of retail operation ii) veg. & fruit retailing iii) av. no. per retail operation iv) av. no. per veg. retailing Source: 1974 72505 4251 3.8 5000 92 1.8 21600 177556 6356 2.5 1.5 133934 6111 1.8 1.4 and Retail Business, 1974-78. 1976 80175 8266 10.3 6564 145 2.2 17500 197376 12060 2.5 1.5 146365 11975 1.8 1.4 1978 74838 7340 9.8 7924 153 1.9 20800 189266 10689 2.5 1.5 130945 10394 1.8 1.4 G.O.M., Dept. of Statistics, Census of Wholesale Table F3a: 276 Cilli ' s Intermerkets Price Correlations ASTR PEN IPOH 6 3'3 1.00 0.97 0.94 0.92 0.89 0.88 0.90 0.91 0.84 0.72 PEN 1.00 0.93 0.92 0.89 0.85 0.83 0.90 0.83 0.66 IPOH 1.00 0.88 0.90 0.92 0.87 0.92 0.88 0.77 KL 1.00 0.95 0.91 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.72 SBN MEL JB KTN KT KB 1.00 0.93 1.00 0.88 0.88 1.00 0.86 0.91 0.86 1.00 0.91 0.93 0.81 0.88 1.00 0.78 0.83 0.75 0.79 0.91 1.00 277 Table F3b: Tomatoes' Intermarkets Price Correlations ASTR PEN IPOH KL SBN MEL JB KTN KT KB ASTR 1.00 PEN 0.70 1.00 IPOH 0.68 0.87 1.00 KL 0.68 0.85 0.86 1.00 SBN 0.69 0.85 0.86 0.80 1.00 MEL 0.74 0.87 0.85 0.90 0.83 1.00 JB 0.60 0.69 0.72 0.62 0.74 0.64 1.00 KTN 0.68 0.88 0.91 0.90 0.89 0.88 0.69 1.00 KT 0.72 0.87 0.89 0.90 0.88 0.89 0.76 0.95 1.00 KB 0.69 0.63 0.67 0.74 0.66 0.78 0.66 0.67 0.76 1.00 Table F3c: 278 Cucumbers' Intermarkets Price Correrations PEN IPOH 6 5 1.00 0.62 0.62 0.61 0.65 0.62 0.65 0.66 0.29 0.19 PEN IPOH KL 1.00 0.51 1.00 0.56 0.58 1.00 0.64 0.69 0.71 0.63 0.60 0.63 0.58 0.69 0.71 0.57 0.73 0.81 0.29 0.30 0.63 0.24 0.20 0.36 SBN MEL JB KTN KT KB 1.00 0.88 1.00 0.81 0.63 1.00 0.82 0.78 0.71 1.00 0.34 0.27 0.44 0.57 1.00 0.24 0.38 0.27 0.33 0.68 1.00 279 Table F3d: Cabbages ' Intermarkets Price Correlations ASTR PEN IPOH 6 5 ASTR 1.00 0.64 0.66 0.52 0.45 0.04 0.74 0.89 0.78 0.52 PEN IPOH KL 1.00 0.71 0.50 0.42 0.11 0.56 0.73 0.57 0.41 1.00 0.73 0.68 0.27 0.78 0.83 0.75 0.21 1.00 0.84 0.40 0.60 0.66 0.41 0.29 SBN MEL JB KTN KT KB 1.00 0.51 1.00 0.57 0.86 1.00 0.56 0.11 0.83 1.00 0.44 0.73 0.76 0.91 1.00 0.31 0.24 0.35 0.57 0.65 1.00 Table 280 F3e: Chinese Mustard's (Sawi) Intermarkets Price Correlations ASTR ASTR 1.00 PEN 0.57 IPOH 0.08 KL 0.60 SBN 0.63 MEL 0.63 JB 0.14 KTN 0.49 KT 0.55 KB 0.32 PEN 1.00 0.13 0.59 0.35 0.49 0.11 0.28 0.62 0.06 IPOH KL SBN MEL JB KTN KT KB 1.00 0.28 1.00 0.46 0.58 1.00 0.12 0.83 0.68 1.00 0.13 0.63 0.42 0.27 1.00 0.21 0.48 0.68 0.68 0.43 1.00 0.17 0.67 0.66 0.52 0.18 0.45 1.00 0.06 0.01 0.16 0.02 0.30 0.13 0.34 1.00 281 Table F3f: Chinese Spinach's (Bayam) Intermarkets Price Correlations ASTR ASTR 1.00 PEN 0.17 IPOH 0.37 KL 0.46 SBN 0.65 MEL 0.43 JB 0.53 KTN 0.57 KT 0.63 KB 0.20 PEN 1.00 0.08 0.38 0.09 0.05 0.02 0.25 0.20 0.28 IPOH KL SBN 1.00 0.34 1.00 0.27 0.85 1.00 0.43 0.70 0.69 0.44 0.73 0.75 0.14 0.85 0.85 0.51 0.47 0.46 0.51 0.14 0.20 MEL JB KTN KT KB 1.00 0.71 1.00 0.60 0.55 1.00 0.60 0.56 0.47 1.00 0.29 0.26 0.11 0.16 1.00 282 Table F3g: Eggplants' (Brinjal) Intermarkets Price Correlations ASTR ASTR 1.00 PEN 0.77 IPOH 0.62 ‘KL 0.76 SBN 0.66 MEL 0.56 JB 0.75 KTN 0.63 KT 0.78 