Assessment of strategies towards performance of human

The University of Dodoma

University of Dodoma Institutional Repository http://repository.udom.ac.tz

Business Master Dissertations

2018

Assessment of smallholder farmers

perception on adoption of post-harvest

grain techniques: a case of Bahi district

Chalubii, Victor Leonard

The University of Dodoma

Chalubii, V. L. (2018). Assessment of smallholder farmers perception on adoption of

post-harvest grain techniques: a case of Bahi district. Dodoma: The University of Dodoma.

http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12661/1305

Downloaded from UDOM Institutional Repository at The University of Dodoma, an open access institutional repository.

ASSESMENT OF SMALLHOLDER FARMERS

PERCEPTION ON ADOPTION OF POST-

HARVEST GRAIN TECHNIQUES: A CASE OF

BAHI DISTRICT

VICTOR LEONARD CHALUBII

MASTERS OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

THE UNIVERSITY OF DODOMA

OCTOBER, 2018

ASSESMENT OF SMALLHOLDER FARMERS PERCEPTION

ON ADOPTION OF POST-HARVEST GRAIN

TECHNIQUES: A CASE OF BAHI DISTRICT

BY

VICTOR LEONARD CHALUBII

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTERS ON

BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

THE UNIVERSITY OF DODOMA

OCTOBER, 2018

i

DECLARATION

AND

COPYRIGHT

I, Victor Chalubii, declare that this thesis is my own original work and that it has

not been presented and will not be presented to any other University for a similar or

any other degree award.

Signature……………………………..

“No part of this dissertation may be reproduced, stored in any retrieval system, or

transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written permission of the

author or the University of Dodoma. If transformed for publication in any other

format shall be acknowledged that, this work has been submitted for degree award at

the University of Dodoma”.

ii

CERTIFICATION

The undersigned certifies that he has read and hereby recommends for acceptance by

the University of Dodoma dissertation entitled “The assessment of smallholder

farmers perception on adoption of post-harvest grain techniques: A case of Bahi

district “in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Masters on

Business Administration in the University of Dodoma.

…………………………..

Dr. William George

(Supervisor)

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

This thesis work wouldn’t have been possible without help of many people remarks

and suggestions significantly improved the end result. First, I would like to give

special thanks to my supervisor Dr. William George of The University of Dodoma

for his special contribution to this thesis project.

I would also like to acknowledge, Mr. Joel Vitalis for his advice and support during

my study period. I also gratefully express my sincere gratitude to all participants,

who took their time to participate and share their views and experiences in response

to variety of questions contained in the questionnaires. Lastly I would like to be

sincerely grateful to my father Leonard Chalubii and my sponsor Fr. Riccardo Caffi

for their big encouragement and financial support they gave me.

iv

DEDICATION

To my beloved family of Leonard Chalubii, my sponsor Riccardo Caffi, my son

Ricardo, all of this people were the reason of me finishing this thesis on time and on

the required manner. God Bless You.

v

ABTSRACT

This study was conducted to examine farmers’ perception on adoption of rice post-

harvest handling techniques and practices in Bahi District. Simple random,

multistage and snowball sampling techniques were used to select the farmers. A

well, structured questionnaire was used to obtain information from the respondents

using both descriptive and inferential statistical tools. Binary logistic regression

analysis was used to analyze data. The findings shows that, the highest number of

the respondents were male and very few were female. The level of rice farmers’

perception on adoption of post-harvest technologies packages was negative, majority

of the respondents agreed with the positive statements on adoption of post-harvest

technologies, implying the possibility of high level of adoption of post-harvest

technologies. The results also shows that perception is the problem which hinders

most of the farmers to adopt the technology, there is availability of some of the

technology which can be applied but most of the farmers still do not apply them.

The study concluded that rice farmers had negative perception of PHT in the study

area and therefore recommends that extension should make the technologies

available along with training. Efforts should focus on sensitizing rice farmers and

customizing the technologies that suit farmers’ situations.

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT ......................................................................... i

CERTIFICATION........................................................................................................ ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .......................................................................................... iii

DEDICATION ............................................................................................................ iv

ABTSRACT……….. ................................................................................................... v

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................................ vi

LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................... x

LIST OF FIGURES.................................................................................................... xii

LIST OF ABREVIATIONS ...................................................................................... xiii

LIST OF APPENDICES …………………….…………………………………….. ix

CHAPTER ONE......................................................................................................... 1

INTRODUCTION…...... ……………………………………………………...…….. 1

1.1 Overview………. ................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Background Information ........................................................................................ 1

1.3 Problem Statement ................................................................................................. 3

1.4 Objectives ………………………………………………………………………..4

1.4.1 General objective ................................................................................................ 4

1.4.2 Specific objectives .............................................................................................. 5

1.5 Research Question .................................................................................................. 5

1.6 Significance of the Study ....................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW............................................................................................. 7

2.1 Overview………... ................................................................................................. 7

2.2 Definition of key words ......................................................................................... 7

2.2.1 Adopters .............................................................................................................. 7

2.2.2 Grain loss ............................................................................................................ 7

2.2.3 Diffusion ............................................................................................................. 7

2.2.4 Perception ............................................................................................................ 7

2.2.5 Post-harvest ......................................................................................................... 7

2.2.6 Post harvesting techniques .................................................................................. 8

2.3 Theoretical review .................................................................................................. 8

vii

2.3.1 Diffusion of innovation theory ............................................................................ 8

2.3.2 Rational choice theory......................................................................................... 9

2.3.3 Expected utility theory ...................................................................................... 10

2.4 Empirical Literature ............................................................................................. 10

2.5 Conceptual framework ......................................................................................... 14

2.6 Research Gap ....................................................................................................... 14

CHAPTER THREE

METHODS AND MATERIALS ............................................................................... 16

3.1 Overview………. ................................................................................................. 16

3.2 Research Approach .............................................................................................. 16

3.3 Description of the study area................................................................................ 16

3.3.1 Location…......................................................................................................... 16

3.4 Research design .................................................................................................... 17

3.5 Sampling Procedure ............................................................................................. 17

3.6 Data collection methods ....................................................................................... 17

3.7 Data analysis ........................................................................................................ 18

3.8 Data Presentation ................................................................................................. 19

3.9 Validity and Reliability ........................................................................................ 19

3.9.1 Validity…….. .................................................................................................... 19

3.9.2 Reliability .......................................................................................................... 20

3.10 Ethical consideration .......................................................................................... 21

CHAPTER FOUR

FINDINGS

4.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 22

4.2 Social economic information ............................................................................... 22

4.2.1 Gender of the respondent .................................................................................. 22

4.2.2 Age of the respondents ...................................................................................... 23

4.2.3 Household size .................................................................................................. 23

4.2.4 Years of formal education ................................................................................. 24

4.2.5 Years of farming experience ............................................................................. 25

4.3 To find out social economic traits that affect perception on adoption of PHT on

rice farmers ......................................................................................................... 25

viii

4.3.1 Level of agreement on essentiality of adopting PHT ........................................ 25

4.3.2 Perception on adoption of PHT to be necessary ............................................... 26

4.3.3 Post harvesting technology is better than local tool .......................................... 27

4.3.4 PHT Adoption reduces PH Activities stress in riceproduction ......................... 27

4.3.5 PHT should be adopted regardless of the costs ................................................. 28

4.3.6 Adoption of PHT cannot reduce PH losses ....................................................... 29

4.3.7 Co-farmers should be discouraged from adopting PHT ................................... 29

4.3.8 PHT can raise farmers to maximum standard of living .................................... 30

4.3.9 PHT can raise farmers to maximum standard of living .................................... 31

4.3.10 PHT should be adopted on a permanent basis ................................................ 31

4.3.11 Income influence the adoption of PHT ........................................................... 32

4.3.12 The extent to which social status affects PHT adoption ................................. 33

4.3.13 The most social economic trait that affects perception to adopt PHT ............ 33

4.4 Availability of post-harvest techniques to smallholder farmers in the study area 34

4.4.1 There is availability of PHT at Bahi District .................................................... 34

4.4.2 The most available PHT in the area .................................................................. 34

4.4.3 The available PHT increase amount of rice ...................................................... 35

4.4.4 The extent on the usefulness of PHT to small holder farmers .......................... 36

4.4.5 Applying PHT enabled farmers to sustain the living ........................................ 36

4.4.6 The most PHT used in the area ......................................................................... 37

4.5 The cost on adoption of post- harvest techniques in the study area. .................... 38

4.5.1 The cost of applying PHT influences perception to adopt ................................ 38

4.5.2 The cost of PHT is affordable to farmers .......................................................... 38

4.5.3 Farmer will have enough money to use on PHT ............................................... 39

4.5.4 The extent to which cost of PHT affect farmers income .................................. 40

4.5.5 There is financial assistance on applying PHT ................................................. 41

4.5.6 The costly stage to apply PHT .......................................................................... 41

4.6 Nature of risks associated with adoption of PHHT on rice farmers. ................... 42

4.6.1 The risk associated to the adoption of PHT ...................................................... 42

4.6.2 The most risk stage that requires PHT .............................................................. 42

4.6.3 Mitigating the risk associated can influence adoption of PHT ......................... 43

4.6.4 Strategies to reduce risks associated ................................................................. 43

ix

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION …………………………………………………………...………….45

5.1 Overview………. ................................................................................................. 45

5.2 Socioeconomic information ................................................................................. 45

5.3 Social economic traits affecting perception on adoption of PHT on rice

farmers………….. .............................................................................................. 46

