Postharvest Losses in Quantity and Quality of Pear (cv. Packham’s Triumph) along the Supply Chain and Associated Economic, Environmental and Resource Impacts

Blanckenberg, Anelle; Fawole, Olaniyi Amos; Opara, Umezuruike Linus

doi:10.3390/su14020603

Open AccessArticle

Postharvest Losses in Quantity and Quality of Pear (cv. Packham’s Triumph) along the Supply Chain and Associated Economic, Environmental and Resource Impacts

by

Anelle Blanckenberg

^1,2,

Olaniyi Amos Fawole

^3,*

and

Umezuruike Linus Opara

^2,4,*

¹

Department of Horticultural Sciences, Faculty of AgriSciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch 7602, South Africa

²

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

³

Postharvest Research Laboratory, Department of Botany and Plant Biotechnology, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg 2092, South Africa

⁴

UNESCO International Centre for Biotechnology, Nsukka 410001, Nigeria

^*

Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.

Sustainability 2022, 14(2), 603; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14020603

Submission received: 10 December 2021 / Revised: 29 December 2021 / Accepted: 3 January 2022 / Published: 6 January 2022

(This article belongs to the Special Issue Food and Sustainability)

Download Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Approximately one third of the food produced globally is lost or wasted along the supply chain. Reducing this would be an important measure to increase the global food supply as the world continues the struggle to feed its people sustainably. Not merely a waste of food, these losses also represent a waste of human effort and agricultural inputs from expensive fertilizers to natural resources as well as contributing to global greenhouse gas emissions. Measuring the extent of, and understanding the reasons for, these losses can assist in developing appropriate measures required to prevent or reduce such losses. Therefore, the objective of this research was to quantify postharvest losses in quantity and quality of ‘Packham’s Triumph’ pears at farm and simulated retail levels. Pears were sampled from two farms in the Western Cape Province of South Africa, the largest deciduous fruit production and export region in Southern Africa. The greatest losses measured along the supply chain were on-farm immediately after harvest, with 18% recorded. The main reasons for on-farm losses were small size (65%), deformity (26%), and chafed peel (9%). After 14 days in cold storage (−0.3 ± 0.7 °C, 81.3 ± 4.1% RH), mean pear losses were 0.86% which increased to 1.49% after 28 days. After 10 days of further storage under simulated market conditions (5.4 ± 0.6 °C, 83.7 ± 2.9% RH), fruit losses were 1.52% during retail marketing and 2.09% during export. Storing pears under ambient conditions (25.1 ± 1.3 °C and 46.6 ± 6.0% RH) resulted in a higher incidence of losses, increasing from 0.90 to 1.55 and 2.25% after 3, 7, and 10 days, respectively. The socio-economic impacts of these postharvest losses amounted to financial losses of between ZAR 492 million (USD 34.1 million according to the conversion rate of 14 April 2021) to over ZAR 831 million annually, and this was associated with the loss of 301 million MJ of fossil energy, 69 million m³ of fresh water and contributed to the emission of approximately 19,690 tons of CO₂ equivalent. The fresh water lost could sustain 3.7 million individuals daily for a whole year at a daily minimum usage rate of 0.05 m³ per day while it will require planting 0.5 million trees to sink the 19,690 tons GHG emissions of the pear losses (0.039 metric ton per urban tree planted). Decreasing postharvest losses will conserve resources as well as improve food security and nutrition, objectives of the post-2015 sustainable development agenda led by the United Nations.

Keywords:

postharvest losses; food waste; physicochemical properties; pear; shelf-life; decay; socio-economic impacts

1. Introduction

Around one billion people are currently malnourished as the world continues to struggle to feed its people sustainably [1,2,3]. The projected increase in the global population together with the impact of climate change will further affect food production in the near future [4,5]. Several methods have been suggested to meet these growing challenges in a balanced way: stemming farmland expansion, especially in the tropics; increasing cropping efficiency; altering diets; and reducing losses and waste [6,7,8]. By employing these measures jointly, food production could be doubled with available resources without increasing environmental impacts [7]. This study focuses on the last of those measures, i.e., reducing losses and waste. As approximately one third of the food produced globally (in terms of weight) is lost or wasted, reducing this would certainly be an important measure to increase the global food supply [9].

The loss of horticultural produce in the supply chain is a major problem that has only recently begun to receive the worldwide recognition and attention it deserves. These losses can result from many different factors that range from growing conditions to rough handling at the retail level. Not merely a waste of food, these losses also represent a waste of human effort and agricultural inputs from expensive fertilizers to natural resources like water and soil [10].

Postharvest losses are difficult to measure, and very little scientifically quantified data is available on this topic. A number of attempts, over several decades, have been made to quantify global food waste. This has been motivated in part by the desire to highlight the scale of ‘waste’ in relation to global malnutrition in an attempt to jolt people into changing their behavior [11,12]. However, such assessments rely on limited datasets collected across food supply chains at different times and extrapolated to the larger picture.

In foreign exchange earnings, employment creation, and linkages with support institutions, pears (Pyrus communis L.) are among the most important deciduous fruits grown in South Africa [13,14]. During the 2016/17 season, pears accounted for 14.1% (R2.7 billion) of the total gross value for deciduous fruits (R19 billion) in South Africa.

The leading pear cultivar grown in South Africa by area planted and exportation is ‘Packham’s Triumph’, accounting for 33% (4072 ha) of the total area planted (12,265 ha) [14,15]. Pear production in South Africa is export-oriented, and as the export markets for South African pears are geographically distant, the fruit has to be stored for extended periods. Maintaining the quality of the fruit while moving through the postharvest handling chain from the orchard all the way to the consumer is therefore very important [14,16].

As pears are climacteric, they are usually harvested at a lower maturity to withstand the demands of postharvest handling and distribution [17]. Even so, being highly perishable products, considerable losses of pears can occur [18]. Even a minor loss can be very costly because of the accumulated expenses of growing, harvesting, and storing these high value products [19]. Harvested pears are prone to physical damage leading to moisture loss and infection that affects fruit appearance [20]. Postharvest diseases can be a limiting factor for the long-term storage of fruits, with losses as high as 50–60% having been observed in storage bins before packing [21].

