1932

Abstract

This article reviews the recent literature that has evaluated the effectiveness of postharvest loss (PHL)-reducing technologies for grains among smallholder farmers and small-scale traders in sub-Saharan Africa. We also develop a conceptual framework for identifying and quantifying different types of PHL that include physical quantity losses along with quality losses that are both observable (e.g., discoloration, insect damage, mold growth, and odor) and unobservable (e.g., aflatoxin contamination, chemical residues, and nutrient content losses). The framework considers how PHL affects producers, consumers, and society as a whole. We find that although reducing postharvest quantity losses often receives more attention from researchers, it is the loss of quality, particularly unobservable quality issues, that has a large effect on food safety and nutrition. A review of the literature suggests that cost-effective technologies to reduce PHL exist, but facilitating their adoption requires action from both the public and private sectors.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-111820-020601
2022-10-05
2024-06-19
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/resource/14/1/annurev-resource-111820-020601.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-111820-020601&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abass AB, Ndunguru G, Mamiro P, Alenkhe B, Mlingi N, Bekunda M. 2014. Post-harvest food losses in a maize-based farming system of semi-arid savannah area of Tanzania. J. Stored Prod. Res. 57:49–57
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Abdoulaye T, Ainembabazi JH, Alexander C, Baributsa D, Kadjo D et al. 2016. Postharvest loss of maize and grain legumes in sub-Saharan Africa: insights from household survey data in seven countries. Purdue Ext. Agric. Econ. EC-807-W Purdue Univ. West Lafayette, IN: https://www.extension.purdue.edu/extmedia/EC/EC-807-W.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Affognon H, Mutungi C, Sanginga P, Borgemeister C. 2015. Unpacking postharvest losses in sub-Saharan Africa: a meta-analysis. World Dev. 66:49–68
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Aggarwal S, Francis E, Robinson J 2018. Grain today, gain tomorrow: evidence from a storage experiment with savings clubs in Kenya. J. Dev. Econ. 134:1–15
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Akerlof GA. 1970. The market for “lemons”: quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Q. J. Econ. 84:3488–500
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Ambler K, de Brauw A., Godlonton S. 2017. Measuring postharvest losses at the farm level in Malawi. . Aust. J. Agric. Resour. Econ. 62:139–60
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Andrews-Trevino JY, Webb P, Shively G, Rogers BL, Baral K et al. 2019. Relatively low maternal aflatoxin exposure is associated with small-for-gestational-age but not with other birth outcomes in a prospective birth cohort study of Nepalese infants. J. Nutr. 149:101818–25
    [Google Scholar]
  8. APHLIS (Afr. Postharvest Losses Inf. Syst.) 2022. APHLIS grain postharvest loss estimates Accessed Jan. 20, 2022. https://www.aphlis.net/en
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Basu K, Wong M. 2015. Evaluating seasonal food storage and credit programs in east Indonesia. J. Dev. Econ. 115:200–16
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Bauchet J, Prieto S, Ricker-Gilbert J. 2021. Improved drying and storage practices that reduce aflatoxins in stored maize: experimental evidence from smallholders in Senegal. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 103:1296–316
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Bergquist LF, Burke M, Miguel E 2019. Sell low and buy high: arbitrage and local price effects in Kenyan markets. . Q. J. Econ. 134:2785–842
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Bernard T, de Janvry A, Mbaye AS, Sadoulet E. 2017. Expected product market reforms and technology adoption by Senegalese onion producers. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 99:41096–115
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bokusheva R, Finger R, Fischler M, Berlin R, Marín Y et al. 2012. Factors determining the adoption and impact of a postharvest storage technology. Food Secur. 4:2279–93
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Boxall RA. 2002. Damage and loss caused by the larger grain borer Prostephanus truncatus. Integr. Pest Manag. Rev. 7:2105–21
