RESOURCE ALLOCATION AMONG LIMITED RESOURCE FARMERS
IN SITI UNG 5c, WEST SUMATERA, INDONESIA
STEPHENIE K. KAN
A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1988
I am very grateful and indebted to Drs. Chris 0. Andrew and Thomas H. Spreen for their guidance in the analysis and writing of this thesis. I appreciate the great amount of time and the assistance and encouragement they have given to me. I also appreciate their
expertise and the responsibility they took in guiding me. I would also like to thank Drs. Stephen R. Kostewicz and Art Hansen for their support, and Dr. Raymond C. Littell of the Statistics Department for his ;assistance in formulating a procedure to synthesize time series yield data.
I owe much thanks to TropSoils for their support of my research, in particular, to Dr. Gordon Y. Tsuji of the University of Hawaii and his staff for their support, assistance and concern. I wish to
especially acknowledge and thank the members of the TropSoils CRSP in Sitiung: Dan and Judy Gill and family and Mike and Ann Wade and family for their hospitality and for introducing me to the Indonesian culture and people; and Carol Colfer and Stacy and Carl Evenson for their friendship and assistance in helping to set up my research. I also
wish to thank Drs. I. Putu Gedjer and Sri Adiniugsih, of the Center for Soils Research (CSR) staff of the Indonesian Agriculture Department, for their support and concern, and the CSR staff members at Sitiung for making me welcome at their living compound and for their
assistance in Javanese and Sundanese language translation problems and points of culture. In particular I would like to thank Ir. Cuk
Sugiyarso for his invaluable input in the formulation of my surveys and assistance in translating survey questions and in interviewing. Special thanks are also due to Suandi, the Sitiung 5c technician, for his assistance in monitoring my Enterprise Records and for his knowledge of Sitiung 5c and its community; and to Lasmi for helping me learn the Indonesian language and for giving me first hand insight as to how it is to be a transmigrant. I also wish to thank Dr. Peter
Hildebrand for his support and for providing me this opportunity to do research in Sitiung and for setting up my stay there.
Lastly, I would like to thank my family for their support, caring and concern while I was overseas and through the writing of this thesis.
-TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES...................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES..................................................... xi
1 INTRODUCTION.................................................. 1
Generating Technology for Limited Resource Farmers ..............
The Research Setting: Sitiung, West Suxnatera,
Problem Statement ..............................................7
The Study Area................................................ 9
Information Sources........................................... 12
Enterprise Recordkeeping Study ..............................13
Farmer Perspectives Survey ..................................14
Production Constraints Survey ..............................15
Organization of the Thesis .....................................16
2 PRESENTATION OF SURVEY INFOP&nATION ............................18
Farmer Perspectives Survey .....................................18
The Farmers' View of Their Present Food Crops Situation 20
Farmers' Valuation of Activities and Goals ..................23
Dealing with Emergency Resource Constraints .................31
Farmers' Perspectives on Off-Farm Work ......................38
The Animal Aspect of the Farm System ........................44
Production Constraints Survey .................................55
Input Use and-Crop Yields ....................................63
Enterprise Recordkeeping Survey ...............................64
3 THE SYNTHESIS OF DATA ..........................................66
Production Conversions to a Land Base ..........................66
Kilograms of Seed per Hectare ................................67
Fertilizer Costs .....................................68
Average Exptected High and Low Crop Yields per Hectare 69
Average Crop Yields per Hectare ..............................69
Consumption Parameters ...................................... 70
Calorie and Protein Minimum Annual Levels ...................70
Maximum Annual Rice Consumption Level .......................71
Minimum Annual Rice Consumption Level .......................72
Maximum Annual Allowable Amount of Consumed Cassava .........72 Annual Non-Food Cash Requirements ............................73
Comments on Data Synthesis .....................................74
4 THE MODEL ......................................................75
Empirical Specification of the Model ..........................81
Variable Costs.............................................. 85
Corn and Cassava Intercrops ..................................89
Other Variables ..............................................92
5 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS.......................................... 93
Conceptual Analysis........................................... 93
Model Analysis and Results .....................................97
No Limits on Food Purchases ..................................97
Limits on Rice Purchases .....................................99
Dual Information ............................................103
Comment on Model Development ................................104
6 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ......................109
A TRANSLATION OF SURVEY QUESTIONS ...............................116
Farmer Perspectives Survey ....................................116
Production-Constraints Survey .................................119
Enterprise Recordkeeping Survey ...............................120
B OTHER DATA AND TABLES ....................................... 123
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...................................................... 131
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES- ........................................... 133
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ............................................... 134
LIST OF TABLES
Z-1. Composition of sample by ethnic group ...................... 19
2-2, Distribution of sample by length of residence .............. 19
2-3 Have your harvests increased since you came to Siting 5c? .............................................. 22
2-4 Reasons given by farmers for a positive response in Table 2-3 ................................................ 22
2-5 Reasons given by farmers for a non-positive answer in Table 2-3 ................................................ 22
Z-6 Do you think that your harvests will increase in the future? .................................................. 23
2-7 Clarification given by farmers for a positive response to Table 2-6 ................................................ 23
2-8 Are your harvests enough for food, seed, fertilizer/ pesticide, household and/or hired labor costs? ........... 28
2-9 If you had very little money, what would you do first? ..... 28 2-10 Breakdown of fertilizer/pesticide response in Table 2-9 .... 29 2-11 If you had much money, what would you do? .................. 29
2-12 What is the best way to save money? ........................ 29
2-13 Kinds of animals (first choices) mentioned by those farmers .preferring animals as a means of savings ................. 30
2-14 What do you plan to plant on your second field? ............ 30
2-15 Crop combinations specified by farmers for-their second field ..................................................... 31
2-16 What problems do you anticipate concerning your second field? ....................... ............................. 31
2-17 What do you do when you need money? ........................ 33
2-18 Selling activities of Table 2-17 ..............................33
2-19 Work activities of Table 2-17 .................................33
2-20 Who farmers would borrow from in Table 2-17 ...................34
2-21 What would you do if you did not have money, food or work?. 34 2-22 Lenders in Table 2-21 .........................................34
2-23 Selling activities of Table 2-21 .............................34
2-24 Work activities of Table 2-21 .................................35
2-25 What do you borrow from the store? ............................36
2-26 Specific kinds of food in Table 2-25 .........................37
2-27 Other items borrowed in Table 2-25 ...........................37
2-28 How do you pay the store back? ................................37
2-29 How much do you owe the store now? ...........................38
2-30 Summary of debt information ..................................33
2-31 What kinds of off-farm work do you look for? .................41
2-32 Is it more difficult to find work than last year?7............41
2-33 Why don't you look for non-local work?".......................41
2-34 Can you always find work when you need it?"...................41
2-35 Would you take a permanent job? ..............................41
2-36 Reasons for not taking a permanent job in Table 2-35 .........43
2-37 If you had a permanent job, who would look after your farm? 43 2-38 Wages for local agricultural labor in Sitiung 5c .............43
2-39 Wages for labor outside of Sitiung Sc ........................43
2-40 What gotong royong activities do you participate in?".........44 2-41 Why do you keep chickens?"....................................47
2-42 What do you feed your chickens" ..............................47
2-43 Additional data on chickens in Sitiung 5c ....................48
2-44 When do you eat your chickens? ................................48
2-45 When do you sell chickens?"....................................48
2-46 Do you want a goat?.......................................... 48
2-47 Reasons for wanting a goat ....................................49
2-48 Reasons for not wanting a goat ................................49
2-49 Do you want a cow?........................................... 49
2-50 Is there enough food in Sitiung 5c to feed a cow? ............49
2-51 Would you plant forage for a cow? .............................50
2-52 Reasons for wanting a cow .....................................50
2-53 Reasons for not wanting a cow ................................50
2-54 Number of children ............................................53
2-55 Average ages of children ......................................53
2-56 Age mixtures of children ......................................53
2-57 Age distributions of children ................................54
2-58 At what age can children begin working and work as adults?, 54
2-59 Age distributions of children in school and out of school 55
2-60 Where farmers well their crops ................................56
2-61 Average crop prices per kilogram in Rupiah ...................57
2-62 Farmer perceived constraints to food crops ...................60
2-63 Average amount of seed and area planted ......................61
2-64 Fertilizer and pesticide applications ........................61
3-1 Annual caloric requirements for a family of five .............71
3-2, Annual protein requirements for a family of five .............71
3-3 Annual non-food requirements ..................................73
5-1. Values obtained with no food purchase limits .................106
5-2 Values obtained with rice purchase limits ....................107
5-3 Dual prices for rice purchase limit model ....................108
B-I Calories and protein per kilogram food item used in the model .......................................................123
B-2 Fertilizer useage............................................ 124
B-3 Soybean productivity .........................................125
B-4 Peanut productivity ..........................................126
B-5 Rice productivity............................................ 127
B-6 Corn productivity........................................... 128
B-7 Mungbean productivity ........................................129
B-8 Cassava productivity .........................................130
LIST OF FIGURES
1-1 Map of Indonesia........................................... 5
1-2 Map of West Sumatera....................................... 6
A-1 Enterprise Recordkeeping Survey form. ...................... 122
Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science
RESOURCE ALLOCATION AMONG LIMITED RESOURCE FARMERS
IN SITIUNG 5c, WEST SUMATERA, INDONESIA By
Stephenie K. Kan
Chairman: Chris 0. Andrew
Major Department: Food and Resource Economics
Developing appropriate and acceptable technology for limited resource farmers is made difficult by the nature of these farms, and our
limited ability to identify basic economic data relative to their farming systems. A distinguishing characteristic of limited resource farmers is the integration of the farm household as the central part of the farming system. These farmers will tend to view their farm activities from the perspective of family welfare rather than from a strictly production point of view. Maintaining and protecting family
welfare often is their primary objective. Consequently, these farmers
are sensitive to activities that might, jeopardize family welfare and therefore, survival. This sensitivity causes limited resource farmers
to be highly risk averse and to select groups of household and production activities which minimize risk at the expense of maximizing profits.
The- research for this thesis was carried out in Sitiung 5c, a transmigration area on West Sumatera, Indonesia. It characterizes the
Sitiung 5c farmer' s allocation of resources among many alternative activities. Data collected in Sitiung 5c were used to simulate timeseries yield data and other production and consumption information for use in the formulation of a typical household model.
Sitiung 5c farmers allocate resources in a manner that they perceive will assure family survival. They are more concerned with
minimizing consumption risks than conventional production risks. As
illustrated in the model, the more risk averse the farmers are, the more
the farmers will concentrate their resources on staple crops at the expense of their cash crops. Assuring family survival involves planning for immediate and for future consumption. Farmers plan to assure longrun survival by minimizing consumption risk over time through investing resources in activities which will produce returns in the future. They
may sacrifice improved productivity of short-run activities such as annual food cropping activities by allocating resources, once shorc-run survival is assured, to investment activities.
Because of the tendency by risk averse farmers to allocate more resources to their consumption crops at the expense of their cash crops,
the higher the farmers' aversion to risk, the lower their net income. Highly risk averse farmers would have low net incomes and, therefore, would have few resources to invest in new technologies. Decreasing crop productivity over time may cause farmers to become more risk averse. As
net- incomes decrease, the farmers would have fewer resources to invest in their consumption crops causing productivity to decrease further and risk aversion to increase even, more. The barrier to the adoption of
new technologies due to risk aversion is compounded by lack of funds due to lower incomes.
Generating Technolozz for Limited Resource Farmers
Limited resource farmers are unique because, unlike other production processes where the business and the people involved in the
production process are two distinct units, the division between farm business and farm household is not distinct. The presence of the farm
household as an integrated and central part of the farm system complicates the process of technology generation for the limited resource farmer.
In a typical business benefits and costs can be measured. Those
activities which are the most profitable, have an acceptable level of risk, and achieve other desired socio-economic criteria are selected above those activities which fail to satisfy all or some combination of the criteria. Resources are allocated to those chosen activities and diverted from those less profitable activities. The inclusion of the farm household into the farm system adds the family welfare dimension to the allocation of resources.
When the household is considered in the allocative process, risk and the valuation of activities must be looked at from the prospective of family welfare. It is diff icult to put a value on crops used for consumption by the household. Placing a market value on these crops
assumes that the farm household is able to buy these crops if they do not grow them, which is not always the case. The value of consumed
crops is difficult to estimate, particularly if th e farm household cannot afford to buy them in the market. Therefore, the limited
resource farmers will choose crop mixtures and activities that will insure survival rather than maximize profits (Herath, 1980; Feder, 1980). Since the farm is involved with life sustaining activities rather than merely profitable activities, the limited resource farmer will be less willing to take risks. The aversion to risk is a
particular chara cteristic of limited resource farmers especially when comparing them to commercial farms (Blackburn, et. al., 1979; Perrin and Winkelman; 1976). Because of scarce resources, the limited
resource farmer is also much less able to absorb losses and the costs of failure are very high, perhaps non survival.
The farm household must allocate scarce resources among competing consumption and production needs to insure at least the minimum necessities for survival. These limited resource farmers are, therefore, more oriented to economic survival rather than monetary goals or economic success (Pemberton and Craddock, 1979). Returns from
the farm business are not necessarily reinvested in the farm, but are directed to the farm household for allocation. Therefore, the
acceptability of new technology to these limited resource farmers will depend largely on how well the new technology can compete with other alternatives (including the traditional methods that the new technology
is developed to replace) for resources, the amount of additional risk that the new technology is perceived to involve, and the resulting
change in production, income and/or family welfare likely from use of the new technology.
