• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Title Page
 Acknowledgement
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Figures
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Presentation of survey informa...
 Synthesis of data
 The model
 Analysis and results
 Summary, conclusions and recom...
 A translation of survey questi...
 Other data and tables
 Bibliography
 Reference
 Biographical Sketch






Title: Resource allocation among limited resource farmers in Sitiung 5c, West Sumatera, Indonesia
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00054864/00001
 Material Information
Title: Resource allocation among limited resource farmers in Sitiung 5c, West Sumatera, Indonesia
Physical Description: xiii, 134 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language: English
Creator: Kan, Stephenie K., 1957-
Publication Date: 1988
 Subjects
Subject: Agricultural resources -- Indonesia -- Sumatera Barat   ( lcsh )
Resource allocation   ( lcsh )
Family farms -- Indonesia -- Sumatera Barat   ( lcsh )
Rural families -- Indonesia -- Sumatera Barat   ( lcsh )
Food and Resource Economics thesis M.S
Dissertations, Academic -- Food and Resource Economics -- UF
Genre: bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )
 Notes
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 1988.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references (leaves 131-133)
Statement of Responsibility: by Stephenie K. Kan.
General Note: Typescript.
General Note: Vita.
Funding: Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00054864
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved, Board of Trustees of the University of Florida
Resource Identifier: aleph - 001156731
oclc - 20606108
notis - AFQ6868

Table of Contents
    Title Page
        Page i
    Acknowledgement
        Page ii
        Page iii
    Table of Contents
        Page iv
        Page v
        Page vi
    List of Tables
        Page vii
        Page viii
        Page ix
        Page x
    List of Figures
        Page xi
    Abstract
        Page xii
        Page xiii
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Generating technology for limited resource farmers
            Page 1
            Page 2
        The reseach setting: Sitiung, West Sumatera, Indonesia
            Page 3
            Page 4
            Page 5
            Page 6
        Problem statement
            Page 7
        Hypotheses
            Page 7
        Objectives
            Page 8
        The study area
            Page 9
            Page 10
            Page 11
        Information sources
            Page 12
            Enterprise recordkeeping study
                Page 13
            Farmer perspectives survey
                Page 14
            Production constraints survey
                Page 15
        Organization of the thesis
            Page 16
            Page 17
    Presentation of survey information
        Page 18
        Farmer perspective survey
            Page 18
            Page 19
            The farmers' view of their present food crops situation
                Page 20
                Page 21
                Page 22
            Farmer valuation of activies and goals
                Page 23
                Page 24
                Page 25
                Page 26
                Page 27
                Page 28
                Page 29
                Page 30
            Dealing with emergency resource constraints
                Page 31
                Page 32
                Page 33
                Page 34
            Farmer credit
                Page 35
                Page 36
                Page 37
            Farmer perspectives on off-farm work
                Page 38
                Page 39
                Page 40
                Page 41
                Page 42
                Page 43
            The animal aspect of the farm system
                Page 44
                Page 45
                Page 46
                Page 47
                Page 48
                Page 49
                Page 50
            Children
                Page 51
                Page 52
                Page 53
                Page 54
        Production-constraints survey
            Page 55
            Marketing
                Page 56
                Page 57
                Page 58
            Constraints
                Page 59
                Page 60
                Page 61
                Page 62
            Input use and crop yields
                Page 63
        Enterprise recordkeeping survey
            Page 63
            Page 64
            Page 65
    Synthesis of data
        Page 66
        Production conversions to land base
            Page 66
    The model
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Kilogram of seed per hectare
            Page 67
    Analysis and results
        Page 93
        Qualitative results
            Page 93
            Page 94
            Page 95
            Page 96
            Fertilizer rates and costs
                Page 68
            Average expected high and low crop yields per hectare
                Page 69
            Time series yield data
                Page 69
        Model analysis and results
            Page 97
            No limits on food purchases
                Page 97
                Page 98
                Page 99
            Seed
                Page 86
            Labor
                Page 86
                Page 87
        Limits on rice purchases
            Page 100
            Page 101
            Page 102
        Dual information
            Page 103
            Maximum annual rice consumption level
                Page 71
        Empirical specification of the model
            Page 81
            Page 82
            Page 83
            Page 84
        Comment on model development
            Page 104
            Page 105
            Page 106
            Page 107
            Page 108
            Minimum annual rice consumption level
                Page 72
            Maximum annual allowable amount of consumed cassava
                Page 72
            Variable costs
                Page 85
            Land
                Page 85
            Annual non-food cash requirements
                Page 73
            Corn and cassava intercrops
                Page 89
            Chickens
                Page 90
            Uncertainty
                Page 91
        Comment on data synthesis
            Page 74
            Other variables
                Page 92
            Consumption
                Page 88
        Consumption parameters
            Page 70
            Calorie and protein minimum annual levels
                Page 70
    Summary, conclusions and recommendations
        Page 109
        Summary
            Page 109
            Page 110
        Conclusions
            Page 111
            Page 112
    A translation of survey questions
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Recommendations
            Page 113
            Page 114
            Page 115
    Other data and tables
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
    Bibliography
        Page 131
        Page 132
    Reference
        Page 133
    Biographical Sketch
        Page 134
Full Text









RESOURCE ALLOCATION AMONG LIMITED RESOURCE FARMERS
IN SITIUNG 5c, WEST SUMATERA, INDONESIA
















BY

STEPHENIE K. KAN


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


1988













ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


I am very grateful and indebted to Drs. Chris O. Andrew and Thomas

H. Spreen for their guidance in the analysis and writing of this

thesis. I appreciate the great amount of time and the assistance and

encouragement they have given to me. I also appreciate their

expertise and the responsibility they took in guiding me. I would also

like to thank Drs. Stephen R. Kostewicz and Art Hansen for their

support, and Dr. Raymond C. Littell of the Statistics Department for

his 'assistance in formulating a procedure to synthesize time series

yield data.

I owe much thanks to TropSoils for their support of my research,

in particular, to Dr. Gordon Y. Tsuji of the University of Hawaii and

his staff for their support, assistance and concern. I wish to

especially acknowledge and thank the members of the TropSoils CRSP in

Sitiung: Dan and Judy Gill and family and Mike and Ann Wade and family

for their hospitality and for introducing me to the Indonesian culture

and people; and Carol Colfer and Stacy and Carl Evenson for their

friendship and assistance in helping to set up my research. I also

wish to thank Drs. I. Putu Gedjer and Sri Adiniugsih, of the Center for

Soils Research (CSR) staff of the Indonesian Agriculture Department,

for their support and concern, and the CSR staff members at Sitiung

for making me welcome at their living compound and for their


ii






assistance in Javanese and Sundanese language translation problems and

points of culture. In particular I would like to thank Ir. Cuk

Sugiyarso for his invaluable input in the formulation of my surveys

and assistance in translating survey questions and in interviewing.

Special thanks are also due to Suandi, the Sitiung 5c technician, for

his assistance in monitoring my Enterprise Records and for his

knowledge of Sitiung 5c and its community; and to Lasmi for helping me

learn the Indonesian language and for giving me first hand insight as

to how it is to be a transmigrant. I also wish to thank Dr. Peter

Hildebrand for his support and for providing me this opportunity to do

research in Sitiung and for setting up my stay there.

Lastly, I would like to thank my family for their support, caring

and concern while I was overseas and through the writing of this

thesis.













TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................. ii

LIST OF TABLES................................................... vii

LIST OF FIGURES.................................................... xi

ABSTRACT........................................................... xii

CHAPTERS

1 INTRODUCTION................................................. 1

Generating Technology for Limited Resource Farmers.......... 1
The Research Setting: Sitiung, West Sumatera,
Indonesia.................................................. 3
Problem Statement............................................ 7
Hypotheses................................................. 7
Objectives................................................... 8
The Study Area .............................................. 9
Information Sources.......................................... 12
Enterprise Recordkeeping Study............................. 13
Farmer Perspectives Survey................................ 14
Production Constraints Survey........................... 15
Organization of the Thesis................................... 16

2 PRESENTATION OF SURVEY INFORMATION.......................... 18

Farmer Perspectives Survey.................................. 18
The Farmers' View of Their Present Food Crops Situation... 20
Farmers' Valuation of Activities and Goals ................ 23
Dealing with Emergency Resource Constraints............... 31
Farmer Credit.............................................. 35
Farmers' Perspectives on Off-Farm Work.................... 38
The Animal Aspect of the Farm System...................... 44
Children.................................................. 51
Production Constraints Survey............................... 55
Marketing.................................................. 56
Constraints............................................... 60
Input Use and Crop Yields ................................ 63
Enterprise Recordkeeping Survey............................. 64


iv







Page

3 THE SYNTHESIS OF DATA....................................... 66

Production Conversions to a Land Base........................ 66
Kilograms of Seed per Hectare............................. 67
Fertilizer Costs.......................................... 68
Average Exptected High and Low Crop Yields per Hectare.... 69
Average Crop Yields per Hectare........................... 69
Consumption Parameters..................................... 70
Calorie and Protein Minimum Annual Levels................. 70
Maximum Annual Rice Consumption Level..................... 71
Minimum Annual Rice Consumption Level..................... 72
Maximum Annual Allowable Amount of Consumed Cassava........ 72
Annual Non-Food Cash Requirements......................... 73
Comments on Data Synthesis.................................. 74

4 THE MODEL.................................................... 75

Empirical Specification of the Model........................ 81
Variable Costs ............................................ 85
Land....................................................... 85
Seed...................................................... 86
Labor...................................................... 86
Consumption................................................ 88
Corn and Cassava Intercrops............................... 89
Chickens ................................................. 90
Uncertainty................................................ 91
Other Variables......... ................................... 92

5 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS......................................... 93

Conceptual Analysis......................................... 93
Model Analysis and Results.................................. 97
No Limits on Food Purchases................................. 97
Limits on Rice Purchases .................................. 99
Dual Information.......................................... 103
Comment on Model Development.............................. 104

6 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.................... 109

Summary ...................................................... 109
Conclusions................................................. 111
Recommendations............................................... 113

APPENDICIES

A TRANSLATION OF SURVEY QUESTIONS............................. 116

Farmer Perspectives Survey.................................. 116
Production-Constraints Survey............................... 119
Enterprise Recordkeeping Survey.............................. 120


v







Page

B OTHER DATA AND TABLES ....................................... 123

BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................................... 131

ADDITIONAL REFERENCES ........................................... 133

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................... 134












LIST OF TABLES


Table Page

2-1 Composition of sample by ethnic group...................... 19

2-2 Distribution of sample by length of residence............... 19

2-3 Have your harvests increased since you came to
Sitiung 5c?.............................................. 22

2-4 Reasons given by farmers for a positive response in
Table 2-3................................................ 22

2-5 Reasons given by farmers for a non-positive answer in
Table 2-3................................................ 22

2-6 Do you think that your harvests will increase in the
future?................................. ................. 23

2-7 Clarification given by farmers for a positive response to
Table 2-6 ................................................ 23

2-8 Are your harvests enough for food, seed, fertilizer/
pesticide, household and/or hired labor costs? ........... 28

2-9 If you had very little money, what would you do first?..... 28

2-10 Breakdown of fertilizer/pesticide response in Table 2-9.... 29

2-11 If you had much money, what would you do?.................. 29

2-12 What is the best way to save money?........................ 29

2-13 Kinds of animals (first choices) mentioned by those farmers
preferring animals as a means of savings.................. 30

2-14 What do you plan to plant on your second field?............ 30

2-15 Crop combinations specified by farmers for their second
field .................................................... 31

2-16 What problems do you anticipate concerning your second
field? ................................................... 31

2-17 What do you do when you need money?........................ 33


vii






Table Page

2-18 Selling activities of Table 2-17........................... 33

2-19 Work activities of Table 2-17 ............................... 33

2-20 Who farmers would borrow from in Table 2-17................ 34

2-21 What would you do if you did not have money, food or work?. 34

2-22 Lenders in Table 2-21...................................... 34

2-23 Selling activities of Table 2-21........................... 34

2-24 Work activities of Table 2-21............................... 35

2-25 What do you borrow from the store? ......................... 36

2-26 Specific kinds of food in Table 2-25....................... 37

2-27 Other items borrowed in Table 2-25.......................... 37

2-28 How do you pay the store back?............................. 37

2-29 How much do you owe the store now?......................... 38

2-30 Summary of debt information................................. 38

2-31 What kinds of off-farm work do you look for?............... 41

2-32 Is it more difficult to find work than last year?.......... 41

2-33 Why don't you look for non-local work?..................... 41

2-34 Can you always find work when you need it?................. 41

2-35 Would you take a permanent job?............................ 41

2-36 Reasons for not taking a permanent job in Table 2-35....... 43

2-37 If you had a permanent job, who would look after your farm? 43

2-38 Wages for local agricultural labor in Sitiung 5c........... 43

2-39 Wages for labor outside of Sitiung 5c...................... 43

2-40 What gotong royong activities do you participate in?....... 44

2-41 Why do you keep chickens?.................................. 47

2-42 What do you feed your chickens?............................ 47


viii






Table

2-43

2-44


When do you sell chickens? ............

Do you want a goat?...................

Reasons for wanting a goat...........

Reasons for not wanting a goat........

Do you want a cow?....................

Is there enough food in Sitiung 5c to


2-45

2-46

2-47

2-48

2-49

2-50


2-51 Would you plant forage for a cow?.


Reasons for wanting a cow..................

Reasons for not wanting a cow..............

Number of children.........................

Average ages of children ...................

Age mixtures of children...................

Age distributions of children..............

At what age can children begin working and

Age distributions of children in school and

Where farmers well their crops.............

Average crop prices per kilogram in Rupiah.

Farmer perceived constraints to food crops.

Average amount of seed and area planted....


work as adults?

out of school.


2-64 Fertilizer and pesticide applications......................

3-1 Annual caloric requirements for a family of five...........

3-2 Annual protein requirements for a family of five...........

3-3 Annual non-food requirements...............................


ix


Additional data on chickens in Sitiung 5c......

When do you eat your chickens?.................


feed a cow?


48

48
48


2-52

2-53

2-54

2-55

2-56

2-57

2-58

2-59

2-60

2-61

2-62

2-63


.....................





