2.3 CURRENT POST-HARVEST PRACTICES
2.4 COST-EFFECTIVE REDUCTION OF POST-HARVEST LOSS
2.5 PRE- AND POST-HARVEST FARM MANAGEMENT
2.6 COST-EFFECTIVE PESTICIDE AND INSECTICIDE APPLICATION
CIDCO - Coffee Industry Development Company
IICA - Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture
NRI - National Resources Institute
PFL - Prevention of Food Losses
PMO - Producers' Marketing Organization
RADA - Rural Agricultural Development Authority
SAP - Structural Adjustment Programme
UWI - University of the West Indies
Jamaica is the third largest island in the Caribbean Sea, after Cuba and Hispaniola, with a total land area of approximately 10 991 km2 and a population of slightly more than 2 500 000. Jamaica's natural resources are fertile soil with abundant rainfall and an ideal climate for agriculture. The agricultural sector was formerly based on a plantation agricultural system in which sugar cane, cocoa and coffee were grown for metropolitan markets in Europe. Land is now leased to small farmers, however, who emphasize food crop and vegetable production. According to the latest figures the current land use pattern, expressed as a percentage of the total land area, is grassland 15.3%, mixed agriculture 10.4%, plantation 8.5% and food crops and vegetables 0.5%.
There are more than 193 000 farms in the country. Those who are classified as small farmers, with fewer than 25 acres, represent more than 87% of these farms, while farms of 5 acres or less account for 76% of the total number. However, although small-scale farmers represent 35% of the population, they supply 90% of domestic food crops and 20% of dairy products.
The bulk of domestic trade in agricultural produce and food distribution is carried out by small traders called "higglers", most of whom are women.
From 1986 to 1988, a series of major natural disasters struck the island, causing a severe setback to the development of the agricultural sector. In 1986 and 1987 heavy rains destroyed homes, roads, crops, and livestock, resulting in severe soil erosion. In 1988 hurricane Gilbert devastated the island, damaging and destroying the basic rural infrastructure, such as roads, buildings and bridges, and virtually wiping out the subsistence base of small-scale farmers. The hardest-hit area was the Rio Minho watershed, which is predominantly a vegetable-growing small-scale farming area. The situation was worsened by the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) which forced the Ministry of Agriculture to cut its field and research staff by more than 50%. Although staff reduction did not significantly affect the technical staff, it severely diminished the Ministry's delivery capabilities.
There was also an evident lack of basic economic information on resources use, farm planning, budgeting and cash flow analysis to assist small-scale farmers to allocate their limited resources profitably. The lack of adequate socio-economic information on the relationship between farmers and higglers has also hindered the integration of production, post-harvest and marketing practices.
The main crops grown in the Rio Minho watershed area are cabbage, lettuce, pak choi, and yam. Current methods of harvesting and post-harvest handling show a very high percentage of post-harvest losses for these crops. The main causes of loss are mechanical injury during harvesting, improper packaging, improper transport, lack of market and inadequate storage facilities. Up to 50% of leafy vegetables produced can be lost, depending on such factors as climate, cultural practices, market demand, road conditions and level of knowledge. The loss is worsened by the fact that farmers produce only crops with which they are familiar, and by the seasonal (rainfed) production cycle. This situation has contributed to seasonal gluts, low prices and high post-harvest loss.
Few attempts have been made to improve pre-harvest production practices and post-harvest handling methods of crops by small-scale farmers and higglers in Jamaica. From 1981 to 1983, the FAO Prevention of Food Losses (PFL) programme supported a small project on yam storage and marketing, which developed a technique for improved handling and storage prior to export. USAID and the Government of Jamaica undertook a marketing development project, while a fumigation and pre-cleaning facility was implemented by USAID/APHIS for the export of perishable produce to the United States. The World Bank also provided assistance to develop an agricultural export complex with temporary holding, fumigation and cold storage facilities. While these facilities were essential and important, it has been shown that most post-harvest losses take place as a result of improper post-harvest practices between the farm gate and the final destination of the produce.
In view of this, the Government of Jamaica requested FAO, with financial support from the Government of the Netherlands, to undertake a project in training in integrated post-harvest and farm management techniques for hillside farmers and higglers in the upper Rio Minho Watershed Area. The project area is located between the parishes of Clarendon and St. Ann and encompasses five districts; namely, McNie, Coley, Mason River, Sandy River and Douglas Castle. The total number of farmer households in the area is estimated to be between 800 and 1 000. This area is also one of the main small-farm vegetable-growing areas in Jamaica. The project's target beneficiaries were farmers who cultivate up to five acres of land and higglers who trade in the area.
