agriculture

Review
An Overview of the Post-Harvest Grain
Storage Practices of Smallholder Farmers
in Developing Countries
Ashish Manandhar 1 , Paschal Milindi 1,2 and Ajay Shah 1, *,†
1 Department of Food, Agricultural and Biological Engineering, The Ohio State University,
Wooster, OH, 44691, USA; manandhar.5@osu.edu (A.M.); passmmilindi@gmail.com (P.M.)
2 Department of Agricultural Engineering, College of Agricultural Sciences and Fisheries Technology,
University of Dar es Salaam, Dar es Salaam 35091, Tanzania
* Correspondence: shah.971@osu.edu; Tel.: +1-330-263-3858
† Current Address: 110 FABE Building, 1680 Madison Avenue, Wooster, OH, 44691, USA




Received: 2 March 2018; Accepted: 12 April 2018; Published: 15 April 2018


Abstract: Grain storage loss is a major contributor to post-harvest losses and is one of the main causes
of food insecurity for smallholder farmers in developing countries. Thus, the objective of this review is
to assess the conventional and emerging grain storage practices for smallholder farmers in developing
countries and highlight their most promising features and drawbacks. Smallholder farmers in
developing countries use conventional grain storage structures and handling systems such as woven
bags or cribs to store grain. However, they are ineffective against mold and insects already present in
the grain before storage. Different chemicals are also mixed with grain to improve grain storability.
Hermetic storage systems are effective alternatives for grain storage as they have minimal storage
losses without using any chemicals. However, hermetic bags are prone to damage and hermetic
metal silos are cost-prohibitive to most smallholder farmers in developing countries. Thus, an ideal
grain storage system for smallholder farmers should be hermetically sealable, mechanically durable,
and cost-effective compared to the conventional storage options. Such a storage system will help
reduce grain storage losses, maintain grain quality and contribute to reducing food insecurity for
smallholder farmers in developing countries.

Keywords: food security; post-harvest losses; grain storage; hermetic storage; grain loss

1. Introduction
Globally, more than 500 million smallholder farmers grow crops on less than 10 hectares of
land, with most of them located in developing countries [1]. Most of the crop (80%) is produced by
smallholders in the largest proportion of cultivated land (80%) in Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa [2].
Rice, wheat, and maize are the most produced and consumed staple cereal crops around the world.
Rice and wheat are grown mainly in developing countries in Asia, whereas maize is grown globally
in developing countries of Africa, Asia as well as South and Central America [3]. Cowpea is a
legume, which is also grown by smallholder farmers mainly in Western Africa, Asia, Central and
South America. In most regions in the world, food crops are seasonally produced and continuously
consumed throughout the year. However, due to the limited agricultural mechanization available for
smallholder farmers in the developing countries, almost all agricultural practices, including pre-harvest
and post-harvest operations, such as drying, dehulling, shelling, winnowing and sorting, transportation,
and storage, are conducted manually [4]. In such conditions, post-harvest quantitative loss up to 15% in
the field, 13–20% during processing, and 15–25% during storage have been estimated [4]. This leads to a
huge amount of food loss and decreases food quality, which contributes to food insecurity for the farm

Agriculture 2018, 8, 57; doi:10.3390/agriculture8040057 www.mdpi.com/journal/agriculture

Agriculture 2018, 8, 57 2 of 21

household. Annual food spoilage and waste in developing countries is equivalent to about $310 billion,
almost 65% of which occurs during the production, processing, and postharvest stages [5]. These losses
occur due to financial, managerial, and technical limitations in harvesting, storage, and preservation
techniques in developing countries [6]. Thus, improvement in agricultural practices for smallholder
farmers is essential to achieve efficient grain supply chain with increased grain yields, reduced grain
losses during storage and handling, and reduced time and effort to accomplish harvest and post-harvest
operations. Loss during grain storage is one of the main contributors to total post-harvest grain losses [7].
Effective grain storage with minimal grain losses could significantly contribute toward reducing overall
food losses for smallholder farmers and have an immediate and significant impact on their livelihoods.
The objective of this review is to evaluate the different post-harvest grain storage practices of the
smallholder farmers in developing countries around the world. This review is focused on storage
practices applicable to cereal crops such as maize and rice, and legumes such as cowpeas and beans,
which are commonly cultivated by smallholder farmers around the globe. The study discusses the
different post-harvest losses associated with the grain supply chain. The study also presents the effect
of multiple factors, such as insect activities, mold growth and mycotoxins, moisture and temperature,
and social factors, on the selection of grain storage systems. Different grain storage practices discussed
in this paper are: (1) conventional grain storage structures and handling systems, (2) use of chemicals
together with other storage structures, (3) hermetic metal silos, (4) hermetic bagging technology,
(5) self-build silos, and (6) on-farm and community-based storage structures. Based on the reviewed
storage systems, desirable qualities of storage structure are suggested that could effectively reduce the
post-harvest grain storage losses.

