<%BANNER%>

Economic Impact of Improved Harvest and Post-Harvest Practices on the Haitian Mango Industry

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0045632/00001

Material Information

Title: Economic Impact of Improved Harvest and Post-Harvest Practices on the Haitian Mango Industry
Physical Description: 1 online resource (135 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Hyppolite, Lidwine
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2013

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: burn -- cost -- haiti -- injury -- latex -- mango -- mechanical -- rate -- rejection
Agricultural and Biological Engineering -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Agricultural and Biological Engineering thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: inmereMango, Mangifera indica, L, is the second largest Haitian export crop after coffee, and annually nets more than ten million dollars to the Haitian economy. Yet, only 21% of all mangos harvested reach export markets because of excessive losses caused by poor harvesting and transport practices. The objectives of this study were to estimate the economic impact to growers and suppliers that could result from the adoption of cutting poles in field harvest, pack frames with field crates for animal transport, and crate loading for truck transport. The work carried out in this study consisted of two field trips to Haiti. The first provided data with which to characterize the current mango industry, while the second field trip provided data from field experiments designed to measure mango yield distribution by tree category, harvest worker productivity with picking and cutting poles and the effect of cutting poles on rejection rates. The results show that adoption of cutting poles would have little impact on net income to growers. Nevertheless, additional benefit would be realized further down-stream in the distribution channel by reduced rejection rates from latex burn. Adoption of animal pack frames with field crates for animal transport could be expected to improve net income to first-level suppliers, and replacing bulk loading of trucks with crate loading should also increase net income to second-level and independent suppliers. The combined effect of these improvements should increase mango exports to the USA from 21% to 28%, (from 10,000 to 13,300 metric tons).
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Lidwine Hyppolite.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Local: Adviser: Teixeira, Arthur A.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2013
System ID: UFE0045632:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0045632/00001

Material Information

Title: Economic Impact of Improved Harvest and Post-Harvest Practices on the Haitian Mango Industry
Physical Description: 1 online resource (135 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Hyppolite, Lidwine
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2013

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: burn -- cost -- haiti -- injury -- latex -- mango -- mechanical -- rate -- rejection
Agricultural and Biological Engineering -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Agricultural and Biological Engineering thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: inmereMango, Mangifera indica, L, is the second largest Haitian export crop after coffee, and annually nets more than ten million dollars to the Haitian economy. Yet, only 21% of all mangos harvested reach export markets because of excessive losses caused by poor harvesting and transport practices. The objectives of this study were to estimate the economic impact to growers and suppliers that could result from the adoption of cutting poles in field harvest, pack frames with field crates for animal transport, and crate loading for truck transport. The work carried out in this study consisted of two field trips to Haiti. The first provided data with which to characterize the current mango industry, while the second field trip provided data from field experiments designed to measure mango yield distribution by tree category, harvest worker productivity with picking and cutting poles and the effect of cutting poles on rejection rates. The results show that adoption of cutting poles would have little impact on net income to growers. Nevertheless, additional benefit would be realized further down-stream in the distribution channel by reduced rejection rates from latex burn. Adoption of animal pack frames with field crates for animal transport could be expected to improve net income to first-level suppliers, and replacing bulk loading of trucks with crate loading should also increase net income to second-level and independent suppliers. The combined effect of these improvements should increase mango exports to the USA from 21% to 28%, (from 10,000 to 13,300 metric tons).
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Lidwine Hyppolite.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2013.
Local: Adviser: Teixeira, Arthur A.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2013
System ID: UFE0045632:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text

PAGE 1

1 ECONOMIC IMPACT OF I MPROVED HAR VEST AND POST HARVEST PRACTICES ON THE HAITIAN MANGO INDUSTRY B y L IDWINE H YPPOLITE A THESIS PRESENTED T O THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIR EMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORID A 2013

PAGE 2

2 2013 L idwine H yppolite

PAGE 3

3 T o my parents and Hait ian mango industry stakeholders

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I am grateful to Dr. Texeira, my acade mic advisor for his support, patience and guidance throughout my study and research on mango. Dr. Texeira impres ses me with the way he uses his more than 40 years of knowledge and experience in food engineering. I am thank ful to Dr. Roka another committee member for his m entoring throughout my research and Dr. Sargent, my other committee member and professor of post harvest technology for knowledge transmission, guidance, and kindness throughout my research. I w ish to thank Dr. Bates for his time sharing i n discussions about agricultural byproduct opportunities for Haiti I also thank my professors, whether in Haiti or in the USA, for knowledge transmission. I thank the Agriculture Biologi cal Engineering Department and th e UF library staffs f or their assist ance. I want to thank the UF/IFAS office, particularly Florence Sergile, the coordinator of Haiti project of the Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) for her strength, dynamism and support throughout my study at the University of Florida and resea r ch in Haiti I thank Melissa Wokasch, Jennifer Beck, Shary Taylor, Dr. Bowen Walter for their generous support. My sincere thanks go to the USAID through the Watershed Initiative for National Natural Environmental Resources (WINNER) project which pr ovided eight scholarships to a group of eight young Haitians Those scholarships offer the opportunity to these Haitians to earn a master degree in different agricultural specialties from the University of Florida for further return ing Haiti and serv ing th eir country This is a great way to help Haiti to relieve a fter the devastating 2010 earthquake that killed numbers of executives and hundreds of thousands of lives

PAGE 5

5 I thank Jean Robert Estim the head of the WINNER project for his visit at the University of Florida to meet grantees, and to learn about their study and research evolution. Mr. Estim spent time with Dr. Texeira Dr. Sargent, mango exporters and other stakeholders involv ing in the mango industry to find out convenient time for students workin g on mangos to come in Haiti to conduct their experiments and ensure these students had adequate materials and equipment for conducting their research experiments. I thank Marie Claude Vorbe, the coordinator of the WINNER training for her support. Special thanks go to Rachelle Lexidort, Atis Russio Jean Milien, Gaby Emmerson who contributed to the realization of my research in Haiti. I t hank Joseph Occelus, the USDA supervisor i nvolv ing in the export of Francisque mango from Haiti to the USA for his importa nt support during my research. Mr. Occelus is doing a great job in building a database on mango export and rejection rates at packing houses for Haiti. I also t hank the staff of the Haitian Department of Agriculture specially th e direct ion of the Plant Pro tection Office, Pierre Charlemagne Charles, the assistant director of the same office and Dieuseul Eugene, who handles mango data computation, for their time and data sharing on the mango industry. I w ish to thank farmers, harvest workers, suppliers, Phari sien Jean Ronald, the general secretary of ANAPROFOURMANG the executive staff of ANEM, Jean Maurice Buteau COPCOM F and COPAG M ) for their collaboration and sharing records. I thank my family me mbers for their encouragement and support during my study. My loving mother who always remembers me to stay in contact with Jesus I thank Judex Hyppolite, my old brother for his support and encouragement. My friends at

PAGE 6

6 s families, Rashell; my ABE friends: Samuel Asso, Diana, Sandra, Doan and everybody whose name is not listed here but in one way or another supported me by their presence and encouragement. Special thanks go to the for his bles sings, protection and health!

PAGE 7

7 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 4 LIST OF TABLES ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 10 LIST OF FIGURES ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 13 LIST OF ACRONYMS ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 15 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 19 Background ................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 19 Justifications ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 20 Hypotheses and Study Objectives ................................ ................................ .......... 21 2 LITERATURE REVIEW ................................ ................................ .......................... 23 Overview ................................ ................................ ................................ ................. 23 Varieties ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 25 Rejection Rates ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 26 Stakeholder Profit Margins ................................ ................................ ...................... 28 Byproducts ................................ ................................ ................................ .............. 29 Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 30 3 CHARA CTERIZATION OF THE CURRENT HAITIAN MANGO INDUSTRY .......... 34 Description of the Study Area ................................ ................................ ................. 34 Methods and Procedures ................................ ................................ ........................ 35 Res ults ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 38 History of Haitian Mango Export Industry ................................ ................................ 38 Organization of the Haitian Mango Industry/Mango Distribution Channels ............. 39 Stakeholders ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 40 Growers ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 40 First level Suppliers ................................ ................................ .......................... 41 Second level Suppliers ................................ ................................ ..................... 42 Independent Suppliers ................................ ................................ ..................... 43 Exporters ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 43 Organization of the Export Distribution Channel ................................ ............... 43 Domestic Channel Distribution ................................ ................................ ......... 44 International Trade and Price Trends ................................ ................................ ...... 45 Demand for Francisque Mango ................................ ................................ .............. 46 Prices ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 47 Production ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 47 Harvesting Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ 49

PAGE 8

8 Transportation Methods ................................ ................................ .......................... 51 Summary of Findings ................................ ................................ .............................. 53 4 METHODS AND PROCEDURES ................................ ................................ ........... 67 Second Field Trip ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 67 Field Harvest ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 67 Mango tree categorization ................................ ................................ .......... 67 Tree yield distribution ................................ ................................ ................. 69 Harvest worker productivity with picking and cutting poles ........................ 69 Cutting pole performance compared with picking pole ............................... 70 Animal Transportation ................................ ................................ ...................... 71 Truck Transportation ................................ ................................ ........................ 72 Prices Paid to Growers and Suppliers ................................ .............................. 73 Economic Impact ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 73 5 RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS ................................ ................................ .................. 78 Presentation of Data ................................ ................................ ............................... 78 Field Harvest ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 78 Yield distribution by tree category ................................ .............................. 79 Harvest worker productivity with picking and cutting ................................ .. 79 C utting pole performance ................................ ................................ ........... 79 Animal Transport from Field to Collection Centers ................................ ........... 80 Truck Transportation from Collection Centers to Packing Houses ................... 81 Prices Paid to Growers and Suppliers ................................ .............................. 82 Economic Impact ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 83 Impact from Rejection Rates ................................ ................................ ............ 83 Cutting pole ................................ ................................ ................................ 83 Animal pack frame ................................ ................................ ..................... 84 Crate loading with truck transport ................................ .............................. 85 Combined effect fro m field harvest to export ................................ .............. 85 Added Cost of Implementation ................................ ................................ ......... 86 Cutting pole ................................ ................................ ................................ 87 Pack frame and field crates ................................ ................................ ........ 87 Crate loading on trucks ................................ ................................ .............. 88 Impact on Stakeholder Net Incomes ................................ ................................ ....... 88 Growers/Producers ................................ ................................ .......................... 89 First level Suppliers ................................ ................................ .......................... 89 Second level Suppliers and Independent Suppliers ................................ ......... 91 6 CONCLUSIONS ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 107 APPENDIX A CHARACTERIZATION OF HARVEST AND TRANSPORT OF HAITIAN MANGO INDUSTRY INQUIRY FORM ................................ ................................ .. 109

PAGE 9

9 B USEFUL DATA ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 112 C MANGO INDUSTRY RECORD KEEPING ................................ ............................ 116 D DATA FROM FIELD HARVEST EXPERIMENTS ................................ ................. 127 LIST OF REFERENCES ................................ ................................ ............................. 130 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................................ ................................ .......................... 135

PAGE 10

10 LIST OF TABLES Table page 2 1 Specific mango varieties produced by v arious departments in Haiti ................... 31 2 2 for a 4.5 kg box of Francisque mangos ................... 32 3 1 Harvest season of main area of Francisque mango pro duc tion ......................... 54 3 2 Harvest mango season coincides with rainfall of Mirebalais and Saut d Eau ..... 54 3 3 Transport costs of mangos by trucks ................................ ................................ .. 54 5 1 Mango yield distribution by tree category from four trees in each category. ....... 93 5 2 Worker productivity with picking and cutt ing poles by tree category ................... 93 5 3 Rejection rates of mangos transported by mule in woven straw sacs and plastic field crates with pack frame for pack loads of 210 fruit per load from field harv est sites to co llection centers ................................ ............................... 93 5 4 Rejection rates for truck transport in bulk a nd crate loading ............................... 94 5 5 Prices paid per mango to growers and suppliers throughout the distribution chain ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 94 5 6 Summarized impact of improved practices on rejection rates ............................ 94 5 7 Steps taken to convert useful life into amortized cost per mango transported in plastic field crates on a pack frame set ................................ ........................... 95 5 8 Steps taken to convert useful life into amortized cost per mang o for using crate loaded trucks ................................ ................................ ............................. 95 5 9 Harvest season revenue to first level suppliers from animal transport of 22,500 mangos using woven bags vs. plastic field crates on pack frame ........... 96 5 10 Harvest season expenses to first level supplier from animal transport of 22,500 mangos using woven bags vs. plastic field crates on pack frame. .......... 96 5 11 Comparison of first ... 96 5 12 First level suppliers' revenues from a harvest season of 22,500 mangos harvested with pic king and cutting poles ................................ ............................ 96 5 13 Comparison of first .. 97

PAGE 11

11 5 14 First level suppliers' revenues from a harvest season of 22,500 mangos transported by animal in woven bags and pack frame set ................................ .. 97 5 15 Comparison of first level suppliers' net incomes from a harvest season of 22,500 mangos transported by animal in woven bags and pack frame set ........ 97 5 16 Harvest season revenue to second level suppliers from truck transport of 210,000 mangos using bulk loading vs. cr ate loading ................................ ........ 97 5 17 Harvest season expenses to second level suppliers from truck transport of 210,000 mangos using bulk loading vs. crate loading ................................ ........ 98 5 18 Comparison of net income between bulk loading and crate loading of trucks .... 98 5 19 Second level suppliers' revenues from a harvest season of mangos harvested with picking and cutting poles ................................ ............................ 98 5 20 cutting pole ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 98 5 21 Second l evel suppliers' revenues from a harvest season of 210,000 mangos transported by truck in bulk loading and crate loading ................................ ........ 99 5 22 Comparison of second level suppliers' net incomes from a harvest season of 210,000 mangos transported by truck in bulk loading and crate loading ............ 99 5 23 Summary of impact on net income to growers and suppliers resulting from adoption of improved mango harves t and transport practices ............................ 99 B 1 List of the 10 mango packinghouses in Haiti ................................ .................... 112 B 2 Institutions and agents involving in mango in dustry in Haiti .............................. 114 B 3 Estimate cost of a picking pole ................................ ................................ ......... 115 C 1 rom Mirebalais collection centers to Port au Prince packinghouse in 2011 ............. 116 C 2 Distribution of mangos purchased and sold by RAPCOM association in Saut d Ea u in 2011 ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 117 C 3 Distribution of mangos purchased and sold by SAPKO association in Saut d Eau in 2011 ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 118 C 4 Distribution of mangos purchased and sold by RAPCOM fro m Saut d Eau to Port au Prince packing house s in 2012 ................................ ............................ 119

PAGE 12

12 C 5 Distribution of SAPKO mangos purchased, transported by trucks in crate loading from Saut d Eau to Port au Prince packing houses and sold by SAPKO packing shed to in 2012 ................................ ................................ ...... 120 C 6 Distribution of Haitian Francisque mangos at packing houses in 2010 2011 ... 121 C 7 Di stribution of mangos from Mirebalais at Packing houses in 2011 .................. 122 C 8 Distribution of mangos from Saut d Eau at packi ng houses in 2011 ................. 124 C 9 Distribution of mangos from Central Plateau at packing house s in 2012 .......... 126 D 1 Raw data of yield distribution of mangos by tree category ............................... 127 D 2 Harvest labor productivity by tree category and selected pole .......................... 128 D 3 Cutting pole insignificantly reduces harvest labor productivity .......................... 129

PAGE 13

13 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 2 1 Mango by products and business opportunities ................................ ................. 33 3 1 Map of the Haitian Francisqu e mango production areas (Buteau, 2005) ............ 55 3 2 Main stakeholders of the Haitian mango industry ................................ ............... 56 3 3 Export channel distribution ................................ ................................ ................. 57 3 4 Mangos before washing at packing houses ................................ ........................ 58 3 5 Mango sorting at JMB packing house ................................ ................................ 58 3 6 Mobile collection centers funded by WINNER project_USAID ........................... 59 3 7 Common collection center ................................ ................................ .................. 59 3 8 The u nique packing shed ................................ ................................ ................... 60 3 9 Organization of the domestic channel distribution ................................ .............. 61 3 10 Filling wooden baskets with mangos by madame s ara for Port au Prince markets ................................ ................................ ................................ ............... 62 3 11 Mangos transported by truck in wooden baskets for domestic markets ............. 62 3 12 Harvesting mango s with traditional picking pole ................................ ................. 63 3 13 Washing mangos at field harvest when water is available ................................ .. 63 3 14 Mangos transported over hu ................................ ............................ 64 3 15 Mangos transported by animal in narrow mountainous road .............................. 65 3 16 Carriers sat over mangos transported by animal ................................ ................ 65 3 17 Loading mangos to be shipped to packing house facilities ................................ 66 4 1 A shot of an experiment conducted on a tree harvested with two harvest teams ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 74 4 2 A shot of a traditional picking pole ................................ ................................ ...... 75 4 3 A shot of an improved cutting pole ................................ ................................ ..... 75 4 3 Mangos transported by donkey in woven bag ................................ .................... 76

PAGE 14

14 4 4 Mangos transported by mule in pack frame of four and five plastic field crates .. 76 4 5 Bulk loading ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 77 5 1 Fate of mangos harvested without stem (peduncle) from both cutting and picking poles, and rejected for latex burn as they t ravel through the distribution chain. ................................ ................................ .............................. 100 5 2 I mpact on rejection rates from adopting the pack frame with field crates for animal transport ................................ ................................ ................................ 101 5 3 Truck loading effect on rejection rates at packing house ................................ .. 102 5 4 Current rejection rates from traditional practices for 100 mangos harvested .... 103 5 5 Expected rejection rates from adoption of improved practices for 100 mangos harvested. ................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 104 5 6 Fate of mangos harvested without stem (peduncle) from picking and cutting poles, and rejected for latex burn on first level suppliers ................................ .. 105 5 7 Fate of mangos harvested without stem (peduncle) from picking and cutting pole, and rejected for latex burn on s econd level suppliers .............................. 106

PAGE 15

15 LIST OF ACRONYMS AMS Agricultural Marketing Service ANAPROFOURMANG Association Nationale des Producteurs et Fournisseurs de Mangues (National association of mango producers and suppliers ) ANEM As sociation Nationale des Exportateurs de Mangues (National association of mango exporters ) APHIS Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service ASPVEFS Association des Producteurs et des Vendeurs de Fruits du Sud ( association of Southern producers and sellers o f fruits ) CETPA Centre de Stockage et de Transformation et de Produits Agricoles (a center for stor ing and processing agricultural products) C OEPDA Comit Evanglique pour le Dveloppement Agricole (an evangelical committee for the Development of Agricultu re) COPACGM Cooprative de Production Agricole et de Commercialisation de Gros Morne ( a cooperative of Gros and marketing ) COPCOMF Cooprative des Producteurs pour la Commercialisation de Mangues Francisques ( a cooperative o f producers involving in the trade of Francisque mango ) DEFI Programme de Dveloppement conomique des Filires Rurales ( a p rogram for economic development of rural channels ) DPV Direction de Protection des Vgtaux (Plant Protection Direction ) FAES Fonds Funds for e conomic and social aid s ) FAMV FENAPCOM Fdration Nationale des Associations de Producteurs pour la Commercialisation de Mangues (National Federation of mango prod ucer associations ) GPS Global Positioning System IHSI Institut Hatien de Statistique et d Informatique ( Haitian institute of statistiques and data processing )

PAGE 16

16 ITECA Institut de Technologie et d Animation ( technology and animation institute ) MARNDR Minist re de l Agriculture des Ressources Naturelles et du Dveloppement Rural is the Haitian Department of Agriculture involving in the protection of Natural Resources and Rural Development) NMB National Mango Board NMC National Mango Council ORE Organization f or the Rehabilitation of the Environment PPQ Plant Protection Quarantine RAPCOM Rassemblement des Producteurs pour la Commercialisation de mangues ( a group of farmers for the marketing of mangos ) SAPKO an association involving in the production and the trade of mangos ) WINNER Watershed Initiative for National Natural Environmental Resources

