The study was conducted in Kirinyaga County, Kenya, located south of Mount Kenya (as shown in Figure 1) and covering a total area of 1478.1 square kilometers [19]. The county’s elevation ranges between 1158 meters and 5380 meters above sea level, with its highest point being the summit of Mount Kenya, greatly shaping the region’s landscape [19]. Kirinyaga experiences a tropical climate, with an equatorial rainfall pattern. Temperatures range from an average of 8.1˚C in the upper zones to 30.3˚C in the lower zones during the hot season [20]. Annual rainfall varies between an average of 1212 mm and 2146 mm per month, with two distinct rainy seasons, the long rains occurring from March to May and the short rains occurring from October to November [20]. Agriculture is the primary economic activity, covering about 88,682 hectares, of which over 60% (52,890 hectares) are under subsistence production and 1791 hectares under tomato production [19][20]. More than 80% of the population depends on agriculture for their livelihoods, with around 50,000 households earning an average income of KES 1000 per day from various value chains, including tomatoes [20].

The study used a qualitative descriptive research design to explore the level of awareness and perceptions of tomato farmers regarding post-harvest losses in Kirinyaga County. Qualitative research is an inquiry process focused on understanding and involves the researcher creating a detailed, holistic picture, analyzing spoken words, documenting the informants’ perspectives, and conducting the study in a natural setting [21]. This approach enables researchers to gain a complete understanding rather than just relying on quantitative analysis. A multistage sampling procedure was used and Kirinyaga County was purposively selected because it was the top producer of tomatoes in 2021 and has a significant land area allocated to tomato cultivation. Kirinyaga East and Mwea West sub-counties were also purposively selected based on their significant tomato production and the number of tomato farmers’ households. One ward was then randomly selected from each sub-county.

Source: Map created by the Author (2026).

Figure 1. Map of Kirinyaga County.

The study employed both focus group discussions and key informant interviews to collect qualitative data, while exploring how post-harvest losses affect the income, food security, and production decisions of individual tomato smallholder farmers in Kirinyaga County. A focus group discussion checklist was used to collect comprehensive information regarding participants’ attitudes, perceptions, knowledge, experiences, and practices related to tomato post-harvest losses. These focus group discussions were conducted in Mutige and Kathiga locations. Key informant interviews were also utilized to provide in-depth qualitative discussions with individuals who possess firsthand knowledge of the community, offering insights into the nature of issues and suggesting potential solutions. The interviews were conducted with agricultural officers and extension workers from the agricultural production department of the Kirinyaga County office. Both FGDs and key informant interviews were face-to-face discussions with the researcher.

Farmers were included in the study if they were actively growing tomatoes during the study period and had at least one season of tomato production experience. A total sample of 30 participants was involved in the qualitative study, comprising 26 participants in Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and four key informants as shown in Table 1. In each ward, participants for the FGDs were randomly selected from lists of eligible smallholder tomato farmers to minimize selection bias. In contrast, key informants were agricultural extension workers from Kirinyaga County, purposively selected based on their knowledge, experience, and involvement in tomato production, post-harvest handling, and agricultural extension services. This sample size was considered sufficient because data collection continued until thematic saturation was reached, whereby no new information was generated from additional interviews and discussions.

Table 1. Distribution of the qualitative study sample by sub-county.

The qualitative data were collected on factors influencing post-harvest losses, including time of planting, variety, price in the last season, access to storage facilities, transportation, handling practices, market access, and knowledge on post-harvest management, among others. The study also explored the corresponding effects, farmers’ coping mechanisms, and their perceived strategies to reduce tomato post-harvest losses. Information was gathered from two focus group discussions and four key informant interviews in Kirinyaga East and Mwea West sub-counties.