The Project Document was signed on 4 May 1990. Field activities began in November 1990 and were completed on 1 June 1995. The contribution of the Government of the Netherlands to the project was $US 769 376, with a contribution in kind from the Government of Jamaica, comprising office facilities, salaries and other employment entitlement to counterpart personnel. The implementing national institution of the Government was the Ministry of Agriculture. Within the Ministry of Agriculture the project was directly attached to the Rural Agricultural Development Authority (RADA), a statutory body incorporating the previous divisions of Production and Marketing Extension.
The development objective of the project was to reduce vegetable, root crop and legume losses and to increase the amount of food marketed by introducing improved integrated farm management production systems and post-harvest techniques in order to improve the welfare of the hillside farming community.
The project had four immediate objectives. The first was to reduce product losses occurring on the farm and in the marketing system, with emphasis given to roots, legumes and perishable vegetables. Second, it was intended to strengthen the extension services in hillside watershed districts by integrating pre-harvest marketing programmes in hillside areas and by using contact growers and higglers. The project also hoped to develop cost-effective disease and pest control recommendations and post-harvest handling and storage techniques for extension programmes. Finally, it was planned to improve higglers' market intelligence and the post-harvest treatment of produce and to increase the feedback of market demand information to growers.
The main post-harvest and farm management problems faced by small-scale farmers and higglers in the target area were identified by the project in early 1991. The survey that was conducted provided detailed insight into resource allocation, market operation and post-harvest systems, as well as on cropping patterns, crop rotation and production practices. The project was able to identify and assess real and perceived post-harvest problems and create awareness into the nature, extent, magnitude and stages of occurrence of losses, as well as to recommend the kind of intervention that could be made by the project to arrest and reverse the trend.
The constraints identified were pre-harvest (cultural practices), harvest, post-harvest and marketing problems. Because of their nature, these constraints clearly required an inter-disciplinary approach. The project therefore formed a multi-disciplinary/multi-sectorial national post-harvest and farm management task force to advise and assist the project in identifying current and future problems relating to pre-production, production, harvesting, post-harvest and marketing, and in formulating relevant solutions.
The members of the task force were drawn from the Ministry of Agriculture, other relevant ministries or departments of the Government, the private sector and the University of the West Indies (UWI). They included specialists in the fields of research and development, training, marketing, farming systems, post-harvest, plant protection and crop storage, as well as farmers and higglers. The task force was also instrumental in evaluating the progress made, drawing up future work programmes and establishing links with national institutions.
Besides identifying the major production and post-harvest problems, the base-line survey produced detailed cost of production data of the major crops grown in the project area. It also revealed that the average farm size operated by the target beneficiaries is five acres or less, with a range of between one and ten acres. Those farmers who reported holdings of ten acres or more actually cultivated less than five acres. The size of parcel (unit of activity) varied between one-tenth of an acre to two acres.
The survey also showed that fewer than 40% of the farmers are tenants, who rent less than 50% of the land they cultivate. Their tenancy status did not affect production decisions as long as they did not plant permanent tree crops, which required the consent of the landlord.
The general pattern of cropping was that of mixed cultivation of vegetables and root crops. Inter-cropping of perennial crops with vegetables and root crops was less common than expected. Farmers as a rule did not plant their crops in rows, which resulted in uneven plant production and a high incidence of damage during tending and harvesting. More than three-quarters of the farmers did not use crop rotation as a method of replenishing and maintaining soil fertility. Although many farmers used some form of soil conservation, it was inadequate in view of the steep nature of the topography.
The survey also confirmed that the vast majority of farmers were men, cultivating cabbage, lettuce, pak choi and yam, while most of the small higglers were women. These higglers use public transport systems such as roof racks of passenger buses to move 80% of the produce to the market, while the remaining 20% is marketed by "vanmen", higglers who possess their own means of transport and often cater to hotels, supermarkets and restaurants. Since the vanmen select and grade the produce on the farm before they buy, they often pay 15 to 20% more than small higglers. Even though vanmen buy only 20% of total produce, many farmers prefer to sell to them because they pay cash when they take the produce.
It was also shown that the lack of adequate market outlets, transport facilities and packaging materials accounts for almost 40% of the post-harvest loss of perishable produce. The empirical data analysis indicated that improper harvesting practices account for 5-10% of the losses, lack of suitable packing materials and improper packing for 15-20%, inadequate storage facilities or improper storage for 5-10% and lack of transport or improper transport for 10-12%. These losses do not include the estimated 4-40% pre-harvest loss caused by insects, pests and floods.
The most common problem observed during harvesting was that of harvesting certain vegetables and root crops before their commercial and physiological maturity. The reasons given by farmers and the higglers ranged from the need to meet pressing cash requirements to taking advantage of higher prices at the beginning and end of production seasons when supply is usually low.
