Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to upgrade your browser.

Log In
Sign Up

Figure 44 – uploaded by Tanya Stathers

See full PDF downloadDownload figure

Table 36: Constraints to reducing PHLs reported for fruits and vegetables and per step of postharvest. Note: No comments were reported for banana, date, onion, watermelon, and pineapple commodities — Table 36 Constraints to reducing PHLs reported for fruits and vegetables and per step of postharvest. Note: No comments were reported for banana, date, onion, watermelon, and pineapple commodities

Related Figures (115)

Reducing Postharvest Losses in the OIC Membe! Countries

Summary of physical losses for commodity groups in the world and OIC Member Countries

Summary of global economic losses and those in OIC Member Countries from the Overview, Online Survey and Case Studies for the commodity groups

Table 1: Commodity, OIC Member Country and regional coverage of field visits and desk studies A case study check list was developed to ensure a consistent approach across the countries visited and in the outputs received from different experts (Annex 3). The check list was applied as an interview guide only, with each individual interview allowed to follow the most relevant line of enquiry appropriate. The check list explained the ethical approach of the survey, gathered respondent details, asked generic questions about the make-up and actors in the target value chain, losses and how these are currently or might be addressed through investment and policy. For each case study a standard reporting method was agreed including the status and important of the commodity in that country, an assessment of the losses with causes, and, identified actions and strategies for reducing losses.

The estimates of postharvest food losses for the seven commodity groups and regions of the world show varying trends. Cereals and Oilseeds and Pulses had the lowest overall losses in the range of 9% to 18% and with only minor lower losses in this industrialised countries (Europe, Industrialised Asia and North America and Oceania) compared to the LMICs (Low to Middle Income Countries) being Northern Africa, West and Central Asia, Latin America, Sub- Saharan Africa and South and Southeast Asia. For Fruit and Vegetables, Fish and Seafood Products and Dairy there postharvest losses were generally higher but more markedly so for the LMICs and this was most noticeable for Dairy products. For Root and Tuber Crops, losses were overall higher but the difference between Industrialised and LMICs was less district.

2. Overview of Postharvest Losses in OIC Member Countries

Table 2: APHLIS data on postharvest losses for focal African OIC Member Countries

Figure 3: Percentage of postharvest weight losses of maize in Senegal (with inset showing provincial level maize postharvest losses in 2012)

Figure 5: Percentage of postharvest weight losses of sorghum in Somalia and Senegal (with inset showing provincial level sorghum postharvest losses in 2012) In addition to the PHL of the cereals produced by each country, PHL of imported cereal grains will also be occurring during storage, transport and marketing although this has not been the topic of detailed research to date. However, given the importance of cereal imports in many OIC Member Countries and the likely increased import dependency in the future due to high population growth, urbanisation and severe water shortages for crop production in some of the focal countries, it is clearly important to deepen understanding of the postharvest systems, losses and opportunities for reducing the losses of the growing quantities of imported cereals as well as home-grown cereals in these countries.

Table 3: Rice total postharvest losses across several countries in central and south-eastern Anwin

Estimated % postharvest weight loss = 14.8% Central and south-eastern Asia Estimated % postharvest weight loss = 13'

Note: PHLs at the processor, wholesaler, and retail levels were not found at different levels. Also PHLs for wheat and maize were not recorded only in storage. Source: Bala et al, 2010 Table 4: Postharvest losses along the rice chain in Bangladesh

Rodents are also a major source of postharvest grain loss at household level, in small grain markets and in public and private sector grain stores. A study of godowns at TPX (~3km from Karachi Kemari Port) analysing the stomach contents of the different rodent species trapped in the godowns found that insects were a main food item along with rice and a preferred source of protein (Lathiya et al., 2008). Another study of rodents in grain shops in wholesale markets in Punjab, estimated an average year-round population of 40 rats per grain shop (Ahmed etal, 1995). These rats cause annual losses of 740 kg/shop/year, with 185 kg/shop/year due to rat consumption, and 555 kg/shop/year due to spillage and contamination. Given there are 5,500 shops in the major and minor markets throughout Punjab, the aggregate losses in them due to rodents in the Province reach ~4,000mt annually, or 0.3% of the 1.225 million MT of grain moved through the markets each year.

