Qualitative discussion about reducing grain postharvest loss with mobile storage in Ghana, West Africa

Abstract

Farming sustainably and protecting gross harvest production correctly provides growers with “health care, school fees and peace-of-mind” (net benefits). Reducing Postharvest and input loss sustains the components of agriculture’s triple-bottom-line which are “accessible nutrition, reduced green-house emissions, and foreign exchange reserves”. Lacking storage that stops grain PHL, agriculture suffers critical problems like the Aspergillus fungi that leaves grain contaminated with invisible aflatoxin that growers cannot consume or market. The objective of the Ghana pilot study was to understand why new ideas/findings like, applying biologicals to the soil before harvest, gross production inputs, virtual markets and especially the spread of stationary grain warehouses have failed to improve the net benefits of farming or agricultures’ triple-bottomline in sub-Saharan Africa. Qualitative comparison methods were used to identify roadblocks to improvement as scientific monitoring and storage eliminate grain Postharvest loss on the drylands in many parts of the world. Observations suggest net benefits are being ignored as reviews and assessments of primitive or council storage exchange scientific rigor for Stationary Warehouse Prejudice. Scientific rigor illuminates how the qualitative cost of aflatoxin, and quantitative expense of pests, recycling plastic, and empty stationary warehouses impact enduser- cost per unit stored per month. We conclude that Postharvest loss is expensive, and that relatively inexpensive mobile metal storage assets would improve net benefits and the triple-bottom-line.