*3.4. Participant Perspectives of Food Loss Reduction and Loss Utilization*

There are two parts to this section. In the first part participants were asked to rank five methods for loss reduction, and then comment on loss reduction strategies. The categories of methods for loss reduction were: (1) Revising visual appearance standards for fruits and vegetables at supermarket; (2) Improving storage facilities, technology, and infrastructure to better connect wholesalers to the market; (3) Engaging trained workers in wholesale to handle fresh produce; (4) Promoting more grower markets to sell produce directly to the consumers; and (5) Changing government policy to promote subsidies for wholesalers and processors. The businesses reported "Improving storage facilities, technology, and infrastructure" more important than either "Revising visual appearance standards" or "Promoting more grower markets" as an effective method for reducing weekly loss levels (Figure 5). Interestingly, "Promoting more grower markets" and "Revising visual appearance standards" produced *p*-values of 0.021, while "Improving storage facilities, technology and infrastructure" and "Promoting more grower markets" gave *p*-values of 0.004. Participants were also asked to add their own comments on loss reduction strategies to the questionnaire in an "other" box. However, very few participants (11) responded and those that did respond reported that if all stakeholders accepted and implemented quality standards there would be much lower levels of loss at the wholesale stage.

**Figure 5.** Food loss reduction categories and mean rankings produced from participant responses.

In the second part, participants were asked to rank methods for loss utilization and comment on loss utilization strategies. Loss utilization methods were assigned five categories: (1) Use for bio-energy production; (2) To make value-added compounds; (3) To make fish/animal food; (4) More donations to food bank and increasing tax deduction for food donations to charities; and (5) Increase revenue from selling compost made from crop scraps. The rank values determined from the reported date for the five loss utilization categories were 1.17 for "More donations to food bank and increasing tax deduction for food donations to charities", 2.58 for "To make fish/animal food", 2.94 for "Increase revenue from selling compost made from crop scraps", 3.00 for "To make value-added compounds", and 4.15 for "Use for bio-energy production" (Figure 6). Participants were also asked to add their own comments to the questionnaire in the "other" box stating their views on food loss utilization strategies. Participants expressed the view that "More donations to food bank and increasing tax deduction for food donations to charities" was the preferred food loss utilization strategy.

**Figure 6.** Food loss utilization categories and mean rankings from participant responses.

Another interesting item reported by participants was the relationship between loss levels and produce delivery frequency (daily/alternate days/twice a week or weekly). The reported data revealed that 95% of participants received produce daily, while the remaining 5% of participants received produce twice a week. Analysis of the data indicated that there was no association between produce delivery frequency and the amount of food loss generated.

#### **4. Discussion**

The volume of fruit and vegetable loss resulted from the relationship between the amounts of produce received, the quality of the produce, and market forces that influenced the amount of produce sold. Currently, there is very little data available about wholesale marketing of fresh fruits and vegetables in Australia. Although loss audits regularly take place in Australia, the respective audit sources are often inconsistent and present conflicting data [45]. This makes analysis difficult and, as a result, comparative studies are not performed. The present study has identified fruit and vegetable loss levels not previously reported for wholesale markets in Australia. Food loss levels can be derived from both qualitative and quantitative auditing at each stage in the wholesale marketing of fruits and vegetables. These types of losses within a food supply chain can be difficult to determine [16,38]. Generally, losses associated with quality are usually identified by a decrease in the market value of the produce [40,41]. For example, fruits or vegetables with some visual imperfections or that are misshapen, despite having similar taste and nutritional value, will not attract customers and will remain unsold. In the present study, loss was defined as the total amount of unsold produce going to loss each week. The survey contacted 55 businesses, but 20 declined, citing business confidentiality. The 35 businesses that participated in the survey were generally interested and were conservative in reporting loss levels.

Analysis of reported data revealed that 25.71% of participants received between 1 and 20 tonnes of fresh produce each week. Larger tonnages ranging from 21 to 40 tonnes were reported by 17.14% of participants, while 31.43% received between 41 and 100 tonnes and 22.86% received more than 100 tonnes of fresh produces each week. Interestingly, the survey also revealed that around half of the businesses (54.29%) receive more than 41 tonnes of produce each week, indicating larger and smaller wholesalers/processors were equally split in terms of business composition at the market, as seen in Figure 3a. Similarly, Table 1 summarized received fresh produce tonnages of and the weekly breakdown of loss levels produced by each respective participant. Moreover, only 31.4% of participants reported producing more than 180 kg of loss each week and, surprisingly, 25.71% of participants reported producing no food loss, as presented in Figure 3b. Estimation of average weekly loss revealed that primary wholesalers produced 180 kg and secondary wholesalers generated 30 kg. Based on the data, this would yield 286 tonnes of food loss each year by the 35 participants operating at the market.

Literature in the field has indicated a wide range of factors that result in loss generation, and many of these factors vary between developed countries, and between developed and developing

countries [46–48]. The present study also identified major factors contributing to food loss generation. The participants taking part in the present study were all experienced operators in the local West Australian market place and were aware of the causes behind loss generation. The questionnaire revealed that participants ranked "over supply" and "no market demand" as the main factors contributing to loss generation. Participants were also encouraged to add their own comments in the "other" section of the questionnaire and by follow-up conversations. Follow-up conversations tended to target and blame growers for not following proper growing practices and guidelines. Thus, a large proportion of produce reaching the market was not premium quality and could not be ranked as Grade 1 produce. However, from the growers' perspective, there was a need to harvest and deliver to meet prospective market demand. Thus, the need to meet potential market demand often meant immature produce may be harvested, adding to larger levels of loss. These losses resulted from immature fruit becoming moldy or decaying, leading to shorter shelf lives. For example, a number of participants commented that, if growers strictly followed grading and packaging guidelines for cherry tomatoes, loss levels could be dramatically reduced. Importantly, most participants reported that visual appearance should not be the only parameter used in grading and more importance should be given to the nutritional value of the produce.

Furthermore, although estimating loss generation by wholesalers was the aim of the study, there was a contributing factor to loss resulting from poor quality produce arriving at the market. This outcome suggests that further research is needed to fully examine the levels of immature and poor quality produce being delivered, and this contribution to food loss in the market. In terms of loss utilization, participants preferred option was "More donations to food bank and increasing tax deduction for food donations to charities" followed by "To make fish/animal food" (Figure 6). This reported preference is important for policy makers and the private sector, since it indicated that increasing tax deductions for donations to food bank was the preferred option of wholesalers. Alternative strategies that involve further processing of food loss were not well-received by wholesalers, as they did not believe "To make value-added compounds" and "Use for bio-energy production" were effective loss utilization strategies.