Losses cause less food to be available for consumption and therefore contribute to food insecurity. In addition, these losses also lead to unnecessary CO₂ emissions and represent a waste of human effort and agricultural inputs from expensive fertilizers to natural resources like water and soil [10]. The reduction of postharvest losses is, therefore, important to increase food security [22,23]. Information on the characteristics and extent of losses in pears reaching the export markets, as well as the South African local fresh fruit markets, could help in ascertaining the factors responsible for the losses and provide guidelines in developing appropriate measures required to prevent or reduce such losses. The aim of this study, therefore, was to assess postharvest losses of pears, along the supply chain, from harvest to both export and local retail level and during post-purchase storage. The specific objectives were to measure the extent of postharvest physical losses, quantify the changes in physico-chemical properties related to quality during storage, and estimate the economic and environmental impacts of the fruit losses.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Harvesting and Sampling Techniques

Harvesting and Sampling Techniques

Data collection protocols were similar to those used by [24]. Pears were collected during the commercial harvest on 5 February 2018 at Lourensford farm (latitude: 34°04′ S longitude: 18°53′ E) in Somerset-West and on 20 February 2018 at Uitvlugt farm (latitude: 34°22′ S; longitude: 20°34′ E) in the Overberg area. Both farms are located in the Western Cape, South Africa. At harvest, ten full 20 L picking bags were selected at each farm and the contents were carefully inspected to quantify the percentage of fruit that would be discarded due to defects or small size (if it falls through a 75 mm ring). Subsequently, 400 pears per farm were selected and packed into standard multi-layer telescopic cartons 12.5 kg M12 T (MK6) (dimensions: 300 × 400 × 220 mm; internal trays: 383 × 281 mm and a liner bag: length 410 mm; width 310 mm and depth 775 mm) based on industry practice.

2.2. Supply Chains Simulated

From each farm, 100 pears were used for each supply chain scenario simulated i.e., 200 pears per scenario. From each farm, 100 bunches were used for each supply chain scenario simulated, i.e., 200 bunches per scenario. Four supply chain scenarios were studied (Table 1), representing the range of postharvest handling practices that occur in local and export marketing of pears in the South African fresh fruit industry. According to export pear producers (pers. communication Amelia Vorster, Technical Advisor (Quality)—Karsten Western Cape), scenario D is a common occurrence and leads to tension between role-players as to whether the fruit was mishandled before the report was written and who is responsible for the losses if it is higher than expected.

2.3. Fruit Loss Evaluation and Quality Measurements

2.3.1. Postharvest Losses

The base measurement for losses at harvest occurred in the orchards. Ten full 20 L picking bags were selected at each farm, and the contents were carefully inspected to quantify the percentage of fruit that would be discarded due to defects or small size (if it falls through a 75 mm ring). At each evaluation time thereafter, physical losses were quantified as the decrease in fruit weight expressed as the percentage of fresh weight loss from harvest, and the amount of fruit lost due to decay, expressed as the percentage of fruit with the disorder.

2.3.2. Quality Attributes

The following attributes were measured at each evaluation time:

Weight loss

For weight loss, 30 pears from two farms were selected, which gave 60 pear samples per supply chain scenario. Weight loss was expressed as a percentage of the initial fruit weight.

2.: Total soluble solids (TSS) concentration

Fruit juice was extracted using a juice extractor (Mellerware—600 W Liqua Fresh Juice Extractor, South Africa). TSS of juice was measured with a digital refractometer (Atago, Tokyo, Japan). For the total soluble solids (TSS) concentration, samples of 18 pears per supply chain were used.

3.: Titratable acidity (TA)

TA of juice was determined by titration to pH 8.2 using a Metrohm 862 compact titrosampler (Herisau, Switzerland). For TA, samples of 18 pears per supply chain were used.

4.: Peel color

Color was assessed using a colorimeter (Minolta CR-400, Minolta Corp, Osaka, Japan) and expressed as CIE L*, a*, b* coordinate where L* defines lightness, a* denotes the red/green value and b* the yellow/blue value [25]. Eighteen pears per supply chain scenario were evaluated for peel color.

5.: Firmness

Pear firmness (N) was measured using a penetrometer fitted with an 8 mm diameter probe [13,26] (Güss Manufacturing, Strand, South Africa). Measurements were made on the widest part of the fruit after a 1–2 cm diameter area of peel was removed from the area to be tested using a vegetable peeler. Eighteen pears per supply chain scenario were evaluated for firmness.

6.: Ethylene production

Ethylene production was measured as described by [27,28]. Nine pears were weighed with an accuracy of up to 1 g and sealed, three per chamber, in 3200 mL air-tight glass chambers for 1 h at ambient conditions (25.1 ± 1.3 °C, 46.6 ± 6.0% RH). The concentration of ethylene in the container was then measured using an ICA 56 ethylene meter (International Controlled Atmosphere Ltd. Instrument Division UK) with an accuracy of up to 0.1 ppm, within a time of 15 s, at a flow of 0.8 L min⁻¹. Based on the results and having measured the specific gravity of the pears as 1.06, ethylene production per 1 kg of fruit per hour was calculated. The ethylene production rate was measured in ppm and expressed as C₂H₄ µL·kg·h.

7.: Respiration rates

Respiration rate was measured as described by [29] with slight adaptations. Nine pears were weighed with an accuracy of up to 1 g and transferred to 3200 mL air-tight glass chambers, three per chamber, for 1 h at ambient conditions (25.1 ± 1.3 °C, 46.6 ± 6.0% RH). The CO₂ and O₂ concentrations were then measured using a combined CO₂/O₂ analyzer (CheckMate 9900, PBI-Dansensor, Denmark) with a syringe through a rubber septum attached to the top of the 3200 mL chambers. The following equation was used to calculate the CO₂ concentrations:

{RCO}_{2} = \frac{({CO}_{2 f} - {CO}_{2 i})}{(Δ t)} \times \frac{V f}{W}

(1)

where RCO₂ is the respiration rate expressed in CO₂ mL·kg·h, CO_2i is the initial concentration of CO₂ in the chamber at the beginning of the experiment, CO_2f is the concentration of CO₂ at time t, W is fresh weight, and Vf is free volume.

2.4. Environmental and Economic Impacts of Postharvest Losses

Total greenhouse gas emissions were calculated using values provided by [30]. That study examined the annual cycle for pear production, beginning with establishment costs, raw material extraction for the production of inputs used on the orchard and included the factors of fertilizer, tillage, irrigation, pest management, electricity, and fuel consumption, ending at the delivery of pears. For every ton of pears produced, stored, and transported to the retail market approximately 0.25 ton of CO₂eq is emitted into the atmosphere. The energy cost for producing and marketing the lost produce was obtained using a reference value of 3703 MJ/ton provided by [31], and the water footprint was determined by multiplying the quantity of lost produce with the reference water footprint value of pears at 920 m³/ton provided by [32]. The value of pears lost was calculated using values provided by [14] R5871/ton for locally sold produce, and R11366/ton for exported produce.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Data on farm fruit losses at harvest were subjected to a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the physicochemical analysis data (weight loss, peel color, firmness, total soluble solids (TSS), titratable acidity (TA), respiration rate, and ethylene production) were subjected to mixed model analysis of variance (ANOVA) using Statistica version 13.2 (TIBCO Software Inc., Palo Alto, CA, USA) with ‘farm’ and ‘time’ as fixed effect and cartons as a random effect.

