Unraveling On-Farm Wheat Loss in Fars Province, Iran: A Qualitative Analysis and Exploration of Potential Solutions with Emphasis on Agricultural Cooperatives

Abstract

Given wheat’s global significance as a primary food crop, and its importance in providing essential nutrition to millions of people worldwide, reducing on-farm losses is crucial to promoting food security, sustainable agriculture, and economic stability. Wheat plays a critical role in food security in Iran, as it is a staple food consumed daily by a large proportion of the population, and is also a vital component of the country’s food self-sufficiency policy. The present study aims to identify the causes and extent of on-farm wheat loss in Fars province, a major wheat-producing area in Iran. Nine experts were interviewed, using open-ended questions, in October 2018. The study revealed that a considerable amount of wheat is lost due to seed overuse, pest infestation, and improper harvesting. The paper discusses the underlying factors associated with these over-arching causes, and highlights their adverse environmental, economic, and societal impacts. The paper also explores potential approaches to take in addressing the issue, and suggests empowering agricultural cooperatives through changes in the government’s engagement with wheat production. This study provides valuable insights for policymakers and stakeholders which are useful for developing effective strategies to reduce on-farm loss, particularly in countries where intensified farming is promoted. These strategies may include limiting the government’s central control and, instead, empowering agricultural cooperatives, as well as adopting supportive approaches, such as improving farmers’ access to proper machinery, and enhancing their sovereignty and freedom.

1. Introduction

Apart from the inherent food loss resulting from natural causes, inefficient cultivation, harvesting, and handling practices contribute to on-farm food loss [1,2]. Cereals undergo significant loss and waste across the food supply chain. Following fruits and vegetables, cereals hold the second position globally, with an estimated 30% of their production lost and wasted [3]. Meanwhile, cereals are the largest contributors to the carbon footprint of food loss and waste, accounting for almost 35% of the total [3]. There is a lack of comprehensive data regarding the extent of on-farm cereal losses. Based on estimates by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the largest proportion of cereal losses—over 2 billion tonnes—occurs at the farm level [3]. In developed countries, primary production accounts for approximately 2% of cereals lost, while in developing countries, it is responsible for the higher proportion of 5–7% of cereal losses [2]. Efforts are underway to conduct additional studies on food loss quantities, to address data gaps, and reduce uncertainty. For example, the FAO has been conducting product-focused case studies to fill the data gaps, particularly in developing countries [4,5,6,7,8].

While the quantification of food loss is vital in monitoring progress in reducing waste, it does not offer a comprehensive understanding of the issue. Qualitative studies are also crucial to exploring the multifaceted nature of food loss and waste, identifying the underlying causes, and devising effective mitigation strategies [9]. Such insights can inform the development of more targeted policies and programs for reducing food loss and waste [10]. Several factors contribute to on-farm loss in the production of cereals, including pests and diseases [11,12], unfavorable climatic conditions, substandard agricultural practices, limited access to adequate storage and handling facilities, and financial constraints [1,13,14]. However, these factors may vary, depending on the circumstances, as a farm’s productivity is influenced by multiple aspects, such as the climate, location, soil characteristics, water availability, and plant variety [15]. Therefore, it is of the utmost importance to investigate the underlying causes of on-farm loss in the production of cereals in different geographical regions, to enable the development of context-specific loss-reduction policies.

Wheat is considered one of the foremost cereal crops in the world, primarily due to its affordability, which contributes to its extensive consumption and trade as a food commodity. It plays a crucial role in providing millions of individuals with the necessary calories and essential nutrients. Wheat is a rich source of fiber, protein, and other vital nutrients essential for sustaining optimal health [16]. Beyond their nutritional value, wheat and bread are deeply rooted in the cultural and social spheres of many societies, playing a pivotal role in their traditions and customs [17]. As of 2020, global wheat production exceeded 760.9 million tonnes, representing more than 8% of the total crop production worldwide, and positioning it as one of the four principal crops that, together, constitute half of the global primary crop production [18]. A report published by Fortune Business Insights [19] suggests that the global market for wheat flour will grow from USD 160.66 billion in 2021 to USD 210.77 billion by 2028.

For centuries, Iran has heavily relied on wheat as a staple food that provides sustenance to 80 million people, and plays a crucial role in shaping the country’s economy, culture, and culinary heritage.

Table 1. Comparative analysis of wheat production in 2020.

Rank	Country	Wheat Production in Thousand Tonnes
1	China	134,255
2	India	107,590
3	Russian Federation	85,896
4	USA	49,691
5	Canada	35,183
6	France	30,144
7	Pakistan	25,248
8	Ukraine	24,912
9	Germany	22,172
10	Türkiye *	20,500
11	Argentina	19,777
12	Iran	15,000
22	Iraq *	6238
25	Afghanistan *	5185
42	Turkmenistan *	1320
45	Azerbaijan *	1819
76	Armenia *	132

* Iran’s neighboring countries with a land border; source: FAO [18].

provides a comparative overview of the total wheat production in 2020, showcasing the top-ranking countries globally, with a specific emphasis on Iran’s position. The data are sourced from the FAO’s 2022 food and agriculture statistical yearbook [18], and include neighboring countries of Iran for additional regional context. Iran’s wheat production in 2020 reached 15 million tonnes, placing the country 12th globally. This amount represented approximately 20% of Iran’s total crop production, which amounted to 74.4 million tonnes [18]. Additionally, Iran imported 1,181,600 tonnes of wheat without any export in 2020 [18]. During the cultivation period in 2020 and 2021, an estimated 6.7 million hectares in Iran were utilized for wheat production, comprising approximately 43% of the total crop-production area, and nearly 57% of the area allocated for annual food-crop production [20].

International sanctions have significantly impacted Iran’s economy over the last decade, leading to a reduction of nearly 50% in the country’s crude oil exports from 2011 to 2015 [21]. The U.S.’ “maximum pressure” policy further aggravated the situation, by impeding Iran’s access to international financial services, leading to a reliance on overexploiting its natural resources to counteract the sanctions and attain self-sufficiency [22,23]. To achieve self-sufficiency in wheat production, the Iranian government has been implementing different measures, including the provision of heavy subsidies for plant protection products (PPPs) [24]. Although initially effective, the adoption of intensive agriculture, and the increased use of pesticides, have been proven to have significant long-term consequences, such as environmental degradation, soil depletion, and the emergence of pesticide-resistant pests, as well as adverse effects on human health [25]. Given this context, it is imperative for Iran to prioritize the optimization of wheat production efficiency, particularly through reducing on-farm losses. It is, therefore, essential to conduct comprehensive studies to examine the extent and causes of these losses.