Thematic content analysis was employed based on the data collected from individual interviews with sub-county agricultural officers and focus group discussions with smallholder tomato farmers. The participants’ responses provided insights into the causes, effects, and financial consequences of post-harvest losses among tomato farmers in Kirinyaga County, as well as strategies to reduce these losses. This qualitative approach systematically organized and analyzed textual data to identify recurring patterns of meaning, which were subsequently grouped into themes [21]. Specifically, a reflexive thematic analysis approach was adopted because it recognizes that themes are developed through the researcher’s interpretive engagement with the data [22]. It also allowed comparison and integration of data from FGDs and KIIs [22]. Additionally, the analysis relied on NVivo software, which supported transcription, coding, and identification of recurring themes and patterns related to tomato post-harvest losses.

The analysis followed Braun and Clarke’s six-step framework, which involved familiarization with the data, generating initial codes, searching for initial themes, reviewing potential themes, defining and naming themes, and writing the final report [22]. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim and checked for accuracy. The researcher then read the transcripts repeatedly to become fully familiar with the data and to identify emerging patterns relevant to the study objectives. Initial codes were generated inductively through line-by-line reading of the transcripts using NVivo software. According to Byrne [23], a code is a label or an interpretive statement assigned to information that is significant to the research question or objective. These codes were then grouped into categories reflecting similar patterns of meaning. The categories were further developed into initial themes, which were reviewed, refined, and combined where necessary to ensure coherence and clarity [22]. Themes are defined as “capturing something important about the data in relation to the research question, and represent some level of patterned response or meaning within the data set” [24]. During analysis, attention was given to both converging and diverging views across FGDs and KIIs to ensure a comprehensive interpretation of data. In the final step, themes were clearly defined, named, and used to present a coherent narrative of the major findings derived from the analysis [25]. Furthermore, triangulation was applied by integrating insights from existing literature on tomato post-harvest losses to contextualize the findings within broader trends and patterns observed in similar studies [2][26]-[29]. All interview and FGD transcripts were anonymized. Respondents’ identities were safeguarded through the use of pseudonyms to ensure confidentiality.

One prominent theme that emerged was the farmers’ level of awareness regarding post-harvest losses at the farm level, as illustrated in Figure 2. This theme was structured around where participants believed losses occurred and their knowledge of the causes of these losses. The theme also included what farmers viewed as coping strategies to reduce tomato post-harvest losses at the farm level. The findings indicated that farmers demonstrated practical, experience-based awareness of how and why losses occur at their farms. The data for this theme were organized into three sub-themes, which were explored in more detail.

Sub-theme 1.1: Awareness of tomato post-harvest loss points

Participants clearly identified sorting and grading as a critical stage where post-harvest losses became evident. They explained that pest-infested, undersized, damaged, and rotten tomatoes were removed or discarded at this stage, leading to the rejection of a considerable portion of the harvested produce. Findings showed that tomatoes left on the ground during sorting quickly deteriorated, further increasing spoilage, thus making them unsellable. One participant in Kirinyaga East stated, “We experience a lot of rejected tomatoes, especially during sorting and grading of tomatoes. We lose approximately 60 - 80crates (around30%of our harvested produce).” Similarly, a participant from Mwea West noted, “Losses mainly occur during sorting and grading because tomatoes that are affected byTutaabsolutaor caterpillars, and those filled with too much water, are removed at this stage.” These responses indicated that pest damage and poor fruit quality often originated in the field but were fully realized as losses during sorting and grading. Thus, participants demonstrated awareness that the post-harvest losses originated on the farm and were not caused solely by transportation or marketing. This is consistent with [28], who reported that 22% of the post-harvest losses occurred at the sorting and grading stage, while losses during transportation averaged 20%.

Subtheme 1.2: Causes of post-harvest losses at the farm level

The study highlighted the most frequently cited causes of post-harvest losses at the farm level. Each of these causes was based on the codes extracted from the responses of the study participants, indicating their greater perceived significance. The primary causes identified were inappropriate packaging practices, price fluctuations, pests and diseases, oversupply of market produce, lack of storage facilities, and over-ripeness of tomatoes. The findings were presented using a word cloud as shown in Figure 3, which visually highlights the most frequently mentioned factors based on their relative prevalence.