PAGE 17

17 Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Re quirements for the Degree of Master of Science ECONOMIC IMPACT OF I MPROVED HARVEST AND POST HARVEST PRACTICES ON THE HAITIAN MANGO INDUSTRY By Lidwine Hyppolite M ay 2013 Chair: A rthur A. Te i xeira Major: Agricultural Biological Engineering Mango, Mangi fera indica, L is the second largest Haitian export crop after coffee, and annually nets more than ten million dollars to the Haitian economy. Yet, only 2 1 % of all mangos harvested reach export markets because of excessive losses caused by poor harvesting and transport practices. The objectives of this study were to estimate the economic impact to growers and suppliers that could result from the adoption of cutting poles in field harvest, pack frames with field crates for animal transport, and crate loadin g for truck transport. The work carried out in this study consisted of two field trips to Haiti. The first provided data with which to characterize the current mango industry, while the second field trip provided data from field experiments designed to mea sure mango yield distribution by tree category, harvest worker productivity with picking and cutting poles and the effect of cutting poles on rejection rates. The r esults show that adoption of cutting poles would have little impact on net income to growers Nevertheless, additional benefit would be realized further down stream in the distribution channel by reduced rejection rates from latex burn. Adoption of animal pack frames with field crates for animal transport could be expected to

PAGE 18

18 improve net income t o first level suppliers, and replac ing bulk loading of trucks with crate loading should also increase net income to second level and independent suppliers The combined effect of these improvements should increase mango exports to the USA from 21% to 28%, ( from 10 000 to 13 3 00 metric tons)

PAGE 19

19 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background Mango, Mangifera indica, L is the second largest Haitian export crop after coffee and annually nets ten million dollars to the economy. During harvesting periods mango consumption he lps to mitigate the problem of food insecurity in Haiti. Additionally, mango trees contribute to soil preservation and environmental protection. The Organization for the Rehabil itation of the Environment (2012 ) reported that mango is Haiti's most popular t ree, estima ted at about ten million trees ( USDA, 2010) About 150 varieties throughout the country were identified, among them the Francisque variety estimated at one million trees, which is the sole commercial variety formally exported as fresh fruit (US DA, 201 0 ) Be sides the economic, nutritional, and environmental importance of mangos Haiti wants to increase their exports for two other reasons. First, the country wants to recover its position in the US mango import market by increasing its market share to market share had declined while other countries like Mexico, Brazil and even the Dominican Republic have increased their market share s with a steadily growing in ternational demand for mangos Smucker et al. (2005) reported that Haiti s market share in the US dropped from 46 percent in the 1980s to 16 percent, and now remains stable at around 4 percent. Even though the Haiti an mango is plea sing to consumers and importers because it is organic, and has hig h quality, taste and flavor, its limited av ailability in small quantities over short time periods, prevents it from competing with other varieti es that are available in large r quantities over longer periods on the market.

PAGE 20

20 During the National Mango Forum held in Port au Prince on April 20 and 21, 2010, attended by the USDA/APHIS and the USA National Mango Board, representative mango stakeholders committed to expand ing the volu me of exports from 2.5 million to 5 million cases of 4.5 kg each (22,500 metric tons) in five years. How e ver, volume of exports has not increased sufficiently to achieve that five year objective. The USDA market news reported that the country exported 6,45 8 metric tons of mangos in 2010, 9,874 in 2011 and 7,8 70 in 2012. With an export volume well below 22 500 metric tons, stakeholders are concerned that they will not meet their 2015 goal of exporting 22,500 metric tons of mangos annually to the United State s. Since it is well known that national consumption is well below actual production 1 the Haitian mango industry will have to take initiatives to significantly reduce mango losses and rejection rates throughout the export channel in order to increase the l ikelihood of meeting the targeted volume of export Justifications The USAID (2010) estimated mango rejection rates to be about 40% of total production of Francisque mangos However, Medlicott (2001) estimated the rate to be between 60% and 70% and offered several recommendations for reducing the problem. Nevertheless, both sources agreed on certain causes of rejections, such as immaturity, pests and diseases, spots, and poor harvest and post harvest handling. Toge ther they recommended the use of cutting poles instead of picking poles to reduce rejections due to latex burn, the use of pack frames with plastic field crates instead of woven straw bags in animal transportation of mangos from field harvest to collection centers, and the 1 Certain associations of Mirebalais and Saut reported having lost about 35 metric tons of mangos in 2008 (Personal communication, 2010).

PAGE 21

21 use of crate loading instead of bulk loading transportation of mangos by truck from collection centers to packinghouses There are costs associated with the adoption of the proposed changes in the way mangos are harvested and transported. Stakeholders need to know to what extent income. However, t hese increases may not necessarily mean that agents will be willing to integrate the proposed changes in their business. In an environment where agents care mostly about their profit, they will accept the changes only if the benefits outweigh the costs. Hypotheses and Study Objectives Three specific hypotheses were formulated for this research First, the a doption of a cutting pole leads to a reduction in mango rejection rates caused by latex burn, and increases stakeholder net returns. Second, the u se of a pack frame system with plastic field crates will lead to a decrease in mango rejection rates caused by mechan ical damage, thus increasing first between harves t sites and collection centers. Third, the a doption of plastic field crates in truck transportation from collection centers to packing houses will l ead to a decrease in mango rejection rat es from mechanical injury, that would be caused by bulk loading, thus increasing second mangos in plastic field crates outperforms that derived from the bu lk loading. These hypotheses were followed by three s pecific objectives : 1. C haracterize current harvesting and transport practice s in the Haitian mango industry ; 2. D etermine yield tree distribution and harvest worker productivity with picking and cutting pole s ;

PAGE 22

22 3. D etermine the economic impact to stakeholder net incomes from adoption of cutting pole s for harvesting and plastic field crates in the transport of mangos by animal and truck

PAGE 23

23 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW This chapter provides an overview o n mango and in cludes fruit varieties, causes for rejections and their rates around the world and Haiti in particular. It also describes different mango byproducts and potential business opportunities from mangos for Haiti. Overview et al 2007). It is known by the same name in English and Spanish, but different terms for the a. In the 16 th c entury Portuguese explorers brought mango to Latin America and the Caribbean countries. The tree finally reached Haiti from Jamaica in the 1780s (JWK International Corporation 1976). Mango trees can grow to great heights. Morton (1987) rep orted trees of 100 feet (30 meters) in height. Vieux (1990) also reported 30 meters tree heights in Haiti. However, short trees are preferable because it is easier to harvest short er than tall er trees. Trees may also have big trunks and large canopies. A c anopy covering 2,700 square yards (2,318 m 2 ) in East Punjab, India was reported by JWK International Corporation (1976). With age, the broad rounded canopy may reach as much as 100 125 feet (30 38 m) in diameter (Morton, 1987). As a result, mango trees req uire certain spacing to avoid tree canopies from overlapping and compete for sunlight. The recommended planting distance is 12 x 12 m in a humid environment, and 10 x 10 m in a dry environment (Medina and Garcia, 2002). Mature mango trees can thrive withou t irrigation because their taproot extend de ep into the soil and captur e ground water. However, irrigated trees at proper critical stages will produce greater yield and better

PAGE 24

24 quality fruit than non irrigated ones. Mango trees also have a long life span, a nd certain specimens can live for more than 300 years old and still bear fruits ( JWK International Corporation, 1976). Grafted trees live up to 80 years old while those grown from seedling can live for over 100 years ( Medina and Garcia, 2002) However gra fted trees start pro ducing fruit 2 to 3 years earlier than those grown from seedling Mango colors vary with tree varieties and fruit development stages. Mango peel may be green at maturity and become yellow red or purple when approaching ripeness. Wide variations can be noted in the size, shape, and quality of the fruit. For example, mangos can be round, oval, ovoid oblong or having a somewhat kidney and lop sided shape (Medina and Garcia, 2002). Mango is a perishable product and should be maintained in proper storage con ditions at cool temperatures (10 0 C 15 0 C ) and a relative humidity between 85 % and 95% to extend the shelf life of green mango s from two to four weeks (Kitinoja and Kader, 2003). Otherwise modified atmosphere containing higher concentratio ns of carbon dioxide should be used to delay mango ripening (Kader and Ben Yehosua, 2000). Mature green mango s suffer chilling injury u nder 13 o C (55 o F) while partially ripe suffers chilling under 10 o C (50 o F) ( Kader and Mitcham, 2008 ) As a climacteric fru it, mango produces natural ethylene and undergoes climactic ripening at 18 0 C 24 o C (Kimaro and others, 20 08 ). Mango p ostharvest s helf life store d at 10 0 C 12 o C is up to three weeks (Medina and Garcia, 2002; Kimaro and others, 20 08 ). It is also a sensitive fr uit that can be easily damaged by shock and vibration; therefore, the fruit should be carefully handled to reduce mechanical injury

PAGE 25

25 M ango constitutes an excellent source of vitamin A, essential for good vision It protects the skin and body against lung and oral cavity cancers and contains a certain quantity of B vitamins, calcium, iron, phosphorus and carbohydrate s necessary for the growth and development of the human body ( Nutrition and You, 2009) In addit ion, mango s help to mitigat e the problem of food insecurity in Haiti. Nearly 80% of the population live on less than $2 USD per day. It is well known that during the mango harvest season hospitals register fewer cases of malnutrition. In addition, mango ha s been called super fruits for its special organoleptic characteristics and health quality benefits; food processors utilize the fruits as a common ingredient in new functional foods (Nutrition and you, 2012). Nicknamed the to its composition to other fruits, mango not only possesses a unique fragrance, savor and flavor, but also constitutes a great source of nutrients. Literature indicates that mango s contain higher vitamin C than citrus fruits, and h elps maintain the immun e system ( Nutrition and you 2012). Varieties More than 1000 varieties of mango exist around the world, but only about 150 are in Haiti (Kriminac, 1998; Francois, 2008; USAID, 2010). Among all those varieties, only the Francisque variety, also called Franc ine, Madame Francisque, and Madame Francique, is formally exported as fresh produce. Vieux (1990) mentioned that carotte, blanc and fil varieties are informally exported at immature stages to be processed into pickles. Producers prefer selling mango s at im mature stages to earn money quickly and minimize future loss caused by pest damage, disease, black and brown spots, physical damage, and other causes of mango rejection from the export channel.

PAGE 26

26 The Francisque mango is the most important mango variety in Mi rebalais, Saut d Eau and Gros Morne areas of Haiti. It is the only variety exported fresh from these areas. Mango tree yields vary with cultivars and the age of the trees. A tree may produce 200 300 kg (440 660 lb) of mangos in a good season and only 5 kg (11 lb) in an unfavorable season (Bally and Ian, 2006). Between 10 and 20 years of age, a good mango tree variety may bear 200 300 fruits per tree while the production may double between 40 and 6 0 years (Morton, 1987). Farmers have reported harvesting more than 1000 mangos from old tree s Experiments with mango trees 50 years old revealed that they yielded as many as 900 mangos per tree. Mango trees can be found growing everywhere in Haiti; however, certain regions are more well known for mango production a nd certain varieties are specific to certain zones. For instance, the Artibonite department is the leading department of mango production. In this department, Gros Morne is the leading city, followed up by Passe Reine and Saint Marc (Vieux, 1990). Mirebala is and Saut d Eau are the leading cities for the Central department. Arcahaie, Cul de Sac, Carbaret including Casales are well known for mango production in the West department. Table 2 1 provides specific mango varieties found in the main mango production areas. Rejection Rates Several causes may be responsible for mango losses: inadequate harvest aid, rough harvest, handling and transport, improper storage conditions, pest damages, disease, and so on. Mango losses from harvest, through post harvest handli ng up to consumer tables vary with cultivars, varieties and country practices. Ravindra and Goswani (2007) reported a reasonable range of 25 40% rejection of production throughout the supply chain in India. Iksan (2000) and Iqbal (2008) also estimated

PAGE 27

27 Indi a s mango losses at 25 40% while Pathak (2007) mentioned 25 30%. Losses in and were estimated at 60% and 69%, respectively (TFC, 2008; Iqbal, 2008 and Iksan, 2000). In Haiti, mangos rejected from the export channel are sold to domestic markets. As such, two rejection rates are normally reported, the rejection rate from the export channel and the total mango rejection rate from all losses in both export and domestic distributio normal rejection rate of 25 40% in other countries. R esearchers disagreed about the exact percent mango losses and rejection rates. Daynac (1986) estimated combined mango losses from producers and suppliers in Haiti at 60 65%. Medlicot (2001 ) in his declared the percentage of mango rejection rate fluctuated between 60% and 70%. ORE (2002) estimated mango l osses caused by immaturity and rough handling by use of the picking pole in field harvest at 30%. USAID (2010) stated that mango farmer l osses fell into the range of 30 40%, and estimated rejection rates for the Francisque mango at 40% of its total product ion. Dieudonn (2007) estimated 35% of mango harvested are left on the ground to decay and/or fed to animals in the regions of Bainet and La Vall e de Jacmel, in the Southeast of Haiti, while Raphael (2009) reported losses of 29% in Rivi re Mancelle, the s econd section of the Gros Morne municipality. Several recommendations were made to lower these high rejection rates. Samson (198 0 ) recommended field management to minimize postharvest losses caused by pests. Other recommendations included: harvesting mango s after morning

PAGE 28

28 dew had evaporated, use harvest aids with cutter blades to leave stems on the fruit and minimize latex burn losses apply water thermal treatment to the fruits to control subsequent development of anthracnose use of proper truck transporta tion transport fruits early in the morning and late i n the night, and to store fruit under the shade to reduce sunburn postharvest losses (Brecht, 2010; Iksan, 2000, Iqbal, 2008, Kimaro and others, 2008). Medlicott (2003) pointed out improper handling bef ore, during and after harvesting practices as fundamental causes of postharvest losses, and recommended the use of cutting poles instead of picking poles, animal transport in plastic field crates instead of woven straw bags and crate loading instead of bu lk loading with truck transportation. To date, the USAID/WINNER project has given post harvest materials and equipment to ten producer associations (Personal communication, 2012). This equipment consisted of 6,800 plastic field crates, 26 mobile collection centers, 26 sorting tables, 52 plastic drums, 10 scales and tarps For example, the crates protect the mangos during animal transport, and reduce rejection rates at the mobile collection centers, as well as during subsequent transpo rt by truck to packing houses. This technical and material assistance allows farmers to increase their revenues and i mprove their living conditions. Stakeholder Profit Margins Table 2 2 shows the profit margin of certain stakeholders in the Haitian mango industry based on export prices for a 4.5 kg box of Francisque mangos. The overall were greater than those reported by Jean (1998) during the same year. In three separate findings, exp orters earned the highest profit margin (around 35%) from an export Francisque mango box of

PAGE 29

29 4.5 kg Producers came in second position (around 10%) and suppliers in third position. There are substantial difference s among profit margins of suppliers during t he three years under analysis. There are three different types of suppliers: first, second and independent. It may be important to know the profit margin of which type of suppliers. The profit margin of independent suppliers should exceed those derived fro m the first and second level suppliers because independent suppliers cut out the mi ddlemen in the export distribution channel Exporters support the heaviest part of investment compared to other stakeholders. Byproducts A crucial lack of mango processing c an be noted throughout the country, despite the abundance of production and the high percentage of mango losses and rejections during the harvesting seasons. Few companies are involved in mango processing. One company, Delicious Fruit, processes mangos int o dried slices, and another Famosa into nectars. ORE is an NGO that also processes mangos into dried slices. Some NGOs have funded certain associations to process mangos into jam, jellies, dried slices and wine. is a congregation of Catholic Church es funded in Hinche in 1985 The organization train s women in agriculture, health and education. This congregation processes mangos into dried slices using solar energy, as well as creates jellies, jams and wine. Recently, USAID has funded and inaugurated in November 2012 a processing plant in Mirebalais with a drying capacity of 6,000 lbs of dried fruit per quarter ( Haiti Info Plus, 2012; Michel, 2012), and the European Union als o funded another drying plant in Gros Morne. mango industry needs entrepreneurs to invest and earn profits from a valuable

PAGE 30

30 resource, which is wasted. It should be noted that mangos can be processed into a wide range of products, including puree, juice and nectar, wine, dried and frozen slices, jam, marmalade, jellies and pickles. There is also a large market for canned mango products in Haiti, frozen and dried slices, condime nts, etc. where investors should app reciate profit margins. Figure 2 1 shows different sorting s of mangos and worth y business investment opportunities for mango byproducts. Summary The Haitian mango industry is confronted with several problems: pest and di sease, spread of disease and infestation among trees, land tenure, poor harvest and for control of fruit fly larva populations. Numerous farms are managed by indirect ten ure, which limits long term investment in the establishment of commercial groves. In addition, picking poles used to harvest mango trees are ob solete, and increase the risk of mango rejection from latex burn. Likewise, the woven straw bag currently used to transport mangos by animal from field harvest to collection centers or packing sheds increases the risk for mangos to be rejected because of mechanical injury caused by bruises due to friction from fruit to fruit contact combined with vibration from ani mal movement on rough terrain. There are several advanced harvest tools and transportation methods around the world that have already been tested and proven to be effective. The use of cutting poles to harvest mangos with stems intact to reduce rejection f rom latex burn, and plastic field crates to protect mangos during transport should be tested to find out their contribution in the reduction of mango losses and economic feasibility for good decision making.

PAGE 31

31 Table 2 1. Specific mango varieties produced by various departments in Haiti (Adap ted from USDA, 2010 and others) Region ----------Artbonite Central Plateau West South & Southeast North Cities -------------Variety: Gros Morne, Passe Reine, Saint Marc, Mirebalais, Saut d Eau, Arcahaie, Carb aret, Cul de Sac, Leogane Aquin, Saint Louis & Saint Jean du Sud, Camp Perrin, Les Cayes, Les Anglais, Jacmel, Bainet, La Vallee Terrier Rouge, Sainte Suzanne, Mombin Crochu, Francisque Blanc X X X Baptiste X X Corne X X Doudouce X Fil X X X X Francisque X X X X Jean Marie X X x X Labiche X X Musca X X X Rosalie x x Rond X

PAGE 32

32 Table 2 for a 4.5 kg box of Francisque mangos ( Adapted from Norvilus and Jean Baptiste 2008 and Jean 1998) Jean, 1998 KRININAC, 1998 HAP, 2004 USD % USD % USD % Producers 0.43 7.80 0.50 9 7.80 12 Suppliers 0.27 4.80 0.70 13 0.06 1 Exporters 1.75 31.75 1.83 33 2.10 39

PAGE 33

33 Figure 2 1. Mango by products and business oppor tunities All mango harvested Sorted Export Quality or Sound #1 Fresh Sound #2 Sound #3 Blemished Pocessed Beverages Condiments Wine # 4 Damaged Animal Feed Discard

PAGE 34

34 CHAPTER 3 CHARACTERIZATION OF THE CURRENT HAITIAN MANGO INDUSTRY This section describes the Haitian mango industry and uses data collected during the first field trip taken to Haiti specifically in Mirebalais and Saut d Eau, two cities of Central Plateau, the second leading Haitian department of mango production accoun ting for 20% of the export production and Gros Morne, the leading Haitian city for mango production accounting for 50% of the total mango production ( Raphael, 2009) Understanding the background of Mirebalais and Saut d Eau, including the similarities and differences of the two cities toward the mango industry, is important for the purpose of this study; therefore an appropriate discussion of each city is provided. Description of the Study Area The cities of Mirebalais and Saut d Eau share certain similarities and differences. Both cities contain four communal sections. For instance, Crete Brule Gascogne, Sarazin and Boucan Carr are within t o Mirebalais; Rivire Canot, La Selle, Coupe Mardigras and Montagne Terrible are within to Saut d Eau. Moreover, mango trade constitutes the main economic activity of both cities. Several mango associations and foreign independent suppliers advance money t o producers for mangos in those cities prior to the mango harvesting season to ensure high production rates. In this area, every household owns at least one Francisque mango tree in their yard, garden or farm. In addition, both city climates are humid and their annual rainfall exceeds 1500 millimeters of rain (FAES, 2008) Similarly, their annual average temperature is 25 0 C, and exceeds the required storage temperature for mangos, which is between 13 0 C and 15 0 C (Kitinoja and Kader 2003) Because the industry does not use a system of refrigeration, mangos in Haiti retain their market quality only for two weeks.

