See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/315783506

Farm Power Available for Utilization in Philippine Agriculture

Article · December 2016

CITATIONS READS
9 19,194

2 authors:

Renita Dela Cruz Sandy Bandojo Bobier

Philippine Center for Postharvest Development and Mechanization Philippine Center for Postharvest Development and Mechanization
26 PUBLICATIONS 45 CITATIONS 2 PUBLICATIONS 9 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Renita Dela Cruz on 05 April 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

Farm Power Available for Utilization in Philippine Agriculture

R. SM. Dela Cruz & S.B. Bobier

ABSTRACT

The study was conducted in January to December 2012 to establish quick index of farm power
available for utilization in Philippine agriculture. Secondary data from databases of government
and private institutions were used and key informant interviews were conducted from
representatives of the different agencies engaged in the manufacturing, importation and
distribution, testing and evaluation of machines, research and development, and those engaged in
facility assistance and monitoring of machines intended for agricultural operations. The
available farm power was expressed in terms of the power from available human labor, draft
animals and machines that could be applied for all crops and those available specifically for rice
and corn. The cut-off year of the evaluation was 2011. This was intentionally done to establish
benchmark data where the mechanization program implemented by the Philippine government
(2011-2016) could be gauged at the end of the program period in 2016.

Majority of the available machines were used for rice and corn, the most widely-planted grain
crops in the Philippines. The farm power available for rice and corn as of 2011 was 2.31 hp/ha,
0.15 hp/ha was contributed by human labor, 0.39 hp/ha by draft animals and 1.77hp/ha by
mechanical power. Spreading the farm power available for utilization for all agricultural crops,
the level of power available in 2011 would be reduced to a low level of 1.23 hp/ha.

The mechanical power available for postproduction operations of rice and corn significantly
lagged behind the mechanical power available for production operations. Only 30 percent of the
mechanical power was available for postproduction operations indicating the huge opportunity to
further increase rural incomes with postproduction technologies by establishing technology-
based rural enterprises.
Keywords: Farm power, Philippine agriculture, mechanization level, draft animals

1. INTRODUCTION

There are three main sources of power for farming operations: human, draft animals and
mechanical power. In developed countries where power from human and draft animals for farm
operations are relatively small compared to the power coming from motorized machines, the use
of farm power is almost synonymous to mechanical power or agricultural mechanization. Rijk
(1989) advocated the use of the term “farm power” or “labor productivity enhancing technology”
rather than agricultural mechanization, to distinguish not only the importance of manual labor
and hand tools, draft animals, and mechanical power, but also other issues related to labor
scarcity. For less developed or developing countries where the contributions of human and
animal power are still relatively significant the term farm power would be relevant.
 2

Farm power remains to be a vital input to crop production and in some areas have been
considered the second most limiting factor after land (Okurut and Odogola, 1999; Thepent,
2010). Agricultural mechanization has been shown to significantly increase agricultural labor
productivity and land productivity and reduce the cost of production (Rijk, 1989; Clarke, 2000;
Soni and Ou, n.d.). It allows timelier farm operations and more precise application of inputs,
maintains quality and reduces postharvest losses. Additionally, it reduces drudgery by
significantly reducing working time and increasing safety and comfort of the working
environment.

Farming requires significant amount of power and appropriate technologies to carry out the
needed farm operations should be available to get the desired level of production. With the
general trend of diminishing agricultural labor force due to increasing urban migration and
advancing age of heads of farming households, the use of machines to increase labor
productivity and reduce drudgery has been recognized to be an essential alternative input of
production. Although labor force in agriculture is abundant in some production areas, its non-
availability during peak of major operations is also a growing problem. Timeliness of land
preparation and planting, weeding and/or harvesting are critical factors that could largely affect
crop production in areas where there are insufficient labor to permit timely operation. Rijk
(1989) and Clarke (2000) espoused that the formulation of an agricultural mechanization strategy
should be a part of the agricultural technology strategy which in turn should be part of an overall
agricultural development strategy. Formulation of a comprehensive agricultural mechanization
strategy calls for the review of the general trend in agriculture sector and the supply of farm
power, among others.

Several indicators are used to indicate level of mechanization of a country. Among them are the
following: (a) power/unit land (hp/ha), (b) number of tractors/unit land (number of tractors/100
or 1,000 ha), (Ozmerzi, 1998 cited by Olaoye and Rotimi, 2010) (c) mechanical power as a
percentage of total power from human, draft animals and machines. This quick index of
mechanization does not reflect the utilization of farm power but rather the available power that
can be utilized for farm operations.

In 1992, the Regional Network for Agricultural Machinery (cited by PCARRD, 2002) reported
the mechanization level of the Philippines to be 0.52 hp/ha. During the same period of time, the
mechanization level of our neighboring countries were reported to be as follows: Japan, 7
hp/ha; Republic of Korea, 4.11 hp/ha; China, 3.88 hp/ha; Pakistan, 1.02 hp/ha; India, 1 hp/ha,
and; Thailand, 0.79 hp/ha. Later, Rodulfo et al., (1998) determined the level of mechanization in
rice and corn farms of the Philippines to be 1.68 hp/ha. Power from motorized machines
contributed 80 percent while human and draft animals contributed 14 and 5 percent, respectively,
of the total farm power. The most recent study on farm mechanization was the project on,
“National farm mechanization needs survey and analysis” (Franco et al., 2001), which was
implemented by the University of the Philippines at Los Baños and funded by the Bureau of
Agricultural Research in 2001. The level of mechanization was expressed qualitatively as: low,
intermediate, high and full mechanization to indicate the degree of utilization of mechanical
power. The latest quantitative assessment of the level of mechanization was in 1992 with the
 3