The Fars province is a significant contributor to Iran’s wheat and bread industry, owing to its favorable climate and fertile soil. Although Fars is the 11th-largest province in terms of wheat cultivation area, it holds the position of the second-largest wheat-producing province among Iran’s 31 provinces [20]. Fars annually produces over 1.2 million tonnes of wheat, which constitutes more than 8% of the country’s total wheat production [20]. However, as Ghaziani et al. [26] highlight in their study on loss and waste throughout the wheat lifecycle in Fars province, there is a major knowledge gap concerning the extent and causes of on-farm wheat loss. Given the importance of this province, conducting research to fill this knowledge gap can inform targeted interventions and policies to reduce such losses, promote sustainable wheat-production practices, and contribute to Iran’s food security.

The Iranian government exerts significant control over the wheat market, which could have a negative impact on agricultural productivity. Feili et al. [24] argue that reducing government intervention could empower self-governance among farmers, and enhance wheat production. Agricultural cooperatives, with their bottom-up democratic structure, can foster cooperation among farmers, and improve productivity. Despite actively engaging in the wheat supply chain in Fars, agricultural cooperatives have yet to realize their full potential [26]. This indicates a need for diagnostic exploration, to identify areas for improvement.

This study aims to investigate the issue of on-farm wheat loss in Fars, focusing on understanding the underlying causes of this problem, and identifying potential solutions. By examining the role of cooperatives in addressing this issue, the study aims to provide valuable insights into the potential for cooperative models to promote sustainable farming practices. By doing so, this study seeks to make a significant contribution toward improving agricultural productivity. The findings can help policymakers, farmers, and cooperatives in adopting sustainable farming practices that enhance wheat production and minimize losses, thus fostering a more efficient and sustainable food system.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

Conducted in October 2018, the survey involved interviewing nine experts and practitioners who play an active role in wheat production in Fars. The selection of participants was based on judgmental sampling. Participation in the survey was voluntary, and interviewees were informed and assured of the confidentiality and anonymity of their data. The participants have been listed anonymously in

Table 2. List of participants according to their professional roles.

Participant ID	Role
Seed producer	The owner of a plant-breeding and seed-production company
Farmer 1	A farmer with a large-sized land (over 70 ha)
Farmer 2	A farmer with a small-sized land (10 ha)
Farmer 3	A farmer with a small-sized land (10 ha)
Farmer 4	A farmer with a small-sized land (20 ha)
Farmer 5	A farmer with a small-sized land (20 ha)
Co-op CEO	The chief executive officer (CEO) at a local agricultural cooperative and a farmer with a medium-sized land (50 ha)
GCCS inspector	The technical inspector of the Grain Company and Commercial Services (GCCS) of Fars province
Agri. Mins. Officer	A high-ranking officer at t he Ministry of Agriculture

, based on their role in the wheat supply chain. To maintain confidentiality, their assigned IDs from Table 2 will be used throughout the report. For example, the chief executive officer (CEO) of the local agricultural cooperative will be identified as Co-op CEO.

2.2. Interviews

Expert interviews were conducted to gather qualitative data on the causes and reasons for on-farm wheat loss, as well as possible solutions to mitigate this issue. The data were collected through open-ended questions, allowing the experts to provide detailed and insightful responses. The interviews were conducted in person, and lasted between 30 and 90 min. The questions were designed to explore the participants’ experiences and perspectives on wheat loss, including the factors that contribute to the problem, and potential solutions to address it. The interviews were recorded for later analysis, and notes were taken as an additional source of data. Following Guest et al.’s [27] guideline, the conduct of further interviews ceased once no new information was obtained from the most recent participants. The recommendations by Guest et al. [27] emphasize that sample size determination in non-probabilistic sampling strategies, such as the judgmental sampling employed in this study, relies on data saturation as the decisive factor.

2.3. Data Analysis

MAXQDA software [28] was used to systematically code and analyze the interview transcripts, employing the qualitative open-ended survey data analysis approach explained by Fielding et al. [29]. The participants’ statements during the interviews were regarded as a direct reflection of their comprehension of the questions. The first author transcribed the interviews, and translated them from Persian to English. Afterward, the participants’ responses were structurally coded, and subjected to qualitative analysis.

3. Results and Discussion

According to the participants’ statements, considerable on-farm wheat loss occurs due to excessive seed use in planting, pest and weed infestation, and harvesting inefficiencies. In the following discourse, the underlying causes for the incidence of wheat loss on agricultural lands in Fars province will be elucidated. Figure 1 provides an abstract and simplified overview of the primary reasons and factors influencing on-farm wheat loss, based on the statements of the participants. Subsequently, a thorough and comprehensive analysis of the subject is presented, through the incorporation of direct quotations from the participants, and supporting evidence from the literature. Furthermore, comprehensive measures to mitigate such loss will be examined in depth. The final part of the study focuses on the role of cooperatives in Fars province, examining their impact on productivity and on-farm loss reduction.

3.1. Loss due to Excessive Seed Use

Evidence suggests that farmers in the target region commonly overuse seeds, to ensure a desirable yield level, and avoid economic loss.

“A part of the wheat loss is due to excessive seed use.”

(Agri. Mins. Officer)

“Theoretically, only about 120–140 kg of seed is needed for wheat cultivation. But farmers have to sow 300 kg of seeds to succeed.”

(GCCS inspector)

“I sow more than 300 kg seeds per ha, sometimes even more than 400 kg.”

(Farmer 1)

“I plant 320–350 kg seeds per ha.”

(Farmer 5)

The Jihad Agriculture Fars Organization advises farmers in the region to sow 170 to 180 kg of seed per ha in usual cases, and up to 225 kg per ha in cases of delayed cultivation [30,31]. For colder regions, a slightly increased amount of seed might need to be planted [31]. Generally, 180 kg of seed per ha is used in agricultural experiments on wheat in Iran [32,33]. A study in the Dezful region, a semi-arid area in Khuzestan province in the southwest of Iran, indicated that a seed density higher than 100 kg per ha negatively affects the wheat yield [34]. However, despite the recommendations, farmers often arbitrarily determine their seeding density, and rely on chance, to some extent.

“I planted about 240 kg per ha. I did not have a specific reason for choosing this number. I would say 240 kg was enough; one would argue 300 or more needs to be planted based on another reasoning. There is an old saying: the lands in this region perform well regardless of which and how much seed you plant.”

(Farmer 3)

The excessive use of seed in Fars province means that a considerable amount of seed planted with low efficiency is lost. This loss could be channeled toward consumers, or used to produce more wheat, potentially increasing food availability. In other words, the overuse of seed leads to a decreased edible food mass, which, according to the FAO’s 2011 definition [2], is classified as food loss. These results are consistent with the findings of Horton et al. [35]. According to Horton et al. [35], food loss and waste can originate at the early stages of the food chain, such as seed use, appropriate plant varieties, and agrotechnology, resulting in a significant gap between the potential and realized yields, which often goes unnoticed by farmers. Avoiding such losses has significant implications in terms of food security and access, as it helps ensure that more individuals have access to a stable and sufficient food supply.