5.4 Availability of post-harvest techniques to smallholder farmers .......................... 47

5.5 The cost on adoption of post- harvest techniques ................................................ 48

5.6 Risks associated with adoption of PHHT on rice farmers ................................... 49

CHAPTER SIX

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................... 51

6.1 Overview…………. ............................................................................................. 51

6.2 Summary of the findings ...................................................................................... 51

6.3 Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 52

6.4 Recommendation.................................................................................................. 53

6.4.1 Recommendation to the government ................................................................ 53

6.4.2 Recommendation to investors ........................................................................... 53

6.4.3 Recommendation to farmers ............................................................................. 54

6.5 Suggestion for further study ................................................................................. 54

6.6 Limitation and Delimitation of the study ............................................................. 54

REFERENCE ........................................................................................................... 56

APPENDICES …………….. ................................................................................... 59

x

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1 Gender of the respondent ........................................................................... 22

Table 4.2: Age of the respondents.............................................................................. 23

Table 4.3: Household size .......................................................................................... 24

Table 4.4: Years of formal education ......................................................................... 24

Table 4.5 Experience of farming in years .................................................................. 25

Table 4.6: Level of agreement on essentiality of adopting PHT................................ 26

Table 4.7 Perception on adoption of PHT to be necessary ........................................ 26

Table 4.8 Post harvesting technology is better than local tool ................................... 27

Table 4.9: PHT Adoption reduces PH Activities stress in rice production ................ 28

Table 4.10: PHT should be adopted regardless of the costs ...................................... 28

Table 4.11 Adoption of PHT cannot reduce PH losses .............................................. 29

Table 4.12 Co-farmers should be discouraged from adopting PHT .......................... 30

Table 4.13 PHT should be adopted on a permanent basis ......................................... 32

Table 4.14 Income influence the adoption of PHT .................................................... 32

Table 4.15: The extent to which social status affects PHT adoption ......................... 33

Table 4.16: The most social economic trait that affects perception to adopt PHT .... 34

Table 4.17 There is availability of PHT at Bahi District ........................................... 34

Table 4.18: The most available PHT in the area ........................................................ 35

Table 4.19: The available PHT increase amount of rice ............................................ 35

Table 4.20: The extent on the usefulness of PHT to small holder farmers ................ 36

Table 4.21: Applying PHT enabled farmers to sustain the living .............................. 37

Table 4.22: The most PHT used in the area ............................................................... 37

Table 4.23: The cost of applying PHT influences perception to adopt ...................... 38

Table 4.24: The cost of PHT is affordable to farmers................................................ 39

Table 4.24.1: Variables in the Equation on whether the cost of PHT are affordable to

farmers 39

Table 4.25 Farmer will have enough money to use on PHT ...................................... 40

Table 4.26: The extent to which cost of PHT affect farmers income ........................ 40

Table 4.27: There is financial assistance on applying PHT ....................................... 41

Table 4.28 the costly stage to apply PHT .................................................................. 41

Table 4.29 the risk associated to the adoption of PHT .............................................. 42

Table 4.30 The most risk stage that requires PHT ..................................................... 43

xi

Table 4.31: Mitigating the risk associated can influence adoption of PHT ............... 43

Table 4.32: Strategies to reduce risks associated ....................................................... 44

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1 Conceptual Frame Work ........................................................................... 14

xiii

LIST OF ABREVIATIONS

ANSAF Agriculture non- State Actors Forum

CVI Content Validity Index

PHHT Post Harvesting Handling Technology

PHL Post harvesting Loss

PHM Post Harvesting Management

PHT Post harvesting Technology

REPOA Research on Poverty Alleviation

SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

TFDA Tanzania Food and Drug Authority

xiv

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Research Questionnaire……………………………………………….59

Appendix 2 Interview checklist…………………………………………………….66

1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview

1.2 Background Information

Post-harvest refers to after separation from the medium and site of immediate growth

or production of the food, it begins during the process of separating or collecting

food of edible quality from its site of immediate production has been completed

(Harris & Lindblad, 1978).

In developing countries, most of the people try hard to make best use of the food

produced, despite all this efforts there still a substantial quantity produced which is

lost in post-harvest operations. On the other side in developed countries the middle

stage has little losses of the food produced on supply chain due to availability of the

modern technologies, efficient and effective handling practices, moreover, there is

huge loss of food on the final stage of the supply chain which is called food wastage.

(Kumar & Kalita, 2017)

Post-harvest grain losses are substantial high among smallholder farmers in sub-

Saharan Africa. The losses vary among countries, crops, and between seasons with

the average loss ranging from 20–40%. This high loss suggests the need for greater

attention on reducing post-harvest grain losses in order to address the problem of

household food insecurity in developing countries.

In Ethiopia, post-harvest grain management technologies is a matter of strategic

policy concern not only on perceptive of minimizing losses but also on view of

2

considering at as viable and dynamic economic activity in creating jobs, value

addition and income linkage. The perceived risks of post-harvest loss could influence

the techniques for post-harvest grain management such as marketing behavior, crop

share marketed and other options to achieve the goal of food security (Gabriel &

Hundie, 2006).

Post harvesting food loss not only affects social and economic status but also result

into wastage of resources employed during production to include land, energy, water

and time. To mitigate the post-harvest loss on rice in Nigeria, metal silo have to be

introduced, training programs to the local tinsmith, blacksmiths and craftsmen to

come up with innovative ideas on reducing the post harvesting loss of food.(Briefing,

2015; Coulter & Schneider, 2004).

There many promising post harvesting technologies to reduce loss of grains, this may

range from building capacity of the improved handling practices and storage hygiene

on usage of metal silo, hermetic bags and local silos, in the aspect of ensuring food

security and income of people is increased, households metal silo is the technology

to be put in place. There is a range of available technologies if farming households

adopt, will improve the quality and quantity of food since big loss is caused by the

use of improper harvesting methods, farmers need to be assisted on the proper and

well fit post harvesting handling technologies and practices(Kiaya, 2014). Due to

post harvest loss challenge , the use of simple, efficient and affordable technologies

for farmers to access all relevant information direct from the reliable source is of

great help, increasing farming extension officers, modern technology must be

channeled to enable farmers get access to the very promising postharvest handling

technology and practices(Ngowi, 2017).

3

Agricultural practice provides the basic needs of life in terms of food, shelter and

clothing, which results in better living standard in Tanzania. This vital sector is

mainly characterized with the use of simple tools and primitive ideas, which result in

low productivity and low income. According to REPOA (2014) agriculture remain to

be the back bone of Tanzania economy, it needs to be given the needed attention,

which can be achieved by implementing modern technologies in the processing,

storage and marketing of food crops. Ssebaggala and Kyazze, (2016) supported that,

for Agriculture to be profitable new technologies must be adopted, and thus, the

perception of the farmers on adoption of innovation plays a vital role.

Bahi is one among four districts of Dodoma region, its main agricultural products are

rice, maize, sunflowers, and groundnuts. Bah district receive rain once in a years, it

depend its water source from river bubu. It’s raining season starts from December to

March.

Post-harvest losses of food grains in Tanzania is still a problem, this counts 15% to

40% of loss from harvest to consumption, and this has a negative impact on farmers

income, livelihood and production incentives ( REPOA, 2014; ANSAF, 2017;). By

reducing the post-harvest losses in most of the developing countries, food supply and

food nutrients would substantially increase (Morris, 1978).

1.3 Problem Statement

Post-harvest losses occur between the completion of harvest and moment of human

consumption. This loss occurs due to poor management of the external applied

adverse factors such as insects, birds, and rodents, during state or process factors loss

occur on threshing, winnowing, transportation, drying, packing, storing, milling,

4

polishing and on marketing. Poor post-harvest handling practices on these factors

reduce the supply of food grains, food nutrients and low income of the farming

households (FAO, 2016; Harris and Lindblad, 1978).

Post-harvest loss has been a problem in Tanzania that counts up 15% to 40% of the

grain lost, this loss reduces quality and quantity of grains which affects food security,

income and employment of the most farming households.

Thus Postharvest losses are an integrative phenomenon that results from interactions

between farmers, technologies/practices and the context in which they operate

(World Bank, 2011) and perceptions are central to this phenomenon. The poor

performance of technologies (including post-harvest technologies) is not only driven

by the weak delivery systems but also the users’ perceptions (Affognon et al., 2015).

However, the influence of perceptions on use of such technologies and practices has

been less studied (HELVETAS, 2017). Yet the problem of food insecurity, poor

income and rural unemployment continues to be questionable matter and affects

many small holders farmers (Odhong, 2017. This study examined farmers’

perceptions towards PHL in rice to provide a sound understanding of the context in

which PHL occurs.

1.4 Objectives

1.4.1 General objective

The general objective of this study was to examine farmers’ perception in adoption

of rice post-harvest handling techniques and practices in Bahi District .

5

1.4.2 Specific objectives

i. To find out social economic traits that affect perception on adoption

of PHT on rice farmers.

ii. To study the availability of post-harvest techniques to smallholder

farmers in the study area.

iii. To study the cost on adoption of post- harvest techniques in the study

area.

iv. To explore the nature of risks associated with adoption of PHHT on

rice farmers.

1.5 Research Question

i. What are the social economic traits that affect perception on adoption of post

harvesting techniques?

ii. What are the available posts harvesting techniques adopted by smallholder

farmers?

iii. What are the costs that affect the adoption of post harvesting techniques by

smallholder farmers?

iv. What are the risks associates with adoption of post-harvest handling

techniques by smallholder farmers?

1.6 Significance of the Study

Reduction of post-harvest losses and edibility deterioration are crucial to food

availability, applying post harvesting techniques help farmers to improve food

security, income as well as health of consumers all around the world. According to

HELVETAS 2017 post harvesting handling methods had been introduced to most

parts of the country to support farmers improve their standard of living. Through

6

relevant PHM techniques, informed policies and capacity building it is possible to

improve income, food security and employment opportunities to rural areas.

This study would help the farming households to make beneficial choice out of their

perception on appropriate post-harvest techniques to adopt with regard to their

income level as well as their location, as they will be certain on the return made out

of the practices chosen. Right perception of adopting the relevant techniques

improved the quality and quantity of their products that meet international standards

(TFDA, 2016).This study would also help government in policy making and how to

support farmers on what they need.

