Eggplant Industry in The PH

Socioeconomic Impacts
of Bt Eggplant
Ex-ante Case Studies in the Philippines
Edited by
Roberta V. Gerpacio
Albert P. Aquino
This publication was compiled with support provided by the Agricultural Biotechnology Support
Project II (ABSPII), a consortium of public and private sector institutions led by Cornell University
and supported by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)
Citation: Gerpacio, Roberta V. and Albert P. Aquino (eds). 2014. Socioeconomic
Impacts of Bt Eggplant: Ex-ante Case Studies in the Philippines.
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications
(ISAAA), Ithaca, New York, USA and SEAMEO Southeast Asian Regional
Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA), Los
Baos, Laguna, Philippines.
First published in the Philippines by the International Service for the Acquisition of
Agri-biotech Applications and the SEAMEO Southeast Asian Regional Center for
Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture with ISBN 978-971-93983-3-2.
2014 ISAAA and SEARCA
All rights reserved. Except for brief quotations in a review, this book, or parts thereof,
must not be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by
any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, duplication or otherwise,
without the prior permission in writing of the publisher and the copyright owner.
For more information, contact the ISAAA SEAsiaCenter, 3/F Khush Hall, IRRI, Los Baos,
Laguna 4030, Philippines, or email isaaa-seasia@isaaa.org.
Contents
About the Editors iv

Contributors v
Foreword vii
Preface ix
Message from ABSPII xi
Chapter 1 Overview and Synthesis 1
Chapter 2 The Eggplant Industry in the Philippines: Seed System, 9

Production and Marketing
Agnes R. Chupungco, Dulce D. Elazegui and Miriam R. Nguyen
Chapter 3 Insecticide Residues in Soil, Water, and Eggplant Fruits: 61

The Case of Sta. Maria, Pangasinan
Jinky Leilanie Lu
Chapter 4 The Eggplant Subsector in Davao Region, North Cotabato, 97

Iloilo and Southern Leyte
Cesar B. Quicoy
Chapter 5 Supply Chain of the Eggplant Industry in Selected Areas 126

in the Philippines
Agnes R. Chupungco, Dulce D. Elazegui, Miriam R. Nguyen and
Samantha Geraldine G. de los Santos
Chapter 6 Socioeconomic Impacts of Bt Eggplant: Evidence from 205

Multi-location Field Trials
Sergio R. Francisco
Chapter 7 Health and Environmental Impacts of Bt Eggplant 233

Sergio R. Francisco
Chapter 8 Poverty and Nutrition Impacts of Bt Eggplant Adoption 254

Sergio R. Francisco, Catherine Aragon-Chiang, and
George W. Norton
Chapter 9 Market Prospects of Bt Eggplant 289

Agnes R. Chupungco, Dulce D. Elazegui, Miriam R. Nguyen,
Macrina G. Umali, Eldy Z. Martinez, Susan S. Guiya, and
Cristeta A. Foronda
Chapter 10 Challenges and Policy Implications 338

Panfilo G. de Guzman
iii
About the Editors
Roberta V. Gerpacio has been a freelance consultant in the last 5 years. She has a
MSc in Agricultural Economics (Resource Economics and Environmental Sciences)
from the University of the Philippines Los Baos (UPLB) and post-graduate trainings
from Wageningen University, Netherlands; University of California-Davis, USA;
and University of Cape Town, South Africa. She spent about 20 years conducting
agricultural research with five international organizations under the CGIAR system
(IRRI, IFPRI, CIMMYT, ICRAF, and WorldFish Center) before pursuing full time
consulting work with international, regional, and national development agencies.
Albert Perez Aquino is the Director of the Socioeconomics Research Division,

Philippine Council for Agriculture, Aquatic, and Natural Resources Research and
Development (PCAARRD) of the Department of Science and Technology (DOST),
Philippines. He has a PhD in Agricultural Economics from Chiba University (Japan), and
a MSc in Agricultural Economics and BSc in Agricultural Business from the University
of the Philippines Los Baos (UPLB). He was the former president of the Philippine
Agricultural Economics and Development Association (PAEDA), 2011-2013. He has
(co-)authored/edited journal articles, books, reports, and conference papers related
to socioeconomics of agriculture and rural development, science and development,
monitoring and evaluation, and impact assessment.
iv
Contributors
Catherine Aragon-Chiang. Served as Research Analyst, Environment and Production

Technology, International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington DC, USA
Agnes R. Chupungco. University Researcher III, Center for Strategic Planning and
Policy Studies, College of Public Affairs and Development, University of the
Philippines Los Baos, College, Laguna
Panfilo G. de Guzman. Associate Scientist, International Service for the Acquisition

of Agri-biotech Applications, Khush Hall, IRRI, Los Baos, Laguna
Samantha Geraldine G. de los Santos. Served as University Research Associate,

Center for Strategic Planning and Policy Studies, College of Public Affairs and
Development, University of the Philippines Los Baos, College, Laguna
Dulce D. Elazegui. University Researcher III, Center for Strategic Planning and Policy
Studies, College of Public Affairs and Development, University of the Philippines
Los Baos, College, Laguna
Cristeta A. Foronda. University Researcher II, Center for Strategic Planning and Policy
Studies, College of Public Affairs and Development, University of the Philippines
Los Baos, College, Laguna
Sergio R. Francisco. Former Chief Science Research Specialist, Socioeconomics

Division, Philippine Rice Research Institute, Science City of Muoz, Nueva Ecija,
(retired)
Susan S. Guiya. University Research Associate I, Center for Strategic Planning and
Policy Studies, College of Public Affairs and Development, University of the
Jinky Leilanie Lu. Research Professor, National Institutes of Health, University of the
Philippines Manila, Pedro Gil Street, Ermita, Manila
Eldy Z. Martinez. University Research Associate I, Center for Strategic Planning

and Policy Studies, College of Public Affairs and Development, University of the
Miriam R. Nguyen. University Researcher II, Community Innovation Study Center,

College of Public Affairs and Development, University of the Philippines Los
Baos, College, Laguna
George W. Norton. Professor, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics,

College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA
Cesar B. Quicoy. Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, College

of Economics and Management, University of the Philippines Los Baos, College,
Laguna
Macrina G. Umali. University Research Associate II, Center for Strategic Planning
and Policy Studies, College of Public Affairs and Development, University of the
v
vi
Foreword
T
his book marks another important milestone in the research and
development of Bt eggplant in the Philippines. It is a significant addition to
several empirical studies on the potential impact of the products of modern
biotechnology. The studies on the potential benefits of Bt eggplant presented in
the book are valuable information to support our advocacy for technologies that
provide opportunities to improve customary agriculture, and farmers practices
and technologies.
The quantified market prospects, and the potential economic, health and
environmental impacts of Bt eggplant mirror what we also hope to realize with
this technology. We would like to spare our eggplant farmers of significant
marketable yield loss due to fruit and shoot borer, of pesticide use that accounts
for almost one-third of total production costs, and of pesticide-related health
problems. We capitalize on the worthwhile technology that will potentially help
farmers grow the vegetable with higher net farm income and not having to resort
to frequent and heavy spraying of insecticides.
The book is a good information resource for policy-makers and technology

adopters to guide investments in the technology, and other stakeholders to know
more about Bt eggplant in order to help them make informed decisions.
Bt eggplant promises to be one of the better options for farmers. The

Department of Agriculture has always been consistent with the goal of
modernizing agriculture to improve food self-sufficiency as well as product
competitiveness. This provides us with impetus to work on a variety of options.
Segfredo R. Serrano
Undersecretary, Policy, Planning, Program Development,
R&D and Regulations
Chair, Biotech Program Steering Committee
Department of Agriculture
January 2014
vii
viii
Preface
E
ggplant is an economically important vegetable in Philippines. It is vital to
the domestic vegetable industry making the country the 7th top eggplant
producer in the world. It provides many small-scale farmers their major
source of employment and livelihood. It also has significant health and nutritional
value, being a good source of vitamins, fiber, and minerals.
However, eggplant production in the country suffers from significant yield losses
due to pests and diseases, mainly the fruit and shoot borer (FSB). To address
this production constraint, the Institute of Plant Breeding at the University of the
Philippines Los Baos (IPB-UPLB) developed FSB-resistant eggplant (also called Bt
eggplant) for the Philippines, in partnership with the Indian Maharasthra Hybrid
Seeds Company Ltd. (Mahyco) and Cornell University, and with support from
the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) through the
Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project II (ABSPII), the International Service
for the Acquisition of Agri-Biotech Applications (ISAAA), and the Philippine
Department of Agriculture (DA). Promising varieties of this Bt eggplant are
currently under advanced stage of evaluation for horticultural performance and
biosafety.
Between 2006 and 2013, ISAAA commissioned renowned researchers to conduct

baseline studies on conventional eggplant production system and ex-ante impact
assessment studies of Bt eggplant in the Philippines. More specifically, these
studies assessed the Philippine eggplant industry at the national level and in
selected major production areas, including in-depth analysis of the environmental
impacts of current pesticide use in eggplant production, and ex-ante assessment
of the potential economic, environmental, and health impacts of the Bt eggplant
ix
technology. Results of some of these studies have been presented in local
seminars and published in both local and international refereed journals.
This book provides a systematized compilation of all these results and other
major empirical findings for wider dissemination to key stakeholders (e.g., policy
makers, farmer groups, government institutions, private sector, and academic and
research community) and the general public. It is hoped that valuable information
contained in this book will generate greater support from and appreciation of
stakeholders on the potential benefits of Bt eggplant.
We would like to thank the principal researchers and their respective research
teams who conducted the individual studies, particularly for their patience and
cooperation in finalizing the chapters of this book. We especially would like to
express sincere appreciation for the trust and support of Dr. Randy A. Hautea
and Panfilo G. de Guzman at ISAAA SEAsiaCenter, and for the administrative and
logistical assistance provided by the rest of the ISAAA staff, in this undertaking.
Roberta V. Gerpacio
Los Baos, Laguna, Philippines
Albert P. Aquino
Los Baos, Laguna, Philippines
January 2014
x
Message from ABSPII
ABSPII is a consortium of public and private sector institutions that helps

countries and Asia and Africa gain access to the benefits of agricultural
biotechnology. Because we are a not-for-profit organization led by Cornell
University and funded by the United States Agency for International Development
(USAID) our consortium is able to focus on crops that are important to resource-
poor farmers and consumers. We partner with national research organizations,
agricultural universities and private biotechnology companies to implement
projects that complement national and regional efforts to develop and
commercialize locally relevant bioengineered crops.
ABSPII has been working since 2003 to coordinate efforts by agricultural

universities in the Philippines, India and Bangladesh to develop fruit and
shoot borer resistant (Bt) eggplant. As you will see in this book, eggplant is an
important market crop for small-scale farmers in the Philippines but yield is
significantly smaller than what it should be because of the destructive fruit and
shoot borer. This insect causes plants to wither and die and prompts farmers to
apply costly and dangerous pesticides. However, ABSPII facilitated access to Bt
technology that has allowed researchers at the University of the Philippines Los
Baos, to develop locally important eggplant varieties with resistance to the fruit
and shoot borer.
Vegetable farming households remain in general poverty in the Philippines,

including those in the eggplant subsector. Results of impact studies presented
in this book highlight the potential economic benefits that can be derived from
Bt eggplant through higher net farm income and reduction in poverty incidence
among farming households adopting the technology.
xi
I thank ISAAA and SEAMEO SEARCA for collecting the important studies
contained within this book. Readers will be rewarded with a deeper
understanding of the potential benefits to farmers and consumers of fruit and
shoot borer resistant eggplant in the Philippines. It is my hope that this will
help inform the debate over the cultivation of genetically modified eggplant
by demonstrating the potential impacts in terms of improved yield, reduced
pesticide use, increased farmer income and improved environmental quality.
Frank A. Shotkoski, PhD

Director, Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project II (ABSPII)
Cornell University
Ithaca, New York, USA
January 2014
xii
Overview and Synthesis
Chapter 1
A
sia produces 87% of the worlds eggplant production and accounts for
90% of the worlds production area (Chen and Li, 2008). The Philippines
ranked 7th among the worlds top eggplant producers (PCARRD,
undated) although eggplant is grown primarily for domestic markets.
Eggplant (Solanum melongena L.), is one of the economically important
vegetable crops in the Philippines, leading in terms of area planted, and
volume and value of production (Hautea and Narciso, 2007). It is claimed to
have significant health and nutritional value, being a good source of vitamins,
fiber, and minerals; and believed to be a cure for various ailments including
toothache, asthma, bronchitis, diabetes, dull vision, high cholesterol,
inflammation and swellings, and liver complaints (Maghirang, 2001; Paredes,
2005; Tan, 2007; Chen and Li, 2008).
This book presents the findings of completed studies on the market

prospects and potential economic, health, and environmental impacts
of a biotech eggplant, Bt eggplant, in the Philippines. These analyses
are complemented by studies on pesticide use, and costs and returns
of conventional eggplant production, and on supply chains in eggplant
marketing. All the studies were conducted in major eggplant-producing
provinces in the country, and used both primary and secondary data and
information for scientifically-sound methods of analysis. Focus group
discussions; key informant interviews; farmer, trader, and/or household
Chapter 1 1
surveys; and detailed reviews of literature were employed in these studies.

This chapter presents the key findings and implications from these studies,
and readers are strongly encouraged to refer to the specific chapter(s) for
further details.
Current Status of Conventional Eggplants

in the Philippines
Total eggplant production in the Philippines has been increasing

since 2000, despite relatively slight increases in area planted and crop
yield. While annual net income fluctuates from one year to the next,
eggplant production remains a profitable venture for farmers.
Total eggplant production in the Philippines increased by 2.1% per annum

during 2000-2009 despite a lower growth rate in area planted. In the same
period, the national eggplant yield levels showed a generally increasing
trend, albeit only slightly, and appeared to be stable at around 9 m tons/ha
(Chapter 2). More recently in 2006-2011, production increased by 8.4%, area
planted by 2.3%, and yield by almost 6%, to 9.7 m tons/ha. Eggplants are
available year round in the markets, with supply highest between January to
August. In 2000-2007, farmers annual net income from eggplant production
averaged at almost PhP20,000 per hectare (ha).
Eggplant fruits are graded or classified mainly by length and color prior
to marketing. The national average farmgate, wholesale, and retail prices
of eggplant from 2000 to 2009 shows that the retailers margin over the
wholesalers price is larger than the wholesalers margin over the farmgate
price (Chapter 2). As such, an eggplant farmer could enjoy additional income
if produce is directly sold to consumers.
Poor water supply and pests and diseases (including fruit and shoot borer
[FSB], fruit fly, and bacterial wilt) were cited as important production
problems. FSB in particular can cause a 80% yield loss if left unmanaged or
uncontrolled, and pesticides account for 30% of total production costs, the
highest among all inputs. Both farmers and traders reported low market price
of eggplants during peak production period as their only marketing problem.
The eggplant seed system in the Philippines is generally formal and

organized, where both public and private sectors are involved in
production, quality control, and marketing, mostly of seeds of hybrid
eggplants.
2 Chapter 1
The eggplant seed production and marketing system in the Philippines is

generally formal and organized, where both public and private sectors have
well established quality control strategies (Chapter 2). Commercial eggplant
farmers generally adopt hybrid seeds produced by private seed companies,
while small-scale producers (those growing eggplant in backyard gardens or
for home consumption) mainly use open-pollinated varieties from public or
private sectors.
In the national seed system, government agencies play an active role from
research and development (R&D), importation/production and quality
control, distribution and marketing, information dissemination, and policy
and regulation. The private sector also plays an active role in these areas,
except in policy and regulation (Chapter 2). A number of eggplant varieties
are in the Philippine seed market but only a few are registered with the
National Seed Industry Council (NSIC) or has plant variety protection.
Discouraged by the rigorous process involved, seed companies instead
strengthen their marketing and promotional activities to improve seed sales.
Eggplant fruit and shoot borer (FSB) is the most commonly reported
insect pest, against which farmers resort to frequent and heavy
spraying of insecticides. Such practice can lead to insecticide
residues contaminating agricultural soils and water, as well as cause
occupational health concerns to farming households.
Across the soil and water and eggplant fruit studies conducted in Sta. Maria,
Pangasinan, eggplant farmers were found applying a broad spectrum of
insecticides. These consisted of 25 commercial brands, with two being
category I (highly toxic) pesticides; nine category II (moderately toxic)
pesticides; and seven each of categories III and IV (respectively slightly toxic
and practically non-toxic) pesticides (Chapter 3). Soil samples from 11 (about
42%) out of the 26 farms tested positive for insecticide residues, some of
which exceeded the acceptable maximum residue limit. The insecticide
residues detected were chlorpyrifos, cypermethrin, malathion, profenofos,
and triazophos. No insecticide residues were detected from water samples.
Meanwhile, wet season sample eggplants in two farms (of 10 sample farms)
tested positive to having chlorpyrifos and cypermethrin, with the former
at a level higher than the prescribed maximum residue level. From the dry
season analysis, cypermethrin was detected in samples from three farms, at
levels equal to the prescribed limit. All market samples from both wet and dry
season tested negative for insecticide residues.
Chapter 1 3
The most common pesticide-related health problems that farmers and farm
workers reported were itchiness or burning sensation of the skin, redness of
the eyes, headaches, and muscle pain.
Eggplant farmers are very much aware of the eggplant fruit and shoot
borer, estimating that, on average, infestation begins a few weeks after
transplanting and can cause significant crop damage. Most of the
farmers interviewed was not aware of biotechnology nor of genetically
modified crops planted in the Philippines.
A baseline study conducted in four provinces showed that most eggplant

farmers had farming as primary occupation and were landowners with 0.76
hectares (ha) of land, of which about 41% (0.31 ha) was planted to eggplant
(Chapter 4). Hybrid varieties were most commonly grown, with native variety
grown by only 9% of the respondents. Apart from eggplants, farmers also
grew rice, other vegetables, and corn.
Majority of the farmers were aware of eggplant fruit and shoot borer (FSB),
which on average was estimated to begin at 43 days after transplanting and
can cause 84% damage. Across the survey sites, most (82%) farmers applied
insecticides to control FSB while about 13% manually removed and buried
the infested shoots.
Most farmer-respondents were not aware of biotechnology (72%) nor of

genetically modified crops planted in the country (84%) (Chapter 4). Among
those aware of biotechnology, majority perceived it as beneficial to the
development of Philippine agriculture and are interested in learning more
particularly about the technologys potentials for increasing farm productivity
and income.
The eggplant supply chain in the Philippines is well developed (and

can be complicated) with key roles actively played by the farmers,
traders, and end-users or consumers, in important domestic markets.
Quality of the produce and fluctuation in prices are the main problems
that players meet in eggplant marketing.
Chapter 5 presents a study that employed a supply chain management

framework to analyze eggplant marketing in two important production
provinces in the Philippines. The study examined the eggplant supply
chains key players and their roles; key customers and product requirements;
activities and processes; product, information and payment flow; supply
4 Chapter 1
chain performance (costs and returns, marketing margins); and logistic issues,
concerns and external influences.
Similar to any other agricultural crop, eggplant farmers and traders consider
product price fluctuations as a major marketing problem. They are also
concerned with market/consumer quality preferences, eggplant shelf life,
and transportability (firmness). Quality of produce will depend not only on
farmers choice of inputs such as seeds and adoption of proper management
practices but also on proper handling, post-harvest facilities, and marketing
system. Among the players in the eggplant supply chain, farmers receive the
highest net incomes.
Bt Eggplant Impact Assessment Studies
Chapter 6 to Chapter 9 of the book showcase empirical works that studied

in-depth the potential costs and benefits from Bt eggplant adoption and
commercialization in the Philippines.
A Bt farm stands to gain a net benefit (net farm income) higher than
what can be obtained from the current or conventional variety. The
higher benefit can be attributed to increased marketable yield and
savings from reduced expenses on insecticides and hired labor.
The present study quantifies the benefits from Bt eggplant technology

based on results obtained from multi-location field trials, and analyzes its
performance relative to non-Bt eggplant in terms of yield, cost efficiency,
net profitability, and other economic parameters. It provides information
to support the commercialization of Bt eggplant, and also details the
knowledge, awareness, and perception (KAP) of farmers in Pangasinan and
Camarines Sur where the field trials were conducted.
A spin-off of Francisco (2006), the study presented in Chapter 6 fine-tuned

the assumptions used in the benefit-cost analysis by relying on results of
multi-location trials conducted in two eggplant-producing provinces. It
echoed earlier results in terms of the technologys influence in increasing
marketable yield, reducing production costs, and thereby, increasing net
farm income. It relied on the two-season data of the multi-location trials to
construct partial budgets. Its results showed that, on average, Pangasinan
farmer-respondents potential net benefit if they used Bt eggplant seeds
rather than conventional varieties should be higher by about PhP272,000/
Chapter 1 5
ha; Camarines Sur farmer-respondents stand to gain PhP120,000/ha more,

also on average. The study also pointed out that if the parameters of the
economic surplus estimation in the Francisco (2006) were recalibrated using
the results of Chapter 6, the estimates of societal welfare improvement could
be higher.
In addition to increased marketable yield and profit, the adoption of Bt

eggplant could provide significant health and environmental benefits
mainly through significant reduction in the environmental impacts of
pesticides used in eggplant production.
The health and environmental impacts of reduced pesticide application as

a result of Bt eggplant adoption are documented in Chapter 7 to highlight
the other benefits attributable to the technology aside from farm yield and
income improvements. Using the risk avoidance principle, the study found
that the benefits to human health due to Bt technology is valued at PhP2.5
million while the aggregate benefits to farm animals, beneficial insects and
avian species could amount to PhP6.8 million. These values represent the
health costs that would be saved and estimated value for improvement in
environmental quality due to adoption of Bt eggplant technology by the
farmers. The aggregate savings on human health costs could amount to
PhP2.1 million assuming a 50% adoption rate. A 48% reduction in pesticide
application per hectare can be translated to a field environmental impact
quotient (EIQ) among adopters of about 198 per hectare or a 19.5% lower
environmental footprint relative to non-adopters. Farmers were willing to pay
a higher per unit price for a pesticide formulation that is safer to humans as
well as to the environment.
Poverty analysis of Bt eggplant adoption implies the technologys

significant potential in reducing poverty incidence among adopters.
The net impact of Bt eggplant to improving the nutritional status
of consumers, in terms of change per capita calorie intake per day,
though positive, could be negligible.
Bt eggplant adoption can lower per unit cost of production, increase the
supply of eggplants, and raise the incomes of farmer-adopters who are
mostly poor. With higher eggplant production due to better Bt eggplant
yields, consumers may gain because more eggplants will be available at
lower prices. Chapter 8 explores the poverty and nutritional dimensions of
technological change that may occur with Bt eggplant commercialization
and adoption. Analysis pointed to significant reduction in poverty incidence
6 Chapter 1
among adopters, as well as welfare gains to consumers with cheaper

eggplants available in the market.
The nutritional impact of Bt eggplant was estimated to be small because of

the eggplants very small share in the households total food expenditure.
The study highlighted that a decrease in eggplant prices as a result of Bt
eggplant adoption is not expected to have a significant effect in terms of
added consumption. Overall, the net impact of Bt eggplant to improving the
nutritional status of consumers, in terms of change in per capita calorie intake
per day, though positive, could be negligible.
Majority of seed companies/distributors/dealers were found willing to

sell Bt eggplant seeds; the farmers, to adopt the technology; traders,
to market Bt eggplant; consumers, to buy Bt eggplants; and concerned
local government units to promote the Bt eggplant technology.
A research study assessed the market prospects of Bt eggplant at the

seed market and food market levels using survey data collected from
industry players in four major eggplant-producing provinces (Chapter 9).
While majority of the respondents were not aware about the Bt eggplant
technology, the seed companies/distributors/dealers would be willing to sell
the seeds; the farmers to adopt them; the traders to market the products;
the consumers to buy them; and the concerned local government units to
promote the technology. The major reasons cited for the positive support
were: marketability (for the seed suppliers); worsening fruit and shoot borer
infestation (for the farmers); anticipated profit (for traders); curiosity and
perceived safety with products having less or no chemical pesticides (for
consumers); and higher yield, expected increased returns, and reduced cost
of eggplant production for the farmers (for the local government units).
Majority of the farmers would be willing to pay for Bt eggplant seeds at a

price higher than those of eggplant seeds currently available in the market,
mainly because of the foreseen large savings from less use of chemical
pesticides. Although seed suppliers wanted a lower price for Bt eggplant
seeds, the price would still depend on the mark-up or pricing system of the
seed companies. Traders and consumers in general suggested a lower price
for Bt eggplant to make it more affordable to consumers.
Chapter 1 7
References
Chen, N.C. and H.M. Li. 2008. Cultivation and Seed Production of Eggplant. Asian
Vegetable Research and Development Center. www.scribd.com/doc/2297037/
Eggplant-Seed. Accessed August 5, 2010.
Francisco, S.R. 2006.Economic impact of Bt eggplant adoption in the Philippines. Final
Report submitted to ABSPII and International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-
biotech Applications (ISAAA).September. Los Baos, Laguna, Philippines.
Hautea, D.M. and J.O. Narciso. 2007. Questions and Answers on the Development of
Fruit and Shoot Borer Resistant Eggplant in the Philippines. IPB-UPLB-ABSPII.
Maghirang, R.G. 2001. Organikong Gulayan: Pagtatanim ng Organikong Talong. www.
bar.gov.ph/veggies today.vol 2-3.htm. Accessed August 5, 2010.
Paredes, J. 2005. Eggplant Getting More Value. Biotechnology Information Center,
SEARCA. College, Laguna. www.bic.searca.org/. Accessed on August 15, 2010.
Tan, T.J.O. 2007. Analysis of the marketing system of eggplants produced in selected
towns of Batangas. Undergraduate thesis. University of the Philippine Los Baos
(UPLB).
8 Chapter 1
The Eggplant Industry in the Philippines: Seed System, Production and Marketing
Chapter 2
The Eggplant Industry in the Philippines:

Seed System, Production, and Marketing1
Agnes R. Chupungco, Dulce D. Elazegui,
and Miriam R. Nguyen
Introduction
Asia produces 87% of the worlds eggplant production and accounts for 90%
of the worlds production area (Chen and Li, 2008). The Philippines ranked
7th among the worlds top eggplant producers (PCARRD, undated) although
eggplant is grown primarily for domestic market. Eggplant (Solanum
melongena L.), is one of the economically important vegetable crops in
the Philippines, leading in terms of area planted, and volume and value of
production (Hautea and Narciso, 2007). It is claimed to have significant health
and nutritional value, being a good source of vitamins, fiber, and minerals;
and believed to be a cure for various ailments including toothache, asthma,
bronchitis, diabetes, dull vision, high cholesterol, inflammation and swellings,
and liver complaints (Maghirang, 2001; Paredes, 2005; Tan, 2007; Chen and Li,
2008).
Given the significance of the eggplant industry in the Philippine agricultural

economy, this chapter provides a comprehensive profile of the crops
seed, production, and marketing systems, including production trends,
technologies, and cultural practices; output prices at the farm, wholesale,
1
An earlier version of this chapter was published in Philippine Journal of Crop Science 2011
36(2): 37-47.
Chapter 2 9
Chupungco, Elazegui, and Nguyen
and retail levels; production costs and returns analyses; marketing activities;
key industry players and current policies; and important issues and
challenges confronting the industry. These information could guide industry
stakeholders in responding to the demands of consumers and end-users, as
well as crucial inputs in policy design and formulation to promote sustainable
industry development.
Methodology
Conceptual Framework
This industry analysis examines the interaction of three componentsseed

system, production system, and market (Figure 1). Seed system refers to the
flows of seed or other planting materials through the production system, and
the roles of both formal and informal sector, institutions, and farmers in these
flows (Almekinders et al., 1994, as cited in Jarvis et al., 2004). Agricultural
production system is the totality of productive activities at the farm level
using resources available on the farm or supplied by the environment. The
management of a production system includes a range of decisions regarding
the selection of crops that will structure farm activities, and the allocation of
farm resources to individual operations over time and space, based on the
farmers objectives (P.Y. Le Gal et al., 2010).
Marketing and consumption involves creating opportunities for adding value

to the crops; improving postharvest handling and storage; developing market
enterprises; and promoting food consumption and nutrition (Campilan,
undated). Demand for the commodity would determine to a large extent
what kind of seeds to plant and the quantity of the commodity that has to
be produced. Overall, the benefits derived by the industrys stakeholders
are subject to the enabling environment and market and community values.
Technical, financial, and policy support from both public and private sectors
are likewise essential in achieving the objectives of all key players in the
system.
Data Collection and Analysis
Based on area planted to eggplant and volume of production as of 2011,

three municipalities and provinces were selected for this study, namely Sta.
Maria, Pangasinan; Tanauan, Batangas; and Tiaong, Quezon. Pangasinan and
Quezon belong to the top 10 eggplant-producing provinces at that time.
10 Chapter 2
Enabling environment
(Government policies and programs)
Seed
system
Marketing
Production and
system Consumption
Farmers Complementary Market and

decision investments and community
system other inputs values
Figure 1. Conceptual framework
The study collected primary data on the eggplant seed system, including
varieties available in the market; processes and actors involved in the range
of activities from development to marketing of eggplant seeds; farmers
current production and marketing practices; and problems encountered
in both seed and fruit production and marketing. The primary data were
obtained from four respondent groups, using techniques deemed most
practical yet appropriate: (i) focus group discussions (FGDs) with eggplant
Chapter 2 11
farmers; (ii) key informant interviews (KIIs) of representatives of selected seed

companies (Allied Botanical Corporation, Pilipinas Kaneko Seeds Corporation,
and Ramgo Seeds International Corporation) producing and marketing
eggplant seeds based in Metro Manila, and East-West Seed Company
Inc. based in Bulacan; (iii) KIIs of seed distributors/dealers, and eggplant
traders in the study sites; and (iv) KIIs of scientists and researchers from the
Institute of Plant Breeding (IPB), Department of Agronomy, and National
Seed Foundation (NSF) at the University of the Philippines Los Baos (UPLB);
Philippine Seed Industry Association (PSIA) president at UPLB; and Bureau of
Plant Industry (BPI) in Manila.
The study also conducted an exhaustive review of literature on eggplant

production; available production technologies; cultural practices; and
postharvest, marketing, and distribution systems. This was supplemented
with secondary data on eggplant production, area, yield, and prices at
the farm, wholesale, and retail levels, collected from the Philippine Bureau
of Agricultural Statistics (BAS) and related published and unpublished
documents. Reports and publications of local government units (e.g., Office
of the Provincial Agriculturist, and Municipal or City Agriculturist Office) and
research and development (R&D) institutions, as mentioned above, likewise
provided some relevant secondary data.
The study involved a review and synthesis of past and ongoing studies on
eggplant and analysis of the seed system for eggplant. A trend analysis
in production, area planted, yield, and prices by region was done. For
the study areas, production and marketing activities of eggplant growers
were examined to some extent and a cost and returns analysis of eggplant
production was done.
The Eggplant Seed System
In general, a seed system is comprised of the materials, processes, and

actors involved (Hodgkin and Jarvis, 2004, as cited in Rola et al., 2009). The
materials refer to the germplasm base, varieties, and their characteristics. The
processes refer to the flows of seed and other planting materials through
the production system, seed production and quality management, seed
distribution and marketing, and provision of knowledge and information.
Actors refer to the individuals (e.g., farmers), institutions, and other sectors
involved in these processes (Almekinders et al., 1994, as cited in Jarvis et al.,
2004; Hodgkin and Jarvis, 2004).
12 Chapter 2
There are two fundamental seed systems: the informal seed system, and the
formal seed system. The informal seed system2 is identified as the farmers
or the local seed system since it operates at farmer and community levels
in terms of production and exchange mechanisms, local seed selection, and
diffusion (Louwaars and van Marrewijk, 1996). Under this system, farmers
follow their own operational procedures (Jarvis et al., 2004).
Meanwhile, the formal seed system corresponds to the organized seed

sector (Reusch and Chopra, 1993). Seed production and supply mechanisms
are operated by public or private sector specialists with well-defined
methodologies, and regulated by national and even international policies
(Louwaars, 2007). Seed production techniques and quality control system are
well established and controlled by proper authorities (Jarvis et al., 2004).
In the Philippines, the eggplant seed system is dominantly formal with private
seed companies and government institutions playing major roles in R&D,
seed production and quality control, marketing, and distribution (Figure 2).
The informal seed system (bottom left portion of Figure 2) is limited as saving
seeds from harvested eggplant fruits is rarely practiced. Saved seeds are
based on farmers selection and may also be sourced from cultivars coming
from the formal system.
Mostly hybrid seeds3 circulate in the system, particularly for commercial

production, while traditional or open pollinated varieties (OPVs)4 are usually
adopted for backyard production. Experts have varying views on the
performance of hybrids and OPVs in eggplants. Some claim that with the
same inputs, hybrid seeds have 10%-15% higher yield than OPVs (farmers
FGD; Espino, personal communication, 2010), while others say that OPVs can
match the performance of hybrids (Maghirang, personal communication,
2010). A seed company representative (personal communication, 2010)
opined that OPVs have shorter storability (2 days) (compared to a hybrids
2
Also referred to as the traditional seed system (Cromwell, 1996) or conventional seed sector
(Camargo et al., 1993)
3
F1 hybrid seeds are produced by crossing two varieties to mix their characteristics. However,
in the next generation (F2 seeds), the characteristics of F1 seeds segregate and the purity of
F1 seed is lost. As a result, F2 seeds may express different characteristicse.g., some tolerant,
some susceptible, some very susceptible to certain pests and diseases (Rola et al., 2009). Thus,
growers who use hybrid seed must buy new seed every planting.
4
An open-pollinated plant means that it is capable of being pollinated by other plants of the
same or closely related species (CAST, 2001).
Chapter 2 13
Importation
- Plant
Quarantine
Clearance
International
Research Seed seed
Institutions companies companies
Bureau of
NCBP Research & Plant
(GM crop) Development Industry
STRP
(for GM crop)
Open- Hybrid
pollinated varieties
varieties
Seed Plant variety

registration protection
National Plant Variety

Seed Industry Protection
Council Office
Distribution/
Marketing
HVCC/ - - -- - - - -,/-- - ~
vegetable
'
program
,
, ,
Technical
I
Assistance
/',
'" '-ii' -~,--

Department
of Agriculture -
RFUs
Seed
distributors
Saved Local Seed dealers/

seeds government retailers
(OPV)
Households
Farmers Schools - Backyard
gardening
Figure 2. Current eggplant seed system in the Philippines.
14 Chapter 2
2-year shelf life), delayed maturity, and class B, medium-sized, uniformity

standard. OPVs are sustainable because seeds are saved from farmers
harvests and a particular variety could be multiplied, thus ensuring its supply.
OPVs are hence important to maintain for gene reserves, genetic biodiversity,
and germplasm conservation (Maghirang, personal communication, 2010).
Processes and Actors
The processes and actors in the eggplant seed system range from those in
the research and development (R&D) of seed varieties to those in distribution
and marketing, and regulatory activities. Table 1 summarizes the role(s) of
each actor in each of these processes in the system.
Research and Development (R&D). The public and private sectors are both
actively involved in eggplant R&D. The public sector, particularly the state
universities and colleges (SUCs), are engaged in the R&D of OPVs. The
Institute of Plant Breeding at the University of the Philippines Los Baos
(IPB-UPLB) spearheads this for eggplant. OPV varieties developed by
IPB-UPLB include Mestisa, Mora and Mamburao (Masongsong, personal
communication, 2010). It is currently developing a Bacillus thuriengensis (Bt)
eggplant resistant to fruit and shoot borer (FSB), a major pest of eggplant
which can result to 20%-90% yield loss (Francisco, undated). However,
lack of funding constrains further improvement of OPVs. IPB receives only
PhP50,0005 (about US$1,100) total annual R&D budget for various crops
(Maghirang, personal communication, 2010). Funding is usually only a one-
shot deali.e., on a per project basis with a specific time durationmaking it
difficult to sustain R&D (Salazar, personal interview, 2010). Plant breeding in
eggplants takes 5 years.6
Meanwhile, private seed companies are developing mainly hybrid varieties

for commercial eggplant production but also have OPVs for household or
backyard gardening. Three private seed companies (East-West Seed Co. Inc.,
Kaneko, and Allied Botanical Corporation [ABC]) have strong R&D programs
not only on eggplant but also on other vegetables and fruits. East-West and
5
US$1.00 = PhP45.00.
6
Life span of a variety is 10 years if received well in the market. Considerations in varietal
improvement include: shelf life of fruits (e.g., 3-4 days); tolerance/resistance to pests (e.g.,
shoot borer) and diseases (e.g., bacterial wilt); and yield increase of 10-15%; prolificacy and
earliness in fruit setting; plant stand; adaptability; and consumer acceptability.
Chapter 2 15
16

Table 1. Processes, actors, and respective roles in the Philippine eggplant seed system
Actors: Respective Roles
Processes Public Sector
Chapter 2
Private Sector
National Government Local Government
Research and development SUCs: R&D on OPVs Seed companies: OPV and
(R&D) hybrid seed R&D
DA (BPI, RFUs, RIARCs): R&D on OPVs
NCBP and STRP: R&D of genetically Seed companies: R&D on GM
modified (GM) crops crops
Seed importation BPI: Processing of importation permits Seed companies: Sourcing from
and quarantine clearances international markets; seed
importation
Seed production and quality SUCs: OPV seed production and Seed companies: OPV and
control quality control hybrid seed production and
quality control
Contract seed growers: OPV and
hybrid seed production
Seed distribution and marketing DA High Value Crop Component Office of the Provincial/Municipal Seed companies; distributors;
(HVCC) Program Agriculturist: HVCC Program dealers
BPI: Retail seed marketing
STRP: Biosafety assessment for GM crop proponent
commercial propagation of GM crops
Provision of technical assistance, DA High Value Crop Component Office of the Provincial/Municipal Philippine Seed Industry
knowledge, and information (HVCC) Program Agriculturist (DA HVCC Program) Association (PSIA)
Seed companies
Table 1. Processes, actors, and respective roles in the Philippine eggplant seed system
Actors: Respective Roles
Processes Public Sector
Private Sector
National Government Local Government
Policy and regulation BPI: Implement and monitor PSIA (lobbying, advocacy)
regulatory policies on plants;
distribution, regulation of breeder,
foundation, and registered seeds of
all varieties developed by the public
sector
NSIC: Seed registration; promote
systems and practices for improving
seed quality
PVPO: Issues certificate of plant
variety protection to breeders
NSQCS: Control and supervision over
field inspection, certification and seed
control services, and seed testing
laboratories
BPI=Bureau of Plant Industry, DA=Department of Agriculture, NCBP=National Committee on Biosafety in the Philippines, NSIC=National Seed In-
dustry Council, NSQCS=National Seed Quality Control Services, OPV=open pollinated variety, PVPO=Plant Variety Protection Office, RFU=Regional
Field Units, RIARCs=Regional Integrated Agricultural Research Councils, STRP=Scientific and Technical Review Panel, SUC=state universities and
colleges
Chapter 2
17
Kaneko have R&D facilities in Batangas and ABC in Pangasinan. Ramgo has
a research farm and trial station in South Cotabato. ABC does continuous
breeding for varietal improvement such as higher yield, longer shelf life,
improved tolerance to pests and diseases; it takes 5-7 years to develop a
variety with a total cost of PhP100,000.
The Department of Agriculture Bureau of Plant Industry (DA-BPI) used to

conduct eggplant R&D when priorities shifted to other crops like legumes
(Mamaril, personal communication, 2010). Meanwhile, the Vegetable Crops
Technical Working Group under DAs National Seed Industry Council (NSIC)
is not very active and eggplant is not their priority. Aside from budget
constraint, this is because the government cannot compete with the private
sector in eggplant R&D. There is a need to strengthen this Technical Working
Group (Mabesa, personal communication, 2010).
Seed Production and/or Importation and Quality Control. The public sector
(SUCs) produce mainly OPV seeds, while the private seed companies multiply
their own hybrid and OPV seeds, for commercialization. The National Seed
Foundation (NSF) at IPB-UPLB produces OPV seeds once a year both in-
house and through contract seed growing in selected areas in Laguna
province. It has 25 in-house farmers for 3 hectares (ha), which can produce
100-160 kilograms (kg) of seeds per year. To help in production, IPB-UPLB
also has accredited OPV eggplant seed growers in SUCs in Nueva Vizcaya and
Cotabato provinces to expand seed production and improve farmers access
to seeds.
NSF buys the OPV raw seed at PhP170/kg from the contract growers and
does the final seed processing and packaging. To ensure good quality, seed
production observes proper isolation distance, cultural management, and
harvesting practices. It also requires proper seed processing and handling in
drying and seed extraction, storage (15oC-18oC), and packaging (0.003 mm
plastic) (Masongsong, personal communication, 2010).
For hybrid seeds, NSF observes the following quality management practices
(Espino, 2010, personal interview): (i) genetic analysis (using markers) to
test if seed is hybrid; (ii) physical check of seed purity (not mixed with other
seeds, or stones); (iii) checking seed germination rate (85%); (iv) testing for
quality control such as amount of good seed in a particular lot; (v) storage at
an optimal low temperature (10oC-12oC) for longer shelf life of seeds (about
4-6 months); and (vi) packaging in aluminum foil to reduce respiration and
protect the seeds against humidity, insect and mechanical damage. Plastic
pack is recommended only for short-term storage.
18 Chapter 2
Private seed companies generally produce their seeds via contract growers.
For example, Kaneko produces OPV seeds through contract growers
following dealership requirements of 550 kg/year. (One hectare can produce
150 kg of seeds.) For a contract grower with at least 0.5 ha, the company
provides foundation seeds and inputs and buys the raw seeds (not yet
cleaned and processed) produced at PhP650-700/kg. Seed production is in
September to March, to target the planting season between March and May
(depending on the locality). For seed quality control, the company conducts
hybridity test (through DNA testing done in Japan) and seed treatment (done
by BPI) before commercialization.
Meanwhile, some private companies develop their varieties in the Philippines

but seed production is done abroad then imported and repacked in the
Philippines. Some companies, aside from producing seeds locally, also import
hybrid and OPV seeds from their branch companies abroad. For these cases,
import permit and renamed plant quarantine clearance (as per BPI AO No. 01
of 2005) must be obtained from BPI prior to market release. These strategies
must be cost effective to the companies although the importation process
involves additional regulatory costs.
Seed Distribution and Marketing. Through DAs Regional Field Units (DA-RFUs)
and the local government units, the national governments High-Value Crop
Component (HVCC) Program, GMA Programang Gulayan para sa Masa (GMA
Vegetable Program for the People), provides either hybrid or OPV seeds to
farmers with at least 1,000 square meters (sq. m.) of land for commercial
eggplant production. The DA-RFUs acquire the seeds from private seed
companies through the governments standard bidding process. Seeds are
provided to farmers on a 50-50 sharing scheme (subsidized), i.e., the cost
of the seed is equally shared by the farmer and the government (e.g., DA).
Through the LGUs, seeds are provided depending on farmers choice. For
commercial eggplant production, a seed distribution program is undertaken
usually when farmers are affected by a climate-related event, such as a
typhoon.
In partnership with the Department of Education, the HVCC Program also

provides OPV seeds to households to promote backyard gardening and help
improve nutrition. The program is targeting to reach 800,000 households
nationwide in priority areas with high hunger incidence. The program
distributes for free assorted vegetable seeds packed in one pouch (worth
PhP16.00/pouch) for planting in 10 sq. m. per household.
Chapter 2 19
The major markets of OPV eggplant seeds from IPB-UPLB are the local
government units, DA-RFUs, and the UPLB La Granja Experiment Station in
La Carlota, Negros (beginning in 2010) for their seed distribution program.
Often IPB-UPLB cannot meet the annual seed demand. DA BPI is a retailer
of seeds including eggplant, for example, in Metro Manila for backyard
gardening of urban households. It remains, however, that the public sector
cannot compete with private seed companies as the latter have better
marketing and promotion campaign.
Seed companies also join the Philippine Seed Industry Association (PSIA), a
non-stock, non-profit organization established in 1976. With mainly private
company-members, PSIAs objective is to make readily available to farmers
high-quality seeds of superior varieties of all economically important crops.
The privileges of being a member of PSIA include: guarantee of being a
good supplier of high-quality seed, joining government bidding in seed
procurement and subsidy by PSIA in technology demonstration activities.
PSIA continues to provide the Seedsmen Update Courses for seed companies
and the Vegetable Variety Awareness for farmers.
Similar to those of other agricultural crops (e.g., corn), the private sector
dominates the eggplant seed market in the Philippines. They supply seeds to
the market through their network of sales representatives, seed distributors
and dealers, and sub-dealers. As some seed companies are reluctant to
show data on sales, it is difficult to compute their respective market share.
Seed companies have their respective turfs. Key informants estimated that
East-West reportedly has a bigger share of hybrid seeds in the market, while
Kaneko has more product lines for OPV. For instance, in Region IVA, East-
West gets 80% of the market while other companies (Kaneko, Ramgo, and
Allied) share the remaining 20%. Sales also depend on the number of field
workers that a seed company has. East-West has one regional sales manager
for Luzon and one for Visayas and Mindanao. Kaneko has 300 dealers, 50%
of whom are assigned in Luzon; 20% in Visayas; and 30% in Mindanao. ABC
has 500 dealers and 50 technicians. Ramgo has 30 sales representatives/field
personnel and 200-300 dealers.
Seed companies also have their own marketing strategies. East-West, for
instance, chooses clients from its Marketing and Information Base (MIB).
Incentives to dealers include term discounts: (i) within 1-15 days payment,
good as cash; (ii) beyond 16 days (50% higher); (iii) cash-on-delivery gets
5% discount; 16-30 days, 2.5% discount; and beyond 30 days, no discount.
Another scheme is volume discount based on Business Pact Agreement
20 Chapter 2
(BPA) or based on historical value of sales (e.g., over 3 years). Depending on

semestral target, with 100% sales, there is a corresponding incentive for year-
ender cumulative sales.
Provision of Technical Assistance, Knowledge and Information. Two major

policies relevant to the vegetable industry, including eggplant, are Republic
Act 7900 of 1995, also referred to as the High Value Commercial Crops
(HVCC) Law; and Republic Act 8435 of 1997, also known as the Agriculture
and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA) Law. The HVCC Law promotes
the production and marketing of high value crops by providing P1 billion
fund allocation for credit. AFMA Law enhances government support for
modernizing agriculture and fishery sectors and empowering people to attain
food security and poverty alleviation.
In line with the government programs, seed companies provide technical

assistance to both seed dealers and farmers as part of their distribution and
marketing strategies, as well as product marketing assistance to farmers,
e.g., market matching. For example, East-West Co. conducts training of seed
dealers such as basic characteristics of the product; and company-related
policies. For eggplant farmers, there are trainings on cultural management;
and identification and control of pests and diseases.
Kaneko promotes its hybrid seeds through annual technology demonstration

(techno-demo) activities, and periodical farmers meetings. ABC participates
in DAs Aral Saka, providing six-week trainings on eggplant production;
conducts orientation seminars for seed dealers and farmers; and conducts
techno-demo activities with LGUs and/or with farmers. ABC also serves as
facilitator in trading, and does market matching by linking vegetable growers
with the wholesalers.
The national governments HVCC Program can provide commercial farmers

and backyard producers with trainings on eggplant production, saving seeds
for sustainability, organic fertilizer production, and other related agricultural
technology.
Regulation and Government Programs. National government agencies play

a regulatory role in the seed system. These agencies include BPI and its
National Crop Research and Development Centers (NCRDCs) in the regions,
National Seed Quality Control Services (NSQCS), and NSIC. BPI is mandated
to implement and monitor regulatory policies on plants, and has direct
responsibility for the regulation and distribution of breeder, foundation, and
Chapter 2 21
registered seeds of all varieties developed by both government and private

sectors.
There are two major policies governing the seed industry in the Philippines:
Republic Act (RA) No. 7308, the Seed Industry Development Act of 1992;
and RA No. 9168, the Philippine Plant Variety Protection (PVP) Act of 2002
(Table 2). However, compliance with the provisions of these Acts concerning
registration and plant variety protection is voluntary.
Based on RA No. 7308, NSIC has the responsibility to encourage persons,

associations, cooperatives and corporations engaged in genetic resources
conservation and preservation, varietal development, production and
processing, quality control, and storage, marketing and distribution of
seeds to adopt systems and practices, which will improve the quality of
seeds for distribution to farmers/growers. NSIC approves on the basis of
superior yield, better agronomic and grain characteristics, or higher levels
of resistance to pests and diseases over the check, or reigning, variety. (In
variety accreditation, seed varieties should be as good as or better than a
check variety (reigning) in terms of agronomic or horticultural characteristics.)
Permit to propagate means the material is safe, and there will be no
problem in its progeny when it is crossed with other lines. BPI and NSQCS,
and research institutions such as UPLB, PhilRice and Philippine Council for
Agriculture, Aquaculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research and
Development (PCAARRD) have significant roles under this Act.
The Philippines is a member of the International Seed Testing Association

(ISTA) and adheres to standard seed testing procedures (FAO, undated). A
national cooperative testing (NCT) is necessary for varieties to be approved
for registration. This is conducted jointly by IPB-UPLB, DA-RFUs, BPI, and
PCAARRD.
The accreditation of an eggplant variety requires that it should be as good

as or better than a check variety in terms of agronomic or horticultural
characteristics, e.g., 10% higher yield. For national recommendation, field
trials of two wet and two dry seasons should be conducted in a minimum
of six locations (two locations each in Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao) to
compare yields with a check variety. For regional recommendation, the field
trials can be conducted in at least two locations for at least two growing
seasons. However, the seed companies do not usually register their seeds
because of this lengthy process, and opt for strengthening their promotional
activities instead.
22 Chapter 2
Table 2. Provisions of the Seed Industry Development Act of 1992 and the Philippine
Plant Variety Protection (PVP) Act of 2002
R.A. No. 7308: Seed Industry Development R.A. No. 9168: Philippine Plant Variety
Act of 1992 Protection (PVP) Act of 2002
NSIC shall provide assistance in registering An Act to provide protection to new plant
and documenting patents of discoveries of varieties, establishing a National Plant
new seed varieties developed by local seed Variety Protection Board (NPVPB), which shall
producers; in protecting the intellectual promulgate policy guidelines for the effective
property rights of seed producers implementation of the provisions of this Act
BPI shall have direct responsibility for the Any breeder, with respect to the variety
distribution, regulation of breeder, foundation developed, may apply for a plant variety
and registered seeds of all varieties developed protection and obtain a Certificate of Plant
by the government sector Variety Protection.
National Seed Quality Control Services Plant variety protection means the rights
(NSQCS) shall have control and supervision of breeders over their new plant variety. The
over field inspection, certification and seed Certificate of Plant Variety Protection shall
control services, and seed testing laboratories. be granted for varieties that are: a) new; b)
distinct; c) uniform; and d) stable.
Regional and provincial seed coordinators Composition of NPVPB:
shall establish linkages and working a) Chairman: Secretary, Department of
mechanisms with other government agencies, Agriculture;
local government units, NGOs, and other b) Co-Chairman: Secretary, Department of
agricultural institutions. Science and Technology;
c) Vice Chairman: Director-General,
Seed certification shall mean a system of
Intellectual Property Office (IPO);
seed production geared towards maintaining
d) Director, Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI);
the genetic identity, varietal purity, and
e) Director, Institute of Plant Breeding of the
standards of quality seeds of superior crop
University of the Philippines Los Baos (IPB-
varieties.
UPLB);
Composition of NSIC: f) President, Philippine Seed Industry
a) Chairman: Secretary, Department of Association (PSIA);
Agriculture g) A representative from a federation of small
b) Vice Chairman and Executive Director: farmers organizations to be nominated by
Director, Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) the Secretary of Agriculture;
c) Dean, College of Agriculture, University of h) A representative from the scientific
the Philippines at Los Baos, Laguna (UPLB) community to be nominated by the National
d) Director, Institute of Plant Breeding (IPB- Academy of Science and Technology (NAST);
UPLB) and
e) Director, Crops Research Division, Philippine i) the National Plant Variety Protection
Council for Agriculture, Aquaculture, Forestry Registrar.(ex officio)
and Natural Resources Research and
Development (PCAARRD)
f) Director, Philippine Rice Research Institute
(PhilRice)
g) Two (2) representatives from accredited
farmers organizations
h) One (1) representative from the Philippine
seed industry
Sources: R.A. No. 7308 and R.A. No. 9168 documents
Chapter 2 23
Public sector organizations (SUCs, DA-RFUs and RIARCs) usually have

their seeds registered with NSIC at no cost. With registered seeds, these
organizations can join government bidding in seed procurement, which is a
manner of promoting the seed/variety. For farmers, using registered seeds
include coverage by crop insurance and access to agricultural loans from
government institutions such as the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) or
Quedan and Rural Credit Guarantee Corp (Quedancor). Quedancor, a partner
financial institution of government agricultural programs, provides credit
to farmers with LGUs as conduit or directly to farmer cooperatives, peoples
organizations for crop production, marketing, acquisition of machinery
and equipment. IPB-UPLB also has an in-house seed registration office, the
Germplasm and Technology Registration and Release Office (GTTRO) and
breeders may opt to have their eggplant varieties registered here (Salazar,
personal communication, 2010). According to the Seed Act, the Dean of the
UPLB College of Agriculture and the IPB Director are members of NSIC.
Under the PVP Act, a breeder has the option to apply for plant variety
protection to acquire exclusive rights over the propagating material so that
it cannot be sold without the owners permission; or to acquire defensive
protection, being the first-to-file or the one-and-only developer, to exclude
others from producing or using the product without the breeders permission.
Application for PVP requires only planting twice in one location but more
detailed data, such as the description of the variety and particulars of the
variety bred, including particulars of its characteristics, e.g., new, distinct,
uniform and stable. For eggplant, a breeders right is valid for 20 years.
Meanwhile, based on DA Administrative Order No. 8 of 2002, regulations

concerning the R&D and propagation of genetically modified eggplant
involve more stringent procedures. For example, approval of multi-locational
field trials of the Bt eggplant developed by IPB-UPLB has gone through the
required application procedures (e.g., risk assessment) and approval involving
the Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC), BPI, the National Committee on
Biosafety of the Philippines (NCBP), and the Scientific and Technical Review
Panel (STRP). The STRP was created by BPI as an advisory body, composed
of at least three (3) reputable and independent scientists to evaluate the
potential risks of the proposed activity to human health and the environment
based on available scientific and technical information (DA AO8 of 2002).
Approval for commercial propagation of Bt eggplant would require further
evaluation and risk assessment, such as food safety assessment by the Bureau
of Agriculture and Fisheries Product Standards (BAFPS), and several rounds of
public consultation.
24 Chapter 2
The Materials: Eggplant Varieties in the Philippines
Characteristics. In general, farmers select the varieties to plant based on both

fruit characteristics and seed qualities. For eggplants, farmers consider fruit
characteristics (color, shape, size) preferred by consumers, shelf life, and
transportability (firmness). In terms of seed quality, farmers prefer those that
are uniform, viable, undamaged, ripened, cleaned; with high germination rate
and better pest and disease resistance; are adapted to local conditions; and
are new or improved, ideally with new characteristics to meet old problems.
There are around 30 varieties noted in the Philippine eggplant seed system
(Table 3), with hybrids mainly from private seed companies and OPVs from
both private companies and government seed agencies (e.g., DA, BPI, and
IPB-UPLB). The country has no native eggplant variety, as eggplant originated
from other countries such as India (Maghirang, personal communication,
2010).
In terms of marketability, the general preference of consumers is the hybrid,

purple and elongated eggplant. But preferences vary by region (Table 4). For
example, northern Philippines (CAR, Regions I, II) prefer the green and oval
eggplant, mainly for local dishes. There are also special (but small) markets
such as for green, elongated eggplant in San Juan and Lemery, Batangas; and
for Japanese variety in Nueva Ecija. Tagaytay City and Baguio City also grow
greenhouse eggplant for 10 months with one plant producing 10 kg.
Retail Prices of Eggplant Seeds. Hybrid seeds are sold retail in 50-gram
cans from about PhP632/can to PhP1,149/can, while those of OPVs sell
from PhP165/can to PhP388/can (Table 5). Seeds are also sold in pouches;
for example, a 7-gram pouch of Early Bird hybrid seed from Japan costs
PhP300.00, higher than other varieties. In contrast, the actual cost of OPV
seeds from Kaneko is PhP31.00 per 3-gram pack.
For comparison purposes, per-gram seed prices of the eggplant varieties

were estimated based on the selling price of their available seed packages. As
such, prices vary widely from PhP10.33 (for Black Ninja) to PhP43.75 (Sikat F1)
for hybrids, and from PhP3.30 (Long Purple) to PhP49.75 (Dumaguete Long
Purple) for OPVs.
Seed companies give suggested retail price but the dealers can adjust it.
There is a price war among dealers, thus prices vary. The incentives, e.g.,
discount, dealers get from seed companies influence how dealers adjust
Chapter 2 25
26

Table 3. Eggplant varieties and characteristics in the Philippines, 2010
Maturity (days Fruit Characteristics
Variety/ after Resistance to pests/
Length Weight Other Varietal Features
Chapter 2
Source transplanting, disease Shape Color

DAT)/Yield (cm)a (grams)a
HYBRIDS
East-West Seed Co.
Morena 55-60 DAT Tolerant to bacterial wilt Deep purple Attractive glossy fruits;
(F1, with 28-30 tons/ha Highly tolerant to have excellent eating and
PVP) phomopsis (fungal) keeping qualities; endure
wilting 5 days shipping
Domino Good tolerance to pests 9 Oblong Green, striped
(F1, with (e.g., mites) and diseases with creamy
PVP) white color at
the blossom
end
Casino (F1) 55-60 DAT Less tolerant to wilting Dark purple Long shelf life (more
25 tons/ha than 5 days); suitable for
planting for all seasons
Jackpot (F1) High yielding for year Long Purple
round cropping
Banate King 55 DAT Tolerant to bacterial wilt Long Purple Popular in Mindanao
(F1, with yield? No data
PVP)
Gwapito 45-50 DAT Tolerant to fruit and Round Purple green; Firm fruits, long shelf life,
F1, with PVP) Every other day shoot borer (FSB) uniform glossy good transportability;
harvest fruits early maturing; highly
50% higher adaptable, can be
than OPV planted in lowland area;
5-7 days storability
HYBRIDS
Kaneko Seed Co.
Purple Heart 60 DAT 21 Cylindrical Purplish pink 95 Long shelf life
(F1) 28-40 fruits/
plant
Purple Star 78 DAT 21 Cylindrical Purple 78 Long harvest period
(F1) 37-44 fruits/
plant
Black Ninja 65 DAT Rated resistant to 26 Cylindrical Purple 86 High fruit setting even
(F1) 30-44 fruits/ bacterial wilt in Laguna during rainy season;
plant but moderately resistant longer harvesting period
in Quezon (Lit, undated)
Checkmate 65-68 DAT 24 Cylindrical Purple 79 Very prolific, long shelf
(F1) 33-42 fruits/ life
plant
Ramgo Seed Co.
-
-
Sikat Hybrid 60 DAT 20-25 Shiny deep 90-120
purple
Allied Botanical Corp. (ABC)
Spitfire 65-70 DAT Strong resistance to 25 Long, Glossy deep 150-200 Firm, long shelf life, few
Chapter 2
(Condor) 4 kg/plant bacterial wilt cylindrical purple seeds

Early Bird 60 DAT Not resistant to bacterial Plump, Glossy purple 100 Firm, ideal for for
25-30 pcs per wilt very small black specialty market (e.g.,
plant fruit, bulb Japanese restaurants)
type
27
28

Chapter 2


-
-
Mustang 60-65 DAT Resistant to bacterial wilt Long Deep purple 150-200
(with PVP)
OPEN-POLLINATED VARIETIES (OPVs)
East-West Seed Co.
Batangas
Long Purple
Bulakena LP 65-70 DAT Tolerant to bacterial wilt, 25-28 Elongated Purple
10-15 tons/ha blight, wilting
Kaneko Seed Co.
Sarangani 67 DAT 23 Cylindrical Glossy purple 125 Firm, shiny, long, good
Long Purple shipping quality
Dumaguete 70-72 DAT High tolerance to 22 Cylindrical Purple 80
Long Purple bacterial wilt
Claveria 70 DAT 18 Cylindrical Glossy purple 120 Glossy fruits, well-
Long Purple branched plants
Batangas 76-78 DAT 27 Cylindrical Green 115 Long
Long Green
Ilocos Round 68-68 DAT 6.5 Round Green 122 Smooth, round
Green
Aurora 76-78 DAT 7 Oval Green 64 Firm, oval, good shipping
Round quality
Green
Ramgo Seed Co. -
-
Claveria
-
-
Dumaguete
-
-
Long Purple 60-75 Resistant to bacterial wilt Long Purple 120
2 kg/plant and nematodes
UPLB-Institute of Plant Breeding (IPB)
Mara Dry season: (Lit, undated) Cylindrical Purple Dry With good storage life
(NSIC 65 DAT; Resistant to green season:
Registration Wet season: leafhopper; Moderately 58.68
number: 62-68 DAT resistant to bacterial wilt; Wet
NSIC 2007 Resistant to Phomopsis; season:
Eg 01; Resistant to bacterial 59.63
Line: Acc wilt Laguna strains;
95-56) Moderately resistant to
Batangas and Pangasinan
strains; Moderately
susceptible susceptible to
Nueva Ecija strains
Mamburao Dry season: Resistant to bacterial wilt Long Dark purple, Dry
(NSIC 2007 67 DAT; and leafhopper and glossy season:
Chapter 2
Eg 02) Wet season: 69.42

74 DAT Wet
season:
74.00
29
30

Chapter 2

UPLB-Institute of Plant Breeding (IPB)

Mistisa 55 DAT Resistant to bacterial wilt; Medium Striped light With 1 week storage life
Moderately resistant to long violet Very good for pinakbet
fruit borer, leafhopper, Ideal for organic
and phomopsis production
Batangas
long purple
a
Retailers classification: Length: large (primera)=11-12 inches (28-30 cm) long; medium (segunda or semi)=8-10 inches (20-25cm); and small
(tercera)=below 8 inches (below 20 cm.). Weight is based on number of fruits per kilo: large=6 pieces; medium=8 pieces; and small=12 pieces.
Sources:
Lit, M.C. undated. Identification of Eggplant Varieties Resistant to Leafhopper, Shoot/Fruit Borer and Phomopsis Blight. IPB-UPLB. http://www.
bar.gov.ph/vegrde/VeggiesTodayVol2-3.htm
Mamaril, 2010, personal interview.
National Seed Industry Council (NSIC), Bureau of Plant Industry, Manila
Plant Variety Gazette, Volume 1 Issue 1, December 28, 2005, Bureau of Plant Industry - Plant Variety Protection Office
Philippines Seed Industry Association (PSIA) Seed Catalogue
www.agribusinessweek.com/26-years-of-pioneering-in-hybrid-seed-production
http://58.69.172.67/Bid/shopping/rfq09b/RFQ_09-191-223B/RFQ_09-209B.pdf
www.mixph.com/2010/02/growing-talong-or-eggplant-with-cost-analysis.html
http://blog.agriculture.ph/eggplant-industry-situationer-in-the-philippines.html
Table 4. Regional preferences for eggplant varieties in the Philippines

Region Province Variety
CAR Abra Batangas Long Purple and Native
Apayao, Benguet, Ifugao, Batangas Long Purple
Kalinga, Mountain Province
I Ilocos Norte Morena, Casino, and Banate King
Ilocos Sur Spitfire, Casino, Morena, Banate King, Checkmate,
and Cluster King
La Union Dumaguete Long Purple, Mustang F1 Hybrid, Casino,
Pepito OPV, Mayumi OPV, Aurora Round Green, and
Spitfire
Pangasinan Morena, Spitfire, Casino, and Checkmate
II Cagayan Casino 901, Morena, Batangas Long Purple,
Dumaguete Long Purple, and Long Violet
Isabela Casino, Domino, Aurora Green, and Liwit
Quirino Casino 9
Nueva Vizcaya Morena, Casino 901, Batangas Long Purple, and
Dumaguete Long Purple
III Aurora, Pampanga, and Casino and Morena
Zambales
Bataan, Bulacan, and Tarlac Morena
Nueva Ecija Morena and Gwapito
IVA Cavite Casino
Laguna Morena
Batangas Casino and Morena
Rizal Long Purple and Casino
Quezon Morena and Casino
IVB Occidental Mindoro, Casino and Morena
Oriental Mindoro, and
Marinduque
Romblon Batangas Long Purple, Casino 901, Morena, and
Palawan Batangas Long Purple, Dumaguete Long Purple, and
Casino
V Albay Morena
Camarines Norte Casino
Camarines Sur, Masbate, Casino and Morena
and Sorsogon
Catanduanes Casino Long Purple
VI Aklan, Antique, Capiz, Batangas Long Purple and Casino 901
Guimaras, Iloilo, Negros
Occidental
Chapter 2 31
Table 4. Regional preferences for eggplant varieties in the Philippines

Region Province Variety
VII Cebu Batangas Long Purple, Casino, and Morena
Bohol Batangas Long Purple, Casino, Morena, Spitfire, and
Jackpot
Negros Oriental Batangas Long Purple, Casino, Morena, and Jackpot
Siquijor Fond May
VIII Leyte: Biliran, Southern Long Purple
Leyte, Northern Samar
Eastern Samar Long Purple and Batangas Long Purple
IX Zamboanga del Sur F1 Sikat and Banate King
Zamboanga del Norte and Casino and Banate King
Zamboanga Sibugay
Zamboanga City F1 Sikat Maharlika
Isabela City Casino and Banate King
X Misamis Oriental Casino, Batangas Long Purple, and Morena
Misamis Occidental Seorita and Casino
Bukidnon Casino
XI Davao Oriental Fond May and Morena
Davao del Norte Casino and Banate King
Compostela Valley Banate King
Davao del Sur Banate King and Sarangani Long Purple
Davao City Banate King, Morena, Bulakena, and Batangas Long
Purple
XII North Cotabato, Sarangani, Banate King
South Cotabato, Sultan
Kudarat, and General Santos
XII Agusan del Norte, Agusan Banate King and Casino
del Sur, Surigao del Norte,
and Surigao del Sur
ARMM Basilan Banate King, Morena, and Batangas Long Purple
Lanao del Sur Casino, Batangas Long Purple, and Claveria Long
Purple
Maguindanao Banate King, F1 Sikat, Claveria Long Purple, and
Morena
Marawi City Morena, Batangas Long Purple, American Beauty, and
Casino
Tawi-tawi Claveria Long Purple, American Beauty, and
Source: DA High Value Commercial Crop Regional Coordinators, personal communication,

Quezon City, 2010.
32 Chapter 2
Table 5. Retail prices of selected eggplant seeds in the Philippines, 2010
-
-
-
Variety/Source 1,000 g 50 g 100 g 7g 5g 3g 2g 1 g*
HYBRIDS
East-West Seed Co.
Morena F1 1,149.47 22.98
Domino F1 632.52 12.65
Casino F1 1,021.22 20.42
Jackpot F1
Banate King F1 1,074.34 21.48
Gwapito 826.87 16.53
Kaneko Seed Co.
Purple Heart F1
Purple Star F1
Black Ninja F1 975.00 10.33
Check Mate F1 1,013.00 20.26
Allied Botanical Corp.
Spitfire 825.00 35.00 16.50
Early Bird 300.00 42.85
Ramgo Seed Co.
-
-
-
Sikat F1 987.00 43.75*
OPEN-POLLINATED VARIETIES (OPVs)
Chapter 2
East-West Seed Co.

r-
r-
r-
r-
f-
f-
f-
f-
Batangas Long Purple 363.25 60.54 7.27
33
34

Table 5. Retail prices of selected eggplant seeds in the Philippines, 2010
-
-
-
Variety/Source 1,000 g 50 g 100 g 7g 5g 3g 2g 1 g*
Kaneko Seed Co.
Chapter 2
Sarangani Long Purple 31.00 10.33

Dumaguete Long 31.00 10.33
Purple
Sarangani LP 31.00 10.33
Claveria Long Purple 388.00 31.00 7.76
Batangas Long Green 31.00 10.33
Ilocos Round Green 31.00 10.33
Aurora Round Green 31.00 10.33
Allied Botanical Corp.
I-
I-
I-
I-
I-
I-
I-
I-
Long Purple 165.00 300.00 3.30
Ramgo Seed Co.
-
-
-
Dumaguete Long 49.75*
Purple
National Seed Foundation (IPB-UPLB)
Mistisa 5,625.00 30.00 15.00
Dumaguete Long 5,625.00 30.00 15.00
Purple
Note: East-West prices effective January 15, 2010; Kaneko prices effective July 15, 2010.
* Price per gram is actual only for Sikat F1 and Dumaguete Long Purple. The price per gram for other varieties was estimated based on weight of
package actually available.
Source: Unit price list of East-West and Kaneko; key informant interview of ABC and Kaneko executives; NSF-IPB-UPLB.
prices. Discounts could be term or volume discount. For term discount,

dealers are given a higher discount the sooner the seeds are sold and the
dealers pay the seed companies. For example, dealers paying within 15 days
after delivery get a 5% discount, while payment within 16-30 days have 2.5%
discount. For volume discount, historical value of sales has a corresponding
discount. The higher the sale, the higher is the discount. Dealers also avoid
having leftover seeds. They can return unsold seeds within the quarter but
there is a 20% deduction in the amount refunded by seed companies.
Government Programs Related to the Eggplant Industry
One of the DAs flagship programs is the High Value Crops Program, which
includes vegetables. Although eggplant is not considered as a high-value
crop, eggplant is part of the general program on 20 species of vegetables,
operating at the household and national levels. At the household level, the
program aims to improve nutrition by promoting backyard gardening. The
program provides participating households free OPV seeds (Dumaguete long
purple), organic fertilizers, and trainings on production practices including on
how to save seeds. The national level program is for commercial production
(with at least 1,000 sq.m. of farm land). This component includes training
people in producing on commercial scale; provision of hybrid seeds on a
50-50 sharing scheme (subsidized); and work on farmers choice system, i.e.,
seeds distributed depend on farmers choice.
The GMA Programang Gulayan para sa Masa (GMA Vegetable Program for
the People) is a national vegetable backyard raising program (through the
HVCC Program) that aims to address hunger and malnutrition in selected
areas of the country. This program, along with other livestock, poultry and
fishery programs, are anchored on promoting integrated food production
through backyard gardening in the countrys most vulnerable rural
communities and provision of training with starter seeds, planting materials,
chicken, swine, small livestock, and fish. Implementing this program is BPI,
together with other DA agencies such as the Bureau of Animal Industry (BAI),
Agricultural Training Institute (ATI), Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources
(BFAR) and DA-RFUs, in coordination with the local government units (LGUs)
and the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). Technical
assistance is given by the DA agencies co-implementing the program.
The Eggplant Seed Market in the Study Areas
This study conducted key informant interviews of two eggplant seed
Chapter 2 35
distributors and three seed dealers in Quezon; one seed distributor and two
dealers in Batangas; and one dealer in Quezon, who were identified by the
LGU staff and farmers in the study areas. Seed distributors are those who
procure the seed directly from the seed company and supply the seeds to
various dealers who sell retail to farmers. An authorized seed distributorship
requires at least some collateral, net worth, and vehicle. There are exclusive
seed distributors that sell only the products of one seed company; others
also sell in retail. Meanwhile, there are dealers who can also get seeds directly
from the seed company. Dealers are required to have a business permit.
In Quezon, the three distributors supply eggplant seeds to dealers both

within and outside the province. Together, they sell to about 15 vegetable
seed dealers in four municipalities within Quezon (Candelaria, Catanauan,
San Antonio, Sariaya), and to four dealers across three municipalities and one
city in Batangas (Lipa City, Padre Garcia, Sto. Tomas, Tanauan). Peak sales are
during the eggplant planting season in March to May. One dealer in Quezon,
for example, has to maintain five boxes (each with 24 50-gram cans) of seeds
every day. During ordinary days, the dealer keeps one box in stock. Morena
is the highest selling variety in the area with price ranging from PhP840 to
PhP1,200 per 50-gram can.
Seed company sales representatives deliver bulk orders to the dealers, but
send smaller orders through local commercial couriers. While the companies
provide suggested retail prices for their seeds, the dealers can adjust the
prices depending on their targeted sales and/or company discounts. For
example, under a seed companys volume discount scheme for dealers,
every 100 boxes of seeds sold get a price discount whose rate increases with
(higher) volume of sales.
Tanauan City, Batangas has only one seed distributor, who sells to six dealers
across three municipalities and two cities within the province (Bauan, Lipa
City, Lemery, Nasugbu, Tanauan City) and to one dealer in Cavite province.
These six dealers include two farmers cooperatives. Twenty-five percent
of the distributors seeds are sold over the counter while 75% are sold to
dealers. Lemery and Tanauan appear to be significant eggplant seed markets
since they respectively acquire about 50% and 25% of the seeds supplied.
In Batangas, seed sales peak during the months of April through December.
In one year, the distributor sells more Casino hybrid than other varieties,
at about 50 boxes of 24 50-gram cans and 50 boxes of 100 pouches (each
with 100 seeds). One can costs PhP1,200 and one pouch costs PhP38 at
retail price. Two other dealer-respondents reported having higher sales from
Morena.
36 Chapter 2
In Sta. Maria, Pangasinan, eggplant growers buy their seeds from a dealer in
the municipality of Rosales. Overall, despite the different varieties reported
earlier, only a few varieties were found in the market in the study areas; and
these are mostly hybrid from two to three seed companies (Table 6). Farmers
also mentioned that Morena seedlings could be ordered from East-West at
PhP140/seedling.
Eggplant Production, Area, and Yield at the National Level7
Production
Total eggplant production in the Philippines generally increased from

176,991 metric tons (m tons) in 2003 to 211,854 m tons in 2012, posting a
growth rate of 19.7% and average production of 197,822 m tons (Appendix
Table 1). In the same period, the regions of Caraga, SOCCSKSARGEN, and
Northern Mindanao exhibited the highest production growth rates of
about 80.3%, 49.5%, and 44.3%, respectively. The top eggplant-producing
provinces in these regions were Agusan del Sur (Caraga), North Cotabato
(SOCCSKSARGEN), and Lanao del Norte (Northern Mindanao).
The top five regions in terms of average production in 2003-2012 were Ilocos
Region, CALABARZON, Central Luzon, Cagayan Valley, and Western Visayas
(in this order). In 2012, these same regions were also the top eggplant
producers, with Pangasinan, Quezon, Iloilo, and Isabela as the leading
eggplant-producing provinces.
Area Planted
The area devoted to eggplant in the Philippines similarly showed a generally

increasing trend from 20,984 hectares (ha) in 2003 to 21,481 ha in 2012
(Appendix Table 1). It averaged at 21,255 ha during the period, with small
farms ranging from 0.22 ha to 0.50 ha. The top five largest areas planted to
eggplant were in Ilocos Region, Central Luzon, Cagayan Valley, CALABARZON,
and Central Visayas. Among these five, Cagayan Valley and Ilocos Region
expanded their eggplant areas between 2003 and 2012, while Central Luzon,
CALABARZON, and Central Visayas reduced their areas planted to eggplant.
7
The secondary data used in this section came from the Philippine Bureau of Agricultural
Statistics (BAS) online databases, accessed in 2013.
Chapter 2 37
38

