IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v13y2021i9p5187-d549573.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Postharvest Losses of Pomegranate Fruit at the Packhouse and Implications for Sustainability Indicators

Author

Listed:
  • Ikechukwu Kingsley Opara

    (SARChI Postharvest Technology Research Laboratory, Africa Institute for Postharvest Technology, Faculty of AgriSciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch 7600, South Africa)

  • Olaniyi Amos Fawole

    (SARChI Postharvest Technology Research Laboratory, Africa Institute for Postharvest Technology, Faculty of AgriSciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch 7600, South Africa
    Postharvest Research Laboratory, Department of Botany and Plant Biotechnology, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2006, South Africa)

  • Umezuruike Linus Opara

    (SARChI Postharvest Technology Research Laboratory, Africa Institute for Postharvest Technology, Faculty of AgriSciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch 7600, South Africa)

Abstract

Pomegranate fruit, like other types of fresh horticultural produce, are susceptible to high incidence preharvest and postharvest losses and waste. Several studies have been done to improve the production and handling of pomegranate fruit to meet market standards, but little has been done in loss quantification, especially in the early stage of the value chain such as the packhouse. Therefore, the aim of this study was to quantify the magnitude of pomegranate fruit losses at the packhouse, identify the causes, and estimate the impacts of losses. The study was conducted on a case study packhouse in the Western Cape Province of South Africa from February to March 2020. The direct measurement method, which involved physical identification of the causes of loss on individual fruit, was used for data collection. Loss quantification involved the calculation of lost fruit proportional to the amount put in the packhouse processing line. The results showed that losses ranged between 6.74% to 7.69%, which translated to an average of 328.79 tonnes of pomegranate fruit removed during packhouse operation per production season at the investigated packhouse. This magnitude of lost fruit was equivalent to over ZAR 29.5 million (USD 1,754,984) in revenue, in addition to the opportunity costs of resources used to produce lost fruit.

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:13:y:2021:i:9:p:5187-:d:549573
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/9/5187/pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/9/5187/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Marco Medici & Maurizio Canavari & Moreno Toselli, 2020. "Interpreting Environmental Impacts Resulting from Fruit Cultivation in a Business Innovation Perspective," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(23), pages 1-14, November.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    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 & 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.
    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:5187-:d:549573. 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.