It was also common to see farmers harvesting their produce during the day, instead of early in the morning or late afternoon to reduce field heat. The produce was then left at the road side, exposed to the sun and dust for hours and even days until transport was available. Certain vegetables and root crops, such as cabbage, lettuce and yam, were also harvested using the wrong tools, so that mechanical injuries frequently shortened the shelf life of crops. Between harvesting and reaching the final consumer, the produce was physically handled by the farmer, higgler, wholesaler and retailer. During this period it was subjected to dynamic and static stresses such as vibration, compression and tension. Proper packaging thus plays an important role in the preservation of quality and prevention of post-harvest losses.
However, the impact of packaging on the quality of the produce was not fully appreciated by the farmers and higglers, who saw it as a means of moving the produce from one point to another, rather than as a way to preserve quality. This fact was underscored by the kind of packaging materials used in the project area and the criteria adopted for their selection by farmers and higglers.
According to a survey undertaken in the project area, in collaboration with UWI, 76% of the produce is packaged in polypropylene bags, 16% in crates and 8% in cardboard boxes. The main criteria for selecting packaging material are cost and capacity for holding large quantities of produce (85%), preservation of quality (10%) and durability (5%). However, nearly 95% of those questioned believed that crates were the most suitable packaging material for preserving quality and preventing post-harvest loss.
The vast majority of those who used polypropylene bags (87%) were the small higglers, who were responsible for 80% of vegetable trade in the area. Most of these higglers sold their produce on the open market and catered for the urban masses whose main consideration was price rather than quality. For small higglers, polypropylene bags offered a number of advantages: it was possible to pack more into polypropylene bags; public transport vehicles charged on the basis of unit rather than weight; polypropylene bags were discarded containers of animal feed, flour, fertilizer or sugar, which cost practically nothing. On the other hand, almost all the vanmen, who cater for hotels, restaurants and supermarkets, used crates unless the nature of the produce dictated otherwise, since these institutions insist on quality produce and are prepared to pay for it.
The major post-harvest activities of the project aimed at prolonging product quality for a longer time than would have otherwise been possible. These activities considered the nature and conditions of the produce in relation to its physiology and metabolic characteristics and in relation to the physical environment in which it was handled between harvest and consumption.
A network of contact farmers and contact higglers was selected from strategic locations in the project area. These contact farmers and higglers were trained and then used to train other farmers and higglers, enabling the project to conduct an intensive training and awareness campaign through field demonstrations, visual aid presentations and field days. The training areas covered included the identification and recognition of correct harvesting stages, recommended harvesting time and proper harvesting methods.
The project was successful in creating awareness among the farmers and higglers. It started with practical demonstrations showing the stages at which post-harvest losses occur, the kind of loss and the steps that can be taken to minimize the losses. The disadvantages of many traditional packaging materials, such as fertilizer and plastic bags, their lack of adequate ventilation, risks associated with the manner in which they are packed and the resulting post-harvest loss (28%) were demonstrated empirically.
This was followed by the demonstration of improved packaging materials, practices and transport methods. The project introduced an improved method of transporting perishables by modifying the existing layout of the cargo bay of a demonstration and training truck. The project also distributed more than 150 moulded plastic crates which could be stacked when full and nested when empty. When properly packed and transported, these crates reduced post-harvest loss in packaging to about 4%. Even though they cost JS 288 ($US 10 at current exchange rate) per piece, they could last up to four years with proper handling and the cost could be recovered in less than 5 months. However, because of their unique situation, small higglers had several problems with the plastic crates. First, they did not suit the mode of transport used (passenger buses or trucks); second, the plastic crate held only about 60 lbs, compared to the polypropylene bag which held more than 120 lbs, even though the transport costs were the same; third, many small higglers alleged that plastic crates were more likely to be stolen in the open market environment where they normally sold their produce. As a result, the adoption of the crates by small higglers was minimal (12%), and only occurred when the nature of the produce made it necessary.
Vanmen, however, had no transportation constraints and catered for a quality-conscious clientele. Their adoption rate of the project recommendation was much higher (88.4%) as a result.
In order to improve the situation of the small higglers, the project introduced a collapsible wooden crate, which could be made by local carpenters. The crates were made in two different sizes to suit different modes of transport. The initial field trials showed that the post-harvest loss of the wooden crate was below 10% and no technical problems have been encountered so far.
It should be understood, however, that the evolution of packaging materials is an ongoing process which depends on the economic environment in which it develops. When the majority of consumers demand quality produce and their income level allows them to pay for it, the adoption by higglers of improved packaging materials and practices will be faster and easier. This is because the target beneficiaries rationally perceive the innovation in terms of its relative advantage and its compatibility with their lives.
