management studies group (mst)

Wageningen University and Research – Department of

Social Sciences

Management Studies Group (MST)

_____________________________________________

Postharvest Handling Practices on Vegetable Crops

at Different Stages of The Distribution Chain: A

Case Study in Selangor, Malaysia

June 2017

MSc Programme : MSc Management, Economics and Consumer Studies

Specialisation : Management in Life Sciences

Name : Amir Taufiq bin Sabuddin

Supervisor : prof.dr. JH (Jacques) Trienekens

Co-supervisor : dr. WJJ (Jos) Bijman

Thesis Code : MSc Thesis Management Studies (MST-80433)

Page | II

ABSTRACT

___________________________________________________________________________

Appropriate postharvest handling practices are required to ensure that harvested produce

reaches the consumer at the optimal quality. Thus, the objective of this research is to define

strategies and measures to support food safety and quality. In this research, the data and

information were collected from several key actors in the postharvest distribution chain (farmer,

handler, wholesaler, retailer) as well as a government representative. A total of thirteen semi-

structured interviews and four covert observations were conducted to determine the extent of

the postharvest handling practices performed at different stages of the distribution chain. The

study utilized the purposive sampling method and the qualitative analysis that had been used to

analyse the data. The study had also identified five important factors and seven barriers that

influenced the implementation of postharvest handling practices amongst actors in the

postharvest distribution chain. Knowledge, supply chain management, infrastructure and

facilities, resources (tools and equipment), and government policies were the five main factors

that were examined in this paper. The analysis indicated that the lack of sharing information,

the lack of trust in the distribution chain, improper infrastructure and facilities, insufficient

availability of tools and equipment, weak enforcement, lack of extension programs and

improper marketing channels were the seven barriers met by the actors during the

implementation of the postharvest handling practices. Five general recommendations for

Federal Agriculture Marketing Authority (FAMA) were provided around the scope of

collaboration, information sharing, extension programmes, regulation on cleanliness and

infrastructure, facilities and equipment

Key words: Postharvest handling practices, vegetables crops, food safety, food quality

Page | III

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT II

TABLE OF CONTENTS III

LIST OF TABLES V

LIST OF FIGURES V

LIST OF APPENDICES V

1.0 Introduction 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Problem Statement 2

1.3 Research Objective 3

1.4 Main Research Questions 3

1.5 Specific Research Questions 4

1.6 Research Framework 4

2.0 Literature Review 5

2.1 Introduction 5

2.2 Supply Chain Management 5

2.2.1 Various actors 7

2.2.2 Collaboration in Agri-food Supply Chain 7

2.2.3 Importance of information sharing and trust to achieve collaboration 8

2.3 Extension Program 10

2.4 Technological Aspect 11

2.4.1 Postharvest Handling Practices 11

2.4.2 Packinghouse Operation 12

2.4.3 Pre-cooling 13

2.4.4 Transportation 13

2.5 Financial Assistance 14

2.6 Food Quality 14

2.7 Food Safety 15

2.8 Conceptual Framework 17

3.0 Research Methodology 18

3.1 Introduction 18

3.2 Research Design 18

3.3 Methods of Data Collection 19

3.3.1 Document Analysis 19

3.3.2 Covert Participant Observation 20

3.3.3 Semi-structured Interview 20

3.4 Sampling Method 22

3.5 Operationalization 22

3.6 Data Analysis 23

3.6.1 Record ideas and theories 23

3.6.2 Organize and manage the responses 24

3.6.3 Identify and interpreting common, recurrent and emergent aspects 24

3.6.4 Develop the categories, and grouping of identified aspects and 24

responses

Page | IV

3.7 Limitation of Study 26

3.8 Summary 26

4.0 Data Findings 27

4.1 Introduction 27

4.2 Interview analysis 27

4.2.1 Knowledge 27

4.2.2 Supply Chain Management 28

4.2.3 Infrastructure and facilities 30

4.2.4 Government policy 32

4.2.5 Resources (tools and equipment) 33

4.3 FAMA’s Interview 38

4.4 Covert Participant Observation 40

5.0 Discussion 42

6.0 Conclusions and Recommendations 50

Page | V

LIST OF TABLES

___________________________________________________________________________

Table Page

Table 1: List of covert observations 20

Table 2: List of semi-structured interviews 21

Table 3: Interview protocol 23

Table 4: Steps of analysing interview transcripts 25

Table 5: Categories and aspects based on responses of farmers 34

Table 6: Categories and aspects based on responses of handlers 35

Table 7: Categories and aspects based on responses of wholesalers 36

Table 8: Categories and aspects based on responses of retailers 37

Table 9: A list of covert observations 40

LIST OF FIGURES

___________________________________________________________________________

Figure Page

Figure 1: Research Framework 4

Figure 2: Food Supply Chain Network 6

Figure 3: Collaboration in Supply Chain 9

Figure 4: Conceptual Framework 17

Figure 5: Relationship between factors and barriers 51

LIST OF APPENDICES

___________________________________________________________________________

Appendix

Appendix A: Semi-structured interview with Farmers (F1, F2, F3)

Appendix B: Semi-structured interview with Handlers (H1, H2, H3)

Appendix C: Semi-structured interview with Wholesaler (W1, W2, W3)

Appendix D: Semi-structured interview with Retailer (R1, R2, R3)

Appendix E: Semi-structured interview with FAMA Representative (O1)

Appendix F: Barriers for not performing postharvest handling practices

Page | 1

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

___________________________________________________________________________

1.1 Background

The Agriculture sector was identified as one of the twelve National Key Economic Areas that

played an important role as the catalyst for the economic growth in Malaysia. The objective and

strategic directions for vegetable industry in Malaysia had been drafted in the National

Agrofood Policy (2011-2020) and amplified by the Ministry of Agriculture and Agro-based

Industries (FAMA, 2016). Federal Agricultural Marketing Authority, better known as FAMA

was one of the agencies under the Ministry of Agriculture and Agro-based industries that had

developed a long term strategic plan for the period 2011-2020, consistent with the National

Agro Food Policy, to increase and expand the market for agro-food agricultural products.

FAMA, in its role for marketing agricultural produce, initiated to increase the supply of

agriculture harvests, to ensure the finest quality and safety of the yield, to increase market

access and to increase the flow of income among target groups, especially small-scale farmers

within the community (FAMA, 2016).

Postharvest handling plays a vital role in the development of the vegetable industry in Malaysia.

Postharvest handling practices generally covers the aspects of cooling, cleaning, sorting and

packaging of the produce. The fact that any crop would deteriorate once separated from the

parent, sees the urgency to guarantee the preservation of fresh produce right after harvest time

until it has reached the end consumers (Ruslan, Man, Nawi, & Ding, 2013).

1.2 Problem Statement

Most of Malaysia’s vegetables, produced for the domestic market, are of inconsistent quality in

terms of the level of maturity and size of the produce. Poor quality of produce leaving the farm

gate can lead to unwanted problems for the entire horticulture sector chain (Muda, 2006).

Amongst the actors involved in the distribution chain, wholesalers and retailers should be given

Page | 2

in depth attention as postharvest losses was recorded at its highest, at both these phases. (Osman

et al., 2009). Developing countries, with regards to improper postharvest handling practices,

saw tremendous loss occur during the storage, handling, processing and transportation stages.

(Barbosa-Cánovas et al., 2003)

Most of the extension programs conducted in developing countries had been too expensive for

postharvest distribution chain actors apart from it being short term and mainly focused on large-

scale commercial horticultural businesses (Kitinoja et al., 2010). Issues and problems in

providing extension services with focus on developing countries were lacking of follow-up and

after training support. Participants involved in postharvest training might have been willing to

implement improved postharvest handling and technologies, but cannot adopt it, as the

necessary equipment and tools are not locally available (Kitinoja et al., 2010). This also goes

for maintenance matters whereby broken facilities, tools and equipment cannot be easily

repaired as not many local workshops support this service. Any changes in recent postharvest

handling are then neglected, due to the abovementioned matters (Kitinoja et al., 2010).

Issues in the supply chain management had also been highlighted by several authors. The lack

of coordination that occurred within the supply chain had either been due to the conflicting

differences of the local objectives or the delayed and distorted sharing of informtion within the

supply chain (Barrat & Oliveira, 2001). Typically, a supply chain network consisted of different

actors, not only restricted to a single supply chain for example, one producer could sell to more

than one handler/wholesaler or one retailer could have more than one supplier (van der Vorst,

da Silva, & Trienekens, 2007). With the presence of many actors in the supply chain, not only

did each stage focus on its own objectives, rather the information relayed had often been

distorted as it moved across the chain because complete information had not been shared

between stages such pricing, demand and planning (Lambert & Cooper, 2000). Distortion of

Page | 3

demand information usually happens within the supply chain, with each key actor having

different forecast of what demand looked like (Chopra & Meindl, 2016).

Problems associated with improper postharvest handling practices had been a worldwide

concern, especially in developing countries as food safety and quality demand increased

(Kitinoja et al., 2010). Previous research had shown that several researchers had focussed on

the implementation of postharvest handling at the farmers’ stage, while other actors in the

distribution chain (handler, wholesaler and retailer) have not been the focus of earlier studies.

While facilities, equipment and programmes have been provided by FAMA, the

implementation of appropriate postharvest handling practices among small-scale actors at

different stages of the distribution chain in Malaysia was far from satisfactory (Osman et al.,

2009). In fact, factors that influenced postharvest handling practices and the ways in which it

could have contributed to the food safety and quality remained unclear. In response to the issues

and challenges mentioned above, research had been conducted to identify the factors that had

influenced the implementation of postharvest handling practices on vegetable crops at different

levels of the small-scale postharvest distribution chain; to identify issues and constraints that

had influenced the implementation of appropriate postharvest handling; and to define strategies

and measures to support food safety and quality.

1.3 Research Objective

The objective of this research was to define strategies and measures for the Federal Agricultural

Marketing Authority (FAMA) of Malaysia to support food safety and quality of vegetable crops

by identifying factors that influenced the implementation of postharvest handling practices.

1.4 Main Research Question:

What are the strategies and measures of FAMA for postharvest handling practices that support

food safety and quality in Malaysia?

Page | 4

Figure 1: Research framework

This main research question will be answered by investigating the following specific research

questions:

1.5 Specific Research Questions:

1. What factors and barriers of postharvest handling (PH) practices can be derived from

both the literature and empirical review; and how are they related to each other?

2. How have factors and barriers influenced the implementation of PH practices in the

Malaysian vegetables supply chains?

3. What strategies and measures could be recommended to FAMA to support the food

safety and quality, based on the factors and barriers that had influenced the

implementation of PH practices?

The research framework is shown in Figure 1

Page | 5

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

___________________________________________________________________________

2.1 INTRODUCTION

Chapter two discusses the various aspects which have influenced the implementation of

postharvest handling practices amongst actors in the distribution chain. Supply chain

management, extension program, human and technological are the four aspects that constitute

the conceptual framework for this research study. It discusses the importance of those aspects

focusing on the postharvest handling practices by the actors in the distribution chain.

Furthermore, the review identified four actors at each stage of postharvest distribution chain;

farmers, handlers, wholesalers and retailers who have been practicing postharvest handling in

their activities.

2.2 SUPPLY CHAIN MANAGEMENT

‘supply chain as a series of physical and decision-making activities connected by material

and information flows and associated flows of money and property rights that cross

organizational boundaries’ (van der Vorst, da Silva, & Trienekens, 2007)

Supply chain can be explained as a flow of decision making and execution process; integrate

elements such as product and information to meet end customer demands. The flow takes place

along supply chain from production to final consumption (van der Vorst, da Silva, &

Trienekens, 2007). Supply chain not only associates with producer and its retailer, but also,

depending on the logistic flows (van der Vorst et al., 2007). It also not only involves one single

flow of chain, in fact, supply chains exist within some more complex networks. In broader view,

supply chains should ideally be assessed within the complex network include also handler,

processor, wholesaler, operation, distribution and retailer as shown in Figure 1.

Page | 6

Figure 2: Food Supply Chain Network (Based on Lazzarini et al.,2001)

Figure 1 shows a food supply chain network (FSCN) that consist of different companies

collaborate strategically in more than one business process both parallel and sequential in time

(van der Vorst et al., 2007). Commonly, each firm belongs to more than one supply chain,

consists of several suppliers, retailers and customers. Vegetable retailer, for instance, receive

produces not only restricted from one supplier but may up to several different suppliers. All

actors in the supply chain influence the performance of the chain, so if there are any managerial

complication happens between, as example, two companies do not solely depend on those

partners involved, but also in the relationship within the chain and networks. In brief, actors

involve in the food supply chain networks play different roles and involve in various of business

chains (van der Vorst et al., 2007). Two types of agri-food chains mentioned by van der Vorst

et al., (2007) and explained as follows.