Table Page

5-1 Values obtained with no food purchase limits............... 106

5-2 Values obtained with rice purchase limits.................. 107

5-3 Dual prices for rice purchase limit model................... 108

B-I Calories and protein per kilogram food item used in the
model............................ ......................... 123

B-2 Fertilizer useage.......................................... 124

B-3 Soybean productivity...................... .. ........ ... 125

B-4 Peanut productivity........................................ 126

B-5 Rice productivity.......................................... 127

B-6 Corn productivity.......................................... 128

B-7 Mungbean productivity...................................... 129

B-8 Cassava productivity ........ .............................. 130












LIST OF FIGURES


Figure Page

1-1 Map of Indonesia............................................ 5

1-2 Map of West Sumatera ........................................ 6

A-i Enterprise Recordkeeping Survey form. ...................... 122












Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

RESOURCE ALLOCATION AMONG LIMITED RESOURCE FARMERS
IN SITIUNG 5c, WEST SUMATERA, INDONESIA

By

Stephenie K. Kan

August 1988

Chairman: Chris 0. Andrew
Major Department: Food and Resource Economics

Developing appropriate and acceptable technology for limited

resource farmers is made difficult by the nature of these farms, and our

limited ability to identify basic economic data relative to their

farming systems. A distinguishing characteristic of limited resource

farmers is the integration of the farm household as the central part of

the farming system. These farmers will tend to view their farm

activities from the perspective of family welfare rather than from a

strictly production point of view. Maintaining and protecting family

welfare often is their primary objective. Consequently, these farmers

are sensitive to activities that might jeopardize family welfare and

therefore, survival. This sensitivity causes limited resource farmers

to be highly risk averse and to select groups of household and

production activities which minimize risk at the expense of maximizing

profits.

The research for this thesis was carried out in Sitiung 5c, a

transmigration area on West Sumatera, Indonesia. It characterizes the


xii






Sitiung 5c farmer's allocation of resources among many alternative

activities. Data collected in Sitiung 5c were used to simulate time-

series yield data and other production and consumption information for

use in the formulation of a typical household model.

Sitiung 5c farmers allocate resources in a manner that they

perceive will assure family survival. They are more concerned with

minimizing consumption risks than conventional production risks. As

illustrated in the model, the more risk averse the farmers are, the more

the farmers will concentrate their resources on staple crops at the

expense of their cash crops. Assuring family survival involves planning

for immediate and for future consumption. Farmers plan to assure long-

run survival by minimizing consumption risk over time through investing

resources in activities which will produce returns in the future. They

may sacrifice improved productivity of short-run activities such as

annual food cropping activities by allocating resources, once shorc-run

survival is assured, to investment activities.

Because of the tendency by risk averse farmers to allocate more

resources to their consumption crops at the expense of their cash crops,

the higher the farmers' aversion to risk, the lower their net income.

Highly risk averse farmers would have low net incomes and, therefore,

would have few resources to invest in new technologies. Decreasing crop

productivity over time may cause farmers to become more risk averse. As

net incomes decrease, the farmers would have fewer resources to invest

in their consumption crops causing productivity to decrease further and

risk aversion to increase even more. The barrier to the adoption of

new technologies due to risk aversion is compounded by lack of funds due

to lower incomes.


xiii I












CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION



Generating Technology for Limited Resource Farmers



Limited resource farmers are unique because, unlike other

production processes where the business and the people involved in the

production process are two distinct units, the division between farm

business and farm household is not distinct. The presence of the farm

household as an integrated and central part of the farm system

complicates the process of technology generation for the limited

resource farmer.

In a typical business benefits and costs can be measured. Those

activities which are the most profitable, have an acceptable level of

risk, and achieve other desired socio-economic criteria are selected

above those activities which fail to satisfy all or some combination of

the criteria. Resources are allocated to those chosen activities and

diverted from those less profitable activities. The inclusion of the

farm household into the farm system adds the family welfare dimension

to the allocation of resources.

When the household is considered in the allocative process, risk

and the valuation of activities must be looked at from the prospective

of family welfare. It is difficult to put a value on crops used for

consumption by the household. Placing a market value on these crops

1












CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION



Generating Technology for Limited Resource Farmers



Limited resource farmers are unique because, unlike other

production processes where the business and the people involved in the

production process are two distinct units, the division between farm

business and farm household is not distinct. The presence of the farm

household as an integrated and central part of the farm system

complicates the process of technology generation for the limited

resource farmer.

In a typical business benefits and costs can be measured. Those

activities which are the most profitable, have an acceptable level of

risk, and achieve other desired socio-economic criteria are selected

above those activities which fail to satisfy all or some combination of

the criteria. Resources are allocated to those chosen activities and

diverted from those less profitable activities. The inclusion of the

farm household into the farm system adds the family welfare dimension

to the allocation of resources.

When the household is considered in the allocative process, risk

and the valuation of activities must be looked at from the prospective

of family welfare. It is difficult to put a value on crops used for

consumption by the household. Placing a market value on these crops

1






2

assumes that the farm household is able to buy these crops if they do

not grow them, which is not always the case. The value of consumed

crops is difficult to estimate, particularly if the farm household

cannot afford to buy them in the market. Therefore, the limited

resource farmers will choose crop mixtures and activities that will

insure survival rather than maximize profits (Herath, 1980; Feder,

1980). Since the farm is involved with life sustaining activities

rather than merely profitable activities, the limited resource farmer

will be less willing to take risks. The aversion to risk is a

particular characteristic of limited resource farmers especially when

comparing them to commercial farms (Blackburn, et. al., 1979; Perrin

and Winkelman; 1976). Because of scarce resources, the limited

resource farmer is also much less able to absorb losses and the costs

of failure are very high, perhaps non survival.

The farm household must allocate scarce resources among competing

consumption and production needs to insure at least the minimum

necessities for survival. These limited resource farmers are,

therefore, more oriented to economic survival rather than monetary

goals or economic success (Pemberton and Craddock, 1979). Returns from

the farm business are not necessarily reinvested in the farm, but are

directed to the farm household for allocation. Therefore, the

acceptability of new technology to these limited resource farmers will

depend largely on how well the new technology can compete with other

alternatives (including the traditional methods that the new technology

is developed to replace) for resources, the amount of additional risk

that the new technology is perceived to involve, and the resulting








change in production, income and/or family welfare likely from use of

the new technology.



The Research Setting: Sitiung. West Sumatera. Indonesia



In 1976 the Indonesian government began a national transmigration

program on the western portion of the island of Sumatera. The program

was implemented to help relieve the population pressure on the island

of Java and to develop the lightly populated outer islands.

The Sitiung transmigration project is located on approximately

100,000 hectares of what was primarily rain forest. Much of the rain

forest has already been cleared to make room for the transmigrants.

The soils of the Sitiung area range in quality from moderately fertile

Inceptisols on the river terraces to highly leached and impoverished

Oxisols and Ultisols of the dissected peneplain (Neil, 1985).

Sitiung's position is one degree south latitude, 100 meters elevation

and has a mean annual rainfall of 2800 mm and a mean annual air

temperature of 26 degrees celsius. There is a wet season and a dry

season. The term "dry season" is a little misleading because it does

rain during the dry season, however the rain does not fall at regular

intervals. Because the soils are highly aggregated, they do not retain

water very well. Therefore, in spite of the high annual rainfall,

drought conditions will prevail if rain does not fall regularly.

The Sitiung transmigrants belong to two major ethnic groups, the

Sundanese from West Java and the Javanese from East Java. Members of

the indigenous ethnic group, the Minangkabau have also been included in

I






4

the transmigration program. Each of these three ethnic groups are

distinctly different culturally and linguistically. The farming

practices of the transmigrants and the indigenous ethnic group also

differ. The transmigrants are used to an intensive agricultural system

while the Minangkabau utilizes a slash and burn system.

There are currently nine resettlement areas in Sitiung. The first

was established in 1976 and is unique because it consists of an entire

population which was relocated from Central Java when the construction

of a dam flooded their original lands. This first group of

transmigrants has retained its old community structure, many retained

their wealth from their old villages, and all were compensated by the

government for their losses due to the dam construction. The

transmigrants of Sitiung 1 have also been resettled on the more fertile

river terraces and are the recipients of a large irrigation project.

The later transmigrants were recruited from among the poorest of the

poor (families with- few possessions and little or no land holdings;

these families would be most willing to transmigrate as they would have

the least to lose and the most to gain) in Java and their situation

differs greatly from that of Sitiung 1.

At the time of this study various biological research efforts

aimed at improving crop production and soil fertility were being

conducted in the Sitiung area. The TropSoils Project was not only

interested in basic biological research but also in the development and

transfer of technology appropriate for the local farmers. The Project

has adopted a farming systems approach in its generation of research

and this research has been conducted for the TropSoils Project.

{






















I A 1


o% ,

Ia sii
.z) Irlan
Jaya
P.




Ao PAPUA
N E



."0 NEW GUINEA



AUSTRALIA -


FIGURE 1-1: Map of Indonesia.
























M A LAY S I A


RIAN


J A MBI


SOUTH


SU MATERA


FIGURE 1-2: Map of Sumatera.


J 0
Jakarta






7

Problem Statement



The Sitiung 5c farmers can be characterized as limited resource

farmers. They are, therefore, risk averse and have few resources to

allocate among many competing activities. Identifying farm activities

where new technology can be generated which will be useful and

acceptable to the farmers is difficult. Much of the difficulty lies

within the farmers' system itself because their aversion to risk and

tight allocation of resources makes the system highly resistant to

change. Differences in the perceptions and goals held by farmers and

researchers also makes the selecting of appropriate production and

research activities difficult. Farmers tend to view their farming

systems from the perspective of family welfare while researchers tend

to view the farm activities from a production perspective. Therefore

those activities that researchers identify as priorities may at best

not be seen as priorities by the farmers and at worst threatening to

short and/or long term family welfare.






Hymotheses



Limited resource farmers in Indonesia have difficulty adopting new

technology because

1. New technology diverts resources away from those activities which

are perceived by the farm household as being of higher

importance.






7

Problem Statement



The Sitiung 5c farmers can be characterized as limited resource

farmers. They are, therefore, risk averse and have few resources to

allocate among many competing activities. Identifying farm activities

where new technology can be generated which will be useful and

acceptable to the farmers is difficult. Much of the difficulty lies

within the farmers' system itself because their aversion to risk and

tight allocation of resources makes the system highly resistant to

change. Differences in the perceptions and goals held by farmers and

researchers also makes the selecting of appropriate production and

research activities difficult. Farmers tend to view their farming

systems from the perspective of family welfare while researchers tend

to view the farm activities from a production perspective. Therefore

those activities that researchers identify as priorities may at best

not be seen as priorities by the farmers and at worst threatening to

short and/or long term family welfare.






Hymotheses



Limited resource farmers in Indonesia have difficulty adopting new

technology because

1. New technology diverts resources away from those activities which

are perceived by the farm household as being of higher

importance.





8

2. The farmer ranks the importance of his various activities not

necessarily according to profitability, but according to how well

certain activities can fulfill his goals of risk minimization and

survival.

3. Models which maximize profits with or without regard to risk do

not necessarily depict the behavior of limited resource farmers

who place great value on crops used for home consumption. A

model which takes into account crops which have a high

consumptive value, but not necessarily a high market value would

be more representative of these limited resource farmers.



Objectives



A general objective for this sudy is o characteriza :he farm-in .

system and allocation of resources from the farmer's perspective by

characterizing: a) how farmers rank their various family welfare

oriented activities according to importance and relative to the

household/production interaction, b) what they view as agricultural

constraints, c) what their goals are, and d) how they intend to fulfill

their goals. Specific objectives to address the hypotheses include:

1. Describe farmer perspectives, goals and constraints relative

to food crop production.

2. Describe farmer activities and practices relative to livestock

and crops, family labor, credit, and educational orientation.






9

3. Develop a model to depict farmer behavior in planning various

food cropping, livestock and consumption activities at various

degrees of risk aversion. This process, conceptually, is

sound while empirically limited by the range and quality of

the data.



The Study Area



Of the nine resettlement areas in Sitiung, the fifth, Sitiung 5 was

selected a research site. The reasons for choosing Sitiung 5 were its

relative accessibility, and the fact that it was more typical of the

transmigrants situation than Sitiung 1, which was much more accessible.

Each resettlement area is divided into blocks and block C was chosen,

again, because of its accessibility. Therefore, the research area will

be referred to as Sitiung 5c.

The first transmigrants arrived in Sitiung 5c in 1982. Of the 255

households, 124 are Sundanese, 126 are Javanese and 5 are Minangkabau.

Each household was allocated a cut (but not cleared) upland field of

one hectare, a one quarter hectare homestead upon which a small zinc

roofed wood house with dirt floor was provided, and in September 1986

an additional three quarter hectare parcel of land was given to the

farmers. This second field is still in forest and is to be cut and

cleared by the transmigrants themselves. The homesteads are clustered

together in a village type setting with the upland fields lying on the

outside of the village. Some are up to three kilometers away from the






10

transmigrants' homes. The transmigrants second parcel of land lies

even farther away.

Typical of other settlement areas (except Sitiung 1) the Sitiung 5c

transmigrants came from many different parts of Java and were recruited

from among the poorest of the poor. Therefore, the majority of the

transmigrants did not arrive in Sitiung 5c with significant amounts of

capital. The land upon which Sitiung 5c is located varies from

moderately to steeply sloping and erosion is a problem. The soil is

acid, low in fertility and does not retain water very well. Since

Sitiung 5c does not have irrigation, water stress is often a problem

with field crops.

Sitiung 5c is about nine kilometers of unpaved dirt road from the

main highway. There is transportation two days a week on market days,

Sunday and Wednesdays. The small private buses that service

Sitiung 5c transport both people and produce to market. Walking is the

main means of transportation in Sitiung 5c during non-market days;

however, there are a few privately owned motorcycles and bicycles.

Government-subsidized fertilizer is available to the farmers

through the village head and can be bought by credit or cash.

Fertilizer is also available at the markets. Because of transportation

costs, however, it is most economical to purchase fertilizer in the

village from the village head.

There are a number of small, privately owned stores in Sitiung 5c

where the farmers can purchase household goods, condiments, cooking oil

and kerosene. These stores vary from a few shelves in a home selling a

limited number of items to independent structures selling a wide range

!






11

of goods. There were two establishments equipped with wooden tables

and benches that sold prepared food--mainly hot noodles, chips and

drinks.

The homes are not equipped with running water. A few wells,

streams and water catchment barrels fill water needs. During the dry

season, when many wells go dry and the water levels in the streams

fall, it is particularly difficult for the transmigrants to obtain

water. The incidence of disease during this time is high.

The land around the home is cultivated, usually with food crops

such as peanuts, soybeans, cassava and corn. Most of the transmigrants

have planted tree crops on their homesteads. If the evolution of the

homesteads follows that of the older resettlement areas, the food crops

in the homestead will eventually give way to tree crops such as

jackfruit, coffee, rambutan, orange and others. The farmers make most

efficient use of their homesteads by planting food crops until they

become shaded out by the tree crops.

The upland fields are devoted to food crops though several farmers

have planted some tree crops on their upland fields. Soybeans and

peanuts are the main cash crops. Chili is grown, though not by all

farmers, and also provides a source of cash. Rice is a staple crop and

grown mainly for home consumption. Cassava is grown as a backup crop

to rice and is also sold for cash to a processing plant. Corn is

generally intercropped with soybeans or peanuts. Both corn and cassava

are often mixed with rice in order to supplement rice supplied during

difficult times. The farmers have three major outlets for their crops.






