Economic Analysis of Tapping Experiments

Economic Analysis of Tapping Experiments ... {2.100% was generally the best system where share ... the latex and all the scrap and lump...

0 downloads 71 Views 956KB Size
J. Rubb. Res, lust. Malaya, 21(3), 36O-3S7 (1969)

Economic Analysis of Tapping Experiments NG ENG KOK, NG CHOONG SOOI and LEE CHEW KANG Rubber Research Institute of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Using the background data gathered in the replicated tree-plot tapping experiments, an attempt is made to compare the relative profitability of various tapping systems used on young trees of a number of modern clones over a period of three to four years. Under 'estate' conditions, for clones RRIM 600,607,612,PR 107 andGTl, either the reducedspiral or full-spiral fourth-daily system gave the highest profit throughout the initial three years of tapping. For clones RRIM 513 andPB5j51, the Sj2.dj2. 100% system was more profitable. In the case of RRIM 605 and 623, there was little difference between the S/2.d/2.WO% and the long-cut systems. During the first two years, the half-spiral low-frequency systems, i.e., either S/2.d(3.67%or Sj2.dl4.50 % have given a higher profit than the Sj'2. d,'2.100% system on clones RRIM 600 and PB 5163 and in the case of the last clone the higher profitability of the lowfrequency systems has been maintained in the third year. In all clones, the periodic systems have resulted in a lower profit than the Sj2.dj2.100 % system except for clones RRIM 607 and GT1 in -which the full-spiral periodic systems gave a higher profit. Under 'smallholding' conditions, Sj2.d{2.100% was generally the best system where share cropping or family labour is practised. Generally, half-spiral systems were more profitable than full-spiral systems in stimulation treatments where a positive response to stimulant application was obtained. Earlier attempts in the economic evaluation of tapping experiments which would give a realistic comparison of the relative profitability of tapping systems have been reported by WATSON (1965) and RUBBER RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF MALAYA (1966). In this paper, a similar approach is followed to consider the economic aspects of the R.R.I.M. tapping experiments on young rubber, using the results reported by NG et al. (1969). The R.R.I.M. tapping experiments included for consideration here are Panel A experiments on clones RRIM 513, 600, 605, 607, 612,

charges, etc. Other items such as management, manuring, weeding and field maintenance costs are not altered. Gross profit per acre, or revenue less tapping wages and other costs varying with production, has therefore been used in this paper as a criterion for assessing the profitability of a tapping system. Special formulae have been devised for calculating gross profit in the 'estate' and 'smallholding' situations, and these are now presented. In the 'estate' situation where wage payment and task size follow the INDUSTRIAL ARBITRATION COURT, MALAYSIA (1968), gross profit per acre for a given tapping system is calculated according to the formula below:

623, PB 5/51, 5/63, PR 107 and GT 1 and Panel B experiments on RRIM 513, PB 5/51 and PR 107. Details of these experiments have already been given (No et al., 1969).

P = yf(Sf-Bf)-

METHODS AND ASSUMPTIONS

The use of different tapping systems affects only revenue, tapping costs and costs that vary with production, such as manufacturing, transport

where P = gross profit in ct/acre; yj = yield of RSS 1 in Ib/acre/year; Sf = price of RSS 1 in ct/lb; COMMUNICATION 477

360

NG ENG KOK et al.: Economic Analysis of Tapping Experiments Bf = poundage costs of RSS 1, which

to be 50% of that for RSS 1. A replanting

include tapping poundage rate, dutyandcess,f.o.b.charges,manufacture and transport, in ct/lb; yc = yield of scrap and lump in lb/

provision has been ignored because it is thought unlikely to have any significant effect on the results since this assessment is essentially

a short-term one. Furthermore, allowance has not been made for cost increases over the years, since it is considered that the falling rubber price taken would exert a general depressive effect on costs. The gross profit figures for different years have been discounted to their present value, using a deferred profit factor at 7%. Such discounting allows for the fact that

acre/year; Sc — price of scrap and lump in

ct/lb plus refundable cess at 4£ ct/lb; Bc — poundage rate in ct/lb for the first 4 lb of scrap and lump (in wet weight). The additional payment for any subsequent poundage is given by the term

money received earlier can earn extra interest,

and is thus of greater present value. Almost all the basic assumptions detailed in

Table 1 can also be used in computing gross profits under the 'smallholding' situation. Al-

represents the additional payment inclusive of Employees Provident Fund in ct/lb (dry weight), and 2.4 the dry weight equivalent of 4 lb of wet scrap and lump;

though the number of trees tapped per acre and task size actually differ from the 'estate'

acre, r No. of tappings/year, and

situation, these factors are not taken into account in computing smallholding gross profits. Somewhat higher f.o.b. charges and manufacturing costs have to be assumed, however, and in the calculations below levels of 3 cents and 5 cents per lb respectively are employed (BARLOW AND LIM, 1967). The replanting cess

t No. of trees tapped/tapper) ; W = basic cost per tapper per tapping

of 4£ cents per lb also has to be included, since this is not refunded to smallholdings.

Dxr = No. of tasks tapped/acre/year t (where D is No. of tappable trees/ and

in ct/task.

Two variants of the 'smallholding' situation are considered. On smallholdings practising

PROFITABILITY OF DIFFERENT TAPPING SYSTEMS UNDER 'ESTATE' SITUATION

share cropping, where tappers are paid 40 % of

Panel A Experiments

the latex and all the scrap and lump (BARLOW

The detailed annual yields per acre have been given by NG et al, (1969). The detailed gross profits per acre of all the tapping systems and clones in the experiments are presented in the

AND LIM, 1967), the following formula is used:

...(2) On holdings using unpaid family labour, where no alternative employment opportunities exist and wage charges are therefore not appropriate,

Appendix (Tables 6 to 15). Table 2 (a) summarises the present value of

the following formula is used : P~yf(Sf-Bf) + y<{Sc)

profitable tapping systems on the RRIM clones.

three-year cumulative gross profits for the most

It will be seen that the use of the long-cut systems on clones RRIM 600, 612 and 607

...(3)

The basic assumptions concerning prices, costs and task sizes, used in computing gross

resulted in the highest gross profits, RRIM 513,

profits per acre for the various tapping systems

however, responded most profitably to the S/2.d/2.100% system. Although RRIM 605 tapped on the S/2.d/2.100% system gave the highest three-year cumulative yields on both Estates I and II, their gross profit rankings differed slightly. On Estate I, where the

under 'estate' situation, are detailed in Table I.

The f.o.b. price of RSS 1 is assumed to decline, at the rate of 1 cent per year, from 50 cents per lb to a constant level of 45 cents per lb. The local price of scrap and lump is assumed 361

COPYRIGHT © MALAYSIAN RUBBER BOARD

Journal of the Rubber Research Institute of Malaya, Volume 21, Part 3, 1969 TABLE 1. BASIC ASSUMPTIONS USED IN COMPUTING GROSS PROFITS UNDER 'ESTATE' SITUATION

Item

RSS 1 pricea (St) Scrap price (5C)

Duty and cess F.o.b. charges Manufacture Transport

Poundage rateb and E.P.F. Total (A)

Year 2

3

4

5

6

7

8

ct/lb

ct/lb

ct/lb

ct/lb

ct/lb

50.0 29.5

49.0 29.0

48.0 28.5

47.0 28.0

ct/lb 46.0 27.5

ct/lb 45.0 27.0

ct/lb 45.0 27.0

1

3.0 1.0 4.0 0.5

8.5

2.9

45.0 27.0

3.0 1.0 4.0 0.5

2.9 1.0 4.0 0.5

1.0 4.0 0.5

2.9 1.0 4.0 0.5

2.8 1.0 4.0 0.5

2.8 1.0 4.0 0.5

2.8 1.0 4.0 0.5

5.3

5.3

5.3

5.3

5.3

5.3

5.3

13.8

13.7

13.7

13.7

13.6

13.6

13.6

Poundage rate and E.P.F. for c

scrap (fic) 1st 4 Ib Additional Ib

7.0 8.7

7.0 8.7

7.0 8.7

7.0 8.7

7.0 8.7

7.0 8.7

7.0 8.7

ct/manday

ct/manday

ct/man-

ct/manday

ct/man-

ct/manday

ct/manday

350 60

200

200

200

60

60

60

200 60

200 60

200 60

200 60

410

260

260

260

260

260

260

260

-

ct/manday

Basic waged 6 Labour benefits Total (W)