Table 6: Levels of losses along the maize postharvest supply chain in Kaduna state, Nigeria and Eastern region, Uganda A recent study in Nigeria focused on the guestimates of PHL for two maize products: green maize and animal feed, found that farmers reported their biggest losses were due to pre- harvest pests and diseases, followed by PHL during harvesting (estimated at 4.03% of the total harvest), while shelling, storage of dry maize cobs and dry maize grain and transport of fresh maize to the market entailed losses of 1.53-2.27% (GIZ, 2013a). Maize marketers’ felt significant losses occurred during the marketing stages, mostly due to handling and storage problems (weevils (Sitophilus zeamais) (8.5%), rodents (6%), spillage (5.9%), and moisture (2.5%)), and to a lesser extent during transportation (3.7%). The feed millers reported that their most significant problems occurred during transportation of the maize from the market to the feed mill (2%), spoilage during storage of maize grain prior to milling by rodents (2.8%) and weevils (1%), and during storage of the animal feed product due to weevils after 3 months storage (2%), spillage of feed (2%), and transport of feed (3%). The study estimated that the total value of maize (green and grain) and feed lost between harvest and marketing was ~120 billion Naira, which corresponded to approximately EUR 576 million. A small related study, which used the lifecycle assessment to estimate the environmental impacts of losses calculated that 1t of maize feed had a footprint of 0.73 t COzeq (GIZ, 2013b). Agriculture was the main contributor, with maize processing contributing 10% of the footprint. Production of 1t of

Table 7: Sorghum and millet storage losses in traditional granaries in tropical Africa

Table 8: Postharvest losses reported for main root and tuber crop produced OIC Member Countries Note: Economic loss (Value) was only given for Nigeria: US$50 million (South West only) (Naziri 2015) EUR 686 million (Oguntade 2013)

Innovations can make a difference in postharvest losses. As indicated above, Affagnon et al. (2014) reviewed 213 postharvest studies in SSA. The countries covered were: Benin, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique and Tanzania. The main oilseed covered was groundnuts and the pulses were cowpeas and common beans. The estimated physical quantitative losses - without and with adoption of loss-reduction technologies are summarised below:

Table 10: Summary table for fruit and vegetables

Sources: (1) Liu (2014), (2) Al-Sharafat et al (2013), (3) Aral et al (2014), (4) Tathdil et al (2013), (5) USSD (2013), (6) Juma (2007). Table 11: Summary of postharvest losses in livestock and meat

A framework paper on postharvest loss reduction in Africa (FAO and AfDB, 2009) estimates that the minimum quantitative postharvest losses in the milk and dairy value chain are 16%, which, in turn, would mean 5.629 million tonnes of milk lost, representing annual losses of the order of US$ 2.54 billion.

Table 13: Milk produced, marketed and lost in East Africa Source: http://www.fao.org/ag/ags/postharvest-management/milk-dairy/milk-and-dairy-products-postharvest- losses-and-food-safety-in-sub-saharan-africa-and-the-near-east-pfl/en/ (accessed, 21-04-2016).

source: nttp://FAQ) 1A 1 .fao.org/site/567/dejaull.aspx#ancor NB. The values have been calculated using information available for the countries and products available (FAOSTAT 2012). While gross value data was available for 30 countries in the case of the 1st dairy product produced in OIC countries (i.e. mainly fresh cow milk), only 13 and 10 countries had values indicated for 24 and 3"4 dairy products respectively (e.g. goat or sheep milk). Interestingly, the unit values indicated for the 34 product were quite high although quantities and overall values were low. As for postharvest losses (i.e. 16%), the same value was taken as indicated in the aforementioned framework paper on Postharvest Loss Reduction in Africa, FAO and AfDB 2009.

