Side streams from horticultural production

Transcription

1 Side streams from horticultural production Katri Joensuu Natural Resources Institute Finland (Luke) Sivu 1

2 What is side flow and food waste? PRIMARY PRODUCTION FOOD PRODUCTION PRODUCED FOR FOOD - Crops, vegetables, fruit and berries that are mature for harvest - Wild fruit and berries at the time of harvest - Domesticated animals from birth - Wild animals when they are caught or killed - Milk that is drawn from animals - Eggs when laid - Wild fish/shellfish when caught - Farmed fish/shellfish from hatching NON-FOOD PARTS - E.G. STRAW, PEELS, BONES OTHER PRODUCTION - E.G. ENERGY, FEED FOOD ENTERS THE NEXT STEP IN THE FOOD SUPPLY CHAIN SIDE FLOW (SF) FOOD-CHAIN- SUITABLE SIDE FLOW - Food/Primary product that is still expected to be consumed by humans INEDIBLE SIDE FLOW - E.g. Contaminated food/primary product e.g. due to diseases/pests VALORISATION AND CONVERSION - E.g. Used as feed, bio based material or biobased processing LEFT IN FIELD, COMPOSTED, SENT TO WASTE TREATMENT Safety dimension of edibility What happens with the side flow

3 Side flow -definition The flows of primary products that were meant to be eaten by humans, but never entered the next step in the food supply chain (e.g. slaughter, retail, processing), and instead were used for other purposes or sent to waste treatment. Non-edible parts of wasted food, e.g. peels and bones, are not included as part of side flow

4 Waste percentages Food waste (%) FAO report (Gustavsson et al. 2011) Side flow (%) Our study Agriculture, aquaculture, fisheries Postharvest handling and storage Primary production (including postharvest handling and storage) Cereals 2% 4% 4-14% Roots and tubers 20% 9% Oilseeds and pulses Fruits and vegetables 10% 1% 20% 5% Meat 3.1% 0.7% 10% potatoes 26% carrots and turnips 3% oil crops 17% pulses 1% greenhouse 10-26% open field % excluding rearing % including rearing Fish and seafood 9.4% wild fish 0.5% 2.6% farmed fish Milk 3.5% 0.5% 0.3% Nordic food waste project

5 Causes of side flows in primary production 1. Weather conditions, pests and plant-/animal diseases 2. Quality requirements and production regulations 3. Obstructed marketing channels and distance from markets 4. Profitability of production Sivu Foodspill 2 -project

6 Case-study example: carrot The uses of carrot yield (weighted average), 27 producers answered: 1 % 2 % 8 % 2 % 4 % 11 % 72 % Food use, primary Food use, secondary Left in field Animal feed Composted Other use No use Nordic food waste project

7 Case-study example: carrot The uses of annual biomass in total, including also nonfood parts 1 % 1 % 7 % 9 % 4 % 1 % 16 % 61 % Food use, primary Food use, secondary Left in field Animal feed Composted Other use No use Leaves left on field Nordic food waste project

8 Case-study example: carrot Reasons for the side flow (weighted averages), 26% of the carrot production was side flow: 8% 7% 6% 5% At harvest After harvest 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% Nordic food waste project

9 Case-study example: strawberry The uses of strawberry yield (weighted average), 68 producers answered: 3 % 3 % 11 % Food use, primary Food use, secondary Left in field 83 % Composted/ other use/ no use Foodspill 2 -project

10 Case-study example: strawberry The uses of annual biomass in total, including also nonfood parts 19 % 3 % 2 % 9 % 67 % Food use, primary Food use, secondary Left in field Composted/ other use/ no use Leaves and runners left on field Foodspill 2 -project

11 Case-study example: strawberry Reasons for the side flow (weighted averages), 14% of the strawberry production was side flow: 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% Overproduction Overripe/ unripe, other faults in quality after harvest at harvest Cultivation practices Weather conditions, plant diseases Foodspill 2 -project

12 Case-study example: strawberry The uses of strawberry yield in food industry (weighted average), 6 producers answered: 1 % Food use Biowaste/ no use 99 % Foodspill 2 -project

13 Yields and side flows related to total Finnish production in 2015, 1000 kg Non-food parts Side flow Food use Carrot Onion Iceberg lettuce Strawberry Sivu Foodspill 2 project & Nordic food waste project

14 Willingness to find new solutions for the utilization of side flow Farmers % Jäävuorisalaatti (4) Iceberg lettuce (4) Strawberry Mansikka (67) Wheat (667) Vehnä (667) Potato (63) Peruna (63) Kyllä Yes Ehkä Ei Maybe No 0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 100 % Iceberg Jäävuorisalaatti lettuce (4) Food industry producers % Strawberry Mansikka (6) Wheat Vehnä (5) Peruna Potato (29) 0 % 10 % 20 % 30 % 40 % 50 % 60 % 70 % 80 % 90 % 100 % Sivu Foodspill 2 -project

