University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh QUANTITATIVE LOSS ESTIMATION OF RICE (Oryza sativa L.) DURING HARVESTING, IN-FIELD STACKING, THRESHING AND CLEANING IN THE AKATSI NORTH DISTRICT OF VOLTA REGION OF GHANA BY TSORTSI ETORNAM (10229882) THIS THESIS IS SUBMITTED TO THE UNIVERSITY OF GHANA, LEGON IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE AWARD OF MPHIL IN CROP SCIENCE (POSTHARVEST TECHNOLOGY) DEGREE. JULY, 2019 i University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ii University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ABSTRACT The knowledge and perception of farmers in the Akatsi North District of Volta region on harvest and postharvest losses in rice (Oryza sativa L.) during harvesting, in-field stacking, threshing and cleaning were assessed using semi-structured questionnaires. Data were collected on 40 farmers who were selected through a multi-stage, purposive, and simple random sampling methods from September 4 to November 23, 2018. Majority (75%) of farmers interviewed had no formal education on postharvest loss (PHL) assessment of paddy rice. Losses were therefore estimated by speculation, using number of bags as a measure. At least 60% of farmers agreed that the losses at the various points of handling were significant enough to reduce their total output. From the survey, the perceived average yield of farmers was 2.46 Mt/ha. The total perceived loss of farmer was 21.56%. In order to confirm or deny the farmers’ perceived losses of paddy, a verification field experiment was carried out on 8 farmer fields in three communities, including Ave-Afiadenyigba, Ave-Havi and Ave-Dakpa, to estimate the actual paddy yields and quantitative losses during harvesting, in-field stacking, threshing and cleaning of Jasmine 85 rice variety at two different harvesting times. These were recommended harvesting time at 35 days to harvest after heading (35 DHAH) and farmers’ actual days of harvesting. The field experiment recorded an average yield of 3.77 Mt/ha for the Recommended practice and 3.58 Mt/ha Farmers’ actual practice. The total losses at the two different times (35 DHAH and Farmers’ practice) were 6.38%, 7.65% respectively. To determine the possible changes that may occur in the total grain loss (TGL) across the study area, a Monte Carlos simulation of 10000 trials were performed on each loss variable with Latin Hypercube sampling. The changing scenarios in the TGL were described using a triangular probability distribution model. A sensitivity analysis was performed to determine the loss input variables that are likely to contribute most to the total grain loss. The probability distribution of losses across the study area at iii University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 95% level of significance suggested that farmers who harvest Jasmine 85 variety 35 days after 2 heading are likely to experience paddy loss within the range of 15.9 – 28.7 g/m while those harvesting at the farmers’ actual time are likely to encounter total losses ranging from 20.3 - 33.4 2 g/m . In general, harvesting was associated with highest paddy loss of 9.96% for farmers’ perceived losses, 2.63 % for 35 DHAH and 3.17% for farmers’ actual losses. However, in-field stacking, with 2 2 losses of 20.4 – 23.7 g/m and 24.9 – 28.6 g/m for recommended and farmers’ practices respectively, was identified in the sensitivity analysis as the loss input variable that is likely to contribute most to the total grain loss across the study area. Time of harvesting was however, perceived by farmers as a factor of very high influence on field losses. Reduction in food losses might therefore be achieved through harvesting at 35 days after heading alongside proper postharvest handling practices. iv University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh DEDICATION I dedicate this thesis to my wife, Ernestina Dzifa Tamakloe and my children; Josiah Dzidula Tsortsi and Erel Eyram Tsortsi for their prayers, encouragement and support in diverse ways during this study. v University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh ACKNOWLEDGFMFNTS I thank God for His grace, mercy and protection upon my life throughout the period of my studies. A heartfelt gratitude to my supervisors, Dr. V.Y. Eziah, and Dr. E.W. Cornelius for their constructive criticisms, guidance and patience, without which this work would not have attained its intended purpose and completion. I am very grateful. I am highly indebted to Mr. B.A. Boateng of Crop Science Department, University of Ghana, for his commitment to ensure that this thesis met the required standard. I specially acknowledge the unceasing love and support of my wife, Ernestina Dzifa Tamakloe and the entire family during the period of this work. I am most grateful. I thank Master Eric Joshua Akli for his support during the field work. My special appreciation to the A.G. Leventis Scholarship Foundation for the financial support offered for the success of this research work. I am sincerely grateful to my parents, Mr. Emmanuel Dika and Ms. Cecilia Nyadzi for their prayers. Special thanks go to Pastor Maxwell Gamli of Open Word Ministry, Ave-Havi, and the family for their spiritual, moral and physical support. Finally, I thank all my friends, colleagues, the farmers and all who offered help in diverse ways for the success of this work. God bless you richly. vi University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh TABLE OF CONTENTS Contents Page DECLARATION ........................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined. ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. iii DEDICATION ............................................................................................................................v ACKNOWLEDGFMFNTS ....................................................................................................... vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................... vii LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. xiii LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................. xv LIST OF PLATES ................................................................................................................... xvi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS.................................................................................................. xvii CHAPTER ONE .........................................................................................................................1 1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1 CHAPTER TWO ........................................................................................................................5 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................................5 2.1 The origin of rice plant ..........................................................................................................5 2.2 Overview of Rice Research in Ghana ....................................................................................6 2.3 Introduction of Jasmine 85 variety in Ghana ..........................................................................6 2.4 Economic Importance of Rice ...............................................................................................7 2.5.1 Production and Consumption in the World .........................................................................8 2.5.2 Production and Consumption in Africa ...............................................................................8 vii University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2.5.3 Production and Consumption in Ghana ...............................................................................9 2.5.4 Production in Volta Region .............................................................................................. 11 2.6 Harvest and Postharvest Handling Operations ..................................................................... 12 2.6.1 Harvesting ........................................................................................................................ 12 2.6.2 Threshing ......................................................................................................................... 12 2.6.3 Cleaning ........................................................................................................................... 13 2.7 Farmers’ Perception about Yield Losses of Rice at Farm Level ........................................... 13 2.7.1 Postharvest loss assessment .............................................................................................. 14 2.7.2 Harvesting losses .............................................................................................................. 15 2.7.4 Causes of Postharvest Losses ............................................................................................ 16 2.7.5 Importance of Postharvest Loss (PHL) Reduction ............................................................. 17 2.7.6 Factors Influencing Paddy Loss at the Farm Level ............................................................ 18 2.7.6.1 Weather Condition......................................................................................................... 18 2.7.6.2 Harvesting Time ............................................................................................................ 19 2.8 Challenges of Farmers ......................................................................................................... 19 2.8.1 Farmer Education ............................................................................................................. 19 2.8.2 Destruction Caused by Birds ............................................................................................ 21 2.8.3 Labour .............................................................................................................................. 21 3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS ......................................................................................... 23 3.1 The Study Area ................................................................................................................... 23 viii University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 3.3 Assessment of Knowledge and Perception of Farmers on Postharvest Losses ...................... 24 3.3.1 Survey .............................................................................................................................. 24 3.3.2 Sample and Sampling Procedure....................................................................................... 24 3.3.3 Data Collection................................................................................................................. 24 3.3.4 Analysis of the survey data ............................................................................................... 25 3. 4 Field Loss Estimation at the Recommended (35 days to harvest after heading – 35 DHAH) and Farmers’ Actual Harvesting Days (farmers’ practice) ................................................................ 25 3.4.1 Demarcation of Experimental Plots .................................................................................. 25 3.4.3 Harvesting and Yield Determination ................................................................................. 27 3.4.4 Harvesting Loss Determination......................................................................................... 27 3.4.5 Determination of In-Field Stacking Losses ....................................................................... 28 3.4.6 Determination of the Threshing Loss ................................................................................ 28 3.4.7 Determination of Cleaning Loss ....................................................................................... 29 3.4.8 Determination of Moisture Content of Paddy at Harvest ................................................... 29 3.4.9 Estimation of Field Losses ................................................................................................ 30 3.4.10 Analysis of Field Experimental Data .............................................................................. 30 3.5 Relative Contributions of the Loss Variables to the Total Grain Loss (TGL)………………30 3.5.Description of the model…………………………………………………………………….30 3.5.2 Specification of the Loss Input Variables……………………………………………… 32 3.5.3 Monte Carlos Simulation and Sensitivity Analysis………………………………………...34 ix University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER FOUR ..................................................................................................................... 35 4.0 RESULTS ........................................................................................................................... 35 4.1 Background Information about the Respondents .................................................................. 35 4.1.1 Demographic Characteristics of respondents..................................................................... 35 4.1.2 Farming Characteristics of Respondents ........................................................................... 35 4.1.2.1 Experience of Respondents in Rice Farming .................................................................. 35 4.1.2.2 Rice varieties cultivated ................................................................................................. 36 4.1.2.3 Farm Size and Sources of Labour .................................................................................. 36 4.1.2.4 Harvesting and Threshing Methods................................................................................ 37 4.1.2.5 Estimated Levels of Output at Community Level ........................................................... 38 4.1.3 Assessment of Knowledge and Perception of Farmers on Postharvest Losses ................... 39 4.1.3.1 Education on loss assessment......................................................................................... 39 4.1.3.2 Perceived Harvest losses ................................................................................................ 39 4.1.3.3 Perceived Threshing Losses ........................................................................................... 40 4.1.3.4 Perceived In-Field Stacking Losses................................................................................ 40 4.1.3.5 Perception of Farmers on Losses at Farm Level ............................................................. 41 4.1.3.6 The Overall Perceived Average Yield Loss by Respondents .......................................... 42 4.1.3.7 Factors Influencing Losses in the Field and Challenges Encountered by Farmers in the Study Area .................................................................................................................................... …..43 4.1.3.8 Measures adopted to Reduce Losses at Farm Level ........................................................ 44 x University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.2 Estimation of Field Losses at 35 Days to Harvest after Heading (35 DHAH) and Farmers’ Actual Days of Harvesting (Variable Days) .......................................................................................... 45 4.2.2 Paddy Losses at the Recommended Harvesting Time (35 days to harvest after Heading -35 DHAH) ..................................................................................................................................... 46 4.2.3 Losses Associated with the Farmers’ Actual harvesting Days (farmers’ practice) ............. 48 4.2.4 Comparison of Source of Paddy Losses for the Recommended Practice, Farmers’ Actual Practice and Farmers’ Perception .............................................................................................. 50 4.3.1 Distribution of Days to Harvest after Heading .................................................................. 53 4.3.2 Distribution of Total Grain Loss ....................................................................................... 53 4.3.3 Contributions of the Loss Input Variables to the Total Grain Loss (TGL) ......................... 54 4.3.4 Total Grain Loss. Day (TGLD) ......................................................................................... 55 CHAPTER FIVE ...................................................................................................................... 57 5.0 DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................... 57 5.1 Demographic Characteristics of the Rice Farmers ................................................................ 57 5.1.2 Knowledge and Perception of Farmers about Harvest and Postharvest Losses of Rice ...... 57 5.3 Contributions of Loss Input Variables to the Total Grain Loss (TGL) .................................. 63 CHAPTER SIX ......................................................................................................................... 65 6.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ............................................................... 