Table 6. Market price of eggplant seeds, by dealer in selected locations, Philippines, 2010
Morena (East-West) Casino 901 (East-West) Maharlika Sikat F1 Checkmate Spitfire
(Ramgo) (Kaneko) (ABC)
Chapter 2
Can Can Pouch Can Can Pouch Can Pouch Can Can
(50g) (875 (275 (50g) (900 (300 (50g) (300 (50g) (50g)
seeds) seeds) seeds) seeds) seeds)
Tiaong, Quezon
Suggested 1,200 - - - - - - - -
retail price
Dealer 1 900 110 50 800 110 50 840 50 820
Dealer 2 840 110 50 820 110 na na na na
Dealer 3 900 110 na 820 110 50 830 na na
Dealer 4 900 na na 800 Na 50 na na na
Average 885 110 50 810 110 50 835 50 820
Tanauan City, Batangas
Dealer 1 890 - 50 50
Dealer 2 920 - 50 850 50 650 600 850
Dealer 3 900 45 850 120 50
Average 903 48 850 120 50 650 600 850
Seed
distributor 1
Dealers 920 816
price
Over-the- 965 - 45 860 45
counter
price
Morena (East-West) Casino 901 (East-West) Maharlika Sikat F1 Checkmate Spitfire
(Ramgo) (Kaneko) (ABC)
Can Can Pouch Can Can Pouch Can Pouch Can Can
(50g) (875 (275 (50g) (900 (300 (50g) (300 (50g) (50g)
seeds) seeds) seeds) seeds) seeds)
Rosales, Pangasinan
-
-
-
-
Dealer 1 1,000 110 50 888 110 50 - 45 45
Notes:
n.a.=not available during the interview. Seeds in 50-gram cans are reported to sell more than other pouches.
Farmers in Rosales, Pangasinan reported that Morena seedlings could be ordered from East-West at PhP140/seedling.
US$1.00 = PhP45.00
Chapter 2
39
Noticeably, some regions in Mindanao significantly expanded their areas

planted to eggplant during 2003-2012. SOCCSKSARGEN posted the
highest increase at 28.3%, followed by Davao Region (22.2%), and Northern
Mindanao at 19.2%. In Luzon, the Bicol Region posted the highest area
expansion at almost 13%.
At the provincial level in 2012, Pangasinan posted the highest area planted to
eggplant with 3,781 ha, followed by Nueva Ecija (1,547 ha), Isabela (988 ha),
and Cebu (894 ha).
Yield
During 2003-2012, the national eggplant yield levels showed a generally

increasing trend with an average of 9.3 m tons/ha (Appendix Table 1). At the
regional level, it ranged from almost 3 m tons/ha (in MIMAROPA, ARMM, and
Zamboanga Peninsula) to about 18 m tons/ha in CALABARZON. The latter is
followed by Ilocos Region and SOCCSKSARGEN with 15 m tons/ha and 11 m
tons/ha, respectively.
Looking more closely, the country posted a 17% improvement in eggplant

yield between 2003 and 2012. At the regional level, Caraga posted the
highest percentage change of 86%, followed by Central Visayas (52%) and
Western Visayas (25%). Data also shows, however, that eggplant yield levels
posted some declines in Davao Region (22%) and Zamboanga Peninsula (9%).
Production Cost and Return Analysis
Based on BAS data, per-hectare yields of eggplant in the Philippines generally

increased during 2003-2012, and averaged at about 9.30 m tons/ha. In
contrast, farm prices fluctuated with the lowest of PhP10.84 in 2003 and the
highest of PhP20.44 in 2011. Average farm price was PhP14.39/kg. With total
production costs generally increasing through the period, both gross revenue
(yield multiplied by farm price) and net income (gross revenue less total
costs) varied with farm price levels, and hence also fluctuated (Table 7). Gross
revenue ranged from PhP91,435 in 2003 to a peak of PhP198,881 in 2011.
Net income was lowest in 2010 at PhP10,245 and highest in 2012 at almost
PhP53,000. Gross revenue averaged at about PhP134,714/ha, and net income
at almost PhP35,000/ha, during the said period.
Meanwhile, Maghirang et al. (2007) estimated the net income from

eggplant production at almost PhP161,000/ha, based on total costs of
40 Chapter 2
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012* Average
Costs (PhP) 1,000 110 50 888 110 50 - 45 45
Seeds 1,344 1,567 1,432 1,771 1,483 2,043 1,974 1,510 2,532 2,174 1,783
Fertilizer 11,692 15,828 19,678 19,554 17,897 32,066 22,674 22,444 23,606 25,011 21,045
Pesticides 12,257 12,301 12,273 11,705 11,136 11,549 10,928 12,043 10,886 10,932 11,601
Labor 31,272 326,712 34,595 36,099 37,497 41,068 41,940 44,501 46,719 48,863 39,522
Other 19,172 21,920 22,835 25,380 24,103 29,829 29,138 27,744 34,077 33,209 26,741
costs**
Total (PhP) 75,737 84,287 90,813 94,509 92,116 116,555 106,654 108,242 117,820 120,189 99,692
Yield (kgs) 8,435 8,674 8,844 9,182 9,724 9,370 9,492 9,720 9,730 9,865 9,304
Farm price 10.84 12.64 11.55 14.29 11.97 16.49 15.94 12.19 20.44 17.55 14.39
(PhP/kg)
Gross 91,435 109,639 102,148 131,211 116,396 154,511 151,302 118,487 198,881 173,131 134,714
revenue
(PhP)
Net income 15,698 25,352 11,336 36,702 24,280 37,957 44,648 10,245 81,061 52,941 35,022
*Preliminary
**Other costs include rents, fuel and oil, irrigation fees, interest on capital, and landlord shares.
Source of data: Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, October 24, 2013
Chapter 2
41
PhP121,260/ha, yield of 15 m tons/ha, and farm price of PhP20/kg (Table

8). For crop year 2009-2010, focus group discussions (FGDs) conducted in
this study gathered costs and returns information for eggplant production
in Tanauan, Batangas; Sta. Maria, Pangasinan; and Tiaong, Quezon. Eggplant
seed use ranged from 2 50-gram cans (total of 100 grams) per hectare in Sta.
Maria, Pangasinan to 4 cans (200 grams) per hectare in Tanauan, Batangas.
Fertilizer and fertilizer application costs ranged from PhP22,070 in Sta. Maria,
Pangasinan to PhP39,750 in Tiaong, Quezon. Farmers commonly sprayed
their eggplant crops, though in differing frequencies. Among the three
sites, pesticide and pesticide application costs were highest in Sta. Maria,
Pangasinan at PhP113,160/ha.
Based on above, total eggplant production cost ranged from PhP167,470/

ha in Tanauan, Batangas to PhP237,920/ha in Tiaong, Quezon. On average
across the three sites, 40% of farmers production costs went to pesticides
and application costs, 17% to fertilizers and application costs, and only 1%
to seeds. Because of the high frequency of pesticide application in Sta. Maria,
Pangasinan, a high 57% of farmers production costs was accounted for by
pesticides and its application costs (Figure 3). The lowest share of 26% was
noted in Tanauan, Batangas.
Although per-hectare yield in Sta. Maria, Pangasinan was highest at 27.5 m

tons/ha, eggplant farm price was lowest at only PhP10/kg. As such, among
the three sites, it posted the lowest net income of almost PhP76,500/ha. Had
the output price been higher, eggplant farmers in Sta. Maria, Pangasinan
could have enjoyed the highest net incomes across the three sitesalmost
PhP214,000/ha at a farm price of PhP15/kg or PhP351,500/ha at PhP20/kg.
In Tanauan, Batangas, average yield was 21.6 m tons/ha and farm price was
PhP20/kg, giving farmers a net income of PhP264,530/ha. If price declined
to PhP15/kg, net income would decline by 69% but would still be high
at PhP156,530/ha. Meanwhile, in Tiaong, Quezon, yield was higher than
in Tanauan by 11% but total production costs was also higher by 42%.
Average farm price in Tiaong was PhP15/kg, giving farmers a net income of
PhP122,080/ha. At a farm price of PhP20/kg, a farmers net income would rise
by 98% to PhP242,080/ha (Table 8).
Eggplant Marketing
In the Philippines, eggplant is generally available in the market throughout

the year, with supply highest between January to August. In general,
42 Chapter 2
Table 8. Per-hectare costs and returns (PhP) of eggplant production by study site,
Philippines, crop year 2009-2010
This Study
Philippines
Tiaong, Tanauan, Sta. Maria, 2007a
Quezon Batangas Pangasinan
Inputs (average)
Seeds (grams) 150 200 100

Frequency of Every 4 days Weekly 1-2 times daily
pesticide application immediately
after
harvesting
Production Costs
(PhP/ha)
Seeds 2,700 3,600 1,740 2,550
Fertilizer and 39,750 36,430 22,070 33,050
application labor
Pesticides and 89,870 43,200 113,160 10,000
application labor
Other costs 105,600 84,240 61,548 75,660b
Total Production Costs 237,920 167,470 198,518 121,260
Yield (kg/ha) 24,000 21,600 27,500 15,000
Output Price (PhP/kg) 15-20 15-20 10 20
Gross Revenue (PhP/
ha)
At price of PhP10/kg 275,000
At price of PhP15/kg 360,000 324,000
At price of PhP20/kg 480,000 432,000 300,000
Net Income (PhP/ha)
At price of PhP10/kg 76,482
At price of PhP15/kg 122,080 156,530
At price of PhP20/kg 242,080 264,530 160,551
a
Source: Maghirang et al. (2007)
b
Includes all labor and other costs
Chapter 2 43
Tiaong, Quezon Tanauan, Batangas

Seeds Seeds
Fertilizer and Fertilizer and

labor labor
Pesticides Pesticides and

and labor labor
Sta. Maria, Pangasinan

Seeds
Fertilizer and
la bor
Pesticides and
la bor
Figure 3. Average share (%) of input costs in total production costs, all
study sites, 2009-2010
wholesale or bulk trading is by the hundreds of pieces (or ginatos), with

minimum sale volume of 100 pieces. These are bundled in sacks, wooden
baskets (kaings), or bulto. The bulto has three types: small, which contains
1,000 pieces of eggplant; medium, with 1,800 pieces; and large, with 3,000
pieces of eggplant (http://blog.agriculture.ph/eggplant-industry-situationer-
in-the-philippines.html).
Eggplants sold in the market are also graded by fruit length: primera or
first class, 11-12 inches; segunda or second class, 8-10 inches; and tercera
or third class, 5-7 inches. These are equivalent to having around 6 pieces/
kg, 8 pieces/kg, and 12 pieces/kg, respectively. The prices of medium and
large eggplants differed by PhP0.30-0.50 per piece, while those of small and
medium fruits differed by PhP0.35-PhP0.55 per piece (http://blog.agriculture.
ph/eggplant-industry-situationer-in-the-philippines.html). Selected towns of
Batangas, however, used a slightly different grading practice for eggplants:
primera was 8-10 inches long, and segunda was 6-7 inches long (Tan,
2007).
44 Chapter 2
Farm, Wholesale, and Retail Prices of Eggplant8
Farmgate Prices. During the 2003-2012 period, the farmgate price of Long
Purple eggplant was lowest in 2003 at PhP10.84/kg and highest in 2011 at
PhP20.44/kg (Appendix Table 2). In 2012, the average farmgate price across
the country was PhP17.54/kg, and was highest in MIMAROPA, followed by
Eastern Visayas and Central Luzon (Figure 4). Five regions, all in Mindanao,
posted average farmgate prices lower than the national average in 2012.
Wholesale Prices. The wholesale price of Long Purple eggplant was lowest in
2003 at PhP14.79/kg, and highest in 2011 at PhP29.15/kg (Appendix Table 3).
In 2012, the average wholesale price across the country was PhP23.75/kg, and
was highest in Central Luzon at PhP29.41/kg. Metro Manila, Ilocos Region,
Central Luzon, CALABARZON, and Western Visayas posted average wholesale
prices higher than the national average.
Retail Prices. Similar to the trend in farmgate and wholesale prices of Long
Purple eggplant, the national average retail price was highest in 2011 at
PhP42.05/kg, while the lowest was in 2003 at PhP22.84/kg. In 2012, the
35
30
25
20
15
10
Figure 4. Farmgate prices (PhP/kg) of eggplant by region, Philippines,

2012
8
Eggplant price data for this section were acquired from the Philippine Bureau of Agricultural
Statistics (BAS) online services, but were limited only to the Long Purple variety.
Chapter 2 45
average retail price in the Philippines was PhP38.05/kg, with the highest level
being in MIMAROPA at PhP46.01/kg, and the lowest in SOCCSKSARGEN at
PhP25.19/kg. Most of the regions across the country posted average retail
price of Long Purple eggplant much higher than the national average (Figure
5 and Appendix Table 4).
Figure 6 summarizes the national average farmgate, wholesale, and retail

prices of eggplant from 2000 to 2009, indicating similar trends. As the
distance between the lines indicates the price difference, it can be observed
that the retailers margin over the wholesalers price is larger than the
wholesalers margin over the farmgate price. Based on 2003-2012 data, price
margins between national average farmgate and wholesale prices ranged
from PhP3.72/kg to PhP8.71/kg across the regions, and those between
farmgate and retail prices ranged from PhP8.05/kg to PhP14.30/kg. For some
regions, the retailers margin is greater than the per-kilogram price that the
farmer received. Thus, if the eggplant farmer sells his/her produce directly to
consumers, he/she could earn an additional PhP1.00/kg of eggplants sold.
Marketing Practices in the Study Areas
This section focuses on farmers and traders marketing practices in the study
areas, as well as of traders in the major trading centers or public markets
where the eggplants harvested in the study sites are marketed. The other
major players in the eggplant market are assembler-wholesaler-retailers,
wholesaler-retailers, and retailers.
The assembler-wholesaler-retailers procure eggplants from several farmers

and sell them regularly in large volumes both within and outside the
province; they also do retail activities. Some assembler-wholesaler-retailers
are also farmers who buy the products of other farmers and transport them
to major markets using either own or hired vehicle. These traders have retail
stalls in public markets, which are also used as temporary storage and as
working areas for classifying the eggplants.
Wholesaler-retailers usually have permanent stalls in public markets or major

trading centers, and sell either in bulk or small quantities to both retailers and
household consumers. Retailers sell only small quantities to consumers, often
from the roadside or in public market stalls. The general product flow can be
depicted as follows:
Retailers
Farmers Assembler-wholesaler-retailers Wholesaler-retailers
Consumers
46 Chapter 2
50
45
40
35
30
'"
~
~
~ 25
~
~
20
15
10
5
0
Figure 5. Retail price (PhP/kg) of eggplant by region, Philippines, 2012.
45 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
o
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 201 1 2012
Figure 6. Average farmgate, wholesale, and retail prices (PhP/kg) of

eggplant, Philippines, 2003-2012.
Chapter 2 47
Tanauan City, Batangas. Among the vegetables grown in Batangas, eggplant

ranks third after tomato and bittergourd in terms of area planted and
production. As of December 2009, the province had 562 ha planted to
eggplant by 947 farmers in its 24 towns and cities (Office of the Provincial
Agriculturist, 2009). Six percent of these farmers and 10% of the total
eggplant area are in Tanauan City. Of the total eggplant produced in
Batangas, 60% goes to Metro Manila markets (Divisoria, Alabang, and
Marikina); 10% to Binan, Laguna, and 30% is sold in the local markets.
The Tanauan City public market is one of the major trading centers for
eggplants in Batangas and for the adjacent provinces of Laguna, Quezon,
and Oriental Mindoro. The eggplants traded in this market come from
Quezon (42%), mostly from Candelaria, Sariaya, and Tiaong; Oriental Mindoro
(21%); and Laguna (7%) (Figure 7). Locally produced eggplants provide the
remaining 30% (according to the City Agriculturist, 30% goes to assembler-
wholesaler-retailers or to wholesaler-retailers, and 70%, to retailers). From
Tanauan public market, 85% of the eggplants goes to Metro Manila, and the
remaining 15% is traded locally or in adjacent provinces.
The Tanauan farmer-respondents reported that they usually do not incur any
marketing cost as traders provide the plastic bags and pick up the eggplants
from their farms. Farm price received ranged from PhP2.00/kg to PhP35.00/
kg, depending on season and size.
There are about 20 eggplant assembler-wholesaler-retailers/wholesaler-

retailers and 60 retailers in the Tanauan public market. Retailers get their
supply from assembler-wholesaler-retailers or wholesaler-retailers trading
Tanauan farms
I I
I
/
Tanauan market L
30%
70%
Quezon (60%)
Laguna (10%)
Mindoro (30%)
Figure 7. Sources of eggplant in Tanauan City public market,

Batangas, Philippines, 2009-2010.
48 Chapter 2
in the Tanauan trading post (bagsakan), who handle about 0.5 ton to 2.5
tons daily. The assembler-wholesaler-retailers/wholesaler-retailers come from
Tiaong, Quezon; San Pablo, Laguna; Cavite, Pasig, Pampanga, and Bulacan.
Some retailers can sell 70 kgs of eggplants daily (50% are good and 50% are
semi), without any wastage or losses. Other retailers handle only 10 kgs of
good quality eggplants 2-3 times per week, and can sell only second class
eggplants (also called semi or segunda) when supply is short. As with any
other agricultural product, eggplants are sold at a lower retail price if it does
not look good anymore. Up to 10% of the total volume handled by retailers
was reportedly wasted.
Retailers can dictate the price to consumers while wholesaler-retailers dictate

the price to retailers. Prices are based on the prevailing market price. In a
year, wholesaler-retailer price can range at PhP10.00/kg-PhP50.00/kg, and
at PhP15.00-PhP20.00/kg to PhP70.00-PhP80.00/kg at the retail level. There
often is a PhP10.00/kg price difference between good and semi eggplants.
One assembler-wholesaler-retailer procures 5 tons of eggplants from about

30 farmers in Tiaong, Quezon daily. To ensure her daily supply of eggplants,
this trader provides PhP20,000-PhP40,000 financial assistance to each of 15
farmers, in addition to the seeds and fertilizer which are given in-kind per
cropping season.
Of the 5 tons procured daily, 1,000-1,500 kg/day (about 25%) are sold in
Sariaya, Quezon; about 7% sold twice a week in Divisoria, and the rest sold in
the Tanauan trading post. Of the total volume handled, 80%-90% are good
and the rest are semi or segunda. When eggplant supply is short, even
poor quality ones (rejects, those with holes) can be sold.
The assembler-wholesaler-retailer sets the farmgate price and retail price,

depending on the prevailing market price, allowing for some margin. No
price discount is given even for large volumes traded. Farmers are often paid
in cash for their produce. High supply and low eggplant prices are often
observed from June to December/January; eggplant price is usually high in
October (especially after a typhoon).
Traders also commonly pay market fees. This assembler-wholesaler-retailer

pays PhP350 per jeepney full of products, or PhP2.00 for every 10 kgs of
eggplant. Market stalls are also rented at PhP1,500 per month. In addition,
eggplant traders also sell other vegetables such as string beans, chili pepper,
and lady fingers (okra).
Chapter 2 49
San Pablo City, Laguna. Eggplants in this market come mostly from Tiaong
and other municipalities of Quezon. Eggplants are packed as 10-kg or 20-kg
plastic bundles. They are classified as good if of good quality, 6-7 inches
long, dark purple, more or less straight, and have no holes; semi if shorter
and not so straight; and rejects if with a lot of holes.
There are about 25 eggplant assembler-wholesaler-retailers/wholesaler-

retailers and 50 retailers in the San Pablo City public market, some of whom
have been in business for 7-20 years. During peak harvest, some retailers
become assembler-wholesaler-retailers or wholesaler-retailers procuring 0.5
m ton to 1 m ton of eggplant (which can be 50% good, 50% semi) daily
from Tiaong, Quezon, for sale in the Tanauan trading post.
Retailers in San Pablo City public market regularly buy 40 kgs of good and 10
kgs of semi quality eggplants from wholesalers-retailers in the same market.
Prices and volume traded depend on the interaction of supply and demand
during the day, and prices could change within the same day. If there is low
supply, retailers can procure only 20 kgs good and no semi; if there is high
supply, they procure only 10 kgs good and no semi. When there is high
supply, the market is flooded with eggplants and eggplant retailers will most
likely increase in number. Hence, retailers would procure a lower volume of
eggplant so as to be able to sell all their eggplants during the day.
Some other retailers procure 20 kgs daily, composed of 75% semi and
25% rejects (which are sliced and mixed with other sliced vegetables, e.g.,
squash, stringbeans, bittergourd, in a plastic bag for consumers who will cook
pinakbet). Some buy eggplants 2-3 times per week from farmers and 4-5
times per week from wholesaler-retailers in San Pablo trading post. A farmer
could bring 500 kgs to 1.5 m tons of eggplants everyday to this trading post,
for sale to traders. The farmers are usually paid in the afternoon when the
eggplants have been sold.
During regular days, farm price is PhP20.00/kg for good quality eggplants,
and PhP10.00/kg for semi, and PhP5.00/kg for rejects. A PhP5.00 difference
per kilogram can be observed between farmgate price and wholesale price,
and between wholesale price and retail price.
During low supply periods, the farm price of good quality eggplants is
PhP60.00/kg, wholesale price is PhP70.00/kg, and retail price is PhP80.00/kg.
When supply is high, prices are much lower and a good eggplant sells at
PhP5.00/kg at the farm level, PhP7.50/kg on wholesale, and PhP10.00 at the
50 Chapter 2
retail level. Eggplant wastage or spoilage is zero during low supply, but can
be 5% during regular days and even up to 20% during high supply. To avoid
wastage, if the eggplants cannot be completely sold in two days, traders
would sell the remaining eggplants at a lower price (even to a breakeven
price) so as to recover his/her capital.
Retailers are charged PhP10.00/ticket/day as market fee for 1 cart of

vegetables being sold. Since half of a retailers cart can be occupied by
eggplants, it is estimated that PhP5.00 is the market fee for selling eggplants.
Overall, trader-respondents in San Pablo City opined that eggplant marketing

gives good income. If a trader loses a few times during the year, the loss
could easily be recovered.
Tiaong, Quezon. Across the province, eggplant ranks third in terms of area
planted, and first in total production. In 2009, the province had 389 ha
planted to eggplant by 626 farmers (Office of the Provincial Agriculturist,
2009). The municipality of Tiaong contributed 3% of the total eggplant area
in the province, and 0.4% of the total eggplant production.
Almost all eggplant traders in Tiaong were assembler-wholesaler-retailers,

who pick up the products from local farmers, and deliver them to public
markets in Divisoria, Metro Manila (50%), Tanauan, Batangas (25%), and San
Pablo, Laguna (25%). The local market gets less than 1% of the marketed
produce. For trucking or jeepney rental per trip with a 3,000-kg load, the
traders spend about PhP3,500 going to Divisoria, PhP1,500 going to Tanauan,
and PhP1,000 going to San Pablo City. Transport losses when delivering to
Divisoria come to about 20 kgs per trip. The barangay in Tiaong collects a
fee of PhP10.00 per jeepney load of eggplants (reportedly for the barangays
cleanliness drive and/or environmental protection activities).
At the farm level, eggplants in Tiaong can be classified (and priced) into three
categories, based on length and overall quality: first class, which usually costs
PhP25.00-PhP30.00/kg; second class, PhP10.00/kg; and third class (rejects),
which are normally for home consumption or given away. It was estimated
that 50 kg/year goes to home consumption, and 150 kgs/ha/year are given
away.
Farm prices normally range at PhP2.00-PhP30.00/kg during the year, again

based on the market supply and demand situation. Farmers can quote the
price but traders can negotiate. Market deals between farmers and traders
Chapter 2 51
can be made using cellular (mobile) phones. No discounts are given even
with large volumes bought. Farmers are paid in cash, but can take credit if the
buyer picks up the produce, for which the buyer has to pay in cash at least
25% of the total value. The balance should be paid by the next harvest time,
which is 3-4 days after.
Of the total eggplant produced in Quezon, about 50% goes to Metro Manila
(Divisoria, Nepa Q-Mart); 10% to Tanauan, Batangas; and 5% each to Bicol
region and Laguna province (Sta. Cruz and San Pablo City). About 20%
is traded locally and 10% is consumed at home (Office of the Provincial
Agriculturist, 2009). Eggplant buyers are usually wholesalers-retailers from
adjacent provinces.
Pangasinan. In crop year 2009, Pangasinan produced 31,655 m tons of

eggplants from 1,320 ha, or almost 24 m tons/ha (Office of the Provincial
Agriculturist, 2010). Its total production constituted 86% of that of Ilocos
Region (BAS, 2010). Within the province, 34% and 23% of the eggplant
area, and 45% and 33% of the total production, were in the municipalities of
Villasis and Asingan, respectively. The share of Sta. Maria was 3% in both area
planted and production.
Of the total eggplant produced in Pangasinan, majority (75%) is brought

to Metro Manila (mostly to Divisoria, some to Balintawak), and 5% each are
traded in Ilocos Region and Baguio City. Only 15% of the produce goes to the
local market (Figure 8). Overall, 70% of the produce is handled by assembler-
wholesaler-retailers and 30% by retailers. The cost of transporting eggplants
from Pangasinan to Divisoria is PhP0.20 per kilogram.
In the Villasis public market, there are about 10 eggplant wholesaler-retailers

and 40 retailers, some of whom have been in the business for 14-20 years.
Wholesaler-retailers handle 100 kgs or more while retailers handle about
10 kgs to 40 kgs daily. About 60% of traded eggplants were of the Morena
variety, and 40% were native varieties (e.g., palupalo, baginay). The farmers
deliver the eggplants already packed in plastic bags, and are paid in cash
by the traders. The farmers can dictate eggplant prices but the traders can
negotiate. Prices however are based on prevailing market prices and can
change within the day depending on the interaction of supply and demand
forces in the market.
Retail price per kilogram ranges from PhP10.00 to PhP40.00 for the Morena
variety and from PhP20.00 to PhP60.00 for the native varieties. There is
52 Chapter 2
Pangasinan farms
I I
~~
Pangasinan
D
Baguio Ilocos Manila
markets
5% 5% (Divisoria,
(Sta. Maria,
Balintawak)
Villasis, Rosales)
February 75%
~
15%
November-
January Isabela
I
Figure 8. Geographical distribution of eggplants produced and
traded in Pangasinan, 2009-2010.
about a PhP3.00 to PhP5.00 per kg price difference between farm price and
wholesale price, and about PhP5.00/kg between wholesale and retail price.
If the retail price is high, e.g. at PhP40.00-PhP60.00/kg, the price difference
between levels could range at PhP5.00-PhP10.00/kg.
There is low demand for eggplants during August and September, when
people seem to have less money. High demand is observed during November
and December, the rice harvest months, as people have relatively more
money.
Traders are required to pay a market fee of PhP20.00/day for all the
commodities handled. Since eggplant is only about one-tenth of all
commodities handled, retailers pay a market fee of only PhP2.00/day
for handling eggplants. Traders also pay PhP2,500 a year for a municipal
(mayors) permit to conduct business. The trader-respondents reported that
about 5% of the eggplants handled are spoiled/wasted when the demand is
low.
At the time of this study, one big supermarket in Pangasinan sells about
50 kgs of the Morena variety daily, 5 kgs of Miracle (a native variety), and
5 kgs of a round eggplant (variety unspecified). Another huge commercial
buyer is Dizon Farms (based in Taguig City, Metro Manila) which is reported
to regularly buy Pangasinan eggplants through a consolidator. After
classification and repacking, the eggplants are delivered to supermarket
chains for retail sale to consumers.
Chapter 2 53
Divisoria, City of Manila. There are more than 300 wholesaler-retailers and
retailers selling eggplants in Divisoria.The three retailer-respondents in this
study were not aware of the variety of eggplant they were selling. Each buys
10 kgs of unclassified eggplants daily, which are delivered by wholesaler-
retailers often coming from Bulacan, Nueva Ecija, Pangasinan, Batangas
(Tanauan), and Quezon.
Almost everyday, the retailers can sell all their eggplants with no spoilage
as the volume handled is small. The retail price of eggplant in crop year
2009-2010 ranged from PhP20.00/kg to PhP80.00/kg. Retailers usually add a
PhP5.00/kg mark-up if the wholesalers price is low, and about PhP10.00/kg
if the buying price is high (especially when supply is short). Retailers pay the
wholesaler-retailers in cash. Eggplant prices are usually high during January
to March.
Retailers also pay a market fee of PhP20.00 per day for the stall. Since
eggplant is only about one-tenth of all the vegetables a retailer is selling, the
daily market fee for eggplants is estimated at only PhP2.00.
Production and Marketing Concerns
This studys farmer-respondents cited poor water supply and pests and
diseases (including fruit and shoot borer, fruit fly, and bacterial wilt) as
important production problems. Both farmers and traders reported low
market price of eggplants during peak production period as their only
marketing problem.
One alarming finding of this study is the excessive pesticide application in

the study areas. Eggplants are sprayed with pesticides weekly in Tanauan,
Batangas; every four days in Tiaong, Quezon; and once or twice daily in
Pangasinan. There were also reports of harvested eggplants being dipped
in pesticide solution. These practices lead to an important area of concern:
impacts on the environment, and on human health. As such, it will be
important for the local government units to conduct pesticide safety
awareness programs/campaigns. Eggplant farmers can also be trained to
practice integrated pest management (IPM) or in judicious pesticide use in
their farms. The introduction and commercialization of Bt eggplant could
significantly reduce farmers high dependence on pesticides, and promote
environmental health and production sustainability in the long term.
54 Chapter 2
References
Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project (ABSPII). 2010. Fruit and Shoot Borer
Resistant (FSBR) Eggplant. Project Profile. www.absp2.cornell.edu/projects/project.
cfm?productid=2. July 27.
Camargo, C.P., C. Bragantini, and A. Monares. 1989. Seed Production Systems for
Small Farmers: A Non-conventional Perspective. International Centre for Tropical
Agriculture (CIAT), Cali, Colombia.
Campilan, D. undated. A Livelihood Systems Framework for Participatory Agricultural
Research: The Case of UPWARD. http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-85070-201-1-DO_
TOPIC.html
Chen, N.C. and H.M. Li. 2008. Cultivation and Seed Production of Eggplant. Asian
Vegetable Research and Development Center. www.scribd.com/doc/2297037/
Eggplant-Seed. Accessed August 5, 2010.
Francisco, S.R., J. Maupin, and G.W. Norton. 2009. Value of Environmental Impacts
of Bt Eggplant in the Philippines. In Norton, G.W. Hautea, D.M. (eds). Projected
Impacts of Agricultural Biotechnologies for Fruit and Vegetables in the Philippines
and Indonesia. ISAAA and SEAMEO SEARCA, Los Baos, Laguna.
Guanzon, Y.B. and R.J. Holmer. 2003. Basic Cultural Management Practices for
Vegetable Production. Xavier University College of Agriculture. www.puvep.com/
rjhpublications.htm
Hautea, D.M. and J.O. Narciso. 2007. Questions and Answers on the Development of
Fruit and Shoot Borer Resistant Eggplant in the Philippines. IPB-UPLB-ABSPII.
Hodgkin, T. and D. Jarvis. 2004. Seed systems and the maintenance of diversity on-
farm: Introductory remarks. In Jarvis, D.I., R. Sevilla-Panizo, J.L. Chavez-Servia and
T. Hodgkin (eds.) Seed Systems and Crop Genetic Diversity On-Farm. Proceedings
of a Workshop, 1620 September 2003, Pucallpa, Peru. International Plant Genetic
Resources Institute, Rome, Italy.
Integrated Pest Management-Collaborative Research Support Program (IPM CRSP).
2007. Bacterial Wilt of Eggplant. Open Academy for Philippine Agriculture.
Accessed August 5, 2010.
Jarvis, D.I., R. Sevilla-Panizo, J.L. Chavez-Servia and T. Hodgkin (eds.). 2004. Seed
Systems and Crop Genetic Diversity On-Farm. Proceedings of a Workshop, 1620
September 2003, Pucallpa, Peru. International Plant Genetic Resources Institute,
Rome, Italy.
Johnson, G.I., K. Weinberger, and M. Wu. 2008. The Vegetable Industry in Tropical Asia:
The Philippines. An overview of Production and Trade. Explorations Series #1.
AVRDC: The World Vegetable Center.
Kolady, D.E. and W. Lesser. 2006. Who Adopts What Kind of Technologies? The Case of
Bt Eggplant in India. AgBioForum 9(2):94-103.
Krishma, V.V. and M. Qaim. 2007. Potential Impacts of Bt Eggplant on Economic Surplus
and Farmers Health in India. University of Hohenheim.
Lit, M.C. undated. Identification of Eggplant Varieties Resistant to Leafhopper, Shoot/
Fruit Borer and Phomopsis Blight. IPB-UPLB. http://www.bar.gov.ph/vegrde/
VeggiesTodayVol2-3.htm
Louwaars, N.P. and G.A.M. van Marrewijk. 1996. Seed Supply Systems in Developing
Countries. Wageningen, CTA, 135 p.
Louwaars, N.P. 2007. Seeds of Confusion: The Impact of Policies on Seed Systems. PhD
dissertation, Wageningen, The Netherlands.
Chapter 2 55
Maghirang, R.G. 2001. Organikong Gulayan: Pagtatanim ng Organikong Talong. www.

bar.gov.ph/veggies today.vol 2-3.htm. Accessed August 5, 2010.
Maghirang, R.G. undated. On-Farm Trials of Eggplant. www.bar.gov.ph/vegrde/
VeggiesTodayVol2-3.htm
Maghirang, R., M.L. Guevarra, and G. Rodulfo. 2007. Eggplant Production Guide.
Information Bulletin No.147-A/2007. Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry
and Natural Resources Research and Development, Los Baos, Laguna.
National Seed Industry Council (NSIC). www.nseedcouncil.bpinsicpvpo.com.ph/
Paredes, J. 2005. Eggplant Getting More Value. Biotechnology Information Center,
SEARCA. College, Laguna. www.bic.searca.org/. Accessed on August 15, 2010.
Plant Variety Protection Office (PVPO). 2005. Plant Variety Gazette, Volume 1, Issue 1,
December 28. Bureau of Plant Industry.
P.Y. Le Gal, A. Merot, C.H. Moulin, M. Navarrete, and J. Wery. 2010. A Modelling
Framework to Support Farmers in Designing Agricultural Production Systems,
Environmental Modelling & Software 25:258268.
Quicoy, C.B. 2010. Productivity and Technical Efficiency of Eggplant Production in
Selected Provinces in the Philippines: Stochastic Production Function Approach.
SEARCA Professorial Chair Lecture. SEARCA, College, Laguna.
Rola, A., R. Abgona, A. Alfonso, A. Chupungco, D. Depositario, E. Dumayas, D.
Elazegui, L. Mojica, J. Narciso, M. Palacpac, M. Paunlagui, R. Rogel, A. Solsoloy, Z.
Sumalde, and R. Tagarino. 2008. Methodologies for Ex-Ante Assessment of Crop
Biotechnologies. ISPPS-CPAf-UPLB, UPLB-FI, College, Laguna; DA Biotechnology
Program, Quezon City; and PhilRice, Muoz, Nueva Ecija, Philippines.
Srinivasan, R. 2008. Integrated Pest Management for Eggplant Fruit and Shoot Borer
(Leucinodes orbonalis) in South and Southeast Asia: Past, Present and Future.
Journal of Biopesticides 1(2):105-112.
Tan, T.J.O. 2007. Analysis of the marketing system of eggplants produced in selected
towns of Batangas. Undergraduate thesis. University of the Philippine Los Baos
(UPLB).
Tripp, R. 2003. How to Cultivate a Commercial Seed Sector, Paper prepared for the
symposium Sustainable Agriculture in the Sahel, Bamako, Mali, 1-5 December
2003.
Villancio, G., P. Manalo, V. Arellano, R. Cahiles, and A. Saez. 2002. Socio-Economic
Assessment of Eggplant Production and Marketing Systems in the Philippines.
FSSRI-DA-BAR.
http://blog.agriculture.ph/eggplant-industry-situationer-in-the-philippines.html.
Eggplant Industry Situation in the Philippines. 2008. Agri-Center.
56 Chapter 2
Appendix Table 1. Eggplant production, area planted, and yield, by region, Philippines, 2003-2012.
Production (metric tons) Area Planted (hectares) Yield (metric tons/hectare)
2003 2008 2012 2003- 2003- 2003 2008 2012 2003- 2003- 2003 2008 2012 2003- 2003-
Region 2012 2012 % 2012 2012 % 2012 2012 %
Aver- Change Aver- Change Aver- Change
age age age
Philippines 176991 199579 211854 197822 19.70 20984 21299 21481 21,255 2.37 8.4 9.4 9.9 9.3 16.93
CAR 744 789 823 776 10.64 139 135 137 136 -1.65 5.3 5.8 6.0 5.7 12.50
Ilocos Region 64630 73100 76193 73628 17.89 4855 4908 4905 4,960 1.02 13.3 14.9 15.5 14.8 16.70
Cagayan Valley 14941 19335 19841 17915 32.79 1774 1960 1889 1,879 6.48 8.4 9.9 10.5 9.5 24.71
Central Luzon 18505 19107 19019 18827 2.77 3094 2894 2938 2,928 -5.04 6.0 6.6 6.5 6.4 8.23
CALABARZON 32074 32213 36150 33039 12.71 1972 1762 1803 1,817 -8.57 16.3 18.3 20.0 18.2 23.27
MIMAROPA 2440 2354 2768 2424 13.44 944 919 988 941 4.64 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.6 8.41
Bicol Region 5475 7102 7306 6457 33.43 1206 1362 1363 1,286 12.99 4.5 5.2 5.4 5.0 18.10
Western Visayas 11141 13486 15660 13587 40.57 1360 1384 1527 1,434 12.32 8.2 9.7 10.3 9.5 25.14
Central Visayas 5949 6842 7562 6730 27.12 1953 1750 1632 1,806 -16.46 3.0 3.9 4.6 3.7 52.2
Eastern Visayas 2034 2219 2315 2194 13.81 320 339 355 337 10.83 6.4 6.5 6.5 6.5 2.7
Zamboanga 1738 1752 1848 1767 6.36 514 532 602 539 17.09 3.4 3.3 3.1 3.3 -9.2
Peninsula
Northern Min- 2996 3608 4323 3480 44.33 683 755 814 742 19.22 4.4 4.8 5.3 4.7 21.1
danao
Davao Region 6926 6425 6632 6643 -4.25 951 1193 1162 1,114 22.19 7.3 5.4 5.7 6.0 -21.6
SOCCSKSARGEN 4951 6624 7400 6445 49.48 497 613 638 583 28.34 10.0 10.8 11.6 11.0 16.5
Caraga 1865 4006 3363 3302 80.29 516 579 499 536 -3.16 3.6 6.9 6.7 6.1 86.2
Chapter 2
ARMM 582 616 652 607 11.86 206 215 230 216 11.58 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.8 0.3
Source of basic data: www.bas.gov.ph (accessed on October 24, 2013)

57
58

Appendix Table 2. Farmgate prices (PhP/kg) of eggplant by region, Philippines, 2003-2012.
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average
Philippines 10.84 12.37 11.55 14.29 11.97 16.50 15.94 12.19 20.44 17.54 14.36
Chapter 2
NCR - - - - - - - - - - -
CAR 12.29 16.93 16.98 17.09 16.69 19.51 18.64 18.11 18.83 18.08 17.32
Ilocos Region 11.57 15.01 12.88 16.07 13.53 17.86 20.21 12.87 23.62 17.98 16.16
Cagayan Valley 10.46 14.09 13.67 17.02 14.20 17.00 16.09 11.40 19.93 18.00 15.19
Central Luzon 11.53 14.70 13.47 17.64 13.38 14.87 17.97 11.48 24.64 21.84 16.15
CALABARZON 10.16 12.48 12.93 14.94 10.71 15.75 15.34 12.58 22.07 20.89 14.79
MIMAROPA 16.54 18.05 18.36 23.40 20.06 26.27 31.99 24.01 31.64 30.72 24.10
Bicol Region 8.83 11.18 11.25 15.27 13.73 19.10 18.27 12.91 20.90 17.81 14.93
Western 12.25 14.04 11.70 16.29 13.35 23.65 16.45 13.14 21.09 17.73 15.97
Visayas
Central Visayas 11.54 14.35 13.77 15.44 16.24 21.43 18.59 17.10 20.70 18.64 16.78
Eastern Visayas 13.97 17.85 14.46 18.46 14.27 23.71 21.89 18.51 24.98 21.84 18.99
Zamboanga 7.40 8.58 8.67 9.42 10.06 12.64 11.97 11.43 16.99 15.21 11.24
Peninsula
Northern 6.86 8.46 9.01 8.65 8.91 11.60 12.70 12.53 16.09 12.26 10.71
Mindanao
Davao Region 6.66 8.24 7.29 9.15 8.77 9.59 9.20 8.82 13.05 9.98 9.08
SOCCSKSAR- 7.54 10.10 7.97 9.43 11.39 13.01 12.24 11.50 13.62 12.58 10.94
GEN
CARAGA 8.29 8.16 6.53 13.13 9.92 13.51 15.17 11.14 20.49 16.26 12.26
ARMM 12.94 10.71 9.67 11.37 11.94 14.64 17.33 17.25 18.66 17.64 14.22
Source of basic data: www.bas.gov.ph (accessed on November 22, 2013)

Appendix Table 3. Wholesale prices (PhP/kg) of eggplant by region, Philippines, 2003-2012.
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average
Philippines 14.79 16.09 15.33 20.91 17.38 23.81 22.14 15.88 29.15 23.75 19.92
NCR 15.87 16.65 15.77 23.35 18.02 21.72 23.50 15.18 32.57 28.21 21.08
CAR - - - - - - - - - - -
Ilocos Region 16.24 16.67 16.63 21.76 15.02 21.20 22.32 13.09 30.49 28.21 20.16
Cagayan Valley 15.04 15.42 15.93 20.39 16.13 21.84 21.20 14.65 28.67 21.61 19.09
Central Luzon - - - - - - - - 36.11 29.41 32.76
CALABARZON 14.72 13.48 14.74 22.69 16.16 21.57 21.58 14.59 29.09 26.40 19.50
MIMAROPA - - - - - - - - - - -
Bicol Region 13.17 14.53 15.30 25.77 24.05 25.77 22.72 13.89 27.13 20.52 20.29
Western 17.06 18.88 18.24 26.12 20.73 35.23 28.41 19.95 32.26 25.32 24.22
Visayas
Central Visayas 17.12 18.25 17.02 19.68 21.40 25.71 21.14 19.40 23.71 19.80 20.32
Eastern Visayas - - - - - - - - - - -
Zamboanga - - - - - - - - - - -
Peninsula
Northern 13.18 16.59 13.09 17.49 17.40 26.11 21.93 17.21 26.85 20.16 19.00
Mindanao
Davao Region 8.94 11.82 11.22 15.06 13.61 18.06 16.50 16.04 24.38 19.42 15.51
SOCCSKSAR- - - - - - - - - - - -
GEN
Chapter 2
CARAGA - - - - - - - - - - -
ARMM - - - - - - - - - - -

59
60

Appendix Table 4. Retail prices (PhP/kg) of eggplant by region, Philippines, 2003-2012.
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Average
Philippines 22.84 25.35 24.24 30.75 28.03 34.99 34.42 28.25 42.05 38.05 30.90
Chapter 2
NCR 28.64 30.69 30.22 39.20 31.97 35.72 37.76 26.97 45.77 43.36 35.03
CAR 25.74 31.60 29.07 35.21 30.25 35.65 37.56 31.72 47.90 43.88 34.86
Ilocos Region 22.11 24.86 23.32 29.96 27.35 33.79 37.35 26.65 42.86 36.60 30.49
Cagayan Valley 21.72 23.17 21.50 27.70 23.25 31.31 29.89 20.84 41.39 33.03 27.38
Central Luzon 26.37 28.07 26.53 36.37 28.71 34.27 36.44 27.22 48.03 43.10 33.51
CALABARZON 26.26 28.98 28.12 35.97 29.26 35.00 37.22 28.69 45.84 44.23 33.96
MIMAROPA 25.61 27.09 27.80 35.09 31.52 41.20 42.77 33.78 45.32 46.01 35.62
Bicol Region 23.22 26.00 25.95 34.95 28.61 38.48 39.29 28.11 49.63 45.57 33.98
Western 27.16 29.79 26.81 34.96 31.89 51.45 37.35 30.22 46.62 38.11 35.44
Visayas
Central Visayas 21.69 24.82 23.90 29.15 30.65 38.15 34.67 32.24 37.99 33.25 30.65
Eastern Visayas 22.68 25.12 20.87 29.26 26.00 40.53 35.18 30.66 44.54 39.54 31.44
Zamboanga 18.86 20.47 19.05 21.70 23.53 29.04 25.77 25.05 32.30 30.78 24.66
Peninsula
Northern 18.00 19.43 19.08 22.57 24.06 28.94 28.18 26.41 32.09 29.70 24.85
Mindanao
Davao Region 17.69 22.73 20.69 25.39 25.93 28.71 28.69 27.08 36.25 30.91 26.41
SOCCSKSAR- 13.97 16.01 15.54 17.29 18.76 22.67 21.50 21.16 25.31 25.19 19.74
GEN
CARAGA 19.35 23.22 21.91 28.83 28.21 34.17 35.55 33.19 45.52 39.07 30.90
ARMM 20.05 20.43 22.98 24.87 30.53 30.53 31.21 30.43 36.27 33.57 28.09

Insecticide Residues in Soil, Water, and Eggplant Fruits: The Case of Sta. Maria, Pangasinan
Chapter 3
Insecticide Residues in Soil, Water, and

Eggplant Fruits: The Case of Sta. Maria,
Pangasinan1
Jinky Leilanie Lu
Introduction
Eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) is an important vegetable crop that is

widely cultivated in the tropical and subtropical areas in Asia. Globally, as
of 2007, the top three eggplant producers are China with 18 million tons
(t), India with 8.5 million t, and Egypt with 1 million t. In the same year, the
Philippines was one of the top 10 eggplant-producing countries based on
area planted and crop productivity (yield) (although it shared less than 1% of
global production) (Table 1).
During 2006-2011 in the Philippines, eggplant was consistently the leading

vegetable crop in terms of production, which increased by 8.4% from
about 192,000 t in 2006 to nearly 208,000 t in 2011. In the same period,
area planted increased by 2.3% from about 20,900 hectares (ha) in 2006 to
almost 21,400 ha in 2011, while its yield increased by almost 6% from 9.2
tons per hectare (t/ha) to 9.7 t/ha (BAS, 2013). In 2011, the top five eggplant
producing provinces in the Philippines are Pangasinan, Quezon, Iloilo, Isabela,
and Cagayan (in this order). Pangasinan provided almost 31% of the countrys
total eggplant production and accounted for about 18% of the total area
1
An earlier version of this chapter was published in Water, Air, & Soil Pollution 220(1-4): 413-
422 (September 2011).
Chapter 3 61
Lu
Table 1. Top 10 eggplant producers in the world, 2007

Area (ha) Production Yield % of World
Country
(tons) (tons/ha) Production
China 1,200,000 18,000,000 15.00 56.2
India 512,800 8,450,200 16.47 26.4
Bangladesh 57,747 339,795 5.80 1.1
Indonesia 53,000 390,000 7.35 1.2
Egypt 43,000 1,000,000 23.25 3.1
Turkey 30,000 791,190 26.37 2.5
Iraq 22,000 380,000 17.27 1.2
Philippines 21,000 198,000 9.42 0.6
Italy 12,059 271,358 22.50 0.8
Japan 12,000 375,000 31.25 1.2
Source of data: Choudhary, B. and K. Gaur. 2009. The Development and Regulation of Bt Brinjal in
India (Eggplant/Aubergine). ISAAA Brief No. 38. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY.
planted. However, at 17.0 t/ha, eggplant yield in Pangasinan was only half of
the yield level in Quezon province in 2011 (Table 2).
Like many other crops, eggplant from seedling to fruiting stage - is

susceptible to damage by various insects and diseases, among which the
fruit and shoot borer (FSB) (Leucinodes orbonalis Guenee) has caused yield
losses of 20-92% in the Philippines (Francisco, 2009). FSB is a pink, sesame
seed-sized moth larva that feeds on eggplant stems and fruits from the
inside out (Bleicher, 2009). This insect also bores into the terminal shoots,
causing the shoots to wither thus delaying the crops vegetative development
(AgriBusiness Week, 2010).
To control FSB, farmers resort to frequent and heavy spraying of insecticides.

Informal interviews with eggplant farmers in the Philippines found cases
of spraying at 60-80 times during a normal fruiting duration of at least 4
months (Francisco, 2009). Similarly in India, farmers sprayed an average of
20-30 times per crop season at about 26.7 liters (li)/ha of cocktail pesticides,
such as chlorpyrifos, cypermethrin, monocrotophos, and dimethoate (Baral et
al., 2006; Choudhary and Gaur, 2009). Manual removal of damaged fruits and
shoots has proven to be effective, yet it is rarely adopted because it is labor
intensive.
62 Chapter 3
Table 2. Top 10 eggplant producing provinces in the Philippines, 2011

Area (ha) Production Yield % of Total
Country
(tons) (tons/ha) Production
Philippines 21,377.2 207,994.0 9.7 100.0
Pangasinan 3,780.0 64,122.7 17.0 30.8
Quezon 800.0 27,467.9 34.3 13.2
Iloilo 835.0 10,368.0 12.4 5.0
Isabela 991.0 9,702.2 9.8 4.7
Cagayan 726.0 7,009.2 9.7 3.4
Nueva Ecija 1,547.0 6,922.5 4.5 3.3
Batangas 750.0 6,290.0 8.4 3.0
Ilocos Norte 610.6 5,641.5 9.2 2.7
Tarlac 785.0 5,576.3 7.1 2.7
North Cotabato 440.0 5,443.3 12.4 2.6
Source: BAS (Bureau of Agricultural Statistics). CountryStat Philippines. www.countrystat.bas.gov.

ph. Accessed on 3 May 2013.
However, since FSB larvae are internal feeders, control through chemical
pesticide application is often futile and even presents high risks of
environmental degradation and contamination. The literature is rich with
reports and studies confirming that injudicious pesticide use in agricultural
crop production can pose environmental problems such as soil and water
contamination; pest tolerance or resistance; damage to nontarget organisms
and biodiversity loss; excessive chemical exposure for applicators; and health
risks for consumers.
On May 2010 to January 2011, two studies were conducted to determine

insecticide residues first in the soil and water, and second in eggplant fruits
in Sta. Maria, Pangasinan, the top eggplant producing province in the
Philippines. More specifically, the studies aimed to:
(i) determine the nature of insecticide residues that can be found in the
soil and water in eggplant farms, and detect and quantify residues in
eggplant fruits;
(ii) determine through a literature review the soil properties that best
influence the persistence and mobility of insecticides in the soil and
water;
(iii) differentiate insecticide residues in eggplant fruits in three stages:
farm (for immature fruit prior to harvesting), post-harvest, and
Chapter 3 63
Lu
market, and between two cropping seasons2;

(iv) evaluate the level of insecticide residues detected in the soil, water,
and eggplant fruits against maximum residue limits (MRLs) set
by local and international authorities (e.g., Codex Alimentarius,
Environmental Protection Agency [EPA], European Union Commission
[EC]);
(v) identify farm practices that may be associated with farmers increased
insecticide exposure;
(vi) with an intensive literature review, evaluate the occupational and
environmental health impact of pesticide exposure; and
(vii) determine implications of insecticide exposure to health of farmers/
applicators and insecticide residue in eggplants on health of
consumers.
Although the two studies were conducted separately, their findings and
results will be reported together in this chapter.
Methodology
Study Area and Sampling
The two studies were cross sectional designs of randomly selected eggplant
farms in Sta. Maria, Pangasinan, established based on the sample size
estimation equation below:
NZ2 x p (1-p)
n=
Nd2 + Z2 [ p (1-p)]
where:
Z is the value of the normal variable for a reliability level, set at 90%
reliability in this study, considering budget and feasibility;
p is the proportion of getting a positive sample based on previous
studies, set at 0.20;
(1-p) is the proportion of getting a negative sample based on previous
studies, set at 0.80;
d is the sampling error, set at 0.10;
2
July to August for wet season, and September to June for dry season, following the Philippine
Department of Agriculture standard.
64 Chapter 3
N is the population size (128 eggplant farms, as of 2010 [Municipal

Agricultural Office of Sta. Maria, Pangasinan]); and
n is sample size.
Based on the above estimation equation, 26 farms were selected from five
villages (barangays) for the soil and water study, with a total of 58 farmers
and farm workers who participated in the health assessment aspect. The
eggplant fruit study was conducted in four of the said villages with another
group of 10 farms, whose farmer-owners were interviewed about production
practices and insecticide exposure factors. Medical doctors conducted health
profiling and assessment of the 68 farmer-respondents.
Sample Collection
Soil and water. Two 1-kilogram (kg) soil samples were taken from various
plottings within each of the 26 sample farms. For each farm, the 1-kg soil
samples were mixed well together and a final 1-kg soil sample was drawn,
placed in an opaque plastic bag, and taken for laboratory analysis. A soil
auger was used to get the soil samples from a depth of 1 meter.
Similarly, two 2-liter water samples were taken from various sources such as
river, irrigation canal, and drinking water system located within the 26 sample
farms. Two samples/replicates of the soil and water samples and one field
blank were collected from each farm. All soil and water samples were placed
in an icebox, and delivered to the laboratory within 24 hours. The samples
were stored in a laboratory refrigerator at a temperature of 5oC, and analyzed
using gas chromatography.
Eggplant fruits. A total of 12 1-kg eggplant samples (six 1-kg samples per
farm, two replicates) were taken from various plottings within each of the
10 sample farms. For each farm, each replicate group of six 1-kg eggplant
samples were mixed well together, and a final 1-kg eggplant sample was
drawn, placed in an icebox, and delivered within 24 hours for laboratory
analysis. In the laboratory, the samples were stored in a freezer at a
temperature of less than 20oC.
Sample Analysis and Quality Control
A standard laboratory procedure was used to analyze the material samples

(BPI, 2008). Briefly, the insecticide residues were desorbed from the samples
and analyzed using gas chromatography operated in a split mode. Major
Chapter 3 65
Lu
chromatogram peaks were identified in the samples by comparing retention

times and mass spectra to peaks from a calibration method.
In the gas chromatography analysis for multi-pesticide residues in the soil

and eggplant samples, two detectorsnitrogen phosphorous and electron
capsule detectorswere used. Solid phase extraction was done using
acetonitril. The vegetable samples underwent a three-stage clean up to
remove particulates and impurities. The first clean up stage used C18; the
second, carbon graphite; and the third and final stage used flourisil. The
water samples underwent both liquid-liquid extraction, and one phase solid
phase extraction using C18, as the water samples were cleaner than the soil
samples.
The elements in the oven program such as the temperature programming,

retention time of various pesticides, and temperature of the detector were
previously determined and depended on each type of pesticide. The recovery
method was 70%-100%. The coefficient of variation was less than 10%.
Two trials were done for each sample. The limit of determination (LOD) for
organophosphates was 0.02 mg/kg, and 0.005 mg/kg for organochlorines
and pyrethroids.
Results and Discussion
Farmers Socio-demographic Profile
A combined total of 36 eggplant farmers were interviewed in the two studies:

26 farmers from barangays Samon, Cabagbagan, Nauplasan, Cal-litang, and
Pilar for the soil and water study, and 10 farmers from the same barangays,
except Cal-litang, for the eggplant fruit study. All farms in the eggplant
fruit study were included in the soil and water study. Table 3 presents the
summary sociodemographic characteristics of the farmer-respondents.
Farmers Insecticide Use in Eggplant Production
The farmer-respondents in the studies reported that fruit and shoot borer
is the most common pest of eggplants in their communities. Other pests
that have been encountered were aphids, bacterial wilt, blight, and thrips.
To control the various pests in eggplant production, farmers used different
pesticides, each of which targets a range of pests (Table 4). Conversely, the
farmers also used different insecticides (e.g., Brodan, Lannate, Malathion,
66 Chapter 3
Table 3. Summary socio-demographic characteristics of eggplant farmer-respondents,

Characteristics of Respondents Soil and Water Study Eggplant Fruit Study
Number of farmer-respondents 26 10
Number of male (female) respondents 25 (1) 9 (1)
Average age (years) 45 47
Educational attainment (no. of 26 10
respondents)
Grade school 3 1
Secondary school 15 4
Vocational education 6 1
College education 2 4
Majority civil status Married Married
Average household size 5 5
Average residency in the village 35 40
(years)
Average farming experience (years) 11.6
Average no. of years growing 11.6
eggplant
Mean distance of farmers house to 515 315
his farm (meters)
Table 4. Selected pesticides used and their target pests, Sta. Maria, Pangasinan
Registered
Target Pests
Brand Name
Malathion Sucking and chewing insects on fruits and vegetables, mosquitoes, flies,
household insects, animal parasites (ectoparasites), and head and body
lice
Prevathon Stem borers, leaf folders, fruit and shoot borer
Tamaron Borers, rice fly louses, rice leafhoppers, rice leaf rollers, rice plant skippers,
armyworms, cotton red spiders, aphids, mole crickets, mites
Brodan Ants, ticks, cutworms, chinch bugs, earwigs, grubs, cockroaches, silverfish,
spiders, fleas, dog ticks, mosquitoes, termites, fruit borers, diamond black
moth, shoot borer, shoot fly, jassids, hairy caterpillar epilachna grub
Lannate Borers, leaf miners, caterpillar, looper, weevil, aphid, armyworm, beetle,
leafhopper, and thrips
Chapter 3 67
Lu
Prevathon, and Tamaron) to control fruit and shoot borer. Appendix

Table 1 shows the basic description of these pesticides used by the farmer-
respondents, as summarized by the Philippine Fertilizer and Pesticide
Authority (FPA).
Average amount applied. Most, if not all, farmer-respondents in the soil and
water study used Prevathon (active ingredient chlorantraniliprole; toxicity
category I), Malathion (malathion; IV), and Lannate (methomyl, II). In terms
of amount used per application, Brodan (chlorpyrifos, II) came on top at 264
milliliters (ml), followed by Siga (chlorpyrifos, II) at 183 ml, and Malathion
at 173 ml. On average, the farmers used 77 ml of insecticides per application
(Table 5).
Similar to the above findings, most farmer-respondents in the eggplant

fruit study used Prevathon and Malathion, but Magnum had the highest
application rate at 2 liters/application, with Brodan, a distant second highest
at 473 ml/application. (These application rates appear to be outliers, as
the other insecticides were used at a range of 2.5-20.0 ml/application.) If
Magnum and Brodan are included, the mean amount used per application
is 235 ml; if excluded, the mean amount used is about 12.8 ml/application.
Average spraying time. Table 6 details the average spraying time of the
farmers in the two studies covered in this report. Farmer-respondents in the
soil and water study sprayed pesticides at an average of 2 hours/day, 3 days/
week, 1 week/month, and 7 months/year, or 42 hours/year, equivalent to 5.25
person-days/year. Meanwhile, farmer-respondents in the eggplant fruit study
sprayed pesticides at an average of about 1 hour/day, 4 days/week, almost 4
weeks/month, and 4 months/year, or 64 hours/year, equivalent to 8 person-
days/year.
Farmers pesticide exposure. The 26 farmer-respondents in the soil and water

study have been using pesticides for almost 9 years, on average, while the
10 farmer-respondents in the eggplant fruit study have been using them for
nearly 23 years (Table 5). Looking more closely, all farmer-respondents in the
soil and water study have been using Prevathon for about 3 years at a rate
of 68 ml/application, equivalent to 0.212 liter-years of exposure. Although
Brodan and Siga were not prevalently applied, the farmers liter-years of
exposure to the active ingredients of these insecticides were highest at about
3.036 and 2.948, respectively.
68 Chapter 3
Table 5. Pesticide use (ml) and exposure (liter-years) of eggplant farmers by pesticide type and toxicity category, Sta. Maria, Pangasinan
Soil and Water Study (n=26 farmers) Eggplant Fruit Study (n=10 farmers)
Liter- Liter-
Toxic- Regis- No. of No. of
Active % Farm- Amount Farmers Years of % Farm- Amount Farmers Years of
Pesticide Type ity tered Farmers Mean Farmers Mean
Ingredi- ers Who Used/ Liter- Expo- ers Who Used/ Liter- Expo-
Who No. of Who No. of
(Family) Cat- Brand Used Ap- Years of sure Used Ap- Years of sure
ent Used Years Used Years
egory Name the Pes- plication Expo- per % the Pes- plication Expo- per %
the Pes- Used the Pes- Used
ticide (ml) sure Farmers ticide (ml) sure Farmers
ticide ticide
Used Used
Anthranilic I Pre- Chloran- 100 26 68 3.12 0.212 0.212 100 10 10 24 0.240 0.240
diamide vathon tra-
niliprole
Organophos- I Tama- Methami- 65 17 105 14.94 1.569 1.020 10 1 30 20 0.600 0.060
phate ron dophos
Carbamate II Lannate Metho- 88 23 129 15.83 2.042 1.797 40 4 8.75 15 0.131 0.053
myl
Neonicotinoid II Solo- Imida- 62 16 117 2.13 0.249 0.155
+ Pyrethroid mon cloprid +
+ Petroleum betacy-
derivative fluthrin +
cyclohex-
ane
Organophos- II Brodan Chlorpy- 38 10 264 11.50 3.036 1.154 10 1 473 40 18.920 1.892
phate rifos
Organophos- II Hosta- Triazo- 65 17 115 13.47 1.549 1.007
phate thion phos
Organophos- II Selec- Profeno- 50 13 33 3.54 0.117 0.058
phate ron fos
Organophos- II Siga Chlorpy- 35 9 183 16.11 2.948 1.032
Chapter 3
phate rifos
Organophos- II Super Profeno- 8 2 23 3.00 0.069 0.006
phate insecti- fos
cide
69
70
Lu
Liter- Liter-
No. of No. of
Chapter 3
Toxic- Regis- % Farm- Amount Farmers Years of % Farm- Amount Farmers Years of
Active Farmers Mean Farmers Mean
Pesticide Type ity tered ers Who Used/ Liter- Expo- ers Who Used/ Liter- Expo-
Ingredi- Who No. of Who No. of
ticide ticide
Used Used
Organophos- II Ultimate Profeno- 31 8 19 3.38 0.064 0.020
phate fos
Thiourea II Pegasus Diafenthi- 31 8 20 5.25 0.105 0.033 10 1 2.5 40 0.100 0.010
uron
Carbamate III Extreme Cartap 4 1 30 20.00 0.600 0.024
hydro-
chloride
Carbamate III Padan Cartap 42 11 156 13.36 2.084 0.875 10 1 2.5 40 0.100 0.010
hydro-
chloride
Carbamate III Super Cartap 8 2 63 20.50 1.292 0.103
cartap hydro-
chloride
Carbamate III Triband Cartap 23 6 25 3.83 0.096 0.022 10 1 20 10 0.200 0.020
hydro-
chloride
Neonicotinoid III Mo- Acet- 58 15 118 4.60 0.543 0.315
spilan amiprid
Organo- III Ascend Fipronil 4 1 10 10.00 0.100 0.004
nitrogen
Organophos- III Kotetsu Chlor- 15 4 13 2.25 0.029 0.004 10 1 20 10 0.200 0.020
phate phena-
phyr
Anthranilic IV Fenos Flubendi- 8 2 2 4.00 0.008 0.001
diamide amide
Liter- Liter-
Toxic- Regis- No. of No. of
Active % Farm- Amount Farmers Years of % Farm- Amount Farmers Years of
Pesticide Type ity tered Farmers Mean Farmers Mean
Ingredi- ers Who Used/ Liter- Expo- ers Who Used/ Liter- Expo-
Who No. of Who No. of
ticide ticide
Used Used
Anthranilic IV Voliam Chloran- 12 3 9 2.00 0.018 0.002
diamide + Neo- flexi tranilip-
nicotinoid role +
Thiame-
toxam
Inorganic IV Vitigran Copper 10 1 5 20 0.100 0.010
fungicide Blue oxychlo-
ride
Neonicotinoid IV Starkle Dinotefu- 8 2 15 3.50 0.053 0.004
ran
Organophos- IV Mala- Mala- 92 4 173 11.13 1.925 1.771 100 10 16.5 25 0.413 0.413
phate thion thion
Pyrethroid IV Decis Deltame- 62 16 23 16.38 0.377 0.234
thrin
Pyrethroid IV Mag- Cyper- 46 12 136 4.67 0.635 0.292 10 1 2000 5 10.000 1.000
num methrin
Mean 77 8.69 0.820 0.480 235 22.6 2.819 0.339
Standard deviation 71 6.24 0.970 0.640 146 11.9 5.912 0.584
Toxicity category: I=Highly toxic and severely irritating; II=Moderately toxic and moderately irritating; III=Slightly toxic and slightly irritating; and IV=Practically non-toxic and
Chapter 3
not an irritant.
71
72
Lu
Table 6. Pesticide spraying time of eggplant farmers, Sta. Maria, Pangasinan
Soil and Water Study (n=26 farms) Eggplant Fruit Study (n=10 farms)
Registered
Active Ingredient Hours/ Days/ Weeks/ Months/ Hours/ Days/ Weeks/ Months/
Brand Name
Chapter 3
Day Week Month Year Day Week Month Year

Prevathon Chlorantraniliprole 2.23 2.65 1.35 7.35 2.00 3.40 4.00 3.80
Fenos Flubendiamide 3.00 4.00 2.00 6.50
Voliam flexi Chlorantraniliprole + 2.33 2.67 1.33 6.50
Thiametoxam
Lannate Methomyl 2.28 2.61 1.30 7.28 1.00 4.25 3.88 3.88
Extreme Cartap hydrochloride 2.00 4.00 2.00 3.00
Padan Cartap hydrochloride 2.00 3.09 1.55 6.32 1.00 7.00 3.50 3.50
Super cartap Cartap hydrochloride 1.50 3.50 1.50 5.75
Triband Cartap hydrochloride 1.92 3.67 1.83 4.17 1.00 3.50 4.00 3.50
Vitigran Blue Copper oxychloride 2.00 1.00 4.00 3.50
Mospilan Acetamiprid 2.20 2.40 1.20 8.80
Starkle Dinotefuran 2.00 1.50 1.00 6.25
Solomon Imidacloprid + 2.31 2.5 1.25 7.53
betacyfluthrin +
cyclohexane
Ascend Fipronil 1.50 4.00 2.00 6.00
Tamaron Methamidophos 2.03 2.83 1.41 7.53 2.00 5.00 3.00 3.00
Brodan Chlorpyrifos 2.10 2.20 1.20 7.55 2.00 3.30 4.00 3.50
Hostathion Triazophos 2.24 2.59 1.29 7.03
Selecron Profenofos 2.46 2.23 1.15 7.38
Siga Chlorpyrifos 1.78 3.33 1.56 5.56
Table 6. Pesticide spraying time of eggplant farmers, Sta. Maria, Pangasinan
Soil and Water Study (n=26 farms) Eggplant Fruit Study (n=10 farms)
Registered
Active Ingredient Hours/ Days/ Weeks/ Months/ Hours/ Days/ Weeks/ Months/
Brand Name
Day Week Month Year Day Week Month Year
Super Profenofos 3.00 2.00 1.00 9.75
insecticide
Ultimate Profenofos 2.19 2.63 1.25 8.25
Kotetsu Chlorphenaphyr 2.38 2.50 1.25 8.13 1.50 3.50 4.00 3.50
Malathion Malathion 2.27 2.67 1.33 7.48 1.00 3.35 4.00 3.80
Decis Deltamethrin 2.22 2.75 1.38 7.22
Magnum Cypermethrin 2.33 3.00 1.58 5.92
Pegasus Diafenthiuron 2.00 3.25 1.63 5.19 1.00 7.00 3.50 3.50
Mean 2.18 2.86 1.43 6.77 1.40 4.13 3.79 3.55
Standard deviation 0.35 0.65 0.29 1.45 0.53 1.90 0.22 0.16
Chapter 3
73
Lu
In the eggplant fruit study, all farmers have been using Prevathon for 24
years at a rate of 10 ml/application, and Malathion for 25 years at about
16.5 ml/application, respectively equivalent to 0.24 liter-years and 0.413 liter-
years of exposure. Similar to the findings in the soil and water study, although
Brodan and Magnum were not prevalently applied, the farmers liter-years
of exposure to these insecticides, and their active ingredients, were highest at
about 18.92 and 10.0, respectively.
Risk factors in farmers pesticide application. The 26 farmer-respondents in

the soil and water study reported not being able to use the complete and
standard personal protective equipment (PPE) in applying pesticides.3 Instead,
they used improvised PPE such as long sleeved shirts or polo shirts to cover
their arms, t-shirts to cover their face, and a wide-brimmed hat. Twenty-four
farmer-respondents (92%) had experienced pesticide spills on their body
during application, most commonly in the back, legs, arms, shoulders, hands,
and face. Sixty-five percent had experienced insecticide spill while spraying
and 62% while mixing. Fourteen farmers (54%) reported having experienced
chemical spill due to leaking backpack sprayer. Some farmers also reported
having inadvertently used insecticide-contaminated cloth in wiping their
sweat, not bathing immediately after experiencing chemical spillage, re-
entering the previously sprayed area, and having sprayed against the wind
(Table 7).4
Insecticide Residue Analysis of Soil and Water
Pesticides can infiltrate air, oceans, rivers, groundwater, and soil (Cooper,
2010). They can also move into other areas away from sites of application,
such as to water bodies through runoff, soil through adsorption and leaching,
and air through spray/vapor drift (British Columbia, 2010). Varca (2002) found
that, during application, only around 15% of the pesticides applied on crops
hit the target organism; a larger proportion is distributed in the soil and air.
(This may also explain why some of the eggplant samples were not positive
for insecticide residue [see next section]).
In general, the soil serves as a purifying filter that influences pesticide

contamination of groundwater. The soil profile plays a significant role in
3
Standard personal protective equipment (PPE) for pesticide applicators and other handlers
include long sleeved shirt and long pants, shoes, and socks. These clothing should also be
kept and washed separately from other household laundry.
4
While no such information was gathered in the eggplant fruit study, it can be safely assumed
that such risk factors were also experienced by the farmer-respondents in the said study.
74 Chapter 3
Table 7. Risk factors associated with pesticide exposure of eggplant farmers, Sta. Maria,
Pangasinan
Pesticide Exposure Risk Factors No. of Farmers % of Total
Lack of, or inappropriate use of, 26 100
personal protective equipment
Spillage of pesticide while spraying 17 65
Spillage of pesticide while mixing 16 62
Use of pesticide-contaminated cloth 11 44
Did not bathe after spraying pesticide 10 40
Re-entered previously sprayed area 6 23
Sprayed against the wind 4 15
determining the chemicals leachability to the groundwater, and soil organic

content on pesticide persistence. (Pesticides are more persistent in soils
with high organic content.) However, modern technology has developed
pesticides that are more water-soluble, thermolabile, polar, and persistent,
to better enable effective pest control. These may explain why pesticide
compounds, specifically herbicides, have been detected in surface and
ground waters (Aharonson et. al., 1987; Barnard et. al., 1997; Hamilton et. al.,
2003; Andreu and Pico, 2004).
The fate of insecticides and their transformation products (TPs) in the soil
depend on the properties of their active ingredients and degree of interaction
with the soil particles (or adsorption). Parameters such as water solubility,
soil-sorption constant (Koc), octanol/water partition coefficient (Kow),
and half-life of insecticides in the soil (DT50), as well as properties such as
chemical functions, polarity, polarizability, and charge distribution of both
soil and insecticide molecules measure the persistence and movement of
insecticides and their TPs in the soil (Bailey and White, 1970; Senesi, 1992;
Pignatello and Xing, 1996; Andreu and Pico, 2004). In this study, insecticide
residues with low polar characteristics and detected in the soil samples were
chlorpyrifos, cypermethrin, malathion, profenofos, and triazophos (Table 8).
The persistence and mobility of insecticides in the soil are also influenced by
chemical degradation (e.g., photolysis, hydrolysis, oxidation and reduction)
and microbial degradation with the aid of soil microorganisms. The
degradation process ranges from the formation of TPs to the decomposition
of inorganic products. Meanwhile, mobility of insecticides in the soil includes
sorption, plant uptake, volatilization, wind erosion, runoff, and leaching.
Chapter 3 75
Lu
Table 8. Characterization of pesticide residues found in the soil in this study

Results of Pesticide
Pesticide Classa Descriptiona Residue Analysis in this
Study
Hydrophobic, These insecticides strongly bound to the None found in the soil
persistent, and soil. Examples are organochlorine DDT, samples in this study.
bioaccumulable endosulfan, heptachlor, endrin, lindane
pesticides and their transformation products.
Majority of the pesticides included in
this group were already banned but their
residues still exist in the environment.
Polar pesticides These insecticides move from the soil This study found
through runoff and leaching, thus may residues of these
possibly contaminate groundwater. insecticides in some soil
Insecticides that belong to this group samples: chlorpyrifos,
are the carbamates, fungicides, cypermethrin, malathion,
some organophosphates, and their profenofos, and
transformation products. triazophos.
a
Source: Andreu, V. and Y. Pico. 2004. Determination of pesticides and their degradation
products in soil: critical review and comparison of methods. Trends in Analytical Chemistry 23
(1011):772-789.
Furthermore, the fate of insecticides in the soil depends on soil type,

agricultural practices, and climate (Andreu and Pico, 2004).
Insecticides vary in toxicity, persistence (of active ingredients) and mobility,

and thus also pose differing degrees of environmental risks (Barnard
et. al., 1997). An insecticide with low sorption coefficient, long half-life,
and high water solubility has the potential to contaminate groundwater
through leaching (Andreu and Pico, 2004). Half-life, the typical measure for
persistence, ranges at 10-100 days for modern pesticides. Insecticides with
longer half-lives have active ingredients or residues that stay longer in the
environment, posing more danger to other non-target organisms (Wolfe et.
al., 1973; Davidson et. al., 1980; Schoen and Winterlin, 1987; Winterlin et. al.,
1989; Gan et. al., 1995; Barnard et. al., 1997) (Appendix Table 2).
Sediments can serve as a sink of pesticide residues, increasing the risks of

bioavailability and accumulation in the food chain through resuspension. The
soil, as the main reservoir of pesticide residues, poses toxicity to terrestrial
and benthic organisms (FAO, 2000). In California, residues of permethrin,
fenvalerate, bifenthrin, lamba-cyhalothrin were detected in sediment samples
(Weston et. al., 2004). In the Philippines, chlorpyrifos residues were found
76 Chapter 3
in soil samples in Benguet and were associated with muscle fasciculations

among the local farmers (Lu, 2010).
Residues of five insecticides were detected in the soil of 11 farms (42%)

among the 26 sample farms. Profenofos and triazophos were found in
three and six eggplant farms, respectively, some at levels exceeding the
acceptable maximum residue level (MRL) set by the European Commission
(EC) and/or the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (One farm had
0.10 ppm of profenofos in the soil, which is twice the acceptable MRL. Four
farms had 0.02-0.05 ppm of triazophos, which is higher than the 0.01 ppm
MRL.) Chlorpyrifos, cypermethrin, and malathion were each found in two
farms, although none of them exceeded the MRL. These results have been
influenced by the insecticides behavior in the soil, as indicated by their
mobility, leachability, persistence, and volatility (Table 9).
None of the water samples was found positive with insecticide residues
(Table 10). Almost all of the insecticide residues detected in the soil have high
Koc and hence low leaching potential (Appendix Table 2). The compounds
movement is therefore limited throughout and over the soil profile, such that
there is less potential for groundwater contamination.
In Southwestern, Nigeria, the sources of drinking water of farmers had

been found contaminated with diazinon and propouxr at concentrations
exceeding the acceptable daily intake (ADI) (Sosan et. al., 2008). In Laguna
and Nueva Ecija provinces, both in the Philippines, residues of pesticides
including chlorpyrifos, butachlor, endosulfan, carbofuran, methyl parathion,
and monocrotrophos were detected in groundwater samples taken from tube
wells adjacent to rice fields (Castaneda and Bhuiyan, 1996). In this study, the
deep wells where farmers get their drinking water are possibly contaminated
with pesticide residues, because they are located near the farms.
Appendix Table 3 shows the inherent characteristics of selected insecticides

and their environmental fate in soil, water, air, and plants.
Insecticide Residue Analysis of Eggplant Fruits
All of the farmers in the eggplant fruit study reported applying Prevathon
(active ingredient chlorantraniliprole, pesticide type anthranilic diamide,
toxicity class I) and Malathion (malathion, organophosphate, class IV)
to control pests in their eggplant crops. However, farmers used Brodan
(chlorpyrifos, organophosphate, toxicity class II) at the highest average rate
Chapter 3 77
Lu
Table 9. Insecticide residues found in the soil of 26 eggplant farms, Sta. Maria,
Pangasinan
Types of No. of Amount of Maximum Evaluation Reference for
Insecticide Farms where Insecticide Residue Level of Detected Maximum
Residue Insecticide Residue (ppm) Residue Level Residue Level
Detected Residue was Detected
Detected (range, in
ppm)
Chlorpyrifos 2 0.01 0.03 0.03 Within MRL EPA
Cypermethrin 2 0.02 0.03 0.05 Within MRL EPA
Malathion 2 0.01 0.04 0.05 Within MRL EPA
Profenofos 3 0.01 0.10 0.05 One farm EPA
exceeded
MRL
Triazophos 6 0.01 0.05 0.01 Four farms EC
exceeded
MRL
Insecticide Residue Behavior in the Soil
Mobility Leachability Persistence Volatility Bioaccumula-
tion Potential
Chlorpyrifos Non-mobile Low Moderate Volatile High
Cypermethrin Non-mobile Low Moderate Moderate High
Malathion Moderate Low Non-persis- Volatile Low
tent
Profenofos Slightly Low Non-persis- Moderate Low
mobile tent
Triazophos Moderate In transition Moderate Moderate Moderate
EC=European Commission, EPA=US Environmental Protection Agency, ppm=parts per million

