IJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2

Research article
erdCurrent Postharvest Management of Sesame Farmers in
Selected Area of Myanmar
HNIN THIDA NYO*
Department of Agronomy, Yezin Agricultural University, Myanmar
Email: hninnyo@gmail.com

NYEIN NYEIN HTWE
Department of Agricultural Extension, Yezin Agricultural University, Myanmar

KYAW KYAW WIN
Department of Agronomy, Yezin Agricultural University, Myanmar

THEINGI MYINT
Department of Agricultural Economics, Yezin Agricultural University, Myanmar

MOE KYAW THU
Department of Agricultural Biotechnology, Yezin Agricultural University, Myanmar
Received 29 December 2017

Accepted 25 October 2018(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract This study was conducted at Pwintphyu and Pakokku Townships, MagwayRegion, Myanmar in September 2016 and January 2017. The objectives of this study wereto identify the farmers' perception and knowledge about postharvest handling practices ofsesame and to compare the postharvest handling practices of sesame farmers between
different areas of Myanmar. Total of 136 respondents were interviewed to understand thefarmers' practices for postharvest management of sesame. The results showed that allrespondents harvested and threshed the seeds manually in both areas. In Pwintphyu
Township, postharvest operations were done in the fields, however, in Pakokku Townshipfarmers worked on the threshing floor harden by the pasted cow dung and soil. The
postharvest practices: such as stacking, stalks drying and storage methods were different
between two areas. Regarding the awareness of postharvest management, stages at which
the highest postharvest losses occur were different between two townships due to different
management. Good quality seed, high yield, low labour cost and easy to work were also
pointed as the advantages of postharvest technology in both areas. Using the plastic net or
tarpaulin under the stacking and stalks standing, making threshing floor, harvest in righttime, using enough labour, using harvester and covering threshing floor with tarpaulin werethe management practices mentioned by respondents as methods to reduce postharvest
losses. The farmers are weak in knowledge about storage management such as store pest
control and packaging materials. Although farmers have the knowledge of the advantagesof postharvest technology and how to reduce the losses, they have not tried to carry out.
Therefore, it is needed to train the sesame growers to improve their postharvest practices,and private sector should support to mechanize in postharvest operation.
Keywords sesame, postharvest, stacking, stalks drying, losses

INTRODUCTION
Postharvest food loss (PHL) is defined as measurable qualitative and quantitative food loss along
the supply chain, starting at the time of harvest till its consumption or other end uses (Hodges et al.,2011). The largest PHLs usually occur on or near the farm, where the initial choice of crop typeand variety and the success of harvesting and consolidation methods are fundamental in keeping
losses low (World Bank, 2010). Agricultural commodities produced on the farm fields have toⒸ ISERD76

IJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2

undergo a series of operations such as harvesting, threshing, winnowing, bagging, transportation,storage, processing and exchange before they reach the consumer, and there are appreciable losses
in crop output at all these stages (Basavaraja et al., 2007). In less developed countries where thesupply chain is less mechanized, larger losses are incurred during drying, storage, processing and intransportation (FAO, 1980).
Developing postharvest systems has the potential to raise living standards in urban and ruralareas. In urban areas, it makes food available more efficiently and at a lower cost. In rural areas,postharvest activities can benefit the poorest members of society in particular, through its
contribution to farm and non-farm income (Goletti and Samman, 2002). Educating and training thefarmers on post-harvest operations would greatly help in reducing the post-harvest losses in foodgrains (Basavaraja et al., 2007). At present, improved postharvest technology is essential to ensurehigh yield, quantity and quality of products in Myanmar. Minimizing postharvest losses of foodcrops is a very effective way of reducing the area needed for production and/or increasing foodavailability. And there was no previous statistical study in Myanmar on postharvest handlingpractices of sesame farmers.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this study are to determine farmers' perception and knowledge about postharvest
handling practices of sesame, and to compare the postharvest handling practices of farmers
between the different areas of Myanmar.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Sites and Methods of Data Collection

Fig. 1 Map of study sites in Magway Region, Myanmar
This study was conducted in Pwintphyu and Pakokku Townships in Magway Region, located incentral Myanmar (Fig. 1). These two study areas are the largest cultivated areas of pre-monsoon
and post-monsoon sesame in Myanmar. A total of 136 sesame farmers from in two townships wereinterviewed by using structured interview questionnaires to elicit information from farmers.
Random sampling procedure was used in this study. The structured interview questionnaire wasamended based on the information collected from pilot survey, and main survey was conducted in2016 - 2017. The data concerning with demographic data of the sample respondents in selectedareas such as age, educational status, family size, landholding size and their farming experience
were collected. Postharvest management of respondents, problems encountering during postharvest
handling and fa me
pe cep ion and gge ion on po ha e handling p ac icee e al ocollected in order to determine sesame postharvest management system in study areas.
Ⓒ ISERD

77

IJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2

Data Analysis
The data were transferred and analyzed by the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS)
version 16.0 software. Descriptive statistics were used to identify demographic characteristics andpostharvest handling practices of sample respondents. In order to compare the demographic andpostharvest practices of different areas, student t distribution was used.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Demographic Characteristics of the Sample Respondents
Among 136 respondents, 92% was male and the remaining was female farmers. In this study, theaverage age of the respondents was 50 years with the minimum of 19 years and maximum of 75years. The average schooling year of respondents was 6 years. The minimum and maximum school
years were 2 years and 14 years. Average farm size of sample respondents was 5.03 hectares withthe minimum of 0.24 hectare and maximum of 28.34 hectares. The farm experience of farmers inthis study was 27 years in the range of 2-60 years.
Postharvest Management of Sample Respondents
All respondents harvested and threshed the seeds manually in both areas. The harvested stalks ofsesame require to be piled up to a height of four to five feet. In Pwintphyu Township, the mostcommon time for stacking was 7 days and 8 days but 5-6 days and 7 days were common in
Pakokku Township and some respondents took long time (>10 days) for stacking (Table 1).
Therefore, t test showed that the stacking duration (<7 days, 8 days, 10 days and >10 days) werehighly significant between two study areas. Although only a few percent of respondents used theinsecticide in Pakokku Township, half of the respondents used insecticide to control pest during
stacking in Pwintphyu Township (Table 1). There were significant differences between theinsecticide usage practices during stacking of two study areas. When piling the sesame after harvest,
sometimes the insecticides are sprayed for termite control on the ground (JAICAF, 2018).
Table 1 Stacking practices by sample respondents in study area, 2016-17

Duration

Insecticide usage

5-6 days

Pwintphyu(N=73)
2 (2.74)

Pakokku(N=63)
24 (38.10)

5.47***

7 days27 (36.99)

21 (33.33)

0.44ns8 days26 (35.62)

5 (7.94)

4.93***

10 days18 (4.66)

2 (3.17)3.08***>10 days-11(17.46)-3.62***

31 (42.47)
6 (8.22)36 (49.32)

1 (1.59)
62 (98.41)

7.82***
2.54**-8.05***

Beside & under the pile
Beside, under & inside the pileNilt-testNote: Numbers in the parentheses represent percentage. *** significant at 1% level; ** significant at 5% level;
ns = non- significant

In Pwintphyu Township, 98.63% of the sample respondents practiced the threshing operation
manually on the field and only 1.37% of respondents threshed on the threshing floor covered withtarpaulin. In Pakokku Township, all sample respondents made threshing floor by pasting with cow
dung and soil mixture. There were two methods for drying sesame stalks: stalks standing andspreading before threshing in study areas. All respondents dried their crop by stalks standing inPwintphyu Township but both methods were practiced in Pakokku Township (Table 2). SomeⒸ ISERD78IJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2

farmers in Pakokokku Township took long time for stacking and stalk drying because they madethreshing floor near the house and postharvest operations were done in that place. In Pwintphyu
Township, stacking and drying the stalks was done in the field where sunlight was enough to dry
the stalks quickly, and it was needed to thresh the seeds as quickly as possible to reduce the losses.
The t test showed that stalk drying duration (2 days, 5-7 days and >7 days) were highly significant
difference between Pwintphyu and Pakokku respondents.
Table 2 Stalk drying practices by sample respondents in study area, 2016-17

MethodStanding
Spreading

Pwintphyu(N=73)
73 (100)-Pakokku(N=63)
41 (65.08)
22 (34.92)

t-test5.77***
5.77***

Duration

2 days56 (76.71)

1 (1.59)

14.37***

3-4 days
5-7 days

15 (20.55)
2 (2.74)

