SUSTAINABLE HARVESTING,

DELIVERY AND TRANSPORT

SYSTEMS FOR MALAPAPAYA
(Polyscias nodosa) IN A COCONUT-
MALAPAPAYA AGROFORESTRY
SCHEME

Final Report 2010

Diomedes A. Racelis
Associate Professor
Institute of Renewable Natural Resources
College of Forestry and Natural Resources
University of the Philippines Los Baños
A. Basic Information
1. PROGRAM TITLE: Industry Enhancement of Malapapaya in
Quezon and Laguna
2. PROJECT TITLE: Sustainable Harvesting, Delivery and Transport
Systems for Malapapaya (Polyscias nodosa) in a Coconut-
Malapapaya Agroforestry Scheme
3. RESEARCH LEADER: Diomedes A. Racelis, IRNR-CFNR
4. IMPLEMENTING AGENCY/STATION:
a. Lead agency: IRNR-UPLB-CFNR
b. Cooperating Agencies: DENR, PCARRD, FPRDI
c. Project Sites: Atimonan and Lopez, Quezon
5. FUNDING AGENCY: DOST-PCARRD
6. DURATION:
a. Date started: January 2008
b. Original date of completion: December 2009
c. Extension: March 2010
B. Objectives
GENERAL:
determine the cost-effective and
ecologically-sound harvesting, delivery and
transport systems for Malapapaya

SPECIFIC:
1. characterize different Malapapaya production and harvesting
sites;
2. determine productivity and cost factors of various harvesting,
delivery and transport systems for Malapapaya;
3. compare productivity and costs of the various systems;
4. assess indicative ecological impacts of the various systems;
5. identify appropriate harvesting, delivery and transport systems
for Malapapaya; and
6. enable Malapapaya farmers to adopt sustainable harvesting,
delivery and transport systems.
C. Research Highlights
1. Characterization of malapapaya harvesting sites
a. Atimonan Site
• Barangay Kilait is 5 kilometers south of Atimonan town
proper passing through 3 kilometers of the Maharlika
Highway and 2 kilometers of barangay feeder road.
• The harvesting site is located in predominantly coconut
plantation areas where malapapaya trees are naturally
growing.
• The area is characterized by undulating terrain with
occasional hilly areas and paddy fields planted to rice.
• The soil in lower elevation is classified as alluvial due to
the proximity of the area to creeks and stream flowing
from nearby hills down to the coastal barangays while
those found in upper elevation is a mixture of mountain
soil and limestone.
C. Research Highlights
1. Characterization of malapapaya harvesting sites
a. Lopez Site
• Barangay Lalaguna is located about seven (7) kilometers
from Lopez town proper along 2 kilometers of Maharlika
Highway and 5 kilometers of barangay feeder road.
• The area is also characterized by rolling terrain bordered
by the Lalaguna Marsh and hills planted to coconut.
• The soil is also alluvial with occasional undifferentiated
mountain soils.
• Malapapaya trees abound underneath coconut
plantations that dominate the land uses in the area.
 C. Research Highlights
2. Productivity and Cost Factors

a. Felling and Bucking (CHAINSAW)

• A harvesting crew can cut and buck an average of about
800 bd. ft. or 1.89 cu. m. per day on an 8-hour shift.
• A brand new unit of chainsaw costs around P35,000 while
a second-hand or used unit can be bought at P15,000 a
piece.
• The average useful life of a brand new unit is around 10
years while that of used unit is 1 to 3 years.
 C. Research Highlights
2. Productivity and Cost Factors
a. Felling and Bucking (CHAINSAW)
• One (1) liter of premium gasoline can be used to cut an equivalent of
400 bd. ft. or 0.94 cu. m.
• The crew spends on motor oil (P 140/liter at 1 liter per 10 liters of
gasoline, guide bar oil (P50 for 2 months), (contact point (P170 for 1-2
years), file (P140 for 5 years) and blade (P700 for 3 years).
• Labor cost for chainsaw operator is P1 per bd. ft. (P424 per cu. m.)
and helper at P0.20 per bd. ft (P84.80 per cu. m.).
• Data shows that the felling cost by chainsaw is about P 2.00 per bd.
ft. or P 848 per cu. m. (1 volume = 3 bd. ft).
 TIME AND MOTION STUDY
Sample data:
Tree #1
Average diameter = 26 cm
Total Length = 10.8 m
a. Cleaning/clearing = 25 sec
b. Undercut = 15 sec
c. Felling/back cut = 15 sec
d. Bucking into 1.2-m bolts = 52 sec

