MR Report Production Marketing Consumption

A Study on the Production, Marketing and Consumption of Agricultural Products
in the Five Municipalities Covered by the Northern Samar Food Security through
Sustainable Agriculture Project of Plan
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Philippine Agriculture, Poverty and Nutrition: A Rationale

The critical role the agricultural sector plays in Philippine economy and in the
lives of the Filipino people has been highly emphasized in the government’s
development agenda. The sector’s significance is seen in its contribution in the national
output, in generating employment and income to a bulk of the labor force, and in
satisfying the food requirements of the population.
Recent decades, however, have seen a stagnating Philippine agriculture as
depicted in the decline of its share in the GDP – from 21.6 percent in 1991-1994 to 14.2
percent in 2005-2007. This figure becomes more alarming if compared to the
performance of the industrial and the manufacturing sectors which posted stable GDP
shares of around 30 percent and 20 percent, respectively and to the service sector
which reported an increase in GDP share from 45.4 percent to 54.2 percent. The
international trade outlook of Philippine agriculture has also been bleak posting an
annual average trade deficit of US$800 million in 2005-2006 which is a far cry to the
US$1 billion worth of net exports in the 1980s. 1
The dwindling performance of the agricultural sector has threatened not only the
food security position of the country but also the welfare conditions of the people in
rural-agricultural areas.
In 2006, three-fourths of the country’s poor resided in rural areas where poverty
incidence was 37.84 percent compared to 14.3 percent for its urban counterpart.2This
figure only reinforces the claim that poverty is still a rural phenomenon and that rural
people are still not able to command the basic necessities in life.
The Household Food Consumption Survey conducted in 2003 by the Food and
Nutrition Research Institute (FNRI) revealed that 56.9 percent of Filipino households
had per capita intake below 100 percent dietary energy requirement, implying that 6 out
of 10 Filipino households are not able to meet their dietary requirements. The results of
the survey have also shown an increase in the proportion of underweight children aged
1
Cororaton, Caesar and Corong, E. Philippine Agricultural and Food Policies: Implications for Poverty and Income Distribution. International
Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), 2009.
2
Ibid.
1
0-5 from 24.6 percent to 26.2 percent from 2005-2008. Region VIII was noted as among
those regions with high incidence of underweight preschoolers.3
The failure of agrarian reform, unfavorable weather conditions, inadequate
delivery of agricultural services and weak governance were among the factors noted to
have hampered agricultural growth. 4 The unabated increase in population and the
impacts of climate change also aggravated the situation.
It is then imperative to devise and implement sound policies, programs, and
strategies that would arrest the further slowdown of the agricultural sector and address
the interwoven concerns of food self-sufficiency, environmental sustainability, poverty,
and nutrition.
B. Northern Samar and the Food Security through Sustainable Agriculture

Project
Agriculture is the primary source of livelihood and employment of the people in
Northern Samar. Based on the livelihood assessment by Plan using the Sustainable
Rural Livelihood Analysis (SRLA) in June 2007, low productivity, high incidence of
malnutrition and child labor, and poor access to market were among the pressing
problems identified to confront the sector and the farmers. 5
Data from the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics show fluctuations in the production
of some major agricultural products in Northern Samar such as palay and abaca. Palay
production was seen to decline in 2006 to 2007 and in 2008 to 2009.A sluggish
production of abaca was evident in 2003-2004 and in 2006-2007.
Table 1. Volume of Production of Major Crops in Northern Samar, in metric tons, 2000-
2010
Product 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Palay 48,882 58,493 68,227 71,254 77,787 80,293 82,478 76,766 101,007 89,377
Corn 5,770 5,813 5,691 5,564 5,644 7,700 8,544 9,485 12,577 13,092
Abaca 5,079.89 6,866.29 1,953.51 2,527.23 3,651.74 5,804.23 4,752.97 4,870.42 5,049.16 5,204.30
Coconut 237,422.2 215,050.4 286,469.2 289,445.9 292,848.4 298,822.7 298,325.3 301,090.6 308,362.7 317,854.5
Banana 7,946.5 8,232.6 8,378.0 8,535.8 8,638.3 10,393.5 10,678.5 12,907.9 15,589.0 16,459.6
Source: Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, 2011
Based on the data from the National Statistics Coordination Board, poverty
incidence in the province in 2009 was 51.2 percent. Though this is a slight improvement
from its 2006 rate of 53.8 percent, this is still surprisingly high relative to the national
rate of 26.5 percent. On the other hand, data from the National Nutrition Council has
shown that malnutrition in the province is the highest in the region and among the
3
Philippines Progress Report on the Millennium Development Goals 2010
4
Poverty in the Philippines: Causes, Constraints and Opportunities, ADB. 2009.
5
Plan, Northern Samar Food Security Project through Sustainable Agriculture, Terms of Reference.
2
highest in the country. The 2007 data revealed that 27.12 percent of Northern Samar’s
children were malnourished. The municipalities of Lapinig, Mapanas, Lope de Vega,
Las Navas and Mondragon were listed as the nutritionally depressed municipalities in
the province.
To deal with the striking problems of food insecurity, poverty, and malnutrition,
the Food Security through Sustainable Agriculture Project was launched by Plan in
Northern Samar to assist farming families in the municipalities of Catarman, Lope de
Vega, San Roque, Catubig and Las Navas, in improving their income levels and
nutritional status by adopting low-cost and sustainable organic farming. Plan works with
established farmer’s associations in capacitating families and assisting them in
accessing sustainable farming techniques and sound technologies and in marketing
their products.6
C. Research Objectives: The Need for a Market Study and a Market Plan
Marketing of sustainable agriculture products is one of the principal objectives of
the Northern Samar Food Security through Sustainable Agriculture Project. Hence, the
need to conduct a market study is deemed necessary to determine the existing market
conditions, assess the resilience and vulnerabilities of farmers and communities to the
forces in the market, and be of aid in the development of a marketing plan and in
strengthening the interventions of the project.
A marketing study assesses the economic viability of the proposed project,
enterprise, or product, providing a thorough assessment of opportunities and threats in
aid of a decision to pursue or not to pursue the venture. Market investigation and the
subsequent design of marketing plans are critical elements in the success of the
development and introduction of products in the market. Data collected from market
investigations should form an integral basis in the decision-making process of project
managers and stakeholders. A sound knowledge of the market, though eats up
resources to obtain, is valuable to the success of a social entrepreneurship.
This study was undertaken to meet the following objectives:
1. Review and update the marketing study conducted in 2006 to include the five
municipalities of Catarman, Catubig, Lope de Vega, Las Navas and San
Roque;
2. Develop a marketing plan for identified existing and potential resources in the
20 barangays for product development and marketing; and
3. Provide recommendations on identified issues and gaps on farm technology
and marketing.
An updated marketing study and a marketing plan for the food security project
were the outputs of this research.
6
www.plan.org.au
3
Results of the study provided a better understanding of the market, contributed in
the assessment of the viability of possible products and the needed knowledge, skills
and attitudes (KSA) of the stakeholders and the necessary technologies to complement
product development and marketing, and helped in the identification of strengths, gaps,
opportunities and risks involved thereof.
II. Methods of Data Gathering and Analysis
A. Study Area, Respondents, and Data Collection

The market study covers the 20 barangays in five municipalities of Northern
Samar from which the Food Security Project operates. The barangays and
municipalities covered are shown in the table that follows.
Table 2. Areas covered by the market study, 2011
Municipalities Barangays
Catarman Somoge, Cervantes, Polangi, Dona Pulqueria,
Gebulwangan
Lope de Vega Poblacion, Curry, Getigo, Lower Caynaga
San Roque Balnasan, Balud, Malobago, Pagsang-an
Catubig Hiparayan, San Jose, Sagudsuron, Magtuad
Las Navas Dapdap, Guyo, San Fernando
To gain an initial understanding of the Food Security Project and its operation,
Project-related documents have been reviewed. These include the Project Design
(2008), Production and Marketing Support to Plan’s Livelihood Program in Northern
Samar (2006), and the Sustainable Rural Livelihood Analysis for Northern Samar
(2005). These documents were referred to in the development of data-gathering
instruments – survey questionnaires, KII guide, and FGD guide.
Two sets of interview-led surveys, one with farmer-producers and another with
consumers, were conducted to assess the current market dynamics in the areas
covered by the Project. The former looks into the supply or production aspect of the
market – the profile of farmer-producers, their farm characteristics, their farm
management practices and marketing of farm products, and their perceptions, attitudes
and valuation of organic farming. Around 15-20 percent of the total Project membership
in each of the five municipalities was taken as respondents. An almost the same
number of non-members were also selected as part of the sample. A total of 171
farmer-producers were interviewed of which 104 (61%) were members of farmer’s
associations organized and supported by the Project and 67 (39%) were non-members.
Based on gender, there were 92 (54%) males and 79 (46%) females interviewed. The
4
table below shows the distribution of respondents from the five municipalities covered
based on gender and Project membership
Table 3. Distribution of farmer-respondents based on gender and Project

membership, 2011
Municipality Total Based on Gender Based on membership
Male Female Members Non-
members
Numb % Numb % Numb % Numb %
er er er er
Catarman 46 29 63 17 37 24 52 22 48
Lope de 32 18 56 14 44 18 56 14 44
Vega
San Roque 37 20 54 17 46 25 68 12 32
Catubig 34 13 38 21 62 25 74 9 26
Las Navas 22 12 55 10 45 12 55 10 45
Total 171 92 54 79 46 104 61 67 39
The latter, on the other hand, examines the demand or consumption aspect of
the market – the profile of consumers, their consumption patterns, and their
perceptions, attitudes and valuation of organic farming. A total of 86 consumers of
agricultural products were considered as respondents of which 42 (49%) were
household heads and 44 (51%) were vendors of agricultural products. The table below
shows the breakdown of respondents from the five municipalities covered based on
consumer classification and gender.
Table 4. Distribution of consumer-respondents based on gender and
classification, 2011
Municipality Total Based on Gender Based on Consumer
classification
Male Female Household Vendors
heads
Number % Number % Number % Number %
Catarman
Lope de
Vega
San Roque
Catubig
Las Navas
Total 86 42 49 44 51
A total of 24 key-informant interviews (KII) have been facilitated to key Project

implementers and stakeholders to provide an assessment of the market for organic
products, of existing laws and programs, the role of the government, the structure,
technological, and financial requirements of the Project, and to identify constraints and
5
opportunities for organic farming. Project implementers, partners, and stakeholders
such as the staffs from Plan Northern Samar and Mag-uugmad Foundation, Inc (MFI),
representative from the University of Eastern Philippines (UEP), and officials of local
government units (LGU) and officers of various local government agencies (LGA)
concerned with organic agriculture. The table below shows the distribution of
respondents for the KII based on position and gender.
Table 5. Distribution of KII respondents based on agency/unit level and gender,
2011
Agency/Unit Total Based on Gender
Level Male Female
Municipal 8 8 LGU and LGA
officials
Provincial 5 3 Plan and MFI
staffs, 2 LGA
officers,
Regional 11 10 LGA officers,
1 academe
(UEP)
representative
Total 24
Interviewer-led survey and focused group discussion (FGD) were facilitated to

children to elicit their roles in farm production and marketing and their perceptions on
organic farming. A total of 41 children - ___ were males and ____ were females were
interviewed and have participated in the FGD.
. A workshop was undertaken to further validate the initial results from the
surveys, KIIs, and FGD and to plan out the strategies of the Project in marketing
sustainable agriculture products of the farmers. The workshop was participated by
project implementers and stakeholders – Plan and MFI staffs and farmers.
B. Method of Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics such as means, minimum, maximum and standard deviation

were used in presenting some of the variables such as age, years of farming
experience, years of education acquired, household size, farm size and area planted
with crops, amount of seeds used, amount of fertilizer used, amount of pesticide used
and amount of labor used.
Market price was used to determine the value of the commodity output (crop
yield) of farms. Contingent valuation method (CVM) eliciting sample farmer’s WTA and
6
WTP was used to determine the economic value of organic farming or the sustainable
agriculture (SA) products.
C. Schedule of Research Activities

The research activities were undertaken from June 1 to July 15. The table below
shows the various activities conducted and their duration.
Table 6. Research activities undertaken and duration, 2011
Activities Duration
 Preparation, Documents Review) and initial 3 weeks
secondary data gathering, Orientation of
Enumerators, Refinement and Pretesting of
Instruments
 Conduct of surveys, FGDs and workshops
 Consolidation of Data, Initial Presentation of 1 week

Results, Feed-backing
 Preparation of draft reports (marketing study 2 week
and market plan), Feed-backing
 Submission of Final Reports 1 week
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
A. Description of the Study Area
Northern Samar is one of the provinces in the Eastern Visayas region. It

comprises Samar Island together with Western Samar and Eastern Samar. It has a land
area of 349,800 hectares where 52 percent is covered by forest and 42 percent is
classified as alienable and disposable. The province is divided into two legislative
districts covering 24 municipalities and 569 registered barangays.7Based on the 2007
census of population, the province has a total population of 549,759 which was higher
by 49,120 over the 2000 census figure of 500,639.
7
www.northernsamar.ph
7
Figure 1. Map of Northern Samar
The province of Northern Samar is located on the northern portion of the island of
Samar. The province is the main doorstep to Luzon as it is bordered in the northwest by
Sorsogon, across San Bernanrdino Strait. It is 732.72 kilometers southeast of Manila. It
is also bordered by the Pacific Ocean on the east, the Samar Sea on the west and
annexed to the Samar Province on the south.
The province has a total land area of 3,498 sq. km. More than half (206,307
hectares or 58.98%) of the province’s land are used as agricultural area. Some portions
of the land are also used as swamps, mangroves, fishponds/open water spaces,
pasture/open land grasslands, road networks, forest/timber, built-up/settlement,
industrial, and eco-tourism areas.
It is composed largely of low and extremely rugged hills and small lowland areas.
It has also small and discontinuous areas along the coast and its rivers, which are
usually accompanied by alluvial plains and valleys. The province is endowed with
relatively rich and fertile soil that most crops can grow on it.
The province has no distinct dry or wet season but it has pronounced rainfall
from October to January. The heaviest precipitation occurs in November. May is
relatively the driest month.
The province has an extensive network of roads and bridges. Of the total road
network of 738 kilometers, 22 percent is concreted. About 4,778 meters of bridges are
made of steel and concrete. There are four ports located in San Jose, Laoang, Allen
and San Isidro. The San Isidro and Allen ferry terminals serve as the gateway to Luzon
and Southern Philippines.8
B. Socio-Economic and Demographic Characteristics of the Sample Farmer-

