Understand the topic
What this means in daily life
Post-harvest management protects the value of a crop after it leaves the field. A useful intervention starts with the exact loss point and tests the handling, storage or selling change against real product volumes.
Loss may mean spoiled quantity, lower grade, delayed sale or a price discount; these require different responses. Distinguishing them helps determine whether the useful change is better handling, a different storage arrangement or a more reliable selling route.
Data reference table
Evidence Snapshot
Read each value with its reporting period, population and limitations. A historical national reference is not a local baseline or proof that an IFT proposal works.
3 source-linked reference records. 3 measurement records still need data and a review of their relevance.
| Signal | Reference Value | Period / Population | How to Read It | Source Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cereal post-harvest loss range | 3.89–5.92% Historical reference | NABCONS study published 2022; field dates not stated in linked release Indian cereal commodities covered by the study | The range describes differing commodity loss estimates. Limitations: It is not a confidence interval or one rate for all farms. Do not add it to fruit or vegetable percentages; survey methods and commodity coverage matter. | Ministry of Food Processing Industries / NABCONS Official government release Record type: government commissioned primary survey estimate Published: 2022-12-20 Publication checked: 2026-11-04 Value, period and coverage checked in publication |
| Fruit post-harvest loss range | 6.02–15.05% Historical reference | NABCONS study published 2022; field dates not stated in linked release Indian fruit commodities covered by the study | A reference for investigating storage, transport and handling losses. Limitations: Commodity estimates differ. This does not establish losses in a selected district, nor prove that one cold-chain design will reduce them. | Ministry of Food Processing Industries / NABCONS Official government release Record type: government commissioned primary survey estimate Published: 2022-12-20 Publication checked: 2026-11-04 Value, period and coverage checked in publication |
| Vegetable post-harvest loss range | 4.87–11.61% Historical reference | NABCONS study published 2022; field dates not stated in linked release Indian vegetable commodities covered by the study | Shows the reported spread of losses across vegetable commodities. Limitations: Not a uniform national rate, a confidence interval or a current local measurement. Do not combine percentages with other commodity groups. | Ministry of Food Processing Industries / NABCONS Official government release Record type: government commissioned primary survey estimate Published: 2022-12-20 Publication checked: 2026-11-04 Value, period and coverage checked in publication |
| Quantity/quality loss | Not established Data required — not zero | Reporting period: Information Required Population and geography: Information Required | Proposed measure; no observed value is established here. Limitations: Define the measure, unit, reporting period and covered population; obtain a traceable dataset and review its suitability for this topic before using a number. | Source organisation: Information Required Direct source URL: not yet verified Source publication date: not established Verification status: Data required |
| Shelf-life gain | Not established Data required — not zero | Reporting period: Information Required Population and geography: Information Required | Proposed measure; no observed value is established here. Limitations: Define the measure, unit, reporting period and covered population; obtain a traceable dataset and review its suitability for this topic before using a number. | Source organisation: Information Required Direct source URL: not yet verified Source publication date: not established Verification status: Data required |
| Capacity utilisation | Not established Data required — not zero | Reporting period: Information Required Population and geography: Information Required | Proposed measure; no observed value is established here. Limitations: Define the measure, unit, reporting period and covered population; obtain a traceable dataset and review its suitability for this topic before using a number. | Source organisation: Information Required Direct source URL: not yet verified Source publication date: not established Verification status: Data required |
Different surveys, administrative records, estimates and reporting years are not interchangeable. No combined IFT score is calculated from these rows.
Evidence coverage and review log (CSV) · Structured evidence register (JSON)
10 ideas for this topic
What could be done — and what needs testing
These are proposals for research and local testing. They are not claims that a project has been funded, implemented or proved successful.
Loss-point measurement
Weigh and inspect a sample of product at harvest, collection, storage and sale to locate where losses occur.
What to check: Measure the type and location of loss
Harvest timing comparison
Ask crop specialists and buyers to compare harvest timing with quality, labour availability and the intended market.
What to check: Compare buyer acceptance and quality at different harvest timings
Field handling trial
Compare agreed picking, sorting and container practices with current handling for the selected crop.
What to check: Record damage and grade after the handling change
Collection schedule test
Examine whether revised collection times reduce waiting, damage or exposure without imposing unreasonable work on farmers.
What to check: Measure field-to-collection delay against product requirements
Drying and moisture assessment
Ask qualified teams to compare drying options and measurement practices appropriate to the crop and local weather.
What to check: Use qualified product-specific drying and moisture assessment
Storage utilisation review
Compare proposed storage capacity with seasonal volume, product requirements, energy, staffing and maintenance.
What to check: Compare realistic use charges and storage-condition reliability
Grading transparency trial
Publish understandable grade criteria and test whether farmers and buyers obtain consistent assessments.
What to check: Test consistent grading and reasons for disputed rejection
Market-delay tracing
Follow a lot from arrival through sale and payment to identify avoidable queues, rejection or repeat handling.
What to check: Trace waiting unsold output and price effects to the responsible stage
Shared logistics comparison
Compare a joint transport route with current arrangements using full cost, reliability, loading and damage.
What to check: Compare damage timing and full cost across logistics options
Net-value evaluation
Assess whether lower physical loss creates better net returns after extra equipment, energy, labour and selling costs.
What to check: Compare retained sales value with all intervention costs