1

CHAPTER I

PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING

Introduction

Rice is one of the most important food crops in the world and ranks second in terms of
area and production. It is grown in at least 114 countries around the world and is a staple food for
nearly half of the world’s population. However, rice production in Southeast Asia is highly
vulnerable to climate change.

The two factors that are still considered to be most crucial in determining whether crop
production is successful or unsuccessful are productivity and profitability. When both Filipino
scientists and rice farmers come up with innovations that seek to pursue rice self-sufficiency and
global competitiveness for the Filipino farmer, it is expected that rice production practices would
continue to adapt in response to the changing issues and requirements of the times.

Harvesting is an important and sensitive part of rice production, as it is the process of

collecting matured rice from field. Manual harvesting of rice is sometimes a troublesome, time-
consuming, labor involving and costly operation, so several rice-producing Asian countries have
attempted to introduce compatible technologies for current circumstance. Reaping, stacking,
handling, threshing, cleaning and trucking are tasks related to rice harvesting. Both physical
labor and simultaneous use of a combine harvester can be used to do these tasks. Farming and
agricultural machinery have seen considerable developments over time.

All tools and machines used in the cultivation, harvesting, and maintenance of agricultural goods
are referred to as farm machinery. In the meantime, PHilMech created the Agricultural
Mechanization Index to organize the machinery distribution of PHilMech under the Rice
Competitiveness Enhancement Fund Program (Rivera, D., 2023). The government allotted 5
billion pesos for the mechanization program to help Filipino rice farmers prosper and become
globally competitive. This program was under the RCEF which was created under the Rice
Tariffication Law (Republic Act No. 11203). The agriculture industry has improved greatly
thanks to modern farm machinery. For instance, a farmer can harvest and thresh 3-5 hectares of
land in a single day utilizing a rice combine harvester. Only during harvesting. Planting is
another agriculture task that requires a lot of labor. If farmers implement this technological
 2

innovation, the use of farm machinery will significantly increase the nation’s agricultural output.
With the combine harvester’s two-in-one operations (harvesting and threshing), the task won’t be
as tedious anymore, especially during harvest. Additionally, using machinery can increase
income since owners can start businesses that offer farm services (Tacio, H., 2022)

This research will visit the past experiences of the rice farmers on how they harvested
their product traditionally and with the use of technology then make profits from it at Alicia,
Isabela. This will help the farmers to apply good harvesting method to maximize their
productivity and profitability. It will also look forward on the problems and challenges they had
encountered and how they had overcome it.

Statement of the Problem

This study sought to examine the differences between the profitability and productivity of
technology-based and traditional rice harvesting in Alicia.

Specifically, the study aimed to provide answers to the following questions:

1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of:

a. age; and
b. years of farming?
2. What is the profile of the farms in terms of:
a. type of land;
b. land area; and
c. economic status?
1) productivity
2) profitability
3. What are the perceived impacts of technology-based and traditional rice harvesting in
terms of productivity?
4. What are the perceived impacts of technology-based and traditional rice harvesting in
terms of profitability?
5. What is the relationship between the profitability and productivity of traditional and
technology-based rice harvesting?
 3

6. What are the challenges or problems encountered in technology-based and traditional rice
harvesting in achieving profitability?
7. What are the coping strategies they used to overcome their challenges or problems?

Objectives

This study attempted to answer the following:

1. To determine the profile of the respondents in terms of:

a. age; and
b. years of farming.
2. To determine the profile of the farm in terms of:
a. type of land;
b. land area; and
c. economic status.
1) productivity
2) profitability
3. To identify the perceived impacts of technology-based and traditional rice harvesting in
terms of productivity.
4. To identify the perceived impacts of technology-based and traditional rice harvesting in
terms of profitability.
5. To determine the relationship between the profitability and productivity of traditional and
technology-based rice harvesting.
6. To determine the challenges or problems encountered in technology-based and traditional
rice harvesting in achieving profitability.
7. To determine the coping strategies they used to overcome their challenges or problems.

Scope and Delimitation

The study had focused its attention in assessing the differences between the profitability
and productivity of traditional and technology-based rice harvesting in Alicia.
 4

The study focused on the farmers specifically from the five barangays of Alicia namely,
Santa Cruz, Victoria, Paddad, San Fernando, and Linglingay. The respondents of this study were
the landowners who had been engaged in farming for at least six years starting from 2016 until
2021, not owners of reapers but only availing of the services, and whose farm is at least half a
hectare. The study used questionnaires that were distributed to the selected respondents to gather
enough information needed to finish this study. The range of the study started on November
2022 until June 2023.

Significance of the Study

This section had provided a brief description on the various significance of the study. The
following are the ones who will gain information and benefit from this study.

Farmers. It aims to enable the local farmers to perceive and understand the significance
of adopting appropriate method in harvesting rice.

Future Farmers. It will help the future farmer to decide good harvesting method to
maximize their productivity and profitability.

Community. The result of this study can, therefore, provide a useful guide for policy
formulation and for improving the methods, strategies, and programs.

Students/ Future Researchers. This study may serve as a guide and reference and as
basis to make any related study for the student/future researchers undertaking similar studies.
The data will give them better understanding which is more efficient and effective between
traditional and technology-based method in harvesting.
 5

Definition of terms

The following definitions are defined operationally and conceptually.

Capital. It is the money, labor, and other resources used in two cropping for one year.

Facilities. It is the physical resources used in harvesting such as machinery.

Harvesting. It is the process of collecting the mature rice crop from the field.

Manpower. It is the number of people working in the farm.

Palay. Rice at any stage prior to milling.

Productivity. It is defined as a measure of efficiency in an agricultural production system which

employs land, labor, capital and other related resources.

Profitability. It is the degree to which the value of a farm’s production exceeds the cost of the
resources used to produce it.

Traditional Rice Harvesting. It means that all operational activities from rice harvesting to
cleaning are done manually.

Technology-based Rice Harvesting. It is the mechanical harvesting using the latest harvesting
technologies during harvesting to cleaning operations.

Thresher. An agricultural machinery used in separating the grains from the harvested rice crop.

Reaper. An agricultural machinery that harvests crops automatically

 6

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

Related Foreign Literature

For rice production, harvesting is an important and sensitive part as well as others from
seedling to storing. Harvesting is the process of collecting matured rice from field. In harvesting
rice there are two methods, traditional method and the modern method.

Traditional method means that all operational activities from rice harvesting to cleaning
are done manually using hand tools. Manual harvesting of rice is sometimes a troublesome, time-
consuming, labor involving and costly operation. Therefore, several rice-producing Asian
countries have seriously attempted to introduce compatible technologies for current circumstance
(Alizadeh and Allameh, 2013).