65 6.1 Conclusion ............................................................................................................ ,,,…..65 6.2 Recommendations .................................................................................... ……………..66 xi University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh APPENDICES……………………………………………………………………………………77 APPENDIX I: QUESTIONNAIRE ON QUANTITATIVE LOSS ASSESSMENT DURING POSTHARVEST HANDLING OF PADDY RICE IN AKATSI NORTH DISTRICT OF VOLTA REGION. .............................................................................................................................. …77 APPENDIX II: TABLES .................................................................................................... …81 xii University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh LIST OF TABLES Table 2.1 Annual production of major cereal crops, (‘000mt) in Ghana…………………………….10 Table 2.2 Rice Production and Import in Ghana…………………………………………………….11 Table 4.1 Demographic characteristics of Respondents…………………………………………….35 Table 4.2 Farm Sizes and Sources of Labour for Production……………………………………….37 Table 4.3 Harvesting and threshing methods used by rice farmers…………………………………37 Table 4.4 Mean Yields of Paddy at the Community Level………………………………………….38 Table 4.5 Summary of Paddy Losses at the Points of Assessment as Perceived by Respondents………………………………………………………………………………………….41 Table 4.6 Summary of Overall Average Yield Loss Perceived by Respondents…………………..42 Table 4.7 Perception of Farmers on Factors Influencing Loss of Paddy in the Field ……………....43 Table 4.8 Challenges that Farmers Encounter in Rice Production in the Study Area ………….......44 Table 4.9 Average paddy yield at Recommended and the Farmers’ Actual Days for Harvesting............................................................................................................................. ...............45 Table 4.10 Losses at the Four Points of Assessment for Recommended Harvesting Time (35 days after heading – 35 DAH)…………………………………………………………….47 Table 4.11 Contributions of Shattered Grains, Incomplete Cutting of Panicles, Scattered Grains and Unthreshed Grains at Recommended Harvesting Date to Total Grain Yield Loss………………….47 Table 1.12 The Overall Losses at the Four (4) Points of Assessment for Recommended Practice (35DHAH)………...............................................................................................................................48 Table 4.13 Paddy Loss at the Four Major Points of Assessment for Farmers’ Practice…………….49 xiii University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Table 4.14 Relative Contributions of Shattered Grains, Incomplete Cutting of Panicles, Scattered Grains and Unthreshed Grains to Total Paddy Loss (farmers’ practice).............................................49 Table4.15 Overall Yield Losses at the Four Major Points of Assessment for Farmers’ Practice……………………………………………………………………………………………….50 Table 4.16 The Overall Losses at the Four Different Points of Assessment for Recommended, Farmers’ Actual Harvesting Time and Farmers’ Estimate (Perceived losses)……………………..50 Table 4.17 Level of losses after 10000 trial simulation (35DAH)…………………………………..52 Table 4.18 Level of losses after 10000 trial simulation (Farmers’ practice)……………………......52 xiv University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1 Conceptual pathway model of the TGLD index………………………………………32 Figure 4.1 Experiences of Respondents in Rice Farming…………………………………………35 Figure 4.2 Perceived level of output per hectare………………………………………………….38 Figure 4.3 Perceived harvesting losses……………………………………………………………39 Figure 4.4 Perceived threshing losses……………………………………………………………..40 Figure 4.5 Perceived intermediary piling losses…………………………………………………..41 Figure 4.6 Perception of respondents on the levels of losses……………………………………...42 Figure 4.7 Measures adopted to reduce paddy loss at farm level…………………………………44 Figure 4.8 Comparisons of yield levels for the two harvesting times at the eight farms………....45 Figure 4.9 Comparison of yield losses for recommended practice, farmers’ practice and farmers’ Perception………………………………………………………………………………………….51 Figure 4.10 Probability distribution of days to harvest after heading at 95% likelihood…………53 Figure 4.11 Probability distribution of total grain loss at 35 DHAH (95% probability)…………..54 Figure 4.12 Probability distribution of total grain loss for farmers’ actual practice (95% probability)…………………………………………………………………………………………54 Figure 4.13 Relative contributions of input variables to Total Grain Loss (35 DHAH)……………55 Figure 4.14 Relative contributions of Input Variables to Total Grain Loss (Farmers’ practice)…..55 Figure 4.15 Total Loss . Day of the Loss Input Variables (35 DHAH)……………………….........56 Figure 4.16 Total Loss. Day of the Loss Input Variables (Farmers’ practice)……………………...56 xv University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh LIST OF PLATES Plate 3.1 Demarcated Pair of 3m x 3m Quadrat…………………………………………………......26 Plate 3.2 Collection of shattered grains.............................................................................................27 Plate 3.3 Harvested straw………………………………………………………………………........28 Plate 3.4 Dropped paddy on tarpaulin………………………………………………………………..28 Plate 3.5 A farmer threshing paddy….............................................................................................29 Plate 3.6 Re-threshing of the residual kernels……………………………………………………….29 xvi University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS CARD Coalition for African Rice Development CRI Crops Research Institute CSIR Council of Scientific and Industrial Research DHAH Day to Harvest after Heading EUCORD European Cooperative for Rural Development FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FAOSTAT Food and Agriculture Organization Corporate Statistical Database GAP Good Agricultural Practices GDP Gross Domestic Product GRiSP Global Rice Science Partnership HRR Head Rice Recovery HRY Head Rice Yield IDRC International Development Research Centre IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IRRI International Rice Research Institute ISSER Institute of Statistical, Social and Economic Research, xvii University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh MoFA Ministry of Food and Agriculture NERIC New Rice for Africa PDF Probability Density Function PFJ Planting for Food and Job PHL Postharvest Loss PHLs Postharvest Losses SARI Savannah Agricultural Research Institute SRID Statistical Research Institute Department SSA Sub-Saharan Africa TGL Total Grain Loss TGLD Total Grain Loss Day TLs Total Losses U.N. United Nations WARDA West Africa Rice Development Association xviii University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER ONE 1.0 INTRODUCTION Rice (Oriza spp.) is the most widely cultivated cereal in the world after wheat and the most important food crop for approximately half of the world’s population (IRRI, 2009a). Rice is an important cash crop in communities in which it is grown (Angelucci et al., 2013). The crop is the main cereal next to maize and sorghum produced in Ghana with increasing consumption due to growth in population, urbanization and change in consumer habits (MoFA, 2009). Rice is produced in all the ten regions of Ghana, covering all the major ecological-climatic zones, including the Interior Savannah zone, the High Rain Forest zone, the Semi-deciduous Rain Forest zone and the Coastal Savannah zone (Oteng, 1997). There are different rice ecologies made up of Rainfed dry/upland, Rainfed lowlands or hydromorphic, Inland swamps and valley bottoms and irrigated ecology in each agro-ecological zone. The rainfed ecology (drylands and lowlands) occupies about 75 percent of the production area, the irrigated ecology accounts for 10 percent and the inland swamps and valley bottoms also accounting for 15 percent (Oteng, 1997). Different rice varieties may thrive in any of these ecosystems Some rice varieties grown in the Rainfed dry/upland ecology are NERICA 1, NERICA 2, OX 3108 (Sikamo; GR 22) and EMO TEAA (IDSA85). Those cultivated in Rainfed lowland or hydromorphic ecology include JASMINE 85 (SAR-RICE 2; Gbewaa; Lapez), NABOGO RICE, GR 21 (TOX 515-19-SLR), Sakai (ITA-324), Bodia (ITA-320), Wakatsuki (Bouake 189), Marshall (Amankwatia), DIGANG (Abirikukuo or Aberikukugo), GR 20 (IR 1750-F5-B5), GRUG7, GR 18 (Afife) and OX 3108 (Sikamo; GR 22). Inland swamps and valley bottoms varieties are FARO 15, GR 17 1 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh (IET 2885) and KATANGA RICE while Irrigation ecology is identified as a favourable environment for JASMINE 85 (SAR-RICE 2; Gbewaa; Lapez) (Ragasa et al., 2013). The annual production of rice (paddy) in Ghana rose from 185,000 metric tonnes in 2007 to 688,000 metric tonnes in 2016 while milled rice rose from 111,000 metric tonnes to 475,000 metric tonnes over the same period (SRID-MoFA, 2016). The top five production regions were Volta, Ashanti, Eastern, Upper East and Northern with Volta region recording the highest average production value of 206,908.45 metric tonnes (SRID-MoFA, 2016). Production of rice in the Volta region stretches from the Northern part to the southern part with production areas including South Tongu, North Tongu, Central Tongu, Ketu North, Akatsi South, Ho Municipal, Afadzato South, Hohoe Municipal, Jasikan, Biakoye, Kadjebi, Nkwanta th South and Akatsi North (http://www.ricehub.org/GH/volta/, 24 October, 2018), where this study was conducted. The production environment of the study area is mainly rainfed lowland ecosystem. The common varieties of rice grown in the study area were Jasmine 85, Togo marshal and Agra with Jasmine 85 being the most widely cultivated one. The basic field production practices adopted by farmers were land preparation with minimum tillage, broadcasting method of planting, chemical weed control, fertilizer application, scaring of birds and to a lesser extent, disease control. In spite of the various rice ecosystems in Ghana, local rice production is far less than consumption. Per capital consumption rose from 39.2 kg to 45kg between 1985 and 2010 with no equivalent increase in production, leading to high imports to meet demand (Tanko, 2016). Ghana is about 30% self-sufficient in rice production, producing about 150,000 metric tonnes (MoFA, 2015). As a result rice constituted 58% of all cereal imports in Ghana (CARD, 2010). 2 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Low yields, high harvest and postharvest losses may account for the high importation. Postharvest losses comprise all changes in the palatability, wholesomeness or quality of food that prevents it from being consumed by people (Lindbland, 1978). It also denotes disappearance of the food. These losses occur during drying, winnowing, storing, milling and transportation and could be measured in economic, quantitative, qualitative or nutritional terms. Harvesting and postharvest losses are usually high among small-scale rural farmers due to delayed harvesting and improper handling of rice at the primary processing stages. The best time to harvest rice is between 28 and 35 days after heading and 32 and 38 days after heading in dry and wet seasons respectively depending on the variety (IRRI, http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/training/fact-sheets/item/when-to-har. Accessed June 17. 2018). Timely harvesting and proper handling is therefore crucial in rice production to achieve maximum grain yield and minimize loss of grains and quality deterioration (IRRI 2015 and Amposah et al., 2018). Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations (U.N.) stated about 1.3 billion tonnes of food are globally wasted or lost yearly (Gustavasson et al., 2011 . Postharvest loss assessment of rice in Ghana has faced many challenges including insufficient data on production levels and the magnitude of losses that usually occur with regards to what, where and why the losses occur in the production system (Appiah et al., 2011). However, rice production is given more attention than its loss reduction in Ghana (Kader & Rolle, 2004; Martins, 2013). With estimated postharvest loss of rice for Ghana ranging between 6.3 -19.1% (Kwame et al., 2013), it is necessary that equal attention is given to both production and postharvest loss reduction. Assessment of farmers’ knowledge on yield gaps and postharvest losses is, therefore, vital to identifying and understanding losses at the various points of postharvest chain at the farm level. 3 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Food loss assessment is also important to quantify the main causes of food losses, analyzing the economic impact of the losses and finding solutions to reduce them. In addition, it is a useful tool for making concrete proposals to formulate a food loss reduction programme (FAO, 2016). A study on loss estimation of rice is therefore useful as it will help farmers to appreciate the levels of losses that occur at different times of harvesting rice and during postharvest handling operations and how to minimize these losses. Understanding farmers’ perception about losses at the various stages of production will also help stakeholders in directing efforts and resources toward loss reduction so as to increase production. This study aimed at estimating field quantitative loss during handling of paddy rice in the Akatsi North District of Volta region. The specific objectives were as follows: i. to assess the knowledge and perception of farmers on losses in rice during harvesting, in-field stacking, threshing and cleaning. ii. to estimate losses in rice harvested at recommended 35 days after heading and at the Farmer’s actual harvesting time (Farmers’ practice). iii. to predict the likely contributions of harvesting, threshing, infield stacking, cleaning and day to harvest to total grain loss across the farms of the study area. 4 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER TWO 2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 The origin of rice plant Rice (Oryza sativa L.) is an annual plant belonging to the family Graminae or Poaceae (Agropedia, 2009) and closely related to bamboos but distantly related to the major cereals’ maize, wheat, and sorghum (Vaughan,1994). From germination, the plant may take 3 to 6 months to mature based on the variety and the ecological zone (Ranawake et al.,2013). The rice plant has prominent vegetative part made of the roots, culms and leaves and the floral part solely made up of the spikelet that support its life cycle. It undergoes a series of developmental processes which start from the emergence of coleoptile to the formation of hard dough on the panicle. Generally, the developmental cycle is categorized as vegetative and reproductive periods. The vegetative phase includes emergence, seedling development, tillering, internodes elongation, culm development. The reproductive phase entails prebooting, booting, heading, grain filling and the maturity stage (Dunand and Saichuk, 2009). After a complete vegetative stage, the plant bears a terminal shoot called the inflorescence (floral part), also known as panicle. The genus Oryza consists of 24 species, with two domesticated species. These are the Asian rice, Oryza sativa, which originated in southern and eastern Asia and most widely cultivated rice species in the world and the African rice, Oryza glaberrima, which originated in western Africa. There are two subspecies of Asian rice; japonica and indica, although five distinct groups are suggested to be recognized within O. sativa by more recent genetics (Garris et al., 2005). 5 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2.2 Overview of Rice Research in Ghana Development of new varieties of crops, among others, is one important way to increase agriculture productivity. Use of improved crop varieties results either in increased yields or reduced use of inputs to maintain initial output level. Accordingly, development and introduction of new and improved varieties has become the focus for crop breeders, researchers, and policy- maker to address the challenge of low productivity. Extensive cultivation of rice in Ghana has led to the development of several varietal types. Rice research program in Ghana is mainly conducted by both Crops Research Institute (CRI) and the Savannah Agricultural Research Institute (SARI).of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) (IFPRI, 2013). Soil and Irrigation Research Centre, (SIREC) of University of Ghana at Kpong is another research centre making great contributions to development of rice research in Ghana. In 2014, Bruce et al. explored the effect of improved rice seed adoption on output compared to the adoption of traditional varieties in Ghana. The study demonstrated that the use of improved seeds significantly increased output. 2.3 Introduction of Jasmine 85 variety in Ghana Several studies have indicated that consumers in Ghana prefer rice with aromatic trait such as Jasmine 85 over those with non-aromatic traits (Abansi et al.,1992; Damardjati and Oka, 1992; Untong et al., 2010). Jasmine 85 is an aromatic rice variety developed in Thailand in 1966 by Doctor Ben Jackson, a rice breeder in the International Rice Research Institute. In 1989, the USDA in the collaboration with IRRI, University of Arkansas, Louisiana State University, and Texas A&M University, released Jasmine 85 to American farmers. The registration number of this variety is CV-107, PI 595927 and it is characterized as Irrigated and rain-fed Lowland rice (Oluyemi, 2014). This variety was introduced in the system of Ghana’s Savana Agricultural 6 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Research Institute (CSIR-SARI) in 1998. The variety has been chosen because of its characteristic aroma, grain size and grain length (Diako et al., 2011). The variety also has a potential high yield of about 4.5 – 8 tons per hectare and matures within 110 – 120 days. This has made it the most preferred rice variety for rice farmers (Ragasa et al., 2013). The Aroma in Jasmine 85 is attributed to the presence of 2-acetyle-1-pyrroline (2AP) (Napasintuwong, 2012; Oluyemi, 2014). Different sources of Jasmine 85 are produced in Ghana. A cluster analysis run on the morphological and physico-chemical data gave four clusters; (GBEWAA and TONO), (SARI), (PV), (KIP, CRI, ARI, DARTEY). The molecular data on the other hand gave three clusters: ( TONO, DARTEY,PV), (SARI,ARI, CRI), (KIP, GDEWAA) (Oluyemi, 2014). 2.4 Economic Importance of Rice Rice, wheat and maize are cereals widely used as food in the world (Kumar and Kalita, 2017). Rice supplies about 20% of the calories needed to over three billion people depending on it as staple food worldwide (Saed et al., 2011). The crop has also become one of the preferred foods that provide the Africa’s growing population with bulk of dietary energy. According to Kassali et al. (2010), as cited by Aremu and Akinwamide (2018), rice accounts for 715/cal/caput/day, 27 percent of nutritional protein and 3 percent of nutritional fat. In addition, rice also provides raw material for industrial use. In West Africa, the crop is an important food for households and for the domestic economy (Togola et al., 2010). Growth in population and change in food habit of people have led to increased consumption of rice in Ghana (MoFA, 2009). As a result, rice constitutes 58% of cereal imports in Ghana (CARD, 2010). The role of rice in the development of the economy of Ghana cannot be 7 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh underestimated. Institute of Statistical, Social and Economic Research (ISSER, 2000) reported that rice contributed nearly 15% of the gross domestic product (GDP) of the country. 2.5 Rice Production and Consumption 2.5.1 Production and Consumption in the World Almost half of the world’s population depends on rice as staple food crop (IRRI, 2009a). The current world population of 7.7 billion is projected to grow to around 9.7 billion in 2050 (United Nations, 2019). According to FAO (2019), the world's rice consumption is projected to expand to 503.9 million tonnes (milled basis) in 2018. Meanwhile the global paddy production forecast by FAO in 2017 (756.7 million tonnes) has been raised by 2.9 million tonnes to 759.6 million tonnes (503.9 million tonnes, milled basis). The ever-increasing world’s population coupled with the increasing food demand suggests that practical approaches need to be identified to meet consumption requirement. To meet the global demand for rice, production is forecast to grow by 1.4 percent. This will result in annual expansion of output by 10.3 million tonnes to a new production level of 769.9 million tonnes (510.6 million tonnes, milled basis) (FAO, 2018). 2.5.2 Production and Consumption in Africa In developing countries, cereals supply about 60 % of total calories consumed of which rice is the most important source (Awika et al.,2011). Rice is an important food crop in Africa where activities related to its production, handling and consumption are extensively considered a solution for the development of the economy, food security, and reduction of poverty (Tollens, 2006; Velde et al., 2014; Demont et al., 2015). It is the food product mostly demanded and traded in very large quantities on the continent (Tollens, 2006; Laroche et al., 2013). While the consumption of rice in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) has significantly shot up since 1995 and 8 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh growing faster than in any other part of the world, per capita consumption in parts of Asia is declining (Mohanty, 2013). Over the past 50 years, rice imports in Africa grew 2 % yearly and reached 43 % in 2009. About one-third (11.8 million tonnes) of rice was reported to have been imported by African countries in 2011 as compared to 0.5 million tonnes in 1961 (Nasrin et al., 2015). The estimated import bill for Africa was US $4.3 billion annually (Nakano et al., 2013). Faced with rapid population growth and growing per capita rice consumption, policy makers of Africa countries have the option of either importing more rice or expanding production per unit area or combination of the options to meet the growing demand. (Van Oort et al., 2015). There had been efforts to increase production through area expansion and increase in productivity since 2000 in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). However, achieving self-sufficiency has not been realized so far (van Oort et al., 2015). Demand has persistently exceeded local supply for the past 50 years (WARDA, 2007; FAO, 2012; IRRI, 2012), suggesting self-insufficiency in rice production of most SSA countries (van Oort et al., 2015). Meanwhile, the population and per-capita rice consumption are projected to increase significantly (UN, 2014). This implies that either more land area is cultivated or more imports of rice or combination of the two will be needed, if growth in yields cannot cater for the increasing consumption (Van Oort et al., 2015). 