Recommendations

A number of general factors increase the likelihood of occurrence of the all types of postharvest losses in small-scale fisheries. Sources of concern are times of fish supply excess/glut, inadequate preservation techniques and processing and storage methods, adverse weather conditions, unskilled labour, and general market conditions not strictly related to the fish sector. Others include poor transportation due to inadequate infrastructure, non- refrigerated trucks, and long distances between land sites and markets.

Source: Prepared from FAO data. Details are presented in Table.

Table 18: Key fisheries statistics for study countries (FAO Statistics 2013)

Table 19: Details of the fisheries in countries where fisheries and aquaculture is of some importance or more

Crop groups that the respondents have the most experience in

A majority were from universities followed by international organisations. Most described that they had been involved in postharvest research projects on several food commodities. Out of the 68 respondents, only 59 answered questions. The final number of respondents is 59 and was split as follows: Cereals (22); Fish and Seafood products (3); Fruits and Vegetables (19); Meat and Meat products (2); Milk and Dairy products (1); Oilseeds and Pulses (2); Roots and Tubers (10). Not all the respondents gave information about their identity and projects. Out of 68 who responded, half of them (34) did not answer about their gender or organisation. Among the 34 who answered, there were 7 women and 27 men. Most had more than 10 years’ experience working in postharvest activities. Table describes the organisations respondents belonged to.

On average losses in cereals were 21% and ranged from 6 to 40%. Global losses reported on maize, wheat, and rice were of the same order but losses were lower with sorghum but there were only one respondent for sorghum and wheat and therefore interpretations of the results have to be made with caution. Field drying and storage were the stages where the most losses occur with maize. With rice harvesting and threshing/shelling were critical stages. Most respondents gave figures for maize (15) and the least for sorghum (1). A common trend was that losses were estimated to be highest during harvesting for all crops and for maize losses were also high during field drying and storage. Causes of PHLs were reported for cereals per step of the value chain (Table 22).

Postharvest losses in cereals were reported to be caused by a variety of factors. At different steps of the value chains there are different causes but the general causes of loss are similar for maize, rice, and sorghum. Some major factors of losses are cited consistently throughout the value chain: these are contamination of grains - either by insects, rodents, extraneous matter such as small stones, humidity too high in the grains (due to problems of drying and maintenance under dry conditions during transport and storage), and management issues. A lack of food safety knowledge is also reported and would be responsible for a lack of management of the commodity in the value chain and also quality problems (contamination, humidity) in the cereal products. Some ways suggested to mitigate PHLs were reported in Table 23.

Table 23: Mitigation of PHLs reported for cereals and per step of postharvest

In order to reduce postharvest losses, respondents suggested that better equipment (i.e. dryers), mechanisation, and storage facilities (including adapted bags, silos etc.) should be required. Training of the actors at the various steps of the value chain to better handle and market products was also mentioned and there should be incentives to produce a better product i.e. have specified quality standards. With rice, it was suggested that improved varieties (non-shattering rice) should be available to decrease losses in the value chain. A number of constraints to reducing postharvest losses (PHLs) were identified by the respondents (Table).

Table 24: Constraints to reducing PHLs reported for cereals and per step of postharvest

Table 25: Weight of postharvest losses in roots and tubers per country and step of postharvest value chain

Table 26: Causes of PHLs reported for roots and tubers and per step of postharvest. Broken and rotten roots at sorting have to be discounted. During transportation, a number of uncertainties due to the poor road infrastructure may delay supply and cause physical damage. During processing, peeling are a main loss and over peeling can cause unnecessary losses. Inefficiency of processing operations (peeling, grating, dewatering, and drying) can cause additional losses in quantities but also in nutrients. Packaging and storage are also key operations where losses occur due to quality deterioration of the roots and tubers. In order to mitigate those losses, suggestions were made by the respondents (Table).

