Journal of Economics and Business Research, [600499]

Journal of Economics and Business Research,
ISSN: 2068 – 3537, E – ISSN (online) 2069 – 9476, ISSN – L = 2068 – 3537
Volume XVII, No. 2, 2011, pp. 179-188

Research on the diversity of vegetable production
in Arad County

G. Sanda, M.D. Pop

Grigorie Sanda
Faculty of Economics, "Aurel Vlaicu" University of Arad, Romania
Marius D. Pop
Faculty of Economics, “Babe ș Bolyai” University, Cluj-Napoca,
Romania

Abstract
Our study focuses on the fruit and vegetable farmer s in
Arad County aiming to offer a clearer image on vege table
and fruit production. This paper is part of a large r study and
only wishes to address aspects related to the fruit and
vegetable farmer’s property forms and product diver sity.
Keywords: agromarketing, agrobusiness, vegetable
production, fruit product diversity

Introduction
Vegetable production was an important part of Arad County’s
exports before ‘89, and we would only mention the g reenhouses that
practically no longer exist today. Also there were a large number of
small scale fruit and vegetable farmers grouped in production areas that
provided for the county’s markets. Today, fruit and vegetable
production is fragmented and grouped around diverse vegetable
categories due to the soil’s quality being determin ed for quality as well
as vegetable type.
Thus Arad has areas acknowledged as specialized veg etable crop
sites such as: Curtici for tomatoes, Semlac for yel low and red
watermelon, Podgoria for grapes, Socodor for cabbag e, Turnu for
greens and Seleus which is acknowledged as the larg est greenhouse and
sun foil vegetable production site.

G. Sanda, M.D. Pop
180
Due to the fact that after 89 C.A.P’s ceased to exi st and people
got back their lands, production areas registered a significant decrease
in size. Additionally mass production was negativel y affected and could
not provide large quantities of fruits and vegetabl es any longer. A
second factor that played part in the decrease of v egetable/fruit
production in Arad County was the heavy emigration of German ethnics
which constituted the core of vegetable farmers.
Qualitative and quantitative evidence shows that fr uit and
vegetable production is weak, almost nonexistent, a nd the lack of a
dedicated data centralizing system can not provide relevant information
to show whether an association of small farmers cou ld produce enough
as to make their entry on a market dominated by mul tinational
companies.
The objectives of the study were multiple; however this paper will
only focus on those objectives that concern product diversity and the
farmers’ technological equipment level. Thus we pre sent the following
objectives:
• Knowledge on Arad’s fruit/vegetable farmer’s forms of property
was considered in this study as a primary developme nt motor.
We have also emitted a hypothesis according to whic h the most
usual form of property, covering more than 50% of
vegetable/fruit farmers, is the Agricultural farmer certificate;
• The share of fruit/vegetable production out of the total
agricultural activity was determined as an object i n order to
highlight the number of those involved exclusively in the
fruit/vegetable production;
• The size of the fields designated for fruit/vegetab le cultures was
also considered as an objective for creating a clea rer image
about the size of said fields, knowing the fact tha t greenhouse
crops necessitate significantly smaller areas compa red to the
regular agricultural approach;
• The diversity of vegetable and fruit production was another
objective thru which we tried to identify an answer for the
problem of production diversity fluctuations relate d to prices
registered for the previous year. We have hypothesi zed that over
50% of farmers modify their crop in relation to pri ces registered
for the previous years;

Research on the diversity of vegetable production in Arad County

181
Materials and Methods
In order to select a representative sample group we have used a
mix of methods: the areolar method (Pop, 2004) through which we
selected areas recognized as important in fruit/veg etable production and
the stratified random survey method (Pop, 2004) applied to select the
top 30% farmers as designated by the local town hal ls’ records and by
the size of the land owned in relation to the produ ction type applied
(greenhouse, foil, agricultural terrain).
The study was made on the basis of a questionnaire,
administrated through three field agents during a t hree month period
(July-September 2011) having a number of 201 respon dents. Data was
processed with the aid of a statistical program.

