Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research 21 (11): 1994-2003, 2014ISS - PDF document

Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research 21 (11): 1994-2003, 2014ISSN 1990-9233© IDOSI Publications, 2014DOI: 10.5829/idosi.mejsr.2014.21.11.21763Corresponding Author:Arivazhagan Ramanathan, School of Management, SRM University, Kattankulathur-603203, Kanchipuram Dist, Tamilnadu, India. Cell: +91-99529 66727, E-mail: arivazhagan.r@ktr.srmuniv.ac.in.1994Fruit Wastages from Farm Gate to Retail Outlets in Tamilnadu, India-With Specific Focus on Fruit Processing UnitsArivazhagan Ramanathan and Ravilochanan Parthasarathy Fruit processing Food wastage Supply chain Transportation wastageINTRODUCTIONof wastage in each stage varied based on typeof Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 21 (11): 1994-2003, 20141995to retail end, in order to determine value loss and minimizeDharmapuri districts were selected as these locationsthe same. By minimizing the value loss, the farmers wouldaccount for 90% of the fruit processing units in Tamilnadube able to sell more quantity and get increased sales[7-9]. Similarly, Chennai Koyambedu fruit market is one ofrevenue.the biggest fruits market in Asia in terms of trading andResearch frame work: This study is formulated with fivenumberof farmers and cold storage units [7]. Hence thisdifferentstages from farm gate to retailer end comprisingstudy is confined to Krishnagiri and Dharmapuri districts,farmgate, cold storage, processing, traders (Wholesale)Chennai and it’s sub-urban locations like Tambaram andandretail stage. All these stages involve transportationPoonamallee. Both organized and un-organized retailand middle men who are traders. These stages areoutlets and their distribution systems were considered incustomized based on type of business and peoplethis study. More than 80% of fruit processing units areinvolvingin them. These customized stages are shown inprocessing mango as main fruit during season (May tofigure 1 in which entire fruit supply chain is shown in twoJuly)and during the off-season they process variousflow directions viz. (1) Raw consumption and (2)other fruits depending on their availability [9].Processing for consuming without value addition andwith value addition respectively.MATERIALS AND METHODSAnotherstudy has given the model from farmers tocustomers with respect to retail supply chain forSampling Design: This study is descriptive in nature.vegetables [4, 5]. But this above model explains both retailDatawere collected from Farmers, traders, cold storageand processing along with cold storage supply chain fromowners, processing unit owners and retailers. Totally 335farmers to customers for fruits.samples were collected adopting convenience samplingScope of the Study: This research is confined to selectedthe first stage, 30 out of 62 processing units locatedfruits such as Mango, Banana, Grapes, Sapodilla [Sapota]in Krishnagiri and Dharmapuri districts along withand Guava as these were major fruits produced in5 processing units at Chennai suburban area wereTamilnadu [6]. Processing units in Krishnagiri andselected. Totally 75 farmers and 75 traders (dealing inretailing [10,11]. All these locations are also having largemethod. In order to select the sample respondents, inFig 1: Flow chart for channels of distribution for fruits from farm gate to retailer end. Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 21 (11): 1994-2003, 20141996procuring and supplying mangoes) in all the locationsVariables Taken for the Study:Avoidable wastage ofspecified above constituted the sample of farmers andfruits was considered from farm gate to processingtraders. Farmers and traders who were supplying rawunits [i.e., through processing channel in researchmaterials(Fruits) to these processing units alone wereframework diagram (Figure 1)]. Production losses, postchosenfor survey. The wholesale market at Koyambedu,harvest, handling, storage, processing, packaging,Chennai,provides cold storage facility for traders anddistribution, retail losses were considered as majorretailers. Apart from these, there is a few more coldvariables in this research. At every stage, there areastorage facility available in the suburban areas ofvariety of reasons for the losses. In this study, the focusChennai. Such a facility is also available at in and aroundisonly on avoidable waste. Around 29 variables wereDindigul and Coimbatore locations. Tracing the arrivalidentified under five major wastage categories such asof selected fruits in cold storage in all the above places,Farm gate wastage, Transportation wastage, Packagingtotally25 cold storage units were included for the study.wastage, Ripening wastage and Processing wastage.Retailers were essentially fruit vendors and they areData were collected for all these types of wastages.located closer to consumers. To get an insight in to theAmong these 29 variables, six were dropped based onwastage problem at the retail stage, 125 retailers werethe response in the pilot survey. Pilot study wasselected in and