MORE ON POST HARVEST LOSSES
The National Maize Corporation has been doing extensive research over the years with regards to understanding how post-harvest losses come about and how they can be managed. This platform is now one of the ways in which we seek to inform you, dear readers and fellow farming enthusiasts, on how best to mitigate this growing problem of post harvest losses. In our research, we stumbled upon an article in the Mail and Guardian, which addresses the same issue. We thought it would be wonderful to share the same with you so that we may all understand how others view this ever developing challenge. Enjoy your read, we did.
“The need to increase food production has become a policy mantra. Populations are growing, so we need more food. But much of what is produced never makes it past the farm gate, especially in developing countries.
Eliminating those losses is a way to increase food availability without requiring additional resources or placing additional burdens on the environment.
Post-harvest losses (PHL) happen at every stage of the supply chain, but in developing countries losses are the most significant. Harvesting, drying and storage are all stages which see substantial losses, both quantitative (physical losses caused by rodents, insects or infestations) and qualitative (loss of quality and value).
The extent of these losses is substantial but measuring them can be notoriously difficult.
It is estimated that post harvest losses range from 5 to 30% or more, and in sub-Saharan Africa alone the value of PHL overall is thought tobe around $4bn a year. This represents a vast amount of food, along with the wasted cost and effort of producing it.
"One of the main arguments in favour of PHL reduction is that it is a more resource-efficient means of increasing food supply than just producing more food," says Rick Hodges, visiting professor of grain post-harvest management at the Natural Resources Institute. "The wasted land, water, labour and agricultural inputs need to be taken into account, not only the lost food."
PHL isn't a new concept, but there's been a flurry of activity around it since the start of the food crisis, with growing recognition of its untapped potential in mitigating food insecurity in sub-Saharan Africa in particular.
Approaches to preventing PHL
Current work by some donor countries and aid agencies in sub-Saharan Africa is drawing on the learning of past PHL work in other parts of the world, and some new approaches are also being researched. With many governments still favoring productionist approaches to increasing food security, this current wave of interest in PHL gives the development sector an opportunity to highlight what works and show why policymakers should take PHL seriously.
The Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), for example, is drawing on the experience of itsPostcosecha programme in central America, which ran from 1983 to 2003 and introduced metal silos for grain storage. It is now applying the learning tonew post-harvest programmesin eastern and southern Africa, where farmers rely on traditional storage systems made from local plant materials and soil, leaving grains vulnerable to high losses.
Metal silos are cylindrical structures which protect grains from insects, rodents, birds and moulds.Research on their impact in Central Americafound that they delivered a variety of benefits: families had to buy less food and had greater flexibility to decide when to sell their surpluses, rather than being forced to sell it all quickly. This resulted in higher incomes and a steadier market supply.
"In sub-Saharan Africa post-harvest losses in maize and other key grains are roughly twice as important [as in Central America], especially where the large grain borer [a pest that destroys maize] is active," says Max Streit, senior adviser in post-harvest management at SDC. "Losses can and should also be avoided in sub-Saharan Africa, through scaling-up of the best existing technical solutions, including the metal silo."
Metal silos aren't the only option though: the African Postharvest Losses Information System (APHLIS), which launched in 2009 to provide much-needed data on PHL, hascompiled an overview of a variety of grain storage methods and costs, comparing options such as open weave sacks, improved mud silos, metal silos, polythene bags, and metal/plastic drums.
As is often the case, the suitability of interventions depends on local needs and conditions. For silos really to be useful, farmers need to have the potential to produce enough to store. At lower production scales, it might be more cost effective to address pest susceptibility itself.
Many now see government and private sector investment essential to providing infrastructure and markets so that producers have an incentive to reduce PHL. To help make that happen, the debate about food security needs to incorporate more clearly the impact of food loss and not just call for the facilitation of production or for a reduction in food prices. It is here that development actors working in this area have a crucial role to play.”
The reader, and farmers alike, can be reminded that the Ministry of Agriculture has invested tremendously in the subsidy of inputs and tractor services to help farmers along, with regards to production. To help provide continuity to the process, NMC’s Agri-business Division have channeled its energies to ensuring that local maize farmers understand that not only are we as farmers producing way below the average tonnage per hectare, but that we are losing so much during the post-harvest period. Through the National Maize Competition (NAMCOM), we have been able to identify farmers that produce as much as 14Metric Tonnes per hectare. If one farmer can do this on the same land, what’s stopping you?
So now, the onus is on us, as farmers, to attempt to reduce our post harvest losses as much as possible so as to gain our just returns on the investments made towards producing our maize.