PAGE 35

35 Among the differences between Mirebalais and Saut d Eau is that they d iffer in topography. Mirebalais contains more flat plains than Saut d Eau, which contains more mountains. Mirebalais is almost twice the size of Saut d Eau in land area, and measures 330 square kilometers, while Saut d Eau measures 180 square kilometers (I HSI, 19 98 a; IHSI, 1998b) The climate in Saut d Eau is drier than Mirebalais and Saut d Eau offers more appealing mangos in marketplaces because of less rain and more sun du ring the harvest season. Figure 3 1 points out the Central Plateau where Mirebalais and Saut d Eau are located o n the Haitian Francisque mango map. Method s and Procedures Characterization of the Haitian mango industry was needed in order to have a baseline upon which to compare the outcomes of employing the improved harvest and postharvest practices put forth in the study hypotheses. The objective of the first field trip to Haiti was to collect data on the management conditions of the industry, identify poi involvement, cultural practices in the harvesting and transporting of Francisque mangos, and others, which can be considered as important parameters of an industry characteriza tion. Data collection on industry c haracterization The first task undertaken was to explore the study area to track mangos from field harvest to packinghouses and consumer tables for an understanding of how the industry was managed. Tracking mangos allowe d the identification of the points of mango rejection and stakeholders involved in the export channel, including harvesting, handling and distribution. Several visits were made to farms to observe mango trees in their growing environment, tree harvesting m ethods, mango sorting and sales. Other visits to collection centers and

PAGE 36

36 Port au Prince packinghouses permitted observations of the mango selection procedures, as well as treatments before export shipping. Observations were also made of the transportation o f mangos by animal in woven straw sac s from field harvest to collection centers and by bulk loaded trucks from collection centers to Port au Prince packinghouses to gain an understanding of the transportation conditions under which mangos are handled that could lead to potential physical damages. The second task was to meet producers, harvest w orkers, suppliers, exporters, executives of Haitian Department of Agriculture and USDA inspectors to discuss industry management practices and current issues. Several discussion meetings with focus group meetings were held with mango stakeholders in the Mirebalais and Saut d Eau areas, in Gros Morne and Pont Sond both cities located in the Artibonite department, the leading Haitian department of mango production, and in Port au Prince, the Haitian capital where most of packing houses are located. An excel spreadsheet was divided into four parts related to four target mango stakeholders (producers, first level suppliers, second level suppliers and exporters) and used throughout the investigation Please see in appendix A the inquiry form used during the characterization of the Haitian mango industry Mango producers/growers in Mirebalais, Saut d Eau and Gros Morne were interviewed on mango cultivation practices, planti ng distances, agricultural practices, varieties, harvesting methods, tree production and value, causes of mango rejection at field harvest, and current issues and solutions. First level suppliers in the same region were interviewed on tree harvesting costs purchase costs of mangos at harvest sites,

PAGE 37

37 methods of transporting mangos, costs from harvest sites to collection centers, rejection rates, losses, and prices. Members and executives of six second level suppliers were also visited. These suppliers were r epresented by two associations located in Mirebalais (COEPDA and CETPA), two associations located in Saut d Eau (SAPKO and RAPCOM) and two cooperatives located in Gros Morne (COPACGM, and COPCOMF). These second level suppliers were also interviewed on reje ction rates of mangos transported by animal from harvest sites to collection centers, mangos transported by truck in bulk loading and plastic field crates from collection centers to packing houses, costs by transportation method and selling prices. They al so provided data on volume of mangos purchased at collection centers and sold at packinghouses for each mango harvest season, average volume of mangos collected from first level suppliers, costs, current issues and solutions. In addition to information gat hered through discussions, data were also obtained from records supplied by SAPKO, COEPDA and RAPCOM. There was also the opportunity to visit and participate in the inspection of the Fruit & Legume (F& L) packinghouse, the only mango packinghouse positione d outside of Port au Prince, specifically in Pont Sond, a city in the Artibonite department. At that time, F & L constituted the unique packinghouse, which most efficiently managed energy consumption by surrounding the perimeter of the area containing man gos in plastic crates with foam insulation during the hot water treatment required by USDA protocol (USDA, 2010). Discussions on mango traceability, rejection rates, export volumes and prices also took place with the owner of the F & L packinghouse and the

PAGE 38

38 supervisor of packinghouses within the Haitian Department of Agriculture of the Plant Protection Office. In Port au Prince, meetings with the director and assistant director of the Plant Protection Office of the Haitian Department of Agriculture took plac e to discuss current issues facing the Haitian mango industry. These meetings yielded key information on Other meetings took place with exporters and executives of the N ational Association of Mango Exporters (ANEM) on mango export volumes, prices, rejection rates, transportation methods, quality control and diseases. Several meetings with US and Haitian Departments of Agriculture inspectors involved in mango exports provi ded key data on mango re jection rates at packinghouses. Thirty mango farmers were interviewed and data were collected from association records, Haitian and US Departments of Agriculture inspector records, exporters and executives of the ANEM, personal comm unication with workers at packinghouses, collection centers and field harvesters, online documentation and in Haitian libraries were used in the characterization of the Haitian mango industry. Results This section provides the principal results from the fi rst trip taken to Haiti. It includes the history of the Haitian mango industry, its organization, stakeholders involving in the export and domestic distribution channel s international trade, demand for Francisque mango s production harvesting and transpor t methods History of Haitian Mango Export Industry Four exporters started exporting 13 metric tons of fresh Francisque mangos in 1958 ( JWK International Corporation 1976). Ten years later, the USA and Bahamas

PAGE 39

39 markets accepted the fruit, and the number of exporters increased up to 17. ASDEM, the association of mango exporters created after 1970, regrouped exporters that have facilities to sort, wash, fumigate and pack mangos This association reporte d that 3.6 million, representing 1.5% of 240 million mangos, were shipped by air freight to the USA, and 120 metric tons were also shipped by boat to the Bahamas in 1974. The exportation of Haitian mangos to the United States was developed with the creatio n of ASDEM currently called ANEM (National Association of Mango Exporters). Mangos must be fumigated to be sold to US markets. At that time ASDEM was the only institution to own a fumigation chamber; therefore, the association automatically held the monopo ly of mango export s to the USA. Nowadays the high cost of establishing packing house facilities with thermal tank constitutes an entry barrier for potential small exporters. Existing installations have to deal with increased USDA / APHIS fees, transportation and energy costs. Nowadays ANEM is responsible for distributing and collect ing USDA fees for inspection (USDA, 2010). There were ten facilities (packing houses) exporting mangos to the USA in 20 11 but only nine of them exported mangos during 2012. Haiti exports fresh mangos to five countries: USA, Dominican Republic, Turcs and Caicos Islands and Bahamas (Raphael, 2009; Francois, 2008), and the industry provides more than 2000 jobs during peak harvest periods (Tardieu, 1998). Organization of the Haitian Ma ngo Industry/ Mango Distribution Channels The Haitian mango industry contains two distribution channels, one for export and the other for domestic markets. Both channels share certain similarities and differences. They differ with respect to organization, m anagement, marketplaces and certain stakeholders, which are mentioned during the description of the two separate

PAGE 40

40 channel dist ributions that follow. Figure 3 2 identifies the main stakeholders in the Haitian mango industry along the two separate mar keting c hannels, while Figure 3 3 pertains only to the export channel showing points of rejection from sorting locations along the way. Mango comes in second position after coffee as the leading export crop of the Haitian economy. Because Haiti imports almost ever ything and exports nearly not hing, any increase in exports would reduce the huge gap between imports and exports. Thus, Haiti needs to handle carefully the export channel of the mango industry to ensure and secure the entrance of foreign currency to redres s the deficit of balance of payment. Stakeholders The main stakeholders involved in the export channel distribution from field harvest to packing house consist of growers/producers, first level suppliers, second level suppliers and independent suppliers. E ach stakeholder and their i nvolvement are described below. Growers Growers constitute the primary link of the mango industry. They own mango trees, take care of them and sell their production output either to first level suppliers or independent suppliers during the first of the two mango tree harvest seasons. The second harvest season is only to supply domestic markets because exporters stop buying mangos during August month caused of the buildup of flies. They may sell the tree production before the harve st period to first level or independent suppliers who are willing to advance them the money. Growers sell their mangos in units of lots, which may consist of a different number of mangos per lot depending on the area for different prices per lot. For

PAGE 41

41 insta nce, a lot of mangos in Mirebalais and Saut d Eau areas contains 15 mangos, and sells for US 63 cents (about 4 cents per mango). In contrast, a mango lot in Gros Morne, the leading city in the mango production area, varies from 18 to 21 mangos and sells fo r US 60 cents (about 3 cents per mango). Small producers own one to three than 100 trees. A and second le vel suppliers and independent suppliers as well. Producers own o n average 10 trees based on a prior survey conducted by RAPCOM association and other institutions. These suppliers are described below. First l evel Suppliers First level suppliers purchase sel ected mangos for export from growers, and transport them whether by mule or donkey in woven straw sac s from harvest sites to collection centers. They also pay 12.5 cents per lot of mangos transport by persons who carry them over their head in woven wood ba skets or aluminum containers. In the Central Plateau the cost of a mango transported by a person is equal to the animal transport cost of 0.83 cent per piece. First level suppliers sell selected mangos at collection centers to the second level suppliers an d the rejected ones to stakeholders of the domestic channel distribution at this level, which will be explained later in the description of the domestic channel distribution. First level suppliers live in the mango production zone, develop strong relations hips with growers, and may advance money to growers for ensuring purchase of the mango production. They inform mango owners of their decision to harvest the trees when mangos are ready to be harvested. Both the mango owner (produce r /grower) and the first l evel suppliers, accompanied by the harvest labor team

PAGE 42

42 of a picker and a catcher, go to the farm to harvest the trees. Harvest team workers may harvest trees for the farm owner or the first level suppliers. If first level suppliers purchased the output of t he tree production prior to the mango harvest season, they request the harvest of all mangos, even immature ones, pay the harvest team workers for marketable mangos, sell domestic quality mangos to stakeholders in the domestic distribution channel involved at this level, and transport export quality mangos to collection centers to sell to second level suppliers. In contrast, if mango owners pay for harvesting the trees, they request the harvest of mature mangos. Immediately after the harvest mangos are cont rolled, the first level suppliers receive mangos equivalent to the sum advanced to growers. If the tree production exceeds the advanced sum, the rest of export quality mangos are still sold to first level suppliers. If the tree bears less mangos for the eq uivalent sum advanced to growers, which seldom happens, growers are responsible to provide additional mangos to first level suppliers to make up the difference. Second level Suppliers Second level suppliers purchase mangos from first level suppliers, and s ell them to the exporters. They include mango associations and cooperatives involved in the marketing of mangos. Producers may decide to form a group to defend their interests or become a member of an existing association or cooperative. Second level suppl iers usually find NGOs and government supporters to help provide them with free training programs, social advantages and realize some projects with less self finance requirements. Frequently, they face economic issues, and do not have enough money to buy m angos during the harvest season.

PAGE 43

43 Independent Suppliers Independent suppliers walk from mango region to region throughout the country to purchase mangos. They arrive in the mango harvest period with money to buy mangos. They normally work for exporters who finance their mango purchases, and deal with growers by offering them money in exchange to rent their mango trees. There is competitive rivalry among second level suppliers, independent suppliers and saras who are further explained. Exporters Exporters pur chase mangos from independent suppliers and the second level suppliers represented by associations and cooperatives. At the beginning of mango important role in the pricing of mangos. They receive mangos at their packing house, treat and ship them to international markets (most of the time to the USA). They must meet USDA requirements in order to sell their crop on US territory. To sum up, the export distribution channel has its own stakeholders, who differ from stakeholders in the domestic distribution channel. Organization of the Export Distribution Channel Several institutions are involved in the export distribution channel: Haitian Department of Agriculture, USDA, ANAPROFO URMANG, and FENAPCOM associations. ANAPROFOURMANG was created to answer to the problem of identification of suppliers. FENAPCOM is a national federation of 16 producer ass ociations for marketing mangos. The 17 packing houses that exported mangos to the USA in 1970 were reduced to ten in 2011, and further reduced to ten in 201 1 Appendix B provides useful data on

PAGE 44

44 the existing 10 packing houses. The combined capacity of current packing houses is insufficient to absorb all the export quality mangos harvested d uring peak harvest periods. During these periods exporters cannot accept all available mangos, and second level suppliers are obliged to sell them to madam e sara for distribution to domestic market channels at distressed prices. Sometimes, they lose money due to ripening and/or over ripening of otherwise premium export quality mangos. Figures 3 4 t hrough 3 8 shows some shots of packing house facilities and collection centers of t he export distribution channel. Domestic Channel Distribution Like the export d istribution channel, the domestic channel contains several different stakeholders, such as rural retailers, saras and Port au Prince retailers and consumers. Please see F igure 3 9 the organization of the domestic channel distribution. Mango growers are com mon to both distribution channels. In general mangos which do not meet export standards are sold to the domestic channel, if possible. Local retailers are equivalent to first level suppliers in the export market, and should live in the mango production cit y. They buy rejected mangos from the export market channel from growers and have the possibility to sell those mangos to local consumers, rural retailers and saras. Local retailers sell mangos at different markets throughout the same city. Rural retailers buy mangos from local retailers and sell them to rural consumers in neighborhood cities. The difference between the local and rural retailers is that rural retailers move from city to city, and may spend one or two nights at a city. In contrast, the local retailers only sell at different markets within their own cities, and return home after markets close.

PAGE 45

45 First level suppliers in the domestic channel are made up of women living in the same areas as the growers, or travel short distances within cities. In f act, rural retailers buy not only green and/or ripe mangos from growers, but also rejected mangos at lower prices from second level suppliers at either packing shed or collecting points. They work as well for the second level saras by buying and/or reservi ng mangos for them. Both rural retailers and/or first level suppliers pay growers in advance for mango trees. Madame Sara also called saras purchase mangos either from local retailers or first level suppliers. There are some cases where saras buy mangos di rectly from growers. This group is made up of women who have cash, and frequently travel over long distances. They manage their time in buying, selling and traveling. Saras buy wood baskets of capacity 48, 60 and 240 mangos for the prices of $0.75, $1.25 a nd $3.13 and sell them to retailers at Port au Prince markets. Madame Saras play a key role in mango trade and well manage their bargaining power. With exception for immature and overripe mangos, saras purchase all rejected marketable mangos from the expor t channel, and are capable of purchasing huge quantities of mangos. Therefore, they impose their prices for mangos Bellande and Bizono (2009) reported that one to four saras are capable of collecting truckloads of seven to ten metric tons of mangos. Figur es 3 10 and 3 11 picture madame sara and truck used to transport mangos from rural areas to Port au Prince marketplaces. International Trade and Price Trends There are two big importers of mango around the world: the USA and European countries, which purch ase more than 75% of all exported mangos. Each of the two markets has their own buying criteria. For instance, European markets prefer organic products are less stringent in terms of visual appearance and do not mandate thermal

PAGE 46

46 s different climates and environmental conditions potential biological hazards would not survive and be a source of health concern. USDA / APHIS requires for safety purpose the thermal treatment of all mangos from Haiti to be sold on US territory b ecause of certain climatic similarities between the country and the Southern of the USA The US Agriculture Marketing Services (AMS) has developed three US standards grades for mangos: Fancy, US number one and number two and mangos destined to US market should fall in one of the these three grades. AMS indicates the characteristics of export quality mangos and set s the tolerance level of skin breaks, damage and other criteria that mangos should me e t like definite shape, certain size and weight In addition, mangos sh ould be mature, ripe free from insect larvae and decay. Haiti had exported 10,000 15,000 metric tons of mangos to five countries: USA, Dominican Republic, Turcs and Caicos Islands, Canada and Bahamas from 1997 to 2002 ( Raphael, 2009; Norvilus and Jean Bap tiste, 2008 ; Francois, 2008 ). However, the USA purchases around 75% of the total export volume. Dominican Republic mostly purchases Jean Marie, blanc, doucouce, Rosalie varieties (Raphael, 2009, Bellande and Bizono, 2009). U ntil 1997 Haiti was in second po sition in the USA market after Mexico. With time, the country was overpassed by Ecuador, Brazil, Peru and Guatemala (Raphael, 2009, USDA, 2010). It is crucial for the country to better manage the industry and develop a strategy to improve its shares in int ernational markets. Demand for Francisque Mango Many documents from FAO, USDA, US National Mango Board and others confirm the steadily growing demand for mangos, as well as Tanzania Federation of Cooperatives which also added Middle East demand (TFC, 2008) The National Mango

PAGE 47

47 Board reported in 2007 that US consumers doubled their mango consumption at restaurants, and US mango consumption rose from 67% to 78%. In the USA, the high demand for mangos is centered in Latino American and Asian diets, specifically in California, Texas, Florida, Chicago and New York (Norvilus and Jean Baptiste, 2008).The volume of mango exports from Haiti is less than the demand for the niche market, and the Francisque variety benefits from premium prices over the Mexican and Brazil Prices Prices fluctuate with demand and availability of the commodity on markets. Markets in the USA pay higher prices for mangos during the months of February to April, and lower prices in June when greater volumes of fresh fruit enter the markets. The average FOB price per 4.5 kg box is between $5 and $6 (USDA, 2010). Haiti exports mangos from the end of March to the beginning of August with a peak in May. However, this period does not constitute the only Haitian m ango harvest period. The country benefits from different micro climates, allowing mangos to be harvested in lower quantities at certain periods when prices are high for mangos. For domestic consumption, mango prices vary with zones and the position in the distribution channel. In general, urban consumers pay more for mangos than those living in rural areas. The transport cost can encourage or dissuade traders involved in the trade of goods. According to certain saras, the mango supply from either Gros Morne or Port de Paix is less beneficial than that derived from the Central Plateau. Production Mango trees are mostly grown throughout the tropics and subtropics, and are native to India and Southeast Asia. Over 90 countries around the world produce mango.

