The impact of mechanization in smallholder rice production in Nigeria
0 likes2,010 views
This document analyzes the impact of mechanization on smallholder rice production in Nigeria, focusing on food loss reduction, increased farmer profit, and decreased greenhouse gas emissions. Pilot results demonstrate significant reductions in paddy loss and increased profits through mechanized harvesting and threshing, with scenarios presenting positive net income increases and greenhouse gas emissions reductions. It emphasizes the benefits of machinery adoption while addressing the challenges of high upfront costs and access to financing for farmers.
The impact of mechanization in smallholder rice production in Nigeria
- 1. Promising business cases for rice smallholders for income increasing and climate smart interventions, Version 2 Han Soethoudt, Jan Broeze, Heike Axmann May 2021 The impact of mechanization in smallholder rice production in Nigeria
- 2. Background Company : Olam Region case study: Nigeria Rice Farmers Olam: 66,000 (≈ 50% in Nigeria) Product : Rice Topic: food loss reduction, increase farmer profit, decrease greenhous gas emissions
- 3. Rice loss reduction pilot Nigeria: intervention analysis in rice harvest, threshing (and winnowing) Goal: analyse the impact on food loss and farmer profit and greenhouse gas emissions 1. when switching from manually to mechanised rice harvesting 2. when switching from manually to mechanised rice threshing
- 4. Pilot set up: Harvest • 5 farmers were selected • each farmer marked 6 pieces of land of 24m2: 3 for manual harvesting and 3 for mechanised harvesting with a reaper • weighing (using digital scale) of: o harvested material (plant material + paddy) (before drying) o paddy left on soil in harvested piece of land o harvested material (plant material + paddy) (after drying) o mechanically threshed paddy • moisture content measurement of paddy before and after drying
- 5. Pilot set up: Threshing (and winnowing) • same 5 farmers were selected • each farmer marked 6 pieces of land of 24m2 for manual harvesting • 3 harvested volumes were manually threshed as usual and the other 3 were mechanically threshed • weighing (using digital scale) of: o harvested material (plant material + paddy) (after drying) o mechanically threshed paddy • winnowing was included (integrated in mechanised threshing) and assumed to have no significant loss (according to Olam experts)
- 6. Harvesting Threshing Harvesting with reaper Threshing Some pictures from the pilot from manual practices to mechanization Manual Mechanized
- 7. Results (reduction food loss) Harvest pilot: ▪ manual harvesting: 9.6% loss of available paddy on land ▪ mechanized harvesting: 0.9% loss of available paddy The main reason for the huge difference in loss is the fact that the reaper takes everything from the land, whereas with manual threshing some material is not taken from the land. The lost paddy on the soil is less relevant Threshing pilot: ▪ manual threshing: 31.1% of the weight of the dried input plant material (incl. paddy) was threshed as paddy ▪ mechanized threshing: 33.1% The difference in loss for the 2 threshing scenarios can be calculated and equals 180 kg per ha. Absolute values for threshing losses can be derived via a work-around: ▪ mechanized threshing: 1% loss (assumed, based on literature) ▪ manual threshing 7% loss (based on the differences in yield).
- 8. Results (profit & GHGe reduction) Scenario 1: mechanised harvesting • Olam farmer has 1.92 ha average (pilot 2019) • Average farm price is 169 Naira/kg = 0.37 USD/kg (400 Naira ~ 1 US $) Results per harvest of switching to mechanised harvesting: * = of paddy, directly after harvest, before drying ** = after mechanized threshing *** = 1 US $ ~ 400 Nigerian Naira **** = 1,43 million, average farm size 2.24 ha (KPMG, 2019) Scenario 1: Mechanised harvesting Harvest impact/harvest Harvesting loss reduction* Profit increase** US$*** GHGe’s reduction Per ha 299 kg 126 1,042 kg Per farmer 575 kg 243 2,000 kg Olam (32,800 farmers) 18.8 kton 7,961K 65.6 kton All rice farmers Nigeria**** 958 kton 405M 3.3 Mton
- 9. Results (profit & GHGe reduction) Scenario 2: mechanised threshing Results per harvest of switching to mechanised threshing: Scenario 2: Mechanised threshing Threshing impact Loss reduction (weight) Profit increase US$ GHGe reduction Per ha 180 kg 76 716 kg Per farmer 346 kg 146 1,374 kg Olam (32,800 farmers) 11.4 kton 4,789K 45.1 kton All rice farmers Nigeria 577 kton 244M 2.3 Mton
- 10. Results (profit & GHGe reduction) Scenario 3: mechanised harvesting and mechanised threshing Results per harvest of switching to mechanised harvesting and mechanised threshing Scenario 3: mechanised harvesting and mechanised threshing Harvest impact Loss reduction (weight) Profit increase US$ GHGe’s reduction Per ha 479 kg 202 1,696 kg Per farmer 921 kg 389 3,256 kg Olam (32,800 farmers) 30.2 kton 12,760K 106.8 kton All rice farmers Nigeria 1,535 kton 648M 5.4 Mton
- 11. Business case (1) - Assumptions ▪ Information provided by Olam staff ▪ Assume farmers rent the equipment 11 Parameter Value (Nigerian Naira) Labor costs (N per hour) 125 Rice price (N per kg paddy) 169 Fuel price (N per liter) 165.7 Harvesting labor needed (hours per ha) 160 Threshing labor needed (hours per ha) 80 Cost of renting reaper (model 4GL-120) (N per ha) 17,500 Cost of buying reaper (N) 820,000 Reaper fuel consumption (liters per ha) 4.5 Reaper capacity (ha per day) 1 Cost of renting thresher (model Sh 101-2) (N per ha) 10,000 Cost of buying thresher (N) 350,000 Thresher fuel consumption (liters per ha) 5.5 Thresher capacity (metric ton of input (dried plant material) per hour) 1
- 12. Business case (2) - Results ▪ Positive business case for farmers to rent machinery ▪ Up-front costs may be prohibitive ▪ Purchasing equipment has even higher up-front cost, but is feasible through farmer cooperatives ▪ Improving access to financing can help overcome barriers * NN= Nigerian Naira, 400 NN ~ 1 US$ 12 Baseline Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Harvesting Manual Manual Mechanized Threshing Manual Mechanized Mechanized Average yield (kg paddy per ha) 2,768 2,967 3,257 Revenue (N per ha, NN*) 470,823 501,423 550,433 Harvesting costs (N per ha, NN) 20,000 20,000 20,246 Threshing costs (N per ha, NN) 10,000 13,161 13,536 Revenue increase (N per ha, NN) 30,589 79,599 Cost increase (N per ha, NN) 3,161 3,782 Financial result (N per ha, NN) + 27,428 + 75,871 Financial result (%) + 5.8 % + 16.1 % Labor hours saved 62 in threshing 144 in harvesting, 59 in threshing
- 13. Equipment cost comparison between buying and renting reaper and thresher (for individual farmer in cooperative) ▪ With a reaper costing ~ N820,000 (~US$ 2,050) to buy and a thresher ~N350,000 (~US$875) the upfront cost for a single farmer with 2 hectares in a 15-farmer cooperative would be ~N78,000 ▪ Buying becomes the more cost-effective option if cost of buying with a cooperative of 15 farmers can be spread over 3 harvests or more 13 1 harvest 2 harvests 3 harvests 4 harvests 5 harvests Cost of renting (N per harvest per farmer, NN) 27,500 27,500 27,500 27,500 27,500 Cost of buying (N per harvest per farmer, NN) 78,000 29,000 26,000 19,500 15,600
- 14. Summery scenario assessment of Greenhouse Gas emissions: baseline versus mechanization via ACE-calculator (Agro-Chain Greenhouse Gas emissions calculator) including Food loss induced Greenhouse Gas emissions and emissions from mechanization 14 Baseline Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Scenario 3 Total paddy rice growth (kg/ha) 3,315 3,315 3,315 3,315 Harvesting method Manual Mechanized Manual Mechanized Losses in harvest 9.55% 0.93% 9.55% 0.93% Threshing method Manual Manual Mechanized Mechanized Losses in threshing 7% 7% 1% 1% Total paddy threshed rice (kg/ha) 2,789 3,054 2,968 3,251 GHG emissions per kg produced paddy rice (kg CO2- eq. per kg threshed rice) (assuming crop GHG emission factor 3.66kg CO2-eq. per kg paddy 4,352 3,979 4,096 3,744 Climate impact of mechanization (emissions avoided, kg CO2-eq) Per ha (kg CO2-eq.) 1,042 716 1,696 Per farmer Olam (1.92ha) (kg CO2-eq.) 2,000 1,374 3,256 Rice farms in Nigeria (1.43 million/2.24ha) (Mton CO2- eq.) 3.3 2.29 5.4
- 16. Overall conclusions ▪ Introduction of machinery in threshing and harvesting in rice in Nigeria can: ● reduce food losses and increase the amount of paddy yield per ha by 14 % ~ 479 kg of paddy ● provide a positive business case for smallholder farmers to improve their livelihood, net income increase of ~ 189 $ per ha/ Olam farmer ~ 389 $, and save > 200 labour hours ● significally reduce the Greenhouse gas; 1,696 kg CO2-eq by hectare avoided
- 17. * 400 Naira ~ 1 US $ Overview results per harvest of switching to mechanized harvesting and/or threshing 17 Scenario 1 Switching to mechanized harvesting Scenario 2 Switching to mechanized threshing Scenario 3 Switching to mechanized threshing and mechanized harvesting Impact Loss reduction (kg)* Profit increase Naira*/US$ Loss reduction (kg) Profit increase Naira*/US$ Loss reduction (kg) Profit increase Naira*/US$ Per ha 299 kg 50,531/126 180 kg 30,420/76 479 kg 80,555/202 Per farmer Olam (1.92 ha) 575 kg 97,175/243 346 kg 58,406/146 921 kg 155,650/389 Farmers linked to Olam in Nigeria (32,800) 18.8 kton 3.2 bln/7,961K 11.4 kton 1.9 bln/4,798K 30.2 kton 5.1 bln/12,760K All rice farmers Nigeria (1.43 million/2.24 ha) 958 kton 162 bln/405M 577 kton 97 bln/244M 1,535 kton 259 bln/648M
- 18. ▪ Challenges to overcome investment costs ~ 2,925 $US for reaper & thresher: ● ability of individual farmers to co-invest and cover the higher upfront cost of buying equipment ● Access to finance for service providers to invest in mechanization ● the capacity of farmer cooperatives to procure, maintain and store the equipment The challenge 18
- 19. Thank you contact information: [email protected] 19 DISCLAIMERS: This work was implemented as part of the CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), which is carried out with support from the CGIAR Trust Fund and through bilateral funding agreements. For details please visit https://ccafs.cgiar.org/donors. The views expressed in this document cannot be taken to reflect the official opinions of these organizations. Estimate your food products’ climate impact through our ACGE calculator https://ccafs.cgiar.org/agro-chain-greenhouse-gas-emissions-acge-calculator Acknowledgement: this work is financially supported via Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS), the Consortium for Innovation in Post-Harvest Loss & Food Waste Reduction, and Olam International who supported the food loss data collection for this study.