Although product quality can not normally be improved after harvest, any management decision made or cultural practice undertaken at earlier stages of production will eventually affect product quality, costs and prices. Therefore, the project also concentrated on field activities both before and after harvest. These activities were intended to stimulate and train farmers to produce the best quality product within the limits of their available resources.
With this objective in mind the project established a multi-disciplinary team of national specialists, apart from the national post-harvest and farm management task force, to plan and implement training and demonstration and production programmes for the target beneficiaries. The team participated in all the operational planning and day-to-day implementation of pre- and post-harvest practices. Thus, it was possible to introduce improved farming systems and cropping patterns such as inter-row cultivation to improve soil conservation and product marketability and to reduce disease build-up in the soil.
As a primary step to improving pre-harvest farm management practices, the team introduced the use of crop nurseries and row-planting as an alternative to the broadcast method used by most farmers. This idea was widely accepted because of the obvious economic advantages it offered, in the form of savings on seeds and chemicals, and the production of healthier seedlings. Most importantly, the farmers were able to spread out the harvesting intervals of their crops and thus, to a limited extent, stagger the supply of produce by transplanting the seedlings from the nurseries to the field at regular intervals.
The efficient utilization of the farmers' limited resources was also introduced in the form of integrating some activities and diversifying others. Thus, the appropriate combination of annual and perennial crops and livestock was appreciated by the farmers, who had previously planted only one or two kinds of crops every season. The diversification of their farming operations with such activities as coffee, mini-sett yam and goat production helped farmers reduce their dependence on a single crop. This minimized the risk of failure of the single crop and the adverse financial impact this would have on farmers' meagre incomes.
To implement the diversification scheme, the project collaborated with existing national institutions and projects such as the Coffee Industry Development Company (CIDCO), the Sheep and Goat Project and the National Mini-sett Yam Programme, responsible for these activities in the country. Thus, with only partial input of its own resources, the project was able to coordinate and facilitate the introduction of these activities into the project area. The introduction of coffee production, in particular, had several advantages. It provided an example of sustainable agriculture and demonstrated the economic utilization of marginal hillside lands that were not suitable for short-term crop production, thus preventing its degradation by removing it from vegetable production. It also demonstrated the economic benefits of inter-planting different crops of varying lengths of maturity and, because of guaranteed coffee prices (following the Government's coffee export agreement with Japan), it reduced the financial risk associated with the lack of market and subsequent low vegetable prices.
Another successful project initiative was the introduction of mini-sett (small tuber) yam technology. According to the national mini-sett yam programme statistics, the yield of the project demonstration and training plots was higher than the national average by as much as 30%. The most attractive features of mini-sett yam technology to farmers were its export market potential, its high yield, longer shelf life, easy post-harvest handling, low cost and environmentally friendly production practices.
The pre-harvest farm management training and demonstration exercises introduced by the project emphasized the importance of understanding and utilizing the complementary and supplementary activities on the farm. The project introduced an improved breed of goats to utilize the unsold vegetables and root crops, upgrade the local breed, encourage cottage industry in the form of tannery and cheese making and utilize the excess seasonal farm labour. Owing to an initial failure in the screening of recipients, the first few goats died as the result of poor feeding and management by farmers. The situation was subsequently corrected and the number of goats and their offspring increased from 20 in 1992 to 62 in 1993.
To give farmers an overall picture of their farming operations a detailed monthly calendar was prepared and distributed to the target beneficiaries. This illustrated the nature of each crop, input requirements, cropping season and recommended cultural practices. It was followed by training in farm record keeping, accounting, simplified farm planning, budgeting and cash flow charts. Initially farmers were apprehensive about records, but this was overcome when the benefits obtained by a few volunteers were demonstrated.
Farmers tended to harvest and pack their produce on the farm. It was then moved to the road side to await the next available means of transport. However, since transport was scarce, the produce was often left beside the road for quite some time. To alleviate this situation a community multi-purpose temporary vegetable storage shed was built at a central location in one of the five project districts. The shed had receiving, sorting and packaging areas as well as temporary storage room. Unfortunately, however, it was not fully utilized by individual farmers and higglers as had originally been planned, since they made their use of it conditional on the Government's reintroduction of its guaranteed minimum price buyer, the now defunct Agricultural Marketing Corporation.
The project management recognized from the outset that for any post-harvest innovation to be successful, it must be financially remunerative to farmers and higglers. This depended largely on the availability of the market and the consumers' ability and willingness to pay higher prices for better quality. The project thus explored new markets and improved marketing techniques and purchase arrangements between farmers, higglers and consumers in order to improve the supply and quality of the produce reaching market.