PAGE 48

48 Asi a produces 77%, Central America 13%, Africa 9% and the rest from others (FAOSTAT, 2007). India is the world leader in mango production and produces 41% of Mexico is the largest exporter of mangos to the United States, whic h is the biggest buyer of Haitian mangos (USAID, 2010). Haiti was third position after Brazil and Mexico as the top mango producing countries in the Americ as (Vieux, 1990; Raphael, 2009). The world mango production was estimated by FAO (1999) at 22.8 milli on metric tons, accounted for 40% of the total fruit production and was in third after citrus and pineapple. The number of mango trees in Haiti is estimated at ten million (USDA, 2010), and constitute the most popular tree of Haiti. Approximately one milli on of these trees (10%) produce the Francisque variety, which is the only variety selected for export. Although mango trees constitute the largest tree population grown throughout the ten (10) departments of Haiti, they largely grow in the wild, and the pl anting of managed groves has only just begun to take hold. Table 3 1 shows the main Haitian mango production regions with the dates of their harvest season, while table 3 2 shows how the harvest seasons coincide with rainy season. Haiti benefits from almos t year long harvest due to different micro climates, and exports mangos during 10 months out of the year to the United States with variability in production depending on the harvest season. xcludes the production of certain departments, like the Southeast and quasi production of the South because of long distances to packing houses, poor road conditions, and incapacity to absorb the volume of export quality mangos in peak harvest seasons. Amo ng the ten packing houses of the country, nine are located in Port au Prince ( Cul de Sac plain )

PAGE 49

49 Only one {Fruits & Legumes (F& L) S.A} is strategically positioned in Pont Sond, in the Artibonite department, the leading department of mango production. Gen erally, producers do not grow mango trees in managed groves but in fields mixed with several other trees and crops like citrus, avocado, papaya, okra and plantain. There are five commercial mango plantations between 50 and 160 acres which occupy less than 740 acres in the Central Plateau region. The biggest grove covers 160 acres and is located about 35 kilometers (30 minutes) northeast of Mirebalais and estimated mango production b etween 200,000 and 400,000 metric tons to production was estimated at 261,000 metric tons ( Fransen, 2007) Analysis of export data from USDA market news from 2005 to 2012 indicated that the n ational volume o f Francisque mango production should be around of 47,500 metric tons. Mango varieties should meet certain characteristics to be eligible for export. Among those characteristics are that the mango skin should be thick, have a uniform fruit pulp texture an d be free from fibrous tissue have a small seed pit, and transport well for long shelf life. They should also be of medium to large sizes and weigh between and 1 pounds, and ripen well when picked (JWK International Corporation 1976 ). Harvesting Methods H arvesting mangos is carried out with picking poles, either from the ground or climbing the tree to drop mangos to a catcher standing under the tree. In most other mango producing countries, man a cutting blade). In Mirebalais, Saut d Eau and Gros Morne areas, people use poles without a cutting blade. Because pickers using picking poles to pull mangos from branches, m ost of the mangos come wit hout stem s allowing the latex to spew out and

PAGE 50

50 drip onto the mango fruit peels. Several problems can be noted at this point. The first problem is the shock and impact damage caused by the distance that mangos had been dropped by the catcher to the ground. Sometime catchers miss the fruit. The second problem is the sap burn issue due to the latex dripping on the mango s peel, which often laid down on the ground the latex tha t drips onto the peel can come in to contact with the soil The soil then stick s to the peel and creates a sandpaper effect that scratches the mango skins. In general, Francisque mango trees ar e harvested with a picking pole (Figure 3 12). Pickers pull ma ngos from branches, then mangos drop into the picking pole bag fruit to fruit, and latex at the same time drips out on the mango peels. Those mangos become highly susceptible to rejection downstream for latex burn because of unavailability of water at nume rous mango farms in Haiti to immediately wash mangos and remove the latex. Figure 3 13 shows how mangos are washed in harvest sites. In the study area mango trees are more likely to be harvested by first level suppliers and independent suppliers who purcha se the production on tree and request the harvest of all mangos without care for immature ones; however, it is recommended that growers support the harvest cost and practice multiple harvests to reduce mango losses due to immaturity. The more growers sell mangos after harvest; the lower is the loss for immaturity. With many horticultural crops, if you harvest all at once you are sure to have many fruit that are either under mature or over mature (Kitinoja and K. Adel, 2003).

PAGE 51

51 Maturity standards have been d etermined for many fruits, vegetables and floral crops. Harvesting crops at the proper maturity allows handlers to begin their work with the best possible quality produce. Produce harvested too early may lack flavor and may not ripen properly, while that h arvested too late may be fibrous or overripe (Kitinoja and Kader, 2003. Transportation Methods Transport is one of the key constraints of the mango supply chain. There is in Haiti a lack of transport infrastructure. In mountainous zones like Gros Morne and Saut d Eau, losses due to transport can easily reach 3 0% with time, road cond itions and distances. Figures 3 14 through 3 1 7 show how mangos are transported from fields through roadsides to collecting centers or packing sheds and from collection centers t o rural and Port au Prince markets onto packing houses. Depending on mango market destination, mangos can be transported from fields to collecting points for domestic channel or collection centers for export channel. For the export market, mangos can be tr ansported over people s head in wood or aluminum baskets and on animal s back from field harvest to packing shed. For the domestic market mangos can be also transported over people s head s in sack, animal s back s from field harvest to collecting points and in bulk inside small truck s from field to neighborhood marketplaces. Mangos destined to domestic consumption are also transported by truck in bulk to reach certain rural markets and wood baskets to reach Port au Prince markets. Table 3 3 shows the transpo rt cost of small trucks of mangos.

PAGE 52

52 Mangos are transported from fields to collection centers or packing shed s in woven straw bags slung over the back of mules and donkeys. T hese animals carry mangos in t wo typical quantities : 1. lbs is equal to 10 lots of 15 mangos, for a total of 150 mangos; 2. Harvested mangos are first sorted at the field location into three market categories: 1) export; 2) domestic and 3) unmarketable due to defects and damages. Selected mangos for export are sent in woven straw bag s on animal back whether to packing shed s (collection centers) for export market s or collecting points for the domestic market. At the packing shed s mangos are washed, wiped and sorted into two market categories: 1) export and 2) domestic. Most of the time latex burn is not yet visible at field harvest; as a result, growers are able to sell affected mangos. By the time mangos reach the packing shed, latex burn has developed a nd can be seen. If latex is visible at the collection center/packing shed affected mangos will be rejected. Selected mangos for export are sent from the packing shed s in bulk truck s to the packing house. At the packing house, mangos are washed and sorted into the export and domestic markets. Selected mangos for export are placed in plastic crates and dumped into a hot water tank kept between 43 0 C and 48 0 C (115 0 F 120 0 F) during 60 90 minutes depending on shape, size and weight of mangos to control fruit flie s and injury in compliance with USDA / APHIS treatment protocol (USDA APHIS PPQ, 2010). Second level suppliers and the majority of mango associations and cooperatives prefer shipping mangos in bulk on trucks, instead of into plastic crates in order to send m ore mangos to packinghouses for the same transportation cost because the same

PAGE 53

53 truck can carry more mangos when loaded in bulk than when loaded by crates, and avoid paying for transporting back empty crates. They put plantain leaves and mats on the truck be d, and the side of truck in order to absorb and reduce some physical impact damage t o the mangos. The transport cost of a wooden basket of 50 60 mangos is $1.25 USD. Summary of Findings D ata collected from survey and association records report that a first level supplier supplies to second level suppliers an average of 1500 mango lots equ ivalent to 22,500 fruits per harvest season in Mirebalais and Saut d Eau areas and a second level supplier supplied an average of 15,000 mango lots equ ivalent to 210,000 ma ngos to exporters. The independent supplier almost doubles the number of mangos supplie d by the second level supplier and provide around 400,000 mangos to exporters

PAGE 54

54 Table 3 1. Harvest season of main area of Francisque mango production (Adapted from JMB, S.A. ) Production Area Start End Leogane October December Plaine du Cul de Sac November February Arcahaie and Carbaret January March Artibonite April June Central Plateau End of April Beginning of June Gros Morne and Port de Paix May September South and Southeast March May Table 3 2. Harvest mango season coincides with rainfall of Mirebalais and Saut d Eau (Adapted from FAES, 2008) City Jan Feb March Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Mirebalais Rainfall R R R R R Harvest Seas on H H H Saut d Eau Rainfall R R+ R R+ R R Harvest Season H H H Table 3 3. Transport costs of mangos by trucks Distance Transport cost of small truck (Km) (USD) Gros More_Gonaives 30 50 Gros Morne Port d e Paix 50 63 75

PAGE 55

55 Figure 3 1. Map of the Haitian Francisque mango production areas ( Buteau, 2005)

PAGE 56

56 Producers Export Channel First level Suppliers Second level Suppliers Associations/Cooperatives Exporters Independent Suppliers Exporters Domestic Channel Local Retailers Madame Sarah Port au Prince Retailers Port au Prince Consumers Rural Retailers Rural Consumers Figure 3 2. Main stakeholders of the Haitian mango industry

PAGE 57

57 Field Harvest Collection Centers Packing Houses Figure 3 3. Export ch annel distribution

PAGE 58

5 8 Figure 3 4 Mangos before washing at packing houses Figure 3 5 Mango sorting at JMB packing house

PAGE 59

59 Figure 3 6 Mobile collection centers funded by WINNER p roject_USAID Figure 3 7 Common collection center

PAGE 60

60 Figure 3 8 The unique packing shed

PAGE 61

61 Figure 3 9 Organization of the domestic channel distribution

PAGE 62

62 Fig ure 3 10. Filling wooden baskets with mangos by madame sara for Port au Prince markets Figure 3 11. Mangos transport ed by truck in wooden baskets for domestic markets

PAGE 63

63 Figure 3 12 Harvesting mangos with traditional picking pole Figure 3 13. W a shing mangos at field harvest when water is available

PAGE 64

64 Figure 3

PAGE 65

65 Figure 3 15. Mangos transported by animal in narrow mountainous road Figure 3 16. Carriers sat over mangos transported by animal

PAGE 66

66 Figure 3 17. Loading mangos to be shipped to packing house facilities

PAGE 67

67 CHAPTER 4 MET HOD S AND PROCEDURES T he second field trip taken to Haiti focused on conducting experiments for determining mango rejection rates and losses stemming from the traditional and proposed improved harvest and transportation practices. Data collected from these experiments were used to test the study hypotheses and achieve specific objectives. Second Field Trip During the second field trip to Haiti e xperiments were conducted with implementation of improved methods side by side with traditional methods Tree yield distributio ns, harvest worker productivity were also collected for subsequent economic analyses Economic data on cost of materials and fabrication of needed implements for the improved practices were also obtained to estimate changes in net returns of ma ngo stakeholders. Field Harvest Two experiments were conducted during field harvest, which constituted the first identified point of mango rejections. The first experiment examined mango yield distributions by tree category and measured worker productivity using the traditional picking pole and the improved cutting pole. The second experiment consisted of measuring the number of mangos harvested with and without stems from the use of picking and cutting poles. Mango tree c ategorization Substantial variabili ty in yield exists among tree categories for mangos intended for export. Mango trees are classified into three different categories, 1) very suitable, 2) suitable and 3) not suitable. In Mirebalais and Saut d Eau areas, professional suppliers

PAGE 68

68 and connoisse urs of mangos determine if they are willing to advance money for the output of a given tree, and the inverse as well. Below is the description of the three categories of Francisque mango trees: Very s uitable The very suitable category includes young trees in the age range of 8 to 20 years old that were planted in well designed groves. These groves allow for spacing between trees from 10 X 10 to 8 X 8 m, and do not compete for light. These trees also benefit from good grove management practices, such as app lying compost category and are willing to advance cash to secure the output rate. Suitable The suitable category includes the most popular trees from the Mirebalais an d Saut d Eau areas, and constitutes the typical mango tree of such area. These trees were planted with lack of respect for the recommended 10 X 10 m planting distance. They can also be very tall with their canopy reaching as much as 38 meters (Morton, 1987 ). One of the consequences of lack of proper spacing is that trees and their output may compete for sunlight. Mangos developing in the shade and under canopies of other trees in addition to climatic factors, such as temperature and humidity, display a poor visual aspect, which constitutes one of the causes of mango rejection from 7 X 5 to 4 X 3 m, and range in age from 20 to 50 years. They sometimes compete for sunlight, and barely receive any pruning or fertilizer (manure). Some suppliers are also interested in this tree category, and will advance money for the output of these trees.

PAGE 69

69 Not s uitable than 50 i n age, and some of them are more than 100 years old. These trees grow in the wild and are densely and/or randomly spaced with no regard for planting distance, and their canopies often touch together. Those trees do not receive any care. Most of the time th ey are harvested without use of the traditional picking pole, but with cheaper and causes high loss due to physical damage as fruit fall to the ground. Those trees bear mangos with low market value, and suppliers are not interested in and do not advance money for them. Tree y ield d istribution Four representative mango trees were randomly selected from each of tree category at different locations in the Mirebalais and Saut d Eau areas. One to three harvesting teams (depending on tree size) were recruited to harvest each tree with the traditional picking poles. A harvest team included two people, a picker and a catcher. Pickers climbed specific trees and grabbed poles. The catcher stood under the tree holding a small tarp made from a sac supported by two pickets or stakes, one on each side of the sac. After harvesting three to five mangos, the picker would drop the mangos one by one to the catcher. The number of mangos harvested fr om each tree category was measured and recorded, as well as the number selected for export market, domestic market, and discarded. Figure 4 1 shows a photo of harvesting mangos from one tree with two teams. Harvest worker productivity with picking and cutt ing poles In subsequent experiments, the number of mangos harvested within a given time provided a measure of productivity in terms of number of fruit per minute. Teams started

PAGE 70

70 and stopped harvesting trees at the signal of the researcher. In general, harve sting intervals varied from 10 to 40 minutes without stop, and timed with a stopwatch. These productivity experiments were carried out in each of the three different tree categories. In one set of experiments, harvest workers used the traditional picking p oles, and in another they used the new cutting poles (F igure s 4 2 and 4 3). Several precautions were taken to minimize bias risk. A short training was provided to pickers to learn how to best use the new cutting poles. Three harvesting teams were ontracted and moved together during three consecutive days to maintain consistency with respect to determining the impact of using new cutting poles could have on worker productivity. Precaution to use the same type of poles during harvesting mango trees was taken when experiments were run with more than one team. For instance, all pickers used picking poles when experiments were run with picking pole, and all pickers used cutting poles when experiments were run with cutting poles. Harvest teams were randomly distr ibuted around the trees, and their harvest output was kept separate from each other. In this way, the harvest yield from each tree category could be quantified. Cutting pole performance compared with picking pole The performance of the cutting pole was eva luated by comparing the percentage of mangos harvested with stem intact from each type of pole. When the stem remains intact on the fruit, latex cannot escape to cause latex burn on the outer surface of the fruit. Fruits with latex burn are rejected from t hose intended for export. The traditional picking pole pulls the fruit from the tree branch, often leaving the stem behind, which allows latex to escape and uncontrollably drip onto the outer surface of the fruit. Field experiments were conducted with trad itional picking poles and new cutting poles to compare the percentage of mangos harvested with and without stems from

PAGE 71

71 each pole (Bonicet, 201 3 ). The number of mangos harvested with and without stems from each type of pole ws recorded to determine the perce ntage of mangos harvested with and without stems. Only mangos harvested without stem are capable of developing latex burn. Therefore, the economic benefit of harvesting with cutting poles was estimated by tracing the distribution of only mangos without ste m. Experiments were carried out to accomplish this objective. All the mangos harvested from ten trees by one grower (5,360) were harvested with traditional picking poles, and followed from field to packing house. The number of mangos rejected because of la tex burn was recorded at each step along the way. An additional 5,360 mangos were harvested with cutting poles by another grower, and followed in the same way. Animal Transportation Collection centers constitute the second point of mango rejections. Mangos selected to go forward from field harvest are transported to collection centers by pack animals (donkeys or mules) carrying woven straw sacs filled with mangos. The objective of this task was to determine and compare rejection rates at the collection cent ers from mangos transported in woven straw sacs with those transported in plastic field crates with the prototype pack frame. Two models of pack frames were developed, a four crate model for use on donkeys, and a five crate model for use on mules. The four crate model carried 150 mangos, equivalent to the number of mangos transported by a donkey or a mule in woven straw bags The five crate model carried about 200 mangos, close to 225 mangos (heaviest load) carried by mule. The donkey model was used in this study. A total of eight trips of 150 mangos were transported by animal in woven bags and pack

PAGE 72

72 frame with four plastic field crates from field harvest to collection centers on a distance range up to 2.5 km (Figures 4 3 and 4 4). Similar experiments were co nducted by Bonicet (2013) with the pack frame with five plastic field crates on longer distances up to 4 km. Because the industry carries mangos over 10 km, experiments on longer distance were used for economic analyses. A GPS device (Garmin GPS) was used to measure distances between harvest sites and collection centers. The number of mangos rejected for mechanical injury, latex burn and other causes (immaturity, black, dark and brown spots, misshapen, under and overweight) were recorded for both modes of a nimal transportation. Truck Transportation Mangos destined for export are transported from collection centers to packing houses by truck. Packing houses constitute the third point of mango rejections. When trucks arrive at the packing house, mangos are was hed and sorted to reject those with defects prior to any further processing. Mangos accepted for processing are sorted once again after the heat treatments required by USDA. Rejection rates at that point are unrelated to mode of truck transport. Mangos wer e transported from collection centers to Port au Prince packing houses using trucks with two different methods of loading. Half of the mangos were transported in trucks that were loaded in bulk in the traditional way (bulk loading), while the other half wa s transported in trucks that were loaded with mangos contained in plastic field crates (crate loading). Data from experiments conducted by Bonicet (2013) were used in the economic analysis.

PAGE 73

73 At the packinghouse, mangos were first sorted into two categories, export and domestic. Those in the domestic category were further sorted into three rejection sub categories (mechanical injury, latex burn and others). Prices Paid to G rowers and S uppliers Data on prices paid to growers by first level suppliers, and those paid to first level suppliers by second level suppliers, as well as those paid to second level suppliers by exporters were obtained from meetings and discussions with various stakeholders in the Mirebalais and Saut d Eau areas. In those cases where data f rom different sources contradicted each other, further investigation was pursued until the contradiction could be explained and resolved. Economic Impact Three steps were followed in the estimation of the economic impact of adopti ng improved methods of har vest and transport practices. First, estimate the separate effect on rejection rates of adopting the cutting pole in harvesting, pack frame for animal transport, crate loading for truck transport and combined effect of all tree improvements. Second, estima te the added cost of implementing each of the separate adoptions. Third, estimate the expected change in net income to growers and suppliers if each of the improved methods were to be adopted separately, as well as all together

PAGE 74

74 Figure 4 1 A shot of a n experiment conducted on a tree harvested with two harvest teams

PAGE 75

75 Figure 4 2. A shot of a traditional picking pole Figure 4 3 A shot of an improved cutting pole

PAGE 76

76 Figure 4 3 Mangos transported by donkey in woven bag Figure 4 4. M angos transpo rted by mule in pack frame of four and five plastic field crates

PAGE 77

77 Figure 4 5. Bulk loading Figure 4 6 Crate loading

PAGE 78

78 CHAPTER 5 RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS This chapter provides evidence for determining whether to accept or to reject hypotheses based on technical performance and economic analyses of certain proposed improved methods targeted at reducing mango rejection rates from the export channel distribution. Based on this evidence, export channel mango industry stakeholders should be able to decide wh ether to harvest mango trees with the proposed cutting poles or picking poles; whether to transport mangos on mule and donkey in pack frame sets or in woven straw bags; and whether to transport mangos by truck in plastic crates or bulk loading. This chapte r is divided into two sections. The first section displays data collected from investigation and experiments; the second section displays economic impact of improvements. Presentation of Data The experimental condition in this study involved using poles in harvest sites, donkey and mule to transport mangos from field harvest to collection centers using either pack frames or woven straw sacs and using either plastic crates or bulk loading of mangos in truck transportation from collection centers to packingho uses were used in the economic analysis. Data are presented in three sets based on field experiments. Field Harvest The purpose of experiments at field harvest was to figure out mango tree yield distributions by tree category, percentages of mangos harvest ed with and without peduncle (stems), and worker productivity by tree category and selected pole. A total of 6133 mangos were harvested and tested to asse ss if there were any difference between picking and cutting poles and further used in economic analyse s.