The soil and water study adopted the EPA Method 8141A limit of analytical determination (LOD)
for analyzing soil and water, and ECs default LOD maximum residue level (MRL). [Based on
EC MRL setting procedures under Regulation 396/2005, the LOD can be set as MRL when no
alternative safe level is proposed (HSE, 2009).]
Table 10. Summary results of insecticide residue analysis in the soil and water of 26
eggplant farms, Sta. Maria, Pangasinan
Sample No. of Positive for Insecticide Insecticide Residues
Samples Residues Exceeding MRL
(With Repli-
No. of Farms No. of insec- No. of Farms No. of insec-
cates)
ticides found ticides found
Soil 26 11 19 4 6
(42.3%) (73.1%)a (15.4%) (23.1%)a
Water 26 0 0 0 0
a
There were more than one insecticide found in one farm.
78 Chapter 3
of 473 ml/application, followed by Magnum (cypermethrin, pyrethroid,

class IV) at an average of 30 ml/application. Tamaron (methamidophos,
organophosphate, class I) was also reported as used at an average of 30 ml/
application (Table 5).
Of the 10 sample farms, wet season sample eggplants in 2 farms were

detected as having chlorpyrifos and cypermethrin, with the former at a
level higher than the prescribed maximum residue level (Table 11). Similarly,
cypermethrin was detected in harvested eggplants from 2 farms, with levels
within the prescribed limit. From the dry season analysis, cypermethrin was
detected from samples in 2 farms, and also from harvested eggplants in 1
farm, at levels equal to the prescribed limit. All market samples from both
wet and dry seasons tested negative for insecticide residues. In summary, a
maximum of 20% of the eggplant samples, and sample farms, tested positive
for insecticide residues at any one stage of sampling done (Table 12).
Pesticide residues in plants may reach the consumers through ingestion

of raw foods (Lukassowitz, 2007). Karanth (2002) cited that various surveys
around the world found that 50%-70% of vegetables are contaminated
Table 11. Insecticide residues found in eggplant fruits, by season, Sta. Maria, Pangasinan
Types of No. of Amount of Maximum Evaluation
Insecticide Residue Farms where Insecticide Residue of Detected
Detected Insecticide Residue Limita Residue Level
Residue was Detected (ppm)
Detected (in ppm)
Wet Season
Farm samples (pre-
mature fruits):
Chlorpyrifos 1 0.03 0.01 Exceeded MRL
Cypermethrin 2 0.01 0.03 Within MRL
Harvest samples:
Dry Season
Farm samples (pre-
mature fruits):
Harvest samples:
a
Reference: Codex Alimentarius
Chapter 3 79
Lu
Table 12. Percentage distribution of positive residues in eggplants in various stages, Sta.
Maria, Pangasinan
Crop Seasons
Stages of Sampling
Wet Season Dry Season
Farm samples (pre-mature fruits) 20% 20%
Harvest samples 20% 10%
Market samples
with insecticide residues, which plant roots absorbed from contaminated

soils and migrated to edible parts. In Tanzania, for example, Mwevura et. al.
(2002) found high levels of organochlorine pesticide residues in edible biota
in coastal areas. In India, Mukherjee and Gopal (1992) detected residues
of fenvalerate, tau-fluvalinate, lamba-cyhalothrin, and monocrotophos
in eggplant fruits. In the United States, endosulfan sulfate was the most
prevalent (16.76%) pesticide residue found in eggplants, followed by
endosulfan II (12.8%) and metamidophos (4.5%) (USDA Pesticide Program,
2008).
Health Profile of Eggplant Farmers
Detectable concentrations of insecticide residues in soil, water (both

groundwater and surface water), air, and even commodities pose risks to
human health and the environment (Fawcett et. al., 1994; Kookana et. al.,
1998). A study of farming families with houses within 200 feet from their
farms detected higher concentrations of organophosphorous pesticides
(including chlorpyrifos, parathion, phosmet, and azinphosmethyl) in the
household dust than those found in the farm soils (Simcox et. al., 1995). In
this study, the residents are potentially exposed to insecticide-contaminated
house dusts and soil since houses are very close to the farms.
The 58 farmers and farm workers in the soil and water study and 10 farmer-
respondents in the eggplant fruit study were interviewed on their medical
history and health profile, and a medical doctor conducted their physical
health assessment. Table 13 shows the health concerns (complaints) that the
respondents reported as related to their application of agricultural pesticides.
The farmers and farm workers in the soil and water study reported
experiencing itchiness of the skin (63.8%), redness of the eyes (29.3%),
muscle pains (27.6%), and headaches (27.6%), as being related to their
80 Chapter 3
Table 13. Distribution of eggplant farmers by health concerns related to pesticide

exposure, Sta. Maria, Pangasinan
Health Concerns Soil and Water Study Eggplant Fruit Study
(Complaints) (n=58 farmers and farm workers) (n=10 farmers)
Reported No.a % Total No.a % Total
Itchiness of the skin 37 63.8 3 30.0
Redness of the eyes 17 29.3
Muscle pains 16 27.6 1 10.0
Headache 16 27.6 4 40.0
General weakness 10 17.2
Burning sensation 8 13.8 3 30.0
on the skin
Dizziness 8 13.8
Blurred vision 7 12.1 1 10.0
Fever 7 12.1 2 20.0
Nausea 6 10.3 1 10.0
Coughing 5 8.6 2 20.0
Vomiting 5 8.6
Feeling easily 3 0.1
fatigued
a
Multiple responses
pesticide exposure. Meanwhile, the farmer-respondents in the eggplant

fruit study reported experiencing headaches (40%), itchiness of the skin
(30%), and burning sensation of the skin (30%). While all the respondents
reported getting (or feeling) sick immediately after applying pesticides to
their eggplant crops, none of them sought any medical attention. The clinical
manifestations of the farmer-respondents indicate that, with complaints of
mild symptoms without obvious cholinesterase depression (based on blood
chemistry), only mild pesticide poisoning has occurred. In more severe
instances, tremors, abdominal cramps, excessive urination, bradycardia,
staggering gait, pinpoint pupils, and hypotension may be oberved (Boiko et
al., 2005). Significant effects of pesticide exposure have also been reported
on motor or neuromuscular involvement, with symptoms that may include
paresthesia, convulsions, tremors, ataxia, local or general fasciculation, and
tremors (Boiko et al., 2005). Intervention to reduce the farmers pesticide
exposure can focus on the risk factors identified earlier, primarily the toxicity
of pesticides used, and their (unsafe) application practices.
Chapter 3 81
Lu
Skin is the most exposed organ of the body. Farmers are exposed to
pesticides during mixing and loading the pesticides, spraying them in the
fields, as well as when disposing empty pesticide containers and cleaning
the spray equipment. In the eggplant fruit study, the farmer-respondents
reported possibly having had dermal contact (100%), respiratory exposure
(90%), and ocular contact (50%) with the pesticides during preparation and/
or field application.5
Related to exposure through skin contact, reports of pesticide-related

dermatoses are recently increasing. These include allergic or irritant contact
dermatitis, and rare clinical forms such as urticaria, erythema multiforme,
ashy dermatoses, parakeratosis variegata, and porphyria cutanea tarda,
chloracne, nail and hair disorder (Boiko et al., 2005).
Table 14 presents a summary of the effects on human health of exposure to

various pesticides as have been reported in the literature.
Summary and Conclusions
Across the soil and water and eggplant fruit studies covered in this chapter,
farmers from Sta. Maria, Pangasinan were found to be applying a broad
spectrum of insecticides on their eggplant crop. These consisted of 25
commercial brands, with two being category I (highly toxic) pesticides;
nine category II (moderately toxic) pesticides; and seven each of categories
III and IV (respectively slightly toxic and practically non-toxic) pesticides.
Soil samples from 11 (about 42%) out of the 26 farms tested positive for
insecticide residues, six of which from four farms exceeded the acceptable
maximum residue limit. No insecticide residues were detected from water
samples taken from the 26 farms. From the eggplant fruit study, residues of
two commercial insecticides were detected in the samples.
Pesticide residues can remain as environmental pollutants in the soil,

water, and even air, and impact flora and fauna, including humans and
human health. The studies findings suggest that environmental monitoring
(including in water, groundwater, soil, air, and plants) for pesticide residues
ought to be promoted and institutionalized, especially in key agricultural
5
This information was not collected from the interviewed farmers and farm workers in the soil
and water study.
82 Chapter 3
Table 14. Reported effects of pesticide exposure on human health

Pesticide /
Reported Effects on Human Health Reference
Chemical
Pesticides in Dermal irritation considered as a potential Spiewak (2001);
general acute pesticide exposure hazard, with Cantor and Young-Holt
pesticide-related dermal symptoms such as (2002)
dermal rashes, damaged fingernails, contact
dermatitis, urticaria, skin hypopigmentation
and hair disorders; also integumentary
abnormalities
Respiratory problems wheezing and Yalemtsehay et. al. (2002)
breathlessness, chronic bronchitis and asthma, Hoppin et. al. (2007)
may be due to increased airway hyperactivity
induced by certain pesticides
92% of the farmers complained of health- Iishii-Eitemann and
related problems right after applying Ardhianie (2002)
pesticides, including tiredness, weakness,
dizziness, nausea, vomiting, blurred vision,
rashes, itchy skin, burning sensations in the
throat, chest pain, and difficulty of breathing.
Autonomic distress may result from acute Gianato (1997); Vermiere
exposure that includes excessive salivation, et. al. (2003)
lacrimation, urinary frequency, diarrhea,
decreased neuromuscular and motor activity,
hypothermia and altered cardiovascular
function.
Pesticide applicators were two times more Cole et. al. (1998)
likely to develop reduced muscular strength
as compared to control group.
Dizziness, headache, skin irritation, and Clarke et. al. (1997);
burning sensation on the face were reported Nordin et. al. (2002);
by farmers in Malaysia, Ghana, Gaza strip, and Yassin (2002);
Tanzania. Eye tearing or eye redness is also Lekei and Ngowi (2006)
common, as well as nausea and salivation for
gastrointestinal symptoms.
Anthranilic Found to have low acute toxicity by the oral, EPA (2010)
diamide dermal, and inhalation routes of exposure and
has little to no irritation effect on the eyes or
skin
Arsenic pesticides With exposure route through the skin, present Spiewak (2001)
risks of occupational skin cancer, mostly
morbus Bowen (carcinoma in situ), multiple
basal cell carcinomas, and squamous cell
carcinomas
Carbamates Caused an increased risk of non-Hodgkin Tongzhang et. al. (2001)
lymphoma to the farmers who personally
handled the product, and those who used the
product for about 20 years or more
Chapter 3 83
Lu
Table 14. Reported effects of pesticide exposure on human health

Pesticide /
Reported Effects on Human Health Reference
Chemical
Organophos- Top cause of clinical cases in pesticide Nagami et. al. (2005)
phates poisoning among Japanese
Can inhibit the paraoxonase (PON1) enzyme Sozmen et. al. (2007)
Can significantly inhibit cholinesterase, Jintana et. al. (2009)
specifically erythrocyte acetylcholinesterase
(AChE) and butyrylcholinesterase (BuChE)
Correlated with skin itchiness and skin rashes Lu (2010)
Acute effects of organophosphate exposure Boiko (2005)
include delayed neuromuscular function
particularly in the extremities that may lead
to irreversible paralysis, a condition often
referred to as organophosphate- induced
delayed neuropathy (OPIDN)
Dermal exposure to chlorpyrifos to hands and Meggs (2004)
feet was associated with atrophy and paralysis
of the exposed body parts. Paralysis is one of
the most serious effects of pesticide exposure.
Pyrethroid Observed prevalence of pyrethroid poisoning Chen et. al. (2001)
among the cotton farm workers, with
symptoms such as abnormal facial sensations,
dizziness, headache, fatigue, nausea, loss of
appetite and signs of listlessness or muscular
fasciculation.
production areas and communities. Insecticide monitoring in eggplants

can be done simultaneously with soil and water monitoring since some
insecticides (such as those found to be used by Pangasinan farmers in this
study) can leach into the soil and even groundwater.
Farmers also ought to be made better aware of the environmental and

human health impacts of pesticide use and exposure, and encouraged to
practice more judicious pesticide application, and to observe proper and
safer application practices. These farmer education/awareness campaigns
could be led by the municipal agriculture office, with support from and
coordination with other concerned stakeholders, both from the public sector
and the private sector (e.g., agricultural chemical companies). Environmental
management programs can be developed and incorporated in these
campaigns to minimize, if not neutralize, the potential adverse effects
of contaminated soil, water, and groundwater, and promote remediation
practices for contaminated such elements (if any).
84 Chapter 3
In the future, these studies could be replicated and/or scaled up to include

more farmer-respondents and/or eggplant-producing communities/
towns/provinces in the Philippines. Such will provide a more robust set of
observations as to the variety of eggplant production practices, extent of
pesticide contamination in eggplant production areas/environments, as well
as of farmer exposure to pesticides applied to eggplant crops. For example,
variants of these future investigations could analyze the level of insecticide
residues in eggplant fruits according to farmer cultural (pesticide application)
practices, or examine the level of pesticide residues in eggplant fruits in
various stages of development up to when they are sold retail to consumers.
Lastly, more extensive research could be conducted on the transformation

products of insecticides applied in eggplant production in the Philippines,
looking at their fate in the soil, and the bonding forces between the soil and
the pesticide active ingredient.
References
Afful, S., A.K. Anim, and Y. Serfor-Armah. 2010. Spectrum of Organochlorine Pesticide
Residues in Fish Samples from the Densu Basin. Research Journal of Environmental and
Earth Sciences 2(3): 133139.
AgriBusiness Week. 2010. Scientists Develop Eggplant Varieties Resistant to Fruit and Shoot
Borer. www.agribusinessweek.com/?s=Scientists+Develop+Eggplant+Varieties+ Resist
ant+to+Fruit+and+Shoot+Borer.
Aharonson, N., S.Z. Cohen, N. Drescher, T.J. Gish, S. Gorbach, P.C. Kearney, S. Otto, T.R.
Roberts, and J.W. Vonk. 1987. Potential Contamination of Ground Water by Pesticides.
Pure Appl. Chem. 59: 14191446.
Andreu, V. and Y. Pico. 2004. Determination of Pesticides and their Degradation Products
in Soil: Critical Review and Comparison of Methods. Trends in Analytical Chemistry
23(1011): 772789.
Bailey, G.W. and J.L. White. 1970. Factors Infuencing the Adsorption, Desorption, and
Movement of Pesticides in Soils. Residue Reviews 32: 2992.
Baral, K., B.C. Roy, K.M.B Rahim, H. Chatterjee, P. Mondal, D. Mondal, D. Ghosh, and N.S.
Talekar. 2006. Socioeconomic Parameters of Pesticide Use and Assessment of Impact
of an IPM Strategy for the Control of Eggplant Fruit and Shoot Borer in West Bengal,
India. Technical Bulletin No. 37. AVRDC publication number 06-673. AVRDCThe World
Vegetable Center, Shanhua, Taiwan, p. 36.
Barnard, C., S. Daberkow, M. Padgitt, M.E. Smith, and N.D. Uri. 1997. Alternative Measures of
Pesticide Use. The Science of the Total Environment 203: 229-244.
BAS (Bureau of Agricultural Statistics). 2008. CountryStat Philippines.
http://countrystat.bas.gov.ph/.
BAS. 2013. CountryStat Philippines. http://www.countrystat.bas.gov.ph. Accessed on 3 May
2013.
Bleicher, A. 2009. Will Eggplant be the Worlds Next GM Crop. Life Science. www.scienceline.
org/2009/11/will-eggplant-be-the-world%E2%80%99s-next-gm-crop/.
Chapter 3 85
Lu
British Columbia. 2010. Pesticide Names. www.agf.gov.bc.ca/pesticides/a_1.htm. Accessed

on July 10, 2010.
Boiko, P., M. Keifer, J. Furman, K. Weyrauch, and C. Hanks. 2005. Cholinesterase Monitoring
for Agricultural Pesticide Handlers: Guidelines for Health Care Providers in Washington
State.
Cantor, A. and B. Young-Holt. 2002. Pregnancy Related Symptoms Among Farm Workers
in Rural Honduras. International Journal of Occupational and Environment Health 1:
41-46.
Castaneda, A.R. and S.I. Bhuiyan. 1996. Groundwater Contamination by Ricefield Pesticides
and Some Influencing Factors. Jour. Environ. Sci. Health 31(1): 83-99.
Chen, N., H. Li, and T. Kalb. 2001. Suggested Cultural Practices for Eggplant. AVRDC Training
Guide. Asian Vegetable and Research Development Center. Shanhua, Taiwan.
Choudhary, B. and K. Gaur. 2009. The Development and Regulation of Bt Brinjal in India
(Eggplant/Aubergine). ISAAA Brief No. 38. ISAAA: Ithaca, NY.
Clarke, E.E.K., L.S. Levy, A. Spurgeon, and I.A. Calvert. 1997. The problems Associated with
Pesticide Use by Irrigation Workers in Ghana. Occupational Medicine 47: 301-308.
Cole, D.C., F. Carpio, J. Julian, and N. Leon. 1998. Assessment of Peripheral Nerve Function
in an Ecuadorian Rural Population Exposed to Pesticides. J Toxicol Environ Health A
55(2): 77-91.
Cooper, S. 2010. Toxic Effects of Pesticide Residue on Fruits and Veggies. http://blog.
friendseat.com/danger-of-pesticides-in-fruits-and-vegetables/.
Davidson, J.M., P.S.C. Rao, L.T. Ou, W.B. Wheeler, and D.F. Rothwell. 1980. Adsorption,
Movement, and Biodegradation of Large Concentrations of Selected Pesticides in Soils.
USEPA, CI, 600/2-80-124.
EC (European Commission). Regulation (EC) No 396/2005. http://ec.europa.eu/food/plant/
protection/pesticides/regulation_ec_396_2005_en.htm.
EPA (Environment Protection Agency). 2010. Chlorantraniliprole Chemical documents. www.
epa.gov/opprd001/factsheets/chloran.html.
EPA (Environment Protection Agency). Typical Method Detection Limits Using EPA Method
8141A for Soils and Waters. www.emalab.com/epa_OPs.htm. Accessed 9 March 2011.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 2000. Assessing Soil
Contamination: A Reference Manual. FAO Pesticide Disposal Series. Rome.
Fawcett, R., B. Christensen, and D. Tierney. 1994. The Impact of Conservation Tillage on
Pesticide Runoff into Surface Water: A Review and Analysis. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation 49(2): 126-135.
Francisco, S.R. 2009. Costs and benefits of Bt eggplant with resistance to fruit and shoot
borer in the Philippines. In G.W. Norton and D.M. Hautea (eds.). Projected Impacts of
Agricultural Biotechnologies for Fruits and Vegetables in the Philippines and Indonesia.
International Services for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) and
Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture
(SEARCA): Los Baos, Laguna, Philippines.
Fuhremann, T.W. and E.P. Lichtenstein. 1978. Release of Soil-bound Methyl[14C]parathion
Residues and their Uptake by Earthworms and Oat Plants. Journal of Agriculture and
Food Chemistry 26: 605-610.
Gan, J., W.C. Koskinen, R.L. Becker, and D.D. Buhler. 1995. Effect of Concentration on
Persistence of Alochlor in Soil. Journal of Environmental Quality 24: 1162-1169.
Gevao, B., K.T. Semple, and K.C. Jones. 2000. Bound Pesticide Residues in Soils: A Review.
Environmental Pollution 108: 3-14.
Gianato S. 1997. Use and Care of Protective Clothing by Certified Private Pesticide
Applicators. Journal of Family and Consumer Sciences 89: 6-11.
Hague, A., I. Schuphan, and W. Ebing. 1982. Bioavailability of Conjugated and Soil-bound
[14C]hydroxymonolinuron-b-d-glucoside Residues to Earthworms and Ryegrass.
86 Chapter 3
Pesticide Science 13: 219-228.

Hamilton, D.J., A. Ambrus, R.M. Dieterle, A.S. Felsot, C.A. Harriss, P.T. Holland, A. Katayama,
N. Kurihara, J. Linder, J. Unsworth, and S.S. Wong. 2003. Regulatory Limits for Pesticide
Residues in Water (IUPAC Technical Report). Pure Appl. Chem. 75(8): 11231155.
Harper, S. 1994. Sorption-desorption and Herbicide Behavior in Soil. Rev. Weed Sci 6: 207-
255.
Helle, E., M. Olsson, and S. Jensen. 1976. DDT and PCB Levels and Reproduction in Ringed
Seal from the Bothnian Bay. Ambio 5: 188189.
Helling, C.S. and A.E. Krivonak. 1978. Biological Characteristics of Bound Dinitroaniline
Herbicides in Soils. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry 26: 1164.
Hoppin J.A., M. Valcin, P.K. Henneberger, G.J. Kullman, D.M. Umbach, S.J. London, M.C.
Alavanja, and D.P. Sandler. 2007. Pesticide use and chronic bronchitis among farmers in
the Agricultural Health Study. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 50:969-979.
Hoppin, J.A., D.M. Umbach, G.J. Kullman, P.K. Henneberger, S.J. London, M.C. Alavanja,
and S.P. Sandler. 2007. Pesticides and other agricultural factors associated with
self-reported farmers lung among farm residents in the Agricultural Health Study.
Occupational and Environmental Medicine 64:334-341.
HSE (Health and Safety Executive). 2009. General Guidance Concerning Maximum Residue
Levels. www.pesticides.gov.uk/food_safety.asp?id=2624. Accessed 10 January 2011.
Ibitayo, O. 2007. Agricultural pesticide contamination. In: Encyclopedia of Earth. Eds. Cutler
J. Cleveland (Washington, D.C.: Environmental Information Coalition, National Council
for Science and the Environment). www.eoearth.org/article/Agricultural_pesticide_
contamination.
Iishii-Eitemann, M.J. and N. Ardhianie. 2002. Community monitoring of integrated pest
management versus conventional pesticide use in a World Bank project in Indonesia.
International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health 8(3): 220-232.
Ize-Iyamu, O.K., I.O. Asia, and P.A. Egwakhide. 2007. Concentrations of Residues from
Organochlorine Pesticide in Water and Fish from Some Rivers in Edo State, Nigeria.
International Journal of Physical Sciences 2(9): 237-241.
Jintana, S., K., Sming, Y. Krongtong, and S. Thanyachai. 2009. Cholinesterase activity,
pesticide exposure and health impact in a population exposed to organophosphates.
International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health 82(7): 833-842, DOI:
10.1007/s00420-009-0422-9.
Kamel, F. and Hoppin, J.A. 2004. Association of pesticide exposure with neurologic
dysfunction and disease. Environmental Health Perspective 112(9).
Karanth, N.G.K. 2002. Challenges of Limiting Pesticide Residues in Fresh Vegetables: The
Indian Experience. Food Safety Management in Developing Countries. Proceedings of
the International Workshop. December 2000: Montpellier, France.
Kookana, R.S., S. Baskaran, and R. Naidu. 1998. Pesticide fate and behaviour in Australian
soils in relation to contamination and management of soil and water: a review.
Australian Journal of Soil Research 36(5): 715-764.
Lars, H. 2000. Environmental Exposure to Persistent Organohalogen and Health Risks. In:
Lennart, M. (ed.), Environmental Medicine 2000. Ch: 12, Available from: www.envimed.
com.
Lekei, E.E. and A.V.F. Ngowi. 2006. Self-reporting of pesticide exposure and health effects
among workers at a coffee estate. African Newsletter on Occupational Health and
Safety 16:56-58.
Lu, J.L. 2010. Multipesticide residue assessment of agricultural soil and water in major
farming areas in Benguet, Philippines. Archives of Environmental Contamination and
Toxicology DOI 10.100/s00244-90-9748-5. Published online Feb 17, 2010.
Lukassowitz, I. 2007. Analysis and assessment of pesticide residues. Federal Institute of Risk
Assessment 2007. www.jstor.org/pss/1295710.
Chapter 3 87
Lu
Machiwa, J.F. 2000. Heavy metals and organic pollutants in sediments of Dar es Salaam
harbour prior dredging in 1999. Tanz. J. Sci 26: 2945.
Maghirang, R., M.L. Guevarra, and G. Rodulfo. 2009. Eggplant Production Guide. Department
of Trade and Industry (DTI) and Philippine Council for Agriculture, Forestry and Natural
Resources Research and Development (PCARRD). Los Baos, Laguna, Philippines.
Meggs, W.J. 2004. Permanent paralysis at sites of dermal exposure to chlorpyrifos. J Toxicol
Clin Toxicol 42 (7): 991-992.
Mukherjee I. and M. Gopal. 1992. Residue Behaviour of Fenvalerate, tau-Fluvalinate,
lambda-Cyhalothrin and Monocrotophos in Eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) Fruits.
Pesticide Science 36(3):175-179.
Mwevura, H., C.O. Othman, and G.L. Mhehe. 2002. Organochlorine Pesticide Residues in
Edible Biota from the Coastal Area of Dar es Salaam City, Western Indian Ocean. J. Mar.
Sci 1(1): 9196.
Nagami, H., Y. Nishigaki, S. Matsushima, and T. Matsushita. 2005. Hospital-Based Survey of
Pesticide Poisoning in Japan. International Journal of Occupational and Environmental
Health 11(2): 2-7.
Nordin, R.B., S. Araki, H. Sato, K. Yokohama, W.A.M.B. Wan Muda, and D. Win Kyi. 2002.
Effects of Safety Behaviors with Pesticide Use on Occurrence of Acute Symptoms in
Male and Female Tobacco-Growing Malaysian Farmers. Industrial Health 40: 182-190.
Pignatello, J.J. and B. Xing. 1996. Mechanisms of Slow Sorption of Organic Chemicals to
Natural Particles. Environmental Science and Technology 30: 1-11.
Roberts, T.R. 1984. Non-Extractable Pesticide Residues in Soils and Plants. Pure and Applied
Chemistry 56: 945-956.
Roberts, T.R. and M.E. Standen. 1981. Further Studies of the Degradation of the Pyrethroid
Insecticide Cypermethrin in Soils. Pesticide Science 12: 285-296.
Schoen, S.R. and W.L. Winterlin. 1987. The Effects of Various Soil Factors and Amendments
on the Degradation of Pesticide Mixtures. Journal of Environmental Science Health 22:
347-377.
Senesi, N. 1992. Binding Mechanisms of Pesticides to Soil Humic Substances. Science of the
Total Environment 123/124: 63-76.
Simcox, N., R. Fenske, S. Wole, I. Lee, and D. Kalman. 1995. Pesticides in Household Dust
and Soil: Exposure Pathways for Children of Agricultural Families. Environ Health
Perspect 103: 1126-1134.
Spiewak, R. 2001. Pesticides as a Cause of Occupational Skin Diseases in Farmers. Ann Agric
Environ Med 8(1): 1-5.
Sosan, M.B., A.E. Akingbohungbe, I.A.O. Ojo, and M.A. Durosinmi. 2008. Insecticide Residues
in the Blood Serum and Domestic Water Source of Cacao Farmers in Southwestern
Nigeria. Chemosphere 72: 781784.
Sozmen, B., S. Peker, and U. Kaya. 2007. Markers of long-term exposure to
organophosphorus pesticides in farmers who work in viniculture and tobacco
production in Turkey. Toxicology Mechanisms and Methods 17(7).
Suss, A. and B. Grampp. 1973. The Uptake of Absorbed Monolinuron in the Soil by Mustard
Plants. Weed Research 13: 254.
Swackhamer, D. and R.A. Hites. 1988. Occurrence and Bioaccumulation of Organochlorine
Compounds in Fish from Siskiwit Lake, Isle Royale, Lake Superior. Environ. Sci. Technol
22: 543548.
Tongzhang, Z., H.Z. Shelia, P.C. Kenneth, D.W. Dennis, Z. Yawei, and B. Aaron. 2001.
Agricultural Exposure to Carbamate Pesticides and Risk of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma.
Journal of Occupational & Environmental Medicine 43(7): 641-649.
USA Gardener. 2010. How to Grow Eggplant. http://usagardener.com/how_to_grow_
vegetables/how_to_grow_eggplant.php.
88 Chapter 3
US Department of Agriculture Pesticide Program. 2008. Pesticides Data Program. http://

www.ams.usda.gov. Accessed on July 10, 2010.
Varca, L.M. 2002. Pesticide Toxicology and Chemistry Laboratory. .National Crop Protection
Center, University of the Philippines at Los Baos (NCPC-UPLB). www.agnet.org/
library/eb/520/.
Vassilopoulou, V. and E. Georgakopoulous-Gregoriades. 1993. Factors Influencing the
Uptake of Organochlorines in Red Mullet (Mullus barbatus) from a Gulf of Central
Greece. Mar. Poll. Bull. 26: 285287.
Vermeire, T., R. McPhail, and M. Waters. 2003. Integrated Human and Ecological Risk
Assessment: A Case Study of Organophosphorous Pesticides in the Environment.
Human and Ecological Risk Assessment 9(1): 343-358.
Weston, D.P., J. You, and M.J. Lydy. 2004. Distribution and Toxicity of Sediment-Associated
Pesticides in Agriculture-Dominated Water Bodies of Californias Central Valley. Environ
Sci Technol. 38(10): 2752-2759.
Winterlin, W.L., J.N. Seiber, A. Craigmail, T. Baier, J. Woodrow, and G. Walker. 1989.
Degradation of Pesticide Waste Taken from a Highly Contaminated Evaporation Pit in
California. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 18: 734-747.
Wolfe, H.R., D.C. Staiff, J.F. Armstrong, and S.W. Comer. 1973. Persistence of Parathion in Soil.
Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 10: 1-9.
Yalemtsehay, M. and A. Tadesse. 2002. Effects of Pesticide Applications on Respiratory
Health of Ethiopian Farm Workers. International Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Health 8: 35-41.
Yassin, M.M., T.A. Abu Mourad, and J.M. Safi JM. 2002. Knowledge, Attitude, Practice, and
Toxicity Symptoms Associated with Pesticide Use Among Farm Workers in the Gaza
Strip. Occupational and Environmental Medicine 59: 387-93.
Chapter 3 89
90
Lu
Appendix Table 1. Selected pesticides used by eggplant farmer-respondents, Sta. Maria, Pangasinan
Pesticide Use and Pesticide Type (Family) Brand Namea Active Ingredient Concentration Formulation
Toxicity Category Type
Chapter 3
Fungicide
IV Inorganic fungicide Vitigran Blue 58WP Copper oxychloride 580 g/kg WP
Insecticide
I Organophosphate Tamaron 600SL Methamidophos 600 g/L SL
II Carbamate Lannate 40SP Methomyl 400 g/kg SP
II Neonicotinoid + Pyrethroid Solomon 300 OD Imidacloprid + 210+90 g/L OD
+ Petroleum derivative betacyfluthrin +
cyclohexane
II Organophosphate Brodan 31.5EC Chlorpyrifos+BPMC 210+105 g/L EC
II Organophosphate Selecron 500EC Profenofos 500 g/L EC
II Organophosphate Siga 300EC Chlorpyrifos 300 g/L EC
II Organophosphate Superinsecticide 50EC Profenofos 500 g/L EC
II Organophosphate Ultimate 50EC Profenofos 500 g/L EC
II Thiourea Pegasus 250 SC Diafenthiuron 250 g/L SC
III Carbamate Extreme 50SP Cartap hydrochloride 500 g/kg SP
III Carbamate Super Cartap 50SP Cartap hydrochloride 500 g/kg SP
III Carbamate Triband Cartap hydrochloride 500 g/kg SP
III Neonicotinoid Mospilan 3EC Acetamiprid 30 g/L EC
III Organonitrogen Ascend 50SC Fipronil 50 g/L SC
III Organophosphate Kotetsu 10EC Chlorphenaphyr 100 g/L SC
IV Anthranilic diamide Fenos SC480 Flubendiamide 480 g/L SC
IV Anthranilic diamide Prevathon SC Chlorantraniliprole 50 g/L SC
Appendix Table 1. Selected pesticides used by eggplant farmer-respondents, Sta. Maria, Pangasinan
Pesticide Use and Pesticide Type (Family) Brand Namea Active Ingredient Concentration Formulation
Toxicity Category Type
IV Anthranilic diamide + Voliam Flexi 300SC Chlorantraniliprole + 100+200 g/L SC
Neonicotinoid Thiametoxam
IV Carbamate Padan 4G Cartap hydrochloride 40 g/kg G
IV Neonicotinoid Starkle 20SG Dinotefuran 200 g/kg SG
IV Organophosphate Malathion 57EC Malathion 570 g/L EC
IV Pyrethroid Decis R Deltamethrin 10 g/L EC
IV Pyrethroid Magnum 5EC Cypermethrin 50 g/L EC
a
All the brand names are trademarked.
Toxicity category: I = Highly toxic and severely irritating; II = Moderately toxic and moderately irritating; III = Slightly toxic and slightly irritating; and
IV = Practically non-toxic and not an irritant.
Formulation type: EC = Emulsifiable concentrate; G = Granules; SC = Suspension concentrate; SG = Soluble granules; SL = Soluble (liquid) concen-
trate; SP = Soluble powder; WP = Wettable powder
g/Kg = grams per kilogram; g/L = grams per liter
Source: Philippine Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority (FPA). 2010. List of Registered Agricultural Pesticides as of 01 January 2010. Department of Agri-
culture, Quezon City. (accessed on 12 June 2013)
Chapter 3
91
92
Lu
Appendix Table 1a. Pesticide toxicity categories for acute hazards of pesticide products
I Highly Toxic and Severely II Moderately Toxic and III Slightly Toxic and IV Practically Non-toxic
Irritating Moderately Irritating Slightly Irritating and Not An Irritant
Chapter 3
Oral LD50 Up to and including 50 mg/kg From 50 to 500 mg/kg From 500 to 5000 mg/kg Greater than 5000 mg/kg
Inhalation LC50 Up to and including 0.2 mg/L From 0.2 to 2 mg/L From 2. to 20 mg/L Greater than 20 mg/L
Dermal LD50 Up to and including 200 mg/kg From 200 to 2000 mg/kg From 2000 to 20,000 mg/L Greater than 20,000 mg/kg
Eye Effects Corrosive; corneal opacity not Corneal opacity reversible No corneal opacity; No irritation.
reversible within 7 days within 7 days; irritation irritation reversible within
persisting for 7 days 7 days
Skin Effects Corrosive Severe irritation at 72 Moderate irritation at 72 Mild or slight irritation at
hours hours 72 hours
Note: Most human hazard, precautionary statements, and human personal protective equipment statements are based upon the toxicity category
of the pesticide product as sold or distributed. In addition, toxicity categories may be used for regulatory purposes other than labeling, such as clas-
sification for restricted use and requirements for child-resistant packaging. In certain cases, statements upon the toxicity category of the product as
diluted for use are also permitted.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxicity_category_rating (accessed 12 June 2013)
Appendix Table 2. Physico-chemical properties of the active ingredients of insecticides
Active Water Vapor Henrys Law Koc - GUS Soil Bio- Characteristics
Ingredient Solubility Pressure of Constant at Organic- Leaching (typical accumu-
(mg/li at (mPa at 20oC Carbon Potential aerobic) lation
20oC) 25oC) (dimension- Sorption Index* HalfLife Potential
less) Constant (days)
(ml/g)
Chlorpy- 1.05 1.43 2.80 X 10-04 8,151 0.15 50 High Low water solubility
rifos Volatile(based on Henrys Law of
Constant)
Moderately persistent in soil
Low leachability
Non-mobile
Profenofos 28.0 2.53 1.39 X 10-05 2,016 0.59 7 Low Low water solubility
Moderately volatile(based on
Henrys Law of Constant)
Non-persistent in soil
Low leachability
Slightly mobile
Triazophos 35.0 1.33 1.30 X 10-06 358 2.38 44 Moderate Low water solubility
Moderately volatile(based on
Transition state
Moderately mobile
Cyperme- 0.004 0.00034 1.75 X 10-05 57,889 -1.18 35 High Low water solubility
thrin Moderately volatile(based on
Chapter 3

Low leachability
Non-mobile
93
94
Lu
Appendix Table 2. Physico-chemical properties of the active ingredients of insecticides
Active Water Vapor Henrys Law Koc - GUS Soil Bio- Characteristics
Ingredient Solubility Pressure of Constant at Organic- Leaching (typical accumu-
Chapter 3
(mg/li at (mPa at 20oC Carbon Potential aerobic) lation

20oC) 25oC) (dimension- Sorption Index* HalfLife Potential
less) Constant (days)
(ml/g)
Malathion 148.0 3.1 4.80 X 10-05 217 -1.28 0.17 Low Moderate water solubility
Volatile(based on Henrys Law of
Constant)
Non-persistent in soil
Low leach ability
Moderately mobile
Source of data: International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC). 2011. Global Availability of Information on Agrochemicals. http://sitem.
herts.ac.uk/aeru/iupac/index.htm. Accessed on March 22, 2011.
Appendix Table 3. Environmental fate of insecticides in soil, water, air and plants and inherent characteristics of these insecticides
Insecticide Pesticide Type Brand Namea Active Ingredient
Used by (Family)
Farmers
for
Eggplants
Prevathon Chlorantranilip- Soil: Persistent and mobile in terrestrial environments. It leaches Chlorantraniliprole should be measured in soil and water because
role through the soil profile beyond 60 cm and may therefore enter it is highly mobile. Groundwater should be tested for this type of
groundwater. pesticides. The sorption in soil is medium high, although the study
Sorption: The sorption in soil can be classified as medium high but area has more sandy soil than clay type.
correlated with the percent clay and clay type for the soils tests.
Water: Has low solubility in water. It is considered to be moderately Because of persistence in this substrate, water sediment sampling
persistent in aerobic water-sediment systems, and slightly should be done.
persistent in anaerobic water-sediment systems. Degradation in
water system is classified as moderate fast.
Air: It has low vapour pressure and Henrys law constant
indicating that it is non-volatile in the environment. Therefore,
chlorantraniliprole residues in the atmosphere and long-range
transport are not persistent.
Malathion Malathion Air: Volatile residue. Small droplet residues produced by aerial Malathion should be monitored in the air.
applications have been shown to drift for long distances, causing
adverse effects in surrounding waterways (Lenoir, 1999).
Water: Degrades quickly in water. Does not accumulate in Malathion should be monitored in groundwater.
sediment.
Soil: Moderately to highly mobile in soil so there is potential for
movement to groundwater especially in soils with low organic
matter and high sand content. Since malathion is normally applied
to foliage, potentially a factor that mitigates movement to ground
water.
Plants: Malathion studies support that malathion is taken up and Although malathion is taken up and stored in plant tissues, it was
stored in plant tissues (EPA 2000). not found in the eggplant fruits.
Tamaron Metamidophos Plants: Can be rapidly translocated into the leaves with the Metamidophos was not found in the eggplant fruit samples; more
Chapter 3
transpiration flow but uptake via the roots cannot be expected likely to remain in leaves.
because of rapid degradation in the soil.
Soil: Rapidly degraded in soil. Metamidophosshould be monitored in soil samples.
Water: The chemical will break down in the presence of sunlight. Metamidophos is not likely to be found in water samples because
it degrades rapidly.
95
96
Lu
Appendix Table 3. Environmental fate of insecticides in soil, water, air and plants and inherent characteristics of these insecticides
Insecticide Pesticide Type Brand Namea Active Ingredient
Used by (Family)
Farmers
Chapter 3
for
Eggplants
Lannate Methiocarb Soil: Rapid degradation, and slightly mobile. Since methiocarb degrades rapidly in soil, it will most likely not to
be found. It should be monitored in soil.
Air: Methiocarb is volatile. Methiocarb should be monitored in air samples as it is volatile.
Hostathion Triazophos Water: Has low solubility in water. It is rapidly degraded in aquatic
systems.
Soil: Triazophos is imoderately mobile in soil. Triazophos should be monitored in soil.
Air: Triazophos is volatile. Due to its high volatility, triazophos should be measured in air.
Brodan Chlorpyrifos Soil: Less soluble and is not very mobile. Moderately persistent. Due to its strong adsorption in soil and being non mobile in soil,
The half-life of chlorpyrifos in soil is usually between 60 and 120 chlorpyrifos should be monitored in the soil sample.
days, but can range from 2 weeks to over 1 year, depending on the
soil type, climate, and other conditions. Adsorbs strongly to soil
particles and not readily soluble in water. It is therefore immobile in
soils and unlikely to leach or to contaminate groundwater.
Water: Has a low water solubility. Unstable in water, and the rate at
which it is hydrolyzed increases with temperature, decreasing by Chlorpyrifos is less likely to be found in water samples due its low
2.5- to 3-fold with each 10 C drop in temperature. water solubility.
Air: Has an intermediate vapor. Its volatility is a significant
mechanism of dissipation.
Plants: May be toxic to some plants, such as lettuce. Residues Chlorpyrifos should be monitored in air because of its volatility.
remain on plant surfaces for approximately 10-14 days. Data Chlorpyrifos was found in eggplants due to its adsorption to plants.
indicate that this insecticide and its soil metabolites can
accumulate in certain crops.
Magnum Cypermethrin Soil: Strong tendency to adsorb to soil particles. Photodegrades Monitoring should be done for soil contamination.
rapidly in soil with a half-life of 8-16 days. Undergoes microbial
degradation under aerobic conditions. Degrades more rapidly on
sandy clay and sandy loam soils than on clay soils and more rapidly
in soils low in organic materials.
Water: Has low water solubility.
Plants: Remains in plants such as strawberry, wheat, celery, and Cypermethrin was found in the eggplant samples because of its
others. absorption in eggplants.
The Eggplant Subsector in Davao Region, North Cotabato, Iolilo, and Southern Leyte
Chapter 4
The Eggplant Subsector in Davao Region,

North Cotabato, Iloilo, and Southern Leyte
Cesar B. Quicoy
Introduction
The Philippine vegetable industry is generally characterized by smallhold

subsistence farming that often provides farmers minimal marketable surplus
and low income. Despite the industrys important role in the Philippine
economy, vegetable-growing communities remain in general poverty, in need
of better attention and stronger support from the government. A number
of research and development (R&D) programs had introduced production-
enhancing technologies yet so far failed to have significant impact on
farmers harvests and income. In areas where the intended benefits were
observed, no baseline information and feedback mechanism were in place to
allow results-based monitoring and evaluation.
The same can be said of the Philippine eggplant industry. The existing
conditions of area-specific eggplant industry need to be established in
order to design and provide appropriate localized R&D and information
dissemination programs. The impending commercialization of Bt eggplant
highlights the need for key baseline information for use in evaluating the
technologys impacts on farmers livelihoods and on the vegetable industry as
a whole.
This baseline and benchmark study characterized the eggplant subsector in

selected production provinces of the country. More specifically, in Davao,
Iloilo, and Southern Leyte where the conduct of Bt eggplant field trials is
Chapter 4 97
Quicoy
approved by the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) and North Cotabato, where Bt
eggplant field trials had been conducted, the study (i) collected information
on eggplant farmers socio-demographic characteristics, and available
eggplant production technologies and farmers existing production and
marketing practices; (ii) determined the factors of, and assessed, the local
industrys productivity, efficiency, and profitability; (iii) estimated the potential
financial and economic impact of Bt eggplant; and (iv) identified problems
and constraints confronting the local eggplant subsector. As Bt eggplant is in
its final stage of commercialization, the information generated will be useful
for assessing the technologys potential impact on the environment, health,
and farmers socioeconomic conditions.
In addition, the new information will be key inputs to current and

planned national and/or regional R&D programs on eggplant production
and marketing, and may help government planners and policy makers
prepare appropriate policies (or policy reforms) for the industrys further
development.
Methodology
Study Area
The study was conducted in Davao City; and in the municipalities of Leon,
Pavia, and Almodian in Iloilo; Baybay and Ormoc in Southern Leyte; and
Kabacan, Kidapawan, Makilala, and Magpet in North Cotabato. These sites
were selected based on the hectarage planted to eggplant.
Sampling Design and Data Collection
The study used a simple random sampling technique with replacement in

selecting the eggplant farmer-respondents. Proportionate sampling was used
in determining the number of municipalities from each study area and the
sample respondents from each municipality. A total of 469 eggplant farmers
were interviewed: 125 each from Iloilo, North Cotabato, and Southern Leyte,
and 94 from Davao City.
Primary data were generated through farm surveys conducted during August
to December 2011. Primary data collected included farmers socioeco-
demographic characteristics; area planted and production; type and quantity
of production inputs used; and production and marketing practices, including
98 Chapter 4
problems and constraints. The study also collected information on the

farmers knowledge, attitude and perception (KAP) regarding biotechnology,
eggplant fruit and shoot borer, and genetically modified commodities.
In each province, five farmer-cooperators were asked to maintain a daily

record of all their respective eggplant production-related activities. The study
provided the farmer-cooperators a template for their farm record keeping.
In addition, time series data on domestic production, area planted, yield, and
prices of eggplant were gathered from secondary sources.
Analytical Tools Used
Descriptive Analysis. Simple descriptive statistics such as mean, frequencies,

and percentages were computed to describe the (i) socioeco-demographic
characteristics (e.g., age, educational attainment, and income) of the
sample eggplant farmers and their household members; (ii) farmers current
production and marketing practices (e.g., pesticides applied, spraying
frequency, timing of application, use of protective gear in spraying, credit
availment, and market outlet); and (iii) farmer perception of genetically
modified crops, and awareness of Bt eggplant field trials in the study areas.
Production Function Analysis. Stochastic frontier production functions were

estimated to determine the factors affecting the, and sources of, inefficiency
of eggplant production in the selected study areas. Mathematically, these
stochastic functional forms are expressed as:
Y = f(X1, X2, X3, X4)exp(Vi Ui)

where
Y = yield of eggplant (kilograms per hectare; kg/ha)
X1 = quantity of seeds used (grams per hectare; gms/ha)
X2 = labor (person-days per hectare; p-day/ha)
X3 = cost of pesticides applied (Philippine pesos per hectare; PhP/ha)
X4 = quantity of fertilizers applied (kg/ha)
Ui = technical efficiency variable
Vi = random errors of the output
The technical inefficiency effect Ui is defined by:
Ui = Z1 + Z2 + Z3 + Z4 + Z5 + Z6 + Z7 + Z8 + Z9 + Z10 + Z11 + Z12 + Z13
Chapter 4 99
Quicoy
where
Z1 = eggplant production area (ha)
Z2 = farmers age (years)
Z3 = farmers educational attainment (years)
Z4 = farmers gender (1 = male; 0 = female)
Z5 = farm experience (years)
Z6 = farmers tenure status (1 = landowners; 0 = otherwise)
Z7 = distance of farm from input supplier (kilometers)
Z8 = farmers awareness of eggplant fruit and shoot borer (EFSB)
Z9 = method used to control pest and diseases
(1 = chemical; 0 = otherwise)
Z10 = percentage damage due to EFSB
Z11 = province dummy 1 (1 = Southern Leyte; 0 = other provinces)
Z12 = province dummy 2 (1 = Northern Cotabato; 0 = other provinces)
Z13 = province dummy 3 (1 = Davao City; 0 = other provinces)
The proposed stochastic frontier production function was assumed to be

truncated normal random variable, in which the inefficiency effects are
directly influenced by a number of variables (Misuya, Hisano and Nariu, 2008).
The t-test was used to determine which explanatory variable had a significant
effect on the dependent variable (yield). The F-value was used to determine
the overall significance of the estimated regression model while the
coefficient of determination (R2) was used to examine the goodness of fit of
the data.
Cost and Returns Analysis. Cost and returns analysis on a per farm and per
hectare basis was conducted to estimate and compare the mean costs, gross
income, net cash income and net farm income among eggplant farmers in
the four study areas. The study also used the partial budget technique to
determine the potential impact of Bt eggplant on farmers income.
Farmers Demographic Profile and Socioeconomic

Conditions
Most of the farmer-respondents were males (76%), middle-aged at 46

years, and married (86%). About 22% of all respondents finished elementary
education, while only 5% were college graduates; two respondents were not
able to go to school. The farmer-respondents had, on average, five members
in the household (Table 1).
100 Chapter 4
Table 1. Demographic profile of eggplant farmers and households in selected

provinces, Philippines, 2011
Characteristic Davao Iloilo Southern North All
City Leyte Cotabato Areas
No. of respondents 94 125 125 125 469
Demographic Profile
Farmers mean age (years) I 42.6 42.9 48.4 49.2 I 46.0
No. of male respondents I 54 119 78 105 I 356
Civil status (no.)
Single 9 26 9 4 48
Married 79 96 111 116 402
Living-in 2 2 2 2 7
Widow(er) 4 1 3 5 13
Farmers educational attainment (no.)
None 0 1 0 1 2
Pre-elementary 5 5
Elementary undergraduate 9 13 20 23 65
Elementary graduate 5 19 31 39 94
High school undergraduate 20 17 25 29 91
High school graduate 2 32 27 21 82
Vocational undergraduate 1 2 0 0 3
Vocational graduate 20 8 2 3 33
College undergraduate 9 12 4 6 31
College graduate 3 11 6 2 22
Average household size (no.) 5.4 5.1 4.6 5.3 5.1
Family Living Conditions
Home lot ownership (no.)
Owned 46 79 101 48 274
Rented 33 5 15 41 94
Rent free 12 33 8 34 87
Type of house construction (no.)
Permanent 46 84 101 48 279
Semi-permanent 33 23 15 41 112
Temporary 12 17 8 34 71
Shanty 3 1 1 2 7
House roofing material (no.)
Tiles I 7 5 3 4 I 19
Galvanized iron (GI) sheet I 79 120 103 90 I 392
Chapter 4 101
Quicoy
Table 1. Demographic profile of eggplant farmers and households in selected

provinces, Philippines, 2011
Nipa 7 0 18 23 48
Cogon/grass 1 0 0 4 5
House wall material (no.)
Concrete 16 59 66 22 163
Wood 62 21 23 64 170
Bamboo 14 41 24 31 110
Combination 2 4 12 8 26
Source of home lighting (no.)
Electricity 43 115 119 97 374
Kerosene 39 9 4 12 64
Coleman 3 0 0 0 3
Oil 0 0 0 12 12
Others 9 1 2 4 10
Water system (no.)
Rain water 2 6 0 3 11
Spring/river 67 64 15 15 161
Open well 4 7 27 13 51
Artesian well 1 8 0 6 15
Pump well 0 27 12 30 69
Piped water 20 7 69 54 150
Type of cooking fuel (no.)
Wood 87 98 110 109 404
Charcoal 6 14 2 5 27
Liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) 0 7 10 7 24
Kerosene 0 0 2 0 2
Electricity 0 1 0 0 1
Type of toilet facility (no.)
Open pit 23 10 0 34 67
Antipolo 18 3 4 50 75
Water sealed 29 75 93 36 233
Flush 22 33 21 3 79
None 2 4 7 2 15
102 Chapter 4
Across all study areas, 98% of the respondents had farming as primary
occupation, 43% were landowners, and about 24% were share tenants. Most
farmer-respondents from Davao City were owner-operators (66%) while
those from Iloilo were share-tenants (51%). Similarly, majority (58.4 %) of the
respondents owned their home lots, while 20% are renting. About 18% lived
on home lots for which the landowners granted permission, and for free (no
land rent is paid).
Majority of the respondents live in permanent houses (almost 60%) with

roofing made of galvanized iron (GI) sheets (about 84%), electricity (nearly
80%) as source of lighting, and spring/river (34%) and piped water (32%)
as main sources of water. Almost half (49.7%) of all respondents had water-
sealed toilet facilities, while a few (3.2%) did not have any. Fuelwood was the
most common (86%) type of cooking fuel used by the respondents.
On average, the farmer-respondents worked on 0.76 hectare (ha) of land,

of which about 41% (0.31 ha) was planted to eggplant. The mean farm size
ranged from 0.32 ha in Southern Leyte to 1.01 ha in Davao City. Those in
North Cotabato and Iloilo was 0.82 ha and 0.95 ha, respectively. In 2011, total
eggplant production per farm ranged from 2.4 tons in Davao City to 11.9
tons in Iloilo, with an overall average of 7.3 tons per year. Meanwhile, average
eggplant yield ranged from 11.4 tons/ha in Davao City to 39.4 tons/ha in
Southern Leyte (Table 2).
The most common eggplant varieties planted were Banate King, Casino, and
Domino Bilog (in this order). About 9% of all respondents still plant the native
variety. Apart from eggplant, the farmer-respondents also commonly grew
rice, other vegetables, and corn. Majority (92%) of the Iloilo respondents
considered eggplant as a crop secondary to rice, and grow eggplant in the
dry season after the wet-season rice crop.
On average across the study areas, farms were relatively near (less than 7
kilometers (kms) away) the barangay road, farm-to-market road, and primary
and secondary schools. They were however quite farat least 12 kms on
averagefrom other public facilities such as the agricultural extension office,
public market, bank, hospital, and tertiary school.
Most farmer-respondents used traders (often to wholesaler-retailers) to

market their eggplant produce, while about 16% sold their produce directly
to (walk-in) consumers. Most respondents from Southern Leyte sold their
products directly to consumers. Similar to other crops, the eggplants were
Chapter 4 103
Quicoy
Table 2. Socioeconomic characteristics, agricultural profile and marketing practices of

eggplant farmers in selected provinces, Philippines, 2011
Socioeconomic characteristics
Primary occupation (no.)
Farmer 92 121 123 117 455
Hired farm worker 3 3
Non-farm worker 2 - 1 5 6
Practice of profession 0 1 1 1 3
Business operator 3 3
Farm tenure status (no.)
Landowner 62 18 57 65 202
Amortizing 2 7 9
Claimant 1 1 7 9
Leaseholder 4 14 2 1 21
Share tenant 12 64 26 12 114
Renting free 10 2 24 39 75
Others 6 24 8 1 39
Agricultural production profile
Number of parcels
One 93 116 83 96 388
Two 1 7 30 19 57
Three 0 2 7 8 17
More than three 0 0 4 2 6
Average farm size (ha) 1.0 1.0 0.3 0.8 0.8
Average area planted to egg- 0.5 0.5 0.2 0.2 0.3
plant (ha)
% Area planted to eggplant 50.5 54.7 50.0 23.2 40.8
Average eggplant production
In tons per farm I 2.44 11.92 4.10 9.55 I 7.33
In tons per hectare I 11.38 24.12 39.40 31.10 I 27.48
Other crops planted (no. of respondents)
Other vegetables 4 8 22 12 46
Rice 6 115 15 16 152
Coconut 0 0 26 0 26
Corn 0 0 2 0 2
104 Chapter 4

Other crops 4 0 2 7 13
Mean distance of farm from public facilities (kilometers)
Barangay road 7.1 2.9 0.3 0.9 2.5
Farm-to-market road 11.3 4.3 2.5 2.4 4.7
Agricultural extension office 17.3 11.7 13.3 6.7 11.9
Public market 17.9 10.8 11.7 7.6 11.6
Nearest bank 18.3 10.7 13.5 10.0 12.8
Nearest hospital 17.5 16.9 13.2 10.6 14.4
Nearest elementary school 5.8 8.1 3.6 3.3 5.2
Nearest secondary school 6.3 9.3 4.2 5.8 6.4
Nearest tertiary school 14.8 13.2 13.2 14.5 13.9
Marketing profile
Market outlets used (no. of respondents)
Commission agents 6 2 8
Viajero 17 2 2 13 31
Wholesaler 9 48 18 29 104
Wholesaler-retailer 23 37 30 37 127
Retailer 2 5 4 18 29
Consumers 15 6 34 22 77
Mode of sale (no. of respondents)
Buyers pick up 33 47 23 34 137
Farmer-sellers deliver 57 43 100 73 273
Both 1 33 34
Mode of transport used (no. of respondents)
Man power 12 20 25 12 69
Animal power 4 6 2 2 14
Motorcycle 2 2 36 40 80
Jeep 5 33 24 13 75
Bus 0 10 3 13
Truck 27 0 2 29
Not applicable 33 47 24 34 138
Chapter 4 105
Quicoy

Reason for choice of market outlet (no. of respondents)
Regular buyer (suki) 49 49 96 87 281
Credit tie up 1 15 4 20
Accessibility 26 28 14 2 70
Higher price 12 20 4 24 60
Obliged by landowner 4 2 6
either brought to the buyers (delivered) or picked up from the farms, using
various modes of hauling transportation (e.g., truck, jeepney, tricycle,
motorcycle, animal power, human labor). In general, the choice of market
outlet was determined by a regular trading (suki) relationship, better
accessibility/convenience, and higher product price received by farmers.
Unlike for other crops, however, credit marketing tie-up is not a predominant
practice among eggplant farmers. This implies that eggplant traders/buyers
are not credit lenders (be it in cash or in kind).
Farmer Awareness of Production Factors and Technology
Credit. Across the four provinces, majority (72%) of the farmer-respondents

was aware of credit sources but only few (20%) availed. Of those who are
aware of credit sources, North Cotabato and Iloilo respectively had the lowest
and highest proportion of farmers who actually availed. Of those who availed
credit, many took from cooperatives, private lenders, and/or friends, mainly
for buying inputs for eggplant production, investment in other businesses,
or farm improvement. Of those who did not avail of credit, the main reason
cited was the high interest rate (almost 51% per year) being charged by
creditors. It is surprising that about 40% of Iloilo eggplant farmers claimed as
not being aware of any credit sources in their locality (Table 3).
Eggplant Fruit and Shoot Borer. As expected, majority (about 74%) of the
farmers were aware of eggplant fruit and shoot borer (EFSB) (Table 4). They
estimated that EFSB infestation can begin anytime from 30 days to 50 days
after transplanting, resulting in at least 63% damage. On average, infestation
106 Chapter 4
Table 3. Eggplant farmers credit awareness and availment in selected provinces,

Philippines, 2011
Davao Iloilo Leyte North All
Item City Cotabato
n=94 n=125 n=125 n=125 n=469
Credit awareness
Yes 58 62 110 107 337
No 26 49 13 16 104
No response 10 14 1 1 26
Credit availment
Yes 13 28 30 21 92
No 69 74 92 102 337
No response 12 23 3 2 40
Sources of credit
Banks 0 2 2 7 11
Coops 2 11 11 12 36
Private lenders 4 9 12 1 26
Friends 2 13 1 1 17
Traders 1 0 0 0 1
NGO 0 0 4 0 4
Others 2 2 3 0 7
Credit purpose
Inputs 10 28 14 6 58
Farm improvement 1 1 5 4 11
Household consumption 0 1 2 1 4
Education 0 1 3 1 5
Other business 0 1 9 7 17
House repair 0 0 1 1 2
Reasons for non-availment of credit
Not needed 0 4 11 11 26
High interest rate 6 14 48 48 116
Not willing 1 5 15 9 30
Can cause problem 14 2 6 10 0
Chapter 4 107
108
Quicoy
Table 4. Eggplant farmers awareness of eggplant fruit and shoot borer (EFSB) in selected provinces, Philippines, 2011
Davao City Iloilo Southern Leyte North Cotabato All
Item
r-
r-
r-
r-
r-
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Chapter 4
Awareness of EFSB
Aware 53 56 100 80 75 60 117 94 345 74
Not aware 21 22 18 14 46 37 8 6 93 20
EFSB control method
Chemical 69 92 98 88 88 86 81 66 336 82
Removal and burying 4 5 14 13 12 12 21 17 51 12
of infested shoots
Both 0 0 0 0 1 1 7 6 8 2
Source of information
Government 35 48 22 21 53 67 50 43 160 43
Private chemical 7 10 58 54 18 23 53 45 136 36
companies
Other farmers, friends, 31 43 27 25 8 10 12 10 78 21
mass media
begins at about 43 days after transplanting and can cause 84% damage.
Across sites, most (82%) farmers applied insecticides to control EFSB while
about 13% manually removed and buried the infested shoots. Very few
farmers used both methods to control EFSB.
Government and private chemical companies were the most common sources
of agricultural information, including those on EFSB and EFSB control. Other
farmers and friends were also a popular source of information, implying that
word-of-mouth is a good vehicle for information dissemination in rural
areas.
Pesticide Safety Practices. Majority (83%) of the eggplant farmers interviewed

read pesticide labels, paying particular attention on recommended dosage
and manner of application, type of chemical, and expiry date (Table 5). Aware
of the chemicals risks to health and environment, majority also employed
precautionary measures in transporting pesticides (84%) and stored them
outside their respective houses (88%). In transporting pesticides, farmers
sealed them in a box and plastic, and carried them separate from other items,
especially food. Meanwhile, some farmers who stored the pesticides inside
the house did so inside a locked cabinet.
Biotechnology and Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs). Across the four

study sites, most of the farmers interviewed was not aware of biotechnology
(72%) nor of genetically modified crops planted in the country (84%) (Table
6). With the second highest proportion of eggplant farmers who are aware of
GMOs grown in the Philippines, North Cotabato appears to be more aware
of the development of genetically modified commodities in the country than
their counterparts in the other study areas.
Among eggplant farmers aware of biotechnology, majority perceived it as

beneficial to the development of Philippine agriculture and are interested in
learning more about it, particularly with respect to potentials for increasing
their farm productivity and income. Meanwhile, hybrid rice, Bt corn, Bt
eggplant, and golden rice were commonly perceived as all being genetically
modified crops. Across the provinces, most respondents expressed
willingness to plant genetically modified crops, with those from Davao City
and North Cotabato also indicating willingness to consume them.
Bt Eggplant Development. Majority (84%) of the interviewed farmers was

not aware of the development of Bt eggplant, nor of the current and/or
planned multi-location trials in their respective provinces (Table 7). Most of
Chapter 4 109
Table 5. Eggplant farmers pesticide safety practices in selected provinces, Philippines, 2011
110
Quicoy
Item
- c-
- c-
- c-
-
-
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
c-
c-
Chapter 4

Reads labels of chemicals used
Yes 82 87 117 94 98 78 94 75 391 83
No 4 4 5 4 0 0 12 10 21 4
Not applicable (Did not 8 9 3 2 27 22 19 15 57 12
apply pesticides)
Information looked for in the label
Dosage 51 17 106 36 71 24 65 22 293 71
Instruction 37 16 90 38 62 26 47 20 236 57
Category 4 4 67 67 4 4 25 25 100 24
Ingredient 3 3 69 67 4 4 27 26 103 25
Expiry date 5 4 73 53 12 9 47 34 137 33
Exercised caution in transporting chemicals
- c-
- c-
- c-
- c-
- c-
-
-
Yes 78 91 116 95 71 72 81 76 346 84
c-
c-
c-
c-
c-
No 5 6 4 3 24 24 24 23 57 14
Location of pesticide storage
- c-
- c-
- c-
- c-
- c-
-
-
Outside the house 64 75 111 93 91 93 91 86 357 88
c-
c-
c-
c-
c-
Inside the house 21 25 7 6 7 7 15 14 50 12
Storing pesticides inside the cabinet (inside the house)
- c-
- c-
- c-
- c-
- c-
-
-
Yes 19 90 7 100 4 57 10 67 40 80
c-
c-
c-
c-
c-
No 2 10 0 0 3 43 5 33 10 20
Placing pesticide containers with other items - c-
- c-
- c-
- c-
- c-
-
Yes 6 7 42 36 8 9 7 7 63 16
c-
c-
c-
c-
c-
No 78 93 74 63 84 91 99 93 335 84
Table 6. Eggplant farmers awareness of biotechnology and GMOs in selected provinces, Philippines, 2011
Item
r- -
r- -
r- -
r- -
r- -
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Awareness of biotechnology
r- -
r- -
r- -
r- -
r- -
r- -
r- -
r- -
r- -
r- -
Yes 26 28 30 24 42 34 26 21 124 26
No 65 69 95 76 83 66 97 78 340 72
Awareness of genetically modified crops planted in the country
r- -
r- -
r- -
r- -
r- -
r- -
r- -
r- -
r- -
r- -
Aware 11 12 12 10 25 20 22 18 70 15
Not aware 83 88 113 90 100 80 99 79 395 84
Perception on the positive effects of biotechnology on Philippine agriculture
r- -
r- -
r- -
r- -
r- -
r- -
r- -
r- -
r- -
r- -
Yes 20 77 22 73 40 95 23 89 105 85
No 3 12 5 17 1 2 2 8 11 9
Willingness to know about biotechnology
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
-
-
Willing 19 73 26 87 39 93 24 92 108 87
-
-
Not willing 7 27 4 13 3 7 2 8 16 13
Perceived genetically modified products
Hybrid rice 13 50 20 69 41 98 6 22 80 65
Golden rice 0 0 10 34 20 48 3 11 33 27
Bio-N 1 4 12 41 8 19 2 7 23 19
IR-8 (Rice) 1 4 4 14 14 33 3 11 22 18
Bt eggplant 15 58 9 31 7 17 2 7 33 27
Chapter 4
IV-R sweet potato 1 4 0 0 20 48 1 4 22 18

Bt corn 14 54 8 28 11 26 9 33 42 34
Willingness to plant GMO products
r- -
r- -
r- -
r- -
r- -
r- -
r- -
r- -
r- -
r- -
Willing 23 89 19 66 41 98 23 85 106 86
111
Not willing 3 12 9 31 1 2 1 4 14 11
112
Quicoy
Table 7. Eggplant farmers awareness of Bt eggplant development in selected provinces, Philippines, 2011
Item
- c-
- c-
- c-
-
-
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Chapter 4
c-
c-
Awareness of Bt eggplant development
- c-
- c-
- c-
- c-
- c-
-
-
Aware 17 18 10 8 10 8 12 10 49 10
c-
c-
c-
c-
c-
Not aware 76 81 113 90 113 90 90 72 392 84
Awareness of ongoing Bt eggplant research in their locality
- c-
- c-
- c-
- c-
- c-
-
-
Aware 4 23 2 20 2 20 6 50 14 29
c-
c-
c-
c-
c-
Not aware 13 77 4 40 8 80 6 50 31 63
Plans re farm area planted to eggplant
Expanding area 72 77 90 72 63 50 80 64 305 65
Reducing area 2 2 2 2 7 6 5 4 16 3
Maintaining current area 18 19 28 22 48 38 36 29 130 28
these respondents were from Iloilo and Southern Leyte. While Davao City
posted the highest proportion of farmers aware of Bt eggplant development,
most North Cotabato farmers were aware that Bt eggplant field trials are
being conducted in their locality, with the provincial governments official
permission.
With their awareness of current research and development on Bt eggplants,

albeit minimal, most (65%) of the farmer-respondents across the four
provinces had a positive outlook of the general eggplant industry, and
expressed plans to expand their farm areas and put available idle lands into
eggplant production. Other eggplant farmers are planning to reduce, or at
most just maintain, their current farm sizes, citing extent of EFSB infestation
and unstable product prices as the main deterring factors. The highest
proportion of farmers who plan to expand the production areas are in Davao
City, while the lowest are in Southern Leyte.
Technical Efficiency of Eggplant Production
This aspect of the study examined the factors affecting the productivity of
the sample eggplant farms, namely, seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, farm labor;
and those influencing their technical efficiency, such as farm area, availability
of credit, distance from nearest input supplier, pest control method applied,
proportion of pest damage, location, and farmers characteristics (age,
education, gender, farming experience, tenure status, and knowledge of
EFSB). Appendix Table 1 summarizes the results of these analyses.
In econometric terms, the farm labor, pesticides, and amount of seeds used
are, in this order, the most important factors of productivity of eggplant
farms in the four study areas. A 1% increase in labor use, cost of pesticides,
and amount of seeds used would respectively lead to a 0.24%, 0.15%, and
0.09% increase in eggplant production (all other factors held constant). This
indicates that eggplant production is labor-intensive (confirming findings
of other studies), and that pests and diseases are important constraints
in eggplant production. The amount of fertilizer used did not appear as
a statistically significant factor because the farmer-respondents applied
relatively the same amount per unit area (i.e., the amount of fertilizer used
was less variable across the sample farms).
The analysis also suggest that farm area; farmers age, educational
Chapter 4 113
Quicoy
attainment, gender, experience in eggplant production, and knowledge

of eggplant fruit and shoot borer (EFSB); availability of credit; distance of
the farm from the nearest input supplier; pest control method applied;
proportion of pest damage; and dummy for provinces are critical
determinants of technical inefficiency in eggplant production. The coefficients
of these factors indicate the magnitude and direction of their influence on
the latter variable.
Results suggest that farmers who are male, older, have lower educational
attainment, less farming experience, less aware of EFSB, used manual pest
control method, and/or have availed of credit, were less technically efficient
than farmers who are or did otherwise. In addition, larger farms and those
farther from input sources or suppliers were less technically efficient. Larger
farms are more difficult to manage, while those far from input sources are
more likely to apply less inputs resulting in less production.
The analysis indicates further that eggplant farms in the study areas were
operating at decreasing return to scale. That is, increasing the application of
all inputs will not increase the productivity of eggplant production because of
major constraints posed by pests and diseases.
In terms of individual farm efficiency, the study found that 50% of the
farms operate at less than 40% efficiency while about 83% are at most
60% efficient. The predicted farm-specific technical efficiencies of eggplant
farmers averaged at a low 39%, ranging from 0.004% for the least efficient
farmers to 82% for the best practice or the most efficient farmers.
Nevertheless, the wide technical efficiency differentials among the farmers
indicate that there is substantial potential for efficiency improvement if
eggplant farmers will improve their current practices and/or by adopting new
technology in eggplant production.
Profitability of Eggplant Production
This study conducted a simple cost and return analysis of eggplant

production in the four selected provinces. Total production cost comprised of
both cash and non-cash costs, while revenue generated (returns) comprised
of the value of product sold, consumed at home, given away, and/or paid
to landowners. The analysis was done on a per-farm and a per-hectare basis
(Table 8).
114 Chapter 4
Table 8. Average by-farm and by-hectare costs and returns of eggplant production in selected provinces, per season, Philippines, 2011
Per Farm Analysis Per Hectare Analysis
Item Davao Iloilo Southern North All Davao Iloilo Southern North All
City Leyte Cotabato Areas City Leyte Cotabato Areas
No. of respondents 94 125 125 125 469 94 125 125 125 469
Returns
Total cash 59,760 94,771 64,008 124,117 87,597 338,243 363,758 813,270 682,973 561,691
Total non-cash 1,375 2,762 1,930 2,141 2,096 13,119 17,361 17,319 12,294 12,273
Household 546 498 659 1,193 737 546 498 659 1,193 737
consumption
Given away 162 819 544 735 591 8,714 8,714 8,714 8,714 5,871
Landowners share 668 1,383 722 90 716 3,858 7,799 7,908 1,050 5,199
Others 0 62 5 123 51 0 350 38 1,337 465
Total Returns 61,136 97,532 65,938 126,258 89,693 351,361 381,119 830,589 695,267 573,963
Costs
Total cash 15,553 32,514 15,407 9,929 18,509 66,824 142,796 169,147 121,405 141,209
Hired labor 523 2,731 2,940 901 1,841 5,233 17,249 19,599 9,845 23,837
Seeds 175 1,089 253 63 408 735 4,835 3484 406 2,452
Fertilizer 1,877 10,215 7,471 1,673 5,495 6,417 41,226 69,849 17,857 35,255
Pesticides 12,067 14,209 682 1,792 6,900 30,974 56,011 14,205 16,896 29,475
Transport 911 4,270 4,061 5,500 3,865 23,464 23,474 62,011 76,401 50,190
Total non-cash 2,621 13,639 7,282 5,203 7,464 14,297 60,626 73,357 57,676 53,708
Chapter 4
Depreciation 371 1,323 773 454 751 2,069 5,839 11,036 6,392 6,571
Unpaid family labor 51 202 415 1,752 646 730 1,448 8,058 16,606 7,120
Landowners share 668 1,383 722 90 716 3,858 7,799 7,908 1,050 5,199
115
116
Quicoy
Table 8. Average by-farm and by-hectare costs and returns of eggplant production in selected provinces, per season, Philippines, 2011
Per Farm Analysis Per Hectare Analysis
Item Davao Iloilo Southern North All Davao Iloilo Southern North All
Chapter 4
City Leyte Cotabato Areas City Leyte Cotabato Areas

Harvest lost 1,531 10,732 5,372 2,907 5,350 7,639 45,540 46,356 33,628 34,818
Total Costs 18,174 46,153 22,689 15,132 25,973 81,121 203,423 242,504 179,081 194,917
Gross Margin 43,384 52,904 44,437 113,332 65,118 273,040 184,983 607,178 539,184 392,737
Net Cash Income 44,207 62,257 48,601 114,188 69,088 271,419 220,962 644,122 561,568 420,482
Net Farm Income 42,962 51,379 43,248 111,126 63,720 270,241 177,696 588,085 516,186 379,046
Average exchange rate in 2011: US$1.00=PhP43.31.