3. Results

3.1. Physical Losses at Farm Level

The measured loss of pears at harvest for individual farms was 18% and 19%, respectively. The average loss at harvest on the farm level was 18%. Of the 18% lost at harvest on the first farm, the main reasons were due to deformed fruit (50%), small size (48%), and chafed peel (2%) on the first farm, while on the second farm, the main reasons were the same, but the proportions differed: the majority of the losses were due to small size (80%), chafed peel (18%) and deformities (2%). The average values for both farms together were small size (65%), deformity (26%), and chafed peel (9%).

3.2. Physical Losses along the Simulated Supply Chain

3.2.1. Weight Loss and Decay

Supply Chain Scenario A (Handling and Marketing Fruit under Ambient Conditions)

There was no statistically significant difference in fruit weight up to 10 days after harvest (p = 0.42), as shown in Table 2. However, there was a 2.2% decrease in weight, which would affect the profit margin, as fruit is sold by weight. While not statistically significant, this decrease in weight is important in terms of losses as it could affect the profit margin. No decay was present for up to 7 days when 3.3% of the fruit showed visible signs of decay, increasing to 6.6% after 10 days.

Supply Chain Scenario B (to Local Retail Markets)

There was no statistically significant weight loss (p = 0.97) as shown in Table 3. However, the weight decreased by 0.86% after 14 days in cold storage, 1.52% after 10 days in retail conditions, and then by 1.86%, 3.32, and 3.90% after 3, 7, and 10 days under ambient conditions, respectively. No decay was present during the measurements.

Supply Chain Scenario C (to International Retail Markets)

There was no statistically significant difference in weight after storage or during a shelf life of 10 days (p = 0.93). However, weight decreased by 1.49% after 28 days in cold storage, 1.77% after 10 days in retail conditions, and 2.24%, 2.97%, and 3.60% after 3, 7, and 10 days under ambient conditions, respectively (Table 4). No decay was present during the course of the measurements.

Supply Chain Scenario D (Simulated ‘Abusive’ Treatment of Fruit within the Export Chain)

There was no statistically significant difference in fruit weight over time (p = 0.94), although a 0.98% decrease in weight is noted after 28 days in cold storage, 1.36% after two days at ‘abusive’ ambient conditions, 2.09% after 10 days in retail conditions, and 2.91%, 3.26%, and 3.71% after 3, 7, and 10 days under ambient conditions, respectively. (Table 5). No decay was present during the measurements.

3.3. Quality Losses along the Supply Chain

3.3.1. Supply Chain Scenario A (Marketing at Ambient Conditions)

Pear color became lighter (L) over time (Table 6), and the change was statistically significant (p < 0.01). The measurements for a* (p < 0.01) denoting the red/green values and b* (p < 0.01), indicating the yellow/blue values, also changed significantly, indicating that the fruit became less green and more yellow over time. There were also significant differences in firmness; the values decreased with time as the fruit became softer as they ripened from 89.83 N at harvest to 71.29 N after 7 days and down to 4.71 N after 20 days (p < 0.01). Although the TSS values increased over time, the increase was not statistically significant (p = 0.45). The TA values also did not change significantly for the duration of the trial (p = 0.15). Respiration dropped to its lowest after 7 days and then rose again to peak at 17 days (p = 0.02), while Ethylene levels remained quite low for the first 7 days and then increased significantly from 14 days to 20 days after harvest (p < 0.01).

3.3.2. Supply Chain Scenario B (to Local Retail Markets)

Pear color (L) indicates that the lightness of the fruit did not change significantly (Table 7) during the time measurements were taken (p = 0.25). The measurements for a* denoting the red/green values indicate that the pears retained their harvest color during the two weeks in cold storage, after 10 days in retail conditions, and after 10 days at ambient conditions. However, they became significantly (p < 0.01) less green. The b* values, indicating the yellow/blue color component changed significantly (p < 0.01) and showed that the fruit became yellower during the initial two weeks in -0.5°C cold storage and continued the trend during their shelf-life period. Firmness decreased from 89.83 N to 79.53 N during cold storage and retail conditions when removed to ambient conditions; however, the firmness decreased rapidly to 37.66 N after 3 days, 20.10 N after 7 days, and 10.2 N after 10 days. The TSS (p = 0.38) values did not change significantly during the duration of the trial. The TA values also did not change significantly (p = 0.80). The respiration rate dropped during cold storage, although it was not significantly different from that at harvest. At ambient conditions, the respiration rate increased significantly (p < 0.01), peaking at 7 days. Ethylene levels remained low from harvest through storage at both cold-room and retail conditions and then increased significantly (p < 0.01) and quickly from 7 to10 days at ambient conditions.

3.3.3. Supply Chain Scenario C (to International Retail Markets)

Pear color (L*), indicating lightness, darkened slightly, yet significantly (p = 0.02), during cold storage and became lighter again with increases in temperature and relative humidity (Table 8). The measurements for a* (p < 0.01) denoting the red/green values indicate that the pears retained their harvest color during the four weeks in cold storage and during the 10 days at retail conditions, becoming significantly less green under ambient conditions. The b* values, indicating the yellow/blue color component, also changed significantly (p < 0.01), indicating that the pears became considerably yellower during the four weeks in −0.5 °C cold storage, after which they stayed the same until exposed to ambient conditions when they yellowed further. Firmness decreased from 89.83 N to 78.65 N during four weeks in cold storage and did not significantly change during the 10 days in retail conditions. However, when moved to ambient conditions, the firmness decreased rapidly to 23.93 N after 3 days, 12.06 N after 7 days, and 9.41 N after 10 days. The TSS (p = 0.12) and TA (p = 0.20) values did not change significantly during the duration of the trial. The respiration rate dropped right down to no discernible activity during the four weeks in cold storage and was significantly different from that at harvest, and then picked up slightly during storage in retail conditions, and significantly when placed in ambient conditions where the respiration rate peaked at 7 days. Ethylene levels remained low after harvest and cold storage of 28 days. While it increased during retail conditions, it was not statistically significant until moved to ambient conditions when it increased significantly (p < 0.01) and quickly during its 3 to 10 days shelf-life.

