Postharvest RDE Agenda for CASSAVAA Reference Material

By: KLB Sebastian, EDF SantiagoPlanning and Project Development Division

2009

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES 3

LIST OF FIGURES 3

PHILIPPINE CASSAVA INDUSTRY OVERVIEW 4

Production 5

Utilization 10

Exports and Imports 11

Production Costs and Returns 11

DEVELOPMENT EFFORTS 11

Postharvest handling practices 14

Harvesting 14

Air Drying 14

Technologies and Development Studies 16

POSTHARVEST ISSUES AND CONCERNS 16

Proposed RD&E Agenda and Interventions 17

List of Tables

Table 1. Philippine per capita consumption of rootcrops (kg/year)...................................4

Table 2. Philippine agricultural production of major crops, ('000 mt), 2004-2006............7

Table 3. Average cassava production (mt), area planted (ha), yield (kg/ha), distribution and growth rates (%) in major growing areas, 1996-2000 and 2001-2006.........8

Table 4. Cassava supply and utilization (mt), 1996-2005..................................................10

Table 5. Cassava imports and exports in different forms (metric tons), 1996-2005........11

Table 7. Six-year targets for agribusiness development and productivity improvement (2004-2010)........................................................................................................14

List of FiguresFigure 1. Uses of cassava.....................................................................................................6

Figure 2. Cassava utilization, 1996-2005...........................................................................11

Figure 3. Cassava production costs per hectare (average of 1996-2005).........................12

Figure 4. Postharvest handling for cassava.......................................................................15

Figure 5. Flow chart of production, handling and marketing activities under contract-growing...............................................................................................................16

FOREWORDAmong the functions of the Planning and Project Development Division (PPDD)

is the conduct of environmental scanning and various strategies as a means to setting the postharvest research and extension agenda of identified crops and postharvest concerns.

In addition, PPDD initiates and coordinates the development and packaging of research and extensions projects and programs of the BPRE.

The “Establishment of Gender-Responsive Benchmark Information on New Researchable Areas” is one of the major projects of the Division that addresses the above-mentioned function.

Priority crops and/or postharvest concerns are identified by the Bureau. Through the benchmark project, data and information on the current and emerging needs are identified and proposed RD&E agenda is crafted.

The methodology adopted in benchmarking includes extensive desk research, rapid rural appraisal, focus group discussion, brainstorming sessions and consultation with stakeholders, including researchers, extension workers and related government agencies like DA-RFUs, SCUs and research agencies.

For the rootcrops industry (particularly the cassava tubers), the RD&E gaps, current state, needs and emerging trends were gathered through desk research and focus group discussions with the industry’s major stakeholders.

This write-up serves as a reference material in crafting the Bureau’s RD&E agenda for cassava, which may be extended to other major rootcrops, that is in tune with the industry’s current and emerging needs.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The participants who have contributed vital information on the postharvest needs of the rootcrops industry are hereby acknowledged:

Participants of the Focus Group Discussion namely:

Philippine National Rootcrops Research and Training Center (Dr.

PED and PPDD staff who have participated and facilitated the conduct of focus group discussion namely: Dr. Normita A. Pasalo, Ms. Olivia L. Cancer and Engr. Ma. Resurreccion L. Altamera.

The Authors

Postharvest RDE Agenda for CASSAVAA Reference Material

By: KLB Sebastian, EDF Santiago

Philippine Cassava Industry OverviewAmong all rootcrops produced in the country, cassava ranks number one in terms

of volume produced, area planted and yield per hectare. Aside from being a “security food crop”, cassava is a raw material for non-food products such as ingredient for animal feeds, source of ethanol for biofuel and high grade starch for various industrial uses including biodegradable packing material. Hence, cassava finds itself in the list of crops that have great potential in addressing global concerns on food, industrial use and environmental concerns.

Rootcrops are planted to about half a million hectares of agricultural land each year; and contributes about 4 percent to the gross value added from agriculture (BAS, 2008).

Among all the rootcrops planted in the country, cassava is number one in terms of volume of production and generally requires minimal labor input during production. It is the cheapest source of energy which contains one-third starch and produces a great deal of calories from nutrient-poor soils. It is a staple food for millions of rural folks in the western and southern regions of the country, while elsewhere, it is a raw material for starch production.

