Available via license: CC BY-NC
Content may be subject to copyright.
Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 7(8): 1146-1155, 2019
DOI: https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v7i8.1146-1155.2460
Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology
Available online, ISSN: 2148-127X | www.agrifoodscience.com | Turkish Science and Technology
Postharvest Loss Assessment of Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) in Fogera,
Ethiopia
Fentahun Asrat1, a, Asrat Ayalew1, b,*, Asfaw Degu2, c
1Department of Horticulture, College of Agriculture and Environmental Science, University of Gondar, 196 Gondar, Ethiopia
2Department of Plant Sciences, College of Agriculture and Environmental Science, Bahir Dar University, 79 Bahir Dar, Ethiopia
*Corresponding author
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Research Article
Received : 01/02/2019
Accepted : 15/07/2019
Valuation of postharvest loss and identification of its causes enables to develop proper measures
required to reduce losses. The study was conducted at “Fogera” District, South Gondar, Ethiopia
between 2017 and 2018 years to assess the extent of postharvest loss of tomato (Solanum
lycopersicum L.) and to identify major causes with respective handling system. In this study, a total
of 125 farmers and 40 traders (10 wholesalers and 30 retailers) were involved as main respondents.
Data collection was done using semi structured interview schedule, key informant interview, focus
group discussion and observation. Besides respondents estimation, a sample analysis was conducted
to estimate the extent of postharvest loss as per the FAO minimum quality standards. Descriptive
statistics such as average, percentage, frequency and standard deviation were used to analyse data
and tables, graphs and charts were used to present result. Result revealed that almost half of tomato
produced is damaged and puts out of normal use with highest loss at producer level due to different
causes which are complex and interrelated across tomato market chain. Marketing situation, insect
pest and disease, lack of awareness, low economic status of producers, late harvesting, mechanical
damage during harvesting and transportation, poor quality of produce and price fall were some of
the reasons identified as major cause of post-harvest loss of tomato. For solving the postharvest loss
problems, actors in supply chain has to develop cooperation and effective communication among all
the research, extension, and industry personnel involved.
Keywords:
Postharvest loss
Ethiopia
Tomato
Quality
Market chain
a
asratfentahun@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8270-8832
b
gizelekullu@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2467-3392
c
degua3@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1993-9195
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Introduction
In Ethiopia, vegetable subsector has a vital role in
human nutrition and health, farm income generation,
poverty alleviation and foreign currency earnings through
export and foreign direct investment. Tomato (Solanum
lycopersicum L.) is a widely grown vegetable crop in
Ethiopia. High post harvest loss is considered as one of the
major constraints in vegetable supply chain.
As estimated roughly, one-third of food produced for
human consumption is lost or wasted globally, which
amounts to about 1.3 billion tons per year (Vilariño et al.,
2017; FAO, 2016). This inevitably also means that huge
amounts of the resources used in food production and
marketing are used in worthless.
Given the challenges posed by climate change and
limited land and water resources, food security cannot be
achieved merely through increases in agricultural
productivity. Attention also needs to be given to reduce
losses along the farm-to-consumer chain. Over 10.90% in
the world and 23.2% of the population in sub-Saharan
Africa are still suffering from hunger in the period 2014–
16 (FAO, 2016). The ultimate goal of food loss and waste
reduction improve food security for people while saving
natural resources and energy (FAO, 2016).
To develop effective intervention strategies for
postharvest losses reduction, it is important to understand
the core logistics and quality control activities that could
affect postharvest losses in these chains (Macheka et al.,
2017). The 2007–2008 global food crises have renewed
interest in postharvest loss, but estimates remain scarce,
especially in Sub-Saharan Africa (Kaminski and
Christiaensen, 2014). Most studies on post-harvest
technology have so far concentrated on grains and other
durable products, which are stored dry and a substantial
technology has been developed to deal with these problems
(Atanda et al., 2011).
Asrat et al., / Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 7(8): 1146-1155, 2019
1147
Generally, food supply can be induced either by
increase in production or reduction of loss. Reducing
postharvest loss of produce is key technique in improving
food security for people while saving natural resources and
energy (FAO, 2016). Ayandiji et al. (2011) reported that,
with the reduction of postharvest losses by 50%, food
availability would be increased by 20% without cultivating
an additional hectare of land for increasing crop yield.
Furthermore, there have not been many researches
undertaken on the impacts of food loss in developing
countries (Ayandiji et al., 2011). Thus, there is an urgent
need for further quantitative researches that provide
postharvest loss estimates.
In developing countries like Ethiopia, most of
postharvest losses occur before reaching the market. Little
information is available regarding postharvest loss of
perishable produces. Inefficient pre and postharvest
handling practices, postharvest losses and major issues of
food quality are becoming major challenges in food
security (Emana et al., 2017). However, for applying any
loss reduction techniques, major causes, extent and general
postharvest system has to be identified at initial stage.
Therefore, the main objective of this research was to assess
the postharvest loss of tomato in case of Fogera district,
South Gondar Zone, Amhara National Regional State,
Ethiopia.
Materials and Methods
Site Description
The study was conducted in Fogera district which is
located in South Gondar Zone, Amhara National Regional
State, Ethiopia (Figure 1). It is one of the 126 districts in
the region and has an area of 117.405 hectares divided
administratively in to 32 Kebeles with a total population of
233.529. A total of 42.746 households are engaged in
agriculture out of which about 21.018 are tomato
producers. This area is suitable for fresh vegetable
production due to its ample irrigation potential and easy
access to near-by market places. The district is known for
its plain topography where flat land accounted nearly 76%.
