1

PRODUCTIVITY AND PROFITABILITY

OF LAKATAN IN DISTRICT II
ISABELA

P. RICA

An Undergraduate Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the Department of Environmental

Science, College of Arts and Sciences, Central Luzon State University,
Science City of Munoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN NO MAJOR

APRIL 2024
 2

ACCEPTANCE SHEET

This master's thesis entitled "PRODUCTIVITY AND PROFITABILITY OF

LAKATAN IN DISTRICT II ISABELA," prepared and submitted by RICA JOY P.
TORRES, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of BACHELOR OF
SCIENCE IN AGRIBUSINESS, is hereby accepted:

FIRST MEMBER, M.Sc. SECOND MEMBER, Ph.D.

Member, Advisory Committee Member, Advisory Committee

_____________________ _____________________
Date Signed Date Signed

COMMITTEE CHAIR, Ph.D.

Chair, Advisory Committee

______________________
Date Signed

Accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN AGRIBUSINESS, MAJOR IN AGRIBUSINESS
MANAGEMENT:

DEPARTMENT CHAIR, Ph.D.

Chair, Department of Biological Sciences
_________________________
Date Signed

COLLEGE DEAN, Ph.D.

Dean, College of Arts and Sciences
___________________
 3

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study

In recent years the Philippines has been in the top five banana exporters in the

world, and the top ten in production, exporting around 3.5 million tons of bananas

annually. The Philippines consists of 7,640 islands, about 200 of which are inhabited. In

2018 84% of bananas (and 99% of the Cavendish cultivars) were produced on the island

of Mindanao, with Davao region, Northern Mindanao and SOCCSKSARGEN as the top

three regions. Cavendish is the most grown variety in the Philippines, accounting for 53%

of all bananas, followed by Saba (28%) and Lakatan (10%) (Bananalink, 2019). The

Philippines is the second major exporter of bananas in the world. That alone is enough to

talk about the significant role the fruit plays in the country’s economy. By itself, bananas

are an important source of revenue for farmers; moreover, its byproducts constitute their

own industry. Plus, it’s a great-tasting and nutritious fruit. Locally, saba, lakatan, and

latundan can be found in any household’s fruit bowl. Banana, with its many potential

health benefits, is the most important fruit crop in the Philippines. The Philippine Banana

Industry comprises farmers, cooperatives, traders, exporters, and manufacturers but is

mainly dominated by large multinational companies (Department of Science and

Technology, 2019).

‘Lakatan’ banana is amongst the most important banana varieties in the

Philippines. This variety of bananas is widely known and cultivated due to its good

sensory qualities and potential for the export market (Sampiano, Durban, 2022).

The province of Isabela is one of the suppliers of Banana in the Northern part of

Luzon. In fact, according to Unite (2021), a community-based banana processing facility

 4

has been established last June 2021 to boost the Isabela town’s local banana industry

based from Department of Agriculture.

The purpose of the study is to assess the profitability of lakatan in District II

Isabela. There is existing related literature about the productivity and profitability of

bananas in the Philippines, particularly in the province of Isabela, however, there is no

solid study conducted about its profitability, specifically of lakatan in Isabela. Thus, this

study may bridge the gap between the existing literature and studies.

B. Statement of the Problem

The study assessed the profitability of lakatan in District II Isabela. Furthermore,

this study aimed to answer the following questions.

1. What are the demographic profile of the respondents?

2. What are the production practices adopted by the farmers?

3. What is the status of lakatan profitability in terms of its cost and return?

4. What is the current status of production and profitability of lakatan farmers?

5. What are the challenges and problems the farmers encounter in producing

lakatan?

6. What are the possible policy options that may be recommended to solve the

problems as well as to improve the production operation of lakatan farmers?

C. Objectives of the Study

 5

The main objective of this study was to assess the profitability of lakatan in

District II of Isabela.

Specifically, it aimed to:

1. Describe the demographic profile of the respondents;

2. Determine the production practices adopted by the farmers' respondents;

3. Determine the cost and return analysis;

4. Analyze the productivity and profitability of lakatan farmers;

5. Assess the problems encountered and constraints of farmers by lakatan producers;

and,

6. Recommend policy options to solve the problems and improve the operations of

lakatan farmers.

D. Significance of the Study

The researcher believed that the study was highly significant and beneficial to the

following:

Local Banana Farmers. The study may serve as their guide on how to enhance

their opportunity in the banana market not only in the province but across the country.

Local Government. This study may serve as their basis for effective agricultural

projects which may help their entire province.

 6

Agricultural Students. The study may enlighten them on the potential of Lakatan

in the Market.

Future Researcher. This study may serve as a reference for future related

studies.

E. Scope and Limitation

This study aims to assess the profitability of lakatan in District II Isabela and will

focus on determining the status of productions practices employed by Lakatan farmers,

determining the cost and return of lakatan, analyzing the productivity and profitability of

lakatan farmers, assessing the problems encountered by lakatan farmers in the production

of lakatan, and recommendation of policy options that will solve and improve the

operation of lakatan production. Other related topics, however, not mentioned in this

section will not be covered by the study.

F. Definition of Terms

Banana. A long-curved fruit which grows in clusters and has soft pulpy flesh and

yellow skin when ripe

Lakatan. One of the variables of the study. A diploid banana cultivar from the

Philippines and one of the most common banana cultivars in the Philippines.

Market. The sum total of all the buyers and sellers in the area or region under

consideration. The area may be the earth, or countries, regions, states, or cities. The

value, cost and price of items traded are as per forces of supply and demand in a market.

Profitability. The ability to generate profit over the cost as well as its expenses.
 7

Productivity. The measurement of the ability of a company to produce the

demands of its market.

II. REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

A. Local Studies

In the Philippines, there are prevalent environmental and social risks in the

banana supply chain, which include deforestation, soil degradation, biodiversity loss,

climate change issues, illegitimate land acquisitions, and forced labor. The Philippines is

the second largest exporter of bananas in the World with exportations reaching 4.40

million tons in 2019. According to the Philippine Statistics Authority, banana plantations

covered about 454,000 hectares of land in 2012 and 443,000 hectares in 2014/2015. The

Cavendish banana is the exported variety of bananas produced in the Philippines, while

other bananas and plantains such as the Lakatan and the Sava/Cardaba can be found on

the domestic market as a fresh fruit or as processed food.

At the national level, bananas are distributed by two types of businesses: large

corporations and small and medium enterprises. Businesses that operate globally have to

comply with Environment and Social (E&S) Standards, which are a common requirement

in agriculture in order to have access to markets, to obtain financing from investors and to

maintain a strong brand and reputation. In particular, countries around the world and

especially EU member states are increasingly introducing new E&S legal requirements,
 8

in parallel to a rise of consumer demands for responsibly-sourced products. In the

Philippines, there are prevalent environmental and social risks in the banana supply

chain, which include deforestation, soil degradation, biodiversity loss, climate change

issues, illegitimate land acquisitions and forced labor.

