Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Linear programming was used to determine the optimal net farm income
of several agroforestry cropping system options in Malaysia. Many practical
problems in operational research can be expressed in the form of linear
programming problems. A number of algorithms for other types of optimization
problems could be solved simultaneously by using linear programming. Linear
programming model (LINDO) was applied in this study in order to find out
the best options to optimize the net farm income. The results from this study
will be used to recommend the most feasible and optimal cropping system
suitable in Malaysia.
INTRODUCTION
1
programming model has been used as investment decision model in regional land
evaluation for maximizing profit by utilizing the available resources (Ahmad Fauzi
1994).
The general objective of this study was to select combine crops which are
expected to best optimize the constraints imposed by available resources. We
estimated the expected land and labour used in order to maximize the net
farm income and to compute the quantity of crops to be produced. Finally we
recommend the optimal cropping system to be adopted in Malaysia.
n
Subject to ∑ aij xj ≤ ri (i = 1, 2,…m)
J 1
and xj ≤ 0 (j = 1, 2, ….n)
The reverse of this model, i.e. minimizing of income model, uses primal and
dual for maximizing and minimizing concepts respectively. In this paper, we looked
at net farm income for several combination crops, namely, (a) oil palm + sentang
(Azadirachta excelsa) + banana, (b) rubber + sentang, (c) banana + oil palm, (d) oil
palm + sentang, and (e) banana + rubber. The amount of crops produced is very
much dependent on the use of land and labour. Generally, the linear programming
model can be written as follows:
This model would ultimately maximize the net farm income of combined
crops. We used Linear Integer and Quadratic Programming Program (LINDO)
software for this analysis.
2
Data for study
The most important data for the linear programming matrix is the cost per unit
of each input requirement (Table 1). This was the basis used for selecting the best
combination of crops which maximized the net income.
The estimated linear programming model is as shown in Appendix 1. The
model was based on the objectives of study which were to maximize the net farm
income in agroforestry sector and at the same time optimize the constraints
imposed by available resources. The description of variables used in the linear
programming is shown in Appendix 2.
x1*- oil palm + sentang + banana; x2*- rubber + sentang; x3*- banana + oil palm; x4*- oil palm + sentang; x5*-
banana + rubber
3
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The net income showed that a 0.2 ha plantation crop of oil palm + sentang gave a
high return of about RM12724.95 (Appendices 3 and 4). The combine crops of oil
palm + sentang were more profitable than other combine crops. The combination
of oil palm + sentang gave a total gross income of RM15739.95 and for planting
materials, the combination gave a value of only RM54.65.
For the second run of linear programming, the combination of agroforestry
data for the five plantations needed a little refinement. This showed that linear
programming was able to allocate the variable costs to others matter such as the
cost of labour and maintenance.
The total variable cost of oil palm + sentang can be minimized to RM508.79
in order to maximize the net income to RM12724.95. The result showed that the
combination needed a value of RM243.33 to run this project using land tax. Results
of the total cost of labour per man day can be reduced to give RM155.08. Total
labour cost included the costs for planting, application of fertilizer, weedicide and
insecticide, wrapping of fruits, plant maintenance and also cost for harvesting.
Total fixed cost for the combination of oil palm + sentang was RM190.97 and the
total variable cost was RM508.79.
CONCLUSION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
4
REFERENCES
AHMAD FAUZI, P. 1994. Investment Decision Model in Regional Land Evaluation in Recent
Developments in Land Evaluation. Malaysian Society of Soil Science, Kuala Lumpur.
AHMAD FAUZI, P., MOHD SHAHWAHID, O. & AMIR ABDUL NASIR, S. 2002. Optimizing log supply
from timber concession complex, Dungun, Terengganu to their subsidiaries down
stream processing mills using linear programming model. Pp. 197–209 in Jamaluddin,
K., Ahmad, S., Mohd Noor, R., Hafizah, K. & Muzammil, M. (Eds.) The Proceedings of
the Science, Techonology & Social Science National Seminar. 27−28 May 2002, Kuantan.
HAZELL, P. B. R & NORTON, R. D. 1986. Mathematical Programming for Economic Analysis in
Agriculture. Macmillan Publishers Company, New York.
SCHRAGE, L. 1986. Linear, Integer and Quadratic Programming with LINDO. Third edition. The
Scientific Press, University Avenue, Palo Alto.
