1. University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines, Oroquieta City, Philippines
2. University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines, Oroquieta City, Philippines
3. University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines, Oroquieta City, Philippines
4. University of Science and Technology of Southern Philippines, Oroquieta City, Philippines

*             Correspondence: conmar.malmis@ustp.edu.ph

Keywords: mitigating, post-harvest losses, analysis, knowledge gaps, practices

1. INTRODUCTION

Agriculture is a cornerstone of the global economy, providing livelihoods for a significant portion of the world’s population. However, the journey from farm to table is fraught with challenges, most notably post-harvest losses (PHL), which refer to the degradation in both quantity and quality of food production from harvest to consumption [1]. These losses, caused by factors such as spoilage, physical damage, and improper handling, represent a significant waste of resources and a threat to food security. Globally, it is estimated that approximately one-third of all food produced for human consumption is lost or wasted, with fruits and vegetables experiencing loss rates as high as 45% [2]. In developing countries, these losses are exacerbated by factors like warm climates, which accelerate spoilage, and limited access to post-harvest technologies such as cold storage and efficient transport systems [3]. The Philippines, an agricultural nation, is no exception to this global issue. The country experiences substantial PHL in the vegetable sector, with estimates suggesting that up to 42% of vegetable harvests are wasted annually [4]. This issue is particularly acute in regions like Benguet, a major vegetable-producing province, where losses occur at every stage of the supply chain, from harvesting to marketing. These losses not only diminish the income of farmers and vendors but also contribute to higher food prices for consumers and undermine national food security goals [5]. While research has often focused on farm-level losses and large-scale supply chains, there is a significant gap in understanding the specific challenges faced by small-scale vendors in urban markets. Time and money are required to cultivate food products, and unless the farmer is providing food only for his own household, he automatically becomes part of the market economy: he must sell his produce, he must recover his costs, and he must make a profit. Post-harvest losses of vegetables and fruits occur at all points in the value chain from production in the field to the food being placed on a plate for consumption. Post-harvest activities include harvesting, handling, storage, processing, packaging, transportation and marketing. Losses of horticultural produce are a major problem in the post-harvest chain. They can be caused by a wide variety of factors, ranging from growing conditions to handling at retail level. Not only are losses clearly a waste of food, but they also represent a similar waste of human effort, farm inputs, livelihoods, investments, and scarce resources such as water. Post-harvest losses for horticultural produce are, however, difficult to measure. These losses are generally more common in developed countries [6]. Farmers and food sellers have been concerned about losses since agriculture began. Yet the problem of how much food is lost after harvest to processing, spoilage, insects and rodents, or to other factors takes on greater importance as world food demand grows. Cutting postharvest losses could, presumably, add a sizable quantity to the global food supply, thus reducing the need to intensify production in the future. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that up to 30-40% of food produced in developing countries is lost due to inefficient post-harvest management [7]. In the Philippines, studies indicate that post-harvest losses in rice, fruits, and vegetables range between 10-37%, depending on the crop and region [8]. This level of loss significantly affects farmers’ income, food availability, and national food security [9]. There are numerous factors affecting post-harvest losses, from the soil in which the crop is grown to the handling of produce when it reaches the shop. Pre-harvest production practices may seriously affect post-harvest returns. According to [10], post-harvest losses are influenced by several factors, including poor handling practices, inadequate storage facilities, and lack of knowledge about proper post-harvest management. Studies have highlighted that improper harvesting techniques, such as harvesting at the wrong maturity stage, contribute significantly to losses [11]. Furthermore, environmental factors like high temperature and humidity accelerate spoilage, leading to economic losses for small-scale vendors [12]. These losses occur at various stages, including harvesting, handling, transportation, storage, and marketing. This review of related literature discusses the causes, effects, and mitigation strategies associated with post-harvest losses, emphasizing vegetable vendors’ role in reducing wastage. This study focused on the vegetable vendors of Oroquieta City, a small urban center where the public market is the primary hub for local food distribution. These vendors are a critical link between farmers and consumers, yet they often operate with limited resources and knowledge of proper post-harvest practices. This research aims to fill the existing knowledge gap by examining the specific practices, knowledge levels, and challenges of these vendors. By raising awareness and identifying key areas for intervention, this study seeks to empower vendors to adopt improved practices, thereby reducing waste, enhancing their livelihoods, and contributing to a more sustainable and food-secure community. High post-harvest losses (PHL) among vegetable vendors in Oroquieta City, Philippines, significantly reduce farmers’ incomes and threaten food security. This is due to a combination of inadequate infrastructure, limited access to appropriate technologies, and insufficient knowledge and awareness regarding proper handling, storage, and marketing practices. The lack of understanding regarding the extent of these knowledge gaps and the specific malpractices contributing to PHL hinders the development of effective mitigation strategies. This study determined the extent and causes of post-harvest losses among vegetable vendors in Oroquieta City Public Market and to develop evidence-based recommendations for mitigation strategies. It identifies and quantifies the knowledge gaps among vegetable vendors in Oroquieta City Public Market concerning optimal post-harvest handling, storage and characterize the prevalent practices in post-harvest handling and storage among vegetable vendors in Oroquieta City Public Market and assess their contribution to PHL.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study employed a descriptive-correlational research design. A descriptive approach was used to characterize the demographic profile of the vegetable vendors, their current knowledge levels, and their post-harvest practices. A correlational approach was used to examine the relationships between these variables and the extent of perceived post-harvest losses. This mixed-methods approach, integrating quantitative survey data with qualitative insights from open-ended questions and observations, allowed for a comprehensive analysis of the problem. The respondents of this study were 20 vegetable vendors from the Oroquieta City Public Market. A purposive sampling technique was used to select the participants. The criteria for inclusion were: (1) must be a registered vendor in the market, (2) must have been selling fresh vegetables for at least one year, and (3) must be willing to participate in the study. This sampling method ensured that the respondents had sufficient experience and knowledge to provide relevant data. The study was conducted at the Oroquieta City Public Market, located in the heart of Oroquieta City, Misamis Occidental. This market serves as the primary trading center for agricultural produce in the city and surrounding municipalities. Its central role in the local food supply chain makes it an ideal location for studying the post-harvest practices of small-scale vendors.