The Research Setting: Sitiung. West Sumatera. Indonesia
In 1976 the Indonesian government began a national transmigration program on the western portion of the island of Sumatera. The program was implemented to help relieve the population pressure on the island of Java and to develop the lightly populated outer islands.
The Sitiung transmigration project is located on approximately 100,000 hectares of what was primarily rain forest. Much of the rain forest has already been cleared to make room for the transmigrants. The soils of the Sitiung area range in quality from moderately fertile Inceptisols on the river terraces to highly leached and impoverished Oxisols and Ultisols of the dissected peneplain (Neil, 1985). Sitiung's position is one degree south latitude, 100 meters elevation and has a mean annual rainfall of 2800 mm and a mean annual air temperature of 26 degrees celsius. There is a wet season and a dry season. The term "dry season" is a little misleading because it does rain during the dry season, however the rain does not fall at regular intervals. Because the soils are highly aggregated, they do not retain water very well. Therefore, in spite of the high annual rainfall, drought conditions will prevail if rain does not fall regularly.
The Sitiung transmigrants belong to two major ethnic groups, the Sundanese from West Java and the Javanese from East Java. Members of the indigenous ethnic group, the Minangkabau have also been included in
the transmigration program. Each of these three ethnic groups are distinctly different culturally and linguistically. The farming practices of the transmigrants and the indigenous ethnic group also differ. The transmigrants are used to an intensive agricultural system while the Minangkabau utilizes a slash and burn system.
There are currently nine resettlement areas in Sitiung. The first was established in 1976 and is unique because it consists of an entire population which was relocated from Central Java when the construction of a dam flooded their original lands. This first group of transmigrants has retained its old community structure, many retained their wealth from their old villages, and all were compensated by the government for their losses due to the dam construction. The transmigrants of Sitiung 1 have also been resettled on the more fertile river terraces and are the recipients of a large irrigation project. The later transmigrants were recruited from among the poorest of the poor (families with- few possessions and little or no land holdings; these families would be most willing to transmigrate as they would have the least to lose and the most to gain) in Java and their situation differs greatly from that of Sitiung 1.
At the time of this study various biological research efforts aimed at improving crop production and soil fertility were being conducted in the Sitiung area. The TropSoils Project was not only
interested in basic biological research but also in the development and transfer of technology appropriate for the local farmers. The Project has adopted a farming systems approach in its generation of research and this research has been conducted for the TropSoils Project.
.0 NEW GUINEA
AUSTRALIAFIGURE 1-1: Map of Indonesia.
M A L-A'Y.S I A NOR TH SUMATERA
R I A N Padang J A M81 SOUTH SU MATTER lee.o: e**-. O.&SO&OLAMPUNG
FIGM 1-2. Map of Sumatera. Jakarta0
The Sitiung 5c farmers can be characterized as limited resource farmers. They are, therefore, risk averse and have few resources to allocate among many competing activities. Identifying farm activities where new technology can be generated which will be useful and acceptable to the farmers is difficult. Much of the difficulty lies within the farmers' system itself because their aversion to risk and tight allocation of resources makes the system highly resistant to change. Differences in the perceptions and goals held by farmers and researchers also makes the selecting of appropriate production and research activities difficult. Farmers tend to view their farming systems from the perspective of family welfare while researchers tend to view the farm activities from a production perspective. Therefore those activities that researchers identify as priorities may at best not be seen as priorities by the farmers and at worst threatening to short and/or long term family welfare.
Limited resource farmers in Indonesia have difficulty adopting new technology because
1. New technology diverts resources away from those activities which
are perceived by the farm household as being of higher
2. The farmer ranks the importance of his various activities not necessarily according to profitability, but according to how well certain activities can fulfill his goals of risk minimization and
3. Models which maximize profits with or without regard to risk do
not necessarily depict the behavior of limited resource farmers
who place great value on crops used for home consumption. A
model which takes into account crops which have a high
consumptive value, but not necessarily a high market value would
be more representative of these limited resource farmers.
A general objective for thi... i 'n character he .arm.nz
system and allocation of resources from the farmer's perspective by characterizing: a) how farmers rank their various family welfare oriented activities according to importance and relative to the household/production interaction, b) what they view as agricultural constraints, c) what their goals are, and d) how they intend to fulfill their goals. Specific objectives to address the hypotheses include:
1. Describe farmer perspectives, goals and constraints relative
to food crop production.
2. Describe farmer activities and practices relative to livestock
and. crops, family labor, credit, and educational orientation.
3. Develop a model to depict farmer behavior in planning various
food cropping, livestock and consumption activities at various degrees of risk aversion. This process, conceptually, is
sound while empirically limited by the range and quality of
The Study Area
Of the nine resettlement areas in Sitiung, the fifth, Sitiung 5 was selected a research site. The reasons for choosing Sitiung 5 were its relative accessibility, and the fact that it was more typical of the transmigrants situation than Sitiung 1, which was much more accessible. Each resettlement area is divided into blocks and block C was chosen, again, because of its accessability. Therefore, the research area will be referred to as Sitiung 5c.
The first transmigrants arrived in Sitiung 5c in 1982. Of the 255 households, 124 are Sundanese, 126 are Javanese and 5 are Minangkabau. Each household was allocated a cut (but not cleared) upland field of one hectare, a one quarter hectare homestead upon which a small zinc roofed wood house with dirt floor was provided, and in September 1986 an additional three quarter hectare parcel of land was given to thq farmers. This second field is still in forest and is to be cut and cleared. by the transmigrants themselves. The homesteads are clustered together in a village type setting with the upland fields lying on the outside of the village. Some are up to three kilometers away from the
transmigrants' homes. The transmigrants second parcel of land lies even farther away.
Typical of other settlement areas (except Sitiung 1) the Sitiung 5c transmigrants came from many different parts of Java and were recruited from among the poorest of the poor. Therefore, the majority of the transmigrants did not arrive in Sitiung 5c with significant amounts of capital. The land upon which Sitiung 5c is located varies from moderately to steeply sloping and erosion is a problem. The soil is acid, low in fertility and does not retain water very well. Since
Sitiung 5c does not have irrigation, water stress is often a problem with field crops.
Sitiung 5c is about nine kilometers of unpaved dirt road from the main highway. There is transportation two days a week on market days, Sundays and Wednesdays. The m private buses that service
Sitiung 5c transport both people and produce to market. Walking is the main means of transportation in Sitiung 5c during non-market days; however, there are a few privately owned motorcycles and bicycles.
Government-subsidized fertilizer is available to the farmers through the village head and can be bought by credit or cash. Fertilizer is also available at the markets. Because of transportation costs, however, it is most economical to purchase fertilizer in the village from the village head.
There are a number of small, privately owned stores in Sitiung 5c where the farmers can purchase household goods, condiments, cooking oil and kerosene. These stores vary from a few shelves in a home selling a limited number of items to independent structures selling a wide range
of goods. There were two establishments equipped with wooden tables and benches that sold prepared food--mainly hot noodles, chips and drinks.
The homes are not equipped with running water. A few wells,
streams and water catchment barrels fill water needs. During the dry season, when many wells go dry and the water levels in the streams fall, it is particularly difficult for the transmigrants to obtain water. The incidence of disease during this time is high.
The land around the home is cultivated, usually with food crops such as peanuts, soybeans, cassava and corn. Most of the transmigrants have planted tree crops on their homesteads. If the evolution of the homesteads follows that of the older resettlement areas, the food crops in the homestead will eventually give way to tree crops such as jack.fruit, coffee, rambucan, orange and others. The farmers make mosz efficient use of their homesteads by planting food crops until they become shaded out by the tree crops.
The upland fields are devoted to food crops though several farmers have planted some tree crops on their upland fields. Soybeans and
peanuts are the main cash crops. Chili is grown, though not by all farmers, and also provides a source of cash. Rice is a staple crop and grown mainly for home consumption. Cassava is grown as a backup crop to rice and is also sold for cash to a processing plant. Corn is
generally intercropped with soybeans or peanuts. Both corn and cassava are often mixed with rice in order to supplement rice supplied during difficult times. The farmers have three major outlets for their crops.
They can sell directly at the market, to a local store in Sitiung 5c or to a trucker that visits Sitiung 5c periodically.
The Minangkabau have been included in the resettlement area. There is a large section in Sitiung 5c given to Minangkabau settlers, however the majority of Minangkabau settlers do not live in Sitiung 5c on a permanent basis as many stayed only long enough to collect the settling in benefits of food, tools, seed and fertilizer. Only five farms were counted as permanent residences and the rest were either abandoned or planted with low management crops such as sugar cane and visited periodically. Therefore this study concentrates on the transmigrant settlers which make up 98% of the Sitiung 5c residents.
Very little basic economic information was available about the transmigrant farmers in Sitiung 5c. Because of the farmer's multicropping and intercropping system, yield measurements were difficult to obtain. The farmers' estimation of their own yields was not based on yield per area; therefore, they were unable to give yields per hectare. Aside from measurement problems causing a lack of input and yield, information, communication due to language differences was another problem. The Indonesian national language was not spoken by all of the farmers. Since the majority of interviews were carried out in the national language, communication difficulties occurred.
Enterprise Recordkeening Study
Three pieces of work were carried out during the seven month study period in Sitiung 5c. The first survey to be set up was an Enterprise Recordkeeping Study. Ten farmers were selected for the study, five from each ethnic group, Sundanese and Javanese. The reasons for the small sample size was due to research personnel limitations. At the time the records were started, the author was not sufficiently fluent in the language to monitor the records, and the one technician who was able to assist in the monitoring could only effectively monitor ten farmers. Identifying farmers who could write and were willing to complete the daily survey forms was difficult. The sample is
admittedly not random, however, the farming systems are relatively homogeneous as the farmers were allotted the same amount of land and goods upon arrival, and they all have very little in the way of resources. Environmentally they all face similar constraints, they all grow the same major crops, and within ethnic groups they have similar farming practices.
The Enterprise Recordkeeping Survey was developed in Sitiung. Because of timing problems, only the last part of the dry season (harvest) and the first half of the wet season (land preparation and planting) were covered. Therefore, from the beginning it was understood that the records collected would not be useful in the formulation of farm budgets. Instead, the survey forms were constructed to collect more detailed information on specific cropping activities, labor use, off-farm work and marketing.
The daily survey forms were pretested twice and translated into both Javanese and Sundanese. One of the major problems encountered
with the form was the-recording of time. The farmers did not have or use watched, therefore the recording of activity durations in hours was
very- difficult for the farmers. Using fractions of the day was even less satisfactory as the farmers would often record 72 hour days. Finally a system using the position of the sun was adopted and the farmers found this method of recording time much more understandable and less frustrating. The daily survey forms were bound into one month booklets and collected at the end of each month. For the first month
the farmers were visited several times to make sure that they
understood how to fill out the form. Six of the original farmers
chosen dropped out of the study during the first two months and six other farmers were found to replace them. Therefore, only four farmers
participated for the full six month (June-November) duration of the study.
Farmer Perspectives Survey
A survey was conducted in order to obtain some understanding of how
the farmers view their farming system. A general understanding of the farmers' system was needed to act as a guide in the formulation of questions. After four months of gathering information, a rough model of the farm was developed. This model was used to guide the
development of this survey and the succeeding Production- Constraints Survey. One of the major problems with the formulation of these survey s was that, because of the lack of basic economic information, it
was difficult to determine what. kinds of information to collect. it was easy to become side-tracked by certain activities or concerns and therefore collect too much detailed information on those activities and not enough on other major activities.
The survey form was completed in September, pretested in October and thirty interviews using the survey form were completed by midNovember. The five page survey was fairly long and took from twenty minutes to one hour to complete, depending on the language ability of both farmer and interviewer. Most of the survey questions were open ended so that the farmers could have some flexibility in their answers. The survey covered a) farmer perceptions of farm production, b)-farmer
activities and choices in the face of severe economic constraints, c) perceptions of off-farm work, d) farmer credit availability, e) general
farmer goals, f) spending hierarchies, major cash expenditures, h)
investment, i) livestock activities, and j) general labor questions.
The Production -Constraints Survey was conducted in November and for the sake of time and accuracy, an interviewer who lived in the study- area and spoke both Javanese and Sundanese was hired to conduct the interviews. Forty-six interviews were completed.
This survey was conducted to gain information on farmer viewed constraints to major crops, general input use (what fertilizers and pesticides- were used on what crops), fertilizer application rates, the kinds: of crops grown on the upland fields, crop productivity and marketing information. Farm productivity is difficult to estimate as
farmers tend to plant a patchwork of crops in their fields. Because of the farmers' multicropping-intercropping system, yields per hectare are difficult to estimate. However, the farmers themselves do have some methods of evaluating the success of their harvests. According to the technician who lived in the study area, the farmers tend to think more in terms of yield per unit of seed rather than yield per hectare. Therefore questions pertaining to crop productivity were asked in yield per unit of seed rather than yield per hectare. Information on seed spacing and the number of seeds per hole was gathered in order to get some estimate of yield per hectare. Because of the lack of previously conducted yield information, time series crop yield data was not available. The farmers were able to give a range of yield variability by giving the highest and lowest expected yields for each of their crops.
