IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i9p5168-d549265.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Quantification of On-Farm Pomegranate Fruit Postharvest Losses and Waste, and Implications on Sustainability Indicators: South African Case Study

Author

Listed:
  • Ikechukwu Kingsley Opara

    (Africa Institute for Postharvest Technology, SARChI Postharvest Technology, Postharvest Research Laboratory, Faculty of AgriSciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch 7602, South Africa)

  • Olaniyi Amos Fawole

    (Africa Institute for Postharvest Technology, SARChI Postharvest Technology, Postharvest Research Laboratory, Faculty of AgriSciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch 7602, South Africa
    Postharvest Research Laboratory, Department of Botany and Plant Biotechnology, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg P.O. Box 524, Auckland Park, Johannesburg 2006, South Africa)

  • Candice Kelly

    (Sustainability Institute, School of Public Leadership, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch 7600, South Africa)

  • Umezuruike Linus Opara

    (Africa Institute for Postharvest Technology, SARChI Postharvest Technology, Postharvest Research Laboratory, Faculty of AgriSciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch 7602, South Africa)

Abstract

While there is a growing body of scientific knowledge on improved techniques and procedures for the production and handling of quality pomegranate fruit to meet market demand, little is known about the magnitude of losses that occur at the farm and post-farmgate. This study revealed the amount of pomegranate fruit lost on the farm and the causes of loss and estimated the impacts of losses. The direct measurement method, which involved sorting and counting of individual fruit, was used since physical identification of the causes of fruit losses on individual fruit was necessary for data collection. Furthermore, qualitative data were collected by physical observation during harvesting and interaction with farm workers. At the case study farm in Wellington, Western Cape Province of South Africa, a range of 15.3–20.1% of the harvested crop was considered lost, as the quality fell below marketable standards for retail sales. This amounted to an average of 117.76 tonnes of pomegranate fruit harvested per harvest season in the case study farm, which is removed from the value chain and sold mainly at a low value for juicing and other purposes and translates to an estimated R10.5 million ($618,715.34) economic loss to the farmer. Environmental factors are the main causes of on-farm fruit losses. In the three pomegranate cultivars studied, sunburn and crack were identified as the leading cause of fruit loss, accounting for about 43.9% of all on-farm fruit losses. The lost fiber, carbohydrate, protein, iron and ascorbic acid contents associated with lost fruit were estimated to meet the daily recommended nutrition intake of 2, 9, 4, 2 and 24 people, respectively. Strategies to control and reduce pomegranate fruit losses and waste at the farm level should focus on environmental factors and mechanical damage since they account for the highest sources of fruit losses. This will ensure improved revenue to farmers, sustainable use of natural resources, reduction of the environmental impacts of the fruit industry, and more availability of quality fruit for nutritional security.

