Valuation of Rice Postharvest Losses in Sub-Saharan Africa and Its Mitigation Strategies

doi:10.1016/j.rsci.2021.04.001

Abstract

Atanga Ndindeng Sali, Candia Alphonse, Lamare Mapiemfu Delphine, Rakotomalala Vohangisoa, Danbaba Nahemiah, Kulwa Kurahisha, Houssou Paul, Mohammed Sow, M. Jarju Ousman, S. Coulibaly Salimata, A. Baidoo Elvis, Moreira Jean, Futakuchi Koichi. Valuation of Rice Postharvest Losses in Sub-Saharan Africa and Its Mitigation Strategies[J]. Rice Science, 2021, 28(3): 212-216.

Figures/Tables 6

References 21

[1]	African Development Bank. 2016. Feed Africa: Strategy for Agricultural Transformation in Africa 2016-2025. Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire: 30.
[2]	Africa Rice Center. 2018. Continental Investment Plan for accelerating Rice Self-Sufficiency in Africa (CIPRiSSA). Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire: 204.
[3]	Africa Rice Center. 2019. Annual Report 2019: Toward rice-based food systems transformation in Africa. Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire: Africa Rice Center: 28.
[4]	Akoa-Etoa J M, Ndindeng S A, Owusu E S, Woin N, Bindzi B, Demont M, Bulte E. 2016. Consumer valuation of an improved rice parboiling technology: Experimental evidence from Cameroon. Afric J Agric Res Econom, 11(1): 8-21.
[5]	Bourne M C. 2014. Food security: Postharvest losses. Encycl Agric Food Syst, 44: 338-351.
[6]	Eyenga E F, Tang E N, Achu M B L, Boulanger R, Mbacham W F, Ndindeng S A. 2020. Physical, nutritional and sensory quality of rice-based biscuits fortified with Safou ( Dacryodes edulis) fruit powder. Food Sci Nutr, 8(7): 3413-3424.
[7]	Futakuchi K, Manful J, Sakurai T. 2013. Improving grain quality of locally produced rice. In: Wopereis M C, Johnson D E, Ahmadi N, Tollens E, Jalloh A. Realizing Africa’s Rice Promise. Boston, USA: CAB International: 311-323.
[8]	Grolleaud M. 1997. Postharvest losses: Discovering the full story. Rome: FAO.
[9]	International Rice Research Institute (IRRI). 2020. World Statistics Online Query Facility. .
[10]	Mapiemfu D L, Ndindeng S A, Ambang Z, Tang E N, Ngome F, Johnson J M, Tanaka A, Saito K. 2017. Physical rice quality attributes as affected by biophysical factors and pre-harvest practices. Int J Plant Prod, 11(4): 561-576.
[11]	Minten B, Tamru S, Reardon T. 2020. Postharvest losses in rural-urban value chains: Evidence from Ethiopia. Food Policy, 101860.
[12]	Migo-Sumagang M V P, Van Hung N, Detras M C M, Alfafara C G, Borines M G, Capunitan J A, Gummert M. 2020. Optimization of a downdraft furnace for rice straw-based heat generation. Renew Energy, 148: 953-963.
[13]	Ndindeng S A, Manful J T, Futakuchi K, Mapiemfu D L, Akoa- Etoa J M, Bigoga J, Tang E N, Graham-Acquaah S, Moreira J. 2015a. A novel artisanal parboiling technology for rice processors in Sub-Saharan Africa. Food Sci Nutr, 3(6): 557-568.
[14]	Ndindeng S A, Mbassi J E G, Mbacham W F, Manful J, Graham- Acquaah S, Moreira J, Dossou J, Futakuchi K. 2015b. Quality optimization in briquettes made from rice milling by-products. Energy Sustain Dev, 29: 24-31.
[15]	Ndindeng S A, Wopereis M, Sanyang S, Futakuchi F. 2019. Evaluation of fan-assisted rice husk fuelled gasifier cookstoves for application in Sub-Sahara Africa. Renew Energy, 139: 924-935.
[16]	Prusky D. 2011. Reduction of the incidence of postharvest quality losses, and future prospects. Food Secur, 3(4): 463-474.
[17]	Tanaka A, Diagne M, Saito K. 2015. Causes of yield stagnation in irrigated lowland rice systems in the Senegal River valley: Application of dichotomous decision tree analysis. Field Crops Res, 176: 99-107.
[18]	Yong H, Bao Y, Liu X, Algader A H. 1997. Grain postproduction practices and loss estimates in South China. Agric Mechan Asia, Latin Amer, 28: 37-40.
[19]	Zhou L J, Chen L M, Jiang L, Zhang W W, Liu L L, Liu X, Zhao Z G, Liu S J, Zhang L J, Wang J K, Wan J M. 2009. Fine mapping of the grain chalkiness QTL qPGWC-7 in rice(Oryza sativa L.). Theor Appl Genet, 118(3): 581-590.
[20]	Zohoun E V, Tang E N, Soumanou M M, Manful J, Akissoe N H, Bigoga J, Futakuchi K, Ndindeng S A. 2018a. Physicochemical and nutritional properties of rice as affected by parboiling steaming time at atmospheric pressure and variety. Food Sci Nutr, 6(3): 638-652.
[21]	Zohoun E V, Ndindeng S A, Soumanou M M, Tang E N, Bigoga J, Manful J, Sanyang S, Akissoe N H, Futakuchi K. 2018b. Appropriate parboiling steaming time at atmospheric pressure and variety to produce rice with weak digestive properties. Food Sci Nutr, 6(4): 757-764.

Country/ Method	Hub/Site	Harvesting			Threshing		Drying	Parboiling			Milling
Country/ Method	Hub/Site	Yield (t/hm²)	Shattering loss (%)	Stacking loss (%)	Paddy re-threshed	Scattered grains	Drying	Washing	Steaming	Drying	Grains dropped (%)	Grains in husk or bran (%)
Cameroon	Ndop	6.9 (3.7)a	3.17 (2.9)b	4.3 (2.2)b	2.2 (1.4)a	2.2 (1.3)a	0.54 (0.5)b	0.07 (0.0)b	0.04 (0.0)b	0.18 (0.5)b	3.32 (2.3)b	0.65 (0.8)c
Côte d’Ivoire	Gagnoa	4.8 (2.7)b	1.56 (1.3)c	11.2 (3.4)a			0.01 (0.0)c
Madagascar	Ambohibary		0.51 (0.3)c	0.52 (0.4)d	1.0 (1.4)ab	0.2 (0.1)b	0.44 (0.3)b				0.10 (0)c	0.0 (0)d
Madagascar	Mandrosohasina		0.31 (0.4)c	0.64 (0.7)d	0.6 (0.1)c	0.3 (0.1)b	0.35 (0.2)b
Mali	Kouroumari										10.9 (5.4)a	0.0 (0)d
Mali	Sikasso	2.2 (1.8)c	6.03 (4.5)a	4.1 (2.1)b
Nigeria	Nasarawa						0.79 (0.1)a	0.98 (0.1)a	0.90 (0.1)a	0.60 (0.1)a	6.60 (4.9)a	3.60 (2.7)a
Uganda	Northern	4.3 (1.3)b	0.66 (0.3)c	2.2 (2.1)cd	0.8 (1.7)ab	0.4 (0.4)b					2.57 (1.2)b	1.15 (0.8)b
Uganda	Western	5.2 (1.1)b	0.80 (0.4)c	3.6 (1.7)bc	0.8 (0.9)bc	0.5 (0.9)b					3.80 (2.9)b	0.94 (0.8)c
Methods	Traditional	4.1 (3.1)	2.8 (3.7)*	4.2 (4.0)*	1.9 (1.3)*	1.6 (1.3)*	0.48 (0.4)	1.54 (0.6)*	1.32 (0.4)*	1.10 (0.4)*	7.70 (5.0)*	3.56 (2.3)*
Methods	Improved	5.3 (2.1)*	-	-	0.08 (0.0)	0.03 (0.0)		0.01 (0.0)	0.01 (0.0)	0.01 (0.0)	1.41 (2.1)	0.93 (1.7)
Mean		4.8 (3.4)	2.8 (3.7)	4.2 (4.0)	1.4 (1.4)	1.2 (1.1)	0.48 (0.4)	0.78 (0.8)	0.71 (0.6)	0.54 (0.6)	4.94 (3.2)	3.50 (2.2)

Country/ Method	Hub/Site	Harvesting			Threshing		Drying	Parboiling			Milling
Country/ Method	Hub/Site	Yield (t/hm²)	Shattering loss (%)	Stacking loss (%)	Paddy re-threshed	Scattered grains	Drying	Washing	Steaming	Drying	Grains dropped (%)	Grains in husk or bran (%)
Cameroon	Ndop	6.9 (3.7)a	3.17 (2.9)b	4.3 (2.2)b	2.2 (1.4)a	2.2 (1.3)a	0.54 (0.5)b	0.07 (0.0)b	0.04 (0.0)b	0.18 (0.5)b	3.32 (2.3)b	0.65 (0.8)c
Côte d’Ivoire	Gagnoa	4.8 (2.7)b	1.56 (1.3)c	11.2 (3.4)a			0.01 (0.0)c
Madagascar	Ambohibary		0.51 (0.3)c	0.52 (0.4)d	1.0 (1.4)ab	0.2 (0.1)b	0.44 (0.3)b				0.10 (0)c	0.0 (0)d
Madagascar	Mandrosohasina		0.31 (0.4)c	0.64 (0.7)d	0.6 (0.1)c	0.3 (0.1)b	0.35 (0.2)b
Mali	Kouroumari										10.9 (5.4)a	0.0 (0)d
Mali	Sikasso	2.2 (1.8)c	6.03 (4.5)a	4.1 (2.1)b
Nigeria	Nasarawa						0.79 (0.1)a	0.98 (0.1)a	0.90 (0.1)a	0.60 (0.1)a	6.60 (4.9)a	3.60 (2.7)a
Uganda	Northern	4.3 (1.3)b	0.66 (0.3)c	2.2 (2.1)cd	0.8 (1.7)ab	0.4 (0.4)b					2.57 (1.2)b	1.15 (0.8)b
Uganda	Western	5.2 (1.1)b	0.80 (0.4)c	3.6 (1.7)bc	0.8 (0.9)bc	0.5 (0.9)b					3.80 (2.9)b	0.94 (0.8)c
Methods	Traditional	4.1 (3.1)	2.8 (3.7)*	4.2 (4.0)*	1.9 (1.3)*	1.6 (1.3)*	0.48 (0.4)	1.54 (0.6)*	1.32 (0.4)*	1.10 (0.4)*	7.70 (5.0)*	3.56 (2.3)*
Methods	Improved	5.3 (2.1)*	-	-	0.08 (0.0)	0.03 (0.0)		0.01 (0.0)	0.01 (0.0)	0.01 (0.0)	1.41 (2.1)	0.93 (1.7)
Mean		4.8 (3.4)	2.8 (3.7)	4.2 (4.0)	1.4 (1.4)	1.2 (1.1)	0.48 (0.4)	0.78 (0.8)	0.71 (0.6)	0.54 (0.6)	4.94 (3.2)	3.50 (2.2)

		Harvesting time		Threshing method		Drying method
		Impurities	Head rice	Impurities	Head rice	Impurities	Head rice
Source	Intercept	0.41 (0.06) ***	49.2 (2.2) ***	0.245 (0.1) *	56.5 (2.4) ***	0.38 (0.2) *	52.18 (2.7) ***
	OHT	-0.06 (0.08)	8.5 (2.6) **	1.3 (0.1) ***	-5.0 (2.9)	1.7 (0.2) ***	-13.3 (3.3) ***
	FHT	-	-	-	-	-	-
Variety	NERICA-L-19	0.047 (0.08)	18.4 (2.7) ***	-0.004 (0.1)	14.1 (3.0) ***	0.042 (0.2)	26.3 (3.4) ***
	TOX3145	-	-	-	-	-	-
	Goodness of fit (Adjusted R²)	0.23	0.47	0.48	0.57	0.35	0.57

		Harvesting time		Threshing method		Drying method
		Impurities	Head rice	Impurities	Head rice	Impurities	Head rice
Source	Intercept	0.41 (0.06) ***	49.2 (2.2) ***	0.245 (0.1) *	56.5 (2.4) ***	0.38 (0.2) *	52.18 (2.7) ***
	OHT	-0.06 (0.08)	8.5 (2.6) **	1.3 (0.1) ***	-5.0 (2.9)	1.7 (0.2) ***	-13.3 (3.3) ***
	FHT	-	-	-	-	-	-
Variety	NERICA-L-19	0.047 (0.08)	18.4 (2.7) ***	-0.004 (0.1)	14.1 (3.0) ***	0.042 (0.2)	26.3 (3.4) ***
	TOX3145	-	-	-	-	-	-
	Goodness of fit (Adjusted R²)	0.23	0.47	0.48	0.57	0.35	0.57

Source	Price (US$ per kg)
Intercept	0.835 (0.03) ***
Distance from nearest market	-0.4 × 10^-3 (0.0)
Broken rice (%)	-1.3 × 10^-3 (0.0) **
Chalkiness (%)	-1.5 × 10^-3 (0.0) *
Impurities (%)	-0.8 × 10^-3 (0.0)
Site-Manbolo (Sierra Leone)	-0.205 (0.02) ***
Site-Kahama & Kilombero (Tanzania)	-0.256 (0.03) ***
Site-Northern hub (Uganda)	-
Member of Association-No	0.007 (0.03)
Member of Association-Yes	-
Goodness of fit (Adjusted R²)	0.68

Valuation of Rice Postharvest Losses in Sub-Saharan Africa and Its Mitigation Strategies

RichHTML

PDF

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 6

References 21

Related Articles 0

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Type of processing and origin	Predicted price (US$/kg) ^a	Lower bound (95%)	Upper bound (95%)	Loss in value with respect to imported rice (%)
White milled and Imported	1.077 (0.02) ^a	1.040	1.114	-
Parboiled milled and Imported	0.986 (0.03) ^b	0.932	1.039	-
White milled and Domestic	0.844 (0.11) ^bc	0.624	1.065	21.6
Parboiled milled and Domestic	0.817 (0.03) ^d	0.760	0.873	17.1

Country/ Method	Hub/zone	Harvesting			Threshing		Drying	Parboiling			Milling
Country/ Method	Hub/zone	Yield	Shattering	Stacking	Paddy re-threshed panicle	Scattered paddy	Grain left in drying area	Washing	Steaming	Drying	Grain dropped	Grain in husk or bran
Cameroon	Ndop	120	60	60	60	60	60	16	16	16	12	12
Côte d’Ivoire	Gagnoa	48	24	24			24
Madagascar	Ambohibary		18	18	9	9	17				6	6
Madagascar	Mandrosohasina		12	12	6	6	12
Mali	Kouroumari										9	9
Mali	Sikasso	120	60	57
Nigeria	Nasarawa						30	90	90	90	36	36
Uganda	Northern	30	30	25	24	24					9	9
Uganda	Western	27	29	29	51	51					8	8
Method	Traditional	201	135	135	105	105	143	53	53	53	35	35
Method	Improved	144	98	98	45	45	0	53	53	53	45	45
Site		5	7	7	5	5	5	2	2	2	6	6
Sample size		345	233	233	150	150	143	106	106	106	80	80