Assessment of rice farmers’ knowledge and perception of harvest and postharvest losses in Ghana

Amponsah, S. K.; Addo, Ahmad; Dzisi, Komla Agbeko; Asante, Bright Owusu; Afona, Daniel

doi:10.1080/23311932.2018.1471782

Cited by 14 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Elsewhere, the literature presents young people as a key pillar in the sustainable management of natural resources in some countries (Kwadwo et al, 2018; Thew, 2018). In most cases, youth mobilization activities occur through numerous networks that are orchestrated by government, political parties, civil society groups, grassroots networks, and/or community associations.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate Change and Young People in Uganda: A Literature Review

Mugeere

Barford

Magimbi

2021

The Journal of Environment & Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The disruptions of anthropogenic climate change are increasingly severe. People living in sub-Saharan Africa are especially exposed to these risks, and amongst them young people. It is well established that climate disruptions have the potential to halt education, displace populations, and wreck infrastructure. This rigorous literature review focuses on climate change in the landlocked East African country of Uganda, demographically the world’s third youngest country, where young people struggle to get by due to insufficient work opportunities. Extended to other countries in the Eastern and Central African region, the review considers what is known about the intersection of youth livelihoods and climate change; young people’s susceptibility to climate disruption due to limited resources and livelihood options; and the constraints around their responses. The review findings suggest the need for substantial youth informed interventions to bolster young people’s economic resilience and adaptive capacity given the worsening climate change and prolonged population growth.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Climate Change and Young People in Uganda: A Literature Review

Mugeere

Barford

Magimbi

2021

The Journal of Environment & Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some studies used questionnaires to directly inquire farmers' understanding of the causes of rice harvest losses [37,47,65,86]. Multiple regression analyses were also applied to estimate the influencing factors of the losses [45,74,77,80,82].…”

Section: Causes Of Harvest Lossmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Multiple regression analyses were also applied to estimate the influencing factors of the losses [45,74,77,80,82]. Factors that contribute to harvest losses include environmental, socio-economic, and mechanical [65].…”

Section: Causes Of Harvest Lossmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7% of farmers thought: 0-9% 36.11% of farmers thought: 10-19% 10.19% of farmers thought: 20-29%[65] Field experiments, questionnaire GhanaFarmers' perceptions about the total post-harvest loss (from harvesting to milling): 35% of farmers thought: over 40% 35% of farmers thought: 30-39%15% of farmers thought: 20-29% 10% of farmers thought: 10-19% 5% of farmers thought: 0-9% Harvesting loss at 4*5-m area of rice field experiments: Nerica 1 by panicle: 6450 g (1.13%) Nerica 2 by panicle: 6409 g (1.64%) Average loss of Nerica 1 and 2 by panicle: 6430 g (1.38%) Nerica 1 by sickle: 6925 g (3.25%) Nerica 2 by sickle: 7443 g (2.62%) Average loss of Nerica 1 and 2 by sickle: 7184 g (2.93%) Average loss of Nerica 1: 6688 g (2.10%) Average loss of Nerica 2: 6926 g (2.33%) Threshing loss at 4*5-m area of rice field experiments: Nerica 1 by bag-beating (panicle): 3.98% Nerica 2 by bag-beating (panicle): 0.92% Average loss of Nerica 1 and 2 by bag-beating (panicle): 2.45% Nerica 1 by Bambam (sickle): 5.33% Nerica 2 by Bambam (sickle): 6.96% Average loss of Nerica 1 and 2 by Bambam (sickle): 6.14% Average loss of Nerica 1: 4.65% Average loss of Nerica 2: 3.94% Harvesting and threshing loss at farmers' fields: Farmer 1 (Nerica): harvesting loss (Sickle): 382 g (7.91%); threshing loss (Sac beating): 35 g (0.73%); total loss: 8.65% Farmer 2 (Nerica): harvesting loss (Sickle): 135 g (12.05%); threshing loss (Sac beating): 50 g (4.07%); total loss: 16.14% Farmer 3 (Nerica): harvesting loss (Sickle): 198 g (2.60%); threshing loss (Sac beating): 211 g (3.00%); total loss: 5.60% Farmer 4 (Sikamo): harvesting loss (Sickle): 299 g (8.20%); threshing loss (Sac beating): 144 g (3.73%); total loss: 11.93% Farmer 5 (Nerica): harvesting loss (Sickle): 177 g (3.03%); threshing loss (Sac beating): 36 g (0.53%); total loss: 3.57%…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Losses in the Rice Harvest Process: A Review

Xue

Kojima

et al. 2021

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We review existing studies on rice harvest loss from the aspects of estimation methods, magnitudes, causes, effects, and interventions. The harvest losses examined occurred from the field reaping to storage processes, including threshing, winnowing, and field transportation. We find that existing studies on rice harvest losses have focused on quantitative losses in Asia and Africa. Lack of knowledge, inadequate harvesting techniques, poor infrastructure, and inefficient harvest management practices are considered critical contributors to the losses. The magnitudes and causes of rice harvest losses are now better understood than interventions, which have simply been presented but lack an assessment of the effects and a cost–benefit analysis. Interestingly, reduction in harvest losses may threaten some farmers’ profits, such as rural women who make their living from post-production manual operations. Considering the current status of the literature, future researchers should examine how to balance social and individual welfare since farmers are key stakeholders in intervention implementation. A good understanding of the existing researches can help clarify future efforts for loss reduction, thereby reducing the burden of increasing agricultural production and promoting sustainable development of resources and the environment.

show abstract

“…al., 2014;Assis and Ismail, 2011;Muhammad et. al., 2012;Abbassy, 2017;Amponsah, et. al., 2018;Baksh et al 2015;Adesuyi et.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%