KB 0.44 PEN 1.00 0.55 0.55 0.60 0.42 0.53 0.54 0.79 0.40 IPOH KL 1.00 0.75 0.47 0.46 0.67 0.58 0.54 0.30 1.00 0.47 0.46 0.75 0.55 0.58 0.42 SBN MEL JB KTN KT KB 1.00 0.60 1.00 0.58 0.59 1.00 0.71 0.76 0.70 1.00 0.58 0.58 0.71 0.70 1.00 0.57 0.31 0.47 0.44 0.50 1.00 283 Table F3h: French (Snap) Bean's Intermarkets Price Correlations ASTR ASTR 1.00 PEN 0.52 IPOH 0.43 KL 0.69 SBN 0.61 MEL 0.56 JB 0.52 KTN 0.62 KT 0.46 KB 0.10 PEN 1.00 0.33 0.73 0.78 0.60 0.63 0.74 0.64 0.46 IPOH KL SBN 1.00 0.41 1.00 0.50 0.67 1.00 0.43 0.73 0.74 0.43 0.69 0.75 0.35 0.85 0.69 0.30 0.69 0.59 0.05 0.26 0.48 MEL JB KTN KT KB 1.00 0.67 1.00 0.67 0.60 1.00 0.69 0.59 0.58 1.00 0.41 0.49 0.31 0.48 1.00 284 Table F31: Long Bean's Intermarkets Price Corelations ASTR PEN IPOH aagagga 1.00 0.82 0.78 0.55 0.72 0.60 0.69 0.83 0.61 0.70 PEN 1.00 0.73 0.69 0.76 0.70 0.76 0.84 0.50 0.72 IPOH KL SBN MEL JB KTN KT KB 1.00 0.59 1.00 0.66 0.50 1.00 0.43 0.50 0.30 1.00 0.74 0.72 0.70 0.70 1.00 0.74 0.79 0.69 0.67 0.83 1.00 0.42 0.44 0.25 0.21 0.35 0.53 1.00 0.70 0.78 0.59 0.56 0.77 0.85 0.71 1.00 285 Table F33]: Okra ' s Intermarkets Price Correlations ASTR PEN ASTR 1.00 PEN 0.82 IPOH 0.17 KL 0.57 SEN 0.39 MEL 0.27 JB 0.53 KTN 0.44 KB 0.31 1.00 0.23 0.69 0.28 0.26 0.56 0.63 0.31 IPOH KL SBN MEL JB KTN KB 1.00 0.71 1.00 0.33 0.40 1.00 0.04 0.31 0.72 1.00 0.58 0.77 0.54 0.35 1.00 0.30 0.77 0.53 0.67 0.59 1.00 0.77 0.74 0.54 0.28 0.75 0.52 1.00 286 Table F3k: water Spinach's (Kangkong) Intermarkets Price Correlations ASTR PEN IPOH KL SBN MEL JB KTN KT KB ASTR 1.00 PEN 0.25 1.00 IPOH 0.43 KL 0.53 SBN 0.64 MEL 0.46 JB 0.29 KTN 0.46 KT KB 0.69 0.14 0.08 0.43 0.11 0.29 0.04 0.37 0.18 0.02 1.00 0.37 0.36 0.38 0.23 0.15 1.00 0.85 1.00 0.74 0.64 0.68 0.61 0.88 0.80 0.52 0.70 0.73 0.21 0.13 0.05 1.00 0.59 1.00 0.64 0.65 1.00 0.69 0.57 0.74 1.00 0.16 0.17 0.05 0.34 1.00 APPEIDIXG TABLES AOCGVIPANYING CHAPTER 6 287 Table Gl:Estimation of Area Trends For Selected yggetables In Different Regions. vggetable Estimated Equations 12: 52 9;.Mustard South 4.18 + 1.0210gT 0.69 (10.13) (3.92) NOrth 5.58 - 0.12109T 0.51 (75.56) (2.65) East 5.44 + 0.23logT 0.59 (46.58) (3.17) Central 5.82 - 0.09logT 0.23 (16.60) (0.40) Cabbage South 3.05 + 0.7ZlogT 0.27 (2.86) (0.84) NOrth 30.77 - 1.34T 0.51 (2.19) (2.57) East 5.86 + 0.63logT 0.49 (15.46) (2.60) Cucumber South 3.53 + 1.13logT 0.54 (5.73) (2.88) NOrth 4.92 - 0.09logT 0.16 (40.22) (1.17) vggetables East Central East Central Tomatoes South Nbrth East Central 288 TableGl(continued) Estimated Equations 4.96 + 0.34logT (35.01) (3.75) 2.64 + 0.82109T (3.54) (1.73) -11.19 + 23.21T (0.39) (4.54) 70.30 + . 