Search

Currently, the Network of Food Banks in Mexico ‘Red de Bancos de Alimentos de México’ (short: BAMX) is receiving and/or collecting products from various stakeholders in the food supply chain to donate to the beneficiaries of the food bank services. BAMX has to decide whether a certain food flow can go to a BAMX location or not upon receiving and/or collecting. In many cases transport costs and capacity play an important role. This decision making is extremely difficult in the case of supply from farmers because their supply is quite unpredictable. In this report three directions for improving access to food losses were addressed: (1) improve predictability of volumes and quality per supplier (supporting a better cost-benefit analysis for deciding whether or not to collect material from the supplier), (2) identifying options for valorising more of their lost products (including assessment of feasibility and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions of their valorisation), including streams that are commonly not used for food but have a potential for food and food ingredients, and (3) improve post-harvest handling. To enhance the predictability of supply, it is recommended that BAMX invests in the quantitative analysis of available materials and their volume: • To carry out a number of measurements to quantify products suitable for donations, including residual flows, in the main broccoli supplying regions. Combined with farmer-data collected by BAMX in combination with farmer characteristics this enables BAMX to get good insight in the residual flows that can be expected. • Apply this to other vegetables and fruits categories (preferably build a database and expand your network with farmers and their characteristics). • In the measurements not only the products that are commonly considered food products should be considered, but also other residue streams that potentially may be used for food application. • To evaluate costs of collection and distribution internally (what is w

How can we accelerate the transition towards a circular bio-economy and translate dreams into practice? There is a pressing need to swiftly say goodbye to the linear society as it exists today and move towards a circular one. To underpin this transition with action, we need to use the circular bio-economy principles of Safeguard – Avoid – Prioritise – Recycle – Entropy as guidance. Applying these principles requires calls for a fundamental change, including policies, technologies, organizations, social behaviours and markets, into account when we (re)design elements of our agri-food system. This will only work if we change together and if we utilise scale to optimally value our precious resources.

Ons huidige voedselsysteem is verre van circulair. Er worden te veel broeikasgassen uitgestoten, er is een probleem met stikstof, we gebruiken nogal wat fossiele energie, de voedselverspilling is groot en we benutten de grondstoffen niet optimaal. De ‘voetafdruk’ in Europa is meerdere malen ons eigen grondoppervlak en dat kan natuurlijk veel beter. Bijvoorbeeld door meer plantaardige eiwitten te eten en minder dierlijke. Dan benutten we in ieder geval het beschikbare land rechtstreeks voor voeding voor de mens en niet voor veevoer. Ook zouden we onze reststromen beter kunnen benutten, door het niet langer als afval te zien, maar als waardevolle grondstof voor biobased materialen en chemicaliën. En het is belangrijk minder plastic en minder textiel te gebruiken en meer biobased te gaan produceren. Dit alles vergt wel aanpassing van onze manier van eten produceren en consumeren én van de huidige regelgeving. Jan Broeze en zijn team onderzoekers bij Wageningen University & Research onderzochten manieren om in ieder geval op de schaal van Europa te laten zien hoe een circulair voedselsysteem ook leverancier kan worden van biogrondstoffen voor materialen en chemicaliën. Niet als einddoel, want het denken hierover eindigt eigenlijk nooit. Maar wel als middel om te kijken hoe het beter kan. En hoe we de vruchtbare grond niet alleen benutten voor voedselproductie, maar eventueel ook voor de teelt van bio-grondstoffen voor bouwmaterialen, chemicaliën en brandstoffen. Wetenschappers willen hierbij graag de maatschappij inspireren en berekenen wat de effecten zijn van onze keuzes.

Dit rapport kwantificeert mogelijkheden om de afhankelijkheid van soja-producten import voor veevoer (momenteel ongeveer 1800 kton/j sojaproducten per jaar, met daarin ongeveer 720kton eiwit) te verlagen, op basis van binnenlandse productie, met behoud van het huidige volume voedseleiwit productie. Veel ‘nieuwe bronnen’ worden als veelbelovend beschouwd voor verbetering van eiwitproductie. Met ‘verbeteren’ worden echter verschillende vormen bedoeld, zoals verhoging van voedingswaarde voor mens of dier, verbeteren van inzetbaarheid voor voeding of veevoer, ontwikkeling van een aantrekkelijk ‘niche’ product of verhoging van het bulk productiepotentieel. Voor de meeste opties is niet evident hoe groot de daadwerkelijke volume-potentie is, op welke termijn de ontwikkelingen opgeschaald kunnen zijn en welke technische ontwikkelstap en investeringen nog nodig zijn. Dit rapport geeft inzicht in die kwesties waardoor een realistisch perspectief op de mogelijkheden voor bulk productie ontstaat. In deze studie is naast de effecten van inzet van ‘nieuwe bronnen’ voor veevoer ook gekeken naar effecten op eiwitbehoefte als de (voornamelijk plantaardige) nieuwe eiwitbronnen direct worden ingezet voor voeding. Daarvoor hebben we gebruik gemaakt voor een omrekening van voedereiwitten naar voedseleiwitten: we schatten dat 1kg plantaardig voedseleiwit 5 kg veevoeder eiwit verdringt. De resultaten beschrijven primair de volume-potentie om afhankelijkheid van eiwitimport te beperken met instandhouding van totale productie voedingseiwit in Nederland. Hier en daar worden ook duurzaamheidseffecten genoemd en mogelijkheden en belemmeringen van 'nieuwe' eiwitbronnen en circulaire benutting van reststromen, maar die opsomming is niet compleet. De auteurs zijn zich ook bewust dat verschillende opties ook maatschappelijke aanpassingen vragen, maar ook die kwesties vallen buiten de scope van deze kwantitatieve studie. De potenties zijn kwantitatief ingeschat op basis van typische rendement-scha