One of the first steps taken was to assist and train farmers to sell their own produce in the major urban centres on a weekly or bi-weekly basis. It was decided to assist farmers during the initial establishment period by advertising the market and arranging spaces and displays, as well as by providing training in the art of selling. This was to have taken place after some experience had been gained by working with the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA), which had started a similar exercise a few weeks earlier. The plan was subsequently abandoned after evaluating IICA's performance and survey, which showed that more than 75% of farmers were unwilling to participate in the scheme unless transport was provided free-of-charge.
However, having recognized the importance of marketing and the positive correlation that existed between the success of the project's post-harvest activities and the farmers' ability to sell their produce at economically remunerative prices, the project continued to explore new marketing opportunities and to maintain existing ones. Contacts, some of which still function, were made with supermarkets, hotels, exporters and greengrocers.
After several wide-ranging, though largely unsuccessful, attempts to alleviate farmers' marketing constraints, it was decided to organize farmers into groups in order to bolster their bargaining power. The defunct Producers' Marketing Organization (PMO) was restructured and streamlined with the assistance of the project, which included financial inputs, management support and training. Despite this assistance, the PMO continued to experience minor problems. When these are sorted out, however, the organization should be able to market the farmers' produce successfully.
Most agricultural crops in the area are affected by pests and disease at some point in their production process, either prior to harvesting or during the post-harvest stage. In some cases the incidence and magnitude of the damage threatens the economic survival of the farmers.
Although recommended national standards exist for pre and post-harvest use of pesticides and insecticides, there is serious concern that most farmers do not adhere to them. There is a widespread belief that small farmers use more chemicals per acre than necessary. In some cases, they also fail to observe the rules regarding application intervals and the waiting period between chemical application and harvesting. The project, therefore, concentrated on the training and demonstration of the rules, proper application and the safe use of pesticides/insecticides including integrated pest management (biological control) practices.
To ensure adequate implementation of this particular activity, an arrangement was made with RADA for its Senior Plant Protection Officer to work on the project under the supervision of the FAO Chief Technical Adviser. A detailed work plan was then prepared and implemented. This included a review of current production practices and their role on the incidence and prevalence of disease and pests, the development of cost-effective on-farm plant protection recommendations and the training of farmers and higglers in the proper use of plant protection chemicals and equipment.
Besides the project's training and demonstration plots, extensive use was made of the farmers' own holdings in the demonstration of field surveillance and identification of disease and pests. This was followed by the identification and use of appropriate pest/disease control chemicals and the proper use of equipment. The acceptance of these techniques is clearly visible in the farmers' and higglers' changing attitudes.
In the final analysis the introduction and adoption of new technology depends largely on regular individual or group extension sessions, timely monitoring and evaluation of training and demonstration activities and provision of limited material inputs (for demonstration and training purposes only) to farmers and higglers to reinforce the extension message.
The training of farmers, higglers and extension officers in farm management and post-harvest technology was a prominent feature of the project. Local and international training specialist and resource persons were used to train more than 215 officers nationally in post-harvest and farm management technology.
The training was undertaken in a two-tiered system, one for farmers and higglers and the other for extension officers. The training of the farmers and higglers was geared towards creating awareness and providing training in basic skills and the transfer of better and improved technology. The training of the extension officers was focused more on upgrading their skills and knowledge to enable them to adequately support and implement post-harvest and farm management activities and other similar rural development programmes in the country.
Besides the day-to-day practical on-the-job training of the two project extension officers, regular and formal in-service training programmes were provided. This included a three-month specialized course for two project staff members at the National Resources Institute (NRI) in the United Kingdom, providing in-depth coverage of such topics as optimal crop harvesting stage, post-harvest physiology, handling, packaging, storage, principles of marketing, transport and pest control.
The local training programme of the project was not confined to the two project extension officers, but covered the whole country and included senior agricultural managers, private-sector organization representatives, educational institutions, extension officers, home economics and social services officers, exporters of fresh produce and supermarket and greengrocery managers.
Among the various training methods used were two national workshops. While the primary purpose of the workshops was training, they also provided a forum where project-related, empirically-based experiences were shared and used to guide subsequent project activities. The workshops were specifically intended to identify current constraints in production, post-harvest handling and marketing of perishable farm produce; to review the results of the techniques introduced by the project into the project area; to review the farm management practices of hillside farms; and to propose appropriate strategies to ameliorate current constraints.
