Econometric Estimation of Post Harvest Losses of Kinnow in District Sargodha, Punjab


B.Sc. (Hons.) Agricultural and Resource Economics


A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of


Faculty of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology

University of Agriculture Faisalabad

To, The Controller Examinations, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad.

“We the Supervisory committee, certify that the contents and form of thesis submitted by Mr. Umar Ijaz Ahmed, Regd. No. 2004-ag-1731, have been found satisfactory and recommend that it be processed for evaluation, by the external Examiner (s) for the award of degree”. Supervisory Committee: 1. Chairman (Dr. Khalid Mushtaq) 2. Member (Dr. Maqsood Hussain) 3. Member (Dr. Abedullah)

My graceful and polite father My most loving mother My brothers and sisters Whose love is more precious Than pearls and diamonds Who are those whom I say my own Whose love will never change Whose prayers will never die &

Luckily I had the rare opportunity to work under the affectionate supervision of Dr. University of Agriculture Faisalabad. a torch of guidance and source of knowledge for entire humanity. encouraging attitude and constructive criticism during the course of these investigations and under whose kind supervision the present study was accomplished. Assistant Professor.Who are nearest. Department of Agricultural Economics. I owe a profound debt of gratitude and appreciation to my supervisor Dr. dearest and deepest to me ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS All praises and thanks for Almighty Allah who is the entire source of knowledge and wisdom endowed to mankind. Khalid Mushtaq. for his scholastic guidance. . Department of Environmental and Resource Economics. It was his unwavering confidence in my capabilities and his appreciation of my work which encouraged me keep on fighting against all overwhelming odds till success was ensured. Abedullah. Assistant Professor. All respects are for His Holy Prophet Muhammad (Peace be upon Him) who is forever.

the present destination would have merely been a dream. 1 2 Title Introduction Review of Literature Page No. I also owe immense feeling of love and respect for my brothers and sisters for their humble prayers and good wishes. Umar Hayat who helped me in data collection. all other friends (Asjad. (UMAR IJAZ AHMED) TABLES OF CONTENTS Chapter No. Hassan. UAF for their endless and nice cooperation and moral support during my studies. Maqsood Hussain. no acknowledgment could ever adequately express my obligation to my affectionate parents whose hands always raised in prayer for me and without whose moral and financial support. Department of Agricultural Economics and Dr. Lecturer. Irfan. Department of Marketing and Agribusiness. I am also thankful to Mr. I am thankful to my roommate (Arfan Saleem and Usman Ishaq).I feel that without the valuable guidance of Mr. this manuscript would not have been completed. Nasir. Amir. Finally. Abdul Ghafoor. shahzad) and all Scouts of Agrivarsity Scouts Group. Farhad. 1 7 . Abid. Assistant Professor.

3 4 5 Material and Methods Results and Discussion Summary Literature Cited 23 28 64 69 .

packing and transportation Personal characteristics of Kinnow Producer/Contractors Orchard related characteristics Sale quantities and sale prices of kinnow Harvest Losses Post-harvest losses during carrying from picking to grading/packing place Post-Harvest losses of kinnow during grading and packing Post-Harvest losses of kinnow during loading and transportation Losses of kinnow incurred at wholesale market level during unloading and marketing and storage Personal characteristics of wholesaler Sale quantities and prices of kinnow Expenditures of Wholesalers Post-Harvest losses of kinnow at wholesale level Losses during storage at wholesale level Losses of kinnow incurred at retail level during retail marketing and unsold quantity Personal characteristics of retailers Purchase and Sale quantities and prices of kinnow Expenditures of Wholesalers Post-Harvest losses of kinnow at retail level Daily business volume Analysis of variance (ANOVA) Page No.19 Table 4.11 Table 4.4 Table 4.24 Title Area and Production of Citrus in Pakistan Area and Production of Citrus in Punjab Province Percentage shares of farm.12 Table 4.21 Table 4. market and retail level losses in total produce and total losses of kinnow Losses of kinnow incurred at farm level during picking.9 Table 4.7 Table 4.13 Table 4.18 Table 4.3 Table 4.5 Table 4. 31 32 34 36 37 38 39 40 42 44 46 47 48 48 49 50 51 52 53 53 54 55 55 57 .6 Table 4. grading.1 Table 4.23 Table 4.20 Table 4.15 Table 4. Table 4.10 Table 4.17 Table 4. carrying.22 Table 4.2 Table 4.8 Table 4.16 Table 4.LIST OF TABLES Table No.14 Table 4.

29 Coefficients and t-test to check the significance of various factors Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Coefficients and t-test to check the significance of various factors Analysis of Variance Coefficients and t-test to check the significance of various factors 58 59 60 61 62 .Table 4.28 Table 4.27 Table 4.25 Table 4.26 Table 4.

1 Figure 4.2 Figure 4. market and retail level losses in total post harvest losses of kinnow Page No.LIST OF FIGURES Figure No. Figure 4. 33 33 35 .3 Title Area of Citrus in Pakistan from 1985-86 to 2007-08 Production of Citrus in Pakistan from 1985-86 to 2007-08 Percentage share of farm.

“Title of Thesis” are product of my own research and no part has been copied from any published source (except the references.). some standard mathematical or genetic models/equations/protocols etc. The university may take action if Signature of the Student Name: Umar Ijaz Ahmed Reg. No.Declaration I hereby declare that contents of the thesis. 2004-ag-1731 . I further declare that this work has not been submitted for award of any other diploma/degree.

storage place also had significant effect on losses at transportation and wholesale market level. Post harvest losses. Similarly unsold quantity and type of retailers had significant effect on losses at retail level. wholesale market and retail levels. Three different multiple regression models were used for these three levels. Transportation. picking time and picking method had significant effect on losses at farm level and experience. Packaging .ECONOMETRIC ESTIMATION OF POST HARVEST LOSSES OF KINNOW IN DISTRICT SARGODHA. Results shows that total post harvest losses at all three level were about 45 percent of the total produce. wholesale market and retail levels were 72 percent. 25 percent and 3 percent of the total post harvest losses of kinnow respectively. The most important of these are the poor transportation and storage infrastructure. The post harvest losses occur at various levels in the supply chain of Kinnow. loading method. The losses at farm. Key words: Kinnow. A well designed farm questionnaire was used to collect post harvest losses data from 120 respondents from district Sargodha. carrying and packing facilities and poor handling procedures. This study was conduct to quantify these losses at farm. Experience. PUNJAB ABSTRACT Post harvest losses are a great threat to productivity and exports of fruits from a developing country like Pakistan.

and centuries old tradition of farming. This sector has the potential to provide .1 percent of the total employed labor force and is the largest source of foreign exchange earnings. on which a large range of horticultural crops. cotton and sugarcane) accounting for 33. vegetables. extremes of weather. as these are the main sources of food supply to human being. It is because of its central importance in the economy that the government has identified agriculture as one of the four major drivers of growth. such as fruits.4 percent to overall agriculture grew by 3. 2009a). Minor crops contributing 12. roots and tuber crops. With its present contribution to GDP at 21. Regardless of the nature of the economy.6 percent as against 10. wellirrigated plains. rice. agriculture sector assumes a pivotal role in its economic development. In agriculture sector. medicinal and aromatic plants.7 percent as against of negative 6. plantation crops.CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Pakistan is blessed with vast agricultural resources on account of its fertile land.4 percent of agricultural value added registered increasing growth of 7.9 percent last year (Government of Pakistan. agriculture accounts for 42. spices and other are grown. Agriculture growth has been estimated at 4.8 percent. Major crops (wheat. Therefore. food crops are always given prime importance. A significant increase has been observed in the export earnings from the horticultural crops during the recent years. sustainable development in agriculture sector in a country like Pakistan can stimulate growth and development in all sectors of economy.7 percent during 2008-09. Modern agriculture has always furnished the means to provide the foundation for a developed industrial economy. ornamental.4 percent last year. The region of Pakistan has a rich topographic and climatic endowments and variations in soil.

According to an estimate.23 percent from Khyber Pakhtunkhan and 0. Rahim Yar Khan. dates and guava (Government of Pakistan. Peshawar. Sialkot. 2006).opportunities to increase income and alleviation of hunger and poverty and curve down socio-economic problems of the region (Alam & Mujtaba. 2008). Multan.62 percent from Sindh. 2006). Similarly production also went up to 2294. and Nawabshah in Sindh. The main production areas of citrus in Pakistan are Sargodha.2 thousand hectares in 2006-07.5 thousand tonnes in 2007-08 from 1472. Punjab has major share of 96. Horticultural crops contribute about 6 percent of country's GDP and 22 percent of national food production. Punjab produces over 95 percent of the crop because of its favorable growing conditions and adequate water. Citrus cultivars are grown in varying quantities in countries with tropical or sub tropical climate. Lahore. Khairpur. Mianwali and Gujranwala in Punjab.769 percent from Baluchistan (Government of Pakistan. Toba Tek Singh. Sibbi and Kech in Baluchistan. Pakistan is among the top fifteen citrus producing countries of the world (Mahmood and Sheikh. Lemon and Lime. Jhang. Mardan. Citrus is a valued fruit of Pakistan and have number one position among all fruits both for area and production in the country. Makran. Kinnow is the major variety and Pakistan is the largest producer of Kinnow (Citrus Reticulata). Citrus fruit is grown in all four provinces of Pakistan. Pakistan annually produces about 12000 thousands tonnes of fruits and vegetables in which annul fruit production is about 5712. 2.4 thousands tonnes. Sukkhar. From these groups mandarin group (Kinnow and Feutrells early) is very famous and good in taste.7 percent in total production of citrus in Pakistan (Government of Pakistan. Grape fruit. Sahiwal. . Pakistani citrus have huge demand in the international market due to its rich flavor and taste. Swabi and Noshera in Khyber Pakhtunkhan. 2006). Nearly 1.4 thousand hectares in 2007-08 from 193. Mandarin. Citrus fruit is leading in term of production followed by mango. 2008). Pakistan is producing many varieties that are categorized into six major groups like Sweet oranges. 2002).4 thousand tonnes in 2006-07. Swat. about 95 percent of world total production is produced in Pakistan (Mahmood and Sheikh. At present. total acreage under citrus has recorded an increase to 199.

packaging. handling. etc.) and secondary causes includes inadequate curing. these increase transport and market costs also (Subrahmanyam. 2006). so there is a big gap between its average and potential yield. inappropriate transportation. transport and handling technologies are practically non-existent. The post harvest losses in case of horticultural crops including citrus are estimated to range between 30-50 percent of the total harvest (Lum. injuries. The act of growing and selling of citrus is no longer considered a simple activity. It involves many factors as well as the interaction of many industries to make it possible for selling.) and physiological (sprouting. grading. inadequate production and harvest planning etc. cuts. storage and distribution. 2006). The primary causes are biological (chemical. This yield gap may be attributed to a number of problems faced by citrus growers. bruises. Average yield of citrus in Pakistan is about 12. Although citrus is highly perishable crop and storage. improper storage. 2004).5 thousand tonnes in 2007-08. 2001). (Guzman.37 percent of total production and rest of the produce is either consumed domestically or wasted during post harvest handling (Government of Pakistan. 1986). transportation. storage and transportation (Shah and Farooq. which need to be properly addressed. Besides resulting in low per capita availability and huge monetary losses. substantial losses are incurred which range from a slight loss of quantity to spoilage.78 tonnes per hectare (Government of Pakistan. microbial. While the potential yield of citrus is 18-20 tonnes per hectare (PHDEB. transportation. which is the 9. Pakistan’s citrus production is also subject to the post harvest losses during harvesting. 2009b). Amongst these problems regarding information and inputs seem to have been playing an important role towards this big yield gap. environmental (overheating. peeling and trimming etc. transportation. These losses have occurred at different stages like harvesting. storage. Fresh fruits and vegetables are inherently perishable. During the process of handling. Pakistan exported about 215. 2006). distribution and marketing. 1989).Out of total production 2294.061 thousand tonnes. chilling. rooting and transpiration etc.). It involves supplies and services such as agricultural inputs. grading and packing. hence considerable produce is lost (FAO. freezing and dehydration etc. processing. The quantum of loss is governed by factors like . packaging. It involves labour directly in the field and packing facilities and indirectly in transport-distribution.

At orchard level losses are due to harvesting injuries. 2007). 2007). button holes and punchers. Decay also causes loss of consumer confidence in fresh citrus quality and discourages repeat sales (Brown.e. Levels of decay can often reach as much as 20-40 percent in instances when fruits are treated with fungicides. transportation and wholesaler’s marketing and retailer’s levels. insect damage. All the thrown away or discarded fruits at the orchards are treated as post harvest loss (Gangwar et al. 2003). The fruit handling system from farm to market is also complex therefore substantial amount of fruit is likely to be wasted from time the crop is harvested till its consumption (PARC. To enhance sales and to develop new market for fresh citrus decay must be controlled for periods of months. Losses occur during post harvest handling represent economic losses in cost of production. packing. harvesting. Due to inadequate handling. This will help to (i) provide more produce available for domestic consumption. transport and storage facilities and further lack of technical know-how about 10-15 percent of fruit are wasted from tree to table (Farooq et al. (iv) generate more employment opportunities and (v) enhance value of products which ensues greater financial returns . orchard.perishable nature. due to which. 1978). (iii) provide the right type of raw material for food processing industries. which may lead to total rejection by the consumer (Tyler. marketing and transportation. Research in the area of post harvest losses in fruits is of great importance to minimize losses. mechanical injury in the case of this fruit causes rapid microbial deterioration. brushes. As most of the transportation is done by roads and orchard to market.. culled. transportation etc. 1978). Rugged and bad roads cause heavy losses to fruits and vegetables and citrus is no exception. the post harvest losses are significant in terms of quantity as well as economic value (Gangwar et al. 1986).. Losses in quality of citrus are of particular importance as it is more susceptible to injury than other fruits because of its constituents and structure. Citrus (Kinnow) being a commercial fruit crop. (ii) increase exports and earn foreign exchange. Diseases that occur after harvest can have a significant impact on keeping quality of fresh citrus fruit. roads are not in good condition or perhaps non-existent. As most of the post harvest losses occur at three level i. method of harvesting and packaging.