Cassava is considered a “famine crop” when other crops fail under drought and unfavorable climatic conditions (Cabanilla, 1991). In a country where hunger is now a reality for many poor households, cassava is among the food crops that can make the crucial difference between starvation and survival.

Cassava ranks next to sweet potato in terms of per capita consumption. It has the highest income elasticity among all the rootcrops which means that as income grows, preference is given to cassava consumption (Table 1).

Aside from the tubers, every part of the cassava plant has its own use: the leaves may be consumed as vegetable, or cooked as a soup ingredient or dried and fed to livestock as protein supplement; the stem is used as planting material.

Table 1. Philippine per capita consumption of rootcrops (kg/year)

CROPPER CAPITA

CONSUMPTION (1990-1999)

PROJECTED PER CAPITA

CONSUMPTION (2000-2010)

PROJECTED PER CAPITA

CONSUMPTION (2011-2020)

INCOME ELASTICI

TY

Sweetpotato 8.97 7.82 10.4 0.56Cassava 6.99 7.06 9.36 0.66Irish potato 0.88 0.78 1.03 0.56Other roots and tubers

23.58 21.39 28.25 0.58

Source: Mariscal and Bacusmo, 2002

At present, cassava is the most economically important among the tropical rootcrops because of its utilization as food, animal feed and raw material in industry (VICARP-PRCTRC 1995). Aside from its use as a staple food, cassava has numerous uses as shown in Figure 1.

With the chronic shortage of maize production, which results to high prices of domestically produced animal feeds, cassava has gained gradual acceptance as a high-energy component in commercial feed formulations and is now a common ingredient in major feed brands (Mariscal and Bacusmo, 2002). Even for bio-fuel and alcohol production, cassava is considered as the most viable substitute raw material for sugar, considering the negative outlook of the Philippine sugar industry (Bacusmo, 2001; Tan, et al., 2005).

Production

Cassava is broadly classified as “bitter” variety (white cassava), which has larger concentration of cyanide; and the “sweet” variety (yellow cassava) with lower cyanide content. Since its introduction into the Philippines from the Americas, possibly by the Spaniards, Filipinos have learned how to prepare cassava as part of common diet. The preparations make cassava safe to eat; hence, poisoning is extremely rare (Mariscal, 1987).

Of the country’s major crops, cassava ranked 7th in terms of total volume of agricultural output, with an average of at least 1.65 thousand metric tons (2004 to 2006) (), and contributed about 2 percent to the Gross Value Added from agriculture (BAS, 2005).

Figure 1. Uses of cassava

Feed ingredient

Chips, Pellets

Chemical raw material for: plastics tanning of leather coating, sizings and adhesives paper-making textiles high-fructose syrup alcohol “filler” for pharmaceutical products

Food Uses

Baked Fermented Dried

Meal

raw material for the manufacture: MSG beer products, alcohol, ethanol vinegar vermicelli ("noodle" or "sotanghon")

Flour partial substitute for wheat flour thickener paste binder and stabilizer

Starch

Dextrose and Glucose syrup sweetening agent

Potherb

Grated

Gelatinized

Boiled

Baked

Fried

Milled

Unpeeled Roots

Grated

Dried

Peeled Roots

Milled Starch

Tubers Leaves and Stems

Cassava

Non-food uses

Table 2. Philippine agricultural production of major crops, ('000 mt), 2004-2006.

CROPYEAR

GROWTH RATE

2004 2005 2006AVERAG

E2004-06

Sugarcane 23,978.38 25,579.22 20,794.71 23,450.77 6.68 Coconut 14,294.20 14,366.17 14,796.57 14,485.65 0.50 Palay 13,499.89 14,496.78 14,603.01 14,199.89 7.38 Banana 5,368.97 5,631.26 6,282.07 5,760.77 4.89 Corn 4,615.63 5,413.39 5,253.77 5,094.26 17.28 Pineapple 1,697.95 1,759.81 1,787.60 1,748.45 3.64 Cassava 1,758,412 1,912,904 1,780,012 1,879,878 0.02Mango 1,006.18 967.48 985.42 986.36 (3.85)Camote 546.97 545.15 574.61 555.58 (0.33)Rubber 273.99 311.30 325.62 303.64 13.62 Calamansi 180.93 179.03 202.51 187.49 (1.05)Eggplant 176.99 182.74 187.87 182.53 3.25 Tomato 150.05 172.34 173.78 165.39 14.86 Coffee 106.39 102.88 105.89 105.05 (3.30)Cabbage 91.98 92.78 91.44 92.07 0.87 Onion 93.85 86.74 82.02 87.54 (7.58)Abaca 69.77 74.46 74.07 72.77 6.72 Tobacco 52.90 48.31 45.08 48.76 (8.68)Source: Selected Statistics on Agriculture, BAS, 2006