Gross margin = Total returns less total variable costs; Net cash income = Total cash returns less total cash costs; Net farm income = Total returns less total
costs
Per-Farm Analysis
Costs. Across the four study areas, the top three components of cash cost
were pesticides (37%), fertilizers (30%), and transport (21%), at respective
average amounts of PhP6,900, PhP5,495, and PhP3,865. (At 2011 average
foreign exchange rate, these are equivalent to US$159.32, US$126.88, and
US$89.24, respectively.) Eggplant farmers from Davao City and Iloilo cited the
occurrence of diseases, like the fruit and shoot borer, as the main reason for
applying pesticides. Other farmers applied pesticides as a preventive measure
and to ensure having some harvest from their farms. Iloilo farmers spent the
most on pesticides at about PhP14,209, which was relatively high considering
that they grew eggplant for only 6 months a year; the other study areas grew
eggplant for about 8-10 months.
Average expenditure on fertilizers ranged from PhP1,673 in North Cotabato

to PhP10,215 in Iloilo. The most common types of fertilizer applied were
urea (16-0-0) and complete fertilizers (14-14-14 and 12-12-12). Meanwhile,
transport cost ranged from PhP911 in Davao City to PhP5,500 in North
Cotabato. This included the costs of transporting the product from the
farm to the market and labor for loading and unloading the products, and
was mainly determined by the volume of harvest. In Calinan, Davao City,
where only few vehicles were available, eggplant farmers had to first walk a
few kilometers before they are able to take public transport to bring their
products to the market.
On average, hired labor cost was only about 10% (PhP1,841 per farm per
season) of all cash costs in eggplant production. It ranged from PhP901 in
North Cotabato to PhP2,940 in Southern Leyte, and included the cost of
hired labor for land preparation, transplanting, and fertilizer and pesticide
application. Low hired labor costs were due to more use of family labor in
eggplant production. Seed expense was the lowest cash cost incurred by
eggplant farmers at an average of PhP408 per farm, and contributed only
about 2% of total cash cost. The low seed expense was due to farmers use of
seeds saved from the previous production season.
Among non-cash costs in eggplant production, harvest lossesdue to

pests and diseases, and shrinkage and damage during transport to the
marketwas the major item (almost 72%), at an average of PhP5,350 per
farm. Iloilo farmers reported the highest harvest losses, claimed as due to
heavy infestation of eggplant fruit and shoot borer (EFSB), despite high
Chapter 4 117
Quicoy
application of pesticides and employing other pest control measures. Other

non-cash cost items in eggplant production were depreciation of farm tools
and equipment; unpaid family labor used in land preparation, fertilizer and
pesticide application, and harvesting; and landowners share in the harvest,
which averaged at PhP751, PhP646, and PhP646, respectively.
Returns. Returns in eggplant production can also be classified into cash and
non-cash returns. Earnings from products sold are the cash returns, while
the value of products consumed, given away, and/or paid to landowners are
the non-cash returns. On average, returns consisted about 98% cash and 2%
non-cash, at PhP87,597 and PhP2,096 per farm per season, respectively.
From the above cost and return figures, eggplant farmers realized an average
net cash income of PhP69,088, gross margin of PhP65,118, and net farm
income of PhP63,720. Across sites, farmers from North Cotabato reported
the highest figures of these parameters; those from Davao City reported
the lowest. The areas level of productivity, the main factor in these trends,
was influenced by (the absence or presence of) EFSB infestation during the
production period. On average, North Cotabato yielded almost 9.6 tons/farm
while Davao City yielded only 2.4 tons/farm in 2011.
Per-Hectare Analysis
The top three components of cash cost on a per-hectare basis were transport
(36%), fertilizers (25%), and pesticides (21%), at respective average amounts
of PhP50,190, PhP25,255, and PhP29,475. Non-cash costs due to harvest
losses was significant at almost 65%, equivalent to an average of PhP34,818
per hectare. Across the four provinces, per-hectare production cost averaged
at PhP194,917, and returns at almost PhP574,000, with Davao City reporting
the lowest, and Southern Leyte the highest, for both parameters (Table 8).
The average net cash income realized by the farmer-respondents ranged

from PhP220,962 in Iloilo to PhP644,122 in Southern Leyte, and averaged
at PhP420,482 per hectare. Although eggplant growers from Southern
Leyte incurred the highest per-hectare production cost, they also enjoyed
high productivity, hence the highest returns, which significantly offset the
total cost. The high productivity (39.4 t/ha) realized by eggplant farmers
from Southern Leyte was due to high fertilizer application and low disease
infestation.
118 Chapter 4
Potential Impact of Bt Eggplant on Farmers Income
The use of Bt eggplant can be expected to increase seed expense, decrease

expense on pesticides and labor for pesticide application, and increase
farm yields by about 30% due to less EFSB damage. However, the expected
increase in eggplant production will also increase product transport cost
and landlords share. Overall, Bt eggplant farms are expected to incur lower
production costs than non-Bt eggplant farms (Table 9).
Enterprise budget analysis showed that, on average, the adoption of Bt

eggplant can increase per-hectare cash returns by almost PhP117,000 (or
by about 21%), and per-hectare net farm income and net cash income
by PhP130,225 and PhP124,060, respectively (Table 9). These increases in
profitability will be due to increase in marketable surplus resulting from
minimal or zero EFSB damage and overall lower cost of production. The
biggest cash cost saving is expected to come from savings in pesticide
expense. Non-cash cost in the form of harvesting losses is also expected to
decrease due to minimal EFSB damage.
Sensitivity analysis estimated that if 15% of the total eggplant area (21,377 ha
as of 2011 [BAS, 2012]) will be planted to the Bt variety, the eggplant sub-
sector can realize an increase in net farm income of about PhP3 million, while
about PhP7 million will be realized if 30% of the total eggplant area will be
planted with Bt eggplant. For a 10-year period, the analysis showed that the
net present value of the increase in net farm income in adopting Bt eggplant
ranges from PhP25 million to PhP49 million. The estimated potential benefits
do not include the consumers surplus due to lower prices of eggplant,
and health and environmental benefits of lesser pesticide use in eggplant
production.
Problems Encountered in Eggplant Production
Across the four study areas, majority (87%) of the respondents identified
pests and diseases as the major problem in eggplant production. Other
production-related problems encountered were lack of capital, occurrence of
calamities, high input costs, lack of technology, and poor soil condition (Table
10). Meanwhile, marketing-related problems identified were low and unstable
eggplant prices, high transportation costs, poor farm-to-market roads,
exploitative buyers, and lack of transportation facilities.
Chapter 4 119
Quicoy
Table 9. Estimated per-season per-hectare costs and returns of eggplant production in

selected provinces, Philippines, 2011
Non-Bt
Bt Eggplant Difference
Eggplant
Returns
Total cash 561,691 678,579 116,888
Total non-cash 12,274 12,274
Household consumption 737 737
Given away 5,871 5,871
Landowners share 5,199 5,199
Others 465 465
Total Returns 573,964 690,852 116,888
Costs
Total cash 141,209 134,037 (7,172)
Hired labor 23,837 21,453 (2,384)
Seeds 2,452 4,904 2,452
Fertilizer 35,255 35,255
Pesticides 29,475 11,790 (17,685)
Transport 50,190 60,635 10,445
Total non-cash 53,708 47,544 (6,164)
Depreciation 6,571 6,571
Unpaid family labor 7,120 7,120
Landowners share 5,199 6,281 1,082
Harvest lost 34,818 27,572 (7,246)
Total Cost 194,917 181,581 (13,336)
Net Cash Income 420,482 544,542 124,060
Net Farm Income 379,046 509,271 130,225
Assumptions used in the partial budget analysis: (i) 20.81% EFSB damage; (ii) Labor used in
spraying insecticide to control EFSB is 10% of the total labor cost spent in eggplant production;
(iii) Bt eggplant seeds twice as expensive as those of non-Bt eggplant; (iv) Pesticide used to control
ESFB is 60% of the total pesticide cost; (v) Base yield is 27.48 t/ha (average yield of the farmer-
respondents); and (vi) Price of eggplant will be the same at PhP15.71 per kilogram.
120 Chapter 4
Table 10. Production- and marketing-related problems encountered in eggplant production in selected provinces, Philippines, 2011
c- -
c- -
c- -
c- -
c- -
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Production Problems
Pest and diseases 85 90 97 78 117 94 110 88 409 87
Lack of capital 58 62 80 64 42 34 68 54 248 53
High cost of inputs 18 19 25 20 6 5 36 29 85 18
Poor soil condition 12 13 20 16 5 4 10 8 47 10
Natural calamities 17 18 58 46 60 48 12 10 147 31
Other problems 15 16 23 18 5 4 16 13 59 13
None 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 4 5 1
Marketing Problems
Poor farm-to-market 28 30 20 16 16 13 20 16 84 18
road
High transport cost 20 21 22 18 14 11 43 34 99 21
Low/unstable prices of 66 70 86 69 101 81 101 81 354 75
output
Exploitative traders 20 21 34 27 18 14 4 3 76 16
Lack of transportation 6 6 8 6 0 14 3
facilities
None 2 2 3 2 4 1
Chapter 4
121
Quicoy
Summary and Recommendations
The cost and return analysis in this study showed that eggplant production
is a highly profitable enterprise in the Philippines, with farmers net farm
income and cash income both relatively high. The study also presented
evidence of improved farm productivity and profitability with Bt eggplant.
Improved farm productivity (higher yield and marketable surplus) is mainly
due to lesser damage from EFSB infestation, hence reduced harvesting losses,
while improved farm profitability can be attributed mainly to savings in
pesticide and pesticide application costs.
The commercialization of Bt eggplant should be facilitated for farmers to

have an additional option as to what variety to grow, and to enjoy significant
increase in farm income. Based on this studys findings, farmer adoption
of Bt eggplant should be encouraged (once it becomes commercially
available), especially if improved profitability is the main goal of an individual
farmer or of a government production program. Bt eggplant thus offers the
national government an opportunity to help reduce poverty incidence in the
vegetable industry.
Considering the main thrust of the Philippine Department of Agriculture

to go organic all the way, and the pending case in the Supreme Court
against conducting Bt eggplant multi-location field trials in the country,
the possibility of this product not becoming commercially available is not
remote nor surprising. As such, some strategic education campaigns, initial
information dissemination activities, and awareness-raising programs,
targeting various stakeholders (e.g., farmers, policy makers, concerned
government agencies, NGOs, etc.) would be useful in paving the path for
public acceptance of Bt eggplant toward commercialization.
References
Ahearn, M.J. Yee, E. Ball, and R. Nehring. 1998. Agricultural Productivity in the United States.
Economic Research Services. USDA.
Aigner, D.J., C.A.K. Lovell, and P. Schmidt. 1977. Formulation and Estimation of Stochastic
Frontier Production Model. Journal of Econometrics 6(1):21-37.
Baral, K., B.C. Roy, K.M.B. Rahim, H. Chatterice, P. Mondal, D. Mondal, D. Ghosh, and N.S.
Talekar. 2006. Socio-economic Parameters of Pesticide Use and Assessment of Impact
of an IPM Strategy for the Control of Eggplant Fruit and Shoot Borer in West Bengal,
India. AVRDC The World Vegetable Center, Taiwan. Technical Bulletin No. 37.
122 Chapter 4
Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. Database of the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics. COUNTRY

Stat. http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-capacity/countrystathome/country
-statistics/en/. (accessed January 2012).
Battese, G.E. and D.S.P. Rao. 2002. Technology Gap, Efficiency, and a Stochastic Metafrontier
Function. International Journal of Business and Economics 1(2):87-93.
Battese, G.E. and T.J. Coelli. 1985. Prediction of Firm-Level Technical Efficiency with a
Generalized Frontier Production Function and Panel Data. Journal of Econometrics 38,
387-399.
Battese, G.E. and T.J. Coelli. 1995. A Model for Technical Inefficiency in a Stochastic Frontier
Production Function for Panel Data. Empirical Economics 20: 325-332.
Bhagvath, V. (undated) Technical Efficiency Measurement by Data Envelopment Analysis: An
Application in Transportation. Alliance Journal of Business Research. pp. 60-68. http://
ajbr.org/archeive.htm (accessed January 2012).
Baten, MD. Azizul, A.A. Kamil and K. Fatama. 2009. Technical Efficiency in Stochastic Frontier
Production Model: An Application to the Manufacturing Industry in Bangladesh.
Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Science 3(3): 1160-1169.
Coelli, T. 1996. A Guide to Frontier Version 4.1: A Computer Program for Stochastic Frontier
Production and Cost Function Estimation. CEPA Working Paper 96/07, Center for
Efficiency and Productivity Analysis, University of New England, Armidale.
Coelli, T. and D.S.P. Rao. 2003. Total Factor Productivity Growth in Agriculture: A Malmquist
Index Analysis of 93 Countries, 1980-2000. Paper presented during the 2003
International Association of Agricultural Economics Conference, Durban, South Africa
on16-22 August 2003.
Coelli, T., P.D.S. Rao, C.J. ODonnell, and G.E. Battese. 2005. An Introduction to Efficiency and
Productivity Analysis, 2nd Ed. Springer, New York.
Drew, E.A., V.V.S.R. Cupta, and D.K. Roget. 2007. Herbicide Use, Productivity and Nitrogen
Fixation in Field Pea (Pisum sativum). Australian Journal of Agricultural Research (58):
1204-1214.
Farrel, M.J. 1957. The Measurement of Productive Efficiency. Journal of Royal Statistical
Society Series A, 120, 253-281.
Fraser, I.M. and W.C. Horrace. 2003. Technical Efficiency of Australian Wool Production:
Point and Confidence Interval Estimates. Journal of Productivity Analysis 20(2): 169-
190. September.
Hassan, S. and B. Ahmad. 2005. Stochastic Frontier Production Function, Application and
Hypothesis Testing. Industrial Journal of Agriculture and Biology 1560-8530: 427-430.
Idiong, I.C. 2007. Estimation of Farm Level Technical Efficiency in Small-scale Swamp Rice
Production in Cross River State of Nigeria: A Stochastic Frontier Approach. World
Journal of Agricultural Sciences 3(5): 653-658.
Javed, M.I., S.A. Adil, A. Ali, and M. Arif Raza. 2010. Measurement of Technical Efficiency of
Rice-Wheat System in Punjab, Pakistan Using DEA Technique. Journal of Agricultural
Research 48(2): 226-237.
Chapter 4 123
Quicoy
Ketin, S. 2009. Economic Assessment of Mangosteen Farmers Adopting Good Agricultural

Practices (GAP) in Rayong Province, Thailand. Unpublished MS Thesis. University of the
Philippines Los Baos (UPLB), Philippines.
Masterson, T. 2007. Productivity, Technical Efficiency, and Farm Size in Paraguayan
Agriculture. Working Paper No. 490. The Levy Economic Institute of Bard College,
February.
Misuya, E., S. Hisano, and T. Nariu. 2008. Explaining Productivity Variation among
Smallholder Maize Farmers in Tanzania. Paper presented in the XII World Congress of
Rural Sociology of the International Rural Sociology Association, Goyang, Korea.
Swastika, D.K.S. 1995. The Decomposition of Total Factor Productivity Growth: The Case
of Irrigated Rice Farming in West Java, Indonesia. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation.
University of the Philippines Los Baos (UPLB), Philippines.
Teruel, R.G. and Y. Kuroda. 2004. An Empirical Analysis of Productivity in Philippine
Agriculture, 1974-2000. Asian Economic Journal 18(3): 319-351.
124 Chapter 4
Appendix Table 1. Maximum likelihood estimates of the Cobb-Douglas stochastic production

function analysis in selected provinces, Philippines, 2011
Parameter Unit I OLS I Model2
Dependent Variable
Yield kilograms per
hectare
Independent Variables
Constant 6.2310*** 9.9345***
Seeds grams 0.0923* 0.0655***

Labor person-days 0.2430*** 0.0843***
Pesticide cost pesos 0.1506*** 0.0584***
Fertilizer 50-kilogram -0.0166 -0.0117
sacks
Costs
Constant 8.3876***
Farm size hectare -2.8371***
Age years -0.3581***
Educational attainment years 2.4746***
Gender -1.8611*
Farm experience years 0.8266***
Tenure 0.8684
Availability of credit -9.2091***
Distance from nearest 7,120 7,120
input supplier kilometers 1.6535***
Knowledge of EFSB 3.9135***
Pest control method 7.9976***
% Damage -0.4097***
Prov 1 10.7469***
Prov 2 7.0234***
Prov 3 30.1201***
Sigma 60.3380
Gamma 0.9876
Return to scale 0.4693
*** Significant at 1% level, * Significant at 10% level.
Chapter 4 125
Chupungco, Elazegui, Nguyen and de los Santos
Chapter 5
Supply Chain of the Eggplant Industry

in Selected Areas in the Philippines
Miriam R. Nguyen, and Samantha
Geraldine G. de los Santos
Background
In 2011, the Philippines ranked 10th among the worlds top eggplant
producers (FAOSTAT, 2013), although eggplant is primarily for the domestic
market. It is considered to be one of the most economically important
vegetable crops in the country, leading in terms of area planted, volume,
and value of production (Hautea and Narciso, 2007). Given the significance
of the eggplant industry in the Philippine agricultural economy, this books
Chapter 2 provides a comprehensive profile of the crops seed, production,
and marketing systems, including production trends, output prices,
marketing activities, key industry players, and current policies. It provides
useful information for industry stakeholders to better respond to end-users
demands, as well as be crucial inputs in policy design to promote sustainable
industry development.
Similar to any other agricultural crop, eggplant farmers and traders consider
product price fluctuations as a major marketing problem. They are also
concerned with market/consumer quality preferences, eggplant shelf life,
and transportability (firmness). Quality of produce will depend not only on
farmers choice of inputs such as seeds and adoption of proper management
practices but also on proper handling, post-harvest facilities, and marketing
system. Market matching, tie-ups between traders and growers, and other
market assistance are some of the activities in the industry.
126 Chapter 5
Supply Chain of the Eggplant Industry in Selected Areas in the Philippines
Related to Chapter 2, this chapter examines the entire spectrum of the

eggplant supply chain, i.e., all the interrelated activities in production and
distribution until the product reached the final processors and/or consumers
(Porter, 1985, as cited in Oracion, 2008).1 It identifies key areas along the
chain needing improvement, and suggests potential interventions to address
the concerns. More specifically, this chapter:
i. presents the eggplant supply chain maps, showing the production

activities and services; key players involved; logistics issues and
external influences; and flow of product, information and payments;
ii. analyzes the performance of the eggplant supply chain in terms of
efficiency, flexibility, and overall responsiveness;
iii. identifies areas for improvement in the supply chain, e.g., behavioral,
institutional, and process; and
iv. recommends specific projects/programs and policies to improve the
eggplant supply chain and the industry in general.
This study adapted and employed the supply chain management framework
used by earlier supply chain studies funded by the Philippine Council for
Agriculture, Forestry and Natural Resources Research and Development
(PCARRD) (e.g., Brown and Esguerra, 2007; Guiamal, 2008; Soliven et al.,
2008). The analysis focuses on: key players and their roles; key customers
and product requirements; activities and processes along the supply chain;
product, information and payment flow; supply chain performance (costs
and returns, marketing margins); and logistic issues, concerns and external
influences.
Supply chain management (SCM) is a systems approach, which draws

contributions from various disciplines. It represents the management of
the entire set of production, processing/transformation, distribution, and
marketing activities by which a consumer is supplied with the desired
product. SCM is a strategic management tool used to enhance overall
consumer satisfaction that is intended to maximize the firms competitiveness
and profitability as well as the whole supply chain network including the end-
customers. Its major objective is to enhance working relationships among the
1
At each stage of the supply chain, the products value can also be improved with added inputs
in moving or transforming the products. Oracion (2008) and Guiamal (2008) discuss this
process of value addition through several primary and support activities.
Chapter 5 127
various stakeholders to ensure better performance of the entire supply chain.

The coordination of all the activities among the supply chain members hopes
to achieve the best mix of responsiveness and efficiency for the markets
being served.
Figure 1 shows the supply chain management framework for the eggplant
industry, showing the main actors/players. For the chain to be efficient and
responsive to end-users product requirements (in terms of quality and
quantity), activities within should be synchronized and well coordinated,
also for the benefit of the players. It will also be easier and more effective
for the public and private sectors to channel support services for the
overall improvement and smooth operation of the eggplant supply chain.
Optimizing the entire chain also requires correct information flows that will
guide every member in decision-making. Information sharing, teamwork,
cooperation, and collaboration are hence the major driving forces for the
optimal delivery of products desired by the market (Brown and Esguerra,
2007; Guiamal, 2008; Soliven et al., 2008).
In a product supply chain, the primary activities include those that are directly
related to the movement of goods and services among the producers and
users. These primary activities and their components are as follows:
1. Inbound logistics, which revolve around the required elements in

eggplant production from selection of planting materials, crop care
and maintenance, until harvesting;
2. Outbound logistics, which include all activities (e.g., packaging,
transportation, storage) and players in moving the product to the
end-users or consumers;
3. Marketing and sales, which refer to the selling and delivery of the
products, identifying the needs or preferences of consumers with
attention to pricing; and
4. Customer service, which means assuring buyers satisfaction of the
products and attending to their complaints.
Related support activities in the eggplant industry are the following:
1. Infrastructure, including highly developed and cost-effective

information system to capture buyers preference, with focus on
producing high quality products;
2. Human resources development programs and trainings to enhance
the skill and efficiency of the industrys key players or stakeholders
128 Chapter 5
Figure 1. The Supply Chain Management (SCM) conceptual framework
(e.g., farmers and traders) while encouraging productivity, innovation

and resourcefulness, among others;
3. Technologies that are easy to use and investment in technologies
that increase the quantity, or improve the quality, of products and by-
products; and
4. Procurement procedures to find the highest quality inputs to
maximize productivity and minimize waste.
Methodology
Study Sites
This study was conducted in the top two eggplant-producing provinces

of Pangasinan (Region I, Ilocos Region) and Quezon (Region IVA,
CALABARZON). More specifically, it was conducted in the top eggplant-
producing municipalities of Villasis, Asingan, and Sta. Maria in Pangasinan,
with 25 growers and 28 traders as respondents, and 13 supply chains
analyzed (Table 1). In Quezon, the study was conducted in Tiaong, Dolores,
and Sariaya, with 23 growers and 31 traders as respondents, and 15 supply
chains analyzed. Manila and other key demand centers for eggplant were
likewise studied for the product flows.
Chapter 5 129
Table 1. Number of respondents by type and study area, January-April, 2011

Number of Respondents
Type of Respondent
Quezon Pangasinan
Farmer/Grower 23 25
Grower-Assembler-Wholesaler 3 1
Grower-Assembler-Wholesaler-Retailer 2
Broker 1
Assembler-Wholesaler 3 8
Wholesaler 7 6
Wholesaler-Retailer 7 5
Retailer 8 8
Total 54 53
Data Collection
The latest secondary data and related information on eggplant production,

area, yield, and prices (farm, wholesale, and retail) at the provincial level
and municipal level were gathered from the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics
(BAS), the Office of the Provincial Agriculturist (OPAg) and the Municipal/
City Agriculturist Office in the study sites, and from related published and
unpublished documents.
Primary data were gathered through consultations, key informant interviews

(KIIs) of the industrys stakeholders (e.g., farmers, traders, Provincial
Agriculturists, Municipal/City Agriculturists, and other local government
officials). Purposive sampling or snowball sampling was used as the supply
chain was traced from the production sites to the final market.
KIIs generated data on key customers and product requirements; product,

information and money flow; activities and services rendered and key players
and respective roles at each stage in the supply chain; critical logistic issues;
and external influences. For each stage of the supply chain from every
province, at least one shipment from the product source to the ultimate
destination in the Philippines was traced to (i) validate all information in the
supply chain map initially drawn based on the interviews; (ii) monitor and
document all practices; (iii) determine and quantify all costs and margins
associated with such practices; and (iv) track changes in product volume and
quality along the chain.
130 Chapter 5
Data Analysis
The efficiency of the eggplant supply chain was evaluated based on

performance indicators, namely, profit and return on investment; its flexibility,
by the interaction among volume, quality, and delivery of products; and its
responsiveness, by customer satisfaction regarding price, product quality,
volume delivered, and other social concerns (environment, equity, fairness).
The areas for improvement of the supply chain were identified based on
the data gathered, the current state of the industry, supply chain maps,
and performance. Improvement measures were guided by the following
principles of successful value chains: (i) satisfaction and need of customers
and consumers; (ii) creating and sharing value with all members in the
chain; (iii) having effective logistics and distribution; (v) ensuring information
and communication strategies; and (vi) developing relationships that gives
leverage and shared ownership (Soliven et al., 2008).
The next section presents and discusses the responses to the following
questions:
a) Who are the key customers and what are their product requirements
(especially quality standards)?
b) How do the product, information, and money flow through the
supply chain?
c) What are the activities and services provided at each step in the
supply chain?
d) Who are the key players and what are their respective roles?
e) What are the critical logistical issues?
f) What are the external influences?
Key Players and Roles in the Supply Chain
The major players in the eggplant supply chain were almost the same for
both Pangasinan and Quezon except that a dicer was also part of the supply
chain in the latter.
Eggplant Farmer. On average, eggplant farmer-respondents from Quezon

were 47 years old, and had 1.44 hectares (ha) of farm land. Thirty-six
Chapter 5 131
percent of these respondents finished primary (elementary) school and 50%

graduated from secondary school. Meanwhile, those from Pangasinan were
46 years old, and had 0.87 ha of farm land, on average. Fifty-six percent
finished elementary and 19% have graduated from high school.
Dicer. There is one trader in Dolores, Quezon who procures eggplants on

behalf of the assembler-wholesaler and assembler-wholesaler-retailer. He
moves around the major eggplant-producing villages (barangays) to look
for regular suppliers of eggplant. He normally pays the farmers 50% of the
agreed amount, upon delivery of the commodity at the barangay pickup
point. The other 50% is paid a day after his contact trader has given him full
payment.
Assembler-Wholesaler. Locally known as viajeros, these middlemen have

the financial and logistical capacity to procure eggplants either directly
from farmers and/or other traders, or through the assistance of dicers, and
transport the commodity to major demand centers within and outside the
province. In Quezon, the assembler-wholesalers presence in 13 of the 15
eggplant supply chains analyzed indicates its very crucial role.
Assembler-Wholesaler-Retailer. These traders play multiple roles: procure

eggplants from several farmers; sell the products in large volume outside the
province; and/or sell them in retail within and outside the province. Some of
these traders are farmers with own transport, or who can hire one, to deliver
the eggplants to major markets. They also usually own retail stalls in public
markets, which likewise serve as temporary storage for, and work areas for
sorting, the eggplants.
Wholesaler-Retailer. Largely concentrated in public markets in major trading

areas, wholesaler-retailers procure eggplants mainly from regular deliveries of
farmers and other trader/wholesaler-suppliers. Most of them have permanent
stalls, and sell either in bulk or small quantities to retailers.
Retailer. This type of trader sells small quantities of eggplants and operates
either as roadside retailers or occupies stalls in public markets.
Quezon trader-respondents were 27-66 years old with 2-25 years experience
in eggplant trading, while those from Pangasinan were 31-66 years old
with 5-30 years experience. Twenty percent of the eggplant traders in
Quezon completed elementary schooling and 52%, secondary education. In
Pangasinan, 39% of the eggplant traders finished elementary education, and
43% graduated from high school.
132 Chapter 5
Key Markets, Customers, and Product Requirements
In Pangasinan, only 15% of the marketable surplus is sold locally as 75%

goes to Metro Manila (e.g., Divisoria, Balintawak), and the rest to Ilocos and
Baguio City. During the months of November to January, Pangasinan supplies
eggplants to the province of Isabela; in February, the former procures
eggplants from the latter.
In Pangasinan, eggplants are generally sold at the farm to traders. But

there are redundant or overlapping channels in the marketing chain. Buyers
(assembler-wholesalers) at the farm bring the commodity to the trading
post (bagsakan) in Villasis or Urdaneta City, where they are picked up by
the next chain of buyers (wholesalers, wholesaler-retailers) for distribution
in Metro Manila markets such as Divisoria (City of Manila) and Balintawak
(Quezon City). Buyers in these markets are again another layer of wholesalers
and retailers. Some wholesalers-retailers from Baguio City also buy from
the Villasis and Urdaneta City trading posts for distribution in the formers
market.
There are also institutional buyers sourcing eggplants from assembler-

wholesalers who are in direct contact with certain farmer-suppliers.
Some repacks and distributes the produce to supermarket chains. These
institutional buyers impose stricter quality requirements, and will not pay for
eggplants that do not pass their quality standards, making farmers hesitant
to sell to them. Supermarket chains impose daily volume and on-time
delivery requirements, and payment takes relatively longer than with other
traditional buyers (e.g., wet market).
In Quezon, the local market gets 20% of the marketable surplus. From
discussions with OPAg and data gathered from growers and traders, it was
estimated that Metro Manila wet markets obtain 50%; Tanauan, 10%; Laguna
and Cavite, 5% each; Bicol and Samar, 5%; and other provinces such as Nueva
Ecija and Pampanga, 5%. Eggplants harvested are usually brought to three
major markets, namely, Sentrong Pamilihan ng Produktong Agrikultura ng
Quezon (SPPAQ) (Quezon Central Market for Agricultural Products), popularly
known to vegetable growers and traders as Procy; Tanauan City Public
Market, Batangas; and Metro Manila wet markets (e.g., Divisoria, Balintawak).
An assembler-wholesaler-retailer who is a resident of Dolores, Quezon also
sells eggplants on retail at the Kadiwa Public Market in Dasmarias, Cavite.
Chapter 5 133
Eggplant buyers at the SPPAQ come from provinces mostly within the
region (Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Rizal, Quezon), as well as from those in
Bicol Region (e.g., Daet, Camarines Norte; Naga City, Camarines Sur) and
Rawis, Samar. From the Tanauan City wet market, the eggplants are brought
to various markets such as the Mahogany Public Market in Tagaytay; Metro
Manila; Laguna; Pampanga; and Nueva Ecija.
Some assembler-wholesalers prefer to bring eggplants to Tanauan City than

to Divisoria or Balintawak in Metro Manila, since it is nearer to Quezon,
eggplant buying price is higher, and buyers are easier to deal with.
During July to November when volume of eggplant harvest is large, traders

deliver to Divisoria, Balintawak, or Pasig as the Tanauan and Sariaya markets
cannot fully absorb the supply. Other assembler-wholesalers already have
their suki (regular buyers) in Metro Manila. However, wholesalers in Divisoria
sometimes pay the Quezon assembler-wholesalers a price lower than the
agreed price, especially when large volumes of eggplants were delivered
during the day. This leads to Quezon assembler-wholesalers getting a
negative profit (loss) due to the high cost of transport to Divisoria.
The market players require varying volumes of the product, with the
assembler-wholesalers requiring the most at 12 tons per day of good
eggplants in Quezon, and 8 tons per day in Pangasinan. As expected, the
retailers require the smallest volume of good eggplants at 3-250 kgs per day.
The assembler-wholesalers, wholesalers, and retailers also require eggplants
of semi quality when eggplant supply in the market is low.
Eggplants are graded based on customer or buyer preference, in turn based

on the fruits color, firmness, length, and shape: good or primera; semi or
segunda; and reject or butas (Table 2). Semi grade eggplants include those
oversized or bent, while the rejects are those with holes due to some insect
pests (e.g., fruit and shoot borer, and other kinds of worms).
Activities and Processes along the Supply Chain
Activities and processes along the eggplant supply chain range from those in
farm production to those in selling to final consumers (Figure 2).
Pangasinan
Production. Eggplant is a warm-weather crop with a relatively long growing

season of about 120-150 days. In Pangasinan, farmers generally prefer long
134 Chapter 5
Table 2. Eggplant buyers/customers and product requirements in Quezon and

Pangasinan, 2011
Key Players Buyers/ Estimated Volume Required Grade
Customers (kg per day) Specifica-
tionsa
Quezon Pangasinan
Dicer Assembler- 300 - 500 - Good
wholesaler;
Wholesalers
Assembler-wholesaler Wholesalers; 300 - 12,000 150 8,000 Good
Wholesaler-
500 6,000 80 600 Semi
retailers;
Retailers
Assembler-wholesal- Retailers; 1,000 - 1,500 Good
er-retailer Consumers
Wholesaler Retailers 50 5,000 700 5,000 Good

50 1,500 500 Semi
Wholesaler-retailer Retailers, Con- 80 1,000 80 3,000 Good
sumers
200 800 Semi
Retailer Consumers 3 - 200 20 250 Good
15 - 25 Semi
a
Grade specification and quality requirements:
Good = Purple, firm, elongated (10-12 inches), average in size and straight.
Semi = Paler than the good, firm, <10 inches long, or oversized, bent.
Sorting Distribution
Eggplant Packaging to wholesalers,
Selling to
production Hauling retailers,
consumers
and harvesting Transporting to institutional
market outlets buyers
Figure 2. Activities and processes in the supply chain, Pangasinan and

Quezon, 2010-2011
Chapter 5 135
and purple hybrid varieties (such as Morena and Casino), start seedbed
preparation in August/September, and transplant after 1 month. Farmers buy
their material inputs from dealers and/or output traders, pay either in cash or
through a credit arrangement, or borrow initial operating capital.
Land preparation involves plowing, harrowing, and digging holes for

transplanting seedlings. Crop maintenance includes irrigation, fertilizer
application, and pest and disease management. Farmers in Pangasinan
generally have irrigation pump facilities. Fertilizers are applied thrice, for
example, 2 weeks after transplanting (ammonium phosphate 16-20-0; Crop
Giant); and 1 month and 2 months after with complete fertilizer, ammonium
sulfate, and Crop Giant. Pesticide application is intensive, done every 4-5
days during fruiting stage (3-4 weeks from flowering to market-fruit size). This
activity accounts for almost 21% of total labor, and 15% of total labor cost, in
eggplant production. Farmers use more family labor for seedbed preparation
and care, plowing, and furrowing. More hired labor is used in weeding and
harvesting. Exchange labor (bayanihan) is used during transplanting wherein
farmers help each other at no cost, but with meals provided.
First eggplant harvest is at 55-60 days after transplanting, and consequent

harvests, done every 4-5 days, could last for 3-6 months, involving a total of
250 person-days. Harvesting cost accounts for 23% of total labor cost, while
postharvest activities (e.g., bagging and hauling) account for 28% of total
person-days and labor costs (Table 3).
Marketing. In general, traders, including wholesalers and assembler-

wholesalers pick up the eggplants at the farm, thus sparing farmers the cost
of transport. Farmers indebted to buyers/traders are also spared with the
cost and time of looking for markets. However, their bargaining power is
weakened as they can no longer negotiate the price.
The buyers or their representatives classify the eggplants into primera

(good), segunda (semi-good), kulatong (rejects), and price them
accordingly. When eggplant prices are high, even the rejects are sold; when
the prices are low, the rejects are just given away or disposed.
Quezon
Production. As a first step, eggplant growers look for a suitable farm

lot for planting eggplant, since they normally do not plant on the same
farm lot in successive seasons to avoid declining yields. Apart from that,
eggplant farmers in Quezon perform production activities similar to those
136 Chapter 5
Table 3. Labor inputs (person-days) per hectare in eggplant production and post-harvest activities, Quezon and Pangasinan, 2010-2011
QUEZON PANGASINAN
Variety/Source Family Labor Hired Labor Total Labor Family Labor Hired Labor Total Labor
(person- (person- (person- (person-
days) Person-days Cost (PhP) days) days) Person-days Cost (PhP) days)
Seedbed preparation 2.5 4.0 866.00 6.9 3.0 1.5 380.00 4.5
Seedbed care 10.1 6.8 2,019.28 16.9 13.7 3.5 450.00 17.2
Land clearing 8.8 8.8 7,861.46 17.5 0. 2.1 2,493.85 2.9

Plowing 4.4 2,918.75 4.4 8.2 1.9 1,645.11 10.1
Harrowing 14.0 10.0 2,300.00 24.0 2.7 3.2 1,015.11 5.8
Furrowing 4.7 7.6 2,060.00 12.3 6.9 2. 550.00 9.4
Digging holes 2.5 5.2 1,498.33 7.7 7.9 9.5 1,985.71 17.4
Transplanting 6.1 6.9 1,877.86 13.0 9.0 11.6 1,552.38 20.6
Weeding 50.4 86.8 23,132.13 137.2 5.6 58.2 9,035.41 63.9
Hilling up 6.8 20.4 5,266.67 27.2 5.0 6.0 1,475.00 11.0
Fertilizer application 16.5 21.6 5,787.00 38.1 15.9 27.3 6,855.27 43.2
Pesticide application 66.5 42.8 14,230.00 109.3 136.4 109.3 16,283.28 245.6
Watering 21.0 48,150.00 21.0 67.3 67.1 16,765.37 134.4
Harvesting 53.9 155.2 40,685.98 209.1 62.6 190.4 26,189.34 253.0
Sorting 67.5 150.6 25,588.23 218.1 65.1 64.5 7,232.79 129.6
Bundling 53.9 98.1 15,719.22 152.0 35.0 55.4 7,469.66 90.3
Chapter 5
Hauling 66.0 80.9 14,382.14 147.0 61.3 56.0 10,550.94 117.3

Total 430.1 731.4 214,343.05 1,161.5 506.3 669.8 111,929.21 1,176.1
% of total person-days 37.0 63.0 100.0 43.05 57.0 100.0
137
of Pangasinan farmers. However, Quezon farmers employ less number of

person-days for irrigation and fertilizer and pesticide application (Table 3).
Overall, hired labor constitutes almost 63% of all production labor; the rest
are family labor. Transporting is usually the responsibility of the buyer or
assembler-wholesaler, while price is negotiated between the buyer and the
farmer. In Tiaong and Dolores, eggplant season is 6 months, beginning in
June/July and ending in January-March. In Sariaya, eggplant season is from
February to July.
Marketing. Similar to the case of Pangasinan, traders activities in Quezon

begin even before harvest, when traders lend production capital or inputs to
farmers to assure themselves of a regular supply of eggplant. In addition, the
regular activities of traders consist of assembling the harvested eggplants,
sorting or grading, packing, hauling, transporting to the market, pricing, and
selling.
Product, Information, and Payment Flows
Supply Chain Maps
Pangasinan. There are 13 supply chains identified in Pangasinan. Five

chains end in retail markets in Divisoria; 2 in Balintawak, Quezon City; 2
in Batangas/Cavite; 1 in Baguio City; 2 within Pangasinan markets such as
Villasis and Pangasinan; and 1 to institutional buyers like SM and Robinsons
(see Appendix Figures 1 to 13).2 Transport of eggplants from farm to final
market takes one day for local markets in Pangasinan and two days for other
market destinations. All the supply chains start from the farm to assembler-
wholesaler from Villasis, Urdaneta City and Asingan, Pangasinan. All these
assembler-wholesalers supply to wholesalers, retailers, and wholesaler-
retailers. There is one chain where an assembler-wholesaler in Urdaneta City
supplies another assembler-wholesaler from Tanauan City, Batangas when
supply of eggplant from Quezon is low. Tables 4 and 5 summarize the data
collected on these supply chains.
Since eggplant production period varies widely across Pangasinan (e.g., June/
July to April, June to September, or October/November/December to March/
2
Supply chain maps provide information such as the route of a particular commodity from the
producer to the consumer, volume requirements, buying and selling prices as well as price
margins of each player involved.
138 Chapter 5
Table 4. Volume handled by traders and prices of eggplant in the supply chains from
Pangasinan to areas outside of Metro Manila, 2010-2011
Item / Grower Assembler- Wholesaler Wholesaler- Retailer
Eggplant Wholesaler Retailer
Quality
Volume handled (kg)
Good 80-600/month 800-8,000/day 150-1,000/day 20-2,250/day 20-100/day
Reject 750-1,500/ 40-130/day No data No data No data
month collected collected collected
Buying price (PhP/kg)
Good 3.00-40.00 14.00-45.00 4.00-50.50 9.00-55.50
Reject 1.33-6.00 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Selling price (PhP/kg)
Good 3.00-38.00 4.00-45.00 17.00-55.50 9.00-65.50 14.00-55.00
(wholesale);
11.00-75.50
(retail)
Reject 1.33-6.00 2.83-8.50 n.a. n.a. n.a.
Spoilage 0.96-10.0 0.12-20.0 0.18 1.0-1.3 1.8-10.0
(%) (of harvest)
Note: Production period was July 2010-April 2011 for good eggplant and November 2010-February
2011 for rejects.
n.a.=not applicable.
April/May), the supply of eggplants is spread over the year. On average, the
daily volume requirement of assembler-wholesalers supplying Divisoria is
about 350 kgs-8,000 kgs; Balintawak, 150 kgs-500 kgs; and Batangas and
Cavite, 800 kgs-8,000 kgs. Farm-level spoilage was reported as from about
1% to almost 22.7% of the harvest, while assembler-wholesalers reported a
spoilage rate of 3%-20% of volume traded during transit from Pangasinan to
Divisoria.
Eggplant price fluctuates widely within a year, with the highest observed
during December to January. The lowest farm selling price for good quality
eggplant is PhP3 per kg and the highest at PhP40 per kg. In the retail market,
eggplants are no longer classified and assigned a single price. In Divisoria,
retail (selling) price ranges at PhP10.50-PhP62.00 per kg. In Balintawak
market, the lowest retail price is PhP23 per kg and the highest is PhP48 per
kg. In Pangasinan and Baguio retail markets, retail price ranges at PhP25-
PhP55 per kg, and at PhP24.50-PhP65.50 per kg in Tanauan City, Batangas. In
Mendez, Cavite, price in the retail market ranges from PhP14 per kg to PhP52
Chapter 5 139
Table 5. Volume handled by traders and prices of eggplant in the supply chains from
Pangasinan to Metro Manila, 2010-2011
Item Grower Assembler- Wholesaler Wholesaler- Retailer
Wholesaler Retailer
Volume handled (kg)
Good 60-10,800/ 150-8,000/day 3,000-5,000/ 200-750/day 100-250/
month day (wholesale); day
2,250/day
(retail)
Semi 40-2,400/ 80-812.50/ day 500/day 500/day 0
month
Reject 20 - 1,500/ 40-500/day 500/day 500/day 0
month
Good 2.00-48.50 15.00-50.00 4.00-52.50 5.00-55.00
Semi 2.50-7.50 4.50-8.50 4.50-8.50 n.a.
Reject 1.33-7.50 4.50 2.50-7.50 n.a.
Good 2.00-40.00 4.00-52.50 20.0-55.00 9.00-50.0 10.50-62.00
(wholesale);
11.00-52.00
(retail)
Semi 2.00-7.50 4.50-8.50 7.0-11.00 6.50-10.50 n.a.
Reject 1.33-7.50 2.83-8.50 7.50 5.50-10.50 n.a.
Spoilage 0.48-22.68 0.16-20 0.09 0.09 0 or nil
(%)
Note: Production period was June 2010-May 2011 for good eggplant, June 2010-February 2011 for
semi, and August 2010-March 2011 for rejects.
n.a.=not applicable.
per kg; for institutional buyers such as restaurants, retail price ranges from
PhP47 per kg to PhP75 per kg.
Quezon. Fifteen supply chains were identified in Quezon province. Three

supply chains end in retail markets in Balintawak, Quezon City; 1 in Divisoria;
1 in Bian, Laguna; 4 in Tanauan City; 4 in Cavite; and 2 in Naga, Camarines
Sur (see Appendix Figures 14 to 28). The popular cropping period for
eggplant is June/July to March for the municipalities of Tiaong and Dolores,
and February to July for Sariaya. The number of middlemen ranged from two
to four, and the shortest chains were those for Dolores, Quezon to Tanauan
City, Batangas, and Dolores, Quezon to Balintawak, Quezon City. The two
supply chains starting from Sariaya both have three middlemen. Tables 6 and
7 summarize the data from the Quezon eggplant supply chains.
140 Chapter 5
Table 6. Volume handled by traders and prices of eggplant in the supply chains from Quezon
to areas outside of Metro Manila, 2010-2011
Item Growers Assembler- Wholesaler Wholesaler Wholesaler- Retailer
Wholesaler 1 2 retailer
Volume handled (kg)
Good 210-14,000/ 300-6,000/ 50-4,000/ 300 every 80-1,000/ 10-200/day
month day day other day day
Semi 28-630/ 292/month - 50-300/day 50 every - 25 every
month 1,000/day other day other day
Reject 18 - 1,750 / 146/mo.-29/ - - - -
month day
Good - 1.50-40.00 3.00-45.00 4.00-46.00 2.50-50.00 4.00-62.50
Semi - 2.00-44.00 3.00-23.20 3.75-23.95 - 8.00-28.95
Reject - 0.93-30.00 - - - -
Good 1.50-40.00 3.00-45.00 4.00-50.00 9.00-51.00 12.50-62.50 7.50-67.50
Semi 2.00-18.20 2.00-30.75 3.75-23.95 17.50-67.50 14.00-56.00
Reject 6.40-18.20 2.00-30.75 - - - -
Spoil- 0.36-1.83 0.13-6.00 0.10-30.00 - 0.20-30.00 0.02-10.00
age
(%)
Note: Production season was from June to March and from February to July for some areas.
Across the Quezon supply chains, the farm price of eggplant averaged at
PhP16.91 per kg while the average retail market price is PhP31.21 per kg.
The lowest farm price per kg was PhP5.25 while the highest market price was
PhP43.32. Price margin ranged from PhP6.00 to PhP32.50 per kg.
With regard to daily volume requirements of the different players in the

eggplant supply chain, the assembler-wholesaler registered the highest at
12 m tons, the wholesaler at 5 m tons, wholesaler-retailer at 1 m tons, and
retailer at 300 kgs.
Notably from Tables 4 to 7, retailers in Metro Manila handle bigger volumes

of eggplants than retailers outside of Metro Manila. The trading centers of
Balintawak and Divisoria in Metro Manila cater to a large number of people
compared to public markets or trading centers outside of Metro Manila.
Buying prices and selling prices were likewise higher for eggplants traded
in Metro Manila. It is interesting to note that, at the retail level, rejects were
Chapter 5 141
142

Table 7. Volume handled by traders and prices of eggplant in the supply chains from Quezon to Metro Manila, 2010-2011
Item Growers Assembler- Commission Assembler- Wholesaler Wholesaler- Retailer
Wholesaler Agent wholesaler- retailer
Chapter 5
retailer
Volume handled (kg)
Mixed - - - - - - 50-100/day
Good 35-17,500/ 300/month - 300-500/day 1,000-4,000/ 500/day 200-300/ day 50-200 /day
month 12,000/day month
Semi 10-1,575/ 500-1,500/day 140-400/day 250-1,000/day 500-1,500/day -
month
Reject 315-2,625/ 315-2,625/ - - 500-1,500/day -
month month
Mixed - - - - - - 2.00 - 39.40
Good - 1.00-35.00 3.00-35.00 3.50-37.50 3.40-37.40 8.50-42.50 5.00-47.50
Semi - 2.67-4.00 1.50-4.67 1.75-4.92 4.00 - -
Reject - 1.33-2.00 - - 2.00 - -
Mixed - - - - - - 7.00-44.40
Good 1.00-35.00 3.40-37.40 3.50-37.50 8.50-42.50 5.40-39.40 13.50-47.50 10.00-52.50
wholesale; wholesale;
13.50-47.50 18.50-52.50
retail retail
Semi 1.50-4.67 4.00 1.75-4.62 3.75-6.92 5.00 - -
wholesale only
Reject 1.33-2.00 2.00 - 2.00-3.00 - -
Spoilage (%) 0.9-18 0.1-1.0 0.01 - - - 2
Note: Production season was from June to March and from February to July for some areas.
usually sliced and combined with other sliced vegetables (e.g., okra, squash,
and bittergourd), for sale as pinakbet mix to consumers.
Information Flow
Output Supply. Traders, such as assembler-wholesalers and wholesaler-

retailers, get their supply of eggplants from farmers or other traders.
Buyers can easily identify eggplant farmers in the villages by just looking
around, or by asking for references. Social capital between farmers and
buyers, and among buyers, tends to be strong as tie-ups are built on
personal relationships and high level of trust. Trade negotiations are very
casual, informal, and could be made through text messaging or phone
calls. Operations can be effectively located and coordinated at local (inter-
barangay and inter-town) and regional level (e.g., between Metro Manila and
Pangasinan).
The decision as to where to sell or deliver the eggplants would be logically

based on the volume of supply in the destination market. Such information
can be obtained from traders, and/or regular buyers (suki) in the said
market.
Price. In Pangasinan, the buying and selling prices of eggplants are based on
the prevailing prices in major markets or trading posts. The local government
units (LGUs) of Villasis and Urdaneta City monitor daily and record wholesale
and retail prices of commodities (including eggplants) in the trading posts.
In Villasis, the LGU also put up a billboard in the trading post to announce
prevailing prices.
In Quezon, eggplant traders set the farm price often based on the price in the
trading post the previous day. Farmers get their price information from other
farmers and traders in their area. Traders and farmers negotiate to agree on a
final buying price. Some trader-respondents opined that mobile phones have
diminished their ability to buy eggplants from farmers at lower prices, since
farmers are often updated of price levels in the trading posts.
In general, price information moves backwards from the last segment of the
supply chain to the eggplant farmers. Through mobile phones and personal
communication, both farmers and buyers could quickly monitor eggplant
prices, guiding them during negotiations. While buyers usually dictate the
price to farmers, the latters knowledge of the prevailing price gives them a
better negotiation position. However, farmers with credit tie-up (e.g., through
input loans) with the traders have weak bargaining power.
Chapter 5 143
Technical Information. Farmers knowledge about eggplant production and

marketing (trading) is oftentimes handed down from parents and relatives,
gained through experience over time, or learned from other farmers or
traders. Seed and chemical companies through their sales representatives,
and LGUs through the High Value Crop Commercialization Program, also
provide technical assistance to farmers, such as seminars on cultural
management; and pests and diseases and control. During periods of
calamities due to extreme weather events (e.g., typhoons, droughts, El Nio/
La Nia), the LGUs distribute free seeds to farmers for rehabilitation.
This study validated the information on prices, demand, supply, and other
market information through the traders especially the wholesaler-retailers
and retailers who are often located in wet markets and in direct interaction
with final buyers of eggplant. Table 8 summarizes the kind of information
along the chain, source of that information, and basis for validation.
Payment Flow
Pangasinan. Eggplant farmers need a starting operating capital of about

PhP25,000 (or around US$579) per hectare for material farm inputs such as
seeds, fertilizers, and pesticides. Some farmers use their savings to acquire
the inputs, while others borrow cash or inputs from eggplant traders or input
dealers. Repayment starts when the farmers have begun harvesting and
selling eggplants.
Traders generally have their own operating capital for their selling and buying
operations. Farmers are often paid in cash right after the buyers pick up the
eggplants at the farm. In some cases, they are paid the day after the traders
sell the eggplants to the next buyers. Buyers are given discounts in the next
delivery when rejects have inadvertently been included in the packs.
Quezon. Both farmers and traders reported either using their savings
or taking a loan from banks, private money lenders, or traders for their
operating capital. The average initial production capital per hectare of
eggplant is PhP60,000 (about US$1,390), utilized for land preparation, seeds,
initial fertilizer application, pesticides, and labor. For loans taken by farmers,
payment is deducted from the sale of produce after harvest. Farmers are paid
in cash either within the day or on the following day by traders. Traders from
Quezon who deliver to Divisoria sellers are paid only when the eggplants are
sold the next day. Similar to Pangasinan, wholesalers in Quezon are paid in
cash by wholesaler-retailers or after the eggplants have been sold. Retailers
sell on cash basis to final consumers.
144 Chapter 5
Table 8. Information needs along the major eggplant supply chains in Pangasinan and
Quezon, 2010-2011
Supply Chain Player
Assembler-
Information Needs Wholesaler/
Farmer Retailer
Assembler-
Wholesaler-Retailer
Kind of Information
Product information Eggplant farming Eggplant quality Eggplant quality
Market/marketing Pricing, supply and Trading arrangements, Trading arrangements,
information demand situation, pricing, supply and pricing, supply and
selling prices demand situation, and demand situation, and
other selling practices other selling practices
Sources of Information
Product information Own experience, other Own experience, Own experience,
farmers, seminars, relatives, other traders relatives, other
government agencies, retailers
seed and chemical
companies
Market/marketing Own experience, other Other traders, family Other traders
information farmers, government business (acquired
agencies from parents)
Basis for Validation
Product information Through other Through other traders Through other traders
farmers
Market/marketing Through other Through other traders Through other traders
information farmers
Supply Chain Performance Analysis
Production Cost and Return Analysis
Eggplant farmers in Pangasinan reported an average production of about

31.4 m tons/ha, 89% of which were of good quality, commanding a price
of PhP19.45/kg (Table 9). Total cost of production per hectare was about
PhP453,080, of which expenses on pesticides and hired labor accounted for
51% and 27% respectively. Spoiled and reject eggplants thrown away and
fed to animals constituted 48% of non-cash costs. Excluding those for home
consumption and given away, farmers earned, on average, a net cash income
of PhP160,285/ha, and a net farm income of PhP120,089/ha (or PhP3.83/kg).
Every peso invested in eggplant production generated a return of PhP0.27.
Chapter 5 145
Table 9. Per-hectare cost and returns for eggplant production in Pangasinan and Quezon,
2010-2011
Pangasinan Quezon
Items
PhP/ha % PhP/ha %
Quantity harvested (kg) 31,380 33,770
Quantity sold by quality (kg)
Good 26,135 89 28,659 85
Semi 1,995 7 2,572 8
Reject 1,127 4 2,364 7
Output price (PhP/kg)
Good 19.45 16.05
Semi 6.90 4.27
Reject 6.05 3.07
Cash Returns
Eggplant sales
Good 508,454 96 460,034 96
Semi 13,776 3 10,975 2
Reject 6,817 1 7,256 2
Total Cash Returns 529,047 100 478,265 100
Non-Cash Returns
Home consumption 453 1 631 5
Given away 3,067 7 4,033 29
Losses/spoilage 40,601 92 9,322 67
Total Non-Cash Returns 44,122 100 13,986 100
TOTAL RETURNS 573,169 492,251
Cash Costs
Land rent 0 0 5,500 3
Seeds 3,881 1 1,650 1
Tools and equipment 2,179 1 910 0
Fertilizer 36,126 10 40,145 22
Pesticides 187,236 51 30,632 16
Hired labor 101,172 27 70,095 38
Marketing costs (transport, 17,393 5 21,590 12
hauling, sorting, bundling, etc.)
Other Production Costs (irriga- 20,774 6 15,288 8
tion, fuel, etc.)
Total Cash Cost 368,762 100 185,808 100
146 Chapter 5
Table 9. Per-hectare cost and returns for eggplant production in Pangasinan and Quezon,
2010-2011
Pangasinan Quezon
Items
PhP/ha % PhP/ha %
Non-cash Costs
Losses/spoilage 40,601 48 9,322 18
Depreciation 1,682 2 5,498 10
Unpaid family labor 42,035 50 38,229 72
Total Non-cash Cost 84,318 100 53,049 100
TOTAL COSTS 453,080 238,858
TOTAL COST/kg output 14.44 7.07
Net Farm Income 120,089 253,393
Net Farm Income/kg output 3.83 7.50
Net Cash Income 160,285 292,457
Return on Expenses 0.27 1.06
In Quezon, total quantity harvested was about 33.8 m tons/ha (8% higher
than that in Pangasinan), with 95% of good quality. Total cash returns
amounted to PhP478,265/ha while non-cash returns was PhP13,986/ha,
of which a high 29% was given away. Most eggplant farmer-respondents
reported that hired harvesters usually ask for some eggplants for home
consumption every time they harvest. Total returns amounted to PhP492,251/
ha, and total costs to PhP238,858/ha per season. Spoilage and rejects
thrown away or fed to animals constitute 18% of non-cash costs. Net cash
income of Quezon eggplant farmers was about PhP292,457/ha per season,
about 82% higher than that in Pangasinan. Eggplant production in Quezon
proved profitable with a return on expenses of 1.06.
Components of Price Margins
Price margin is the difference between the buying price and selling price of a
commodity for each marketing intermediary, or the difference between the
selling prices of two marketing participants. Components of price margin
include profit, labor cost, transport cost, market fees and other marketing
costs.
Pangasinan. Price margins ranged at PhP1.50/kg-PhP6.72/kg between

farmers and assembler-wholesalers, and PhP2.00/kg-PhP15.00/kg between
Chapter 5 147
other traders. The highest price margin of PhP25.00/kg was estimated to be

between wholesalers and wholesaler-retailers selling to restaurants.
Tables 10 and 11 present the average price margins and percent share of its
components in supply chains leading to areas outside of Metro Manila, and
to Metro Manila respectively. These tables indicate that the profit component
accounts for the bulk of the price margin. Among the traders, the wholesaler-
retailers selling to restaurants and at the retail level in supply chains
leading to areas outside of Metro Manila got the most profit per kilogram
at PhP23.68 and PhP9.61, respectively, equivalent to 95% and 83% of the
corresponding price margins.
The wholesalers obtained the least profit per kilogram (PhP1.80-PhP2.20, or

36%-44% share of the price margin), followed by the assembler-wholesalers
(PhP2.73-PhP4.42, or 58%-85% share of the price margin). Notably, among
the traders, the assembler-wholesalers enjoy the highest overall profits as
they handle large volumes of eggplants compared to wholesaler-retailers and
retailers who handle smaller volumes.
The second largest component of the price margin is transport cost,

which gets as high as PhP2.00/kg and PhP3.00/kg for wholesalers bringing
eggplants to Divisoria and to the wet market in Tanauan, respectively. Except
in Batangas and Cavite, retailers do not incur transport costs as traders
deliver the eggplants to them at the marketplace.
In terms of cost shares among the marketing intermediaries, the wholesaler-

retailer incurred the largest cost of PhP1.32-PhP2.34/kg, or 4%-13% of the
total costs of the key players (Table 12). The marketing cost of assembler-
wholesalers ranged at PhP0.72-PhP2.75/kg (or 3%-11%). The retailers
incurred the least cost at PhP0.41-PhP2.26/kg, or 1%-11% of the total cost.
Among the supply chains, the difference between farm price and retail price
is lowest at PhP11.50/kg for supply chains from Villasis to Divisoria and
highest at PhP41.38 for supply chains from Villasis to Tagaytay City (Table 13).
In Tagaytay City, the end-users are restaurants and traders were lucky to have
negotiated a high price for their good quality eggplant.
Quezon. The per-kilogram price margins ranged at PhP2.00-PhP8.82 between

farmers and assembler-wholesalers; PhP1.00-PhP5.00 between assembler-
wholesalers and wholesalers; PhP2.00-PhP5.00 between wholesalers and
retailers, and between wholesaler-retailers and retailers; and at PhP2.00-
148 Chapter 5
Table 10. Components of the price margin of traders in the eggplant supply chains from
Average Components of Price Margin % Share to

Supply Chain
Selling Price Average Cost Total Price
Participant Component
(PhP/kg) (PhP/kg) Margin
Assembler-Wholesaler 26.73 Transport cost 0.50 10.0

Materials 0.19 4.0
Labor 0.06 1.0
Market fees 0.05 1.0
Net Income 4.42 85.0
Margin 5.22 100.0
Wholesaler 36.43 Transport cost 2.50 50.0
Materials 0.10 2.0
Labor 0.56 11.0
Communication 0.06 1.0
Margin 5.04 100.0
Wholesaler-Retailer Transport cost 0.94 20.0
Wholesale 37.95
Labor 0.39 8.0
Margin 4.62 100.0
Retail 43.40 Transport cost 1.02 9.0
Materials 0.22 2.0
Labor 0.49 4.0
Margin 11.57 100.0
Restaurant 62.18 Transport cost 0.37 1.0
Labor 0.47 2.0
Labor 0.20 1.0
Margin 25.00 100.0
Chapter 5 149

Supply Chain
Retailer 43.61 Materials 0.31 5.0

Labor 0.26 4.0
Margin 5.89 100.0

Supply Chain
Assembler-Wholesaler 27.73 Transport cost 1.35 29.0

Materials 0.21 4.0
Labor 0.30 6.0
Margin 4.67 100.0
Wholesaler 29.13 Transport cost 2.00 40.0
Materials 0.20 4.0
Labor 0.49 10.0
Margin 5.01 100.0
Wholesaler-Retailer Transport cost 0.71 15.0
Wholesale 29.96
Labor 0.50 10.0
Margin 4.82 100.0
150 Chapter 5

Supply Chain
Retail 33.46 Transport cost 0.71 9.0

Labor 0.50 6.0
Margin 10.00 100.0
Retailer 35.04 Materials 0.28 5.0
Labor 0.50 9.0
Margin 5.50 100.0
Table 12. Percent shares of key players in the per-kilogram price, total cost, and total net
income of eggplant by supply chain, Pangasinan, 2011
Supply Price Mar- % Share Cost % Share Net Income % Share
Chain and gin (PhP/kg) (PhP/kg)
Key Player (PhP/kg)
Supply Chains 1&2: From Villasis, Pangasinan to Divisoria
Farmer 19.41 63 12.31 75 7.10 49
Assembler- 1.50 5 1.32 8 0.18 1
Wholesaler
Wholesaler/ 5.00 16 1.99 12 3.01 21
Wholesaler-
Retailer
Retailer 5.00 16 0.80 5 4.20 29
Total 30.91 100 16.42 100 14.49 100
Supply Chain 3: From Villasis, Pangasinan to Balintawak, Quezon City
Farmer 24.00 62 13.94 70 10.06 53
Assembler- 5.00 13 1.50 7 3.50 18
Wholesaler
Wholesaler- 5.00 13 2.34 12 2.66 14
Retailer
Retailer 5.00 13 2.26 11 2.74 14
Total 39.00 100 20.04 100 18.96 100
Chapter 5 151
Key Player (PhP/kg)
Supply Chain 4a: From Villasis, Pangasinan to Urdaneta City Retail Markets
Farmer 22.80 59 20.81 94 1.99 12
Assembler- 5.84 15 0.72 3 5.12 31
Wholesaler
Retailer- 10.00 26 0.59 3 9.41 57
Urdaneta
City
Total 38.64 100 22.12 100 16.52 100
Supply Chain 4b: From Villasis, Pangasinan to Pangasinan Retail Markets (including Lingayen,
Dagupan City, and San Carlos City)
Farmer 22.80 55 20.81 82 1.99 12
Assembler- 5.84 14 0.72 3 5.12 32
Wholesaler
Wholesaler- 3.00 7 1.42 6 1.58 10
Urdaneta
Wholesaler- 5.00 12 1.43 6 3.57 22
Retailer
(Pangasinan
Retail Mar-
kets)
Retailer 5.00 12 1.07 4 3.93 24
Total 41.64 100 25.45 100 16.19 100
Supply Chain 5a: From Villasis, Pangasinan to Batangas and Cavite
Farmer 22.80 43 20.81 76 1.99 8
Assembler- 6.28 12 1.09 4 5.19 21
Wholesaler
Wholesaler 5.05 10 3.25 12 1.80 7
Wholesaler- 15.00 29 1.32 5 13.68 54
retailer
Retailer- 3.50 7 0.85 3 2.65 10
Total 52.63 100 27.32 100 25.31 100
Supply Chain 5b: From Villasis, Pangasinan to Institutional Buyers in Tagaytay City
Farmer 22.80 36 20.81 79 1.99 6
Assembler- 6.28 11 1.09 4 5.19 16
Wholesaler
Wholesaler- 5.05 9 3.25 12 1.80 6
Tanauan
City
152 Chapter 5
Key Player (PhP/kg)
Wholesaler- 25.00 42 1.32 5 23.68 73
Retailer
selling to
Institutional
Buyers (Res-
taurants)
Total 59.13 100 26.47 100 34.46 100
Supply Chain 6: From Sta. Maria, Pangasinan to Divisoria
Farmer 20.63 52 16.07 77 4.56 25
Assembler- 6.72 17 1.17 6 5.55 30
Wholesaler
Wholesaler 5.00 13 2.80 13 2.2 12
Retailer 7.00 18 0.8 4 6.2 33
Total 39.35 100 20.84 100 18.51 100
Supply Chain 7: From Sta. Maria, Pangasinan to Balintawak
Farmer 20.35 58 18.98 76 4.56 34
Assembler- 4.86 14 1.51 6 3.35 25
Wholesaler
Wholesaler 5.00 14 2.34 9 2.66 20
Retailer 5.00 14 2.26 9 2.74 21
Total 35.21 100 25.09 100 13.31 100
Supply Chain 8: From Asingan, Pangasinan to Divisoria
Farmer 26.96 64 18.98 77 7.98 46
Assembler- 5.00 12 2.75 11 2.25 13
Wholesaler
Wholesaler- 5.00 12 1.99 8 3.01 17
Retailer
Retailer 5.00 12 0.80 3 4.20 24
Total 41.96 100 24.52 100 17.44 100
Supply Chain 9: From Asingan, Pangasinan to Divisoria
Farmer 26.96 61 18.98 75 7.98 43
Assembler- 5.00 11 2.75 11 2.25 12
Wholesaler
Wholesaler 5.00 11 2.80 11 2.20 12
Retailer 7.00 16 0.80 3 6.20 33
Total 43.96 100 25.33 100 18.63 100
Chapter 5 153
Key Player (PhP/kg)
Supply Chain 10: From Asingan, Pangasinan to Urdaneta City
Farmer 22.42 60 11.25 90 11.17 45
Assembler- 5.00 13 0.72 6 4.28 17
Wholesaler
Retailer- 10.00 27 0.59 5 9.41 38
Urdaneta
City
Total 37.42 100 12.56 100 24.86 100
Supply Chain 11: From Asingan, Pangasinan to Baguio City
Farmer 22.42 60 11.25 74 11.17 50
Assembler- 5.00 13 0.72 5 4.28 19
Wholesaler
Wholesaler- 5.00 13 2.03 13 2.97 13
Retailer-
Baguio
Retailer- 5.00 13 1.28 8 3.72 17
Baguio
Total 37.42 100 15.28 100 22.14 100
Supply Chain 12: From Pangasinan to Mendez, Cavite
Farmer 19.41 57 12.31 76 7.10 39
Assembler- 4.82 14 0.72 4 4.10 23
Wholesaler
Wholesaler- 5.00 15 1.99 12 3.01 17
Retailer-
Divisoria
Retailer- 5.00 15 1.19 7 3.81 21
Mendez
Total 34.23 100 16.21 100 18.02 100
Supply Chain 13: From Villasis, Pangasinan to Dizon Farms
Farmer 19.96 82 15.93 95 4.03 54
Assembler- 4.30 18 0.91 5 3.39 46
Wholesaler
Total 24.26 100 16.84 100 7.42 100
154 Chapter 5
Table 13. Average of farm prices, retail prices, and price margins in Pangasinan, 2010-2011
No of Retail Market Price Price

Farm Price (PhP/kg)
Supply Chain Middle- (PhP/kg) Margin
men Range Average Range Average (PhP/kg)
1 & 2. Villasis, Pan- 3 3.00-32.00 19.41 11.00-9.00 30.91 11.50

gasinan to Divisoria
(chain 1 involved a
wholesaler; chain
2 a wholesaler-
retailer)
3. Villasis, Pangas- 3 10.00-8.00 24.00 23.00- 39.00 15.00
inan to Balintawak, 48.00
Quezon City
4a. Villasis, Panga- 2 10.00-8.00 22.80 24.00- 38.64 15.84
sinan to Urdaneta 49.00
City Retail Markets
4b. Villasis, Pangas- 3 10.00- 22.80 27.00- 41.64 18.84
inan to Pangasinan 38.00 52.00
Retail Markets
5a. Villasis, Pangas- 4 10.00- 22.80 24.50- 41.18 18.38
inan to Batangas 38.00 65.50
5b. Villasis, Panga- 5 10.00- 22.80 42.50- 59.18 36.38
sinan to Tagaytay 38.00 75.50
City and Mendez,
Cavite
5c. Villasis, Pangas- 4 10.00- 22.80 47.50- 64.18 41.38
inan to Institutional 38.00 80.50
Buyers in Tagaytay
City
6. Sta. Maria, Panga- 4 7.50-25.00 20.63 34.00- 39.35 18.72
sinan to Divisoria 52.00
7. Sta. Maria, Panga- 3 7.50-35.00 20.35 23.00- 35.21 14.86
sinan to Balintawak 48.00
8. Asingan, Pangas- 3 10.00- 26.96 22.00- 41.96 15.00
inan to Divisoria 40.00 52.00
9. Asingan, Pangas- 3 10.00- 26.96 27.00- 43.96 17.00
inan to Divisoria 40.00 62.00
10. Asingan, Panga- 2 10.00- 22.42 25.00- 37.42 15.00
sinan to Urdaneta 35.00 55.00
City
11. Asingan, Panga- 3 10.00- 22.42 25.00- 37.42 15.00
sinan to Baguio City 35.00 55.00
12. Pangasinan to 3 3.00-32.00 19.41 14.00- 34.23 14.82
Mendez, Cavite 52.00
13. Villasis, Pangas- 1 2.00-30.00 19.96 5.00-52.50 24.26 4.30
inan to Dizon Farms
Average 22.25 39.97 17.72
Chapter 5 155
PhP25.00 between wholesalers and wholesaler-retailers. Similar to

Pangasinan, net income is the largest component of price margin in Quezon,
followed by transport cost. The per-kilogram net incomes ranged at PhP0.88-
PhP6.14 (37%-73% of price margin) for the assembler-wholesalers, Php0.40-
PhP4.31 (32%-90%) for the wholesalers, PhP0.84-PhP20.66 (42%-83%) for the
wholesaler-retailers, and at PhP0.59-PhP13.64 (26%-89%) for the retailers.
Meanwhile, per-kilogram transport cost ranged from PhP0.02 for the dicer
to PhP2.00 for the wholesaler-retailer who brings and sells eggplants at the
Kadiwa Public Market in Dasmarinas, Cavite. Spoilage was worth zero to
PhP2.50/kg.
Tables 14 and 15 present the average price margins and percent share
of its components in Quezon supply chains leading to areas outside of
Metro Manila and to Metro Manila, respectively. It can be observed that
average selling prices, average price margins, and average net income of
assembler-wholesalers and wholesalers in supply chains leading to areas
outside of Metro Manila were higher than those in supply chains leading to
Metro Manila. Average selling prices, average price margins, and average
net income of retailers and wholesaler-retailers selling at retail, however,
were higher in the latter supply chains. Prices in Metro Manila markets are
generally higher than prices in other trading centers.
In Pangasinan, there were no distinct differences between supply chains

leading to Metro Manila and those leading to areas outside Metro Manila. All
selling prices of traders in supply chains originating from Pangasinan were
notably higher than those originating from Quezon; this must have been due
to lower eggplant supply in the former market. Wholesaler-retailers selling to
restaurants in areas outside Metro Manila, whether coming from Pangasinan
or from Quezon, had the highest price margin and highest net income across
all the supply chains.
In terms of cost shares, the farmers have the largest share of up to PhP4.75-
PhP20.18/kg (or 38%-92%) (Table 16). The assembler-wholesaler incurred
PhP0.57-PhP2.68 (4%-31%); dicer, PhP0.41; wholesaler, PhP0.24-PhP1.02 (1%-
11%); wholesaler-retailer, PhP0.08-PhP4.34 (less than 1%-22%); and retailer
PhP0.56-PhP2.23/kg (6%-17%).
Among the supply chains, price margins are lowest (PhP24) for Naga,
Camarines Sur if eggplants were harvested in Sariaya and highest (PhP48)
for wholesaler-retailers selling to institutional buyers (e.g., restaurants) in
156 Chapter 5
Table 14. Components of price margin of traders in the eggplant chains from Quezon to
areas other than Metro Manila, 2010-2011

Supply Chain
Assembler-Wholesaler 27.06 Transport cost 0.77 16 1 6

Materials 0.06 1
Labor 0.11 2
Market fees 0.15 3
Spoilage 0.26 6
Net Income 3.32 71
Margin 4.67 100
Wholesaler 1 24.06 Materials 0.04 2
Labor 0.14 6
Market fees 0.11 5
Communication 0.07 2
Spoilage 0.05 6
Net Income 1.84 82
Margin 2.25 100
Wholesaler 1 32.23 Transport cost 0.43 9
Labor 0.20 4
Market fees 0.05 1
Net Income 4.31 86
Margin 5.00 100
Wholesaler-Retailer Transport cost 0.86 13
Wholesale 27.29
Market fees 0.24 4
Spoilage 0.93 14
Labor 0.17 3
Net Income 4.25 66
Margin 6.45 100
Retail 30.79 Transport cost 0.83 8
Materials 0.63 6
Labor 0.08 1
Market Fees 0.24 2
Spoilage 0.93 9
Net Income 7.27 73
Margin 9.99 100
Chapter 5 157

Supply Chain
Restaurant 48.32 Transport cost 0.16 1

Labor 0.54 2
Market fees 0.94 4
Spoilage 2.50 10
Net Income 20.66 83
Margin 25.00 100
Retailer 31.78 Materials 0.51 16
Labor 0.08 3
Market fees 0.04 1
Spoilage 0.35 11
Net Income 2.18 69
Margin 3.16 100
Assembler-Wholesaler 19.60 Transport cost 1.22 33
Materials 0.12 3
Labor 0.22 6
Market fees 0.16 4
Tong 0.005 0.1
Spoilage 0.04 1
Net Income 1.94 52
Margin 4.67 100
Assembler-Wholesaler- 23.94 Transport cost 1.57 31
Retailer
Materials 0.25 5
Wholesale
Labor 0.13 3
Market fees 0.02 0
Net Income 3.03 61
Margin 5.00 100
Materials 0.25 3
Labor 0.13 1
Net Income 8.03 80
Margin 10.00 100
158 Chapter 5

Supply Chain
Wholesaler 20.06 Materials 0.20 10

Labor 0.49 25
Market fees 0.09 4
Net Income 1.20 60
Margin 2.00 100
Wholesaler-Retailer 28.22 Labor 0.50 10
Wholesale
Market fees 1.37 27
Net Income 3.05 61
Margin 5.00 100
Retail 33.22 Materials 0.39 4
Labor 0.50 5
Market fees 1.37 14
Net Income 7.66 77
Margin 10.00 100
Labor 0.50 11
Market fees 0.93 20
Net Income 2.89 62
Margin 4.66 100
Chapter 5 159
Metro Manila, 2010-2011

Supply Chain
Assembler-Wholesaler 19.60 Transport cost 1.22 33

Materials 0.12 3
Labor 0.22 6
Market fees 0.16 4
Tong 0.005 0.1
Spoilage 0.04 1
Net Income 1.94 52
Margin 4.67 100
Assembler- Transport cost 1.57 31
Wholesaler-Retailer
Materials 0.25 5
Wholesale 23.94
Labor 0.13 3
Market fees 0.02 0
Net Income 3.03 61
Margin 5.00 100
Materials 0.25 3
Labor 0.13 1
Net Income 8.03 80
Margin 10.00 100
Wholesaler 20.06 Materials 0.20 10
Labor 0.49 25
Market fees 0.09 4
Net Income 1.20 60
Margin 2.00 100
Wholesaler-Retailer Labor 0.50 10
Wholesale 28.22
Market fees 1.37 27
Net Income 3.05 61
Margin 5.00 100
160 Chapter 5
Metro Manila, 2010-2011