Tapped stand/ acre (/)) 1

Task size (t) Full-spiral Reduced-spiral Half-spiral No. of tappings/ years (r)

Alternate-daily Third-daily Fourth-daily Sixth-daily Deferred11 profit

factor

at 7%

day

i i |

day

Trees/acre Trees/acre Trees/acre Trees/acre Trees/acre Trees/acre Trees/acre Trees/acre 100

120

120

120

120

120

120

120

Trees/task Trees/task Trees/task Trees/task Trees/task Trees/task Trees/task Trees/task 480 550 600

480 550 600

480 550 600

480 550 600

480 550 600

460 550 575

Tappings/ Tappings/ Tappings/ Tappings/ Tappings/ Tappings/ year year year year year year 150-168

460 530 575

460 530 575

Tappings/ Tappings/ year year

150-168 100-112 75-84 50-56

100-112 75-84 50-56

150-168 100-112 75-84 50-56

150-168 100-112 75-84 50-56

150-168 100-112 75-84 50-56

150-168 100-112 75-84 50 56

150-168 100-112 75-84 50-56

150-168 100-112 75-84 50-56

0.9346

0.8734

0.8163

0.7629

0.7130

0.6663

0.6228

0.5820

"Estimated at 50% of RSS 1 price and includes 4$ ct/lb refundable cess. "Based on the INDUSTRIAL ARBITRATION COURT, MALAYSIA (1968) for high yielding material, which specifies a basic c

wage of $3.10

per day and 5 ct per Ib for latex yields in excess of 22 Ib in the 45-50 ct price zone.

Converted from the rate of 4.0 ct per Ib of wet scrap for the first 4 Ib and 5 ct on every additional Ib, assuming 60% dry weight. fl Payment for the first year follows the unclassified category. From second year onwards, basic wage works out to be: 310ct-(22x5) = 200ct. e Based on management survey of estates (No, 1968). 'Standard task rates stipulated in the INDUSTRIAL ARBITRATION COURT, MALAYSIA (1968). 8 Actual number of tappings recorded in experiments. The number of tappings varies somewhat for different clones. h Used in discounting gross profits of various years to their present value. 362

NG ENG KOK et a!.: Economic Analysis of Tapping Experiments TABLE 2(a). THREE-YEAR CUMULATIVE GROSS PROFITS* OF THE BEST TAPPING SYSTEMS ON PANEL A, 'ESTATE' SITUATION

RRIM 513

Gross profit

ranking

(Estate II)t

RRIM 600 (Estate ID

RRIM 605

(Estate I)

(Estate II)

System

S/acre

System

$/acre

System

$/acre

System

$/acre

1

S/2.d/2

682

S/l.d/4

883

S/2.d/2

1285

S/l.d/4

696

2

S/l.d/4

630

S/R.d/4

809

S/R.d/4

1266

S/R.d/4

672

3

S/R.d/4

602

S/2.d/2

760

S/l.d/4

1181

S/2.d/2

672

4

S/2.d/2. 9m/12

589

S/2.d/3

743

S/l.d/6

1094

S/2.d/3

607

TABLE 2(a) (Continued) Gross profit ranking

RRIM 607 (Estate II)

RRIM 612 (Estate II)

RRIM 623

(Estate I)

(Estate ID

System

$/acre

System

S/acre

System

S/acre

System

$/acre

1

S/R.d/4

683

S/l.d/4

710

S/2.d/2

1113

S/R.d/4

621

2

S/l.d/6

655

S/l.d/6

660

S/l.d/4

1080

S/2.d/2

577

3

S/l.d/4

638

S/2.d/2

587

S/R.d/4

1047

S/l.d/4

554

4

S/l.d/4. 9m/ 12

626

S/l.d/3

578

S/l.d/6

1005

S/l.d/6

546

•Refers to present value in this and all subsequent Tables. tSite on which experiment was carried out.

absolute yield level was higher than on Estate II, both S/2.d/2.100% and S/R.d/4.70% systems earned almost the same profit, but the

and between S/R.d/4.70% and S/2.d/2.100% on Estate II, S/2.d/2.100% was preferable because of its rising profit trend in contrast with

profit trend of the latter system declined more rapidly during the third and fourth years of tapping (Table 6). On Estate II, S/l.d/4.100 %, S/2.d/2.100% and S/R.d/4.70% gave approximately the same profits but the S/R.d/4.70% system showed a declining trend in profits in the second and third years. Similarly with clone RRIM 623, although the S/2.d/2.100% system gave the highest yield on Estates I and II, their

the rapidly declining trend of the long-cut systems. As shown in Table 2(b), PB 5/51 seemed best suited to S/2.d/2.100% tapping. Although PB 5/63 responded most profitably to S/R.d/4. 70% tapping, its profit was only slightly above that of the S/2.d/3.67% system which was similar to that of the S/l.d/6.67% system Furthermore, profit of the S/2.d/3.67% system

gross profit rankings differed somewhat. Even though gross profits differed little between

appeared more promising in the long term.

S/2.d/2.100% and S/l.d/4.100% on Estate I,

Clones like GT 1 and PR 107 responded best

caught up during the third year and this system

363

Journal of the Rubber Research Institute of Malaya, Volume 21, Part 3, 1969 TABLE 2(b). THREE-YEAR CUMULATIVE GROSS PROFITS OF THE BEST TAPPING SYSTEMS ON PANEL A, 'ESTATE' SITUATION

Gross profit ranking

I

GT 1 PB 5/51

PB 5/63 (Estate II)

(Estate II)

(Estate I)

PR 107 (Estate II)

(Estate II)

System

$/acre

System

S/acre

System

$/acre

S/2.d/2

596

S/R.d/4

730

S/R.d/4

979 :

System

$/acre

System

S/acre

S/I.d/4

677

S/l.d/3

1060

S/R.d/4

617

S/l.d/4

983

2

S/R.d/4

558

S/l.d/6

705

S/l.d/4

922

3

S/2.d/2

522

S/2.d/3

700

S/2.d/2

865

S/l.d/3 9m/ 12

608

S/2.d/2

837

4

S/2.d/3

497

S/2.d/4

683

S/l.d/6

844

S/l.d/6

567

S/l.d/6

823

9m/12

to the reduced- or full-spiral systems, but for

clone RRIM 600 during the initial first year

PR 107 profit of the S/2.d/2.100% system

and on clone PB 5/63 as noted above, these halfspiral low-frequency systems are showing an

caught up in the fourth year (Table 7). With regard to the changing trends over the

increasing trend in profits throughout the three

years, it may be noted that RRIM 513 is the

years. The periodic systems have not been

only clone in which the S/2.d/2.100% was the most profitable throughout the three years

promising in all clones except for clones

RRIM 607 and GT 1 in which the full-spiral periodic systems have been more profitable

(Tables 6 and TJ.Inall the other clones, either the full- or reduced-spiral systems have been

than the S/2.d/2.100% system.

the most profitable systems during the initial

Panel B Experiments The Panel B experiments on clones RRIM 513, PB 5/51 and PR 107 (Table 2c), which were all previously tapped on S/2.d/2.100%,

first and/or second years, and in the case of RRIM 607, 612, GT 1, PB 5/63 and PR 107, the long-cut systems have been most profitable throughout the first three years. The S/2.d/3. 67% and S/2.d/4.50% systems have been more profitable than the S/2.d/2.100% system on

showed that the S/2.d/2 system was the most profitable for the first two clones, but for

TABLE 2(c). THREE-YEAR CUMULATIVE GROSS PROFITS OF THE BEST TAPPING SYSTEMS ON PANEL B, 'ESTATE' SITUATION

Gross profit ranking

RRIM 513 (Estate IV)

PR 107

PR s 51 (Estate IV)

(Estate I)

(Estate IV)

System

S/acre

System

S/acre

System

$/acre

System

S/acre

1

S/2.d/2

1053

S/2.d/2

1120

S/l.d/4

1241

S/l.d/4

1063

2

S/l.d/4

834

S/2.d/3

824

S/2.d/2

1238

S/2.d/2

974

3

S/2.d/3

820

S/l.d/4

801

S/2.d/3

1015

S/l.d/6

844

4

S/l.d/6

749

S/l.d/6

569

S/l.d/6

1014

S/2.d/3

748

364

No ENG KOK et al: Economic Analysis of Tapping Experiments tions, these are closely related. There is, however, a general tendency for the low-frequency systems to be more profitable in situations

PR 107, full-spiral tapping seemed more profit-

able although it should be noted that there was a declining profit in the third experimental year (Table 8),

where the yield differences between these systems and that of the S/2.d/2.100% system

are negligible or small. This is due mainly to the differences in the labour intensity used between these systems.