PAGE 79

79 Yield distribution by tree category Yield distribution by tree category is shown in Table 5 1. Fruit were harvested from four trees in each category and sorted according to those with quality suitable for export, domestic markets, and not suitable for c onsumption (discarded). The table 5 1 shows that yields of export quality fruit are highly dependent on tree category. Note that percent of export quality fruit from very suitable trees is more than three times that from not suitable trees. These data make a strong case for the establishment of well managed new mango groves throughout the industry. Harvest worker productivity with picking and cutting Table 5 2 compares harvest worker productivity when using the picking pole with that from using the cutting pole for each tree category, as well as for all three categories combined. Productivity was measured by counting the number of fruit harvested in a given period of time. This table reveals that tree category has essentially no effect on productivity, and t he difference in productivity between poles is no greater that the tree to tree variability found with either pole. Therefore it would be difficult to say that the cutting pole will slow down productivity to any significant extent. Moreover, any differenc e would soon disappear as harvest workers improved their skill with the cutting pole. Therefore, a productivity of ten fruits per minute would be assumed in subsequent data analysis. Cutting pole performance The cutting pole was introduced in the hope it w ould leave the stem on the fruit by cutting the stem from the tree. When the stem remains intact on the fruit, latex cannot escape to cause latex burn on the outer surface of the fruit. Fruit s with latex burn are rejected from those intended for export. Th e traditional picking pole pulls the fruit

PAGE 80

80 from the tree branch, often leaving t he stem behind, which allows latex to escape onto the outer surface of the fruit. Bonicet (2013) reported that 15% of mangos were harvested with stems from the use of picking p ole in contrast to 66% from the uses of cutting poles. Subsequent percent mangos harvested without stems are useful to determine the contribution of cutting pole in the reduction of postharvest losses of mangos caused by latex burn. Animal T ransport from F ield to C ollection C enters Proposed improvement to the method of field transport by pack animal was to rates were expected to provide greater protection from mechanical injury that would otherwise occur when fruits were compressed against each other within the straw bag s causing bruising and os transported by animal in woven straw bags versus rigid plastic field crates reported by Bonicet (2013) and association records are shown in Table 5 3 The first observation that can be seen in Table 5. 3 is that mean rejection rates due to mechanical inj ury showed the greatest decline ( 61.57% ), from 8. 04 % to 3 .09 % when transported in field crates Reject ion rates due to latex burn also fell significantly as a result of transport in rigid field crates (35.97%) from 4 17 % to 2. 6 7%. This was somewhat surpri sing because there was no expectation that field crates would have any effect on latex burn. The expectation was that latex would drip from openings left by missing stems whether in crates or in woven bags One plausible explanation was that fruit s were le ss likely to experience any change in orientation within the field crates, while this could more likely to occur in the woven bags Data from association records

PAGE 81

81 reported 19 .3% in 2011 and 19.2% in 2012 for the total rejection rates of mangos transported b y animal in the traditional woven bag ( Tables C 2 through Table C 5 in Appendix C ) The average rejection rate of 12.81% with plastic crates represents a decrease of more than one third from the 19.26% rejection rate reported in association records for the traditional animal transport in woven bags. Other causes of rejection including immaturity, black and brown spots, misshape, over and under weight and size o were unaffect ed by the mode of transport and accounted for about 7.05%. Truck Transportation from C ollection C enters to P acking H ouses Rigid plastic field crates were also expected to provide greater protection from mechanical injury when used to load mangos onto truck s (crate loading) for truck transport from collection centers to packing houses. With traditional methods of truck transport, mangos are loaded into the bed of the truck in bulk (bulk loading), and often with other cargo resting on top of the bulk load of mangos. Table 5 4 compares rejection rates of mangos transported by trucks with bulk loading and with crate loading obtained from field experiments conducted by Bonicet (2013), as well as mango association records. In contrast to data in Table 5 3 for anim al transport those in Table 5 4 s how the latex burn rejection rates showed the greatest decline ( 76% ) from 6.25% to 1.50% when transported in crate loading. Mean rejection rates due to mechanical injury significantly decreased by 53.55% (from 15.5% to 7.2% ) as a result of transport in rigid field crates. ( 5.71% ) were unaffected by the mode of loading. The total average rejection rate dropped by 47.52% (from 27.46% for bulk loading to 14.41% for crate loading). This aver age slightly exceeded (less than 2%) the total

PAGE 82

82 average rejection rate of mangos transported by truck in crate loading reported in association records ( 13.82% ) Indeed, associations reported 11.68% in 2011 and 15.97% in 2012 (SAPKO, 2011; 2012; COEPDA, 2011 ; 2012; RAPCOM, 2011; 2012) Prices P aid to G rowers and S uppliers Data obtained in the Mirebalais and Saut d Eau areas revealed that mango prices per unit vary with stakeholders and their position in the mango industry. In general, premium prices are paid for an export quality mango and lower prices for a domestic quality mango. Also, the number of mangos per lot differs from stakeholder to stakeholder. Growers will pay harvest workers $0.125 per lot of 15 export quality mangos and half the premium price ($ 0.0625) for the same quantity of domestic quality mangos First level and independent suppliers will purchase lots of 15 export quality mangos from growers for $0.63 per lot, while rural retailers will purchase domestic market quality mangos in lots of 60 for $0.60 per lot. Second level suppliers will purchase export quality mangos from first level suppliers in lots of 14 at $0.88 per lot, while rural retailers will purchase domestic quality mangos from first level level suppliers in lots of 60 at $1.25 per lot. In a similar fashion, second level suppliers sell their export quality mangos to exporters in lots of 13 mangos each at $1.50 per lot, while independent suppliers sell their export quality mangos to exporters at $1.60 per lot of 13 mangos each. Indep endent suppliers purchase mangos directly from growers and sell them to exporters who advance them the money to pay the growers at the beginning of mango season. In addition, independent suppliers obtain a higher price than second level suppliers from expo rters for export quality mangos because exporters are more willing to do business with independent suppliers, who are more flexible and do not deal with

PAGE 83

83 associations and cooperatives as do second level suppliers. These associations and cooperatives may ser ve as bargaining units that control negotiations with exporters. Independent and second level suppliers compete with each other for mangos, and use different strategies to retain their customers and win new ones. However, both suppliers receive the same pr ice for domestic quality mangos. These various prices paid to various stakeholders for various quality fruit are summarized in Table 5 5 and reduced to unit price per mango at each step along the distribution chain. Economic Impact The present economic an alysis uses data gathered from survey during the characterization of the Haitian mango industry and results from experiments conducted with traditional and improved harvest and transport practices to determine the impact of the adoption of new practices in term of reduction of mango rejection rates and costs net incomes. Impact from Rejection Rates This section provides r esults from comparing rejection rates between those obtained fr om traditional practices with those to be expected from adoption of improved practices The se improved practices include adoption of cutting pole for harvesting, pack frame for animal transport, and f ield crates for truck transport. Cutting pole Recall th at the benefit of adopting the cutting pole was to increase the number of mangos harvested with stems intact in order to minimize down stream rejection due to latex burn. Time is required for the latex burn to appear on the surface of the fruit, and is not evident at the time of harvest. Moreover, not all mangos without stem develop latex

PAGE 84

84 burn. Some first level suppliers and collection centers are equipped with washing facilities to wash the mangos soon after harvest to remove latex. Of course, this introdu ces added cost of time and labor that is neither quantified nor recorded. Only mangos harvested without stem are capable of developing latex burn. Therefore, the economic benefit of using cutting poles when harvesting mangos can be estimated by tracing the distribution of only mangos without stem. Experiments were carried out to accomplish this objective. Based on experiments, the average number of mangos of a typical tree of the study area is 536. All mangos harvested from ten trees by one grower (5,360) w ere harvested with traditional pulling poles, and followed from field to packing house. Assuming mangos were only rejected for latex burn The rejected ones were recorded at each step along the way. An additional 5,360 mangos were harvested with cutting po les by another grower, and followed in the same way. Results from this work appear on the flow diagram shown in Figure 5 1 which shows the mass balance and fate of mangos harvested without stem (peduncle) as they travel through the distribution chain. Fig ure 5 1 reveals that out of the initial 5,360 selected mangos harvested with the traditional picking pole 8.69% were rejected because of latex burn, while only 3.58% were rejected from the same number of mangos harvested with a cutting pole, indicating ne arly 60% reduction in rejection rate by adopting the cutting pole. A nimal p ack f rame The impact on rejection rates from adopting the pack frame with field crates for animal transport is illustrated in Figure 5 2 which prese nts the data taken from Table 5 3 in the form of a flow diagram. The percent rejection due to latex burn taken from Table 5 3 was reduced by one third to reflect the impact of the pac k frame taken from Figure 5 1

PAGE 85

85 Out of 22,500 mangos transported by each mode, 19.26% were rejected from w oven straw bag transport, while only 12.81% from pack frame with field crates, indicating a 33.49% reduction in rejection rates by adopting the pack frame with field crates. Crate l oading with t ruck t ransport The impact on rejection rates from adopting cra te loading in truck transportation in place of traditional bulk loading can be seen in Figure 5 3 which pr esents the data taken from Table 5 4 in the form of a flow diagram. Again, rejection rate due to latex burn in Table 5 4 was similarly adjusted to re flect the impact of the cutting pole taken from Figure 5 1 Out of 210,000 mangos transported by each mode, 27.46% were rejected from bulk loading transport, while only 14.41% from crate loading transport, indicating an additional 47.52% reduction in rejec tion rates by adopting crate loading. The impact on rejection rates from each of the three improved practices (cutting pole, animal pack frame and crate loading for truck transportation) are summarized in T able 5 6 Combined effect from f ield h arvest to e xport Flow diagrams showing the combined effect of all three practice improvements (cutting pole, animal pack frame and crate loading on trucks) are given in Figures 5 4 and 5 5 for current practices and improved practices, respectively. Each diagram shows the distribution of 100 mangos at identified rejection points of the export channel: field harvest, collection centers and packing house. These flow diagrams used the yield distribution of the suitable tree category, the typical tree of the current Haitia n mango industry From 100 mangos harvested at field harvest, 47 were suitable for export market, 49 for domestic market and four were unmarketable and ei ther left on the ground to decay or fed to animals. At collection centers 19.26% and 12.81% mangos

PAGE 86

86 (Ta ble 5 3) were rejected from the export market and sold to the domestic prior and after improvements, respectively. The percent discarded at such centers was less than one percent and considered negligible. The total average rejection rates of improved prac tices were derived from association records and Bonicet (2013) for animal transport to collection centers and truck transport to packing houses. At the packing houses, a second sorting of mangos occurs downstream along the packing line and provides further rejections. These rejection rates were derived from US and Haitian Departments of Agriculture shown in Tables C 6 through C 9 in Appendix C For instance, the current total rejection rate from animal transport sorted at collection centers was 1 9 26 % in wo ven straw bag compared to 12. 81 % in pack frame set. Likewise, rejection rate from bulk loading in truck transport was 27.46 % compared with 14.41% from crate loading. Under current practices, only 21% of all mangos harvested are exported, 74% are locally co nsumed and 5% are discarded or fed to animal s With adoption of all improved practices combined, 28% could be exported, reflecting a 33% increase in exports while 67% would be locally consumed, and the same 5% discarded or fed to animals Added Cost of Im plementation The economic impact of adopting improved harvest and handling practices must take into account the added cost involved in adopting the new practices. In most cases this added cost is usually the amortized cost of initial capital investment in the purchase of new equipment, such as the cutting poles, pack frames and field crates. In the case of the cutting poles, there could also be added cost if productivity of harvest workers were to decrease because of extra time needed to harvest with a new type of pole. Data on harvest worker productivity with picking and cutting poles by tree category we re

PAGE 87

87 presented earlier in Table 5 2, and showed that productivity with both poles was essentially the same at approximately 10 fruit s per minute. Therefore, o nly the amortized cost of a new cutting pole would contribute to any added cost of harvesting. Cutting pole The traditional picking pole used by harvest workers is inexpensive, easy to fabricate and not counted as a cost item by the harvest workers, who ab sorb the cost of making their poles. Please see in Appendix D a breakdown of the traditional picking pole. In contrast, the purchase price of a well made cutting pole quoted by members of the WINNER project team is $37.50. Cutting poles have a long history of use in harvesting mangos in many parts of the world, and their useful life is taken to be 1,000 trees with an average of 536 mangos per tree. Therefore, a cutting pole can be assumed to harvest 536,000 mangos during its useful life at an amortized cost of $0.00007 per mango. This can be compared with the price paid to harvest workers of $0.0083 per man go presented earlier in Table 5 5, reflecting less than 1% increase in cost to the harvest worker. Pack frame and field crates The extra costs associated with the use of the improved animal transportation method will consist of the amortized cost for the purchase of four plastic field crates and the pack frame. The cost of field crates is $11.00 per crate, and the cost of a pack frame fabricated as a duplic ate of the prototype developed and used in this study would be $176. The key to amortize these costs is to obtain reasonable estimates of the useful life of the field crates and pack frame in terms of years in order to obtain the amortized cost per mango. The useful life of a pack frame fabricated to the design of the prototype used in this study is four years ( Steven Feagle, Agricultural Biological Engineering

PAGE 88

88 University of Florida, personal communication 18 February 2 013 ). The lifetime expectancy of a rig id plastic field crate can also be assumed to be four years or about 1000 proper uses ( Maulik Radia, Plastitech Solution SA, 2 5 February 2013). Therefore, the initial cost of plastic crates and pack frame can be summed together as a single initial cost to be amortized over four years. The steps taken to convert useful life into amortized cost per mango based on a Central Plateau mango harvest season are shown in Table 5 7 Crate loading on trucks The added costs associated with truck transport of mangos pac ked in field crates will consist of the amortized cost for the purchase of plastic field crates plus the extra cost that will result from delivering fewer mangos in each truck load for the same cost of transportation. A truck load of mangos packed in field crates will hold 302 crates with an average of 37 mangos in each crate for a total of 11,17 4 mangos. A truck load of mangos carried in bulk will hold 14,286 mangos. The steps taken to determine the amortized cost of the field crates is shown in Table 5 8 The transportation cost of one truck load of an Isuzu W5500 model is $200 (regardless of loading method). Therefore, the transportation cost per man go from bulk loading is ($200/ 14,286) = $0.014, and for crate loading is ($200 /11,174 ) = $0.018. The added cost per mango for adoptio n of crate loading is ($0.018 $0.014) = $0.004. The total added cost per mango due to purchase of crates and fewer mangos per load will be ($0,003 + $0.004) = $0.007. Impact on S takeholder N et I ncomes Thi s section estimate s the im pact of adopting the improved practices on

PAGE 89

89 and suppliers, pack frame set on first level suppliers and crate loading on second level suppliers and independent suppliers. G rowers/Producers Adoption of cutting poles would affect net income of growers or producers. Earlier results have shown that adoption of cutting poles would have negligible effect on harvest worker productivity, and that the amortized cost of a new cutting pole would also be negligible. However, the follow up of mangos harvested without stem in Figure 5 1 of revenue caused by latex burn by 59%. This resulting gain in re venue would have to be passed down to growers/producers and harvest workers by paying them a proportionately greater price per mango in order to have an incentive for adoption of the cutting pole. The percent increase in revenue to first and second level s uppliers attributed only to the adoption of cutting pole will be determined in subsequent sections. First level S uppliers Three different suppliers are involved in the distribution channel for exported mangos: 1) first level suppliers who transport harvest ed mangos from the field to collection centers by pack animals, 2) second level suppliers who transport mangos by truck from collection centers to packing houses, and 3) independent suppliers who independently transport mangos from field harvest to packing houses. level suppliers revealed that first l evel suppliers transport an average of 1500 mango lots at 15 per lot (22,500 mangos) to colle ction centers per mango season. The seasonal impact on net income to a first l evel supplier resulting from adopting the pack frame with field crates can be estimated by determining revenue and

PAGE 90

90 expenses to be realized from both modes of transport. The harvest season revenue to first level suppliers f rom animal transport of mangos using woven bag s vs. plastic field crates on pack frame is tabulated in Table 5 9 while expenses are tabulated in table 5 1 0 A comparison of net income from both modes of transport is shown in Table 5 11 Table 5 11 suggest s that net income to first level suppliers could increase by 45.45% with the substitution of woven straw bags with field crates and pack frame for animal transportation from field to collection centers. Note first level suppliers should nearly earn $200 in stead of $99 obtained in Table 5 1 1 because they mostly purchase the production of trees at the blossom stage for nearly 50% of mango values as risk management of uncertainty in agriculture and harvest cost. Figure 5 6 displays the distribution of the 22,5 00 mangos supply by a first level supplier to a second level supplier transported by animal in the traditional woven straw bag from harvest sites to collection centers. This figure indicates the adoption of cutting pole should reduce first mango rejection for latex burn by 60%. That figure was used in the determination of the impact of cutting pole on first incomes. Because of no significant difference in harvest worker productivity with the use of cutting pole, the same ha rvest cost of 8.33 cent was maintained. All mangos were transported by animal in the traditional woven bag. Prior first ($1,132) that can be seen in Table 5 1 0 were used to determine the impact of cutting pole on first level suppl net income. Reven ues and incomes can be seen in tables 5 12 and 5 13, respectively. Table 5 13 infers that first level suppliers should increase their income by nearly 2% with the replacement of picking pole by the cutting pole. This

PAGE 91

91 could translate into a 2% increase in prices paid to growers as an incentive to adopt cutting poles. Tables 5 14 and 5 15 contain first affected by the mode of animal transport from harvest sites to collection centers. Table 5 15 shows that first level suppliers could increase their revenues and expenses by 3.52% and 1.41%, respectively and improve their incomes by 15.12% with the substitution of woven straw bag s by pack frame with plastic field crates Second level S uppliers and Independent S uppliers Second level and independent suppliers transport mangos by truck from collection centers to packing houses, and could experience some impact on net income by replacing bulk loading of trucks with crate loading. The seasonal impact on net income to a second level supplier resulting from adopting the crate loading of trucks can be determined by estimating revenue and expenses to be realized from both modes of transport. The harvest season revenue to second level suppliers from truck transport of mangos using bulk loading and crate loading is tabulated in Table 5 1 6 while expenses are tabulated in Table 5 1 7 A comparison of net income from both modes of transport is shown in Table 5 1 8 Table 5 1 8 .suggests that second level suppliers could considerably increase by 148.24% with the replacement of bulk loading by t rucks with crate loading. Figure 5 7 displays the distribution of the 210,000 mangos supply by a second first level supplier to an exporter transported by truck in the traditional bulk loading from collection centers to packing houses. This figure indicates the adoption of cutting pole should reduce first was used in the determination of the impact of cutting pole on second

PAGE 92

92 net incomes. The total expense of $18,648 for the transport of the 210,000 mangos supplies to exporters by second level suppliers during a harvest mango seas on were used in the determination of second level suppli can be seen in tables Table 5 1 9 and 5 20 respectively. Table 5 20 suggests that second level could increase their income by 12% with the adoption of cutting pole. Table 5 21 and 5 22 display the second level suppliers net incomes directly involve in the adoption of crate loading to transport mangos by trucks Table 5 22 infers that truck transport cost of mangos in plastic field crate exceed the second level supplie the combined effe ct of crate loading with the reduction of latex burn and the contribution of other causes of rejection in table 5 18 should more than double s econd level suppliers incomes Table 5 23 summarizes the impact on net income to growers and suppliers resulting from adoption of all three improved mango harvest and transport practices level suppliers because indep endent suppliers purchase mangos directly from growers at lower prices and sell them directly to exporters at higher prices than second level suppliers. These price advantages to independent suppliers occur because exporters advance money to independent su ppliers to purchase mangos for them as an incentive bonus As such, independent suppliers circumvent the practice of price negotiations that takes place between first and second level suppliers

PAGE 93

93 Table 5 1 Mango yield distribution by tree category from fo ur trees in each category. Tree Category Total Fruit Harvested Export Domestic Discarded (Pc) (%) (Pc) (%) (Pc) (%) Very Suitable 1432 1104 77.11 288 20.1 40 2.78 Suitable 2142 1011 46.93 1041 48.9 90 4.17 Not Suitable 2559 673 25.84 1757 69.2 129 4.95 Note: Raw data collected from experiments conducted in field harvest for determining mango tree yield distribution by tree category can be seen in Table D 1 of appendix D. Table 5 2. Worker productivity with picking and cutting poles by tr ee category Picking Pole Cutting Pole Tree Category Total Fruit Harvested Time (Min) Fruit Per Minute Total Fruit Harvested Time (Min) Fruit Per Minute Very Suitable 694 70 10 738 78 10 Suitable 951 105 9 1 191 161 8 Not Suitab le 1 167 110 11 1 392 145 10 Total All Trees 2,812 285 10 3,321 384 9 Note: Raw data collected from experiments conducted in field harvest for determining harvest worker productivity by tree category and selected pole can be seen in Table D 2. Table 5 3. Rejection rates of mangos transported by mule in woven straw sacs and plastic field crates with pack frame for pack loads of 210 fruit per load from field harvest sites to collection centers (Bonicet, 2013) Mechanical Injury (%) Latex Burn (%) Mech anical Injury & Latex Burn (%) Other Causes (%) Average total Rejection rate of association records (2011, 2012) (%) Woven Straw Bag 8.04 4.17 12.21 7.05 19.26 Pack Frame Set 3.09 2.67 5.76 7.05 12.81 ** Derived from Bonicet (2013) and association r ecords ** Please see [Tables C 4 and C 5 of the Appendix C ] *** Also derive from Bonicet and association records.

