IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-2

Research article
erd

Farmer's Awareness and Factors Affecting Farmer's
Acceptance to Grow Straw Mushroom in Mekong Delta,Vietnam and Central Luzon, Philippines
NGO THI THANH TRUC*Cantho University, Cantho, Vietnam
Email: ntttruc@ctu.edu.vn

ZENAIDA M. SUMALDE
University of the Philippines Los Baños, Laguna, Philippines

FLORENCIA G. PALISInternational Rice Research Institute, Laguna, Philippines

REINER WASSMANNInternational Rice Research Institute, Laguna, Philippines
Received 19 December 2012

Accepted 26 July 2013(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract The study aimed to determine the current utilization practices of rice straw, todescribe farmers’ awareness and perception about using rice straw to produce straw
mushroom, to determine factors affecting farmers’ acceptance to use this technology, andidentify the enablers and constraints in adopting straw mushroom production technology
To achieve these objectives, a survey of 417 respondents and focus group discussions wereconducted in four villages in Mekong Delta, Vietnam and Central Luzon, Philippines.
Interviews of current adopters and key informants of straw mushroom production werealso done at those two study sites. The survey showed that majority of rice straw in
Mekong Delta, Vietnam and Central Luzon, Philippines was burned. In Mekong Delta, asmall percentage of rice straw was used to grow mushroom, left in the field and used tofeed cattle while rice straw in the Central Luzon was left in the field, used as feed forcattle and for mulching. The study found that farmers have good knowledge of this subject
even low percentage of adopters. Using the Logit model, yet the significant factors
affecting the acceptability of the straw mushroom production in the Mekong Delta,
Vietnam include household income and household size whereas in Central Luzon,
Philippines are household income, farm size and willingness to attend additional trainings
related to straw mushroom production. On the other hand, the key informants and straw
mushroom growers identified the requirements to enhance farmers adoption of straw
mushroom culture such as 1) good quality of mushroom spore, 2) mushroom production
site, 3) supply a whole-year production cycle (if mass production), 4) techniques to growmushroom, 5) available labor, 6) knowledge in pre-processing mushroom in case farmers
are unable to sell fresh mushrooms, and 7) mushroom marketing.
Keywords rice straw, rice straw burning, straw mushroom, Volvariella volvacea, Mekong
Delta, Central Luzon

INTRODUCTION
Rice straw, a by-product and considered as a waste material in rice, contains 41% C, 0.5 - 0.8 % N,
0.05 - 0.1% P, 0.3 - 2.0% K, 12% silica, and 10% lignin (IRRI Knowledge Bank, 2003). The
problem of disposing rice straw is generated during the intensification in rice production and due tolimited alternative uses and lack of time and resources to dispose this by-product, it accumulates
and becomes wastes.

© ISERD179

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-2

Straw mushroom (Volvariella volvacea) production introduced in Vietnam and Philippines in
the last twenty years is a promising strategy to mitigate greenhouse gas emission comparing toother alternative uses of rice straw (Truc, 2011). The questions are on the current usage of ricestraw, farmer's awareness of straw mushroom, the factors affecting their acceptance and thebenefits/constrains of using rice straw to grow straw mushroom as perceived by non-adopters andfaced by adopters. Answering these questions would help identify appropriate recommendations toenhance adoption of this alternative uses of rice straw. Thus, this study was conducted to a)
determine the current utilization practices of rice straw; b) describe farmer's awareness andperception about using rice straw to produce straw mushroom; c) determine the factors affecting
farmer's acceptance to use this technology; and d) identify the enablers and constraints in adopting
straw mushroom production technology.
METHODOLOGY
The study sites and methods of data collection
A total of 417 farmer-respondents were interviewed using a structured questionnaire in fourvillages, namely, Truong Lac Commune, O Mon District, Can Tho City and My Thanh Nam
Commune, Cai Lay District, Tien Giang Province in Mekong Delta, Vietnam in June 2008 andBarangay Matingkis, Science City of Muñoz and Barangay Santo Rosario, Santo Domingo
Municipality, Nueva Ecija Province, Central Luzon, Philippines in June 2009 (Fig. 1).
The key informant interviews were done by using checklists with face to face interviews ofrepresentatives of current adopters of straw mushroom production, local authorities, agriculturalextension officers, and other related institutional organizations in the study sites.
The focus group discussions (FGDs) were also conducted in each site after completing thesurvey and key informant interviews for adopters to provide and share information on straw
mushroom production as well as their advantages and disadvantages, to assess the possibility ofintroducing straw mushroom production and to identify the mechanisms of growing the crop at thestudies sites.

