1

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Postharvest loss (PHL) is a measurable qualitative and quantitative food loss along the

supply chain, starting at the time of harvest till its consumption or other end uses (De

lucia and Assennato, 1994). PHL can also occur either due to food waste or due to

inadvertent losses along the way. Therefore food waste is the loss of edible food due to

human action or inaction such as throwing away wilted produce, not consuming

available food before it expiring date or taking service size beyond one consumption.

United Nation (March, 2013) Current world population is expected to reach 10.5 billion

by 2050, further adding to global food security concerns. The increase translate to 33%

additional human mouth to feed, with the greatest demand growth in the poor

communities of the world. (Alexandratos and Bruinsma, 2012), Food supply would

need to increase by 60% (estimated at 2005 food production levels) in other to meet the

food demand in 2050. Food availability can be increased by increasing production,

improving distribution and reducing the losses. Thus, the reduction of post – harvest

food losses is a critical component of ensuring future global food security.

Food and Agricultural organization of U.N. predicts that about 1.3 billion tons of food

is globally lost per year after harvest (Gustavasson et al., 2011). Reduction in these

losses would increase the amount of food available for human consumption and
 2

enhance global food security, a growing concern with rising food prices due to growing

consumer demand, increasing demand for bio-fuels and other industrial uses, and

increases weather variability (Mundial, 2008; Trostle 2010). PHL do not merely reduce

food availability for human consumption but also cause negative externalities to society

through costs of waste management, green house gas production, and loss of scarce

resources used in their production. PHL is estimated to be equivalent to 6 – 10 percent

of human generated green house gas emissions (Gustavasson et al., 2011; Vermuelen

et at., 2012). Given the significant role PHL reduction could have towards sustainably

contributing to global food security, it is important to have reliable measures of these

losses. Unfortunately, most of the available postharvest loss and food waste estimates

are based on the anecdotal stories with few actual measured or estimated numbers.

Nigeria records over 40% post harvest losses, which has led to an unprecedented hike in

food importation in the country (Patrick T. 2013). In which significant losses occurs

early in the food supply chain in industrialized regions. While in low-income countries,

food is lost mostly during the early and middle stages of the food supply chain. Food

supply is mostly wasted at the consumer’s levels.

Ezeabasilli (2011), the main causes of PHL and waste in low-income countries like

Nigeria are connected to financial management and technical limitation in harvesting,

storage and processing techniques (Gustavasson et al., 2011). The review will reveal

the major data gaps in the current knowledge of global food losses and waste in the

study Zone. Further research in this area is urgent. Food security is a major concern in a
 3

large part of the developing world. Food production must clearly increase significantly

to meet the future demand of an increasing world population. Economically, food losses

have a direct and negative impact on the income of both farmers and consumers. How

much food is lost in Nigeria today? How can we prevent food losses after harvest?

There is no precise answer to this question and there is no much ongoing research in the

country.

The Federal Government has been assisting farmers in mopping up excess farm produce

and storing them at strategic reserves, which are sold to people at reduced prices during

periods of need food scarcity (Adesina 2013). Farmers and stakeholders also argue that

storage facilities alone cannot conquer the problems of post harvest losses in Nigeria.

Processing facilities are directly required across the country so as to add value to

agricultural products for local consumption and export. Agro cottage, industries and

factories should be established to take care of excess farm produce that farmers will

make profit.

For instance, the Dangote group has invested 4 billion USD in sugarcane, pineapple and

tomato. In addition, Dansa food has committed £36 million to process sorghum and

transform to high value. About 2 million USD has been committed by the World Bank

to support agricultural transformation agenda (Ahmed O.A. 2011). Government and

private companies should develop new staple crop processing in the study zone to

attract youth back to land and creation of job opportunity. Thus, processing activities
 4

are undertaken to provide a greater yield from raw farm produce by either increasing the

amount of finished product or to improve/ improving the harvest technologies.

Post harvest system Engineering deals with threshing, shelling and processing with

machine required to accomplish the stages of operation of finish consumer’s goods. It

involves cleaning, cooling, size reduction and other processing operations. The material

has to be conveyed from one point to another, especially in processing industries.

Post harvest multipurpose machine are relatively scare in the study zone (Nigeria). Post

harvest system engineering activities in cereal, legumes and oilseed in Nigeria is mostly

comprised of traditional technique by growers’ traders and the processor, resulting in

considerable deterioration of physical and nutritional qualities of harvested crops.

The agricultural value chain comprises production, harvest, handling and storage,

processing, distribution and consumption. Food loss occurs all along this chain but is

most acute between harvest and distribution in developing countries, which accounts for

50% of the loss.

In developing countries, the root causes of food loss are interlinked and complex, but

the primary drivers include: lack of extension services to build skills in handling,

packaging and storage, insufficient postharvest storage facilities or on-farm storage

technologies and poor market access. These are said to be the major challenges facing

the loss of agricultural crops after harvest. Research and interventions in developing

countries have largely focused on technology-based approaches that look for solutions
 5

to specific food loss problems at single points in the value chain, for example, on-farm

storage in hermetically sealed bags, fruit and vegetable refrigeration through solar

powered coolers, and mobile drying systems for grain. More recently, however, donors

have taken a wider market-based approach to improving the efficiency of the value

chain as a whole, rather than focusing on single points (okoro and Ezeabasilli, 2011).

The review will therefore illustrate a conceptual model of PHL, its challenges, factors

influencing PHL of the selected crops and technologies to reduce them to increase food

security in the country.

1.2 Objectives of Review

The aim is to improve data availability concerning Post-harvest losses in cereals,

legumes and root tuber value chains in Nigeria and to identify options for the public as

well as the private sector to engage in their post-harvest loss reduction programmes.

1.3 Scope of Study

This seminar work is limited to the review of post harvest losses of some selected crops

in Nigeria towards food security, whereby cereal, leguminous and Root tuber crops will

be reviewed as they affect food security in Nigeria. Such crops include maize, rice,

groundnut, soya bean, yam and cassava.

