Armea Herrera Inductivo Valdecantos 2021

St.
Paul College San Rafael

Pantubig, San Rafael, Bulacan
S.Y. 2020-2021
A Quantitative Research about
A COMPARATIVE RESEARCH ON THE EFFECTS OF HAVING AND NOT

HAVING IRRIGATION ON THE FARMERS’ PRODUCTION OF RICE AND
SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS IN BARANGAY PANTUBIG, SAN RAFAEL,
BULACAN
A Research Paper Presented to

Mr. John Lexter B. Villegas
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements
In methods of Practical Research II
Submitted by:
Armea, Tathiana Faith S.
Herrera, Jules Philip T.
Inductivo, Rave Richmond M.
Valdecantos, Ralph Jacob O.
April 2021
i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
We, the researchers cannot express enough gratitude to the professionals for their
continuous support and encouragement: Sir John Lexter B. Villegas, our research
consultant; and Sr. Marissa G. Mendez, SPC, our school directress and principal.
The completion of this research could not have been accomplished without the
assistance of the barangay counselor of Pantubig, Mr. Noel D.F. Alvarez, barangay
secretary, Mr. German I. De Leon, and Mr. and Mrs. Inductivo. We were facing a lot of
problems in figuring out on how to give out our questionnaires in this time of pandemic.
If were not for them, we would not be able to accomplish the study. Our profound
gratitude goes to all of them.
We would also like to give our thanks to our families for their unending support
and encouragement. We would never forget the times for lending out their patience
despite not being able to do our chores at home, due to us being busy in conducting our
research. Your understanding is much appreciated by all of us. Finally, as Paulinians, we
are grateful to God, Almighty, for His favors, our lives, the health and strength we have
had as a group throughout this research.
Armea / Herrera / Inductivo / Valdecantos 2021

ii
DEDICATION
This study is wholeheartedly dedicated to our beloved parents who had been very
supportive on our emotional, mental, physical and financial needs in conducting this
research;
To our beloved friends, relatives, classmates and research adviser who had shared their
words of advice and encouragement to finish this study;
To the farmers who had served as our inspiration in conducting this research and who had
shared their life as farmers to the researchers; and
To our Almighty God who has been guiding us in conducting this study and He who has
been giving us the power of the mind, strength, protection, skills, and good health. We
offer to You all of these fruits and gains of this research.

iii
LETTER OF APPROVAL OF RESEARCH PAPER FOR DEFENSE

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT…………………………………………………………………i
DEDICATION…………………………………………………………………………….ii
LETTER OF APPROVAL OF RESEARCH PAPER FOR DEFENSE…………………iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………....iv
LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………..vi
LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………xi
LIST OF APPENDICES………………………………………………………………….xi
ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………..xii
CHAPTER I: The Background of the

Study……………………………………………….1
Introduction………………………………………………………………………..1
Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………….3
Scope and Delimitation……………………………………………………………4
Significance of the
Study…………………………………………………………..4
Definition of Terms………………………………………………………………..6
CHAPTER II: Theoretical

Framework…………………………………………….............8
Introduction………………………………………………………………………..8
Related Theory…………………………………………………………………….8
Related Literatures……………………………………………………………….10

v
Related Studies…………………………………………………………………...16
Conceptual Framework…………………………………………………………..22
Paradigm of the Study……………………………………………………………23
Definition of
Variables…………………………………………………………...24
CHAPTER III: Research

Methodology…………………………………………………..26
Research Design………………………………………………………………….26
Population and Sample of the

Study……………………………………………...26
Instrumentation…………………………………………………………………..27
Data Gathering Procedure………………………………………………………..29
Data Analysis and Statistical

Treatment………………………………………….30
CHAPTER IV: Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Data………………………

34
Introduction………………………………………………………………………34
Statement of the Problem #1……………………………………………………..35
Statement of the Problem

#2……………………………………………………...37

#3……………………………………………………...60

#4……………………………………………………...68

vi

#5……………………………………………………...92

#6…………………………………………………….107
CHAPTER V: Summary of Findings, Conclusions, and

Recommendations…………....110
Introduction……………………………………………………………………..110
Summary of Findings…………………………………………………………...110
Conclusions……………………………………………………………………..122
Recommendations………………………………………………………………132
BIBLIOGRAPHY………………………………………………………………………135
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Population and Sample of the
Study…………………………………………….27
Table 2. Rice Farming Years of Farmers with and without
Irrigation…………………….35
Table 3. Number of Farmers with and without Irrigation…………………………………
36
Table 4. Rate of Rice Yielded by Farmers with and without Irrigation per Square Meter
of Individual Land
Area……………………………………………………………………..37

vii
Table 5. Average Mass of Rice Sacks of Farmers with
Irrigation………………………...39
Table 6. Average Mass of Rice Sacks of Farmers without
Irrigation…………………….39
Table 7. Amount of Capital used by Farmers with Irrigation per Square Meter of
Individual Land
Area………………………………………………………………………………...41
Table 8. Amount of Capital used by Farmers without Irrigation per Square Meter of
Individual Land
Area……………………………………………………………………..41
Table 9. Amount of Irrigation Expenses of Farmers with Irrigation per Square Meter of
Individual Land
Area……………………………………………………………………..42
Table 10. Quantity of Fertilizers Applied by Farmers with and without Irrigation per
Square Meter of Individual Land
Area…………………………………………………………...43
Table 11. Workforce Expenditures of Farmers with
Irrigation…………………………..45
Table 12. Workforce Expenditures of Farmers without
Irrigation………………………..45

viii
Table 13. Response of Farmers with and without Irrigation to Item #14 subset A………
46
Table 14. Total Amount of Credit of Farmers with and without Irrigation per Square
Meter of Individual Land
Area………………………………………………………………….47
Table 15. Rate of Paddy Rice Sacks Sold by Farmers with and without Irrigation………
49
Table 16. Rate of Milled Rice Sacks Sold by Farmers with and without Irrigation………
50
Table 17. Response of Farmers with and without Irrigation to Item #16…………………
51
51
Table 19. Outside Activities Aside from Farming of Farmers with and without
Irrigation…………………………………………………………………………………52
Table 20. Monthly Profit of Farmers with and without Irrigation……………………….54
Table 21. Types of Labor that Farmers with and without Irrigation use for Land
Preparation…………………………………………………………………………….....55
Table 22. Response of Farmers with and without Irrigation to Item # 11…………………
56

ix
Table 23. Types of Fertilizers Used by Farmers with and without
Irrigation……………..57
Area…………………………………………………………...58
60
Table 26. Outside Activities Aside from Farming of Farmers with and without
Irrigation…………………………………………………………………………………60
Table 27. Reasons of Farmers with and without Irrigation for Participating to Outside
Activities from Farm……………………………………………………………………..62
Table 28. Monthly Expenses of Farmers with Irrigation…………………………………
64
Table 29. Monthly Expenses of Farmers without
Irrigation……………………………...64
Table 30. Priorities of Expenses of Farmers with and without Irrigation…………………
65
Table 31. Monthly Profit of Farmers with and without
Irrigation………………………..66
of Individual Land Area………………………………………………………………….68

x
Table 33. Reasons of Farmers without Irrigation for Not Using Irrigation………………
69
Table 34. Alternative Ways of Farmers without Irrigation in Irrigating their Land
Area………………………………………………………………………………………70
71
Table 36. Types of Fertilizers Used by Farmers with and without Irrigation……………71
Area…………………………………………………………...73
Table 38. Workforce Expenditures of Farmers with
Irrigation…………………………..75
Table 39. Workforce Expenditures of Farmers without
Irrigation……………………….75
Table 40. Response of Farmers with and without Irrigation to Item #14 subset A………
76
Table 41. Total Amount of Credit of Farmers with and without Irrigation per Square
Meter of Individual Land
Area………………………………………………………………….77
Table 42. Reasons of Farmers with and without Irrigation why they did not Apply for
Credit……………………………………………………………………………………..78

xi
80
Table 44. Rate of Milled Rice Sacks Sold by Farmers with and without Irrigation………
81
82
83
Activities from Farm……………………………………………………………………..83
Table 48. Monthly Expenses of Farmers with Irrigation…………………………………
85
Table 49. Monthly Expenses of Farmers without
Irrigation……………………………...85
Irrigation………………………...86
Table 51. Response of Farmers with Irrigation to Section
B……………………………..88
Table 52. Response of Farmers without Irrigation to Section
B………………………….90

xii
Area………………………………………………………………………………………92
93
Table 55. Types of Labor that Farmers without Irrigation use for Land
Preparation……………………………………………………………………………….94
Table 56. Types of Fertilizers Used by Farmers without
Irrigation……………………...94
Table 57. Quantity of Fertilizers Applied by Farmers without Irrigation per Square Meter
Table 59. Average Mass of Rice Sacks of Farmers with Irrigation………………………
99
Table 60. Average Mass of Rice Sacks of Farmers without Irrigation……………………
99
100
Table 62. Rate of Milled Rice Sacks Sold by Farmers with and without
Irrigation……...102

xiii
Table 63. Response of Farmers with and without Irrigation to Item
#16………………...102
Table 64. Response of Farmers with and without Irrigation to Item
#17………………...103
Activities from Farm……………………………………………………………………104
Irrigation……………………….105
Table 67. Amount of Irrigation Expenses of Farmers with Irrigation per Square Meter of
Individual Land Area……………………………………………………………………
107
Table 68. Monthly Profit of Farmers without
Irrigation………………………………...108
Table 69. Source of Credit of Farmers without Irrigation………………………………
109
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the
Study…………………………………………...22

xiv
Figure 2. Paradigm of the
Study………………………………………………………….23
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Modified Research
Instrument…………………………………………….141
Appendix 2. Letter to the Municipal……………………………………………………147
Appendix 3. Letter to the
Barangay……………………………………………………..148
Appendix 4. Attendance of the Respondents……………………………………………
149

xv
ABSTRACT
This study aimed to determine the comparison on the effects of having and not having
irrigation on the farmers’ production of rice and socioeconomic status in barangay
Pantubig, San Rafael, Bulacan. The researchers utilized the comparative research design,
in which the frequency and percentage distribution was applied in comparing and
contrasting the gathered data. The researchers adopted the research instrument of
Gbetondji Melaine Armel Nonvide, then it was modified to fit the current study more
accurately. The modified research instrument was comprised of two sections, with 18
items for the first section which determined the farmers’ production of rice and
socioeconomic status, and 10 items for the second section which was about the farmers’
perception and constraints on having irrigation. From the findings of the study, the
following are the areas involved in comparing that the farmers with irrigation are more
advantageous than the farmers without access to it: quantity of rice production, profit
gained from harvesting, protection against drought, and food security. Furthermore, the
researcher found out that there is a high probability that most of the farmers without
irrigation do not have the capability to build an infrastructure for irrigation in relation to
their income. Therefore, the researchers recommended that: the local officials give
subsidies on the farmers’ expenses in irrigation and build more irrigation and water
pump; the farmers need to consider selling their harvest as milled rice to the market to
increase its value and shift to fully-automated machines; the future researchers have to
observe a larger area and population, and gather more relevant data prior to the scope of
the research.

xvi
Keywords: Comparative Research, Effects of Having and Not Having Irrigation,
Farmers, Production of Rice, Socioeconomic Status

1
CHAPTER I
The Background of the Study
San Rafael, Bulacan's top income is generated through agriculture. It has been a
part of most families’ lives in the town. Most crops yielded in San Rafael is rice. It is also
a staple food for Filipinos. Growing rice would use a lot of resources, water is one. Water
is essential for the plant to grow and produce a bountiful harvest.
One way of achieving a good plantation is having a nearby natural water source in
the field, but this is rare. Having streams or river near a farm with clean water is not often
seen in San Rafael, Bulacan. As regards to this situation, the government has built
irrigation infrastructures under the supervision of the National Irrigation Administration.
Sufficient water sources are much needed in farming, and rice field with insufficient
water supply tends to yield small harvest rather than with good water supply according to
Inocensio (2018) and Abid, Scheffran, Schneider, and Ashfaq (2016), respectively.
The primary purpose of irrigation is the production of food and fiber. Delos Reyes
(2017) stated that agricultural production in areas far from water resources and during dry
seasons has been made possible by extensive irrigation development. Irrigation aids the
farmers to use their farmland even without rainfall. It also provides a sufficient volume of
water necessary for crops to grow and be harvested. Some irrigation systems are
expensive for it obliges the farmer to provide machinery to transport water from the
system to their lands, which is another expenditure that is removed from their income.

2
Meanwhile, in San Rafael, Bulacan, irrigation systems are seen and utilized by a
lot of farmers. There is a total of 5,447.14 harvested areas of farmlands that have access
to irrigation infrastructures. Farmers without access to proper irrigation infrastructures
depend on rain water with the number of 2,492.40 harvested areas. In 2017, irrigated
farms harvested 28,105.40 metric tons and rain fed farms has 11,568.30 M.T. According
to the municipality of San Rafael Agricultural Office (2017), having no access to this
infrastructure has a great disadvantage to the farmers that directly affects the quality and
quantity of their harvest.
Presently, farmers have been mostly deprecated by the society but they still
provide the municipality's income and a secured supply of food for the community. Rice
imports degrade the price of local rice that greatly affects their income so, affordable
irrigation systems are needed in their farmlands. This study would focus on comparing
the quantity of harvest and other factors that affect the farmers and their crops with
regard to having and not having access to proper irrigation systems.
The comparative research would take place in Barangay Pantubig, San Rafael,
Bulacan. The factors to be compared are deliberately proven through a series of test by
Gbetondji Melaine Armel Nonvide in 2018 at Kasetsart University, Bangkok, Thailand.
The research is also anchored to the goals and methods of Gbetondji Melaine Armel
Nonvide.
This research would tackle the comparison of farmers with access to proper
irrigation infrastructure and those who have no access at all. It would show the
comparison of the effects of having and not having access to an irrigation infrastructure
to the quantity of harvest produced by farmers and the farmers’ socioeconomic status.

3
This study also aims to give attention to the agriculture industry of San Rafael,
specifically the farmers in barangay Pantubig who would mostly benefit because
agriculture is their primary income source. This shall help the municipality of San Rafael
and other concerned government agencies to know the problems of the people, especially
farmers, who are experiencing it.
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM
The general problem of the study is: Do having and not having irrigation create
effects on the farmers’ rice production and socioeconomic status in barangay Pantubig,
San Rafael Bulacan?
The research aims to determine the following concrete problems:
1. What is the respondent’s profile in terms of:
a. years of farming; and
b. access to irrigation?
2. What are the differences of having and not having irrigation for farmers that can be
identified through the following factors:
a. quantity of rice harvested;
b. profit gained from harvesting; and
c. technique and style of farming?
3. Does having irrigation affect the economic lifestyle of farmers?
4. What are the advantages and disadvantages of having and not having irrigation for
farmers?

4
5. If farmers do not have irrigation, what are the other ways that they use in growing
rice crops? Are these efficient or not (based on the factors mentioned above)?
6. If irrigation is needed, can farmers provide enough budget to build one? Where do
they usually get the funding capital?
SCOPE AND DELIMITATION
The scope of this research refers to the comparison of the effects of having and
not having irrigation on the farmers’ production of rice and socioeconomic status in
barangay Pantubig, San Rafael, Bulacan. The study would search for the differences of
the two subjects in one specified location which are farmers who have access to irrigation
and those who do not. In addition, the number of respondents would be decided
depending on the population of farmers in Pantubig.
This study only covers one area which is located on Pantubig. It means that it
would not generally scope all areas of San Rafael. It is decided that one place must only
be examined due to the prevalent pandemic. With a limited area, it would probably be
difficult to collect data and compare the effects of the research being conducted.
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY
The outcomes of this study urge to inform the involved persons, especially the
local rice farmers of barangay Pantubig, on what actions should be done. The findings of
this study will redound to the benefit the following:

5
Office of the Municipal and Government Agencies. The National Irrigation
Administration (NIA) is primarily responsible for irrigation development and
management, and second is the Office of the Municipality of San Rafael. The authorities
would be informed of what actions should be taken that may result to an efficient
irrigation agency which would contribute to the inclusive growth and improvement of the
farmers’ job. They would be able to construct, operate, and maintain irrigation systems
consistently with integrated water resource management principles to improve
agricultural productivity and increase farmers’ income.
Farmers and their Families. This study aims to improve the rice farmer’s work
and lessen their expenses. They would not wait for rainfall anymore to have a good
harvest. As income and employment are closely related to output, a proper irrigation
increases production and substantial increase in income.
Agriculture. This study would help agricultural crop growth and enable to meet
the demand for food, and more farmland and irrigation. Irrigation has an impact on the
level, stability, composition and seasonality of agricultural output and on the physical
characteristics of the commodity harvested so, agricultural productivity may increase due
to irrigation development.
Future Researchers. The researchers would be able to gather information about
the benefit of having a proper irrigation system. They may use this as a reference if they
would formulate their own study that is aligned to the topic of the present research.

6
DEFINITION OF TERMS
Comparative Research – a type of research that compares stated factors between two or
more sides to each other
Irrigation – a manmade structure used to water agricultural lands specifically in
cultivating plants
Rice Farmers – farmers who choose to cultivate and grow rice on their fields
Rice Production – the process of growing and cultivating rice plants to harvest and
produce products made out of rice
Socioeconomic Status – the social standing or class of a farmer which is often measured
as a combination of income and occupation
Agriculture - the science or practice of farming, including cultivation of the soil for the
growing of crops and the rearing of animals to provide food, wool, and other products
Staple Food – a food that is eaten routinely and in such quantities that it continues a
dominant portion of a standard diet for a given people
Agricultural Production – the production of any crops attached to the surface of the
land and of any farm animals
Quantity of Harvest - the volume of rice crops that is harvested in a certain time
Efficiency – the state or quality of irrigation infrastructures and other ways for growing
rice crops as being sufficient
Time Frame – the duration of farming before harvest

7
Technique and Style – the different kinds of methods of farmers used in crops with or
without irrigation
Local Government Units – the local branch of government, particularly the municipal,
which is responsible for the observation of rights and facilitation of needs of farmers in
the local area
Respondents – the rice farmers who respond for a survey or questionnaire to something,
especially one supplying information
Integrated Water Resource Management Principles – a process that promotes the
coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources.
Commodity – a primary agricultural product that can be bought and sold

8
CHAPTER II
Theoretical Framework
In this chapter, the different related theories, literatures, and studies are stated to
support the present research. The related theory states the specific phenomenon that is
currently happening; besides, connected and were used as the base of the research. On the
other hand, the related literature includes all the different information taken from the
books, websites, journals, and other source of texts that may give more information
related to the research. Lastly, the related studies contain the connected researches that
were conducted. This allows the researchers to show that this problem is continuously
seen and timely relevant in the society. The information located in this chapter would
serve as the foundation that contains reliable data related to the current research.
RELATED THEORY
Game theory (GT) is a mathematical method of problem analysis and decision
making in strategic interaction. In other words, GT builds mathematical models and
draws conclusions by studying situations/problems in which a group of people don't
necessarily share the same interests and have to make decisions (interactive decision-
making). Under a GT perspective, the outcome of a situation/problem (game) is
determined by the moves (strategy) made by participants in the game (players).

9
In this theory, the process of setting up a game model includes defining players’
options and preferences. The aim of each player is to reach its expectations. GT allows
simulation of the self-centered attitude of the involved players with a fairly realistic
manner. In that context, GT methods compared to other conventional methods of
strategic analysis, such as linear programming, provide better understanding of issues
describing the competition and cooperation between players and make better estimations
of the conflict outcome. However, it should be mentioned that GT is based on rationality.
GT was introduced in the publication Theory of Games and Economic Behavior
by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern (1944), finding application in economics.
However, before this publication, several GT topics had been discussed, but not in a
systematic way (Gura and Maschler, 2008). Even though GT is a relatively young branch
of mathematics, through the passing of seventy years, it has been widely used in many
other disciplines, such as political science, computer science, biology, psychology,
sociology, and other fields. GT applications have been used as the means to understand
many environmental issues, including water quantity and quality management, water
allocation, water sharing, water diplomacy and many other fields.
This theory relates to the present comparative research that studies the
situations/problems in which a group of people (farmers) don't necessarily share the same
interests about irrigation system. The theory provides models for classifying knowledge
situations and predicting choice under various states of knowledge. Game theory is a
rapidly advancing approach for analyzing the life of the farmers; thus, a review of ideas
relating to uncertainty provides an important background for the analysis undertaken in
this research.

10
Furthermore, agriculture is the largest consumer of water. Since water demand for
irrigational purposes is expected to rise and given the fact that freshwater is not an
unlimited resource, conflicts about the use of water and allocation issues are becoming
more intense. Podimata and Yannopoulos (2015) examine the potential for water conflict
when water consumption for irrigation takes place. In order to contribute to the
discussion on this issue, game theory is used as a platform that provides predictions about
strategies of irrigation followed by stakeholders. The authors’ work also discusses the
nature and characteristics of selected games. Their goal is to highlight the evolution of
game theory application in irrigation and contribute to the discussion about resolving
resource conflicts generated by irrigated agriculture.
Farmers, including most Filipinos, experience the mentioned conflict in their
areas. The theory tested in the research could be related to the present study. Both aim to
recognize the problems of farmers who have irrigation systems; however, the current
study further explores the problems of farmers who do not have the equipment. The
researchers also want to identify what could be done to resolve resource conflicts in
irrigation systems.
RELATED LITERATURES
Irrigation is generally defined as the application of water to the land for the
purpose of supplying moisture essential to plant growth. This process, according to
Agriculture Victoria in 2020, primary assists to grow more pastures and produce higher
quality crops. It also gives insurance against seasonal variability and drought.

11
The current study focuses on the comparison between the rice production of
farmers who have proper irrigation system and otherwise. In light to the study, the related
literatures might be of help for the researchers regarding the construction of their research
instrument that would be used to gather information and to produce quantitative results
and analyses in the latter part of the study. These would also guide the researchers to gain
insights about the effects of having and not having irrigation on farmlands.
“Advantages and Disadvantages”
The present study primarily wants to identify the advantages and disadvantages of
having irrigation systems. According to Shahe (2020), some of the advantages of
irrigation are: increase of food production; lessen risk of catastrophic damage caused by
drought; increase income and labor employment, standard of living, and value of land;
and improve ground water storage. Meanwhile, in 2017, Pro Green Irrigation stated five
benefits of having irrigation system installed. It was stated that irrigation systems can be
an excellent option for automated sprinkler system; increase value of farming; help
prevent weeds and disease in plants; maintain nutrient balance; and enhance
manageability.
Fundamentally, the present research wants to determine the points where the
farmers, having irrigation, create an edge over the farmers who do not have. The study
highlights the factors that would delimit their differences, which are the quantity of rice
harvested, profit gained from harvesting, and technique and style of farming. The
researchers also aim to identify the possible ways to help in creating efficient alternatives
to improve the socioeconomic and farming progress of the farmers.

