MECHANIZATION IN OIL PALM PLANTATIONS:

ACHIEVEMENT AND CHALLENGES

Teo Leng

EPA Management Sdn. Bhd

[Presented at OFIC2000, September 4, 2000, Kuala Lumpur]

 

Abstract

 

Mechanization has become a buzz word in oil palm industry of Malaysia over the last two decades. It is commonly recognized as a means of solving increasingly acute shortage of labour in the plantation sector. The situation has been all the more critical to plantations in the southern Peninsular Malaysia due in part to establishment of industrial parks throughout the state of Johore and close proximity to Singapore where relatively higher wages prevail in its labour market.

All the 28 oil palm plantations managed by EPA Management Sdn. Bhd. are located in Johore. The management recognized the urgent need to mechanize major field operations that are labour intensive, in addition to many aspects of land preparation, road and drainage construction that have been mechanized since rubber cultivation in Malaysia. Based on evaluation of machines and work methods carried out in the 1980s the Group embarked on an extensive mechanization programme with zeal and commitment particularly during the 1990s. Overall labour : land ratio in the early 1980s was 1:6 or 7 ha. To date the Group achieves a ratio of 1:10 ha. In plantation without replanting and immature fields a ratio of 1:12ha is attainable.

Mechanized harvesting was attempted without success. A major achievement has been in the area of mechanized in-field FFB collection. The Group adopted a unique gotong royong (co-operative) system in using mechanical buffalo (MB, a 3-wheeler manufactured in-house) for this purpose after a thorough comparative evaluation with mini-tractor (MT) system. In 1999 some 67% or 0.914m. tonnes FFB of the Group was collected by MB. Mean harvesters’ and machine productivities were at 2.08 tons/day and 10.08 tons/day respectively. Crops collected are evacuated either directly to palm oil mill or ramps by Kulim system. Both lorry and tractor-trailer systems with crane are used for crop evacuation. Contract lorries are used for external transport to mills.

Mechanical spreader is used for fertilizer application in all areas with paths that have been prepared for in-field FFB collection. Maintenance of these paths are by mean of rotoslashing instead of herbicide spraying as in the past. Labour and cost saving are significant in mechanical spreading of fertilizer. In plantations where mills are located all EFB and POME are recycled back to fields. Cost of POME application by tractor tanker system averaged at RM117/ha/year in 1999. Cost of EFB mulching ranged from RM192 to RM594 per ha depending on the distance travelled and quantity applied. Labour saving has also been achieved in the adoption of CDA/low volume sprayer/mist blower for weed management.

Zero burn technique for replanting has been adopted by the Group since 1984. In 1999 the Group became the first company to try a local innovation, a Palm Eater, for pulverization of oil palm trunk into fibres instead of shredding it into chips.

Cost saving achieved by the Group due to improved productivity as a result of mechanization has been completely eroded due to escalation of machine cost. Productivities derived from the prevailing mechanized systems are stagnating. Better systems would have to be developed. The development of a mechanical harvester cum pruner must be given top priority and urgency by Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB). The issue of capital substitution for labour (be it local or foreign) needs to be addressed. The government is strongly urged to provide tax incentive for a greater degree of mechanization lest a greater reliance on foreign workers may expose the industry to vulnerability and pose social and security threat to the nation.

___

Introduction

The oil palm and rubber industries form the backbone of Malaysian agriculture. Since the 1980s rubber was gradually losing its relative importance to oil palm due in part to lower profitability and higher labour requirement. Oil palm hectarages increase steadily via conversion of logged over forest and from rubber and cocoa land. The total area under oil palm at the end of 1999 was 3.31m ha a dramatic 149% increase since 1984. The pressure for labour in the oil palm sector is therefore very obvious.

With the aim of achieving the status of a developed nation the Malaysian government has embarked on an aggressive industralisation programme as a means of achieving the national goal. Such policy coupled with improved educational level among the population since independence has led to a general dislike of manual labour particularly in plantations by local populace. Increasingly the plantation sector relies on foreign workers to fill the void. It is estimated that foreign workers account for some 65% and 90% of the plantation work force in Peninsular Malaysia and Sabah respectively. Labour is increasingly scarce due to rapid absorption in the manufacture and/or service sector. The deteriorating situation has been repeatedly highlighted.^1-2 Consequently mechanisation has become a buzz word in the oil palm industry during the last 2 decades as a means to solving labour shortage.