Actually WTO requirements are the opportunities. 2003). The only concern is the provision of necessary infrastructure needed for international trade in the WTO perspective. transfer of citrus from producer to the consumer through the marketing system involving various functions like exchange. Initially. there is an urgent need to make a through scientific investigation into the factors causing post harvest losses in citrus fruit and to adopt the technologies minimizing these losses (Leghari. The goals of post harvest research and extension are to maintain quality and safety and minimize losses of horticultural crops and their products between production and consumption. but once such measures were adopted. provided the infrastructure related to the WTO requirements is provided in the area on priority farmers and others involved in industry (Indian Agricultural Research Institute. then such barriers shall not affect exports. Pakistani products can earn name. Post harvest losses in citrus take place at various levels. 1980). Hence there are good possibilities of substantial gains from free trade. Trade and price policies revealed that the Kinnow producers were marginally unprotected in Punjab. 2005). transportation and processing. at the farm level. 2001). In order to promote horticultural industry and to enhance foreign exchange earning to the maximum extent. storage. decreases the area needed for production. provided if institutional infrastructure is established. As most of the studies done on the estimation of post harvest losses was simply calculates the averages. and conserves natural resources. Reduction of post harvest losses increases food availability to the growing human population. distribution and finally at the consumption stage (Chaudhry. use of an integrated crop management system that results in good keeping quality. Strategies for loss prevention include use of genotypes that have longer post harvest life. the future benefits would be much higher (Sharif and Ahmad. Farmers have a comparative advantage of producing world-class citrus fruit for export as in the past they were unprotected from trade and pricing policies of the Government. and use of proper post harvest handling systems that maintain quality and safety of the products (Kader. marketing margins and efficiency at different . After this. percentages. the preparatory costs of compliance with the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) measures will be high. 2003).

e. Objectives Specific objectives of this study are as follows:  To estimate losses in kinnow at farm. It is the need of the time to estimate the post harvest losses and find the major determinants of post harvest losses at farm. transportation and market and retail levels. and  To suggest policy measures for minimization of kinnow produce losses . which occur at different levels and also to signify the factors causing these losses. farm. transportation and market and retail levels.  To quantify the factors contributing to the post harvest losses at different levels i.levels. So this study is planned to assess the quantitative post harvest losses in citrus fruit. transportation and wholesale market and retail market level separately.

About 10-15 percent waste of the total production was arising from inadequate handling of fruits during the performance of various markets operations. Parpia (1978) analyzed the nature and scale of the world hunger problem. Bhat (1978) determine the quantitative food losses and their means. harvest. Khan (1965) reported that the total area under various types of fruits in 1964 was 302755 acres. and recommended that the solution of this problem required not only increased production of . He said that the major thrust in the past ten years had been directed towards determining food losses and assessing the means by which these foods were lost. with a view to reaching at least a 50 percent reduction by 1985. Similarly losses in fruits and vegetables were put at $121.CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Irying (1965) studied the various type of losses occurred in agriculture like preharvest. All fruits were not available for human consumption due to a net loss of about 35 lacs mounds. It may imply not only a great national loss but also non availability of an essential consumable commodity in desired quantities for human consumption. He argued that it should now be possible to initiate some concrete action programs to minimize the quantitative and qualitative losses that occur at various stages of food handling that starts from farm level to market and in the house. Dendy (1978) in his analysis of an FAO Survey of Post-harvest Crop Losses in developing countries. they were subject to losses during storage. emphasized that more decline of post harvest food losses in developing countries should be undertaken as a matter of main concern. post harvest.7 billion. He also noted that once crops and livestock had been produced. marketing and processing activities. marketing losses during different stages. He estimated that losses for crops were at $ 1.04 billion.

Facts on the levels of food loss under conventional practices showed that at farm level cost reduction is the principal influence on technological choice. This objective was founded on the allegations that the technology was available to avert or diminish these losses and that as a result. cold storages and internal transport facilities were major sources of post harvest losses in fruits especially in mango and citrus. United States National Academy of Science (1978) signified the problem of post harvest food losses in developing countries and pointed out the need for giving consideration to losses in food products other than the cereals. A significant amount of what a produced gets lost in one form or the other. particularly fruits and vegetables. He stated that even in Pakistan. He added that in order to overcome this situation there was a need for evolving practical post harvest loss reduction policies and programs in developing countries. hungry people will be less hungry. . and could have been avoided by saving agricultural products from pre and post harvest losses. The reserve stock could be build when post harvest loss could be restricted as much as by 50 percent for which all out efforts had to be intended at without which feeding 5 billion people will become a serious problem. Khan (1988) said that fifty percent food losses could be reduced from harvesting to food processing. Chaudhry (1980) concluded that the production and consumption stages of agricultural produce were interlinked by an important section of the post harvest stage which comprised a set of operations changing degree of but also maintenance of its quality through use of appropriate technologies for post harvest conservation and processing including those for food manufacturing by-products. They concluded that lack of handling during harvesting and carrying. He reported that those developing countries whose dependence is on exports will not be able to maintain a balance economy creating problem of poverty and unemployment. Greeley (1986) reported that the prevention of food loss in the farm level post harvest system had become an objective of food policy in many developing countries. Asian Development Bank (1990) studied the major constraints in the export of fruits and vegetables in Pakistan and reported that there are a lot of problems and constraints in the production and export of fruits and vegetables in Pakistan especially in post harvest sector. in case of loss occurred. packaging.

Liu (1990) studied the Taiwan’s experience of modernizing post harvest handling technologies of fruits and vegetables. mechanical injury. packing. Relatively more losses were observed due to picking the fruit with stem. water loss or sometimes simply because there was a surplus in the marketplace and no buyer could be found. physiological decay. in packing areas. precooling and transportation had minimized losses in developed countries. particularly in tropical countries. particularly in Kinnow variety as the skin of this variety is softer which is easily injured by the stem of another fruit. during transportation and in the wholesale and retail market as well as severe losses occurred because of poor facilities. Improved picking. physiological deterioration and parasitic diseases. It further stated that fresh fruits and vegetables were inherently perishable so during the process of distribution and marketing. in storage. He reported that the major form of losses were quantitative and its magnitude was 25 percent or 28 to 42 percent worldwide and 15 to 60 percent or 15 to 50 percent in less industrialized countries. lack of know-how. According to this study post harvest losses of fresh produce ranged from 20 to 50 percent. poor management. He further reported that post harvest losses could occur in the field. He argued that modern post harvest handling techniques applied in grading. packaging and transportation technologies could minimize these post harvest losses in less developed countries. Food and Fertilizer technology centre (1993) reported that post harvest losses of fruits and vegetables were high in Asia. grading. however nobody knew the exact figure as it vary from country to country and time to time. Kader (1992) reported that losses during post harvest operations due to improper storage and handling are enormous and could range from 10-40 percent. He said that post harvest handling had crucial effects on post harvest losses. The total marketing losses in various . It concluded that general picture of the rate of post harvest losses of horticultural crops in each country could be obtained by calculating the difference between total production and total consumption. It generalized that causes of losses were many including physical damage during handling and transport. substantial losses were incurred. Mohyuddin (1998) reported that the reasons for the occurrence of losses were almost the same as were observed in mango fruit. He described that major reasons of these losses were lack of market demand. market disfunction or simply the carelessness of farmers.

frost and rainy weather at harvest can have an adverse effect on storage life and quality. primary factors responsible for post harvest produce losses were: poor pre-harvest measures-adoption of poor production techniques (varieties with low shelf life.02 Kg per quintal.15 and 0. abrasions) is particularly susceptible to post harvest diseases. The improvement in storage facilities required immediate attention of the policy makers for reducing post-harvest loss in maize. Temperature is the single most important factor in maintaining quality after harvest. Appropriate production practices. About 0. must be minimized. 0. harvesting procedures. Production practices have a tremendous effect on the quality of fruits and vegetables at harvest and post harvest quality and shelf life. 0.90 to 19. The results indicate that the losses occurring at post harvest levels are immense and recurring which the developing economy of Pakistan can hardly afford to bear.44. packaging and cleaning was 0.90 percent of the produce handled. For maintaining temperature some of low cost structures have created like pre-cooling. Management practices also affect post harvest quality. harvesting at improper stage . high rates of nitrogen or mechanical injury (scrapes. (2001) conducted study to estimate post harvest losses in Maize at different stages of farm level.10 Kg per quintal respectively. At farm level the post harvest losses were estimated to be 3.68 Kg per quintal of maize was lost at the storage level. Produce that has been stressed by too much or too little water. He stated that in fruits and vegetables. nonapplication of pre-harvest recommended treatments/practices. the magnitude of post harvest losses of vegetables and fruits were about 35 percent. if cannot be totally eliminated. Bachmann and Earles (2000) reported some post harvest handling measures of fruits and vegetables. low tech. Leghari (2001) reported that in Pakistan. Basappa et al. bruises. According to him. There is a need for an integrated effort to increase the productivity by evolving high yielding varieties hybrids in maize. room cooling. Whereas losses at transportation. Environmental factors like soil type. imbalance use of nutrients. The share of harvesting loss was maximum. threshing. These losses therefore. temperature.34. storage and transport all contribute to good quality produce. forced air cooling. the quality of produce start deteriorating right after their harvest. hydro cooling. vacuum cooling and chilling channels of citrus fruit ranged from 16. insect pest and diseases infestation and a biotic stresses. careful harvesting and proper packaging. top or liquid icing.

differentiating its products. refrigeration and freezing. Studman (2001) studied that computers and electronics have made a particular impact on the postharvest industry.and improper care at harvest. high pressure processing and pulsed electric fields and pulsed light applications. It is likely that consumer demand for improved quality. which could be used. He concluded that these countries continue to suffer as consequences of food shortages. modified atmosphere packaging. malnutrition and loss of export revenue. and management of product. These include environmental control and storage. and electronic technology will play an increasingly important role. modified packaging storage. and handling and storage systems In the are latter likely half to of become the increasingly century sophisticated. canning. which will require attention in the next millennium. grading systems. perhaps giving rise to more contracting and other forms of organizations in agriculture. In order to preserve the produce quality he recommended different post harvest techniques for variety of produce. Improved sensors to assess quality are still needed. hypo-baric or low pressure storage. Martinez and Davis (2002) suggest that farmers must become more interdependent participants in the food supply chain. quality monitoring. They believe that. producing higher quality products at economical prices or expanding international trade. quality management. He argued that a valuable amount of food. irradiation. a food company’s growth will depend on lowering production costs. control atmosphere storage. but it has also generated problems for the wider society. skin coating. dehydration. Lum (2001) reported the post harvest losses in the range of 40-60% of the perishable commodities in most of countries as a great concern. In a highly competitive market the industry will need to meet these demands. longer storage life. twentieth technology has contributed much to improve the world's food supply. Coordination between agricultural . is being wasted annually. These techniques included hyper cooling. and guaranteed product safety will continue to grow. inventory control.

and distribution inefficiency from production to consumption areas. papaya 48 percent. Post harvest Horticulture Training and Research Centre (2002) in its collaboration with Department of Agriculture on a program to cut post harvest losses in agricultural commodities and to assure the quality supply of horticultural produce. development and extension efforts on post harvest issue.production and processing will be essential to providing consumers with products that meet their demands for quality and variety. adverse condition in post harvest environment. reported that government statistics currently showed post harvest losses in banana up to 40 percent. poor handling and lack of access to post harvest facilities. They emphasized the need for government and the private sector to fortify research. these losses were due to the inherent perishable quantity of horticultural crops. According to their research. They have concluded that post harvest losses from major crops pose a big problem to local farmers as it cut back on their ability to compete against cheap imports coming into the country under liberalized farm gate. . mango 70 percent and cauliflower and ornamental plants 40 percent.