12
On the contrary, irrigation system, despite of its advantages, also has drawbacks
in some cases. According to Shah (2019), the disadvantages of irrigation systems arise
from poor design or inefficient installation. A sub-optimal irrigation can lead to water
waste, overwatering, or under watering of agriculture. In order to get the most out of an
irrigation system, it is important to choose the right one for a property, the climate where
the farmer lives in, and the crops of a farmland.
In line to the study conducted, the current research, aside from defining ways that
can possibly ameliorate the farming options of rice farmers who do not have irrigation,
also aims to create suitable and efficient plans in conducting probable constructions of
irrigation and other options related to it. The research wants to ensure that farmers would
surely benefit from the study conducted, considering the probable advantages of the
respondents from conducting it. They also want to emphasize the needs of rice farmers to
effectively and grow rice crops more easily.
“Effectivity and Hindrances”
Climate change and drought majorly create impacts on the production of crops
such as rice, particularly in the focus of the study. Ray, Fares, and Risch (2018) stated
that increased crop yield is required to meet the needs of future population growth, but
drought causes significant yield reductions for rain fed and irrigated crops. Similarly,
according to Cho in the same year, eighty percent of the world’s crops are rain fed, so
most farmers depend on the predictable weather agriculture in order to produce their
crops; however, hotter weather will lead to faster evaporation, resulting to more droughts
and water shortages, so there will be less water for irrigation just when it is mostly
needed.

13
The study, likewise, looks into the status of farmers who do not have access to
irrigation system and how they cope with seasonal variability such as drought and climate
change. In the Philippines, major drought years are associated with El Niño. This
phenomenon causes drought in most areas in the country. Drought may lead into crop
failures and reduction of irrigated areas in agriculture and this is one of the sub-focus of
the present research.
Meanwhile, Monthly Agriculture also reported in the same year that the
performance of national irrigation system of the Philippines has declined over the years.
Despite receiving the bulk of major public investments year after year, the country’s
irrigation has always performed below expectations. The irrigation performance
indicators have generally been falling over time across the vintages of the national system
because “the best options for irrigation development have been developed earlier, and
later, public investments have been allocated to marginal projects with higher cost of
construction and low and uncertain benefits,” Philippine Institute for Development
Studies consultants Dr. Cristina David and Dr. Arlene Inocencio noted.
Contrastingly, the current study attempts to determine the effectivity of the
irrigation to the production of rice and the possible enhancements of irrigational
performance in a local area. It also stresses the socioeconomic aspect of the farmers that
is affected by the performance of utilizing irrigation, considering the hindrances of the
respondents to market opportunity as well. Most importantly, the study aims to create
ways to provide more opportunities for the farmers’ product in the market.

14
“Benefits and Practices”
The study equally attempts to determine the benefits of irrigation to the farms,
crops, farmers and environment. Agriculture Victoria (2018) stated that irrigation allows
primary producers to lengthen the growing seasons and grow crops in spite of seasonal
variabilities. Since an irrigated land can potentially support higher crops, pasture and
animal production, it is considered more valuable so, irrigation can improve the capital
value of farmers’ property. In addition, according to Kankam (2017), having irrigation
maintains moisture in the soil. Moisture is necessary for the germination of seed. This
process is also essential for the absorption of mineral nutrients by the plants from the soil
and for the growth of roots of the crop plants.
One of the present study’s objectives is to benefit the main focus of the study
which is the rice farmers, their rice production, and socioeconomic status. It would only
be achieved if the study successfully identifies the following perks and benefits of having
irrigation compare to not having one. It also wants to improve the farmers’ opportunity to
produce more quantity of rice in just one harvest by promoting them to be able to build
an irrigation if they do not have one.
Focusing on the practices that can be done in rice farming, agronomy expert Ines
Hadju stated in the same year that sustainable farm practices and the proper farm
management represent the answer to all challenges of rice production. Especially
favorable for small farmers who don’t have many resource and inputs, these farm
practices can be divided into three different stages: pre-plant practices, growth practices,
and harvest practices.

15
In line with the study, it attempts to determine the following practices that farmers
use in farming. The researchers want to identify how the rice farmers cope with not
having irrigation on their farmlands. From the data that would be gathered, the
researchers would also be able to create conclusions for the specific problems about how
other practices of rice farming differ from having irrigation in a field.
“Standard of Living”
An excerpt from a 2017 edition economics book entitled Kayamanan points out
the different types of standard of living. The content discusses the socioeconomic status
of life of a person which particularly pertains to the kinds and quantity of products
consumed by an individual to provide their needs and satisfy their wants. The types of
standard of living, from lowest to highest level, include:
 Poverty standard refers to people who are only expecting for financial help,
donations, and alms from different institutions
 Bare living standard talks about that the income of an individual is only enough to
their primary needs.
 Decency standard is about people who have the capability to provide their needs
and wants and does have the “dignity.”
 Comfort standard pertains to people who acquire comfort and their income that
are much enough to provide their needs and wants. They are considered as
“secure and worry free.”
 Finally, the luxury standard is about people who are called “rich and famous.”
They can have unlimited purchases on their need and wants.

16
The mentioned literature is connected to the present study because it wants to
determine what standard of living most farmers are categorized into. Their classification
would be implied through their socioeconomic status data. Finally, the data that would be
reported would reflect to the analysis, conclusion and possible recommendations that
would answer the general problem of the study.
RELATED STUDIES
Water is an important key factor for farming rice. A good water source is needed
to yield a good harvest. It can be achieved by an irrigation or natural body of water. In the
area of research, natural bodies of water are limited. Farmers neede an access to irrigation
system to grow their crops. According to a study “Water Savings Potentials of Irrigation
Systems: Global Simulation of Processes and Linkages” (2015), global agricultural
production is heavily sustained by irrigation, but irrigation system efficiencies are often
surprisingly low. It is evident in the area of the study. Through their research, they arrive
at an estimate of global annual irrigation water withdrawal of 2469 km3 (2004–2009);
irrigation water consumption is calculated to be 1257 km3. Conclusively, irrigation is
widely used around the world and also in the place where the study would be conducted.
Through the related study, the researchers found out that irrigation system
improvements should be considered as an important means on the way to sustainable
food security. Improving infrastructures to address food security should be a concern of
the government for it is a priority for the growing population of the Philippines. In
relation to the current study, food security is needed to support the areas that have poor

17
families. Additionally, enhancing and modernizing the irrigation infrastructures is needed
for water to be supplied properly.
Meanwhile, a study conducted in 2018 at Benin, an agricultural place, entitled “A
re-examination of the impact of irrigation on rice production in Benin: An application of
the endogenous switching model.” They had studied the effects of irrigation in various
aspects of farming and farmer’s life. Their results revealed that adoption of irrigation
positively affects rice yield. The implication of these findings is that while irrigation is
essential for rice productivity improvement, there is a need for complementary services,
infrastructures, policies, and institutions for greater impacts on production and well-
being.
The study conducted also focused on rice farmers, quantity of harvest and the
farmers’ economic status. In relation to the current research, the researchers would use
the same standardized questionnaire and data analysis applied to the research conducted.
The study’s results are useful for the local government in a small country to know the
problem and solutions to it. Like the country where Benin is located, the Philippines is
also a 3rd world nation so, this research would enable the local government to assess the
premises of the problem and the action to be done.
A 2017 study entitled “Influencing Factors of the Adoption of Agricultural
Irrigation Technologies and the Economic Returns: A Case Study in Chaiyaphum
Province, Thailand” focused on water canal system which had significant impact to the
rice yield for it delivers consistent amount of water. Thus, making the input cost lesser
which would increase the profit later on. This study proves that the current irrigation
system applied by the farmers can directly affect their income. Through this related

18
study, the researchers established a fact that the current irrigation which would be studied
is essential, and it really helps farmers. In the present study, the researchers would
determine the efficiency of the said irrigation system in terms of quantity of rice yield.
Discussing the involvement of technology, in 2018 a research entitled “Impact of
Irrigation Technology Use on Crop Yield, Crop Income and Household Food Security in
Nigeria: A Treatment Effect Approach” was conducted. They studied about the impacts
of irrigation to farmers. The study showed a significant and positive effect of good
irrigation technology use on crop yield, crop income and household food security. This
means that irrigation greatly affects the farmers' income, yield of their crop and their
household food security. Relevantly, the current study would also assess the advantage of
using technology to produce a larger quantity of rice. A good amount of rice production
would benefit the rapidly growing population in terms of food security. It is known that
Filipinos can’t live the day without eating rice for once, therefore, predictably, low
production of rice impose a major problem to the society.
Rice is one of the most important agricultural crops in the Philippines. In fact,
one-third of the country’s more than 10 million hectares (ha) of agricultural land is
devoted to rice. This is according to a study “Analysis of the Effects of Various Irrigation
Service Fees for National Irrigation Systems in the Philippines” in 2016. Rice is
important so, it is about time to put some attention to this particular necessity.
According to their research, the government give subsidies to farmers like low
interest rates for credit, fertilizers for half their prices, and provision of production and
postharvest machineries such as tractors, threshers and dryers to farmer cooperatives and
organizations. Among these things, irrigation is an important thing to farmers for they

19
have a large subsidy from the government. NIA built irrigation systems which help many
farmers, but according to their research the NIA had taken the subsidy for granted. It
would only benefit the farmers more if NIA also addresses issues on performance,
including maintenance of canals, among others. Even with local governments,
intervention for the farmers’ need is not enough and can’t be denied. The government had
taken their part and the farmers should always find ways to be part of the solution and
keeping the solution relevant for the next years to come.
In 2019, researchers in Uganda studied on “Evaluating the Effect of Farmers’
Participation in Irrigation Management on Farm Productivity and Profitability in the
Mubuku Irrigation Scheme, Uganda.” Evaluating the effects of farmers’ participation in
irrigation management is a key issue of development programs to address food insecurity
and low-income of smallholders. They have concluded that by creating a strong causal
relationship between improved irrigation management practices and farm profitability, it
would provide incentives for farmers to engage in irrigation management.
In the present study, the researchers would look into the techniques and style of
how the farmers utilize the irrigation infrastructures they have access with and the other
ways of the farmers without access to irrigation, considering the use of the subsidies
given by the local government. The techniques of farming could also be a big factor on
the production of their crops. Even a high rice yield market opportunity would also take a
big role to the overall income of the farmers.
In 2018, a study on the “Analysis of the Factors Influencing Market Participation
among Smallholder Rice Farmers in Magway Region, Central Dry Zone of Myanmar”
found out that there are several factors that affect market opportunity of farmers. In their

20
study, they have determined that the government must make an action to address the
factors that affect the market opportunities. Moreover, they also have identified that when
profits are higher, the farmers are more determined to produce higher volume of rice,
thus, making their income higher and securing the food of the community. According to
their study, the government is the only authority that has the power to make this possible
because there is only a small number of farmers. In the current study, the researchers
would observe the market opportunity and profit that farmers make in a month. These
would determine if their profit is desirable and would sustain a family.
On the other hand, credit is one of the ways farmers fund their crop for the year.
In a study conducted in 2015 entitled “Role of Access to Credit in Rice Production in
Sub-Saharan Africa: The Case of Mwea Irrigation Scheme in Kenya”, researchers found
out that credit has positive effects on farmers when they start to plant, however, they have
found out that when harvest comes, farmers with higher credit interest has lesser income
even when they had a higher yield rate. In relation to the mentioned study, the present
researchers would study the effects of credit of farmers to their profit. The researchers
would also review the common source of credit of farmers.
Emphasizing the schemes of irrigation, a 2015 study entitled “The Impact of
Irrigation Schemes on Farmers’ Income and Livelihood in the Upper East Region of
Ghana” states that irrigation schemes play a crucial role in ensuring increase household
income in the region. Farmers have affirmed that they benefit greatly from these schemes
and have improved their income and livelihood to ensure food security in the region.
They concluded that irrigation greatly affects the lives of the farmers and their family’s
lifestyle.

21
The researchers found out that irrigation schemes enable farmers to increase their
income and crop yield, minimize crop failure, enhance productivity, and lessen poverty.
A good source of income can remove farmers under the poverty line that most of them
are in. In relation to the present study, the respondents would be evaluated about their
socioeconomic status according to their expenses. The performance of irrigation schemes
would also be quantified. Their socioeconomic status would determine if their family is
directly affected by their farming activity.
Similarly, like the Philippines, the country of Pakistan also acknowledged that
agriculture is the backbone of their economy. In 2016, a researcher conducted a study
entitled “Effects of Irrigation Water Management on Rural Farming Families of District
Faislabad, Punjab, Pakistan.” The current researchers relate the study conducted by
focusing on the rural area which farming is a source of income.
Additionally, their study found out that the irrigation water management has
positive impacts on socioeconomic conditions of farming families and crops productivity.
Irrigation water management has potential to decrease farmer's expenses for purchasing
fuel. At the same time, it can increase income level in the form of high crops yield rate.
Irrigation, in their study, plays a big role for those families with good management in
irrigation and the crops harvested, thus, making their profit increase, too. In addition,
their expenses would lessen the management of the irrigation systems which would
enable them to provide water without using any machines that use fuel.
These related researches are essential to prove that there is a connection between
irrigation and the farmers’ rice production and socioeconomic status. These would also
prove that conducting this type of research in the locality is needed and relevant up to this

22
day. The above researches’ results proved the relationship of irrigation and rice
production. However, this relationship would still be tested in the current study in a
comparative way between the farmers with access to irrigation and those who have not. If
big discrepancy between the two are observed, then it would prove that irrigation
infrastructures have a great effect on farmers.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Quantity of Rice Harvested
Effects of Having
Technique and Style of Farming
Irrigation
Profit Gained from Harvesting
Quantity of Rice Harvested
Effects of Not
Technique and Style of Farming
Having Irrigation
Profit Gained from Harvesting
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the Study
The figure above is the conceptual framework of the study. It is consisted of
boxes and lines to connect and indicate the relationship between irrigation and the
different factors stated. It is a conceptual map, wherein, the two main dependent
variables can be broken down into another three major factors that are connected with an

23
argument and a variable which are the effects of having and not having irrigation. The
paradigm primarily leads the study to ferret a concrete relationship between the variables
and factors.
PARADIGM OF THE STUDY
The following are the

problems that sought answers:  The survey questionnaires
 The following would be would be filled up and
 Respondents’ Profile
studied and conducted for interviews and
 Differences that can be
the researchers to be able
identified through the evaluations would be
to gather and analyze data
following: followed up.
for the present study:
a. Quantity of rice
a. Related Theory,  The specific answers
harvested
Literatures, and
b. Profit gained from would be answered
Studies
harvesting accordingly.
b. Survey
c. Technique and style
questionnaires  From the data gathered,
of farming
c. Interviews
 Economic lifestyle of rice the researchers would be
d. Evaluation
farmers and farming able to formulate results,
e. Statistical Treatment
duration
conclusions and
 Advantages and
disadvantages of having recommendations that
and not having irrigation  The data gathered and
would clearly show the
 Efficiency of alternative analyzed would show the
comparison between comparison between the
ways in growing rice
crops farmers having and not two independent variables
having irrigation on their and would benefit the
 Farmers’ capability of
farmlands.
building an irrigation persons involved in the
significance of the study.
INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT
Feedback
Figure 2. Paradigm of the Study

24
The figure above is the paradigm of the study that is presented through the Input,
Process, and Output model. The input consists of the specific problems where the study
cores on particularly. The process refers to the methods that would be used in gathering
data needed for the study. Lastly, the output pertains to the data that would be gathered to
answer the specific problems and give results, conclusions and recommendation for the
study.
DEFINITION OF VARIABLES
The major variables of the research is defined through the independent and
dependent variables that actively illustrate the argument. These are the following that are
stated in independent into dependent order: effects of (1) having irrigation and (2) not
having irrigation on the farmers’ (1) rice production and (2) socioeconomic status in
barangay Pantubig, San Rafael, Bulacan.
The argument is the “effects”. This refers on how having and not having irrigation
create effects on the rice production and socioeconomic status of farmers. The first part
of the independent variable mentioned refers to the possible effects that would occur
from having irrigation, whereas for the second independent variable is the opposite
effects which happens from having no irrigation because of the fact that not having
irrigation has evidently different results from having irrigation.
On the other hand, discussing the dependent variables are the farmers’ rice
production and socioeconomic status in barangay Pantubig, San Rafael, Bulacan. These
variables vary in information and data that are constant and fluctuating. The researchers

25
are expecting to find out that having irrigation has more effect to the farmers in terms of
increasing the quantity of rice production and better income than those who do not have.
The following are the argument, independent, and dependent variables of the
study:
Comparative Research. This is a type of research that seeks to compare and
contrast two or more groups in an attempt to draw a conclusion about them. For this
research, there are two groups: the rice farmers who have irrigation and the rice farmers
who have none.
Effects of Having and Not Having Irrigation. It is the artificial application of
water to land to assist in the production of crops. This discusses the argument and the
independent variables of the study
Rice Farmers. They are the farmers who manage farms, ranches and other
agricultural product organizations that specialize rice. They are the respondents or the
main subjects of the study. The independent and dependent variables are also formulated
from them.
Rice Production. It is the amount of rice paddy produced in a time of harvest.
This is the first dependent variable in the study that is affected by having and not having
irrigation.

26
Socioeconomic Status. It reveals the inequities in access to a farmer’s resources,
and issues related to privilege, power and control. This is the second variable of the study
that would be determined if it is affected by having and not having irrigation.
CHAPTER III
Research Methodology
RESEARCH DESIGN
The research was constructed through a comparative design. In this quantitative
research design, the purpose was to collect data that were comparable between different
contexts, and one of the objectives was to avoid biases in measurement, instruments and
sampling. The researchers sought to find the comparison and contrast about the main
variables where the study was focused on. The positive and negative effects were based
on the specific factors mentioned on the statement of the problem.
The researchers aimed to draw the conclusion and to have the fully detailed
analysis of the comparison between the rice production and socioeconomic status of
having and not having irrigation among the farmers. With the use of questionnaires, it has
provided boundaries that separated the gathered answers to find out the comparison and
contrast of the farmers’ information.

27
POPULATION AND SAMPLE OF THE STUDY
The study aimed to compare the quantity of harvest of rice production and
socioeconomic status between farmers with access to irrigation and those who have no
access to it. In order to achieve more reliable results, the researchers used the quota
sampling technique on the data gathered from the Municipal Agriculture Office about the
number of the population of farmers in barangay Pantubig, wherein, the researchers set
the sample size of each group to equal numbers of respondents.
Table 1. Sample of the Study
Farmers Sample
With Irrigation 15
Without Irrigation 15
TOTAL 30
Table 1 presents the population and sample of the study coming from the farmers
located in barangay Pantubig, San Rafael, Bulacan. With the use of quota sampling
technique and the consideration of the limiting variable in determining the sample, which
is the number of farmers without irrigation, it manifested that the whole sample size must
consist of 30 respondents.
Based on the table, the sample for the rice farmers with access to irrigation
covered 24.19% (15 out of 62) of its population, and 100% (15 out of 15) of the farmers
who do not have access to irrigation were involved as respondents. Proportionally, the

28
sample for farmers with access to irrigation and for those who do not have were consisted
of 15 respondents each.
INSTRUMENTATION
The researchers used a standardized type of questionnaire that came from the
research of Gbetondji Melaine Armel Nonvide about “Irrigation Adoption, Food
Security, and Poverty Reduction among Rice Farmers in Benin.” The questionnaire was
made in the year 2016 at the University of Ghana, Legon College of Basic and Applied
Sciences School of Agriculture and Consumer Sciences. The researchers asked for
permission from the author through e-mail for them to be allowed to adopt the instrument
of the former study. Fortunately, a warm response from the author was received by the
researchers which enabled them to use and modify the research instrument. Afterward,
the research instrument was modified and made in a closed form; however, some of it
were designed in an open form for supplementary information. The modification of the
original research instrument was conducted in order to create another questionnaire that
fitted more accurately to the scope and focus of the present research.
The modified research instrument was translated to Filipino language that has a
corresponding English language for every part in the questionnaire. It was composed of
two sections that are quantified by different scales. The first part was about the
information about production and the second part was about perceptions and constraints.
The first section was comprised of questions and statements that were mainly
about the farmers’ production of rice and socioeconomic status. It also involved the

29
profile of the respondents that includes the number of years of farming and the status of
their access to irrigation. There was a total of 18 questions for Section A that branched
out into more specific questions. The following were the scales used in the first section
which enabled the respondents to answer the provided questions: a dichotomous scale
(answerable by “Yes” or “No”) and a nominal scale (answerable by specific choices
provided). The other ways to answer follow up questions were made in a form of
enumeration and specification of answers on the space and columns provided in the
research instrument. On the other hand, the second part of the research instrument
focused on the farmers’ perception and constraints upon having irrigation. The questions
and statements were answered through a dichotomous scale that was composed of “Yes”
and “No” answers.
DATA GATHERING PROCEDURE
The data gathering procedure was mostly conducted in barangay Pantubig, San
Rafael, Bulacan, Philippines. First, the researchers requested from the Municipal
Agriculture Office of San Rafael to acquire information about the farmers’ population
and profile in the mentioned barangay. The information provided by the office also
indicated the farmers who did and did not use any kinds of irrigation system at that time.
After the information was handed out, the researchers reproduced the necessary number
of instrument that were needed for the distribution of questionnaires to the equivalent
number of respondents. The researchers connected with the respondents through the
barangay hall of Pantubig, wherein, they have coordinated with the barangay councilor of
Agriculture who is Mr. Noel DF. Alvarez and secretary German I. De Leon.

30
The respondents obtained their questionnaires from the barangay hall and they
have answered it in the place of their choice. Meanwhile, due to the pandemic, the
researchers were not able to personally guide the respondents in answering the
questionnaire; however, they made sure that the instructions written in the instrument
would be understandable and easy to follow for any respondents. After such, the
completion and submission to the barangay hall of the answered questionnaires lasted for
five days. Then, the researchers acquired the forms after they planned to set a meeting
with the personnel of the barangay hall. The researchers equally divided the sections of
the questionnaire among themselves for the conduct of data analysis and statistical
treatment.
On the other hand, as regards to the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (Republic Act
10173), all information that were gathered from the respondents, particularly the farmers
for this study, would not be publicized throughout the research. The researchers carefully
observed this act in the pursuit of maintaining the respondents’ information under
protection and confidentiality. Finally, after collecting the data, the researchers were able
to score, tally, and tabulate the analysis and results.
DATA ANALYSIS AND STATISTICAL TREATMENT
For this research, the variables that were studied are the presence and absence of
irrigation and the farmers’ production of rice and socioeconomic status. The researchers
mainly utilized a calculator and Microsoft Excel 2016 in computing the collected data.

