Rice Marketing Survey Nexus on Selected Rice Markets in Bo and Freetown Cities

Socio-Demographic Characteristics of Rice Farmers

The socio-demographic characteristics of selected rice farmers in the study areas are presented in Table 1. The results on the gender of the respondents revealed that there are more males in rice farming than females in the study areas. Males constitute 88% and females constitute 12% for rice farmers. This could be because rice farming is more labour-intensive. Therefore, women are not able to meet the needed efforts to cultivate the crop adequately.

The majority of the rice farmers (60%) are between the ages of 31 to 40 years and these are the most productive period of their lives. Whereas 36% of the respondents were above 40 years old. This suggests that rice farming in Sierra Leone has attracted both young and old generations. Similar findings by Kamanda PJ, et al. [12] revealed that more than half of the sampled farmers (62.0%) in the study areas in Sierra Leone were within the economically active age bracket of 36-55 years.

The majority of the rice farmers (86%) are married, while 8% and 6% were either separated/divorced or widowed, respectively; indicating that people who undertake agricultural activities are married. This may be due to the emotional, psychological, and physical support they get from their spouses, a scenario that socioculturally signifies societal responsibility, respect, and diligence. The frequency distribution of education showed that 70% had no formal education, 18% had primary education, 8% had Junior Secondary School (JSS 1-3) education, and 4% had koranic education. This indicates that most rice farmers in the study area have low levels of education (mainly at the primary and junior secondary) and that may hinder their understanding and application of improved rice farming technologies. The regular size of the household was 6-10 persons and males dominated (96%), while 4% was represented by females. This indicates that most households were endowed with enough hands (or family labour) to assist with farming operations and off-farm income activities. All (100%) of the rice farmers interviewed were engaged in farming as their main income-generating activity.

Source: Field Data, 2024. Table 1: Distribution of Gender, Age, Marital and Educational Status, Household Head, and Size of Farmers.

Source of Labour, Experience, Ownership of the Land, Type of Variety Cultivated, and Access to Finance

Distribution of rice farmers according to the source of labour showed that household plus hired labour (82%) are the main source of labour for rice farmers in the study area (Table 2). The least labour size category was found among respondents with household labour (18%) alone. This development implies that farmers in the study area might have the advantage of family and hired labour in rendering necessary support to finish farm work; and that it is obvious that the reliance on household/family labour alone cannot provide the required labour needed for household rice farming endeavours. The respondents in the study area had 6-10 years of experience in rice farming. This finding is similar to that of Hashim I, et al. [13] who discovered in Tanzania that although most of the farmers who were interviewed had worked in the rice industry for three to ten years, there was no difference in their experiences. The majority (84%) of rice farmers had traditional land ownership through inheritance and the rest (16%) used rented, purchased, donated/gifted, or borrowed land from other farmers.

The adoption of improved rice farming technologies is important for increasing the productivity of smallholder agriculture. About 80% of rice farmers planted improved and local rice varieties, and the rest (20%) used only local (recycled) seeds. Most farmers use recycled seeds because it is readily available and cheaper than improved rice seeds. The majority (94%) of the rice farmers in the study area had no access to credit facilities, while the rest (6%) had access to credit obtained from friends, relatives (i.e. informal sector), and financial institutions in the district (i.e. formal sector). This indicates that access to formal credit in particular by rural households is almost out of reach. The rice farmers used the credit obtained for agricultural and non-agricultural purposes. This means that farmers use credit to engage in non-farm activities, which are likely to have higher returns than their agricultural production.

Source: Field Data, 2024. Table 2: Distribution of Farmers According to the Source of Labour, Experience, Ownership of the Land, Type of Variety Cultivated, and Access to Finance.

Quantity of Bushels Harvested and Bags Milled

The distribution of farmers according to the number of bushels revealed that the highest quantity of bushels harvested by farmers ranges from 11-20 bushels (44%), and was closely followed by 1-10 bushels (36%), while the number of bushels above 30 recorded 8% of the respondents (Table 3). Furthermore, the maximum quantity of bags milled ranges from 6-10 bags (56%), followed by 1-5 bags (20%) in the study area. This indicates that most farmers faced low rice productivity since their actual yields were below the potential yield of 3 tonnes per hectare which is attainable from improved rice varieties.

Similar studies in Sierra Leone have shown that small- scale farmers produce only enough rice for domestic consumption, leaving little for the market [14]. According to the Minister of MAFS, Dr. Henry Musa Kpaka, 50kg bag of milled local rice costs no more than New Leones (NLE) 1,200, equating to approximately NLE 19,200 per hectare in revenue. However, the expected cost of producing one hectare of rice in the 2024 planting season is approximately NLE 16,000, which includes only mechanical land preparation, seeds, fertilisers, and agrochemicals. Even after deducting milling, transportation, and additional labour expenditures, the cost of producing one hectare of rice provides little margin for the farmer. Large-scale producers have a greater likelihood of success because economies of scale allow them to produce at a lower cost per hectare of rice produced, or the marginal cost. It will be possible to increase the margins in rice production by halving post-harvest loss and doubling rice yields, from, say, 1.9 to 4 metric tonnes per hectare [15].