2.5.3 Production and Consumption in Ghana The agricultural sector is vital for human survival. The sector is noted for supplying food for domestic use, industrial raw materials and generation of income for communities and households that engage in production activities all over the world. Crop production has been a livelihood option for many, especially the rural communities in Ghana. Among the major crops cultivated in Ghana, rice has been noted as the second largest cereal consumed after corn (Ashitey and Archibald, 2018) and one of the most cultivated cereal in the country (Taiwo and Bart-Plange, 9 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2016). The domestic production, 185,000 metric tonnes in 2007, increased to 688,000 metric tonnes in 2016 (Table 2.1). Although there has been a rise in domestic production, consumption still far exceeded local production. The commodity was reported to constitute 58% of all the country’s cereal imports (CARD, 2010). The share of domestic rice production decreased from 55% in 2014 to 44% in 2016 and later increased slightly to 47% in 2017 (Table 2.2). The increase in production within the period was due to improved yield per unit area. Recently, the government has promoted the local rice production through the Planting for Food and Job (PFJ).Input supply (seed rice and fertilizers) and extension activities have been increased (MoFA, 2017). Increase importation of rice in Ghana is attributed to taste and preferences of consumers for foreign rice over the years. With high annual average import bill of US$376 million, extra effort is required to cut down the level of rice importation (MoFA, 2017). Table 2.1 Annual productions of major cereal crops, (‘000mt) in Ghana CROP 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Maize 1,220 1,470 1,620 1,872 1,683 1,950 1,764 1,769 1,692 1,722 Millet 113 194 246 219 183 180 155 155 157 159 Rice(paddy) 185 302 391 492 463 481 570 604 641 688 Rice(milled)* 111 181 235 295 278 332 393 417 443 475 Sorghum 155 331 351 324 287 280 257 259 263 230 Total 1673 2297 2608 2907 2616 2891 2746 2785 2754 2799 Source: SRID-MoFA (2011) 10 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Table 2.2 Rice Production and Import in Ghana Item 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Transit (@15% 76,288 96,650 62,041 93,122 104,659 98,434.81 Import Total Imports 508,587 644,334 413,609 620,811 697,728 656,232.06 Imports Available 432,299 547,684 351,568 527,689 593,069 557,797.25 (Total less Transit) Domestic Milled 331,898 392,972 422,829 443,000 474,49 8 497,018 Rice (@69% Extraction Rate) Total Rice 940,656 774,397 970,689 764,197 1,067,5 1,054,815 Available (MT) 67 Share to Total Supply by Source 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016* 2017 Domestic Rice 43% 42% 55% 46% 44% 47% Imports 57% 58% 45% 54% 56% 53% Source: Agricultural Sector Progress Report (MoFA, 2017) 2.5.4 Production in Volta Region Volta region is noted for rice production on a large scale in Ghana. The region recorded the highest average production value of 206,908.45 metric tonnes among the top five rice producing regions in the country (SRID -MoFA, 2016). Rice in the region is cultivated under rainfed and irrigated ecologies. Afife Irrigation Project in the Ketu-North District and the Aveyime Irrigation Project in North Tongu are located in the region and are well-known for large scale production (Taiwo and Bart-Plange, 2016). 11 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2.6 Harvest and Postharvest Handling Operations 2.6.1 Harvesting Timely harvesting of paddy is crucial to prevent crop loss and ensure quality grain for high market value. It is a vital operation that can increase the quantity of paddy rice (Alizadeh and Allameh, 2013). Ali et al. (1990) and Hossain et al. (2009) investigated the effect of harvesting time and indicated that it had a great impact on paddy moisture content and head rice yield (HRY). Paddy with lower moisture content than the optimum level will result in high percentage broken grains. The optimum moisture content to harvest paddy ranges between 15% and 22% (Nalley et al., 2016). The best time to harvest rice is determined based on both, the head rice yield (HRY) and the physicochemical and nutritional characteristics such as moisture content, protein content, milling suitability, and taste (Asano et al., 2000) as cited by Hoon Kim et al., (2016). Harvesting at 28 to 35 days after heading in the dry season and 32 to 38 days after heading in the wet season are the recommended optimum times of harvest for optimum grain yield. Harvesting too early will cause low yield as a result of a higher percentage of unfilled or immature grains (IRRI, 2013). Delayed harvesting also increases grain and panicle shattering and lodging of rice stalks (Mohammad et al., 2013). 2.6.2 Threshing Threshing involves detachment of the paddy rice from the panicle either by rubbing, impact or stripping (Muhammad and Shahid, 2010). Threshing methods vary with individual farmer based on the scale of production. Threshing is generally done manually or mechanically. Manual threshing is done either by beating bunches of panicles against hard elements such as wooden box (bambam), logs and tables or by treading the panicle underfoot by humans or animals (Food 12 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Agency Organization 1995) cited by Olugboji (2004). Others are Hand-held threshers and pedal operated threshers. Currently motorized threshing machines are gradually being replaced by combine-harvesters in Ghana (QUAYE, 2016). A study conducted by Amponsah et tal. (2018) across three agro- ecological zones of Ghana (coastal savannah, forest and guinea savannah) showed that over 50% of the farmers used combine harvester for threshing, 36% used the threshing by impact “bambam” method, 11% bag beating and 2% used mechanical threshers. Threshing may have effect on rice quantity, quality and must therefore be considered an important operation in the production process (Alizadeh and Bagheri, 2009; Alizadeh and Allameh, 2013). The method of threshing may vary with location. Manual threshing, though associated with lower cost, may lead to as high as 20-30% quantitative and qualitative losses (Rickman et al., 2013), depending on the type of method used (Guisse, 2010). In Malaysia, a threshing loss was estimated between 5% - 13% while the Philippines experienced 2% - 6% loss (FAO, 2007). 2.6.3 Cleaning Cleaning is important in improving quality and safe storage. Grain loss and lower head rice yield (HRY) occur when there is improper cleaning. Bulkiness in subsequent postharvest handling operations is reduced when paddy cleaning is well done. Cleaning may be done manually with wind energy or mechanically (Madhu et al., 2013). 2.7 Farmers’ Perception about Yield Losses of Rice at Farm Level Understanding how farmers perceive losses that occur during harvesting and handling is essential in identifying the levels of yield gaps and postharvest loss awareness (Abass et al., 13 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 2014). Postharvest losses (PHLs) are combination of factors which influence farmers’ interaction with technologies or practices and the perspective in which they function (World Bank, 2011; Kagbu et al., 2016) and perception is pivotal in this phenomenon. Postharvest loss perceptions are defined as inherent factors such as attitudes, values and beliefs about PHLs that influence farmers’ willingness to reduce the losses (Martin et al., 2014). Sebaggala et al. (2017) argued that PHLs on the field are as a result of farmers practices or behaviours based on their norms and belief, thus they have the ability to reduce them. Efforts to reduce PHLs can only happen if the losses are recognized by farmers as a problem affecting them and their involvement is needed to reduce the losses. Farmers who understand that their income and availability of food are affected greatly by PHLs will show the desire to accept new knowledge and technologies to cut down the losses (Rogers, 1995; Seline et al., 2015). This implies that those farmers who do not consider it as a problem that affect their livelihood significantly may continue with their traditional practices. 2.7.1 Postharvest loss assessment The international standard of measuring grain loss is by weight loss because it helps to quantify the national effect of losses and also to compare losses across the various regions and years (De Lima, 1979a). Grain weight loss may be estimated by either collecting and weighing shattered, split and scattered grains during postharvest operations such as harvesting, threshing and transport or by measuring the weight of the remaining grains after a postharvest activity such as storage where portions of the grains may be consumed by pests (Hodges et al., 2012). A lot of commitment has been made over the years to increase agricultural production, yet inadequate attention has been paid to reduction in postharvest losses, especially in cereals (Hodges et al., 2011; Affognon et al., 2015). Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, 2011) recorded a loss of 14 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 13.5% of the total cereal production, including rice, during postharvest handling and distribution in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Yet rice is a major staple food, feeding about half of the world’s population (EUCORD, 2012). In view of that, food security can only be enhanced through investment in PHL reduction (Affognon et al., 2015). Postharvest losses affect livelihood of people engaging in agriculture production and must therefore be measured in economic, quantitative, qualitative or nutritional terms (FAO, 2007). Spoilage, caused by inadequate modern transport and storage facilities, finance, managerial skills and limited technology for postharvest handling, under difficult climatic conditions, are contributing factors of high losses at the postharvest and processing stage in developing countries (Gustavsson et al., 2011). Estimates showed that postharvest losses of food grains in developing world for mishandling and spoilage claimed between 25% and 40% of food crops produced (Saunders et al., 1980; Sadiya and Hassan, 2018). 2.7.2 Harvesting losses Timely harvesting and proper handling of rice are crucial to get the best yield out of the rice production and also reduce grain losses and deterioration in quality (IRRI, 2015). Physical grain losses occur during cutting of rice stalks, piling of the cut stalks in smaller heaps and when transporting the stalks to main threshing floor (Candia et al., 2012). Improper methods of harvesting and threshing might lead to losses of up to 5% of grains (IDRC, 1976). In some cases, these losses may increase up to 10% (Hodges and Maritime, 2012). FAO (1989) attributed about 25% of postharvest losses of rice to mishandling rough rice and the untimely manner of harvesting. Harvesting and postharvest losses may also differ for the same variety of rice and environment. For instance, Appiah et al. (2011) estimated that harvesting losses in rice were 1.39% and 2.93% for panicle harvesting and sickle-harvesting methods respectively. Threshing 15 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh losses were 6.14% for ‘bambam’ method, 2.45% in the bag beating method while harvesting losses ranged between 3.03% and 12.05% at farmer’s fields 2.7.3 Threshing loss Grain loss due to beating with sticks occurs because of incomplete removal of grains from the rice straw pinnacles and scattering of grains due to the impact force (Candia et al., 2012) and also, when the bundles are lifted just before threshing. It may also occur when grains stick in the mud floor. Manual threshing method can lead to quantitative and qualitative losses as high as 20- 30% (Rickman et al., 2013), depending on the type of method used (Guisse, 2010). However, it is popularly used due to its associated low cost. The threshing losses recorded for NERICA variety in bag beating method was 0.53 - 4.07% (Appiah et al., 2010). Loss due to scattered paddy in using the Fomena hand operated rice thresher in Ashanti region of Ghana was 7.7% (Duah, 2017). Also, a “Bambam” box method, in a study conducted by Ramatoulaye (2010), recorded a loss of 6.14%. In Malaysia, a threshing loss was estimated between 5% - 13% while the Philippines suffered 2% - 6% loss (FAO, 2007). 2.7.4 Causes of Postharvest Losses Scale of loss of grain at various points of the supply chains may differ with respect to the agricultural practices, climatic conditions of a region and handling of the produce until the final stage of use. These losses may generally happen as a result of socio-economic, biological, chemical, mechanical and environmental factors (Harris and Lindblad, 1978). A number of these factors may combine to influence losses at any point in time (Lantin, 1999). Environmental causes responsible for harvest and postharvest losses of rice include insects, vermin, moulds, temperature, weather conditions and humidity (Global Strategy, 2015). High temperature is 16 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh noted for reducing rice yield (Ziska and Bunce, 1998). The effect was thought to be due to higher loss of carbon through increased respiration. High temperature has been reported to increase yield (Welch et al., 2010), most probably through improving accumulation of assimilates, lower respiration, higher tillering, leaf-area expansion, stem elongation, faster grain filling, and crop phonological development (Peng et al., 2004). Saunders et al. (1978) as cited by Sadiya et al. (2018) reported that lack of adequate processing equipment causes as much as 40% loss of the total production in rice. Shatterability and yield are some of the factors considered as biological causes of losses in rice. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, 1989) as cited by Taiwo (2012), stated delayed harvesting, heavy use of traditional methods of threshing, heavy rainfall during harvesting and drying seasons as factors that significantly influence losses. Moisture contents, storage structure, biological and micro-biological factors are critical factors influencing losses (Samajpati and Sheikh, 1980). Storing at reduced moisture contents of about 13% prolong the storage life and maintains viability of seeds while safe storage life of rice is reduced when moisture content is 16% or higher (Michael, 1978). Christensen (1974) added that rice is safely stored when moisture content is in equilibrium with 70% or less relative humidity. It was reported by Alam et al. (2007) that about 2.33% loss of rice grains occurred due to storage structure. Hall (1970) identified beetles and moths as main storage pests that cause losses and deterioration of stored rice in the tropical countries. 2.7.5 Importance of Postharvest Loss (PHL) Reduction Market value of crops is reduced through weight and quality loss which can render the crop less suitable for human use (Fox, 2013). Thus, postharvest loss reduction is critical in enhancing food security. For efficient reduction in losses it is imperative to know the pattern and levels of these 17 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh losses as they occur in the production system across the world (Kumar and Kalita, 2017; Appiah et al., 2011). About one-third of the food produced in the world (about 1.3 billion tonnes), worth $1 trillion, is lost during postharvest operations yearly (Gustavsson et al., 2011). Hence, a cut down in postharvest loss (PHL) of grains will allow farmers to retain more of their produce to increases supply of grains (Goldsmith et al., 2015). Reduction in grain loss will also make more food available for human utilization, improve global food security and also improve real income for consumers (Mundial, 2008; Trostle, 2010; World Bank, 2011). Further, minimizing postharvest losses will help cut down rice import bills. This suggests that PHL reduction will be a very important economic driver of countries whose growth and development revolve around agricultural industry. 2.7.6 Factors Influencing Paddy Loss at the Farm Level 2.7.6.1 Weather Condition Increasing temperatures and uncertainty of rainfall caused by changes in climate is a threat to agriculture production worldwide (Fisher et al., 2015). The projection of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for 2050 indicated that irregular rainfall, rise in temperature, flooding and droughts, might reduce rice and wheat production by 8 and 23% (Cancelliere et al., 2007) as cited by Rahman et al.(2017). Therefore, a better knowledge about the effects of climatic factors on quality of rice will provide information for breeding and developing new varieties of rice that can adapt to change in climate (Xiangqian and Melissa, 2013). One of the challenges of increasing production of rice is global warming which leads to decline in yield of rice (Peng, 2004; Welch, 2010). Higher minimum temperature was noted to reduce the output of rice (Ziska and Bunce, 1998). In contrast, higher maximum temperature showed increase in yield (Welch et al., 2010). Temperature rise affects both yield and quality of grains. 18 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Chalkiness was found to increase with increasing temperatures both in the day and night. This reduces the quantity of polished and marketable rice through increased grain breakages during dehulling and polishing, leading to a decrease in the amount of acceptable or marketable polished rice (Fitzgerald and Resurreccion, 2009) 2.7.6.2 Harvesting Time Head rice yield (HRY) is significantly affected by harvesting such that harvesting paddy rice at optimum moisture content is required to achieve the best HRY. Paddy harvested at moisture content lower than the acceptable level, will have the percentage broken rice increase significantly (Hossain et al., 2009). Determination of optimum harvest time is crucial for maximizing head rice yield. When harvesting is delayed, grains shatter and fissures develop in rice grains, leading to breakage during processing while harvesting earlier than required will also result in losses due to higher percentage of under-developed green kernels and low head rice recovery (Singh et al., 2000). Chaudhary and Iqbal (1986), cited by Singh et al. (2000), stated that maximum head rice recovery (HRR) was obtained when the rice crop was harvested at 35 days after 50% flowering at moisture content ranging from 20-22%, but decreased when harvesting delayed beyond this period. Harvesting at 33-39 days after 50 % flowering gave significantly higher head rice recovery than 27-30 days or 42 days after flowering (Salim and Sagar, 2003). 