To date, only few Filipino banana producers have embarked on sustainability

certification schemes. While large corporations in the Philippines possess their own

guidance for producing and distributing agricultural commodities and for complying with

national and/or international E&S regulations, small corporations lack experience in

strategically engaging into the international markets. Their lack of knowledge to comply

with the E&S regulations expose them to less opportunities to the international markets

(European Space Agency, 2021).

Poor marketing and decreasing harvests, according to Philstar (2006), hamper the

growth of one of the country’s most profitable industries, a business more profitable than

rice farming. which produce 90 percent of local bananas — are beset by poor marketing,

low production, limited research and development, little access to financing and scarce

entrepreneurial skills. Marketing is affected by poor grading and standardization. Except

in Mindanao where they are bought by the kilo, bananas are traded by the piece in Luzon

and the Visayas. Low production is caused by pests and diseases. The sigatoka fungal

disease is now found in all banana-growing areas except for saba (which is fairly

resistant). Some diseases such as freckles are now affecting even the Cavendish and

latundan varieties. Viral diseases such as bunchy top, cucumber mosaic and banana streak

are common. Crop management is poor. For example, the use of fertilizers, irrigation and

drainage, and pest and disease control are never done in small banana farms. Thus, in
 9

Quirino province, the rate of infestation is as high as 97 percent with over 2,052 hectares

out of 2,106 has. infected by the bunchy top virus. These developments lead to low

production. Saba’s potential is 12.5 tons per hectare but actual yields are recorded at only

5.68 tons in Oriental Mindoro and 7.36 tons in Quirino. Out of the 12 tons per hectare

potential yield for lakatan, harvests average only 3.15 tons in Oriental Mindoro and four

tons in Quirino. The same is true for latundan: out of eight tons per hectare potential

yield, farmers harvest only 3.16 tons in Oriental Mindoro and 2.69 tons in Quirino. Out

of the country’s 2.2 million farms, only 75 percent are now considered productive. And

yet, in some cases, banana farming is more lucrative than rice cultivation. In ideal

conditions, lakatan is highly profitable compared to rice, according to research made by

the Isabela State University-Santiago campus. At the high end, a one-hectare irrigated

farm with 2,000 banana plants produces about 20 kilos per banana plant per harvest.

When sold at P30 per kilo (the current average price), this means P600 per bunch. With

an average of two to three harvests a year, this translates to P1.2 million per hectare per

year. In comparison, a hectare of irrigated rice produces P40,000 per harvest. At twice a

year, this amounts to only P80,000.

The production of Lakatan and other Banana Varieties therefore requires various

production practices that must be done and employed in order to increase the productivity

of the product. According to Philippine National Standard (2013), the implementation of

the codes of good agricultural practices for banana production therefore plays a huge role

in terms of resolving and avoiding problems caused by challenges farmers experience in

banana production. The Article therefore contains Production Practices that must be

employed in producing banana, production practices included are the maintenance of the
 10

farm structure, as Bananas are being grown and produced in farms, the maintenance of

the location is necessary to avoid problems in production such as pests and leaf diseases.

The use of proper fertilizer for the Banana must also be practiced to maintain its organic

and natural properties.

B. Foreign Studies

Banana is a tropical fruit that is grown in many warmer areas around the world.

According to Food and Agriculture Organization Statistics (FAOSTAT), India is the

world's leading producer of bananas, accounting for nearly 26.3% of the total production

in 2020. In recent years, after the COVID-19 pandemic, most countries and players in the

market have been focusing on developing sustainable marketing and processing lines for

bananas across the world in order to prevent damage caused by trade disruptions and

disasters affecting the growth of the market. Bananas are the fourth most important food

crop after wheat, rice, and maize in terms of production and are the world’s favorite fruit

in terms of consumption quantity. Bananas are one of the major globally exported fruits

and also an important source of livelihood and food. According to ITC Trademap, global

banana exports were valued at over USD 13,049 million in 2021. Ecuador is the largest

exporter of bananas, accounting for 26% of global exports. The Philippines, Costa Rica,

and Colombia are the other leading banana-exporting countries in the world. The United

States is the leading importer of bananas, with a 16.7% share in the world’s imports in

2021 (Mordor, 2022). Bananas have various uses and without making much effort could

be changed into many processed merchandises. Moreover, to banana exporting,

 11

processing bananas into different merchandise could mean extra earnings for banana

manufacturers. The manufacturing of banana products is gaining popularity with every

passing year (NPCS, 2021).

Bananas rank as a leading crop in world agricultural production and trade. In

response to fast population growth in producing countries as well as expanding global

import demand, the crop has seen rapidly increasing production and trade volumes in

recent decades. Since the bulk of banana cultivation is conducted informally by

smallholder farmers, precise figures on global banana production are, however, difficult

to obtain. Available estimates indicate that average global banana production rose from

69 million tons in 2000-2002 to 116 million tons in 2017-2019, at an approximate value

of 31 billion USD. The main driver of the expansion in production has been the

increasing consumption requirements of rising populations in producing countries.

Accordingly, most of the global production increase has taken place in top producers that

are also top consumers, such as Brazil, the Philippines, and, in particular, India and China

(Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2020).

Bananas are one of the few products that have seen their market demand increase

due to the coronavirus; however, the demand is falling somewhat in the summer due to

competition from summer fruits on supermarket and greengrocer shelves. This decline is

more pronounced than many growers, exporters and importers had initially expected.

Although that now means low prices, the prospect is that the price will rise further

towards the end of the year, not only because summer fruits will be off the market, but

also because fewer bananas will be grown because of a shortage of workers in South
 12

America due to the coronavirus. There are also reports of dry weather here and there,

which may also take a toll on the volumes (Fresh Plaza, 2020).

Bananas are the world's most popular dessert fruit and a staple starch crop for

millions in low- and middle-income countries. The banana export trade that supplies

North America, Europe, and other wealthy nations has a history fraught with exploitation

and conflict. The price of cheap bananas has been environmental degradation, violence,

and poverty. Only recently have efforts to address the power imbalances in this trade

been made. Voluntary certification schemes aim to address multiple sustainability issues,

while research into biological control, accelerated plant breeding, and efficient irrigation

will help prepare the industry for emerging threats from pests, diseases, and climate

change (Bebber, 2022).

A study authored by Kumari, Singh, and Atre (2018), one of the main constraints’

banana producers’ encounters is Perishability, as Banana is a perishable crop, the product

must be sold in time before it perishes. The price of Banana changes constantly which

both affects the producers and the consumers of Banana that is being supplied to its

Market.

An article regarding Good Agricultural Practices for Bananas published by World

Banana Forum (n.d), these practices does not only ensure the sustainability and

minimization of impact of Banana Production in the Environment, but its implementation

also ensures that the Banana will be supplied to the Market hygienically. The Pillars that

must be assured to be considered in terms of production practices of banana are

Economic Viability, Environmental Sustainability, Social Acceptability, and Food Safety

and Quality. The consideration of these agricultural practices lessens the risks that will
 13

affect the quality of the Bananas that are being produced. According to Victor Galan

Sauco, et.al (2012), the Climate Change is considered as one of the vital challenges

experienced by Banana Producers, as it is a Tropical Fruit, the constant climate change

affects its productivity for its process of production is severely affected by the change of

climate.

