fao study on postharvest losses of cassava, mango and tomato in trinidad and tobago, guyana and st....
DESCRIPTION
Estudio de pérdidas en poscosecha de mango, tomate y yuca en Trinidad y Tobago, Guyana y Santa Lucía. Presentación realizada por Majeed Mohammed y Kelvin Craig (University of the West Indies), en el marco de la Consulta Regional a Expertos en Pérdidas y Desperdicios de Alimentos en América Latina y el Caribe, realizada los días 8, 9 y 10 de octubre de 2014 en Santiago de Chile.TRANSCRIPT
FAO study on Postharvest losses of
cassava, mango and tomato in Trinidad
and Tobago, Guyana and St. Lucia
Majeed Mohammed and Kelvin Craig
OUTLINE
• Introduction: Cassava , Mango and Tomato value chains and storage potential
• Methodology (FAO 4-S Approach, Diei-Quadi and Mgawe, 2012)
• Results: causes of qualitative and quantitative losses
• Postharvest loss management strategies
Perishable nature • Variations in maturity, shape and size.
• Harvesting methods and field handling practices.
• Prone to physical damages and wounding stress.
• Susceptibility to physiological disorders.
• Implications of pathological and entomological damages on quality attributes.
• Opportunities to develop value-added products to alleviate postharvest losses.
Objectives
• To systematically assess and characterize the cassava, mango and tomato value chains in Trinidad and Tobago, Guyana and St. Lucia using field based measurements at the farm, wholesale and retail markets.
• To identify where quality changes and postharvest losses occur and to measure and categorise the level of deterioration and their causes at various critical loss points (CLP), and more importantly, to determine where realistic solutions exist for reducing these losses in the value chain.
Methodology
FAO 4-S Approach, Diei-Quadi and Mgawe, 2012 Screening: inventory postharvest losses, identify CLPs, data collection tools. Survey: interviews with key stakeholders in FSC, in dept analysis of FSC. Sampling: Load Tracking and Sampling Assessment, tracking and tracing activities within postharvest system components. Synthesis: monitoring mechanism for food losses; an investment programme to reduce food losses; and a food Loss Reduction Strategy.
Waxing
Cured roots
Cured roots Uncured roots
CASSAVA PRODUCER
↓
Harvest
Cassava
7 – 18 months
↓
Field selection
↓
Packing in bag,
crates
↓
Load on
transport
vehicle
Transport
Soak overnight
in 700ppm
chlorinated water
↓
Power wash
to remove dirt
↓
Rinse in 700ppm
Chlorinated
water
↓
Cut into logs
↓
Seal package
↓
Freeze at -18°C
RETAILER
↓
Wash
↓
Storage
↓
Grade
↓
Moist
Medium
RETAIL
MARKET
WHOLESALE
MARKET
WHOLESALER
RETAIL MARKET
PROCESSOR Logs, flakes, cubes,
farine, flour, puree,
starch, gari, chips,
cassareep, pone mix
CONSUMER
NA
TIO
NA
L P
AC
KIN
GH
OU
SE
CLP#1
CLP#2
CLP#3
Table 1. Postharvest losses of cassava at farmer/retailer in Trinidad and Tobago --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-- Critical Loss Postharvest losses (%) Farmer/Retailer Points (CLP) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Physical Physiological Pathological Losses Quality --------------------- and (%) score VS-1 VS-11 Entomological ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Field Harvest 1.5 0.0 0.0 2.0 3.5 8.0 CLP#1 Packhouse 1.0 0.0 1.0 1.5 3.5 6.0 CLP#2 Retail Marketing CLP#3: Day 2 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 2.0 6.0 Day 4 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 5.0 5.0 Day 6 1.0 1.5 2.5 1.0 6.0 4.5 Losses 5.0 3.5 4.5 7.0 20.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Farmer who retails at municipal, roadside or mobile markets Data taken from 2-3 bags (84-96 lbs) x 10 times Ambient conditions: 28-32C and 65-75% RH. VS: Vascular Streaking. Quality score: 1-9 with 1=poor, 9=excellent.
