1

Post-harvest Losses in ASEAN Countries

Rosa S. Rolle, Ph.DSenior Agro-Industry and Post harvest OfficerFAO Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific

Bangkok, ThailandRosa.Rolle@fao.org

Overview

• General overview of losses and their impact

• Post-harvest losses in fruits and vegetables

• Post-harvest losses in rice• Conclusion

Over half of the food produced today is either lost, wasted or discarded as a result of inefficiency in the human-managed food chain.

Losses generally refer both to quantitative and qualitativereductions in the amount of and the value of food

Impact of Losses

• Losses result in lower quality produce for consumption or sale.

• Reduce returns to farmers. • Increase prices for consumers• Impose greater pressure on the

environment as farmers try to compensate by increasing their production.

Cam

bodi

a

Indo

nesi

a

Lao

PD

R

Mal

aysi

a

Mya

nmar

Phi

lippi

nes

Thai

land

Vie

tnam

1996

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

FRUIT TOTAL (excluding

melons) (x 1000 MT

19962006

Fruit Production (excluding melons) in ASEAN Countries

Source: FAO-RAP 2007

2

Vegetable Production (including melons) in ASEAN Countries

Cam

bodi

a

Indo

nesi

a

Lao

PD

R

Mal

aysi

a

Mya

nmar

Phi

lippi

nes

Thai

land

Vie

tnam

1996

0100020003000

40005000

6000

7000

8000

9000

VEGETABLE PRODUCTION

(including melons) x 1000 MT

19962006

Source: FAO-RAP 2007

Post-harvest Losses in Fruits and Vegetables

Post-harvest Losses in Fruits and Vegetables in Selected ASEAN Countries

15 - 4015 - 40Indonesia

4228Philippines

17 - 3514Thailand

2020Malaysia

20-3025 - 40Vietnam

Vegetables (%)Fruit (%)Country

Source: Bautista (2001)

Types of Losses

Quantitative Losses- Reduced weight- Partial or total waste of a product due to decay or senescence

Qualitative Losses- deterioration in texture, flavor or nutritional value- unsafe produce

HARVEST

TREATMENT

PACKAGING

TRANSPORT

STORAGE

DISTRIBUTION

MARKETING

Losses Can Occur at Any Point in the Post-harvest Chain

Protection from mechanical injury, contamination and temperature and relative humidity control are critical in all post-harvest operations to minimise losses

PRODUCTION

Factors that Contribute to Losses

• Low level of awareness of produce handlers• Inadequacy of facilities • Lack of know-how• Poor management • Market dysfunction• Carelessness of farmers or workers• Poor production planning• Poor integration of activities in fruit and

vegetable supply chains

3

Traditional Vegetable Supply Chain Private Sector Initiated Supply Chain

Technical Factors That Contribute to Losses in Fruits

and Vegetables and Recommended Solutions

Microbiological Factors that Contribute to Post-harvest

Losses

Post-harvest Diseases

• Caused by fungal and bacterial infections.

• Result in – Weight loss– Trimming loss– Complete loss of

commodity• Result in losses in

– Visual quality Nutritional

MAJOR POSTHARVEST DISEASES

Crown Rot

Blue Mold Yeasty Rot

Green Mold

Stem-end Rot

4

MAJOR POSTHARVEST DISEASES

Black Mold

Phomopsis Rot

Alternaria Rot

Neck Rot Anthracnose

Sour Rot

MAJOR POSTHARVEST DISEASES

Vegetables (bacterial soft rot – Pectobacterium corotovorum

subsp. carotovorum)

MAJOR POSTHARVEST DISEASES

Vegetables (bacterial soft rot – Pectobacterium corotovorum

subsp. carotovorum)

Control of post harvest diseases

• Good cultural practices – use of healthy planting

materials– field sanitation– appropriate fertilizer

and pesticide spray programs

– fruit bagging, tree pruning) Bagging

Control of post harvest diseases

• Sanitation and cleanliness– In handling, packaging, storage and transport, as preventive

measures against post harvest diseases.

• Careful handling to avoid physical injury which could predispose produce to disease infection.

• Harvesting at an optimal stage of maturity.

