EFFECTIVENESS OF SELECTED POSTHARVEST HANDLING PRACTICES AND TECHNOLOGIES TO PRESERVE THE POSTHARVEST QUALITY OF MANGO FRUIT

  • 0 Review(s)

Product Category: Projects

Product Code: 00006130

No of Pages: 155

No of Chapters: 5

File Format: Microsoft Word

Price :

$20

ABSTRACT

Mango (Mangifera Indica L.) is one of the major fruits for the domestic market. Production of mango is dominated by the smallholder farmers, majority of whom depend on it for their livelihoods. Mango fruit is a highly perishable climacteric fruit whose shelf life is limited after maturity, resulting in high post-harvest losses. Postharvest deterioration and subsequent losses are as a result of various metabolic processes including respiration and transpiration whose rate depends on temperature management. Cold chain management which entails handling perishable produce at cool (safe) temperature from harvest until the produce reaches the end-user is critical for the preservation of quality. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of selected postharvest handling practices and simple technologies to achieve cold chain, extend shelf life and preserve quality of mango fruit. This was achieved through two related on-farm and laboratory experiments.
In the first experiment, four mango varieties namely ‘Apple’, ‘Ngowe’, ‘Kent’ and ‘Tommy Atkins’ harvested at the mature green stage from the farmers’ orchards were used in an on- farm study. To demonstrate proper cold chain management, fruits were harvested early in the morning (before 8 am) and transported in crates which were lined with dampened newspapers to cool the fruits during transit. Upon arrival at the experimental site (Karurumo Aggregation Center), the fruits were precooled using evaporative coolers to remove field heat then stored in the Coolbot™ cold room (10±2oC). The described proper cold chain practices were compared with the common practices among farmers (poor cold chain practices). In this case, the fruits were harvested at midday (noon), transported to the aggregation centre in open crates and then stored at ambient room conditions (Temperatures of 25±7oC, Relative Humidity of 55±15%). The air and fruit pulp temperatures from harvest and subsequent handling and storage at the various conditions were monitored regularly using HUATO® data loggers. During storage, a random sample of 3 fruits (per variety) was taken from each of the storage options after every 3 days to evaluate ripening-related changes including physiological weight loss, colour, firmness and total soluble solids.
In the second experiment, a homogenous sample of mature green ‘Apple’ and ‘Kent’ mango fruits were divided into 10 batches of 60 fruits each to evaluate the effectiveness of four different low-cost storage technologies to preserve quality and extend the shelf life of mango fruits. The technologies evaluated include Coolbot™ cold room (10±2oC, 75±20%RH), Evaporative charcoal cooler (20±5oC, 95±5%RH), Zero energy brick cooler (20±5oC, 90±10%RH) and Wakati™ tent (25±5oC, 95±5%RH). The different technologies were compared with storage at ambient room conditions (25±oC, 55±15%RH). For each storage option, the fruits were divided into two batches where one batch was packaged using Activebag® modified atmosphere packaging (MAP) and the second batch left open (unpackaged). The experiment was laid out as a completely randomized design with a factorial arrangement of treatments. Three fruits per treatment were sampled after every 3 days to evaluate ripening and quality-related changes including physiological weight loss, colour, firmness, and total soluble solids, titratable acidity, B-carotene, sugars, and vitamin C.
Results showed that harvesting time significantly affected fruit pulp temperatures at harvest with fruits harvested before 8 am recording lower pulp temperatures (average 16.4 oC) compared to the fruits harvested at noon (average 31.4 oC). Proper cold chain management delayed ripening as evidenced by slower softening and increase in percentage TSS. Flesh firmness of ‘Apple’ mango reduced by 37% and 91% under the proper cold chain and poor cold chain management respectively by day 12 of storage while TSS increased by 17% and 63% respectively. Proper cold chain management extended shelf life by at least 18 days compared to poor cold chain management. In the second experiment, cold storage significantly extended mango shelf life for ‘Apple’ and ‘Kent’ mango fruits compared to storage at ambient room conditions. This was evidenced by lower respiration rate, slower rate of softening and colour changes compared to ambient room conditions. Fruits under cold storage combined with MAP had a longer shelf life (up to 9 days more) and retained better quality attributes at the end of storage. At the end of storage, unpackaged ‘Apple’ mango retained 50%, 49%, 47%, 46%, and 45% of the initial vitamin C for CoolbotTM cold room, ECC, ZEBC, WakatiTM tent and ambient conditions respectively. On the other hand, the same fruits under cold storage combined with MAP retained 53 %, 52%, 51%, 51%, and 46% of the initial Vitamin C under Coolbot™ cold room, ECC, ZEBC, Wakati™ tent, and ambient conditions storage respectively.
The results of this study show that proper harvest and postharvest handling practices coupled with simple cold storage technologies can be used by smallholder farmers to attain desirable cold chain and preserve the postharvest quality of perishable fruits such as mango. Harvesting mango fruits during the cooler times of the day is recommended as this minimizes the negative effect of high heat load on harvested fruits. The CoolbotTM cold room can be promoted for adoption by farmer groups that have access to electricity (on-grid) while the evaporative coolers can be promoted for farmers and farmer groups without access to electricity (off-grid).