the flesh firmness and the sugary content of the flesh when studying the effects of dynamic stresses on apples. Admassu (2003) reported that losses after harvest were a major source of food loss. The deterioration of the flesh observed on the impacted apples does not represent serious commercial damage to the product. damage can consist of darkening of the flesh and fractures having a depth of 4–5 mm and a diameter of 12–15 mm. He further reported that the country . The research emphasized the need to consider characteristics such as the impact radius. excluding the deterioration due to an accessory feeding line that employs a dry bin dumper. scientifically packed. graded and labeled. Granny Smith and Rome correlations Beauty). Stark Delicious. impact levels. fruits are submitted to impacts that can involve alterations to the flesh. because they had no means of increasing the shelf life of these crops. impact measurements were taken at critical points on Italian machines at a domestic packing house. He said that agricultural produce sold in market was not standardized. Farmers growing horticultural crops were facing high economic loss. determined characteristics of the apples. Srivastava (2002) stated that post harvest losses estimated around 10 percent in food grains and 25-40 percent in fruits and vegetables constitute a national waste in terms of food as well as money. In this last case.Ragni and Berardinelli (2002) said that in sorting and packaging lines. For this study. He emphasized that there is a pressing need to establish such post harvest technology systems which reduce losses and in order to reduce these losses post harvest management systems must include mechanism to ensure that food products meet all required national and international standards set by SPS under WTO. The sample of Stark Delicious showed the highest susceptibility to impacts. were Using multiple between linear the regressions. These impacts were then reproduced in the laboratory to analyse the damage and the mechanical behaviour of apples of four cultivars (Golden Delicious. subsequent damage and parameters describing the mechanical behaviour of the fruits.

which made the product of inferior quality and has no chance of competing in the world market. The study attempted to analyze various aspects of post harvest losses as well as to quantify the exact losses of horticulture produce due to lack of post harvest storage and processing facilities. mechanical. biological versus artificially set social losses. She reported that total post harvest losses of mango at farm. He suggested that a reduction in post harvest losses by extending the shelf life of fruits and vegetables through genetic engineering by only one percent would save the country losses over Rs. biological and social factors. According to their research post harvest losses in tropical fruits have been estimated to average between 15-25 percent of production. They reported that these losses were caused by physical. Bari (2004) estimated the post harvest losses of mango in district Rahim Yar Khan and Multan. According to their study.6 percent of the total post harvest losses. The study concluded that post harvest loss of horticulture produce vary between 5-40 percent of total production. Yuen and Teng (2003) had derived the post harvest losses of fruits using expert judgement. 200 crore. Market and consumption level losses were 35. ASET (2003) estimated the loss of horticultural produce due to non-availability of post harvest and food processing facilities in Bihar and Uttarpradesh. Ram (2003) said that India suffered a loss of around $20 billion annually. due to uncontrolled ripening and inadequate post harvest management of fruits and vegetables.(Ethopia) was not getting foreign exchange from horticultural crops due to the low levels of post harvest technology. They concluded that a distinction had to be made between quantity loss and the real. Linear multiple regression model was used at farm level only. market and consumption levels were almost 31 percent of the total production and maximum losses were occurred at farm level that is 38. sampling of storage facilities and analysis of trade documents.9 and 25. biological events leading to post harvest losses started in the field and efficient control measures might involve manipulation of the production system. They further concluded that biological losses were lower than social losses and in the context of current concerns about pesticides: social losses may be unacceptably high in developed countries.5 . Descriptive and analytical analysis was used to estimates the losses. Punjab Pakistan.

packing. Henson and Reardon (2005) have argued that the emergence of private food safety and quality standards mainly in developed countries is now a well-established fact. With these standards becoming a global phenomenon. Different treatments were polyethylene bags of 0.S. Maximum weight loss observed in control and minimum weight loss in thick packaging (0.0254mm. which lead to 20-40 percent wastage. Dhatt (2004) gave the significance of the course on “Maintenance of post harvest quality during storage and exports horticultural crops” organized by The Punjab Horticultural Post Harvest Technology Centre of Punjab Agricultural University.0508mm thickness and control. Thick packaging performs significant effect in prolonging the shelf life of citrus fruit. He further stated that the major factor for these massive losses was lack of awareness of knowledge and skills on the part of handlers and inappropriate infrastructural facilities. Hussain et al. (2004) conducted a 45 days storage experiment to investigate the effect of Uni-Packaging treatments on the shelf life of citrus fruits. Weight loss increased significantly as storage increased. The T. thus leaving little actual surpluses for exports and processing. The organoleptic properties evaluation revealed that individual packaging had significant effect on the external appearance. Karunananthun (2004) reported that in India post harvest losses of fruits and vegetables range between 20 to 40 percent. This represented a market value of approximately $15 billion US per year. oilseeds and cereals range between 10 to 30 percent.0508mm). causing a serious dent in the economic wealth of the farm producers. while losses in pulses. countries in the developing world (the .S increased during storage but individual packaging had non-significant effect on the T. The result showed that the uni-packaging had no significant effect on the pH of citrus fruit. He reported that India produced more than 142 million tonnes of fruits and vegetables yearly but processed and exported less than 2 percent of its produce. 0. Ascorbic acid decreased from 1. mainly because of improper post harvest treatment. Major reasons of these losses were inadequate picking. taste and texture.S.percent of the total losses respectively.S. transportation and marketing procedures.59-0. These standards operate alongside regulatory systems but in terms of market access and access to the shelves of the leading supermarkets in the rich countries.63% during storage. it become almost mandatory.

5°C. (2005) measured the vibration levels in two of the most commonly used truck types to ship packaged goods as a function of road condition and vehicle speed. while this thing is opposite in developed countries where consumer dissatisfaction with produce quality results in a larger proportion of the total post harvest losses. The suspension type on the trailers studied was leaf-spring. which also corresponded to the highest vibration levels recorded. truck type and travelling speed. such as inadequacies of infrastructure. The data presented in this study will assist product and package designers to reduce damage in transit. Jarimopas et al. while the packages are transported from farms and harvesting areas to regional truck terminals. Analysis of variance indicated that three controlling factors. The results showed that a significant amount of damage can occur on unpaved roads (laterite). and weak R&D capacity.: 95%). especially packaging and cold chain maintenance of horticultural perishables and assure their quality and safety. Strategies for reducing postharvest losses in developing countries include. and encouraging consolidation and vertical addition among producers and marketers of horticultural crops.South) faces increasing constraints in exporting their food products to markets in Europe and the USA. commercial ripe and fully ripe.H. Kader (2005) stated that reduction of quantitative losses is a higher priority than qualitative losses in developing countries. Damage on asphalt road conditions was minimal. R. Fruit damage was found to be greatest in the uppermost container for every combination of road. Commercially ripe fruits were stored for 3 and 4 months at normal atmosphere (T: 1. Spinardi (2005) studied on effect of harvest date and storage on antioxidant systems in pears. This paper provides an updated history of measured and quantified levels of vibration for these specific trucks and road conditions. poor marketing systems. Development of new cultivars with better taste and dietetic value plus adequate productivity should be given high priority in all countries. The results showed that vibration levels increased with speed and as a result of road condition. road surface. truck speed and truck type. application of current knowledge to improve the handling systems. overcoming the socioeconomic constraints. The results of damage to packaged tangerine fruit as a function of location in the payload are also presented. Ethylene production rates were . Pears (Pyrus communis ‘Passa Crassana’) were picked at 3 different stages of ripening: immature.

as well as according to how the fumigant interacts with plant tissues at different temperatures. Responses to the ethylene inhibitor 1-MCP are mediated by such reactions. ethylene production can be either stimulated or inhibited. Furthermore. The consequences of changes in ethylene production/ sensitivity may be either positive or negative for product quality. thus oxidative stress occurs. However. acid. Ethylene levels were barely detectable at all 3 harvest dates and increase progressively during storage. MDA did not change in fruits of different ripening stages. during cold storage of pears. The levels of the antioxidant ascorbic acid (AA) and of malondialdehyde (MDA). radish and tomatoes from the farmer’s field to the collection centers were 6 percent. whereas decreased significantly during cold storage. while after storage the levels were significantly higher. storage had a negative effect on AA content and caused a gradual. cabbage. pre-cooling. cabbage. Udas et al. 6 percent and 3 percent respectively. breaking in radish and rupturing and spoilage in tomatoes. and other flavor compounds in horticultural products. The losses incurred in above four vegetables at retailer’s level were 41 percent. 34 percent. were also determined. Watkins and Ekman (2005) stated that temperature control is the main technology underpinning storage of horticultural crops. sorted vegetables and trimmed parts were sold at a lower price to feed livestock. marked decrease. However. the effects of cooling can vary. defense mechanisms against AOS fail to provide adequate protection. The main factors responsible for postharvest losses were inappropriate packaging. 9 percent. bruising and trimmings in cauliflower and cabbage. The study found that the postharvest losses of cauliflower. Physically damaged. Although low temperatures generally reduce ethylene sensitivity.measured and the activity of the scavenging enzyme ascorbate peroxidase (APX) was evaluated. The losses were mainly due to spoilage. 4. timing and availability of transport.5 percent and 7 percent respectively for the four vegetables. Information was collected on harvesting time and methods. (2005) studied on post harvest handling of four major vegetables namely cauliflower. transportation and grading systems. APX activity was positively affected by the ripening stage. AA reached the highest level in commercial ripe fruits. a marker of lipid peroxidation. Low temperatures generally maintain desirable levels of sugar. storage at too low a temperature or for too long can permanently suppress volatile . These results suggest that. radish and tomato. packaging and storage. grading.

labelled and then transported to Karachi port in open top trucks or refrigerated containers. The storage temperature therefore often represents a compromise between the product qualities preferred by consumers and the economic realities and product quality requirements of those involved in the produce supply chain. A field experiment was conducted to find out the losses of Kinnow mandarin due to mycoflora in long distance marketing. and other plant anti-oxidants are more difficult to quantify. Majority of exporters (66. (2007) reported that scarcity in storage and transportation infrastructure resulted in 25-40 percent post-harvest losses that shrinks supply and put pressure on prices. lack of storage facilities. Abohar (Punjab) and Shri Ganganagar area (Rajasthan) to Bangalore (Karnataka) 2500 km away. To save packaging and transportation cost and reduce the losses. It is concluded that injured fruits (due to mechanical or frost injury). Produce was brought to processing units in 20 to 40 Kg plastic boxes. Singh and Jain (2006) studied on Post harvest microbial losses in distant marketing of Kinnow. so treatments that maintain commercial quality can negatively influence nutritional quality. packed. waxed. After unloading the produce is washed. non-availability of quality packing. phenolics. Mahmood & Sheikh (2006) conducted a study on citrus export system in Pakistan. poor transportation facilities. high freights charges. . if packed. graded.1 and 22. digitatum. Alternaria alternata had the highest incidence (81.7 percent) use refrigerated containers.9 percent got infected due to fungi in CFB boxes and wooden boxes. respectively. Aujla et al. Maujgarh. Some of these compounds increase as products ripen.1 percent) in CFB boxes followed by Penicillium digitatum and P. They reported that harvested Kinnow is exported through three different channels. are bound to spoil and spread infection to other sound fruits. dried. Among the fruits discarded due to mycoflora decay. injured fruits should be sorted and removed at the initial stage of packing. 31. The effects of temperature on vitamins. flavonoids. again dried. Among the fruits. The fruits were packed in CFB boxes (24 to 84 fruits per box) with 2-3 layers and in wooden boxes (36 to 132 fruits per box) with 3-4 layers and loaded 850 boxes of CFB and 550 wooden boxes in different trucks and transported from NAFED. 64-70 percent was infected by P.production or cause “off” odors and flavors to accumulate. weak role of export promoting agencies and inconsistent government policies. italicum. They concluded that problems with Kinnow exports include low quality.

It has been found that about 75 per cent of the total post-harvest losses occur at the farm level and about 25 per cent at the market level. (2007) reported that the aggregate post harvest losses from orchard to consumers in Kinnow in two different and distant markets ranges from 14. respectively. The .68 q/ha in rice and 0. and functional analysis has been used to assess the influence of socioeconomic factors on postharvest losses at the farm level. Fruit markets are not perfectly competitive. Basavaraja et al.84 percent in Delhi market to 21. Transit losses at different levels have been important component of post-harvest losses. price spread and efficiency indicated that the old estimation methods unduly overstates the farmer’s net price and profit margins to the market middle man. improvements in market infrastructure and cheaper availability of transport and packing material is needed.20 quintals in rice and 1. these have been estimated to be 4. There is a need to improve efficiency and effectiveness to promote export of fruits. On per farm basis. The storage losses at different stages have added up to about 35. Gangwar et al. The post-harvest losses at farm level have been observed as 1. whereas lion’s share goes to other market traders.80 per cent of the total post-harvest losses in rice and 33. The functional analysis has revealed that education level of farmers and bad weather conditions influence the post-harvest losses significantly at farm level in both the food grains. In order to lower the shares of middlemen in consumer’s rupee. access to credit and market information. (2007) use tabular analysis to estimate the post-harvest losses at different stages. while inadequate availability of labour and faulty storage method influence the post-harvest losses positively and significantly in rice and wheat.The prevention of such losses would further improve exportable surplus and their international competitiveness. control over the output losses.01 quintals in wheat. contributing to about 20 per cent of the total losses.91 percent in Bangalore market. while harvesting and threshing operations together have accounted for about 17 per cent of total losses in both the crops. A product-specific market development strategy needs to be initiated with the active participation from the production and marketing systems. Farmers just receive one-fourth of consumers’ price. They estimates the post harvest losses using a modified formula and said that inclusion of marketing loss in the estimation of marketing margins.52 per cent in wheat.45 q/ha wheat.

