1. Introduction
World grain trade is defined in terms of grain type. Wheat (with 44.7% market share) is the most traded food grain in the world market, followed by beans (24.9%) and maize (15.3%), as per the 2016–2020 statistics queries of Production, Supply and Distribution (PSD) in the United States Department of Agriculture [1].
The basic characteristic of international trades is that the producer country uses the required quantity of grains as the primary consumer and exports the rest of its yield. According to Chatham House’s Resource Trade [2], the world grain trade amounted to USD 148 billion in market value and 552 million tons in weight in 2020. The main (representative) trade commodities were typically wheat, maize, rice, and barley. There were various producer and consumer countries for wheat, with none of them being dominant in either category; however, China occupies 59% (in market value) of world trade for soybean import, while the United States is the largest exporter of maize (24.4% in market value) in the world. Mexico and Japan were recorded as the biggest maize importers, 27.9% and 19.2%, respectively, as per market value.
The grain market has a few exporting countries and various importing countries. This implies that international trade is imperative for the grain importing countries to be able to meet their local demand (e.g., foods, biofuels, feedstuff); therefore, the logistics processes need to be clearly identified and improved to enable the efficient import of grains.
Market trade records, plotted in Figure 1, show that, with respect to market value, the global grain trade temporarily declined in 2015–2016, due to oversupply and recovered thereafter; however, the trade quantity, in terms of weight, has been increasing progressively. The continuous growth in market weight has been driven by many countries importing grains.
The market trade records for grains shows that the demand of logistics activities for grains has been continuously increasing, which indicates that the preservation requirement should be subsequently supplemented. To improve grain preservation throughout logistics processes, this study aims:
(1). To review conventional logistics processes, when importing grains from farms to customer markets (Section 3);
(2). To identify conditions and factors diminishing the grain quality (Section 4.1) throughout the logistics chain to specify the requirement of preservation containers (Section 4.2);
(3). To suggest an enhanced logistics process, using preservation containers (Section 4.3);
(4). To investigate and comparatively analyze the logistics cost from various perspectives (Section 5.1, Section 5.2, Section 5.3 and Section 5.4) to examine the feasibility and efficacy of the enhanced logistics process with preservation containers (Section 6).
This study primarily aims to investigate the practical feasibility of deploying preservation containers as integrated units of storage and transportation during the logistics activities at grain markets. A number of activities of grain logistics would be necessarily revised to fully utilize the advantage of preservation containers in grain quality. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to present the comparative cost analysis of using preservation containers in grain logistics. Therefore, this study proposes an enhanced logistics process using preservation containers and analyzes the economic viability.
The rest of this paper is organized as follows: Section 2 reviews the existing relevant literature; Section 3 identifies challenges in the current logistics processes for grains; Section 4 addresses the necessity of preservation containers and the expected effect in improving the logistics processes; Section 5 comparatively analyzes logistics cost for grain import process with and without preservation containers; Section 6 discusses the logistics improvement based on the findings from Section 5; and finally, the discussions and conclusions are presented in Section 7 and Section 8, respectively.
2. Literature Review
There is little research in the areas of logistics processes of grains. Fredriksson and Liljestrand [3] extensively reviewed previous studies from the perspective of the four areas of distribution, production, procurement, and relationship management to clarify food logistics and identify research areas. They defined food logistics within a food supply chain context by problematizing food product characteristics and by examining the constellation of food supply chain actors. Mardaneh et al. [4] examined different supply chain pathways for grain logistics by developing a decision support system, and the results showed that on-farm storage reduces harvest duration and yield losses, increasing the total yield, as compared to bulk storage. De Oliveira et al. [5] assessed the efficiency of long-distance logistics routes for soybean export. The results suggested the need for investments in trans-shipment terminals near the production areas as well as the availability of intermodal transportation for the export of soybean. Recent studies have also been conducted to facilitate agri-food supply chains by utilizing blockchain technologies [6,7,8].
Research has been conducted on the import sustainability of the grain market in Korea, as the grain market is highly imbalanced. The market has a few representative exporting countries and several importing countries. The Korean grain consumption market is highly dependent on international trade; the reported dependency level reached 76.6% (i.e., 7th rank in the world) in 2019 [9]. Yun et al. [10] analyzed the long-term importing trend of grain economics and found that the grain market progressively increased with wheat, maize, and soybean showing 2.0%, 1.8%, and 2.1% of unit price (USD/ton) increases over the period of 2019–2028. Kim et al. [11] suggested that government agencies in Korea need to be aggressively involved in the grain supply chain for import market sustainability.
While the grain market has been growing, post-harvest losses have negatively impacted the grain supply chain [12]. The post-harvest losses during the processes of transport, pre-processing, storage, processing, and packaging accounted for as much as 50% of the grain quantity [13]; for instance, it was estimated that up to 400 million metric tons of grain, constituting about 20% of global grain production, were lost in 2018 [14]. Nourbakhsh et al. [15] discussed that a reduction in post-harvest losses requires costly infrastructure investment and grain processing; hence, it is critical to find the optimal extent of reduction to maximize the overall benefits from different stages of the supply chain. Gardas et al. [16] highlighted that three factors, namely “lack of proper packaging facilities,” “lack of proper storage facilities,” and “insufficient infrastructure,” were the most significant ones leading to post-harvest losses in the fruit and vegetable supply chain in India. Bendinelli et al. [17] empirically investigated the representative factors contributing to post-harvest losses of grains (rice, maize, soybean, and wheat) and found that insufficient post-harvest infrastructure, especially in food storage and food marketing, could lead to higher post-harvest losses. Faibil et al. [18] found that the main drivers of post-harvest losses in raw cashew nuts were the lack (or insufficient use) of proper packaging materials and insufficient drying technologies and materials. Anand and Barua [19] addressed the key factors of post-harvest wastage of fresh fruits and vegetables under five operational features: demand forecasting, production planning, transportation, inventory, and inefficient harvesting. They recommended that traceability is a tool for enhancing safety, quality, and sustainability while lowering the overall cost of the produce by reducing its recall possibilities. Dyck et al. [20] supported the finding that digital twins can enhance traceability in post-harvest logistics. Luo et al. [21] provided an extensive literature review for articles on food loss and wastage during the various stages of the food supply chain, such as production, post-harvest handling and storage, processing, distribution and retail, and consumption, and identified research themes from text mining.