3.3.4. Supply Chain Scenario D (Simulated ‘Abusive’ Treatment of Fruit within the Export Chain)

Pear color (L*), darkened slightly, yet significantly, during cold storage (Table 9) and became lighter again with increases in temperature and relative humidity. The measurements for a* (p < 0.01) denoting the red/green values indicate that the pears retained their green harvest color during the four weeks in cold storage. No significant change occurred during the 2 days in ambient conditions or when placed in retail conditions for 10 days, but they did become significantly less green after 3, 7, and 10 days’ shelf-life in ambient conditions.

The b* values, indicating the yellow/blue color component also changed significantly (p < 0.01), meaning that the fruit became considerably yellower during the four weeks in −0.5 °C cold storage after which it did not change significantly, although the values show a trend of becoming more yellow under ambient shelf-life conditions. After four weeks in cold storage, firmness decreased by around 9.81 N, from 90.12 N to 81.49 N, and remained at that firmness during the 2 days in ambient conditions. During the 10 days in retail conditions, however, the firmness dropped with another 19.61 N to 62.47 N, and when moved to ambient conditions, the firmness decreased rapidly to below 19.12 N firmness. There were no significant differences in TSS (p = 0.45) or TA (p = 0.51) during the whole supply chain. Fruit respiration rate dropped right down to no measurable activity during the four weeks in cold storage. After 2 days at ambient conditions, the respiration rate was again similar to that at harvest, dropping once more during the 10 days under retail conditions, but not significantly different from harvest or ambient conditions. During the 3-, 7- and 10-days shelf-life measurements, the respiration rate peaked after 3 days, although it was not significantly different between 3, 7, and 10 days in ambient conditions. Ethylene levels remained low and statistically the same after harvest, cold storage of 28 days, 2 days in ambient, and 10 days in retail conditions. When moved to ambient conditions again, it increased significantly (p < 0.01) and quickly during its 3 to10 days shelf-life.

3.4. Socio-Economic Impacts of Postharvest Losses

Based on the percentage losses along the simulated supply chains, estimates were made to determine the volume of pears that could be lost at the national level (Table 10). In 2018, South Africa produced approximately 406,644 tons, of which 49,926 tons were sold locally and 212,149 tons were exported [14]. The 18% loss measured at harvest translated to an estimated 73,196 tons at the national level with a value of R 429,733,716 (USD 28,445,436) if they were sold on the local market and R 831,945,736 (USD 55,069,125) if they could have been exported. In addition, 271,044,788 MJ of energy has been lost, 67,340,320 m³ of water, and 18,299 tons of CO₂ eq has been released into the atmosphere.

3.4.1. Supply Chain Scenario A (Marketing at Ambient Temperatures and Relative Humidity)

After 3 days, 659 tons were lost. This equates to a financial loss of R 3,868 989 (USD 252,781), 2,440,277 MJ of energy, 606,280 m³ of water, and 165 tons CO₂eq. After 7 days, the losses increased to 2415 tons worth R 14,178,465 (USD 926,355), 8942,745 MJ of energy, 2,221,800 m³ of water and 604 tons CO₂eq. After 10 days, the losses increased to 6441 tons worth R 37,815,111 (USD 2,470,663), 23,851,023 MJ of energy, 5,925,720 m³ of water and 1610 tons CO₂eq.

3.4.2. Supply Chain Scenario B (to Local Retail Markets)

After 14 days in cold storage, the losses were 585 tons worth R 3,434,535 (USD 224,396), 2,166,255 MJ of energy, 538,200 m³ of water and 146 tons CO₂eq. After 10 days in retail conditions (if they were kept at 5.4 ± 0.6 °C; 83.7 ± 2.9% RH, which not all retailers do), 1098 tons were lost, worth R 6,446,358 (USD 421,175), 4,076,874 MJ of energy, 1,010,160 m³ of water, and 275 tons of CO₂eq. After 3 days under ambient conditions, 1391 tons were lost, worth R 8,166,561 (USD 533,565), 5,150,873 MJ of energy, 1,279,720 m³ of water, and 348 tons CO₂eq. After 7 days shelf-life, 2415 tons were lost, worth R 14,178,465 (USD 926,355), 8,942,745 MJ of energy, 2,221,800 m³ of water, and 604 tons of CO₂eq. After 10 days, 2855 tons were lost, worth R 16,761,705 (USD 1,095,132), 10,572,065 MJ of energy, 2,626,600 m³ of water, and 714 tons of CO₂eq.

3.4.3. Supply Chain Scenario C (to Export Retail Markets)

After 28 days in cold storage, the losses were 1098 tons, worth R 12,479,868 (USD 815,376), 4,065,894 MJ of energy, 1,010,160 m³ of water, and 275 tons CO₂eq. After 10 days in retail conditions, 1244 tons were lost, worth R 14,139,304 (USD 923,796), 4,606,532 MJ of energy, 1,144,480 m³ of water, and 311 tons of CO₂eq. After 3 days under ambient conditions, 1610 tons were lost, worth R 18,299,260 (USD 1,195,588), 5,961,830 MJ of energy, 1,481,200 m³ of water, and 403 tons CO₂eq. After 7 days shelf life, 2196 tons were lost, worth R 24,959,736 (USD 1,630,753), 8,131,788 MJ of energy, 2,020,320 m³ of water, and 549 tons of CO₂eq. After 10 days, 2,635 tons were lost, worth R 29,949,410 (USD 1,956,755), 9,757,405 MJ of energy, 2,424,200 m³ of water, and 659 tons of CO₂eq.

3.4.4. Supply Chain Scenario D (Simulated ‘Abusive’ Treatment of Fruit within the Export Chain)

After 28 days in cold storage, the losses were 732 tons, with a financial value of R 8,319,912 (USD 543,584), 2,710,596 MJ of energy, 673,440 m³ water, and 183 tons CO₂eq. After 2 days at ‘abusive’ ambient temperature and humidity before entering retail conditions, the losses were 1025 tons, worth R 11,650,150 (USD 761,166), 3,795,575 MJ, 943,000 m³ water, and 256 tons CO₂eq. After 10 Days at retail conditions, losses were 1464 tons, R 16,639,824 (USD 1,087,168), 5,421,192 MJ, 1,346,880 m³ water, and 366 tons CO₂eq. At 3 days of ambient conditions, 2123 tons of fruit were lost, worth R 24,130,018 (USD 1,576,543), 7,861,469 MJ of energy, 1,953,160 m³ water, and 531 tons of CO₂eq. After 7 days under ambient conditions, 2415 tons were lost, worth R 27,448,890 (USD 1,793,383) were lost along with 8,942,745 MJ of energy, 2,221,800 m³ of water, and 604 tons of CO₂eq. After 10 days at ambient conditions, the losses were 2708 tons, worth R 30,779,128 (USD 2,010,965), 10,027,724 MJ of energy, 2,491,360 m³ of water, and 677 tons CO₂eq.