• Separating diseased produce from sound produce.

• Use of clean harvesting containers and rapid cooling,

Unclean packaging

• Use of unclean, non hygienic reusable plastic crates/baskets can lead to unsafe produce and health hazards as well as shorten shelf life of produce

5

Hygienic Management of Reuseable Packaging Materials

Reduces Risks of:• Microbiological

contamination• Spread of post-

harvest diseases• Chemical

contamination• Insect infestation

Food-borne pathogens compromise safety and lead to losses

• Bacteria• Viruses• Parasites such as protozoa

PATHOGENIC ORGANISMSOrganism

BacteriaListeria monocytogenes

Clostridium botulinun

E. Coli (o157:H7)

Salmonella

ParasitesEntamoeba enterolyticaGiardia lambiaAscaris spp.

VirusHepatitis A virus

Potential Source of Inoculum

soil, polluted irrigation water, contaminated manure

soil, aquatic sediments

fecal material, natural water sources

fecal material, sewage sludge, sewage polluted water

contaminated irrigation water, human feces through poor

hygienic practices

contaminated food and water

Commodities

shredded cabbage, raw vegetable salads

shredded cabbage

vegetable salads

leafy vegetables, bean sprouts, cut muskmelon,

cut tomatoes

raw vegetables

lettuce

Source: Francis et al., 1999; Raiden et al., 2003

SOURCES OF INOCULUM

FOOD SAFETY APPROACHESGood Agricultural Practices (GAP)

Codes of practice that covers the procedures and regulations in the production of fresh produce to insure good quality, food safety, environmental management, work safety and welfare.

• Site• Planting materials• Irrigation• Fertilization• Pest management• Harvesting and product

handling

Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP)Clearly defined mandatory rules that govern the practices and regulations needed in the production of manufactured goods, fresh cuts and sprouts

• Premises• Equipment• Sanitation and hygiene• Production and process

controls• Quality control• Documentation• Warehousing and distribution

FOOD SAFETY APPROACHES

6

Physical Factors That Contribute to Post-harvest Losses

Inappropriate/Inadequate Bulk Packaging

Overpacking: The Larger the Quantity of Produce Per

Package the Higher the Losses

4.303.041.265 kg

4.963.951.0110 kg

5.354.850.5015 kg

TotalBruise (%)

Weight Loss (%)

Quantity

Source: Amuttiratnana and Passornsiri (1992)

Unsuitable Packaging Leads to Qualitative Loss

• Use of improper packaging results in high percentages of damage and shortens shelf life of produce

CO2 accumulation of baby corn in a PE Bag

Mango shrinkage due to water loss

Physical Injury During Transport and Distribution

• Impact damage (e.g. bruise, crack, split, cuts):- Dropping or throwing individual or packages of produce- Crushing produce due to package failure or spillage.

• Compression damage (e.g. bruise, crack, split, deformation)- Overfilling of containers (over-packing)- Containers too deep or stacked too high- Stacking of baskets w/o separating dividers- Sitting on the produce or pack of produce

• Vibration damage (e.g. abrasion, cuts)- Under-filling of containers (under-packing)- Poor suspension system of vehicle- Rough roads

Package failure

High Compression owing to packing too many layers of produceleads to high damage and loss during transportation

During transport to destination markets

In the marketAt the farm

7

Defects Resulting from Physical Injury During Transportation

Packing without proper cushioning or accessory materials results in cutting, wounding and bruising and damage thus contributing to losses.

BruisingTrim

Trim

Quantitative Loss At Various Points of the Supply Chain in Thailand

3.321.57Chinese cabbage

6.893.33Tomato

2.582.87Lettuce

5.134.88Sweet Pepper

3.772.55Cucumber

Defects(%)

Wt. Loss (%)

Crop

7.541.92Chinese cabbage

9.080.41Tomato

4.981.32Lettuce

Sweet Pepper

4.782.43Cucumber

Defects(%)

Wt. Loss(%)

Crop

Farm to Wholesale Wholesale to Retail

Source: Amuttiratnana and Passornsiri (1992)

Plastic Crates an Option for Minimisingloss and Damage from Harvest to

Market

Inadequate Temperature and RH Management

•Result in wilting and shrivelling of produce

•Reduce shelf-life

•Reduce Consumer acceptance and sale

Mango Shrinkage due to Water Loss

VENTILATED TRUCK

REFRIGERATED TRUCK

Temperature Management Options During Transportation

APEC Training on Improvement of Quality of Fresh Produce for Export Markets, 3-14 Oct 2005, Bangkok, Thailand…

• Use forklift, improvised conveyer or staircase for loading/unloading.