This study cannot provide an accurate representation of the frequency and amount of excessive seed use. Nonetheless, the results revealed that practical incentives and logical justifications could convince a large number of farmers to sow seed above the recommended amount. In general, many farmers take a conservative approach, to avoid economic loss.

“It is very difficult to introduce a new thing to the farmers. They would certainly not accept implementing something new unless all others try that and assure them that it would work.”

(Seed Producer)

“I am known as a pioneer farmer. Yet, I do not plant less than 350 kg seeds per ha, regardless of how much they [the AREEO experts] insist…. I say if we spend more money per ha, my mind would be at ease that we would harvest five to six tonnes per ha. We may harvest the same amount if we seed 100 kg per ha. But we would be worried all the time as to whether it works or not.”

(Farmer 1)

Previous studies showed that higher seeding densities do not necessarily result in a higher yield, and the optimal seeding density differs depending on the climatic and geographical conditions [36,37]. Nevertheless, optimal densities are typically determined in controlled experimental settings or, at least, under ideal farm management conditions.

“We had around 200 kg of seeds of a new variety. We were asked to test these seeds for wheat cultivation in Fars province. The requirement was to use no more than 25 kg of seeds per ha. We planted 25 kg seeds per ha using an experimental seeder. How much do you think the yield was? More than seven tonnes per ha. However, the cultivation was highly controlled in terms of pests and weeds.”

(Seed Producer)

Some farmers might have tried to follow the recommendations, and failed.

“I heard a rumor that someone sowed 60 kg seeds per ha in [name of a region]. After that, I planted less than 300 kg per ha. The AREEO experts evaluated the tillering in my field as moderate. This means my wheat was grown less than my typical performance. Imagine how bad the performance could have been if I had sowed only 100 kg seeds per ha.”

(Farmer 1)

The participants’ statements indicate that the failure to plant the recommended optimal seed density is a result of the implementation of improper seeding methods.

Farmers in the Fars region primarily rely on broadcast seeding, mainly with a centrifugal spreader, followed by a run with a disk tiller, which is chosen for time efficiency.

“In this region, maybe only up to 30% of farmers use drill seeders, while more than 60% use centrifugal broadcast machines and a small minority who have small farms do the traditional manual seed spreading.”

(Co-op CEO)

“We tillage the land, plant the seed either with a centrifugal broadcast planting machine (normally around 300–350 kg per ha) or manually (around 320 kg per ha) and run a disk tiller.”

(Farmer 4)

However, this choice comes at a cost, as broadcast seeding is less efficient than the drill method [38,39].

“The seeds will grow with minimum precipitation when you use a proper planting machinery.”

(Farmer 3)

Despite this, many farmers do not opt for drill seeders, due to the added cost and time required for their use. Additionally, drill seeders are not well-suited for lands with poor tillage, which is common in the region.

“An issue in this region is that most of the lands are also used for rice cultivation, which makes the land unsuitable for a drill seeder. The land will have many soil clumps after rice cultivation which cannot be broken entirely by tillage. Therefore, a drill seeder cannot operate well on such lands.”

(Co-op CEO)

The result is a situation in which farmers are forced to choose between efficiency and practicality, with the latter often taking precedence. This is why farmers in Fars province prefer to use broadcast seeders and run a disk tiller, to save time and reduce costs.

“It’s a matter of work speed. We can get the job done in two hours using a broadcast seeding machine.”

(Seed Producer)

“Some farmers use drill seeding machines. Others do not believe that using such machinery is economically sound. A drill seeder works 5 ha per day, 7 ha at best. Farmers who cultivate two crops in one season want to plant 30 ha of land in two days. Or rain is forecasted, and they need to plant their seeds as soon as possible. So, they use a broadcast seeder and run a disk tiller afterward.”

(Farmer 2)

As a consequence, parts of the wheat seeds are not planted at the optimal depth. The depth at which wheat seeds are planted significantly impacts their ability to germinate and thrive [40].

“The wheat seed in temperate areas such as Shiraz [the capital of Fars province] and soundings should be embedded in a depth of 2 to 3 cm. In colder areas, it is said that they grow better when seeded 7 to 8 cm deep to avoid frost. When wheat sprouts, its coleoptile has to reach the surface. Once the coleoptile reaches the surface, the plant starts its growth. If you imbed the seed 15 cm deep, the coleoptile will dry up after growing 4 to 5 cm.”

(Seed Producer)

“When I dug the soil a bit, I could see the seeds sprouted but did not grow enough to come out of the soil and were dried up underneath the surface.”

(Farmer 3)

Therefore, farmers tend to overuse seeds, to ensure that a large enough number of seeds turn to yielding crops.

“Parts of the seeds remain on the land surface, and parts go too deep and cannot grow. That’s why even knowledgeable farmers fear planting a low amount of seeds per ha.”

(Seed Producer)

“The disk tiller is strong. It places about a third of the seeds too deep. The other third stays on the surface and will be eaten by insects and animals. Only one-third will be planted in the optimal depth. This means out of 400 kg seeds, only 130 kg is optimally planted.”

(Farmer 2)

While the lack of appropriate planting methods leads to excessive seed use, it appears that the primary factor is farmers’ inability to properly till their fields before seeding.

“A huge part of seed loss is due to improper tillage and soil conditions.”

(GCCS Inspector)

“The first reason [for excessive seed use] is the inability in optimal land preparation, mainly due to the unavailability of proper tillage equipment.”

(Farmer 1)

There is ample evidence suggesting that improper tillage before planting wheat negatively impacts the yield [33,36,37,41,42,43]. Poor soil conditions impede proper tillage practices in the region.

“Those who seed 100 kg per ha prepare the farm properly to embed the seed in a certain depth so all the 100 kg can grow… Whatever I do, my land does not reach the optimal condition for growing 100 kg per ha. I run the rototiller once and the disk tiller three times, and still, the sowing is highly inefficient.”

(Farmer 1)

Double-cropping wheat and maize or wheat and rice is a predominant farming practice in Fars province. Double-cropping is the practice of growing two crops in a single growing season on the same plot of land [44]. Farmers may sometimes include vegetable farming in their planting schedule, too.

“The common crop rotation in this region is usually maize and wheat. In the regions where more water is accessible, farmers cultivate rice too.”

(GCCS Inspector)

“Crop rotation in this region is commonly rice and wheat or maize and wheat. Some farmers would cultivate tomatoes every three to four years too.”

(Co-op CEO)

Based on the survey outcome, wheat farms in Fars province mostly do not lie fallow at all. These farms undergo wheat cultivation from the beginning of fall until the end of spring, and maize or rice is cultivated over the whole summer.

“Farmers cultivate maize right away after harvesting wheat. For example, they cultivate a maize variety with a growth period of about only three months.”

(Farmer 1)

“We normally cultivate rice after wheat.”

(Farmer 4)

“Depending on when wheat is harvested, farmers start transplanting rice seedlings between June and July and harvest rice from mid-September until mid-October.”