Source: Field Data, 2024 Table 3: Distribution of Respondents on the Amount of Bushels Harvested and Bags Milled.

Socio-Economic Characteristics of Rice Marketers in Sierra Leone

The distribution of respondents by socio-economic characteristics of rice marketers studied in this research work includes gender, sex, age, marital and educational status, ownership, and variety sold (Table 4). The gender distribution of respondents showed that there were more male rice marketers (91.5%) in the study area than female rice marketers (8.5%). The predominance of males in the trade could be attributed to the fact that the trade requires huge capital outlay which could be accessed mostly by men. Another reason for male dominance could be attributed to the stress (such as time, traveling, hunger and starvation, strength, staying under the sun, deprivation, etc.) involved in carrying out marketing activities that many women may not be able to meet up with. Furthermore, the rigorous nature of market work associated with rice marketing makes females avoid the enterprise in favour of less rigorous aspects of the rice value chain. The result indicates that gender influences technical efficiency.

The results from Table 4 reveal the age of rice marketers in the study area in which 44.5% were within the range of

31-40 and 40.5% fell between 18-30 years. Respondents that fall between the age brackets of 41-50 and above 50 years constitute 9% and 6%, respectively. This means that the respondents are young and full of strength to carry out the marketing activities. This has implications also for the sustainability of rice marketing and respondents’ vibrancy in sourcing (collecting) and having access to rice. This similarly implies that they are predominantly youths, and hence agile and economically productive.

A possible explanation for the dominance of married people in the trade implies that the rice trade is a source of livelihood for the marketers and their families. The result of the marital status of marketers of rice as indicated in Table 4 shows that most (66.5%) of the marketers were married in the study area. About 26.5% of the marketers were single and only 3.5% of the marketers were widowed and separated/ divorced; respectively. This is because married people have to bring food to the house to feed their family. The distributions of educational level/attainment of respondents in the study area show that the majority (28%) of the respondents attained junior secondary school education, with 20% Senior Secondary School (SSS), and 18.5% primary, while 25.5% of the rice marketers attained non-formal educational status. This implies that most rice marketers in the study area can read and write. This accounts for why they are been able to manage their finances since education enhances the capacity of individuals to understand, manage, and work with new ideas. Thus, education has a positive effect on the business acumen of entrepreneurs.

The results presented in Table 4 also reveal that 85.5% were the owners of their businesses, while 14.5% were business assistants. This indicates that most of the rice marketers in the study area own their businesses and operate a sole proprietorship. Furthermore, the relationship of business assistants with business owners revealed that 62.1% were sons/daughters of the owners, relatives and husbands/wives were 34.5% and 3.4%; respectively. There were different types of rice sold by marketers in the study areas. The results in Table 4 further reveal that almost all (95.5%) of the rice marketers in the study areas were involved in selling imported rice, while only 3.5% of the marketers engaged in selling local parboiled rice.

Consumers’ Preferences For Imported Rice

Consumers’ preferences for imported rice were investigated by marketers and these vary widely based on factors such as quality, price, and availability. For this study, nearly half (47%) of the respondents revealed that imported rice is available right throughout the year, followed by 20% for its high swelling ability, and comparative cheapness (18%); respectively. This implies that most consumers are now accustomed to the consumption of imported rice because of its easy access. Other studies have shown that factors like consumer knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions significantly influence their preferences for imported over local rice. In some regions, imported rice is preferred due to its cleanliness/quality, ready-to-cook nature, palatability/ taste, fragrance, and perceived status symbol, while in others, local rice is favored for its lower price and taste. Understanding these preferences is crucial for stakeholders in the rice markets, from rice farmers to policymakers, to align production and marketing strategies with consumer demands. Additionally, since many households are populated, consumers prefer rice that swells to increase the quantity that feeds the increased number of household members. As a result, marketers too find it more profitable to market imported rice since their businesses are always sustained in an almost ready-made kind of job with relative ease, unlike the multiple challenges associated with the marketing of locally processed rice.

Source: Field Data, 2024 Table 5: Distribution of Consumers’ Preferences for Imported Rice as Reported by Marketers.

Access to Organisations, Savings, and Experience

Table 6 depicts that most (57%) of the rice marketers were members of informal savings, and only 43% of them did not participate in any association. Almost the majority (97.4%) of the marketers were members of the “Osusu” contrary to Village Savings and Loans Associations (VSLAs) (2.6%). This result implies that most of the rice marketers in the study area did not enjoy the benefits accrued to the “Osusu” through a pooling of resources together for better expansion, efficiency, and effective management of resources and profit maximisation.

The marketing experience of respondents shows that 70.5% had 1-5 years of marketing experience, 23% had 6-10 years of experience, 3.5% had 11-15 years of experience, 2% had 16-20 years of experience and 1% of the marketers had above 20 and above years of marketing experience. This indicates that most of the rice marketers have the necessary experience and have been involved in the business for a long period which enables them to possess perfect information about rice marketing in the markets. The table revealed that 72% of the respondents have access to finance, while 28% do not have access to finance. Those that have access to finance may be as a result of their involvement in cooperative society; and can access finance from their respective cooperative societies. Those respondents that do not have access to finance might be a result of their non-involvement in cooperatives, hence the need for them to source funds from other sources; and they should be encouraged to form themselves into cooperative societies or groups to benefit from such organisations. In addition, those who are not members might be involved in other means such as daily contributions which may also help them to source funds when needed.

Source: Field Data, 2024 Table 6: Distribution of Rice Marketers According to Belonging to Organisation, Experience, Belong to Informal Saving, if Yes, Type, and Access to Finance.

Source of Getting Rice, Means of Transportation, from whom you Purchase Rice, and Access to Finance

Market participants involve individuals, groups, and organisations that handle products at various levels (wholesale and retail) of the markets as the product passes from the producer to the final consumer. The distribution of sources of rice products is presented in Table 7. The results reveal that the daily market, community, “Lummur” and own production of rice in the study area constituted 60%, 38.5%, 1%, and 0.5%, respectively. This implies that the daily market dominated the source of rice products in the study area.

This, therefore, follows as a matter of logic that prices of rice in the study area would be relatively high because more daily marketing functions such as selling in small units, storing for relatively longer periods in rented stores, and bringing the products close to consumers thereby adding more utilities of possession, place and time. The cost of the various functions which eventually provide more utilities to the product is transmitted to the final consumer at higher prices.

Marketing has been linked with transportation. This is because the movement and distribution of commodities from one place to another involves the use of transportation means. From Table 7, the respondent’s mode of transporting rice was reflected. A higher percentage of respondents in the urban markets (49 %) used head load, which is explained by the access to storage closer to the marketing point. The use of commercial motorbikes popularly called “Okada” for transporting rice by respondents was next to head load by respondents in the urban markets, with 35%, while public vehicles had a low percentage in the markets with 16%.

The result further revealed that 95% of the marketers’ purchasing unit was from wholesalers followed by retailers, processors, and middlemen/agents, 2.5%, 1.5%, and 1%; respectively. This implies that the rice marketers bought their goods at a very high price from the main wholesaler which could also translate to higher profit. The breakdown of the distribution of respondents according to their selling point is reflected in Table 7 below. Only 20% of the respondents used daily market in the urban markets as a selling point. Another 80% of the respondents used community/open space as a selling point in the urban market. The indication of the above is that rice marketers in urban markets of the study area were organised. The urban market had better selling points with the majority using community/open space.

Source: Field Data, 2024. Table 7: Distribution of Rice Marketers According to the Source Of Getting Rice, Means of Transportation, from Whom you Purchase Rice, and Access to Finance.

Table 7 also reflects the type of customers the respondents mostly had. Three types of customers were identified which included wholesalers, retailers, and final consumers. The retailers included buyers who had to sell to final consumers and the wholesalers sold to retailers and consumers. The third category of customers constituted consumers who were 8.5% in the urban markets as shown in Table 7, this was followed by wholesalers (0.5%). The fact that most customers were final customers (91%) in the urban markets supported the fact the respondents in the urban markets were mostly retailers who sold in pieces to the consumers. Regarding the main source of information obtained by rice marketers in the study areas, the table reveals that most (81%) of the marketers got information mainly through their colleague rice marketers, followed by the rice marketers’ observations (16.5%) and the media (2.5) being the least source of their marketing information.

Marketing Challenges

The constraints to rice marketing in the study area are presented in Table 8. The results revealed that the most important constraint faced by all the rice marketers (34%) was the low demand for local rice. Problems of price fluctuation (32%), high transportation cost (16%), high cost of rice (15%) and debtors (3%), were further revealed in Table 8; respectively. The above challenges differ from one who noted that the main issue facing the rice industry is the government’s policy prohibiting the importing of rice, according to all rice marketers [16]. The possible solution to these constraints is the provision of agricultural credit, adequate to enable rice marketing personnel to expand their businesses. This means that the challenge involved in the marketing of rice is inadequate marketing of rice facilities.

Source: Field Data, 2024 Table 8: Distribution of Respondents According to Major Constraints of the Rice Marketers.

Major Rice Marketing Recommendations

Table 9 shows the distribution of the respondents on recommendations in rice marketing as follows: Forty- four percent of the respondents recommended that price communication can boost rice marketing in the study area. This was closely followed by access to credit facilities, people’s engagement in farming, availability of local rice, and government regulation on price, all of which constituted 19%, 17%, 15%, and 5%; respectively.

Source: Field Data, 2024. Table 9: Distribution of Respondents According to Major Recommendation.