1991 Census of Agriculture as the main source of information on human, draft animals and
machine power.

This study sought to update and establish a quick quantitative index of power available for
utilization in Philippine agriculture with 2011 as the cut-off year. The cut-off year was set in
2011 to serve as benchmark information where the rice mechanization program (2011-2016) of
the Philippine government could be gauged. Specifically, the study assessed the relative
contribution of the major sources of farm power that could be utilized for the production and
postproduction on-farm operations.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

2.1 Country Description

The Philippines is an agrarian economy with a total land area of 29.82 million hectares of which
32 percent or 9.671 million hectares are classified as agricultural land area (National Statistics
Office, 2004). The total arable land (planted to annual crops) is 4.738 million hectares while
permanent cropland (planted to perennial crops) is 4.192 million hectares or 51 and 44 percent of
the agricultural land area, respectively. Arable lands are those under temporary crops (double-
cropped areas are counted only once), temporary meadows for mowing or pasture and lands
temporarily fallow (less than five years). Permanent croplands are those cultivated with crops
that occupy the land for long periods and need not be replanted after each harvest (e.g., cocoa,
coffee and rubber) and include lands under shrubs, fruit trees, nut trees and vines but exclude
land under tree grown for wood or timber (FAOSTAT, 2012).

The total irrigable area in 2011 is 3.126 million hectares and 50.1 percent of this area had been
provided with irrigation facilities (Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, 2012). Agricultural holding
is small at an average of 1.98 ha/farm operator in 2002 (National Statistics Office, 2004). There
was a steady decrease in the average size of farm from 3.61 ha in 1971 to 1.98 ha in 2002. The
size of farms in 2002 was reduced to 55 percent of its average size in 1971. The percentage of
the area consisting of one parcel dropped from 56 percent in 1980 to 29 percent in 2002.
Correspondingly, the percentage of the area that comprise 2-3 parcels of land steadily increased
from 34.1 percent in 1980 to 56.9 percent in 2002. Without opening up new areas, the division
of a previously larger parcel of land into more but smaller parcels brought about the reduction of
landholding/farm operator. With an average landholding of 1.98 ha, more than half of the arable
land (56.9 percent) has an area of 0.66-0.99 ha/parcel. This information is important in
programming appropriate machines specifically on the aspect of machine capacities not only to
maximize operating efficiencies but also their utilization.

2.2 Study Methods

The study utilized secondary data. The information needed were gathered from available
databases and through key informant interviews. Among others, the databases of the following
agencies were used: Philippine Center for Postharvest Development and Mechanization, Bureau
of Agricultural Statistics, Philippine Rice Research Institute, Philippine Carabao Center,
 4

Department of Trade and Industry, National Statistics Office, Bureau of Customs, DA-regional
and provincial and municipal offices. Data on sales of agricultural machines from the
Agricultural Machinery Manufacturers and Distributors (AMMDA) were also used.

Face-to-face and telephone interviews of machinery importers, distributors, dealers and retailers
were conducted to gather needed information on some technical aspects of machines and
projections of volume and uses of machinery sold to farmers.

To validate the information gathered, meetings with heads of agricultural machinery

manufacturers and distributors‟ associations and concerned agencies on draft animals were also
carried out. Quantities of machines presented for four-wheel tractors covered those procured in
1982-2011 (30 years) while the total number of prime movers were those acquired from 2002-
2011 (9 years). Based on the methodology adapted, the level of power in terms of hp/ha,
reflects the power that human, draft animals and machines can generate for utilization in
agriculture. The level of utilization of farm power was not considered in this study but was dealt
with substantially is a separate study conducted by Malanon and Dela Cruz (2014).

2.3 Analysis of Data

Data were presented in totals, averages and percentages. The indicators of level of
mechanization are computed using the following formula:

2.3.1 Human or draft animal power

P =QxF

Where: P = power, hp
Q = quantity of human labor or draft animals, unit
F = power factor of 0.10 for human, 0.67 hp for carabao, 0.45 for cattle and 1 hp
for horse. The power factor for human was taken from Avallone, et al. (2007)
while the data on carabao and cattle were taken from the National Carabao
Research Center, Institute of Animal Sciences, UPLB (1990) which were the
average powers generated at loads of 75 kg and speed of about 4 kph.
Horsepower generated by horse was taken from the study of Stevenson and
Wassersug (1993).

2.3.2 Machine power

P = Q x RP x F
Where: P = power, hp
Q = quantity of machines, unit
RP = rated power, hp
F = efficiency factor of 80% for motors and engines, 85% for tractors and 80% for
other powered machines
 5

2.3.3. Available power per ha

A.P. = Σ(PH +PDA + PM)/A

Where:
A.P. = Available power, hp/ha
P = accumulated power, hp (PH - power from human labor, + PDA – power from
draft animals + PM – power from motorized machines)
A= physical agricultural area (arable land + permanent cropland), ha

2.4 Bases of Computations

The following assumptions were used in the computations of mechanization level:

1. Efficiencies of machines were adjusted as follows (based on Agricultural Machinery

Testing and Evaluation Center (AMTEC):
a. Motors and engines = 80 %
b. Tractors = 85%
c. Other engine-powered machines = 80%

2. For all crops, area used was based on the result of 2002 Census of Agriculture (National
Statistics Office, 2004) for temporary and perennial crops only. For rice and corn area,
average physical area from 2007-2011 (5-year period) was used in the computation.

3. The number of tractor units covers 30-year period (1982-2011); the quantities of the
engines and motors cover the period, 2002-2011.

