1

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

A. Background of the Study

Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) was introduced by Food and Agriculture

Organization ( FAO ) and implemented in many agricultural producing countries.

(Wannamolee, 2008).

GAPs is a voluntary codified system that is related to practical, efficient on-farm

and off-farm processes aimed towards sustainability and equity for small-scale farmers.

(Mausch,Milthofer,Asfaw&Waibel,2006).

Agricultural activities such as tillage, drainage, intercropping, rotation, grazing

and extensive usage of pesticides and fertilizers have significant implications for wild

species of flora and fauna.  Species capable of adapting to the agricultural landscape may

be limited directly by the disturbance regimes of grazing, planting and harvesting, and

indirectly by the abundance of plant and insect foods available. ( Elsevier, 1995)

Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) refers to the practices that address

environmental, economic and social sustainability for onfarm processes, and which result

in safe and quality food and non-food agricultural products (RA 10611).

Intensive agriculture based on adopting modern seed-fertilizer technology model

seems to be unsustainable in terms of yield, maintaining soil health, contamination of

food with pesticide residues, poor underground water quality, maintaining water reserves

and pathogen infested food due to poor food storage methods and means of processing.

Therefore, management of soil, water and food safety needs special attention for meeting
 2

high food production targets and at the same time promoting good food safety measures

among the growing population and was found possible with practicing good agricultural

practices usually termed as ‘GAP’ and that usually should begin with farm production

(FAO, 2003).

Good agricultural practices (GAP) concept initiated with the understanding that

practices followed to produce food that is safe to eat and ecologically sustain resources. It

is defined as optimization of technologies and resources for sustainable agriculture and

food safety. (FAO,2003)

B. Importance of the Study

Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) are ways that produce growers who can

prevent farm contamination of fruits and vegetables. GAPs are new way of thinking

about food safety.

Agriculture practices are also used to maximize the farm produce in different

ways and quality production. It include uses of chemical in farming, insecticide;

pesticides weed management and farm mechanization .Every grower should take time to

learn about potential food safety hazards that can occur on the farm or orchard and take

preventative steps to prevent contamination with harmful microbes.

Farmers and their families will obtain healthy and good quality food to assure

their nutrition and nourishment, generating a value added in their products to access

markets in a better way.

 3

GAPs are also about protecting your business. They not only prevent the public

from illness, but they also protect your farm business from the economic consequences of

food contamination.

Different aspects of practice are reducing food safety risk during harvest, reducing

food safety risk, during packaging, reducing risk from animal and manure, safe uses of

agriculture water and workers health and hygiene.

C. Statement of the Problem

The study sought to find-out the Impact Assesment of Good Agricultural

Practices ( GAPs ) on Vegetables Farmers at Roxas, Isabela. Specifically, it aimed to

answer the following questions:

1. What is the demographic profile of the respondents as to:

1.1 Age;

1.2 Gender;

1.3 Civil Status;

1.4 Educational Attainment;

1.5 Years in Farming;

1.6 Years in Practicing GAPs;

1.7 Land area devoted in GAPs;

1.8 Income;

1.9 Membership of Organization;

1.10 Seminars and Trainings Attended;

2. Identify vegetables that are being adopted with GAPs by the farmers;
 4

3. Identify practices that are being adopted with GAPs by the farmers;

4. Problems and constraints encountered by farmers in the area

D. Objectives of the Study

Generally, the study aimed to determine the Impact Assesment of Good

Agricultural Practices ( GAPs ) on Vegetables Farmers at Roxas, Isabela

1. What is the demographic profile of the respondent as to:

1.1 Age;

1.2 Gender;

1.3 Civil Status;

1.4 Educational Attainment;

1.5 Years in Farming;

1.6 Years in Practicing GAPs;

1.7 Land area devoted in GAPs;

1.8 Income;

1.9 Membership of organization;

1.10 Seminars and trainings attended;

2. Identify vegetables that are being adopted with GAPs by the farmers;

3. Identify practices that are being adopted with GAPs by the farmers;

4. Problems and constraints encountered by farmers in the area.

E. Scope and Delimination

This study focused on the impact of good agricultural practices (GAPs) to

vegetable farmers and use a total of thirty ( 30 ) respondent who attended GAPs

seminars and trainings.

 5

F. Definition of Terms

The following terms are operationally defined to facilitate better understanding of

the study.

Agriculture.The science or practice of farming, including cultivation of the soil for the

growing of crops and the rearing of animals to provide food, wool, and other products.

FAO.Food and Agricultural Organization.

Farmers.A person who owns or manages a farm.

Farming.An act of managing the farm.

Fertilizer.Is any material of natural or synthetic origin that is applied to soils or to plant

tissues to supply one or more plant nutrients essential to the growth of plants. Many

sources of fertilizer exist, both natural and industrially produced.

Food Safety Hazard.The HACCP plan is designed to control all reasonably likely food-

safety hazards. Such hazards are categorized into three classes: biological, chemical

and physical.Biological hazards include harmful bacteria, viruses or parasites (e.g.,

salmonella, hepatitis A and trichinella).

GAPs.Good Agricultural Practices.

Harvesting.Gather a crop as a harvest.

Irrigation.The supply of water to land or crops to help growth, typically by means of

channels

Management.Tthe process of dealing with or controlling things or people.

Occupation.An activity by which one regularly makes a living.

Practices.Perform (an activity) or exercise (a skill) repeatedly or regularly in order to

improve or maintain one's proficiency.

 6

Pest.Is any animal or plant detrimental to humans or human concerns, including crops,

livestock, and forestry.