around Chennai and its suburb.conducted among 23 processing units [15]. Based on theDefinition of Avoidable and Unavoidable Waste:relating to those six variables evoked limited responseDetermining total wastage of fruits selected for thiswarranting their removal. Respondents pointed outstudy is challenging since each fruit has differentthat situation relating to three of these six variables,proportionof edible and non-edible part. For example, inwas not experienced in reality. As per experts’ opinion inmangoes and sapodilla [Sapota], peel and seed are notpilot study, expected situation never arises since theyedible and only the flesh part is edible. In the case ofwere taking more care for controlling those wastages.banana,peel alone is non-edible. In guava the entire fruitAll the respondents reported nil wastage on twois edible. In grapes except the seed the rest is edible.variables. One more variable on ownership of ripeningHenceonly avoidable wastage of all the fruits waschamber was also dropped as more than 80% of theconsidered in this study.respondents did not own ripening chamber. So thisEntire fruit like whole banana, whole mango etc.,study considered only 23 variables. Total avoidablethatdoes not serve their purpose and they are thrownprocessing wastage was considered as dependentaway without being considered for consumption forvariable and remaining 22 independent variables werewhatever reasons there might be, [12] are called asconsidered under 5 major groups of variables (Farmavoidable waste. Customary remains after consumptiongate wastage, Transportation wastage, Packagingof thefruits that are not edible like banana peel, mangowastage, Ripening wastage and processing wastage)seed etc., [12] were considered as unavoidable waste.for analysis.In line with the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation’s(FAO) definition, food wastage is the decrease in edibleData Collection Method:Structured questionnaire wasfood mass that was originally intended for humanprepared for each five stages and data were collectedconsumption,which defined as avoidable food wastethrough survey method. Avoidable fruit wastage datawhich includes both food losses, which occur at thewere collected from processing unit owners by meetingproduction, post-harvest and processing stages andthem in person. Same data were collected from farmersfood waste, which arises at the retail and consumptionand suppliers, who were supplying raw materials to thestages.Whole fruit in all stages of supply chain exceptprocessing units through interview and questionnaire.processing stage and edible portion in processing stageOutof total supply, more than 80 to 90% of the rawwas defined as avoidable wastage and the same wasmaterials (fruits) were supplied by farmers and the rest byconsidered as fruit wastages in this study. This studytraders. Farm gate variable data were collected fromdetermined the quantity of wastage at each of five stagesfarmers, transportation variable data were collected from(Figure 1) initially and taken only the one of top twotraders and all other variable data were collected fromstages (processing stage) for in depth analysis.processing unit owners.opinionfrom fruit processing unit owners, questions Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 21 (11): 1994-2003, 20141997Analysis Methods: Master table was prepared in SPSS5 to 10%. And 72% of cold storage recorded less than 5%package and the same was utilized for analysis.wastage. About 74% of processing units lose 11 to 20%Frequencyanalysis was performed to get percentage ofofits total fruits and 62% of retailers reported 21 to 30%wastage at each stage of fruit supply chain from farmof wastage in their total procurement. Table 1 shows thegate to processing units. Weighted average was alsoweighted average for identifying exact quantity of everyused to find out exact quantity of wastage at each stage.stage. This study reveals that around 61% of total fruitWeighted average was calculated by using percentageproduction was getting wasted from farm gate to retailofresponse as weights and mean value of given rangeend.This value would increase if study includesin questionnaire as wastage values. For example, A%,unavoidable wastage at processing level and kitchenB%and C% of the respondents indicated differentwaste at consumer end. Daily News and Analysis (DNA)range of wastage viz., 0 to 5%, 6 to 10% and 11 to 20% ofreported around 72% of the total fruits and vegetablefruitwastages respectively. The mean of each range ofgoes waste in India [2].wastage was calculated which was used as weight.Tradersrealized very less wastage since theyThen weighted average was calculated by multiplyingmediate between farmers and processing and retail stagespercentage of respondents by weighted average.byfacilitating transactions and do not handle the fruits.Then this was divided by 100.They accept only good fruits from farmers and supply theKeyvariables found through factor analysis bysame to intermediaries like processors or retailers. M. Fehrusing principle component extraction and