 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 
DECLARATION i
DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY FORM FOR STUDENTS ii
DEDICATION iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES xi
LIST OF APPENDICES xii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS xii
GENERAL ABSTRACT xv

CHAPTER ONE
1.0 Introduction 1
1.1 Background Information 1
1.2 Problem Statement 3
1.3 Justification 3
1.4 Objectives 4
Overall Objective 4
Specific Objectives 4
1.5 Hypothesis 4

CHAPTER TWO
2.0 Literature Review 5
2.1 Horticultural subsector in Kenya 5
2.2 Challenges facing the horticultural industry 6
2.3 Mango Production in Kenya 7
2.3.4. Challenges facing mango value chain actors 11
2.3.5. Drivers of postharvest losses in the mango value chain 13
2.4 Applicable postharvest technologies to reduce postharvest losses in mango 16
2.4.1 Temperature management 17
2.4.2 Modified Atmosphere (MA) 17
2.4.3 Controlled Atmosphere (CA) 18
2.4.4 Waxing 18
2.4.5 Ethylene Management 19
2.5 Examples of Low-cost cold storage technologies 20
2.5.1 Coolbot™ cold room 20
2.5.2 Evaporative cooling 21
2.5.3 WakatiTM Tent Technology 26
2.6 Adoption of postharvest practices and technologies 27

CHAPTER THREE
3.0 Effectiveness of harvest time, handling practices and cold storage to extend the shelf life of mango fruit 28
3.1 Abstract 28
3.2 Introduction 29
3.3 Materials and methods 33
3.3.1 Study site 33
3.3.2 Test Fruit Samples 33
3.3.3 Description of the cold storage technologies 33
3.3.4 Experimental Design 35
3.3.5 Data Collection 36
3.3.6 Data Analysis 37
3.4 Results 37
3.4.1 Changes in air temperature and percentage relative humidity in the Coolbot™ cold room and ambient room 37
3.4.2 Fruit Pulp Temperature 38
3.4.3 Percentage physiological weight loss (%PWL) 40
3.4.4 Peel and Flesh Colour 42
3.4.5 Peel and Flesh Firmness 45
3.4.6 Total Soluble Solids (TSS) 48
3.4.7 Overall shelf life 50
3.5 Discussion 50
3.6 Conclusions 53

CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 Evaluation of Effectiveness of Low-Cost Cold Storage Options to Preserve Post-Harvest Quality of Mango 54
4.1 Abstract 54
4.2 Introduction 55
4.3 Materials and Methods 59
4.3.1 Study site 59
4.3.2 Test Fruit Samples 59
4.3.3 Description of Storage facilities 59
4.3.4 Modified Atmospheric Bags 61
4.3.5 Experimental Design 61
4.3.6 Data Collection 61
4.3.7 Data Analysis 63
4.4 Results 64
4.4.1 Changes in physiological parameters 64
4.4.2 Changes in fruit quality attributes 82
4.4.3 Overall shelf life 96
4.5 Discussion 97
4.6 Conclusions 103

CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 General Discussion, Conclusions and Recommendations 105
5.1 Discussion 105
5.2 Conclusion 107
5.3 Recommendations 108
APPENDICES 133