Pesticides.Are substances that are meant to control pests, including weeds.

Postharvest Production.Is the stage of crop production immediately following harvest,

including cooling, cleaning, sorting and packing.

Respondents.A person who replies to something, especially one supplying information

for a survey or questionnaire or responding to an advertisement.

Vegetables.Are parts of plants that are consumed by humans or other animals as food.

The original meaning is still commonly used and is applied to plants collectively to refer

to all edible plant matter, including the flowers, fruits, stems, leaves, roots, and seeds. 

Weed Control.Botanical component of pest control, which attempts to stop weed.

 7

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter discusses issues and concerns relative to the study. It includes

literature taken from books, research studies and including internet.

A. Foreign Studies

In Trinidad and Tobago, the National Agricultural Marketing Development

Corporation (NAMDEVCO) is responsible for certifying farmers. The agency’s

extension officers monitor farms as part of its mandate to promote compliance with

GAPs (NAMDEVCO 2011).

Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) is a set of protocols that cover all activities

that take place on the farm. They outline the systematic frameworks, which help the

farmer to identify, implement and manage appropriate control measures to minimize

contamination of produce at each stage of production and post harvest (Francis 2009).

GLOBALGAP is now accepted as a key reference for Good Agricultural

Practices (GAPs) in the global market place by translating consumer requirements into

agricultural production in over 100 countries worldwide (GLOBAL GAP 2009).

GLOBALGAP is the pre-farm gate standard set in place by Europe’s leading food

retailers to give their customers assurance of food safety. Under this protocol, only

certified growers can supply these retailers and therefore many growers see

GLOBALGAP certification as a “passport to market” (GLOBAL GAP 2009).

GAP was introduced by FAO and implemented in many agricultural producing

countries (Wannamolee, 2008).

 8

In fruit and vegetable production, one of the major goals is to provide the

consumer with safe and wholesome end products (FAO 2007).

GAPs (Good Agricultural Practices) is a voluntary codified system that is related

to practical, efficient on-farm and off-farm processes aimed towards sustainability and

equity for small-scale farmers (Mausch,Milthofer,Asfaw&Waibel,2006).

In Trinidad and most other Caribbean countries, GAPs are not mandatory

requirements for farmers. Consequently, production continues to be heavily dependent on

fertilizer and pesticide use (Simpson 2003).

Sadighi (2002),found that some 49.3 % of the variance in the adoption of

Sustainable Agricultural Practice Needs could be explained by farmers’ age, their access

to information sources and their level of technical knowledge.

Tilman (2002),defined Sustainable Agricultural Practices as “practices that meet

current and future societal needs for food and fibre, for ecosystem services and for

healthy lives, and which do so by maximizing the net benefit to society when all costs

and benefits of the practices are considered”.

Nutrient emissions from agricultural activities have become the dominant source

of nutrient loads to freshwater in the Netherlands (Van der Molen, 1998).

Avariety of methods have been proposed for the evaluation of the environmental

impacts of farms (Von Wire´n-Lehr, 2001; Van der Werf and Petit, 2002; Halberg et al.,

2005). The development of such methods is essential, as they can serve as decision

support tools for guiding the evolution towards more sustainable agricultural production

systems (Hansen, 1996).

 9

Agricultural activities such as tillage, drainage, intercropping, rotation, grazing

and extensive usage of pesticides and fertilizers have significant implications for wild

species of flora and fauna.  Species capable of adapting to the agricultural landscape may

be limited directly by the disturbance regimes of grazing, planting and harvesting, and

indirectly by the abundance of plant and insect foods available ( Elsevier, 1995).

Agricultural practices, e.g. mechanical drying of hay or grain, have a protective

effect on respiratory health of farmers by reducing microbiological contamination

( Thorax,1994).
 10

B. Local Studies

(Francis 2009) Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) is a set of protocols that cover

all activities that take place on the farm. They outline the systematic frameworks, which

help the farmer to identify, implement and manage appropriate control measures to

minimize contamination of produce at each stage of production and post-harvest.

(ASEAN Secretariat 2006) GAP are aimed towards prevention and minimization

of risk occurrences which include those of food safety, environmental impact, worker

health, safety and welfare, and product quality in the primary production and postharvest

handling of fresh produce intended for human consumption. It is envisioned that

compliance of farmers with this set of practices will enhance the trade and

competitiveness of the country’s agricultural products as well as promote consumer

protection against food safety hazards.

This study was undertaken to assess the status of Good Agricultural Practices

(GAP) adoption in the Philippines in relation to two of the country’s top export fruit

crops: Cavendish banana and Carabao or Super Manila mango. Specifically, the study

aimed to identify the drivers of and constraints to GAP adoption in the country, with the

end goal of crafting policy strategies to enhance adoption for the two identified

commodities in the study. Davao was selected as the study area for banana, being the

country’s top banana exporter. For mango, Zambales was chosen because it is the origin

of the sweetest mango in the world (Banzon et. al, 2013).

The Philippines trails its Southeast Asian neighbors with respect to GAP (Good

Agricultural Practices) adoption. While Thailand, Indonesia and Vietnam have granted
 11

GAP certification to thousands of farms, a SEARCA study showed that the Philippines

has only four GAP-certified farms, namely: Del Monte Philippines (pineapple), Basic

Necessity, Inc. (lettuce and herbs), Cardava Integrated Inland Farming (cardava banana)

and Leonie Agri-Corporation (various vegetables).