Comparison with Lower Task Size and the Old Agreement (1964)

The use of task sizes below the standard rates specified in the Awards, (say, 500 for half-spiral, 420 for reduced-spiral and 350 for full-spiral tappings) has not resulted in any significant changes in the rankings of the more

Effect of Different Price Levels on Profitability

Although the above results have been based on one price level, the use of different price levels ranging from 45-60 cents per Ib generally

profitable tapping systems as discussed above. The absolute levels of gross profits, however,

produces no marked changes in the profit ranking of the most profitable tapping systems considered. At low price levels, however, there is a tendency for some low-frequency systems on some clones to be slightly more profitable than the high-frequency systems due mainly to

are somewhat reduced due to higher tapping costs resulting from the use of lower task sizes. Under the MPIEA-NUPW Wage Agreement concluded in 1964, and using task sizes of 500,420 and 350 trees for half-spiral, reducedand full-spiral systems respectively, the rank-

the fact that labour cost becomes more important at such price levels.

ings of the more profitable tapping systems are also similar to those already discussed, except that the gross profits obtained are lower. This is again due to lower task sizes and higher

PROFITABILITY OF DIFFERENT TAPPING SYSTEMS UNDER 'SMALLHOLDING' SITUATION

poundage rates payable under the old Agree-

Because of the differences in the system of pay-

ment, which resulted in a higher tapping cost.

ment for tapping and in other costs, the relative profitability of the tapping systems under

Relation of Gross Profit to Yield Comparisons between the gross profit ranking and yield ranking of the more profitable tapping systems show that, with some excep-

'smallholding' conditions is altered somewhat from that on estates. The most profitable systems on Panel A under 'smallholding' conditions are presented in Tables 3 (a) and (b). On

TABLE 3(a). THREE-YEAR CUMULATIVE GROSS PROFITS OF THE BEST TAPPING SYSTEMS ON PANEL A, 'SMALLHOLDING' SITUATION RRIM 600 (Estate II)

RRIM 513 (Estate II)

Gross profit ranking

Share cropping

Family labour

System

S/acre

System

$/acre

System

$/acre

System

$/acre

1

S/2.d/2

496

S/2.d/2

850

S/2.d/2

534

S/l.d/4

984

2

S/2.d/2. 9m/ 12

415

S/l.d/4

725

S/l.d/4

486

S/2.d/2

934

3

S/l.d/4

397

S/2.d/2. 9m/12

710

S/R.d/4

459

S/R.d/4

886

4

S/2.d/3

388

S/R.d/4

675

S/2.d/3

458

S/2.d/3

847

365

Share cropping

Family labour

Journal of the Rubber Research Institute of Malaya, Volume 21, Part 3, 1969 TABLE 3 (a) (Continued)

RRIM 605

ranking

(Estate I)

(Estate II)

Share cropping

Family labour

Share cropping

System

$/acre

System

S/acre

System

1

S/2.d/2

812

S/2.d/2

2

S/2.d/2. 9m/12

672

3

S/2.d/3

4

S/R.d/4

Family labour

S/acre

System

S/acre

1402 S/2.d/2

490

S/2.d/2

845

S/R.d/4

1319 S/2.d/3

401

S/l.d/4

796

658

S/l.d/4

1264 S/l.d/4

393

S/R.d/4

745

631

S/2.d/3

1183 S/R.d/4

391

S/2.d/3

710

TABLE 3(a) (Continued)

ranking

RRIM 612 (Estate II)

RRIM 607 {Estate II)

Gross profit

Share cropping

Family labour

System

$/acre

System

1

S/2.d/2

417

S/R.d/4

2

S/R.d/4

407

3

S/l.d/4

4

S/l.d/3. 9m/12

Share cropping

Family labour

System

$/acre

System

S/acre

761

S/2.d/2

458

S/l.d/4

803

S/l.d/4

740

S/l.d/4

434

S/2.d/2

763

377

S/l.d/6

709

S/l.d/3

398

S/l.d/3

726

361

S/2.d/2

705

S/l.d/6

388

S/l.d/6

712

$/acre '

TABLE 3(a) (Continued) RRIM 623 ranking

(Estate I)

Share cropping

(Estate II)

Family labour

Share cropping

Family labour

System

S/acre

System

S/acre

System

S/acre

System

S/acre

1

S/2.d/2

727

S/2.d/2

1231

S/2.d/2

451

S/2.d/2

759

2

S/2.d/2 9m/ 12

654

S/l.d/4

1150

S/R.d/4

386

S/R.d/4

701

3

S/2.d/3

580

S/2.d/2 9m/12

1107

S/2.d/2 9m/ 12

382

S/l.d/4

663

4

S/R.d/4

549

S/R.d/4

1096

S/2.d/3

366

S/2.d/2 9m/ 12

643

366

No ENG KOK et al.: Economic Analysis of Tapping Experiments TABLE 3(b). THREE- YEAR CUMULATIVE GROSS PROFITS OF THE BEST TAPPING SYSTEMS ON PANEL A, 'SMALLHOLDING' SITUATION PB 5/51 (Estate 11)

Gross profit ranking

1 2

i

Share cropping

Family labour

Share cropping

Family labour

System

$/acre

System

$/acre

System

S/acre

System

$/acre

S/2.d/2

460

S/2.d/2

773

S/2.d/2

465

S/R.d/4

819

S/2.d/2.

385

S/2.d/2.

649

S/2.d/3

436

S/2.d/2

819

S/R.d/4

361

S/R.d/4

634

S/R.d/4

413

S/2.d/3

811

S/2.d/3

357

S/2.d/3

606

S/2.d/4

395

S/l.d/6

768

9m/12 :

3 4

PB 5/63 (Estate II)

9m/12

TABLE 3(b) (Continued) GT

Gross profit

(Estate I)

ranking

1

(Estate II)

Share cropping

Family labour

System

3 /acre

System

S/2.d/2

593

S/R.d/4

Share cropping

Family labour

$/acre

System

$/acre

System

$/acre

1052

S/l.d/4

408

S/l.d/4

783

S/2.d/2

404

S/l.d/3 9m/ 12

714

S/l.d/3. 9m/12

391

S/R.d/4

700

S/R.d/4

381

S/2.d/2

677

2

S/R.d/4

503

S/2.d/2

1020

3

S/2.d/2. 9m/12

477

S/l.d/4

1015

4

S/2.d/3

471

S/l.d/6

903

TABLE 3(b) (Continued)

Share cropping

Family labour

System

$/acre

System

1

S/l.d/3

659

S/I.d/3

1162

2

S/Zd/2

592

S/l.d/4

1050

3

S/l.d/4

578

S/2.d/2

991

4

S/l.d/6

476

S/l.d/6

852

;

:

holdings using unpaid family labour, systems giving the highest yields were also the most profitable. This was, however, not entirely true of the holdings practising share cropping. Again, on holdings using family labour S/2.d/2. 100% was generally the best system except on clones RRIM 600, 607, 612, GT 1 and PR 107 where other systems gave much higher yields. S/2.d/2.100% was also the best system on holdings using share cropping except for clones GT 1 (Estate II) where the profitability of the S/2.d/2.100% was only marginally lower than the S/l.d/4.100% system due to lower yield,

PR 107 (Estate II)

Gross profit

1

$/acre

367

Journal of the Rubber Research Institute of Malaya, Volume 21, Part 3, 1969 TABLE 3(c). THREE-YEAR CUMULATIVE GROSS PROFITS OF THE BEST TAPPING SYSTEMS ON PANEL B, 'SMALLHOLDING' SITUATION RRIM 513

PB 5/51

(Estate IV)

(Estate IV)