The mean annual rainfall is 1,216.30 mm, with bimodal
cropping seasons (Belg and Meher). Its altitude ranges
from 1.774 up to 2.410 m allowing a favorable opportunity
for wider crop production and livestock rearing. In 2016
about 5.606.875 hectare of land was covered with tomato
and 168.206,25 ton of yield was obtained (FDOA, 2016).
Sampling Technique and Size
Two stage sampling technique was used to select
tomato producers. First four tomato producing kebeles
were identified through reviewing secondary data on
production level with respective number of producers and
area coverage from district agriculture office. Secondly
respondent producers were selected from each kebele
based on probability proportional to size of tomato
producers and random sampling was implemented after
selecting sample tomato producers as this research was
focused only on tomato. A total of 125 farmers were
considered from four kebeles, which was divided in to each
kebele based on probability proportion of tomato
producers. Additionally, total of 40 traders (10 wholesalers
and 30 retailers) were selected by systematic random
sampling from nearby towns.
The required sample size was determined by Cochran’s
(1977) proportionate to size sampling methodology; n =
Z2pq/e2, where; n = sample size; Z= confidence level (α =
0.05); p = proportion of the population containing the
major interest, q = 1-p and e = allowable error. Hence, Z =
1.96 (from the table), p = 21.018 / 233.529 = 0.09, then q
= 0.91 and e=0.05. This resulted in a sample population of
125 respondents for sample producers (Table 1). Sample
size for traders was determined based on their amount and
purposively by considering existence of similar value chain
activities.
Figure 1 Map of the study area in Fogera, Ethiopia
Table 1 Distribution of sample producers across sample
kebeles
S.N
Sample kebeles
Number growers
Samples
1
Shina
870
42
2
Woreta Zuria
792
38
3
Kuhar Abo
645
31
4
Kuhar Micheal
294
14
Total
2.601
125
Data Collection Method
A semi-structured interview schedule was designed and
used to collect primary data from tomato producers.
Information’s about issues such as tomato production,
produce utilization, marketing, postharvest handling,
transportation, postharvest losses and its management and
factors causing postharvest losses with respective social,
economic environmental and demographic description of
respondents were covered. Interviews were done in local
language (Amharic) in order not to create any language
barrier. Key informant interview (KIIs) with regional
research center experts (1), agriculture office managers (2),
and development agents (DAs) at kebele level (6) was
conducted to gather technical information in order to
authenticate accuracy of information supplied by sample
producers.
Asrat et al., / Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 7(8): 1146-1155, 2019
1148
Data were also collected using focus group discussion
(FGDs), field observation. In the field observation,
estimation of losses was conducted by taking known
quantity of samples across supply chain in the research
area. Some relevant data were gathered through examining
secondary sources such as documents, reports and records
maintained at the Office of DAs and District Office of
Agriculture.
Physical fresh produce quality survey was conducted to
determine the type, extent and causes of postharvest losses
at the time of harvesting through observation. Tomato farms,
harvesting and postharvest handling activities were also
observed to have more reliable information about the
existing produce handling practices in farm, wholesale and
retail levels. Actual farm practices have been followed
without any intervention for collection of data. The extent of
post-harvest loss was estimated from both sample analysis
and surveyed estimation of data collected through survey.
For estimating the losses during harvesting,
grading/sorting a sample of 15 kg fruits were drawn
randomly before sorting or grading from 40 producers (10
from each kebele) at time of harvest. The sample was
graded or sorted as per FAO minimum quality standards:
produce must be whole, clean, free of pest damage and
visible foreign matter, free of foreign smell or test and fresh
in appearance. These quality standards were also used for
sample analysis in case of wholesalers and retailers in order
to sort and grade samples. From these samples, the extent
of postharvest loss due to different causes were analyzed.
During grading and sorting method, the produces which
were discarded were collected and further analyzed for the
causes of the postharvest loss. Digital weighing scale (hand
balance) was used to measure the weight of tomato
samples.
During the time of data collection, major pests and
disorders were identified both in the field and laboratory
through culturing the diseased samples on media. Their
severity and possible impact on postharvest loss was
identified during the time of field observation by inspection
and interviews with respondents and key informants.
The same principle was applied for estimating the loss
during loading, transportation and unloading in case of
whole sellers and retailers (farm to retailer). Sample of 15
kg fruit was drawn randomly from ten retailers after
unloading at storage and marketing place before sorting
damaged produce. In case of wholesaler’s sample of three
wooden boxes filled with measured quantity of tomato
which is used as main means of packaging for almost all
value chain actors was labeled and subjected to actual
handling practices and used for calculating loss from four
respondents by taking 15 kg sample. Besides estimation by
sampling, interviews with whole sellers and retailers were
performed with semi-structured interview schedule. The
overall data were collected are covered by the semi-
structured questioner.
Data Analysis
The data collected were encoded and entered into
Microsoft Excel spreadsheets and IBM SPSS statistics for
windows, version 20 (IBM Corp., 2011). Descriptive
statistics such average, percentage standard deviation and
frequency were used to analyze data and tables, graphs and
charts were used to present result.
Result and Discussion
Socio-Economic Characteristics of Sample Respondents
Analysis of the socio-economic characteristics of
respondents revealed the dominance of male actors across
production (86.4%) and wholesaler’s level (90%) and
female actors (73.3%) at retail level (Table 2). The average
age for farmers, wholesalers and retailers was 42.35, 35.2
and 30.37 years, respectively implying that young cohort
of producers, wholesalers and retailers are more involved
than elder ones in tomato supply chain. It is also revealed
that majorities of producers (80.8%), wholesalers (80%)
and retailers (70%) respond as they were married.
Producers have average house hold size of 5.98 of which
only 3.83 or 64% were active family size which participate
in farming activities.