0.38T (7.86) (0.24) 93.75 + 8.05T (3.28) (1.58) 38.22 + 3.33T (5.48) (2.69) 2.74 + 1.17logT (7.44) (5.00) 93.94 - 0.5T (8.34) (0.25) 118.88 - 1.20T (10.17) (0.58) 17.80 + 4.95T (2.60) (1.86) (2.91) -172.97 + 126.41T (0.35) (1.48) -28.66 + 1.26T (1.76) (0.44) 94.55 + 63.60T (1.35) (5.14) 20.02 + 0.88T (0.65) 0.67 0.30 0.75 0.10 0.26 0.57 0.78 0.10 0.45 0.55 0.24 0.26 0.79 0.56 vegetables Chilli South NOrth East central East Central note: /a 289 Table 9; (continued) Estimated Equation Igz 146.36 + 18.55T 0.26 (2.19) (1.56) 460.72 - 4.96T 0.65 (11.58) (0.70) 570.80 - 16.98T 0.34 (11.30) (1.89) 135.55 + 3.13m 0.30 (2.92) (1.69) 4.80 + 23.81T 0.46 (0.08) (2.42) 101.72 - 1.76T 0.20 (4.66) (0.45) 169.38 - 0.23m 0.10 (11.25) (0.08) 33.58 - 1.32m 0.10 (3.21) (0.71) Estimated Equations are of foam Log A = c + b Log T or A = c + bT Where A is area in hectares, c is constant T is Time (l974=1) The equations in the table show only the right hand side. 290 Table G3: Estimates g; anntigy Demanded 1986L 1990, and 2000 Ag (tons) Vggetables 2222 2222 2292 All vegetables 63400 802200 1452400 C. Mustard 47300 47800 86600 Cabbages 46600 58000 104200 Cucumber 56200 79300 172600 Spinach 28000 35500 56400 w. Spinach 28300 38000 76600 Temato 24800 23600 25600 Chilli 28200 28300 27000 Eggplant 29100 33100 61400 note: /a Forecasted Demand Based On Index Of Prospective Demand. The Projection Is Based On 1982 Level of Consumption As Estimated By FAMA In Its Selected Commodities Consumption Survey 1982. Index is 100 at 1982. APPENDIX}! TABLES ACCCMPANYING CHAPTER 7 291 Table H1: Farmers' Dee Q§_Insecticides ngSelected vggetables 2g Peninsular Malaysia. Frequencies 9;, Frequencies 9: Farmers USing épplication Per Insecticides. Cropping Period. (Percent) C. Mustard 94.1 4.1 Cabbage 100.00 11.0 Cucumber 85.5 5.4 Spinach 95.8 3.2 W. Spinach 89.1 5.3 Tomatoes 99.2 11.6 Chilli 81.7 10.6 Eggplant 65.6 7.2 Source: MARDI (1981) ...... op. cit. 292 Table H2: AveraggiAnnual Area,‘Yield, and.Productiggu g Tomatoes _Ig Asian Courtr‘ies 1961-1965 and 1973-77. Phillipines Taiwan Thailand P.Malaysia Area: Yield: 1961-65 Area Yld. Prod. Area Yld. Prod. Area 53 9.3 495 41 5.8 240 16 3.4 54 3 9.0 27 3 3.7 11 3 5.0 15 1000 hectares 72 59 19 (110'! m.tcxeperhectare Productim:1000m.tms 1973-77 9.5 6.3 7.0 21.1 3.0 5.4 681 372 132 146 15 27 36 44 19 133 67 (1189656) Yld. Prod 1 38 8 55 106 144 134 441 -19 36 8 80 67 Source: Villareal, R.L; (1980), Tanatoes in the Tropics, Westview; 1980, Table 5 pg.61. 293 wel-B: mudvmafllityxnmartedheaaflYieJm GE‘ImatnelnSelectedmntmes1964—75. Locaticn 1&th Yield 1964 1975 m C.V 1964 1975 m C.V. (’00-) (+0?) (IUD has) % (ins/hes) % Vbrld 1462 1869 21.8 5.58 17.16 21.12 18.7 6.13 m 492 591 15.7 5.24 26.36 35.47 25.7 9.47 W Nature 657 913 27.2 11.84 1.1.1.1 13.16 15.6 5.55 Asia 313 412 24.0 9.82 11.68 15.13 22.8 8.72 ISA 1'73 204 15.2 9.42 29.3 42.21 315 12.92 W 3 7 133.0 n.a 9.0 21.10 134.0 n.a Irriia 55 72 23.6 8.91 9.27 9.47 2.1 1.16 Indrmda 43 59 27.1 10.59 5.88 6.35 7.5 2.55 millipirm 15 17 11.8 6.63 3.46 7.3) 52.6 $.70 'nnila'fi 5 5 0.0 6.12 2.90 2.98 2.4 2.75 P.Malaysia 3 6 50.0 $.45 5.(I) 4.96 -0.70 0.87 C.V. istefficientofVarflatim Source: Calkins, C.H.; (1978) . Ixrprovirgfinal1$calemboe£ mamm'nem. InI-‘irstl’nterretflaelSwpoahm m 'Itrqaical Inlet-o. 1978. Table l pg.24. * Villareal, R.L.;(l9w). 'Itnetoes in'Ihe m. Westview; 1980. Table 5, pg. 61.(Data is for average annual area platteda‘xdyieldfiorperiocb196l-65a1dl973-77.) 294 Table H4: Research Expenditures On Selected Commodities In Comparasion To Vegetables. MS mil. Cbmmodities 1976 1977 1978 1979 Rubber 25.10 28.89 26.55 27.42 Oil Palm. 3.24 4.98 4.90 2.90 Cocao 1.32 1.30 2.63 4.19 Pineapple 0.81 1.22 1.90 1.00 Rice 4.82 6.49 7.40 9.47 Coconut 1.00 0.54 0.59 0.90 Fruits 1.14 1.53 2.18 2.62 vegetables 2.12 2.41 2.72 3.74 Source: Mustapha (1981), op. cit. .... Table 2. 295 Table H5: Import Value And Research Expenditure Of Selected Crops Compared To Vegetables. (MS mil.) Rice Fruits vegetables 1975 Research 4.99 - - Imports 88.00 27.00 46.00 1976 Research 4.82 2.67 2.12 Imports 75.00 25.00 44.00 1977 Research 6.49 1.53 2.41 Imports 92.00 32.00 58.00 1978 Research 7.40 2.18 2.72 Imports 72.00 48.00 52.00 1979 Research 9.47 2.62 3.74 Imports 85.00 72.00 52.00 Source: Mustapha (1981), op. cit. . Table 6. BIBLIW BIEEKIEEPHY Amir, Pervaiz (1985); 'Increasing The Productivity Of Rice Based Farming Systems Of The Pakistan Punjab'; Unpublished Ph. D Dissertation, MSU, East Lansing, Michigan. Askari, H. and Cunmings,J.T. (1977); 'Estimating Agricultural Response with The Nerlove Model: A survey. ' International Economic Review; Vol.18:2. pg. 257 -292. Baclunan, K.L.; and P.A. Leonardo (1979); 'Rapid Food Production Growth In Selected Developing Countries: A Comparative Analysis of Underlying trends, 1961-76. ' Research Report 11 , IFPRI, Washington. Boehm, W.T., and R.C. Kite,(1979); 'Food Prices And Policy;' Economics, Statistics, and Cooperative Services; USDA, Washington . Calkins, P.H. (1978):'Why Farmers Plant What They Do: A Study of Vegetable Production Technology in Taiwan; ' AVRDC, Tech. Bull. 8 (78-74) Shuahua, Taiwan, ROC. Calkins, P.H. (1978b). 'Labor and Other Input Availability in Determining Vegetable Production Technology in Asia; ' In Acta Horticulturae. No.77. Calkins, P.H. (1978c). 'Improving Smallscale Tomato Production in The Tropics: ' In 'First International Symposium on Tropical Tomato:' Edited By R.L. Villareal and (LC. Mocmaw, mo 22-32. Chen,H.Y. (1974); 'A Study of Vegetable Retailing Costs In Taiwan; ' in 'Some Studies of Fresh Fruits And Vegetables Marketing In Asia; ' Edited By H.Southworth. ADC( Singapore). Collinson, M.P.(1972); Farm Management In Peasant Agriculture. A Handbook For Rural Development Flaming In Africa; Praeger, New York. Delgado, C.L. (1979); 'Livestock Versus Food Grain Production in Southeast Upper Volta: A Resource Allocation Analysis; ' Center for Research on Econ. Development, Ann Arbor. 296 297 Dept. of Agriculture, (1981); 'Bendi' in 'Bingkisan Pertanian Bil. 31, ' Extension Section, DOA, Kuala Lumpur (in 'Bahasa Malaysia' ). --------- ,(1982); 'Bayam' in 'Bingkisan Pertanian No: 45;' Extension Section, DOA, Kuala Lumpur (in 'Bahasa Malaysia' ). --------- ,(1982); 'Tauato' in 'Bingkisan Pertanian Bil. 6a,' Extension Section, DOA, Kuala Lumpur (in 'Bahasa Malaysia' ). --------- ,(1983); 'Cili;' in 'Bingkisan Pertanian Bil. 33,‘ Extension Section, DOA, Kuala Lumpur (in 'Bahasa