2. Post-Harvest Losses of Grain

Post-harvest grain losses include all losses, starting from grain harvesting before it is used for
consumption or other purposes. In most developing countries, especially in Sub-Saharan Africa,
agricultural productivity is lower compared to developed countries. In addition to the lower agricultural
productivity, post-harvest losses of cereals and legumes range from 20–30% in most developing countries
around the world [6]. Losses could be in terms or the quantity and quality of grain, both of which
significantly reduce the value. Quantitative losses occur due to spillage and scattering of grain, direct
infestation by pests, birds and mycotoxins, or mechanical breakages, whereas qualitative losses are
mainly due to infestation by mold, mycotoxins, and mechanical breakages. There are different factors
associated with different forms and extents of post-harvest losses along the grain supply chain (Figure 1).
Agriculture 2018, 8, 57 3 of 21

Figure 1. Factors for losses during different post-harvest steps of the grain supply chain in
developing countries [7–9]. Note: quantitative grain losses for harvest and different post-harvest
steps provided in this figure are based on information provided in African post-harvest information
system (APHLIS) [9]. However, grain storage losses up to 34% have been reported by different
studies [4,10–12]. Qt—Quantitative loss, Ql—Qualitative loss.

Cereals and legumes are usually harvested within a short harvest period. Harvesting is usually
performed manually using a sickle or knife by smallholder farmers. Harvesting needs to be performed
at the proper time, possibly just after the crops are mature with grain moisture contents between
20–28% for maize and rice, and 14–18% for cowpeas, to minimize harvesting losses [13,14]. Crops have
a higher moisture content when harvested too early, which either will require longer drying times
or could provide favorable growing conditions for mold, resulting in increased costs or losses. Also,
if harvesting is done during rain, the increased grain moisture content could result in unexpected grain
germination. If the crops are harvested too late, they are exposed longer in the field and have more
chance of being attacked by birds, insects, and mold. Furthermore, field drying of the grain could
result in losses due to shattering of grain during harvesting.
Smallholder farmers transport the harvested grain to the homestead by carrying them, or using
bicycle or bullock carts. Some farmers hire trucks to haul their grains. Losses due to grain spillage and
bruises can occur during transportation. Foreign materials could also contaminate the grains if not
properly secured during transportation. Grain is usually field-dried or naturally dried in mats or cribs
in a homestead yard with potential losses during drying by infestation from birds or insects, or heat
injury. Depending on the regions, the grain is then stored with either cobs or stalks intact in cribs or
threshed/shelled, cleaned, and stored in different storage structures. Some farmers de-husk and shell
the grain in the field, while others do it in their homes. Grain is normally stored in jute bags, propylene
sacks, or traditional cribs for a few months (based on personal communication with farmers in rural
Tanzania but applicable to most developing countries). In some cases, maize is stored for almost seven
months until the next harvest is available. The market price also tends to increase within six months
Agriculture 2018, 8, 57 4 of 21

of storage [4]. Storage losses, mainly occurring due to insects and mycotoxins, are considered to be
the highest among the post-harvest steps of grain produced by smallholder farmers and could occur
in farm as well as market storage. Different storage practices are discussed in further detail later on.
Most of the grain is stored to be consumed by family members, whereas some grain is usually stored for
a few months and then sold to the market depending on the grain quality after storage [1]. The grain is
then transported to the market where it might be stored further before being purchased and used by
other people.

3. Factors Affecting Grain Storage Practices

Grain is usually stored for several months after harvest, which is much longer than other grain
post-harvest steps [11]. Also, the grain is minimally monitored during storage. Thus, proper grain
storage conditions are needed to minimize grain losses. Factors that play a crucial role in storage losses
can be classified as physical, biological, and socioeconomic.

3.1. Physical Factors—Temperature, Moisture, and Oxygen

Physical factors such as oxygen, moisture, relative humidity, and temperature have a major impact
on the storability of grain. Physical factors influence the conditions for insect multiplication and mold
growth during grain storage, which eventually affects the storability of the grain.
Temperatures in the range of 25 to 35 ◦ C create favorable conditions for the rapid growth of most
storage insects [15]. Under these conditions, insect reproduction accelerates, which increases grain
consumption and generates more heat, maintaining an optimal environment for insects. However,
at temperatures lower than 13 ◦ C or higher than 40 ◦ C, insects tend to lower their activity, migrate,
or eventually die [16,17]. Also, mold growth was observed in storage conditions with a temperature
between 20 ◦ C and 40 ◦ C, with optimal growth for the majority of molds occurring between 25 ◦ C and
30 ◦ C [18]. At the appropriate temperature and moisture content and with the availability of food sources
(grain in this case), mold spores settle on a surface and grow rapidly. In addition, temperature gradients
also promote moisture collection at specific locations in the storage system, which provides favorable
conditions for mold growth [19]. When cereals are stored in a silo or warehouse, the temperature at the
center of the grain volume remains relatively similar to that during harvest, and the grain farthest from
the center that is in contact with the storage walls has temperature variations based on the ambient air
temperatures. Thus, for grain stored at a high moisture content and high relative humidity, when the
outside temperature decreases, the walls cool faster, which causes condensation and develops wet spots,
facilitating mold growth.
Mold and insects require moisture for their growth. Mold proliferates at a relative humidity (RH)
above 70% [18], and thus grain needs to be stored at lower RH, preferably below 60%, especially if
stored for extended periods. The equilibrium moisture content corresponding to this RH for most
cereals is below 13% and for legumes/beans is below 15%, which is preferable for long-term grain
storage [20]. Higher moisture content has shown to be detrimental to grain in terms of dry matter loss
and quality [21]. Lowering the RH to 9% during storage has been shown to increase insect mortality
up to 98% within 24 hours [22]. Furthermore, available water is used by insects as it is one of the main
requirements for their survival. In one study, 100% of weevils in stored grain were dead in six days for
grain stored in hermetic conditions without access to oxygen and external water, whereas 5% and 28%
of the insects were dead in grain stored at 16% and 6.3% moisture contents, respectively [23].
Higher moisture and oxygen availability increases the grain respiration rate and generates heat,
carbon dioxide, and enzymes, which break down the starch, proteins, and lipids in grain. Insects utilize
the available oxygen during metabolic activities and raise the carbon dioxide concentrations within
the hermetic storage system through respiration. The insects’ feeding activity drops progressively in
proportion to the varying gas concentrations and nearly stops at 3–6% (v/v) oxygen and 15–18% (v/v)
carbon dioxide [24]. However, for near-complete control and to achieve almost 100% insect mortality,
the O2 concentration should drop to 1–3% or CO2 should rise to 35% [25,26].
Agriculture 2018, 8, 57 5 of 21

3.2. Biological Factors—Insect and Rodent Activity, and Mold Growth during Grain Storage

3.2.1. Insect/Pest and Rodent Activity

Insects/pests and rodents are the major factors affecting grain quality and grain losses in
developing countries [27,28]. In research involving stored maize in Tanzania, around 18% of the
shelled maize was found to have weevil damage [29]. Geography and climatic conditions affect the
probability and severity of grain infestation by insects and pests [30–32]. Pest infestations can occur in
the field as well as during storage (Table 1) [33,34]. In most storage practices, insect growth and mold
formation take place within the system. However, depending upon the storage types and conditions,
their active period differs.
Different insects that infest grain at different phases of growth, storage, and processing are
summarized in Table 1. Insects mainly damage the stored products by direct feeding. These insects feed
on the endosperm, resulting in a loss of weight and quality of grain as well as grain germ, causing poor
seed germination [35]. Grain infested by insects loses value for consumption or planting. Grain borers,
such as the large grain borer (LGB) (Prostephanus truncatus), and grain weevils (Sitophilus granarius),
are the main pests responsible for grain storage losses [4,36]. The maize weevil (Sitophilus zeamais)
is the main insect responsible for the deterioration of stored maize, sorghum, and other grain in the
tropics [37,38]. As these attack intact grain, they are also labeled as primary pests, whereas secondary
pests such as the red flour beetle (Tribolium castaneum) attack already infested grain. Birds and rodents
can infest the grain while in the field before harvesting, whereas rodents could also be a problem
during storage.