Table 27: Mitigation of PHLs reported for roots and tubers and per step of postharvest

Improved technologies for processing and packaging during transport and storage were suggested. These included mechanisation e.g. drying equipment. In addition a supportive policy environment to improve road structures (Nigeria) and better linkages between actors of the value chain (processors to markets) were proposed. Constraints to reducing PHLs are presented in Table.

Table 28: Constraints to reducing PHLs reported for roots and tubers and per step of postharvest

Table 29: Weight postharvest losses in oilseed and pulses per country and step of postharvest On average losses reported in cowpea and sesame seed were 50% and 25% respectively. The small sample size makes analysis of trends subjective but this indicated that the for sesame seeds the main losses were during harvesting and sorting/grading whereas for cowpeas the losses were during harvesting and storage. The causes for these PHLs in the cowpea and sesame seed value chains were reported in Table.

Incomplete harvest of the crop was noted for cowpeas. Late harvesting, grain shattering and insect infestation were major causes of PHLs observed for both cowpeas and sesame seed. Inadequate transport and storage (i.e. hygiene, insect damage) as well as poor drying practices that would reduce the quality of the produce (humidity) were reported. Some of the causes were similar as those described with cereals that are processed and stored in similar ways. Table 30: Causes of PHLs reported for oilseed and pulses and per step of processing

Table 31: Mitigation of PHLs reported for oilseed and pulses and per step of postharvest With crops that have high fatty acid content such as sesame, another problem that can occur is rancidity of the crop. Ways to mitigate those losses were listed in Table.

The availability and accessibility of the technologies is a main constraint and this would be related to the lack of capital of farmers in these countries (Sudan and Burkina Faso). Investment would be needed to reduce PHLs in oilseed and pulses according to the respondents.

Table 34: Causes of PHLs reported for fruits and vegetables and per step of processing

Physical damage during handing (shocks), inadequate temperature (too high) during transportation or storage were cited as the main causes for losses independently of the fruit or vegetable commodity. With regards to the processing step, the lack of constant supply of fresh fruit and vegetable is a hindrance and also inadequate processing that produces products of too low quality and hence reduces the marketability of those. Ways of mitigate losses were reported by the respondents in Tabl.

Table 35: Mitigation of PHLs reported for fruits and vegetables and per step of processing.

Table 37: Weight postharvest losses in meat and meat products Two respondents selected ‘meat’ as a commodity and answered questions related to loss estimates. Beef was the only meat product reported. By-products were feet, skin and leather. The percentage of final product lost by weight in the postharvest value chain for Meat and Meat products is presented in Table.

Table 38: Causes, mitigation of PHLs, and constraints to reducing them (beef) High losses reported during the transport to the market were attributed to a lack of feed for the animals and poor transportation conditions (animals dehydrated and losing weight). It was proposed to provide watering and feeding. A suggestion was to conduct slaughtering in production zone and transport the meat however this option would require cold-chain transportation and additional costs. Constraints were the long distances between productions, slaughtering and marketing zones that reduced the quality and increased PHLs.

Table 39: Weight and economic postharvest losses in milk and dairy products On average weight losses and economic losses reported were 30% and 40%, respectively. The main step where losses occur was during the storage and distribution of the products (15%). During the processing of the milk 10% of losses were reported and 5% during the consumption. Causes and ways to reduce those losses in goat milk and dairy products from Afghanistan, and constraints to achieve this were reported in Table.

Table 40: Causes, mitigation of PHLs, and constraints to reducing PHLs reported for milk and dairy products (Goat cheese, yoghurt, qurut from Afghanistan) Cow mastitis (infection of the cow mammary gland) was reported and can be caused by a lack of hygiene. Lack of equipment and knowledge in dairy processing as well as poor storage facilities and packaging were also cited. Capacity building and better storage facilities were proposed to reduce losses. Current constraints are lack in knowledge of processing and packaging of dairy products and inadequate facilities for storage and distribution of the products.