 12

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the methodology used in this study to answer the Impact of

Good Agricultural Practices ( GAPs ) on Vegetables Farmers at Brgy. Marcos, Brgy.

Sinamar, Brgy. Simimbaan of Roxas, Isabela.

A. Time and Place of the Study

The study were conducted in Brgy. Marcos, Brgy. Sinamar, Brgy. Simimbaan of

Roxas, Isabela.

Figure 1. Map of Roxas, Isabela.

B. Respondents of the Study

The respondents of this study were the secure list of farmers who attended GAPs

seminars and training with. A total of thirty ( 30 ) vegetable farmers at Brgy. Marcos,

Brgy. Sinamar, Brgy. Simimbaan of Roxas, Isabela.

 13

The respondents of this study were determined using Slovins formula.

N
n=
(1+ Ne2)

Where :

n= sample size

N= total number of population

e= margin error

C. Data Requirements and Method of Data Collection

1. Research Design

The investigation predominantly utilized the descriptive method and partially

used the analytical method. The descriptive method according to Sevilla, et. al. allows the

researcher to gather information about present condition relative to the objectives of this

study.

2. Data Gathering Instruments

The main instrument used in this study is a self-constructed questionnaire which

is designed to know the responses of respondents regarding the Impact of Good

Agricultural Practices ( GAPs ) to Vegetables Farmers at Brgy. Marcos, Brgy. Sinamar,

Brgy. Simimbaan of Roxas, Isabela.

The questionnaire was devided into two: the first part is the profile of the

respondents and the second part states that indicator that would evaluate the responses of

respondents regarding the Impact of Good Agricultural Practices ( GAPs ) to Vegetables

Farmers at Brgy. Marcos, Brgy. Sinamar, Brgy. Simimbaan of Roxas, Isabela.

 14

3. Data Gathering Procedure

In gathering data, a written request was forwarded to the barangay captain of each

barangay of Roxas, Isabela for their suggestions and insights. Every questionnaire had an

attached letter personally appealing to the individual respondents for cooperation in this

enveador. When the responses are already through, the questionnaires were retrieved and

the data were tabulated and analyzed.

4. Method of Data Analysis and Statistical Treatment

All the data needed were collected, analyzed, interpreted and presented in tables.

The study utilized the descriptive statistics in the profile of the respondents.

In order to present and to answer categorically the problem was raised in this

study, the following statistical tools and treatment were employed.

In the respondents profile it was treated using the frequency counts and

percentage.

1. Frequency Count-The number of respondents were counted to determine the

Percentage occurrence.

%=(F/N) 100

Where:

%= Percentage

N= Total number of respondents

F= Frequency

2. Simple Percentage-The number of responses by the respondents in the personal data

was treated. The number of the responses in each item will be divided by the total

population multiplied at by 100.

 15

3. Weighted Mean- It was used to determine the average of the different options provided

in the various parts of the questionnaire used. The Likert Scale method was used in the

conduct of the study. It was solved with the formula;

W . M .=
∑ fx
n

Where:

W.M. = Weighted Mean

Σfx = the sum of all the products of f and x, f being the frequency of each category and x

as the weight of each observation.

n = total number of respondents

The mean was interpreted as follows:

Table 1. Interpretation of Mean

Weighted Mean Descriptive Rating

3.00 Always
2.01-2.99 Sometimes to Always
2.00 Sometimes
1.01-1.99 Sometimes to Never
1.00 Never
 16

5. Reseach Design

Input Process Output

1. 1. Profile of
 Survey on
Respondents Impact
Respondents’
2. 2. Identify Vegetables Assessment of
Profile
that are Being Adopted Good Agricultural
 Evaluation of
with GAPs by the Practices
Impact
Farmers. ( GAPs ) to
Assesment of
3. 3.Identify Practices Vegetable
Good
that are Being Adopted Farmers of Brgy.
Agricultural
with GAP. Marcos, Brgy.
Practices ( GAPs
4. 4.Problems and Sinamar, Brgy.
x ) to Vegetable
Constraints Simimbaan at
Farmers of Brgy.
Encountered by Roxas, Isabela.
Marcos, Brgy.
Farmers in the Area.
Sinamar, Brgy.
Simimbaan at
Roxas, Isabela.

FEEDBACK
MECHANISM

Figure 2. The reseach paradigm shows the profile of the respondents and self-designed

questionnaire used to determine the impact of good agricultural practices ( GAPs ) to

vegetable farmers at three selected barangays of Roxas, Isabela.

 17

CHAPTER IV

DATA AND RESULTS

A. Demographic Profile of the Respondents

1. Residence of the Respondents

Table 2 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of the demographic profile

of the respondents in terms of their respective barangays. Therefore, most of the

respondents were in the area og Barangay Siminbaan.

Table 2. Residence of the Respondents

Residence Particular Percentage
Barangay Marcos 6 20.0
Barangay Sinamar 4 13.33
Barangay Simimbaan 20 66.67
TOTAL 30 100.0

2. Age of the Respondents

As shown in Table 3, majority of the respondents belongs to the age bracket 35-

39 and 40-44 years old with the same frequency and percentage of 6 or 20.0 percent

followed by the age bracket 55-59 years old with a 5 or 16.67 percent. The age bracket

50-54 and 60-64 years old with the same frequency have 3 or 10.0 percent. Only 1 or

3.33 percent of the respondents were under the age bracket of 25-29, 30-34 and 45-49

years old and while 0 or 0 percent belongs to 70-74 years old. Threfore, most of the ages

of the respondent were at around 40-49 years old.