4. Discussion

4.1. Physical Losses at Farm Level

Losses begin on the farm even before a product moves into the supply chain. The most common source of such losses is financial reasons which influence producers’ willingness to bring their product to market. Minimum quality standards for fresh produce set by governments, large harvests that reduce commodity prices, and consumer demand for blemish-free produce, for example, often result in the removal of small, misshapen, or otherwise blemished produce [33].

The measured loss at harvest of 18% was almost double the 10% reported by [34], measured in a study on food loss in primary production of the Nordic countries of Denmark, Finland, Sweden, and Norway. As well as findings by [35] who measured losses of 8% for Packham’s Triumph pears in Hungary. Similarly, losses of 5% were reported by [36]; however, that study collected no primary data for pears, and study estimates were based on ‘expert judgment’. While [37] reported that postharvest losses of pears in India were in the range of 20–30%, this was due to inadequate facilities and improper handling, packaging, and storage techniques.

4.2. Physical Losses along the Simulated Supply Chain

4.2.1. Supply Chain Scenario A (Handling and Marketing Fruit under Ambient Conditions)

These results differed and were much lower than the 8% weight loss reported by [38] for cv. ‘Babughosha’ after 8 days under ambient conditions, 8.81% weight loss after 7 days for cv. ‘Shahmive’ reported by [39] as well as the 4.69% reported by [40] for cv. ‘Punjab Beauty’.

The decay rates were also lower than 5% after 6 days and 12% after 9 days reported for cv. ‘Punjab Beauty’ by [40,41]; however, the studies reported no decay for the first 3 days and then 9% decay after 6 days for cv. ‘Lagoon’.

4.2.2. Supply Chain Scenario B (to Local Retail Markets)

Results indicate a higher percentage of weight loss than the 2% reported by [42] for cv. ‘Abate Fetel’ and was closer to the weight loss of 2.65 ± 0.64% reported for cv. ‘Red Clapp’s’ after 15 days in cold storage plus 7 days at 20 °C by [43]. Also similar to findings of [13], reporting average losses of 3.61% at the retail level for the ‘Packham’s Triumph’ in South Africa. No decay was present during the experiment, corresponding to findings reported by [40] for cv. ‘Punjab Beauty’.

4.2.3. Supply Chain Scenario C (to Export Retail Markets)

Results were similar to the 3.9% loss in weight reported by [44] for cv. ‘Packham’s Triumph’ after shipping to export markets and shelf life conditions. No decay was present during the measurements, which is similar to [15] finding no decay present up to 4 months in cold storage under regular atmosphere, followed by seven days shelf-life conditions (20 °C).

4.2.4. Supply Chain Scenario D (Simulated ‘Abusive’ Treatment of Fruit within the Export Chain)

Similar to supply chain scenario C, the weight loss percentage was similar to that reported by [44] for cv. ‘Packham’s Triumph’ after shipping to export markets and shelf-life conditions. No decay was present during the experiment.

4.3. Quality Losses along the Supply Chain

4.3.1. Supply Chain Scenario A (Marketing at Ambient Conditions)

Results for firmness over time contrasts with the findings of [38] reporting on cv. ‘Babughosha’, which after 8 days under ambient conditions, found that firmness became as low as 3.96 N. This indicates that cv. ‘Packham’s Triumph’ has a longer shelf life and that posharvest loss quantification should be done for every cultivar separately. Results show no significant TSS increase which differ from previous studies on pears by [45] for cv ‘Buerre Bose’ and ‘Doyenne du Cornice’ pears and cv. ‘Lagoon’ by [41], where a significant increase in TSS during the storage period were found. In addition, [38] reports an increase in TSS for cv. ‘Babughosha’; however, the data for the control in that study does not show a significant increase. Similarly, [46] also reported no significant increase in TSS for cvs. ‘Erica’ and ‘Dicolor’. Results for TA values differ from those reported by [46] of a significant decrease in TA, although that only occurred after 120 and 150 days in cold storage for cvs. ‘Erica’ and ‘Dicolor’, respectively. A significant decrease in acidity for cv. ‘Babughosha’ after 4 and 8 days under ambient conditions were, however, reported by [38]. Results on respiration were similar to [47], describing the respiration rate of cv ‘Bartlett’ at 22 °C as decreasing during the first 4 days after harvest and then increasing in a normal climacteric rise. Ethylene production levels took much longer to increase when compared to those reported by [48] for cv. ‘Bartlett’ after 4, 6, and 8 days after harvest stored under ambient conditions.

4.3.2. Supply Chain Scenario B (to Local Retail Markets)

The changes in color correlate with the results published by [49] for cv. ‘Packham’s Triumph’. The initial decrease in firmness during two weeks of cold storage corresponds to findings of [49] reporting on cv. ‘Packham’s Triumph’. However, after 5 days at room temperature (24 ± 1 °C) in that study, the firmness only decreased to around 60 N, from a starting firmness of 75 N, which is much firmer than reported in this study. The results for TSS values were similar to findings by [15] for cv. ‘Packham’s Triumph’: no significant differences in TSS between harvest and 4 or 8 months of storage were found, although differences were found after 2, 6, and 10 months in that study. The TA similarly correlates with results of [15] where no significant differences were found during the first season whereas differences were found in the second season, but only in one treatment of 6 months storage and 7 days shelf-life conditions. In addition, [43] reported no significant difference in TA levels for cv. ‘Red Clapp’s’ after 15 days at −0.5 °C and 7 days at 20 °C. Results for respiration rate were similar to findings for cv. ‘Conference’ published by [50] reported that the respiration rate increased after removal from storage with a decrease at the end of the shelf-life period.

4.3.3. Supply Chain Scenario C (to Export Retail Markets)

These results are similar to those reported by [49] for the same cultivar, Packham’s Triumph, grown in Brazil. With regard to firmness, results were similar to those reported by [49]: a 10 N drop in firmness during cold storage of 15 days and a rapid decline in firmness during the simulated shelf-life period. Similarly, [51] also reported a remarkable decrease in fruit firmness of ‘Packham’s Triumph’ after 5 days under ambient conditions subsequent to being stored under regular cold storage (0 °C, 90–95% RH), although it is not reported what the firmness was after cold storage but prior to the 5 days of shelf life. Findings on TSS and TA were similar to findings by [15,51], while [49] reported significant increases in TSS and a decrease in TA during cold storage. Respiration rates confirm reports of [47,52,53] stating that lower temperature drastically slows respiration rate. Ethylene production levels were similar to those reported by [50], with an increase in ethylene production after 4 days shelf life subsequent to cold storage of either 6 or 8 weeks, for cv. ‘Conference’.