Organization of the Thesis
A descriptive analysis of the Sitiung 5c farmers' situation is given in Chapter II. The analysis is based on the three pieces of work conducted in Sitiung 5c and on seven months of observation in the study area. The objectives of this analysis is to describe the Sitiung 5c farming system from the farmers' perspective and to suggest areas within the farming system where research and new technology may be
most effective and acceptable to the farmers.
Chapter III discribes how the numbers were derrived from the data for specific use in building a model (Chapter IV) based on an average
Siting 5c family. The model attempts to deal with the problem of crop
yield uncertainty within the constraint set and the competing demands made on those crop yields. The model itself is a description of the various production and consumption activities the farmers will choose given various levels of risk and resource and consumption constraints.
In Chapter V a conceptual analysis of the quantitative data presented in Chapter II and an analysis of the model results from Chapter IV are presented. This thesis closes with Chapter VI finishes this thesis with a presentation of conclusions and recommendations.
PRESENTATION OF SURVEY INFORMATION
Farmer Persvectives Survey
The reason for undertaking this survey was to gain some general understanding of farmers' constraints, needs and goals and how the farmers rank these factors to form their farming systems. The survey consisted of 27 questions. Thirty-one farmers were interviewed between October 14 and November 12, 1986. The sample was taken by randomly choosing houses throughout Sitiung 5c and interviewing farmers who were willing to be interviewed. Although 31 farmers were interviewed, due to language difficulties (not all farmers understood the national Indonesian language very well) and sheer reluctance by the farmers, not all questions were answered by each farmer. Therefore the total number of responses per question will not always equal 31.
The transmigrants (the Javanese and the Sundanese) were targeted; however, two households from the indigenous ethnic group, the Minangkabau, were inadvertently interviewed. In the sample, 18 Javanese, 11 Sundanese and 2 Minangkabau farmers were interviewed (Table 2-1).
The average residence period for households in Sitiung 5c has been 3.4 years with a range from 4 months to 4.5 years (Table 2-2). A
number of homesteads in Sitiung 5c had been abandoned by their original occupants and subsequently occupied by young couples from among the 18
transmigrants. These couples make up the youngest households in residence.
TABLE 2-1: Composition of sample by ethnic group.
Ethnic Group Households
Javanese 18 (58.0)
Sundanese 11 (35.5)
Minangkabau _2 ( 6.5)
Total 31 (100.0)
a Percent of total sample (31).
TABLE 2-2: Distribution of sample by length of residence.
Years in Sitiung 5c Households
0 .5 2 (6.5)
.6 1.0 2 ( 6.5)
1.1 1.5 0
1.6 2.0 0
2.1 2.5 1 ( 3.2)
2.6 3.0 1 ( 3.2)
3.1 3.5 6 (19.3)
3.6 4.0 17 (54.8)
4.1 4.5 _.2 ( 6.5)
Total 31 (100.0)
a Percent of total sample (31).
For ease of comparison, the data will not be presented in the order the survey questions were asked. Rather, the questions have been separated into seven groups and will be presented within these
divisions. The groups are:
1. The farmers' view of their present food crops situation.
2. Farmers' valuation of activities and goals.
3. Dealing with emergency resource constraints.
4. Farmer credit.
5. Farmers' perspectives on off-farm work.
6. The animal aspect of the farm system.
The Farmers' View of Their Present Food Crops Situation
Q. 3: Have your harvest yields increased since you came to
Q. 4: Do you think that -your harvest yields will increase in the
The preceding two survey questions deal with the farmers'
assessment of their general food crops situation compared to the past and their expectations for the future.
Nearly half (48%) of the sampled farmers felt that their harvests had increased since they arrived in Sitiung 5c (Table 2-3). However, these responses may appear more optimistic than reality warrants
considering the reasons farmers gave for their positive responses. According to their answers (Table 2-4), land productivity has not necessarily- increased (the transmigrants have been allocated a finite amount of land),. Perceived increases in harvests were based on comparing a difficult situation to a worse one (in Java) and bringing more of the upland field into production. Therefore, it might be
reasonable- to assume that actual productivity of the land itself may not have increased by much. Reasons given for lack of productivity
increases were insect damage, wild pig damage and soil fertility problems and the lack of capital (Table 2-5).
A, majority of farmers (77%) expect their harvests to increase (Table 2-6). Their optimism appears to be based on their ability to obtain what they perceive as an adequate amount of agricultural inputs (Table 2-7). Only one farmer was so pessimistic as to respond that he didn't believe that his harvests would ever increase and the remaining farmers expressed varying degrees of uncertainty.
From their answers, the farmers seem to have a fairly positive view of their food crops in terms of the potential to increase yields. As indicated by two of the farmers, who felt that their harvests had increased because their tree crops had started producing (Table 2-7), tree crops may figure significantly in contributing to future returns. The importance farmers place on tree crops is further reinforced in answers to later questions.
The farmers appear to be quite concerned about having adequate amounts of agricultural inputs to insure a good yield from their crops.
From this, it might be inferred that the farmers see the lack of agricultural inputs (generally fertilizers and pesticides) as a major limiting factor to their food cropping activities. If farmers
recognize the lack of agricultural inputs as being a critical factor, will they necessarily use more of these inputs if they somehow obtain additional'capital? If the farmers had the means, whether they would
or would not inve-st- in higher amounts of agricultural inputs would depend on their long-run and. short-run goals and how highly they rank their food cropping activities against their other competing activities.
TABLE.2-3: Have your harvests increased since you came to Sitiung Sc?
Yes 15 (48.4)
No 6 (19.4)
Fluctuates 5 (16.1)
Other 5 (16.1)
Total 31 (100.0)
a Percent of total responses (31).
TABLE 2-4: Reasons given by farmers for a positive response in Table 23.
Reason Number Responding
More land compared to Java 4
Harvest yields increased,
but by very little 3
More of field cleared 1
No answer 7
TABLE 2-5: Reasons given by farmers for a non-positive answer in
Reason Number Responding
Insect Problems 3
Pig Damage 2
Poor Soil 3
Lack of Money 2
a Includes reasons given for all responses other than an affirmative
in Table 2-3.
TABLE 2-6: Do you think that your harvests will increase in the future?
Yes 24 (77.4)
No I ( 3.2)
Maybe 1 ( 3.2)
Do not know 3 (9.7)
Other 2 ( 6.5)
Total 31 (100.0)
Percent of total responses (31).
TABLE 2-7: Clarification given by farmers for a positive response to
Expects yields to increase
if has enough inputs. 17 (71.8)
Yields will increase because
tree crops will start bearing. 2 ( 8A)
Increased yields due to improved
soil through management. 1 ( 4.2)
No clarification given. 4 (16.7)
Total 24 (100.0)
a Percent of total positive answers given in Table 2-6 (24).
Farmer Valuation of Activities and Goals
2: Are the harvests from your crops enough to fill: a) f ood
requirements, b) seed, fertilizer and/or pesticide needs, c)
household needs and d) hired labor needs?
14: If you had little money, what would you buy first, second and
Q. 16: If yotL had much money, what would you do first? Q. 23: What is the best way to save money?
Q. 27: What ,are your plans for your second piece of land (currently
uncleared) and what are the main difficulties you think you
will have with this land?
The needs that farmers will fill first, considering their
constrained situation and their goals concerning the future of their farming systems were the objectives of the preceding five questions.
Ranking of needs or short-run goals and farmers' choices under tight cash constraints (which is not unusual for the farmers of Sitiung 5c) are dealt with in Questions 2 and 14. Various competing demands made on farmers' harvests were considered in the formulation of
Question 2. Four general categories- -food needs, agricultural costs, household needs and hired labor costs--were originally considered. The farmers, however, made a distinction between seed requirements and
fertilizer and pesticide needs. The distinction is an important one since the farmers tend to save their own seeds rather than buy them.
More farmers (67%) are able to fill food needs than any other need
from their harvests (Table 2-8). Also, food needs have a lower number of negative responses than any other need. Since the meeting of food needs has the highest number of positive and the lowest number of negative responses, it could be inferred that food needs are ranked by
farmers above all other listed needs. Seed needs, following this
reasoning, are ranked second, household needs are third, fertilizer and
pesticide needs are a close fourth and hired labor needs are ranked last.
When. asked what needs he would fill first considering a very constrained economic situation (Question 14), most farmers (83%)
responded that they would fill food needs first (Table 2-9). Fertilizer and pestic ide needs followed at a distant second, and clothing. needs come in third. For those farmers making a distinction between fertilizer and pesticide, fertilizer (as a second choice) ranked ahead of pesticides (Table 2-10).
Survival is the major goal expressed by the responses to constrained finances. Meeting food needs was identified as the most important goal. Agriculture is the main mea ns of fulfilling this goal by most farmers and is reflected in the high ranking given agricultural needs.
Intuitively, the ranking sequence makes sense. If survival is
assumed to be the main objective, then the farmers must fill food needs first. Insuring a means for survival in the short run would mean investing in their food cropping system. Therefore, it is not
surprising that farmers ranked purchase of agricultural inputs as second given a tightly constrained cash situation. Filling seed needs
from harvest ranked above the filling of fertilizer and pesticide needs. This is logical as the buying of fertilizer is of little use if there are no plants to fertilize.
Questions 16, 23 and,27 were asked with farmer goals and plans for
the future- in mind. Farmers' goals, given a situation where cash was not tightly constraining (Question 16), reflect their interests in investment and diversification. Investment in tree crops ranked first
among farmers' goals. The education of children was chosen second
followed closely by purchases of animals which was ranked third. Home
repairs ranked fourth very closely followed by buying more land and buying more fertilizer and pesticides, which ranked fifth and sixth consecutively. Note that buying additional food crop inputs (fertilizers and pesticides) was not ranked among the highest of farmer goals. The ranking of tree investment, education of children, and purchasing livestock suggests an interest in intermediate to longer term goals that will assist in providing for future family security. Each investment is similar to a major capital investment by large commercial farms.
The largest number of farmers (66%) preferred gold as a means of saving money (Table 2-12). The reason for buying gold and stock-piling
harvests, given by farmers who volunteered the information, was that gold and stock-piled harvests were very liquid. If they needed cash, gold and stock-piled harvests are very easily converted into cash in as
large or as small amounts as needed. Gold also provides a low risk method of storage; it does not devalue as cash can (there was a 45% devaluation in September 1986) nor be lost as animals can through disease and theft, and as stock-piled harvests can through pest damage.
It does not require maintenance as animals do and is easily guarded as it is usually worn as jewelry. The farmers generally bought gold if they had any money left over after selling their harvests.
Animal investment ranked second as a way to save money. Of those farmers putting their money into animals, most (71%) preferred to buy
chickens (Table 2-13). Like gold, chickens are easily sold while other kinds of animals (cows, goats and water buffalo) often are not. The
reason. farmers gave for preferring animals over gold was the potential for their animals increasing in value and multiplying. There is also a
potential for animals to sicken and die; therefore this risk may have been taken into account by those farmers preferring gold. For the two
farmers preferring the bank, there was no evidence that these farmers actually used the local bank, which was a great distance away.
During the summer of this study (1986), the transmigrants were given a second field of 3/4 hectares. At the time of these interviews
this second field was still in forest and the transmigrants themselves had to bear the responsibility of clearing the land. The farmers were
asked. about plans for their second piece of land and what they considered their greatest problem would be in working with this new piece of land (Question 27). Lack of adequate amounts of cash was the
problem cited by most of the farmers. Labor and clearing problems (which ranked second and third) are related to cash problems as most farmers will either have to hire or share labor to clear the field and because of the number of large trees, chain saws (mentioned by many of the farmers) will have to be purchased to clear the land. A number of
farmers did not see labor as a problem because they planned to use the traditional labor sharing system gotong royong to clear the land.
The farmers' plans for their second field strongly reflected their interest in tree crop investments, (Tables 2-14 and 2-15). Twenty of
the twenty-nine farmers (70%) planned to grow tree crops exclusively. The tree crop that farmers were most interested in growing was coffee and 19 farmers (66%) planned to plant coffee. Of these nineteen
farmers, nearly half (9 farmers) planned to grow coffee exclusively,
four planned to grow a coffee and rice combination (presumably rice
will. be grown between coffee trees until it is shaded out) and the
remaining six farmers planned to grow coffee in combination with other
tree or food crops, however coffee was generally mentioned as the crop
attracting the most interest. The strong interest in coffee reflects
the higher prices being paid for coffee at the time of the survey.
TABLE 2-8: Are your harvests enough for:
Food Seed Pesticide Household Labor
Needs Needs Costs Needs Costs
No. (M. No. M% No. () No. MZ No. (M.
Yes 20 (66.7) 15 (50.0) 9 (30.0) 9 (30.0) 8 (26.7)
No 6 (20.0) 13 (43.3) 19 (63.3) 17 (56.6) 16 (53.3)
Sometimes 4 (13.3) 2 (6.7) 2 ( 6.7) 4 (13.3) 2 (6.7)
labor --- Z_: 4j (13.3)
Total 30 (100.0) 30 (100.0) 30 (100.0) 30 (100.0) 30 (100.0)
TABLE 2-9: If you had very little money, what would you do first?
Number of Farmers Ranking Chosen Responses as: Response First Second Third
No. M% No. M% No. M%
Buy Food 25 (83.4) 3 (10.0) 3 (10.0)
Buy Fertilizer/Pesticide 2 ( 6.7) 15 (50.0) 12 (40.0)
Buy Clothes I ( 3.3) 6 (20.0) 7 (23.4)
Pay School Fees 1 (3.3) 1 ( 3.3) 1 ( 3.3)
Buy Medicine 0 1, ( 3.3) 1 ( 3.3)
Other 1 (3.3) 2 ( 6.7) 2 ( 6.7)
No Answer 0 2Z ( 6.7) -A (13.3)
Total 30 (100.0) 30 (100.0) 30 (100.0)
TABLE 2-10: Breakdown of fertilizer/pesticide response in Table 2-9.