31
The raw data were gathered for the researchers to apply the corresponding statistical
treatment.
The study made use of the frequency and percentage to classify the respondents in
terms of their profile that includes the rice farmers’ number of years of farming and the
status of their access to irrigation. Same statistical treatment was applied on the two
sections of the research instrument. Both sections had different structures of how the
questions and statements would be answered but they still utilized the same statistical
treatment.
For Section A, the researchers counted the total frequency of the respondents who
answered “Yes” or “No” for questions that used dichotomous scale and the number of
respondents who have chosen a certain option provided in questions that used nominal
scale. Meanwhile, there are questions that were designed to become open-ended. The
answers of the respondents for these questions were also arranged to how similar every
answer is to the other ones. From that method, the researchers were able to distinguish
the number of individuals who responded with the same answers, then frequency and
percentage technique was also applied. For Section B, the researchers also counted the
total frequency of the respondents who answered “Yes” or “No” for questions that used
dichotomous scale. On the other hand, in getting the percentage of every answer, the
researchers summed up the total number of responses in every option. After that, the
number was divided to the total number of responses in every question or statement, and
it was then multiplied by a hundred percent.
Furthermore, some data that were gathered are expected to have different
variables and units of measurement, thus, the researchers formulated a series of

32
mathematical equations to standardize the data without compromising its integrity. The
following equations are validated to be applicable to any circumstance that the
researchers encountered during the process of making the presentation of data.
Capital:
Total Capital Used ( Php ) 2

=Capital Used per sq m
Total Land Area ( sq m )
2
Irrigation Expenses:
Total Irrigation Expenses ( Php )

=Irrigation Expenses per sq2 m
Land Area with Irrigation ( sq m )
2
Number of Rice Yield:
Quantity of RiceYield ( no . of sacks )

=Rice Yield ( sack ) per sq 2 m
Total Farm Area ( sq m )
2
Kilograms of Fertilizer Used per sq2m:
Total Number of Fertilizer Used ( kg )

=Kg of Fertilizer Used per sq2 m
2
Amount of Credit:

33
Total Amount of Credit ( Php )

=Amount of Credit per sq2 m
2
Workforce Expenditures:
Workforce Expenditures ( Php )

=Expense per IndividualWorker
Total Number of Workers
Rate of Paddy Rice/Milled Rice Sacks Sold
Number of Sacks Sold

=Rate of Sacks Sold
Total Number of Sacks Yield
Monthly Expenses:
Food+ Education+ Health+ Utilities+Transportation=Monthly Expenses
Farmer’s Monthly Profit:
Equation 1:
Number of Sacks Sold × Sold Price=∂ Earning
Equation 2:
( No . of Sacks Unsold × DA Suggested Rice Farmgate Price ) +∂ Earning=Total Earning

34
Equation 3:
Total Earning−¿
+Transportation of Harvest(if applicable)+ Irrigation Expense ( if applicable ) ¿=Total Profit per Harvest
Equation 4:
Total Profit per Harvest

=Farming Mont
6 months ( if a farmer harvests twice a year )∨¿12 months ( if a farmer harvests once a year )
Equation 5:
Farming Monthly Profit +Other Source of Income ( work , business , etc . )
'
¿ Farme r s Monthly Profit
CHAPTER IV
Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Data
This chapter presents the data and information gathered through the course of
distribution of questionnaires based from the modification of the standardized research

35
instrument of Gbetondji Melaine Armel Nonvide. The data presented on this chapter are
composed of the results that were collected from the questionnaires answered by the
respondents of the research. The data are categorized based on how they satisfy the
specific problems of the statement of the problem of the research. By having the data
which are presented in the latter part of this chapter, the researchers would be able to
answer the problems of the research. In addition, the data are accurately tabulated and
arranged in a tabular form with their corresponding analyses and presentations in a
descriptive form.
1. Respondent’s Profile in terms of:
A. Years of Farming;
Table 2. Rice Farming Years of Farmers with (left) and without (right) Irrigation
Farmers with Irrigation Farmers without Irrigation

Range of Number of Farmers Range of Number of Farmers
Years F % Years F %
1–5 2 13.33% 1–5 4 26.67%
6 – 10 1 6.67% 6 – 10 0 0.00%
11 – 15 2 13.33% 11 – 15 0 0.00%
16 – 20 1 6.67% 16 – 20 0 0.00%
21 – 25 3 20.00% 21 – 25 0 0.00%
26 – 30 1 6.67% 26 – 30 5 33.33%
31 – 35 0 0.00% 31 – 35 1 6.67%
36 – 40 1 6.67% 36 – 40 0 0.00%
41 – 45 2 13.33% 41 – 45 1 6.67%
46 – 50 0 0.00% 46 – 50 0 0.00%
51 – 55 1 6.67% 51 – 55 3 20.00%
56 – 60 1 6.67% 56 – 60 1 6.67%
AVERAGE TOTAL AVERAGE TOTAL
26.13 Years 15 100.00% 28.53 Years 15 100.00%

36
Table 2 presents the frequency and percentage distribution of the answers of
farmers with and without irrigation when they were asked about their number of rice
farming years. The results showed that 3 out of 15 farmers (20.00%) with irrigation
answered “21 – 25” years, 2 out of 15 respondents (13.33%) are included in every range
of the following: “1 – 5” years, “11 – 15” years, and “41 – 45y” years, while there is 1
out of 15 respondents (6.67%) for every range of the following: “6 – 10” years, “16 – 20”
years, “26 – 30” years, “36 – 40” years, “51 – 55” years, and “56 – 60” years.
Meanwhile, there were no answers for the other ranges. And, the average rice farming
years of farmers with irrigation is 26.13 years. Contrariwise, the farmers without
irrigation have 5 responses (33.33%) for “26 – 30” years, 4 out of 15 respondents
(26.67%) answered “1 – 5” years, and 3 of them (20.00%) answered “51 – 55” years,
while there is 1 out of 15 respondents (6.67%) for every range of the following: “31 – 35”
years, “41 – 45” years, and “56 – 60” years. Finally, 28.53 years is the average years in
rice farming of farmers without irrigation. Comparatively, the average years in rice
farming of farmers without irrigation is higher compared to the average years of
farmers with irrigation. However, it appears that the ranges of farming within
farmers with irrigation are more varied than that of the farmers without irrigation.
B. Access to Irrigation;
Table 3. Number of Farmers with and without Irrigation
Access of Farmers to Irrigation

Question YES NO TOTAL

37
F % F % F %
Did you use/have irrigation this year? 15 50.00% 15 50.00% 30 100.00%
farmers with and without irrigation when they were asked if they use or have access to
irrigation. Based on the results, the number of farmers with and without irrigation are
both equal to 15 respondents (50.00%), which has a total number of 30 respondents
(100.00%) who were involved in the conduct of data gathering of the research. To put it
briefly, the number of respondents for farmers with and without irrigation are
equal, as per what was planned by the researchers and required by the quota
sampling technique and sample size needed for this research.
2. What are the differences of having and not having irrigation for farmers that can be
identified through the following factors:
A. Quantity of Harvest;
The table below presents the rate of rice yielded by farmers with and without
irrigation. Every rate was determined according to the designed equation stated in the
statistical treatment which equates to the quantity of rice yielded or the number of rice
sacks divided by the total farm area (sq2m).
Table 4. Rate of Rice Yielded by Farmers with (left) and without (right) Irrigation
per Square Meter of Individual Land Area

Rate Number of Farmers Rate Number of Farmers
F % F %

38
0.016 1 6.67% 0.008 1 6.67%

0.014 1 6.67% 0.007 3 20.00%
0.011 2 13.33% 0.006 4 26.67%
0.009 5 33.33% 0.005 2 13.33%
0.008 1 6.67% 0.004 2 13.33%
0.007 3 20.00% 0.003 2 13.33%
0.005 1 6.67% 0.002 1 6.67%
0.004 1 6.67% AVERAGE TOTAL
AVERAGE TOTAL
0.009 15 100.00%
100.00%
0.0053 15
farmers with and without irrigation when they were asked about the size of their farm and
the quantity of rice they produced in the year of 2020, which were later equated as the
rate of quantity of rice yielded per square meter of their land area. According to the
results, the farmers with irrigation have 1 farmer (6.67%) for every rate of the following
(descending order): 0.016, 0.014, 0.008, 0.005, and 0.004, 5 out 15 respondents (33.33%)
for the rate of 0.009, 3 respondents (20.00%) for 0.007, and 2 out 15 respondents
(13.33%) for the rate of 0.011. The average rate of quantity of rice produced per square
meter by farmers with irrigation is equal to 0.009. Whereas, there is 4 out 15 farmers
(26.67%) without irrigation who have the rate of 0.006, 3 respondents (20.00%) for
0.007, 2 respondents (13.33%) for every rate including the following: 0.005, 0.004, and
0.003, and there is 1 out of 15 respondents (6.67%) for each rate of 0.008 and 0.002.
Lastly, 0.0053 is the average rate of rice quantity produced per square meter by farmers
without irrigation. As a result, the average rate of rice quantity produced by farmers
with irrigation is comparatively higher than that of the farmers without irrigation.

39
Moreover, the range of individual rates in farmers with irrigation is wider than the
farmers without irrigation.
Tables 5 and 6. Average Mass of Rice Sacks of Farmers with (left) and without
(right) Irrigation

Mass (Kg) Number of Mass (Kg) Number of
Farmers Farmers
F % F %
65 2 13.33% 60 4 26.67%
60 4 26.67% 56 2 13.33%
58 1 6.67% 50 9 60.00%
56 1 6.67% AVERAGE TOTAL
55 3 20.00% 53.47 kg 15 100.00%
50 3 20.00%
46 1 6.67%
AVERAGE TOTAL Tables 5 and 6 present the frequency and
56.33 kg 15 100.00%
percentage distribution of the answers of
farmers with and without irrigation when they were asked about the common mass of rice

40
sacks that they yield per square meter of their land area. Based on the results, there are 4
out of 15 farmers (26.67%) with irrigation who have a mass of 60 kilograms for their rice
sacks, 3 out 15 respondents (20.00%) for each mass of 55 and 50 kilograms, 2
respondents (13.33%) for a mass of 65 kilograms, and 1 out of 15 respondents (6.67%)
for every mass of the following (descending order): 58, 56, and 46 kilograms. And the
average mass of rice sacks of farmers with irrigation is 56.33 kilograms. Meanwhile,
there are 9 out of 15 farmers (60.00%) without irrigation who have a mass of 50
kilograms for their rice sacks, 4 respondents (26.67%) for a mass of 60 kilograms, and 2
out of 15 respondents (13.33%) have 56 kilograms for the mass of an individual rice
sack. Lastly, the average mass of rice sacks of farmers with irrigation is 53.47 kilograms.
According to the results, it is hence concluded that the average mass of rice sacks of
farmers with irrigation is a little bit higher than the average mass of rice sacks of
farmers without irrigation. Moreover, the range of mass of rice sacks for farmers
with irrigation is more varied than that of the farmers without irrigation.
These findings support the results of a study conducted in 2018 entitled “A re-
examination of the impact of irrigation on rice production in Benin: An application of the
endogenous switching model.” Their results indicate that irrigation affects positively the
level of rice yield. Thus, irrigation adoption may explain the important difference in rice
yield observed between irrigated and rain fed rice farmers in barangay Pantubig.
B. Profit Gained from Harvesting;

41
The table below presents the amount of capital used by farmers with and without
irrigation per square meter of their land area. Every amount was determined according to
the designed equation which was mentioned in the statistical treatment which equates to
the total capital used (PHP) divided by the total land area (sq2m).
Tables 7 and 8. Amount of Capital used by Farmers with (left) and without (right)
Irrigation per Square Meter of Individual Land Area

Capital Amount Number of Capital Amount Number of
(PHP) per sq2m Farmers (PHP) per sq2m Farmers
F % F %
12.00 1 6.67% 4.50 1 6.67%
10.00 1 6.67% 4.00 1 6.67%
8.77 1 6.67% 3.00 1 6.67%
3.00 4 26.67% 2.60 1 6.67%
2.50 3 20.00% 2.30 1 6.67%
2.40 1 6.67% 2.10 1 6.67%
2.00 2 13.33% 2.00 3 20.00%
1.30 1 6.67% 1.90 1 6.67%
1.06 1 6.67% 1.80 1 6.67%
AVERAGE TOTAL 1.60 1 6.67%
PHP 3.94 / sq2m 15 100.00% 1.30 2 13.33%
1.20 1 6.67%
AVERAGE TOTAL
PHP 2.24 / sq2m 15 100.00%

42
Tables 7 and 8 present the frequency and percentage distribution of the answers of
farmers with and without irrigation when they were asked about the amount of capital
they used per square meter of their land area. For the farmers with irrigation, there is 1
farmer (6.67%) for every amount of the following (descending order): 12.00 PHP/sq 2m,
10.00 PHP/sq2m, 8.77 PHP/sq2m, 2.40 PHP/sq2m, 1.30 PHP/sq2m, and 1.06 PHP/sq2m, 4
out of 15 respondents (26.67%) for the amount of 3.00 PHP/sq2m, 3 farmers (20.00%)
have the amount of 2.50 PHP/sq2m, while 2 out of 15 respondents (13.33%) for 2.00
PHP/sq2m. The average amount of capital used by farmers with irrigation is PHP 3.94 per
square meter. On the other hand, there is 1 farmer (6.67%) without irrigation for every
amount including the following (descending order): 4.50 PHP/sq2m, 4.00 PHP/sq2m, 3.00
PHP/sq2m, 2.60 PHP/sq2m, 2.30 PHP/sq2m, 2.10 PHP/sq2m, 1.90 PHP/sq2m, 1.80,
PHP/sq2m, 1.60 PHP/sq2m, and 1.20 PHP/sq2m, 3 out of 15 respondents (20.00%) for the
amount of 2.00 PHP/sq2m, while 2 farmers (13.33%) have the amount of 1.30 PHP/sq 2m.
Lastly, the average amount of capital used by farmers without irrigation is PHP 2.24 per
square meter. Hence, the results presented in the table above reveals that the average
amount of capital used by farmers with irrigation is higher compared to that of the

43
The table below shows the amount of irrigation expenses of farmers with
irrigation. Every amount was determined according to the designed equation stated in the
statistical treatment which equates to the total amount of irrigation expenses (PHP)
divided by the land area with irrigation (sq2m).
Table 9. Amount of Irrigation Expenses of Farmers with Irrigation per Square
Meter of Individual Land Area
Farmers with Irrigation

Amount of Irrigation Number of Farmers
Expenses (PHP) per sq m
2
F %
0.88 1 6.67%
0.83 1 6.67%
0.82 1 6.67%
0.43 1 6.67%
0.34 1 6.67%
0.25 2 13.33%
0.15 1 6.67%
0.14 1 6.67%
0.13 1 6.67%
0.12 2 13.33%
0.00 3 20.00%
AVERAGE TOTAL
PHP 0.297 per sq2m 15 100.00%
farmers who only have irrigation when they were asked about their irrigation expenses
per square meter of their land area. According to the results, 3 out of 15 respondents
(20.00%) had no response, 2 out of 15 respondents (13.33%) for each of irrigation
expenses amount of 0.25 PHP/sq2m and 0.12 PHP/sq2m, and 1 out of 15 respondents
(6.67%) for every amount of the following (descending order): 0.88 PHP/sq 2m, 0.83
PHP/sq2m, 0.82 PHP/sq2m, 0.43 PHP/sq2m, 0.34 PHP/sq2m, 0.15 PHP/sq2m, 0.14

44
PHP/sq2m, and 0.13 PHP/sq2m. Lastly, the average amount of irrigation expenses per
square meter of farmers with irrigation is PHP 0.297. Conclusively, most of the farmers
with irrigation have various amounts of irrigation expenses per square meter of
their land area.
The table below presents the kilograms of fertilizer used by farmers with and
without irrigation for every square meter of their land area. There is a designed equation
which was mentioned in the statistical treatment that presents how the numerical values
provided in the table above are determined. It equates to the total number of fertilizers
used (kg) divided by the total farm area (sq2m).
Table 10. Quantity of Fertilizers Applied by Farmers with (left) and without (right)

Kilogram Number of Farmers Kilogram Number of Farmers
per sq2m F % per sq2m F %
0.01 1 6.67% 0.003 1 6.67%
0.021 1 6.67% 0.012 4 26.67%
0.033 4 26.67% 0.021 1 6.67%
0.042 2 13.33% 0.034 4 26.67%
0.045 1 6.67% 0.042 1 6.67%
0.051 3 20.00% 0.052 1 6.67%
0.144 1 6.67% 0.064 1 6.67%
0.181 1 6.67% 0.073 1 6.67%
0.197 1 6.67% 0.082 1 6.67%
0.0645 15 100.00% 0.0347 15 100.00%
farmers with and without irrigation when they were asked about the quantity of fertilizers

45
they use for every square meter of their land area. For farmers with irrigation, there is one
farmer (6.67%) for every value of the following (unit = kg/sq 2m): 0.01, 0.021, 0.045,
0.144, 0.181, and 0.197, 4 farmers (26.67%) for the value of 0.033 kg/sq2m, while 3
(20.00%) and 2 farmers (13.33%) for the values of 0.051 and 0.042 kg/sq2m,
respectively. The average quantity of fertilizers used by farmers with irrigation is 0.0645
kilogram per square meter. Whereas, the following are the values of fertilizers used by
farmers without irrigation for every square meter of their land area, having one farmer
(6.67%) for every value (unit = kg/sq 2m): 0.003, 0.021, 0.042, 0.052, 0.064, 0.073 and
0.082, while the values of 0.012 and 0.034 kg/sq2m both have 4 out of 15 respondents
(26.67%). Lastly, 0.0347 kilogram per square meter is the quantity of fertilizers used by
farmers without irrigation. According to the table, it appears that the average value of
kilograms of fertilizers applied per square meter of the farmers with irrigation is
greater than that of the farmers without irrigation.
The table below presents the amount paid for an individual hired worker by
farmers with and without irrigation. There is a designed equation stated in the statistical
treatment that determined the workforce expenditures of every farmer, which equates to
the total workforce expenditures (PHP) divided by the total number of workers.
Tables 11 and 12. Workforce Expenditures of Farmers with (left) and without
(right) Irrigation

Workforce Number of
Expenditures Farmers
per Worker F %

Workforce Number of 46
per Worker F %
(PHP) (PHP)
3500.00 1 6.67% 2000.00 2 13.33%
3400.00 1 6.67% 1500.00 2 13.33%
2500.00 1 6.67% 1500.00 1 6.67%
2000.00 1 6.67% 1250.00 1 6.67%
1528.00 1 6.67% 750.00 2 13.33%
1500.00 2 13.33% 500.00 3 20.00%
820.00 1 6.67% 450.00 1 6.67%
700.00 1 6.67% 350.00 3 20.00%
630.00 1 6.67% PHP 950.00 15 100.00%
500.00 1 6.67%
400.00 1 6.67%
AVERAGE TOTAL
PHP 1351.87 15 100.00%
Tables 11 and 12 present the frequency and percentage distribution of the answers
of farmers with and without irrigation when they were asked about the total amount that
they paid for their workforce and the number of their workers to determine their
workforce expenditures. Based on the results, there is 1 out of 15 farmers (6.67%) with
irrigation for every amount of workforce expenditures including the following
(descending order): PHP 3500.00, PHP 3400.00, PHP 2500.00, PHP 2000.00, PHP
1528.00, PHP 820.00, PHP 700.00, PHP 630.00, PHP 500.00, and PHP 400.00, while
there are 2 respondents (13.33%) for each of the following expenditures: PHP 1500.00
and PHP 650.00. The average amount of workforce expenditures of farmers with
irrigation is PHP 1351.87. On the other hand, there is 1 out of 15 farmers (6.67%)
without irrigation for every amount of the following: PHP 1500.00, PHP 1250.00 and
PHP 450.00, 2 respondents (13.33%) for each of the amounts: PHP 2000.00, PHP
1500.00 and PHP 750.00, while 3 farmers (20.00%) responded for each amount of PHP
500.00 and PHP 350.00. Lastly, PHP 950.00 is the average workforce expenditures of

47
farmers without irrigation. Based on the table, the average amount of workforce
expenditures of farmers with irrigation is clearly higher than that of the farmers
without irrigation. Additionally, the range of expenses for farmers with irrigation is
more varied than the farmers without irrigation.
Table 13. Response of Farmers with (left) and without (right) Irrigation to Item # 14
subset A

YES NO TOTAL YES NO TOTAL
F % F % F % F % F % F %
9 60.00 6 40.00% 15 100.00 8 53.33% 7 46.67% 15 100.00%
% %
farmers with and without irrigation when they were asked if they need credit or not.
Based on the results, 9 out of 15 farmers (60.00%) with irrigation answered “Yes”, while
6 out of 15 respondents (40.00%) answered “No”. While for the farmers without
irrigation, 8 out of 15 respondents (53.33%) answered “Yes”, while 7 out of 15 (46.67%)
answered “No”. Convincingly, the table shows that most of the farmers, both with
and without irrigation, need credit.
The table below presents the total amount of credit used by farmers with and
without irrigation per square meter of their land area. There is a designed equation which
was mentioned in the statistical treatment that made every amount be determined which
equates to the total amount of credit used (PHP) divided by the total land area (sq2m).