Respondents
8
http://darfu8.tripod.com/rp_northernsamar.htm
8
1. Gender and Age of the Respondents
Ninety two (54%) of the 171 farmer-respondents in the sample were males and
79 (47%) were females.
Table 7. Gender of 171 sample farmer-respondents, Northern Samar, 2011

Total Percent
Male 92 54
Female 79 47
Total 171 100
More than half (56.73%) of the farmer-respondents belonged to the 41-60 age
group. Around 30.41% aged 40 years old and below and 12.86% aged 60 years old and
above. The youngest recorded age in the sample was 22 years old and the oldest was
75 years old. The average age of the farmers was 47 years old.
Table 8. Age of 171 sample farmer-respondents, Northern Samar, 2011

Age Group Total Percent
(Years)
20-30 12 7.02
31-40 40 23.39
41-50 52 30.41
51-60 45 26.32
60-70 19 11.11
>70 3 1.75
Total 171 100
Average 47
Minimum 22
Maximum 75
The aforementioned data show that farming in Northern Samar is still a male-
dominated economic activity and that farmers are middle aged.
2. Farming Experience
The data show that majority of the farmer-respondents have actually managed
and worked in the farm for an average of 21 years. 63.15% percent of farmer-
respondents cultivated the farm for 11-40 years. Around 29.24 percent were involved in
farming for 10 years and below and 7.6% had more than 40 years of farming
experience.
Table 9. Farming experience of 171 farmer-respondents, Northern Samar, 2011

Farming Experience
(Years) Total Percent
9
1-10 50 29.24
11-20 55 32.16
21-30 23 13.45
31-40 30 17.54
41-50 11 6.43
>50 2 1.17
Total 171 100
Average 21
Minimum 1
Maximum 56
3. Educational Attainment
Majority (55.55%) of the farmer-respondents have only reached elementary level

of schooling. Around 31.58 percent of them entered high school and only 12.87 percent
were able to climb to tertiary level. The farmer-respondents have obtained an average
of 7 years of schooling. The maximum number of years of schooling registered was 14
years (or college level) and the minimum was one year (or Grade 1).
The farmer-respondents attributed their low level of education to the high out-of
the-pocket and indirect costs of education and to their poor income levels.
Table 10. Educational attainment of 171 farmer-respondents, Northern Samar, 2011

Educational Attainment Total Percent
(Years)
Elementary Level (1-6) 95 55.55
Secondary Level (7-10) 54 31.58
Tertiary Level (11-15) 22 12.87
Total 171 100
Average 7
Minimum 14
Maximum 1
4. Household Size
The households of the farmer-respondents have an average of 6 members.

Majority (56.73%) of the farmers belonged to households with 6-10 members. 39.18
percent of farmer-respondents belonged to households with 1-5 members and 4.09
percent were with households of than 10 members. The maximum household size
registered was 18 members and the minimum was 1 member.
Table 11. Household size of 171 farmer-respondents, Northern Samar, 2011

Household Size Total Percent
(Number of Members)
10
1-5 67 39.18
6-10 97 56.73
>10 7 4.09
Total 171 100
Average 6
Minimum 1
Maximum 18
5. Tenurial Status
Majority (45.03%) of the farmer-respondents owns the rice farms they cultivate.
Some 21.64 percent were part-owners of farms cultivated – the ownership of these
farms was not yet legally subdivided and transferred to them and is still held by the
heirs.
On the other hand, 31.57 percent were tenants – 29.82 percent were share
tenants and 1.75 percent were leasehold tenants. Share tenancy9 still remains to be a
dominant agricultural tenancy arrangement despite legal mandates to convert it to
leasehold tenancy10.
Table 12. Tenurial status of 171 farmer-respondents, Northern Samar, 2011

Tenurial Status Total Percent
Owner-cultivator 77 45.03
Part owner-cultivator 37 21.64
Tenancy
Share Tenancy 51 29.82
Leasehold Tenancy 3 1.75
Hired Laborer 1 0.58
Mortgagor 2 1.17
Total 171 100
6. Sources of Income
9
Sec 166 (25) of RA 3844 provides that share tenancy exists whenever two persons agree on a joint undertaking
for agricultural production wherein one party furnished the land and the other his labor, with either or both
contributing any one or several of the items of production, the tenant cultivating the land personally with aid
available from members of his/her immediate farm household, and the produce thereof to be divided between the
landholder and the tenant.
10
Sec. 4, RA 1199 provides that leasehold tenancy exists when a person who, either personally or with the aid of
labor available from members of his/her immediate farm household undertakes to cultivate a piece of agricultural
land belonging to or legally possessed by , another in consideration of a fixed amount in money or in produce or in
both.
11
The sample farmer-respondents largely depended on farming as their source of
income. Majority (55.56%) of them also obtained income from other sources aside from
farming. On the other hand, 44.44 percent of the farmer-respondents relied on farming
alone for their livelihood.
Table 13. Proportion of 171 farmer-respondents who had other sources of

income, Northern Samar, 2011
Other income sources Total Percent
(aside from rice farming)
None 76 44.44
Have Other Sources 95 55.56
Total 171 100
Honorarium was the most cited source of income of the farmer-respondents

besides their income from farming. These farmers receive some monetary remuneration
from the services rendered in the barangay as BLGU officials, barangay health workers
(BHW), tanod or lupon, among others. Others are occasionally employed as carpenters
or laborers in construction. Some farmer-respondents are engaged in small businesses
such as maintaining sari-sari stores, selling bread and cooked vegetables. Few others
are salaried workers such as teachers and government employee. Others are engaged
in accepting laundry or use their skills to earn such as haircutting, manicure or pedicure,
tailoring, electrical and mechanic work, vulcanizing, and driving (scooter or pump boat).
Table 14. Sources of income of farmer-respondents aside from farming, Northern

Samar, 2011
Other Income Sources Frequency
1. Honorarium 48
2. Laborer/Carpentry 20
3. Selling/Small Business 13
4. Salary (Teacher, government 3
employee)
5. Others 17
7. Organizational Membership
Majority (79.53%) of the farmer-respondents were part of organizations. On the

other hand, only 20.47 percent were not members of any organizations. Those who are
non-members claimed to have no time to be part of it since they are too busy with their
farming activities. Others averred that they are not used to joining organizations.
12
Table 15. Proportion of 171 farmer-respondents who are members of
organizations, Northern Samar, 2011
Membership in Total Percent
Organizations
No Membership 35 20.47
Members of Organizations 136 79.53
Total 171 100
Farmer-respondents were members of economic or farming-related

organizations such as farmer’s association, farmer’s cooperative, credit organizations,
and BAWASA. Others are part of political organizations such as barangay local
government unit (BLGU). Few were part of religious organizations such as the Singles
for Christ and Couples for Christ and school-related organizations such as the Parents
and Teachers Association (PTA).
Table 16. Organizations of 136 farmer-respondents, Northern Samar, 2011

Organizations Frequency
Economic or Farming-Related Organizations
Farmer’s Associations 106
Farmer’s Cooperative 4
Barangay Water System Association (BAWASA) 3
Credit Organization 2
Agri Pinoy 1
NIA HCAAP 1
CBRMF 1
Political Organizations
BLGU 40
Religious Organizations
Singles or Couples for Christ 4
Others
PTA 1
The farmer-respondents who were members of organizations claimed to derive

various benefits from participating in such. For instance, those who were part of
farming-related organizations accessed farm tools and implements and new knowledge
in farming which were deemed necessary in boosting their farm production and farm
incomes.
The high organizational membership of farmer-respondents in the areas covered

could be an indication of an active community and political participation of farmers.
8. Credit Access
Majority (68.42%) of the farmer-respondents did not avail of credit in the last
three years while 31.58 percent opted to borrow money. The farmers who did not
13
access loans were fearsome that they might not be able to pay up for it and were
reluctant of the very high interest rates charged. On the other hand, the money
accessed by those who borrowed was largely used to finance farming particularly to
avail farm implements and to pay for wages and rents. The others also resorted to
borrowing to support the education of the children and other expenses of the
households
Table 17. Proportion of 171 farmer-respondents who availed of credit, Northern

Samar, 2011
Availed of Credit Total Percent
Yes 54 31.58
No 117 68.42
Total 171 100
Relatives and private lenders from the barangay were the most common source
of credit for the 48.14 percent of the farmer-respondents who borrowed money. Traders
and private lenders outside the barangay or in the town’s center, especially the buyers
of agricultural products, were the second most frequented sources of credit by 35.18
percent of the farmer-respondents. Some farmer-respondents (16.67%) also availed
loans from lending companies such CARD, Taytay sa Kauswagan, SAMECO, and
Dungganon, among others.
Table 18. Credit sources of 54 farmer-respondents who availed credit, Northern

Samar, 2011
Availed of Credit Total Percent
Relatives and lenders within 26 48.14
the barangay
Traders and lenders outside 19 35.18
the barangay
Lending companies 9 16.67
Total 54 100
The amount loaned by the farmer-respondents ranged from Php500 to

Php20,000. The average amount loaned was Php3,478. Majority (77.78%) availed of
credit of less than Php5,000 while the rest (22.22%) availed of loans amounting to
Php5,000 and above. Interest rates for these loans range from 5 percent to 20 percent
per month. Generally, these loans did not require any collateral.
Table 19. Amount loaned of 54 farmer-respondents who availed credit, Northern

Samar, 2011
Amount Total Percent
< Php5,000 42 77.78
Php5,000-Php10,000 10 18.52
>Php10,000 2 3.7
14
Total 54 100
9. Participation in Farming-Related Trainings
Majority (65.5%) of the farmer-respondents have participated in farming-related

seminars or trainings. The farmer-respondents who were members of the farmers’
association organized by Plan were able to attend seminars or trainings on Community
Management Project (CMP), Integrated Farming System (IFS) and Natural Farming
System Technology (NFST). These seminar/trainings were sponsored by Plan
Northern Samar in partnership with UEP. There were also non-members of the farmers
association who were able to attend on seminars/ trainings related to farming. Such
activities were organized and sponsored by some government agencies such as DENR
and DA
Table 20. Proportion of 171 farmer-respondents who participated in farming-

related trainings
Participated in Trainings Total Percent
Yes 112 65.5
No 59 34.5
Total 171 100
C. Farm Characteristics
1. Farm Size
Majority (66.67%) of the farmer-respondents operated on farms with less than 3

hectares in size while 33.33 percent worked on farms with size three hectares and
above. The average farm size of the farmer-respondents is 2.57 hectares. The
maximum farm size registered was 16 hectares and the minimum was 0.0025 hectare.
Table 21. Farm size (in hectares) of 171 farmer-respondents, Northern Samar,
2011
Farm Size Total Percent
(hectares)
<1 39 22.81
1-2.99 75 43.86
3-5 37 21.64
>5 20 11.69
Total 171 100
Average 2.57
Minimum 0.0025
15
Maximum 16
2. Topography
Majority (64.3%) of the farmer-respondents cultivated farms which have plain or

flat terrains. On the other hand, 35.7 percent cultivated lands which have rolling (11.7%)
and mountainous (24%) terrains.
Table 22. Topography of farms of 171 farmer-respondents, Northern Samar, 2011

Topography Total Percent
Plain/flat 110 64.3

Rolling 20 11.7
Mountainous 41 24
Total 171 100
The farmer-respondents in the municipalities of Catarman, Catubig, San Roque

and Las Navas largely operated on farms with plain or flat terrains. The farmer-
respondents in the municipality of Lope de Vega have farms with mountainous terrains.
Table 23. Topography of farms of 171 farmer-respondents per municipality,

Northern Samar, 2011
Plain/Flat Rolling Mountainous Total
Catarman
Total 32 8 6 46
Percent 69.57 17.39 13.04 100
Lope de Vega
Total 10 5 17 32
Percent 31.25 15.625 53.125 100
San Roque
Total 25 1 11 37
Percent 67.57 2.7 29.73 100
Catubig
Total 28 3 3 34
Percent 82.35 8.82 8.82 100
Las Navas
Total 15 3 4 22
Percent 68.18 13.64 18.18 100
3. Farm Irrigation
The farms in the areas covered by the study considerably rely on the rain for their
farm irrigation - with 97.7 percent of farmer-respondents depending on it. Four out of the
16
171 farmer-respondents (2.3%) operate on farms which are pump-irrigated where water
is sourced out from nearby bodies of water (rivers).
Table 24. Sources of irrigation of 171 farmer-respondents, Northern Samar, 2011

Sources of Irrigation Total Percent
Rain-fed 167 97.7
Pump-irrigated 4 2.3
Total 171 100
4. Flora and Fauna
Aside from the major crops planted such as rice, coconut, abaca, banana,
vegetables and root crops and the primary poultry animals and livestock raised such as
pigs, chicken, carabao, and goat, the farmer-respondents also mentioned of the various
flora and fauna present in the farms. Common were the weeds and grasses (i.e.
lakatan, para grass, gaway-gaway, kirom-kirom, tanabog, puti, tigbao, biliran, cogon,
hagikhik and bigaho) and fruit trees (i.e. jackfruit and guava) which were deemed
beneficial by most of the farmer-respondents. The fruit trees are sources of food for the
households and the weeds and grasses serve as food for farm animals such as carabao
and goats and can be used as fertilizer for the crops.
Some animals and insects which are found in the farms are considered not
beneficial to the crops or to the farmers. Birds such as maya, saguksok, pago, siwit, and
tukmon; insects such as tayangaw (blackbug), kumaw-kumaw, apan (grasshopper),
stemborer, and budlo; and rats, frogs and kuhol (snails) are considered as pests that
destroy or feed on their crops. Some animals such as snakes, tabili (giant lizards) and
linta (leeches) pose danger to the farmers. On the other hand, some wild animals such
as bayawak, ibid, halo, tinggaw, miru, wild chicken and wild pig are considered
beneficial since their meat can be consumed as food.
D. Farm Management Practices of Sample Rice Farmer-Respondents
1. Crops Planted and Cropping Practices
Coconut (copra), rice, root crops (i.e. sweet potatoes, lagikway, gaway, butig,
mika, and bagong), vegetables (i.e. string beans, eggplant, ampalaya, pechay, and
squash), banana and abaca are the major crops produced by the farmer-respondents in
the five municipalities covered by the Project. Some farmers also grow corn and fruits
(i.e. pineapple, jackfruit, pili, watermelon, and lanzones). Aside from cultivating crops,
the farmer-respondents also raise poultry (chicken and ducks) and livestock (pigs,
goats, and carabao).
17
1.1 Coconut
Copra production is one of the widely practiced economic activities among

farmer-respondents in the five municipalities covered by the Project. More than half of
them (67.25%) operate on farms which are planted with coconuts. The variety cultivated
naturally by the farmers is the traditional one which is known to be tall and produces
more and relatively larger nuts. They further claimed that this is the variety more
available in their locality and have no prior experience with other varieties.
Table 25. Proportion of farmer-respondents planting coconut, Northern Samar,

2011
Municipality Total Number of Number of Farmer- Percent
Farmer- Respondents
Respondents Planting Coconut
Catarman 46 39 84.78
Lope de Vega 32 24 75
San Roque 37 22 59.46
Catubig 34 14 41.18
Las Navas 22 16 72.73
Total 171 115 67.25
Coconuts are harvested and turned into copra in every three months or four
times in a year making it as one of their more regular source of income. Since the
coconut trees are still relatively productive, the farmer-respondents see no need for
planting or re-planting.
Aside from copra, the farming households also derive various uses or products
from the coconuts grown. Coconut milk which is widely used by the households in
cooking can be derived from the coconut meat and the residue (sapal) is used as food
for farm animals. The hard wood holding the leaves (palwa), the husks and the shells
can directly be used as fuel or be turned into charcoal. The farmers also make midrib
brooms and husks out of the coconut. Some also make productive use of the coconut
sap by turning them into local wine called tuba and into vinegar.
Copra production is carried out by first harvesting the mature coconut fruits from
the trees. This process is locally known as pangawit or panaka. In pangawit, farmers
need not climb the trees since they make use of sickles attached to long wooden poles.
This is usually the case when the trees are relatively shorter in height. On the other
hand, panaka is done by actually climbing relatively taller trees and cutting the fruits
atop with a sickle or bolo. The coconuts are then carried (paghakot) using carts drawn
manually or by a carabao, and collected near the paluonan or a shack standing several
feet above the ground where the coconut meat is cooked. The coconuts are then
18
dehusked (pagbunot) manually using a sharp and upward-pointing steel tool. Dehusked
coconuts are then cracked into halves (pagbagtak) with a bolo and are piled in the
bamboo floor of the luonan. Farmers will burn the coconut husks and other wood fuel on
the ground underneath the floor of the luonan carefully setting the fire low so as not to
burn the shack. This is done until the meat of the coconut is cooked – when it turns
brown and starts to detach a little from its shell. When it cools down, paghukbal follows
where the cooked meat is separated from its shell using a scooping tool. The lukad or
copra (cooked coconut meat) are then cut into pieces and placed in sacks and readied
for marketing.
1.2 Rice
Despite the considerable dependence of farmer-respondents on the rain for their

supply of farm water and on the vagaries of the weather, rice production still remains to
be a dominant economic activity in the five municipalities covered by the Project. A
significant percentage (60.82%) or more than half of the farmer-respondents in the five
municipalities is engaged in rice farming.
Table 26. Proportion of 171 farmer-respondents planting rice, Northern Samar,

2011
Farmer- Respondents
Respondents Planting Rice
Lope de Vega 32 16 50
San Roque 37 26 70.27
Catubig 34 20 58.82
Las Navas 22 17 77.27
Total 171 104 60.82
These farmers however only enjoy one cropping season in a year. Rice is
normally planted in the months of September to December and is harvested in the
months of January to April. A cropping period takes 3 to 5 months depending on the
variety planted. Rice remains as the primary staple food for the farming households and
as a matter of fact, its production largely caters to the consumption of the farming
household.
Hybrid and traditional rice varieties are used by 52.88 percent and 46.15 percent
of the farmer-respondents, respectively. Hybrid varieties such as Rc18, IR42, IR5,
Rc82, IR20, C1, Rc135, and Rc52, among others and traditional varieties such as
kanukot, wagwag, menarge, kalumpit, pinili, banika, and ilon-ilon, among others are
cultivated by the farmer respondents.
Table 27. Seed varieties 104 farmer-respondents planting rice, Northern Samar,
2011
19
Rice Varieties Used Number Percent
Hybrid 55 52.88
Traditional 48 46.15
Both Traditional and Hybrid 1 0.96
Total 104 100
Traditional varieties have been used by the farmer-respondents for a longer time
now compared to hybrid varieties. On the average, the former have been cultivated by
the farmer-respondents for around 16 years, and the latter for around 8 years. This
difference could be due to the late introduction of most of the hybrid varieties to the
farmers and could be due to the reluctance of some to shift to the modern varieties
which could arise from their fear to take risks and the cost of acquisition of such
varieties. Though they see the potential for increased production with modern varieties,
others still maintain the native varieties for its assured quality – good taste, good smell
and do not spoil easily when cooked, can be stored for longer periods, resistant to pests
and to unfavorable weather conditions.
It has been a common practice among the 50 percent of the farmer-respondents

who cultivated rice to keep a portion of their produce as gahi (seeds) for the next
cropping. This is common among those farmers who plant and maintain traditional rice
varieties. The other half would normally source out from or exchange seeds with their
co-farmers (27.88%) or purchase from the Municipal Agriculture Office (21.15%) or from
private stores (0.96%) at the town’s center once a year (or every cropping). This is more
common among farmer-respondents who cultivate hybrid rice varieties. The average
seeding rate is 46.7 kilograms per hectare or a little more than a sack of palay
(unhusked rice).
Table 28. Seed sources of 104 farmer-respondents planting rice, Northern Samar,
2011
Rice Varieties Used Number Percent
Own Reserve 52 50
Co-farmers 29 27.88
Department of Agriculture 22 21.15
Private stores 1 0.96
Total 104 100
The market prices of modern seed varieties (gahi) range from Php1000-Php1200
per sack (or around 40 kilograms). Farmers registered with the Municipal Agriculture
Office avail of a 50 percent subsidy on the price of seeds when these are purchased
there.
Co-farmers are the most common source of information regarding the quality and
characteristics of the seed varieties planted. Some also relied on their personal
20
experiences in planting rice varieties. Few others obtained seed information from their
Municipal Agriculture Office.
For the farmers, land preparation is a crucial stage in rice production. A well-
prepared land is needed for a better growth of rice crops. The rice fields are first cleared
to remove weeds and grasses. This land clearing stage is locally known as pakaras or
pakiwa. Majority (58.65%) of the farmers use carabao-drawn plows to break down the
soil and overturn weeds and rice stalks. Others (18.27%) are engaged in the kaingin
(slash-and-burn) system to clear the lands. Once cleared, lands are tilled using
mattocks. The old-aged payatak system is still practiced by 17.31 percent of the rice
growers where a row of carabaos are tied together and made to move in circle to tread
on the field for several times until land is conducive for planting. Only 5.77 percent of
the rice cultivators use machines such as tractor and turtle in plowing the field.
Table 29. Land preparation methods of 104 rice farmer-respondents, Northern

Samar, 2011
Land Preparation Methods Number Percent
Kaingin and tilling using mattocks 19 18.27
Payatak system 18 17.31
Carabao-drawn plowing 61 58.65
Machine-aided plowing (tractor, turtle) 6 5.77
Total 104 100
There are two methods of planting rice that rice farmer-respondents either
practice – the transplanting method and the direct method. In the former, seeds are first
grown in a nursery or seed bed (pasabrag) before they are transplanted to a prepared
land. This is practiced by the majority (81.27%) of the farmers who happens to farm in
lowlands. In the latter, seeds are sown directly into the field after preparing the land.
This process is adopted by 18.27 percent of the farmers who were farming in the
uplands, particularly in Lope de Vega.
Table 30. Planting methods of 104 rice farmer-respondents, Northern Samar, 2011
Method Number Percent
Direct Method 19 18.27
Transplanting Method 85 81.73
Total 104 100
Farmers see to it that once planted the growing rice plants are taken cared of –
its nutrient and water requirements, and the control and management of pests that may
threaten the crop. The farmers have to wait for four to five months after planting before
the grains mature and be ready for harvest. The maturity of rice depends on the
varieties used. According to the farmer-respondents, hybrid varieties of rice are early-
maturing compared to traditional varieties.
21
Traditional and manual methods of harvesting are still employed by the farmers.
Rice stalks are cut using sickles and are threshed right away by hitting nets several
times until the grains are removed from the stalks (paglamba). Rice grains are then
cleaned with the aid of the wind (pagpalid), placed in sacks, divided among
shareholders, and hauled either manually or with the use of carabao-drawn carts from
the farm and to where it will be stored. These palay (rice grains) will then be sun-dried
before it is milled for consumption or to be sold.
1.3 Root Crops
Cultivating root crops is practiced significantly by the farmer-respondents in the

five municipalities not only as a source of staple food for the farming households but as
a source of income as well. Out of the 171 farmer-respondents, 76 (or 44.44%) plant
root crops in their farms alongside other major crops. Lope de Vega and Catarman
registered the most number of farmer-respondents growing root crops.
Table 31. Proportion of 171 farmer-respondents planting root crops, Northern

Samar, 2011
Farmer- Respondents
Respondents Planting Root
Crops
Catarman 46 23 50
Lope de Vega 32 22 68.75
San Roque 37 14 37.84
Catubig 34 11 32.35
Las Navas 22 6 27.27
Total 171 76 44.44
Root crops such as camote (sweet potato), lagikway (cassava) and gaway are
commonly planted in the five municipalities with 33.92 percent, 23.39 percent, and
15.79 percent of the 171 farmer-respondents growing them, respectively. Other root
crops such butig or mika, bagong, peanuts, palawan and ube are also cultivated in
some farms in the five municipalities.
Table 32. Proportion of 171 farmer-respondents planting root crops per kind of
root crop planted, per municipality, Northern Samar, 2011
Root Catarman Lope de San Catubig Las Total
Crops Vega Roque Navas (%)
Planted
Camote 29 16 11 7 4 58
(63.04%) (50%) (29.73%) (20.59%) (18.18%) (33.92%)
22
Lagikway 15 10 4 9 2 40
(32.61%) (31.25%) (10.81%) (26.47%) (9.1%) (23.39%)
Gaway 2 14 3 6 2 27
(4.35%) (43.75%) (8.1%) (17.65%) (9.1%) (15.79%)
Mika/Butig 2 13 0 4 1 20
(2.17%) (3.13%) (11.76%) (4.55%) (11.7%)
Bagong 0 0 4 1 0 5
(10.81%) (2.94%) (2.92%)
Mani 0 0 5 1 0 6
(Peanuts) (13.51%) (2.94%) (3.51%)
Palawan 0 0 2 0 0 2
(5.41%) (1.17%)
Ube 1 1 0 0 0 2
(2.17%) (3.13%) (1.17%)
The farmers enjoy two to three cropping seasons in a year for camote and only
one for the other root crops. Camote can be planted in anytime of the year but the
others are normally planted at the onset of the dry season or right after the harvest
period for rice, usually in the months of March or April and are harvested after eight to
nine months.
1.4 Banana
Banana is also one of the most dominant crops planted across the five
municipalities. Around 36.25 percent of the farmer-respondents grow bananas in their
farms as a staple food and as a source of income.
Table 33. Proportion of 171 farmer-respondents planting banana, Northern Samar,

2011
Farmer- Respondents
Respondents Planting Banana
San Roque 37 10 27.03
Catubig 34 8 23.53
Total 171 62 36.25
1.5 Vegetables
23
The cultivation of vegetables along with primary crops such as coconut, rice, and
root crops provides a good contribution in the food and dietary requirements of the
farming households. For some, it has also become a viable source of income. Of the
171 farmer-respondents, 43.27 percent are engaged in planting vegetables.
Table 34. Proportion of 171 farmer-respondents planting vegetables, Northern

Samar, 2011
Farmer- Respondents
Respondents Planting
Vegetables
San Roque 37 17 45.95
Catubig 34 18 52.94
Total 171 74 43.27
String beans, eggplant and ampalaya are planted by 30.41 percent, 23.98
percent, and 22.22 percent of the farmer-respondents interviewed in the five
municipalities, respectively. Also grown in some farms are pechay (14.04%), squash
(13.45%), okra (5.85%), upo (7.02%). Other crops grown but in negligible quantities
were kangkong, tomato, cucumber and bell pepper.
Table 35. Proportion of farmer-respondents planting vegetable, Northern Samar,