Note: The word cloud highlights the most frequently mentioned causes of post-harvest losses identified from the coded qualitative data. Words that appear larger reflect causes that were mentioned more often, indicating greater prominence in the participants’ responses. Source: Own elaboration based on survey data.

Figure 3. Word cloud of key factors contributing to post-harvest losses.

Inappropriate packaging practices

A recurring pattern across interviews revealed that inappropriate packaging practices were one of the major factors contributing to tomato post-harvest losses. Findings indicated that farmers commonly used wooden crates and field containers like buckets and baskets during harvesting, while during handling, they mainly used wooden or plastic crates. However, these containers were often over-filled, which led to bruising and increased post-harvest losses during handling and transportation. One farmer explained, “Brokers often reject tomatoes that are notproperly packed or fully filled in wooden crates. When we overfill these crates during field harvesting, tomatoes get squeezed and develop bruises leading tolosses.” Likewise, a key informant noted,“Farmers often overpack tomatoes in wooden crates because brokers reject crates that are not fully filled. This increases the risk of bruising and spoilage,thereby resulting in greater losses.” These findings revealed that farmers were aware that improper packaging adversely affected the shelf life and marketability of their produce. Nevertheless, they continued using these boxes because they were readily accessible and could hold large volumes during transport. This is consistent with previous studies that associated inappropriate packaging with increased mechanical injuries and rapid deterioration of tomatoes [2][26][30]-[32].

Price fluctuations

Participants described that the unstable prices led to significant post-harvest losses. They reported that a sudden drop in prices forced them to either hold harvesting while waiting for better prices, which increased the risk of spoilage, or sell at low rates. One farmer mentioned, “Price fluctuations make marketing tomatoes a major challenge for us. When prices are low, we are forced to hold harvesting, which translates into high losses.” A key informant further remarked, “Prices can fall as low as KES3000or even KES2000per 60 kgwooden crate, which is about50% of the prevailing market price. Farmers are often forced to accept these prices because tomatoes are highly perishable and cannot be stored for long.” Unlike the packaging practices, which were linked to farm-level decisions, price instability was framed as an external and unpredictable factor beyond the farmers’ control. Participants highlighted the uncertainty and lack of bargaining power, especially during the peak seasons. This aligns with Abera et al. [30], who reported that farmers attributed price fluctuations to market delays and intermediaries controlling communication and pricing, which exposed them to unfavorable price shifts and higher losses.

Oversupply of tomatoes

Several respondents emphasized that oversupply was closely linked to fluctuating prices. They explained that the large supply of tomatoes came from farmers in neighboring counties, which caused a drop in prices and a scarcity of buyers. A farmer stated, “Farmers come from as far as Narok and Machakos, bringing tomatoes to Kirinyaga, which makes it difficult to predict the market. For example, a box may be sold at KES 2000today, but two days later, if the market is flooded, the price may drop to around KES 600, and we end up suffering financial losses.” Another farmer pointed out, “When we harvest during periods of high supply, we may fail to find buyers or even brokers do not come to the shambas. Once tomatoes are not properly stored, a large portion of the produce is lost due to spoilage, resulting in greaterlosses.” This suggested that oversupply accelerated quality deterioration, and this was attributed to the absence of storage facilities and limited market coordination.

