Reducing Postharvest Losses
In the OIC Member Countries
43
There are important differences between the degree and impact of postharvest losses between
the formal and informal livestock sectors. In general, formal livestock production losses are
far lower than those in the informal sector.
Postharvest losses in OIC Member Countries
A literature review found no specific published information concerning postharvest losses for
meat and meat products that was specific to any of the OIC Member Countries included in
Annex 2.
Since there is no specific literature available for each country, this report therefore gives a
more general review taking literature from elsewhere on for related commodities.
General review
Gustavsson et al (2011), suggest an overall ‘production or waste’ loss for meat products as
varying between 20% and 28%. They suggest that, where livestock systems are small scale
and extensive (e.g. sub-Saharan Africa), losses due to mortality (mainly disease) on farm are a
much more substantial element of the total accumulated loss than in systems that are
intensive. Were a high proportion of the available harvested product reaches the consumer in
an edible condition (e.g., in developed economies), waste tends to be maximised at the
consumer level. These figures only speak of physical losses and not of the true economic cost.
Where high losses occur at the level of the consumer, the accumulated economic cost along the
chain is magnified (Hodges, et al, 2011).
Actual physical quantification or valuation of postharvest losses in livestock and meat value
chain are very scarce. Some examples include:
 In Turkey a study of live weight shrinkage and mortality of broilers during transport
found 5.9% average losses, of which 0.4% was mortality and the rest live weight loss
(Aral et al, 2014). Similar studies in China (Liu, 2014) and Jordan (Al-Sharafat et al,
2013) support similar levels of loss for chicken.
 A pilot study in Ghana estimated postharvest losses for poultry as 1.8% by volume and
28% for cattle (Egyir, 2011). The research returned a zero loss for goats postharvest
from a sample of 10 farms.
 A review of the goat value chain in Kenya (Roba, 2013) identified key causes of
postharvest losses as: lack of market information, poor market coordination and
insufficient infrastructure (e.g. roads, cold chain, butchery equipment). A quantitative
study using willing-to-pay methods suggested a loss level for small ruminants at 3%
(Juma, 2007).
 A discussion paper on postharvest losses for the US State Department (US Dept of
State, 2013) found the potential for high losses in the small scale poultry sectors of the
Philippines and Ghana, but no supporting data whatsoever.
No data was found on meat and meat products in FAOSTATstat 2012. In the absence of and
significant body of research on postharvest losses in the livestock and meat field, NRI (2009)
suggest a possible framework for analysis. This points towards a detailed deconstruction of
each individual livestock value chain, formal, informal, live, pre-slaughter, post-slaughter,
processing and value addition stages. The potential for quality, quantity losses at each stage
can then be assessed. Issues highlighted are: the availability of scale-economies and their
impact on reducing postharvest losses, the importance of social and environmental