Literature review
According to the preliminary data from the 2010 Gen eral
Agricultural Census there are 3.856 agricultural ho ldings, 99.20% of
which lack legal personality (individual agricultur al enterprises,
authorized individuals) and 0.80% which have legal personality
(agricultural societies, research facilities, town/ city councils and other
public institutions).
After 1990 (Zahiu, 2010), the share of vegetable pr oduction
areas registered a permanent fluctuation, first of all because of the way
production is managed, secondly because of the nume rous work force
required and thirdly because the high costs associa ted with pest control.
From 2001 onwards imported vegetables have found a way to our
domestic market because of their lower price point even though they are
of lower quality.
Even though Romania posses an important fruit growi ng area,
low efficiency and reduced group cohesion in fruit production
determines the lack of a competent offer on the mar ket.
The Romanian fruit/vegetable sector does not satisf y the
market’s rhythmic sale needs fact which combined wi th the lack of
specialized storage areas practically dismisses the vast
majority of producers. Organizing producers in prof essional groups may
create an important competitor for imported fruits and vegetables and
may help promote a durable development of the rural sector.

G. Sanda, M.D. Pop
182
Results and Discussion
Questionnaire respondent distribution for recognize d vegetable
producing areas: 28% are from Felnac, folowed by 26 % from Seleus,
24% Siria (Galsa and Iermata being included), Curti ci 22% (Macea
being included) and finally Lipova with 0.5% of res pondents.

Analiza formei de proprietate
97%
0,5% 1%
1% 1% Certificat de producator agricol
PFA
Asoc. familiala
Cooperativa
Societate comercial ă

Graphic no.1. – Analysis of the ownership forms

Graphic 1 shows that the most occurring ownership f orm (97%)
for vegetable/fruit producers in Arad is the Agricu ltural farmer
certificate, the remaining forms having less than 1 %.
The number of people involved in agricultural activ ities, represented in
percentages, is as follows: two (42%), one (21%) th ree (18%) and
respectively four (16%).
Applying the hi square test, the void hypothesis according to
which there is no connection between ownership form and the number
of people involved is rejected, validating an inter dependence hypothesis
between the two before mentioned categories. The Sp earman correlation
coefficient has a value of 0.159 corresponding to a 0.024 significance
threshold (hence less than 0.005) which leads to th e conclusion that
there is a weak but direct and positive link betwee n the two; the more

Research on the diversity of vegetable production in Arad County

183
complex the ownership form (agricultural farmer cer tificate,
cooperative, company) the larger the number of peop le involved. It must
be specified that in the time frame the study was c onducted, changes in
the Romanian labor code imposed the introduction of employment
records for day laborers, which in turn created con fusion amongst the
vegetable/fruit producers, fact that can be a pertu rbing factor in
validating these data.
A statistical analysis of activity data shows that 22% of the
respondents are also active in zootechnics; amongst these, 70% declared
that the share of zootechnics related activities su m up to 10%-30%.
30.5% declared that they also cultivate grains, 67. 3% of these appreciate
grain related activities to vary between 10% and 50 %.

Amongst the questioned subjects none declared that they provide
agricultural equipment services, however a few cons idered that they
would dispose of the necessary resources.
96% of the interviewed subjects declared fruit/vege table
production as their main business, 56.7% of which a re 100% dedicated
to fruit/vegetable production. The relevance of the data resides in the
fact that it proves the relevance of the sample gro up regarding the
subject investigated and validates it as representa tive.
Further analysis of the data gathered shows that 8. 81% of
respondents (17 people) dedicate 30% of their agric ultural activity to
fruit/vegetable production, 8.81% (17 people) dedic ate between 30%
and 60% to fruit/vegetable production while the vas t majority of
respondents 82.38% (159 people) dedicate over 60% t o this activity.
The structure of the chosen sample group is conside red
representative because the majority of the question ed subjects are
directly involved in fruit/vegetable production, on ly 17% having grain
cultivation as their main priority.
As for related agricultural activities (graphic 2) 99% of the
respondents declared that they are engaged in comme rcial activities
with the produced fruits/vegetables, 99.5% declared that they are not
involved in processing products and only 2.49% have storage areas
designed to deposit them. None declared to be invol ved in collecting
products from other farmers.

G. Sanda, M.D. Pop
184
0,00% 100,00% 2,49% 97,51% 0,50% 99,50% 99,00% 1,00%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Colectare Depozitare Prelucrare Comer ț
DA
NU

Graphic no. 2- Percentage of the related agricultur al activities

These percentages show that agricultural products a re sold
directly, without being processed (or even packed) by the producers.