Cassava production and consumption as a staple food are highest in ARMM, particularly in Lanao del Sur and Sulu Archipelago, while some islands in Visayas and Mindanao with narrow coastal plains produce and largely subsist on cassava. The Bicol Region is also a major cassava-producing area, particularly Camarines Sur (Table 3).

Between 1996 and 2000, the country’s overall production did not significantly increase, however, a pronounced increase in non-traditional producing areas was observed between 2001 and 2006. For example, Cagayan Valley produced the lowest volume between 1996 and 2000 with 1,387 metric tons which abruptly increased to 14,409 metric tons between 2001 and 2006; an almost 1000 percent increase.

Table 3. Average cassava production (mt), area planted (ha), yield (kg/ha), distribution and growth rates (%) in major growing areas, 1996-2000 and 2001-2006

REGION / PROVINCE

1996-2000VOLUME (MT) AREA (MT) YIELD (KG/HA)

AV.%

DIST’NGROWTH

RATE  AV.

% DIST’

N

GROWTH

RATE  AV.

GROWTH RATE

PHILIPPINES 1,914,683 100.00 0.03 228,305 100.00 0.01 8.39 0.02TOP PROVINCESLanao Sur 640,315 33.49 0.02 32,806 14.39 0.08 19.53 -0.06Basilan 195,352 10.22 0.02 18,041 7.91 0.04 10.83 -0.02Camarines Sur 188,444 9.86 -0.03 20,897 9.16 0.01 9.02 -0.04Sulu 131,600 6.88 0.05 28,336 12.43 -0.04 4.65 0.10Bohol 125,631 6.57 -0.08 12,240 5.37 -0.04 10.26 -0.04Tawi-tawi 75,679 3.96 0.17 17,484 7.67 0.16 4.33 0.02Bukidnon 66,053 3.45 1.06 6,218 2.73 1.00 10.57 0.04Albay 49,455 2.59 -0.26 4,885 2.14 -0.48 10.31 0.30Misamis Oriental 42,589 2.23 0.26 4,724 2.07 0.22 9.01 0.05Quezon 37,374 1.95 0.06 6,480 2.84 0.02 5.77 0.05Leyte 31,656 1.66 -0.32 7,922 3.47 -0.32 4.00 0.01Western Samar 28,274 1.48 0.33 6,020 2.64 0.35 4.71 0.04Negros Occidental 28,245 1.48 -0.08 6,262 2.75 -0.10 4.51 0.01Cebu 24,992 1.31 0.09 3,720 1.63 0.01 6.72 0.08Eastern Samar 16,649 0.87 -0.13 2,447 1.07 -0.13 6.80 -0.01Surigao Norte 16,396 0.86 -0.18 4,231 1.86 -0.10 3.87 -0.08Southern Leyte 13,809 0.72 0.01 5,834 2.56 -0.11 2.37 0.12Zamboanga Sur 12,481 0.65 0.11 1,612 0.71 -0.01 7.75 0.14Batangas 12,303 0.64 0.11 929 0.41 0.17 13.27 -0.06

All Others 177,388 9.28 1.02 37,218 16.32 1.18 309 2.56REGIONARMM 1,050,139 54.93 0.03 97,553 42.79 0.04 10.77 -0.01BICOL 251,979 13.18 -0.08 30,860 13.53 -0.10 8.17 0.02C. VISAYAS 159,486 8.34 -0.04 20,416 8.95 0.03 7.81 -0.07N.MINDANAO 127,358 6.66 0.58 13,361 5.86 0.51 9.48 0.06E. VISAYAS 95,257 4.98 -0.03 24,854 10.90 -0.10 3.84 0.07CALABARZON 54,346 2.84 0.05 7,997 3.51 0.02 6.80 0.03W. VISAYAS 48,334 2.53 -0.10 9,361 4.11 -0.11 5.17 0.02CARAGA 32,616 1.71 -0.17 8,755 3.84 -0.14 3.72 -0.04ZAMBOANGA PENINSULA

