This document summarizes a study on postharvest losses of rice in Benin. The study found that 20% of rice is lost between harvesting and milling on average across the country. The highest losses occurred during transport, milling, and threshing stages. Socioeconomic factors like gender, age, and technological practices influenced the extent of losses. The study concludes better practices and technologies are needed, along with training farmers on their appropriate use, to reduce postharvest losses and improve food security.

1. Analysis of postharvest losses in
rice: case study of Benin
Soul-kifouly G.Midingoyi
3rd Africa Rice Congress
21-24 October 2013, Yaoundé, Cameroon

2. Outline
•
•
•
•
•
Introduction
Objectives
Methodology
Results
Conclusion

3. Introduction
• Rice: staple food and key role in food security
• Sharp increase in consumption during these last
decades due to shifting in consumer preference
in favor of rice, urbanization, demographic
• Import to meet this continuously increasing
demand partially met by the local production at
just 30%

4. Introduction
• Ensuring sustainability of food security and rice
self-sufficiency necessitates import substitution
• Until recently, food security conceived as on-farm
yield increasing with little attention to the afterproduction
• Additional often-forgotten factor that still
exacerbates food insecurity: postharvest losses.

5. Introduction
• Post-harvest losses: preventable decrease of
harvest recorded during a series of
postharvest operations before reaching the
consumers
• potential source of higher profit and reduction
of the extent of food insecurity.

6. Objective
Assess the postharvest losses that occur
from harvesting to milling and provided
information on socioeconomic and
postharvest operation that affect the
extent of such losses.

7. Specific objectives
• estimate the extent of postharvest losses
in rice at different stages
• identify the stages with the highest losses
• identify the factors responsible for
postharvest losses in rice and that need to
be tackled

8. Sampling
– Stratified and random
sample at both village and
household levels and in a
way to represent different
regions (Northwest,
Northeast, Centre and
South regions)
– 29 villages and 171
households covering all the
regions
Northeast
Northwest
Centre
South

9. Methodology: loss estimation

10. Methodology: tobit model

11. Methodology: Model estimation

12. Methodology: Marginal effects
estimation

13. Results: Extent of losses
Stages
Northwest Northeast
Centre
South
All regions
1.09
5.88
4.23
Before harvesting (% of total production)
On-field
2.58
5.43
From haresting to milling (% of total production)
Harvesting
1.00
3.69
0.45
2.04
1.85
Straw-gathering
Straw-collecting
0.48
0.59
3.11
2.85
0.00
0.12
0.10
1.23
1.47
1.46
Straw-drying
0.43
2.70
0.11
0.53
0.98
Threshing
0.63
2.66
0.57
3.78
2.15
Winnowing
0.36
3.32
0.75
3.35
1.70
Paddy-Drying
0.12
0.71
0.20
2.82
1.23
Packaging
0.34
2.87
0.25
0.18
1.43
Paddy transport
0.09
5.85
2.13
3.79
Paddy storage
0.29
2.61
1.21
1.59
1.43
Milling
2.78
1.50
0.62
8.39
3.19
Total
7.11
31.87
4.28
26.14
20.69

14. Results: Stages with higher loss
Récolte
Assemblage
15.45%
8.95%
Ramassage
7.13%
6.90%
7.05%
Séchage
4.71%
18.31%
10.41%
6.93%
5.97%
8.20%
Battage
Vannage
Séchage2
Conditionnement
Transport du paddy
Stockage paddy
Décortiquage

15. Results: loss determinants
Dependant variable (loss pourcentage)
Gender (man=1, women=0)
Age of the household head
Number of year of residence
harvesting at 100% maturity
Packaging (in bag with conservation product=1,
otherwise=0)
Paddy varieties separation dummy
Drying method (on cemented area=1
otherwise=0)
Threshing method (stick directly on paddy
straw)
Threshing method (applying stick on bags)
All regions
-0,188 *
(0,112)
-0,004 **
(0,002)
0,003 *
(0,002)
0,058 *
(0,032)
-0,06
(0,105)
-0,05
(0,032)
North-East
region
-0,004
(0,007)
0,002
(0,006)
-0,028
(0,062)
Centre Region
-0,289
(0,201)
-0,006
(0,004)
0,005
(0,004)
0,023
(0,013)
South region
-0,006
(0,006)
0,005
(0,004)
0,055
(0,089)
-0,026
(0,015)
-0,132 **
(0,056)
0,033
(0,094)
**
-0,1
(0,043)
-0,045
(0,072)
-0,011
(0,012)
-0,158
(0,152)
0,058
(0,038)
0,217 ***
(0,069)
0,197 ***
(0,055)
0,475 ***
(0,099)
-0,017
(0,012)
-0,113
(0,163)

16. Results: loss determinants (Contd)
Dependant variable (loss pourcentage)
Gender (man=1, women=0)
Winnowing with local winnower
Winnowing with bowl
Storage at home as grain
Rice variety grown (Nerica=1 otherwise=0)
Center region
Intercept
Sigma
LR chi2
Log likelihood
All regions
-0,188 *
(0,069)
-0,136 **
(0,057)
-0,085 *
(0,049)
-0,098 ***
(0,037)
-0,071 *
(0,041)
-0,132 ***
(0,039)
0,565 ***
(0,148)
0,134
(0,011)
40,50
***
39,13
North-East
region
Centre Region
South region
-0,289
(0,099)
-0,102
(0,119)
-0,083
(0,064)
-0,074
(0,086)
-0,04
(0,217)
-0,061
(0,183)
-0,178 *
(0,091)
-0,028 *
(0,015)
0,401 *
(0,191)
0,109
(0,012)
26,84 ***
17,56
0,011
(0,016)
0,035 *
(0,017)
-0,008
(0,012)
-0,075
(0,077)
0,317
(0,196)
0,016
(0,002)
10,62
45,62
0,448 *
(0,245)
0,161
0,021
12,49
8,68

17. Results: Marginal effects
Factors
Gender (man=1, women=0)
Age of the household head
Number of year of residence
harvesting at 100% maturity
Packaging (in bag with conservation product=1, otherwise=0)
Paddy varieties separation dummy
Drying method (on cemented area=1 otherwise=0)
Threshing method (stick directly on paddy straw)
Thresing method (applying steak on bags)
Winnowing with local winnower
Winnowing with bowl
Storage at home as grain
Rice variety grown (Nerica=1 otherwise=0)
Center region
For unconditional dependant
variable
-0.203 ***
(0.047)
-0.008 **
(0.004)
0.006 *
(0.003)
0.124 *
(0.686)
-0.149
(0.289)
-0.102
(0.063)
-0.226 **
(0.102)
0.118
(0.074)
0.225 ***
(0.040)
-0.334
(0.151)
-0.185
(0.110)
-0.180
(0.060)
-0.169
(0.108)
-0.327
(0.106)
**
**
***
***
For uncensored conditional
dependent variable
-0.143
(0.101)
-0.002 **
(0.001)
0.002 *
(0.000)
0.003 *
(0.018)
-0.031
(0.049)
-0.030
(0.019)
-0.055 **
(0.023)
0.034
(0.023)
0.166 ***
(0.064)
-0.070
(0.026)
-0.048
(0.027)
-0.061
(0.025)
-0.038
(0.020)
-0.066
(0.017)
***
**
**
*
***

18. Conclusion
• 20% of the total paddy productions are lost at
national level during each agricultural
campaign
• highest loss extents with transport, milling
and threshing
• Socioeconomic features, practices and
technological issues influenced the magnitude
of postharvest

19. Suggestions
• building the farmer’s capacity on knowledge
of best practices and adequate technologies
for handling and processing during and after
harvest.
• suitable machines or labor-saving
technologies are needed but with capacity
building on their appropriate and efficient
utilization