Modest Ag-Extension and Access to Seeds of Aromatic Rice Can Boost Returns of Smallholder Farmers in Uganda, A Case Study

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

L. 87, p. 2; please, do not equate the figures of per capita consumption with the demand. You earlier suggested that the domestic demand is far from being met and imports are necessary. Fundamentally, how much rice is demand is a function of price and income, and you do not mention those factors. Limit your comments to per capita consumption, but do not imply any specific volume that is demanded. 

Can you provide a reference in l. 90 to support the claim that only 20% of rice produced on farm is consumed by farmer household?

Increasing domestic rice production will stabilize rice supply and as a result of stable supply, prices will also stabilize.

Ll 95-98; you list a number of causes behind low productivity in rice production. Focus on those that are directly related to the focus of your paper. This means that labor-saving technology can be omitted. Typically, the labor-saving technology implies some kind of mechanical equipment, which is likely out of reach for a farmer given its costs (price). Improved seeds and filed practices can be addressed more readily – this is your focus. Note that in section 2.2.2. you report that all work was done by hand, not using mechanical equipment, or even animal traction.

Your study can be classified as a case study and it should be described as such in introduction and reflected in the title. Please, make the changes to present your paper as a case study.

l. 130; explain the acronyms of the diseases like RYMV to the reader.

Section 2.2.1. Should you provide any description of the soil? Does the soil type matter in your trials? If yes, soil description should be provided. 

l. 143; who provided the seedlings? Did the farmer who owned the plot raised the seedlings, or was there another source? Provide details. The details are important since yours is a case study.

l. 153; how did you broadcast the fertilizer?

l. 160; why was the plot 6 m2, but yield is reported from 5m2? How was the moisture level determined? Was rice dried to obtain 14% moisture level? If so, where and what method was used?

Ll 168-169; not clear: were the farmers randomly selected or selected on purpose from different blocks? Provide clarification in the text.

l. 176; how and when the participating farmers are expected to “benefit neighboring farmers”? Please, do not get ahead of the facts – I think the participants are expected to share their experience with those who do not participate in the study in the future – or, am I wrong? Such comment can be placed later and must be explained rather than vaguely imply some future action.

l. 177; “we interviewed” – this means who? All paper authors? Please describe in a separate paragraph the survey providing details about when and who implemented the survey, what was the content of the questionnaire (topics of questions asked), how was the survey conducted (in-person interviews?), etc. Such details need to be placed in this section of the paper.

l. 179; the interviews were conducted with 40 farmers who were selected, right? Provide details. Was the number lower because, for example, some farmers were no longer participating in the project? In such case, provide details.

p. 5; those are photos, not figures; correct the text on earlier pages.

Section 2.2.4.; the section mentions 30 farmers; are those farmers different from the 40 farmers selected for the 6x6 m plots? Please, clarify the text and make the necessary distinctions. This section describes what seems to be a different activity, which focused on training the future seed farmers, not the farmers who tested four rice varieties on their plots. It is not very clear, and I am not sure you named this goal when stating the objective of the paper.

l. 201; what does it mean “per hill”? Clarify.

l. 208; what was the reason for not interviewing all 40 farmers? Forty farmers is not a large group.

l. 218; re-write the 2nd sentence. Also, do you mean cash income when writing “income security”? Not clear.  

l. 237; was there or wasn’t there a decrease in yield as the density of plants increased? 

Does Fig.5 show yields of all 40 farmers? If yes, state that fact in the figure caption. It is yield, not productivity.

l. 245; please do not equate increased volume produced with more income; ultimately, income is a product of price per unit of weight and volume sold. Price is dynamic and changes over time, among others, in response to rice volume available on the market at a given point in time. Be careful with such simplifications as in line 245.