Fig. 1 Map of study sites in Mekong Delta, Vietnam and Central Luzon, Philippines
Data analysis
The survey data were analyzed descriptively using frequency, descriptive and cross tabulation andmean comparison adapting t-test in SPSS 13.0 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences).
Literatures show that socio-economic characteristics, farmer's awareness and perception of thetechnologies are major determinants affecting farmer's adoption of agricultural technologies (Palis,2006; Palis, 1998; Somda et al. 2002; Ghadim and Pannell, 1999; Oladele and Fawolde, 2007;
Adegbola and Gardebroek, 2007 and Corrales and Serrano, 1999). Basing on those literature,findings and the information observed at the study sites, the following factors were chosen to© ISERD180

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-2

identify the factors affecting farmer's acceptance of straw mushroom (explained in Eq.(1) andTable 1). The factors affecting the probability of adoption were estimated by the logistic regression
or the Logit model.

AF  lnPi   iXi  1  Pi (1)Table 1 Descriptions of variables in the Logit model
Variables
AF
X1
X2
X3
X4
X5
X6

Description
Farmers’ acceptance to use thetechnology (straw mushroom)
Household income per year
Farm size devoted to rice production
Household sizeAge of respondent/person involve inrice production
The educational level ofrespondent/person involve in riceproduction
Dummy variable of farmers’ awarenessabout straw mushroom

X7

Dummy variable of farmers’ needtraining about straw mushroom

X8

Dumpy variable of distance (d) fromhouse to the rice field
Constant

αUnit / Value
AF = 1: accept
AF = 0: not accept
USD/household/year
Ha/household
Persons
Years

Expected signs––+–/+

Number of years schooling–

X6 = 1: aware or have heard
about straw mushroom,
otherwise X6=0
X7 = 1: respondent wants tolearn about straw mushroom,
otherwise X7=0
X8 = 1 if d < 0.5 km, otherwise
X8 = 0++–RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Rice straw uses in Mekong Delta, Vietnam and Central Luzon, Philippines
100%

0.7

0.6
0.3

90%

28.5

80%

17.6

70%

0.2

32.8

0.8
9.2

60%

18.6

50%

12.5

99.3
94.7

40%

70.630%

52.0

20%

45.4

10%0%SWSAAWDSWSFig. 2 Current uses of rice straw in Mekong Delta, Vietnam, 2008 and CentralLuzon, Philippines, 2009
Note: SW: Spring Winter crop, SA: Summer Autumn crop, AW: Autumn Winter crop in Mekong Delta
DS: Dry Season crop, WS: Wet Season crop in Central Luzon, Philippines© ISERD
181

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-2

There are differences between Mekong Delta, Vietnam and Central Luzon, Philippines in thecropping pattern. The survey was conducted at the three paddy crops per year in the Mekong Delta(Spring Winter (SW) - October/November – February, Summer Autumn (SA)- February - Apriland Autumn Winter (AW) - April - July/August). In Central Luzon, there are only two paddy crops
per year (Dry Season crop (DS) - January to April and Wet Season crop (WS) - July to October).
Majority of the rice straw in Mekong Delta, Vietnam was burned (SW-99%, SA-95% andAW-71%) while a minimal percentage is used for growing straw mushroom, leaving in the fieldand feeding cattle. In Central Luzon, rice straw was burned (DS-52% and WS-45%), left in thefield (DS-29% and WS-31%), used to feed cattle (DS-19% and WS-23%) while the rest was usedfor mulching (DS-1% and WS-9%) (Fig. 2).
Farmer’s awareness about straw mushroom production
Straw mushroom has been introduced in Mekong Delta and Central Luzon as a means to augment
farmer's income since the 1990s. Thus, the technology is no longer new to farmers. However, morethan half (60%) of the respondents in Central Luzon have never heard about straw mushroom. All
the farmer-respondents in Mekong Delta knew about straw mushroom since it is their daily
vegetables (Table 2). However, about 88% of the total respondents have never grown straw
mushroom with only 12% and 7.6% of the households in Mekong Delta and Central Luzon,
respectively, stating that they had grown the crop. However, none of the surveyed households inCentral Luzon grew straw mushroom in 2008 – 2009.
Table 2 Farmer’s awareness about straw mushroom in Mekong Delta, Vietnam, 2008 andCentral Luzon, Philippines, 2009 (% responses)
O Mon(n=120)