Number of Farmers Ranking Chosen Responses as: Response First Second Third
No. (%)a No. (%)a No. (%)a
Fertilizer -1 (3.3) 9 (30.0) 5 (16.7)
Pesticide 0 4 (13.3) 5 (16.7)
No Distinction 1 (3.3) _.2 ( 6.7) _2 ( 6.7)
Total 2 (6.6) 15 (50.0) 12 (40.0)
a Percent of total responses per rank (30).
TABLE 2-11: If you had much money, what would you do?
Number of Farmers Ranking Chosen Responses as: Response First %) No.n NThird(%) Rank
N. MNo. ) N. (.
Buy Tree Crops 4 (14.8) 3 (11.1) 7 (25.9) 1 (6.25)a
Educate Children 6 (22.2) 3 (.111) 0 2 (6.00)
Buy Animals 3 (11.1) 6 (22.2) 2 ( 7.4) 3 (5.75)
Fix House 2 ( 7.4) 3 (11.1) 2 ( 7.4) 4 (3.50)
Buy Land 2 ( 7.4) 3 (11.1) 1 ( 3.7) 5 (3.25)
Buy Fertizers 2 ( 7.4) 3 (11.1) 0 6 (3.00)
Buy Food 2 ( 7.4) 1 ( 3.7) 1 ( 3.7) 7 (2.25)
Buy Gold 1 ( 3.7) ( 3.7) 3 (11.1) 8 (2. 00)
Visit Java 1 ( 3.7) 2 ( 7.4) 0 9 (1.75)
Own a Store 1 ( 3.7) 1 (3.7) 0 10 (1.25)
Pay Dept to Store 1 ( 3.7) 0 0 11 ( .75)
Other 2 ( 7.4) 0 1 (3.7)
No Answer 0 1 (3.7) 10 (37.0)
Total 27 (99.9) 27 (99.9) 27 (1.000)
a Calculation of rank: (First x .75) + (Second x .5) + (Third x .25).
TABLE 2-12: What is the best way to save money?
Buy Gold 19 (65.5)
Buy Animals 7 (24.1)
Use Bank 2 ( 6.9)
Stock Pile Harvest -1 ( 3.5)
Total 29 (100.0)
TABLE2-13: Kinds of animals (first choices) mentioned by those
farmers preferring animals as a means of savings.
Kind of Animal Responses
Chickens 5 (71.4)
Cows 1 (14.3)
Water Buffalo 1 (14.3)
Total 7 (100.0)
a Percent of farmers choosing animals in Table 2-12 (7).
TABLE 2-14: What do you plan to plant on your second field?
Coffee 19 (65.5)
Rice 12 (41.4)
Stinkbean 4 (13.8)
Rambutan 3 (10.3)
Soybeans 3 (10.3)
Peanuts 2 ( 6.9)
Petec 2 ( 6.9)
Clove I ( 3.4)
Corn 1 ( 3.4)
Chili 1 ( 3.4)
(not specified) 1 ( 3.4)
No Plans 2 ( 6.9)
a Total number of responses per crop, most farmers specified more than
b Percent of total number of farmers responding (29). c A leguminous tree related to the Stinkbean.
TABLE 2-15: Crops combinations specified by farmers for their second
Coffee (exclusively) 9 (31.0)
Food Crops (exclusively) 7 (24.1)
Coffee and other Tree Crops 5 (17.2)
Coffee and Rice 4 (13.8)
Coffee, Tree Crops and
Food Crops 1 (3.4)
Tree Crops (not specified) 1 ( 3.4)
No Plans _2 (6.9)
Total 29 (99.8)
a Percent of total responses (29).
TABLE 2-16: What problems do you anticipate concerning your second
Labor problems 9 (33.3)
Clearing problems 9 (33.3)
Lack of money 13 (48.1)
Distance of second
field from home 3 (11.1)
Insect problems 1 (3.7)
Will use gotong royong
for clearingc 8 (29.6)
a Total number of responses per problem, many farmers specified more
than one problem.
b Percent of total number of farmers who had plans for their second
c Gotong royong is a traditional labor sharing system.
Dealing with Emergency Resource Constraints
Q. 5: When you need money, what do you do?
Q. 10: If you do not have money, food or work, what do you do?
In filling needs that they do not have resources for, the farmers
have three major alternatives: selling something that they already
have, finding off-farm work, or borrowing. In the situation that the
farmer needs cash (Question 5) the greatest number of farmers (63%) responded that they would look for work (Table 2-17), usually hiring out their labor (41%) to neighboring farmers (Table, 2-19). Cutting
trees in the forest, which is illegal, heavy work and brings higher returns than agricultural labor, was also among the responses and may be actually higher in incidence than shown in Table 2-19 because of fear of legal implications.
Selling and borrowing had an equal number of responses (33%). Marketing surplus farm production was most common among farmers who said they would sell something (67%, Table 2-18). One of the farmers
made bricks for sale; in Sitiung 5c there were several other farmers who made bricks. Of those who would borrow, all would borrow money from neighbors, social savings groups (arisan) or from family (Tab~le 220). Sixty-seven percent of those would also borrow from the village store. However, it is most likely that goods and not cash is borrowed from the village stores. In general, these stores do not normally lend cash.
Given a desperate situation (Question 10) where the farmer did not
have, money, food or work (Table 2-21), most would borrow (61%) and the village store (Table 2-22) appears to be the main source of non-cash credit. Selling and working activities received the same number of responses. Of those selling, the sale of chickens was very important (78%, Table 2-23). Only one-third of the nine farmers, who indicated that they would look for work, would seek agricultural employment (Table 2-24), nearly one-half said that. they would just stay home and
work on their own farms and only one would seek non-agricultural
TABLE 2-17: What do you do when you need money?
Sell 9 (33.3)
Look for Work 17 (63.0)
Borrow 9 (33.3)
Other 4 (14.8)
a Some farmers specified more than one activity. b Percent of total responding (27).
TABLE 2-18: Selling activities of Table 2-17.
Sell Harvest 6 (66.7)
Sell Bricks 1 (11.1)
Other 2. (22.2)
Total 9 (100.0)
a Percent of total farmers who sell (9).
TABLE 2-19: Work activities of Table 2-17.
Agricultural Laborer 7 (41.1)
Cut Trees in Forest 2 (11.8)
Has Steady Job 2 (11.8)
Odd Jobs I ( 5.9)
Not Specified 5 (29.4)
Total 17 (100.0)
a Percent of total farmers who would look for work (17).
TABLE 2-20: Who farmers would borrow from in Table 2-17.
Village Store 6 (66.7)
Neighbors 5 (55.6)
Arisanc 3 (33.3)
Family 1 (11.1)
a Many borrowers specified more than one lender. b Percent of total number borrowing (9). c Arisan is a traditional saving collective.
TABLE 2-21: What would you do if you did not have money, food or work?
Borrow 19 (61.3)
Sell Something 9 (2990)
Look for Work 9 (29.0)
Wait for Harvest I ( 3.2)
Other 4 (12.9)
a Many farmers specified more than one activity. b Percent of total responding (31).
TABLE 2-22: Lenders in Table 2-21.
Village Store 13 (68.4)
Neighbor 7 (36.8)
Arisan 3 (15.8)
a Many farmers specified more than one lender. b Percent of total borrowing (19).
TABLE 2-23: Selling activities of Table 2-21.
Sell. Chicken 7 (77.8)
Sell Harvest 2 (22.2)
Sell Cassava 1 (11.1)
Other 1 (11.1)
a Some farmers specified more than one selling activity. b Percent of total farmers selling (9).
TABLE 2-24: Work activities of Table 2-21.
Work on Own Farm 4 (44.4)
Agricultural-Laborer 3 (33.3)
Non-agricultural Laborer 1 (11.1)
Other 3 (33.3)
a. Some farmers specified more than one work activity. b Percent of total working (9).
Q. 11: What do you borrow from the village store? Q. 12: -How do you repay your debts to the village store? Q. 13: Are you in debt to the village store now and for what amount?
The credit system in Sitiung 5c is not very well developed, probably due to the farmers' lack off collateral. There are no money lenders. The main source of credit is from the village store in the form of goods. Farmers tend to borrow cash from each other. Given a tight situation (Question 10), most farmers will borrow from the village store (Tables 2-21 and 22); given a less desperate situation (Question 5), 'farmers are a little more reluctant to borrow (Tables 217 and 20).
Most farmers, in response to Question 11, borrow food (90%) and household. necessities (43%) from the village store (Table 2-25). Pesticides and fertilizers are also borrowed. Four of the farmers did not borrow saying that they were afraid to borrow or that the prices at the village stores were too high.
In. response to the repayment inquiry (Question 12), most farmers (57%) said that they paid the stores back with cash (Table 2-28). In
five cases, the stores refused cash and would only accept surplus production and in three cases farmers paid with a combination of crops and cash.
Of the thirty farmers, twenty-six borrow from the village stores.
Eighteen of the twenty-six were in debt to the stores at the time of the interviews. One of these farmers was so in debt that he refused to disclose how much he owed (Table 2-29). The average debt among those
owing money to the village store at the time of the interview was Rp 17,441 (Table 2-30).
The village stores appear to act as a cushion against emergencies and provides a vital service that the farmers need. Farmers complain
bitterly about the prices at the village esorcs a-,,d the difference between cash prices and credit prices can vary widely. Farmers who
fall too deeply in debt risk having their credit cut off and many probably never work their way out of debt. One farmer said that he
borrowed fertilizer and pesticide from the village store as little as possible because his credit would be used up too fast.
TABLEZ 2-25: What do you borrow from the store?
Food 27 (90.0)
Fertilizer 10 (33.3)
Pesticide 10 (33.3)
Other 13 (43.3)
Does not borrow 4 (13.3)
No answer I ( 3.3)
a-Most farmers specified more than one item. b Percent of total farmers responding (30).
TABLE 2-26: Specific kinds of food in Table 2-25.
Rice 9 (33.3)
Condiments 8 (29.6)
Oil 10 (37.0)
a Many farmers mentioned more than one kind of food. b Percent of total farmers specifying food (27).
TABLE 2-27: Other items borrowed in Table 2-25.
Kerosene 7 (53.8)
Cigerettes 4 (39.8)
Soap 2 (15.4)
Money 1 ( 7.7)
a Many farmers mentioned more than one item. b Percent of total number of farmers in the 'other' category of
Table 2-25 (13).
TABLE 2-28: How do you pay the store back?
Harvest Yields 5 (16.7)
Money 17 (56.7)
Harvest Yield and Money 3 (10.0)
Does not Borrow 4 (13.3)
No Answer 1 ( 3.3)
Total 30 (100.0)
TABLE 2-29: How much do you owe the store now?
Amount in Rupiah' Responses
2. 2 (40.0)
1 10,000 6 (20.0)
10,001 20,000 3 (10.0)
20,001 30,000 4 (13.3)
30,001 40,000 3 (10.0)
40,001 50,000 1 ( 3.3)
Would not answer 1 ( 3.3)
a Rp 1129 $1.00 US before September 1986. Rp 1644 $1.00 after
September 1986. At the~time of the survey, not all prices had
adjusted to the 45% devaluation. b Percent of total responding (30).
TABLE 2-30: Summary of debt information.
Average Debt Among Current Debtors (17) 17,441
Average Debt of All Borrowers (26) 11,403
Farmer Perspectives on Off-Farm Work
Q. 6: Do you look for local agricultural work and/or non-local work? Q. 7: What- wages do you earn for local agricultural work, for nonlocal work?
Q. 8: Can you always find work when you need it? Q. 9: If it were available, would you take permanent off-farm work;
and if so who would-look after your farm?
Q. 26: What gotong royong (traditional labor sharing) activities do
you participate in?
Most farmers- seeking off-farm employment find employment as agricultural laborers on their neighbors farms (Question 6, Table 2-31). Farmers will hire each other when they have heavy jobs or
jobs requiring more labor than the farmers themselves can provide, when a farmer becomes ill during a critical time and must hire help, or when a farmer has a job and cannot devote adequate time to the farm. Some farmers are involved in the social labor sharing system called 'gotong royong'. In this case, when they have jobs which are too large to handle by themselves which often occur during harvest or planting, their neighbors will help. The recipient farmer then owes labor to those families. Those farmers not involved in gotong royong must pay for their help.
Sixty-nine percent of farmers interviewed participated in gotong royong (Question 26) organized to share agricultural labor among neighbors (Table 2-40). Not all farmers participate in gotong royong, some saying that labor productivity is not good, a point which is supported by data from the Enterprise Records. However, the social
importance of the gotong royong may out-weigh labor productivity problems as a large gotong royong is a festive occasion where families get together to work and share food. Gotong royongs are also
particularly useful when a large concentration of labor is needed or when heavy jobs need to be done. A gotong royong does not have a
particular size and can consist of as few as two families or as much as an entire neighborhood. Government organized gotong royongs are used to clean roads; fix bridges, dig ditches, clean the mosque, maintain the local government headquarters and other activities to benefit the community. Seventy-nine percent of farmers participated in these gotong royongs. Other gotong royong activities include building or
extending houses, ceremony preparations and other jobs needing many people.