 18

Table 3. Age of the Respondents

Age Bracket Frequency Percentage
25-29 years old 1 3.33
30-34 years old 1 3.33
35-39 years old 6 20.0
40-44 years old 6 20.0
45-49 years old 1 3.33
50-54 years old 3 10.0
55-59 years old 5 16.67
60-64 years old 3 10.0
65-69 years old 2 6.67
70-74 years old 0 0
75 years old and above 2 6.67
TOTAL 30 100.0

3. Gender of the Respondents

As shown in Table 4,majority of the respondents were male with 28 or 93.3%

percent while 2 or 6.67 % are female. Therefore, males are more engaged in the

production.

Table 4. Gender of the Respondents

Gender Frequency Percentage
Male 28 93.39
Female 2 6.67
TOTAL 30 100.0

4. Civil Status of the Respondents

Table 5 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of respondents in terms

of their civil status. It shows that 93.33% or 28 out of 30 respondents were married and
 19

3.33% only or 1 respondent was widow/widower and also 3.33% only or 1 respondent

was single. Therefore, almost of the respondent were married whose practicing GAPs

Table 5. Civil Status of the Respondents

Civil Status Frequency Percentage
Single 1 3.33
Married 28 93.33
Widow 1 3.33
TOTAL 30 99.99

5. Educational Background
Table 6 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of respondents in terms

of their educational background. It shows that most of the respondents have graduated

from high school with a frequency of 9 or 30.0 %, 6 or 20.0% of them reached high

school level. Elementary graduate with the frequency of 5 or 16.67%. Elementary

graduate and college graduate have the same frequency of 4 or 13.33 % and 2 or 6.67

belong to college level. Therefore, most of the respondent were high school graduate.
 20

Table 6. Educational Attainment of the Respondents

Level Frequency Percentage
Elementary Level 4 13.33
Elementary Graduate 5 16.67
High school Level 6 20.0
High school Graduate 9 30.0
College Level 2 6.67
College Graduate 4 13.33
Vocational 0 0
TOTAL 30 100.0

6. Years in Farming
Table 7 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of respondents in terms of

their years in farming. As shown in the table, the majority of the respondents have

farming for a period of 10-14 and 40-44 years with the same frequency of 7 or 23.33%,

followed by 15-19 years with the frequency of 5 or 16.67%. 5-9 with the frequency of 3

or 10.0%. 20-24, 25-29, 30-34 with the same frequency of 2 or 6.67%, 45-49 and 55 and

above have the same frequency also with 1 or 3.33%. Therefore, almost old farmers were

have the aged ranging from 40-44 years old. Likewise, to young generation ranging from

10-14 years old engaged to GAPs. This conclude that old generation introduce GAP as

early as possible to the young generation

 21

Table 7. Years in Farming of the Respondents

Years Frequency Percentage
5-9 3 10.0
10-14 7 23.33
15-19 5 16.67
20-24 2 6.67
25-29 2 6.67
30-34 2 6.67
35-39 0 0
40-44 7 23.33
45-49 1 3.33
50-54 0 0
55-59 1 3.33
TOTAL 30 100.0

7. Duration of Practicing GAPS by the Respondents

Table 8 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of respondents in terms

of their duration of practicing GAPs. As shown in the table, the majority of the

respondents were practicing GAPs for a period of 1-5 years 18 0r 60.0%, followed by 11-

15 or 6 or 20.0%. 6-10 years with 3 or 10.0%, 16-20 years with 2 or 6.67% and 26 years

above with 1 or 3.33%. Therefore, most of the respondent engaged in GAPs year 1-5.
 22

Table 8. Duration of Practicing GAPS of the Respondents

Duration of Practicing GAPs Frequency Percentage
1-5 years 18 60.0
6-10 years 3 10.0
11-15 years 6 20.0
16-20 years 2 6.67
21-25 years 0 0
26-30 years 1 3.33
TOTAL 30 100.0

8. Membership in Organization/Association of the Respondents

Table 9 shows the membership in organization/association involvement of the

respondents. As shown in the table, majority of the respondents belongs to Agri-Pinoy

Trading Center with 16 or 53.33%, followed by the CPAR with 10 or 33.33%. COOP-

RITHCC with 3 or 10.0% and 1 or 3.33 belongs to Simimbaan Farmers Assosation. This

shows that all of the respondents have thier own participation to thier respective groups.

Therefore, most of the respondent were member of Agri-Pinoy Trading Center.

Table 9. Membership in Organization/Association of the Respondents

Organization/Association Frequency Percentage
Agri-Pinoy Trading Center 16 53.33
(CPAR) Community
Participatory Action Research 10 33.33
Simimbaan Farmers Assosation 1 3.33
COOP-RITHCC 3 10.0
TOTAL 30 99.99
 23

9. GAPs training/seminars attended by the Respondents.

Table 10 shows training/seminars attended by the respondents. 17 or 56.67 %

attended the Agri-Pinoy Trading Center Seminars, followed by CPAR Seminar with 12

or 40.0%. 3 or 10.0% belongs to GAPs on Vegetable Product by D-A Cagayan Valley

Research Center (DA-CVRC) and 1 or 3.33% belongs to Farm Business School.

Therefore, most of the respondent attended Agri-Pinoy Trading Center

Seminars/Training.

Table 10. GAPs training/seminars attended by the Respondents.