Table 2. Postharvest losses at farmer/retailer in Guyana --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Critical Loss Postharvest losses (%) Farmer/Retailer Points (CLP) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Physical Physiological Pathological Losses Quality --------------------- and (%) score VS-1 VS-11 Entomological ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Field Harvest 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 6.5 8.0 CLP#1 Packhouse 1.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 8.0 CLP#2 Retail Marketing CLP#3: Day 2 1.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 3.0 6.0 Day 4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 4.0 5.5 Day 6 1.5 1.5 2.5 2.0 7.5 4.5 Total Losses (%) 8.0 3.5 3.5 8.0 23.0 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Farmer who retails at municipal, roadside or mobile markets Data taken from 2-3 bags (84-96 lbs) x 10 times. Quality score: 1-9 with 1=poor, 9=excellent Ambient conditions: 28-32C and 65-75% RH. VS: Vascular Streaking
Cassava brown streak
Root rot disease emergence is often favoured by waterlogged, poorly-draining soils
Botryodiplodia theobromae
Rotting tubers cut open to reveal discoloration
Discoloration on tuber surface caused by root rot
Scales on cassava stem
Scales on cassava tubers
Postharvest losses and wastes reduction strategies
MAP
CHILLING INJURY NO CHILLING INJURY
Postharvest losses and waste reduction strategies for cassava
Type of
Postharvest loss
@ Packhouse CLP2#2
Processor (Frozen cassava logs)
Sandy soil
Clay soil
Soaking /Washing/
Sanitizer (peel, dirt)
9.0d 16.5g
Fresh-cut into logs
(broken pieces,
distal and proximal ends)
13.5f 12.0e
Physiological:VS-1
VS-11
3.5b
8.0d
1.0a
2.0ab
Pathological and
Entomological
5.5c 6.0c
Total Losses (%) 34.0h 37.5i
SOAKED OVERNIGHT POWER WASHED
PEELED LOGS FROZEN LOGS
INSECT DAMAGE
Ungraded desiccated roots
Grading scheme
Tracing production of cassava farine production in St. Lucia and Guyana
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Processing flow Quality control and uses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Harvested roots Select fresh, mature cassava roots without rots (60kg)
Washing Remove dirt and damaged roots (3.5%)
Peeling Peel skin and remove woody tips (3.2%)
Rinsing Wash in clean water to remove pieces of peel
and sand
Grating To macerate or crush pulp
Pressing (< 50 % Moisture) Macerated pulp squeezed to remove cassava juice water
which is boiled to produce cassarep :flavour enhancer,
preservative and colourant (5 litres)
Sifting Sieved to separate fibrous materials to
control particle size
Parching Parched in heated flat pan until light brown
colour develops (5.3%)
Farine A second sieving is optional to remove coarse
materials (Guyana 20 kg, St. Lucia 25 kg)
Packaging Farine is packaged in sealed aluminium pouches
or in low density polyethylene bags
Consumer Used to make porridge, breads, and thickening agent
Postharvest losses of tomatoes
CLP#1 CLP#2 CLP#3 Total losses
Trinidad &Tobago 7 8 12 27
Guyana 11 10,5 12,5 34
St. Lucia 7 8 5 20
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40P
ost
harv
est
loss
es %
TT and Guyana
CLP#1: Harvest; CLP#2:
Packhouse; CLP#3: Retail
Market
St. Lucia
CLP#1: W/Sale Co-op.;
CLP#2:
Mkg. Board Retail Outlet;
CLP#3: Retail Market
Causes for tomato postharvest losses --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Types of Tomato postharvest losses (%) Losses -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trinidad &Tobago Guyana St. Lucia
------------------------------- -------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
CLP#1 CLP#2 CLP#3 CLP#1 CLP#2 CLP#3 CLP#1 CLP#2 CLP#3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physical 1.5 1.0 2.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 2.0 3.0 3.0
Physiological 2.5 2.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 0.5
Pathological &
Entomological 3.0 5.0 5.5 4.5 5.5 7.0 3.0 3.5 1.5
