Comparison of three fruit and vegetable export operations in Central America

Material Information

Comparison of three fruit and vegetable export operations in Central America
Belibasis Mejia, Emil
Place of Publication:
Gainesville, Fla.
Emil Belibasis
Publication Date:


Subjects / Keywords:
City of Pompano Beach ( local )
Melons ( jstor )
Cucumbers ( jstor )
Marketing ( jstor )

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Holding Location:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
The University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries respect the intellectual property rights of others and do not claim any copyright interest in this item. This item may be protected by copyright but is made available here under a claim of fair use (17 U.S.C. §107) for non-profit research and educational purposes. Users of this work have responsibility for determining copyright status prior to reusing, publishing or reproducing this item for purposes other than what is allowed by fair use or other copyright exemptions. Any reuse of this item in excess of fair use or other copyright exemptions requires permission of the copyright holder. The Smathers Libraries would like to learn more about this item and invite individuals or organizations to contact Digital Services ( with any additional information they can provide.
Resource Identifier:
190918918 ( OCLC )


This item has the following downloads:

Full Text
-46~. O~


Submitted to the Agency for International Development (AID), Honduras under the Purchase Order: Honduras P 86 80, 522 0120 3 70074 1.

Prepared by :

Emil Belibasis

Gainesville, Florida June 15, 1981


June 15, 1981

Agricultural Development Office
AID/Honduras Tegucigalpa, D.C.

Dear Sirs:

Please find enclosed the report, "Comparison Of Three Fruit and Vegetable Export Operations in Central America" which I am submitting under the Purchase Order, Honduras P 86 80, 522 0120
3 70074 1.





Table of Contents


List of Tables .

Acknowledgements . .

Introduction .
Objectives . .
Procedures . .
Published Matter

Case Studies .

Choluteca Melons.
Historial Back

ground .

Production Area Description .
Producer Characteristics. .
Institutional Involvement .
Production . .
Practices .
Planting Activity. .
Problems .
Packing .
Description of Operation Problems .
Transportation .
Marketing .
Export .
Results .
Local .
Problems .
Results .
Financing ".
Description .
Problems .

Guatemalan Melons .
Historical Background .
Production Area Description .
Producer Characteristics. .
Institutional Involvement .
Production .
Practices .
Planting Activity .
Problems .
Packing .
Description of Operation Problems .
Transportation .

. i



Table of Contents Continued.


Marketing . 23
Export 23
Local . 24
Financing 24

Comayagua Cucumbers 25
Historical Background ,. 25
Production Area Description . 27
Producer Characteristics . 28
Institutional Involvement 29
Production . 30
Practices . . 30
Planting Activity . 31
Results . 32
Problems 33
Packing 34
Description of Operation . 34
Results . 35
Problems 35
Transportation . 36
Service Description . 36
Results . 37
Problems . 37
Marketing 37
Export . 37
Results . 38
Problems 38
Local . 39
Results . 39
Problems 39
Financing 40

Costs and Returns .41
Limitations . 43

Conclusions .44

Notes . . 46

Appendix A 1 47
Appendix A 2 51
Appendix A 3 . 56

Appendix B 1 60
Appendix B 2 61
Appendix B 3 . 62

Bibliography .


List of Tables




* 10

* 11 13

1 Yields by zone in Choluteca 2 Yearly planted and lost area of melons in Choluteca 3 UATM Personnel turnover 4 PATSA's guaranteed base prices 5 Number of members, dependents, and number irrigated hectares for each cooperative.

6 MRN Project personnel turnover 7 Cucumber and tomato yields .

8 AID grant fund allocation in Comayagua

9 1979 FOB prices for cucumbers in Pompano B Florida 10 Prices, quantities and costs of cucumber s
in the Honduran market 11 Grower costs and returns 1980 81 . 12 Export Firm Cost and Returns, 1980 81

each ales



A great many people and organizations contributed to this study and the author wishes to express to these his full appreciation.

To AID/Honduras for its financial support, especially Mr. Charles Oberbeck, then the AID's Comayagua project officer for his cooperation and advice. Mr. Denis Ramirez, MRN's project coordinator, was very generous with information and encouragement. To Mr. Miguel Caceres at MRN's Sectoral Planning Directorate (DPS) for his discussions of the Choluteca melon project. Mr. Ricardo Frohmader, General Manager of PATSA was very helpful in discussing the problems in the export of perishable fruits and vegetables and for providing valuable information. The UATM Head, Mr. Cecilio Ferrufino, provided invaluable information on different aspects of technical assistance to farm cooperatives. My sincere appreciation to Mr. David Warren, President of CAPCO, who provided invaluable information in many aspects of industry under study and for his cooperation and encouragement.

Many more persons have in some way contributed to this study. Some of them are:. Mrs. Ma de los Angeles de Breve' of DPS; Mr. Renato Madrid and Mr. Fransisco Avarenga, Extension Agents of the MRN's export project; Carlos Funes and Mr. Jose Elias Ortega of UATM; Mr. Freddy Araujo and Arnoldo Pinel Milla of MRN's Regional Planning Division in Choluteca; Mr. Hernan Pinto, President of CRESHUL; Mr. Jorge Murrey of PATSA; Mr. Oscar Lionel Orozco of
_ICTA. Mr. Garret Denbleyken and Mr. Carlos Giron of CAPCO. Special thanks to Miss Emelie Labeur for her skillfulness in typing the final draft and final report and to Mr. Armando Medina for his encouragement and advice throughout the study period.



Cucumber and melon production are labor intensive activities. Government institutions in Honduras and Guatemala view the production for export of cucumbers and melons as a means of increasing rural employment and income.


The purpose of this study is to focus on production,
packing, transportation and marketing related problems encountered in the establishment of an export industry for the U.S. winter market pf slicing cucumbers in Comayagua, Honduras and cantaloupe melons in Choluteca, Honduras and Zacapa, Guatemala. Emphasis has been made on the Honduran operations, primarily that of cucumbers and less on Guatemalan melons.

Specifically, as presented in Attachment A of AID's PIO/T this study will answer the following questions:

A. 1. How do actual costs (production, packing, transportation, and marketing) compare among the three

2. How do gross and net revenues compare?

B 1. What are the management arrangements in each

2. What are the institutional agreements and relationships?

C. 1. What are the socio-economic characteristics of
the producer in each area (general descriptionsize, incomes, literacy)?

2. Are they members of cooperatives?

D. What are the salient characteristics of each export
operation that contribute to its success/problems
in vegetable export relative to what would be expected given only cost/price considerations?
That is, how do the different organizations compare
in terms of profitability and in terms of other goals
such as improvement in the quality of life of
campesino vegetable producers?



Two methods of data collection were utilized: non-survey
type interviews and published materials for or by each operation.

The authors experience in the Comayagua cucumber export
operation provided the initial background knowledge as to what some of the potential problems and conditions that could be encountered in each operation. After an initial visit to each operation it was possible to formulate specific questions that could be relayed either through personal interviews or through published information.

In all, four visits were made to the Choluteca operation, four to the Comayagua operation and two visits to Guatemala. A description of the two data and information collection methods follows.


Personal interviews were made at the grower, exporter and institutional levels. The number of interviews with growers were; four in Choluteca, four in Comayagua and three in Guatemala. The number of growers interviewed and the thoroughness of the interviews were less than desired and it is hoped that this will not hamper-substantially the final results.

A series of interviews were made with all top management
personnel of PATSA and CAPCO, the export firms in Choluteca and Zacapa, Guatemala, respectively. Both the Head of MRN's export project and SFC's technical assistant Manager for the MRN's export project were interviewed on different occasions. Additionally, all extension agents in each operation that were employed at the time of the visits were interviewed.

Personnel from all supportive institutions currently involved in each operation were interviewed. These institutions are: MRN's Sectorial Planning Division and the Southern Regional Agricultural Directorate (DARS), INA's southern offices, BANADESA; Difocoop, CRESHSUL, all in Choluteca, for the Comayagua project; MRN, BANADESA, AID, and SFC; and in Guatemala, ICTA, ICAITI and ROCAP.


Published Matter

Most of the published matter acquired deal with both of
the Honduran operations. A limited amount of published material was obtained from Guatemala. The variety of published matter ranged from internal reports to theses and feasibility studies. All publications utilized in this study are accounted for in the reference section of this report.


Like all. studies, there are various constraints which need to be considered when defining the scope of woith, and this study is no exception. Considerable limitations were encountered in transportation to and within the three study areas. In most of the interviews made with growers the author was accompanied by one of the extension agents in charge. This may have caused bias of some responses coming from the interviewers. Time and transportation constraints also limited the number of growers interviewed. At the exporter and institutional levels, transportation constraints were less as these are located in cities where transportation means are readily available.

Published matter acquired, although plentiful did not
provide all the information expected for some of the problem areas. Relatively less published data and information was gathered from the Guatemala operation, hence, the relatively less emphasis made on the Guatemala operation in this report.

A further set back in the realization of this study was the time constraint in the final stages as the author is currently enrolled as a full-time student in the Graduate Department of Food and Resource Economics at the University of Florida.



Historical Background

The production of melons for the United States market in Choluteca, Honduras dates back to the mid 1960s. The first melon exports were1made in 1965-66 by four farmers in
-the Departments of Valle and Choluteca i the southern part of Honduras. Approximately 350 manzanas of cantaloupes were planted which yielded over 11,000 pounds per manzana with a 67 percent export quality fruit. Planting and transport problems caused the financial failure of this activity.

In 1970 the National Agrarian Institute (INA) iniciated a melon export project in order to help bring down high unemployment during the dry season (November April) in southern Honduras. An Israeli mission was brought to make agronomic experiments on melons for export. The mission's mayor conclusions were that the area was apt for melon production for export during the high price period of January, February, and March in the United States and that due to the high water retention quality of the soil, irrigation expenses could be saved. In the 1970-71 season 428 manzanas were planted by peasants of the land reform program working in cooperatives and-individual farmers. The outcome of this project was a loss of about $70,000 due mainly to various production problems.

Another activity was developed in 1971-72 by INA and
other government institutions which included: The Ministry of Agriculture (MRN) and the National Development Bank (BNF). The final result was a loss of 82 manzanas out of 412 manzanas planted and $100,000.

In the period of 1973-74 another activity was developed having results similar to the previous years but the main difference was that the major problems were caused by a strike of the United States Transportation Workers and the Oil Embargo.

It was not until 1975-76 that a major break through was made in the melon export activity.

The company PATSA (Productos Acuaticos y Terrestres
Sociedad Anonima, then called PASA) a subsidiary of the United Fruit Company, commonly known for its Chiquita brand bananas, was able to get a project going by way of the government. An


agreementnt"3 was signed by MRN, INA, BNF, and PATSA, where each
would have the following responsiblities:

MRN: Provide technical assistance, and machinery for agricultural activities.

INA: Provide technical assistance, and to promote melon
production and organization for groups belonging to the land
reform program. It would also provide the packing shed for
melon processing.

BNF: Provide credit to farmers and supply chemical and
other inputs.

PATSA: Establish prices for melons and buy the exportable
production. Install a packing line for melons and provide
technical assistance.

Five production seasons have passed since the signing of
the agreement and there still appears to be many problems. A
- brief review is necessary.

;n 1975-76, 520 manzanas were planted and 435 manzanas
were harvested with an average yield of 138 50 pound boxes per manzana. Over $95,000 was made in profits by farmers and
a $125,000 loss for PATSA.

For the period 1976-77, 1,307 manzanas of melons were
planted and 982 manzanas harvested, with an average yield of
96 boxes per manzana. Net returns for production was over
$133,000 and over $115,000 for PATSA.

In the production year 1977-78, 690 manzanas were planted
and 441 harvested with an average yield of 150 boxes per
manzana. No profit was made by farmers and PATSA lost around

In 1978-79, 496 manzanas were planted and 395 manzanas
were harvested. The average yield was 142 boxes per manzana.
A loss of over $59,950 was taken up by farmers and PATSA made
over $130,000.

In the period of 1979-80, 351 manzanas were planted and
284.5 manzanas harvested. Over $27,000 was made by farmers
and PATSA made over $98,000.


Production Area Description

The Departments of Choluteca and Valle are where the melon export operation is located. Choluteca being the main area.

These departments are located in the southernmost part of
Honduras bordering Nicaragua on the southeast, the Pacific Ocean on the south and El Salvador on the west.

The Panamerican Highway passes through this area to the neighboring countries. Another highway connects this one to the main cities north and the Caribbean ports. Over 700 square miles of the area is adequate for agriculture. The altitude in this area is 49 meters above sea level.

Average monthly temperatures vary between 27.5 in October
and 30.7 in April, with a daily average variation of 11.1 degrees centigrade. Total yearly average precipitation is 1,948 millimeters of which 409 millimeters fall in the October February period. Seven millimeters fall from November through February. The average yearly relative humidity is 65.71 percent, 60.12 percent during the melon production period and 49.5 percent in February.

The predominant crops grown are: melons, sugar cane, cotton, sesame, and watermelon. Two rivers flow through this area: the Choluteca and the Negro. :_Irrigation systems are scarce and only the land at the sides of the rivers are irrigated. The Soils are fertile and land is generally flat.