Modern method means mechanical harvesting using latest harvesting technologies during
harvesting to cleaning operations. Reaper with power thresher and mini-combine harvester are
used by small to medium farmers in the developing countries limitedly. Somewhere medium
combine harvester is also using by medium to large farmers in the both developing and
developed countries. However, large combine harvester is used in the developed countries which
price is more expensive and not affordable for small to medium farmers. (Hasan et.al, 2020)

Mechanized agriculture entails the utilization of farm power and machinery in farming
operations to increase productivity and profitability of farming enterprises through minimum
inputs. It offers a lot of potential benefits not only to farmers and consumers but also to the
whole country’s economy. Jones et al. (2019) reported that agricultural technologies can improve
economic productivity and reduce time spent in agricultural production, processing, and
transporting. Decreasing resources example are the land, labor, soil health and water and
increasing climate vulnerability which is drought, salinity, flood, heat and cold appeared as the
great challenges to keep pace of food production in the background of increasing population.
Sufficient rice production is the key to ensure food security (Brolley, 2015).

Jones et al. (2019) mentioned that technologies/mechanization can improve the timing of
tasks, reduce drudgery, make labor more efficient; and improve the quality and quantity of food.
Timely harvesting is a crucial and important process to ensure yield, quality and production cost
 7

of rice (Noby et al., 2018). Adoption of modern mechanical harvesting practices like combine
harvester, mini-combine harvester, reaper is urgently needed to save time, labor and money
through reducing the human drudgery, harvesting losses and increase the cropping intensity, crop
productivity, economic emancipation.

Profitability is a major concern to farmers. But a lot of farmers cannot afford buying a
modern mechanical technology in harvesting like reaper. Farmers want a modern technology
because it has a lot of benefits to them. Amponsah et al. (2017) reported that unavailability of
appropriate harvesting machinery and technologies is a great disincentive to most rice farmers.

Farmers employed different considerations in rice farming, which include production

inputs and postproduction inputs. According to Hou et.al (2020), there were different inputs used
in rice production, which may affect the rice production and profitability of rice farmers. The
resources used in rice farming for dry and wet cropping seasons include production inputs such
as type of seeds, type of rice land, rice farm size, types of fertilizer used, types of pesticides used,
labor requirement in terms of land preparation, planting, nutrient management, and pest control;
and ownership of technology used in production.

The success and profitability of agricultural production will be associated with low cost
of agricultural inputs such as fertilizers, higher yielding seeds, technology, and manpower. The
constant improvement and innovation on the type of seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, planting
processes, irrigation system, usage of different mechanized equipment and machinery as the
technologies employed in rice farming will result to an increase productivity and profitability.

According to IFAMA (2020), before rice is harvested, there are various processes that go
into rice growing. It comprises preparing the soil, planting the rice, controlling nutrient levels,
and controlling pests. To increase the productivity and profitability of rice cultivation, each
process needs to be carefully evaluated.

Ramey (2013) stated that the use of planters and harvesters in agriculture make the
process easy. Time and production are important: one needs to plant, harvest and deliver in store
in time. Having a small number of people to produce enormous quantities of food and fiber in a
small period of time has been made possible through the use of agricultural technologies.
Through agricultural technologies and by enabling the management of geographically dispersed
areas collaboratively and enabling farmers to establish immediate contact with workers, other
 8

producers, and other participants in the agricultural value chain, ICT encourage more effective
monitoring of agricultural tasks.

Agricultural Modernization remains the center focus of agricultural policy and the
strategy for private sector development. This policy directive emphasizes the role of the
government and the private sector in transforming agriculture from a low productivity
subsistence-based sector to one characterized by high productivity (Ministry of Food and
Agriculture (MoFa, 2016). Paude et al. (2019) indicated that experience in rice farming
positively has effects of rice productivity of adopters of improved technologies. Technologies in
farming have played important role in the growth of the rice sector in the Philippines.
Agriculture does not become a success only by implanting you should also have additional
knowledge and better technology.

Related Local Literature

As the "Rice Bowl of the North," Isabela is renowned for its thriving agricultural sector.
With its abundant natural resources and geographical area, Isabela is regarded as one of the most
progressive provinces in the nation thanks to agriculture. For the people of Isabela, agriculture is
their main source of income (Espiña, 2022). For Asians, particularly Filipinos, rice is essential to
existence. Even if other basic foods like bread and noodles are readily available, rice is still the
most popular choice for a staple diet in the Philippines. Rice is much more than just food; it is
also known locally as "Palay" (unmilled rice), "Bigas" (milled rice), and "Kanin" (cooked rice).
It is a grain crop with significance in both history and culture. (National Nutrition Council,
2020).

Gathering the mature rice crop from the field is the procedure of harvesting. Reaping,
stacking, handling, threshing, cleaning, and trucking are some of the tasks involved in harvesting
paddy. These can be completed one at a time, or a combine harvester can be employed to
complete them all at once. To increase grain yield, reduce grain damage, and maintain grain
quality, it is critical to use good harvesting techniques.

Depending on the place or region, different traditional, semi-mechanical, and mechanical

tools can be used in different harvesting techniques. Knives, sickles, animals, stationary
 9

threshers, harvesters mounted to tractors, and self-propelled combined harvesters are just a few
examples of the many tools that can be utilized.

Manual harvesting and threshing. This includes use of traditional tools for harvesting
(e.g., sickles, knives) and threshing (e.g., threshing racks, simple treadle threshers and animals
for trampling). A pedal thresher is a simple tool to improve manual threshing.

Semi-mechanical systems. Manual reaping and mechanical threshing. Manual harvesting

is done by hand. The use of portable thresher is usually the first step in mechanical threshing.
The use of small stationary machine threshers commonly replaces manual threshing given its
high labor requirements. Stationary threshing is generally done in the field, or near the field.

Reaping followed by machine threshing. Cutting and laying the crop on a windrow is
done using a reaper, threshing by a thresher, and cleaning either manually or by machine.

Combine harvesting. The combine harvester combines all operations: cutting the crop,
feeding it into threshing mechanism, threshing, cleaning, and discharge of grain into a bulk
wagon or directly into bags. Straw is usually discharged behind the combine in a windrow.

Dimensions of the land and labor costs per man-day are important motivators for farmers
to mechanize harvesting. farmers who grow more crops harvesting on lands is more likely to be
automated than those whose lands are smaller. Consequently, manual harvesting gets more time-
consuming and expensive as area expands. As the cost of labor rises, farmers would use
mechanical harvesting techniques (Philrice, 2016).

To increase rice productivity, reduce rice damage, and maintain rice productivity, it is
critical to use good harvesting methods. According to Rice Knowledge Bank (2020), harvest at
the right time with the right moisture content. Correct timing is crucial to prevent losses and
ensure good grain quality and high market value. Grain losses may be caused by rats, birds,
insects, lodging, and shattering. Harvesting too early results in a larger percentage of unfilled or
immature grains, which lowers yield and causes higher grain breakage during milling.
Harvesting too late leads to excessive losses and increased breakage in rice. Harvest time also
affects the germination potential of seed. Avoid delays in threshing after harvesting. Threshing
should be done as soon as possible after cutting to avoid rewetting and to reduce grain breakage.
And use proper machine settings when using a threshing machine.
 10

In the Philippines, agriculture is an important part of the economy, with crops like rice,
coconut, banana, and sugar dominating the production of crops and exports. According to the
World Bank, agriculture employs 23% of the country’s workforce as of 2021. Unfortunately,
agriculture seems not to be moving forward as expected. One reason is that most Filipino farmers
are still not using farm machineries to make it more competitive.