GAPs training/seminars Frequency Percentage
Agri-Pinoy Trading
Center Seminars/Training 17 56.67
CPAR seminar 12 40.0
GAPs on Vegetable Product by
D-A Cagayan Valley Research
Center (DA-CVRC) 3 10.0
Farm Business School 1 3.33

10. Other Sources of Household Income of the Respondents.

Table 11 shows the other sources of income of the respondents. As shown in the

table, majority of the respondents were into Non-Vegetable Farming (Cereals, Rice,

Tobacco, and Corn) with 17 or 56.67%, 7 or 23.33 % of them have no other sources of

income, 3 or 10.0% of the respondents belong to construction working, 2 or 6.67 % have

Sari-sari store and the 1 or 3.33% belongs to Tricycle Driver. Therefore, most of the

respondent were farming non-vegetable crops ( rice, tobacco and corn) as their other source of

income.
 24

Table 11. Other Sources of Household Income of the Respondents.

Other Sources of Household Income Frequency Percentage

Non- Vegetable farming
( Rice, Tobacco, Corn) 17 56.67
Sari-sari Store 2 6.67
Construction working 3 10.0
Trycicle Driver 1 3.33
None 7 23.33
TOTAL 30 100

11. Gross Earnings per Year from Other Sources Of Income.

Table 12 shows the frequency and percentage distribution of respondents in terms

of their gross income per year. As shown in the table, majority of the respondents have

gross income of ₱ 45,000-₱ 90,000 with 15 or 50.0%, 7 or 23.33% have no respondents,

₱ 90,001-₱ 135,00 with 4 or 13.33%, ₱ 180,001-₱ 225,000 with 2 or 6.67, ₱ 270,001-₱

315,000 and ₱ 450,001 and above have the same 1 or 3.33%. Therefore, most of the

respondent have gross earnings per year from other sources of income were ₱ 45,000-₱

90,000

Table 12. Gross Earnings per Year from Other Sources Of Income.
Gross Earnings per Year Frequency Percentage
₱ 45,000-₱ 90,000 15 50.0
₱ 90,001-₱ 135,00 4 13.3
₱ 135,001-₱ 180,000 0 0
₱ 180,001-₱ 225,000 2 6.67
₱ 225,001-₱ 270,000 0 0
₱ 270,001-₱ 315,000 1 3.33
₱ 315,001-₱ 360,000 0 0
 25

₱ 360,001-₱ 405,000 0 0
₱ 405,001-₱ 450,000 0 0
₱ 450,001-₱495,000 1 3.33
TOTAL 23 76.66

12. Total Land Area of the Respondents.

Table 13 shows the total land area of the respondents. As reflected on the table,

most of the respondents have a total land area 1-2 ha with 18 or 60.0%, followed by area

below 0.75 ha with 9 or 30.0%. 3-4 ha,5-6 ha and 9 ha and above have the same 1 or

3.33% and 0 respondent to 7-8 ha. Therefore, most of the respondent have thier land are

ranging 1-2 ha.

Table 13. Total Land Area of the Respondents.

Total Land Area Frequency Percentage
Below 0.75 ha 9 30.0
1-2 ha 18 60.0
3-4 ha 1 3.33
5-6 ha 1 3.33
7-8 ha 0 0
9 ha and above 1 3.33
TOTAL 30 99.99

13. Area Intended to GAPs by the Respondents

As reflected in the Table 14, 16 or 53.3% out of the 30 respondents have a land

area of 0.75 hectare intended for GAPs; 13 or 43.33% respondents have a land 1 ha

intended to GAPs and 2 ha belongs to 1 or 3.33%. This indicates that majority of the

respondents tilling a minimal area for GAPs.

 26

Table 14. Area Intended to GAPs by the Respondents

Area Intended to GAPs Frequency Percentage

Below 0.75 ha 16 53.33
1 ha 13 43.3
2 ha 1 3.33
TOTAL 30 99.99

14. Source of Capital of the Respondents

Table 15 shows the source of capital of the respondents were 18 or 60.0% belongs

to own, followed by 9 or 30.0% belongs to bank, 3 or 10.0% belongs to co-farmers and 0

to traders. This means that majority of the respondents have thier personal money to

utilize in farming.

Table 15. Source of Capital of the Respondents

Source of Capital Frequency Percentage
Own 18 60.0
Bank 9 30.0
Traders 0 0
Co-farmers 3 10.0
TOTAL 30 100.0

B. Vegetables Adopted Using GAPs by the Respondents

Table 16 shows the vegetables adopted by farmers in using GAPs. As shown in

the table the major vegetable adopted by farmers in using GAPs is Tomato with 80.0%,

followed by Ampalaya with 66.67%, Sitaw with 60.0%, Upo with 40.0%, Egg-plant with

36.67%, Sili with 33.33%, Squash with 23.33%, Okra with 6.67% and Munggo with

3.33%.
 27

Table 16. Vegetables Adopted Using GAPs by the Respondents

Vegetables Adopted Frequency Percentage
Ampalaya 20 66.67
Tomato 24 80
Sitaw 18 60
Upo 12 40
Sili 10 33.33
Egg plant 11 36.67
Patola 1 3.33
Petchay 1 3. 33
Squash 7 23.33
Okra 2 6.67
Mungo 1 3.33

C. Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) adopted by the farmers.