8 sec 7 sec 6 sec 6 sec 5 sec 5 sec 5 sec 5 sec 5 sec

e. Marking of 1.2 m length = 90 sec
f. Positioning and labelling of logs = 45 sec
g. Topping = 5 sec
h. Starting up chainsaw (felling) = 4 sec
i. Starting up chainsaw (bucking) = 3 sec
j. Total time elapsed = 254 sec or 4.23 min
 C. Research Highlights
2. Productivity and Cost Factors
b. Felling and Bucking (HANDSAW)
• Productivity rate = about 500 bd. ft. or 1.18 cu. m.
• One (1) piece of hand saw can be bought for P100 with a useful life of
5 to 6 years.
• The only cost incurred in maintaining the saw is the file used to
sharpen its blade. Labor cost for tree feller using handsaw is P2.40
per bd. ft.
• One (1) file costs P140 each and can be used for more than five (5)
years.
• Felling by handsaw costs P2.50 per bd. ft or P1,060 per cu. m.
 C. Research Highlights
2. Productivity and Cost Factors
a. Hauling and Transport (HORSE)
• Hauling involves tying up the cut logs or bolts into a
saddle attached on the back of the horse.
• A horse can haul an average of 150 bd. ft. or 0.35 cu.
m. per day.
• Calculation shows that the hauling rate by horse is
P 3.30 per bd. ft. or P 1,399.20 per cu. m.
 C. Research Highlights
2. Productivity and Cost Factors
a. Hauling and Transport (CARABAO)
• Skidding involves loading the cut bolts in a sledge
pulled by the animal.
• A carabao can skid an average of 200 bd. ft. or 0.47
cu. m. per day.
• Calculation shows that the skidding rate by carabao
is P 2.00 per bd. ft. or P 848 per cu. m.
 C. Research Highlights
3. Comparative Analysis of Productivity and Costs of
Various Systems

a. Felling and Bucking

• Data shows that chainsaw is more cost-effective
than handsaw.
• Felling and bucking by chainsaw can produce 800
bd. ft. (1.89 cu. m) of malapapaya trees at a cost of
P2.00 per bd. ft. (P848 per cu. m) while handsaw has
500 bd. ft. (1.18 cu. m.) at a cost of P2.50 per bd. ft.
(P1.060 per cu. m.).
• Using chainsaw in felling is cheaper by P0.50 per bd.
ft. (P212.00 per cu. m.)
 C. Research Highlights
3. Comparative Analysis of Productivity and Costs of
Various Systems

b. Hauling/Skidding
• Calculations show that carabao skidding is cheaper
than hauling by horse by P1.30 per bd. ft. (P551.20 per
cu. m.).
• This is based on carabao skidding rate of 200 bd. ft.
(0.47 cu. m.) per day at P2.00 per bd. ft. (P848 per cu.
m.) compared to hauling rate by horse of 150 bd. ft.
(0.35 cu. m.) per day at P3.30 per bd. ft. (P1,399.20 per
cu. m.).
 C. Research Highlights
3. Comparative Analysis of Productivity and Costs of
Various Systems