C. Conceptual Framework of the Study

Based on the illustrated Conceptual Framework, which includes variables needed

in the study, the Independent Variables, Intervening Variables, and the Dependent

Variables. The Independent Variables of the study are the Demographic Profile of the

Respondents as well as their Socio-Economic Status, and their Production Performance.

On the other hand, the Intervening Variables, or the variables that may affect the

dependent variables are the Climate or Weather Condition within the study local, the

Rules being implemented by the Government related with the Production and Marketing

of Lakatan, and the Infestation of Pests and Diseases during the Production. Lastly, the

dependent variables which depends to the intervening variables are Increased Yield,

Better Market, Increased Income, and High Profit that may be attained by the Lakatan

Producers.
 14

Independent Variables

 Demographic Profile of the

Respondents
- Age
- Gender
- Household Size
- Household Income
- Seminar Training
Attended
 Production Performance of
the Lakatan Farmers
- Farm Area
- Capital
- Years in Farming
- Planting and Fertilizing
Chemicals Labor
- Income from Lakatan

Dependent Variables

 Increased Yield of
Lakatan
 Increased Income
 High Profit

Intervening Variables

 Climatic / Weather
Condition
 Government Rules and
 15

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the Study

C. Hypothesis of the Study

The hypotheses of the study were:

Ho1; The age of the respondents does not affect Lakataan Production

Ho2; The Gender of the respondents does not affect Lakatan production.

Ho3; The Household Size of the farmers does not affect Lakatan Production.

Ho4; The Household Income of the respondents does not affect Lakatan production.

Ho5; The Problems and Constraints encountered by Lakatan Producers has an impact in

the Profitability and Productivity of Lakatan Producers in District II of Isabela.

 16

III. RESEARCH AND METHODOLOGY

A. Time and Place of the Study

The study was conducted in District II, province of Isabela. The selected

respondents mainly came from the Municipalities of San Mariano, Dangan Reina

Mercedes, and Benito Soliven.

B. Respondents of the Study

The respondents were the lakatan growers/farmers in selected municipalities of

District II Isabela. They were sampled using solving equation, the respondents were

randomly selected for interview using the semi-structured questionnaire. Sample

respondents are shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Respondents of the study

Municipality Population of Lakatan Sample

 17

Farmers

San Mariano 60 30

Dangan Reina Mercedes 60 30

Benito Soliven 30 15

TOTAL 150 75

A. Method of Data Collection

There were two kinds of data collected such as primary and secondary data.

Primary data will be collected belong personal interview to the lakatan producers in

Selected municipalities of District II Isabela using Semi-structured questionnaire. The

secondary data were gathered to pertinent offices like the Department of Agriculture

(DA) of each municipality regarding their operation. The data collection must be

validated by visiting their farms and observation.

B. Method of Data Analysis

The data gathered were tabulated and, treated using descriptive and inferential

statistics, the economic profile, farming operation, cost and return, and problems

encountered were analyzed and Analytical using Frequency, percentage, and mean.

Meanwhile, the factors of productivity and profitability in lakatan production will be

analyzed using multiple linear regression analysis as shown below the equation and

variables, the test of the level of significance of each coefficient of the variable will be

get at 1% and 5% level of significance.

For Profitability
 18

Yc = a+b1X1+b2X2+b3X3+…….. +bnXn=ε

Where:

Yc = Productivity / Profitability

(Independent Variables)

a - Constant or Y-intercept

b - Slope of the Line

X1: Age

X2; Gender

X3: Household Size

X4: Household income

X5: Farm Area

X6: Investmentl

X7: Years in Farming

X8: Cost of Fertilizer

X9. Price

X10: type of buyer

ε = error term
 19

The multiple linear regression model is expressed as follows;

VP= b0+b1x1+b2x2+b3x3+b4x4+b5x5+b6x6+b7x7+b8x8+b9x9+b10x10=ε

Where: b0 b1 b2 b3 b4 b5 b6 b7 b8 b9 b10 are the coefficients and the parameters

to be determined. Other variables are as defined earlier.

IV. Results and Discussions

A. Demographic Profile of the Respondents.

Age. The results show that majority of the respondents (33.33%) ages from 41-50;

16 (21.33%) ages from 31-40; 13 (17.33%) ages from 31-30; 13 (17.33%) ages from 51-

60; and 8 (10.67%) ages from 61-70 years old.

Gender. 44 (58.67%) of the respondents were Male and 31 (41.33%) were

female.

Civil Status. Majority of the respondents (6.67%) were Married; 5 (6.66%) were

single; 5 (6.66%) were separated and none of the respondents were widowed.

Religion. Most of the respondents (70.67%) were Roman Catholic; 10 (13.33%)

were Methodist; 7 (9.33%) were Iglesia Ni Cristo; and 5 (6.67%) were Jehovah

Witnesses.
 20

Ethnic Group. Majority of the respondents (96%) ethnicity is Ilocano; while 3

(4%) is Tagalog.

Years of Schooling. The results show that Majority of the respondents (76.00%)

spent 6-10 years schooling; 12 (16.00%) spent 1-5 years; and 6 (8.00%) spent 11-15

years in school.

Household Size. According to the results; 35 (46.67%) has 5-6 members in their

household; 34 (45.33%) has 3-4; and 6 (8.00) only has 1-2 member in their household.

Household Income. Most of the respondents (49.33%) have a household monthly

income amounting to 1,000 - 5,000 Php; 30 (40.00%) have 6,000 - 10,000 Php; 6 (8.00%)

have 11,000 - 15,000 Php; and 2 (2.67%) has a household monthly income of 16,000 -

20,000 Php.

Membership in an Organization. All (100%) of the respondents were not a

member of any organization related to lakatan production.

Other sources of Income. Most of the respondents (46.67%) have other sources

of income are Corn; 26 (34.67%) Rice; 9 (12.00%) Cassava; and 5 (6.66%) respondents

do not have other sources of income apart from Lakatan Production.

Table 2. Demographic Profile of Lakatan Farmers.

 Frequency Percent (%)
(n=75)
Particular
Age
21 - 30 13 17.33
21
31 - 40 16 21.33
41 - 50 25 33.33
51 - 60 13 17.33
61 - 70 8 10.67
Mean 43.77
Gender
Male 44 58.67
Female 31 41.33
Civil Status
Single 5 6.66
Married 65 86.67
Separated 5 6.66
Religion
R. Catholic 53 70.67
Methodist 10 13.33
INC 7 9.33
JW 5 6.67
Ethnic Groups
Ilocano 72 96%
Tagalog 3 4%
Household Size
1–2 6 8.00
3–4 34 45.33
5–6 35 46.67
Mean 4.27
Household Income per Month
1000 - 5,000 37 49.33
6,000 - 10,000 30 40.00
11,000 - 15,000 6 8.00
16,000 - 20,000 2 2.67
 22

B. Sources of Capital

Table 3 results indicate that 89.33% of the Lakatan Farmers invested in their farm

capital through self-finance with an average amount of 13,750 Php per cropping. On the

other hand, 14.67% of the respondents invested through Borrowed Loans amounting to

an average of 82,272.72 Php per cropping. The interest for the borrowed loans was 5%,

with 4,113.64 Php as the average interest expense.