Supply Chain
Retail 33.22 Materials 0.39 4

Labor 0.50 5
Market fees 1.37 14
Net Income 7.66 77
Margin 10.00 100
Labor 0.50 11
Market fees 0.93 20
Net Income 2.89 62
Margin 4.66 100
Table 16. Percent shares of key players in the per-kilogram price, total cost incurred, and
total net income by eggplant supply chain, Quezon, 2010-2011
Key Player Price Mar- %Share Cost % Share Net Income % Share
gin (PhP/kg) (PhP/kg)
Supply Chain 1: From Tiaong, Quezon to Binan, Laguna through the Sentrong Pamilihan ng
Produktong Agrikultura ng Quezon sa Sariaya
Farmer 16.91 45 4.75 49 12.16 44
Grower- 8.82 24 2.68 28 6.14 22
Assembler-
Wholesaler
Wholesaler 1.50 4 1.02 11 0.48 2
Wholesaler 5.00 13 0.69 7 4.31 16
Retailer 5.00 13 0.56 6 4.44 16
Total 37.23 100 9.70 100 27.53 100
Supply Chain 2: From Tiaong, Quezon to Divisoria
Farmer 14.29 60 5.87 65 8.42 57
Grower- 2.40 10 1.52 17 0.88 6
Assembler-
Wholesaler
Wholesaler 2.00 8 0.80 9 1.20 8
Retailer 5.00 21 0.8 9 4.20 29
Total 23.69 100 8.99 100 14.70 100
Chapter 5 161
Supply Chain 3: From Tiaong, Quezon to Tanauan City, Batangas
Farmer 16.91 56 4.75 55 12.16 56
Grower- 8.82 29 2.68 31 6.14 28
Assembler-
Wholesaler
Wholesaler 2.50 8 0.24 3 2.26 10
Retailer 2.00 7 1.01 12 0.99 5
Total 30.23 100 8.68 100 21.55 100
Supply Chain 4: From Tiaong, Quezon to Tanauan City, Batangas
Farmer 15.82 62 14.17 84 1.65 19
Assembler- 5.00 20 1.42 8 3.58 42
Wholesaler
Wholesaler 2.50 10 0.24 1 2.26 27
Retailer 2.00 8 1.01 6 0.99 12
Total 25.32 100 16.84 100 8.48 100
Supply Chain 5: From Tiaong, Quezon to Tanza, Cavite through Tanauan City, Batangas
Farmer 15.82 51 14.17 81 1.65 12
Assembler- 5.00 16 1.42 8 3.58 27
Wholesaler
Wholesaler 5.00 16 0.89 5 4.11 31
Wholesaler- 2.00 6 0.08 0 1.92 14
Retailer
Retailer 3.00 10 0.99 6 2.01 15
Total 30.82 100 17.55 100 13.27 100
Supply Chain 6: From Tiaong, Quezon to Tanza, Cavite through Tanauan City, Batangas
Farmer 15.82 64 14.17 78 1.65 25
Assembler- 5.00 20 1.42 8 3.58 54
Wholesaler
Wholesaler- 2.00 8 1.16 6 0.84 13
Retailer
Retailer 2.00 8 1.48 8 0.59 9
Total 24.82 100 18.23 100 6.66 100
Supply Chain 7a: From Tiaong, Quezon to Tagaytay City and Mendez, Cavite
Farmer 15.82 37 14.17 68 1.65 7
Assembler- 5.00 12 1.42 7 3.58 16
Wholesaler
Wholesaler 2.50 6 0.24 1 2.26 10
162 Chapter 5
Wholesaler- 15.00 35 4.34 21 10.66 47
Retailer
Retailer 5.00 12 0.70 3 4.3 19
Total 43.32 100 20.88 100 22.45 100
Supply Chain 7b: From Tiaong, Quezon sold to Institutional Buyers in Tagaytay City
Farmer 15.82 33 14.17 70 1.65 6
Assembler- 5.00 10 1.42 7 3.58 13
Wholesaler
Wholesaler 2.50 5 0.24 1 2.26 8
Wholesaler- 25.00 52 4.34 22 20.66 73
Retailer
Total 48.32 100 20.17 100 28.15 100
Supply Chain 8: From Tiaong, Quezon to Kadiwa Public Market, Cavite through Sentrong
Pamilihan in Sariaya
Farmer 16.91 41 4.75 38 12.16 42
Grower- 8.82 21 2.68 21 6.14 21
Assembler-
Wholesaler
Wholesaler 1.00 2 0.31 2 0.69 2
Wholesaler- 10.00 24 2.67 21 7.33 25
Retailer
Retailer 5.00 12 2.18 17 2.82 10
Total 41.73 100 12.59 100 29.14 100
Supply Chain 9: From Tiaong, Quezon to Naga City, Camarines Sur through the Sentrong
Pamilihan ng Produktong Agrikultura ng Quezon sa Sariaya
Farmer 15.82 53 14.17 67 1.65 19
Assembler- 5.00 17 1.42 7 3.58 41
Wholesaler
Wholesaler 1.00 3 0.58 3 0.42 5
Wholesaler- 5.00 17 2.62 12 2.38 27
Retailer
Retailer 3.00 10 2.23 11 0.77 9
Total 29.82 100 21.03 100 8.79 100
Supply Chain 10: From Sariaya, Quezon to Naga City, Camarines Sur through the Sentrong
Pamilihan ng Produktong Agrikultura ng Quezon sa Sariaya
Farmer 5.25 37 13.15 71 -7.9 182
Wholesaler 1.00 7 0.58 3 0.42 -10
Wholesaler- 5.00 35 2.62 14 2.38 -55
Retailer
Chapter 5 163
Retailer 3.00 21 2.23 12 0.77 -18
Total 14.25 100 18.59 100 -4.34 100
Supply Chain 11: From Sariaya, Quezon to Tanauan City, Batangas
Farmer 32.50 84 6.33 78 26.17 86
Grower- 2.00 5 0.57 7 1.43 5
Assembler-
Wholesaler
Wholesaler 2.00 5 0.24 3 1.76 6
Retailer 2.00 5 1.01 12 0.99 3
Total 38.50 100 8.15 100 30.35 100
Supply Chain 12: From Dolores, Quezon to Tanauan City, Batangas
Farmer 21.00 75 20.18 92 0.82 13
Grower- 3.10 11 0.84 4 2.26 37
Assembler-
Wholesaler
Retailer 4.00 14 0.95 4 3.05 50
Total 28.10 100 21.97 100 6.13 100
Supply Chain 13: From Dolores, Quezon to Balintawak, Quezon City
Farmer 17.50 56 11.53 65 5.97 30
Grower- 5.00 16 1.97 11 2.99 15
Assembler-
Wholesaler
Wholesaler- 5.00 16 1.95 11 3.05 16
Retailer
Retailer 4.00 13 2.26 13 7.66 39
Total 31.50 100 17.71 100 19.67 100
Supply Chain 14: From Dolores, Quezon to Balintawak, Quezon City
Farmer 16.90 50 9.31 59 7.59 42
Commission 2.04 6 0.41 3 1.63 9
Agent
Grower- 5.00 15 1.97 12 3.03 17
Assembler-
Wholesaler-
Retailer
Wholesaler- 5.00 15 1.95 12 3.05 17
Retailer
Retailer 5.00 15 2.26 14 2.74 15
Total 33.94 100 15.90 100 18.04 100
164 Chapter 5
Supply Chain 15: From Dolores, Quezon to Kadiwa Public Market
Farmer 17.50 64 11.53 82 5.97 44
Grower- 5.00 18 1.76 13 3.24 24
Assembler-
Wholesaler-
Retailer
Retailer 5.00 18 0.78 6 4.22 31
Total 27.50 100 14.07 100 13.43 100
Tagaytay City (Table 17). The low price in Naga could be attributed to back
loading of eggplants after transporting coconut and other products from
Camarines Sur to Sariaya. In Tagaytay City, demand for high quality eggplant
by institutional buyers commands higher prices. For Manila markets, price
margins range at PhP24-PhP34 while they range at PhP25-PhP39 in Tanauan
City. The chain from Quezon to Cavite (including Tagaytay, Mendez, and
Tanza) has a wider price range at PhP25-PhP43. The chain leading to Bian,
Laguna had an average price margin of PhP37.
Efficiency Analysis
The efficiency of the supply chains were analyzed based on the less number
of key players involved, low volume of spoilage/wastage, shorter travel time
from farm to end-market, and low marketing costs. The greater the number
of middlemen or marketing intermediaries would mean higher eggplant
prices for consumers; the higher the spoilage/wastage would lower the
supply of eggplant in the market and could result in higher eggplant prices
also. Longer travel time would increase spoilage of the commodity. Anything
that increases marketing costsunless it is due to a necessary added
marketing serviceis inefficient.
Pangasinan. Inefficiencies in the supply chains were characterized by high

production input costs and spoilage due to pests and diseases. As they buy
only first class or good eggplants, traders implement stricter grading and
sorting, resulting in farmers receiving a high volume of rejects. (Segunda and
rejects were marketable only if supply is relatively low.) The supply chains
leading to Urdaneta City retail markets were the most efficient as these
involved growers, assembler-wholesalers, and retailers only. Consumers can
Chapter 5 165
Table 17. Average of farm prices, retail prices, and price margins in Quezon, 2010-2011

Farm Price (PhP/kg)
1. Tiaong, Quezon 4 1.50-35.00 16.91 13.75- 27.53 10.62

to Bian, Laguna 56.00
through SPPAQ
2. Tiaong , Quezon 3 1.00-35.00 14.29 7.00-44.00 23.69 9.40
to Divisoria
3. Tiaong, Quezon 3 1.50-35.00 16.91 7.50-48.50 30.23 13.32
to Tanauan City,
Batangas
4. Tiaong, Quezon 3 1.50-40.00 15.82 7.50-50.00 25.32 9.50
to Tanauan City,
Batangas
5. Tiaong, Quezon 4 1.50-40.00 15.82 16.50- 30.82 15.00
to Tanza, Cavite 55.00
through Tanauan
City, Batangas
6. Tiaong, Quezon 3 1.50-40.00 15.82 10.50- 24.82 9.00
to Tanza, Cavite 49.00
through Tanauan
City, Batangas
7a. Tiaong, Quezon 4 1.50-40.00 15.82 29.00- 43.32 27.50
to Tagaytay City and 67.50
Mendez, Cavite
7b. Tiaong, Quezon 3 1.50-40.00 15.82 34.00- 48.32 32.50
to institutional buy- 72.50
ers (restaurants) in
Tagaytay City
8. Tiaong, Quezon 4 1.50-35.00 16.91 17.50- 41.73 24.82
to Kadiwa Public 60.00
Market, Cavite
through SPPAQ
9. Tiaong, Quezon 4 1.50-40.00 15.82 15.50- 29.82 14.00
to Naga City, Cama- 54.00
rines Sur through
SPPAQ
10. Sariaya, Quezon 3 4.50-6.00 5.25 13.50- 14.25 9.00
to Naga City, Cama- 15.00
rines Sur through
SPPAQ
11. Sariaya, Quezon 3 25.00- 32.50 31.00- 38.50 6.00
to Tanauan City, 40.00 46.00
Batangas
12. Dolores, Quezon 2 3.00-35.00 21.00 5.00-43.00 28.10 7.10
to Tanauan City,
Batangas
166 Chapter 5
Table 17. Average of farm prices, retail prices, and price margins in Quezon, 2010-2011

Farm Price (PhP/kg)
13. Dolores, Quezon 3 1.50-20.00 17.50 22.00- 31.50 14.00

to Balintawak, Que- 47.00
zon City
14. Dolores, Quezon 5 3.00-35.00 16.90 18.50- 33.94 17.04
to Balintawak, Que- 52.50
zon City
15. Dolores, Quezon 2 1.50-20.00 17.50 10.00- 27.50 10.00
to Kadiwa Public 30.00
Market
Average 16.91 31.21 14.30
readily avail of farm-fresh eggplant within the day. The least efficient chain
was the chain leading to Batangas and Cavite public markets because of
many layers of intermediaries. For example, an assembler-wholesaler gets
the eggplants in Villasis and brings them to a wholesaler in Urdaneta City
who in turn transports them to Tanauan City, Batangas. Another wholesaler in
Tanauan City buys the eggplants and sells them to a wholesaler-retailer from
Cavite. This long chain increases transport cost and results in 10% spoilage at
the retailer level. There was no report of illegal fee payments (kotong) during
delivery of eggplant to markets, somehow adding no cost, hence improving
efficiency.
Quezon. Inefficiency within the eggplant supply chains is very minimal. The
common causes of chain inefficiencies for eggplant are spoilage due to fruit
and shoot borer (FSB) and foliar fertilizers and pesticide residues. Farmers
experience spoilage due to fruit and shoot borer while traders experience
spoilage due to blotches and early rotting of eggplants when fertilizers were
applied a day before harvest. Unless supply is low, semi and rejects were
thrown or given as feeds to farm work animals. Another cause of spoilage
would be the improper sorting, grading or handling. Sellers either provide
replacement for spoiled eggplants to their buyers or provide discounts.
On the other hand, farmers were paid a lower price by traders for them to
recover for the cost of spoiled eggplants.
The most efficient chain in Quezon was the one leading to Kadiwa Public
Market in Cavite which consisted of farmers and a farmer-assembler-
wholesaler-retailer from Dolores, Quezon. There was also no reported
spoilage along the chain. The least efficient chain was the one leading to
Chapter 5 167
Naga City participated by farmers, an assembler-wholesaler, wholesaler,

wholesaler-retailer and retailers. The length of travel time and improper
handling from the farm to the Naga City Public Market led to 30% spoilage
of volume procured. Illegal fees were occasionally reported by traders going
to Divisoria and Balintawak due to overloading or alleged violations of the
Number Coding Scheme in Metro Manila.
Logistics Issues and Concerns
Inbound Logistics. Major concerns in the eggplant supply chain include

the quality of the produce and consequent effect in its marketability. The
occurrence of pests and diseases has continually constrained production
of quality eggplant which in turn has also affected the marketability of the
commodity.
1. Infestation of pests and diseases and farmers inadequate knowledge

of appropriate practices
Eggplant growing in Pangasinan entails intensive application of pesticides

due to infestation of pests and diseases in order to maintain good quality
(in terms of physical appearance) of the fruit. The most common pest is the
fruit and shoot borer, and other pests include other types of worms, white
flies, aphids, and ants. However, spraying close to harvest time to avoid pest
damage threatens food safety of the crop. Other farmers even increase the
dosage of pesticides when they observed that the recommended dosage is
not effective anymore. In some cases, farmers have inadequate knowledge in
identifying pests and diseases, thus do not know what to do about it. Some
farmers make their own formulation or combination of different pesticides.
Respondents say that based on their experience, if they would not apply
chemicals, they would not harvest the fruits. Pest and diseases affect the
quality and quantity of produce.
2. Poor quality of inputs and other farm resources
There were some instances when farmers reported a low germination of

eggplant seeds, thus the need for some measure to assure farmers of quality
planting materials. Moreover, deteriorating quality of land as a result of
continuous cultivation and fertilizer application has consequently affected
land productivity.
168 Chapter 5
3. Rising cost of inputs
Farmers lament the rising price of inputs such as chemicals, fertilizer and fuel,
thus increasing their expenses for production, including irrigation pump and
tractor. They would need financial sustainability to cope with rising costs of
production and marketing.
Outbound Logistics
1. Variability of market prices
The seasonal nature of eggplant production results to supply fluctuations

and variations in the market price. During the middle of the production
season, when supply is at its peak, farm prices could get as low as PhP2/
kg (in Quezon) causing farmers to stop taking care of their plants by no
longer applying fertilizer and pesticides until the plants die, as buying more
agricultural inputs would simply add costs and to their negative profits.
However, farmers and traders can get high profits when market prices are
high.
2. Food safety concerns
Even with increasing awareness on the extent of pesticide usage in eggplant,

there is no mechanism in place to monitor this in the market. Nor is there
a track-and-trace system to identify sources of the commodity once the
packages are all dumped in the market. Most farmers and traders are just
interested in the profits that they can get, notwithstanding the health and
environmental hazards of pesticide use.
3. High perishability of eggplant
Eggplant has a short shelf life (2-3 days), and thus poses a high potential
for wastage cost. When eggplant does not look good anymore, retailers are
compelled to sell it at its buying price or at even a lower price.
4. Redundant players within the chain
Redundancy of players in any marketing chain or channel (e.g., a wholesaler

sells the eggplant to another wholesaler) would increase the market price
of the commodity. The shorter the channel, the lower would be the market
price.
Chapter 5 169
5. Problems on payment
Delayed payments or non-payment of debts were usual problems shared

by some assemblers. Retailers sell in cash, thus they did not experience this
problem. None of the growers interviewed mentioned this problem.
6. Poor product handling
Product handling starts from harvesting, packing, hauling, loading,

transporting and unloading. Improper handling during any of these activities
may have untoward effects on the quality of eggplant and therefore the value
and the price of the commodity.
7. Spoilage
Since eggplant is highly perishable, packing and transporting should be taken

into consideration. Packaging is usually in plastic bags which are stacked
with 10-20 kgs of eggplant. Moisture inside the packed eggplants results to
spoilage.
According to some traders, another cause of spoilage is when the eggplants

are fertilized prior to harvesting. Fruits tend to have soft blotches after
harvest. There is also wilting during transport due to the moistening of plastic
bags aggravated by the presence of fertilizer residues.
8. Costs on illegal fees
Some trader-respondents mentioned as additional marketing costs illegal

fees (tong or kotong) imposed by some policemen in delivering eggplants
to Metro Manila.
External Influences
1. Extreme weather events
Typhoon was one of the causes of eggplant farm damage in Pangasinan.

There were instances when the farmers have already invested a lot of inputs
but the typhoon damaged the standing crop and they were not able to
recover the costs. Adaptation strategies must be identified to help farmers
reduce risks and cope with climate change impacts. Some farmers feel
though that if one seasons crop fails, they should not lose hope as losses
170 Chapter 5
can be recovered in the next season(s) since planting eggplant is indeed a

profitable endeavor.
2. Lack of regulatory mechanism on eggplant price
Like palay, farmers would like some regulatory measures to protect them
from very low price of eggplant to help them recover their production
cost. Moreover, there is no formal mechanism (government or private) that
governs the supply chain as the players are apparently operating on their
own. The overlapping or redundant layers of actors in the supply chain
increase the retail price to consumers.
Appropriate strategies for pricing, e.g., cost-based pricing, should be

considered to assure players of adequate net income margins above
production costs, and adequate returns on investment.
3. Use of more environment-friendly packaging
With rising consciousness for the environment, there must be a policy

promoting the use of biodegradable package, instead of plastic bags, in
transporting eggplants.
4. Lack of knowledge/skills for alternative cropping
Eggplant growers generally practice monocropping, thus are very vulnerable

if eggplant farming fails. Farmers should diversify crops planted.
Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations
This study analyzed the existing supply chains of eggplant in Pangasinan (in
Region 1) and Quezon (in Region 4A) to help identify areas for improvement.
To achieve this, trend, costs and returns, efficiency, and descriptive analyses
were done. A total of 25 farmers and 28 traders in Pangasinan, and 23
farmers and 31 traders in Quezon were surveyed in addition to interviews of
key informants in some areas.
Product Flow and Key Players
Majority of the marketable surplus of the two study sites went to Metro
Manila. In general, Metro Manila gets its supply of eggplant from Pangasinan
Chapter 5 171
during December to March; from Nueva Ecija in March to June; and from
Quezon during July to November when the supply of eggplant is high and
prices are low.
The general flow of eggplant was from farmers to assembler-wholesaler to

wholesaler-retailers and consumers. From wholesaler-retailers, the eggplant
goes to retailers and consumers. In Dolores, Quezon, there is a dicer who
helps the assembler-wholesalers find sources of eggplant in the area.
Activities and processes along the eggplant supply chain span from farm
production and harvesting; post-harvest practices such as sorting, packaging,
hauling, transporting to trading posts; distributing to wholesalers, retailers,
institutional buyers; and selling to final consumers.
Product Requirements
In the two study provinces, customers (traders and consumers) select

eggplants based on fruit qualities. Consumers criteria include: fruit color
(purple or green); shape (cylindrical, oblong, or round); and size (long and
heavy). Based on retailers classification, large (primera) eggplant is 11-12
inches (28-30 cm) long; medium (segunda or semi) is 8-10 inches (20-25 cm);
and small (tercera) is below 8 inches (below 20 cm). Weight is based on the
number of fruits per kilogram, e.g., a kilogram of large eggplants may have
6 pieces (pcs); medium (8 pcs); and small (12 pcs). The market in general
prefers the hybrid, purple, and elongated eggplant.
Eggplant Supply Chains
In Pangasinan, 13 supply chains were identified. All these supply chains

passed through the assembler-wholesalers in Villasis or Urdaneta City who
distributed the product to wholesalers and/or retailers in Metro Manila major
markets such as Divisoria and Balintawak, and other markets such as Baguio,
Tanauan City and Tagaytay City. Of the key players in the supply chains
identified, the assembler-wholesaler in Villasis had the highest volume of
eggplants procured with around 8 m tons per day.
On the other hand, 15 supply chains were identified in Quezon. The number
of marketing intermediaries ranged from two to four, with the shortest chains
in the Dolores, Quezon to Tanauan City supply chain and in the Dolores,
Quezon to Balintawak, Quezon City chain. The two supply chains starting
from Sariaya both have three middlemen. The highest volume procured was
about 12 m tons per day by assembler-wholesalers.
172 Chapter 5
Information Flow
Information on supply. Traders such as the assembler-wholesalers and

wholesaler-retailers get information on supply of eggplant from growers or
co-traders. Social capital is strong as tie up between farmers and buyers and
among traders is built on personal relationships (e.g., godparents, relatives,
or friends) and trust. Negotiations are very casual or informal and could be
made through text messaging or phone calls.
The decision as to where to sell the eggplant would be logically based on the
volume of supply as well as prevailing price in the market. Assemblers and
wholesalers have to decide as to whether to bring the eggplants procured
from the growers to Tanauan City, Sariaya, Divisoria, or Balintawak.
Price information. Market prices normally depend on the intervention of

supply and demand forces. Buying and selling prices of eggplant are based
on the prevailing prices in major markets or trading posts. In Villasis, the LGU
also put up a billboard in the trading post to announce prevailing prices.
The flow of price information moves backwards from the last segment of
the supply chain to eggplant producers. The buyers usually set the price of
eggplant. Growers validate their price information from co-farmers and other
traders in the area. Some trader-respondents commented that cell phones
have somehow adversely influenced strategizing on price since speculation is
diminished.
Technical information. Information about cultural practices in eggplant

farming and knowledge in buying and selling practices of traders are sourced
from parents and relatives, gained experience over time, co-growers and co-
traders and seed and chemical companies. Technical assistance to eggplant
growers are likewise extended by some local government units.
Payment Flow
Eggplant growers in Pangasinan need a starting operating capital of about

PhP25,000 per ha for farm inputs such as seeds, fertilizers and chemicals.
Quezon growers require a higher starting capital of PhP60,000 as they also
have to pay for the use of the land. Growers are usually paid in cash right
after the buyers pick up of the eggplants at the farm. Complaints about
rejects included in the packs are settled by giving discounts to buyers or
replacing the quantity of rejects with good ones the next time around.
Chapter 5 173
Wholesalers are paid in cash by wholesaler- retailer or after the eggplants

have been sold. Retailers sell on cash basis to final consumers.
Cost and Return Analysis
Cost and return analysis for eggplant farmers revealed that growers in
Pangasinan realized a net farm income of PhP120,089 per ha per year
or PhP3.83/kg as compared to PhP253,393 or PhP7.50/kg for growers in
Quezon. This could be attributed to the high production costs particularly
pesticide inputs. Transport cost in procuring and selling eggplant constituted
1%-55% for Pangasinan traders and 1%-50% for Quezon traders. It was
estimated that for every peso spent on production and marketing of
eggplant, growers earned PhP1.06 in Quezon and PhP0.27 in Pangasinan.
Average per-kilogram farm price was PhP18.08 in Pangasinan and PhP14.23
in Quezon.
Generally, the farmers in Pangasinan got the highest net income (as high
as PhP11.17/kg accounting for 50% of the price margin) among the market
players. Similarly, farmers in Quezon received the highest net income
among the players (as high as PhP26.17/kg accounting for 81% of the price
margin). For the Pangasinan supply chains, the wholesaler-retailer in Cavite
had the higher average net income of PhP23.68/kg if eggplant is sold to
restaurants than selling to wholesaler-retailer where average net income
ranged from PhP13.00 to PhP18.00/kg. In Quezon, assembler-wholesalers get
profits ranging from PhP0.88 to PhP6.14/kg; wholesalers, PhP0.40-4.31/kg;
wholesaler-retailer, PhP0.84-10.66/kg; and retailer, PhP0.59-13.64/kg.
Efficiency Analysis
Inefficiency within the eggplant supply chains in Quezon is very minimal.

Growers experience spoilage due to fruit and shoot borer while traders
experience spoilage/rejects due to blotches and early rotting of eggplants
when fertilizers were applied a day before harvest. Another cause of spoilage
would be the improper sorting, grading or handling.
In Pangasinan, inefficiencies in the supply chains were characterized by high

production input costs and spoilage due to pests and diseases. Traders
implement stricter grading and sorting of eggplants, resulting in high volume
of rejects to farmers. Second class and third class eggplant were marketable
only if supply is relatively low.
174 Chapter 5
Logistics Issues/Concerns and External Influences
Inbound logistics were found to be infestation of pests and diseases and

farmers inadequate knowledge of appropriate practices, poor quality of
inputs and other farm resources, and rising cost of inputs. On the other hand,
outbound logistics and marketing concerns consist of variability of market
prices, problems on payment, poor product handling, food safety concerns,
high perishability of eggplant, redundant players within the chain, and costs
on illegal fees.
External influences affecting production and marketing of eggplant were

extreme weather events, lack of regulatory mechanism on eggplant price,
appropriate strategies for pricing, use of more environment-friendly
packaging, and lack of knowledge/skills for alternative cropping.
One emerging concern is the heavy application of pesticides in the study

areas. This should call the attention of local government units which are
in the forefront of providing extension services. There should be farmer
training on integrated pest management, and use of alternative pest control
strategies, e.g., intercropping with other crops. A mechanism to monitor
pesticide usage should also be established. The BPI in coordination with the
LGUs through their agricultural technicians can play an important role in this.
Research and development (R&D) should continuously receive adequate

support to address these concerns. R&D thrusts could include varietal
improvement of eggplant and safer pest control technologies. If Bt eggplant
seeds would be commercialized, dependence of farmers on pesticides and
hazards to public health and the environment would be greatly reduced.
Although its release would require rigid tests and procedures, monitoring the
socioeconomic and environment impacts of its use should be sustained over
the years. Also, development of drought-tolerant varieties should be pursued
to address water supply problem particularly in rainfed areas.
The main marketing problem reported was the low market price of eggplant
during times of oversupply. Thus, the need to put up a processing center for
eggplant in the area was raised.
Adaptation strategies must be identified to help farmers reduce risks and

cope with climate change impacts. For instance, crop insurance scheme for
eggplant growers should be explored.
Chapter 5 175
Lastly, the establishment of traders associations can help reduce layers in

marketing channels and costs, and regulate prices. Similarly, a study on the
establishment of eggplant growers cooperative or association would aid in
improving access on production inputs, production practices, and marketing.
References
Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project (ABSP) II. Fruit and Shoot Borer Resistant
(FSBR) Eggplant. Project Profile. http://www.absp2.cornell.edu/projects/ project.
cfm?productid=2. July 27, 2010.
Brown, E. and E. Esguerra. 2007. Supply Chain Improvement for Mangoes in the Philippines.
Annual Report.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAOSTAT 2013. http://faostat3.
fao.org/faostat-gateway/go/to/download/Q/QC/E. Accessed January 1, 2014.
Guiamal, M. 2008. Supply Chain Improvement for Goat in Selected Areas in the Philippines
(Phase I): An Evaluation (Region 12). Terminal Report. Submitted to PCARRD.
Hautea, D.M. and J.O. Narciso. 2007. Questions and Answers on the Development of Fruit
and Shoot Borer Resistant Eggplant in the Philippines. IPB-UPLB-ABSPII.
Oracion, E. 2008. Supply Chain Analysis for Coconut Oil and By-Products in Central Visayas,
Philippines. A Project Proposal submitted to PCARRD.
Porter, M.E. 1985. Competitive Advantage, Creating and Sustaining Superior Performance.
New York: The True Press.
Soliven, M.L.R., A.L. Deriada, and T.A.S. Rivera. 2009. Supply Chain Improvement for Fresh
Vegetables in Region X. Paper presented at the PAEDA Convention held at the Bureau
of Soils and Water Management, October 22.
176 Chapter 5
Appendix Figure 1. Supply Chain 1: Product flow, volume handled, and price/monetary
flow of eggplant from Villasis, Pangasinan to Divisoria
Day 1 Growers, Villasis, Pangasinan

Vol. (Good): 80 kg-6,000 kg/month; Ave.: 3,788.40 kg/month
Production Months: July 2010-April 2011
Selling Price: Php 3.00 Php 32.00; Ave.: Php 19.41/kg
Vol. (Semi): 240 kg-2,400 kg/month; Ave.: 855 kg/month

Production Months: August 2010-February 2011
Selling Price: Php 2.50 - Php 3.38/kg
Vol. (Reject):60-1365.00 kg/month, Ave.: 375.12 kg/month

Selling Price: Php 2.50 7.50/kg
Spoilage: 0.96% - 10% of harvest
Assembler-Wholesaler
(Ms. Fabro, Mrs. Mira, Mrs. Sarmiento, Mr. Meniano,
Mrs. Andaya, Mrs. Almiron), Villasis Bagsakan
Vol. (Good): 150 kg-8000 kg/day/AW; Ave.: 2,321 kg/day/AW

Buying Price: Php 3.00 Php 40.00/kg
Selling Price: Php 4.00 Php 42.00/kg
Vol. (Semi): 80 kg-600 kg/day; Ave.: 289.29 kg/day;

Day 1
Buying Price: Php 2.50 - Php 5.00/kg
Vol. (Reject):40-100 kg/day, ave.

Spoilage: 3-20% of volume, most were cut into pinakbet and

sold at buying price
Wholesaler-Retailer, Divisoria
Vol. (Good): 750 kg for wholesale, 2250 kg for retail daily
Selling Price: Php 9.00 Php 47.00/kg, wholesale
Php 11.00 Php 49.00/kg, retail
Vol. (Semi): 500 kg daily, wholesale only

Day 1 Buying Price: Php 4.50 Php 7.00/kg
Vol. (Reject): 500 kg daily, wholesale only

Spoilage: 0.09% per day
, ..... i ...... , ~-------4C"----

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmi
Day 1 Retailer
Divisoria Consumer
Vol. (mixed): 125 kg/day Divisoria
Buying Price: Php 5.50 47.00/kg Buying Price: Php 5.50 52.00/kg
Day 2 Selling Price: Php 10.50-52.00/kg
~- Chapter 5 I 177
flow of eggplant from Villasis, Pangasinan to Divisoria

Vol. (Good): 80 kg - 6,000 kg/month; Ave.: 3,788.40 kg/month
Selling Price: Php 3.00 Php 32.00; Ave.: Php 19.41
1
(Ms. Fabro, Mrs. Mira, Mrs. Sarmiento, Mr. Meniano,
Mrs. Andaya, Mrs. Almiron), Villasis Bagsakan
Vol. (Good): 150 kg 8,000 kg/day/AW; Ave.: 2,321 kg/day/AW

Day 1
Spoilage: 3-20% of volume, most were cut into pinakbet and

sold at lower price
1
Wholesaler
Divisoria
Day 1 Vol. (Good): 5,000 kg/day, Dec. 2010-March 2011 only
Retailer
Divisoria
Day 2 Vol. (Good): 125 kg/day
Consumer
Day 2 Divisoria
178 Chapter 5
flow of eggplant from Villasis, Pangasinan to Balintawak, Quezon
City

Vol.(Good): 60 kg - 10,800 kg/month, Ave: 2,645 kg/month
Production Months: Dec. 2010 May 2011
Spoilage: maximum 22.68% of harvest
1
(Ms. Fabro, Mrs. Sarmiento)
Villasis Bagsakan
Day 1
Vol.(Good): 150 kg - 5,400 kg/day/AW;
Ave.: 1,493kg/day/AW
1
Wholesaler-Retailer
Balintawak
Vol. (Good): 200-300 kg/day
Day 1
Php, retail
Retailer
Balintawak
Day 2
Consumer
Balintawak
Chapter 5 179
flow of eggplant from Villasis, Pangasinan to Pangasinan retail
markets (includes Urdaneta City, Lingayen, Dagupan City, and San
Carlos City)

Vol. (Good): 2,850 kg-5,400 kg/month
Production Months: Nov. 2010-Mar 2011
Assembler-Wholesaler (Mrs. Andaya)

Villasis Bagsakan
Vol.(Good): 1000 kg-5000 kg/day;
Day 1
Ave.: 3938 kg/day
Buying Price: Php 10.00 38.00/kg
Retailer (Urdaneta City) Wholesaler (Urdaneta City)

Vol. (Good): 20 kg/day Vol. (Good): 300 kg, every 2 days
Day 1
Buying Price: Php 14.00 39.00/kg Buying Price: Php 14.00 39.00/kg
Selling Price: Php 24.00 49.00/kg Selling Price: Php 17.00 Php 42.00/kg
Spoilage: 75kg/mo, sold at half price
Consumer (Urdaneta City) Wholesaler-Retailer

Buying Price: Php 24.00 Php 49.00/kg Other Pangasinan Retail Markets
Vol. : 20 kg - 50 kg/day
Day 1 Buying Price: Php 17.00 42.00/kg
Selling Price:
Php 22.00 47.00/kg, wholesale
Php 27.00 52.00/kg, retail
Spoilage: 8.75 kg/month, sold as pakbet
Retailer
Other Pangasinan Retail Markets
Vol. : 50 kg/wk
Consumer
Day 1 Other Pangasinan Retail Markets
180 Chapter 5
flow of eggplant from Villasis, Pangasinan to Batangas and Cavite

Vol.: 2,850 kg-5,400 kg/month,
Production Months: Nov. 2010-Mar 2011
1
Assembler-Wholesaler (Ms. Fabro, Mrs. Andaya)
Urdaneta City
Vol. : 1,000 kg 5,400 kg/day/AW
Spoilage: 10-20% of daily volume
1
Assembler-Wholesaler (Tanauan City)
Vol. : 800 kg 5,000 kg/day, 5x a week
Day 1
Wholesaler (Tanauan City)

Vol. : 700 kg 1,000 kg/day,
dec 2010-April 2011
Selling Price: PhP 22.50 Php 50.50/kg
Spoilage: 1 kg 2kg/day, sold at lower price to maggagayat
Retailer (Tanauan City) Wholesaler-Retailer

Vol. : 35 kg/week Tagaytay City and Mendez, Cavite
Buying Price: PhP 22.50 50.50/kg Selling Vol. : 80 kg 100 kg/day; 20-50kg ordered by
Day 2 Price: Php 24.50 - 52.50/kg Restaurants; 30-40kg, wholesale; the rest, retail
Spoilage: 10% of volume procured, Buying Price: PhP 22.50 50.50/kg
sometimes sold at buying price or cooked Selling Price:
at home Php 37.50 65.50/kg, wholesale
Php 42.50 75.50/kg, retail
Php 47.50 75.50/kg, for Restaurants
Spoilage: up to 60 kg/month which are turned

to pakbet
Consumer
1
Consumer
Day 2
Buying Price: Php 24.50 - 52.50/kg Buying Price: Php 42.50 75.50/kg
'"""""""""""""' I mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmi lmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmi
Chapter 5 181
flow of eggplant from Sta. Maria, Pangasinan to Divisoria
Day 1 Growers,
Vol. (Good): 1,321.67 kg 6,500kg/month, ave:
4717.92 kg
Production Months: June-Sept 2010
Vol. (Semi): 100-200 kg/month

Production Months: July-Aug 2010
Selling Price: Php 5.00/kg
Spoilage: 8,871.67 kg whole season.
Assembler-Wholesaler (Ms. Fabro)

Villasis
Day 1 Vol. (Good): 3,000 5,400 kg/day; all good.
1
Wholesaler
Divisoria
Day 1 Vol. : 5,000 kg daily
Buying Price: PhP 22.00 PhP 40.00
Selling Price: PhP 27.00 PhP 45.00
Retailer
Divisoria
Day 1 Vol. : 125 kg daily
Selling Price: PhP 34.00 PhP 52.00
Consumer
Day 2
182 Chapter 5
flow of eggplant from Sta. Maria, Pangasinan to Balintawak
Day 1 Growers, Sta. Maria, Pangasinan

Selling Price:
Vol. (Good): 950 kg 6,500 kg/month
Production Months: June 2010-April 2011
Vol. (Semi): 100 1400 kg/month

Production Months: June 2010-Aug 2011
Spoilage: 480kg -8,871.67 kg whole season.
1
Assembler-Wholesaler (Ms. Fabro, Mrs. Sarmiento)
Villasis Bagsakan
Day 1 Vol. (Good): 150 kg-5,400 kg/day/AW; Ave.: 1,493 kg/day/AW
1
Assembler-Wholesaler (Balintawak)
Vol. (Good): 3,000 kg/day
1
Retailer (Balintawak)
Vol. (Good): 250 kg/day
Day 2
Consumer
Day 2
Chapter 5 183
flow of eggplant from Asingan, Pangasinan to Divisoria
Day 1 Growers, Asingan, Pangasinan

Selling Price:
Vol. (Good): 420 kg 6,000 kg/month; ave:
3,053.75 kg/month
Production Months: Oct 2010-March 2011
Vol. (Semi): 40 kg - 70 kg/month

Vol. (Reject): 40 kg - 70 kg/month

Spoilage: 840 kg/month
l
Assembler-Wholesaler (Mr. Quiteves, Mrs. Santos)
Asingan
Vol. (Good): 350 kg 4,000 kg/day/AW

Vol. (Semi): 240-812.50 kg daily

Buying Price: : PhP 3.50 Php 7.50/kg
Spoilage: 5 kg 300 kg whole year.
Wholesaler-Retailer (Divisoria)
Vol. : 750 kg for wholesale, 2250 kg for retail daily
Vol. : 500 kg daily, wholesale only

Vol. : 500 kg daily, wholesale only
Buying Price: PhP 3.50 Php 7.50/kg
Retailer
Divisoria
Consumer
Day 2 Vol. (mixed): 100 kg/day
184 Chapter 5
flow of eggplant from Asingan, Pangasinan to Divisoria

Vol. (Good): 420 kg 6,000 kg/month; Ave.: 3,142.50 kg/month
Production Months: Oct 2010 - March 2011
Selling Price: Php 10.00/kg Php 40.00/kg;
Vol. (Semi): 40 kg - 70 kg/month; Ave.: 55 kg/month;

Selling Price: Php 3.50 Php 7.50 /kg;
Vol. (Reject): 20 kg 1,500 kg

Spoilage: 840 kg/month
Assembler-Wholesaler (Mr. Quiteves, Mrs. Santos)

Asingan
Vol. (Good): 350 kg 4,000 kg/day/AW
Vol. (Semi): 240 kg - 750 kg/day

Day 1 Buying Price: Php 3.50 Php 7.50 /kg
Vol. (Reject):40-130 kg/day

Buying Price Php 1.33 Php 6.00/kg
Spoilage: 5 kg 300 kg whole season
Wholesaler (Divisoria)
Vol. (Good): 3000 kg for wholesale
Vol. (Semi): 500 kg daily, wholesale only

Day 1

Buying Price: Php 4.50/kg
Retailer (Divisoria)
Vol. : 125 kg daily
Consumer
Day 2
Buying Price: PhP 27.00 Php 62.00/kg
Chapter 5 185
flow of eggplant from Asingan, Pangasinan to Urdaneta City

Vol. (Good): 3,750 kg 6,000 kg/month; Ave.: 4,875 kg/month
Production Months: Nov 2010 - Feb 2011
Selling Price: Php 10.00/kg Php 35.00/kg
Vol. (Reject): 750 kg 1,500 kg

(Mr. Quiteves)
Asingan
Vol. (Good): 1,000 kg 4,000 kg/day
Buying Price: Php 10.00/kg Php 35.00/kg
Day 1
Vol. (Reject):40-130 kg/day
Spoilage: 300 kg whole season.
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmml mmmmmmmmmmmm,
Retailer
Urdaneta City
Day 1 Vol. (Good) : 20 kg/day
Day 1
1
Consumer
186 Chapter 5
Appendix Figure 11. Supply Chain 11. Product flow, volume handled, and price/monetary
flow of eggplant from Asingan, Pangasinan to Baguio City

Vol. (Good): 3,750 kg 6,000 kg/month; Ave.: 4,875 kg/month
Selling Price: Php 10.00/kg Php 35.00/kg
(Mr. Quiteves)
Urdaneta City
Day 1
Buying Price: Php 10.00/kg Php 35.00/kg
Wholesaler-Retailer
Baguio City
Vol. (Good): 200 kg 250 kg/day; 50% wholesale, 50% retail.
Day 1
Retailer
Baguio City Consumer
Day 2 Vol. (Good): 30 kg 100 kg/month; Buying Price: Php 25.00 Php 55.00/kg
Chapter 5 187
flow of eggplant from Pangasinan to Mendez, Cavite

Vol. (Good): 80 kg-6,000 kg/month; Ave.: 3,788.40 kg/month
Selling Price: Php 3.00 Php 32.00; Ave.: Php 19.41
I
Assembler-Wholesaler (Ms. Fabro, Mrs. Mira)
Villasis Bagsakan
Vol. (Good): 1,000 kg-8,000 kg/day/AW; Ave.: 4,350 kg/day/AW
Day 1
Spoilage: 250 kg 1,600 kg whole season.
. 1
Wholesaler-Retailer
Divisoria
Vol. (Good): 750 kg for wholesale, 2250 kg for retail daily
Buying Price: Php 4.00- Php 42.00/kg
Day 1
Selling Price: Php 9.00- Php 47.00/kg, wholesale
Retailer
Mendez, Cavite
Vol. (Good): 70 kg/week
Day 2
Spoilage: 5 kg/month which they cut and sell

as pinakbet
Consumer
Day 2 Mendez, Cavite
188 Chapter 5
flow of eggplant from Villasis, Pangasinan to an institutional buyer

Vol. (Good): 250 kg-6,000 kg/month; Ave.: 2,589 kg/month
Production Months: Dec. 2010-April 2011
Selling Price: Php 2.00 Php 30.00
Spoilage: 0.48% - 3.04% of harvest
I
Assembler-Wholesaler (Mrs. Racoza)
Villasis Bagsakan
Vol. (Good): 500 kg-3,000 kg/day; Ave.: 1,750 kg/day
Day 1
. 1
Dizon Farms

1
Institutional Buyers
Day 2
(e.g. SM, Robinsons)
Chapter 5 189
flow of eggplant from Tiaong, Quezon to Binan, Laguna through the
Sentrong Pamilihan ng Produktong Agrikultura ng Quezon (SPPAQ)
in Sariaya, Quezon
Day 1 Growers
Tiaong, Quezon
Vol. (Good): 300 kg 14,000 kg/month; Vol. (Reject): 38.50 kg 1,750 kg/mo;
Ave.: 6,479.17 kg/month Ave.: 403.47 kg/mo
Production Months: June 2010 - March 2011 Production Months: June, Aug-Oct 2010
Selling Price: Php 1.50-35.00/kg; Selling Price: Php 6.40 18.20/kg
Ave.: Php 16.91/kg
Vol. (Semi): 38.50 kg 214 kg/month;
Ave.: 518.25 kg/mo
Production Months: June 2010 - February 2011
Grower-Assembler-Wholesaler (Mrs. Concha)

Tiaong, Quezon
Volume Produced as Grower,
Production Months: July 2010 - February 2011
Good: 1,750 kg 7,933.33 kg/month; Ave: 4,841.67 kg/month
Semi: 291.67 kg 1322.22 kg/month; Ave: 806.95 kg/month
Reject: 145.83 kg 661.11 kg/month; Ave.: 403.47 kg/month
Day 1 Volume Requirement as Trader Vol. (Reject): 166.17 kg 729.17 kg/day

Vol. (Good): 571.43 kg 10,000 kg/day Buying Price: Php 0.93 Php 18.20/kg
Buying Price: Php 1.50 - Php 35.00/kg ; Selling Price: Php 2.00 Php 19.20/kg
Ave.: Php 19.33/kg
Selling Price: Php 3.00 - Php 44.00/kg Spoilage: 300 kg 500 kg/day sold at 50%
discount on the next day
Vol. (Semi): 333.33 kg 1,458.33 kg/day
Wholesaler
Sariaya, Quezon Wholesaler
Vol. (Good): 50 kg 3,000 kg/day Bian, Laguna
Buying Price: Php 3.00 - Php 44.00/kg Vol. (Good): 300 kg, every other day
Selling Price: Php 4.00 Php 46.00/kg Buying Price: Php 4.00 Php 46.00/kg
Day 1 Selling Price: Php 9.00 Php 51.00/kg
Vol. (Semi): 50 kg/day
Buying Price: Php 3.00 Php 23.20/kg Vol. (Semi): 50 kg, every other day
Spoilage: 0.83%
Day 2 Retailer
Bian, Laguna
Vol. (Good): 150 kg, every other day
Consumers Selling Price: Php 14.00 Php 56.00/kg
Day 2 Vol. (Semi): 25 kg, every other day
190 Chapter 5
flow of eggplant from Tiaong, Quezon to Divisoria
Day 1 Growers, Tiaong, Quezon
Vol. (Good): 392 kg 17,500 kg/month; Ave.: 7,007 kg/month

Selling Price: Php 1.00- Php 35.00/kg
Vol. (Semi): 175 kg 1,575 kg/month; Ave.: 704.67 kg/month

Production Months: September 2010 - February 2011
Vol. (Reject): 315 kg 2625 kg/month; Ave.: 992.83 kg/month

Spoilage: 1.83% 17.5%
Grower-Assembler-Wholesaler (Mrs. Garcia)

Tiaong, Quezon
Production Months: July - September 2010
Good: 5,250 kg 14,000 kg/month; Ave: 9,625 kg/month
Volume Requirement as Trader Vol. (Reject): 315 kg 2625 kg/month
Day 1 Vol. (Good): 3,000 kg 12,000 kg/day, Buying Price: Php 1.33 Php 2.00/kg
JulDec 2010; 3,000 kg, 14 times in January 2011 Selling Price: Php 2.00/kg
Buying Price: Php 1.00 - Php 35.00/kg Spoilage: 1,765 kg whole season.
Vol. (Semi): 500 1,500 kg/day

Wholesaler (Divisoria)
Vol. (Good): 5,000, July Nov 2010 Vol. (Reject): 500kg 1500 kg/day
Buying Price: Php 3.40 Php 37.40/kg jul-aug 2010
Day 1 Selling Price: Php 5.40 Php 39.40/kg Buying Price: Php 2.00/kg
Vol. (Semi): 500 1,500 kg/day, jul-aug 2010
Retailer (Divisoria)
Vol. : 50 100 kg/day, mixed
Spoilage: 1-2 kg/week.
Consumer
Day 2
I
Chapter 5 191
flow of eggplant from Tiaong, Quezon to Tanauan City, Batangas
Day 1 Growers (Tiaong, Quezon)

Vol. (Good): 300 kg 14,000 kg/month; Vol. (Reject): 38.50 kg 125 kg/month
Ave.: 4,468.75 kg/month Production Months: June, Aug-Oct 2010
Production Months: June 2010 - March 2011 Selling Price: Php 6.40 Php 18.20/kg
Selling Price: Php 1.50 Php 35.00/kg;
Ave.: Php 16.91/kg Spoilage: 0.36% - 1.82% of harvest

Ave.: 121.13 kg/mo

Tiaong, Quezon
Good: 1,750 kg 7,933.33 kg/month; Ave: 4841.67 kg/month
Reject: 145.83 kg 661.11 kg/month; Ave.: 403.47 kg/month
Day 1 Volume Requirement as Trader Vol. (Reject): 166.17 kg 729.17 kg/day

Vol. (Good): 571.43 kg 10,000 kg/day Buying Price: Php 0.93 Php 18.20/kg
Buying Price: Php 1.50 - Php 35.00/kg ; Selling Price: Php 2.00 Php 19.20/kg
Ave.: Php 19.33/kg
Selling Price: Php 3.00 - Php 44.00/kg Spoilage: 300 kg 500 kg/day sold at 50%
discount on the next day
Vol. (Semi): 333.33 kg 1,458.33 kg/day

Day 1
Spoilage: 1 kg 2kg/day
Retailer (Tanauan City)

Spoilage: 10%
Consumer
Day 1
192 Chapter 5
flow of eggplant from Tiaong, Quezon to Tanauan City, Batangas
Day 1 Growers,
Tiaong, Quezon
Vol. (Good): 300 kg 10,000 kg/month;
Ave.: 2,782.88 kg/month
Production Months: July 2010 - March 2011
Selling Price: Php 1.50 Php 40.00/kg ; Ave.: Php 15.82/kg
Spoilage: 400 kg for the whole season.
(Mrs. Orense)
Tiaong, Quezon
Day 1 Vol.(Good) : 500 kg 6,000 kg/day
Spoilage: 5% of volume procured, 4 times the whole season.
Wholesaler
Tanauan City
Day 1
Spoilage: 1 kg 2kg/day, sold to maggagayat
Retailer
(Tanauan City)
Spoilage: 10% weekly.
Day 1
I
Consumer
Buying Price Php 7.50 Php 50.00/kg
Chapter 5 193
flow of eggplant from Tiaong, Quezon to Tanza, Cavite through
Day 1 Growers,
Tiaong, Quezon
(Mrs. Orense)
Tiaong, Quezon
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmrmmmm
Wholesaler
Tanza, Cavite
Vol. (Good): 500 1,000 kg/day
Spoilage: 50% of volume procured, once only in February,
replaced by Assembler-Wholesaler.
1
Wholesaler - Retailer
Vol. (Good): 200 kg - 300 kg/day
Day 1 Selling Price: Php 13.50 Php 52.00/kg, wholesale
Spoilage: 2 kg everyday.
Retailer
Tanza, Cavite mmmmmmmmmmmi
Buying Price: Php 13.50 Php 52.00/kg Consumer
Day 2
Selling Price:, Php 16.50 Php 55.00/kg Buying Price 16.50 Php 55.00/kg

Spoilage: 3 kg/week
194 Chapter 5
flow of eggplant from Tiaong, Quezon to Tanza, Cavite through
Day 1 Growers,
Tiaong, Quezon
Selling Price: Php 1.50-40.00/kg ; Ave.: Php 15.82/kg
(Mrs. Orense)
Tiaong, Quezon
Wholesaler - Retailer
Vol. (Good): 500 kg 1,000 kg/day,
70% Wholesale, 30% Retail
Day 1
Retailer
Vol. (Good): 50 kg, twice a week
Day 1 Consumer
Selling Price:, Php 10.50 Php 49.00/kg
Buying Price 10.50 Php 49.00/kg

Spoilage: 3 kg/week
Chapter 5 195
flow of eggplant from Tiaong, Quezon to Tagaytay City and Mendez,
Cavite
Day 1 Growers, Tiaong, Quezon

Assembler-Wholesaler (Mrs. Orense)

Tiaong, Quezon
Vol.(Good) : 500 kg 6,000 kg/day
Day 1 Buying Price: Php 1.50- Php 40.00/kg

Vol. (Good): 1,000 2,000 kg/day
Spoilage: 1 kg 2kg/day, sold to maggagayat
Wholesaler-Retailer
Tagaytay City and Mendez, Cavite
Vol. (Good): 80 kg - 100 kg/day, 25%-50% sold to restaurants,
the rest were sold as wholesale (50%) and retail (50%)
Php 34.00 Php 72.50/kg, for restaurants
Spoilage: 60 kg/month, sold as pinakbet)
Retailer
Mendez, Cavite Restaurants
Vol. (Good): 70 kg/week Buying Price Php 34.00
Day 2 Php 62.50/kg
Spoilage: 5 kg/month which they cut and Consumer

sold as pinakbet Buying Price Php 29.00 Php 67.50/kg
196 Chapter 5
flow of eggplant from Tiaong, Quezon to Kadiwa Public Market,
Cavite through Sentrong Pamilihan ng Produktong Agrikultura ng
Quezon (SPPAQ) in Sariaya, Quezon
Day 1 Growers (Tiaong, Quezon)

Vol. (Good): 300 kg 14,000 kg/month; Vol. (Reject): 38.50 kg 125 kg/month
Ave.: 4,468.75 kg/month Production Months: June, Aug-Oct 2010
Production Months: June 2010 - March 2011 Selling Price: Php 6.40 Php 18.20/kg
Ave.: Php 16.91/kg Spoilage: 0.36% - 1.82% of harvest

Ave.: 121.13 kg/mo
J..
Tiaong, Quezon
Good: 1,750 kg 7,933.33 kg/month; Ave: 4841.67 kg/month
Day 1 Reject: 145.83 kg 661.11 kg/month; Ave.: 403.47 kg/month
Volume Requirement as Trader

Vol. (Good): 571.43 kg 10,000 kg/day
Buying Price: Php 1.50 - Php 35.00/kg ;
Ave.: Php 19.33/kg
..-----
Wholesaler
Sariaya, Quezon Wholesaler-Retailer
Vol. (Good): 300 kg 3,000 kg/day Kadiwa Public Market, Cavite
Buying Price: Php 3.00 - Php 44.00/kg Vol. (Good): 500 kg 1,000 kg/day,
Selling Price: Php 4.00 Php 45.00/kg 80% wholesale, 20% retail
\ Selling Price: Php 12.50 Php 55.00/kg,

wholesale
Php 17.50 Php 60.00/kg,
retail
Spoilage: 0.83%
Spoilage: 20 kg - 40 kg/month
Retailer
Kadiwa Public Market, Cavite
Vol. (Good): 100 kg 200 kg/day,
80% wholesale, 20% retail
Consumer Buying Price: Php 12.50 Php 55.00/kg
Chapter 5 197
flow of eggplant from Tiaong, Quezon to Naga City, Camarines Sur
through the Sentrong Pamilihan ng Produktong Agrikultura ng
Day 1 Growers,
Tiaong, Quezon
(Mrs. Orense)
Tiaong, Quezon
1
Wholesaler
Sariaya
Vol.(Good) : 500 kg 2,000 kg/day
Day 1 Buying Price: Php 6.50- Php 45.00/kg
Spoilage: up to 30% of volume procured
Wholesaler-Retailer
Naga City
Vol.(Good) : 100 kg - 500 kg/day
Day 1
~~
Retailer
Naga City
.......................... ~
Consumer
......................
Day 2 Vol.(Good) : 10 kg - 50 kg/day

Buying Price: Php 12.50 Php 51.00/kg Buying Price: Php 15.50 Php 54.00/kg
198 Chapter 5
flow of eggplant from Sariaya, Quezon to Naga City, Camarines
Sur through the Sentrong Pamilihan ng Produktong Agrikultura ng
Day 1 Growers,
Sariaya, Quezon
Vol. (Good): 1,400 kg 14,000 kg/month;

Ave.: 7,700 kg/month
Production Months: February - July 2010
1
Wholesaler
(Mr. De Torres)
Sariaya
Wholesaler-Retailer
Naga City
Day 1
Retailer
Naga City
Day 2 Consumer
Chapter 5 199
flow of eggplant from Sariaya, Quezon to Tanauan City, Batangas
Day 1 Growers (Sariaya, Quezon)

Vol. (Good): 210 kg 12,000 kg/month; Vol. (Reject): 17.50 kg - 25kg/month
Ave.: 5,227.5 kg/month Production Months: December 2010
Production Months: December 2010 - March 2011 March 2011
Selling Price: Php 25.00 Php 40.00/kg ; Selling Price: Php 17.50/kg
Ave.: Php 32.50/kg
Ave.: 63.75 kg/mo
Production Months: December 2010 - March 2011
c......................................................................-k
y .............
Grower-Assembler-Wholesaler (Mrs. Villamin)

Sariaya, Quezon
Production Months: July 2010-January 2011
Good: 2,500 kg 6,000 kg/month; Ave: 4,250 kg/month
Volume Requirement as Trader Vol. (Reject): 17.5 kg 25 kg/day
Day 1 Vol. (Good): 1,000 kg 4,000 kg/day Buying Price: Php 17.50/kg
Buying Price: Php 25.00- Php 40.00/kg Selling Price: Php 19.50/kg
Vol. (Semi): 52.50 kg 75 kg/day


Spoilage: 1 kg 2kg/day

Spoilage: 10%
Day 1
200 Chapter 5
flow of eggplant from Dolores, Quezon to Tanauan City, Batangas
Day 1 Growers (Dolores, Quezon)

Vol. (Good): 280 kg 6,300 kg/month; Vol. (Reject): 19.25 kg 57.75 kg/mo
Ave.: 2,355.5 kg/month Production Months: September 2010
Production Months: July 2010 - March 2011 February 2011
Selling Price: Php 3.00 Php 35.00/kg; Selling Price: Php 2.00/kg
Ave.: Php 21.00/kg
Spoilage: 1.83% of harvest
Vol. (Semi): 28 kg 630 kg/month;
Ave.: 339.50 kg/mo
Ave.: Php 17.33/kg
1
Grower-Assembler-Wholesaler (Mrs. Marasigan)
Dolores, Quezon
Volume Produced as Grower:
Good: 300 kg 3,500 kg/month
Semi: 75 kg 525 kg/month
Day 1 Reject: 8.25 kg 57.75 kg/month
Volume Requirement as Trader Vol. (Reject): 17.5 kg 25 kg/day
Vol. (Good): 1,000 4,000 kg/day Buying Price: Php 2.00/kg
Buying Price: Php 3.00 Php 35.00/kg Selling Price: Php 2.75/kg
Vol. (Semi): 250 1,000 kg/day

1

Vol. (Reject): 15 kg/day

Spoilage: 5 kg -10 kg per week
r
Consumer
Day 1
Chapter 5 201
flow of eggplant from Dolores, Quezon to Balintawak, Quezon City
Day 1 Growers
Dolores, Quezon

Ave.: 717.15 kg/month
Production Months: July 2010 - January 2011
1
Grower-Assembler-Wholesaler (Mr. Bautista)
Dolores, Quezon
Good: 300 kg 3,500 kg/month

Day 1
Vol. (Good): 1,000 1,500 kg, 4 days a week
Spoilage: 0.67% - 1%
1
Wholesaler-Retailer
Balintawak
Vol.: 200-300 kg/day
Day 1 50% wholesale, 50% retail
1
Retailer
Balintawak
Day 1 Buying Price: Php 18.00-43.00/kg
Spoilage: 5 kg -10 kg per week
Consumer
Day 1
202 Chapter 5
Day 1 Growers (Dolores, Quezon)

Ave.: 3,254 kg/month
Production Months: June 2010 - March 2011
Vol. (Semi): 10 kg 900 kg/month; Ave.: 353.13 kg/mo

Production Months: June 2010 - March 2011
Selling Price: Php 1.50 Php 4.67/kg; Ave.: Php 3.05/kg
Spoilage: 0.90% - 7.68%
Commission Agent (Mr. Felismino)

Dolores, Quezon
Vol. (Good): 300 kg 5,000 kg/day

Day 1
Vol. (Semi): 140 kg 400 kg/day

Grower-Assembler-Wholesaler-Retailer (Dolores, Quezon)

Volume Produced as Grower, Volume Requirement as Trader
Production Months: July 2010-Janu- Vol. (Good): 1,000 kg 4,000 kg/day
ary 2011 90% wholesale, 10% retail
Good: 300 kg 3,500 kg/month Buying Price: Php 3.50 Php 37.50/kg
Selling Price:
Day 1 Php 8.50 Php 42.50/kg, wholesale
Volume Requirement as Trader Php 13.50 Php 47.50/kg, retail
Vol. (Good): 1,000 1,500 kg,
4 days a week Vol. (Semi): 250 kg 1,000 kg/day, whole-
Buying Price: Php 1.50 Php 20.00/kg sale only
Spoilage: 0.67% - 1%
Wholesaler-Retailer (Balintawak) Retailer (Balintawak)

Vol. (Good): 200-300 kg/day Vol. (Good): 50 kg/day
50% wholesale, 50% retail Buying Price: Php 13.50-47.50/kg
Day 1
Buying Price: Php 8.50 42.50/kg /kg Selling Price: Php 18.50 Php 52.50/kg
Selling Price: Php 13.50-47.50/kg, wholesale
Php 18.50-52.50/kg, retail Spoilage: 5 kg -10 kg per week
Consumer
Day 2
Chapter 5 203
Day 1 Growers
Dolores, Quezon

Ave.: 717.15 kg/month
Production Months: July 2010 - January 2011
Grower-Assembler-Wholesaler-Retailer
(Mr. Bautista)
Dolores, Quezon

Day 1 Good: 300 kg 3,500 kg/month

Vol. (Good): 1,000 kg 1,500 kg, 3 days a week
Php 10.00 Php 30.00/kg retail
Retailer
Kadiwa Public Market, Cavite
Consumer
Day 2 Vol. (Good): 100 kg 200 kg,
204 Chapter 5
Socioeconomic Impacts of Bt Eggplant: Evidence from Multi-location Field Trials
Chapter 6
Socioeconomic Impacts of Bt Eggplant:

Evidence from Multi-location Field Trials
Sergio R. Francisco
Introduction
In 2006-2009, the author conducted a series of ex-ante impact assessments

of Bt eggplant adoption to evaluate potential benefits in terms of improving
farmers and consumers welfare, improving the environment, alleviating
poverty of eggplant farmers, and improving nutritional status of consumers.
Results of these studies showed big potential of the technology once
released and adopted by farmers. In the absence of information on actual
field plantings of Bt eggplant, these studies used information on the potential
yield levels, benefits, and costs elicited from farmers, scientists and industry
experts.
This present study provides a thorough socioeconomic analysis of the

eggplant production environment where multi-location field trials of Bt
eggplant technology were conducted, including the socioeconomic profile
of eggplant farmers and farms within the field trial sites. It quantifies the
benefits from Bt eggplant technology based on results obtained from multi-
location field trials, and analyzes its performance relative to non-Bt eggplant
in terms of yields, cost efficiency, net profitability, and other economic
parameters. It provides information to support the commercialization of Bt
eggplant. It also details the knowledge, awareness, and perception (KAP)
of farmers in Pangasinan and Camarines Sur where the field trials were
conducted.
Chapter 6 205
Francisco
The conduct of field trials of the eggplant fruit and shoot borer (EFSB)-
resistant (Bt) eggplant in Luzon was approved by the Bureau of Plant Industry
through biosafety permits issued on 15 March 2010. The field trials aimed to
generate information on the efficacy, yield, and horticultural performance of
promising EFSB-resistant transgenic eggplant lines (Bt eggplant) containing
MAHYCO event EE-1 into an open-pollinated variety (OPV). It also aimed
to generate local data on non-target arthropods in support of biosafety
regulatory approval for propagation and Fertilizer and Pesticide Authority
(FPA) registration. Two of the approved trial sites in Luzon include Sta. Maria,
Pangasinan and Central Bicol State University for Agriculture (CBSUA) in Pili,
Camarines Sur.
Unlike the authors similar studies in 2006-2009, this ex-ante economic

impact assessment of Bt eggplant was carried out using data collected
from the multi-location field trials. The first season field trials started
simultaneously in the approved sites in April 2010 and were completed in
July 2010. The second season field trials started in November 2010 and
were completed in March 2011. Throughout the trials, all data to the ex-ante
assessment were collected and recorded.
Farm-level technology effects on the cost and income of eggplant production

were analyzed using the with and without framework, i.e., by comparing
currently observed farmers practice with Bt eggplant field trial results. The
experimental field trials of Bt eggplant were laid out in randomized complete
block with two treatments, Bt plots and non-Bt plots. The varieties planted
were all open-pollinated and the production period was only 4-5 months, 2-3
months shorter than the usual production period of 7 months. Hence, yields
obtained where lower than hybrids, the common variety planted in the areas.
The trials were carried out for two seasons.
A knowledge, awareness and perception (KAP) survey was carried out

in Pangasinan and Camarines Sur to determine how farmers in the trial
sites view Bt eggplant technology. Using a structured questionnaire, the
KAP survey was conducted in 2011, with 54 and 30 farmer-respondents in
Pangasinan and Camarines Sur, respectively.
Descriptive statistics were used to summarize data from the survey. Data
generated from the experimental field trials were used to analyze economic
206 Chapter 6
performance of Bt eggplant relative to its non-Bt counterpart. The parameters

that were analyzed are yield levels, cost efficiency, and profitability. For yield
performance analysis, marketable yields, i.e., harvested undamaged fruits, of
multi-location trials were compared with data collected from the surveyed
farmers yields. For net profitability comparisons, the on-farm net revenues
and costs of actual eggplant production in farmers fields was integrated in
the analysis using prevailing prices of eggplant and production inputs in the
sites.
Respondents Socio-demographic and Farm Profiles
Majority of eggplant farmers surveyed in Pangasinan and Camarines Sur were

male, married and middle aged (Table 1). On average, Pangasinan farmers
had 10 years of formal schooling compared to only 6 years for Camarines Sur
farmers. Most have been farming for almost 2 decades, of which more than
10 years were devoted to eggplant; they considered farming as their primary
occupation that provided them the bulk of their annual income. Pangasinan
farmers were mostly landowners while about 50% of Camarines Sur farmers
were share-tenants.
Both sites have access to information (market, technology, and inputs) with
Camarines Sur respondents having to travel shorter distance to reach the
information source. Although respondents average farm size in Pangasinan
was smaller than Camarines Surs, the former devoted 70% of the entire
farm to eggplant compared to the latters 43% (Table 1). Pangasinan farm
depended mainly on pump irrigation while those in Camarines Sur mostly
relied on rainfall for water. However, Camarines Sur farms were more
diversified than those in Pangasinan since the former planted other crops
aside from eggplant and raised livestock.
Pangasinan farmer-respondents were somehow economically better-

off than Camarines Sur farmers as indicated by the make of their houses
and ownership of appliances (Table 2). Most Pangasinan farmers lived in
permanent houses with galvanized iron (GI)-sheet roofing and concrete walls,
have electricity and semi-flush toilets.
Chapter 6 207
Francisco
Table 1. Socio-demographic and farm profiles of eggplant farmer-respondents,

Camarines Sur and Pangasinan, 2010/2011
Demographic Characteristics Pangasinan (n=54) Camarines Sur (n=30)
Gender (% of farmers)
Male 80 52
Female 20 48
Civil status (% of farmers)
Single 2 3
Married 96 90
Widowed 2 7
Age (years) 42 45
Average number of years in schooling 10 6
Secondary occupation (% of farmers)
Farming 3
Carpentry 10
Buy and sell 4 3
Barangay official 7 3
Average annual income (PhP)
Primary occupation 64,351 41,129
Secondary occupation 7,109 1,822
Total farming experience (years) 18 20
Eggplant farming experience ( years) 14 12
Tenure (% of farmers)
Landowner 61 33
Part-owner 2 3
Share-tenant 28 50
Leaseholder 4 10
Mortgage owner 2
Owner/share-tenant 2
Accessibility to information
Distance of farm to market (km) 6 5
Distance of farm to technology/ 6 4
information source (km)
Distance of farm to input dealers (km) 6 5
Total area of the farm (ha) 0.81 2.43
Total eggplant area (ha) 0.57 1.07
Type of irrigation (% of farmers)
Rainfed 2 80
208 Chapter 6
Table 1. Socio-demographic and farm profiles of eggplant farmer-respondents,

Demographic Characteristics Pangasinan (n=54) Camarines Sur (n=30)
Gravity irrigation 11 7
Pump (sprinkler) 85 13
Farmers planting crops aside from 70 90
eggplant (%)
Farmers who raise livestock (%) 24 73
Poverty threshold (2010): Pangasinan PhP15,186; Camarines Sur PhP13,365 (NSCB, 2012)
Household size (2006-2007): Pangasinan 4.5; Camarines Sur 5.0 (NSO, 2010)
US$1.00 = PhP45.00 (as of 2010, NSCB 2012)
Table 2. Distribution of housing components of farmer-respondents (%), Camarines Sur

and Pangasinan, 2010/2011
Particulars Pangasinan (n=54) Camarines Sur (n=30)
Type of house
Permanent 74 52
Semi-permanent 19 24
Temporary 4 24
Shanty 4
Type of roof
Tiles 2 10
GI sheets 91 76
Nipa 6 10
Cogon/grass 2 3
Source of lighting
Electric 93 76
Kerosene 7 24
Toilet facilities
Semi-flush 89 48
Flush 6 21
Open pit 24
Antipolo 3
None 6 3
Cooking fuel*
Wood 72 59
Charcoal 2 34
Chapter 6 209
Francisco
Table 2. Distribution of housing components of farmer-respondents (%), Camarines Sur

Particulars I Pangasinan (n=54) I Camarines Sur (n=30)
LPG I 26 I 24
Availability of electrical services
Yes I 91 I 83
No I 9 I 17
* Multiple responses
Production Options and Practices
Varieties Planted. Results show that hybrid eggplant varieties are most
commonly grown in the two study areas, with Morena as the most popular,
having an average replacement period of one year (Table 3).The most
common sources of information on varieties were seed companies, other
farmers, and government agricultural technicians. Farmers normally buy
their seeds from input dealers/agricultural suppliers and seed companies.
High yield had always been the primary reason for choosing which eggplant
variety to plant. Other reasons were larger fruit, longer productive life span,
and consumer preference.
Other Crops Planted. Table 4 shows the distribution of farmers according to

crops grown aside from eggplant. The most popular crops planted are corn
and rice in Pangasinan, and corn and string beans in Camarines Sur. Other
crops planted include pepper, tobacco, bitter gourd and pechay. Ratooning1
of eggplant was not practiced in both survey areas because farmers
completely replace their variety for the next cropping season. Some farmers
reported that they also planted other crops after eggplant is harvested.
Planting Intentions and Sources of Farm Capital. Most farmer-respondents

planned to continue growing eggplant in the next season, maintaining the
same area. Less than 50% were planning to expand their eggplant area to
increase income while others thought of decreasing the area due to capital
and labor constraints. The average area intended for expansion is 0.98 ha in
Pangasinan and 1.29 ha in Camarines Sur (Table 5).
1
Ratooning in eggplant is done by cutting the old branches and allowing new branches to
regenerate. This is usually done by backyard eggplant farmers.
210 Chapter 6
Table 3. Eggplant varieties grown, seed sources, and reasons for choice of variety by
respondents, Camarines Sur and Pangasinan, 2010/2011
Pangasinan (n=54) Camarines Sur (n=30)
No. of Freq of % No. of Freq of %
Farmers Seed Seedling Farmers Seed Seedling
Planting Procure- Mortality Planting Procure- Mortality
ment ment
Eggplant variety grown
Native (OP) 7 2 22
Morena (H) 63 1 12 47 1 17
Casino (H) 17 2 6 53 1 12
Sikat (H) 7 1 12
Checkmate (H) 6 2 8
Checkout (H) 1
Source of eggplant seeds (% of respondents) (% of respondents)
Seed companies 39 40
Input dealers/ agricultural suppliers 74 17
Other farmers 6
Own harvest 6
Dept of Agriculture 33
Others 20 10
Reason for choice of variety
High yielding 48 43
Bigger fruits 2 7
Common in the area 4
Readily available 2
Good market price 2 3
No choice 2
Pest and disease resistant 2
Seeds are cheaper 3
Longer productive life span 13
Preferred variety by consumers 13
Multiple responses possible.