2011
Vegetables Catarman Lope de San Catubig Las Total
Planted / Vega Roque Navas (%)
Municipality
String beans 15 10 11 12 3 52
(32.61%) (31.25%) (29.73%) (35.29%) (13.64%) (30.41%)
Eggplant 13 7 8 11 2 41
(28.26%) (21.88%) (21.62%) (32.35%) (9.09%) (23.98%)
Ampalaya 10 7 9 11 1 38
(21.74%) (21.88%) (24.32%) (32.35%) (4.55%) (22.22%)
Pechay 7 6 1 10 0 24
(15.22%) (18.75%) (2.7%) (29.41%) (14.04%)
Squash 10 1 5 7 0 23
(21.74%) (3.13%) (13.5%) (20.59%) (13.45%)
Okra 5 1 0 4 0 10
(10.87%) (3.13%) (11.76%) (5.85%)
24
Upo 6 3 0 3 0 12
(13.04%) (9.37%) (8.82%) (7.02%)
The aforementioned vegetables are normally grown once in a year and are noted
to favor the dry season. Hence, farmers start planting them in the month of March or
April, usually succeeding rice harvest. Most of the farmer-respondents plant these
vegetables primarily for household consumption. Others also access markets to dispose
these products and earn.
1.6 Abaca
Some 15.79 percent of the farmer-respondents also cultivated abaca in their

farms. The municipalities of Las Navas, Lope de Vega and San Roque, were noted
however to be the major producers of abaca from among the five municipalities.
Table 36. Proportion of 171 farmer-respondents planting abaca, Northern Samar,

2011
Farmer- Respondents
Respondents Planting Abaca
Catarman 46 1 2.17
San Roque 37 5 13.51
Catubig 34 3 8.82
Total 171 27 15.79
Alman is the most common abaca cultivar propagated by 85.19 percent of the
abaca farmer-respondents. Other varieties planted include linawaan (29.63%), lawinig
(7.41%), binagacay (3.7%), and sinahin (3.7%).
Table 37. Varieties used of 27 farmer-respondents planting abaca, Northern

Samar, 2011
Abaca Varieties Used Number Percent
Alman 16 59.26
Alman and Linawaan 7 25.93
Lawinig 2 7.41
Binagacay and Linawaan 1 3.7
Sinahin 1 3.7
Total 27 100
25
The average area cultivated with abaca measures 1.67 hectares and the average
number of stalks cultivated per hectare is 216. Fibers are extracted from abaca once in
a year and are processed (stripped and dried) before they are sold.
In extracting fibers, sample abaca growers particularly use mature abaca plants –
those that already developed flowers. The process of fiber production starts by
harvesting the stalks of abaca plants since these are the sources of fibers. Stalks are
formed by successive and overlapping leaf sheaths. Mature abaca plants or the stalks
are cut down with a bolo. This is followed by tuxying (pagkigi) where the outer layer of
each leaf sheath is separated from the inner layers and stripped off with a tuxy knife.
The process (tuxying or pagkigi) is repeated with the succeeding leaf sheaths of the
stalk. The farmer-respondents declared that different layers of leaf sheaths produce
different grades of fiber – the outer leaf sheaths are brownish and the inner leaf sheaths
are whitish. Stripping then follows after tuxying which is done manually using a knife.
The layers of leaf sheaths are pulled in between a knife and a block of wood to remove
the pulp and produce a clean fiber. These fibers are to be hanged in open air to dry
(pagbulad). Once dried, the fibers will be properly tied and ready to be sold.
1.7 Corn
Though cultivated by only a few (7.02%) farmer-respondents in the areas

covered by the Project, corn is still considered as a good alternative staple food to rice.
Native white corn variety is predominantly cultivated by the growers. This variety had
been maintained by the farmers since they started farming. A portion of the corn (seeds)
produced is kept and reserved for the ensuing cropping.
Table 38. Proportion of 171 farmer-respondents planting corn, Northern Samar,

2011
Farmer- Respondents
Respondents Planting Corn
Catarman 46 6 13.04
San Roque 37 2 5.41
Catubig 34 1 2.94
Las Navas 22 0 0
Total 171 12 7.02
The farmer-respondents claimed that corn can be planted anytime of the year so
long as the soil has enough moisture content. Based on their experience, however, corn
is better planted in the months of January to March. In four months time, the grains
become fully mature and ready for harvest. More than half (58.33%) of the corn growers
enjoy three to four cropping seasons in a year. The rest (41.67%), however, only grow
corn once in a year.
26
The average area devoted to corn production by each corn farmer was 0.87
hectares and the average seeding rate was 3.35 kilograms per hectare.
1.8 Fruits
Alongside the aforementioned food and non-food crops, farmer-respondents also

grow fruits or fruit-bearing trees and plants. Pineapple, jackfruit, pili, watermelon, and
lanzones are some of the primary fruits cultivated in the five municipalities.
Table 39. Proportion of 171 farmer-respondents planting fruits, Northern Samar,

2011
Fruits Catarman Lope de San Catubig Las Total
Planted Vega Roque Navas (%)
Pineapple 9 2 3 0 2 16
(19.57%) (6.25%) (8.11%) (9.1%) (9.36%)
Jackfruit 6 4 4 1 0 15
(13.04%) (12.5%) (10.81%) (2.94%) (8.77%)
Pili 5 1 2 0 0 8
(10.87%) (3.13%) (5.41%) (4.68%)
Watermelon 1 1 5 1 0 8
(2.17%) (3.13%) (13.51%) (2.94%) (4.68%)
Lanzones 5 1 0 0 1 7
(10.87%) (3.13%) (4.55%) (4.09%)
Cacao 2 2 1 0 1 6
(4.35%) (6.25%) (2.7%) (4.55%) (3.51%)
Avocado 3 0 0 0 0 3
(6.42%) (1.75%)
Calamansi 1 2 0 0 0 3
(2.17%) (6.25%) (1.75%)
2. Nutrient Management
The use of fertilizer is believed by all farmer-respondents to increase crop yield

significantly as they replenish the nutrient content in the soil which are essential for the
growth of crops. They are aware of the various options on how to maintain the fertility of
the soil.
A significant majority of the farmer-respondents either uses organic fertilizer

(50.88%) or does not fertilize at all (45.61%). The application of inorganic, chemical and
27
synthetic fertilizers such as urea (46-0-0) and complete (14-14-14) is not prevalent in
the five municipalities as it is only used by 3.5 percent of the farmer-respondents.
Table 40. Fertilizer application of 171 farmer-respondents, Northern Samar, 2011

Types of Fertilizer No. of Farmers Percent
No fertilizer 78 45.61
Organic fertilizer 87 50.88
Inorganic fertilizer 3 1.75
Urea (46-0-0) 2
Complete (14-14-14) 1
Both organic and inorganic fertilizer 3 1.75
Urea (46-0-0) and Compost/ Manure 2
Complete (14-14-14) and Manure 1
Total 171 100
The farmers who use inorganic fertilizer broadcast either urea or complete
fertilizers once in every cropping. They are usually accessed in private stores selling
agricultural supplies in the town center. Prices of these fertilizers vary depending on
where they are bought. It usually ranges from Php1200-PhP1500 per sack or around
Php20-Php40 per kilogram. According to them, the market prices in Catarman are lower
than in the other municipalities. They averred that the use of these fertilizers helps boost
their production, particularly on certain vegetables and fruits such as eggplant,
ampalaya, stringbeans and watermelon where they are usually applied.
Those who opted not to use fertilizers for their crops claimed that the soil in their
farms is still very fertile and productive.
The 87 farmer-respondents who used organic nutrients for their crops commonly
utilized animal manure (81.61%) and compost from rotting plants (78.16%). Vermicast
(6.9%) or the castings derived from the breaking down of organic materials by certain
kind of worms, and human urine (4.6%) were also used to fertilize crops.
Table 41. Organic fertilizer application of 87 farmer-respondents, Northern Samar,

2011
Type of Organic Fertilizer Number Percent
Animal Manure 71 81.61
Compost 68 78.16
Vermicast 6 6.9
Human urine 4 4.6
The weeds and grasses cut during the clearing stage (pagpakiwa) prior to
planting and the rice straws (uhot) left after threshing are usually gathered in certain
areas in the farm and allowed to dry and decompose. On the other hand, the manure of
28
farm animals such as carabao, cows, goats, chicken, and pigs are collected and are
usually incorporated into the soil where crops are to be planted or dissolved in water
and sprinkled on the soil where the crops stands. Others would dry them up first or
turn them into compost before application. Most of the farmer-respondents have been
accustomed to this farm practice since they started farming and practically no direct, out
of the pocket cost is incurred.
For all farmer-respondents, the use of organic fertilizers produces no negative

effects to the soil, crops, environment, and to humans since the materials and methods
used are all natural and free from harmful chemicals. On the other hand, majority
(97.08%) of the farmer-respondents perceived inorganic fertilizers to have negative
effects. Not only it is expensive, it also contributes to the degradation of the soil as they
believed it to increase soil acidity which may in turn impede on the growth of the crops.
They also claimed that the chemicals contained in these fertilizers may be hazardous to
the environment and human health.
Table 42. Perceptions of farmer-respondents on organic and inorganic fertilizers,

Perception on Organic and Number Percent
Inorganic Fertilizers
Organic fertilizers have no negative 171 100
effects
Organic fertilizers have negative 0 0
effects
Inorganic fertilizers have no negative 5 2.92
effects
Inorganic fertilizers have negative 166 97.08
effects
3. Pest Management
Some plants and animals present in the farm are recognized by the farmer-
respondents as threats to the development of crops, hence to their production and
income levels. Weeds and grasses grow and compete with the crops in deriving
nutrients from the soil. Insects (i.e. tayangaw (blackbug), kumaw-kumaw, stemborer,
budlo) birds (i.e. maya), rats and kuhol (snails) largely feed on and destroy the crops.
Hence, pest management is deemed necessary for the growth and survival of the crops.
All farmer-respondents claimed that pests must be controlled or eliminated to

prevent it from spreading and destroying the crops. However, they differ on their views
and practices on pest management.
29
The use of pesticide is not widely practiced in the five municipalities. Majority
(66.08%) of the farmer-respondents preferred not to apply pesticide. Some farmers
opted to use either organic pesticide (22.81%) or inorganic pesticide (11.11%) to control
or prevent pests, particularly insects, from attacking the plants.
Table 43. Pesticide application of farmer-respondents, Northern Samar, 2011

Types of Pesticide No. of Farmers Percent
No pesticide application 113 66.08
Organic pesticide 39 22.81
Inorganic pesticide 19 11.11
Both organic and inorganic 0 0
Total 171 100
For some farmers, especially those who did not apply organic or inorganic
pesticides, they resort to old-aged tradition of controlling insect pests. Very common is
the pasilhig (also locally known as orasyon or padasal) wherein a local folk who is
believed to have spiritual powers would exercise rituals in the field to ward off the
insects. Some also practice paaso (also locally known as paharing or paluon) wherein
farmers set smoke to the crops to fend off or kill the insects. Others would cultivate
plants which are known to be insect repellants around the field or near the crops,
common of which is the rosas de cordon. Others would also hang mixture of vinegar
and sugar to attract insects to attack it instead of the crops, or wrap the fruits with
plastic bags or newspapers. Others would manually remove and kill the insects, and
some others would just do nothing about it.
Kuhol (snail) which is known to attack rice plants are normally hand-picked by the
rice farmers. Coconut meat is also placed in the paddies so that rats would feast on
them instead of the crops. Birds such as maya are kept at bay with the setting up of
scarecrows and flaglets (banderitas).
The farmer-respondents also manually remove the weeds and grasses that grow
in the fields and compete with the crops.
For those who applied organic pesticides to eradicate insect pests, home-made
solutions or mixtures of organic materials were actually sprayed. Common ingredients
to these sprays were tabako (or dried tobacco leaves in particular), harang (chilies),
kurot, rosas de cordon or ahito, lemon grass, madre de cacao, garlic, onion, and
kachumba. These plants are known to the farmers to have insecticidal properties. They
claimed that they are still perfecting this method since they have only learned this from
Plan when the Food Security Project started three years ago.
For the farmer-respondents who applied inorganic pesticides, they claimed that
their use of it have been proven to be effective in containing pests. Insecticides such as
Karate, Cymbush, Bushwhack, Ei-785, Furadan, Bionex, Ei-748 and Thiodan and
herbicides like 2,4-D Amine were purchased in their respective town centers and
30
applied for around two to three times per cropping. On the average, they have been
using these chemical pesticides for 10 years. However, they claimed that they have not
abandoned some traditional practices such as weeding and tilling of the soil to remove
weeds and grasses, and the pasilhig.
The application of organic pesticides is perceived by all farmer-respondents to

bear no negative effects to the crops, environment, and humans since the materials
used are all-natural. On the other hand, majority (95.32%) of them asserted that
inorganic pesticides bring negative results. They claimed that the chemical content of
these pesticides are harmful that it can poison humans and farm animals even when
just inhaled. Excessive and continuous use of it may destroy the crops and the quality of
the soil. Even the majority of those who used inorganic pesticides shared the same
view. But they maintained that these ill effects would only materialize if chemical
pesticides will not be handled and used properly.
Table 44. Perceptions of farmer-respondents on organic and inorganic pesticides,