Table 3. Source of Capital

Source No. of Interest Average Amount Interest

Reporting Rate (per cropping) Expense
f =75 %

Self-Finance 64 89.33 13,750

Borrowed 11 14.67 5% 82,272.72 4,113.64

TOTAL 75 100 96,022.72 4,113.64

C. Production Practices Employed by Lakatan Farmers.

C.1. Production Practices

Conventional Farming. All (100%) of the Lakatan Farmers employ

Conventional Farming in Lakatan Production.

Organic Farming Method. All (100%) of the Lakatan Farmers are employing

Organic Farming Methods in Lakatan Production.

 23

Integrated Pest Management. 45 (60%) of the Lakatan Farmers employ

Integrated Pest Management in Lakatan Production, while 30 (40%) of the respondent

does not employ integrated pest management in growing their lakatan.

Preparing Soil Before Planting Lakatan Seedlings. All (100%) of the

respondents prepare their soil before planting lakatan seedlings in growing their lakatan.

Using Organic Fertilizers. All (100%) of the Lakatan Farmers use Organic

Fertilizers in Lakatan Production.

Using Chemical Fertilizers. 60 (80%) of the Lakatan Farmers use Chemical

Fertilizers while 15 (20%) of the respondents do not use Chemical Fertilizers in Lakatan

Production.

Using Chemical Pesticides. All (100%) of the Lakatan Farmers use Chemical

Pesticides in Lakatan Production.

Employing Good Agricultural Practices (GAP). All (100%) of the respondents

employ Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) in Lakatan Production

Table 4. Cultural Practices of Lakatan Farmers

Frequency Percentage

CULTURAL PRACTICE (n=75) (%)

1. Type of Farming Practice Method in

Lakatan Production

Yes 75 100

2. Organic Farming Method

 24

75 100

3. Integrated Pest Management in

Lakatan Production

Yes 45 60

No 30 40

4. Preparing Soil before Planting Lakatan

Yes 75 100

5. Use of Organic Fertilizers in Growing

Lakatan

Yes 75 100

6. Use of Chemical Fertilizers in Growing

Lakatan

Yes 60 80

No 15 20

7. Use of Chemical Pesticides in Growing

Lakatan

Yes 75 100

8. Employing Good Agricultural Practices

(GAP) in Lakatan Production

Yes 75 100

C.2. Labor Costs

Planting. In planting, a total of 885.99 Php was allotted with an average of 2.21

man per day and an average of 3 days.

Under Brushing. In under brushing, a total of 923.19 Php was allotted with an

average of 2.35 man per day for 3 days.

 25

Spraying. In spraying, a total of 897.99 Php was allotted with an average of 1.49

man per day or 3 days.

Fertilizing. In fertilizing, a total of 976.00 Php was allotted with an average of

1.37 man per day for 4 days.

Harvesting. In harvesting, a total of 1,149.32 Php was allotted with an average of

1.96 men per day and an average of 4 days.

Table 5. Labor Costs in Producing Lakatan

No. Of Unit
Total Cost
Farm Activity Man/Day Days Cost
(Php)
(Php)

1. Planting 2.2 3 295.33 885.99

2. Under Brushing 2.35 3 307.73 923.19

3. Spraying 1.49 3 299.33 897.99

4. Fertilizing 1.37 4 244 976.00

5. Harvesting 1.96 4 287.33 1,149.32

Total Hired Labor 4,831.49

D. Cost and Return Analysis

Table 6 shows the cost and return analysis of Lakatan Production in District II

Isabela Province. At an average farm size of 2.01 hectares, the total annual return

Lakatan Farmers get amounts to 48,379.5 Php. The total amount incurred with Costs,

such as Suckers, Fertilizers, Insecticides, Herbicide, Fungicide, and Hired Labor were

2,573.33 Php, 4,060.23, and 4,831.49, respectively. Other costs such as Gasoline, Sacks,

and Plastic Bags amounting to 345.00 Php. Overall, the total production cost at an
 26

average farm size of 2.01 hectares is estimated at 11,837.05 Php. The total net income is

about 36,542.45 Php. The return on investment (ROI) is 30.87%.

Table 6. Cost and Return Analysis

PARTICULAR Ave. Lakatan Production (2.01 ha)

(Php)

Return

Crop Sold (967.59 kg x 50/kg)

Total Sales 48,379.5

Total Returns 48,379.5

Costs

Cash Costs

Suckers 2,573.33

Fertilizers 1,763.47

Insecticides 551.33

Herbicide 1,490.67

Fungicide 281.76

Hired Labor 4,831.49 11,492.05

Other Costs

Gasoline 75.00

Sacks 250.00

Plastic Bags 20.00 345.00

Total Cost 11,837.05

Net Income 36,542.45

 27

Return per peso Investment 30.87

D.1 Fixed Assets Inventory

Table 7 shows the information given and provides details on a number of goods,

including a thresher, hand tractor, sprayer, and land. Quantity, unit price, economic life

span, scrap value, and depreciation per year are used to identify each item.

Sprayer. A sprayer, with a quantity of 69 units, is the first item on the list. The

cost of one unit is 592,100 units of money. The sprayer has an economic lifespan of 386

units of time and a scrap value of 9,500 units of money. The sprayer also loses value at a

rate of 47,927 units of money year. It is important to note that the sprayer contributes

greatly to the entire value of the 680,700 pieces of cash, making up a sizeable fraction of

the total cost.

Land. The second item listed, with a quantity of 148 units, is land. The table,

however, shows that the land's unit price, economic life span, scrap value, and annual

depreciation are all zero. This implies that the land is either already owned or is regarded

as a non-depreciable asset as it lacks all the financial characteristics that are usually

associated with depreciable assets.

Hand Tractor. With a quantity of 11, is the third item on the list. The cost of

each hand tractor is 43,000 units of money. A hand tractor has an economic lifespan of

87-time units and a scrap value of 67,500 units of money. A yearly depreciation of

72,500 units of currency occurs for the hand tractor. Despite being present in lower
 28

quantities than the sprayer, this item's relatively high unit cost and yearly depreciation

nonetheless contribute considerably to the total cost.

Thresher: A thresher, which has a quantity of 12, is the fourth and last item

stated. The price of a thresher is 45,600 units of money. A thresher has an economic

lifespan of 130 units of time and a scrap value of 86,000 units of money. Thresher value

decreases by 73,591 units of money year. Similar to the hand tractor, the thresher

contributes significantly to the total cost because to its greater unit cost and yearly

depreciation.