12

They can sell directly at the market, to a local store in Sitiung 5c or

to a trucker that visits Sitiung 5c periodically.

The Minangkabau have been included in the resettlement area. There

is a large section in Sitiung 5c given to Minangkabau settlers, however

the majority of Minangkabau settlers do not live in Sitiung 5c on a

permanent basis as many stayed only long enough to collect the settling

in benefits of food, tools, seed and fertilizer. Only five farms were

Counted as permanent residences and the rest were either abandoned or

planted with low management crops such as sugar cane and visited

periodically. Therefore this study concentrates on the transmigrant

settlers which make up 98% of the Sitiung 5c residents.



Information Sources



Very little basic economic information was available about the

transmigrant farmers in Sitiung 5c. Because of the farmer's

multicropping and intercropping system, yield measurements were

difficult to obtain. The farmers' estimation of their own yields was

not based on yield per area; therefore, they were unable to give yields

per hectare. Aside from measurement problems causing a lack of input

and yield. information, communication due to language differences was

another problem. The Indonesian national language was not spoken by

all of the farmers. Since the majority of interviews were carried out

in the national language, communication difficulties occurred.








Enterprise Recordkeening Study

Three pieces of work were carried out during the seven month study

period in Sitiung 5c. The first survey to be set up was an Enterprise

Recordkeeping Study. Ten farmers were selected for the study, five

from each ethnic group, Sundanese and Javanese. The reasons for the

small sample size was due to research personnel limitations. At the

time the records were started, the author was not sufficiently fluent

in the language to monitor the records, and the one technician who was

able to assist in the monitoring could only effectively monitor ten

farmers. Identifying farmers who could write and were willing to

complete the daily survey forms was difficult. The sample is

admittedly not random, however, the farming systems are relatively

homogeneous as the farmers were allotted the same amount of land and

goods upon arrival, and they all have very little in the way of

resources. Environmentally they all face similar constraints, they all

grow the same major crops, and within ethnic groups they have similar

farming practices.

The Enterprise Recordkeeping Survey was developed in Sitiung.

Because of timing problems, only the last part of the dry season

(harvest) and the first half of the wet season (land preparation and

planting) were covered. Therefore, from the beginning it was

understood that the records collected would not be useful in the

formulation of farm budgets. Instead, the survey forms were

constructed to collect more detailed information on specific cropping

activities, labor use, off-farm work and marketing.







14

The daily survey forms were pretested twice and translated into

both Javanese and Sundanese. One of the major problems encountered

with the form was the.recording of time. The farmers did not have or

use watches, therefore the recording of activity durations in hours was

very difficult for the farmers. Using fractions of the day was even

less satisfactory as the farmers would often record 72 hour days.

Finally a system using the position of the sun was adopted and the

farmers found this method of recording time much more understandable

and less frustrating. The daily survey forms were bound into one month

booklets and collected at the end of each month. For the first month

the farmers were visited several times to make sure that they

understood how to fill out the form. Six of the original farmers

chosen dropped out of the study during the first two months and six

other farmers were found to replace them. Therefore, only four farmers

participated for the full six month (June-November) duration of the

study.



Farmer Perspectives Survey

A survey was conducted in order to obtain some understanding of how

the farmers view their farming system. A general understanding of the

farmers' system was needed to act as a guide in the formulation of

questions. After four months of gathering information, a rough model

of the farm was developed. This model was used to guide the

development of this survey and the succeeding Production-Constraints

Survey. One of the major problems with the formulation of these

surveys was that, because of the lack of basic economic information, it






15

was difficult to determine what kinds of information to collect. It

was easy to become side-tracked by certain activities or concerns and

therefore collect too much detailed information on those activities and

not enough on other major activities.

The survey form was completed in September, pretested in October

and thirty interviews using the survey form were completed by mid-

November. The five page survey was fairly long and took from twenty

minutes to one hour to complete, depending on the language ability of

both farmer and interviewer. Most of the survey questions were open

ended so that the farmers could have some flexibility in their answers.

The survey covered a) farmer perceptions of farm production, b) farmer

activities and choices in the face of severe economic constraints, c)

perceptions of off-farm work, d) farmer credit availability, e) general

farmer goals, f) spending hierarchies, g) major cash expenditures, h)

investment, i) livestock activities, and j) general labor questions.



Production-Constraints Survey

The Production-Constraints Survey was conducted in November and

for the sake of time and accuracy, an interviewer who lived in the

study area and spoke both Javanese and Sundanese was hired to conduct

the interviews. Forty-six interviews were completed.

This survey was conducted to gain information on farmer viewed

constraints to major crops, general input use (what fertilizers and

pesticides were used on what crops), fertilizer application rates, the

kinds of crops grown on the upland fields, crop productivity and

marketing information. Farm productivity is difficult to estimate as






16

farmers tend to plant a patchwork of crops in their fields. Because of

the farmers' multicropping-intercropping system, yields per hectare are

difficult to estimate. However, the farmers themselves do have some

methods of evaluating the success of their harvests. According to the

technician who lived in the study area, the farmers tend to think more

in terms of yield per unit of seed rather than yield per hectare.

Therefore questions pertaining to crop productivity were asked in yield

per unit of seed rather than yield per hectare. Information on seed

spacing and the number of seeds per hole was gathered in order to get

some estimate of yield per hectare. Because of the lack of previously

conducted yield information, time series crop yield data was not

available. The farmers were able to give a range of yield variability

by giving the highest and lowest expected yields for each of their

crops.



Organization of the Thesis



A descriptive analysis of the Sitiung 5c farmers' situation is

given in Chapter II. The analysis is based on the three pieces of work

conducted in Sitiung 5c and on seven months of observation in the study

area. The objectives of this analysis is to describe the Sitiung 5c

farming system from the farmers' perspective and to suggest areas

within the farming system where research and new technology may be

most effective and acceptable to the farmers.

Chapter III describes how the numbers were derived from the data

for specific use in building a model (Chapter IV) based on an average






17

Sitiung 5c family. The model attempts to deal with the problem of crop

yield uncertainty within the constraint set and the competing demands

made on those crop yields. The model itself is a description of the

various production and consumption activities the farmers will choose

given various levels of risk and resource and consumption constraints.

In Chapter V a conceptual analysis of the quantitative data

presented in Chapter II and an analysis of the model results from

Chapter IV are presented. This thesis closes with Chapter VI finishes

this thesis with a presentation of conclusions and recommendations.













CHAPTER II
PRESENTATION OF SURVEY INFORMATION


Farmer PersDectives Survey


The reason for undertaking this survey was to gain some general

understanding of farmers' constraints, needs and goals and how the

farmers rank these factors to form their farming systems. The survey

consisted of 27 questions. Thirty-one farmers were interviewed between

October 14 and November 12, 1986. The sample was taken by randomly

choosing houses throughout Sitiung 5c and interviewing farmers who were

willing to be interviewed. Although 31 farmers were interviewed, due

to language difficulties (not all farmers understood the national

Indonesian language very well) and sheer reluctance by the farmers, not

all questions were answered by each farmer. Therefore the total number

of responses per question will not always equal 31.

The transmigrants (the Javanese and the Sundanese) were targeted;

however, two households from the i-ndigenous ethnic group, the

Minangkabau, were inadvertently interviewed. In the sample, 18

Javanese, 11 Sundanese and 2 Minangkabau farmers were interviewed

(Table 2-1).

The average residence period for households in Sitiung 5c has been

3.4 years with a range from 4 months to 4.5 years (Table 2-2). A

number of homesteads in Sitiung 5c had been abandoned by their original

occupants and subsequently occupied by young couples from among the

18













CHAPTER II
PRESENTATION OF SURVEY INFORMATION


Farmer PersDectives Survey


The reason for undertaking this survey was to gain some general

understanding of farmers' constraints, needs and goals and how the

farmers rank these factors to form their farming systems. The survey

consisted of 27 questions. Thirty-one farmers were interviewed between

October 14 and November 12, 1986. The sample was taken by randomly

choosing houses throughout Sitiung 5c and interviewing farmers who were

willing to be interviewed. Although 31 farmers were interviewed, due

to language difficulties (not all farmers understood the national

Indonesian language very well) and sheer reluctance by the farmers, not

all questions were answered by each farmer. Therefore the total number

of responses per question will not always equal 31.

The transmigrants (the Javanese and the Sundanese) were targeted;

however, two households from the i-ndigenous ethnic group, the

Minangkabau, were inadvertently interviewed. In the sample, 18

Javanese, 11 Sundanese and 2 Minangkabau farmers were interviewed

(Table 2-1).

The average residence period for households in Sitiung 5c has been

3.4 years with a range from 4 months to 4.5 years (Table 2-2). A

number of homesteads in Sitiung 5c had been abandoned by their original

occupants and subsequently occupied by young couples from among the

18






19

transmigrants. These couples make up the youngest households in

residence.



TABLE 2-1: Composition of sample by ethnic group.

Ethnic Group Households
No. (%)a
Javanese 18 (58.0)
Sundanese 11 (35.5)
Minangkabau 2 ( 6.5)
Total 31 (100.0)
a Percent of total sample (31).


TABLE 2-2: Distribution of sample by length of residence.

Years in Sitiung 5c Households
No. (%)a
0 .5 2 ( 6.5)
.6 1.0 2 ( 6.5)
1.1 1.5 0
1.6 2.0 0
2.1 2.5 1 ( 3.2)
2.6 3.0 1 ( 3.2)
3.1 3.5 6 (19.3)
3.6 4.0 17 (54.8)
4.1 4.5 _2 ( 6.5)
Total 31 (100.0)
a Percent of total sample (31).


For ease of comparison, the data will not be presented in the

order the survey questions were asked. Rather, the questions have been

separated into seven groups and will be presented within these

divisions. The groups are:

1. The farmers' view of their present food crops situation.

2. Farmers' valuation of activities and goals.

3. Dealing with emergency resource constraints.

4. Farmer credit.






20

5. Farmers' perspectives on off-farm work.

6. The animal aspect of the farm system.

7. Children.



The Farmers' View of Their Present Food Crops Situation

Q. 3: Have your harvest yields increased since you came to

Sitiung 5c?

Q. 4: Do you think that your harvest yields will increase in the

future?



The preceding two survey questions deal with the farmers'

assessment of their general food crops situation compared to the past

and their expectations for the future.

Nearly half (48%) of the sampled farmers felt that their harvests

had increased since they arrived in Sitiung 5c (Table 2-3). However,

these responses may appear more optimistic than reality warrants

considering the reasons farmers gave for their positive responses.

According to their answers (Table 2-4), land productivity has not

necessarily increased (the transmigrants have been allocated a finite

amount of land). Perceived increases in harvests were based on

comparing a difficult situation to a worse one (in Java) and bringing

more of the upland field into production. Therefore, it might be

reasonable to assume that actual productivity of the land itself may

not have increased by much. Reasons given for lack of productivity

increases were insect damage, wild pig damage and soil fertility

problems and the lack of capital (Table 2-5).






21

A majority of farmers (77%) expect their harvests to increase

(Table 2-6). Their optimism appears to be based on their ability to

obtain what they perceive as an adequate amount of agricultural inputs

(Table 2-7). Only one farmer was so pessimistic as to respond that he

didn't believe that his harvests would ever increase and the remaining

farmers expressed varying degrees of uncertainty.

From their answers, the farmers seem to have a fairly positive

view of their food crops in terms of the potential to increase yields.

As indicated by two of the farmers, who felt that their harvests had

increased because their tree crops had started producing (Table 2-7),

tree crops may figure significantly in contributing to future returns.

The importance farmers place on tree crops is further reinforced in

answers to later questions.

The farmers appear to be quite concerned about having adequate

amounts of agricultural inputs to insure a good yield from their crops.

From this, it might be inferred that the farmers see the lack of

agricultural inputs (generally fertilizers and pesticides) as a major

limiting factor to their food cropping activities. If farmers

recognize the lack of agricultural inputs as being a critical factor,

will they necessarily use more of these inputs if they somehow obtain

additional capital? If the farmers had the means, whether they would

or would not invest in higher amounts of agricultural inputs would

depend on their long-run and short-run goals and how highly they rank

their food cropping activities against their other competing

activities.








TABLE 2-3: Have your harvests increased since you came to Sitiung 5c?

Response Responses
No. (%)a
Yes 15 (48.4)
No 6 (19.4)
Fluctuates 5 (16.1)
Other 5 (16.1)
Total 31 (100.0)
a Percent of total responses (31).


TABLE 2-4: Reasons given by farmers for a positive response in Table 2-
3.

Reason Number Responding
More land compared to Java 4
Harvest yields increased,
but by very little 3
More of field cleared 1
No answer 7
Total 15




TABLE 2-5: Reasons given by farmers for a non-positive answer in
Table 2-3.

Reason Number Responding
Insect Problems 3
Pig Damage 2
Poor Soil 3
Lack of Money 2
Total 10a
a Includes reasons given for all responses other than an affirmative
in Table 2-3.






23

TABLE 2-6: Do you think that your harvests will increase in the future?

Response Responses
No. (%)a
Yes 24 (77.4)
No 1 (3.2)
Maybe 1 ( 3.2)
Do not know 3 ( 9.7)
Other 2 ( 6.5)
Total 31 (100.0)
a Percent of total responses (31).



TABLE 2-7: Clarification given by farmers for a positive response to
Table 2-6.

Clarification Responses
No. (%)a
Expects yields to increase
if has enough inputs. 17 (71.8)
Yields will increase because
tree crops will start bearing. 2 ( 8.3)
Increased yields due to improved
soil through management. 1 ( 4.2)
No clarification given. 4 (16.7)
Total 24 (100.0)

a Percent of total positive answers given in Table 2-6 (24).



Farmer Valuation of Activities and Goals

Q. 2: Are the harvests from your crops enough to fill: a) food

requirements, b) seed, fertilizer and/or pesticide needs, c)

household needs and d) hired labor needs?

Q. 14: If you had little money, what would you buy first, second and

,third?

Q. 16: If you had much money, what would you do first?

Q. 23: What is the best way to save money?






24

Q. 27: What are your plans for your second piece of land (currently

uncleared) and what are the main difficulties you think you

will have with this land?



The needs that farmers will fill first, considering their

constrained situation and their goals concerning the future of their

farming systems were the objectives of the preceding five questions.

Ranking of needs or short-run goals and farmers' choices under

tight cash constraints (which is not unusual for the farmers of Sitiung

5c) are dealt with in Questions 2 and 14. Various competing demands

made on farmers' harvests were considered in the formulation of

Question 2. Four general categories--food needs, agricultural costs,

household needs and hired labor costs--were originally considered.

