The research team, led by Syed Ariful Haque of Sultan Qaboos University, surveyed 40 of the 45 retailers active at Barka market between March and June 2025, a coverage rate of nearly 89 percent. Through face-to-face interviews, direct field observations, and organoleptic assessments of fish quality based on appearance, odour, colour, and texture, the team distinguished between physical loss, where fish is discarded outright with no recoverable value, and quality loss, where degraded fish sells at a steep discount. Both were converted into monetary terms using prevailing market prices for comparable good-quality fish of the same species on the same trading day.

The scale of the problem became clear when the researchers applied ordinary least squares regression to the data. Their final nine-predictor model explained 84.2 percent of the variation in daily monetary loss, a remarkably strong fit for a field study. Among the most striking results: retailers who delayed icing after purchase lost roughly 22.8 rials more per day than those who iced promptly, while every additional hour of selling time added about 8.6 rials in losses. Conversely, retailers who washed fish immediately after purchase lost about 16.8 rials less per day, those who maintained the recommended ice-to-fish ratio lost about 14.4 rials less, and those who had received training in fish handling or post-harvest management lost roughly 26 rials less than their untrained counterparts.

The training figure deserves particular attention, because it was rare. Only 7.5 percent of surveyed retailers had ever received formal instruction in fish handling, quality management, or loss reduction, and just 7.5 percent maintained the recommended ice-fish ratio. A staggering 90 percent admitted to delaying icing after receiving their fish. In a market where ambient temperatures in northern Oman climb to 48 degrees Celsius during the summer months, these gaps in the cold chain are not minor operational lapses; they are the central mechanism by which value evaporates.

The species-level picture added further texture. The researchers documented 36 species traded at the market, with yellowfin tuna commanding the widest coverage, handled by 25 retailers and averaging 70.3 kilograms of good-quality fish per retailer. Red seabream suffered the highest mean percentage monetary loss at 8.67 percent, followed by kingfish at 6.16 percent, longtail tuna at 5 percent, yellowfin tuna at 4.91 percent, and golden trevally at 4.37 percent. Thirteen species recorded no monetary losses at all during the survey. The authors are careful to stress that these rankings are descriptive snapshots rather than evidence that certain species are inherently more fragile; retailer representation varied enormously across species, and individual traders handled multiple species, making statistical comparison inappropriate.

When retailers themselves were asked what drove their losses, their answers converged on the same operational chokepoints the regression had flagged. On a five-point agreement scale, the strongest consensus concerned delays in auctioning, which received the lowest mean score of 1.48, followed closely by insufficient water-supply facilities for frequent washing at 1.63 and failure to maintain the proper ice-fish ratio at 1.68. Extended hours of fish selling rounded out the top concerns. At the other end of the spectrum, the time fish cutters took to process fish was rated least problematic, with a mean score of 3.33. A Friedman test confirmed that these ratings differed significantly across items, though the researchers found no statistically significant correlations among the perceived causes after correcting for multiple comparisons.

Some of the demographic findings were counterintuitive and illuminate the human dimension of the problem. Older retailers actually lost more money per day, with each additional year of age associated with a 0.3-rial increase in daily losses. But field observations explained the paradox: many older traders had entered fish selling only after retiring from other professions, so their chronological age masked relatively little market experience. Fish-business experience itself, measured in years of trading, was associated with lower losses, as were higher monthly income from fish trading and handling a wider variety of species. The income relationship is nuanced, the authors caution, since income may reflect business organization and market position rather than a direct protective effect, and transaction volume was not directly measured in the model.

The study’s authors frame their results within a global context of mounting concern over fish loss and waste in low- and middle-income countries, where small-scale fisheries underpin nutrition, livelihoods, and food security. Reducing post-harvest losses, they note, enhances food availability and economic resilience without increasing fishing pressure on wild stocks, making post-harvest management a cornerstone of sustainable aquatic food systems. The findings align with evidence from Bangladesh, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Kenya, and Zambia, where marketing delays, inadequate icing, and poor handling have repeatedly emerged as dominant loss drivers. The work also connects to broader sustainability goals, including Sustainable Development Goal Target 12.3 on halving food waste and the FAO’s Blue Transformation agenda.

Importantly, the team resists overstating what a cross-sectional survey of 40 retailers can prove. The regression coefficients describe adjusted associations, not causal effects, and the small sample size, sparse representation of certain practices, and seasonal scope of the study, which captured only the transition into summer rather than the full annual cycle, all counsel caution. A sensitivity analysis excluding the single most influential respondent left every significant predictor intact, and diagnostic tests found no problematic heteroskedasticity or multicollinearity, but the authors explicitly call for larger, longitudinal, multi-market studies before drawing national conclusions about Oman’s fish losses.

Even so, the practical roadmap that emerges is refreshingly concrete. The researchers propose a phased intervention strategy beginning with low-cost measures: market-based training on immediate icing and hygiene, optimization of auction scheduling to cut the delays retailers identified as their worst problem, and an audit of water access to ensure retailers can wash fish frequently. Medium-term priorities include assessing ice supply reliability and piloting insulated storage and display systems, with any investment evaluated against measurable indicators such as fish temperature, ice consumption, rejected weight, and monetary loss. Only after those foundations are secured do the authors recommend capital-intensive infrastructure and advanced chilling technologies such as slurry ice. In a market where a handful of operational habits, washing promptly, icing on time, selling faster, could together shift losses by tens of rials per retailer per day, the cheapest technology may simply be better organization of the hours between the auction block and the customer’s hand.

Subject of Research: Post-harvest fish loss and its operational and market determinants in a small-scale retail fish market in Oman

Article Title: Systemic drivers of post-harvest fish loss in small-scale retail markets: Insights from Barka fish market, Oman

Article References: Haque, S. A., Jufaili, S. M. A., Adhoobi, A. S. A., Darmaki, H. A. A. A., Al-Owaisi, Y., Waheibi, W. A. A., & Rahman, M. C. (2026). Systemic drivers of post-harvest fish loss in small-scale retail markets: Insights from Barka fish market, Oman. Results in Engineering, 32, Article 113221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rineng.2026.113221

Image Credits: AI Generated

DOI: 10.1016/j.rineng.2026.113221

Keywords: post-harvest fish loss, small-scale fisheries, Oman, Barka fish market, cold chain, icing, food waste, fish quality, retail markets, food security, sustainable fisheries, regression analysis