Alternaria tenuis.65 percent at the wholesale level and 16. February and March amounted to 37. All these fungi expect A.Cladosporiums herbarum. transportation.84 percent in the wholesale channel. September and November were found to be 23. marketing. A. These losses in the co-operative marketing channel were 18. Both fruit being succulent are liable to damage and deterioration during harvesting. Mucor racemosus. Alternaria tenuis. 6. comprising 5. Total losses in the apples transported from Quetta.66 percent at the retail level. (2007) said that apples and banana are transported from localities of production to far off places for marketing and consumption.82. i. The losses at the field and assembly levels accounted for as high as 42 percent of the total loss in the cooperative channel compared to about 19 percent in the wholesale channel. compared to 10 percent and 48 percent in co- . respectively. The fungi isolated from rotten banana were Aspergillus fumigatus.72 percent in the corresponding stages. (2007) reported the post-harvest losses at different stages of marketing and their impact on farmers’ net price. A. The postharvest losses were as high as 28. if not properly handled. Helminthosporium tetramera.fumigatus were found to be pathogenic both to injury and non injury inoculated banana fruits. Losses at wholesale and retail stages in the wholesale channel accounted for 23 percent and 58 percent. 1. The pathogenecity test revealed that Alternaria tenuis.Botryodiplodia theobromae. 39 and 43 percent respectively.Aspergillus niger and Rhizopus nigricans were pathogenic to both injury inoculated and non injured inoculated apple fruits. assembly level and lower in the later stages of marketing. In apples kept under the conditions of cold storage for 22 weeks losses were found to be 28 percent. The losses in co-operative channel were higher in the first stage of handling. The fungi isolated from rotten apples were Aspergillus niger.e. Colletotrichum musae.results had emphasized that efforts should be made to adopt improved packaging techniques. Pencillium italicum and Rhizopus nigricans. storage and consumption. margins and efficiency. tenuissima. 20 25 percent respectively. Penicillium expansum. cushioning material and cold storage facilities at retail level. marketing costs. Total losses in banana transported from Nawabshah. Mirpur Khas and Hyderabad to Faisalabad market in the months of December. Murthy et al.77 and 8.31 percent with 7. and Verticillium theobromae. Ilyas et al. fumigatus.53 percent at the field and assembly level. Swat and Murree to Faisalabad market during the months of August.

They are more familiar and inclined towards traditional methods post harvest handling of the produce. while it was 58 percent in the wholesale channel. Further. At the field level. grading. less handling and acceptance of good quality produce at the time of procurement contributed to the lower losses at the later stages of marketing in the co-operative channel. The major reason being is that the growers are not well conversant with these technologies. (2008) reported that Papaya cv. associated losses occurring at different stages of handling and their implications on marketing efficiency and availability necessitated the genesis of this study. market-wise analysis revealed that the losses were higher during retailing than in other stages of marketing. In the cooperative channel. Lack of information on post harvest handling and marketing practices. the losses . By separating out marketing loss at each stage of marketing.22 percent at the market level and 11. transit loss of 4. Better loading and transportation. the actual margins of intermediaries have been estimated. pre-cooling. India some 10 years ago which is now spread to different parts of the country. which was otherwise positive (profit) in the conventional estimation. packaging.49 percent at the retail level. The results revealed that the total post harvest loss (PHL) in papaya produced in Ananthpur district of Andhra Pradesh and marketed in Bangalore of Karnataka state worked out to 25. Chohan and Ahmad (2008) studied the use of post harvest technologies by the tomato growers in AJK. postharvest losses at the retail level accounted for 48 percent. Most of the papaya produced from this region is marketed at Bangalore and during this process. the margin of the retailers’ after accounting for the physical losses during retailing has been found to be negative (loss).66 percent at filed level. The market margin tends to be lower in the local as compared to the wholesale market. It has been observed that the existing methods tend to overstate the farmers’ net price and margins of the intermediaries. Bulk of tomato surplus produce was marketed through local market (75 percent). A small quantity (25 percent) was marketed through wholesale market. Gajanana et al.49 percent consisting of 1. It is envisaged that growers could improve their returns in case they avoid post harvest losses to a greater degree by adopting these technologies. heavy post harvest loss occurs.operative channel. Taiwan 786 was introduced in Andhra Pradesh. storage and transportation. They reported that tomato growers in the study area were not following post harvest technologies that include. In fact.12 percent and ripening loss of 8.

while the greatest cause of damage in Roma and VT563/JM94/47 was physiological and was put at 44 percent and 36 percent respectively. The perceived priorities of farmers about major sources of risks in production of fruits and vegetables have been reported under ‘investment risks’. At the market level. the price and production risks have been perceived as the most important sources of risk in production of fruits and vegetables in the area. bruises and pressing injury caused transit loss. development of financial markets and promotion of market-based price and yield insurance schemes. Jabir and Sanjeev (2008) studied the perceptions of farmers about risks in production of fruits and vegetables have been analyzed using structured survey method. The study is based on the survey of a total of 634 farmers. pathological and mechanical damages.were mainly due to immature and small size of fruits. Jhansi and Agra. ‘production risks’ and ‘market risks’. namely.00. In the UC82B variety. Allahabad. thus ensuring that the marginal farmers are able to benefit from these interventions as well as participate in the emerging systems. Marketing system for papaya was not found to be efficient as the efficiency index was less than 1. ‘environmental risks’. covering six districts of Uttar Pradesh. ‘socioeconomic risks’. There was a significant difference (p<0. In general. The major causes of economic losses to tomatoes were physiological. Anthracnose and fruit rot due to Alternaria and Phytophthora were the main causes of loss during ripening. There is a need to reduce the PHL and improve the availability through the recommended pre and post harvest treatments and better handling and storage to improve the marketing efficiency in papaya. Most of the respondents have been in the business for more than 10 years. Lucknow. malformation and harvesting injury. Rotting of fruits was the main reason for loss during retailing. The producer’s share was as low as 26 percent and the inclusion of PHL as another component of marketing cost would add to inefficiency of the marketing system as it reduced the efficiency index further and the price spread would have been just 57 percent without the PHL. pathological damage constituted the greater percentage (44 percent) of losses. The study has argued that public intervention can facilitate better risk management through improved information system.05) in . Ibadan local suffered the highest kind of damage traced to mechanical factors to the tune of 39 percent. comprising 188 fruit farmers and 446 vegetable farmers. Gorakhpur. Adeoye et al. (2009) reported that more men were involved in wholesaling of tomato while more women were involved in retailing of tomato. Moradabad.

is thereby recommended to minimize losses in tomatoes.05) difference between mean percentage damage of VT563/JM94/47 and Ibadan local varieties.7 percent of the respondents had a negative gross margin when losses was considered. there was reduction of 34% in marketing margin of UC82B. (2009) explained the reasons of post harvest losses in their study of gross margin analysis of post harvest losses of citrus in Nigeria. Roma 85 percent. They also load the citrus fruits in bags or pour them by baskets into the vehicles and this is responsible for high loss. market and transportation constituted 14. 94 percent and Ibadan local 79 percent at the retail level. The result of the gross margin analysis shown that 7. high cost of carrying.4 percent of the possible total revenue. Respondents did not have high-quality packaging and handling culture during movement of the citrus fruits. Ayandiji et al. . while 36.the mean percentage damage of UC82B compared to the three other tomatoes varieties (P<0. Provision of improved mode of transportation and storage.8 percent of the respondents had a negative gross margin without taking into account losses. It had been observed that a lot of citrus fruits are wasted annually due to poor harvesting. inappropriate treatment. while there was no significant (p>0. Based on the losses in the marketing margin.05). Losses from harvest. poor marketing facilities and too little processing factories as well as poor processing services among others. VT563/JM94/47.

The main reason behind this is the natural climatic conditions and soil that is more suitable for kinnow production than any other crop. Jhang. Bhalwal and Kot Moman were selected. Sargodha on the basis of its higher share in acreage. 3.2 Selection of the Basic Sampling Unit For the present study. Mianwali and Gujranwala. a) Small size orchard b) Medium size orchard < 8 acres 8-16 acres . Sahiwal.e. The orchards of producers/contractors were stratified into small. Rahim Yar Khan. production and taste in Punjab. These two tehsils were selected on the basis of their importance in kinnow production and easy accessibility. 3. Toba Tek Singh. two tehsils of Sargodha i. Multan. Relatively more cash income as compared to other crops and inherited occupation were however. medium and large size based on the criteria followed by Ahmad.3 Selection of the Producers/Contractors Twenty kinnow producers/contractor) were selected from each tehsils randomly. The citrus (Kinnow) production belt in Punjab province comprises of districts Sargodha. 1989. Sialkot. Government policies to facilitate water supply and pesticide technology have encouraged the growers to expand area under orchard.e. Study conducted in this district can be fairly representative for the Punjab province. Lahore.1 Selection of the Study Area The study was confined to the one of the major kinnow producing district of Punjab i. the major reasons to grow kinnow orchard. 3.CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS Approximately 95 percent of the total citrus fruit in Pakistan is produced by Punjab province. Only Sargodha district have a lion share of kinnow in area and production in Punjab.

3. In total 20 hawkers and 20 stall holders were selected at random from both the tehsils.e. of producers/contractors having large size orchard Total 17 12 11 40 3. A. A sample of 10 stallholders and 10 hawkers were selected from each district at random for collection information. 3.4 Selection of the Wholesalers Twenty wholesalers from each tehsil fruit and vegetable market were selected at random.c) Large size orchard that: >16 acres In total forty kinnow orchards were selected from selected tehsils at random in such a way a) No. (a) Simple arithmetic mean.6 Data Collection Separate questionnaires were prepared for each category of respondents and personal interview method was used to collect relevant information and to identify variables on pretested questionnaire. There were almost 50 wholesalers dealing with kinnow in each of tehsil fruit and vegetable market. stallholders (shopkeepers) and hawkers. and retail level. to estimate the post harvest losses of kinnow at farm. transportation and market.7 Analysis of Data a) Descriptive Statistics The data thus collected was tabulated in the form of tables and percentage and average method was used to explain the 1st objective of the study i. out of which 20 wholesalers were selected from each market randomly. of producers/contractors having medium size orchard c) No. of producers/contractors having small size orchards b) No. 3. = X/N Where: X = summation of all values N = total number of items (b) Percentage losses at different stages of handling at each respondent category = {(Kg/40Kg)/40} * 100 .M.e.5 Selection of the Retailers Two types of retailers were found i.

. Pt.e.. Exp.. (c) Percentage losses at each respondent category = ∑ Li Where: ∑ Li = summation of percentage losses at all handling stages of specified respondents category. 2007 etc. These stages include picking. So. Edu = Education of respondent in years. multiple linear regression model will be used.Where: - Kg/40Kg = losses in Kgs at the specified handling stage in 40 Kg (mound) of produce. transportation and wholesale market and retail levels) with descriptive analysis. Bari. Os. grading and packing etc. 2009. L1 = Quantity of post harvest losses in Kgs at farm level. 2007. Character Morning assigned value 1 . Os = Orchard size of the respondent in acres. Exp = Experience of respondents in years. So the specific model used was LnL1 = β0 + β1 LnEdu + β2 LnExp + β3 LnOs + β4 Pt + β5 Pm + ε Where. b) Analytical Model To study the impact of different determinants involved in citrus post harvest losses. Gangwar et al. In this study we will develop three different multiple linear regression models for three different levels of post harvest losses (farm. Murthy et al. the three models for three different levels are as under: At Farm Level The general form of the function at farm level is as follows: Losses = f (Edu. Pt = Picking Time (Dummy variable). 2004 and Basavaraja et al. carrying from orchard to grading/packing place. 2007.. Only a couple of studies are conducted so far in which econometric model was used to estimate post harvest losses in fruits at producer/contractor level i. As most of the past studies only use descriptive analysis like Ayandiji et al. wholesaler and retailers. These respondent categories included producer/contractor. Pm) Double log model was used for analysis because it gives direct elasticities and results of this functional form were more reliable than simple one.

Character Stacking of boxes Open loading Sp = Storage place (Dummy variable). L2 = Quantity of post harvest losses in Kgs at transportation and market level. Ttrans = Type of transportation (Dummy variable). Edu = Education of respondent in years. Character assigned value assigned value 1 0 assigned value 1 0 assigned value 1 0 . Lm. Exp = Experience of respondents in years. Exp. Character Metallic Road Non-metallic Road Lm = Loading method (Dummy variable). Ttrans. Sp) So the specific model used was LnL2 = β0 + β1 LnEdu + β2 LnExp + β3 Ttrans + β4 Itrans + β5 Lm+ β6 Sp + ε Where. At Transportation and Market Level The general form of the function at transportation and market level is as follows: Losses = f (Edu. Itrans. Character Truck/Mazda Other Itrans = Infrastructure of transportation (Dummy variable).Evening Pm = Picking method (Dummy variable) Character With Scissor Manual ε = Disturbance term 0 assigned value 1 0 t-statistics was used to test the significance of these factors in post harvest losses of kinnow at farm level.

Exp = Experience of respondent in years. Character Shopkeeper Hawker ε = Disturbance term assigned value 1 0 . USqt = Unsold quantity on daily basis in Mds. USqt. Tr) So the specific model used was LnL3 = β0 + β1 LnExp + β2 LnUSqt + β3 Tr + ε Where.Cold storage Normal storage ε = Disturbance term At Retail Level 1 0 The general form of the function at retail level is as follows: Losses = f (Exp. Tr = Type of retailer (Dummy variable). L3 = Post harvest losses in Kgs at retail level.