Producer Characteristics

The great majority of the melon producers belong to one
of three groups: small farmers, cooperatives, or asentamientos.

Although not much data was gathered on income levels,
literacy, and farm size, an approximation may be sufficient.

The number of members in a cooperative or an asentamiento is between 30 50 on the average with two hectares per member. Farm size of an individual producer is between 4 10 hectares.


Literacy levels among the three groups is low. Generally 20 percent of the members of a cooperative or asentamiento can read and write. Many individual producers are illiterate.

Income levels are low. Minimum wage is at $1.50 per day of eight hours. Some activities require wages of up to $2.50 per day.

The amount of land set aside for melon production is between 10 and 20 manzanas for cooperatives and 5 to 10 manzanas for individuals.

The distinction between an asentamiento and a cooperative is in that cooperatives work collectively while asentamientos may or may not. Usually cooperatives are more amenable to credit institutions and therefore, have a slight advantage in crop production and infrastructure creation. Usually these asentamientos with better organization and land are encouraged to become cooperatives. For the sake of this paper no difference will be made between them. When refering to cooperatives it will imply asentamientos also.

Farmers engaged in the melon project today, are relatively experienced in melon production. The majority of the producers are closely examined by BNF. Only those farmers with good qualification are permitted to enter into the project loan program.

Institutional Involvement

The degree of institutional involvement in the Choluteca
melon project is considerably high. The following institutions are all involved in this activity:

MRN: Responsible of giving and directing technical assistance to the project.

INA: Provides technical and organizational advise to cooperatives; installed the packing shed and warehouse.

BANADESA: (Previously called BNF) Is in charge of providing loans and keeping accounts for the cooperatives. It also provides chemical inputs at lower than market prices.

DIFOCOOP: (Directorate of Cooperative Development) Provides legal and administrative advice to cooperatives. It also cooperates in the marketing and control of local sales along with the Melon Growers Cooperative (CREHSUL).

It is estimated that the number of personnel provided by these institutions year round varies between 10 15.


A smaller number of government personnel is provided
occasionally to evaluate reports and give technical advice.

Five to six vehicles and two motorcycles are provided for the project year round.

Every year there is a report given out by the Melon Technical Assistance Unit (UATM) on the production activities of the year. Two evaluations have been made by the Sectional Planning Department of MRN but no indepth economic or financial project analyses have been made.



Most of the land for the 1979-80 season was planted in
mid to late Eovember. Land preparation is done with tractors and with animal power to a lesser extent. Good land preparation is essential for melons since humidity must be captured as irrigation is not used in most plantings.

Planting is done by hand or mechanized. Seeds are planted
0.5 0.75 meters apart and in rows 1.50 2.0 meters apart depending on soil type.

Fertilization is preplant applied. Three hundred pounds of 12-24-12 formula, 200 pounds of potassium nitrate and 150 pounds of urea are used per manzana. Soil insecticide is applied before planting or just after. A pest control calendar is used where insecticides and fungicides are applied every six days. EPA approved pesticides are used just before and during harvest.

Fruits are twisted one-fourth of their circumference
three to four times during fruit growth to prevent soil spots.

Variety trials have been conducted in Choluteca by
SIATSA (Servicios para la Investigacion Agricola Tropical S.A. now the research division of the United Brands) and have shown SJ-45 variety cantaloupes to be more responsive. This variety has been in use for serveral years.

Cantaloupes are harvested one to three times a day in order to prevent overripening. Cantaloupes are harvested into sacks and are preselected in the field before final selection at the packing plant.


Planting Activity

Most plantings in the 1979 80 season started in mid
November and ended in late February. Out of the 351 manzanas planted of both honeydew and cantaloupe melons 284.5 manzanas were harvested, a 19 percent loss. This was due mainly to, either lack of humidity in the soil or an excess of it.

Plantings were made in three areas. Zone one and two are basically cooperatives and zone three is made up of small individual farmers. The distribution of planting loss was about equal for the three. Average yields for zones one, two and three were 129,55 60 pound boxes per manzana, 96 boxes per manzana, and 52 boxes per manzana of cantaloupes, respectively. (See Table 1). The low yields in zone three were apparently due to unchecked production sold to commercial La Carreta.5

Table l.--Yields by zone in Choluteca.

Cantaloupes Honeydew
Export a Rejectb Export Rejectd
-Boxes Boxes Boxesc Boxesd
Zone One 13,340 1,244 11,560
Zone Two 10,729 2,248
Zone Three 1,.90 8,930

TOTAL 25,257 3,492 20,490

a 55 60 pound box
b 25 melons per box
c 25 29 pound box
d No information recorded

Zone one had no substantial problems other than the
planted area lost. Zone two had severe problems with insect control and some producers had problems with disease control.

Individual producers in zone three had no technical or financial assistance from the project. Production practices were somewhat different from the other zones and yields per manzana were actually low.



The principle problem in production appears to be the non-irrigation system of growing melons. Nineteen percent of the land planted was lost basically because of this system. Table 2 shows the percentaqe of planted land lost in the last five years.
Table 2.--Yearly planted and lost area of melons in Choluteca.

Season Manzanas Planted Manzanas Lost Percent Lost

1975/76 520 85 16.5
1976/77 1307 325 24.5
1977/78 690 249 36.1
1978/79 496 101 20.4
1979/80 351 66.5 19.0

A more rigorous pest control system is needed to prevent damage of fruit. A UATM technician said that both insect damage and either too low or high sugar content in melons were the principle causes of export culls. Mildew attack which were considerable in zone two caused low sugar content in cantaloupes. High sugar content is found in overripened melons. The same technician also said that hired labor or cooperative members are reluctant to work on Sundays, Saturday afternoon or extra hours on weekdays, even though higher wages were offered. This, he'said, added to the reduction in yield and increased culls due to high sugar content since cantaloupes overrippen in a few hours.

Another production related problem identified was the fact that government employees in the project are very unstable, which adversely affects the performance of the project. (See Table 3). The general belief of government technicians was that they were underpaid. Inadequate supervision and evaluation of employees is not surprising of the government and the melon project did not appear to be an exception.


Table 3.--UATM Personnel Turnover.

Season Number of Employeesa Outflow Inflow

1975/76 12 3
1976/77 13 5 4
1977/78 13 7 5
1978/79 11 4 5
1979/80 9 5 2

aDoes not include PATSA's technicians.


Description of Operation

The packing shed is located in the outskirts of the
Choluteca Department Capital where urban labor is available readily. The packing shed measures 26 by 60 meters, is made up of concrete floors and columns, with a metal framed roof covered by zinc panel. Small pickups deliver the fruit on one side of the packing house and pick up the culls on the adjacent side. Refrigerated trailers are loaded on the opposite side of deliveries. Offices are on two levels, one of which overlooks the packing lines. A large warehouse is used to store boxes and other materials.

After preselection in the field the fruit is selected for quality and size. A refractometer is used occasionally to check sugar content. Melons are then packed in two-thirds wire bound crates weighting between 55 60 pounds. Crushed ice is put on the top layer of cantaloupes in the crate and are then loaded into the refrigerated trailers. Appendix A shows the classification norms attached to each contract.

The packing shed and the warehouse is owned by INA and the packing line by PATSA. A rent contract for five years was signed by PATSA for the use of the packing shed and expires in 1981. The packing shed is managed by a person who has had much experience with melon export in Mexico and one technician that supervises packing and selection. A secretary and another technician make up the total PATSA personnel in Choluteca.


The cantaloupes that do not meet export quality are taken by the producer to CREHSUL's installation next to the packing shed. There, they are counted and are pooled with the fruit of other producers and sold on a per unit basis. Three or more persons from CREHSUL, INA, and DIFOCOOP manage this operation. Many intermediaries meet there with small trucks to buy melons for the Hondurian market. They decide on a price with the CREHSUL personnel. CREHSUL charges a $50.00 fee per member plus $0.15 per box tax for cooperative expenses and growth. These revenues will also be used to pay off the packing shed which is to be managed by CREHSUL starting in the 1981 82 season.

PATSA's guaranteed base prices are now negotiated with CREHSUL prior to planting, where as prior to CREHSUL's formation, prices were negotiated between PASTSA, the Minister and Directors of MRN, INA, and BANADESA. In previous years prices were set by periods and sizes only. For the 1980 81 season prices will vary by period, sizes, and by volumes as shown in Table 4. This price system helps spread PATSA's fixed costs and stimulates farmers in producing more and earlier in the season.


One of the principle problems confronting the melon project now is whether or not to hand over the packing operation to CREHSUL. No CREHSUL personnel has been trained in managing and supervising the operation as to now. PATSA's general manager appeared to be pleased with this idea and said that PATSA would in that event maintain control over quality at the packing shed.

The low levels of production in previous years have increased the fixed costs per box related to the packing operation since the packing house infrastructure, rent and overhead costs are very high. See Appendix B.

Although December prices for cantaloupes are the highest in the season, planting for this period is risky. Cantaloupes take nine weeks until the first harvest and three weeks of harvest. If total production is to be harvested in December melons must be planted by the third week of October when late rains are still strong. Mildew attacks arise under wet conditions and may reduce yields substantially.


Table 4.--PATSA's guaranteed base prices.

1980 81 Cantaloupe
Dec. 31
Volume 18-30b 12-15,32
1-5,000 8.50 4.00
5,000-7,500 9.00 4.50
7,501-10,000 9.50 4.50
10,001-over 10.00 5.00

Jan. 1 15 18-30 12-15,32

7.50 8.00 8.50 9.00

4.00 4.00


1-18,750 18,751-25,000 25,001-over

Jan. 16 31 18-30 12-15,32
6.50 3.00
6.75 3.25
7.00 3.50

Period 18-30 12-15,32

Feb. 1-7 6.00 Feb. 8-15 4.50 Feb. 16 -



2.50 2.00

1980 81 Honeydew


Jan. 1-Feb. 28

1-30,000 30,0001-over

4- 8

2.75 3.00

March 1-beyond 4 8

1-20,000 2.25
20,000-over 2.50

1979 80 Cantaloupe


Jan. 1-15


Feb. 8-15

Feb. 16-29

18,24,30 12,15,36

1979 80 Honeydew


2.50 1.50

March 1-April 15

2.00 1.00

9 10

1.75 2.00 9 10

1.25 1.50


1.00 1.25 12

0.75 1.00



7.00 3.50

6.00 3.00


4,5,6,8 9,10

4.50 2.50

4.00 2.00

a Combined volume of columns 2 and 3.
Box with 18 to 30 melons; third column would mean 12 to 15 melons or 32 melons per box.


No data have been gathered on the percentage of defects
on melons not exported thereby limiting research in this area.


PATSA has been using refrigerated trailers that United
Brands operates or from CCT (Coordinated Caribbean Transporta division of the United States Freight Company). PATSA's
manager indicated that United Brand trailers were more reliable
as far as timeliness and performance. Trailers used have a
loading capacity of 40,000 45,000 pounds. The box capacity
per trailer varies between 095 and 705 boxes.

Since no cold storage room is available at the packing
shed in Choluteca, trailers are ordered early at no extra
cost. This assures that the fruit temperature is brought down
fast and secures maximum shelf life.

Ships depart from the Port of Cortez twice a week and
arrive at Gulfport, Mississippi or Miami, Florida two to
three days later.


- Export

Usually PATSA's melons are shipped to Gulfport, Mississippi
and are then transported in trailers to New Jersey where United
Produce (UP) operates. United Produce is a subsidiary of the United Brand Company, the main distributor of Chiquita Brand bananas. Although bananas are the main product distributed,
marketing facilities for melons have been provided since PATSA's formation. It is not known if trailers are sold in places below
New Jersey before arriving at United Produce's Distribution
Center. Most likely, trailers are received in New Jersey, reloaded according to client orders and then distributed in the northeastern market, i.e. the northeastern market for melons
is the single most important market in the United States.
Commission charges of United Produce runs between 10 12 percent.



In the 1979 80 season 25,229 boxes of cantaloupe melons were exported and sold at a weighted average price of $ 24.00, the highest of all seasons.


CREHSUL is in charge of the selling activity at the Honduran market level. Intermediaries have trucks ranging from small two ton capacity pickups to ten ton trucks. Melons are transported in bulk and are distributed throughout the country. Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula are main markets and La Ceiba the furtherest away (486 kilometers), is second in importance. The intermediaries may have distribution facilities at the market place or may sell their produce to distributors.

The market place is made up of individual sellers which
may or may not be specialized in the areas of fruits, vegetables, and grains. Usually, these market place sellers have a combination of fruits, vegetables, and grains. Individual market place sellers and supermarket produce managers buy from distributors at the market place.


The Honduran market as well as other Central American markets for melons is limited, production of melons for export is now being carried out in all Central American countries. This situation does not provide Choluteca growers with alternative markets in the area for their melons. Prices received by CREHSUL for melons usually vary between $ 0.01 and $ 0.25 per unit depending on volumes available. As the project expands the price for local market melons will drop accordingly.