The farmers, however, made a distinction between seed requirements and

fertilizer and pesticide needs. The distinction is an important one

since the farmers tend to save their own seeds rather than buy them.

More farmers (67%) are able to fill food needs than any other need

from their harvests (Table 2-8). Also, food needs have a lower number

of negative responses than any other need. Since the meeting of food

needs has the highest number of positive and the lowest number of

negative responses, it could be inferred that food needs are ranked by

farmers above all other listed needs. Seed needs, following this

reasoning, are ranked second, household needs are third, fertilizer and

pesticide needs are a close fourth and hired labor needs are ranked

last.






25

When asked what needs he would fill first considering a very

constrained economic situation (Question 14), most farmers (83%)

responded that they would fill food needs first (Table 2-9).

Fertilizer and pesticide needs followed at a distant second, and

clothing needs come in third. For those farmers making a distinction

between fertilizer and pesticide, fertilizer (as a second choice)

ranked ahead of pesticides (Table 2-10).

Survival is the major goal expressed by the responses to

constrained finances. Meeting food needs was identified as the most

important goal. Agriculture is the main means of fulfilling this goal

by most farmers and is reflected in the high ranking given agricultural

needs.

Intuitively, the ranking sequence makes sense. If survival is

assumed to be the main objective, then the farmers must fill food needs

first. Insuring a means for survival in the short run would mean

investing in their food cropping system. Therefore, it is not

surprising that farmers ranked purchase of agricultural inputs as

second given a tightly constrained cash situation. Filling seed needs

from harvest ranked above the filling of fertilizer and pesticide

needs. This is logical as the buying of fertilizer is of little use if

there are no plants to fertilize.

Questions 16, 23 and 27 were asked with farmer goals and plans for

the future in mind. Farmers' goals, given a situation where cash was

not tightly constraining (Question 16), reflect their interests in

investment and diversification. Investment in tree crops ranked first

among farmers' goals. The education of children was chosen second






26

followed closely by purchases of animals which was ranked third. Home

repairs ranked fourth very closely followed by buying more land and

buying more fertilizer and pesticides, which ranked fifth and sixth

consecutively. Note that buying additional food crop inputs

(fertilizers and pesticides) was not ranked among the highest of farmer

goals. The ranking of tree investment, education of children, and

purchasing livestock suggests an interest in intermediate to longer

term goals that will assist in providing for future family security.

Each investment is similar to a major capital investment by large

commercial farms.

The largest number of farmers (66%) preferred gold as a means of

saving money (Table 2-12). The reason for buying gold and stock-piling

harvests, given by farmers who volunteered the information, was that

gold and stock-piled harvests were very liquid. If they needed cash,

gold and stock-piled harvests are very easily converted into cash in as

large or as small amounts as needed. Gold also provides a low risk

method of storage; it does not devalue as cash can (there was a 45%

devaluation in September 1986) nor be lost as animals can through

disease and theft, and as stock-piled harvests can through pest damage.

It does not require maintenance as animals do and is easily guarded as

it is usually worn as jewelry. The farmers generally bought gold if

they had any money left over after selling their harvests.

Animal investment ranked second as a way to save money. Of those

farmers putting their money into animals, most (71%) preferred to buy

chickens (Table 2-13). Like gold, chickens are easily sold while other

kinds of animals (cows, goats and water buffalo) often are not. The






27

reason farmers gave for preferring animals over gold was the potential

for their animals increasing in value and multiplying. There is also a

potential for animals to sicken and die; therefore this risk may have

been taken into account by those farmers preferring gold. For the two

farmers preferring the bank, there was no evidence that these farmers

actually used the local bank, which was a great distance away.

During the summer of this study (1986), the transmigrants were

given a second field of 3/4 hectares. At the time of these interviews

this second field was still in forest and the transmigrants themselves

had to bear the responsibility of clearing the land. The farmers were

asked about plans for their second piece of land and what they

considered their greatest problem would be in working with this new

piece of land (Question 27). Lack of adequate amounts of cash was the

problem cited by most of the farmers. Labor and clearing problems

(which ranked second and third) are related to cash problems as most

farmers will either have to hire or share labor to clear the field and

because of the number of large trees, chain saws (mentioned by many of

the farmers) will have to be purchased to clear the land. A number of

farmers did not see labor as a problem because they planned to use the

traditional labor sharing system gotong royong to clear the land.

The farmers' plans for their second field strongly reflected their

interest in tree crop investments (Tables 2-14 and 2-15). Twenty of

the twenty-nine farmers (70%) planned to grow tree crops exclusively.

The tree crop that farmers were most interested in growing was coffee

and 19 farmers (66%) planned to plant coffee. Of these nineteen

farmers, nearly half (9 farmers) planned to grow coffee exclusively,






28

four planned to grow a coffee and rice combination (presumably rice

will be grown between coffee trees until it is shaded out) and the

remaining six farmers planned to grow coffee in combination with other

tree or food crops, however coffee was generally mentioned as the crop

attracting the most interest. The strong interest in coffee reflects

the higher prices being paid for coffee at the time of the survey.


TABLE 2-8: Are your harvests enough


Food
Needs
No. (%)


Seed
Needs
No. (%)


for:

Fertilizer/
Pesticide
Costs
No. (.%)


Household
Needs
No. (%)


Hired
Labor
Costs
No. (%)


Yes 20 (66.7) 15 (50.0) 9 (30.0) 9 (30.0) 8 (26.7)
No 6 (20.0) 13 (43.3) 19 (63.3) 17 (56.6) 16 (53.3)
Sometimes 4 (13.3) 2 ( 6.7) 2 ( 6.7) 4 (13.3) 2 ( 6.7)
Does not
hire
labor -- -- -- 4 (13.3)
Total 30 (100.0) 30 (100.0) 30 (100.0) 30 (100.0) 30 (100.0)


TABLE 2-9: If you had very little money, what would you do first?

Number of Farmers Ranking Chosen Responses as:
Response First Second Third
No. (%) No. (%) No. (%)
Buy Food 25 (83.4) 3 (10.0) 3 (10.0)
Buy Fertilizer/Pesticide 2 ( 6.7) 15 (50.0) 12 (40.0)
Buy Clothes I ( 3.3) 6 (20.0) 7 (23.4)
Pay School Fees 1 ( 3.3) 1 ( 3.3) 1 ( 3.3)
Buy Medicine 0 1 ( 3.3) 1 ( 3.3)
Other 1 ( 3.3) 2 ( 6.7) 2 ( 6.7)
No Answer 0 2 ( 6.7) _A (13.3)
Total 30 (100.0) 30 (100.0) 30 (100.0)







TABLE 2-10: Breakdown of fertilizer/pesticide response in Table 2-9.

Number of Farmers Ranking Chosen Responses as:
Response First Second Third
No. (%)a No. (%)a No. (%)a
Fertilizer -1 ( 3.3) 9 (30.0) 5 (16.7)
Pesticide 0 4 (13.3) 5 (16.7)
No Distinction 1 ( 3.3) _2 ( 6.7) _2 ( 6.7)
Total 2 ( 6.6) 15 (50.0) 12 (40.0)
a Percent of total responses per rank (30).



TABLE 2-11: If you had much money, what would you do?

Number of Farmers Ranking Chosen Responses as:
Response First() oSecon NThird) Rank
No. M No. %) No. ()
Buy Tree Crops 4 (14.8) 3 (11.1) 7 (25.9) 1 (6.25)a
Educate Children 6 (22.2) 3 (.111) 0 2 (6.00)
Buy Animals 3 (11.1) 6 (22.2) 2 ( 7.4) 3 (5.75)
Fix House 2 ( 7.4) 3 (11.1) 2 ( 7.4) 4 (3.50)
Buy Land 2 ( 7.4) 3 (11.1) 1 ( 3.7) 5 (3.25)
Buy Fertizers 2 ( 7.4) 3 (11.1) 0 6 (3.00)
Buy Food 2 ( 7.4) 1 ( 3.7) 1 ( 3.7) 7 (2.25)
Buy Gold 1 ( 3.7) I ( 3.7) 3 (11.1) 3 (2.00)
Visit Java 1 ( 3.7) 2 ( 7.4) 0 9 (1.75)
Own a Store 1 ( 3.7) 1 ( 3.7) 0 10 (1.25)
Pay Dept to Store 1 ( 3.7) 0 0 11 ( .75)
Other 2 ( 7.4) 0 1 ( 3.7)
No Answer 0 1 ( 3.7) 10 (37.0)
Total 27 (99.9) 27 (99.9) 27 (1.000)
a Calculation of rank: (First x .75) + (Second x .5) + (Third x .25).



TABLE 2-12: What is the best way to save money?

Response Responeses
No. (X)
Buy Gold 19 (65.5)
Buy Animals 7 (24.1)
Use Bank 2 ( 6.9)
Stock Pile Harvest _1 ( 3.5)
Total 29 (100.0)








TABLE 2-13:


Kinds of animals (first choices) mentioned by those
farmers preferring animals as a means of savings.


Kind of Animal Responses
No. (%)a
Chickens 5 (71.4)
Cows 1 (14.3)
Water Buffalo 1 (14.3)
Total 7 (100.0)
a Percent of farmers choosing animals in Table 2-12 (7).



TABLE 2-14: What do you plan to plant on your second field?

Crop Responses
No.a (%)b
Coffee 19 (65.5)
Rice 12 (41.4)
Stinkbean 4 (13.8)
Rambutan 3 (10.3)
Soybeans 3 (10.3)
Peanuts 2 ( 6.9)
Petec 2 ( 6.9)
Clove 1 ( 3.4)
Corn 1 ( 3.4)
Chili 1 ( 3.4)
Tree Crops
(not specified) 1 ( 3.4)
No Plans 2 ( 6.9)
a


Total number of responses per crop, most farmers sp
one crop.
Percent of total number of farmers responding (29).
A leguminous tree related to the Stinkbean.


ecified more than








TABLE 2-15:


Crops combinations specified by
field.


farmers for their second


Crops


Responses
No. (%)a


Coffee (exclusively) 9 (31.0)
Food Crops (exclusively) 7 (24.1)
Coffee and other Tree Crops 5 (17.2)
Coffee and Rice 4 (13.8)
Coffee, Tree Crops and
Food Crops 1 ( 3.4)
Tree Crops (not specified) 1 ( 3.4)
No Plans 2 ( 6.9)
Total 29 (99.8)
a Percent of total responses (29).



TABLE 2-16: What problems do you anticipate concerning your second
field?

Problems Responses
No.a (%)b
Labor problems 9 (33.3)
Clearing problems 9 (33.3)
Lack of money 13 (48.1)
Distance of second
field from home 3 (11.1)
Insect problems 1 ( 3.7)
Will use gotong royong
for clearing 8 (29.6)
a Total number of responses per problem, many farmers specified more
than one problem.
b Percent of total number of farmers who had plans for their second
field (27).
c Gotong royong is a traditional labor sharing system.


Dealing with Emergency Resource Constraints


Q. 5: When you need money, what do you do?

Q. 10: If you do not have money, food or work, what do you do?



In filling needs that they do not have resources for, the farmers


selling something that they already
i


have three major alternatives:






32

have, finding off-farm work, or borrowing. In the situation that the

farmer needs cash (Question 5) the greatest number of farmers (63%)

responded that they would look for work (Table 2-17), usually hiring

out their labor (41%) to neighboring farmers (Table 2-19). Cutting

trees in the forest, which is illegal, heavy work and brings higher

returns than agricultural labor, was also among the responses and may

be actually higher in incidence than shown in Table 2-19 because of

fear of legal implications.

Selling and borrowing had an equal number of responses (33%).

Marketing surplus farm production was most common among farmers who

said they would sell something (67%, Table 2-18). One of the farmers

made bricks for sale; in Sitiung 5c there were several other farmers

who made bricks. Of those who would borrow, all would borrow money

from neighbors, social savings groups (arisan) or from family (Table 2-

20). Sixty-seven percent of those would also borrow from the village

store. However, it is most likely that goods and not cash is borrowed

from the village stores. In general, these stores do not normally lend

cash.

Given a desperate situation (Question 10) where the farmer did not

have money, food or work (Table 2-21), most would borrow (61%) and the

village store (Table 2-22) appears to be the main source of non-cash

credit. Selling and working activities received the same number of

responses. Of those selling, the sale of chickens was very important

(78%, Table 2-23). Only one-third of the nine farmers, who indicated

that they would look for work, would seek agricultural employment

(Table 2-24), nearly one-half said that they would just stay home and
*








work on their own farms and only one would seek non-agricultural

employment.


TABLE 2-17:


What do you do when you need money?


Activity Responses
No.a ()b
Sell 9 (33.3)
Look for Work 17 (63.0)
Borrow 9 (33.3)
Other 4 (14.8)
a Some farmers specified more than one activity.
b Percent of total responding (27).



TABLE 2-18: Selling activities of Table 2-17.

Activity Responses
No. (%)a
Sell Harvest 6 (66.7)
Sell Bricks 1 (11.1)
Other 2 (22.2)
Total 9 (100.0)
a Percent of total farmers who sell (9).



TABLE 2-19: Work activities of Table 2-17.

Activity Responses
No. (%)a
Agricultural Laborer 7 (41.1)
Cut Trees in Forest 2 (11.8)
Has Steady Job 2 (11.8)
Odd Jobs I ( 5.9)
Not Specified 5 (29.4)
Total 17 (100.0)
a Percent of total farmers who would look for work (17).








TABLE 2-20: Who farmers would borrow from in Table 2-17.

Lender Responses
No.a (%)b
Village Store 6 (66.7)
Neighbors 5 (55.6)
Arisanc 3 (33.3)
Family 1 (11.1)
a Many borrowers specified more than one lender.
b Percent of. total number borrowing (9).
c Arisan is a traditional saving collective.


TABLE 2-21: What would you do if you did not have money, food or work?

Activity Responses
No.a (%)b
Borrow 19 (61.3)
Sell Something 9 (2990)
Look for Work 9 (29.0)
Wait for Harvest i ( 3.2)
Other 4 (12.9)
a Many farmers specified more than one activity.
b Percent of total responding (31).


TABLE 2-22: Lenders in Table 2-21.

Lender Responses
No.a (%)b
Village Store 13 (68.4)
Neighbor 7 (36.8)
Arisan 3 (15.8)
a Many farmers specified more than one lender.
b Percent of total borrowing (19).



TABLE 2-23: Selling activities of Table 2-21.

Activity Responses
No.a (%)b
Sell Chicken 7 (77.8)
Sell Harvest 2 (22.2)
Sell Cassava 1 (11.1)
Other 1 (11.1)


a Some farmers specified more than one selling
b Percent of total farmers selling (9).


activity.






35

TABLE 2-24: Work activities of Table 2-21.