8 (12.70)
23 (36.51)

1.23ns-5.27***>7 days-31 (49.21)-7.75***

Note: Numbers in the parentheses represent percentage. *** significant at 1% level; ns=non-significant

Table 3 Seed storage practices by sample respondents in study area, 2016-17

MethodDuration

Pestcontrol

Pwintphyu(N=73)
68 (93.15)

Pakokku(N=63)
63 (100)-2.04**

Woven polypropylene bag withthin plastic layer
Metal tin

3 (4.11)-1.76*

1 (1.37)-

0.93nsOthers1 (1.37)-0.93ns

2 months

6 (8.22)3 (4.76)

0.41ns

3-4 months

4 (5.48)

3 (4.76)-0.18ns

5-6 months

5 (6.85)

1 (1.59)

1.84*

8 months

58 (79.45)

55 (87.30)-1.62nsNil

9 (12.33)

1 (1.59)

1.56nsAgrochemical

6 (8.22)5 (7.94)

0.06ns-6 (9.52)-2.56**

Others1 (1.37)

4 (6.35)-1.47nsNil

66 (90.41

48 (76.19)

2.21**

Woven polypropylene bag

Organic materials

t-testNote: Numbers in the parentheses represent percentage. ** significant at 5% level; * significant at 10% level;
ns = non-significant

Regarding to storage practices, farmers in Pakokku Township used the woven polypropylenebags for seed storage (Table 3). However, there were some farmers who used woven polypropylenebags with thin plastic layer and metal tins for seed storage in Pwintphyu Township. Eight months
storage was common in both townships and farmers stored until next crop. In Ethiopia, about 61%of the respondents explain that they use polypropylene bag to store their sesame grain followed byware houses (40%) and jute bag (28.6%). Other storages like fertilizer bags, balcony, and plasticbags are also used by few respondents. About 73% of the respondents in Ethiopia put their sesame
grain in storages not for more than 3 months (The Feed the Future Innovation Lab, 2014). Duringstorage, the majority of respondents did not control store pests except 8.22% and 7.94% of farmers
who used the chemicals in Pwintphyu and Pakokku Townships respectively. About 10% of farmers
used organic materials (hot pepper, neem leaves) as control measure in Pakokku Township. OtherⒸ ISERD79

IJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2

store pest control practices, such as frequent winnowing and sun-drying during storage were also
found in both areas (Table 3).
Sesame growers in both townships decided the seed dryness by hand feeling and there was no
significant difference in seed moisture determination method between in both townships (Table 4).
Moisture content of seed is one of the important criteria for storage, therefore, extension service
should provide the knowledge regarding minimum moisture content of sesame to store safely.
Table 4 Seed dryness testing method by sample respondents in study areas, 2016-17

By visual
By hand
By visual & hand
By hand & others

Pwintphyu(N=73)
3 (4.11)46 (63.01)
23 (31.51)
1 (1.37)

Pakokku(N=63)
6 (9.52)
46 (73.02)
10 (15.87)
1 (1.59)

t-test-1.23ns-1.08ns
2.18**-0.10ns

Note: Numbers in the parentheses represent percentage. ** significant at 5% level

Awareness of Postharvest Management by Respondents in the Study Area
In Pwintphyu Township, the highest postharvest loss was occurred in threshing time whereas
harvest time loss was highest in Pakokku Township (Table 5). In Pwintphyu Township, farmers
dried and threshed in the field, but sesame stalks were dried and threshed on the threshing floor inPakokku Township. Therefore, postharvest stage which causes the highest losses was significantly
different between two areas (Table 5). In Ethiopia, more than 50% of the respondents explainedthat weather condition such as winds and intensive rainfall, insects in field, shattering, threshing,theft, harvesting, and rodents in storage are the losses causing factors (The Feed the Future
Innovation Lab, 2014).
Table 5 Stages at which the highest postharvest losses occur in study area, 2016-17

HarvestStacking
Standing/spreading
Threshing

Pwintphyu(N=73)
4 (5.48)
22 (30.14)
47 (64.38)

Pakokku(N=63)
43 (68.25)
2 (3.17)
7 (11.11)
11 (17.46)

t-test-10.47***-1.43ns
3.01***
6.64***

Note: Numbers in the parentheses represent percentage. *** significant at 1% level; ns=non-significant