varimaxreported that 93% of farmers screen their produce beforerotation methods along with KMO and Bartlett’s test forit leaves the farm [12]. Hence, either farmer ortesting sampling adequacy and significance respectively.intermediaries would realize more wastages than theRelationship between the variables was determinedtraders. This lesser wastage realized by traders was due tothrough regression analysis by using avoidablepoortransportation and handling. C. Maheshwar reportedwastage as dependent variable and all other variablesin International society for horticultural science, Belgiumas independent variables. Stepwise regression methodconference that 30% of fruits loss occurred due to poorwasadopted for identifying the relative importance ofmanagement facilities and practices such as poorfactors of wastage in different stages of fruit supplyhandling, storage and transportation, whereas 5%chain.occurreddue to presence of large number of middlemenRESULTS AND DISCUSSIONSsame volume of wastages at their level, cold storageDataReliability:Five broad variables already specifiedwastage at farm gate was found to be caused by factorsin methodology were considered for further analysis.likepoor harvesting methods, immature raw materials,Sincethere was only one question on ripening in thedifferent varieties from different climate, large variationsquestionnaire, there was no possibility for determiningin internal pulp temperatures, poor transportation andthedata reliability for the same. Table 1 shows the datalong travelling. Earlier research of this author revealedreliability for remaining four variables based onaround 34% of cold storage wastage, but actual wastageCronbach’s Alpha value applying SPSS software package.inside the cold storage was just 8.4% based on improperReliabilityof all four variables was more than 75%, thesestorage conditions, poor maintenance of cold storage anddata were very suitable for further analysis.temperature variations. Remaining 25% of the cold storageQuantum of Wastage from Farm Gate to Retail: A simplepoor packing, handling and ripening [14, 15].frequencyanalysis and weighted average were used toAround75% of farmers are realizing 5 to 10% ofdetermine the total quantity of wastage in all stages offruits supply chain.[13]. Though both farm gate and cold storages reportedwould realize very less wastage. On the other handwastereported due to external factors like transportation,fruits wastage at farm gate level. Around 31% of tradersreported less than 5% wastage and 61% of traders realizedTable 1: Reliability values of variablesSl. NoVariablesCronbach’s Alpha valueReliabilityPercentageFarm-gate0.790Transportation0.877Packaging0.78879%Processing0.756 Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 21 (11): 1994-2003, 20141998Table 2: Total fruit wastages at five different stages of fruit supply chain Sl. NoStage in fruit supply chainWeighted averageTotal fruit wastageFarm gate(20 x 2.5)+(74.7 x 7.5)+(5.3 x 15) / 1006.9%Cold storage(30.7 x 2.5) + (61.3 x 7.5) + (8 x 15) / 1006.6%Traders(72 x 2.5) + (20 x 7.5) + (8 x 15) / 1004.5%Processing units(74.3 x 15) + (22.9 x 25) + (2.9 x 35) / 10017.9%Retail(2.4 x 7.5) + (17.6 x 15) + (61.6 x 25) + (18.4 x 35) / 10024.7%Total wastage60.6%Table 3: KMO and Bartlett's TestKMO and Bartlett's TestFor Processing Variables (9)All variables (22)Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.0.5990.478--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Bartlett's Test of SphericityApprox. Chi-Square239.232441.59091.000231.000Sig.0.0000.000Table 4: Total variance Initial Eigen valuesExtraction Sums of Squared LoadingsRotation Sums of Squared Loadings---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ComponentTotal% of VarianceCumulative %Total% of VarianceCumulative %Total% of VarianceCumulative %4.46420.29120.2914.46420.29120.2913.54116.09316.0933.52816.03736.3273.52816.03736.3273.47415.79231.8852.91213.23749.5642.91213.23749.5642.91713.26045.1452.0329.23758.8022.0329.23758.8021.9939.0601.5266.93865.7391.5266.93865.7391.8078.2141.3316.04971.7881.3316.04971.7881.7167.7991.1455.20576.9931.1455.20576.9931.4906.7750.8163.71080.704Based on the table 2, it is clear that processing unitsKey Variables of Wastage:This part of study is trying toand retail outlets realized more wastage than the otheridentify key variables determining wastage, using factorstages. Both retail and processing stages alone realizedanalysis. Sampling adequacy and significance was tested3/4of total wastage in fruit supply chain. Earlier researchthrough KMO and Bartlett’s test. Table 3 shows theof the author revealed around 26% as retail wastage [17]significance value of processing variables and alland 44% as processing wastage (including all stagesvariables. KMO value justified that factor analysis can bewastagefrom farm gate to processing units) [15, 16].applied for the data. Sampling adequacy for processingBut in the current study percentage of waste was 24.7 %variables was almost 60% whereas for all variables it wasin retail and 17.9% in processing stage. As there