H=hybrid variety, OP=open-pollinated variety.
Chapter 6 211
Francisco
Table 4. Crops planted by farmer-respondents (%), Camarines Sur and Pangasinan,

2010/2011
Crops planted*
Eggplant 93 67
Corn 80 17
Rice 19
Hot pepper 7 3
Okra 4
String beans 4 17
Pepper 4
Tobacco 4 13
Bitter gourd 13
Tomato 3
Peanut 3
Pechay 10
Reasons for not practicing eggplant ratooning
Complete replacement of variety 63 60
Field planted with other crops after 30 30
harvest
*Multiple responses
Table 5. Farming plans and sources of farm capital of eggplant farmers (%), Camarines
Sur and Pangasinan, 2010/2011
Farming plans
Will plant eggplant next season
Yes 98 85
No 2 15
Has plans of expanding eggplant farm
Yes 44 27
No 54 73
If yes, mean area of expansion (ha) 0.98 1.29
Has plans to decrease eggplant farm
Yes 4 23
No 48 50
No answer 48 27
212 Chapter 6
Table 5. Farming plans and sources of farm capital of eggplant farmers (%), Camarines
Sources of farm capital
Borrowed capital
Yes 80 57
No 19 43
Amount borrowed (mean, PhP) 9,082 7,441
Interest rate per year (%) 13 25
Source of capital*
Trader 69 3
Friend 2
Lending institution 4 27
Neighbor 2
Relative 6 20
Require collateral?
Yes 80 3
No 11 97
*Multiple responses
Majority of the farmers borrowed capital for eggplant production, which

averaged at less than PhP10,000 (Table 5). The annual interest rate charged
stood at 13% and 25% in Pangasinan and Camarines Sur, respectively. The
major sources of borrowed capital were traders, money lenders and relatives.
Pangasinan farmers were required to provide collateral by lenders (80%) while
the Camarines Sur farmers were seldom required collaterals.
Eggplant Marketing and Prices
Table 6 summarizes the farmers mode of disposal, and point of sale of

eggplants. Farmers in Pangasinan and Camarines Sur sell their produce
on-farm mainly to viajeros, wholesaler-retailers, and assemblers. On the
other hand, Camarines Sur eggplant farmers had their produce picked up or
delivered to the traders collection point.
When asked whether the price of hybrids and open-pollinated eggplant

differ, majority of Pangasinan farmers responded that there was no price
Chapter 6 213
Francisco
Table 6. Eggplant varieties grown, seed sources, and reasons for choice of variety by
respondents, Camarines Sur and Pangasinan, 2010/2011
I Pangasinan (n=54) I Camarines Sur (n=30)

Particulars
I No. % Total I No. % Total
Market agent*
Assemblers 15 28 4 13
Viajeros 20 37 17 57
Wholesalers 17 31 1 3
Wholesaler-retailers 7 13 10 33
Retailers 1 2 3 10
Mode of disposal*
Picked up 44 81 20 67
Delivered 10 19 16 53
Place where product is sold*
Farm 44 81 12 40
Market 7 13 17 57
Others 1 2 4 13
*Multiple responses
difference between varieties; Camarines Sur eggplant farmers believed

otherwise (Table 7). Traders and farmers considered volume and prevailing
market price in setting output price. Both groups had many sources of price
information mainly buyers, followed by co-traders whom farmers ask about
prices, and other farmers.
Production and Marketing Problems
Farmers cited pests and diseases, particularly EFSB, as the major problem
in producing eggplants. Other production problems include lack of capital,
weather/calamities, and soil problems. The major eggplant marketing
problems cited were low market price and price instability (Table 8).
Farmers Knowledge and Awareness of Production Technologies
Knowledge and Awareness of EFSB and Control Methods. Farmers awareness

of eggplant fruit and shoot borer (EFSB) was high 89% of the Pangasinan
respondents and 90% in Camarines Sur were familiar to this pest (Table 9).
Chemical spray was used to control EFSB infestation as reported by 89% of
214 Chapter 6
Table 7. Eggplant pricing information and source of price information (% of

respondents), Camarines Sur and Pangasinan, 2010/2011
Similarity in prices of hybrid and open-pollinated variety
Yes 26 69
No 61 27
No response 13 4
Factors considered in pricing*
Volume 15 77
Prevailing market price 94 69
Dryness 2 4
Size 4
Color 4
Sources of price information*
Buyer 61 88
Radio/newspaper 4 4
Co-traders 24 35
Other farmers 11 38
Other sources:
AT 2
Divisoria 2
*Multiple responses
Table 8. Eggplant farmers production and marketing problems (% of respondents),

Problems Encountered* Pangasinan (n=54) Camarines Sur (n=30)
Production Problems
Pests and diseases (EFSB, hoppers, whiteflies) 95 73
Lack of capital 20 13
Low yield 4
Weather/calamities 9 17
Soil-borne diseases (bacterial/Fusarium wilt**) 6 7
Varietys susceptibility to pest and diseases 2
Fruit easily gets rotten 2
High cost of production 2 23
No irrigation 2 7
High seedling mortality 4 7
Chapter 6 215
Francisco
Table 8. Eggplant farmers production and marketing problems (% of respondents),

Problems Encountered* Pangasinan (n=54) Camarines Sur (n=30)
Marketing Problems
Low market price 57 80
Buyers control prices 2 3
No buyer 13
Fluctuating price 6 3
** Farmers in Pangasinan called this disease high blood.
Table 9. Awareness and knowledge about EFSB (% of respondents), Camarines Sur and
Pangasinan, 2010/2011
Familiarity with EFSB
Yes 89 90
No 7 7
Not sure 2 3
Methods for controlling EFSB*
Chemical control 89 80
Removal and burying of infested shoots 30 10
Pheromone traps 4 0
Burning 3
Source of information against EFSB control*
Government extension workers 6 23
Company technicians 67 23
Other farmers 6 10
Input dealers 13 7
Land owner 4 3
Own knowledge 3
216 Chapter 6
the eggplant farmers in Pangasinan and 80% in Camarines Sur. Some farmers
reportedly removed and buried infested shoots; a few in Pangasinan used
sex pheromone traps, and some burned infested fruits in Camarines Sur. The
major sources of information on EFSB control were the pesticide company
technicians, government extension workers, other farmers, and input dealers.
The two chemical classes most commonly used by Pangasinan farmers

to control EFSB were chlorantraniliprole (59%) and malathion (35%).
In Camarines Sur, farmers used chlorantraniliprole, cypermethrin and
lambdacyhalothrin (Table 10). Although majority of the farmers are using
category 4 insecticides, some were still using the more hazardous category 2.
The latter has some implications to applicators since they are in contact with
the insecticides during spraying, to pickers considering that insecticides were
applied a day before harvest, to consumers, and ultimately, the environment.
Attitude Towards Technology Change. The survey of farmers attitudes showed

that, in both study areas, only 37% would try a new technology immediately;
more farmers would rather first wait-and-see then follow other farmers if they
see that the technology really works (Table 11). The farmers main reason for
trying a new technology was to test its overall advantage.
Farmers Knowledge, Attitude, and Perceptions of Agricultural

Biotechnology
Knowledge. Majority of the eggplant farmer-respondents were not aware of

biotech crops and agricultural biotechnology products in the country (Table
12). For those who were aware, the most known agricultural biotechnology
product was Bt corn, followed by golden rice and Bio-N.
Among farmer-respondents who know about agricultural biotechnology,

around 96% and 20% in Pangasinan and Camarines Sur, respectively, were
interested in using its products. Farmers learned about biotechnology
products primarily from extension workers, mass media, farmer colleagues,
scientists, religious organizations, and non-government organizations
(NGOs). However, only less than 10% of the respondents believed they have
enough information on biotech products; many opined that information was
not enough or totally lacking. Among Pangasinan farmers, 72% believed that
agricultural biotechnology products can improve agricultural productivity. In
Camarines Sur, only 17% of the farmer-respondents believed that agriculture
biotechnology has the potential to improve Philippine agriculture.
Chapter 6 217
Francisco
Table 10. Insecticides used by eggplant farmers for pest management (% of

Pangasinan Camarines
Insecticide Class Category
(n=54) Sur (n=30)
First cropping season
Chlorantraniliprole 4 59 33
Malathion 4 35 3
Deltamethrin 4 9
Triazophos 2 7
Methomyl 2 7
Chlorpyrifos + BPMC 2 6 3
Imidacloprid+Beta-Cyfluthrin 2 6
Profenofos 2 6
Flubendiamide 4 4
Indoxacarb 3 4
Diafenthiuron 2 4
Cypermethrin 4 4 30
Imidacloprid 4 2
Cartap Hydrochloride 3 2 3
Betactfluthrin 3 2
Lambdacyhalothrin 2 2 23
Fipronil 4 2
Acetamiprid 3 2
Chlorantraniliprole+Thiamethoxam 4 2
Lambdacyhalothrin + Thiametoxam 2 2 13
Granazole 3
Second cropping season
Malathion 4 6
Chlorantraniliprole 4 6
Cypermethrin 4 7
Lambdacyhalothrin 2 3
Profenofos 2 3
218 Chapter 6
Table 11. Farmers attitude and reasons for change (% of respondents), Camarines Sur
Attitude of farmers towards change
Change immediately 37 37
Wait for a while, then follow 48 57
Change when everyone has done so 7 3
Stick to old proven/tested practices 7
Main reason for trying out something new
Test overall advantage of new idea, practice, 78 87
or technology
Approval of others for being the first to try 9 3
Commercial economic orientation 6 10
Try if effective 2
Self-fulfillment 2
Table 12. Farmers awareness and knowledge about agricultural biotechnology (% of

Awareness on existence of biotech crops in the country
Yes 35 10
No 65 90
Awareness on agricultural biotechnology products
Bt corn 26 20
Golden rice 7 3
Bio-N 2 3
Not aware 65 74
Interested in uses of biotech in agriculture
Yes 96 20
No 4 80
Sources of biotechnology information
Mass media (TV, radio, newspaper) 7 13
Interpersonal (family, friends, and colleagues) 20 13
Scientists 13 7
Agriculture extension workers 52 10
Religious groups 7
Print publications (books, pamphlets, 2 7
magazines)
Chapter 6 219
Francisco
Table 12. Farmers awareness and knowledge about agricultural biotechnology (% of

Electronic (websites, emails, etc.) 4 7
Agricultural suppliers/dealers 8 10
Non-government organizations (NGOs) 10
Extent of information/knowledge on biotechnology
Not enough 81 7
Enough 7 7
No knowledge on biotechnology 2 3
No answer 10 83
Usefulness of information as basis for knowledge on biotech
Not useful 39 7
Moderately useful 28 10
Very useful 20
No knowledge on biotechnology 2
No answer 11 83
Opinion if biotech will improve Philippine agriculture
Yes 72 17
No 9
Do not know 11
No answer 83
Attitude. Whether or not they were aware of biotechnology, Pangasinan

farmers were very much interested in using agriculture biotechnology
products (Table 13). This may be because they have experienced, or are at
least aware of, Bt corn performance in the province. On the other hand,
only 19% of the unaware respondents in Camarines Sur were interested in
using biotech products. Pangasinan farmers also opined that agriculture
biotechnology can benefit small-scale farmers as well as consumers.
Among farmers who are aware of agricultural biotechnology, 78% in

Pangasinan and 27% in Camarines Sur expressed their willingness to plant
and consume biotech crops (Table 14). Similarly, more Pangasinan farmers
were in favor of agricultural biotechnology food products compared to
Camarines Sur. Again, this may be because some (24%) of the farmer-
respondents in Pangasinan have experienced planting Bt corn.
220 Chapter 6
Table 13. Farmers perception about agricultural biotechnology (% of respondents),

Particulars Aware Unaware Aware Unaware
% % % %
Interest in using biotechnology products
Not interested 0 7 25 0
Interested 83 81 75 19
Very interested 17 12 0 0
No answer 81
Opinion if small-scale farmers benefit from biotechnology
Yes 92 93 75 12
No 0 5 0 0
Do not know 8 2 0 0
No answer 25 88
Opinion if consumers benefit from biotechnology
Yes 58 86 25 88
No 25 10 0 0
Do not know 17 5 0 0
No answer 75 12
Table 14. Farmers willingness to plant and consume agricultural biotechnology products
(% of respondents), Camarines Sur and Pangasinan, 2010/2011
Willingness to plant/consume agri-biotech product
Yes 78 27
No 20 0
No answer 73
In favor of agri-biotech as food
Yes 83 27
No 13 0
Do not know 4 0
No answer 73
Experience in planting Bt corn
No 74 20
Yes 24 3
No answer 77
Chapter 6 221
Francisco
Farmers Knowledge, Attitude, and Perceptions of Bt Eggplant
Awareness. Only 22% of the Pangasinan farmer-respondents, and 13% of

those from Camarines Sur, were aware of the existence of Bt eggplant (Table
15). More farmers in Pangasinan, however, were aware of the Bt eggplant
research and development of UP Los Baos (UPLB) compared to those from
Camarines Sur.
There was a mix of information heard and shared by those farmers who know
or are aware of Bt eggplant (Table 16). This pertains to its existence in India,
potential benefits such as high yield and better quality fruits, characteristics
as a new eggplant variety resistant to pests and diseases, and potential health
risks. The farmers learned of these from agricultural extension workers, other
farmers, friends, pamphlets, UPLB researchers, and the internet.
Majority of those aware of Bt eggplant were also interested in acquiring

more information about the technology. Information desired are on its
effectiveness against EFSB, human health effects, fruit-bearing ability and
quality of fruits, environmental implications, production technology, yield
potentials, food safety, and pesticide savings (Table 16).
Table 15. Farmers awareness of Bt eggplant, Camarines Sur and Pangasinan, 2010/2011
Particulars Distribution
Frequency %
Pangasinan
Aware of Bt eggplant 12 22
Unaware of Bt eggplant 42 78
Camarines Sur
Both sites
Awareness on a research being conducted in UPLB
Yes 42 25
No 58 75
222 Chapter 6
Table 16. Farmers responses regarding information about Bt eggplant, Camarines Sur
Sources of information Information needed Information needed to plant
on Bt eggplant* on Bt eggplant* Bt eggplant*
Extension worker Effectiveness against EFSB Fruit quality (bigger in size,
and health effects good and heavier in weight)
Other farmers/friends Fruit bearing ability and qual- Effectiveness against EFSB
ity of fruits
Family/relatives If it is environment friendly High yielding
Pamphlets/brochures How to plant Preferred by buyers
UPLB researchers If high yielding Resistant to bacterial wilt
Internet If it has no side effects/safe If feasible to plant in our area
for food
If it really does not need If it has no side effects to
pesticides human
Confirmation that it does not
need pesticide
If there is seed subsidy
Information heard about Considerations to try or Motivations to plant
Bt eggplant* not to try planting Bt eggplant Bt eggplant*
Bt eggplant in India Would need actual proofs to Higher yield
make an assessment
Good to plant Cannot believe that they Reduced pesticide usage
would not be attacked by
EFSB
High yielding Low cost of production
Produces heavier fruits Safe to eat
New variety of eggplant Environment friendly
No need to spray pesticides
Pests and diseases resistant
May have side effects
Nevertheless, at least 75% of the aware farmers indicated that they would
need proof before deciding to plant (or not plant) Bt eggplant. To help
them decide, they need information about fruit quality (size and weight),
effectiveness to control EFSB, yielding ability, buyer preference, resistance to
other pests, and production cost (Table 16).
When asked about their willingness to try Bt eggplant, majority of

respondents in both survey areas responded positively about 70% in
Pangasinan and 60% in Camarines Sur (Table 17). On the other hand, 30%
Chapter 6 223
Francisco
Table 17. Farmers willingness to plant and opinion regarding Bt eggplant, Camarines
Willingness to plant Bt eggplant
Yes 69 60
Only after I know about its performance 30 27
No 2
No answer 13
Opinion if Bt eggplant will benefit small scale farmers:
Yes 81 80
No 11 3
No answer 17
of Pangasinan farmers and 27% of Camarines Sur farmers will only try Bt
eggplant after they see its performance.2
When asked about whether they think Bt eggplant will benefit small-scale
farmers, at least 80% of the respondents in both survey areas responded
positively.
Cost and Return Analysis
Table 18 presents the crop budgets generated from the survey of eggplant
farmers in Pangasinan and Camarines Sur. On average, the yields of
Pangasinan eggplant farmers were slightly higher than Camarines Sur
farmers. Since Pangasinan farmers obtained about 31 metric tons per hectare
(m tons/ha) of marketable yield compared to Camarines Sur farmers 26 m
tons/ha, Pangasinan farmers gross revenue was expectedly higher, at the
same product prices. However, in the same production season, Pangasinan
farmers reported receiving an average price of PhP22.37/kg while those in
Camarines Sur received only PhP7.38/kg. As such, even if the total production
cost of Pangasinan farmers (PhP184,783/ha) was far higher than that of
Camarines Sur (PhP103,247/ha), the net income difference between these two
groups was significant at about PhP420,000/ha.
2
During the course of the interview, farmers were given some information on the potential
benefits of Bt eggplants.
224 Chapter 6
Table 18. Cost and return analysis of eggplant production, Pangasinan and Camarines
Sur, 2010
Survey Site
Item
Pangasinan Camarines Sur
Production
Yield (m tons/ha) 3.363 2.770
Total harvest sold (m tons) 3.099 2.601
Average price per metric ton (PhP) 2,237 738
Gross sales (PhP) 693,279.04 191,868.95
Production Costs (PhP)
Seeds 2,570.91 1,421.00
Fertilizers
Organic 4,195.63 1,115.71
Inorganic 33,931.90 19,427.00
Pesticides
Liquid 34,172.15 28,265.00
Solid 8,190.80 3,650.14
Labor
Hired 45,819.66 12,438.90
Imputed 34,489.70 14,123.02
Other input costs
Fuel 19,071.26 2,126.18
Transportation 861.40 12,294.12
Food 1,479.95 8,386.11
Total Production Cost 184,783.35 103,247.18
Net Income (PhP) 508,495.69 88,621.77
In order to make a better comparison and eliminate price effect, a

common price of PhP10/kg was assumed for both sites. Table 19 shows
the comparative cost and return analysis under this assumption. As can be
seen, the cost of production in Pangasinan was higher in many cost items
compared to Camarines Surs. For example, seeds, fertilizer, pesticides and
labor costs for Pangasinan eggplant production were higher than those of
Camarines Sur. Hence, even if the average yield in Pangasinan was higher
than in Camarines Sur, the net income difference was not as large as in the
previous cost and return table because the high production costs negated
the yield advantage of Pangasinan over Camarines Sur.
Chapter 6 225
Francisco
Table 19. Comparative cost and return analysis of eggplant production among surveyed
farmers in Pangasinan and Camarines Sur, 2010
Survey Site
Item Pooled
Pangasinan I Camarines Sur
Production
Yield (m tons/ha) 3.368 2.770 3.066
Marketable yield (m tons/ha) 3.099 2.601 2.850
Price per metric ton (PhP) 10,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00
Gross sales (PhP) 309,895.00 260,085.00 284,990.00
Production Costs (PhP)
Seeds 2,570.91 1,421.00 1,995.96
Fertilizers
Organic 4,195.63 1,115.71 2,655.67
Inorganic 33,931.90 19,427.00 26,679.45
Pesticides
Liquid 34,172.15 28,265.00 31,218.58
Solid 8,190.80 3,650.14 5,920.47
Labor
Hired 45,819.66 12,438.90 29,129.28
Imputed family 34,489.70 14,123.02 24,306.36
Other input costs
Fuel 19,071.26 2,126.18 10,598.72
Transportation 861.40 12,294.12 6,577.76
Food 1,479.95 8,386.11 4,933.03
Total Production Cost 184,783.35 103,247.18 144,015.27
Net Income (PhP) 125,111.65 156,838.32 140,974.99
Comparative Production and Profitability Performance of Bt and Non-Bt

Eggplant Using Field Trial Results
Data generated from the field trials in Camarines Sur and Pangasinan were
used to compare the production and profitability performance of Bt eggplant
relative to its non-Bt counterpart.
Yield Effects. In Pangasinan, Bt eggplants gross yield was higher than that
of non-Bt eggplant by more than 12 m tons/ha and 25 m tons/ha in the
first and second season, respectively. Bt eggplant also had marketable yield
226 Chapter 6
advantage of 4.9 m tons/ha and 20.7 m tons/ha also for first and second
seasons, respectively. The overall marketable yield advantage of Bt eggplant
over non-Bt eggplant was 14 m tons/ha (1,156%) (Table 20).
In Camarines Sur, the yields of non-Bt eggplant were slightly higher than
those of Bt eggplant in the first season, but the relationship was reversed in
the second season (Table 20). Noticeably however, the marketable yields of
Bt eggplant in both seasons were higher than those of the non-Bt variety.
Hence even if Bt eggplant had lower yields during the first season, income
was expected to be higher than that of non-Bt eggplant. The marketable yield
advantage is more pronounced during the second season.
Comparing the yield performance of the Bt eggplant relative to what the

farmers were getting in the area and considering that the yield data from the
sites were only 65% of the potential yield, the Bt eggplants yield performance
was generally lower. It was because the varieties used by farmers in the
survey areas were almost all hybrids, while the Bt eggplant used in the
experimental field trials were inbred or open-pollinated varieties3, which have
lower yield potentials.
If Bt is introgressed into hybrids, the yield advantage in terms of marketable

yield of Bt eggplant could be replicated. Bt eggplant is a cost-reducing
technology that prevents EFSB damage, hence increasing marketable yields.
Across all trial sites, the marketable yield advantage of Bt eggplant was 8.2 m
tons/ha (or about 192% of non-Bts). This result was very much higher than
the 40% reported during an FGD in Francisco (2006).
Cost Effects. In Pangasinan, the cost savings due to Bt eggplant was about
PhP49,722/ha in the first season and PhP261,944/ha in the second season.
Similarly in Camarines Sur, PhP80,000/ha was saved from insecticide use
during the first season and PhP105,694/ha was saved during the second
season. The savings come from reduction in insecticide use to control EFSB
during the production season (Table 21).
Across trial sites, the cost advantage of Bt eggplant was about 15%, slightly
lower than the 16% cost savings obtained during an FGD in Francisco (2006).
3
The Bt was introgressed into inbreds (OPV) so that farmers would be able to plant the variety
continuously and allay the fear of having hybrid seed companies benefiting more out of the
technology.
Chapter 6 227
Francisco
Table 20. Comparative yield performance of Bt and non-Bt eggplant, Pangasinan and
Camarines Sur trial sites, 2010
Crop Bt Egg- Non-Bt Difference %
Particulars
Season plant Eggplant Difference
Pangasinan
Season 1 Yield (m tons/ha) 16.72 4.44 12.28 276.58
Marketable (m tons/ha) 9.08 1.68 7.40 440.48
Non-marketable 7.64 2.76 4.88 176.81
(m tons/ha)
% Marketable 54.31 37.84
Marketable (m tons/ha) 21.46 0.75 20.71 2,761.33
Non-marketable 8.03 2.86 5.17 180.77
(m tons/ha)
% marketable 72.77 20.78
Both Marketable yields (t/ha) 15.27 1.22 14.05 1,151.64
seasons
Camarines Sur
Season 1 Yield (m tons/ha) 14.68 16.31 (1.63) (9.99)
Non-marketable 7.06 8.93 (1.87) (20.94)
(m tons/ha)
% Marketable 51.91 45.25
Non-marketable 4.85 8.59 (3.74) (43.54)
(m tons/ha)
% marketable 71.90 46.61
Both Marketable yields (t/ha) 10.02 7.44 34.61
seasons
Average yield of farmer-respondents in Pangasinan and Camarines Sur is 33.6 m tons/ha (21.9 m tons/
ha at 65%) and 27.7 m tons/ha (18.0 m tons/ha at 65%), respectively.
Figures in parentheses are negative.
If the new parameters marketable yield advantage of 192% and cost

advantage of 15% will be incorporated into the economic surplus model
used in Francisco (2006), the benefits would be much higher than projected
therein.
228 Chapter 6
Table 21. Comparative production cost structures (PhP) of Bt eggplant and non-Bt
eggplant in Pangasinan and Camarines Sur, 2010
Particulars Season 1 Season 2
Pangasinan
Site development and land preparation 69,444 22,222
Crop care and maintenance, labor and irrigation 54,861 201,389
Material inputs
Insecticides for EFSB control 47,222 97,222
Fungicides 5,104 22,969
Other insecticides 938 61,771
Total production costs of non-Bt eggplant 264,757 395,330
Share of insecticides in total cost 18% 20%
Total production costs of Bt eggplant 217,535 379,780
Camarines Sur
Site development and land preparation 52,083 41,667
Crop care and maintenance, labor and irrigation 72,917 114,583
Material inputs
Insecticides for EFSB control 32,778 105,694
Fungicides 5,104
Other insecticides 17,708
Total production costs of non-Bt eggplant 235,017 317,465
Share of insecticides in total cost 14% 33%
Total production cost of Bt eggplant 217,309 211,771
Partial Budget Analysis. On average in Pangasinan, the added returns due

to increased marketable yield was PhP140,550/ha while the reduction in
cost (added benefits) was about PhP133,000/ha. The total incremental net
benefit that accrued to the Bt eggplant farmers was about PhP272,000/
ha. In Camarines Sur, where the average yield advantage was relatively low,
the net incremental benefit that accrued to Bt eggplant farmers was about
PhP120,000/ha (Table 22). Again, this increment came from the increased
marketable yields and cost savings due to reduced insecticide use in
controlling EFSB in eggplant production.
Chapter 6 229
Francisco
Table 22. Partial budget analysis (PhP) of Bt eggplant vis-a-vis non-Bt eggplant in
Pangasinan and Camarines Sur trial sites, 2010
Particulars Season 1 Season 2 Average
Pangasinan
Added benefits
Added returns 74,000 207,100 140,550
Reduced costs 47,222 97,222 133,333
Total added benefits 121,222 304,322 273,883
Added cost
Reduced returns
Added costs 2,000 2,000 2,000
Total added costs 2,000 2,000 2,000
Net incremental benefits 119,222 302,322 271,883
Camarines Sur
Added benefits
Added returns 2,400 49,100 29,250
Reduced costs 32,778 105,694 92,847
Total added benefits 35,178 154,794 122,097
Added cost
Reduced returns
Added costs 2,000 2,000 2,000
Total added costs 2,000 2,000 2,000
Net incremental benefits 33,178 152,794 120,097
Assumed price of eggplant: PhP10/kg
Conclusions
Results of the knowledge, attitude and perception (KAP) survey showed

that majority of the eggplant farmer-respondents were not aware of biotech
crops and agricultural biotechnology products in the country. However,
among farmer-respondents who knew about agricultural biotechnology,
around 96% in Pangasinan and 20% in Camarines Sur were interested in
using its products and believed that it has the potential to improve Philippine
agriculture. They also expressed their willingness to plant and consume
biotech crops. Majority of those aware of Bt eggplant were also interested
in acquiring more information about the technology. Information desired
are on the technologys effectiveness against EFSB, pesticide savings, and
230 Chapter 6
yield potentials; effects on the crops fruit-bearing ability and fruit quality;
and environmental and food safety implications. A strong information
dissemination campaign through advocacies and technology demonstrations
needs to be vigorously implemented to make farmers aware of the economic
potential of Bt eggplant technology.
This multi-location study also confirmed the results of Francisco (2006), which
showed that the Bt eggplant technology can increase farmers marketable
yields and reduce production costs due to savings in insecticides against
EFSB. Moreover, if the marketable yield and cost-saving advantage found in
this study (marketable yield advantage of 192% and cost advantage of 15%)
will be incorporated into the economic surplus model used in Francisco
(2006), the benefits would be much higher than the latters projection.
Although Bt eggplant yield was lower than that planted by the farmers in the
survey area (mostly hybrids), the difference was due to the yield potentials
of the varieties. The Bt eggplant, being an open-pollinated variety, has lower
potential yields than the hybrid varieties planted by the farmers. However, if
Bt would be introgressed into hybrid eggplants, the increase in marketable
yields and reduction in costs of Bt eggplant would be replicated.
The decision of incorporating the Bt into an OPV eggplant favors resource-

constrained eggplant farmers because the Bt variety can be planted for the
succeeding season(s) without buying new seeds like when using hybrids.
However, incorporating it into hybrids will benefit both the producers and
consumers. The adopting producers will have more income due to increased
marketable yields and reduced cost of insecticides for the control of EFSB.
The consumers benefit in terms of more eggplant supply in the market and
may even end up paying lower price due to increased volume of eggplants in
the market.
References
Francisco, S.R. 2006.Economic impact of Bt eggplant adoption in the Philippines. Final

Report submitted to ABSPII and International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-
biotech Applications (ISAAA). September. Los Baos, Laguna, Philippines.
Francisco, S.R. 2007. Environmental impacts of Bt eggplant in the Philippines. Final Report
submitted to ABSPII and International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech
Applications (ISAAA). October. Los Baos, Laguna, Philippines.
Chapter 6 231
Francisco
Francisco, S.R., C.T. Aragon and G.W. Norton. 2009. Poverty and nutrition impact of
Bt eggplant adoption in the Philippines. Final Report submitted to ABSPII and
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA).
December. Los Baos, Laguna, Philippines.
Francisco, S.R. Cost and benefits of Bt eggplant with resistance to fruit and shoot bore
in the Philippines. In Norton, G.W. and D.M. Hautea. 2009. Projected Impacts of
Agricultural Biotechnologies for Fruits and Vegetables in the Philippines and Indonesia.
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA) and
SEAMEO Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in
Agriculture (SEARCA). September. Los Baos, Laguna, Philippines.
NSCB (National Statistical Development Board). 2012. Philippine Statistical Yearbook.
Makati, Philippines.
NSO (National Statistics Office). 2010. Available at: www.census.gov.ph/census/population-
and-housing.
232 Chapter 6
Health and Environmental Impacts of Bt Eggplant
Chapter 7
Health and Environmental Impacts

of Bt Eggplant
Sergio R. Francisco
Introduction
Eggplant (Solanum melongena L.) is one of the most economically important

vegetable crops in the Philippines, accounting for nearly a third of the total
volume of the top vegetables grown, with value of production estimated
to be the highest among the leading vegetables. It is a vegetable available
almost all year round.
Eggplant production is now seriously affected by fruit and shoot borer (FSB)
(L. orbonalis Guenee), one of its major pests. FSB damages eggplants during
the early vegetative and whole fruiting stages. In the early vegetative stage,
FSB larvae feed within the pedicles and midribs of the leaves causing shoots
to droop and wither. At fruiting stage, larvae bore into the flowers preventing
fruit formation and into the fruits rendering them unmarketable and unfit
for human consumption. To control the pest, farmers resort to frequent and
heavy spraying. However, since the larvae are internal feeders, FSB control
is difficult since the larvae are only vulnerable for few hours after hatching.
Farmers therefore resort to multiple sprays to control the pest.
Estimates of yield losses due to FSB damage in the Philippines vary widely
depending on the level of infestation. Saavedra (1987) reported 51%-73%
Chapter 7 233
Francisco
yield loss while Esguerra and Barroga (1982) and Navasero (1983) estimated
42%-92% and about 20%, respectively.
A socioeconomic study of eggplant pest control in Bangladesh found that

60% of the surveyed farmers sprayed their eggplant crop 140 times or
more for a period of 6-7 months (Rashid, 2003). Farmers often opt to use
insecticides to control FSB since information dissemination on other means
to control FSB is limited. The severity of FSB infestation forces farmers to use
these pesticides indiscriminately, and also often apply the wrong chemicals
and dosages. In the Philippines, many farmers spray their eggplant crop at
least twice a week, with some spraying as often as every other day, or 60-80
times during a normal fruiting duration of at least 4 months. The baseline
surveys of the Integrated Pest Management-Collaborative Research Support
Program (IPM-CRSP) in 1994 and 1999 in Nueva Ecija found eggplant farmers
spraying twice a week, on average. Pesticide, however, is not only expensive
but also presents problems related to environmental pollution (particularly
of ground water and food sources), development of resistance in pest
populations, detrimental effects on non-target organisms, secondary pest
outbreaks, resurgence of target pests, and dangers to human health.
A pesticide is any substance or mixture which is formulated to inhibit the

growth of or eliminate organisms regarded as pest in order to minimize its
negative impacts on crop production. It is deliberately designed to be toxic
or poisonous to pests it intends to control. Ideally, it should be selective such
that when applied, it should only affect target organisms, and afterwards,
should breakdown into components that are not harmful to the environment
(Conway and Pretty, 1991). In reality, however, pesticides are rarely selective.
Most pesticides are broad spectrum, and act and interfere with the
fundamental biochemical and physiological processes that are common to a
wide range of organisms, including humans. Many studies have shown that
the use and misuse of pesticides have negative externalities to humans and
the environment.
Farmers, especially in developing countries, frequently use excessive

pesticides. Such excessive pesticide use can negatively affect the
environment, human health, and even farm economics (Huang et al, 2002;
Rashid, 2003). Use of toxic chemicals can kill beneficial insects, cause
environmental pollution, lead to pest resistance and resurgence, and create
hazards to humans, animals, fish, and wildlife. As objections to pesticide use
in food and fiber production have grown over the years, researches were
done on different non-chemical approaches such as cultural, mechanical and
234 Chapter 7
biological strategies, and host plant resistance. Results from these researches
however are fragmented and hence, the use of chemical insecticides remains
to be the primary method of pest control.
The low marketable yields and heavy application of pesticides associated

with FSB motivated the Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project II (ABSPII)
to develop and commercialize Bt eggplantmore specifically, a transgenic
open-pollinated (OP) FSB-resistant eggplantfor resource-limited farmers
in the Philippines, India and Bangladesh through public-private sector
partnerships. To fast track the process, ABSPII is collaborating with India-
based Maharasthra Hybrid Seeds Company (Mahyco), which has developed
a transgenic eggplant variety highly resistant to FSB. The eggplant has been
genetically engineered to contain Bacillus thuringiensis (Bt), a species of
soil-borne bacteria, to confer resistance towards the targeted insect. When
an insect ingests the Bt spores, the protein crystal gets dissolved, releasing
protoxins which are then activated by specific enzymes. When the target
insect, the FSB larvae, tries to feed on a transgenic eggplant crop expressing
the Bt protein, it stops feeding and dies as a result of the binding of the Bt
toxin to its gut wall (Gianessi and Carpenter, 1999).
Scope and Objectives
This chapter assesses the potential environmental impacts of Bt eggplant,

and investigates whether they may indeed be realized when Bt eggplant
is introduced in the Philippines. Due to lack of information and scientific
evidence even in other countries, the analysis will mainly focus on
insecticides. Insecticide use, albeit treated as a proxy for environmental
damage, is a major concern from an environmental, human health, and even
economic perspective. Hence, environmental impact of Bt eggplant in the
context of insecticide use is the main scope of this research.
In general, the study aims to quantify the health and environmental impacts
of Bt eggplant adoption in the Philippines. More specifically, it was conducted
to:
identify appropriate methods to measure health cost savings and
improvement of the environment as a result of reduced pesticide use;
estimate the health and environmental benefits associated with Bt
eggplant technology adoption; and
assess the policy implications of the health and environmental
impacts of Bt eggplant adoption.
Chapter 7 235
Francisco
Methodology
This section discusses the theoretical framework and the component

methodologies employed to estimate the health and environmental impacts
of adopting Bt eggplant.
Environmental Impact Framework
The estimation of benefits to society from Bt eggplant adoption, in terms of

its ability to improve the quality of the environment and human health, relies
on deriving the impacts of adoption on the risks caused by pesticides to
various non-target species, and societys willingness to pay to reduce these
risks. These two estimates provide the bases for the economic assessment
of the environmental and health impacts of Bt eggplant adoption in the
Philippines. Figure 1 illustrates the process of assessing environmental
impacts and its corresponding valuation.
The analysis begins with the identification and classification of relevant

environmental categories that are affected by pesticide use (Cuyno, 1999).
These categories are classified according to the type of non-target organisms
affected such as humans, birds, beneficial insects, and farm animals. The
next step is an environmental impact assessment of the consequences of
pesticide use on the identified impact categories to determine the degree
or severity of the impacts of pesticide use. This involves estimating the risks
posed by individual pesticides active ingredients to the impact categories
by approximating toxicity levels and exposure levels of the organisms to the
toxic substance. The impact of the active ingredient is then determined by
combining risk estimates with actual field use (dosage and concentration
of active ingredient in the formulation). To be able to measure the benefits
of Bt eggplant adoption, the level of adoption of the technology should
be determined. The degree and level of adoption of Bt eggplant can be
predicted using an econometric model or can be sourced from previous
studies. The last step establishes the impacts of Bt eggplant on pesticide
risk reduction. The change in the degree of pesticide impacts brought about
by changes in pest management activities due to Bt eggplant adoption is
calculated and combined with the estimate of societys willingness to pay for
the reduction in pesticide impacts.
Component Methodologies
Risk Avoidance Principle. This study applied the methodology of Cuyno,
236 Chapter 7
Identification of Relevant Environmental Impacts of Pesticide Use

mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmImmmmmmml
Impact Categories
I
I-I~--
Human Health Beneficial Insects
Environmental Impact Assessment of Pesticide Use

Farm animals Birds
Identification of risk Assessment of Toxicity

posed by individual
pesticide a.i. to im-
pact categories Assessment of Exposure
Evaluation of level of
impact of pesticide use Immmm{mmm
Impact = Risk*Usage
~--
""-,
[C=---======:::::I~
Prediction/Estimation of Bt eggplant adoption levels
T
Estimation of impact of Bt eggplant on pesticide reduction
1
Reduction in use of pesticide due to adoption
of Bt eggplant
Estimation of societys WTP to reduce pesticide impacts
[[1=. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
Economic value of the environmental benefits of Bt eggplant
Figure 1. Framework of analysis of environmental impact of Bt eggplant

adoption (Adapted from Cuyno, 1999)
Chapter 7 237
Francisco
Norton and Rola (2001) in incorporating the level of toxicity and probability
of exposure in the analysis of environmental impact of pesticides. The
ecological rating (risk) scores of pesticides are computed as follows:
ESij = ISj * (% a.i.) * Ratei
where: ESij = eco-rating score for active ingredient i and

environmental category j;
ISj = risk score for environmental category j;
% a.i. = percent active ingredient in the pesticide formulation;
and
Ratei = pesticide application rate per hectare.
The ecological rating or risk impact score is computed for the with and
without Bt eggplant technology. The difference in the risk impact scores
represents the amount of risks avoided if the Bt eggplant technology is
adopted.
Willingness to Pay (WTP). Estimating the savings in social cost due to Bt

eggplant adoption necessitates estimating societys willingness to pay (WTP)
to avoid risks associated with pesticide use. There is no market for this WTP,
but a hypothetical market can be established using the concept of contingent
valuation (CV). Among the procedures used in contingent valuation, WTP
is used to elicit values or bids from the respondents. Specifically, a close-
ended, iterative bidding method is used to elicit eggplant farmers WTP.
The procedure entails asking the farmers whether they will be willing to
pay a specified amount for the insecticide that has been described. If the
respondent answers affirmatively, the amount is increased until such time
the respondent is unwilling to pay the amount specified. The last value
where the respondent positively answered represents his/her willingness to
pay for the product described. This WTP estimate refers directly to the value
that eggplant farmers place on the improvement of environmental quality
or conversely, the risks avoided due to lessened harm with improvement in
pesticide formulation. This study determined farmers WTP for reduction in
risks associated with the different impact categories considered.
Estimating the Environmental Benefits of Bt Eggplant. The environmental

benefits of adopting Bt eggplant technology is quantified by combining the
estimated risks avoidance value and the elicited WTP for the improvement
of the environment by reducing risks of pesticide externalities. The estimate
represents the monetary savings due to Bt eggplant adoption and its impact
238 Chapter 7
on reducing the risks to the four environmental impact categories, i.e., human
health, avian species, farm animals, and beneficial insects.
Health Cost Model. The health cost model estimated by Dung and Dung
(1999)1 is used to determine ex-ante the savings that farmers and pesticide
users could save with Bt eggplant adoption. The model is as follows:
Ln HC = 2.7+1.24 lnAge - 0.02 Health + 0.12 Smoke + 0.62 Drink + 0.075 lnIns + 0.144 lnHerb
where: HC = health cost;

Age = age of farmer-respondent;
Health = weight over height ratio;
Smoke = (0 for non-smoker, 1 for smoker);
Drink = (0 for non-drinker, 1 for drinker);
Ins = insecticide active ingredient rate of application; and
Herb = herbicide active ingredient rate of application.
Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ). The most common way to present

changes in pesticide use with genetically modified (GM) crops is in terms
of the volume of pesticide applied under the with GM and without GM
scenarios. While this method of analysis is a useful indicator of environmental
impact, it can be categorized as an imperfect measure because it does
not account for differences in (i) specific products used in GM versus
conventional crop systems, (ii) rates of pesticides used for efficacy, and
(iii) environmental characteristics. These are usually masked in general
comparisons of total pesticide volumes used.
To provide a more robust measurement of the environmental impacts of

Bt eggplant, an analysis known as environmental impact quotient (EIQ)
is used. This analysis includes both an assessment of pesticide active
ingredient used as well as an assessment of the specific pesticide used. This
universal indicator, developed by Kovach et al. (1992), effectively integrates
the various environmental impacts of individual pesticides into a single
field value per hectare. This provides a more balanced assessment of the
impacts of Bt eggplant on the environment by drawing on all key toxicity
and environmental exposure data related to individual products and relating
impacts on farm workers, consumers and ecology. EIQ, therefore, provides a
1
A similar model was used by Huang et al (2000), Pingali et al (1994; 1995), and Rola and
Pingali (1993).
Chapter 7 239
Francisco
consistent and comprehensive measure of impacts given the environmental

components mentioned.
Following the work of Kovach et al. (1992), the EIQ consists of three
components (each given equal weight), namely: effect on farm worker,
consumer, and ecology. The farm worker component, defined as the effect on
the applicator and pickers due to exposure to pesticides, is formulated as:
C * [(DT * 5) + (DT * P)] (1)
Consumer component, the sum of consumer exposure potential and

potential ground water effects, is formulated as:
C * [((S + P)/2) * SY + L] (2)
The ecology component, which considers pesticide effects on fish, birds,

bees, and beneficial arthropods, is modeled as:
(F * R) + (D * ((S + P)/2) * 3) + (Z * P * 3) + (B * P * 5) (3)
EIQ is the average of the farm worker component, consumer component and
ecology component, and is calculated as follows:
EIQ = {(C*[(DT*5) + (DT *P)) + [C *((S+P)/2)*SY+L] +

[(F*R) + D*((S+P)/2)*3) + (Z *P*3) + (B*P*5)]}/3 (4)
where: DT = dermal toxicity;

C = chronic toxicity;
SY = systemicity;
F = fish toxicity;
L = leaching potential;
R = surface loss potential;
D = bird toxicity;
S = soil half-life;
Z = bee toxicity;
B = beneficial arthropod toxicity; and
P = plant surface half-life.
The field rate EIQ is calculated as:
Field rate EIQ = EIQ*(% active ingredient)* Rate used
240 Chapter 7
The field rate EIQ can be used to compare the total environmental footprint
or load of the conventional and Bt eggplant crop production systems. The
difference between the environmental footprints or loads of the two systems
represents the impact of Bt eggplant on the eggplant production system.
The EIQ has been criticized because it includes many arbitrary weights in its
formulas, especially across environmental categories. However, it has been
widely applied as an environmental indicator of pesticide risks to health and
the environment.
Data Sources
The data used in the analysis were gathered through farmer interviews in four
eggplant producing provinces, namely: Pangasinan, Nueva Ecija, Batangas,
and Quezon. Twenty five randomly selected farmers from each site were
interviewed using a pre-tested structured questionnaire. Information asked
from respondents pertains to crop losses due to FSB, pest management
practices for FSB, pesticide use and cost, perceived effects of pesticides on
the environment, and willingness to pay to avoid perceived risks of pesticides.
Secondary data were also used in the analysis. For example, information
regarding adoption rate and reduction in pesticide use were sourced from
Francisco (2009); data on risk scores of different pesticides for the different
environmental impact categories being addressed in the study was sourced
from the listing provided in Cuyno (1999) and data on EIQ were sourced from
the New York State Integrated Pest Management Program (NYSIPM) website
(www.nysipm.cornell.edu) (Appendix Table 1).
Farmer Profile, Pest Control Practices, and Perceptions on Pesticides
Table 1 presents the summary of findings from the farmer interviews

conducted in four provinces. On average, farmer-respondents were middle
aged, barely reached second year high school and have been farming less
than a hectare for less than 15 years. Batangas farmers were the oldest, with
least number of schooling years, and had the most experience in planting
eggplant in less than 0.5 ha. Quezon farmers, on the other hand, were the
youngest and had the largest farm areas devoted to eggplant.
Chapter 7 241
Francisco
Table 1. Summary findings from interviews of eggplant farmers, by location,

Philippines, 2007
Batangas Pangas- Quezon Nueva All Sites
inan Ecija
Farmers demographic profile
Age (years) 43.20 41.08 36.24 41.12 40.41
No. of schooling years 7.16 9.96 8.28 8.48 8.47
Farming experience (years) 18.04 13.12 9.96 14.64 13.94
Farm area (ha) 0.39 0.61 1.26 0.53 0.70
Yield and yield loss in eggplant production
Yield last year (tons/ha) 18.04 25.05 21.86 22.30 21.56
Yield last 5 years (tons/ha) 25.78 29.70 21.86 24.04 25.35
% Crop loss 41.56 37.88 37.48 28.96 36.47
% Crop loss last 5 years 38.40 37.40 37.48 25.96 34.81
Pesticide use and expenditures
Frequency of spraying 27.92 31.08 55.01 52.28 41.56
Total volume applied (liters) 74.24 42.13 79.05 62.96 65.63
Total active ingredient ap- 6.24 10.14 16.93 14.47 11.94
plied (kg)
Pesticide expenditure (PhP) 31,463 17,383 29,592 33,099 27,884
Share to total cost (%) 19.97 25.66 36.48 34.21 29.27
Across all survey sites, the average reported eggplant yield of 21.56 tons per
ha (t/ha) was lower than the average yield of 25.35 t/ha reported by farmers
in the last 5 years. On the other hand, the reported mean yield loss of 36.47%
was higher than the reported yield loss of 34.81% in the last 5 years (Table 1).
This result implies that FSB has become more severe over time, making the
marketable yield smaller. Among the survey areas, Pangasinan reported the
highest average yield of 25.05 t/ha, while Batangas had the highest average
yield loss of 41.56%.
While farmers across all sites applied pesticides 42 times, on average, to

manage FSB during the production period, Quezon farmers sprayed 13 times
more than the average (Table 1). The average volume of pesticides applied
was more than 65 liters per hectare, with total active ingredients of around 12
kg. Still, Quezon farmers applied more compared to others. Cross-referencing
the farmers pesticide use with yield loss, the average yield of Quezon was
not substantially higher than those in other areas. In fact, except for Batangas,
242 Chapter 7
Quezon farmers average yield was lower than Pangasinans and Nueva
Ecijas. This indicates that the pesticides applied by Quezon farmers were not
effective in controlling FSB since yield loss was still high.
In terms of pesticide effectiveness against FSB, Table 2 summarizes the

perceptions of farmers. The top five insecticides that farmers see as most
effective are Cartap HCL-based insecticides (18%), Cypermethrin-based
insecticides (12%), Methiocarb and Imidacloprid (10%), and Carbofuran (8%)
(in this order).
Across all sites, farmers spent an average of about PhP28,000 (about US$560)
per ha on pesticides to control FSB, equivalent to 29% of total production
costs (Table 1). Nueva Ecija farmers spent more on insecticides than Quezon
farmers but the latter had lower production costs and higher pesticide
expenses as a proportion of total cost. If pesticide expenses can be reduced
by adopting Bt eggplant, farmers can realize substantial savings and greater
net income. Further, less environmental damage and health impairment
would occur.
Farmers were aware of the effects of pesticides on human health and the
environment (Table 3). Overall, most farmers believed that pesticides have a
negative effect on human health, beneficial insects, and farm animals. Nearly
half (46%) of all farmer-respondents reported to have experienced sickness
after pesticide application, including dizziness, nausea, shortness of breath,
Table 2. Farmers reported most effective insecticide for FSB control

Effective Insecticide % Farmers Effective Insecticide % Farmers
Reporting Reporting
CartapHCl 18 Prochlorazmin 2
Cypermethrin 12 Lambdacyhalothrin 2
Methiocarb 10 Dimethoate 2
Imidacloprid 10 Carbaryl 2
Carbofuran 8 Chlorpyfiros 2
Imidacloprid + Cyfluthrin 7 Methamidophos 1
Deltamethrin 6 Imazaquin 1
Profenofos 4 Fipronil 1
Brodan 3 Esfenvalerate 1
Chlorpyfiros + BPMC 2 Dimethoate 1
Carbaryl 2 Malathion 1
Chapter 7 243
244
Francisco
Table 3. Farmer perception regarding effects of pesticide
Location Response Human Health Beneficial Insects Birds Farm Animals Sickness* from
Pesticide
Chapter 7
No 3 (12) 9 (36) 12 (48) 7 (28) 6 (24)

Batangas Do not know 2 (8) 2 (8) 4 (16)
Yes 22 (88) 14 (56) 11 (44) 18 (72) 15 (60)
No 1 (4) 5 (20) 17 (68) 9 (36) 11 (44)
Pangasinan Do not know 2 (8) 1 (4) 3 (12) 4 (16)
Yes 22 (88) 19 (76) 5 (20) 16 (64) 10 (40)
No 1 (4) 4 (16) 18 (72) 14 (46) 16 (64)
Quezon Do not know 1 (4)
Yes 24 (96) 21 (84) 7 (28) 10 (40) 9 (36)
No 3 (12) 2 (8) 18 (72) 6 (24) 11 (44)
Nueva Ecija Do not know 1 (4) 1 (4) 1 (4) 2 (8)
Yes 21 (84) 22 (88) 7 (28) 18 (72) 12 (48)
No 8 20 65 36 44
All sites Do not know 3 4 5 2 10
Yes 89 76 30 62 46
* Sickness experienced included drowsiness, nausea, shortness of breath, loose bowel movement, and itchiness.
Italicized figures enclosed in parentheses are % response based on location total.
loose bowel movement, and itchiness. As such, when asked to rank the
importance of the different impact categories presented, the farmers ranked
human health as the most important, followed by farm animals, beneficial
insects, and birds.
Assessing Health and Environmental Impacts
This section discusses in three parts, the health and environmental impacts
and projects the effects of reduced pesticide use as a result of Bt eggplant
adoption. The first part quantifies the value to the environment in terms
of risks avoided with reduced pesticide use. The second and third part,
respectively deal with the savings in health costs (to treat acute and chronic
ailment) and quantifying the environmental effects as a consequence of
reduced pesticide use in eggplant production.
In addition to the direct environmental benefits, a positive effect expected

from Bt eggplant adoption, with indirect environmental benefits, is the
change in farmers agronomic practices (modifying or displacing conventional
or traditional activities) such as the use of pesticides. For instance, studies in
other countries have projected that Bt eggplant adoption will yield significant
reduction in insecticide applications as the technology replaces broad
spectrum chemicals (Kolady and Lesser, 2005; 2006).
Risk Avoidance. The following section summarizes and discusses the step-by-
step procedure used in valuing the health and environmental impacts of Bt
eggplant adoption.
Pesticide impact scores. The different pesticides used in eggplant

production (as gathered from the farmer interviews) were each assigned
impact (risk) scores by environmental category, ISj (Table 4). These were used
to compute for their ecological rating (risk) scores ESij, for scenarios with and
without Bt eggplant technology (Table 5). Analysis shows that the estimated
change in ecological rating (which represent improvement in environment)
due to the adoption of Bt eggplant are as follows: 19.02% for human health
and farm animals, 21.37% for bird species, and 18.67% for beneficial insects.
These values represent the would be reduction in the risks associated
with reduced pesticide use due to Bt eggplant adoption, and potential
improvement in environmental integrity.
Farmers willingness to pay. Farmers willingness to pay (WTP) to avoid

risks provides a means to estimate the monetary values of the health and
Chapter 7 245
Francisco
Table 4. Risk scores (ISj) of pesticides used in eggplant production

Risk Scores by Impact Category
Active Ingredient Brand Name Human Animals Birds Beneficial
Insects
Insecticides
Betacypermethrin Chix 2.5 EC 4 4 1 5
Carbaryl Sevin WP 85 2 2 3 5
Carbofuran Furadan 3 3 5 5
Cartap HCL Super Cartap 50 SP 3 3 3 5
Cartap HCL Padan 50 SP 3 3 3 5
Cartap HCL Dimo 50 SP 3 3 3 5
Cartap HCL Buenas 50 SP 3 3 3 5
Cartap HCL Dimotrin 3 3 3 5
Cartap HCL Ingam 50 SP 3 3 3 5
Chlorpyfiros + BPMC Brodan 31.5 EC 3 3 5 5
Chlorpyrifos Siga 300 EC 3 3 5 5
Chlorpyrifos Lorsban 40 EC 3 3 5 5
Chlorpyrifos + Cyper Nurelle D 3 3 5 5
Cypermethrin Magnum 5 EC 4 4 1 5
Cypermethrin Poker 5 EC 4 4 1 5
Cypermethrin Hukom 5 EC 4 4 1 5
Cypermethrin Cypex 50 EC 4 4 1 5
Cypermethrin Lakas 5 EC 4 4 1 5
Cypermethrin Magik 5% EC 4 4 1 5
Cypermethrin Servwell TKO 50 SC 4 4 1 5
Cypermethrin Cypermethrin 5 EC 4 4 1 5
Cypermethrin Cymbush 5 EC 4 4 1 5
Deltamethrin Decis 2.5 EC 4 4 3 5
Deltamethrin Superquick 2.5 EC 4 4 3 5
Dimethoate Perfekthion 40 EC 4 4 3 3
Fenvalerate Legend 2.5 EC 3 3 1 5
Fipronil Ascend 50 SC 3 3 3 1
Imidacloprid Admire 5 WP 3 3 5 3
Imidacloprid Confidor SL 100 3 3 5 3
Imidacloprid + Cy- Provado Supra 050 EC 3 3 5 3
fluthrin
Lambdacyhalothrin Bida 2.5 EC 3 3 3 5
Lambdacyhalothrin Karate 2.5 EC 3 3 3 5
Malathion Malathion 4 4 3 5
246 Chapter 7
Table 4. Risk scores (ISj) of pesticides used in eggplant production

Risk Scores by Impact Category
Active Ingredient Brand Name Human Animals Birds Beneficial
Insects
Malathion Malathion 57 EC 4 4 3 5
Malathion Planters Malathion 57 EC 4 4 3 5
Methamidophos Tamaron 600 SL 4 4 3 5
Methomyl Lannate 40 SP 4 4 3 5
Profenofos Selecron 500 EC 4 4 5 5
Profenofos Kilabot 500 EC 4 4 5 5
Triazophos Hercules 20 EC 3 3 3 3
Triazophos Hostathion 3 3 3 3
Fungicide
Copper Hydroxide Funguran-Oh 3 3 3 3
Copper Oxychloride Vitigran Blue 58 WP 3 3 3 3
Mancozeb Dithane M-45 WP 3 3 3 5
Source of data for risk score: The EXtension TOXicology NETwork (EXTOXNET) database (extoxnet.orst.edu/
ghindex.html). The rating represents the degree of hazard of pesticides to the environmental categories.
Table 5. Value and percentage changes in ecological rating (ESij)a due to Bt eggplant
technology adoption
Impact Type of use Ecological Ecological % Risks
Category Rating without Rating with Bt Avoided
Bt Eggplant Eggplant
Insecticides 1,013.66 456.15
Human health
Fungicide 1,917.56 1,917.56 19.02
Total 2,931.22 2,373.71
Farm animals
Fungicide 1,917.56 1,917.56 19.02
Total 2,931.22 2,373.71
Avian species
Fungicide 1,924.56 1,924.56 21.37
Total 3,147.07 2,474.69
Beneficial insects
Fungicide 2,904.74 2,904.74 18.67
Total 4,397.74 3,576.65
a
ESij = ISj * (%a.i.) * Ratei
where: ESij = eco-rating score for active ingredient i and environmental category j;
ISj = risk score for environmental category j;
% a.i. = percent active ingredient in the pesticide formulation; and
Ratei = pesticide application rate per hectare.
Chapter 7 247
Francisco
environmental benefits of Bt eggplant. WTP values were obtained during the

farmer interviews using the contingent valuation method, which simulates a
buy and sell exercise. Farmer respondents were asked about their WTP for a
safer formulation of pesticide, which they perceive as effective for controlling
FSB. Four different formulations were offered for specific risk avoidance, i.e.,
those that prevent risks to: 1) human health; 2) farm animals; 3) birds; and 4)
beneficial insects. The farmers were told of the actual price of the pesticide
they are presently using. The price was raised by PhP50.00 and asked if they
are willing to pay for it. If they answered Yes, the price was further raised by
PhP50.00; the last price before saying No represents the farmers WTP for
the safer product.
On average, farmers are willing to pay a higher price up to PhP1,019/liter for

a pesticide formulation safer for humans; up to PhP945/liter for those safe for
farm animals; up to PhP894/liter for those safe for beneficial insects; and up
to PhP867/liter for those safe for bird species (Table 6).These results support
the importance ranking farmers placed on the different impact categories.
Value of Health and Environmental Benefits of Bt Eggplant. To estimate the

value of the potential health and environmental benefits from Bt eggplant,
the percentage change in risks avoided is converted to a monetary value, by
combining it with the farmers WTP for risk avoidance in the different impact
categories (Table 7). The estimated values of benefits are multiplied by the
assumed farmers Bt eggplant adoption rate to come up with the projected
benefits derived from risks avoided for the different impact categories. For
example, the savings from human health costs would be about PhP2.5 million
while the aggregate projected benefits to farm animals, beneficial insects, and
avian species would amount to about PhP6.8 million. These values represent
the health costs that would be saved and the value of environmental
improvement with farmers adoption of Bt eggplant technology.
Table 6. Farmers willingness to pay to avoid risk of the different impact categories
Impact Average Std Dev Farmer's Std Dev Difference
Category Insecticide WTP (PhP)
Price (PhP) (PhP)
Human health 724.00 416 1,019.00 572 295.00
Farm animals 724.00 416 945.00 531 222.00
Beneficial insects 724.00 416 894.00 508 170.00
Avian Species 724.00 416 867.00 493 144.00
Std Dev=standard deviation, WTP=willingness to pay.
248 Chapter 7
Health Cost. Following the health cost function in Dung and Dung (1999),
the farmers health costs for the with Bt eggplant and without Bt eggplant
were estimated individually using the coefficients of the health cost function.
The incremental health benefit is determined as the difference between the
with and without Bt eggplant farmers health cost estimates (Table 8). The
estimated health costs for Bt eggplant adopters is PhP2,570 compared to
PhP2,733 for the conventional eggplant farmers. This translates to a savings
in health cost of PhP163.00 per farmer. Assuming a 50% adoption rate of
Bt eggplant technology, the aggregate estimated savings on health costs
amounted to about PhP2.1 million. This value represents the savings in health
costs of the projected adopters of the technology. If adoption rate would be
higher, the projected savings would also increase.
The Environmental Impact Quotient (EIQ). Applying the procedure outlined

in the methodology section and using the EXtension TOXicology NETwork
(EXTOXNET) database (extoxnet.orst.edu/ghindex.html), the EIQ and field
rate EIQ of the different insecticides and fungicides were estimated (Table
9). The average pesticide use by non-Bt eggplant farmers was 11.98 liters/ha
Table 7. Projected yearly health and environmental benefits of Bt eggplant

Impact Category % Risk Farmers Benefits Projected
Avoided WTP (PhP) (PhP per Benefits*
farmer) (PhP)
Human health 19.02 1,019.15 193.84 2,492,229
Farm animals 19.02 945.25 164.95 2,120,786
Beneficial insects 21.37 893.69 190.94 2,454,943
Avian species 18.67 867.25 176.51 2,269,414
* Assumed adoption rate of 50% of total eggplant area (or 9,000 ha) across the Philippines and farm
area = 0.7 ha
1USD = PhP50.00 (2007)
Table 8. Incremental health benefits of adopting Bt eggplant using health cost model
Particular Health Cost (PhP)
Without Bt eggplant per farmer 2,733
With Bt eggplant per farmer 2,570
Savings in health cost per farmer 163
Projected total health benefits* 2,095,714
* Assumed adoption rate is 50% of total eggplant area (or 9,000 ha) in the Philippines and farm
size=0.7 ha.
Chapter 7 249
Francisco
Table 9. Reduction in environmental footprint from changes in pesticide use associated

with Bt eggplant adoption
Without Bt With Difference
Eggplant Bt Eggplant
Pesticide use (li/ha) 11.98 6.22 5.76
Field EIQ 245.59 197.75 47.84
% Change in pesticide use 48.08
% Change in EIQ footprint 19.48
EIQ = (Farm worker component + Consumer component + Ecology component)/3

Field rate EIQ = EIQ* % active ingredient* Rate used
Change in EIQ footprint represents improvement in the environment
while that of would-be Bt eggplant adopters was 6.22 liters/ha, a reduction

of around 48%. The field EIQ for the non-Bt eggplant was 245 per ha while
that of Bt eggplant was around 198, equivalent to a 19.5% reduction in
environmental footprint.
Summary and Conclusion
The study estimated ex-ante the value of health and environmental benefits
of adopting Bt eggplant using the methods of risk avoidance, health cost
function, and environmental impact quotient. Its data came primarily from a
survey of 100 eggplant farmers in four provinces. Secondary data were also
used.
The farmer-respondents average yield was lower than that for the last 5 years
(based on official statistics) and the reported mean yield loss was higher
compared with the reported yield loss in the last 5 years, implying that FSB
may have become more severe over time. Farmers applied pesticides 42
times during the production period at a mean rate of more than 65 liters/ha
and around 12 kg a.i./ha. Farmers spent about PhP28,000/ha on pesticides
to control FSB, representing 29% of total production costs. Majority of the
farmers believed that pesticides have negative effects on human health,
beneficial insects, and farm animals but not likely on birds. Human health
was ranked as the most important among the impact categories considered,
followed by farm animals, beneficial insects, and birds.
Combining the farmers willingness to pay and percentage reduction in risks

for the different impact categories showed that the adoption of Bt eggplant
250 Chapter 7
technology could save about PhP2.5 million in health costs and improve the
overall environment (farm animals, beneficial insects, and avian species) at
a value of about PhP6.8 million using the risk avoidance principle. Similarly,
using the health cost model, the projected savings from human health costs
amounted to about PhP2.1 million, a similar magnitude to that obtained from
the risk avoidance model.
With the adoption of Bt eggplant technology, farmers pesticide usage

would decline by 48%, contributing to a significant reduction in the health
and environmental impacts of pesticide use. Results of this study, together
with the agronomic and direct economic benefits, reinforce the need for
continued support for the development, commercialization, and promotion
of Bt eggplant. These may be used to convince consumers and other interest
groups of the benefits of allowing the commercialization and use of Bt
eggplant.
This type of analysis is usually missing in the valuation of total economic

benefits and costs of biotechnology products, such as Bt eggplant. When
combined with private benefit-cost analysis, it can however provide a more
complete picture of the valuation of social costs and benefits associated with
the adoption of the technology, which can accrue to farmers, consumers, as
well as the environment.
References
ABSPII (Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project II) (Southeast Asia). undated.
Development and Commercialization of Fruit and Shoot Borer-Resistant Eggplant for
India, Bangladesh, and the Philippines. Document accessed June 2005 from http://
www.isaaa.org/Regional_centers/SEAsiacenter/ABSPII.htm
Brookes, G. and P. Barfoot. 2006. GM crops: The global economic and environmental
impact-the first nine years. AgBio Forum 8(2&3).
Conway, G. and J. Pretty. 1991. Unwelcome Harvest: Agriculture and Pollution. London:
Earthscan Publications Ltd.
Cuyno, L. 1999. An economic evaluation of health and environmental benefits of IPM
Program (IPM CRSP) in the Philippines. PhD dissertation. Virginia Polytechnic Institute
and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia. USA.
Cuyno, L., G.W. Norton, and A.C. Rola. 2001. Economic analysis of environmental benefits of
integrated pest management: A Philippine case study. Agricultural Economics 25:227-
233.
Dung, N.H. and T.T. Dung. 1999. Economic and Health Consequences of Pesticide Use in
Paddy Production in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam. Economy and Environment Program
for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), Singapore. 39 p.
Esguerra, N.M. and S.F. Barroga. 1982. Status of pest control in solanaceous crops. Paper
presented in the workshop The State of the Art of Growing Vegetables. PCARRD
Research Report.
Chapter 7 251
Francisco
EXTOXNET. The EXtensionTOXicologyNETwork pmep.cce.cornell.edu/profiles/extoxnet/: A

Pesticide Information Project of Cooperative Extension Offices of Cornell University,
Michigan State University, Oregon State University, and University of California at
Davis.
Francisco, S. 2009. Costs and Benefits of Bt Eggplant with Resistance to Fruit and Shoot
Borer in the Philippines. In Norton, G.W. and D.M. Hautea (eds.). 2009. Projected
Impacts of Agricultural Biotechnologies for Fruits and Vegetables in the Philippines
and Indonesia. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications
(ISAAA) and SEAMEO Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and
Research in Agriculture (SEARCA). College, Laguna, Philippines.
Gianessi, L., and J. Carpenter. 1999. Agricultural biotechnology: Insect control benefits. www.
ncfap.org/reports/biptech/insectcontrolbenefits.pdf
Huang, J., R. Hu, S. Rozelle, F. Qiao, and C.E. Pray. 2002. Transgenic varieties and productivity
of smallholder cotton farmers in China. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and
Resource Economics 46(3):367-387.
Kolady, D. and W. Lesser. 2005. Adoption of genetically modified eggplant in India: An
ex-ante analysis. Paper presented at the American Agricultural Economic Association
Annual Meeting, Providence, Rhode Island, July 24-27. ageconsearch.umn.edu/
handle/19262
Kolady, D. and W. Lesser. 2006. Is it feasible to provide genetically modified crops to small
farmers on preferential terms?: An ex ante analysis of Bt eggplant in India. Paper
presented at the American Agricultural Economic Association Annual Meeting, Long
Beach, California, July 23-26.
Kovach, J., C. Petzoldt, J. Degni, and J. Tette. 1992. A method to measure the environmental
impacts of pesticides. New Yorks Food and Life Science Bul. Geneva, NY: NYS Agric
Experiment Station, Cornell Univ. www.nysipm.cornell.edu/publications/EIQ.html.
Navasero, M.V. 1983. Biology and control of eggplant fruit and shoot borer, Leucinodes
orbonalis Guenee. Unpublished B.S. thesis. Department of Entomology. University of
the Philippines Los Baos, College, Laguna.
New York State Integrated Pest Management Program (NYSIPM) www.nysipm.cornell.edu/
publications/eiq/files/EIQ_values_2012entire.pdf
Pingali, P.L., C.B. Marquez, and F.G. Palis. 1994. Pesticides and Philippine rice farmers: a
medical and economic analysis. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 76:587-
592.
Pingali, P.L., C.B. Marquez, F.G. Palis, and A.C. Rola. 1995. The effect of long-term pesticide
exposure on farmer health: A medical and economic analysis in Philippines. In
P. Pingali and P. Rogers (eds). Impact of Pesticides on Farmer Health and the Rice
Environment. Kluwer Academic Publishers. Boston.
Rashid, M.A. 2003. Socio-economic parameters of eggplant pest control in Jessore district
of Bangladesh. Asian Vegetable Research and Development Center.
Rola, A.C. and P.L. Pingali. 1993. Pesticides, Rice Productivity, and Farmers Health: An
Economic Assessment. International Rice Research Institute and World Resources
Institute.
Saavedra, N.T. 1987. Eggplant fruit and shoot borer. NCPC Newsletter 2(1): 3-4.
252 Chapter 7
Appendix Table 1. Environment impact quotient (EIQ) and field rate EIQ of different
pesticides used in eggplant production, Philippines
Pesticide Brand Name EIQ Rate (per Active Field EIQ
ha) Ingredient (per ha)
(ai)
Insecticides
Carbofuran Furadan 50.67 96.00 0.05 126.16
Chlorpyrifos Siga 300 EC 43.52 13.05 0.30 313.25
Chlorpyrifos Lorsban 40 EC 43.52 25.00 0.40 435.17
Cypermethrin Magnum 5 EC 30.67 18.00 0.05 18.94
Cypermethrin Poker 5 EC 30.67 43.20 0.05 60.28
Cypermethrin Hukom 5 EC 30.67 13.05 0.05 20.01
Cypermethrin Cypex 50 EC 30.67 6.25 0.05 9.58
Cypermethrin Lakas 5 EC 30.67 5.54 0.05 28.35
Cypermethrin Magik 5% EC 30.67 4.00 0.05 7.41
Cypermethrin Servwell TKO 50 SC 30.67 5.60 0.05 8.59
Cypermethrin Cypermethrin 5 EC 30.67 36.00 0.05 55.20
Cypermethrin Cymbush 5 EC 30.67 2.64 0.50 40.48
Dimethoate Perfekthion 40 EC 73.97 4.00 0.40 118.35
Fenvalerate Legend 2.5 EC 49.58 4.00 0.03 4.96
Fipronil Ascend 50 SC 90.92 9.60 0.05 93.33
Imidacloprid Admire 5 WP 34.91 5.40 0.05 7.75
Imidacloprid Confidor SL 100 34.91 0.40 0.10 4.91
Lambdacyhalothrin Karate 2.5 EC 43.53 145.00 0.03 40.69
Lambdacyhalothrin Bida 2.5 EC 43.53 8.40 0.03 9.14
Malathion Malathion 23.83 25.20 0.57 94.69
Malathion Malathion 57 EC 23.83 10.00 0.57 199.48
Malathion Planters Malathion 23.83 12.00 0.57 257.93
57 EC
Methamidophos Tamaron 600 SL 36.83 1.92 0.60 195.11
Methomyl Lannate 40 SP 30.67 14.77 0.40 125.42
Fungicide
Copper Hydroxide Funguran-Oh 40.08 6.00 0.77 231.48
Mancozeb Dithane M-45 Neotec 15.77 0.60 0.80 47.09
WP
Chapter 7 253
Francisco, Aragon-Chiang, and Norton
Chapter 8
Poverty and Nutrition Impacts

of Bt Eggplant Adoption
Sergio R. Francisco,
Catherine Aragon-Chiang,
and George W. Norton
Background and Objectives
Research and development (R&D) in agriculture can significantly influence

the level and the distribution of income among farmers. Moreover, R&D in
agriculture can also have implications in terms of reducing poverty among
farmers and improving the nutritional status of consumers. For example, the
adoption of either a yield-increasing or cost-reducing technology can lower
per unit cost of production, increase the supply of food, and raise incomes
of adopting producers. The corresponding outward supply shifts, in turn, can
lower food prices to the benefit of the consumers. However, producers may
also lose, particularly, those who are late-adopters. The higher productivity
could create significant multiplier effects in the rural community, inducing
rural employment and other services related to agricultural production.
These distributional effects, however, are theoretical, and the net impacts
of technological innovation on the poor, in terms of poverty alleviation and
nutrition, require empirical quantification.
Poverty and malnutrition remain a serious problem particularly in the

developing countries in Asia and Africa. Thus, R&D institutions were always
asked to provide concrete evidence that their research outputs reach the
targeted beneficiaries. Because of this, there has been refocusing and shifting
in the paradigm in R&D by incorporating poverty and nutrition dimension
254 Chapter 8
Poverty and Nutrition Impacts of Bt Eggplant Adoption
in impact evaluation. However, despite increased interest in understanding

poverty and nutrition impacts of agricultural research, few ex-ante studies on
impacts of R&D on aggregate poverty and nutrition have been conducted.
Ex-ante assessment tools, such as economic surplus analysis, can be used
in this type of analysis by disaggregating the population into subgroups
and then examining the distribution of research impacts on groups such as
households in poorer income strata.
Aside from economic impacts, Bt eggplant adoption has potential impacts

on poverty reduction as eggplant is often grown on small farms. Since it
has positive effects on profits, it can significantly influence the level and
distribution of income of eggplant producers and thereby, may reduce
poverty. Once commercialized, Bt eggplant adoption can lower per-unit cost
of production, increase supply of eggplant, and raise income of adopting
farmers who are mostly poor. Moreover, with the expected increase in
eggplant production due to increase in yield, consumers may gain because
they can buy more eggplant at a lower price.
This research sought to determine the poverty and nutrition impact of

Bt eggplant technology adoption in the Philippines. It also aimed to
complement the works done on economic and environmental impacts
of Bt eggplant adoption in order to completely enumerate and project
quantitatively the overall impact of Bt eggplant adoption.
Methodological Framework
This study combined the economic surplus analysis with household-level data
analysis to construct ex-ante estimates of changes in poverty and nutrition
status resulting from adopting Bt eggplant. Economic surplus analysis
provides estimates of changes in prices and economic surplus under various
assumptions about technology adoption. The household-level analysis uses
consistent information about changes in production costs associated with
adoption and consumption patterns to infer household-specific changes in
income and allocates the change in economic surplus to individual producers
and consumers. With appropriate accounting and survey weights, household
income changes can be used to estimate changes in aggregate poverty and
aggregate income as well as nutrition status, which in the context of the
model should be consistent with findings from the market-based surplus
analysis.
Chapter 8 255
Economic Surplus Analysis
Standard approaches to ex-ante estimation of impacts of technological

innovation involve several steps: first is the calculation of a k-shift, which
represents the unit-cost reduction associated with use of a new technology;
second is gathering of information on expected adoption rates and their
evolution over time; and the third step involves combining the first two
steps with market-related information on supply and demand elasticities
and equilibrium prices and quantities (Alston et al., 1995). These steps allow
estimation of price, quantity and corresponding economic surplus changes
associated with technology adoption. Some modifications that need to
be done to fit the techniques to the desired analysis include efforts to
distinguish among producer groups who may vary in propensity to adopt
different technologies (Mutangadura and Norton, 1999), regional variation to
reflect spatial differences in cost, shipping, prices and markets (Mills, 1997),
and regional differences in productivity (Karanja et al., 2003). The challenge
then is to allocate the economic surplus to specific households.
The changes in economic surplus can be calculated under various market

situations. For example, in a closed economy, the primary beneficiaries
from adopting a cost-reducing technology are the eggplant farmers, either
through sales or home consumption (Figure 1) and consumers. The initial
Price
S0
S1
a
P0
b
P1
c
I0
I1
,, D
~
0
Q0 Q1 Quantity
Figure 1. Research benefits in a small closed economy
256 Chapter 8
equilibrium is defined by consumption C0, and production Q0, at the price P0.
Research increases yield or lowers the unit cost of production, causing supply
to shift from S0 to S1 and production to increase to Q1. Economic surplus
change is equivalent to producer surplus change and is equal to area I0abI1.
This surplus is the one we seek to allocate to the stakeholders in eggplant
production.
Algebraically, the formulas for the consumer surplus, producer surplus, and
total surplus are expressed as (Alston et al., 1995):
Producer Surplus: PSt = (Kt - Zt)P0Q0(1 + 0.5Zt );

Consumer Surplus: CSt = P0Q0 Zt (1 + 0.5Zt ); and
Total Surplus: TSt = PSt + CSt=P0Q0Kt (1 + 0.5 Zt ),
where
E(Y) E(C)
Kt = ------- ---------- * p At (1-dt)
(1 + E(Y))
K = technical change; vertical shift of the supply function expressed

as a proportion of the initial price;
E(Y) = expected proportionate yield change per hectare;
= price elasticity of supply;
E(C) = expected proportionate change in variable input costs per
hectare;
p = probability of success of achieving the expected yield change
from adoption;
At = adoption rate of technology in time t;
dt = depreciation rate of the new technology;
P0 = farm-level price of the commodity;
Q0 = total domestic production of the commodity (metric tons);
Zt = Kt /(+) proportionate decrease in price (in year t) due to
supply shift; and
= absolute value of the price elasticity of demand.
The net welfare effect on producers may generally be positive or negative,

depending on supply and demand elasticities. The change in total surplus
measures the net welfare change in the sense that the gainers from the
technical change could, in principle, compensate the losers and still be better
off by the amount I0abI1.
Chapter 8 257
Poverty and Nutritional Status Changes: Allocating Surplus to Households
The most common measure of poverty is the number of households whose

per capita income is below the poverty threshold. Nutritional indicators
that stem from changes in food consumption due to changes in supply or
changes in technology include changes in per capita calorie consumption.
The amount of calorie intake in return, has a bearing on the percentage of
malnourished population.
Bt Eggplant Economic Surplus Assumptions
Table 1 summarizes the parameters of the base economic surplus model

used by Francisco (2006). Orogo (1976) estimated that the general demand
elasticity for fruit bearing vegetables in the Philippines was -0.85 while that
for vegetables in general was -0.75. Francisco (2006) assumed a -0.8 demand
elasticity and 0.5 supply elasticity of eggplant based on the high level of
seasonality in the growth of this crop as well as its production limitations.
Farmers cannot simply increase eggplant production during the wet season
even if price is high due to the inability of eggplant to grow in overly wet
areas. Francisco (2006) obtained the other necessary information for the base
parameters of the model from the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (BAS) and
by conducting focus group discussions with eggplant farmers, scientists, and
industry experts. From these data sources, Francisco (2006) projected a 40%
yield increase, a 16% decrease in input costs, a price of PhP10,000 per metric
ton, and a production of 182,750 metric tons.
Poverty Impact
Linking Economic Surplus Analysis to Poverty Analysis. Under the closed

economy assumption, prices are expected to decline in response to a
Table 1. Model parameters for Bt economic surplus analysis

Item Values
Elasticity of supply 0.5
Elasticity of demand 0.8
Expected yield change 40%
Change in input costs per ha -16%
Price (PhP/mt) PhP10,000.00
Base quantity (mt) 182,750
Source: Francisco (2006)
258 Chapter 8
research-induced outward shift in supply in Figure 1. There are three distinct

components of surplus, first is a loss in producer surplus for all producers (i.e.,
adopters and non-adopters) owing to the price decline, which is represented
by the area P0aeP1 in Figure 1; second is an increase in producer surplus
among adopting farmers due to the lower cost of production represented
by area P1bI1 less P0aI0; and the third is the gain to consumers owing to price
decrease (P0abP1) (Moyo et al., 2007). These three components of surplus
must be allocated to specific households according to whether they produce
eggplant, whether they are likely to adopt the new technology, and whether
they consume eggplant. Similar to Moyo et al. (2007), producer surplus
change is assigned to each of the eggplant households by first computing
total production and then producer surplus change was assigned according
to a households production share and its probability of technology adoption.
This report focuses only on allocating the change in producer surplus to
each of the adopting and non-adopting households. The consumer surplus
allocation to the consuming household was not computed. Although Bt
eggplant technology has a large potential impact on consumers in the
aggregate as shown by Francisco (2006), the change in consumer surplus
is not large enough to affect income of individual consumers. Based on
the computation of Mutuc (2003), the share of eggplant expenditures in
the total household budget is barely 1%. Thus, reductions in the price of
eggplant owing to the Bt eggplant technology will have a minimal effect on
an individual consumers income and is most likely not sufficient to remove
them from poverty.
The change in eggplant production and household income as a result of Bt

eggplant adoption is related to the value of eggplant production before the
adoption of the technology, and the per unit cost reduction as a result of
adoption. The same K-shift as used in the surplus analysis can also be used at
the household level to approximate di(). For example, the ith household, the
change in surplus (income) is
i i (1 + 0.5 K i ) = I 0 abI1
d i ( ) K i PQ (1)
where
Pi is the pre-research price;
Qi is the pre-research quantity;
is the elasticity of supply; and
Ki is the proportionate shift downward in the marginal cost curve due
to research.
Chapter 8 259
Adopters of the technology receive this income benefit. The market K-shift
shown in Figure 1 incorporates assumptions about rates of technology
adoption.
Household-level Adoption. In projecting the ex-ante poverty change, it is

necessary to identify farmers who are likely to adopt Bt eggplant technology.
A model of adoption probabilities was estimated to identify households
most likely to adopt the new technology. In the modeling process, it is
assumed that farm decision makers face two alternativesto adopt or not,
with the decision based on expected profits associated with each alternative,
perceptions about risks, availability of information, and household-specific
constraints. The adoption probability for each household can be predicted
given observations on the adoption of similar technologies and variables
affecting the probability of adoption. Households can then be ranked in
order of decreasing probability of adoption and adopting households
can be identified as those whose predicted probability of adoption exceeds
a threshold prediction probability. If it is assumed, for example, that 25%
of households adopt, those households are selected whose predicted
probability of adoption exceeds that of the household at the 75th percentile
of the ranking.
Poverty Measurement. The analysis of projected changes in poverty status

resulting from the adoption of a technological innovation like Bt eggplant
involves three steps: (1) computing the household-level value of the welfare
measure and comparing it to the poverty line; (2) determining which
households are most likely to adopt the technology and estimating how
household welfare will change following adoption; and (3) adding up the
change in the number of poor people or households resulting from adoption.
The resulting household analysis of ex-ante income changes among adopting
farming households can be used to create an estimate of market-level surplus
changes which correspond to the total change in income for all participants
in the market, and of changes in poverty in the population.
The FGT indices (Foster et al., 1984) are commonly used indicators of poverty
in a given population. These indices are useful because they are additively
decomposable with population share weights (Ravallion, 1992). Its additive
decomposability allows evaluation of impacts of agricultural and other
policies on sub-groups. The FGT class of poverty measures is defined as
1 q z yi