The literature review summarizes that storage and monitoring systems dedicated to grain logistics processes are the primary requirement to prevent quality deterioration and loss, and it is required that these be reviewed, instead of handling the grain in bulk throughout. This research attempts to discuss the logistics process improvement for grains using the newly developed preservation containers. The preservation containers are an emerging prototype that will be deployed to implement identity preservation. Note that the identity preservation is typically known as the practice of segregating crops to maintain their specific traits from the planting and production process through processing, packaging, and ultimately the delivery of the crop to the end market [22].
This research promotes the enhanced logistics process using preservation containers for the identity preservation of grains. The preservation containers could improve the logistics process by promoting traceability and quality control, which is in line with identity preservation. Hence, this research contributes to food sustainability in grain supply chains.
3. Problem Identification: Logistics Processes for Grains
The post-harvest logistics processes include inland transportation in the producer countries, international shipping, and then inland transportation again in the consumer countries. The storage activities are also frequently required along the logistics process of grains.
When investigating major grain-producing countries, as shown in Figure 2, the post-harvest action for grains begins by keeping the grains in storage facilities (e.g., country elevators, silos) on the farms. Thereafter, the bulk cargo (of grains) is transported by heavy vehicles to silos at the seaports for international transportation.
Major ports have dry-bulk terminals dedicated to grain cargo handling, wherein dedicated facilities are installed for grain transfer between bulk carriers and storage facilities; however, most of the ports store tons of imported grains at open yards. Bulk carriers are the most representative mode of transportation for international or long-distance domestic logistics. Sometimes barge carriers are used for short-sea logistics, such as, over the Mississippi River for the domestic market in US middle-north farms.
The grain is often kept in the storage/accommodation facilities for an extended period, as operators want to optimally utilize the capacity of transporters (i.e., heavy vehicles, bulk carriers). The lengthened duration could often lead to deterioration in grain quality, as they are damaged by insects, pests, rancidity, discoloration, and so on, due to long exposure to the natural environment. It is often reported that pesticides are used to mitigate the quality deterioration over the post-harvest processes, and the sprayed pesticides often remain on the grains for delayed chemical decomposition.
As depicted in Figure 3, there are several drawbacks as the grain is transported, using a series of modes of transportation, throughout the import process. The natural accommodation on a bulk carrier likely involves uncontrolled temperatures and humidity caused by saltwater. Silo accommodation is also unsafe. It was reported that farmers in New South Wales in Australia encountered rat infestation at grain silos (
Besides the open storage space, a tone-sack is known to be a popular storage unit for grains, as depicted in Figure 4. A tone-sack is a giant sack that can carry bulk cargo in tons. It is cheap and convenient to handle but is also easily damaged. The grain storage with tone-sacks at outdated facilities does not offer protection from inadequate temperature and humidity, harmful disease, insects, and so on, and hence accelerates the deterioration of grain quality during the storage process. One of the reasons for these shortcomings in the process is that many firms in the grain storage and transportation industry are small-and-medium enterprises (SMEs); therefore, they are unlikely to maintain high standards of operational practices or facilities for grain logistics, due to limited resources.
Grains often stay in open spaces (e.g., on bulk carriers, on heavy vehicles, and tone-sacks) without any preservation support for long durations throughout the import process, which is the key cause of quality deterioration. Two different government agencies, the Animal and Plant Quarantine Agency (QIA,
QIA aims to prevent insect and pest infestation when importing grains. If insects and/or pests beyond a certain level are discovered, quarantine actions are exercised as shown in Table 1, for crop protection. MFDS inspects all the imported foods, food supplements, packages, and so on by methods like paper screening, field inspection, close inspection, and random sampling inspection to check if the imported products meet the MFSD standard protocols.
Unfortunately, the inspection process is usually not known to be too reliable; for example, 64.1% was paper screening, 13.6% was close inspection, and 5.3% was random sampling inspection in 2019, as shown in Table 2.
The subsequent section further identifies the elements of quality deterioration and suggests a new technology to preserve the grains during the processes of storage and transportation.
4. Methodological Requirement and Solution: Enhanced Logistics Processes with Preservation Containers
This section identifies the factors that diminish the quality of grains during the logistics processes (i.e., transportation, storage), addresses the necessity of preservation containers, and discovers the requirement of improving logistics processes in terms of quality controls.
4.1. Factors Affecting Grain Quality
The grain quality is attributed to the following four factors:
Physiological factors: The respiration rate is attributed to temperatures, oxygen density, and percentages of moisture content. Controlling the oxygen density could help grains retain the quality as well as the percentage of moisture content regardless of temperatures. Trimble [23,24] reported that 5% oxygen density reduces the respiration rate in fruits, and 3% of oxygen density helped restrain pest development in grains.
Chemical factors: The degrees of oxidation and (effect of oxygen and carbon dioxide on) pH levels, respectively, are known to cause acidification and discoloration. Lee [25] tested MA (modified atmosphere) packaging, which resulted in eliminating harmful insects from grains packed in less than 1% of oxygen density. Keum et al. [26] reported that direct sunshine, external high temperature, rains, and wind were of little significance to the quality when the rice was packed in airtight storage. Kim et al. [27] found that a pack of rice retains its desired color hue (chromaticity) and percentage of moisture content for the range of temperatures 10–30°C, when kept in a hermetically sealed space, that is, completely airtight.
Physical factors: Inconsistent temperatures in the storage space and the package negatively contribute to air ventilation, moisture, and humidity, worsening over time. According to Ha et al. [28], the sealed space and control of gas (i.e., oxygen, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen) content and combination provide relatively consistent degrees of relative humidity and respiration rates. Choi et al. [29] found that the respiration rate of rice increases when moisture content and temperature increase.
Biological factors: Typical examples are bacteria, mold, and harmful insects. Their appearance could also be prevented by controlling the combination of gases [30].