4. To estimate the approximate horsepower ratings from motors and engines, the following
percentage allocation was used (Joel Panagsagan, interview by author, July 2012): 40
percent of the engines were attached to hand tractors; 30 percent to threshers and/or
shellers and 30 percent for other machines. The average horsepower ratings of existing
machines where the engines or motors were estimated to have been used, were then
computed based on existing data on ranges of horsepower ratings of machines used for
specific operations. For example, engines attached to the hand tractors are in the range of
10 to 16 hp. Horsepower rating of other machines were based on actual ratings of the
machine brands available in the field as of 2011.

3.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

3.1 Human Labor as Source of Farm Power

In 2010, of the 92.34 million people in the Philippines, 39 percent were in the labor force
(National Statistics Coordinating Board, 2012). Fifty-two percent of the labor force was in the
service sector, 33 percent in agriculture and 15 percent in the industry sector. The farming scale
per farm laborer is 0.87 ha/farm laborer.
 6

The share of agricultural labor force to the total economically active population is decreasing. In
2020, FAOSTAT (2012) predicted that in every 100 individuals, 30 people will be in the
agricultural sector while 70 will be in non-agricultural areas. Due to differences in living
conditions between agricultural and non-agricultural areas, farmers or members of their
households are leaving the farm to look for jobs in cities. Under the situation of reduced
agricultural labor, machines then become a necessary alternative not only to increase labor
productivity but also reduce drudgery to entice younger generation to farm.

3.1.1 Farm operations undertaken by human labor

For rice, human labor is often used in pulling rice transplants, transplanting operations or seeding
either through broadcasting or using mechanical seeder, weeding, fertilizer application, spraying,
harvesting and sundrying (Bautista, 2003). With the use of draft animals, some rice areas are
also prepared for planting specially those that are in the rainfed areas.

On the other hand, human strength is most commonly-employed in corn production in the
following operations, with or without hand tools: seeding and fertilizer application, spraying,
harvesting and sun drying. The insufficiency of human labor during peak operations of planting
and harvesting is often mentioned by farmers as one among the problems in their farming
operations (Dela Cruz, 2010).

Women are involved in agriculture doing both production and postproduction operations. Of the
total 13.4 million economically active population in Philippine agriculture in 2010, 24.2 percent
were women (FAOSTAT, 2012). This percentage level is expected to change minimally by
2015.

When compared to the total female population that is economically active, the female population
engaged in agriculture constitutes less than one fourth or 23.1 percent in 2005. The percentage
of women involved in agriculture decreased from 23.1 percent in 2005 to 20.9 percent in 2010
and is projected to further decrease to 18.8 percent in 2015. The lure of “easier life in the urban
areas” causes migration from rural to urban areas.

3.1.2 Available human labor for rice and corn

Table 1 shows the summary of information used in computing the available power for rice and
corn from human labor. The total physical area planted to rice and corn was 4.399 million
hectares which is 91 percent of the total area classified as arable lands (Bureau of Agricultural
Statistics, 2012). On the other hand, the area harvested to rice and corn was 7.039 million
hectares giving an aggregate cropping intensity of 1.60 for both crops. Cropping intensity is the
number of times a crop is planted per year in a given agricultural area (PhilFSIS, 2016). The
figure indicates that 60 percent of the total areas planted to rice and corn are harvested more than
once a year. With good irrigation system, production in the remaining 40 percent of the total
area planted to rice and corn could still be intensified with additional mechanical power or labor-
saving technologies.
 7

The total labor force for rice and corn farming operations was estimated to be 6.5 million which
could generate 650,000 hp. For rice and corn area, the available human power is 0.15 hp/ha.

Bautista (2003) reported that in rice, labor cost represents about 60 percent of the total input cost
in producing rice. This indicates the significant reliance of the needed farm power from human
labor and/or the insufficiency of appropriate mechanical power to facilitate farm operations
especially those needing some degree of accuracy. Motorized machines were mainly used in
land preparation, threshing or shelling, and milling while other operations like weeding, fertilizer
application, spraying, weeding, harvesting and drying heavily relied on human labor.

Table 1. Summary of information used in the computation of available human power for rice
and corn areas
Item Value Source of Data
1. Arable+ permanent cropland (ha) 8.930 million National Statistics Office
(NSO), 2004
2. Total area planted to rice and corn 4.399 million Bureau of Agricultural
per year (ha) a Statistics (BAS)
3. Total area harvested of rice and 7.039 million BAS
corn per year (ha)
4. Cropping intensity 1.60 computed
5. Total labor force (including 6.50 million Bautista (2003); Asian Peasant
landless farmers) Coalition (2012); Gerpacio
 Rice 4.7 million (2004)
 Corn 1.8 million
6. Total power available from 650,000 hp computed
human labor for rice and corn
farming operations (hp)
7. Total power from human labor 0.15 computed
per unit area (hp/ha)
a
Area planted to rice and corn is average of 2007-2010

In other countries with a relatively more advanced degree of mechanization, one of the factors
that facilitated the use of mechanical power is the insufficiency of human labor to do the farm
operations and/or the desire to reduce the degree of hardships of manual labor (Huang, 1972;
Tsuchiya, 1972; Kim, 1972). Thailand, because of its relatively high annual rate of economic
growth, experienced labor shortages in the rural areas which had resulted to a rapid increase in
the mechanization of farm operations with corresponding decline in the use of animals for draft
purposes (Devendra, 1997). In relation to this, Kim (1992) mentioned that farm mechanization
could not proceed without a corresponding decrease in agricultural population because
mechanization could not compete with the relatively lower cost of rural labor. As such, Korea‟s
industrial development had been the key factor in the success of Korea‟s farm mechanization.
 8

The increased in the farm wages due to the shortage of farm labor played a significant role in the
development of Korea‟s farm mechanization.