P =
n

i =1 z
(2)
260 Chapter 8
where
n is the total number of people;
q is the number of poor people;
yi is income or expenditure of the ith poor household;
z is the poverty line, measured in the same units as y; and
is a parameter of inequality aversion.
When = 0, P is the headcount index, which is a measure of the prevalence

of poverty or the proportion of the population that is poor. When = 1, P
is the poverty gap index, a measure of depth of poverty. It is based on the
aggregate poverty deficit of the poor relative to the poverty line. When = 2,
P is a measure of severity of poverty. Each tells the analyst different things
about the patterns of poverty in a population. The head count index (P0) (for
= 0) is the simplest which indicates the proportion of the population for
whom consumption y is less that the poverty line z. The poverty gap index
(P1) (for = 1) is a measure of depth of poverty. It is based on the aggregate
poverty deficit of the poor relative to the poverty line. A value of P1 = 0.1
means that the aggregate deficit of the poor relative to the poverty line,
when averaged over all households, represents 10% of the poverty line. A
severity of poverty measure (P2) (for = 2), unlike the other two, is sensitive
to the distribution of income among the poor. It satisfies the transfer axiom,
which requires that when a transfer is made from a poor person to someone
who is poorer, the measure indicates a decrease in aggregate poverty. For
both P1 and P2 the individual poverty measure is strictly decreasing in the
living standard of the poor, i.e., the lower the standard of living, the poorer
you are deemed to be.
Survey data on household production and income allow estimation of

poverty rates, and our study examined how adoption of Bt eggplant
technology changes those rates. The correspondence between the economic
surplus approach and the household approach comes from the change in
marginal cost of production caused by adoption of the technology.
Nutritional Impact
Nutritional impacts of Bt eggplant technology were examined by

disaggregating the market demand curve into demand curves by income
groups using their separate price elasticities of demand. Considering only the
effect of prices, the increase in yields following a per unit cost reduction due
to Bt eggplant technology is expected to have a positive effect on the daily
calorie intake per capita in the different income classes.
Chapter 8 261
In this study, only the impact of Bt eggplant technology to nutrition owing

to changes in calorie intake was considered and the impact due to changes
in other nutrients was not considered in the quantification. The model used
heavily draws from the model of Pinstrup-Andersen et al. (1976) and Mutuc
(2003). The model reflects a situation for a hypothetical supply increase of
any good available to a population and addresses the question of how this
supply increase is distributed among different income classes after allowing
adjustments in consumption of all other goods through price changes and
the ultimate impact on nutrition in terms of changes in calorie intake.
The methodology has two stages. In the first stage, a price elasticity
of demand matrix is estimated for each of the income strata using the
methodology developed by Frisch (1959). The second stage quantifies the
change in calorie intake by income strata caused by a shift in the supply
curve of a commodity.
Price Elasticity of Demand. The Frisch (1959) methodology is used in

estimating a complete set of direct and cross price elasticities of demand.
According to Frisch (1959), price elasticities can be obtained by using money
flexibility, income elasticities, and budget proportions. If one has the money
flexibility, use of unit values or observation of prices is not needed, which
is required by other conventional means. With money flexibility, the price
elasticities can be derived from cross-sectional household survey data which
allows for estimation of income elasticities and provides data on budget
shares.
Direct and cross-price elasticities of demand for income stratum are

estimated as:
1 Ai ( m ) Ei ( m )
e

ii ( m ) = Ei ( m ) A( m ) (3)
( m )
and
E j (m)
eij ( m ) = Ei ( m ) Aj ( m ) 1 +
i j (4)
( m )
262 Chapter 8
where
(m) = money flexibility;
eii = direct price elasticity of demand for good i;
eij = cross price elasticity of good i with respect to good j;
Ei , Ej = income elasticities for goods i and j; and
Ai , Aj = budget proportions spent on goods i and j.
It is assumed that consumers face the same market for any one commodity.
Therefore, the average per capita direct and cross-price elasticities of
demand for good i would be the weighted average of the income strata
elasticities using quantity of good i consumed by stratum m using the relative
proportion of total population found in stratum m as weights:
e
ij ( m ) Qi ( m ) N ( m )
eij =

m =1
n (5)
Qi ( m) N ( m)
m =1
where
eij(m) = direct or cross-price elasticity of demand for stratum m;
Qi(m) = quantity consumed per capita of commodity i in stratum
m; and
N(m) = population in stratum m.
Income Elasticities. For each of the income strata, the income elasticity
for each food was estimated. It is assumed that consumers generally face
the same price for any given food commodity and that their tastes and
preferences have little or no variation within a particular stratum. Initially, only
the method used by Mutuc (2003) was utilized wherein the per capita real
income was regressed on per capita quantity consumed within each income
stratum with the coefficient as the income elasticity:
Q Y
ln i ,h ( m ) = + ln h ( m ) (6)
N h ( m ) N h ( m )
where
Qi, h(m) = total quantity consumed of good i by household h in
stratum m;
Nh(m) = total family size of household h in stratum m; and
Y h(m) = total family income of household h in stratum m adjusted
for inflation.
Chapter 8 263
However, using the above equation yielded insignificant coefficients for some
commodities. Thus, the model was modified as follows:
Q Y
ln i ,h ( m ) = + ln h ( m ) + i Island
(7)
N h ( m ) N h ( m )
Major island dummy variables were added to these models since island
differences can account for changes in tastes and preferences. The island of
Luzon was set as the reference dummy.
Budget Proportions. The budget proportion spent on each commodity is

estimated as the ratio between total expenditure on a particular commodity
and total food expenditure for each stratum m:
Ci ( m )
Ai ( m ) =
F( m ) (8)
where
A(m) = budget proportion spent on commodity i;
Ci (m) = total expenditure on good i for stratum m; and
F(m) = total food expenditure of stratum m.
Money flexibility. Money flexibility is the elasticity of the marginal

utility of income with respect to changes in income. It is estimated on the
basis of the income elasticity and the direct price elasticity of one good and
the budget proportion spent on that good. Solving (3) for , it is necessary to
estimate eii for at least one good for each income strata using an alternative
method:
Ei ( m ) 1 Ai ( m ) Ei ( m )

( m ) = (9)
e +A E
ii ( m ) i(m) i(m)
Changes in calorie intake. To estimate the distribution of additional

supply of the eggplant among income strata for which the supply curve
is shifted and to calculate the resulting adjustments in the consumption
of all other foods, a set of recursive equations that incorporate the price
and income elasticities computed for each stratum was used. The model
estimates the new equilibrium for prices and quantities for all commodities
264 Chapter 8
using an iterative procedure. For this model, the following were assumed: (1)
all consumers face the same market that operates under perfect competition;
and (2) prices and quantities for all commodities are in equilibrium before the
shift in the supply curve.
Only shifts in the demand curves due to changes in prices of other goods
brought about by the initial shift in the supply curve and subsequent
adjustments were considered. Hence, consumer incomes, tastes, preferences
and other possible demand shifters are held constant. The framework used
by Pinstrup-Andersen and Tweeten (1970) in computing the impact of
decreased food aid on the world market is the one patterned in estimating
the new equilibrium price after shifts in the supply and/or demand curves.
The new equilibrium price is estimated as:
Si Di
Pi1 = Pi o 1 o (10)
(esi eii )Qi
where
Si = horizontal shift in supply curve of commodity i;
Di = horizontal shift in the demand curve of commodity i;
esi = price elasticity of supply for commodity i; and
eii = market price elasticity of demand for commodity i.
Meanwhile, the new equilibrium quantity of commodity i, Q1i, is estimated as:
Si Di (11)
Qi1 = Qio + Di +
1 (esi / eii )
Using these two equations, the change in the price and quantity of the
commodity i whose supply increased is estimated as:
B
Pi k = Pi k 1 1 (12)
(esi eii )
where
k = 1; and

S

B = k i1 = the horizontal shift in the supply curve of commodity
Qi
i as a proportion of initial quantity, k represents the
number of rounds the impact of a supply shift had in
terms of price and quantity changes.
Chapter 8 265
The final equilibrium price and quantity of the commodity whose supply
shifted is traced through a series of price and quantity changes working their
way through cross-price elasticities of demand. This happens recursively.
If eji = 0 or eij = 0 for all j i then the final equilibrium price and quantity
for commodity i would be P 1i , Q1i respectively. It should be noted that eji is
the cross-price elasticity of demand for j given the change in the price of i.
If, on the other hand, eji = 0 for all j i then the equilibrium quantities and
prices for all other commodities remain unchanged. However, neither eji or
eij is expected to be 0. Hence, the initial change in Pi will cause a shift in the
demand curve for other commodities j. The new equilibrium prices, P1j and
quantities, Q1j are:

k 1 1

k
Q j = Q j 1 + pi e ji 1 (14)
esj
1
e jj

and
pi e ji
Pjk = Pjk 1 1 +
(esj e jj ) (15)

where
( Pi k Pi k 1 )
k = 1 and pi = , j = 1, 2, n excluding i and j i.
Pi k 1
These changes in prices and quantities of the affected commodities j affect

several rounds of shifts in the demand for commodity i unless eji = 0 for all j.
For subsequent rounds, the new equilibrium price and quantity for i is given
by:

n 1

Qik = Qik 1 1 + p j eij 1
(16)
e
j =1
1 si
eii

266 Chapter 8
and

1

Pi k = Pi k 1 1 + p j eij (17)
esi eii

where
( Pj1 Pj0 )
k = 2 and p j = , j i, j=1, n excluding i.
Pj0
This iterative process continues with k moving onto k+1 until a steady state
is reached, (k=F). That is, when the equilibrium price and quantity for all
commodities is reached or simply the case when quantities and prices no
longer change.
After the new market equilibrium was estimated, the distribution among
income strata of the quantity changes for each commodity was determined.
The final quantity of commodity j obtained by stratum m,
N

Q Fj( m ) =
(m)
Q 0j 1 + pi' e ji ( m ) + p 'j e jj ( m ) (18)
N
where
j = 1, n excluding i; m is equal to the number of strata;
N( m ) = number of consumers in stratum m;
N = total number of consumers; and
F o
(P P )

pi' = i o i
Pi
F
The final quantity of commodity i obtained in stratum m denoted by Qi ( m ) is
given by:
n
F o
Qi ( m ) = Qi ( m ) 1 +
' '
p j eij ( m ) + pi eii ( m ) , j i (19)
j =1
Chapter 8 267
The direct impact on calorie intake in stratum m, Ci(m) , is estimated as

Ci ( m ) = QiF( m ) Qio( m ) ci (20)
where ci is the calorie content per unit of commodity i.
Likewise, the indirect impact is
n
C =

j (m)
Q Fj ( m ) Q oj ( m ) c j
j =1
(21)
Combining the direct and indirect impact gives the net impact

Cm = Ci ( m ) + C j ( m ) (22)
Data Sources
Primary and secondary sources provided the information required in

analyzing the poverty and nutrition impact of technology. Parameters of the
economic surplus models came from the studies of Francisco in 2006 and
2007.
Poverty Analysis. Unlike in Francisco (2006 and 2007), the adoption rate
was not assumed but was quantitatively determined by using the adoption
model. The data used in the adoption analysis came from survey of three
eggplant producing provinces in Luzon, namely Batangas, Pangasinan, and
Nueva Ecija.
Nutrition Analysis. The data used in the nutrition analysis came from
secondary sources. Data on eggplant production, per capita consumption
and retail prices were obtained from the Department of Agriculture-Bureau
of Agricultural Statistics (BAS). The supply elasticity of eggplant, expected
yield changes from Bt eggplant adoption, and Bt eggplant adoption rates
were obtained from Francisco (2006). For the model used in the study
particularly on estimating the distribution among income strata of quantity
changes due to a supply shift in eggplant production, the data were sourced
from the Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) of 2003 from the
268 Chapter 8
National Statistics Office (NSO). To compute for real per capita income of the
households, consumer price index was also obtained from NSO. The calorie
content (kilocalories per 100 grams) of commodities was obtained from the
Agriculture Research Service of the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA).
Commodities considered. Similar to that of Mutuc (2003), 11

commodities, in addition to eggplant, were considered in this study for which
reliable initial price data were available. The commodities include: rice, onion,
ampalaya (bitter gourd), carrots, tomato, cabbage, mongo (mungbean),
camote (sweet potato), cassava, gabi (taro), and potato.
Income elasticities and budget proportion. In this study, the households

were stratified into income quintiles. Thus, the household survey data from
the FIES 2003 were categorized into five income strata. The income elasticity
for each abovementioned food was then estimated using equations (6) and
(7) for each of the income strata using data within each stratum. Budget
proportions were computed for each stratum using equation (8).
Money flexibility. To estimate by income quintile, it was necessary to

estimate eii (direct price elasticity) for at least one good or a composite of
goods. The direct price elasticity was computed by simply regressing the
price of a commodity as well as the price of other commodities on the per
capita quantity consumed with the i coefficient as the direct price elasticity:
ln [Qi,] = + i ln [Pi] + j ln [Pj] (23)
where
Qi,h(m) = per capita quantity consumed of good i;
Pi = price of commodity i being considered for direct price
elasticity; and
Pj = price of commodity j, as j=111.
Similar to that of Mutuc (2003), direct price elasticities were computed for
eggplant and rice. It should be noted that there were no other available
data that will yield per capita consumption values for 2003. Therefore,
weekly per capita consumption data from the Consumption of Selected Food
Commodities in the Philippines Survey conducted by the BAS during May,
August, and November 1999 and February 2000 were used. Correspondingly,
the two estimated direct price elasticities were used to compute for different
estimates for money flexibility using equation (9). The simple average of the
Chapter 8 269
two was then obtained to get an overall measure of money flexibility for each
income strata.
Results and Discussions
Impact on Poverty
Determinants of Adoption of New Technologies. An adoption model was

formulated and the probability of adoption was predicted to allocate change
in producer surplus to household eggplant farmers. Since Bt eggplant is not
yet commercialized, the adoption of hybrid eggplant was used as proxy to
Bt eggplant adoption. All of the 171 eggplant-producing households in the
ABSPII survey were asked to identify the eggplant variety they planted (e.g.,
Casino, Tagalog, etc.). Their responses were converted to a binary number,
1 if the respondents mentioned a hybrid variety and 0 otherwise. Table 2
summarizes the characteristics of those households that fall into these two
categories.
A total of 122 eggplant farmers reported planting hybrid eggplant while

49 farmers planted non-hybrid variety of eggplant. Adopting households
were headed by slightly younger people, had slightly less members, and
earned higher income than non-adopting households. Moreover, adopting
households had slightly larger farm size, slightly bigger farm area devoted to
eggplant production, and had less experience in eggplant farming compared
with non-adopting households. Non-adopters were farther from possible
sources of technology information and from market roads. Both non-
adopters and adopters were mainly male (85% and 71%, respectively). The
majority of the adopters were from Nueva Ecija (38%), while non-adopters
were mainly from Batangas (59%). A greater percentage of the adopters
(23%) reached college/post-secondary education than non-adopting
households (16%). More non-adopters (37%) owned their farm land than
adopters (31%) and more adopters (95%) reported more severe fruit and
shoot borer (FSB) problem than non-adopters (82%).
A logistic model was used to estimate the probability of adopting hybrid

eggplant. Results of the adoption model are summarized in Table 3. Results
showed that of the 17 factors analyzed, the probability of adoption was
significantly associated with 4 of these factors: (1) Batangas location; (2)
Nueva Ecija location; (3) years of experience in eggplant farming; and (4)
distance to nearest agricultural technician.
270 Chapter 8
Table 2. Characteristics of adopting and non-adopting households

Adopters (n=122) Non-adopters (n=49)
Variable description
Mean SD Mean SD
Age of household head (years) 49.48 11.30 52.20 12.36
Household size 5.13 2.27 5.33 2.32
Income per capita (PhP) 29,335 35,375 21,627 42,944
Total farm area (ha) 1.49 1.15 1.28 1.06
Area allotted to eggplant (ha) 0.51 0.46 0.42 0.33
Experience in eggplant production (yrs) 12.51 11.39 18.57 12.70
Average distance (km)
From village to nearest AT 4.96 3.37 7.61 4.72
From village to nearest major road 1.63 2.07 1.97 1.69
N % N %
Male 104 85.25 35 71.43
Province
Batangas 31 25.41 29 59.18
Nueva Ecija 46 37.7 12 24.49
Pangasinan 45 36.89 8 16.33
Education
Reached elementary level 14 11.48 5 10.20
Elementary graduate 21 17.21 12 24.49
Reached high school 11 9.02 6 12.24
High school graduate 48 39.34 18 36.73
Reached college level 28 22.95 8 16.33
Land Tenure
Owned 38 31.15 18 36.73
Share cropping 37 30.33 6 12.24
FSB severity
High 116 95.08 40 81.63
Based on the results, the Batangas site dummy has a significant impact on
probability of adoption at 5% significance level while Nueva Ecija site dummy
has a significant impact at 10% significance level. The negative coefficients
mean that farmers in Batangas and Nueva Ecija are less likely to adopt
hybrid eggplant than those in our base group, which is the Pangasinan site.
Years of farming experience is negatively associated with adoption at 1%
Chapter 8 271
significance level. Hence, probability of adoption decreases as a farmer has

more farming experience. This finding is similar with Kebede et al. (1990)
which found that farm experience is negatively related to likelihood of new
technology adoption. Hybrid eggplant requires certain management and
resource requirements in order to successfully obtain the desired yield.
For farmers who have many years of farming experience, adopting hybrid
eggplant might require more change in their cultivation practices. Distance to
nearest agricultural technician variable is found to have a significant negative
relationship with adoption at 1% probability level indicating that the farther
farmers are to sources of technology information, the less inclined to adopt
hybrid eggplant.
Estimated logistic regression coefficients did not indicate the amount of

change in the probability that a farmer will adopt hybrid eggplant given
a unit change in each independent variable, and therefore the marginal
effects were calculated (Table 3). Eggplant farmers in Batangas are 30% less
likely to adopt hybrid eggplant than farmers in Pangasinan while farmers
in Nueva Ecija are 23% less likely to adopt. A one year increase in eggplant
farming experience results in the probability of adoption decreasing by 17%
[(0.0116)*(14.31)*100]. A kilometer increase in the distance of the eggplant
producers farm from the agricultural technician decreases the probability of
adoption by 12% [(.0223)*(5.58)*100].
The predicted probability of adoption based on the model was used to

determine who are the likely adopters of the Bt eggplant technology. This was
done by ranking the predicted probabilities of adoption in descending order.
The income changes from the Bt eggplant technology were then applied to
the first 12%, 25%, 50%, and 100% according to adoption probability. After
the resulting income changes were computed for each producer-household
of adopters and non-adopters, the income per capita for each household
resulting from technology adoption was compared to the poverty line. The
FGT poverty measures were then computed.
Changes in Producers Surplus. In a closed economy, prices are expected to

decline in response to a downward supply shift, and thus producers and
consumers will both be affected. As mentioned earlier, only the impact on
the producers through the changes in producer surplus as a result of new
technology was considered in the study. All producers (i.e., non-adopters and
adopters) experience a loss in producer surplus owing to the price decline
while only adopters experience an off-setting increase in producer surplus
owing to the lower cost of production as a result of the technology.
272 Chapter 8
Table 3. Summary of the logistic regression

Probit estimates Parameter estimates for marginal
effects
Parameter
Estimate Standard P-value Marginal Standard P-value
error effect error
Intercept 1.4771 0.8524 0.0830
Gender 0.4434 0.3136 0.1570 0.1481 0.1120 0.1860
Batangas Province -0.9081 0.4236 0.0320 -0.3004 0.1456 0.0390
Nueva Ecija -0.6936 0.3664 0.0580 -0.2270 0.1243 0.0680
Province
Age 0.0071 0.0127 0.5750 0.0022 0.0039 0.5760
Household size -0.0438 0.0536 0.4130 -0.0135 0.0164 0.4120
Experience in -0.0377 0.0114 0.0010 -0.0116 0.0035 0.0010
eggplant farming
Total farm area -0.0173 0.1277 0.8920 -0.0053 0.0392 0.8920
Area devoted to 0.4325 0.3719 0.2450 0.1327 0.1131 0.2410
eggplant
Leased tenure -0.0505 0.3474 0.8840 -0.0157 0.1092 0.8860
status
Sharecropping 0.5213 0.3479 0.1340 0.1452 0.0863 0.0920
tenure status
Other tenure type -0.0381 0.3170 0.9040 -0.0118 0.0986 0.9050
Distance to major 0.0500 0.0697 0.4740 0.0153 0.0215 0.4760
road
Distance to near- -0.0726 0.0375 0.0530 -0.0223 0.0116 0.0550
est AT
Reached 0.2865 0.4881 0.5570 -0.1286 0.1594 0.4200
elementary level
Completed -0.1027 0.3887 0.7920 0.0843 0.1371 0.5390
elementary level
Reached high -0.4897 0.4643 0.2920 -0.1687 0.1737 0.3320
school
Completed high -0.3209 0.3278 0.3280 -0.1011 0.1054 0.3370
school
N= 180; Log-likelihood = -82.0591; Chi-squared= 46.65; Chi-square probability=.0001
The income gain to adopting households ranged from 172% to 299% relative
to pre-adoption income, depending on the assumed rate of adoption
(Table 4). However, the price decline resulted in a large reduction in total
income for non-adopters (i.e., 83%-88%). Similarly, there was a loss in the
per capita producers surplus ranging from 85% to 90%. It should be noted
Chapter 8 273
Table 4. Changes in producers surplus, annual and per capita household income at
different levels of adoption of Bt eggplant
Percent of Households Assumed to be Adopting
Item 12% 25% 50% 100%
(n=21) (n=43) (n=86) (n=171)
% Change in producer surplus
Adopters 299.06 287.62 269.39 172.03
Non-adopters -83.42 -83.36 -88.31 NA
Mean household income per capita
before adoption (PhP)
Adopters 46,022 33,606 31,441 27,127
Non-adopters 24,481 24,950 22,761
% Change in producer surplus per
capita
Adopters 302.79 290.25 275.97 176.85
Non-adopters -85.33 -85.79 -89.67 NA
that the average per capita income of non-adopters is close to the poverty
line of PhP15,075 per household member. In fact, even prior to Bt eggplant
adoption, the majority of non-adopters were poor.
Based on the headcount index, about 60%, 58%, and 64% of the non-
adopters were deemed poor prior to Bt eggplant introduction for the 12%,
25%, and 50% adoption scenarios, respectively. For example, of the 96 poor
producers prior to adoption, 90 of them were ranked as non-adopters (Table
5).
The poverty-reducing impact of Bt eggplant technology is quite substantial

for those who will adopt the technology. However, the impact was negative
for the non-adopting eggplant farmers. The following section discusses these
impacts.
12% Adoption Rate. Before the adoption of the 12% of the eggplant farmers
in the survey sites, six farmers were poor and the average household income
was PhP103,300 (or about US$3,0001). The number of poor eggplant farmers
was reduced to only one after the adoption and the household income
increased to PhP310,410. On the contrary, the number of poor eggplant
1
1 USD = PhP45.00 (NSCB, 2011).
274 Chapter 8
Table 5. Number of poor lifted out of poverty/becoming poor and average income before and after adoption at various levels of
adoption rate
Proportion of Eggplant Farming Households Assumed to be Adopting
Particular 12% 25% 50% 100%
Before After Before After Before After Before After
Adopter
No of poor 6 1 23 7 42 15 96 45
No of non-poor 15 20 20 36 44 71 75 126
No of poor lifted out 5 16 27 51
of poverty
% of poor lifted out of 83 70 64 53
poverty
Ave income (PhP000) 104.30 310.41 80.94 231.84 82.33 221.22 73.12 198.92

Non-adopter
No of poor 90 126 74 109 54 78
No of non-poor 60 24 54 19 31 3
Increase in number of 36 35 24
poor
Ave income (PhP'000) 68.76 11.40 70.50 11.73 63.81 7.46
Net increase (de- 31 19 (3) (51)
crease) in number of
poor after adoption
Chapter 8
275
farmers increased among the non-adopters, from 90 to 126 farmers. Similarly,

the income of non-adopters decreased from PhP68,760 to PhP11,400. The
net impact on poverty was an increase by 31 in the number of poor farmers.
25% Adoption Rate. Before the adoption of Bt eggplant technology among

25% of the farmers in the survey sites, 23 farmers were deemed poor and
20 were non-poor. The average household income was PhP80,940. After
the adoption, the number of poor eggplant farmers was reduced to seven
and the household income increased to PhP231,840. On the other hand, the
number of non-adopting poor farmers increased from 74 to 109. Similarly,
the income of non-adopters decreased from PhP70,500 to PhP11,730. The
net impact on poverty was an increase in the number of poor farmers by 19.

50% of the eggplant farmers in the survey sites, 42 farmers were deemed
poor and 44 were not. The average household income was PhP82,330.
After the adoption, the number of poor eggplant farmers was reduced to
15 and the household income increased to PhP221,220. Among the non-
adopting farmers, the number of poor eggplant farmers increased from 54
to 78. Similarly, the income of non-adopters decreased from PhP63,810 to
PhP7,460. At this point, however, the net impact on poverty was decrease in
the number of poor farmers by 3 eggplant farming households.

100% of the eggplant farmers in the survey sites, 96 farmers were poor. The
average household income was PhP73,120. After the adoption, the number
of poor eggplant farmers was reduced to 45 and the household income
increased to PhP198,120. The net impact on poverty was a decrease in the
number of poor farmers by 51 eggplant farming households.
Poverty Incidence. The incidence of poverty in the surveyed provinces

was high. Of the total 171 respondents, 96 were below the poverty line of
PhP15,059 per person (Table 6). This represents about 56% of the sample
respondents. The poverty gap was around 36% and a severity index of 29%.
At 12% adoption, the headcount index increased by about 19% (from 0.5614
to 0.7427). The headcount index was also higher than the pre-adoption
value for a 25% adoption (from 0.5614 to 0.6784). The same is true for the
other two FGT indices. With the 50% adoption however, the headcount index
(0.5322) was now slightly lower than the pre-adoption headcount index.
Though this was the case, it is noteworthy that the poverty gap and severity
276 Chapter 8
Table 6. Poverty indices for eggplant-producing households at various adoption rates

Adoption Rate
0% (before
12% 25% 50% 100%
adoption)
Item
no. Index no. Index no. Index no. Index no. of Index
of of of of poor
poor poor poor poor
Headcount 96 0.5614 127 0.7427 116 0.6784 93 0.5338 45 0.2632
Depth 0.3592 0.9135 0.8064 0.5612 0.1357
Severity 0.2780 1.4178 1.2494 0.7718 0.0864
indices at 50% adoption (0.5612 and 0.7718, respectively) were still higher
compared to their pre-adoption values (0.3592 and 0.2780). This result
indicates that a number of the poor households moved farther below the
poverty line and there is greater inequality in the income distribution among
the farmers as a result of limited adoption. At a low rate of adoption, only
very few farmers benefited from the Bt eggplant technology. This could be
attributed to the fact that those non-adopters who were slightly above the
poverty line prior to Bt eggplant introduction have now become poor due
to their loss in income. For instance, with 12% adoption, 90 out of the 150
non-adopting households were considered poor. After adoption, about 127
of the 150 non-adopters became poor (Table 7). Another possible reason
for the increase in poverty is that a number of the non-adopters are already
considered poor prior to Bt technology introduction. Then, given their loss in
producer surplus, they have become poorer.
At 100% adoption, the headcount index falls by 30% (from 0.5614 to 0.2632).
Moreover, the degree of poverty is also reduced since the depth and severity
of poverty indices (0.1357 and 0.0864) are lower than their pre-adoption
values. The poverty gap index falls by 22% while severity of poverty falls by
19%.
In summary, the adoption of Bt eggplant has a big potential to reduce the

poverty incidence among adopting eggplant farmers. Results indicated
that the poverty prevalence is reduced significantly when farmers adopt Bt
eggplant. However, the non-adopting farmers were penalized owing to the
decline in prices. As a result, the overall impact on poverty was negative when
adoption rate does not reach 50%. Similar trend was observed for poverty
gap and severity of poverty. At 100% adoption, 53% of the poor were lifted
out of poverty.
Chapter 8 277
Table 7. Poverty indices among non-adopters

Adoption Rate
12% 25% 50%
Indicator (Non-adopters=150) (Non-adopters=128) (Non-adopters=85)
n Index n Index n Index
Headcount index 90 0.600 74 0.578 54 0.635
before adoption
Headcount index 126 0.847 109 0.852 78 0.894
after adoption
Depth before 0.391 0.391 0.454

adoption
Depth after 1.039 1.057 1.042
adoption
Severity before 0.306 0.314 0.379

adoption
Severity after 1.615 1.657 1.497
adoption
Impact on Nutritional Status
Income Elasticities and Budget Proportions. Majority of the commodities

showed a declining trend of income elasticity for increasing income levels
(Table 8). Though some spikes were observed, the trend was downward. As
expected, the lowest income group had the highest income elasticity across
most of the commodities.
The largest single food expenditure among the commodities for all quintiles
is rice, which accounts for 12-28% of the total food budget (Table 9). The
remaining food items considered had an average proportion of less than
1%. For example, eggplant consumes only about 0.8% of the total food
expenditures. In general, the budget proportion spent on the food items
decreases with increasing income levels.
Table 10 presents the estimated cross-price elasticities of eggplant with rice

and other vegetables. Results show that the cross-price elasticities are all low
and negative. This means that they are all considered substitute for eggplant,
i.e., a rise in price of eggplant would reduce their consumption of these
goods and vice versa. The largest cross-price elasticity among the goods
considered is rice. The low cross-price elasticities also indicate that even if
278 Chapter 8
Table 8. Income elasticities of selected commodities by income strata

Income Quintile
Commodity
I II III IV V
Rice 0.490 0.158 0.094 0.028 0.044
Potato 0.428 0.665 0.599 0.478 0.399
Cassava -0.748 -0.886 -1.123 -1.018 -0.588
Camote -0.241 -0.290 -0.507 -0.684 -0.333
Gabi 0.512 0.383 0.471 0.510 0.613
Cabbage 0.404 0.515 0.283 0.245 0.242
Ampalaya 0.513 0.215 0.095 0.141 0.377
Eggplant 0.187 0.132 0.099 0.082 0.176
Tomato 0.409 0.265 0.220 0.195 0.230
Mongo 1.023 0.770 0.666 0.553 0.410
Carrot 0.165 0.396 0.423 0.449 0.555
Onion 0.294 0.109 0.159 0.205 0.238
Table 9. Average budget proportions of selected food commodities

Income Quintile
Commodity
I II III IV V
Rice 0.2752 0.2817 0.2366 0.1817 0.1242
Potato 0.0010 0.0017 0.0030 0.0041 0.0049
Cassava 0.0090 0.0061 0.0034 0.0015 0.0005
Camote 0.0086 0.0058 0.0040 0.0026 0.0016
Gabi 0.0038 0.0026 0.0022 0.0017 0.0014
Cabbage 0.0012 0.0023 0.0033 0.0042 0.0046
Ampalaya 0.0040 0.0046 0.0048 0.0045 0.0040
Eggplant 0.0077 0.0073 0.0067 0.0058 0.0045
Tomato 0.0057 0.0060 0.0060 0.0057 0.0050
Mongo 0.0044 0.0046 0.0042 0.0033 0.0022
Carrot 0.0004 0.0007 0.0012 0.0018 0.0028
Onion 0.0077 0.0075 0.0071 0.0064 0.0054
changes in prices of eggplant would occur, these changes is of very little

bearing on the quantity of other goods being considered.
Money flexibility. To estimate money flexibility () by income quintile, it

was necessary to estimate direct price elasticity (eii) for at least one good or
Chapter 8 279
Table 10. Cross price elasticities of eggplant with rice and selected vegetables
Eggplant Income Quintile Weighted
with: I II III IV V Cross Price
Rice -0.21224 -0.16345 -0.07577 -0.10418 -0.03011 -0.10716

Potato -0.00227 -0.00112 -0.00001 -0.00002 -0.00034 -0.00064
Cassava -0.00110 -0.00026 -0.00009 0.00007 -0.00006 -0.00023
Camote -0.00141 -0.00092 -0.00026 -0.00034 -0.00020 -0.00056
Gabi -0.00275 -0.00130 0.00014 0.00071 -0.00024 -0.00053
Cabbage -0.00068 -0.00117 -0.00007 0.00052 -0.00027 -0.00029
Ampalaya -0.00241 -0.00256 -0.00050 -0.00065 -0.00037 -0.00117
Tomato -0.00368 -0.00236 -0.00025 0.00072 -0.00070 -0.00106
Mongo -0.00275 -0.00062 0.00035 0.00012 -0.00031 -0.00050
Carrot -0.00073 -0.00046 0.00070 -0.00010 -0.00019 -0.00011
Onion -0.00290 -0.00178 0.00038 0.00072 -0.00057 -0.00067
a composite of goods. The direct price elasticity was computed by simply

regressing the price of a commodity as well as the price of other commodities
on the per capita quantity consumed. Direct price elasticities were computed
for eggplant, ampalaya and rice using equation (10). Correspondingly,
estimates for money flexibility were computed (Table 11). In general, there
is no way to verify whether the above money flexibility coefficients are
appropriate in the absence of studies done for the Philippines. However, the
estimates are consistent, to an extent, with Frischs (1959) conjecture that
the absolute value of decreases as the level of income increases if we note
the disparity between the lowest and the highest income levels, hence a
downward trend can be observed.
Price elasticities. In general, the trend in direct price elasticities increases

as income level increases (Table 12). That is, as income increases, the
propensity to consume more of this product increases as their price decline
and vice versa. The computed values, however, are larger compared to other
studies whose values generally range from -0.6 to -1.0.
Changes in calorie intake. The changes in calorie intake that may result
owing to increase/decrease in consumption of goods like eggplant can be
quantified by converting the change in the amount consumed multiplied by
the calorie content of eggplant. Table 13 summarizes the calorie content and
2007 average daily per capita consumption of the different goods considered
in this study. For example, the average daily per capita consumption of
280 Chapter 8
Table 11. Estimated money flexibility coefficients by income quintile

Income Quintile Value
I -0.225
II -0.097
III -0.064
IV -0.036
V -0.071
Table 12. Estimates of direct price elasticities by income strata

Income Quintile
Crop Average
I II III IV V
Rice -0.4576 -0.4175 -0.4268 -0.1794 -0.1246 -0.3212
Potato -0.3263 -1.6379 -2.6371 -2.9646 -1.0814 -1.7295
Cassava 0.5802 2.2013 4.9709 6.3343 1.5973 3.1368
Camote 0.1861 0.7186 2.2415 4.2621 0.9054 1.6627
Gabi -0.3910 -0.9451 -2.0752 -3.1645 -1.6617 -1.6475
Cabbage -0.3083 -1.2683 -1.2454 -1.5244 -0.6568 -1.0006
Ampalaya -0.3919 -0.5300 -0.4178 -0.8787 -1.0243 -0.6486
Eggplant -0.1433 -0.3272 -0.4368 -0.5072 -0.4784 -0.3786
Tomato -0.3132 -0.6526 -0.9708 -1.2094 -0.6252 -0.7543
Mongo -0.7795 -1.8938 -2.9323 -3.4304 -1.1112 -2.0294
Carrot -0.1257 -0.9748 -1.8635 -2.7875 -1.5056 -1.4514
Onion -0.2254 -0.2697 -0.7026 -1.2755 -0.6461 -0.6238
eggplant in 2007 is only 5.97 grams per day. This is equivalent to 1.97 kcal
per capita per day. Rice, on the other hand, has an equivalent of 451 kcal per
capita per day.
Equilibrium Price and Quantity. The cumulative change in calorie intake was
evaluated over a 12-year period, 2007-2018. In each year, the supply of Bt
eggplant is shifted out by the increase in the yield per hectare over the total
area planted to eggplant. This is adjusted for the rate of adoption each year.
Subsequent demand and price changes by the end of the year, conveyed
through cross price elasticities, generate new equilibrium values that are then
used as initial values the following year and so on and so forth as presented
in Table 14. It is assumed that in each of the next 12 years, farmers will
Chapter 8 281
Table 13. Calorie content and per capita consumption of selected commodities
Commodity Calorie content 2007 ave. per capita Equivalent per
(kcal per 100g) consumption capita consumption
(grams/day) (kcal/day)
Rice 130 347.51 451.76
Potato 86 2.71 2.33
Cassava 116 5.78 6.70
Camote 76 16.79 12.76
Gabi 142 3.34 4.74
Cabbage 23 3.51 0.81
Ampalaya 19 2.36 0.45
Eggplant 33 5.97 1.97
Tomato 16 4.19 0.67
Mongo 341 1.92 6.55
Carrot 41 1.86 0.76
Onion 40 3.84 1.54
Table 14. Price and quantity schedule for Bt eggplant

Year Price (PhP/kg) Quantity (mt)
2007 28.03 210,155.69
2008 27.92 210,603.29
2009 27.48 212,436.50
2010 26.70 215,734.36
2011 25.28 221,999.84
2012 23.73 229,468.83
2013 22.73 234,760.01
2014 22.64 235,231.73
2015 22.56 235,712.49
2016 22.47 236,202.47
2017 22.38 236,701.85
2018 22.30 237,210.79
continue to use Bt eggplant every planting season, thus the shock occurs
every year. The adoption of Bt eggplant technology increases supply which
in turn depresses prices (Table 14). The price effect is more pronounced up
to 2013 and then almost has negligible price change in the years that follow.
This is because of the assumed adoption profile.
282 Chapter 8
Direct impact on calorie intake. Using the information on price and

quantity schedules at an assumed adoption profile and computing the
projected per capita consumption due to the changes in prices and quantity
by the different income strata, it can be observed that lower eggplant prices
lead to relatively more eggplant consumption, which is reflected in the direct
effect and is increasing with higher income (Table 15). The trend, however, is
not smooth as the observed increases are until the fourth quintile only and
dipped at the highest income quintile.
The direct impact is small because the share of eggplant to total food
expenditure (i.e., budget proportion) is very minimal and since it is price
inelastic, a decrease in the price of eggplant (due to Bt eggplant technology)
is expected not to have a very significant effect on consumption. It cannot
be expected that the direct impact (in terms of kcal) would be significant.
Eggplant, however, although low in calories, is very low in saturated fat and
cholesterol. It is also a good source of Vitamin K, thiamin, Vitamin B6, folate,
potassium and manganese, and a very good source of dietary fiber. The
nutritional value and health benefits of eggplant make it ideal for optimum
health. The impact of these minerals and vitamins is not within the scope of
this work.
Indirect impact on calorie intake. In terms of indirect impact on calorie

intake due to change in consumption pattern of other goods in consideration,
the opposite trend was observed in terms of increase in consumption of
other goods being considered in the study such as rice, vegetables and root
crops. As shown in Table 16, the general trend is decreasing, indicating that
the extra savings derived from lower prices is spent by the poor to buy more
rice and a little bit more of both eggplant and other vegetables. Hence, the
poor is likely to spend extra savings from low eggplant price on augmenting
rice intake that could go well with small increases in vegetable intake, both
eggplant and other vegetables. In terms of magnitude, the impacts are small.
This could again be expected considering that the cross-price elasticities of
eggplant with the other selected commodities are very low. Thus, a decrease
in price of eggplant (due to Bt eggplant adoption) does not change/increase
much the consumption of these other commodities.
Net impact on calorie intake. Results show that the per capita calorie
intake per day is generally positive but is negligible (Table 17). This is due in
part to the fact that price effects were the only factor that was considered
and allowed to work their way through cross-price elasticities, ignoring
income effects in the process. Further, the low own-price elasticities of
Chapter 8 283
Table 15. Direct impact by income strata, change/increase by year (kcal/capita/day)

Income Quintile
Year Average
I II III IV V
2008 0.0022 0.0022 0.0048 0.0064 0.0028 0.0038
2009 0.0091 0.0091 0.0197 0.0263 0.0113 0.0154
2010 0.0164 0.0163 0.0356 0.0476 0.0202 0.0278
2011 0.0311 0.0308 0.0680 0.0915 0.0380 0.0530
2012 0.0369 0.0363 0.0818 0.1112 0.0447 0.0635
2013 0.0260 0.0254 0.0586 0.0806 0.0311 0.0453
2014 0.0023 0.0023 0.0053 0.0073 0.0027 0.0041
2015 0.0024 0.0023 0.0054 0.0074 0.0028 0.0041
2016 0.0024 0.0023 0.0055 0.0076 0.0028 0.0042
2017 0.0024 0.0024 0.0056 0.0078 0.0029 0.0043
2018 0.0025 0.0024 0.0057 0.0079 0.0029 0.0044
Table 16. Indirect impact by income strata (kcal/capita/day)

Income Quintile
Year Average
I II III IV V
2008 -3.5620 -1.8493 1.5647 1.8330 1.5998 0.116
2009 0.8983 0.6991 0.3273 0.4334 0.1423 0.476
2010 1.2894 1.0821 0.6954 0.8057 0.5029 0.850
2011 2.4677 2.0555 1.2863 1.5057 0.9035 1.594
2012 2.1615 2.0169 1.7471 1.8240 1.6128 1.855
2013 0.6009 0.9205 1.5169 1.3468 1.8137 1.278
2014 -1.2578 -0.6115 0.5943 0.2504 1.1945 0.112
2015 0.1161 0.1150 0.1130 0.1135 0.1120 0.114
2016 0.1181 0.1170 0.1149 0.1155 0.1139 0.116
2017 0.1201 0.1190 0.1169 0.1175 0.1159 0.118
2018 0.1222 0.1211 0.1190 0.1196 0.1179 0.120
eggplant and also the very low cross price elasticities of eggplant with other
goods considered all contributed to low net impact on increased calorie
intakes of the consumers as a result of increased output and decreased price
due to Bt eggplant technology.
Using the information on price and quantity schedules at an assumed

adoption profile, estimated own- and cross-price elasticities of eggplant
284 Chapter 8
Table 17. Net impact by income strata, change/increase by year (kcal/capita/day)

Income Quintile
Year Average
I II III IV V
2008 -3.5597 -1.8471 1.5695 1.8394 1.6025 0.1202
2009 0.9075 0.7082 0.3471 0.4597 0.1535 0.4915
2010 1.3058 1.0984 0.7310 0.8534 0.5231 0.8779
2011 2.4988 2.0863 1.3544 1.5972 0.9415 1.6471
2012 2.1983 2.0532 1.8289 1.9352 1.6574 1.9185
2013 0.6269 0.9460 1.5755 1.4274 1.8448 1.3236
2014 -1.2555 -0.6093 0.5996 0.2577 1.1973 0.1159
2015 0.1184 0.1173 0.1183 0.1210 0.1148 0.1179
2016 0.1205 0.1193 0.1204 0.1231 0.1168 0.1200
2017 0.1226 0.1214 0.1225 0.1253 0.1188 0.1221
2018 0.1247 0.1235 0.1247 0.1275 0.1209 0.1242
and different goods considered in this study, the direct, indirect and the
net impact on nutrition of Bt eggplant adoption was estimated. The results
showed that the direct impact is small since the share of eggplant to total
food expenditure (i.e., budget proportion) is very small and it is price
inelastic, hence a decrease in the price of eggplant due to Bt eggplant
technology is not expected to have a very significant effect on its added
consumption. Similarly, the indirect impacts on calorie intake due to change
in consumption pattern of other goods are small. This could again be
expected considering that the cross-price elasticities of eggplant to the other
goods are very low indicating that a change on the price of eggplant would
not cause a significant change in the consumption of the goods. The net
impact of Bt eggplant adoption in terms of change in per capita calorie intake
per day is generally positive but negligible. This is because only price effect
was considered in the analysis via own- and cross-price elasticities. Moreover,
the low own-price elasticities of eggplant and the very low cross-price
elasticities of eggplant with other goods considered all contributed to low net
impact on increased calorie intakes of the consumers as a result of increased
output and decreased price due to Bt eggplant technology.
Summary and Conclusion
Poverty and malnutrition remain a serious problem particularly in the

developing countries and this had added new dimension in impact
evaluation. However, despite increased interest in understanding poverty and
Chapter 8 285
nutrition impacts of agricultural research, few ex-ante studies of impacts of

R&D on aggregate poverty and nutrition have been conducted. This research
undertaking sought to determine the poverty and nutrition impact of the Bt
eggplant technology adoption in the Philippines.
The estimation of projected changes in poverty status resulting from the

adoption of a technological innovation like Bt eggplant was carried out by
computing the household-level value of the welfare measure and comparing
it to the poverty line; determining which households are most likely to adopt
the technology and estimating how household welfare will change following
adoption; and adding up the change in the number of poor people or
households resulting from adoption. The FGT indices were used to analyze
the prevalence of poverty in a given population. Nutritional impacts of the
technology were examined by disaggregating the market demand curve
into demand curves by income groups using their separate price elasticities
of demand. The methodology has two stages: estimation of price elasticity
of demand matrix for each of the income strata using the methodology
developed by Frisch (1959); and quantifying the change in calorie intake by
income strata caused by a shift in the supply curve of a commodity. Using
data from both primary and secondary sources, the poverty and nutrition
impacts were quantified. The data used in the poverty impact analysis came
from a survey conducted in three eggplant producing provinces, namely,
Batangas, Nueva Ecija, and Pangasinan. The nutrition analysis utilized
secondary data from the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics (BAS), the Family
Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES) of 2003 from the National Statistics
Office (NSO) and the Agriculture Research Service of the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Results of the poverty analysis showed that the adoption of Bt eggplant has
a big potential to reduce the poverty incidence among adopting eggplant
farmers. However, the non-adopting farmers got penalized by the price
reduction due to Bt eggplant technology. As a result, poverty became
more prevalent and income inequality became worse at low adoption rate.
However, there was a large reduction in the number of poor farmers and
more equitable distribution of income when the adoption rate is 100%.
The results of nutritional impact analysis showed that the direct impact is
small since the share of eggplant to total food expenditure (i.e., budget
proportion) is very small and it is price inelastic. Hence, a decrease in the
price of eggplant due to Bt eggplant technology is not expected to have
a very significant effect on its added consumption. Similarly, the indirect
286 Chapter 8
impacts on calorie intake due to change in consumption pattern of other

goods are small. This could again be expected considering that the cross-
price elasticities of eggplant to the other goods are very low indicating that
a change on the price of eggplant would not cause a significant change in
the consumption of the goods. The net impact of Bt eggplant adoption in
terms of change in per capita calorie intake per day is generally positive
but negligible. This is because only price effect was considered in the
analysis using own- and cross-price elasticities. Moreover, the low own-
price elasticities of eggplant and the very low cross-price elasticities of
eggplant with other goods considered all contributed to low net impact on
increased calorie intakes of the consumers as a result of increased output and
decreased price due to Bt eggplant technology.
Based on the results obtained from the analyses, it can be concluded that
if Bt eggplant would be adopted by many farmers, it can have a significant
impact on reducing poverty of the eggplant producers and improving the
nutritional status of the eggplant consumers. At lower rate of adoption,
however, the overall impact on poverty reduction is negative. These results
can therefore complement the past studies that were conducted to project
the economic and environmental impacts of Bt eggplant adoption in the
Philippines. The positive impacts of the technology can be used to strongly
advocate for the commercialization and wide spread adoption of Bt eggplant
technology.
References
Alston, J.M., G.W. Norton, and P.G. Pardey. 1995. Science Under Scarcity: Principles and
Practice for Agricultural Research Evaluation and Priority Setting. Ithaca, NY: Cornell
University Press.
Foster, J., J. Greer, and E. Thorbecke. 1984. A class of decomposable poverty measures.
Econometrica 52:761-766.
Francisco, S.R. 2006. Economic impact of Bt eggplant adoption in the Philippines: Report
submitted to ABSPII and ISAAA, Los Baos, Laguna.
Francisco, S.R. 2007. Environmental impact of Bt eggplant adoption in the Philippines.
Report submitted to ABSPII and ISAAA, Los Baos, Laguna.
Frisch, R. 1959. A complete scheme for computing all direct and cross price elasticities in a
model with many sectors. Econometrica 27: 177-196.
Karanja, D.D., M. Renkow, and E. Crawford. 2003. Welfare effects of maize technologies in
marginal and high potential regions of Kenya. Agricultural Economics 29:331-41.
Mills, B.F. 1997. Ex-ante agricultural research evaluation with site specific technology
generation: The case of sorghum in Kenya. Agricultural Economics 16:125-138.
Mutangadura, G. and G.W. Norton. 1999. Agricultural research priority setting under
multiple objectives: An example from Zimbabwe. Agricultural Economics 20:277-286.
Mutuc, E.M. 2003. Increase in Calorie Intake due to Eggplant Grafting: Proof of Concept
Chapter 8 287
with the Use of Minimum Datasets. M.S. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA.
NSCB (National Statistical Development Board). 2012. Philippine Statistical Yearbook.
Makati, Philippines.
Pinstrup-Andersen, P., N. Ruiz de Londono, and E. Hoover. 1976. The impact of increasing
food supply on human nutrition: Implications for commodity priorities in agricultural
research and policy. American Journal of Agricultural Economics pp. 131-142.
Pinstrup-Andersen, P. and L. Tweeten. 1970. The impact of food aid on commercial
food export. In Policies, Planning and Management for Agricultural Development.
International Conference of Agricultural Economists.
Ravallion, M. 1992. Poverty Comparisons: A Guide to Concepts and Methods. LSMS Working
Paper No. 88. The World Bank: Washington, DC.
288 Chapter 8
Market Prospects of Bt Eggplant
Chapter 9

Miriam R. Nguyen, Macrina G. Umali,
Eldy Z. Martinez, Susan S. Guiaya, and
Cristeta A. Foronda
Background
Eggplant production is a generally profitable farm enterprise, despite

seasonal price variations typically experienced by agricultural products.
However, productivity challenges posed by fruit and shoot borer (FSB)
infestation and bacterial wilt disease make farmers resort to intensive
pesticide use, posing risks to human health and the environment (Chupungco
et al., 2011). The current research and development (R&D) efforts on Bt
eggplant mainly aim to simultaneously address these production concerns.
An ex-ante assessment of Bt eggplant in the Philippines indicated that

farmers would gain more profit even without raising the output price because
the technology would increase the marketable yield and lower production
costs. Consumers, on the other hand, would have adequate supply of zero
to low-insecticide residue eggplant at lower price. With its high internal rate
of return, Bt eggplant would be economically superior to current technology
from a consumer and producer standpoint as well as for society as a whole.
Even if the baseline yield gain and cost reduction were only half of baseline
assumptions, and the adoption rate was only half of the assumed rate,
investment in the development of Bt eggplant technology would still be
highly viable (Francisco, 2009).
Chapter 9 289
Chupungco, Elazegui, Nguyen, Umali, Martinez, Guiaya, and Foronda
In India, Kumar et al. (2011) showed that adoption of Bt brinjal hybrids would
provide a yield gain of 37% and reduction in total insecticide use of about
42% over non-Bt hybrids. The major gains would go to consumers (66% of
total) and the rest would go to farmers. In brief, Bt brinjal offers a large scope
to increase income of farmers, reduce its cost to consumers, improve food
safety, and reduce health hazards and environmental pollution.
As the first biotech crop being developed for human consumption in

the Philippines, Bt eggplant instantly became a subject of public scrutiny
(Panopio and Mercado, 2013). Many civil society organizations, particularly
groups against genetically modified organisms (GMOs), are monitoring the
media to determine and understand the publics reception of developments
in biotechnology.
Even with published supporting studies and statements of assurance

from prominent scientists on the safety of Bt technology, numerous
articles claiming negative effects of Bt eggplant to human health and the
environment continue to circulate (Navarro et al., 2011, as cited in Panopio
and Mercado, 2013). It is thus necessary to continue to educate the media,
farmers, consumers, and other stakeholders on the benefits of Bt eggplant
commercialization.
The University of the Philippines Los Baos (UPLB) believes that

environmental and human safety issues are properly managed in the
academic and potentially beneficial biotech research. It emphasized that the
concluded Bt eggplant field trials had generated scientific data that are very
valuable in further developing the technology. UPLB has always been and will
always uphold the safe and responsible use of modern biotechnology for the
attainment of food security and a sustainable and safe environment (UPLB,
2013).
Amidst moves against biotech products and the media being flooded with
negative press releases on major dailies, the Food and Drugs Administration
Advisory No. 2013014 dated June 24, 2013 has declared that all food
derived from GM crops in the market have met international food safety
standards and are as safe as and as nutritious as the food derived from
conventional crops for direct use as food, feeds and, for processing.
If the Bt eggplant technology would be approved for commercialization,

after passing the stringent regulatory system and assuring safety to the
environment and human and animal health, emerging concerns will relate to
290 Chapter 9
its prospects in both the seed and food markets in the Philippines. This study
was conducted as an initial response to these emerging market concerns.
More specifically, the study determined the knowledge, perception, and
willingness of (i) seed companies, distributors, and dealers to sell Bt eggplant
seeds; (ii) farmers to adopt Bt eggplants; (iii) traders to market Bt eggplants,
as well as the factors affecting their marketing decisions; and (iv) consumers
to buy Bt eggplants. The study also examined the policy and institutional
environment influencing the eggplant market in the Philippines and provided
recommendations for policy interventions.The findings could help chart the
future directions of national policies and programs to realize the potential
benefits of the Bt eggplant technology in the Philippines.
Methodology
The market prospects of Bt eggplant crucially depend on the response of

major actors in the market for its seed as planting material and its fruit as
a food commodity. The seed market involves the potential suppliers (seed
companies, distributors, and dealers) and potential adopters (eggplant
farmers). The food market included eggplant traders and consumers (Figure
1). The study examined the perceptions and attitudes toward Bt eggplant
of these market players, as well as the policy and institutional environment
that will harness the technologys market potential, once commercialized.
The market potential of Bt eggplant will be determined by the willingness of
seed suppliers to sell its seeds; of farmers to adopt the technology; of traders
to market Bt eggplants; and of consumers to buy and eat the product. The
willingness of these actors depends on their knowledge and perception, and
on the macro and micro environments that influence the actors production,
marketing, and/or consumption decisions.1
If Bt eggplant is approved for commercialization, the response of seed

suppliers would depend on their perception of the technologys importance,
1
The macro environment refers to the sociocultural, political, institutional, technological,
environmental, and economic landscape that may support or constrain the market for Bt
eggplant. Government policies, programs, and regulatory mechanisms (e.g., food safety
standards, and information, education, and communication (IEC) or extension programs) serve
the varying concerns of these market players. Micro environment may include marketing
arrangements including pricing and market support system, and local level interventions that
also address market inefficiencies.
Chapter 9 291
Enabling Environment Market Actors Market Prospects
Macro environment:
- Socio-cultural, Seed companies/ Introduction of Bt
political, distributors/ eggplant seed in the
institutional, dealers seed market
technological,
environmental, and
economic factors
- Government policies Adoption of Bt
and programs Farmers
eggplant seed
Micro environment: Introduction of Bt

- Marketing Traders eggplant fruit in the
arrangement
market
- Market support
system
- Other local level Consumption of Bt
Consumers
support eggplant fruit
Figure 1. Conceptual framework
potential profits, farmers demand for the technology, and social acceptability.
Farmers demand would depend on their perceptions and attitude toward
adopting the Bt eggplant technology; accessibility, affordability, and
timeliness of adopting the technology; promotional strategies of seed
suppliers; and government policies and programs. The extent of farmers
demand for seeds would influence the potential farm size planted to Bt
eggplant and consequently, the total eggplant production in the country.
The volume of Bt eggplant fruits in the market would mainly be determined

by the number of traders who would buy and sell them, and the response
of farmers and traders to price changes. Consumers demand will depend
on their response to market price, income and consumption pattern, and
concern with product quality including food safety.
Methods and Respondents. The study used primary and secondary data
and employed an extensive review of literature on eggplant production,
marketing, and demand. Primary data were collected through key informant
interviews, consultations and/or surveys of stakeholders in the Philippine
292 Chapter 9
eggplant industry: seed suppliers (seed companies/distributors/dealers),

farmers, traders (local wet market wholesalers, wholesaler-retailers, retailers,
supermarkets), and consumers (households and commercial). Relevant staff
members of the Office of the Provincial Agriculturist (OPAg) and Municipal
(or City) Agriculturist Office (MAO/CAO) were also interviewed to assess the
micro environment influencing the market potential of Bt eggplant.
Secondary data on eggplant production, area, yield, prices (farm, wholesale,

and retail), and other relevant information were obtained from the Bureau
of Agricultural Statistics (BAS) and published or unpublished documents.
Other secondary area-specific information (number, names, and addresses
of eggplant farmers and traders) were collected from concerned local
government units (LGUs) (OPAgs, MAOs, and CAOs).
Simple descriptive analyses and statistical techniques (i.e., summations,

averages, frequency counts, and percentages) were employed in processing
the primary data and secondary information obtained in the study.
Survey Areas. This study was conducted in the major eggplant-producing

provinces of Pangasinan (Ilocos region), Quezon (CALABARZON), Cebu
(Central Visayas), and Iloilo (Western Visayas). During 2007-2011, Pangasinan
consistently ranked first in terms of area planted and volume of eggplant
production, accounting for 19% and 33% of the national parameters,
respectively.
In each province, three major eggplant-producing municipalities/cities were

identified, from where a total of 30 farmers, 30 traders, and 30 consumers
were surveyed. The specific survey areas were identified in consultation with
the Provincial and Municipal/City Agriculturist and selected purposively based
on area planted to eggplant. The municipalities/cities in each province were:
Cebu City, Catmon, and Carcar in Cebu; Sta. Barbara, Miag-ao, and Leon
in Iloilo; Sta Maria, Asingan, and Villasis in Pangasinan; and Dolores, San
Antonio, and Tiaong in Quezon.
Thirty farmers were drawn from each province equally distributed among
the municipalities. The trader-respondents, totalling 130, included those with
stalls in the local public markets as well as in the major trading or bagsakan
centers such as the Sentrong Pamilihan ng Produktong Agrikultura ng Quezon
Foundation Inc. (SPPAQFI) in Sariaya, Quezon; the Carbon Public Market in
Cebu City; and the bagsakan in Iloilo City and Leon, Iloilo. An additional 10
traders were interviewed in Divisoria market in Metro Manila. The consumer
Chapter 9 293
survey was done in the local public markets and supermarkets in the four
provinces. In each province, 20 consumers buying eggplants in the public
market and 10 consumers buying eggplants in the supermarket were
surveyed. The Provincial Agriculturists and Municipal/City Agriculturists in the
study areas were likewise interviewed.
Based on their presence and availability in the study sites, three seed
companies, sixteen seed dealers, and eight seed distributors were interviewed
(Table 1). These seed suppliers were either 50% or more than the number of
seed suppliers in the study sites. The three seed company respondents were
East-West Seed Company, Inc. (based in Bulacan but their representatives
were interviewed in Pangasinan), Pilipinas Kaneko Seed Corporation (in Lipa
City, Batangas), and Ramgo International Corporation (in Metro Manila).
There were a total of 27 key informants.
The following paragraph from Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project

II (ABSPII) (2011) was used in describing the Bt eggplant technology to the
respondents, especially to those not familiar with it.
Bt eggplant is a new variety of eggplant that has been developed to combat

the problem on fruit shoot borer (FSB) infestation. With this new technology,
the plant will be resistant to FSB, thus farmers would expect higher volume
of production and better-quality eggplant. Cost of production would also
be minimized as insecticides would no longer be applied to control FSB. Bt
eggplant has to pass through a strict regulatory biosafety compliance to
assure its safety to human and animal health and environment before it is
commercialized.
Willingness of Seed Suppliers to Handle Bt Eggplant
Eggplant Seed Varieties Sold by Seed Suppliers (Companies, Distributors,

and Dealers)
A total of 13 eggplant seed varieties, all hybrid, were sold by the seed dealers
and seed distributors. Among the varieties sold, Morena was the most
popular, followed by Casino (Table 2), both of which are produced by the
East-West Seed Co., Inc. This seed company was the major source of eggplant
seeds by 67% of the seed dealers and seed distributors interviewed. The seed
companies also sold open-pollinated varieties (OPVs), which were mostly
bought by the LGUs for their seed dispersal program.
294 Chapter 9
Table 1. Number of seed companies, distributors, and dealers interviewed by province/

study site, Philippines, 2013
Category Batangas Cebu Iloilo Metro Panga- Quezon Total
Manila sinan
Seed 1 0 0 1 1 0 3
company
Seed dis- 0 1 1 0 2 4 8
tributor
Seed 0 3 4 0 4 5 16
dealer
Total 1 4 5 1 7 9 27
Table 2. Eggplant seed varieties sold by seed companies, distributors, and dealers,
Philippines, 2013
Seed Dealer Seed Distributor Total
Variety (n=16) (n=8) (n=24)
No. No. No. %
East-West Seed Company, Inc.
Morena 16 8 24 100
Casino 10 8 18 75
Fortuner 0 3 3 12
Banate King 1 1 2 8
Gwapito 0 1 1 4
Pilipinas Kaneko Seeds Corporation
Checkmate I 2 0 2 8
Purple Star 1 0 1 4
Allied Botanical Corporation
Spitfire 2 0 2 8
Lightning 1 0 1 4
Warhawk 1 0 1 4
Ramgo Seeds International
Maharlika/Sikat I 6 0 6 25
Seminis Vegetable Seeds (Phils.), Inc.
Cluster King 1 0 1 4
Prolifica (introduced in 2013) I 0 1 1 4
Chapter 9 295
Eggplant seeds are packaged in pouches, cans, and packs, which differ by
number of seeds and weight. Prices vary by packaging type and by company
or source. For instance, prices ranged at PhP830-PhP1,260/can of 50 grams;
PhP45-PhP65/pouch of approximately 3 grams; and PhP21,500-PhP 22,940/
kg.2 OPV seeds were cheaper than hybrid seeds.
Fifty-two percent of the respondents reported changing the price of eggplant

seeds once, and 15% do it twice, within a year. Prices usually become higher
during planting season and when a new batch of seeds is delivered.
Contribution of Eggplant Seed Sales to Total Seed Sales
Eggplant seeds contributed 6%-20% of the companys seed sales and 1%-5%
of sales for half of the seed dealer-respondents. The share of eggplant seed
sales to their total seed sales ranged widely for seed distributors, from less
than 1% to 41%-50%. Across all these respondents, 30% reported that 1%-5%
of their total seed sales comes from eggplant seeds, and another total 30%
estimated that it was at least 11% (Table 3).
One seed company claimed that eggplant seeds ranked second in terms
of contribution to their earnings; the two other companies said 10th and
15th, respectively. For most of the seed distributors (75%) and seed dealers
(38%), eggplant seeds contributed most to their earnings. Across types of
respondents, eggplant seeds ranked first (44%) and second (19%) among all
the seeds they sell.
Mode of payment was either cash or credit basis, and there are different
payment arrangements depending on the type of buyer. For instance, seed
dealers or distributors can buy seeds on credit for payment ranging from
1 week to 60 days without interest. Post-dated checks may be issued to
the company or dealer/distributor. While seeds may also be sold on credit
to farmers for payment in a period of 30-120 days, or after harvest, sale
transactions with farmers are generally in cash upon purchase or on delivery.
All the three seed companies, 38% of the seed distributors, and 50% of the
seed dealers promote the products that they sell. Twenty percent of the
respondents use commercial demos/harvest festivals/convergence techno-
demos as a promotion strategy, 15% conduct meeting with farmers, and 10%
2
US$1.00=PhP43.00 at the time of the study.
296 Chapter 9
Table 3. Share of eggplant seed sales in total seed sales, Philippines, 2012
Share in Seed Company Seed Dealer Seed Distributor Total (n=27)
Total Seed (n=3) (n=16) (n=8)
Sale (%)
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Less than 1 0 0 1 6 2 25 3 11
1-5 0 0 8 50 0 0 8 30
6-10 2 67 2 12 2 25 6 22
11-20 1 33 0 0 0 0 1 4
21-30 0 0 1 6 1 12 2 7
31-40 0 0 1 6 0 0 1 4
41-50 0 0 0 0 1 12 1 4
Greater 0 0 2 12 0 0 2 7
than 50
No idea 0 0 1 6 2 25 3 11
Total 3 100 16 100 8 100 27 100
provide coupons, give-aways, and raffles. Specifically for eggplant seeds,

11% of the respondents use meeting with farmers as a promotion strategy.
One seed company conducted an eggplant festival/cooking demonstration/
competition to promote the seeds.
Client Feedback on Eggplant Seeds Procured
Clients usually provide feedbackssome positive, others negativeregarding

the eggplant seeds bought from suppliers (Table 4). For OPVs, usual positive
feedback include: cheaper seeds, good germination rate, and good yield.
The negative feedbacks meanwhile may include: low germination rate, highly
susceptible to FSB, and late maturing. Seeds of hybrid eggplant were noted
as high-yielding, with big and smooth fruits, but of poor germination rate
and expensive.
To address the negative feedbacks of clients, the seed suppliers inform the
source of seeds or the companys complaint handling section. Some seed
suppliers also verify the complaints.
Knowledge/Perceptions about Bt Eggplant
All the seed company-respondents had knowledge of Bt eggplant (Table 5).

Majority of the seed distributors and seed dealers, however, were not aware
Chapter 9 297
298

Table 4. Share of eggplant seed sales in total seed sales, Philippines, 2012
Feedback Seed Company (n=3) Seed Dealer (n=16) Seed Distributor (n=8) Total (n=27)
f-
f-
f-
f-
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Chapter 9
OPV seeds: Positive feedback

Cheaper seeds 1 33 0 0 0 0 1 4
Good germination rate (>85%) 1 33 0 0 0 0 1 4
Good quality fruits/high yielding 1 33 2 12 0 0 3 11
OPV seeds: Negative feedback
Highly susceptible to FSB 1 33 0 0 0 0 1 4
Late maturing 1 33 0 0 0 0 1 4
Low germination rate 1 33 1 6 1 12 3 11
Hybrid seeds: Positive feedback
Early maturing 1 33 0 0 0 0 1 4
Uniformity of fruits 1 33 0 0 0 0 1 4
High germination rate (>98%) 1 33 0 0 0 0 1 4
High-yielding 2 67 9 56 4 50 15 56
Less susceptible to FSB 1 33 0 0 0 0 1 4
Big/smooth fruits 0 0 2 12 0 0 2 7
Hybrid seeds: Negative feedback
High price of seeds 3 100 0 0 1 12 4 15
Low market price of fruits 0 0 1 6 0 0 1 4
Infested by insects 0 0 1 6 0 0 1 4
Poor germination 0 0 6 38 3 38 9 33
Table 5. Awareness on Bt eggplant of seed companies, dealers and distributors, Philippines, 2013
Response Seed Company (n=3) Seed Dealer (n=16) Seed Distributor (n=8) Total (n=27)
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Aware 3 100 4 25 1 12 8 30
Not aware 0 0 12 75 7 88 19 70
Total 3 100 16 100 8 100 27 100
Source of information
Agricultural technician 0 0 1 6 0 0 1 4
Farmers 1 33 0 0 0 0 1 4
Former colleagues from UPLB 1 33 0 0 0 0 1 4
Friends 0 0 1 6 0 0 1 4
Seed companies 1 33 1 6 0 0 2 7
Media 0 0 2 12 1 12 3 11

Chapter 9
299
of the technology. Those who were aware sourced information mainly from
the media and seed companies.
The respondents who know or are somehow familiar about Bt eggplant said
that this new variety is FSB tolerant, could help farmers save on pesticide
cost, and has higher yield.
Willingness to Sell Bt Eggplant Seeds
Majority (81%) of the respondent seed companies, dealers, and distributors

would be willing to sell Bt eggplant seeds (Table 6). Of these, about 15
suppliers would just like to test the Bt eggplant seeds saleability to farmers.
The one seed company not willing to sell reasoned out that if the price of
Bt seeds would be high, farmers may not be able to afford it, and that this
variety may be needed only in areas highly infested with FSB.
Most seed suppliers would prefer to sell Bt eggplant hybrid varieties as

majority of farmers prefer hybrids, with their better and bigger fruits and
high yields, giving farmers higher income. In case only open-pollinated Bt
eggplant varieties would be available, 44% of the respondents would be
willing to sell; 11% not willing; and 44% were not sure if they would sell it or
not (Table 6).
Marketing Bt Eggplant Seeds
Selling Price for Bt Eggplant Seeds. Most seed suppliers believed that, while
the price of Bt eggplant seeds would depend on the pricing system or
mark-up set by the company/distributor, it should be cheaper than existing
varieties. Should Bt eggplant seeds be priced twice that of existing varieties,
41% of the supplier-respondents would be willing to sell them (Table 7). Seed
suppliers would also be willing to sell as long as farmers will accept and buy
the product, and as long as food safety is assured. They added that marketing
Bt eggplant seeds would most likely follow their current arrangements
or practice with the dealers and distributors (although some expressed
preference for consignment).
Sales Strategies in Introducing New Seed Varieties. To introduce new varieties

in the market (would include Bt eggplant seed once this is commercialized),
seed companies conduct farm demonstrations and harvest festivals, product
launching, and farmers meetings to promote the variety; give brochures,
flyers, and catalogues written in different dialects; and provide sample seeds
and give-aways.
300 Chapter 9
Table 6. Type of Bt eggplant seeds preferred to be sold by seed suppliers, Philippines,

2013
Item Seed Company Seed Dealer Seed Distributor Total
(n=3) (n=16) (n=8) (n=27)
No. % No. I % No. % No. %
Willingness to market Bt eggplant seeds
Willing 2 67 13 81 7 88 22 81
Not willing 1 33 0 0 0 0 1 4
Do not know 0 0 3 19 1 12 4 15
Total 3 100 16 100 8 100 27 100
Bt eggplant variety
Hybrid 2 67 8 50 7 88 17 63
OPV 0 0 1 6 0 0 1 4
Both hybrid 0 0 4 25 0 0 4 15
and OPV
Do not know 1 33 3 19 1 12 5 19
Total 3 100 16 100 8 100 27 100
Willingness to sell if only OPV Bt eggplants would be available
Willing 2 67 3 19 7 88 12 44
Not willing 1 33 2 12 0 0 3 11
Do not know 0 0 11 69 1 12 12 44
Total 3 100 16 100 8 100 27 100
For the Bt eggplant seed variety, seed company-respondents recommend

establishing demonstration farms (23%), giving free seed samples (19%),
distributing brochures, flyers, catalogues written in different dialects (12%),
and conducting farmers meetings/trainings (12%).
Willingness of Farmers to Adopt the Bt Eggplant Seeds
Knowledge and Perception of Bt Eggplant
Ninety-five (about 80%) of the total 120 eggplant farmers interviewed had no
previous knowledge of Bt eggplant. All farmer-respondents in Quezon and
93% of those in Cebu were not aware of Bt eggplant (Table 8).
Farmers learned about Bt eggplant from agricultural technicians, seed

company representative, fellow farmers, print media, television, and radio.
Chapter 9 301
302

Table 7. Suppliers perception of selling price of Bt eggplant seeds, Philippines, 2013
Response Seed Company Seed Dealer Seed Distributor Total
f-
f-
f-
f-
No. % No. % No. % No. %
Chapter 9
Setting the selling price of Bt eggplant seeds

Cheaper than existing varieties 1 50 2 12 3 38 6 23
Depends on the price/mark-up 0 0 4 25 3 38 7 27
set by the company/ distributor
Comparable to/same as existing 0 0 2 12 0 0 2 8
varieties
Higher than existing varieties 1 50 1 6 1 12 3 12
10%-15% mark-up for suppliers 0 0 1 6 0 0 2 8
Do not know 0 0 5 31 1 13 6 23
Total 2 100 16 100 8 100 26 100
Willingness to sell Bt eggplant seeds if price is twice that of existing varieties
Willing 2 67 4 25 5 62 11 41
Not willing 1 33 6 38 2 25 9 33
Do not know 0 0 6 38 1 12 7 26
Total 3 100 16 100 8 100 27 100
Table 8. Farmer knowledge and perception of Bt eggplant, by province, Philippines, 2013
Response Cebu Iloilo Pangasinan Quezon Total
I--
I--
I--
r-
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Setting the selling price of Bt eggplant seeds
Aware 2 7 9 30 14 47 0 0 25 21
Not aware 28 93 21 70 16 53 30 100 95 79
Total 30 100 30 100 30 100 30 100 120 100
Farmers willingness to adopt Bt eggplant, by gender
Willing 30 100 27 90 30 100 28 93 115 96
Male 20 67 15 50 30 100 18 60 83 69
Female 10 33 12 40 0 0 10 33 32 27
Not willing 0 0 3 10 0 0 0 0 3 3
Male 0 0 2 7 0 0 0 0 2 2
Female 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 1
Do not know/ 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7 2 2
undecided
Male 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 1
Female 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 1 1

Chapter 9
303
There are programs related to agriculture on TV or local radio stations

in the area. Farmers read magazines, brochures, pamphlets, or printed
advertisements of seed companies. They knew that Bt eggplant is resistant
to fruit and shoot borer, thus can reduce pesticide application costs. Farmers
also deem that Bt eggplant will have better fruit quality and provide higher
yield.
Ninety-six percent of all farmer-respondents were willing to adopt Bt

eggplant, and majority of them were male (Table 8). (There were 86 male
[72%] and 34 [28%] female farmer-respondents.) All Cebu and Pangasinan
farmer-respondents (all male) were willing to adopt Bt eggplant. In Iloilo, 10%
of the sample farmers were not willing to adopt the technology, while over
6% of those in Quezon could not decide yet. They wanted to first see the
results of technology demonstrations (techno-demos) and check if the fruit
quality is comparable to the variety they are currently growing.
Majority (96%) of the farmer-respondents were also willing to eat the fruit of
Bt eggplant. They have faith on the expertise of the technologys developers
from UPLB and also cited the case of Bt corn. The very few who were not
willing to eat Bt eggplant were practicing organic farming and not sure if it
would be safe. These farmers have no prior knowledge of Bt eggplant, except
for one farmer who heard on the radio about its alleged potential negative
effects on health.
The farmers interest in Bt eggplant stems from their concern with FSB
damage on their eggplant production. Majority of the farmers (80% of
potential adoptors in Pangasinan, and over 60% in the other three provinces)
observed that FSB infestation has worsened over the years, especially during
the rainy season.
While chemical pesticide application is the main strategy to minimize crop

damage from FSB, 53% of potential adoptors in all study sites reported that
the eggplant FSB has developed resistance and has become immune to
insecticides, thus requiring higher pesticide dosage.
Meanwhile, farmers who were not willing to adopt Bt eggplant were not
spraying pesticides or were into organic farming. They follow other cultural
or management pest control practices such as manual removal of damaged
shoots and fruits and host weeds; crop rotation (i.e., planting different crops
on the same area in different cropping seasons, e.g., string beans, corn after
eggplant); and intercropping (planting eggplant with other crops on the
304 Chapter 9
same area, at the same cropping season). Planting the same crop in the same
area every season will increase pest pressure or will affect soil quality. Some
farmers also practice smudging to control pests.
Farmers Socio-demographic Background
On average, potential adoptors have been growing eggplant for almost 15

years, compared to 9 years of those not willing. The farmer-respondents were
on average 50 years old, with those in Quezon and Pangasinan relatively
younger than those in Cebu and Iloilo. Those who were not willing to adopt
were, on average, older by one year than those willing to do so. Those who
were not yet decided were much younger by around 8 years (Table 9).
Potential adoptors of Bt eggplant generally attained elementary and

secondary levels of education. Iloilo had the most potential adoptors with
college education, 11% of whom had a degree not related to agriculture (e.g.,
nursing) (Table 9). Those who went to vocational school took courses also not
related to agriculture (e.g., electronics).
If Bt eggplant would be available in the market, around 59% of the farmer-

respondents who were willing to adopt Bt eggplant intend to plant it
immediately, i.e., would be the early technology adoptors. More farmers
(77%) in Cebu than in Iloilo (59%), Pangasinan (57%), and Quezon (43%)
could be characterized as early adoptors. Around 35% would wait after one
cropping season or 1 year and observe first the performance of Bt eggplant
in other farms (Figure2).
Across all provinces, majority (60%) of potential adoptors intend to plant Bt

eggplant on the same land area they are currently using, which averaged
at 0.57 ha (Table 10). Around 24% of the farmers are very optimistic about
Bt eggplant and would even increase the farm area devoted to eggplant
by 75%. The rest are more conservative farmers who first will observe the
performance of Bt eggplant, and hence plan to reduce the current eggplant
farm area. One can say that these farmers need to be assured first of the
gains from Bt eggplant adoption.
Farmers tenure status may also explain their decision to increase, reduce
or retain land area for growing Bt eggplant. Across the four provinces,
about 27% of all potential adoptors are landowners who can readily make
farming decisions. Around 55% of all potential adoptors were leaseholders
and tenants who may still need the landowners consent on the use of land
Chapter 9 305
306

Table 9. Farmers demographic characteristics according to willingness to adopt Bt eggplant, by province, Philippines, 2013
-'-
- i-
- i-
-
-
Item Cebu Iloilo Pangasinan Quezon Total
i-
i-
i-
i-
i-
i-
i-
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Chapter 9
Farmers willing to adopt

Average age (years) 51 53 50 48 50
i- -
i- -
i- -
i- -
i- -
Below average 19 63 14 52 16 53 13 42 59 54
Above average 11 34 13 48 14 47 15 58 53 46
Educational attainment
Elementary level 12 40 5 18 6 20 14 50 37 32
High school level 13 43 7 30 15 50 8 28 43 37
College level 4 13 9 33 7 23 5 18 25 28
Vocational graduate 1 3 6 22 2 7 1 4 10 9
Total 30 100 27 100 30 100 28 100 112 100
Farmers not willing to adopt
Average age (years) - 52 - - 52
- -
- -
-
-
Below average - - 1 33 - - - - 1 33
-
-
Above average - - 2 67 - - - - 2 67
High school level - - 1 33 - - - - 1 33
College level - - 2 67 - - - - 2 67
Total - - 3 100 - - - - 3 100
Table 9. Farmers demographic characteristics according to willingness to adopt Bt eggplant, by province, Philippines, 2013
-'-
- i-
- i-
-
-
i-
i-
i-
i-
i-
i-
i-
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Farmers who are undecided
Average age (years) - - - 44 44
i- -
i- -
i- -
i- -
i- -
Below average - - - - - - 1 50 1 50
Above average - - - - - - 1 50 1 50
Elementary graduate - - - - - - 1 50 1 50
High school level - - - - - - 1 50 1 50
Vocational graduate - - - - - - - - - -
Total - - - - - - 2 100 2 100
- means no information.