Two national two-week post-harvest training courses were also conducted. These addressed the principal objective of the project, that of reducing post-harvest food losses and maintaining the quality of the harvested produce. They presented an in-depth study of the nature of harvested fresh produce and the activities involved in the maintenance of quality. Areas of emphasis were harvesting and handling practices, packaging, storage, standardization, inspection and marketing strategies. The course material was presented through lectures, videos, discussion, field visits and laboratory work. Of the 215 officers trained by the project, 80 were trained through national workshops, 78 in various parish agricultural offices and 57 in two national two-week post-harvest courses.
The plan and execution of the training programme of the target beneficiaries adopted contact farmers and higglers, who were used by the project to transmit new ideas and knowledge to a wider cross-section. These contact farmers and higglers were ordinary farmers and higglers who either volunteered or were selected by the project as representative, progressive, acceptable to the community and good role models.
Over the past three years a network of 108 contact farmers and 22 contact higglers was selected at strategic locations in the project area, trained and used to train more than 409 fellow farmers and higglers. Their training programme included the prevention of post-harvest food losses, farm management, soil conservation, cultural practices and livestock production and management. The training was prepared and presented in a manner that ensured its relevance to the existing problems and, hence, easy acceptance and adoption. The techniques used were demonstration and training plots, group discussions, visual aid presentation, field visits and field days. The field training activities were supplemented by a post-harvest extension manual and various pre-harvest extension advisory leaflets that described improved cultural practices.
This training was accepted and widely adopted by the target communities. Most farmers in the project area and beyond now use improved seeds, nursery beds, row planting, improved disease/pest control methods, better soil conservation practices, inter-cropping of perennial and annual crops and diversified activity combinations. At the end of the project a training manual on the prevention of post-harvest losses of perishable farm produce in Jamaica was prepared by a consultant in order to synthesize the experience gained through the project and offer a reference document for future post-harvest activities.
The bulk of the agricultural products produced by farmers in general, and by those in the project area in particular, is sold by higglers through parish council markets such as the Coronation Market in Kingston and similar markets in major towns like Montego Bay. Other outlets such as supermarkets, hotels and greengroceries also play an important role in the disposal of the produce. Few products grown in the project area are exported.
At present, the overwhelming majority of farmers regard their task as production and do not want to become involved in marketing. Higglers thus remain the farmers' main source of market demand information. However, this information is inadequate in helping farmers to plan future production and supply, since it is based on the demand, supply and market prices of the previous market day and does not take into account the fact that higher prices one day will trigger more supply during the next market day and thus depress prices.
Despite their economic interdependence, the relationship between farmers and higglers has been one of mistrust and acrimony. Several studies, including a socio-economic study undertaken by this project, have failed to come up with an adequate solution. The main complaint made by farmers is that higglers do not always pay when they receive the produce, but only after it has been sold. According to farmers, the final price is often below that which was agreed to or expected. Higglers, however, say that they face unexpected price fluctuations, marketing costs, post-harvest losses, etc., and therefore cannot predict the price they will receive at the market, on which the final payment due to the farmers depends.
Several attempts were made by this project to alleviate the situation by providing market information to the growers and the public at large. One of these schemes was the weekly radio broadcast and newspaper column of wholesale and retail prices of the major perishable farm produce sold in the metropolitan Kingston market. Although still in operation, the results of this scheme are mixed. Farmers complain that the higglers pay no attention to these prices and set their own lower prices. They also feel that they have no choice but to sell to the higglers as there is no one else to buy their produce. The only beneficiaries of the weekly market information seem to be the consumers who buy in bulk according to the information they receive.
It is clear that innovations, however beneficial they may be in the long run, tend to be viewed with caution and adopted gradually, albeit surely. This is even more so if changes in established attitudes and norms and the economic well-being of the beneficiaries are involved.
The project had two broad activities to accomplish. These were training and technology transfer in pre-harvest farm management techniques and post-harvest handling practices for perishable crops in the target area. Each of these categories had several sub-activities, which had to be undertaken to fully realize the objectives of the main category of activities. A multi-institutional and multi-disciplinary team of specialists was thus set up to adequately address project objectives.
Several innovations were introduced to arrest and reverse the high post-harvest loss of fruits and vegetables in the project area. This began with the creation of awareness of the losses and with suggestions of what could be done by farmers and higglers themselves to reduce it. The success or failure of the innovation depended largely on how it was perceived by different categories of farmers and higglers in relation to their social and economic environment. It was successful with higglers who catered to upper-class consumers, who were willing to pay higher prices for better quality products. They were thus able to recover their investment in improved packaging and transport equipment. It was not successful with small higglers whose main customers are low-income urban dwellers. Any innovation must therefore take into account the social and economic realities in which it is expected to be implemented.
Despite efforts to alleviate existing marketing problems by making purchase arrangements between producers, wholesalers and retailers, by reorganizing the PMO and by providing weekly market information through radio and the press, the situation did not significantly improve.