Almost half of producers (48%) were illiterate which
could have an effect on the adoption of appropriate
agricultural technologies and skills to the farming
population over the years and only 8% of them were
completed secondary education. In case of wholesalers and
retailers, almost all have attained minimum of primary
school which showed educated youths prefer and compete
for marketing of vegetables. Producers are traveling an
average of 3.46 km in order to sell produce at first market
and they were also far away from farmer training centers
with an average of 1.4 km distance.
Tomato Production Pattern
In the study area, tomato production is largely practiced
using irrigation of water pumped from ground and nearby
rivers as the area has potential river water crossing most of
production fields. However, majority of crop production in
the district is mainly rain fed dependent. There are two
major rivers (Gumera and Rib) that are of great economic
importance to the district. These rivers are mainly used for
irrigating horticultural crops, during the dry season. From
the total, only 13.4% of producers in the area produce
tomato by both rain feed and irrigation. The FGD results
also showed that tomato is preferably produced during the
dry season under irrigation mainly to reduce risks of
diseases and pests, which enforces seasonal production.
Based on information obtained from district Office of
Agriculture more than 21.000 households were engaged in
tomato production.
More than half of the producers (53.60%) in the study
area were able to extract their own tomato seed, while
others (43.20%) buy seeds from local market. However,
majority of the producers (61.60%), were not using new
improved tomato varieties (Table 3). The average
households’ farm land size for crop cultivation was 1.04 ha
out of which about 47.00% of farm land (0.48 ha) had
irrigation access and suitable for vegetable crop production
like tomato. During study period average of 0.31 ha of land
(30.11%) per house hold was under tomato cultivation
which shows relative dominance of tomato over other
vegetables (Figure 2). It was also estimated that more than
6.552 ha of land was covered by tomato in Fogera district
and 196.560 ton of tomato was produced during the current
cropping season.
Asrat et al., / Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 7(8): 1146-1155, 2019
1149
Table 2 Socio-economic characteristics of tomato value chain actors/respondents
Characteristics
Options
Producers
Wholesalers
Retailers
Sex in %
Male
86.40
90.00
26.70
Female
13.60
10.00
73.30
Average Age
42.35
35.20
30.37
Marital status in %
Single
8.80
20.00
26.70
Married
80.80
80.00
70.00
Divorced
10.40
0.00
3.30
Educational level in %
Illiterate
48.00
0.00
3.30
Primary school
37.60
50.00
60.00
Secondary school
8.00
50.00
36.70
Religious
6.40
0.00
0.00
Average number of total family
5.98
NA
NA
Average number of active family
3.83
Average distance of household from FTC
1.40
Average distance of household from market
3.46
NA = not applicable, FTC = Farmers Training Centre
Table 3 Producers stating production practices of tomato in the study area
Characteristics
Options
Respondents (%)
Purpose of tomato production
For market only
8.80
For household use & market
91.20
Use of trellis for tomato
Users
18.40
Use of new tomato varieties
Users
38.40
Source of seed
Self
53.60
Local market
43.20
Office of Agriculture
3.20
Harvesting time of the day
Morning
28.26
Afternoon
59.24
Any time
12.50
Maturity stage for harvesting
Turning ripening stage
73.60
Light red/red ripening stage
26.40
Figure 2 Average land coverage of tomato from total farm land per house hold (ha)
Majority of producers (73.60%) harvest tomato when it
reaches turning ripening stage which they assume that it is
good for withstanding physical damages during long
distance transportation and increasing shelf life. The
remaining (26.40%) harvest when it becomes red or fully
mature for their immediate consumption and short distance
marketing. With regard to harvesting time of the day,
87.20% of the producers harvest their produce during the
late afternoon hours to make produce ready for next day’s
morning market, and 41.60% producers harvest during the
early morning for nearby market. However, about 18.40%
of the producers practice harvesting at any time of the day
(even at mid-day with high field temperature) when there
is buyer without considering possible postharvest issues
and damage on produce and field plants (Table 3).
The study result reveled that majority of sample
respondents have knowledge and awareness gap for
production technique and use of locally available
postharvest handling practice. For example, only 18.4% of
producers were able to use trellis and the remaining
(81.6%) were non users, which show inability to use even
simple technologies for improving production system
(Table 3).
1,036
0,483
0,312 0,285
0,027
0
0,2
0,4
0,6
0,8
1
1,2
Farm land size Land Suitable for
tomato Total tomato land Tomato land by
irrigation Tomato land by rain
fed
Average Land per household
Asrat et al., / Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 7(8): 1146-1155, 2019
1150
Postharvest Handling and Marketing of Tomato
Tomato is the major vegetable crop produced for both
household consumption and local market. More than half of
the producers (58.40%) store their tomato by heaping on the
open field during harvesting as temporary storage, which
gives chance for further sorting and selection of marketable
ones but exposes product for hot and dry environment.
About 45.60% of producers were using wooden box and
basket for temporary storage and making harvested produce
ready to transportation directly (Figure 3). This could be
taken as good practice to reduce postharvest loss, though it
limits the opportunity for further selection and sorting
before transporting to market.
Different means are being used to transport tomato
from farm to temporary storage or to the market. Majority
of farmers (95.20%) were using men’s shoulder or back of
women’s and others used back of animals and animal
drawn carts (40.80%) to transport their tomato to the local
market which in both cases may result in transportation
damage (Figure 3).
Figure 3 Percentage of respondents stating means of transportation (left) and temporary storage (right) at producers level
Farmers have various marketing actors through which
they sell their produce. Most of producers (94.40%) sell
their tomato to wholesalers and others also directly sell to
retailers (55.20%) and consumers (27.20%) by retailing at
local market. During the peak harvest time and when the
produce is fully matured and minor pests and diseases
attacked, 78.40% of the producers were forced to sell at
local market with much reduced price. During this
situation, the wholesalers and retailers dtermine the price
of the produce and the farmers usually do not have any
choice except accepting the reduced price. In some
instances, during price fall in the market, farmers hold back
their produce and use for animal feed and seed extraction.