(Co-op CEO)

Farmers are driven by economic incentives to continuously cultivate cash crops on their land, without taking any fallow period. Moreover, based on the participants’ statements, farmers owned larger farms in the past, allowing them to leave parts of the farm to fallow periodically. However, recently, large farms have been divided and shared among more farmers who are the children of previous owners in many cases. This division of lands has left farmers with limited choices regarding crop rotation and fallow practices, unless they bear short-term economic losses.

“Another issue is the farm size. The farms are not large enough to be divided into different parts for cultivation and fallow. You see cases that five siblings inherited 10 ha, which they divided into five two-ha fields. They fail to work together, and there is not enough space to leave fallow… As long as the farmers have enough water, they don’t leave their farms fallow.”

(Co-op CEO)

“The lands are divided among multiple farmers. Each person is trying to make maximum profit, so farming is more intensified. Farmers look for varieties with short growth periods. The new varieties need one or two irrigations less than the old ones, although their yield is slightly less. But it is economically justifiable because of timing.”

(Farmer 1)

Although double-cropping can have a number of positive impacts on soil in the short-term [45], its long-term implementation is considered to have detrimental impacts on soil [46]. The constant cultivation and disturbance of soil can lead to a loss of organic matter, and an increase in soil erosion [47]. Additionally, the repeated planting and harvesting of crops can lead to the depletion of essential nutrients in the soil, resulting in a decreased soil fertility and crop yield over time [48]. Furthermore, continuous grain-based double-cropping can also increase the risk of soil-borne diseases and pests, as well as promoting the growth of weeds, which can further degrade soil health [49].

Cultivating a high-demand crop such as maize after wheat, in particular, can lead to reduced soil fertility [49]. Maize production, like other forms of intensive agriculture, can have a number of adverse effects on soil health. One of the main concerns is the depletion of soil nutrients, particularly carbon, nitrogen, available phosphorus, exchangeable potassium, and exchangeable calcium, due to maize plants’ high demand for these nutrients [50]. Therefore, farmers may need to implement intensive fertilization after maize cultivation, to achieve a high wheat productivity.

“To harvest 10 tonnes per ha, farmers need to irrigate several times (up to seven times) and use a lot of chemical fertilizers and pesticides.”

(Farmer 4)

The heavy use of pesticides and herbicides in maize production can lead to a decrease in the soil microbial activity, and a reduction in the populations of beneficial microbiomes and invertebrates [51]. This can decrease the overall health and productivity of the soil [52]. Additionally, the tillage practices associated with maize cultivation can lead to a decrease in soil organic matter, which can negatively impact the soil structure, water-holding capacity, and overall fertility [53].

“In the past, one run of a disk tiller per year was enough. Now we need to run a heavy disk tiller to break the soil lumps, which are rigid due to the overuse of fertilizers. The soil has lost all of its organic matter. That’s why the farmer has to run the disk tiller three times after plowing. Then the farmer has to run a leveler.”

(Farmer 2)

Rice production has also been identified as having multiple adverse effects on soil.

“If we cultivate rice before wheat, we need more wheat seeds (more than 350 kg per ha). Because rice cultivation takes up many nutrients in the soil and also leaves too humid of land behind. Therefore, the tillage cannot be performed properly, and more seeds are needed.”

(Farmer 4)

Sowing wheat immediately after rice cultivation decreases the chance of seeding success, due to the highly moist soil conditions [54]. This is essentially due to the irrigation practices implemented in rice cultivation.

“The fields in this region [the Dorodzan area in the north of Fars province] are used for rice production. Almost all farmers use basin irrigation for wheat cultivation.”

(Co-op CEO)

One of the main concerns regarding the long-term cultivation of rice on one piece of land is the depletion of soil nutrients, particularly nitrogen and potassium [55]. More importantly, the long-term sequential cropping of wheat and rice removes enormous amounts of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium from the soil [56]. This is due to the heavy use of fertilizers, and the constant flooding of rice fields, which can wash away essential nutrients [55].

“Farmers use Urea fertilizer excessively. Urea fertilizer makes the land rigid. Overuse of Urea fertilizer is one of the main reasons that we cannot tillage the lands optimally.”

(Farmer 1)

The constant flooding of rice fields can also lead to the buildup of toxic levels of methane and other greenhouse gases, contributing to climate change [57]. Additionally, rice cultivation can lead to an increase in soil acidity [55], making it difficult for other crops to grow [58]. Furthermore, the use of pesticides and herbicides in rice production can have a negative impact on soil health, reducing the populations of beneficial microorganisms and invertebrates [59].

The issues linked to maize and rice cultivation and their sequential cultivation after wheat can, ultimately, lead to a reduced soil fertility and decreased crop yields, thereby affecting the efficiency of wheat seeding. Generally, soil quality is vital to ensuring the productivity of agriculture, and preserving the environment and biodiversity [60]. Moreover, the quality of food products relies on the quality of the soil [61]. For instance, continuous grain-based double-cropping requires intensified fertilizer and PPP use [62], which can lead to food products endangering public health [63]. In general, the lack of diversified crop rotations forces farmers to rely on extensive fertilization to maintain a high productivity. The application of nitrogen (N) fertilizers to annual row crops may result in nitrate leaching into the groundwater, posing a potential threat to human health [64,65].

Soil preservation through the implementation of sustainable farming techniques can lead to the achievement of a higher seeding efficiency [66]. The proper utilization of seeds can play a crucial role in increasing food production, and improving food security. It is important for farmers and policymakers to be aware of these issues, and implement effective measures, to optimize seed utilization and maximize food production. Clearly, farmers in this region need to reconsider their cultivation strategies. Diversified crop rotation could be an alternative for mitigating the adverse effects of the continuous double-cropping of cash crops [62]. Diversifying crops would not only improve the yield, but could also promote soil health, by maintaining balance in the soil biodiversity, increasing the efficiency of nutrient utilization, improving the soil structure, and reducing the presence of harmful pathogens in the soil [67,68]. Nonetheless, choosing the crop species and their sequences requires special attention to their pest–host specificity and redundancy, to avoid the emergence of soil-borne diseases [69,70,71]. Generally, a diversified crop rotation benefits the environment, especially through the improvement of the diversity in the soil fauna [72,73].

In the case of wheat production, cultivating grain legumes or various chickpea cultivars before wheat can increase productivity, by fixating biological nitrogen and increasing its availability, and promoting the functional soil fauna and microorganisms [74,75]. Moreover, longer rotation periods can be beneficial to soil health, hence increasing wheat cultivation productivity. A comparative study on different rotation periods in wheat cultivation revealed an increased soil health during the wheat phase of the 5-year rotation compared to the 3-year one, due to a higher microbial biomass [76]. Another study within the same research project showed that the wheat yield amounts were 23–82% higher under various rotation periods, compared to the continuous cultivation of wheat [77]. Overall, the current trend of wheat cultivation in Fars province is not only harming the environment, but could also lead to a reduced seeding efficiency and overall productivity, while increasing production costs due to the need for intensive fertilization. Therefore, the adoption of diversified crop rotation and sustainable farming techniques is crucial in promoting soil health, increasing productivity, improving food security, and preserving the environment and biodiversity.

