Tanzania: Rice growers hope for boost | DW News

1. I don't have a problem with them not having to pay market price, but I think it should be something modest, like paying 25% less than the market rate, not half or only 10% of the market price. In other words, for helping the farmers I see no problem with the company making a return for that help, but it should be a modest return, and I think it should be for a limited time, for the first year or two, and then the company pays 10% less for the farmers rice than the farmer can get on the open market. The aim, in my opinion, should be for the small scale farmers to benefit most, and those helping them to get a small return, for a limited amount of time. Strong farmers is the desired long term outcome, in my opinion. I have no problem with capitalism, but I think it should work for the benefit of all people and not just wealthier people, though I have no problem with wealthier people. Another concern I have, and this is probably the main one in this video, is what type of fertilizer is being used? Some fertilizers are better than others and over time salts can build up in the land, making it unable to grow anything. I'd aim for less spectacular yields and prioritize organic farming with sustainable, steady yields using high quality fertilizers that won't lead to desertification. Going from 8 bags of rice to 30 bags per acre would make many farmers happy, but what happens down the road when the chemical fertilizers don't work so well, and much more of it is required to get the same yields the farmers have become accustomed to, until finally the land won't grow anything because of salt buildup. We know that cycle exists. Be really good to inform the farmers so that they can make an informed decision.
2. I'm pretty sure rice is the least of their problems.