Studies conducted by the Philippine Center for Postharvest Development and

Mechanization (PHilMech, 2022) – the center of mechanization in the agriculture sector – show
the country’s level of mechanization is 1.23 hp/ha for all crops, 2.31 hp/ha for rice in all
provinces, and three hp/ha in major rice-producing provinces like Isabela and Nueva Ecija.

Unfortunately, the Philippines is still classified at a low-mechanization level. There are

several reasons for this: low buying power of farmers, abundance of rural labor, very small
landholdings per farmer, high cost of machines, and government policies not favorable to
mechanization agriculture.

Farming and farm machinery have evolved greatly over the years. Farm machinery
means all machines and tools that are used in the production, harvesting, and care of farm
products. Take the case of a tractor, which provides power and traction to mechanize agricultural
tasks, especially tillage.

Modern farm machinery has upgraded the agricultural industry for the best. In using the
rice combine harvester, for instance, a farmer can harvest and thresh 3-5 hectares of land in a
day. In traditional or manual harvesting will take you 15-20 man-days per hectare, excluding the
threshing operation. That is how beneficial mechanization is. That is only in harvesting. Using
farm machinery will greatly improve the agricultural production of the country only if the
farmers will adopt this technological innovation (Tacio, 2022).

Related Foreign Studies

Rice production in Southeast Asia is highly vulnerable to climate change (Redfern et al.,
2012). For rice production, harvesting is an important and sensitive part as well as others from
seedling to storing. Harvesting is the process of collecting matured rice from field. Timely
harvesting operation is known as crucial and influential processes on yield, quality and
 11

production cost of rice (Hasan et al., 2019). Bhattacharya and Ali (2015) reported that most of
the rice in the Asian countries is still harvested by hand sickle while harvesting by combine
harvester is mainly practiced in industrialized countries where farm holdings are large and labor
is expensive. Manual harvesting of rice is sometimes a troublesome, time-consuming, labor
involving and costly operation. Therefore, several rice-producing Asian countries have seriously
attempted to introduce compatible technologies for current circumstance (Alizadeh and Allameh,
2013).

In agricultural operations, harvesting plays an important role on production cost of rice

(Alam et al., 2017). In most of the developing countries, rice is manually harvested with hand
tools like sickles, and is manually threshed by hand beating on a hard matter or some cases using
a power thresher but in few areas. Arihara (2013) reported that Asian countries are occupying
89% of the world total rice area, and producing 90% of the total rice production; however, in the
South East and South Asian countries, farmers are usually reluctant to adopt new technologies
such as transplanter, tractor, and combine harvester because they are afraid of higher risk in rice
production. Ali et al. (2018) reported that developed countries are using automatic combine
harvester for harvesting cereal grains, and some developing countries of South and Southeast
Asia are also using combine harvesters and as a medium grade technology and many developing
countries are using a reaper for harvesting rice to minimizing production cost. Amponsah et al.
(2017) reported that unavailability of appropriate harvesting machinery and technologies is a
great disincentive to most rice farmers, especially in the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa.
Traditional method means that all operational activities from rice harvesting to cleaning are done
manually using hand tools. Manual harvesting of rice is a laborious, time-consuming and costly
operation which requires about 100–150 person-hours labor to harvest 1 ha of rice field
(Alizadeh and Allameh, 2013). Hasan et al. (2019) reported that many developing countries are
using manual harvesting system widely due to the unavailability of modern technologies. In
Pakistan, economic growth is firmly linked with the agriculture but agricultural production is low
as compared to the other countries of the world due to the unavailability of appropriate
agricultural machines to the farmers at the right time (Rahman et al., 2016). Danbaba et al.
(2019) also indicated that like in most countries of sub Saharan African, majority of Nigerian
rice farmers harvest rice using sickle, a semi-circle metal tool with a wooden handle and only
few farmers representing about 10% use mechanical harvester and reapers. In Sri Lanka, rice is
 12

harvested by manual labor using a sickle, and rice harvesting is delayed due to labor scarcity in
traditional method resulting in loss of grain owing to over maturity (Chandrajitha et al., 2016). In
Nepal, rice-producing technologies that minimize production loss are inadequate and not easily
available to farmers (Tripathi et al., 2019).

Modern method means mechanical harvesting using latest harvesting technologies during
harvesting to cleaning operations. For instance, reaper with power thresher, combine harvester
(mini, medium and large size) and incorporation of PA technologies including Global Navigation
Satellite System (GNSS) and GIS to evaluate machine performances precisely. Modern
harvesting technologies are capable of doing the work of many people within a short time. Ali et
al. (2017) reported that farmers found the combine harvester attractive as it performs several
tasks like harvesting, threshing, cleaning and bagging in a single operation. The most
international and national research efforts in rice production have been focused on developing
and releasing improved varieties for enhanced yields, but the similar cases have not been applied
for rice mechanization. Africa Rice (2012) reported that when production was doubled in The
Gambia between 2007 and 2010 for Nerica rice variety, farmers found it difficult to harvest and
thresh the extra rice, which resulted in reduced quality because of the delays.

Related Local Studies

Mechanization of rice production operations has frequently occurred as a result of

increased drudgery when the task is performed manually, the intensive power required in some
operations such as land preparation, the rising cost of manual labor and the significant amount of
time devoted to it, and the resulting quality of output when using tools or machines.
Mechanization has often been linked with large or engine-powered machinery; however, it may
also refer to the use of tools and technologies to make field operations easier and faster to do.
Nowadays, mechanization is more closely connected with engine- or motor-powered equipment
or field machinery, the most popular of which being reaper equipment.

According to Murphy (2014), rice harvesting is still done in small, isolated parts of the
Philippines using small handed finger-bladed knives similar to the very first harvest knives
developed. The harvester holds the tool with the blade running transverse across the palm,
fingers wrapped around the rice stalk beneath the panicle, and draws the stalk in toward the
 13

blade, severing the panicle from the rest of the rice plant. Bamboo and solid woods like
mahogany are among the plants used for the handle. Farmers in the Philippines have been known
to utilize the sharp edge of a bivalve mussel shell found in irrigated rice fields if metal for a
blade was unavailable. The knives are called by numerous names because to the various
languages and dialects prevalent in the Philippines. For example, the finger knife is called
'rakem' in Ilokano, 'rakam' in Isneg, 'lakom' in Kalinga, and 'lakem' in Bontoc and Lepanto
Kankanaey. The sickle is also used by Filipino farmers in traditional rice harvesting. A sickle is a
well-balanced instrument with a hook-shaped blade that fits into a handle. The harvester will
often hold the rice stalks in one hand and chop them close to the ground with the other. Using a
sickle instead of a finger-bladed knife during rice harvest has obvious advantages. For a while,
Ilocano farmers in Nueva Ecija continued to harvest rice using a finger knife (rakem or yatab),
although Tagalog farmers had long been accustomed to harvesting rice with a sickle (lincao or
palot). Sickles can chop many stalks of rice at once, but finger knives can only cut one to two
stalks at a time. Harvesting is much accelerated when the sickle is used (Murphy, 2014).