The table indicates general information about the list of assets and their financial

features. It displays different products' quantities and costs as well as crucial financial

indicators including economic life duration, scrap value, and yearly depreciation. One

may assess the financial effect of each component on the overall cost by looking at these

figures. Due of their high unit costs and high depreciation rates, the sprayer, hand tractor,

and thresher play large roles in the total cost. In contrast, the land seems to have a little

role in the overall cost due to its non-depreciable nature, long economic lifespan, low

scrap value, and 0% depreciation each year.

Table 7 Fixed Assets Inventory per farmer

Items Quantity Unit Economic Scrap Depreciation

Price Life Span Value / year

1. sprayer 69 8,581.16 6 9500 47927

2. Land 148 0 0 0
 29

3. Hand 11 43000 8 67500 72500

tractor

4.Threshe 12 45600 11 86000 73591

r

D. Marketing Aspects

Table 8 indicates that 40 (53.33%) of the Respondents sold their produce to

Wholesalers, while 35 (46.67%) of the respondents sold their Produce to Retailers. 75

(100%) of the respondents were paid by the buyers through Cash basis.

Table 8. Types of Buyers

TYPE OF BUYER Frequency Percentage

(n=75) (%)

Wholesalers 40 53.33

Retailers 35 46.67

E. Factors Affecting the Profitability of Farmers

Table 9 presents the "Model summary" which provides information

regarding the regression analysis that was performed to forecast the yield, considering

various predictor variables. The coefficient of multiple determination (R), commonly

denoted as R, quantifies the magnitude and direction of the linear association between the

dependent variable (Yield) and the predictor variables. According to the findings

presented in Table 1, the correlation coefficient (R) is determined to be 0.390, suggesting

 30

the presence of a moderate positive linear association between the variables. The R-

squared coefficient of determination, symbolized as R2, quantifies the proportion of the

variability observed in the dependent variable (Yield) that can be accounted for by the

independent predictor variables. According to the data presented in Table 1, the R2 value

is .152, suggesting that approximately 15.2% of the variability in the Yield can be

accounted for by the predictor variables.

1. Model Summary

Table 9. Model Summary of Factors affecting Profitability

Adjusted R Std. Error of the

Model R R Square Square Estimate Durbin-Watson

1 .390 .152 .049 3959.656 2.175

a. Predictors: (Constant), Cost of Fertilizer, Years in Farming, Investment, Farm

Area, Household Income, Gender, Household Size, Age

b. Dependent Variable: Yield

2 . ANOVA

The Table 10 illustrates Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The value of F is 1.476,

this value represents the significance of the model. The F value represents all the

independent variables that has significance in the study.

Table 10. Analysis of Variance for Factors affecting the Profitability

Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Regression 185141090.160 8 23142636.270 1.476 0.183

1 Residual 1034805576.507 66 15678872.371

Total 1219946666.667 74
 31

a. Predictors: (Constant), Cost of Fertilizer, Years in Farming, Investment, Farm

Area, Household Income, Gender, Household Size, Age

b. Dependent Variable: Yield

- not significant

3. Coefficients

The coefficients displayed in Table 11 represent the estimated coefficients for

each predictor variable within the regression model. The coefficients in question serve as

estimations of the impact that each predictor has on the dependent variable, specifically

the variable representing yield.

Unstandardized The coefficients in a statistical model represent the

unstandardized impact of each predictor variable on the dependent variable. The

coefficients are denominated in the units of the dependent variable (Yield) and can be

utilized to estimate the anticipated alteration in Yield linked to a one-unit modification in

each predictor variable.

Standardized coefficients, also known as Beta coefficients, quantify the

standardized impact of each predictor variable on the dependent variable. The authors of

the study demonstrate the relationship between the dependent variable and predictor

variables by expressing the change in the dependent variable in units of standard

deviations, which corresponds to a one-standard deviation change in each predictor

variable. Standardized coefficients facilitate the assessment of the relative significance of

the predictors in exerting an impact on the dependent variable. The t-value is a statistical

measure that quantifies the ratio between the estimated coefficient and its corresponding

standard error. The purpose of this test is to evaluate the null hypothesis that the actual
 32

coefficient is equal to zero. Greater absolute t-values provide stronger evidence against

the null hypothesis.

The p-value, also known as the significance level, is a measure of the probability

of obtaining the observed t-value purely by chance, under the assumption that the null

hypothesis is valid. When the p-value is lower than a predetermined threshold, typically

set at an alpha level of 0.05, it indicates the presence of a statistically significant effect.

Collinearity Statistics offer insights into multicollinearity, a phenomenon

characterized by robust correlations among predictor variables. Tolerance is a statistical

measure that quantifies the proportion of variance in a predictor variable that cannot be

predicted by other predictors. The Variance Inflation Factor (VIF) is a statistical metric

that quantifies the degree of multicollinearity by taking the reciprocal of the tolerance. In

general, the presence of potential multicollinearity issues can be indicated by lower

tolerance values (below 0.1) and higher VIF values (above 10).

The coefficients table presented includes the Constant term, which has an

estimated value of 38,087.610 and a standard error of 3,052.828. The independent

variables are denoted as X1 through X8.

According to the findings presented in Table 3, it can be observed that an increase

in X1 (Age) is associated with a corresponding decrease in the estimated Yield by

approximately 139.790 units. The obtained standardized coefficient (Beta) of -0.405

suggests that there exists a negative relationship between Age and Yield. This negative

impact is quantified by a magnitude of 0.405 standard deviations.

The regression coefficient for the variable X2 (Gender), which has a value of

684.976, indicates that there is a positive relationship between gender category and Yield.
 33

Nevertheless, the modest standardized coefficient (Beta) value of 0.084 suggests a

comparatively limited association between Gender and Yield.

An increase of one unit in X3, which represents Household Size, is linked to a

reduction in Yield by 582.001 units. The obtained standardized coefficient (Beta) of -

0.164 suggests that there is a negative association between Household Size and Yield.

However, it is important to note that the magnitude of this effect is relatively small.

The observed coefficient of X4, representing Household Income, is 0.130. This

indicates that a one-unit increase in Household Income is associated with an estimated

increase of 0.130 units in the Yield. The standardized coefficient (Beta) of 0.110 suggests

a positive association between Household Income and Yield; however, the magnitude of

this effect is relatively modest.

A modest inverse correlation exists between the size of the farm area (X 5) and the

yield. There is a negative correlation between Farm Area and Yield, whereby a one-unit

increase in Farm Area is linked to a decrease in Yield by 85.327 units. The obtained

standardized coefficient (Beta) of -0.059 indicates a limited influence of Farm Area on

Yield.

According to the estimation, an increase of one unit in the variable (X 6)

Investment is associated with a decrease in Yield by approximately 0.109 units. The

obtained standardized coefficient (Beta) of -0.088 suggests a modest adverse impact of

Investment on Yield.

The analysis suggests that there is a positive relationship between the variable

(X7) Years in Farming and the Yield. Specifically, for every one-unit increase in (X 7)

Years in Farming, the estimated increase in the Yield is 135.633 units. The obtained
 34

standardized coefficient (Beta) of 0.129 indicates a positive association between the

variable "Years in Farming" and the variable "Yield." However, it is important to note

that the magnitude of this effect is relatively modest.

