In our undertakings to promote and develop a more sustainable
agriculture, we often tend to push – in a gentle way – the
principles and techniques of such agricultural production on
farmers. Too little attention is given to the creation of a “pulling
force”, by making sustainable agriculture more attractive
economically.
A good example is that of crop diversification in the Yayasan
Mitra Tani Mandiri area on Timor Island. Pineapple was
promoted as a suitable crop for drier areas, with potential uses in
soil conservation and products for home consumption as well as
for the market. This crop grew well, and was indeed well suited
to the situation and needs of local farmers. As a result, more
and more pineapple was planted. However, the peak harvest
season is during the rainy season, when roads are not passable
and thus the fruit cannot reach the markets. The pineapples were
therefore consumed by the producer, given away to relatives and
friends, or even left to rot in the field.
Basket of options
Development of sustainable agriculture consists for a large part
in increasing the number of options available to farmers,
enabling farmers to be more resilient and react in a
knowledgeable way. Together with farmers, we analysed what
commonly happens to agricultural products after the harvest,
and came up with the following four options: consumption,
marketing, re-use as planting material, or post-harvest loss.
These four categories were matched by four potential types of
action by farmer families after harvesting: none, treatment,
processing and/or storage (Table 1).
Table 1. Post-harvest options for farmers
Action (by farmer or household)
Destination
of produce None Treatment Processing Storage
Consumption
Market
Planting
Loss
This table provides a chance to visualize, together with
communities, the different post-harvest options. It has been used
in analysing current conditions and for assessing farmers’
opportunities. Referring to the pineapple example, farmers on
Timor Island indicated that after harvest no further processing
was done before the fruit was consumed, taken to the market or
became spoiled (Table 1, column 1). Some farmers could
estimate quite accurately the quantity of fruit that was
consumed, marketed or lost.
With some help from extensionists, it turned out that there were
opportunities for farmers to process the fruits into alternative
products such as jam, juice, or syrup, for (own) consumption or
for marketing (column 3). Processing could also decrease the
total loss of fruits! Furthermore, several of the processed
products could be stored for a longer period (jam, syrup), which
again increases the total number of post-harvest options to
include storage for consumption and marketing (column 4).
Not only processing
Indonesian farmers’ attention to improvements in post-harvest
activities is often exclusively focused on processing a product to
add value. Important factors such as labour requirements and
other investments for processing, as well as the risks involved
(including complete loss), are often overlooked.
Another example, from small coffee farmers in Toraja, South
Sulawesi, shows that there are other ways to improve post-harvest
processes. The main problem Toraja farmers are facing is that the
treatment of the ripe beans – washing and sun-drying – is rather
cumbersome. Most coffee farmers here produce small quantities
of ripe beans, and treatment is often low in quality. Discussion
showed that many coffee farmers would rather sell the ripe
beans directly after harvesting, even at a lower price. At the
same time, this would open up new opportunities for groups of
farmers, or cooperatives, which could specialize in better quality
treatment of larger amounts of coffee beans.
Decision instruments
Our last example comes from the rather new vanilla producing
area in North Maluku. Farmers have learned how to grow this
valuable spice organically and several have also mastered the
necessary skills for treating the raw vanilla beans, which
includes an elaborate process of curing (sweating and drying).
Mr. Samuel, a vanilla farmer in North Maluku, makes a decision
each year on the level of post-harvest processing to carry out.
This decision is mostly influenced by yield quantities, and
consequently labour requirements for curing, as well as the
prices offered for fresh and cured beans. In 2001 and 2002, for
example, he treated and marketed 2.8 and 3.8 kilos of vanilla
beans. He received a price of 350,000 IDR (approx. US$30 per
kilo) which gave a total income of 980,000 IDR in 2001 and
1,330,000 IDR in 2002. In 2003, after bumper harvest, he sold
101 kilos of untreated beans at the lower price of 85,000 IDR
per kilo, which gave a total income of 8,585,000 IDR.
Finding solutions
By systematically analysing different post-harvest options, we
have been able to explore the alternatives together with farmers
– for example, in the case of the coffee in Toraja, the option to
sell the berries straight from the tree. Another option would have
been to process the coffee beans to a finished product for
consumption or sale. In the case of vanilla, the treatment needs a
lot of care, which implies that there are risks involved. Options
to explore might include training on proper treatment methods,
specialization of a group on “professional” treatment of vanilla
beans, or even just directly selling the beans after harvest.
■
Rik Thijssen. Advisor Sustainable Agriculture. VECO Indonesia, Jalan Letda Kajeng
22, 80234 Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia