IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-1

Research article
erd

Pre and Postharvest Losses and Marketing of Grapes in
Afghanistan: Case Study in Mirbachakot, Shakardara andKalakan Districts of Kabul
YUSUFI MOHAMMAD MIRWAIS*
Graduate School of Agriculture, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Japan
Email: mirwaisyusufi@gmail.com

RYUICHI YAMADA
Faculty of International Agriculture and Food Studies, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Japan
Received 22 December 2016

Accepted 26 June 2017(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract Grape is one of the most commonly produced and globally well-known fruit crops.
And also grape is the major fruit species grown in Afghanistan that accounts 48% of the total
fruit growing area. Reduction of post-harvest losses is the indispensable challenge in the
country, hence to increase the availability of fruits and vegetables. However, the purpose of thisstudy is to determine the pre and post-harvest losses of grape at stages of marketing anddistribution. A questionnaire survey was conducted in Mirbachakot, Shakardara and Kalakan
districts of Kabul province, Afghanistan. A total 60 farmers, including contractors, wholesalers
and retailers were randomly selected and interviewed across in the study areas, using structured
and semi-structured questionnaire sheet during the months of August-September in 2016. Basedon the result of questionnaire, pre-harvest loss of grape from large, medium and small by 14%,
13 and 12%, respectively. Similarly, total post-harvest losses of grapes; Contractor loss, 9.0%,
Wholesaler loss, 10.3% and Retailer loss 12.0%. In addition, there are many other causes suchas, insect attack, diseases, dropping, mummification, water berries, improper packing andtransportation. All these factors contribute and significantly declining the grape production. It
can be suggested that grape growers would be trained on the subject of pre and post-harvest
management and marketing practices.
Keywords pre and post-harvest loss, marketing, grape, Afghanistan

INTRODUCTION
It is acknowledged that grape is one of the most important fruit crops of the world and it contains manyof the most valuable elements necessary for life. In Afghanistan 48% of the total fruit growing area isunder grape vine equivalent to 82,450 hectares with estimated 874,500 tons production (CSO,
2016).The outputs of all agricultural commodities produced in the field have to undergo a series ofoperations such as harvesting, packing, transportation, processing, storage and exchange before theyreach the consumer, and there are substantial losses occur during pre-harvest and post-harvest stages(Kader et al., 2004). The information on the extent of losses at these stages are important not only for
agricultural scientists, but it would be useful for the policy makers as well. The agricultural scientist
and technologist will be guided by these findings in improvements in the crops production and postharvest technologies aimed at minimizing these losses. The sum quantity of outputs loss in these
operations at all of these stages is referred to as post-harvest losses (FAO, 1980). One of the main
reasons attributed to lower availability food is plenty of post-harvest losses that occur at various stagesof marketing which ranges from 15% to 50% (FAO, 1981 and Roy, 1989).
Ⓒ ISERD

156

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-1

Pre-harvest factors greatly influence the crop conditions on the stage of harvest, storage, andnutritive potential. There are many pre-harvest factors have known that affect storage quality, including
genotype, cultivar selection, and stage of maturity at harvest has a very important influence on
subsequent storage life, soil texture and fertility, fertilizer application, climate conditions such astemperature, light intensity, and rainfall amount (Watada et al., 1984).
Evaluating pre-harvest conditions indicated the most influence on the postharvest fruit quality (Delong et al., 2003; Stanle et al., 1999; Robert, et al., 1996). The importance of post-harvest losses has
been discussed at several national and international levels. Many studies and researches have been
conducted in developed and developing countries for estimating the post-harvest losses, but theimportance of post-harvest losses in agricultural commodities have not fully recognized yet. However,studied by USAID, 2012 and ROP, 2009 the agricultural production in Afghanistan has not fully linked
to marketing. The number of scientists involved in production research in these countries issignificantly higher than those concerned with post-harvest losses in agricultural commodities.
Unfortunately, much time and money are being spent to cultivate crops, irrigation, fertilization andprotection. Nevertheless, has received little attention and resources devoted to the issues related to preand post-harvest losses resulting in failure, to meet food requirement, thereby millions of people now
suffer from hunger throughout the nation (FAO, 1980 and FAO, 2011).
In developing countries, it is not only the problem of production, but it is equally important tosave whatever is produced. Therefore, knowledge regarding to the magnitude of losses at various
stages of handling and storage is considered to be very important to introduce necessary improvement
for saving and preserving production (FAO, 1980). The purpose of this study is to determine the preand post-harvest losses of grape at various stages and marketing practices in the Mirbachakot,
Shakardara and Kalakan districts of Kabul province, Afghanistan.
METHODOLOGY