Pests and diseases

Respondents frequently mentioned pests and diseases as another major cause of post-harvest losses. Several farmers identified the leaf miner, Tutaabsoluta, as the most prevalent pest, infesting tomatoes in the field. However, the effects were also evident after harvest, where they contributed to reduced quality and shelf life of the produce, resulting in substantial losses. A farmer reported, “Our tomatoes are highly affected by pests, especially Tutaabsoluta, which is a very serious tomatopest. Infested tomatoes are not bought because their shelf life is very low, and this results in significant financiallosses.” Similarly, bacterial wilt affected farmers’ yields, causing early fruit rotting and a short shelf life, which degraded the quality of tomatoes before they reached the market. This is consistent with findings reported by [26]. A key informant added, “One of the key diseases is bacterial wilt. When it’s too hot, the bacteria can spread easily, resulting in totalloss.” Participants’ views indicated an awareness that production challenges in the field extended to post-harvest stages, affecting marketability and household incomes. This finding corresponds with [28], who reported that most post-harvest pathological disorders in tomatoes originated in the field and were worsened by physical injuries, making the produce susceptible to spoilage and reducing its market value.

Lack of storage facilities

Unavailability of storage facilities emerged as a critical infrastructural constraint, leading to post-harvest losses. Participants reported that nearly half of the unsold produce was wasted due to the absence of appropriate storage facilities. One participant explained, “We do not store because we have no storage facilities. Most of the time, the remaining produce is simply discarded due tospoilage.” This suggested that inadequate storage forced farmers to discard their unsold tomatoes, adversely affecting their income. This was consistent with [27], who found that inadequate storage led to mechanical damage, decay, and blotchiness, contributing to severe tomato post-harvest losses at the farm level.

Over-ripeness of tomatoes

Another prominent cause that emerged was over-ripeness, associated with harvesting practices influenced by broker preferences and unpredictable market conditions. The results showed that farmers harvested fully ripe (red) tomatoes to satisfy the market demand. However, this made the tomatoes vulnerable to bruising and rapid deterioration, as market pressures such as oversupply and unstable prices often lead to prolonged handling and delayed sales, which in turn accelerated post-harvest ripening and spoilage. A participant stated, “We harvest ripetomatoesand they tend to become overripe if brokers do not arrive on time, and we end up experiencing greater losses.” Another participant remarked, “Tomatoes often become overripe as we hold them while searching for brokers offering better prices, especially during periods of oversupply. Once you delay selling, they translate into losses.”

The study participants stated other factors, including limited knowledge of post-harvest handling, incorrect tomato sizes (after grading), weather changes, and rough handling during harvesting, which were less frequently mentioned but still contributed to tomato losses at the farm level. The study findings corroborate previous studies identifying poor post-harvest handling practices, pests and diseases, inadequate transport infrastructure, market instability, and limited storage as major causes of post-harvest losses at the farm level [2][26][29][30].

Subtheme 1.3: Farmers’coping mechanisms to reduce post-harvest losses

This subtheme reported different coping mechanisms farmers adopted and how frequently they relied on them to reduce post-harvest losses at the farm level. The most commonly reported coping strategy was selling rejected tomatoes at lower prices. Farmers described directing their rejects to local buyers, including kiosks, small hotels, and individual retailers within the sub-location, as a way of salvaging losses rather than entirely discarding the produce. For instance, one participant mentioned, “We sell to kiosks and very small hotels within the area at avery low price, since they use tomatoes immediately and what remains is consumed at our homes.” Also, some farmers redirected their unsold tomatoes for home consumption or fed them to livestock. Participants explained that this strategy allowed them to salvage some value from tomatoes that were not marketable. As one farmer shared, “I use the rejects for home consumption and the rest I feed to my livestock.” Another farmer stated, “We sell the rejected tomatoes to small shops, while the remaining ones are consumed at home. Thus, they are not entirely wasted.” Only a few participants reported discarding tomatoes entirely, emphasizing that this was their last strategy when the produce could neither be sold nor used for alternative purposes. As a participant highlighted, “After small-scale buyers like mamaMboga¹or local vendors come to collect the rejects, they re-sort and what is left is thrown away because it is the real waste.” Overall, the findings indicated that farmers sought to minimize losses, either by accepting lower prices or finding alternative uses rather than completely wasting them.

