Farming households have benefitted from trainings at least once. Three of the farmers’ households have benefitted five times from agricultural trainings as indicated in table 13a. The dominant training areas are technical management, organizational management, financial and budget management, climate-resilient practices and SRI/CRRP, see table 13b.

Table 13a: Number of Times Farming Household Benefitted From Agricultural Training(s)

Region	one time	two times	three times	Four times	FIVE TIMES AND ABOVE
EAST	6	5	3	4	0
N0RTH	5	4	2	0	1
NORTH WEST	3	2	4	3	0
SOUTH	2	4	7	3	2
TOTAL	16	15	16	10	3

 

Table 13b: Dominant Training Areas Received by Farming Household

training areas	1st dom	2nd dom
Technical Management	34	10
Organizational Management	9	12
Financial and Budget Management	5	9
Climate-Resilient Practice	2	16
SRI/CRRP	10	13
Total	60	60

Needs for Capacity Building

Agricultural Activities

Number of Plots

The number of rice plots per farmer varies from 1 to 4plots or more than 4 plots. Based on the respondents, about 36.7% have two rice plots and 23.3% of them have only one rice plot.  This indicates that 60.0% of the producers have at least one plot on which they grow rice. About 40% of the producers reported having up to 3 rice plots and more. The distribution of the number of plots per farmer and by region indicates also the same pattern (table 14a and b).

Table 14a: Number of plots per farmer

Number of plots	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative
1	14	23.3	23.3
2	22	36.7	60.0
3	12	20.0	80.0
≥4	12	20.0	100.0
Total	60	100.0

 

Table 14b: Number of plots per farmer and by Region

Name of Region	Number of rice plots
	1	2	3	≥4	Total
EAST	5	6	4	3	18
NORTH	3	4	3	2	12
NORTH WEST	2	5	2	3	12
SOUTH	4	7	3	4	18
Total	14	22	12	12	60

Quantity of Seed Used

The average quantity of seed used by plot is 39.8 kg. However, there is variability in the average quantity of seed used by plot and by region (Table 15). In the east, the average quantity of seed used reaches 64 kg/plot with a maximum averaging 100 kg. In the south, the maximum quantity reached to 150 kg / plot. The information provided in table 15 shows that seed quantity used by unit of land is highly variable by locality. In this aspect, tremendous efforts should be put in place in order to develop for farmers’ capacity on seed use.

Table 15: Average quantity of seed used by plot and by Region

REGION	Average Quantity of Seed used by plot, kg	N	min	max
EAST	64	18	12.5	100
NORTH	27	12	25	37.5
NORTH WEST	25	12	25	50
SOUTH	43	18	12.5	150
Total	39.8	60	18.8	84.4

Market Price of Seed

The average seed price is Le 6.9/kg with a minimum of Le 6/kg and maximum of Le 8.3/kg. Highest unit seed prices are observed in the south Le 10/kg (table 16).

Table 16: Average Market Prices of Seed by Region

REGION	Mean	Number	Minimum	Maximum
EAST	8	18	7	9
NORTH	7.5	12	6	6
NORTH WEST	7.5	12	5	8
SOUTH	7	18	6	10
TOTAL	7.5	60	5	10

In the South Region, the average seed unit price is lower than the average unit price (Le 7.5 Le/kg) of the total sample.  The differential in prices may be as a result of the differences in seed production and transaction costs.

SRI/CRRP Practices and Number of Men and Women per Plot

From table 17, only few farmers practice some form of SRI/CRRP in the 2022 cropping season. The SRI/CRRP practice needs to be further popularizing for farmers to adopt the practice, since it utilizes less quantity of seeds and yields are better compare to the conventional practices of rice farming. The average number of men and women labour per pot is 14.5 and 17.7 respectively. This indicates that more women are involved in rice production per plot than men.

Table 17: Farmers that Practices SRI/CRRP in 2022 Cropping Season and Average Number of Men and Women Involved per Plot

REGION	Practices sri/crrp in 2022		Number	men			women
				AVERAGE	MIN	MAX	AVERAGE	MIN	MAX
	Yes	No
EAST	2	16	18	14.3	9	20	18.2	11	25
NORTH	2	10	12	14.6	7	22	16.8	9	27
NORTH WEST	3	9	12	12.5	6	20	16.5	8	25
SOUTH	4	14	18	16.4	11	28	19.4	13	32
TOTAL	11	49	60	14.5	8.3	22.5	17.7	10.3	27.3

Performance Analysis

Cost of Rice Production

Table 18a provides details of the costs of producing 1hectare of rice field at the conventional level. The average production cost for each region is East Le 6160.5, North Le 7112.2, North West Le 6726.1 and South Le 6261.6. The cost is high in the northern region compare to the other regions.

Table 18a: Production costs of Rice Area Cultivated in 2022, Le/Ha (Conventional)

NEEDS	east	north			north west		south
1. Seed	504	378			409.5		441
2. Fertilizer NPK	0	0			0		0
Urea	0	0			0		0
Organic Fertilizer	0	0			0		0
Other Type
3. Pesticides Propanil	0	0			0		0
Weed once	0	0			0		0
Other Type	0	0			0		0
4. Input Transportation	90	150			160		180
5. Irrigation	0	0			0		0
6. Mechanical Harvesting	0	0			0		0
7. Mechanical Threshing	0	0			0		0
8. Workforce/Labour(man/day)	1,155	1240			1305		1050
Cleaning and Field Preparation
Transplant/Sowing	990	1240			1160		1137.5
Fertilizer Spraying	0	0			0		0
Herbicide Spraying	0	0			0		0
Manual weeding	1155	1240			1160		1137.5
Bird Scaring	80	145			120		90
Manual Harvesting	1155	1395			1160		1050
Manual Threshing	450	637.5			560		480
Winnowing and Bagging	487.5	600			490		480
9. Harvesting Transport	94	86.7			201.6		215.6
Total Average	6160.5	7112.2			6726.1		6261.6
	east kg/ha		north kg/ha	north west kg/ha		south kg/ha
10. Average Production (Yield)	937.5		867	1008		1078

Gross Revenue from Rice Paddy Production

The average value of production (gross revenue) is computed by simply multiplying the average paddy yield (kg/ha) by the average paddy price (Le/kg). Average yield in some regions is less than 1 ton / hectare therefore even if the prices are relatively higher; the average value of production will still be low. For the total sample, average value of production is about Le 7,277.1 which is 303 USD at the rate of 1 US= 24 Le. This is only the gross product value to which the various operating costs have not been deducted. The various operating costs including the labour cost (relating to the agricultural field operations) and the seed cost. Other factors have also contributed to reduce the gross margins and these are the low paddy yield including the low paddy price (table 18b).

Table 18b: Gross Revenue from rice paddy production by Region, Le/Ha (Conventional)

REGION	Average Paddy Yield, kg/Ha	Average Paddy Price, Le/Kg	Average Value of Production, Le/Ha
EAST	937.5	8	7500
NORTH	867	7.5	6502.5
NORTH WEST	1008	7.5	7560
SOUTH	1078	7	7546
Average	972.6	7.5	7277.1

1 US= 24 Le (Sept/Oct 2024).

Gross Revenues and Margins for Paddy Rice Production Enterprise

The gross margins here are computed by deducting the operating costs (seed value and total hired labour cost table 18c) from the gross revenues. Apart from the case of the North Region, the average gross margins are all positive for the other regions. The negative values for the North region are explained by very high total hired labour cost.

Table 18c: Gross revenues, Production Cost and Gross Margins by Region

REGION	Gross Revenue, Le/Ha (A)	average Total production Cost, Le/Ha (b)	Gross Margins, Le/Ha D=A-B
EAST	7500	6160.6	1339.4
NORTH	6502.5	7112.2	(609.7)
NORTH WEST	7560	6726.1	833.9
SOUTH	7546	6261.6	1284.4
Average	7277.1	6565.1	712

1 US= 24 Le (Sept/Oct 2024).

Cost of Rice Production (SRI/CRRP)

Table 19a provides the costs of producing 1hectare of rice field using basic SRI/CRRP practices. The average production cost for each region is East Le 9324.5, North Le 9220.5, North West Le 9143 and South Le 9345. The cost is higher than the conventional practice because fertilizers were used by farmers.

Table 19a: Production costs of Rice Area Cultivated in 2022, Le/Ha (SRI/CRRP)

	east	north			north west		south
1. Seed	400	300			325		350
2. Fertilizer	2600	2400			2400		2800
NPK
Urea	1300	1200			1200		1400
Organic Fertilizer	0	0			0		0
Other Type	0	0			0		0
3. Pesticides	0	0			0		0
Propanil
Weedone	0	0			0		0
Other Type	0	0			0		0
4. Input Transportation	120	180			182		200
5. Irrigation	0	0			0		0
6. Mechanical Harvesting	0	0			0		350
7. Mechanical Threshing	0	0			0		0
8. Workforce/Labour(man/day)	1150	1240			1305		1050
Cleaning and Field Preparation
Transplant/Sowing	570	720			600		432.5
Fertilizer Spraying	100	130			105		120
Herbicide Spraying	0	0			0		0
Manual weeding	655	690			570		402.5
Bird Scaring	70	165			135		115
Manual Harvesting	805	845			1060		750
Manual Threshing	690	637.5			520		510
Winnowing and Bagging	747.5	600			455		540
9. Harvesting Transport	117	113			286		325
Total Average	9324.5	9220.5			9143		9345
	east		North	north west		South
10. Average Production (Yield) Kg/Ha	1170		1130	1430		1625

Gross Revenue from Rice Paddy Production

The average value of production (gross revenue) is computed by simply multiplying the average paddy yield (kg/ha) by the average paddy price (Le/kg). Average yield in the regions using the basic SRI/CRRP practice is more than 1 ton / hectare. The average value of production is about Le 11,165.6 which is 465 USD at the rate of 1 US= 24 Le. This is only the gross product value to which the various operating costs have not been deducted (table 19b).

Table 19b: Gross Revenue from rice paddy production by Region, Le/Ha (Conventional)

REGION	Average Paddy Yield, T/Ha	Average Paddy Price, Le/Kg	Average Value of Production, Le/Ha
EAST	1370	8	10960
NORTH	1330	7.5	9975
NORTH WEST	1530	7.5	11475
SOUTH	1725	7	12075
AVERAGE	1488.8	7.5	11165.6

1 US= 24 Le (Sept/Oct 2024).

Gross Revenues and Margins for Paddy Rice Production Enterprise

The gross margins here are computed by deducting the operating costs from the gross revenues. Using the SRI/CRRP practices, all the averages for the gross margin are positive for all the regions. Margins are higher for the south and North West regions compare to the east region (table 19c).

Table 19c: Gross revenues, Production Cost and Gross Margins by Region

REGION	Gross Revenue, Le/Ha (A)	average Total production Cost, Le/Ha (b)	Gross Margins, Le/Ha D=A-B
EAST	10960	9324.5	1635.5
NORTH	9975	9220.5	754.5
NORTH WEST	11475	9143	2332
SOUTH	12075	9345	2730
Average	11165.6	9258.3	1863.0

Household Consumption

Number of Months Rice Produced Cover Household Consumption

Using the conventional rice production method, the average months covered by production for household consumption is 5.1 months, table 20a. In table 20b, the average months covered using the SRI/CRRP method is 6.2 months. From the results, the difference in the months covered from production using both production practices is about one month.

Table 20a: Average Number of Months Rice Produced Cover Household Consumption (Conventional)

REGION	average month	N	min	max
EAST	6	18	2	10
NORTH	4	12	2	12
NORTH WEST	5	12	2.5	11
SOUTH	5.5	18	3	12
TOTAL	5.1	60	2	12

 

Table 20b: Average Number of Months Rice Produced Cover Household Consumption (SRI/CRRP)

REGION	average month	N	min	max
EAST	7	2	7	7
NORTH	5.5	2	5	6
NORTH WEST	6	3	6	6
SOUTH	6.4	4	5	9
TOTAL	6.2	11	5	9

Household Economic Situation

The general economic situation of households looks into how farming households are able to meet the needs of the family. Generally as indicated in table 20, for farmers practicing conventional agricultural practices the economic situation is bad as reported by 29 farmers, whereas 19 farmers reported that the general economic situation of this year compared to previous year is identical. Only 8 farmers reported that the situation is better, 4 of the farmers cannot tell whether this year is better than the previous year. Out of the eleven farmers practicing SRI/CRRP, 3 farmers reported that the general economic situation is bad, 6 reported that the economic situation this year is identical to the previous year and only 2 said that that the situation is better. Generally, the economic situation for farmers is not better (table 21).

Table 21: General Economic Situation of Household

Region	conventional				sri/crrp
	Bad	Identical	Better	Don’t know	Bad	Identical	Better	Don’t know
EAST	12	5	0	1	1	1	0	0
N0RTH	6	2	1	3	2	0	0	0
NORTH WEST	7	3	2	0	0	2	1	0
SOUTH	4	9	5	0	0	3	1	0
TOTAL	29	19	8	4	3	6	2	0

Access to inputs

Access to seed supplier

Most of the farmers have access to seed supplier out of the village. From the total sample, 41 farmers (about 60%) do not have access to seeds in the village. Only 19 farmers (about 30%) have access to seeds in the village. It is important for seeds to be available at village level which will make it easily accessible to farmers. The average distance to the nearest seed supplier is 2.0Km (table 22).

Table 22: Access to seed supplier in the village

region	seed supplier in village		average distance to nearest seed supplier (Km)
	Yes	No
EAST	4	14	1.7
NORTH	5	7	2.3
NORTH WEST	4	8	1.8
SOUTH	6	12	2.1
TOTAL	19	41	2.0

 

6.8.2 Source of Access of Rice Seeds

From table 23a, the sources of access to rice seeds are principally “own production” (52.6%) indicating that farmers access seeds from their previous year production. Another important source of access is “other farmer” (23.7%) which constitutes a farmer-to-farmer mode of seed exchange. A third means of access to rice seeds is “neighbor/friend” (13.2%). Project/institution and certified seeds contribute only 10.5% of rice seeds access. Table 23b reveals the farmers’ sources of seed access by region.

 Table 23a: Source of Access of Rice Seeds

Source of Access	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative
Own Production	60	52.6	52.6
Certified Seed	3	2.6	55.2
Run-off-the-Mill Market	0	0	55.2
Project/Institution	9	7.9	63.1
Supervisory Service	0	0	63.1
Neighbour/Friend	15	13.2	76.3
Other Farmers	27	23.7	100.0
Others	0	0	100.0
Total	114	100

Table 23b: Source of Access of Rice Seeds by Region

Source of Access	EAST	NORTH	NORTH WEST	SOUTH	Total
Own Production	18	12	12	18	60
Certified Seed	1	0	0	2	3
Run-off-the-Mill Market	0	0	0	0	0
Project/Institution	0	2	4	3	9
Supervisory Service	0	0	0	0	0
Neighbour/Friend	2	4	3	6	15
Other Farmers	8	4	9	6	27
Others	0	0	0	0	0

Rice seeds

Farmers getting seeds on time is key to planting at the appropriate period. From the sample of farmers interviewed, only 9 farmers received seeds on time, a large portion (about 85%) of farmers do not receive seeds on time which most time affect production. Farmers do not buy seedlings and they don’t sell seedlings from nursery. Buying and selling seedlings from nursery is not practice by farmers in Sierra Leone (table 24). 

Table 24: Receive Seeds on time, Buy Seedlings from Nursery, Sold Rice Seedlings in Nursery

REGION	do you receive seeds on time?		do you buy seedlings from nursery?		have you sold rice seedlings in the nursery?
	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	No
EAST	2	16	0	18	0	18
NORTH	1	11	0	12	0	12
NORTH WEST	3	9	0	12	0	12
SOUTH	3	15	0	18	0	18
TOTAL	9	51	0	60	0	60

Fertilizer and Herbicide

Fertilizer and Herbicide Supplier in the Village

Large number of the farmers does not have access to fertilizer and herbicide in the village. From the total sample, 52 of the farmers interviewed do not have access to fertilizer and herbicide in the village. Only 8 farmers from the sample have access to fertilizer and herbicide in the village. The average distance to the nearest fertilizer and herbicide supplier is 1.0Km (table 25).

Table 25: Fertilizer and Herbicide Supplier in the Village and Average Distance by Region

region	fertilizer & herbicide supplier in village		average distance to nearest fertilizer & herbicide supplier
	Yes	No
EAST	1	17	1.3
NORTH	2	10	1.2
NORTH WEST	2	10	0.8
SOUTH	3	15	0.6
TOTAL	8	52	1.0

Source of Access to Fertilizer and Herbicide

The main source of access of fertilizer and herbicide from the 11 farmers that reported using fertilizer and herbicide is from a supplier (5 farmers), 4 farmers reported accessing fertilizer and herbicide from the market and only 2 farmers access fertilizer and herbicide from the ministry/local authority. These results indicated that only few farmers’ access fertilizer and herbicide from the available sources in their community as in table 26 below.

Table 26: Source of Access to Fertilizer and Herbicide by Region

source of access	EAST	NORTH	NORTH WEST	SOUTH	Total
Market	1	1	0	2	4
Ministry/Local Authorities	1	0	0	1	2
Supplier	0	2	2	1	5
Other Farmers	0	0	0	0	0
Friends/Family	0	0	0	0	0
Cooperative/Union	0	0	0	0	0
Others	0	0	0	0	0
Total	2	3	2	4

Timely Receipt of Fertilizer and Herbicide

Receiving fertilizer and herbicide on time and it application at the appropriate period can boost production. From the total number of farmers reported using fertilizer, 9 of the respondents do not receive fertilizer and herbicide on time, this most times affect production. Only 2 farmers received fertilizer and herbicide on time (table 27).

Table 27: Timely Receipt of Fertilizer and Herbicide by Region

region	do you receive FERTILIZER & HERBICIDE on time?
	Yes	No
EAST	0	18
NORTH	0	12
NORTH WEST	1	11
SOUTH	1	17
TOTAL	2	58

Credit Access

Access to Credit

Access to credit offers farmers the opportunity to expand production and eventually increase yields. From the sample interviewed as in table 28, all of the farmers do not have access to credit. The lack of credit opportunity to expand production is a serious challenge for farmers.

Table 28: Access to Credit by Region

region	Access to credit
	Yes	No
EAST	O	18
NORTH	0	12
NORTHWEST	0	12
SOUTH	0	18
TOTAL	0	60

Reasons for not having Access to Credit

Reasons for farmers not accessing credit are described in table 29a, from the results, 29.9% of farmers lack the knowledge of the availability of credit for production purposes. Farmers are not aware of the existence of credit systems. Also 26.1% of farmers reported the absence of credit institution in their locality. High interest rate and lack of guarantee are amongst challenges faced by farmers in accessing credit. About 16.1% of farmers mention other reasons for not accessing credit. Access to credit facility is a serious challenge faced by farmers in Sierra Leone. Table 29b gives an insight on the responses of farmers by region.

Table 29a: Reasons for not having Access to Credit       

Source of Access	Frequency	Percent	Cumulative
Lack of Knowledge of the System	52	28.9	28.9
Absence of Credit Institution	47	26.1	55.0
Lack of Guarantee	25	13.9	68.9
High Interest Rate	27	15.0	83.9
High Prior to Savings Amount	0	0.0	83.9
Failure to Cover Needs	0	0.0	83.9
Credit not Repaid	0	0.0	83.9
Others	29	16.1	100.0
Total	180	100

 

Table 29b: Reasons for not having Access to Credit by Region

reasons	EAST	NORTH	NORTH WEST	SOUTH	Total
LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF THE SYSTEM	18	9	10	15	52
ABSENCE OF CREDIT INSTITUTION	15	7	9	16	47
LACK OF GUARANTEE	4	5	7	9	25
HIGH INTEREST RATE	6	3	6	12	27
HIGH PRIOR TO SAVINGS AMOUNT	0	0	0	0	0
FAILURE TO COVER NEEDS	0	0	0	0	0
CREDIT NOT REPAID	0	0	0	0	0
OTHERS	10	7	4	8	29
Total	53	31	36	60	180

Access to Technology/CRRP

Type of Technologies

The great majority of the farmers interviewed are using local technologies in their farming activities (566 responses across technologies). A relatively small numbers of farmers’ responded (45 responses) that they are using improved CRRP technologies as in table 30a.

Table 30a: Type of Technologies Used by Framers

technologies	type of technology
	Local	Improved CRRP	Don’t know
Varieties	60	11	2
Ploughing techniques	60	0	0
Puddling technique	60	0	0
Winnowing and bagging	60	0	0
Soil fertilization	51	9	0
Weed/insect/pest management	57	3	0
Water management	60	0	0
Harvesting techniques	58	2	0
Storage/preservation technology	58	2	0
Processing techniques	42	18	0
Total	566	45	2

Names of most popular varieties

Improved NERICA L19 rice variety is used by relatively high number of farmers across regions. The improved ROK 10 rice variety is used by 12 farmers in the North and North West regions. The other varieties are local varieties and they are the most commonly used across regions as seen in table 30b.

The list of the varieties indicates also that some varieties are specific to some regions while others are grown in several localities. A constraint was however the fact that local variety are given local names linked to the source of access, the performance of the variety or physical traits etc. Varietal use and management requires a great deal of efforts at farm households’ level to maintain seed stock, varietal purity, and agronomic performances.

Table 30b: Names of most Popular Varieties by region

variety	EAST	NORTH	NORTH WEST	SOUTH	TOTAL
Pa Kiamp	0	12	9	4	25
Yangbasay	0	4	7	8	19
Nerica L19	12	6	8	10	36
ROK 10	0	5	7	0	12
YINKINDIUM	4	0	0	0	4
KALISEDU	0	9	5	6	20
PA KULMA	0	7	4	0	11
PA YAKA	0	0	0	4	4
KOTUWA	6	0	0	0	6

Average Cultivated Rice area

Table 30c provides some statistics of the average cultivated rice area per farmer, by region under the conventional and SRI/CRRP practices. During the 2022 cropping season, the average cropped area was 1.3 ha under the conventional practices while 0.5 ha under the SRI/CRRP practices.

Table 30c: Average Cultivated Rice area under conventional and SRI/CRRP in 2022

Region	conventional	sri/crrp
EAST	0.9	0.5
N0RTH	1.3	0.6
NORTH WEST	1.2	0.5
SOUTH	1.6	0.4
AVERAGE	1.3	0.5

Average Rice Yield

The average yield (kg/ha) was recorded for the total sample (table 30d). The average yield for the total sample is 972.6 kg/hectare under conventional practice and 1488.8 kg/hectare under SRI/CRRP practice. Average yields in South and North West regions are more than 1 t/ha and higher than the average yield of the sample under both practices. Yields are higher for in SRI/CRRP practice than the conventional practice.

Table 30d: Average Rice Yield under conventional and SRI/CRRP 2022

Region	conventional kg/ha	sri/crrp kg/ha
EAST	937.5	1370
N0RTH	867	1330
NORTH WEST	1008	1530
SOUTH	1078	1725
TOTAL	972.6	1488.8

Satisfaction Level of Respondent

Satisfaction derived from the use of rice technologies is key for farmers’ continuity in the use of the technologies. From table 30e, 440 responses from farmers indicate the low satisfaction they derived from the use of the technologies. This is because most of the technologies available to farmers are not improved technologies. 120 responses indicate that they derived average satisfaction from the use of the available technologies they are using, only 40 responses indicate that they derive good satisfaction from the use of the technologies. More improved technologies should be introduced to farmers to reduce the use of local technologies whereby reduce drudgery and increase yield.  

Table 30e: Average satisfaction level of Farmers in Using the Technologies

technologies	satisfaction level
	Very Good	Good	Average	Low
Varieties	0	4	42	14
Ploughing techniques	0	2	7	51
Puddling technique	0	5	6	49
Winnowing and bagging	0	0	12	48
Soil fertilization	0	0	3	57
Weed/insect/pest management	0	0	5	55
Water management	0	6	9	45
Harvesting techniques	0	2	5	53
Storage/preservation technology	0	4	7	49
Processing techniques	0	17	24	19
Total	0	40	120	440

Giving up of Technologies

Giving up of Technologies and Reasons for Giving up

From the total sample interviewed, it is clear that farmers have not abandoned most the farming practices except that few farmers have abandoned some of the technologies: processing techniques, Storage/preservation technology, varieties and soil fertilization. 11 farmers have started applying fertilizers to their rice field in order to increase yields, 7 farmers have giving up practicing the local method of milling their paddy, they are now using the milling machine and some are now drying their rice on concrete drying floors, 6 farmers are now storing their produce in cement bricks stores with ventilation to maintain the quality of the rice and 3 farmers reported stopped using local varieties for improved varieties that are short duration and high yielding. See table 30f.

 Table 30f: Giving up on Technologies and Reasons for Giving up

technologies	giving up on technology		REASON FOR ABANDON/GIVING UP
	Yes	No
Varieties	3	57	1. Farmers stopped using local variety for NERICA L19 because it is high yielding and short duration 2. a farmer also stopped using a local variety for Pa kiamp because it is high yielding
Ploughing techniques		60
Puddling technique		60
Winnowing and bagging		60
Soil fertilization	11	49	Farmers started applying fertilizer to their rice field in order to increase yield
Weed/insect/pest management		60
Water management		60
Harvesting techniques		60
Storage/preservation technology	6	54	Farmers are now utilizing cement bricks storage facility for their produce because the previously used local store in their houses was prone to rat destruction of produce and the viability of seeds mostly depreciate over time
Processing techniques	7	53	Some farmers now use the rice mile machine to process their paddy and not the local method.
Total	12	588

Source of Information on Introduced Rice Technologies

Dissemination of information to farmers on new technologies is key for the use and adoption of the technologies. Table 30g gives statistics on the source of information and the number of farmers accessing the information via the source on introduced rice varieties by regions. From the results, the main sources of information for introduced rice technologies are extension services, radio, other farmers/neighbor and the research institution.

Table 30g: Source of Information on Introduced Rice Technologies by Region

source of information	EAST	NORTH	NORTH WEST	SOUTH	Total
Radio	16	7	5	11	39
Media/Tv	0	0	1	0	1
Other Farmer/Neighbour	10	6	8	14	38
Research Institution	5	10	9	6	30
Extension Service	12	8	6	17	43
NGO	2	0	1	0	3
Total	45	31	30	48	154

Constraints and Opportunities of Rice Cultivation

Main Constraints and Opportunities of Rice Cultivation

The constraints encountered by farmers in communities are numerous and similar and the opportunities available to them are also similar across regions. Table 31a gives an insight on the constraints faced by farmers and the opportunities that are available to them. Farmers also reported the institutional measures that are in place to remedy the constraint

Table 31a: Main Constraints and Opportunities of Rice Cultivation

main constraints in rice production	main opportunities in the rice sector	institutional measures TO IMPROVE ON PRODUCTION
Limited access to quality seeds, lack of financial support, birds damage, use of local tools, no food for work, lack of agrochemicals, poor store and drying floor, Weed infestation, poor post-harvest facilities, high labour cost, lack of good road network, labour scarcity, low yield, flooding, poor water management, iron toxicity, transportation problem and high cost of fertilizer	Availability of land for production, availability of water during raining season, availability of family labour and the availability of machine ring system for land preparation	Access to extension officers, training of farmers by the ministry of agriculture and SLARI and Introduction of SRI/CRRP production methods

Main Constraints and Opportunities of Rice Processing

Rice processing is one of the challenging task farmers are faced with in the rice value chain and account for some quantity loss of farmers produce. From the total sample, the main constraints and opportunity of rice processing and the institutional measures in place to remedy the situation are listed in table 31b.

Table 31b: Main Constraints and Opportunities of Rice Processing

main constraints in rice processing	main opportunities in the rice PROCESSING	institutional measures TO IMPROVE RICE PROCESSING
Limited number of drying floors in communities, poor storage facilities, transportation problem, limited public milling facilities and poor packaging system	Availability of land for the construction of processing facilities and availability of limited number of processing machines in Agric business centers in some communities	Training of farmers by the ministry of agriculture and SLARI in rice processing and government willingness to increase processing facilities in farming communities

 

Constraints in Rice Marketing

Ranking of Constraints to Rice Marketing

The constraints to rice marketing faced by farmers are ranked in order of priority. The most important problems reported by the majority of rice producers include non-existence of a market, lack of market information, difficulties for transporting to market, infrastructure, low prices for produce and credit. The constraints are ranked by level of significance (table 32) indicate that the same problem is ranked differently by rice producers and constraints viewed as a crucial one is classified by the majority of producers as most restrictive.

Table 32: Ranking of Constraint to Rice Marketing (1 being the most restrictive)

constraints	rank	SUGGESTED SOLUTION STRATEGIES
Non-Existence of a Market	1	Availability of ready markets at production areas to buy produce from farmers
Lack of Market Information	2	Market information should be made available to farmers through extension officers, community authorities and radio
Difficulties for Transporting to Market	3	There should be availability of transportation facilities at affordable prices to take produce to market
Infrastructure	4	Construction of improved storages, drying floors and market facilities
Low Prices	5	Farmers produce should be purchase at better prices
Low Quality	6	Farmers should improve on production and processing practices
Others (Credit Facility)	7	Credit facilities should be made available and accessible to producers
Weak Road Network	8	Construction of feeder roads to connect production areas to markets easily
Pricing Difficulties	9	There should be price control that favors producers to keep them in farming
Distance/Access to Markets	10	Markets should be easily accessible

---