Perception on Organic and Inorganic Number Percent
Fertilizers
Organic pesticides have no negative effects 171 100
Organic pesticides have negative effects 0 0
Inorganic pesticides have no negative effects 8 4.68
Inorganic pesticides have negative effects 163 95.32
Majority (74.85%) of the farmer-respondents did not receive any training yet on
pest management but they expressed their willingness to attend such to be exposed to
new methods and technologies on pest control. On the other hand, the others (25.15%)
have already participated in such trainings. They obtained these trainings just recently
when the Food Security Project commenced in their respective areas.
Table 45. Proportion of farmer-respondents trained on pest management,

Pest Management Number Percent
Training
Have been trained 43 25.15
No training yet 128 74.85
Total 171 100
4. Farm Animals Raised
31
Aside from planting crops, the farmer-respondents also raise livestock and
poultry in their farms. Chicken and pigs are the most commonly domesticated farm
animals with 67.84 percent and 44.44 percent of the farmers rearing them, respectively.
Other farmers also wean carabaos (29.24%), goats (19.3%), and ducks (3.51%).
Table 46. Proportion of farmer-respondents trained on pest management,

Farm Animal Number Percent
Carabao 50 29.24
Pigs 76 44.44
Goat 33 19.3
Chicken 116 67.84
Duck 6 3.51
Carabao provides the most help in farming as it is predominantly used in land

preparation and in transporting harvested products and other merchandize. The other
animals are used as sources of food by the farming households and are most especially
prepared during special celebrations such as fiesta, Christmas holidays, and birthdays.
E. Production Levels and Marketing Practices of Farmer-Respondents
1. Production Levels and Marketing of Crops
1.1 Coconut
Coconut farming eats up the largest share in the farmer’s total landholdings. The
115 coconut farmers in the sample devoted a total land area of 231.17 hectares for
coconut. On the average, each farmer operates on 2.01 hectares of coconut lands
which primarily produce copra. A total of 190,938.9 kilograms of copra have been
produced by the 115 coconut farmers in 2010. Each farmer then produced an average
of 1,660.34 kilograms of copra. Moreover, a hectare of coconut land yielded 825.99
kilograms of copra.
Table 47. Production and yield statistics of 115 coconut farmer-respondents,

Items Values
Number of coconut farmers 115
32
Total area devoted to coconut (in hectares) 231.17
Average area devoted to coconut (in hectares per 2.01
farmer)
Total Production ( in kilograms) 190,938.9
Average production (kilograms per farmer) 1,660.34
Yield (kilograms/hectare) 825.99
The combined land area allotted for coconut farming in Catarman and Lope de
Vega covers almost 70 percent of the total coconut landholdings of the 115 farmer-
respondents. Farmers from the two municipalities worked on an average of more than
two hectares – 2.7 hectares for Lope de Vega and 2.33 hectares for Catarman. Farmers
from San Roque, Catubig and Las Navas operated on an average of less than two
hectares. Catarman shared almost 50 percent of the total production of copra and
posted the highest in terms of per farmer share. In terms of yield levels, the coconut
growers from San Roque and Catarman registered 1,101.91 kilograms per hectare and
998.27 kilograms per hectare, respectively. This is way above the yield level of 825.99
kilograms per hectare for the five municipalities. The municipalities of Lope de Vega,
Catubig and Las Navas each posted a yield (kg/hectare) level below average.
Table 48. Production and yield statistics of 115 coconut farmer-respondents per
municipality, Northern Samar, 2011
Catarman Lope de San Roque Catubig Las Navas
Vega
Number of coconut 39 24 22 14 16
farmers (33.91%) (20.87%) (19.13%) (12.17%) (13.91%)
Total area devoted to 90.75 64.88 27.63 21.36 26.55
coconut (in hectares) (39.25%) (28.07%) (11.95%) (9.23%) (11.49%)
Average area devoted to 2.33 2.7 1.26 1.53 1.66
coconut (in hectares per
farmer)
Total Production (in 90,593.14 37,288.57 30,445.71 15,598.86 17,012.57
kilograms) (47.45%) (19.53%) (15.95%) (8.17%) (8.91%)
Average Production (in 2,322.9 1,553.69 1,383.9 1,114.2 1,063.29
kilograms per farmer)
Yield (in kilograms per 998.27 574.73 1,101.91 730.28 640.77
hectare)
The 190,838.9 kilograms of copra produced by the 115 copra farmers were all
marketed. Majority (65.22%) of the farmers sold their products to traders located at the
town center. On the other hand, 34.78 percent of copra producers dispose their
products to middlemen situated in the barangay at a generally lower price compared to
the prices prevailing in the poblacion.
33
Table 49. Market of the 115 copra-producing farmer-respondents, Northern
Samar, 2011
Market for Copra Number Percent
Town trader 75 65.22
Middlemen in the barangay 40 34.78
Total 115 100
Transportation costs usually hinder farmers from delivering products to where

price is higher. The cost of moving the product ranged from Php10 to Php125 per sack
of copra depending on the distance from the farm to the market and the relative ease of
accessing markets. Other farmers are tied to certain traders or middlemen due to the
cash advances or loans extended which would compel them to sell their products to
these creditors even if prices are higher in other traders. Prevailing prices of copra
marketed within the barangay ranged from Php22 to Php48 per kilogram. While copra
marketed in town centers are priced at a range of Php29 to Php50 per kilogram. The
level of dryness of copra is greatly observed by the buyers and is the primary
consideration in pricing.
Aside from the transaction costs incurred in selling the product, the coconut
growers also has to contend with the expenses incurred in copra production – from
pangawit or panaka up until copras are market-ready. Part of the proceeds from the
sale of copra was used to settle these expenses particularly by the 35.65 percent of the
coconut farmer who hired labor. The majority (64.35%) utilized family labor, hence did
not incur direct labor costs.
Table 50. Labor use of the 115 copra-producing farmer-respondents, Northern

Samar, 2011
Type of Labor Used in Number Percent
Copra Production
Hired Labor 41 35.65
Family Labor 74 64.35
Total 115 100
The coconut growers from the five municipalities indirectly shared 48.98 percent
of the total copra production. The rest of the harvest indirectly proceeded to the
landlords (40.34%) as their output share since some of the coconut lands cultivated
were tenanted, and to the hired manpower (10.67%) for the services rendered in copra
production.
Table 51. Output distribution of 115 coconut farmer-respondents, Northern

Samar, 2011
Distribution of Copra Amount (in kilograms) Percentage
Produced
34
Total Production 190,838.9 100
Quantity Sold 190,838.9 100
Landlord’s Share (for tenanted 77,036.76 40.34
lands)
Payment for Services 20,374.09 10.67
Farmer-Cultivator’s Share 93,528.01 48.98
1.2 Rice
The 104 farmers devoted a total of 131.44 hectares of land to rice farming or an
average area of 1.26 hectares per farmer. All of them produce only once in a year and
in the last cropping season (2010) they produced a total of 173,683.6 kilograms of palay
(unhusked rice) or an average production of 1,670.04 kilograms per farmer. Each
hectare of land yielded 1,321.44 kilograms.
Table 52. Production and yield statistics of 104 rice farmer-respondents, Northern
Samar, 2011
Items Values
Number of rice farmers 104
Total area devoted to rice (hectares) 131.44
Average area devoted to rice (hectares per farmer) 1.26
Total Production (kilograms) 173,683.6
Average production (kilograms per farmer) 1,670.03
Yield (kilograms/hectare) 1,321.44
Around 66 percent of the total production of the five municipalities came from
San Roque and Catubig, each producing 67,292 kilograms and 47,320 kilograms of
palay, respectively. The combined production of Las Navas and Catubig contributed
31.01 percent of total production. Lope de Vega only contributed 3 percent of total
production. The farmers in San Roque and Catubig each produce an average of 2,588.2
kilograms and 2,366 kilograms, respectively. While the farmers in Las Navas and
Catarman each produce an average of 1,611.91 kilograms and 1,058.27 kilograms,
respectively. In Lope de Vega, a farmer only has an average of 325.78 kilograms of
palay produced.
In terms of the productivity of the land, farmers in San Roque and Catubig
yielded the most, each registering 2,300.58 kilograms per hectare and 1,493.22
kilograms per hectare. Catarman and Las Navas have yield levels of 888.71 kilograms
per hectare and 830.38 kilograms per hectare, respectively. Las Navas, on the other
hand, only yielded 674.31 kilograms per hectare. It is worthy to note that the farmers in
Lope de Vega cultivate rice in upland areas and use the direct method of planting.
35
Table 53. Production and yield statistics of 104 rice farmer-respondents per
Vega
Number of rice farmers 25 16 26 20 17
(24.04%) (15.38%) (25%) (19.23) (16.35%)
Total area devoted to rice 29.77 7.73 29.25 31.69 33
(in hectares) (22.65%) (5.88%) (22.25%) (24.11%) (25.11%)
rice (in hectares per
farmer)
Total Production (in 26,456.8 5,212.4 67,292 47,320 27,402.4
kilograms) (15.23%) (3%) (38.74%) (27.24%) (15.78%)
Average Production (in 1,058.27 325.78 2,588.15 2366 1,611.91
Yield (in kilograms per 888.71 674.31 2,300.58 1,493.22 830.38
hectare)
Rice production in the five municipalities has been principally directed for home
consumption. Of the 104 rice farmer-respondents, only 23.08 percent sell portions of the
palay produced. But the majority (76.92%) did not market their product.
Table 54. Proportion of the 104 rice farmer-respondents who market their product,
If the farmer markets the Number Percent
rice produced
No 80 76.92
Yes 24 23.08
Total 104 100
Of the 24 rice growers who opted to market the palay they have harvested, only 4
(16.67%) made further improvements to the product. They have dried the palay well and had it
milled before it reached the hands of the buyers. But the majority (83.33%) sold the palay as is.
The prevailing market prices for a sack of palay ranged from Php400 to PhP550. Each
sack has an estimated weight of 40 kilograms. On the other hand, milled rice is priced at
Php1,200 to Php1,400 per 50-kilogram sack or sold at Php65 to Php85 per ganta (estimated
2.38 kilograms). A sack of milled rice is equivalent to 2-3 sacks of palay. Pricing of palay and
milled rice depends on the variety sold and its qualities – dryness, smell, and taste when
cooked, among others. Normally, farmers accept the prices dictated by the market or quoted by
the merchants.
Table 55. Proportion of the 24 rice-selling farmer-respondents that made

improvements to the product, Northern Samar, 2011
36
If further improvements Number Percent
were made to the product
(palay)?
No 20 83.33
Yes 4 16.67
Total 24 100
Those who sold palay argued that it is practical to do so since the return from
selling it is just the same as in selling milled rice. In the latter, labor costs from drying
and hauling, milling cost and transportation costs will further be incurred which would
only be tantamount to the premium gained from selling milled rice instead of palay.
Town traders were the common buyers of palay. Around 70.83 percent of the rice
growers sell their products to them. However, transportation costs which ranged from
Php20 to Php60 per sack of palay were incurred by the farmers in disposing the
products. On the other hand, the some farmers (29.17%) also dispose their products,
most especially milled rice, to the households within the barangay.
Table 56. Market of the 24 rice-selling farmer-respondents, Northern Samar, 2011

Market for rice Number Percent
Households from the 7 29.17
barangay
Total 24 100
As noted earlier, rice production is largely carried out to satisfy the farming
household’s rice consumption requirements. Of the total palay output of 173,683.6
kilograms, 43.86 percent was allocated for home consumption. Since some of the rice
farming activities such as harvesting and hauling requires hired labor and rental of farm
implements (specifically carabao), the payment for such services also eats up a
significant portion of total production. This expense has taken 39,590.28 kilograms of
palay or 22.79 percent of total production.
Landlord’s share absorbed 32,310 kilograms of palay or 18.6 percent of total

production, since some of the rice farmers are tenants who are obliged to share portions
of their produce to the landlords. Tenants generally get one third share of the net
product.
Some portions of palay produced were reserved as seeds or gahi (3.76%) for the
next cropping or were paid to creditors (2.16%) for the debts incurred by the households
particularly those incurred in land preparation and planting, and other incidental
expenses. Only 8.82 percent of the rice output or 15,320 kilograms reached the market.
37
Table 57. Output distribution of 104 rice farmer-respondents, Northern Samar,
2011
Distribution of Palay Amount (in kilograms) Percentage
Produced
Quantity Sold 15,320 8.82
Landlord’s Share (for tenanted 32,310 18.6
lands)
Payment for Services 39,590.28 22.79
Paid to Creditors 3,760 2.16
Reserved for Seeds 6,533.28 3.76
Left for Home Consumption 76,170.04 43.86
1.3 Root crops
Camote (sweet potato) and lagikway (cassava), the most commonly cultivated
among the root crops were the most harvested, each registering a total production of
9,883.33 kilograms and 7,950 kilograms, respectively. The per farmer production of the
two crops posted 170.4 kilograms and 198.75 kilograms, respectively. The per farmer
harvest for mani (peanuts) is also among the highest, each farmer producing 193.67
kilograms. Mika or butig and bagong also surpassed the 100-kilogram per farmer
production. On the other hand, patatas (potato), gaway, palawan and ubi showed low
per farmer production hitting way below 100 kilograms.
Table 58. Production statistics of root crop farmer-respondents, Northern Samar,

2011
Root Crops Number of Total Production Average
Farmers Planting (in kilograms) Production
Root Crops (in kilograms per
farmer)
Camote 58 9,883.33 170.4
Lagikway 40 7,950 198.75
Gaway 27 1,255 46.48
Mika/Butig 20 2,533.54 126.68
Mani 6 1,162 193.67
Bagong 5 506.67 101.33
Ubi 2 36.67 18.33
Patatas 2 150 75
Palawan 2 66.68 33.34
38
The farmer-respondents from Lope de Vega have been noted to be the leading
producers of most of the root crops such as lagikway (cassava), mika or butig, ubi
(yam), and patatas (potato) and came a close second in the production of camote and
gaway. The root crop growers from San Roque topped in the production of palawan,
bagong, mani and camote. On the other hand, the farmers from Catubig also
contributed significantly in the production of gaway, lagikway and mika, and the farmers
from Catarman in the production of lagikway, camote and patatas.
Table 59. Production statistics of root crop farmer-respondents per municipality,

