- Agricultural Extension Service Performance
Table 2.20: Availability of Agricultural Extension Services
| 2022 | 2023 | |||||
| Male | Female | Total | Male | Female | Total | |
| Number of AEAs required | – | – | – | 5 | 5 | 10 |
| Number of AEAs at post | 5 | 4 | 9 | 4 | 3 | 7 |
| % AEAs at post compared to required | – | – | – | 57:50 | 43:50 | |
| % of female AEAs at post | – | 44% | – | – | 43 % | |
| Number of farmers | 13,249 | 2,272 | 16,249 | 13,249 | 2,272 | 16,249 |
| Ratio of farmer to AEAs at post | 1:700 | |||||
Source: DAD, Municipal Assembly, 2023
Table 2.21: Research-Extension-Farmer Linkages Committees (RELCs) sessions organized
| RELC | 2022 | 2023 | % Change | |||||||||||
| Male | Female | Total | Youth | Aged | PLWD | Male | Female | Total | Youth | Aged | PLWD | |||
| Number of participants | Researchers | Nil | . | – | – | – | – | – | ||||||
| Farmers | 12 | 3 | 15 | 8 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| Processors | 1 | 1 | 2 | – | – | – | ||||||||
| Input dealers | 1 | 1 | 2 | – | – | – | ||||||||
| Technical staff | 7 | 7 | 14 | 3 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| Others | ||||||||||||||
| MCE | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| MCD | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| EPA | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
| FDA | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||||||||
| Budget Officer | – | – | – | – | 0 | |||||||||
| Planning Officer | – | – | – | – | – | 0 | ||||||||
| Facilitators | – | – | – | – | – | 0 | ||||||||
| Total | 22 | 15 | 37 | 8 | 0 | 0 | ||||||||
Source: DAD, 2023
Table 2.21: RELC issues
| ITEM | 2022 | 2023 |
| Number of Research Extension Linkage Planning meetings held | 1 | 0 |
| Number of gender sensitive recommendations implemented under RELC | 9 | |
| List 3 key problems recommended for research during the planning session | – black spot on veg. fruits
– oil palm trees bearing male flowers |
–
|
| Unknown cause of weathering of vegetable (egg plant) leaf | 0 | |
| List of 3 key problems researched and completed | 0 | |
| Number of problems being researched into | 2 |
This year’s Muicipal RELC session is yet to be orgnized.
2.4.4 Reduced Post-Harvest losses (survey) – Nil
Specify interventions carried out and indicate whether there have been changes in post-harvest losses within the reporting year compared to the previous year and what accounted for the change. Give account of the changes.
Table2.22: Status of Post-Harvest losses (post-harvest losses survey to be conducted bi-annually)
| Indicator | Baseline
Mt |
2022
Mt |
2023
mt |
Percentage change |
| Percentage Change in Post-Harvest Losses | ||||
| Maize | ||||
| Rice (Paddy) | ||||
| Millet | ||||
| Sorghum | ||||
| Cassava | ||||
| Yam | ||||
| Cocoyam | ||||
| Plantain | ||||
| Groundnuts | ||||
| Cowpea | ||||
| Soya bean | ||||
| Potato | ||||
| Tomato | ||||
| Onion | ||||
| Pepper | ||||
| Cabbage | ||||
| Cucumber | ||||
| Lettuce | ||||
| Carrot | ||||
| Ginger | ||||
| Pineapple | ||||
| Papaya | ||||
| Mango | ||||
| Citrus | ||||
| oil palm |
NB; Crops on the field are yet to be harvested in order for post-harvest survey to be carried out to know the losses incurred.
- Major Crop Performance (Non PFJ)
Table.2.23: Improved Major crop Performance (Non PFJ)
| Crops | Productivity (Mt/Ha)
|
Area of production (Ha)
|
Production (Mt)
|
||||||
| 2022 | 2023 Target | 2023 Actual | 2022 | 2023 Target | 2023 Actual | 2022 | 2023 Target | 2023 Actual | |
| Maize | |||||||||
| Rice (Paddy) | |||||||||
| Millet | |||||||||
| Sorghum | |||||||||
| Cassava | |||||||||
| Yam | |||||||||
| Cocoyam | |||||||||
| Plantain | |||||||||
| Groundnuts | |||||||||
| Cowpea | |||||||||
| Soya bean | |||||||||
| Potato | |||||||||
| Tomato | |||||||||
| Onion | |||||||||
| Pepper | |||||||||
| Cabbage | |||||||||
| Cucumber | |||||||||
| Lettuce | |||||||||
| Carrot | |||||||||
| Okra | |||||||||
| Garden Eggs | |||||||||
| Ginger | |||||||||
| Pineapple | |||||||||
| Papaya | |||||||||
| Mango | |||||||||
| Citrus | |||||||||
| Oil palm | |||||||||
Source: DAD, 2023
Analysis
MRACLS are yet to be carried out.
Table2.24: Improved Major crop Performance (PFJ)
| Crops | Productivity (Mt/Ha)
|
Area of production (Ha)
|
Production (Mt)
|
||||||
| 2022 | 2023 Target | 2023 Actual | 2022 | 2023 Target | 2023 Actual | 2022 | 2023 Target | 2023 Actual | |
| Maize (OPV) | |||||||||
| Maize (Hybrid) | |||||||||
| Rice | |||||||||
| Soya bean | |||||||||
| Sorghum | |||||||||
| Tomato | |||||||||
| Onion | |||||||||
| Pepper | |||||||||
| Cabbage | |||||||||
| Cucumber | |||||||||
| Lettuce | |||||||||
| Carrot | |||||||||
Source: DAD, 2023
N/B: MRACLS are yet to be organized and also the municipality haven’t received any PFJ inputs.
Table2.25: Availability of Agricultural Mechanisation
| Indicator | 2022 | 2023 | ||||
| Sex | Target | Actual | Target | Actual | ||
| 1.Number of functional agricultural mechanisation service centres | New | 1 | ||||
| Existing | 1 | |||||
| Number of farmers having access to mechanised services | M | 15 | 12 | |||
| F | 5
|
1 | ||||
| 2.Area ploughed (ha) | 12 | 6.4 | ||||
| 3.Total number of trainees in the proper use and handling of farm machinery | tractor owners, operators, mechanics trained | 5 | 2 | |||
Source: DAD, 2022
Analysis
Agricultural mechanisation services in the Municipality is very insufficient and also started operation not long ago. These mechanisation services are currently situated at Suhyen and Mapem. Farmers nearby however have started accessing the mechanisation services.
| Field being ploughed at Suhyen |
2.6.1 Informal Irrigation
Informal irrigation is where a group of individuals use infrastructure for water storage, conveyance and distribution provided from the farmer’s own resources or with some external support other than the government.
Table2.26: Crop Performance under Informal Irrigation
| 2023 | ||||||||||
| Area under cultivation (ha) | Area per crop (ha) | Yield (ton/ha) | Production (MT) | |||||||
| 1st Cycle | 2nd Cycle | 3rd Cycle | 1st Cycle | 2nd Cycle | 3rd Cycle | 1st Cycle | 2nd Cycle | 3rd Cycle | ||
| Vegetables | ||||||||||
| – | – | – | – | |||||||
| Subtotal | ||||||||||
| Cereals | ||||||||||
| Subtotal | ||||||||||
| Fruits | ||||||||||
| Subtotal | ||||||||||
| TOTAL | ||||||||||
| Source: DAD, 2023 | ||||||||||
Survey is yet to be piloted.
2,7 Emergency Preparedness
Table 2.27: National food strategic stock
| Indicator | 2022 | 2023 | ||
| Target | Actual | Target | Actual | |
| Quantity of national buffer stock (Mt) | ||||
| Maize (white) | ||||
| Maize (yellow) | ||||
| Rice | ||||
Source: RAD, 2022
NB: NOT APPLICABLE.
Table2.28: Gross Margin of major staple crops
| Item | Unit | Quantity | Price (Gh¢) | Total |
| Seeds | Kg | 9 | 15 | 135 |
| Pesticides | Litre | 4 | 75 | 300 |
| Fertilizers NPK | Bags (50kg) | 2 | 450 | 900 |
| UREA | Bags (50kg) | 1 | 500 | 500 |
| Total cost of input | 1835 | |||
| Land preparation | Man day | 5 | 70 | 450 |
| Sowing | Man day | 5 | 40 | 200 |
| Pesticide application | Man day | 5 | 40 | 200 |
| Fertilizer application | Man day | 5 | 40 | 200 |
| Harvesting | Man day | |||
| Threshing | Man day | |||
| Bagging | Man day | |||
| Total labour cost | ||||
| Total cost of input and services | ||||
| Production/Gross revenue | 3.1 mt/ha =31 Maxi bags X GHC200.00/bag = 6,200.00 | |||
- Calculate the gross margin per hectare:
Gross margin = Gross revenue-total cost (input + labour)
Gross margins per hectare of major staple crops produced (Mini-survey). Key crops of interest should be used to determine farmers’ gross margin annually.
Describe technologies you have demonstrated to farmers to enhance their production. Indicate in your analysis with pictures (before and after) how farmers’ access to improved technology has improved animal production.
Table2.29 Farmers’ Access to Improved livestock production Technology
| Livestock technologies demonstrated | Males | Females | Total | % female |
| Proper housing for pigs | 8 | 7 | 15 | 47% |
Source: DAD, 2023
Table2.30: Farmers adopting improved livestock technologies
| No. | Number of Technologies adopted | Male | Female | |||
| 2022
|
2023 | 2022 | 2023 | 2022 | 2023 | |
| 4 | 5 | 24 | 38 | 8 | 19 | |
Source: DAD, 2023
Analysis
Improved livestock technologies been adopted by farmers are; preparation of fodder, supplementary feed formulation, improve housing, improve sanitation and proper feeding. Evidence can clearly be seen in the growth and health status of animals. Livestock farmers are very content for adopting such essential technologies.