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 impacts of technology-based and traditional rice harvesting in terms of
productivity?
4. What are the 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?
 8

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 impacts of technology-based and traditional rice harvesting in terms of
productivity.
4. To identify the 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 technology-based and traditional rice harvesting in Alicia.

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 land owners who had been engaged in farming for at least six years and whose
farm is at least half 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.
 9

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.

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.
 10

Definition of terms

The following definitions are defined operationally and conceptually.

Capital. It is the money 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.
 11

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
 12

production cost 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
 13

contact with workers, other 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 threshers, harvesters mounted to tractors, and self-propelled combined harvesters
are just a few examples of the many tools that can be utilized.
 14

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.

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.
 15

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 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
 16

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 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
 17

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 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.
 18

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 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
 19

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 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
 20

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.

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
 21

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 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
 22

These are the impacts considered by the previous studies. Agricultural technologies
can improve economic productivity and reduce time spent in agricultural production,
processing, and transporting. Using farm machinery will greatly improve the agricultural
production of the country only if the farmers will adopt this technological innovation. 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. Manual harvesting of rice is a
laborious, time-consuming and costly operation which requires about 100–150 person-hours
labor to harvest 1 hectare of rice field.

While previous literature and studies concentrated on the analysis of the impacts on
productivity of using traditional and technology-based rice harvesting, our proposed study
included the 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.

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

 23

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
 24

CHAPTER III

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURE

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.
 25

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 impacts of technology based and traditional rice
harvesting in terms of productivity. Part four included the 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 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 Statistical Treatment of Data

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
 26

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

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.
 27

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

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.

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

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
 28

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.
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
36.7% 45.7% 48.7% 41.1% 48% 47.1%
kilograms
38,886.3
Manpower: Harvest in Peso 10,389.49 10,890.39 11,344.13 2
31,585.49 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

Impacts of technology-based and traditional 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
 29

weighted mean of 3.63, and the Shortage of Labor with a weighted mean of 3.50. The Grand
mean under 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. 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 3.75 Strongly Agree
during peak harvesting period.
2. Maximum labor is required during traditional
3.60 Strongly Agree
rice harvesting.
3. Labor scarcity, harvesting loss, timely
harvesting and harvesting cost are crucial in rice 3.63 Strongly Agree
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
 30

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. 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

Challenges or problems encountered in traditional and technology-based rice

harvesting in achieving profitability

Table 6 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, 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
 31

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 6. 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. Delayed harvesting due to the unavailability 70 5
of labors
4. More grain/yield losses owing to the over 57 6
maturity
5. Poor capability of farmer 24 7
6. Animal disturbance 91 3
7. Too much rain 87 4
8. Others (Typhoon and Strong Wind) 4 8
Technology-based
1. High machine maintenance costs. 41 2
2. Difficulty in operating machines in field. 35 4
3. High rent charges over borrowed machineries 39 3
4. Animal disturbance 82 1
5. Too much rain 4 5
6. Others (Typhoon and Strong Wind) 4 5
 32

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 7 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.

Statements Frequency Rank

1. Adopting and learning new technologies. 90 3

2. Joining training and seminars about farming 93 2

techniques.
3. Joining training and seminars on how to use machines 68 6
4. Asking for discounts from the machine owner 27 7
5. Asking for help from other farmers. 78 4
6. Putting scarecrows and traps. 70 5
7. Draining the field before harvesting 100 1
8. Using the support of the government 100 1
Table 7. Coping strategies they used to overcome their challenges or problems.
 33

Relationship Between the Profitability and Productivity of Traditional and Technology

Based Rice Harvesting

Table 8 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 8. 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
 34

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 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
 35

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 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
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
 36

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.

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.
 37

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.

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.
 38

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Addison, M., Ohene-Yankyera, K., Acheampong, P.P., and Wongnaa, C.A. (2022). The
impact of uptake of selected agricultural technologies on rice farmers’ income distribution in
Ghana. Retrieved from
https://agricultureandfoodsecurity.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40066-021-00339-0
Boansi D., Owusu V., Tham-Agyekum E.K., Wongnaa C.A., Frimpong J.A., Bukari K.N.,
(2023). Responding to harvest failure: Understanding farmers coping strategies in the semi-
arid Northern Ghana. Retrieved from
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0284328#sec013
Bordey, Flordeliza Hidalgo. (2010). The impacts on Philippine Rice Producttion. Retrieved
from https://coursehero.com.file
David B., Victor O., Enoch T.A., Camillus W., Joyceline F., and Kaderi B. (2023).
Responding to harvest failure: Understanding farmers coping strategies in the semi-arid
Northern Ghana. Retrieved from https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?
id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0284328&fbclid=IwAR1M58f2p7tQ5wJAwF-
AIurijtprBYiJS8RiavlBqtIkZVxeOvFnA6IWVUM#sec013
Dogello, J. & Cagasan U. (2021) A review on the status of Crop Production Innovation of the
Philippines. Retrieved from https://dergipark.org.tr
Hasan, K., Tanaka, T., Alam, M., Ali, R., Saha C.K. (2020). Impact of Modern Rice
Harvesting Practices over Traditional Ones. Retrieved from
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ras/8/0/8_89/_html/-char/ja
Hollaus, A., Schunko, C., Weisshaidinger, R., Bala, P., and Vogl, C. (2022). Indigenous
farmers’ perceptions of problems in the rice field agroecosystems in the upper Baram,
Malaysia. Retrieved from https://ethnobiomed.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13002-
022-00511-1#citeas
Jonathan E. (2022). 15 Best ISABELA Tourist Spots (Rice Bowl of the North). Retrieved
from https://jontotheworld.com/isabela-tourist spots/#:~:text=Isabela%20is%20popularly
%20known%20for,and%20land%20territory%20as%20well
Jones M., Alam M.M., Rahman M.H., Ali M.R., Hasan M.K., and Pathan M.S. (2019)
Gender technology assessment of harvesting technologies in Bangladesh. Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://agrilinks.org/sites/
default/files/resources/
bangladesh_harvester_tech_profile_2019_08_final.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwia__GAnrL_AhW-
xjgGHWeiDs0QFnoECAwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1vFlSCWX3IZY9j9wCiMm-N
Monica Rodrigues & Adrian Rodriguez (2013). Information and Communication
Technologies for Agricultural Development in Latin America Trends, barriers and policies.
Retrieved from https://repositorio.cepal.org
Muhamma Sjakir,Abd Hair Awang,Azima Abdul Manaf Azima, Mohd Yusof hussain, r.
Zaimah(2015). Learning and Technology Adoption Impacts on farmer’s Productivity.
Retrieved from https://researchgate.net
 39

National Nutrition Council (2020). The importance of Rice to Filipinos’ lives. Retrieved from
https://nnc.gov.ph/regional-offices/mindanao/region-ix-zamboanga-peninsula/4387-the-
importance-of-rice-to-filipinos-lives
Olaganathan, R. & Quigley, K. (2017) . Technological Modernization and its Impact on
Agriculture, Fisheries and Fossil Fuel Utilization in the Asia Pacific Countries with Emphasis
on Sustainability Perspective. International Journal of Advanced Biotechnology and Research
(IJBR) 8(2). Retrieved from https://commons.erau.edu/publication/839
Otchia, Christian. (2014). Agricultural Modernization, Structural Change and pro-poor
growth: Policy Options for the Democratic Republic of Congo. Retrieved from
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40008-014-0008-x
Princy, D. (2020). Comparative Study Between Traditional and Modern Agricultural System
in India. Retrieved from https://www.ijnrd.org/papers/IJNRD2208088.pdf
Rice Competitiveness Enhancement Fund. Retrieved from https://rcef.da.gov.ph/seeds/
Rivera, Danessa. (2023). DA forms TWG for farm mechanization. Retrieved from
https://www.philstar.com/business/2023/02/26/2247640/da-forms-twg-farm-mechanization/
amp/
Salazar, Ceasar & Rand, John. (2016). Production risk and adoption of irrigation technology:
evidence from small-scale farmers in Chile. Retrieved from
https://latinaer.springropen.com/articles/10/1007/s40503-016-0032-3
Tacio, Henrylito. (2022). Why today’s farmers need to mechanize. Retrieved from
https://www.philmech.gov.ph/?
page=story_full_view&action=story_fullview&recordID=202282484053AMa6f3cd&record
Category=RCEF
Veenhuizen, Ren Van & Danso, George. Profitability and Sustainability of urban and peri-
urban agriculture. Retrieved from https://ruaf.org>2019/PDF
Wiredu A.N., Zeller M., Diagne A. (2015). What determines adoption of fertilizers among
rice-producing households in Northern Ghana? Retrieved from
https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/qjiage/225953.html
 40