PAGE 94

94 Table 5 4. Rejection rates for truck transport in bulk and crate loading (Bonicet, 2013) Mechanical Injury (%) Latex Burn (%) Mechanical In jury & Latex Burn (%) Average total Rejection rate of association records (2011, 2012) (%) Bulk Loading 15.00 6.25 21.75 27.46 Crate Loading 7.20 1.50 8.70 13.82 Please see a ssociati on records at [Appendix Tables C 2 and C 6] ** Please see association r ecor ds at [Appendix Tables C 3 and C 5] Table 5 5. Prices paid per mango to growers and suppliers throughout the distribution chain Table 5 6. Summa rized impact of improved practices on rejection rates Current Practice Improved Practice Impact % % Harvest Pole Picking 8.69 Cutting 3.58 59% Animal Transport Woven straw sac 12.21 Plastic Field Crate & Pack Frame 5 .7 6 53% Truck Transport Bulk Loading 21.75 Plastic Field Crate 8.70 60% Payer Payee pc/lot Price/lot ($USD) Price/pc ($USD) Grower s/Suppliers Harvest Worker 15 0.125 0.0083 First Level and Independent Suppliers (Export Market) Grower 15 0.63 0.04 20 Rural Retailers(Domestic Market) Grower 60 0.60 0.01 00 Second Level Suppliers (Export) First level Suppliers 14 0.88 0.06 28 Rural Retailers (Domestic) First level Suppliers 60 1.2 5 0.02 08 Exporters (packing houses) Second level Suppliers 13 1.50 0.115 4 Exporters (packing houses) Independent Suppliers 13 1.60 0.123 1 Port au Prince Retailers (Domestic) Second level and Independent Suppliers 12 0.38 0.03 17

PAGE 95

95 Table 5 7 Steps taken to convert useful life into amortized cost per mango transported in plastic field crates on a pack frame set Factors considered Cost of Pack Frame Set $1 76 Trips per day 8 Day s per harvest season 52 Harvest seasons per year 1 Lifetime expectancy 4 years Number trips per lifetime (8x52 x1x4) = 1 664 Number crates per trip 4 Number mangos per crate 37 Number mangos per trip 148 Number mangos per lifetime (148x1,664) = 246,272 Amortized cost per mango ($176 / 246,272) =$0.000 7 Table 5 8 Steps taken to convert useful life into amortized cost per mango for using crate loaded trucks Factors considered Cost of Field Crates (302 @ $ 11 ) = $ 3 322 Crates per truck load 30 2 Mangos per crate 37 Mangos per truck load 11,17 4 Truck loads every two day s 1 Days per season 52 Truck loads per season 26 Lifetime expectancy 4 years Truck loads per lifetime 104 Numbe r mangos per lifetime (104 x 11,174 ) = 1,162 096 Amortized cost of crates per mango ($3 322 / 1,162 096 ) = $ 0.00 3 /mango

PAGE 96

96 Table 5 9 Harvest season revenue to first level suppliers from animal transport of 22,500 mangos using woven bag s vs. plastic field crates on pack frame Prices/pc Woven Ba gs Field Crate with Pack Frame Number % Revenue Number % Revenue Market (USD) Mangos (USD) Mangos (USD) Export 0.0628 18,167 80.74 1,141 19,618 87.19 1,232 Domestic 0.0208 4,333 19.26 90 2,882 12.81 60 Total 22,500 100.00 1,231 22,500 100.00 1,292 Table 5 1 0 Harvest season expenses to first level supplier from animal transport of 22,500 mangos using woven bag s vs. plastic field crates on pack frame. Number mangos transported by one supplier d uring one harvest season 22,500 Cost/pc Woven Bags Cost/season Field Crates with Pack Frame Cost/season (USD) (USD) (USD) Purchase 0.0 42000 945 945. Transport 0.0 08330 187 187 Amortized cost of crates and frame 0.000 700 16 Total seas on cost 1,132 1,148 Table 5 1 1 Comparison of first net income from both modes of transport Woven Bag s (USD) Plas tic Field Crate s and Pack Frame (USD) Revenues 1 ,231 1 ,292 Expenses 1,132 1,148 Incomes 99 144 Table 5 12. Fi rst level suppliers' revenues from a harvest season of 22,500 mangos harvested with picking and cutting poles Picking pole Cutting pole Prices/pc Number % Revenue Number % Revenue Market (USD) Mangos (USD) Mangos (USD) Export 0.0628 21,702 96.45 1,363 22,181 98.58 1,393 Domestic 0.0208 798 3.55 17 319 1.42 7 Total 22,500 100.00 1,3 80 22,500 100.00 1,400

PAGE 97

97 Table 5 13 Comparison of first net income from picking and cutting poles Picking Pole Cutting Pole (USD) (US D) Revenues 1,380 1,400 Expenses 1,132 1,148 Incomes 248 252 Table 5 14. First level suppliers' revenues from a harvest season of 22,500 mangos transported by animal in woven bags and pack frame set Woven Bags Pack Frame Set Prices/pc Num ber Revenue Number Revenue Market (USD) Mangos % (USD) Mangos % (USD) Export 0.0628 20,691 91.96 1,299 21,805 96.91 1,369 Domestic 0.0208 1,809 8.04 38 695 3.09 14 Total 22,500 100.00 1,337 22,500 100. 00 1,384 Table 5 15. Compar ison of first level suppliers' net incomes from a harvest season of 22,500 mangos transported by animal in woven bags and pack frame set Woven Straw Bags (USD) Plastic Filed Crates and Pack Frame (USD) Improvement (%) Revenues 1,337 1,384 3.52 Expense s 1,132 1,148 1.41 Incomes 205 236 15.12 Table 5 16. Harvest season revenue to second level suppliers from truck transport of 210,000 mangos using bulk loading vs. crate loading Two percent (4,200 ) of all mangos are withdrawn at packing house for testing. Bulk Loading Crate Loading Prices/pc Number % Rev enue Number % Revenue Market (USD) Mangos (USD) Mangos (USD) Export 0.1154 152,334 74.02 17,579 180,978 87.94 20,885 Domestic 0.0317 53,466 25.98 1,695 24,822 12.06 787 Total 205,800* 100.00 19,274 205,800 100.00 21,672

PAGE 98

98 Table 5 1 7 Harvest season expenses to second level suppliers from truck transport of 210,000 mangos using bulk loading vs. crate loading Number mangos transported by one supplier during one har vest season 210,000 Bulk Loading Crate Loading Cost Cost/pc Cost/season Cost/season Item (USD) (USD) (USD) Purchase of mangos 0.0628 13,188 13,188 Transport Cost 0.014 2,940 2,940 Other 0.012 2,520 2,520 Added Cost of crate loading 0.007 1,470 Total season cost 18,648 20,118 Include load and unload costs, graders, storage place Table 5 18. Comparison of net income between bulk loading and crate loading of trucks Bulk Loading Crate Loading (USD) (USD) Revenues 19,274 21,672 Expe nses 18,648 20,118 Incomes 626 1,554 Table 5 19. Second level suppliers' revenues from a harvest season of mangos harvested with picking and cutting poles Picking Pole Cutting Pole Market Prices/Pc Latex burn r ejection rate = 5.31% Latex b urn r ejection rate = 2.12% USD Number mangos % Revenue (USD) Number mangos % Revenue (USD) Export 0.1154 198,844 94,69 22,947 205,538 97.88 23,719 Domestic 0.0317 11,156 5.31 354 4,462 2.12 141 Total 210,000 100.00 23,300 210,00 100.00 23,861 Table 5 and cutting pole Picking pole Cutting pole (USD) (USD) Revenues 23,300 23,861 Expenses 18,648 18,648 Incomes 4,652 5,213

PAGE 99

99 Table 5 2 1. Second level suppliers' revenues from a harvest season of 210,000 mangos transported by truck in bulk loading and crate loading Bulk Loading Crate Loading Prices/pc Number Revenue Number Revenu e Market (USD) Mangos % (USD) Mangos % (USD) Export 0.1154 177,4 50 84.50 20,478 194,880 92.80 22,489 Domestic 0.0317 32,550 15.50 1,032 15,120 7.20 479 Total 210,000 100.0 0 21,510 210,000 100.0 0 22,968 Table 5 22. Comparison of second level suppliers' net incomes from a harvest season of 210,000 mangos transported by truck in bulk loading and crate loading Table 5 23 Summary of impact on net income to growers a nd suppliers resulting from adoption of improved mango harvest and transport practices Traditional Practices (USD) Improved Practices (USD) Percent Change Cutting Pole First level suppliers 248 252 2% Second level Suppliers 4652 5 213 12% Animal Transport with Pack Frame with field crates First level Suppliers 99 144 46 % C rate loading in truck transport Second level Suppliers 626 1,554 148% Bulk Loading Crate Loading Improvement (USD) USD % Revenues 21,510 22,968 6.78 Expenses 18,648 20,118 7.88 Incomes 2,862 2,850 0.42

PAGE 100

100 Figure 5 1. Fate of mangos harvested without stem (ped uncle) from both cutting and picking poles, and rejected for latex burn as they travel through the distribution chain.

PAGE 101

101 Figure 5 2 I mpact on rejection rates from adopting the pack frame with field crate s for animal transport Donkey & Mule Transportation Methods La tex Burn 938 pcs 4.17% Woven Bags 22,500 Selected Mangos Mechanical Injury 1809 pcs 8.04% Other Causes 1586 pcs 7.05 % Pack Frame 22,500 Selected Mangos Other Causes 1586 pcs 7.05 % Latex Burn 601 pcs 2 .67% Mechanical Injury 695 pcs 3 .09 % Total Reject 2882 1 2.81 % Total Reject 4,334 19.26 %

PAGE 102

102 Other causes include mangos rejected for immaturity, misshape, over and under size and weight, black and brown spots. Figure 5 3 Truck loading effect on rejection rates at packing house T ruck Transportation Methods L atex Burn 13,125 pcs 6.25% B ulk Loading 210 000 Selected Mangos Mechanical Injury 32,550 pcs 15.50% Other Causes 11,991 pcs 5.71% Crate Loading 210 000 Selected Mangos Other Cause s 11,991 pcs 5.71% Latex Burn 3,150 pcs 1.50% Mechanical Injury 7.20% Total Reject ed 30,261 pcs 14.41% Total Reject ed 57,666 pcs 27.46 %

PAGE 103

103 44.74% 19.26% 53% Figure 5 4. Current rejection rates from traditional practices for 100 mangos harvested Collection Center 47 Bulk Loading Domestic and Discard 12 Packing Line Domestic 5 Packing House 38 Export 21 Domestic 49 Field Harvest 100 Dom estic and Discard 9 Feed Animal & Discard 4

PAGE 104

104 53% 12.81% 31.69% Figure 5 5. Expected rejection rate s from adoption of improved practices for 100 mangos harvested. Domestic 49 Domestic 6 Packing Line Domestic 5 Crate Loading Domestic Loss 8 Collection Center 47 Packing House 41 Export 28 Field Harvest 100 Feed Animal & Discard 4

PAGE 105

105 F igure 5 6 Fate of mangos harvested without stem (peduncle) from picking and cutting poles, and rejected for latex burn on first level suppliers Collection Centers Picking Pole Cutting Pole P eduncle 3 ,375 pcs (15%) No Peduncle 19 125 pcs (85%) Latex Burn Dom estic 319 pcs ( 1 42 %) Export 2 2 181 pcs (9 8 58 %) N o Peduncle 7, 650 pcs (34%) Peduncle 1 4 850 pcs ( 66%) Latex Burn Domestic 319 pcs 31500 pcs (15%) Latex Burn Domestic 798 pcs ( 3.5 5%) Export 21 702 pcs (96 45 %) Latex Burn Domestic 798 pcs 167344 pcs (15%) Export 18 ,3 27 pcs Field Harvest Picking Pole 22,500 pcs Cutting Pole 22,500 pcs Export 7331 pcs

PAGE 106

106 Figure 5 7 Fate of mangos harvested without stem (peduncle) from picking and cutting pole, and rejected for latex burn on second level suppliers Collection Centers Picking Pole 210,000 selected mangos Picking Pole 210,000 selected mangos Packing House Picking Pole Cutting Pole Ped uncle Export 31500 pcs No Peduncle 178,500 pcs Latex Burn 4,462 pc s (2.12%) Export 205,538 pcs (97.88%) No Peduncle 71,400 pcs Peduncle 138,600 pcs Latex Burn Domestic 4,462 pcs 31500 pcs (15%) Latex Burn Domestic 11,156 pcs (5.31%) Export 198,844 pcs (94.69%) Latex Burn Domestic 11,156 pcs 167344 pcs (15%) Export 167,344 pcs Exp ort 66,938 pcs

PAGE 107

107 CHAPTER 6 CONCLUSI ONS The o bjectives of this study were to characterize the industry and determine yield distribution by tree category, to calculate and compare rejection rates of harvest with picking poles to rejection rates of harvest with cutting poles, to compare animal transport with woven bags to animal transport with pack frame and plastic field crates, and to compare truck transport with bulk loading to transport with crate loading. A second set of objectives was to estimate impact on net income to growers and suppli ers of the adoption of improved harvest and transport practices. Results from this work suggest that the following conclusions can be drawn: 1. The y ields of mango trees of export quality fruit are highly dependent on tree category. Percent of export quality fruit from very suitable trees is more than three times that from not suitable trees. These findings make a strong case for the establishment of well managed new mango groves throughout the industry. 2. The first hypothesis of the research study is justified because adoption of cutting poles could reduce the industry latex burn rejection rates by 59%, improve second level suppliers income by 12% and first increase d income should be expected to translate into higher prices pa id to growers and harvest workers for mango harvested with cutting poles and act as an incentive. 3. The second research study hypothesis is also justified because the use of animal pack frame with field crates not only reduces mango rejection rates for mecha nical injury but also increases net income to first level suppliers by 46%. 4. The third research study hypothesis is justified because the average rejection rate of mangos transported by truck in crate loading decreases by 53.55% and net income to second lev el and independent suppliers could more than double (148% increase) by replacing bulk loading of trucks with crate loading. 5. The adoption of all three improved harvest and transport practices would increase mango exports from Haiti by 29%. This means that c urrent exports from Haiti to the USA could increase from the current 10 0 00 metric tons to 1 3 3 00 metric tons. However, this is still short of meeting the goal of exporting 22,500 metric tons to the USA by 2015.

PAGE 108

108 In order to realize this potential to expor t 12,000 metric tons of mangos to the USA, the Haitian mango industry should adopt the use of cutting poles to harvest mangos, transport mangos by animal in pack frames with plastic field crates and transport mangos by truck in crates. To do this, equipmen t and materials should be available and accessible to stakeholders in mango producing areas. Thus, the following recommendations to the Haitian mango industry are proposed 1. Encourage Government and NGOs involved in the mango industry and entrepreneurs to b uild or reinforce existing metal workshops in mango production areas that are able to fabricate cutting poles and/or add cutting blades to traditional picking poles in order to reduce the initial investment cost of a cutting pole, which may constitute a ba rrier for harvest workers who cannot fabricate their own; 2. T hese metal workshops should also fabricate animal pack frames following the design developed by the University of Florida. This would enabl e mango associations and cooperatives to rent pack frames, and animal owners to sell the service to first level suppliers and independent suppliers; 3. Provide training to harvest workers on handling of cutting poles and identification of mature mangos on trees; 4. Second level suppliers should share their 12% increase in net income from the use of cutting poles with first level suppliers, who should proportionally share their increase price for mangos harvesting with cutting poles and their additional 2% net income improvement associated with cutting poles with growers who at the end, should proportionally share their increase price with harvest workers. 5. Independent suppliers should directly increase the price paid to growers and or harvest workers just as the first and second level suppliers do.