 
LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Production of Mangoes in selected counties, 2016-2017 (Source: HCD, 2017)      9
Table 3.1: Differences in pulp temperature (oC) of four mango varieties as affected by harvest time, handling practices and cold storage 39
Table 3.2: Changes in % cumulative weight loss of four mango varieties as affected by harvest time, handling practices and cold storage 41
Table 3.3a: Changes in peel hue angles (Ho)of four mango varieties as affected by harvest time, handling practices and cold storage 43
Table 3.3b: Changes in flesh hue angles (Ho) of four mango varieties as affected by harvest time, handling practices and cold storage 44
Table 3.4a: Changes in peel firmness (N) of four mango varieties as affected by harvest time, handling practices and cold storage 46
Table 3.4b: Changes in flesh firmness (N) of four mango varieties as affected by harvest time, handling practices and cold storage 47
Table 3.5: Changes in Total Soluble Solids, TSS (Fresh weight) of four mango varieties on fresh weight basis as affected by harvest time, handling practices and cold storage 49
Table 4.1a: Changes in Internal Pulp Temperature (oC) in ‘Apple’ mango fruits harvested at mature green maturity stages and stored under different storage options with or without Activebag® modified atmosphere packaging. 65
Table 4.1b: Changes in Internal Pulp Temperature (oC) in ‘Kent’ mango fruits harvested at mature green maturity stages and stored under different storage options with or without Activebag® modified atmosphere packaging. 66
Table 4.2a: Changes in Cumulative weight loss (%) in ‘Apple’ mango fruits harvested at mature green maturity stages and stored under different storage options with or without Activebag® modified atmosphere packaging. 68
Table 4.2b: Changes in Cumulative weight loss (%) in ‘Kent’ mango fruits harvested at mature green maturity stages and stored under different storage options with or without Activebag® modified atmosphere packaging. 69
Table 4.3a: Changes in Peel colour (Ho) in ‘Apple’ mango fruits harvested at mature green maturity stages and stored under different storage options with or without Activebag® modified atmosphere packaging. 71
Table 4.3b: Changes in Peel colour (Ho) in ‘Kent’ mango fruits harvested at mature green maturity stages and stored under different storage options with or without Activebag® modified atmosphere packaging. 72
Table 4.4a: Changes in Flesh Colour (Ho) in ‘Apple’ mango fruits harvested at mature green maturity stages and stored under different storage options with or without Activebag® modified atmosphere packaging. 74
Table 4.4b: Changes in Flesh Colour (Ho) in ‘Kent’ mango fruits harvested at mature green maturity stages and stored under different storage options with or without Activebag® modified atmosphere packaging. 75
Table 4.5a: Changes in Peel Firmness (N) in ‘Apple’ mango fruits harvested at mature green maturity stages and stored under different storage options with or without Activebag® modified atmosphere packaging. 77
Table 4.5b: Changes in Peel Firmness (N) in ‘Kent’ mango fruits harvested at mature green maturity stages and stored under different storage options with or without Activebag® modified atmosphere packaging. 78 
Table 4.6a: Changes in Flesh Firmness (N) in ‘Apple’ mango fruits harvested at mature green maturity stages and stored under different storage options with or without Activebag® modified atmosphere packaging. 80
Table 4.6b: Changes in Flesh Firmness (N) in ‘Kent’ mango fruits harvested at mature green maturity stages and stored under different storage options with or without Activebag® modified atmosphere packaging. 81
Table 4.7a: Changes in Total Soluble solids (oBrix) in ‘Apple’ mango fruits harvested at mature green maturity stages and stored under different storage options with or without Activebag® modified atmosphere packaging. 83
Table 4.7b: Changes in Total Soluble solids (oBrix) in ‘Kent’ mango fruits harvested at mature green maturity stages and stored under different storage options with or without Activebag® modified atmosphere packaging 84
Table 4.8a: Changes in Titratable Acidity (% citric acid equivalent) in ‘Apple’ mango fruits harvested at mature green maturity stages and stored under different storage options with or without Activebag® modified atmosphere packaging. 85
Table 4.8b: Changes in Titratable Acidity (% citric acid equivalent) in ‘Kent’ mango fruits harvested at mature green maturity stages and stored under different storage options with or without Activebag® modified atmosphere packaging. 86
Table 4.9a: Changes in Beta-Carotene (mg/100g fresh weight) in ‘Apple’ mango fruits harvested at mature green maturity stages and stored under different storage options with or without Activebag® modified atmosphere packaging. 87
Table 4.9b: Changes in Beta-Carotene (mg/100g fresh weight) in ‘Kent’ mango fruits harvested at mature green maturity stages and stored under different storage options with or without Activebag® modified atmosphere packaging. 88
Table 4.10a: Changes in Vitamin C (mg/100g fresh weight) in ‘Apple’ mango fruits harvested at mature green maturity stages and stored under different storage options with or without Activebag® modified atmosphere packaging. 89
Table 4.10b: Changes in Vitamin C (mg/100g fresh weight) in ‘Kent’ mango fruits harvested at mature green maturity stages and stored under different storage options with or without Activebag® modified atmosphere packaging. 90
Table 4.11a: Changes in Fructose (g/100g fresh weight) in ‘Apple’ mango fruits harvested at mature green maturity stages and stored under different storage options with or without Activebag® modified atmosphere packaging. 91
Table 4.11b: Changes in Fructose (g/100g fresh weight) in ‘Kent’ mango fruits harvested at mature green maturity stages and stored under different storage options with or without Activebag® modified atmosphere packaging. 92
Table 4.12a: Changes in Glucose (g/100g fresh weight) in ‘Apple’ mango fruits harvested at mature green maturity stages and stored under different storage options with or without Activebag® modified atmosphere packaging. 93
Table 4.12b: Changes in Glucose (g/100g fresh weight) in ‘Kent’ mango fruits harvested at mature green maturity stages and stored under different storage options with or without Activebag® modified atmosphere packaging. 94
Table 4.13a: Changes in Sucrose (g/100g fresh weight) in ‘Apple’ mango fruits harvested at mature green maturity stages and stored under different storage options with or without Activebag® modified atmosphere packaging. 95 
Table 4.13b: Changes in Sucrose (g/100g fresh weight) in ‘Kent’ mango fruits harvested at mature green maturity stages and stored under different storage options with or without Activebag® modified atmosphere packaging. 96