Figure 01: Map of Oroquieta City Highlighting the Public Market

The primary data collection tool was a developed survey questionnaire. The questionnaire was divided into five sections:

• Demographic Profile: To gather basic information about the vendors.
• Knowledge Assessment: To measure their understanding of post-harvest principles using a 5-point Likert scale.
• Handling and Storage Practices: To document their current practices through a checklist and multiple-choice questions.
• Perceived Losses: To quantify their estimated losses and identify the primary causes through open-ended questions.
• Training and Capacity Building: To assess their training history and future needs.

The instrument was validated for content and clarity by two experts in agriculture and research methodology from the university. A pilot test was conducted with five vendors who were not part of the final sample to ensure the reliability and clarity of the questions. The data were collected over a two-week period in April 2025. The researchers personally administered the questionnaires to the selected respondents. Before the survey, the purpose of the study was explained to each participant, and their informed consent was obtained. The researchers were present to clarify any questions and to ensure that the questionnaires were completed accurately. Observational notes on the vendors’ stalls, storage areas, and handling techniques were also taken to supplement the survey data.

The collected data were analyzed using the following statistical methods:

• Frequency and Percentage: To summarize the demographic profile of the respondents.
• Mean and Standard Deviation: To describe the vendors’ knowledge levels and the prevalence of certain practices.
• Thematic Analysis: To categorize and interpret the qualitative data from open-ended questions regarding the causes of losses and training needs.

The quantitative data were encoded and analyzed using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences), while the qualitative data were analyzed manually. The results were presented in tables and figures for clarity. The study adhered to strict ethical principles. The researchers secured permission from the market administrator before approaching the vendors. The participation of the vendors was voluntary, and they were assured of the confidentiality and anonymity of their responses. The data collected were used solely for academic purposes.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