Net returns to a manzana of cantaloupe melons from sales in the local market are in the neighborhood of $ 100.00. Not all melons are sold by CREHSUL. Although, not a generalized behavior, intermediaries will buy melons off individual CREHSUL member farmers at the farmgate. Melons bought at the farmgate are of lower quality than those sold by CREHSUL since these are the culls out-graded at the farm.


Strict quality control on melons and better cropping methods may prove effective in lowering the percentage of non-export melons. This, coupled with a good price setting ability by CREHSUL's marketing personnel may prove successful in increasing net returns to farmers.


Over one million cantaloupes in 1978 -79 and over
425,000 in 1979 80 were sold by CREHSUL at an average price of $ 0.042 and $ 0.075 per unit, respectively.



BANADESA is the main source of funds for the production
activity. Some farmers provide their own funds. BANADESA has provided one official as a permanent member of UATM to assist the credit program. As a supportive means CREHSUL has formulated a regulation with BANADESA whereby a member that has not fully paid back a previous loan will be returned only 40 percent of current year's gross returns.


A UATM member said that although the credit program of BANADESA has been successful, occasionally some farmers are not able to plant due to delays in credit approval.

An economist in MRN working on an evaluation of the
melon project was concerned by the fact that farm wages included in the budget formulated by UATM have not increased in four years. Farmers seldom keep accurate accounts on production costs and input usage, making it difficult to determine if current farm budgets are adequate and if individual or by class budgets are necessary.



Historical Background

Guatemala has by far more experience in export operations than does Honduras. Initial trials in export of perishable products began in 1969-70. The following institutions were involved in this first operation. CARSVO Cooperativa Agropecuaria Regional de Servicio s Varios de Oriente, FYRCO a Guatemalan export brokerage firm, Orbit Sales (OS) a United States vegetable broker operating in Pompano Beach, Florida, ROCAP the Regional Office for Central America and Panama, from the United States Agency for International Development (AID), and ICAITI Instituto Centroamericano de Investigacion y Tecnologia Industrial.

The 1969-70 trial produced 516 boxes of cucumbers and 400 boxes of melons exported to Pompano Beach, Florida. A loss of $5,000 was incurred dueto problems in the basic export activities.

In 1970-71 OS and FYRCO formed EXIMCO and decided to increase production of cucumbers. The Banco Centroamericano de Integracion Economica (BCIE) provided the funds to EXIMCO, exporting 31,212 boxes of cucumbers. Due to lack of sufficient refrigerated trailers EXIMCO tightened quality control causing lower export yields and ultimately a loss to EXIMCO between $20,000 and $40,000.

In the 1971-72 season a new company ELCO, S.A. took over the packing plant used by the deteriorated EXIMCO. The Guatemalan government provided assistance through: INDECA Instituto Nacional de Comercializacion Agricola, DIGESA Direccion General de Servicio Agricolas and BANDESA Banco Nacional de Desarrallo Agricola.

Two cucumber export activities were initiated in 1971.
CARSVO ELCO operating in Teculutan Zacapa and the "La Fragua" Cooperative exporting directly to a United States broker in Florida first, and later that year through ELCO operating in the La Fragua area also in Zacapa. In addition, ELCO planted its own cucumbers. In total 479 hectares were harvested. Forty hectares were lost due to irrigation and variety problems. Total boxes received at the packing sheds was 97,182 for an area of 230 hectares and $79,546.44 was lost by the CARSVO growers and $177,240 by the La Fragua Cooperative. Low yields and marginal cucumber quality is believed to be the cause of the high losses.


For the period of 1973 74 different export operations were developed. Three melon operations and one of okra. The export company BASICO that had been operating since the 1972 73 season made arrangements with the La Fragua Cooperative to produce melons. BASICO also grew its own melons and okra. Another group called the Promotora Agricola Zacapaneca, R.L. also engaged in the export of melons through a broker in Florida. Over 2,186 metric tons were exported from 2-56 hectares planted of different melon cultivars. The average export yield was
8.54 metric tons per hectare with an 81.5 percent export quality. The La Fragua Cooperative made $16,710 from 26 hectares of melons although harvesting took place in the month of April when prices dropped. BASICO's profit situation from its plantings of melons and okra-were not known, and their export yield, for melons from 200 hectares. All the 20.5 metric tons of okra from 16 hectares were exported. The Promotora had technical and financial assistance from the government.

Since 1977 two export firms have been established in the Zacapa Valley, BASICO, which is now owned by PATSA and the Central America Produce Company -.CAPCO, an export and marketing firm operating from Pompano Beach, Florida. For the production season 1980 81 BASICO is planning on growing over 300 manzanas of melons and CAPCO around 400 manzanas.

In 1979 80 CAPCO growers planted 300 manzanas of melons. Around 45 manzanas were lost and 25 percent of the planted area had serious problems with low yields due to inadequate fertilization, bed formation, water management, and virus attacks. Over $30,000 were lost by CAPCO.

The only known government institution involved in these activities today is ICTA Instituto de Ciencias y Tecnologia Agricola, which has implemented a research program in the production of fruits and vegetables for export with CAPCO and probably with BASICO.

A more detailed look at the CAPCO operation will follow later.


Production Area Description

The Zacapa Valley of dry tropical climate is located in the eastern part of Guatemala between Guatemala City and the Port of Santo Tomas de Castilla on the Caribbean coast. A paved highway crosses the valley that leads to the port some 100 miles northeast. The altitude is around 230 meters above sea level. The annual average temperature is 26.8 degrees centigrade with a maximum of 40 degrees centigrade and a \ minimum of 18 degrees centrigrade. The mean annual percipitation is 500 millimeters and the average relative humidity is 66 percent.

The main crops grown are: corn, tobacco, processing tomatoes, watermelons, onions and melons. Four irrigation districts cover over 4,800 hectares of irrigation land, three of which utilize pumping stations. The Motagua River crosses the valley adding to the water availability of the valley for crop irrigation.

Producer Characteristics

The number of growers that sell their melons to CAPCO is between 25 and 30. In previous years the number was between 10 and 15. Most of the melon growers either rent land or produce in a partnership called Mediania.6 A-few large growers own the land. The size of melon plantings per grower is between 2 50 manzanas but usually between 2 10 manzanas. Land rent per manzana is $ 50.00 $ 100.00 per year.

Literacy level is high among melon growers in Zacapa.
Some growers who also work with ICTA have Bachelor of Science degrees and one has a Doctorate. Other growers had either highschool or grade school level. One grower interviewed said he had been awarded the "best" tobacco grower in Central America one year, for which he grew over 200 manzanas of tobacco.

Almost all the melon growers for CAPCO have had previous experience in growing melons either pith CAPCO or with other exporting firms in the past. The President of CAPCO said that growers that were unsuccessful have dropped out of the activity and "good" growers have entered.


institutional Involvement

The institutional involvement in the Zacapa melon export activity has been limited to ICTA's research program. Research is done in two phases. The first phase is one of experimental plots where fertilizer types and levels, varieties of melons, plant quality, cultural practices, etc. are tested for potentiality. In the second phase, practices with potential are put to test and managed by producers. Field days are also prepared by ICTA. This research was developed jointly between ICTA and CAPCO which also makes simple check plots.

A helpful but not active involvement comes from the La Fragua cooperative which makes acquisition of material inputs with levied taxes for their member melon growers.

For the 1980-81 season most ipelon growers will obtain
production loans from BANDESA for the first time. Previously, credit for production costs and material inputs were obtained from CAPCO.

AID's Development of an Agricultural Diversification and Trade Program in Latin America provided in 1974 a book, "Agribusiness Management For Developing Countries Latin America" by R.A. Goldberg of the Harvard Business School on the Central American experience in fruit and vegetable exports. This AID division also provided in 1976 the report, "Possibilities for Guatemala and El Salvador in the United States Winter Markets for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables" by R.L. Simmons of North Carolina State University.



Melon planting is made in two periods so that harvesting coincides with the high price periods in the United States. The first plantings are made in the September November period to harvest in November through January.

The second plantings are made in January March and
harvested in March through May. The planting schedule also considers the cool period of December January when growth of plants is slow. Crop area is minimal in this period.


Mechanized land preparation is a common practice in the area. CAPCO's president said yield increases are expected for the 1980-81 period with better bed formation, method of planting, and fertilizer application which were recommended by a melon specialist from Texas. Beds are made eight inches high and three feet wide and seeding is done in the middle of the row. Triple super phosphate is applied at a rate of 300 pounds per manzana before planting and is banded eight inches deep. At least one sidedress application of nitrogen in the form of urea (200 400 pounds per manzana) is made. No potassium is applied. Plant density is between 10- 12 thousand plants per manzana. Furrow irrigation is used. Harvesting takes place 72 75 days after planting and last 20 days. Melons are harvested in sacks and are pre-selected in the field then hauled in small trucks to the packing house.

Planting Activity

Three hundred manzanas of three types of melons were planted in 1979-80. The melon types are: cantaloupes, mayans and honeydews. Severe problems were-encountered this season with a virus attack, inadequate soil preparation and bed formation. Fertilizer rates are believed-to have been low and there was water scarcity for irrigation. Over 75 manzanas were affected heavily by these problems and around 45 manzanas were completely lost. CAPCO's president said 68,000 boxes were exported of which approximately 4,000, 55 pound boxes were of cantaloupes, and 64,000, 26 pound boxes were of honeydews and mayans.


Considerable production problems were encountered in the 1979-80 season. The recommendations of the Texan specialist were tried successfully on experimental plots but only actual field results can certify their appropriateness. One of the three members of CAPCO's technical assistance team appeared to have little experience in growing melons at the time interviewed. Good technical assistance on a day-to-day basis is a prerequisite for crops such as melons for export.



Description of Operation

The packing house is located some five kilometers on a
dirt road from the main highway that leads to the Santo Tomas Port. This packing house was formerly used to pack meat. It is an above ground brick construction roughly 8.0 by 16.0 square meters with zinc panel. There is a large cold room inside, an office, a storeroom and an above-ground water storage tank near the packing house. A wooden shed was annexed to shade melons awaiting selection. Up to 3,000 boxes per day can be packed.

Selection and packing is done indoors. Delivery trucks unload melons through two large doors and packed out through two other doors onto trailers.

The fruit is preselected in the field and hauled loose or in sacks with small pickups. At the packing house melons are dumped into a water vat containing a mixture of chlorine and a fungicide. Melons are then sorted on a wooden table and packed in two-third carton boxes and topped with ice. A Saccarimeter is used to check the sugar content. Melons that have less than nine percent sugar are discarted.

The packing house is rented through the municipality and is managed by CAPCO's packing and production manager, a former instructor at INCAE with a Bachelor of Science degree in Agriculture. Supervision of packing and selection is carried out by the public relations manager's wife. CAPCO's general manager in Guatemala acts as the companies public relation man, manager input adquisition and financial and legal aspects.

Quality standards set for packout melons vary with market conditions and usually fall into the U.S. number one and U.S. number two category. Base prices vary be melon type and size at the accepted quality standards and not by total volume or the period of production. The fifty percent of CAPCO's net returns are returned to producers in proportion to the number of boxes delivered.



No clear cut problems were found in this packing operation. It would seem that not price differentiating quality standards would result in misunderstandings between producers and CAPCO as to why certain melons are accepted on occasions only. This may result in crossover of high quality melon producers to BASCO which offers higher prices for good quality melons. This situation can also be viewed as giving producers lead time until better production practices that increase melon quality are found. As mentioned above packing is done indoors. This may cause inefficiencies at high ambient temperatures. The adquisition of a new packing line for the 1980-81 season will improve working conditions and efficiency in packing as the existing one is wooden made and manually operated.


CAPCO uses the services of CCT for transportation from
the packing house to its office in Pompano Beach. This service is much the same as that given to the Comayagua project.

Trailers are ordered prior to harvesting and are kept at the packing site until completely loaded. The trip from Zacapa to the port takes three hours. At the Miami port the fruit must pass a USDA inspection before going to the warehouse used by CAPCO.

Some delays occur when ship schedules are changed. CCT
may make only one round trip weekly in some periods which means that cantaloupes may be sold up to 15 days after harvest when deterioration begins.



As mentioned previously CAPCO is an integration of three important activities of the export operation. These are: technical assistance, packing and marketing. The marketing activity is managed by CAPCO's president and is aided by his wife, son and two hired employees.


Once melon trailers arrive at the Miami port, CAPCO's
hired customs broker pushes all paper work required to dispatch trailers to Pompano Beach. At Pompano Beach melons are taken to a warehouse, checked, repacked if necessary, and reloaded onto other trucks for delivery to cities throughout the eastern part of the country. The commision charged by CAPCO is 12 percent of sales price but may be lowered under soft market conditions. The warehouse facility costs some $.40 per box. The brand name used is Mayan Pride Melons.
Around 68,000 boxes of melons were sold with prices varying between $5.5 $9.5 for a 26 pound box of Honeydew and Mayan melons and $9 $16 for a 45 55 pound box of cantaloupes.


CAPCO has been promoting locally the sale of the new varieties of melons grown for export through supermarkets aside from the traditional market place.

Small one ton capacity pick-up trucks are used to haul melons from Zacapa to Guatemala City, the main market. A ton of cantaloupes is sold for $ 40.00 $100.00 and Mayans at $ 30.00 $ 40.00.