48
Table 14. Total Amount of Credit of Farmers with (left) and without (right)

Credit Amount Number of Farmers Credit Amount Number of Farmers
(PHP) per sq2m F % (PHP) per sq2m F %
8.00 1 6.67% 4.00 1 6.67%
7.41 1 6.67% 2.30 1 6.67%
5.00 1 6.67% 2.00 1 6.67%
4.00 1 6.67% 1.60 1 6.67%
3.00 1 6.67% 1.40 1 6.67%
2.50 1 6.67% 1.00 1 6.67%
2.00 1 6.67% 0.50 1 6.67%
1.30 1 6.67% 0.42 1 6.67%
0.00 7 46.67 0.00 7 46.67%
PHP 2.214 per 15 100.00% PHP 0.881 per 15 100.00%
sq2m sq2m
farmers with and without irrigation when they were asked about the said question. For the
total amount of the credit used by the farmers with irrigation per square meter of their
land area, majority of the farmers had no response, with a result of 7 out of 15
respondents (46.67%). There is one farmer (6.67%) for every amount of the following
(descending order): 8.00 PHP/sq2m, 7.41 PHP/sq2m, 5.00 PHP/sq2m, 4.00 PHP/sq2m,
3.00 PHP/sq2m, 2.50 PHP/sq2m, 2.00 PHP/sq2m, and 1.30 PHP/sq2m. The average
amount of credit used by farmers with irrigation is PHP 2.214 per square meter.
Similarly, majority of the farmers without irrigation also had no response, with a same
result of 7 out of 15 respondents (46.67%). Moreover, the following are the total amount
of capital used by the farmers without irrigation per square meter of their land area,
having one farmer (6.67%) for every amount of the following (descending order): 4.00

49
PHP/sq2m, 0.50 PHP/sq2m and 0.42 PHP/sq2m. Lastly, the average amount of credit used
per square meter by farmers without irrigation is PHP 0.881. Based from the table, the
farmers with and without irrigation have the same number of respondents who had
no response and who responded; however, the average amount of credit that they
have used per square meter is totally different. Prior to the difference, the average
amount of credit used by the farmers with irrigation is higher compared to that of
the farmers without irrigation.
The tables below present the rate of rice sacks sold by farmers with and without
statistical treatment which equates to the number of sacks sold divided by the total
number of sacks yield. These tables also show the frequency and percentage distribution
of the answers of the respondents when asked about the said question. The presentation
for this question branched out into two different tables, which are the rates of paddy rice
and milled rice sacks sold by the farmers with and without irrigation.
Table 15. Rate of Paddy Rice Sacks Sold by Farmers with (left) and without (right)
Irrigation.
Paddy Rice

50
F % F %
0.90 1 6.67% 0.87 1 6.67%
0.83 1 6.67% 0.70 1 6.67%
0.80 2 13.33% 0.66 1 6.67%
0.76 1 6.67% 0.63 1 6.67%
0.65 1 6.67% 0.50 1 6.67%
0.63 1 6.67% 0.46 1 6.67%
0.57 1 6.67% 0.45 1 6.67%
0.55 1 6.67% 0.42 1 6.67%
0.53 1 6.67% 0.37 1 6.67%
0.46 1 6.67% 0.36 1 6.67%
0.39 1 6.67% N/A 5 33.33%
N/A 3 20.00% AVERAGE TOTAL
0.525 15 100.00%
For the rate of the paddy rice sacks sold by the farmers with irrigation, there is
one farmer (6.67%) for every rate of the following: 0.90, 0.83, 0.76, 0.65, 0.63, 0.57,
0.55, 0.53, 0.46, and 0.39, 2 farmers (13.30%) for the rate of 0.80, while 3 farmers
(20.00%) answered “Not Applicable” with a rate of 0.00. The average rate of paddy rice
sacks sold by farmers with irrigation is 0.525. On the other hand, the following are the
rates of paddy rice sacks sold by farmers without irrigation, having one farmer (6.67%)
for every rate of the following: 0.87, 0.70, 0.66, 0.63, 0.50, 0.46, 0.45, 0.42, 0.37, and
0.36, while 5 out of 15 respondents (33.33%) answered “Not Applicable” with a rate of
0.00. Lastly, 0.361 is the average rate of paddy rice sacks sold by farmers without
irrigation. Based on the table, it appears that the average rate of the paddy rice sacks
sold by the farmers with irrigation is moderately higher compared to the rate of the
paddy rice sacks sold by the farmers without irrigation. Moreover, the farmers with
irrigation have a smaller number of respondents with no available rate of paddy
rice sacks sold than that of the farmers without irrigation.

51
Table 16. Rate of Milled Rice Sacks Sold by Farmers with (left) and without (right)
Irrigation.
Milled Rice
F % F %
0.30 1 6.67% 0.143 1 6.67%
0.27 1 6.67% 0.125 1 6.67%
N/A 13 86.67% N/A 13 86.67%
0.0200 15 100.00% 0.0179 15 100.00%
Meanwhile, for the rate of the milled rice sacks sold by the farmers with
irrigation, there is one farmer (6.67%) for every rate of the following: 0.27 and 0.30,
while 13 out of 15 respondents (86.66%) answered “Not Applicable” with a rate of 0.00.
On the other hand, the following are the rates of milled rice sacks sold by farmers without
irrigation [one farmer (6.67%) for every rate]: 0.125 and 0.143, while 13 out of 15
respondents (86.66%) answered “Not Applicable” with a rate of 0.00. As what is
presented in the table, it is conclusive that the number of farmers with and without
irrigation, which has no available rate of milled rice sacks sold, are equal. However,
with a few number of respondents who answered the question, it is still evident that
the farmers with irrigation has a higher average rate of milled rice sacks sold than

F % F % F % F % F % F %

52
12 80.00% 3 20.00 15 100.00% 11 73.33% 4 26.67 15 100.00%

% %
farmers with and without irrigation when they were asked if rice cultivation is their main
occupation or not. The results showed that majority of the farmers with irrigation, with a
result of 12 out 15 respondents (80.00%), answered “Yes”, while 3 out of 15 respondents
(20.00%) answered “No”. Almost similar results were shown for farmers without
irrigation, having “Yes” as the majority of the answers, with a result of 11 out of 15
respondents (73.33%), while 4 out 15 respondents (26.67%) answered “No”. Briefly, the
results in the table implied that majority of the farmers with and without irrigation
has rice cultivation as their main occupation, having only three and four
respondents who answered otherwise for farmers with irrigation and without,
respectively.

F % F % F % F % F % F %
4 26.67% 11 73.33 15 100.00% 10 66.67% 5 33.33 15 100.00%
% %
farmers with and without irrigation when they were asked if they have any other
occupation aside from farming. The results showed that majority of the farmers with
irrigation, with a result of 11 out of 15 respondents (73.33%), answered “No”, while 4

53
out of 15 respondents (26.67%) answered “Yes”. Conversely, contrasting results were
shown for farmers without irrigation, having “Yes” as the majority of the answers, with a
result of 10 out of 15 respondents (66.67%), while 5 out of 15 respondents (33.33%)
answered “No”. Conclusively, the data in the table infer that there is a contrasting
result between farmers with and without irrigation as the majority of the farmers
with irrigation answered that they have no other occupation aside from farming,
but majority of the farmers without irrigation responded otherwise.
Table 19. Outside Activities aside from Farming of Farmers with (left) and without
(right) Irrigation

Type of Activity Number of Type of Activity Number of
Farmers Farmers
F % F %
1. Salaried 1 6.67% 1. Salaried 5 33.33%
Employee Employee
2. Farm Hand 0 0.00% 2. Farm Hand 0 0.00%
3. Food 2 13.33% 3. Food 1 6.67%
Processer/Seller Processer/Seller
4. Charcoal Seller 0 0.00% 4. Charcoal Seller 0 0.00%
5. Carpenter 0 0.00% 5. Carpenter 0 0.00%
6. Construction 0 0.00% 6. Construction 0 0.00%
Worker Worker
7. Barber 0 0.00% 7. Barber 0 0.00%
8. Fisherman 0 0.00% 8. Fisherman 0 0.00%
9. Livestock 1 6.67% 9. Livestock Trader 1 6.67%
Trader
10. Pension 0 0.00% 10. Pension Receiver 1 6.67%
Receiver
11. Remittances 0 0.00% 11. Remittances 1 6.67%
12. Others (Painter) 1 6.67% 12. Others (Tricycle 1 6.67%
Driver)
13. Others (Tricycle 1 6.67% 13. No Response 5 33.33%
Driver)

54
14. No Response 9 60.00%

TOTAL 15 100.00%
TOTAL 15 100.00%
farmers with and without irrigation when they were asked about their other outside
activities from farm. The results showed that majority of the farmers with irrigation, with
a result of 9 out of 15 respondents (60.00%), had “No Response”, 2 out of 15 (13.33%)
answered “Food Processer/Seller”, while there is 1 out of 15 respondents (6.67%) for
each option including the following: “Salaried Employee”, “Livestock Trader”, and for
other options, “Painter” and “Tricycle Driver”. Meanwhile, there were no answers for the
other options. Contrariwise, the farmers without irrigation have five responses (33.33%)
for both options, “Salaried Employee” and “No Response”, while there is 1 out of 15
respondents (6.67%) for each option which includes the following: “Food
Processer/Seller”, “Livestock Trader”, “Pension Receiver”, “Remittances”, and other
option, “Tricycle Driver”. In accordance to the table, the results show that the
number of farmers with irrigation that has no response, which means that they have
no other outside activities, is higher compared to the number of farmers without
irrigation. Meanwhile, it is comprehensible that the farmers without irrigation do
engage themselves more with outside activities aside from farming than the farmers
with irrigation.

55
The table below presents the monthly profit of farmers with and without
irrigation. The monthly profit was acquired according to an equation mentioned in the
statistical treatment, which is the sum of farming monthly profit and the other source of
income (work, business, etc.).
Table 20. Monthly Profit of Farmers with (left) and without (right) Irrigation

Monthly Profit Number of Farmers Monthly Profit Number of Farmers
(PHP) F % (PHP) F %
34 531.00 1 6.67% 20 933.00 1 6.67%
27 916.00 1 6.67% 16 666.00 1 6.67%
22 333.00 1 6.67% 15 733.00 1 6.67%
18 583.00 1 6.67% 8 000.00 1 6.67%
17 676.00 1 6.67% 7 000.00 1 6.67%
15 975.00 1 6.67% 6 925.00 1 6.67%
10 850.00 1 6.67% 6 641.00 1 6.67%
10 666.00 1 6.67% 5 666.00 1 6.67%
10 400.00 1 6.67% 4 880.00 1 6.67%
9 600.00 1 6.67% 4 145.00 1 6.67%
2 985.00 1 6.67% 4 000.00 1 6.67%
2 483.00 1 6.67% 2 750.00 1 6.67%
1 333.00 1 6.67% 1 958.00 1 6.67%
1 020.00 1 6.67% 1 750.00 1 6.67%
875.00 1 6.67% 500.00 1 6.67%
PHP 12 481.73 15 100.00% PHP 7 169.80 15 100.00%
farmers with and without irrigation when they were asked about their monthly profit. The
results showed that the farmers with irrigation do have the following amounts of monthly
profit individually (one respondent for every monthly amount with a 6.67%) in a
descending order: PHP 34 531.00, PHP 27 916.00, PHP 22 333.00, PHP 18 583.00, PHP
17 676.00, PHP 15 975.00, PHP 10 850.00, PHP 10 666.00, PHP 10 400.00, PHP 9

56
600.00, PHP 2 985.00, PHP 2 483.00, PHP 1 333.00, PHP 1 020.00, and PHP 875.00.
And the average amount of monthly profit of the farmers with irrigation is PHP 12
481.73. Meanwhile, the farmers without irrigation do have the following amounts of
monthly profit individually (one respondent for every monthly amount with a 6.67%) in a
descending order: PHP 20 933.00, PHP 16 666.00, PHP 15 733.00, PHP 8 000.00, PHP 7
000.00, PHP 6 925.00, PHP 6 641.00, PHP 5 666.00, PHP 4 880.00, PHP 4 145.00, PHP
4 000.00, PHP 2 750.00, PHP 1 958.00, PHP 1 750.00, and PHP 500.00. Lastly, the
average amount of monthly profit of the farmers without irrigation is PHP 7169.80.
Clearly, the table shows that there is a huge difference between the average monthly
profit of farmers with and without irrigation, having the average monthly profit of
the farmers with irrigation relatively greater than that of the farmers without
irrigation.
These outcomes are supported by the findings of Nonvide (2018) which state that
irrigated rice farming is more profitable than farming without irrigation. With regard to
high profitability from irrigated rice farming, the importance given to expenses in
irrigation was justified.
C. Technique and Style of Farming;
Table 21. Types of Labor that Farmers with (left) and without (right) Irrigation use
for Land Preparation

Types of Labor Number of Farmers Types of Labor Number of Farmers
F % F %

57
Human Labor 7 29.17% Human Labor 10 38.46%

Animal Traction 2 8.33% Animal Traction 2 7.69%
Machines 15 62.50% Machines 14 53.85%
TOTAL 24 100.00% TOTAL 26 100.00%
RESPONSES RESPONSES
farmers with and without irrigation when they were asked about the types of labor they
used for land preparation. Based on the results, there were 24 and 26 responses coming
from farmers with and without irrigation, respectively, due to some respondents having
used two or all of the three options provided in the questionnaire. For farmers with
irrigation, majority of the farmers use “Machines”, with a result of 15 out of 24 responses
(62.50%), 7 responses (29.17%) were for “Human Labor”, while 2 out of 24 responses
(8.33%) went to “Animal Traction”. Similar results were shown in the data gathered from
farmers without irrigation, having also the majority of responses in favor of “Machines”,
with a result of 14 out of 26 responses (53.85%), 10 responses (38.46%) were for
“Human Labor”, while 2 out of 26 responses (7.69%) went to “Animal Traction”.
Overall, the results appear that majority of the respondents from both farmers with
and without irrigation have the common type of labor which is the use of machine,
next is the use of human labor, and animal traction is the least favored.
Table 22. Response of the Farmers with (left) and without (right) Irrigation to Item
# 11

F % F % F % F % F % F %

58
15 100.00% 0 0.00% 15 100.00% 15 100.00% 0 0.00% 15 100.00%
farmers with and without irrigation when they were asked if they were using fertilizer on
their rice crops. According to the results, there was no declination approached (equals to
0.00%), and all of the farmers from both groups responded “Yes”, making the total
responses a hundred percent of all farmers, with and without irrigation, having used
fertilizers on their rice crops. Evidently, based on the table, it shows that both farmers
with and without irrigation use fertilizers on their rice crops.
Table 23. Types of Fertilizers Used by the Farmers with (left) and without (right)
Irrigation

Types of Number of Farmers Types of Number of Farmers
Fertilizers F % Fertilizers F %
Nitrogen 3 9.37% Nitrogen 5 19.23%
Phosphate Phosphate
Complete 14 43.75% Complete 7 26.92%
Fertilizer Fertilizer
Urea 11 34.38% Urea 11 42.31%
Potash 4 12.50% Potassium 3 11.54%
Phosphate
TOTAL 32 100.00% TOTAL 26 100.00%
RESPONSES RESPONSES
Table 23 presents the type of fertilizers used by farmers with and without
irrigation. There was a total of 32 responses from farmers with irrigation while 26
responses were from farmers without irrigation. Based on the results of farmers with
irrigation, 3 out of 32 responses (9.37%) were “Nitrogen Phosphate”, whereas 14 out of

59
32 responses (43.75%) were “Complete Fertilizer”, which has the highest number of
responses among the rest. Moreover, 11 responses (34.38%) were “Urea” and 4 responses
(12.50%) were potash. On the other hand, the farmers without irrigation have 5 out of 26
responses (19.23%) for “Nitrogen Phosphate”, 7 out of 15 responses (26.92%) for
“Complete Fertilizer”, 11 responses (42.31%) for “Urea”, and 3 responses (11.54%) for
“Potassium Phosphate”. In conclusion, the type of fertilizers which has the numerous
responses among the farmers with irrigation are “Complete fertilizers” while
“Urea” is the most used by farmers without irrigation. Meanwhile, both farmers
with and without irrigation have the same number of responses for using “Urea”.
However, fertilizers such as Nitrogen Phosphate, Potassium Phosphate, and Potash
are the least used.

per sq m
2
F % per sq m
2
F %
0.01 1 6.67% 0.003 1 6.67%
0.021 1 6.67% 0.012 4 26.67%
0.033 4 26.67% 0.021 1 6.67%

60
0.042 2 13.33% 0.034 4 26.67%

0.045 1 6.67% 0.042 1 6.67%
0.051 3 20.00% 0.052 1 6.67%
0.144 1 6.67% 0.064 1 6.67%
0.181 1 6.67% 0.073 1 6.67%
0.197 1 6.67% 0.082 1 6.67%
0.0645 15 100.00% 0.0347 15 100.00%
The findings depict that the use of irrigation, machineries, fertilizer and farm
labor or production input variables is evidently seen in the farmers with and without
irrigation of barangay Pantubig. According to Nonvide (2018), there is a positive and

61
significant effects found for the input variables to the increase of rice yield and eventually
the farmer’s profit. Furthermore, according to Naing, et. al. (2020), “the usage of the right
type of fertilizer and proper application of it is essential to increase rice production”. The
results indicate a positive sign for the interactions between the use of irrigation,
machineries, fertilizer and farm labor to the increase of rice yield.

F % F % F % F % F % F %
4 26.67% 11 73.33 15 100.00% 10 66.67% 5 33.33 15 100.00%
% %
irrigation, with a result of 11 out of 15 respondents (73.33%), answered “No”, while 4
answered “No”. Conclusively, the data in the table infer that there is a contrasting

62
Table 26. Outside Activities aside from Farming of Farmers with (left) and without
(right) Irrigation

Type of Activity Number of Type of Activity Number of
Farmers Farmers
F % F %
1. Salaried 1 6.67% 1. Salaried 5 33.33%
Employee Employee
2. Farm Hand 0 0.00% 2. Farm Hand 0 0.00%
3. Food 2 13.33% 3. Food 1 6.67%
Processer/Seller Processer/Seller
4. Charcoal Seller 0 0.00% 4. Charcoal Seller 0 0.00%
5. Carpenter 0 0.00% 5. Carpenter 0 0.00%
6. Construction 0 0.00% 6. Construction 0 0.00%
Worker Worker
7. Barber 0 0.00% 7. Barber 0 0.00%
8. Fisherman 0 0.00% 8. Fisherman 0 0.00%
9. Livestock Trader 1 6.67% 9. Livestock Trader 1 6.67%
10. Pension Receiver 0 0.00% 10. Pension Receiver 1 6.67%
11. Remittances 0 0.00% 11. Remittances 1 6.67%
12. Others (Painter) 1 6.67% 12. Others (Tricycle 1 6.67%
Driver)
13. Others (Tricycle 1 6.67% 13. No Response 5 33.33%
Driver)
TOTAL 15 100.00%
TOTAL 15 100.00%
farmers with and without irrigation when they were asked about their other outside

63
activities from farm. The results showed that majority of the farmers with irrigation, with
a result of 9 out of 15 respondents (60.00%), had “No Response”, 2 out of 15 (13.33%)
answered “Food Processer/Seller”, while there is 1 out of 15 respondents (6.67%) for
each option including the following: “Salaried Employee”, “Livestock Trader”, and for
other options, “Painter” and “Tricycle Driver”. Meanwhile, there were no answers for the
other options. Contrariwise, the farmers without irrigation have five responses (33.33%)
for both options, “Salaried Employee” and “No Response”, while there is 1 out of 15
respondents (6.67%) for each option which includes the following: “Food
Processer/Seller”, “Livestock Trader”, “Pension Receiver”, “Remittances”, and other
option, “Tricycle Driver”. In accordance to the table, the results showed that the
number of farmers with irrigation that has no response, which means that they have
no other outside activities, is higher compared to the number of farmers without
irrigation. Meanwhile, it is comprehensible that the farmers without irrigation do
engage themselves more with outside activities aside from farming than the farmers
with irrigation.
Table 27. Reasons of Farmers with (left) and without (right) Irrigation for
Participating to Outside Activities from Farm

Reasons Number of Reasons Number of
Farmers Farmers
F % F %
i. Limited 3 20.00% i. Limited 6 40.00%
Agricultural Agricultural
Income Income
ii. Large Family 0 0.00% ii. Large Family 3 20.00%

64
iii. Seasonality 0 0.00% iii. Seasonality 3 20.00%

of of
Agriculture Agriculture
iv. Lack of 1 6.67% iv. Lack of 3 20.00%
Capital Capital
v. Others 0 0.00% v. Others 0 0.00%
vi. No Response 11 73.33% vi. No Response 0 0.00%
TOTAL 15 100.00% TOTAL 15 100.00%
farmers with and without irrigation when they were asked about their reasons for
participating to outside activities from farm. The results showed that majority of the
farmers with irrigation, with a result of 11 out of 15 respondents (73.33%), had “No
Response”, 3 out of 15 (20.00%) answered “Limited Agricultural Income”, 1 out of 15
respondents (6.67%) answered “Lack of Capital”, and there were no answers for the other
options. In contrary, the farmers without irrigation has the majority of the answers to
“Limited Agricultural Income” with 6 out of 15 respondents (40.00%), while there are 3
out 15 respondents (20.00%) for every option including the following: “Large Family”,
“Seasonality of Agriculture”, and “Lack of Capital”. Lastly, there was no respondent
without irrigation who had no response and who responded for the option, “Others”. The
results in the table manifested that there is a huge difference between the answers of
the farmers with and without irrigation about their reasons for participating to
outside activities aside from farming. Majority of the farmers with irrigation had no
response because they do not have any other outside activities; however, all of the
farmers without irrigation do have other activities aside from facilitating their
farms.