We’ve organized the results based on common themes that came up during the study—such as handling techniques, storage conditions, and vendor awareness. These patterns gave us a clearer picture of what’s really happening on the ground. From these findings, we came up with recommendations that are practical, doable, and tailored to the real situations of the vendors. Our goal is to help reduce losses, improve the way vegetables are taken care of after harvest, and promote better, more sustainable practices. Ultimately, we hope these suggestions can support not just the vendors, but also the wider community, by improving vegetable quality, reducing waste, and helping vendors earn more from their hard work. The majority of respondents were female (85%, n=85), while 15% (n=15) were male. The age of vendors ranged from 22 to 70 years. In terms of years in business, the average was (SD = 8.75). Regarding educational attainment, 30% (n=30) of vendors reported High School as their highest level, followed by college (20%, n=20), Vocational (50%, n=50), and Postgraduate (0%, n=0). The average daily income reported was PHP 55% (SD = PHP 55). Most vendors (0%, n=0) reported having no employees, while 0% (n= 0) had one employee, and 0% (n=0) had two or more. The demographic profile indicates that vegetable vending in Oroquieta City is a predominantly female-led enterprise, with vendors possessing considerable years of experience. The mean age suggests a mature workforce. Educational attainment is varied, with a significant portion having completed high school. This level of education might influence their receptiveness to new information and training on post-harvest practices. The average daily income and limited number of employees suggest that many are small-scale operators. These demographic factors could be correlated with their knowledge, practices, and the extent of post-harvest losses experienced. For instance, vendors with lower education or income might have less access to resources or information regarding advanced post-harvest techniques. Vendors’ knowledge regarding post-harvest handling was assessed using a 5-point Likert scale (1=Strongly Disagree, 5=Strongly Agree). Overall, vendors demonstrated moderate knowledge. The highest mean score was observed for “I am aware of the best practices of post-harvest handling of vegetables.” (M=3.8, SD=0.5) and “I am aware of food safety protocols and standards for vegetable vendors” (M=4.3, SD=0.4). Lower mean scores were recorded for “I am familiar with non-chemical pest management practices” (M=2.8, SD=0.6) and “I know the proper storage methods to extend the shelf life of vegetables” (M=3.7, SD=0.4). The statement “am familiar with non-chemical pest management practices.” (M=2.8, SD=0.6). The results suggest that while vendors generally understand the importance of hygiene and food safety, there are knowledge gaps concerning specific technical aspects such as non-chemical pest management and optimal storage methods for extending shelf life [13]. The lower score for non-chemical pest management might indicate a reliance on traditional or chemical methods, or simply a lack of awareness of alternatives. Similarly, the moderate score on proper storage methods could be a contributing factor to post-harvest losses. This highlights potential areas for targeted training and information dissemination. The relatively higher awareness of hygiene and food safety protocols could be attributed to general public health information or previous informal training [14].

Table 01: Demographic Profile of Vegetable Vendor Respondents (N=20)

Characteristic	Category	Frequency	Percentage	Mean
Gender	Male	3	15%
	Female	18	85%
Age (Years)	20-30	1	5%
	30-50	10	50%
	51-70	5	45%
Years in Business				8.75 (7.17)
Highest Educational Attainment	Elementary	0	0%
	High School	6	30%
	Vocational	10	50%
	College	4	20%
	Postgraduate	0	0%
Average Daily Income (PHP)	1000-5000	11	55%
	5000-10,000	5	25%
	10,000-20,000	0	0%
	20,000-30,000	1	5%
Number of Employes	1	3
	2	3

Table 02: Mean Scores for Knowledge Assessment Statements (N=20)

Knowledge Statement	Mean	Standard Deviation (SD)
I am aware of the best practices of post-harvest handling of vegetables.	3.8	0.5
I know the proper storage methods to extend the shelf life of vegetables.	3.7	0.4
I am familiar with non-chemical pest management practices.	2.8	0.6
I understand the importance of hygiene in handling vegetables to prevent contamination	4.3	0.4
I am aware of the food safety protocols and standards for vegetable vendors.	4.3	0.4