2.8 Challenges of Farmers 2.8.1 Farmer Education Agriculture is main source of livelihood for many people in developing countries. Agriculture was the largest employer, accounting for over 50 percent (50.6%) of total workforce (Ghana Statistical Service, 2010). With greater population of the country being rural dwellers, adoption 19 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh of agricultural technologies and enhancing agricultural production may possibly be an important alternative for reducing poverty among the rural dwellers. Extension service and education have been considered critical tool for rural development through boosting agricultural productivity, ensuring food security and reducing poverty. This is because Extension Education has the means of transferring information and agricultural knowledge through technology and also, helping farmers to develop the interest in solving problems (Christoplos and Kidd, 2000). Through Extension Education, information on new technologies for improving production, incomes and standards of living are provided to farmers (Bonye et al., 2012). Information and education give a positive outcome to agriculture (Oladele, 2006; Bachhv, 2012). The ease of accessing information has the ability to positively affect the behaviour of farmers in handling agricultural produce (Asiabaka and Kenyon, 2002). Hence investment in agricultural education is vital for increasing output. Production of food in Africa, including Ghana, is dominantly carried out by small farm holders whose areas of cultivation are usually less than 2 ha (Donkor et al, 2016). Statistics show that whereas demand is estimated to be 960,000 metric tonnes, domestic production was 300,000 metric tonnes, representing only 31.25% of the local demand (SRID, 2013). Meanwhile, agricultural yields have been targeted to grow averagely at the rate of 4% per annum for the period 1996-2020 (Vision 2020 document, 1995). The fact that supply fell far below demand suggested that more investment in agricultural education, to provide information on good agricultural practices (GAP) to the rural farm holders, who contribute most to the food basket of developing countries, is urgent. A study conducted by Duraisamy (1992) revealed that a one-year increase in farmer’s education and extension contacts of farm household head raised production by 1% and the total sales value 20 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh for all crops by 4 %. The effect of extension education on output was found to be about 6 % and on the gross value about 10 %. By these observations, investment in formal schooling for people in rural communities and extension services are needed to accelerate agricultural growth. 2.8.2 Destruction Caused by Birds Birds are identified by the Global Rice Science Partnership (GRiSP) as key biotic factors, next to weeds, limiting production of rice in African (IRRI et al., 2010). About 15% of rice produced globally is lost to animal pests, including birds (Oerke, 2005). Birds caused 19% loss of rice in the humid zone (de Mey and Demont, 2013). In West Africa, birds were reported to cause a damage of 13.7% to rice (Manikowski, 1984). The losses caused to cereals, including rice, by birds in Nigeria was valued $2.8 million per year (Pearson, 1967; De Grazio et al.,1971; Ward and Jones, 1977) cited by de Mey and Demont (2013). 2.8.3 Labour In developing countries socio-economic factors and lack of agricultural technology are the main causes of rice harvest losses. Rice losses at the end of the postharvest supply chain are notably higher for developing countries than in developed countries. This is because manual harvesting, which requires so much labour and a slow process, is mostly performed in developing countries. During climax of the harvesting season, most countries experience shortage of labour, which causes delayed harvesting and subsequent high losses (Kumar and Kalita, 2017). Labour shortage is among the reasons for production of low quality rice in Ghana (Akolgo et al., 2015). How soon harvesting is done after the rice has reached maturity is largely dependent on labour availability. For instance, readily available labour ensures timely harvesting, which is vital for loss reduction. Delayed harvesting due to inadequate labour leads to higher losses caused by shattering, lodging and exposure of grains to pest attack. A study conducted in Punjab, India, 21 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh found harvesting losses in wheat increased from 1.5% to 2.5% (67%) due to a delay in harvesting (Grover and Singh, 2013). 22 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER THRRE 3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS 3.1 The Study Area The study was carried out in the Akatsi North District of the Volta Region from August, 2018 to July, 2019. The district is located in the south-eastern part of the Volta Region and has a land area of 314.15 square kilometers. It lies in the Coastal Savannah Equatorial climatic zone O O characterized by high temperatures (minimum 21 C and maximum 34.5 C), high relative humidity of 85% and a moderate-to-low rainfall regime of 1,084 millimetres with distinct wet and dry seasons of about seven months (Ghana Statistical Service, 2014). The vegetation type of the district is Coastal Savannah in the south and Savannah Woodland in the north. The area is relatively low- lying with portions close to rivers and streams becoming seasonally waterlogged and marshy. This makes it suitable for rice farming. The common varieties of rice grown in the study area are Jasmine 85, Togo marshal and Agra with Jasmine 85 being the most widely cultivated variety. Other agricultural activities undertaken in the area aside crop farming are livestock and poultry farming. 3.2 Outline of Study The study was carried out in two sections: a field survey and a field experiment. The field survey was carried out to assess the level of awareness and perception of farmers on time of harvesting and post-harvest handling losses. Secondly, technology – verification experiment was carried out to assess the level of losses that do occur during harvesting through shattering, in-field staking, threshing and cleaning in the farmer’s field. 23 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 3.3 Assessment of Knowledge and Perception of Farmers on Postharvest Losses 3.3.1 Survey 3.3.2 Sample and Sampling Procedure A multi – stage sampling approach was adopted in selecting the farmers. Volta region was purposively selected at the first stage because it is a major rice producing region. Akatsi North was selected in the second stage based on the fact that, the area is known for producing rice in the region. The purposive selection of the area was further based on lack of documented data or information on the quantitative loss assessment of rice during production in the district. Forty farmers, out of about fifty (50) rice farmer population, were selected from Five (5) communities which were chosen purposively with respect to their involvement in rice production. Eight (8) farms, from three conveniently sampled communities, were used for the Field-verification experiment. The communities used in the study included Ave-Dakpa, Havi, Ave-Afiadenyigba, Dzadzefe and Agormor. 3.3.3 Data Collection Interviews and self-administered pre-tested questionnaires were used to collect data on rice farmers in the selected communities from September 4 to November 23, 2018 (Appendix I) Data were categorized into three sections. Section I was on background information about the respondent. Section II was based on knowledge and perception of farmers about postharvest losses at the farm level and how they estimate them. Section III was based on challenges of farmers. 24 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 3.3.4 Analysis of the survey data Rice farmers’ perception and estimated losses were presented as means, standard deviations and th percentages using Excel and Genstat 12 edition software. 3. 4 Field Loss Estimation at the Recommended (35 days to harvest after heading – 35 DHAH) and Farmers’ Actual Harvesting Days (farmers’ practice) In order to confirm or deny the farmers’ perceived field losses of paddy rice in the Akatsi North District, a verification field experiment was conducted on the recommended practice ( 35 DHAH) and the farmers’ actual days of harvesting in eight farmer fields. The three communities of the experimental fields were far apart but the distance between experimental fields in each community was about 500 m. 3.4.1 Demarcation of Experimental Plots Two pairs of quadrats (plots), of size 3 m x 3 m each, were demarcated in two different locations on each of the eight (8) farms. The quadrat pairs were about 50 m apart. Each pair of quadrats consisted of a plot for recommended practice which was harvested 35 days after heading (Quadrat A) and a plot for the farmer’s practice which was harvested on the day each farmer deemed it fit to harvest his or her crop (Quadrat B) as shown in plate 3.1. 25 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh A B Plate 3.1 A Demarcated Pair of 3m x 3m Quadrat 3.4.2 Agronomic practices All agronomic practices undertaken in the farmer fields were the same for both recommended practice and farmers’ practice except days to harvesting after heading which was different. The agronomic practices undertaken by the farmers included field preparation, planting, weed control, fertilizer application, pest control and harvesting. Planting was done by broadcasting the seeds in the field at the rate of 125 kg/ha. Planting was done at varied dates between September 14 and September 20 in the eight experimental fields. Fertilizer was applied in two phases. Phase 1 was done 28 days after planting where N.P.K. 15:15:15 was applied at the rate of 120 kg/ha. Urea was applied at booting at the rate of 60 kg/ha in the second phase. Weed control was done ones using chemicals. The weedicides used were Nominee and Bensome rice at rate of 617.3 ml/ha and Rice star at the rate of 2.5 L/ha. The major pests at the study area were birds which were scared continually after the reproduction stage to harvesting time. 26 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Harvesting was carried out in two phases in the experimental fields. The first phase was done at the recommended number of days after heading (35 days) and the second phase at varied number of days of the farmers’ choice ( farmers’ practice). Harvesting was done manually for both practices, using sickle, in all the rice fields. 3.4.3 Harvesting and Yield Determination Panicles were harvested from quadrat A at 35 DHAH while panicles from quadrat B were harvested on the days farmers actually harvested the crops in their fields (farmers’ practice). The harvesting was done manually with sickle using the expertise of the farmer. The harvested panicles were threshed, cleaned and weighed. This was repeated in all the eight (8) farms. 3.4.4 Harvesting Loss Determination The shattered grains and panicles that were not harvested during the harvesting operation on the demarcated plot constituted the harvesting loss. The leftover panicles were harvested, threshed, cleaned and weighed separately. The shattered grains in the marked area were immediately collected, cleaned and weighed separately as the shattering loss (Plates 3.2). Plate 3.2 Collection of shattered grains 27 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 3.4.5 Determination of In-Field Stacking Losses The losses that occur during intermediary piling of harvested panicles before threshing were determined for each quadrat of the eight-farmer fields. The panicles harvested from each plot were placed on a tarpaulin to trap the paddy that would have dropped into the soil if tarpaulin was not used. The dropped paddy on the tarpaulin after bundling the straw for threshing was collected, cleaned and weighed as the in-field stacking loss (Plates 3.3 and 3.4). Plate 3.3 Harvested panicles Plate 3.4 Dropped paddy on tarpaulin 3.4.6 Determination of the Threshing Loss 2 The losses resulting from paddy threshing were determined for each of the 9 m quadrats on the eight (8) farms. The threshing was done manually using the wooden box method. The threshing loss consisted of the scattered kernels and the residual kernels on the threshed straw. The threshed paddy from the quadrat was first collected, cleaned and weighed. The scattered grain which fell outside the farmer’s threshing floor (tarpaulin) during threshing were trapped by making an extension of the threshing floor. The trapped grains were collected, cleaned and weighed. The residual grains on the threshed straw were also carefully sorted, re-threshed cleaned and weighed (Plates 3.5 and 3.6). 28 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Plate 3.5 A farmer threshing paddy Plate 3.6 Re-threshing of the residual paddy 3.4.7 Determination of Cleaning Loss Cleaning loss was determined using the grains recovered from the debris of the main cleaning process of the paddy. The paddy was cleaned by winnowing on a large tarpaulin after it was threshed. The unfilled grains, the foreign matter and the filled grains (debris) that were carried away by the force of the wind were trapped and collected. The debris was cleaned the first time to recover the filled grains. Debris collected after the first cleaning process was cleaned again to recover the grains that were not recovered in the first process. The recovered grains in the second cleaning process represented the cleaning loss. 3.4.8 Determination of Moisture Content of Paddy at Harvest The field moisture content of paddy harvested from the various farmer fields at different times was determined immediately after harvesting using a moisture meter. Three samples, about 10 g each, of paddy were randomly taken from every quadrat at harvest, fed into the moisture meter and the moisture content recorded. The mean of the three (3) readings represented the percentage moisture content of the paddy rice at harvest (Appendix II). The average field moisture content at 29 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh harvest was 15.5% for the recommended practice (35 DHAH) and 14.8% for the farmers’ practice 3.4.9 Estimation of Field Losses Loss estimation was done by weight and percentages. The percentage weight loss was computed using the formula (Boxall, 1986). Percentage Loss (%) = x 100 [Residual paddy was grain mass that constituted loss at each point of assessment in the field]. 3.4.10 Analysis of Field Experimental Data The field data on yields of the two harvesting times were analyzed in a t-test (p < 0.05) while losses at the four major points of assessment (harvesting, in-field stacking, threshing and cleaning) for two practices were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and means with significant difference (p < 0.05) separated with least significant difference (LSD) test using the th 12 edition of GenStat Statistical Software. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the data. 3.5 Relative Contributions of the Loss Variables to the Total Grain Loss (TGL) 3.5.1 Description of the model Simulation modeling in crop loss analysis is useful in at least two important areas: to produce estimates of likely crop losses caused by one or several yield reducers and also, to assess and rank the importance of yield reducers in terms of crop losses (Savary and Willocquet, 2014). 30 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Determination of losses contributed by each input loss variable to the Total Grain Loss (TGL) in this study required that the field loss assessment data were modeled to a Probability Density Function (PDF). This allowed sensitivity analysis to be done to assess the relative contribution of each measured input loss variable to the Total Grain Loss, which usually is an arithmetic sum of the values of the input loss variables (Shattered grains loss, Incomplete cutting loss, In-field stacking loss, Scattered grains loss, Unthreshed grains loss and Cleaning loss). Furthermore, a new index, Total Grain Loss Day (TGLD) (in a fashion of Degree Day), was created to link TGL with the number of Days to Harvest After Heading (DHAH) to serve as a dependent index for sensitivity analysis to be performed with DHAH as an input variable. This TGLD index was conceptually developed to have a biological realism, such that it is directly proportional to both TGL and DHAH in the following equation: Total Grain Loss Day (TGLD) = Total Grain Loss (TGL) x Days to Harvest after Heading (DHAH) The conceptual framework of the relationships is shown in a general pathway model below (Figure 2). 31 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Total grain loss day index (I) Total grain loss Day to harvest after heading (TGL) (DHAH) Shattered grain loss Incomplete cutting loss In-field stacking loss Scattered grain loss Unthreshed grain loss Cleaning loss Figure 3.1 Conceptual pathway model of the TGLD index 3.5.2 Specification of the Loss Input Variables Shattered grains: Rice grains that fell off the plant before and during harvesting. Theses grains usually are not collected by farmers and so constituted a loss. The shattered grains were considered as a component of harvesting loss in the study. 32 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Incomplete cutting loss (Unharvested panicles): Matured panicles that were missed during harvesting and left in the field. These panicles were harvested and considered as part of harvesting loss. In-field stacking loss (intermediary piling loss): This constituted rice grains that dropped on the soil when the harvested straw was put into smaller heaps during harvesting. These grains usually are not collected by farmers and, therefore, constituted a loss. Scattered grains: Rice grains that fell outside the threshing floor (tarpaulin) of the farmer due to the applied force during threshing and never accounted for in the total yield by farmers. Scattered grains were considered as threshing loss in the study. Unthreshed grains: The grains of rice which were not removed from the panicle during the threshing process. The unthreshed grains formed part of the threshing loss. Cleaning loss: Grains retrieved from debris after the paddy was cleaned. These grains usually are discarded with the debris by farmers. Total grain loss (TGL): Summation of the different measured losses of all the variables considered. Day to harvest after heading: The period between the day the panicle of rice is fully visible to the day the panicle is harvested. This computation was done in number of days and started when the plants were about 80% headed during the study. Total grain loss day index (TGLD): The index which conceptually links the total grain loss with number of days to harvest after heading. The index is directly proportional to the model 33 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh inputs and helped to determine the relative importance of day to harvest after heading (DHAH) as a loss input variable. 