Table no. 1

Analysis results for the size of agricultural surfa ces
Grains Fruits Vegetables
Cultivated
area Number
of subjects Percentage Number
of subjects Percentage Number
of
subjects Percentage
0 – 1 ha 15 7.5% 49 24.4% 102 50.7%
1 – 10 ha 34 16.9% 25 12.4% 5 2.5%
10 – 50 ha 17 8.5% 4 2% 0 0%
over 50 ha 17 8.5% 0 0% 0 0%
do
not cultivate 125 62.2% 0 0% 0 0%

Study results show that the vast majority of those involved in
fruit/vegetable production own agricultural surface s less than 1 hectare,
only a small percentage, of under 5%, own land betw een 1 and 10

Research on the diversity of vegetable production in Arad County

185
hectares. Fruit production presents different resul ts, 24.4% of owners
having under 1 hectare of land, 12.4% between 1 and 10 hectares
(mainly watermelon cultures) and only 2% own more t han 10 hectares.
This land distribution reinforces the idea that alo ne, without
associations, those involved in fruit/vegetable pro duction can not
produce large enough quantities to negotiate with l arge markets (export,
en-gross markets, and chain stores). In order to ga in a better perspective
on fruit and vegetable production diversity, but wi thout aiming to
present a definitive estimate on production size, t he questionnaire
included questions referring to vegetable/fruit kin ds, the nature of the
production process (field of greenhouse) and the es timated product
quantity for 2011. Table 2 shows vegetable producti on taking into
account the average size of the production lot, pro duct groups, average
production estimate, the percentage of vegetable/fr uit producers from
the total number of respondents and the desire to c ultivate the same
vegetables next year.

Tabel no. 2

Result analysis concerning vegetable product divers ity on arable land
Production on arable land

Average
crop
area
(ha) Average
production
amount
(tons) Number
of
producers Producer
percentage
from
number of
respondents
(%) Continuing
production
(%)
1. Consumption and
industrial tomatoes 0.095 1.53 50 24.88% 100.00%
2. capsicums, peppers 0.035 1.29 21 10.45% 100.00%
3. cucumbers 0.016 0.6 5 2.49% 100.00%
4. potatoes 0.018 0.6 14 6.97% 93.33%
5. green onions, onions,
garlic 0.088 67.34 32 15.92% 100.00%
6. cauliflower, cabbage, ,
French turnip, salad,
spinach, broccoli 0.165 77.8 75 37.31% 96.15%
7. carrots, parsley, celery,
parsnip 0.073 46.95 39 19.40% 97.50%
8. beans, peas, eggplant 0.084 9.3 44 21.89% 100.00 %
9. corn 0.467 6.16 12 5.97% 100.00%
10. watermelon 1.66 54 60 29.85% 96.77%

G. Sanda, M.D. Pop
186
We can assert that most respondents cultivate cabba ge varieties
(37.31%) followed by watermelons (29.85%) onions (1 5.92%) and
tomatoes (24.88%). Other vegetables fall in the 10% and under 10%
however it is clear that a large variety of vegetab les are produced on
arable land. As for production continuity we can co nclude that most
producers want to cultivate the same type of vegeta ble, fact that
invalidates the hypothesis of a significant dynamic in production, i.e.
producers change next year’s crop according to the current year’s
demand.

Table no. 3

Result analysis concerning vegetable product divers ity in greenhouses
Greenhouse production

Average
crop
area
(m 2) Average
production
amount
for 2011
(tons) Number
of
producers Producer
percentage
from
number of
respondents
(%) Continuing
production
(%)
1. Consumption and
industrial tomatoes 467 4.03 103 51.24% 94.17%
2. capsicums, peppers 307 1.22 66 32.84% 100.00%
3. cucumbers 245 1.07 31 15.42% 100.00%
4. potatoes 100 0.40 2 1.00% 100.00%
5. green onions, onions,
garlic 86 43.00 21 10.45% 100.00%
6. cauliflower, cabbage,
French turnip, salad,
spinach, broccoli 215 0.85 39 19.40% 88.63%
7. carrots, parsley, celery,
parsnip 156 0.79 33 16.42% 100.00%
8. beans, peas, eggplant 290 1.34 22 10.95% 91.00%

Greenhouse vegetable production (table 3) presents an increased
diversity; production quantities though obtained on seemingly smaller
surfaces, can be considered large as size standards are concerned.
The most cultivated vegetable in this category is t he tomato
(51.24%), followed by capsicums (32.84%) and cabbag e varieties-
mainly salad (19.40%). Yearly production fluctuatio n wise there are no
important modifications, refuting the hypothesis th at vegetable
producers modify their production according to last year’s demand.