3.2 Draft Animals as Source of Farm Power

Draft animals are working animals, usually domesticated, that are trained to perform work. They
need to be trained to attain docility and prevent problems during field operations. Carabao,
cattle, and horse are the most-commonly used draft animals in the Philippines, with carabao
being the most prevalent. The strength of draft animals is most commonly-used in land
preparation, hilling up and off-barring operations, and hauling. Both carabao and cattle are used
in a variety of farm operations while horse is generally used in transporting farm inputs and
agricultural harvests especially in mountainous and rugged terrains.

Devendra (1997) cited that almost all (99%) of the 2.7 million buffaloes were kept among
smallholders for draft purposes and meat production. Large number of buffaloes was used for
transporting sugar cane in Western and Central Visayas and for transporting coconuts in the
provinces of Quezon, Camarines Sur, Leyte and Masbate and some parts of Mindanao.
Buffaloes are generally considered stronger, although slower than cattle. Their flexible foot
joints (feet lock and pastern) and larger hooves allow them to perform better than cattle in heavy
wet soils. Cattles are more versatile in dry fields while carabao is more efficient in wet fields.
Both males and females are commonly utilized for draft but it is recommended to use male
carabaos as draft animals. Such animals should be castrated for easy handling and docility.
Caracows (mature female carabaos) utilized for work are believed to be naturally inferior in
performance.

In his study of 354 farmer carabao raisers from the five provinces in Luzon, De Guzman (1981)
found out that 80 percent of the carabaos trained for work are males and that carabaos were
raised primarily for draft purposes. Livestock raised by small farmers in their backyards are
generally used for draft (Dr. A. Sarabia, interview by authors, December 2012), also mentioned
that the livestock raised by small farmers in their backyards are generally used for draft.

The inventory of carabaos and cattles were taken from the databases of the Bureau of
Agricultural Statistics while the data on horses were taken from the data bases of the provinces
which were earlier identified to be using horses as alternative source of farm power. The data on
horses utilized as draft were specifically taken from the Offices of the Agricultural Officers and
Veterinarians of municipalities, provinces and regions. The inventory of working animals as
source of animal power did not consider those that are reared commercially for meat or dairy
production.

Among the draft animals, carabaos had the highest number of heads contributing 60 percent to
the total heads of draft animals available in the Philippines as of 2011 (Fig.1). Data on available
heads of carabao and cattle were the average for the period, 2007-2011, while the data available
for horses used as draft animals were for the year 2010 only. Considering carabao and cattle,
the farming scale per unit head of draft animal is 3.08 ha. Farming scale per draft animal is the
size of the area covered by a draft animal, express in ha/head. Assuming that the draft animals
 9

are the major sources of farm power in a given area, this farming scale is relatively big since
timeliness in operation is a major concern in farming operations.

3.2.1 Available power from draft animals for rice and corn
In rice and corn production areas, there were 1.798 million hp available power from draft
animals which when translated to unit area of rice and corn is equivalent to 0.39 hp/ha (Table 2).
This is almost three times the power available from human labor (0.15 hp/ha).

Earlier findings showed that the problem encountered in maintaining carabaos was one of the
major motivating factors for mechanizing rice farms in the Philippines (Orcino, 1974; Alviar,
1983). The trouble associated with the care and maintenance of carabaos was one of major
reasons mentioned by early farmers for replacing carabaos with hand tractors. The farmers
experienced that the use of hand tractors resulted to better cultivation compared to the work of
the carabao per unit time and that the use of hand tractors was cheaper in the long run.

2,000 1,804
No. of draft animals (000)

1,500
1,097
1,000

500
96
0
Carabao Cattle Horse

Fig. 1. Number of draft animals, Philippines; carabao and cattle

(average of 2007-2011) and horse (2010)

3.3 Machines as Sources of Farm Power

Engines (gasoline- and diesel-fed) and electric motors as well as self-propelled machines like
four-wheel tractors, rice transplanters, reapers, and combines are all imported from the
neighboring countries of the Philippines. According to FAO (cited by Soni and Ou, n.d.), 30.48
percent of the tractors sold worldwide in 2004 were produced in Asia, with India producing the
most number of units. Here in the Philippines, hand tractors, pumps, threshers, cleaners, dryers
and rice mills are among the agricultural machines that have been widely manufactured locally.
However, the engines and motors to power these machines are all imported.

In 1982, Delta Motors Corporation (DMC) ventured into producing a single cylinder engine of
10 hp. Though the company ceased manufacturing the engines, it was able to sell 1,009 units of
engine which was lower in price by 45 percent (Trabajo, 1994). Performance test report of the
 10

Agricultural Machinery Testing and Evaluation Center (AMTEC) revealed that the local engine
was of good quality.

Table 2. Summary of information used in the computation of available animal power for rice
and corn areas
Item Value Source(s) of Data

1. Arable + permanent cropland (ha) 8.930 million NSO, 2004

2. Total area planted to rice and corn per 4.399 million BAS
year (ha)a
3. Total area harvested of rice and corn per 7.039 million BAS
year (ha)
4. Cropping intensity 1.60 computed
5. Total heads of animals BAS; provincial and
 Carabao (number of heads)b 1,804,161 regional data-Office of
 Cattle (number of heads)c 1,096,703 the Veterinarian
 Horse (number of heads)d 95,644
6. Total power from draft animals available
1,715,610 computed
for rice and corn farming operations (hp)
7. Total power from draft animals per unit 0.39 computed
area (hp/ha)
a b c
Area planted to rice is average area of 2007-2010; Average of 5 years, 2007-2011; Average of 5
years, 2007-2011; d Data in 2010

3.3.1 Available mechanical power

Table 3 shows the number of units of machines as source of farm power. The power (7.802
million hp) coming from the prime movers is the major source of mechanical power,
contributing 95 percent of the total mechanical power. The total number of prime movers could
provide a mechanization level of 0.87 hp/ha as of 2011 (Table 4). On the other hand, the
available power from the available units of four-wheel tractors and harvesters could provide a
level of 0.04 and 0.01 hp/ha, respectively, while the power available from the rest of the
machines is negligible. The average power rating from a specific machine was also included in
the table for reference purposes.