APPENDICES
 41

APPENDIX A

Questionnaire
Dear Respondent:
We are 4th year BSMA students and are required to conduct a research titled:
Profitability and Productivity of Technology-based and Traditional Rice Harvesting in
Alicia. May we seek your indulgence by filing out the questionnaire below. Rest assured that
data obtained will be treated with utmost confidentiality.
Thank you very much.
The Researchers

GENERAL INSTRUCTION: As much as possible, kindly answer all. Put a checkmark (/)
B. Technology-based
Productivity
Capital (man/labor, materials and
Part I. Profile of the Respondents Part II. Profile of the Farm
land (cost))
1a. Age: ____________ 2a. Type of Land: Irrigated Rainfed
Harvest in Peso
1b. Years of farming: _______ 2b. Land Area: ____________________
Harvest in kgs.
No. of manpower
Facilities
Profitability
A. Traditional
Sales
Productivity
Cost of Goods Sold
Capital
Net (man/labor materials)
Income
Harvest in Peso
Harvest in kgs.
No. of manpower
Facilities
Profitability
Sales
Cost of Goods Sold
Net Income
which indicates your response in the case of checklist items and provide for what is stated.
Name (Optional): ____________________________________

2c. Economic Status (2 croppings)

Part III. What are the impacts of technology based and traditional rice harvesting in
terms of productivity?
A. Traditional
Statements Strongly Agre Disagree Strongly
Adapted from Hasan et. al. (2020) Agree e Disagree
1. Timely harvesting of rice is a big
challenge due to the shortage of labor
 42

and high cost of labor during peak

harvesting period.
2. Maximum labor is required during
traditional rice harvesting.
3. Labor scarcity, harvesting loss, timely
harvesting and harvesting cost are
crucial in rice harvesting
5. The shortage of labor during the peak
harvesting season was forcing the farmers
to delay harvesting, which caused high
harvest losses and sometimes loss of the
crop by natural calamities.

6. Others please specify:

B. Technology based
Statements Strongly Agre Disagree Strongly
Adapted from Hasan et. al. (2020) Agree e Disagree
1. Minimize the physical grain loss and
serious deterioration in quality
2. Save harvesting time
3. Create new employment opportunities
and social dignity for educated
farmers
4. Minimize harvesting cost
5. Save labor involvement
7. Others please specify:

Part IV. What are the impacts of technology based and traditional rice farming in terms
of profitability?
A. Traditional
Statements Strongly Agre Disagree Strongly
Agree e Disagree
1. Minimize harvest loses
2. High labor costs
3. Yield depends on the quality of seeds
4. Others please specify:
B. Technology based
Statements Strongly Agre Disagree Strongly
Agree e Disagree
1. Total production system improved
2. Save labor cost
3. Minimize harvesting time
4. Others please specify:

INSTRUCTION: Put a checkmark (/) to all possible answers.

Part V. What are the challenges / problems encountered in technology based and
traditional rice harvesting in achieving profitability?
 43

A. Traditional
Statements
Adapted from Hollaus et. al (2022)
1. Strenuous and laborious
2. High labor wages
3. Delayed harvesting due to the unavailability of labors
4. More grain/yield losses owing to the over maturity
5. Poor capability of farmer
6. Animal disturbance
7. Too much rain
8. Others please specify:
B. Technology-based
Statements
Adapted from Hollaus et. al (2022)
1. High machine maintenance costs.
2. Difficulty in operating machines in field.
3. High rent charges over borrowed machineries
4. Animal disturbance
5. Too much rain
6. Others please specify:

Part VI. Based on the challenges / problems above, what are the coping strategies used
to overcome the challenges/ problems in rice harvesting?
Statements
Adapted from Hollaus et. al (2022)
1. Adopting and learning new technologies.
2. Joining trainings and seminars about farming techniques.
3. Joining trainings and seminars on how to use machines
4. Asking for discounts from the machine owner
5. Asking for help from other farmers.
7. Putting scarecrows and traps.
8. Draining the field before harvesting
9. Using the support of the government
10. Others please specify:

Thank you and God bless.