Chapter 9
307
80 Imm ediate (ropping season
60 Next cropping season
% 40 After next ( ropping
20
,,",,"
Province
Figure 2. Distribution of potential farmer-adoptors by timing of

planting Bt eggplant, by province, Philippines, 2013
and technology (Figure 3).These farmers could also look for other areas
to be leased or tenanted, which would be an easier and less costly option
than purchasing land. The market value of agricultural land ranged from
over PhP866,000/ha (in Quezon) to PhP2.2 million/ha (in Pangasinan). Lease
ranged from PhP11,000/ha in Quezon and Iloilo to PhP21,000/ha in Cebu and
Pangasinan.
By province, Iloilo and Pangasinan had more owner-cultivators (Figure

3). Land ownership is very low in Quezon as farmers tend to move from
one farm to another every cropping. They cannot plant eggplant in two
consecutive seasons on the same piece of land because the soil becomes
acidic. Farmers also practice crop rotation on the same land but change the
spot to be planted to eggplant.
Use of land is very critical to eggplant production. Like in growing many other
vegetables, crop rotation is an important practice in eggplant production
because it helps protect the land from serious weed problems. Eggplant
should not be planted consecutively on the same land, nor should it follow
other solanaceous crops, such as tomatoes and peppers. Moreover, eggplant
should not be used as a rotation crop on land that has been treated with
herbicides to which eggplant may be sensitive (Granberry, 1990, as cited in
USDA, 1996).
308 Chapter 9
Table 10. Planned land use for Bt eggplant by potential adoptors, by province, Philippines, 2013
Average eggplant farm 0.38 0.31 0.54 1.05 0.57
area (hectares)
-
-
-
Land use decision No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Will reduce eggplant farm area by
<25% - <50% 0 2 2 2 6
50% - 75% 2 2 4 4 12
Total 2 7 4 15 6 20 6 21 18 16
Will increase eggplant farm area by
<25% - <50% 0 4 1 1 6
50% - 75% 0 7 8 7 22
Total 0 0 11 41 9 30 8 29 28 24
Will plant same egg- 28 93 12 44 15 50 14 50 69 60
plant farm area
Total 30 100 27 100 30 100 28 100 115 100

Chapter 9
309
50 Owner-<u lti vator

40 . l NSE'holcler
30 . Tenant
%
20 . Oth ers {frE'E' USE' , mo rtgage d )
10
0
,,'
","
Province
Figure 3. Distribution by tenure status of farmers willing to adopt Bt

eggplant, by province, Philippines, 2013
Farmers Preference for Bt Eggplant Variety
Eggplant varieties are classified as hybrid or OPV. Hybrid seeds, usually

purchased from seed dealers in the area, cannot be saved for the next
cropping as its performance will not be the same as that of the F1 seeds.
In contrast, OPV seeds can be saved and replanted, with similar (yield)
performance. Farmers choice of seeds, whether hybrid or OPV, is usually
based on marketability of the fruits as reflected in consumer preferences such
as fruit color, shape, and size.
Majority (85%) of potential adoptors prefer hybrid Bt eggplant since they

have been using hybrid eggplant seeds (Table 11 and Figure 4). They also
claim that OPV eggplant has smaller fruits and lower yield. Farmers currently
using OPV eggplant, such as the native variety and Dumaguete Long Purple,
were mainly from Iloilo (44%) where there is a community seed bank. Farmers
who preferred OPV Bt eggplant believe that the seeds can be saved and
replanted, and will be cheaper. Farmers who were practicing organic farming
or applying low level of pesticides also prefer OPVs. In case OPV Bt eggplant
would be available, 35% of all farmers who expressed interest in Bt eggplant
would adopt the new technology. However, eggplant farmers from Quezon
are least likely to adopt it.
Willingness to Pay for Bt Eggplant Seed
The potential adoptors preference for Bt eggplant variety is directly
310 Chapter 9
Table 11. Seed variety currently used and preferred by potential adoptors of Bt eggplant seed, by province, Philippines, 2013
-
-
-
-~
Cebu Iloilo Pangasinan Quezon Total
Item
!-
!-
!-
!-
!-
!-
!-
!-
!-
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Current variety used
Farmers willing to adopt
-
-
-
Hybrid 29 97 16 56 30 100 28 100 103 91
!-
!-
!-
!-
!-
!-
!-
!-
!-
!-
OPV 1 3 11 44 2* 7 0 0 14 12
Farmers not willing to adopt
-
-
-
Hybrid 0 0 2 67 0 0 0 0 2 67
!-
!-
!-
!-
!-
!-
!-
!-
!-
!-
OPV 0 0 1 33 0 0 0 0 1 33
Farmers who do not know/are undecided
-
-
-
Hybrid 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 100 2 100
!-
!-
!-
!-
!-
!-
!-
!-
!-
!-
OPV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Type of Bt eggplant preferred by potential adoptors
Hybrid 25 83 16 59 29 97 28 100 98 85
OPV 5 17 11 41 1 3 0 0 17 15
Total 30 100 27 100 30 100 28 100 115 100
If Bt eggplant is OPV

Willing to adopt 10 40 7 44 12 41 5 18 34 35
Not willing to adopt 14 56 9 56 17 59 21 75 61 62
It depends 1 4 0 0 0 0 2 7 3 3
Chapter 9
*Note: Two farmers planting OPV in Pangasinan also plant hybrid.

311
100 Hybrid
_ O PV
80
60
%
40
20
0
,,~
".
Province
Figure 4. Distribution of potential farmer adoptors by preferred variety

of Bt eggplant, by province, Philippines, 2013
associated with current varietal use and their willingness to purchase at a

given price premium. Considering the costs involved in commercializing Bt
eggplant, farmers were asked of their willingness to buy the seed if its price
would be double that of their current variety. Similar to the case of genetically
modified (GM) corn, there would be costs of compliance with government
policies and regulations, e.g., biosafety assessment, before Bt eggplant comes
out in the market.
Majority (74%) of all farmers interested to adopt Bt eggplant seed were

willing to pay the 100% increase in seed price, equivalent to about
PhP1,000/50-gram can, since it will anyway substantially reduce expenditures
on pesticide. Based on the average price they are willing to pay, Cebu farmers
would accept up to a 115% increase in price from that of conventional hybrid
eggplant. In contrast, potential adoptors from Iloilo and Pangasinan would
only accept an increase of 59% and 61%, respectively (Table 12). On average,
the price farmers are willing to pay for Bt eggplant seed comes close to
PhP1,800/50-gram can.
Among farmers who prefer OPV Bt eggplant, 45% are willing to pay the
doubled price; the other 45% are not willing; and the rest cannot decide
yet. The OPV seeds farmers are currently using are much cheaper than
hybrids at an average cost of around PhP336/50-gram can. Some farmers
312 Chapter 9
Table 12. Potential adoptors willingness to pay for Bt eggplant seed, by province,
Philippines, 2013 (PhP/50-gram can)
Price of eggplant seed currently used by farmers
Hybrid 940.83 1,048.33 1,067.41 952.83 995.24
OPV -* 336.36 -* -* 336.36
Price farmers are willing to pay for Bt eggplant
Hybrid
Mean 2,026 1,666 1,718 1,678 1,779
% increase in price 115 59 61 76 79
Median 2,000 1,700 1,800 1,900 1,900
OPV
Mean 1,230 583.25 1,100 1,000 802.58
% increase in price - 42 - - 140
Median 500.00
Note: *Provinces without entries indicate that none of the farmers interviewed was using OPV or
that the OPV farmers used saved seeds. Dealers price of OPV ranged from PhP315/50-gram can to
PhP350/50-gram can.
usually saved OPV seeds, thus not incurring seed expense. In Iloilo, farmers
are willing to accept an average price increase of only up to 42% from the
price of conventional OPVs that they are using. In the other three provinces,
farmer-respondents who were not using OPV eggplant but prefer OPV Bt
eggplant quoted a higher willingness to pay ranging from PhP1,000/50-
gram can to PhP1,230/50-gram can. With current dealers price of OPVs (e.g.,
Bulakea, Long Purple) around PhP350/50-gram can in Quezon and PhP315
in Pangasinan, this implies that farmers are willing to pay more than double
the current price of OPV eggplant seeds in the market.
The farmers willingness to adopt Bt eggplant at a price higher than that

of conventional eggplant varieties indicates a significant potential for
developing the market for Bt eggplant (Figures 5 and 6). Although hybrid
Bt eggplant is more widely preferred over OPV Bt eggplant, these two
varieties need not compete in the market but can target different groups of
farmers across locations. The variation in farmers response to price increases
indicates that market development for Bt eggplant must include effective
information dissemination so that farmers would be better aware of the price
premium that goes with the new technology.
Chapter 9 313
2,500
PricE' of convE'ntional
P hybrid E'gg plant
2,000
h
P 1,500 PricE' of Bt hybrid
I E'gg plant farmE'rs arE'
5 1,000 willing to pay
0
g 500
, 0
, ",v
0
".
Province
Figure 5. Price of conventional hybrid eggplant vs. price farmers are

willing to pay for Bt hybrid, by province, Philippines, 2013
(PhP/50-gram can)
1,500 PricE' of convE' ntional

P OPVE'ggplant
h
p , 1,000 PricE' of Bt OPV E'ggplant
farm E' rsarE' willing to
I ,
P'Y
5 0 500
o
g o
Figure 6. Price of conventional OPV eggplant vs. price farmers are

willing to pay for Bt OPV, by province, Philippines, 2013
(PhP/50-gram can)
314 Chapter 9
The commercialization of GM corn (Bt, herbicide-tolerant [HT], and stack

traits [ST]) could illustrate how GM corn was widely adopted despite its
higher price. Average price of ST corn, for example, ranged at PhP3,000-
PhP4,000 per 9-kg bag, almost twice the price of conventional hybrid corn.
Seed dealers reported that biotech corn has become popularly preferred
by farmers. The vigorous information campaign through product launching,
strategic farm demos, and harvest festivals of the private sector, e.g., seed
companies, has been instrumental to the creation of the biotech corn market
niche (Pealba et al., 2012).
Based on the principle of supply and demand, the adoption of Bt eggplant

may increase production of good quality eggplant but lower the market price.
With an effective integration of markets, however, benefits could still be high.
The establishment of farmers groups could contribute to the integration of
markets, since farmers currently exert efforts and use their own resources in
scanning the market. For example, Miag-ao, Iloilo has the Oyungan Eggplant
Planters Association and Oyungan Ubos Irrigators Association, and Carcar,
Cebu has the Dapdap United Farmers Association. Quezon farmers also have
their cooperative. These farmers associations could work towards connecting
with alternative markets and improving their position in the pricing system.
The local government units could also provide assistance in market matching.
The high production costs (with the farmers heavy dependence on

pesticides), farmers planting at the same time leading to oversupply of
eggplant and low prices, poor eggplant quality, erratic climate, and poor
farm-to-market roads were cited as problems of the eggplant industry. The
need for capital for the production and marketing of eggplant, organic
farming, price monitoring, techno-demo and more trainings, developing
eggplant varieties for any type of climate, developing good seeds with higher
germination rate and yield, and making production of eggplant less costly
were likewise mentioned.
The survey showed that only 25% of all farmer-respondents have received
assistance, generally concerning production technologies such as organic
farming and pest control practices, e.g., integrated pest management.
Farmers did not report having received marketing assistance from any sector.
Willingness of Traders to Market Bt Eggplant
Aside from the farmers, the major players in eggplant marketing were
the assembler-wholesalers, assembler-wholesaler-retailers, wholesalers,
Chapter 9 315
wholesaler-retailers, and retailers. The general product flow was from

the farmers to assembler-wholesalers, assembler-wholesaler-retailers,
wholesalers, or wholesaler-retailers (Figure 7). From the assembler-
wholesalers, the eggplant goes to wholesalers or to wholesaler-retailers;
from the assembler-wholesaler-retailers, to wholesalers, wholesaler-retailers,
and consumers. From the wholesaler-retailers, the eggplant goes to retailers
and consumers; and from the retailers, the eggplant finally goes to the
consumers.
This study interviewed a total of 130 traders, composed of 15 assembler-

wholesaler-retailers, 19 assembler-wholesalers, 5 wholesalers, 33 wholesaler-
retailers, and 58 retailers. Across all study sites, the trader-respondents were
generally female (82%), married, on average 46 years old, and had been
trading eggplants for 13 years. Most of the respondents (34%) finished
secondary education and 28% elementary schooling; only 5% were college
graduates while 3% completed vocational courses.
Overall, the trader-respondents would prefer eggplant that has shiny and
smooth skin and no pest damage; and is long, purple, delicious with no
chemical pesticides, and safe to eat. Most traders would prefer hybrid (41%)
or any variety (35%) as long as it will be saleable or sold to consumers.
Longer shelf life of two or more days for eggplant and high yielding were
also mentioned.
Wholesaler-
F retailer Retailer
A
Assembler-
R
wholesaler
M
E
R
L_.r-~Asse
= mbler-wholesaler-retailer
Figure 7. General product flow
316 Chapter 9
Volume Traded of Eggplant and Eggplant Prices
Apparently, hybrid varieties of eggplant were more available in the market

place than OPVs at any time of the year (Table 13). Eighty-two percent of the
trader-respondents were selling hybrids from January to December compared
to only 59% who were selling OPVs in the same period. In 2012, 91% of the
respondents sold hybrid eggplants while only 60% sold OPV eggplants.
Among the study sites, Divisoria, Metro Manila had the lowest proportion of
trader-respondents who sold OPVs (20%) and Pangasinan the highest (90%).
On the other hand, Cebu had the lowest proportion of respondents who sold
hybrids with 77%; it was 87% in Iloilo, 97% in Pangasinan, and 100% in both
Quezon and Divisoria. The decision to market OPVs and/or hybrid varieties
of eggplant mainly depends on the preference of buyers for these varieties
and availability of products or accessibility of source. The findings indicate
the popularity of hybrid varieties among traders and consumers in the study
sites.
The trader-respondents sourced the OPVs and hybrid eggplants for sale
based on availability/accessibility/convenience, regular sales relation (suki),
and low price offered. Similarly, traders chose market outlets based on length
of time present in the place, accessibility and convenience, number of regular
customers (suki), and number of buyers.
About 76% (for retailers) to 86% (for assembler-wholesaler-retailers) of

the volume of eggplants handled by these traders were hybrids (Table 14).
Among the traders across the study sites, only the retailers of Pangasinan
marketed more OPVs (56%) than hybrids (44%). Quezon registered the
lowest proportion, by volume traded, of OPVs. OPVs were mostly grown in
Pangasinan where pakbet or pinakbet is a popular local dish that uses
native eggplant, an OPV. The hybrid varieties were mostly popular in Quezon
as the Tagalogs (people from Southern Tagalog provinces) are fond of eating
eggplant omelette (tortang talong), fried eggplant, and broiled eggplant.
In 2012, the average buying and selling prices of OPV and hybrid eggplants
were almost the same for all trader-respondents. Average buying price of
OPVs or hybrid varieties was PhP18/kg for assembler-wholesalers; and PhP16/
kg and PhP18/kg of OPVs and hybrid varieties, respectively, for assembler-
wholesaler-retailers. At the wholesalers and wholesaler-retailers levels, the
average buying prices for OPVs were PhP22/kg and PhP23/kg, respectively,
higher than those for hybrid varieties (PhP21/kg for both types of traders).
For retailers of OPVs and hybrid eggplants, the average buying prices were
the same at PhP24/kg.
Chapter 9 317
318

Table 13. Number of trader-respondents marketing eggplant, by month and province/study site, Philippines, 2012
-'-
- f-
- f-
-
-
Cebu Iloilo Pangasinan Quezon Divisoria Total
Item
f-
f-
f-
f-
f-
f-
f-
f-
f-
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Chapter 9
Kind of eggplant marketed

Hybrid and OPV 6 20 16 53 26 87 16 53 2 20 66 51
Hybrid only 17 57 10 33 3 10 14 47 8 80 52 40
OPV only 7 23 4 13 1 3 0 0 0 0 12 9
Total 30 100 30 100 30 100 30 100 10 100 130 100
Months marketed
OPV
January-December 12 40 20 67 27 90 16 53 2 20 77 59
November-June 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Not selling 17 57 10 33 3 10 14 47 8 80 52 40
Total 30 100 30 100 30 100 30 100 10 100 130 100
Hybrid
January-December 21 70 25 83 25 83 26 87 9 90 106 82
August-January 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 10 0 0 3 2
December-March 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 1
July-January 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 1
November-January 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 1
November-March 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 1 1
October-April 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1
Cannot remember 2 7 0 0 1 3 0 0 1 10 4 3
Not selling 7 23 4 13 1 3 0 0 0 0 12 9
Total 30 100 30 100 30 100 30 100 10 100 130 100
Table 14. Volume (tons) of eggplant traded by type of trader by province/study site, Philippines, 2012
--
- -
- -
-
-
Type of Trader
-
-
-
OPV Hybrid OPV Hybrid OPV Hybrid OPV Hybrid OPV Hybrid OPV Hybrid
Assembler-wholesaler
Number 1 2 1 1 4 4 4 11 0 1 10 19
Mean (tons) 6.2 9.2 27.4 119.5 332.2 461.4 54.8 308.3 0 365 158.1 301.6
Total (tons) 6.2 18.4 27.4 119.5 1,328.6 1,845.8 219.0 3,391.0 0 365 1,581.2 5,729.7
% 25 75 20 80 42 58 6 94 0 100 22 78
Assembler-wholesaler-retailer
Number 1 3 6 7 1 1 2 4 0 0 10 15
Mean (tons) 2.1 30.0 86.6 130.3 18.2 47.4 49.2 660.9 0 0 63.8 246.2
Total (tons) 2.1 90.0 519.6 912.4 18.2 47.4 98.4 2,643.7 0 0 638.3 3,693.6
% 2 98 36 64 28 72 4 96 0 0 14 86
Wholesaler
Number 0 0 0 0 1 1 2 3 0 1 3 5
Mean (tons) 0 0 0 0 22.8 42.0 52.1 191.1 0 43.8 42.3 131.8
Total (tons) 0 0 0 0 22.8 42.0 104.2 573.2 0 43.8 127.0 659.0
% 0 0 0 0 35 65 15 85 0 100 16 84
Wholesaler-retailer

Number 5 6 2 5 8 10 1 4 2 5 18 30
Mean (tons) 8.0 103.8 1.2 5.1 32.1 87.2 4.3 49.1 203.7 338.0 39.5 113.6
Total (tons) 40.0 623.0 2.3 25.5 256.6 872.4 4.3 196.6 407.4 1,690.0 710.9 3,407.5
% 6 94 8 92 29 71 2 98 19 81 17 83
Chapter 9
Retailer
Number 6 12 11 13 13 13 7 8 0 3 37 50
Mean (tons) 3.8 5.9 1.3 1.9 5.7 4.5 3.3 6.6 0 72.4 3.6 8.5
319
Total (tons) 22.8 70.8 14.1 24.9 73.9 58.8 23.0 52.5 0 217.2 133.7 424.2
% 24 76 36 64 56 44 30 70 0 100 24 76
The assembler-wholesalers and assembler-wholesaler-retailers added PhP2/

kg to PhP6/kg, while wholesalers and wholesaler-retailers added PhP4/kg
to PhP10/kg, to their buying prices to come up with their selling prices at
wholesale. At the retail level, assembler-wholesaler-retailers and wholesaler-
retailers set a mark-up of PhP6/kg to PhP10/kg and PhP7/kg to PhP25/kg,
respectively. At the retail market, the retailers apply an average mark-up of
PhP6/kg to PhP15/kg to their buying price.
The buying prices per kilogram ranged at PhP3-PhP45 for assembler-

wholesalers and assembler-wholesaler-retailers, PhP5-PhP50 for wholesalers,
PhP8-PhP70 for wholesaler-retailers, and PhP5-PhP60 for retailers. Among
the study sites, prices were generally highest in Divisoria. Eggplants sold in
Divisoria often came from the major producing provinces in Luzon, including
Pangasinan, Quezon, and Nueva Ecija.
Most trader-respondents reported that prices could change either daily,

weekly, or monthly. The prices were often high during the third and fourth
quarter of the year, because of limited or low supply in the market, which in
turn can be due to crop damage by monsoon or typhoons. At the same time,
demand is higher as schools are open and students eat more eggplant at
home or in school canteens. In contrast, eggplant is cheaper during the first
half of the year because of high production.
Majority (86%) of the trader-respondents paid cash to their sources of

eggplants; the few others obtained the product either on 1-day or 14-day
credit. Likewise, the buyers mostly paid the trader-respondents in cash (92%),
with some given a 1-day or up to a 30-day credit. One eggplant trader in
Cebu had a consignment marketing arrangement with his supplier.
Across all trader-respondents, average contribution of eggplant sales to total

vegetable sales was 29%, indicating its popularity among consumers and
economic importance to traders. Most trader-respondents in the study sites
asserted that, among the vegetables they sold, eggplant ranked first in terms
of earnings (57%).
More specifically, eggplant sales accounted for 21% of total vegetable sales
of retailers, on average, and for 58% for the wholesalers. It was lowest for the
retailers because these traders handle various kinds of vegetables, usually in
small quantities. In contrast, the wholesalers, assembler-wholesaler-retailers,
and assembler-wholesalers carry limited kinds of products in larger volumes.
320 Chapter 9
Awareness/Perception on Bt Eggplant
Only 7% of the traders interviewed were aware or have heard of Bt eggplant

with the highest proportions noted in Divisoria (20%) and Pangasinan
(13%) (Table 15). (Pangasinan was one of the sites for the multi-location
field trials for Bt eggplant being done by UPLB researchers.) The traders in
Divisoria heard about Bt eggplant while watching TV or listening to the radio.
Pangasinan traders learned about Bt eggplant from farmers, agricultural
technicians, and seminars given to farmers. The lone Cebu trader and the
two Iloilo traders received Bt eggplant information from the Department of
Agriculture (DA) and friends. These traders perceived Bt eggplant as insect-
tolerant, requiring no spray of insecticides or chemicals, and saves cost on
pesticides. One trader even mentioned that Bt eggplant is similar to Bt corn
in that insecticide application is no longer needed to control insect pests.
Willingness to Buy and Sell Bt Eggplant
If Bt eggplant would be commercially available, a high percentage (95%)

of the traders interviewed would buy and sell the produce (Figure 8). Their
interest stems from the potential significant profit that Bt eggplant presents,
especially if its fruits would be of better quality than those of existing
varieties in the market. Some traders were in fact already enthusiastic to see
Bt eggplant in the market place. Most traders would prefer Bt eggplant as
hybrid (49%); 35%, both hybrid and OPV; and 12% as OPV.
Two percent of the trader-respondents would not market Bt eggplant while

the rest were not yet sure. These trader-respondents stated that they first
would like to look at the product quality (absence of pest damage, good
appearance), marketability, profitability, and consumer safety of the said
variety.
Across all trader-respondents, 48% would be willing to buy Bt eggplant at the

same price they are paying for non-Bt eggplant (Table 16). Forty-one percent
would want the price of Bt eggplant to be lower (by about 23%) than that of
non-Bt eggplant. Very few would be willing to pay a higher price (by about
20%). The reference prices used for non-Bt eggplant were PhP20/kg, which
is near the average buying price of most traders and PhP40/kg, which is near
the average selling price of wholesaler-retailers and retailers.
The trader-respondents opined that the price of Bt eggplant should be the

same as that of non-Bt eggplant to make it competitive and affordable
Chapter 9 321
322

Table 15. Traders awareness of Bt eggplant by study site, Philippines, 2013
-'-
- f-
- f-
-
-
Item
f-
f-
f-
f-
f-
f-
f-
f-
f-
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Chapter 9
Aware or have heard of Bt eggplant before

Yes 1 3 2 7 4 13 0 0 2 20 9 7
No 29 97 28 93 26 87 30 100 8 80 121 93
Total 30 100 30 100 30 100 30 100 10 100 130 100
If yes, source of information
Friends 0 0 1 50 1 25 0 0 0 0 2 22
TV/radio 0 0 0 0 1 25 0 0 2 100 3 33
Seminars for 0 0 0 0 1 25 0 0 0 0 1 11
farmers
Fellow farmer and 0 0 0 0 1 25 0 0 0 0 1 11
technicians
Department of 1 100 1 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 22
Agriculture (DA)
Total no. reporting 1 100 2 100 4 100 0 0 2 100 9 100
Knowledge/perception about attributes of Bt eggplant
Insect tolerant 0 0 0 0 2 50 0 0 1 25 3 27
Saves cost on 0 0 0 0 1 25 0 0 1 25 2 18
pesticides
No need to spray 0 0 0 0 1 25 0 0 2 50 3 27
insecticides/
chemicals
Do not know 1 100 2 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 27
Total no. of 1 100 2 100 4 100 0 0 4 100 11 100
responses
100
90
80
70
60
% 50 . Yes
40
30 -"0
20 _ Do not know
10
0
,,0";:P .~
.~ o~
&'.'
~~
.4.",0
.
~o'
iI
.,~ Q'
Figure 8. Proportion of trader-respondents by willingness to buy and

sell Bt eggplant, by study site, Philippines, 2013
to consumers. Prices lower than that of non-Bt eggplant would make Bt

eggplant affordable to consumers (64%) and easily known and sold (26%).
Other traders asserted that Bt eggplant should be cheaper as its production
cost would be lower because of the savings on pesticides.
Traders are willing to pay a price premium for Bt eggplant since it would be
a healthier vegetable with no or less spray of pesticides. Others opined that
if Bt eggplant is really a good commodity, making its price high would mean
better incomes for traders.
If Bt eggplant would be available and priced same as that of non-Bt eggplant,

the wholesalers, would on average, have 43% of the total eggplant volume
traded as Bt eggplant and 54% for the wholesaler-retailers. If Bt eggplant
would be cheaper than the non-Bt eggplant, the volume handled would
be high, ranging from 50% for assembler-wholesaler-retailers to 62% for
wholesaler-retailers. However, if it would be more expensive than the non-Bt
eggplant, the volume of Bt eggplant handled would be low, ranging from
27% for the wholesalers to 45% for the wholesaler-retailers. It is interesting to
note that some traders would be willing to sell only Bt eggplant whatever will
be its price relative to that of non-Bt eggplant.
Chapter 9 323
324

Table 16. Price level of Bt eggplant trader-respondents would be willing to pay by study site, Philippines, 2013
Price level of Cebu Iloilo Pangasinan Quezon Divisoria Total
Bt eggplant No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Chapter 9
Same as price of 17 57 10 33 16 53 12 40 8 80 63 48
non-Bt eggplant
Higher than the 1 3 3 10 2 7 5 17 1 10 12 9
price of non-Bt
eggplant
(18% higher) (26% higher) (23% higher) (13% higher) (38% higher) (20% higher)
Lower than the 11 37 17 57 11 37 13 43 1 10 53 41
price of non-Bt
eggplant
(18% lower) (24% lower) (19% lower) (29% lower) (6% lower) (23% lower)
Do not know 1 3 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 0 2 2
Total 30 100 30 100 30 100 30 100 10 100 130 100
* Figures in parentheses are the percentage price differences that traders are willing to pay for Bt eggplant. The reference prices used for non-Bt eggplant
were PhP20/kg, which is near the average buying price of most traders and PhP40/kg, which is near the average selling price of wholesaler-retailers and
retailers.
In marketing the commodities, 93% of the trader-respondents would separate

the Bt eggplant from the non-Bt eggplant to (i) distinguish Bt eggplant as
a new product (which would most likely command a different price) and (ii)
easily determine which eggplant would be more or most saleable. The few
traders who would combine the Bt eggplant with the non-Bt eggplant during
marketing would do so for additional income and as long as the features and
prices of the eggplants are the same.
Upon inquiry, majority (92%) of the trader-respondents will eat Bt eggplant

once it becomes available. A few respondents will not do so since they do not
know yet the taste. Some traders would also like to first observe the effects
on other consumers.
Marketing Problems and Recommendations
Problems encountered by traders in marketing eggplant were mostly the

FSB/worms inside the eggplant fruit, rejects/deformed eggplants, and rotting
of packaged eggplant when it gets damp/wet after fertilizer application. The
traders also complained of poor marketing practices by some farmers and
traders (e.g., mixing poor quality fruits with good quality ones), poor sales,
bitter taste of eggplants due to heavy pesticide application, non-payment of
the eggplants sold to buyers, and inadequate supply.
Meanwhile, the traders opined that once available, Bt eggplant could flood
the market (because of its potential high production) and lower the market
price, yet initial sales would be slow because it is new in the market.
In response to the above marketing problems, the traders recommended

that eggplant varieties, such as Bt eggplant, which would lessen farmers
dependence on pesticides, should be given utmost attention. Another
suggested solution was further research into safer pesticides that will
eradicate the FSB, worms, and other pests of eggplant, especially since the
pests have seemingly developed resistance to currently-available pesticides.
Willingness of Consumers to Buy Bt Eggplant
This study interviewed a total of 120 consumers, who averaged 45 years old,
mostly female (80%), married (61%), and had an average household size of
five members. More than half of the consumer-respondents (58%) graduated
from college; 14% reached college level; and 5% had post-graduate
education. Most respondents (56%) were professionals working in public or
Chapter 9 325
private offices, followed by vendors/retailers (15%), businessmen (6%), other

workers (6%), and plain housewives (6%). Monthly household income ranged
from less than PhP5,000 to more than PhP60,000 and averaged at PhP21,606.
More than half (54%) of the consumer-respondents had a household income
ranging from PhP5,001 to Ph15,000/month.
Consumption Pattern
Frequency and Quantity of Eggplant Purchased and Consumed. The

respondents purchase and consumption of eggplant was as frequent as daily
(1%) and as seldom as monthly (13%). Most of the respondents purchased
and consumed eggplants from once a week (31%) to three times a week
(31%), indicating strong consumer preference for the vegetable.
The consumers bought eggplants at an average of 1 kg per transaction, with

42% buying less than 1 kg and 48% buying at 1 kg-1.99 kg. Majority of these
respondents purchased eggplants from the local public market (64%); 18%,
supermarket; 11%, local public market and supermarket; 2%, local market and
farm; and 2%, at the farm.
The buying price of eggplant ranged from PhP3/kg to PhP80/kg.The lowest

price observed by respondents averaged at PhP19/kg while the highest price
averaged at PhP42/kg. Majority (59%) of the consumers did not buy more
eggplant when the price was low but bought less when the price was high.
Factors Considered in Buying Eggplant. In purchasing eggplant, the consumer-

respondents ranked fruit appearance as the most important factor, followed
by product-eating experience (as to flavor, tenderness, juiciness, and ease
of preparation), price, product effects (health, nutritional value, food safety,
and effects on the environment), availability, convenience of purchase, and
lastly, accessibility. The color, shape, size, and freshness are some of the traits
subsumed under product appearance.
Knowledge and Perceptions about Bt Eggplant
The consumers knowledge about Bt eggplant will influence their perception

towards the new variety and on their willingness to buy or consume the
product. Only 22% of the consumer-respondents were (somehow) aware
of the Bt eggplant. They learned it from the media, including magazines
and information materials (46%), friends (31%), and seminars and fora
(12%). Most respondents perceived that Bt eggplant has less or no chemical
326 Chapter 9
pesticides, would be non-toxic and safe to eat, and hence would also be
beneficial to consumers.
Willingness to Consume Bt Eggplant
Given the perceived benefits of the Bt eggplant, respondents were asked of

their willingness to buy and consume it. Figure 9 indicates that, across the
study sites, most of the consumer-respondents (77%) would be willing to
consume Bt eggplant, with Pangasinan posting the highest number of willing
consumers.
Of those willing to consume Bt eggplant, 35% would just like to try and taste
the Bt eggplant. Other reasons cited by other consumers were that they
believe that the new variety will have no or less chemicals, safer than existing
varieties, has no worms or holes, and will be healthier. Consumers not willing
to eat Bt eggplant were wary of its possible negative human health effects,
since it is a genetically modified product.
Perceived Acceptable Market Price for Bt Eggplant
If the price of eggplant in the market is PhP30/kg, 49% of the consumer-

respondents opined that Bt eggplant should be priced at PhP30/kg-PhP39/
kg (Table 17). Twenty-three percent of the respondents said that Bt eggplant
should be sold cheaper than the existing varieties at PhP20/kg-PhP29/kg.
90
80
70
60
50
% Willing
40
Not willing
30
20 Do not know
10
0
Cebu Iloilo Pangasinan Quezon Total
Province
Figure 9. Distribution of respondents by willingness to consume Bt

eggplant, by province, Philippines, 2013
Chapter 9 327
Table 17. Consumers willingness to pay for Bt eggplant, by province, Philippines, 2013
Price Cebu Iloilo Pangasinan Quezon Total
(PhP) No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
If current price of other varieties is PhP30/kg
10-19 0 0 3 12 3 12 3 10 9 9
20-29 4 17 7 27 7 28 6 20 24 23
30-39 15 65 12 46 10 40 14 47 51 49
40-49 3 13 3 12 3 12 7 23 16 15
50 and 1 4 1 4 2 8 0 0 4 4
above
Total 23 100 26 100 25 100 30 100 104 100
Mean 31 28 29 30 30
(PhP)
If current price of other varieties is PhP60/kg
30-39 2 10 8 36 3 12 3 10 16 17
40-49 4 20 2 9 4 17 2 7 12 13
50-59 2 10 3 14 3 12 7 24 15 16
60-69 10 50 6 27 6 25 10 34 32 34
70-79 2 10 2 9 6 25 6 21 16 17
80 and 0 0 1 4 2 8 1 3 4 4
above
Total 20 100 22 100 24 100 29 100 95 100
Mean 54 48 57 56 53
(PhP)
They reasoned that Bt eggplant should be cheaper since production cost is

lower (with less pesticide expense) and to make it affordable to consumers.
Meanwhile, 19% of the respondents believed that Bt eggplant should be sold
at a minimum of PhP40/kg, a higher price than those of existing varieties,
since it is a better, safer, and healthier variety. On average, all consumer-
respondents were willing to pay PhP30/kg for Bt eggplant when non-Bt
eggplant are sold at PhP30/kg.
On the other hand, if the price of non-Bt eggplant varieties is PhP60/kg,

34% of the consumers thought that the price of Bt eggplant should range at
PhP60/kg-PhP69/kg (Table 17). Twenty-one percent viewed that Bt eggplant
should be sold at least PhP70/kg, which is much higher than the price of
existing varieties. Others perceived that Bt eggplant should be sold at the
same price as the other varieties while some consumers opt for a price lower
328 Chapter 9
than that of the other varieties (46%). When the price of eggplant is PhP60/
kg, consumer-respondents were willing to pay an average of PhP53/kg for Bt
eggplant, i.e., at a price lower than that of non-Bt eggplant.
Eggplant Consumption Issues
Most respondents (51%) commonly encountered problems in consuming

eggplant such as: (i) numerous worms and holes inside very nice-looking
eggplants, (ii) hard flesh or uneven cooking, (iii) short shelf-life and easily
spoils, (iv) poor or bitter taste, and (v) causing itchiness or allergy. In this
regard, the consumer-respondents deemed it best to make the pesticide-free
Bt eggplant available in the market. A quarter of the group showed interest in
eggplant varieties that will be safer to eat and with uniform size, less seeds,
more tolerance to pests and diseases, longer shelf-life, more nutrients and
better taste. While 13% of the respondents preferred organically-grown
eggplants, about 7% suggested that it will be better to develop eggplant
varieties requiring no or very minimal chemical application to control pests.
Willingness of the Local Government Units to Promote Bt Eggplant
Eggplant varieties grown in the study sites were mostly hybrid, with native
varieties grown only in Sta. Barbara and Villasis, Pangasinan and Miag-ao,
Iloilo. Among the vegetables grown in the study sites, eggplant generally
ranked first in terms of area planted and production.
Eggplant fruit and shoot borer (FSB) was considered the major pest occurring
throughout the growing period, starting 2 weeks after planting and peaking
in July to December especially during heavy rains. Yield loss due to FSB
was estimated at a high of 90% if no pesticide application was done and
about 30% if pesticides were applied. According to the majority (69%) of the
local government unit (LGU) officials interviewed, farmers sprayed chemical
pesticides frequentlyfrom 2-3 days to as many as 75-85 times per season
to control FSB infestation. Only the LGUs of Leon, Iloilo and Dolores, Quezon
mentioned using Trichogramma to control FSB. Most (69%) of the LGU
officials interviewed have likewise observed that FSB infestation had been
worsening over time.
Chapter 9 329
LGU Programs, Policies and Assistance for Eggplant Farmers
All the municipal/city and provincial agricultural offices in the study sites
provide technical and marketing assistance to eggplant farmers. For one, the
Department of AgricultureRegional Field Units (DA-RFUs) provide farmers
subsidized or free seeds through the municipal agricultural offices (MAOs)
to address their concern on high seed costs. The municipal LGUs gave small
farmers as much as 1 teaspoon of free seeds each and 200 grams each to
commercial-scale farmers. They also provide other services such as soil
analysis and trainings on eggplant production and crop protection. The use
of Trichogramma against borers was being promoted in Quezon, and organic
eggplant farming was demonstrated in Carcar, Cebu.
Some LGUs helped eggplant farmers sell their produce by providing them
price information through the Price Monitoring Board and by linking them
to market outlets. Some LGUs supported farmers in planting other crops
(crop diversification) when eggplant prices were low. Others recommended
programming eggplant planting within an area to avoid oversupply and
hence price fluctuations or decline. There was also the Cebu Office of the
Provincial Governments PhP10 million budget appropriation for the agri-
fishery sector (crop and life insurance of eggplant farmers included) for 2013
in partnership with the Philippine Crop Insurance Corporation (PCIC). This
fund can be accessed through the MAOs and the OPAg. A similar program
has been implemented since 2010.
In addition, the University of the Philippines Los Baos (UPLB) assisted the
LGUs in Sta. Maria, Pangasinan (where multi-location trials of Bt eggplant
were done) with farm inputs and technical and economic study, and the
Tiaong, Quezon eggplant farmers with pest and disease inspection and crop
protection advice.
LGUs Awareness on Bt Eggplant
Except in Miag-ao, Iloilo, all LGUs particularly the MAOs in Sta. Maria and
Asingan, Pangasinan were aware of Bt eggplant and their characteristics,
having received information from UPLB, DA regional offices, and Southeast
Asian Regional Center for Graduate Studies and Research in Agriculture
(SEARCA), and/or through radio, TV, and magazines.
The Cebu provincial agriculturist learned about the Bt technology in a

biotechnology seminar during a national corn congress held in Isabela
330 Chapter 9
(Region II). The Iloilo OPAg Provincial Coordinator learned about it when
he attended a biotechnology training at UPLB in January 2013. From these
seminars, they understood that Bt eggplant is FSB/insect-tolerant, high-
yielding, has better fruit quality, and that farmers can save on pesticide use.
The rest of the LGUs learned about Bt eggplant from seed companies,
agricultural technician, internet, and magazines.
Willingness to Promote Bt Eggplant
Majority of the LGUs would be willing to promote Bt eggplant because of

its potential higher yield, expected higher returns and reduced costs of
production, benefits to both farmers and consumers, and human health
benefits (Table 18). However, as with any other new technology, Bt eggplant
should first be thoroughly explained. One OPAg expressed hesitation to
promote it since there were highly technical matters not yet fully understood
about the new food-related Bt commodity.
The OPAg in Cebu emphasized that they would promote Bt eggplant as

long as it can pass the stringent regulatory system and is not hazardous to
health. On the other hand, the OPAg in Quezon opposed it as they wanted to
promote organic agriculture. In Tiaong, Quezon, majority of the farmers did
not know about Bt eggplant yet, hence the municipal agriculturist could not
tell whether they would promote it or not. The LGU nevertheless expressed
willingness to promote Bt eggplant if the farmers have been informed of its
potential benefits as well as health hazards and disadvantages (if any).
Most (45%) of the LGU officials would prefer Bt eggplant seeds as OPV; 36%
would prefer it as hybrid; and 18%, either hybrid or OPV. They feel that OPV
Bt eggplant would be more economical for farmers since the seeds can be
saved for use in the next planting. Hybrids yielded more and better fruits,
hence earned higher returns, than the OPVs or native variety. Growing non-Bt
Table 18. LGUs willingness to promote Bt eggplant, Philippines, 2013

Provincial LGUs Municipal LGUs
Item
No. % No. %
Willing 1 25 8 67
Not willing 1 25 1 8
Do not know 2 50 3 25
Total 4 100 12 100
Chapter 9 331
hybrids can be costly since production often requires heavy use of pesticides
to attain the yield potential and the farmers also need to buy the hybrid
seeds every planting season.
To address the need for intensive and extensive information campaigns on

biotechnology in general and Bt eggplant in particular, the LGUs emphasized
the merits of establishing technology demonstration (techno-demo) areas
within key eggplant production sites. Other recommendations that could
help promote Bt eggplant adoption were trainings, seminars, and distribution
of information, education, and communication (IEC) materials to farmers, as
well as to the wider community. Product launch by seed companies and field
trials demonstrating higher yields with minimal use of chemical spray would
convince farmers to adopt Bt eggplant.
Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations
This chapter presents results of the assessment on the market prospects of Bt

eggplant at the seed market and food market levels using relevant secondary
data from the Bureau of Agricultural Statistics and the LGUs, as well as
primary information generated via stakeholder consultations, key informant
interviews, and socioeconomic surveys. The study was conducted in four
major eggplant-producing provinces/regions, namely Pangasinan, Quezon,
Cebu, and Iloilo.
A total of 30 farmers, 30 traders (with additional 10 traders in Divisoria, Metro

Manila), and 30 consumers were interviewed from each province. For the
potential suppliers of Bt eggplant seeds, 3 seed companies, 8 distributors,
and 16 dealers who were supplying eggplant seeds in the study sites were
surveyed.
Seed Companies, Distributors, and Dealers
While the three seed companies interviewed have already heard about
Bt eggplant, majority of the seed distributors and dealers were however
not yet aware of the new technology. With the perceived benefits from Bt
eggplantinsect (FSB) tolerance, no or less use of pesticides, and higher
yieldmore than 80% of the respondents were willing to sell Bt eggplant
seeds, preferably as hybrid varieties, as long as there is demand. The price of
Bt eggplant seeds would be lower than that of currently sold eggplant seeds,
but may still depend on the mark-up set by the company and on the final
332 Chapter 9
marketing arrangement. The seed suppliers should establish demonstration

farms; distribute free seed samples, brochures/pamphlets, and other IEC
materials; conduct farmers meetings; and provide give-aways in launching
the Bt eggplant variety.
Eggplant Farmers
The farmer-respondents reported that FSB infestation has seemingly

worsened over the years, with the pest having developed resistance to
pesticides. Majority of these eggplant farmers had no prior knowledge of
Bt eggplant yet expressed interest to adopt it when informed of its FSB
resistance. Some respondents could be potential early adoptors who would
grow Bt eggplant in the immediate cropping season after commercialization.
Others were either late adoptors who would plant it in the next cropping
season or following year, or undecided with the wait and see learning
attitude. Being used to the proven performance of current eggplant varieties,
these farmers apparently did not want to deal with any perceived uncertainty
with Bt eggplant.
Since they were using hybrid eggplant, majority of the farmer-respondents

prefer Bt eggplant to be commercialized as hybrids. Still others prefer Bt
eggplant to be released as OPVs. As such, the development and marketing
of hybrid and OPV Bt eggplant have to address various farmer groups across
different geographical locations. The specific technology to be introduced
must, from the potential adoptors perspective, at least equal if not surpass
the attributes of currently-used products.
Majority of the potential farmer-adoptors were willing to pay for Bt eggplant

at a price higher than that of current conventional eggplant varieties. This
indicates a significant potential for developing the market for the Bt eggplant,
including effective information dissemination campaigns to make farmers
better aware of the price premium that goes with the new technology. Based
on the experience with GM corn, the role of the private sector, particularly the
seed companies, could be harnessed to create a market niche for Bt eggplant.
Traders
Majority of the trader-respondents were selling eggplant throughout the year,

but more of the hybrid varieties than OPVs, at comparable average buying
and selling prices. On average, eggplant sales gave traders the highest
earnings and contributed 29% to their total vegetable sales.
Chapter 9 333
Although 93% of the traders interviewed were have not yet heard about Bt
eggplant, a huge majority would be willing to buy and sell Bt eggplant given
its potential marketability and significant profitability. Similar to the seed
suppliers and eggplant farmers, most traders prefer to have Bt eggplant as
a hybrid. Traders who would not engage, or were uncertain of engaging, in
Bt eggplant marketing expressed that the technologys marketability, quality,
safety, and contribution to profits, once proven, may reverse their current
stand.
Most traders would be willing to acquire Bt eggplant at a price same as or

lower than that they are paying for non-Bt eggplant. This would make the Bt
eggplant saleable and affordable to consumers. If the prices of Bt eggplant
and non-Bt eggplant would be equal, traders would handle comparable
volumes of the two types of eggplant. With price differences, traders would
handle a bigger volume of the cheaper eggplant and hence conversely a
smaller volume of the more expensive one. If it would be cheaper than the
non-Bt eggplant, the Bt eggplant would comprise 50% of the total volume
handled by assembler-wholesaler-retailers and 62% of that by the wholesaler-
retailers. If Bt eggplant prices are higher, the volume handled would decrease
to 27% for the wholesalers and to 45% for the wholesaler-retailers.
Problems of the industry were mostly the FSB/worms and other pests,
eggplant rejects, the heavy spray of pesticides which is not good to health,
oversupply and low prices, and erratic climate, among others. As to problems
foreseen in marketing Bt eggplant, two traders mentioned that initial sales
would be low because Bt eggplant is new in the market. Another trader said
that there could be oversupply of eggplant in the market once Bt eggplant
becomes available.
Traders recommended the development of eggplant varieties (including Bt

eggplant) which would eliminate farmers dependence on pesticides and
which would be suitable to any type of climate. Other recommendations were
organic farming, techno-demo, and more training programs on production
and marketing, and developing good seeds with higher yield/germination
rate.
Consumers
Eggplant consumption was mostly once to three times a week, at an

average of 1 kilogram per purchase, most commonly from the local/public
334 Chapter 9
market. The factors considered in buying eggplant were appearance, eating

experience, price, product effects, and availability.
While majority of the consumer-respondents were unaware of Bt eggplant,

those familiar with the technology learned of it from friends and media.
Nevertheless, most of the respondents perceived safety from pesticide
chemicals as the major consumer benefit from Bt eggplant and would be
willing to buy and consume it. In general, however, the consumers would
prefer Bt eggplant to be offered at a retail price cheaper than the currently
available varieties. They deem that Bt eggplant would have lower farm
production costs and, as a new variety, should have a low introductory market
price.
Local Government Units
The LGU officials observed that FSB infestation of eggplant had been
worsening overtime, with yield loss estimated at a high of 90% when no
pesticide application was done. Majority of them were willing to promote
Bt eggplant, especially with its promise of higher outputs, lower production
costs, and higher farmer incomes. The new technology should also pass the
stringent regulatory system and pose no hazard to human health and the
environment. As farmers in some areas were still unaware of Bt eggplant,
the MAO would only promote it if the advantages and disadvantages of the
technology have been observed in field trials.
The LGUs stressed that the establishment of the techno-demo area is the
best strategy to promote Bt eggplant. Other recommendations that could
help promote Bt eggplant adoption were trainings, seminars, distribution of
IEC materials to farmers, and product launching by different seed companies.
Higher yields with minimal use of chemical spray would convince farmers to
use Bt eggplant.
General Industry Concerns and the Potential Role of Bt Eggplant
The various eggplant industry stakeholders who participated in this

study shared a whole range of production and marketing concerns. Seed
suppliers mentioned low shelf-life of seeds, poor germination rate, price
differences and fluctuations, and unreliability of supply from source. The
farmers reported receiving minimal technical assistance in production and
no marketing assistance from any sector. Similar to the seed suppliers, the
eggplant traders observed, on the production side, FSB/worms inside the
Chapter 9 335
fruits, product deformities, and poor shelf-life; and unreliable supply and/or
markets, low prices, poor sales, and bad debts, on the marketing side.
A significant majority of the stakeholder-respondents expressed interest in

the potential availability of Bt eggplant, given its potential to sustainably
address some of the abovementioned concerns. Seed suppliers perceived
the marketability of Bt eggplant seeds; farmers, the potential reduction (if
not elimination) of FSB infestation in their farms; the traders, the anticipated
profits in marketing the new variety; the consumers, the joy of eating better-
quality and pesticide-free eggplant; and the LGUs, the higher yields, lower
costs, and increased returns for eggplant farmers. The various eggplant
industry stakeholders nevertheless need to be assured of the safety of Bt
eggplant to humans and the environment and that its potential positive
attributes would be realized. Massive dissemination of information on the Bt
eggplant technology through techno-demos, distribution of IEC materials,
and conduct of trainings and seminars (especially for the LGUs and farmers),
as well as active promotion and marketing strategies are imperative. These
would reduce unfounded biases against and improve the level of stakeholder
knowledge on the potential benefits from adopting the Bt eggplant seed
variety, thereby increasing the potential market demand and client base.
The public and private sectors should thus work together towards achieving
the promises offered by the Bt eggplant technology for the good of all
stakeholders within the industry.
References
Agricultural Biotechnology Support Project II. 2010. Fruit and Shoot Borer Resistant (FSBR)
Eggplant. Project Profile. www.absp2.cornell.edu/projects/project.cfm?productid=2.
July 27.
Chupungco, A., D. Elazegui, and M.R. Nguyen. 2011. Seed System, Production and
Marketing of Eggplant in Three Major Producing Provinces in the Philippines. The
Philippine Journal of Crop Science 36 (2): 37-47.August.
Christensen, P. 2012. M.S. Swaminathan and the rejection of Bt eggplant in India. Seed in
Context Blog (www.intlcorn.com/seedsiteblog/?p=513. May 28) (Accessed 13 June
2013).
FA2013014. The safety of genetically-modified food produced through modern
biotechnology. www.fda.gov.ph/advisories/food79847-fda-advisory (Accessed 28 June
2013).
Francisco, S. 2009. Costs and Benefits of Bt Eggplant with Resistance to Fruit and Shoot
Borer in the Philippines. In Norton, G.W. and D.M. Hautea (eds.). 2009. Projected
Impacts of Agricultural Biotechnologies for Fruits and Vegetables in the Philippines
and Indonesia. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications
(ISAAA) and SEAMEO Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and
Research in Agriculture (SEARCA). College, Laguna, Philippines.
336 Chapter 9
Granberry, D.M. 1990. Eggplant: Commercial Vegetable Production. Circular 812.

Cooperative Extension Service. The University of Georgia College of Agriculture.
Athens, Georgia. January. In USDA (US Department of Agriculture). 1996. In USDA (US
Department of Agriculture). 1996. Eggplant: An Economic Assessment of the Feasibility
of Providing Multiple-Peril Crop Insurance. Prepared for the Federal Crop Insurance
Corporation.
Hautea, D.M. and J.O. Narciso. 2007. Questions and Answers on the Development of Fruit
and Shoot Borer Resistant Eggplant in the Philippines. IPB-UPLB-ABSPII.
Kumar, S., P.A. Lakshmi Prassana, and S.Wankhade. 2011. Potential benefits of Bt brinjal in
IndiaAn economic assessment. Agricultural Economics Research Review 24 (January
June): 83.
Maghirang, R.G. 2001. Organikong Gulayan: Pagtatanim ng Organikong Talong. www.bar.
gov.ph/veggies today.Vol.2-3.htm. (Accessed August 5, 2010).
Nuevo, P.A. undated. Improvement of the Handling System of Eggplant. www.bar.gov.ph/
vegrde/VeggiesTodayVol2-.htm (Downloaded July 23, 2010).
Panopio, J. and S. Mercado. 2013. Communication Strategies for Fruit and Shoot Borer
Resistant Bt Eggplant Outreach. ISAAA Brief 45. From Monologue to Stakeholder
Engagement: The Evolution of Biotech Communication. No. 45. p. 24.
Panopio, J. and S. Mercado. 2012. FSBR/Bt eggplant: a safer, more profitable biotech
innovation. Biotechnology Information Resource No. 1.
Pealba, L.M., D.D. Elazegui, M.M. Paunlagui, E.E. Dumayas, and Rd.T. Baconguis. 2012.
Supporting Biotechnology Regulatory Policy Processes in the Philippines. In
Supporting Biotechnology Regulatory Policy Processes in Southeast Asia, Project
Report, International Development Research Centre.
PhilRice (Philippine Rice Research Institute). 2007. Ex-Ante Economic Impact Assessment of
Bt Eggplant Crop Production in the Philippines.
Quicoy, C.B. 2010. Productivity and Technical Efficiency of Eggplant Production in Selected
Provinces in the Philippines: Stochastic Production Function Approach. Presentation
delivered at the SEARCA Agriculture and Development Seminar Series, August 24.
Tan, T.J. 2007. Analysis of the marketing system of eggplants produced in selected towns of
Batangas. Unpublished undergraduate thesis, College of Economics and Management,
University of the Philippines Los Baos, College, Laguna.
UPLB Office of the Chancellor. 2013. Circular/Position Paper for the information of the UPLB
community: UPLB will ask the Court of Appeals to reconsider its decision to stop the
field trials of Bt talong (Accessed July 18, 2013).
USDA (US Department of Agriculture). 1996. Eggplant: An Economic Assessment of the
Feasibility of Providing Multiple-Peril Crop Insurance. Prepared for the Federal Crop
Insurance Corporation.
Chapter 9 337
de Guzman
Chapter 10
Challenges and Policy Implications

Panfilo G. de Guzman
Eggplant production accounts for nearly one-third of the total volume of the
top vegetables grown in the Philippines. Current productivity, however, is
about only half of the average yield in Asia and the world, mainly due to the
devastating damage caused by the eggplant fruit and shoot borer (FSB).
In 2003, the Institute of Plant Breeding of the University of the Philippines

Los Baos (IPB-UPLB) initiated and led local research and development of
a biotech eggplant, Bt eggplant, with built-in resistance to FSB. Promising
varieties of Bt eggplant are currently under advanced stage of evaluation for
horticultural performance and biosafety.
A comprehensive biosafety assessment of crops improved through genetic

modification forms an integral part of the Philippine regulatory system for
the approval and commercial use of biotech crops. In addition to agronomic
performance, science-based assessments for food and environmental safety
are performed at various stages of research and product development.
The countrys biotechnology regulatory system serves as a model among
Asian countries (Cabanilla, 2007) and widely recognized as science-based,
thorough, and transparent (USDA GAIN Report, 2013). Biosafety assessments
are conducted in accordance with internationally accepted standards and
guidelines, particularly of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety and the Codex
Alimentarius.
338 Chapter 10
Despite the availability of comprehensive and conclusive science-based

studies (Nicolia et al., 2013) underscoring the safety of biotech crops to
human health and the environment, demands to ban the commercial use
and field trials of genetically modified (GM) crops are made now and then
by anti-GMO (genetically modified organisms) groups and advocates. The
recent experience with the Writ of Kalikasan1 case against the field trial
of Bt eggplant in the Philippines points to the diversionary tactics of anti-
GMO groups ignoring the merits of credible scientific studies on the safety
of biotech crops. The current battleground seems to focus not on safety
considerations but rather on socio-political concerns and credibility of the
regulatory system allowing research and development on biotechnology.
The widely criticized court decision granting the petition of Greenpeace

to halt the conduct of field trials of Bt eggplant effectively slowed the final
approval process towards the commercialization of this biotech eggplant
in the country. Study suggests, however, that the cost of forgone benefits
stemming from even a relatively brief delay in the release of biotech products
far outweigh both direct research and regulatory costs (Bayer, Norton and
Falck-Zepeda, 2010).
Results of impact assessment studies presented in the previous chapters

highlight the potential benefits that can be derived from Bt eggplant
adoption. Farmers stand to gain higher net farm income with Bt eggplant
than what can be obtained from using conventional varieties. Higher income
can be attributed to increased marketable yield and savings from reduced
expenses on insecticides and hired labor. In effect, Bt eggplant has the
potential to reduce poverty incidence among eggplant farming households
adopting the technology. In addition to increased income, the adoption
of Bt eggplant could also provide significant health and environmental
1
In April 2012, Greenpeace and supporters lodged a petition to the Supreme Court for the
imposition of Writ of Kalikasan against the conduct of field trials of Bt eggplant. The petition
was remanded by the Supreme Court to the Court of Appeals who heard the case. On
17 May 2013, the Court of Appeals issued a decision granting the petition for the Writ of
Kalikasan against the Bt eggplant field trial, directing the respondents to cease and desist
from conducting the field trials. The decision was principally anchored on the precautionary
principle. Respondents filed a motion for reconsideration but on 20 September 2013, the
Court of Appeals re-affirmed its earlier decision. Respondents filed an appeal to the Supreme
Court and are currently waiting for the decision.
Writ of Kalikasan is a legal remedy under Philippine law which provides for the protection of
ones right to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of
nature as provided for in Section 16, Article II of the Philippine Constitution.
Chapter 10 339
de Guzman
benefits mainly through significant reduction in the environmental impacts

of pesticides used in conventional eggplant production. Market prospects of
Bt eggplant commercialization is encouraging as farmers, seed distributors
and traders, and consumers in major eggplant-producing provinces are very
much willing to adopt the technology.
The Role of Biotech Communication
Acceptance of products of advanced science technology is highly dependent

on a receptive and appreciative society (Sinemus and Egelhofer, 2007).
Providing the public with the right and comprehensible information on the
direct relevance and benefits of the product will enable them to make the
right judgement and decision on what is acceptable science (Escano, 2013).
An improvement in the efficacy of biotech communication strategies could
have a significant impact on the future of biotech crops.
Biotechnology communication case studies by Navarro and Hautea (2011)

provide unique and rich examples of efforts at fostering greater awareness
and understanding of crop biotechnology through science communication.
Important lessons learned from these case studies are discussed below.
Bridge the divide between science and society
The continuing debate and discussions on contentious issues on

biotechnology call for appreciation of science communication requiring
knowledge sharing, deliberation, negotiation, and participation among
different stakeholders. Science alone will not be able to advance the debate,
and deliberate communication strategies are needed to ensure informed
discussion. Science communication requires collaboration and interfaces
between and among different entities from a multi-disciplinary and multi-
sectoral environment. For example, academic communities and societies
in China are actively involved in improving the publics understanding of
science. Meanwhile, coordinated and strategic alliance of industry groups
with government agencies resulted in greater success of biotechnology
communication initiatives in Australia.
Enhance the capacity of science communicators
Building a strong and effective cadre of science communicators who can

provide scientific information that is concise, accurate, and understandable
340 Chapter 10
to the general public is important. In this regard, the credibility of science

communicators will also be important as the public highly trusts information
coming from experts. Studies showed that university scientists are rated high
on the credibility ladder (Juanillo, 2003; Torres et al., 2006). To effectively
communicate science, science communicators must also be able to relate
science to everyday life.
Identify stakeholder groups and champions
Stakeholders in the biotech debate have specific information needs

and communication requirements. Important target groups for science
communication objectives include policymakers, scientists, academics,
regulators, farmers, and media. It is important to identify and nurture
champions from these groups who can advance the cause of biotechnology
among their peers. In particular, journalists play a crucial role in the biotech
debate as they can influence public perception with the coverage and tone
of their science writing. It is important to identify journalists who can write
balanced and accurate articles.
Improve the availability of and access to information
Communicating balanced information in multimedia and interpersonal

channels facilitate the access of different stakeholders to biotechnology
information. In addition to proven models of communication, different
medium and modality of information dissemination and knowledge sharing
can be explored, without sacrificing accuracy, reliability and objectiveness.
Internet media platforms2 can be tested and developed. Internet has become
the fastest growing communication medium and important channel for
obtaining information and allowing direct exchange.
Focus on public values
Public attitude towards technology is often shaped by values more

than the information itself. For instance, values that influence positively
towards GM food include trust in science and the regulatory system,
consumer consultation, and consumer benefits; negative values are things
that are perceived to be unnatural, unnecessary, and unknown. Framing
the biotech communication around values (e.g., those that address
2
Popular social media platforms include Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and blogs.
Chapter 10 341
de Guzman
environmental concerns and food security) is more effective than framing the
communication around the technology.
Improving Biotech Communication
Diverse viewpoints have made crop biotechnology a recurring and

contentious public issue. Conflicting opinions of the proponents and
opponents of the technology create confusion and polarization of
stakeholders in the debate. In addition, the lack of scientific understanding
has compromised and aggravated the quality of debates (Navarro and
Hautea, 2011). The perceived risks of biotechnology products highlighted in
the discourse by opponents of the technology create fear, uncertainties and
doubts among the public.
Key to acceptance of biotechnology products is to take public concerns

seriously, and at the same time provide an environment that encourages
stakeholders to participate in dynamic discussions and decision making. For
specific target groups, Weitze and Phler (2013) recommend taking a more
problem-oriented approach rather than technology-oriented approach to
communication. Meanwhile, there is greater appreciation for information
coming from credible and trustworthy individuals who are experts in the field.
Notably, public awareness on the benefits of biotechnology should be

vigorously pursued. Sinemus and Egelhofer (2007) forwarded the idea
of a consumer benefits communication strategy rather than a classical
risks communication approach. End-users are more accepting of advanced
technology when they are informed of its direct and tangible benefits
(Escano, 2013). In the case of Bt eggplant, as highlighted in the previous
chapter, important considerations for farmers to adopt the technology
include yield advantages, profitability, and reduced pesticide use; consumers
are more interested on the quality, food safety (e.g., pesticide-free), and
affordability of the eggplant fruits. Proactive communication should therefore
emphasize these benefits.
Operational framework for biotech communication followed at ISAAA

(Navarro, Natividad-Tome, and Gimutao, 2013) can provide guidelines
for an effective biotech communication (Figure 1). Each communication
step is guided by a specific or combined objective(s). Priority stakeholders
are identified, as well as their respective levels of understanding about
biotech, concerns, and information needs. Key messages are developed
342 Chapter 10
Figure 1. ISAAAs operational framework for biotech communication
based on issues that need to be addressed. A communication strategy

is then formulated, and appropriate and complementary combination
of interpersonal and mediated channels are determined based on best
practices and channel preferences of stakeholders. Establishing linkages
and partnerships with other stakeholders can contribute to attaining
communication goals and objectives and maximizing resources. Feedback
mechanism built into the system takes into consideration the strengths and
weaknesses of the activity or process, as well as communication barriers.
An alternative action is then considered and implemented to improve
the process and make it responsive to changes and developments in the
environment.
The Role of Policy
Government policies do play an important role in providing a conducive

environment for the development and advancement of biotechnology.
As articulated in the 2001 policy of the Philippine government3, safe and
3
Policy Statement on Modern Biotechnology signed by then President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo on 18 June 2001.
Chapter 10 343
de Guzman
responsible use of modern biotechnology and its products is seen as

one of the several means to achieve and sustain food security, equitable
access to health services, sustainable and safe environment, and industry
development. While the current Philippine regulatory system for biosafety
assessment of biotech products is relatively robust, there are a number of
institutional issues that need to be addressed to further strengthen the
system (Pealba et al., 2005). For one, the regulatory process could be
streamlined to make biotechnology research and development (R&D) more
cost-effective, without compromising the integrity of the process and the
products.
The increasing intensive research into biotech crops and their growing
commercialization globally require a paradigm shift in agricultural policy
formulation, and perhaps even research priority setting, that can promote
R&D on and sustainable intensification of biotech crops.
There is a felt need to review national and local policies that discriminate
against the use of GMO products. For instance, Republic Act 10068 or the
Organic Agriculture Act of 20104 explicitly excludes the use of GMOs in
organic farming systems. Local government ordinances imposing blanket
restrictions on the use of biotech products (or field testing of biotech crops)
are also enforced in a number of provinces and municipalities5 around the
country. Concerns on how such policies constrain the farmers freedom of
choice are often ventilated in formal and informal discussions.
Farming in the Philippines varies as to crops, physico-climatic conditions,

market access, and farmers capacity in terms of capitalization, skills, and
knowledge. There is greater potential to achieving food security and
sustainability objectives if farmers are given freedom of choice to adopt
proven crop technologies and production systems that can increase
agricultural productivity. The more rational policy option is co-existence
between GMO-based farming and organic agriculture, which is also in
keeping with the democratic tradition of providing democratic space for
everyone (Halos, 2010).
4
Section 3(b) of RA10068 defines organic agriculture as including all agricultural systems that
promote ecologically sound, socially acceptable, economically viable and technically feasible
production of food and fibers. While it also includes the use of biotechnology, it explicitly
stated that biotechnology shall not include genetically modified organisms or GMOs.
5
Provinces with anti-GMO ordinances include Bohol, Oriental Mindoro, Negros Occidental, and
Negros Oriental; Sta. Barbara in Iloilo City, prohibits the conduct of Bt eggplant trials.
344 Chapter 10
As argued by Gerpacio and Pingali (2007), it is important to recognize that

technology both simple and advanced is not the only key to increasing
productivity, improving the sustainability of intensified production systems,
and improving the conditions of farmers. Substantial public investments
should be made in rural infrastructure, agricultural training and extension,
input and output distribution and marketing systems, and harvest and post-
harvest facilities. The returns to farmer investments in high-yielding varieties,
including Bt eggplant, can be better maximized if such facilities and services
are provided and the overall policy environment made more conducive.
References
Bayer, J.C., G.W. Norton, and J.B. Falck-Zepeda. 2010. Cost of compliance with
biotechnology regulation in the Philippines. AgBioForum 13(1): 53-62.
Cabanilla, L.S. 2007. Socioeconomic and political concerns for GM foods and biotechnology
adoption in the Philippines. AgBioForum 10(3): 178-183.
Escano, M.T.R. 2013. Bt eggplant: A review of science communication approach in the
Philippines. The International Journal of Social Sciences 11(1): 61-68.
Gerpacio, R.V. and P.L. Pingali. 2007. Tropical and Subtropical Maize in Asia: Production,
Systems, Constraints and Research Priorities. Mexico, D.F.: CIMMYT.
Halos, S.C. 2010. Genetically modified organisms and organic agriculture: Productivity and
harmony in co-existence. Paper presented in Seminar on Securing Food and Increasing
Income through Biotechnology, Eurotel, Quezon City, 29 September 2010.
Juanillo, N. Jr. 2003. The Social and Cultural Dimensions of Agricultural Biotechnology
in Southeast Asia: Public Understanding, Perceptions, and Attitudes towards
Biotechnology in the Philippines. University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, USA and
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), Ithaca,
New York, USA.
Navarro, M.J., K. Tome and K. Gimutao. 2013. From Monologue to Stakeholder Engagement:
The Evolution of Biotech Communication. ISAAA Brief No. 45, International Service for
the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA), Ithaca, New York, USA.
Navarro, M.J. and R.A. Hautea (eds). 2011. Communication Challenges and Convergence
in Crop Biotechnology. International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech
Applications (ISAAA), Ithaca, New York, USA and SEAMEO Southeast Asian Regional
Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA), Los Baos, Laguna,
Philippines.
Nicolia, A., A. Manzo, F. Veronesi, and D. Roselini. 2013. An overview of the last 10 years
of genetically engineered crop safety research. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology.
Published online 13 September 2013. http://informahealthcare.com/bty.
Pealba, L.M, J.A. Fajardo, F.A. Sanchez, and A.O. Grande. 2005. Biotechnology Product
Development, Biosafety Regulation and Environmental Risks Assessment in the
Philippines. EEPSEA Research Report No. 2005-RR13. Economy and Environmental
Program for Southeast Asia (EEPSEA), Singapore.
Republic Act 10068. An Act Providing for the Development and Promotion of Organic
Agriculture in the Philippines and for Other Purposes.
Sinemus, K. and M. Egelhofer. 2007. Transparent communication strategy on GMOs: Will it
change public opinion? Biotechnology Journal, 2: 1141-1146.
Chapter 10 345
de Guzman
Torres, C., M. Suva, L. Carpio, and W. Dagli. 2006. Public Understanding and Perception
of and Attitude Towards Agricultural Biotechnology in the Philippines. College of
Development Communication, University of the Philippines Los Baos, SEAMEO
Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA), and
International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA).
USDA GAIN Report. 2013. Philippine Biotechnology Situation Outlook. 17 July 2013.
Weitze, M.D. and A. Phler. 2013. Improving biotechnology communication. Biotechnology
Journal 8: 970-972.
346 Chapter 10
SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACTS OF
BtEGGPLANT
Ex-ante Case Studies in the Philippines

ABOUT THE BOOK

Eggplant production accounts ror nearly one-third of the
total volume of the top vegetables grown in the
r
Philip ines. Current productivity, however, is about only
half 0 the average yield in Asia and the world. Such low
productivity is attributed to the devastating damage
caused by the eggplant fruit and shoot borer. In 2003,
research started in the development of a biotech
eggplant, Bt eggplant, with built-in resistance to the fruit
and shoot borer. Promising varieties of this biotech
eggplant are currently under advanced stage evaluation
for horticultural performance and biosafety.
This hook presents the findings of completed eX-(lnte

r
studies on the market prospects and otential economiC,
health, and environmental impacts 0 Bt eggplant in the
Philippines. These analyses are complemented by studies
on pesticide use, costs and returns of conventional
eggplant production, and supply chains In eggplant
marketing. Ali the studies were conducted in major
eggplant-producing prcwioces in the country, and used
both primary and secondary data and information.

Eggplant Industry in The PH

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eggplant Industry in The PH

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eggplant Industry in The PH

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats



2014 ISAAA and SEARCA

About the Editors iv

Chapter 1 Overview and Synthesis 1

Chapter 2 The Eggplant Industry in the Philippines: Seed System, 9

Chapter 3 Insecticide Residues in Soil, Water, and Eggplant Fruits: 61

Chapter 4 The Eggplant Subsector in Davao Region, North Cotabato, 97

Chapter 5 Supply Chain of the Eggplant Industry in Selected Areas 126

Chapter 6 Socioeconomic Impacts of Bt Eggplant: Evidence from 205

Chapter 7 Health and Environmental Impacts of Bt Eggplant 233

Chapter 8 Poverty and Nutrition Impacts of Bt Eggplant Adoption 254

Chapter 9 Market Prospects of Bt Eggplant 289

Chapter 10 Challenges and Policy Implications 338

Albert Perez Aquino is the Director of the Socioeconomics Research Division,

Catherine Aragon-Chiang. Served as Research Analyst, Environment and Production

Panfilo G. de Guzman. Associate Scientist, International Service for the Acquisition

Samantha Geraldine G. de los Santos. Served as University Research Associate,

Sergio R. Francisco. Former Chief Science Research Specialist, Socioeconomics

Eldy Z. Martinez. University Research Associate I, Center for Strategic Planning

Miriam R. Nguyen. University Researcher II, Community Innovation Study Center,

George W. Norton. Professor, Department of Agricultural and Applied Economics,

Cesar B. Quicoy. Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, College

The book is a good information resource for policy-makers and technology

Bt eggplant promises to be one of the better options for farmers. The

Between 2006 and 2013, ISAAA commissioned renowned researchers to conduct

ABSPII is a consortium of public and private sector institutions that helps

ABSPII has been working since 2003 to coordinate efforts by agricultural

Vegetable farming households remain in general poverty in the Philippines,

Frank A. Shotkoski, PhD

Overview and Synthesis

This book presents the findings of completed studies on the market

surveys; and detailed reviews of literature were employed in these studies.

Current Status of Conventional Eggplants

Total eggplant production in the Philippines has been increasing

Total eggplant production in the Philippines increased by 2.1% per annum

The eggplant seed system in the Philippines is generally formal and

The eggplant seed production and marketing system in the Philippines is

A baseline study conducted in four provinces showed that most eggplant

Most farmer-respondents were not aware of biotechnology (72%) nor of

The eggplant supply chain in the Philippines is well developed (and

Chapter 5 presents a study that employed a supply chain management

Bt Eggplant Impact Assessment Studies

Chapter 6 to Chapter 9 of the book showcase empirical works that studied

The present study quantifies the benefits from Bt eggplant technology

A spin-off of Francisco (2006), the study presented in Chapter 6 fine-tuned

ha; Camarines Sur farmer-respondents stand to gain PhP120,000/ha more,

In addition to increased marketable yield and profit, the adoption of Bt

The health and environmental impacts of reduced pesticide application as

Poverty analysis of Bt eggplant adoption implies the technologys

among adopters, as well as welfare gains to consumers with cheaper

The nutritional impact of Bt eggplant was estimated to be small because of

Majority of seed companies/distributors/dealers were found willing to

A research study assessed the market prospects of Bt eggplant at the

Majority of the farmers would be willing to pay for Bt eggplant seeds at a

The Eggplant Industry in the Philippines:

Given the significance of the eggplant industry in the Philippine agricultural

This industry analysis examines the interaction of three componentsseed

Marketing and consumption involves creating opportunities for adding value

Data Collection and Analysis