Research on the diversity of vegetable production in Arad County

187
Production stability (including the type of vegetab le as well as
the quantity) from one year to the other is benefic ial for the producer
because it constitutes a selection criterion for ev ery collector wishing to
gather the products in order to sell larger quantit ies to merchants.

Table nr. 4.

Result analysis concerning fruit product diversity

Average
crop area
(ha) Average
production
amount for
2011
(tons) Number of
producers Producer
percentage
from number
of respondents
(%) Continuing
production (%)
Apples 16.65 304 6 2.99% 100.00%
Pears 0.1 0.3 2 1.00% 100.00%
Prunes 8.5 57.84 6 2.99% 100.00%
Apricots 0.2 0.3 2 1.00% 100.00%
Peaches 3.83 27.74 9 4.48% 100.00%
Nectarines 0.135 0.225 3 1.49% 100.00%
Cherries 2.1 12.3 4 1.99% 100.00%
Sour cherries 0.2 0.36 3 1.49% 100.00%
Grapes 0.79 137.77 19 9.45% 100.00%
Nuts 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%
Almonds 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%
Hazelnuts 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%
Berries 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%
Blackberries 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%
Hackberries 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%
Strawberries 0.01 300 1 0.50% 100.00%
Elder 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%
Other 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00%

Based on a result analysis we can conclude that as far as fruit
production is concerned, only grape producers have a significant
percentage (9.45% of respondents) the rest of the f ruits being cultivated
by a number of producers that do not represent more than 5% of the
respondents. Due to production technologies we cann ot acknowledge
yearly fruit variety fluctuations. There were no an swers indicating a will
to diversity production.

G. Sanda, M.D. Pop
188
Conclusions
The most widespread form of property for fruit/vege table farmers in
Arad is the Agricultural farmer certificate (coveri ng 97% of the sample
group); there is also a direct, positive connection , none the less weak,
between the property form and the number of people involved in the
agricultural activity. The starting hypothesis acco rding to which over 50% of
farmers have as their main form of property the Agr icultural farmer
certificate was validated.
The vast majority of those involved in vegetable pr oduction own
production surfaces less that 1 hectare, only a sma ll group of 5% owning
between 1 and 10 hectares. As for fruit production, 24.4% of those sampled
own orchards smaller than 1 hectare, 12.4% register ed with areas between 1
and 10 hectares (watermelon production) and only 2% own more than 10
hectares. This land distribution reinforces the ide a that alone, without
associations, those involved in fruit/vegetable pro duction can not produce
large enough quantities to negotiate with large mar kets (export, en-gross
markets, and chain stores).
The hypothesis according to which vegetable/fruit p roducers
typically own agricultural surfaces less than 1 hec tare – 500 square meters for
fruit producers respectively – was verified and val idated.
As for product diversity it was proven that the ent ire range of
vegetables is cultivated; fruit production on the o ther hand only covers half
of the demand. The hypothesis according to which ve getable production
varies yearly was disproved because 90% of the farm ers (for each type of
vegetable) manifested their intent to cultivate the same vegetable again.

Bibliography

Ad ăsc ăli ței, V (2005). Euromarketing, Editura Uranus, Bucure ști
Dătculescu, P (2006). Cercetarea de marketing, Editura Brandbuilders
Group, Bucure ști
Diaconescu, M (2005). Marketing agroalimentar, Editura Universitar ă,
Bucure ști
Pop, M (2004). Cercet ări de marketing, Editura Alma Mater, Cluj-Napoca
Zahiu, L coord. (2006). Agricultura Uniunii Europene sub impactul politicii
agricole comune, Editura Ceres, Bucure ști
Zahiu, L coord. (2010). Agricultura în economia României – între a ștept ări
și realiz ări -, Editura Ceres, Bucure ști
INSSE –
http://www.insse.ro/cms/files/RGA2010/comunicate/In fo_gen_RGA201
0.pdf