b. Hauling/Skidding
• Calculations show that carabao skidding is cheaper
than hauling by horse by P1.30 per bd. ft. (P551.20 per
cu. m.).
• This is based on carabao skidding rate of 200 bd. ft.
(0.47 cu. m.) per day at P2.00 per bd. ft. (P848 per cu.
m.) compared to hauling rate by horse of 150 bd. ft.
(0.35 cu. m.) per day at P3.30 per bd. ft. (P1,399.20 per
cu. m.).
 C. Research Highlights
3. Comparative Analysis of Productivity and Costs of
Various Systems

b. Hauling/Skidding
• Calculations show that carabao skidding is cheaper
than hauling by horse by P1.30 per bd. ft. (P551.20 per
cu. m.).
• This is based on carabao skidding rate of 200 bd. ft.
(0.47 cu. m.) per day at P2.00 per bd. ft. (P848 per cu.
m.) compared to hauling rate by horse of 150 bd. ft.
(0.35 cu. m.) per day at P3.30 per bd. ft. (P1,399.20 per
cu. m.).
 C. Research Highlights
4. Indicative Environmental Impacts of the Harvesting Operations

• Based on ocular observations made in the study

sites, the harvesting operations do not have
significant environmental impacts.
• Felling and bucking operations do not result in
damage to nearby vegetation owing to the skills of
the harvesting crew in selecting the direction of fall
to avoid hitting adjacent vegetation when the trees
being cut fall.
• The negligible damage can be attributed to the
relatively small size of the malapapaya trees being
felled.
• However, chainsaw uses fossil fuel and emit carbon
dioxide and other air pollutants that somehow
contribute, no matter how negligible compared to
total global emission.
 C. Research Highlights
4. Indicative Environmental Impacts of the Harvesting Operations
• Hauling do not result in significant environmental
disturbance due to the scale of the operation compared to
commercial logging that employ heavy equipment.
• Hauling by horse does not have adverse impacts to the
site except for soil compaction that occurs along hauling
trails.
• However, since of the routes used are existing trails, the
impacts could not solely attributed to the operation.
• Carabao skidding, the operation causes more damage
than hauling by horse due to the resulting scouring and
compaction of soil along skidding trails.
• Scouring is caused by the sledge as it is being pulled by
the animal while compaction is caused by the animal and
the harvesting crew.
• However, the impact cannot be solely attributed to the
operation because the routes used are the existing trails
in the site.
 C. Research Highlights
5. Appropriate Harvesting, Delivery and Transport System for Malapapaya

• Based on the result of the study, the existing practices

in the study sites offer cost-effective and ecologically-
sound systems for harvesting, transporting and
delivering malapapaya trees.
• The use of chainsaw in felling and bucking provides a
cheap and efficient means of harvesting malapapaya
trees. Use of chainsaw allows higher felling volume at
a lower cost when compared to handsaw.
• Carabao skidding provides a more cost-effective
means of transporting harvested malapapaya from the
cutting site to the roadside.
• A carabao can haul more logs compared to the horse.
• However, hauling by horse results in comparatively
less environmental damage than carabao skidding.
 C. Research Highlights
5. Advocacy
a. Primer on Sustainable Harvesting, Transport and Delivery of Malapapaya
b. Seminar on Sustainable Harvesting, Transport and Delivery of Malapapaya
D. Significance of the R&D outputs (technology,
information, findings)

• The study enabled the identification of cost-effective

and ecologically-sound harvesting, transporting and
delivering malapapaya in selected sites in Quezon.
• The outputs could help increase productivity among
malapapaya farmers which, in turn, could uplift their
economic condition.
• The improved economic condition among early
adopters of the technology would encourage other
farmers to engage in malapapaya growing and
utilization thereby help expand the malapapaya
industry in the province.
E. Follow through activities
• The sustainable malapapaya harvesting methods
identified in the project should be disseminated
to other sites where malapapaya could be grown.
• Funds should be made available for reproducing
the primer on cost-effective and ecologically-
sound harvesting practices and conduct of more
seminars in other barangays in the area.
THANK YOU!!!