Farm Household Economic Management A case study at Tan Phu Thanh Village, Chau Thanh A District, Can Tho Province Nguyen Quang Tuyen 1, Ryuichi Yamada 2, Vo Van Tuan 1 and Le Canh Dung 1 1 : Mekong Delta Framing Systems Research and Development Institute, Cantho University, Cantho, Vietnam 2 : Japan International Research Center for Agriculture Sciences, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8686 Japan Abstract Farm household (FH) had enough the main labors to manage well the 14 ha farm size in 2002 More diversification of crops, livestock and aquaculture were applied in the field and garden FH engaged integrated farming systems eg rice-prawn, garden ditches-prawn, fish-pig model to get more incomes Besides, one family member worked for CAFATEX factory to supply income in FH Rice in dry season brang more benefits than rice in wet season Net income per capital in rice dry season eg 34 was double to the one in wet season Net income from fruit trees eg 11000000 dong increased three times higher than the one from rice production in 2002 Net income from livestock obtained around 4000000 dong However, prawn net income was negative causing from low price of prawn product and low survival of prawn eg 20% which affected by polluted water way from neighbor, flooding peak and plenty of crab predator in 2002 FH got income every month from different enterprises during 2002 This advantage helped FH compensate to the deficit in year Therefore, an available cash flow run well to reserve for farming and expenditures and an amount of 5500000 dong was maintained in FH at the end of 2002 Nevertheless, the source of available family labors of household was underutilized in 2002 So, more jobs or more farming activities in household should be made to optimize family labor resource and to increase income 1
Introduction The on-farm trials in JIRCAS Project have been conducted since 2000 at Tan Phu Thanh village, Chau Thanh A district, Can Tho province Different technology components have been applied into models at farm household level This paper expects to understand the farm management (Tuyen, 2001) and a household economic analysis ( De, 1999) through a case study of FH who specially applied the integrated farming systems in Tan Phu Thanh village in 2002 In which the new technologies in rice cultivation eg row seeding, IPM, fertilizing Nitrogen based on using leaf color chart (Kobayashi, 2002) and raising freshwater prawn in paddy field and in garden ditches practiced (Phuong, 2002) Materials and Methods Monitoring on-farm trial household was taken place in 2002 and a survey on farming and expenditure in the farm household of Mr Doi in Tan Phu Thanh was made in January 2003 Microsoft Excel was applied to input and analyze the data Results and Discussion 1) Land and labor use of farm household Total land of farm household (FH) is 14000 m2 in which garden is covered at highest rate of 62% and field is shared only 34% (Table 1) Table 1: Land use of farm household in 2002 Items m2 Rate (%) Total area 14000 100 Field 4800 34 Garden 8700 62 Homestead 500 4 There are 6 members of FH including 4 males and 2 females Male is the main family labor of FH distributed 67% The available family labors for farming management in FH were 720 man-days while the available family labor of FH for working at CAFATEX factory were 348 man-days during 2002 The labor resource of FH could manage well farming during year (Table 2) 2
Table 2: Family labor use of farm household in 2002 Items Total of number Male Female Family member (person) 6 4 2 Main labor (person) 4 3 1 Rate of main labor (%) 67 75 25 Available family labor for agriculture (man-day/year) Available family labor for industry (manday/year) 720 720 348 348 2) Agricultural resource management of farm household Agricultural resources of farm household including annual crop, trees, livestock and aquaculture The two rice crops eg Summer-Autumn rice crop in wet season and Winter-Spring rice crop in dry season were grown for sale and home consumption in 3500 m2 in 2002 Hog plum, Plum and Banana were planted more than 5 years ago which are in reproductive stage and are mainly for sale During 2 years ago, FH intercropped mango, grapefruit and sweet orange in the garden of Hog plum and Plum in order to make income in the near future (Table 3) Table 3: Crop/tree of farm household in 2002 Crop/tree Number(crop/tree) Remark Rice 2 crops (dry season and wet season) / 3500 m2 Hog plum 100 Reproductive stage Plum 350 -id- Banana 200 -id- Mango 100 Growing stage Grapefruit 5 Roi 150 -id- Sweet orange 200 -id- Livestock production eg pig, chicken and duck were raised in 2002 in which FH had 3 pigs for meat production and 1 young sow for reproduction; chicken and duck for sale and home consumption Aquaculture production included snake skin gourami and freshwater prawn Snake skin gourami raised in fishpond and used the wastes from raising pig Meanwhile, prawn raised with the compound feed beside other feed sources in paddy field and in garden ditches (Table 4) 3
Table 4: Livestock and aquaculture of farm household in 2002 Livestock & aquaculture Raised area (m2) Number (head) Remark Pig 20 4 1 young sow Chicken 40 Duck 20 Snake skin gourami 30 500 Prawn in paddy field 4800 24000 5 heads/m2 Prawn in garden ditches 960 9600 10 heads/m2 3) Economic analysis on rice crops Both rice production costs in dry and wet season were low in 2002 because FH applied row seeding; fertilized Nitrogen based on using leaf color chart and IPM Rice production cost of 675000 dong in 3500 m2 paddy field in dry season 2002 was lower than the one in wet season because total of fertilizer used in dry season was less than the one in wet season While rice production income of 3000000 dong was higher in dry season than 2100000 dong in wet season because rice yield eg 54 tons/ha in dry season was higher than the 40 tons/ha in wet season Therefore, net income of rice production in dry season obtained over 1000000 dong to rice crop in wet season Net income per man-day eg166000 dong and net income per capital eg34 of rice production in dry season obtained high value which were double to those in wet season (Table 5) Table 5: Economic analysis on rice production in dry and wet season of farm household in 2002 Items Dry season Wet season Total cost (dong) 675000 742000 Total income (dong) 3000000 2100000 Net income (dong) 2325000 1358000 Family labor (man-day) 14 15 Net income/family labor (dong/man-day) 166000 90000 Net income/capital 3,4 1,8 4) Economic analysis on tree production Normally, FH got income about 20000000 dong for Hog plum and Plum production a year in the previous years However, income of Plum eg 5000000 dong and Hog plum eg 8000000 dong were low due to low price of its products in 2002 Net income of hog plum eg 7140000 dong was 175 higher than Plum 4
Net income per man-day in FH eg238000 dong and net income per capital eg83 of Hog plum production obtained high value which were nearly double to those of Plum (Table 6) Table 6: Economic analysis on Hog plum and Plum production of farm household in 2002 Items Hog plum Plum Total cost (dong) 860000 940000 Total income (dong) 8000000 5000000 Net income (dong) 7140000 4060000 Family labor (man-day) 30 32 Net income/family labor (dong/man-day) 238000 126000 Net income/capital 8,3 4,3 5) Economic analysis on livestock and aquaculture production Livestock production eg pig, chicken and duck brang more benefits to FH in which pig production earned highest income eg 8000000 dong and net income eg 2230000 dong due to high price of pig product in 2002 However, price of pig product has been low during this year Chicken and duck raised with small scale Chicken production brang more effects in term of using family labors and capital in FH For instance, its net income per man-day and per capital in FH in 2002 obtained 100,000 dong and 21 respectively Whereas, prawn production in paddy field and in garden ditches was negative profit due to more compound feed cost but low price of prawn product of 55000 dong per kilogram Furthermore, polluted water way from neighbor, flooding peak and plenty of crab predator in 2002 affected to low survival of prawn which averaged at only 20% (Table 7) Table 7: Economic analysis on livestock and aquaculture of farm household in 2002 Items Pig Chicken Duck Prawn in field & in garden ditches Total cost (dong) 5750000 580000 560000 11079000 Total income (dong) 7980000 1800000 960000 7425000 Net income (dong) 2230000 1220000 400000-3654000 Family labor (man-day) 40 12 12 220 Net income / family labor (dong/man-day) 56000 101000 33000 Net income/capital 0,4 2,1 0,7 5
6) Farm household economic analysis FH expended every month during year 2002 from 740000 dong to 5790000 dong per month for production cost and family expenditure Specially, FH paid more than 50000000 dong per month from October to December 2002 for building the concrete house Production cost was high in May and June 2002 It cost 9000000 dong in which cost of piglets and juvenile prawn covered about 70% Besides, family expenditure of 170000000 dong for building new house was very high in the last three months in 2002 FH got income every month in 2002 So, it supplied timely a capital source for farming and family expenditure during the year Income of FH was high in January and September in 2002 It reached 180000000 dong in which the incomes of rice in dry season; 3 pigs for meat; reshwater prawn product and selling land distributed at rate of 2; 3; 4 and 89% respectively Financial balance of 11000 000 dong and 166000000 dong in January and September 2002 respectively contributed more effects to compensate the cash deficit in May, June, October, November and December 2002 when FH had more investments for buying 4 piglets, 33600 heads of juvenile prawn and making a new house with cost of 170000000 dong Finally, an available cash flow in FH run well during 2002 to serve for farming activities and family expenditures and an amount of 5500000 dong also was saved in FH at the end of 2002 (Table 8) Table 8: Farm household economic analysis in 2002 (Unit: x 1000 dong) Items 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Whole year ATotal cost 1132 1410 1310 740 5790 5234 2250 2193 2680 52387 53664 73176 201966 1Production cost 482 760 660 90 5140 4084 1600 1543 1660 1367 2144 1656 21186 Crop/trees 182 700 580 666 150 186 679 74 3217 Livestock 160 60 80 90 3140 490 760 710 680 240 240 240 1890 Aquaculture 140 1334 3444 654 833 980 1127 1225 1342 11079 2Family expenditure 650 650 650 650 650 1150 650 650 1020 51020 51520 71520 180780 BTotal income 12595 2170 1270 920 920 2300 3020 2920 168920 2920 3145 5530 206630 Crop/trees 4370 1370 1370 120 120 120 2220 2120 2120 2120 2120 1370 19540 Livestock 1380 6000 3360 10740 Aquaculture 7425 225 7650 Worker 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 800 9600 Selling land 160000 160000 CFinancial balance 11463 760 860 180-4870 -2934 770 727 166240-49467 -50519-67646 5564 DAccumula tion 11463 12223 13083 13263 8393 5459 6229 6956 173196 123729 73210 5564 6