Local agricultural employment is the most common form of wage labor and is comparatively easy to find relative to other forms of employment (Question 6 Tables 2-31 and 32). Compared to other labor, local agricultural labor wages are not high (Question 7) and wage rates
vary depending on the farmer (Tables 2-38 and 39). Wage rates for
women are usually half that of men (Enterprise Records). Generally, women are hired to do lighter work such as weeding and planting while men do heavier work such As hoeing and hauling.
Of those men having non-local work, the majority work in the forest cutting and hauling trees. Most farmers did not specify the kinds of jobs they took and probably take what ever jobs they can find. Working as a tree cutter is illegal, so more might actually be involved than admitted. The cutting of trees, according to some of the farmers is an easy job to find, but very heavy and risky work. The trees are taken from the nearby forest so the work is comparatively closer than other jobs outside of Sitiung 5c. Since wages range from 2000 to 5000
rupiah a day (depending on productivity) potential earnings are much better than in other jobs (Table 2-39). Therefore, if the farmer has the energy (young and healthy), tree cutting is a very attractive job.
Reasons given by those volunteering the information, for not seeking non-local work (Table 2-33) were that it was too difficult to find and they did not have time to look for it. Nearly half (47%)
could find work when they needed it (Table 2-34). The availability of
local agricultural- work seems to depend' on how good the harvests are
(some. farmers said that when the harvests are poor, work is hard to find), the number of sick farmers needing to hire labor and the number of farmers having off-farm jobs.
Most farmers (70%) said that they would not take a permanent job if it were available (Question 9 Table 2-35). Many of these farmers were only interested in taking off-farm work when their farm work was done (Table 2-36). One of. the main reasons for refusing the steady income of a permanent job, in place of the highly variable income of farming, may be that the farmers view their farms as investments for the future and therefore consider the benefits of farming beyond just the short-term monetary returns for their crops. Without a social
security system, the farm and the long-run orientation to tree crops provides a basis for survival when working years are past. Thus, extra
time where possible maybe devoted to the long-term investment in tree crops.
TABLE 2-31: What kinds of off-farm work do you look for?
Local agricultural labor 25 (80.6)
Non-local labor 13 (41.9)
Does not work off-farm 2 6.4)
a Some farmers looked for both kinds of work. b Percent of total responding (31).
TABLE 2-32: Is it more difficult to find work than last year?
Response Local Non-local Work Work in General
No. (%)a No. No. Mc
Less Difficult 14 (56.0) 6 (46.2) 5 (16.1)
More Difficult 7 (28.0) 5 (38.5) 11 (35.5)
Same, 2 ( 8.0) 1 ( 7.7) 5 (16.1)
No Answer 2 ( 8.0) 1 (.7.7) 10 (32.3)
a Percent of total seeking local agricultural work (25). b Percent of total seeking non-local work (13). '- Percent of total responding (31).
TABLE 2-33: Why don't you look for non-local worka
Reason Number Responding
Too difficult to find 4
Not enough time to look for it I
a This is volunteer information from those who do not take
non-agricultural work in Table 2-31.
TABLE 2-34: Can you always find work when you need it?
Yes 14 (46.7)
No 8 .(25.7)
Sometimes 5 (16.6)
Other 3 (10.0)
Total 30 (100.0)
Percent of total responding (30).
TABLE. 2-35: Would you take a permanent job?
Yes 8 (26.7)
No 21, (70.0)
Already has a job 1 3.3)
Total 30 (100.0)
TABLE 2-36: Reasons for not taking a permanent job in Table 2-35.
Will take off-farm-work only when
own farm work is done 8 (38.1)
Afraid own farm will not be
maintained 4 (19.0)
No time for off-farm work I ( 4.8)
No answer 8 (31.8)
Total 21 (100.0)
a Percent of total not wanting a permanent job (21).
TABLE 2-37: If you had a permanent job, who would look after your
Family 6 (75.0)
Family and Hired Labor 2 (25.0)
Total 8 (100.0)
a Percent of total responding that they would like permanent jobs (8).
TABLE 2-38: Wages for local agricultural labor in Sitiung 5c.a
Fraction of a Day Wage Meals
I day Rp 2000 0
1 day 1500 3
1 day 1250 3
day 1500 1
Iday 1000 1
a Women generally are paid one-half as much as men and usually do
different jobs such as weeding.
TABLE 2-39: Wages for labor outside of Sitiung 5c.
Work Wage per Day
Cutting Trees Rp 2000 5000a
Rubber Plantation 1500
a Depends on productivity.
TABLE. 2-40: What gotong royong activities do you participate in?
Agricultural Labor 20 (69.0)
Government Organized Labor 23 (79.3) Other 5 (17.2)
a Some farmers participate in more than one kind of gotong royong. b Percent of total responding (29).
The Animal Aspect of the Farm System
Q. 17: How many chickens and ducks do you own; do you sell your eggs,
eat them and/or save the eggs to raise chicks?
Q. 18: Do you give food to your chickens; how many times a day do you
feed them and how much do you spend on feed a week? Q. 19: For what reasons would you eat a chicken? Q. 20: For what reasons would you sell a chicken? Q. 21: Would you like to own a goat, why? Q. 22: Would you like to own a cow, why?
Every farmer interviewed kept chickens (Question 17). One farmer kept ducks and another maintained a fish pond. The main purpose for keeping chickens is for investment purposes (91%, Table 2-41). Onehalf the farmers will also eat chicken eggs if there are enough eggs in
the hen house and. for health reasons. Farmers tend to sell eggs when they- are- short of food. Corn is what the majority of farmers feed their chickens (Question 18, Table 2-42) and nearly one-half (46%) are
able to feed their chickens solely from their own harvests (Table 243).
The reason for keeping chickens is not for home consumption (Question 19), but as insurance against bad times and as help in tight situations. Most farmers (97%) sold chickens when they needed money (Question 20, Table 2-45) and only one sold chickens regularly when they reached selling size. 'When the farmers were out of food, money and work, their main selling activity in response to this situation was to sell chickens (Table 2-23).
The farmers gave various reasons for eating chickens (Question 19,
Table 2-44) among them the eating of sick chickens (21%) and a special occasion usually a wedding, birth, funeral or circumcism party (28%). Only two claimed that they ate chickens regularly (one, once a week and the other once a-month).
Ducks appear to be raised chiefly for the sale of eggs as duck eggs are a specialty and bring a higher price. Ducks, however, require more care than do chickens and only one of the respondents kept ducks.
There are not any cows in Sitiung 5c and very few goats. Only one
goat was observed in Sitiung 5c and the author was told that one other IMinangkabau family kept goats. The number of farmers wanting and not wanting goats is split almost evenly (Question 21, Table 2-46). Of
those specifying reasons why they wanted goats (Table 2-47), fertilizer
and investment, in that order of importance, were the reasons given. The main reason given for not wanting a goat was lack of capital to take care of- one (Table 2-48). Other reasons given were that two
farmers. felt that goats were too difficult to raise, one did not have enough labor (did not have a young- son to take care of a goat) and one did not want anything to do with a goat.
The number of farmers wanting cows was much larger than those wanting goats (Question 22 Table 2-49). Reasons for this greater
interest in cows may be due to a government sponsored program that will bring cows to Sitiung 5c in the future. Cows are also more versatile
than goats. While farmers viewed goats as investments and sources of fertilizers, farmers saw cows not only as sources of fertilizer and investment, but also as contributing to the labor force (Table 2-52). Severnty-two percent of farmers planned to use cows for work (hauling and plowing were most mentioned). One farmer said that what would take one man ten days to hoe, a cow could do in two days. Liquidity may
also be a reason for desiring COWS. Goats are relatively difficult to sell, goat meat is generally eaten for special occasions and is not usually sold by the market butchers as are cow meat and water buffalo meat.
Reasons given by the four farmers not wanting a cow (Table 2-53) were similar to those not wanting goats (Table 2-48). One farmer,
however, made a point of the fact that there is not enough forage in Sitiung 5c and that he would have to travel too far to gather forage. Half of the farmers felt that there was enough forage to feed a cow in Sitiung 5c (Table 2-50). However, half the farmers also planned to
plant grass for forage (Table 2-51). The lack of adequate forages may be the limiting factor in keeping cows in Sitiung 5c.
The breed of cow that the government is planning to introduce in Sitiung.5c is the small Balinese cow which, according to several of the
Indonesian staff, including a man from Bali, can plow flooded rice fields, but is not adequate for plowing the dry upland fields of
Sitiung 5c. Larger cows of course would require more forage and
possibly economic use of a larger cow may dictate the need for more
land. by the farmer for feed and to utilize the traction potential.
Thus, both land quality and quantity may influence type and
effectiveness of cattle use.
TABLE 2-41: Why do you keep chickens?
Sell Eggsb 4 (13.8)
Eat Eggsc 15 (51.7)
Raise Chicks 28 (96.6)
a Percent of total responding (29). b One farmer clarified his answer by saying that he would sell an egg
in order to buy food.
c Five farmers indicated that they would take an egg only if there
were a certain number of eggs in the hen house.
TABLE 2-42: What do you feed your chickens?
Corn 27 (93.1)
Unhulled Rice 4 (13.8)
Hulled Ricec 4 (13.8)
Cooked Riced 8 (27.6)
Rice Hulls 5 (17.2)
Cassava 3 (10.3)
Does not give feed 1 (3.4)
a Many farmers use more than one kind of feed. b Percent of total responding (29). c Usually broken pieces of rice discarded in the cleaning process. d Usually rice leftover from meals.
TABLE 2-43: Additional data on chickens in-Sitiung 5c.
Average number of chickens per family: 16.86
Number of farmers buying feed: 15 (53.6)a
Average cost of buying feed per week: Rp 1683
Number of farmers feeding solely from harvests: 13 (46.4)a Average feedings per day: 2.2
a Percent of total farmers feeding their chickens (28).
TABLE 2-44: When do you eat your chickens?
Special occassions 8 (27.6)
When chicken is sick 6 (20.7)
When chicken is old 1 ( 3.5)
Irregularly 15 (51.7)
Regularly 2 (6.9)
a Most farmers gave more than one reason. b Percent of total responding (29).
TABLE 2-45: When do you sell chickens?
When need money 28 (96.6)
When chicken is old enough to sell 1 ( 3.4)
When chicken is sick 1 ( 3.4)
a Percent of total responding (29).
TABLE 2-46: Do you want a goat?
Yes 15 (51.7)
No 14 (48.3)
Total 29 (100.0)
a Percent of total responding (29).
TABLE 2-47: Reasons for wanting a goat:a
Investment 1 (6.7)
Fertilizer 3 (20.0)
a These responses were volunteered by the farmers. b Percent of those wanting a goat (15).
TABLE 2-48: Reasons for not wanting a goat.
Not enough money 9 (64.3)
Too difficult to raise 2 (14.3)
Not enough labor 1 (7.1)
Just does not want one 1 (7.1)
a Percent of total not wanting a goat (14).
TABLE 2-49: Do you want a cow?
Yes 25 (86.2)
No _4 (13.8)
Total 29 (100.0)
a Percent of total responding (29).
TABLE 2-50: Is there enough food in Sitiung 5c to feed a cow?
Yes 16 (55.2)
No 3 (10.3)
Maybe 1 ( 3.4)
No answer 9 (31.0)
a Percent of total responding (29).
TABLE 2-51: Would you plant forage for a cow?
Yes- 16 (55.2)
No 8b ( 3.4)
No Answer 12 (40.4)
Total 29 (100.0)
a Percent of total responding (29). b One farmer answering 'no' said that he did not have any room in
his field for forage.
TABLE 2-52: Reasons for wanting a cow.a
Workd 18 (72.0)
Fertilizer 8 (32.0)
Investment 2 (8.0)
No answer 9 (36.0)
a Three farmers wanting a cow complained that they did not have
enough labor to take care of one.
b Most farmers gave more than one reason for wanting a cow. c Percent of total wanting a cow (25).
d Type of work included hauling and plowing.
TABLE 2-53: Reasons for not wanting a cow.
Not enough labor 1 (25)
Not enough forage in Sitiung 5c 1 (25)
Too difficult to raise 1 (25)
Just does not want one 1 (25)
a Percent of total not wanting a cow (4).
Q1: How many children do you have (in total and living in
Sitiung 5c), what are their ages, sex, and what grades in
school are they in?
Q. 24: At-what age can a child begin helping on the farm? Q. 25: At what age can a child begin working as an adult on the farm?
Children are or potentially are a major contribution to a farmer' s labor force. Until the time when they are productive, they are a drain on-the farmer's resources. Children of school age are a greater drain on resources than children under school age because of the addition of school expenses. These include a monthly fee (Rp 200), exam fees (Rp 2000), book and supply* fees (Rp 1500-2000), school uniform fees (Rp 2000 each) and other expenses. These may represent as much as 45% of annual non-food cash requirements for a typical famuily (see Chapter III).
Families tend to send their children to school through the primary grades at which time they can begin working on the farm full time. If
children begin school at the age of 6, they should finish primary school by the age of 12. When a child actually finishes primary school depends on when the child starts and how often the child's schooling is
interrupted due to financial difficulties. Not all children finish
Nearly 40% of the children in the sample were attending school (Table 2-54) and the average school age was 11 years. The average age
that farmers felt that children could start working on the farm was 13
years (Table 2-58). Some farmers said that the age children could
seriously begin working on the farm depended on when they finished school which suggests a higher priority on education. Children in the sample were attending primary school up until 15 years old.