1. Agri-food chains for fresh and perishable produce such as fresh vegetables and fruits.

Generally, such chain may consist of actors such as producer, wholesaler, trader, retailer and

supplier (van der Vorst et al., 2007). Basically, the intrinsic characteristics of the product are

Producer/Grower

Handler/Processor

Wholesaler

Retailer

Page | 7

untouched. Meanwhile, the common practices in the chain are handling, storage, packing and

transportation. This type of chain will be given attention in the thesis.

2. Agri-food chains for processed for products. In these chains, higher added value products

(snacks, desserts, canned food products) are produced from raw agriculture. Basically, process

such as conservation and conditioning are executed to extend the shelf life of the products.

2.2.1 Various actors

Various actors (farmer, handler, wholesaler and retailer) in postharvest distribution chain plays

a key role in implementation of appropriate postharvest handling. Fresh vegetables move from

farmers to end consumers through several actors involved in distribution chain (Ruslan, Man,

Nawi, & Ding, 2013). Food supply chain network (FSCN) comprises of actors that are

responsible for the production of fresh produce and they rely and collaborate on each other to

deliver quality produce to the end consumer. Fresh produce being moved cross the distribution

chain are expose to quality decay due to inefficient practice of another actors (van der Vorst et

al., 2007). For example, rough handling in the field will increase the risk of mechanical injury,

later reduce the quality and thus cannot be sold at preferred price, or may even worst the produce

unfit for human consumption. Muda (2006) also mentioned many wholesalers in Malaysia have

improper postharvest handling facilities which specifically referred to cold rooms. Among actor

in the distribution chain, wholesaler and retailer are the actors that should be given in depth

attention as postharvest losses recorded highest at these two levels (Osman et al., 2009).

2.2.2 Collaboration in Agri-food Supply Chain

In general, collaboration in the supply chain has a common goal which is to create a visible and

transparent forecasting demand pattern throughout the entire supply chain (Holweg, Disney,

Jan, & Smaros, 2005). Collaboration.is about organizations working together to resolve

common problems and achieve the desired goals (Barrat & Oliveira, 2001). Forming,

Page | 8

establishing and maintaining supply chain collaboration are crucial steps to take into

consideration. Ouden et al (1996) mentioned that compatibility of partners’ goals, strategies

and assets is one of the basic qualifiers in forming a successful collaboration.

The critical elements in supply chain that also have been cited in the literature include benefits,

risk and rewards sharing (Barrat & Oliveira, 2001). According to Holweg et al., (2005), benefits

that typically achieved through supply chain collaboration are better utilization of transportation

resources; reduction in inventory levels and limiting the risk for constrained components.

Meanwhile, the risk and reward sharing balance are factors that might lure companies towards

close collaboration (Lambert & Cooper, 2000). An integration of other elements, such as

dependence, power and trust have been also identified as some influential factors in companies’

decision to collaborate.

2.2.3 Importance of information sharing and trust to achieve collaboration

Numerous researches have been done in a few years back on supply chain collaboration to

evaluate the importance of suppliers’ and customers’ information in order to achieve

competitive advantage. Information system, for instance, is one of the important tool to share

information amongst actors in the supply chain to simplify the business processes. Less focus

on this element will lead to unwanted problems. This has been highlighted by Barrat and

Oliveira (2001) that other barriers to implement collaboration in supply chain are due to lack

of trust, lack of sharing information and insufficient information technology to communicate

important data throughout the distribution chain. Henderson (2002) suggests information

sharing not only for basic data but to share more detail information on operational, financial

and logistic data such as forecasting, production costs and goals.

Page | 9

Figure 3: Collaboration in Supply Chain (Based on Barrat and Oleiveira, 2001)

Figure 3 depicts a collaboration in supply chain that consist of three (3) types of collaborative;

collaborative demand, planning and replenishment; collaborative production and collaborative

logistics planning. In achieving the first collaborative, retailers and manufacturers/processors

should work together to assess consumer demand, decide the replenishment approach and

strategize an adequate supply management (van der Vorst et al., 2007). Effectiveness of supply

chain collaboration can be achieved if all actors along the chain take actions that are align with

supply chain goals (van der Vorst et al., 2007). Moreover, supply chain collaboration requires

each actor of the supply chain to share information and take into consideration the impact its

actions have on other stages (Chopra & Meindl, 2016). These findings are in agreement with

the study by Barrat and Oliveira (2001), that significant barriers to achieve supply chain

collaboration is a lack of information sharing such as consumer demand.

In collaborative of production, farmers (supplier) and handler/wholesaler (manufacturer) have

to work together to smoothen the supply of fresh produce and later strategize the logistic to

minimize the stocks within distribution chain and at the same time can maximize the

responsiveness. Coordinating transportation also one of the vital key to achieve successful

Collaborative

Production

Collaborative demand,

planning & replenishment

Farmer/Producer/Grower Retailer/Consumer Handler/Processor/Wholesaler

Collaborative logistics planning

Connectivity and transparency

Page | 10

collaboration. The coordination involves various parties including logistic service providers,

carriers, shippers and recipients (van der Vorst et al., 2007). Transparency and collaboration

can be difficult to execute, but well worth the effort when actors consider the potential reduction

in risk and costs, and improvement in customer satisfaction and loyalty.

2.3 EXTENSION PROGRAM

Postharvest extension program is a linkage between research and small-scale producers and

marketers (Kitinoja, Saran, Roy, & Adel, 2011). The purposes of extension programs to deliver

sufficient knowledge on how to maintain quality and safety of produce through adaption of

latest postharvest technology and practices. Such programs also aimed to strengthen connection

between experts, researcher and extension worker (Kitinoja et al., 2010). Government/private

agencies and farm management itself have the responsibility to educate their client, employees

and workers on how to perform proper postharvest handling in comply with the standard

established by the authorities (Kitinoja, et al., 2010). This can be done through

seminar/course/information pamphlet etc. With the numbers of trained personnel will be helpful

in performing proper postharvest handling comprehensively. Government and private agencies

should emphasize on their extension programs to educate farmers mainly on technical

knowledge of postharvest handling. Farmers especially in the developing countries should

consider postharvest system until marketing stage as one single system (FAO, 2016). The

quality and safety of the produce must be sustained throughout the supply chain because if the

initial quality of produce is poor, it will continually along the chain and thus reach final

consumer as low-quality produce. Few issues and problems in providing extension services

with focus on developing countries are lack of follow-up and support after training. Participants

involved in postharvest training might be willing to implement improved postharvest handling

and technologies but could not adapt it as needed equipment and tools required are not locally

available (Kitinoja et al., 2010). This also goes to maintenance matter where broken facilities,

Page | 11

tools and equipment could not be repaired easily as not much local shops support this service.

So, any changes in recent postharvest handling are then neglected due to those matters (Kitinoja

et al., 2010).

In addition, most of the extension programs conducted in developing countries has been too

expensive, in a short term and mainly focus on large-scale commercial horticultural business

(Kitinoja et al., 2010). Such extension programs should give attention towards small-scale

farmers because this target group can contribute to large impact on the final quality of fresh

produce and thus influence its market value. Kitinoja et al., (2010) in her study, any postharvest

extension services/programs should incorporate hands-on demonstrations about sources and

causes that lead to postharvest losses especially on horticultural crops. This could also cover

various topics including mechanical damage, relative humidity and temperature management,

ethylene exposure, proper handling in the field etc.)

2.4 TECHNOLOGICAL ASPECT

2.4.1 Postharvest Handling Practices

Postharvest handling integrates activities include harvesting, in-field handling, packinghouse

operation, storage, transportation and ripening (Muda, 2006). Harvesting time is the earlier

stage in postharvest handling practices. Due to food safety and quality concern, harvesting

activities should be done during the coolest time of the day. Normally it could be executed in

the early morning or late afternoon and kept shaded in the field to control the respiration rate

that can affect the quality of produce. Produce must be handled gently to avoid from mechanical

damage such as bruises, decay, skin damage and other injuries that would lead to moisture loss

(Bachmann & Earles, 2000). Such damage could be prevented by applying appropriate

postharvest handling such as harvest at correct maturity, handle produce in dry condition and

use of bins equipped with internal padding.

Page | 12

The quality of produce cannot be improved after harvest, only maintained for the expected shelf

life of the commodity (Suslow, 2000). Harvesting time could vary dependent on market demand

(Muda, 2006). Time of harvesting depending on various reasons. Some types of produce are

more delicate when harvested earlier, while some of them have the option to harvest later to

achieve optimum quality and maturity. Three factors during harvesting activities that influence

the quality of produce are right harvesting time, at peak maturity and less damage towards

produce (Michailides and Manganaris, 2009; Prusky, 2011).

2.4.2 Packinghouse Operation

A packinghouse is often a physical structure equipped with a few equipment such as conveyor,

packaging facilities, washing systems and pre-cooling facilities (Muda, 2006). Operations and

practices implemented in the packinghouse are dependent on demand and market requirements

(Muda, 2006). Produce for domestic market is subjected to simple practices as produce may

undergo a variety of handling practices, from dumping, sorting, trimming, washing, grading

and packaging (Muda, 2006). It is important to locate packinghouse at the right area. Access to

the field and market area, adequate space for vehicle to enter and leave, and accessible for

workers are three aspects to take into consideration (Kader & Kitinoja, 2002). In the simplest

construction of packinghouse, produce from nearby farm is delivered in containers. The packers

at the packinghouse then execute a variety of practices from sorting, grading, sizing and packing

the produce before placing it directly into proper transportation containers. Person in charge in

these practices has to be knowledgeable regarding maintenance of produce safety and quality,

grade and size requirements and packing procedures. Sizing and packaging is still commonly

practice in packinghouse. Person in charge for sizing practice must be knowledgeable in

selecting desired size because of higher price the producer could get for particular size of

produce. Packaging plays an important role in the maintenance of quality attributes of fresh

produce (Luning & Marcelis, 2009). Various packaging materials used to wrap fresh produce

Page | 13

to provide cushioning which then can avoid them from any possibilities of adverse effects

(biological and mechanical damage) during handling, distribution and could also from

environment (Jarimopas, Singh, Sayasoonthorn, & Singh, 2007). The mechanical barrier

properties imply how well the packaging material can prevent the product from mechanical

injuries during its distribution and storage life (Luning & Marcelis, 2009). In developing

country, bamboo basket is commonly used for transportation but to let produce has direct

contact with bamboo is not the best practice. Returnable plastic container then has been

introduced to all players along postharvest supply chain to replace bamboo baskets for field

handling practices (Muda, 2006).

2.4.3 Pre-cooling

Fresh vegetables cannot be stored for a longer time under normal tropical ambient temperature.

It is important to ensure the produce to be stored are free from diseases or any damages (Kader

and Kitinoja, 2002). They also describe that proper storage practices include relative humidity

control, adequate ventilation, avoiding incompatible product mixes and temperature

management. In context of postharvest handling practices, vegetables are places in the storage

for a period of times because of a few reasons. Storage of produce serves as a mean of delaying

market until price rise, extending the season, provide more stable retail distribution or food

service establishment (Shewfelta, Prussiaa, & Sparks, 2014). Shelf life of perishable produce

during storage is dependent on relative humidity (RH), optimal temperature as well as the use

of chemical preservatives (Kader & Lee, 2000).

2.4.4 Transportation

In most developing countries, transportation modes and basic infrastructure especially those

suited for perishable produce are not adequately provided. Sufficiency in transportation system

is one the important key in agriculture supply chain. Time and distance are two factors can be

solved only with modern and competent transportation system. Vehicle transport intends to

Page | 14

carry fresh produce must be equipped by refrigeration temperature system to sustain the quality

of produce along the journeys (Thompson and Kitinoja, 2010). Ensuring commodity

compatibility, maintaining right temperature and minimizing mechanical injury are important

considerations in transportation system (Shewfelta et al., 2014). Proper temperature should be

applied based on individual crop temperature requirement. Wrongly applied temperature would

lead to unwanted problems such as chilling injury and consequently affect the quality of

produce. Normally, mechanical damage occurs due to rough handling or from vibration during

transportation (Aba, Gana, Ogbonnaya, & O, 2012).

2.5 Financial Assistance

To be able to implement appropriate postharvest handling, financial ability must take into

consideration. The government may provide financial assistance to a certain extent to allow

company equips their farm with adequate infrastructure, facilities, tools and equipment. Study

on effect of financial assistance on performing postharvest handling was done by Osman et al.,

(2009), stated that insufficient funding was one of the factors influence the implementation of

appropriate postharvest handling. In a study of financial resources by Weinberger and Lumpkin

(2007), only less than 5% of funding has been allocated for postharvest research and extension

over the past 20 years. Moreover, lack of financial incentives for farmers to use improved

handling practices (often due to the role of intermediaries) also found as one of the barriers to

not implement appropriate postharvest handling (Kitinoja, 2013).