Up to the 1979-80 season financing of the production
activity was made by CAPCO. Financing included: provision of material inputs, labor costs, and mechanized services.

It is expected that for the 1980-81 season a credit program will be established by BANDESA for the production activity.

CAPCO's president said that for the 1979-80 season over
$30,000 were lost by his company in the operation. He attributed this loss to inadequate production practices and to unqualified producers especially small producers.



Historical Background

There has been few experiences in the export of cucumbers from Honduras and only two operations in the Valley of Comayagua which are described below.

In 1971 72, 129 hectares of cucumbers variety poinsett were grown by a group of two Hondurans and a United States citizen. Planting began in January of 1972. Harvesting was done every two days and the cucumbers were hauled in pickups and small trucks from the field to the packing area. The selection was done in the field but final selection, waxing and packing was done in Florida. Yield per hectare was 19.4 metric tons, 40 percent of which was rejected in the field and 20 percent of the remainder rejected in Florida leaving 9.3 metric tons per hectare of sellable cucumbers. No data was available on the results of this operation.

In 1976 a five-year export project was organized by
USAID in Honduras and the Ministry of Economy (ME) to later be directed and executed by MRN. This project is known as the Agro-industrial Export Project and is by far the most heavily subsidized project of the three under study. The main objective of this project was to diversify production and increase rural income. At the same time, a study was made by the World Trade Center on the feasibility of exporting vegetables from Honduras to the United States and Europe.

The study had positive results and recommended crops that had potential for export. Five of which were later tested in Comayagua.

With a grant from AID and funds from the government of Honduras, thirty variety trials were made in 1976 77 with tomatoes, cucumbers, squash, string beans and okra in three sites in the Valley of Comayagua. Technical assistance was obtained from SIATSA, who had previously prepared a basic agronomic study for AID on the potential of vegetable production for export in the valley. The experiment's results showed more potential for string beans, cucumbers and okra and less for tomatoes and squash. By July of 1977 a feasibility study for the establishment of a fresh vegetable export industry was completed by Standard Fruit Company (SFC) at the request of AID. SFC had since 1975 been experimenting with vegetables for export in the hope of diversifying its activities. In January of 1978 a one-year contract was signed between MRN


and SFC to provide technical assistance in the development of a semi-commercial export activity with tomatoes and cucumbers. Two production sites were selected by SFC; the Las Canas Cooperative in the Comayagua Valley and the El Sisin Cooperative in La Entrada Valley, Copan, a Department in the northwestern section of the country.

Planting of the two crops initiated in February and was delayed due to bureaucratic problems in signing the MRN SFC contract and making the formal agreement between AID and the government of Honduras. The average total yield per hectare of cucumbers was at a high of 89.5 metric tons per hectare from six plantings totaling 3.65 hectares. The estimated export yield was 32.40 metric tons per hectare. The average total yield for mature green tomatoes was 31.3 metric tons per hectare from six plantings totaling 3.4 hectares and 15 metric tons per hectare was the estimated export yield. Six shipments of tomatoes and six of cucumbers totaling 1,461 30 pound boxes and 2,181 26 pound boxes respectively were exported through SFC ships and sold by SFC sales personnel in New York. The marketing reports showed cucumber quality to be acceptable while tomatoes had problems with breakage and decay. Two tomato shipments were rejected by the USDA inspection and deliveries were returned by customers. The New York F.O.B. prices for cucumbers varied from $1.00 $7.00 per box with an average of $3.60. Prices for tomatoes varied from $2.95 $5.50 per box with an average of $3.30. Over $80,000 in grants from AID were used in the construction of two interim packing sheds, sprayers, an irrigation system, technical assistance, etc.

In 1978 7a the same activities were repeated and the La Jigua Cooperative near El Sisin was added as a third production site. In all,five hectares of cucumbers were planted in seven cycles and 2.6 hectares of tomatoes also in seven cycles. Planting was done in December and January again late due to bureaucratic problems.

The average total yield of cucumbers was 84.65 metric tons per hectare with a 47 percent export quality. Tomato yield was 39.25 metric tons per hectare with 52 percent export quality. A total of 6,513 boxes of cucumbers and 1449 boxes of tomatoes were exported in 11 mixed shipments to New York. The average price received for cucumbers was $3.84 and $4.64 for tomatoes. The USDA import inspection certificate showed tomatoes as U.S. number one quality. Cucumber quality was excellent. Over $125,000 in AID grants were utilized.

In the period of 1979 80 various changes occured. The La Entrada Valley sites were eliminated for being considered not potentially important for export activities. Although


tomatoes were planted in Comayagua, they were not exported and the proportion of land planted compared with cucumbers was low. A new cooperative in Comayagua (12 de Enero) was added. Transportation of the produce was made with roll-on roll-off trailers from CCT and Pan Atlantic, and marketing was channeled through a brokerage firm in Pompano Beach, Florida.

Planting of tomatoes and cucumbers was done in October through January. A total of 11.67 hectares of cucumbers and
4.13 hectares of tomatoes were planted in 11 cycles. Total yield of cucumbers decreased from the previous year to 49.3 metric tons per hectare with a 50 percent exportable quality. Tomato total yield increased to 44 metric tons per hectare with a 55 percent exportable quality. A total of 7,926 56 pound boxes of cucumbers were exported in 12 shipments. The average F.O.B. price in Pompano Beach, Florida for cucumbers was $9.25 and quality was excellent, although one shipment was chilled. A total of $222,237 in grants from AID was used this year in technical assistance, transportation, infrastructure investments, production costs, etc.

For the 1980-81 season 41 hectares of cucumbers will be planted by four cooperatives in the Comayagua Valley and will be subject to credit from BANADESA. A total of over $440,000 in AID grants will be used in technical assistance, construction of a packing shed, cold room, two tractors, land leveling, etc.

Production Area Description

The Comayagua Valley is located at 630 mts. above sea
level in the central part of the country some 60 highway miles northwest of Tegucigalpa and 130 miles south of Puerto Cortez, the main port in Honduras located in the Caribbean coast. The Valley is surrounded by mountains and has approximately 38,000 hectares of which over 17,000 hectares are suitable for agriculture.

The mean annual precipitation is 1,024 mm having distinct rainy and dry seasons. The rainy season starts in May and ends in October. The average low precipitation of 10 mm occurs in the months of January and February and the higher, 198 mm in September. The average temperature varies from 21.6 degrees centigrade in January to 26.5 degrees centigrade in May, with a mean annual temperature of 24.6 degrees centigrade. The relative humidity varies from 50 percent in May to 80 percent in October with the mean at 69 percent. The average annual evapo-transpiration is 1912 mm and varies between 124 mm in November and 200 mm in May.


Over 6,000 hectares of land are irrigated by the four irrigation districts and the Humuya river. The main crops grown include: corn, rice, onions, tomatoes, cucumbers, soybeans, watermelons, beans and tobacco.

Producer Characteristics

The vegetable export project in Comayagua has worked only with the land reform groups in the semi-commercial period of 1977 80. Of the four cooperatives in the project for 1980 81, two Lo de Reyna and La Paz No. 1, are new participants, 12 de Enero is in its second year. The following table shows the number of members and dependents of each cooperative and the number of irrigated hectares.

Table 5.--Number of members, dependents, and number of irrigated
hectares for each cooperative.

Cooperatives Members Dependents Irrigated Hectares

Las Canas 63 120 300
12 De Enero 19 35 22
Lo De Reyna 19 30 30
La Paz No. 1 29 58 15
130 243 367

Las Canas appears to have the greatest potential of increasing vegetable production although the number of members would have to be increased substantially to meet production labor requirements. The other cooperatives are small compared to Las Canas but have adequate size.

Daily wages in the area are low and vary between $ 1.50 and $ 2.50. Leteracy level in the groups is low with only 20 to 30 percent of the members capable of reading and writing.

Of all the groups Las Canas has the greatest experience in growing cucumbers, having already grown over ten cycles in the past three years. The other groups have grown between one to four cycles of export cucumbers.

Although experience in production is generally adequate, management capacity is lacking since most of the production activities have been managed by MRN and SFC personnel in past years.


Institutional Involvement

Institutional involvement in the vegetable export project has been high since its creation in 1976. The greatest participation has come from MRN, AID and SFC. Limited participation or a one-time involvement has come from SIATSA, ME and BANADESA.

MRN has been the guiding factor of the operation through the vegetable export project. Personnel allocation to the project since late 1976 has been between four and five technicians, support personnel, three to five vehicles and an office. Field management technicians, i.e. an agronomist, are trained in growing and packing cucumbers and tomatoes by SFC and have been the bridge between SFC and the producers. Instability in MRN personnel has been high. Eight technicians have left the project since 1977. (See Table 6.) This appears to be due to fundamental misunderstandings of MRN policy makers of the potential benefits of the project in the long run and because of administrative red tape.

Table 6.--MRN Project Personnel Turnover.

Season No. of Employeesa Outflow Inflow

1976/77 4 1
1977/78 5 1 2
1978/79 6 4 2
1979/80 4 1 2

a Does not include SFC technicians.

AID's participation has been extremely important in two aspects. First, the financial role through a grant in the neighborhood of $850,000 and second, in the orientation of the project. AID has provided funds for the agronomic study by SIATSA, the feasibility study by SFC, an overall project evaluation by Checci and company in 1978,two case study seminars on perishable produce for export by the Instituto Centroamericano de Administracion de Empresas INCAE, and four scholarships for graduate studies of two ME project officers and undergraduate studies for two MRN project members. Occasionally, AID provided funds for educational trips and brings specialists to the project.

Formal agreements are made each year between MRN and AID so that the grant money allocation to the project can be made.


SFC has been actively involved in the project since January of 1978 just after having presented the feasibility study. Every year since 1978 a technical assistance contract is signed between MRN and SFC. Although technical assistance has been the basis of these contracts, in reality the greatest contribution of SFC has been in filling the administrative gap that MRN bureaucracy creates. Through SFC the project has had little problems in the aquisition of material inputs, machinery, and infrastructure development, and has served as the exporter and initially as the marketing firm.

One or two on the farm technicians with experience are provided by SFC each year. Since 1979, a specialist with a Ph.D. in Horticulture has resided in Comayagua to more closely direct the operation. Previous -o 1979, weekly or biweekly visits to Comayagua were made by SFC specialists e.g. in entomology, pathology, engineering, etc.

Detailed production reports are presented by SFC to MRN at the end of each season. These reports have been possible due to consistent overall accounting of costs and activities by both MRN and SFC.

SIATSA's participation in the project initiated just after
the agronomic study. Experimental trials on different vegetables were designed, directed and analyzed by SIATSA in 1976-77. A solicitation was made by MRN for technical assistance in 1977 for which a proposal was presented by SFC and none by SIATSA.

ME through its Foreign Trade Directorate is believed to have made the initial moves in the creation of the vegetable export project. -ME and AID cooperated the formulation of the initial project paper and later cooperated with AID and MRN in the development of the variety trials in 1976 -77. MRN took full participation after that year.



The target market period for exporting cucumbers is from mid December until the end of April. Plantings of cucumbers have initiated in November, December, and January for the production seasons 1979 80, 1978 79, and 1977 78, respectively. It takes 45 50 days from planting to first harvest and 32 38 days of harvest. Harvest are made every two to three days.


Land is prepared mechanically two to three weeks before planting. Fertilizer is applied pre-plant and side dressed. A total of 139 kilograms of Nitrogen, 98 kilograms of P204 14 kilograms of K20 and 18 kilograms of Mn per hectare were applied in 1979 80. Seeding is done mechanically. Plant density is optimum at 26,000 plants per hectare. Cucumbers are furrow irrigated six to seven times. Pest levels are closely monitored and insecticides, fungicides and foliar fertilizers are applied either with hand held ptopowered booms or with back pack sprayers. Cucumbers are grown on a trellis system and vines are trained by hand. Until the 1980 81 season no preselection of cucumbers was made in the field. The fruit is carried to the packing shed in 25 kilogram boxes hauled by tractor driven trailers.

Planting Activity

Planting in the 1979 80 season was late but earlier than previous years. Planting began November 15, and ended January 31. Six plantings were made totaling 11.67 hectares in Las Canas and 12 de Enero. Tomatoes were planted but the fruit was not exported since tomatoes are considered susceptible to the Mediterranean Fruit fly and United States regulations prohibit tomato imports from Honduras below Baltimore. This would require a separate marketing channel not currently persued by the project.

In August 1979, 7,935 Ipil Ipil seedlings and 4,540 Eucaliputs seedlings were planted in Las Canas. Eucaliputs is used as a windbreak and Ipil Ipil for stakes in the cucumber trellesing. A plastic covered wooden framed greenhouse measuring 8.54 meters by 22.16 meters was constructed for tomato seedlings and another interim packing shed was built in 12 de Enero. A drip irrigation system was installed which was used experimentally on 1.22 hectares of cucumbers and 0.81 hectares of tomatoes. In order to provide water for pesticide applications and the packing house a 31,000 lt. capacity storage tank made of bricks was constructed near the interim packing shed at Las Canas.

