65 

 production cost of $7,630/ha which was significantly different from 

 the other three cropping patterns (Table 11). Except for material cost,, 

 cropping patterns LM-Ii^i-LM, HM-MM-LM, and HM-LM-MM were similar in 

 cultural and harvest labor costs (Table 11). In terms of harvest labor 

 cost, the four cropping patterns were similar although' cropping 

 patterns HM-HM-HM and M-Wi-IM required more harvest labor. 



In general, production cost data indicated that planting HM 

 vegetable crops in year-round cropping patterns required high cash 

 and labor inputs, but planting a combination of IM, MM, and KM reduced 

 total production costs by about ^G/o. 



Income and Returns to Production Inputs 



Gross and net income . Gross and net incomes were significantly 

 higher in cropping pattern HM-HM-HM than the other three cropping 

 patterns (l2) . Cropping patterns IM-lM-m, HM-MM-LM, and HM-IM-MM 

 resulted in statistically similar gross income, although cropping 

 pattern HM-M-IM produced the lowest gross income (Table 12) . The low 

 gross income from pattern HM-MM-LM was caused by low marketable yields 

 of bulb onion and squa.sh. 



Regardless of fertilizer levels, the best pattern seemed to be 

 HM-HM-HM if growers consider total net income as the criterion for 

 profitability. However, this pattern required the highest total costs 

 and labor inputs (Table 12) . Cropping pattern HM-IM-MM netted $3000/ha 

 income, but total production costs were lower than HM-HM-HM, and yields 

 were stable than the other cropping patterns. 