 6

CHAPTER TWO

2.1 FEW DEFINITION AND CONCEPT

2.1.1 Post Harvest Looses

Postharvest loss can be defined as the degradation in both quantity and quality of food

Production from harvest to consumption (Aubert and Vullin, 1998). Quality losses

include those that affect the nutrient/caloric composition, the acceptability, and the

edibility of a given product. These losses are generally more common in developed

countries. Quantity losses refer to those that result in the loss of the amount of a

product. Loss of quantity is more common in developing countries. A recent FAO

report indicates that at global level, volumes of lost and wasted food in high income

regions are higher in downstream phases of the food chain, but just the opposite in low-

income regions where more food is lost and wasted in upstream phase.

2.1.2 Agricultural Crop Losses

FAO (1983) definition of agricultural crop losses is a measurable reduction in

foodstuffs and may affect either quantity or quality. They arise from the fact that freshly

harvested agricultural produce is a living thing that breathes and undergoes changes

during postharvest handling. Loss should not be confused with damage, which is the

visible sign of deterioration, for example, chewed grain and can only be partial. Damage

restricts the use of a product, whereas loss makes its use impossible. Losses of quantity
 7

(weight or volume) and quality (altered physical condition or characteristics) can occur

at any stage in the postharvest chain (Panhwar 2006).

2.1.3 Food Losses

Food loss refers to the decrease in edible food mass (dry matter) or nutritional value

(quality) of food that was originally intended for human consumption (FAO, 2013).

Food losses take place at production, postharvest and processing stages in the food

supply chain. Food losses are mainly due to poor infrastructure and logistics, lack of

technology, insufficient skills, knowledge and management capacity of supply chain

actors, and lack to markets (World Food Summit, 1996).

2.1.4 Food Security

World bank summit report (1996) refined food security as existing when all people at

all times have access to sufficient, safe & nutritious food that meet their dietary needs

and preferences for an active and healthy life.

2.2 BRIEF AGRICULTURAL PROFILE OF NIGERIA

Nigeria is reaching its target to raise food production, in effort to diversify Africa’s

second largest economy away from a reliance on oil export. It holds great potentials for

the future economic development of the nation as it had done in the past.

Notwithstanding the enviable position of the oil sector in the Nigerian economy over

the past three decades, the agricultural sector is arguably the most important sector of
 8

the economy. Agriculture’s contribution to the Gross Domestic product (GDP) has

remained stable between 30 and 42%, and employs 65%, of the labour force in Nigeria.

Generally, the agriculture sector contributes to the development of an economy in four

major ways; product contribution, factor contribution, market contribution and foreign

exchange contribution. Its share of the GDP increased from an annual average of 38%

between 1992 and 1996 to 40% between 1977 and 2001. In contrast, crude oil GDP

declined from an annual average of 13% between 1992 and 1996 to 12% between 1997

and 2001. The available data shown in the table below from the National Bureau of

Statistics (NBS) revealed that agriculture contributed 34.47% to GDP.

 9

Figure 1: Position of Nigeria in World PHL rating

Source: National Bureau of statistics report (2012)

 10

Table 1: Most Experienced PHL Crop in Nigeria

Crop Stress Yield Losses (%)

Yam Heat/Drought 37.33

Vegetables Heat 35
Cassava Heat/Drought 33.33
Plantain Heat 27.67
Maize Heat/Drought 27
Wheat Heat/drought 20.33
Rice Heat/Drought 20.15
Chickpea Drought 18.86
Soybean Drought 15.25
Sunflower Drought 9.56

Source: WARDA (2007) Africa Rice Trends

 11

2.3 CONCEPT OF POST HARVEST SYSTEM

2.3.1 Harvesting

The time of harvesting is determined by the degree of maturity. With cereals and pulses,

a distinction should be made between maturity of stalks (straw), ears or seedpods and

seeds, for all that affects successive operations, particularly storage and preservation

(Kadar 2002).

2.3.2 Pre-harvest Drying (mainly for cereals)

Extended pre-harvest field drying ensures good preservation but also increases the risk

of loss due to attacks by pests (birds, rodents, and insects) and moulds not to mention

theft. On the other hand, harvesting before maturity entails the risk of loss through

mould development leading to the decay of seeds.

2.3.3 Transport

Much care is needed in transporting a really mature harvest, in order to prevent

detached grain from falling on the road before reaching the storage or threshing place.

Collection and initial transport of the harvest thus depend on the place and conditions

where it is to be stored, especially with a view to threshing.

2.3.4 Post-harvest Drying

The length of time needed for full drying of ears and grains depends considerably on

weather and atmospheric conditions. In structures for lengthy drying such as cribs, or

even unroofed threshing floors or terraces, the harvest is exposed to wandering

livestock and the depredations of birds, rodents or small ruminants. Apart from the
 12

actual wastage, the droppings left by the marauders often result in higher losses than

what they actually eat. On the other hand, if grain is not dry enough, it becomes

vulnerable to mould and can rot during storage.

Moreover, if grain is too dry it becomes brittle and can crack after threshing, during

hulling or milling, especially for rice if milling takes place longer time (two to three

months) after the grain has matured, thus causing heavy losses. During winnowing,

broken grain can be removed with the husks and is also more susceptible to certain

insects (e.g. flour beetles and weevils). Lastly, if grain is too dry, this means a loss of

weight and hence a loss of money at the time of sale.

2.3.5 Threshing

If a harvest is threshed before it is dry enough, this operation will most probably be

incomplete. Furthermore, if grain is threshed when it is too damp and then immediately

heaped up or stored (in a granary or bags), it will be much more susceptible to attack by

micro-organisms, thus limiting its conservation.

2.3.6 Storage

Storage is the art of keeping the quality of agricultural materials and preventing them

from deterioration for specific period of time, beyond their normal shelf life. Different

crops are harvested and stored by various means depending on the end utilization.

Whether the seed will be used for new plantings the following year, for forage being

processed into livestock feed, or even for crops to be developed for a special use, the

grower must be aware of harvesting and storage requirements toward a quality product.
 13

After determining the prescribed use for the crop, timing for harvest and storage is of

important consideration. Along with an assessment of when to harvest, the farmer needs

to determine the method of harvesting.

There are a wide range of storage structures used throughout the world to successfully

store horticultural produce. In general the structure needs to be kept cool (refrigerated,

or at least ventilated and shaded) and the produce put into storage must be of high initial

quality.

Storage is essential for the following reasons:

 Perishable nature of agricultural & bio-materials

 Provision of food materials all year round

 Pilling/ provision for large scale processing

 Preservation of nutritional quality

 Price control and regulation

 Optimization of farmers‟ gain / financial empowerment of farmers

 Opportunity for export market, etc.

2.3.7 Processing

Grolleaud (2002), excessive hulling or threshing can also result in grain losses,

particularly in the case of rice (hulling) which can suffer cracks and lesions. The grain is

then not only worth less, but also becomes vulnerable to insects such as the rice moth

(Corcyra cephalonica).
 14

2.3.8 Marketing

Marketing is the final and decisive element in the post-harvest system, although it can

occur at various points in the agro-food chain, particularly at some stage in processing.

Moreover, it cannot be separated from transport, which is an essential link in the

system.
 15

Plate1: Threshing (Source; rick Hodges in missing food, 2011)

Plate 2: Winnowing (Source: FAO, 2012)

 16

Figure 2: Concepts of post-harvest losses

 17

Table 2: Percentage Crop lost to PHL Concept

Concept Percentage Yield Loss (%)

Harvesting/feed drying 4–8
Transportation to homestead 2–4
Drying 1–2
Threshing/shelling 1–3
Winnowing 1–3
Farm Storage 2–5
Transport to Market 1–2
Market storage 2–4
Cumulative loss from production 10 - 23

Source: Field survey data (2016)

 18

2.4 GLOBAL AND REGIONAL REVIEW OF FOOD SECURITY STATUS

World Bank summit report (1996) defined food security as existing when all people at

all time have access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs

and food preferences for active and healthy needs and food preferences for an active

and a healthy life.

The fact that farm households lay direct claims on their own producers means that they

depend less on markets for meeting the bulk of their consumption requirements. PHL

occur between the beginning and completion of harvesting. Production Turn - over is

mostly once a year, and at most twice, in which about 95% production comes from the

main season only. More- over, long gestation period is involved between planting and

harvesting of crops which in addition to low productivity levels has constrained grain

availability from own production. Consequently many rural house- holds run the risk of

food insecurity for several seasons of a year. In other words, seasonality of food

security follows a food production cycle, that is a relatively higher level of household

food security during the season immediately after a harvest is followed by longer season

of food insecurity extending up-to next harvest season. The extent of food insecurity is

most severe during seed preparation and sowing season, where as seasons following

harvest are those in which one could find the largest volume of available grain at

household level but also at market levels, since the major marketing seasons are also

those ones as far as peasant house-holds are concerned. (Gebremeskal, Jayne, and

Shaffer 1998) discovered that 79 % of annual sales of maize take place between January

and March. Some of the factors that would attribute to such an instant disposal of food
 19

grains by farmers include cash needs such as taxes, fees, loans etc, or fear of the risk of

post harvest grain loss.

Seasonal fluctuations of grain availability both at house-hold as well as market levels

and thus of the level of house-hold food security could be related with the farmers’ post

–harvest grain management systems, and capacities. Smoothing out of food

consumption seasonally, as well as ensuring stability in food availability in markets,

thus food prices, could be determined by the extent to which there exists an efficient

post-harvest grain management system not only at the house-hold level but also at

micro economic level, but unfortunately this crucial area has not received the attention

it deserves. The reason probably being the often easily held assumption that what

matters after all is production, and if success could be achieved at the level of

production, then there would be more availability of grains both at the household and

market levels. It is interesting to note that the strategy of decreasing post-harvest losses

is more economical because it requires smaller inputs per unit of the final product than a

strategy of increasing production extensively, especially in the short run. It is always a

trend in African countries that years after a boom cropping are followed by depressed

price. It has been witnessed that at macro level, the poor post –harvest grain

management systems by farm households leads to the disposal of most of the grains

immediately after bumpy harvests at very low prices. Lack of post-harvest grain

management capacities that has surfaced both at macro (national) and micro (farm

household) levels are inter- related, and they mirror the extent of what post harvest loss

might be in terms of physical crop damage, quality deterioration and value depreciation.
 20

The implication on food security at national as well as household level is of paramount

significance for a country such as Kenya in which food insecurity has become a

structural problem. The economic review of agriculture (2007) indicates that 51% of the

Kenyan population lack access to adequate food.

Post harvest losses in the country have previously been estimated at 30 percent of all

stored produce (Dr Songa). However with advert of Large Grain Borer and Aflatoxin,

the loss can be 100% depending on the severity of the outbreak. Post harvest handling,

storage and marketing can tremendously contribute to social economic aspects of rural

communities in Kenya as stipulated in Vision 2030 (Republic of Kenya 2007). Poor

households who depend entirely on food crops for their income are at greater risk of

food insecurity than those who have alternative sources of income. They also risk

experiencing higher mortality and malnutrition rates. Food storage at all levels result to

losses reported to be around 30% (Kleinmen et al., 1998).

2.5 MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE’S STRATEGIES TO CURB PHL

 Training of extension workers

 Provision of moisture meters and maize shellers

 Training of farmers

 Partnering with relevant stake holders such as EAGC, COMPETE, SIDA, EU

and AU.

 Encouraging farm addition at farm level to transform the produce to product

with a longer shelf life.

 21

Figure 3: Government strategies of curbing PHL

 22

CHAPTER THREE

3.1 DESCRIPTION OF CROPS UNDER REVIEW

3.1.1 Cereals: Maize, Rice

Different type of maize is grown in specific regions – creamy yellow maize grows in

the South, while white maize is found in the Savannah Region. Although maize is

increasingly utilized for livestock feed, it is still a very important staple food for

millions of Nigerians. In order to satisfy specific consumer preferences, the varieties

developed are varied in grain colour (mainly white and yellow) and endosperm

characteristics (dent, flint, floury and varying grades between the three). Flint maize and

green maize are relished whereas the dent varieties have starch content suitable for food

dishes such as “ogi, akamu, and tuwo”. Yellow maize varieties are increasingly being

requested for feeding poultry in order to increase the yellow colour of the egg yolk.