The majority of vendors (70%, n=12.5) sourced their vegetables from wholesalers, while 55% (n=12.5) sourced directly from farmers. Regarding the timeliness of receiving vegetables, 55% (n=10) reported receiving them 1-2 days after harvest, 45% (n=10) on the same day, 0% (n=0) within 3-4 days, and 0% (n=0) after more than 4 days [15]. Manual sorting (100%, n=14.1) and visual inspection (0%, n=0) were the predominant methods for sorting. Size grading was practiced by 0% (n=0). For storage, open-air display was the most common method (100%, n=10), followed by covered containers (0%, n=0). Refrigerated storage was used by only 0% (n=0).  Most vendors (60%, n=60) cleaned their storage areas weekly, 5% (n=10) daily, 95% (n=10) monthly, and 0% (n=0) rarely [16]. Public transport was the primary mode of transportation for vegetables for 25% (n=7) of vendors, followed by hired transport (60%, n=7) and own vehicle (20%, n=7). Only 5% (n=10) reported using special packaging or containers during transportation [17]. The findings on handling and storage practices reveal several areas of concern. Sourcing from wholesalers and delays in receiving produce can mean vegetables are already older and more susceptible to spoilage by the time they reach the vendors [18]. The reliance on basic sorting methods like manual and visual inspection might not be sufficient to identify all quality issues. The limited use of refrigerated storage is a significant finding, especially considering the high ambient temperatures typical in the Philippines (average reported storage temperature of 29°C). Open-air display, while common, exposes vegetables to heat, pests, and contaminants, accelerating deterioration. While weekly cleaning is practiced by many, the effectiveness would depend on the thoroughness. Transportation practices, with a high reliance on public transport and infrequent use of special packaging, could contribute to mechanical damage and further losses [19]. These practices, combined with the knowledge gaps identified earlier (e.g., proper storage methods), likely contribute significantly to post-harvest losses.

Table 03: Handling and Storage Practices Reported by Vendors (N=20)

Practice Category	Specific Practice/Response	Frequency	Percentage %	Mean (SD)
Sourcing	Direct from farm	11	55%
	Whole Salers	14	70%
	Other	0	0%
Time to Receive	Same day	9	45%
	1-2 days	11	55%
	3-4 days	0	0%
	>4 days	0	0%
Sorting Methods	Manual Sorting	20	100%
	Visual Sorting	0	0%
	Size Grading	0	0%
Storage Methods	Refrigerated Storage	0	0%
	Open Air	20	100%
	Covered Container	0	0%
Storage Temperature	According to the vendors, the temperature of their storage is depending on the weather of the day
Storage Cleaning Frequency	Daily	19	95%
	Weekly	1	5%
	Monthly	0	0%
	Rarely	0	0%
	Never	0	0%
Transportation Mode	Own Vehicle	4	20%
	Public Transport	5	25%
	Hired Transport	12	60%
Special Packaging	Yes	1	5%
	No	19	95%

Vendors were asked to estimate their vegetable losses and discuss the reasons and impact. The average estimated percentage of vegetables lost due to spoilage or damage before sale was 15%. The main reasons cited for these losses, based on thematic analysis of open-ended responses, were (in order of frequency): 1) Spoilage due to heat/improper temperature (mentioned by 100% of those citing reasons), 2) Mechanical damage during transport and handling (0% 3) Pest infestation (0%) [20]. regarding disposal of spoiled vegetables, 20% (n=8.3) reported throwing them away, 20% used them for compost, 85% donated them (if minimally damaged), and 0% had other methods. A vast majority of vendors 90%, believed these losses significantly affect their income [21]. Open-ended responses indicated this impact was primarily through reduced saleable volume, wasted capital invested in procuring lost goods, and lost potential profit. The estimated average loss of 18% represents a substantial economic burden on the vendors. This figure aligns with general estimates of post-harvest losses for perishable goods in developing countries. The primary reasons for losses—spoilage due to heat, mechanical damage, and pests—are consistent with the handling and storage practices reported, particularly the lack of cold chain facilities and sub optimal transport methods. The predominant disposal method of throwing spoiled vegetables away raises environmental concerns and highlights a missed opportunity for value recovery through composting or animal feed (where appropriate) [22]. The strong consensus (90%) that these losses significantly impact income underscores the urgency of addressing this issue. The financial strain can limit vendors’ ability to invest in better handling practices, creating a cycle of loss.