3.2. Loss due to Weeds and Pests

Plant pests and weeds can have significant negative effects on food security, impacting crop production, increasing costs, and potentially threatening human and environmental health on a global scale. Pests and weeds are contributing factors to the on-farm loss of wheat.

“A part of the loss is due to insect infestation.”

(GCCS Inspector)

“Pests are also a major cause for losing parts or entire wheat crops.”

(Farmer 3)

Globally, crop productivity is reduced by 20–40% due to the yield losses caused by pathogens, animals, and weeds [78,79,80]. The incidence of pest-induced wheat losses varies geographically, with rates of about 14% observed in Europe, and rates above 35% reported in African and Asian countries [81]. Pests and weeds can cause significant damage to crops, resulting in a loss of yield, and reduced quality of the wheat [78,82]. Farmers are facing increasing challenges in producing wheat, due to the emergence of new species of pests and weeds.

“We are facing pests and weeds that did not exist, let’s say, 30 years ago. I have been cultivating wheat for more than 40 years. The production costs for wheat cultivation were around 22% of the gross income, although the yield was lower than now. The costs are now more than 50% of the wheat cultivation. The costs of purchasing pesticides are very considerable.”

(Farmer 1)

The harm caused by the long-term lack of diversified crop rotation, which was previously explained, is once again evident in this context. The continual cultivation of similar crops can result in the emergence and establishment of host-specific pests [83]. Moreover, continuous monoculture requires increased use of PPPs [84], endangering the environment, biodiversity, and human health [25]. The problem is further exacerbated by the fact that these new pests and weeds are resistant to traditional PPPs.

“We need to use a new pesticide every year because the pests develop resistance to the old ones.”

(Farmer 1)

Pests and weeds develop resistance against PPPs as a result of evolutionary pressures, including repeated exposure to the same or similar active ingredients, and the selection of individuals with genetic mutations that confer resistance [85,86]. Moreover, the affordable PPPs that are currently available are not as effective in controlling these new species.

“Not all farmers afford to purchase effective pesticides. They need to buy Indian pesticides, which have to be applied three or four times to eliminate the pests.”

(Farmer 2)

As a result, farmers struggle to protect their wheat crops from pests and weeds, resulting in significant losses in yield. Moreover, the harmful effects of plant diseases extend beyond reducing yields, and can also negatively impact the quality and safety of food, as well as the economy [87]. This highlights the need for alternative pest and weed management strategies that are sustainable, environmentally friendly, and economically viable for farmers.

Resistant weeds and pests are a significant challenge in modern agriculture. To effectively manage these issues, farmers should employ a combination of control methods, including rotational cropping [88,89], biological control [90,91], and integrated pest management [92,93]. Crop rotation involves growing different crops in a field during different seasons, which can help to reduce the buildup of pests and weeds [83]. For example, planting wheat after mung beans or a fallow period could potentially decrease growth [88,94]. Biological pest control involves using natural organisms or their derived products to control pests, rather than synthesized chemical PPPs [95]. Integrated pest management is an approach that combines multiple control methods, including cultural, biological, and chemical control, to manage pests and weeds effectively and sustainably [96]. Most importantly, farmers should also be mindful of not overusing synthetic chemical PPPs, to avoid the evolution of resistance in pests and weeds [85,86]. Overall, emphasizing the need for diversified and sustainable farming techniques is essential, much like addressing the loss resulting from seed overuse that was discussed earlier.

3.3. Loss due to Harvesting

Another on-farm wheat-loss hotspot is before and during harvesting, with inefficiencies in the operation of combine harvesters being the primary cause in Fars province.

“Wheat is lost on a farm before or during harvest.”

(GCCS Inspector)

“The loss also occurs right before the plant is ready for harvesting.”

(Farmer 3)

“The majority of loss occurs during harvesting on the farm.”

(Co-op CEO)

“Wheat is harvested [in Fars] mainly using a combine harvester, which is a major point of loss.”

(Farmer 1)

The loss of wheat before harvesting can result from several factors, including natural causes, such as bird predation or wind-blown spillage, and poor farm-management practices, such as inadequate irrigation or improper land preparation.

“Wheat loss before harvest is mainly due to wind or birds.”

(GCCS Inspector)

Natural causes typically account for a small proportion of the total harvest loss, except in catastrophic events [97]. However, poor farm-management practices can contribute more to wheat loss shortly before harvesting.

“If plants do not receive enough water at a critical time, about one month before harvesting, the wind will dry out the wheat head, which would cause loss. Leveling the land properly before cultivation would prevent this loss. If the land is uneven, the plants that are placed higher than others do not receive enough water and would dry out.”

(Farmer 3)

Pre-harvest loss, whether due to the gain’s low moisture content or pests, can be prevented through prudent management practices, such as timely irrigation, adequate fertilization, pest control, and proper tillage and land preparation [98,99]. The level of pre-harvest loss can also vary depending on the chosen wheat variety, with different varieties having different levels of susceptibility.

“The pre-harvest loss is sometimes higher for some wheat varieties compared to the others.”

(GCCS Inspector)

Certain varieties can demonstrate favorable traits, such as disease or pest resistance, or low lodging or shedding, making them more renitent to pre-harvest loss [100]. Choosing such varieties can contribute to loss reduction [101]. However, although the attempts to reduce pre-harvest loss are undoubtedly helpful, the loss during harvesting is more detrimental, and requires extra attention.

Based on the participant responses, wheat is lost during harvest due to the following factors.

• Wheat variety: different varieties of wheat can impact loss during harvest.
• Harvest timing: harvesting too late can increase shattering.
• Decrepit and misaligned machinery: outdated or poorly maintained machinery can result in a higher wheat loss.
• Incorrect adjustment of the machinery: improper settings in the combine harvester can cause the loss of wheat.
• Running the combine harvester too fast: operating the combine harvester at a high speed can result in a further loss of wheat.

The harvest loss level highly depends on the wheat variety.

“Some varieties have a higher loss during harvest. So, part of the harvest loss depends on the wheat variety.”

(Seed Producer)

Different wheat varieties have varying physical characteristics, which can affect their susceptibility to harvest loss. Choosing wheat varieties that possess traits that are favorable for combine harvesting can reduce the loss. These traits may include kernel attachment, stalk strength beneath the ear, and how the leaves and stem break in the threshing unit [100].

Another major factor influencing the harvest loss in wheat is the timing of harvesting.

“Reasons, such as late harvesting, can also cause loss.”