ITEMS
Never heard about straw mushroom
Heard about straw mushroom butnever grown itHeard about straw mushroom andused to grow the crop

-VIETNAM
Cai Lay Mekong(n=126)
Delta(n=246)-PHILIPPINES
SantoCentralDomingoLuzon(n=101)(n=171)
77.14
48.51
60.23

Muñoz
(n=70)

75.80

100.00

88.20

14.26

44.59

32.17

24.20

-

11.80

8.60

6.90

7.60

Farmer's acceptance of growing straw mushroom
Farmer's attitude towards attending trainings on straw mushroom production and their intent togrow straw mushroom after the training were investigated in the survey. Central Luzon farmers
were less likely to attend trainings and to grow straw mushrooms after participating in the trainings
with only 57% compared with 76% of the farmers in Mekong Delta (Table 3).
Table 3 Willingness to attend training in straw mushroom production in Mekong Delta,Vietnam, 2008 and Central Luzon, Philippines, 2009
ITEMS
Willing to attend training andat least one person decided toafter attending training
Do not want to attend training
or attend training but notgrow after training

O Mon(n=120)

VIETNAM
Cai Lay(n=126)

69.17

30.83

MekongDelta(n=246)

Muñoz(n=70)

83.33

76.42

65.71

16.67

23.58

© ISERD
182

34.29

PHILIPPINES
SantoCentralDomingoLuzon(n=101)(n=171)
50.50

49.50

56.73

43.37

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-2

Factors affecting farmers’ acceptance of growing straw mushroom
The result of the Logit model that analyzes the factors affecting respondent’s attitude towards using
rice straw for growing mushrooms is shown in Table 4. However, the awareness and informationneeds variables were deleted in the regression for Mekong Delta since the level of awareness aboutstraw mushroom in this country is already 100%.
Among the six factors tested in Mekong Delta, two factors (household income and householdsize) appeared to have significant negative effect on farmer's decision to use rice straw in growing
mushrooms. Lower income and smaller households were more likely to grow mushrooms thanthose with higher income and bigger households. The results on the household size relative to theacceptance of mushroom growing were unexpected as the author anticipated the opposite.
Mushroom growing is labor-intensive, thus, it would have been logical that bigger households
would be more receptive to growing straw mushroom. However, in practice, bigger households
tend to send their children to work or study outside the communes. They also might have to takecare their children, so they have no more vacant time for straw mushroom growing.
Table 4 Factors affecting respondents’ acceptance of growing straw mushroom inMekong Delta, Vietnam, 2008 and Central Luzon, Philippines, 2009
VARIABLES

Xi

βi

Household income
Farm size
Household size
Age
Educational attainment
Awareness
NeedDistanceConstant
Number of observationPercent of acceptance (%)
Pseudo R2X1X2X3X4X5X6X7X8

β1
β2
β3β4
β5β6β7β8αMekong Delta
Coefficientz value– 0.0001925 **–2.22
0.3086298
0.88–0.2538631 **–2.45–0.0020682–0.11
0.0499579
0.78–0.4778684–2.993046 **–1.47
2.4824276
0.1187

Central Luzon
Coefficientz value
0.0001574 **2.19–0.759491 0 **–2.41
–0.1191921–1.00–0.0058102–0.33–0.0639080–0.91
0.2019690
0.52
2.3617420 ***5.98–0.5649210–1.40
0.7589256
0.51
171570.2422

Note: ***, ** and * indicate statistical significance at 1%, 5% and 10% levels, respectively