areanearly 48%. Since 57% of processing units constitutednumber of detailed studies on wastage in the retail stagethe sample in the study area, 60% sampling adequacy wasand very few studies are found with regards to wastagejustifiable. Similarly KMO value of 48% for all variablesinprocessing stage, this paper focused on processingwas considered justified.wastage only. Though other stages are the root causes ofKey variables were extracted through factorwastages, traders and other middlemen don’t own theseanalysis using principle component analysis method.wastages, but pass these to other channel members in theTable 4 shows that first seven components explainedline.For example, poor harvesting method at farm gatearound 77% of total variance. These variables werewould not realize any wastage at farmers’ level, unlessextracted using Eigen values.there was any physical damage. But such waste productVariables in these seven components were identifiedmove through the supply chain until it is separated asathrough Varimax rotation. There were five variables suchwaste at the beginning stage of processing. Normallyaswastage during loading of raw materials in to thebefore the processing begins, bad fruits are separatedvehicle, wastage during unloading of raw materials fromfrom good ones and the former becomes the waste.the vehicle, wastage due to long travelling distance forThis study investigated the sources of fruit wastages atraw materials, wastage due to lack of cold containersprocessing stage where a significant part of wastage wasduring raw material transportation and poor roadreported.conditions, belonged to first component. This component Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 21 (11): 1994-2003, 20141999Table 5: Stepwise regression coefficientsUn standardized CoefficientsStandardized Coefficients------------------------------------------------------------------ModelStd. ErrorBetaSig.R Square1(Constant)3.3570.16819.9610.0000.295Wastage due to long travelling distance0.3540.0950.5433.7190.0012(Constant)3.1850.15121.1630.0000.505Wastage due to long travelling distance0.4320.0840.6635.1570.000Wastage due to lack of labor0.3320.0900.4733.6850.0013(Constant)3.5890.16821.3740.0000.656Wastage due to long travelling distance0.4680.0720.7186.5390.000Wastage due to lack of labor0.3440.0760.4904.5030.000Wastage due to poor packing methods-0.2780.075-0.392-3.6930.0014(Constant)3.6140.15623.1660.0000.714Wastage due to long travelling distance0.4030.0710.6195.6480.000Wastage due to lack of labor0.3970.0740.5665.3650.000Wastage due to poor packing methods-0.2920.070-0.412-4.1670.000Damage due to pest attack (Whole fruit)0.1890.0770.2802.4630.0205(Constant)3.3200.18517.9270.0000.766Wastage due to long travelling distance0.3880.0660.5945.8650.000Wastage due to lack of labor0.3120.0760.4464.1140.000Wastage due to poor packing methods-0.3090.065-0.436-4.7660.000Damage due to pest attack (Whole fruit)0.2410.0740.3573.2740.003Wastage due to damaged part of fruits removal (Removal of pest portion, decay portion etc.)0.3120.1240.2772.5220.017wasnamed as transportation wastage. It explained aboutwastage due to lack of skilled labor was included in16.1%of variance in avoidable waste. There were fourseventh component explaining 6.8% of variance inother variables such as wastage due to lack of labor atavoidable waste. These factors falling in to 7 componentsfarms, mechanical injury to fruits due to poor harvestinghighlight the importance of 21 variables explaining inmethods, harvesting of immature raw fruit and handlingtotal nearly 77% of avoidable waste in fruits.wastage during cleaning, sorting, grading, etc.,constituted the second component. This component wasStepwise Regression Model:Stepwise regressionnamed as farm-gate wastage and it accounted for aboutanalysis was chosen for this study, because, the wastage16%of variance in avoidable waste. Another set of fiveoccurred at different stages due to different factors.variables, such as wastage due to pest attack, manualTo identify the relative importance of factors in differentprocessing, lack of processing labor, damage removalstages, stepwise regression was applied. In this model,and pilferage at processing stage, were included in thirdthe 22 variables were identified through the factorcomponent. This component was named as natural andanalysis. Considering avoidable waste as the dependentprocessing wastage. It explained about 13.3% of variancefactor and the 21 variables as independent factors,inavoidable waste. Similarly wastage due to poorstepwise regression was done. This yielded thepackaging methods and poor packaging materials werefollowing result.brought under the fourth component. This componentFivesignificant variables such as wastage due to longwas named as poor packaging. This explained about 9%travelling distance, lack of labor, poor packing methods,of variance in avoidable waste. Whereas one and onlydamage due to birds and animals and wastage due tovariable included in fifth component, was nameddamage removal (Removal of pest portion, decay portiontraditional ripening and it explained slightly more than 8%etc.) entered in to the model in sequential order in whichofvariance in avoidable waste. Two other variables suchthe variables are listed. Table 5 shows both R along withas late harvest due to lack of farm labor and pilferage atstatistical significance of the above five variables. Itfarm gate level were included under sixth component,clearly revealed that all five variables together explainednamed as labor wastage. It accounted for about 7.8% oftotally 77% (R2 = 0.766) of the variation in avoidablevariance in avoidable waste. One more variable viz.,waste. Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 21 (11): 1994-2003, 20142000Percentage of Variation Through R Square Value:right packaging material is need to be used. For example,However,at each step the influence of the variableuse of plastic tray with separators or use of recyclingentering into the solution explained the percentagepaper tray or use of perforated sponge covering couldvariation in the dependent variable. In the first stephelp to minimize physical contact between fruits, withwastage due to long travel alone explained 30%which physical injury can be minimized and also the(R2 = 0.295) of variation in avoidable waste. Whentemperature could be minimized on the outer skin as wellwastage due to processing lack of labor was added inas inner flesh of the fruits. Adoption of such goodthe second step, the explanation of variation in avoidablepacking practices would help to minimize the waste.waste improved by another 21% and it became more thanThefourth stage witnessed the inclusion of damage due51% (R2 = 0.505). Entry of the factor poor packingto pest attack by whole fruit along with the other variablesmethods in the third step explained another 15% ofin thethird step. This resulted in capturing increasedvariation in avoidable waste [Total value of explainedinfluence of distance travelled, lack of labor and poorvariation being about 66% (R2 = 0.656)]. Damage due topacking method on avoidable waste to the tune of 0.403,pest attack as a factor of avoidable waste, incorporated0.397 and – 0.292 respectively, compared to the third stepin the fourth step, explained another 6% of variationvalue of these coefficients. The avoidable wastage goes[The total being 71.4% (R2 = 0.714)]. As already spelt out,up by 0.189 units for every additional damaged caused bytheaddition of wastage due to damaged part of fruitspestattack by whole fruit. Protection from such damageremoval,explained about 5.2% of variation in avoidablewould help to bring down the avoidable damage to somewaste.extent.Relative Importance of the Independent Variablesstep. With the addition of wastage due to damaged partThrough Un-Standardized Coefficients:Table 5 containsof fruits removal as an independent variable, results inbothun-standardized and standardized coefficients. It isreduced influence of distance transported and lack ofcustomary to use the un-standardized coefficients tolabor on avoidable waste. This is because, the avoidableexplain their relative influence on the dependent variablewaste caused by factors in the four steps is removedand the standardized coefficients to determine the relativein the fifth step, the overall avoidable waste declines.importanceof the independent variables. In the regressionThat is, when damaged parts of fruits are removed beforeequationgiven in Table 5, all the independent variablesthe transporting or processing stage start, the overallturned out to be statistically significant. This implied thatwaste would go down. In order to determine the relativeallthe variables included are important. Each independentimportance of the independent variables the standardizedvariable was made to enter one by one in each step.coefficient values were studied. In all five steps wastageIn step 1, the wastage due to long travelling distancedue to long travelling distance turned out to be thealone entered. A unit increase in distance travelledimportant variable, followed by wastage due to lack ofwould increase the wastage by 0.354 units. To avoid thisfarm labor. This would imply that if effective steps areproper packing and handling methods need to betaken to minimize the wastage due to long travelling majoradopted. In the second step wastage due to lack of laborpart of the wastage of fruits could be avoided. For thisentered along with the distance travelled. This resulted inpurpose, apart from using appropriate packing methods,increased influence of distance travelled on avoidablevehicles with cold storage facility alone should be used.waste by 0.432 units for every increase in unit of distanceThe maintenance of internal temperature in the storagetravelled. A unit increase in lack of labor would add to thespace of the vehicle would have considerable effect inavoidable waste by 0.332 units. In the third step, wastagepreserving the fruits in storage.due topoor packing entered and with the rest of theSevenbase variables such as poor raw materialvariablestill the second step. This increased the influencetransportation, farm