• Use separators (e.g. wooden slabs), important for baskets

8

APEC Training on Improvement of Quality of Fresh Produce for Export Markets, 3-14 Oct 2005, Bangkok, Thailand…

Use of Ice Bottles : A Temperature Management Option during Transport:

Source: ZongQi, 2007

APEC Training on Improvement of Quality of Fresh Produce for Export Markets, 3-14 Oct 2005, Bangkok, Thailand…

- EC - evaporation of water provided in the vicinity of produce to dissipate heat and cool the produce.

- Temperature reduction is relatively small but RH could increase to 90% or higher, making EC very effective in reducing water loss and water stress-associated processes (e.g. shriveling, wilting, ripening).

- EC transport techniques: moist cloth cover of packages, lining transport load with moist cloth, packing while still wet from washing

• Evaporative cooling (EC)Evaporative Cooling: A Temperature Management Option

FAO’s Initiatives to Reduce Losses

• Support to the conduct of assessments

• Country level studies and surveys of different aspects of horticultural chains as a basis for designing interventions:– Organization in horticultural chains– Packaging– Losses– Infrastructure design

• Development and dissemination of technical support materials

• Design, development and implementation of training programmesthat respond to member country needs

• Design, development and implementation of technical projects to support capacity development

Post-Harvest Losses in Grains

• Between the farm gate and the consumer, about 20% value is added to harvested paddy rice by processors.

• Between the same points 10 to 35% of the paddy can also be physically lost.

Losses Can Occur at any Point in the Chain

HARVEST

PRE-DRYING

THRESHING

WINNOWING

DRYING

STORAGE

PROCESSING

MARKETING

PRODUCTION

9

Factors that Contribute to Losses

• Outdated methods of drying– Poor quality of grain going into storage

• Improper and inadequate transportation and handling– Losses due to spillage

• Poor storage infrastructure• Poor storage management• Poor milling techniques• Low level of farmer awareness

CONSUMERS

Traders

Wholesalersretailers

Rice Farmers

The Traditional Rice Supply Chain

PROCESSORS

Stakeholder Roles in the Rice Post-Harvest Chain

FARMER TRADER MILLER EXPORTER PRODUCTION ++++ - - +

DRYING ++++ - - + TRANSPORTATION + ++++ + +

MILLING - + +++ ++++ STORAGE ++ + +++ +++

RICE MARKETING CHANNELS

FARMERS

FARMERS’COOPERATIVE

PRIVATEMILLERS

CONSUMERS

RETAILERS

WHOLESALERS

PADDY TRADERS

Main Causes of Loss

• Spoilage and wastage at the farm level• Delay in drying• Poor storage • Poorly maintained or outdated rice mills• Insect pests and rodents throughout the

post-harvest chain.

Types of Losses

• Quantitative Losses– spillage– consumption by insects, rodents and birds.

• Qualitative Losses– Mould– Damaged grain– Color and texture losses

10

Post harvest Losses in Rice in South East Asia

Activity Estimated Range of Loss (%) Harvest 1-3 Handling 2-7 Threshing 2-6 Drying 1-5 Storage 2-6 Transport 2-10 Total 10-27

Source: FAO

Quantitative Losses in Rice in Cambodia

7.5 – 22.014.7Milling

17.2 - 53.235.6TOTAL

3.5 – 18.010.7Storage1.0 – 2.02.0Drying1.0 – 2.21.6Threshing2.0 – 5.23.6Transportation2.2 – 3.83.0Cutting

Range(%)

Mean(%)

Post-harvest stage

(88 on farm studies)

Storage – A major source of losses

“ It is considered that 25-50 per cent of rice harvests in developing countries are destroyed by wastage and spoilage, half of which occurs during transport and storage.”