Vega
Camote 2,366.67 2,833.33 3,100 1,150 433.33
(23.95%) (28.67%) (31.37%) (11.64%) (4.38%)
Lagikway 2,466.67 2,483.33 550 2,266.67 183.33
(31.03%) (31.24%) (6.92%) (28.51%) (2.31%)
Gaway 40 445 250 475 45
(3.19%) (35.46%) (19.92%) (37.85%) (3.59%)
Mika/Butig 66.68 1,850.07 0 516.77 100.02
(2.63%) (73.02%) (20.4%) (3.95%)
Mani 0 0 1,150 12 0
(98.97%) (1.03%)
Bagong 0 0 491.67 15 0
(97.04%) (2.96%)
Ube 0 20 16.67 0 0
(54.54%) (45.45%)
Patatas 50 100 0 0 0
(33.33%) (66.67%)
Palawan 0 0 66.68 0 0
(100%)
Only 44.74 percent of the root crop farmers direct their production to the market,
but still satisfying the consumption of the households. The majority (55.26%), on the
other hand, retained the product and considered a source of subsistence of the
household.
Table 60. Proportion of the 76 root crop farmer-respondents who market their
product, Northern Samar, 2011
root crops produced
No 42 55.26
Yes 34 44.74
Total 76 100
39
Town traders are the common buyers of the products of the 55.88 percent of root
crop growers. The rest (44.12) sell their products to households or middlemen within the
barangay.
Table 61. Market of the 34 root crop-selling farmer-respondents, Northern Samar,

2011
Market for root crops Number Percent
Households from the 15 44.12
barangay
Total 34 100
1.4 Abaca
Only 15.79 percent of the farmer-respondents interviewed cultivated abaca to

extract raw fibers and be sold in the market. These farmers covered 31.25 hectares of
land for the abaca plants, each farmer allotting an average of 1.16 hectares. It should
be noted however, that majority of these farmer-respondents only planted abaca
alongside the primary crop which is coconut. The combined production of the 27 abaca
growers for 2010 was 2,085 kilograms, each farmer contributing an average of 77.22
kilograms of raw abaca fibers. Each hectare of land devoted to abaca produces an
average of 66.72 kilograms.
Table 62. Production and yield statistics of 27 abaca farmer-respondents,

Items Values
Number of abaca farmers 27
Total area devoted to abaca (in hectares) 31.25
Average area devoted to abaca (in hectares per 1.16
farmer)
Total Production ( in kilograms) 2085
Average production (kilograms per farmer) 77.22
Yield (kilograms/hectare) 66.72
Abaca fiber production was observed to be practiced by the farmer-respondents

in the municipalities of Las Navas (33.33%), Lope de Vega (28.33%), and San Roque
(18.52%), though not as common as in the production of other crops. In terms of the
land area utilized for abaca cultivation, the three municipalities covered 84 percent of
the total. Around 84 percent of total production of abaca fiber was also contributed by
40
the three municipalities – Las Navas with 795 kilograms, San Roque with 510 kilograms
and Las Navas with 430 kilograms. Average production in the five municipalities ranged
from 30-104 kilograms per farmer. Yield levels, on the other hand, ranged from 60-69
kilograms per hectare.
Table 63. Production and yield statistics of 27 abaca farmer-respondents per

Vega
Number of abaca farmers 1 9 5 3 9
(3.7%) (33.33%) (18.52%) (11.11%) (33.33%)
Total area devoted to 0.5 11.75 8.25 4.5 6.25
abaca (in hectares) (1.6%) (37.6%) (26.4%) (14.4%) (20%)
abaca (in hectares per
farmer)
Total Production (in 30 795 520 310 430
kilograms) (1.44%) (38.13%) (24.94%) (14.87%) (20.62%)
Average Production (in 30 88.33 104 103.33 47.78
Yield (in kilograms per 60 67.7 63.03 68.9 68.8
hectare)
The 2,085 kilograms of raw abaca fibers produced by the 27 abaca farmers were
all sold in the market. Farmers have the options to sell the fibers to traders at the town
center or in nearby towns or to middlemen within the barangay. The average price of
abaca from the five municipalities is PhP37.7. The price charged for a kilogram of abaca
fiber within the barangay ranged from Php24 to Php40 while the price charged by
traders outside the barangay (from the town center or from nearby towns) ranged from
Php28 to Php45. Transporting the product (especially to traders off the barangay) costs
Php1 to Php2 per kilogram. Fibers which are well-dried, fine, and white in color usually
command higher prices.
Table 64. Market of the 27 abaca-producing farmer-respondents, Northern Samar,

2011
Market for Abaca Number Percent
Total 27 100
1.5 Corn
41
A total of 10,982.5 kilograms of corn was produced from the 10.47 hectares of
land by the 12 (7.02%) farmer-respondents who were into corn farming. Each farmer
contributed an average production of 915.21 kilograms. A hectare of corn land yielded
1,049.95 kilograms.
Table 65. Production and yield statistics of 12 corn farmer-respondents, Northern

Samar, 2011
Items Values
Number of corn farmers 12
Total area devoted to corn (in hectares) 10.47
Average area devoted to corn (in hectares per farmer) 0.85
Total Production ( in kilograms) 10,982.5
Average production (kilograms per farmer) 915.21
Yield (kilograms/hectare) 1,049.95
A total of 5,175 kilograms of corn which is 47.12% of the total corn output was
posted by the corn farmers of Catarman. Corn yield was also highest in Catarman with
each hectare of land producing 1,998.07 kilograms of corn. The combined corn output
of San Roque and Lope de Vega contributed 49.73 percent of the total corn production.
Table 66. Production and yield statistics of 12 corn farmer-respondents per

Vega
Number of corn farmers 6 3 2 1 0
(50%) (25%) (16.67%) (8.33%) (0%)
Total area devoted to corn 2.59 3.13 4.5 0.25 0
(in hectares) (24.73%) (29.89%) (42.98%) (2.39%) (%)
Average area devoted to 0.43 1.04 2.25 0.25 0
corn (in hectares per
farmer)
Total Production (in 5,175 2,012.5 3450 345 0
kilograms) (47.12%) (18.32%) (31.41%) (3.14%) (0%)
Average Production (in 862.5 670.83 1,725 345 0
Yield (in kilograms per 1998.07 642.97 766.67 1380 0
hectare)
Majority (75%) of the corn farmers channel their output to the market. The others
(25%) retain their harvest for home consumption. Corn was sold by the farmers without
removing the husk and was priced at Php3 to Php5 per piece or at Php800 to Php1000
per sack.
42
Table 67. Proportion of the 12 corn farmer-respondents who market their product,
corn produced
No 3 25
Yes 9 75
Total 12 100
The buyers of corn were either the town traders or the middlemen in the barangay. But
majority (77.78%) of the corn growers disposed their products to the former to take advantage
of a relatively higher price. Transportation cost however ranged from Php20 to Php70 per sack
of corn.
Table 68. Market of the 9 corn-selling farmer-respondents, Northern Samar, 2011

Market for corn Number Percent
Town trader 7 77.78
Total 9 100
A large share of the total corn output – 8,764.56 kilograms or 79.8 percent was
channeled by the farmers to the market. The remainder was left for home consumption
(19.71%) and was used as seeds (1.35%) in the cropping seasons.
Table 69. Output distribution of 12 corn farmer-respondents, Northern Samar,

2011
Distribution of Corn Amount (in kilograms) Percentage
Produced
Quantity Sold 8,728.86 79.48
Reserved for Seeds 148.8 1.35
Left for Home Consumption 2,104.84 19.17
1.6 Vegetables
Just like the cultivation of root crops, vegetables are also planted in the farm
along with major crops like coconut and rice, or grown in the farmer’s backyard. In 2010,
squash, eggplant, and string beans posted a total output of 16,708 kilograms, 6,793
kilograms, and 5,504 kilograms, respectively. These vegetables also posted the highest
in terms of per farmer production – 2,030.78 kilograms for squash, 165.68 for eggplant,
43
and 105.85 for string beans. Other vegetables such as ampalaya, pechay, upo and okra
registered a below 50-kilogram per farmer production.
Table 70. Production statistics of vegetable farmer-respondents, Northern Samar,

2011
Vegetables Number of Total Production Average
Farmers (in kilograms) Production
(in kilograms per
farmer)
String beans 52 5,504 105.85
Eggplant 41 6,793 165.68
Ampalaya 38 1,150 30.26
Pechay 24 613 25.54
Squash 23 16,708 2,030.78
Upo 12 199 16.58
Okra 10 94.5 9.45
Majority (74.32%) of the farmer-respondents who cultivated vegetables, disposed

their products in the market. They averred that since vegetables are highly perishable
and are usually produced in excess of household consumption, it is but rational for them
to look for markets that would absorb the surpluses and earn from it, instead of putting
them into waste. The others (25.68%), on the other hand, maintained that vegetable
production is just sufficient for home use.
Table 71. Proportion of the 74 vegetable farmer-respondents who market their

product, Northern Samar, 2011
If the farmer markets any of Number Percent
the vegetables produced
No 19 25.68
Yes 55 74.32
Total 12 100
Majority (65.45%) of the vegetable growers peddle their products to households within
the barangay. Others would personally sell in town centers (21.82%) or to traders (9.09%) who
would fetch the product in the farm. Vegetable prices charged in the barangay were noted by
the farmers to be lower than the prevailing prices in town centers or the prices quoted by
traders. Some are even given for free or feed to farm animals most especially when the maket is
saturated with the same products.
Table 72. Market of the 55 vegetable-selling farmer-respondents, Northern Samar,

2011
Market for vegetables Number Percent
Town center 12 21.82
44
Households in the barangay 36 65.45
Traders 5 9.09
Both town center and 2 3.64
barangay
Total 55 100
2. Production Levels of Poultry and Livestock
In terms of the number of heads, chicken and pigs registered the most with
farmers owning an average of 5.53 and 0.86 heads, respectively.
Table 73. Total and Average Number of Heads of Farm Animals, Northern Samar,
2011
Farm Animal Total Heads Average Head Per Farmer
Carabao 96 0.56
Pigs 147 0.86
Goat 67 0.39
Chicken 946 5.53
Duck 60 0.35
Farmers do not usually put the farm animals up for sale. Carabaos are prized
possessions of farmers because of their huge contribution in farming, hence are less
likely to be marketed. Moreover, the other animals are only butchered in special
celebrations of the household, and do not commonly reach the market.
F. Farmer’s Perception, Attitude and Valuation of Sustainable Agriculture
1. Awareness, skills, and attitudes toward Sustainable Agriculture
Majority of the farmer-respondents rated their level of awareness on sustainable

agriculture or organic farming from fair (35.09%) to good (22.22%). In terms of their
skills to undertake sustainable agriculture, majority also rated it from fair (34.5%) to
good (21.64%). They claimed that the orientation seminars and trainings given to them
by Plan through the Food Security Project resulted in an increased understanding of the
principles and methods of sustainable agriculture. Setting up demo farms in their
respective barangays by the farmer’s associations organized by the Project also
improves their skills on SA as it puts to test the knowledge that they have acquired in
trainings. The Project had been their primary source of information regarding this form
of agriculture.
45
However, a significant number of farmers had given a poor (18.13%) to very poor
(15.2%) rating of their awareness on SA and a poor (20.47%) to very poor (16.96%)
rating in terms of their skills on SA. These farmers, who were mostly non-members of
the Project, solely relied on their experience and have not formally heard or were not
thoroughly oriented yet of this farming technology.
Table 74. Level of awareness and skills of 171 farmer-respondents on sustainable

agriculture, Northern Samar, 2011
Farmer’s Rating Awareness Skills
Number Percent Number Percent
Very Good (5) 16 9.36 11 6.43
Good (4) 38 22.22 37 21.64
Fair (3) 60 35.09 59 34.5
Poor (2) 31 18.13 35 20.47
Very Poor (1) 26 15.2 29 16.96
Total 171 100 171 100
More than half (53.22%) of the farmer-respondents were able to participate in

seminars and trainings on sustainable agriculture which were largely sponsored by
Plan. Majority of those who accessed trainings on SA were members of the Project.
Series of trainings on Community Management Project (CMP), Integrated Farming
System (IFS) and Natural Farming System Technology (NFST) were received by the
farmers since 2008. Those who have not participated in any training on SA declared
that they have been too busy with farm work or have not yet been invited to such. But all
of them expressed their willingness to improve their knowledge, skills and attitudes
towards SA.
Table 75. Attendance on trainings on sustainable agriculture of the 171 farmer-

respondents, Northern Samar, 2011
If attended Members Nonmembers Total
trainings Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
No 20 19.23 60 89.55 80 46.78
Yes 84 80.77 7 10.45 91 53.22
Total 104 100 76 100 171 100
All farmer respondents claimed that sustainable agriculture or organic farming is

good and important for various reasons. Foremost of which are the human health and
environmental benefits obtained from engaging into it. They are well aware that in SA
the application of hazardous chemicals in nurturing the crops are discouraged, and that
natural techniques in farming such as composting, biological pest control and crop
rotation, among others are promoted. Organic farming is also deemed cost-effective by
the farmers since no large amount of capital or direct costs on farm inputs such as
46
synthetic and inorganic fertilizers and pesticides are needed, only organic materials that
can be sourced out from the farm.
Natural and traditional farming practices are still dominantly practiced in the five
municipalities. As presented in previous discussions, only 3.5 percent and 11.11
percent of the farmer-respondents applied chemical fertilizers and chemical pesticides,
respectively. They claimed, however, that the application of chemical fertilizers are not
intense and are only limited to certain vulnerable crops. Moreover, the application of
chemical pesticides is only resorted to when persistent pest infestations occur.
The majority of the farmers are still not lured and convinced with the promises of
inorganic farming. Some of them recognized its short-run productivity benefits but they
argued that this would not be enough to compensate for its indirect costs and negative
impacts to humans and nature in the long run. They became more aware that the old-
aged farming practices that they have been accustomed with such as the payatak
system, composting and the non-application of chemicals, and the animistic practice of
controlling pests such as pasilhig are actually consistent with the principles of SA.
Table 76. Proportion of the 171 farmer-respondents practicing inorganic farming,

Inorganic Farming Number Percent
Practice
Application of chemical 6 3.5
fertilizers
Application of chemical 19 11.11
pesticides
There is a sad realization on the part of the farmers that the markets for
agricultural outputs are saturated with the products of inorganic methods of farming.
They even deduced that majority of the consumers have been used to these products
and are actually demanding for it. They maintained that the market of SA products is a
highly specialized one. The niche market for it consists of the educated, rich, and health
conscious individuals or households. Hence, penetrating the market is indeed a tough
challenge for organic producers.
2. Valuation of Sustainable Agriculture
As claimed by the farmer-respondents, there is no well-defined market for

sustainable agriculture products in Northern Samar yet. They attributed the absence of
such to a host of factors. Very prominent is the concentration of inorganic products
coming as far as Bicol, Cebu, Quezon Province, Baguio and Divisoria. These products
have practically captured the Northern Samar market, hence solidifying its market
leadership.
47
Other barriers expressed by the farmers which contribute to the absence of a
clear and functioning SA market include the low and small-scale production of individual
farmers, poor capitalization, absence of needed agricultural infrastructures such as farm
to market roads, irrigation and other facilities, low farm mechanization, high transaction
costs, low entrepreneurial skills of farmers, extreme weather conditions, limited
government support, the seemingly low consciousness of consumers on SA products
and the seemingly covert demand for it.
The absence of such market, hence, the absence of market prices, makes it
difficult for farmers or producers to put a monetary value that would reflect the true
value of the products of organic farming or the true value of SA in general, taking into
account its non-market benefits. But through some elicitation procedures such as the
contingent valuation method (CVM), it allows the value of non-market goods or services
to be estimated. Willingness to pay (WTP) and willingness to accept compensation
(WTA) were specifically used to measure the value that the farmers place on organic
products and sustainable agriculture.
There were no zero responses elicited from the 171 farmer-respondents when
asked of their willingness to accept compensation (WTA) for the full adoption of
sustainable agriculture (or to a decreased production of inorganic products). The mean
WTA of farmer-respondents was Php5.89 increment for every kilogram of organic
products produced.
There were also no zero responses elicited from the 171 farmer-respondents
when asked of their willingness to pay (WTP) for the non-adoption of sustainable
agriculture (or to an increased production of inorganic products). The farmers are willing
to pay, on the average, for a Php6.08 increment in every kilogram of inorganic products
produced.
Table 77. Valuation of sustainable agriculture of the 171 farmer-respondents,

Northern Samar, 2011.
Valuation Measure Minimum Maximum Average
WTA (Php/kg) 0.25 30 5.89
WTP (Php/kg) 0.5 30 6.07
The farmer-respondents provided a positive valuation of the non-market benefits

of sustainable agriculture and its products. The two welfare measures derived, the WTA
and WTP, can be used as lower- and upper-bound values for the non-market outputs of
SA. Hence, the incremental value for organic products (or SA in general) ranged from
Php5.89 to PhP6.07 for every kilogram of organic products produced.
The farmers have been persistent with their claim that inorganic farming must
really be discouraged due to the dangers it poses to humans and the environment. This
was evident in the higher WTP value given compared to WTA. Almost all of the farmers
48
have long been practicing, though not intensely, the principles of SA, hence, no big
compensation is required to convince them to practice SA.
G. Socio-Economic and Demographic Characteristics of the Sample Consumer-

Respondents
1. Gender and Age of the Respondents
Of the 86 consumer-respondents interviewed, 46 (53.49%) were males and 40

(46.51%) were females.
Table 78. Gender of 86 sample consumer-respondents, Northern Samar, 2011

Total Percent
Male 46 53.49
Female 40 46.51
Total 86 100
More than half (56.98%) of the consumer-respondents belonged to the 31-40 age
group and 36.05% aged above 50 years. The youngest recorded age in the sample was
23 years old and the oldest was 78 years old. The average age of the farmers was 46
years old.
Table 79. Age of 171 sample farmer-respondents, Northern Samar, 2011

Age Group Total Percent
(Years)
21-30 6 6.98
31-40 29 33.72
41-50 20 23.26
51-60 14 16.29
61-70 12 13.95
>70 5 5.81
Total 86 100
Average 46
Minimum 23
Maximum 78
2. Educational Attainment
Majority (44.18%) of the consumers interviewed were college graduates or have

entered tertiary level of education. The rest either reached secondary (27.91%) or
49
elementary (27.91%) levels. The consumer-respondents have obtained an average of
10 years of schooling. The maximum number of years of schooling registered was 16
years (masters degree) and the minimum was two years (or Grade 2).
Table 80. Educational attainment of 171 farmer-respondents, Northern Samar, 2011

Educational Attainment Total Percent
(Years)
Elementary Level (1-6) 24 27.91
Secondary Level (7-10) 24 27.91
Tertiary Level (11-16) 38 44.18
Total 86 100
Average 10
Minimum 2
Maximum 16
3. Household Size
The households of the consumer-respondents have an average of 6 members.

Majority (51.16%) of them belonged to larger households with 6-10 members. Others
(46.51%) were from smaller households with 2-5 members. The maximum household
size registered was 13 members and the minimum was 2 members.
Table 81. Household size of 86 consumer-respondents, Northern Samar, 2011

Household Size Total Percent
(Number of Members)
2-5 40 46.51
6-10 44 51.16
>10 2 2.33
Total 86 100
Average 6
Minimum 2
Maximum 13
4. Occupation
50
Majority (48.84%) of the consumers interviewed were engaged in buying and
selling agricultural products such as food crops (33.72%) and fish and meat (15.2%).
Some of the consumers own grocery and sari-sari stores (18.61%), work in the
government (16.3%), or were employed as professionals (5.81%). Others were
engaged in farming (9.3%) or paid as laborers and unskilled workers (12.79%). Few
(3.49%) own high-capitalization enterprise such as space rental, piggery, and barber
shop.
Table 82. Occupation of 86 consumer-respondents, Northern Samar, 2011

Occupation/Source of Income Number Percent
Buying and selling agricultural products 42 48.84
Agricultural crops 29 33.72
Fish and meat 13 15.2
Grocery and sari-sari store owners 16 18.61
Government employee, LGU officials, 14 16.3
citizen volunteers
Professionals 5 5.81
Laborers and unskilled workers 11 12.79
Small-scale farmers 8 9.3
Business owners (space rental, piggery, 3 3.49
barber shop)
The consumer-respondents relied on the aforementioned occupation as their

sources of income. More than half (52.33%) of them earned monthly income which is
below the 2009 national poverty threshold of Php7,017 for a household with five
members. Some (39.53%) of them haven’t even reached the national food threshold of
Php4,869. This basically included laborers and unskilled workers, small-scale farmers,
citizen volunteers, sari-sari store owners and some of those who are engaged in buying
and selling of agricultural products. The rest (47.67%) earned monthly incomes above
the poverty threshold.
Table 83. Monthly income levels of 86 consumer-respondents, Northern Samar,

2011
Monthly Household Number Percent
Income (in Php)
<4,869 34 39.53
4,869-7016 11 12.79
7,017-20,000 35 40.7
>20,000 6 6.98
51
Total 86 100
Average 7,418.75*
Minimum 1,000*
Maximum 20,000
*after correcting for outliers
5. Organizational Membership
Majority (73.26%) of the farmer-respondents were not part of any organization.

On the other hand, only 26.74 percent were members of organizations. Those who are
non-members claimed to have no time to be part of it since they are too busy with work
and have not been accustomed to joining organizations.
Table 84. Organizational membership of 86 consumer-respondents, Northern

Samar, 2011
Membership in Total Percent
Organizations
No Membership 63 73.26
Members of Organizations 23 26.74
Total 86 100
Cooperatives and credit organizations, church-based organizations, LGU, and

senior citizens groups were the common organizations wherein the some consumer
respondents are part of.
Table 85. Organizational membership of 23 consumer-respondents, Northern

Samar, 2011
Organizations Frequency
Cooperative and credit organizations 9
Church-based organizations 7
LGU 6
Senior Citizens 5
Socio-civic 1
Professional 1
The low organizational membership of farmer-respondents in the areas covered

could be an indication of a poor community and political participation of farmers.
H. Consumption Patterns of Consumer-Respondents
52
The consuming household allocates an average of 42.66 percent of their budget for
food consumption. They claimed that food items eat the biggest chunk of their
disposable income.
The public markets of the five municipalities which are located in the poblacion or
town centers are the major sources of food items for 88.37 percent of the consuming
households interviewed. Their accessibility, the variety of product choices, and the
availability of the products are the primary reasons why they prefer to shop in public
markets. Street vendors in the poblacion which are just located few meters away from
the public markets are important food sources to 15.11 percent of the consumer-
respondents. They claimed that prices charged by street vendors are usually lower than
in public markets and customers can usually haggle prices. Other relevant sources
include grocery stores in town centers (13.95%) which are the usual sources for
processed food items, talipapa situated in home barangays (10.47%), and public
markets in nearby towns (5.81%).
Table 86. Food item sources of 86 consumer-respondents, Northern Samar, 2011

Food Sources Number Total
Hometown’s public market 76 88.37%
Street vendors in the poblacion 13 15.11%
Hometown’s grocery stores 12 13.95%
Talipapa in home barangay 9 10.47%
Public market in nearby towns 5 5.81%
Off the province 1 1.16%
In all municipalities covered, respondents shop their food at the town’s public
market. In Lope de Vega, aside from the public market, most of them also prefer to buy
from street vendors while a few shop in Catarman and Calbayog. In San Roque,
grocery stores are also their sources of food products since they are scattered in the
town center. Catubig and Las Navas consumers largely rely on their public markets and
some from street vendors. While in Catarman, the town’s public market and talipapa in
certain barangays (i.e. Dalakit and Baybay) are their main sources of food items.
Table 87. Food item sources of 86 consumer-respondents per municipality,

Vega
Hometown’s 36 11 14 9 6
public (90%) (91.67%) (100%) (81.82%) (66.67%)
market
Talipapa in 8 0 0 0 1
home (20%) (11.11%)
barangay
53
Hometown’s 4 0 6 2 0
grocery (10%) (42.86%) (18.18%)
stores
Street 0 8 0 4 1
vendors in (66.67%) (36.36%) (11.11%)
the
poblacion
Public 0 4 0 0 1
market in (33.33%) (11.11%)
nearby
towns
Off the 0 0 0 1 0
province (9.09%)
Rice, vegetables, root crops, fish and meat products are the most common
agricultural products purchased by the consumer-respondents in public markets and in
other sources. They usually do their food shopping on a daily or a weekly basis since
agricultural products are highly perishable and they want to consume these products
fresh.
The households with an average of six members consume an average of 57.89

kilograms of rice. Rice is normally bought in stalls in public markets at a price ranging
from Php27 to PhP32 per kilogram depending on the variety. As per interview with rice
traders, if rice is in season, particularly in the months of March to May, it is sourced out
from rice-producing municipalities of Northern Samar such as San Roque, Catubig, Las
Navas, and Catarman. In lean months, however, rice is sourced out outside of the
province particularly from Camarines Sur and Isabela.
Aside from rice, vegetable is also a significant component of the typical meal of
consuming households. On the average, a household with six members consumes
38.35 kilograms of vegetables in a month. Prices ranged from Php40 to Php100 per
kilogram depending on the kind of vegetable and on the season. Common vegetables
bought from markets include eggplant, carrots, sayote, cabbage, ampalaya, upo, string
beans, squash and pechay. For the respondents, vegetables are practical sources of
some of the most important nutrients needed by the members of the households.
However, the vegetables dumped in major markets in the five municipalities are largely
sourced outside of Northern Samar, usually from Bicol, Quezon Province, Divisoria, and
Cebu, hence, uncertain of their safety.
Fish and meat form relevant items in the food consumption of the consumer-
respondents. A typical household consumes an average of 15.33 kilograms of fish, 4.87
kilograms of pork and 2.8 kilograms of chicken in a month. Average purchase prices of
the three were Php107.95, Php174.36, and P119.33, respectively. Much of the meat
products (chicken and pork) available in markets in the five municipalities are sourced
out locally, largely from Catarman, and some are from the livestock and poultry raisers
54
in the respective municipalities. On the other hand, fish supply largely comes from
Calbayog and some parts in Northern Samar such as Allen, Rawis and San Roque.
Table 88. Average agricultural food consumption of consumer-respondents,