The observed coefficient of -0.027 indicates that there is a negative relationship

between the variable X8, representing the Cost of Fertilizer, and the variable Yield.

Specifically, it suggests that for every one-unit increase in the Cost of Fertilizer, the

estimated decrease in Yield is 0.027 units. Nevertheless, the minuscule standardized

coefficient (Beta) of -0.010 suggests a tenuous correlation between the Cost of Fertilizer

and Yield.

Based on the coefficients and their corresponding significance levels, it can be

inferred that Age (X1) and Years in Farming (X7) exhibit the highest degree of influence

as predictors of Yield. Nevertheless, it is crucial to consider the standardized coefficients

and the modest magnitudes of certain effects, which suggest relatively tenuous

associations between specific predictors and Yield. The statistical measures of

collinearity, namely tolerance and VIF, indicate the absence of significant

multicollinearity concerns among the predictor variables. This is evident from the fact

that all tolerance values exceed 0.1, while the VIF values remain below 10. This

observation suggests that the predictors exhibit a weak correlation with one another.

Table 11. Coefficients of t-test analysis of factors affecting the productivity of lakatan
farmers.

Model Unstandardized Standardized t Sig. Collinearity

Coefficients Coefficients Statistics

 35

Std.

B Error Beta Tolerance VIF

1 (Constant) 38087.610 3052.828 12.476** .000

X1 (Age) -139.790 62.493 -.405 -2.237* .029 .392 2.551

X2 (Gender) 684.976 974.390 .084 .703 .485 .894 1.119

X3 -582.001 437.809 -.164 -1.329ns .188 .842 1.187

(Household

Size)

X4 .130 .139 .110 .931ns .355 .912 1.096

(Household

Income)

X5 (Farm -85.327 171.971 -.059 -.496ns .621 .913 1.096

Area)

X6 -.109 .149 -.088 -.734ns .466 .902 1.108

(Investment)

X7 (Years in 135.633 190.079 .129 .714ns .478 .391 2.560

Farming)

(X8) Cost of -.027 .338 -.010 -.080ns .936 .831 1.204

Fertilizer

a. Dependent Variable: Yield

F. Problems Encountered in Lakatan Production

 36

The results show in Table 12 illustrates the problem encountered by Lakatan

Farmers in producing Lakatan. As shown, “Tungru” is the problem encountered by the

farmers, it is a disease present in Banana Leaves, this mainly affects the produce of the

farmers.

Table 12. Problems Encountered by Lakatan Farmers

Problem Frequency Percentage

(n=75)

Tungru 75 100%

G. Productivity and Profitability of Lakatan

The responses to questions about the productivity and profitability of lakatan production,

as well as the effects of market demands, inflation, and difficulties with field

management, are presented in table 6. Question 1 found out if the respondents concur that

lakatan creation is productive. 58 (77.3%) of respondents agreed that it is profitable,

while 17 (10.1%) disagreed. Productivity and profitability were questioned in relation to

the constant shifts in market demands in Question 2. Only one respondent (0.6%)

disagreed, but the majority of respondents, 74 (98.1%), acknowledged that these changes

have an impact on productivity and profitability. The third question asked about the effect

that the country's inflation rate has on the profitability of lakatan. The fact that inflation

has an impact on the profitability of lakatan was acknowledged by a sizable majority of

respondents, 74 (98.1%), while only a single respondent (0.6%) expressed disagreement.

Lakatan productivity was discussed in relation to difficulties in field management,

 37

specifically soil fertility, in Question 4. Only one respondent (0.6%) disagreed, while the

vast majority of respondents, 74 (98.1%), agreed that such obstacles affect productivity.

Last but not least, the question 5 asked respondents if they had experienced low profit as

a result of low productivity. Only one respondent (0.6%) did not report having

encountered this circumstance, while the overwhelming majority, 74 (98.1%), did.

Table 13. Productivity and Profitability of Lakatan

QUESTIONS YES NO
1. Do you agree that the Production of Lakatan is 58 17
profitable? (77.3 %) (10.1 %)
2. Is productivity and profitability affected by 74 1
constant changes in terms of Market Demands (98.1) (0.6)
of Lakatan?
3. Does the inflation rate in the country affects the 74 1
profitability of Lakatan? (98.1) (0.6)
4. Does the challenges related to field 74 1
management, specifically soil fertility affects (98.1) (0.6)
the Lakatan Productivity?
5. Have you experienced getting low profit due to 74 1
low productivity? (98.1) (0.6)

H. Recommended Policy Options.

Table 14. Policy Options.

Policy Options 1 2 3 4 5
Lowest Highest
1. Providing seminars and 64 10 1 0 0
programs regarding Lakatan
Production. (85.3%) (13.3% (1.3%) (0%) (0%)
 38

2. Increasing access to other 25 49 1 0 0

local markets.
(33.3%) (65.3% (1.3%) (0%) (0%)
)

3. Implementation of new 48 26 1 0 0
innovations in Producing
Lakatan. (64.0%) (34.7% (1.3%) (0%) (0%)
)

4. Promoting of Governmental 28 46 1 0 0
Support towards Local
Banana Farmers. (37.3%) (61.3% (1.3%) (0%) (0%)
)

5. Using technologies for 26 28 18 3 0

Market Strategies.
(34.7%) (37.3% (24.0%) (4.0%) (0%)
)

Respondents were asked to rank the various policy options presented in table 8 in

relation to Lakatan production in order of perceived importance. On a scale from 1 (the

lowest) to 5 (the highest), the policy options are ranked. 64 respondents (85.3 percent)

considered Option 1, "Providing seminars and programs regarding Lakatan Production,"

to be the most important option. This suggests that the industry would greatly benefit

from the organization of educational events and training programs centered on Lakatan

production, as is the opinion of the vast majority of respondents. The second-highest

option, "Increasing access to other local markets," received a rating of 2 from 49

respondents (65.3%). This suggests that expanding Lakatan's access to various local

markets is seen as a crucial strategy by many participants for increasing the company's

market presence and profitability. 48 respondents (64.0 percent) gave Option 3's
 39

"Implementation of new innovations in Producing Lakatan" a rating of one, while 26

respondents (34.7 percent) gave it a rating of two. This suggests that adopting novel

methods to increase Lakatan production is a top priority for the majority of participants,

but that a significant number also view it as a secondary option. Option 4, "Promoting

Governmental Support for Local Banana Farmers," received a score of 1 from 28

respondents (37.3%), while Option 4 received a score of 2 from 46 respondents (61.3%).