Activity Responses
No.a (%)b
Work on Own Farm 4 (44.4)
Agricultural'Laborer 3 (33.3)
Non-agricultural Laborer 1 (11.1)
Other 3 (33.3)
a Some farmers specified more than one work activity.
b Percent of total working (9).



Farmer Credit

Q. 11: What do you borrow from the village store?

Q. 12: How do you repay your debts to the village store?

Q. 13: Are you in debt to the village store now and for what amount?



The credit system in Sitiung 5c is not very well developed,

probably due to the farmers' lack of collateral. There are no money

lenders. The main source of credit is from the village store in the

form of goods. Farmers tend to borrow cash from each other. Given a

tight situation (Question 10), most farmers will borrow from the

village store (Tables 2-21 and 22); given a less desperate situation

(Question 5), farmers are a little more reluctant to borrow (Tables 2-

17 and 20).

Most farmers, in response to Question 11, borrow food (90%) and

household necessities (43%) from the village store (Table 2-25).

Pesticides and fertilizers are also borrowed. Four of the farmers did

not borrow saying that they were afraid to borrow or that the prices at

the village stores were too high.






36

In response to the repayment inquiry (Question 12), most farmers

(57%) said that they paid the stores back with cash (Table 2-28). In

five cases, the stores refused cash and would only accept surplus

production and in three cases farmers paid with a combination of crops

and cash.

Of the thirty farmers, twenty-six borrow from'the village stores.

Eighteen of the twenty-six were in debt to the stores at the time of

the interviews. One of these farmers was so in debt that he refused to

disclose how much he owed (Table 2-29). The average debt among those

owing money to the village store at the time of the interview was Rp

17,441 (Table 2-30).

The village stores appear to act as a cushion against emergencies

and provides a vital service that the farmers need. Farmers complain

bitterly about the prices at the village stores and the difference

between cash prices and credit prices can vary widely. Farmers who

fall too deeply in debt risk having their credit cut off and many

probably never work their way out of debt. One farmer said that he

borrowed fertilizer and pesticide from the village store as little as

possible because his credit would be used up too fast.


TABLE 2-25: What do you borrow from the store?

Item Responses
No.a (%)b
Food 27 (90.0)
Fertilizer 10 (33.3)
Pesticide 10 (33.3)
Other 13 (43.3)
Does not borrow 4 (13.3)
No answer 1 ( 3.3)
a Most farmers specified more than one item.
b Percent of total farmers responding (30).








TABLE 2-26: Specific kinds of food in Table 2-25.

Food Responses
No.a (%)b
Rice 9 (33.3)
Condiments 8 (29.6)
Oil 10 (37.0)
a Many farmers mentioned more than one kind of food.
b Percent of total farmers specifying food (27).



TABLE 2-27: Other items borrowed in Table 2-25.

Item Responses
No.a (%)b
Kerosene 7 (53.8)
Cigerettes 4 (39.8)
Soap 2 (15.4)
Money 1 ( 7.7)
a Many farmers mentioned more than one item.
b Percent of total number of farmers in the 'other' category of
Table 2-25 (13).



TABLE 2-28: How do you pay the store back?

Method Responses
No. (%)
Harvest Yields 5 (16.7)
Money 17 (56.7)
Harvest Yield and Money 3 (10.0)
Does not Borrow 4 (13.3)
No Answer 1 ( 3.3)
Total 30 (100.0)






38

How much do you owe the

Amount in Rupiaha


store

Respo
No.


-0 12
1 10,000 6
10,001 20,000 3
20,001 30,000 4
30,001 40,000 3
40,001 50,000 1
Would not answer 1
a Rp 1129 $1.00 US before September 1986.
September 1986. At thetime of the surve
adjusted to the 45% devaluation.
b Percent of total responding (30).



TABLE 2-30: Summary of debt information.

Average Debt Among Current Debtors (17)
Average Debt of All Borrowers (26)


TABLE 2-29:


17,441
11,403


Farmer Perspectives on Off-Farm Work

Q. 6: Do you look for local agricultural work and/or non-local work?

Q. 7: What wages do you earn for local agricultural work, for non-

local work?

Q. 8: Can you always find work when you need it?

Q. 9: If it were available, would you take permanent off-farm work;

and if so who would look after your farm?

Q. 26: What gotong royong (traditional labor sharing) activities do

you participate in?


Most farmers seeking off-farm employment find employment as

agricultural laborers on their neighbors farms (Question 6,

Table 2-31). Farmers will hire each other when they have heavy jobs or


now?

nses
(%)b
(40.0)
(20.0)
(10.0)
(13.3)
(10.0)
( 3.3)
( 3.3)
Rp 1644 $1.00 after
y, not all prices had






39

jobs requiring more labor than the farmers themselves can provide, when

a farmer becomes ill during a critical time and must hire help, or when

a farmer has a job and cannot devote adequate time to the farm. Some

farmers are involved in the social labor sharing system called 'gotong

royong'. In this case, when they have jobs which are too large to

handle by themselves which often occur during harvest or planting,

their neighbors will help. The recipient farmer then owes labor to

those families. Those farmers not involved in gotong royong must pay

for their help.

Sixty-nine percent of farmers interviewed participated in gotong

royong (Question 26) organized to share agricultural labor among

neighbors (Table 2-40). Not all farmers participate in gotong royong,

some saying that labor productivity is not good, a point which is

supported by data from the Enterprise Records. However, the social

importance of the gotong royong may out-weigh labor productivity

problems as a large gotong royong is a festive occasion where families

get together to work and share food. Gotong royongs are also

particularly useful when a large concentration of labor is needed or

when heavy jobs need to be done. A gotong royong does not have a

particular size and can consist of as few as two families or as much as

an entire neighborhood. Government organized gotong royongs are used

to clean roads; fix bridges, dig ditches, clean the mosque, maintain

the local government headquarters and other activities to benefit the

community. Seventy-nine percent of farmers participated in these

gotong royongs. Other gotong royong activities include building or






40

extending houses, ceremony preparations and other jobs needing many

people.

Local agricultural employment is the most common form of wage

labor and is comparatively easy to find relative to other forms of

employment (Question 6 Tables 2-31 and 32). Compared to other labor,

local agricultural labor wages are not high (Question 7) and wage rates

vary depending on the farmer (Tables 2-38 and 39). Wage rates for

women are usually half that of men (Enterprise Records). Generally,

women are hired to do lighter work such as weeding and planting while

men do heavier work such as hoeing and hauling.

Of those men having non-local work, the majority work in the

forest cutting and hauling trees. Most farmers did not specify the

kinds of jobs they took and probably take what ever jobs they can find.

Working as a tree cutter is illegal, so more might actually be involved

than admitted. The cutting of trees, according to some of the farmers

is an easy job to find, but very heavy and risky work. The trees are

taken from the nearby forest so the work is comparatively closer than

other jobs outside of Sitiung 5c. Since wages range from 2000 to 5000

rupiah a day (depending on productivity) potential earnings are much

better than in other jobs (Table 2-39). Therefore, if the farmer has

the energy (young and healthy), tree cutting is a very attractive job.

Reasons given by those volunteering the information, for not

seeking non-local work (Table 2-33) were that it was too difficult to

find and they did not have time to look for it. Nearly half (47%)

could find work when they needed it (Table 2-34). The availability of

local agricultural work seems to depend' on how good the harvests are






41

(some farmers said that when the harvests are poor, work is hard to

find), the number of sick farmers needing to hire labor and the number

of farmers having off-farm jobs.

Most farmers (70%) said that they would not take a permanent job

if it were available (Question 9 Table 2-35). Many of these farmers

were only interested in taking off-farm work when their farm work was

done (Table 2-36). One of the main reasons for refusing the steady

income of a permanent job, in place of the highly variable income of

farming, may be that the farmers view their farms as investments for

the future and therefore consider the benefits of farming beyond just

the short-term monetary returns for their crops. Without a social

security system, the farm and the long-run orientation to tree crops

provides a basis for survival when working years are past. Thus, extra

time where possible maybe devoted to the long-term investment in tree

crops.



TABLE 2-31: What kinds of off-farm work do you look for?

Response Responses
No.a (%)b
Local agricultural labor 25 (80.6)
Non-local labor 13 (41.9)
Does not work off-farm 2 ( 6.4)
a Some farmers looked for both kinds of work.
b Percent of total responding (31).








TABLE 2-32: Is it more difficult to find work than last year?

Response Local Non-local Work Work in General
Agricultural Work
No. (%)a No. (X) No. (%)c
Less Difficult 14 (56.0) 6 (46.2) 5 (16.1)
More Difficult 7 (28.0) 5 (38.5) 11 (35.5)
Same 2 (8.0) 1 ( 7.7) 5 (16.1)
No Answer 2 ( 8.0) 1 ( 7.7) 10 (32.3)
a Percent of total seeking local agricultural work (25).
b Percent of total seeking non-local work (13).
c Percent of total responding (31).



TABLE 2-33: Why don't you look for non-local work?a

Reason Number Responding
Too difficult to find 4
Not enough time to look for it 1
a This is volunteer information from those who do not take
non-agricultural work in Table 2-31.



TABLE 2-34: Can you always find work when you need it?

Response Responses
No. (%)a
Yes 14 (46.7)
No 8 (25.7)
Sometimes 5 (16.6)
Other 3 (10.0)
Total 30 (100.0)
a Percent of total responding (30).



TABLE 2-35: Would you take a permanent job?

Response Responses
No. (%)
Yes 8 (26.7)
No 21 (70.0)
Already has a job 1 ( 3.3)
Total 30 (100.0)








TABLE 2-36: Reasons for not taking a permanent job in Table 2-35.

Reason Responses
No. (%)a
Will take off-farm-work only when
own farm work is done 8 (38.1)
Afraid own farm will not be
maintained 4 (19.0)
No time for off-farm work 1 ( 4.8)
No answer 8 (31.8)
Total 21 (100.0)
a Percent of total not wanting a permanent job (21).



TABLE 2-37: If you had a permanent job, who would look after your
farm?

Response Responses
No. (%)a
Family 6 (75.0)
Family and Hired Labor 2 (25.0)
Total 8 (100.0)
a Percent of total responding that they would like permanent jobs (8).



TABLE 2-38: Wages for local agricultural labor in Sitiung 5c.a

Fraction of a Day Wage Meals
1 day Rp 2000 0
1 day 1500 3
1 day 1250 3
h day 1500 1
t day 1000 1
a Women generally are paid one-half as much as men and usually do
different jobs such as weeding.



TABLE 2-39: Wages for labor outside of Sitiung 5c.

Work Wage per Day
Cutting Trees Rp 2000 5000a
Construction 2500
Rubber Plantation 1500
a Depends on productivity.






44

TABLE. 2-40: What gotong royong activities do you participate in?

Activity Responses
No.a (%)b
Agricultural Labor 20 (69.0)
Government Organized Labor 23 (79.3)
Other 5 (17.2)
a Some farmers participate in more than one kind of gotong royong.
b Percent of total responding (29).




The Animal Aspect of the Farm System

Q. 17: How many chickens and ducks do you own; do you sell your eggs,

eat them and/or save the eggs to raise chicks?

Q. 18: Do you give food to your chickens; how many times a day do you

feed them and how much do you spend on feed a week?

Q. 19: For what reasons would you eat a chicken?

Q. 20: For what reasons would you sell a chicken?

Q. 21: Would you like to own a goat, why?

Q. 22: Would you like to own a cow, why?



Every farmer interviewed kept chickens (Question 17). One farmer

kept ducks and another maintained a fish pond. The main purpose for

keeping chickens is for investment purposes (91%, Table 2-41). One-

half the farmers will also eat chicken eggs if there are enough eggs in

the hen house and. for health reasons. Farmers tend to sell eggs when

they- are short of food. Corn is what the majority of farmers feed

their chickens (Question 18, Table 2-42) and nearly one-half (46%) are

able to feed their chickens solely from their own harvests (Table 2-

43).






45

The reason for keeping chickens is not for home consumption

(Question 19), but as insurance against bad times and as help in tight

situations. Most farmers (97%) sold chickens when they needed money

(Question 20, Table 2-45) and only one sold chickens regularly when

they reached selling size. When the farmers were out of food, money

and work, their main selling activity in response to this situation was

to sell chickens (Table 2-23).

The farmers gave various reasons for eating chickens (Question 19,

Table 2-44) among them the eating of sick chickens (21%) and a special

occasion usually a wedding, birth, funeral or circumcism party (28%).

Only two claimed that they ate chickens regularly (one, once a week and

the other once a month).

Ducks appear to be raised chiefly for the sale of eggs as duck

eggs are a specialty and bring a higher price. Ducks, however, require

more care than do chickens and only one of the respondents kept ducks.

There are not any cows in Sitiung 5c and very few goats. Only one

goat was observed in Sitiung 5c and the author was told that one other

Minangkabau family kept goats. The number of farmers wanting and not

wanting goats is split almost evenly (Question 21, Table 2-46). Of

those specifying reasons why they wanted goats (Table 2-47), fertilizer

and investment, in that order of importance, were the reasons given.

The main reason given for not wanting a goat was lack of capital to

take care of one (Table 2-48). Other reasons given were that two

farmers felt that goats were too difficult to raise, one did not have

enough labor (did not have a young son to take care of a goat) and one

did not want anything to do with a goat.






46

The number of farmers wanting cows was much larger than those

wanting goats (Question 22 Table 2-49). Reasons for this greater

interest in cows may be due to a government sponsored program that will

bring cows to Sitiung 5c in the future. Cows are also more versatile

than goats. While farmers viewed goats as investments and sources of

fertilizers, farmers saw cows not only as sources of fertilizer and

investment, but also as contributing to the labor force (Table 2-52).

Seventy-two percent of farmers planned to use cows for work (hauling

and plowing were most mentioned). One farmer said that what would take

one man ten days to hoe, a cow could do in two days. Liquidity may

also be a reason for desiring cows. Goats are relatively difficult to

sell, goat meat is generally eaten for special occasions and is not

usually sold by the market butchers as are cow meat and water buffalo

meat.

Reasons given by the four farmers not wanting a cow (Table 2-53)

were similar to those not wanting goats (Table 2-48). One farmer,

however, made a point of the fact that there is not enough forage in

Sitiung 5c and that he would have to travel too far to gather forage.

Half of the farmers felt that there was enough forage to feed a cow in

Sitiung 5c (Table 2-50). However, half the farmers also planned to

plant grass for forage (Table 2-51). The lack of adequate forages may

be the limiting factor in keeping cows in Sitiung 5c.

The breed of cow that the government is planning to introduce in

Sitiung 5c is the small Balinese cow which, according to several of the

Indonesian staff, including a man from Bali, can plow flooded rice

fields, but is not adequate for plowing the dry upland fields of









Larger cows of course would require more forage and


possibly economic use of a larger cow may dictate the need for more

land. by the farmer for feed and to utilize the traction potential.