Maize is a major crop cultivated in the rainforest and the derived savannah.

The major stakeholders in the maize value chain are the subsistence farmers who

produce about 90% of annual production. Traders and middlemen play a significant role

within the distribution process of the crop. They are found in both rural farming centers

and they have significant presence in distribution and consumption regions. In recent

time food and beverage companies have entered the supply chain of the crops either

buying directly from farmers or assemblers: a situation that is pushing out poultry

farmers from the supply chain process.

Rice is cultivated in virtually all the agro-ecological zones in Nigeria. It is a

predominantly rain fed crop, particularly in the lowlands. In line with previous findings,
 23

recent studies reflect a less than 10% use of irrigation amongst rice producers (Ajani et

al., 2007). There is a clear gender division of labour in rice production and processing

in the country. Rice production is the domain of men, whereas rice post-harvest

activities are the domain of women.

Historically, rice has not always been a major staple food in Nigeria. During the 1960s,

Nigeria had the lowest per-capita annual consumption of rice in the sub-region -

average of 3 kg. Since then, Nigerian per-capita consumption levels have grown

significantly at 7.3% per annum. Per-capita consumption during the 1980s averaged 18

kg and reached 22 kg between 1995 and 1999 (Ogundele et al., 2003). A combination

of various factors seems to have triggered the structural increase in rice consumption.

Evidence pointed to urbanization as the most important cause of the shift in consumer

preferences. Since 1980, Nigeria has become the largest rice producing country in West

Africa and the third largest in Africa (FAO 2007).

The processing of rice generally takes place away from the farm. Many farmers are able

to sell their rice to a trader before it is harvested. The traders come to the farms to

negotiate prices. The rice is then taken away and parboiled to soften the husk, before it

is milled and marketed. The parboiling is carried out in very large oil drums. After the

rice has been parboiled, it is laid out on tarpaulins to dry. It is at this stage that there is a

danger of small stones getting mixed up with the rice grains, reducing its marketability.

Nigerian rice faces competition from imported rice which is favoured for its long white

grains. Imported rice, although widely considered less tasty, demands less preparation

as it contains no stones. Stones are eliminated from Nigerian rice by using a de-stoner
 24

or by building designated threshing and drying floors. This process allows Nigerian rice

to compete with imported rice. Raising the quality of local rice might discourage rice

importation, whilst boosting local production.

Much of the milling is done by co-operatives, the largest of which is in Lafia,

Nassarawa State, where there are around 700 mills; rice milled in the state is transported

to all parts of the country by truck. The millers, though, have noted a downturn in trade

since the restrictions on rice importation were lifted.

In the north of the country there is an understanding between the nomadic Fulani people

and agricultural farmers; Fulani farmers bring their cattle herds onto the fields after

harvesting, allowing them to eat the crop residues, and fertilize the fields with manure.

3.1.2 Legumes: Soya beans, Groundnut

Adesina (2012), Benue State has been the major producing area of soybean in the

country, producing over 65% of the nation's output. A survey conducted on the total

production of soybean in the five local government areas of Northern Agricultural Zone

of Benue State revealed 5.5% increase in soybean production from 1985 to 1989 (Field

survey, 1990). The expansion is a result of both increases in the number of farmers

growing the crop and established producers increasing their production. In these areas,

soy bean play a very significant role in the socio-economic lives of the people as large

numbers of households grow the crop both as cash and food crop.

The farming operations undertaken by soybean farmers involved land clearing,

ploughing, harrowing/ridging, broadcasting/planting, weeding, harvesting threshing

 25

and, winnowing. Most of the operations are undertaken manually using hoes and

cutlasses.

Soybean is processed into oil, soy milk, soy cake (used in animal feed production), soy

meal, “daddawa” and “awara” mostly by artisanal women. The processed soy is

marketed through definite routes to consumers. It has created alternative uses of the

beans besides direct cooking for consumption. Household processors are mostly small

operators who obtain soybeans from their personal farms and the local market and

process into milk, cake/awara, daddawa/cheese, and soy soup. Processors use household

and traditional equipment such as plates, aluminum pots, firewood, stoves but grinding

the soybean is usually done by service prodders using mechanical grinders.

Small scale traders are predominantly women. Trading soybean has been lucrative and

most women who started trading grains such as maize, rice, beans, and millet are now

more involved in soybean trading. They use traditional methods of trading and

marketing with basic measuring basins as their only tool/equipment. They store crops in

trays, silos and bags and keep this at home and shop and some others store in the market

and cover them with tarpaulin. Intermediate traders trade in meal, cake, and livestock

feed and soy oil. The equipment used is weighing scales and “mudus”. Large scale

traders are mostly males whose customers are feed millers.

In Nigeria, like in other developing countries where the crop is grown, groundnut is an

excellent food containing about 60% highly digestible protein, 22% carbohydrate, 4%

minerals and about 8% fat (Smith, 2002). Commercial production of groundnut in

Nigeria is concentrated in the northern parts of the country particularly in areas between
 26

the Northern Guinea and Sudan Savannah AEZs. Due to the high commercial value and

high demand, the crop is now gaining popularity as a cash crop for smallholder farmers

in the southern parts of Nigeria. In 2010, the country produced 2,636,230 metric tons of

unshelled groundnuts (FAOSTAT). Nigeria was at one time the leading exporter of

groundnut in the world. Currently Nigeria’s groundnut is exported only to neighbouring

West African countries.

Since the disbanding of the Groundnut Marketing Boards, the licensed buying stations

(LBS) have disappeared. Farmers take their produce to rural markets on specific

markets days. The prominent markets are ’Laraban Zango, ‘Darki, and Gaya. In

addition to selling at the rural markets, farmers have the option of selling to rural

collectors. The collectors act as agents for middlemen and for oil milling industry. The

collectors assemble groundnut to the wholesale market, mostly in the Savannah AEZ.