Additionally, a larger packing line was installed at Las Canas. Two refrigerated vans were put by the packing shed to serve as temporary fruit coolers when trailers were not available. Approximately 8.83 hectares of land were leveled in both sites. Two check plots were developed; one with six tomato varieties and another comparing drip against furrow irrigation.



Over 575 metric tons of cucumbers were produced in the
two sites. Average yield was at 49.3 metric tons per hectares with 50 percent exportable quality. A total of 8,676 1 1/9 bushel boxes were packed of which, 7,926 boxes were exported in twelve shipments. The relatively low yields in this season were attributed to low fertilizer levels and improper proportions and low plant density. The low percentage of exportable cucumbers is believed to have been due to overselection.

Tomatoes had the highest yields since the project initiated. The average total yield was 44.0 metric tons per hectare with a 55 percent exportable quality. (See Table 7). Over 144 metric tons of tomatoes and 276 metric tons of cucumbers were sold in the local market.

Table 7.--Cucumber and tomato yields.

Cucumbers Tomatoes
Las Canas Mt/ha. % Exported Mt/ha. % Exported

1977/78 89.4 34 34.6 40
1978/79 80.9 35 35.8 59
1979/80 49.7 47 46.4 -12 de Enero

1979/80 48.9 52 41.7 55

El Sisin

1977/78 89.5 36 29.0 56
1978/79 88.4 58 42.7 46

A total of $222,237 in grant money from AID were allocated to the project. (See table 8). Sales revenues from exports totaled $23,135, which left a total net cost for the project of $199,102. Eighty percent of the total disbursement went into the categories of personnel salaries, infrastructure investment, and production costs. MRN money allocations to the project are not included'in the figures below.


Table 8.--AID grant fund allocation in Comayagua.

Personnel Transportation Investment Equipment rental Windbreaks & stakes Beehives Land leveling Production cost Total Cost Sales Revenue

Net Cost

$ 74,580.51 20,213.84 43,873.23 16,179.79 1,613.26
4,735.63 60,307.69

222,237.30 23,134.66

$ 199,102.64


Although AID since the formation of the project provided a project paper specifying objectives and goals, the actual activities of the project have not been consistant with the planned goals. Underestimation of the project complexity, bureaucratic red tape and the government administrative policy are the underlying factors affecting the project. Specifically, the consistent delays in contract signing has caused late planting, delayed the packing shed construction, time-constrained planning periods, etc.; tomato production for export was suddenly canceled, and variety trials were made for tomatoes but none for cucumbers.

A greenhouse for tomato seedlings was constructed, but
no tomato production is being planned. The water storage tank was built in Las Canas but the permanent packing shed is being built somewhere else. The high personnel turnover in MRN has lowered efficiency in technical assistance to the cooperatives and produces an overall stress situation.



Description of Operation

For the 1979 80 season two interim packing sheds were in operation, one in Las Canas and the other in 12 de Enero. The packing sheds are ten by six meters, wooden box with zinc panel, having a small office and storeroom. Las Canas packing shed used part of the packing line formally used by SFC in their vegetable operation. 12 de Enero's packing line was somewhat smaller being five meters long, while Las Canas had over ten meters of selection belts. Both packing lines included a water vat to clean the fruit, a collector where cucumber stems are cut, cleaning and waxing brushes, and selection belts.

Two refrigerated vans were kept permanently in Las Canas to assure prompt cooling of cucumbers since CCT trailers could not always be delivered to the packing area at the time needed.

Cucumbers harvested are hauled to the packing shed in
wooden boxes in a pickup or wagon. No preselection had been done in the field in past seasons, so that total yields could be measured. For the 1980 81 season preselection in the field will become a common practice. On arrival to the packing shed cucumbers are cleaned, waxed, sorted and packed in 1 1/9 carton boxes. Ten percent of the field boxes are used as a sample to estimate yield and percentages of defects. Cucumbers are sorted by size and quality. Select, large and small are the size grades and are classified as U.S. #1. Super select is the U.S. Fancy classification. For the 1979 80 season two other grades were made; plain and carton. The plain grade is for the U.S. # 2 and carton is U.S. # 1 cucumbers of extra large size.

Management of the packing activity has been done by MRN and SFC. A few members of Las Canas have been trained in the supervising of packing and selecting and at least one has been supervising these activities since the project began. Women from the cooperatives are the main source of labor in packing and selection and at times work in harvesting cucumbers. A supervisor in packing was sent by the marketing firm for two weeks to provide training in selection and packing.



A total of 2,111 boxes from 12 de Enero and 6,567 boxes from Las Canas were packed. Of these, 7,926 were exported in grades: super select, select, large, small and the plain. In five shipments grade large was repacked into the carton grade at Pompano Beach, Florida. Two shipments had excessive soft rot and all the fruit had to be repacked. Soft rot is believed to have been caused by either excessive nitrogen fertilizer or mechanical damage when packing. One shipment had chill damage.

Both packing lines were deficient, especially the one in Las Canas which needed constant repair. Project personnel stated that fruit exported was overselected and this caused export yields to drop by 10 to 15 percent.

Since yields turned out lower than expected, the number of boxes per trailer exported declined at the end of the season, leaving the average number of boxes per trailer at 661, a ten percent decrease from potential.


Various problems were encountered in the packing activity in the 1979 80 season. The carton boxes were unsatisfactory. It is believed that for the 1980 81 season wire bound crates will be used. Cucumber selection was out of hand. This problem can be avoided only when there is a clear understanding of quality requirements in the United States market and the tolerance levels of the different grades.

The president of CAPCO was invited by AID to look at the cucumber operation in July, 1980. He recommended that no plain grade cucumbers be exported and the project personnel should on occasions personally check shipments when arriving in Florida. In the 1979 80 season no project personnel inspected any shipments on arrival in Miami.



Service Description

During the 1977 78 and 1978 79 seasons the logistics were as follows: After the fruit was packed, refrigerated trailers belonging to a local company were used to transport the fruit to the La Ceiba port that SFC was using for their vegetable exports. The fruit was unloaded into refrigerated train vans at La Ceiba, then transferred to the SFC ships into pineapple and banana cold rooms. The local refrigerated trailers were untimely and had cooling problems. There was much loading and unloading which added to the deterioration of boxes and increased costs. In the 1978 79 season SFC eliminated their vegetable operation and no SFC transporation facilities would be available for the project from there on.

For the 1979 80 season a new logistic arrangement was made. Fruit was transported in a roll-on, roll-off fashion via CCT and Pan Atlantic Lines. CCT is the larger of the two and has five ships servicing the Central American area. Three ships have capacity for 56, 89 and 117 trailers. These two companies provide the only refrigerated trailer service between Miami and Puerto Cortez. On prior notice trailers were sent to the packing shed and stationed for as long as three days until fully loaded. This service was done at no additional cost, but trailers were tardy on occasions. Trailers are kept at 45 degrees to 48 degrees Fahrenheit, the optimum storage temperature for cucumbers. From the packing shed the fruit is trailered for five hours to the Cortez port and rolled into the company ship. The CCT ship schedule is Miami-Santo Tomas, Guatemala-Cortez, Honduras-Miami or Miami-Cortez-Santo Tomas-Miami. The ship takes 2.5 days from Cortez to Miami. Ships arrive at the Cortez port once or twice a week.

The loading capacity per trailer is 40,000 to 40,500
pounds for cucumbers which means 690 698, 58 pound boxes. In the 1979 80 season, up to 755-58 pound boxes were sent in one trailer at no extra cost. This was verified by a CCT officer who said that no extra charges were being made on overloads presumably to help the project expansion.



Twelve trailers were sent to Pompano Beach with CCT and Pan Atlantic Lines from January 15 to April 5. The number of boxes per tailer varied from 344 to 755 with an average of 661. The days between shipments varied from two to ten and six days as an average.


One trailer had deficient temperature controls and
caused chill damage on cucumbers which were later sold at below market prices. No retrieval of losses was persued by the project against the transportation company. It is necessary that the transportation company provide refunds to the project for any loss in revenues due to inadequacies of transportation.

Departure dates for ships were usually provided from four to seven days in advance but were repeatedly changed which caused rescheduling of harvests. Due to the low number of shipments planned no serious problems was encountered in loading. The number of boxes per trailer was low on average and was due to the unexpectedly low yields which showed up in the low number of boxes per trailer at the end of the season.

For the 1980 81 season, the carton boxes may be replaced by wire-bound crates. Since these crates are heavier than the carton boxes the number of crates per trailer would be lower, thus, increasing the per unit costs.



Initially, the marketing of project tomatoes and cucumbers was made by SFC sales personnel in New York City. It is believed that prices obtained for SFC and project produce were below market average due to the newness of tomato and cucumber marketing for SFC's brokers. These were accustomed to selling bananas and pineapples mainly. The project boxes had the SFC brand ndme.


For the 1979 80 season SFC made marketing arrangements with a Pompano Beach based brokerage firm which had had previous experiences in Guatemala.7 Commission charges were set at ten percent with no extra charges for handling at the warehouse. Shipments were made freight collect to the marketing firm. Other charges that were deducted from sales revenues are: import customs broker fees, transport duties after February, phytosanitary insection, repacking and local transportation of damaged fruit. The marketing firm would also provide technical assistance in packing and selection. Boxes had no brand name.


Around 7,970 boxes including 1,043 24 pound cartons were sold at a weighted average price of $8.45 per box.

The highest average price was $17.88 for the last shipment in April. The lowest price obtained was $2.63 for all sizes and qualities of the chill damaged shipment.

Mobt fruit arrived in good condition and acceptance was reported as excellent. Due to shipping schedules some fruit arrived in Florida 14 days after picking, some showing shrivelled ends.


Although all contract agreements were kept by the marketing firm a few problems did arise. As said previously the packing and selection technician sent to Comayagua created confusion with quality specifications for cucumbers which ultimately resulted in the reduction of export volumes and yield. Communication between Pompano Beach and Comayagua was not continuous as quality standards were not fully rectified to market requirements.

Under the uncertain quality standards for the different grades packed it is difficult to evaluate the marketing performance of the marketing firm. As Table 9 shows, grade small cucumbers obtained the highest weighted average and simple average price of all grades while super selects which are of higher quality obtained the lowest weighted average and simple average price excluding the carton grade.


Table9 .--1979 FOB prices for cucumbers in Pompano Beach, Florida.

Average Price
Simple Weighted

Super Select 9.09 7.89
Select 9.39 9.39
Large 9.40 10.29
Small 10.05 10.84
Plain 8.39 8.73
Cartona 3.03 3.69

aThe carton selection weights 24 pounds.


Marketing of cucumbers in the Honduran market has been in the hands of the cooperatives from the onset of the project. Each cooperative has a sales committee. Cucumbers are sold at the farmgate to intermediaries or directly to wholesalers at the market place in Tegucigalpa and San Pedro Sula. Cucumbers are put in sacks weighting around 165 pounds and transported in trucks. Market acceptance of project cucumbers has increased substantially owing to the higher quality and longevity of the fruit. When cucumbers are sorted-and packed for export, rejects already waxes are collected and resorted for the local market.


A total of approximately 3,804 sacks, 740 from 12 de Enero and 3,064 from Las Canas equivalent to 80.5 percent of export culls were sold. The price per sack received by 12 de Enero was $3.36 and $3.64 for Las Canas. With costs per sack at $0.57 at Las Canasprofit, per sack was $3.07.


The average price per sack of cucumbers received for all months by 12 de Enero was lower than Las Canas price. It appears from table 10that project growers perceive a downward



slopping demand curve for their cucumbers assuming a constant demand throughout the period, making them a local monopoly. This situation can be taken advantage of by the cooperatives if they sell their export culls together.

TablelO.--Prices, quantities, and costs of cucumber sales in
the Honduran market.

Las Canas

Months Sacks Average Price Unit Cost

Jan. 147 $ 5.66 $ 1.17
Feb. 562 4.32 0.68
Mar. 1296 3.02 0.49
Apr. 1053 3.75 0.52

12 de Enero

Jan. 265 3.51
Feb. 422 3.46
Mar. 53 1.79

It is very likely that for the 1980 81 season when 41 hectares of cucumbers will be planted that net revenues per hectare from local sales will drop as the Honduran market will probably not5 absorb all the cull production. Expansion of sales to other Central American markets may prove successful for possible cucumber area increases in the near future, but area increases into the hundreds of hectares will require to focus on increasing the export yield percentage and the analysis of processing alternatives.


The financing of the project has come from two sources. One from the AID Grant which will total $850,000 by 1981. The other source is in the form of Honduran Government services through the MRN vegetable project with expenses running at $150,000 to $200,000 in the four years of operation.

For the 1980 81 season the last disbursement of the AID grant will be approximately $440,000. The four cooperatives involved in the production of cucumbers will received financial credit from BANADESA estimated at $250,000 for production and variable packing costs.