3.5.3 Monte Carlos Simulation and Sensitivity Analysis A triangular probability distribution was selected to model each loss input variables using Argo version 4.1.3 software. A Monte Carlos simulation was used to run each loss input variable. For all simulations, 10000 trials were performed using Latin Hypercube sampling. The simulation was to help predict the likely levels of grain losses that might occur across the rice farms in the study area when this study is repeated several times, say ten thousand (10000) times. Sensitivity analyses were then performed to assess the relative contribution of each input variable to total paddy loss in the study area. 34 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER FOUR 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 Background Information about the Respondents 4.1.1 Demographic Characteristics of respondents Forty farmers were interviewed in the survey. Majority (80%) of the respondents were males while 62.5% were within the age bracket of 40-59 years. With respect to level of education, basic education was the most attained level (47.5%). Table 4.1 presents the demographic characteristics of the respondents. Table 4.1. Demographic characteristics of Respondents Gender Percentage Male 80 Female 20 Total 100 Age of farmers 20-39 35 40-59 62.5 60-79 2.5 Total 100 Educational levels No formal 5 Basic 47.5 Secondary 27.5 Tertiary 20 Total 100 Source: Survey data, 2018 Minor Cropping Season, Akatsi North District 4.1.2 Farming Characteristics of Respondents 4.1.2.1 Experience of Respondents in Rice Farming In general, 80% of the respondents had below 20 years’ experience in rice farming (Figure 4.1) 35 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 45 42.5 40 37.5 35 30 25 20 15 12.5 10 7.5 5 0 1--9 10--19 20--29 30--39 Year of experience Figure 4.1 Years of Experience of Respondents in Rice Farming 4.1.2.2 Rice varieties cultivated The most widely cultivated rice variety was Jasmine 85 and was grown by 62.5% of respondents. Togo marshal was cultivated by 20%, 10% cultivated Agra while 7.5% cultivated more than one variety 4.1.2.3 Farm Size and Sources of Labour The average land area under cultivation was 2 ha. Greater proportion of the respondents (50%) had farm sizes in the range of 0.405- 2.023 ha. The result also indicated that respondents mostly engaged a combination of family and hired labour (40%) for assistance on the farm (Table 4.2) 36 Percentage of respondents University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Table 4.2 Farm Sizes and Sources of Labour for Production Farm size (acre) Percentage <1 5 1-5 50 6-10 25 >10 10 Total 100 Source of labour Family 22.5 Hired 37.5 Both 40 Total 100 Source: Survey data, 2018 minor cropping season, Akatsi North District 4.1.2.4 Harvesting and Threshing Methods The harvesting and threshing methods employed by the farmers are presented in Table 4.3. The commonly used method was manual for harvesting and threshing. The respondents (55%) harvested their crops with sickle, 40.0% used wooden box (bambam) while 12.5% beat the panicles during threshing. Table 4.3. Harvesting and threshing methods used by rice farmers Harvesting method Percentage Combined harvester 15.0 Manual/ sickle 55.0 Both 30.0 Total 100.0 Threshing method Machine 15.0 Box/ Bambam 40.0 panicle beating 12.5 Both 32.5 Total 100.0 Source: Survey data, 2018 minor cropping season, Akatsi North District 37 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.1.2.5 Estimated Levels of Output at Community Level Table 4.4 presents the total estimated output of the communities where the study was done. Level of yield was estimated by number of bags (40 kg bag) per hectare. The estimated average output was 62 bags (2480 kg/ha), equivalent to 2.48 Mt/ha. 32.5% of the respondents do harvest 880 -1000 kg/ha, 25% said that yield per hectare was in the range of 1920 - 2880 kg and 42.5% (17) put the yield level of paddy per hectare within the range of 2960 - 3840 kg (Figure 4.2). Table 4.4 Mean Yields of Paddy at the Community Level Community Mean Yield (Mt /ha) Dakpa 3.410 Agormor 2.530 Havi 2.450 Dzadzefe 2.470 Afiadenyigba 1.420 Total 12.280 Source: Generated from survey data, 2018 minor cropping season, Akatsi North District. 42.5 32.5 25 880-1000 1920-2880 2960- 3840 Range of output (kg/ha) \ Figure 4.2 Perceived range of output at the community level 38 Percentage of respondents University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.1.3 Assessment of Knowledge and Perception of Farmers on Postharvest Losses 4.1.3.1 Education on loss assessment Majority (75%) of farmers interviewed had no access to education on postharvest loss (PHL) assessment of paddy rice. However, a few (25%) of them had some form of education on it. Consequently, losses were guess estimated. 4.1.3.2 Perceived Harvest losses The maximum perceived harvesting loss (shattering and incomplete cutting) of paddy was 493.8 kg/ha (Figure 4.3). Nevertheless, 45% of the farmers perceived the loss to be 187.5 kg/ha. The average weight loss was 237 kg /ha. The percentage perceived harvest loss of paddy was in the range of 1.67 – 25 and mean value of 9.96%. 50 45 40 32.5 30 22.5 20 10 0 98.8 187.5 296.3--493.8 Loss (kg/ha) Figure 4.3 Perceived harvesting losses 39 Percentage of respondents University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.1.3.3 Perceived Threshing Losses The perception and estimation of respondents on threshing losses is shown in Figure 4.4. Threshing is mostly done by manual method because of its associated low cost. The estimated average threshing loss was 111.6 kg/ha. Forty percent (40%) of the respondents experienced the highest loss 187.5 kg/ha. The percentage yield loss was in the range of 1.38% and 13.33% with an average of 4.72%. 45 40 40 35 35 30 25 25 20 15 10 5 0 49. 4 98. 8 187. 5 Loss (kg/ha) Figure 4.4 Perceived threshing losses 4.1.3.4 Perceived In-Field Stacking Losses Varied levels of yield losses (49.4 to 493.8 kg /ha) were attributed to in-field stacking (intermediary piling) of paddy in the field (Figure 4.5). Greater proportion (47.5%) of respondents lost about 187.5 kg/ha of grains to the soil when harvested panicle is put in smaller heap on the farm during the manual harvesting process. Five percent (5%) of respondents perceived the loss to be as high as 296.3 to 493.8 kg/ha. The perceived average paddy loss for in-field stacking was 3.08% in the range of 2.0 and 8.0 %, 40 Percentage of respondents University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 50 47.5 40 30 27.5 20 20 10 5 0 49.4 98.8 187.5 296.3 - 493.8 Loss (kg/ha) Figure 4.5 Perceived intermediary piling losses Table 4.5 Summary of Paddy Losses at the Points of Assessment as Perceived by Respondents Point of loss % Mean losses Harvesting 9.96 ± 5.16 Threshing 4.27 ± 2.93 Cleaning 3.08 ± 1.18 In-field Stacking 3.82 ± 1.77 Source: Survey data, 2018 minor cropping season, Akatsi North District. 4.1.3.5 Perception of Farmers on Losses at Farm Level Majority of the respondents agreed that the losses were large enough to affect their total output (Figure 4.6). The respondents (95%) said the losses were significant for harvesting,75% perceived threshing loss as large and 90% also agreed that losses due intermediary piling (in- field stacking) were significant. The rest of the respondents, however, thought that the losses were normal, thus insignificant. 41 Percentage of respondents University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Significant Insignificant/ Normal 95 100 90 75 80 62.5 60 37.5 40 25 20 5 10 0 Harvesting Threshing loss In- field Cleaning loss losses stacking loss Points of Losses Figure 4. 6 Perception of respondents on the levels of losses 4.1.3.6 The Overall Perceived Average Yield Loss by Respondents The overall perceived yield loss per hectare in the field was 296.3 kg minimum and 740.7 kg maximum with average loss of 503.7 kg. The percentage yield loss estimated by the respondents was in the range of 12 - 33.3% with the mean value of 21.56% of the total yield. Table 4.6 Summary of Overall Average Yield Loss Perceived by Respondents Parameter Minimum Maximum Mean Standard deviation Estimated average yield 296.2 740.7 503.7 135.6 Loss (kg/ha) Percentage loss (%) 12.0 33.3 21.56 5.7 Source: Generated survey data, 2018 minor cropping season, Akatsi North District. 42 Percentage of respondents University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.1.3.7 Factors Influencing Losses in the Field and Challenges Encountered by Farmers in the Study Area The perception of farmers on some factors that influence losses in the field and challenges of farmers were examined and ranked by using a 5-point Likert scale with the Perception indices in Tables 4.7 and 4.8. The mean response scores were determined by the e uation x = Where, xi = number of individuals who chose the ith response N = total number of respondents Weather condition, with the least mean score of 1.6, was generally perceived by farmers to have the greatest influence on loss of rice in the field (ranked 1). Time of harvesting, however, was perceived as the most important agronomic factor affecting loss of rice in the field (mean score 1.8 and ranked 2). Access to credit and bird damage76 in the field were the most pressing challenges confronting farmers in the study area. Consequently, they were both ranked 1, with the mean score 1.0. Table 4.7 Perception of Farmers on Factors Influencing Loss of Paddy in the Field Factors Mean Score Ranks (Order of influence) Weather condition 1.6 1 Time of harvesting 1.8 2 Pests and diseases 2.5 3 Harvesting method 2.7 4 Unimproved seeds 2.9 5 Planting method 3.4 6 Perception indices: Very high -1 High -2 Can’t tell -3 Low - 4 Very low - 5 Source: Survey data, 2018 minor cropping season, Akatsi North District. 43 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Table 4.8 Challenges that Farmers Encounter in Rice Production in the Study Area Challenges Mean score Rank (order of most pressing) Access to credit 1.0 1 Destruction by birds 1.0 1 Extension service 1.5 2 Inadequate labour 2.1 3 Ready market 2.4 4 Tools and equipment 2.5 5 Storage facilities 2.8 6 Access to land 2.9 7 Diseases 3.1 8 Improve seeds 3.3 9 Perception Indices: 1- Very challenging, 2- Challenging, 3- Some times, 4-Less challenging, 5- Not challenging 4.1.3.8 Measures adopted to Reduce Losses at Farm Level Most of the farmers (67.5%) agreed that losses are greatly reduced when paddy harvesting is timely done and birds and rodents properly controlled (Figure 4.7). Immediate gathering of harvested panicle (15%), use of combined harvester (12.5 %) and planting of good varieties of rice (5%) were also suggested to reduce general paddy losses in the field. 40 37.5 35 30 30 25 20 15 15 12.5 10 5 5 0 Scaring of Timely and Early and Use of Planting of birds and proper timely combined good rodents harvesting stacking harvester varieties Measures Figure 4.7 Measures adopted by farmers to reduce paddy loss at farm level 44 Percentage of respondents University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.2 Estimation of Field Losses at 35 Days to Harvest after Heading (35 DHAH) and Farmers’ Actual Days of Harvesting (Variable Days) 4.2.1 Paddy Yield at the Two Different Harvesting Times The summary of the overall yield for the two different harvesting times is presented in Table 4.9. The study showed that the total yield at the two different harvesting times (35 DHAH and farmers’ practice) was not significantly different at 95% probability. The yield comparison is shown in Figure 4.8. Table 4.9 Average paddy yield at Recommended Day and the Farmers’ Actual Days for Harvesting Harvesting times Minimum Maximum Mean Standard (Mt/ha) (Mt/ha) (Mt/ha) deviation Recommended practice 2.05 6.09 3.77 1.33 Farmers’ days 1.98 6.11 3.58 1.45 Source: Experimental fields, 2018 minor cropping season, Akatsi North District Recommended practice Farmers' actual practice 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Farm number Figure 4.8 Comparisons of paddy yield levels for the two harvesting times at eight farms 45 Yield (Mt/ha) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.2.2 Paddy Losses at the Recommended Harvesting Time (35 days to harvest after Heading -35 DHAH) In order to confirm or challenge the losses claimed by farmers, experiments were conducted in 2 the farmers’ fields. The average total paddy yield was 418.88 g/m of which an average of 22.22 2 2 g/m loss was recorded. The harvesting loss recorded at 35 DHAH was 8.88 g/m (Table 4.10). This was estimated from shattered grains and matured panicles that were not harvested during the harvesting operation. The estimated loss during harvesting was in the range of 0.99 - 4.44% (Table 4.12) with an average loss of 2.36% (Table 4.11). The threshing loss was estimated from the intercepted scattered grains and the residual grains on 2 the threshed panicles. The mean weight loss estimated in the experimental field was 8.77 g/m (Table 4.10). The average percentage threshing loss was 2.06% (Table 4.11) within the range of 1.64 - 3.09%. (Table 4.12). In-field stacking (intermediary piling) of harvested panicles accumulated an average loss of 5.56 2 2 g/m while cleaning amassed an average loss of 2.22 g/m (Table 4.10). In general, the losses for in-field stacking ranged from 0.41 – 3.06% (Table 14) with a mean of 1.47% (Table 4.11) whereas cleaning losses were in the range of 0.29 - 0.76% (Table 4.12) and a mean value of 0.56% (Table 4.11). The overall percentage losses for the recommended practice ranged from 4.54 – 8.36%, averaging 6.38% (Table 4.12). The results showed that losses at cleaning and in-field stacking were not significantly different. However, cleaning and in-field stacking losses were significantly (p < 0.05) lower than harvesting and threshing losses. 46 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh The contributions of shattered grains, incomplete cutting of panicles, scattered grains and unthreshed grains to harvesting and cleaning losses are presented in Table 4.11. Table 4.10 Losses at the Four Points of Assessment for Recommended Harvesting Time (35 DHAH) Treatment Minimum Maximum Mean Standard v.r F pr 2 2 2 (g/m ) (g/m ) (g/m ) Deviation Cleaning loss 1.11 3.33 2..22 1.11 1497.77 <.001 In-field stacking loss 1.11 4.44 5.56 1.11 Threshing loss 4.44 14.44 7.77 3.33 Harvest loss 4.44 16.66 8.88 4.44 Total loss 16.67 32.22 22.22 5.55 L.S.D. 2.78 Source: Generated from experimental field data, 2018 minor cropping season, Akatsi North District Table 4.11 Contributions of Shattered Grains, Incomplete Cutting of Panicles, Scattered Grains and Unthreshed Grains at Recommended Harvesting Date to Total Grain Yield Loss 2 Parameters Yield loss(g/m ) Yield loss (%) Shattered grains 3.33 0.88 Incompletely cut panicles 5.55 1.47 Harvesting loss 8.88 2.36 Scattered grains 3.33 0.88 Unthreshed grains 4.44 1.18 Threshing loss 7.77 2.06 Cleaning 2.22 0.59 In-field stacking 5.56 1.47 Total 22.22 6.38 Source: Experimental field data, 2018 minor cropping season, Akatsi North District 47 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Table 4.12 The Overall Paddy Losses at the Four Major Points of Assessment for Recommended Practice (35 DHAH) 2 Point of Loss Assessment Range of Yield Loss (g/m ) Range of Yield Losses (%) Harvest Loss 4.78 – 16.88 0.99 - 4.44 Threshing Loss 3.89 – 13.88 1.64 – 3.09 Cleaning Loss 1.11 - 3.33 0.29 – 0.76 In-field stacking Loss 1.11 – 13.33 0.41 – 3.06 Total Loss 16.66 – 32.22 4.54 – 8.36 22.22 6.38 Source: Experimental field data, 2018 minor cropping season, Akatsi North District 4.2.3 Losses Associated with the Farmers’ Actual harvesting Days (farmers’ practice) 2 The average total paddy yield of farmers’ practice was 397.77 g/m with an average total loss of 2 24.44 g/m was recorded (Table 4.13). 2 The average harvesting loss recorded for the farmers’ practice was 10.00 g/m (Table 4.13). This was a cumulated loss of Shattered grains during harvesting and incompletely cut matured panicles. The estimated loss during harvesting was 1.01% minimum and 7.24% maximum (Table 4.15) with a mean of 2.79% (Table 4.14) of the total yield. The average threshing loss estimated was 2.79% of the total yield (Table 4.14)..The weight loss 2 attributed to threshing in the experimental field was 10.00 g/m (Table 4.13). The minimum threshing loss was 1.64% while the maximum was 3.09% (Table 4.15) The quantity of paddy lost to the soil through in-field stacking of the harvested rice stalks gave 2 an average value of 6.67 g/m (Table 4.13). The overall loss recorded for in-field stacking of paddy ranged between 0.39 – 2.07% with an average of 1.86% (Tables 4.14 and 4.15). 2 The grains recovered in the process of cleaning as was 2.56g/m (Table 4.13). The percentage loss was between 0.45% - 1.15% (Table 4.15) and 0.71% as the mean of the total yield (Table 48 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.14).. The overall percentage losses for farmers’ actual harvesting practices ranged from 4.84 – 13.81%, averaging 7.65%. From the results, losses at cleaning and in-field stacking were similar to harvesting and threshing losses. However, cleaning and in-field stacking losses were significantly (p < 0.05) lower than harvesting and threshing losses. The contributions of shattered grains, incompletely cut panicles, scattered grains and unthreshed grains to the harvesting and threshing losses are presented in Table 4.14. Table 4.13 Paddy Loss at the Four Major Points of Assessment for Farmers’ Practice Variables Minimum Maximum Means Standard v.r F pr. 2 2 2 (g/m ) (g/m ) (g/m ) Deviation Cleaning loss 2.22 3.33 2.56 1.11 1655.55 <.001 In-field stacking loss 1.11 4.44 6.67 2.22 Harvesting loss 5.55 15.55 10.00 3.33 Threshing loss 4.44 16.66 10.00 3.20 Total 17.77 35.55 24.44 1.44 L.S.D. 3.31 Source: Experimental field data, 2018 minor cropping season, Akatsi North District Table 4.14 Relative Contributions of Shattered Grains, Incomplete Cutting of Panicles, Scattered Grains and Unthreshed Grains to Total Paddy Loss (farmers’ practice) 2 Parameters Yield loss (g/m ) Yield loss (%) Shattered grains 4.44 1.24 Incompletely cut panicles 5.56 1.56 Harvesting loss 10.00 2.79 Scattered grains 3.33 0.93 Unthreshed grains 6.67 1.86 Threshing loss 10.00 2.79 Cleaning 2.56 0.71 In-field stacking 6.67 1.86 Total 24.44 7.65 49 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Table 4.15 Overall Yield Losses at the Four Major Points of Assessment for Farmers’ Practice 2 Point of Loss Range of yield Loss (g/m ) Range of Yield Assessment Loss (%) Harvest Loss 5.55 – 15.55 1.01 – 7.24 Threshing Loss 4.44 – 16.66 1.64 – 3.09 Cleaning Loss 2.22 – 3.33 0.45 – 1.15 In-field Stacking Loss 1.11 – 11.11 0.39 – 2.07 Total Loss 17.77 – 35.55 4.84 – 13.81 24.44 7.65 Source: Experimental field data, 2018 minor cropping season, Akatsi North District 4.2.4 Comparison of Source of Paddy Losses for the Recommended Practice, Farmers’ Actual Practice and Farmers’ Perception The losses at each of the four main points of assessment for the recommended practice, the farmer’s actual practice and the perceived losses of farmers are compared in Table 4.16 and Figure 4.9. The results indicated that paddy losses were not significantly different for recommended practice (35 DHAH) and the farmers’ actual practice. However, the perceived losses of farmers were significantly higher (p < 0.05) than the estimated paddy losses at the experimental fields for the two harvesting times. Table 4.16 Overall Paddy Losses at the Four Main Points of Assessment for Recommended Practice Farmers’ Actual Harvesting Days and Farmers’ Perception Point of loss % Mean losses % Mean losses (Farmers’ % Mean losses (Recommended) practice) ( Perceived) Harvesting 2.36 ± 1.33 2.79 ± 1.33 9.96 ± 5.16 Threshing 2.06 ± 0.55 2.79 ± 1.02 4.27 ± 2.93 Cleaning 0.56 ± 0.19 0.71 ± 0.27 3.08 ± 1.18 In-field Stacking 1.47 ± 0.35 1.86 ± 0.53 3.82 ± 1.77 Overall loss 6.38 ± 4.72 7.65 ± 3.06 21.56 ± 7.31 LSD 3.97 Source: Experimental Fields Data, 2018 Minor Cropping Season, Akatsi North District 50 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Recommended Farmers' actual Perceived 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Harvesting In-field Threshing Cleaning Points of losses Figure 4.9 Comparison of yield losses for recommended practice, farmers’ practice and farmers’ perception 4.3 Distributions of Grain Losses and Contributions of Loss Variables to the Total Grain Loss (TGL) The uncertainty in the input variables that account for the total grain losses incurred by each farmer during field handling of rice required using Monte Carlo simulation models to estimate the probable losses of paddy that occur in the study area. The study measured the following inputs: number of days to harvesting after the rice is headed, Shattered grains loss, incomplete cutting loss, In-field stacking loss, scattered grains loss, unthreshed grains loss and cleaning loss. The tables and figures presented in this section are the results of ten thousand (10000) trial simulation of the loss input variables with Monte Carlos simulation model using a Latin Hypercube sampling. Tables 4.17 and 4.18 summarized the simulation results for the two harvesting times. The results 2 showed the mean total grain loss for 35 DHAH was 22.3 g/m (Table 4.17) and mean total grain 2 loss for farmers’ actual practice was 26.9 g/m (Table 4.18). 