Malaysia'). --------- ,(1984); 'Petola Segi' in 'Bingkisan Pertanian No: 52' Extension Section, DOA, Kuala Lumpur (in 'Bahasa Malaysia' ). --------- ,(1985); 'Termg, ' Agric. Bulletin 35, Extension Section Department of Agriculture, Kuala Lumpur (in 'Bahasa Malaysia' ). Department Of Statistics, (1978); 'Census of Wholesale and Retail Trades In The Urban Areas of Peninsular Malaysia, 1972; ' Kuala Lumpur. ---------- ,(1978); 'Sample Survey of Wholesale And Retail Trades in Peninsular Malaysia, 1974; ' Kuala Lumpur. --------- ,(1981); 'Sample Survey of Wholesale And Retail Trade In Peninsular Malaysia, 1978; ' Kuala Lumpur. ---------- ,(1972-84); 'Vital Statistics of Peninsular Malaysia;' Govt. of Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, various issues. --------- ,(undated); 'Household Expenditure Survey 1973: Smeary Statistics;' HES Report No. 1, Kuala Lumpur. De Wilde, T. (1978); 'Some General Price and Cropping Pattern Data from Giwa District ; ' Inst. for Agricultural Research, Somaru. Edward, C. (1958); 'Resource Fixity, Credit Availiability And Agricultural Organisation; ' unpublished Ph. D. thesis, MSU, East lansing. Eponou, T. (1983); 'Farm Level Analysis of Rice Production Systems in Northwestern Ivory Coast;' Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, MSU, East Lansing, Michigan. Evans, S; and T.M. Bell.(1978);'How Cotton Acreage, Yield, and Production Response to Price Changes;' USDA Agric. Econ. Res. Vol. 30:2, pp. 10-15. 298 FAMA, (1974): 'Background Paper On The Cabbage Industry;' FAMA, Kuala Lumpur (unpublished). FAMA, (1982-84); 'Warta Barangan;' FAMA, Kuala Lumpur (various issues.) FAMA, (1983); ' Background Informations To Vegetable Production Marketing In Cameron Highland' FAMA, Ipoh (in Malay, unpublished). FAMA, (1985); 'Vegetable Marketing In Cameron Highland' FAMA, Cameron Highland, (in 'Bahasa Malaysia', unpublished). FAMA, (1986); 'Consumption of Selected Commodities For 1982 and 1985: Household Survey;' FAMA, Kuala Lumpur (unpublished). FAO, UN (1967); 'Agricultural Commodities Projection For 1980; ' Rome. FAO, UN (1970-82);'Trade Yearbook, 'Rome, 1970-82,various issues. FAO, UN (1970-84);'Production Yearbook; ' Rome; (various issues). FAO, UN (1971); 'Agricultural Comnodity Projections, 1970-1980;' Vol. I and II. United Nations, Rome. FAO, UN (1977);'Review of Food Consumption Surveys 1977, ' Vol.2, Rome. FAO, UN (1984); 'Income Elasticity of Demand For Agricultural Products Estimated From Household Consumption And Budget Survey, ' Rome (Microfische). French, B.C. (1974); 'The Subsector as a Conceptual Framework for Guiding and Conducting Research. 'Amer. Journ. of Agric. Econs., Dec. 1974. pg. 1014-1022. Ginting, M. (1974); 'Costs, Margins, and Channels For Exporting Vegetables Fran North Sumatra, ' in Some Studies Of Fresh Fruits And Vegetables Marketing In Asia, H. Southworth (ed), ADC(S'pore) . Gomez, A.A. (1975); 'Introduction and Impact of Multiple Cropping in Selected Communities in the Philippines, ' Phillipinines Economics Journal 27:14. Govt. of Malaysia (1970-84); 'Economic Reports,‘ 1970-84, Govt. Printers, Kuala Lumpur , (various issues). 