Table 17 shows the Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) adopted by the vegetable

farmers in selected barangays of Roxas, Isabela. It reveals that the following practices;

keep fertilizer in a dry, clean and sheltered place, do not use used bags for harvested

crops, avoid uneven application of water, only purchase and use registered pesticides,

strictly adhere to the withholding period on the pesticide label, hold pesticides in original

containers and keep them tightly closed in a cool, well-ventilated location, do not recycle

or use pesticides containers for other usage, harvest at the right stage of maturity, harvest

during the coolest part of the day, either early morning or late afternoon, always keep

containers, tools, equipment, packaging and storage areas clean and tidy with a mean of

3.0 had a descriptive rating of “Always Practice”. While the other following practices;

look for varieties which are pest and disease resistant, heat resistant and GM-free, keep
 28

seeds in sealed containers and store in a cool dry place, use of hybrid seeds, apply

compost or other organic materials (including crop residues) and plant cover crops and/or

green manure crops and minimize mechanical movement in fields, need for intercropping

with leguminous crops, regular addition of NPK fertilizers in soil, practice of integrated

weed control, mulching soil when crop standing period, apply required level of fertilizers

at the right time, use organic fertilizer and aged/well composted manure, irrigate fields

early in the morning,late in the evening or at night, using of disease-free seeds/seedlings,

adopting crop rotation and intercropping, planting green manure crops, hedges and crops

with pest deterring value, instant removal of infected/diseased materials, adopt physical

control measures like simple hand picking, tillage, erecting traps, and using of net houses,

use bio-pesticides/synthetic pesticides, if necessary harvested produce should be washed

with clean water and excessive water should be removed before packaging or storing, and

wash hands with soap before and after handling procedure, do not smoke, drink or eat

during harvesting with a mean of 2.01-2.99 had a descriptive rating pf “Sometimes to

Always Practice”. And the practice of adopting micro-irrigation methods such as drip or

sprinkler with a weighted mean of 1.7 had a descriptive rating of “Sometimes to Never

Practice”. Therefore, the descriptive rating of the grand means is “Sometimes to Never

Practice” with a grand mean of 2.41

 29

Table 17. Frequency, Percentage, Weighted Mean and Descriptive Rating on Good

Agricultural Practices (GAPs) adopted by the vegetables farmers in selected barangays of

Roxas, Isabela.

3 2 1
DESCRIPTIVE
GAPs Always Sometimes Never MEAN
RATTING
Fre % Fre % Fre %
A. Seed and Seedling
1. Look for varieties
which are pest and
30 100 - - - - 3 Always Practice
disease resistant, heat
resistant and GM-free.
2. Keep seeds in sealed
containers and store in 30 100 - - - - 3 Always Practice
a cool dry place.
3. Use of hybrid seeds. 30 100 - - - - 3 Always Practice
B. Soil and Weed
Management
1. Apply compost or
other organic materials
(including crop
residues) and plant Sometimes to
3 10 27 30 - - 2.1
cover crops and/or Always Practice
green manure crops and
minimize mechanical
movement in fields.
2. Need for
Sometimes to
intercropping with 10 33.33 20 60.67 - - 2.3
Always Practice
leguminous crops.
3. Regular addition of 16.6 Sometimes to
9 30 16 53.33 5 2.1
NPK fertilizers in soil. 7 Always Practice
4. Practice of integrated Sometimes to
17 56.67 13 43.33 - - 2.5
weed control. Always Practice
5. Mulching soil when Sometimes to
9 30 21 70 - - 2.3
crop standing period. Always Practice
 30

3 2 1
DESCRIPTIVE
GAPs Always Sometimes Never MEAN
RATTING
Fre % Fre % Fre %
C. Use of Fertilizer
1. Apply required level 13 43.33 17 56.67 - - 2.4 Sometimes to
of fertilizers at the right Always
time. Practice
2. Use organic fertilizer 12 40 18 60 2.4 Sometimes to
and aged/well Always
composted manure. Practice
D. Irrigation
1. Irrigate fields early in 20 66.67 10 33.33 - - 2.6 Sometimes to
the morning, late in the Always
evening or at night. Practice
2. Avoid uneven 30 100 - - - - 3 Always
application of water. Practice
3. Adopt micro- 1 3.33 27 90 2 6.67 1.7 Sometimes to
irrigation methods such Never Practice
as drip or sprinkler.
E. Pest and Disease
Management
1. Using of disease-free 29 96.67 1 3.33 - - 3 Sometimes to
seeds/seedlings. Always
Practice
2. Adopting crop 24 80 6 20 - - 2.8 Sometimes to
rotation and Always
intercropping. Practice
3. Planting green 16 53.33 14 46.67 - - 2.5 Sometimes to
manure crops, hedges Always
and crops with pest Practice
deterring value.
4. Instant removal of 7 23.33 22 73.33 1 3.33 2.2 Sometimes to
infected/diseased Always
materials. Practice
5. Adopt physical 7 23.33 23 76.67 - - 2.2 Sometimes to
control measures like Always
simple hand picking, Practice
tillage, erecting traps,
and using of net houses.
6. Use 5 16.67 14 46.67 11 36.6 1.8 Sometimes to
bio-pesticides/synthetic 7 Never Practice
pesticides.
 31

3 2 1
DESCRIPTIVE
GAPs Always Sometimes Never MEAN
RATTING
Fre % Fre % Fre %
F. Use of Pesticides
1. Only purchase and use 30 100 - - - - 3 Always
registered pesticides. Practice
2. Strictly adhere to the 29 96.67 1 3.33 - - 3 Always to
withholding period on the Sometimes
pesticide label. Practice
3.Hold pesticides in original 29 96.66 1 3.33 - - 3 Always
containers and keep them Practice
tightly closed in a cool, well-
ventilated location.