51 Level of losses (Mt/ha) University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Table 4.17 Level of losses after 10000 trial simulation (35 DHAH) Variable Minimum Maximum Mean Standard Error 2 (g/m ) 2 2 2 (g/m ) (g/m ) (g/m ) Days to harvest* 35.000 35 35.000 0.000 Shattered grains 2.005 6.203 3.739 0.009 Unharvested grains 2.939 11.798 6.674 0.019 In-field stacking 1.612 12.571 7.031 0.022 Scattered grains 0.308 1.895 1.170 0.003 Unthreshed grains 0.136 2.207 1.255 0.004 Cleaning 1.785 3.211 2.462 0.003 Total 13.131 33.475 22.332 0.031 Source: Experimental Fields Data, 2018 Minor Cropping Season, Akatsi North District 2 Days to harvest* is not affected by the unit (g/m ) Table 4.18 Level of losses after 10000 trial simulation (Farmers’ actual practice) Variable Minimum Maximum Mean Standard 2 2 2 (g/m ) (g/m ) (g/m ) Error Days to harvest* 33.022 38.970 36.249 0.012 Shattered grains 1.762 6.663 4.171 0.010 Unharvested grains 3.288 11.625 7.090 0.017 In-field stacking 1.762 6.664 9.823 0.010 Scattered grains 1.501 2.555 2.005 1.054 Unthreshed grains 0.114 1.302 0.699 0.002 Cleaning 1.793 4.3140 3.111 0.005 Total 17.0630 21.384 26.900 0.033 Source: Experimental fields data, 2018 minor cropping season, Akatsi North District 2 Days to harvest* is not affected by the unit (g/m ) 52 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 4.3.1 Distribution of Days to Harvest after Heading The range of days within which rice (Jasmine 85) farmers in the Akatsi North District are likely to harvest their crop after heading is presented in Figure 4.10. The distribution suggested that at 95% probability, rice farmers in the district are likely to harvest their crops between 34.3 and 38.4 days after heading. Figure 4.10 Probability distribution of days to harvest after heading at 95% likelihood. 4.3.2 Distribution of Total Grain Loss The potential range of total grain losses that may occur during harvest and postharvest handling of paddy in the field as a result of variations in the loss input variables across the study area is presented in Figures 4.11 and 4.12. At 95% probability, there is a likelihood that farmers harvesting 35 days after the panicles of their crops are fully visible will experience a total output 2 loss within the range of 15.9 – 28.7 g/m while the farmers’ practice will encounter total losses 2 ranging from 20.3 - 33.4 g/m . 53 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Figure 4.11 Probability distribution of total grain loss at 35 DHAH (95% probability) Figure 4.12 Probability distribution of total grain loss for farmers’ actual practice (95% probability) 4.3.3 Contributions of the Loss Input Variables to the Total Grain Loss (TGL) The contributions of the loss variables to the total grain loss are presented in Figures 4.13 and 4.14. The result suggested that the contribution of in-field stacking to the total grain loss of the 2 2 recommended practice would range from 20.4 – 23.7 g/m and 24.9 – 28.6 g/m for the farmers practice as the highest contributor of losses. 54 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Recommended Practice Downside Upside 18.00 20.00 22.00 24.00 Recommended Practice'!$H$6 20.42 23.65 Recommended Practice'!$H$4 20.78 23.59 Recommended Practice'!$H$3 21.42 22.77 Recommended Practice'!$H$8 21.65 22.27 Recommended Practice'!$H$7 21.73 22.21 Figure 4.13 Relative contributions of input variables to Total Loss (35 DHAH) Downside Upside Farmers practice 22.00 23.00 24.00 25.00 26.00 27.00 28.00 29.00 Farmers practice data'!$F$6 24.86 28.59 Farmers practice data'!$F$4 25.48 28.00 Farmers practice data'!$F$3 25.91 27.36 Farmers practice data'!$F$10 26.21 26.96 Farmers practice data'!$F$8 26.44 26.79 Figure 4.14 Relative contributions of Input Variables to Total Grain Loss (Farmers’ practice) 4.3.4 Total Grain Loss. Day (TGLD) Total Grain Loss. Day Index (I) was created to conceptually link the total grain loss with number of days to harvest after heading. The index was set in a way such that the Total Grain Loss Day (TGLD) is directly proportional to the model inputs. The effect of number of days to harvest rice (Jasmine) on the loss input variables is presented in Figures 4.15 and 4.16. With the assumption that the losses do not change along with changes in the number of days, farmers harvesting 35 days after heading, for instance, are likely to lose grains through shattering between 749.70 gramday/square metre minimum and 796.91 55 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh gramday/square metre maximum whereas grain loss in the practice of the farmers would likely range from 943.14 – 995.87 gramday/square metre. Recommended Practice Downside Upside 650.00 700.00 750.00 800.00 850.00 Recommended Practice'!$H$6 714.58 827.58 Recommended Practice'!$H$4 727.47 825.81 Recommended Practice'!$H$3 749.70 796.91 Recommended Practice'!$H$8 757.64 779.56 Recommended Practice'!$H$7 760.49 777.24 Figure 4.15 Total Loss. Day of the Loss Input Variables (35 DHAH) Downside Upside Farmers practice 800.00 900.00 1000.00 1100.00 Farmers practice data'!$F$6 904.96 1040.70 Farmers practice data'!$F$4 927.49 1019.08 Farmers practice data'!$F$3 943.14 995.87 Farmers practice data'!$F$2 941.35 989.02 Farmers practice data'!$F$10 954.10 981.44 Figure 4.16 Total Loss. Day of the Loss Input Variables (Farmers’ practice). 56 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER FIVE 5.0 DISCUSSION 5.1 Demographic Characteristics of the Rice Farmers Majority (90%) of the respondents attained varied levels of formal education, of which basic level (47.5%) was dominant. Only 20% of the respondents attained tertiary level of education. This confirmed the observation made by Yannicke (2016) that educated people are minimally involved in agriculture and this is a threat to the future development of the sector. The fact that most of the respondents have had some level of formal education leverages better understanding the benefits of improved harvest and postharvest technologies. This suggests a higher potential for adopting improved harvesting and postharvest technologies among farmers. With respect to level of experience, only 20% of the respondents have been in rice farming for 20 years and above. This implies there is the need to increase access to improved technologies of harvest and postharvest handling to enhance farmers experience and productivity. 5.1.2 Knowledge and Perception of Farmers about Harvest and Postharvest Losses of Rice The survey revealed that farmers were aware of paddy losses that occur at the various stages of postharvest handling of paddy rice at the farm level. However, majority have not been given any formal education or training on determination of the level of losses that occur. Seventy five percent (75%) of the respondents never had any training on PHL estimation. The losses are, therefore, guess estimated using experience. These findings confirmed the results of similar work done by Nketia (2015). At least 60% of farmers perceived paddy losses that occur at various points of assessment at the farm level as significant. This implies that greater proportion of the farmers might be more willing to accept improved techniques for reducing postharvest losses at the farm level. An intensive agricultural extension education on postharvest loss at farm level is, 57 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh however, important to enhance the knowledge of farmers in postharvest loss estimation. The perceived harvesting losses ranged from 1.6 - 25% with average value of 9.96% of total yield. This was close to 12.05% perceived harvesting losses reported on some farmers’ fields in Ghana (GUISSE, 2010). Threshing was manually done by majority (52.5%) of the farmers. This was due to the high cost associated with mechanical harvesting and threshing and inadequate equipment, according to the respondents. Manual threshing method is also popular among farmers for the reason that it is less expensive. The observation is confirmed by Rickman et al. (2013). The authors, however, observed that quantitative and qualitative losses can be as high as 20-30%. The high level of losses reported might be due to the slow pace at which threshing a unit mass of paddy manually is accomplished and the energy required to do so. Amposah et al. (2018) in evaluating manual and mechanical threshing methods indicated that manual method required 834 -1 watts of power to thresh 64.9 kgh while mechanical method required 660 watts of power to -1 thresh 158.4 kgh The perceived threshing loss by the respondents was within the range of 1.38 – 13.33%, averaging 4.72%. This result is lower than the 25% threshing loss perceived by rice farmers in Uganda (Ssebaggala et al., 2017). In-field stacking (intermediary piling) and cleaning losses were perceived as 3.82% and 3.08% respectively. The farmers’ overall estimated losses were in the range of 12- 33.3% with a mean of 21.6%. Losses encountered by farmers in the field of production were perceived to be influenced by weather conditions and some agronomic factors. With least mean score of 1.6, weather condition 58 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh was ranked as the most influential factor in field losses of rice. The perception of the respondents was in agreement with the findings of various research works carried out on the effects of weather on yield and quality of rice. Ziska and Bunce (1998) noted that higher minimum temperature reduced the output of rice due to higher loss of carbon through increased respiration. Higher day and night temperatures were also noted by Fitzgerald and Resurreccion (2009) to increase chalkiness in rice which increased grain breakages during dehulling and polishing. Irregular rainfall, rise in temperature, flooding and droughts were further identified by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to reduce rice and wheat production by 8 and 23% by the year 2050 ( Cancelliere et al., 2007) cited by Rahman et al.(2017) Time of harvesting, with the mean score of 1.8 was the agronomic factor perceived to have greater effect on loss of rice in the field. Harvesting earlier than recommended causes higher percentage of under-developed green kernels and low head rice recovery (Singh et al., 2000). High shattering losses and attack of crop by birds and rodent occur when harvesting is done late (Baloch, 2010). Thus, timely harvesting is very crucial for yield and quality maximization. Maximum head rice recovery (HRR) was recorded when the rice crop was harvested at 35 days after 50% flowering (Chaudhary and Iqbal. 1986). Therefore, it is right for majority (37.5%) of the respondents to suggest timely and proper harvesting as a measure to reduce losses. The suggestion of the respondents has also agreed with the results of the field experiment conducted in this study which indicated that harvesting at the recommended time (35 DHAH) could generally help reduce losses in the field by 1.27%. Rice farmers are faced with a wide range of challenges, consisting of biotic and abiotic factors. The numerous challenges may have similar effects of causing physical loss of rice and reduction of farmers’ income. Birds, among the biotic factors, are noted to be important pests after weeds 59 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh hindering the production of rice in Africa (Global Rice Science Partnership) cited by IRRI et al. (2010). A damage of 13.7% to rice in West Africa (Manikowski, 1984) and a loss of $2.8 million per year (de Mey and Demont, 2013) in Nigeria. The level of losses and damage reported by the various studies and the labour and time required for scaring birds in rice field are consistent with the perception of the farmers on birds as one of the most pressing challenges they encounter. The overall perceived harvest and postharvest field losses of rice by farmers in the Akatsi North district were in the range of 12.0 – 33.3%. The perceived losses concurred with the 20-30% losses reported by Rickman et al. (2013). 5.2 Experimental Field Losses for the Recommended Practice and Farmers’ Actual Practice 5.2.1 Harvesting Loss The loss at harvest comprised the losses due to shattering of grains and panicles that were not cut during the harvesting operation on the demarcated plot. The harvesting loss estimated for the recommended practice (35 DHAH) ranged from 0.99% - 4.44% with an average loss of 2.36%. The farmers’ actual practice recorded average harvesting loss of 2.79% and a range of 0.01% - 7.24%. These findings were not far from the result of similar research conducted on NERICA by GUISSE (2010). The author found that harvesting losses was between 1.13% and 3.25%. He further reported that IRRI (1997) recorded harvesting losses of 1-3% in South East Asia. The experimental results indicated that the average harvesting loss for the recommended practice was not significantly different from the average loss for the farmers’ actual practice at 5% probability level. The losses produced by shattering of grains for recommended and farmers’ practices were also not different at 5% probability level. The rice harvested at 35 days after 60 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh heading recorded average loss of 0.88% through shattering of grains. This is at variance to 0.44% shattering loss estimated at 35 day to harvest after heading (DHAH) by Nketia (2015). The estimated shattering loss for farmers’ practice in the study was 1.24%. This was not close to the 1.56% and 1.96% shattering loss of Jasmine 85 recorded by Candia et al. (2012) and Nketia (2015) respectively for farmers who harvested their rice 42 days after heading.. The results suggest that the duration plant remains in the field might affect the level of shattering. The matured panicles that were not cut at harvesting were observed to contribute greater proportions of 1.18% and 1.86%, respectively for recommended practice and farmers’ practice, to total harvesting loss. Despite the insignificance of losses, harvesting rice at the recommended number of days after heading (35 days) will averagely reduce loss of yield by 0.44% compared to farmers’ actual days of harvesting. 5.2.2 In-field Stacking Loss The intermediary piling of harvested panicles in smaller heaps (in-field stacking) also resulted in some amount of losses through grain shedding. The loss estimated for the in-field stacking (heaping) at 35 DHAH ranged between 0.41%- 1.51% while that of farmers’ actual practice was in the range of 0.39% -1.85 %. The result showed that the loss at 35 DHAH was not significantly different from the farmers’ actual loss at 95% probability level. The mean in-field stacking loss for the recommended practice (35 DHAH) was 1.47% of the output 3.76 Mt/ha, whereas the farmers’ actual practice recorded 1.86 of the output 3.58 Mt/ha. These results were within the range of 0.53 – 4.07% estimated by Appiah et al. (2011).The losses recorded in this study were also closely related to 2% - 6% loss experienced by Philippines (FAO, 2007). 61 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 5.2.3 Threshing Loss The threshing loss recorded in the field experiment was as a result of scattered grains and residual grains on the threshed straw (unthreshed grains). The threshing loss for the recommended practice ranged between 0.14 – 3.06% with an average of 2.06%, while that of the farmers’ practice ranged between 1.64 – 3.09% with an average of 2.79%. In 2007, FAO recorded threshing loss in the range of 5% - 13% in Malaysia. Appiah et al. (2011) also reported 6.14% threshing loss for NERICA with box method. The results for this research were, however, lower than the results of FAO (2007) and Appiah et al. (2011). The contributions of scattered grains and residual (unthreshed) grains to the threshing loss for the recommended practice were 0.88% and 1.18% respectively and 0.93% and 1.86% respectively for farmers’ actual practice. The results from the experimental fields showed that the overall losses associated with harvesting and handling paddy rice (Jasmine 85) in the recommended practice ranged from 4.54% to 8.36% with an average of 6.38% whereas the estimated total loss in the farmers’ actual practice was in the range of 4.75% to 13.64% and gave an average of 7.65%. The outcome of the study suggested that harvesting at the recommended time (35 DHAH) could generally help reduce losses in the field by 1.27%. A study conducted in India by Kannan et al. (2013) estimated an increase in loss of paddy from 1.74% to 1.92% as a result of delayed harvesting caused by lack of adequate harvesting equipment. Thus, harvesting Jasmine 85 at recommended number of days after heading (35 days) has the tendency of reducing losses at the farm level. Too early harvesting, however, might result in rice grains with high moisture content, leading to high cost of drying, susceptibility to mold growth, 62 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh insect infestation, high amount of broken grains and low milling yields likewise, delayed harvesting might also result in high shattering losses (Khan, 2010). 5.3 Contributions of Loss Input Variables to the Total Grain Loss (TGL) The simulation was performed to predict the level of grain loss each loss variable could contribute to the TGL. The distribution of DHAH (95% probability) indicated that harvesting of Jasmine 85 variety will likely be done 34.3-38.4day after heading in the study district This further suggests that farmer in the district will averagely harvest their crop 36 DHAH, which is closely related to the recommended 35 DHAH .Salim and Sagar (2003) noted that harvesting rice at 33-39 days after 50 % flowering gave significantly higher head rice recovery than 27-30 days or 42 days after flowering. The distribution, thus, implies that rice farmers in the study area are likely to record higher head rice yield (HRY) with respect to day to harvest after heading Total grain loss likely to be experienced by farmers harvesting at the recommended 35 days after 2 heading is between 15.9 and 28.7 g/m while those harvesting at their own time are likely to 2 experience total grain loss in the range of 20.3 – 33.4 g/m . The modeling results were not so 2 2 different from 16.66 – 32.22 g/m and 17.77 – 35.55 g/m recorded in the field experiment for the recommended and the farmers’ practice respectively. The modeling, however, suggested that rice (Jasmine 85) farmers with their own practices may experience a slight increase in total average 2 2 grain loss from 24.44 g/m to 26.90 g/m while total average grain loss for the recommended 2 practice ( 35 DHAH) may remain unchanged ( 22.22 g/m ). . 