The wholesale market is supplied by other rural markets, as well as by other producer

states such as Jigawa, Yobe, Borno, Niger, Taraba, Adamawa, Sokoto, and Zamfara.

The wholesale market supplies rural markets and exports to neighbouring countries

such as Niger, Cameroon, and Tchad. The major source of groundnut to the oil milling

industry is the wholesale market. Although the large oil millers appoint agents to supply

them, the wholesale market – like Kano Market - and the middlemen remain the most

important sources of supply. There is no linkage between farmers and milling industry.

Farmers sell their products at the local market and there is no evidence of any collective

or bulk marketing of groundnut by the farmers. Grand Cereals Limited, Jos, is the
 27

largest buyer and processor of groundnuts and soybeans. The company mills 36,000

tons per annum of groundnuts and 100,000 tons per annum soybeans.

3.1.3 Root tuber: Cassava, yam

Nigeria is the largest producer of cassava tuber in the world with a production of about

45 million metric tons for a worldwide production of 242 million metric tons in 2009.

Between 2003 and 2008, the average annual production in the country was about 35

million tons and the total area under cassava cultivation in Nigeria is about 3.60 million

hectares (FAO, 2009). Cassava is grown in almost all the states and thrives in all agro-

ecological zones. Its production is characterized by small scale producers who use old

varieties and traditional production technologies which largely accounts for low yield.

(Oyebanji et al., 2003) noted that smallholders account for over 80% of cassava

production in Nigeria. Over 90% of cassava produced in the country is consumed

locally with less than 10% utilized for industrial purposes. It is the most widely

cultivated crop and provides food and income to over 30 million farmers and large

numbers of processors and traders. It is observed that over the period between1961

and2010 cassava yield was on the increase. The most yields occurred in 2006 followed

by 2010, while the lowest yields occurred in 1962, 1967, and 1983 (FAOSTAT, 2012).

Common cassava products in Nigeria include “garri”, “akpu”, tapioca, starch, chips

and flour. Gari is the most consumed and traded of all food products made from cassava

roots. Major demand for cassava is in the form of garri and over 70% of the cassava

produced is processed into this form. Garri prices therefore, are a reliable indication of
 28

the demand and supply of cassava (FAO, 2012). The main location of purchase is

usually the open markets. The market for garri is characterized by perfect competition

in the sense that there are many buyers and sellers who are not in a position to influence

marketing transactions by refusing to either sell or buy. Garri is produced by numerous

smallholder units that sell essentially at village markets.

 29

Figure 4: White scale insects infested yam tubers

Figure 5: Scales on cassava tuber

 30

Figure 6: Maize affected by mould

Figure 7: Groundnut mites

 31

Table 3: Percentage Food Loss in Low Income West African Countries

Food type production Handling Processing distribution consumption Total

( %) ( %) ( %) ( %) ( %) ( %)
Cereals 6 8 3.5 2 1 20.5
Roots/tubers 14 18 15 5 2 54
Legumes 12 8 8 2 1 31
Fruits 10 9 25 17 5 66
Meat 15 0.7 57 7 2 29.7
Fish 5.7 6 9 15 2 37.7
Milk 6 11 0.1 10 0.1 27.2

Source: International congress of save food (2011), with modification on the total Loss.
 32

3.2 CRITICAL FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO POST-HARVEST IN

NIGERIA

Postharvest losses vary greatly among commodities and production areas and seasons.

As a product moves in the postharvest chain, PHLs may occur from a number of causes,

such as improper handling or bio deterioration by microorganisms, insects, rodents or

birds. An important factor in developed countries is that a large amount of the food

produced is not eaten but discarded, for reasons such as it was left on the plate after a

meal or it passed its expiry date. In contrast, failure to consume available food in less

developed Countries (LDCs) is not a reported concern; instead the low-quality food

remaining in markets at the end of the day is sustenance for the very poor. The issue in

LDCs is inefficient postharvest agricultural systems that lead to a loss of food that

people would otherwise eat, sell or barter t improve their livelihoods (Hodges et al.,

2010). There are internal and external factors contributing to postharvest loss.

3.2.1 Internal Factors

The following sections describe PHL occurring at all stages in the food supply chain

from the moment of harvesting, to handling, storage, processing and marketing.

3.2.1.1 Harvesting

The time of harvesting is determined by degree of crop maturity and weather

conditions. Primary causes of losses at the harvest stage include:

 33

 Absence of an established maturity index for some commodities and

lack of maturity index for local export markets.

 Low adoption of established indices as price and distance to market

influence adoption.

 Poor weather at harvesting time which affects the operations and

functionality of harvesting machines or human labor and usually increase

the moisture content of harvested products.

3.2.1.2 Pre-cooling

Loss at this stage is primarily due to the high cost and lack of availability of pre-cooling

facilities, inadequate training on pre-cooling technology at the commercial scale, and

lack of information on cost benefits of pre-cooling technology.

3.2.1.3 Transportation

Primary challenges in the transportation stage of the supply chain include poor

infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.), lack of appropriate transport systems, and a lack of

refrigerated transport. In most developing countries, roads are not adequate for proper

transport of horticultural crops. Also, transport vehicles and other modes of transport,

especially those suitable for perishable crops, are not widely available. This is true both

for local marketing and export to other countries. Most producers have small holdings

and cannot afford to purchase their transport vehicles. In a few cases, marketing
 34

organizations and cooperatives have been able to acquire transport vehicles but cannot

alleviate poor road conditions (Kadar 2000).

3.2.1.4 Storage

Facilities, hygiene, and monitoring must all be adequate for effective, long‐term

storage. In closed structures (granaries, warehouses, hermetic bins, silos), control of

cleanliness, temperature, and humidity is particularly important. It also very important

to manage pests and diseases since damage caused by pests (insects, rodents) and molds

can lead to deterioration of facilities (e.g. mites in wooden posts) and result in losses in

quality and food value as well as quantity.

3.2.1.5 Grading

Proper packing and packaging technologies are critical in order to minimize mechanical

injury during the transit of produce from rural to urban areas. Causes of PHL in the

grading stages are: lack of national standards and poor enforcement of standards,

lack of skill, awareness, and financial resources.