Table 41: Causes of PHLs reported for fish and seafood and per step of Postharvest Losses were reported for inland capture only. However these comments can be extrapolated to marine capture. Whilst selling fish or seafood, loss in weight and quality were cited whilst for the other steps, quality deterioration (fish is extremely sensitive to temperature and microbiological degradation) was highlighted as major. Inadequate ice/chilling capacity during sale of fish was also cited. Table reports ways to mitigate losses in fish and sea food and constraints.

Table 42: Mitigation of PHLs reported for fish and seafood and per step of Postharvest

However, since the 1990s Egypt has also had to import about 50% of its wheat and maize requirements. The population has also increased rapidly, and there are now over 91 million people in Egypt, of whom 43% are urban-based. Egypt had a per capita GDP of USD$3,366 in 2014, with 2.2% GDP growth in 2014 and 10.4% inflation in 2015 (World Bank, 2016)

Note: The above calculations use the domestic wheat procurement price of USD$392/t; and the imported wheat price of USD308/t; (FAO, 2015); the domestic maize and rice procurement prices of USD$264/t and USD253/t (Hamza & Beillard, 2014); and the international maize price of USD$200/t (USDA, 2016)

Table 44: Causes of postharvest loss in Egyptian cereal supply chains, supply chain actors involved, and loss reduction options

4.1.5. Lessons Learned from the Case Study

Products - many products already exist which could be adopted and adapted by actors in the Egyptian cereal postharvest supply chains to help reduce losses. Some of these products include improved smallholder grain protection options such as hermetic bags, effective pesticides, drying sheets, threshing machines, and larger scale storage options such as improved warehouses and stock management systems. However, these products will only be useful if they are introduced alongside capacity building programmes so that supply chain actors understand how to use them optimally and why.

Figure 12: Trends in cassava production in Nigeria and other top producing country from 1960 to 2013.

Figure 13: Relationship between trends in cassava production and yield in Nigeria between 2000 and 2013.

n the light of Nigeria’s status as a cassava producer, postharvest losses of cassava and othe! crops are considered to be an important issue in Nigeria. The permanent secretary, Ministry o: Agriculture and Rural Development, Mr. Sonny Echono, mentioned that postharvest losse: have been estimated to range between 5 and 20% for grains, 20% for fish and as high as 50. 60% for tubers, fruits and vegetable. While the focus of government policy is directed at horticultural crops the Nigerian government in partnership with the private sector is working to tackle issues of postharvest losses through the establishment of Staple Crops Processing Zones (SCPZ), and anumber of export crops handling, preservation and conditioning centres. n the literature review, losses for cassava in Nigeria were reported as between 8% (Naziri et al 2014) and 25% (for gari; Oguntade 2013) while the FAO gave general figures of 50% whick do not specifically refer to Nigeria. The economic cost varied from US$20 million (South Wes only) and US$900 million (EUR 686 million). The differences in the value of the economic losses reflects the differences in estimated physical losses, whether the authors are referring to the whole of Nigeria or part and differences in value attributed to cassava.

Table 46: Main causes, mitigation measures and extent of postharvest losses occurring along the different sub-value chains

4.2.4. Measures and Strategies Implemented for Postharvest Loss Reduction

Figure 14: Typical groundnuts value chain in African producer country

Figure 15: Artisanal processors

The issue of crop loss is significant not only at national level but for individual farmers who have invested large amounts in the hope of making good returns. Investing in production and marketing of perishable produce is a high risk activity. 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.