Table 1. Common insects and rodents infesting grain in developing countries [34,39,40].

Status Level
Insects and Rodents Commodities Infested
Pre-Harvest Unshelled Shelled Milled Kernels
Sitophilus zeamais
Maize, sorghum and rice 2 3 5 4
(Maize weevil)
Sitophilus oryzae
Wheat, sorghum and rice 1 3 5 4
(Rice weevil)
Beetles
Acanthoscelides obtectus Beans 3 3 5 3
Prostephanus truncatus
Maize 2 5 3 1
(Large Grain borer)
Rhyzopertha dominica All cereals - 2 4 2
Tribolium castaneum &
All cereals 1 1 2 3
other secondary beetles
Lasioderma serricorne All cereals - - 1 1
Sitotroga cerealella
All cereals 2 4 3 2
Moths (Angoumois Grain moth)
Ephestia cautella & other
All cereals - 1 3 3
warehouse moths
Rodents Rats and mice All cereals 4 3 2 1
Note: Status levels—refers to prevalence and potential damage from insects and pests (adapted from reference [40]:
1—very low (possibly negligible), 2—low, 3—low to moderate, 4—moderate to high, 5—high.

3.2.2. Mold Formation and Growth

Mold formation in stored grain can produce different mycotoxins, which are toxic chemicals
unsuitable for human consumption. In addition, mold generates other problems besides mycotoxins,
such as dry matter loss, odor, and a loss of nutritional value. Thus, the presence of active mold in stored
grain can greatly limit grain usage due to quality loss and mycotoxin formation. Mycotoxins, such as
aflatoxins, ochratoxins, trichothecenes, zearalenone, and fumonisins, developed mainly from fungi,
such as Fusarium, Aspergillus, and Penicillium, are common in grain in most countries (Table 2) [41].
Mold can develop on the crop in the field as field fungi, as well as during storage as storage fungi,
thus creating two bases of mycotoxins owing to mold formation. Mold growth during grain storage
is dependent on grain moisture content, temperature, gas composition, relative humidity (RH),
Agriculture 2018, 8, 57 6 of 21

and fungus contamination during field harvest and storage [42,43]. Reducing the grain moisture
content to less than 13% and relative humidity to less than 60% during storage is crucial to limit mold
activity [44]. Field-based fungi require a much higher moisture content and thus rarely develop under
storage conditions because of limited moisture and water activity [42]. However, storage fungi such
as Aspergillus sp., which produces aflatoxins, could develop well at RH between 70% and 90% [45],
which corresponds to an equilibrium moisture content higher than 16% for most grain [20]. Thus, mold
formation needs to be properly addressed during storage to minimize grain losses.

Table 2. Different mycotoxins affecting maize quality [44,46–48].

Contamination
Mycotoxin Fungal Source Effects
Location
Potent human carcinogen
Aspergillus flavus, and increased susceptibility
Aflatoxin (B1, B2, G1, G2) Field and storage
Aspergillus parasiticus to disease. Adverse effects in
animals, especially chickens.
Suspected human
Fumonisin B1 Fusarium moniliforme Field and storage carcinogen. Toxic to pigs,
poultry and horses.
Suspected human
Aspergillus ochraceus,
Storage, occasionally carcinogen. Shown to be
Ochratoxin A Aspergillus carbonarius,
from field carcinogenic in laboratory
Penicillium verrucosum
animals and pigs.
Fusarium graminearum, Possible human carcinogen.
Zearalenone Fusarium culmorum, Field and storage Affects reproductive system
Fusarium crookwellense in female pigs.
Fusarium graminearum,
Toxic to humans and
Deoxynivalenol/nivalenol Fusarium culmorum, Field
animals, especially pigs.
Fusarium crookwellense
Fusarium graminearum, Intestinal irritation leading
Trichothecenes Storage
Fusarium culmorum to feed refusal in livestock.