3.2.1.6 Packaging and labeling

After harvest, fresh fruits and vegetables are generally transported from the farm to

either a packing house or distribution centre. Farmers sell their produce in fresh markets

or in wholesale markets. At the retail level, fresh produce is sold in an unpackaged form

or is tied in bundles. This type of market handling of fresh produce greatly reduces its

shelf life if it is not sold quickly.

 35

3.2.1.7 Secondary processing

Causes of post-harvest loss in this stage include limited availability of suitable varieties

for processing, lack of appropriate processing technologies, inadequate

commercialization of new technologies and lack of basic infrastructure, inadequate

facilities and infrastructure, and insufficient promotion of processed products.

3.2.1.8 Biological

Biological causes of deterioration include respiration rate, ethylene production and

action, rates of compositional changes (associated with color, texture, flavour, and

nutritive value), mechanical injuries, water stress, sprouting and rooting, physiological

disorders, and pathological breakdown. The rate of biological deterioration depends on

several environmental factors, including temperature, relative humidity, air velocity,

and atmospheric composition (concentration of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and ethylene),

and sanitation procedures. All this factors have been discussed by numerous authors

(Kitimoja and Gorny, 1999; Kader, 2002; Gross et al , 2002).

3.2.1.9 Microbiological

Micro-organisms cause damage to stored foods (e.g., fungi and bacteria). Usually,

microorganisms affect directly small amount of the food but they damage the food to

the point that it becomes unacceptable. Toxic substances elaborated by molds (known

as mycotoxins) cause loss in food quality and nutritional value.

 36

3.2.1.10 Chemical

Many of the chemical constituents naturally present in stored food spontaneously react

causing loses of colour, flavour, texture and nutritional value. One such reaction is the

“maillard relation’ that causes browning and discoloration in dried fruits and other

product. There can also be harmful chemicals such as pesticides or obnoxious

chemical such as lubricating oil (Atanda et al., 2011).

3.2.2 External Factors

Factors outside of the food supply chain can cause significant postharvest loss. These

factors can be grouped into two primary categories: environmental factors and socio-

economic patterns and trends.

3.2.2.1 Environmental factors

Climatic conditions, including wind, humidity, rainfall, and temperature influence both

the quantity and quality of a harvest (Grolleaud 2002).

(a) Temperature

In general, the higher the temperature the shorter the storage life of horticultural

products and the greater the amount of loss within a given time, as most factors that

destroy the produce or lower its quality occur at a faster rate as the temperature

increases (Atanda et al., 2011).

 37

(b) Humidity

There is movement of water vapour between stored food and its surrounding

atmosphere until equilibrium of water activity in the food and the atmosphere. A moist

food will give up moisture to the air while a dry food will absorb moisture from the air.

Fresh horticultural products have high moisture content and need to be stored under

conditions of high relative moisture loss and wilting (except for onions and garlic).

Dried or dehydrated products need to be stored under conditions of low relative

humidity in order to avoid adsorbing moisture to the point where mold growth occurs

(Atanda et al., 2011).

(c) Altitude

Within the given latitude the prevailing temperature is dependent upon the elevation

when other factors are equal. There is on the average a drop in temperature of 6.5°C

(Atanda et al., 2011) for each kilometer increase in elevation above sea level. Storing

food at high altitudes will therefore tend to increase the storage life and decrease the

losses in food provided it is kept out of direct rays of the sun (FAO, 1983).

(d) Time

The longer the time the food is stored the greater is the deterioration in quality and the

greater is the chance of damage and loss. Hence, storage time is a critical factor in loss

of foods especially for those that have a short natural shelf life.
 38

3.2.2.2 Socio-economic factors

Social trend such as urbanization has driven more and more people from rural area to

large cities, resulting in a high demand for food products at urban centers, increasing the

need for more efficient and extended food supply chains (Parfitt et al., 2010). Other

socio-economic factors are linked with grain importation which can introduce new

insect species, hence posing a very significant problem. Not only is the imported grain

at risk, but the native grain as well. For example, in 1980, the introduction of a new

insect species to Africa along with grain importation created weight losses of up to 30%

in just 3-6 months of storage (Boxall 2001).

 39

Figure 8: Factors influencing PHL from production to consumption

(Source: Kiaya, V, 2012)
 40

3.3 REVIEW OF POST-HARVEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

3.3.1 Cereals

In Afijio and Atiba at the Rainforest, eight maize farmers out of ten farmers in the FGD

reported they stored their maize in juts bags and two of the farmers stored their maize in

cribs. In Asa and Kayaoja in the Savannah, the farmers stored their maize in jute bags,

on bare floor covered, on covered platform, and plastics containers. Government silos

were available but farmers did not have access to store their maize. With regards to the

length of time cereals are stored, maize is stored for three to six months in the Afijio

and Atiba whilst farmers in Asa and Kayaoja store their cereals between five to eight

months. Different storage length between the Rainforest and the Savannah Zones could

be attributed to different humidity levels where humidity is higher in the Forest Zone.

In Oyo (Rainforest), the rice farmers reported storing their rice in juts bags and in basin

whilst farmers in Patege (Savannah) store the rice in jute bags, uncovered bare floor,

covered platforms, and plastics containers. Concerning the length of time rice is stored,

farmers in the Rainforest can store rice between six and nine months whilst their

counterpart in Savannah can store between six and twelve months.

 41

Table 4: Post Harvest Management Practices along the Cereal Value Chain

Stages Indigenous method Modern methods

Harvest Sun drying, smoking, storing _

Under building roofing
Storage of processed leaf, nylon pack Nylon

De-husking on Bare floor uncovered Cribs and silo

(mainly maize)

Shelling Hand shelling, beating Automated Sheller

Drying Floor _

Storage Air tithe container, local Stored chemical

(mainly millet)
Cream barn, floor

Packaging/bagging 50-100kg jut bags 50-100kg Nylon bag

Transport and loading Tithing the bags and _
Careful loading

Processing Pounding, grounding stones Machine miller

Source: Lancon F. and Erenstein (2012)

 42

3.3.2 Legumes

Majority of farmers stored their harvested groundnut in both 50kg and 100 Kg nylon

and jute bags for six months and up to a year. The traditional methods of post -harvest

management dominate the sector. Farms sun-dry the nut on the bare flow and also de-

husk on the bare flow. Shelling is done by beating the grounds with stick which

sometimes render the nut to disfigure whilst reducing the price the nuts could have

commanded.