While some respondents place a high value on the assistance provided by the government

to local banana farmers, a larger percentage view it as a moderately important option. In

Choice 5, "Involving innovations for Market Techniques," got differing rankings, with 28

respondents (37.3%) providing it with a rating of 2, 18 respondents (24.0%) rating it as 3,

and 3 respondents (4.0%) positioning it as 4. This suggests that there are varying

perspectives regarding the significance of technology-driven market strategies for

Lakatan. In general, the table highlights respondents' preferences and priorities for

various policy options to boost Lakatan marketing and production. Expanding market

access and implementing novel practices appear to be the next most popular strategies,

followed by seminars and educational programs. A significant number of respondents

also consider technology-driven market strategies and government support to be

important. Policymakers and stakeholders can use this information to develop initiatives

and strategies to support and promote the Lakatan industry.

 40

V. Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendation

Summary
This study was conducted to analyze the Productivity and Profitability of Lakatan

in District II Isabela Province. The main objectives of the study is to; describe the

demographic profile of Lakatan Farmers; determine the production practices employed

by the Lakatan Farmers; determine the cost and return analysis in Lakatan Production;

analyze the productivity and profitability of Lakatan farmers; assess the problems
 41

encountered by Lakatan Farmers; and recommend policy options that may improve the

productivity and profitability of Lakatan Farmers.

The researcher conducted this study from May to June 2023, the respondents of

the study was mainly Lakatan Farmers in District II Isabela Province, the total number of

respondents that participated in this study is 75. The data gathering was conducted

through scheduled interviews and conducting of surveys through respondents answering

the printed survey questionnaires regarding their productivity and profitability in Lakatan

Production. The result therefore shows that majority of the respondents has an average

age of 43 (33.33%), most of the respondents were Male (58.7%), in terms of Civil Status,

65 (86.7%) were married, most of their religion (70.7%) were Roman Catholic and their

Ethnic Group was Ilocano (96.0%). Majority of the respondents (76.0%) spent 6-10 years

schooling and their average monthly income is 1,000 - 5,000 (49.33%). In terms of

household size, majority of the respondents has 6 maximum members (46.67%). None of

the respondents were member of any organization related with Lakatan Production.

In Productivity and Profitability, using the Multiple Linear Regression, the result

shows that the yield has positive linear association with the independent Variables.

However, the model also shows that the variables or predictors present in the study do not

show any significance in explaining the variation in Yield. On the other hand, the Durbin-

Watson statistics show the absence of any significant correlation with the residuals

present in the study.

Upon analyzing the Variance of the study (ANOVA), the result indicates that the

independent variables do not have any significant correlation with the dependent variable
 42

in the study, which is the yield in producing Lakatan. In the coefficients of each variable,

the result shows that Year in Lakatan Farming (X7) has a positive relationship with the

yield. On the other hand, the Cost of Fertilizer (X8) has a negative relationship with the

dependent variable, the yield.

Conclusions

The conduct of the study therefore resulted in the following conclusions:

1) The Independent Variables do not affect the Yield in Lakatan

Production, these variables therefore have no significant relationship with

the dependent variable in the study, which is the Yield.

2) The cost of feeds has an effect with the Yield, as it has been shown in

the result in terms of Coefficients.

3) The Years of Lakatan Farmers being involved in Lakatan Farming

therefore has positive relationship with the dependent variable of the study

as it was indicated in the results of the coefficients of the variables present

in the study.

Recommendations

The researcher, therefore, came up with the following recommendations:

1) The cost of fertilizers must be analyzed and well managed as it affects

the productivity and profitability of the Lakatan Farmers in District II

Isabela Province.
 43

2) In terms of Policy Options, the researcher, therefore, recommend that

the Lakatan Farmers must have increased access in terms of producing

their products, which is Lakatan to other Local Market for it will affect

their yield and improve their current operation as well.

3) The Government of Isabela Province must promote and improve the

supports they show to Lakatan Farmers as it was considered one of the

most important Banana Variety in the Philippines, providing governmental

support will improve not only the yield of the Lakatan Farmers but the

status of the economy of the province as well.

4) Improve Market Strategies through the use of Technologies as it

reaches a bigger Market that will affect the Productivity and Profitability

of Lakatan Farmers in a positive way.

5) The problems or issues experienced by Lakatan Farmers which is a

disease called “Tungro” that affects the leaves of Banana Plant may be

resolved through planting healthy tisssue cultured banana seedling.

 44

LITERATURE CITED

Bananalink (2019). Our work in the Philippines.

https://www.bananalink.org.uk/partners/the-philippines/#:~:text=In
%20recent%20years%20the%20Philippines,200%20of%20which
%20are%20inhabited.
Bebber, D. (2022). The long road to a sustainable banana trade.
https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ppp3.10331
Department of Science and Technology. (2019). Industry Strategic Science and
Technology Program. https://ispweb.pcaarrd.dost.gov.ph/isp-
commodities/banana/
European Space Agency (2021). Responsible Banana Supply Chains in the Philippines.
https://eo4society.esa.int/projects/eo-clinic-0027-banana-supply-
chains-philippines/
 45

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2020). Banana Market
Review. https://www.fao.org/3/ca9212en/ca9212en.pdf
Fresh Plaza (2020). Overview Global Banana Market.
https://www.freshplaza.com/asia/article/9238048/overview-global-
banana-market/
Morder. (2022). Banana Market - Growth, Trends, Covid 19 Impact and Forecasts (2023
- 2028). https://www.mordorintelligence.com/industry-reports/banana-
market
NPCS (2021). What is the Market Demand of a Banana Products?
https://www.niir.org/blog/what-market-demand-banana-products/
Philstar (2006). BANANA FARMING: A lucrative, yet dying industry.
https://www.philstar.com/business/agriculture/2006/09/03/356115/ban
ana-farming-lucrative-yet-dying-industry
Sampiano, S., Durban, A. (2022). The physical and sensory qualities of ‘lakatan’ banana
(musa acuminata) in response to different natural ripening agents.
https://journal.fanres.org/index.php/IJFANRES/article/view/92
Unite, B. (2021). Banana town’ in Isabela to get own processing facility.
https://mb.com.ph/2021/04/21/banana-town-in-isabela-to-get-own-
processing-facility/
Priyanka Kumari, et.al, (2018), “Problems and Constraints in Banana Cultivation; A
Case Study in Bhagalpur District of Bihar, India”, retrieved from
https://www.ijcmas.com/7-7-2018/Priyanka%20Kumari,%20et
%20al.pdf
Philippine National Standard, (2013), “Code of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) of
Banana Production”, retrieved from
https://bafs.da.gov.ph/bafs_admin/admin_page/pns_file/2021-02-24-
PNS-BAFPS%20129-2013%20-%20GAP%20Banana(1).pdf
World Banana Forum, (n.d), “Good Agricultural Practices for Bananas”, retrieved from
https://www.fao.org/world-banana-forum/projects/good-practices/good
-agricultural-practices/en/
Victor Galan Sauco, et.al, (2012), “Current Situation and Challenges of Cultivating
Banana and other Tropical Furits in the Subtropics”, retrieved from
46
 47

APPENDICES

Appendix 1. Interview Schedule

Productivity and Profitability of Lakatan in District II Isabela

Survey Questionnaires for Lakatan Farmers/Growers

I. RESPONDENT’S PROFILE
1. Name of respondent:
2. Address:
3. Gender: ( ) Male ( ) Female
 48

4. Age:
5. Civil Status: ( ) Single ( ) Married ( ) Widowed ( ) Separated
6. Religion: ( ) Roman Catholic ( ) Methodist ( ) INC ( ) JW ( ) others; please specify
7. Ethnic Group: ( ) Ilocano ( ) Tagalog
8. Number of years of schooling ________________
9. Household Size:
10. Household Income/monthly:
11. Years in Lakatan Farming: __________________________
12. Are you a member of any organization related in lakatan production?
( ) Member ( ) Not Member
If member, please specify name of organization:
Position:
Years as member:
13. Average Monthly Income from lakatan production:
14. Selling Price (kg): ___________
15. Type of Buyer: _____________________
16. Others source(s) of income:

II. Production Practices.

QUESTIONS YES NO

Do you employ Production Practices in Lakatan

Production?