The problem was exacerbated by the seasonal rainfed nature of production and its attendant problems of market glut and shortage. Attempts by the project to plan production were also thwarted by the small size of the project area. According to the Statistical Institute of Jamaica (STATIN) there are 155 314 farmers in the country, while the estimated number of farmers in the project area was only 800-1 000. In terms of output, 124 180 tons of perishable products were produced in the country in 1992. The estimated output of the project target area, however, was no more than 10% of the national output. As a result, any attempt by the project farmers to plan production in order to regulate supply and stabilize farm prices did not have the required impact. Several improvements, however, were introduced into the communities' hillside farming practices. These included strip cropping with king grass to prevent soil erosion, changes in land use patterns by planting steep hillsides into permanent crops, inter-cropping of permanent crops with short-term crops to increase the efficient utilization of resources and to improve the farmers' cash flow; the introduction of better management practices (budgeting, record keeping and accounting); the diversification of activities to spread out the risk of crop losses and minimize its adverse financial impact; and the testing and implementation of improved plant protection practices. These practices were widely adopted and implemented by the target beneficiaries.
The project clearly shows that training is the most significant way of changing peoples' attitude, behaviour and perception, particularly when it is practical, visual and demonstrated by peers. It is therefore important that the training programme of farmers and higglers by means of the contact farmer/higgler system be continued and expanded to other areas.
However, certain precautions must be taken in selecting contact farmers/higglers. Their relationship with other members of the community and the communities' perception of him/her or even his/her religious or political affiliation may affect attendance during training sessions. The day and time of training must also be worked out so as not to interfere with work schedules.
Even after a meticulous selection of contact farmers and higglers, some training and demonstration sessions have failed to attract sufficient numbers. This is because most farmers and higglers expect to be given some kind of "hand-out" in the forms of seeds or other farm inputs for attending training and demonstration sessions, and usually fail to attend otherwise. It is thus recommended that, although free inputs should continue to be provided for demonstration/training plots, the practice of hand-outs to solicit participation be discouraged and replaced by prior announcement of the training, the problem the training will solve and the benefits that can be gained from this knowledge.
In view of the farmers' mono-cropping practices and frequent low produce prices and declining incomes, it is recommended that they be trained and advised to diversify their activities. Diversification will minimize the risk of crop failures while the income from other activities will cushion the impact of any financial loss. The recommended crops for diversification are new and exotic crops such as cauliflower, broccoli, scotch bonnet pepper, mini-sett yam, etc., which have ready local and export markets. Perennial crops like coffee and citrus are also widely recommended, along with livestock production.
After the produce is separated from its medium of growth, it enters the post-harvest stage where conditions, environment and handling vary and the process of deterioration begins. Since no technology has yet been developed that can completely prevent this, the objective of post-harvest processing should be to identify and describe each point at which people, machines, tools and other physical objects come into contact with the produce and affect its quality, quantity and appearance. Depending on the existing objective conditions, this should then be followed by corrective measures such as improved packaging, storage and transport facilities to enhance the shelf life of the produce.
It is therefore recommended for the project area and the country as a whole that the right harvesting tools be used for the right crop, to reduce the initial physical injury to the produce, and that proper packaging materials be adopted. These should be locally available, cheap and suitable to the specific conditions of the higglers and farmers. It is particularly advisable to encourage the use of the wooden crate that was introduced into the area by the project. This crate is durable, cost-effective and prevents post-harvest loss.
Farmers and higglers should be trained and required to handle perishable produce properly and in sanitary conditions. They should also be advised and trained to keep the produce in a shed and in ventilated areas. Despite high costs, the modified cargo bay of a truck has proved to be the ideal means of transporting assorted fruits, vegetables and root crops with the least amount of post-harvest loss. It is therefore advisable that more trials be undertaken to determine its cost--effectiveness.
The lack of adequate marketing has always impeded the adoption of improved packaging and transport methods, since farmers and higglers are uncertain that the existing marketing system will allow them to recoup their investment in such improvements. The experience of the project does not support the premise that better quality automatically guarantees higher prices, since most consumers tend to go for lower prices rather than better quality. It is therefore recommended that extension officers undergo a planned regular in-service training programme in basic marketing principles, costs and margins to facilitate better understanding and acceptance of these principles and practices. It is further recommended that farmers be exposed to the same principles to make them aware of what is involved in marketing and thus allay their fears that they are being cheated by higglers.
Even though it has produced mixed results, the current market information dissemination of wholesale and retail vegetable prices on radio and in the press should continue, possibly with commercial sponsors. It is hoped that, in the long run, it will be accepted as an indication of the daily supply and demand situation and provide a guide for subsequent market days.