4.3.4. Supply Chain Scenario D (Simulated ‘Abusive’ Treatment of Fruit within the Export Chain)

The results were similar to those described for supply chain scenario C, with the main difference being a faster increase in respiration rate and ethylene production.

4.4. Socio-Economic Impacts of Postharvest Losses

The socio-economic impacts of these losses, from harvest to shelf life, indicate a financial loss of between R 492 million to over R831 million annually for the South African pear industry.

Additionally, as much as 301 million MJ of fossil energy and 69 million m³ of fresh water resources were lost. At the Eskom tariff rate of R0.90 per kWh, the lost energy is worth R75.25 million [54]. The fresh water lost could sustain 3,7 million individuals daily for a whole year at a daily minimum usage rate of 0.05 m³ per day [55], while it will require planting 0.5 million trees to sink the 19,690 tons GHG emissions of the pear losses (0.039 metric ton per urban tree planted) [56].

5. Conclusions

The results of this research reveal that postharvest losses of pears, from harvest along the supply chain to retail level and shelf life (consumer storage), have a serious impact on food security, profitability, and the sustainable management of natural resources. Worldwide interest in the food loss and the waste problem has soared; however, losses that occur at farm level are often overlooked. In this study, the greatest loss measured along the supply chain, 18%, was at harvest. As the majority of losses were due to small size and not any deformity or mechanical damage, industry size standards could be part of the problem. With a shift in perception, smaller fruit could also be sold as fresh fruit and not downgraded for juicing. Smaller fruit is also known to be sweeter and sweeter fruit tends to be more popular. One example is a line of child-sized pears centered on flavor that could transform the way consumers view small pears.

In addition, fruit losses in quantity and quality under ambient conditions (25.1 ± 1.3 °C; 46.6 ± 6.0% RH) were much higher than under refrigeration. While the retail simulation in this study was done at 5 °C, many retailers exhibit fruit on open shelves where the temperature is much higher, essentially in ambient conditions that can reach up to 26.68 ± 0.92 °C and 59.79 ± 4.86% RH. This shortens the shelf life significantly and increases the amount of fruit lost due to decay.

Despite the huge lack of data in existing knowledge of global food loss and waste, the largest gap in knowledge presents the lack of available data on postharvest losses; data on food waste was at the retail, household level and shelf life. Therefore, the present study aimed to contribute to the advancement of new knowledge by generating primary data on the quantity and postharvest quality losses along the pear supply chain to better manage the food loss and waste problem. However, more studies are needed to gain information and insights on the handling procedures and origin of defects associated with losses for the supply chains of every product.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, U.L.O.; Formal analysis, A.B.; Funding acquisition, U.L.O.; Investigation, A.B.; Methodology, A.B., U.L.O., O.A.F.; Supervision, O.A.F. and U.L.O.; Validation, O.A.F. and U.L.O.; Visualization, A.B.; Writing—original draft, A.B.; Writing—review and editing, A.B., U.L.O., O.A.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work is based on the research supported wholly/in part by the National Research Foundation of South Africa (Grant Numbers: 64813).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors offer their heartfelt thanks to the Karsten Group.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results. The opinions, findings and conclusions or recommendations expressed are those of the author(s) alone, and the NRF accepts no liability whatsoever in this regard.