EPA Management Sdn. Bhd, a plantation company that manages 28 estates in the state of Johore, encounters ever increasingly the impact of labour shortage. The mushrooming of industrial estates throughout the state and the attraction of higher wages in Singapore led the company to commit itself to mechanisation since the late 1980s. This paper discusses the Group’s achievement to date and highlights challenges ahead in mechanisation in oil palm plantations.

Background to Mechanisation

 

The company started a series of trials in the 1980s to evaluate suitable machines for harvesting, in-field FFB collection, fertiliser application and weeding. These are major field operations that demand higher labour and cost inputs.³

From the inception the objectives of mechanisation programmes were:

1. To increase labour productivity; and
2. To decrease cost of production

Workers’ income was expected to increase with labour productivity and the cost of mechanization to be paid for from cost saving due to increased productivity. Cost saving was possible during the initial years upon introduction of mechanization programme. As can be seen in later sections the rising cost of machinery has eroded any possible cost saving due to higher productivity.

A prototype harvesting machine with hydraulically elevated platform was tried with little success. It could not out compete the speed of a human harvester. The project was discontinued as the machine productivity was extremely low.

Results of evaluation on machines and work methods as reported by Teo et. al.^4,5 and Han and Maclean⁶ form the bases of commercial adoption throughout all the estates managed by the company.

Mechanical Path and Road System

A prerequisite to successful mechanization in oil palm plantation is a proper system of mechanical paths and roads. In all areas with straight line planting harvesters paths are converted to mechanical paths using bulldozer. This work was carried out in existing fields and is now practiced right at the time of land preparation during replanting. In terrace areas mechanical paths linking terraces and inter-terrace paths are constructed to facilitate the access of mechanical buffalo (MB), mini tractor (MT) and sometime big tractor as well.

In both new and replanting areas a grid network of road system is planned and constructed wherever possible. The objective is to ensure trafficability of plantation vehicles in all weather conditions. Details of a proper road and drainage system construction are provided by Teo.⁷

 

In-Field FFB Collection

Wheelbarrow was the standard tool used in the past in transporting FFB from palm bases to collection road. Based on a comparative study between mechanical buffalo (a three-wheeler with a payload of 400 kg) and mini-tractor (with a trailer having a payload of 1.0 ton) carried out by Teo et. al.⁵ the company has adopted the former as a standard vehicle for in-field FFB collection for the following reasons :

1. MB is useable in almost all terrains, and easy to operate and maintain.
2. Harvester’s productivity in MB system is comparable to mini-tractor system; and

• MB is cheaper than mini-tractor and hence it involves a lower capital outlay.

 Mechanical buffalo (or badang as it is now named) is manufactured by the company. Over the years the machine has been improved among other things, from a 4 hp to a 6 hp engine to provide more power in steeper terrain. A 9 hp engine is installed in a recent model of mechanical buffalo fixed with a high lift for direct unloading of crop.

Details for successful implementation of MB assisted in-field FFB collection are given by Teo et. al.⁵ Estates within the group are advised to follow the guidelines closely and their harvesters and machine productivity are also monitored closely by all levels of management. As a Group the main harvesters’ and machine productivity were at 2.08 tons/day and 10.08 tons/day respectively. The overall results in 1999 are compared to those obtained during the initial evaluation period and subsequent commercial adoption period (1988 till 1990) as given in Table 1.⁵ There is no obvious improvement of productivity over time due partly to frequent turnover of foreign workers. However it is to be noted that the present productivity performance is achieved with the inclusion of maintenance pruning as part of the concurrent duty of harvesters. Maintenance pruning, in contrast to seasonal pruning, facilitates harvesting and hence crop recovery in older fields with tall palms. The average earning of harvesters has improved significantly.

Based on our experience a higher productivity can only be achieved provided the estate management pays very close attention to details such as cropping level, harvesting intervals, yield and weather trend and machine maintenance and makes the necessary adjustment on team size (ranging from 4 to 6 harvesters per MB) and the number of machines (120 to 150 ha per machine) to be used. The objectives are to minimize machine down time, maximize harvesters working hours throughout the year, and balance between harvester’s productivity and machine productivity.