The number of units of hand tractors that are mainly used for land preparation and transport
produced the highest available power of 0.28 hp/ha (Tabale 4), followed by the available units of
threshers (0.17 hp/ha), rice mills (0.07 hp/ha), four-wheel tractor (0.04 hp/ha), and corn shellers
(0.01 hp/ha).

A sizeable amount of power categorized as „other machines‟ which contribute 0.34 hp/ha could
have been used in bulk handling facilities, refrigeration equipment, hydro power for rural-based
electricity, processing equipment which were not captured in the study but were declared to be
intended for agricultural purposes.
 11

Table 3. Quantity of prime movers and self-propelled machines and the power available from
them for all crops as of 2011
Total Power Average Power
Number of Percent of Total
Agricultural Machine Available from Machine
Units Mechanical Power
(hp) (hp)
1. Prime movers 955,770 7,801,930 95
 Engines 951,637 7,779,448 9.4
 Motors 4,133 22,482 6.2
2. Four-wheel tractors 6,100 394,190 5 76.0
3. Transplanters 16 91 nil 6.6
4. Harvesters 1,821 47,250 nil
 Rice combines 669 40,784 61.0
 Rice reapers 1,110 3,414 3.6
 Corn harvesters 24 1,456 70.5
 Forage harvesters 10 596 69.3
 Sugarcane harvesters 8 1,000 145
Total 8,243,461 100

Table 4. Specific machines and the power available for all crops as of 2011
Total power Available power per unit
Agricultural machine
available (hp) area (hp/ha)
1. Machine with prime mover attachments 7,801,930 0.87
 Hand tractors 2,465,808 0.28
 Threshers 1,531,168 0.17
 Irrigation pumps 35,905 nil
 Dryers 32,530 nil
 Silo 280 nil
 Rice mill a 611,798 0.07
 Cold storage 4,850 nil
 Corn shellers 83,048 0.01
 Corn mill 10,245 nil
 Tramline 4,475 nil
 Corn processing and drying centers 1,815 nil
 Other machines b (2009-2011 0.34
3,020,009
machines)
2. Four-wheel tractors 394,190 0.04
3. Transplanters 91 nil
4. Harvesters 47,250 0.01
 Rice combines 40,784 nil
 Rice reapers 3,414 nil
 Corn harvesters 1,456 nil
 Forage harvesters 596 nil
 Sugarcane harvesters 1,000 nil
Total 8,243,461 0.92
 12

Note: Philippine land area under temporary and permanent crops = 8,930,496 ha
Irrigation pumps were based on sales of AMMDA members from 2004-2010. Dryers, silo, rice mill, corn
sheller, corn mill, tramline, corn processing and drying centers were based on the PHilMech‟s postharvest
inventory.
a
Only village-level rice mills were included in the inventory of PHilMech; information from big rice millers
are difficult to get.
b
Engines for other machines could have been used in processing equipment, bulk handling facilities,
refrigeration equipment, hydro power, and other farm-level machines that were not surveyed from 2009-
2011; data available on farm machines from PHilMech covered the period, 2002-2008

Table 5. Mechanical power distribution versus the area planted to temporary and permanent
crops in the major islands of the Philippines
Percentage Total area planted to Percent of total area planted
Island distribution of temporary and to temporary and permanent
mechanical power permanent crops (ha) crops
Luzon 57 3,331,567 37
Visayas 13 1,795,470 20
Mindanao 30 3,803,459 43
Philippines 100 8,930,496 100

3.3.3 Mechanical power available for production

and post-production operations of all crops

Unlike the human and draft animal power which could be repeatedly utilized in several farm
operations that are done one after the other, there are some machines with limited or specific
applications (e.g., sugarcane harvesters). The mechanical power available for production and
postproduction operations is presented in Table 6. Production operations include land
preparation, furrowing, planting, fertilizer application, spraying, irrigation, weeding and care of
crops while postproduction operations include harvesting, threshing or shelling, hauling, drying,
storage, and milling. Almost three fourth (72%) of the total available mechanical power are used
in production operations while the rest (28%) are used in postproduction operations.

Table 6. Level of mechanical power available for production and postproduction operations for
all crops as of 2011
Items All operations Production Postproduction
Level of mechanization (hp/ha) 0.92 0.66 0.26
Percent of total 100 72 28
Note: Philippine agricultural area =8,930,496 ha
Machines included under production operations are hand tractors, irrigation pumps, transplanter, four-wheel
tractors and other machines while machines for postproduction include threshers, dryers, silo, rice mill, corn
sheller, corn mill, tramline, corn drying and processing centers, cold storage and harvesters.
 13

3.3.4 Mechanical power available for rice and corn

Almost all of the machines listed in Table 4 are used or could be used for rice and corn except
for machines that are explicitly used for other crops like sugar cane harvester. Hence, almost all
of the mechanical power could be available for rice and corn field operations. The level of
available mechanical power for rice and corn is 1.77 hp/ha (Table 7).