References

Tilman, D.; Fargione, J.; Wolff, B.; D’Antonio, C.; Dobson, A.; Howarth, R.; Schindler, D.; Schlesinger, W.H.; Simberloff, D.; Swackhamer, D. Forecasting agriculturally driven global environmental change. Science 2001, 292, 281–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
FAO. State of Food Insecurity in the World: Economic Crises—Impacts and Lessons Learned. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2009. Available online: www.fao.org (accessed on 12 February 2021).
Pelletier, N.; Tyedmers, P. Forecasting potential global environmental costs of livestock production 2000–2050. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 18371–18374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Schmidhuber, J.; Tubiello, F.N. Global food security under climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 19703–19708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Nelson, G.C.; Rosegrant, M.W.; Palazzo, A.; Gray, I.; Ingersoll, C.; Robertson, R.; Tokgoz, S.; Zhu, T.; Sulser, T.B.; Ringler, C.; et al. Food Security, Farming, and Climate Change to 2050: Scenarios, Results, Policy Options; International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2010; p. 140. Available online: https://www.ifpri.org/publication/food-security-farming-and-climate-change-2050 (accessed on 12 February 2021).
Godfray, H.C.J.; Beddington, J.R.; Crute, I.R.; Haddad, L.; Lawrence, D.; Muir, J.F.; Pretty, J.; Robinson, S.; Thomas, S.M.; Toulmin, C. Food Security: The Challenge of Feeding 9 Billion People. Science 2010, 327, 812–818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Foley, J.; Ramankutty, N.; Brauman, K.; Cassidy, E.S.; Gerber, J.S.; Johnston, M.; Mueller, N.D.; O’Connell, C.; Ray, D.K.; West, P.C.; et al. Solutions for a cultivated planet. Nature 2011, 478, 337–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Kummu, M.; de Moel, H.; Porkka, M.; Siebert, S.; Varis, O.; Ward, P.J. Lost food, wasted resources: Global food supply chain losses and their impacts on freshwater, cropland, and fertiliser use. Sci. Total Environ. 2012, 438, 477–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Gustavsson, J.; Cederberg, C.; Sonesson, U.; van Otterdijk, R.; Meybeck, A. Global Food Losses and Food Waste Section 3.2 (Study Conducted for the International Congress “Save Food!” at Interpack2011); FAO Rural Infrastructure and Agro-Industries Division: Düsseldorf, Germany, 2011. [Google Scholar]
Debela, A.; Dada, G.; Bane, D.; Tolessa, K. Identification of major causes of postharvest losses among selected fruits in Jimma zone for proffering veritable solutions. Int. J. Curr. Res. 2011, 3, 40–43. [Google Scholar]
Lundqvist, J.; de Fraiture, C.; Molden, D. Saving Water: From Field to Fork—Curbing Losses and Wastage in the Food Chain SIWI Policy Brief, Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI). 2008, p. 36. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10535/5088 (accessed on 11 May 2021).
Parfitt, J.; Barthel, M.; Macnaughton, S. Food waste within food supply chains: Quantification and potential for change to 2050. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. 2010, 365, 3065–3081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Matare, T.E. Postharvest Losses and Changes in Physico-Chemical Properties of Fruit (Peaches, Pears and Oranges) at Retail and During Post-Purchase Storage. Master’s Thesis, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa, 2012. [Google Scholar]
DAFF. A Profile of the South African Pear Market Value Chain. 2019. Available online: https://www.dalrrd.gov.za/doaDev/sideMenu/Marketing/Annual%20Publications/Pear%20Market%20Value%20Chain%20Profile%202019.pdf (accessed on 21 April 2020).
Kawhena, T.G.; Opara, U.L.; Botes, W.J.; Fawole, O.A. Effect of repeated low oxygen stress (RLOS) on physiological disorders, physico-chemical properties and sensory parameters of ‘Packham’s Triumph’ pears. Acta Hortic. 2018, 1201, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dodd, M.; Cronje, P.; Taylor, M.; Huysamer, M.; Kruger, F.; Lotz, E.; van der Merwe, K. A review of the post harvest handling of fruits in South Africa over the past twenty five years. S. Afr. J. Plant Soil 2010, 27, 97–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Crisosto, C.H.; Garner, D.; Crisosto, G.M.; Sibbett, S.; Day, K.R. Late harvest and delayed cooling induce internal browning of “Ya Li” and “Seuri” Chinese pears. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1994, 29, 667–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Mari, M.; Bertolini, P.; Pratella, G.C. Non-conventional methods for the control of post-harvestpear diseases. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2003, 94, 761–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Janisiewicz, W.J. Ecological diversity, niche overlap, and coexistence of antagonists used in developing mixtures for biocontrol of post-harvest diseases of apples. Phytopathology 1996, 86, 473–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Slaughter, D.C.; Thompson, J.F.; Hinsch, R.T. Packaging Bartlett pears in polyethylene film bags to reduce vibration injury in transit. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng. 1998, 41, 107–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Xiao, C.L.; Boal, R.J. Prevalence and incidence of Phacidiopycnis rot in d’Anjou pears in Washington State. Plant Dis. 2004, 88, 413–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mrema, G.C.; Rolle, R.S. Status of the postharvest sector and its contribution to agricultural development and economic growth. In Proceedings of the 9th JIRCAS International Symposium–Value Addition to Agricultural Product, Ibaraki, Japan, 16–17 October 2002; pp. 13–20. [Google Scholar]
Hailu, G.; Derbew, B. Extent, Causes and Reduction Strategies of Postharvest Losses of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables—A Review. J. Biol. Agric. Healthc. 2015, 5, 49–65. [Google Scholar]
Kitinoja, L.; Al Hassan, H.Y. Identification of appropriate postharvest technologies for small scale horticultural farmers and marketers in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia—Part 1. Postharvest losses and quality assessments. Acta Hortic. 2012, 934, 31–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Pathare, P.B.; Opara, U.L.; Al-Said, F.A.J. Colour Measurement and Analysis in Fresh and Processed Foods: A Review. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2013, 6, 36–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sugar, D.; Einhorn, T.C. Conditioning temperature and harvest maturity influence induction of ripening capacity in ‘d’Anjou’ pear fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2011, 60, 121–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Oz, A.T. Combined effects of 1-methyl cyclopropene (1-MCP) and modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) on different ripening stages of persimmon fruit during storage. Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2011, 10, 807–814. [Google Scholar]
Mditshwa, A.; Fawole, O.A.; Vries, F.; Van Der Merwe, K.; Crouch, E.; Opara, U.L. Classification of ‘Granny Smith’ apples with different levels of superficial scald severity based on targeted metabolites and discriminant analysis. J. Appl. Bot. Food Qual. 2016, 89, 49–55. [Google Scholar]
Belay, Z.A.; Caleb, O.J.; Mahajan, P.V.; Opara, U.L. Design of Active Modified Atmosphere and Humidity Packaging (MAHP) for ‘Wonderful’ Pomegranate Arils. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2018, 11, 1478–1494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Janse van Vuuren, P.F.; Pineo, C. Analysing the Carbon and Resource Intensity of the Western Cape Economy, GreenCape—Regional Resource Flow Model Project 2014/2015 Synthesis Report, Department of Economic Development and Tourism Western Cape Government. Available online: https://greencape.co.za/assets/Uploads/Executive-Summary-Report-for-the-Regional-Resource-Flow-Project-2014-15-Final.pdf (accessed on 10 February 2021).
Tabatabaie, S.M.H.; Rafiee, S.; Keyhani, A.; Heidari, M.D. Energy use pattern and sensitivity analysis of energy inputs and input costs for pear production in Iran. Renew. Energy 2013, 51, 7–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mekonnen, M.M.; Hoekstra, A.Y. The green, blue and grey water footprint of crops and derived crop products. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2011, 15, 1577–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Kantor, L.S.; Lipton, K.; Manchester, A.; Oliveira, V. Estimating and Addressing America’s Food Losses. Food Rev./Natl. Food Rev. 1997, 20, 2–12. [Google Scholar]
Franke, U.; Hartikainen, H.; Mogensen, L.; Svanes, E. Food Losses and Waste in Primary Production. Data Collection in the Nordic Countries, TemaNord, Nordic Council of Ministers. 2016. Available online: www.norden.org/nordpub. (accessed on 5 May 2020).
Nótári, M.; Ferencz, A. The Harvest and Post-Harvest of Traditional Pear Varieties in Hungary. APCBEE Procedia 2014, 8, 305–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
WRAP. Banbury, Food Waste in Primary Production in the UK, Prepared by Bojana Bajzelj, William McManus and Andrew Parry. 2019. Available online: https://archive.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/wrap/Food_waste_in_primary_production_in_the_UK_0.pdf (accessed on 23 April 2021).
Mangaraj, S.; Sadawarti, M.J.; Prasad, S. Assessment of Quality of Pears Stored in Laminated Modified Atmosphere Packages. Int. J. Food Prop. 2011, 14, 1110–1123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dave, R.K.; Ramana Rao, T.V.; Nandane, A.S. Improvement of post-harvest quality of pear fruit with optimized composite edible coating formulations. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2017, 54, 3917–3927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Akbari, E.; Gholami, M.; Ghobadi, C. Shelf-life and quality attributes in fresh-cut pear cv. Shahmive treated with different kinds of antioxidants. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 56, 3998–4008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Dhillon, W.S.; Mahajan, B.V.C.; Gill, P.P.S.; Tandon, R.; Kumar, M. Shelf-life extension of pear with coatings under ambient and super market conditions. Indian J. Hortic. 2017, 74, 429–435. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Nath, A.; Deka, B.C.; Singh, A.; Patel, R.K.; Paul, D.; Misra, L.K.; Ojha, H. Extension of shelf life of pear fruits using different packaging materials. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2012, 49, 556–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Zucoloto, M.; Antoliolli, L.R.; Siqueira, D.L.; Czermainski, A.B.C.; Salomão, L.C.C. Conditioning temperature for inducing uniform ripening of ‘Abate Fetel’ pears. Rev. Ciência Agronômica 2016, 47, 344–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Calvo, G.; Sozzi, G.O. Improvement of postharvest storage quality of ‘Red Clapp’s’ pears by treatment with 1-methylcyclopropene at low temperature. J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2004, 79, 930–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Burger, G.E. Factors Affecting Shrivelling and Friction Discolouration of Pears (Pyrus communis L.). Master’s Thesis, Department of Horticulture, Faculty of AgriSciences, Stellenbosch University, Stellenbosch, South Africa, 2004. [Google Scholar]
Elgar, H.J.; Watkins, C.B.; Murray, S.H.F.; Gunson, A. Quality of ‘Buerre Bose’ and ‘Doyenne du Cornice’ pears in relation to harvest date and storage period. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 1997, 10, 29–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Błaszczyk, J.; Łysiak, G. Storage properties of czech pear cultivars Erica and Dicolor. J. Fruit Ornam. Plant Res. 2001, 9, 71–76. [Google Scholar]
Porritt, S.W. The effect of temperature on postharvest physiology and storage life of pears. Can. J. Plant Sci. 1964, 44, 568–579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Villalobos-Acuña, M.G.; Biasi, W.V.; Floresa, S.; Jiang, C.-Z.; Reida, M.S.; Willits, N.H.; Mitchama, E.J. Effect of maturity and cold storage on ethylene biosynthesis and ripening in ‘Bartlett’ pears treated after harvest with 1-MCP. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2011, 59, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Antoniolli, L.R.; Czermainski, A.B.C. Maturity Index and Cold Storage Effects on Postharvest Quality of ‘Packham’s Triumph’ and ‘Rocha’ Pears. In Proceedings of the XXVIII International Horticultural Congress on Science and Horticulture for People (IHC2010): International Symposium on 934, Lisbon, Portugal, 22–27 August 2012; pp. 856–870. [Google Scholar]
Brandes, N.; Zude-Sasse, M. Respiratory patterns of European pear (Pyrus communis L. ‘Conference’) throughout pre- and postharvest fruit development. Heliyon 2019, 5, e01160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Moya-Léon, M.A.; Vergara, M.; Bravo, C.; Montes, M.E.; Moggia, C. 1-MCP treatment preserves aroma quality of ‘Packham’s Triumph’ pears during long-term storage. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2006, 42, 185–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Streif, J. Respiration of apple fruits under different storage conditions. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium of the European Concerted Action Program COST, Oosterbeek, The Netherlands, 19–22 October 1994; pp. 133–136. [Google Scholar]
Saquet, A.A. Storage of pears. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 246, 1009–1016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Eskom. Available online: https://www.eskom.co.za/distribution/tariffs-and-charges/ (accessed on 10 October 2019).
Peter, H.; Gleik, M. Basic Water Requirements for Human Activities: Meeting Basic Needs. Water Int. 1996, 21, 83–92. [Google Scholar]
U.S. DOE. Method for Calculating Carbon Sequestration by Trees in Urban and Suburban Settings. Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases, U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration in: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Clean Energy. 2012. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html (accessed on 29 November 2020).