24,806 1.30 0.19 4,533 1.99 -0.06 5.48 0.26

DAVAO REGION 20,530 1.07 -0.18 2,754 1.21 -0.11 7.44 -0.08SOCCSKSARGEN 16,571 0.87 -0.11 1,655 0.73 -0.18 10.02 0.08ILOCOS REGION 11,112 0.58 0.13 1,967 0.86 0.22 5.67 -0.08MIMAROPA 8,723 0.46 -0.21 2,217 0.97 0.02 3.94 -0.21CENTRAL LUZON 7,321 0.38 -0.14 1,150 0.50 -0.16 6.37 0.02CAR 4,717 0.25 -0.06 547 0.24 0.03 8.64 -0.07CAGAYAN V. 1,387 0.07 0.12 325 0.14 -0.21 4.30 0.37

Table 3 (continuation)

REGION / PROVINCE

2001-2006VOLUME (MT) AREA (MT) YIELD (KG/HA)

AV.%

DIST’NGROWTH

RATE  AV.

% DIST’N

GROWTH RATE

  AV.GROWTH

RATEPHILIPPINES 1,883,286 100.00 -0.06 224,246 100.00 -0.07 8.40 0.01TOP PROVINCESLanao Sur 665,024 35.38 0.05 35,889 16.03 0.06 18.53 -0.01Basilan 200,942 10.69 0.02 18,168 8.11 -0.05 11.06 0.07Camarines Sur 168,313 8.95 -0.24 22,153 9.89 0.04 7.62 -0.28Sulu 143,269 7.62 0.23 27,507 12.28 -0.04 5.22 0.29Bohol 100,592 5.35 -0.59 9,999 4.47 -0.64 10.06 0.06Tawi-tawi 93,893 4.99 0.16 18,901 8.44 0.02 4.97 0.14Bukidnon 61,691 3.28 -0.14 6,161 2.75 0.01 9.98 -0.04Quezon 42,367 2.25 0.16 6,889 3.08 0.04 6.15 0.12Misamis Oriental 36,845 1.96 -0.19 3,602 1.61 -0.32 10.42 0.23Albay 27,385 1.46 -0.71 3,307 1.48 -0.29 8.39 -0.29Negros Occidental 25,457 1.35 -0.07 3,661 1.63 -0.45 7.28 0.77Cebu 24,641 1.31 -0.17 3,618 1.62 -0.10 6.80 -0.08Leyte 24,452 1.30 0.12 6,575 2.94 0.13 3.72 -0.01Western Samar 16,859 0.90 -1.09 5,528 2.47 -0.23 2.94 -0.93Surigao Sur 15,260 0.81 0.95 2,725 1.22 -0.02 0.00 0.00Eastern Samar 15,229 0.81 -0.14 2,228 1.00 -0.10 6.83 -0.02Surigao Norte 14,598 0.78 -0.26 3,892 1.74 -0.30 3.76 0.04Zamboanga Sur 12,313 0.65 -0.25 1,573 0.70 -0.21 7.82 -0.05Batangas 11,062 0.59 -0.30 1,341 0.60 0.40 8.43 -0.41All Others 183,095 9.74 45.29 40,531 18.10 41.71 350.46 6.79REGIONARMM 1,109,665 59.03 0.07 101,393 45.28 0.00 10.94 0.07BICOL 206,566 10.99 -0.31 29,503 13.17 -0.02 7.00 -0.30C. VISAYAS 135,146 7.19 -0.48 18,322 8.18 -0.42 7.33 -0.07N. MINDANAO 114,091 6.07 -0.22 12,023 5.37 -0.20 9.49 0.00E. VISAYAS 72,318 3.85 -0.35 22,968 10.26 -0.04 3.14 -0.32CALABARZON 57,736 3.07 0.03 8,849 3.95 0.06 6.53 -0.02W. VISAYAS 49,937 2.66 0.11 6,779 3.03 -0.25 7.50 0.52CARAGA 36,240 1.93 0.21 7,836 3.50 -0.20 4.69 0.43ZAMBOANGA 27,065 1.44 -0.06 5,357 2.39 0.25 5.09 -0.26DAVAO REGION 15,812 0.84 -0.34 2,393 1.07 -0.30 6.59 -0.05CAGAYAN V. 14,409 0.77 6.51 1,918 0.86 5.70 7.22 0.50ILOCOS REGION 13,497 0.72 0.11 1,935 0.86 -0.12 7.07 0.35SOCCSKSARGEN 9,004 0.48 -0.23 1,070 0.48 0.19 8.63 -0.10CENTRAL LUZON 7,915 0.42 0.18 1,135 0.51 0.06 6.97 0.12MIMAROPA 7,911 0.42 0.03 2,149 0.96 0.02 3.68 0.01CAR 5,971 0.32 0.88 618 0.28 0.12 9.60 0.73