PAGE 109

109 APPENDIX A CHARACTERI ZATION OF HARVEST AND TRANSPORT OF HAITIAN MANGO INDUSTRY INQUIRY FORM Facility Identification Type: Farm/collection center/packing house/other____________________________ Name:_______________________________________________________________ Phone:________ _____________________E mail:____________________________ Date_____________________________ __ Time _____________________________ Localization City:_______________________________ Specific name of the area ____________ Identification of Interviewe e Name:______ ___________________________________Gender: Female/male Function at the facility__________________:Phone #:_______________________ Specific Questions to Growers/Producers Number trees own: Francisque: Other varieties List of other varieties: ________ __________________________________________ Cultural Practices Grove with only mango tree/mango trees associated with other cultures:______________________________________________________________ Planting distance: 10x10m / 8x8m / 8x 6m / 4x4m les than 4x3 m F ertilizer: yes/no if yes: organic (compost)_____ Chemical:_____________ Irrigation during: blossom stage: yes/no maturity stage: yes/no Pruning after each harvest season: Yes/no sometimes never Rainy period: Start____ ____ End_ __ ______ Harvest period: St art________ End________ Mango B uyers Export quality: first level suppliers/second level suppliers/independent suppliers/ Domestic quality: local and rural retailers/Sara Issues and solutions_ ___ _______________________________________________ ______________ _____________________________________________________ Questions to Growers and Suppliers Harvest period Begin:_____________End:_________________________ ____ Harvesting methods:___________________________________________ _____ ___ Shaking branches/hand picki ng/picking pole/cutting pole/other____________ ______ Same harvesting methods for all varieties: yes/no Specific harvesting methods for Francisque variety:___________________________ Harvest maturity indices: Shape/size/weight/peel co lor/flesh color/others_ _______ __

PAGE 110

110 Starting harvest: anytime/early in the morning with dew point/morning after evaporation of dew point /other______________________________________________________ Harvest time per tree category for export: Very suitable____Suitable ________Not suit able _______ Number of harvest workers per tree__________ Payment conditions of harvested mangos: Pickers______________catchers_____________ Francisque variety________ Other varieties_____________ Average tree that can be harvested per day by a harvest tea m worker__________ Tree production: number lot of _____________/unit Price range by tree category: very suitable____ suitable _____not suitable______ ___ Field harvest sorting: % export______ % domestic__________ % discard________________ ___ __ Causes of re jection: immaturity/size/weight/spots/latex burn/others_____________ __ Causes of losses: Immaturity/cut/ pest damages/decay/other defects________ _____ Where do you wash mangos? Harvest site/collection centers Mangos wash at farm: yes/no Estimated time befo re washing mangos_________________ Latex managemen t: ___________________________________________________ Issues and solutions___________________________________________________ Specific Q uestions to F rst level S uppliers key/mule transport/other__ _________ ____ Transport cost from harvest sites to collection centers: People: cost per lots of _____ mangos and distance______ km for________ Haitian unit Animal trip: number of mango lots/units_______Distance_________Cost________ Animal transport rejection rate____________ Questions to S econd level Suppliers and Independent S uppliers Do exporters lend you money for mangos? Yes/no Do you advance cash to growers for mango? Yes/no In which type of trees are you interested? Very suitab le/suitable/not suitable How do you buy mangos? Rent tree production/per lot of _________/wooden basket of ___________/per tree based on estimation at blossom stage Causes of rejections: bru ises/latex burn/ripeness/size/ hape/weight/immaturity/spots/ Reject ion rates_________ Issues and solutions _____________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________ Specific Questions to S econd level S uppliers Buying prices of export quality mangos from fi rst level suppliers at collection centers_______ Haitian unit per lot of ___ mangos Selling prices of export quality mango at packing houses_______ per lot of __________ Selling price of rejected mangos from packing houses (domestic quality)__per lot of ___

PAGE 111

111 Spec ific Questions to I ndependent S uppliers Buying prices of export quality mangos from growers at field harvest Rejection rates at collection centers________/packing house_______ Selling prices to exporters _________ per lot of __________ Transport metho ds of mangos from harvest sites to collection centers and collection Centers to Packing house:___________________________ Questions to Second level Suppliers and I ndependent S uppliers Truck transport methods: bulk loading/crate loading Number lots of mango s _____ per truck in bulk loading________and in crate loading________ Truck transport cost by distance: bulk loading________ Crate loading Other expenses: Load/unload truck____Collection center rent________Sorting costs of mangos_______ Others_____________ _________________ Current issues and solutions_______________________________________________ Exporters Volumes received at packing houses_____________________ % export_________% reject____________% withdraw for quality testing____________ Causes of reject ion: bruises/latex burn/flies/disease/spots/ripeness/others___________ Buying prices of _____mangos for ___________ FOB prices of export quality Francisque mango box of 4.5 kg __________ Packing house capacity______________________ Mango process at packin g house:sorting/grading/washing/warm water treatment/cooling/packing Number treatments:____________Number sorting___________ Water temperature set point(s) per mango weight __________Duration: _________min Surplus management__________________ Importance of mango for Haiti_______________USD entry in the economy/jobs________

PAGE 112

112 APPENDIX B USEFUL DATA Table B 1 List of the 10 mango packinghouses in Haiti # Packing House Addresses Comments 1 Finca SA 19 Santo 14, Croix des Bouquets Email: lafinca_haiti@hotmail.com Phones: (509)36505000/36503000 3702 2525/37025554 Owners: Jose Pablo Sylvain, Jean Jacques SYLVAIN Since June,1990 Import/Export, mango, fruit & vegetables 2 Carifresh SA Santo 17, Croix des Bouquets Email: c.reimers@hotmail.com Phone: 50938144541/3437 2800 Production of mango s, peas and corn Export mango Since January, 1983 3 Agropak, Fruit & Vegetables Santo 25, Croix des Bouquets E mail: sandy@agropak.com Phone: (509)35111477 Fax: (509)22573886 4 Germain Paul Import Export 49 Boulevard 15 Octobre, Tabarre, Port au Prince Phone: 305 549 7722 5 HB Plant Import Export 25, Route Nationale # 1, Sarthe, Impasse Cazeau Phone: 56 73 560500 FAX: 56 73 381681 6 Golden Crown Dro u illard Rue Duvivier, Sarthe Http://www.goldencrownproducehaiti.com Email: renervarela@gmail.com Phone : (509)37691446 7 Ralph Perry Import and Export, S.A. Route de l Aroport PO Box 1757 Port au Prince, Hati Email: perryexport@hotmail.com Phone:(509)25107083 8 Tropical Trading Plaine de Cul de Sac, Carrefour Lizon

PAGE 113

113 Table B 1 Continued # Packing House Addresses Comments 9 JMB S.A. Impasse Cazeau, Route Nationale #1 Email: jmbuteau@mango haiti.com bcraan@mango haiti.com Phone: (509)37014050/35139135 Jean Maurice Buteau 10 Socit d Exportation de Fruits & Lgumes (F& L) Route Nationale #1, Pont Sond, Saint Marc, Hati Phone:( 509) 3 4159509 / 3 7256869 2 5580521/ 3 7209039 Claude.derenoncourt@agrotechnique. com Located in Pont Sond, Artibonite department F& L is the only one mango packing house located out of Port au Prince.

PAGE 114

114 Table B 2. Institutions and agents involving in mango industry in Haiti Name Institution Location Phone Craan Julien ANEM Port au Prince ANAPROFOURMANG Port au Prince FENAPCOM Mirebalais Louis Estiverne CETPA Mirebalais, Devarieux/ 1125 NW 144 th Street, Miami, Fl 33168 50934045578/34456441 Marie Rose Louis Jeune Fritnel CETPA s member Mirebalais, Devarieux 50936736844 Fistel Cnord COEPDA Mirebalais 50936184175 Blaise Bien Aim SAPKO Saut d Eau 5093640894 Hilai re Jean Fleurimond RAPCOM Saut d Eau 50936825302 Thierry Desnord COPAG President, Gros Morne 50937974463 Berlus Thomas COPCOM Control committee, Gros Morne 50937805037 Vilton Charles COPCOMG President, Gros Morne 50938741248 Renaud Joseph ASVEFS South 50928104321/37719715 Robert Mtayer ITECA Gros Morne 5093864702 ORE Camp P errin, South 50937921717/37587565 Email:mail@oreworld.org Renaud Joseph ASVEFS Camp Perrin, 50938680231/37719715 Email:asvefs@yahoo.fr

PAGE 115

115 Table B 3 Estimate cost of a picking pole Components Quantity Cost Value Pcs USD USD Sack 2 0.25 0.50 Stake 1 0. 50 0. 50 Motorcycle tire inner tube 1/6 7 00 1. 17 Iron 1/4 2 00 0. 50 Subtotal 2. 67 Labor 4 0% subtotal 1 07 Total cost of a picking pole 3.74 Mango pickers reported using the same picking pole during more than three mango season and had harvested ab out 350 mango trees per season. Therefore, the picking pole can be amortized over 1000 trees. That gives $0.003 74 or $3. 7 ^ 0 3

PAGE 116

116 APPENDIX C MANGO INDUSTRY RECORD KEEPING Mango Distribution from Harvest Sites through Collection Centers until Packing Houses in 2011 Data collected from associations records in a two year period report the total mango rejection rates from harves t sites to collection centers is around of 19%, 27% from mangos transp orted by truck in bulk loading and 13.83 % in plastic field crates from collection centers to Port au Prince packing houses in Mirebalais and Saut d Eau areas. Table B 1 shows COEPDA ship ments of mangos by truck in bulk loading from Mirebalais to Port au Prince packing house in 2011. Table C mangos transported by truck in bulk loading from Mirebalais collection centers to Port au Prince packinghouse in 2011 ( COEPD A Records, 2011 ) Shipment Date Packing houses Receipt Select Reject # (Pcs) (Pcs) (%) (Pcs) (%) 1 4/11/2011 5908 4680 79.21 1228 20.79 2 4/13/2011 6930 5112 73.77 1818 26.23 3 4/16/2011 6146 4728 76.93 1418 2 3.07 4 4/18/2011 7854 6768 86.17 1086 13.83 5 4/20/2011 13160 10704 81.34 2456 18.66 6 4/21/2011 13160 9288 70.58 3872 29.42 Sum 53158 41280 11878 Mean 8860 6880 78 1980 22 SD 2570 5.54 1050 5.54 Min 5908 4680 70.58 1086 13.83 Max 13160 10704 86.17 3872 29.42

PAGE 117

117 T able C 2. Distribution of mangos purchased and sold by RAPCOM association in Saut d Eau in 2011 (RAPCOM r ecords 2011) Ship Ments # Date Collection Centers Packing Houses Receipt Select Reject Receipt Se lect Reject (Pcs) (Pcs) (%) (Pcs) (%) (Pcs) (Pcs) (%) (Pcs) (%) 1 5/1/2012 14812 11872 80.15 2940 19.85 11872 11011 92.75 861 7.82 2 5/1/2012 5656 4564 80.69 1092 19.31 4564 4147 90.86 417 10.06 3 5/2/2012 10794 8470 78.47 23 24 21.53 8470 7644 90.25 826 10.81 4 5/4/2012 14854 12390 83.41 2464 16.59 12390 10075 81.32 2315 22.98 5 5/8/2012 14238 11424 80.24 2814 19.76 11424 10049 87.96 1375 13.68 6 5/9/2012 13371 10934 81.77 2437 18.23 10934 8490 77.65 2444 22.35 7 5/10/2012 7140 5600 78.43 1540 21.57 5600 4573 81.66 1027 22.46 8 5/12/2012 15008 11592 77.24 3416 22.76 11592 10084 86.99 1508 14.95 9 5/14/2012 15694 12278 78.23 3416 21.77 12278 10348 84.28 1930 18.65 10 5/16/2012 17640 14714 83.41 2926 16.59 14714 11 5/17/2012 16688 13412 80.37 3276 19.63 13412 12 5/18/2012 19418 15946 82.12 3472 17.88 15946 13 5/20/2012 17080 13832 80.98 3248 19.02 13832 14 5/21/2012 15512 12082 77.89 3430 22.11 12082 15 5/23/2012 14112 11774 83.43 2338 16.57 11774 16 5/24/2012 16156 13132 81.28 3024 18.72 13132 Sum 228173 184016 1288.11 441 57 311.89 184016 76421 12703 Mean 14261 11501 80.51 2759.81 19.49 11501 8491 85.97 1411 15.97 SD 2.03 697 2.03 2555 5.07 702 5.85 Min 5656 4564 77.24 1092 16.57 4564 4147 77.65 417 7.82 Max 19418 15946 83.43 3472 22.76 15946 11011 92.75 2444 22.98

PAGE 118

118 Table C 3. Distribution of mangos purchased and sold by SAPKO association in Saut d Eau in 2011 ( SAPKO records 2011) Date Collection Centers Packing Houses Receipt Select Reject Receip t Select Reject (Pcs) (Pcs) (%) (Pcs) (%) (Pcs) (Pcs) (%) (Pcs) (%) 4/27/2011 16506 14070 85.24 2436 14.76 14070 12870 91.47 1200 8.53 4/28/2011 15568 13202 84.80 2366 15.20 13202 11882 90.00 1320 10.00 5/04/2011 11396 8848 77.64 2548 22.36 8848 7982 90.21 866 9.79 5/04/2011 22064 19558 88.64 2506 11.36 19558 17394 88.94 2164 11.06 5/06/2011 15008 12782 85.17 2226 14.83 12782 11258 88.08 1524 11.92 5/07/2011 21098 15694 74.39 5404 25.61 15694 13403 85.40 2291 14.60 5/10/2011 16296 12950 79.47 3346 20.53 12950 11362 87.74 1588 12.26 5/10/2011 14196 11648 82.05 2548 17.95 11648 10192 87.50 1456 12.50 5/11/2011 26362 22148 84.01 4214 15.99 22148 19578 88.40 2570 11.60 5/ 13/2011 13496 10738 79.56 2758 20.44 10738 9295 86.56 1443 13.44 5/14/2011 16590 13902 83.80 2688 16.20 13902 12116 87.15 1786 12.85 5/17/2011 16114 13300 82.54 2814 17.46 13300 11336 85.23 1964 14.77 5/22/2011 26824 22750 8 4.81 4074 15.19 22750 19734 86.74 3016 13.26 5/23/2011 10276 8288 80.65 1988 19.35 8288 7488 90.35 800 9.65 5/25/2011 6888 5516 80.08 1372 19.92 5516 4849 87.91 667 12.09 5/27/2011 4270 3528 82.62 742 17.38 3528 3198 90 .65 330 9.35 5/29/2011 8204 6958 84.81 1246 15.19 6958 6032 86.69 926 13.31 6/04/2011 3472 2968 85.48 504 14.52 2968 2691 90.67 277 9.33 Sum 264628 218848 45780 218848 192660 26188 Mean 14702 12158 82.54 2543 17.46 12158 10703 88.32 1454.9 11.68 SD 3.41 1213 3.41 5675.9 4960 1.89 754.83 1.89 Min 3472 2968 74.39 504 11.36 2968 2691 85.23 277 8.53 Max 26824 22750 88.64 5404 25.61 22750 19734 91.47 3016 14.77

PAGE 119

119 Mango Distribution from Harvest Sites through Collection Centers to Packing Houses in 2012 Table C 4. Distribution of mangos purchased and sold by RAPCOM from Saut d Eau to Port au Prince packing houses in 2012 (RAPCOM records, 2012) Shipment Date Collection Centers Packing hou ses Receipt Select Reject Receipt Select Reject (Pcs) (Pcs) (%) (Pcs) (%) (Pcs) (Pcs) (%) (Pcs) (%) 1 5/10/2012 16100 12796 79.48 3304 20.52 12796 11245 87.88 1551 12.12 2 5/23/2012 23100 19530 84.54 3570 15.45 19530 10569 54.12 8961 45.88 3 5/23/ 2012 20650 16324 79.05 4326 20.95 16324 11050 67.69 5274 32.31 Sum 59850 48650 11200 48650 32864 15786 Mean 19950 16217 81.02 3733.3 0 18.97 16217 10955 69.90 5262 30.10 SD 3552 3368 3.06 530.22 3.06 3368.3 347.94 16.99 3705 16.99 Min 1610 0 12796 79.05 3304 15.45 12796 10569 54.12 1551 12.12 Max 23100 19530 84.55 4326 20.95 19530 11245 87.88 8961 45.88

PAGE 120

120 Table C 5 Distribution of SAPKO mangos purchased transported by trucks in crate loading from Saut d Eau to Port au Prince packing houses and sold by SAPKO packing shed to in 2012 (SAPKO records, 2012) Ship Ments # Date Collection Centers Packing Houses Receipt Select Reject Receipt Select Reject (Pcs) (Pcs) (%) (Pcs) (%) (Pcs) (Pcs) (%) (Pcs) (%) 1 5/1/2012 1 4812 11872 80.15 2940 19.85 11872 11011 92.75 861 7.82 2 5/1/2012 5656 4564 80.69 1092 19.31 4564 4147 90.86 417 10.06 3 5/2/2012 10794 8470 78.47 2324 21.53 8470 7644 90.25 826 10.81 4 5/4/2012 14854 12390 83.41 2464 16.59 123 90 10075 81.32 2315 22.98 5 5/8/2012 14238 11424 80.24 2814 19.76 11424 10049 87.96 1375 13.68 6 5/9/2012 13371 10934 81.77 2437 18.23 10934 8490 77.65 2444 22.35 7 5/10/2012 7140 5600 78.43 1540 21.57 5600 4573 81.66 1 027 22.46 8 5/12/2012 15008 11592 77.24 3416 22.76 11592 10084 86.99 1508 14.95 9 5/14/2012 15694 12278 78.23 3416 21.77 12278 10348 84.28 1930 18.65 10 5/16/2012 17640 14714 83.41 2926 16.59 14714 11 5/17/2012 166 88 13412 80.37 3276 19.63 13412 12 5/18/2012 19418 15946 82.12 3472 17.88 15946 13 5/20/2012 17080 13832 80.98 3248 19.02 13832 14 5/21/2012 15512 12082 77.89 3430 22.11 12082 15 5 /23/2012 14112 11774 83.43 2338 16.57 11774 16 5/24/2012 16156 13132 81.28 3024 18.72 13132 Sum 228173 184016 1288.11 44157 311.89 184016 76421 12703 Mean 14261 11501 80.51 2759.81 19.49 11501 8491 85.97 1411 15.97 SD 2.03 697 2.03 2555 5.07 702 5.85 Min 5656 4564 77.24 1092 16.57 4564 4147 77.65 417 7.82 Max 19418 15946 83.43 3472 22.76 15946 11011 92.75 2444 22.98

PAGE 121

121 Table C 6. Distribution of Haitian Francisque mangos at packing houses in 2010 2011 (USDA Record_Mango Program/Technical Report _FY 2010 2011) Packing Houses Total Fruit Received Export Reject (Pcs) (%) (Pcs) (%) 1 4240145 2186193 51.56 2053952 48.44 2 503 8878 2656773 52.73 2382105 47.27 3 3665870 2175628 59.35 1490242 40.65 4 2669615 1783546 66.81 886069 33.19 5 3812172 2447947 64.21 1364225 35.79 6 4321746 2810624 65.03 1511122 34.97 7 3681210 2083419 56.60 1597791 43.40 8 3950362 21634 37 54.77 1786925 45.23 9 2382341 1736343 72.88 645998 27.12 10 2694133 2044616 75.89 649517 24.11 Sum 36456472 22088526 14367946 Mean 61.98 38.02 S tandard D eviation 8.38 8.38 Min 2382341 1736343 52 645998 24 Max 5 038878 2810624 76 2382105 48

PAGE 122

122 Table C 7. Distribution of mangos from Mirebalais at Packing houses in 2011 (MARNDR records, 2011) Lot Zone Code Total Fruit Received Export Reject (Pcs) (%) (Pcs) (%) 1 6675 17407 10099 58.02 73 08 41.98 2 6666 16900 4748 28.09 12152 71.91 3 6679 18850 2886 15.31 15964 84.69 4 6679 15600 7013 44.96 8587 55.04 5 6657 19500 11152 57.19 8348 42.81 6 6640 18460 3620 19.61 14840 80.39 7 6639 17212 9933 57.71 7279 42.29 8 6639 19500 15756 80.80 3744 19.20 9 6665 11700 7584 64.82 4116 35.18 10 6699 22100 0 0.00 0 0.00 11 ** 6497 1400 18200 NA NA NA 12 6496 6500 1077 16.57 5423 83.43 13 6497 5590 2023 36.19 3567 63.81 14 6695 5200 3560 68.46 1640 31.54 15 6695 14300 9995 69.90 4305 30.10 16 6695 18200 9350 51.37 8850 48.63 17 6675 11700 5360 45.81 6340 54.19 18 6675 15600 13538 86.78 2062 13.22 19 6668 20072 16245 80.93 3827 19.07 20 6668 18200 15500 85.16 2700 14.84 21 6563 5590 3500 62.61 2090 37 .39 22 6675 18330 10985 59.93 7345 40.07 23 6657 12688 7800 61.48 4888 38.52 24 6659 15964 5356 33.55 10608 66.45 25 6657 10400 5355 51.49 5045 48.51 26 6594 16250 10782 66.35 5468 33.65 27 6694 5200 1242 23.88 3958 76.12 28 6673 10400 450 4.33 9950 95.67 29 6595 11700 2313 19.77 9387 80.23 30 6591 8060 1755 21.77 6305 78.23 31 6590 5382 1719 31.94 3663 68.06 32 6544 16250 1008 6.20 15242 93.80 33 6590 1326 855 64.48 471 35.52 34 6607 8450 2952 34.93 5498 65.07 35 654 4 15600 9648 61.85 5952 38.15 36 6607 11609 6552 56.44 5057 43.56 37 6590 3250 1575 48.46 1675 51.54