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Brander M, Bernauer T, Huss M. 2021. Improved on-farm storage reduces seasonal food insecurity of smallholder farmer households: evidence from a randomized control trial in Tanzania. Food Policy 98:101891
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Channa H, Ricker-Gilbert J, De Groote H, Bauchet J. 2021. Willingness to pay for a new farm technology given risk preferences: evidence from an experimental auction in Kenya. Agric. Econ. 52:5733–48
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Channa H, Ricker-Gilbert J, Feleke S, Abdoulaye T. 2022. Overcoming smallholder farmers’ post-harvest constraints through harvest loans and storage technology: insights from a randomized controlled trial in Tanzania. J. Dev. Econ. 157:102851
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Chegere MJ, Eggert H, Soderbom M. 2022. The effects of storage technology and training on post-harvest losses, practices, and sales: evidence from small-scale farms in Tanzania. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 70:2729–61
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Compton JAF, Floyd S, Magrath PA, Addo S, Gbedevi SR et al. 1998. Involving grain traders in determining the effect of post-harvest insect damage on the price of maize in African markets. Crop Prot. 17:6483–89
    [Google Scholar]
  20. De Groote H, Githinji PG, Munya BG, Ricker-Gilbert J. 2021. Economics of open-air maize drying in East Africa. . J. Agric. Food Res. 5:100185
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Delavallade C, Godlonton S. 2020. Locking crops to unlock investment: experimental evidence on warrantage in Burkina Faso Policy Res. Work. Pap. World Bank Washington, DC: https://elibrary.worldbank.org/doi/pdf/10.1596/1813-9450-9248
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Deutschmann JW, Bernard T, Yameogo O. 2021. Contracting and quality upgrading: evidence from and experiment in Senegal Work. Pap. Univ. Wis. Madison, WI: https://jwdeutschmann.com/Papers/Deutschmann_JMP.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Dillon B. 2020. Selling crops early to pay for school: a large-scale natural experiment in Malawi. J. Hum. Resour. 56:41296–325
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Food Agric. Organ. (FAO) 2011. Global food losses and food waste: extent, causes, and prevention Rep. FAO Rome: https://www.fao.org/3/i2697e/i2697e.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Fuller A, Ricker-Gilbert J. 2021. Is there a market for third-party quality verification in rural grain markets? Evidence from an experimental auction for moisture testing in Kenya. J. Afr. Econ. 30:5389–417
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Gitonga ZM, De Groote H, Kassie M, Tefera T 2013. Impact of metal silos on households' maize storage, storage losses and food security: an application of a propensity score matching. Food Policy 43:44–55
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Goletti F, Wolff C. 1999. The impact of postharvest research Discuss. Pap. 29 Mark. Struct. Stud. Div., Int. Food Policy Res. Inst. Washington, DC:
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hell K, Cardwell KF, Setamou M, Schulthess F. 2000. Influence of insect infestation on aflatoxin contamination of stored maize in four agroecological regions in Benin. Afr. Entomol. 8:2169–77
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Hoffmann V, Gatobu KM. 2014. Growing their own: unobservable quality and the value of self-provisioning. J. Dev. Econ. 106:168–78
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Hoffmann V, Grace D, Lindahl J, Mutua F, Ortega-Beltran A et al. 2019a. Technologies and strategies for aflatoxin control in Kenya: a synthesis of emerging evidence. Proj. Note, Int. Food Policy Res. Inst. Washington, DC: https://ebrary.ifpri.org/utils/getfile/collection/p15738coll2/id/133582/filename/133793.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Hoffmann V, Jones K, Leroy JL. 2018a. The impact of reducing dietary aflatoxin exposure on child linear growth: a cluster randomized controlled trial in Kenya. BMJ Glob. Health 3:6000983
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Hoffmann V, Kariuki S, Pieters J, Treurniet M. 2018b.. Can markets support smallholder adoption of a food safety technology? Aflasafe in Kenya Proj. Note, Int. Food Policy Res. Inst. Washington, DC: https://ebrary.ifpri.org/utils/getfile/collection/p15738coll2/id/133044/filename/133253.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Hoffmann V, Moser C, Herman TJ. 2020a. Demand for aflatoxin-safe maize in Kenya: dynamic response to price and advertising. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 103:1275–95