Common Agricultural Average Monthly Average Purchase Price
Commodity Purchased Consumption (in (in Php per kilogram)
kilograms)
Rice 57.89 30.26
Vegetables 38.35
Eggplant 9.91 51.25
Carrots 5.11 70
Sayote 4.67 48.33
Cabbage 4.34 62.58
Ampalaya 4 70
Upo 4 50
String Beans 3.69 60
Squash 3.48 59.05
Pechay 3.21 50.35
Fish 15.33 107.95
Chicken Meat 2.8 119.33
Pork 4.87 174.36
The consumer-respondents claimed that in deciding what to buy, the quality of

the products – if it is fresh and can last for a longer period of time and its affordability
are their main considerations. They added that they are somehow satisfied with their
buying experience from their respective markets. The market places (especially the
town’s public markets) are conducive for food shopping because of its cleanliness, the
organization of stalls according to products, and its accessibility. Except for Catarman,
the consumer-respondents from the other four municipalities claimed that the array of
agricultural products sold in their markets is sometimes limited that they have to
proceed to Catarman (or Calbayog for consumers in Lope de Vega) where choices are
more complete and supplies are sufficient, most especially on special occasions and
celebrations, but have to incur a higher transportation cost.
Packing of purchased food items also gives added value to consumers. They
claimed that they are satisfied with the current practice of packing the products in plastic
bags. They added however that packing must be a free service that must be afforded by
the vendors to their customers.
I. Consumer’s Perceptions, Attitudes and Valuation of Sustainable Agriculture
1. Awareness on sustainable agriculture
55
Majority (65.12%) of the consumer-respondents have a very poor to fair
assessment of their knowledge on sustainable agriculture or organic farming – 36.04%
rated fair, 19.77% rated poor, and 9.3% rated very poor. They claimed to have no
exposure, orientation, or training on farming particularly on organic farming and
sustainable agriculture. On the other hand, only 34.88 percent provided a good to very
good appraisal. These consumer-respondents are the ones who have first-hand
experience on farming and gardening or were oriented about organic farming.
Table 89. Level of awareness of 86 consumer-respondents on sustainable

agriculture, Northern Samar, 2011
Consumer’s Awareness
Rating Number Percent
Very Good (5) 15 17.44
Good (4) 15 17.44
Fair (3) 31 36.05
Poor (2) 17 19.77
Very Poor (1) 8 9.3
Total 86 100
Family and friends, community members, school, and personal experiences were
the most common sources of knowledge on organic farming. Only a few learned of it
from authorities such as the Department of Agriculture and the LGU through informal
talks or from seminars.
The consumer-respondents may not be well-informed about the nitty gritty of SA

but almost all of them (97.67%) believed that it is good and important. Most of them
maintained that the products of organic farming are safe to humans since no harmful
chemicals are applied. Some also thought of it to be economical since expensive
chemicals are avoided in the growth and development of crops, hence farmers can
actually earn much due to lower production costs. On the other hand, only two out of the
86 (2.33%) consumer-respondents believed that SA is not good and important. They
claimed that the use of chemicals is beneficial as it protects agricultural crops which are
nowadays very prone to pest infestations. It increases production and hence the income
of farmers.
Table 90. Assessment of the goodness and importance of SA of 86 consumer-

respondents, Northern Samar, 2011
SA is good SA is important
Number Percent Number Percent
No 2 2.33 2 2.33
Yes 84 97.67 84 97.67
Total 86 100 86 100
56
The consumer-respondents claimed that they have already consumed organic
products. They believed that the products that they are consuming, though in negligible
amounts and lesser frequencies, which come from the interior barangays of the five
municipalities such as root crops like butig, gaway, lagikway,and camote fruits like
langka and lanzones, vegetables such as ganas (camote tops), kangkong, pako (fern),
heart of banana, papaya and ubod (bamboo shoots) are organic.
The consumer-respondents have already known ways on how to distinguish

organic from inorganic products since labeling is not practiced in the market. Organic
products taste better, smaller in size, greener in color, fresh but wilt easily, and with
insect imprints while inorganic ones are not too tasty, bigger in size, less green in color,
smooth and bright, and always fresh-looking. But for most of them, knowing the source
or where the product originates would be a better indicator.
They are well aware that the huge amount of agricultural products they buy from
the markets which are obtained outside of the province are grown inorganically and are
sprayed with chemicals. They are left with no choice but to consume it.
2. Valuation of SA products
Since the market for SA products in Northern Samar is not fully developed yet,
hence the absence of correct market prices, contingent valuation method (CVM) was
employed by asking the consumer-respondents of their willingness to pay (WTP) for an
increased consumption of SA products and their willingness to accept compensation
(WTA) for a reduced consumption of SA products to reflect the true value of SA or SA
products.
The consumer-respondents generally have a positive valuation of sustainable

agriculture or organic farming and the products of this farming system. Their current
food consumption bundles are filled with inorganic agricultural products. There is
recognition on their part of the perceived ill-effects from consuming these products and
of the benefits derived from consuming its organic counterparts. However, the latter are
rarely found in the market. Majority (90.7%) of them expressed their willingness to pay
(WTP) for the consumption of organic products. They are willing to give up a portion of
their disposable income to avail safe and environment-friendly goods, and compensate
organic farmers to encourage increased production of these goods. On the average,
consumer-respondents are willing to pay Php4.96 increment in every kilogram of SA
products consumed.
The consumer-respondents are willing to accept compensation (WTA) for the

consumption of inorganic products (or to a decreased consumption of organic products).
They claimed that they must be compensated for the harm (perceived or otherwise)
57
inorganic products can cause them and the environment (or for the values forgone from
not consuming organic products). On the average, they are willing to accept Php6.76
reduction in the price of inorganic products as compensation.
Table 91. Valuation of sustainable agriculture of the 86 farmer-respondents,

Northern Samar, 2011.
Valuation Measure Minimum Maximum Average
WTP (Php/kg) 1 20 4.96
WTA (Php/kg) 1 20 6.76
The two welfare measures derived, the WTA and WTP, can be used as lower-
and upper-bound values for the non-market outputs of SA. Hence, the incremental
value for organic products (or SA in general) ranged from Php4.96 to PhP6.76 for every
kilogram of organic products consumed.
J. Children’s Participation in Farming and Views on Sustainable Agriculture
The children in farming communities also participate in some of the lighter

activities in the farm when they are off school, most especially on weekends and school
breaks. For the children who belong to households who cultivate rice or for those who
are children of hired laborers, they help out in the more labor-intensive rice farming
activities such as pagtanom (planting) and pag-ani (harvesting). For households who
are engaged in copra production, the children participate in harvesting, particularly
during pangawit (picking the nuts using sickles attached to a long pole) and paghakot
(gathering of harvested nuts near the drier). Children also take part in vegetable and
root crop production, usually in pagdalos (clearing the land), making plots, planting, and
regularly watering the plants. They make sure however that these activities would not
impede on their studies.
They also have participation in marketing some of the crops such as vegetables
and root crops. Some children peddle these crops near their houses or around the
barangay and sometimes their parents would also take them to the poblacion to market
the product. The children claimed that their production is largely for home consumption,
and marketing is only resorted to when they have produced more than what they
needed or when funds are required for some important expenditure.
Since there are needed agricultural products that the households cannot produce
or can produce but not year-round, the households spend for food items from the
58
market places in town centers or in the barangays. The household heads are the ones
who decide on what goods to buy and in what quantities based on their budgetary
constraints. Children are sometimes accompanied in shopping for these goods in
poblacion or are given errands to buy certain food items within the barangay.
The children have a good grasp of what sustainable agriculture or organic

farming is about. They have been informed of it in school, from their parents, and from
Plan staffs. They are aware that this farming system makes no use of harmful chemicals
that would only destroy the environment and bring negative effects to consumers. With
organic farming, households will be assured that the food that is served on their table is
safe and healthy, hence must be promoted and supported.
K. Views of Project Partners and Stakeholders on Sustainable Agriculture
Despite the approval of RA 10068 or the Organic Agriculture Act of 2010, organic
agriculture in the Philippines, based on interviews with officers of key government agencies
such as the Department of Agriculture and the National Food Authority, is still fledgling but is
continuously gaining ground. It is estimated that the production of organic products grows 10 to
20 percent every year with a price premium of 20 to 50 percent over its inorganic counterpart.
Inorganic products still dominate markets in the country and in the Eastern Visayas
region. In Northern Samar, organic products are still limited in supply and are not for commercial
use. So businessmen source their supply from Cebu and Bicol or as far as Divisoria. Around 80
percent of the agricultural products in the province are procured outside. In rice production for
instance, Eastern Visayas is rice deficit and Northern Samar ranks third among the rice deficit
provinces in the region. Roughly 2 million sacks of rice are allocated by the NFA and two million
sacks are imported from other regions to fill the 4 million sacks deficit.
Project implementers and stakeholders cited various constraints in the production and
marketing of organic products in Northern Samar, particularly in the five municipalities covered
by the Food Security Project. Foremost of which is the absence or the inadequacy of certain
agricultural infrastructures which are highly needed by the farmers such as farm irrigation and
farm-to-market roads. The constant change of national agricultural priorities and programs and
the insufficient funds allocated by local government units (LGUs) for agriculture also hamper the
development of organic agriculture.
The reliance of farmers to low or old technologies such as the payatak system or the
lack of access to certain farm implements such as tractors and threshers result to increased
hired labor and production costs and inefficiencies. This is aggravated by a decline in the
number of hired laborers who are willing to work due to the presence of 4Ps or the conditional
59
cash transfer scheme of the government. Due to low production and yield levels, the harvest of
farmers are just sufficient (and sometimes not even enough) for family consumption. Farmers
also lack the needed entrepreneurial or marketing skills which make them prone to rent-seeking
middlemen, merchants and consumers. The vagaries of the weather or the presence of extreme
weather conditions and pest infestations are also deemed great threats to agricultural
production.
The shifting food patterns due to the increased health consciousness of some
households especially the middle class, the dependence of farmers to organic farming
practices, and the presence of a national organic farming law are good impetus for organic
farming to flourish and for its products to reach the markets, provided that needed support is
ushered in.
60

MR Report Production Marketing Consumption

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MR Report Production Marketing Consumption

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Study on the Production, Marketing and Consumption of Agricultural Products

A. Philippine Agriculture, Poverty and Nutrition: A Rationale

B. Northern Samar and the Food Security through Sustainable Agriculture

II. Methods of Data Gathering and Analysis

A. Study Area, Respondents, and Data Collection

Table 3. Distribution of farmer-respondents based on gender and Project

A total of 24 key-informant interviews (KII) have been facilitated to key Project

Interviewer-led survey and focused group discussion (FGD) were facilitated to

B. Method of Data Analysis

Descriptive statistics such as means, minimum, maximum and standard deviation

C. Schedule of Research Activities

 Consolidation of Data, Initial Presentation of 1 week

III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

A. Description of the Study Area

Northern Samar is one of the provinces in the Eastern Visayas region. It

B. Socio-Economic and Demographic Characteristics of the Sample Farmer-

Table 7. Gender of 171 sample farmer-respondents, Northern Samar, 2011

Table 8. Age of 171 sample farmer-respondents, Northern Samar, 2011

Table 9. Farming experience of 171 farmer-respondents, Northern Samar, 2011

Majority (55.55%) of the farmer-respondents have only reached elementary level

Table 10. Educational attainment of 171 farmer-respondents, Northern Samar, 2011

The households of the farmer-respondents have an average of 6 members.

Table 11. Household size of 171 farmer-respondents, Northern Samar, 2011

Table 12. Tenurial status of 171 farmer-respondents, Northern Samar, 2011

Table 13. Proportion of 171 farmer-respondents who had other sources of

Honorarium was the most cited source of income of the farmer-respondents

Table 14. Sources of income of farmer-respondents aside from farming, Northern

Majority (79.53%) of the farmer-respondents were part of organizations. On the

Farmer-respondents were members of economic or farming-related

Table 16. Organizations of 136 farmer-respondents, Northern Samar, 2011

The farmer-respondents who were members of organizations claimed to derive

The high organizational membership of farmer-respondents in the areas covered

Table 17. Proportion of 171 farmer-respondents who availed of credit, Northern

Table 18. Credit sources of 54 farmer-respondents who availed credit, Northern

The amount loaned by the farmer-respondents ranged from Php500 to

Table 19. Amount loaned of 54 farmer-respondents who availed credit, Northern

9. Participation in Farming-Related Trainings

Majority (65.5%) of the farmer-respondents have participated in farming-related

Table 20. Proportion of 171 farmer-respondents who participated in farming-

Majority (66.67%) of the farmer-respondents operated on farms with less than 3

Majority (64.3%) of the farmer-respondents cultivated farms which have plain or

Table 22. Topography of farms of 171 farmer-respondents, Northern Samar, 2011

Plain/flat 110 64.3

The farmer-respondents in the municipalities of Catarman, Catubig, San Roque

Table 23. Topography of farms of 171 farmer-respondents per municipality,

Table 24. Sources of irrigation of 171 farmer-respondents, Northern Samar, 2011

4. Flora and Fauna

D. Farm Management Practices of Sample Rice Farmer-Respondents

1. Crops Planted and Cropping Practices

Copra production is one of the widely practiced economic activities among

Table 25. Proportion of farmer-respondents planting coconut, Northern Samar,

Despite the considerable dependence of farmer-respondents on the rain for their

Table 26. Proportion of 171 farmer-respondents planting rice, Northern Samar,

It has been a common practice among the 50 percent of the farmer-respondents

Table 29. Land preparation methods of 104 rice farmer-respondents, Northern

1.3 Root Crops

Cultivating root crops is practiced significantly by the farmer-respondents in the

Table 31. Proportion of 171 farmer-respondents planting root crops, Northern

Table 33. Proportion of 171 farmer-respondents planting banana, Northern Samar,

Table 34. Proportion of 171 farmer-respondents planting vegetables, Northern

Table 35. Proportion of farmer-respondents planting vegetable, Northern Samar,

Some 15.79 percent of the farmer-respondents also cultivated abaca in their