 
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: Cold chain components with possible temperature maintenance (Source: Mahajan and Frías, 2010). 15
Figure 2.2: The air conditioner and the Coolbot™ gadget (Source 20
Figure 2.3: Evaporative Cooling (Source: https://www.evapco.com/) 22
Figure 2.4: The Zero Energy Brick Cooler (Source: Karurumo Smallholder aggregation and processing center, Embu County) 23
Figure 2.5: Evaporative Charcoal cooler (Source: Karurumo Smallholder aggregation and processing center, Embu County). 25
Figure 2.6: The WakatiTM tent (Source 26
Figure 3.1: Front and rear view of Evaporative Charcoal Cooler (Source: Karurumo Smallholder aggregation and processing center, Embu County) 34
Figure 3.2: The Coolbot™ cold room with crates of mango fruits (Source: Karurumo Smallholder aggregation and processing center, Embu County) 35
Figure 3.3: Differences in temperature (oC) and Relative Humidity (%) in the Coolbot™ cold room and ambient room during the first 24 hours of storage 38
Figure 3.4: Overall shelf life of four mango varieties (‘Apple’, ‘Kent’, ‘Ngowe’ and ‘Tommy Atkins’) as affected by different harvest time, handling practices and cold storage. Top Bars represent S.E of means (P≤0.05) 50
Figure 4.1: Side-view of the Zero Energy Brick Cooler (Source: Karurumo Smallholder aggregation and processing center, Embu County) 60
Figure 4.2: Wakati™ Tent (Source: Karurumo Smallholder aggregation and processing center, Embu County) 60
Figure 4.3: Differences in temperature (oC) in the different storage options (Coolbot™ cold room, ECC, ZEBC, Wakati™ tent and ambient room) during the storage period. 64
Figure 4.4: Overall shelf life (days in storage) of ‘Apple’ (A) and ‘Kent’ (B) harvested at mature green maturity stages and stored under different storage options with or without Activebag® modified atmosphere packaging. Top Bars represent S.E of means (P≤0.05).   97