3.3. Socioeconomic Factors

The adoption of different storage structures also depends on socioeconomic factors, such as
the farmers’ family size, land holding size, required grain storage duration, off-farm income, road
accessibility, market price of grain, and grain safety during storage [49]. Usually large families
have a greater demand for grain consumption and, thus, could more readily adopt better grain
storage practices. Smallholder farmers with a relatively larger land holding could afford new storage
technologies compared to those with a small farm area. Farmers having off-farm income have more
financial resources at their disposal to invest in effective storage technologies. Farmers requiring
grain to be stored for a longer duration for a higher selling price usually prefer improved storage
technologies for grain storage compared to those storing for a shorter time. The higher market price of
the good-quality grain after a few months of storage provides justification for farmers to spend more
to store their grain for minimal loss or to preserve quantity and quality. Farmers preferring security
of their grain from potential theft or effects of adverse climatic conditions tend to store their grain in
portable containers inside their houses. As an example, many households in Kenya prefer to shell
and store maize in their houses due to lower maize production and increased incidences of theft [39].
Also, farmers open to new technologies are more likely to implement newer grain storage practices.

4. Grain Storage Practices in Developing Countries

Grain produced by smallholder farmers is stored for a few months to a year before being consumed
or sold at market. The grain needs to be protected from unfavorable conditions and pests during
storage. This is usually accomplished to a certain extent by storing them in structures made from
different materials or by mixing them with natural or chemical products. Farmers incur different level
Agriculture 2018, 8, 57 7 of 21

of grain losses depending on their storage practices. Findings from some recent studies [10,50,51] are
summarized in Table 3. These studies have evaluated the efficacy of different storage practices based on
different factors, such as % grain losses (wt % of grain reduced), % grain damaged (% of grain damaged
during storage, determined by visual observations), number of holes in 100 grain seeds (determined
by visual observations), and comparative weight of 100 grain seeds (Table 3). The variations in the
results for similar storage structures could be due to differences in the locations, initial condition of the
stored grain (insects and pests already in the grain), storage conditions, and storage duration.
Agriculture 2018, 8, 57 8 of 21

Table 3. Effectiveness of different grain storage practices of smallholder farmers in developing countries.

Storage Number of Total Mold

Grain Weight Grain Weight of 100
Study Storage Technology Duration Holes in 100 Counts (×103
Loss 1 (%) Damage 2 (%) Grain Seeds (g)
(Months) Grain Seeds cfu/g Grain)
Propylene bag 6 24 ± 9.8 80 - - -
Propylene bag + Actellic Super 6 8.2 ± 4.1 18 - - -
De Groote, 2013 [10]
Super Grain bags 6 6.3 ± 1.9 13 - - -
Study on maize performed in
Metal silos 6 1.4 ± 0.4 8 - - -
Kenya
Metal silos + Actellic Super 6 1.2 ± 1.1 1 - - -
Metal silos + Phostoxin 6 0.7 ± 0.6 1 - - -
Wambugu, 2009 [50] Stored above fireplace 6 - 54.5 - - -
Study on maize performed in Gunny bag + Cow dung ash 6 - 46.9 - - -
Western Kenya Plastic container+ ash 6 - 0.9 - - -
Polypropylene bags 4 2.4 17.5 - - -
Ndegwa, 2016 [51]
Polypropylene bags + insecticide 4 1.3 14 - - -
Study on maize performed in
SuperGrainBagTM 4 0.3 3 - - -
Kenya
SuperGrainBagTM + insecticide 4 1.2 4 - - -
Baoua, 2012 [52] Linen bags (control) 5 - - 329.8 ± 71.2 6.6 ± 0.7 -
Study on cowpea performed in B. senegalensis 5 - - 331.3 ± 51.5 5.3 ± 1.0 -
Niger. Sand 5 - - 74.7 ± 16.3 13.3 ± 0.6 -
500 g of grain were stored for Ash 5 - - 77.7 ± 20.1 13.2 ± 0.6 -
each treatment condition. Triple bag 5 - - 59.8 ± 12.1 12.7 ± 0.6 -
100 seeds were sampled for Solar 5 - - 48.2 ± 11.8 13.2 ± 0.6 -
comparison Phostoxin 5 - - 40.6 ± 8.6 13.6 ± 0.6 -
Initial infestation 4 - - 21.6 ± 0.7 14.9 ± 0.1 -
Baoua, 2013 [53] PICS bags 4 - - 18.5 ± 0.7 15.2 ± 0.2 -
Study on cowpea in Niger SuperGrainBag 4 - - 21.9 ± 1.1 15.2 ± 0.1 -
Woven bag 4 - - 227.6 ± 17.5 9.7 ± 0.1 -
Untreated control 10 <27 >80 - - -
Chigoverah, 2016 [11]
Metal silo 10 <7 <25 - - -
Study on maize performed in
SuperGrainBag 10 <12 <25 - - -
Zimbabwe
Synthetic pesticide 10 >34 >75 - - -
Nganga et al., 2016 [12] Jute bags at mc < 13% 9 - - - - 115.6
Agriculture 2018, 8, 57 9 of 21