The second theme focuses on how farmers perceived the effects of tomato post-harvest losses and the strategies that could be adopted to reduce the losses at the farm level. It captures the farmers’ understanding of how post-harvest losses affected their incomes and livelihoods, as well as the practical strategies they believed to be effective in minimizing such losses. The findings for this theme were grouped into two sub-themes, each explored in detail to illustrate how farmers perceived and responded to post-harvest losses.

Sub-theme 2.1: Perceived effects of post-harvest losses

This sub-theme related to how farmers understood the impact of post-harvest losses on their income and livelihoods. The study findings indicated five perceived effects of post-harvest losses, based on the frequency of coded responses from the interview transcripts. The most frequently cited effect of post-harvest losses was reduced incomes and profits, which left many farmers struggling financially to meet their basic needs, thereby undermining their overall welfare. They explained that highly rejected tomatoes reduced their marketable volumes, which forced them to sell at lower prices, significantly reducing their incomes. As one farmer reported, “Many tomatoes are rejected during sorting and grading because of pest damage and very small sizes. Sometimes I sell at low prices because of the quality and appearance of the produce. These losses directly reduce my income and profits.” A key informant explained, “When losses occur, it directly affects farmers financially. For example, if a farmer harvests20crates but loses10crates, then half of the production is lost, which directly lowers income and farm profits.”

A recurring pattern across interviews indicated that reduced market supply emerged as the second most mentioned effect. Farmers noted that a higher proportion of rejects decreased the quantity of tomatoes available for sale, limiting their ability to meet the brokers’ demands. A farmer noted, “Once the quantity reduces, everything is affected directly, including income and profits because the amount available for sale is lower.” One key informant reported, “When losses occur, the market supply is greatly affected as it declinessignificantlyand the farmer ends up experiencing a big loss.”

The least perceived effects of these losses were related to reduced prices and farmers’ decision making. The analysis showed that farmers opted to sell their produce at reduced prices to avoid a complete waste of their harvested produce. A key informant stated, “A Grade1tomato that is uniform, well-rounded, and fully ripe may get damaged during transport, developing blisters. This reduces its market price.” A farmer from Kirinyaga East mentioned, “Many tomatoes are affected by pests during production; this lowers their quality, forcing us to sell at lower prices compared to the prevailing market prices to avoid a total loss.” Consequently, respondents perceived that severe tomato post-harvest losses influenced their willingness and ability to continue farming for the next season. Some farmers were forced to temporarily discontinue farming, while others indicated that reduced incomes left them with insufficient capital needed to reinvest in the same plot of land for the next season. As a farmer from Mwea West explained, “When losses occur, you may not make enough money to cover your expenses for that next season. As a result, you may not have enough capital to plant again for the next season. For example, if you had one acre and incurred heavy losses, you may reduce the area to half an acre or a quarter acre in the next season.” Another farmer from Kirinyaga East stated, “At times we neglect farming for the next season if the losses are too high.”

These findings demonstrate that post-harvest losses are not only perceived as immediate economic impacts but also influence the farmers’ ability to sustain future production, affecting food security and farmers’ livelihood. This corroborates [27], who found that losses directly reduced farmers’ profits and hindered the continuation of tomato cultivation, negatively affecting food security. Wakene and Sharew [2] observed that inadequate storage and post-harvest handling led to wilting, shriveling, and moisture loss in fruits and vegetables, reducing the marketability, income, and economic value of the produce.

Sub-theme 2.2: Perceived solutions to manage post-harvest losses at the farm level

The study findings explored participants’ perceived strategies for managing post-harvest losses at the farm level. These were based on the frequency of different solutions reported in the study transcriptions, as shown in Figure 4. The results revealed both farmer-led actions and strategies that required government support. Among these, government interventions were most frequently cited and were viewed as a key starting point for reducing losses. Provision of training and extension services emerged as a leading strategy that farmers believed could help them to reduce losses. As one participant suggested, “We need training on post-harvest management to minimize losses. Most trainings provided by private companies mainly focus on pre-harvest stages of production, including soil testing, what fertilizer or chemicals to use, and how to apply them.” A key informant added, “The government should employ more extension agents because there are currently very few, and yet farmers need post-harvest trainings.” These findings indicated that training farmers on appropriate post-harvest handling practices, coupled with the adoption of improved technologies, can reduce losses, enhance marketability, and improve farmers’ incomes [30][33]. Farmers also suggested the provision of subsidies or low taxes on agricultural inputs. One participant explained, “The government should reduce taxes on inputs or provide subsidies. Specifically, subsidizing these chemicals or zero-rating taxes on them would help farmers manage losses.”

Note: This hierarchy chart illustrates the relative importance of coded solutions to manage post-harvest losses. The size of each block is proportional to the number of references associated with each strategy, with larger blocks reflecting higher frequency and greater significance in the participants’ responses. Source: Own elaboration based on survey data.

Figure 4. Hierarchy chart on the perceived solutions to manage tomato post-harvest losses.

Participants emphasized the need for standardization of handling crates and sale by weight (kilograms) as opposed to volumetric measures to avoid exploitation by middlemen. A key informant mentioned, “I would suggest the standardization of buying crates. Currently, farmers are sometimes exploited by brokers because the crates have no standard weight. For example, one farmer noted that the actual weight of tomatoes in plastic crates varies between 35 - 40 kg, but payment is per crate.” A farmer added, “If regulations required are made to sell tomatoes by weight(in kgs), we would benefit more.” The findings highlighted other recommended government interventions, such as processing and value addition, construction of aggregation centers, provision of storage facilities, formation of farmer groups, and identification of toxic chemicals, which were mentioned less frequently by the participants.

In addition to government interventions, farmers described strategies within their control to minimize post-harvest losses. Price negotiation was the most commonly cited approach. One participant explained, “When brokers come, we first negotiate with them and agree on the price per crate before we harvest.” Farmers also emphasized sharing market price information among themselves. As one respondent stated, “If one farmer knows the price from the previous day, they sharethat information with others.” Another farmer added, “We also talk to farmers from the other sub-counties to know the prevailing price per crate. Because of this, we already have an idea of yesterday’s price and use that for negotiation with the brokers.” The analysis further showed that farmers contracted brokers directly to secure better prices for their produce and also coordinate timely harvesting, although these contracts were informal. One participant noted, “We contract with brokers ready to buy before harvesting, though not formal contracts. This reduces the risk of unsold tomatoes which could get spoiled.” Another prominent strategy suggested to help reduce post-harvest losses at the farm level was proper packaging. A farmer explained, “We pack tomatoes directly into the crates by spreading themevenly, cover with cartons, tie properly and then take to the market to reduce losses.” A key informant emphasized the significance of improved packaging, noting, “There is need to shift from the wooden crates to the plastic ones with appropriate sizes, such as medium-sized plastic containers rather than the wooden types.” The perceived solutions were considered essential to reduce losses, improve marketability, and increase farmers’ incomes at the farm level. This aligns with Wakene & Sharew [2], who found that improving harvest practices, adopting modern storage technologies, and enhancing market information systems were crucial for reducing post-harvest losses and promoting food security as well as economic growth in Ethiopia.

This study did not collect a detailed demographic profile of FDG participants and key informants, such as age, sex, and farming experience, among others, which limited a deeper understanding of how these characteristics may have influenced participants’ views. Additionally, the study was conducted in only two purposively selected sub-counties and involved a relatively small qualitative sample. As a result, the findings cannot be statistically generalized to all tomato farmers. However, they offer valuable insights into post-harvest losses among smallholder tomato farmers and may be relevant to similar production settings. Future studies should consider collecting and reporting participant demographic characteristics and also include a wider geographic area to strengthen the interpretation and broader applicability of qualitative findings.