Table 6 Awareness of the advantages of postharvest technology by the respondents, 2016-17

Reduce losses
High yield
Good quality seedHigh income
Easy to work by using machine
Low labour cost
No answer

Pwintphyu(N=73)
52 (71.23)
9 (12.33)
14 (19.18)
2 (2.74)
6 (8.22)3 (4.11)6 (8.22)

Pakokku(N=63)
33 (52.38)
17 (26.98)
4 (6.35)
8 (12.70)
3 (4.76)
1 (1.59)
9 (14.29)

t-test2.65***-2.14**
2.30**-2.14**
0.65ns
1.56ns-1.39ns

Note: Numbers in the parentheses represent percentage. ns = non-significant

Most of the respondents in Pwintphyu and Pakokku Townships mentioned that postharvest
technology can reduce losses (Table 6). Good quality seed, high yield, low labour cost and easy towork were also pointed as the advantages of postharvest handling in both areas. Therefore, there
was no significant difference in awareness of farmers on the advantages of postharvest handlingbetween Pwintphyu and Pakokku Townships (Table 6).

Ⓒ ISERD

80

IJERD ± International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2018) 9-2

Respondents' Suggestions to Minimize Postharvest Losses in the Study Area
In Pwintphyu Township, more than half of the respondents, (61.64%) reported that using the plastic
net or tarpaulin under the stacking and stalks standing to reduce losses. Making threshing floor wassuggested by 36.99% of farmers. To harvest at right time, to use enough labour and to use thresher
were also pointed by 5.48%, 4.11% and 1.37% of respondents, respectively. In Pakokku Township,
34.92% of respondents believed that using harvester reduced losses while other 31.75% supposedthat covering threshing floor with tarpaulin was good practice to reduce losses. Harvest at righttime, make good threshing floor and use enough labour were the suggested practices of reducing
postharvest losses by 23.81%, 6.35% and 1.59% of respondents. The results showed that there aresmall number of respondent who mentioned the storage methods, such as packaging materials andcontrol measures to reduce losses. Hence, respondents were weak in knowledge about improved
storage practices, and extension services should provide improved storage methods to them.
CONCLUSION
All respondents in study areas were practicing their traditional postharvest handling practices anddid not use any machinery. Although farmers have the knowledge and awareness of postharvest
technology, they have not tried to carry out. Their storage behavior disregarded quantity andquality losses during storage. Educating and training the farmers on improved storage technologies
such as biological pest control or controlled atmosphere storage would greatly help in reducing thepostharvest losses in food grains. Changing attitude is one of the important steps to adopt
innovation in farming community of Myanmar. Therefore, it is needed to train the sesame growers
for the advancement of postharvest practices, and public and private partnership should support totake action.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This study was financially supported by Technical Cooperation Program of Japan InternationalCooperation Agency (JICA-TCP).
REFERENCES
Basavaraja, H., Mahajanashetti, S.B. and Udagatti, N.C. 2007. Economic analysis of postharvest losses infood grains in India: A case study of Karnataka. Agri. Econ. Res. Review, 20, 117-126.
Food and Agriculture Organization. 1980. Assessment and collection of data on post-harvest food grainlosses. FAO Economic and Social Development Paper, 13. Rome.
Goletti, F. and Samman, E. 2002. Storage losses. In Golob, P., Farrell, G. and Orchard, J.E. (Eds.) PostHarvest: Science and Technology, Volume 1: Principles and Practice, Oxford: Blackwell Sciences, Ltd.
1-34. UK.
Hodges, R.J., Buzby, J.C. and Bennett, B. 2011. Postharvest losses and waste in developed and lessdeveloped countries: Opportunities to improve resource use. J. Agri. Sci., 149, 37-45.
JAICAF (Japan Association for International Collaboration of Agriculture and Forestry). 2018. Technicalcooperation project for agricultural productivity and quality improvement in Myanmar. Project Report.
The Feed the Future Innovation Lab. 2014. Sesame postharvest loss study in Ethiopia. Baseline Survey
Report. Project: Alliance for Food Security through Reduction of Post- Harvest Loss and Food Waste.
World Bank. 2010. Missing food: The case of postharvest grain losses in Sub-Saharan Africa. Washington,
DC: The World Bank.

Ⓒ ISERD81