This marketing trend indicates the existence of week
marketing infrastructure and networking that could play a
role in price stability. Bahir Dar and Gondar are the two
big cities, which receive vegetables in the area, which are
located at 55 and 130 km from Woreta (first local market
for producers) town respectively. While Gondar is located
in the north of Woreta, Bahir Dar is in the south.
Tomato traders buy tomato from different sources and
sell to different buyers too. For example, wholesalers
purchase tomato from different sources, such as from
producers (100%), local collectors (70%) and other
wholesalers (20%), then sell to other wholesalers (40%),
retailers (100%), consumers (10%), and hotels or
restaurants (50%). Retailers also buy tomatoes from
producers (40%), wholesalers (80%), local collectors
(56.70%) and they sell to consumers (100%), small scale
retailers (16.70%) and hotels and restaurants (54%).
During the assessment period, it was observed that
majority of traders, especially retailers were
simultaneously involved in handling different types of
vegetables together with tomato to diversify the fresh
produce for handling to maximize their returns, while most
of producers were mainly engaged in tomato production as
it is the most potential vegetable for the area. Mostly
wholesalers were males (90%), while most retailers were
females (73.3%) (Table 2) since they were unable to
participate in large volume purchase, which might be due
to low economic status. Sharma and Singh (2011) reported
that, wholesalers and retailers were involved in handling
different vegetables at the same time and post harvest loss
was maximum for tomato (23.19 %) relative to the other
vegetables.
It was reported that, in order to contribute to
marketability and diversification of tomato products, value
addition attempts were carried out. In 2006, homemade
tomato paste training and demonstration was performed by
two women at Woreta. Likewise, tomato juice promotion
was carried out in two campuses at Bahir Dar University
for one week in 2007 and a total of 130 kg tomato was
processed for juice. However, the effort was not successful
since the product was new for the area and, secondly, the
promotion was done just only once and did not repeated
(Gebey et al., 2010).
In general, the overall marketing channel of tomato was
from farmer – wholesalers/local collectors – retailers –
consumers and secondly farmers – retailers – consumers.
Some farmers (females) also involved in retailing at small
scale level and local wholesalers were also involved in
collection of produce from farmers and selling to other
wholesalers and retailers which come from Bahir Dar and
Gondar. Large scale retailer also involve in selling both for
other small scale retailers, hotels/restaurants, and
consumers. The major transaction of farmers with
wholesalers, local collectors and retailers in tomato was
being performed from early morning till around 9 am,
while mostly it was at any time in case of traders.
95,2
40,8
40,8
12,8
020 40 60 80 100
shoulder/back of
women’s in %
Animal drawn cart in
%
Back of animals in %
Non-refrigerated
trucks in %
Respondents (%)
58,4
22,4
45,6
16
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
heaping on
open space in
the field
heaping under
shade place filling in to
wooden box filling into
wooden box
under shade
respondants %
Asrat et al., / Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 7(8): 1146-1155, 2019
1151
Causes of Postharvest loss at Producer Level
Significant amount of postharvest loss occurred at
producer’s level due to complex and diverse causes as they
are the main and initial actors in tomato production and
marketing chain. During FGDs lack of awareness, high
cost of seeds of new varieties and other agricultural inputs
and producers’ low economic status were raised as basic
reasons for inability of the producers to use modern
production and postharvest technologies. Similarly, FAO
(2011) reported that the causes of PHL in low income
countries are mainly connected to financial, managerial
and technical limitations during production and
postharvest handling.
As per the results from percentage of respondents,
marketing situation (66.40%), pest and disease (100%) and
poor quality of produce (62.40%) were listed as major
causes of post-harvest loss and quality deterioration at
producer’s level (Figure 4). According to Hailu and
Derbew (2015) climate and weather conditions, packaging,
storage and transportation facility and market situation
were recorded as major causes for post-harvest loss of
horticultural crops. Kiaya (2014) reported that postharvest
losses may occur from improper handling, deterioration by
microorganisms (fungi and bacteria) and insects.
Laboratory result revealed that Phytophthora infestans
caused a postharvest loss of 3.28% as per sample analysis
result. Tomato fruit worm (Helicoverpa zea) called also
corn earworms and cotton bollworms attacks tomatoes and
other plants and leaf miner insect forming zigzag line on
leaf of tomatoes were commonly affecting tomato
production in the study area which resulted in 18.25%
produce loss. Postharvest diseases were also reported as
one of the major causes for the postharvest loss of
horticultural fresh produce across the supply chain which
could be responsible for as much as 10-30% reduction in
the yield of major tomato crops (Etebu et al., 2013).
Blossom end rot which is a physiological disorder
caused by calcium deficiency, fruit cracking and cat face
were also identified as causes of postharvest loss. Fruit
cracking disorder was commonly problem for farmers
experiencing high irrigation intervals. Sunburn which
might be caused by excessive sun light on tomato fruit was
also observed in Sembersa variety. Morphologically
Sembersa variety has relatively reduced vegetative growth
and most of the fruits in each plant were exposed to direct
sunlight. Sample analysis showed that 2.62% of tomato
loss was due to physiological disorders.