Taking two estates with similar terrain as an illustration (Table 2). Estate A and B yielded 28.35 and 23.46 tons/ha respectively in 1999. With a higher cropping level Estate A should by right achieved a higher productivity. This was not the case because Estate A was having a larger team size (5/6 harvesters) and an extra machine. Whereas Estate B constantly adjusted the team size (from 4 to 6) to cropping level and kept the optimal number of MB needed. Constant monitoring of operational details is obviously essential in ensuring higher productivity not only in MB system but also in mini-tractor system as well. It is to be noted that increase in the number of harvesters per team can increase the machine productivity but in turn reduces the harvester’s productivity and hence their income. There should be an optimal balance between machine and harvesters output so that harvesters do not leave due to low income.

Mainline Transport

For mainline transport of FFB the Group continues to use the Kulim System developed by the company many years ago. The prime mover used is either lorry (6/7 ton capacity) with crane or tractor (65 to 85 hp) with crane. Nets are used in this system for holding FFB unloaded from MB along collection road. FFB in the net are then lifted by crane and emptied onto the prime mover before delivery to either nearby ramp or directly to palm oil mill. Shunting system is adopted in case of tractor. This system requires only one crane for every 2 tractors. Big grabber has also been tried to load FFB directly onto lorry without using net.

Performances of these various systems are summarized in Table 3. Lorry is preferred over tractor in estates having good field roads and gentle terrain. Big grabber appeared to be less efficient than the original crane and net system.

Fertilizer Application

From the point of view of reduced labour usage and speedy work aerial manuring would serve to achieve the objectives.⁸ However the cost of aerial application is prohibitive. It has increased from RM65/ton previously to the present cost of RM94/ton.

EPA group of estates prefers to make use of mechanical spreader mounted on tractor (>70hp) for fertiliser application due to cost effectiveness. Moreover mechanical paths prepared for mechanical spreader could be used for mechanical buffalo in in-field FFB evacuation and vice-versa. In areas with rolling terrain inter-terrace paths are also prepared to allow access of tractor. Mini-tractor is used in soggy flats. Over the years we have changed from Vicon spreader, Bezzecchi spreader to Turbo Spin Spreader. The former two models apply the bulk of fertilizer onto mechanical paths while the latter model away from mechanical paths. The latter system is preferred for minimizing fertilizer loss along mechanical paths due to surface runoff.

In 1999 there were 52 units of mechanical spreaders in use in 28 estates (Table 4). Cumulative areas covered exceeded 180,000 ha. This represented some 37,000 ha of physical land area or about 67% of total mature fields. The average cost of application (not inclusive of capital depreciation) was RM3.37/ha or RM15.09/ton. Each machine applied an average of 8.5 tons of fertiliser per day over 37 ha. This was in agreement with result obtained previously and by Ooi & Sim.^4,9 While reduction in labour usage remained the same, cost of application has risen by more than 25% due to a higher cost of tractor and mechanical spreader.

Mechanical buffalo (MB) assisted manuring was carried out in 12 estates with immature fields. In this case MBs were used as transporter of fertiliser into these fields.⁵ More than 18,000 ha were covered by this means with an average cost of RM5.09/ha or RM28.12/ton (Table 5)

Apart from aerial manuring all other mechanical mean of fertilizer application are more cost effective than manual application. The use of mechanical spreader reduces the requirement for workers by more than 50%. The standard of fertilizer application is also far superior to manual application.

EFB Mulching

Unlike its sister company in PNG which has flat terrain, mechanical spreading of EFB in avenue of oil palm rows is not practical in EPA-managed estates. However, tractor-trailer and lorry are used where appropriate as transporter of EFB. In 1999 a total of 324,564 tons of EFB was applied over 7728 ha in 13 estates (Table 6). This represented nearly 98% of the total EFB available for our Group mills. Cost of application ranged from RM6.00 to RM11.55 per ton depending on distance from palm oil mill. Over the years the cost of application has increased steadily from RM2 to 3 per ton some 10 years ago. Higher cost of application is basically due to higher cost of tractor/lorry and their maintenance.