Fig. 1 Map of the study area
In order to identify the pre and post-harvest losses and marketing of grape a survey was conducted in
Mirbachakot, Kalakan and Shakardara districts of Kabul province, Afghanistan as shown in Fig.1. A
total 60 farmers were randomly selected across the entire study area and interviewed using structured
and semi-structured questionnaire in the survey. Farmers were categorized into six groups; large,
medium, small grape growers, pre-harvest contractor, wholesaler and retailer based on their trade andcharacteristics (production, farm size of vineyard). In addition, two kinds of data were collected as
primary and secondary during the grape harvesting and marketing season. Primary data included
information, face to face interview with grape growers, local authorities of villages and NGO.
Secondary data were assigned from scientific papers, journals, and books. Data were calculated forⒸ ISERD

157

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-1

average and percentages of pre and post-harvest losses and marketing channels. Likewise, primary data
were recorded for various parameters were subjected to statistical analysis, Critical Difference (CD) atthe 5% level of probability and used Statistic Package for Social Science (SPSS) software.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Pre-harvest Losses
The pre-harvest losses defines from production to the farm gate, which includes growing, harvestingand on-farm handling (COMCEC, 2016). Although, estimates of losses in developing countries are
hard to judge, evaluating pre-harvest conditions exert the most influence on post-harvest quality.
However, based on the survey conducted, the pre-harvest losses of fresh grapes are due to several
common factors like insect attack, diseases, birds, droppings, water berries, short berries,
mummification, poor water management and drought, and cultural practices (pruning, fertilizing, andpesticide spraying). Insect attack and diseases were contributed the maximum loss, 3.2% and 3% inlarge and medium farmers respectively. Similarly, in the small grape farmers maximum loss was
reduced by 2.7%. The total pre-harvest of grape loss was 14% from large farmers, 13% from medium
farmers and 12% from small farmers. The result showed that the severe pre-harvest loss was by insect
attack, diseases and dropping among three categories of farmers as shown in Table 1.
Reported by COMCCE, 2016 loss of the agricultural production ranges 23% to 39% in Africa,
Asia and the Middle East, high percentage of loss is recorded for fruits and vegetables. In Developing
countries the agriculture production losses and waste are mostly, financial, managerial and technicallimitations, but developed countries, mainly related to consumer attitude (FAO, 2011). Thus preharvest losses could be significant impacts on production and post-harvest process leading to lost
revenue, lower yields and waste of resources.
Table 1 Pre-harvest losses of grapes at large, medium and small level of farmers
Large farmers
Stages of losses
Quantity harvested
Dropping
Water berries
Shot berries
Mummification
Insect and diseases
Total
Quantity Remaining(USD 1 = 66.5 Afghani)

Qty
(kg)
1,000
28
26
24
26
32
136
864

Packing

Loss%
100
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.6
3.2
14
86

Value
(AFN)
20,000
560
520
480
520
640
2,720
17,280Medium farmers
Qty
Value
Loss%
(kg)
(AFN)
1,000
100
20,000
27
2.7
540
25
2.5
500
23
2.3
460
24
2.4
480
30
3.0
600
129
13
2,580
871
87
17,420Transportation

Small farmers
Qty
(kg)
1000
27
22
24
22
26
121
879

Loss%
100
2.7
2.2
2.4
2.2
2.6
12
88

Wholesaler

Fig. 2 Packing, transportation and marketing grapes system in AfghanistanⒸ ISERD

158

Value
(AFN)
20000
540
440
480
440
520
2,420
17,580IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-1

Most of the fruit losses occur between leaving the farm and reaching the consumer. The grapes
normally harvests in the farm. After that removing the damaged bunches and berries, packed in plasticbags or cartons, then transporting to market by vehicles as shown in Fig. 2. It was observed that poor
packing and faulty transporting were the main factors for loss of agricultural production, particularly
fruits in the study site.
Postharvest Losses
Over the past decades, 95% of the research investments were reported to have focused on increasing
productivity and only 5% directed towards reducing losses (Kader, 2005; Kader and Roller, 2004;
WFLO, 2010). Food production is currently being challenged by limited land, water and increased
weather variability due to climate change. To sustainably achieve the goals of food security, foodavailability needs to be also increased through reductions in the post-harvest process at farm, retail andconsumer levels. Based on Table 2, the loss at contractor, wholesaler and retailer level were 9%, 10.3%
and 12% respectively, due to handling and packing, loading and unloading, poor transportation, andfaulty storage. The maximum loss during the transportation and storage were 2.3% and 2%,
respectively.
Other researchers found that the high losses occur during on-farm and postharvest stages indeveloping countries (COMCEC, 2016). In Pakistan about 21% the grapes grown (9.8 thousand tons
amounting $3.25 million) lost and wasted, due to gaps in the cold chain, unavailability of cold storage
and poor transportation (Khalid et al., 2011). On the other hand field management practices; genotype,cultivar selection, soil texture and fertility, fertilizer application, pruning, irrigation, pest control, andstage of maturity play a very important role in determining quality attributes size, color, flavor, texture,and nutritional values. Understanding the effect of pre-harvest factors would contribute minimize
losses and maintain the quality of the grape.
Table 2 Post-harvest losses of grapes at different level
Stages of losses
Quantity purchased
Transportation
Handling and packing
Loading and unloading
Storage
OthersTotal losses
Quantity Remaining

Contractor loss (%)
100
2.3
1.9
1.8
2.0
1.0
9.0
91.5

Wholesaler loss (%)
100
2.5
1.5
2.3
3.0
1.0
10.3
89.7

Retailer loss (%)
100
2.5
2.3
2.2
3.0
2.0
12.0
88.0

It observed from Table 1, that there was negligible different grape loss between large, medium
and small farmers, But at the field level, the dropping, insect attack and diseases accounted for thehighest percentage of loss. Based on Table 2, the total postharvest loss in grapes in pre-harvest
contractor was found to be 9% .The wholesaler level loss was found to be 10.3% and loss at the retailer
level was slightly higher at 12%. At the pre-harvest, wholesaler and retailer level, the storage andtransportation were found to contribute more toward the loss. Due to, insufficient storage, poor roads
and no specialized transportation vehicles exclusively for fruits were used in the study site.
According to the Fig. 3 post-harvest losses from point of harvesting to consumption worked out tobe 43.3% comprising of 13% at the farm, 9% in pre-harvest contract, 10.3% in wholesaler, and 12% at
the retailer level respectively. Based on table 4, findings indicated, that the maximum grape loss
occurred was due to insect attack, diseases and dropping at farm level.

Ⓒ ISERD

159

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-1

100%

13

9

10.3

12

87

91

87

88

Farm level

pre-harvest contract
level

Wholesaler level

Retailer level

50%

44.3
55.7

0%
Quantity of Grapes

Total

Quantity Losses

Total

Fig. 3 Pre and post-harvest losses percentage of grapes in different stages
Marketing Channels
The marketing of grapes begins when the produce leaves the farm and ends when it reaches to the final
consumers. It is rather a series of important business activities that transform a farm producer`s productinto a number of finished products desired by the consumer. The results indicated that 60% of thegrape growers sell their yield at a lower price to channel 1, due to non-availability of cold storage,
followed by 25% farmers market through direct sale of the products to the channel 2, because direct
sales benefit the producers more than contract sales. While remaining 15% farmers’ sale their productto commission agents. It is found that grape growers in the study area follow several marketing
channels.
Channel 1

Producer

Pre-harvest contractor

Channel 2

Producer

Wholesaler

Channel 3

ProducerCommission agent

Wholesaler
Wholesaler

Retailer

Consumer

Retailer

Consumer

Retailer

ConsumerTable 3 Coefficient of Variation = 5.16
Degrees of
freedom24814Source of variation
Replications
Treatments
Error
Total

Sum ofsquares
22.53
74.26
14.13
-

Mean sum ofsquares
11.26
18.56
1.766
-

F calculated

F probability

6.373
10.50
-

0.020
0.008
-

F calculated

F probability

Table 4 Statistical analysis (ANOVA)
Source of variation

Degrees of freedom

Sum of squares

Replications
Treatments
Error
Total

2
4
8
14

41.2
495.0
74.13
-

Treatment No.
Treatment Average
Critical Difference (CD) Compared

T4
26.6
a

T1
24.3
ab

T3
21.0
ab

Mean sum ofsquares
20.6
123.7
9.2
-

T2
19.0
b

T5
10.0
c

2.22
13.351P5 P129.3 27.3
a
a

P2
24.3
b

0.177
0.002
P4
P3
24.0 23.6bb(T1-T5 show critical difference at large, medium, small farmers and P1-P5 critical difference at pre-harvest
contract, wholesaler and retailer level). Significant difference at p<0.05Ⓒ ISERD