Beans are planted in large quantities in the Savannah particularly in Benue state. They

are stored in 50kg and 100kg nylon and jut bags. Farmers in the two zones engaged in

practices that are similar in character.

 43

Table 5: Post-harvest Management Practices along the Legumes Value Chain

Stages Indigenous method Modern methods

Harvest Sun drying combine harvester
De-husking On bare floor uncovered platform, combine
harvester
Shelling Beating Automated Sheller
Drying Floor, roadside _
Winnowing Basin and natural air combine harvester
Storage Air tithe container Hermetically sealed
container
Packaging/bagging 50-100kg jut bags 50-100kg Nylon bag
Transport and loading Tithing the bags and None
careful loading, jut sacs
Processing Pounding in mortars Automated machine
miller
Storage of processed _ Freezer

Source: Lancon F. and Erenstein (2012)

 44

3.3.3 Root tubers

Yam harvesting is done by hand to void bruises to the tuber. However, yam farmers are

adopting the practice of dipping yam in neem solution to keep the yam clean before

storing in dry stores. This is a departure from the practice where the tubers are kept in

pits and buried awaiting good prices. It evidence that post-harvest management of yam

is still at it rudimentary stage. Farmers prefer selling cassava with the root inside the

heap to wholesalers because they do to the wholesaler. Nevertheless, the practice affects

profitability of the farmers as compare to processing for value addition to enable the

farmers to maximize returns on his/her effort.

Cassava processing is well-developed as an organized agricultural crop. It has well-

established multiplication and processing techniques for food products and cattle feed.

Cassava is processed in many processing centers and fabricating enterprises set up in

the country. Cassava is made into flours. Flours are of three types, yellow garri, white

garri, or intermediate colour, with yellow garri considered the best product in Nigeria.

Its other products are as dry extraction of starch, glue or adhesives, modified starch in

pharmaceutical as dextrines, as processing inputs, as industrial starch for drilling, and

processed food. This method prevents the smallholder farmer from facing the problem

of deteriorating roots from rot disease, and starch loss.

 45

Table 6: Post-harvest Management Practices along the Root tuber value chain

Stages Indigenous method Modern methods

Harvesting Digging using hand Yam harvester
De-husking Peeling using Knife Cassava peeler
machine
Shelling None _
Storage Left fallow in the farm, _
Buried underground
Packaging/bagging Heap of 120,60,5 tubers per heap _
Transport and loading Picking up load _
Processing Flour and pounded cassava Gritting, chipping

Source: Lancon F. and Erenstein (2012)

 46

3.4 TECHNOLOGIES AND PRACTICE TO REDUCE POST-HARVEST

LOSSES

There are many examples of promising practices. These range from training in

improved handling and storage hygiene to the use of hermetically sealed bags and

household metallic silos, and are supported by enhancing the technical capabilities of

local tinsmiths in silo construction (The World Bank et al., 2011). The choice of

technology package depends on circumstances, such as the scale of production, Crop

type, prevailing climatic conditions, and the farmer affordability and willingness to pay

(which are linked to social, cultural and economic implications of adoption).

Various strategies can be employed for reducing postharvest losses are listed below:

Simple and basic strategy of reducing post-harvest food losses for any type of

commodity.

A systematic analysis of each commodity production and handling system is the logical

first step in identifying an appropriate strategy for reducing postharvest losses. There is

a wide range of technologies available that, if adopted, would enable smallholders and

larger producers to improve the quality and quantity of food/grains during postharvest

handling and storage, these include: drying, threshing, shelling, on-farm storage,

winnowing etc. The PHL strategy should be better integrated into agricultural

programmes to provide technical advice and affordable solutions to farmers. For

 47

smallholders with few options to invest in improved postharvest practices and

technologies, the simplest option and one with only minor financial implications is

improvement in basic storage hygiene and good storage management.

 48

Plate 3: Maize drying in the yard

Plate 4: Thresher (Source: Victor, ACF Acch 2006)

 49

Plate 5: Cassava drying in a crib

Plate 6: Traditional granary

 50

3.5 IMPACTS OF POST HARVEST LOOSES, FOOD SECURITY AND

LIVELIHOOD

Postharvest technologies can contribute to food security in multiple ways. They can

reduce Post harvest losses, thereby increasing the amount of food available for

consumption by farmers and poor rural and urban consumers. For example, the control

of the Larger Grain Borer (LGB) or Prostephanus truncanus greatly reduced the loss of

maize in on-farm storage among smallholders in a number of African countries, thus

improving their food security. The benefits to consumers from reducing losses include

lower prices and improved food security. In addition, postharvest activities such as

processing and marketing can create employment (and thus income) and better food

security in the agricultural sector. Therefore, reducing Post harvest losses clearly

complements other efforts to enhance food security through improved farm level

productivity. Techniques to reduce food losses require cultural and economic adaption.

This is so because all food losses occur at a particular socio-cultural environment. The

issue of food losses is of high importance in the efforts to combat hunger, raise income

and improve food security in the world’s poorest countries.

 51

CHAPTER FOUR

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

4.1 Conclusions

Significant volumes of food are lost after harvest, exacerbating food insecurity and

resulting in wastage of expensive inputs. PHL occurs along the value chain, from farm

to the market, reducing real income of all actors along the chain. During post-harvest

operations, both crop quantity and quality losses are experienced. Overall, food losses

contribute to high food prices as part of the food supply does not reach the market. PHL

also weaken ability of actors to service bank loans as well as discourage expansion of

agricultural activities.

There is a wide range of technologies available that, if adopted, would enable

smallholders and larger producers to improve the quality and quantity of food/grains

during post-harvest handling and storage. The PHL strategy should be better integrated

into agricultural programmes to provide technical advice and affordable solutions to

farmers. For smallholders with few options to invest in improved postharvest practices

and technologies, the simplest option and one with only minor financial implications is

improvement in basic storage hygiene and good storage management.

 52

4.2 Recommendations

Numerous factors are responsible for post harvest losses experienced by farmers in

Nigeria. Therefore, the following are recommended for higher yield thereby reducing

food insecurity.

 Appropriate and sustainable training on post-harvest crop

management and updated market information should be provided to

the community.

 Government should improve the bargaining power of farmers

through establishing well facilitated cooperatives which will give

farmers the necessary bargaining power for crop marketing.

 Joint planning and execution on working with extension agents can

make an impact in reducing post-harvest losses. In most of the States,

not much has occurred in post-harvest management activities,

particularly for smallholder farmers.

 Awareness creation for farmers and stakeholders to realize the

militating effects of the problem of post-harvest reducing household

income, revenue lost to the state and food insecurity.

 National cereals and Produce Board (NCPB) needs to motivate

farmers by paying them on time to reduce post-harvest losses of

maize on the side of farmers.

 53

REFERENCES

Mada, D.A., Husseini, D.I., Medugu, A.I. and Adams, I.G. (2014). Study of Impacts of
Post Harvest Technology in Ganye Southern Adamawa State – Nigeria.
Global Journals Inc. 14(2): 0975 – 5896.
Olukunle, O.T. (2017). Determination of Post Harvest Grain Losses in Nigeria.
International Journal of current Research. 9(12): 63533 – 63540.
Rockfeller, F. (2015). Perspectives of Reducing Post-harvest Looses of Agricultural
Products in Africa.
Ahmed, B.O., Idris, K.M. and Lawal, A.O. Food Security and Post-harvest Looses in
Fruit Marketing in Lagos metropolis, Nigeria. Discourse Journal of
Agriculture and Food sciences. 3(3): 52 – 58.
Kitinoja, L., saran, S., Roy, S.k., and Kadar, A.a. Post Harvest Technology for
Developing Countries: Challenges and Opportunities in Research, Outreach and
Advocasy. J.Sc. 2(4):597 – 603.
Lawal, K., Buzby, J.C., Hyman, J. and Ferrah-Wells, H (2015). The Estimated amount,
Value and Calories of Postharvest Food Looses at the Consumer levels in the
United States
Abass, A.B., Nduguru G., Mamiro, P., Alenkhe, B., Mlingi, N. and Berkunda, M.
(2014) Postharvest Food Looses in a Maize Based Farming System of Semi-arid
Savannah Area of Tanzania. J. Stored Production Research. 5(7): 49 - 57
Judith, A.D. (2014) Assessment of Postharvest Grain Management Operations and their
Effects on Food security of Smallholder Household in Kusumi County, Kenya.
Jaspreet, A. and Anita, R. (2013). Post Harvest Food Looses Estimation – development
of Consistent Methodology. Journal of Stored Product Research. 35(1): 77 – 87
Gangwar, L. S., D. Singh, and Singh, D. B. (2007). Estimation of Post-harvest Losses in
Kinnow Mandarin in Punjab using a Modified Formula. Agricultural Economics
Research Review, 20(2): 557 – 578
Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., Van Otterdijk, R. and Meybeck, A. (2011).
Global Food Losses and Food Waste: Extent Causes and Prevention. Rome,
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations.
Nyambo, B. T. (1993). Post‐harvest Maize and Sorghum Grain Losses in Traditional
and Improved Stores in South Nyanza District, Kenya. International Journal of
Pest Management. 39(2): 181-187.
 54

Rembold. F., Hodgex, R., Bernard, M., Knipchild, H. and Leo, O. (2011). The African
Postharvest Losses Information System (APHLIS. JRC Scientific and Technical
Reports. Luxemburg.
Gernald, D.I., Ukeyima, M.T., Ikya, J.k., Ode, F.K. and Ogunbande, B.J. (2013).
Addressing Food Security Challenges Through Agro-raw Materials Processing.
Agricultural Science Research Journals. 3(1): 6 – 13
Begum, M.E., mohammad, I.H. and Dr. Papanagiouto, E. (2012) Economic Analysis of
Postharvest Looses in Food Grain for Strengthening Food Security in Northern
Regions of Nigeria. Full Length Original Research Paper. 01(03): 109 – 149
Cugala, D. and Tostao, E. (2015). Postharvest Looses in Africa – Analytical Review
and synthesis: The Case of Mozambique.
Greely, M. and Harman, G.W. (1976). A Manual of Methods for the Evaluation of Post
Harvest Losses. American Association of Cereal chemist.
Reinning, C.C.(1976) Postharvest Grain Losses Assessment Methods for the Evaluation
of Postharvest Looses.
Aulahk, J., Regmi, A., Fulton, J.R. and Alexander, C. (2013). Estimating Post-harvest
food looses: Developing a Consistent Global Estimation Framework in
Proceedings of the Agricultural and Applied economics Association. AAEA and
CAES Joint annual Meeting, Washington, DC, USA: 4-6.
Atanda, S.A., Pesu, P.O., Agoda, S., Isongu, I.U. and Ikotun, M. (2011). The Concept
and Problems of Post-harvest Losses of Perishable Crops. African Journal of
Food Science. 3(2): 603-654.
Bautisa, O.K. and Acedo, A.l. (1987). Postharvest Handling of Cereals. Philippines..
Bell, A., Mazaud, F. and Muck, O. (1999). Guidelines for Analysis of Post-production
Systems. FAO, Rome, Italy: 102
Boxall, R.A. (2012). Postharvest Losses to Insects-a World Review. International
Boiterioration and Biodegradation, 48(1-4): 137-152
FAO, (2002).Post-harvest Losses: Discovering the Full Story. Overview of the
Phenomenon of Losses during the Post-harvest System.
Hodges, R.J., Buzby, J.C. and Bennet, B. (2011). Postharvest Losses and Waste in
Developed and Less Developed Countries: Opportunities to Improve Resource
Use. Journal of Agricultural Science, 2011(149): 37-45