Grains are organic products and hence it is required to manage respiration rates to retain their quality. The gas combinations (i.e., oxygen, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen) need to be controlled according to the grain type. Therefore, long-term storage and distribution activities have an insignificant impact on quality deterioration if appropriate technologies are utilized.
Packaging technologies, in the sector of food distribution, are categorized into controlled atmosphere (CA) and modified atmosphere (MA) technologies. CA uses control devices to autonomously control the atmosphere to slow down the respiration speed and prevent microorganisms to retain quality, while MA sets initial atmosphere conditions in the package without devices [26]. The use of CA packages requires sealing of the package immediately after packing and controlling the atmosphere through the desired combination of oxygen, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen as per product type. Likewise, when removing the product, careful ventilation is required to protect the products from sudden changes in the environment.
4.2. Preservation Containers
The high loss rate of grains due to quality deterioration is a representative concern throughout the logistics process. A preservation container is an alternative solution to the problem, by applying the concept of CA packages to grains, in favor of dividing bulk into discrete units for storage and transportation and hence, facilitating logistics processes.
Figure 5 conceptualizes the improved import process for grains. There are various representative advantages of using preservation containers: (i) significant reduction in the need for silo implementation; (ii) avoiding long storage at the yards or silos through use of small-sized container ships for sea-bone trades; and (iii) increased degree of preservation due to shortened duration-of-delivery.
The containerization of grain transportation has been gaining popularity over the last few decades. Around 12% of farm products (e.g., grains, oilseeds) was loaded onto containers in 2012; also, about 12–15% of grains was reportedly being imported from Australia to Asia via containerization, and this trend is expected to grow, according to the USDA [1]. This could be because the concept of “identity-preservation”, or differentiating commodities, with strict separation from each other, is being widely adopted for various farm products, and containerization in the shipment process is required to implement the necessary practices for this purpose [31]. In line with the increasing popularity of identity preservation, small quantity transportation in international shipping is beneficial for small markets where giant bulk carriers are not preferable for relatively small-scale grain market stakeholders. They likely use the existing container shipping network (i.e., hub-and-spokes) to import grains via feeder containerships, without establishing service lines for bulk carriers.
Apart from container ships or bulk carriers used for international shipping, the containers used for local surface transfers by heavy vehicles also need to be controlled to achieve the desired level of identity preservation. The necessary control technologies depend on the types of grains and the duration of preservation. The logistics processes could be improved significantly with the introduction of relevant technologies. The next subsection discusses the expected process improvement for grains.
4.3. Improved Logistics Process for Grains
Regarding the technological requirement, the preservation container could provide sufficient environmental controls throughout the logistics processes for grains by monitoring the air condition, controlling nitrogen quantity, and self-provided power supply. A real-time monitoring platform is essential for stakeholders to check the quality status, observe oxygen concentration, and link to the transaction data repository via low-battery wireless communication. It also requires a convenient but minimally exposable structure for sampling, inspection, and quarantine. As for quality management requirements, the preservation container needs to block out open air and humidity, prevent fungal toxins and oxidation, insects, minimize antiseptic treatment, and prohibit rodents. The specification of the preservation is presented in Appendix A.
With the introduction of the preservation container and adoption of the technologies mentioned, the import processes are expected to become simplified, more efficient, and safer, as the storage and transportation activities get significantly reduced. Figure 5 depicts the shortened logistics processes of importing grains. Containerization aids not only in quality management by preserving grains but also in efficiently transporting the grains from one country to another. When it uses inland transportation, the preservation container provides convenience in processing, storing, and distributing the grains.
Figure 5Grain logistics processes with preservation containers.
[Figure omitted. See PDF]
5. Materials and Methods: Logistics Cost Data and Calculation
Production and logistics costs are the major determinants of market prices, besides margins throughout the pre- and post-harvest processes. Since preservation containers might have insignificant effects on any component of the production cost, this section comparatively analyzes the four logistics cost components to examine the economic viability of the proposed preservation container based logistics process compared to the traditional bulk logistics process for grains. The logistics cost includes international shipping costs, cargo tariffs, and storage and infrastructure costs.
Section 5.1, Section 5.2, Section 5.3 and Section 5.4 investigate the relevant data for the four cost components, respectively, by providing the reliable references. The cost analysis is then conducted for the same amount of grains to fairly compare the required cost to each other.
5.1. Shipping Cost
Shipping liners use a TEU (20 ft equivalent unit) as the pricing unit for container shipping costs. The shipping cost consists of many elements, but this section considers ocean freight charge (O/F) and terminal handling charges in origin and destination (O/TCH and D/TCH, respectively). Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6 summarize the shipping cost for reefer and dry containers, for 20 and 40 ft sizes.
As can be observed in Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6, the shipping cost depends, to a large extent, on the size and types of containers, as well as on the shipping liners. For example, CMA CGM requires KRW 11,594,560 and KRW 10,496,600 for a unit of 20 ft reefer and dry containers, respectively, to transport the unit from Busan to Long Beach by a container ship, whereas Ocean Network Express requires KRW 8,570,000 and KRW 8,101,600 for the two types of containers for the same route. However, a 20 ft dry container (KRW 8,021,700 on average) is the cheapest among the four options, followed by 20 ft reefer (KRW 8,847,211.43 on average), 40 ft dry (KRW 10,024,623.33 on average), and 40 ft reefer (KRW 11,483,549.09 on average) containers.
The shipping cost with bulk carriers is not reported in public, but the Baltic exchange dry index (BDI) (
5.2. Cargo Handling Tariff
Table 7 summarizes the public tariff announced by Busan Newport Container Terminal in 2022. As reefer containers require specialized facilities to control the temperature, the extra cost is added to the general (dry) container tariffs.