2.6 Food Quality

Implementation of appropriate postharvest handling practices are needed to ensure optimum

quality of produce with high concern on food safety. Adequate postharvest management assures

food quality and safety, rate of acceptance of produce in the market and profits received by the

seller (Kader & Rolle, 2004). Consumer with higher purchasing power tend to seek for higher

quality of produces. Only through improved and appropriate postharvest handling, those

produces could achieve optimum quality desired (Muda, 2006). Appropriate postharvest

Page | 15

handling practices is the key in reaching three main objectives of applying postharvest

technology which are to protect food safety, to reduce losses between harvest and consumption;

and to maintain quality of produce (Kader & Kitinoja, Small-Scale Postharvest Handling

Practices: A Manual for Horticultural Crops (4th Edition), 2002). In fact, appropriate

postharvest handling will be resulted in high quality produce, free from disease and better shelf

life (Bachmann & Earles, 2000). In addition, implementation of appropriate postharvest

handling to ensure food safety and quality is one of the recommendation made during a seminar

on Postharvest Management of Fruit and Vegetables in the Asia-Pacific Region (FAO, 2006).

Noticeably, appropriate postharvest handling practices determine food quality and safety but

implementation of them in most developing countries in the region is far from satisfactory

(FAO, 2006).

2.7 Food Safety

Food safety is one of the element to give a special attention as produce sent to end consumer

must be safe for human consumption. Consumers are now interested in buying fruits and

vegetables which undergo handling practices that will ensure food safety. Growers and

producers are responsible to document their handling practices to protect fresh produce from

contamination (Kader & Kitinoja, Small-Scale Postharvest Handling Practices: A Manual for

Horticultural Crops (4th Edition), 2002). Other actor such as retailers (large supermarket) are

demanding for food safety compliance from their suppliers. In Malaysia, a few policies are

being developed by the authority to ensure the compliance of food safety for fresh vegetables.

One of them is GAP (Good Agricultural Practices) and this certificate to recognize farms that

operated in a sustainable and environmentally friendly way, concern with workers’ health and

safety and yield produces are of optimum quality and safe for human consumption. Other

certificate such as HACCP (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Points) is being granted to actors

in the distribution chain who manage to document the safety practices, chemicals usage and

Page | 16

packaging materials especially for fresh produce (Zahari & Sa'ari, 2012). Few measures to

prevent contamination in the field are (1) Do not place produce on the ground especially if

manure being applied on that area or animals allowed to graze. (2) Do not place harvested

produce on any surface which familiar for bird’s roost (Bachmann & Earles, 2000). Other safety

practices on farm that might reduce the risk of contamination are use of clean soil, clean water,

clean equipment and tools and concern with workers’ hygiene (Kader & Kitinoja, Small-Scale

Postharvest Handling Practices: A Manual for Horticultural Crops (4th Edition), 2002). Kader

& Kitinoja, (2002) mentioned that food safety problems during postharvest handling can be

grouped into three major categories which are physical hazards, chemical hazards and human

pathogens. Physical hazards are explained as embedded things in produce during postharvest

handling practices such as staples and nails. Chemical hazards are referred to chemical include

fungicide, pesticide, herbicides, toxins etc. which may contaminate produce during postharvest

handling practices (Kader and Kitinoja 2002). The last category is human pathogens which can

be grouped into four main types associated with fresh produce; feces associated pathogenic

bacteria, pathogenic parasites, pathogenic viruses and soil associated pathogenic bacteria

(Kader & Kitinoja, Small-Scale Postharvest Handling Practices: A Manual for Horticultural

Crops (4th Edition), 2002).These human pathogens can be spread into food from infected

fieldworkers, by use of contaminated water for irrigation and use of inadequately composted

manure (Kader & Kitinoja, Small-Scale Postharvest Handling Practices: A Manual for

Horticultural Crops (4th Edition), 2002).

Page | 17

2.8 Conceptual Framework

Based on all the concepts found in previous studies either investigated in similar or different

scopes, certain concepts were selected to be potential factors influencing implementation of

postharvest handling practices. Literature findings were divided into three potential factors:

Supply Chain Management, Extension Programs and Technological. These factors should

determine the possible strategies and measures that FAMA can adopt to support food safety and

quality. The conceptual framework is represented in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Conceptual Framework

Page | 18

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

This chapter offers an outline and justification of the methods used with the purpose of

identifying factors that influence the implementation of postharvest handling practices that

contribute to food safety and quality of vegetable crops. A qualitative descriptive research

design was practiced while semi-structured interviews, covert observations and document

analysis were conducted amongst actors in the postharvest distribution chain (farmer, handler,

wholesaler, retailer) and a FAMA representative. Important information such as research design

used to analyse empirical data are discussed in sub-chapter 3.2. Sub-chapter 3.3 indicates the

methods of data collection while sub-chapters 3.4, 3.5 and 3.6 are about sampling method,

operationalization and data analysis respectively.

3.2 Research Design

Research design used in the study is qualitative descriptive research. The design is used when

a straightforward description of a phenomenon is desired. It is an approach that is very useful

when researchers want to know, regarding topic, who was involved, what was involved, and

where did things take place (Vickie & Clinton, 2012). Qualitative descriptive study tends to

draw from naturalistic inquiry, with the intention of studying something in its natural state to

the extent that is possible within the context of the research (Vickie & Clinton, 2012). The

implementation of appropriate postharvest practices amongst actors in the postharvest

distribution chain has not been a focus of previous studies. Moreover, research with an emphasis

on the factors that contribute to food safety and quality are rarely documented during research

studies, therefore, this study can be categorized as an exploratory research. The case study

presented in this research is about Selangor, one of the state located in the central region of

Malaysia which became the major supplier of fresh vegetables for domestic market. Selangor

currently involves in the production of vegetables that contributed to 3.1% of the state’s gross

Page | 19

domestic product (GDP). Agriculture activities mainly focus in Serdang, Selayang and Shah

Alam

3.3 Methods of Data Collection

The study was carried out with the objective to define strategies and measures for FAMA that

contribute to food safety and quality of vegetable crops (fruit vegetables, root and tuber

vegetables, green leafy vegetables, cole crops, bulb vegetables and minor vegetables). In this

study, data collection of qualitative descriptive study focuses on identifying the nature of the

specific issues under study which is the implementation of postharvest handling practices. Thus,

data collection can involve structured, open-ended, individual or focus group interviews,

observations, examination of records, reports, photographs, and documents (Vickie & Clinton,

2012). Document analysis, covert observation and semi-structured interview are used as a

method for data collections. Data and information on postharvest handling practices at different

stage of the distribution chain (farmer, handler, wholesaler, retailer) were collected from both

primary and secondary sources. The foremost step in building up a body of knowledge begins

with searching previous research to infer how far the actors in the area of postharvest have gone

through the topic.

3.3.1 Document Analysis

First, government publications, earlier research and annual report of FAMA were reviewed to

get an insight on recent postharvest handling practices. To obtain more comprehensive insights

on the actual situation, data and information also were acquired through primary data collection.

As mentioned above, semi-structured interviews and covert observations were conducted to

determine the extent of the postharvest handling practices performed at different stages and to

explore what factors influence the handling practices.

Page | 20

3.3.2 Covert Participant Observations

The information on postharvest handling practices amongst actors was first collected by

conducting a covert participant observation. Esterberg (2002) states “If you want to know about

what people actually do, rather than what they say they do, you should probably use

observation”. Moreover, De Vaus (2001) pointed out that covert observation may be used

because normally research access to the targeted unit will be denied and to ensure the present

of the researcher does not affect the behaviour of a unit / group being studied. Therefore, four

(4) series of participant observations (covert) at different distribution stages were carried out

without the explicit awareness and agreement of actors being studied. These covert observations

were conducted by getting involved in the postharvest handling activities implemented at the

different stages. A list of activities is listed in the table 1.

Table 1: A list of covert observations

3.3.3 Semi-structured Interviews

Twelve (12) semi-structured interviews were conducted at different stages of the distribution

chain and one (1) semi-structured interview was done towards FAMA representative. Series of

interviews were conducted via one-to-one interview. Five (5) set of questions were developed

based on actors’ functionalities. Farmer, for instance, the questions about harvesting and

handling were asked, while topics on packaging and storage were asked towards

handler/wholesaler. Four (4) different set of questions were asked towards four (4) actors

(farmer, handler, wholesaler, retailer) and a set of questions for FAMA representative. This

Actors Dates Activities

Farmer 7/1/2017 Harvesting leafy vegetables

Handler 9/1/2017 Packinghouse activities

Wholesaler 10/1/2017 Repacking and storage

Retailer 13/1/2017 Storage and handling

Page | 21

method is crucial to identify factors that influence the implementation of postharvest handling

practices amongst various actors in the postharvest distribution chain. A list of actors (the

respondents) is detailed in Table 2.

Unique identifiers are allocated for each respondent. Respondent codes are developed to

categorize respondents based on respondent identification numbers and their functionality. A

list of the respondent names and the number assigned were kept separately to ensure anonymity

of the respondents. The respondent code was used to identify the transcription that can be linked

to the respondent.

Table 2: A list of semi-structured interviews

Respondent

identification

number

Respondent

Code

Date

Interviewed

Workplace Functionality/

Profession

1 F1 18/1/2017 Serdang Farmer

2 F2 18/1/2017 Selayang Farmer

3 F3 18/1/2017 Serdang Farmer

4 H1 21/1/2017 Bangi Handler

5 H2 21/1/2017 Kajang Handler

6 H3 21/1/2017 Kajang Handler

7 W1 24/1/2017 Selayang Wholesaler

8 W2 24/1/2017 Selayang Wholesaler

9 W3 24/1/2017 Shah Alam Wholesaler

10 R1 27/1/2017 Serdang Retailer



13 O1 30/1/2017 Selayang FAMA officer

Page | 22

3.4 Sampling Method

Selecting respondents for semi-structured interviews was an important step. Normally people

are selected based on their experience related to the research topic (Cameron, 2005). In the

research, data and information were gathered from several actors in the postharvest distribution

chain (farmer, handler, wholesaler, retailer) and a government representative. Therefore, non-

random sampling, which is called purposive sampling was used to assemble a sample of persons

with known or demonstrable experience and expertise. So, participants were selected because

they are probable to generate useful data for the project. Sample sizes are typically small in

qualitative work and one way of identifying how many people needed is to continue

interviewing until, in analysis, nothing new information comes from the data which is called

‘saturation’ (Mason, 2010).

3.5 Operationalization

Operationalization process started with the identification of concepts based on literature review.

The semi-structured interview guideline was prepared from the concepts identified based on

literature reviews in the conceptual framework. Operationalization process continued with

identification of aspects and the allocation of those aspects into the concepts developed.

Dimension of both concept and aspect were found in the literature and emphasized on research

topics, to identify the factors that influence the implementation of postharvest practices. As

mentioned by De Vaus (2001), indicators are part of an aspect that provides information about

the presence of the aspect, thus indicators for each dimension was created to support and

supplement both concept and aspect created. Those aspects created must be defined so they can

be measured by a research instrument. Table 3 provides an interview protocol, and more

detailed questions on each respondent can be found in the Appendix A, B, C, D, E.

Page | 23

Table 3: Interview protocol

Concepts Aspects

Infrastructure and facilities (I&F) Availability of I&F

Sufficient of I&F

Proper I&F

Resource (tools & equipment) Proper equipment

Sufficient equipment

Availability and easy to access

Government policy Incentive and subsidies

Enforcement

Sufficient extension programs

Efficiency extension programs

Supply Chain Management Sufficient marketing channel

Proper marketing channel

Collaboration

Knowledge PH practices based on functionality

3.6 Data analysis

In qualitative descriptive analysis, codes are generated from the data during the study.

Information and input from interview on identification of factors that influence the

implementation of postharvest handling practices will be analysed through qualitative analysis.

Qualitative descriptive data is presented in a straightforward descriptive summary of the

informational data that is arranged in a logical approach (Vickie & Clinton, 2012). Steps of data

analysis are explained in this sub-chapter and summarised in Table 4.

3.6.1 Record ideas and theories

First, notes were made for each interview regarding the topics discussed in the interview. These

serve as memory joggers to record ideas and theories to work during the analysis. During the

qualitative research, thirteen (13) interview sessions were conducted and all the information

was recorded with the use of a recording device to capture the words of respondents in

Page | 24

interviews. With the use of voice recorder, the researcher can concentrate on listening and

responding to the participant, without being distracted to write notes (Stuckey, 2014). Next,

data from the spoken text was translated into written form of analysis (transcript). Transforming

raw interviews to evidence-based interpretations require preparing transcripts so they will be

ready to code (Stuckey, 2014). This is considered the first step in qualitative analysis, which is

involves identifying the respondents and transcribing the data. More details transcripts can be

found in the Appendix A, B, C, D, E.

3.6.2 Organize and manage the responses

Unique identifiers are allocated for each respondent. Respondent codes are developed to

categorize respondents based on respondent identification numbers, and functionality. A list of

the respondent names and the number assigned were kept separately to ensure anonymity of the

respondents. The respondent code was used to identify the transcription that can be linked to

the respondent. The codes given are shown in Table 2.