Sixty-three percent (Table 2-57) of the children in the sample were under 12 years of age. Proportionately, the Javanese have a
larger amount of children under 12 than the Sundanese (Table 2-57). The Javanese children in the sample were generally younger than the Sundanese children (Javanese average age: 9.1, Sundanese average age: 11.3)
Thus, schooling represents a competitive use for both labor and cash resources. As a long term investment, short term production potentials for family survival are constrained. Under depressed conditions one might expect that fewer children could attend school due to labor requirements and cash constraint. Annual school fees, clothes
and books at Rp 47,400 for a typical family of five represent over 45 percent of annual non-food cash requirements (see Chapter III). Long
term security investments require either good internal conditions or, if technical assistance is available, means for either substituting for
current child labor through grants and/or providing for economically feasible technologies for the farm and household that free children to attend. school.
TABLE 2-54: Number of children.
Average Number of Children: Ethnic Group Total Per Family In School
,_(%)a No. No. (%)b (%)
Javanese 41 (49.4) 2.27 13 (38.2) (31.7)c
Sundanese 37 (44.6) 3.36 19 (55-.9) (51.4)d
Minang 5 ( 6.0) 2.50 2 ( 5.9) (40.0)e
Total 83 (100.0) 2.68 34 (100.0) (38.6)aa Percent of total children (83). b Percent of total children in school (32). c Percent of Javanese children (41). d Percent of Sundanese children (37). e Percent of Minang children (5).
TABLE 2-55: Average ages.
Ethnic Group Average Age Average Age in School
Javanese 9.07 10.64
Sundanese 11.30 11.05
Minang 6.40 11.00
Total 9.90 11.00
TABLE 2-56: Age mixtures of children.
Families with children: Ethnic Above Below
Group 12 Years 12 Years Mixture No Children
No. (%)a (%) No. (%)a (%) No. (%)a (%) No. (%)a (%) Java 1 ( 3) (6)b 11 (36) (61)b 3 (10) (17)b 3 (10) (17)b Sunda 1 ( 3) (A)c 2 ( 6) (18)c 7 (23) (63)c 1 (3) (9)c Minang 0 1 ( 3) (50)d 1 ( 3) (50)d 0
Total 2 (5) 14 (45) 11 (36) 4 (13)
a Percent of total families (31). b Percent of Javanese families (18). c Percent of Sundanese families (11). d Percent of Minang families (2).
TABLE 2-57: Age distributions of children
Ethnic Number of Children:
Group Below 12 Years 12 Years and Above
No. (%)a (%)b M% No. (%)a (%)f M%
Javanese 26 (31.3) (50.0) (63.4)c 15 (18.1) (48.4) (36.6)c
Sundanese 23 (27.7) (44.2) (62.2)d 14 (16.9) (45.2) (37.8)d Minang 3 ( 3.6) (5.8) (60.0)e 2 ( 2.4) (6.5) (40.0)e
Total 52 (62.6) 31 (37.3)
a Percent of total children (83). b Percent of total children under 12 (52). c Percent of Javanese children (41). d Percent of Sundanese children (37). e Percent of Minang children (5). f Percent of total children 12 and over (31).
TABLE 2-58: At what age can children: Begin Working
Age on the Farma Work as Adultsa
12 4 2
15 9 1
17 2 4
18 1 2
20 1 11
Average 13.42 18.78
a Total number of farmers responding for this age.
TABLE 2-59: Age distributions of children in school and out of school.
Age Total Children Number in School Number not in School
No. No. (M) No. (%)
1 3 0 3 (100)a
2 6 0 6 (100)
3 5 0 5 (100)
4 5 0 5 (100)
5 8 1 (l3)a 7 (87)
6 3 1 (33) 2 (66)
7 7 6 (86) 1 (14)
8 3 2 (66) 1 (33)
9 5 5 (100) 0
10 4 3 (75) 1 (25)
11 4 4 (100) 0
12 4 2 (50) 2 (50)
13 2 2 (100) 0
14 5 3 (60) 2 (40)
15 4 1 (25) 3 (75)
16 3 2 (66) 1 (33)
17 2 1 (50) 1 (50)
18 2 1 (50) 1 (50)
19 3 1 (33) 2 (66)
20 2 0 2 (100)
Over 20 5 0 5 (100)
a Percent of total number of children per age.
The main purpose for this survey was to provide production
oriented information which was not covered in the Farmer Perspectives
Survey. Marketing, constraints to food production, input use and crop,
productivity information were collected.
Crop yield information derived from farmers is very difficult to
collect due to the farmer's multicropping/intercropping system. Much
of the information in this survey was collected for the purpose of
calculating crop yields and input usage.
There are three different places where farmers. can sell their produce. They can haul. their produce by bus to the local market, sell to the local. village stores or sell at their farm gate to truckers who visit Sitiung 5c periodically.
TABLE 2-60: Where farmers sell their crops.
Number Local Village For Home
Responding Market Store Trucker Use Only
Crop Per Crop No. (%.) No. (%.) No. (%) No. (%)
Soybeans 46 24 (52) 24 (52) 9 (20) 1 ( 2)
Peanuts 44 32 (73) 11 (25) 5 (11) 1 ( 2)
Rice 46 1 (2) 3 (7) 1 (2) 41 (89).
Corn 44 13 (30) 10 (23) 10 (23) 12 (27)
Mungbeans 35 10 (29) 14 (40) 4 (11) 5 (14)
Cassava 44 0, 1 ( 2) 35 (80) 9 (20)
Most farmers appear to sell their produce to the local market and village store more frequently than to the truckers, with the exception of cassava (Table 2-60). The only real market for fresh cassava is the processing plant, therefore the majority of farmers sell their cassava to the plant truckers.
Prices differ between the local market, village store, and truckers. These prices are reflected in the average prices offered by these three marketing alternatives in Table 2-61. Village store prices
are generally the lowest* for all six crops. The local 'market prices are, in general, the highest. The truckers must offer better prices
for produce than the village stores otherwise farmers would not save their produce for them. For most of the crops in Table 2-61, the
TABLE 2-61: Average crop prices per kilogram in Rupiaha (November
(% from Village Store)
Local Village Local
Crop Market Store Trucker Market. Trucker
Soybeans 444 425 500 104 118
Peanuts 926 831 929 11 112
Rice 250 113 100 221 88
Corn 138 100 126 138 126
Mungbeans 500 493 475 101 96
Cassava 15 24 160
a 1644 Rupiah equals one (1) US dollar.
differences in prices between the local market, village store and truckers does not appear to be very great.
There is a relation between Table 2-60 (where farmers sell their
produce) and Table 2-61 (the price of crops at the three marketing alternatives). Soybeans and peanuts are the major cash crops grown by the farmers. This is supported by Table 2-60 where peanuts and soybeans were grown strictly for home consumption by only one of the farmers. The price differential of the local market price from that of
the village store for soybeans is small (104%), the local market price being slightly higher than the village store price. An equal number of farmers sell at both places (Table 2-60). Soybeans are often fermented to make tempeh, a common protein source. Many of the village stores make and sell tempeh. Therefore, the relatively competitive price for soybeans at the village store may be a result of this use for soybeans.
The price differential of the local market from the village store for peanuts, however, is greater (111%) with the average local market price being nearly Rp 100 greater than the a erage village store price.
Correspondingly, a greater number of farmers (73%) sell their peanuts at the local market than the village store (25%). Peanuts are. not
generally processed into other products as soybeans are at the village level and therefore the competition for peanut yields at the village level is not as great as for soybeans.
Rice, the major preferred subsistence crop, was grown strictly for home consumption by the majority of the farmers (89%) and is not generally grown for sale. Farmers will sometimes sell rice when they have a desperate need for cash. Of those that admit to selling rice, the majority sell to the village store dispite the higher price differential of the local market from the village store (221%). If the farmers are in desperate need, they may not be able to afford the fare to the market, may not be selling a large enough quantity to make a trip to the market worth while and/or may not be able to wait for a major market day when there is transportation from'Sitiung 5c (busses only go to Sitiung 5c twice a week, on major market days). Thus, they are compelled to take the lower price from the village store simply to obtain immediate liquidity.
Small amounts of mungbeans are grown in Sitiung 5c. Therefore
their relative scarcity may be one reason the price differential from the village store is low (101%) as there may be more competition for the limited supply. Mungbeans are a minor cash crop and more farmers reserve their mungbeans yield strictly for home consumption as compared to the major cash crops. Therefore, the amount of mungbeans produced from the limited acreage may be further reduced due to home consumption.
The higher price differential of corn at the local, market from the village store (138%) is reflected in the larger number of people selling to the local, market. Cassava, essentially, has only one
market, the local processing plant. Some village stores will process cassava into chips which are eaten as snacks. Because of the relative abundance of cassava in Sitiung 5c, the need for cassava by the village stores is limited, this is reflected in the lower price at the village store and the, small number of farmers who sell cassava to the village store.
Crops which are marketed are not usually grown strictly for sale, but some'portion of those crops are consumed. Corn and cassava, the backup crops for rice, are both marketed and consumed. A larger number of farmers grow corn and cassava strictly for home consumption than the other marketed crops of peanuts, soybeans and mungbeans.
Where produce is sold may also have to do with the quantity produced. For example, mungbean acreage is very low compared to other crops grown in Sitiung 5c. Therefore, there may not be adequate
amounts of mungbeans produced to justify the expense of a trip to the market.
The farmers were asked to identify what they felt were three main constraints to seven of their major food crops (soybeans, peanuts, rice, corn, cassava, mungbeans, and chili). They were not asked to rank these constraints and not all farmers necessarily chose to name three. Table 2-62 is a compilation of these responses.
TABLE 2-62: Farmer perceived constraints to food crops.
Problem Soybeans Peanuts Rice Corn Mungbeans Cassava Chili
No.a(%)b No.a(%)b No~a(%)b No.a(%)c No.a(%)d No.a(%)b No.a(%)e
Insects 25a(54)b 10.(22) 30 (65) 1 ( 2) 18 (43) 1 ( 2) 17 (39)
Pigs 7 (15) 36 (78) 4 (9) 36 (80) 0 41 (89) 0
Rats 0 1.(2) 2 (4) 0 1 (2) 0 0
Birds 0 0 16 (35) 2 (4) 0 0 0
Rusa 2 (4) 3 (7) 1 (2) 3 (7) 0 3 (7) 0
Other 0 0 0 0 5 (12) 0 2 (5)
Labor 20 (43) 3 (7) 3 (7) 2(4) .9 (21) 0 0
Water 8 (17) 3 (7) 5 (11) 0 2 (5) 0 1(2)
Fertilizer 34 (74) 18 (39) 20 (43) 7 (15) 11 (26) 0 18 (41)
Pesticides 34 (74) 21 (46) 30 (65) 6 (13) 20 (48) 0 32 (72)
Seed 3 (7) 19 (41) 3 (7) 0 10 (24) 1(2) 21 (47)
water 0 0 0 0 5 (12) -0 0
problems 0 0 2 (4) 4 (8) 0 0 4 (9)
a This number represents the number of farmers responding that this
problem was one of the three major constraints for a particular
crop. The total number of farmers responding per crop is not equal
as not all farmers had experience growing all the crops listed. b Percent of 46 farmers answering for soybeans, peanuts, rice and
c Percent of 45 farmers answering for corn. d Percent of 42 farmers answering for mungbeans. e Percent of 44 farmers answering for chili.
TABLE 2-63: Average amount of seed and area planted.
Average Kilograms Area Planted
Crop of Seed Planted (hectares)
Soybeans 10.2 .18
Peanuts 12.3 .12
Rice 24.5 .57
Corn 1.3 .14
Mungbeans 2.9 .06
a Cassava is propagated through use of vegetative material rather than
TABLE 2-64: Fertilizer and pesticide applications.
Average Number of Applications:
Crop Fertilizer Pesticide
Soybeans 2 1.53 4.09
Peanuts 1.23 1.84
Rice 1.35 2.42
Mungbeans 1.10 3.29
a Corn and cassava are not usually fertilized. Corn is often
intercropped with soybeans and peanuts and will receive what ever
is applied to these crops.
Support for the logic behind the farmers' multicropping system can be gathered from the information in Table 2-62. A major characteristic of these limited resource farmers is risk avoidance. From the pest
problems cited by the farmers for the crops listed in Table 2-62, it appears that the minimization of risk plays an importance part in the selection of the major cash and subsistence crops. Within these two
groups, each crop is affected by a different, major pest.
The major cash crops, soybeans and peanuts, are succeptable to different pests (Table 2-62). By planting both cash crops, the farmers are reducing the risk of crop failure. Peanuts are particularly
succeptable to wild pig damage and the farmers have very few means of control other than trying to use poison or sleeping in the field in hope of being able to scare the pigs away. Pigs can ravage a peanut crop and leave nothing for the farmer to harvest. Insects are a major pest on soybeans. A severe insect outbreak can damage a crop so badly that the plants will not produce a crop. The author has seen an entire crop of
* soybeans that was destroyed by a very bad aphid infestation. The
farmers do have some means 'of controlling insects through use of
pesticides, but the timing of pesticide applications is critical and the farmers may not identify the. outbreak in time or may not have the cash to purchase pesticides. when needed.
For the staple crops, insects are the major pest problem on rice. For the back-up crops of cassava and corn, wild pig damage is the major threat rather than insects. Here, also, risk is being reduced by
planting staple crops which are succeptable to different pests.