(Co-op CEO)

The harvest timing must be carefully considered, as it can greatly impact the outcome. The delayed harvesting of cereals increases shattering, as the crops become excessively dry [102,103]. On the other hand, if the harvest is performed too early, the wheat may not have reached its full potential, resulting in a lower yield and decreased quality [104]. Moreover, wheat grains harvested prematurely have a high moisture content, which leads to a higher chance of decay and a low storability [105]. One of the challenges farmers face in properly scheduling the harvesting time is the unavailability of combine harvesters.

“The demand for combine harvesters is too high during the harvest period and it is difficult to find one at the best time for harvesting my crops.”

(Seed Producer)

Not all farmers can afford to own harvesting machinery. Most of the combine harvesters in Fars are owned by a certain number of individuals, and the number of harvesters available is not enough to simultaneously meet the high demand during the harvesting season. This brings up the next issue: the limited availability of efficient and modern combine harvesters.

Loss during combine harvester operation is unavoidable to some extent. However, misaligned machinery can lead to uneven crop cutting, causing some wheat to be left behind, while other areas are cut too closely, resulting in a lower yield. A high wheat loss may occur even when advanced combine harvesters are used, if they are not properly adjusted [97].

“New machines have a lower loss indeed, but only when they are well-tuned.”

(Seed Producer)

“Another reason for loss during harvesting is an incorrect adjustment or technical issues of a combine harvester, which is the most significant reason.”

(Farmer 3)

Harvest loss reduction can be accomplished efficiently when farmers and combine operators have a clear understanding of how the machine works and how to adjust it [106]. Chen et al. [98] provided a detailed demonstration of the function of a typical combine harvester, which can be summarized as follows: a combine harvester cuts and gathers grains at the header unit, then threshes and separates them, removes impurities through cleaning, and transports clean grains to a storage tank. More than 60% of the machine-related loss during the harvesting of cereals occurs in the header unit [97,107]. Therefore, the maintenance and adjustment of the header unit require extra attention, to reduce the harvest loss. Future advances in real-time loss-monitoring technologies can improve the operation of combine harvesters [98]. Nonetheless, even advanced machinery cannot perform to its full potential unless it is driven at the correct speed [97].

The survey revealed that a considerable amount of wheat is lost because the machine operators drive the combine harvesters too fast.

“When a combine harvester operator runs the machine too fast on the land, the loss will be higher. The operator tends to finish the job as soon as possible, particularly when paid per hectare.”

(Seed Producer)

“[Harvest loss happens] mainly due to harvesting too quickly. Especially the new combine harvesters have air conditioner and the operator is sitting in a cabin and does not care how much is lost.”

(Farmer 5)

There is evidence to suggest that the grain loss during harvesting increases in direct correlation with the speed at which the combine operates [108,109]. However, the harvesting loss depends not only on the forward speed, but also on the combination of the forward speed with the speed of other units, such as the reel and the threshing unit. The results of an experimental study on wheat in Sudan conducted by Abdalla et al. [110] indicate that the optimal combination for minimizing the wheat-harvesting loss was a forward speed of 4 km/h and a reel speed of 25 rpm. Another study by Lashgari et al. [111] in Iran revealed that the most effective combination of the forward speed and the cylinder rotation speed for minimizing the wheat harvesting loss and preserving the grain quality, e.g., breakage and germination, was a forward speed of 1.8 km/h and a cylinder rotation speed of 800 rpm. Considering the complexity of harvesting machinery, the need for educating the operators cannot be stressed enough.

“Combine harvesters are often operated incorrectly, resulting in a high amount of loss that is due to operators’ lack of skill or experience.”

(GCCS Inspector)

To tackle this issue, in addition to enhancing technical education, it is necessary to offer better wages for combine operator jobs.

“Another reason for harvesting loss is the lack of skilled and trained combine operators. Skilled operators demand high wages because it is a difficult job.”

(Co-op CEO)

Low wages can lead to job dissatisfaction and a shortage of skilled labor [112]. Additionally, the operators may be more likely to drive combine harvesters too fast if their payment structure incentivizes speed over efficiency.

“The combine operators mostly get paid either per hour or per hectare…. [grain loss] is not important for them at all. They just want to get the job done as soon as possible.”

(Co-op CEO)

Some may argue that by reinforcing supervision during harvesting, farmers can improve the combine operators’ performance, and optimize their yield.

“The more the farmers supervise the harvest, the more they can prevent loss.”

(Seed Producer)

However, due to limited resources and time constraints, many farmers are unable to provide constant supervision. This is particularly challenging for small-holder farmers, who may lack the financial and human resources necessary for effective monitoring.

“Harvesting takes more time on a large farm. A large-scale farmer can supervise the process and instruct the combine operator to make necessary adjustments or change the speed if they observe that the yield is insufficient or if the first batch delivered to the purchasing center is evaluated as poor [in terms of impurity and broken grains]. But harvesting on a small farm may be completed in one run and there is no room for correction…. I own a large farm. I can afford to hire a supervisor. But farmers who own smaller farms, such as those with only 10 or 15 hectares, may not have the necessary knowledge to supervise harvesting or may not be able to afford a supervisor. It takes four to five days to harvest my farm. Their [small-holder farmer] entire farm will be harvested quickly. They notice that the loss is high when their entire yield has already been harvested, and the damage is done.”

(Farmer 1)

The interviews revealed that even alternative payment arrangements, such as working on commission, may not deter combine operators from causing losses.

“In some regions, combine operators work for a percentage of the income. Even those who work on commission don’t care much about loss.”

(Co-op CEO)

“Sometimes, the combine owner does not charge the farmer for harvesting. Instead, the combine owner collects the straws to sell as forage. In those cases, the combine operator may adjust the combine header lower to collect more biomass and make more profit, which leads to more wheat loss and impurity content in the yield.”

(Farmer 4)

Generally, the issue still remains that some combine operators prioritize their own profits over minimizing loss and maintaining crop quality. To address this issue, one possible solution is to standardize the payment structure for machine operators. For instance, in addition to the area- or time-based payments, operators could be paid performance pays based on the harvest loss and the impurity level. However, major challenges would be monitoring the loss during harvesting, and tracing the harvested batch back to the combine operator, emphasizing the need for the digitalization of food supply chains. The effective monitoring of harvest loss is now a feasible approach, thanks to real-time sensor data [113]. Nevertheless, rational decision-making for investing in such advanced technologies requires thorough cost–benefit analyses [114]. Moreover, technologies such as blockchain or the internet of things (IoT) are powerful tools that not only ensure the traceability of the food items and actors involved throughout the supply chain [115], but also safeguard the transparency of monetary transactions, leading to decreased tax fraud and corruption [116]. Nevertheless, limiting factors, especially in developing countries, continue to be the lack of proper technological infrastructure or, in some cases, the intentional hindrance of internet access by authoritarian governments. [117].

An increased wheat loss also occurs due to decrepit and misaligned harvesting machinery.

“Unfortunately, dilapidated harvesting machinery causes enormous loss. For example, 60–70% of our harvesting machines are 50–60 years old.”