7 Family labor use of household in 2002 FH contributed the main family labors of 723 man-days for agriculture and industry to get income in 2002 in which family labors used for every month during year However, its labors devoted about 68% in whole of year 2002 It showed that the source of available family labors of household was underutilized in 2002 So, more jobs or more farming activities in household should be made to optimize family labor use and to create income (Table 9) Table 9: Contribution of family labor in production of household in 2002 (Man-day) Items Jan Feb Mar Apr Ma y Jun e July Aug Sep t Oct Nov Dec Whole year Family 65 31 35 55 45 71 73 66 66 66 77 73 723 labor used Available 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 89 1068 family labor Family labor balance + 24 +58 +54 +34 +44 +18 + 16 + 23 +23 +23 +12 +16 +345 Evaluation The main family labors (ie man-days) for on farm and non farm activity were underutilized to available family labors of household Conclusion More diversification of crops, livestock and aquaculture were applied in the field and garden FH engaged integrated farming systems to get more incomes Rice in dry season brang more benefits than rice in wet season Net income per capital in rice dry season was double to the one in wet season Rice production cost in dry and wet season was lower as usual due to application of row seeding, IPM and using Leaf color chart for fertilizing Net income from fruit trees increased three times higher than rice production in 2002 Net income from livestock was also an additional capital in FH However, prawn net income was negative causing from low price of prawn product and low survival of prawn in 2002 FH got income every month from different sources to do farming, expenditure and compensate to the deficit in year A success was that FH saved 5500000 dong and made a new house at the end of 2002 Nevertheless, more jobs or more enterprises in household should be made to optimize available family labor resource and to increase income 7
Literature Cited De, NN 1999 Training document on Household Economic Analysis VIE/96/025 Tra vinh, December 1999 pp8-29 KobayashiH, TQKhuong, HDDinh, PSTan, TVHien, DVChin, LMChau and PVDu 2002 On- Farm Trial of Seeding and Fertilizer Application Methods in wet Direct seeded Rice (WS 2001 and DS 2001-2002) In: Proceedings of the 2002 annual workshop of JIRCAS Mekong Delta Project November 26-28,2002 CTU, Cantho, Vietnam Phuong, NT, VNSon, VTToan, TTTHien, PMDuc and MNWilder2002 Culture of freshwater prawns in rice fields and an orchard canal in Tan Phu Thanh village, Chau Thanh A district, Cantho province In: Proceedings of the 2002 annual workshop of JIRCAS Mekong Delta Project November 26-28,2002 CTU, Cantho, Vietnam Tuyen, NQ, VVTuan, LCDung, RYamada, VVHa, LTGiang, NDCan, LVTTien and PCHuu 2001Agricultural Resources Management of the on-farm trial households: A case study at Tan Phu Thanh village, Chau Thanh A district, Cantho province during 2000-2001 In: Proceedings of the 2001 annual workshop of JIRCAS Mekong Delta Project November 27-29,2001 CLRRI, Cantho, Vietnam Tóm tắt Nông hộ có đủ nguồn lao động chính để quản lý tốt trên qui mô sản xuất 1,4 ha trong năm 2002 Cây trồng và vật nuôi được sản xuất đa dạng trong ruộng, vườn của nông hộ Nông hộ đã sản xuất mô hình kết hợp như: lúa-tôm, vườn-tôm và heo-cá để tăng thêm thu nhập Ngoài ra, có một thành viên trong nông hộ làm công nhân trong xí nghiệp đông lạnh CAFATEX để có thêm thu nhập Vụ lúa đông xuân có thu nhập cao hơn vụ lúa hè thu Lợi nhuận trên đồng vốn trong vụ lúa đông xuân là 3,4 tăng gấp đôi so vụ lúa hè thu Lợi nhuận từ cây ăn trái đạt 11 triệu đồng trong năm tăng gấp 3 lần lợi nhuận sản xuất lúa Lợi nhuận trong chăn nuôi đạt 4 triệu đồng trong năm Tuy nhiên, nuôi tôm không mang lại lợi nhuận do giá tôm thương phẩm thấp và tỉ lệ sống của tôm cũng thấp chỉ đạt 20% do ảnh hưởng của môi trường nước ô nhiểm thuốc sâu từ hộ lân cận, nước lũ và cua nhiều hại tôm trong năm 2002 Nông hộ có thu nhập hàng tháng do có nhiều nguồn thu trong sản xuất suốt năm Đây là thuận lợi giúp nông hộ có tiền trang trải những tháng thiếu hụt trong năm Do đó, nguồn tiền mặt luôn có sẳn sàng để sản xuất và chi tiêu trong gia đình Đến cuối năm 2002 nông hộ còn tiết kiệm được 5500000 đồng Tuy nhiên, nguồn lao động gia đình chưa sử dụng hết trong năm 2002 Do đó, nông hộ nên tìm thêm việc làm hoặc mở rộng phạm vi và qui mô sản xuất nông nghiệp để sử dụng hiệu quả hơn nguồn lao động sẳn có trong nông hộ và tăng thêm thu nhập 8