Table 3. Cont.

Storage Number of Total Mold

Grain Weight Grain Weight of 100
Study Storage Technology Duration Holes in 100 Counts (×103
Loss 1 (%) Damage 2 (%) Grain Seeds (g)
(Months) Grain Seeds cfu/g Grain)
Polypropylene bags at mc < 13% 9 - - - - 126.3
PICS bag at mc < 13% 9 - - - - 21.6
Study on maize performed in
Jute bags at mc > 14% 9 - - - - 215.7
Kenya
Polypropylene bags at mc > 14% 9 - - - - 201.4
PICS bag at mc > 14% 9 - - - - 160.3
Nonhermetic at mc = 14% 0.5 - 2 - - -
Quezada et al., 2006 [41]
Hermetic at mc = 14% 0.5 - 1 - - -
Study on maize performed in
Nonhermetic at mc = 17% 0.5 - 94 - - -
Mexico
Hermetic at mc = 17% 0.5 - 1 - - -
Non-hermetic glass bottles mc = 15% 4 - 54 - - -
Freitas et al., 2016 [54]
Hermetic silo bags 4 - <5 - - -
Study on beans storage in Brazil
Hermetic plastic bottles 4 - <5 - - -
Untreated 4 1.09 - - - -
Shumba super dust 4 0.21 - - - -
Actellic gold dust 4 0.16 - - - -
Metal silo 4 0.14 - - - -
PICS bag 4 0.01 - - - -
SuperGrainBag 4 0.37 - - - -
Mlambo et al., 2017 [55]
Aloe ash 4 0.20 - - - -
Study on maize storage in
Untreated 6 1.82 - - - -
Zimbabwe
Shumba super dust 6 0.92 - - - -
Actellic gold dust 6 0.03 - - - -
Metal silo 6 0.28 - - - -
PICS bag 6 0.04 - - - -
SuperGrainBag 6 0.34 - - - -
Aloe ash 6 1.94 - - - -
Note: Parameters with ‘-’ were not estimated or reported in the cited study. 1 % grain weight losses—% weight of grain reduced, 2 % grain damaged—% of grain damaged due to physical
spoilage or deterioration such as holes, cracks, and discoloration. mc — moisture content.
Agriculture 2018, 8, 57 10 of 21