3.6.3 Identify and interpreting common, recurrent and emergent aspects

This stage is known as ‘open coding’ (Berg, 1989). Transcripts were read through and reviewed

to identify common, recurrent, or emergent aspects (related to postharvest topic); relevant

aspects were identified. Unrelated issues and points to the topic at hand were excluded at this

stage (Field and Morse, 1985). The aspects are freely generated and should account for almost

all the interview data (Burnard, 1991).

3.6.4 Develop the categories and grouping of identified aspects and responses

A list of categories was identified. Any repetitious or similar categories were ‘collapse’ or

removed to reduce the numbers of categories into broader categories. In the research, a final list

consists of five (5) categories for each actor at the different stages in the postharvest distribution

Page | 25

chain were identified. Responses to the same aspects from each respondent were grouped

together and entered into the data collection table based on the question topic and number.

Grouping of responses must be in line with each aspect and category developed, especially if

respondents had both positive and negative responses to a question. A list of categories, aspects

and responses for each actor in postharvest distribution chain is presented and explained in

detail in the next chapter. Summary of each step is presented on Table 4.

Table 4: Steps of analysing interview transcripts

Steps Procedures

Record ideas and theories Notes are made for each interview regarding

the topics discussed.

Organize and manage the responses Unique identifiers allocated to the

respondents and their transcripts into a

spreadsheet (analysis template)

Open coding

Data and information are reviewed to

identify common, recurrent, or emergent

themes (relate to postharvest topic)

Entering responses and coding the data

Relevant themes and their codes are

identified in the data collection template

Analysing patterns amongst themes Responses with similar traits are recorded in

data collection template based on the

question number and themes

Present evaluation/Report Presented by identifying patterns, what this

means for the study, and what can be done

next to improve or build upon the responses

Source: (Burnard, 1991)

The advantages of the qualitative descriptive research are all topics and information are utilized

from the lens of research because they are not tied to any scientific guidelines compared to

other qualitative approaches. Thus, the design tend to describing something in its natural state

to the extent that is possible within the context of the research scope without pre-selection and

Page | 26

manipulation of study variables (Vickie & Clinton, 2012). Methodological triangulation, then,

can be used to verify qualitative information by focusing on the same topic from different

angles. Such type of triangulation is aimed at increasing credibility and validity of data in

qualitative research (Ndanu & Syombua, 2015). Therefore, semi-structured interviews, covert

observations and document analysis were chosen, applied amongst actors in the postharvest

distribution chain and the findings were interpreted.

3.7 Limitations of the study

Less generalizable: The respondents being observed (covert observation) and interviewed were

those involved in handling both leafy and fruit vegetable. Thus, the sample groups were not

truly representative for the all types vegetable crop. Hence, the results and outcome cannot be

generalized into any other type of vegetable crops such as root and tuber vegetables; cole crops,

bulb and minor vegetables.

3.8 Summary

This chapter considered the methodologies used for conducting the research. Twelve (12)

respondents in the distribution chain who are involved in the implementation of postharvest

handling practices and one (1) representative from FAMA were interviewed. They were asked

to comment on their current postharvest handling practices, issues and constraints on its

implementation. Four (4) covert observations were conducted at different stages of the

postharvest distribution chain. The next chapter presents the results and analysis of the data

gathered from the interview sessions and series of covert observations.

Page | 27

CHAPTER 4: DATA FINDINGS

___________________________________________________________________________ 4.1 Introduction

In this chapter, data findings are divided into three sections. The first section relates to the semi-

structured interviews to identify the factors that influence the implementation of postharvest

handling practices at different postharvest distribution stages. The discription are, then,

summarised in Table 5, 6, 7, 8. Second, the outcomes of the covert observations were presented.

In the final section, conclusion will be drawn at the end of the chapter.

4.2 Semi-structured Interviews

Twelve (12) semi-structured interviews were conducted at different stages of the distribution

chain and one (1) semi-structured interview was done towards FAMA representative. Series of

interviews were conducted via one-to-one interview. The findings of the interviews are

explained in detail as follows. Summary of the findings can be found in Table 5, 6, 7, 8.

4.2.1 Knowledge

F1, F2, F3: “Normally, we harvest produce at a right maturity, size and at peak quality.

Produce that harvested at a proper maturity can has longer shelf life”

Harvesting: During the empirical research, it shows that harvesting is done at a right maturity

index to ensure the quality of the produce. All the farmers agree that harvesting should be

carried out when the produce reach its optimum maturity, thus can be saleable at a right market

price.

F1, F2, F3: “sometimes we do harvesting earlier depend on the availability of

transportation because we don’t have farm shade on the farm”

It also found that sometimes harvesting is done earlier than expected time due to the lack of

transportation. This is an issue happens in the field, with a lack number of transportation,

Page | 28

produce is harvested earlier and thus quality of produce will be affected. Less quality produce,

then, cannot be sold at an optimum price.

H1, H2, H3: “we are using proper cushioning material and plastic basket to avoid

mechanical injury because any form of injury will affect the safety and quality of produce’’

Empirical research data shows that proper cushioning material and plastic basket are widely

used to avoid mechanical injury. Cushioning material such as corrugated board and foam net

are used to help protect perishable produce during handling and shipment. Rough handling,

shock and vibration during transportation are controlled by cushioning so that the potential of

damage is greatly reduced. One of the common postharvest damage throughout the distribution

chain is bruising. The sources of bruising are normally come from compression, rough handling

and vibration forces (Kader & Rolle, 2004). Bamboo basket was once used before the more

proper plastic basket was introduced. Bamboo basket has a sharp end that potentially damage

produce. Thus, bamboo basket is replaced by plastic basket to avoid mechanical injury.

Understanding what are the proper tools to be used during postharvest handling practices can

help reduce any form of mechanical injury to vegetable crops.

4.2.2 Supply Chain Management

Collaboration: During the empirical research, collaboration found to be one of the important

aspect in the postharvest distribution chain. Data shows various actors in the chain become

involved and actively work together in coordinating activities which across the boundaries of

their group in order to satisfy customers’ demands.

F1, F2, F3, R1, R2, R3: “we are not limiting to only one single distribution chain, normally

each actor has several business chains to fulfil a high demand from end customers’’

Different actors in the postharvest distribution chain collaborate strategically in more than one

distribution chain. Commonly, each stage has several suppliers and retailers. Retailer, for

Page | 29

instance, receive produces not only from one single supplier but has several different suppliers

at the same time. The benefits achieved through collaboration amongst actors in the chain are

a better utilization of transportation, reduction in inventory levels and limiting the risk for

constrained produce in the field. It also found that each actor in the postharvest distribution

chain influences the performance of the chain, thus if any managerial complication happens

along the chain, all the actors within the distribution chain are responsible.

F1, F2, F3, H1, H2, H3: “it is unclear how the middle men (refer to wholesaler) set the

price, they always demand for the lowest price, sometimes the price is ridiculous”

R1, R2, R3: “the existence of many middle men will reduce the quality of produce as the

produce has to undergo lengthy distribution chain before reaching the end consumers”

Trust: Regarding the benefits of the establishment and maintenance of the supply chain

collaboration, trust seems to seriously affect the intensity of collaboration. During the empirical

research, it shows that trust is the element affecting the collaboration process especially in

selecting partner and deciding on collaboration width and depth. Certain farmers decide to

directly send their produce to retailer without involvement of wholesaler (middle men) due to

the lack of trust in (1) how they handle the produce and (2) how they set the price. Quality of

the produce also being the main concern as too many middle men involved in the chain, thus

prolong the time of produce before reach the end consumers.

F1, F2, F3, R1, R2, R3: “some of the actors in the chain share insufficient information

only on demand and operational, sometimes we forecast the supply and demand based on

previous data”

Information Sharing (IS): The empirical research revealed that information sharing has been

identified as the most prominent factor for a successfulness of supply chain collaboration.

Insufficient amount of information on demand and operational data such as updated price,

forecasting and scheduling shared along the postharvest distribution chain has been the factor

of uncertainty surrounding the distribution chain process. F1, F2 and W3 describe high levels

Page | 30

of inventory throughout the distribution chain happens at the farmers’ and wholesales’ stage

due to the lack of IS.

All actors: “fluctuate price for perishable produce. Price changes every month and

sometime twice a month. So, information about updates price must be sufficiently shared by

the authority”

Empirical data shows that lack of information sharing on updated price has been blamed for the

unstable price of produce in the market. At farmers’ level, they complain about the price that

has not updated each month, thus produce to be sold not at latest price in the market. Moreover,

a lack of important information sharing such as price by distribution chain actors may create

uncertainty and could expose for one actor to attempt to take advantage of others such as price

manipulation.

4.2.3 Infrastructure and facilities

F1, F2, F3: “basic infrastructure such as water, in-field road and electricity are provided

for each farm based on the capacity of a farm”

The data analysis revealed that infrastructure and facilities was a relevant factor for each actor

in the distribution chain, which had a significant influence on the implementation of postharvest

handling practices. At farmers’ stage, basic infrastructure such as water, electricity and in-field

road are provided for each farm based on the capacity of a farm such as size of land, number of

staff and farm’s production. Infrastructure and facilities also provided to other actors in the

distribution chain based on the suitability of their daily activities. Handler, wholesaler and

retailer, for example, are provided with packinghouse and cold room as they need to store

produce before send it over to the next stage in the distribution chain. These facilities are useful

to prolong the shelf life, sustain the quality and safety of produce before reach the end

consumers. These infrastructure and facilities are provided as one-off facilities which mean to

be provided only once, not as part of a regular sequence.

Page | 31

W1, W3: “insufficient number of transportation was an issue, so we have to carry out

harvesting earlier, otherwise we will miss the transport vehicle”

In analysing the data associated with the factor infrastructure and facilities, an issue on the

availability and condition of transportation was a consistent aspect that was raised, specifically,

insufficient number of transport vehicle and a lack of refrigerated transport. The shortage of

transport vehicle was heavily affected the time of harvesting especially at the stage of farmer.

During the empirical research, it found that sometimes perishable produce was harvested earlier

regardless its optimum maturity just to fully utilize the limited number of transport vehicles. It

showed that whether the produce is at the right maturity or not, harvesting was still carried out

and therefore, produce that reach the end consumer was not at the right maturity.

H1, H2, W1, W2, W3: “majority of the vehicles used for transportation are not equipped

with refrigeration system”

Majority of transport vehicle at any stages in the postharvest distribution chain does not have

the refrigeration capacity to rapidly cool the produce. Produce then, to be transported without

any pre-cooling treatment either for short or long journey. The condition might become worse

with the average surrounding temperature was around 30 degree Celsius which may fasten the

deterioration of the produce.

WI, W2, W3, H1, H2, R1, R3: “most of us have a small size of cold room, normally we

place all the produce in the same room”

Issue on the condition of the cold room also has been highlighted during the empirical research,

specifically, small size or lack of space in the cold room. Most of the respondents (WI, W2,

W3, H1, H2, R1, R3) indicated that most of them have small size of cold room, so they placed

and stored all the produce in the same room regardless the produce compatibility. Produce

compatibility refers to suitability of mixed produce to be stored together without affecting their

quality. During storage, vegetable crops have varying requirements for temperature and have

varying sensitivity to absorbing ethylene induced damage from other produce. Storing produce

Page | 32

at the optimal storage temperature is vital to obtaining the longest shelf life. The empirical data

showed that, with the insufficient size of cold room, most of the actors in the distribution chain

have neglected the importance of crop compatibility.

4.2.4 Government policy

Government policy was one of the factors identified that can influence the implementation of

postharvest handling practices. Based on all the responses during the empirical research, two

(2) sub-factors were developed: enforcement on postharvest practices and extension programs.

This factor indicates that the actors in the postharvest distribution chain want FAMA to take

serious consideration in providing an adequate extension programs and strict enforcement in

order to implement postharvest handling practices.

F2, F3: “Training and supervision are provided every month but more focus on pre-harvest

syllabus. Less attention given towards postharvest handling practices”

Responses from farmer F2 and F3 showed that, FAMA has given training and supervision every

month but programs and syllabus were more concentrate on the pre-harvest operation such as

Good Agriculture Practices (GAP). Appropriate postharvest handling practices were not given

attention either during the course nor training. Most of the respondents admitted that they

acquire knowledge on postharvest through the internet and from their own everyday

experiences.

H1, H2, F1, F2, F3, W2, W3: “weak enforcement by authority. Most of the times, we don’t

know whether we are practicing appropriate postharvest practices or not”

The data analysis revealed that weak enforcement was one of the issues that need to take into

consideration. Majority of the respondents (H1, H2, F1, F2, F3, W2 and W3) described that no

serious action has been taken on the wrongdoing of postharvest handling practices. In an

interview with the farmers, F1 and F3 said a weak enforcement being implemented by the

FAMA. F1: “strict enforcement is only applicable towards the pre-harvest practices.