In this paper, we present a controlled experiment to assess the impact of a switch to mechanized harvesting and mechanized threshing on smallholder rice farms in Nigeria. We measure how food losses and efficiency compare to manual harvesting and threshing practices, and evaluate the business case of mechanization for smallholder farmers, as well as the effect on total Greenhouse Gas emissions. Furthermore, we discuss observations on the socioeconomic impact of mechanization of farm operations, in particular on the role of women and youth. The experimental results show that mechanized harvesting and threshing not only significantly reduce losses and increase yields per hectare but also have a positive socio-economic impact. Mechanized harvesting and threshing are labor-saving, which lead in the case study to positive impacts, such as freeing up time of women during the busy harvest period for other activities and providing new opportunities for rural youth. A comparison of the costs farmers incur for on one hand manual harvesting and threshing and on the other hand mechanized harvesting and threshing show that mechanization of these activities constitutes a positive business case for farmers: a relatively small cost increase is offset by large by considerable yield (and therefore revenue) increases. Furthermore, when factoring in the fuel use of harvesting and threshing machinery, increased greenhouse gas emissions from mechanized practices are negligible compared to the food loss and waste induced greenhouse gas emissions that are avoided by reducing losses with the more efficient mechanized equipment.

Contains fulltext : 232024.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

This study reports the findings of a literature review on food loss measurements in on-farm activities in the supply chains of nine major cash crops (rice, sesame, quinoa, coffee, chillies, black pepper, cashew, hazelnut and cocoa). Food loss assessments are essential to identify food loss hotspots and implement appropriate interventions to reduce loss. A literature review was conducted of studies focusing on these nine crops that report loss figures for specific activities. These figures were combined to compile comprehensive loss profiles for each crop and identify loss hotspots. For most crops, however, this has not been possible due to limited information availability. For those crops for which a more or less complete loss profile could be compiled, loss figures reported by the different studies diverged considerably, leading to wide ranges of possible total losses and no clear identification of loss hotspots. Moreover, discussion of the studies’ used definitions, methodology, and research context show that overall reliability and comparability are limited. At present, the available primary data on specific product supply chains are too scattered to warrant actionable recommendations for improvements. The conclusions should serve as an impetus to address this data deficit, and solidify the evidence base to inform investment in interventions to reduce food loss in postharvest chains, specifically from harvest to farmgate. This not only pertains to the quality of data itself, but also entails harmonization of definitions and methodologies. Also for external funders, it is important to know where interventions can have the most impact, and for that purpose, the magnitude and hotspots of on-farm losses should be brought into focus more precisely and coherently, for a wide range of crops. For research in this domain, this requires alignment on definitions, methodologies, and reporting, as well as broad sharing of findings.

Reducing food loss and waste (FLW) is prioritized in UN sustainable development goals (SDG) target 12.3 to contribute to “ensure sustainable consumption and production patterns”. It is expected to significantly improve global food security and mitigate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Identifying “hotspots” from different perspectives of sustainability helps to prioritize the food items for which interventions can lead to the largest reduction of FLW-related impacts. Existing studies in this field have limitations, such as having incomplete geographical and food commodity coverage, using outdated data, and focusing on the mass of FLW instead of its nutrient values. To provide renewed and more informative insights, we conducted a global hotspot analysis concerning FLW with its associated GHG emissions and protein losses using the most recent data (the new FAO Food Balance Sheets updated in 2020). The findings of this research are that there were 1.9 Gt of FLW, 2.5 Gt of associated GHG emissions, and 0.1 Gt of associated protein losses globally in 2017. The results of the FLW amounts, GHG emissions, and protein losses per chain link are given on the scale of the entire world and continental regions. Next to this, food items with relatively high FLW, GHG emissions, and protein losses are highlighted to provide the implications to policymakers for better decision making. For example, fruits and vegetables contribute the most to global FLW volumes, but the product with the highest FLW-associated GHG emissions is bovine meat. For bovine meat, FLW-associated GHG emissions are highest at the consumer stage of North America and Oceania. Oil crops are the major source of protein losses in the global food chain. Another important finding with policy implications is that priorities for FLW reduction vary, dependent on prioritized sustainability criteria (e.g., GHG emissions versus protein losses). View Full-Text