63 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh The sensitivity analysis of the loss input variables suggested that the top three contributing variables were the same for both the recommended practice and the farmers’ actual practice but with different levels of losses. The analysis showed that in-field stacking; incomplete cutting of panicles and shattering of grains were the top three contributing variables to the TGLs for both harvesting times. In-field stacking was, however, identified as the input variable likely to 2 2 contribute the highest loss of 20.42 – 23.65 g/m and 24.86 – 28.59 g/m to the TGLs for recommended practice and farmers’ actual practice respectively. This analysis agreed with the results of the field experiment which recorded in-field stacking as the most loss contributing 2 2 variable, accounting for 5.56 g/m for the recommended practice and 6.67 g/m for the farmers’ practice. However, grain shattering was not identified in the field experiment as one of the top three loss contributing factors as suggested by the sensitivity analysis, rather unthreshed grains for both practices. The possible losses occurring during in-field stacking could be reduced through adoption of simple technologies such as use of wheel barrows and trailers to collect the harvested panicles directly during harvesting so as to retrieve dropped grains that might have been lost if the panicle were placed directly on the soil. Total Grain Loss. Day Index (I) was created to conceptually link the total grain loss with number of days to harvest after heading. With the assumption that the losses do change along with changes in the number of days, farmers harvesting 35 days after heading, for instance, are likely to lose grains through shattering between 749.70 gram day/square metre minimum and 796.91 gram day/square metre maximum whereas the farmers’ time of harvesting would likely result in grains in the range of 943.14 – 995.87 gram day/square metre. 64 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CHAPTER SIX 6.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 6.1 Conclusion  Rice farmers in the study area were aware of the postharvest losses that occur in handling rice in the field but majority (75%) had no access to education on postharvest loss (PHL) assessment of paddy rice. Losses were therefore, guess estimated based on number of bags. At least 60% of farmers agreed that the losses at the various points of handling were large enough to reduce their total output. The total field loss estimated by farmers was 21.6% with harvesting perceived as the point of handling where the highest loss (9.96%) occurred which was confirmed by the field experiment, suggesting that the farmers perception was close to the actual. The perceived losses of farmers were, however, higher than the field results at all the four points of loss assessment.  The average yield for the recommended harvesting time (35 DHAH) was 3.77 Mt/ha while that of farmers’ practice was 3.58 Mt/ha. The yield loss at the recommended time (6.38%) was relatively lower than farmers’ actual loss (7.65%). The field quantitative loss estimation showed that there was no difference between yields and total losses of the two times of harvesting.  Sensitivity analysis of loss variables indicated that in-field stacking; incomplete cutting and shattering of grains were the top three input variables contributing to the total loss of grains. However, in-field stacking was identified as the variable likely to contribute most to the total grain loss of rice across the farms in the district. 65 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 6.2 Recommendations  Large sample size for the field verification experiment could not be used in this work due to irregular rainfall pattern. It is recommended that a lot more rice farmer fields be included in subsequent studies to give a clearer trend of losses across the farms in the study area.  It is further recommended that the study is repeated using more than one rice variety in order to have a fair idea of the level of losses that at the various points of handling in the field. 66 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh REFERENCES Abansi, C.L., Duff B., Lantican, F. A., Juliano, B. O. (1992). Consumer demand for rice grain quality in selected rural and urban markets in the Philippine, in Consumer demand for rice grain quality, International Rice Research Institute, P. O. Box 933, Manila, Philippines, Pp: 37-57. 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. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2013.12.004 Abel Kwaku K., Bruce, Samuel A. Donkoh & Michael Ayamga (2014). Improved rice variety adoption and its effects on farmers’ output in Ghana Adekunle, W. (2013) Improving smallholder incomes through intensification of upland rice. A case study produced by WREN media, funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and implemented by the European Initiative on Agricultural Research for Development (EIARD). Affognon, H., Mutungi, C., Sanginga, P., & Borgemeister, C. (2015). Unpacking postharvest losses in sub-Saharan Africa: A meta-analysis. World Development, 66, 49-68 Agriculture in Ghana: Facts and Figures (2015). Statistics Research and Information Directorate (SRID) of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA). The 25th edition of an annual series. Agropedia. (2009). Botanical Classification of Rice. Http://agropedia.iitk. Ac.in/content/botanical-Classification-Rice, Submitted by Naipictuased Harward, p. 51. Alam, M.S., Ashraf, M.A., Mia, M.I.A. & Abedin, M.Z. (2007). Studies on grain storage facilities as food security measure in flood prone areas of Bangladesh. The Journal of Progressive Agriculture, 18(2): 223-233. Alizadeh M.R.& Bagheri I. (2009). Field performance evaluation of different rice threshing methods. Int. J. Nat. Eng. Sci. 3:139-43 Amponsah, S. K., Addo, A., Dzisi, K., Asante B.& Afona, D. ( 2018) Assessment of rice farmers’ knowledge and perception of harvest and postharvest losses in Ghana. , Cogent Food & Agriculture 4: 147178.https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2018.1471782 Angelucci, F., Asante-Poku, A., & Anaadumba, P. (2013). Analysis of incentives and disincentives for rice in Ghana: Technical notes series. Rome: MAFAP, FAO. 67 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Appiah, F., Guisse, R., & Dartey, P. K. A. (2011). Post-harvest losses of rice from harvesting to milling in Ghana. Journal of Stored Products and Postharvest Research, 2(4), 64– 71. Aremu, J. O. & Akinwamide, B. (2018). Prospects and challenges of sustainable rice production in Igbemo Ekiti, Southwest Nigeria. European Journal of Educational and Social Sciences, 3 (2), 125 - 143. Asano H, Hirano F, Isobe K, & Sakurai H. (2000). Effect of harvest time on the protein composition (glutelin, prolamin, albumin) and amylose content in paddy rice cultivated by aigamo duck farming system. Jpn J Crop Sci 69:320–323. Ashitey, E. & Archibald, D. (2018). Grain and Feed UpdateReport, Accra, Ghana Asiabaka, C.C., Morse, S., & Kenyon, L. (2002). The development, dissemination and adoption of technologies directed at improving availability of clean yam planting material in Nigeria and Ghana. Awika JM, Piironen V. & Bean S. (2011). Advances in cereal science: implications to food processing and health promotion. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC Bachhv, N. B. (2012). Information needs of the rural farmers: A study from Maharashtra, India; A survey, Library Philosophy and Practice.Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2043&context=libphilpr Baktiar MHK, Siddique MA, Khalequzzaman M, Bhuiya A & Islam MZ. (2013). Effect Of Maturity Period And Harvesting Time On Quality And Yield In Breeder Seed Of Rice Baloch, (2010). U.K. Wheat: Post-Harvest Operations; Lewis, B., Mejia, D., Eds.; Pakistan Agricultural Research Council: Islamabad, Pakistan; pp. 1–21 Bonye S Z, Alfred KB, & Jasaw G S. (2012). Promoting community-based extension agents as an alternative approach to formal agricultural extension service delivery in Northern Ghana. Asian J Agric Rural Dev.2(1):76–95. Boxall, R. A. (1986). A critical review of the methodology for assessing farm-level grain losses after harvest.CAB International, Wallingford, UK, pp.: 332-342, 2013 Cancelliere A, Di Mauro G, & Bonaccorso B, et al., (2007). Drought forecasting using the standardized precipitation index. Water Resour Manag.;21:801–19. Candia, A., Okurut, S., Komaketch, A., Saasa, A. R., & Mudusu, J. (2012). On-farm postharvest physical grain losses of “Kaiso” rice variety in Eastern Uganda. Uganda Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 13(1), 61–70. CARD. (2010). Mapping of Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), Sector Strategies and Policies Related to Rice Development in Ghana. Christensen, C.M. (1974). Storage of cereal grains and their products. Vol. II. Americans association of cereal chemists incorporated St. Paul, Minnesota 68 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Christoplos I. & Kidd A. (2000). Guide for monitoring, evaluation and joint analyses of pluralistic extension support. Lindau: Neuchâtel Group. Damardjati, D. S., & Oka, M. (1992). Evaluation of urban consumer preferences for rice quality characteristics in Indonesia. In L. J. Unnevehr, B. Duff, & B. O. Juliano (Eds.), Consumer Demand for Rice Grain Quality, Manila: International Rice Research Institute De Lima C.P.F. (1979a). Appropriate techniques for use in the assessment of country loss in stored produce in the tropics. Tropical Stored Products Information 38, 15 Deepak K. & Prasanta K . (2017). Reducing Postharvest Losses during Storage of Grain Crops to Strengthen Food Security in Developing Countries, 6(1), 8; https://doi.org/10.3390/foods601000 Demont M. (2013). Reversing urban bias in African rice markets: a review of 19 National Rice Development Strategies. Glob Food Secur 2(3):172–181 Demont, M. & Ndour, M. (2015). Upgrading rice value chains: Experimental evidence from 11 African markets. Glob. Food Secur 5, 70–76. Diako, C., Manful, J. T., Johnson, E. P. N. T., Dawson, S., Bediako-Amoa, B., & Saalia, F. K. (2011). Physicochemical characterisation of four commercial Rice varieties in Ghana. Advance Journal of Food Science and Technology (3rd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 196-202). Department of Nutrition and Food Science, University of Ghana. Donkor E., Owusu-Sekyere, E., Owusu V. & Jordaan H. (2016). Impact of agricultural extension service on adoption of chemical fertilizer: Implications for rice productivity and development in Ghana https://doi.org/10.1016/j.njas.10.002 Duah, D. (2017). Performance Evaluation of both the Hand and Foot Operated Rice Threshers A Dissertation Submitted to College of Natural Resource Management and Agriculture, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for A B.Sc. (Hons) Agriculture Degree. Dunand, R., & Saichuk, J. (2009). Rice Growth and Development. In Louisiana Rice Production Handbook, Louisiana State University Agricultural Center (pp. 41–53). Duraisamy, P. (1992). Effects of education and extension contacts on Agriculture production. Indian J. of Agri. Econ. 47(2): 205-214 European Cooperative for Rural Development [EUCORD]. (2012). Rice Sector Development in East Africa: A desk study prepared for the Common Fund for Commodities March 2012. F.A.O. (1989). Prevention of post-harvest food losses: Fruits Vegetables and Fruit crops. A training manual. ISBN 9251027668 [www.fao.org/docrept/t0073E01.htm] [Accessed 3rd May 2010] 69 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh FAO (2016). Food Loss Analysis: Causes and Solutions Case studies in the Small-scale Agriculture and Fisheries Subsectors FAO. (2004). The state of food insecurity in the world. Rome, FAO. 4 pp FAO. (2007). Estimates of Post-harvest Losses in South East Asia.Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. Italy. Available online at [ http://www.fao.org/News/FACTFILE/FF9712-EHTM]. 2007. FAO. (2012). Rice market monitor, vol XV, No. 4. FAO Trade and Markets Division, Rome.http://www.fao.org/leadmin/templates/est/COMMMARKETSMONITORI NG/Rice/Images/RMM/RMM-Nov12.pdf. Fisher M, Abate T, Lunduka RW, Asnake W, Alemayehu Y, & Madulu RB. (2015). Drought tolerant maize for farmer adaptation to drought in sub-Saharan Africa: determinants of adoption in eastern and southern Africa. Clim Change.133:283– 99. Fitzgerald M. A. & Resurreccion A. P. (2009). Maintaining the yield of edible rice in a warming world. Functional Plant Biology 36: 1037–104 Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO]. (2011). Global food losses and food Waste Extent, causes and prevention. Rome. Fox T. (2013). Global Food: Waste Not, Want Not. Institution of Mechanical Engineers; Westminster, London, UK Ghana Statistical Service (2010). In: Agriculture in Ghana: Facts and Figures (2012). Statistics Research and Information Directorate (SRID) of the Ministry of Food and Agriculture (MoFA) Ghana Statistical Service (2014). Population and Housing Census, 2010, District Analytical Report, Akatsi North District. Ghana's Vision 2020 documents (1995). Co-ordinated Programme of Economic and Social Development Policies. Global Strategy. (2015). Improving Methods for Estimating Postharvest Losses: A Review of Methods for Estimating Grain Postharvest Losses Working Paper (No. 2). Retrieved from http://www. gsars.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/WP-Reviewof- Methods_for_estimating_grain-loss-160915.pdf Guisse, R. (2010). Post-Harvest Losses of Rice (Oriza Spp) from Harvesting to Milling: A Case Study in Besease And Nobewam in the Ejisu Juabeng District in The Ashanti Region of Ghana Gustavsson J., Cederberg C., Sonesson U., van Otterdijk R. & Meybeck A. (2011). Global Food Losses and Food Waste. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; Rome, Italy: 70 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Harris, K. L., & Lindblad, C. J. & American Association of Cereal Chemists (1978). Post-harvest grain loss assessment methods. A manual of methods for the evaluation of post- harvest losses. The league for International Food Education, The Tropical Products Institute (England), FAO, St. Paul, Mn. Group for Assistance on Systems Relating to Grain After Harvest Hodges, R. J., & Maritime, C. (2012). Postharvest Weight Losses of Cereal Grains in Sub- Saharan Africa. Natural Resources Institute, University of Greenwich, UK. Hodges, R. J., Buzby, J. C., & Bennett, B. (2011). Postharvest losses and waste in developed and less developed countries: Opportunities to improve resource use. Journal of Agricultural Science, 149(1), 37-45 Hoon, K. Oui-Woung,K., Wha Ha A. & Soojin P. (2016). Determination of Optimal Harvest Time of Chuchung Variety Green Rice® (Oryza sativa L.) with High Contents of GABA, γ- Oryzanol, and α-Tocopherol. Prev Nutr Food Sci. 2016;21(2):97-10. https://doi.org/10.3746/pnf.2016.21.2.97 Hossain MF, Bhuiya MSU, Ahmed M, Mian MH. (2009). Effect of harvesting time on the milling and physiochemical properties of aromatic rice. Thai Journal of Agricultural Science. 42(2): 91-96. IDRC (1976). Postharvest Technology. In E. V. Araullo, D. B. de Padua, & M. Graham (Eds.), Rice. International Development Research Centre Ottawa, Canada IRRI (2009a). Rice Policy- World Rice Statistics (WRS). Retrieved May 28, 2010 from http://www.irri.org/science/ricestat. IRRI, Africa Rice & CIAT (2010). Global Rice Science Partnership (GRiSP). International Rice Research Institute, Manila, Philippines; Africa Rice Center, Cotonou, Benin; and International Center for Tropical Agriculture, Cali, Colombi IRRI. (2012). World Rice Statistics. IRRI, Los Banos. http://www.irri.org. Accessed 25 Nov 2012 IRRI. (2015). Harvesting. Retrieved March 18, 2015, from http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/step-by- stepproduction/postharvest/harvesting#when-to-harvest Islam A. K. M/ S., Nath B. C., Hossen, M. A. Huda, M. D., Paul S. & Rahman A. (2016). Postharvest Loss Assessment of Rice at Selected Areas of Gazipur District. Bangladesh Rice J. 20 (1): 23-32, 2016 ISSER. (2000). The state of the Ghanaian economy Kader, A. A., & Rolle, R. S. (2004). The Role of post-harvest management in assuring the quality and safety of horticultural produce. FAO, UN, Rome 71 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Kagbu, J. H., Omokore, D. F., & Akpoko, J. G. (2016). Adoption of Recommended Rice Production Practices among Women Rice Farmers in Nasarawa State, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Extension, 20(1), 107-120. Kannan, E., Kumar P., Vishnu K. & Abraham H. (2013). Assessment of Pre and Post-Harvest Losses of Rice and Red Gram in Karnataka; Agricultural Development and Rural Transformation Centre, Institute for Social and Economic Change: Banglore, India. Khan M. A. (2010). Report on Post Harvest Losses of RICE. Agro Food Division, Trade Development Authority of Pakistan Kwame A. Vowotor, Akwasi Mensah-Bonsu, Christopher Mutungi & Hippolyte Affognon. (2013). Postharvest losses in Africa – Analytical review and synthesis: the case of Ghana. CSIR – Food Research Institute, Accra, Ghana; University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana: International Centre for Insect Physiology and Ecology (icipe), Nairobi, Kenya Lantin, R. (1999). RICE: Postharvest Operations (pp. 13–29). Philippines: International Rice Research Institute. Laroche D.C. & Postolle A. (2013). Food sovereignty and agricultural trade policy commitments: How much leeway do West African nations have? Food Policy 38, 115–125. Madhu S., Reddy T., Suresh H.N. & Raghu B. (2013). Modeling of Cycling Pedal for Agricultural Usage. International Journal of Engineering and Science Vol.3, Issue 12 (December 2013), PP -120-131 Issn (e): 2278-4721, Issn (p):2319-6483, Manikowski, S. (1984) Birds injurious to crops in West Africa. Tropical Pest Management 30, 379–387 Martins, A. G. (2013). Post - Harvest Loss in Tropical Soybean Systems: Brazillian Managers’ Perception and Mitigation Strategies: Two Manuscripts Mey, Y.D. & Demont M. (2013). Bird Damage to Rice in Africa: Evidence and Control. Hasselt University, Centre for Environmental Sciences, Diepenbeek, Belgium; Africa Rice Center (AfricaRice), Saint-Louis, Senegal. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236313509_Bird_dam Michael, J.N. (1978). Crop conservation and storage in cool temperature climates. William Clowes and Sons. Limited, London, Beceles and Colcheste MoFA (2017). Agricultural Sector Progress Report_Final.PPMED.MoFA MoFA. (2009). Ministry of Food and Agriculture, the Republic of Ghana National Rice Development Strategy (NRDS) Draft Report. MoFA. (2015). Northern Region Agricultural Development Unit. Available:mofafoodsecurity:mofafoodsecuri ty.wordpress.com/food-security- situationin-ghana/ (Retrieved Oct Monday 19, 2015) 72 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh MoFA. (2016). Agriculture in Ghana: Facts and Figures. Statistics Research and Information Directorate (SRID) .Retreaved from http://mofa.gov.gh/site/wpcontent/uploads/2018/05/Agric%20in%20Ghana%20F MoFA. (2017).Agriculture in Ghana: Facts and Figures. Statistics Research and Information Directorate (SRID) Mohanty S. (2013). Trends in global rice consumption. Rice Today 12(1):44–45 Nakano Y, Bamba I, Diagne A, Otsuka K & Kajisa K (2013) The possibility of a rice green revolution in large-scale irrigation schemes in Sub-Saharan Africa. Policy Research Working Paper 5560. The World Bank Development Research Group, Agriculture and Rural Development Team. The World Bank, Washington DC Napasintuwong, O. (2012). Survey of Recent Innovations in Aromatic Rice. Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics Kasetsart University, Bangkok 10900 Thailand. Paper prepared for presentation at the 131st EAAE Seminar ‘Innovation for Agricultural Competitiveness and Sustainability of Rural Areas’, Prague, Czech Republic, September 18-19, 2012. orachos.n@ku.ac.th Oerke, E. C., (2005) Crop losses to pests. Journal of Agricultural Science 143, 31–43 Ofori Obeng Nketiah. (2015). Estimation Of Quantitative Losses Of Rice (Oryzae Sativa L.) During Harvesting, Threshing and Cleaning in The Upper East Region: A Case Study at Tono Irrigation Project Oladele, O. (2006). Multilinguality of farm broadcast and agricultural information University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 78 accessing Nigeria. Nordic Journal of African Studies, 15(2), 199–205 Olugboji O. A. (2004). Development of a Rice Threshing Machine. AU J.T. 8(2): 75-80 (Oct. 2004). Department of Mechanical Engineering, Federal University of Technology Minna, Niger State Oluyemi, A. T. (2014).Characterisation of Jasmine 85 Rice (Oryza Sativa) Variety from different Sources of Seed Production on Ghana A Thesis Submitted to the School of Research and Graduate Studies, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Award of Master of Philosophy (Seed Science and Technology) Degree Oteng, J.W. (1997). Rice production and development in Ghana. International Rice Commission Newsletter. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome, Vol. 46. www.fao.org/3/v6017t/V6017T05.htm Peng S, Huang J, Sheehy JE, Laza RC, Visperas RM, Zhong X, Centeno GS, Khush GS & Cassman K. G. (2004). Rice yields decline with higher night temperature from global warming.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A,101(27):9971-5 Quaye, A. (2016). Performance Evaluation Of A Motorised Mini-Rice Thresher. A Dissertation Submitted to the College of Engineering, Faculty of Agricultural/Mechanical 73 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Engineering, Department of Agricultural Engineering, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement for B.Sc. (Hons) Agricultural Engineering Degree Ragasa, C., Awere D., Acheampong, P., Alexander Nimo Wiredu, A.N., Chapoto, A.Marian Asamoah, M.& and Tripp, R. (2013). Patterns of Adoption of Improved Rice Technologies in Ghana.National Policy Food Research institute.Ghana, Strategy Support Program, working paper 35/ July, 2013. Rahman, M.A., Kang, S., Nidhi N.,& Macnee, R. (2017). Impacts of temperature and rainfall variation on rice productivity in major ecosystems of Bangladesh Agriculture & Food Security2017 6:10 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-017-0089- Ramatoulaye, G. (2010). Post harvest losses of rice (Oriza spp) from harvesting to milling : A case study in Besease and Nobewam in the Ejisu Juabeng district in the Ashanti region of Ghana. M.Sc. Dissertation, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology Ranawake, A. L., Amarasinghe, U. G. S., & Senanayake, S. G. J. N. (2013). Determination of some agronomic characters in different age groups of traditional rice cultivars in Sri Lanka under fertilized and non-fertilized conditions. Journal of Agricultural Biotechnology and Sustainable Development, 5(5), 79–83. http://doi.org/10.5897/JABSD2013.0204 Reza, M. A. & Allameh, A. (2013). Evaluating Rice Losses in Various Harvesting Practices Agricultural Engineering Department, Rice Research Institute of Iran, International Research Journal of Applied and Basic Sciences Rasht, Iran. Vol., 4 (4), 894-901. Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations (4th ed) New York. Journal of Agricultural Extension Education, 1(15),1-6. Sadiya S S.& Hassan I I. (2018). Post-harvest Loss in Rice: Causes, Stages, Estimates and Policy Implications.Department of Agricultural Economics, Federal University Dutsin- Ma, Nigeria. Volume 15 Issue 4.DOI: 10.19080/ARTOAJ.2018.15.555964 . Saed, B. S. D., Manful, J., Médard, M., Kromah, A., Houssou, P., Fandohan, P., . . . Coulibaly, S. (2011). Training manual for improved rice postharvest technologies in West Africa: CORAF/WECARD staple crops programme global food security response initiative. Dakar, Senegal. Salim, M. & MA. Sagar. (2003). Milling quality of rice. Pakistan Journal of Food Sciences. 13 (3-4): 55- 62. Samajpati, J.N. & Sheikh, M. S. A. (1980). Paddy and rice storage in Bangladesh with emphasis on insect infestation. Agricultural Mechanization in Asia. 11(1): 69-72. Saunders, R. M., Mossman, A. P., Wasserman, T. & Beagle, E.C., (1980). A 1978 Survey of Rice Postharvest Losses During Threshing, Drying, Parboiling, Milling, and the Potential for Reducing Such Losses in Developing Countries.In Rice Postharvest Losses in Developing Countries, Agricultural Reviews and Manuals, ARM-W-12, April Oakland, Calif. 94612 74 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Savary, S..& Willocquet, L. (2014).. Simulation Modeling in Botanical Epidemiology and Crop Loss Analysis. The Plant Health Instructor. DOI: 10.1094/PHI-A-2014-0314-01. https://www.apsnet.org/edcenter/disimpactmngmnt/topc/Bo Seline, S. M., Delia, C., Oluyede, C. A., Gudeta, W. S., & Maarten, N. (2015). The role of knowledge, attitudes and perceptions in the uptake of agricultural and agro forestry innovations among smallholder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa. International Journal of Agricultural Sustainability, 13(1), 40-54. Singh R.K., Singh U.S. & Khush G.S. (2000). Aromatic Rices. Oxford & IBH Publishing Co. Pvt. Ltd., 66 Janpath, New Delhi 110 001. Ssebaggala G. L., Kibwika P., Kyazze F. B. & Karubanga G. (2017). Farmers’ Perceptions of Rice Postharvest Losses in Eastern Uganda, Journal of Agricultural Extension 21 (2). https://dx.doi.org/10.4314/jae.v21i2.3 Sultana Nasrin, Johanna Bergman Lodin, Magnus Jirström, Björn Holmquist, Agnes Andersson Djurfeldt & Göran Djurfeldt (2015). Drivers of rice production: evidence from five Sub- Saharan African countries. Agriculture & Food Securityvolume 4, Article number: 12 (2015) Taiwo, A. & Bart-Plange A. (2016). Factors Responsible for Post-Harvest Losses And Their Effects On Rice Producing Farmers: A Case Study of Afife and Aveyime Rice Projects in the Volta Region of Ghana. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology. Volume: 03 Issue: 04 Tanko, M. (2016). Rice Importation in Northern Region of Ghana; Its Impact on Domestic Rice Production and Some Policy Measures. 9(3): 1-11, 2016; AJAEES. 22970. The International Rice Research institute (IRRI, 2013). http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/images/docs/training-manual-harvest .Accessed on 15th July, 2019. Togola A., Seck P.A., Glitho I. A. Diagne A. Adda C., Toure A. & Nwilene F.E. (2013). Economic Losses from Insect Pests Infestation on Rice Stored On-farm in Beni. Journal of Applied Sciences 13(2): 278-285. Tollens, E. (2006). Markets and institutions for promoting rice as a tool for food security and poverty reduction in sub-Sahara Africa. Afr. Crop Sci. J., 15, 237–242. UN. (2014). World Population Prospects: The 2012 Revision. http:// esa.un.org/wpp/, accessed 17.05.14 Untong, A., Pongpatcharatorntep, D., & Kaosa-ard, M. (2010). Import demand for Thai rice and factors determining its price in modern trade market of China. Applied Economics Journal, 17(2), pp 55–77. VAUGHAN, D.A. (1994). Wild relatives of rice: genetic resources handbook. Los Ban˜os, Philippines: International Rice Research Institut 75 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh Velde, K.V. & Maertens, M. (2014). Impact of contract-farming in staple food chains: the case of rice in Benin. Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Division of Bioeconomics. Paper prepared for presentation at the EAAE 2014 Congress ‘Agri-Food and Rural Innovations for Healthier Societies, Ljubljana, Slovenia WARDA. (2007). Africa Rice Trends: overview of recent developments in the sub-Saharan Africa rice sector. Africa Rice Center Brief. Africa Rice Center (WARDA), Cotonou, Benin. http://www.warda.org Welch JR, Vincent JR, Auffhammer M, Moya PF, Dobermann A, & Dawe D. (2010)..Rice yields in tropical/subtropical Asia exhibit large but opposing sensitivities to minimum and maximum temperatures.Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 107(33):14562- 7. World Bank. (2011). Missing food: The Case of Postharvest Grain Losses in Sub-Saharan Africa. Report No. 60371-AFR. April 2011, Washington D.C. Yannicke, G. (2016). Youth inclusiveness in agricultural transformation. The case of Ghana. Food & Business Knowledge Platform INCLUDE AgriProFocus Ziska, L. H., & Bunce, J. A., (1998). The influence of increasing growth temperature and CO2 concentration on the ratio of respiration to photosynthesis in soybean seedlings. Global Change Biology 4: 637–643 76 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh APPENDICES APPENDIX I: QUESTIONNAIRE ON QUANTITATIVE LOSS ASSESSMENT DURING POSTHARVEST HANDLING OF PADDY RICE IN AKATSI NORTH DISTRICT OF VOLTA REGION. This research is an academic exercise and all information shall be used solely for the purposes stated. Every information given will be treated as confidential. Section 1 A. General Information about the Farmer 1. Age: ...................................... 2. Gender: Male [ ] Female [ ] 3. Marital status: Single [ ] Married [ ] Divorce [ ] Others [ ] 4. Highest level of education attained: No formal education [ ] Basic Education [ ] Secondary Education [ ] Tertiary Education [ ] Section 1B : Farming Characteristics of Respondents 5. how long have you been growing rice farming?………………………….. (Years) 6. Do you do any other kind of work other than farming? Yes [ ] No [ ] 7. If yes, please specify. ………………………………………………… 8. Do you usually have any form of assistance on your farm? Yes [ ] No [ ] 9. If yes, is it family or hired or both ............................................... 10. What is the size of your farm? Less than 1 acre [ ] 1-5 acres [ ] 6-10 acres [ ] bigger than 10 acres [ ] 11. What variety of rice do you grow? Please specify --------------------------------------- 12. What method of planting do you use? Broadcasting [ ] Transplanting [ ] Both [ ] Others [ ] 13. Do you usually use any agrochemicals during production? Yes [ ] No [ ] 14. If yes, what type(s) of chemicals are used? ----------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 15. How long does it take the rice from heading to harvesting? 20-25 days [ ] 26-30 days [ ] 31-35 days [ ] 36-40 days [ ] 16. Which harvesting method(s) do you usually use? Combined harvester [ ] manual / sickle [ ] Both [ ] 77 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 17. What is your average total harvest (bags) per acre in a cropping season? ------------------------- ---- Section 2: Knowledge, Perception and Experience of Farmers in Loss Assessment. 18. do you usually experience losses on your farm? Yes [ ] No [ ] Have you received any training in loss assessment? Yes [ ] No [ ] 19. If yes, specify the area(s) of training-------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20. In your opinion would you say the training(s) was/were necessary and helpful in increasing your output? Yes [ ] No [ ] Loss Assessment at Farm Level A: Harvesting loss and its estimation 21. Do you usually experience losses during harvesting? Yes [ ] No [ ] 22. If yes, in which forms do the losses occur? Please explain. ----------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 23. Do you think the loss is large enough to reduce your expected yield? Yes [ ] No [ ] 24. If yes, by how many bags in your estimation? Less than 1 bag [ ] 1 bag [ ] 2 bags [ ] 3-5 bags [ ] more than 5 bags [ ] 25. How do you estimate the losses during harvesting? -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 26. What have you done to reduce the harvesting losses? Please specify. ---------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ B: in-field stacking loss 27 where do you usually place harvested straw during harvesting ?....................................................... 28. how long do you keep the harvested panicles in the field before gathering it to the threshing floor?....................................................................................................................... ........................... 29. do you usually lose some rice grains when the harvested straws are place in smaller heaps in the field? Yes [ ] No [ ] 30. In which form do the losses occur?................................................................. 78 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh 31 Are the losses large enough to affect your output? Yes [ ] NO [ ] 32. How much ? Half a bag [ ] 1 bag [ ] 2 bags 3 bags [ ] 33. How do measure the loss?........................................................................... 34 the what do you do to reduce loss ?................................................................... C: Threshing loss and its estimation 31. What method of threshing do you usually use? Machine [ ] Manual/ hand [ ] Both [ ] If manual, 32 which method? Box or bambam [ ] Drum [ ] beating panicles with stick [ ] others [ ] 33. How long do you usually keep the harvested straw before threshing? Immediately [ ] 1-3 days [ ] 4- 7 days [ ] more than 7 days [ ] 34. what tools, equipment and materials do you usually during threshing?---------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------- 35. Do you experience losses during threshing? Yes [ ] No [ ] 36. If yes, in which forms do the losses occur? ------------------------------------------------------------ --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 37. In your view are the losses large enough to reduce your total expected output? Yes [ ] No [ ] 38. If yes, by how many bags? Less than 1 bag [ ] 1 bag [ ] 2 bags [ ] 3-5 bags [ ] more than 5 bags [ ] 39. How do you measure losses during threshing? Please explain--------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 40. In which other ways do losses occur on your farm? -------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 41. What have you done to reduce the losses on your farm? Please specify --------------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ D; Cleaning Loss 42. Do you usually experience losses during cleaning? Yes [ ] No [ ] 43. how much per acre? 1 bag [ ] 1 bag [ ] 2 bags [ ] 44 how do you determine the loss at cleaning 79 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh D: Factors Influencing Losses 38. Rank these factors according to the degree of losses caused using the scale provided by putting a tick in the appropriate column in the table Scale: 1= very high 2= high 3= can’t tell 4= low 1 2 3 4 5 5=very low Weather conditions Unimproved seeds/varieties Planting methods Pests and diseases Time of harvesting Harvesting methods Inadequate labour Section 3: Challenges 39. On numerical scale of 1 to 5, rank the following as 1- most challenging 2-more challenging 3-some times 4- less challenging 5- Not challenging 1 2 3 4 5 Access to land Access to credit Access to tools and machines Access to improved seeds/ varieties Destruction of panicles by birds Diseases Access to storage facilities Lack of ready market Access to extension services/ agricultural education 80 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh APPENDIX II: TABLES HARVEST LOSS AT 35DAYS AFTER HEADING (35DAH) Average Weight of Average Weight of Average Harvest Loss Threshed Paddy for Unharvested and Total Yield for a (%) Farm a Quadrat Shattered Grains Quadrat 2 2 2 Number (kg/9m ) (kg/9m ) (Kg/9m ) 1 3.135 0.152 3.287 4.6 2 5.235 0.066 5.301 1.2 3 1.845 0.060 1.906 3.1 4 1.700 0.072 1.772 4.0 5 3.670 0.055 3.72 1.5 6 4.120 0.043 4.163 1.0 7 2.765 0.072 2.017 3.6 8 3.03 0.120 3.15 3.8 IN-FIELD STACKING LOSS AT 35 DAYS AFTER HEADING (35DAH) Average Weight of Average Average In-Field Farm Threshed Paddy for Weight. of In- Total Yield for Stacking Loss Number a Quadrat Field Stacking a Quadrat (%) 2 2 (kg/9m ) Losses (kg/9m ) 2 (kg/9m ) 1 3.135 0.014 3.164 0.4 2 5.235 0.044 5.278 0.8 3 1.845 0.027 1.827 1.5 4 1.700 0.028 1.728 1.6 5 3.670 0.038 3.708 1.0 6 4.120 0.029 4.149 0.6 7 2.765 0.024 2.039 1.2 8 3.03 0.032 3.062 1.0 THRESHING LOSS AT 35DAYS AFTERHEADING (35DAH) Average Weight of Average Average Threshing Threshed Paddy Weight of Total Yield for Loss Farm for a Quadrat Unthreshed and a Quadrat (%) 2 2 Number (kg/9m ) Scattered Grains (kg/9m ) 2 (kg/9m ) 1 3.135 0.143 3.278 4.4 2 5.235 0.148 5.383 2.7 3 1.845 0.063 1.588 3.9 4 1.700 0.042 1.742 2.4 5 3.670 0.069 3.798 1.8 6 4.120 0.091 4.211 2.2 7 2.765 0.069 2.834 2.5 8 3.03 0.065 3.095 2.1 81 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh CLEANING LOSS AT 35 DAYS AFTER HEADING (35DAH) Average Weight of Average Weight Average Cleaning Farm Threshed Paddy of Cleaning Loss Total Yield Loss (%) 2 Number for a Quadrat (kg/9m ) for a Quadrat 2 2 (kg/9m ) (kg/9m ) 1 3.135 0.023 1,48 0.01 2 5.235 0.029 5.261 0.6 3 1.845 0.019 1.864 1.0 4 1.700 0.027 1.727 1.6 5 3.670 0.019 3.689 0.5 6 4.120 0.031 4.151 0.7 7 2.765 0.020 2.705 0.7 8 3.03 0.019 3.049 0.6 HARVEST; LOSS OF FARMERS’ PRACTICE (37DAH) Average Weight of Average Weight of Average Harvest Farm Threshed Paddy Unharvested and Total Yield for a Loss Number for a Quadrat Shattered Grains Quadrat (%) 2 2 2 (kg/9m ) ( kg/9m ) (kg/9m ) 1 2.91 0.138 3.018 4.6 2 5.23 0.056 5.286 1.1 3 1.625 0.064 1.680 3.8 4 2.19 0.051 2.241 2.2 5 3.995 0.10 3.095 3.2 6 3.825 0.069 3.094 2.2 7 2.67 0.083 2.753 3.0 8 1.535 0.129 1.664 7.8 IN-FIELD STACKING LOSS FOR THE FARMERS’ PRACTICE (37DAH) Average Weight of Average. Weight. Average In-Field Farm Threshed Paddy 0f In-Field Total Yield Stacking Loss Number for a Quadrat Stacking Loss for a Quadrat (%) 2 2 2 (kg/9m ) (kg/9m ) (kg/9m ) 1 2.91 0.017 2.927 0.5 2 5.23 0.033 5.56 0.5 3 1.625 0.01 1.636 0.6 4 2.19 0.037 2.227 1.7 5 3.995 0.032 4.027 0.7 6 3.825 0.016 3.841 0.4 7 2.67 0.027 2.697 1.0 8 1.535 0.033 1.568 2.1 82 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh THRESHING LOSS FOR THE FARMERS PRACTICE (37DAH) Average Weight of Average Weight of Average Threshing Loss Farm Threshed Paddy Threshing Loss Total Yield (%) 2 Number for a Quadrat (Kg/9m ) for a Quadrat 2 2 (Kg/9m ) (Kg/9m ) 1 2-91 0.143 3.049 4.5 2 5.23 0.148 5.370 2.8 3 1.625 0.063 1.688 3.7 4 2.19 0.042 2.232 1.9 5 3.995 0.069 4.064 1.7 6 3.825 0.091 3.916 2.3 7 2.67 0.069 2.739 2.5 8 1.535 0.065 1.60 4.1 CLEANING LOSS OF THE FARMERS PRACTICE (37DAH) Average Weight of Average. Average Cleaning Farm Threshed Paddy Weight. of Total Yield Loss Number for a Quadrat Cleaning Loss for a Quadrat (%) 2 2 2 (kg/9m ) (kg/9m ) (kg/9m ) 1 2.91 0.023 2.933 7.8 2 5.23 0.029 5.259 5.5 3 1.625 0.019 1.622 1.2 4 2.19 0.027 2.217 1.2 5 3.995 0.019 4.014 2.3 6 3.825 0.031 3.85 8.1 7 2.67 0.020 2.87 6.6 8 1.535 0.019 1.554 1.2 PERCENTAGE FIELD MOISTURE CONTENT AT HARVEST (%MC) Recommended Farmers’s Practice Farm Number [Ractice(35DAH) (37DAH) %MC %Mc 1 15.6 15.3 2 17.4 14.3 3 11.9 11.8 4 13.0 11.6 5 17.3 17.4 6 18.0 17.1 7 16.4 15.9 8 16.9 14.8 83 University of Ghana http://ugspace.ug.edu.gh COMPARISON OF OUTPUT 35DAH AND 37DAH Sample Size Mean Variance deviation of mean 35DAH_mt_ha 8 3.765 1.762 1.327 0.4693 37DAH 8 3.554 2.098 1.448 0.5121 Difference of means: 0.211 Standard error of difference: 0.695 95% confidence interval for difference in means: (-1.278, 1.701) Test of null hypothesis that mean of 35DAH_mt_ha is equal to mean of 37DAH Test statistic t = 0.30 on 14 d.f. Probability = 0.765 COMPARISM OF LOSSES AT THE FOUR POINTS OF ASSESSMENT Losses at 35DAH Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. TREATMENT 5 202.318 40.464 9.10 <.001 Residual 42 186.800 4.448 Total 47 389.117 Loss at Farmers’ Practice Source of variation d.f. s.s. m.s. v.r. F pr. TREATMENT 5 201.609 40.322 8.88 <.001 Residual 41 186.095 4.539 Total 46 387.705 84