Most procurement losses do not happen on farms.

They happen after harvest.

In transit.

At collection points.

During waiting.

Through small, repeated compromises.

This is the stage where good produce quietly turns bad —

and nobody feels directly responsible.

________________________________________

The false comfort of “harvest is done”

There is a psychological shift once harvesting ends.

Farmers feel their job is complete.

Buyers feel the risk has transferred.

Staff feel the hard work is behind them.

In reality, this is when risk accelerates.

Produce is alive.

Milk is perishable by the hour.

Animals respond to stress immediately.

The system relaxes — and damage begins.

________________________________________

A collection point near Dudu

It’s peak summer near Dudu.

Temperatures are touching 42°C.

Bhindi arrives at 7 a.m.

The truck meant to move it is delayed.

Crates sit in the open.

Sunlight hits directly.

Moisture evaporates.

Respiration increases.

By noon, quality has dropped sharply.

No one touched the produce wrongly.

No rule was broken.

Yet value is already lost — irreversibly.

________________________________________

Waiting is the most underestimated risk

Waiting looks harmless.

It is not.

Waiting means:

• rising temperature,

• moisture loss,

• microbial growth,

• stress accumulation.

In milk collection, waiting means souring.

In vegetables, it means wilting.

In live animals, it means weight loss and mortality risk.

Governance that does not price waiting as risk

will always underestimate losses.

________________________________________

The collection point illusion

Collection points are treated as neutral spaces.

They are not.

They are:

• mixing zones,

• handling hotspots,

• and accountability grey areas.

At collection points:

• lots get mixed,

• identity gets blurred,

• responsibility diffuses.

Everyone is present.

No one is fully accountable.

This is why contamination, damage, and disputes cluster here.

________________________________________

Human handling does more damage than machines

Most damage after harvest is caused by:

• throwing instead of placing,

• dragging instead of lifting,

• stacking for convenience,

• overfilling containers.

Not because people don’t know better —

but because speed is rewarded, care is not.

Governance must align incentives with care,

not just issue instructions.

________________________________________

Containers carry memory

Crates, bags, cans, cages —

they all carry memory.

• chemical residues,

• microbial load,

• animal waste,

• previous spoilage.

Reusing containers without cleaning is normal practice.

It is also a contamination multiplier.

Systems that ignore container hygiene

inherit every past mistake silently.

________________________________________

Milk teaches discipline again

Milk collection survives because:

• timings are fixed,

• chilling is non-negotiable,

• and deviations are punished immediately.

Vegetable and animal systems often tolerate:

• delays,

• excuses,

• and improvisation.

And then wonder why losses feel “unavoidable”.

Discipline is not rigidity.

It is respect for biology.

________________________________________

Live animals suffer invisibly

For live animals, post-harvest handling becomes an ethical test.

Stress causes:

• weight loss,

• immune suppression,

• injury,

• and mortality.

These losses are often blamed on “transport issues”.

In reality, they begin at:

• overcrowded holding,

• lack of water,

• rough handling,

• and long waits.

By the time animals reach destination,

damage is already done.

________________________________________

The lie of “we will sort it later”

Many systems rely on downstream correction:

• washing,

• trimming,

• grading,

• discarding.

This creates two problems:

1. Loss becomes invisible.

2. Responsibility disappears.

When losses are absorbed later,

nobody learns upstream.

Governance must expose loss where it occurs,

not where it is easiest to record.

________________________________________

Small losses accumulate into big distrust

A few percent loss here.

Some downgrading there.

A little spoilage accepted as normal.

Over time:

• prices feel unfair,

• payments feel inadequate,

• and farmers feel short-changed.

They may not articulate it clearly.

But they remember.

Losses, when silently transferred, become resentment.

________________________________________

A simple post-harvest governance test

Ask this at every collection point:

“If this produce deteriorates here, who feels the pain — and who learns from it?”

If the answer is:

• “the farmer” or “the system” — vaguely,

then governance is missing.

Pain without learning is waste.

________________________________________

Why this chapter matters

Many procurement systems obsess over:

• buying right,

• pricing right,

• and rejecting right.

They forget that handling right often matters more.

Post-harvest is where good intent is tested by fatigue, heat, and habit.

Governance exists to protect quality

when energy is lowest and pressure is highest.

________________________________________

What comes next

After collection and handling comes a point of no return.

Processing, packing, and labelling.

This is where:

• risk becomes brand liability,

• mistakes become public,

• and governance stops being optional.

That’s where we go next.