160

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-1

CONCLUSION
Despite the global progress in the food loss reduction there remain many gaps in the knowledge
regarding the quantity of losses at pre and postharvest stages and marketing practices are consideredvery useful to introduce necessary improvement to enhance quality and quantity of production. Pre andpostharvest losses are a complex problem in Afghanistan, it is one of the big challenges for the farmers
particularly for fruit growers. Due to improper management and poor knowledge of growers about
30% to 40% losses of agriculture production. However, grape is the most important fruit in
Afghanistan, it covers 48% of total fruit growing areas and annual production is about 874,500 tons.
The questionnaire survey was conducted in Mirbachakot, Shakardara and Kalakan districts of Kabul
province. To determine the pre and post-harvest losses of grape at stages of marketing and distribution.
A total of 60 (farmers, contractors, wholesalers and retailers) was randomly selected across the entire
study area and interviewed in the survey. Based on the result of questionnaire, pre-harvest loss of grape
from large, medium and small by 14%, 13% and 12%, respectively. Similarly, total post-harvest lossesof grapes; Contractor loss, 9.0%, Wholesaler loss, 10.3% and Retailer loss 12.0%. In addition, there aremany other causes identified such as, insect attack, diseases, dropping, mummification, water berries,
improper packing and transportation. Meanwhile, the majority of the farmers live on the margin offood insecurity, so reduction grape losses could have an immediate and significant impact on theirsustainable livelihoods. It can be suggested that grape growers would be trained on the subject of preand post-harvest management and marketing practices. Thereby, using better agricultural practices andadequate technologies can significantly reduce the losses and help in strengthening food security andpoverty.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are grateful for financially supported by Tokyo University of Agriculture (TUA) and theJapan International Cooperation Agency (JICA). Thanks my friends for comments that greatly
improved the research paper.
REFERENCES
Bayani, M.A. 2011. Pre and post-harvest factors influencing quality of table grapes in Bagram district, Parwan,
Afghanistan. University of Applied Science Wegeningen, Netherlands.
COMCEC Cooperation Office. 2016. Reducing On-Farm Food Losses in the OIC Member Countries.
CSO. 2016. Central Statistical Organization Afghanistan.
De Long, J. and Prange, R. 2003. Storage Thomas B, Murray BG Encyclopedia of applied plant science.
FAO. 1980. Assessment and collection data on post-harvest food grain Losses, Economic and Social
Development Paper 13, Rome, Italy. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/ess_test_folder/
FAO. 1981. Food loss prevention in perishable crops. Agricultural service Bulletin, 43, Rome.
FAO. 2011. Global food losses and food waste , Extent, causes and prevention. Rome
FAO. 2011. Global food losses and food waste. Indian J. Agric. Econ. 59 (4), 772-786. http://www.fao.org/
docrep/014/mb060e/mb060e00.pdf., http://eafghanag.ucdavis.edu/other-topic/postharvest.
Kader, A.A. 2005. Increasing food availability by reducing postharvest losses of fresh produce. Acta Horticulture,682, 2169-2176.
Kader, A.A. and Rolle, R.S. 2004. The role of post-harvest management in assuring the quality and safety
horticultural crops. Food and Agriculture Organization. Agricultural Services Bulletin, 152, 52.
Khalid, M.A., Nisar, A., Muhammad, I. and Arshad, F. 2011. Post-harvest losses and marketing of grapes inPakistan. Technolochgy Transfer Institute, Taarnab Peshawer- Pakistan Sarhad, J. Agric. 27.
Louw, T. 2010. Afghan grape post-harvest handling manual.
Murthy, D.S., Gajanana, T.M. and Sudha, M. 2004. Post-harvest loss and its impact on marketing cost, marginand efficiency.
Ⓒ ISERD

161

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2017) 8-1

Robert, K. Prange and Jennifer, R. 1996. Pre-harvesting factors affecting postharvest quality of berry crops.
ROP. 2009. Grape value chain operations manual case study, improving the Mirbachakot grape value chain.
Roy, S.K. 1989. Role of post-harvest technology horticultural crops in India - trends of food science andTechnology. Proceeding of the second international food convention.
Sajad, A.M. and Abid, H. 2015. Post-harvest deterioration of tropical root crops, Losses and their control.
International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR), https://www.ijsr.net.
Stanle, J. and Kays. 1999. Pre-harvest factors affecting the appearance. Postharvest Biology and Technology, The
University of Georgia, USA.
USAID. 2012. Commercial horticulture and agricultural marketing program (CHAMP), Final Report, USA.
Watada, A.E., Herner, R.C. and Kader, A.A. 1984. Terminoloav for the description of developmental stages forhorticultural crops, HorScience, 19.

Ⓒ ISERD

162