Table 7Cargo handling tariff 2022 by Busan Newport Container Terminal.
| Container Type | Container Size (Full/Empty) | Public Tariff (KRW) | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry | 45 (F) | 198,900 | |
| 45 (M) | 179,200 | ||
| 40 (F) | 176,900 | ||
| 40 (M) | 159,400 | ||
| 20 (F) | 124,200 | ||
| 20 (M) | 110,200 | ||
| Reefer | 45 (F/M) | 83,100 | Monitoring/Operational |
| 40 (F/M) | 70,600 | ||
| 20 (F/M) | 40,100 | ||
| 45/40/20 | 37,500 | Pre-trip inspection (PTI)/Pre-cooling | |
| Surcharge | 50% | Long PTI | |
| Surcharge | 100% |
Gunsan port has the largest grain terminal in Korea, operated by Sun Kwang Co., Ltd. (
5.3. Storage Cost
The storage cost has two sub-cost components: demurrage and detention for import and export containers. Both are charged for shipments wherein customers have exceeded the standard free time applicable both in the import and export cycles. The demurrage is levied if a forwarder (or a hauler service provider) holds a shipper’s containers at a terminal for longer than the agreed free days and is applicable to all containers remaining at the terminal longer than the agreed free time. The detention is levied when a freight forwarder, or forwarding agent, holds a shipper’s containers outside a terminal longer than the agreed free time and is applicable throughout the duration of the forwarder’s possession of the shipper’s containers in its custody, until its safe return to the shipper.
The demurrage and detention costs depend on shipping liners, terminals, container yards, regions, and so on. This section refers to a shipping liner (SM lines,
As for the bulk commodities, a representative gain terminal operator, Sun Kwang co., ltd., running the biggest silo in Korea is referred to investigate the storage cost via interview. The free storage time is set to 15 days; KRW 55 per ton will be levied 1–5 days beyond the free time limit, and subsequently, KRW 82.5 per ton will be applied beyond the 6th day.
5.4. Infrastructure Cost
The previous subsections assumed that the necessary infrastructures are prepared in advance. By referring to Sun Kwang’s internal report, the piling construction required KRW 20 billion for a silo of accommodating 130,000 tons of grains, with the silo building cost at KRW 80 billion, which amounts to nearly KRW 615,384.6 per ton. This subsection only considers the silo building cost.
6. Results
This section conducts a comparative cost analysis and provides the economic advantages and disadvantages of the containerized logistics compared to the traditional bulk logistics. The economic merit of containerization against bulk transportation of grain cargo is addressed in terms of the four cost components. A 20 ft dry container is the benchmark for this analysis and the cost for bulk logistics is assumed to be proportional to the quantity.
Table 10 shows a comparative analysis of unit bulk cost for different tons of weight. When shipping grains by bulk carriers or container ships, as the container cost is not dependent on the weight, it is obvious that bulk shipping is the economical choice. For the 20 tons of weight in bulk, which requires almost a full 20 ft container, the shipping cost is 76.2% lower when transported in bulk, rather than in containers. Note that the unit cost for bulk is the average unit shipping cost referring to Shanghai Shipping Exchange and the unit cost for containerization is the average of a 20 ft dry container shipping cost, investigated in Section 5.1.
Table 11 shows the tariff analysis. The container handling tariff is not dependent on weight, whereas the bulk tariff is associated with it. The result shows that containerization has a higher benefit than bulk, as the container tariff is 23.2% cheaper than that for 20 tons of weight in bulk. Note that the container tariff might be discounted with its quantity as well as a contract between a terminal and a shipper.
Table 12 analyzes the storage cost beyond the free time limit for bulk and a container. The demurrage and detention for a container are the same as investigated in Table 9. Since the two free time limits are different for 15 and 8 days for bulk and containers, respectively, the analysis on only days 1, 2, and 3 beyond the free time are fairly comparable. As for 20 tons of weight stored beyond the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd day, the average bulk storage cost is 89% cheaper than container storage.
Table 13 analyzes the unit infrastructure cost associated with tons of weight. For example, the 20 tons of weight in bulk needs KRW 12,307,692 for infrastructure. The price of a new 20 ft dry container is priced roughly in the range of KRW 6,000,000 to KRW 10,000,000, depending on manufacturers and quality, according to the market investigation. From this result, containerization could save up to 51.2% of infrastructure costs as compared to bulk.
7. Discussion
When using preservation containers in grain logistics to improve its processes, the primary feature should be economic viability. Section 5 and Section 6 analyzed the four logistics cost components between the traditional bulk logistics and the containerized logistics processes. This study presents a comparative cost analysis of using preservation containers in grain logistics processes for identity preservation.
It was found that the shipping cost was favorable to the traditional bulk logistics (76.2%) for the same amount of grain cargo, as the cargo logistics in bulk could enjoy the benefit of the economies of scales, and hence, the lower cost can be applied to the same amount of grain cargo than that of grain cargo logistics in containerization. It was also found that that the storage cost in bulk logistics, as expected, is preferable (89%) compared to the containerized logistics. Together with the shipping cost, the storage cost also measures the benefits to the economies of scales.
Regarding the shipping cargo tariff, the containerships generally have advantage of lower tariff rate than that of cargo by bulk carriers. This difference comes from the fact that the international maritime cargo trade is mostly achieved by containerships and the shipping liners have strong marginal power. However, the bulk carriers are relatively smaller-scale businesses in the international trade compared to containerized trade. This study assumes that the grain market can possess the advantages of container shipping in general, so that the same tariff rate is applied to the analysis. Nevertheless, the result found that the tariff (23.2%) was favorable to the containerized logistics process. The representative cost reduction in containerized grain logistics comes from saving infrastructure cost. The infrastructural facilities (i.e., silos) require great capital cost, because the capital cost includes land prices and construction cost. Since the containerization does not need built-in infrastructures, for the same amount of grain cargo, the saving (51.2%) is invaluable when industry considers its adoption.
Apart from the economic viability, the peripheral effects are also important. When considering the application of containerized grain logistics, the standardized containerization likely helps shippers carry various types of cargo including grains by containerships. Even though the bulk grain logistics provides economic merit in shipping cost, from the perspective of shippers, the cost would be sufficiently mitigated by consolidation on a long-term basis. The storage space cost is another measure of logistics process. Since the bulk grain is barely preferable in favor of grain inventory management, preservation containers likely contribute to introduce stock-keeping-units (SKUs) to grain storage activities. Furthermore, the shipping and storage processes can be serialized without decoupling the logistics process. In that regard, giant infrastructural facilities could likely be replaced with the stacks of preservation containers such as stacking blocks at a container yard of a seaport.
The greatest impact of introducing containerized grain logistics is that users would trace the grain quality throughout logistics processes using preservation containers. This benefit is in line with the concept of identity preservation that refers to the ability to maintain traits and/or attributes (e.g., food safety, country of origin, GMO, organic, kosher, halal, “free-range” livestock, contamination by allergens or microorganisms, animal welfare, dolphin free, fair wage and trade, low carbon footprint) [32]. Identity preservation of grains from harvest to use (on farm or ethanol plant) requires a possible solution of assuring targeted grain quality but is a major challenge when trying to introduce or adopt trait-specific grain varieties. The current grain handling and storage infrastructure do not support separating grain sources based on nutritional or other traits. Hence, a promising system of logistics needs to be flexible, given the inherent uncertainties surrounding regional growing conditions [22].
Two important considerations in identity preservation are traceability and quality control. Traceability in grain logistics cannot retain the quality, but it can be used to associate each unit of grain product information concerning physiological, chemical, physical, and biological factors, discussed in Section 4.1, which allows a specific and economic value to be assigned. The grain quality control during the process of logistics activities requires a solution of monitoring status and controlling air conditions. The proposed logistics process with preservation containers is proposed based on capability from linking traceability with quality control via an application of information technologies. The proposed logistics process would help managers/forwarders implement identity preservation via deploying the preservation containers that contribute to sustainability in grain supply chains.
8. Conclusions
The grain market has been increasing but the amount of loss throughout the post-harvest process is significant. This study discussed a way of enhancing the logistics process using preservation containers for grains and estimated the improvement in logistics costs against the conventional logistics process in bulk. The introduction of preservation containers meets the demand for identity preservation and the containers could efficiently manage the grain preservation to resist the quality deterioration during post-harvest logistics processes (i.e., processes of transport, pre-processing, storage, processing, and packaging). Prior to introducing the concept, this study also identified the categorized elements leading to grain quality deterioration, showing how preservation containers help preserve quality by controlling a combination of gases (i.e., oxygen, carbon dioxide, and nitrogen).
After proposing the enhanced logistics process in importing grains, the four components of logistics cost are comparatively analyzed to understand the economic viability. It was found that the improved logistics process with preservation containers is advantageous in reducing tariff (23.2%) and infrastructure costs (51.2%), comparatively, on average, while the traditional bulk logistics process is more beneficial in lowering shipping (76.2%) and storage costs (89%), on average. Due to containerization, the unit logistics cost in shipping and storage would be naturally increased compared to non-containerization, but the market cost disadvantage would be mitigated after considering the grain quality deterioration caused by bulk shipping and storage. However, containerization provides economical efficacy by saving tariff and infrastructure cost in the improved logistics processes, as the tariff rate in containers is generally low and containerization does not require infrastructural facilities (e.g., silos), thus saving capital cost.
Implementing identity preservation requires technological adoption and logistics improvement to accomplish traceability and quality control. The proposed grain logistics process with preservation containers could contribute to implementing identity preservation to help food sustainability in grain supply chains.
This research is a fundamental study estimating the benefit of introducing preservation containers into the logistics process. Admittedly, the study has limitations: The loss rate has not been considered for cost analysis; the feasibility of replacing the shipping route of bulk carriers with ships with preservation containers should be informative; and the business cases need to be identified in practice.
Conceptualization, Y.J.K.; methodology, Y.J.K.; validation, Y.J.K.; formal analysis, Y.J.K.; investigation, Y.J.K., B.K.L.; resources, Y.J.K.; data curation, Y.J.K., B.K.L.; writing—original draft preparation, Y.J.K., B.K.L.; writing—review and editing, B.K.L.; visualization, B.K.L.; project administration, Y.J.K.; funding acquisition, Y.J.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
![View Image - Figure 1. Market trade during 2010–2020 [2].](https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/THUM/2/Ux0bP?_a=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%3D%3D&_s=8R%2BRTavI4z8UfcWBm7wP71nsrz4%3D "View Image - Figure 1. Market trade during 2010–2020 [2].")
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Market trade during 2010–2020 [2].
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Conventional logistics processes for grains.
Enlarge this image.Figure 3. Representative drawbacks of natural accommodation for grains. Link in figure accessed on 30 September 2022.
Enlarge this image.Figure 4. Grain storage and handling processes with tone-sacks.
QIA quarantine protocols and exercises.
| Regulated Pests/Insects | Potentially Regulated Pests/Insects | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quarantine Pests/Insects | Regulated Non-Quarantine Pests/Insects | ||||
| Forbidden Pests/Insects | Manageable Pests/Insects | ||||
| Protocols | Laws (73 clauses) | Notices (2 clauses) | Notices (1994 clauses) | Notices (49 clauses) | Political-risk assessment (PRA) listing |
| Exercises | Prohibition | Disinfection |
Disinfection |
Disinfection |
|
Source: QIA Plant Protection Act (enforcement regulations).
Inspection record in 2019.
| Paper Screening | Field Inspection | Close Inspection | Random Sampling Inspection | Defects Identified | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number of inspections | 473,259 | 125,391 | 110,532 | 38,900 | 1295 | 738,082 |
| Proportions | 64.1% | 17% | 13.6% | 5.3% | 0.2% | 100% |
Source: QIA inspection results in 2019.
Shipping cost for 20 ft reefer containers.
| Shipping Liners | Effective Dates | Container Sizes (In Feet) | Container Types | O/F |
O/THC |
D/THC |
Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CMA CGM | 18 June 2022 | 20 | Reefer | 8377 | 232,000 | 500 | 11,594,560 |
| COSCO | 10 May 2021 | 20 | Reefer | 4600 | 232,000 | 0 | 6,120,000 |
| HAPAG-LLOYD | 15 June 2022 | 20 | Reefer | 4866 | 230,000 | 0 | 6,458,480 |
| HAMBURG SUD | 15 September 2021 | 20 | Reefer | 10,273 | 370,000 | 0 | 13,519,440 |
| MAERSK | 1 July 2020 | 20 | Reefer | 2110 | 140,000 | 500 | 3,480,800 |
| Ocean Network Express | 10 June 2022 | 20 | Reefer | 6500 | 250,000 | 0 | 8,570,000 |
| OOCL | 1 August 2021 | 20 | Reefer | 9340 | 232,000 | 0 | 12,187,200 |
Note: the shipping cost data were retrieved from
Shipping cost for 40 ft reefer containers.
| Shipping Liners | Effective Dates | Container Sizes (In Feet) | Container Types | O/F |
O/THC |
D/THC |
Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CMA CGM | 18 June 2022 | 40 | Reefer | 8397 | 326,000 | 600 | 11,842,160 |
| COSCO | 1 June 2022 | 40 | Reefer | 9000 | 345,000 | 0 | 11,865,000 |
| EVERGREEN | 1 September 2021 | 40 | Reefer | 11,605 | 330,000 | 833 | 16,250,640 |
| HAPAG-LLOYD | 15 June 2022 | 40 | Reefer | 5863 | 345,000 | 0 | 7,849,640 |
| HMM | 15 June 2022 | 40 | Reefer | 9000 | 345,000 | 0 | 11,865,000 |
| HAMBURG SUD | 1 October 2021 | 40 | Reefer | 10,273 | 370,000 | 0 | 13,519,440 |
| MAERSK | 15 June 2022 | 40 | Reefer | 5300 | 370,000 | 0 | 7,154,000 |
| Ocean Network Express | 10 June 2022 | 40 | Reefer | 7700 | 365,000 | 0 | 10,221,000 |
| OOCL | 1 August 2021 | 40 | Reefer | 9072 | 345,000 | 0 | 11,957,160 |
| SM Line | 20 June 2022 | 40 | Reefer | 8550 | 346,000 | 0 | 11,290,000 |
| YANG MING | 15 June 2022 | 40 | Reefer | 9500 | 345,000 | 0 | 12,505,000 |
Shipping cost for 20 ft dry containers.
| Shipping Liners | Effective Dates | Container Sizes (In Feet) | Container Types | O/F |
O/THC |
D/THC |
Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CMA CGM | 17 June 2022 | 20 | Dry | 7595 | 135,000 | 500 | 10,496,600 |
| COSCO | 24 May 2022 | 20 | Dry | 6480 | 130,000 | 0 | 8,424,400 |
| EVERGREEN | 1 September 2021 | 20 | Dry | 4909 | 130,000 | 370 | 6,887,120 |
| HAPAG-LLOYD | 15 June 2022 | 20 | Dry | 5501 | 130,000 | 0 | 7,171,280 |
| HMM | 15 June 2022 | 20 | Dry | 6560 | 135,000 | 0 | 8,531,800 |
| HAMBURG SUD | 13 April 2022 | 20 | Dry | 7875 | 140,000 | 0 | 10,220,000 |
| MAERSK | 15 June 2022 | 20 | Dry | 4359 | 140,000 | 0 | 5,719,520 |
| MSC | 17 June 2022 | 20 | Dry | 5320 | 135,000 | 0 | 6,944,600 |
| Ocean Network Express | 10 June 2022 | 20 | Dry | 6220 | 140,000 | 0 | 8,101,600 |
| OOCL | 1 August 2021 | 20 | Dry | 5381 | 130,000 | 0 | 7,017,680 |
| SM Line | 20 June 2022 | 20 | Dry | 6060 | 135,000 | 0 | 7,891,800 |
| YANG MING | 15 June 2022 | 20 | Dry | 6800 | 150,000 | 0 | 8,854,000 |
Shipping cost for 40 ft dry containers.
| Shipping Liners | Effective Dates | Container Sizes (In Feet) | Container Types | O/F |
O/THC |
D/THC |
Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CMA CGM | 17 June 2022 | 40 | Dry | 7550 | 187,000 | 600 | 10,619,000 |
| COSCO | 24 May 2022 | 40 | Dry | 8250 | 180,000 | 0 | 10,740,000 |
| EVERGREEN | 1 September 2021 | 40 | Dry | 6335 | 180,000 | 833 | 9,355,040 |
| HAPAG-LLOYD | 15 June 2022 | 40 | Dry | 7446 | 180,000 | 0 | 9,710,880 |
| HMM | 15 June 2022 | 40 | Dry | 8000 | 180,000 | 0 | 10,420,000 |
| HAMBURG SUD | 13 April 2022 | 40 | Dry | 9883 | 190,000 | 0 | 12,840,240 |
| MAERSK | 15 June 2022 | 40 | Dry | 5448 | 190,000 | 0 | 7,163,440 |
| MSC | 17 June 2022 | 40 | Dry | 6650 | 190,000 | 0 | 8,702,000 |
| Ocean Network Express | 10 June 2022 | 40 | Dry | 8290 | 190,000 | 0 | 10,801,200 |
| OOCL | 1 August 2021 | 40 | Dry | 6881 | 180,000 | 0 | 8,987,680 |
| SM Line | 20 June 2022 | 40 | Dry | 7575 | 180,000 | 0 | 9,876,000 |
| YANG MING | 15 June 2022 | 40 | Dry | 8500 | 200,000 | 0 | 11,080,000 |
Demurrage and detention (in KRW) for export (20/40 ft) containers.
| Container Type | Destination | Free Time | Charges beyond Free Time | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demurrage | Dry | Asia, America | 14 days | 10,000/15,000 |
| Reefer | Asia, America | 5 days | 45,000/65,000 | |
| Detention | Dry | Asia, America | 8 days | 7000/10,000 |
| Reefer | Asia, America | 5 days | 15,000/20,000 |
Demurrage and detention (in KRW) for import (20/40 ft) containers.
