Wageningen
Food & Biobased
Research
Post-harvest food waste reduction measures
Net effects on GHG emissions
10 September 2018 Jan Broeze, Nina Waldhauer, Martijntje Vollebregt
International Conference on Agricultural GHG Emissions and Food Security

Wageningen
Food & Biobased
Research
Purpose: measures in post-harvest
chain that reduce GHG impact per unit
food product available for consumption
2
Focus / approach:
1. Identify loss-reducing measures
2. Estimate or measure direct effects:
• extra energy costs
• packaging material
• transport
• etc.
3. Estimate or measure indirect
effects:
◦ available food %
◦ emissions waste management
4. Calculate impacts of crop and
postharvest operations
5. Compare scenarios
Food security
GHG impacts

Wageningen
Food & Biobased
Research
3
MODELLING CO2 IMPACTS OF FOOD PRODUCTION AND SUPPLY CHAIN CONFIDENTIAL
Jan Broeze, version 23 August 2018
Mozambique: domestic sourcing of cassava flour Several impact estimates are based on GER data and data from EcoInvent database
Geographical region (production) Sub-Saharan Africa
Geographical region (consumption) Sub-Saharan Africa
Crop Cassava
GLOBAL RESULT TOTAL ENERGY USE AND GHG IMPACT PER KG PRODUCED CROP: 2.26 0.157 CO2 IMPACT cum. CO2
CHAIN PRODUCT EFFICIENCY (KG SOLD/KG CROP) 0.90 TOTALS PER KG SOLD IN RETAIL: 2.51 0.174per chain stage kg per kg
Energy use (MJ) CO2-equiv. per kg end product
(primary equivalent) emissions (kg)
Agricultural production Initial unit 1000.00 kg crop
0.04 0.04
Postharvest handling and storage product in 1000.00 kg
Collection transport
Primary processing and packaging product in 1000.00 kg 0.031 0.07
0.065 0.14
(Possibly multi-modal) transport product in 900.00 kg
0.039 0.17
Distribution/processing/repackaging centerproduct in 900.00 kg
0.000 0.17
Distribution transport product in 900.00 kg
0.000 0.17
Retail product in 900.00 kg
product sold 900.000 0.000 0.17
confirmregions
ResetReset
Reset
Reset
Reset
Reset
GLOBAL RESULT TOTAL ENERGY USE AND GHG IMPACT PER KG PRODUCED CROP: 2.26 0.157
CHAIN PRODUCT EFFICIENCY (KG SOLD/KG CROP) 0.90 TOTALS PER KG SOLD IN RETAIL: 2.51 0.174
Energy use (MJ) CO2-equiv.
(primary equivalent) emissions (kg)
Agricultural production Initial unit 1000.00 kg crop
CO2 impact 0.04 kg CO2eq per kg harvested crop 40.000
Energy use 0 MJ per kg crop (primary energy equivalent) 0.00
Losses 0%
Losses waste management (left out of the analysis) 0.000
Postharvest handling and storage product in 1000.00 kg
Average number of hours at ambient conditions 0 hours
Ambient temperature 20 C
Average number of days in refrig. storage 0 days 0.00 0.000
Other energy use 0 MJ per kg product (primary energy eq.) 0.00 0.000
Losses 0%
Losses waste management (left out of the analysis) 0.000
Collection transport
Transport distance 140 km
Transport modality Truck, medium 499.66 30.783
Refrigeration in transport? 0 0.00 0.000
Primary processing and packaging product in 1000.00 kg
Losses 10%
Losses waste management (left out of the analysis) 0.000
Packaging steel 0 kg steel packaging per kg product 0.00 0.000
Packaging aluminium 0 kg aluminium per kg product 0.00 0.000
Packaging paper and board 0 kg paper and board per kg product 0.00 0.000
Packaging plastics 0.009 kg plastics per kg product 648.00 24.300
Reset
Reset
Reset
Reset

Wageningen
Food & Biobased
Research
Approach: identify + analyse post-harvest
measures
4
1. Identify loss-reducing measures
2. Estimate or measure direct effects:
• extra energy costs
• packaging material
• transport
• etc.
3. Estimate or measure indirect effects:
◦ available food %
◦ emissions waste management
4. Calculate impacts of crop and postharvest operations
5. Compare scenarios

Wageningen
Food & Biobased
Research
Case: tomato crates vs. baskets
Comparison:
Traditional baskets:
● made from by-product (cane)
● stacking baskets → tomato
damage
Crates:
● made from plastics
● stackable, reduced tomato
damage
5
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Baskets Crates
Destination of crop
Market supply
Losses in transport
Postharvest handling
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
Baskets Crates
CO2impact(kgCO2perkgintactptoductatmarket)
Comparison GHG impact for tomato
supplied in crates vs. baskets
Impact of losses in transport
Transport fuels
Crates/baskets
Agricultural production

Wageningen
Food & Biobased
Research
Production & small-scale processing in Mozambique:
● Cassava cake:
o 0.168 kg CO2 per kg cassava crop equivalent,
o that is 0.685 kg CO2-eq. per kg starch
● Cassava flour:
o 0.157 kg CO2 per kg cassava crop equivalent
o that is 0.730 kg CO2-eq. per kg starch
Scenario imported maize flour from Australia:
o 0.712 per kg wheat flower equivalent
o that is 1.02 kg CO2-eq. per kg starch
Case: Cassava starch vs. imported
maize flour (Mozambique)
6

Wageningen
Food & Biobased
Research
Case: lower refrigeration
temperature in fresh supply chain
7
Improvement opportunity:
Lower temperature 7 → 5°C
Direct effects:
● Higher refrigeration energy use
Indirect effects:
● extended shelf life
● extended average storage energy
use
● reduction of losses
Supported by the Dutch
ministry of Agriculture,
Nature and Food
Quality
Generic effects:
• Refrigeration energy use per unit supplied ↑
• Percentage losses ↓
Cumulative GHG emissions per unit sold in
retail:
• For meat ↓
• For cut vegetable ↑

Wageningen
Food & Biobased
Research
Case: valorisation of reject ripened
mango and avocado as frozen slices
8
Selection after ripening (‘ready to eat’)
Reference situation:
reject products are fermented for biogas
frozen products are imported from
production countries
Improvement opportunity
reject products are peeled
good part is cut in slices + frozen
traded as frozen product
GHG impacting operations taken into
consideration:
• agricultural production
• mango 0.3 kg CO2-eq/kg
• avocado 1.3 kg CO2-eq/kg
• truck, ship, truck transport
• large / small-scale freezing
• organic waste management processes
Net GHG effect of improvement opportunity:
• For mango −
• For avocado +

Wageningen
Food & Biobased
Research
Thank you!
jan.broeze@wur.nl
9
Summarizing
Loss-reducing measures can
contribute to GHG emission
reductions per unit food supplied
... but not all loss-reducing
measures are beneficial from
climate impact perspective