In view of rising cost in application and difficulty to fully mechanise the field operation EPA has embarked on composting of EFB. The final product or compost can then be mechanically spread like inorganic fertiliser. The problem of EFB mulch as breeding site for Oryctes will also be non-existent by then.

POME Application

EPA managed mills adopted the policy of recycling not only solid “waste” but POME as well. POME is applied by way of tractor-tanker system.^10,11 As a Group 18 tractor-tanker units were deployed to apply POME over 10661 ha cumulatively (or 2665 ha of field) in 6 estates. Average cost of application was RM29.27/ha/application or RM117.08/ha/year (Table 7). The average productivity of the system was 2.31 ha/day.

Rotoslashing of Mechanical Paths

To minimize the use of herbicide in plantation all harvesters’ paths upon converting to mechanical paths are maintained by tractor mounted rotoslasher This is adopted in all the 28 estates. It helps to reduce the requirement of weeders.

Table 8 summaries the cumulative area covered in 1999. It works out to a frequency of more than 3 times per year. Generally younger fields would require more frequent rounds than 3. The system has an average productivity of 33.21 ha/day at an average cost of RM1.86/ha (machine depreciation is not included in the costing).

Weed Management

EPA was the first company in the country to introduce commercially the use of controlled droplet applicator (CDA) for herbicide application in weed control.⁶ There was tremendous saving in the cost of application due to reduced water usage and higher labour productivity. Subsequent to this, many sprayers (e.g. CP15, solo sprayer, Osatu sprayer, samurai sprayer, etc) with lower water usage as compared to the conventional knapsack sprayer (CKS) have been introduced. Mist blower is also now adapted for weed control. As compared to CKS, labour productivity can be increased 1 to 3 fold depending on weed coverage and types of sprayer used. EPA is now able to reduce labour requirement for weed management from 1:25-30 ha to over 1:50 ha.

Zero Burn Technique of Replanting

Machineries used in land preparation during replanting remain essentially the same over time and a mere extension from rubber replanting. A notable change is the zero burn technique of replanting. EPA adopted zero burn technique of replanting since 1984. Hydraulic excavator fitted with locally fabricated chipping bucket was used for shredding old oil palm trunks into chips (of 10 cm thickness, 50 to 150 cm length). The shredded chips were normally heaped in inter-rows and allow to decompose in the field.

This method of replanting has a major drawback as the decomposing material serves as breeding site for Oryctes. Oryctes is a major insect pest of oil palm particularly during the immature period after planting. To partially overcome this problem EPA pioneered the use of a local innovation called Palm Eater. Instead of a chipping bucket, a hydraulic excavator fitted with a hammermill is used to pulverise the whole trunk into fibres. The machine is capable of pulverizing oil palm trunk in both standing and horizontal positions.¹² Pulverized materials rot faster than shredded chips and pose a lesser risk of Oryctes outbreak. Also the material may be used for in-situ composting and thus nutrients are recycled back to the field more efficiently. Or they may be processed for other biomass utilization.

 

 

Table 1. Comparison of harvesters’ and machine (MB) productivity in different periods

	Harvester Output (ton/day)	Machine Output (ton/day)	Average Earning RM/day	Operational Cost (RM/ton)
Pre-mechanization	1.23	-	12.81
Post-mechanization : Initial evaluation period *	1.54	7.45	16.29	1.63
1988 till 1990	2.10	10.30	23.87	1.60
1999 (28 estates)	2.08	10.08	47.70	2.00

   * September 1987 till August 1988

   Table 2. Comparison of harvesters’ and machine (MB) productivity between two estates (1999)

	Estate A	Estate B
Yield (tons/ha)	28.35	23.46
Harvester Output (ton/day)	2.03	2.30
Machine Output (ton/day)	10.07	10.62

Table 3. Performances of Kulim systems

		Cost - RM/Ton
Prime Mover	Vehicle Productivity (tons/day)	Field To Ramp	Ramp To Mill	Total (Field to Mill)
Lorry (crane net)	61.49	-	-	6.23
Tractor (crane net)	52.07	-	-	8.85
Tractor (shunting)	52.78	-	-	6.35
Lorry (crane + net)	93.46	4.29	8.30*	12.59
Lorry (with big grabber)	65.32	4.80	8.60*	13.40