Thus, both land quality and quantity may influence type and

effectiveness of cattle use.



TABLE 2-41: Why do you keep chickens?

Activity Responses
No. (%)a
Sell Eggsb 4 (13.8)
Eat Eggsc 15 (51.7)
Raise Chicks 28 (96.6)

a Percent of total responding (29).
b One farmer clarified his answer by saying that he would sell an egg
in order to buy food.
c Five farmers indicated that they would take an egg only if there
were a certain number of eggs in the hen house.



TABLE 2-42: What do you feed your chickens?

Feed Responses
No.a (%)b
Corn 27 (93.1)
Unhulled Rice 4 (13.8)
Hulled Ricec 4 (13.8)
Cooked Riced 8 (27.6)
Rice Hulls 5 (17.2)
Cassava 3 (10.3)
Does not give feed 1 ( 3.4)


a Many farmers use more than one kind of feed.
b Percent of total responding (29).
c Usually broken pieces of rice discarded in t
d Usually rice leftover from meals.


he cleaning process.


Sitiung 5c.








TABLE 2-43: Additional data on chickens in-Sitiung 5c.

Average number of chickens per family: 16.86
Number of farmers buying feed: 15 .(53.6)a
Average cost of buying feed per week: Rp 1683
Number of farmers feeding solely from harvests: 13 (46.4)a
Average feedings per day: 2.2
a Percent of total farmers feeding their chickens (28).


TABLE 2-44: When do you eat your chickens?


Reason Responses
No.a (%)b
Special occasions 8 (27.6)
When chicken is sick 6 (20.7)
When chicken is old 1 ( 3.5)
Irregularly 15 (51.7)
Regularly 2 ( 6.9)
a Most farmers gave more than one reason.
b Percent of total responding (29).



TABLE 2-45: When do you sell chickens?

Reason Responses
No. (%)a
When need money 28 (96.6)
When chicken is old enough to sell 1 ( 3.4)
When chicken is sick 1 ( 3.4)
a Percent of total responding (29).



TABLE 2-46: Do you want a goat?

Response Responses
No. (%)a
Yes 15 (51.7)
No 14 (48.3)
Total 29 (100.0)
a Percent of total responding (29).








TABLE 2-47: Reasons for wanting a goat:a

Reason Responses
No. (%)b
Investment 1 ( 6.7)
Fertilizer 3 (20.0)
a These responses were volunteered by the farmers.
b Percent of those wanting a goat (15).



TABLE 2-48: Reasons for not wanting a goat.

Reason Responses
No. (%)a
Not enough money 9 (64.3)
Too difficult to raise 2 (14.3)
Not enough labor 1 ( 7.1)
Just does not want one 1 ( 7.1)
a Percent of total not wanting a goat (14).



TABLE 2-49: Do you want a cow?

Response Responses
No. (%)a
Yes 25 (86.2)
No 4 (13.8)
Total 29 (100.0)
a Percent of total responding (29).



TABLE 2-50: Is there enough food in Sitiung 5c to feed a cow?

Response Responses
No. (%)a
Yes 16 (55.2)
No 3 (10.3)
Maybe 1 ( 3.4)
No answer 9 (31.0)
a Percent of total responding (29).








TABLE 2-51: Would you plant forage for a cow?

Response Responses
No. (%)a
Yes- 16 (55.2)
No 8b ( 3.4)
No Answer 12 (40.4)
Total 29 (100.0)
a Percent of total responding (29).
b One farmer answering 'no' said that he did not have any room in
his field for forage.



TABLE 2-52: Reasons for wanting a cow.a

Reason Responses
No.9 (%)c
Worked 18 (72.0)
Fertilizer 8 (32.0)
Investment 2 ( 8.0)
No answer 9 (36.0)
a Three farmers wanting a cow complained that they did not have
enough labor to take care of one.
bMost farmers gave more than one reason for wanting a cow.
c Percent of total wanting a cow (25).

d Type of work included hauling and plowing.



TABLE 2-53: Reasons for not wanting a cow.

Reason Responses
No. (%)a
Not enough labor 1 (25)
Not enough forage in Sitiung 5c 1 (25)
Too difficult to raise 1 (25)
Just does not want one 1 (25)
a Percent of total not wanting a cow (4).








Children

Q. 1: How many children do you have (in total and living in

Sitiung 5c), what are their ages, sex, and what grades in

school are they in?

Q. 24: At what age can a child begin helping on the farm?

Q. 25: At what age can a child begin working as an adult on the farm?



Children are or potentially are a major contribution to a farmer's

labor force. Until the time when they are productive, they are a drain

on the farmer's resources. Children of school age are a greater drain

on resources than children under school age because of the addition of

school expenses. These include a monthly fee (Rp 200), exam fees (Rp

2000), book and supply fees (Rp 1500-2000), school uniform fees (Rp

2000 each) and other expenses. These may represent as much as 45% of

annual non-food cash requirements for a typical family (see

Chapter III).

Families tend to send their children to school through the primary

grades at which time they can begin working on the farm full time. If

children begin school at the age of 6, they should finish primary

school by the age of 12. When a child actually finishes primary school

depends on when the child starts and how often the child's schooling is

interrupted due to financial difficulties. Not all children finish

primary school.

Nearly 40% of the children in the sample were attending school

(Table 2-54) and the average school age was 11 years. The average age

that farmers felt that children could start working on the farm was 13







52

years (Table 2-58). Some farmers said that the age children could

seriously begin working on the farm depended on when they finished

school which suggests a higher priority on education. Children in the

sample were attending primary school up until 15 years old.

Sixty-three percent (Table 2-57) of the children in the sample

were under 12 years of age. Proportionately, the Javanese have a

larger amount of children under 12 than the Sundanese (Table 2-57).

The Javanese children in the sample were generally younger than the

Sundanese children (Javanese average age: 9.1, Sundanese average age:

11.3)

Thus, schooling represents a competitive use for both labor and

cash resources. As a long term investment, short term production

potentials for family survival are constrained. Under depressed

conditions one might expect that fewer children could attend school due

to labor requirements and cash constraint. Annual school fees, clothes

and books at Rp 47,400 for a typical family of five represent over 45

percent of annual non-food cash requirements (see Chapter III). Long

term security investments require either good internal conditions or,

if technical assistance is available, means for either substituting for

current child labor through grants and/or providing for economically

feasible technologies for the farm and household that free children to


attend school.








TABLE 2-54: Number of children.


Average Number of Children:
Ethnic Group Total Per Family In School
No.1(%)a No. No. (%)b (%)
Javanese 41 (49.4) 2.27 13 (38.2) (31.7)c
Sundanese 37 (44.6) 3.36 19 (55.9) (51.4)d
Minang 5 ( 6.0) 2.50 2 ( 5.9) (40.0)e
Total 83 (100.0) 2.68 34 (100.0) (38.6)a'
a Percent of total children (83).
b Percent of total children in school (32).
c Percent of Javanese children (41).
d Percent of Sundanese children (37).
e Percent of Minang children (5).



TABLE 2-55: Average ages.

Ethnic Group Average Age Average Age in School
Javanese 9.07 10.64
Sundanese 11.30 11.05
Minang 6.40 11.00
Total 9.90 11.00



TABLE 2-56: Age mixtures of children.

Families with children:
Ethnic Above Below
Group 12 Years 12 Years Mixture No Children
No. (%)a (%) No. (%)a (%) No. (%)a (%) No. (%)a (%)
Java 1 ( 3) ( 6)b 11 (36) (61)b 3 (10) (17)b 3 (10) (17)b
Sunday 1 ( 3) (9)c 2 ( 6) (18)c 7 (23) (63)c 1 ( 3) ( 9)c
Minang 0 1 ( 3) (50)d 1 ( 3) (50)d 0
Total 2 ( 5) 14 (45) 11 (36) 4 (13)
a Percent of total families (31).
b Percent of Javanese families (18).
c Percent of Sundanese families (11).
d Percent of Minang families (2).








Age distributions of children


Ethc Number of Children:
Ethnic
Group Below 12 Years 12 Years and Above
No. (X)a, (%)b (%) No. (%)a (%)f (X)
Javanese 26 (31.3) (50.0) (63.4)c 15 (18.1) (48.4) (36.6)c
Sundanese 23 (27.7) (44.2) (62.2)d 14 (16.9) (45.2) (37.8)d
Minang 3 ( 3.6) ( 5.8) (60.0)e 2 ( 2.4) ( 6.5) (40.0)e
Total 52 (62.6) 31 (37.3)
a Percent of total children (83).
b Percent of total children under 12 (52).
c Percent of Javanese children (41).
d Percent of Sundanese children (37).
e Percent of Minang children (5).
f Percent of total children 12 and over (31).



TABLE 2-58: At what age can children:
Begin Working
Age on the Farma Work as Adultsa

8 1
9
10 5
11 2
12 4 2
13
14 1
15 9 1
16
17 2 4
18 1 2
19
20 1 11
21
22 2
23
24
25 1
Average 13.42 18.78
a Total number of farmers responding for this age.


TABLE 2-57:






55

TABLE 2-59: Age distributions of children in school and out of school.
Age Total Children Number in School Number not in School
No. No. (X) No. (%)
1 3 0 3 (100)a
2 6 0 6 (100)
3 5 0 5 (100)
4 5 0 5 (100)
5 8 1 (13)a 7 (87)
6 3 1 (33) 2 (66)
7 7 6 (86) 1 (14)
8 3 2 (66) 1 (33)
9 5 5 (100) 0
10 4 3 (75) 1 (25)
11 4 4 (100) 0
12 4 2 (50) 2 (50)
13 2 2 (100) 0
14 5 3 (60) 2 (40)
15 4 1 (25) 3 (75)
16 3 2 (66) 1 (33)
17 2 1 (50) 1 (50)
18 2 1 (50) 1 (50)
19 3 1 (33) 2 (66)
20 2 0 2 (100)
Over 20 5 0 5 (100)
a Percent of total number of children per age.




Production-Constraints Survey



The main purpose for this survey was to provide production

oriented information which was not covered in the Farmer Perspectives

Survey. Marketing, constraints to food production, input use and crop

productivity information were collected.

Crop yield information derived from farmers is very difficult to

collect due to the farmer's multicropping/intercropping system. Much

of the information in this survey was collected for the purpose of

calculating crop yields and input usage.









Marketing

There are three different places where farmers can sell their

produce. They can haul their produce by bus to the local market, sell

to the local village stores or sell at their farm gate to truckers who

visit Sitiung 5c periodically.



TABLE 2-60: Where farmers sell their crops.

Number Local Village For Home
Responding Market Store Trucker Use Only
Crop Per Crop No. (%) No. (%) No. (%) No. (%)
Soybeans 46 24 (52) 24 (52) 9 (20) 1 ( 2)
Peanuts 44 32 (73) 11 (25) 5 (11) 1 ( 2)
Rice 46 1 ( 2) 3 ( 7) 1 ( 2) 41 (89)
Corn 44 13 (30) 10 (23) 10 (23) 12 (27)
Mungbeans 35 10 (29) 14 (40) 4 (11) 5 (14)
Cassava 44 0 1 ( 2) 35 (80) 9 (20)




Most farmers appear to sell their produce to the local market and

village store more frequently than to the truckers, with the exception

of cassava (Table 2-60). The only real market for fresh cassava is the

processing plant, therefore the majority of farmers sell their cassava

to the plant truckers.

Prices differ between the local market, village store, and

truckers. These prices are reflected in the average prices offered by

these three marketing alternatives in Table 2-61. Village store prices

are generally the lowest for all six crops. The local market prices

are, in general, the highest. The truckers must offer better prices

for produce than the village stores otherwise farmers would not save

their produce for them. For most of the crops in Table 2-61, the
e







57

TABLE 2-61: Average crop prices per kilogram in Rupiaha (November
1986).

Price Differentials
(% from Village Store)
Local Village Local
Crop Market Store Trucker Market Trucker
(Z) (.)
Soybeans. 444 425 500 104 118
Peanuts 926 831 929 111 112
Rice 250 113 100 221 88
Corn 138 100 126 138 126
Mungbeans 500 493 475 101 96
Cassava 15 24 160
a 1644 Rupiah equals one (1) US dollar.


differences in prices between the local market, village store and

truckers does not appear to be very great.

There is a relation between Table 2-60 (where farmers sell their

produce) and Table 2-61 (the price of crops at the three marketing

alternatives). Soybeans and peanuts are the major cash crops grown by

the farmers. This is supported by Table 2-60 where peanuts and

soybeans were grown strictly for home consumption by only one of the

farmers. The price differential of the local market price from that of

the village store for soybeans is small (104%), the local market price

being slightly higher than the village store price. An equal number of

farmers sell at both places (Table 2-60). Soybeans are often fermented

to make tempeh, a common protein source. Many of the village stores

make and sell tempeh. Therefore, the relatively competitive price for

soybeans at the village store may be a result of this use for soybeans.

The price differential of the local market from the village store

for peanuts, however, is greater (111%) with the average local market

price being nearly Rp 100 greater than the average village store price.






58

Correspondingly, a greater number of farmers (73%) sell their peanuts

at the local market than the village store (25%). Peanuts are not

generally processed into other products as soybeans are at the village

level and therefore the competition for peanut yields at the village

level is not as great as for soybeans.

Rice, the major preferred subsistence crop, was grown strictly for

home consumption by the majority of the farmers (89%) and is not

generally grown for sale. Farmers will sometimes sell rice when they

have a desperate need for cash. Of those that admit to selling rice,

the majority sell to the village store despite the higher price

differential of the local market from the village store (221%). If the

farmers are in desperate need, they may not be able to afford the fare

to the market, may not be selling a large enough quantity to make a

trip to the market worth while and/or may not be able to wait for a

major market day when there is transportation from Sitiung 5c (busses

only go to Sitiung 5c twice a week, on major market days). Thus, they

are compelled to take the lower price from the village store simply to

obtain immediate liquidity.

Small amounts of mungbeans are grown in Sitiung 5c. Therefore

their relative scarcity may be one reason the price differential from

the village store is low (101%) as there may be more competition for

the limited supply. Mungbeans are a minor cash crop and more farmers

reserve their mungbeans yield strictly for home consumption as compared

to the major cash crops. Therefore, the amount of mungbeans produced

from the limited acreage may be further reduced due to home

consumption.







59

The higher price differential of corn at the local market from

the village store (138%) is reflected in the larger number of people

selling to the local, market. Cassava, essentially, has only one

market, the local processing plant. Some village stores will process

cassava into chips which are eaten as snacks. Because of the relative

abundance of cassava in Sitiung 5c, the need for cassava by the village

stores is limited, this is reflected in the lower price at the village

store and the small number of farmers who sell cassava to the village

store.

