**3. Results**

#### *3.1. Harvesting Tools*

Results indicate a PHL reduction at the point of sale from SHF using harvesting tools over traditional harvesting practices. However, this reduction was not statistically significant (*p* < 0.05) (Figure 3). Additionally, no PHL reduction was detected during harvest and transportation from SHF using harvesting tools over traditional harvesting practices (Figure 3). Furthermore, a moderate PHL increase (*p* < 0.05, Epsilon-squared = 0.096) during transportation was detected due to SHF combining traditional harvesting practices with harvesting tools (Figure 3).

**Figure 3.** Comparing harvesting tools to traditional methods of harvest. Values with different letters are significantly different at *p* < 0.05 from the Kruskal–Wallis analysis, Dunn test, and Benjamini–Hochberg adjustment. Eˆ2 = Epsilonsquared value for effect size. YWI refers to the technology that the Yieldwise Initiative promoted. (*n*) refers to the number of farmers who reported using a given practice or technology. 'Other' refers to practices that combined both YWI promoted technologies and traditional practices.

#### *3.2. Cold Stores*

Results indicate a PHL reduction at the point of sale from SHF using cold stores over traditional storage practices. However, this reduction was not statistically significant (*p* < 0.05). Additionally, no PHL reduction was detected during transportation and at the point of sales owing to SHF using cold stores over alternative traditional storage practices (Figure 4). Moreover, a weak PHL increase (*p* < 0.05, Epsilon-squared = 0.01) during harvest was detected due to SHF using cold stores (Figure 4).

#### *3.3. Plastic Crates*

Plastic crates were statistically significant (*p* < 0.05) in reducing PHL incurred at the point of sale (Figure 5), although the effect size of the reduction was weak (Epsilonsquared = 0.017). Additionally, PHL reductions were detected during harvest and transportation due to SHF using plastic crates over traditional packaging practices. However, these reductions were not statistically significant (*p* < 0.05) (Figure 5).

**Figure 4.** Comparing cold stores to alternative storage types after harvest. Values with different letters are significantly different at *p* < 0.05 from the Kruskal–Wallis analysis, Dunn test, and Benjamini–Hochberg adjustment. Eˆ2 = Epsilonsquared value for effect size. YWI refers to the technology that the Yieldwise Initiative promoted. (*n*) refers to the number of farmers who reported using a given practice or technology. 'Other' refers to practices that combined both YWI promoted technologies and traditional practices.

**Figure 5.** Comparing plastic crates to traditional practices. Values with different letters are significantly different at *p* < 0.05 from the Kruskal–Wallis analysis, Dunn test, and Benjamini–Hochberg adjustment. Eˆ2 = Epsilon-squared value for effect size. YWI refers to the technology that the Yieldwise Initiative promoted. (*n*) refers to the number of farmers who reported using a given practice or technology. 'Other' refers to practices that combined both YWI promoted technologies and traditional practices.