Mungbeans and chili are grown to a lesser extent than the other crops and are minor cash crops. Insects are the major pest on these crops. Though the insect pests on these crops may not be the same as on soybeans, the method of control for the farmers is the same. Therefore, the insect problems on all three crops may be perceived by the farmers to be so closely related that risk is not necessarily reduced when these three crops are planted together.
Of the variable inputs, the lack of fertilizer and pesticides were major problems for all crops except cassava, which is not normally fertilized or sprayed by the farmers. The general lack of fertilizer and pesticides can be related to the farmers' cash constrained situation. The inability of obtaining enough seed for planting was another major constraint cited for peanuts, mungbeans and soybeans. This constraint combined with the pest problems similar to soybeans may be another reason that mungbeans is a minor cash crop. For soybeans and mungbeans, the lack of labor was another major constraint. Soybeans and mungbeans are sprayed more often than other crops, and soybeans are also fertilized more often (Table 2-64). Post harvest techniques may also require a greater concentration of labor as the harvested plants
must be sun dried, threshed by beating with a stick and then winnowed. This all must be done in accordance with the weather. Other crops such as peanuts and corn can be dried in-doors and shelled at leisure.
Tni~ut Ilse and Crop Yields
As discussed earlier in Chapter 1, crop yield information is very difficult to collect because of the farmers cropping system. Initially,
when the questionnaire was pretested, the farmers were askdd to give information on yields per hectare. Very few of the farmers could give yield information in this form. Those farmers who were able to, could only give t his, kind of information for rice because many of them planted their entire field or very large portions of their field with rice. In the end, yields per kilogram of seed planted wdre gathered. The farmers could readily give this information and could also readily give expected high and low yield estimates. This does not necessarily mean that the farmers are maximizing yields per kilogram of seed. Farmers do not tend
to vary the seed spacings for their crops and appear to apply minimum amounts of fertilizers. The information about yield per kilogram of seed was used, however, as a method of obtaining some estimate of crop yields. .The calculation of crop yields and input usage derived from this data and are discussed in further detail in Chapter III.
Enterprise Recordkeeiping Survey
Analysis of this survey was not as thorough as the previous two surveys, due to the lack of time, and the time span the records covered.
M 0 0
the family and their response to this was- first to sell what ever produce they could gather together and second, to sell their chickens.
A conceptual analysis based on the information presented in this chapter is presented in Chapter V. The analysis discusses some of the possible reasons why the farmers select certain groups of activities to form their farming systems.
THE SYNTHESIS OF DATA
Data. required for formulation of the model, presented in Chapter IV, was calculated from the survey data presented in Chapter II
and non-survey information gathered in Sitiung. In this chapter, the
specifics of the procedures used to generate the production and
consumption data bases, as assembled for use in the model of a typical farm system in Situng 5c, are presented. Several procedures, in which the algorithm used to calculate basic farmer data (such as yield per hectare) and the available data on which these calculations are based on, are discussed. Most of the data derived here are from estimated information (from the surveys) and not measured field data. This
information was collected and used because observed field data of the type needed for the model did not exist.
Production Conversions to a Land Base
In methodological terms, most production oriented, scientific
research depends upon, a common base orientation for comparative analysis. That commonn base is usually expressed relative to the unit of
land with input and product comparisons measured against an accepted land measurement such as acres or hectares. This convention works well
in mono-crop situations, particularly where land is an important and
relatively, scarce resource. In Sitiung 5c several factors complicate the use of land as a common base for analysis. Because of various
inter-planting techniques, one cannot obtain direct and accurate measure of "mono-crop" input usage on a land unit. basis. Inter-planting often provides, also, for maximum and optimum land use where field boundaries
and other less convenient space is put to maximum use. Yields are
scattered among disjoint or mixed locations such that identification of
the land base is quite difficult. Thus, the farmer often thinks in
terms of yield per unit of seed planted. For our analysis, however, a common unit among crops is needed; it is difficult to compare, for example, peanut seed with mungbean seed. The following conversion
procedures were used to establish h per hectare seed and fertilizer rates as well as yields.
Kilograms of Seed per Hectare
Seed rates per hectare were calculated from seed spacing and seed per hole data from the Production- Constraints Survey and the number of seeds per kilogram, which was determined by weighing and counting samples of locally grown seed.
Kilograms of seed needed to plant one hectare of land Was calculated by multiplying average planting density by the average number of seeds planted per hole and-dividing the result by number of seeds per
kilogram. Average planting density was calculated by dividing the area per plant in meters. (in-row spacing multiplied by between-row spacing) into the number of square meters per hectare. Individual farmer
planting densities and seed per hole data can be found in Appendix B, Tables 4-9.
Fertilizer Rates and Costs
Since fertilizer- application rates were only in the form of applications per field, fertilizers applied per crop had to be derived. Because corn and- cassava were not specifically fertilized and only received fertilizers applied to crops with which they are intercropped, fertilizer rates for corn and cassava were not calculated. Crops planted within the field do not necessarily receive the same amount of fertilizer. Aside from the base application, the number of additional applications of fertilizer will. vary with the kind of crop planted. For example, the number of urea applications made to soybeans exceeds the average number of urea applications to peanuts. Therefore the amount of fertilizer given to a crop is not merely a function of the
area planted to that crop. The number of fertilizer applications must also be considered. The total amount of fertilizer given to each crop
in the field was estimated by calculating the portion of fertilizer applied to each crop from the total amount applied to the field. This portion is based on the area planted to a crop -and the number of applications of fertilizer given to that crop.
The area planted to each crop ffor example, soybeans) was first calculated- by dividing the kilograms of soybean seed planted by' the kilograms-of soybean seed needed to plant one hectare -(the average size of a field. in Sitiung 5c is one hectare). The portion of fertilizer applied to a crop was calculated by multiplying the area planted to each
crop by the number of applications of a particular fertilizer. For
example, the portion of urea applied to soybeans was calculated by multiplying the area- planted to soybeans by the number of urea
applications made to soybeans. Likewise, portion of urea to peanuts, rice and mungbeans were calculated. All. portions were summed; and the percent- of fertilizer applied to each crop was determined by dividing the portion of fertilizer applied to i crop by the sum of all portions. The amount of fertilizer applied to each crop was calculated by
multiplying the percent of fertilizer applied to each crop by the actual
amount of fertilizer applied to the field. The fertilizer rate per
hectare could then be calculated (for example, soybeans and urea) by dividing one hectare by the area planted to soybeans *and multiplying by the amount of urea applied to those soybeans.
Average Expected High and Low Crop Yields ner Hectare
Expected high and low yields per kilogram seed planted were given by farmers in the Production-Constraints Survey. These data were converted to expected high and low yields per hectare by multiplying the expected
high or low yield per kilogram seed by' the kilograms of seed needed to plant one. hectare.
Time Series Yield Data
Time series yield, data were simulated from the expected high and low yield. per hectare information calculated above. From-these high and low
yields, a beta distribution for each crop was estimated and generated
using SAS. A random draw of 10 observations from each generated distribution was used to simulate time series data for 10 years.
Satisfying consumption needs of the farm household is an important
factor in farmer planning of activities and allocation of resources. Since survival depends on meeting consumption needs, the consumption component is vital to the model. For the purposes of the model, food consumption needs and non-food consumption needs were estimated for an average -family of five. Family food consumption requirements are
expressed as minimum caloric and protein requirements. The maximum
amount of calories that can be filled by the two major starches, rice and cassava, and the amount of cassava that can be substituted for rice were calculated to provide a more realistic food mixture. Non-food cash
expenditures include social, educational, personal and religious cash needs.
Calorie and Protein Minimum Annual Levels
The minimum and maximum annual. calorie and protein levels found in
Tables 3-1 and 3-2 were taken from the FAO Food-and Nutrition Paper published in 1982.
TABLE 3-1: Annual caloric requirements for a family of five.
Family Member Calories Total
Husband 3000 365 1,095,000
Wife 2200 365 803,000
Child, male (15 years) 2900 365 1,058,500
Child, female (9 years) 2190 365 799,350
Child, male (6 years) 1830 365 667,950
Total Annual Caloric Requirement 4,423,800
TABLE 3-2.: Annual protein requirements for a family of five.
Family Member of Protein Total
Husband 37 365 13,505
Wife 29 365 10,585
Child, male (15 years) 37 365 13,505
Child, female (9 years) 25 365 9,125
Child, male (6 years) 20 365 7,300
Total Annual Protein Requirement 54,020
Maximum Annual Rice Consumption Level
Seventy-five percent of the minimum annual caloric level was allowed to be filled by the major starches (rice and cassava). If rice,
the preferred starch, was the only starch eatten, the maximum amount of rice allowed by the model would be 906.48 k$. This number was derived
by dividing 75% of the total annual caloric requirement for a family of five by the calories per kilogram of rice.
Minimum Annual Rice Consumption Level
The transmigrants will use gaplek (sun dried cassava) to extend the rice supply. They will substitute two parts gaplek for one part rice and no more than four parts gaplek will be mixed with one part rice. The maximum amount of gaplek that will be mixed with rice was calculated in order to determine the mimimum rice consumption level. Since two
parts of gaplek will be substituted for one part rice, two parts of gaplek was considered equal to one part rice in the calculations. The conversions are as follows:
1 part rice + 4 parts gaplek 906.48 kg rice
Convert gaplek to rice equivalent:
1 part rice + 2 parts rice 906.48 kg rice
302.16 kg rice + 604.32 kg rice 906.48 kg rice
Minimum Annual Rice Consumption Level 302.16 kg rice
Maximum Annual Allowable Amount of Consumed Cassava
The maximum amount of cassava allowed for consumption was calculated as a rice equivalent (604.32 kg). This value was converted to to gaplek and then to a wet weight cassava consumption limit. Since the transmigrants consider two parts gaplek equal to one part rice, the rice equivalent was multiplied by two to convert to kilograms of gaplek. To convert gaplek to wet weight cassava, kilograms of gaplek were multiplied by 2.7 (Cook, 1985).
Annual Non-Food Cash Recuirements
Non-food cash expenditures include educational costs for children, clothing, health care,.. social events and religious ceremonies. Sitiung 5c does not have a hospital or clinic, therefore, health care costs also reflect transportation costs as the farmers and their children must travel a distance outside of the village to receive health care. Contributions to social events are usually in the form of food, often provided from the farm rather than the market. Cash contributions are generally very low. Upacara selematan, ceremonies held at the end of crop harvests, often involve major expenditures. These ceremonies were held for specific crops such as rice and soybean. Data were taken from Question 15 of the Farmer Perspectives Survey. Annual non-food cash
requirement was calculated for a family of five with two school age children and one per-school aged child in Table 3-3.
TABLE 3-3: Annual non-food cash requirements.
Annual school fees: Rp 39,400 (200 school fee and 2000 test fee per month multiplied by 9 months
and two children)
and books: 8,000
Adult clothes: 12,000 (Two sets of clothes per adult per
Upacara selematan: 30,000 (Ceremonies for crop harvests)
Social events: 5,000 (Normally food is given)
Health care: 10,000 (Includes the cost of the trip to
see the doctor)
Comment on Data Synthesis
A. contribution of this work is in helping other researchers face the challenge of converting reasonable information from a'mixed crop farming system to a comparative basis for analytical research. At first
observation, one desires to walk away from the information because, in its raw form, it is not in a form to be analyzed. Yet the information serves to communicate farming and management practices, based upon cultural convention, among the farm families. While the information
initially collected and the data generated from the information could now be improved based upon experience, the results provide for
acceptable analysis and the methods suggest an approach to future work in data synthesis from a small mixed crop farming system where interplanting is predominant. Without this synthesis, policy
considerations based upon research from Sitiung 5c would be difficult.
* CHAPTER IV
The farmers of Sitiung 5c seek to plant a crop mixture that best fits their cash and subsistence needs. In choosing an optimal crop
mixture, they must take into account not only their needs, but the uncertainty of their crop yields. Sitiung 5c farmers were very much
aware of potential fluctuations in their crop yields and could, without difficulty, give estimates of the highest and lowest expected yields for their crops (Production-Constraints Survey).
The farmers can, to some extent, influence crop yields -through the use of pesticides and fertilizers, however, a large portion of the uncertainty regarding potential crop yields comes from the weather. Rainfall is the primary source of water for field crops in Sitiung 5c. The lack or overabundance of rain during critical stages in crop development can drastically reduce yields. Also contributing to yield uncertainty are seed viability, wild pig damage which can totally destroy a crop of peanuts, cassava or corn, and severe insect damage, which is a particular problem with soybeans.
Production, uncertainty is most easily depicted in mathematical programming models within the objective function. Formulations such as E-V analysis and MOTAD, which models the trade-off between maximizing expected income and minimizing risk (Markowitz, 1952; Hazell, 1971), usually deal with systems where most of the output is sold. Therefore, 75'
fluctuations that affect output, directly affect income. For the
limited resource farmers of Sitiung 5c, selling produce is one of many competing uses for the output from farm production. Crop yield
uncertainty, therefore, affects more than just income.