Harvesting or cutting ripe palay stalks in the field began in Central Luzon in the 1900s
and lasted through March. One method of harvesting rice was to chop off the rice heads, mainly
of upland or bearded palay, one by one or at most three at a time with a hand-held instrument
known as a "pangani" or "yatab." The second most typical method is to cut the straw midway
above the ground using a sickle or serrated knife called "lingcao" that is tied in the rear of a bent
48 tree branch with a hook at the end for gathering the straw into a bundle. The hook is held in
the right hand, and the rice is drawn up and gripped with the left hand. The hook is then
unfastened, and the straw is cut with a knife and wrapped into 10-15 cm diameter bundles. Each
bundle contains around 0.3 kg of threshed grain and is so consistent that it is frequently used as a
unit of measurement. These are strewn on the ground to dry before being placed into stacks on
the dikes until the harvest is complete, at which point they are transported to the stack. The
lingcao was eventually replaced by a sickle known as "karet" or "kumpay," which is a slightly
hooked knife with serrations on the interior and a short straight handle. Before and after the war,
there had been initiatives at UPCA, BPI, and CLSU to introduce and showcase rice combines
from the United States and Japan. These attempts were conducted in upland rice fields due to the
size and weight of the American combines, since large combines would sink in the tiny bunded
 14

wet fields. At the time, Japanese combines were too complex and expensive for rice farmers, so
they were restricted to experimental stations and demonstration fields.

Both UPLB and IRRI were involved in experimenting with alternative harvesting designs
in the 1970s. Various designs from Japan, India, and China were tested and tried in farmers'
fields at UPLB. However, significant progress in mechanizing rice harvesting was made by IRRI
engineers who successfully produced local prototypes. The reaper-windrower, created with
Chinese engineers and introduced in the Philippines and Southeast Asia in the early 1980s, was
the most successful of the several prototypes attempted by IRRI during this period. Rice stalks
are chopped by a reciprocating serrated blade above a fixed ledger, conveyed to one side by two
sets of vertical flat belts with steel lugs, and released in clean windrows at the machine's side.
Following a few days of field drying prior to threshing, a separate crew of human labor gathers
and bundles the stalks. With IRRI technological help, many local manufacturers began mass
manufacturing of reapers in 1985. Farmers in Central Luzon quickly accepted the reaper,
demonstrating the demand for such machinery and the openness of farmers and manufacturers at
a time when industrialization is taking hold. However, with continued usage of the local reaper,
various issues arise, including low durability and precision in production, bad service, and hired
labor displacement. Meanwhile, a recently launched Japanese reaper with a similar design began
to gain popularity. Despite being imported and more expensive, this reaper type is more
dependable and simpler to manage, particularly when turning headlands due to its reverse
motion. At the moment, the use of this imported reaper is gradually rising, however its expensive
cost prevents widespread use. The imported rice reaper is becoming increasingly popular in
Central Luzon, while adoption is gradual, owing mostly to its expensive cost. Because imported
reapers are costly, an indigenous reaper design using rotary disc cutters was created with
Japanese engineers and recently released by PhilRice. This version was simpler to make and
maintain, with mechanics comparable to prior designs save for the cutting components, and adds
features for easy operation similar to imported versions. To chop rice stalks, this reaper employs
high-speed rotary cutting discs with few blades, as well as an open transmission with motorcycle
chains and sprockets for simplicity of maintenance and repair.

Rice stripping is a method of extracting grains off a standing plant without harvesting or
cutting the entire plant. Stripping is accomplished using rubber teeth with key-shaped holes
attached to a rotor revolving vertically and contained in a hood that drives the rice panicles into
 15

the rotor for "combing" action, based on a stripping technique developed in the United Kingdom
for big harvesters. Engineers at IRRI modified this technique for tiny fields in Asia by collecting
stripped materials (grains and straw) in a collection box below the stripping rotor. The striped
materials have already been 51 90-97% threshed but require more threshing and washing.
Although less labor intensive than reaping, this stripping technology has lower loss than manual
or reaping systems since the grains are handled by the machine rather than being left on the field.

Many attempts have been made to introduce imported rice combines in the Philippines,
prompted by the need for faster, cheaper, and more efficient harvesting methods than reapers or
strippers, but these have been unsuccessful because the imported models were expensive for rice
farmers and large and heavy for the small wet paddy plots typical of Philippine rice fields.
However, in 2002, PhilRice modified a Chinese combine design that harvests and threshes rice
grains in a single pass. The equipment, which now includes cleaning and bagging components, is
tiny and lightweight for small wet fields and simple to run with one person maneuvering and
another attending to bagging. It has a capacity of 1 ha/d and rubber tires that may be replaced
with steel star wheels for wet muddy fields. The machine is driven by a tiny 52 gasoline engine,
making it less expensive than foreign counterparts for Filipino farmers.

Rice stalks were gathered after harvesting and heaped high on dry ground for threshing.
Threshing separates the palay grains from the stalks and green debris. Small farmers typically
thresh their traditional rice shortly after harvest, most commonly by physically treading out the
grain on a hard-earthen floor, with a team of carabaos or horses, or on slatted platforms, and
pounding with flails against stones, hard wooden boards, or a bamboo stand (hampasan).
Traditional treading involves spreading rice sheaves on the threshing floor and troddening the
grain with animals driven in a circle until practically all grains are threshed; any leftover grains
left in the panicles are cleaned by hand or with feet. A wooden roller with small teeth or spikes is
sometimes dragged over the sheaves, and up to 20 carabaos or horses are utilized at the same
time. When fifteen animals are utilized at the same time, they can readily thresh 200 cavans of
palay in five hours. This type of threshing is usually done by night and becomes a popular family
activity. Despite the fact that it was a social occasion in the area, many people want to finish the
operation sooner due to the drudgery, the high work required, and the long time required to
accomplish threshing with these methods.
 16

Before World War II, the Chinese and Japanese brought the one-man, foot-operated pedal
rice thresher to the nation. The machine is pedal-powered, with power transmitted from the
human leg to the threshing drum through a bicycle chain and sprocket. It is readily moved from
farm to farm. Previously built of wood with some metal pieces, it is now made of steel frame and
canvass, which decreases the machine's weight and cost. With two people working, the threshing
efficiency is 98% and the capacity is 120 kg/hr. However, although being widely used in East
Asia, the pedal thresher never gained popularity in South and Southeast Asia since it provided no
substantial time or energy advantages over manual threshing.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, shorter-duration HYVs allowed for two cropping
seasons each year. With the introduction of double cropping of rice and the larger quantities
produced, the interval between harvesting and threshing for the first crop and land preparation
for the second crop became exceedingly time consuming, resulting in a significant labor peak.
Farmers began to explore for alternate threshing methods when the usage of large tilyadoras
became problematic. With the limits of the bulky and large tilyadoras, IRRI began developing a
smaller thresher suitable to newer kinds in 1965. This thresher has to be low-cost, lightweight,
locally manufactured, and better adapted to the demands of small farmers. A thresher that allows
operators to feed all of the stalks might produce a better yield than a thresher that requires the
operator to hang on to the stalk during threshing. Thus, after experimenting with a hold-on table-
type design, the axial flow concept was eventually preferred because to its easier arrangement of
threshing and separating portions. Rice stalks are fed into a revolving drum contained in a
chamber and fitted with peg teeth in this configuration. The stalks are struck by pegs against
regularly spaced lateral bars surrounding the revolving drum as they enter the chamber at the
feed end, separating the grains from the straw. The straw is expelled out and away from the
machine as it goes from the intake to the output. A fan underneath the chamber blasts air to
winnow the grain as it falls from the chamber. Before exiting the mill, the grains are cleaned
again by a rotating screen. For mobility, the thresher was mounted on short, narrow wheels and
driven by a small gasoline engine. The axial flow thresher was introduced in 1973, and
manufacturers developed enhancements that are now available in commercial products. The use
of automobile tires, spring-supported chassis, and oscillating screens beneath the threshing
chamber prior to fan winnowing are among the improvements. There were additional provisions
created to allow the thresher to be pulled by a carabao, hand tractors, or jeepneys. Later, in Bicol
 17

and the Visayas, smaller variants that could be carried manually by a group of men were
introduced. During the harvesting season, rice threshers may be seen on farm roads or in rice
fields, with a team of five to seven men and a group of women winnowers. Depending on the
size of the thresher, it may thresh rice from a hectare of land in half to one day. One or two crew
members carry paddy stalks from a tiny haystack or “talumpok” adjacent to the thresher, another
manually feeds the thresher, two handle bagging, and one recycles some grains coming out of the
screen for re-cleaning. Another individual is in charge of bag sealing and loading the paddy bags
into a hand tractor. Payment is made in kind at a rate of 6-8% of paddy output, however the crew
is sometimes paid in kind or cash, depending on necessity.

Synthesis

These are the impacts examined in previous studies. Agricultural technology has the
potential to increase economic output while decreasing time spent on agricultural production,
processing, and transportation. Using farm machinery will considerably boost the country's
agricultural productivity only if farmers accept this technical breakthrough. Manual rice
harvesting may be a time-consuming, labor-intensive, and costly job. As a result, some rice-
producing Asian nations have made substantial efforts to adopt technologies that are suitable
with the current situation. Manual rice harvesting is a time-consuming, labor-intensive, and
costly procedure that needs 100-150 person-hours of effort to harvest 1 hectare of rice field.

While previous literature and studies concentrated on the analysis of the perceived
impacts on productivity of using traditional and technology-based rice harvesting, our proposed
study included the perceived impacts on profitability of using traditional and technology-based
rice harvesting, their challenges in achieving profitability and how they coped up from it. It also
included the relationship of profitability and productivity of traditional and technology-based
rice harvesting.

The independent variables of the study may have an impact on the productivity and
profitability of using traditional and technology-based rice harvesting, such as the farmer's
profile and the farm’s profile. In general, the farmer’s profile included the category of farmers,
age, and years of farming experience. The farm’s profile included the harvesting method, type of
land, land area and economic status in terms of productivity and profitability.
 18

Conceptual Framework

A conceptual framework was drawn by putting all the problems encountered and making
them more explicit.

The paradigm of the researchers is composed of the independent variables and dependent
variables. The paradigm is shown in Figure 1 where in the independent variables came from the
first two statement of the problem and the dependent variables are the third and fourth statement
of the problem.

Figure 1. Paradigm of the Study

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE DEPENDENT VARIABLE

1. Profile of the respondents  Productivity of Technology-
1.1 Age based and Traditional Rice
1.2 Years of Farming Harvesting
2. Profile of the Farm  Profitability of Technology-
2.1 Type of Land based and Traditional Rice
2.2 Land area Harvesting
2.3 Economic Status

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE

 19

This chapter describes the methods used in the study. It explains the research design, the
locale of the study, the respondents of the study, the research instrumentation, the data gathering
procedure, and the statistical treatment of data.

Research Design

The research design is descriptive correlational research. It was used to describe the
characteristics of farmers. A survey questionnaires method of research was used in the study.
The results allowed the researchers to examine the interrelationships among variables in this
study and determined the problems encountered and the coping mechanisms of the farmers.

Respondents of the Study

The study covered the farmers from Sta. Cruz, Victoria, Paddad, San Fernando, and
Linglingay who engaged in using traditional rice harvesting and now engages in technology-
based rice harvesting. The researchers chose the judgmental or purposive sampling as a method
of selecting the barangays of Alicia and snowball sampling in selecting the respondents. The
researchers chose this method aiming to gain significant data that correspond to the objectives of
the study. The researchers applied the method in the selection of the sample by observing and
interviewing. There were 100 selected respondents for this study. They are the farmers who are
using technology-based rice harvesting and with the experience of using traditional rice
harvesting.

Locale of the Study

The study was conducted in the municipality of Alicia. It has 34 barangays and a land
area of 154 square kilometers, 71 percent of which is comprised of agricultural land. The study
covered the selected barangays of Alicia namely, Sta. Cruz, Victoria, Paddad, San Fernando, and
Linglingay. These barangays were selected for the water availability of the farmlands were
mostly irrigated, these barangays have many rice fields and has a plain terrain.
 20

Research Data Gathering Procedures

The researchers constructed a questionnaire checklist validated by the subject teacher.

Recommendations and supplementation were provided then the questionnaire checklists were
distributed to the selected respondents. The researchers interviewed the farmers to determine the
selected respondents then explained to them the importance of the study and clarified some terms
so that they can answer the questionnaire with full knowledge and with honesty. After the
questionnaires were answered, the researchers had a key informant interview with those people
who have firsthand knowledge about the farmers to validate the information provided by the
respondents. Then, the researchers summarized the data and asked a statistician to compute and
tabulate the results. The researchers then interpreted the results provided.

Research Instrument

The focus of this study was to examine the differences between the profitability and
productivity of technology-based and traditional rice harvesting in Alicia. The researchers used
survey questionnaire to administer data collection. The questionnaire contains six parts. The first
part, included the profile of the respondents. This part will obtain the respondents’ age and their
years of farming. Part two included the profile of the farms. It would obtain the details about the
type of land, the land area and the economic status in terms of productivity and profitability. Part
three included the perceived impacts of technology-based and traditional rice harvesting in terms
of productivity. Part four included the perceived impacts of technology-based and traditional rice
harvesting in terms of profitability. Part five included the challenges or problems encountered in
technology-based and traditional rice harvesting in achieving profitability. Lastly, the part six
included the coping strategies they used to overcome their challenges or problems.

Research Statistical Treatment of Data

 21

The information gathered were computed, treated, and analyzed using the following
statistical tools.

First, the information on the profile of respondents in terms of age and number of years
of farming and the profile of the farm in terms of land area were measured by getting the mean
while the type of land was measured using frequency count and percentage. The challenges or
problems encountered and the coping strategies were also measured using frequency count then
ranked accordingly.

Second, for the profile of the farms in terms of economic status, the productivity was
measured using ratio analysis.

a. Capital: Harvest in Peso

b. Capital: Harvest in kilograms
c. Manpower: Harvest in Peso
d. Manpower: Harvest in kilograms

Third, the profitability was measured using the following formulas.

)
❑
Gross Profit Ratio(GPR)= ( Sales−Cost of Good Sold
Sales
x 100

Net Income
Net Profit Ratio ( NPR ) = x 100
Sales

Fourth, the information on the perceived impacts of the technology-based and traditional
rice harvesting to both productivity and profitability was analyzed using a four-point Likert scale
and was interpreted using the table equivalent below.

Scale Range Interpretation

4 3.25 -4.00 Strongly Agree
3 2.50 - 3.24 Agree
2 1.75 - 2.49 Disagree
1 1.00 - 1.74 Strongly Disagree
 22

Lastly, the significance between the profitability and productivity of traditional and
technology-based rice harvesting was measured using correlational analysis wherein the
determinant was the r-value. It will be significant if the r-value is less than .05 and will not be
significant if it is .05 and above.
 23

Chapter IV

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the data analysis, interpretation and discussion of the findings in
line with the specific objectives of the study.

Profile of the Respondents

Presented in Table 1 is the profile of the respondents as to age with a mean of 51 and the
number of years of farming with a mean of 25. This means that the average age of the
respondents is 51 and their average years of farming is 25 years.

Table 1. Profile of the respondents

Profile Mean
Age (in years) 51.00
Years of Farming (in years) 25.00

Table 1.1 Age (in years) Table 1.2 Years of Farming

Age Frequenc Percentage
y
YEARS Frequency Percentage
21-30 4 4%
23 23%
31-40 11 11%
16-25 26 26%
41-50 33 33%
26-35 35 35%
51-60 33 33%
36-45 12 12%
61-70 17 17%
46-55 3 3%
71-80 2 2%
56-65 1 1%
TOTA 100 100%
L TOTAL 100 100%

Profile of the Farms

Indicated in Table 2 is the profile of farm in terms of type of land and land area. Out of
100 respondents, 100 or 100% of the respondents have irrigated land farm and whose farm have
a land area with a mean of 1.35 hectares. This means that all of the farms of the respondents are
irrigated and have an average land area of 1.35 hectares.
 24

Table 2. Profile of the Farm in terms of Type of Land and Land Area
Frequency Percentage
Type of Land
Irrigated 100 100%
Land Area (mean in hectare) 1.35

Table 2.2 Land Area

Hectare Frequenc Percentag
y e
0.5-1.0 51 51%
1.01-1.5 18 18%
1.51-2.0 18 18%
2.01-2.5 6 6%
2.51-3.0 2 2%
3.01-3.5 1 1%
3.51-4.0 2 2%
4.01-4.5 0 0%
4.51-5.0 2 2%
TOTAL 100 100%

Profile of the Farm in terms of Economic Status

Shown in Table 3 is the ratio analysis on the profile of the farm in terms of economic
status as to productivity and profitability. For the ratio on productivity, the ratio of capital and
harvest is highest on year 2020 with a ratio of 41%. It means that the capital used under
technology-based rice harvesting increased or is greater than what is used in the traditional. For
capital and harvest in kilograms, the capital of the year 2018 comprised of 48.7% of the total
harvest in kilograms. It means that traditional rice harvesting used greater capital to produce its
harvest for the year. For manpower and harvest in peso, years 2016 to 2018 under traditional rice
harvesting has the greater number of manpower compared to technology-based rice harvesting.
For manpower and harvest in kilogram, the ratios from years 2018 to 2021 under technology-
based rice harvesting is greater than the ratios under traditional rice harvesting. This means that
the palay harvested under technology-based rice harvesting is greater than what is harvested
under traditional rice harvesting.
 25

The table also shows the profitability of rice harvesting based on Gross Profit Ratio
(GPR) and Net Profit Ratio (NPR). As to GPR, year 2021 has the highest ratio of 69.58 followed
by year 2019 with a ratio of 69.56. Both are under technology-based rice harvesting. Next is year
2016 with a ratio of 68.59, year 2017 with a ratio of 67.74, year 2018 with a ratio of 67.27 and
the lowest is year 2020 with a ratio of 61.33. As to NPR, the two highest ratios are in the years
2019 and 2021 under technology-based rice harvesting with ratios of 58.92 and 58.90
respectively. Next is year 2016 with a ratio of 67.32, year 2017 with a ratio of 66.94, year 2018
with a ratio of 65.69 and the lowest is in year 2020 with a ratio of 59.73. This means that using
technology in rice harvesting is more efficient than using traditional rice harvesting. Farmers
were able to manage their resources and produce outputs with greater economic value using
technology-based rice harvesting.

Table 3. Profile of the Farm in terms of Economic Status

Traditional Tech-Based
Ratio on Productivity
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Capital: Harvest in Pesos 31% 32% 33% 31% 41% 35%
Capital: Harvest in kilograms 36.7% 45.7% 48.7% 41.1% 48% 47.1%
10,890.3 31,585.4
Manpower: Harvest in Peso 10,389.49
9
11,344.13 38,886.32
9
42,349.39
Manpower: Harvest in
865.91 757.79 763.13 2,904.13 2,668.30 3,121.78
kilograms
Traditional Tech-Based
Ratio on the Profitability
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
Gross Profit Ratio (GPR) 68.59 67.74 67.27 69.56 61.33 69.58
Net Profit Ratio (NPR) 67.32 66.94 65.69 68.92 59.73 68.90

Perceived impacts of traditional and technology-based rice harvesting in terms of

productivity

Table 4 shows the result of the respondents who assessed on the perceived impacts of
technology-based and traditional rice harvesting in terms of productivity. In traditional rice
harvesting, there are four statements given. These are Timely Harvesting with a weighted mean
of 3.75, Maximum Labor with a weighted mean of 3.60, Labor Scarcity with a weighted mean of
3.63, and the Shortage of Labor with a weighted mean of 3.50. The Grand mean under
 26

Traditional is 3.62. This means that all the respondents strongly agreed to the four given
statements. In technology-based rice harvesting: Minimize the physical grain loss with a
weighted mean of 3.60 and qualitative description of Strongly agree. Save harvesting time with a
weighted mean of 3.95, Create new employment with a weighted mean of 2.70, Minimize
harvesting cost with a weighted mean of 3.52, Save labor involvement with a weighted mean of
3.95. The Grand mean under technology-based is 3.54. This means that all the respondents
strongly agreed with the statements except that technology-based rice harvesting creates new
employment where they just agreed. Based on the result, modern harvesting technologies are
regarded as advantageous and profitable technologies for performing the labor of many people in
a short period of time with greater precision and accuracy than conventional manual harvesting.
Jones et al. (2019) mentioned that technologies can improve the timing of tasks, reduce
drudgery, make labor more efficient and improve quality and quantity of food.

Table 4. Perceived impacts of traditional and technology-based rice harvesting in terms of

productivity
Weighted Qualitative
Statement
Mean Description
Traditional
1. Timely harvesting of rice is a big challenge due to
the shortage of labor and high cost of labor during 3.75 Strongly Agree
peak harvesting period.
2. Maximum labor is required during traditional rice
3.60 Strongly Agree
harvesting.
3. Labor scarcity, harvesting loss, timely harvesting
3.63 Strongly Agree
and harvesting cost are crucial in rice harvesting
4. The shortage of labor during the peak harvesting
season was forcing the farmers to delay
3.50 Strongly Agree
harvesting, which caused high harvest losses and
sometimes loss of the crop by natural calamities.
Grand Mean 3.62 Strongly Agree
Technology-based
1. Minimize the physical grain loss and serious
3.60 Strongly Agree
deterioration in quality
2. Save harvesting time 3.95 Strongly Agree
3. Create new employment opportunities and social
2.70 Agree
dignity for educated farmers
4. Minimize harvesting cost 3.52 Strongly Agree
5. Save labor involvement 3.95 Strongly Agree
Grand Mean 3.54 Strongly Agree
 27

Perceived impacts of traditional and technology-based rice harvesting in terms of

profitability

Table 5 shows the impact of traditional and technology-based rice harvesting in terms of
profitability. The overall responses in traditional rice harvesting of the respondents has a grand
mean of 3.21 with qualitative description of agree. This means that all farmers (2.56 weighted
mean) agree that traditional rice harvesting minimizes the harvest losses, and strongly agree
(3.56 weighted mean) that it reduce high labor cost and (3.5 weighted mean) the yield depends
on the quality of seeds. In technology-based rice harvesting, it has a grand mean of 3.79 with a
qualitative description of strongly agree. This means that all farmers strongly agree (3.66
weighted mean) that total production system improved, (3.76 weighted mean) save labor cost
and (3.94 weighted mean) minimize harvesting time. Addison et. al. indicated that on average,
the uptake of the selected technologies significantly increases rice farmers’ net revenue and
Wiredu et al. had also observed a positive association between application of improved rice
technological innovations and rice productivity and income.

Table 5. Perceived impacts of traditional and technology-based rice harvesting in terms of

profitability.
Weighted Qualitative
Statements
Mean Description
Traditional
1. Minimize harvest loses 2.56 Agree
2. High labor costs 3.56 Strongly Agree
3. Yield depends on the quality of seeds 3.50 Strongly Agree
Grand Mean 3.21 Agree
Technology-based
1. Total production system improved 3.66 Strongly Agree
2. Save labor cost 3.76 Strongly Agree
3. Minimize harvesting time 3.94 Strongly Agree
Grand Mean 3.79 Strongly Agree
 28

Relationship Between the Profitability and Productivity of Traditional and Technology-

Based Rice Harvesting

Table 6 shows the relationship between the profitability and productivity of traditional
and technology-based rice harvesting. The r-values and p-values are as follows: .152 and .131 for
profitability of technology-based and productivity of traditional; .479 and .000 for both
profitability and productivity of technology-based; .314 and .001 for both profitability and
productivity of traditional; and .550 and .000 for profitability of traditional and productivity of
technology-based rice harvesting. The r-values are all positive which means that as one variable
increases, the other variable increases too but the p-values indicates whether the relationship is
significant (less than .05) or not significant (.05 and above) between the variables. This means
that there is no significant relationship between the profitability of technology-based and the
productivity of traditional but there is a significant relationship between both the profitability and
productivity of technology-based; both profitability and productivity of traditional; and
profitability of traditional and productivity of technology-based rice harvesting.

Table 6. Relationship Between the Profitability and Productivity of Traditional and Technology-
Based Rice Harvesting.

Productivity Productivity Technology-

Impact Traditional Based
r-value p-value r-value p-value
Profitability Technology- .152 ns .131 .479* .000
Based
Profitability Traditional .314* .001 .550* .000
* ns
Significant Not Significant

Challenges or problems encountered in traditional and technology-based rice harvesting in

achieving profitability

Table 7 shows the problems or challenges that the respondents had encountered in
traditional and technology-based rice harvesting in achieving profitability. As shown in the table,
 29

there are eight challenges or problems under traditional: 1) Strenuous and laborious, with a
frequency of 100, is first in the ranking; 2) high labor wages, which ranked as the number 2,
have a frequency of 97; 3) delayed harvesting due to the unavailability of labor, with a frequency
of 70, ranks fifth; with a frequency of 57, 4) more grain/yield losses owing to the over-maturity
ranked sixth; 5) The poor capability of farmers ranked seventh, with a frequency of 24; 6)
Animal disturbance has a frequency of 91, ranking third; 7) Too much rain, with a frequency of
87, ranked eighth; and 8) Others (typhoon and strong wind), with a frequency of 4, ranked as the
least problem or challenge encountered by the farmers. Furthermore, six statements were given
under technology-based: 1) high machine maintenance cost, ranked second with a frequency of
41; 2) difficulty in operating machines in the field, with a frequency of 35, is fourth in the
ranking; 3) high rent charges over borrowed machines, with a frequency of 39, are third in the
ranking; 4) animal disturbance, with a frequency of 82, is ranked as the first problem or
challenge being encountered by the farmers; 5) Too much rain ranks 5 th and has a frequency of 4;
and 6) Other (typhoon and strong wind) also has a frequency of 4 and is fifth in the ranking as
well.

The following issues were identified in traditional manual rice harvesting: labor crisis at
peak harvesting season, high harvesting cost since the traditional method was labor demanding
and labor salaries were high, delayed harvesting due to manpower unavailability, and increased
grain/yield losses due to over maturity.

Table 7. Challenges or problems encountered in traditional and technology-based rice

harvesting in achieving profitability.

Statements Frequency Rank

Traditional
1. Strenuous and laborious 100 1
2. High labor wages 97 2
3. Animal disturbance 91 3
4. Too much rain 87 4
5. Delayed harvesting due to the unavailability 70 5
of labors
6. More grain/yield losses owing to the over 57 6
maturity
7. Poor capability of farmer 24 7
8. Others (Typhoon and Strong Wind) 4 8
 30

Technology-based
1. Animal disturbance 82 1
2. High machine maintenance costs. 41 2
3. High rent charges over borrowed machineries 39 3
4. Difficulty in operating machines in field. 35 4
5. Too much rain 4 5
6. Others (Typhoon and Strong Wind) 4 5

Coping strategies they used to overcome their challenges or problems

Owusu (2023) claims that farmers frequently combine various coping mechanisms to
maintain their survival. Coping strategies are described as farmers' short-term, urgent responses
to shocks that are intended to reduce risks. Table 8 indicates the coping strategies that the
farmers used to overcome their challenges or problems in rice harvesting. All of the farmers
(100%, f=100) used the support of the government and they are draining the field before
harvesting. An overwhelming majority (93%, f=93) joining trainings and seminars about farming
and (90%, f=90) adopting and learning new technologies. In addition, 78% of the farmers asking
for help from other farmers, 70% of them putting scarecrows and traps in the rice field. 68% join
trainings and seminars on how to use machines while 27% ask for discounts from the machine
owner.

Table 8. Coping strategies they used to overcome their challenges or problems.

Statements Frequency Rank

1. Using the support of the government 100 1

2. Draining the field before harvesting 100 1
3. Joining training and seminars about farming 93 2
techniques.
4. Adopting and learning new technologies. 90 3
5. Asking for help from other farmers. 78 4
6. Putting scarecrows and traps. 70 5
7. Joining training and seminars on how to use machines 68 6
8. Asking for discounts from the machine owner 27 7
 31

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the summary of findings, conclusions and recommendations.

Summary of Findings

This research was conducted in the four barangays of Alicia namely, Santa Cruz,
Victoria, Paddad, and Linglingay with 100 farmers who had engaged in farming for at least six
years and whose farm is at least half hectare as respondents. It contains the results of the profile
of the respondents, the profile if their farms, the perceived impacts of traditional and technology-
based rice harvesting in terms of productivity and profitability, the challenges or problems
encountered by the farmers in achieving profitability, the coping strategies they used to
overcome the problems or challenges they encountered and the relationship between the
profitability and productivity of traditional and technology-based rice harvesting.

The respondents have an average age of 51 and an average year of farming of 25 years.
All of their farms are irrigated and have an average land area of 1.35 hectares. For the economic
status as to productivity, the capital used under technology-based increased or is greater than
what is used in the traditional; the traditional rice harvesting used greater capital to produce its
harvest for the year; the traditional rice harvesting has the greater number of manpower
compared to technology-based rice harvesting; and the kilograms of palay harvested under
technology-based rice harvesting is greater than what is harvested under traditional rice
harvesting. As to profitability, the use of technology in rice harvesting is more efficient and more
profitable than using traditional rice harvesting.

The respondents who assessed the productivity perceived impacts of technology-based

and traditional rice harvesting had a grand mean of 3.62 for traditional harvesting and a grand
mean of 3.54 for technology-based harvesting. Modern harvesting technologies are more
advantageous and profitable than traditional harvesting for doing labor in a shorter amount of
 32

time with more precision and accuracy. Technology may improve work timing, minimize
drudgery, increase labor efficiency, and improve food quality and quantity.

The impact on the profitability of technology-based and traditional rice harvesting had a
grand mean of 3.21 for traditional and a grand mean of 3.79 in technology-based. In terms of
profitability, technology-based rice harvesting has a big impact to the farmers because it
improves their production system, saves labor costs and minimizes harvesting time. The use of
technology-based rice harvesting had increased and improved the profitability greatly than using
traditional rice harvesting.

Traditional challenges include strenuous laboriousness, high labor wages, delayed

harvesting due to labor availability, more grain/yield losses due to over-maturity, poor farmer
capability, animal disturbance, too much rain, and typhoon and strong wind. expensive machine
maintenance costs, difficulties running machines in the field, expensive rent rates, animal
disturbance, too much rain, and typhoon and strong wind are all examples of technological
hurdles.

There are many challenges or problems that farmers may encounter in farming, thus they
have coping strategies that they used to overcome their challenges or problems in rice harvesting
in order to have a productive and profitable harvest. These are the following: using the support of
the government; draining the field before harvesting; joining trainings and seminars about
farming techniques; adopting and learning new technologies; asking for help from other farmers;
putting scarecrows and traps; joining trainings and seminars on how to use machines and asking
for discounts from the machine owner.

For the relationship between productivity and profitability, there is no significant

relationship between the profitability of technology-based and the productivity of traditional but
there is a significant relationship between both the profitability and productivity of technology-
based; as the profitability of technology-based increases, the productivity also increases. There is
also a significant relationship to both profitability and productivity of traditional; as the
profitability increases the productivity also increases. As for the profitability of traditional and
productivity of technology-based rice harvesting, there is also a significant relationship.
 33

Conclusions

From the summarized findings, the following conclusions were drawn:

1. The majority of farmers strongly agreed that the use of technology-based rice harvesting
increased the productivity and also agreed that technology-based rice harvesting is more
profitable than using traditional rice harvesting.
2. The researchers concluded that the challenge experienced by the farmers the most in
traditional rice harvesting is strenuous and laborious. On the other hand, animal disturbance
is the most challenging in technology-based rice harvesting.
3. It is also concluded that majority of the farmers joined trainings and seminars involving
farming techniques and adapted and learned new technologies used in farming to lessen and
cope up with the strenuous and laborious rice harvesting. Majority of the farmers also used
scarecrows and traps to lessen and minimize the animal disturbance they experienced.
4. It is also concluded that there is no significant relationship between the profitability of
technology-based and the productivity of traditional but there is a significant relationship
between both the profitability and productivity of technology-based; to both profitability and
productivity of traditional; and the profitability of traditional and productivity of technology-
based rice harvesting.

Recommendations

Based on the summary of findings and conclusion presented, the researchers would
recommend the following:

1. To the farmers, it is important to apply good harvesting methods to be able to maximize grain
yield, and minimize grain damage and quality deterioration and at the same time maximizing
profitability.
 34

2. To the future farmers, it is recommended that they should be willing to learn more techniques
and skills not only for their personal growth but also for the livelihood.

3. To the community, it is advised that local leaders, in cooperation with the community people,
to conduct seminars and trainings on how to improve their harvest. Also, there should be a
collaborative effort of different organization and agencies in responding the urgent needs of the
farmers by providing available resources, supplies, and services.

4. To the future researchers, since the scope of the research is only limited to four barangays of
Alicia, the future researchers may need to do further research. A bigger group of respondents
may be considered in such a similar future investigation to increase the research’s credibility.