| Container Type | Destination | Free Time | 0–10 Days beyond Free Time | 11–20 Days beyond Free Time | 21 Days Onward beyond Free Time | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Demurrage | Dry | Asia | 8 days | 10,000/15,000 | 15,000/24,000 | 25,000/35,000 |
| America | 8 days | 10,000/15,000 | 20,000/30,000 | 30,000/40,000 | ||
| Reefer | Asia | 8 days | 10,000/15,000 | 15,000/24,000 | 25,000/35,000 | |
| America | 8 days | 10,000/15,000 | 20,000/30,000 | 30,000/40,000 | ||
| Detention | Dry | Asia | 6 days | 10,000/15,000 | 15,000/24,000 | 20,000/30,000 |
| America | 6 days | 10,000/15,000 | 15,000/23,000 | 28,000/35,000 | ||
| Reefer | Asia | 6 days | 10,000/15,000 | 15,000/24,000 | 20,000/30,000 | |
| America | 6 days | 10,000/15,000 | 15,000/23,000 | 28,000/35000 |
Comparative shipping cost analysis.
| Bulk | Container (20 ft Dry) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weight (Ton) | Unit Cost (KRW/Ton) | Cost (KRW) | Unit Cost (KRW/Ton) | Cost (KRW) |
| 17 | 95,565 | 1,624,602 | 8,021,700 | 8,021,700 |
| 18 | 1,720,166 | |||
| 19 | 1,815,731 | |||
| 20 | 1,911,296 | |||
| 21 | 2,006,861 | |||
| 22 | 2,102,426 | |||
Comparative tariff analysis.
| Bulk | Container (20 ft Dry) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weight (Ton) | Unit Cost (KRW/Ton) | Cost (KRW) | Unit Cost (KRW/Ton) | Cost (KRW) |
| 17 | 8082 | 137,394 | 124,200 | 124,200 |
| 18 | 145,476 | |||
| 19 | 153,558 | |||
| 20 | 161,640 | |||
| 21 | 169,722 | |||
| 22 | 177,804 | |||
Comparative storage cost analysis.
| Days beyond Free Time | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weight (Tons) | ||||||||||||
| Bulk—15 Days of Free Time | 17 | 935 | 1870 | 2805 | 3740 | 4675 | 6078 | 7480 | 8883 | 10,285 | 11,688 | |
| 18 | 990 | 1980 | 2970 | 3960 | 4950 | 6435 | 7920 | 9405 | 10,890 | 12,375 | ||
| 19 | 1045 | 2090 | 3135 | 4180 | 5225 | 6793 | 8360 | 9928 | 11,495 | 13,063 | ||
| 20 | 1100 | 2200 | 3300 | 4400 | 5500 | 7150 | 8800 | 10,450 | 12,100 | 13,750 | ||
| 21 | 1155 | 2310 | 3465 | 4620 | 5775 | 7508 | 9240 | 10,973 | 12,705 | 14,438 | ||
| 22 | 1210 | 2420 | 3630 | 4840 | 6050 | 7865 | 9680 | 11,495 | 13,310 | 15,125 | ||
| Container (20 ft Dry)—8 days of free time | 10,000 | 20,000 | 30,000 | 40,000 | 50,000 | 60,000 | 70,000 | 80,000 | 90,000 | 100,000 | ||
Comparative infrastructure cost analysis.
| Bulk | Container (20 ft Dry) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Weight (Ton) | Unit Cost (KRW/Ton) | Cost (KRW) | Unit Cost (KRW/Ton) | Cost (KRW) |
| 17 | 615,384.60 | 10,461,538 | 6,000,000–10,000,000 | 6,000,000–10,000,000 |
| 18 | 11,076,923 | |||
| 19 | 11,692,307 | |||
| 20 | 12,307,692 | |||
| 21 | 12,923,077 | |||
| 22 | 13,538,461 | |||
Appendix A. Prototype of Preservation Containers
A preservation container should be the size of a general dry container, typically used in shipping logistics. The proposed prototype aims to implement the suggested technologies effectively for it to be applied to actual operational practices.
The prototype development considers the following requirement:
Retention of oxygen (i.e., 1–3%) and humidity to prevent physiological quality deterioration.
Storage duration of more than 4 months, considering the stages from farming to crop-processing.
Environmental maintenance facilities (e.g., nitrogen tank, depressurizer, control valve, relief value, sensors power supply) attachable to international containers.
The prototype consists of top (i.e., loading) and bottom (i.e., discharging) doors. The interior air pressure is set to a maximum of 1.5 atmosphere. The illustration of the prototype is drawn in
Enlarge this image.Figure A1. Components of a prototype preservation container.
References
1. United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service—Production, Supply and Distribution. Available online: https://apps.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/app/index.html#/app/home (accessed on 23 June 2022).
2. Resource Trade Data, Chatham House. Available online: https://resourcetrade.earth/ (accessed on 3 September 2022).
3. Fredriksson, A.; Liljestrand, K. Capturing food logistics: A literature review and research agenda. Int. J. Logist. Res. Appl.; 2015; 18, pp. 16-34. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13675567.2014.944887]
4. Mardaneh, E.; Loxton, R.; Meka, S.; Gamble, L. A decision support system for grain harvesting, storage, and distribution logistics. Knowl. Based Syst.; 2021; 223, 107037. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2021.107037]
5. de Oliveira, A.L.R.; Marsola, K.B.; Milanez, A.P.; Fatoretto, S.L.R. Performance evaluation of agricultural commodity logistics from a sustainability perspective. Case Stud. Transp. Policy.; 2022; 10, pp. 674-685. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2022.01.029]
6. Zhao, G.; Liu, S.; Lopez, C.; Lu, H.; Elgueta, S.; Chen, H.; Boshkoska, B.M. Blockchain technology in agri-food value chain management: A synthesis of applications, challenges, and future research directions. Comput. Ind.; 2019; 109, pp. 83-99. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compind.2019.04.002]
7. Liu, P.; Long, Y.; Song, H.-C.; He, Y.-D. Investment decision and coordination of green agri-food supply chain considering information service based on blockchain and big data. J. Clean. Prod.; 2020; 277, 123646. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123646]
8. Saurabh, S.; Dey, K. Blockchain technology adoption, architecture, and sustainable agri-food supply chains. J. Clean. Prod.; 2021; 284, 124731. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124731]
9. Byeon, J.Y. Analysis of Grain Supply and Demand Stabilization Projects and Policies. National Assembly Budget Office, Korea. 2021; Available online: https://viewer.nabo.go.kr/streamdocs/view/sd;streamdocsId=72059249403238614 (accessed on 23 June 2022).