5
Appendix 1 Estimated linear programming model
MODEL:- MAX = -15*L1 -15*L2 -15*L3 -15*L4 -15*L5 -15 + 503462.42 *X1 + 299087.73 *X2 +
269311.61 *X3 + 502614.73 *X4 + 58652.84 *X5 ;
[LABOUR1] L1 >= 0;
[LABOUR2] L2 >= 0;
[LABOUR3] L3 >= 0;
[LABOUR4] L4 >= 0;
[LABOUR5] L5 >= 0;
[LAND1] LD1 -X1 >= 0;
[LAND2] LD2 -X2 >= 0;
[LAND3] LD3 -X3 >= 0;
[LAND4] LD4 -X4 >= 0;
[LAND5] LD5 -X5>= 0;
[SYNLAND] X1 + X2 + X3 + X4 +X5 <= 10;
[TOTAL_GROSS_INCOME] 624994.634*X1 + 380288.32*X2 + 363294.6*X3 +620970.3*X4 +
122612.7*X5 >= 0;
[LAND_CLEARING] 800*X2 + 47300*X6 + 82800*X7 + 356160*X8 + 50500*X9 + 33950*X10 +
18000*X11 + 20700*X12 + 12320*X13 + 7000*X14 + 100000*X15 + 96600*X16 + 170000*X17 >= 0;
[FARM_ROAD] 799.2*X2 + 399.6*X5 + 1400000*X6 + 138000*X7 + 592000*X8 + 15700*X10 +
60000*X11 +140000*X12 +70000*X13 + 72000*X14 >= 0;
[PLANTING_MATERIAL] 2379.2*X1 + 616*X2 + 2379.2*X3 + 2156*X4 + 839.2*X5 + 119524.68*X6
+ 24242.8*X7 + 277260.02*X8 + 187069.08*X9 + 53115.04*X10 >= 0;
[REPLANTING_MATERIAL] 1248.65*X1 + 225*X2 + 1308.17*X3 + 1248.65*X4 + 225*X5 >= 0;
[COVER_CORP] 300*X1 + 1351.39*X2 + 300*X3 + 300*X4 + 44.14*X5 >= 0;
[LINING] 830.00*X1 + 220.72*X2 + 830*X4 + 220.72*X5 >= 0;
[SEEDLING] 1307.25*X1 + 336*X2 + 1307.25*X4 + 336*X5 >= 0;
[HOLING] 451.70*X1 + 952.18*X2 + 392.18*X4 + 560*X5 >= 0;
[TOTAL_FIXED_COST] 7816.79*X1 + 5855.49*X2 + 3987.37*X3 + 7534.07*X4 + 3239.18*X5 >= 0;
[TSP] 26.04*X1 + 26.04*X3 + 26.04*X5 >= 0;
[OTHER_CHMCL_FERTLZR] 9510*X1 + 9148.38*X2 + 9510*X4 + 9148.38*X5 >= 0;
[NPK_15_15_15] 460.33*X1 + 460.33*X3 + 460.33*X5 >= 0;
[NPK_12_12_17_2] 553.35*X1 + 553.35*X3 + 553.35*X5 >= 0;
[ORG_FERTLZR] 527.56*X1 + 527.56*X3 + 527.56*X5 >= 0;
[GNRL_WEEDICIDE] 6385.86*X1 + 5278.38*X2 + 5887.86*X3 + 6362.86*X4 + 1101.37*X5 >= 0;
[GNRL_INSECTICIDE] 4463.78*X1 + 1576.58*X2 + 4312.43*X3 + 4200*X4 + 1840.36*X5 >= 0;
[PLASTIC_BAG] 21.35*X1 + 21.35*X3 + 21.35*X5 >= 0;
[TOTAL_VAR_COST] 21948.28*X1 + 16003.34*X2 + 11788.93*X3 + 20072.86*X4 + 13678.8*X5
>= 0;
[L_PLANTING] 555*X2 + 614.52*X5 >= 0;
[L_FERTLZR_APPL] -L1 + 549.60*X1 + 158.92*X2 + 549.60*X3 + 544.86*X4 + 163.65*X5 - TL >= 0;
[L_WEEDICIDE_APPL] -L2 + 446.46*X1 + 219.87*X2 + 413.26*X3 + 434.2813*X4 + 198.84*X5
- TL >= 0;
[L_INSECTICIDE_APPL] -L3 + 288.86*X1 + 126.13*X2 + 288.86*X3 + 283.784*X4 + 131.20*X5
+ - TL >= 0;
[L_PRUNNING] -L4 + 417.33*x1 + 37.692*x2 + 404.86*x3 + 417.3313*x4 + 25.23*x5 - TL >= 0;
