The study recognised that available estimates placed losses in the Philippines at a higher level than those of neighbouring Asian countries. Yet even these estimates understated the loss levels because there were no market signals for quality rice or corn and there existed a ready market for the lower quality product. In monetary terms postharvest losses in the Philippines represented more than $A600 million per annum for rice and more than $A100 million for corn. But using existing knowledge and best practice it is possible to reduce these losses by up to 30%.
The most significant gap identified in the study was the low level of on-farm adoption of best practices for postharvest management of rice or corn, for the following reasons:
Much of the previously funded research was component based, delivered the outcomes in terms of that component, and did not necessarily have an extension program utilising participatory approaches. This research provides an important base from which future extension and training activities operate. In addition, some of this research was targeted primarily at the National Food Authority (NFA).
The reorganisation of the Department of Agriculture (with local extension staff responsible to the local government unit) has hindered the delivery of extension programs.
Training programs conducted by institutes such as BPRE focused on training 'trainers' but had little follow-up to help them implement programs and extension activities at the farm level. However these trainers will be an important resource for any future extension programs.
Farmers trapped in the poverty cycle are reluctant to spend money on the extra costs associated with technologies such as mechanical drying. When the net return for rice is as low as 1.5 peso/kg (P1.5/kg) of palay (unhusked rice) produced, the decision to risk P1/kg to mechanically dry for a market that doesn't reward quality is very difficult. Corn farmers generally have even lower returns, so have greater difficulty making the decision.
The market for milled rice provides no significant premium for improved quality and is able to absorb any poorer quality palay.
When government loaned postharvest equipment to cooperatives there was insufficient follow-up or focused (participatory) extension activities with the farmers involved. Much of the equipment remains under-utilised.
However, institutes such as BPRE are currently attempting to reallocate equipment that is not being utilised. Improved on-farm adoption of best practice for postharvest treatment of rice and corn is likely to improve significantly the profitability of rice and corn farmers and help to reduce possible health effects associated with mycotoxin contamination.
Farmers lose too much due to poor drying practice but have difficulty making the decision to change practice. A systems approach using participatory extension and development techniques with the whole value chain is likely to improve on-farm impact, an approach that has been successfully demonstrated in Bangladesh. The study team recommended that a pilot systems approach be tested, involving four clusters (two corn and two rice). While mycotoxin problems in corn are well recognised, it was thought that milled rice had no mycotoxin problems. Yet recent research recorded mycotoxin levels in Philippines rice much higher than samples from other Asian rice producers.
Therefore, for corn, further investigations are required on the contribution of preharvest conditions to the problem of mycotoxins; for rice, further investigations are required on the extent of the mycotoxin problem and the main contributing factors.