299 ---------- ,(1976); 'Third Malaysia Plan 1976-80. ' Govt. Printers, Kuala Lumpur. ---------- , (1981); 'Fourth Malaysia Plan 1981-85', Government Printers, Kuala Lumpur. ---------- , (1984); 'National Agricultural Policy' , Government Printers, Kuala Lumpur, (in 'Bahasa Malaysia' ). Grubben, G.J.H. (1977), 'Tropical Vegetables and Their Genetic Resources; ' International Board of Plant Genetic Resources, Rome. Harrison, K; D.Henley; H. Riley; J. Schaffer. (1974). 'Improving Food Marketing Systems in Developing Countries: Experiences From Latin America. 'Res. Rep. No.6. Latin American Studies Center , MSU 1974. Hashim, M. Y. (1981); 'The Agricultural'Research System In Malaysia: A Study of Resource Allocation to Agricultural Research' in 'Resource Allocation to Agricultural Research: Proceeding of A Workshop. ' Edited by Douglas Daniels and Ber-1y Nestel , Singapore. Hassan, H. (1982); 'Tanaman Timun:' Agriculture Bulletin No: 49; Extension Section, DOA, Kuala Lumpur, (in 'Bahasa Malaysia' ). ---------- , (1983); 'Tomato Tanah Pamah;' Agric. Bulletin No.6, Extension Section, DOA, Kuala Lumpur, (in 'Bahasa Malaysia'). Hitchings, J.A. (1984); 'The Economics of Cotton Cultivation In India - Supply and Demand 1980-90, ' World Bank Staff Working Papers No. 618. Hopper, W. (1965). 'Allocation Efficiency in a Traditional Indian Agriculture; ' Journ. of Farm Econs. Vol. 47. Hormann, D.M, (1984) ; 'Concept for Investigation of The Domestic Market For Fruits and Vegetables In A Developing Country. ' Acta Horticulturae No. 155, pg.229-234. Hsu, H.Y. (1974); 'An Economic Analysis of Marketing Loss of Fresh Fruits And Vegetables in Taiwan; ' in 'Some Studies of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Marketing in Asia, H.Southworth (ed), Agricultural Development Council. Jantan, M. 2.; A.H.Long; Ragavan Rajoo and Hasmah Hassan (1982); 'Kobis Bulat Tanah Pamah, ' Agric. Bulletin No: 5, Extension Section, DOA, Kuala Lumpur (in Malay). 300 Johnson, D. G. (1947), Forward Prices For Agriculture; University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Johnson, G. (1983). 'Growth and Equity in Agric. Development.‘ Proceedings of the 18th International Oonf. of Agric. Econanists; A. Mauder, and K.Ohkawa (eds.). Johnson, C.L.; S.H.Wittwer. (1984). 'Agricultural Technology Until 2030: Prospects, Priorities and Policies. ' MSU Agric. Experimental Station Special Report No. 12. July. Kambe, M.K (1974); ' New Opportunities In Fresh Fruits And Vegetables Marketing in Metropolitan Agriculture, 'in 'Some Studies of Fresh Fruits And Vegetables Marketing In Asia, ' edited by H.Southworth; ADC, Singapore. Kamuaga, M. (1982). 