 
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix 1: The colour wheel 133
Appendix 2: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) table for effect of proper cold chain management practice and farmers’ practice on pulp temperature for ‘Apple’, ‘Ngowe’, ‘Kent’ and ‘Tommy Atkinns’ mango varieties under storage 134
Appendix 3: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) table for effect of proper cold chain management practice and farmers’ practice on percentage cumulative weight loss for ‘Apple’, ‘Ngowe’, ‘Kent’ and ‘Tommy Atkinns’ mango varieties under storage 134
Appendix 4: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) table for effect of proper cold chain management practice and farmers’ practice on peel colour for ‘Apple’, ‘Ngowe’, ‘Kent’ and ‘Tommy Atkinns’ mango varieties under storage 134
Appendix 5: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) table for effect of proper cold chain management practice and farmers’ practice on flesh colour for ‘Apple’, ‘Ngowe’, ‘Kent’ and ‘Tommy Atkinns’ mango varieties under storage 135
Appendix 6: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) table for effect of proper cold chain management practice and farmers’ practice on Peel firmness for ‘Apple’, ‘Ngowe’, ‘Kent’ and ‘Tommy Atkinns’ mango varieties under storage 135
Appendix 7: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) table for effect of proper cold chain management practice and farmers’ practice on flesh firmness for ‘Apple’, ‘Ngowe’, ‘Kent’ and ‘Tommy Atkinns’ mango varieties under storage 135
Appendix 8: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) table for effect of proper cold chain management practice and farmers’ practice on Total Soluble Solids (TSS) for ‘Apple’, ‘Ngowe’, ‘Kent’ and ‘Tommy Atkinns’ mango varieties under storage. 136
Appendix 9: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) table for effect of storage option and modified atmospheric packaging on pulp temperature for ‘Apple’ and ‘Kent’ mango varieties under storage. 136
Appendix 10: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) table for effect of storage option and modified atmospheric packaging on percentage cumulative weight loss for ‘Apple’ and ‘Kent’ mango varieties under storage. 136
Appendix 11: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) table for effect of storage option and modified atmospheric packaging on peel colour for ‘Apple’ and ‘Kent’ mango varieties under storage 137
Appendix 12: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) table for effect of storage option and modified atmospheric packaging on flesh colour for ‘Apple’ and ‘Kent’ mango varieties under storage 137
Appendix 13: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) table for effect of storage option and modified atmospheric packaging on peel firmness for ‘Apple’ and ‘Kent’ mango varieties under storage 137
Appendix 14: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) table for effect of storage option and modified atmospheric packaging on flesh firmness for ‘Apple’ and ‘Kent’ mango varieties under storage. 138
Appendix 15: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) table for effect of storage option and modified atmospheric packaging on total soluble solids (TSS) for ‘Apple’ and ‘Kent’ mango varieties under storage 138
Appendix 16: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) table for effect of storage option and modified atmospheric packaging on TTA for ‘Apple’ and ‘Kent’ mango varieties under storage. 138 
Appendix 17: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) table for effect of storage option and modified atmospheric packaging on Beta-carotene for ‘Apple’ and ‘Kent’ mango varieties under storage. 139
Appendix 18: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) table for effect of storage option and modified atmospheric packaging on Vitamin C for ‘Apple’ and ‘Kent’ mango varieties under storage 139
Appendix 19: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) table for effect of storage option and modified atmospheric packaging on Fructose for ‘Apple’ and ‘Kent’ mango varieties under storage 139
Appendix 20: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) table for effect of storage option and modified atmospheric packaging on Glucose for ‘Apple’ and ‘Kent’ mango varieties under storage 140
Appendix 21: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) table for effect of storage option and modified atmospheric packaging on Sucrose for ‘Apple’ and ‘Kent’ mango varieties under storage 140


 
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS

AFA Agriculture and Food Authority
CRD Complete Randomized Design
ECC Evaporative Charcoal Cooler
EZPC Export Zones Promotion Council
FPEAK Fresh Produce Exporters Association of Kenya
GNP Gross National Product
HCD Horticultural Crops Directorate
MAP Modified Atmospheric Package
MAPs Medicinal and Aromatic Plants
TSS Total Soluble Solids
TTA Titratable Acidity
ZEBC Zero Energy Brick Cooler





 
CHAPTER ONE

1.0 Introduction

1.1 Background Information
Horticultural sub-sector in Kenya which comprises fruits, flowers and vegetables has great importance to the economy, ranked 3rd after dairy and tea sub sectors (HCD, 2017). In 2016, the subsector contributed 1.45% to the Gross National Product (GNP). Horticulture is one of the leading foreign exchange earners in the country with a total domestic value of Ksh.248.47 billion and a total production of 6.696 MT, of which Ksh.63.8 billion is contributed by fruits leaving the rest to flowers, vegetables and medicinal plants. The main fruits grown arranged by significance are; bananas, mangoes, pineapples, avocado, water melon and pawpaw (HCD, 2017).
Mango being one of the key horticultural commodities in Kenya has significant domestic and export market. Its value has been ranked 2nd after Avocado in the export market (HCD, 2017). Mango production in Kenya is dominated by the small and medium holder farmers who contribute to up to 80% of the total producers registered by the Fresh Produce Exporters Association of Kenya (FPEAK).
Despite the growth of this subsector in the country and region, its potential has not been fully exploited. This has been linked to the various challenges in the horticultural value chains. Some of these challenges facing practitioners in the mango value chain include costly farm inputs, low quality planting materials, pests/diseases, edaphic factors, climatic limitations among others on the production side. After harvest, the key challenges include poor market access, poor infrastructure, lack of access to affordable technologies to preserve quality, all of which contribute to high postharvest losses.
Post-harvest losses along the mango value chain estimated at 40% (Gor et al., 2012) happen at every stage. The critical stages where these losses occur include at harvesting, transportation, storage and at the retail stage. Mango is prone to post-harvest losses due to its inherent perishability which is aggravated by seasonality. Mango fruiting in Kenya is seasonal with a glut during the peak season between November and February where the highest losses are reported (Maloba et al., 2017).
Post-harvest losses at the harvest stage are attributed to inability to determine fruit maturity which often results in harvesting of immature fruits (Ingle et al., 2000). Other drivers of losses at this stage include, harvesting when the environment is not cool (Samtani and Kushad, 2015: Kader and Rolle, 2004), improper harvesting methods and inappropriate handling that leads to bruising and mechanical injuries. Mechanical injuries provide entry point to pathogens, release wound ethylene and increase deterioration by increasing metabolic reactions (Kader, 2002).
During transportation, post-harvest losses occur due to improper packaging that results to suffocation and mechanical injury (Kader and Rolle, 2004), poor infrastructure causing delays (Rolle, 2006), mixing with high ethylene producing fruits thus accelerating ripening and deterioration (Kader and Rolle, 2004) and transporting in non-refrigerated trucks that require high energy levels to lower temperatures (Kader, 2002).
At the storage stage, losses are mainly due to poor storage conditions which lead to deterioration of the fruits due to various environmental and commodity factors. Losses can also be as a result of mixing fruits with different ethylene sensitivity and overloading in the stores (Pathak et al., 2017). For majority of smallholders involved in mango production, appropriate storage including cold storage facilities is expensive and out of reach. In addition, the scale of production does not justify individual farmer’s investment in cold storage facilities.
Cold chain management is important in horticultural/perishable produce to slow deterioration process by reducing respiration, transpiration, ethylene production and action, and decreases the activities of microorganisms thus slowing ripening and senescence (Ambuko et al., 2018a; Kitinoja, 2013). Maintaining internal (pulp) and the temperature around the stored fruit at a low (safe) temperature is critical for preservation of postharvest quality. Low temperature slows down the metabolic processes such as respiration, transpiration and softening which lead to deterioration perishable produce (Aung and Chang, 2014).
Various post-harvest technologies have been used to address the factors that contribute to deterioration and spoilage of the perishable horticultural produce such as mango fruit. However, there is low adoption of applicable postharvest technologies and practices among smallholder farmers. Studies conducted on projects focusing on postharvest technologies in horticultural value chains between 1996 and 2012 showed that about 83% of the projects were successful but the adoption thereafter was low (Kitinoja, 2010). The low adoption rates are due to; high cost of initial investment, sophisticated postharvest infrastructure, lack of awareness, different group dynamics and limited market access of the products (Kitinoja, 2010).
 
