What does the U.S. have in common with countries in sub-Saharan Africa?
Both waste large, obscene amounts of food. Better knowledge and technology would reduce food waste, deter environmental damage and, especially in that region of the African continent, reduce the number of people who go hungry each day.
In sub-Saharan Africa, at least 265 million people are hungry, heightening the travesty of the food waste problem. More than a quarter of the food produced in Africa spoils before it is eaten. Farmers battle post-harvest losses caused by severe weather, disease and pests, or poor harvesting and storage techniques. Annual post-harvest losses for cereal grains, roots and tuber crops, fruits, vegetables, meat, milk and fish amount to some 100 million tons, or $48 million worth of food.
To prevent these losses in Africa and elsewhere, the United Nations’ Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) is trying to provide the information and technology to begin turning this tide….
[i]too much of a harvest is left by farm equipment on the field to rot. [/i]
Once again, utter piffle from the chattering class. Those who’ve read my comments know I make my living as a farmer — no off-farm jobs, and not a nickel of government subsidy. I guarantee you the author has not once in her life ever adjusted a combine for maximum efficiency.
It is in our interest as farmers to maximise the efficiency of what we do. Only in the world of over-fed, over-educated commentators is perfection possible, but always for someone else … never themselves.
So easy to criticise. So challenging to do better. Especially when you haven’t the first idea which end of the corn, or the carrot, goes in the ground.
I’m sure the transnational technocrats will enjoy their $500 million in annual grants to “prevent” that $48 million in food losses. [i]Cui bono[/i]?
Bart,
Please clarify.
Granting your intimate knowledge, does gleaning (which does take place – one of our congregation does it regularly and describes it as most fruitful) thus reflect the manual harvesting of that which the farmer could never harvest mechanically (however efficient his or her equipment) or something [b]deliberately[/b] left for gleaners to gather in?
It’s all over the place. Let’s take wheat as one example, Kansas being the Wheat State. You’ll have harvesting losses at several points. When the grain is really ripe and ready to harvest, some of it will “shatter,” which means fall out of the head on its own, either in the wind or when first touched by the combine. These are definite losses, which we attempt to prevent by choosing varieties less-inclined to shatter.
As the grain moves into the combine it moves into a rapidly rotating cylinder which is nearly touching a series of grooved plates. The grain is threshed as it moves through that tight place, but if you make the gap too small grain will be crushed and broken. Not good. Consequently a certain percentage of the grain stays in the head and goes out the back with the straw. More losses.
The key thing is that beyond a certain point the cannot be prevented because you start losing grain to crushing if you tighten things up too much. It’s the same deal with rice, corn, barley, and whatever.
With vegetables, which we grow commercially, you’ll find that as you harvest there are some you know will definitely not make basic grade for human consumption, so you leave them in the field. Sometimes a crop blows up on you — broccoli in hot weather, for example — and you simply disk it all into the ground.
For city people, however, it all counts as “wasted” food.
All very clear. Thank you.
Is there any virtue that you can see to gleaning in a mechanical age? After all, in eras past it was certainly considered part of the warp and woof of the rural economy – a charity extended by the landowner, which nevertheless required the labor of those who gleaned to realize it.
[I just happened to glance back at a past report of one of our parish gleaners who, as part of an 8-person team in 2006 (in western Pennsylvania), helped pick 2,500 pounds of ripe tomatoes in one day, for which the local Food Bank was most grateful.]
Gleaning makes all kinds of sense for produce, especially since there’s always crop the grower knows won’t make grade. In a non-commercial context it will be quite acceptable — misshapen, cracked, too small, and so on — and most growers with any more sensitivity than a pipe wrench would have will be happy to work out some sort of arrangement.
It’s actually beneficial to the produce grower because it removes potential harborage for overwintering pests and diseases.
I wonder how much food, that would otherwise be available for gleaning, is destroyed due to government regulation because it is declared not suitable for human consumption when in fact it is perfectly edible.
All I understand is my vegitable garden which regularly produces misshapen, cracked, under/oversized produce which is however delicious. Letting those who need it “glean” makes great sense. However there are several problems. First, since the poor tend to be isolated off in cities, or other areas far from the farm, they will need to be trucked in. The poor do not have access to good transportation, nor are they useful workers. They are used to having healthy, cleaned up, carefully processed food handed to them. They are likely to kick at the idea of having to work for a “greedy farmer” who doesn’t even pay them, except in carrots. If they pull a stray carrot and hurt their back, the farmer is liable. If they pull a stray carrot and have stomach flu again the farmer is liable.
Thus, it makes more sense for the farmer to plow his carrots back into the field. As long as there is liability attached to helping your neighbor, and as long as Americans have a mindset of envy, entitlement and ingratitude, gleaning does not make sense.