Table 7. Power available from mechanical power for rice and corn crops as of 2011
Level of Mechanical Mechanical
mechanical power used in power used in
Total power
Island power production postproduction
(hp)
available operations operations
(hp/ha) (hp/ha) (hp/ha)
Luzon 4,427,661 2.30 1.55 0.75
Visayas 1,005,515 1.10 0.76 0.34
Mindanao 2,332,540 1.50 1.14 0.36
Total for the 7,765,717 1.77 1.24 0.53
Philippines
Percent of total 100 70 30

The level of mechanical power is again higher for production operations getting 70 percent of the
total mechanical power while postproduction operations get the remaining 30 percent. This
figure indicates the need for enhancing postproduction operations through labor-saving
technologies that could offer considerable opportunities for value-adding activities in the rural
areas. Moreover, to safeguard the quality of rice and corn harvests especially in light of climate
uncertainties, additional mechanical power in postproduction operations should be made
available. Mindanao and Visayas are relatively deficient in farm power.

3.4. Total Farm Power Available for Philippine Agriculture

Table 8 shows the summary of the farm power available for Philippine agriculture. The
combined power coming from human labor and draft animals comprised one third of the total
farm power available for agriculture as of 2011. The available power from human labor and
draft animals constitute 10 and 15 percent, respectively, of the total available farm power. In
terms of the power available per unit area, human labor is capable of providing 0.12 hp/ha while
draft animals can provide 0.19 hp/ha. The remaining 75 percent of the farm power, 0.92 hp/ha,
is coming from mechanical power.
 14

Table 8. Total farm power available for all crops as of 2011

Available Percent of total
Available Percent of total
power for rice available power
Source power for all available power
and corn for rice and
crops (hp/ha) for all crops
(hp/ha) corn
1. Human 0.12 10 0.15 6
2. Draft animal 0.19 15 0.39 17
3. Machine 0.92 75 1.77 77
Total 1.23 100 2.31 100

Under Philippine scenario, the efforts of mechanizing farming operations are hampered by
several issues, foremost of which, is the small and fragmented land holdings of farmers (Dela
Cruz, 2010; FTTC, 2006; Soni and Ou, n.d.). Japan, Taiwan and Korea are among the Asian
countries with highly mechanized farming operations despite their small landholdings. These
countries attained high mechanization level because of strong political will and commitment and
farmers‟ cooperation (FTTC, 2006).

Specifically, Korea promoted group farming by encouraging small-scale farmers to establish

cooperative farming corporations, where they pooled their farm lands, agricultural machinery
and labor (Kim, 1992). Korea‟s government support that contributed significantly to the
advancement of agriculture included, among others, the institution of policies on financing farm
machinery and subsidies by supplying machines at half the price (FFTC, 2006). The
Philippines, under its Rice Mechanization Program (2011-2016), also adopted the policy of
subsidizing farm machines for paddy production following a counter-parting scheme where the
government pays 85 percent of the facility cost while the eligible farmers‟ group pays the
remaining 15 percent (Department of Agriculture, 2011).

3.4.1.Total available farm power for rice and corn

Rice and corn are the major and most widely cultivated grain crops of the Philippines. With a
relatively high cropping intensity of 1.60, the utilization of farm power for these two crops are
also relatively intensive. The farm power available for rice and corn has apparently been
dominated by power coming from motorized machines which has contributed 77 percent to the
total farm power and has the capacity to generate 1.77 hp/ha (Table 9). The contribution of
human labor and draft animals is 0.15 and 0.39 hp/ha, respectively.

3.4.2. Level of mechanization of the Philippines in comparison with other countries

Across several crops, the level of available power in the Philippines is 1.23 hp/ha as of 2011.
Focusing on rice and corn crops, with smaller area of production and with nearly all of the
available machines finding application in production and postproduction operations, the level of
farm power available is 2.31 hp/ha.

The farm power available in Asian countries is presented in Table 9. The earlier categorization
of Soni and Ou (n.d.) on the level of mechanization based on the total percentage of mechanized
 15

field operations is apparently congruent (except for the case of India) with the relative ranking of
the countries compared based on quantitative index of hp/ha. Soni and Ou (n.d.) categorized
Asian countries based on the application of agricultural machinery as follows: Category 1 with
low level of agricultural mechanization included Bangladesh, Cambodia, Indonesia, Nepal and
Sri Lanka; Category II with medium level of mechanization comprised of Thailand, Vietnam and
the Philippines, and; Category III with high level of agricultural mechanization included China,
India and Republic of Korea.

Table 9. Level of mechanization of some countries

Mechanization level Recent Level of
(hp/ha) Source of
Country Mechanization Remarks
Information
a a (hp/ha)
1968 1990

1. Japan 3.000 7.000 18.87 (2011) Venkatachalam

2. Republic of Korea 0.435 4.110 9.38 (2011) Venkatachalam
3. People‟s Republic of NA 3.88 8.42 (2012) (b)
China
4. Pakistan 0.410 1.02 NA NA
5. India 0.302 1.00 2.22 (2011) Venkatachalam
6. Thailand 0.348 0.79 4.20 (2009) (c)
7. Vietnam NA NA 1.20 (2010) Pham Van Tan

8. Iran 0.239 0.70 NA NA

9. Sri Lanka 0.378 0.58 NA NA
10. Philippines 0.198 0.520 1.23 (2011) PHilMech All crops
2.31 (2011) PHilMech Rice & corn crops
11. Indonesia 0.173 0.41 NA NA
12. Bangladesh NA 0.40 1.46 (2008) S.M. Iqbal
Hossain
13. Nepal 0.733 0.30 NA NA
a
PCARRD, 2002
(b) http://vietnambreakingnews.com/2012/05/agricultural-mechanization-hindered-by-land-law/#.UWtKhqJ-ZII
( c) http://indochinastock.vn/2009/12/vietnam-sets-high-target-in-agricultural-mechanization-38-82343.htm
NA – not available

4. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The study identified the status of farm power available for utilization in rice and corn as of 2011
to be 2.31 hp/ha, the bulk of which (77 percent) was supplied by mechanical power. The
remaining 23 percent of the available farm power could be supplied by human power (6 percent)
and draft animals (17 percent). Almost three-fourth (70 percent) of the available mechanical
power were used in production operations with post-harvest operations getting the remaining 30
percent.

