*3.1. Quantification and Destination of Horticultural Postharvest Loss*

#### 3.1.1. Quantification of Loss

Supply chain one involved a total 137.41 t of harvestable product. Between the point-of-harvest and the retail point-of-sale, 55.34 t or 40.3% of harvestable product was removed from the commercial supply chain (Table 3). A total of 28.7% (39.4 t) of harvestable product was discarded in-field. Packing shed losses were 10.8% (10.56 t), based on the total volume of product entering the shed of 98.01 t (Table 3). Following grading, sorting and packing, a consignment of 4128 cartons was transported 392 km from the farm to the Rocklea Market, Brisbane. On arrival at the market, 7 h 20 min after leaving the farm, the consignment was moved into refrigerated storage, with no observed postharvest losses on arrival (Table 3). At 28 h, product was moved to the market floor where it was held at an ambient temperature for 3 h before being transported to the Morningside retail outlet, 14.2 km from the Rocklea Market. At 5 days of retail storage and display, 5.4% (5.38 t) of the product was deemed unsaleable by the retailer, with 100% of the loss going to landfill (Table 4).

Supply chain two involved a total 52.96 t of harvestable product. Between the point-of-production and the retail point-of-sale, 29.61 t or 55.9% of harvestable product was removed from the commercial supply chain (Table 3). A total of 47% (24.9 t) of harvestable product was discarded in-field. Packing shed losses were 14.1% (3.96 t), based on the total volume of product entering the shed of 28.05 t (Table 3). When averaged with two consecutive days', mean packing shed losses were 14.6%, based on the total volume of product entering the shed. A consignment of 300 cartons was transported 19.1 km from farm to a local wholesale/retail market in Bundaberg. On arrival at the market, 1.5 h after leaving the farm, the consignment was moved into refrigerated storage, with no observed postharvest losses on arrival (Table 3). At 17 h product was moved to a refrigerated display where it remained until it was sold, 12 h later. At 2.5 days of retail storage and display, the retailer deemed 2.4% (0.74 t) of the product unsaleable, with 100% of the loss going to landfill (Table 4).

Despite a lower total at-harvest yield, SC2 had proportionally higher postharvest losses in the field and packing shed when compared to SC1 (Table 3). The reason for this variability is thought to be due to differences in out-grading. Supply chain two did not include a third-grade product and harvesting cycles were more frequent, every one to two days, with less fruit on the vine. Supply chain one involved picking and packing all sizes and colours, with less frequent harvesting cycles, every third day, with more fruit on the vine. Differences in transport distance between SC1 (392 km) and SC2 (19 km) had no tangible impact, with no determined wholesale loss in either chain.


**Table 3.** Percent of actual and cumulative losses by location within the supply chain where postharvest loss was determined, and calculation of the percentageharvested product made available to the consumer.

 of

the total potential harvest (i.e., to include

point-of-harvest

 field loss). c Percent loss at each point along the supply chain relative to overall loss.


<sup>a</sup> Product (tomato) not harvested and left in the field or tilled back into the soil; <sup>b</sup> Product that was used as organic material on or below the surface of the land to enhance soil quality; <sup>c</sup> Product removed from the farm to an area of land or an excavated site specifically designed and built to receive wastes; <sup>d</sup> Diverting material from the food supply chain (directly or after processing) to animals.

#### 3.1.2. Destination of Losses

In SC1, of the total loss, 71.2% (39.4 t) of harvestable product was left in the field and not harvested, 17.2% (9.5 t) was disposed of via land application, 9.7% (5.39 t) became landfill, and 1.9% (1.05 t) was used as animal feed on an adjacent property (Table 4). For SC2, 84.1% (24.9 t) of harvestable product was left in the field, 12% (3.56 t) was disposed of via land application, 2.5% (0.75 t) became landfill, and 1.3% (0.4 t) was used as animal feed (Table 4). Based on the cumulative destination of loss for SC1 and SC2, the volume of product available for consumption was 59.7% and 44.1% respectively (Table 3).

#### *3.2. Drivers of Loss*
