Reducing On-Farm Food Losses
In the OIC Member Countries
36
highly undesirable act by fishers, under the prevailing scarcity of aquatic resources. Studies
indicate that physical losses in SSFs are low, ranging from less than 5% to 10%. Quality losses
are much higher, and may account for more than 70% of total losses.
Case studies in Bangladesh reported 12-15% quality loss for the national fish (ilish) and a total
aquaculture production of 1 billion tonnes per year (Nowsad Alam 2010). A case study
undertaken in North Java, Indonesia assessed fish losses along the entire food chain. In Muara
Angke, the major fish in fishing ports and processing centers was squid which was further
processed into boiled salted squid without drying. The possibility of losses may occur at any step
throughout the supply chain, starting from fish capture, fish landing to consumption (estimated
to be 30% in some reviews). However, the actors in the food supply chain seemed to be aware
of this possibility of losses and they have found strategies to overcome them. It was recorded
that the losses were less than 5%.
This result can be used as a good example for fish loss reduction in any other food supply chain
in Indonesia (Wibowo et al 2015). Fisheries (small artisanal) have problems with technical and
logistical problems like infrastructure and missing cold chains or exploitation by traders. Lack
of the use of ice at the time of harvest can lead to very high fish losses (70-100%) by the time of
marketing a few hours or days later. In Mozambique, fish losses were assessed within the range
of 39-58% (Wilson and Zithers, 2007). Forty percent of fish feeds and salted fish were
contaminated with aflatoxin at mean levels of 105.2±1.3 and 44.1±0.4 ppb respectively.
Table 2.16: Summary Table for Literature Review on Fisheries Losses
Country/Region Quantity Losses Quality Losses Notes
Bangladesh 12-15% Ilish
Indonesia 5% Squid
Indonesia 70-100% Artisanal, lack of the use of ice
Mozambique 39-58% Entire food supply chain
Globally 5-10% 70% FAO FISH STAT
Range 5-100% 12-70%
Source: Wilson and Zithers, 2007; Nowsad Alam, 2010; Wibowo et al., 2015.
When the same data set is summarized for published studies documenting on-farm fisheries
losses, there is much less data to report. None of the data is directly related to on-farm losses in
the OIC Member Countries.
Table 2.17: Summary Table for Literature Review on On-Farm Fisheries Losses
Region Quantity Losses Quality Losses Notes
Globally 5-10% FAO FISH STAT
Source: Wilson and Zithers, 2007; Nowsad Alam, 2010; Wibowo et al., 2015.