The following could be inferred from the study: (a) the available farm power is almost
concentrated in rice and corn production operations, (b) the mechanical power available for
postharvest operations lagged behind the power available for production operations, and (c) the
 16

participations of farmers in value-adding postharvest operations is low as shown by the relatively

low farm power available for on-farm utilization on postharvest operations.

Among others, the results of the study will serve as the point of reference where the farm
mechanization program undertaken by the Philippine Department of Agriculture can be gauged
at the end of program in 2016.

The following recommendations are forwarded. For the program planners and implementers to
consider the following: (a) increase the level of mechanical power for all crops, especially the
high value crops that have export potentials, to increase productivity and ensure competitiveness
and (b) promote appropriate agro-processing machine technologies to increase level of
mechanization and encourage agribusiness enterprises where small-scale farmers could
participate. Those in RDE institutions should also consider in their program or project
development the following: (a) study on the utilization of farm power in agricultural operations
to serve as bases in programming mechanization interventions and in estimating the farm power
requirement of major crops in the country; (b) maintain and update databases on farm power by
appropriate agencies of the Department of Agriculture for ready reference; (c) formulate
additional indicators of mechanization that will consider not only its availability but its
accessibility and utilization. The “hp/ha” indicator is a quick index of the farm power available
and does not identify the various operations where the available farm power are utilized. Several
machines intended for agricultural production are not readily accessible or inappropriate in terms
of capacity to intended users hence, machines although available are not utilize for productive
use.

5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors thank the following: (a) Engr. Joel Panagsagan of Agricultural Machinery
Manufacturers and Distributors Association (AMMDA); (b) Dr. A. Sarabia of Philippine
Carabao Center; (c) veterinarians of different regions and/or provinces, and; (d) Agricultural
Mechanization Testing and Evaluation Center (AMTEC) for generously providing the
information needed by the study. The project was funded by the Philippine Center for
Postharvest Development and Mechanization, a government agency attached to the Department
of Agriculture, Philippines.

6. REFERENCES

Alviar, N.G. 1983. Farmers‟ motivation on farm mechanization. Paper presented on the
inaugural lecture of University of the Philippines Professorial Chair in Agricultural
Economics, College of Development Economics and Management. University of the
Philippines at Los Baños, College, Laguna. June 9, 1983.
 17

Agricultural Machinery Testing and Evaluation Center (AMTEC). 2002. Philippine

Agricultural Engineering Standards. University of the Philippines, Los Baños, Laguna.

Asian Peasant Coalition. 2012. National Small Rice Farmers‟ Conference (Philippines).
Conducted at the University of the Philippines in Diliman, Quezon City on February 14-15,
2012. Retrieved on April 14, 2013 from http://www.asianpeasant.org/content/national-small-
rice-farmers-conference-philippines.

Avallone, E.A., et al. (ed) 2007. Marck‟s Standard Handbook for Mechanical Engineers. 11 th
edition, Mc-Graw Hill, New York. ISBN 0-07-142867-4.

Bautista, E. U. 2003. Mechanizing rice and postharvest operations in the Philippines: Present
status, prospects and challenges. In Philippine Agricultural Mechanization Bulletin. Vol. X,
No. 2. CEAT-UPLB.

Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. Retrieved on December 1, 2012 from www.bas.gov.ph

Clarke, L. J. 2000. Strategies for agricultural mechanization development: The roles of the
private sector and the government. FAO, Italy.

Dela Cruz, R. SM. 2010. Consolidation and large-scale mechanization of corn farms: The case
of Quirino and Isabela. PHilMech Journal. Vol. 2 No.1. Philippine Center for Postharvest
Development and Mechanization. CLSU Compound, Science City of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija.

De Guzman, M.J. 1981. Feeding and management practices, physical characteristics and utility
of carabaos (swamp buffaloes) in five provinces of Luzon. UPLB, Los Baños, Laguna.
Retrieved on April 8, 2014 from
http://scinet.dost.gov.ph/union/ShowSearchResult.php?s=2&f=&p=&x=&page=&sid=1&sid
=Feeding+and+management+practices%2+physical+characteristics+and+utility+of+carabao
s+(swamp+buffaloes)+in+five+provinces+of+Luzon&Mtype=THESES

Department of Agriculture. 2011. Rice mechanization: On-farm and postharvest mechanization

programs (2011-2016). Philippines.

Devendra, C., Thomas, D.. Jabbar, M.A. and Kudo, H. 1997. Improvement of livestock in
crop–animal systems in rainfed agro-ecological zones of South-East Asia. ILRI (International
Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. 116 p. 38

Food and Agriculture Organization. Retrieved on December 1, 2012 from www.fao.org.

FAOSTAT. 2014. Retrieved on February 28, 2014 from http://faostat3.fao.org/faostat-

gateway/go/to/download.

Food and Fertilizer Technology Center (FFTC). 2006. Small farm mechanization systems
development, adoption and utilization. FFTC Database. Farm Management and
 18

Mechanization. Retrieved on January 20, 2014 from

http://www.agnet.org/library.php?func=view&id=20110726133001&type_id=1.