65
The tables below present the monthly expenses and monthly profit of farmers
with and without irrigation. The monthly expenses was determined according to the
designed equation stated in the statistical treatment which equates to the sum of the
expenses for food, education, health, utilities, and transportation. Meanwhile, the monthly
profit was acquired according to another equation, which is the sum of farming monthly
profit and the other source of income (work, business, etc.). These tables also show
the frequency and percentage distribution of the answers of the respondents when
asked about the said questions. The presentation for this question branched out into two
different tables, which are the monthly expenses and monthly profit of the farmers with
and without irrigation.
Tables 28 and 29. Monthly Expenses of Farmers with (left) and without (right)
Farmers with Irrigation Irrigation

Monthly Number of
Expenses Farmers
(PHP) F %
44 000.00 1 6.67% Farmers without Irrigation
43 500.00 1 6.67% Monthly Number of Farmers
Expenses
27 500.00 1 6.67%
(PHP) F %
27 000.00 1 6.67%
46 000.00 1 6.67%
21 000.00 1 6.67%
32 000.00 1 6.67%
20 600.00 1 6.67%
20 000.00 2 13.33%
17 750.00 1 6.67%
16 000.00 2 13.33%
13 450.00 1 6.67%
13 000.00 2 13.33%
13 000.00 1 6.67%
11 000.00 2 13.33%
9 810.00 1 6.67%
10 000.00 1 6.67%
9 000.00 1 6.67%
9 300.00 1 6.67%
5 850.00 1 6.67%
9 000.00 1 6.67%
5 500.00 1 6.67%
6 700.00 2 13.33%
3 000.00 1 6.67%
Armea / Herrera / Inductivo / Valdecantos 2021 AVERAGE TOTAL
780.00 1 6.67%
PHP 15980.00 15 100.00%
AVERAGE TOTAL
PHP 17 449.33 15 100.00%
66
of farmers with and without irrigation when they were asked about their monthly
expenses. The results showed that the farmers with irrigation have varied amount of
monthly expenses from one another, with only 1 out of 15 respondents (6.67%) for the
following amounts (descending order): PHP 44 000.00, PHP 43 500.00, PHP 27 500.00,
PHP 27 000.00, PHP 21 000.00, PHP 20 600.00, PHP 17 750.00, PHP 13 450.00, PHP
13 000.00, PHP 9 810.00, PHP 9 000.00, PHP 5 850.00, PHP 5 500.00, PHP 3 000.00,
and PHP 780.00. The average amount of monthly expenses of the farmers with irrigation
is PHP 17 449.33. On the other hand, the farmers without irrigation have couples of
farmers with the same amount of monthly expenses, having 2 out 15 respondents
(13.33%) for each of the following amounts (descending order): PHP 20 000.00, PHP 16
000.00, PHP 13 000.00, PHP 11 000.00, and PHP 6 700.00, while there is 1 out of 15
respondents (6.67%) for each of the following monthly expenses: PHP 46 000.00, PHP
32 000.00, PHP 10 000.00, PHP 9 300.00, and PHP 9 000.00. Lastly, the average amount
of monthly expenses of the farmers without irrigation is PHP 15 980.00. According to
the data presented in the table, it is distinctive to conclude that the average monthly
expenses of the farmers with irrigation is moderately higher than that of the
Table 30. Priorities of Expenses of Farmers with (left) and without (right) Irrigation

67

Priorities of Number of Farmers Priorities of Number of Farmers
Expenses F % Expenses F %
1. Food 15 100.00% 1. Food 15 100.00%
2. Education 6 40.00% 2. Education 5 33.33%
3. Health 8 53.33% 3. Health 6 40.00%
4. Utilities 15 100.00% 4. Utilities 11 73.33%
5. Transaction 9 60.00% 5. Transaction 11 73.33%
farmers with and without irrigation when they were asked about the priorities of their
expenses. Based on the results, all of the farmers with irrigation had chosen both “Food”
and “Utilities”, with a percentage of 100.00%, 9 out of 15 respondents (80.00%)
answered “Transaction”, 8 of them (53.33%) answered “Health”, and 6 of them (40.00%)
answered “Education”. Similarly, all of the farmers without irrigation had chosen “Food”
as their priority for expenses, with a percentage of 100.00%, while there were 11 out of
15 respondents (73.33%) for every option including the following: “Utilities” and
“Transaction”, 6 of them (40.00%) answered “Health”, and 5 of them (33.33%) answered
“Education”. According to the results, the priorities of expenses of farmers with and
without irrigation are relatively similar with one another as all of the respondents’
top priority for their expenses is food. Meanwhile, health and education are the least
favored options.
The table below presents the monthly profit of farmers with and without
irrigation. The monthly profit was acquired according to an equation mentioned in the

68
statistical treatment, which is the sum of farming monthly profit and the other source of
income (work, business, etc.).

(PHP) F % (PHP) F %
34 531.00 1 6.67% 20 933.00 1 6.67%
27 916.00 1 6.67% 16 666.00 1 6.67%
22 333.00 1 6.67% 15 733.00 1 6.67%
18 583.00 1 6.67% 8 000.00 1 6.67%
17 676.00 1 6.67% 7 000.00 1 6.67%
15 975.00 1 6.67% 6 925.00 1 6.67%
10 850.00 1 6.67% 6 641.00 1 6.67%
10 666.00 1 6.67% 5 666.00 1 6.67%
10 400.00 1 6.67% 4 880.00 1 6.67%
9 600.00 1 6.67% 4 145.00 1 6.67%
2 985.00 1 6.67% 4 000.00 1 6.67%
2 483.00 1 6.67% 2 750.00 1 6.67%
1 333.00 1 6.67% 1 958.00 1 6.67%
1 020.00 1 6.67% 1 750.00 1 6.67%
875.00 1 6.67% 500.00 1 6.67%
PHP 12 481.73 15 100.00% PHP 7 169.80 15 100.00%

69
average amount of monthly expenses of the farmers without irrigation is PHP 7169.80.
irrigation.
The main components of expenditure comprise food, education, health, utilities,
and other miscellaneous expenses which include fuel and transportation. As what is
presented in the findings, the average monthly profit between farmers with and without
irrigation has a large discrepancy. According to Nonvide (2018), income inequality
among the poor is significantly higher for farmers without irrigation compared to the
irrigation farmers. He added that there is a positive correlation between adoption of
irrigation and food security. Irrigation farmers have higher probability of being food-
secured than the non-irrigation farmers. He states that the marginal effect indicates that
adoption of irrigation decreases the likelihood of being poor by 60%. The implication is
that adoption of irrigation increases the likelihood of a farmer to move out of poverty.
farmers?

70

F % F %
0.016 1 6.67% 0.008 1 6.67%
0.014 1 6.67% 0.007 3 20.00%
0.011 2 13.33% 0.006 4 26.67%
0.009 5 33.33% 0.005 2 13.33%
0.008 1 6.67% 0.004 2 13.33%
0.007 3 20.00% 0.003 2 13.33%
0.005 1 6.67% 0.002 1 6.67%
AVERAGE TOTAL
0.009 15 100.00%
100.00%
0.0053 15

71
Table 33. Reasons of Farmers without Irrigation for Not Using Irrigation
Farmers without Irrigation

Reasons F %
a. Financial Constraints 4 25.00%
b. Availability Constraints 12 75.00%
c. Irrigation is not beneficial. 2 12.50%
d. Others 0 0.00%
TOTAL RESPONSES 16 100.00%
Table 33 presents the frequency and percentage distribution which focuses only
on farmers without irrigation in relation to their response when they were asked why they
did not use irrigation. The total responses were 16 due to one farmer having stated two
different responses upon answering the said question. According to the results, 4 out of
16 responses (25.00%) were because of “Financial Constraints”, 12 out of 16 responses
(75.00%) for “Availability Constraints”, and 2 out of 16 responses (12.50%) were for

72
“Irrigation is not beneficial.” Meanwhile, there were no other responses aside from the
given options. In conclusion, majority of the farmers without irrigation answered
that “Availability Constraints” limit themselves from accessing or using irrigation.
Area

Alternative Ways F %
a. Rain Fed 14 87.50%
b. From Natural Body of 2 12.50%
Water
Table 34 presents the frequency and percentage distribution that mainly focuses
on the response of farmers without irrigation when they were asked about what they were
using to irrigate their soil. The total responses were 16 due to one farmer having used
both of the stated ways of irrigating soils. Based on the results, 14 out of 16 responses
(87.50%) were for “Rain Fed”, while 2 out of 16 responses (12.50%) went to “From
natural body of water”. To put it briefly, majority of the farmers without irrigation
answered “Rain Fed” as their own alternative or usage to irrigate their soil.
# 11

F % F % F % F % F % F %

73
15 100.00% 0 0.00% 15 100.00% 15 100.00% 0 0.00% 15 100.00%
Table 36. Types of Fertilizers Used by the Farmers with (left) and without (right)
Irrigation

Types of Number of Farmers Types of Number of Farmers
Fertilizers F % Fertilizers F %
Nitrogen 3 9.37% Nitrogen 5 19.23%
Phosphate Phosphate
Complete 14 43.75% Complete 7 26.92%
Fertilizer Fertilizer
Urea 11 34.38% Urea 11 42.31%
Potash 4 12.50% Potassium 3 11.54%
Phosphate
TOTAL 32 100.00% TOTAL 26 100.00%
RESPONSES RESPONSES
Table 36 presents the type of fertilizers used by farmers with and without
irrigation. There was a total of 32 responses from farmers with irrigation while 26
responses were from farmers without irrigation. Based on the results of farmers with
irrigation, 3 out of 32 responses (9.37%) were “Nitrogen Phosphate”, whereas 14 out of

74
32 responses (43.75%) were “Complete Fertilizer”, which has the highest number of
responses among the rest. Moreover, 11 responses (34.38%) were “Urea” and 4 responses
(12.50%) were potash. On the other hand, the farmers without irrigation have 5 out of 26
responses (19.23%) for “Nitrogen Phosphate”, 7 out of 15 responses (26.92%) for
“Complete Fertilizer”, 11 responses (42.31%) for “Urea”, and 3 responses (11.54%) for
“Potassium Phosphate”. In conclusion, the type of fertilizers which has the numerous
responses among the farmers with irrigation are “Complete fertilizers” while
“Urea” is the most used by farmers without irrigation. Meanwhile, both farmers
with and without irrigation have the same number of responses for using “Urea”.
However, fertilizers such as Nitrogen Phosphate, Potassium Phosphate, and Potash
are the least used.

per sq m
2
F % per sq m
2
F %
0.01 1 6.67% 0.003 1 6.67%
0.021 1 6.67% 0.012 4 26.67%
0.033 4 26.67% 0.021 1 6.67%

75
0.042 2 13.33% 0.034 4 26.67%

0.045 1 6.67% 0.042 1 6.67%
0.051 3 20.00% 0.052 1 6.67%
0.144 1 6.67% 0.064 1 6.67%
0.181 1 6.67% 0.073 1 6.67%
0.197 1 6.67% 0.082 1 6.67%
0.0645 15 100.00% 0.0347 15 100.00%

76
The tables below present the amount paid for an individual hired worker by
farmers with and without irrigation. There is a designed equation stated in the statistical
treatment that determined the workforce expenditures of every farmer, which equates to
the total workforce expenditures (PHP) divided by the total number of workers.
Tables 38 and 39. Workforce Expenditures of Farmers with (left) and without
(right) Irrigation

Workforce Number of
per Worker F P (%)
(PHP)
3500.00 1 6.67%
3400.00 1 6.67%

Workforce Number of
77
per Worker F P (%)
(PHP)
2500.00 1 6.67% 2000.00 2 13.33%
2000.00 1 6.67% 1500.00 2 13.33%
1528.00 1 6.67% 1500.00 1 6.67%
1500.00 2 13.33% 1250.00 1 6.67%
820.00 1 6.67% 750.00 2 13.33%
700.00 1 6.67% 500.00 3 20.00%
650.00 2 13.33% 450.00 1 6.67%
630.00 1 6.67% 350.00 3 20.00%
400.00 1 6.67% PHP 950.00 15 100.00%
AVERAGE TOTAL
PHP 1351.87 15 100.00%
of farmers with and without irrigation when they were asked about the total amount that
they paid for their workforce and the number of their workers to determine their
workforce expenditures. Based on the results, there is 1 out of 15 farmers (6.67%) with
irrigation for every amount of workforce expenditures including the following
(descending order): PHP 3500.00, PHP 3400.00, PHP 2500.00, PHP 2000.00, PHP
1528.00, PHP 820.00, PHP 700.00, PHP 630.00, PHP 500.00, and PHP 400.00, while
there are 2 respondents (13.33%) for each of the following expenditures: PHP 1500.00
and PHP 650.00. The average amount of workforce expenditures of farmers with
irrigation is PHP 1351.87. On the other hand, there is 1 out of 15 farmers (6.67%)
without irrigation for every amount of the following: PHP 1500.00, PHP 1250.00 and
PHP 450.00, 2 respondents (13.33%) for each of the amounts: PHP 2000.00, PHP
1500.00 and PHP 750.00, while 3 farmers (20.00%) responded for each amount of PHP
500.00 and PHP 350.00. Lastly, PHP 950.00 is the average workforce expenditures of
farmers without irrigation. Based on the table, the average amount of workforce
expenditures of farmers with irrigation is clearly higher than that of the farmers

78
without irrigation. Additionally, the range of expenses for farmers with irrigation is
more varied than the farmers without irrigation.
subset A

F % F % F % F % F % F %
9 60.00 6 40.00% 15 100.00 8 53.33% 7 46.67% 15 100.00%
% %
farmers with and without irrigation when they were asked if they need credit or not.
Based on the results, 9 out of 15 farmers (60.00%) with irrigation answered “Yes”, while
6 out of 15 respondents (40.00%) answered “No”. While for the farmers without
irrigation, 8 out of 15 respondents (53.33%) answered “Yes”, while 7 out of 15 (46.67%)
answered “No”. Convincingly, the table shows that most of the farmers, both with
and without irrigation, need credit.
The table below presents the total amount of credit used by farmers with and
without irrigation per square meter of their land area. There is a designed equation which
was mentioned in the statistical treatment that made every amount be determined which
equates to the total amount of credit used (PHP) divided by the total land area (sq2m).

79
Table 41. Total Amount of Credit of Farmers with (left) and without (right)

Credit Amount Number of Farmers Credit Amount Number of Farmers
(PHP) per sq2m F % (PHP) per sq2m F %
8.00 1 6.67% 4.00 1 6.67%
7.41 1 6.67% 2.30 1 6.67%
5.00 1 6.67% 2.00 1 6.67%
4.00 1 6.67% 1.60 1 6.67%
3.00 1 6.67% 1.40 1 6.67%
2.50 1 6.67% 1.00 1 6.67%
2.00 1 6.67% 0.50 1 6.67%
1.30 1 6.67% 0.42 1 6.67%
0.00 7 46.67 0.00 7 46.67%
PHP 2.214 per 15 100.00% PHP 0.881 per 15 100.00%
sq2m sq2m
farmers with and without irrigation when they were asked about the said question. For the
total amount of the credit used by the farmers with irrigation per square meter of their
land area, majority of the farmers had no response, with a result of 7 out of 15
respondents (46.67%). There is one farmer (6.67%) for every amount of the following
(descending order): 8.00 PHP/sq2m, 7.41 PHP/sq2m, 5.00 PHP/sq2m, 4.00 PHP/sq2m,
3.00 PHP/sq2m, 2.50 PHP/sq2m, 2.00 PHP/sq2m, and 1.30 PHP/sq2m. The average
amount of credit used by farmers with irrigation is PHP 2.214 per square meter.
Similarly, majority of the farmers without irrigation also had no response, with a same
result of 7 out of 15 respondents (46.67%). Moreover, the following are the total amount
of capital used by the farmers without irrigation per square meter of their land area,
having one farmer (6.67%) for every amount of the following (descending order): 4.00

80
PHP/sq2m, 0.50 PHP/sq2m and 0.42 PHP/sq2m. Lastly, the average amount of credit used
per square meter by farmers without irrigation is PHP 0.881. Based from the table, the
farmers with and without irrigation have the same number of respondents who had
no response and who responded; however, the average amount of credit that they
have used per square meter is totally different. Prior to the difference, the average
amount of credit used by the farmers with irrigation is higher compared to that of
Table 42. Reasons of Farmers with (left) and without (right) Irrigation why they did
not Apply for Credit

Farmers Farmers
F % F %
i. Do not know 0 0.00% i. Do not know 0 0.00%
where to get where to get
ii. Do not know 0 0.00% ii. Do not know 0 0.00%
how to apply how to apply
for it for it
iii. High interest 1 6.67% iii. High interest 0 0.00%
rate rate
iv. Lack of ID 0 0.00% iv. Lack of ID 0 0.00%
card card
v. Lack of 0 0.00% v. Lack of 0 0.00%
collateral collateral
vi. Repayment 0 0.00% vi. Repayment 0 0.00%
schedule is schedule is
not not available.
favorable.
vii. No need to 5 33.33% vii. No need to 7 46.67%
borrow borrow
viii. Others 0 0.00% viii. Others 0 0.00%

81
ix. No Response 9 60.00% ix. No Response 8 53.33%

TOTAL 15 100.00% TOTAL 15 100.00%
farmers with and without irrigation when they were asked why they did not apply for
credit. Within the farmers with irrigation, majority of them had no response, with a result
of 9 out of 15 respondents (60.00%), while there is 1 out of 15 respondents (6.67%) who
answered that there is a “high interest rate” and 5 of them (33.33%) responded that there
is “no need to borrow”. Similarly, majority of the farmers without irrigation also had no
response, with a result of 8 out of 15 respondents (53.33%), while 7 out of 15
respondents (46.67%) answered that there is “no need to borrow” as well. Based from
what is presented in the table, the data imply that majority of the farmers with and
without irrigation had no response when they were asked why they did not apply for
credit. Furthermore, based from the reasons given by the respondents, most of them
opted not to borrow money because it is unnecessary for them.

82
Irrigation
Paddy Rice
F % F %
0.90 1 6.67% 0.87 1 6.67%
0.83 1 6.67% 0.70 1 6.67%
0.80 2 13.33% 0.66 1 6.67%
0.76 1 6.67% 0.63 1 6.67%
0.65 1 6.67% 0.50 1 6.67%
0.63 1 6.67% 0.46 1 6.67%
0.57 1 6.67% 0.45 1 6.67%
0.55 1 6.67% 0.42 1 6.67%
0.53 1 6.67% 0.37 1 6.67%
0.46 1 6.67% 0.36 1 6.67%
0.39 1 6.67% N/A 5 33.33%
0.525 15 100.00%

83
Irrigation.
Milled Rice
F % F %
0.30 1 6.67% 0.143 1 6.67%
0.27 1 6.67% 0.125 1 6.67%
N/A 13 86.67% N/A 13 86.67%
0.0200 15 100.00% 0.0179 15 100.00%

84

F % F % F % F % F % F %
12 80.00% 3 20.00 15 100.00% 11 73.33% 4 26.67 15 100.00%
% %
respectively.


85
F % F % F % F % F % F %
4 26.67% 11 73.33 15 100.00% 10 66.67% 5 33.33 15 100.00%
% %
irrigation, with a result of 11 out of 15 respondents (73.33%), answered “None”, while 4
answered “None”. Conclusively, the data in the table infer that there is a contrasting

Farmers Farmers
F % F %
Income Income
iii. Seasonality 0 0.00% iii. Seasonality 3 20.00%
of of

86
Capital Capital
vi. No Response 11 73.33% vi. No Response 0 0.00%
TOTAL 15 100.00% TOTAL 15 100.00%
farms.
The tables below present the monthly expenses and monthly profit of farmers
with and without irrigation. The monthly expenses was determined according to the

87
designed equation stated in the statistical treatment which equates to the sum of the
expenses for food, education, health, utilities, and transportation. Meanwhile, the monthly
profit was acquired according to another equation, which is the sum of farming monthly
profit and the other source of income (work, business, etc.). These tables also show
the frequency and percentage distribution of the answers of the respondents when
asked about the said questions. The presentation for this question branched out into two
different tables, which are the monthly expenses and monthly profit of the farmers with
and without irrigation.
Tables 48 and 49. Monthly Expenses of Farmers with (left) and without (right)
Irrigation

Monthly Number of Monthly Number of Farmers
Expenses Farmers Expenses
(PHP) F % (PHP) F %
44 000.00 1 6.67% 46 000.00 1 6.67%
43 500.00 1 6.67% 32 000.00 1 6.67%
27 500.00 1 6.67% 20 000.00 2 13.33%
27 000.00 1 6.67% 16 000.00 2 13.33%
21 000.00 1 6.67% 13 000.00 2 13.33%
20 600.00 1 6.67% 11 000.00 2 13.33%
17 750.00 1 6.67% 10 000.00 1 6.67%
13 450.00 1 6.67% 9 300.00 1 6.67%
13 000.00 1 6.67% 9 000.00 1 6.67%
9 810.00 1 6.67% 6 700.00 2 13.33%
9 000.00 1 6.67% AVERAGE TOTAL
5 850.00 1 6.67% PHP 15980.00 15 100.00%
5 500.00 1 6.67%
3 000.00 1 6.67%
780.00 1 6.67%
AVERAGE TOTAL
PHP 17 449.33 15 100.00%

88
of farmers with and without irrigation when they were asked about their monthly
expenses. The results showed that the farmers with irrigation have varied amount of
monthly expenses from one another, with only 1 out of 15 respondents (6.67%) for the
following amounts (descending order): PHP 44 000.00, PHP 43 500.00, PHP 27 500.00,
PHP 27 000.00, PHP 21 000.00, PHP 20 600.00, PHP 17 750.00, PHP 13 450.00, PHP
13 000.00, PHP 9 810.00, PHP 9 000.00, PHP 5 850.00, PHP 5 500.00, PHP 3 000.00,
and PHP 780.00. The average amount of monthly expenses of the farmers with irrigation
is PHP 17 449.33. On the other hand, the farmers without irrigation have couples of
farmers with the same amount of monthly expenses, having 2 out 15 respondents
(13.33%) for each of the following amounts (descending order): PHP 20 000.00, PHP 16
000.00, PHP 13 000.00, PHP 11 000.00, and PHP 6 700.00, while there is 1 out of 15
respondents (6.67%) for each of the following monthly expenses: PHP 46 000.00, PHP
32 000.00, PHP 10 000.00, PHP 9 300.00, and PHP 9 000.00. Lastly, the average amount
of monthly expenses of the farmers without irrigation is PHP 15 980.00. According to
the data presented in the table, it is distinctive to conclude that the average monthly
expenses of the farmers with irrigation is moderately higher than that of the

(PHP) F % (PHP) F %
34 531.00 1 6.67% 20 933.00 1 6.67%

89
27 916.00 1 6.67% 16 666.00 1 6.67%

22 333.00 1 6.67% 15 733.00 1 6.67%
18 583.00 1 6.67% 8 000.00 1 6.67%
17 676.00 1 6.67% 7 000.00 1 6.67%
15 975.00 1 6.67% 6 925.00 1 6.67%
10 850.00 1 6.67% 6 641.00 1 6.67%
10 666.00 1 6.67% 5 666.00 1 6.67%
10 400.00 1 6.67% 4 880.00 1 6.67%
9 600.00 1 6.67% 4 145.00 1 6.67%
2 985.00 1 6.67% 4 000.00 1 6.67%
2 483.00 1 6.67% 2 750.00 1 6.67%
1 333.00 1 6.67% 1 958.00 1 6.67%
1 020.00 1 6.67% 1 750.00 1 6.67%
875.00 1 6.67% 500.00 1 6.67%
PHP 12 481.73 15 100.00% PHP 7 169.80 15 100.00%

90
irrigation.
Table 51. Response of Farmers with Irrigation to Section B

Statements YES NO TOTAL
F % F % F %
C. Using irrigation may lead to crop 15 100.00% 0 0.00% 15 100.00%
yield improvement.
D. Irrigation development creates 15 100.00% 0 0.00% 15 100.00%
employment opportunity.
E. The use of irrigation is an 15 100.00% 0 0.00% 15 100.00%
insurance against drought.
F. Irrigation ensures high income. 15 100.00% 0 0.00% 15 100.00%
G. Irrigation may contribute to 15 100.00% 0 0.00% 15 100.00%
achieve food security in my
community.
H. Irrigation may lead to poverty 15 100.00% 0 0.00% 15 100.00%
reduction.
I. Irrigation increases the cost of 14 93.33% 1 6.67% 15 100.00%
rice production.
J. Irrigation maximizes the return on 14 93.33% 1 6.67% 15 100.00%
other inputs such as fertilizer,
labor, etc.
K. The development of irrigation 15 100.00% 0 0.00% 15 100.00%
contributes to reducing out
migration.
L. Irrigation water has multiple use 15 100.00% 0 0.00% 15 100.00%
including agriculture, domestic,
and livestock uses.