   * Contract transport rate by lorry

Table 4. Summary of Manuring by Mechanical Spreader in 1999

			East a	Central b	North c	South d	Total / Mean
Units of Spreader			15	17	11	9	52
Cumm Area Covered (Ha)			56052.91	57676.69	37499.48	35286.01	186515.09
Ha/Spreader/day                     Mean                                                 Range			37.98 24.92-40.32	38.64 32.20-43.78	35.55 32.32-38.74	36.05 30.15-40.60	37.06 24.92-43.78
Fertiliser Applied/day (ton)    Mean                                                 Range			8.84 6.83-13.50	9.12 7.13-10.70	8.16 6.05-9.48	7.83 6.09-11.64	8.49 6.05-13.50
Cost:  RM/Ha                         Mean                                                Range			3.22 2.75-3.90	3.41 3.00-4.40	3.41 3.28-3.63	3.43 3.15-3.59	3.37 2.75-4.40
RM/ton                        Mean                                                Range			13.84 12.13-15.46	14.44 12.58-19.34	15.65 12.95-19.40	16.43 10.98-21.31	15.09 10.98-21.31
a.	7 estates
b.	9 estates
c.	6 estates
d.	6 estates
	28 estates

 

Table 5.   Summary of MB-assisted Manuring in 1999

	Units	Ha Covered	Ha/Day	Fertilizer Tons/day	RM/Ha	RM/Ton
LSS	1	839.81	22.1	3.14	3.96	27.92
LM	1	686.00	14.60	2.84	5.07	26.07
LTU	1	2345.00	20.75	2.73	3.75	28.50
LPP	1	637.91	17.72	6.17	6.19	17.78
LBK	1	1758.00	18.31	4.67	5.41	21.62
UTE	1	395.52	16.48	2.79	5.41	31.94
REM	2	667.74	15.18	3.66	5.61	23.24
NHC	1	5345.44	26.59	3.10	5.24	44.67
RE	1	926.58	25.74	5.36	4.20	20.16
TE	1	988.21	17.98	3.22	5.48	30.57
LM	1	1739.81	21.44	5.15	4.42	18.42
LLB	1	2125.00	24.71	3.37	6.35	46.51
Total/Mean	13	18,455.02	20.13	3.86	5.09	28.12

No. of Estates involved: 12

Table 6.   Summary of EFB Mulching in 1999

	East	Central	North	South	Total/Mean
EFB Available (ton)	102207	96282	47117	86556	332162
EFB Applied (ton)	101434	95089	46878	81163	324564
Area Applied (Ha)	2050	2905	938	1835	7728
Cost of Application RM/Ton - Mean                - Range	7.31 6.00-11.00	6.90 6.30-8.00	8.58 6.33-11.88	9.03 5.78-10.89	8.34 6.00-11.55
RM/Ha - Mean              - Range	362 275-498	265 192-400	492 316-594	399 290-452	350 192-594

No. of Estates involved: 13

Table 7.   Summary of POME Application in 1999

	LTL	LS	SE	UTE	LTS	LK	TOTAL/ MEAN
No. of tractor-tanker unit	2	3	3	3	5	2	18
Total Effluent applied (Ton)	28,070	28,424	25,465	32,237	58,770	22,592	195,558
Cumm. Area (Ha) Applied	1,388.60	1,372.65	1,453.15	1,666.53	3,451.56	1,328.94	10,661.43
Cost : RM/Ton	1.35	1.62	1.86	1.61	1.68	1.33	1.58
RM/Ha	27.29	33.50	32.54	31.16	28.60	22.54	29.27
Vehicle output Ha/day	2.41	1.60	2.11	1.87	2.99	2.90	2.31

No. of Estates involved: 6

Frequency of Application: 4 times/year

Quantity Applied: 125 to 150 L/palm/application

 