Table 04: Estimated Losses, Disposal Methods, and Perceived Income Impact (N=20)

Category	Response/Finding	Frequency	Percentage (%)	Mean (SD)
Estimated Loss (%)				21.25 (6.6)
Main Reasons for Losses (Top 3 from thematic analysis)	Spoilage (heat)	20	100%
	Mechanical Damage	0	0%
	Pest Infestation	0	0%
Disposal of Spoiled Vegetables	Throw away	4	20%
	Donate	17	85%
	Compost	4	20%
	Other	0	0%
Losses Significantly Affect Income?	Yes	18	90%
	No	2	10%

0% (n=0) of vendors reported having ever received training on post-harvest handling or food safety. Of those who received training, the most common providers were Local Government Units (LGUs) (5% of trained,). Despite the low rate of previous training, a high percentage of vendors (95%) expressed interest in participating in future training programs [23]. When asked about desired training topics (open-ended, thematic analysis), the most frequently mentioned were: 1) Proper storage techniques to extend shelf life (5% of interested vendors), Food safety and hygiene best practices (5%). Regarding support from the local government, vendors most frequently requested: Financial Assistance with 5%. The low percentage of vendors who have received formal training on post-harvest handling is a critical finding, especially when juxtaposed with their high interest in future training [24]. This indicates a clear demand and opportunity for capacity-building initiatives. The desired training topics directly address the knowledge gaps and problematic practices identified in earlier sections (e.g., storage, pest management). The inclusion of financial management as a desired topic also suggests a broader need for business development support [25]. The requested support from the local government highlights the perceived importance of systemic and infrastructural solutions. Access to cold storage is a recurring theme, reinforcing its critical role in reducing spoilage. Improved market infrastructure and financial assistance would empower vendors to implement better practices. These findings provide actionable insights for designing targeted interventions, including training programs and policy measures, to help vegetable vendors in Oroquieta City reduce post-harvest losses [26].

Table 05: Training Experience, Interest, and Desired Support (N=20)

Category	Response/Finding	Frequency	Percentage (%)
Received Previous Training?	Yes	0	0%
	No	20	100%
Interested in Future Training?	Yes	19	95%
	No	1	5%
Desired Training Topics (Top 3 from thematic analysis)	Proper Storage Techniques	1	5%
	Non-chemical Pest Management	0	0%
	Food Safety & Hygiene	1	5%
Desired LGU Support (Top 3 from thematic analysis)	Access to Cold Storage	0	0%
	Improved Market Infrastructure	0	0%
	Financial Assistance	1	5%

5. CONCLUSION

This study investigated the persistent issue of post-harvest losses among vegetable vendors in Oroquieta City, focusing on the underlying causes, knowledge gaps, and common malpractices that contribute to the spoilage and waste of perishable goods. While post-harvest losses are often studied in the context of farming, this research shifts the focus to small-scale vendors who are directly involved in the storage, handling, and selling of produce after harvest. These vendors play a critical role in the agricultural value chain, yet they are often overlooked in post-harvest management interventions. The study on vegetable vendors in Oroquieta City reveals several key findings that highlight both the challenges and opportunities faced by these vendors. The majority of vendors are women with a mature age profile, indicating a seasoned yet potentially aging workforce. Their educational backgrounds vary, which may influence their ability to adopt new practices and technologies. The vendors demonstrate moderate knowledge of post-harvest handling, with notable gaps in non-chemical pest management and optimal storage techniques. Traditional handling and storage methods prevail, with limited use of refrigerated storage, leading to significant post-harvest losses. These losses, primarily due to spoilage and improper storage, underscore the need for improved practices and infrastructure. Despite these challenges, there is a strong interest among vendors in participating in training programs, particularly in areas such as proper storage techniques and food safety.

6. RECOMMANDATION

• Implement targeted training programs focusing on non-chemical pest management and proper storage methods to reduce spoilage and losses.
• Develop easy-to-understand educational materials and demonstrate best practices through workshops and hands-on training sessions.
• Advocate for the establishment of communal refrigerated storage facilities to extend the shelf life of vegetables and reduce post-harvest losses.
• Promote the use of low-cost, sustainable storage solutions that are feasible for vendors with limited resources.
• Introduce training on efficient sorting and packaging techniques to minimize mechanical damage during handling and transportation.
• Encourage the use of appropriate packaging materials and methods to preserve vegetable quality.
• Collaborate with local governments, NGOs, and agricultural extension services to provide regular, accessible training sessions tailored to the needs of vendors.
• Offer incentives for participation, such as certification or access to microfinance opportunities, to encourage vendor engagement.
• Strengthen vendor associations to facilitate collective bargaining, shared resources, and mutual support among members.
• Empower these associations to advocate for policy changes and improved market conditions.
• Work with local governments to create favorable policies, such as reduced fees for vending licenses and designated vending zones to reduce harassment.
• Encourage public-private partnerships to fund infrastructure improvements, such as covered market spaces and sanitation facilities.
• Establish a system to monitor the effectiveness of interventions and gather feedback from vendors to ensure that programs meet their needs.s
• Conduct regular follow-up studies to assess the long-term impact of implemented recommendations.