Government (FAMA) more interested in ensuring good agriculture practices (pre-harvest)

Page | 33

being implemented especially at the farmers’ stage”. He said the strict enforcement on the

implementation of appropriate postharvest handling practices is crucial to ensure food safety

and quality. The interview further says strict enforcement is struggling to be implemented in

the country because of lack of adequately personnel, lack of facilities and equipment.

4.2.5 Resources (tools and equipment)

F1, F2, WI, W2, W3, H1, H2, R1, R3: “insufficient tools and equipment provided”

F1, F2, F3: “previously used of bamboo container lead to many quality issues. Currently

using of plastic basket. Increase quality, increase sale”

In analysing the data, resources (tools and equipment) also the consistent factors that were

raised. The empirical data revealed a lack of tools and equipment mostly happened on the stage

of farmer and handler. Because of the limited resources, same tool was used for different

purposes. Wheel barrow, for instance, was used to carry produce and fertilizer at the same time.

This might lead to bacterial infection, hence, can affect the safety and quality of produce.

The data findings aforementioned are summarised in Table 5, 6, 7, 8.

Page | 34

Table 5: Categories and aspects based on responses of farmer (F1, F2, F3)

Category and Aspect

Quote 1 Quote 2

Knowledge

Harvesting “harvesting done at a right maturity”

Interviewee F1, F2

“sometimes depend on the availability

of transportation”

Interviewee F2, F3

In-field handling “proper cushioning material is used”

Interviewee F2

“proper basket is used to avoid injury”

Interviewee F3

Infrastructure and

facilities (I&F)

Condition of I&F “no shed is provided on the field”

Interviewee F2

“shortage of clean water supplies”

Interviewee F1

Availability of I&F “in-field roads are accessible and

connected to packinghouse”

Interviewee F1

“basic infrastructure such as water,

road and electricity are provided”

Interviewee F3

Resource (tools and

equipment)

Availability “tools and equipment are provided”

Interviewee F1

“insufficient equipment to carry out PH”

Interviewee F3

Condition

Accessible

“improper tools and equipment”

Interviewee F2

“available at shop nearby”

Interviewee F2, F3

“lack of cold room for various produce”

Interviewee F3

Government Policy

Extension program

Enforcement

“training and supervision are

provided monthly”

Interviewee F2

“weak enforcement by authority”

Interviewee F2

“training given based on type of produce

but more focus on pre-harvest”

Interviewee F3

“less follow up on PH practice”

Interview F1

Supply Chain Network

Collaboration

Trust

Information Sharing

“direct market or to middle men”

“too many middle men involve”

Interviewee F1, F2, F3

“unclear how they set the price”

Interviewee F1

“insufficient information on demand

and operational along the chain”


“we have more than one distribution

chain”

Interviewee F3

“presence of many middlemen will

reduce the quality of produce”

Interviewee F2, F3

“fluctuation of price each month”

“no latest update on price from

authority”


Page | 35

Table 6: Categories and aspects based on responses of handler (H1, H2, H3)

Category and Aspect

Quote 1 Quote 2

Knowledge

Packinghouse

handling

“using proper basket and packing

with proper material”

Interviewee H1

“pre-cooling at right temperature”

Interviewee H2, H3

Infrastructure and

facilities (I&F)

Condition of I&F “poor condition and lack of space in

cold room”

Interviewee H1, H2

“poor temperature system”

Interviewee H2, H3

Availability of I&F “no any other facilities (conveyor,

washing facilities, packing machines)

Only cold room provided”

Interviewee H1, H2, H3

Resource (tools and

equipment)

Availability

Condition

“insufficient supply of basket”


“proper tools and equipment but

insufficient supply”

Interviewee H2

“lack of space in cold room, lack of

technologies”

Interviewee H2, H3

Accessible

“available at shop nearby”


Government Policy

Extension program

Enforcement

“general supervision and inspection”


“week enforcement by authority”

Interviewee H1, H2




Collaboration

Trust

Information Sharing

“produce sold to wholesalers”


“presence of many middle men will

speed up the deterioration rate”


“insufficient information along the

chain”


“sufficient market channel

Interviewee H2, H3

Page | 36

Table 7: Categories and aspects based on responses of wholesaler (W1, W2, W3)

Category and Aspects

Quote 1 Quote 2

Knowledge

Handling

“produce from farmer, repack and sell

to retailer”

Interviewee W1, W2

“immediate shipment. Proper

cushioning material used”

Interviewee W1, W3

Infrastructure and

facilities (I&F)

Condition of I&F “poor cooling system (late response

from authority)”

Interviewee W2, W3

“insufficient cold room for various

produce”

Interviewee W1

Availability of I&F “cold room provided”

Interviewee W1

“insufficient number of transportation”

Interviewee W3

Resource (tools and

equipment)

Availability “only basket is provided”

Interviewee W1, W2, W3


Interviewee W1, W2

Condition

Government Policy

“basket is not returnable (shortage

problem)”

Interviewee W2, W3

Extension program

Enforcement

“training and supervision are

provided monthly”

Interviewee W2


Interviewee W2, W3

“difficult to access on latest

information”

Interviewee W3


Interview W1


Collaboration

Information Sharing

“many middlemen cause high price”





“direct to retailer/retailer/ wholesaler”

Interviewee W1, W2

Page | 37

Table 8: Categories and aspects based on responses of retailer (R1, R2, R3)

Category and Aspect

Quote 1 Quote 2

Knowledge

Handling “wash, stack, arrange (no focus on

produce compatibility)”

Interviewee R1, R2

“use of paper, netting to avoid injury”

Interviewee R1, R3

Infrastructure and

facilities (I&F)

Condition of I&F “not enough capacity”

Interviewee R2, R3

“mixing produce in the same chiller”

Interviewee R1

Resource (tools and

equipment)

Availability “only basket is provided”

Interviewee R1, R2, R3


Interviewee R1, R2

Government Policy

Extension program

Enforcement

“monthly supervision and inspection”

Interviewee R2


Interviewee R2, R3

“difficult to access on latest

information”

Interviewee R3


Interview R1


Collaboration

Trust

Information Sharing

“directly to end consumer”


“don’t have confidence in

middlemen’s reliability”




Interviewee R2, R3

“only simple operation data are shared

such as short-term demand”

Interviewee R1, R2

Page | 38

4.3 FAMA’s Interview

To get a more comprehensive view on to what extend do FAMA contributes to promote

postharvest handling practices, a semi-structured interview was conducted with a FAMA

representative. The structure of the questions was divided into four (4) sections. First, the

questions about infrastructure and facilities (I&F) were asked to know what is/are the I&F

provided by them to support postharvest handling practices. Second, to know what range of

tools and equipment do FAMA provides. Third, to gain insight on government policy, the

questions with focus on extension program and enforcement were asked. In the last section, the

questions about marketing channel were asked to identify what are the current strategies by

FAMA to enhancing the efficiency of marketing channel and overcome existing problems

(mentioned in the result analysis). The questions being asked during the interviews is as

follows:

1) What are the infrastructures and facilities provided for actors at different stages to

support appropriate postharvest handling practices?

FAMA representative was asked to provide an information about infrastructures and facilities

provided at different stages of the postharvest distribution chain. Basic infrastructure such as

water, electricity and in-field road are provided for each of the farm. Facilities such as physical

structure, cold room and packinghouse also provided as one-off facilities which mean to be

provided only once, not as part of a regular sequence, and only eligible for those who fulfill the

requirements such as practicing Good Agriculture Practices (GAP), has a good and continuous

production record, financially feasible and has sufficient number of labor/employees. For

example, Net house, a structure made from galvanized steel pipe and enclosed by anti-insect

net to allow adequate sunlight, air and moisture to pass through the gaps to be provided only

for those farmers who implementing close system. They have to make a request for the structure

and fulfil all requirements needed as mentioned above.

Page | 39

2) What are the resources (tools and equipment) provided for actors at the different

distribution stages?

Equipment and tools such as weighing scale, wheel barrow, secateurs, hoe and other small tools

are provided upon request and depending on the specific crop, its intended use and farm

capacity (size of land). These tools are also provided as one-off tools which mean to be provided

only once, not as part of a regular sequence.

3) What type of extension programs provided by FAMA?

Training, advice and regular supervision are part of the extension programs to deliver sufficient

knowledge and strengthen connections amongst the postharvest distribution chain actors on

how to maintain optimum quality and safety of fresh vegetables through the adaption of latest

researched postharvest technology on postharvest. These programs are formulated based on the

functionality of each actor and type of produce. Any latest information on postharvest handling

practices, rules and procedures can be found on the website. Currently more trainings on pre-

harvest are given compare to postharvest handling practices.

4) How about authority enforcement of PH handling?

Government (FAMA) is giving more attention on production line (pre-harvest) to increase farm

production. The respondent mention “maybe once in every 4 months, we will organize seminar

or course on postharvest handling practices and most of them are focus at only farmers’ stage,

not for other actors”. The interview further says strict enforcement is struggling to be

implemented in the country because of lack of adequately personnel, lack of facilities and

equipment.

5) What are the strategies to improve the marketing channel?

A market called Mega Farmers Market was introduced to further maintain farmers market

competitiveness. This is the platform where farmers can sell their product directly to the end

consumer. The market has introduced several new features such as better display of products

Page | 40

and a more hygienic and wider shopping space. FAMA also has set up Rural Transformation

Center (RTC) was introduced to connect the manufacturers and suppliers to end consumer.

RTC's role is to act as an agriculture wholesale center efficiently and effectively. It also plays

an additional role as an information collection center, a food safety and efficiency driver center.

4.4 Covert Participant Observation

First, four (4) series of participant observations (covert) on a different stage of actors were

carried out without the explicit awareness and agreement of actors being studied. These covert

observations were conducted by getting involved in postharvest activities implemented at

different stage of actors. A list of activities is listed in Table 9below.

Table 9: A list of covert observations

On 7th January 2017, at the stage of farmer, first covert observation was done by getting

involved in the harvesting activity. The activity involves fifteen (15) labours and the crop were

cabbage and kalian. On the 9th January 2017, second covert observation was conducted in the

packinghouse. The activities include receiving produce, pre-cooling and packaging. Third

covert observation was done at the wholesaler stage by getting involved in a few postharvest

handling practices such as repacking and storage. The last covert observation was conducted

on 13th January 2017 at the retailer stage. Storage and postharvest handling were two activities

that being observed at this stage.

Summary

During the covert observations, the attitude of each actor was observed to be a dominant role

in the implementation of postharvest handling practices. The attitude of the actors can be more

favourable if they are equipped with sufficient amount of equipment, tools, training and

supervision. At the farmer and handler stage, there were a lack number of trained labour. Most

of the labour has less knowledge of appropriate postharvest handling. Thus, postharvest losses

caused by employment of improper postharvest handling practices such as untimely harvesting,

Actors Date Activities

Farmer 7th /1/2017 Harvesting leafy vegetables

Handler 9th /1/2017 Packinghouse activities

Wholesaler 10th /1/2017 Repacking and storage

Retailer 13th /1/2017 Storage and PH handling

Page | 41

poor-designed tools and rough handling. Tools and equipment were also not adequately

provided. It can be seen during the observation that same tool was used for different purposes.

Wheel barrow, for instance, was used to carry produce and fertilizer at the same time. This

might lead to bacterial infection to the produce, hence, can affect the safety and quality of

produce. At the level of wholesaler and retailer, there were too many middlemen involve.

Consequently, produce took a longer time to be transported from farmer to end consumer. The

cleanliness and personnel hygiene were the aspects that also need to be improved. Postharvest

handling practices of produce at all stages of postharvest distribution chain must be adequately

managed to minimize the risk of contamination. Field worker may contaminate fresh produce

by simply touching them with an unclean hand or tools. During the covert observation, these

aspects seem to be neglected during the practices.

Page | 42

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION

The objective of this study was to define strategies and measures for Federal Agricultural

Marketing Authority (FAMA) to support food safety and quality of vegetable crops by

identifying factors that had influenced the implementation of postharvest handling practices.

The study had been conducted in Selangor, Malaysia. To achieve the objective, the study

assessed the role of each actor (farmer, handler, wholesaler, retailer) in the postharvest

distribution chain and their current postharvest practices. This study also sought to investigate

the barriers faced for not performing the postharvest handling practices. This chapter had

discussed the findings of the study and interpreted them according to the three (3) research

questions previously stated above. Recommendations have been drawn at the end of the chapter.

Apart from the five factors shown from the empirical data relative to the postharvest handling

practices in Selangor, Malaysia, this research also showed seven (7) barriers that had to be dealt

with to improve the implementation of postharvest handling practices. They are knowledge,

supply chain network, information sharing (IS), trust, infrastructure and facilities (I&F),

government policy and resources (tools and equipment). All the factors that were related to the

barriers mentioned by the respondents and this connection had been explained in detail.

