Previous Page  17 / 194 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 17 / 194 Next Page
Page Background

Reducing Postharvest Losses

In the OIC Member Countries

3

this will be critical for countries suffering from nutrition deficiency, particularly calories and

vitamins.

Selected key finding

Key findings are summarised below. We have clustered these into findings related to

postharvest research and findings that are specific to the commodities studied. We also

consider some of the over-arching themes that emerged from the analysis and highlight some

solutions and best practice.

Postharvest research specific

Research on postharvest losses is sparse and geographically scattered. Some commodities

have a greater coverage than others (e.g. artisanal fisheries and maize are far more researched

that cattle or bananas). Some OIC Member Countries and regions have seen much more

postharvest loss research and practice than others (e.g., Africa Group has seen a good amount

of activities in some commodities, Asian and Arab Groups, with some notable exceptions, has

seen very little research and analysis). Perversely, it would seem that more research is

available in lower income countries than in higher income countries. This may indicate that

donors have been driving postharvest loss research in these countries.

The range of losses experience across the literature varies substantially. Irshad and Baloch

(1985) for example, found storage losses of weight for wheat in Pakistan varied from 3.5% to

25%. If all postharvest stages have the same degree of variability, this explains the high level

of uncertainty and scepticism about total postharvest loss statistics.

Commodity specific

Grains

Particular challenges with drying and storage, especially related to pests in store. Small grains

(e.g., sorghum and millet) often have lower postharvest losses than larger grains (e.g., wheat

and maize). Drying and storage were considered to be the most likely postharvest loss points

in the value chains for grains.

Examples of innovations that seem to be having some impact included: improved dryers,

mechanised threshing and shelling, training, improved on-farm stores and use of hermetic

storage bags and sell as collective marketing by farmers.

Roots and tubers

Very little is known about postharvest losses in the growing Irish potato sector, but losses

seem to be high, particularly in Africa. Cassava, which is highly perishable, has very high

losses, particularly in countries where infrastructure to get product from field to factory is

inadequate (e.g., Nigeria). Losses seem to be high for other root crops such as sweet potato

and yams, but research is very limited.

Peeling (cassava), storage (yams) and marketing (sweet potato) were the highest postharvest

loss elements reported by experts. Starch degradation during storage and transport is known

to be high for cassava, but was not reported in the survey.

Improved infrastructure, more efficient delivery of roots and tubers to processing points, as

well as simpler small scale drying were all innovations that were considered good practice

examples for roots and tubers.