Kinnow post harvest losses take place at all these stages and have been quantified and discussed in this chapter. The various factors contributing to these losses have been discussed with their significance. cleaning. Quantitative post harvest losses of kinnow at farm. grading. grading. Marketing channel of Kinnow 2. transportation and loading/unloading. Past trend in Area and Production of Citrus in Pakistan 3. Kinnow production involves picking. marketing and retail levels of kinnow. transportation and market. Conclusion . standardization. packing. transportation. A regression function has been used to show major factors causing kinnow post harvest losses and to calculate the level of significance of these factors on kinnow post harvest losses. 1. Lay out of the chapter on results and discussion is as follows. Kinnow marketing and retailing also involves loading/unloading. storage etc.CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION This chapter mainly deals with the post harvest losses occurring at production. cleaning. transportation and market. Factors causing post harvest losses of kinnow at farm. and retail levels 5. and retail levels 4.

uncertainties in production and post harvest losses inherent with this marketing system. the kinnow producers did not want to be involved in the complications of marketing system and avoided the risk of price and income variation. (b) Reasons of pre-harvest sale The main reason for sale of pre-harvest contractor was lack of time. Moreover. the labour they had is not trained specifically for picking and packing of fruit and lack of transportation facilities also compelled them to sell standing orchard to contractor. transportation problems and to avoid risk and uncertainties.1.e. (c) Pre-harvest Contractor Pre-harvest contractor purchases the fruit crop from the producer. He has more information about the marketing conditions and prices than the producer. Producer undertakes the primary grading or selection. 90 percent sold the harvesting rights of their orchards to contractors at the flowering stage. performs the first transportation to the marketing and bears all the losses taking place at these stages.4. mainly in the hope of getting better prices. they didn’t spare time and labour for marketing of kinnow fruit and preferred to sell an orchard to a contractor. Only 10 percent sold their produce directly to market themselves.1 Marketing channel of kinnow The most common kinnow-marketing channel through which kinnow fruit passes from producer to consumer in the study area was as under: Producer Contractor Wholesaler Retailer Consumer 4. in advance of the majority stage and sells in the market at maturity. Therefore.1 Producer/Pre-harvest Contractor (a) Producer The process of kinnow production and marketing starts with the producer/grower. labour. Kinnow orchard owners were growing crops in addition to kinnow. While contracting an orchard the . Another reason for pre-harvest sale was that. But a large majority of the kinnow growers i. first handling and packaging.

standardization and cleaning and then sells to buyer. storage. packing.2.1. transportation and marketing. He deals in several commodities within interregional markets and also supplies produce to processing industries. exporters and retailers according to their demand. The shopkeeper occupied their own or hired fixed small shops in the main market or in the town. 4. Table 4. Contractor after purchasing the standing orchards engaged in same activities like picking. does some grading. 4.contractor estimates its yield and considers the expected cost to be incurred for supervision.3 Retailers Retailers usually indicate a final link between producer and consumers. Two types of retailers were generally found in case of kinnow fruit. So the same pattern was followed for the producer and contractor with regard to post harvest losses occurring during all these stages at farm level.1. The trend in area and production of citrus in Pakistan has been shown in the graphs that 24 percent area increased from 1985-86 to 2000-01 and production is increased by 28 percent from 1985-86 to 1996-97. area and production of citrus in Punjab province is shown from 1997-98 to 2007-08. labour. 4. area and production of citrus in Pakistan is shown from 1985-86 to 2007-08 and in Table 4. While hawkers were selling fruits in baskets or hand carts and were usually mobile. He generally occupies a site or a place where buying and selling takes place at market place.2 Wholesaler Wholesaler buys and sells large quantities of farm products.1: Area and Production of Citrus in Pakistan . Wholesaler usually purchases fruit from the commission agents at auction floor and sells in smaller quantities to retailers and consumers.2 Past trend in area and production of citrus in Pakistan In Table 4. transport and marketing activities and bear losses at all these stages as done by the producer if he had not sold to the contractor.1. They buy and sell small quantities according to the demand of consumers in the area.

5 2294.7 2458.4 196.Year 1985-86 1986-87 1987-88 1988-89 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Area (' 000' hectares) 149.7 194.2 185 190.2 199.3 1760.3 193.2 181.7 153.8 170.3 1943.5 1943.4 Production (' 000' tonnes) 1434.5 Source: Government of Pakistan.4 1467.3 1609.7 198. 2007-08 Table 4.8 1959.2 1897.5 2002.3 1565.8 1665.3 1702.2 171.4 1932.6 176.3 1849.6 2037 1861.4 1472.1 1576.1 173.6 194.8 192.1 1629.1 1411.7 193.5 183.7 1830.2 176.1 197 197.2: Area and Production of Citrus in Punjab Province .5 158.3 176.

4 186.7 2219.3 189.1 1400.3 Source: Government of Pakistan.2 Production in '000 tonnes 1946.2 1812.7 1872.5 1769.6 1688.Year 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 Area in '000 hectares 185.9 1751.2 2385.8 187.8 166.1 183.2 1859.2 170.6 173. 2007-08 .9 182.1 186.6 183.0 1623.

1: Area of Citrus in Pakistan from 1985-86 to 2007-08 Figure 4.2: Production of Citrus in Pakistan from 1985-86 to 2007-08 .Figure 4.

Mohyuddin. 4. Liu. 2003. Gajanana.. 2007. et al. 32. 1990.4 percent of the total produce and 72 percent in total losses in kinnow.. Gangwar. 2004. 2001. FAO. 2007...4 45 Percentage share in total losses of kinnow 72 24.1 100 Levels At Farm Level Losses At Wholesale Market Level Losses At Retail Level Losses Total . 1980. Bari. Yuen and Teng.3. 2009. 2003. 2007. 2008.. et al. 2007.3 and fig. Leghari.4 11. Chaudry. Table 4. Murthay et al. Al. et al. Basavaraja. Bassapa. Ilyas et al. IARI..3 shows the percentage share of losses in total produce and in total post harvest losses of kinnow. 2003. wholesale market and retail level were 45 percent of the total produce. 1989.9 3.e.1 Total post harvest losses of kinnow in the marketing channel Total post harvest losses of kinnow at farm. Table 4. Losses at farm level were maximum i.4. ASET. 2003. 1998. et al.3: Percentage shares of farm. These results are similar like Adeoye. et al. 1) Losses at farm level 2) Loses at wholesale market level 3) Losses at retail level 4. market and retail level losses in total produce and total losses of kinnow Percentage share in total produce of kinnow 32.2 1.. Admassu.3 Quantitative post harvest losses of kinnow Kinnow post harvest losses have been divided in three categories in this study which are as under.

picking losses 60. et al. 1978. 2004. FFTC.4 shows that total losses of kinnow during picking.. 1993.4 percent of the total produce. Similarly losses of carrying from picking place to grading/packing place and during grading and packing were 10. Sing and Jain. Dendy. 2006. Parpia. . market and retail level losses in total post harvest losses of kinnow 4.9 percent kinnow of the total losses at farm level were lost during loading and transportation as shown in the Table 4. From these losses at farm level.Retail Level Losses.. 72% Figure 4.3.2 Losses at Farm Level Table 4. 1978. packing and grading and transportation stages were estimated as 32.3 Percentage share of farm.4. PARC. 1986. Subrahmanyam. et al.8 percent of the total losses at farm level respectively. 2005. 21. 1986. 3% Wholesale Market Level Losses. carrying.. 25% Farm Level Losses.5 percent of the total losses at farm level. Results also similar like Udas. 2009. Hussain. Ayandiji et al.8 and 6.

Table 4. .4 Total Item % age share of Losses in total produce %age share of losses in total losses at farm level 19.8 21.55 3.2 60.5 2. Average age of the respondents is 44 years and education has about 8 years.5 10.9 100 (a) Personal characteristics of kinnow producer/contractor Table 4. 55 percent of the growers belong from business family background and 35 percent from agriculture. packing and transportation During Picking During grading and packing During carrying During loading and transportation 7.4: Losses of kinnow incurred at farm level during picking.8 6. grading. Respondents have about 16 years of orchard experience in the study area.5 shows the personal characteristics of producers/contractor. carrying.1 32. 60 percent of the growers have no partnership for orchard business.

4 3.3 8.7 16. Growers had production cost of Rs.0 Mean 44.0 55. About 97 percent contactors had contract duration of one year. No. About 63 percent of the respondents had started the contract at fruit formation stage and only 5 percent at harvesting stage. 40.2 Std.3 8.5: Personal characteristics of kinnow producer/contractors Sr. 14412 per acre.2 .6 shows that total orchard size in the study area was about 179 acres. Deviation 12.0 10. 1 2 3 4 Characteristics Respondent's Age Education (Schooling Years) Orchard Experience (Years) Family Background (Percent) Agriculture Business Service 5 Partnership (Percent) Yes No (b) Orchard related characteristics Table 4. Number of plants per acre was about 94 and yield per tree was about 3 mounds.0 60.Table 4.0 35.

0 97.3 14412.e.Table 4. about 16350 mounds than early season (8697 mds) and late season (6791 mds).5 62.99 1705. Growers were get more returns in late season sales i.5 5. Deviation 117.5 (c) Sale quantities and Sale prices Table 4. 642 per mound higher than the sale prices in early and mid season. Sale quantity in mid season was high i.5 2. No.7 93.5 Mean 178.4 5. of Plants / Acre Yield/Tree (Mds) Production Cost (Rs/Acre) Contract duration (percent) One year Two year 6 Contract stage (percent) Flowering Fruit formation Harvesting 32.5 Std.6: Orchard related characteristics Sr. sale price in late season was about Rs.7 gives an insight about the sale quantities and sale prices of kinnow. .8 3. 1 2 3 4 5 Characteristics Total Orchard Size (Acre) No.e.8 0.

5 mounds and the value of this total loss was about Rs. Most of the kinnow lost due to cuts and bruise i. On an average 195 mounds quantity picked at one time lot and from which 10 mounds were discarded during picking.9 6791.0 642.5 mounds partially lost. No.8 shows the harvest (picking) losses.9 603.9 5669.1 (d) Harvest losses Table 4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Items Early Season Sale (Qty) in Mds for Kinnow Early Season Sale Price in Rs/Md for Kinnow Mid Season Sale (Qty) in Mds for Kinnow Mid Season Sale Price in Rs/Md for Kinnow Late Season Sale (Qty) in Mds for Kinnow Late Season Sale Price in Rs/Md for Kinnow Mean 8696. 30. About 95 percent of the growers used scissor for picking of kinnow fruit as scissor cause less injuries and cuts to fruit and losses was minimized.Table 4. Table 4.2 527.4 Std. There is about 1.5 percent. Deviation 6426. So the total loss during picking was about 9.0 and 22.8 Harvest Losses . 90 percent skilled labour was used for picking of the fruit from tree.3 135.9 mounds kinnow that were lost completely and 7.8 110.0 14442.2 16350. 5615.7: Sale quantities and sale prices of kinnow Sr.7 147. grading and packaging.e.

9 7.5 95.5 17.4 - 12 13 - .9 4432.5 5614.0 90.0 10.5 50.0 Std.5 30. Picked One Time lot (Mds) Quantity Discarded (Mds) Complete Loss (Mds) Partial Loss (Mds) Total Loss (Mds) If partial Loss.Sr.4 10.0 7.5 17.6 591 1122. decrease in Value (percent) Sale Price (Rs/ Mds) Value of complete loss (Rs) Value of partial loss (Rs) Total value of loss (Rs) Type of losses (percent) Cuts Bruise Pressed Injury Latex Other Method of Picking (percent) Scissor Hand Labour used for picking (Percent) Skilled Ordinary Mean 195. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Items Qty.0 5.9 6. No.1 1.7 1.6 6.0 22. Deviation 87.2 5.5 5.4 10.5 9.

. About 75 percent skilled labour used for carrying the produce from field to grading/packing place.7 mounds of kinnow lost partially as depicted in Table 4. About 70 percent of the respondents had used plastic crates for carrying of fruit and 15 and 12 percent use wooden baskets and palli for carrying. 2068. 37 percent decrease in value due to partial loss.(e) Post harvest losses during carrying from picking to grading/packing place Total post harvest losses during carrying from picking to grading/packing place were about 3. About 47 and 27 percent kinnow was pressed and injured respectively during carrying.9.5 mounds. In short total value of loss was about Rs.61 mounds were completely lost and 1. in which 0.

9 591 360.5 36.4 0.5 Mean 195.5 1063.0 17.5 27.6 1.0 25.8 2068.9 Post-harvest losses during carrying from picking to grading/packing place Sr.Table 4.5 7.5 2.5 Std. Picked One Time lot (Mds) Complete Loss (Mds) Partial Loss (Mds) Total Loss (Mds) if Partial loss.1 4.8 3.0 15.5 7.9 1.0 47. Deviation 87. decrease in Value (Percent) Sale Price (Rs/ Mds) Value of complete loss (Rs) Value of partial loss (Rs) Total value of loss (Rs) Type of losses (Percent) Cuts Bruise Pressed Injury Latex 12 Type of material used for packing (Percent) Wooden Basket Plastic Crates Palli Other 13 Labour used for carrying (Percent) Skilled Ordinary 75.2 - (f) Post harvest losses during grading and packing .0 70.2 0.5 10.0 12. No. 1 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Items Qty.