Harvesting at full ripe stage and mechanical damage
during harvesting were also listed as main causes of
postharvest loss of tomato at producer’s level by 40.8% and
12% of respondents respectively (Figure 4). Both over ripe
and mechanically injured fruits are usually have short
shelf-life and less accepted by the consumers. Although the
severe post-harvest and quality loss of horticultural crops
mainly occurred during harvesting (Atanda et al., 2011),
the damage is not as such clearly detectable. This hidden
damage at producer’s level could enhance further rotting
and spoilage of produce at wholesale, retail and consumers
level. Though 73.6% of producers harvested tomato when
it reaches turning ripening stage, which is expected as most
acceptable stage of harvest, still the contribution of late
harvesting for postharvest loss is considerable (Table 3).
From Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and field
observation, it was noted that tomato quality deterioration
was mainly caused by the insect borer attack and over
maturity or late harvesting in order to fetch better market
prices. Most of the farmers harvested at mixed ripening
stage and some were practicing sorting based on ripening
stage at local market when they got rejection by
wholesalers and retailers. Usually green or early harvested
tomato has better demand and price at the retailer and
wholesalers level during time of peak production. Since
wholesalers and local collectors are not willing to pay for
tomatoes which are harvested at fully ripe or red maturity
stage, especially at times when there is good produce
supply in the area. In turn farmers usually forced to sell
their produce with reduced price for local retailers and
consumers. Banjaw (2017) reported that higher supply of
the produce at a peak harvesting time was reasons for
unsatisfactory market condition.
Since harvesting was done manually by selection,
mechanical damage during harvesting time was not as such
major cause of postharvest loss. However, it was observed
that lack of awareness about postharvest handling existed
at producer’s level. As a due care was not given during
harvesting tomato, daily laborers were throwing it to
heaping place and even walk on top of heaped produce on
the field during sorting and box filling. This could cause
hidden damage on produce that might become visible and
causes rotting in the shelf when produce reaches to the
wholesaler and retailer. It was reported that lack of
knowledge or awareness, infrastructure, and access to post-
harvest technologies has negatively affected the
postharvest shelf life of horticultural produces (Humble
and Reneby, 2014).
Educational level of farmers (Table 2) and absence of
problem based training could be a contributory factor to the
high postharvest losses in tomato production in the study
areas. Majority of producers (89.60%) were responded as
they hadn’t taken any training regarding in production and
postharvest handling of tomato. It was reported that lack of
awareness in perish-ability of horticultural crops,
rudimentary transport methods and lack of modern storage
facilities are the characteristics of the postharvest handling
systems practiced in the region which increases the
postharvest losses of the products. Due to these, farmers
were unwillingly enforced to sell their products
immediately after harvesting when there is excess supply
of products at very low prices (Alemayehu et al., 2015).
More than half of producers (58.40%) heap their tomato
under open field condition where there is high field
temperature and low relative humidity, while the
remaining 22.40% of producers heap their tomato under
shade by using available trees on the side of field or by
transporting produce immediately after harvest to their
home. It was reported that high temperature is well known
to result in increased rates of respiration, accelerated
metabolic changes and water loss in fresh produce, which
eventually leading to reduced market and nutritional
quality (Kitinoja and AlHassan, 2012).
Since more than 40% of producers use animal drown
carts and back of animals for transporting harvested
produce, animal fall at road was causing tremendous
transportation damage and loss which could enhance
further bruising and rotting of tomato when they took to the
Asrat et al., / Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 7(8): 1146-1155, 2019
1152
traders (Figure 3). It was also noted that the use of animal
transportation could be considered as major cause of
postharvest loss as it might expose produce to physical
injury as a result of abrasion damage. Poor quality
equipment and materials usage during handling was
reported to cause tremendous mechanical, physiological
and pathological damages on horticultural crops (Kasso
and Bekele, 2016). Alemayehu et al. (2015) also reported
that farmers transported their produces in sacks, baskets, in
some extent using wooden and plastic containers on back
of animals or human labor might exposed the products to
direct sunlight and mechanical damages.
More than 65% of producers responded as they faced
problem of price fall and absence of market at all in some
cases, which was becoming reason for late harvesting and
poor harvesting and handling practice (Figure 4). Distant
market, low price, lack of proper means of transportation
and unsuitable of road were identified as discouraging
factors for postharvest chain of horticultural crops (Kasso
and Bekele, 2016). In line with these FGD result showed
that market condition was also the major discouraging
problem and causes of postharvest loss for tomato.
Most of the farmers responded as they sold their
produce at nearby market and a few of them also sold on
farm. Price for tomato was not satisfactory for producers,
mainly because of higher supply of the produce at a peak
harvesting time. This was also main reason for price fall at
peak time. Seasonality of production and fluctuations in the
supply of fresh tomatoes leading to market superfluity
during on-season and shortage during off season was
reported in many producer countries worldwide and Africa
including Ethiopia, Kenya, Nigeria, Nepal and India
(Getahun and Habte, 2017).
Figure 4 Major causes of postharvest loss and percentage of respondents at producer’s level
Table 4 Respondents stating factors making producers not to be benefited
Factors
Wholesalers (%)
Rank
Retailers %
Rank
Price fall
90.00
1
43.30
3
Uniform harvesting period
80.00
2
60.00
1
Insect pest and disease problem
70.00
3
56.70
2
Lack of access for market place
50.00
4
36.70
4
Poor quality of produce
40.00
5
43.30
3
Weak market organization
40.00
5
23.30
5
Bargaining power of intermediaries
30.00
6
23.30
5
Eighty percent of wholesalers pointed out that most of
the producers are not as such benefited due to many
challenges in tomato production and marketing chain.
Among the major reasons, they listed “lack of access for
market place (50%), uniform harvesting period (80%),
quality of produce (40%), price fall (90%), pest and disease
problem (70%), bargaining power of intermediaries (30%)
and weak market organization (40%)” as shown in the
Table 4. It was reported tha, interference of brokers is still
affecting the benefit of the producers in case of Fogera
district (Gebey et al., 2010).