Farmers must be encouraged to produce according to any relative advantage they may have. Although this may require crop zoning and some form of incentivization, it will contribute to avoiding the current cycle of glut and shortage.
In spite of project achievements in pre--harvest farm management practices and post-harvest handling of perishables, a persistent problem has been the inability of farmers to sell their produce at economically remunerative prices. This has become the major disincentive to any form of investment in improved post-harvest handling practices.
A Tripartite Technical Review Mission, which visited the island in December 1992, recognized that, in order to be adaptable and sustainable, any post-harvest activity must include a marketing component. It recommended that the project emphasize marketing activities during its third and final year. However, this important recommendation could not be implemented owing to lack of funds and time. It is therefore recommended that to complete the project and make its outputs sustainable, a follow-up project with emphasis in marketing, be prepared and implemented without delay along the lines recommended by the Technical Tripartite Review Mission.
Dates of Service
Name Function Starting Date Concluding Date
International
B. Legesse Chief Technical Adviser 19 Nov. 1990 30 Nov. 1993
E. Visser Associate Professional Officer 13 June 1991 16 Oct. 1992
E. Reusse Marketing Consultant 29 Feb. 1992 9 April 1992
National
M. Serville National Project Director 19 Nov. 1990 30 June 1991
J. Lawrence National Project Director 1 July 1991 30 Nov. 1993
R. Small Extension Officer 2 April 1991 30 Nov. 1993
M. Bramwell Extension Officer 1 Feb. 1991 12 Sept. 1991
C. Douglas Extension Officer 16 Nov. 1991 30 Nov. 1991
O. Johnson Driver 12 Feb. 1991 30 Nov. 1993
Y. Aird Secretary 3 May 1992 30 Nov. 1993
J. Francis Secretary 19 Nov. 1990 2 May 1992
W. Nelson Project Management May 1991 30 Nov. 1993
P. Chung Project Management May 1991 30 Nov. 1993
L. Donaldson Project Management May 1991 30 Nov. 1993
D. Vermont Project Management May 1991 30 Nov. 1993
G. McCook Project Management May 1991 30 Nov. 1993
E. Le Franc Project Management 1 July 1991 31 Aug. 1991
1 March 1993 30 March 1993
C. Dunn Project Management 1 Dec. 1993 31 Dec. 1993
D. Jayasingh Project Management 1 Feb. 1993 31 Dec. 1993
Participants Study Place Date
J. Lawrence Project management FAO, Rome, Italy 4-22 May 1992
R. Small Post-harvest handling NRI, the UK Sept.-Dec. 1992
T. Beckaroo Post-harvest handling NRI, the UK March-June 1995
Cost
Quantity Item ($ US)
1 Vehicle, Cherokee Diesel Jeep 19 007
1 Pick-up truck, Toyota Hilux double cab 13 300
1 Computer, Epson Equity IIE 286 and accessories 3 513
1 Camera, Canon EoS 650, with slide projector and tray 1 251
1 Photocopier, Canon Np-1010 1 931
1 Typewriter, portable, Pan RX 168
1 Photocopier stand 410
1 Tape recorder 102
1 Computer desk frame 651
1 Uninterrupted power supply system 681
1 Camera, Canon, 28 mm 198
1 Camera, Canon 35-135 mm 400
1 Carrying case, Deluxe Gadget Bag 43
1 Flash, electronic, Canon FF 164
1 Loud hailer, Fanon 113
2 Abney level 271
1 Flip chart and board 179
1 Generator, portable, Honda 1 167
6 Knapsack sprayer 820
1 Spring balance, portable 168
Inception report, B. Legesse and M. Seville. Kingston, 1991. 39pp.
Analysis of constraint identification and cost of production survey, B. Legesse and M. Seville. Kingston, 1991. 7pp.
Production and marketing among small farmers and higglers: factors affecting decision-making and planning, E. Le Franc. Kingston, 1991. 82pp.
Small farmers' perishable produce marketing, E. Reusse. Kingston, 1992. 24pp.
Report of national workshop on farm management and post-harvest, I. Bin Yahya. Kingston, 1992. 32pp.
Prevention of post-harvest loss of perishable farm produce, B. Legesse and J.M. Lawrence. Kingston, 1993. 27pp.
Factors which affect the usage of successful packaging materials in the Rio Minho watershed area, D. Bailey. Trinidad, 1993. 71pp.
Integrated post-harvest techniques and farm management - an impact assessment, E. Le Franc. Kingston, 1993. 30pp.
Six-monthly progress reports, B. Legesse and J.M. Lawrence. 1991-1993.
Training manual on the prevention of post-harvest loss of perishable farm produce in Jamaica, D. Jayasingh. 1993-1994.
