Most procurement systems behave as if quality has only two states:

Good or Bad.

Accepted or rejected.

Pass or fail.

This binary thinking feels efficient.

It is also deeply dishonest.

Because in real life, most farm produce lives in between.

________________________________________

The uncomfortable middle

It’s December, near Kishangarh.

Carrots have come in bulk.

Some are:

• straight,

• bright,

• perfect for retail.

Some are:

• slightly bent,

• uneven in size,

• nutritionally fine.

Some are:

• overgrown,

• fibrous,

• better suited for processing.

All are carrots.

None are bad.

Yet a binary system forces a lie:

• either over-acceptance,

• or unnecessary rejection.

Both destroy value — just in different ways.

________________________________________

Why binary quality systems exist

Binary systems exist not because they are accurate,

but because they are easy to administer.

They reduce:

• explanation,

• accountability,

• and negotiation.

A simple rule is easier than a fair one.

But simplicity without truth creates conflict downstream:

• price disputes,

• silent downgrading,

• and trust erosion.

________________________________________

Quality is a spectrum, not a verdict

Real quality behaves like a spectrum:

• aesthetic quality,

• functional quality,

• nutritional quality,

• processing suitability,

• shelf-life potential.

A tomato rejected for retail may be perfect for pulp.

A large onion unsuitable for export may be ideal for dehydration.

A slightly mature spinach bunch may fail premium buyers but feed many.

Binary systems erase these distinctions — and value along with them.

________________________________________

Who benefits from pretending quality is binary?

This is uncomfortable but necessary.

Binary systems benefit:

• buyers who want flexibility without explanation,

• staff who want fewer decisions,

• and systems that lack processing options.

They do not benefit:

• farmers,

• long-term procurement health,

• or honest brands.

When classification is weak, power shifts silently to the buyer.

________________________________________

The silent theft called “downgrading”

Here is a common pattern:

Produce is accepted.

Later, it is internally downgraded.

The farmer is never told.

No rejection.

No confrontation.

No explanation.

This feels smooth.

It is also unethical.

Downgrading without disclosure is rejection without dignity.

Governance must treat internal downgrading as a first-class decision — not a hidden correction.

________________________________________

Milk systems already know this

Milk procurement understands non-binary quality well.

Milk is rarely rejected outright.

Instead:

• fat ranges,

• SNF ranges,

• and penalties exist.

Quality variation is absorbed through classification, not moral judgement.

Vegetable and animal procurement often forget this lesson — and pay the price in conflict.

________________________________________

Classification is governance, not sorting

Classification is not about crates and sizes.

It is about who captures value.

When classification rules are clear:

• farmers self-sort,

• expectations stabilise,

• and disputes reduce.

When classification is vague:

• everything becomes negotiation,

• or worse, silent adjustment.

Classification turns quality from a fight into a language.

________________________________________

The cost of pretending processing doesn’t exist

Many buyers reject produce simply because:

• they have no processing outlet,

• no secondary channel,

• or no imagination.

That is not a quality problem.

That is a system design problem.

Blaming farmers for systemic limitations is convenient — and unfair.

________________________________________

Live animals expose the lie fastest

Quality binary collapses completely with live animals.

A goat is:

• healthy but underweight,

• heavy but stressed,

• calm but older.

Is it good or bad?

Only a classification lens can answer that.

Binary judgement fails immediately.

This is why live animal markets rely on negotiated grading, not checklists.

________________________________________

Quality rules must be spoken before harvest

This is non-negotiable.

If quality classification is explained:

• before planting,

• before harvest,

• before dispatch,

then acceptance becomes predictable.

If classification is revealed only at the gate,

it feels like ambush.

Governance moves conversations upstream.

________________________________________

A simple quality governance test

Ask yourself:

“Can I explain this quality decision calmly to the farmer — and still feel fair?”

If the explanation requires:

• jargon,

• authority,

• or impatience,

the system is broken — not the produce.

________________________________________

Why this chapter matters

Many procurement systems lose money silently through:

• over-rejection,

• under-utilisation,

• and damaged relationships.

Binary thinking makes this invisible.

Recognising quality as a spectrum restores:

• value,

• honesty,

• and dignity.

________________________________________

What comes next

Once quality is seen as a spectrum,

the next question becomes unavoidable:

Who gets to decide how that spectrum is valued?

That takes us directly into value capture, power, and classification economics.