[L_WRAPPG_OF_FRUITS] 3.04*x1 + 3.04*x3 + 5.07*x5 - TL >= 0;
[L_PLANT_MAINTENANCE] 10.15*x1 + 10.15*x5 + 71100.00*x6 - TL >= 0;
[L_HARVESTING] 4470.15*x1 + 2702.52*x2 + 4290.15*x3 + 4438.02*x4 + 2554.65*x5 - TL >= 0;
[TOTAL_COST_OF_LBR_PER_MD] 6185.58*x1 + 3245.13*x2 + 5949.77*x3 + 6118.28*x4 +
3088.79*x5 >= 0;
[TOTAL_LBR_COST] 92783.66*x1 + 48676.89*x2 + 89246.48*x3 + 91774.19*x4 + 46331.8*x5 >= 0;
[LAND_TAX] 9600*x1 + 1500*x2 + 1500*x3 + 9600*x4 + 1500*x5 >= 0;
[CONTINGENCY] 13214.87*x1 + 7203.57*x2 + 10652.28*x3 + 12898.11*x4 + 6474.974*x5 >= 0;
[TOTAL_COST] 121532.21*x1 + 81200.59*x2 + 93983*x3 + 118355.6*x4 + 63959.8*x5 <= 3000;
[TOTAL_LABOUR] TL <= 20;
[PO1] LD4 >= 5;
6
Appendix 2 Description of variables
Variable name Description
7
Appendix 3 Otimization linear programming matrix for agroforestry
8
X11 0.000000 0.000000
X12 0.000000 0.000000
X13 0.000000 0.000000
X14 0.000000 0.000000
X15 0.000000 0.000000
X16 0.000000 0.000000
X17 0.000000 0.000000
Row Slack@ surplus Dual Price
LABOUR1 0.000000 0.000000
LABOUR2 0.000000 0.000000
LABOUR3 0.000000 0.000000
LABOUR4 0.000000 0.000000
LABOUR5 0.000000 0.000000
LAND1 0.000000 0.000000
LAND2 0.000000 0.000000
LAND3 0.000000 0.000000
LAND4 4.9764653 0.000000
LAND5 0.000000 0.000000
SYNLAND 9.974653 0.000000
TOTAL_GROSS_INCOME 15739.95 0.000000
LAND_CLEARING 0.000000 0.000000
FARM_ROAD 0.000000 0.000000
PLANTING_MATERIAL 54.64887 0.000000
REPLANTING_MATERIAL 31.64996 0.000000
COVER_CORP 7.604203 0.000000
LINING 21.03829 0.000000
SEEDLING 33.13531 0.000000
HOLING 9.940721 0.000000
TOTAL_FIXED_COST 190.9687 0.000000
TSP 0.000000 0.000000
OTHER_CHMCL_FERTLZR 241.0532 0.000000
NPK_15_15_15 0.000000 0.000000
NPK_12_12_17_2 0.000000 0.000000
ORG_FERTLZR 0.000000 0.000000
GNRL_WEEDICIDE 161.2816 0.000000
GNRL_INSECTICIDE 106.4588 0.000000
PLASTIC_BAG 0.000000 0.000000
TOTAL_VAR_COST 508.7937 0.000000
L_PLANTING 0.000000 0.000000
L_FERTLZR_APPL 13.81075 0.000000
L_WEEDICIDE_APPL 11.00788 0.000000
L_INSECTICIDE_APPL 7.193170 0.000000
L_PRUNNING 10.57824 0.000000
L_WRAPPG_OF_FRUITS 0.000000 0.000000
L_PLANT_MAINTENANCE 0.000000 0.000000
L_HARVESTING 112.4920 0.000000
TOTAL_COST_OF_LBR_PER_MD 155.0821 0.000000
TOTAL_LBR_COST 2326.232 0.000000
LAND_TAX 243.3345 0.000000
CONTINGENCY 326.9328 0.000000
TOTAL_COST 0.000000 4.246649
TOTAL_LABOUR 20.00000 0.000000
PO1 0.000000 0.000000