APPENDIX B

DOCUMENTATIONS
 44

APPENDIX C

Letter to the Respondents

January 26, 2023

Dear Respondents;

We are the researchers of Bachelor of Science in Management Accounting (BSMA) from the
Isabela State University taking Accounting Research. As a requirement for our subject, we
are currently conducting a research study entitled “Examining the Difference in
Profitability and Productivity of Technology-based and Traditional Rice Harvesting in
Alicia.” With your related knowledge and experience, we would like to request you to be one
of our respondents in our study. We hope that you will take time answering the questions
honestly.

Rest assured that all data gathered will be treated with utmost confidentiality and will be used
for academic purposes only. Thank you for your support and cooperation.

The Researchers,

Justo, Cherish Grace N.

Ladinez, Angel Joy V.

Naj-ong, Rowena T.

Paragatos, Rhizza Mae B.

Pascua, Marvelyn Kate E.

Noted by:

EVA U. CAMMAYO, CPA, Ph.D.

Research Adviser
 45

APPENDIX D

Certification of English Critique

 46

CURRICULUM
VITAE
 47

PERSONAL INFORMATION

Name: Cherish Grace Ngitit Justo

Address: Brgy. Taringsing, Cordon, Isabela
Birthday: June 05, 2000
Age: 22
Sex: Female
Birthplace: Brgy. Taringsing, Cordon, Isabela
Phone Number: 09553293191
Email Address: [email protected]
Religion: Born Again Christian
Motto in life: “With God all things are possible.”
Father’s Name: Felipe A. Justo Occupation: Farming
Mother’s Maiden Name: Myrna N. Justo Occupation: Housekeeping

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

ELEMENTARY LEVEL: Taringsing, Cordon, Isabela

Brgy. Taringsing, Cordon, Isabela
2007-2013

SECONDARY LEVEL: Saint John Berchmans High School Incorporated

Brgy. Magsaysay, Cordon, Isabela
2013- 2017

Saint John Berchmans High School Incorporated

Brgy. Magsaysay, Cordon, Isabela
2017- 2019

TERTIARY LEVEL: Isabela State University

San Fabian, Echague, Isabela
Bachelor of Science in Management Accounting
2019-Current

CHARACTER REFERENCE
EVA U. CAMMAYO, Ph.D, CPA
CBAPA Dean / Research Adviser
ISU – Echague Isabela
0915 943 3035
MR. JONATHAN S. RAMOS
Local Youth Development Officer
Cordon, Isabela
09171107756

I hereby certify that all information stated above are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.

CHERISH GRACE N. JUSTO

Researcher
 48

PERSONAL INFORMATION
Name: Angel Joy Valerio Ladinez
Address: Fortune, Alicia, Isabela
Birthday: December 1, 2001
Age: 21
Sex: Female
Birthplace: Alicia, Isabela
Phone Number: 09563268215
Email Address: [email protected]
Religion: UCCP
Motto in life: “If you're not obsessed with your life, change it.”
Father’s Name: Armando P. Ladinez Occupation: Self-employed
Mother’s Maiden Name: Emily L. Valerio Occupation: Self-employed

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

ELEMENTARY LEVEL: Odizee School of Achievers

Sta. Cruz, Alicia, Isabela
2007-2013
SECONDARY LEVEL: Odizee School of Achievers
Sta. Cruz, Alicia, Isabela
2013-2017

University of Perpetual Help System

Minante I, Cauayan City, Isabela
2017-2019
TERTIARY LEVEL: Isabela State University
San Fabian, Echague, Isabela
Bachelor of Science in Management Accounting
2019-Current

CHARACTER REFERENCE
EVA U. CAMMAYO, Ph.D, CPA
CBAPA Dean / Research Adviser
ISU – Echague Isabela
0915 943 3035
REV. BENJAMIN B. TOMAS JR.
Church Pastor
Sta. Cruz, Alicia, Isabela

I hereby certify that all information stated above are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.

ANGEL JOY V. LADINEZ

Researcher
 49

PERSONAL INFORMATION

Name: Rowena Tangid Naj-ong

Address: Dolowog, Alfonso, Lista, Ifugao
Birthday: September 17, 2000
Age: 22
Sex: Female
Birthplace: Padcal, Tuba, Benguet
Phone Number: 09059659524
Email Address: [email protected]
Religion: Roman Catholic
Motto in life: “We die once, we live everyday.”
Father’s Name: Pablo P. Naj-ong Occupation: Retired Miner
Mother’s Maiden Name: Minda M. Tangid Occupation: Housewife

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

ELEMENTARY LEVEL: Philex Mines Elementary School Inc.

Padcal, Tuba, Benguet
2007-2013
SECONDARY LEVEL: Saint Louis High School - Philex
Padcal, Tuba, Benguet
2013-2015
Sta. Maria National High School
Sta. Maria, Alfonso Lista, Ifugao
2015-2019
TERTIARY LEVEL: Isabela State University
San Fabian, Echague, Isabela
Bachelor of Science in Management Accounting
2019-Current

CHARACTER REFERENCE
EVA U. CAMMAYO, Ph.D, CPA
CBAPA Dean / Research Adviser
ISU – Echague Isabela
0915 943 3035
ALONA B. CADELIÑA
Barangay Captain
Dolowog, Alfonso Lista, Ifugao
0910 430 9683
I hereby certify that all information stated above are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.

ROWENA T. NAJ-ONG
Researcher
 50

PERSONAL INFORMATION

Name: Rhizza Mae Balen Paragatos

Address: Sta. Cruz, Alicia, Isabela
Birthday: May 22, 2001
Age: 22
Sex: Female
Birthplace: Sta. Cruz, Alicia, Isabela
Phone Number: 09168454653
Email Address: [email protected]
Religion: Christian Baptist
Motto in life: “God moves mountains.”
Father’s Name: Reneboy V. Paragatos Occupation: Farmer
Mother’s Maiden Name: Marita N. Balen Occupation: Housewife

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

ELEMENTARY LEVEL: Sta. Cruz Elementary School

Sta. Criz, Alicia, Isabela
2007-2013
SECONDARY LEVEL: Alicia National High School
Paddad, Alicia, Isabela
2013-2019
TERTIARY LEVEL: Isabela State University
San Fabian, Echague, Isabela
Bachelor of Science in Management Accounting
2019-Current

CHARACTER REFERENCE
EVA U. CAMMAYO, Ph.D, CPA
CBAPA Dean / Research Adviser
ISU – Echague Isabela
0915 943 3035
REV. BENJAMIN B. TOMAS JR.
Church Pastor
Sta. Cruz, Alicia, Isabela

I hereby certify that all information stated above are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.

RHIZZA MAE B. PARAGATOS

Researcher
 51

PERSONAL INFORMATION
Name: Marvelyn Kate E. Pascua
Address: Laurel, Cordon , Isabela
Birthday: September 05, 2000
Age: 22
Sex: Female
Birthplace: Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
Phone Number: 09752088900
Email Address: [email protected]
Religion: Mormon
Motto in life: “ If you believe, You can achieve it”
Father’s Name: Mario P. Pascua Occupation: Electrician
Mother’s Maiden Name: Evelyn A. Elbanbuena Occupation: Housewife

EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

ELEMENTARY LEVEL: Amazing Grace Christian School

Magsaysay, Cordon Isabela
2007-2013
SECONDARY LEVEL: Saint John Berchmans High School Incorporated
Brgy. Magsaysay, Cordon, Isabela
2013- 2017

Saint John Berchmans High School Incorporated

Brgy. Magsaysay, Cordon, Isabela
2017- 2019

TERTIARY LEVEL: Isabela State University

San Fabian, Echague, Isabela
Bachelor of Science in Management Accounting
2019-Current

CHARACTER REFERENCE
EVA U. CAMMAYO, Ph.D, CPA
CBAPA Dean / Research Adviser
ISU – Echague Isabela
0915 943 3035
LIZABETH PASCUA PINAPIT, LPT
Elementary Teacher
Metropolitan Bible Baptist Learning Center
09101031568
I hereby certify that all information stated above are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and belief.

MARVELYN KATE E. PASCUA

Researcher