Currently, the World Food Program Global Postharvest Knowledge (WFP) center and other pioneering Development agencies apply plastic to the problem of storing surplus grain in Africa. The plastic storage solution is the result of limited scientific rigor like that of MIT Comprehensive Initiative on Technology Evaluation (attached)
We like the CITE approach, however no stored grain entomologists or mobile storage was involved. So it is impossible to compare small format plastic cable ties that seal plastic bags to other systems that scale up from grower daily needs, to school meal programs and then process Net yield (Net benefit).
At first Hermetic storage seems good for daily needs. However, scientific assessment soon illuminates how daily use discards one-time plastic cable ties (small format plastic) that seal Hermetic bags (large format plastic). Soon the tough cable ties wear and tear the soft plastic neck, the Hermetic seal degrades and thus is not effective, given all the problems involved with maintaining a low oxygen environment. Sometimes an the absence of cable ties, zippers or knotting offer a compromise. Zippers soon wear and tear and knotting reduces the capacity of the bag. Once oxygen enters the bag, pests flourish.
While sealed steel cans allow fumigation (the FAO/SDC confirm hermetic fails) and have a major advantage over plastic ties and bags or jute sacks, condensation dictates that any sealed storage be located indoors on a raised bench. Stacks of plastic bags or steel cans on raised benches inside, take room that has other more productive use. Container quality issues, either artisan or mass produced, are considerable when fumigation is indoors.
That the WFP has limited evaluation to mere family needs will disrupt Net benefit, as the scaling of hermetic storage at Postharvest loss like aflatoxin control points is limited by small and large format plastic and the infrastructure (benches and roofs) that the typical tenure-insecure grower needs to build and maintain.
For example, if the MacArthur foundation awards HarvestPlus a single $100 million grant Biofortified grains could be stored in plastic as other more sustainable systems and significant Postharvest loss have been ignored. HarvestPlus, proposes that 100 million people will have access to bio-fortified food by 2030. However, if African Postharvest and input loss like aflatoxin estimates are correct adequate storage does not exist. And so the HarvestPlus proposal lists sealed plastic sacks (1m * 1m) that require triple bagging for every approximately 50 kg of grain. Cable ties are one-time use and plastic wears during daily opening and closing not to mention chewing rats and insects that bore in and must be replaced every 2 - 3 seasons. For discussion, if each person consumes one 50 kg of grain per season, it would mean between +300 and 150 milllion cable ties (small format plastic) 150 and 75 million (150,000 - 75,000 sq. hectares) plastic bags would be discarded or need recycling.
If stationary infrastructure does not mitigate condensation and offer effective pest management for tenure-insecure growers at Postharvest Loss like aflatoxin control points, what is the Net benefit of biofortification and recycled or discarded plastic (HarvestPllus)?
Cardwell(2015) presents the hard Postharvest Loss reality might be that, "growers whose scale of operation is too small to be able to produce SAFE FOOD, are too small to farm maize (or any aflatoxin sensitive staple)." Does common sense also suggest small holders should not use plastic as it offers limited Net benefit?
- Should tenure-insecure growers storing surplus grain be limited by recycling or discarding acres of plastic?
- Is it the Donor's intention to perpetuate 100s of thousands of small growers, degradation of the rural environment and poor health in this way?
Net benefit design and materials that eliminate the need for non-recyclable small-format packaging altogether.
To explore grain grower net benefit, a pilot navigated through Ghana’s agricultural business environment and observed adaptive learning that suggested mobile metal Grain Distribution Logisitcal Infrastructure (GDLI) addresses the needs of tenure-insecure growers at Postharvest loss control points. Initially mobile GDLI can be leased to offset end-user-cost, then at harvest it breathes to mitigate condensation, rises above rats and groundwater so storing is optimal and reduces the hard labor, wear and tear that discards plastic during primary processing at markets. GDLI with mobility to scale is optimal for tenure-insecure SSA growers and soon the net benefit of inputs, micro finance, biofortification and marketing quality surplus compensate for the lease or purchase price without +300 and 150 million cable ties (small format plastic) @150 to 75 million discarded plastic bags/season.