15 On which conditions the farmer is willing to utilize the side flow (potato) (n=48) Willing to utilize the side flow on own farm 9 Willing to give avay potatoes if they are collected from the farm a compensation is paid 34 Willing to give avay potatoes if they are collected from the farm and no compensation is paid 4 Willing to transport the potatoes to the utilization site if compensation is paid for both trasport and the potatoes 23 Willing to transport the potatoes to the utilization site if compensation is paid for trasport 2 Willing to transport the potatoes to the utilization site if no compensation is paid 0 Not willing 9 Foodspill 2 -project Sivu

16 Case: enhancing the food use of underutilized 1st and 2nd class horticultural products

17 Ugly fruits and wegetables Differences in appearance (size, shape, color etc.) an important reason for rejecting fruits and vegetables from food use - Rating to 2 nd class, lower prize for the farmer Nutritional and hygienic quality at least as good as with 1st class EU legislation limited the use until Since then, supermarket chains still keep up the standards Sivu Picture:

18 Why is it important? Environmental impacts of private consumption in Finland 40 % 24 % Seppälä et al & Hannele Pulkkinen

19 Case-study example: carrot Reasons for the side flow (weighted averages), 26% of the carrot production was side flow: 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% 0% 12 % At harvest After harvest Nordic food waste project

20 Campaigns promoting the use of ugly fruits and vegetables, some examples 20

21 Imperfect produce, USA, California In a world obsessed with perfection in everything, we re here to show the world the beauty in imperfection % lower price Products from local farms

22 Practically perfect, USA, Virginia A project by two non-profit organisations Making locally grown fruits and vegetables more affordable for the people who need it most 30 % lower price Funded by USDA Sivu 22 lly-perfect/

23 Inglorious Fruits and vegetables, France Campaign of the super market chain Intermarché Products from French farms Also processed products 30 % lower price us/

24 Campaigns in UK Wonky veg box; Britannia Wonky veg box (Asda) Perfectly Imperfect (Tesco) Wonky veg (Morrisons) % lower price Sivu

25 Germany, Austria & Switzerland Krumme dinger - Aldi Süd, Germany Keiner ist Perfekt - Edeka, Germany Wunderlinge - Billa, Austria Unique - Coop, Switzerland - Up to 60 % lower price Sivu 25 essemitteilung-aldi-sued-krumme-dinger/

26 Curved cucumbers, Finland In Prisma-supermarkets since 2014 Decrease in sales of Spanish cucumbers No impact on sales of class 1 cucumbers Different tomatoes also in some stores from Similar trials also in K-group supermarkets Sivu

27 New products from 2nd class fruits and vegetables, some examples Dörrwerk, Berlin, Germany - Fruit paper snacks from fruits and berries from local farmers (+ exotic fruits from abroad) - Kromkommer, the Netherlands - Vegetable soups from fruits and vegetables from local farmers - Karotia, Finland - Baby carrots from own produce - Sivu

28 Case-study example: carrot The uses of annual biomass in total, including also nonfood parts 1 % 1 % 7 % 9 % 4 % 1 % 16 % 61 % Food use, primary Food use, secondary Left in field Animal feed Composted Other use No use Leaves left on field Nordic food waste project

29 Use of ugly fruits and vegetables SWOT Strenghts - Positive way to inform consumers about how food waste can be reduced - Decreasing waste on farms Opportunities - Better income for the farmer? - Changing consumer attitudes Weaknesses - Availability of the products is limited and seasonal - Not profitable for the farmer if the price is lower than for 1 st class - The products may be harder to pack than 1 st class - Lower price the main attraction to consumers? Threats - Competiton with 1st class products - Also 1st class products rated as 2nd class? - Supermarket chains may use only as an image campaign? Sivu

30 Publications Franke, U., Hartikainen, H., Mogensen, L., Svanes, E. (2016) Food losses and waste in primary production, Data collection in the Nordic countries Hartikainen, H., Kuisma, M., Pinolehto, M., Räikkönen, R., & Kahiluoto, H. (2014). Ruokahävikki alkutuotannossa ja elintarvikejalostuksessa. Foodspill 2-hankkeen loppuraportti. wed=y Seppälä, J., Mäenpää, I., Koskela, S., Mattila, T., Nissinen, A., Katajajuuri, J.- M., Härmä, T., Korhonen, M.-R., Saarinen, M. & Virtanen, Y. (2009). Suomen kansantalouden materiaalivirtojen ympäristövaikutusten arviointi ENVIMAT-mallilla. Suomen ympäristö 20/ den_materiaalivirtojen.pdf?sequence=1 Seppälä, J., Mäenpää, I., Koskela, S., Mattila, T., Nissinen, A., Katajajuuri, J.-M., Härmä, T., Korhonen, M.-R., Saarinen, M. & Virtanen, Y An assessment of greenhouse gas emissions and material flows caused by the Finnish economy using the ENVIMAT model. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(16), Sivu