The amount of produce diverted to alternative uses such as human consumption, animal consumption, and the saving of seed is also affected by uncertain yields. If the percentage of consumed farm produce is small compared to the amounts sold, then the error incurred by ignoring home consumption would be minimal. In the case of the Sitiung 5c
farmers, production is sufficiently low so that home consumption utilizes a large percentage of certain crops. If the amounts of produce consumed were constant, then the problem could be solved in the objective function. However, consumed produce can also substitute for purchased produce, and one type of consumed produce can substitute for another type of consumed produce (for example, cassava can substitute for rice). Further complicating the matter is that the Sitiung 5c farmers grow a mixture of cash and subsistence crops. These subsistence crops often have a low market value, but a high consumptive value. For example, the only market for cassava is a local processing plant. Cassava is not sold in the local market; however, cassava can be substituted for higher-valued rice, which is the major -preferred starch and has a local market value. Therefore the value of subsistence crops may not be adequately reflected in an objective functionwhere income is being maximized. A superior approach to deal with yield uncertainty and alternative uses for farm outputs and consumption requirements is within the technical coefficient matrix.
Three different approaches have been developed to deal with the problem of uncertainty within the constraint set. These approaches are
Merrill's nonlinear programming formulation which is similar to an E-V analysis (Merrill, 19.65), Wicks and Guise's linear programming formulation which utilizes elements from Merrill's formulation and MOTAD (Wicks and Guise, 1978) and a sequential programming formulation (Cocks, 1968).
The Wicks and Guise approach is used in the formulation of the succeeding model. and was chosen over Merrill's approach because it is simpler and easier to implement. Though their formulation is based on Merrill's model, Wicks and Guise sought to develop a simpler, "more computationally~ feasible procedure" (p 24). In their formulation, they have rewritten Merrill's constraint containing uncertain coefficients in the chance constraint form. In this form, the most restrictive constraint must not be violated at more than some pre-specified level of probability. They then utilized the MOTAD method for estimating a total
absolute standard deviation from a sample set of uncertain constraint set coefficients. -The value of this total absolute standard deviation is then transformed into an estimate of standard deviation and incorporated into the chance constraint-(Wicks and Guise, 1978).
The model of a limited. resource farm presented in this thesis utilizes Wicks and Guise's: formulation in the production of food crops and: their subsequent uses. Because of production problems, mentioned earlier-, food crop yields are treated as stochastic in the model. In
their example, Wicks and Guise utilized a problem involving sheep-grain farms. These farms were producing feed from pastures, forage crops and
feed grain crops. Because of its direct dependence on the weather, the production of feed is stochastic and in their model, feed production is .,treated as one output -rather than three separate outputs. The model of a limited resource farm presented in this thesis is similar to Wicks and Guise's example in that the uncertain coefficients are yield coefficients, however, more than one crop is produced in the limited resource farm model. In the Wicks and Guise model, production of feed has a set amount of land and no competition from other crops. In the
model presented here six crops can be produced and each of these crops compete for land, labor and cash resources. The chance constraint in this formulation serves to balance crop production and crop uses. Wicks and Guise's model has one use .for pasture yields, the feeding of sheep. In the limited resource farm model, there is more than one use for crop production and each of these activities (selling, consuming and saving seed) must compete for a portion of the crop production. A simplified formulation of the model illustrating the stochastic component is
Maximize. Z AiIi T VCijLij
tl) -Z YijLij + Si + Ci + Ii + wioxo + 06i < 0 i-i,...,6
(2) -(Yij Yhij)Lij dhij < 0 j-l,2
(3) 2= dhij -Di < 0
(4) 8Di Bi o 0
BiL, Ci, dhij, Di, Ii, Lij, Si, VCiJ, Yij .'YhiJ, xo > 0
Ai is the price per kilo of crop i sold.
Ci. is the number of kilograms consumed from crop i.
Di is the measure of total absolute deviation per crop i.
Ii is the number of kilograms sold from crop i.
Lij is the hectares of crop i produced in period j.
Si is the number of kilograms of seed saved from crop i.
VCij is the variable cost of inputs used per hectare of crop i per
Yhij is the yield per observation h of crop i in time period j.
Yij is the mean yield of all observations of crop i in time period j dhij is the deviation variable per observation h per crop i per time period j.
Wio is the amount of crop i consumed by (in this model only corn) a
chicken of age o.
x0 is the number of chickens at age o.
0 is the coefficient of risk aversion.
Bi is the estimated standard deviation per crop i.
a is a constant equal to (2/(n(n-l)))'5.
Individual observations on crop yields, Yhij, are required and the mean yield, Yij, for each crop is calculated by taking an average of these observations. "This mean yield is used in the chance constraint
(1) and is7 entered with a negative sign. The chance constraint row also serves. to balance the expected production of crop i against the
alternative uses for that crop. In this study, crop uses include,
consumption, Ci; saving seed, Si; and sale, Ii; and feeding chickens, wioxO. These competing crop yield uses are specified with positive coefficients in the chance constraint row. The levels of Ci, Si, Iii and wiox0 are controlled by constraints elsewhere in the model.
The risk coefficient, oBi: is also expressed with a positive
coefficient in the chance constraint row and penalizes for going below the mean yield, Yij. It consists of the coefficient of risk aversion and the estimate of standard deviation, Bi. The coefficient of risk
aversion is varied arbitrarily; as e is increased, risk aversion also increases. The greater o is, the higher the penalty. When o is equal to zero, the coefficient of risk is disabled and the model is solved in a completely deterministic manner.
The estimate of standard deviation, Bi is calculated in constraints (2-4). These constraints, which are based on Hazell's MOTAD formulation, derive Bi by way of calculating a deviation variable, dhi, by taking the negative difference from the mean of the simulated yield data set, Yhij. The measure of total absolute deviation, Di was then calculated from the sum of these deviation variables (3). In constraint
(4), an estimated standard deviation, Bi is derived from Di and a
-conversion factor, 9. This estimated standard deviation, Bi is
incorporated into the chance constraint row and together with o (the coefficient of risk aversion), form the risk coefficient.
The simulated time series yield observations Yhij, were derived form data taken from the Production Constraints Survey. In the
survey, 46 farmers gave their expected high and low yield estimates for six food crops. From these high and low yields, a beta distribution for
each crop was estimated. A random draw from each distribution was taken and used to simulate time series information.
Empirical Specification of the Model
The model is based on a typical family farm in Sitiung 5c, which consists of five members, husband, wife, and three children (6, 9, and 15 years old). Typical of most Sitiung Sc families, the husband does not have steady off-farm work and depends on his farm as the main support for his family. Several different activities are dealt with in the model. The cropping system involves the growing of six food crops (rice, soybeans, peanuts, corn, mungbeans and cassava). There are two
growing seasons Qj). In the dry season, soybeans, peanuts, corn, and mungbeans can be grown. Rice, soybeans, peanuts and corn can be grown in the wet season. Cassava requires more than one season to mature so cassava planted in one season is carried over to the next season. The
only livestock activities involve the raising of free range chickens. These activities' include the production of chicks, feeding and selling of young chickens, and carry over of layers from one year to the next.
Farm labor can. be used for crop production or be sold. A fixed number of man days are associated with each crop and there is a limit on the amount of labor that can be sold. The family food consumption requirements are expressed- as minimum caloric and protein requirements. A., food mixture is forced into the model through maximum and minimum amounts of the different kinds of foods that can be consumed. A
detailed representation of the model is
Maximize E Ajli +~ X BjJj + Z mnK = VCi-L-j- E Ei.Mi E FjNj
i. n ij 3. j
E G k~k -.HP
(1) -Z YijLij + Sji-C + I
4I- wf0X0 + 03i <0 i-l,...,6
(2) -(Yij Yhij)Lij dhij 0 j-1,2; i-I,...,6; h-l,...,10
(3) 2ZE dhij D< 0 hj
(4) ODi i< 0
(7) Z iji 1.2 li 0
(8) Rj + J~j < 650 man days
(9) J~j <: 146 man days
(10) 1:kj i Rj -Nj < 0
(11) E ek~k + E giSi >: 4,423,800 calories k-i,...,
(12) Z fk~k + Z hLSj > ,54,020 gmn protein
(13) erice~rice + gricSrice
+ecornOcorn + geornscorn
+'- gcassavascassava. :! 3,272,400 calories
(14) cassava 3263o.3 kg
(15) rice + Srice >303 kg
(16) rice + Srice <906 kg
(17) Osoybean + Ssoybeal 50 kg
(1.8) Opeanut + Speanut 50 kg
(19) Smungbean 30 kg
(20) Otempe <100 kg
(21) Lsoybeanl + Lpeanutl.
+ Lmungbeanl -Lint.cornl
-Lint cassaval > 0
(22) Lsoybean.2 + Lpeanut2
- Lint corn2 >0
(23) Lint cassava < .25
(24) T < 5 chickens
(25) 8T -U 0
(26) u EKn- v 0
(27) U +P <45 chickens
(28) T -V -0
(29) Z Ar + E BjJj + CK
- EVcijLij E EiM.
*Bj is- the wage rate per man-day of labor sold per period j. Ei is the cost of seed per hectare of crop i.
* Fj is'the-cost per man-day of hired labor per period J.
Gk is the cost per kilogram of consumed food item k. H is the cost of buying a chicken to raise as livestock. Jj iis the man-days of labor sold per period j. Kn is the number of chickens sold per age n. Mi is the kilograms of purchased seed used per crop i. Nj is the man-days of hired labor bought per period j. Ok is the kilograms consumed of purchased food item k. P is the number of chickens purchased to raise as livestock. Q is the cash used for non-food items in one year. Rj is the man-days of labor contributed by the farm family in period j. Si is the kilograms of crop i consumed. T is the number of laying hens. U is the number of chicks produced. V is the number of chicks saved for next year's layers. Zi is the measure of the total absolute deviation of yield for crop i. a is the net revenue from cropping, labor selling and chicken raising
bij is the kilograms of seed needed to plant one hectare of crop i in
ci is the kilograms of seed saved from last year per crop i. ek is the calories per kilogram contributed form purchased food item k. fk -is the grams of protein per kilogram contributed from purchased food
gi is. the calories per kilogram contributed from consumption of crop i. hi is the grams of protein per kilogram contributed from consumption of
kij is the man-days of labor required to produce one hectare of crop i
per period J.
li is the kilograms of seed saved per hectare of crop i for next year.
m. is the selling price of a chicken at age n. NOTE: Ai, Ci, Di, Ii, Li, Si, VCij, Yhij, Yij, dhij, wio, Xo, 0, ,
and Bi are defined as above.
The major variable costs requiring cash outlays are fertilizers and pesticides according to the Farmer Perspectives Survey. Seed and labor requirements are considered separately, since farmers tend to save their
own seed and supply their own labor. The variable costs for crop
production, which are reflected in the objective function, are the sum of fertilizer and pesticide costs, which were calculated from data taken from the Production-Constraints Survey. Cash ouylays may also be
required for seed purchases, hired labor, and food for consumption. The objective function of the model is to maximize the difference between cash returns and cash outlays for a typical Sitiung 5c family.
Available land for planting was estimated at 1.17 hectares (equation 5). This includes the one hectare upland field and two thirds of the homestead (the remaining third of the homestead was reserved for the home and yard). The reason for including a portion of the homestead in the crop production land is that most of the farmers still plant food crops in their homesteads. The three quarter hectare of land which had been recently allotted to the transmigrants was not included because,at the: time of the study, it was still in forest.
In the Farmer Perspectives Survey, the farmers, themselves, made a distinction between seed requirements and other variable costs such as fertilizers and pesticides. Therefore, seed usage is considered
separatelyThe kilograms of seed needed to plant one hectare was calculated from spacing and seed per hole information taken from the ProductionConstraints Survey. To calculate kilograms of seed needed, the number of seeds per kilogram for each crop was determined by weighing out samples of locally used seed, counting the seeds in the sample and then
taking an average of the samples. This value was then divided into the number of seeds needed to plant one hectare in order to calculate kilograms of seed. The balance row (equation 6) for seed usage per crop, allows seed requirements to be filled from saved seed and/or bought seed. An arbitrary restriction is imposed that the amount of seed saved from present harvest is 80% of the amount of seed used that year (equation 7).
Labor is also considered separately as farmers tend to supply their own labor. According to the Farmer Perspectives Survey, farmers tend to
hire labor: if' they happen to fall sick during, critical cropping periods or. at critical times such as harvest or planting. Farmers will often share labor with other'families during these critical. times. The labor
exchange system was not included in the model as it would not have had much effect, since the amount of labor received from one family is in
turn owed back to that family. What the labor sharing system does is to
concentrate labor at critical periods of time, a problem which is not dealt with in this model. As reflected on the Farmer Perspectives
Survey and backed up by the Enterprise Records Survey, off-farm work is
an important source of income, but is. secondary to farming. Since the farmers tend to seek work from each other, there is a limited amount of local work available. Other off-farm work includes tree cutting in the
forests for lumber, carpentry (for the few skilled enough), and other odd jobs.
The labor constraints (equations 8-10) deal with family and hired labor. There are two possible uses for family labor: selling of labor and using labor on the family's own farm. Farm labor can also be hired
-from outside the family. The calculation of available family labor was based on a family with three contributing members: husband, wife and a 15-year-old male child (equation 8).
Up to one-fourth of the labor contributed by the husband and 15year-old child was allowed to be sold for wages (equation 9). Farmers often are unable to sell as much labor as they would like to because there is a limited supply of jobs available (most of the off-farm work is agricultural work provided by other farmers in Sitiung 5c). Farmers also have the option of hiring labor for their farms. The labor balance
row (equation 10) balances the labor needed to grow a crop mixture with hired labor and labor contributed by the farm family.