7

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Overview

2.2 Definition of key words

2.2.1 Adopters

Refers to the group of people who use new or introduced product to test or increase

production.(Rogers, 2003).

2.2.2 Grain loss

Refers to any change in the availability, edibility, wholesomeness or quality of the

food which prevent it from being consumed by people (Harris & Lindblad, 1978).

2.2.3 Diffusion

Refers to the process by which an innovation is communicated through certain

channels over time among the members of a social system. It is a special type of

communication, in that the messages are concerned with new ideas (Rogers, 2003).

2.2.4 Perception

This is the way something is regarded, understood or interpreted base on the

background or belief (Levai et al., 2015).

2.2.5 Post-harvest

Means after separation from the medium and site of immediate growth or production

of the food(Harris & Lindblad, 1978).

8

2.2.6 Post harvesting techniques

This refers to different methods that help to improve quality and quantity of the food

grains to increase food security and income of the farmers.

2.3 Theoretical review

2.3.1 Diffusion of innovation theory

According to (Rogers, 2003)Diffusion theory refers to the process on which

innovation or new idea is communicated through its channels over time among its

members of a social system. Newness in ideas is always associated with uncertainties

to which number of alternative are perceived to bring the expected results. This

theory is different from other theories in the sense of not persuading farmers to adopt

new post harvesting technology but rather as an evolution or reinvention of post

harvesting technologies and practices to fit the needs of farmers, with diffusion

theory farmers don’t change but practices and technology changes.

Perceived features of innovation that guide farmers on the use of new

technology

Relative advantage

Refers to the degree on which post harvesting technology is perceived as better

method in preventing post-harvest loss of grains by farmers. The degree of relative

advantage is measured in economic terms, social prestige, convenience and

satisfaction.

9

Compatibility

Post harvesting technology is perceived as a consistent method to given farmer

values, past experience on the use of the technology and the need of potential

farmers. If technology doesn’t fits the prevalent values and norms of the farming

households then it will take time to be adopted.

Complexity

Post harvesting technology to be perceives as difficult practice to understand and use

by farmers.

Trial-ability

The new post harvesting technology may be experimented on a limited basis to

enable farmers to accept the technology.

Observable results

The easier it is for farmers to see the results of post harvesting technology, the more

likely to adopt it. Visible results lower uncertainty to farmers and stimulate peer

discussion of a new method and its perceived benefit.

2.3.2 Rational choice theory

Rational choice theory hold that farmers must anticipate the outcome of their

alternative course of actions and find out which method will mostly give the highest

satisfaction on their return (Coleman 1990; Basheka 2016). Farmers calculates the

likely cost and benefits of the techniques before the adopt it.

10

2.3.3 Expected utility theory

Expected theory state that the decision maker will choose between risky or uncertain

prospects by comparing their expected utility value. Farmers chose the post-harvest

handling technology which seems to match their expected utility value (Mongin

1988). Expected utility maximizer with a differentiable utility function will always

want to take a sufficiently small stake in any positive- expected-value bet. Farmers

are always risk averse, farmers choose the method that have little scale of risks to

affect their income, therefore will always choose the post-harvest handling practices

that maximizes their return.

2.4 Empirical Literature

According to Aulakh & Regmi (2013) in his research conducted in Rome on post-

harvest food losses estimation and development of consistent methodology. The

objectives of the study were to develop a consistent and comprehensive framework

for estimating PHL, to develop econometric models with partners and collaborators

to estimate PHLs for selected countries and commodities, and to improve global food

balance sheet data via better estimates of PHLs. The study focused on value chain

activities which is holistic way of solving a problem but it involved so many food

groups which would make study a bit complicated, and the finding were obtained

using the survey data and econometric model shows that, attention to reduce losses is

not only reflecting the food available for consumption but even a way more on keen

use scarce natural resource along with reducing loses from farm to consumer chain.

According to the study conducted by REPOA (2014) on challenges and options for

mitigating post-harvest losses in Tanzania, with the objective of evaluating actions

and policies that govern post harvesting loss prevention. The findings show that they

11

were no clear policy until 1970s but now the government has been taking initiative

through different programs and strategies under the Agricultural Sector Development

Strategy (ASDS) with new policies. Moreover, despite the increase in cereal

production in the country with estimate of 3,897,500 tons in a year, the poor

harvesting and processing technology has led to 1,55,00 tons of PHL in a year, about

40% of the annual production in the country is lost. The study has able to involve

different players whom would support post harvesting loss prevention but the study

was conducted in Iringa and only three cereals where involved even 3years has

already passed since the study was done.

Gabriel and Hundie (2006) conducted a study on farmers' Post-Harvest Grain

Management Choices under Liquidity Constraints and Impending Risks in Ethiopia,

the objectives of the study were to identify different post-harvest grain management

processes, examine the extent to which farmers’ perception of risk about post-harvest

grain loss influences their marketing behavior, to investigate potential risk associated

with losing income due to post harvesting losses, to highlight some crucial policy

issues to attain food security, the study employed household level analysis where the

findings showed poor post harvesting handling and assumptions of imminent loss

which counts 93% of grains are lost due to pests and other factors. This study spotted

on PHM however failed to recognize the contribution of other players in minimizing

the problem.

Base on the study done by Babangida and Yong (2011) on Design, development and

techniques for controlling grains post-harvest losses with metal silo for small and

medium scale farmers in China, with objective of improving storage facilities to

ensure food security and improve farmers income using meta silo storage, The

12

findings show that the use of metal silo has been effectively and efficiently

significant as proven by 59% of farming households its said to be cheaper, easy to

use and can last for more than 15 years. In this study the mobile metal silo was also

introduced however neglected to research on other factors that would cause post-

harvest loss during threshing, transporting, and drying as well as in marketing.

Furthermore the study suggested the modern machines, global positioning system

and geographical information system to support creating awareness campaign to

rural areas on modern post harvesting technologies, with this technology the farmers

will be able to sustain them.

From the study conducted by Abass et al (2014) on assessment of post-harvest

handling practices and food losses in a maize-based farming system in Tanzania, the

study used cross sectional approach to obtain the data and the findings shows 79%

use control measure out 333 sample. The poor situation of availability of proper post

harvesting handling techniques seems to increase the already food insecurity

problem. This research showed the need of providing trainings to farmers as one to

ensure post harvesting loss prevention although the study spotted much on maize and

little to other cereal products such as rice, millet.

The study conducted by Waliyar et al (2015) on Post-harvest management of

aflatoxin contamination in groundnut in Mali, the study conducted was on the post-

harvest problem that reduce the kernel quality of the groundnut and some

management tools that will reduce the post harvesting losses such as post- harvest

grain handling, post-harvest machinery, physical separation, storage methods and

conditions, disinfestation, detoxification, inactivation, filtration, binding agents, and

13

antifungal compounds. The study aim to ensure food security and improve the

quality of the grains.

Basavaraja, Mahajanashetti, & Udagatti (2007) did a research on post harvesting

loss for cereals in India. The study was to identify stages the cause of loss of cereals,

the researcher used survey data to collect information from different representatives

as well as linear regression to assess factors affecting post-harvest losses in supply

chain of rice till it reaches the market place. The finding showed that storage phase

has contributed to a great loss.

Ssebaggala & Kyazze, (2016) did a study on farmers’ perceptions and their

implication on the use of rice post-harvest handling technologies and practices in

eastern Uganda. The researcher collected data using cross-sectional survey and focus

group discussion.

14

2.5 Conceptual framework

PHHT Perception on adoption

Figure 2.1 Conceptual Frame Work

Source: Researchers idea 2018

2.6 Research Gap

In Tanzania there have been substantial interventions on post-harvest handling

technologies and practices to reduce post-harvest loss which counts up to 40% loss

of grains(Coulter & Schneider, 2004). Poor performance of PHHTP is not only

driven by the weak value delivery systems as spotted by many scholars but also

users’ perceptions (Affognon, et al., 2015). However, there very few studies done on

perceptions of the use of post-harvest handling technologies and practices(Martins et

Economic traits

Income

Education

Availability

Usefulness

Consistence

Cost

Finance

Affordability

Risk

Maintenance

Adopters

Non adopters

15

al., 2014). Post-harvest handling technologies and practices have been introduced

and there several studies done on the benefits and usability, but on the other hand of

perception on the adoption few studies have been done which give a room to the

researcher to find out on perception to both adopters and non-adopters of the post-

harvest techniques in relation to the availability, cost and risk.

16

CHAPTER THREE

METHODS AND MATERIALS

3.1 Overview

3.2 Research Approach

The researcher used triangulation method which combines qualitative and

quantitative techniques. Data will be collected through interview, questionnaires,

focus group. Simple random and purposive sampling techniques was employed to

sample the respondent. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to analyze data.

3.3 Description of the study area

Dodoma is a semi-arid natural condition region, it receives annual average rainfall of

570mm. It’s one among region where post harvesting technologies and practices idea

has been spread, due to the problem it encountered in its districts such in Chemba,

Kongwa, Chamwino and Bahi. This areas have been experiencing hunger, death,

unemployment, increased population and malnutrition problems (TFDA, 2017).

Most products produced in this region are maize, rice, millet, sorghum, ground nuts,

peas, onions, grapes and sesame.

3.3.1 Location

This study was carried out at Bahi District in Dodoma, Tanzania because big percent

of the farmers involve in rice farming activity, Rice as the study product to examine

farmers’ perception on adoption of post-harvest handling techniques and practices. It

included 3wards which is Bahi, Bahimakulu and Lukali. 5 villages covered from the

wards were Bahisokoni, nagurobahi, uhelela, bahimakulu and Lukali.

17

3.4 Research design

The researcher used descriptive research which attempt to systematically explain the

situation, problem, and phenomenon or provide information towards the attitude.