Table 49: Improved postharvest projects and practices for tomatoes in Bangladesh One stakeholder attributed the problem of postharvest losses to the focus of the Department of Agricultural Extension (DAE) on increasing provided advices to the farmers and supplie production: “We [DAE] imparted training and d necessary agro-inputs timely which played a vital role in increasing the production” (The Daily Observer, 19.11.2015) but not giving enough attention to postharvest aspects, food safety and marketing. The Department of Agricultural Marketing (DAM) has worked on getting policy makers recognise the role of marketing but the department is very poorly staffed and price d ata collection, published online every day, is its main function. This information is not very accessible to farmers but it is used by traders. To address this the DAM has a pilot project to install electronic display boards at 3three to four major markets (there are 13,000 markets in t he country). Group marketing is being promoted and there are now some 2,000 farmer marketing groups often supported by projects though principles of groups marketing and appreciation of the benefits are not always understood. The DAM lacks coordination with the DAE (alt solution would be for the two departments hough they sit in the same building) but the ideal together so that agronomic advice is provided hand-in-hand with postharvest and marketing advice, including calculation of production costs and prices. Ideally these services would be available at Upazila level. The DAM is developing produce collection centres which combine assembly points with marketing infrastructure and cold storage.

Farms are typically small and farming fragmented. Absentee farm management is common with a heavy reliance on expatriate farm workers in the livestock sector. The types of livestock farming system predominate: nomadic herding of camels and goats, transhumanant grazing of cattle, camels and goats, and, sedentary intensive and semi-intensive production of livestock, often combined with milk production (Table 50).

Figure 16: The Oman red meat value chain and postharvest practices Source: interviews

Table 51: Summary of volume and value of losses by country (1) From total red meat production plus live imports (3) Proportion effected from case study interviews (5) A notional US$ 500 per Mt has been assumed for all meat based on a rough average of global wholesale prices (see for example www.meatinfo.co.uk)

Omani supermarket manager shows meat waste record for product past its shelf-life Somali goats - retail Al Musnaah

Iranian goats - retail Al Musnaah

Table 52: Production of dairy products in Uganda The Dairy Master Plan which was adopted in 1993 was the main document guiding development of Uganda’s dairy industry. Some of the major implementations that have been carried out based on recommendations of the Dairy Master Plan include liberalization of the dairy industry, restructuring and commercialisation of the state owned dairy processing company, and establishment of a Dairy Board. The Dairy Industry Act, 1998 provided the legal framework for implementing recommendations of the Dairy Master Plan, including establishing Dairy Development Authority (DDA) as a semi-autonomous statutory body mandated to develop and regulate Uganda’s dairy industry (Balikowa, 2011). The DDA was

Milk production in Ugandan is dominated by smallholder producers who own over 90% of the national herd and produce the bulk of the milk in the country. The milk chain is show in Figure [Indigenous cattle are still the majority of the herd (estimated at over 60% of the herd). The average herd size in Uganda is 6.9 heads of cattle per cattle owning household (Balikowa, 2011). About 65% of the milk produced in the country is marketed, which is based on FAO data and higher than the figure in Table. The remaining milk is either consumed by the family, fed to calves, offered as gift, processed into traditional dairy products for home consumption or wasted due to spoilage. self-sufficiency in the production of milk in Uganda by promoting production and competition in the dairy industry and monitoring the market for milk and dairy products.”" Cattle are the major source of milk in Uganda, whilst the supply from other animals is insignificant (e.g. dairy goats). The size of the national cattle herd was estimated at 11.4 million in 2008 and had been growing steadily from approximately 4.2 million head of cattle in 1986 (Balikowa, 2011). The number of milked cows was estimated at about 1.5 million cows with an average milked yield per cow of 8.5 litres per week, which reflects the dominance of indigenous breeds in the dairy herd (Table).

4.6.2. Assessment of Postharvest Losses and Economic Burden

Table 54: Estimated monetary value of annual quantitative PHL in Uganda’s dairy value chain (in US$) During the rainy season milk losses reportedly more than double because, on the one hand, production increases, whilst, on the other hand, milk collection is constrained due to poor road conditions. It is estimated that during the wet season up to 42.8% of milk produced remains on the farm unsold (FAO/ILRI, 2005), thereby leading to forced consumption by humans (e.g. farmers family, neighbours). In particular, this is likely to affect producers in more remote villages.

Table 55: Postharvest practices in Uganda’s dairy sector The Dairy (Marketing of Milk and Milk Products) Regulations 2003 being implemented by DDA and the code of hygienic practice for milk and milk products which was developed in collaboration with Uganda National Bureau of Standards (UNBS) have contributed significantly to the successful implementation of reforms in the dairy sector. As a result of the improvements in the handling and marketing of milk, the country has witnessed a steady growth in the production and consumption of milk, as well as significant private sector investments in the infrastructure for milk collection, bulking, transportation and processing (Balikowa, 2011) (Table).

1.6.4. Measures and Strategies Implemented for Postharvest Loss Reduction Table 56: Causes of losses in the Ugandan dairy value chain According to Balikowa (2011), since the secretariat of the (Dairy Development Authority) DDA started operations in 2000, many reforms in the handling and marketing of milk have been implemented including, amongst others:

Fish is the most important source of protein in Indonesia by a considerable margin. This is shown in Table. Table 58: Fish production for food, Indonesia, 2014 In 2011, the Indonesian population consumed some 7 million tonnes of fish - 29 kilos per person per year. This compares with a global average 19 kilos per person per year. Indonesia is self-sufficient in fish, exporting five times as much as it imports. ..7. Fish and Seafood Products in Indonesiz ..7.1. Status and Importance Fish and Seafood Products in Indonesia

Source: Marine and Fisheries in Figures, 2014, Ministry of Marine Affairs and Fisheries Table 57: Animal protein production in Indonesia, 2010

Figure 20: System for identifying & addressing PHL in Indonesia’s fisheries sector

Table 60: Summary of causes and mitigation for the cases studies

Table 61: Physical losses for cereals compared to the global situation, literature review, online survey and case/field survey

Table 62: Physical losses for root and tuber crops compared to the global situation literature review, online survey and case/field survey - = no data available for OIC Member Countries

Where: - = no data available for OIC Member Countries

Table 65: Physical losses for meat and meat products compared to the global situation, literature review, online survey and case/field survey Dairy and Dairy Products

Where: - = no data available for OIC Member Source: Authors own analysis of the data Table 66: Physical losses for dairy and dairy products compared to the global situation, literature review, online survey and case/field survey Fish and Seafood Products

Table 67: Physical losses for fish and seafood products compared to the global situation literature review, online survey and case/field survey

Where: - = no data available for OIC Member

Where: - = no data available for OIC Member

Table 70: Economic losses for meat and meat products reported in the literature and case/field study Where: - = no data available for OIC Member

Table 71: Economic losses for milk and dairy products reported in the literature and case/field study

Root and Tuber Crops

3. Consequences of Postharvest Losses in the OIC Member Country

Table 74: Projects on cereals Table reports projects mentioned by participants in the online survey. The authors have not confirmed the validity of the projects and this list may omit many other projects.

Projects and Programs - Oilseeds and Pulses

Projects and Programs - Root and Tuber Crops

Suggestions specific to the Commodity Groups

Source: Authors own suggestion Figure 21: Suggested Policy decision tree for selecting priority value chains when postharvest losses can have the greatest impact

ANNEX 2: Regional Groups of the OIC Member Countries

Related topics:

Connect with 287M+ leading minds in your field

Discover breakthrough research and expand your academic network

Explore
Papers
Topics

Features
Mentions
Analytics
PDF Packages
Advanced Search
Search Alerts

Journals
Academia.edu Journals
My submissions
Reviewer Hub
Why publish with us
Testimonials

Company
About
Careers
Press
Help Center
Terms
Privacy
Copyright
Content Policy

580 California St., Suite 400

San Francisco, CA, 94104

© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved