Post- Harvest Losses of Maize Crop in Karnataka - An Economic Analysis

Post- Harvest Losses of Maize Crop in Karnataka - An Economic Analysis
G.. BASAPPA, J.B DESHMANYA AND B. L. PATIL
Department of Agricultural Economics
University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad-580 005, Karnataka, India.
(Received : May, 2005)
Abstract: Improper post-harvest handling has led to considerable loss in Maize. The present study was conducted during
2003-2004 in Karnataka for estimating post-harvest loss in maize at different stages at farm level. It is selected based on
maximum area under maize crop that is grown largely in Davanagere and Belgaum. The post harvest loss at farm level was
estimated to be 3.02 kg. Per quintal. The share of harvesting loss was maximum. About 0.68 kg of maize was lost per quintal
at the storage level. About 0.49 kg. Per quintal was lost at the drayage level. Where as at transportation, threshing, packaging
and cleaning was 0.44 kg per quintal, 0.34 kg per quintal, 0.15 kg per quintal, and 0.10 kg. Per quintal respectively. There is
a need for an integrated effort to increase the productivity by evolving high yielding varieties hybrids in maize. The
improvement in storage facilities required immediate attention of the policy makers for reducing post-harvest loss in maize.
Keywords : Maize, Post-harvest losses, Storage, Economics
Introduction
Maize ranks third position next to wheat and rice in the
world with respect to area while its productivity surpasses all
other cereal crops. Maize is grown in 70 countries of the world.
In some parts of India maize is used as food grain for human
consumption. It is being used for manufacturing industrial
products like starch, syrup, alcohol acids, etc. In USA more
than 90 percent of the people use the maize oil for consumption
purpose. In addition it is also used as an important feed and
fodder for animals. Maize is a rich source of starch (60%-80%)
protein (8%-12%), fat (3%-5%) and minerals (1 %-2%) ( Hosamani
et al., 2000). India ranks fifth with respect to area ( 6.6 million
hectares) and seventh with respect to production ( 12.00 million
tones) in the world. Maize with a total area of 6.6 lakh hectares is
the largest cereal crop next to the paddy and sorghum in
Karnataka. However, as regards to production, maize ranks third
among the cereals with an annual production of 16.9 lakh tonnes.
India, continues to suffer heavily on account of wastage losses
incurred during post harvest period. These are more as man
made than natural; the losses occur during harvesting and as
well as till the food grain reach their destination.
Post-harvest losses of food grains according to the
World Bank study, are estimated to be 7-10 per cent at the farm
to market level and another 4-5 per cent at market and distribution
level for the system as a whole, the losses seen up to 12-16
million tonnes of grains. All grains per year together, around
3-4 million tonnes of maize. With an average per capita
consumption of about 15 kgs of food grains.These losses are
enough to feed about 70 to 100 million peoples. about l/3rd of
India’s poor states population of Bihar and Haryana together
for about one year. These losses mainly arise because of
improper harvesting methods, problems of threshing storage,
transportation and processing. Thus, the post harvest losses
obviously have an impact both at micro and macro levels of the
economy. The study attains the significant importance for finding
out the solution to minimize the losses than to increase the
production. Hence, there is a need to study them.
The assessment of the post-harvest losses in maize at
various stages of handling would help in identif ying the various
factors responsible for such losses and their extent of loss which
in turn would help in developing proper measures to minimize
post-harvest losses at different stages. Under the circumstances,
the reduction in post-harvest losses can help us to increase the
availability of maize to a greater extent for the increasing
population.Very few studies have been conducted on postharvest
losses on cereals. Moreover no study was attempted to
assess the extent of post-harvest losses in maize particularly in
Karnataka. Hence, the present study was conducted to assess
the post-harvest losses of maize at farm level.
Material and Methods
The present study aims at estimation of post-harvest
losses in maize crop. Based on maximum area under maize, two
districts, namely Davanagere and Belgaum were selected among
the total districts of Karnataka during 2000-01. Davanagere and
Channagiri Taluks of Davanagere district and Gokak and Raibag
taluks of Belgaum district were specifically selected for the
study. Five leading villages in area under maize cultivation were
selected from each taluk and a sample of 20 villages were choosen
for the study. Five farmers from each village were selected
randomly. Thus, 50 farmers were surveyed from each district
and a total sample of l00 farmers were selected for the study. For
* Part of M. Sc. (Agri) thesis submitted by the senior author to the University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad-580 005, India.
70
Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences : 20 (1), 2007
the purpose of achieving the specific objectives of the study,
the data collected were subjected to statistical analysis like,
Tabular presentation technique and functional analysis.
Results and Discussion
The post-harvest losses in maize crop at farm level are
presented in table 1indicates that the total loss occurring at the
field level is around 3.02 kg per quintal. The different stages
causing the loss were harvesting threshing, cleaning, drayage,
transportation and packaging. Harvesting stage cause a
maximum loss to the tune of 0.46 quintal per farm or 0.19 quintals
per hcctare or 0.92 kg per quintal. It was observed that the loss
in this stage accounted for almost 30.46 percent of the total loss
at farm level. The loss in this stage tends to be rather high since
majority of the farmers were employed the labours for harvesting
and because of labours negligence most of the produce was left
over in the plant. Leaves covered and small sized cobs were not
harvested by the labour at the time of harvesting.