Costs and Returns

A cost and return analysis is presented for both growers and exporters in each operation. A hypothetical exporter for the Comayagua project is added just for comparison purposes, despite not having included some of the overhead costs e.g. personnel. The data used were taken from the cost tables in Appendix B. The costs presented in Appendix B were prepared from budgets provided by CAPCO, PATSA, UATM and the MRN export project. Some packing, transportation, and marketing costs were taken from various 1980 reports from each operation and from rough estimates given by CAPCO's packing manager. Although the costs and returns information provided here are adequate estimates of the actual situation, the information presented in Tables 11 and 12 is mostly for comparison purposes.

Table 11 shows grower costs and returns for cantaloupe melons and cucumbers. The base prices for Choluteca and Guatemala were calculated based on their pricing system for the 1980/81 season and the expected export volumes throughout the season. The Comayagua base price is assumed at $3.00 for comparison purposes only. Yields were estimated from past records.

Table ll.--Grower costs and returns 1980/81

Item Choluteca Comayagua Guatemala

Yield/Hectare 209 1500 435
Base price 7.18 3.00 3.55
Cost 6.83 2.28 2.98
Net Return 0.35 0.72 0.57
Net Return/hectare 73.15 1080.00 245.78
Profit/Cost 5.12% 31.58% 19.13%

asum of base price plus 50 percent of CAPCO's net returns ($ 2.00 + $ 1.55 = $ 3.55).

From Table 11 it can be seen that costs per box of melons is considerably higher in Choluteca compared to Guatemala. This is due mainly to lower export yields in Choluteca and much higher ones in Guatemala. On the other hand, the base price is much higher in Choluteca than in Guatemala. Quality standards for melons in Choluteca are higher


than those of Guatemala, thus PATSA is able to pay a higher price while CAPCO can only afford to pay a much lower price.

Net returns per hectare are highest in Comayagua, lowest in Choluteca and Guatemala is in between. The profit/cost ratio is accordingly highest for Comayagua, medium for Guatemala, and lowest for Choluteca. The ratio does not include local sales revenues and costs since its effect would decrease substantially as the production area increases.

At the exporter level, packing costs include those shown in Appendix B plus the base price. The expected FOB price used for Choluteca and Guatemala are those received in the 1979/80 season. The Comayagua price used was derived from the 1979 80 season excluding the prices received for shipments damaged with chilling and rotting.

Net returns per box are substantially higher for Choluteca compared to Comayagua and Guatemala. The profit/cost ratios follow the same order.

Table 12.-- Export Firm Cost and Returns 1980 81.

Item Choluteca (PASTA) Comayagua Guatemala(CAPCO)

Price (F.O.B.) 24.00 10.50b 12.80
Packing Cost 11.59a 4.03 4.42c
and Marketing 6.73 5.27 5.29
Total Cost 18.32 9.30 9.71d
Net Return 5.68 1.20 1.55f
Profit/Coste 48.84 % 29.78 % 35.07 %

a Based on 65,000 boxes
b Based on 120,000 boxes
c Based on 100,000 boxes
Half of net returns (3.09/2 = 1.55)
e Assumes only packing costs and grower base price are directly
made by the firm
Does not consider CAPCO's marketing side.




Net returns and the profit/cost ratios both for growers
and exporters may vary substantially from year to year. Yields have varied considerably in past years for all three operations. Prices in the United States also vary substantially from year to year, and volumes exported vary considerably not only because of yields but also because of planted area. The results shown here should be looked at as measures of comparison and not as the actual or potential economic status of each operation.



Production costs are not significantly different between the two melon production areas, whereas cucumber production costs are almost three times higher than melon costs. The major production cost items for the two crops are, in order of importance: pesticides, labor and fertilizer for melons; and labor, fertilizer, plastic cords and machine services for cucumbers.

On a per unit basis, the cost per box of melons is substantially higher in Choluteca than in Zacapa considering the significantly lower export yields of Choluteca. Cucumber costs per box is significantly lower than that of melons.

The higher yields in Zacapa appear to overweight the
higher base prices offered by PATSA in Choluteca, resulting in higher net returns to Zacapa growers compared to Choluteca growers. With the inclussion of the assumptions made in tables 11 and 12 for the Comayagua operation, returns to cucumber growers would be considerably higher than that for melon growers.

PATSA's profitablity, (profit/cost ratio) may be higher
than CAPCO's. Potentially, both firms have good possibilities of more than adequate net returns. Transportation costs are about equal for the three operations, although Choluteca's costs are slightly higher reflecting the better equiped trailers used.

Marketing commissions for the three operations are about equal. CAPCO may lower the commission if conditions are unfavorable to growers. Although Comayagua's packing costs are the lowest of the three operations, it does not include depreciation on the packing shed, packing equipment and management costs. PATSA's packing costs are significantly higher than those of CAPCO and are due mainly to PATSA's higher overhead costs. Although the base price offered by PATSA may provide marginal profits to growers, the basic strategy of high quality high prices and higher volume higher prices is a sound one. A substantial increase in melon production would spread PATSA's high overhead costs, which would most likely mean an increase in the base price.


Both melon operations appear to have the same production technology in general. The input mix, practices and specific input costs are fairly similar. In contrast, Comayagua's cucumbers are slightly more technologically developed given the level of input usage, mix and cost levels. Although CAPCO has a research program oriented towards yield increases and the Honduran projects do not, no substantial export production increases are apparent in CAPCO's operation (compared to PATSA's at least).

PATSA and CAPCO appear to have a good hand in the packing activity while the Comayagua project has not yet established a systematic packing procedure. Comayagua's cucumbers have been packed in three different packing containers substituting one type for another from one year to the next. The cucumber brand name has been changed twice and at one point no brand was used.

It appears that the medium and large growers of melons in Zacapa are better able to manage the production activities than do the cooperatives in both Choluteca and Comayagua. This is based on the number of personnel available for technical assistance. In the period of 1979/80 the number of hectares per extension agent were: 69 for Zacapa, 33 for Choluteca and 4 for Comayagua.



1. Departments are political units comparable to states in
the United States.

2. One manzana equals 0.69 hectares or 1.7 acres.

3. A formal government document.

4. Asentamientos are land reform peasant settlements.

5. Comercial La Carreta is a new melon export firm established
in the Department of Valle in 1978.

6. Mediania is a partnership between a land owner and another
individual, whereby the owner provides the land and usually seed, ground preparation, and occasionally other production expenses, and the other individual called Mediante provides the labor and grows the crop. Returns are usually equally

7. It is believed by members of the cucumber and melon project
in Honduras that this firm was involved in various unsuccessful export operations in Guatemala and in other


Appendix A -1
C A P C 0, S.A.


En la ciudad de Zacapa, a los digs del mes
de de mil novecientos
setenta y comparecemos actuando en
nombre propio de una parte, David N. Warren, de sesenticuatro afios de edad, de nacionalidad Americana, profesi6n u oficio Distribuidor de Frutas y Hortalizas, estado civil Casado, quien se identifica con su pasaporte ndmero Z un millo setecientos setenta y un mil doscientos cincuenta y seis (Z 1771256) de Estados Unidos de.Norte Am6rica, quien actda en su calidad de apoderado y representante legal de la Compaf'a denominada Productos Agricolas Centroamericanos, Sociedad Anonima (CAPCO,S.A.) lo que acredita con su nombramiento autorizado en la ciudad de Guatemala, por el Notario Norman Mario Permuth Listwa, el dia 17 de mayo de 1978, bajo escritura numero ciento treinta y tres (133) y registrada en el Archivo General de Protocolos bajo el n-dmero veinticinco mil seiscientos sesenta (25660) y en el Registro Mercantil numero quince mil doscientos treinta y cuatro (15,234) folio numero doscientos cuarenta y uno (241) libro nu'mero quince (15) de Auxiliares de Comercio, el cual es suficiente y de conformidad con la Ley para el otorgamiento de este actor; y por otra parte el senor:
de nacionalidad ,estado civil
profesi6n u oficio con domicilio y vecindad
en del depa-arn-tr de,

se identifica con su Cedula de Vecindad

numero extendida por la
municipalidad de
Los comparecientes aseguramos hallarnos en el libre ejercicio de nuestros derechos civiles, y convenimos en celebrar el presente contrato contenido en las siguientes clausulas:---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------PRIMERO: La Compafila de Productos Agricolas Centroamericanos CAPCO, S.A. que en adelante serA llamada simplemente "La Compafiia", otorga el siguiente contrato.
SEGUNDO: La compafiia proporcionara a cada agricultor una orden para el retiro de los insumos, los cuales seran retirados del local que ocupa la Cooperativa Agricola La Fragua, debiendo firmar de haber recibido de conformidad en la entrega de los productos el agricultor TERCERO: El Agricultor se compromete a emplear para la produccion de mel6n tecnicas recomendadas por personal t6cnico de la Compafida, aceptando la supervisi6n constante y recomendaciones del personal que designe la Compafif a.------------



CUARTO: La compafda proporcinara a cada agricultor un determinado n~imero de colmenas para favorecer la polinizaci6n, con lo cual se aumentari considerablemnte la producci6n de frutos, aceptando el agricultor el cuido y mantenimiento de las mismas, comprometiendose a pagar cada consechero un valor de Q 5.00 por cada colmena entregada, en el entendido de que si alguna colmena huya de la caja el agricultor deberi pagar el costo de dicho enjambre, el cual seri de Q 15.00, a bien se comprometa a reponer dicha colmena.------------------------QUINTO: El agricultor se compromete a entregar su producci6n puesta en la Planta Empacadora de la Finca El Oasis, perteneciente al Instituto de Ciencia y Tecnologf a Agricolas ICTAprocurando enviar el producto en las mejores condiciones posibles.-------------------------------------------------------SEXTO: El agricultor se compromete a seguir estrictamente las recomendaciones que sobre el punto de corte del product les serin dadas por tecnicas y empleados de la Compafil'a, pues de lo contrario el agricultor obtendra mayor cantidad de rechazo.-------------------------------------------------------SEPTIMO: Los sistemas de venta que regiran para la cosecha 1980-81 serin los siguientes: Sistema SEMI CONSIGNACION 0 CON PARTICIPACION: los precios que recibira el agricultor baja este sistema serin;mel6n tipo Honey Dew y Mayan Sweet Q 2.75 por caja de 4 5 6 y 8 melones; Q 2.00 caja de 9 melones; Q 1.50 por caja de 10 melones; Q 1.75 por caja de 21 melones. El mel6n Tendral Verde seri pagado con los siguientes precios: Q 3.25 por caja de 4 5 6 y 8 melones; Q 2.00 por caja de 9 melones; Q 1.30 por caja de 10 melones y Q 1.75 por caja de 21 melones.---------------------------------Los precios para el mel6n tipo Cantaloupe seran los siguientes: Q 4.00 por caja de 12 15 18 y 23 melones; Q 3.00 por caja de 27 melones; Q 2.50 por caja de 36 melones.----------OCTAVO: La forma de pago serd la siguiente:

a) Los pagos se efectuarin los dias viernes por la
mafiana en la Oficina de la plan ta Empacadora.

b) Los anticipos dados al agricultor por distintos
concepts sehn descontados en las primeras entregas
de mel6n, quedando a criteria de la Compafila los porcentajes que se deduciran sobre el valor del
product entregado.

c) Los gastos de impuesto en concept de pago de timbres
por venta del product serin absorvidos por el


d) Cualquier servicio de mecanizaci6n proporcionada a los
agricultores seran deducidos de las primeras entregas
de fruta que hagan a la compafila.

e) Despues de la venta del producto en el mercado de
los Estados Unidos de Norte America, se deduciran
los gastos del proceso, tales como: empaque, transporte, tramites aduanales, impuestos de importaci6n,
cost de inspecci6n, almacenaje, manejo de los Estados
Unidos y Guatemala y otros gastos que se deriven, se quedara un saldo a favor, el mismo se dividira
en el cincuenta por ciento (50%) para el productor y el otro cincuenta por ciento (50%) para la compafiia.
En caso resultrara p~rdida por precio bajo el mercado
la Compafif a absorvera la misma y el agricultor recibira el pago garantizado. En relaci6n a la
clasificaci6n y empaque se efectuara en el lugar
designado por la Compafila, notificandosele con tiempo al productor para que este pueda entregar el producto
en el lugar que se le indique, quedando la responsabilidad de clasificaci6n en un representante de la

f) Cada cosechero tendrii derecho a observar la clasificaci6n de su fruta, pero en ningun moment podra
intervenir en las labores de clasificaci6n, selecci6n
y empaque, pues 6sta estara a cargo de un Representante de la Compafila, quien sera responsable de que la fruta
seri la de mejor calidad y que tendr6 una venta
segura en el mercado de Estados Unidos .---------NOVENO: En caso de que el agricultor no siga las instrucciones de los tecnicos de la compafii a y que como consecuencia de ello no obtenga el product suficiente para pagar los anticipos que le hayan sido proporcionados en cencepto de maquinaria agricola u otros, se compromete a pagarle a la Compafila sin necesidad de cobro 6 requerimiento judicial alguno el monto concedido por concept de anticipos mencionados anteriormente, insumos y otros que le hayan sido proporcionados por la Compafila.--------------------------------------------------DECIMO: En los casos donde el agricultor obtuviere un emprestito con el Banco Nacional de Desarrollo Agricola (BANESA), la compafila se responsabiliza por dicha deuda y se compromete a saldar la obligaci6n otorgada para el program de exportaci6n; en tal caso, la Compafila servira de fiador del agricultor ante la instituci6n Bancaria y por lo tanto de las liquidaciones de los products que el agricultor entregue a la compafila sera amortizado el financiamiento hasta su cancelaci6n.--------------------------------------------------El remanente sera entregado al Agricultor. En ningun caso el financiamiento excederi de seis meses (6)---------------------


UNDECIMO: El senior manifiesta
que sembrara la cantidad de manzanas,
comprendidas en el periodo del al
no obstante puede haber cambios en el total de manzanas a sembrarse, pudiendo ser mayor o mentor, pero es requisito indispensable que cualquier cambio en el nimero de manzanas citadas en este contrato, debera hacerse del conocimiento de la Compaflia por lo menos 20 dias antes a la fecha que se tenia programada para la siembra.----------------Recib! asimismo la cantidad de libras de semilla
de mel6n, comprometiendose ante la Compafila a entregar la producci6n total del mel6n cosechado para la exportaci6n, aceptando asimismo ser consignado a los tribunales de Justicia si contraviene a tal disposici6n y todas las contenidas en este instrumento, continua manifestando el senior que opta por el metodo semiconsignaci6n para la venta de su product. Leimos integramente lo escrito en el presente contrato y estando enterados de su contenido, velidez, objeto y efectos legales, lo aceptamos, ratificamos y firmamos.


