POST-HARVEST TECHNOLOGY IN THE PHILIPPINES

Susana G. Castro

1 Abstract

The Philippines is considered an agrarian economy, with 47% of the total land area or approximately 30 million hectares are agricultural lands. However, the country is still not self-sufficient particularly with its staple food requirements.

To address the problem on food shortage, as well as alleviate the conditions of the marginal farmers especially in the rural areas, the Philippine government approved the Agricultural and Fisheries Modernization Act or AFMA (Republic Act 8435) in 1999. This law allocates approximately 20% of PhP 120 billion (US$ 2.2 billion) budget to any post-harvest related activities for seven years starting 1999 up to 2006. The present administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, on the other hand, fully recognizes the importance of proper post-harvest handling and effective post-harvest technology.

At present, several matured post-harvest technologies need to be transferred to the target sectors. The general strategies being used for the transfer of technology include the conduct of training, the distribution of print media (such as manual, leaflets and brochures) to local extension workers, and the establishment of Post-harvest Technology Demonstration Centers for high value commercial crops. Currently, seven demonstration centers are already constructed in different sites of the country.

Based on the agricultural performance of the Philippine Department of Agriculture (DA) in 2001, high-value crops have significant contribution (around 57%) to the total agriculture performance of the country. Post-harvest losses are approximately 15% for grains (rice and corn), 28% in fruits and 40% in vegetables.

Small-scale post-production machines simple yet useful, post-harvest technologies are the most appropriate to rural areas for employment generation.

Though, it would take some time to realize the benefits derived from postharvest technologies introduced (mainly due to the constraints in the industry), a great contribution to the economy would be accounted once these technologies take positive effects to the almost 90% small farmers in the country.

A. Introduction

The Philippines is considered an agrarian economy, with 47% of the total land area or approximately 30 million hectares are agricultural lands. However, the country is still not self-sufficient particularly with its staple food requirements: it has five to ten percent annual shortage in rice and corn needs; has low per capita consumption of fruits and vegetables; and has high post-harvest losses of agricultural crops (about 15% in grains, 28% in fruits, and 40% in vegetables) (Andales et al, 2000).

(1 University Extension Specialist, Agricultural Mechanization Development Program (AMDP), University of the Philippines Los Banos (UPLB), Philippines. 154 )

In order to address the problem on food shortage, as well as to alleviate the conditions of the marginal farmers especially in the rural areas, the Philippine Government approved the Agricultural and Fisheries Modernization Act (AFMA) (Republic Act 8435) in 1999. This law allocates approximately 20% of PhP 120 billion (US$ 2.2 billion) budget to any post-harvest-related activities for seven years starting in 1999 up to 2006. The present administration of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, on the other hand, fully recognizes the importance of proper post-harvest handling and effective post-harvest technology. In fact, it is shown in the priority projects such as the Philippine Nautical Highway for the roll-on roll-off ferries that will help shorten the transit time of perishable crops from southern to northern part of the country and vice-versa.

It is believed that preventing post-harvest losses is cheaper than to increase yield. And with proper post-harvest handling and post-harvest technologies, people can be sufficiently fed without bringing additional hectares under production or without changing present agricultural practices. Moreover, Bautista (1990) mentioned that if we could cut down PH losses by a mere 10%, we would have more food than by increasing yield by 10% without reducing post-harvest losses.

B. Post-harvest situations

1. Support to post-harvest industry

As evidence of strong support to the post-harvest industry, numerous government and non-government institutions, state colleges and universities and big corporations are now undertaking research and development activities on post-harvest handling (Sebastian, 2002). The major research, development and extension (RDE) arm of the government is the Bureau of Post-harvest Research and Extension (BPRE) of the Philippine Department of Agriculture (DA) and PhilRice. On the other hand, the main RDE arm of the University of the Philippines Los Baños (UPLB) (the leading state university of the country) are: 1) the Agricultural Mechanization Development Program (AMDP) and 2) the Division of Bio-Process Engineering of the College of Engineering and AgroIndustrial Technology (CEAT) for grain post-harvest; and 3) the Post-harvest Horticulture Training and Research Center (PHTRC) of the College of Agriculture (CA) for horticultural crop post-harvest.

In addition, out of the PhP 444.37 million (US$ 8.1 million) budget for comprehensive primary and secondary post-harvest processing programs 2002, the Philippine DA has allotted PhP 33.8 million (US$ 614,545.50) for the establishment of trading posts, village level processing equipment, warehouses 155 and refrigerative storage facilities to cut PH losses in high value crops (DA Press Release, 2002).

At present, several matured post-harvest technologies need to be transferred to the target sectors. The general strategies being used for the transfer of technology include the conduct of training, the distribution of print media (such as manual, leaflets and brochures) to local extension workers, and the establishment of post-harvest Technology Demonstration Centers for high value commercial crops. Currently, seven demonstration centers are already constructed in different sites of the country.

2. Major agricultural crops of the Philippines

Based on the 2001 agricultural performance of the DA, high value crops have significant contribution (about 57%) to the total agriculture performance of the country as shown in

Table 10.1. The Philippine agricultural performance from Jan. to Dec. 2001

Crops Value of Production (million pesos) % contribution to total agricultural production AGRICULTURE CROPS 145,333.26 100.00

GRAINS 63,210.27 43.49

PALAY 42,621.52 29.33

CORN 20,588.75 14.17

HIGH VALUE CROPS 82,122.99 56.51

COCONUT 19,953.00 13.73

BANANA 9,058.80 6.23

SUGARCANE 9,036.13 6.22

MANGO 6,428.64 4.42

COFFEE 3,011.13 2.07

PINEAPPLE 2,908.03 2.00

CASSAVA 2,329.36 1.60

CAMOTE 1,036.26 0.71

RUBBER 1,008.38 0.69

CALAMANSI 927.89 0.64

EGGPLANT 809.99 0.56

GARLIC 709.31 0.49

TOBACCO 704.73 0.48

TOMATO 518.41 0.36

ONION 517.08 0.36

ABACA 459.24 0.32

CABBAGE 413.63 0.28

PEANUT 221.26 0.15

OTHER FIBER CROPS 223.66 0.02

OTHERS 21,721.91 14.95

http://un-csam.org/sites/default/files/2021-01/Post-harvest Technology in the Philippines.pdf