1.2 Problem Statement
High postharvest losses estimated at 40% are reported in the mango value chain in Kenya (Gor et al., 2012). One of the major causes of increased post-harvest losses among perishable commodities such as mango is poor cold chain management (Kitinoja, 2002). The high postharvest losses reported in mango are attributed to seasonality which results to excess/glut during the high season; high perishability leading to short shelf life once harvested, improper post-harvest handling, poor infrastructure and limited market access (Yahaya and Mardiyya, 2019). Proper cold chain management is the continuous handling of the product within cool/low temperature environment from harvest, collection, packing, processing, storage, transport and marketing until it reaches the final consumer (Kitinoja, 2013). The time of harvest and subsequent handling temperatures determine longevity of the harvested produce. Simple practices such as harvesting produce early in the morning, pre-cooling under a tree, transportation during cooler times of the day followed by cold storage have been reported to contribute to postharvest quality preservation (Ambuko et al., 2018a). Harvesting of fruits and vegetables during cool hours of the day minimizes excessive field heat generation (Arah et al., 2015). Simple storage technologies including evaporative cooling technologies (zero energy brick cooler and evaporative charcoal cooler); Coolbot™ cold storage; Wakati™ are examples of affordable cold storage technologies which have recently been introduced in Kenya (Ambuko et al., 2018a). Previous studies have shown effectiveness of the evaporative cooling technologies (Ambuko et al., 2016; Manyonzo et. al., 2018) and the Coolbot™ cold room (Ambuko et al. 2018b and Karithi, 2016). Previous studies have also shown that effectiveness cold storage technologies to preserve quality of harvested produce is enhanced through modified atmosphere packaging (Karithi 2016; Githiga et al., 2014). Despite their proven effectiveness to preserve quality and extend the shelf life of perishable produce, the adoption of these technologies in Kenya is very low. The low adoption is partly attributed to lack of evaluation of some of the practices and technologies as well as lack of awareness among the potential users of these technologies. Therefore, there is need to evaluate the effectiveness of the selected postharvest technologies and practices and create awareness to enhance adoption.

1.3 Justification
Cold chain management is critical for postharvest quality preservation and post-harvest loss reduction in the mango value chain. Application of low-cost cold storage technologies and simple cold chain management practices to preserve quality of harvested produce is necessary to reduce postharvest losses and extend the marketing period of highly perishable produce such as mango fruit.
 
The proposed technologies are not only simple and affordable but can be fabricated from locally available materials, making them appropriate for local contexts. Therefore, the study evaluated different simple and affordable but effective practices and technologies that can be utilized to achieve required cold chain for perishable commodities such as mango for shelf-life extension and quality preservation without one having to invest in expensive and sophisticated conventional cold rooms and that proper cold chain management can be achieved in areas without and/or with unstable electricity supply.

1.4 Objectives Overall Objective
To reduce postharvest losses in the mango value chain through application of proper cold chain
management practices.

Specific Objectives
To evaluate the effectiveness of harvest time, handling practices and cold storage to extend the shelf life of mango fruits.
To compare the effectiveness of different storage technologies (Coolbot™, Zero Energy Brick Cooler, Evaporative Charcoal Cooler and Wakati™) to preserve the post-harvest quality of mango fruits.

1.5 Hypothesis
Harvest time, handling practices and cold storage have no effect on the shelf-life extension of mango fruits.
The effectiveness of different storage technologies (Coolbot™, Zero Energy Brick Cooler, Evaporative Charcoal Cooler and Wakati™) to preserve the post-harvest quality of mango fruits will be the same.

Click “DOWNLOAD NOW” below to get the complete Projects

FOR QUICK HELP CHAT WITH US NOW!

+(234) 0814 780 1594

Buyers has the right to create dispute within seven (7) days of purchase for 100% refund request when you experience issue with the file received. 

Dispute can only be created when you receive a corrupt file, a wrong file or irregularities in the table of contents and content of the file you received. 

ProjectShelve.com shall either provide the appropriate file within 48hrs or send refund excluding your bank transaction charges. Term and Conditions are applied.

Buyers are expected to confirm that the material you are paying for is available on our website ProjectShelve.com and you have selected the right material, you have also gone through the preliminary pages and it interests you before payment. DO NOT MAKE BANK PAYMENT IF YOUR TOPIC IS NOT ON THE WEBSITE.

In case of payment for a material not available on ProjectShelve.com, the management of ProjectShelve.com has the right to keep your money until you send a topic that is available on our website within 48 hours.

You cannot change topic after receiving material of the topic you ordered and paid for.

Ratings & Reviews

0.0

No Review Found.


To Review


To Comment