REFERENCES

1. Affognon, H., Mutungi, C., Sanginga, P., & Borgemeister, C. (2015). Unpacking postharvest losses in sub-Saharan Africa: A meta-analysis. World Development, 66, 49–68.
2. Ambuko, J., Owino, W., & Owiti, G. (2017). Reducing postharvest losses through improved packaging and handling in tomato value chains in Kenya. Acta Horticulturae, 1152, 271–278.
3. (2021). Agriculture remains backbone of the Philippine economy. BusinessWorld. https://www.bworldonline.com (Add exact URL if available)
4. (2022). Cold chain gaps drive post-harvest waste in Mindanao. BusinessWorld.
5. Cuevas, R. P., Custodio, M. C., Carpio, R. V., & Demont, M. (2020). Storage practices and postharvest losses in Central Luzon. (Add journal name, volume, issue, pages if available)
6. Dela Cruz, M., & Lizada, C. (2017). Postharvest handling and loss reduction strategies in the Philippines. Philippine Center for Postharvest Development and Mechanization (PhilMech).
7. Food and Agriculture Organization. (2019). The state of food and agriculture 2019. FAO.
8. Food and Agriculture Organization. (2020). Reducing post-harvest losses through improved storage technologies. FAO.
9. (2021). Losses in mango and banana production due to weak logistics. FruitNet Media. https://www.fruitnet.com (Add exact URL if available)
10. (2021). Reducing postharvest losses in tropical fruits: Insights from the Philippines. FruitNet Magazine.
11. Kader, A. A. (2005). Increasing food availability by reducing postharvest losses of fresh produce. Acta Horticulturae, 682, 2169–2176.
12. Kader, A. A. (2019). Postharvest technology of horticultural crops (3rd ed.). University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources.
13. Kitinoja, L. (2010). Innovative small-scale postharvest technologies for reducing losses in horticultural crops. UN FAO & The Postharvest Education Foundation.
14. Kitinoja, L., & Kader, A. A. (2015). Small-scale postharvest handling practices: A manual for horticultural crops (4th ed.). Postharvest Horticulture Series No. 8E. University of California, Davis.
15. Lizada, M. C. C. (2018). Postharvest handling of vegetables in the Philippines: Current practices and research needs. Journal of Developments in Sustainable Agriculture, 13(2), 44–52.
16. Maghirang, R. G., et al. (2018). (Add full title and publication details to complete this reference.)
17. (2018). Improving postharvest management through R&D and capacity building. Philippine Council for Agriculture, Aquatic and Natural Resources Research and Development.
18. Philippine Center for Postharvest Development and Mechanization (PhilMech). (2020). Postharvest loss reduction programs in rice and high-value crops. Department of Agriculture – PhilMech.
19. Philippine Center for Postharvest Development and Mechanization (PhilMech). (2020). Postharvest technologies and infrastructure: Annual report. Department of Agriculture – PhilMech.
20. (2019). PhilMech to address post-harvest losses for sweet potato. The Philippine Star. https://www.philstar.com (Add exact URL if available)
21. Sanchez, P. A., et al. (2019). (Add full reference: title, journal or publisher, and other details.)
22. (2020). Study reveals huge post-harvest losses in the Philippines. Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture.
23. (2022). Reducing food loss through postharvest interventions in the Philippines. Southeast Asian Regional Center for Graduate Study and Research in Agriculture.
24. Serrano, E. P. (2017). Postharvest handling losses of selected vegetables in Benguet, Philippines. Philippine Journal of Crop Science, 42(3), 35–42.
25. Sheahan, M., & Barrett, C. B. (2017). Food loss and waste in Sub-Saharan Africa. Food Policy, 70, 1–12.
26. Stathers, T., Lamboll, R., & Mvumi, B. (2013). Postharvest agriculture in changing climates: Its importance to African smallholder farmers. Food Security, 5(3), 361–392.