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Hoffmann V, Moser C, Saak AE. 2019b. Food safety in low and middle-income countries: the evidence through an economic lens. World Dev. 123:104611
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Hoffmann V, Mutiga SK, Harvey JW, Nelson RJ, Milgroom MG. 2020b. Observability of food safety losses in maize: evidence from Kenya. Food Policy 98:1101895
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Jones M, Alexander C, Lowenberg-Deboer J. 2014. A simple methodology for measuring profitability of on-farm storage pest management in developing countries. J. Stored Prod. Res. 58:67–76
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Jovanovic N, Ricker-Gilbert J, Bauchet J, Ketiem P, Hoffmann V. 2021. Impacts of pre-harvest and post-harvest treatments on reducing aflatoxin contamination in smallholder farmers’ maize. Pre-analysis plan Trial, Dep. Agric. Econ., Purdue Univ. West Lafayette, IN: https://www.socialscienceregistry.org/trials/7067
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Kadjo D, Ricker-Gilbert J, Abdoulaye T, Shively G, Baco N. 2018. Storage decisions in smallholder rural households under liquidity and technology constraints. Agric. Econ. 49:4435–54
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Kadjo D, Ricker-Gilbert J, Alexander C 2016. Estimating price discounts for low-quality maize in sub-Saharan Africa: evidence from Benin. World Dev 77:115–28
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Kadjo D, Ricker-Gilbert J, Shively J, Abdoulaye T. 2020. Food safety and adverse selection in rural maize markets. J. Agric. Econ. 71:2412–38
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Kaminski J, Christiaensen L. 2014. Post-harvest loss in sub-Saharan Africa: What do farmers say?. Glob. Food Secur. 3:149–58
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Kumar D, Kalita P. 2017. Reducing postharvest losses during storage of grain crops to strengthen food security in developing countries. Foods 6:18
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Langyintuo AS, Ntoukam G, Murdock L, Lowenberg-DeBoer J, Miler DJ. 2004. Consumer preferences for cowpea in Cameroon and Ghana. Agric. Econ. 30:3203–13
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Leavens L, Bauchet J, Ricker-Gilbert J. 2021. After the project is over: measuring longer-term impacts of a food safety intervention in Senegal. World Dev. 141:105414
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Liu Y, Wu F. 2010. Global burden of aflatoxin-induced hepatocellular carcinoma: a risk assessment. Environ. Health Perspect. 118:6818–24
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Magnan N, Hoffmann V, Opoku N, Garrido GG, Kanyam DA. 2021. Information, technology, and market rewards: incentivizing aflatoxin control in Ghana. J. Dev. Econ. 151:102620
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Mbow C, Rosenzweig C, Barioni LG, Benton TG, Herrero M et al. 2019. Chapter 5: food security. IPCC Special Report on Climate Change and Land V Masson-Delmotte, P Zhai, H-O Pörtner, D Roberts, J Skea et al.437–550 Geneva: Int. Panel Clim. Change https://www.ipcc.ch/srccl/
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Mishili FJ, Temu A, Fulton J, Lowenberg-DeBoer J. 2011. Consumer preferences as drivers of the common bean trade in Tanzania: a marketing perspective. J. Int. Food Agribus. Mark. 23:2110–27
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Mounter S, Fleming E, Griffith G, Rohr S. 2022. Using welfare economics to analyse food waste as a negative externality in a food value chain Present., Univ. N. Engl. Armidale, Aust: https://www.une.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/164927/aares_seminar.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Ndegwa MK, De Groote H, Gitonga ZM, Bruce AY. 2016. Effectiveness and economics of hermetic bags for maize storage: results of a randomized controlled trial in Kenya. Crop Prot. 90:17–26
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Ng'ang'a J, Mutungi C, Imathiu S, Affognon H. 2016. Effect of triple-layer hermetic bagging on mould infection and aflatoxin contamination of maize during multi-month on-farm storage in Kenya. J. Stored Prod. Res. 69:119–28
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Nindi T, Ricker-Gilbert J, Bauchet J. 2022. Identifying appropriate incentive mechanisms for smallholder farmers to exploit inter-temporal arbitrage opportunities for grain legumes: experimental evidence from Malawi. Work. Pap. Dep. Agric. Econ., Purdue Univ. West Lafayette, IN: https://ideas.repec.org/p/ags/aaea20/304424.html
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Nkhata SG, Liceaga AM, Rocheford T, Hamaker BR, Ferruzzi MG. 2021. Storage of biofortified maize in Purdue Improved Crop Storage (PICS) bags reduces disulfide linkage-driven decrease in porridge viscosity. LWT 136:1110262
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Nkhata SG, Ortiz D, Baributsa D, Hamaker B, Rocheford T, Ferruzzi MG. 2019. Assessment of oxygen sequestration on effectiveness of Purdue Improved Crop Storage (PICS) bags in reducing carotenoid degradation during postharvest storage of two biofortified orange maize genotypes. J. Cereal Sci. 87:68–77
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Omotilewa O, Ricker-Gilbert J, Ainembambazi JH. 2019. Subsidies for agricultural technology adoption: evidence from randomized experiment in Uganda. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 101:3753–72
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Omotilewa O, Ricker-Gilbert J, Ainembambazi JH, Shively G. 2018. Does improved storage technology promote modern input use and food security? Evidence from a randomized trial in Uganda. J. Dev. Econ. 135:176–98
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Pretari A, Hoffmann V, Tian L. 2019. Post-harvest practices for aflatoxin control: evidence from Kenya. J. Stored Prod. Res. 82:31–39
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Prieto S, Ricker-Gilbert J, Bauchet J, Sall M. 2021. Incomplete information and product quality in rural markets: evidence from an experimental auction for maize in Senegal. Econ. Dev. Cult. Change 69:41351–77
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Ricker-Gilbert J, Jones M. 2015. Does storage technology affect adoption of improved maize varieties in Africa? Insights from Malawi's input subsidy program. Food Policy 50:92–105
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Ricker-Gilbert J, Moussa B, Abdoulaye T. 2021.. Using branding to signal quality in informal markets: evidence from an experimental auction in the Sahel. Work. Pap. Dep. Agric. Econ. Purdue Univ. West Lafayette, IN:
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Sheahan M, Barrett CB. 2017. Food loss and waste in sub-Saharan Africa. Food Policy 70:1–12
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Spurgeon D. 1976. Hidden Harvest: A Systems Approach to Postharvest Technology Ottawa, Can.: Int. Dev. Res. Cent https://idl-bnc-idrc.dspacedirect.org/bitstream/handle/10625/1052/IDL-1052.pdf?sequence=1
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Stathers T, Holcroft D, Kitinoja L, Mvumi BM, English A et al. 2020. A scoping review of interventions for crop postharvest loss reduction in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Nat. Sustain. 3:10821–35
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Taleon V, Mugode L, Cabrera-Soto L, Palacios-Rojas N. 2017. Carotenoid retention in biofortified maize using different post-harvest storage and packaging methods. J. Food Chem. 232:60–66
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Thompson JF, Reid MS, Felix L, Donis-Gonzalez I, Mjawa B, Ambuko J. 2017. DryCard™—a low-cost dryness indicator for dried products. AIMS Agric. Food 2:4339–44
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Tubbs T, Woloshuk C, Ileleji K. 2017. A simple low-cost method of determining whether it is safe to store maize. AIMS Agric. Food 2:143–55
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Walker S, Jaime R, Kagot V, Probst C. 2018. Comparative effects of hermetic and traditional storage devices on maize grain: mycotoxin development, insect infestation and grain quality. J. Stored Prod. Res. 77:34–44
    [Google Scholar]
  68. World Bank 2011. Missing food: the case of postharvest losses in sub-Saharan Africa Rep. 60371-AFR World Bank Washington, DC: https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/2824
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-111820-020601
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-resource-111820-020601
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error