Cover Image
close this bookEconomics of the Philippine Milkfish Resource System (UNU, 1982, 66 pages)
close this folderIII. The transformation sub-system: cultivation to market size in fishponds
View the document1. Overview
View the document2. The physical environment
View the document3. The socio-economic/cultural environment
View the document4. Tenure patterns
View the document5. Alternatives for increasing
View the document6. Size of operations
View the document7. Technique of production and average yields
View the document8. Input use
View the document9. Measures of efficiency
View the document10. Insignificant variables and measurement problems

5. Alternatives for increasing

Production Increases in milkfish production can result from both expansion in area and intensification of production methods in a given pond. However, in the short run, the area available to each producer for growing milkfish is fixed. In the long run, individual producers can add to their area under production. While at the national level since 1952, hectarage expansion and production intensification have each contributed about 3 per cent growth annually to the industry (table 11), future growth will have to come from intensification because land area for expansion is limited.

TABLE 10. Tenure Status of Intensively Operated Milkfish Farms, 1978 (Percentages)

Province Private Government
Cagayan 42 58
Pangasinan 99.7 0.3
Bulacan 100 0
Masbate 43 57
Iloilo 84 16
Bohol 40 60
Zamboanga del Sur 55 45
Philippines 73 27

Hectarage Expansion

Although milkfish farmers cited several problems they face at present (e.g., inadequate capital, lack of technical assistance, and high fry mortality rate), more than half (56 per cent) showed strong inclinations to expand their present production area. Of the 56 per cent who were inclined to expand their operations, half had definite plans to do so.47 The other half stated that their plans for expansion would greatly depend on the availability of land, capital, time to attend to the milkfish operations, and technical know-how. About 34 per cent of the milkfish farmers intended to maintain their present level of operations, due primarily to the lack of land to expand and lack of capital; the remaining 10 per cent were either undecided or had no response.

TABLE 11. Total Area and Production of Milkfish in the Philippines, 1952-1979

  Area (ha) Production (tonnes) Average yield/ha kg/ha/yr
1952 88,681 31,038 350
1953 95,633 33,472 350
1954 100,097 35,034 350
1955 104,952 36,734 350
1956 109,799 38,480 350
1957 112,611 39,414 350
1958 116,546 59,624 512
1959 119,582 58,090 486
1960 123,252 60,119 488
1961 125,810 60,825 484
1962 129,062 61,436 476
1963 131,850 62,044 471
1964 134,242 62,680 467
1965 137,251 63,198 461
1966 138,968 63,654 458
1967 140,055 63,912 456
1968 162,807 86,711 533
1969 164,414 94,573 575
1970 168,118 96,461 574
1971 171,446 97,915 571
1972 174,101 98,922 568
1973 176,032 99,600 566
1974 176,032 113,195 643
1975 176,032 106,461 605
1976 176,230 112,761 640
1977 176,230 115,756 657
1978 176,230 118,682 674
1979 176,230 133,595 758

Source: See note 1.

Production Intensification Methods

Besides expanding the physical size of operations (farm) which is becoming increasingly difficult to do, milkfish farmers can increase their output by means of production intensification methods; that is, substituting non-land inputs such as fertilizers and feeds for land.45 About 5 per cent of the country's milkfish farmers are interested in expanding their operations by this production intensification method. This revelation has disturbing implications. First, it reveals that not only are milkfish farmers at present using low levels of inputs, they are, by and large, not aware that production and profits can be increased by intensifying the use of inputs. Even in lloilo where milkfish producers are more progressive and innovative, only 12 per cent would adopt the use of more inputs. Note that the sample for this study included only those milkfish producers who use inputs. Based on the observed low levels of input use, one might be tempted to conclude that, given the prevailing prices of inputs and output, Philippine producers are already optimizing their returns. However, the production function analysis reported later in this chapter, indicates that milkfish producers could increase their profits by increasing input use. There is clearly an educational role for the extension service to play in contrasting the difference between increasing production through hectarage expansion or through intensification of input use.

A combination of factors appears to be at play here. Until the recent moratorium on conversion of mangrove areas to fishponds, land rental values were relatively low. With capital, not land, the limiting factor, it is hardly surprising that milkfish producers would favour hectarage expansion over production intensification. With the moratorium, however, land values can be expected to rise as it becomes relatively more scarce, thus encouraging producers to favour production intensification instead. Sociological factors also play a role in the producer's decision to favour hectarage expansion, as can be seen by the observed tendency to value highly visible or tangible attributes, such as expanse of land, over less tangible or less visible quantities such as gains in productivity per unit area.

Operators of small farms with low productivity, though evaluated as economically inefficient, are also guided in their production decisions by strong sociological factors.

The security and subsistence that is derived from land ownership, the family nature of many of these small farms, and the festivities that characterize Filipino family gatherings at harvest time all temper the goal of profit maximization. For example, it is not uncommon to find family-owned farms being managed on a rotational basis, or cases where absentee owners leave the management of the farms to relatives.