(Co-op CEO)

The use of old and outdated combine harvesters may result in an increased grain loss, emphasizing the importance of investing in advanced harvesting machines equipped with the latest technologies to reduce harvest losses [118]. Outdated harvesting machines are responsible for a significant portion of wheat loss, and need to be replaced by more recent machines with advanced technologies [98]. Nonetheless, harvest loss is more commonly attributed to technical maintenance, rather than to the machine’s age. [97]. When farm machinery is not maintained properly, it may not function as intended, resulting in lost or damaged crops. Technical maintenance plays a crucial role in maximizing the harvesting efficiency. Poorly maintained equipment may be more prone to breakdowns, causing delays and loss of time during the harvesting process [97]. In Fars province, those who rent out their combine harvesters to farmers may neglect the timely maintenance of their machines, due to short-term economic incentives.

“Some owners of combine harvesters would rather keep their machines running all the time to maximize their profit and would skip the necessary maintenance. As a result, a considerable amount of wheat is lost due to technical problems with harvesting machinery.”

(Farmer 3)

The greed of machine owners causes farmers to suffer economic losses due to poor harvesting operations, leading to a level of high grain impurity and loss. Besides the negative effect on agricultural productivity and farmers’ income, prioritizing short-term profit over maintenance can cause the machinery owners long-term economic loss. The lack of proper maintenance of farm machinery can lead to equipment failure, which may result in more expenses, due to the need for repairs or replacement [119], and early asset depreciation [120]. Moreover, the correct maintenance can reduce the costs associated with fuel consumption [121]. The maintenance costs are minimal compared to other costs associated with combine harvesters [122], and the potential losses resulting from poor maintenance practices [120]. Hence, investing in timely maintenance can mitigate these losses, enhance the overall efficiency of the harvesting process and, ultimately, outweigh the costs to the equipment owner in the long run.

Implementing technical maintenance regulations and regular mandatory inspections is crucial to maximizing agricultural productivity, and minimizing harvest losses [123]. Such measures may involve an initial investment, but this investment can help to prevent economic losses, leading to long-term cost savings, and an increased probability for the machinery owners. Additionally, mandatory technical inspections can mitigate the environmental impacts associated with the operation of poorly maintained farming machinery [124]. However, obligatory technical maintenance may impose additional costs on farmers, especially small-holder farmers.

Small-holder farmers may struggle to afford the cost of using advanced, well-maintained combine harvesters. Furthermore, the shortage of these machines during the harvesting season, previously mentioned as a factor hindering proper harvest timing, exacerbates the challenge farmers face in accessing harvesting machinery. This highlights the need for supportive policies, to facilitate collective action among small-holder farmers who might not have the resources to invest in expensive equipment.

“Most farmers [in Fars province] are small-holder farmers and don’t have a good financial situation.”

(Seed Producer)

Cooperative models, among other things, have great potential as a means to improve access to these critical resources. The following subsection delves into the role of cooperatives in mitigating on-farm wheat loss in the Fars region, including losses caused by factors beyond the harvest, such as pests and the excessive use of seed.

3.4. Reliability of the Results

The qualitative nature of the obtained data facilitated a comprehensive and detailed analysis of on-farm loss in the target region. Qualitative data derived from information-rich experts are considered a powerful tool in developing valid and reliable surveys [125,126] that enable an in-depth exploration of the causes and effects of a phenomenon [127]. By adhering to the principle of data saturation, the present study achieved a balance between gaining valid and reliable information, and maintaining survey efficiency. Data saturation in qualitative studies occurs when no new insights or information are obtained from additional data collection or analysis, indicating a comprehensive understanding of the research topic [128,129]. According to Guest et al. [27], data saturation in qualitative surveys can be reached within the first six interviews for meta-themes, while more detailed information may achieve saturation within the first twelve interviews. Given the similarities in wheat production, and low variation in farming techniques in the target region, it was reasonable to reach data saturation within the first nine interviews in this study. However, it is important to note that while the results presented in this study provide valid insights into the causes and effects of on-farm wheat loss, the quantitative information serves only to provide context, and indicate the overall magnitude of the issue, and not to provide the exact level of on-farm loss, due to the small sample size. Therefore, further quantitative studies with sample sizes adequate for quantitative analysis are necessary to accurately determine the level of on-farm wheat loss, and its correlation with agronomic measures, farm machinery settings, and various farming techniques.

3.5. The role of Agricultural Cooperatives in Reducing On-Farm Loss

As discussed before, promoting ecologically friendly diversified rotational cropping in Fars province is vital to tackle the loss caused by seed overuse and pests. Cooperatives can play a pivotal role in this endeavor, by improving agricultural productivity, reducing on-farm food loss, and fostering a more sustainable food production and distribution system [130]. Cooperatives offer a significant advantage, in enabling participatory cooperation among farmers, which can promote sustainable farming practices [131]. Through collaboration, farmers can enhance their acceptance of these practices, leading to a more effective implementation of ecologically friendly cropping systems [131]. Moreover, cooperative efforts can result in savings on farming equipment and labor, as well as an improved knowledge and ability in using crop rotation and intercropping, further enhancing the sustainability of farming practices [131]. In addition, cooperatives can play a crucial role in helping farmers plan their crop rotations, which is essential in maintaining the long-term sustainability of agricultural practices [132]. By advising on which crops to grow in which fields, and in what order, cooperatives can contribute to improving soil health, reducing pest infestations, and boosting yields. Partnering with other farmers is another potential strategy to ensure the long-term economic viability of farms, and boost profitability [133]. Cooperatives also offer support in marketing ecologically grown produce, which helps to offset any additional production expenses [134]. Furthermore, cooperatives can provide valuable support to farmers, by improving their access to PPPs, and helping them use these products safely and efficiently, while meeting food quality requirements [135]. Overall, implementing cooperatives and participatory partnerships among farmers can help address the challenges posed by seed overuse and pests, while promoting economic viability and profitability in farming operations.

Minimizing the wheat loss at harvest requires improvements in the process’ efficiency, through providing farmers with advanced machinery, enforcing technical inspections, and offering training to the operators. Cooperatives play a significant role in improving access to agricultural equipment among small-holder farmers, as they rely more on cooperative machine use [136]. By pooling their resources and expertise, cooperatives can purchase or lease machinery and equipment that can be shared among members, reducing costs, and increasing efficiency [137]. However, a major hurdle to implementing mechanization on small-scale farms in Fars appears to be a lack of consensus among farmers on the joint use of agricultural machinery.

“Their [small-holder farmers’] farm areas are small, which hinders mechanization in the field. Most of these small-holder farmers cannot reach an agreement to merge their lands for easier mechanization.”