These factors were also suggested by retailers as major
challenges that made farmer’s non beneficiary from tomato
production and marketing. Price paid for producers for
their produce was also not satisfactory relative to other
actors in tomato marketing chain. This indicates a need of
special attention to the producers in improving overall
production, postharvest handling and marketing network.
Hussen et al. (2013) also reported that horticulture products
in Ethiopia are mainly produced by smallholder farms and
most of the farmers sell their products at a nearby market
and a few sell both on farm and in nearby market such that
the marketing condition is unsatisfactory and discouraging.
The major factors were listed with their rank in the Table 4
below.
100
62,4
40,8
12
66,4
23,2
17,2
67,2
66,4
020 40 60 80 100 120
Pest attack (insect, disease)
Poor quality of produce
Late harvesting/over maturity at field
Mechanical damage during harvesting
Marketing situation
Transprtation damage
Temporary storage damage
Absence of market at all
price fall
respondants %
Asrat et al., / Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 7(8): 1146-1155, 2019
1153
Causes of Postharvest Loss at Traders Level
As identified by wholesalers and retailers, poor
marketing access, reduced price of produce, damage during
transport, damage during storage, low quality of produce,
climatic condition, physical damage during harvesting, late
harvesting and poor packaging material were listed as
major causes of tomato postharvest loss. These all causes
of postharvest loss are not single or separate factors, rather
they were interrelated and complex in nature. For example
harvesting damage at producer’s level could be reason for
low quality of produce and storage loss when produce
reaches wholesaler and retail market.
Hidden damage during harvesting and transportation
was also stated as reason for postharvest loss by 16.70% of
retailers and 40% of wholesalers. Harvesting and
transportation damage at producer level causes rotting and
further spoilage of produce at retailers (60%) than
wholesalers (40%) as they store for more time for retailing.
Wholesalers transfer produce to next chain within average
of 3.90 days, while retailers store average of 5.40 days up
to finishing all purchased. Kiaya (2014) reported that food
losses are mainly due to poor infrastructure and logistics,
lack of technology, insufficient skill, knowledge and
management capacity of supply chain actors and lack to
markets.
Niguse (2018) reported that damage assessment result
at wholesale showed maximum damage for tomatoes than
other vegetables. Delayed harvesting was stated as major
cause of loss as it enhances crop susceptibility for handling
damage and reduces shelf life. Tomato is reported as a very
sensitive crop and cannot be stored for even short period if
it is fully ripe (Singh et al., 2013). Tomatoes harvested red
ripe experienced much higher PHL than tomatoes
harvested at the breaker or turning stage of maturity when
measured using the same sampling loss assessment
methods on the farm, at wholesale and retail markets
(WFLO, 2010). During the assessment period, it was also
observed that all trade actors have sanitation problem both
at the market and temporary storage rooms which might
enhance further rotting and deterioration of tomato before
selling. The major reasons which were stated at trader’s
level for postharvest loss of tomato were listed in Table 5.
Table 5 Proportion of wholesalers and retailers stating reasons for loss of tomato
Reasons for postharvest loss
Wholesalers %
Rank
Retailers %
Rank
Damage during transportation
100.00
1
100.00
1
Storage damage
90.00
2
90.00
2
Climatic condition
80.00
3
53.30
5
Absence of market
70.00
4
50.00
6
Delayed harvesting
70.00
4
63.30
3
Price fall/low price
50.00
5
53.30
5
Poor quality of produce
50.00
5
40.00
7
Harvesting damage
40.00
6
60.00
4
Absence of road for trucks
40.00
6
20.00
9
Poor packaging material
20.00
7
30.00
8
Due to the price fluctuation in the market, sometimes
retailers have to hold back their produce and some of them
also sale with reduced price or even discard when no more
buyers come. This is commonly case for these who
participate in small scale retailing of fully matured and low
quality produce at open market. Banjaw (2017) also
reported that different containers such as wooden box,
baskets, plastic materials and sacks used in handling of
produce with inadequate handling that enhances level of
produce damage. Price deduction was major problem for
all production and distribution actors in tomato marketing.
At wholesale and retailers market, average of 35.5% and
28.33% price discount was estimated respectively
depending on degree of quality losses of produce.
Extent of Postharvest Loss from Respondents Estimation
As per producer estimation, the extent of loss was
21.24% before reaching wholesalers or local collectors due
to complex and diversified factors discussed above. All
farmers responded as “they experience minimum of 5% and
maximum of 40% postharvest loss with mean value of
21.24% and standard deviation of 6.8”. The extent of loss
was estimated as the difference between quantity harvested
and quantity sold in relation to total quantity harvested at
producer’s level. Hailu and Derbew (2015) reviewed that
postharvest losses in fresh perishables are 5 to 35% in
developed countries and 20 to 50% in developing countries.
Tomato traders also experienced huge loss during
transportation, storage and marketing. As per their
estimation, average of 11.60% and 12.13% of tomato was
lost at wholesalers and retailers level, respectively (Table
6). This result showed that about quarter of tomato
purchased from producers was not able to reach
consumers. Similarly, according to Kasso and Bekele
(2016), post-harvest loss ranging from 20% to 50% was
recorded for fruits and vegetables in between marketing
and consumption due to lack of appropriate management
during harvesting, packaging, storage, grading and
transportation.
During assessment period, it was also observed that few
farmers left their tomato in the field without harvesting
during time of peak harvest as the price is very low. They
responded that the price at that period was even unable to
cover cost of daily laborers for harvesting, although this
situation was seen only at peak harvesting period. This
showed that extent of loss might be above their actual
estimation, although some of them practiced seed
extraction and used as animal feed when rejected at market.