Knowledge. The most important factor that had been identified from the empirical research

was the lack of knowledge on postharvest handling practices amongst the actors within the

distribution chain who were more focused on the harvesting time, the supply and demand of

the market and crop compatibility. Several studies have presented a strong argument with

regards to the importance of sufficient knowledge as the leading element that contributed to

the food safety and quality (Muda, 2006; Bachmann & Earles, 2000; Osman et al., 2009). The

issue of lack of knowledge corresponds to the barrier 1, 3 and 6 about the lack of sharing

information, the lack of extension programmes and the lack of infrastructure and facilities

Page | 43

(transportation) respectively. Further results of the empirical data had indicated, that most of

the farmers had harvested their crops much earlier than the expected time, due to the lack of

transportation. Therefore, the produce was not harvested at its ideal maturity and consequently,

the quality of the produce had been jeopardized. This scenario was in line with the finding by

Muda (2006) which had stated that most of Malaysia’s vegetables for the domestic market are

of inconsistent quality in terms of the maturity and quality. Moreover, this finding was in

agreement with the study conducted by Kiaya (2014) which revealed that the quality of the

crops cannot be improved, only maintained after harvest, therefore, it is important to harvest at

the optimal maturity and to guarantee its superior quality.

Supply chain management. Besides the lack of knowledge, the supply chain network had also

been acknowledged as the second factor to have a big influence in the implementation of the

appropriate postharvest handling practices. This factor was explained around the scope of

collaboration. The empirical data displayed different actors in the postharvest distribution

chain that had collaborated among each other in more than one chain. This finding was in line

with the food supply chain network (FSCN) that had been represented in the study by Lazzarini

et al., (2001), whereby various actors in the distribution chain had coordinated various activities

together to meet the customers’ demands. Each stage of the postharvest distribution chain had

multiple suppliers and retailers. The retailer, for instance, had received produce not only from

one single supplier but several different suppliers at the same time. The data analysis had

revealed that the collaboration amongst actors in the postharvest distribution chain existed but

not at the crucial state. The lack of collaboration had been linked directly to barriers 1 and 2,

on the lack of sharing information and the lack of trust respectively.

Page | 44

Information sharing (IS). Bowersox et al. (2000) stated that IS was one of the important

elements in the effective supply chain collaboration. In a study of supply chain collaboration,

Henderson (2002) had suggested that important information such as supply and demand data,

scheduling and production goals could be shared amongst the postharvest distribution chain

actors to maximize the potential of other alliances. However, the empirical data had conveyed

contradictory findings whereby the majority of farmers, wholesalers and retailers share

insufficient information on the demand and operational activities. They were found to have only

disclosed simple information such as the supply and demand data. Thus, uncertainty

surrounding the distribution chain had been criticized for several issues such as the shortage or

excess of some produce especially at the farmer or retailer stages. These findings agreed with

the study by Suh and Kwon, (2005) proved that such information mismatch, along with the

distribution chain had caused uncertainty from the lack of information sharing. Therefore, due

to the need for collaboration, the benefits achieved through collaboration as mentioned by

Holweg et al., (2005) saw that a better utilization of transportation, a decrease in the inventory

levels and the reduction with the risk for constrained produce in the field, cannot be achieved.

Trust. Interviews conducted with the key players who were involved with the postharvest

distribution chain mentioned in barrier 2, highlighted that the lack of trust between them was

the leading cause to the implementation of appropriate postharvest handling practices. This

seemed to correspond to what had been suggested in several studies. Kirsten and Masuku,

(2003) in a study of the role of trust in distribution chain had found that trust was an important

element that existed within the chain because of its effective influence on it. Tregurtha and

Vink (1999) also found that trust did not make an economically bad relationship good, but it

did create a good relationship amongst actors in the distribution chain. Based on the empirical

data collected, the majority of the farmers preferred to sell their produce directly to the

consumer if the farm was close to such outlets. The lack of confidence in the integrity and

Page | 45

capabilities of the contributors as well as the unnecessary involvement of the middlemen within

the distribution chain, believed to be the main factor that sped up the deterioration rate of the

produce were among some of the reasons why many farmers had opted to sell directly to the

consumers. The empirical data gathered also disclosed that because there was an exploitation

of market price due to the huge number of middlemen involved, farmers took it in their own

hands to sell their produce directly to retails market or end consumers rather than wholesalers.

These findings appeared to confirm what was found by Morgan and Hunt (2005), that trust was

about the willingness to take risks and the actors involved must have confidence in the

reliability of others.

Infrastructure and facilities (I&F). The data analysis had revealed that infrastructure and

facilities was a relevant factor for each actor in the distribution chain, which had a significant

influence on the implementation of appropriate postharvest handling practices. Factor 3 and

barrier 3 corresponded with each other in the implementation of appropriate postharvest

handling practices. Facilities such as the packing operation house, cold room and transportation

were among the most important I&Fs often required (Kader, 2004). During the empirical

research, respondents at the handler stage described the condition of the packinghouse as not

complete. It consisted only of a small sized cold room and very limited space for handling. The

condition was made suitable to only a few handling practices such as sorting, trimming and pre-

cooling. Moreover, the condition of the facility had not fulfilled the requirements of the standard

packinghouse. Muda (2006); Kitinoja and Kader (2003) described that the standard

packinghouse should be equipped with technologies for dumping, sorting, cleaning, sizing,

packaging and storage to guarantee the food safety and quality. The empirical data revealed that

these steps were not fully implemented due to the lack of I&F which included the conveyor and

washing and packaging facilities, especially at the handlers’ stage. Thus, produce that had left

the farm was not of the best quality. The pre-cooling facilities had been widely used at each

Page | 46

stage of the postharvest distribution chain. The two types of pre-cooling facilities that were

identified during the empirical research were (1) cold room and (2) refrigerated transport. An

issue on the condition of the transportation was a consistent aspect that had been raised,

specifically, the lack the refrigerated transport. Kader (2004) had already mentioned that the

condition of the transport vehicles in many developing countries were not suitable for

transporting fresh produce. Most transport vehicles at any stage in the postharvest distribution

chain did not have proper refrigeration systems to rapidly cool the produce. At any point during

the transportation, produce should always be stored at its optimum storage temperature as long

as possible to sustain its quality (Thompson and Kitinoja, 2010). The condition had become

worst with the average surrounding temperature of 30 degrees Celsius, which expedited the

deterioration of the produce. Other than that, the undersized cold room was found to be another

issue during the empirical research. Despite the limited space with the cold rooms, handlers,

wholesalers and retailers have nonetheless chosen to store their produce regardless of their

variety, with no consideration for avoiding the incompatible mixes of the yield. Kader and

Kitinoja (2002) described that produce stored together should have the same characteristics,

such as the capability of tolerating similar temperatures and level of ethylene during storage.

High ethylene producers (apple or banana) can stimulate physiological changes in ethylene

sensitive commodities such as potatoes or carrot leading to an undesirable texture, colour and

flavour (Kader & Kitinoja, 2002)

Government policy. The empirical data had also discovered factor 5 (government policy)

matched and corresponded to barriers 5 and 6 about lack of extension programmes and weak

enforcement respectively. This was a clear indication that the actors in the postharvest

distribution chain had wanted FAMA to take serious considerations in providing adequate

extension programmes and strict enforcement in order to implement the postharvest handling

practices. In a study of the importance of extension programmes by Kitinoja et al. (2010), it

Page | 47

was mentioned that such programmes were targeted to the actors in the postharvest distribution

chain (farmers, handlers, wholesalers and retailers) to equip them with the necessary knowledge

on how to maintain the quality and safety of any fresh produce. Responses from farmer F2 and

F3 showed that, FAMA had offered training and supervision on the pre-harvest operation.

Appropriate postharvest handling practices were given less attention during the course and

training. Even though enforcement had not been highlighted in previous studies, weak

enforcement was found to be one of the issues that needed to be taken into consideration. The

majority of the respondents (H1, H2, F2, W2 and W3) described that no serious action had been

taken on the wrongdoings of postharvest handling practices. In an interview with the farmers,

F1 and F3 said there was a weak enforcement by the government hence, they were uncertain of

the appropriate postharvest handling practices. The impact of strict enforcement on the

implementation of appropriate postharvest handling practices is crucial to ensure the ideal food

safety and quality.

Resources (tools and equipment). Finding 4 and barrier 4 which had corresponded with each

other displayed a barrier in the implementation of postharvest handling practices. The empirical

data revealed the lack of tools and equipment to be one of the barriers especially at the stages

of farmers and handlers. Kitinoja (2010) had suggested that the tools and equipment used during

the postharvest handling practices of produce varied depending on the specific crop and its

function. During the covert observations that was held, it was evident that the same tool had

been used for different purposes. The wheelbarrow for instance, had been used not only to carry

produce but also fertilizer at the same time. This would definitely have led to bacterial infection

on the produce, which posed a serious detriment to the safety and quality of the produce.

Moreover, Muda (2006) insisted that it was compulsory for actors in the postharvest chain to

equip their farm with sufficient tools and equipment. Colour vision graders, conveyors and

washing trays are often required for appropriate postharvest handling practices.

Page | 48

Farmers used proper cushioning material to avoid mechanical injury during handling in the

fields. The importance of using proper cushioning material was already mentioned by Kader

(2004) to avoid mechanical injury to the produce during any in-field handling, especially when

handling fruit vegetables (e.g. eggplant, cucumber). Empirical data also presented that plastic

containers were widely used during the handling, especially when dealing with vegetables that

had soft skin, such as tomatoes. This goes in line with the suggestion made by Muda (2006) to

avoid the usage of bamboo baskets because of its sharp edges that could damage the produce.

Moreover, returnable plastic containers were introduced to all actors within the postharvest

distribution chain to replace bamboo baskets during postharvest handling practices (Muda,

2006)

Federal Agriculture Marketing Authority (FAMA)

This segment had highlighted the findings gathered from interviews with both the postharvest

actors and FAMA representative which was then compared with the barriers that was developed

in the result analysis chapter. The focus had been on two aspects; infrastructure and facilities

(I&F) and the marketing channel due to the contrasting responses and information provided

during both the interviews. FAMA had come to the realization that the unnecessary involvement

of middlemen at a large scale had successfully delayed the time any produce would reach the

end consumer. Mega Farmers Market was established by FAMA to be the platform for farmers

to sell their produce from the farm to the end consumer without the hassle and involvement of

middlemen. This market boasted a better display of products and a hygienic and wider space

for the consumers, guaranteeing the finest food safety and quality. An interview held with the

postharvest distribution actors demonstrated their dissatisfaction with the present marketing

channel. They were of the opinion that the produce would have reached the consumers quicker

if the farms were closer to the marketplace and they felt robbed of a better deal since most of

the times, the produce was sold to wholesalers who were then able to make more profit. Many

Page | 49

postharvest distribution actors were unaware of the opportunity to sell their produce at FAMA’s

Farmers Mega Market.

In the same interview, significant information such as the market pricing of the produce as well

as the policy and procedure on postharvest handling practices were claimed to be inaccessible

to the key actors as the information had been infrequently updated on FAMA’s website.

FAMA, in its role of marketing agricultural produce should enhance the efficacy of crucial

information such as updated prices, and new and improved policies and procedures made

readily available to the actors at the distribution chain to avoid any marketing manipulation that

might occur.

Page | 50

CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Many issues have emerged from the findings of this study, regarding postharvest handling

practices. In the literature review chapter, it shows that several researchers have studied the

postharvest handling practices among farmers, while other actors within the postharvest

distribution chain (handler, wholesaler and retailer) have not been a focus in the previous

research. Moreover, previous studies have focussed only on the factors that can increase profit

or reduce postharvest losses. Thus, this study aimed to identify the factors that influence the

implementation of postharvest handling practices at different stages of postharvest distribution

chain to support food safety and quality. The methodologies for this study were adopted to

analyse and provide evidence to answer the following specific research questions.

SRQ 2: What factors and barriers of postharvest handling (PH) practices can be derived from

both the literature and empirical review; and how are they related to each other?

SRQ 2: How have factors and barriers influenced the implementation of PH practices in the

Malaysian vegetables supply chains?

SRQ 3: What strategies and measures could be recommended to FAMA to support the food

safety and quality, based on the factors and barriers that had influenced the

implementation of PH practices?

SRQ 1 and SRQ 2: The study revealed that implementation of postharvest handling practices

can be improved by focusing more on managerial and technological aspects. The empirical

research identifies five (5) factors that can influence the implementation of appropriate

postharvest handling practices that support food safety and quality: knowledge, supply chain

management. infrastructure and facilities, resources and government policy. Based on the

shared views from the respondents who participated in the study, this research identified seven

(7) barriers perceived during the implementation of postharvest handling practice: Lack of

sharing information, lack of trust amongst actors, improper infrastructure and facilities,

Page | 51

insufficient supply of tools and equipment, weak enforcement, lack of extension programs and

improper marketing channel

SRQ 3: This research provides a few relevant recommendations for Federal Agriculture and

Marketing Authority (FAMA) for better implementation of postharvest handling practices to

support food safety and quality. The recommendations are provided around the scope of

collaboration, information sharing, extension programs, regulation on cleanliness and

improvement on facilities, tools and equipments.

The findings of SRQ 1 and SRQ 2 is represented in figure 5. The figure shows the relationship

between five factors and seven barriers that influence the implementation of postharvest

handling practices. Each factor could be derived from more than one barrier.

Implementation of postharvest

handling practices

(F1) Knowledge

(B1) - Lack of information sharing

(B3) - Improper infrastructure and facilities

(B4) - Insufficient tools and equipment

(B5) - Weak enforcement

(B6) - Lack of extension program

(F5) Government Policy

(B5) - Weak enforcement on PH


(F4) Resources (tools and equipment)

(B4) - Insufficient supply of tools and equipment

(F3) Infrastructure

and facilities

(B3) - Improper infrastructure and facilities

(B5) - Weak enforcement


(F2) Supply Chain Management

(B1) - Lack of Information Sharing

(B2) - Lack of trust amongst actors

(B7) - Improper Marketing Channel

Figure 5: Relationship between factors and barriers

Indicator

F: Factors

B: Barriers

Page | 52

RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter provides a few relevant recommendations for Federal Agriculture and Marketing

Authority (FAMA). Following from the previous chapter, the recommendations will relate to

strategy and measures for better implementation of postharvest handling practices. Five general

recommendations are provided in order to support food safety and quality.

Collaboration

• In order to achieve effectiveness in collaboration, FAMA should introduce a concept

of synchronize supply throughout the postharvest distribution chain, in which all the

actors to incorporate customer demand information into their inventory and production

processes. The main feature of this concept is not only to exchange important

information, but equally, to adjust the replenishment and planning decision structure.

• Whilst linking various actors’ operations together within the complex distribution chain

may create complications, FAMA should comprehensively emphasize the use of

product identification technologies, such as radio frequency identification (RFID) at all

postharvest distribution stages to increase the ability of controlling product pipelines

even in a complex distribution chain.

Information Sharing

• To develop and implement strict regulation on information sharing amongst postharvest

distribution actors, rather than basic data, but to share more details information on

operational, financial and logistic data such as forecasting, production costs and goals.

• To make sure important information such as current market price; subsidy and

incentives; new policy; standard and procedure are made available on website

(www.fama.com.my). This website should be easily accessible by the actors in the

distribution chain to acquire updated information.

Page | 53

Extension Programs

• ‘Postharvest Research and Training Centre’ is recommended at each region in Selangor,

Malaysia for conducting research and serve as information distribution centre to the

postharvest distribution chain actors related to handling, technology and marketing.

This centre is where local experts can conduct research, identifying potential, issues and

barriers regarding postharvest; and provide solutions for improved postharvest handling

practices.

• Extension programs syllabus should not only around technical aspects but also in the

need for continuing improvements in marketing. Such syllabus must be followed by

hands-on training and continuous training at advanced levels. The training also must be

given to employees or officers of extension services, to make sure they have sufficient

knowledge to assist the actors.

Regulation on cleanliness (personnel, tools and equipment)

• With concern of safety and quality of produce, the same tools and equipment should not

be used for other purposes. Tools and equipment used during in-field handling should

be sanitized on a regular basis. The wheelbarrow, for example, which has been used to

carry natural fertilizer should never be used to transport fresh produce to eliminate any

possibilities of bacterial infection.

• To provide sufficient cleaning stations (hand wash and bathroom facilities) especially

at the stage of farmers and handlers to prevent bacterial contamination of produce by

employees who enters the premises from field operations.

Infrastructure, facilities and equipment

• Packinghouse: To provide adequate facilities and equipment such as conveyor, proper

washing facilities and packaging machine to each packinghouse in Selangor.

Page | 54

• To provide or equip transport vehicles with proper refrigeration systems (temperature

controlled refrigerator). Transport vehicle without refrigeration should not be allowed

to carry fresh produce, especially for long journeys, except for short distance deliveries

such as to nearby retailers.

Page | 55

References Aba, I. P., Gana, Y. M., Ogbonnaya, C., & O, M. O. (2012). Simulated transport damage study on fresh

tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) fruits. Agric Eng Int: CIGR Journal, 14(2), 119-125.

Ashraf, N., Sharma, M., & Bhat, M. (2012). A review on new techniques for enhancing storage life of

temperate fresh fruits. Environment and Ecology, 30(4), 1267-1271.

Bachmann, J., & Earles, R. (2000). POSTHARVEST HANDLING OF FRUIT AND VEGETABLES . Appropriate

Technology Transfer for Rural Areas, 1-19.

Barbosa-Cánovas, G. V., Fernández-Molina, J. J., Alzamora, S. M., Tapia, M. S., López-Malo, A., &

Chanes, J. W. (2003). Handling and Preservation of Fruits and Vegetables by Combined Methods

for Rural Areas. FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin 149, 6-16.

Barrat, M., & Oliveira, A. (2001). Exploring the experiences of collaborative planning initiatives.

International Journal of Physical Distribution & Logistics Management, 31(4), 266-289.

Bricki, N., & Green, J. (2007). A Guide to Using Qualitative Research Methodology. Medecins Sans

Frontieres, 1-31.

Burnard, P. (1991). A method of analysing interview transcripts in. Journal of Nurse Education, 11(6),

461-466.

Butz, P., Hofmann, C., & Tauscher, B. (2005). Recent developments in noninvasive techniques for fresh

fruit and vegetable internal quality analysis . Journal of Food Science, 70(9), R131-R141.

Chopra, S., & Meindl, P. (2016). Supply Chain Management: Strategy, Planning, and Operation. Essex:

Pearson Education Limited.

De Vaus, D. (2001). Research Design in Social Research. SAGE Publications Ltd, 60-67.

Esterberg, K. G. (2002). Qualitative Methods in Social Research. Boston: McGraw-Hill.

FAMA. (2016, December 19). Retrieved from Federal Agricultural Marketing Authority:

http://www.fama.gov.my

Holweg, M., Disney, S., Jan, H., & Smaros, J. (2005). Supply Chain Collaboration: Making Sense of the

Strategy Continuum. European Management Journal, 23(2), 170-181.

Jarimopas, B., Singh, S. P., Sayasoonthorn, S., & Singh, J. (2007). Comparison of Package Cushioning

Materials to Protect Post-harvest Impact Damage to Apples. Packaging Technology and Science,

20(5), 315-324.

Kader, A. (2004). Increasing food availability by reducing postharvest losses of fresh produce. ISHS Acta

Horticulturae 682: V International Postharvest Symposium, (pp. 682, 2169-2176).

Kader, A. A., & Kitinoja, L. (2002). Small-Scale Postharvest Handling Practices: A Manual for Horticultural

Crops (4th Edition). California: Postharvest Technology Research and Information Center.

Kader, A. A., & Lee, S. K. (2000). Preharvest and postharvest factors influencing vitamin C content of

horticultural crops. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 20(3), 207-220.

Kitinoja, L., & Thompson, J. F. (2010, June 1). Steward Postharvest Review. Pre-cooling systems for

small scale producers, pp. 1-14.

Kitinoja, L., Saran, S., Roy, S. K., & Adel, A. K. (2011). Postharvest technology for developing countries:

challenges and opportunities in research, outreach and advocacy. Journal of the Science of Food

and Agriculture, 91(4), 597-603.

Page | 56

Kwon, I.‐W. G., & Suh, T. (2005). Trust, commitment and relationships in supply in supply chain

management: a path analysis. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal, 10(1), 26-

33.

Lambert, D. M., & Cooper, M. C. (2000). Issues in Supply Chain Management. Industrial Marketing

Management, 29(1), 65-83.

Luning, P. A., & Marcelis, W. J. (2009). Food quality management. Wageningen: Wageningen Academic

Publishers.

Mason, M. (2010). Sample Size and Saturation in PhD Studies Using Qualitative Interviews. Qualitative

Social Research, 11(3), 1-19.

Masuku, M. B., & Kirsten, J. F. (2003). THE ROLE OF TRUST IN THE PERFORMANCE OF SUPPLY CHAINS:

A DYAD ANALYSIS OF SMALLHOLDER, FARMER AND PROCESSING FIRMS IN THE SUGAR

INDUSTRY IN SWAZILAND. Agriculture Economics Research, Policy and Practice in Southern

Africa , 43(2), 1-10.

Matopoulos, A., Vlachopoulou, M., Manthou, V., & Manos, B. (2007). A conceptual framework for supply

chain collaboration: empirical evidence from the agri-food industry. Supply Chain Management:

An International Journal, 12(3), 177-186.

Muda, M. N. (2006). Postharvest Handling. Postharvest Management of Fruit and Vegetables in the Asia-

Pacific Region (pp. 187-190). New Delhi: Asian Productivity Organization.

Ndanu, M. C., & Syombua, M. J. (2015). Mixed Methods Research: The Hidden Cracks of the

Triangulation Design. General Education Journal, 4(2), 46-67.

Osman, A., Saari, N., Saleh, R., Bakar, J., Zainal, N. D., & Yacob, M. (2009). POST HARVEST HANDLING

PRACTICES ON SELECTED LOCAL FRUITS AND VEGETABLES AT DIFFERENT LEVELS OF THE

DISTRIBUTION CHAIN. Journal of Agribusiness Marketing, 2, 39-50.

Ouden, M. d., Dijkhuizen, A. A., Huirne, R. B., & Zuurbier, P. J. (1996). Vertical Cooperation in

Agricultural Production- Marketing Chains, with Special Reference to Product Differentiation in

Pork. Agribusiness, 12(3), 277-290.

Rolle, R. S. (2006). Postharvest Management of Fruit and Vegetables in the Asia-Pacific Region. Rome:

Asian Productivity Organization.

Ruslan, N. A., Man, N., Nawi, N. M., & Ding, P. (2013). Factors that influence the implementation of

postharvest handling practices among fresh vegetable producers in selected states in Malaysia.

Journal of International Food & Agribusiness Marketing, 25(1), 87-97.

Shewfelta, R. L., Prussiaa, S. E., & Sparks, S. A. (2014). Challenges in Handling Fresh Fruits and

Vegetables. In Handling of fruits and vegetables from farm to consumer (pp. 11-30). Elsevier

Inc.

Stuckey, H. L. (2014). The first step in Data Analysis: Transcribing and managing qualitative research

data. Journal of Social Health and Diabetes, 2(1), 6-8.

Suslow, T. (2000). POSTHARVEST HANDLING FOR ORGANIC CROPS. California: UC Davis, Division of

Agriculture and Natural Resources.

van der Vorst, J. G., da Silva, C. A., & Trienekens, J. H. (2007). Agro-industrial supply chain

management: concepts and applications. AGRICULTURAL MANAGEMENT, MARKETING AND

FINANCE OCCASIONAL PAPER, 1-54.

Vickie, A. L., & Clinton, E. L. (2012). Qualitative Descriptive Research: An Acceptable Design. Pacific Rim

International Journal of Nursing Reasearch, 16(4), 255-256.

Page | 57

Zahari, N. I., & Sa'ari, S. B. (2012). Post Harvest Handling System of Tropical Fruits in Malaysia. Post

Harvest Quality and Safety of Tropical Fruit Production in South East Asian Countries (pp. 1-58).

Bangkok: Asian Food Regulation Information Service.

Page | 58

APPENDIX A: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW WITH FARMERS (F1, F2, F3)

Question Number or Id Question Number of Id Response Positive or Negative

Tell me about your everyday practices in farm? 1 producing leafy vegetables (e.g. cabbage, spinach, amaranthus) P

What things are considered during harvesting? 2 harvesting done at proper stage, avoid mechanical injury during handling. P

What will you do to avoid PH losses during harvesting? 3 handle with care to avoid mechanical injury, use of proper basket and material to cushioning produceP

What is the proper time to harvest produce? 4 coolest moment in a day. Normally early morning or late afternoon P

What are actions needed to remove field heat directly after harvest? 5 move as soon as possible to packaging house or sell directly to customer P

What are the issues and constraint in implementing postharvest handling? 6 lack of equipment and tools during handling and transportation such as weighing scale, basket and wheel barrow. Dont know much about subsidize available from FAMA and location provided for selling.N

What are the infrastructures provided for PH practices? 7 no shed provided in the field. All produce goes directly to the packinghouse. In field road also provided.N

How many infrastuctures provided? Is it sufficient for PH practices? 8 not sufficient, better to have simple shed instead of packinghouse N

Does the infrastructure provided proper for PH handling? 9 field road provided is accesible and connected to packinghouse P

What are the issues and constraints ? 10 bumpy in-field road still an issue that has to give attention to avoid mechanical injury to produce. Had problem with clean water supplies.N

What are the tools and equipment provided for PH practices? 11 basket, secateur, knive, weighing scale, wheel barrow P

Does the tools and equipment provided enough for PH practices? 12 not sufficient,lack of basket and wheel barrow provided N

How to get the tools and equipments? 13 provided by government. Also own initiative P

What are the issues and constraints? 14 with the lack number of wheel barrow, it is used for several purposes (carrying manure, fertilizer, produce). Afraid of disease contaminationN

How about incentive and subsidies from government? 15 sufficient subsidy given from government such as fertilizer and seed P

How about authority enforcement of PH handling? 16 not too strong enforcement. Any wrongdoing will be overcome with extra training or issuing warning letterN

What are the extension programs provided by government? 17 training, on-field supervision but more focus on pre-harvest activities P

Are the informations provided sufficient and useful? 18 officer in-charge always available when needed P

comply with appropriate PH handling, what do you think about it? 19 still not reach satisfactory level. Lack of workers, tools and equipment are the major point need to take into considerationN

Why and what cause? 20 still not reach satisfactory level. Lack of workers, tools and equipment are the major point need to take into considerationN

What is your marketing channel? 21 direct selling. No intermediate person. It was unclear how they set the price. P

Sufficient and proper marketing channel? 22 yes. Can demand for higher price. P

How about your sale compare to previous ? 23 not so much different. Still facing with PH losses N

How about the quality of produce? 24 as produce directly sold to consumer. It is in required quality P

Shelf life of produce improved? 25 not so much different. Still facing with PH losses N

Is there any potential improvements in profit? 26 not so much different N

What are PH technologies have been documented to be cost-effective? 27 complete packinghouse system with technologies for washing, sorting, packing, waxing etc P

proper cool room P

Page | 59

APPENDIX B: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW WITH HANDLERS (H1, H2, H3)


Tell me about your everyday practices at this stage? 1 Get produce from farmers and bring it into packinghouse P

What are steps considered in packaging house operation? 2 Receive produces from farmers in plastic basket, stored in the cold room, undergo packaging, then back into cold room before sent to retailerP

What is your opinion on packaging house layout? 3 simple and improvement should be made. Only equipped with cold room. N

What are the issues and constraint in implementing postharvest handling? 4 lack of technologies such as conveyor, proper washing facilities and proper packing facilities then goes to cold roomN

What are the infrastructures provided for PH practices? 7 less space of packinghouse to support the capacity of vege production N

How many infrastuctures provided? Is it sufficient for PH practices? 8 less space of packinghouse to support the capacity of vege production N

Does the infrastructure provided proper for PH handling? 9 proper for only dry storage. Not for cold storage. Temperature management system not function properlyN

What are the issues and constraints ? 10 cold storage is used for various type of produce. Compatibility of produce is crucial in maintaning the quality of produce. Transportation still an issue since no transportation mode equipped with cooling system N

What are the tools and equipment provided for PH practices? 11 mostly plastic basket P

Does the tools and equipment provided enough for PH practices? 12 basket provided always run out of stock. N

How to get the equipments? 13 it easily can be found nearby shop P

What are the issues and constraints? 14 lack of basket, insufficient space of cold room to store different type of produces, lack of technologies for washing before entering cold room N

How about incentive and subsidies from government? 15 insufficient fund for facilities improvement. Government must focus on this matter N

How about authority enforcement of PH handling? 16 ok. Not too stricht N

What are extension programs provided by government? 17 sufficient on-field supervision weekly (e.g. disease, crop management), also cold room inspectionP

Are the informations provided sufficient and useful? 18 sufficient information provided P

comply with appropriate PH handling, what do you think about it? 19 not easy as a lot of change has to be made in term of facilities, technologies and practices N

Why and what cause? 20 lack of fund from government for infrastructure, lack of awareness in important of postharvest N

What is your marketing channel? 21 directly to retailer. No intermediate person P

Sufficient and proper marketing channel? 22 yes. But too many middlemen can cause price exploitation P

How about your sale compared to previous ? 23 no cold room provided beforehand. Structure of produce (chili) became soft and speed up the respiration rate (produce sweating). Fruit processed into by-product.Not sufficient space for handling activities.N

How about the quality of produce? 24 after cold room introduced.quality increased. Can demand for high price P

Shelf life of produce improved? 25 yes. After facilities (cold room and dry room) provided P

Is there any potential improvements in profit? 26 get better profit P

What are PH technologies have been documented to be cost-effective? 27 cold room. Expecting to have cooling system for each vehicle P

Page | 60

APPENDIX C: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW WITH WHOLESALER (W1, W2, W3)


Tell me about your everyday practices at this stage? 1 Buy produce from farmers in a big quantity, store, re-packing, sell it to retailer P

What are practices considered during transportation? 2 make a shipment as soon as possible to storage. Use proper basket with good cushioning material.P

What are facilities needed during transportation and storage? 3 sufficient cold room for various produce but insufficient quantity of transportation P

What are the issues and constraint at this stage? 4 no cooling system equipped for vehicle. Lack of storage room. Dumped in various type of produce in the same room. Not enough transportation. Produce has to be harvested ealier due to limitiation of transportation available.N

What are the infrastructures provided for PH practices? 5 cold room P

How many infrastuctures provided? Is it sufficient for PH practices? 6 cold room provided with poor cooling system N

Does the infrastructure provided proper for PH handling? 7 not proper. Various produces stored in the same cold room. N

What are the issues and constraints ? 8 issues on compatability of produce are always neglected. Mixing of various type of produce. N

What are the tools and equipment provided for PH practices? 9 only basket are provided N

Does the tools and equipment provided enough for PH practices? 10 insufficient supply of basket. N

How to get the equipments? 11 nearby agriculture shope P

What are the issues and constraints? 12 basket used to carry produce to retailer is not returnable. Shortage of basket always happend N

How about incentive and subsidies from government? 13 infrastructures (green house) provided by FAMA, subsidy : fertilizer and fund P

How about authority enforcement of PH handling? 14 not too strict N

What are extension programs provided by government? 15 monthly supervision and inspection P

Are the informations provided sufficient and useful? 16 yes but we need it more often P

comply with appropriate PH handling, what do you think about it? 17 basket used to carry produce comes with good cushioning material to avoid mechanical injury. P

Why and what cause? 18 still with the lack of cooling system affect the quality of produce. + plenty of intermediate player would lengthen the transportation time.N

What is your marketing channel? 19 retailer P

Sufficient and proper marketing channel? 20 plenty of intermediate players will cause high price before reaching end consumer. N

How about your sale compared to previous ? 21 increased as more optimum quality produce can be sold P

How about the quality of produce? 22 beforehand, used of bamboo basket which is always lead to mechanical injury. Nowadays, use of plastic basket/container with proper cushioning material in it.P

Shelf life of produce improved? 23 yes. Prolong shelf life. P

Is there any potential improvements in profit? 24 saleable with slightly higher price because of better quality P

What are PH technologies have been documented to be cost-effectiveness? 25 plastic basket with good cushioning material P

Page | 61

APPENDIX D: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW WITH RETAILER (R1, R2, R3)


Tell me about your everyday practices at this stage? 1 Get the produce directly from farmer (contract farming) or sometimes from wholesaler P

What are practices considered at this stage to avoid losses? 2 washing perishable produce, stack it, arrange produces on a table regardless types. N

What are facilities needed to maintain quality of produce? 3 cushioning material such as paper, corrugated box, plastic, foam protective net P

What are the issues and constraint at this stage? 4 heat from surrounding speed up the respiration rate of produce. Mechanical injury during transportation decrease the quality of produceN

What are the infrastructures provided for PH practices? 5 chiller P

How many infrastuctures provided? Is it sufficient for PH practices? 6 based on the current capacity, it is enough P

Does the infrastructure provided proper for PH handling? 7 Various produces stored in the same cold room. N

What are the issues and constraints ? 8 issues on compatability of produce are always neglected. Mixing of various type of produce. P

What are the tools and equipment provided for PH practices? 9 only basket are provided P

Does the tools and equipment provided enough for PH practices? 10 insufficient supply of basket. N

How to get the equipments? 11 nearby agriculture shope P

What are the issues and constraints? 12 Produce are no longer at optimum quality when it reach retailer as plenty of middle men involvedN

How about incentive and subsidies from government? 13 location for selling produce. Permanent place/market P

How about authority enforcement of PH handling? 14 not too strict N

What are extension programs provided by government? 15 monthly supervision and inspection P

Are the informations provided sufficient and useful? 16 no. didnt get much information from FAMA regarding latest price, new implied procedure N

comply with appropriate PH handling, what do you think about it? 17 its good to follow proper practices to sustain the quality of produce. P

Why and what cause? 18 good PH practices is not thoroughly applied as number of middle men involved, roughly handled. N

What is your marketing channel? 19 directly to end consumer P

Sufficient and proper marketing channel? 20 yes. Involvement of middle men affect many things such as price. N

How about your sale compared to previous ? 21 slightly better P

How about the quality of produce? 22 use of plastic corrugated diberboard box with proper cushioning material in it. P

Shelf life of produce improved? 23 yes. Prolong shelf life. P

Is there any potential improvements in profit? 24 saleable with slightly higher price because of better quality P

What are PH technologies have been documented to be cost-effectiveness? 25 plastic basket with good cushioning material P

Page | 62

APPENDIX E: SEMI-STRUCTURED INTERVIEW WITH FAMA REPRESENTATIVE (O1)


What are the infrastructures provided for PH practices? 1 basic infrastructure (water, electric, road), cold room and physical structure (nethouse) P

How many infrastuctures provided? Is it sufficient for PH practices? 2 sufficient for each farm based on capacity (size of land, type of crop, production record, financially feasible, labor)P

Does the infrastructure provided proper for PH handling? 3 yes based on size of land, type of crop, production record, financially feasible, labor P

What are the equipment provided for PH practices? 5 weighing scale, wheel barrow, and few tools P

Does the equipment provided enough for PH practices? 6 equipment and tools provided based on request/ capacity of farm P

What are the issues and constraints? 8 all actors have to take care of their asset. Lot of complaints about tool and equipment missing N

How about incentive and subsidies from government? 9 Physical structure, fertilizer and chemical are provided upon request P

How about authority enforcement of PH handling? 10 mainly focus more on production line with myGap, myOrganic cetificate N

What are extension programs provided by government? 11 training, advice and regular supervision P

Are the informations provided sufficient and useful? 12 information and latest news normally uploaded in the website. P

What is your marketing channel? 13 provide programme such as Mega Farmers Market to allow farmer sell directly their own product P

Sufficient and proper marketing channel? 14 few programmes developed for the ease of farmer,wholesale and also retailer P

What type of extension programs provided by authority? 15 pamphlet about PH handling, technology transfer (basket, cool room) P

Extension programs provided to any specific group(actor)? 16 yes. Focus training given to particular group (farmer, handler etc) P

What type of produce does programs focus on? 17 vegetable crops and tropical fruit P

Any particular programs initiated to track progress of actors? 18 just a report from each farm but more on production progress. Not PH N

What are incentives and subsidies given by government? 19 physical structure for those who implementing close system fertigation P

fertilizer and chemical will be provided P

also other agriculture input such as seed can be claimed up to euro 650 per season P

Page | 63

APPENDIX F:

THE BARRIERS FOR NOT PERFORMING POSTHARVEST HANDLING

PRACTICES

Quotes Interviewee Barriers

“insufficient information on demand and operational

along the chain”

F1, F2, F3, W2, W3, R1,

R2, R3

Lack of sharing

information

“difficult to access on latest information (policy,

market price, subsidy and incentive available)”

F1, F2, F3, R1, R2, R3

“no latest update on price from authority” F1, F2, F3, R1, R2

“presence of many middle men will reduce the quality

of produce”

R1, R3, F2, F3, H1, H2,

H3

Lack of trust in

the distribution

chain

“bumpy in-field road still an issue” F2 Improper

infrastructure

and facilities “shortage of clean water supplies” F3

“poor condition (poor temperature system) and lack

of space in cold room”

H1, H2, W1, W3, R3

“cold storage stored with various types of produces” H3, W2, R1

“insufficient quantity of transportation” F1, F3, W3

“lack of refrigerated transport” F1, F2, H1, H2, W2, W3

“insufficient tools and equipment provided” F1, H2, W1, W2, R1, R2,

R3

Insufficient

supply of tools

and equipment “use same equipment for different purposes” F3,

lack of technologies (conveyor, washing etc.) H1, H2.H3

“less strict implementation and less follow-up on PH

handling practices”

F1, F2, F3, H1, W1, W2,

W3, R1, R2

Weak

enforcement

“lack of trained on postharvest handling practices and

disciplined labor”

F1, F2, F3, H1, H, H3,

W2, W3

Lack of extension

programs

“lack of awareness on important PH”

“too many middlemen involve” F1, F2, F3, H1, H2, H3,

W1, W2, W3, R1, R2, R3

Improper

marketing

channel

management studies group (mst)

Documents