4. Do not recycle or use 30 100 - - - - 3 Always

pesticides containers for Practice
other usage.
G. Harvesting and Post-
Harvesting.
1. Harvest at the right stage 30 100 - - - - 3 Always
of maturity. Practice
2. Harvest during the coolest 30 100 - - - - 3 Always
part of the day Practice
- either early morning or late
afternoon.
3. If necessary harvested 7 23.33 22 73.33 1 3.33 2.2 Sometimes to
produce should be washed Always
with clean water and Practice
excessive water should be
removed before packaging or
storing.
4. Wash hands with soap
before and after handling Sometimes to
procedure. Do not smoke, 10 33.33 20 66.67 - - 2.3 Always
drink or eat during Practice
harvesting.
5. Always keep containers,
tools, equipment, packaging Always
30 100 - - - - 3
and storage areas clean and Practice
tidy.
Sometimes to
GRAND MEAN 2.41 Always
Practice
 32

D. Problems and Constraints Encountered in Practicing Gaps.

The major problems encountered by the farmers in practicing GAPs is the

presence of more pest due to lesser pesticides applied that cause more damages in

vegetables, it was agreed by 100% of the respondents. While 10.0% or 3 of the

respondents said that their profit decreases when they practiced GAPs.

Respondents, 100% of them, stated that their health is benefited due to GAPs for

the reason that vegetables with GAPs have lesser pesticide and have a high quality. 18 or

60.0% of them said that when it comes to yield and income they are benefited positively

due to the increasing outcomes.

E. Impact Assessment of GAPs

1. Good Agricultural Practices (Gaps) Helps in Farming.

Good Agricultural Practices (GAPs) refers to the practices that address

environmental, economic and social sustainability for onfarm processes, and which result

in safe and quality food and non-food agricultural products. Good Agricultural Practices

(GAPs) are ways that produce growers can prevent on-farm contamination vegetables.

On the basis of observation and interview, 30 out of 30 respondents or 100% of

them said that GAPs help them in farming when it comes to proper application of

pesticides and fertilizers and on what fertilizers must be use. 86.67 % or 26 of them said

that GAPs help them to have more harvest and gain more profits.
 33

2. Yields Before and After Practicing GAPs.

As shown in the table 18, the number of yields harvested per .25 hectares before

practicing GAPs have an average of 100 kilograms and after practicing GAPs the number

of yields increases up to 20% which is equal to 125 kilograms;in 0.75 hectares the

average yields before were 250 kilograms and after practicing GAPs the average yield

were 200 kilograms, decrease by 0.25%; in 0.5 hectares there is an increase of 38.42% of

the average yields, from 117 kilograms to 190 kilograms; an increase of 28.51% in the

average yield per 1 hectare from 295 kilograms to 413 kilograms; in 1.5 hectares there is

an average yield of 350 kilograms before practicing GAPs and increases by 12.5% after

practicing GAPs resulting to average yield of 400 kilograms; while the average yield of 4

hectares increases up to 10% after practicing GAPs, from 450 kilograms to 500

kilograms; 5 hectares the average yield before were 300 kilograms and 350 kilograms

after practicing GAPs, it increases 0.25% and in 9 hectares the average yield before were

400 kilograms and 650 kilograms after practicing GAPs, it increases up to 38.46%.

Overall, the table shows that the yields per hectare increases after practicing GAPs.
 34

Table 18. Yields Before and After Practicing GAPs

Before Practicing GAPs After Practicing GAPs

700 650

600
average yields per hectare (KGs)

500
500 425 450 450
413 400
400
400 350 350
295
300
300 250
200 190
200
125 117
5.100 100
Income Before and After Practicing GAPs.

0
0.25 ha 0.75 ha 0.5 ha 1 ha 1.5 ha 2 ha 4 ha 5 ha 9 ha

Land area

Table 19 shows the income per hectare before and after practicing GAPS.The

average income per .25 hectares before practicing GAPs were ₱1,500 and after practicing

GAPs it increases up to 20% which is equal to ₱1,800; in 0.3 hectares the average income

before were ₱1,800 and after practicing GAPs the average income were ₱2,250, increase

by 25%; in 0.5 hectares there is an increase of 9.82% of the average income, from ₱2,595

to ₱2,850; an increase of 27.25% in the average income per 1 hectare from₱5,505 to

₱7005; in 2 hectares there is an average incomeof ₱9,750 before practicing GAPs and

increases by 23.05% after practicing GAPs resulting to ₱12,000; while the average

incomeon 3 hectares decreases up to 20% after practicing GAPs, from ₱18,000 to

₱15,000; and in 4 hectares the average income before were ₱27,000 and ₱30,000 after

practicing GAPs, it increases up to 11.11%. Overall, the table shows that the income per

hectare increases after practicing GAPs.

 35

Table 19. Income Per Hectare of the Respondents Before and After Practicing
GAPs.

Before Practicing GAPs After Practicing GAPs

12000

9750
average yields per hectare (KGs)

10000

7500
8000 6829
6562 6750
6000
6000
6000 5250 5250
4437
4500
3750 3281
4000
3000
1875 2100
2000 100 1687

0
0.25 ha 0.75 ha 0.5 ha 1 ha 1.5 ha 2 ha 4 ha 5 ha 9 ha

Land area
 36

3. Benefits Gained in Practicing GAPs.

Therefore, management of soil, water and food safety needs special attention for

meeting high quality production targets and at the same time promoting food safety

measures among the growing population and was found possible with practicing good

agricultural practices usually termed as ‘GAP’ and that usually should begin with farm

production (FAO, 2003).

