The Benefits of Training Stakeholders across
the Grain Value Chain – Lessons from a
Capacity Building Effort in Ghana
K. E. Ileleji1, G. P. Opit2 and S. McNeill3
1Dept.
of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.
2Department of Entomology and Plant Pathology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA.
3Department of Biosystems and Agricultural Engineering, University of Kentucky, Princeton, Kentucky, USA.
Maize Value Chain In Ghana
Abstract
Workshops, funded by USDA/FAS, on reducing post-harvest losses
for commodity grain were successfully conducted in Kumasi in
March 2011 for grain warehouse operators and in July/August 2011
in Techiman, Navrongo, and Tamale for extension agents and
farmers. The participants in the second training which had most
players (farmers, extension agents, aggregators and chemical
dealers) in the maize value chain were better informed about the
losses incurred as grain is handled through the supply chain from
production to market. Most importantly, they were able to discuss
how they could collaboratively address these losses using holistic
approaches to problem solving.
The problem
At first glance, it would be very logical to train participants at
workshops in the various segments in which they operate. In subSaharan Africa, stakeholders in these segments can also be
delineated along socio-economic status and education level such
that such segmentation is reinforced and justified. So, is
knowledge best acquired were only participants from a segment
are trained or is there some value in combining participants from
different segments of the value chain to address issues that dissect
across the value chain?
What we did
A 2-day workshop on reducing post-harvest losses in grains in
Ghana combined participants from various segments of the grain
value chain (farmers, aggregators, warehouse operators, extension
workers, chemical dealers, NGOs and state government staff). An
experiential interactive approach which began with visits to
farmers’ storage barns where trainees interacted with the host
farmer about their storage system was used. The second day was
spent in an interactive discussion session with the participants
reflecting on the previous days visit and brainstorming on the
various problems observed in the storage systems visited the
previous day and how to solve them.
Small-holder farmers
Aggregators & Cooperatives
Warehouse Receipt System
Processors
Pre-Harvest losses from:
-Insect, molds and birds
-Harvesting & handling
-Fire
Post-Harvest losses from:
-Molds, insects & rodents
-Handling & transport
Problems:
-Grain spoilage
-Mycotoxin contamination
-Quality loss
-Market value loss
Post-Harvest losses from:
-Handling & transportation
-Molds, insects & rodents
Post-Harvest Intervention
-Timely drying
-Timely and appropriate shelling
and cleaning
-Timely handling/transport
-Grain & pest management
-Grading and Sorting
-Improved logistics
On-Farm Intervention:
-Timely harvest
-On-farm storage
-Timely off-field transport
Post-Harvest Intervention
-Timely drying
-Timely and appropriate
shelling and cleaning
-Timely handling/transport
-Adequate storage
-Improved logistics
-Grain & pest management
Post-Harvest losses from:
-Poor receiving operations
-Poor quality grading system
-Poor stored grain management
-Poor marketing strategy
Post-Harvest losses from:
-Poor receiving operations
-Poor quality grading system
-Poor stored grain management
-Poor supply chain management
Post-Harvest Intervention
-Provide recurrent training to staff
in warehouse operations
management through a certified
training and licensing program for
warehouse operators and staff.
-Grain & pest management
Post-Harvest Intervention
-Provide recurrent training to staff in
grain facilities operations
management through a certified
training and licensing program for
facilities operators and staff.
-Grain & pest management
UN World Food Programme P4P
Product quality losses from:
-Poor supply chain logistics/mgt
-Poor storage during marketing
-Poor end-use storage/mgt
Product quality losses from:
-Poor in-house storage
Target end-use as Food and Feed
Where should intervention be prioritized?
While losses are incurred at each segment of the maize value chain, the first
segment when farmers harvest the grain is the most critical. The quality of
grain harvested and post-harvest handling determines its potential quality
and the challenges to be faced in maintaining quality down the value chain.
Thus intervention is very important at the first segment, especially when
small-scale farmers are not equipped to cope with quality loss problems.
What we found
•The approach of combining participants from the various
segments of the grain value chain showed that participants and
instructors where able to better grasp the issues of post-harvest
losses and suggest collaborative solutions to problems.
•There is still a lot of suspicion between players in the value chain
for collaboration to flourish. While not all training can be
combined, combining participants in some training where possible
is highly encouraged
•The use of basic technology which are important for quality
control such as moisture meters and scales are still not common in
grain trade. The absence of technology and the use of subjective
measures for these basic parameters of trade fosters suspicion
between farmers and aggregators .
•The introduction of a technology such as moisture meters might
not be as easy as making them cheaper, affordable and available.
Interactive training hold the key to adoption.
Day 1 – Field Visits
Instruments vs. Human Sensors - Participants compare how close
their moisture content estimates of corn is with a moisture meter
Acknowledgements:
We thank the USDA/FAS for the financial support provided under a cooperative
agreement between Purdue University , Oklahoma State University and University
of Kentucky.
Day 2 – Brainstorm sessions