'Farm Labor Studies of Rice Production Systems at the Office Du Niger in Mali: An Economic Analysis. ' Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, MSU, East Lansing, Michigan. Khoo, G. H., and C. C. Lau (1982); 'Farm Enterprise Budgets For Short Term Crops; ' Farm Management Guide No: 11, Extension Section, Dept. of Agriculture, Kuala Lumpur. Khor, K.P, (1984); 'Recession And The Malaysian Economy, ' Institiut Masyarakat, Penang. Krisna, R., (1984); 'Price and Technology Policies, ' in Agricultura Development in The Third World; Edited by Eicher,C.K. and J.M. Staatz, John Hopkins, pg.168-l75. Librero, A.R. and R.L. Nasol; (1974). 'Techniques of Demand Projections For Fresh Fruits And Vegetables, ' in 'Some Studies of Fresh Fruits And Vegetables Marketing in Asia: ' edited by H. Southworth, ADC , Singapore. Lin, W. (1977) . 'Measuring Aggregate Supply Response Under Instability; ' AJAE, 59:5 pg.903-907. Loh, W.Y.(1974), 'Cabbage Marketing Problems in West Malaysia, ' in 'Some Studies of Fresh Fruits And Vegetables Marketing in Asia; ' edited by H.Southworth; ADC, Singapore. Looi, W.K. (1982); 'Tanaman Cili;' Agricultural Bulletin 33, Extension Section, DOA, Kuala Lumpur, (in Malay). Mackintosh, M. (1977); 'Fruits and Vegetables As An International Connodity,‘ Food Policy, 2:4; pg.277-292. 301 Mahmud, A.B. (1985); 'Diversification Trend in Malaysian Agriculture: Options For The Future; ' Paper Presented at International Rubber Conference , Kuala Lumpur . Malaysian Trade Camission, (1984); 'Market For Fresh Vegetables In Singapore;' Ministry of Trade And Industries, Kuala Lumpur. (unpublished) . MARDI (1981), 'An Agro-Econanic Survey of Vegetable Farming In Peninsular Malaysia-A Special Report; ' MARDI, Kuala Lumpur. MARDI (1985), 'Anggaran Kos Pengeluaran Dan Pendapatan Untuk Tanaman Dan Ternakan; ' Techno-EconomioAnd Social Section, MARDI, Kuala Lumpur. Ministry Of Agriculture, (1973-84); 'Miscellaneous Crops Report' Kuala Lumpur. (Various Issues). --------- , (1974-83); 'Imports Exports Trade In Food and Agricultural Products, P. Malaysia;' Kuala Lumpur, (in Malay); various issues. Mittendorf, H.J.; and O. Hertag (1982); 'Marketing Costs And Marketing Margins For Major Food Items In Developing Countries;' FAO, UN (Mimeo). Mustapha, N. I.(1981); 'The Agricultural Research Resource Allocation System In Peninsular Malaysia; ' in 'Resource Allocation System to Agricultural Research: Proceeding of a Workshop; Edited by Douglas Daniels and Barry Nestel, Singapore . Norman, D.W.(l970); 'Initiating Change in Traditional Agriculture;' Proceeding Agricultural Society of Nigeria No: 7. Ortmann,G.F. (1982). 'Demand Analysis of Vegetables and Subtropi- cal Fruits in South Africa,‘ Agrekon(S.Africa), 21:2. Petit, M.J. and J.B. Viallon (1968); 'The Grain-Livestock Economy Of France - With Projections To 1970 and 1975; ' Institute of International Agriculture, Research Report No.3, MSU, MSU, East Lansing. Riley, H., and J. Staatz, (1981); 'Food System Organisation Problems In Developing Countries;' Agricultural Development SembmnrReparh,EastIMmmung. Quance, C. L. (1972); "Capital" in "The Overproduction Trap In US Agriculture," Edited by G.L. Johnson and C.L. Quance, John Hopkins Unversity Press, Baltimore. 