Respondents, 100% of them, stated that their health is benefited because of GAPs

for the reason that vegetables applied with GAPs have lesser pesticide and have a high

quality. 76% of them said that when it comes to yield and income they are benefited

positively due to the increasing outcomes.

 37

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

This chapter presents the summary and conclusion of the study where

recommendations were formulated.

A. Summary
The research was conducted in selected barangays of Roxas, Isabela with the

following objectives: to determine the demographic profile of the respondent; to identify

the kind of vegetables grown by the farmers; to identify the practices that are being

adopted with GAP by the farmers; and to identify problems and constraints encountered

by farmers in place.

The respondents were mostly male, matured and married and living in Simibaan,

Roxas, Isabela. Most of them attained high school graduate. Majority of them have been

in farming for about 10-14 and 40-44 years and have been practicing GAPs for about 1-5

years. They are member of Agri-Pinoy Trading Center and they have attended different

seminars. Most of them were engaged in farming non-vegetable crops (cereals, rice,

tobacco and corn) as their other source of income and have a gross income ranges for ₱

45,000-₱ 90,000. Most of them have a total land area of 1-2 hectares and have below 0.75

hectares of land area intended for GAPs. Most of them have their own capital.

The respondents said that GAPs help them in farming when it comes to proper

application of pesticides and fertilizers and on what fertilizers must be used. And it helps

them to have more harvest and gain more profits. The major problems encountered by the
 38

farmers in practicing GAPs was the presence of more pest due to lesser pesticides applied

that cause more damages in vegetables.

B. Conclusion

Based on the number of yields and amount of income after adopting Good

Agricultural Practices (GAPs), the study shows that it has a positive impact to the

farmers.

Most of them stated that their health is benefited because of GAPs for the reason

that vegetables applied with GAPs have lesser pesticide and have a high quality. When it

comes to yield and profit they are benefited positively. After practicing GAPs, the yields

and income per hectare increases. All of the farmers were planting different kinds of

vegetables like Ampalaya, Tomato, Sitaw, and Upo applied with GAPs. The average

descriptive rating of the Good Agricultural Practices adopted by the vegetable farmers

was 2.41 or “Sometimes to Always Practice”.

C. Recommendation

1. Farmers should always or must adopt Good Agricultural Practices to obtain

higher yields and good profit.

2. More implementation of trainings or seminars to the farmers about the

importance of Good Agricultural Practices.

3. Due to presence of many pest, farmers must attend seminars and trainings

about Integrated Pest Management.

 39

However, further study should be conducted to obtain more reliable and

conclusive result.
 40

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Codex Alimentarius Commission(2003). Code of Hygienic Practice for Fresh Fruits

and Vegetables (CAC/RCP 53-2003).

Dalphin JC, Polio JC, Pernet D, Maheu MF, Toson B, Dubiez A, Monnet E, Laplante
JJ, Depierre A (1994): Influence of barn drying of fodder on respiratory
symptoms and function in dairy farmers of the Doubs region of France.
Thorax, 49, 50-53.

EUREPGAP c/o FoodPlus GmbH. 2004. EUREPGAP Control Points and

Compliance Criteria Fruits and Vegetables version 2.1 – Oct04

FAO (2003). Development of Framework for Good agricultural practices . Committee

on Agriculture, seventeenth Session Food and agriculture organization, Rome.

FAO. (2007). Safety and quality of fresh fruit and vegetables. A training manual for
trainers. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations . New
York: FAO.Google Scholar

Francis, D. E. (2009). The agriculture, food and health challenge; critical issues,

perspectives and options. Morton Publishing Inter-American Institute for
cooperation on Agriculture (IICA). .Google Scholar

GlobalGAP (2009) GLOBALG.A.P: Annual report 2009. The global partnership for

good agricultural practices. Issue: September 2009.Google Scholar

Loida E. Mojica & Agnes T. Banzon & Angela A. Cielo, 2013. "Good Agricultural
Practices (GAP) in the Philippines: Status, Issues, and Policy
Strategies," Monograph, Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study
and Research in Agriculture (SEARCA), number 2013:218

Mausch, K., Milthofer, D., Asfaw, S., & Waibel, H.(2006). “Impact of EurepGAP
Standard in Kenya: Comparing Smallholders to Largescale Vegetable
Producers”, International Agricultural Research for Development.

NAMDEVCO. (2011). Good agricultural practices starts with You. Trinidad: The

National Agricultural Marketing and Development Corporation, Debe.
Google Scholar

Simpson, L. (2003). Review of soil management and farming practices, including

the use of Agro-Chemicals in the Caribbean, with particular reference to St
Lucia and Jamaica. Caribbean Agriculture and Research Development
Institute (CARDI) Project report No 2. Jamaica: CARDI.Google Scholar
 41

Sadighi, H. (2002). Assessing farmers’ sustainable agricultural practice needs:

Implication for a sustainable farming system. (AIAEE) Proceedings of the
18th Annual Conference Durban, South Africa.Google Scholar

Tilman, D., Cassman, K. G., Matson, P. A., Naylor, R., & Polasky, S. (2002).
Agricultural sustainability and intensive production practices. Nature, 418,
671–677. doi: 10.1038/nature01014.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wannamolee, W. (2008).Development of Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) for fruit

and vegetables in Thailand, paper present for Training of Trainers in Good
Agricultural Practices (GAP) and Benchmarking: Global GAP for Fruit and
Vegetable, Sheraton Subang Hotel and Tower, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 14-
23 July.