gate wastage, processing wastage,of both distance travelled and lack of labor on avoidablepoor packaging, traditional ripening, labor wastage andwaste (0.468 and 0.344 respectively). Every effort taken tolack of skilled labor wastage were identified from factoradoptgood packing practice would bring down theanalysis. Similarly, five significant variables such asavoidable waste by 0.278 units. This underscores thewastage due to long travelling distance, lack of labor,importance of packing method for transporting suchpoorpacking methods, damage due to pest attack andperishable products. Depending upon the type of fruitswastage due to damaged part of fruits removal were foundto be transported, appropriate packing method along withfrom stepwise regression analysis. In both analyses, longAninteresting outcome could be noted in the first Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 21 (11): 1994-2003, 20142001travellingdistance of raw materials plays the predominantWastage Due to Lack of Labor: Lack of labor atrolein avoidable wastage of fruits at processing stageprocessing units was the next major reason for fruitfollowed by lack of labor and poor packing methods.wastages. Professional aptitude of personnel [18]Wastage Due to Long Travelling Distance of Rawshortage. People were preferred to work in the NationalMaterials: More than 90% of fruit processing units arerural employment guarantee scheme of the centrallocated at Krishnagiri and Dharmapuri districts ofgovernment as it provides more income with less work.Tamilnadu. Moreover, all first level fruit processing unitsFurther a number of the people go to near industrialare working for just 60 to 90 days in a year due tolocations such as Hosur and Bangalore in search ofseasonality of the raw materials. Therefore, competitionpermanent job, whereas fruit processing units couldfor the procurement of domestic raw materials withinprovide jobs for just two months. Around 60 fruitaround 50km radius turns out to be very high, escalatingprocessing units were located within 50km radius andthe price. Hence processing units were forced to procurethey could get very few workers in this radius.the raw materials from long distance to achieve capacityPeople were also hesitating to come from long distance,utilization during the season. Most of the units weresincethe job was seasonal. Because of the aboveprocuring more than half of raw materials from more thanreasons, fruit processors experienced challenging300kms. It requires 12 to 24 hours of travelling timesituation for getting man power. Few processing unitbetweenraw material source locations to processing unitowners managed to use rural students of just 15 yearslocation.None of the units was using any vehicle withof age. Though it was win – win situation for bothcold storage facility for transporting the raw materials. Mr.processors and students in terms of generating income toTilak Ram, the treasurer of Krishmaa Cluster Developmentmeettheir respective needs (This seasonal operationSociety (KCDS) stated that though all the fruit processingdays exactly falls on school summer holidays), yet theunitsare located within a range of 40 km, yet within thisregulation relating to use of child labor effectivelydistance 30-40% fresh fruit spoilage occur [8]. About 30%prevent this option.of fruits and vegetables grown in India (40 million tonnesRawdata of this study revealed that, maximumamountingto US$ 13 billion) get wasted annually due towastage limit due to lack of labor was 5%, whereas it waslack of cold storage transportation and cold storagejust less than 1% in case of skilled labor shortage.facilities [13]. No proper packaging methods or packingHence it was noted that there was no need of trainingmaterialswere used for the raw material transportation.labors for working in fruit processing units. Hence usingSimply the fruits were loaded on to the vehicle and carriedalternative source of manpower could be considered.to the processing units. This affects more the fruits at theForexample, a number of self-help groups could bebottom due to heavy weight on them and also poor roadapproached and involved in the processing stage. As thecondition. Fehr reported that intrinsic factors in the stageswork is only seasonal, the self help group might be ableofstorage, transport, packaging, sorting, handling andto add to their earning capacity during the processingadministration were contributing to fruits losses [18].season. One more option is to train school children in theTemperatureof the fruits also increased due to longprocessing stage during their vacation period, so thatdistancetransportation. One of the articles on supplythey would benefit learning an occupation and use thatchains of fruits and vegetable reported that the loss ofto supplement their family income. Training of schoolfruits and vegetables during transportation was said to bechildren could be considered as a part of the curriculumin the range of 20 - 30% in countries like China and Indiaso that the provisions of Child Labor act would not bea[19]. Moreover, most