PAGE 123

123 Table C 7. Continued Lot Zone Code Total Fruit Received Export Reject (Pcs) (%) (Pcs) (%) 38 6607 13000 8982 69.09 4018 30.91 39 6590 4810 1530 31.81 3280 68.19 40 6599 9750 4626 47.45 5124 52.55 41 6605 16900 3231 19.12 13669 80.88 42 6607 15392 5400 35.08 9992 64.92 43 6605 10400 7542 72.52 2858 27.48 44 6606 8450 4284 50.7 4166 49.3 45 6594 9100 3555 39.07 554 5 60.93 46 6495 9789 7735 79.02 2054 20.98 47 6695 17850 3572 20.01 14278 79.99 48 6615 19306 11899 61.63 7407 38.37 49 6695 20160 2106 10.45 18054 89.55 50 6695 17500 4906 28.03 12594 71.97 51 6615 17150 9237 53.86 7913 46.14 52 6594 16 912 8924 52.77 7988 47.23 53 6491 17220 4716 27.39 12504 72.61 54 6491 13538 834 6.16 12704 93.84 55 6575 4270 1236 28.95 3034 71.05 56 6574 10668 6188 58.01 4480 41.99 57 6574 18200 10587 58.17 7613 41.83 58 6615 16800 9769 58.15 7031 41.85 59 6695 20300 6866 33.82 13434 66.18 60 6615 16800 8514 50.68 8286 49.32 61 6695 18900 1907 10.09 16993 89.91 62 6595 16800 12776 76.05 4024 23.95 63 6594 8540 4307 50.43 4233 49.57 Sum 799869 365001 2742.9 434892 Mean 13039 59 39 45.06 7100 54.09 SD 4060 21.54 4363 21.72 Shipment 10 was rejected due to depict of living larvae. ** In the MARNDR record this information was not found. It seems that shipment arrived at packing house but was not purchased for unknown reason. Sometimes, packing house run out their capacity limit and are not able to receive more mangos NB: Mirebalais Code: 6491 6700

PAGE 124

124 Table C 8. Distribution of mangos from Saut d Eau at packing houses in 2011 ( MARNDR, 2011) Lot Zone Code Total Fruit Received Export Reject (Pcs) (%) (Pcs) (%) 1 6781 11505 8036 69.85 3469 30.15 2 6780 20800 8889 42.74 11911 57.26 3 6781 18200 12034 66.12 6166 33.88 4 6780 19292 15840 82.11 3452 17.89 5 6780 10400 9097 87.47 1303 12.53 6 6781 15600 119 58 76.65 3642 23.35 7 6725 15054 9197 61.09 5857 38.91 8 6704 6994 2547 36.42 4447 63.58 9 6718 17576 6900 39.26 10676 60.74 10 6744 8450 4433 52.46 4017 47.54 11 6745 16094 7722 47.98 8372 52.02 12 6741 20150 8407 41.72 11743 58.28 13 6718 7150 3852 53.87 3298 46.13 14 6744 12805 10520 82.16 2285 17.84 15 6744 17290 11350 65.64 5940 34.36 16 6746 7644 6595 86.28 1049 13.72 17 6709 16705 10250 61.36 6455 38.64 18 6744 15600 9350 59.94 6250 40.06 19 6708 18317 13117 71. 61 5200 28.39 20 6709 18148 13247 72.99 4901 27.01 21 6729 17147 12935 75.44 4212 24.56 22 6773 16250 11622 71.52 4628 28.48 23 6758 15210 12766 83.93 2444 16.07 24 6729 22399 17992 80.33 4407 19.67 25 6725 18200 5931 32.59 12269 67.41 26 6776 6500 3078 47.35 3422 52.65 27 6751 13000 3699 28.45 9301 71.55 28 6717 4550 2529 55.58 2021 44.42 29 6704 14300 10134 70.87 4166 29.13 30 6776 10725 7380 68.81 3345 31.19 31 6776 6500 2709 41.68 3791 58.32 32 6704 13650 7929 58.0 9 5721 41.91 33 6712 14300 9464 66.18 4836 33.82 34 6695 19600 7619 38.87 11981 33.82 35 6708 9800 4576 46.69 5224 61.13 36 6745 6440 2109 32.75 4331 53.31 37 6744 17570 6522 37.12 11048 67.25

PAGE 125

125 Table C 8. Continued Lot Zone Code Total Fr uit Received Export Reject (Pcs) (%) (Pcs) (%) 38 6744 3780 3716 98.31 64 62.88 39 6744 6272 2824 45.03 3448 1.69 40 6708 17080 3920 22.95 13160 54.97 41 6744 18200 8043 44.19 10157 77.05 Sum 565247 330838 234409 55.81 Mean 58.6 40.8 SD 18.8 41.2 Min 23.0 18.6 Max 98.3 1.7 NB: Saut d Eau Codes vary from 6701 to 6810

PAGE 126

126 Table C 9. Distribution of mangos from Central Plateau at packing houses in 2012 Date Reception Export Total Reject (Pcs) (%) (Pcs) (%) 5/3/2012 9100 4830 53.08 4270 46.92 8932 6321 70.77 2611 29.23 3906 2198 56.27 1708 43.73 5/1/2012 9884 5897 59.66 3987 40.34 5/1/2012 13482 9502 70.48 3980 29.52 5/1/2012 10206 7461 73.10 2745 26.90 5/9/2012 23800 16718 70.24 7082 29.76 5/9/2012 23800 15568 65.41 8232 34.59 5/10/2012 22400 11297 50.43 11103 49.57 5/11/2012 15400 7747 50.31 7653 49.69 5/12/2012 23100 13635 59.03 9465 40.97 5/6/2012 16800 10679 63.57 6121 36.43 5/7/2012 25480 19307 75.77 6173 24.23 5/7/2012 16800 5673 33.77 11127 66.23 5/7/2012 4200 1262 30.05 2938 69.95 5/7/2012 25480 8415 33.03 17065 66.97 5/7/2012 28000 19134 68.34 8866 31.66 5/8/2012 16800 9262 55.13 7538 44.87 5/5/2012 1260 0 5440 43.17 7160 56.83 5/5/2012 25480 20160 79.12 5320 20.88 5/5/2012 18550 9377 50.55 9173 49.45 5/5/2012 22750 12169 53.49 10581 46.51 5/5/2012 25200 4319 17.14 20881 82.86 5/5/2012 15568 8389 53.89 7179 46.11 5/5/2012 14000 3244 23.1 7 10756 76.83 Sum 431718 238004 193714 Mean 17269 9520 54.36 7749 45.64 SD 7076 5375 16.66 4421 16.66 Min 3906 1262 17.14 1708 20.88 Max 28000 20160 79.12 20881 82.86

PAGE 127

127 APPENDIX D DATA FROM FIELD HARVEST EXPERIMENTS Tab l e D 1. Raw data of yield distribution of mangos by tree category Tree Export Domestic Damage Category # (Pcs) (%) (Pcs) (%) (Pcs) (%) Very Suitable 1 194 77.29 48 19.12 9 3.59 2 186 80.17 43 18.53 3 1.29 3 176 75.54 51 21.89 6 2.58 3 178 75.74 50 21.28 7 2.98 4 184 78.63 41 17.52 9 3.85 4 186 75.30 55 22.27 6 2.43 Sum 1104 77.11 288 20.10 40 2.78 Mean 276 77.11 20.10 2.78 Standard Deviation 1.97 1.97 0.92 Suitable 5 204 48.00 201 47.29 20 4.71 6 79 38.35 117 56.80 10 4.85 6 62 35.23 105 59.66 9 5.11 7 124 56.62 87.00 39.73 8.00 3.65 7 107 54.59 81.00 41.33 8.00 4.08 7 99 50.51 91 46.43 6 3.06 8 101 46.98 104 48.37 10 4.65 8 105 43.39 129.00 53.31 8.00 3.31 8 130 48.69 126 47.19 11 4.12 Sum 1011 422.35 1041 440.10 90 37.55 Mean 46.93 115.67 48.90 10.00 4.17 SD 7.01 36.14 6.62 4.03 0.72 Not Suitable 9 96 21.48 320 71.59 31 6.94 10 120 26.91 304 68.16 22 4.93 11 114 29.53 250 64.77 22 5.70 11 150 35.21 259 60.80 17 3.99 12 58 21.72 194 72.66 15 5.62 12 57 19.26 227 76.69 12 4.05 12 78 26.80 203 69.76 10 3.44 Sum 673 180.91 1757 484.42 129 34.67 Mean 25.85 251.00 69.20 18.43 4.95 SD 5.52 47.90 5.25 7.18 1.22

PAGE 128

128 Table D 2. Harvest labor product ivity by tree category and selected pole Tree Picking Pole Cutting Pole Categories No. Total fruit harvested Time (Min) Fruit per minute (Pcs/min) Quantity (Pcs) Time (Min) Fruit per minute (Pcs/min) Very Suitable 1 129 15 9 122 15 8 2 114 15 8 118 15 8 3 105 10 11 128 12 11 3 113 10 11 122 12 10 4 119 10 12 115 12 10 4 114 10 11 133 12 11 Sum 694 70 738 78 Mean 10 10 Suitable 5 183 25 7 242 40 6 6 98 10 10 108 20 5 6 64 10 6 112 20 6 7 93 10 9 126 12 11 7 99 1 0 10 97 12 8 7 98 10 10 98 12 8 8 97 10 10 118 15 8 8 121 10 12 121 15 8 8 98 10 10 169 15 11 Sum 951 105 1191 161 Mean 9 8 Not Suitable 9 197 20 10 250 30 8 10 210 20 11 236 30 8 11 180 20 9 206 20 10 11 206 20 10 2 20 20 11 12 118 10 12 149 15 10 12 127 10 13 169 15 11 12 129 10 13 162 15 11 Sum 1167 110 1392 145 Mean 11 10 Overall Mean 2812 290 10 3321 384 9

PAGE 129

129 Table D 3 Cutting pole insignificantly reduces harvest labor productivity Source Degree o f freedom Sum square Mean square Fisher P Value Tree category 2 14.4618 7.23089 2.89 0.082 Poles 1 7.0814 7.08144 2.83 0.110 Interaction 1 1.1123 0.55615 0.22 0.803 Error 18 45.0553 2.50307 P significant at 0.05.

PAGE 130

130 LIST OF REFERENCES Bally, I. S. 2006. Mangifera indica (mango). Species Profiles for Pacific Island Bellande, A., S. Bisono. 2009. tude des perspectives fruitires sur le Plateau Central en Hati. Bonicet, J. A. 201 3. Evaluation of post harvet losses and potential new methods for harvest, transport and temperature management for Haitian mangos destined for export markets. MS thesis. Gainesville, Florida: University of Florida. Department of Horticultural Sciences. Br echt, J. K., S. A. Sargent, A. A. Kader, E. A. Mitcham, F. Maul, P. E. Brecht and O Menocal. 2010. Mango: Postharvest Best Management Practices Manual. Buteau, J. M. 2005. Haitian mango production map. Available at: http://www.mango haiti.com/haitimap.htm Accessed 20 June 2011. COEPDA. 2011. Shipments of mangos transported by truck in bulk loading from Mirebalais collection centers to Port au Prince packing house. COEPDA records. COEPDA. 2012. Shipm ents of mangos transported by truck in bulk loading from Mirebalais collection centers to Port au Prince packinghouse. COEPDA records. Damais, G., A. Bellande, and P. Duret. 2010. Analyse de la filire d exportation informelle de la filire d avocat d Hat i vers la Rpublique Dominicaine. Daynac, L.G. 1986. Rapport technique sur le secteur des fruits et lgumes en Hati.121. Dieudonn, R. 2007. Inventaires et caractrisation des varits de manguiers Mangifera indica L. rencontres a Brsilienne (1ere secti on communale de Bainet) et dans les localits Lavial et Poli de la commune de La Valle de Jacmel. Mmoire. Damien: Facult d Agronomie et de Mdecine Vtrinaire FAES and KFW. 2008. Plan de dveloppement de la commune de Mirebalais/Diagnostic participati f et les axes str atgiques de dveloppement. 129 FAES and KFW. 2009 Plan de dveloppement de la commune de Saut d Eau/Diagnostic participatif et les axes stratgiques de dveloppement. 72. FAO. 1999. Commodity M arket R eview Commodities and T rade Divisi on Available at: http:// www.fao.org/waicent/ fao info/economic/ESC/escp/cmre.htm. Accessed 10 Februray 2013

PAGE 131

131 FAOSTAT. 2007. FAO Statistics, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Rome, Italy. Available at: http://faostat.fao.org. Accessed 4 December 2012. Francois, W. 2008. valuation des possibilits d exporter les mangues vers les iles Carabes. 21. Fransen, J. and J. C. Audate. 2007. L avocat Hatien en avant: une brve analyse sur le secteur avocat Hatien et sur les possibilits d augm enter la comptitive de la filire. Haiti Info Plus. 2012. USAID Mirebalais : inauguration nit de s chage des Fruits Available at: http://www.haitiinfoplus.com/index.php/economie/277 l ifc veut financer des entreprises privees dans le cadre du gafsp A ccessed 4 February 2013. Iksan. 2000. Mango postharvest technology. Available at:http://www.iksan.com/links/ap mang oPost%20harvest%20 technology.shtm 108k. Accessed 4/15 2008. IHSI 1998 a Inventaire des ressources et p IHSI. 1998 b Inventaire des ressources et p d Eau. Iqbal, M. 2008. Pos t harvest Handling of Mangos. Available at: http://www.pakissan.com/english/allabout/orchards/mango/post.harvest.handling. of.mangoes.shtml Accessed 6 April 20 12 Jean, J. 1998. Rentabilit et contribution de la mangue l conomie des exploitations agrico les (Plaine du Cul de Sac). Mmoire. Damien: Mdecine Vtrinaire JWK International Corporation. 1976. Agricultural policy studies in Haiti: mangos. Kader, A. A.; S. Ben Yehoshua. 2000. Effects of super atmospheric oxygen levels on Post harvest physiology and quality of fresh fruits and vegetables. Post harvest Biology and Technology. 20: 1 13. Kader, A. and B. Mitcham. 2008. Optimum p rocedures for ripening m angoes. In: Fruit r ipening and ethylene m anagement: 47 48. Univ. Calif. P ostharvest Technology Research and Informati on Center Publication Series #9. Available at: http://postharvest.ucdavis.edu/Pubs/Pub_Desc_9.pdf Accessed 5 February 2013. Kimaro, E., D. E. Sa laam Tanzania, T. Msogoya and T. 2008. Municipality Postharvest losses of mangro fruit (Mangifera indica) in Morogoro Region.

PAGE 132

132 Kitinoja L, Kader AA, 2003. Small scale postharvest handling practices: a manual for horticultural crops. University of Californi a, Davis. Dept. of Pomology. 4th ed. Department of Pomology, University of California. MARNDR. 2011. Distribution of mangos from Mirebalais at Packing houses Records. MARNDR. 2012. Distribution of mangos from Central Plateau at packing houses in 2012. Maqbool, M; A. Jabbar, A. U. Malik 2007. Sap dynamics and its management in commercial mango cultivars of Pakistan. Pak. J. Bot. 39(5):1565 74. Medina, J.D.L.C H. Garca. 2002. MANGO: Post harvest Operations. Mejia, D.and Lewis, B.(eds). Medlicott, A. 2001. Postharvest improvement program for the Haitian mango industry. TS #1. Medlicott, A. 2003. Postharvest handling of mango Queensland government. Available at : http://www.agribusinessonline.com/c rops/mangophh.asp Accessed 3 March 2011 Michel, A. 2012. Mirebalais dote de la plus grande unite de sechage de fruits. Le N ouvelliste journale Available at : http://lenouvelliste.com/article4.php?newsid=110847 Accessed 4 February 2013. Morton, F. J. 1987. Mango. In: Fruits of warm climates. 221 239. Norvilus M., M. M. A. Jean Baptiste. 2008. tude des filires agricoles hatiennes. Projet d Appui a u renforcement de la capacit des caisses du rseau de l ANACAPH dans la rduction de la pauvret en Hati. 9 ACP HA 12/8 National Mango Board. 2012. Mango crop report. US import volume. USDA Market News marketnews.usda.gov. A vailable at: http://www.mango.org/industry/volume and price history Accessed 10 December 2012. Nutrition and you. 2012. mango fruit nutrition facts. Available at: http://www.nut rition and you.com/mango fruit.html. Accessed 4 November 2012.

PAGE 133

133 ORE. 2012. Grafting fruit trees: Grafting transforms low quality fruit trees into the best commercial varieties. A vailable at: http://www.oreworld.org/mango.htm Accessed 10 October 2012. Pathak, R.K. 2007. Protocol for postharvest management of mango. Central Institute for Subtropical Horti culture, Lucknow. Available at: w ww.idfresearch.org/sps/docs/lucppt3.pdf. Accessed 20 February 2013. Raphael, S. 2009. Pertes post rcoltes de mangues (Madame Francisque) dans la deuxime section communale de Gros Morne (Rivire Mancelle): diagnostic valuatif et perspectives. Mmoir e. Damien Facult d Agronomie et de Mdecine Vtrinaire Ravindra M ., T. Goswami. 2007. Post harvest handling and storage of mangos An overview. Journal of Food Science and Technology Mysore 44(5):449. RAPCOM. 2011. Distribution of mangos purchased and sold. RAPCOM. 2012. Distribution of mangos purchased and sold. Samson, J. 1980. Tropical Fruits. Tropical Agricultural Series. Markets Information. Available at: http://ushirika.coop/conten t/ view/20/38/1/1. Accessed 27 May 20 12 SAPKO. 2011. Distribution Port au Prince packing houses in 2011. SAPKO records. SAPKO. 2012. Distribution of mangos purchased in Saut d Eau and sold at Port au Prince packing houses in 2012. SAPKO records. Smucker, G., B. Swartley, G. F leurantin and M. McGahuey. 2005. Agriculture in a fragile environment: Market incentives for natural resource management in Haiti. Tardieu, E. 1998. Le schage des fruits en Haiti. Save the children Haiti field office. 65p. TFC. 2008. Tanzania Federation o f Cooperatives Markets Information. Available at: http://ushirika.coop/content/ view/20/38/1/1. Accessed 27 May 2012. USDA. 2010. Mango Forum Report. Export 5 million cases of USDA certified mangos by 2015. Mango Forum held on April 20 and 21st 2010, Port au Prince, Haiti. USAID. 2010. Tanzania agriculture productivity program. Market Bulleti n #1: Mango. USDA. 2011. Record Mango Program/Technical Report FY 2010 2011. USDA. USDA. 2012. Distribution of mangos from Central Plateau at packing houses in 2012 US D A APHIS PPQ 2010. Treatment manual. Available at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/plants/manuals/ports/downloads/treatm ent.pdf Accessed 20 June 2 011.

PAGE 134

134 Vieux PG. 1990. Circuit de commercialisation et d exportation des mangues et causes de rejets aux portes des usines. Mdecine Vtrinaire.

PAGE 135

135 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Lidwine Hyppolite was born in Les Anglais, in th e south of Haiti. She gr aduated from the State University of Haiti in Port au Prince with a bachelor degree in economics sciences in 2001 and another bachelor degree from Quisqueya University in agriculture sciences specifically in environmental protection in 2005 S he worked for five years at several institutions in Haiti: (1) Unibank as a teller, (2) consultant in agronomy at the SETCOM INVEST SA, (3) Center of Study and International Cooperation (CECI_Haiti) where she was responsible for economic initiat ive and gender, (4) United Nation Development Program (UNDP) as gender responsible of the Local Development Program in the northeast of Haiti. She obtained a scholarship from the USAID / WINNER project to study food engineering in the United States of Americ a She received her M.S degree from the University of Florida in the spring 2013. She believes in the possibility of creating wealth from the efficient management of available resources and hard labor. ants to contribute to improving the living conditions of farmers through conservation, preservation and the processing of agricultural products.