Losses in storage stage are found higher next to the
harvesting stage. Majority of the famers stored the grains in
bags and loose. Storage stage cause loss of 0.33 quintals per
farm, or 0.13 quintal per ha or 0.66 kg per quintal accounting for
21.85 per cent of the total loss at farm level. Important factors
leading to storage losses were (i) Traditional method of storage
for long duration (3-6 months) and inadequate knowledge about
the methods to care for the maize (ii) Non-availability of separate
godowns (iii) poor type of storage structure (iv) damage by
rates, insects and dampness (v) Lack of drainage facility to gunny
bag storage and (vi) poor conditions of storage structure. The
results of Jaskaranjit Singh are also reveal same for findings.
On an average, drayage loss was to the tune of 0.21 quintals per
farm 0.09 quintal per ha 0.42 kg per quintal, accounted for 13.91
percent of the total loss. This was mainly because of most of the
farmers adopted manual method of drayage and most of the
farmers spread out the grains on the country yard, tarpaulins
and causes loss due to birds, rodents and animals.
On an average, the transportation stage cause a loss
of 0.20 quintals per farm or 0.90 quintals per ha or 0.40 kg per
quintal, accounted for 13.25 percent of the total loss at farm
level. This was mainly because majority of maize growers
transport their produce by bullock cart and tractor to different
places. The losses were more during handling loading and
unloading grain at different places. On an average total losses
during the threshing was 0.18 quintals per farm or 0.07 quintals
per ha or 0.36 kg per quintal, which was to the tune of 11.92 per
cent of the total at field level, or farm level. This was mainly due
to majority of farmers threshed their produce by power thresher.
The losses during threshing in terms of broken grains, scattering
of grains out of threshing yard. grains left over in the threshed
corns etc., were higher when produce was threshed by machine
as compared to manually. But due to cost and time advantage,
majority of maize producers preferred to thresh their produce by
power thresher. The higher losses were compensated through
reduction in labour cost and time. Patil et al. (2000) also opened
as above.
In the study area for packaging of grains gunny bags
were used. During packaging loss resulted was of 0.08 quintal
per farm or 0.03 quintal per ha or 0.16 kg per quintal which was to
the tune of 5.30 per cent of the total loss. This was mainly
because for packing of grains old and torned gunny bags were
used, which causes for loss at the time of storage transportation
Table 1. Post-harvest losses in maize crop at farm level.
SI.No. Particulars Loss in Loss in Loss in % Loss
q/farm q/ha kg/q
I Quantity harvested 49.98 20.56 - -
II Losses during
1 Harvesting 0.46 0.19 0.92 30.46
2 Threshing 0.18 0.07 0.36 11.92
3 Cleaning 0.05 0.02 0.10 03.3 1
4 Drying 0.21 0.09 0.42 13.91
5 Storage 0.33 0.13 0.66 21.86
6 Transportation 0.205 0.09 0.40 13.25
7 Packaging 0.08 0.03 0.16 05.30
Total 1.51 0.62 3.02 100.00
III Quantity marketed 48.47 19.98 - 3.02
etc. During cleaning the resulted loss was 0.05 quintal per farm
or 0.02 quintal per ha or 0.10 kg per quintal accounted for 3.31
per cent of total loss. Thus, on an average, each farm had lost
1.51 quintal of maize. The average loss per ha worked out to be
0.62 quintal similarly the average loss per quintal was 3.02 kg. In
order to examine the factors. which affect the post harvest losses
multiple regression analysis with simple linear model was fitted
and estimates of the same are presented in table 2. The results
that the fitted regression equation explains nearly 72 per cent
variation in total post-harvest losses due to inclusion of 8
independent variables. The F- ratio was also significant, thereby
indicating good fit of the function. The co-efficient of age of
farmers was negative (-0.1706) indicating that with the increase
in age of the farmer post-harvest losses decreased because of
experience at the field level about post-harvest practice. The
factor like education showed a negative (-0.07547) impact on
post-harvest losses that means to say that as the education of
the farmers increases post-harvest losses will decrease because
71
2. Factors affecting post-harvest losses of maize at farm level
Sl. Explanatory variables Regression co-emclents
No. All variables Step down
1 Intercept (a) 0.8943 0.8461
2 Age of the respondent (Xl) -0.1706** -0.13191 **
(0.04912) (0.04255)
3 Education of the respondent (X2) -0.0745) -
4. Proportionate area under -.0.00066 -
selected crop (X3) (0.00079)
5 Production per ha () 0.019919'" 0.02086'"
(0.008792) (0.00898)
6 Adverse weather conditions 0.127204 -
dummy (Xs) (0.0668)
7 Inadequate storage dummy (X,) 0.221095** 0.21611
(0.07015) (0.07198)
8 Inadequate transport dummy (X,) 0.4526* 0.4719
(0.0704) (0.07196)
9 Inadequate labour dummy (Xs) 0.1696** 0.1752**
(0.0628) (0.0644 )
10 R2 0.7277** 0.7031**
F-value 30.40 44.533
Note : Figure in parenthesis indicates standard of co-efficients
* Significant at 5 percent level ** Significant at 1 percent level
of adoption of improved scientific methods in post-harvest
losses will decrease because of adoption of improved scientific
methods in post-harvest operations and it will also increase
managerial, skill. The co-cfficicnt of proportionate area under
crop was negative (0.0006) this shows that increase in area under
crop had indirect effect on post-harvest losses. Saxena et al.
(2000) expressed, might be due to managerial weaknesses and
use of mechanical power for most of the post-harvest operations
that increase in area under selected crop. The coefficient of
production per hectare was (0.01991) positive and highly
significant at 5 per cent level. This indicated that increase in
total production of maize had direct impact or effect on postharvest
losses. This must be due to managerial weaknesses
and use of mechanical power for most of the post-harvest
operations with increase in production per ha. The post harvest
Table 3. Opinion of sample farmers regarding problems associate with
post-harvest losses of maize crop
Sl. Particulars No. of Respondents Percent
No. (n=100) to total
1. Lack of knowledge 87 (87%)
2. Inadequate storage facilities 84 (84%)
3. Inadequate transport facilities 77 (77%)
4. Inadequate labour availability 70 (70%)
5. Adverse weather condition 35 (35%)
loss of maize increases with increase in adverse weather
condition.
The co-efficient of the inadequate storage facilities like
dummy was positive (0.2210) and significant at one percent level,
which showed a direct effect on post harvest losses of maize,
because in the study area almost all the farmers were practicing
the traditional method of storage system, i.e. storing at country
yard, in gunny bags and farmers were not using insecticides to
kill insects, rat which were major causes of storable loss. The
co-efficient of inadequate transport facilities dummy was positive
(0.4526) and significant at one percent level. This indicated that
most of the farmers transported their produce by bullock cart,
which was the major cause at transportation loss. The coefficient
of inadequate labour facilities dummy was positive (0.1696) and
significant at one per cent level, which had direct effect on postharvest
losses because, inadequate labour availability dummy
at right time of harvesting . This is in conformity with the results
obtained by Rao et al. (2001). The step-down regression analysis
revealed that the post-harvest losses could be reduced by proper
storage, proper transportation and timely availability of labour.
This was also corroborated by Singera Vadivel (1992). Because
of heavy demand of a labour at the time of harvesting. It was
observed that they neglect at the level, the corn in the plants
due to the hurry of completing the harvesting which caused a
highest loss at the post-harvest losses at the field level. Lack of
storage facilities (84%) was the major hurdle in post-harvest
handling of maize, because in study area almost all farmers
practicing traditional method of storage. Non -availability of
separate godown, poor type of storage structure and damages
due to rats and insects. Transporting the produce in bullock
carts and long distance of transportation-was another major
problem (77%) faced by the farmers. Singh (2002) opined that
non availability of labour (70%) during peak harvesting season
in addition to this labour negligence at the time of harvesting
led maximum loss in the farm level. About 87 percent of farmers
expressed the problem of lack of knowledge about marketing
and improved practices of post-harvest handling. About 35
percent of farmers viewed adverse weather condition by way of
rainfall, during the harvesting, drying, storage and transportation
led to post-harvest losses suitable infrastructure facilities like
storage processing, transportation facilities has to be created
for -preventing further post-harvest losses in maize. Hence it
may be concluded that maize is very important and useful grain
for all.
References
JASKARANJIT SINGH AND SIDHU, M. S., 2000, Post-harvest
losses at farm level. A case of wheat and paddy in Punjab.
Indian Journal of Agricultural Marketing, 16:52-53.
PATIL, E. R. AUTKA V. N. AND NAGPURE S. C., 2000, Economics
of storage of food grains at farm levels of Buldana district in
Vidarbha regions. Indian Journal of Agricultural Marketing,
16 : 52.
RAO, P. S., SINGH, C. P. AND SHARMA, R. P. 2001, Post- harvest
lossess in maize in Mewar regions of Rajasthan, Indian Journal
of Agricultural Marketing, 16 : 51
SEXENA, H. K., AJITHA, K.R. SINGH AND SINGH., K. R. 2000
Assessment of post-harvest storage losses in wheat : case
study in East Uttar Pradesh. Indian Journal of Agricultural
Marketing, 16 :54.
SINGARAVADIVEL, K., 1992, Assessment of losses in storage of
paddy with different moisture, Bulletin Grain Technology,
30 : 151-158.
SINGH, D. S., NARENDRA KUMAR, GUPTA AND GUPTA, B.
K., 2002, A study of post-harvest loss of wheat and its
management in Kanpur district of Uttar Pradesh. Indian Journal
of Agricultural Marketing, 16 : 53.
Post- Harvest Losses . . . . .. . .