Crops which are marketed are not usually grown strictly for sale,

but some'portion of those crops are consumed. Corn and cassava, the

backup crops for rice, are both marketed and consumed. A larger number

of farmers grow corn and cassava strictly for home consumption than the

other marketed crops of peanuts, soybeans and mungbeans.

Where produce is sold may also have to do with the quantity

produced. For example, mungbean acreage is very low compared to other

crops grown in Sitiung 5c. Therefore, there may not be adequate

amounts of mungbeans produced to justify the expense of a trip to the

market.



Constraints

The farmers were asked to identify what they felt were three main

constraints to seven of their major food crops (soybeans, peanuts,

rice, corn, cassava, mungbeans, and chili). They were not asked to

rank these constraints and not all farmers necessarily chose to name

three. Table 2-62 is a compilation of these responses.








TABLE 2-62: Farmer perceived constraints to food crops.


Problem Soybeans Peanuts Rice Corn Mungbeans Cassava Chili
No.a(%)b No.a(%)b No.a(%)b No.a(%)c No.a(%)d No.a(%)b No.a(%)e
Insects 25a(54)b 10:(22) 30 (65) 1 ( 2) 18 (43) 1 ( 2) 17 (39)
Pigs 7 (15) 36 (78) 4 ( 9) 36 (80) 0 41 (89) 0
Rats 0 1.( 2) 2( 4) 0 1 (2) 0 0
Birds 0 0 16 (35) 2 (4) 0 0 0
Rusa 2 (4) 3 (7) 1 (2) 3 (7) 0 3 ( 7) 0
Other 0 0 0 0 0 5 (12) 0 2 ( 5)
Not Enough:
Labor 20 (43) 3 (7) 3 ( 7) 2 ( 4) 9 (21) 0 0
Water 8 (17) 3 (7) 5 (11) 0 2 ( 5) 0 1 ( 2)
Fertilizer 34 (74) 18 (39) 20 (43) 7 (15) 11 (26) 0 18 (41)
Pesticides 34 (74) 21 (46) 30 (65) 6 (13) 20 (48) 0 32 (72)
Seed 3 ( 7) 19 (41) 3 (7) 0 10 (24) 1 (2) 21 (47)
Too Much
water 0 0 0 0 5 (12) 0 0
No
problems 0 0 2 (4) 4 ( 8) 0 0 4 ( 9)
a This number represents the number of farmers responding that this
problem was one of the three major constraints for a particular
crop. The total number of farmers responding per crop is not equal
as not all farmers had experience growing all the crops listed.
b Percent of 46 farmers answering for soybeans, peanuts, rice and
cassava.
c Percent of 45 farmers answering for corn.
d Percent of 42 farmers answering for mungbeans.
e Percent of 44 farmers answering for chili.


TABLE 2-63: Average amount of seed and area planted.

Average Kilograms Area Planted
Crop of Seed Planted (hectares)
Soybeans 10.2 .18
Peanuts 12.3 .12
Rice 24.5 .57
Corn 1.3 .14
Mungbeans 2.9 .06
Cassavaa .02
a Cassava is propagated through use of vegetative material rather than
seeds.






61

TABLE 2-64: Fertilizer and pesticide applications.

Average Number of Applications:
Crop Fertilizer Pesticide
Soybeans 1.53 4.09
Peanuts 1.23 1.84
Rice 1.35 2.42
Corna .87
Mungbeans 1.10 3.29
Cassavaa .07
a Corn and cassava are not usually fertilized. Corn is often
intercropped with soybeans and peanuts and will receive what ever
is applied to these crops.


Support for the logic behind the farmers' multicropping system can

be gathered from the information in Table 2-62. A major characteristic

of these limited resource farmers is risk avoidance. From the pest

problems cited by the farmers for the crops listed in Table 2-62, it

appears that the minimization of risk plays an important part in the

selection of the major cash and subsistence crops. Within these two

groups, each crop is affected by a different,major pest.

The major cash crops, soybeans and peanuts, are succeptable to

different pests (Table 2-62). By planting both cash crops, the farmers

are reducing the risk of crop failure. Peanuts are particularly

succeptable to wild pig damage and the farmers have very few means of

control other than trying to use poison or sleeping in the field in hope

of being able to scare the pigs away. Pigs can ravage a peanut crop and

leave nothing for the farmer to harvest. Insects are a major pest on

soybeans. A severe insect outbreak can damage a crop so badly that the

plants will not produce a crop. The author has seen an entire crop of

soybeans that was destroyed by a very bad aphid infestation. The

farmers do have some means 'of controlling insects through use of






62

pesticides, but the timing of pesticide applications is critical and the

farmers may not identify the. outbreak in time or may not have the cash

to purchase pesticides..when needed.

For the staple crops, insects are the major pest problem on rice.

For the back-up crops of cassava and corn, wild pig damage is the major

threat rather than insects. Here, also, risk is being reduced by

planting staple crops which are succeptable to different pests.

Mungbeans and chili are grown to a lesser extent than the other

crops and are minor cash crops. Insects are the major pest on these

crops. Though the insect pests on these crops may not be the same as on

soybeans, the method of control for the farmers is the same. Therefore,

the insect problems on all three crops may be perceived by the farmers

to be so closely related that risk is not necessarily reduced when these

three crops are planted together.

Of the variable inputs, the lack of fertilizer and pesticides were

major problems for all crops except cassava, which is not normally

fertilized or sprayed by the farmers. The general lack of fertilizer

and pesticides can be related to the farmers' cash constrained

situation. The inability of obtaining enough seed for planting was

another major constraint cited for peanuts, mungbeans and soybeans.

This constraint combined with the pest problems similar to soybeans may

be another reason that mungbeans is a minor cash crop. For soybeans and

mungbeans, the lack of labor was another major constraint. Soybeans and

mungbeans are sprayed more often than other crops, and soybeans are

also fertilized more often (Table 2-64). Post harvest techniques may

also require a greater concentration of labor as the harvested plants






63

must be sun dried, threshed by beating with a stick and then winnowed.

This all must be done in accordance with the weather. Other crops such

as peanuts and corn can be dried in-doors and shelled at leisure.



Input Use and Crop Yields

As discussed earlier in Chapter 1, crop yield information is very

difficult to collect because of the farmers cropping system. Initially,

when the questionnaire was pretested, the farmers were asked to give

information on yields per hectare. Very few of the farmers could give

yield information in this form. Those farmers who were able to, could

only give this kind of information for rice because many of them planted

their entire field or very large portions of their field with rice. In

the end, yields per kilogram of seed planted were gathered. The farmers

could readily give this information and could also readily give expected

high and low yield estimates. This does not necessarily mean that the

farmers are maximizing yields per kilogram of seed. Farmers do not tend

to vary the seed spacings for their crops and appear to apply minimum

amounts of fertilizers. The information about yield per kilogram of

seed was used, however, as a method of obtaining some estimate of crop

yields. The calculation of crop yields and input usage derived from

this data and are discussed in further detail in Chapter III.



Enterprise Recordkeeping Survey



Analysis of this survey was not as thorough as the previous two

surveys due to the lack of time, and the time span the records covered.






63

must be sun dried, threshed by beating with a stick and then winnowed.

This all must be done in accordance with the weather. Other crops such

as peanuts and corn can be dried in-doors and shelled at leisure.



Input Use and Crop Yields

As discussed earlier in Chapter 1, crop yield information is very

difficult to collect because of the farmers cropping system. Initially,

when the questionnaire was pretested, the farmers were asked to give

information on yields per hectare. Very few of the farmers could give

yield information in this form. Those farmers who were able to, could

only give this kind of information for rice because many of them planted

their entire field or very large portions of their field with rice. In

the end, yields per kilogram of seed planted were gathered. The farmers

could readily give this information and could also readily give expected

high and low yield estimates. This does not necessarily mean that the

farmers are maximizing yields per kilogram of seed. Farmers do not tend

to vary the seed spacings for their crops and appear to apply minimum

amounts of fertilizers. The information about yield per kilogram of

seed was used, however, as a method of obtaining some estimate of crop

yields. The calculation of crop yields and input usage derived from

this data and are discussed in further detail in Chapter III.



Enterprise Recordkeeping Survey



Analysis of this survey was not as thorough as the previous two

surveys due to the lack of time, and the time span the records covered.






Page 64
Missing
From
Original






65

the family and their response to this was first to sell what ever

produce they could gather together and second, to sell their chickens.

A conceptual analysis based on the information presented in this

chapter is presented in Chapter V. The analysis discusses some of the

possible reasons why the farmers select certain groups of activities to

form their farming systems.













CHAPTER III
THE SYNTHESIS OF DATA


Data required for formulation of the model, presented in

Chapter IV, was calculated from the survey data presented in Chapter II

and non-survey information gathered in Sitiung. In this chapter, the

specifics of the procedures used to generate the production and

consumption data bases, as assembled for use in the model of a typical

farm system in Situng 5c, are presented. Several procedures, in which

the algorithm used to calculate basic farmer data (such as yield per

hectare) and the available data on which these calculations are based

on, are discussed. Most of the data derived here are from estimated

information (from the surveys) and not measured field data. This

information was collected and used because observed field data of the

type needed for the model did not exist.



Production Conversions to a Land Base



In methodological terms, most production oriented, scientific

research depends upon a common base orientation for comparative

analysis. That.common base is usually expressed relative to the unit of

land with input and product comparisons measured against an accepted

land measurement such as acres or hectares. This convention works well

in mono-crop situations, particularly where land is an important and


66














CHAPTER III
THE SYNTHESIS OF DATA


Data required for formulation of the model, presented in

Chapter IV, was calculated from the survey data presented in Chapter II

and non-survey information gathered in Sitiung. In this chapter, the

specifics of the procedures used to generate the production and

consumption data bases, as assembled for use in the model of a typical

farm system in Situng 5c, are presented. Several procedures, in which

the algorithm used to calculate basic farmer data (such as yield per

hectare) and the available data on which these calculations are based

on, are discussed. Most of the data derived here are from estimated

information (from the surveys) and not measured field data. This

information was collected and used because observed field data of the

type needed for the model did not exist.



Production Conversions to a Land Base



In methodological terms, most production oriented, scientific

research depends upon a common base orientation for comparative

analysis. That.common base is usually expressed relative to the unit of

land with input and product comparisons measured against an accepted

land measurement such as acres or hectares. This convention works well

in mono-crop situations, particularly where land is an important and


66














CHAPTER IV
THE MODEL



The farmers of Sitiung 5c seek to plant a crop mixture that best

fits their cash and subsistence needs. In choosing an optimal crop

mixture, they must take into account not only their needs, but the

uncertainty of their crop yields. Sitiung 5c farmers were very much

aware of potential fluctuations in their crop yields and could, without

difficulty, give estimates of the highest and lowest expected yields for

their crops (Production-Constraints Survey).

The farmers can, to some extent, influence crop yields through the

use of pesticides and fertilizers, however, a large portion of the

uncertainty regarding potential crop yields comes from the weather.

Rainfall is the primary source of water for field crops in Sitiung 5c.

The lack or overabundance of rain during critical stages in crop

development can drastically reduce yields. Also contributing to yield

uncertainty are seed viability, wild pig damage which can totally

destroy a crop of peanuts, cassava or corn, and severe insect damage,

which is a particular problem with soybeans.

Production uncertainty is most easily depicted in mathematical

programming models within the objective function. Formulations such as

E-V analysis and MOTAD, which models the trade-off between maximizing

expected income and minimizing risk (Markowitz, 1952; Hazell, 1971),

usually deal with systems where most of the output is sold. Therefore,

75






76

fluctuations that affect output, directly affect income. For the

limited resource farmers of Sitiung 5c, selling produce is one of many

competing uses for the output from farm production. Crop yield

uncertainty, therefore, affects more than just income.

The amount of produce diverted to alternative uses such as human

consumption, animal consumption, and the saving of seed is also affected

by uncertain yields. If the percentage of consumed farm produce is

small compared to the amounts sold, then the error incurred by ignoring

home consumption would be minimal. In the case of the Sitiung 5c

farmers, production is sufficiently low so that home consumption

utilizes a large percentage of certain crops. If the amounts of produce

consumed were constant, then the problem could be solved in the

objective function. However, consumed produce can also substitute for

purchased produce, and one type of consumed produce can substitute for

another type of consumed produce (for example, cassava can substitute

for rice). Further complicating the matter is that the Sitiung 5c

farmers grow a mixture of cash and subsistence crops. These subsistence

crops often have a low market value, but a high consumptive value. For

example, the only market for cassava is a local processing plant.

Cassava is not sold in the local market; however, cassava can be

substituted for higher-valued rice, which is the major-preferred starch

and has a local market value. Therefore the value of subsistence crops

may not be adequately reflected in an objective function where income is

being maximized. A superior approach to deal with yield uncertainty and

alternative uses for farm outputs and consumption requirements is within

the technical coefficient matrix.







77

Three different approaches have been developed to deal with the

problem of uncertainty within the constraint set. These approaches are

Merrill's nonlinear programming formulation which is similar to an E-V

analysis (Merrill, 1965), Wicks and Guise's linear programming

formulation which utilizes elements from Merrill's formulation and MOTAD

(Wicks and Guise, 1978) and a sequential programming formulation (Cocks,

1968).

The Wicks and Guise approach is used in the formulation of the

succeeding model and was chosen over Merrill's approach because it is

simpler and easier to implement. Though their formulation is based on

Merrill's model, Wicks and Guise sought to develop a simpler, "more

computationally feasible procedure" (p 24). "In their formulation, they

have rewritten Merrill's constraint containing uncertain coefficients in

the chance constraint form. In this form, the most restrictive

constraint must not be violated at more than some pre-specified level of

probability. They then utilized the MOTAD method for estimating a total

absolute standard deviation from a sample set of uncertain constraint

set coefficients. The value of this total absolute standard deviation

is then transformed into an estimate of standard deviation and

incorporated into the chance constraint (Wicks and Guise, 1978).

The model of a limited resource farm presented in this thesis

utilizes Wicks and Guise's formulation in the production of food crops

and their subsequent uses. Because of production problems, mentioned

earlier, food crop yields are treated as stochastic in the model. In

their example, Wicks and Guise utilized a problem involving sheep-grain

farms. These farms were producing feed from pastures, forage crops and








feed grain crops. Because of its direct dependence on the weather, the

production of feed is stochastic and in their model, feed production is

treated as one output rather than three separate outputs. The model of

a limited resource farm presented in this thesis is similar to Wicks and

Guise's example in that the uncertain coefficients are yield

coefficients, however, more than one crop is produced in the limited

resource farm model. In the Wicks and Guise model, production of feed

has a set amount of land and no competition from other crops. In the

model presented here six crops can be produced and each of these crops

compete for land, labor and cash resources. The chance constraint in

this formulation serves to balance crop production and crop uses. Wicks

and Guise's model has one use.for pasture yields, the feeding of sheep.