As proper and good packing had a great role in the quality of fruit.2 (0. So. So the total value of loss was about Rs. 1300. About 45 and 33 percent produce lost due to pressing and bruise during grading and packing.5 and 27. Results shows that 35 percent respondents were used fine wooden basket for packing and about 32.7 mds partial loss) mounds during grading and packing and 35 percent value was decreased due to partial loss.6 mds complete loss and 1. . shape and quality of fruit greatly depended on the packaging method and packaging material. 85 percent skilled labour was used for packing so that standard of quality packing should be achieved.5 percent respondents used palli and plastic crates for packing of fruit. So fine wooden basket is the best material for packing. As size.Table 4. Total loss was about 2.10 reported the post harvest losses during grading and packing.

9 1.0 - 12 Labour used for grading/packing (Percent) Skilled Ordinary 85.10 Post-Harvest losses of kinnow during grading and packing Sr.7 1300.Table 4. Deviation 87.0 27.0 - . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Items Qty.6 1.5 0.2 12.5 45.4 0.0 1004. decrease in Value (Percent) Sale Price (Rs/ Mds) Value of complete loss (Rs) Value of partial loss (Rs) Total value of loss (Rs) Type of losses (Percent) Cuts Bruise Pressed Injury Latex Mean 195.5 32.2 Std.2 35.2 0.5 - 11 Packing material used (Percent) Fine wooden basket Plastic crate Palli Other 35.7 2. No.5 2.0 7.5 5.0 15.5 32. Picked One Time lot (Mds) Complete loss (Mds) Partial Loss (Mds) Total Loss (Mds) If Partial loss.2 16.2 591 362.

.11. 25 and 22. pressed and bruise respectively.5 percent respondents used mazda for the transportation of kinnow while 45 percent used other type of vehicle for transportation.1 mounds as depicted in Table 4. About 37.5 percent fruit was lost due to injury. About 68 percent respondents used stacking of boxes method for loading of kinnow and about 73 percent roads of the study area were metallic. Total value of loss was about Rs.(g) Post harvest losses of kinnow during loading and transportation Total losses during loading and transportation were about 7. 4196 and 42 percent value decreased due to partial loss. About 35.

Table 4.9 3014.9 5.0 5. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Items Complete Loss (Mds) Partial Loss (Mds) Total Loss (Mds) If Partial loss.5 27. Deviation 2.5 37.5 22.5 25.6 591 1122.1 7.1 42.0 12.5 12.1 Std.0 35.5 25.5 67.4 16. decrease in Value (Percent) Sale Price (Rs/ Mds) Value of complete loss (Rs) Value of partial loss (Rs) Total value of loss (Rs) Type of losses (Percent) Cuts Bruise Pressed Injury Latex 10 Type of transport used (Percent) Truck Mazda Pick Up Other 11 Loading Methods used (Percent) Stacking of boxes Open loading Other 12 Infrastructure of transportation (Percent) Metallic Road Non-Metallic Road 72.11:Post-Harvest losses of kinnow during loading and transportation Sr.1 4196.6 5.0 7.5 5.4 7.9 - .0 45. No.0 Mean 1.

12: Losses of kinnow incurred at wholesale market level during unloading and marketing and storage During Unloading and Marketing 6. .6 Total 11.2 100 (a) Personal characteristics of Wholesalers Table 4.4 percent of the total losses at market level was occurred and 44. Education level of the respondent was about 8 years of schooling.13 shows that most of the respondents had in age bracket of about 40 years.4 Items % age share of Losses in total produce %age share of losses in total losses at farm level During Storage 5.2 55. About 74 percent of the wholesalers had no partnership.6 percent during storage as shown in Table 4.3 Losses at Wholesale Market Level Total losses at wholesale market level were about 11.4.2 percent of the total produce.12. Table 4. About 55 percent of the respondents had belongs from business background and 45 percent from agriculture.0 44. Business experience of respondents was about 18 years.3. During unloading and marketing 55.

2 653.2 609.14 indicates that mid season sales and prices were very high i. 2.0 55.2 86. 655 respectively. Partnership (Percent) Yes No (b) Sale quantities and prices of kinnow As Table 4.0 Mean 39. about 271 mounds Rs. Deviation 223.2 718. 654 respectively.2 73.7 7.8 270.7 Std.9 Std. Early season and late season sale quantities were about 120 and 141 mounds respectively.5 3. 610 and Rs.8 286.Table 4. 1. 2.1 26. Table 4. Items Early season sale (Mds) Early season price (Rs/ Mds) Mid season sale (Mds) Mid season price (Rs/ Mds) Late season sale (Mds) Late season price (Rs/ Mds) Mean 120.e. 4. 4.2 94.8 45.8 188.9 655.6 17. 6.4 141. No. 3. deviation 9. Also early and late season sale price was about Rs.8 7. 3. 1. No. Characteristics Age (years) Education (years) Business experience (years) Family background (Percent) Agriculture Business Other 5.14: Sale quantities and prices of kinnow Sr.6 (c) Expenditures of Wholesalers . 5.13: Personal characteristics of wholesaler Sr.

16 shows the post harvest losses of kinnow at wholesale level. Deviation 3.8 mounds were complete and partial loss. . 390.4 9. 47 percent value of produce decreased due to partial loss. Table 4. Total value of loss was about Rs. Results show that carrying charges from auction floor to own floor was about Rs.0 390. 9. Daily expenditure of the wholesaler was about Rs.8 (d) Post harvest losses of kinnow at wholesale level Table 4.8 4410. 5.0 Std.15: Expenditures of Wholesalers Sr. 4.4 per mounds.7 and 3.0 92. 2.2 mounds of kinnow lost during marketing in which 3. 3. No. Monthly rent of the floor was about 10975 Rs.6 1.4 10975.15 tells us about the expenditures of wholesaler. 1. About 6. Items Carrying Charges from Auction Floor to Own Floor (Rs/Mds) Auction Charges if (Rs/Mds) Monthly Rent of the Floor (Rs) Daily expenditures Mean 5. 3681.Table 4. About 62 and 21 percent of the produce was lost due to pressed and injury.4 per mound. Auction charges were about Rs.

4 591 2186. 6. Complete loss (Mds) Partial loss (Mds) Total loss (Mds) If partial loss. 8.4 Items Mean 3. There was 18 percent decrease in value due to partial loss.8 6.) Value of partial loss (Rs. deviation 8. The storage duration may be for some days or some weeks.9 21. 9. There are two methods of storage. About 9 mounds of the fruit were lost during storage.) Total value of loss (Rs. 9.9 Std. 2. During storage about 38 and 37 percent losses were due to spot and rotening and 26 percent remain unripe.2 5.4 - .17 shows the losses during storage.Table 4.7 3. Table 4.2 61. 7. one is cold storage and second is normal storage.5 7. 5.2 47. decrease in value (Percent) Sale price (Rs/ Mds) Value of complete loss (Rs.8 3681. No.9 3. About 69 percent fruit was stored at normal conditions and 31 percent stored at cold conditions. 1.16: Post-Harvest losses of kinnow at wholesale level Sr.7 13.7 2245.) Type of losses (Percent) Cuts Bruise Pressed Injury (e) Losses of kinnow during storage at wholesale level Wholesalers sometimes store the fruit for future sale. 5319. 3. Duration of storage was about 2 days. Total value of loss was about Rs. 4.

1.) Value of partial loss (Rs. decrease in value (Percent) Sale price (Rs/ Mds) Value of complete loss (Rs. 5.2 5319. 9.0 69. Complete loss (Mds) Partial loss (Mds) Total loss (Mds) If partial loss.8 Std.8 36.5 25.2 9. deviation 5. No. 7.0 14.0 591 2245.0 Items Mean 3.0 18.0 26.9 10. 2. 10.17: Losses during storage at wholesale level Sr.0 1. Type of losses (Percent) Spot Rotening Un Ripe 37.Table 4.8 5.7 .) Duration of storage (Days) Storage Place (Percent) Cold Normal 9.) Total value of loss (Rs.2 31.4 1.8 3073. 4. 3. 6. 8.

18.4 100 (a) Personal characteristics of Retailers Age bracket of the retailers in study area was about 35 years and had schooling of about 6 years as depicted in Table 4.4 Losses at Retail Level Total losses at retail level were about 1.3. . About 50 percent share in total retail level losses was of unsold quantity as shown in Table 4.69 50. Table 4.4.4 percent of the total produce. About 88 percent retailers had no partnership in their business.4 Items % age share of Losses in total produce %age share of losses in total losses at farm level Total 1. 60 percent of the retailers run their business in shop while 40 percent were hawkers.6 Unsold Quantity 0.18: Losses of kinnow incurred at retail level during retail marketing and unsold quantity During retail Marketing 0.19.67 49. About 75 percent of the retailers had family background of business.

2 10.3 75.9 5.0 12. 1.1 (c) Expenditures of retailers .0 40.8 8.2 - 5. Characteristics Age (years) Education (years) Business experience (years) Family background (Percent) Business Other Mean 34. Items Purchase Quantity in mds Purchase Price in Rs/md Sale quantity in mds Sale price in Rs/md Mean 6.1 Std. 353 per mound while quantity sell was about 5.Table 4.0 25.19: Personal characteristics of retailers Sr.6 2.20.0 352.5 Std. 4. 3. 4. Deviation 3.6 136. 1.4 3.7 mounds at price of Rs. No.9 6. Table 4. 2. No. deviation 11. 416 per mound as shown in Table 4.0 114.0 - (b) Purchase and sale quantities and prices Retailers on an average purchase quantity of 6 mounds at purchase price of Rs.7 416. Partnership (Percent) Yes No 6 Type of retailer (Percent) Shop keeper Hawker 60.20: Purchase and Sale quantities and prices of kinnow Sr. 2. 3.5 87.

21: Expenditures of Wholesalers Sr.5.Table 4. No.22 shows that total losses at retail level were about 1 mounds which comprises of 0.66 mounds partial loss.0 163. Items Carrying Charges from market to own shop (Rs/Mds) Monthly Rent of the shop (Rs) Daily expenditures Mean 25.3 Std. 12.46 mounds complete loss and 0. unripe and other factors and share of these were about 25.8 136. 26 per mound.9 3844. 4490 and daily expenditures were about Rs. . spot. 1. Fruit was spoiled during retail process due to pressing. 4.4 (d) Post harvest losses of kinnow at retail level In Table 4.9 4490. Carrying charges from market to shop were about Rs.5 percent respectively. 7. 17.163.5 and 37. Table 4. rotening. 3. Monthly rent of the shop was about Rs. Deviation 16.5.21 tells us about the general expenditure during process. About 44 percent fruit value decreased due to partial loss.

23: Daily business volume Sr.5 25.Table 4. 7. 6.5 37.0 17. deviation 0. 8.) Total value of loss (Rs. 3. 9.8 0. 2. decrease in value (Percent) Sale price (Rs/ Mds) Value of complete loss (Rs.8 0. No. About 75 percent of the retailers had done grading after opening of fruit from packing.6 mounds volume handled on daily basis by most of the retailers and about 0. 4.6 0.9 Std. Items Volume Handled on daily basis in mds Unsold Quantity on daily basis in mds Grading after opening Yes No 75.23. 1.0 25.) Value of partial loss (Rs. Deviation 8.22: Post-Harvest losses of kinnow at retail level Sr. 4.7 Std.1 43.7 390. Complete loss (Mds) Partial loss (Mds) Total loss (Mds) If partial loss.0 Mean 7. 3.8 22. 1.0 661.7 mounds quantity remains unsold daily as reported in Table 4.) Type of losses (Percent) Spot Pressed Rotening Un ripped Other (e) Daily business volume On an average about 7.9 591 271.8 12. Table 4.5 7.7 1.5 Items Mean 0.5 0.3 - . 5. No.5 0.

24 shows that the total sum of squares of model was about 4.25. 4.4. about 32 percent of the total produce. 40. . So the model is significant at 0. Above statistics shows that post harvest losses were greatest at farm level i.76 respectively.4. transportation ad wholesale market and retail levels.3 percent. the overall fitness of the model was about 40 percent at farm level.65 and regression and residual sum of squares were about 1.5 and it is significant at 0.1 At Farm Level (a) Overall Significance of Model According to Table 4. Standard error of the estimate was about 29 percent.88 and 2. The reason of low R square value was natural and unexpected events occurred time to time during peak season.e.6 percent of the model was explained by independent variables i.e. It indicated that major factors causing post harvest losses of kinnow could be identified at the farm level but the factors at other levels are also have significant impact on post harvest losses so in this study an effort is made to identify the factors causing post harvest losses at farm.3 percent. Adjusted R square was 31. (b) Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) ANOVA in Table 4.5 percent. These losses were about 72 percent of total kinnow post harvest losses. F value of the model at 5 degree of freedom was 4.4 Factors causing post harvest losses of kinnow at different levels Second objective of the study was to identify various factors causing post harvest losses of kinnow at farm. transportation and wholesale market and retail levels.