;; 267-268; Fig 6 does not show that 75% of farmers know the yields are higher; 41% are shown to suggest the yields are lower on Fig 6; please, review the description in this part and assure clarity.

l. 270; “the proposed training methods”? I read that you trained them throughout the whole growing season. This is not clear. Later, “32%” named all those incentives, or some out of 32% named some incentives while others named other incentive? The description is rushed and lacks clarity and coherence. Last few lines in this paragraph suggest that the issues described are complex and require to be clearly described in an organized fashion. A the end of the paragraph there is Fig 7 that was not mentioned in the text and seems to contradict the content of fig 6. I am confused and the readers will be, too. 

l. 301; now you bring another very important attribute that has never been mentioned so far in the paper, that is, the shorter growing period of the aromatic rice. This would seem to be of great importance and this attribute should be discussed earlier in the paper. Is the shorter growing period characterized by lower labor requirements, fertilizer, or other inputs? Earlier harvest implies faster opportunity to generate cash from sales. Does this matter to farmers?

l. 311 and following; now you provide full spelling of the diseases that should have been listed earlier, and here you can use the abbreviated form. 

L 323; what “on average” refers to? Is it the share of farmers planting aromatic rice, or 20% is the average of respondents estimating the share of farmers? If the latter, the “average” is based on how many responses? Those who were surveyed after harvest?

Tab. 2; clarify that the percentages are calculated based on responses provided by 22 farmers. Were the response options listed in Tab 2. Placed in the questions during the survey, or those were responses to open-ended questions? Those details need to be described earlier as indicated above. 

Discussion is based on the response provided by 22 farmers or some different number? The text seems to suggest that you describe the general population of farmers, when you only reported surveying 22 individuals. If you base your discussion on 22 respondents providing answers, you must avoid making general statements because the size of your sample does not permit such generalization. The discussion also seems to touch on issue that you have never reported earlier (for example, the teams of young individuals transplanting seedling for a fee). You must clearly reorganize the discussion. Perhaps, first you focus on issues that you presented so far, and in a separate subsection bring up issues that seem to be inspired by the project and not a direct project result (such as those teams mentioned above). You also need to clearly report on the scale of various outcomes: are they sporadic, or have they become typical?

 

Author Response

Open Review

( ) I would not like to sign my review report
(x) I would like to sign my review report

English language and style

( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
(x) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
( ) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	( )	(x)	( )	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	( )	(x)	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

1. 87, p. 2; please, do not equate the figures of per capita consumption with the demand. You earlier suggested that the domestic demand is far from being met and imports are necessary. Fundamentally, how much rice is demand is a function of price and income, and you do not mention those factors. Limit your comments to per capita consumption, but do not imply any specific volume that is demanded. 

• We have amended the text 87, p. 2, and only limited our comments to consumption
• The word demand on line 37 was replaced by “appetite of Ugandans for rice”
• The word demand on line 35 was replaced by “prefer”
• The word demand on line 290 was replaced by “consumer requirements”

Can you provide a reference in l. 90 to support the claim that only 20% of rice produced on farm is consumed by farmer household?

• We have amended the value on 20% to 25% and provided a reference; https://openjicareport.jica.go.jp/pdf/1000013336.pdf.

Increasing domestic rice production will stabilize rice supply and as a result of stable supply, prices will also stabilize.

The statement has been amended as suggested and now reads as;

Increasing domestic rice production will stabilise rice supply and thus prices, making rice more affordable for consumers.

Ll 95-98; you list a number of causes behind low productivity in rice production. Focus on those that are directly related to the focus of your paper. This means that labor-saving technology can be omitted. Typically, the labor-saving technology implies some kind of mechanical equipment, which is likely out of reach for a farmer given its costs (price). Improved seeds and filed practices can be addressed more readily – this is your focus. Note that in section 2.2.2. you report that all work was done by hand, not using mechanical equipment, or even animal traction.

The statement on lines 95-98 has been amended as suggested and now reads

“This low production is mainly due to the limited knowledge among farmers on good rice agronomic practices, low-yielding rice varieties, and unreliable seed supply systems”

Your study can be classified as a case study and it should be described as such in introduction and reflected in the title. Please, make the changes to present your paper as a case study.

• We have amended the title of the study as suggested to read as follows;

 

“Modest ag-extension and access to seeds of aromatic rice can boost returns of smallholder farmers in Uganda, A Case Study.”

 

• We have also changed the objective and title of the study to a case study

1. 130; explain the acronyms of the diseases like RYMV to the reader.

• The words Rice Yellow Mottle Virus have been added to the text to explain RYMV
• For consistency, we have also deleted the words African Rice Yellow Mottle Virus Disease on line and replaced them the abbreviated form RYMV

Section 2.2.1. Should you provide any description of the soil? Does the soil type matter in your trials? If yes, soil description should be provided. 

We have added a paragraph describing the soil type in the description of study area.

1. 143; who provided the seedlings? Did the farmer who owned the plot raised the seedlings, or was there another source? Provide details. The details are important since yours is a case study.

We have included a statement on how the seedlings were raised. 

1. 153; how did you broadcast the fertilizer?

The statement has been amended suggested and reads as follows;

“In both cases, we hand broadcasted the fertiliser, making sure that it is uniformly spread in the trial area” 

1. 160; why was the plot 6 m2, but yield is reported from 5m2? How was the moisture level determined? Was rice dried to obtain 14% moisture level? If so, where and what method was used?

This section has been clarified with additional explanations and a reference. It now reads as below;

“For yield determination, rice grain panicles were harvested from 5m2, sun-dried, and then threshed. The threshed grains were then floated in plain tap water to separate the filled and unfilled grains. The unfilled grains were discarded, while the filled grains were dried and weighed for yield assessment. The moisture content of the grains was measured using a Wheat and Rice Flour Moisture Tester - PRg-93 [23] and the moisture content values used to correct the yield and report is as the weight of filled grains at 14% moisture content.” 

Ll 168-169; not clear: were the farmers randomly selected or selected on purpose from different blocks? Provide clarification in the text.

The selection method for the farmers has been clarified

1. 176; how and when the participating farmers are expected to “benefit neighboring farmers”? Please, do not get ahead of the facts – I think the participants are expected to share their experience with those who do not participate in the study in the future – or, am I wrong? Such comment can be placed later and must be explained rather than vaguely imply some future action.

We have deleted the contentious statement on how farmers are expected to share their experiences.

1. 177; “we interviewed” – this means who? All paper authors? This has been amended to remove the “we” in most of the manuscript. Please describe in a separate paragraph the survey providing details about when and who implemented the survey, what was the content of the questionnaire (topics of questions asked), how was the survey conducted (in-person interviews?), etc. Such details need to be placed in this section of the paper.
2. 179; the interviews were conducted with 40 farmers who were selected, right? Provide details. Was the number lower because, for example, some farmers were no longer participating in the project? In such case, provide details.

We have clarified the number of interviewees as suggested

1. 5; those are photos, not figures; correct the text on earlier pages.

We have re-captioned the photos and also captured the changes in the main text

Section 2.2.4.; the section mentions 30 farmers; are those farmers different from the 40 farmers selected for the 6x6 m plots? Please, clarify the text and make the necessary distinctions. This section describes what seems to be a different activity, which focused on training the future seed farmers, not the farmers who tested four rice varieties on their plots. It is not very clear, and I am not sure you named this goal when stating the objective of the paper.

Because this was only a side activity and data were not collected on the quantities of seed produced and distributed by the group, we decided to cut section 2.2.4 entirely and take it to the end of the discussion in subsection 4.3 (Other project-inspired interventions). We re-wrote it to fit in the discussion. This action was also suggested by the reviewer at the end of this review.

1. 201; what does it mean “per hill”? Clarify.

In Agronomy, the spot into which seedlings are inserted is technically called a hill (http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/training/fact-sheets/crop-establishment/manual-transplanting). So for other readers not familiar with the term, we have included an alternative meaning “transplanting spot” for easier understanding.

1. 208; what was the reason for not interviewing all 40 farmers? Forty farmers is not a large group.

This issue has been clarified. The interview was conducted off-season when farmers engage in other off-farm activities. So, it is difficult to get them all for the interview.

1. 218; re-write the 2nd sentence. Also, do you mean cash income when writing “income security”? Not clear.  

We amended the words “cash income” to just “sale” and rephrased the second sentence.

1. 237; was there or wasn’t there a decrease in yield as the density of plants increased? 

We have clarified to the sentence and now reads as;

“There was a weak negative correlation between planting density and yield (r = -0.26) with the yield decreasing when the farmers increased their planting density beyond 26 hills/m2.”

Does Fig.5 show yields of all 40 farmers? If yes, state that fact in the figure caption. It is yield, not productivity.

We have revised the caption to represent yield, and not productivity as suggested. We have also specified the number of respondents represented i.e., 22 of the 40. We also looked through the entire manuscript and identified where we had inappropriately used the term “productivity” to mean yields, and revised these.

245. 245; please do not equate increased volume produced with more income; ultimately, income is a product of price per unit of weight and volume sold. Price is dynamic and changes over time, among others, in response to rice volume available on the market at a given point in time. Be careful with such simplifications as in line 245.

Thank you for that clarification. We have revised the word income in this case to “saleable volumes”

267-268; Fig 6 does not show that 75% of farmers know the yields are higher; 41% are shown to suggest the yields are lower on Fig 6; please, review the description in this part and assure clarity.

            That was an oversight on our part. While we meant the next figure, we pointed to the readers to the wrong one. So this has been corrected. We have also re-written this section to improve on clarity.

6. 270; “the proposed training methods”? I read that you trained them throughout the whole growing season. This is not clear. Later, “32%” named all those incentives, or some out of 32% named some incentives while others named other incentive? The description is rushed and lacks clarity and coherence. Last few lines in this paragraph suggest that the issues described are complex and require to be clearly described in an organized fashion. At the end of the paragraph there is Fig 7 that was not mentioned in the text and seems to contradict the content of fig 6. I am confused and the readers will be, too. 

In this section, we tasked the respondents to suggest training methods that will be effective in ensuring the widespread adoption of line transplanting. And this was not clear. So, we have also rewritten the section for better clarity.

1. 301; now you bring another very important attribute that has never been mentioned so far in the paper, that is, the shorter growing period of the aromatic rice. This would seem to be of great importance and this attribute should be discussed earlier in the paper. Is the shorter growing period characterized by lower labor requirements, fertilizer, or other inputs? Earlier harvest implies a faster opportunity to generate cash from sales. Does this matter to farmers?

This was an attribute that was brought to light by the respondents in their responses. So we have included the maturity periods for the rice varieties in section 2.2.1 lines 140-140. We have also discussed this matter comprehensively 4.2, and included citations to support the discussion.

1. 311 and following; now you provide full spelling of the diseases that should have been listed earlier, and here you can use the abbreviated form. 

We corrected this when addressing the issues raised in an earlier comment

L 323; what “on average” refers to? Is it the share of farmers planting aromatic rice, or 20% is the average of respondents estimating the share of farmers? If the latter, the “average” is based on how many responses? Those who were surveyed after harvest?

For clarity, we have given a further explanation. The 20% figure is an estimate of the proportion of farmers in the overall scheme growing the new aromatic rice variety NARORICE-1. Thus, each of the respondents provided an estimate of the number of farmers in their farming block who grow the variety, and their responses were averaged to provide an indication of acceptance rates. 

Tab. 2; clarify that the percentages are calculated based on responses provided by 22 farmers. Were the response options listed in Tab 2. Placed in the questions during the survey, or those were responses to open-ended questions? Those details need to be described earlier as indicated above. 

We have modified the caption to capture that information as suggested. We have also provided additional information in section 2.2.3 of the methodology.

Discussion is based on the response provided by 22 farmers or some different number? The text seems to suggest that you describe the general population of farmers, when you only reported surveying 22 individuals. If you base your discussion on 22 respondents providing answers, you must avoid making general statements because the size of your sample does not permit such generalization. The discussion also seems to touch on issue that you have never reported earlier (for example, the teams of young individuals transplanting seedling for a fee). You must clearly reorganize the discussion. Perhaps, first, you focus on issues that you presented so far, and in a separate subsection bring up issues that seem to be inspired by the project and not a direct project result (such as those teams mentioned above). You also need to clearly report on the scale of various outcomes: are they sporadic, or have they become typical?

As suggested, we have restructured the discussion into 3 sub-themes; 1) On-farm trial findings, 2) Case study findings, and 3) Other project-inspired interventions .

 

Reviewer 2 Report

·         Statistical data on rice production in Uganda are updated to 2017, if possible insert more recent data, for example updated to 2020

·         Productivity is the result of a combination of factors and can often be improved. Regarding the yields per hectare, one of the fundamental questions is to improve yields without the production increases seriously affecting the limiting factors or at least the risk factors, such as, for example, the quality of the soil and the use of water resources.  This is an increasingly important challenge that must be pursued above all as a long-term goal. In the study, for example, from lines 438 to line 446, reference is made to the problem of the distribution of water in the various stages of plant growth, but no reference is made to what has been said above. It is a point that should be developed. This aspect could be developed by adding some reference reading, improving the references which is rather scarce.

·         The use of improved seeds opens up very different discussions. On this point there is a very rich literature and contrasting theses, unlike the use of good agronomic practices which are always well accepted. I find it useful to include articles that address the first of these two problems and which has not been included in the paper

·         The study argues that the near absence of a commercial rice seed industry hinders farmers' access to quality seed of improved varieties. We must be careful on this point: in some countries, the strength of large seed companies has, in fact, pushed towards improved rice seeds which over time have resulted in major failures for farmers, those farmers who have continued to work. with traditional productions they have had far better results in the long term as they have a lower need for herbicides and chemical inputs to control weeds. So in my opinion the existence of a commercial seed industry is important, but it must be clear that it must not be a speculator company, because the results could be contradictory.

·       In line 95 "This low production" must be replaced with "This low productivity"

 

·       The conclusions are too concise

 

 

 

Author Response

Open Review

(x) I would not like to sign my review report
( ) I would like to sign my review report

English language and style

( ) Extensive editing of English language and style required
( ) Moderate English changes required
( ) English language and style are fine/minor spell check required
(x) I don't feel qualified to judge about the English language and style

 

	Yes	Can be improved	Must be improved	Not applicable
Does the introduction provide sufficient background and include all relevant references?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Are all the cited references relevant to the research?	( )	( )	(x)	( )
Is the research design appropriate?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the methods adequately described?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the results clearly presented?	(x)	( )	( )	( )
Are the conclusions supported by the results?	( )	( )	(x)	( )

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

• Statistical data on rice production in Uganda is updated to 2017, if possible, insert more recent data, for example, updated to 2020

We cannot find 2020 data on rice in Uganda. We would appreciate it if you pointed us to any source that you might be aware of. Thank you

• Productivity is the result of a combination of factors and can often be improved. Regarding the yields per hectare, one of the fundamental questions is to improve yields without the production increases seriously affecting the limiting factors or at least the risk factors, such as, for example, the quality of the soil and the use of water resources.  This is an increasingly important challenge that must be pursued above all as a long-term goal
• We have provided a brief description of the soil type and soil fertility status in section 2.1 which describes the study site. Perhaps this inclusion might help the reader to contextualize the yield results in the study.
• We have also added a discussion on the effect of fertilizer use.

 In the study, for example, from lines 438 to line 446, reference is made to the problem of the distribution of water in the various stages of plant growth, but no reference is made to what has been said above. It is a point that should be developed. This aspect could be developed by adding some reference reading and improving the references which are rather scarce.

• We have developed the discussion further in this section as suggested and included additional citations.

 

• The use of improved seeds opens up very different discussions. On this point there is a very rich literature and contrasting theses, unlike the use of good agronomic practices which are always well accepted. I find it useful to include articles that address the first of these two problems and which has not been included in the paper.

We have cited more literature in that area.

 

• The study argues that the near absence of a commercial rice seed industry hinders farmers' access to quality seed of improved varieties. We must be careful on this point: in some countries, the strength of large seed companies has, in fact, pushed towards improved rice seeds which over time have resulted in major failures for farmers, those farmers who have continued to work. with traditional productions, they have had far better results in the long term as they have a lower need for herbicides and chemical inputs to control weeds. So in my opinion the existence of a commercial seed industry is important, but it must be clear that it must not be a speculator company because the results could be contradictory.

The case for Uganda is that the seed companies are reluctant to produce rice seed because most farmers use home-saved seed, making it difficult for the seed companies to forecast demand.   Because of this, the seed companies either produce when they get a large order (usually from the government) or they produce very limited quantities that can be sold in one season. We have provided this explanation in the manuscript, and also cited more literature.

• In line 95 "This low production" must be replaced with "This low productivity"

This was done as suggested

• The conclusions are too concise

We have rewritten the conclusion to summarize more of the study findings and implications.