Reducing Postharvest Losses
In the OIC Member Countries
42
Tomatoes are one of the most important and popular vegetables in Bangladesh, ranking fourth
in respect of production and third in respect of area (Hossain and Abdulla, 2015). Tomato
postharvest losses are considered the highest of any fruit or vegetable by the Hortex
Foundation (government organisation responsible for promotion and development of high
value fresh and processed agricultural products). The impact of this loss is summarised by
USAID (2014:123) as “reducing returns to actors at all levels of the value chain as well as
detracting from overall value and pushing all actors in the value chain to adjust prices
downward in anticipation of losses”. It also means that consumer prices are higher than they
could be. Research studies do not consider what happens to the ‘lost’ produce and that some of
the wastage may actually have an economic use. Farmers are often unaware of their costs of
production and may refuse to sell their produce if the price falls below a certain level rather
than maximise their profits by selling as much as they can, even at a lower price. A key
challenge to overcome is the lack of concern about postharvest losses and awareness of
improved postharvest technologies. Farmers and traders are either unaware of the causes of
losses or have no economic incentive to upgrade their practices.
2.2.5. Meat and Meat Products
Introduction
World consumption of meat and livestock products is growing rapidly. This trend is
sometimes called the ‘livestock revolution’ (Delgado, Rosegrant et al. 1999) and responds to
the evidence that rapid economic growth is strongly correlated with higher demand for
livestock and livestock products.
Postharvest losses in the livestock sector are not well understood and are the subject of scant
research to date (Affogon et al, 2015, NRI, 2009). Most studies reviewed focus on the possible
locations of potential losses, but fail to quantify them (UNECA 2009:159). Unlike some other
commodity groups (for example grains) there has been very limited discussion on the
definition of postharvest losses in livestock. Much global livestock does not enter trade.
Livestock, particularly large animals and smallstock, play important part in the social capital
stock of many households (Riethmuller, 2003), so sale at sub-optimal conditions (and value) is
normative. Livestock value chains are numerous and often fractured with many sub-value
chains. Livestock and its products are, after mortality, highly perishable and decline in value
sharply post-mortem unless preserved.
Broadly speaking, meat sector losses are either physical (reduced value through spoilage),
economic (loss of value forgone) or external (loss of environmental benefits) (NRI, 2009). A
debate rages on the environmental externalities associated with livestock production (Keirs et
al, 2008 and Steinfeld et al, 2006). A further, and largely unmeasured loss is associated with
food safety and nutrition, though these losses may be incurred by consumers rather than
producers or other value chain agents.
The total value of livestock is a composite of its many saleable parts. For some animals, the
skin is worth more than the meat (e.g. ostrich). The value of different animal parts varies
substantially globally. In informal markets meat products have very limited differentiation
and are often sold at a single uniform price. In other markets, a great deal of additional value is
developed in-chain by differentiating meat cuts and trading different animal parts to their
optimal buyers.