En la ciudad de Zacapa a los del mes de
de mil novecientos como
Notario Pu'blico doy fe, que las firmas que anteceden son autenticas por haber sido puestas el dia de hoy en mi presencia por los sefiores personas de
m! conocimiento quienes para constancia y en un s6lo actor reproducen sus firmas con el infrascrito Notario.


Appendix A 2


PATSA 1979/1980

Nosotros, actuando en mi caracter
de representante de PATSA, que en adelante y para los efectos de este Contrato se llarfiata, y actuando en nombre de
que en adelante y para los efectos de este contrato se llamara "PRODUCTOR", hemos convenido en celebrar el presente contrato bajo las condiciones siguientes:PRIMERO: El PRODUCTOR tiene un terreno de de extension superficial ubicado en

SEGUNDO: El PRODUCTOR se compromete a sembrar en el terreno mencionado, un area de mzs. de melon CANTALOUPE
de la variedad SJ-45 y mzs. de HONEYDEW de la variedad
TAMDEW. La siembra se llevara a cabo entre
y quedando entendido quesal
llegarse la ultima fecha, el PRODUCTOR no seguira sembrando si hubiere alguna parte aun no sembrada, a no ser con las anuencia del COMPRADOR y el visto bueno de la UNIDAD DE ASISTENCIA TECNICA (de aqui en adelante Ilamada "UNIDAD"). El area destinada a este cultivo, como aqui se establece, se denominara area contratada.

TERCERO: Todos los gastos y costs de produccion y transporte hasta la entrega,, seran.por cuenta del PRODUCTOR.

CUARTO: El PRODUCTOR vendera y el COMPRADOR comprara la fruta que se produzca en el area contratada que llene los requisitos de calidad exigidos por el COMPRADOR, entendiendose que estas normas no requieren calidad mas alta que U.S. 1, debiendo entregarse esta para su clasificacion por tamfio y calidad. La venta por parte del PRODUCTOR, de fruta exportable a cualquier persona natural o juridica en violacion a lo awui pactado, dara al COMPRADOR, ademas de lo que permita la Ley, la opcion de terminar el presente Contrato sin incurrir en obligacion de ninguna especie.

QUINTO: El COMPRADOR se compromete a mantener el funcionamiento continue de la Planta Empacadora en epoca de cosecha y a mantener instalaciones y personal de clasificacion que aseguren el manejo cuidadose de la fruta entregada incluyendo la no exportable. LA PLANTA NO SE CERRARA ANTES DEL 29 DE FEBRERO DE 1980.


SEXTO: La asistencia tecnica directa en cuanto a horticultura, la dara el personal de la UNIDAD. El PRODUCTOR se obliga a seguir todas las instrucciones que los encargados de esta asistencia tecnica le den al efecto, aunque implique cost adicional.

SEPTIMO: EL PRODUCTOR se compromete a usar la semilla y los insumos indicados por el COMPRADOR y la UNIDAD, segun los planes de inversion yaaprobados por el BNF y a no utilizar productos quimicos distintos de los estipulados por el COMPRADOR y la UNIDAD o fuera de la epoca permitida.

OCTAVO: EL COMPRADOR pagara al PRODUCTOR, durante los 10 dias calendarios inmediatamente despues de la entrega del producto a la Planta de Empaque, conforme a los precios de garantia establecidos.
CANTALOUPE: Tipo de caja: Caja de madera 2/3, con un peso promedio de 55 a 60 libras.



18/24/30 L. 16.00 L. 14.00 L. 12.00
12/15/36 8.00 7.00 6.00

FEB. 8 15 FEB. 16 29

L. 9.00 L. 8.00
5.00 4.00

HONEYDEWS: Tipo de caja; Caja de carton de 2/3, con peso promedio de 25 a 29 libras.



4/5/6/8 L. 5.00 L. 4.00
9/10 3.00 2.00

Dicha entrega de la fruta ocurrira al ser empacada en la caja, luego de ser clasificada por calidad y tamafio.

NOVENO: Es entendido que si, antes de que este Contrato caducara, los requerimientos del mercado exigieran un cambio en el tamafio de caja, el precio se adaptara proporcionalmente en relacion a las libras netas que llevaran las cajas definidas en las clausulas anteriores.


DECIMOe El COMPRADOR establecerd las normas de calidad para la fruta que compre. Llegado el momento de compri en la empacadora el personal necesario para exigir esta calidad de fruta, y rechazari la que no llene los requisitos. Para informaci6n del agricultor se le entrega un listado de los requisitos.

Tomando en consideraci6n que la fruta a que se refiere este Contrato esta destinada principalmente a la exportaci6n a Estados Unidos, ambas partes estinconscientes y aceptan como obligatorias las normas o especificaciones que emitan las autoridades competentes de los Estados Unidos de Am4rica, u otro pals comprador en su caso, relativas a condiciones de calidad de la fruta, y cualquier cambio en dichas especificaciones o normas sera igualmente obligatorio para ambas partes, sin compensacion adicional.

DECIMO PRIMERO: Tanto el COMPRADOR como el PRODUCTOR podran suspender o dar por terminado este Contrato en las siguientes circunstancias: Por fuerza mayor o caso fortuito, restricciones o gravamenes mayores o adicionales a los existentes sobre libertad de comercio o control de cambios internacionales, epidemias, huelgas, guerras, estados de guerra, revoluci6n, mot'n, estado de sitio o cualquier otra alteraci6n de orden pdblico national o internacional, por actos o medidas del Gobierno, aplicaci6n de Leyes, Decretos Lay, reglamentos, acuerdos u otras disposiciones, hechos, causes, circunstancias, que est4n fuera de control de la parte que quiera suspender el Contrato que dificulte, impida, no permita, o lo haga en condiciones econ6micas que implique perdidas al recibo, carga o despacho de la-fruta, su exportaci6n o transporte nacional e internacional y su venta eventual en el pals de destino.

En caso de suspension del Contrato, una vez notificada la suspension a la parte, mediante carta o radiograma, permanecerA la suspensi6n en vigor mientras perdure la causa que la motive, salvo que la parte que suspenda decida dar por terminda antes la suspension, notificandoselo as{ a la otra. La suspensi6n del Contrato, no suspenders el curso del termino del mismo, que seguira corriendo mientras dure la suspension.

En caso de que el Gobierno de los Estados Unidos de America prohibiera la entrada de los melones objeto del presente Contrato por razones de salud sanidad u otra similar, la COMPRADORA? podra suspender las compras sin responsabilidad de su parte mientras prevalezca la causa que motive la prohibici6n. Dicha suspension no afectara la fecha de terminaci6n de este Contrato.


DECIMO SEGUNDO: La violaci6n de cualquiera de las obligaciones sustanciales contra'das en este Contrato dara derecho a la otra parte a darlo por terminado sin ninguna responsabilidad, y pudiendo exigir a la otra, culpable de la violaci6n, la indemnizaci6n de los dafios respectivos.

DECIMO TERCERO: El COMPRADOR tendr4 en todo tiempo el derecho de traspasar tetal o parcialmente este Contrato a cualquier sociedad que directa o indirectamente controle o sea controlada por el COMPRADOR,-ossus duefios, sin otro requisito que el de avisarle al PRODUCTOR. EL PRODUCTOR considerata el cesionario como sustituto del COMPRADOR en todos los derechos u obligaciones contra'das. Toda vez que este Contrato se ha celebrado teniendo en cuenta las declaraciones y la calidad personal o jurldica del PRODUCTOR, este Contrato no lo podri traspasar o ceder total o parcialmente sin previo permiso escrito del COMPRADOR? quien no lo denegara sin raz6n justificada.

DECIMO CUARTO: El PRODUCTOR autoriza a el COMPRADOR para que efect'e las liguidaciones de fruta via BNF, hasta que el BNF le avise al COMPRADOR que las obligaciones financieras del PRODUCTOR han sido canceladas y que el COMPRADOR puede efectuar pagos directos al PRODUCTOR.

Esta autorizacion de los productores solo sera revocable con el consentimiento escrito del BNF. Lo anteriormente mencionado esta de acuerdo a la ClaiisulaN'mero Nueve, inciso "J" del Convenio para el Proyecto de Producci6n y Exportaci6n de Mel6n, celebrado entre el INA, BNF, SECRETARIA DE RR.NN., CREHSUL Y PATSA.

DECIMO QUINTO: El PRODUCTOR autoriza a PATSA para que haga efectiva las resoluciones de la Cooperativa Regional de Horticultores Surefios Ltda. (CREHSUL), que a continuaci6n se detallan:

A) Recaudar de los PRODUCTORES NUEVOS, la cantidad de VIENTE Y CINCO--LEMPIRAS EXACTOS (Lps. 25.00), al moment de hacer efectiva la firma de este Contrato. Dicha cnatidad sera por concepto de cuota de ingreso a CREHSUL.

B) Retenar al PRODUCTOR durante el transcurso de la comercializaci6n de de fruta, la cantidad de CIEN LEMPIRAS EXACTOS (Lps. 100.00), la cual sera por concepto de aportaci6n anual suscrita con CREHSUL.

C) Retener a la orden de CREHSUL la cantidad de TREINTA CENTAVOS (Lps. 0.30), por cada Caja de mel6n CANTALOUPE de exportaci6n, y de DIEZ CENTAVOS (Lps. 0.10), por cada caja de mel6n HONEYDEW de exportaci6n con el fin espectfico de formar el capital para amortizaci6n de la Planta.


D) Todas las cantidades retenidas por PATSA, seran depositadas en cuentas especiales de CREHSUL en el Banco Nacional de Fomento.

En f6 de lo anterior y para los efectos legales correspondientes, se firma el presente Contrato a los dias del mes de de mil novecientos setenta
y nueve.



Appendix A 3

La base para nuestra clasificacion son los requlsitos de grado para el grado U.S. No. 1 de los Estados UnidosM Las Normas para la Clasifcaci6n en Choluteca son las siguientes:

CANTALOUPE NO. 1 Fruta libre de defectos serios, de tamafios 18 hasta 30 por caja de 55 a 60 libras, que no este ni falto de madurez ni sobremadura, y que tenga un mlnimo de 9% de aZucares.

CANTALOUPE NO. 2 Fruta libre de defects series, de tamafio 12, 15 y 36/38 pro caja de 55 a 60 libras, que no est4 ni falto de madurez ni sobremadura, y que tenga un mlnimo de 9% de azucares.

Las tolerancias permitir6n empacar fruta con los siguientes defectos leves:

1. Cicatrices superficiales de tono claro causados por viento o por insectos que no abarquen m~s del 5% de la superficie.
2. Pequefias cicatrices de color obscuro, siempre que no sean muy profundas ni tengan grietas o rajaduras.

3. Pequefias rajaduras que no pasen de la corteza a la care.

4. Pequefias magulladuras.

5. Leves irregularidades en la forma de la fruta, o asperezas de la corteza.

6. Leve mancha de sol, siempre y cuando no sea quema de color negra o blanca y no haya secado o vuelto delgada la cascara. 7. Leve mancha de humedad, siempre y cuando no se presente pudrici6n o moho en la mancha. 8. Redecilla algo deficiente.

a This is included in the contract in Appendix A 2.


No es aceptable para la exportaci6n toda aquella fruta que tenga serios defios y defectos. Los siguientes defectos causaran rechazo:

1. Contenido de azucar abajo del 9%.

2. Falta de madurez.

3. Sobremadurez o falta de firmeza en la fruta.

4. Todo indicio de pudrici6n o moho.

5. Tamafio mayor de 12, o inferior a 36-38 por caja.

6. Dafios frescos de insectos u 6tros animales.

7. Dafios cicatrizados que detraigan de la buena apariencia de la fruta y cicatrices grandes o profundas en la superficie.