Source: Selected Statistics on Agriculture, BAS, 2006

Likewise, production in CAR increased by at least 27 percent between 1996-2000 and 2001-2006, in Ilocos Region by at least 21 percent and Central Luzon by about 8 percent.

In terms of area devoted to cassava plantation, the total decreased by about 4,000 hectares from 1999-2000 to 2001-2006. However, the overall decrease in area was compensated by a positive increase in the yields from the non-traditional cassava producers. The cassava areas in Northern Philippines, particularly in Cagayan Valley, Ilocos Region and CAR have increased is due to the contract-growing scheme between the farmers and SMC in Northern Luzon.

Utilization

Cassava produced in the country is mostly processed (84 percent) into secondary forms such as starch, flour and used as raw material for food and non-food purposes; a portion is directly consumed as table food (10 percent); some are used as feed ingredient (6 percent) and a negligible volume is exported (less than 1 percent) (Table 4and ). Starting in 2003, the country’s gross supply of cassava took an upward trend with a growth rate of 2.26 percent between 2004 and 2005. At present, cassava is being considered for bio-fuel and alcohol production.

Table 4. Cassava supply and utilization (mt), 1996-2005YEAR SUPPLY UTILIZATION

PROD'NIM-

PORTGROSS SUPPLY

EX-PORT

FEEDS & WASTE

PROCES-SING

NET FOOD SUPPLY

TOTALKG

/ YR

GM /

DAY

1996 1,924,813 1,924,813 427 115,489 1,616,484 192,412 2.75 7.531997 1,887,693 1,887,693 316 113,261 1,585,397 188,719 2.64 7.241998 1,855,410 1,855,410 506 111,324 1,558,119 185,461 2.54 6.951999 1,917,772 1,917,772 653 115,066 1,610,380 191,672 2.57 7.032000 1,973,928 1,973,928 467 118,436 1,657,707 197,318 2.58 7.082001 1,916,773 1,916,773 305 115,006 1,609,833 191,629 2.46 6.742002 1,928,547 1,928,547 970 115,712 1,619,165 192,699 2.42 6.632003 1,982,618 7,548 1,982,618 1,035 118,505 1,664,530 198,549 2.45 6.712004 1,758,412 12,995 1,758,412 660 104,725 1,476,512 176,515 2.14 5.862005 1,912,904   1,912,904 556 114,774 1,606,372 191,201 2.25 6.16

Source: Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, 2006

Processing84%

Food10%

Feeds & Waste

6%

Exports0.02%

Figure 2. Cassava utilization, 1996-2005

Exports and Imports

The country’s export of dried cassava took an erratic trend throughout the 10-year period, with 2003 and 2004 having registered the highest volume of exports. The same trend was seen in the country’s imports and exports of cassava starch and tapioca (Table5).

Table 5. Cassava imports and exports in different forms (metric tons), 1996-2005YEAR DRIED STARCH TAPIOCA

IMPORTS EXPORTS IMPORTS EXPORTS IMPORTS EXPORTS1996 267 7,551 0 133 7,7211997 587 16,586 0 1 301998 328 11,182 0 43,671 181999 651 8,602 0 5,560 432000 645 11,326 0 141 222001 581 11,490 0 668 322002 359 34,441 3 6,784 642003 818 43,102 0 1,122 1712004 850 30,572 35 700 3352005 12,214 620 46,066 1 1,193 112

Source: Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, 2006

Production Costs and Returns

BAS data show that labor comprises the bulk of expenses incurred by farmers in planting cassava (75 percent of the total costs) (Table 6). Other expenses are fertilizers, planting materials, tools and equipment and interest on crop loan (Figure 3).