Franco, D.T., D.C. Suministrado, A.M. de Asis, S.C. Capareda, J.D.Tallada, J.D., M.K.B.
Gratuito, and F.F. Manalastas. 2003. National corn mechanization needs survey and analysis.
Philippine Agricultural Mechanization Bulletin. Vol. X No.1. University of the Philippines at
Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines.

Gerpacio, R. V., J.D. Labios, R.V. Labios, and E.I. Diangkinay. 2004. Maize in the
Philippines: Systems, constraints and research priorities. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT.

Huang, C. 1972. Farmer motivation for mechanization. In: Farm Mechanization in East Asia.
Ed. H. Southworth. The Agricultural Development Council, Inc. New York.

Kienzle, J. and K. HoumY. 2011. Sustainable agricultural mechanization strategy formulation:

Concepts and principles. FAO/ UNAPCAEM. Retrieved from www. unapcaem.org on April
14, 2013.

Kim, D.H. 1972. The farm mechanization process in Korea. In: Farm Mechanization in East
Asia. Ed. H. Southworth. The Agricultural Development Council, Inc. New York.

Kim, So-Hyun. 1992. Farm size and structural reform of agriculture I. Korea. Food and
Fertilizer Technology Center for Asia and the Pacific Region (FFTC) Publication Database.
Farm Management and Farm Mechanization. Retrieved on January 20, 2014 from
http://www.agnet.org/library.php?func=view&id=20110726141413 &type_id=4.

Kishida, Y. 2006. Editorial. Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America.
39(2).

National Carabao Research Center. 1990. Institute of Animal Sciences, University of the
Philippines at Los Baños. College, Laguna.

National Statistics Office. 2004. 2002 Census of Agriculture. Sta. Mesa, Manila, Philippines

National Statistics Coordinating Board. Retrieved on October 25, 2012 from

http://www.nscb.gov.ph/pressreleases/2012/PR-201206-SS2-01_pov2009.asp

Okurut, S. and W.R. Odogola. 1999. Farm power development in Uganda: Past, present and
future trends. Proc.99 Int‟l. Conf. Agr‟l. Eng‟g., Beijing, China, 1: 232.

Olaoye, J.O. and A.O. Rotimi. 2010. Measurement of agricultural mechanization index and
analysis of agricultural productivity of some farm settlements in South West, Nigeria.
Agricultural Engineering International: the CIGR Ejournal. Vol. XII.
 19

Orcino, B. 1974. Economic aspects of hand tractor ownership and operation. In: Experience in
Farm Mechanization in South East Asia. Eds. H.Southworth and M. Barnett. The
Agricultural Developemnt Council, Inc. McGraw-Hill Far Eastern Publishers Ltd.

Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Development.
2002. R&D Status and Directions (2000 and beyond): Agricultural Engineering. Los Baños,
Laguna: PCARRD-DOST.

Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Development.
2009. Agricultural Mechanization in the Philippines. Los Baños, Laguna: PCARRD, 2009.
104 p. (PCARRD Book Series No. 179/2009).

Philippine Rice Research Institute. Maligaya, Science City of Muñoz, Nueva Ecija.

Pinoy Rice Bank Knowledge. Retrieved on November 19, 2012 from

http://www.pinoyrkb.com/main/resources/facts-and-figures

Rijk, A. 1989. Agricultural mechanization policy and strategy. Asian Productivity

Organization. Tokyo, Japan.

Rodulfo, V.A., R.M.C. Amongo, and M.V.L. Larona. 1998. Status of Philippine agriculture
mechanization and its implication to global competitiveness. In Philippine Agricultural
Mechanization Bulletin. Vol. V No. 1. CEAT-UPLB. p.3-13.

Soni, P. and Y. Ou. n.d. Agricultural mechanization at a glance: Selected country studies in
Asia on agricultural machinery development. Retrieved on April 8, 2013 from
http://www.unapcaem.org/publication/AM_2010_6C. pdf .

Stevenson, R.D. and R.J. Wassersug. 1993. Horsepower from a horse. Department of Biology,
University of Massachusets at Boston, Boston. Retrieved on April 8, 2014 from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower.

Trabajo, F.M.C. 1994. Agricultural machinery industry: Impact of trade policy, competitiveness
and structure. Philippine Institute for Development Studies. p.40

Thepent, V. 2010. The status of agricultural mechanization in Thailand. Retrieved on February

12, 2013 from www.unapcaem.org.

Tsuchiya, K. 1972. Mechanizations and relationships between farm, non-farm, and government
sectors. In: Farm Mechanization in East Asia. Ed. H. Southworth. The Agricultural
Development Council, Inc. New York.

Venkatachalam, L. 2011. Speech of the Special Secretary, Dept. of Agriculture and

Cooperation, Ministry of Agriculture in EIMA Agrimach India held at PUSA, New Delhi.
 20

Retrieved on April 8, 2013 from http://www.ficci.com/events

/20590/ISP/speech_venkatachalam.pdf

Websites

Agricultural and Fisheries Modernization Act

eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/facts_6773136_agricultural-fisheries-modernization-
act.html#ixzz27X68mGyx Date Accessed: Oct. 11, 2012
http://nafc.da.gov.ph/afma/primer_en.php Date accessed: June 13, 2013
http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Publications/2007/Full_Report/usv1.pdf Date accessed Oct. 22,
2012
http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/x6905e/x6905e0b.htm#TopOfPage. Date accessed: October 23,
2012
http://www.fas.usda.gov/ Date accessed : October 25, 2012
http://www.nscb.gov.ph/pressreleases/2012/PR-201206-SS2-01_pov2009.asp. Date accessed:
October 25, 2012
http://philfsis.psa.gov.ph. Date accessed: June 23, 2013

View publication stats