At retailer level, postharvest loss of tomato was
relatively high. This might be due their practices to store
the produce for long time up to final retailing. Average
time of storage for retailers was 5.40 days after the
produces reached on their hand. Kumar et al. (2006)
reported that retailer in the process of marketing retained
Asrat et al., / Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 7(8): 1146-1155, 2019
1154
the produce for a longer period than that of the wholesaler.
As a result, the postharvest loss at the retail level was
relatively more as compared to wholesale level. Pair means
test or t test result (Table 6) showed that transportation loss
at wholesale level is significantly higher than at retailers’
level. This might be due to mechanical damage that occurs
during long distance transportation and the highest amount
they handle.
Extent of Postharvest Loss from Sample Analysis
The result indicated that total postharvest losses of
24.17, 5.24 and 8.17% were occurred at farmers,
wholesalers, and retailer’s level, respectively (Table 7). At
farmer level, this loss was mainly due to pest (borer),
disease and physiological disorders causing 18.25, 3.28,
and 2.62% of postharvest loss respectively. In case of
traders, loss was mainly due to transportation damage and
rotting in the storage. Wholesalers experienced relatively
low loss which might be due to only one turn handling that
reduces contact frequency with produce. Kumar et al.
(2006) reported that maximum postharvest loss of potato
and onion was observed at farm level and it was about 60%
of total postharvest loss.
Farmers level sample analysis showed relatively higher
postharvest loss (24.17%) than respondent’s estimation
(21.24%) which might be due to some farmers practiced
household consumption, seed extraction and animal feed
when tomato was mechanically damaged and over ripened.
However, in case of wholesalers extent of loss was reduced
by half in sample analysis than their actual respondent’s
estimation which might be due to exaggeration of their loss
estimation. Sample analysis result of retailers was also less
than estimation value, which might be due to produce
discard if not sold, was not considered in sample analysis.
Table 6 Amount of loss (%) at trader’s level as per their estimation
Agents
Stage of loss
Wholesaler (N=10)
Retailers (N=30)
T value
Min
Max
Mean
St. Dev.
Min
Max
Mean
St. Dev.
Transportation
5
10
6.70
2.34
3
10
4.80
1.77
2.204**
Storage
2
10
4.90
2.13
3
15
7.33
2.96
0.974
Total
7
15
11.60
2.95
8
21
12.13
3.41
0.732
Losses were estimated as the difference between quantity purchased and quantity sold in relation to total quantity purchased. ** shows significant
difference b/n means at 5%.
Table 7 Extent of loss (%) from sample analysis
Actors in chain
Producers (N=10*4)
Wholesaler (N=4*3)
Retailers (N=10)
Measurement Types
Mean
Std. Dev.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Marketable in kg
11.37
1.25
14.16
7.13
13.77
0.70
Unmarketable in kg
3.62
1.25
0.84
2.41
1.23
0.70
Loss in %
24.17
8.36
5.60
2.23
8.17
4.68
The “t value” or “pair mean test” for producer with wholesaler, producer with retailer and wholesaler with retailer is 8.826***, 6.977***, and 4.811***
respectively.
Table 8 Amount of price deduction (%) for tomato marketing actors as per their estimation
Major actors of chain
Min.
Max.
Mean
Std. Dev.
Producers
20.00
70.00
43.64
16.43
Wholesalers
20.00
50.00
35.50
11.89
Retailers
0.00
60.00
28.33
16.88
The “t” value or “pair mean test” for producer with wholesaler, producer with retailer and wholesaler with retailer is 3.708***, 4.524***, and 0.737ns
respectively.
In general, extent of postharvest loss for tomato was
found to be almost half, which is too huge and it would be
also above this if consumer level loss is considered.
Kitinoja and AlHassen (2012) reported that with
postharvest losses at the farm, wholesale and retail markets
commonly reaching 30% to 50% for many of the
horticultural crops, and physical damage measuring as high
as 50% to 89% of loss for vegetable crops in the markets
of Africa and India. This represents an enormous waste
especially at farmers’ level. Kasso and Bekele (2016) also
reported that the highest post-harvest loss was recorded in
tomato (45.32%) than other vegetables and fruits. Sample
analysis result showed that producer experience maximum
amount of tomato loss which is significant with both
wholesalers and retailers. Extent of loss at retail level was
also significantly greater than wholesale level as shown in
the Table 7 below.
Farmers experience price deduction up to 43.64% due
to absence of market, poor quality of produce, over
maturity and high supply at peak harvesting time. The
following table (Table 8) shows estimated price deduction
at actors’ level as per their estimation. The result indicated
that producers experience the highest and significant price
deduction than both wholesalers and retailers. Wholesalers
and retailers were faced problem of price deduction though
it is statistically non-significant between them.
Conclusion
In the study area, tomato is preferably produced during
the dry season under irrigation mainly to reduce risk of
diseases and pests which enforces seasonal production.
Significant postharvest losses occur along the tomato
supply chain. Farmers were experiencing huge amount of
PHL loss of 21.24 and 24.17% as per their estimation and
results of sample analysis, respectively. As per their
estimation, average of 11.6% and 12.13% of tomato was
lost at wholesalers and retailers level, respectively.
Asrat et al., / Turkish Journal of Agriculture - Food Science and Technology, 7(8): 1146-1155, 2019
1155
Similarly, sample analysis at trader’s level also showed
existence of loss, although extent was relatively lower than
estimation result of sample respondents. The causes of
PHL are complex and varied so that there is no one solution
that is appropriate in all cases.
Marketing situation, pest and disease, lack of
awareness in postharvest handling and marketing, high
cost of seeds of new varieties, producers’ low economic
status, late harvesting, mechanical damage during
harvesting and transportation, poor quality of produce,
price fall and absence of market at all were listed as major
causes of post-harvest loss and quality deterioration of
tomato at producer’s level.
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to thank to University of
Gondar for financial support and staff of Woreta Office of
Agriculture for their assistant in selecting sample
respondents.
References
Alemayehu M, Tessafa F, Bizuayehu S, Ayele B. 2015. Amhara
Region Horticulture Development Strategy (2015-2019).
Agro-Big, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia. URL:
https://www.agrobig.org/documents/7.1_Amhara_Region_H
orticulture_Development_Strategy_2015-2019.pdf.
Accessed on January 20, 2018.
Atanda SA, Pessu PO, Agoda S, Isong IU, Ikotun I. 2011. The
Concepts and Problems of Postharvest Food Losses in
Perishable Crops. Afr. J. Food Sci. 5 (11): 603-613.
Ayandiji A, Adeniyi R, Omidiji D. 2011. Determinant Post
Harvest Losses among Tomato Farmers in Imeko-Afon Local
Government Area of Ogun State, Nigeria. Glob. J. Sci. Front.
Res. 11(5): 23-28.
Banjaw TD. 2017. Review of post-harvest loss of horticultural
crops in Ethiopia, its causes and mitigation strategies. J. Plant
Sci. Agric. Res. 2(1):006.
Cochran, WG. 1977. Sampling Techniques (3rd ed.). New York:
John Wiley & Sons.
Emana B, Afari-Sefa V, Nenguwo N, Ayana A, Kebede D,
Mohammed H. 2017. Characterization of pre- and
postharvest losses of tomato supply chain in Ethiopia. Agric.
& Food Secur. 6(3): 1-11, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1186/s40066-016-0085-1
Etebu E, Nwauzoma AB, Bawo DDS. 2013. Postharvest spoilage
of tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.) and control
strategies in Nigeria. J. Biol. Agric. & Healthcare, 3(10): 51-
62.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2011. Global food
losses and food waste – Extent, causes and prevention. Rome,
Italy.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2016. Opportunities
for local and regional authorities in facilitating food waste
prevention and reduction. Global Initiatives on Food Loss and
Waste Reduction. Brussels, Belgium.
FDOA (Fogera District Office Agriculture). 2016. Annual report
on agriculture production and area coverage. Woreta, Office
of Agriculture, Woreta, Ethiopia.
Gebey T, Berhe K, Hoekstra D. 2010. Vegetables value chain
development in Fogera district: Experiences from IPMS
project interventions. IPMS Ethiopia.
Getahun D, Habte B. 2017. Experiences of rain-fed tomato
production in an open field. Int. J. Sci. and Res. 6(2): 1335-
1343.
Hailu G, Derbew B. 2015. Extent, causes and reduction strategies
of postharvest losses of fresh fruits and vegetables. Review.
J. Biol. Agric and Healthcare, 5(5): 49-64.
Humble S, Reneby A. 2014. Post-harvest losses in fruit supply
chains-A case study of mango and avocado in Ethiopia. Msc.
thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences.
Hussen S, Beshir H, Woldehawariyat Y. 2013. Postharvest loss
assessment of commercial horticultural crops in South Wollo,
Ethiopia “challenges and opportunities”. Food Science and
Quality Management, 17: 34-39.
IBM Corp. 2011. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version
20.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Kaminski J, Christiaensen L. 2014. Post-harvest loss in Sub-
Saharan Africa-what do farmers say ? Glob. Food Secur. 3(3-
4): 149–158. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2014.10.002
Kasso M, Bekele A. 2016. Post-harvest loss and quality
deterioration of horticultural crops in Dire Dawa Region,
Ethiopia. J. Saudi Soci. Agric. Sci. 17: 88-96. doi:
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssas.2016.01.005
Kiaya V. 2014. Post-harvest losses and strategies to reduce them.
Technical paper on postharvest loss, scientific & technical
department, Action Contre la Faim (ACF) International, p.
25.
Kitinoja L, AlHassan HY. 2012. Identification of appropriate
postharvest technologies for small scale horticultural farmers
and marketers in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia: Part 1.
Postharvest losses and quality assessments. Act. Hort. 934:
31-40.
Kumar DK, Basavaraja H, Mahajanshetti SB. 2006. An
Economic Analysis of Post-Harvest Losses in Vegetables in
Karnataka Kumar. Ind. J. Agri. Econ. 61(1): 134-146.
Macheka L, Spelt E, Van der Vorst JGAJ, Luning PA. 2017.
Exploration of logistics and quality control activities in view
of context characteristics and postharvest losses in fresh
produce chains: case study for tomatoes. Food Control, 77:
221–234. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodcont.2017.02.037
Niguse B. 2018. Assess and prioritize problems related
postharvest management of horticultural crops in Jimma
Town, in Bishishe Market. J. Biodivers. Biopros. Dev. 5(1):
168. doi: http://doi.org/10.4172/2376-0214.1000168
Sharma G, Singh S. 2011. Economic analysis of post-harvest
losses in marketing of vegetables in Uttarakhand. Agric.
Econ. Res. Rev. 24: 309-315.
Singh AK, Singh N, Singh, BB. 2013. Marketing and postharvest
loss assessment of vegetables in Varanasi district (U.P.).
Internat. Res. J. Agric. Eco. & Stat. 4 (1): 47-50.
Vilariño MV, Franco C, Quarrington C. 2017. Food loss and
waste reduction as an integral part of a circular economy.
Front. Environ. Sci. 5: 21. doi:
https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2017.00021
WFLO (World Food and Logistics Organization). 2010.
Identification of appropriate postharvest technologies for
improving market access and incomes for small horticultural
farmers in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. WFLO Grant
Final Report to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. p. 318.