Table 8. Summary of rotoslashing of paths in 1999

	East	Central	North	South	Total/Mean
No of Units	14	14	8	11	47
Total Area Covered(Ha)	43,301.52	37,189.31	26,178.88	33,025.15	139,694.86
Area Covered-(Ha/Day)       Mean       Range	32.63 28.02-39.81	35.44 28.08-49.00	30.44 14.40-37.99	34.31 25.56-37.81	33.21 14.40-49.00
Cost (RM/Ha)       Mean        Range	1.89 1.56-2.75	1.67 1.41-1.89	1.84 1.61-2.34	2.02 1.85-2.14	1.86 1.41-2.35

No. of Estates involved : 28

Table 9.  Comparison between 1990 & 1999 prices of some common machineries

used in oil palm plantations

	1990	1999
In-Field FFB Collection                 MB System L 40                       L 60	6,500 -	11,600
MB System (L90) with high lift	-	23,500
MT System (20 hp)	15,000	27,000
(25-28 hp)	-	38,000-40,000
MT System + highlift + grabber	-	65,000
Mechanical Fertilizer Spreader                 Tractor (72 hp)	48,000	88,000
Fertilizer Spreader                 800 kg capacity	4,200	85,000-8,990
Mainline Transport                 Nissan lorry (6/7 ton)                 Crane (1.5 tons)	75,000-80,000 27,000-30,000	123,000 48,000-51,000
Rotoslashing of Paths                 Rotoslasher 70”	5,500	7,000

Labour:Land Ratio

The overall labour : land ratio in the 1980s was in the region of l:6 ha to 1:7 ha. With the introduction and adoption of the various mechanisation methods

particularly with respect to in-field FFB collection, mechanical spreading of fertiliser and CDA/mist blower method of weeding, EPA managed estates have been able to reduce labour:land ratio to 1:10 ha. Estates without replanting and immature fields can achieve a ratio of 1:12 ha. There are prospects of achieving 1:15 ha through more detailed planning and monitoring.

Challenges Ahead

Oil palm plantation owners are at a cross road, confronted with the following major issues:

1. Rising cost of machineries
2. Stagnation in labour and machine productivity for estates that have already introduced mechanisation.

• The dilemma of capital substitution for labour.

1. Absence of mechanical harvesting/pruning machine.

There is not much scope in further expansion of existing mechanised activities. Fine tuning in the current work systems using existing machineries may perhaps improve productivities by up to 20%. This would call for total commitment from all levels of management. Any further improvement in productivity is unlikely with the current mechanised systems. Better systems would have to be developed.

The cost escalation of machineries (Table 9) is indeed worrisome under a situation of productivity stagnation. Prices of machineries currently used for field operations in plantations have almost doubled in 10 years. This has been partly due to a very significant devaluation of Malaysian currency.

When MB was first introduced in 1987 cost of MB could be recovered through 30% increase in harvesters’ productivity as compared to wheel barrow system. Now machine cost (be it MB or MT) cannot be recovered fully due to drastic price increase over the years. Presently estate would have to incur an extra cost of about RM1.00/ton of FFB evacuated by MB system (and likely to be more in the case of MT due to higher capital outlay). This is in addition to the average operational cost of RM2.00/ton. The average operational cost in the past was only RM1.60/ton.⁵

 

National research institution like Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB) and universities must work closely with the industry to develop a mechanical harvester and pruning machine as soon as possible. Forecast made by Jalani for this to materialise in 2025 is very discouraging.¹³ It is hoped that with a very substantial allocation of research fund under IRPA for this project the period for the realisation of a viable mechanised harvester will be sooner. Should there be a lack of expertise/technology it must be out sourced from a centre of excellence. At the least a mechanical pruner would have to be developed lest crop be rotted away when left unharvested from tall palms in particular.

Despite escalation of cost of machineries on the one hand and the burdensome administrative/regulatory procedures in employing foreign workers on the other there is no turning back in pressing forward to a greater mechanisation. At a glance it is cheaper to make use of foreign workers instead of a greater degree of use on machinery. However, the social cost and disruption that is inevitable when foreign workers are too numerous is never computed.

As there is still the option of engaging foreign workers there may still be reluctance in some quarters to implement the existing mechanisation technology as fully as possible. As a means to encourage more mechanisation and less dependence on foreign workers, government can perhaps provide tax incentive for mechanisation to the plantation industry. Concurrently quota for employment of foreign workers must be curtailed progressively with time. In this way one can expect a more concerted effort by all concerned to look for labour saving technology under the pull and push scenario. The objective of achieving a labour:land ratio of 1:20 ha or perhaps 1:25 ha can then be realised sooner.