839 .887 2.137) of producer or contractor. This negative effect of orchard size was due to management problems on the farm. Picking method had a significant level . Orchard area has a coefficient value of 0. Picking time is the most important factor.222 LnExp + 0. its makes differences that the fruit is picked in morning or evening. Producer or contractor whether illiterate or educated had the almost same level of losses.25 shows that the post harvest losses at farm level did not significantly depend upon the education status (significant level of 0.377 0.211 LnEdu – 0.276. 0.477 Pmethod +ε Table 4. one percent experience increased caused 0.003a (c) Significance of various factors in post harvest losses of kinnow at farm level According to the regression results (Table 4.503 Sig. Coefficient of experience of producer or contractor has a value of -0.e.0. When fruit is picked at morning then the losses are 0.25) the model can be explained in the following form LnL1 = 3.222 percent decrease in post harvest losses at farm level. Producers or contractor having more experience in production and harvesting had less losses i.211. Picking time had a significant level of 0. Elasticity of education had value of -0. As fruit that are picked at morning is fresher and have good quality then that is picked on other day round.048 showing significant effect on post harvest losses of kinnow at farm level.276 Ptime – 0.766 4.222 and a significance level of 0.24: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) Model Regression Residual Total Sum of Squares 1.084 F 4.007 showing significant effect on losses.214 LnOsize – 0.e.214 and significant level of 0.276 times less then the losses occurred when fruit was picked at evening.061 and coefficient value of -0. This means that picking time is significantly effecting kinnow losses at farm level i. As orchard size increases the post harvest losses also increases because the sign of coefficient was positive.653 df 5 33 38 Mean Square 0.Table 4.

143 0. These results are similar like Bari. 2007. Gangwar.211 -0.507 -1.of 0.057 2.214 -0.839 -0.26.25: Coefficients and t-test to check the significance of various factors Model (Constant) Education (Years) Experience (Years) Orchard size (Acres) Dummy for Picking Time Dummy for Picking Coefficients 3.048 0. Picking with scissor caused less post harvest losses than manual picking.477 Std.036 Method R2 = 0. 2007.007 0.074 0.41.936 -2..878 -1.590 0.000 0. et al. 0.187 Sig. Adjusted R2 = 0.137 0.526 -2.138 0. Error 0.222 0.218 t-value 6.477 as shown in table 4. the losses are 0. 2004.108 0. If the fruit was picked with scissor. Table 4.32 .276 -0.061 0.. So the picking method had significant effect on post harvest losses of kinnow at farm level.477 times less than the losses with manual picking.036 and coefficient value of -0. et al. Murthay.

Infrastructure of transport has non significant impact on post harvest losses during transportation.154 Education – 0.27) the model can be explained in the following form LnL2 = 9. experience. residual and total sum of square of the model was 19.33 and 29.487 Sig.e. As one percent increase in the experience causes 0.274 F 14.27 shows that 68 percent of the model was explained by the independent variables like education. Experience had a significant effect at a significance level of 0. So according to this the model is appropriate. Use of metallic road for transportation of fruit causes .20 respectively.060.4.48 at a significance level of 0.975 0.26: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Model Regression Residual Total Sum of Squares 19. Table 4. how much the model reliable. F value of the model was about 14.593 Infrastructure of transport – 0. (b) Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Analysis of variance or ANOVA of F test are used to check the overall performance of the model i.555 Loading method – 0.87.330 29. Table 4. infrastructure of transportation.2 At transportation and Wholesale Market Level (a) Overall significance of the model Overall fitness of the model was 68 percent with standard error of the estimate 52 percent.000(a) (c) Significance of various factors of post harvest losses of kinnow According to the regression results (table 4. loading method and storage place.272 percent decrease in post harvest losses.562 storage place Education had not significantly effecting post harvest losses of kinnow at transportation and wholesale market level. Regression. type of transportation.272 Experience – 0. 9.808 – 0. 0.205 df 5 34 39 Mean Square 3.

191 0.555 -0. Loading method is also an important determinant in post harvest losses of kinnow.050 0.335 -1. Cold storage had 0.031 -1.000 0.555 at significance level of 0.115 0.140 0.555 times less losses than open loading.060 0. Loading method had a coefficient value of -0.05.390 T value 10.064 R2 = 0.437 -1.593 times less losses used for non-metallic road.593 Std. 0.137 -0.944 -1. As stacking of boxes had 0. Table 4.916 0. Adjusted R2 = 0.521 Sig.273 0.154 -0. injury etc.272 -0.68.losses 0. As cold storage has less losses then normal storage.461 0.293 -2. Storage place had coefficient value of -0.562 at 0. Storage place also an important determinant in post harvest losses.63 .808 -0.562 times less losses than the normal storage. Chances of losses during open loading are more because of pressing.27: Coefficients and t-test to check the significance of various factors Model (Constant) Education (Years) Experience (Years) Dummy for Infrastructure of transportation Dummy for Loading Method Storage Place Coefficients 4.562 0. Error 0.064 level of significance.

739 Sig. (b) Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Table 4. Table 4. 18.08 which mean that one percent increase in experience cause 0.643 df 3 34 37 Mean Square 6. Overall F value of the model is high i.e.64 sums of squares.259 LnUSqt – 1. So the unsold quantity on daily basis cause great post harvest losses to retailers.573 0. R square of the model is 62.3 percent as shown in Table 4. LnL3 = 0. Regression and residual mean square values are 19.e.29.3 Losses at Retail Level (a) Overall significance of the model Overall fitness of the model i. 0.32 shows the factors that are causing post harvest losses of kinnow at retail level with their coefficient value and significance levels.080 LnExp + 0. Results shows that when there is one percent increase in unsold quantity causes 0.4.351 F 18.453 – 0. Retailers purchase and sale the fruit on daily basis.925 31. So model is appropriate. The results show that model had 31.718 11. And this coefficient has significant at 6 percent level of significant.000.08 percent decrease in post harvest losses but this value is not significant as significant level is 0.000a (c) Significance of various factors causing post harvest losses of kinnow Table 4. So experience is non significant at retailer level.26 percent increase in post harvest losses.925 respectively.28 shows the results of analysis of variance (F test). Adjusted R square is 59 percent and standard error of the estimate is 59.4.718 and 11.46. Type of retailer is also an .22 percent.32 Tr + ε Experience of retailer had coefficient value of -0.28: Analysis of Variance Model Regression Residual Total Sum of Squares 19.739 at significance level of 0. Results show that 62 percent model is explained by the independent variables.

135 0.080 0. These losses were caused mainly due to marketing inefficiencies. 2. 0.62. When the retailer type is shopkeeper the losses are 1. packing.266 t value 1.59 4. . While factors contributing these losses were little education and experience. transportation and marketing procedures. orchard size of the producer/contractor.162 0.important factor causing post harvest losses. wholesale market level and retail level were about 45 percent of the total production of kinnow in study area. 72 percent of the total post harvest losses in the marketing channel of kinnow. Error 0. Wholesale market level losses were about 25 percent of the total losses in the marketing channel of kinnow.429 -. lack of infrastructure.e.108 0.320 Std. picking time and picking method/technique. delayed marketing and improper handling of kinnow at farm and market level.959 Sig.259 -1. Major reasons of these losses were inadequate picking. Adjusted R2 = 0.4 Conclusion In view of foregoing discussion. And this variable is significant at 0. the following conclusions can be derived: 1.063 0.453 -0. Losses were also high due to low level of management in the orchards. 3.466 0.29: Coefficients and t-test to check the significance of various factors Model (Constant) LnExp LnUnsoldqt Type of retailer Coefficients 0. Farm level losses were maximum i.921 -4.738 1. There are two types of retailers one are small shopkeepers and second are hawkers.000 level of significant.000 R2 = 0.317 0.32 times less than that of hawker retailer type. Table 4. Total post harvest losses of kinnow at farm level. Post harvest losses were high in case of hawker than shopkeepers.

4. .1 percent of the total post harvest losses of kinnow in the marketing channel. The reasons of losses at retail level were experience. unsold quantity on daily basis and type of retailer that is shopkeeper or hawker. Retail level losses were about 3.

Kinnow is most produced variety of citrus in Pakistan. Percentage losses of kinnow have been calculated at each of this category by percentage method. Only 10 percent producers marketed their produce themselves. About 90 percent of producers have sold standing fruit trees to contractors at flowering stage or before fruit maturity. marketing and exports have been subjective to qualitative and quantitative post harvest losses due to improper production. At present total acreage under citrus in Pakistan is 199. 2. marketing was done by the contractors. District Sargodha was selected for the study on the basis of their highest area and production. A total number of 120 respondents were selected from two tehsils of Sargodha i. Bhalwal and Kot Moman randomly out of which were 40 producers/contractors.4 percent at retail level. Pakistani kinnow has a unique value in world market due to its unique taste and quality.2 percent at wholesale market level and 1.4 percent at farm level. 40 wholesalers and 40 retailers.e. . Pakistani kinnow have high demand in world market due to its rich flavor and taste. 11.5 thousand tonnes.CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY Citrus is the major fruit crop of Pakistan. Kinnow production. Post harvest losses were presented in the functional form to study the significant of various factors in post harvest losses of kinnow. Main Findings Main findings of the study were as follows: 1. packaging. marketing. packing. to find out the factors causing losses and to give suggestion to minimize such losses. Total post harvest losses in the marketing channel of kinnow were 32. transportation and storage procedures. So further picking.4 thousand hectares and its production is 2294. Thid study was aimed to assess and quantify losses of kinnow which starts accuring from harvesting till its consumption.

8. At farm level. Major reasons of these losses at retailer level were cleaning. left over. Losses of kinnow at market entry level were mainly due to rotten fruits. Major reasons of these losses were loading/unloading and marketing and storage losses which caused 55 and 45 percent of total losses at wholesale market level.8 percent and loading and transportation losses were about 22 percent of the total post harvest losses accuring to producer/contracotrs respectively. .2 percent of the total business volume. knocking with sticks. bad handling and defective roads. clipping shaking and pulling with hands.3 percent. Losses at retail level were about 1.4 percent of the total business volume. Transportation losses were due to loading/unloading. Unsold quantity of kinnow on daily basis and type of retailer had significant effect on post harvest losses and expereince had non significant effect on losses. 4. picking time and picking method had significant effect on post harvest losses of kinnow at farm level while education and orchard size had non significant effect on losses. 7. loading method and storage place had significant effect of post harvest losses of kinnow at transportation and wholesale market level and education and infrastructure of transportation had non significant effect on post harvest losses. Major reasons of picking losses were fruit fallen on ground. losses during picking were about 60. transportation. packing and grading losses were 10. Post harvest losses at wholesale market level were about 11. The model used to identify the significance of the various factors involved in post harvest losses of kinnow at retail level had an overall significance of (R2) 62. 8. Experience. over ripe and fruit taken for home consumption by the retailers. The model used to identify factors involved in post harvest losses of kinnow at transportation and wholesale market had an overall significance of (R2) 68 percent.5 percent.3. Packing losses were mainly due to tight packing and unskilled labour. Experience. carrying losses were 6. 6. 5. The model used to identify the significance of various factors involved in post harvest losses of kinnow at farm level had an overall significance of (R2) 41 percnet.

reduce its quality and market price. Even for domestic marketing. we will have high quality produce to sell. washed. Significant losses due to improper handling have been reported. Following measures can be adopted to reduce post harvest losses of kinnow. but if the numbers of fruits falling on the ground have been reduced. Fruit should be picked at least once in a week. becomes more susceptable to disease and insects attack and spoil qiackly. In the packing place. Pakistan needs to increase the quantity of food available for its rapidly growing population. it gets bruised or wounded. Careless post harvest handling of kinnow causes damage of fruit. much emphasis has been put on growing more food. When kinnow fruit is being picked. with fewer losses due to fruit drop.Recommendations Like other developing countries. another is to conserve whatever is produced. This ultimately results in huge economic loss to the country. allowing a better quality of fruit to be transported to the market as well as harvesting more fruit. graded and packed and immediately refrigerated to slow down the ripening process. Such damaged produce fails to attract the international buyer and bring the exporting countryless porfit and a bad name. There are various ways to approach these problems. Good care should be taken in the handling of the fruit. a fruit picking pole having blade on it to cut the stem and a small basket to collect the fruit immediately after cutting. On the other hand if harvesting or picking is done in the day the fruit may be wilted or limp and will also have more disease and insect problems. the fruit should have the stem cut. For the fruits located high on the tree. the simple process of providing a cool-water wash (immediate precooling) after harvest should be employed even if refrigeration is not being used. In the past. while the post harvest aspect (conservation of food after harvest) has been generally ignored.e. Fruit should be picked with scissor and hand while standing on the ground cutting the stem 6-10 cms from the fruit. The fruit should be picked in the coolest daylight hours i. fruit should be . One is to produce more food. Before taking to the markets. in the morning and immediately placed in buckets or containers out of direct sunlight. It may be hard to prevent fruits from falling. efforts should be made not to knock them off the tree and onto the ground. Although it does not have immediate effect on post harvest losses of kinnow even then the fruit that has been harvested in the morning will look better and last longer. This will extend the life of the fruit somewhat and its appeal to to buyers. If fruit falls. This will make 5 to 7 harvests for any given tree.

over packing should be avoided that can also cause damage. Also there is need for extension services to farmers. the losses of hawker has more than shopkeeper and this is due to instability between shopkeeper and hawkers. Post harvest management system also suffers from poorly or inadequately developed policies. Packaging provides protection from physical demage during storage. managers. inexpensive and easly degradable or recyclable wooden crates or in Corrugated Fine Wooden Boxes (CFB ). storage and warehousing. Good packaging maintains but does not improve the quality of fruits packed in it. Good quality packaging material must be made available within the country as packaging of fresh fruit has a great significance in reducing the wastage. Transportation of kinnow fruit should be in vehicles that provide leasr shaking. Overall efficient roads and transportaation system should be adopted. due to limited resources and often poor management. So Government should take steps to overcome the instability condition between shopkeepers and hawkers. Efficient marketing system require precise grading standards for each kind of product so a comprehensive commidity grading systemshould be implemented to reduce losses. transport and marketing facilities and . pumpy. it is essential to create awareness among growers. Research in the area of food control and post harvest management in the country tends to be inadequate. Kinnow fruit should be packed in clean. Filling should be recommended with papers or a similar material. There is need to provide basic infrastructure like storage. grading. sanitary and phyto sanitary (SPS) measures. The fruit should be transported immediately after packing. movement and vibration. To improve post harvest situation. At retail level. easy to handle. Transport difficulties and absence of link roads between farms and market. moderate dimension. farm workers. Reasonable amount of fruit should be transported at a time. packaging and labeling.graded and sized into two or more grades according to trade standards. transportation and marketing. Hawkers remains unsold quantity more than shopkeepers and that cause more losses to hawkers. handling. bad road cause accidents and mechanical iinjury to fruit. So there is an urgent need to carry out research and development in the area of post harvest management. traders and exporters about the extent of the losses being incurred and their economic consequences. Laboratories are frequently poorly equipped and suitable trained analytical staff. including information on price. grading and standardization. packing. therefore the best possible produce should be packaged to avoid further losses.

