In the survey area, the average farm size (cultivation area) was 225 to 1239 decimal (1 decimal = 40 m²), and maximum ownership was 2400 decimal while minimum ownership was 50 decimal (Table 4). Farm size is a key factor for introducing mechanized harvesting to allow machinery to enter, leave, and turn.

All the farmers harvested the crop manually using sickle, which indicated that mechanization in reaping was not yet started in the surveyed area (Figure 5).

The carrying of harvested paddy is painful work. Of the 126 farmers surveyed,

13.49% transported cut paddy by balancing it on their head, and 12.7% used their shoulders. 11.11% of farmers carried harvested paddy on both head and shoulders. Only 18.25% of farmers sometimes used head carry and power tiller operated trolley or manual operated trolley. 44.44% of farmers reported that they threshed the paddy in the field and used small truck (pickup) for carrying harvested paddy (Figure 6). Most of the farmers’ opinion, during the transported harvested paddy they feel pain in head, shoulder and waist.

Threshing was mainly done using either close drum thresher (49.20%) or open drum thresher (26.20%), as shown in Figure 7, whereas 16.70% of farmers reported that they used paddle threshers. 7.14% of farmers reported that they performed threshing by beating, treading or other methods. In the survey area, only 0.97% farmers’ use head-feed combine, but nobody use the whole feed combine harvesters and head feed thresher due to a lack of access.

In the survey area, most farmers (37.3%) used kula for the cleaning of rice, and followed by 32.54% of farmers used kula with an electric fan. In the survey area,

only 8.74% farmers used a winnower and 3.17% use other equipment for cleaning rice (Figure 8).

The overall 80.95% of farmers had machinery, while the remainder (19.05%) did not have machines. Looking at the types of machinery, 50% of farmers used whole feed thresher (close drum thresher), 26.47% of farmers used open drum thresher, while 20.59% used other machinery (paddle thresher). In the project area, only 0.98% farmers using combine harvesters, 1.96% uses reapers but none use binders (Figure 9).

About 35.71% of farmers agreed that harvesting by sickle was a labor-intensive method (Figure 10) while 28.57% of farmers described manual harvesting by sickle as time consuming. Of the respondents, 16.67% of farmers argued that manual harvesting by sickle affected the quantity of crops due to shattering.

However, 15.08% farmers considered that current cutting methods (sickle) resulted in a quality loss and 3.97% opinion has no alternatives.

In the survey area, most of the farmers considered the carrying/transport method to be highly difficult. Transporting of harvested paddy was dangerous and painful for head, shoulder, hand, waist, backbone, leg, etc. The head carry caused pain in the head and neck, while shoulder carry caused pain in shoulder and arms. However, the common carrying system of head and shoulder has serious impacts for human health, even causing death. Farmers argued that they have no alternative way to carry the paddy.

25.40% of farmers described farming as labor-intensive work, while 34.13% described it as time-consuming work. 18.25% of farmers said that the use of open drum thresher and close drum thresher resulted in quantity loss, though 13.49% of farmers complained that it resulted in quality loss (Figure 11).

Kula was commonly used for cleaning of paddy/rice, grain, etc. in Bangladesh. Cleaning by kula was labor-intensive and time consuming. The kula was held by hand, and sometimes its operation caused pain in the hands and arms. The dust created during cleaning is also harmful.

Figure 12 shows the farmers’ need and type of machinery use. 63% farmers want partial mechanization because of worry about un-employment; moreover rest (37%) of them essential full mechanized rice harvesting. The result indicated that 23.81% of farmers want to use reaper and thresher, while 14.29% of farmers are interested in head feed combine harvesters. 23.02% of farmers wanted a thresher and 5.56% of farmers desired a reaper. Only 0.79% farmers were interested in whole-feed combine, because its size made it impractical for their small fields, in contrary 26.19% farmers need winnower for cleaning rice after threshing.

In mechanization and the introduction of machinery, 40.48% of farmers identified the main restriction as the price of the machine and 21.43% mention the information/awareness about machine, lack of credit (complicity) and government initiative is the main problem of harvest mechanization. Other minor restrictions identified were poor farm roads (6.35%) and small size of fields (5.56%) (Table 5).

Table 6 shows that most farmers (36.51%) identified the vital advantage of mechanized harvesting as a lower labor requirement, while 21.43% of farmers said that lower loss of rice was another incentive for harvesting mechanization. Only 15.87% of farmers identified low cost of harvesting as the main purpose of harvest mechanization, moreover 14.29% farmers seems that harvesting machinery use increase the social status and better livelihood.

Farmers expressed the opinion that they would benefit in different ways by introducing the harvesting machinery, as they would get extra time for doing off-farm work during the lean period as rice harvesting starts, neighboring farmers could borrow the machinery, and the new generation would show a greater interest in modern agriculture. It would also create an employment opportunity. Poor and marginal farmers who did not have the ability to purchase machinery could borrow to meet the requirements.

In this interview, the similar needs of the farmers were disclosed in broad outlines. All farmers who participated in the interview expressed their need for

machinery such as USG applicator, transplanter, harvester and weeder to increase crop productivity and cropping intensity. The main problems identified in buying and using such machinery was high price and small scale of land. As suggestions to resolve the various constraints hindering the rice productivity, all participant farmers mentioned agricultural credit with easy terms and conditions, subsidy for buying machinery and the ensuring of a fair market price for their rice.

The participants urged the government to take effective initiatives via the local government or extension department to help the actual rice farmers to achieve greater rice productivity by using machinery. Finally, the participants mentioned that sustainable and field oriented suitable rice production technology needed to be introduced.

The following suggestions are made on mechanized harvesting policy based on field information.

Ø Farmers want have capital intensive machine on subsidized price and an easy credit facility.

Ø Extensive field demonstrations are needed for harvesting machinery. Meetings, farmers’ workshops, training, field days and demonstrations can promote farmers knowledge on the benefit of using the machine, and learn how to operate and maintain it.

Ø The establishment of farmer groups for harvesting service is also important. As larger rice fields can be more productive, it is necessary to form cooperatives and merge small farms together.

Ø Development of entrepreneurship is urgently needed for providing custom hire service to the farmers.

Ø Research institute and extension agents can play vital role by providing demonstration and training on the operation and maintenance of the modern machine which ultimately enhance the farm productivity.

So, there is a broader avenue to introduce small to large machinery for enhancing the farm income in the study area. The key strategy in harvesting mechanization is to use machinery in every stage. The suggested ultimate destination of harvesting machinery is the combine harvester, as shown in Figure 13.