International Journal of Horticulture, 2026, Vol.16, No.2, 68-76 http://hortherbpublisher.com/index.php/ijh 73 Table 9 Satisfaction level of farmers Level of satisfaction Frequency Percentage (%) Not satisfied 26 26 Neutral 21 21 Moderately satisfied 40 40 Strongly satisfied 13 13 3.9 Severity of constraints 3.9.1 Severity of production problems in the study area The major constraints in French bean production were ranked based on weighted scores in Table 10, where disease and pest incidence were found to be the most severe (0.856), followed by irrigation issues (0.820). Table 10 Severity of production problems in the study area Factor Weighted score Rank Disease/Pest 0.856 1 Irrigation 0.820 2 Lesser alternatives for organic agriculture 0.470 3 Lack of technical knowledge 0.440 4 Labor shortage 0.418 5 3.9.2 Severity of bean pests in the study area The results reveal that aphids and pod borer are the most severe insect pests of French beans, followed by leaf miners, with weevils and Mexican bean beetles posing lesser threats, which suggests that pest management should prioritize the first two for effective yield protection (Table 11). Table 11 Severity of bean pests in the study area Factor Weighted score Rank Aphids 0.853 1 Pod borer 0.829 2 Leafminer 0.582 3 Weevils 0.419 4 Mexican bean beetle 0.388 5 3.9.3 Severity of major diseases of beans in the study area Table 12 reveals that anthracnose was the most severe (0.880), followed by rust (0.764) and root rot (0.630). Powdery mildew (0.404) and mosaic virus (0.294) are comparatively less serious, which suggests that disease management should primarily focus on anthracnose, rust, and root rot to reduce crop losses. Table 12 Severity of major diseases of beans in the study area Factor Weighted score Rank Anthracnose of bean 0.880 1 Rust of bean 0.764 2 Root rot 0.630 3 Powdery mildew 0.404 4 Mosaic virus 0.294 5 3.9.4 Severity of major marketing problems in the study area The results show that the major marketing constraints for French beans are unorganized marketing (0.748), followed by limited storage facilities (0.636) and seasonal oversupply (0.634), which indicates that improving market organization, storage, and information access could enhance farmer income and reduce post-harvest losses (Table 13).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjQ4ODYzNA==