10. Yun, J.R.; Park, J.W.; Shin, K.S.; Kang, D.H.; Kim, J.J. Market Trend and Outlook for Grain Import Market. Research Report of Korea Rural Economic Institute. 2019; Available online: https://aglook.krei.re.kr/main/uEventData/1/download/781/6335/pdf (accessed on 23 June 2022).
11. Kim, J.J.; Kim, S.H.; Lee, Y.G.; Choi, J.H. Analysis on Value Chains for Importing Grains. Research Report of Korea Rural Economic Institute. 2021; Available online: http://library.krei.re.kr/pyxis-api/1/digital-files/63a398f8-7684-4b7b-ad1e-c0c73f520a53 (accessed on 23 June 2022).
12. International Water Management Institute. Water for Food, Water for Life: A Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture; International Water Management Institute: London, UK, 2007; pp. 1-645. Available online: http://www.iwmi.cgiar.org/assessment/Publications/books.htm (accessed on 23 June 2022).
13. Popp, J.; Pető, K.; Nagy, P. Pesticide productivity and food security. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev.; 2013; 33, pp. 243-255. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13593-012-0105-x]
14. Mesterházy, Á.; Oláh, J.; and Popp, J. Losses in the grain supply chain: Causes and solutions. Sustainability; 2020; 12, 2342. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12062342]
15. Nourbakhsh, S.M.; Bai, Y.; Maia, G.D.N.; Ouyang, Y.; Rodriguez, L. Grain supply chain network design and logistics planning for reducing post-harvest loss. Biosyst. Eng.; 2016; 151, pp. 105-115. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2016.08.011]
16. Gardas, B.B.; Raut, R.D.; Narkhede, B. Evaluating critical causal factors for post-harvest losses (PHL) in the fruit and vegetables supply chain in India using the DEMATEL approach. J. Clean. Prod.; 2018; 199, 4761. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.07.153]
17. Bendinelli, W.E.; Su, C.T.; Péra, T.G.; Filho, J.V.C. What are the main factors that determine post-harvest losses of grains?. Sustain. Prod. Consum.; 2020; 21, pp. 228-238. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2019.09.002]
18. Faibil, D.; Agyemang, M.; Amponsah, O.; Gupta, H.; Kusi-Sarpong, S. Assessing drivers of post-harvest losses: Tangible and intangible resources’ perspective. Environ. Dev. Sustain.; 2021; 23, pp. 15785-15829. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10668-021-01314-2]
19. Anand, S.; Barua, M.K. Modeling the key factors leading to post-harvest loss and waste of fruits and vegetables in the agri-fresh produce supply chain. Comput. Electron. Agric.; 2022; 198, 106936. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2022.106936]
20. Dyck, G.; Hawley, E.; Hildebrand, K.; Paliwal, J. Digital Twins: A novel traceability concept for post-harvest handling. Smart Agri. Tech.; 2023; 3, 100079. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atech.2022.100079]
21. Luo, N.; Olsen, T.; Liu, Y.; Zhang, A. Reducing food loss and waste in supply chain operations. Transp. Res. E: Logist. Transp. Rev.; 2022; 162, 102730. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tre.2022.102730]
22. Martin, N.P.; Russelle, M.P.; Powell, J.M.; Sniffen, C.J.; Smith, S.I.; Tricarico, J.M.; Grant, R.J. Invited review: Sustainable forage and grain crop production for the US dairy industry. J. Dairy Sci.; 2017; 100, pp. 9479-9494. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13080]
23. Trimble, S. Oxygen in Post-Harvest: Monitoring & Control. 2019; Available online: https://felixinstruments.com/blog/oxygen-in-post-harvest-monitoring-control/ (accessed on 23 June 2022).
24. Trimble, S. Respiration and Pest Management in Grain Storage. 2021; Available online: https://felixinstruments.com/blog/studying-respiration-during-storage-with-gas-analysis/ (accessed on 23 June 2022).
25. Lee, S.J. MA (modified atmosphere) package technologies for agricultural products. Korean J. Air-Cond. Refrig. Eng.; 1998; 10, pp. 3-13.
26. Keum, D.H.; Kim, H.; Kim, D.C. Airtight storage characteristics of rough rice. J. Biosyst. Eng.; 2000; 25, pp. 33-38.
27. Kim, O.W.; Kim, H.; Han, J.W.; Lee, H.J. Storage characteristics of milled rice according to milling system types. Korean J. Food. Preserv.; 2014; 21, pp. 308-314. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.11002/kjfp.2014.21.3.308]
28. Ha, K.Y.; Park, H.K.; Ko, J.K.; Kim, C.K.; Choi, Y.H.; Kim, K.Y.; Kim, Y.D. Effect of storage period and temperature on the characteristics related with rice quality. In Proceedings of Korean Society of Medicinal Crop Science; Spring: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2006. pp. 386-387.
29. Choi, Y.H.; Jeong, E.G.; Choung, J.I.; Kim, D.S.; Kim, S.L.; Kim, J.T.; Lee, C.G.; Son, J.R. Effects of moisture contents of rough rice and storage temperatures on rice grain quality. Korean J. Crop Sci.; 2006; 51, pp. 12-20.
30. Son, Y.; Kim, Y.; Kim, Y. Control effect of a stored grain insect pest, tribolium castaneum, by ‘CATTS’ postharvest treatment. Korean J. Appl. Entomol.; 2010; 49, pp. 363-369. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5656/KSAE.2010.49.4.363]
31. United States Department of Agriculture. USDA Coexistence Factsheets—Identity Preserved. 2015; Available online: https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/coexistence-identity-preserved-factsheet.pdf (accessed on 23 June 2022).
32. Dabbene, F.; Gay, P.; Tortia, C. Traceability issues in food supply chain management: A review. Biosyst. Eng.; 2014; 120, pp. 65-80. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2013.09.006]
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.