Training of worker is vital in any mechanised operation. Having foreign workers with a 2-year work contract does not augur well for high productivity. Estate is saddled with the problem of training new workers all the time. A standardised 5-year employment agreement between the two parties is preferable.

Conclusion

 

Whilst the oil palm plantation sector has over the years achieved evolutionary progresses in mechanisation of almost all field operations except harvesting and pruning, the labour:land ratio of 1:10 ha is still undesirable in comparison with any annual oil seed crop. The industry and the government are confronted with the dilemma of inefficient capital substitution for labour on the one hand and the social and security disruptions of foreign workers on the other. A balance between the two factors (i.e. mechanisation vs foreign workers) would be necessary to ensure the competitiveness of the industry. Meanwhile national research bodies such as MPOB in collaboration with the industry must endeavour by all means to develop a viable mechanical harvesting and pruning system as soon as possible.

Acknowledgments

The writer wishes to thank the Managing Director of EPA Management Sdn. Bhd for the permission to present this paper. The success of mechanisation is due to the commitment of all the planters. Assistance given by Mdm. Kamala Devi and Puan Kalthom Abdul Rahman in the preparation of the paper is gratefully acknowledged.

References

1. Abdul Aziz AR and Mat Nazir S (1993). Agricultural labour force in Malaysia: Outlook and implications. Proc National Conf On Mechanised Agriculture, 1993, pp 23-34.
2. Navamukundan A (1999). Changing labour trends in the plantation sector. Paper presented at National Seminar on Innovations in Plantation Management. The Incorporated Society of Planters, Kuantan, 9 May 1999, 25 pp.
3. Clendon JH (1990). The need for mechanisation on oil palm estates, The Planter, 66 (773): 412-419.
4. Teo L, Ee KW, Maclean RJ and Abdul Rashid S (1988). Mechanical spreading of fertiliser in an inland oil palm estate. National Oil Palm/Palm Oil Conference Current Developments. October 11-15, 1988, Kuala Lumpur.
5. Teo L, Tiong SKK, Abdul Rashid S and Ee KW (1993). EPA”s experiences on the use of mechanical buffalo for in-field FFB collection and assisted manuring. 1991 PORIM International Palm Oil Conference – Agriculture (Module 1), pp 179 – 187.
6. Han KJ & Maclean RJ (1983). Commercial evaluation of ultra-low volume technique for weed control on plantations in Johore. Proc. Rubber Research. Institute Malaysia Planters Conference, Kuala Lumpur 1983, pp 245 – 260.
7. Teo L (1999). Mechanisation in oil palm plantation; some practical considerations. The Planter, 75 (875): 233 – 244.
8. Johnston TJM, Singh G and Loh HP (1994). On-ground experiences of aerial fertiliser application in Malaysia. In: Chee KH (ed.). Management for Enhanced Profitability in Plantations. The Incorporated Society of Planters, Kuala Lumpur, pp 307 – 313.
9. Ooi LH and Sim BS (1997). Impact of two improved practices on labour requirement. In: Pushparajah E (ed) Plantation Management for the 21^st Century (Vol 1). The Incorporated Society of Planters, Kuala Lumpur.
10. Teo L (1998). Mechanisation in oil palm plantations. Paper presented at MOSTA Symposium 5: Recent Advances in Oil Palm Sector, October 15-17, 1998 – Lumut, Perak, 36 pp.
11. Mohd Hashim T (1993). Treated POME as nutrient source for oil palm. 1991 PORIM International Palm Oil Conference – Agriculture (Module 1) pp 244 – 260.
12. Amir Salleh and Ng TW (2000). In-situ processing of oil palm trees using a palm eater. 5th National Seminar on Utilization of Oil Palm Tree. Oil Palm Biomass: Opportunities and Challenges in Commercial Exploitation, Bangi, 9-11 May 2000.
13. Jalani BS (1998). Research and development of oil palm towards the next millennium. International Oil Palm Conference, Bali, 1998, Paper GL/09.

___