Table 6. Cassava production costs and returns (Php/ha), 1996-2005

ITEM 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

AVE-RAGE (1996-2000)

AVE-RAGE (2001-2005)

CHANGE(1996-2000

AND2001-2005)

PHP %

Cost of ProductionSeeds / planting materials 514 515 708 656 664 590 588 754 760 726 611 684 72 11.81

Fertilizer 680 640 548 545 586 698 689 861 1,166 1,450 600 973 373 62.19

Labor 3,565 3,983 4,809 7,916 7,993 8,004 8,263 8,669 9,045 9,298 5,653 8,656 3,003 53.11 Machine, tools, equipment 728 805 447 476 497 521 547 575 617 658 591 584 7 (1.17)

Transport of inputs 15 16 18 19 22 25 25 26 29 34 18 28 10 54.44

Interest on crop loan 275 278 280 308 339 373 410 451 496 546 296 455 159 53.78

ALL COSTS 5,777 6,237 6,810 9,920 10,101 10,211 10,522 11,336 12,113 12,712 7,769 11,379 3,610 46.47

GROSS RETURNS 29,204 29,729 30,686 29,839 29,988 25,154 24,743 31,404 32,530 31,949 29,889 29,156 -733 (2.45)

NET RETURNS 23,427 23,492 23,876 19,919 19,887 14,943 14,221 20,068 20,417 19,237 22,120 17,777 -4,343 (19.63)

                             

Cost (P/kg) 0.69 0.73 0.85 1.17 1.20 1.29 1.34 1.46 1.52 1.55 0.93 1.43

Average yield (kg/ha) 8,368 8,494 8,054 8,453 8,400 7,935 7,830 7,754 7,973 8,192 8,354 7,937

Farmgate price (P/kg) 3.49 3.50 3.81 3.53 3.57 3.17 3.16 4.05 4.08 3.90 3.58 3.67

Source: Bureau of Agricultural Statistics, 2005

221

Seeds / planting materials6.76%

Transport of inputs0.24%

Interest on crop loan

3.92%

Machine, tools,

equipment6.13%

Fertilizer8.21%

Labor74.73%

Figure 3. Cassava production costs per hectare (average of 1996-2005)

Development EffortsGovernment and non-government institutions have undertaken development

and expansion of the Philippine cassava industry. Production and postproduction technologies have been developed, improved and disseminated through various rootcrops industry programs. However, the growth of the industry has been sluggish despite these support programs, and despite cassava’s status as one of the major non-permanent crops, and its contributions to the total crop production of the country.

To boost the growth of agriculture, a new approach was introduced by the government through the legislation of Republic Act 7900 (RA 7900) known as the Gintong Ani High Value Commercial Crops Development Act (GA-HVCCP) which adopts “market-orientation” in building up the high value commercial crops industry.

Under the Arroyo Administration, the GA-HVCCP was replaced by the Ginintuang Masaganang Ani (GMA) High Value Commercial Crops Program (HVCC). The new program emphasizes the need to strengthen the marketing aspect of the production chain by linking producers with the market or end-users. Furthermore, the program encourages the production of commodities that are largely imported, e.g., mungbean and peanut, to conserve foreign exchange, and expand exports to generate additional foreign exchange.

In support to the GMA-HVCC Program, the “Gintong Ani for Rootcrops Program” was launched in 1998, specifically for the expansion of the rootcrops industry.

The Medium-term Development Plan of the Philippines (NEDA, 2004) includes cassava among the major high value crops in the country’s “Six-year Targets for Agribusiness Development and Productivity Improvement, 2004-2010” ().