Gross profit

ranking

Share cropping

Family labour

Share cropping

Family labour

System

$/acre

System

$/acre

System

$/acre

System

$/acre

1

S/2.d/2

699

S/2.d/2

1231

S/2.d/2

660

S/2.d/2

1167

2

S/2.d/3

502

S/2.d/3

898

S/2.d/3

500

S/l.d/4

910

3

S/l.d/4

477

S/l.d/4

872

S/l.d/4

481

S/2.d/3

894

4

S/l.d/6

336

S/l.d/6

616

S/l.d/6

417

S/l.d/6

795

TABLE 3(c) (Continued)

PR 107

Gross profit ranking

(Estate I) Share cropping

(Estate IV)

Family labour

Share cropping

Family labour

System

S/acre

System

$/acre

System

S/acre

System

$/acre

S/2.d/2

796

S/2.d/2

1331

S/2.d/2

628

S/l.d/4

1119

2

S/l.d/4

695

S/l.d/4

1306

S/l.d/4

626

S/2.d/2

1086

3

S/2.d/3

632

S/2.d/3

1069

S/l.d/6

489

S/l.d/6

879

4

S/l.d/6

562

S/l.d/6

1050

S/2.d/3

470

S/2.d/3

819

1

'

and PR 107 where the S/l.d/3.133% system was best.

A and B) and RRIM 623 (Panel A at Estate I only) where the S/2.d/2.100% system has been most profitable throughout, the other clones

Table 3(c) shows that clones PB 5/51 and RRIM 513 tapped on Panel B responded best to S/2.d/2.100% tapping for both the share cropping and family labour situations. On PR 107, however, the difference in profit between the full-spiral and half-spiral systems was

were found to be more profitable on the longcut systems during the initial one and/or two years and in the case of PR 107 and GT 1 (Panel A) throughout the three years.

generally small. Under the share cropping situation, it can be seen that the S/2.d/2.100% system has been most profitable throughout the three years in all clones except for GT 1 (Panel A) in the third year at Estate II and PR 107 (Panels A

ECONOMICS OF STIMULATION

The change in profit per acre due to stimulation refers to the difference in gross profit between the stimulated and the non-stimulated systems. In the stimulated systems, Stimulex Formula II was applied on the lightly scrapped bark below the tapping cut at two rounds per year, and the costs of application are detailed in Table 4.

and B) at Estate II and IV respectively (Tables 9,

10,11 and 12).Under the family labour situation, except for RRIM 513, PB 5/51 (Panels 368

No ENG KOK et al,: Economic Analysis of Tapping Experiments TABLE 4. COST OF STIMULATION ON VARIOUS TAPPING SYSTEMS

Tapping systems

Width of stimulation band

Stimulation cost at 2 rounds/year

No. of trees stimulated per man-day

formula IIa

Stimulex

Labour*

Total

S/acre

$/acre

S/acre

S/2.d/2.100% S/2.d/2.9m/12.75%

2.25"

130

0.60

6.40

7.00

S/2.d/3.67% S/2.d/3.9m/12.50%

1.50"

170

0.45

4.80

5.25

S/2.d/4.50%

1.25"

190

0.40

4.40

4.80

S/R.d/4.70% S/l.d/4.100% S/l.d/3.133% S/l.d/3.9m/12.100% S/l.d/4.9m/12.75%

1.25'

100

0.65

8.40

9.05

S/l.d/6.67%

0.75"

135

0.45

6.20

6.65

»At SI per Ib

,

b

based on $3.50 per man-day

Although only 'estate' situation is discussed here, the general conclusions are also applicable to 'smallholding' situations. On the clones listed in Tables (5a) and (b), the use of the half-spiral systems or the halfspiral periodic systems gave positive response to stimulation, the additional profits obtained ranging from $36 to $216 per acre for three

years. Full- or reduced-spiral system generally gave very poor response, resulting in losses in most instances (Tables 13,14 and 15).

Amongst the clones and tapping systems that responded best to stimulation, RRIM 600,

605 (Estate I), 607 and GT 1 (Estate II) tapped on the S/2.d/2.100% system showed an increasing additional profit trend from the first to the

TABLE 5(a). THREE-YEAR CUMULATIVE ADDITIONAL PROFITS DUE TO STIMULATION ON PANEL A, 'ESTATE' SITUATION

Gross profit ranking

System

RRIM 605

RRIM 600

RRIM 513 (Estate II)

(Estate II)

(Estate II)

(Estate I)

S/acre

System

S/acre . System

S/acre

System

$/acre

1

S/2.d/3. 9m/12

98

S/2.d/2

117

S/2.d/2

216

S/2.d/2 9m/ 12

136

2

S/2.d/2. 9m/ 12

48

S/2.d/2. 9m/12

92

S/2.d/3. 9m/ 12

140

S/2.d/2

72

3

S/l.d/3.

34

S/2.d/3. 9m/12

67

S/2.d/2. 9m/12

118

S/2.d/3

59

S/2.d/4

110

S/2.d/4

53

9m/12 4

S/2.d/3

28

369

Journal of the Rubber Research Institute of Malaya, Volume 21, Part 3, 1969 TABLE 5(a) (Continued) RRIM 623

ranking

(Estate ID

(Estate II)

(Estate ID

(Estate I)

System

S/acre

System

$/acre

System

S/acre

System

S/acre

1

S/2.d/2

99

S/2.d/4

64

S/l.d/6

109

S/R.d/4

28

2

S/2.d/2. 9m/ 12

86

S/l.d/6

49

S/2.d/2

106

S/l.d/6

3

S/2.d/4

66

S/l.d/3

12

S/R.d/4

94

S/2.d/4

S/2.d/3

4

59

S/2.d/3

7

S/2.d/4

68

;

7

6 _



third year of tapping. RRIM 513 tapped on

CONCLUSIONS

S/2.d/3.9m/12.50%, RRIM 605 (Estate II) on S/2.d/2.9m/12.75 % and PR 107 on S/2.d/3.67 % also showed a similar trend (Tables 13 and 14).

In the 'estate' situation, RRIM 513 and PB 5/51 responded most profitably to S/2.d/2.100% tapping on both Panels A and B. RRIM 605

RRIM 513 and PB 5/51 in the Panel B experiments responded most profitably to stimulation when tapped on S/2.d/3.67%, additional profits earned over three years being $66 and $129 per acre respectively (Table 5c). PR 107, on the other hand, gave very good response to the stimulated S/2.d/2.100% system, though on Estate I the stimulated S/2.d/4.50% system resulted in a marginally higher profit (Table 15).

and 623 were also suited to the S/2.d/2.100% system tapped on Panel A. Although on the

Panel A of PR 107, S/l.d/3.133% tapping was more profitable than the S/2.d/2.100% system, the profit trend of the former system declined

while that of the latter increased from the second year to the fourth year of tapping. On

Panel B of the same clone, S/l.d/4.100% was on the whole more profitable than S/2.d/2,

100%. PB 5/63 appeared suited to S/2.d/3.67%

TABLE 5(b). THREE-YEAR CUMULATIVE ADDITIONAL PROFITS DUE TO STIMULATION ON PANEL A, 'ESTATE' SITUATION Gross profit ranking

PB 5/51 (Estate II)

PB 5/63

(Estate I)

System J/acre

207

S/2.d/2

70

S/2.d/3

126

S/2.d/3

162

S/2.d/2 9m/12

41

S/2.d/4

95

5

S/2.d/2 9m/ 12

162

S/2.d/3

25

S/l.d/4

44



S/2.d/3 9m/l 2

125

S/R.d/4

17

S/2.d/2

43

System $/acre

System

$/acre

1

S/2.d/4

58

S/2.d/3 9m/ 12

36

S/2.d/2

2

S/2.d/2

47

S/2.d/2

5

3

S/2.d/3

44

S/2.d/4

S/2.d/3 9m/12

32



.