of the first level fruit processingstumbling block. As the scale of commercial productionunits were operating exactly during peak summer season.and the distances between the rural producer and urbanThisalso caused the increase of temperature during longconsumer increase, more exacting requirements will havedistance transportation. High temperatures and variationsto be met in regard to training and supervising labor [20].in temperature happened to be the root cause for spoilageof fruits during ripening. All fresh produce is subject toWastage Due to Poor Packing Methods: Poor packingdamage when exposed to extremes of temperature [20].methods for raw materials transportation was anotherOne of the major problems of food waste in much ofkey source for the fruit wastages. All the fruit processingUnited States’ food was transported long distances andindustries were receiving their raw materials in crudeas it travels, the temperature often changes dramaticallymanner without any package during transportation.[21].Tractor trucks, mini trucks and lorries were usedforespeciallyabsenteeism was prime reason for the labor Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 21 (11): 1994-2003, 20142002transportation from farm gate to processing unit locations.This study also discovered through raw data that,Crude transportation, long distance on poor roadtraditional ripening was one of the major wastage causingconditionscauses heavy damage to fruits internally andsources. To avoid this, processors were suggesting useexternally. Internal damage could cause spoilage of rawof ripening chambers. Small processors argued thatmaterials during ripening process. Moreover, whenconstructing ripening chambers were challenging taskvehicles were not supported by cold storage facility, heatsince it involves huge initial cost. Hence again processorsgetsgenerated affecting both inside pulp/flesh andwere expecting some support from government forexternal skin. This resulted in precocity and lack ofconstructing ripening chambers through subsidy orfreshness in the raw materials and lead to spoilage ofprovision of ripening chambers at reasonable rent.fruitsbefore and during ripening. Vehicles need toThese chambers could be used for storage of otheruse plastic crates so that wastage could be minimized.grains during off season [15, 16].Most of the fruit processors were also pointing out thatproductivity improve with good quality raw materials andCONCLUSIONsuppliers would also get higher profit. For this suppliersneed to use cold storage vehicles. In this case also, bothOutof all stages in fruit supply chain, wastage atsuppliersand processors were expecting that governmentprocessing stage is the second major source of wastage,couldhelp them by providing some support throughfirst being retail stage. As only few Indian studies aresubsidyor low interest on vehicle loans, improvedabout wastage at processing stage, this study confined toinfrastructure etc.identifying major sources of wastages at the processingWastage Due to Damage: Regression analysis shows thatwhichwould add to the income of farmers and profit ofdamage due to pest attack and removal of wastageprocessors. Long travelling distance of raw fruits withportions from the fruits also significantly impacts the totalpoor packing methods and transportation were found toavoidablefruit wastages. For example, long distancebe the major sources of wastage in the processing stage.travelling with poor packing methods causes the spoilageLack of labor and damage removal also plays theof fruits during ripening. This spoilage portions could besignificant role in wastage. Raw materials transportationremoved before starting the process. Another majorwith good packaging methods and materials insourceof wastage in the processing units was lack ofrefrigerated environment will minimize the wastage.labor especially during sorting process in the ripeningSimilarly, aseptic and automatic process with the supportprocess. Experienced processors were stating that, lack ofof ripening chambers also would reduce the wastage level.sorting labor for one day was causing around 5 to 10 % ofAllthese strategies are still on paper for most of the fruittotal fruit loss during ripening. Careless handling of freshprocessing units as implementation warrants heavy initialproduce causes internal bruising, which results ininvestment. Hence government could extend its supportabnormal physical damage or splitting and skin breaks,to build infrastructure in terms of transportation inthusrapidly increasing water loss and add to therefrigerated environment with good packaging methodswastage.Skin breaks also provide sites for infection byand materials and facilitate manpower through amendmentdiseaseorganisms causing decay. All living material isgoverning use of subsidies and manpower in the ruralsubject to attack by parasites. Fresh produce couldareas.become infected before or after harvest by diseaseswidespread in the air, soil and water. Some diseasesScope for Future Research: Since this study waspenetrate the unbroken skin of