Suggested Citation

  • Ikechukwu Kingsley Opara & Olaniyi Amos Fawole & Candice Kelly & Umezuruike Linus Opara, 2021. "Quantification of On-Farm Pomegranate Fruit Postharvest Losses and Waste, and Implications on Sustainability Indicators: South African Case Study," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-20, May.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:9:p:5168-:d:549265
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/9/5168/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/9/5168/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. González, Alejandro D. & Frostell, Björn & Carlsson-Kanyama, Annika, 2011. "Protein efficiency per unit energy and per unit greenhouse gas emissions: Potential contribution of diet choices to climate change mitigation," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 36(5), pages 562-570, October.
    2. Martin Mathias Dome & Sadananda Prusty, 2017. "Determination of vegetable postharvest loss in the last-mile supply chain in Tanzania: a lean perspective," International Journal of Logistics Systems and Management, Inderscience Enterprises Ltd, vol. 27(2), pages 133-150.
    3. Johnson, Lisa K. & Dunning, Rebecca D. & Gunter, Chris C. & Dara Bloom, J. & Boyette, Michael D. & Creamer, Nancy G., 2018. "Field measurement in vegetable crops indicates need for reevaluation of on-farm food loss estimates in North America," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 136-142.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Emmanuel Ekene Okere & Ebrahiema Arendse & Alemayehu Ambaw Tsige & Willem Jacobus Perold & Umezuruike Linus Opara, 2022. "Pomegranate Quality Evaluation Using Non-Destructive Approaches: A Review," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 12(12), pages 1-25, November.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ikechukwu Kingsley Opara & Olaniyi Amos Fawole & Umezuruike Linus Opara, 2021. "Postharvest Losses of Pomegranate Fruit at the Packhouse and Implications for Sustainability Indicators," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(9), pages 1-19, May.
    2. Morena Bruno & Marianne Thomsen & Federico Maria Pulselli & Nicoletta Patrizi & Michele Marini & Dario Caro, 2019. "The carbon footprint of Danish diets," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 156(4), pages 489-507, October.
    3. Linnea Laestadius & Roni Neff & Colleen Barry & Shannon Frattaroli, 2013. "Meat consumption and climate change: the role of non-governmental organizations," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 120(1), pages 25-38, September.
    4. Bauer, Jan M. & Aarestrup, Simon C. & Hansen, Pelle G. & Reisch, Lucia A., 2022. "Nudging more sustainable grocery purchases: Behavioural innovations in a supermarket setting," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    5. Peter Scarborough & Paul Appleby & Anja Mizdrak & Adam Briggs & Ruth Travis & Kathryn Bradbury & Timothy Key, 2014. "Dietary greenhouse gas emissions of meat-eaters, fish-eaters, vegetarians and vegans in the UK," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 125(2), pages 179-192, July.
    6. White, Robin R. & Brady, Michael, 2014. "Can consumers’ willingness to pay incentivize adoption of environmental impact reducing technologies in meat animal production?," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(P1), pages 41-49.
    7. Maria-Angeles Fernandez-Zamudio & Héctor Barco & Felicitas Schneider, 2020. "Direct Measurement of Mass and Economic Harvest and Post-Harvest Losses in Spanish Persimmon Primary Production," Agriculture, MDPI, vol. 10(12), pages 1-20, November.
    8. Vázquez-Rowe, Ian & Villanueva-Rey, Pedro & Moreira, Mª Teresa & Feijoo, Gumersindo, 2013. "The role of consumer purchase and post-purchase decision-making in sustainable seafood consumption. A Spanish case study using carbon footprinting," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 94-102.
    9. García-Leal, Javiera & Espinoza Pérez, Andrea Teresa & Vásquez, Óscar C., 2023. "Towards the sustainable massive food services: An optimization approach," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 87(PA).
    10. Oriana Gava & Fabio Bartolini & Francesca Venturi & Gianluca Brunori & Alberto Pardossi, 2020. "Improving Policy Evidence Base for Agricultural Sustainability and Food Security: A Content Analysis of Life Cycle Assessment Research," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-29, February.
    11. Vivian G. M. Quam & Joacim Rocklöv & Mikkel B. M. Quam & Rebekah A. I. Lucas, 2017. "Assessing Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Health Co-Benefits: A Structured Review of Lifestyle-Related Climate Change Mitigation Strategies," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(5), pages 1-19, April.
    12. Francesco N. Tubiello & Josef Schmidhuber, 2014. "Emissions of greenhouse gases from agriculture and their mitigation," Chapters, in: Raghbendra Jha & Raghav Gaiha & Anil B. Deolalikar (ed.), Handbook on Food, chapter 16, pages 422-442, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    13. Pauline Bergström & Christopher Malefors & Ingrid Strid & Ole Jørgen Hanssen & Mattias Eriksson, 2020. "Sustainability Assessment of Food Redistribution Initiatives in Sweden," Resources, MDPI, vol. 9(3), pages 1-27, March.
    14. Ghada Talat Alhothali & Noha M. Almoraie & Israa M. Shatwan & Najlaa M. Aljefree, 2021. "Sociodemographic Characteristics and Dietary Choices as Determinants of Climate Change Understanding and Concern in Saudi Arabia," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(20), pages 1-14, October.
    15. Olavo Pinto & Beatriz Casais, 2023. "Multilevel implications for anti-consumption social marketing within the public policy framework for SDG realization: a systematic literature review," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 20(3), pages 605-634, September.
    16. Kelsey D. Meagher & Anne Gillman & David C. Campbell & Edward S. Spang, 2020. "Relational and Logistical Dimensions of Agricultural Food Recovery: Evidence from California Growers and Recovery Organizations," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(15), pages 1-18, July.
    17. Li, Xiaogu & Jensen, Kimberly L. & Clark, Christopher D. & Lambert, Dayton M., 2015. "Consumer Willingness-to-Pay for Non-taste Attributes in Beef Products," 2015 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2015, Atlanta, Georgia 196719, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    18. Bajželj, Bojana & Quested, Thomas E. & Röös, Elin & Swannell, Richard P.J., 2020. "The role of reducing food waste for resilient food systems," Ecosystem Services, Elsevier, vol. 45(C).
    19. Brunner, Florentine & Kurz, Verena & Bryngelsson, David & Hedenus, Fredrik, 2018. "Carbon Label at a University Restaurant – Label Implementation and Evaluation," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 658-667.
    20. Rattan Lal, 2014. "Climate Strategic Soil Management," Challenges, MDPI, vol. 5(1), pages 1-32, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:9:p:5168-:d:549265. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.