Do you employ conventional farming method in Lakatan

Production?

Do you employ organic farming method in Lakatan

Production?

Do you employ Integrated Pest Management in Lakatan

Production?

Do you prepare the soil before planting the Lakatan

seedlings?
 49

Do you use organic fertilizers in growing Lakatan?

Do you use chemical fertilizers in growing Lakatan?

In terms of pest management, do you use chemical

pesticides in growing Lakatan?

Do you employ the Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) in

Lakatan Production?

III. Return Cost / Capital Cost

Particular

Amount Loan / Borrowed

Investment

Maturity

Fixed Accounts Inventory

Items Quantity Unit Price Economic Service / Depreciation

Life Span Scrap / year
Value

1.

2.

3.

4.
 50

5.

Source of Income

Particular Quantity Unit / Price Value

Sales:

1)

2)

3)

Problems Encountered by the Growers

IV. Productivity and Profitability

QUESTIONS YES NO
Do you agree that the Production of Lakatan is
profitable?
Is productivity and profitability affected by constant
changes in terms of Market Demands of Lakatan?
 51

Does the inflation rate in the country affects the

profitability of Lakatan?
Does the challenges related to field management,
specifically soil fertility affects the Lakatan
Productivity?
Have you experienced getting low profit due to low
productivity?

V. Production / Operation

Production Quantity Unit / Price Value

1. Planting

2. Irrigating

3. Spraying

4. Fertilizing

5. Harvesting

Farm Inputs

1. Suckers

2. Fertilizers

3. Insecticides

4. Herbicide

5. Fngicide

VI. Rate the given Policy Option on the scale of 1 to 5, with 1 having the lowest
potential effectiveness and 5 having the highest potential effectiveness.

Policy Options 1 2 3 4 5
 52

Lowest Highest
Providing seminars and programs regarding Lakatan
Production.
Increasing access to other local markets.

Implementation of new innovations in Producing

Lakatan.
Promoting of Governmental Support towards Local
Banana Farmers.
Using technologies for Market Strategies.
 53

AGE

21-30
8 13 31-40
13 41-50

16 51-60

61-70
25

Appendix 2. Frequency distribution of respondents by age

GENDER

MALE

31
FEMALE
44

Appendix 3. Frequency distribution of respondents by gender

 54

CIVIL STATUS

5 5 SINGLE

MARRIED

SEPARRATED

65

Appendix 4. Frequency distribution of respondents by Civil Status

RELIGION

R.
5 CATHOLIC
7
METHODIS
T
10
INC

53 JW

Appendix 5. Frequency distribution of respondents by Religion

 55

ETHNIC GROUPS

3
ILOCANO

TAGALOG

75

Appendix 6. Frequency distribution of respondents by Ethnic Groups

HOUSEHOLD SIZE

1-2
6 MEM-
BERS
3-4
35 MEM-
BERS
34 5-6
MEM-
BERS

Appendix 7. Frequency distribution of respondents by Household Size

 56

HOUSEHOLD SIZE

1-2
6 MEM-
BERS
3-4
35 MEM-
BERS
34 5-6
MEM-
BERS

Appendix 7. Frequency distribution of respondents by Household Size

YEARS OF SCHOOLING

6 1-5 YEARS
12
6-10 YEARS

11-15
YEARS

57

Appendix 8. Frequency distribution of respondents by Years of Schooling

 57

OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME

RICE
5
CASSAVA
26
CORN
35
NONE
9

Appendix 9. Frequency distribution of respondents by their other source of Income

 58

DOCUMENTATION
 59

Plate 1. The researcher with respondent 1.

 60

Plate 2. The researcher with respondent 2.

Plate 3. The researcher with respondent 3.

 61

Plate 4. The researcher with respondent 4.

Plate 5. The researcher with respondent 5.

 62

Plate 6. The researcher with respondent 6.

 63

Plate 7. The researcher with respondent 7.

Plate 8. The researcher with respondent 8.

 64

Plate 9. The researcher with respondent 9.

Plate 10. The researcher with respondent 10.

 65

CERTIFICATION
 66

CERTIFICATION

This is to certify that the undersigned has read, reviewed and edited the
Undergraduate Thesis of Rica P. Torres entitled “PRODUCTIVITY AND
PROFITABILITY OF LAKATAN IN DISTRICT II ISABELA,” in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the Bachelor of Science in Agribusiness.

This certification is issued to the aforementioned author for English Critic

requirements.

Issued this 22nd day of August in the year of the Lord, Two Thousand and
Twenty-three.

EULY R. VILLANUEVA, LPT, MAEd

English Critic
 67

MEMORANDA
 68

Republic of the Philippines

ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY

Echague, Isabela

MEMORANDUM TO:

DIOSDADO C. CANETE

College of Agriculture

Isabela State University

Echague, Isabela

Please serve as Adviser to Ms. RICA JOY P. TORRES ’s thesis entitled

“PRODUCTIVITY AND PROFITABILITY OF LAKATAN IN DISTRICT II

ISABELA”.

Your comments, suggestions and recommendations will be made part of the thesis

study.
 69

NENITA S. GENOVE, DPA

Department Chairman

Republic of the Philippines

ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY

Echague, Isabela

MEMORANDUM TO:

NENITA S. GENOVE, DPA

College of Agriculture

Isabela State University

Echague, Isabela

Please serve as Member of the Advisory Committee to Ms. RICA JOY P.

TORRES ’s thesis entitled “PRODUCTIVITY AND PROFITABILITY OF

LAKATAN IN DISTRICT II ISABELA”.

Your comments, suggestions and recommendations will be made part of the thesis

study.
 70

NENITA S. GENOVE, DPA

Department chairman

Republic of the Philippines

ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY

Echague, Isabela

MEMORANDUM TO:

JOSEPHINE F. CASTILLO

College of Agriculture

Isabela State University

Echague, Isabela

Please serve as Member of the Advisory Committee to Ms. RICA JOY P.

TORRES ’s thesis entitled “PRODUCTITY AND PROFITABILITY OF LAKATAN

IN DISTRICT II ISABELA ”.

Your comments, suggestions and recommendations will be made part of the thesis

study.
 71

NENITA S. GENOVE, DPA

Department Chairman