Table 1. Description of the supply chain scenarios studied.

Supply Chain Scenario	Description	Environmental Condition
A	Pears were harvested and stored under ambient conditions, typical in areas that lack cold storage facilities. Measurements were taken at harvest and after 3, 7, and 10 days.	Under ambient conditions for 10 days: 25.1 ± 1.3 °C 46.6 ± 6.0% RH
B	Handling of pears for domestic supply chain. Measurements were taken at harvest, after 14 days in cold storage, after 10 days at retail conditions and then after 3, 7, and 10 days at ambient conditions.	Cold store for 2 weeks: −0.3 ± 0.7 °C and 81.3 ± 4.1% RH Retail store for 10 days: 5.4 ± 0.6 °C and 83.7 ± 2.9% RH Consumer/home (ambient) store: 25.1 ± 1.3 °C and 46.6 ± 6.0% RH
C	Shipping to export markets. Measurements were taken at harvest, after 28 days in cold storage, after a further 10 days at retail conditions and then at 3, 7, and 10 days at ambient conditions.	Cold storage for 4 weeks at −0.3 ± 0.7 °C, 81.3 ± 4.1% RH Retail store for 10 days: 5.4 ± 0.6 °C and 83.7 ± 2.9% RH Consumer/home (ambient) ‘shelf’ store: 25.1 ± 1.3 °C and 46.6 ± 6.0% RH
D	Reefer containers containing export fruit are left open on arrival for two days before fruit is unloaded. ‘Abusive’ treatment of fruit within the export chain. Measurements were taken at harvest, after 28 days in cold storage, then after 2 days exposure to ambient conditions, after a further 10 days at retail conditions and then at 3, 7, and 10 days at ambient conditions.	Cold store for 2 weeks: −0.3 ± 0.7 °C and 81.3 ± 4.1% RH; Ambient storage for 2 days: 25.1 ± 1.3 °C, 46.6 ± 6.0% RH; Retail store display for 10 days: 5.4 ± 0.6 °C and 83.7 ± 2.9% RH; Consumer/home (ambient) ‘shelf’ store: 25.1 ± 1.3 °C and 46.6 ± 6.0% RH

Table 2. Physical losses of ‘Packham’s Triumph’ table pears measured as weight loss (%) and decay (%) after 3, 7, and 10 days at ambient conditions (25.1 ± 1.3 °C and 46.6 ± 6.0% RH).

Season	2018
Time	Weight Loss (%)	Decay (%)
Harvest	-	0 ^a
3 Days	0.90 ^a	0 ^a
7 Days	1.55 ^a	3.30 ^b
10 Days	2.25 ^a	6.60 ^c
p-Value	0.42	<0.01

Note: Mean values within the same column with different letters are significantly (p < 0.05) different by Duncan’s Multiple Range test (DMRT).

Table 3. Physical losses of ‘Packham’s Triumph’ table pears measured as weight loss (%) after 14 days cold storage (−0.3 ± 0.7 °C, 81.3 ± 4.1% RH), after another 10 days at retail conditions (5.4 ± 0.6 °C, 83.7 ± 2.9% RH) and then 3, 7 and 10 days at ambient conditions (25.1 ± 1.3 °C and 46.6 ± 6.0% RH).

Season	2018
Time	Weight Loss (%)
Harvest	-
14 Days (−0.5 °C)	1.41 ^a
10 Days (5 °C)	1.87 ^a
3 Days	2,53 ^a
7 Days	3.78 ^a
10 Days	5.36 ^a
p-Value	0.97