J. Rickman and M. Gummert, IRRI

Factors that Govern the Efficacy of Storage

• Quality of inputs into storage• Storage infrastructure• Location• Management of the storage structure

Quality of Inputs into Storage

HARVEST

PRE-DRYING

THRESHING

WINNOWING

DRYING

STORAGE

PROCESSING

MARKETING

•Activities prior to storage:

•Pre-harvest grain quality•Maturity at harvest•Proper harvesting techniques•Threshing•Drying

Influence the quality and integrity of the grain going into storage

PRODUCTION

Traditional Storage Structures

11

Wooden Structure

Wooden Structure Designed to Facilitate Aeration

Clay or Mud StructuresRisks

Straw Structures Bags

Earthen Pots

Addukkupaanai (Earthen pot-pile), Kulukkai (Earthen bin),

Source: Kiruba et al, 2006

Limitations of Traditional Storage Structures and Containers

• Spoilage due to:- high grain moisture, rain, storms or flooding; - dirt contamination

• Vulnerability of grain to - insects, rodents and birds - theft- collapse of the structure

12

Other Factors that Contribute to Losses

Bad Store Management

Spillage

Infrastructural Defects

Cracking of the walls

Bad Hygiene

Good Hygiene: a low cost solution to insect infestation in storage

Source: Cleaning Reduces Grain Losses of Stored Rice, Nakamura et al 2008; JARQ 42 (1), 35 – 40 (2008) http://www.jircas.affrc.go.jp

Untidy Environment

13

Qualitative Changes in Rice During Storage

• Chemical, physical and functional qualities of rice are altered during storage owing to:– moisture – storage temperature – duration of storage

Qualitative Changes During Rice Storage

Source: Matsuo, ed. 1995. Science of the Rice Plant.

CHARACTERISTIC

EFFECT

Whiteness - Expanded Volume + Taste - Viscosity - Chewiness - Stickiness - B Vitamin - Reducing Sugars + Enzymes - Fatty Acids + Amino Acids -

Qualitative Changes During Storage

Source: Rice Quality Workshop 2003: plantsciences.ucdavis.edu/uccricequality

Storage Innovations

Hermetic Storage

• Reduces insect activity (1/kg)

• Constant grain moisture content

• Increases the life of seed from 6 months to 12 months

• Maintains milling quality

Rickman and Gummert,IRRI Source of Photo: New Agriculturist 2008

The household metallic silo is a simple storage technology recommended by FAO for small and medium-scale grain farmers.

household metal siloskey allies in FAO’s fight against hunger

14

Beneficiary Countries of Metal Silos through FAO Assistance 1997-2007

Afghanistan MadagascarBolivia MaliBurkina Faso MalawiCambodia MozambiqueChad NamibiaEcuador PanamaGuinea SenegalIraq East Timor

Cost of Silos Country

120 kg

250 kg

500 kg

900 kg

1800 kg

Afghanistan - 28 70 - 92 Bolivia 20 35 60 - - Burkina Faso 26 29 42 56 70 Cambodia 12 20 30 - 50 Chad - 66 97 128 187 Guinea - - 59 - 70 Madagascar - 40 50 70 100 Malawi - 22 45** 60*** - Mozambique 20 34 54 75 - Namibia - - 22* - - Senegal 23 42 60 76 100

• *a silo of 400 kg capacity • ** a silo o f 700 kg capacity • *** a silo of 1000 kg capacity

Technical Advantages and Benefits

• Simple structure• Air-tight and permits fumigation• Avoids use of insecticides• Requires little storage space• Can be placed near the home• Built using materials that are generally locally

available• Tried and tested in several countries• Lifetime of more than 15 years if well maintained

Socio-Economic Advantages

• Easy to use• Profitable in use• Low cost and sustainable• Facilitates the work of women.

Silo: An Important Element in Grain Distribution

Credit: D. Mejia, FAO

• Simple and appropriate approaches and technologies can be applied to reducing post-harvest losses.

• Awareness must be raised among stakeholders in production, post-harvest handling and marketing, of the economic impact of poor management.

Conclusion

15

Thank You