(Seed Producer)

The study conducted by Sutherland et al. [138] in European countries demonstrated that, despite the relatively favorable financial circumstances of farmers in affluent nations, cooperatives play a vital role in enhancing agricultural productivity, and mitigating the challenges faced by small-scale farmers. Through democratic procedures, cooperatives can create a consensus among small-holder farmers [139], allowing for mechanization in a large set of small fields. This can facilitate the use of modern combine harvesters that are designed for large farms.

“The new combine harvesters are designed for large farms; as there are many small farms, it does not make sense to use them.”

(Co-op CEO)

Additionally, cooperatives can negotiate favorable pricing and financing terms with equipment suppliers, reducing the financial burden on individual farmers [140,141]. This results in improved access to agricultural machinery and equipment, which increases productivity, reduces labor costs and, ultimately, improves farmers’ livelihoods [142]. Furthermore, cooperatives can provide training and technical assistance to members on the proper use and maintenance of equipment, further increasing their effectiveness and productivity [143]. This can help to alleviate the problem of the shortage of skilled combine harvester operators that was discussed earlier.

While agricultural cooperatives are active in Iran, particularly in Fars province, the present study implies that there is potential for improvement, and it is necessary to investigate the factors contributing to their suboptimal functioning, and strategies to enhance their performance. It is crucial to note that the effective functioning of cooperatives depends on the presence of a strong political will and support. The governance and independency of cooperatives can be heavily influenced by the political structure of a country [144].

In terms of its definition, a cooperative, at its very core, is characterized by autonomy and democracy [145]. Cooperatives’ foundation relies on having a political system that protects and guarantees the freedom of association, democratic governance, and independence, through a transparent legal and regulatory framework and accountability [145]. Authoritarian regimes, by exerting central control and political interference over the economy, restricting access to resources, and lacking transparency in economic policies and decision-making processes, can impede the ability of cooperatives to operate freely and effectively [146,147,148].

Throughout history, cooperatives have been abused by those in power, as a tool to impose control over the populace, and promote autarky [149,150]. However, the presence of cooperatives can be deemed beneficial even under authoritarian regimes. Dillon examined three divergent viewpoints on the history of cooperatives in Ukraine, and concluded that, despite the constraints imposed by authoritarian regimes, cooperatives can still generate social benefits [151]. Nevertheless, while cooperatives operating within authoritarian governments may yield certain societal benefits, totalitarian regimes are ultimately destined for economic failure [149]. Examples of such may include the destruction of rural cooperatives, as well as economic and agricultural breakdowns under dictators such as Benito Mussolini in Italy, Francisco Franco in Spain, and Ioannis Metaxas in Greece [149,150,152]. On the other hand, civil societies can strengthen the political governance of cooperatives, by engaging in progressive activities and reformist initiatives. The case of Vietnam exemplifies the significant potential of civil society and nonprofit institutions in constraining the extractive power of an authoritarian regime [153]. Likewise, cooperatives, with their solidarity-orientated nature, are capable of, as Freyburg [154] puts it, ‘planting the seed of change’, to yield a greater productivity.

4. Conclusions

The outcome of the present study portends an alarming trend in wheat production in the Fars region, which not only causes food loss, but also endangers biodiversity, soil fertility, food security, and human health. The long-term intensive cultivation of demanding cash crops, such as wheat, maize, and rice in the region has led to a reduced production efficiency and farming challenges that cause enormous wheat loss, due to excessive seed use and difficulties in pest control. The swift deterioration in the agricultural landscape in Fars demands an urgent and pivotal shift toward implementing more sustainable and ecological farming strategies. Practices such as diversified rotational cropping, ecological and integrated pest management, and targeted and efficient PPP application can increase seed utilization efficiency, decrease plant diseases and, ultimately, lead to reduced on-farm losses.

Through the implementation of the aforementioned sustainable farming practices, there is potential for a regeneration of soil fertility and improvement in agricultural productivity. This, in turn, can contribute to an increased seed utilization efficiency, and would enable farmers to employ a reasonable amount of seed; for example, the range of 170–180 kg per hectare recommended by the Agriculture Organization of Fars. The adoption of such strategies is crucial to addressing the current alarming trend in wheat production, mitigating biodiversity loss, enhancing food security, preserving soil health, and safeguarding human well-being in the Fars region.

To address the issue of harvest loss, it is crucial to prioritize increasing the access to advanced and optimized equipment, through financial support for farmers, promoting collective cooperation, enforcing timely technical inspections, and offering educational opportunities for both farmers and combine operators. The use of outdated and poorly maintained equipment, as well as a lack of proper training and supervision of harvester operators, exacerbates the problem. This results in significant financial losses for farmers, and can have a negative impact on the overall wheat production and food security in the region.

Harvest loss is a significant challenge faced by farmers worldwide, resulting in substantial economic losses and food scarcity. Addressing this challenge is essential for improving global food security, and enhancing farmers’ livelihoods. Achieving this goal requires a comprehensive approach that includes implementing a combination of solutions to the food production structure, such as improved crop varieties, better harvesting techniques, fair compensation for combine operators, and adequate training and support for farmers. In light of the current challenges regarding wheat production in the Fars province, future studies should direct their attention toward identifying strategies aimed at enhancing the socio-economic aspects of wheat production, while simultaneously engaging in the development of machinery that is customized for the region’s unique agricultural landscape.

Overall, the present study sheds light on the extent and underlying causes of wheat on-farm loss in the Fars province, providing critical knowledge that could serve as the foundation of targeted interventions and policies aimed at reducing food loss, promoting sustainable farming, and improving food security. While the study’s primary focus is on a specific geographic and social context, its deep and comprehensive methodical exploration confers the applicability of the results to a broad range of researchers, practitioners, and policymakers. This paper imparts valuable insights to other regions and countries that endeavor to augment the efficacy of agricultural production and economic gains by exploiting natural resources through intensive farming, disregarding the long-term repercussions.

While the current study drew upon qualitative information to explore the phenomenon of on-farm wheat loss, it is imperative that future research also focuses on quantitative approaches. Quantifying wheat loss on farms would be crucial to establishing data comparability across regions and countries, and thereby allowing for more comprehensive assessments of the food loss problem. Moreover, a quantitative investigation would provide an empirical basis for monitoring the efficacy of food-loss reduction plans. While qualitative studies can be illuminating and offer valuable insights, the benefits of numerical evidence in policy-making and intervention strategies cannot be understated.

In conclusion, the findings of this study underscore the critical role that cooperatives can play in addressing on-farm food loss and agricultural inefficiencies. By promoting collective action and knowledge-sharing among small-scale farmers, cooperatives can reduce food loss, encourage sustainable farming practices, and enhance agricultural productivity. To ensure that farmers’ cooperatives can thrive, governments must adopt a supportive approach. In Iran, this can be achieved through the provision of cooperatives, with educational opportunities, and financial assistance through subsidies and low-interest loans with extended grace periods. This would foster a healthy and competitive market, reducing central control and interference, and strengthening democratic decision-making processes and cooperatives’ authority and freedom.