8. Rajaduras de la corteza que pasen a la care.

9. Magulladuras o partes blandas. 10. Carencia de redecilla o defectos serios en la conformacion de 6sta.

11. Deformaci6n de la fruta. 12. Quemadura de sol.

13. Cicatriz de corte demasiado profunda (wet slip) o ancha, o desgrrada.

14. Suciedad por contacto con lodo, o deshechos animales o industriales.

15. Miel o meluza de afidos en la superficie, o mancha negra que 4stos produzcan.

16. Liquido en la cavidad de la fruta. 17. Daflos por granizo.


La base para la clasificaci6n de PATSA son los requ'sitos de grado para el grado U.S. 1. Dentro de estas normas, PATSA distingue dos tipos de fruta: No. 1 y No. 2.

HONEYDEW NO. 1 Fruta libre de defectos serios, que detraigan de la apariencia o que impliquen el desarrollo de mohos o pudrici6n en el transcurso del viaje, de tamafios 4 hasta 8


por caja de 25-29 libras, y que tenga un mlnimo de 10% de azucares. Seran tolerados los siguientes defectos leves:

1. Cicatrices superficiales de tono claro, causados por viento o por insectos que no abarquen mas del 5% de la superficie.
2. Pequefias cicatrices de color obscuro, siempre que no sean profundas, ni tengan grietas o rajaduras.

3. Pequefias rajaduras que no pasen de la corteza a la care.

4. Pequefias raspaduras o magulladuras superficiales.

5. Leves irregularidades en la forma de la fruta o asperezas de la corteza.

6. Manchas amirillas que no sean por quema del sol.

7. Sombra de tierra o mancha de humedad, siempre y cuando no se presente pudrici6n o noho en la mancha. HONDYDEW NO. 2 Este grado consiste de toda aquella fruta que reina las condiciones arriga especiffcadas para el HONEYDEW NO. 1, pero cuyo tamafio sea de 9 o 10 por caja y que tenga un mrnimo de 10% de azucares.

No es aceptable para la exportaci6n aquella fruta que tenga serios dafios y defectos. Los siguientes defectos causaran rechazo:

1. Contenido de-azicar abajo del 10%.

2. Falta de madurez.

3. Sobremadurez o marchitez de la fruta.

4. Todo indicio de pudrici6n o moho.

5. Tamafio mayor de 4 o inferior a 10.

6. Dafios frescos de insectos u ostros animales.

7. Dahos cicatrizados grandes o profundos que detraigan de la buena apariencia de la fruta.

8. Rajaduras de la corteza que pasen a la care.

9. Magulladuras o areas blandas. 10. Deformaciones de la fruta. 11. Quemadura del sol 6sta se presenta como una mancha cafe o conto una mancha blanca rodeada de circulo amarillo.


12. Guia seca fruta proveniente de planta muerta.

13. Suciedad por contacto con lodo o deshechos animales o industriales.

14. Miel o meluza de afidos en la superficie, o la mancha negra que estos produzcan.

15. Liquido en la cavidad de la fruta.

16. Dafios por granizos.

17. Dafios por virosis.


1. Esta fruta tiene muy poca aceptaci6n en los EE.UU. Es deseo de la Compradora proteger y ayudar al agricultor en lo possible comprando today la fruta 36/38 de mel6n y fruta No. 10 de HONEYDEW, que produzca, mientras las condiciones del mercado de EE.UU. lo permitan. Empero en el caso que 6sto no sea posible, la COMPRADORA se reserva el derecho de no tomar este tamofo en cantidades que excedan el 20% del rendimiento total en fruta exportable del productor, durante el periodo comprendido del lro de diciembre al 29 de febrero.

2. He le'do este anexo. Acepto las normas de calidad y condiciones en ella detalladas.

Choluteca, a los_ d'as del mes de
de 1979.




Appendix B 1

Choluteca Melons: Production, packing, transportation and marketing costs 1980 81.

I tem

Ground preparation
Machine Service
Fertilizer Pesticides
Interest: 12% for 6 months
Total Production

Export Yield: 209-2/3 boxes
Coop Fee:
Total Production

Material & boxes
Total Packing

Transportation & Marketing
Inland Freight
Ocean Freight
Customs U.S.A!
Total T & M


$ 54.35
26.81 32.39
151.15 546.11 325.00 181.16
79.02 $ 1,395.99

$ 0.15
$ 6.83

$ 1.15
0.41 2.85 $ 4.41

$ 0.82
2.48 2.88 0.40 0.15 6.73


$ 17.35


Appendix B 2

Comayagua Cucumbers: Production, packing, transportation and marketing costs 1980 81. Item Cost/hectare

Ground preparation
Machine Service
Fertilizer Pesticides
Plastic cords
Interest: 12% for 6 months
Total Production

Export yield/hectare: 1 600-1 1/9 bu. Total Production

Boxes Labor
Total Packing

Transportation &-Marketing
Honduras tax & customs
Customs U.S.A.
Total T & M


$ 63.00
90.00 600.00 180.00 100.00 240.00 46.00
489.00 208.00 $ 3,423.44

$ 2.28

$ 0.10
0.65 0.13 0.15 $ 1.03

$ 3.15
0.07 1.15 0.25 0.12 0.53 $ 5.27
$ 8.58


Appendix B 3

Guatemalan Melons: Production, packing, transportation and marketing costs 1980 81. Item Cost/Hectare

Land Rent
Ground Preparation
Machine Service
Fertilizer Pesticides
Adm. Costs: 5% of costs
Interest: 12% for 6 months
Total Production

72.46 57.97 39.13 36-.00
170.29 422.03 308.70
59.97 58.23 73.37 $ 1,296.15

Export yield/hectare: 435-2/3 boxes Cost/box
Total Production $ 2.98

Boxes Labor
Rent & Electric
Fees & Crossing Costs
Total Packing

Transportation &,Marketing
Customs U.S.A.
Total T & M


$ 0.89
0.20 0.20 0.24 0.30 0.39 0.20 $ 2.42

$ 3.20
1.54 0.40 0.15 $ 5.29

$ 10.69



1. A copy of PATSA's summary of costs and returns per box
for cantaloupe melons from 1975 76 to 1979 80.

2. Agricultural Cooperative Development International (ACDI).
Estudio de Factibilidad para un Proyecto de Produccion y Exportacion de Pepino en el Valle de
Comayaqua. Tegucigalpa, Honduras, C.A. October, 1980.

3. Brooke, D.L. Costs and Returns from Vegetable Crops
in Florida, Season 1978 79 with Comparisons.
Food and Resource Economics Department, University
of Florida. March 1980.

4. CAPCO, Detalle de Costos de Produccion Estimados para
el cultivo de Melon, Cosecha 1980 a 1981.

5. Cerrato de Carrillo, M. Del. C. Feasibility Study of
Marketing Systems for Honduran Tomatoes and Cucumbers
to the United States Markets. Institute for Personal and Career Development, Central Michigan
University, An independent study paper, 1978.

6. Checchi and Company. Evaluation of the Agro-Indsutriall Export Development Project in Honduras, Washington,
D.C. July, 1978.

7. Compilaci6n de los Estudios Basi.cos del Diagnostico del Sector Agricola, July, 1978.

8. Convenio entre MRN, BANAFOM, INA y PATSA para ejecutar un proyecto de produccion y exportacion de melon.

9. Department of State, Agency for International Development.
Agro-Industrial Export Promotion: Project Paper, Honduras. Project number 522-0120. Washington,
D.C. August, 1976.

10. Goldberg, Ray A. Agribusiness Management for Developing
Countries Latin America. Ballinger Publishing
Company, Cambridge, Mass. 1974.

11. Instituto Centroamericano de Investigacion y Technolgia
Industrial. Informe Anual de las Actividades
Desarrolladas por la Division de Servicios Technico industriales de ICAITI para el Programa
Regional de Promocion de Exportaciones. Guatemala,


12. Instituto Centroamericano de Investigacion y Technologia
Industrial. La Produccion y Exportacion de Productos Agricolas Tradicionales en Centroamerica. Guatemala,
Agosto, 1972.

13. Notes from CAPCO on packing costs.

14. PATSA, Produccion Comprada por Periodo, ciclo 1980 81,
cantaloupe y Honeydew.

15. PATSA, Produccion Comprada por Periodo, ciclo 1979 80,
cantaloupe y Honeydew.

16. PATSA, Temporada 1980 81: Programa Melon (planting
program of melons by grower, zone and period).

17. Proyecto de Horticultural. Costos de Produccion de una
Hectarea de Pepino. Las Cafias, 1980 81.

18. Proyecto de Horticultura, Plan de Produccion de Pepino
para Exportacion. Precooperativa Las Cafias, 1980

19. Proyecto de Horticultura. Plan de Trabajo para el Proyecto
de Exportacion, temporada 1980 81.

20. Proyecto de Horticultura. Requerimientos de Mano de
Obra para una Hectarea de Pepino.

21. Rapalo, L.R. Cultivo de Las Variedades S.J. 45 v
Honeydew en el sur de Honduras. Thesis, Centro
Universitario Regional del Litaral Atlantico
(CURLA), La Ceiba, 1979.

22. Secretaria de Recursos Naturales, Contrato de Servicios
Profesionales entre el Govierno de Honduras y La Standard Fruit Company. Tegucigalpa, D.C., September, 1980.

23. Secretaria de Recursos Naturales, DARCO, Proyecto Integral
de Horticultura. Reporte de Actividades del Proyecto
de Exportaci6n de Pepino y Tomato. Comayagua, ;.
Honduras. C.A. 1978.

24. Secretaria de Recursos Naturales, DARS. Evaluacion
Proyecto Melon Region Sur 1976 77. Choluteca,
Honduras, C.A. Abril, 1977.

25. Secretaria de Recursos Naturales, DARS. Planificacion
Regional. Evaluacion Proyecto Melon, Choluteca,
Honduras, C.A. Abril, 1978.


26. Secretaria de Recursos Naturales, DARS. UATM. Informe
Final Del ProVecto de melon. Choluteca, Honduras,
C.A. Junio, 1978.

27. Secretaria de Recursos Naturales, DARS, Planificacion
Regional, Evaluacion Provecto de Melon 1978 79.
Choluteca, Honduras. May, 1979.

28. Secretaria de Recursos Naturales, DARS, UATM. Informe
Final 1978 1979. Choluteca, Honduras. Junio, 1979.

29. Secretaria de Recursos Naturales, Direcci6n de Planificacion
Sectorial. Evaluation de Actividades Proyecto Exportacion de Productos Agroindustriales (Borrador
Final). Junio 1980.

30. Secretaria de Recursos Naturales, Proyecto Integral de
Horticultura, DARCO. Ensayos Varietales de Tomate,
Pepino, Zapallo, Habichuela y Ocra, en el Valle
de Comayaqua, para la Exportacion de Consumo Fresco.
Comayagua, Honduras, C.A. 1977.

31. Simmons, R.L. J. L. Pearson and E.B. Smith. Mexican
Competition for., the U.S. Fresh Winter Vegetable
Market. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural
Economics Report No. 340, 1976.

32. Standard Fruit Company. Feasibility for the Establishment
of an Export Fresh Vegetable Industry in Honduras, Volume I, General Appraisal and Technical Reports,
Volume II, Marking, La Ceiba, Honduras, C.A. July,

33. Standard Fruit Company. Final Report of the Semicommercial
Planting of Tomatoes and Cucumbers for Export in the
Valleys of Comayaqua and La Entrada, Copan. July, 1978.

34. Standard Fruit Company. Reporte Final de las Pruebas de
Produccion y Exportacion con Pepino y Tomate en los Valles de Comayaqua y La Entrada durante 1978 79.
La Ceiba, Honduras. C.A. August 1979.

35. Standard Fruit Company. Reporte Final de las Pruvas de
Produccion y Exportacion en Pepino v Tomate en el
Valle de Comayaqua durante 1979 80. La Ceiba,
Honduras, C.A. June, 1980.

36. The World Laboratory, World Trade Center. Export Potential
Analysis, Fresh Produce, Honduras. The Port Authority
New York and New Jersey, 1976.


37. Tropical Agriculture Research Service (SIATSA). Agronomic
Studies in Comayaqua (Variety trials of five
vegetable crops for export to the U.S. market)
1976 77. La Lima, 1977.

38. Tropical Agriculture Research Services (SIATSA). Estudio
Basico Agronomico (Preparatorio a un Estudio de
Factibilidad) del Potencial para el Cultivo de Vegetables para Exportacion, Principalmente en el Valle de Comayaqua. La Lima, Honduras, C.A.
July, 1976.

39. Unidad de Asistencia tecnica cultivo de melon. Costos
de produccion por manzana, ciclo 1980 81. Melon
de humedad y chaguite.

40. Villela, Carlos G. A Study of the Feasibility of Increasing Melon Export from Honduras to the United
States. Thesis,'Agricultural Economics Department,
New Mexico State University, July, 1978.

41. Zepp, G.A. and R.L. Simmons. Producing Fresh Winter
Vegetables in Florida and Mexico: Costs and Competition. U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Economics, Statistics and Cooperatives Service,
ESLS 72. November, 1979.