. other development banks and from bilateral donor agencies. technical assistance in the food control and post harvest management area should be obtained through the World Bank. nationaland private sector standards with respect to quality. To enable the country to meet Sanitary and Phyto Sanitary Measures (SPS) or Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) obligations to international food trade. environment and labor employed in post harvest activities. This could be carried out by the public and private sectors.technical expertise. Trade libralization and WTO agreement also demands to produce kinnow of inetrnational. safety.

Adeoye, I.B., O.M.O. Odeleye, S.O. Babalola and S.O. Afolayan, 2009. Economic Analysis of Tomato Losses in Ibadan Metropolis, Oyo State, Nigeria, African J. of Basic & Appl. Sci., Vol. 1 (5-6), PP. 87-92 Admassu, S., 2003. Post-harvest sector challenges and opportunities in Ethopia. Ethopian Agricultural Research Organization, Addis Ababa, Ethopia. Ahmad, M., 1989. A study of mango marketing in Punjab with special reference to Bhawalpur and Rahim Yar Khan districts. Research thesis, Department of Agricultural Marketing, University of Agriculture Faisalabad. Alam, S.M. and S.M. Mujtaba, 2002. Pakistan profile and its horticultural scenario, NIA, Tandojam, Pakistan, April 22 - 28, 2002. Asian Development Bank, 1990. Post harvest constraints, Pakistan fruits and vegetable export marketing study, Vol. 1, Manila, Philippines. Association for Social and Economic Transformation (ASET), 2003. Loss of horticulture produces due to non-availability of Post Harvest and Food Processing Facilities in Bihar and UP, Socio-Economic Research Planning Commission Government of India, New Delhi. Aujla, K.M., M. Abbas, K. Mahmood and S. Saadullah, 2007. Marketing System of Fruits, Margins and Export Potential in Pakistan, Pak. J. Life Soc. Sci., Vol. 5(1-2), PP. 3439 Ayandiji, A., A.L. Kehinde, O.R. Adeniyi and O. Omotosho, 2009. Gross margin analysis of post harvest losses in Citrus spp in Ife ADP zone of Osun State, Nigeria, Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, Vol. 1(3), PP. 77-84. Bachmann, J. and R. Earles, 2000. Post harvest handling of fruits and vegetables, Horticultural Technical Note, August 2000.

Bari, A., 2004. Economic assessment of post harvest losses of mango in Multan and Rahim Yar Khan districts, A postgraduate thesis in department of Agricultural Economics, University of Agriculture Faisalabad. Basappa, G., J.B. Deshmanya and B.L. Patil, 2001. Post- Harvest Losses of Maize Crop in Karnataka - An Economic Analysis, Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., Vol. 20 (1), PP. 69 – 71 Basavaraja, H., S.B. Mahajanshetti and N.C. Udagatti, 2007. Economic Analysis of Postharvest Losses in Food Grains in India: A Case Study of Karnataka, Agricultural Economics Research Review, Vol. 20, PP. 117-26 Bhat, R.V., 1978. The role of post harvest conservation of foods in achieving nutritional goals. National Institute of Nutrition, Food and Drug Toxicology Research Centre, Indian Council of Medical Research. Brown, G.E., 2003. Citrus diseases-postharvest, Florida department of Citrus, Scientific research department, CREC, Lake Alfred. Chaudhry, M.A., 1980. Aggregate food grain losses in Pakistan, Research report, Department of Agricultural Marketing, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. Chohan, T.Z. and S. Ahmad, 2008. Post-Harvest Technologies and Marketing Channel in Tomato Production in Danna Katchely, Azad Jammu Kashmir, Pak. J. Life Soc. Sci., Vol. 6(2), PP. 80-85 Dendy, D., 1978. Proceedings of post harvest food conservation symposium, FAO, Rome, Italy. edition. Friday, January 23, 2004, Chandigarh, India. FAO, 1989. Prevention of post harvest food losses of fruits, vegetables in Asia, an international information centre for farmers in the Asia Pacific Region. Farooq, W.A., M. Ahmad and Z.M. Khalid, 1978. Post harvest research on citrus fruit at NIAB, Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc., Vol. 91, PP 122-24. Food and Fertilizer Technology Centre (FFTC), 1993. Post harvest losses of fruits and vegetables in Asia, an international information centre for farmers in the Asia Pacific http:/ Dhatt, D. 2004. Training course on horticultural crops, tribune news service. An online

Region. http:/ Gajanana, T.M., M. Sudha, A.K. Saxena and V. Dakshinamoorthy, 2008. Post Harvest Handling, Marketing and Assessment of Losses In Papaya, ISHS Acta Horticulturae 851: II International Symposium on Papaya, 2008. Gangwar, L.S., D. Singh and D.B. Singh, 2007. Estimation of post harvest losses in Kinnow Mandarin in Punjab using a modified formula, Agricultural Economic Research Review, Vol. 20, July-December 2007, PP 315-31. Government of Pakistan, 2006. Pakistan Economic Survey 2005-06, Finance Division, Economic advisor’s wing, Islamabad. Government of Pakistan, 2008. Agricultural Statistics of Pakistan 2007-08, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Economic Division, Islamabad, Pakistan. Government of Pakistan, 2009a. Pakistan Economic Survey 2008-09, Finance Division, Economic advisor’s wing, Islamabad. Government of Pakistan, 2009b. Agricultural Statistics of Pakistan 2007-08, Ministry of Food and Agriculture, Economic Division, Islamabad, Pakistan. Greeley, M., 1986. Food technology and employment, the farm level post harvest system in developing countries. Journal of Agricultural Economics, September 1986. The agricultural Economic Society, Department of Agricultural Economics, The University of Wales. Guzman, J., 2004. Citrus profiles. Agricultural marketing and investment foundation, Guinea. Hussain, I., M. Asif, M. Ahmad, M. Khan and I. Shakir, 2004. Effect of Uni-Packaging on the Post Harvest Behavior of Citrus Fruits in N.W.F.P., Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, Vol. 3. Henson, S and Reardon, T., 2005. Private Standards, Handling and Hygiene in Fruit Export Supply Chains: A Preliminary Evaluation of the Economic Impact of Parallel Standards, Vol. 30 (3), PP. 241-53. Ilyas, M.B., M.U. Ghazanfar, M.A. Khan, C.A. Khan and M.A.R. Bhatti, 2007. Post harvest losses in apple and banana during transport and storage, Pak. J. Agri. Sci., Vol. 44(3).

Indian agricultural Research Institute (IARI), 2003. Establishment of the division of post harvest technology, India. Irying, G.W., 1965. Losses in agriculture, Agriculture Research Service, UADA. August, 1965. Jabir, A. and K. Sanjeev, 2008. Farmer’s perception on risk in fruit and vegetables production: An empirical study of Uttar Pradesh, Agricultural Economics Research Review, Vol. 21 Jarimopas, B., S.P. Singh and W. Saengnil, 2005. Measurement and analysis of truck transport vibration levels and damage to packaged tangerines during transit, Packaging Technology and Science, Vol. 18 (4), PP. 179-88 Kader, A.A., 1992. Post harvest research technology of horticultural crops. University of California, Division of agriculture and natural resources, Oakland, California, USA. PP. 296. Kader, A.A., 2003. A Perspective on Postharvest Horticulture (1978–2003), Hortscience, Vol. 38(5), august 2003. Kader, A.A., 2005. Increasing Food Availability by Reducing Postharvest Losses of Fresh Produce, Proceedings of 5th International Postharvest Symposium, Acta Hort. 682, ISHS 2005 Karunananthun, M., 2004. Preserving India’s food, McGill Reporter, January 24, India. Khan, D.A., 1965. Present status and future scope of fruit industry in West Pakistan, a paper on food production and consumption. WPAU, Layallpur. Khan, R.A.R., 1988. Strategy for achieving food surplus, Pakistan Agriculture, February, 1988. Leghari, H.B., 2001. Post harvest technology in Pakistan, The Dawn, Internet Edition, December 24, 2001. Liu, F.W., 1990. Post harvest handling of horticultural crops in Asia, Department of Horticulture, National Taiwan University. Lum, K.R., 2001. Establishment of a commonwealth Knowledge Network (CKN) on post harvest issue. Science and Technology Division and Secretary, Commonwealth

. 2003. Post harvest research on food grains in Pakistan. Parpia. 31(3). M. 2002. 1998.htm Ragni. 2003. Res. Japan. 2006.. Citrus export system in http:/www. N. 2002.parc.B. Infoserve.M. Agric.Science Council London. J.phdeb. 2002. Islamabad. Post Harvest loss: management & environmental Relationships between Produce Supply Firms and Retailers in the New Food Supply Chain. D. 1986. 20. Pakistan Horticulture Development and Export Board. Shah.. A News blog from Asia. 1978.. Gajanana. 11-20. 273-79 Ram. L. http://www. Berardinelli. Journal of Food Distribution. Pakistan Agricultural Research Council.D. Post harvest losses in agricultural commodities and their containment. P25 Project to cut post harvest losses. and U.infoserve. and Damage during Sorting and Packaging. 2006. PP. Kyoto. Sudha and V.A. T. Sheikh. 44(3) PP 229-38 Martinez and Davis. Public Articles. Pakistan Agricultural Research Council. Q.A. Economic Review. and A. Post harvest management stressed. PP. October 10. Vol. Dakshinamoorthy..A.blogspot. Vol.unu. UP. India. Vol. 2006. PP 47-60 PARC. and A.commonwealthknowledge. 78(3). Postharvest Technology: Mechanical Behaviour of Apples. Agricultural Economics Research Review. Marketing Losses and Their Impact on Marketing Margins: A Case Study of Banana in Mohyuddin. Britain. M. http://www. http:/ Mahmood.dost. Murthy.stii.html . Post harvest Horticulture Training and Research Centre (PHTRC). Proceeding of a FAO Symposium on post harvest technology and World hunger. Vol. http://www. P. http://www. Journal of Agricultural Engineering PHDEB.S. 2007. H.

http:/www. Proceedings of 5th International Post harvest Symposium. Tropical Products Institute.Sharif. Post-harvest losses in horticultural crops: An appraisal. Acta Horticulturae.K.P. S. C.. A. Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. Indian Society of Plant Pathologists Spinardi.princeton. 1978. UK. Rai. Proceedings of 5th International Post harvest Symposium. Jain. 41(Aug). NARC. Assessment of Postharvest Handling Systems of Vegetables in The Eastern Hills of Nepal. Post harvest assessment of diseases losses in Watkins. Post harvest microbial losses in distant marketing of Kinnow. Berkshire.bhps. PP. 1986. USA.pib.K. D. 2005. 30 (1-3). P.M. Acta Horticulturae. http:/www/wws. PP Thapa. Computers and electronics in post harvest technology — a review. ISHS 2005 Yuen. C. 2005. J. 2002. Proceedings of XXVI international horticultural congress on issues and advances in post harvest Report on problem of post harvest food losses in developing countries. 109-24 Subrahmanyam. Social Sciences Institute. Toronto. Ahmad. and B. ISHS 2005 Srivastava. 2005. and P. http://www. Marketing of fruits under WTO regime. Vol. 682. London Road. August 21. Islamabad. Tyler. M. Government of India. K. 2003. P. ISHS 2005 United States National Academy of Science. Canada. 682. M. Vol.V.html Studman. Udas. B.nic. Post harvest management. Proceedings of 5th International Post harvest Symposium.S.. Khatiwada.S. 1978.parc. Storage Technologies: Temperature Interactions and Effects on Quality of Horticultural Products. 682. and J.. Misconception of food losses. Agricultural Situation India. Ekman.L. Press Information Bureau. Teng. Slough. PARC. and R. .. Public articles. 2001. emerging challenges. 2002. Effect of harvest date and storage on antioxidant systems in pears. Tropical Stored Products Centre.N.H. http://www. R. 2006. Acta Horticulturae.html Singh.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.