In the limited resource farm model, there is more than one use for crop

production and each of these activities (selling, consuming and saving

seed) must compete for a portion of the crop production. A simplified

formulation of the model illustrating the stochastic component is



Maximize Z AiIi 2 VCijLij
i ij

subject to

(1) -Z YijLij + Si + Ci + Ii + WioXO + 0Bi < 0 i-1,...,6


(2) -(Yij Yhij)Lij dhij < 0 j-1,2
i-1,...,6
h-1,...,10

(3) 22 dhij Di 0
hj

(4) 8Di Bi 0 '

BL, CG, dhij, Di, Ii, Lij, Si, VCij, Yij' Yhij, xo > 0










where

Ai is the price per kilo of crop i sold.

Ci. is the number of kilograms consumed from crop i.

Di is the measure of total absolute deviation per crop i.

Ii is the number of kilograms sold from crop i.

Lij is the hectares of crop i produced in period j.

Si is the number of kilograms of seed saved from crop i.

VCij is the variable cost of inputs used per hectare of crop i per
season j.

Yhij is the yield per observation h of crop i in time period j.

Yij is the mean yield of all observations of crop i in time period j

dhij is the deviation variable per observation h per crop i per time
period j.

Wio is the amount of crop i consumed by (in this model only corn) a
chicken of age o.

xo is the number of chickens at age o.

0 is the coefficient of risk aversion.

Bi is the estimated standard deviation per crop i.

B is a constant equal to (2/(n(n-l))).5




Individual observations on crop yields, Yhij, are required and the

mean yield, Yij, for each crop is calculated by taking an average of

these observations. 'This mean yield is used in the chance constraint

(1) and is- entered with a negative sign. The chance constraint row also

serves. to balance the expected production of crop i against the

alternative uses for that crop. In this study, crop uses include,
!






80

consumption, Ci; saving seed, Si; and sale, Ii; and feeding chickens,

wioxo. These competing crop yield uses are specified with positive

coefficients in the chance constraint row. The levels of Ci, Si, Ii,

and wioxo are controlled by constraints elsewhere in the model.

The risk coefficient, oBi is also expressed with a positive

coefficient in the chance constraint row and penalizes for going below

the mean yield, Yij. It consists of the coefficient of risk aversion

and the estimate of standard deviation, Bi. The coefficient of risk

aversion is varied arbitrarily; as e is increased, risk aversion also

increases. The greater o is, the higher the penalty. When o is equal

to zero, the coefficient of risk is disabled and the model is solved in

a completely deterministic manner.

The estimate of standard deviation, Bi is calculated in

constraints (2-4). These constraints, which are based on Hazell's MOTAD

formulation, derive Bi by way of calculating a deviation variable, dhi,

by taking the negative difference from the mean of the simulated yield

data set, Yhij. The measure of total absolute deviation, Di was then

calculated from the sum of these deviation variables (3). In constraint

(4), an estimated standard deviation, Bi is derived from Di and a

-conversion factor, 9. This estimated standard deviation, Bi is

incorporated into the chance constraint row and' together with o (the

coefficient of risk aversion), form the risk coefficient.

The simulated time series yield observations Yhij, were derived

form data taken from the Production Constraints Survey. In the

survey, 46 farmers gave their expected high and low yield estimates for

six food crops. From these high and low yields, a beta distribution for






67

relatively scarce resource. In Sitiung 5c several factors complicate

the use of land as a common base for analysis. Because of various

inter-planting techniques, one cannot obtain direct and accurate measure

of "mono-crop" input usage on a land unit basis. Inter-planting often

provides, also, for maximum and optimum land use where field boundaries

and other less convenient space is put to maximum use. Yields are

scattered among disjoint or mixed locations such that identification of

the land base is quite difficult. Thus, the farmer often thinks in

terms of yield per unit of seed planted. For our analysis, however, a

common unit among crops is needed; it is difficult to compare, for

example, peanut seed with mungbean seed. The following conversion

procedures were used to establish per hectare seed and fertilizer rates

as well as yields.



Kilograms of Seed per Hectare



Seed rates per hectare were calculated from seed spacing and seed

per hole data from the Production-Constraints Survey and the number of

seeds per kilogram, which was determined by weighing and counting

samples of locally grown seed.

Kilograms of seed needed to plant one hectare of land was

calculated by multiplying average planting density by the average number

of seeds planted per hole and dividing the result by number of seeds per

kilogram. Average planting density was calculated by dividing the area

per plant in meters, (in-row spacing multiplied by between-row spacing)

into the number of square meters per hectare. Individual farmer
I













CHAPTER V
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS


Qualitative Results



The survey information presented in Chapter II provides the basis

for this analysis. The Sitiung 5c farmers are managers of limited

resource farming systems with very few resources to distribute among

many competing intra-household activities. The allocation of these

resources depends on the priorities given to the different activities.

Since maintaining family welfare rather than profit maximization is the

central goal of these farmers, the prioritization of these intra-

household activities is not always clear and consistent and depends on

the farmers' current situation.

Maintaining family welfare is the main objective, therefore

activities which insure survival are given higher priority. Survival

over the long-run and in the short-run encompasses two different sets

of activities and priorities. If survival is the major goal, survival

in the long-run cannot be achieved unless survival in the short-run is

insured first. When there are insufficient resources to fullfil both

the long-run and the short-run goal of survival, long-run priorities

will be sacrificed in order to fill short-run priorities. This is

reflected in the responses.shown in Table 2-9. Given a tight cash

constraint, farmers will first buy food and second buy food crop













CHAPTER V
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS


Qualitative Results



The survey information presented in Chapter II provides the basis

for this analysis. The Sitiung 5c farmers are managers of limited

resource farming systems with very few resources to distribute among

many competing intra-household activities. The allocation of these

resources depends on the priorities given to the different activities.

Since maintaining family welfare rather than profit maximization is the

central goal of these farmers, the prioritization of these intra-

household activities is not always clear and consistent and depends on

the farmers' current situation.

Maintaining family welfare is the main objective, therefore

activities which insure survival are given higher priority. Survival

over the long-run and in the short-run encompasses two different sets

of activities and priorities. If survival is the major goal, survival

in the long-run cannot be achieved unless survival in the short-run is

insured first. When there are insufficient resources to fullfil both

the long-run and the short-run goal of survival, long-run priorities

will be sacrificed in order to fill short-run priorities. This is

reflected in the responses.shown in Table 2-9. Given a tight cash

constraint, farmers will first buy food and second buy food crop







94

inputs. All other choices fall far behind. The farmers must meet

consumption needs first and investment in food crop inputs helps to

insure that consumption needs will be met. The importance of food

crops for immediate survival is reflected in the responses shown in

Table 2-8. Agriculture, though not the only source of income, is the

major source of income for most farmers. Only 20% of the total farmers

interviewed could not meet food needs from their harvests. Of the

remaining 80%, four-fifths could usually meet their food needs, while

the remaining one-fifth could sometimes meet their food requirements.

Farmer choices, given a situation where cash constraints are not

tight (Table 2-11), contradict short-run priorities for survival (the

buying of food and annual food crop inputs). High among farmer choices

were the education of children and investing in animals and tree crops.

None of these activities necessarily provide short-run returns.

Purchasing of annual food crop inputs (fertilizers) and food ranked low

- sixth and seventh consecutively. Although farmers are strongly

interested in producing enough food crops to insure survival and will

try to apply what they perceive as adequate amounts of fertilizers and

pesticides to insure this, it happens that, beyond this critical point,

they are not necessarily interested in further investments in annual

food crops. Instead, they seem to be more interested in activities

that have the potential for increased future returns and family well-

being. The farmers' plans for their second field (which at the time of

the interviews was still in forest) reflects their strong interest in

investment crops (Tables 2-14 and 2-15). Seventy percent of the

farmers planned to plant tree crops on their second field while only
0






95

24% planned to plant food crops exclusively. Farmer interests in

investments that could potentially provide security in the future are

also reflected by the .farmers choosing the variable income of farming

over the steady income of a permanent job (Table 2-35). Investment in

working and slowly improving their farms is more desirable than a

steady income which does not provide security once the working years

are over. Long-term security becomes more important than marginal

increases in short-term consumption beyond adequate short-term

survival.

Farmers face an uncertain future: their children may die or leave

home, their health may fail, their strength will diminish as they age

and annual food crops may not always yield every year. The farmers'

long-run goal to insure survival, despite anticipated and unanticipated

disasters, involves a different set of priorities than those for short-

run goals. Income stabilization and diversification of risk seem to be

the primary objectives for choosing to invest in activities that will

eventually provide more secure returns over the years. The farm itself

is an investment that will increase in value through slow improvements

due to good management and the increased value of investments for the

long-term. Tree crops will persist from year to year and require

minimal labor and maintenance as compared to annual food crops.

Animals are also perennial in nature and have the potential to multiply

and increase in value (barring disease). Children, though they may

eventually move away, act as insurance against the possibility that

aging adults are no longer able to care for themselves. The education

of these children may help insure that a few would be able to find






96

employment outside of the farm and thereby diversify potential

security. Likewise, as children move away and food security demands

for the household are. reduced, both labor and land can be diverted

over time from field crops to tree crops and animals.

In conclusion, short-run priorities will take precedence over

long-run priorities only until the short-run goals are fulfilled both

on seasonal and life cycle bases. From the farmers' view, once the

critical amounts of inputs have been obtained to insure adequate yields

from annual crops for family survival, the marginal utility of further

applications of inputs falls quickly. Contributing to this decline in

marginal utility would be the added risk of investing more scarce

resources in an activity which is dependent on the weather (Sitiung 5c

does not have irrigation). Furthermore, the strong desire of the

farmers to stabilize incomes through diversification and to obtain some

security for the future through investment in long-term enterprises is

most important.

Farmer allocation of resources to various short-run activities at

different levels of risk aversion is described in the analysis

resulting from the succeeding model. These short-run activities

involve production of annual crops, off-farm labor sales, poultry

raising (this livestock activity is treated as a short-run activity as

all salable chicks produced are sold at either ages 4 or 8 months), and

consumption activities. Due to lack of data, long-run investment

activities such as cash tree crops and other livestock activities were

not included in this model. Because this is not a multi-year model,

it serves to depict farmer decisions made for one year under







68

planting densities and seed per hole data can be found in Appendix B,

Tables 4-9.



Fertilizer Rates and Costs

Since fertilizer application rates were only in the form of

applications per field, fertilizers applied per crop had to be derived.

Because corn and cassava were not specifically fertilized and only

received fertilizers applied to crops with which they are inter-

cropped, fertilizer rates for corn and cassava were not calculated.

Crops planted within the field do not necessarily receive the same

amount of fertilizer. Aside from the base application, the number of

additional applications of fertilizer will vary with the kind of crop

planted. For example, the number of urea applications made to soybeans

exceeds the average number of urea applications to peanuts. Therefore

the amount of fertilizer given to a crop is not merely a function of the

area planted to that crop. The number of fertilizer applications must

also be considered. The total amount of fertilizer given to each crop

in the field was estimated by calculating the portion of fertilizer

applied to each crop from the total amount applied to the field. This

portion is based on the area planted to a crop and the number of

applications of fertilizer given to that crop.

The area planted to each crop (for example, soybeans) was first

calculated by dividing the kilograms of soybean seed planted by the

kilograms of soybean seed needed to plant one hectare (the average size

of a field in Sitiung 5c is one hectare). The portion of fertilizer

applied to a crop was calculated by multiplying the area planted to each






69

crop by the number of applications of a particular fertilizer. For

example, the portion of urea applied to soybeans was calculated by

multiplying the area- planted to soybeans by the number of urea

applications made to soybeans. Likewise, portion of urea to peanuts,

rice and mungbeans were calculated. All portions were summed; and the

percent of fertilizer applied to each crop was determined by dividing

the portion of fertilizer applied to a crop by the sum of all portions.

The amount of fertilizer applied to each crop was calculated by

multiplying the percent of fertilizer applied to each crop by the actual

amount of fertilizer applied to the field. The fertilizer rate per

hectare could then be calculated (for example, soybeans and urea) by

dividing one hectare by the area planted to soybeans and multiplying by

the amount of urea applied to those soybeans.



Average Expected High and Low Crop Yields Ver Hectare

Expected high and low yields per kilogram seed planted were given by

farmers in the Production-Constraints Survey. These data were converted

to expected high and low yields per hectare by multiplying the expected

high or low yield per kilogram seed by the kilograms of seed needed to

plant one hectare.



Time Series Yield Data

Time series yield data were simulated from the expected high and low

yield per hectare information calculated above. From these high and low

yields, a beta distribution for each crop was estimated and generated






69

crop by the number of applications of a particular fertilizer. For

example, the portion of urea applied to soybeans was calculated by

multiplying the area- planted to soybeans by the number of urea

applications made to soybeans. Likewise, portion of urea to peanuts,

rice and mungbeans were calculated. All portions were summed; and the

percent of fertilizer applied to each crop was determined by dividing

the portion of fertilizer applied to a crop by the sum of all portions.

The amount of fertilizer applied to each crop was calculated by

multiplying the percent of fertilizer applied to each crop by the actual

amount of fertilizer applied to the field. The fertilizer rate per

hectare could then be calculated (for example, soybeans and urea) by

dividing one hectare by the area planted to soybeans and multiplying by

the amount of urea applied to those soybeans.



Average Expected High and Low Crop Yields Ver Hectare

Expected high and low yields per kilogram seed planted were given by

farmers in the Production-Constraints Survey. These data were converted

to expected high and low yields per hectare by multiplying the expected

high or low yield per kilogram seed by the kilograms of seed needed to

plant one hectare.



Time Series Yield Data

Time series yield data were simulated from the expected high and low

yield per hectare information calculated above. From these high and low

yields, a beta distribution for each crop was estimated and generated






97

conditions where there are insufficient resources to allocate to long-

term activities.



Model Analysis and Results



Three different restrictions were imposed separately on the model

in addition to the labor and consumption restrictions discussed in

Chapter IV. In the first case, the model was not allowed to purchase

food, but had to produce all food consumed. The resulting solution was

infeasible when the model was run deterministically (0-0). This result

suggests that markets are very important to small farmers' survival

even if they are selling and buying only small amounts of produce and

goods.



No Limits on Food Purchases

Food purchases were allowed in the second case and no additional

restrictions were imposed on the model. The results from this

specification are presented in Table 5-1. The model is infeasible for

values of the risk aversion coefficient (o) exceeding 1.0. When o-0,

the risk coefficient in the model is disabled, and farmer decisions are

based on the anticipation of average crop yields. Increasing the value

of a simulates farmer decisions made when anticipated yields are lower

than average yields. As o increases, anticipated yields decrease.

Risk averse farmers will plan for crop yields lower which are than

their average yields. Therefore, if crop productivity declines due to

an unexpected disaster, such as a very severe pest outbreak or bad






University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs