28.01.2015 Views

The Future of Smallholder Farming in Eastern Africa - Uganda ...

The Future of Smallholder Farming in Eastern Africa - Uganda ...

The Future of Smallholder Farming in Eastern Africa - Uganda ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

average amount <strong>of</strong> loss per household is more than 800 kilograms for Bako (where maize, the<br />

most susceptible crop, is dom<strong>in</strong>ant). Also as can be observed <strong>in</strong> Figure 3, there is large<br />

variation about the median <strong>in</strong> post-harvest gra<strong>in</strong> loss <strong>in</strong> Hetosa and Bako, as compared with<br />

Ada, aga<strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>dicat<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>in</strong>tercrop differences <strong>in</strong> post-harvest gra<strong>in</strong> losses. In some cases, the<br />

magnitude <strong>of</strong> loss even goes as high as 2,000 kilograms.<br />

<strong>The</strong> respondent farmers reported to have actually lost large quantities <strong>of</strong> their produce to<br />

various factors (Table 7a). <strong>The</strong> average actual loss per household (as opposed to expected<br />

loss) was about 500 kilograms <strong>of</strong> total gra<strong>in</strong> output dur<strong>in</strong>g the previous year, which is<br />

equivalent to 12 percent 30 <strong>of</strong> the average total gra<strong>in</strong> production <strong>of</strong> the sample households.<br />

Farmers <strong>in</strong> Bako reportedly lost about 700 kilograms <strong>of</strong> crops and those <strong>in</strong> Hetosa, 620<br />

kilograms, due to post-harvest damage, while the figure for Ada was much less. Of course,<br />

these variations reflect differences <strong>in</strong> cropp<strong>in</strong>g patterns among the three sites and, therefore,<br />

the higher degree <strong>of</strong> susceptibility for maize and wheat than for teff. <strong>The</strong> reported amount <strong>of</strong><br />

loss is quite substantial, underscor<strong>in</strong>g the importance <strong>of</strong> not only rais<strong>in</strong>g yield levels, but also<br />

ensur<strong>in</strong>g that all <strong>of</strong> the gra<strong>in</strong> produced reaches consumers’ tables without loss. Hence, yieldenhanc<strong>in</strong>g<br />

<strong>in</strong>terventions cannot be considered <strong>in</strong> isolation from those that m<strong>in</strong>imize postharvest<br />

gra<strong>in</strong> losses.<br />

4000<br />

3500<br />

3000<br />

Expected loss (Kg)<br />

2500<br />

2000<br />

1500<br />

1000<br />

500<br />

0<br />

N =<br />

98<br />

Hetossa<br />

100<br />

Adda<br />

99<br />

Bako<br />

Sites<br />

Figure 3. Distribution <strong>of</strong> expected loss if gra<strong>in</strong>s are stored until the fourth squarter<br />

Table 7a. Estimated gra<strong>in</strong> loss dur<strong>in</strong>g 12 months preced<strong>in</strong>g the survey (kgs. by site)<br />

Study Areas Mean SD CoV<br />

Hetosa 618 438.6 0.71<br />

Ada 237 308.9 1.30<br />

Bako 707 1118.6 1.58<br />

All Sites 520 744.0<br />

30 Other studies (Coursey and Proctor (n.d)) have reported wheat loss (by weight) rang<strong>in</strong>g from 8 to 52 percent<br />

for India, 6 to 19percent for the Sudan, and 15 to 20 percent for Brazil.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!