91
farmers with irrigation upon answering the Section B of the research questionnaire. The
data that the table contains are described by the following:
In statement letter A; 15 farmers with irrigation answered “Yes” and none of
them answered “No” that using irrigation may lead to crop yield improvement.
In statement letter B; 15 farmers with irrigation answered “Yes” and none of
them answered “No” that irrigation development creates employment opportunity.
In statement letter C; 15 farmers with irrigation answered “Yes” and none of
them answered “No” that the use of irrigation is an insurance against drought.
In statement letter D; 15 farmers with irrigation answered “Yes” and none of
them answered “No” that irrigation ensures high income.
In statement letter E; 15 farmers with irrigation answered “Yes” and none of
them answered “No” that irrigation may contribute to achieve food security in their
community.
In statement letter F; 15 farmers with irrigation answered “Yes” and none of
them answered “No” that irrigation may lead to poverty reduction.
In statement letter G; 14 farmers with irrigation answered “Yes” and 1 of
them answered “No” that irrigation increases the cost of rice production.
In statement letter H; 14 farmers with irrigation answered “Yes” and 1 of
them answered “No” that irrigation maximizes the return on other inputs such as
fertilizer, labor, etc.

92
In statement letter I; 14 farmers with irrigation answered “Yes” and 1 of them
answered “No” that the development of irrigation contributes to reducing out migration.
In statement letter J; 15 farmers with irrigation answered “Yes” and none of
them answered “No” that irrigation water has multiple use including agriculture,
domestic, and livestock uses.
Table 52. Response of Farmers without Irrigation to Section B

Statements YES NO TOTAL
F % F % F %
A. Using irrigation may lead to crop 14 93.33% 1 6.67% 15 100.00%
yield improvement.
B. Irrigation development creates 12 80.00% 3 20.00% 15 100.00%
employment opportunity.
C. The use of irrigation is an 14 93.33% 1 6.67% 15 100.00%
insurance against drought.
D. Irrigation ensures high income. 14 93.33% 1 6.67% 15 100.00%
E. Irrigation may contribute to 14 93.33% 1 6.67% 15 100.00%
achieve food security in my
community.
F. Irrigation may lead to poverty 11 73.33 4 26.67% 15 100.00%
reduction. %
G. Irrigation increases the cost of 14 93.33% 1 6.67% 15 100.00%
rice production.
H. Irrigation maximizes the return 12 80.00% 3 20.00% 15 100.00%
on other inputs such as fertilizer,
labor, etc.
I. The development of irrigation 13 86.67% 2 13.33% 15 100.00%
contributes to reducing out
migration.
J. Irrigation water has multiple use 15 100.00% 0 0.00% 15 100.00%
including agriculture, domestic,
and livestock uses.

93
farmers without irrigation upon answering the Section B of the research questionnaire.
The data that the table contains are described by the following:
In statement letter A; 14 farmers without irrigation answered “Yes” and 1 of
them answered “No” that using irrigation may lead to crop yield improvement.
In statement letter B; 12 farmers without irrigation answered “Yes” and 3 of
them answered “No” that irrigation development creates employment opportunity.
In statement letter C; 14 farmers without irrigation answered “Yes” and 1 of
them answered “No” that the use of irrigation is an insurance against drought.
In statement letter D; 14 farmers without irrigation answered “Yes” and 1 of
them answered “No” that irrigation ensures high income.
In statement letter E; 14 farmers without irrigation answered “Yes” and 1 of
them answered “No” that irrigation may contribute to achieve food security in their
community.
In statement letter F; 11 farmers without irrigation answered “Yes” and 4 of
them answered “No” that irrigation may lead to poverty reduction.
In statement letter G; 14 farmers without irrigation answered “Yes” and 1 of
them answered “No” that irrigation increases the cost of rice production.
In statement letter H; 12 farmers without irrigation answered “Yes” and 3 of
them answered “No” that irrigation maximizes the return on other inputs such as
fertilizer, labor, etc.

94
In statement letter I; 13 farmers without irrigation answered “Yes” and 2 of
them answered “No” that the development of irrigation contributes to reducing out
migration.
In statement letter J; 15 farmers without irrigation answered “Yes” and none
of them answered “No” that irrigation water has multiple use including agriculture,
These findings support the results of a 2018 study entitled “Resilience of
Irrigation Systems to Climate Variability and Change: A Review of the Adaptive
Capacity of Philippine Irrigation Systems” which states that a reliable water source is
needed for farmers to adapt to the changing climate patterns. A reliable water source
would enable shorter harvest intervals in a year and a high output of crops during harvest.
This will result for the farmers to take more profit, enhance their socioeconomic status
and lifestyle, and ensure household food security. According to Nonvide (2018), there is
a positive correlation between adoption of irrigation and food security. Irrigation farmers
have higher probability of being food-secured than the non-irrigation farmers. However,
given all these advantages, a small percentage of farmers in barangay Pantubig who have
access to irrigation are still under poverty. Irrigation would not give a hundred percent
guarantee of enhancing their socioeconomic status and lifestyle and ensure household
food security.
rice crops? Are these efficient or not based on the factors:

95
Area

Alternative Ways F %
a. Rain Fed 14 87.50%
b. From Natural of Water 2 12.50%
Table 53 presents the frequency and percentage distribution that mainly focuses
on the response of farmers without irrigation when they were asked about what they were
using to irrigate their soil. The total responses were 16 due to one farmer having used
both of the stated ways of irrigating soils. Based on the results, 14 out of 16 responses
(87.50%) were for “Rain Fed”, while 2 out of 16 responses (12.50%) went to “From
natural body of water”. To put it briefly, majority of the farmers without irrigation
answered “Rain Fed” as their own alternative or usage to irrigate their soil.
# 11

F % F % F % F % F % F %
15 100.00% 0 0.00% 15 100.00% 15 100.00% 0 0.00% 15 100.00%

96
Table 55. Types of Labor that Farmers without Irrigation use for Land Preparation

Type of Labor Number of Farmers
F %
Human Labor 10 38.46%
Animal Traction 2 7.69%
Machines 14 53.85%
TOTAL 26 100.00%
RESPONSES
farmers without irrigation when they were asked about the type of labor they used for
land preparation. Based on the results, there were 26 responses coming from farmers
without irrigation, due to some respondents having used two or all of the three options
provided in the questionnaire. Majority of responses were in favor of “Machines”, with a
result of 14 out of 26 responses (53.85%), 10 responses (38.46%) were for “Human
Labor”, while 2 out of 26 responses (7.69%) went to “Animal Traction”. Overall, the
results appear that majority of the respondents without irrigation have the common
type of labor which is the use of machine, next is the use of human labor, and animal
traction is the least favored.

97
Table 56. Types of Fertilizers Used by the Farmers without Irrigation

Types of Number of Farmers
Fertilizers F %
Nitrogen 5 19.23%
Phosphate
Complete 7 26.92%
Fertilizer
Urea 11 42.31%
Potassium 3 11.54%
Phosphate
TOTAL 26 100.00%
RESPONSES
Table 56 presents the type of fertilizers used by farmers without irrigation. There
was a total of 26 responses were from farmers without irrigation. Based on the results of
farmers without irrigation have 5 out of 26 responses (19.23%) for “Nitrogen Phosphate”,
7 out of 15 responses (26.92%) for “Complete Fertilizer”, 11 responses (42.31%) for
“Urea”, and 3 responses (11.54%) for “Potassium Phosphate”. In conclusion, the types
of fertilizers which has the numerous respondents among the farmers without
irrigation are “Urea”. However, fertilizers such as Nitrogen Phosphate, Potassium
Phosphate, and Potash are the least used.

98
Table 57. Quantity of Fertilizers Applied by Farmers without Irrigation per Square

Kilogram Number of Farmers
per sq m
2
F %
0.003 1 6.67%
0.012 4 26.67%
0.021 1 6.67%
0.034 4 26.67%
0.042 1 6.67%
0.052 1 6.67%
0.064 1 6.67%
0.073 1 6.67%
0.082 1 6.67%
AVERAGE TOTAL
0.0347 15 100.00%
Table 57 presents the kilograms of fertilizer used by farmers without irrigation for
every square meter of their land area. There is a designed equation which was mentioned
in the statistical treatment that presents how the numerical values provided in the table
above are determined. It equates to the total number of fertilizers used (kg) divided by the
total farm area (sq2m).
For the quantity of fertilizers used by the farmers without irrigation for every
square meter of their land area, there is one farmer (6.67%) for every value (unit =
kg/sq2m): 0.003, 0.021, 0.042, 0.052, 0.064, 0.073 and 0.082, while the values of 0.012
and 0.034 kg/sq2m both have 4 out of 15 respondents (26.67%). According to the table,

99
it appears that the average value of kilograms of fertilizers applied per square meter
of the farmers without irrigation is 0.0347 kg per sq²m.
A. Quantity of Rice Harvested;

F % F %
0.016 1 6.67% 0.008 1 6.67%
0.014 1 6.67% 0.007 3 20.00%
0.011 2 13.33% 0.006 4 26.67%
0.009 5 33.33% 0.005 2 13.33%
0.008 1 6.67% 0.004 2 13.33%
0.007 3 20.00% 0.003 2 13.33%
0.005 1 6.67% 0.002 1 6.67%
AVERAGE TOTAL
0.009 15 100.00%
100.00%
0.0053 15

100

101

Mass (Kg) Number of
Farmers
F %
Tables 59 and 60. Average Mass of Rice 60 4 26.67%
56 2 13.33%
Sacks of Farmers with (left) and without
50 9 60.00%
AVERAGE TOTAL
Farmers with Irrigation 53.47 kg 15 100.00%
Mass (Kg) Number of
(right) Irrigation
Farmers
F %
65 2 13.33%
60 4 26.67%
58 1 6.67%
56 1 6.67%
55 3 20.00%
50 3 20.00%
46 1 6.67%
AVERAGE TOTAL Tables 59 and 60 present the frequency and
56.33 kg 15 100.00%
percentage distribution of the answers of
farmers with and without irrigation when they were asked about the common mass of rice
sacks that they yield per square meter of their land area. Based on the results, there are 4
out of 15 farmers (26.67%) with irrigation who have a mass of 60 kilograms for their rice
sacks, 3 out 15 respondents (20.00%) for each mass of 55 and 50 kilograms, 2
respondents (13.33%) for a mass of 65 kilograms, and 1 out of 15 respondents (6.67%)
for every mass of the following (descending order): 58, 56, and 46 kilograms. And the
average mass of rice sacks of farmers with irrigation is 56.33 kilograms. Meanwhile,

102
there are 9 out of 15 farmers (60.00%) without irrigation who have a mass of 50
kilograms for their rice sacks, 4 respondents (26.67%) for a mass of 60 kilograms, and 2
out of 15 respondents (13.33%) have 56 kilograms for the mass of an individual rice
sack. Lastly, the average mass of rice sacks of farmers with irrigation is 53.47 kilograms.
According to the results, it is hence concluded that the average mass of rice sacks of
farmers without irrigation. Moreover, the range of mass of rice sacks for farmers
with irrigation is more varied than that of the farmers without irrigation.
These findings support the results of a study conducted in 2018 entitled “A re-
examination of the impact of irrigation on rice production in Benin: An application of the
endogenous switching model.” Their results indicate that irrigation affects positively the
level of rice yield. Thus, irrigation adoption may explain the important difference in rice
yield observed between irrigated and rain fed rice farmers in barangay Pantubig.
B. Profit Gained from Harvesting;

103
Irrigation
Paddy Rice
F % F %
0.90 1 6.67% 0.87 1 6.67%
0.83 1 6.67% 0.70 1 6.67%
0.80 2 13.33% 0.66 1 6.67%
0.76 1 6.67% 0.63 1 6.67%
0.65 1 6.67% 0.50 1 6.67%
0.63 1 6.67% 0.46 1 6.67%
0.57 1 6.67% 0.45 1 6.67%
0.55 1 6.67% 0.42 1 6.67%
0.53 1 6.67% 0.37 1 6.67%
0.46 1 6.67% 0.36 1 6.67%
0.39 1 6.67% N/A 5 33.33%
0.525 15 100.00%

104
Irrigation.
Milled Rice
F % F %
0.30 1 6.67% 0.143 1 6.67%
0.27 1 6.67% 0.125 1 6.67%
N/A 13 86.67% N/A 13 86.67%
0.0200 15 100.00% 0.0179 15 100.00%

105

F % F % F % F % F % F %
12 80.00% 3 20.00 15 100.00% 11 73.33% 4 26.67 15 100.00%
% %
respectively.

F % F % F % F % F % F %
4 26.67% 11 73.33 15 100.00% 10 66.67% 5 33.33 15 100.00%
% %

106
irrigation, with a result of 11 out of 15 respondents (73.33%), answered “None”, while 4
answered “None”. Conclusively, the data in the table infer that there is a contrasting

Farmers Farmers
F % F %
Income Income
iii. Seasonality of 0 0.00% iii. Seasonality of 3 20.00%
Capital Capital
vi. No Response 11 73.33% No Response 0 0.00%
TOTAL 15 100.00% TOTAL 15 100.00%

107
farms.

(PHP) F % (PHP) F %
34 531.00 1 6.67% 20 933.00 1 6.67%
27 916.00 1 6.67% 16 666.00 1 6.67%
22 333.00 1 6.67% 15 733.00 1 6.67%

108
18 583.00 1 6.67% 8 000.00 1 6.67%

17 676.00 1 6.67% 7 000.00 1 6.67%
15 975.00 1 6.67% 6 925.00 1 6.67%
10 850.00 1 6.67% 6 641.00 1 6.67%
10 666.00 1 6.67% 5 666.00 1 6.67%
10 400.00 1 6.67% 4 880.00 1 6.67%
9 600.00 1 6.67% 4 145.00 1 6.67%
2 985.00 1 6.67% 4 000.00 1 6.67%
2 483.00 1 6.67% 2 750.00 1 6.67%
1 333.00 1 6.67% 1 958.00 1 6.67%
1 020.00 1 6.67% 1 750.00 1 6.67%
875.00 1 6.67% 500.00 1 6.67%
PHP 12 481.73 15 100.00% PHP 7 169.80 15 100.00%

109
irrigation.
These findings are supported by the findings of Nonvide (2018) which state that
high profitability from irrigated rice farming, the importance given to expenses for
The table below shows the amount of irrigation expenses of farmers with
irrigation. Every amount was determined according to the designed equation stated in the
statistical treatment which equates to the total amount of irrigation expenses (PHP)
divided by the land area with irrigation (sq2m).
Table 67. Amount of Irrigation Expenses of Farmers with Irrigation per Square

Amount of Irrigation Number of Farmers
Expenses (PHP) per sq2m F %
0.88 1 6.67%
0.83 1 6.67%
0.82 1 6.67%
0.43 1 6.67%
0.34 1 6.67%
0.25 2 13.33%
0.15 1 6.67%

110
0.14 1 6.67%
0.13 1 6.67%
0.12 2 13.33%
0.00 3 20.00%
AVERAGE TOTAL
PHP 0.297 per sq2m 15 100.00%
farmers who only have irrigation when they were asked about their irrigation expenses
per square meter of their land area. According to the results, 3 out of 15 respondents
(20.00%) had no response, 2 out of 15 respondents (13.33%) for each of irrigation
expenses amount of 0.25 PHP/sq2m and 0.12 PHP/sq2m, and 1 out of 15 respondents
(6.67%) for every amount of the following (descending order): 0.88 PHP/sq 2m, 0.83
PHP/sq2m, and 0.13 PHP/sq2m. Lastly, the average amount of irrigation expenses per
square meter of farmers with irrigation is PHP 0.297. Conclusively, most of the farmers
with irrigation have various amounts of irrigation expenses per square meter of
their land area.
Table 68. Monthly Profit of Farmers without Irrigation

Monthly Profit Number of Farmers
(PHP) F %
20 933.00 1 6.67%
16 666.00 1 6.67%
15 733.00 1 6.67%
8 000.00 1 6.67%
7 000.00 1 6.67%
6 925.00 1 6.67%

111
6 641.00 1 6.67%
5 666.00 1 6.67%
4 880.00 1 6.67%
4 145.00 1 6.67%
4 000.00 1 6.67%
2 750.00 1 6.67%
1 958.00 1 6.67%
1 750.00 1 6.67%
500.00 1 6.67%
AVERAGE TOTAL
PHP 7 169.80 15 100.00%
farmers without irrigation who do have the following amounts of monthly profit
individually (one respondent for every monthly amount with a 6.67%) in a descending
order: PHP 20 933.00, PHP 16 666.00, PHP 15 733.00, PHP 8 000.00, PHP 7 000.00,
PHP 6 925.00, PHP 6 641.00, PHP 5 666.00, PHP 4 880.00, PHP 4 145.00, PHP 4
000.00, PHP 2 750.00, PHP 1 958.00, PHP 1 750.00, and PHP 500.00. Clearly, the table
shows that the average monthly profit of the farmers without irrigation is PHP 7
169.80.
Table 69. Source of Credit of Farmers without Irrigation

Source of Credit Number of Farmers
F %
1. Bank 0 0.00%
2. Lending 2 13.33%
Company
3. Family 6 40.00%
Member
4. NGO/ONG 0 0.00%
5. Others 0 0.00%

112
TOTAL 15 100.00%
farmers without irrigation when they were asked about the source of their credit. Based
on the results, majority of farmers without irrigation had “No Response”, with a result of
7 out of 15 respondents (46.67%), 6 respondents (40.00%) answered “Family Member”,
while 2 out of 15 respondents answered “Lending Company”. There were no any
responses for the other given options. To sum it up, majority of farmers without
irrigation had given no response. Whereas, for those who have answers responded
that they primarily acquire their credit from sources such as banks, lending
companies, and family members.
These findings show that, based on their monthly income, the farmers cannot
afford to sustain or even build an irrigation canal or infrastructure, which is similar to the
findings of Nonvide (2018) that dry land farmers reported that they cannot afford the high
cost of irrigation. Even the irrigators have cited this as a major constraint they
encountered.
CHAPTER V
Summary of Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations

113
This chapter contains a description of the findings, which are interpreted and
discussed, based on the data collected in the Chapter IV of this study. The results from
the comparison of the production of rice and socioeconomic status of farmers with and
without irrigation were also discussed, as were the conclusions drawn from the findings.
Furthermore, the answers to the research questions, as well as their consequences, are
revealed in this section. And, the explained recommendations were focused on the
research paper's findings, objectives, and beneficiaries of the study.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The summary of findings presented below has provided answers to the statement
of the problem of this research, which are based on the data gathered.
 Comparatively, the average years in rice farming of farmers without irrigation is
higher compared to the average years of farmers with irrigation. However, it appears
that the ranges of farming within farmers with irrigation are more varied than that of
 To put it briefly, the number of respondents for farmers with and without irrigation
are equal, as per what was planned by the researchers and required by the quota
sampling technique of and sample size needed for the present research.
 As a result, the average rate of rice quantity produced by farmers with irrigation is
comparatively higher than that of the farmers without irrigation. Moreover, the range
of individual rates in farmers with irrigation is wider than the farmers without
irrigation.

114
 According to the results, it is hence concluded that the average mass of rice sacks of
farmers without irrigation. Moreover, the range of mass of rice sacks for farmers with
irrigation is more varied than that of the farmers without irrigation.
 Hence, the results presented in the table above reveals that the average amount of
capital used by farmers with irrigation is higher compared to that of the farmers
without irrigation.
 Conclusively, most of the farmers with irrigation have various amounts of irrigation
expenses per square meter of their land area.
 According to the table, it appears that the average value of kilograms of fertilizers
applied per square meter of the farmers with irrigation is greater than that of the
 Based on the table, the average amount of workforce expenditures of farmers with
irrigation is clearly higher than that of the farmers without irrigation. Additionally,
the range of expenses for farmers with irrigation is more varied than the farmers
without irrigation.
 Convincingly, the table shows that most of the farmers, both with and without
irrigation, need credit.
 Based from the table, the farmers with and without irrigation have the same number
of respondents who had no response and who responded; however, the average
amount of credit that they have used per square meter is totally different. Prior to the
difference, the average amount of credit used by the farmers with irrigation is higher
compared to that of the farmers without irrigation.

115
 Based on the table, it appears that the average rate of the paddy rice sacks sold by the
farmers with irrigation is moderately higher compared to the rate of the paddy rice
sacks sold by the farmers without irrigation. Moreover, the farmers with irrigation
have a smaller number of respondents with no available rate of paddy rice sacks sold
than that of the farmers without irrigation.
 As what is presented in the table, it is conclusive that the number of farmers with and
without irrigation, which has no available rate of milled rice sacks sold, are equal.
However, with a few number of respondents who answered the question, it is still
evident that the farmers with irrigation has a higher average rate of milled rice sacks
sold than the farmers without irrigation.
 Briefly, the results implied that majority of the farmers with and without irrigation
has rice cultivation as their main occupation, having only three and four respondents
who answered otherwise for farmers with irrigation and without, respectively.
 Conclusively, the data in the table infer that there is a contrasting result between
farmers with and without irrigation as the majority of the farmers with irrigation
answered that they have no other occupation aside from farming, but majority of the
farmers without irrigation responded otherwise.
 In accordance to the table, the results show that the number of farmers with irrigation
that has no response, which means that they have no other outside activities, is higher
compared to the number of farmers without irrigation. Meanwhile, it is
comprehensible that the farmers without irrigation do engage themselves more with
outside activities aside from farming than the farmers with irrigation.

116
 Clearly, the table shows that there is a huge difference between the average monthly
profit of farmers with and without irrigation, having the average monthly profit of the
farmers with irrigation relatively greater than that of the farmers without irrigation.
 Overall, the results appear that majority of the respondents from both farmers with
and without irrigation have the common type of labor which is the use of machine,
next is the use of human labor, and animal traction is the least favored.
 Evidently, based on the table, it shows that both farmers with and without irrigation
use fertilizers on their rice crops.
 In conclusion, the types of fertilizers which has the numerous respondents among the
farmers with irrigation are “Complete fertilizers” while “Urea” is the most used by
farmers without irrigation. Meanwhile, both farmers with and without irrigation have
the same number of responses for using “Urea”. However, fertilizers such as Nitrogen
Phosphate, Potassium Phosphate, and Potash are the least used.
 In accordance to the table, the results showed that the number of farmers with
irrigation that has no response, which means that they have no other outside activities,
is higher compared to the number of farmers without irrigation. Meanwhile, it is

117
comprehensible that the farmers without irrigation do engage themselves more with
outside activities aside from farming than the farmers with irrigation.
 The results in the table manifested that there is a huge difference between the answers
of the farmers with and without irrigation about their reasons for participating to
farmers without irrigation do have other activities aside from facilitating their farms.
 According to the data presented in the table, it is distinctive to conclude that the
average monthly expenses of the farmers with irrigation is moderately higher than
that of the farmers without irrigation.
 According to the results, the priorities of expenses of farmers with and without
irrigation are relatively similar with one another as all of the respondents’ top priority
for their expenses is food. Meanwhile, health and education are the least favored
options.
of individual rates in farmers with irrigation is wider than that of the farmers without
irrigation.
 In conclusion, majority of the farmers without irrigation answered that “Availability
Constraints” limit themselves from accessing or using irrigation.

118
 To put it briefly, majority of the farmers without irrigation answered “Rain Fed” as
their own alternative or usage to irrigate their soil.
farmers with irrigation are “Complete fertilizers” while “Urea” is the most used by
farmers without irrigation. Meanwhile, both farmers with and without irrigation have
the same number of responses for using “Urea”. However, fertilizers such as Nitrogen
 Based on the table, the average amount of workforce expenditures of farmers with
irrigation is clearly higher than that of the farmers without irrigation. Additionally,
the range of expenses for farmers with irrigation is more varied than the farmers
without irrigation.
 Convincingly, the table shows that most of the farmers, both with and without
irrigation, need credit.
 Based from the table, the farmers with and without irrigation have the same number
of respondents who had no response and who responded; however, the average
amount of credit that they have used per square meter is totally different. Prior to the
difference, the average amount of credit used by the farmers with irrigation is higher
compared to that of the farmers without irrigation.

119
 Based from what is presented in the table, the data imply that majority of the farmers
with and without irrigation had no response when they were asked why they did not
apply for credit. Furthermore, based from the reasons given by the respondents, most
of them opted not to borrow money because it is unnecessary for them.
 Briefly, the results in the table implied that majority of the farmers with and without
irrigation has rice cultivation as their main occupation, having only three and four
respectively.

120
 According to the data presented in the table, it is distinctive to conclude that the
average monthly expenses of the farmers with irrigation is moderately higher than
that of the farmers without irrigation.
 In statement letter A; 15 farmers with irrigation answered “Yes” and none of them
answered “No” that using irrigation may lead to crop yield improvement.
 In statement letter B; 15 farmers with irrigation answered “Yes” and none of them
answered “No” that irrigation development creates employment opportunity.
 In statement letter C; 15 farmers with irrigation answered “Yes” and none of them
answered “No” that the use of irrigation is an insurance against drought.
 In statement letter D; 15 farmers with irrigation answered “Yes” and none of them
answered “No” that irrigation ensures high income.
 In statement letter E; 15 farmers with irrigation answered “Yes” and none of them
answered “No” that irrigation may contribute to achieve food security in their
community.

121
 In statement letter F; 15 farmers with irrigation answered “Yes” and none of them
answered “No” that irrigation may lead to poverty reduction.
 In statement letter G; 14 farmers with irrigation answered “Yes” and 1 of them
answered “No” that irrigation increases the cost of rice production.
 In statement letter H; 14 farmers with irrigation answered “Yes” and 1 of them
answered “No” that irrigation maximizes the return on other inputs such as fertilizer,
labor, etc.
 In statement letter I; 14 farmers with irrigation answered “Yes” and 1 of them
answered “No” that the development of irrigation contributes to reducing out
migration.
 In statement letter J; 15 farmers with irrigation answered “Yes” and none of them
answered “No” that irrigation water has multiple use including agriculture, domestic,
and livestock uses.
 In statement letter A; 14 farmers without irrigation answered “Yes” and 1 of them
answered “No” that using irrigation may lead to crop yield improvement.
 In statement letter B; 12 farmers without irrigation answered “Yes” and 3 of them
answered “No” that irrigation development creates employment opportunity.
 In statement letter C; 14 farmers without irrigation answered “Yes” and 1 of them
answered “No” that the use of irrigation is an insurance against drought.
 In statement letter D; 14 farmers without irrigation answered “Yes” and 1 of them
answered “No” that irrigation ensures high income.

122
 In statement letter E; 14 farmers without irrigation answered “Yes” and 1 of them
answered “No” that irrigation may contribute to achieve food security in their
community.
 In statement letter F; 11 farmers without irrigation answered “Yes” and 4 of them
answered “No” that irrigation may lead to poverty reduction.
 In statement letter G; 14 farmers without irrigation answered “Yes” and 1 of them
answered “No” that irrigation increases the cost of rice production.
 In statement letter H; 12 farmers without irrigation answered “Yes” and 3 of them
answered “No” that irrigation maximizes the return on other inputs such as fertilizer,
labor, etc.
 In statement letter I; 13 farmers without irrigation answered “Yes” and 2 of them
answered “No” that the development of irrigation contributes to reducing out
migration.
 In statement letter J; 15 farmers without irrigation answered “Yes” and none of
them answered “No” that irrigation water has multiple use including agriculture,
 To put it briefly, majority of the farmers without irrigation answered “Rain Fed” as
their own alternative or usage to irrigate their soil.
 Overall, the results appear that majority of the respondents without irrigation have the
common type of labor which is the use of machine, next is the use of human labor,
and animal traction is the least favored.

123
farmers without irrigation are “Urea”. However, fertilizers such as Nitrogen
applied per square meter of the farmers without irrigation is 0.0347 kg per sq²m.
of individual rates in farmers with irrigation is wider than that of the farmers without
irrigation.
 According to the results, it is hence concluded that the average mass of rice sacks of
farmers without irrigation. Moreover, the range of mass of rice sacks for farmers with
irrigation is more varied than that of the farmers without irrigation.

124
 Briefly, the results in the table implied that majority of the farmers with and without
irrigation has rice cultivation as their main occupation, having only three and four
respectively.
 Conclusively, most of the farmers with irrigation have various amount of irrigation
expenses per square meter of their land area.
 Clearly, the table shows that the average monthly profit of the farmers without
irrigation is PHP 7 169.80.
 To sum it up, majority of farmers without irrigation had given no response. Whereas,
for those who have answers responded that they primarily acquire their credit from
sources such as banks, lending companies, and family members.

125
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions were drawn:
Specific Problems:
1. What is the respondents’ profile in terms of:
a. Years of Farming;
The results showed that the rice farming years of farmers with and without
irrigation both range from one to sixty years. Meanwhile, the farming years of farmers
with irrigation are more varied in terms of range than the farmers without irrigation.
However, despite the farmers with irrigation being varied in farming years, the farmers
without irrigation still have a greater average number of years of farming than the other
group.
b. Access to Irrigation;
The number of respondents of farmers with and without irrigation are equal due to
the quota sampling technique that was applied to get the sample size of the population
and the population’s limiting members of group which are the farmers without irrigation.
Because of these considered factors, both samples from both groups had fifteen
respondents each with a total of thirty respondents from the farmers’ population of
barangay Pantubig.

126
2. What are the differences of having and not having irrigation for farmers that can
be identified through following factors:
a. Quantity of Rice Harvested;
Firstly, the average rate of rice quantity produced per square meter of total land
area by farmers with irrigation is comparatively higher than the average rate of rice
quantity produced by farmers without irrigation. Second, the average mass of common
rice sacks of farmers with irrigation is also higher compared to the average mass of
common rice sacks of farmers without irrigation. Moreover, the range of mass of
common rice sacks of farmers with irrigation is more varied than that of the farmers
having no irrigation.
This conclusion is supported by the results of a study conducted in 2018 entitled
“A re-examination of the impact of irrigation on rice production in Benin: An application
of the endogenous switching model.” In relation to this conclusion, their results also
indicated that irrigation affects positively the level of rice yield.
b. Profit Gained from Harvesting;
Before determining the average monthly profit of farmers from both groups, there
are a list of expenses and factors affecting their monthly salary, and it mainly includes the
following:
Firstly, the average amount of capital used by farmers with irrigation per square
meter of their land area is higher compared to the capital used by farmers without
irrigation. Second is the amount of irrigation expenses of farmers with irrigation. Third,

127
the average amount of workforce expenditures lent by farmers with irrigation to the total
number of their workers is higher compared to the average amount of workforce
expenditures of farmers without irrigation. Fourth is the average amount of credit per
square meter of total land area of farmers from both groups. Farmers with irrigation have
a greater average amount of credit than farmers without irrigation. Fifth, the average rates
of paddy and milled rice sacks sold by farmers with irrigation also are both higher
compared to the average rates of paddy and milled rice sacks sold by farmers without
irrigation. And the final factor is all about the outside activities of farmers from both
groups. Based on the results, the farmers without irrigation do engage themselves more
with outside activities aside from farming.
With all of the stated expenses and factors affecting the monthly profit of the
farmers, which are quantified by a justified scoring guide of equations, it is conclusive
that there is a large difference between the average monthly profit of farmers with and
without irrigation, having the monthly profit of farmers with irrigation greater than that of
This conclusion is supported by the findings of Nonvide (2018) which states that
high profitability from irrigated rice farming, the importance given to expenses for
c. Technique and Style of Farming;

128
Firstly, majority of the respondents from both groups have the common type of
labor for their land preparation which is the use of machine, next is the human labor, and
the least favored is animal traction. It is concluded that both groups share the same
responses when they were asked about the type of the labor they used for their land
preparation. Second, all of the farmers from both groups used fertilizers on their rice
crops. Most of the farmers with irrigation used complete fertilizer while urea is the most
favored fertilizer for farmers having no irrigation. However, the two groups only differ
with the average amount of fertilizers (in kilograms) they used. It is clearly assumable
that farmers with irrigation applied more fertilizers than farmers without irrigation.
Similar to the findings of Nonvide (2018), there are positive and significant
effects found for the input variables to the increase of rice yield, and eventually, the
farmer’s profit. The results indicated positive sign for the interactions between use of
irrigation, machineries, fertilizers, and farm labor to the increase of rice yield.
Firstly, it is concluded that farmers with irrigation focus more on their farmlands
compared to the other group since farmers without irrigation do have other occupations
aside from farming. In conclusion, engaging with outside activities is not necessary for
farmers with irrigation. Moreover, the reasons of farmers without irrigation for
participating to outside activities from farm are varied. Their answers involve that they
have a limited agricultural income, a large family, lack of capital, or they are affected by
the seasonality of agriculture.

129
Meanwhile, the average monthly expenses and profit of both groups largely differ
from one another too, having the farmers with irrigation leading both areas, and leaving
farmers without irrigation significantly behind. On the other hand, both groups do have
the same major priorities for their expenses, having food as the most favored, next are
utilities, transaction, health, and the least is education. Therefore, it is completely evident
that having irrigation affect the economic lifestyle of farmers; nonetheless, both groups
still have the same priorities for their expenses.
A 2017 study entitled “Influencing Factors of the Adoption of Agricultural
Irrigation Technologies and the Economic Returns: A Case Study in Chaiyaphum
Province, Thailand” also concluded that irrigation has a significant and positive impact
on the farmers economic lifestyle. It was stated that when irrigation is applied, rice yield
increases, driving the profit of the famers to increase as well, thus, making a positive
impact to their economic lifestyle.
farmers?
The advantages of having irrigation for farmers is that they have a higher and
wider rice quantity production, high income, protection against drought and food
security, and higher rate of paddy and milled rice sacks sold. Next, there is security for
food crops for communities, insurance against drought, crop yield improvement,
employment opportunities, which reduce poverty and increase the cost of rice production.

130
On the other hand, the disadvantages of having irrigation are the increase of irrigation
expenses, workforce expenditures, and usage of credit and fertilizers per square meter.
For farmers without irrigation, their main advantage is that they have less
expenses for their rice farming. They also have more involvement for related activities
aside from focusing on one occupation, which, most likely, is rice farming. However,
making or finding new jobs is the effect of the reason behind their poor farming status.
Moreover, they are in short of income, and their rice production is significantly lower
compared to the farmers who have access to irrigation.
These findings are connected with a 2018 study titled "Resilience of Irrigation
Systems to Climate Variability and Change: A Review of the Adaptive Capacity of
Philippine Irrigation Systems," which found that farmers need a reliable water supply to
adapt to changing climate patterns. Shorter harvest periods each year and a high crop
yield during harvest would be possible with a reliable water supply. Farmers would be
able to earn more money, improve their socioeconomic status and lifestyle, and ensure
household food security as a result of this. In addition, according to Nonvide (2018),
there is a positive correlation between irrigation adoption and food security. Farmers who
use irrigation have a higher chance of being food secure than farmers who do not use
irrigation. Despite these advantages, a small percentage of farmers in barangay Pantubig
who have access to irrigation remain impoverished. Irrigation would not guarantee that
their socioeconomic status and lifestyle would improve, nor would it ensure household
food security.

131
rice crops? Are these efficient or not based on the factors mentioned above?
Based on the results, it is determined that majority of farmers who do not have
irrigation use “rain fed” method to water and grow their rice crops. Meanwhile, the least
of them grow their rice crops by utilizing a source of natural body of water that is near to
their farm land area. Since irrigation is restricted depending on the area, farmers use
weather as an alternative to irrigate their soil. On the other hand, there is still a huge
difference of using the mentioned alternatives from farmers with irrigation, due to the
higher amount of harvest and profit they produced. Hence, these are not satisfyingly
efficient compared to farmers having irrigation.
In similarity with the study of Nonvide (2018), this conclusion is supported by the
results which indicate that irrigation affects positively the level of rice yield. Thus
irrigation adoption may explain the important difference in rice yield observed between
irrigated and rain fed rice farmers in barangay Pantubig. In addition, the related research
states that irrigated rice farming is more profitable than farming without irrigation. With
regard to high profitability from irrigated rice farming, the importance given to expenses
for irrigation was justified. Lastly, there is a positive and significant effects found for the
input variables to the increase of rice yield, and eventually, the farmer’s profit. The
results indicated a positive sign for the interactions between use of irrigation,
machineries, fertilizer, and farm labor to the increase of rice yield.

132
Conclusively, irrigation is based on the availability depending on the farmland
area; nonetheless, farmers without irrigation have low monthly profit. With regard to the
prior matter, it is decisively expected that they will not be able to raise a budget to build
an infrastructure for irrigation. On the other hand, the local government still does make
an action concerning about the discussed matter; however, as what was mentioned,
irrigation is limited, and consequently, not all farmers will not have the benefit to be able
to establish an irrigation infrastructure on their land area.
This conclusion shows that based on their monthly income, the farmers cannot
afford to sustain or even build an irrigation canal or infrastructure, which is similar to the
findings of Nonvide (2018) that dry land farmers’ survey reported that they cannot afford
the high cost of irrigation. Moreover, even the irrigators have also cited this as a major
constraint they encountered.
Finally, the conclusions to the specific problems of the research sought to provide
answers for the general problem of the study. The following are the conclusions made for
the general problem based on the preceding conclusions to the specific problems:
General Problem: Do having and not having irrigation create effects on the farmers’
production of rice and socioeconomic status in barangay Pantubig, San Rafael, Bulacan?
According to the gathered data, having and not having irrigation significantly
create effects on the farmers’ production of rice and socioeconomic status in barangay

133
Pantubig, San Rafael, Bulacan. Having irrigation patently increases the rate, mass, and
amount of average rice sacks sold by farmers. With an increase in production of rice, may
it be paddy or milled, it will eventually result to an increase in the profit of farmers, as
what was shown from the results. Therefore, it is conclusive that the three variables,
which include having irrigation, rice production, and socioeconomic status of farmers,
affect its succeeding variable. In other words, having irrigation increases the rice
production of farmers, while increasing the rice production will also result to an increase
in the profit of farmers which determines their socioeconomic status. Furthermore,
having irrigation provides more opportunities for farmers with regard to their production
of rice and socioeconomic status.
On the other hand, it is evident that not having irrigation limits the farmers from
many opportunities in farming, and it also creates low benefits to them. When the rice
production of farmers without irrigation is compared to that of the farmers with irrigation,
it is clear that they have lower results of rice production in both areas, may it be paddy or
milled rice. Moreover, it also has given them a disadvantage, wherein, they still had to
engage themselves with outside activities from farm for them to increase their monthly
profit. And, in terms of their socioeconomic status, in spite of them having other jobs or
occupations, they still come up with an average monthly profit that is noticeably lower
than that of the farmers having irrigation on their farmland. Conclusively, there is a large
discrepancy between the farmers’ production of rice and socioeconomic status of both
groups.
The preceding conclusions made are similarly related to the conclusions provided
in the research of Nonvide (2018), where the standardized instrument for the present

134
study has come from. Firstly, the input variables have a positive and significant effects to
increase the rice yield and profit of farmers. These input variables include the types of
labor used by farmers for their land preparation such as machineries, human labor, and
animal tractions and, the technique and style that they apply such as fertilizers.
Secondly, the income inequality for farmers without irrigation is significantly
higher compared to the farmers with irrigation. He even added that there is a positive
correlation between adoption of irrigation and food security. His results showed that there
is a higher probability for farmers with irrigation being food-secured compared to the
non-irrigation farmers. This effect is due to the income inequality that farmers without
irrigation experience.
Thirdly, according to the similar research, irrigated rice farming is more profitable
than farming without irrigation. This conclusion is highly similar with the conclusion of
the present research, wherein, farmers who have irrigation create more profit than those
who have none. Moreover, as regards to high profitability of irrigated rice farming, the
importance given to expenses for irrigation is still justified.
Lastly, similar results between the tackled research and present study were shown
in terms of the ability of farmers to provide, sustain, or establish an irrigation canal or
infrastructure. It is concluded that dry land farmers reported that they cannot afford the
high cost of building a new irrigation. Likewise, due to the monthly income of farmers
without irrigation in the current research, it is hence determined that they, too, cannot
afford to build one.

135
RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of the findings of this study and interpretation of data, the following
recommendations are hereby offered:
1. The municipal government, National Irrigation Administration and other concerned
agencies are recommended to:
 give subsidies on the farmers’ expenses in irrigation like their expense in fuel for
their water pump because some of their lands are located above the ground level
of the irrigation;
 hold seminars for new techniques and style in farming for the farmers to be able
to adapt to the modern strategies that foreign countries are implementing;
 build more irrigation infrastructures and water pump that can be powered by solar
panels to reduce energy expenses to reach the farms located at a higher ground
level;
 acquire enough modern machineries that can be borrowed by the farmers for free
to reduce expenses in renting machineries such as automated rice harvesting
machine, land tilling machines, etc.;
 research and provide for hybrid seeds that have a high rice yield and high quality
that can grow without the need for stable and large amount of water;
 research and provide seeds for alternative crops that do not require irrigation and
large amount of water to grow when farmers are not planting rice;
 offer credits to farmers with little to zero interest to increase their profit; and

136
 buy the harvest of farmers on a lightly higher price then sell to the market without
much revenue to increase the farmers’ profit and provide a lower price alternative
for the consumers to buy in order to increase the town’s food security.
Through these recommendations, the municipal government, National Irrigation
Administration and other concerned organizations would increase the food security in the
locality of the area. This would also boost the local economy, for farming is one of the
main sources of income in the town. These could inspire other localities to implement the
said recommendations to further help their local farmers.
2. Farmers and their families are recommended to:
 acquire and look for hybrid rice seeds that can bring higher yield with high
quality, and at the same time, it can grow without requiring a large amount of
water;
 research and learn the application of organic fertilizer to reduce input expenses;
 shift to fully automated machines, instead of human labor, in preparing, planting
and harvesting rice crops to increase time efficiency and reduce expenses;
 attend seminars and lessons to upgrade and keep up their style and technique to
what modern foreign countries do;

137
 plant crops during the times they are not able to plant rice, wherein, these crops
would not require a lot of input such as fertilizer, labor force, etc., and would not
cause the farmers to need irrigation to water their farmland; and
 consider selling their harvest as milled rice to the market for it increases the value
of crops rather than selling it as paddy rice.
These recommendations could increase the farmer’s profit, farmland efficiency,
improve their families’ economic lifestyle, open new opportunities in agriculture, and
encourage younger generations to participate and engage themselves in farming.
3. Future researchers are recommended to:
 observe a larger area and population;
 apply a Results-Based Management framework on their research to ensure that
the study will be able to do something for the concerned people and
organizations;
 gather more data such as the effects of application of fertilizers, irrigation
management, irrigation infrastructure’s climate change resiliency, management
and modernization, and government intervention to the problem.
Through these recommendations, the future researchers could be able to come up
with a more comprehensive study. They could also be able to solve the problems that
they would find after conducting their own research.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

138
Delos Reyes, M. L. (2017). Modernizations strategy for national irrigation systems in the
Philippines. https://www.un-ihe.org/sites/default/files/2017_unesco-
ihe_phd_thesis_delos_reyes_i.pdf
Inocensio, A. (2018). Current challenges in agricultural water resource development and
management in the Philippines. https://www.dlsu.edu.ph/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/1-
inocencio-072418.pdf
Abid, M., Scheffran, J., Schneider, U., Ashfaq, M. (2015). Farmers' perceptions of and
adaptation strategies to climate change and their determinants: The case of Punjab
province, Pakistan. Earth System Dynamics, 6(.5194/esd-6-225-2015), 225-243.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/276064706_Farmers'_perceptions_of_and_adap
tation_strategies_to_climate_change_and_their_determinants_The_case_of_Punjab_prov
ince_Pakistan
San Rafael Municipal Agricultural Office (2017). General agricultural profile for year.
http://sanrafael.gov.ph/aboutus/socio-economic-profile/agriculture/
Nonvide, G. (2018). A re-examination of the impact of irrigation on rice production in
Benin: An application of the endogenous switching model.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-8268.12266
Kasetsart Journal of Social Sciences (10.1016/j.kjss.2017.12.020)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323171295_A_re-
examination_of_the_impact_of_irrigation_on_rice_production_in_Benin_An_application
_of_the_endogenous_switching_model

139
van Rooyen, A. F., Ramshaw P., Moyo, M., Stirzaker, R., & Bjornlund, H. (2017).
Theory and application of agricultural innovation platforms for improved irrigation
scheme management in Southern Africa.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07900627.2017.1321530
Podimata, M. V., & Yannopoulos, P. C. (2015). Evolution of game theory application in
irrigation systems.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2210784315000947?
fbclid=IwAR1jw-LUlQJBKKZQNI1Pg09U4txR_xvTqE3kh_U7031d0JE3kXjKl5axlcs
Chauhan, G. S. (2018). Environmental impact of irrigation.
https://madhavuniversity.edu.in/environmental-impact-of-irrigation.html
Agriculture Victoria (2018). Farm management. Irrigation Management.
https://agriculture.vic.gov.au/farm-management/water/irrigation/irrigation-management
Bhuiyan, T. (2020). Advantages and disadvantages of irrigation systems.
https://civiltoday.com/water-resource-engineering/irrigation/268-advantages-and-
disadvantages-of-irrigation
Pro Green Irrigation (2017). The top 5 benefits of having an irrigation system installed.
http://progreenirrigation.com/top-5-benefits-irrigation-system-installed/
Shah, H. (2019). Advantages & disadvantages of irrigation systems.
https://mydecorative.com/advantages-disadvantages-of-irrigation-systems/