(Estate II)

System S/acre

System $/acre

4

PR 107 (Estate II)

GT 1

(Estate II)

370

NG ENG KOK et al: Economic Analysis of Tapping Experiments TABLE 5(c). THREE-YEAR CUMULATIVE ADDITIONAL PROFITS DUE TO STIMULATION ON PANEL Bf 'ESTATE' SITUATION RRIM 513 (Estate IV)

Gross profit

ranking

PB 5/51

PR 107

(Estate IV)

(Estate I)

(Estate

rv>

System

$/acre

System

$/acre

System

$/acre

System

$/acre

S/2.d/3

66

S/2.d/3

129

S/2.d/4

164

S/2.d/2

171

2

S/2.d/2

38

S/2.d/4

121

S/2.d/2

147

S/2.d/3

126

3

S/I.d/6

21

S/l.d/6

69

S/2.d/3

113

S/2.d/4

81



S/2.d/2

56

S/l.d/6

110

S/l.d/6

80

1

4

,



ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

tapping, RRIM 607 to reduced-spiral and GT 1 to full- or reduced-spiral. Both RRIM 600 and 612 gave good profits on full-spiral tapping. It should be emphasised that where the reduced and full-spiral systems have given better profits in the initial years, there is a declining trend in the later years. Under 'smallholding' conditions,there was a general tendency for the most profitable systems to follow their yield ranking. Generally, S/2.d/2.100% is the best system on smallholdings practising share cropping or using family labour. The response to stimulation was highly variable, losses being incurred in many instances. Generally, half-spiral continuous and periodic systems were profitable under stimulation, and full- or reduced-spiral systems

The authors would like to thank Dr. C. Barlow for his helpful comments. The assistance of Messrs. D. Ramasamy and Goh Cheng Beng in computation is also gratefully acknowledged. REFERENCES

BARLOW, C. AND LIM, S.C. (1967) Effect of density of planting on the growth, yield and economic exploitation of Hevea brasiliensis. Part II. Effect on profit. J. Rubb. Res. Inst. Malaya, 20(1), 44.

INDUSTRIAL ARBITRATION COURT, MALAYSIA (1968) Award No. 8/1968 — Industrial Court cases Nos. 7 and 9 of 1967 between Malaysian Agricultural

Producers' Association and National Union of Plantation Workers.

No CHOONG Sooi (1968) Private communication. Rubber Research Institute of Malaya.

resulted in losses.

No attempt has been made to predict the effect of tapping systems on the future yield and profitability beyond the period of observation. Future yields may well be influenced by current effects of tapping systems on bark consumption, girth increment and dry tree incidence. Therefore where there is little difference in profitability, it would be advisable to choose those systems which conserve the trees or which show a rising trend.

No ENG KOK, ABRAHAM, P.D., P'NO TAT CHIN AND LEE CHEW KANG (1969) Exploitation of modern Hevea clones. J. Rubb. Res. Inst. Malaya, 21(3), 292. RUBBER RESEARCH INSTITUTE OF MALAYA (1966) Economic evaluation of tapping systems: a further explanation. Plrs' Bull. Rubb. Res. Inst. Malaya No. 83, 28.

WATSON, I. (1965) Economic evaluation of tapping systems. Firs' Bull. Rubb. Res. Inst. Malaya No. 80, 236.

371

Journal of the Rubber Research Institute of Malaya, Volume 21, Part 3, 1969 DISCUSSION

Chairman: Mr. S. E. Chua Mr. E. Bellis asked about the level of profitability which represented the break-even point. Mr. Lee said that gross profits only were discussed in the paper and the break-even point would vary in individual cases

with overheads such as management and returns on capital. Mr. M.B. Menon considered the cost of the stimulant applied to be low. Mr. Lee explained this to be due to careful supervision; only a light application was given. Mr. B.K. Tong pressed for early recommendations to use stimulants on young trees of modern clones. Mr. Lee said that the responses of such material to stimulation during the first four years of tapping had been erratic and, in some cases, uneconomic during the three years reviewed. Possible undesirable long-term effects might also appear. The few combinations of clone and tapping system showing a profitable response might be tried, but the stimulation of these materials might never be generally recommended unless further experimentation developed means of improving and evening out the poor, erratic and uneconomic responses. Dr. J.W. Blencowe suggested that some statistical aids such as nomograms

could be made available to facilitate the calculation of profit per acre under various conditions.

APPENDIX

TABLE 6. GROSS PROFIT3 (S PER ACRE) OF VARIOUS TAPPING SYSTEMS ON PANEL A, 'ESTATE' SITUATION RRIM

Tapping system

623

(Estate I)

(Estate H) 1

2

3

Total

401

147

187

243

577

954

273

143

179

196

518

218

783

194

142

179

160

481

383

316

1047

292

177

232

212

621

372

379

329

1080

249

158

214

182

554

S/I.d/6.67%

315

347

343

1005

229

158

211

177

546

S/2.d/2.9m/ 12.75%

300

356

318

974

371

125

172

215

512

S/2.d/3.9m/12.50%

260

288

249

797

259

110

151

158

419

S/l.d/3.9m/12.100%

283

288

305

876

216

114

154

135

403

S/l.d/4.9m/12.75%

294

308

317

919

260

131

153

141

425

1

2

3

Total

4

S/2.d/2.100%

370

399

344

1113

S/2.d/3.67%

329

347

278

S/2.d/4.50%

282

283

S/R.d/4.70%

348

S/l.d/4.100%

372

,

No ENG KOK et al.; Economic Analysis of Tapping Experiments TABLE 6 (Continued) RRIM 605

Tapping system

(Estate H)

(Estate I) 1

2

3

Total

4

1

2

3

Total

S/2.d/2.100%

343

479

463

1285

454

177

220

275

672

S/2.d/3.67%

306

408

405

1119

413

179

209

219

607

S/2.d/4.50%

296

353

316

965

300

187

210

195

592

S/R.d/4.70%

366

477

423

1266

377

223

229

220

672

S/l.d/4.100%

364

435

382

118)

330

222

226

248

696

S/l.d/6.67%

319

398

377

1094

319

184

211

187

582

S/2.d/2.9m/12.75%

275

386

429

1090

462

131

170

200

501

S/2.d/3.9m/12.50%

240

336

315

891

322

147

190

206

543

S/l.d/3.9m/12.100%

292

365

338

995

330

168

192

221

581

S/l.d/4.9m/12.75%

277

357

359

993

355

)64

204

229

597

TABLE 6 (Continued) RRIM 513 (Estate II)

Tapping system

RRIM 600 (Estate II)

RRIM 607 (Estate ID

1

2

3

Total

1

2

3

Total

1

2

3

Total

S/2.d/2.100%

181

230

271

682

120

189

208

517

157

258

345

760

S/2.d/3.67%

157

177

231

565

144

182

179

505

178

268

297

743

S/2.d/4.50%

148

154

196

498

158

182

162

502

177

256

226

659

S/R.d/470%

182

188

232

602

196

254

233

683

196

287

326

809

S/l.d/4.100%

173

199

258

630

193

243

202

638

193

334

356

883

S/l.d/6.67%

155

137

177

469

192

234

229

655

179

249

262

690

S/2.d/2.9m/12.75%

148

198

243

589

95

141

171

407

137

209

277

623

S/2.d/3.9m/12,50%

121

152

187

460

108

131

141

380

146

208

233

587

S/l.d/3.9m/12.100% 144

188

241

573

169

225

192

586

146

239

311

696

S/l.d,/4.9m/12.75%

170

215

535

178

229

219

626

162

224

286

672

a

150

Gross profits of different years have been discounted to their present value. 373

Journal of the Rubber Research Institute of Malaya, Volume 21, Part 3, 1969 TABLE 7. GROSS PROFIT ($ PER ACRE) OF VARIOUS TAPPING SYSTEMS ON PANEL A, 'ESTATE SITUATION GT

Tapping system

1 (Estate ID

(Estate D 1

2

3

Total

1

2

3

Total

S/2.d/2.100%

226

292

347

865

114

186

184

484

S/2.d/3.67%

201

232

307

740

110

146

175

431

S/2.d/4.50%

185

206

293

684

113

120

135

368

S/R.d/4.70%

286

334

359

979

168

210

239

617

S/I.d/4.100%

327

319

276

922

163

239

275

677

S/l.d/6.67%

255

297

292

844

157

190

220

567

S/2.d/2.9m/12.75%

181

226

295

702

94

144

160

398

S/2.d/3.9m/12.SO%

150

183

262

595

86

111

131

328

S/l.d/3.9m/12.100%

256

271

261

788

141

223

244

608

S/l.d/4.9m/12.75%

235

295

273

803

140

199

223

562

:

TABLE 7 (Continued) PB 5/63

PB 5/51

(Estate II)

Tapping system

(Estate II)

1

2

3

Total

1

2

3

Total

S/2.d/2.100%

157

219

220

596

152

230

253

635

S/2.d/3.67%

148

157

192

497

155

246

299

700

S/2.d/4.50%

142

1 15

128

385

151

242

290

683

S/R.d/4.70%

183

193

182

558

185

264

281

730

S/l.d/4.100%

146

120

125

391

153

183

188

524

S/l.d/6.67%

154

137

135

426

171

252

282

705

S/2.d/2.9m/12.75%

134

189

199

522

123

192

239

554

S/2.d/3.9m/12.50%

129

142

147

418

118

186

230

534

S/l.d/3.9m/12.100%

121

147

150

418

122

155

154

431

S/l.d/4.9m/12.75%

141

147

136

424

130

171

187

488

374

No ENG KOK et al.: Economic Analysis of Tapping Experiments TABLE 7 (Continued) PR

107

RRIM 612 (Estate II)

(Estate 11)

Tapping system 1

2

3

Total

4

1

2

3

Total

4

S/2.d/2.100%

222

292

323

837

346

132

202

253

587

271

S/2.d/3.67%

170

217

225

612

249

116

168

208

492

253

S/2.d/4.50%

157

203

189

549

209

65

118

128

311

171

S/l.d/3.133%

318

394

348

1060 3.15 148

203

227

578

210

S/l.d/4.100%

293

364

326

983

291

194

244

272

710

263

S/l.d/6.67%

254

310

259

823

246

166

262

232

660

257

TABLE 8. GROSS PROFIT ($ PER ACRE) OF VARIOUS TAPPING SYSTEMS ON PANEL B, 'ESTATE' SITUATION PB 5/51 (Estate IV)

RRIM 513 (Estate IV)

Tapping system 6

7

8

S/2.d/2.100%

374

430

316

S/2.d/3.67%

232

336

256

824

135

243

171

S/I.d/4.100%

306

311

S/l.d/6.67%

131

253

S/2.d/4.50%

'

Total

6

7

S

Total

379

299

1053

255

295

270

820

549

200

245

221

666

184

801

347

270

217

834

185

569

262

274

213

749

1120 375

TABLE S (Continued) PR

Tapping system

107

1

(Estate IV)

(Estate I)

6

7

8

Total

6

7

8

Total

S/2.d/2.100%

285

354

335

974

399

439

400

1238

S/2.d/3.67%

200

266

282

748

333

361

321

1015

S/2.d/4.50%

156

218

228

602

272

295

292

859

S/l.d/4.100%

347

397

319

1063 454

426

361

1241

S/l.d/6.67%

227

321

296

381

310

1014

375

844

323

Journal of the Rubber Research Institute of Malaya, Volume 21, Part 3, 1969 TABLE 9. GROSS PROFIT ($ PER ACRE) OF VARIOUS TAPPING SYSTEMS ON PANEL A, 'SMALLHOLDING' SITUATION RRIM 513 (Estate II)

Tapping system

Family labour6

Share cropping81 1

2

3

Total

240

289

321

850

388

190

216

262

668

129

328

168

182

218

568

126

149

383

200

219

256

675

105

130

162

397

200

238

287

725

89

91

113

293

166

161

195

522

S/2.d/2.9m/ 12.75%

108

142

165

415

190

241

279

710

S/2.d/3.9m/12.50%

82

106

124

312

145

181

210

536

S/l.d/3.9m/12,100%

95

127

154

376

176

225

270

671

S/l.d/4.9m/12.75%

89

112

135

336

167

196

235

598

1

2

3

Total

S/2.d/2.100%

134

171

191

496

S/2.d/3.67%

105

127

156

S/2.d/4.50%

93

106

S/R.d/4.70%

108

S/l.d/4.100% S/l.d/6.67%

:

a

Holdings using hired tappers paid at 40 % of latex and all the scrap and lump, ''Holdings using unpaid family labour whose wages are not taken into account.

TABLE 9 (Continued) RRIM 600 (Estate II)

Tapping system

Family labour

Share cropping 1

2

3

Total

1

2

3

Total

124

181

229

534

220

322

392

934

S/2.d/3.67%

110

160

188

458

208

313

326

847

S/2.d/4.50%

98

144

144

386

192

291

247

730

S/R.d/4.70%

106

157

196

459

212

326

348

886

S/l.d/4.100%

104

176

206

486

217

381

386

984

S/l.d/6.67%

93

134

186

279

280

745

312

748

S/2.d/2.100%

'

153

380

S/2.d/2.9m/12.75%

103

145

181

429

181

255

S/2.d/3.9m/12.50%

90

129

147

366

166

238

255

659

S/l.d/3.9m/12.100%

92

143

184

419

178

280

341

799

S/I.d/4.9m/12.75%

85

123

160

368

177

258

310

745

376

NG ENG KOK. et al: Economic Analysis of Tapping Experiments TABLE 9 (Continued) RRIM 605 (Estate I)

Family labour

Share cropping

;

i

2

3

Total

4

1

2

3

2K

306

296

812

286

36S

523

511

1402 494

168

246

244

658

246

310

437

436

1183 437

147

205

190

542

181

288

375

338

1001 318

S/R.d/4.70%

16 7

240

224

631

208

351

512

456

1319 403

S/l.d/4.100%

16

216

192

569

176

356

480

428

1264 367

S/l.d/6.67%

13 1

182

185

499

167

302

432

408

1142 341

S/2.d/2.9m/12.75%

165

244

263

672

281

291

418

462

1171 488

S/2.d/3.9m/I2.50%

130

200

189

519

192

242

356

338

936

340

S/l.d/3.9m/12.100%

141

192

174

507

170

296

405

382

1083

369

S/l.d/4.9m/12.75%

124

174

177

475

176

271

391

394

1056 385

S/2.d/'2.100%

l

S/2.d/3.67% S/2.d/4.50%

:

Total

4

TABLE 9 (Continued) RRIM 605 (Estate II)

Tapping system

Family labour

Share cropping 1

2

3

Total

1

2

3

Total

S/2.d/2.100%

134

165

191

490

236

283

326

845

S/2.d/3.67%

114

140

147

401

209

249

252

710

S/2.d/4.50%

103

129

128

360

201

240

219

660

S/R.d/4.70%

116

137

138

391

235

265

245

745

S/l.d/4.100%

118

130

145

393

242

271

283

796

S/l.d/6.67%

97

120

112

329

191

239

208

638

S/2.d/2.9m/12.75%

101

127

140

368

176

217

239

632

S/2.d/3.9m/12.50%

91

124

133

348

167

219

228

614

197

234

255

686

179

234

255

668

S/l.d/3.9m/12.100%

99

122

135

356

S/l.d/4.9m/12.75%

89

122

131

342

377

'

:

Journal of the Rubber Research Institute of Malaya, Volume 21, Part 3, 1969 TABLE 10.

GROSS PROFIT ($ PER ACRE) OF THE VARIOUS TAPPING SYSTEMS

ON PANEL A, 'SMALLHOLDING' SITUATION

Tapping system

RRIM 623 (Estate I)

——

Family labour

Share cropping 1

2

3

Total

4

1

2

3

Total

4

S/2.d/2.100%

126

265

236

727

263

390

446

395

1231

445

S/2.d/3.67%

177

220

183

580

178

329

375

310

1014

302

S/2.d/4.50%

37

174

142

453

127

277

303

242

822

216

S/R.d/4,70%

161

203

185

549

173

335

416

345

1096

318

S/l.d/4.100%

170

196

183

549

144

363

420

367

1150

285

S/l.d/6.67%

32

166

172

470

122

298

378

372

1048

255

S/2.d/2.9m/12.75%

182

230

242

654

237

312

388

407

1107

400

S/2.d/3.9rn/12.50%

139

179

160

478

163

258

308

272

838

278

S/l.d/3.9m/12.100%

147

163

174

484

125

288

325

343

956

254

S/l.d/4.9m/12.75%

136

157

164

457

136

285

339

349

973

289

TABLE 10 (Continued) RRIM 623 (Estate ID

Tapping system

Family labour

Share cropping 1

2

3

Total

1

2

3

Total

S/2.d/2.100%

125

150

176

451

211

251

297

759

S/2.d/3.67%

103

127

136

366

179

219

231

629

S/2.d/4.50%

91

118

109

318

162

209

185

556

S/R.d/4.70%

107

143

136

386

196

265

240

701

S/I.d/4.100%

101

130

114

345

187

257

219

663

S/l.d/6.67%

89

118

102

309

169

240

201

610

S/2.d/2.9m/12.75%

101

130

151

382

171

219

253

643

S/2.d/3.9m/12.50%

79

106

108

293

136

181

184

501

S/l.d,/3.9m/12.100%

84

103

92

279

151

196

173

520

S/l.d/4.9m/l2.75%

82

95

88

265

151

185

170

506

378

NG ENG KOK et al.: Economic Analysis of Tapping Experiments TABLE 10 (Continued)

RRIM 607 (Estate II)

Tapping system

Family labour

Share cropping 1

2

3

Total

1

S/2.d/2.100%

111

150

156

417

189

253

263

705

S/2.d/3.67%

101

130

126

357

180

222

214

616

S/2.d/4.50%

94

120

110

324

177

211

187

575

S/R.d/4.70%

109

153

145

407

212

288

261

761

S/l.d/4.100%

107

145

125

377

216

285

239

740

S/l.d/6.67%

96

131

132

359

198

261

250

709

S/2.d/2.9m/l2.75%

86

112

126

324

145

189

212

546

S/2,d/3.9m/12.50%

76

94

98

268

135

162

167

464

S/l.d/3.9m/l2.100%

102

140

119

361

197

266

229

692

S/l.d/4.9m/12.75%

95

136

128

359

190

259

245

694

'

2

3

Total

TABLE 10 (Continued) RRIM 612 (Estate II)

Family labour

Share cropping 1

2

3

Total

4

1

2

3

Total

4

S/2.d/2.100%

117

157

184

458

191

195

262

306

763

319

S/2.d/3.67%

92

123

144

359

168

154

207

241

602

281

S/2.d/4.50%

58

88

93

239

115

97

148

155

400

193

S/l.d/3.133%

109

137

152

398

140

195

256

275

726

253

118

147

169

434

163

215

284

304

803

291

97

151

140

388

154

175

286

251

712

273

S/l.d/4.100% S/l.d/6.67%

,

379

Journal of the Rubber Research Institute of Malaya, Volume 21, Part 3, 1969 TABLE 11. GROSS PROFIT ($ PER ACRE) OF VARIOUS TAPPING SYSTEMS ON PANEL A, 'SMALLHOLDING' SITUATION GT

1

(Estate I) Tapping system

Share cropping

Family labour

1

2

3

Total

1

2

3

Total

S/2.d/2.100%

161

202

230

593

268

352

400

1020

S/2.d/3.67%

131

152

188

471

220

272

343

835

S/2.d/4.50%

111

129

168

408

193

236

321

750

S/R.d/4.70%

143

178

184

505

282

373

397

1052

S/l.d/4.100%

153

160

142

455

323

370

322

1015

S/l.d/6.67%

116

146

141

403

247

331

325

903

S/2.d/2.9m/12.75%

126

158

193

477

210

271

333

814

S/2.d/3.9m/12.50%

98

121

157

376

165

211

288

664

S/l.d/3.9m/12.100%

138

152

142

432

263

316

305

884

S/l.d/4.9m/12.75%

114

152

138

404

234

330

308

872

TABLE 11 (Continued) GT

1

(Estate II) i \j±fjjti-i&

1

2

3

Total

1

2

3

Total

S/2.d/2.100%

112

149

143

404

187

250

240

677

S/2.d/3.67%

90

111

125

326

153

187

210

550

S/2.d/4.50%

78

89

96

263

140

151

162

453

S/R.d/4.70%

99

133

149

381

191

243

266

700

S/l.d/4.100%

98

146

164

408

194

280

309

783

S/l.d/6.67%

87

113

130

330

170

216

241

627

S/2.d/2.9m/12.75 %

88

115

120

323

148

191

201

540

S/2.d/3.9m/12.50%

70

85

94

249

118

142

158

418

S/l.d/3.9m/12.100%

94

144

153

391

175

261

278

714

S/l.d/4.9m/12.75%

83

123

135

341

160

227

247

634

380

No ENG KOK et al.: Economic Analysis of Tapping Experiments TABLE 11 (Continued) PB 5/51 (Estate II)

Tapping system

Family labour

Share cropping 1

2

3

Total

I

2

3

Total

S/2.d/2.100%

129

166

165

460

220

278

275

773

S/2.d/3.67%

106

116

135

357

183

196

227

606

93

85

91

269

163

144

155

462

S/R.d/4.70%

110

129

122

361

201

223

210

634

S/I.d/4.100%

94

87

88

269

178

160

162

500

S/l.d/6.67%

90

88

88

266

165

162

157

484

S/2.d/2.9m/12,75%

104

138

143

385

178

232

239

649

S/2.d/3.9m/l2.50%

88

101

102

291

152

170

173

495

S/l.d/3.9m/12.100%

86

103

104

293

157

186

185

528

S/l.d/4.9m/12.75%

85

95

91

271

159

176

162

497

S/2.d/4.50%

'

'

TABLE 11 (Continued) PB 5/63

(Estate II)

Tapping system

Share cropping

Family labour

1

2

3

Total

1

2

3

Total

125

170

170

465

216

293

310

819

S/2.d/3.67%

106

156

174

436

188

286

337

811

S/2.d/4.50%

93

141

160

394

170

274

319

763

S/R.d/4.70%

108

151

153

412

202

301

315

818

S/l.d/4.100%

95

111

104

310

184

228

231

643

S/l.d/6.67%

95

137

146

378

180

280

309

769

S/2.d/2.9m/12.75%

98

137

153

388

170

239

280

689

S/2.d/3.9m/12.50%

81

121

137

339

143

216

257

616

S/l.d/3.9m/12.100%

85

103

95

283

157

197

195

549

S/l.d/4.9m/12.75%

81

103

104

288

151

203

217

571

S/2.d/2.100%

,

381

Journal of the Rubber Research Institute of Malaya, Volume 21, Part 3, 1969 TABLE 11 (Continued) PR 107 (Estate II)

Tapping system

Share cropping

Family labour

1

2

3

Total

4

1

2

3

Total

4

S/2.d/2.100%

162

208

223

593

235

270

348

372

990

392

S/2.d/3.67%

117

152

154

423

168

199

253

257

709

278

S/Zd/4.50%

101

137

127

365

138

174

229

212

615

229

S/l.d/3.133%

188

247

225

660

205

337

438

387

1162

353

S/l.d/4.100%

160

215

203

578

185

298

397

354

.1049

318

S/l.d/6.67%

136

181

158

475

153

247

330

276

853

262

TABLE 12. GROSS PROFIT ($ PER ACRE) OF VARIOUS TAPPING SYSTEMS ON PANEL B, 'SMALLHOLDING' SITUATION RRIM 513 (Estate IV)

Tapping system

Share cropping 6

7

PB 5/51 (Estate IV)

Family labour 6

7

8

Family labour

Share cropping

Total'

6

7

8

Total

8

Total

6

7

8

Total

196

660

420 415 332 1167

229 262 208

699

417 466

348

1231

359 275

898

S/2.d/2.100%

225 239

S/2.d/3.67%

149

181 170

500

286

319 289

894

139

199

164

502

264

S/2.d/4.50%

116

147

137

400

224

262 235

721

80

141

112

333

161 262

S/l.d/4.100%

184

164

133

481

378 293 239

910

178

181

118

477

332

S/l.d/6.67%

140

156 121

417

282 287 226

795

78

144

114

336

152 268

382

187

610

335 205

872

196

616

Me ENG KOK et al: Economic Analysis of Tapping Experiments TABLE 12 (Continued) PR

107

(Estate I)

Tapping system

Share cropping 6

7

8

(Estate IV)