Descriptive study will be used to explore farmers’ attitude on post-harvest handling

technologies and practices, this design helped the researcher to enhance an

understanding and obtain required information from farming households and from

relevant institutions. The researcher used simple random and multi stage sampling

techniques to sample the respondents. Triangulation technique was employed as a

combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to explain the analyzed

information(Kumar, 2011).

3.5 Sampling Procedure

The researcher used mixed method of simple random sampling and multistage

sampling technique to sample the respondents. The first stage involved purposive

selection of 3 wards in the district where farmers involve in rice farming activities.

The second stage covered selection of 5 villages among 3 wards, from each village

farmers were selected using snow ball techniques. According to Kumar, 2011,

Snowball sampling is the technique which involve selection of sample using

networks or locating information rich key farmers, few farmers will be selected and

required information were collected, then they will be asked to identify other farmers

in the group to become part of the sample and provide the information needed.

(Kothari, 2004; Kumar, 2011).

3.6 Data collection methods

Both primary and secondary data were used. Primary data refers to information

obtained by investigator himself for the specific problem and secondary data are

18

already collected data that investigator use such as from journals, reports,

professional publication and relevant institutions. The data collection method

included were structured questionnaires (Appendix 1) which were distributed with

regards to the desired information needed from relevant institutions and farmers.

Interview is concerned with gathering farmers’ opinions, perception or attitudes, to

explore the perspective of potential farmers personal qualitative interview is to apply

(Appendix 2)(Kumar, 2011)

3.7 Data analysis

Data were analyzed by binary logistic regression which use maximum like-hood

method to maximize the probability of getting the observed results given the fitted

regression coefficient. It provide the knowledge of relationship and strength between

variable of the study. With binary logistic regression in SPSS data are easily

manipulated.

Objective one: Descriptive statistics such as frequency, percentage and mean will be

used to categorize respondents based on their socioeconomic characteristics such as

income, social status and employment.

Objective two: Inferential statistics were used to establish a relationship between

availability of PHT and farmers` perception on the adoption. The relationship was

established on the ground of its usefulness and consistence.

Objective three and four: Perception on adoption of post harvesting techniques in

relation to cost and risk, the respondents were asked in degrees and were measured at

ordinal level by using five- point Likert type scale such as strongly agreed (5),

19

agreed (4), undecided (3), disagreed (2) and strongly disagreed (1) for positive

statements and the scores were reversed for negative statements. The five point

Likert scale to be designed with respect to cost and risk.

3.8 Data Presentation

Data were presented in different form such as scientific form, charts, graphs, bars

and histograms depend on the classification as to whether be nominal, ordinal or

Likert scale.

3.9 Validity and Reliability

3.9.1 Validity

Validity also refers to as the degree to which results obtained from the analysis of

data actually represent the phenomenon under study. This is the ability of the

instrument to collect truthful and justifiable data (Oso and Onen, 2008). The research

will prepare research instruments and subject them to validity tests before finally

administering them on respondents. The draft questionnaire will be subjected to

expert judgment to verify the validity of the questions in line with (Balung,

2016)where the researcher used the Content Validity Index (CVI).

The researcher distributed an initial draft questionnaire to 5 (five) experts in grain

post- harvest technologies. The Content validity was determined by having items on

the instrument rated by five (5) experts. The Content Validity Index (CVI) was then

be determined by the formula and the workings below.

𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 =𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖 𝑐𝑐𝑜𝑜𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑐𝑐𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖𝑐𝑐

𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖 𝑖𝑖ℎ𝑁𝑁 𝑐𝑐𝑁𝑁𝑣𝑣𝑜𝑜𝑖𝑖 𝑞𝑞𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑜𝑜𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁 𝑣𝑣𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 𝑖𝑖𝑐𝑐𝑖𝑖𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑁𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖 𝑐𝑐ℎ𝑁𝑁𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑒𝑣𝑣𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖

20

A CVI of 0.7 and above for any instruments was considered valid for the study in

accordance with (Balung, 2016),all questions deemed not valid were edited or

dropped per the recommendation of the experts.

3.9.2 Reliability

Reliability refers to the degree to which an assessment tools produce stable and

consistence results. The degree to which repeated measurement of the same trait are

reproducible under the same conditions. The research ensured reliability repeating

the test of the instrument to enhance reliability of the information to be obtained (R.

Kumar, 2011). The Chronbach’s alpha was used to correlate the scores of the

responses. The formula for Cronbach’s Alpha to be used is follows:

𝐶𝐶𝑁𝑁𝑜𝑜𝑐𝑐𝑁𝑁𝑣𝑣𝑐𝑐ℎ′𝑖𝑖 𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑣𝑎𝑎ℎ𝑣𝑣 = �𝑐𝑐

𝑐𝑐 − 1� �𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆2 − ∑𝐶𝐶𝑣𝑣𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖𝑣𝑣𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑁𝑁

𝑆𝑆𝑆𝑆2 �

Where:

n = Number of items on the test

SD = The Standard Deviation for the set of test scores, and

ΣVariance = Summation of the variances of the scores for each of individual item on

the test.

A Cronbach‟s Alpha of above 0.7 will show that the tool is reliable. The higher the

reliability coefficient of above 0.7, the higher the reliability of the instrument

(Balung, 2016).

21

3.10 Ethical consideration

In conducting research, it is important to remember the power relationship in a

research process and how this affects the research. The researcher had the

responsibility not to abuse power, and to safeguard other participant’s integrity,

anonymity and generally treat all involved with respect. As one of the overarching

principles of ethics, it is crucial to sound research to do no harm. This position

promoted an ethical view that claims that the value of the research is not worth

destroying people or communities in the process. Another consideration in the

research is that participation was voluntary based on conscious decision and

informed consent which is a way of ensuring this. This was obtained by the

researcher explaining what the study is about, and ensuring the participant’s

anonymity as well as the participants’ possibility of withdrawing during the research.

22

CHAPTER FOUR

FINDINGS

4.1 Introduction

Thus chapter presents the compressive findings of the study. Out of the total targeted

70 respondents, 60 duly filled and returned the completed questionnaires. The

findings in this part include the socio economic information of the respondents and

perception of farmers on PHTP in relation to availability, cost and risk of the post-

harvest technology and practices.

4.2 Social economic information

This part covers the demographic characteristics of the respondents which include

sex, age, household size, education level, and farming experience.

4.2.1 Gender of the respondent

The study found that the number of males participated in the study is exceeding that

of the female as shown on Table 4.1 The number of the male participants were

63.3% while the female participants were 36.7%, male respondents were the active

participants and responsive people during harvesting stage in responding to

questionnaires as shown on table 4.1

Table 4.1 Gender of the respondent

Sex Frequency Percent

Male 38 63.3

Female 22 36.7

Total 60 100.0

Source: Field Survey, 2018

23

4.2.2 Age of the respondents

The study intended to know the age group of different participants in farming

activities in relation to acceptance level of the post harvesting technology to improve

farmer’s live hood. The age of the respondent categorized into five groups as

presented on table 4.2. It has been found that the age group of 26-35 was the highest

respondents, followed by the age group of 18-25 which had average of age

respondents, the other age group had small percent such 36-45, 46-55 and the last

one 55 Above had fewest on age respondents. The results show that most of the

youth at Bahi district are active and full involved in farming activities.

Table 4.2: Age of the respondents

Age category Frequency Percent

18-25 10 16.7

26-35 26 43.3

36-45 9 15.0

46-55 9 15.0

55 above 6 10.0

Total 60 100.0


4.2.3 Household size

The study aimed at identify the house hold size of the farmers, the findings shows

that most of the rice farmers have household size of 5-8 people which counts highest

rate of respondents than the lest, household of 1-4 people had above average,

followed by household size of 13-16 which counted on average, 9-12 people counted

least of average on the household size and the last household had very little

household size respondents as it is shown on table 4.3. Thus, with this representation

24

it clear seen that household with 5-8 class size has high percent which signify that

farmers with that class size has a great advantage in farming activities as it is shown

on table 4.3

Table 4.3: Household size

Category Frequency Percent

1-4 18 30.0

5-8 20 33.3

9-12 6 10.0

13-16 14 23.3

16-19 2 3.3

Total 60 100.0


4.2.4 Years of formal education

The findings show that 41.7% of the participants have informal education, 18.3 %

with nine years of education, 16.7% with four years of education, 16.7% with 12

years of education and last 6.7% with 15 years of education. This signify that the

high number of illiteracy among farmers, despite that farmers with formal education

have been observed in the area. As shown on table 4.4

Table 4.4: Years of formal education

Years Frequency Percent

None 25 41.7

4 years 10 16.7

9 years 11 18.3

12 years 10 16.7

15 years 4 6.7

Total 60 100.0


25

4.2.5 Years of farming experience

The study aimed at observing farming experience of different farmers at Bahi

District, from the findings it shows that 36.7% have farming experience of 1-10

years, followed by 23.3% of 21-30 years of experience, 11-20 years have 18.3% and

the last one with 31 Above years of experience has 21.7%. The study show that

farmers with below 10 years have highly has participated in filling the

questionnaires.

Table 4.5 Experience of farming in years

Years Frequency Percent

1-10 Years 22 36.7

11-20 years 11 18.3

21-30 years 14 23.3

31 Above 13 21.7

Total 60 100.0


4.3 To find out social economic traits that affect perception on adoption of PHT

on rice farmers

4.3.1 Level of agreement on essentiality of adopting PHT

This study intended to observe the level of agreement on essentiality of adopting

PHT. The findings show that farmers agree on adoption of PHT with regard to its

essentiality. 30% strongly agreed on adoption to be essential, 31.7% literally agreed,

11.7% felt to undecided whether they agree on disagree, with the remaining 1.7% for

disagree and 5% for strongly disagree. This implies that most of the farmers believe

that adopting PHT would help them to improve their quality and quantity of rice.