140
Ray, R. L., Fares, A., & Risch E. (2018). Effects of drought on crop production and
cropping areas in Texas
https://acsess.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.2134/ael2017.11.0037
Cho, R. (2018). How climate change will alter our food.
https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2018/07/25/climate-change-food-agriculture/
Monthly Agriculture (2018). Philippine agriculture saddled by poor irrigation systems.
https://www.agriculture.com.ph/2018/02/12/philippine-agriculture-saddled-by-poor-
irrigation-systems/
Kankam, T. (2017). 5 types of irrigation, why they are critical to the success of your
crops. https://nobowa.com/types-of-irrigation/
Hadju, I. (2017) Sustainable farm practices for rice farming.
https://blog.agrivi.com/post/sustainable-farm-practices-for-rice-farming
Imperial, C. M., Antonio, E. D., Dallo, E. M., Samson, M. C. B., & Soriano, C. D.
(2017). Kayamanan, Ekononomiks, Batayan at sanayang aklat sa Araling Panlipunan
(2017 New Edition). Rex Book Store, Inc.
Jägermeyr, J., Gerten, D., Heinke, J., Schaphoff, S., Kummu, M. & Lucht, W. (2015).
Water savings potentials of irrigation systems: Global simulation of processes and
linkages. 19(10.5194/hess-19-3073-2015), 3073-3091.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/280014032_Water_savings_potentials_of_irrig
ation_systems_Global_simulation_of_processes_and_linkages

141
Chuchird, R., Sasaki, N., Abe, I. (2017). Influencing factors of the adoption of
agricultural irrigation technologies and the economic returns: A case study in
Chaiyaphum Province, Thailand. Sustainability, 9.(10.3390/su9091524)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319328787_Influencing_Factors_of_the_Adopt
ion_of_Agricultural_Irrigation_Technologies_and_the_Economic_Returns_A_Case_Stud
y_in_Chaiyaphum_Province_Thailand
Ogunniyi, A., Bolarin, O., Abioye, O., Olagunju, K. (2018). Impact of irrigation
technology use on crop yield, crop income and household food security in Nigeria: A
treatment effect approach. AIMS Agriculture and Food, 3(10.3934/agrfood.2018.2.154),
154-171.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326269384_Impact_of_irrigation_technology_u
se_on_crop_yield_crop_income_and_household_food_security_in_Nigeria_A_treatment
_effect_approach
Decena, F. L. (2016). Analysis of the effects of various irrigation service fees for national
irrigation systems in the Philippines. https://ap.fftc.org.tw/article/1017
Pék, É., Fertő, I., Alobid, M. (2019). Evaluating the effect of farmers’ participation in
irrigation management on farm productivity and profitability in the Mubuku Irrigation
Scheme, Uganda. Water 11, 11(2413). https://doi.org/10.3390/w11112413
Kyaw, N., Ahn, S., Lee, S. (2018). Analysis of the factors influencing market
participation among smallholder rice farmers in Magway Region, Central Dry Zone of
Myanmar. Sustainability, 10(10.3390/su10124441).
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/329224582_Analysis_of_the_Factors_Influenci

142
ng_Market_Participation_among_Smallholder_Rice_Farmers_in_Magway_Region_Cent
ral_Dry_Zone_of_Myanmar
Njeru, T., Mano, Y., Otsuka, K. (2015). Role of access to credit in rice production in
Sub-Saharan Africa: The case of Mwea Irrigation Scheme in Kenya. Journal of African
Economies, 25(10.1093/jae/ejv024)
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284197165_Role_of_Access_to_Credit_in_Ric
e_Production_in_Sub-
Saharan_Africa_The_Case_of_Mwea_Irrigation_Scheme_in_Kenya
Daniel, Z. (2015). The impact of irrigation schemes on farmers’ income and livelihood in
the Upper East Region of Ghana.
http://ir.knust.edu.gh/bitstream/123456789/8196/1/FINAL%20THESIS-ZIBA
%20DANIEL.pdf
Fiaz, S., Noor, M. A., Mobeen, N. (2016). Effects of irrigation water on rural farming
families of District Faisalabad, Punjab, Pakistan. Journal of Global Innovations in
Agricultural and Social Sciences (JGIASS), 4(10.17957/JGIASS/4.1.726), 23-28.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299594484_EFFECTS_OF_IRRIGATION_W
ATER_MANAGEMENT_ON_RURAL_FARMING_FAMILIES_OF_DISTRICT_FAIS
ALABAD_PUNJAB_PAKISTAN

143
APPENDICES
Appendix 1. Modified Research Instrument
A Comparative Research on the Effects of Having and Not Having Irrigation on the Farmers’
Production of Rice and Socioeconomic Status in Barangay Pantubig, San Rafael, Bulacan
Target Group: Rice farmers in barangay Pantubig, San Rafael, Bulacan
Magandang araw po! Kayo po ay aming napili bilang isang tagatugon sa aming pananaliksik
tungkol sa epekto ng pagkakaroon at hindi pagkakaroon ng irigasyon sa produksiyon ng bigas at kabuhayan
ng mga magsasaka sa baranggay ng Pantubig, San Rafael, Bulacan. Salamat at sumainyo ang kapayapaan!
(Good day! You have been chosen to be a respondent in our research regarding the effects of having and not
having irrigation on the farmers’ rice production and socioeconomic status in barangay Pantubig, San Rafael,
Bulacan. Thank you and peace be with you!)

144
Panuto: Basahing mabuti ang mga pahayag at katanungan at tumugon ayon sa iyong pagsang-ayon sa
pamamagitan ng pag-check sa mga kahon sa ibaba. Mangyaring matapat na sumagot sa mga katanungan.
Salamat!
(Instruction: Please read the statements and questions carefully and respond with your agreement by checking on the
appropriate boxes that reflects your answer. Please answer it honestly. Thank you!)
Paalala: Batay sa Data Privacy Act of 2016, kayo po ay makasisiguro na lahat ng impormasyon inyong
ilalahad dito ay mananatiling protektado at kumpidensiyal.
(Note: Based on Data Privacy Act of 2016, we assure you that all information that are included here will remain
protected and confidential.)
SEKSYON A. Impormasyon tungkol sa Produksyon (Production Information)
1. Bilang ng Taon sa Pagsasaka ng Palay (Number of Years in Rice Farming):
2. Ilang beses ka mag-ani ng palay sa isang taon? (How many times do you produce rice in a year?)
3. Magkano ang iyong puhunan sa tuwing ikaw ay magtatanim? (How much is your capital when you are
sowing crops?)
4. Anong paraan ang iyong ginagamit upang ihanda ang iyong lupa sa pagsasaka? (What type of labor do
you use for land preparation?)
a. Mag-utos ng mga tao (Human Labour)
b. Gumamit ng mga hayop (Animal Traction)
c. Gumamit ng mga makina (Machines)
5. Punan ang talaan sa ibaba. (Provide information on the size of rice farm and quantity of rice produced this
year.)
Year 2020
Sukat ng Lupa (Total Size of Farm)
Dami ng Naaning Palay (Quantity of Rice Produced)
6. Ano ang karaniwang bigat ng isang sako ng palay? (What is the average mass of a rice sack?) kg
7. Gumamit ka ba ng irigasyon ngayong taon? (Did you use irrigation this year?)
Oo (Yes) Hindi (No) Kung hindi, pumunta sa no.9 (If no, skip to 9.)

145
8. Gaano ang iyong nagagastos sa paggamit ng irigasyon? (How much money did you pay per hectare for
irrigation water?) Php
9. Bakit hindi ka gumamit ng irigasyon? (Para sa mga walang irigasyon) (Why did you not use irrigation?)
a. Walang kakayahang pampinansiyal (Financial Constraints)
b. Walang malapit na irigasyon (Availability Constraints)
c. Hindi nakatutulong ang irigasyon. (Irrigation is not beneficial.)
d. Kung may iba pa, pakisulat. (Others, specify.)___________________________________________
10. Kung hindi ka gumagamit ng irigasyon, ano ang iyong ginagamit upang mapatubigan ang iyong lupa?
(If you are not using irrigation, what do you use to water your land?)
__________________________________________________________________________________
11. Gumagamit ka ba ng pataba sa iyong pananim? (Are you using fertilizer on your rice crops?)
12. Kung oo, punan ang talaan ng klase ng pataba, dami, at presyo nito. (If yes, kindly provide information on
the type, quantity, and prize of fertilizers used.)
2020
Uri ng Pataba (Types of Dami ng Ginamit (Quantity Presyo kada kilo (Price per
Fertilizer) Applied) kilo)
*1=NPK 2=Sulphate of Ammonia 3=Urea 4=Organic 5=Iba pa, pakisulat. (Others, specify.)___________
13. Manggagawa (Hired Workers)

2020
Bilang ng Manggagawa (No. of Hired Workers)
Kabuuang Gastos (Total Amount Paid)
14. Kalagayan ng Utang (Credit Status)

a. Ikaw ba ay nangailangang umutang ng pera? (Did you need credit?)
Oo (Yes) Hindi (No) Kung hindi, pumunta sa titik c (If no, skip to letter c.)

146
b. Kung umutang ng pera, punan ang talaan. (If cash credit, please complete the following table.)
2020 Crop Year
Halagang Natanggap (Amount of Crash Credit Received)
Pinagmulan ng Pagkakautang (Source of Credit)
*1=Bangko 2=Nagpapautang 3=Kapamilya 4=ONG/NGO
5=Iba pa, pakisulat. (Others, specify.)___________
c. Bakit hindi ka umutang? (Why did you not apply for credit?)
i. Hindi alam kung saan. (Do not know where to get)
ii. Hindi alam mag-aplay. (Do not know how to apply for it)
iii. Mataas ang tubo. (High interest rate)
iv. Walang valid ID. (Lack of ID card)
v. Walang garantiya sa pagkakautang. (Lack of collateral)
vi. Hindi maayos ang paraan ng pagbabayad. (Repayment schedule is not favorable.)
vii. Hindi kailangan umutang. (No need to borrow.)
viii. Kung may iba pa, pakisulat. (Others,
specify.)__________________________________________
15. Oportunidad sa Pamilihan (Market Opportunity)

a. Punan ang talaan. (Provide information on the quantity sold, price, and related costs.)
Palay (Paddy Rice) Bigas (Milled Rice)
Bilang ng Naibenta (Number of bags sold)
Presyo ng Isang Sako (Price of a bag)
16. Pagsasaka ba ang iyong pangunahing hanap buhay? (Is rice cultivation your main occupation?)
Oo (Yes) Hindi (No)
17. May iba ka pa bang trabaho bukod sa pagsasaka? (Do you have any other occupation aside from farming?)
a. Kung oo, punan ang talaan. (If yes, provide details on the following table.)
Uri ng Trabaho (Type of Activity) Kabuuang Kita kada Buwan
(Total Income per Month)
1. Sumusweldong Empleyado (Salaried Employee)

2. Humahawak ng Lupa (Farm Hand)

147
3. Gumagawa/Nagbebenta ng Pagkain (Food Processer & Seller)

4. Gumagawa ng Uling (Charcoal or Firewood Seller)
5. Karpentero (Carpenter)
6. Mason (Construction Worker)
7. Barbero (Barber)
8. Mangingisda (Fisherman)
9. Nagbebenta ng mga Hayop (Livestock Trader)
10. Pensyonado (Pension Receiver)
11. Remittances
12. Kung may iba pa, pakisulat. (Others,
specify.)___________________________________________
KABUUAN (TOTAL)
b. Magbigay ng dahilan kung bakit nagtatrabaho bukod sa pagsasaka. (Give reasons for participating to
outside activities from farm.)
i. Maliit ang kita sa pagsasaka (Limited agriculutural income)
ii. Malaking pamilya (Large family)
iii. Hindi tuluy-tuloy ang pagsasaka (Seasonality of Agriculture)
iv. Walang puhunan sa pagsasaka (Source of liquidity to be used in agriculture)
v. Kung may iba pa, pakisulat. (Others,
specify.)___________________________________________
18. Gaano ang iyong nagastos sa mga nasa talaan kada buwan? (About how much did you spend every month
on the following?)
Items Presyong Nagastos
kada Buwan (Amount
Spent per Month)
1. Pagkain kada araw (Food)

2. Pag-aaral kada taon (Education)
3. Kalusagan kada buwan (Health)
4. Puhunan sa pagsasaka kada taon (Agricultural Investment)
5. Transaksyon kada araw (Transaction)
SEKSYON B. Pang-unawa at Hadlang (Perceptions and Constraints)

148
Mangyaring ipahayag ang iyong pag-unawa tungkol sa mga sumusunod na pahayag. I-check ang
hanay ng “Oo” kung sumasang-ayon at i-check naman ang hanay ng “Hindi” kung hindi sumasang-ayon.
[Please express your perception about each of the following statements. Check the Yes column if you agree
to the statements and check the No column if you do not agree.]
Mga Pahayag (Statements) Oo Hindi

(Yes) (No)
A Ang paggamit ng irigasyon ay nakapagpapabuti ng ani. (Using irrigation may lead
to crop yield improvement.)
B Ang pagpapaunlad ng irigasyon ay lumilikha ng oportunidad sa trabaho.

(Irrigation development creates employment opportunity.)
C Ang paggamit ng irigasyon ay makatutulong sa panahon ng tagtuyot. (The use of

irrigation is an insurance against drought.)
D Ang irigasyon ay nakapagpapataas ng kita. (Irrigation ensures high income.)

E Ang irigasyon ay maaaring makapag-ambag ng seguridad ng pagkain sa aking
pamayanan. (Irrigation may contribute to achieve food security in my community.)
F Ang irigasyon ay makababawas ng kahirapan. (Irrigation may lead to poverty
reduction.)
G Ang irigasyon ay nagdaragdag ng gastos sa produksyon ng palay. (Irrigation

increases the cost of rice production.)
H Ang irigasyon ay nakapagpapataas ng balik sa input tulad ng pataba, paggawa,

atbp. (Irrigation maximizes the return on other inputs such as fertilizer, labour, etc.)
I Ang pagpapaunlad ng irigasyon ay nakakatulong upang mabawasan ang
paglipat ng mga tao sa ibang lugar para sa mas maayos na pagsasaka. (The
development of irrigation contributes to reducing out migration.)
J May maraming gamit ang irigigasyon para sa agrikultura, tahanan, at gamit ng

hayop. (Irrigation water has multiple use including agriculture, domestic, and livestock
uses.)
Maraming pong salamat sa pagbibigay niyo ng oras! (Thank you so much for your time)

149
Appendix 2. Letter to the Municipal
Rave Richmond M. Inductivo

0339 Pantubig, San Rafael,
Bulacan 3008 Philippines
rrinductivo@gmail.com
October 25, 2020
Engr. Emmanuel V. San Roque

Municipal Planning and Development Office
MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT OF SAN RAFAEL, BULACAN
San Rafael, Bulacan 3008 Philippines
Dear Sir,

150
Greetings of peace!
I, Rave Richmond M. Inductivo, a grade 12 student from St. Paul College San Rafael, am
currently conducting a research in my course of Practical Research 2 together with my
groupmates stated below.
 Armea, Tathiana Faith S.

 Herrera, Jules Philip T.
 Valdecantos, Ralph Jacob O.
Our research is focused on the comparative research on the effects of having and not having
irrigation on the rice production among the rice farmers of barangay Pantubig, San Rafael,
Bulacan. In line with this, on behalf of my group, I am humbly requesting to access the following
information from the respective office:
a. number of rice farmers in barangay Pantubig, stated whether they have irrigation or not; and
b. names and location of farmers in barangay Pantubig.
The following will be conducive in determining the sample of our respondents, their profile, and
primary location. I, together with my group, am hoping for your generous response. Thank you in
advance and God bless!
Respectfully,
RAVE RICHMOND M. INDUCTIVO
Noted by:
MR. JOHN LEXTER B. VILLEGAS

(Grade 12 Adviser / Practical Research 2 Teacher)
Appendix 3. Letter to the Barangay
Ika-25 ng Oktubre
Pantubig, San Rafael,
Bulacan 3008 Philippines
Sa amin pong minamahal na kapitan, KGG. Melencio B. Cruz,
Isang mapagpalang araw po sa inyo! Ako po si Rave Richmond M. Inductivo, isang mag-
aaral mula sa St. Paul College San Rafael. Ako po ay kasalukuyang nagsasagawa ng pananaliksik
sa Practical Research 2 kasama ang aking mga sumusunod na kagrupo:
 Armea, Tathiana Faith S.

 Herrera, Jules Philip T.
 Valdecantos, Ralph Jacob O.

151
Ang amin pong pananaliksik ay nakatuon tungkol sa komparatibong pag-aaral sa mga

epekto ng pagkakaroon at hindi pagkakaroon ng patubig sa produksyon ng palay at kalagayang
pampinansiyal ng mga magsasaka sa baranggay ng Pantubig. Kaugnay po nito ay hinihiling
naming makisalamuha at makipanayam sa mga magsasaka upang makakuha ng impormasyon
tungkol sa kanilang pamumuhay sa pamamagitan ng pagkakaroon ng isang pagpupulong. Ito po
ay lubos na makatutulong sa amin sa paghahanap ng mga datos na kailangan naming makuha
para sa aming pananaliksik.
Humihingi rin po kami ng inyong permiso upang makuha ang mga sumusunod na
impormasyon:
a. bilang ng mga magsasaka na mayroon at walang patubig; at
b. pangalan at lokasyon ng bawat magsasaka.
Kami po ay nakikipag-ugnayan sa pamamagitan ng mga sumusunod:

a. G. John Lexter B. Villegas – 09239909820
b. Rave Richmond M. Inductivo – 09222530770 / 09198492643
c. Jules Philip T. Herrera – 09672175176
Kasabay po nito, humingi na rin po kami mula sa munisipyo ng mga impormasyon

tungkol sa mga naipahayag sa itaas. Ako po, kasama ang aking mga kagrupo ay paunang
nagpapasalamat sa inyong magiging tugon. Kami po ay lubos na makikiisa sa inyong magiging
desisyon at mga hakbang na gagawin tungkol sa aming kahilingan. Maraming salamat po!
Lubos na gumagalang,
RAVE RICHMOND M. INDUCTIVO
Itinala ni:
G. JOHN LEXTER B. VILLEGAS

(Tagapayo ng ika-12 na Baitang / Guro sa Practical Research 2)
Appendix 4. Attendance of the Respondents
ATTENDANCE OF THE RESPONDENTS

A. Pagkakakilanlan ng mga Magsasakang may Irigasyon (Identity of Farmers with
Irrigation)
Pangalan (Name) Petsa ng Pagtugon Lagda (Signature)
(Date of Response)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

152
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Prepared by:
Noted by:
Research Adviser
Facilitated by:
Mr. Noel DF. Alvarez
Committee Chairman of Agriculture
Mr. German I. De Leon

Barangay Secretary of Pantubig
ATTENDANCE OF THE RESPONDENTS
B. Pagkakakilanlan ng mga Magsasakang na Walang Irigasyon (Identity of Farmers
without Irrigation)
Pangalan (Name) Petsa ng Pagtugon Lagda (Signature)
(Date of Response)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

153
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
Prepared by:
Noted by:
Research Adviser
Facilitated by:
Mr. Noel DF. Alvarez
Committee Chairman of Agriculture
Mr. German I. De Leon

Barangay Secretary of Pantubig

Armea Herrera Inductivo Valdecantos 2021

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Armea Herrera Inductivo Valdecantos 2021

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

St.

Paul College San Rafael

A Quantitative Research about

A COMPARATIVE RESEARCH ON THE EFFECTS OF HAVING AND NOT

A Research Paper Presented to

gratitude goes to all of them.

research. Your understanding is much appreciated by all of us. Finally, as Paulinians, we

had as a group throughout this research.

Armea / Herrera / Inductivo / Valdecantos 2021

words of advice and encouragement to finish this study;

shared their life as farmers to the researchers; and

offer to You all of these fruits and gains of this research.

Armea / Herrera / Inductivo / Valdecantos 2021

LETTER OF APPROVAL OF RESEARCH PAPER FOR DEFENSE

Armea / Herrera / Inductivo / Valdecantos 2021

LETTER OF APPROVAL OF RESEARCH PAPER FOR DEFENSE…………………iii

CHAPTER I: The Background of the

Statement of the Problem………………………………………………………….3

Scope and Delimitation……………………………………………………………4

CHAPTER II: Theoretical

Armea / Herrera / Inductivo / Valdecantos 2021

Paradigm of the Study……………………………………………………………23

CHAPTER III: Research

Population and Sample of the

Data Gathering Procedure………………………………………………………..29

Data Analysis and Statistical

CHAPTER IV: Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Data………………………

Statement of the Problem #1……………………………………………………..35

Statement of the Problem

Statement of the Problem

Statement of the Problem

Armea / Herrera / Inductivo / Valdecantos 2021

Statement of the Problem

Statement of the Problem

CHAPTER V: Summary of Findings, Conclusions, and

Table 1. Population and Sample of the

Table 2. Rice Farming Years of Farmers with and without

Table 3. Number of Farmers with and without Irrigation…………………………………

Armea / Herrera / Inductivo / Valdecantos 2021

Table 5. Average Mass of Rice Sacks of Farmers with

Table 6. Average Mass of Rice Sacks of Farmers without

Square Meter of Individual Land

Table 11. Workforce Expenditures of Farmers with

Table 12. Workforce Expenditures of Farmers without

Armea / Herrera / Inductivo / Valdecantos 2021

Meter of Individual Land

Table 20. Monthly Profit of Farmers with and without Irrigation……………………….54

Armea / Herrera / Inductivo / Valdecantos 2021

Table 23. Types of Fertilizers Used by Farmers with and without

Square Meter of Individual Land

Activities from Farm……………………………………………………………………..62

Table 28. Monthly Expenses of Farmers with Irrigation…………………………………

Table 29. Monthly Expenses of Farmers without

Table 30. Priorities of Expenses of Farmers with and without Irrigation…………………

Table 31. Monthly Profit of Farmers with and without

of Individual Land Area………………………………………………………………….68

Armea / Herrera / Inductivo / Valdecantos 2021

Square Meter of Individual Land

Table 38. Workforce Expenditures of Farmers with

Table 39. Workforce Expenditures of Farmers without

Meter of Individual Land

Armea / Herrera / Inductivo / Valdecantos 2021

Activities from Farm……………………………………………………………………..83