ArticleScientific reports2024
Fish handling and postharvest losses around the Fincha'a, Amarti, and Nashe reservoirs in Oromiya, Ethiopia.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Postharvest Losses Along the Small-Scale Fish Value Chain in Bangladesh: Perceptions, Determinants and Implications for Food Security.Food science & nutrition · 2026Article
- Genome-wide analysis of extended-spectrum beta-lactamase-producingFrontiers in microbiology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study assessed the factors contributing to postharvest loss of fish around the Fincha'a, Amarti, and Nashe reservoirs in Horro Guduru Wollega, Oromia, Western Ethiopia, using semi-structured questionnaires from January, 2022 GC onward. The aim of the finding was to know the fish handling and post-harvest preservation of fish around the reservoirs. In the study area, 320 respondents were selected using a random sampling system. Findings revealed that 61.1% of respondents consume fish without processing, with only 20.8% using salting and 18.1% practicing drying. The drying process notably affected texture, smell, and color. Most respondents (91.7%) preferred fresh fish due to financial constraints, lack of awareness, and market access. Species preference (40.3%), quality (33.3%), and market demand (23.6%) influenced pricing. Transportation is often done using donkey-back loads that could increase the risk of fish contamination. Although 50% of respondents stored harvested fish for one day without treatment, among these, 88.9% reported no spoilage within a day. Handling materials varied, with metal containers (33.3%) being the most common. Fish is primarily consumed as stew (39.4%) in the study area. Among these, almost all (91.9%) enjoy eating fish. However, it is often viewed as food for children and for the poor by many of them (60.6%). Despite concerns over fish bones and odors of the fish, 80.6% reported no health issues related to consumption. Most respondents (90.3%) discarded spoiled fish due to a lack of training in fish harvesting and preservation. The study indicates that postharvest losses are minimal due to effective harvesting methods, with immediate consumption practices prevalent in the community.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.