produce; others require anconfined to only Tamilnadu state, similar type ofinjury in order to cause infection. Damage so produced isstudies could be undertaken in other locations whereprobably the major cause of loss of fresh produce [20].fruit cultivation is undertaken in large areas. AsWastage Due to Traditional Ripening: Fleshy fruitsdifferent locations, appropriate changes in processingundergoa natural stage of development known asand preservation technology, methods of manpowerripening. This occurs when the fruit has ceased growinguse coupled with detailed research on fruits resistanceand is said to be mature. Ripeness is followed by ageingto infection could go a long way to benefit the farmers(often called senescence) and breakdown of the fruit [20].and processers.stage and strategies required to minimize the wastage,geographical and temperature conditions differ in Middle-East J. Sci. Res., 21 (11): 1994-2003, 20142003ACKNOWLEDGEMENT11.TamilnaduAgricultural University Agritech onlineAuthorswould like to thanks to University GrantsCommission (UGC), India for recognized this researchREFERENCES1.Ministryof Food Processing Industries, Governmentof India, 2014. Retrievedfrom http://www.mofpi.nic.in/ContentPage.aspx? KYEwm OL+HGpVIo8u9GICo3lTljUIz7go4/j8IKjJFpxPJf9Sv+Fbzm/7JgUq2xS4wi/O+6DL2h8=2.DailyNews and Analysis (DNA), 2008. 72 percent ofIndia'sfruit, vegetable produce goes waste. Retrievedfrom http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report3.Planningcommission, Government of India, 2013.Twelfth five year plan (2012 – 2017) Economic sectors,Volume II, pp. 1 – 2. Sage publications, New Delhi.4.Paulrajan Rajkumar, 2010. Food Mileage: An IndicatorofEvolution of Agricultural Outsourcing. Journal ofTechnology Management & Innovation, 5(2): 37-46.5.JaspreetAulakh and Anita Regmi, 2013. Post-harvestfoodlosses estimation-development of consistentmethodology.Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/ess/documents/meetings_and_workshops/GS_SAC_2013/Improving_methods_for_estimating_post_harvest_losses/Final_PHLs_Estimation_6-13-13.pdf6.Directorateof horticulture and plantation crops,Agriculturedepartment, Government of Tamilnadu,2014.Retrieved from https:// tnhorticulture.tn.gov.in/horti/profile/state-profile7.IL&FSfor National Innovative Council, 2012.Diagnostic study report on Krishmaa Mango cluster.8.Karthick,V., K. Mani and A. Anbarassan, 2013.MangoPulp Processing Industry in Tamil Nadu-AnEconomic Analysis. American International Journal ofResearchin Humanities, Arts and Social Sciences,2(1): 48-52.9.NitaSachan, Venkat Munagala, Saswati ChakravartyandNiti Sharma, 2013. Innovation cluster in the foodprocessing industry at Krishnagiri, Tamilnadu. ACaseStudy based on the Innovation Cluster Initiativeof the National Innovation Council.10.Wikipedia, 2014. Free online encyclopedia. Retrievedfrom http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koyambeduportal,2013. Chennai Koyambedu Market. RetrievedfromAgritech.tnau.ac.in/dmi/2013/tradeprof/chennai.pdf12.Fehr,M. and D.C. Romao, 2001. Measurement offruitand vegetable losses in brazil a case study.Environment,Development and Sustainability – AnInternational journal, 3(3): 253-263.13.Maheshwar, C. and T.S. Chanakwa, 2006. Post HarvestLosses due to Gaps in Cold Chain in India-ASolution, ISHS Acta Horticulturae 712: IV InternationalConferenceon Managing Quality in Chains-TheIntegratedView on Fruits and Vegetables Quality,InternationalSociety for Horticultural Science,Belgium.14.Arivazhagan,R. and P. Geetha, 2012. Analysis ofSourcesof Fruit Wastages in Cold Storage Units inTamilnadu.International Journal of Research inCommerce, IT & Management, 2(10): 113-118.15.Arivazhagan, R. and Dr. Ravilochanan, 2011. AnalysisofSources of Fruit Wastages in Cold Storage andFruitProcessing Industries in Tamilnadu.eProceedingsof International research conference andcolloquiumon Exploring Contemporary BusinessIssuesin the Emerging Economies, Universiti TunAbdul Razak, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, pp: 104-118.16.Arivazhagan, R. and P. Ravilochanan, 2012. Analysisofsources of fruit wastages in fruit processingindustries in Tamilnadu. Excel International Journal ofMultidisciplinary Management Studies, 2(10): 55-69.17.Arivazhagan,R., P. Geetha and RavilochananParthasarathy,2008. Analysis of Sources of FruitWastagesin Retail Outlets in Chennai, Tamil Nadu,India.International Journal of Trade, Economics andFinance, 3(3): 199-204.18.Fehr, M. and D.C. Romao, 2010. Modeling the successof fruit and vegetable marketing. International JournalofPostharvest Technology and Innovation, 2(1): 04-12.19.Supply chain of fruits and vegetable, 2010. ArticlesBase SC #2720238.Retrieved from www.articlesbase.com20.Foodand Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNations (FAO), 1989. Prevention of post-harvest foodlossesfruits, vegetables and root crops a trainingmanual, Rome.21.Forbes,2012. New Technology Can Help End FoodWaste.Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/bethhoffman/2012/04/03/new-technology-can-help-end-food-waste