Total 7.0 8.0 12.0 11.0 10.5 12.5 7.0 8.0 5.0
Total losses (%) 27.0 34.0 20.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------
TT and Guyana: CLP#1: Harvest; CLP#2: Packhouse; CLP#3: Retail Market
St. Lucia: CLP#1: W/Sale Co-op.; CLP#2:Mktg. Board Retail Outlet; CLP#3: Retail Market
PHL at CLP#1 Harvest
Transportation linkages and logistics
Physical damages at CLP#1
Secondary infection from finger nail damage
Secondary infection from compression
Secondary infection from abrasions and bruises
PHL at Packhouse CLP#2
Catface
Puffiness, poor seed set due to poor pollination Desiccation and CI pitting
Desiccation
Blotchy ripening
Russeting
Cuticle cracking around stem
Chilling injury
Pathological losses at CLP#2 and CLP#3
Entomological losses at CLP#2 and CLP#3
Stink bug damage Silverleaf white fly
Wilt virus-vectored by thrips Spider mite damage
White fly infection
Tomato fruit worm Cloudy spot from stink bug damage Black mold via skin wound
Yellow shoulder
Postharvest losses and waste reduction strategies
Packinghouse facilities
Value added products
Value added products
Table 5.2.2. Sensory evaluation of tomato value-added product roasted
tomato choka.
Variables Sensory evaluation
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colour Appearance Texture Taste Flavour General
Acceptability
UWI
Students 2.0 2.5 2.5 3.5 3.5 3.0
(n= 44)
General 3.0 2.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.5
Public
(n= 36)
Supermarket
Consumers
(n= 39) 30 3.0 2.5 3.5 3.5 3.5
Postharvest losses of mango ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Critical Loss Mango postharvest losses (%)
Points (CLP) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trinidad &Tobago Guyana St. Lucia
cv. Julie cv. Buxton spice cv. Julie
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLP#1 5.0 15.0 8.0
CLP#2 13.0
CLP#3 2.0
CLP#4 12.0 17.0
Total losses (%) 17.0 32.0 23.0
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TT and Guyana
CLP#1: Harvest; CLP#4: Packhouse;
St. Lucia
CLP#1: W/Sale Co-op.; CLP#2:Mktg. Board Retail Outlet; CLP#3: Retail Market
Causes for mango postharvest losses --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Types of Mango postharvest losses (%) Losses -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trinidad &Tobago Guyana St. Lucia
------------------------------- -------------------------------- ---------------------------------------
CLP#1 CLP#4 CLP#1 CLP#4 CLP#1 CLP#2 CLP#3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physical 3.0 2.5 6.0 4.0 3.0 4.5 0.5
Physiological 0.0 2.0 2.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 1.0
Pathological &
Entomological 2.0 7.5 7.0 9.0 2.0 4.5 0.5
Total 5.0 12.0 15.0 17.0 8.0 13.0 2.0
Total losses (%) 17.0 32.0 23.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------
TT and Guyana: CLP#1: Harvest; CLP#4: Packhouse
St. Lucia: CLP#1: W/Sale Co-op.; CLP#2:Mktg. Board Retail Outlet; CLP#3: Retail Market
Postharvest losses of mango value added products
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Types of PHL Trinidad and Tobago Guyana
cv Long cv Buxton spice
--------------------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------
CLP#2 (kuchelar) CLP#3 (Frozen slices) CLP#2 (kuchelar) CLP#3 (Frozen slices)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Physical
Damage 10.0 8.5 10.5 9.5
Physiological
Disorders 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.5
Pathological and
Entomological 12.0 12.0 6.0 9.0
Skin and seed 23.0 15.0 20.0 9.5
Total losses (%) 47.0 38.5 39.5 30.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----
Kuchelar: skin and seed with endosperm not utilized
Frozen slices: skin and seed endosperm not utilized
Physical losses at CLP#1
Transportation logistics
Physiological losses at CLP2 & 3
Pathological losses at CLP#2 & 3
Entomological losses at CLP#2 & 3
Strategies to reduce postharvest losses and waste
Latex stain management (Brecht 2013)
Mango value-added products