302 Ruttan, V.W. and Y.Hayami. (1984), 'Induced Innovation Model of Agricultural Developuen ;' in 'Agricultural Development in Third WOrld;' Edited by C.K. Eicher and J.Mg Staatz; Jehn Hopkins, Baltimore, pg.59-74. Schubert, B., H. Butscher, C. Kellner, et al. (1982).'vegetables in East Kalimantan: A Consultative Study For the German Agency For Technical Cooperation.‘ Center for Advanced Training in.Agricultural Development. Inst. of Socio- Economics of Agric. Dev. Technical university of Berlin. Schultz, T.W. (1964);'Transforming Traditional Agriculture'; New Haven, Yale university Press. Schultz, T.W. (1975);'Value to deal with.Disequilibrium'; Jaurnal of Economic Literature XIII (Sept); pg.827-846. Schultz, T. W. ,(1984); 'The Economic Of Agricultural Research' reprinted in 'Agricultural Development In The Third W0r1d'; Carl K. Eicher and John M. Staatz (Editors), Jehn Hepkins, pg.335-349. Schaffer, J.D. (1980). 'Food Systems Organization and Performance: Towards a Conceptual Framework.' Amer. JOurn. of Agric. Econs. May, pg. 310-318. Seketheera, Rapeepun (1979); 'The Allocation of Family Resources To Farm And Non Farm Activities In A Village In Northern Thailand;' Ph. D Dissertation, MSU, East Lansing, Michigan. Shalit, H. (1984); 'Does it pays to Stabilise the Price Of Vegetable? : An Emperical Evaluation of Agricultural Price Policies;' European Review of Agric. Economic, 11(1984), pg. 1-16 . Stevens, R.D.(1965);'Elasticities of Food Consumption Associated with Changes in Income in Developing Countries; USDA Foreign Agriculture Economic Report No. 23, Washington. Stevens, R.D. (1977); 'Tradition And Dynamics In Small Farm Agriculture' Ames: Iowa university Press. Teng, Yew-Thai,(1981); 'Seed Improvement, Production and Quality of vegetables Crops in Peninsular Malaysia.‘ Acta Herticul- turae no.111, pg.265-270. Stigler, G.J., R. A. Sherwin, (1985); 'The Extent of the Market' Jaurnal of Law and Economics, v01. 28, Oct. 1985. 303 Tee, T.S,(1979); 'vegetable Production in Malaysia,‘ Acta Hor- ticulturae no.101, pg.35-45. Timer, C.P., W.P. Falcon, S.R. Pearson. (1983). 'Food Policy Analysis.’ Jehn Hopkins university Press. USDA, (1976); 'National Food Situation' 5:1977, ERS, USDA, washington. ---------- ,(1977); 'National Food Situation;' 9:1977, ERS, USDA, washington. USDA, (1985), South-East Asia- Outlook And Situation Report, (USDAPERS). United Nation, (1970-1983); 'Commodity Trade Statistics Series D,’ 1970-83. various issues. ‘ Villareal, R.L. (1980). 'Tomatoes in the Tropics.’ westview Press. ang,C.T. (1974); 'Marketing of Locally Produced Vegetables in Hang Kbng,‘ in 'Some Studies of Fresh Fruits And vegetables Marketing In Asia,‘ Edited by H.Southworth, ADC, Singapore. werld Bank (1984); 'Sector Report: Malaysia Incentive Policies In Agriculture'; vol. 1-3; werld Bank, washington. --------- , (1986); 'World Development Report;' world Bank, Oxford university Press. Zepp, G. and E. Smith. (1977). 'Wholesale Price-Quantity Relation- ship for Winter Season Fresh Cucumbers;'USDA—ERS vegetable Outlook Situation, pg. 32-35.