Table 7. Six-year targets for agribusiness development and productivity improvement (2004-2010)

CommodityNew areas for agribusiness

development (ha)

Number of jobs to be generated

Existing areas for productivity

enhancement (ha)

Number of jobs to be generated

Rice 875,130 80,860Corn 280,250 280,250Livestock 45,200 45,200High Value Food Crops 292,690 329,670 214,780 214,780Pineapple 1,520 1,900 - -Pili 850 1,120 - -Sugar 20,410 20,410 - -Coffee 9,440 9,440 56,420 56,420Mango 130,170 130,170 - -Durian 8,510 8,510 22,090 22,090Banana 72,840 72,840 - -Onion - - 2,680 2,680Cassava 15,590 15,590 48,420 48,420Citrus 390 390 11,680 11,680Vegetables 26,730 63,060 73,490 73,490Garlic 6,240 6,240 - -High Value Non-Food Crops 1,412,050 1,412,050 170,340 170,340GRAND TOTAL 2,047,400 2,810,710 1,260,250 465,980

Source: DA-AMAS, 2005

Until 2010, cassava is expected to contribute a total of at least 64,000 additional jobs from the existing and new areas of production. This is equivalent to at least 22 percent contribution to total expected employment from all high value crops, or at least 14 percent overall contributions among all targeted sources of productivity enhancement.

Postharvest handling practices

Figure 5 shows the postharvest handling for cassava, including practices by farmers who sell their produce as non-food crop to companies like SMC.

HarvestingCassava tubers are harvested after at least eight up to 12 months after planting.

Harvesting is done manually by uprooting the cassava stalks, after chopping off most of the top vegetation. Not all cassava roots are harvested at one time by the farmers, instead, harvesting is done on staggered basis, depending on household requirements or on marketing schedule.

HAR

VEST

ING

& H

AND

LIN

GPR

OD

UCT

ION

Planting and crop maintenance

Harvesting

Common varieties planted are Golden yellow or White lakan

Harvest after at least 8 months until the 12th month from plantingProgressive or staggered harvestingManual harvesting

Air-drying or Washing of Tubers

1-2 days air drying on-field to remove soil adhering on the tubers; or washing of tubers to remove dirt

Chipping

Motor-driven chipperFarmer-ownedCooperative-owned (chipping fee of Php0.50/kg of tubers)

Packing and Transporting

Soak chips in salt water solution for 2-3 minutes before drying on cassava drying pavement or on net spread on the ground2-3 days of good sunlight to dry chips down to 14% moisture content

Jute or nylon sacksAverage of Php0.72/kg of chips to cover transport expense including labor for loading and unloading

Drying of Chips

MAR

KETI

NG

Figure 4. Postharvest handling for cassava

Air Drying

Soil adhering to the cassava tubers are shaken off. The harvested tubers are then air-dried in the field for one or two days to further facilitate the removal of dirt adhering on the roots. Some farmers wash the tubers to remove excess soil before air-drying them, especially when the tubers were excessively covered with dirt.

For non-food purposes (specifically those who sell their cassava to companies like SMC, or other large companies that use cassava for industrial purposes, the following practices are done:

Chipping

For the harvest that is are intended for sale as animal feeds and other purposes not for human consumption, the peels are left on the roots to obtain firm dried chips. The stem and hard portions of air-dried roots are first cut off before chipping with the use of locally-fabricated motorized chippers.

Drying of chips

To prevent browning, the chipped cassava roots are first submerged in boiling water for three to five minutes before being sundried. The farmers dry the chipped cassava on a net spread on the ground. Some farmers dry their cassava chips using multipurpose drying pavements. It takes about two to three days of good sunlight to dry the crop up to the acceptable moisture level of not more than 14 percent.Figure 5. Flow chart of production, handling and marketing activities under contract-growing

Technologies and Development Studies

BPRE, the country’s leading postharvest research agencies such as the Philippine Root Crop Research and Training Center, the Philippine Horticultural Research and Training Center, the Visayas State College of Agriculture and others are actively pursuing the development and cassava postharvest technologies.

At present, the following technologies and information are available for cassava postharvest handling and processing:

• A stationary mechanical dryer is available at the Philippine Rootcrop Research and Training Center (PRCRTC)

• Multi-crop dryer is available at the Bureau of Postharvest Research and Extension (BPRE)

• Recommendations of PRCRTC-ViSCA on tuber storage

• Analysis on secondary metabolism changes in cassava tissue and physiological deterioration

• Cassava washer-peeler

• Improved technique for cassava cyanide removal

• Effect of delayed processing of cassava tubers on alcohol recovery

• Amylose activity of local strain of Streptococcus bovis on raw cassava starch

• Comparative hydrocyanic acid (HCN) content of fresh and processed tubers of five selected cassava varieties

• Cassava starch and powder as binders for coconut husk charcoal briquettes

• Fungal protein production using cassava flour as substrate

• A mechanical harvester has been developed in Brazil which grabs onto the stem and lifts the roots from the ground

• Removing the leaves two weeks before harvest lengthens the shelf life for two weeks.