Among the eight factors tested for Central Luzon, only three factors significantly affected thedecision to grow straw mushroom (household income, farm size and willingness to learn more
about straw mushroom). Households with higher income and smaller farm size were more
receptive to grow straw mushroom. Growing straw mushroom is considered a small business inCentral Luzon rather than a livelihood, as opposed to the culture in Mekong Delta wherein poor
farmers engage in mushroom production to augment their household income. This culturaldifference in mushroom production may explain why the household income coefficients differed
between the two regions. The results show that higher income households in Central Luzon had
higher acceptance of mushroom production. Likewise, results showed that households with smaller
farm size were more likely to accept the technology as they would want to earn more tocompensate for the small income they get from producing rice within their small farm areas.
Further, those who were willing to learn about straw mushroom were also more likely to adopt
the technology after training. The results from focus group discussions and interviews highlighted
the importance of the product’s outcome in promoting mushroom growing. Because of the highperishability of straw mushrooms, farmers need to sell their products within a day in the market,
farmers or women union, cooperatives or any group in the commune who help mushroom growers
connect with the market within a day and secure their minimum selling price.
With regards to the conditions to learn about straw mushroom, Cai Lay and Muñoz farmers
showed more interest than O Mon and Santo Domingo farmers did. Data from the survey, FGDs,and interviews showed that trainings on mushroom growing should be conducted in these two areas.
Central Luzon farmers also needed good quality and available supply of spores. This factor may© ISERD
183

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2013) 4-2

encourage them to grow mushrooms in this region. Growing mushrooms is simple yet requires a lotof labor. To encourage them, farmers can make use of the free and simple labor available in thecommune or can work in groups to help each other to save on labor. Lastly, market access andbetter selling price were among the most important factors to succeed in promoting straw
mushroom to farmers.
Enabling factors and constraints in straw mushroom production
The major motivating factors of growing mushroom cited by farmers in Central Luzon and Mekong
Delta were significantly different from each other. For the Mekong Delta, the major advantages ofgrowing mushroom in the two famous growing areas (Thom Rom, Can Tho city and Tan Hoa,
Dong Thap province) in Mekong Delta were 1) the availability of materials (rice straw and spore),
2) availability of labor, and 3) ease of production. On the contrary, mushroom production inCentral Luzon is still at the infancy stage and farmers were unable to market their products evenwhen the demand was very high in this region. The biggest enabling factor of growing mushroom
in Central Luzon was the availability of materials and labor.
Despite the numerous motivating factors in the two main study sites, mushroom growers stillencountered several difficulties in mushroom growing such as 1) limited market, 2) limited spore
supply, especially in Central Luzon, and 3) increasing labor cost.
CONCLUSION
The holistic approach of determining the factors affecting farmer's acceptance in growing straw
mushroom from both non - adopters and adopters as well as related key informants provided awhole picture of straw mushroom adoption in Mekong Delta, Vietnam and Central Luzon,
Philippines. This study also confirmed the importance of socio-economic characteristics, theirknowledge and perception of the technology significantly affecting their choice.
REFERENCES
Adegbola, P. and Gardebroek, C. 2007. The effect of different information sources on technology adoption
and modification decisions. Agricultural Economics, 37 (1), 55-65.
Corrales, A.M. and Serrano, S.R. 1999. Factors influencing the utilization of organic fertilizers. Phil. RiceTechnical Bulletin, 4, 18-29.
Ghadim, A.K.A. and Pannell, D.J. 1999. A conceptual framework of adoption of an agricultural innovation.
Agricultural Economics, 21, 145-154.
IRRI Knowledge Bank, 2003. Rice straw properties. (Retrieve on April 4, 2008. http//:www.knowledgebank.
irri.org/troprice/Rice_Straw.htm)
Oladele, O.I. and Fawole, O.P. 2007. Farmers perception of the relevance of agriculture technologies inSouth-Western Nigeria. J. Hum. Ecol., 21 (3), 191-194.
Palis, F. G. 1998. Changing farmers’ perceptions and practices: the case of insect pest control in CentralLuzon, Philippines. Crop Protection. 17, 599-607.
Palis, F. G. 2006. The culture in farmer learning and technology adoption: A case study of farmers fieldschools among rice farmers in Central Luzon, Philippines. Agriculture and Human Values, 23, 491-500.
Somda, J., Nianogo, A.J., Nassa, S. and Sanous, S. 2002. Soil fertility management and socio-economic
factors in crop-livestock systems in Burkina Faso: a case study of composting technology. EcologicalEconomics, 43 (2), 175-183.
Truc, N.T.T. 2011. Comparative assessment of using rice straw for rapid composting and straw mushroom in
mitigating greenhouse gas emissions in Mekong Delta, Vietnam and Central Luzon, Philippines. PhD.
Dissertation. University of the Philippines Los Baños, Philippines.

© ISERD184