26

Table 4.6: Level of agreement on essentiality of adopting PHT

Scale Frequency Percent

Strongly disagree 3 5.0

Disagree 1 1.7

undecided 7 11.7

Agree 19 31.7

Strongly agree 30 50.0

Total 60 100.0


4.3.2 Perception on adoption of PHT to be necessary

This study aimed to study the adoption of PHT perception if it is necessary, the

finding shows that the respondents agreed by 43.3% that adoption is necessary to

farmers to improve productivity of the products, 38.3% strongly agreed that PHT is

very necessary to people, the findings also shows that the responded disagree by

small percent that PHT adopt is not necessary only 5% disagreed and 3.3% strongly

disagree.

Table 4.7 Perception on adoption of PHT to be necessary



Disagree 3 5.0

undecided 6 10.0

Agree 26 43.3


Total 60 100.0


27

4.3.3 Post harvesting technology is better than local tool

This study intended to know as to whether farmers still accept the old tools or have

changed to modern tools, from the findings the researcher has observed that people

need new tools by supporting with strongly agreeing by 40% and agree by 35%,

13.3% for disagreeing, 6.7% for strongly disagreeing and only 5% for undecided.

This information depict that farmers are now transforming to new ways of farming to

improve productivity.

Table 4.8 Post harvesting technology is better than local tool



Disagree 8 13.3

undecided 3 5.0

Agree 21 35.0


Total 60 100.0


4.3.4 PHT Adoption reduces PH Activities stress in rice production

This study was intentionally done to see how much farmers felt secured of PHT in

farming activity. The data shows positive attitude towards level of agreement, 33.3%

of the farmers have agreed on stress reduced by farmers on adopting PHT, 28.3%

have strongly agreed, 16.7% for undecided, 13.3% for disagree and only 8.3% was

left for strongly disagreed farmers. This shows that most of the farmers have belief

on PHT as technology that would change life style, from uncertainty to certainty of

the farming activities.

28

Table 4.9: PHT Adoption reduces PH Activities stress in rice production



Disagree 8 13.3

undecided 10 16.7

Agree 20 33.3


Total 60 100.0


4.3.5 PHT should be adopted regardless of the costs

Study findings has revealed that PHT can be adopted regardless of the cost,

participants has agreed by 35% that cost is nothing when comes to serious business,

20% betted on strongly agree, with the remaining undecided, disagree and strongly

disagree betted on 15% each. The finding supported the truth that good things always

come with cost, therefore farmers has to accept PHT technology with all cost to

transform the farming activity to competitive level. Refer table 4.9.

Table 4.10: PHT should be adopted regardless of the costs



Disagree 9 15.0

Undecided 9 15.0

Agree 21 35.0


Total 60 100.0


29

4.3.6 Adoption of PHT cannot reduce PH losses

This study aimed at observing whether respondents have experienced or have heard

of disadvantages of applying PHT. The findings shows that most of the respondents

have criticized by disagreeing on the fact that PHT cannot reduce post harvesting

technology, 26.7% has shown the level of disagreeing, 23.3% strongly disagreeing,

but on the other hand some of the respondent have agreed by 23.3% that adopting

post harvesting technology is of no use to farmers, that cannot reduce losses, 16.7%

was left for undecided this is referred to table 4.10.

Table 4.11 Adoption of PHT cannot reduce PH losses



Disagree 16 26.7

Undecided 10 16.7

Agree 14 23.3


Total 60 100.0


4.3.7 Co-farmers should be discouraged from adopting PHT

This study intended to find out as whether farmers should be discouraged from

adopting PHT. The data shows that respondent strongly disagree by 31.7% on the

fact of discouraging farmers to adopt PHT, 23.3% strongly disagreed, 15% left

undecided, 15% agreed and 15% was for strongly agree. This implies that co-farmers

accept PHT technology and eager to put it into practice, this is presented on table

4.11.

30

Table 4.12 Co-farmers should be discouraged from adopting PHT



Disagree 19 31.7

Undecided 9 15.0

Agree 9 15.0


Total 60 100.0


4.3.8 PHT can raise farmers to maximum standard of living

This study intended to examine whether there is a relationship between technology

and better life of people, the better the technology the better the standard of living.

The findings proves that, for farmer to improve standard of living through

agriculture they have to adopt PHT for effectiveness and efficiency. Respondents

have agreed on the fact that PHT can raise farmers to maximum standard of living

by 41.7% and strongly agreed by 28.3%, with 13.3% for undecided, 10% for

disagreeing and 6.7% for strongly disagreeing. This signifies for farmers to live

better life has to accept technology especially after harvest technology this is

referred to table 4.12.

31

4.13: PHT can raise farmers to maximum standard of living

Level of agreement Frequency Percent


Disagree 6 10.0

Undecided 8 13.3

Agree 25 41.7


Total 60 100.0


4.3.9 PHT should be adopted on a permanent basis

The study intended to know as to whether respondent would accept to adopt PHT on

permanent basis. The findings show positive attitude toward adopting PHT on

permanent basis, 22% strongly agree, 19% agreed, 8% left out stranded as to adopt

or not to adopt on permanent base, 8% disagreed and 3% strongly disagreed that, this

adopt should not be a permanent thing. This signify that respondents have accepted

changes and they are eager to take farming business to a different level.

32

Table 4.14 PHT should be adopted on a permanent basis



Disagree 8 13.3

Undecided 8 13.3

Agree 19 31.7


Total 60 100.0


4.3.10 Income influence the adoption of PHT

The study aimed at examining the influence of income on adopting PHT, is there any

relationship between the two variables. The findings show that, some of the

respondents agreed and some disagree, 20% of the respondents agreed that income

influences farmers to adopt PHT, 14% disagreed with the fact of income to influence

adoption of PHT, 20% of the respondents were not sure whether income can

influence farmers to adopt or not to adopt, 8% strongly agreed and 6% strongly

disagree.

Table 4.15 Income influence the adoption of PHT



Disagree 14 23.3

Not sure 12 20.0

Agree 20 33.3


Total 60 100.0


33

4.3.11 The extent to which social status affects PHT adoption

This study intended to know how great social status affects PHT adoption. The

findings show that it’s by 20% moderate extent that PHT affects social status, 16%

small extent, 15% great extent and 9% not at all, this signify that the respondents half

believe on the effect and half dot believe on effect of the social status.

Table 4.16: The extent to which social status affects PHT adoption


Not at all 9 15.0

Small extent 16 26.7

Moderate 20 33.3

Great extent 15 25.0

Total 60 100.0

4.3.12 The most social economic trait that affects perception to adopt PHT

This study intended to find out what is the most dominating social economic trait that

prevail in affecting perception to adopt PHT, the respondents finding show that

income is the most dominating trait that affect perception to adopt by 29%, while for

education respondents gave out 16% and the last trait is social status with 15% of

agreement. This shows that farmers with access to finance have a bigger chance to

adopt PHT than people with education or social status.

34

Table 4.17: The most social economic trait that affects perception to adopt PHT


Income 29 48.3

Education 16 26.7

Social status 15 25.0

Total 60 100.0


4.4 Availability of post-harvest techniques to smallholder farmers in the study

area

4.4.1 There is availability of PHT at Bahi District

This study intended to know whether there is availability of PHT in the respondent

area, with 31% of respondent did said yes that there is availability of the PHT

technology meanwhile 29% of the respondents said no that PHT are not available to

farmers. This signifies that PHT technology is available farmers by small percent and

its uneven distributed to farmers.

Table 4.18 There is availability of PHT at Bahi District

Frequency Percent

Yes 31 51.7

No 29 48.3

Total 60 100.0


4.4.2 The most available PHT in the area

These findings aimed at recognizing the most available PHT that farmers have

adopted, the respondent have reported that packing bags and drying surface are the

most available PHT technology by 17% each, then 11% was for grading machine,

35

10% respondent reported on the adoption of mini-combined machine for harvesting,

lastly marketing system had only 5% of respondent report on its presence to farmers.

The finding show that the available techniques used by most farmers are the one that

are cheaper and easy to make but the other one which seems to be little expensive or

have not used before are not available in most of the farmers.

Table 4.19: The most available PHT in the area


Combined harvester 10 16.7

Packing bags 17 28.3

Drying surface 17 28.3

Grading machine 11 18.3

Marketing system 5 8.3

Total 60 100.0


4.4.3 The available PHT increase amount of rice

This study was intentionally done to see whether there is an advantage in the

available PHT in increase quantity of rice, the findings show the balance from the

respondents, that 50% of the respondents agree and the other 50% disagreed on the

advantages of PHT to increase the quality of rice product when adopted.

Table 4.20: The available PHT increase amount of rice


Agree 30 50.0

Not agree 30 50.0

Total 60 100.0


36

4.4.4 The extent on the usefulness of PHT to small holder farmers

The findings from this study was intentionally done to know how useful PHT are to

smallholder farmers, from the findings it was observed that 41.7% of the respondents

agreed by small extent, 33.3% agreed on moderate, 15% said not at all, and 10%

responded on great extent. The findings show that PHT are used by farmers in the

moderate average and not to a great extent.

Table 4.21: The extent on the usefulness of PHT to small holder farmers


Not at all 9 15.0


Moderate 20 33.3

Great extent 6 10.0

Total 60 100.0


4.4.5 Applying PHT enabled farmers to sustain the living

The study was done to examine the level of agreement on PHT adoption enabling

farmers to sustain the living when they adopt the technology, from the findings it

shows high level of disagreement by 33.3%, 31.7% responded for undecided, 18.3%

agreed on PHT to sustain farmers living, 10% of the respondents strongly disagree

on the fact of PHT to sustain the living. This shows that the observed advantages and

the availability of PHT have little impact to people’s lives.