• Dipping the roots in paraffin or wax or storing them in plastic bags reduce the incidence of vascular streaking and extends the shelf life to three or four weeks

Postharvest Issues and ConcernsThe following issues and concerns have been identified as having significant

impact on the development of the cassava postharvest industry:

• Short shelf life of harvested roots and processed products

• Harvesting is laborious & time consuming

• During rainy season, small or broken tubers need to be dried immediately

• Storage problems of roots for planting materials

• High production and postproduction cost

• Prices for fresh tubers highly fluctuating and not comparable to sweet potato (very low buying price)

• Cassava has longer production period & a soil nutrient depleting commodity

• Lack of supply of cassava roots as raw material for processing

• A cassava processing plant in Mindanao was closed because of the lack of raw material source for processing into flour and starch

• Lack of farm-to-market roads

Proposed RD&E Agenda and InterventionsTo further develop and enhance the competitive edge of cassava, the following recommendations (RDE Agenda) are put forward:

1. continue to support the development of cassava production in non-traditional and non-major consumption centers to attain net production surplus for industrial purposes

Develop non-traditional cassava production areas. Cassava thrives well in any part of the country. Non-traditional cassava areas are now producing in greater quantities due to assured markets for their crop. The momentum should be sustained through government support to make the country an exporter and/or processor of cassava into high-grade products like starch and tapioca.

Production of cassava from traditional backyard to modern large-scale commercial production systems necessitates support for the farmers in terms of training, technology transfer and hardware support (e.g. modern agricultural machineries and equipment, etc), among others. Support mechanism should be implemented with gradual phase-out until the farmers can compete in the local and global markets.

Improve Production Systems to Increase Efficiency and Profitability for Farmers. Planting materials and labor comprise the biggest expense in the production of cassava. To reduce the costs of labor, planting materials and other inputs, it is essential to increase yields and improve the starch content and/or the nutritional value of the roots and leaves. These can be attained through improved technology that includes:

a. varieties with greater and faster yield gains, higher starch content, and varieties with other properties that are suitable for specific uses;

b. crop management and cultural practices that are cost-effective including land preparation, fertilizer application, integrated pest management, and cost-effective postharvest equipment and handling techniques.

c. Mechanize the production and postproduction activities to reduce the labor cost

2. add post-harvest value by the development of new products and more efficient processes;

Adding Post-harvest Value. Cassava-based foods are usually processed by the farmers. For non-foods, cassava is processed into dried chips, granules or grits. There remains a huge opportunity for the farmers through value-adding activities that can turn a simple crop into a major raw material for industrial use, such as starch (for the production of ethanol. Other products, like biodegradable plastics, have enormous future potential, but they will require much additional research before cassava starch can be used on a commercial scale for this purpose.

3. stimulate higher demand for cassava-based products through market development.

Market Development. Cassava farmers, processors and traders can benefit from expanded cassava production only if there is demand for the final product. This is a push-pull situation. Higher yields and increased cassava production allow efficient operation of processing factories, which in turn require good access to markets to sell their products; but conversely, the presence of processing factories and an assured market stimulate farmers to expand their cassava area and use the best technologies available to increase yields and income. A good example is Vietnam. The recent boom in cassava production was a result of farmers adopting new varieties and improved practices in response to the establishment of new starch factories in many provinces, which in turn was a response to the opening up of new markets, both domestic and in neighboring China.

While demand for cassava starch, both native and modified, is likely to increase in Asia, there may also be opportunities to create new markets for products that exploit cassava’s unique starch characteristics, especially in the processed food industries. Development of snack foods like cassava chips and French fries; semi-processed foods like cassava croquettes, instant noodles; as well as ingenious uses of cassava pearls (sago) in fruit drinks and desserts, may create additional demand for these products in urban markets. Thus, market demand drives product development, and sometimes, new products create new market opportunities. For either to succeed, products and markets need to develop together. On the other hand, production, processing and marketing need to be fully integrated.