Total

6

7

8

Family labour

Share cropping

Family labour Total

6

7

8

Total

6

7

8

Total

219

628

330

167 179

470

231 289

299

819

135

143

373

179 235 241

655

391 365

S/2.d/2.100%

259 281 256

796

433 470 428

1331 182 227

S/2.d/3.67%

208

632

354

1069 124

S/2.d/4.50%

168 180

180

528

286 307 302

S/l.d/4.100%

251 235

209

695

477 449

380

1306 198 235

193

626

372 413

S/l.d/6.67%

180 207

175

562

337

319

1050 129

174

489

245 331 303

223 201

378

394

337

895

95

186

334

1086

1119 879

TABLE 13. CHANGE IN PROFIT (S PER ACRE) DUE TO STIMULATION ON PANEL A, 'ESTATE' SITUATION RRIM 513 (Estate ID

Tapping system 1

S/2.d/2.100%

-20*

2

3

-6

RRIM 600 (Estate II) Total

1

2

3

Total

-5

-31

16

30

71

117

S/2.d/3.67%

8

16

4

28

-4

-11

15

0

S/2.d/4.50%

6

1

15

22

-8

-15

13

-10

S/R.d/4.70%

-11

-10

4

-17

7

-13

-9

-15

S/l.d/4.100%

0

-2

30

28

-11

-69

-7

-87

-5

3

10

8

-6

-27

1

-32

S/2.d/2.9m/12.75%

3

31

14

48

10

28

54

92

S/2.d/3.9m/]2.50%

28

34

36

98

10

10

47

67

S/l.d/3.9m/12.100%

4

10

20

34

-1

-10

-16

— 27

-5

-8

2

-11

-9

-7

12

-4

S/l.d/6.67%

S/l.d/4.9m/12.75%

383

Journal of the Rubber Research Institute of Malaya, Volume 21, Part 3, 1969 TABLE 13 (Continued) RRIM 605 Tapping system (Estate II)

S/2.d/2.100% S/2.d/3.67%

1

2

3

6

46 22

-1

(Estate I) Total

1

2

3

Total

20

72

38

86

92

216

38

59

33

19

9

61

31

53

16

42

52

110

20

-36

4 64 -32

S/2.d/4.50%

7

15

S/R.d/4.70%

-46

-10

S/l.d/4.100%

-22

-16

-27

-65

4

-18

-19

-33

-31

10

4

21

35

33

13

2

48

23

22

40

74

136

11

51

56

118

39

S/l.d/6.67% '

S/2.d/2.9m/12.75%

'

1

4

S/2.d/3.9m/12.50%

-1

2

21

22

23

36

S/l.d/3.9m/12.100%

-23

-32

-36

-91

-1

-27

S/l.d/4.9m/12.75%

-9

-33

-21

-63

24

24

3 5 - 1 7

81 -8

14

66

140

90

-36

-36

2

40

-5

TABLE 13 (Continued) RRIM

Tapping system

607

RRIM 623

(Estate II)

(Estate II)

1

2

3

Total

S/2.d/2.100%

15

27

57

S/2.d/3.67%

12

10

S/2.d/4.50%

7

S/R.d/4.70%

1

2

3

99

-20

-22

-31

-73

37

59

-7

2

-17

-22

10

49

66

-

-5

-23

3

-25

S/l.d/4.100%

11

6

29

46

-26

S/l.d/6.67%

-10

-27

-22

-59

6

S/2.d./2.9m/ 12.75%

18

35

33

86

-33

-12

2

-43

S/2.d/3,9m/12.50%

10

12

19

41

-IS

-13

-3

-34

S/l.d/3.9m/12.100%

-9

—2

—7

—15

—24

S/l.d/4.9m/12.75%

15

4

-7

4 -17

2

-

-13

3 -45

384

7

7

-7

-12

Total

6

6

17

18

28

-19

-22

-67

5

-

1

4

7

Nc ENG KOK et al.: Economic Analysis of Tapping Experiments TABLE 13 (Continued) RRIM 612 (Estate II)

R.RIM 623 (Estate 11

Tapping system 1

2

3

Total

4

1

2

3

Total

4

S/2.d/2.100%

7

43

56

106

59

-9

-9

12

-6

12

S/2.d/3.67%

59

11

64

2 6 - 2

S/2.d/4.50%

54

2

68

13

-6 12

71

6

17

S/l.d/4.100%

17

1

-5

S/l.d/6.67%

77

30

2

109

19

S/2.d/3.9m/12.75%

-3

6

50

53

49

S/2.d/3.9m/12.50%

-3

29

25

30

12

29

S/l.d/3.9m/12.100% S/l.d/4.9m,/12.75%

12

9

-10

-42

"Negative sign denotes a loss

94

-36

23

-

13

-9

b

30

S/R.d/4.70%

-1

21

-88

5

1

8

7

-17

8

35

64

25

13

-

2

12

-24 0

15

7 22

12

-24

5

- 1 7

49

18

-54

"S/l.d/3.133%

TABLE 14. CHANGE IN PROFIT ($ PER ACRE) DUE TO STIMULATION ON PANEL A, 'ESTATE' SITUATION GT

Tapping system

1

PB 5/51

(Estate I)

(Estate ID

(Estate II)

1

2

3

Total

1

2

3

Total

1

2

3

S/2.d/2.100%

75

35

97

207

14

15

41

70

4

18

25

S/2.d/3.67%

80

44

38

162

21

-1

5

25

10

41

-7

s

—-5

1

4

29

25

58

8

17

-11

5

9

3

-14 -27

-59

Total 47 44

S/2.d/4.50%

41

-2

2

41

14

S/R.d/4.70%

40

-10

-6

24

-2

S/l.d/4.100%

11

-60

-44

-93

0

5

-17

-12

-18

S/l.d/6.67%

38

-21

-50

-33

-7

-6

3

-10

0

7

-2

5

S/2.d/2.9m/12.75 %

46

62

54

162

3

15

23

41

-10

-11

-5

-26

S/2.d/3.9m/12.50%

46

58

21

125

-4

4

8

0

17

15

—32

. -8

-40

_ 55

-103

-3 -11

-13

-13

-22 -24

-59

5

-39

-59

-93

-3

-9

-14

-26

-45

S/l.d/3.9m/12.100%

S/l.d/4.9m/12.75%

1 —2

385

————— Q

11

-4

-5

Journal of the Rubber Research Institute of Malaya, Volume 21, Part 3, 1969 TABLE 14 (Continued)

PB 5/63

Tapping system

PR

(Estate II) 1

2

3

S/2.d/2.100%

-5

—5

15

S/2.d/3.67%

-8

-10

S/2.d/4.50%

2

5

(Estate 11) 1

2

3

Total

5

-8

20

31

43

-30

-35

-53

19

45

62

126

54

—2

5

9

40

46

95

-43

-30

-63

-63

23

44

6

16

41

31

Total

b

S/R.d/4.70%

-12

-36

-37

-85

-8

-25

S/l.d/4.100%

-15

5

-5

-15

22

-1

-7

-28

•?s — z^

-60

21

1

4

-15

-10

S/l.d/6.67% S/2.d/2.9m/12.75% S/2.d/3.9m/12.50% S/l.d/3.9m/12.100% S/l.d/4.9m/12.75% b

107

4

18

14

36

_7

-17

—— J

-29

0

-10

-15

-25

4

4

S/l.d/3.133%

TABLE 15. CHANGE IN PROFIT ($ PER ACRE) DUE TO STIMULATION ON PANEL B, 'ESTATE' SITUATION

PB 5/51

Tapping system

RRIM 513

(Estate IV) 6

(Estate IV)

7

8

Total

6

7

8

Total

S/2.d/2.100%

35

28

-7

56

34

6

_2

38

S/2.d/3.67%

24

56

49

129

27

28

11

66

S/2.d/4.50%

38

53

30

121

-7

3

-7

-11

S/l.d/4.100%

30

-41

30

-41

0

-31

-17

-48

S/l.d/6.67%

25

43

1

69

15

-9

15

21

386

NG ENG KOK et al.: Economic Analysis of Tapping Experiments TABLE 15 (Continued) PR

107

(Estate IV)

Tapping system

(Estate I)

6

7

s

Total

6

7

8

Total

S/2.d/2.10Q%

60

75

36

171

69

51

27

147

S/2.d/3.67%

31

66

29

126

38

32

43

113

S/2.d/4.50%

24

40

17

81

51

66

47

164

S/l.d/4.100%

20

-63

-54

-97

45

-76

-88

-119

S/l.d/6.67%

35

38

7

80

67

29

14

110

387