37

Table 4.22: Applying PHT enabled farmers to sustain the living



Disagree 20 33.3

undecided 19 31.7

Agree 11 18.3

Total 60 100.0


4.4.6 The most PHT used in the area

The study was done to know the most PHT practiced by most farmers at Bahi

District, the respondent were able to mention the most used technology, 43.3% of the

respondents voted for storage handlings as the most PHT used by many farmers,

25% opted marketing techniques, 20% of the respondents named mini-combined

harvester and 11.7% said threshing machine are the most available in their area. This

means that, most of the farmers use storage than other techniques of post harvesting.

Table 4.23: The most PHT used in the area


Mini combined harvester 12 20.0

Threshing machine 7 11.7

storage handlings 26 43.3

Marketing technique 15 25.0

Total 60 100.0


38

4.5 The cost on adoption of post- harvest techniques in the study area.

4.5.1 The cost of applying PHT influences perception to adopt

This study was intentionally done to analyze if the cost of applying PHT influences

perception to adopt, from the findings shows high level of respondents agreement

on the fact of cost to influence perception to adopt, but very few responded on not

agreeing with cost to be the influencing factor. This signify that most of people avoid

to apply PHT technology because of cost factor.

Table 4.24: The cost of applying PHT influences perception to adopt


agree 39 65.0

Not agree 21 35.0

Total 60 100.0


4.5.2 The cost of PHT is affordable to farmers

This study was done to see whether the cost of PHT are affordable to farmers, the

findings show that most of the farmers cannot afford the cost of PHT, 68.7% of the

respondents responded with no option that, this cost are not affordable to most of the

farmers, 31.7% of the respondents said yes, that these costs are affordable to farmers.

The cost factor can be the main factor which hinders farmers to adopt PHT.

39

Table 4.25: The cost of PHT is affordable to farmers


Yes 19 31.7

No 41 68.3

Total 60 100.0


The results from binary regression of perception on adoption of PHT shows to

significant of 0.006 which is nearly to 0.000 significant level hence the study is

valid.

Table 4.26. Variables in the Equation on whether the cost of PHT are

affordable to farmers

B S.E. Wald Df Sig. Exp(B)

Step 0 Constant .769 .278 7.680 1 .006 2.158


4.5.3 Farmer will have enough money to use on PHT

This study was intentionally done to collect information on benefits of applying

PHT, the findings aimed at investigating profit earned by applying PHT and how

farmers can meet there daily needs with profit obtained out of applying PHT, the

data shows 36.7% strongly disagree, 23.3% remained undecided, 21.7% of the

respondents disagreed, 16.7% agreed and 1.7% strongly agreed. This data signify

that, farmers can still not always have enough money to apply PHT.

40

Table 4.27 Farmer will have enough money to use on PHT



Disagree 13 21.7

Undecided 14 23.3

Agree 10 16.7


Total 60 100.0


4.5.4 The extent to which cost of PHT affect farmers income

This study was done to test the relationship between cost and income, the findings

show that 43.3% of respondents voted for moderate extent, 28.3% voted for small

extent, 23.3% voted for great extent and only 5% of the respondent voted for not at

all. From these finding it show that farmers are still not aware of the bundle of

benefits from applying PHT despite of it cost.

Table 4.28: The extent to which cost of PHT affect farmers income


Not at all 3 5.0


Moderate 26 43.3

Great extent 14 23.3

Total 60 100.0

41

4.5.5 There is financial assistance on applying PHT

This study was internationally done to question the financial assistance that farmers

get when they apply PHT, the findings from the respondents show 73.3% of farmers

don’t get support when they apply PHT and only 26.7% of the respondents agree on

receiving financial assistance when they apply new technology.

Table 4.29: There is financial assistance on applying PHT

Response Frequency Percent

Yes 16 26.7

No 44 73.3

Total 60 100.0


4.5.6 The costly stage to apply PHT

This study was done to identify the costly stage among the four option, the data

shows that 40% of the respondent voted for threshing to be the costly stage above all,

28.3% voted for storing stage, 23.3% of the respondents voted for marketing to be

the costly stage and lastly 8.3% of the respondents voted for drying to be the costly

stage. These findings signify that threshing stage cost a lot than other method, so

there is a need to put eyes on it.

Table 4.30 the costly stage to apply PHT

Stages Frequency Percent

Threshing 24 40.0

Drying 5 8.3

Storing 17 28.3

Marketing 14 23.3

Total 60 100.0


42

4.6 Nature of risks associated with adoption of PHHT on rice farmers.

4.6.1 The risk associated to the adoption of PHT

Furthermore, this study was done to identify the risks which associated with adoption

of PHT, the findings show that 30% of the respondents reported that PHT can be the

source of unemployment, 25% for machine deterioration risk, 25% of the

respondents voted for non-consistence risk and lastly 20% for the risk of delay to

harvest. This risk is the one which hinders farmers not to adopt PHT.

Table 4.31 The risk associated to the adoption of PHT

Risks Frequency Percent

Machine deterioration 15 25.0

Non consistence machine 15 25.0

Delay o harvest 12 20.0

Unemployment 18 30.0

Total 60 100.0


4.6.2 The most risk stage that requires PHT

This study intended find out the stage which is risk and require farmers attention in

farming activity, the findings shows that harvesting is the most risk stage with 41.7%

respondent votes, followed by storage with 25% to be risk stage, drying counted

18.3%, transportation 8% and lastly Hauling counts only 1%. This give a room o

discussion that harvesting is the most risk stage and require much attention of

adoption of PHT and risk assessment to reduce this perception. For the stage with

risk stage analysis also should be carried out to see how effective those technologies

to farmers are.

43

Table 4.32 The most risk stage that requires PHT

Stages Frequency Percent

Harvesting 25 41.7

Storing 15 25.0

Hauling 1 1.7

Drying 11 18.3

Transporting 8 13.3

Total 60 100.0


4.6.3 Mitigating the risk associated can influence adoption of PHT

This study intended to know the level of agreement on mitigating the risk associated

and the influence on adoption of PHT, the finding depicted that the respondent agree

by 73.3% that mitigating the risk can influence farmers to adopt PHT, while 26.7%

disagree with statement of mitigating the risk to influence adoption of PHT. This

study show that, despite all the risks and cost associated but they are sure that one

day this technology will transform them.

Table 4.33: Mitigating the risk associated can influence adoption of PHT


Agree 44 73.3

Not agree 16 26.7

Total 60 100.0


4.6.4 Strategies to reduce risks associated

Lastly, this study intended to know the strategies that can reduce risks of applying

PHT, the findings show the most living strategy is machine consistence with 21.7%

of the respondents, 20% was voted for extension officers, 18.3% for training farmers,

44

15% for financial access and lastly 13.3% for enough spare parts. The findings show

that, with this strategy farmers can be able to full adopt PHT to enhance farmers

productivity.

Table 4.34: Strategies to reduce risks associated

Strategies Frequency Percent

Enough spare parts 8 13.3

Consistence machine 13 21.7

Enough PH machines 7 11.7

Extension officers 12 20.0

Training to farmers 11 18.3

Finance access 9 15.0

Total 60 100.0


45

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION

5.1 Overview

This chapter presents mainly the discussions of the results represented in chapter

four. The study intended to assess smallholder farmer’s perception on adoption of

post-harvest grain techniques in Tanzania, where the case study was at Bahi District.

The discussion based on the study objectives.

5.2 Socioeconomic information

In this study, it is found that most of the farmer’s respondents were male and very

few were female, to the case of gender, the results shows that male are the most

active people in farming. According Ssebaggala & Kyazze, 2016) the data showed

male were the active people in giving information about PHT.

On the case of age group , big percent of the respondents were youth to the age group

of 26-35, this signify that young people are the active people and are the generation

of today, if are well employed they can be the change makers. To change the

perception of adopting PHT this group need to be involved in training, giving access

to finance, and the importance of improving the quality and quantity of the products

they produce. The age group above 55 years old, seems to be passive people, this is

the group that we cannot invest on, as they are less productive. This has been

supported by Kimiywe (2015) that young generation are the early majority , this

group can easily adopt any change that happen in their areas , the aged group are the

late majority can take so long to decide on matters, so the adopt decisions.

46

Household size effect, this affect PHT adoption on the notion that when the size is

small then little possibility of adopting the technology as they cultivate little with

regard to the size. This is different from great household size, the great the size the

high the responsibility to meet the need of that household size, this group will have

to work hard to make sure they have enough food to meet the needs. So the need for

the household to try different ways to increase their productivity, hence adoption of

different techniques can apply.

Education level from this field work show that a big percent of the farmers are

illiterate and very few are educated , this signify that adoption rate would face some

critics to be adopted as they rarely believe in technology. The higher the number of

educated individual the easier the acceptance of the new technologies as they become

aware of the benefits of applying technology in farming.

The experience in farming show that a big number of farmers have experience of 1-

10 years followed by class of 11-20 years. This mean that a great number of the

participants are youth as the experience shows from the findings(Odhong, 2017) said

the youth are the assets in farming transformation, now the young people becomes

aware of farming and it advantage, farming is now the first choice of many young

people in the world.

5.3 Social economic traits affecting perception on adoption of PHT on rice

farmers.

This first objective intended to study the social economic variables that affect

farmers, the objective coved income and education as variables. The results shows

that income affects adoption rate of PHT, farmers with high income are likely to

47

adopt the technology but farmers with little income then it’s hard for them to divide

the little they have to acquire or adopt the technology. With education the study

shows that farmers will certain level of education support adoption of new

technology especially that with positive impact in their farming activities, but people

with little understand always hinders the development. This has been supported by

Ngowi (2017) that education favors adoption, people who are educated are

considered to be innovators. Income also influence perception to adoption of any

technology, people with high level of income can likely adopt new technology

whenever is inverted which is little difficult for the people with little income.

5.4 Availability of post-harvest techniques to smallholder farmers

To this objective the variables discussed were usefulness and consistence, the study

intended to know to what level are the available PHT are useful to people and to

what level of consistence are the technology. The findings shows that most of the

available PHT are not full employed by farmers with some reason of not affording

the cost of adopt or hiring the technology, the cost of renting the tools is high that

smallholder farmers cannot afford to adopt or rent the tools. For the case of

usefulness Affognon et al., (2015) said , introducing any technology without any

prior preparation affects the adoption rate, technology introduced need to be useful to

people who need it after the investigation of the usefulness of it to the area but if

technology is introduced without any studying the area it will become useless and

very few people can adopt it.

To the question of consistence the findings show that most of the introduced

technology are not consistent to people hence most of people are reluctant to accept

technologies when are introduced. This case has been supported by Kitinoja etal.,

48

(2010) that introduction of appropriate technology motivate adoption rate of that

technology, but if the technology is introduced and is not appropriate with nature of

the area then that technology is likely to be not adopted and it will also discourage

most of other people not to adopt another technology when introduced.

5.5 The cost on adoption of post- harvest techniques

This objective intended to assess the influence of cost on perception to adopt PHT,

the results shows the cost as one of the influencing factor that farmers consider

before adopting or use a particular technology, if the technology is affordable to

farmers then that technology would be accepted.(Ngowi, 2017).

The results also show that farmers will always not have money to use on PHT as

farming activity is not stable and affected much by the climate change which make

the farmers sometimes not to have enough money to use or adopt technology, the

respondents strongly disagree with the fact that farmers will always have money to

use. The results also show that farmers have no association where they can join their

hands together and save money which they can use in buying some usefully

technology. To support farmers cost analysis of technology to be introduced need to

be effectively analyzed and the informations need to be shared to farmers.

Cost of the technology also affects the income of people, farmers still believe the that

the return on asset is not viable to them as the income will be affected by the cost of

the technology they would choose to adopt, the results shows bad perception of most

of the farmers that if they choose to adopt the technology they would end up

bankrupt as some point.(Kitinoja et al., 2010)

49

The results shows that there is little financial assistance to farmers who wants tto

adopt the technology, with this notion farmers will not just adopt technology if the

financial institution does not provide assistance in finance, training and monitoring

the performance of those famers in financial usage and the usefulness of the

technology, when farmers fell secured of the money the invest and get supported

then they will likely adopt that technology

5.6 Risks associated with adoption of PHHT on rice farmers

This objective intended to study the nature of risks associated to adoption of PHT,

the results from this study identified the following risks machine deterioration, non-

consistence of machine, delay of harvesting, unemployment. Unemployment has

been identifies as the most appealing risk associated with adoption of PHHT

followed by machine deterioration and non-consistence of machines, delay to

harvesting has only 20% of the respondents results on the risk associated with

adopting PHT.(Gabriel & Hundie, 2006)

The results on the most lists stage which require PHT adoption to minimize the risks

is harvesting with 25% of the votes, the other stags are transportation, storing,

hauling, and drying, but the least voted stage is hauling, this stage according to the

results it only need a very small adoption rate of PHT as the risk is minimum

comparing to other stages.

Among the identified risks, the results shows that mitigating this risks associated can

influence adoption of PHT, solution to the risks identified can motivate farmers to

adopt the technology introduced. This show that adopters are aware and they trust the

system of applying new technology will not affect their income to that extent, so

50

most of the respondents agreed that mitigating the risks can influence adoption rate

of PHT.

The results on way forward and the strategies to minimize the risk associated show

that, having consisted machine is to be priority as a way to minimize the risks which

reduces the adoption rate of the technology, extension officers as another strategy to

minimize the risks, the results shows that there is a need of having enough extension

officers to provide trainings and assistance to farmers in the decision of adopting the

technology. With introducing new technology the results shows the need of bringing

the spare parts of those introduced technology to assist the repairing of the machines,

this acts as a motivator to farmers to enable them to adopt new technology. Financial

access is another motivator to adopters of new technology, most of the farmers don’t

have enough money to buy on cash the technology but if assisted then they are likely

to adopt the technology. According to Briefing, (2015) financial access to farmers is

very important, rice value chain actors require credit for equipment and technology

upgrading as wella s improving quality of produce. Producers and marketing also

require credit to pre-finance production of their suppliers.

51

CHAPTER SIX

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

6.1 Overview

This part presents the summary of findings and conclusions. It also takes into

account the recommendations made from the study, the limitations encountered and

the suggestions for further research.

6.2 Summary of the findings

The study aimed at achieving four specific objectives drawn from the main objective

which was to examine farmers’ perception on adoption of rice post-harvest handling

techniques and practices in Bahi District.

The first objective of this study was to find out social economic traits that affect

perception on adoption of PHT on rice farmers revealed that, some social economic

traits affects the adoption of PHT such traits are income, education and social status,

with income as the most dominating traits that farmers consider when wants to adopt

any new technology. The higher the income of the farmers the better consideration

on adopting new technology. Considering education as one of the trait has little

effect on adoption as unless one has both income and education, with social status

most farmers are willing to adopt new technology to acquire social recognition in

their location.

The second objective was to study the availability of post-harvest techniques to

smallholder farmers in the study area, from Bahi District the study shows very little

availability of PHT, the most available technology are packing bags and drying

surface, but mini-combined machine, grading machine and marketing system are

52

they are very few. There is a need of some investors in this areas to support farmers

in their farming activities. The results show the need of enough mini-combined

machines, grading machines, and improved marketing infrastructure that would help

farmers to improve quality and quantity of products.

The third objective was study the cost on adoption of post- harvest techniques in the

study area, from the findings its clearly seen that cost is the most influencing factor

on the case of adoption, most of the technologies introduced are expensive and most

farmers cannot afford to adopt these technologies, very few farmers were able to

afford and hence the little presence of these technology o this area.

The last objective was to explore the nature of risks associated with adoption of

PHHT on rice farmers. The results show the most risk available and the way forward

to minimize the risks, the risk identified in the findings are machine deterioration,

non-consistence of machines, delay of farmers to harvest due to long time of waiting

of the machine which is shared to other farmers and unemployment problem due to

adoption of new technology which will take jobs of many people in the area. To

mitigate this risk the respondents identified the following strategies, enough spare

parts, enough PH machine, extension officers, training farmers on PHT, consistence

machines and enabling access of finance to farmers.

6.3 Conclusions

Farmers’ perceptions towards postharvest loss reduction technologies and practices

were diverse at different stages of rice postharvest handling. The positive attitudes

towards some of the technologies and practices such as knife, tarpaulin and

mechanized winnowing seem to provide a fertile ground for new innovations

53

customized to the local social, economic and physical situation. The noticeable

proportion of farmers who were in favor of the postharvest loss enhancing practices

like early harvesting and prolonged heaping implies that such practices are likely to

continue. It is therefore recommended that analysis of farmers’ perceptions and

mindset change for farmers with negative perceptions towards the usefulness of such

technologies and practices are undertaken prior to their introduction in the area.

6.4 Recommendation

This part devoted to make recommendations which when implemented can result

into positive perception of adopting PHT.

6.3.1 Recommendation to the government

Base on the finding the government should improve some infrastructures, this will

support farmers toward positive perception to adopt new technology, and with

favorable infrastructures more investors will be attracted which will support farmers

to get access to technologies. Furthermore the government needs to provide grants to

some farmers association, this will help great rich of government services to many

farmers. There is also a need of providing extension officers, this will help the

government to recognize the kind of technology needed by farmers in specific areas

and also to educate them in technology that farmers can use on their area.

6.3.2 Recommendation to investors

This is big opportunity to investors, the findings show a great need of PHT to this

area and the farmers are willing to adopt it, so the investors has to grab the

opportunities available, such as building storage facilities, insuring good marketing

system, improving milling machine, enough and affordable mini-combined

54

harvesting machine. All this tools are demanded in great extent by the farmers in

Bahi District.

6.3.3 Recommendation to farmers

Farmers need to form associations for them to easily access finance and loan from

bother investors and the government, group loan is provided with very little

restrictions a to compare to individual loans. The government is always willing to

make impact to a great number of people and not to individuals, then this is an

opportunity of farmers to make some groups to secure loan from the government.

The excuse of having little income can be overcome with this strategy of forming

association. Also farmers have to change the mindset on adoption of new technology,

cost is always nothing on technology, if technology is well used by farmers then

there is possibility of them to acquire a lot of profit from the technology used.

6.5 Suggestion for further study

This study was carried considering just one district and only one product, the

researcher suggest that other researchers would compare two different Districts

which involve in similar activities that would help to get enough and relevant

information. Furthermore the researcher suggested that, the study of this nature

should be carried out on survey study, this will help the research to collect correct

data.

6.6 Limitation and Delimitation of the study

On carrying out this study, some limitations were faced. The major limitation was

time constraints given that the data collection method was personal administration of

questionnaires with managers and owners. Drop and pick method was used where

55

respondents were not available and this is because the study was carried out when the

farmers where busy in harvesting of their grains, most of the time the farmers not

available. The researcher therefore scheduled the convenient time with the

respondents to collect the information.

The other limitation was getting ful and enough information, the respondent were not

willing to provide enough information due fear of exposing their personal

information, the researcher made some effort to overcome this challenge by ensuring

the respondents that the information that they are to provide will be confidential and

will never be exposed anywhere on public.

56

REFERENCE

Abass, A. B., Ndunguru, G., Mamiro, P., Alenkhe, B., Mlingi, N., & Bekunda, M. (2014). Post-harvest food losses in a maize-based farming system of semi-arid savannah area of Tanzania. Journal of Stored Products Research, 57, 49–57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2013.12.004

Affognon, H., Mutungi, C., Sanginga, P., & Borgemeister, C. (2015). Unpacking

postharvest losses in sub-Saharan Africa: A Meta-Analysis. World Development, 66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.08.002

ANSAF. (2017). http://ansaf.or.tz/post-harvest-management/. Post Harvest

Management. Aulakh, J., & Regmi, A. (2013). Post-harvest food losses estimation-development of

consistent methodology. First Meeting of the Scientific Review Committee of the Food and Agricultural Organization of the UN, 2050, 1–34.

Babangida, L. Y., & Yong, H. (2011). Design, development and techniques for

controlling grains post-harvest losses with metal silo for small and medium scale farmers. African Journal of Biotechnology, 10(65), 14552–14561. https://doi.org/10.5897/AJB11.1845

Balung, B. (2016). Post-harvest handling technologies and maize farmers ’ income in

mid-west uganda , masindi and kiryandongo districts by babra balungi jan15 / emba / 0499u department : school of business and management supervisor professor benon basheka ( phd , fcips ) A.

Basavaraja, H., Mahajanashetti, S. B., & Udagatti, N. C. (2007). Economic Analysis

of Post-harvest Losses in Food Grains in India : A Case Study of Karnataka. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 20(June), 117–126.

Briefing, P. (2015). Post-harvest losses of rice in nigeria, (February 2013), 5–6. Coulter, J., & Schneider, K. (2004). Feasibility Study of Post Harvest Project in

Mozambique and Tanzania, (June). Retrieved from https://www.shareweb.ch/site/Agriculture-and-Food-Security/focusareas/Documents/phm_coulter_study_mozambique_tanzania.pdf

FAO. (2016). Global Initiative on Food Loss and Waste Reduction. Gabriel, A. H., & Hundie, B. (2006). Farmers’ Post-Harvest Grain Management

Choices under Liquidity Constraints and Impending Risks: Implications for Achieving Food Security Objectives in Ethiopia. International Association of Agricultural Economists, Annual Meeting, 17. Retrieved from http://purl.umn.edu/25716

57

Harris, K., & Lindblad, C. (1978). Post-harvest grain loss assessment methods.

American Association of Cereal Chemists; U.S. Agency. HELVETAS. (2017). The Grain Post-Harvest Loss Prevention Project (GPLP). The

Grain Post-Harvest Loss Prevention Project (GPLP). Retrieved from https://tanzania.helvetas.org/en/activities/projects_tanzania/grain_post_harvest_loss_prevention/

Kiaya, V. (2014). Post-Harvest losses and Strategies to Reduce Them. ACF

International,(January), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.13031/aim.20152189434 Kimiywe, J. (2015). Food and nutrition security: Challenges of post-harvest handling

in Kenya. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 74(4), 487–495. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0029665115002414

Kitinoja, L., AlHassan, H., Saran, S., & Roy, S. (2010). Identification of appropriate

postharvest technologies for improving market access and incomes for small horticultural farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa and. … in Three Parts for the IHC Postharvest …, (52198), 1–29. Retrieved from http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Identification+of+Appropriate+Postharvest+Technologies+for+Improving+Market+Access+and+Incomes+for+Small+Horticultural+Farmers+in+Sub-Saharan+Africa+and+South+Asia#0

Kothari, C. R. (2004). Research Methodology: Methods and Techniques. Kumar, D., & Kalita, P. (2017). Reducing Postharvest Losses during Storage of

Grain Crops to Strengthen Food Security in Developing Countries. Foods, 6(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods6010008

Kumar, R. (2011). Research Methodology (3rd ed.). New Delhi: SAGE Publications

Ltd. Levai, L. D., Meriki, H. D., Adiobo, A., Awa-Mengi, S., Akoachere, J. F. T. K., &

Titanji, V. P. K. (2015). Postharvest practices and farmers’ perception of cocoa bean quality in Cameroon. Agriculture and Food Security, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-015-0047-z

Martins, A. G., Goldsmith, P., & Moura, A. (2014). Managerial factors affecting

post-harvest loss : the case of Mato Grosso Brazil. International Journal of Agricultural Management, 3(4), 200–209. https://doi.org/10.5836/ijam/2014-04-03

Morris, R. (1978). Postharvest Food losses in Developing countries. Agency for

International Development, Washington,D.C. Ngowi, E. (2017). factors influencing adoption of improved post-harvest storage

technologies by smallholder maize farmmers in tanzania.

58

Odhong, J. (2017). Economic evaluation of an improved grain storage technology in Tanzania. Retrieved from https://africa-rising.net/2017/01/09/evaluation-grain-storage/

REPOA. (2014). Tanzania markets pan, (October 2012), 1–8. Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations. Macmillian Publishing Co.

https://doi.org/citeulike-article-id:126680 Ssebaggala, L., & Kyazze, B. (2016). Farmers ’ perceptions and their implications on

the use of rice postharvest handling technologies and practices in eastern Uganda, 14(14), 911–919.

TFDA. (2016). mycotoxin problem in Tanzania. Waliyar, F., Osiru, M., Ntare, B. R., Kumar, K. V. K., Sudini, H., Traore, A., &

Diarra, B. (2015). Post-harvest management of aflatoxin contamination in groundnut. World Mycotoxin Journal, 8(2), 245–252. https://doi.org/10.3920/WMJ2014.1766

59

Appendix 1: Research Questionnaire

Questionnaire

Dear, my name is Chalubii Victor; I am a student from the University of Dodoma

undertaking a study on the smallholder farmers’ perception in adoption of post-

harvest grain techniques at Bahi for the partial fulfillment of the Masters (MBA)

Program at The University of Dodoma. I kindly request you to provide reliable

information. The data collected are confidential and will be used for the study and

not otherwise.

Thank you in advance

60

Appendix 1: Research Questionnaire Questionnaire

Dear, my name is Chalubii Victor; I am a student from the University of Dodoma

undertaking a study on the smallholder farmers’ perception on adoption of post-

harvest grain techniques at Bahi for the partial fulfillment of the Masters (MBA)

Program at The University of Dodoma. I kindly request you to provide reliable

information. The data collected are confidential and will be used for the study and

not otherwise.

Thank you in advance

61

A. Socio economic information

1 Respondent’s sex (please tick your answer) 1 = Male 2 = Female

2 Your age group (please tick your answer)

1. (18 - 25 years) 2. (26 – 35 years old) 3. (36 -45 years old) 4. (46 -55

years old) 5. (55 years and above)

Household size

1. 1-4, 2. 4-5, 3. 10-14, 4. 15-19

Years of formal education

1. 6 years, 2. 9 years, 3. 12 years, 4. 15 years, 5. 17 years

3 Years of farming experience

1. (1-10 year) 2. (11-20 years) 3. (21 – 30years) 4. (31 years and

above)

B. Perceptions of farmers on PHT

Perceptions

statements

5 =

Strongly

disagree

4 =

Agree

3 =

Undecided

2 =

disagree

1 =

Strongly

disagree

Adoption of post-

harvest

technologies is

Essential

Post-harvest

technologies

adoption is

necessary

Modern post-

harvest

technologies

adoption are

62

better than using

local tools

Post-harvest

technology

adoption reduces

post-harvest

activities stresses

in rice production

Post-harvest

technologies

should be

adopted

regardless of

costs

Adoption of post-

harvest

technologies

cannot reduce

post-harvest

losses of crops

Co-farmers

should be

discouraged from

adopting post-

harvest

technologies

Post-harvest

technologies

adoption can

raise farmers to

maximum

standard of living

63

Post-harvest

technologies

should be

adopted on a

permanent basis

Please tick your answer.

8 Do you think income level influences adoption of post harvesting techniques?

1=strongly disagree, 2= Disagree, 3= not sure, 4= Agree, 5= Strongly agree

9 To what extent do you think social status affects adoption of post harvesting

techniques?

1) Not at all 2) Small extent 3) Moderate 4) Great extent

10 What is the most social economic trait that affects perception to adopt post

harvesting techniques?

1. Income 2. Education 3.social status

C. Availability

Please tick your answer

11 There is availability of post harvesting techniques at Bahi district?

1. Yes 2. No

12 What are the most available post harvesting techniques in your

area…………………………………………………………………....

13 Because of the available post harvesting techniques the amount of rice increases

1. Agree 2. Not agree

14 To what extent do you agree on the usefulness of post harvesting techniques to

smallholder farmers


15 Because of applying post harvesting techniques I have been able to get any

64

property from money obtained from selling rice.

1= strong Disagree, 2= Disagree, Not sure, 4= Agree ,5= Strongly Agree

16 Among the post-harvest techniques, which one is mostly used in your area

1.Mini-combined harvester 2.threshing machine 3.storage handlings

4.marketing techniques

D. Cost

17 Do you think cost of applying post harvesting techniques influences perception

to adopt?


18 The cost of PHT is affordable to me

1. Yes 2. No (If yes mention the techniques you afford)

19 I will always have enough money to use PHT

1= strong Disagree, 2= Disagree, 3. Not sure, 4= Agree 5= Strongly Agree

20 To what extend do you think the cost of PHT affect your income


21 Do you receive any financial assistance on applying post harvesting techniques

1. Yes 2. No

22 What is the most costly stage to apply post-harvest techniques

1. Threshing 2. Drying 3. Storing 4.marketing

E. Risk

23 do you think are the risks associated to the adoption of post harvesting

techniques……………………………………………………….…

24 What is the most risk stage which requires adoption of post-harvest techniques

to reduce post harvesting losses……………………………………...

25 Mitigating the risk associated can influence farmers to adopt PHT.

65


26 What do you think should be done to reduce the risks

associated………………………………………….

66

Appendix 2

Interview checklist

1. Do you think social economic traits influences adoption of PHT?

2. What are the available post harvesting techniques in Bahi District?

3. Do you agree on the improving quality and quantity of the rice by adopting

PHT?

4. Do you think the introduced PHT are affordable to smallholder farmers?

5. To what extent do you agree on consistence of the available PHT to

smallholder farmers?

6. Do you have access to finance that assist you to adopt PHT?

7. What are the risk associate with adoption of post harvesting techniques to

smallholder?

8. What do you suggest on mitigating risks associated with adoption of PHT?