4.1. Conventional Storage Structures and Grain Handling Systems

Conventional storage systems were predominantly used in the past and are still used in societies
that prefer to store grain traditionally. For example, about 60–70% of food grain produced in
India is estimated to be stored in conventional storage structures and grain handling systems [56].
Conventionally, grain is stored either after being shelled (such as for rice and beans) or intact with
cobs (as in maize for some regions of the world). Conventional storage structures are usually built by
smallholder farmers using locally available resources, such as mud, wood, wheat and paddy straw,
bamboo, cow dung, and bricks [56,57].
Traditional on-farm and domestic storage systems include fireplaces, local cribs, roofs, woven
granaries, structures/bins constructed with wire mesh or steel net, underground pits, and wooden
platforms [8,57]. These types of storage structure are suited for maize grain stored intact with cobs in
ears, and are very common around the world. Maize is stored over the fireplace on top of rafters by
many farmers in Asia and rural Mexico to reduce grain moisture and prevent attack from insects [58,59].
Grain storage bins made of steel net and wire mesh are also common maize storage options for
smallholder farmers in China and Central America [60,61]. The steel net or wire mesh is wrapped
around bamboo or wooden pole structures for storage. The storage unit is covered on the top with
biomass or corrugated metal sheets. Woven granaries constructed from bamboo and straws are also
used to store shelled or intact grain by farmers in developing countries in Asia, Africa, and Latin
America [58,59]. Underground grain storage pits, used around the world for centuries, are fired in
situ and layered with straw or woven bamboo [62]. Most of these conventional storage structures
are constructed in the homestead and provide protection against rain and sun. Traditional storage
structures that are widely used for storing grain in the Indian subcontinent include kanaja (a structure
made from bamboo and plastered with mud and cow dung), kothi (a specially constructed room),
sanduka (wooden boxes to store up to a few hundred kilograms of grain and pulses), utrani (burnt
earthen clay pots for storing small quantities), and hagevu (an underground dugout pit lined with
locally available materials such as stones or straws) [56,59,63]. Mud bins or earthen clay pots plastered
with cement or coated with a layer of bitumen to improve the grain storage conditions are also being
used [59]. Furthermore, polyethylene layers sandwiched between mud layers of a grain storage bin
have also been used in Nepal [59].
Space is a major challenge with conventional storage systems. For instance, granaries occupy
a large space indoors. For outdoor storage, cribs and underground pits occupy a large space. Also,
the construction skills for conventional storage structures, such as woven granaries, underground pits
and cribs are disappearing from the local communities. At times, traditional storage boxes, such as
sanduka, could be costlier to build for smallholder farmers.
Other popular grain handling and storage systems that can be used for both shelled and intact
grain include synthetic polypropylene bags and gunny sacks [50]. Polypropylene and sisal bags
with storage capacities ranging from 25 to 100 kg are used for all types of storage and are popular
globally [64]. Plastic tarp layers are also used extensively as cover for stored bags and other storage
structures to prevent them from rain. The use of bags/sacks to store cereals has increased because
they occupy less space when filled with grain, and even smaller space when empty. Also, they are
portable and readily available in rural markets, and thus grain can be stored, transported to the market,
and sold or traded as needed [8].
Conventional storage structures contain the grain, prevent spillage, provide protection against
rodents, insects, and pests that might come in contact with grain during storage, and keep it safe from
outside elements such as rain and sun. However, air and moisture present in the ambient air can
pass through most of these structures and thus are not effective against insects, pests, and mold that
are already present in the grain during harvest and are stored together with the grain. To improve
effectiveness, most of the smallholder farmers using conventional storage technologies mix the grain
with some natural preservatives, such as ashes, leafs, oils from different plants, or chemicals to prevent
early degradation [63,65].
Agriculture 2018, 8, 57 11 of 21

4.2. Use of Chemicals and Pest Repellents

Grain can be protected from insects, pests, rodents, and mold to some extent using different
additives and chemicals together with conventional storage systems. These additives and chemicals
are effective at creating a toxic storage environment, lowering the pH, or leaving an unpleasant
smell. Smallholder farmers have traditionally stored grain using locally available plant leaves, oil,
and ashes, which can be considered biopesticides. Dried walnut leaves, cow dung ash, turmeric or
onion rhizomes, mint leaves, neem leaves, eucalyptus, lime, and mustard oil are some of the traditional
grain preservatives used in the Indian sub-continent and Sub-Saharan Africa [29,56,66]. Cowpeas are
often mixed with sieved ashes from cooking fires to limit weevil activity [65]. Some farmers practice
traditional pest control by mixing grain with herbs, such as Mexican marigold and hot pepper [67].
Different botanical pesticides have been used throughout the world and are found to be effective as
grain protectants [68].
In addition to traditional storage practices that use locally available natural materials, the use
of synthetic chemicals, such as phosphine, actellic super, shumba dust, and super grain dust is
also common in developing countries (Table 4). These chemicals must be applied at predetermined
rates and thoroughly mixed with properly dried grain to obtain the desired effects [34]. Phosphine
(commercially known as Phostoxin® ) and methyl bromide are applied as fumigants for grain stored
in mud sealed or cemented granaries, metal bins, and silos [69]. Grain borers, such as P. truncatus,
can be controlled quite easily with fumigants such as phosphine, in dry grain with less than 13%
moisture content [70]. However, only licensed technicians are authorized to handle phosphine in many
countries. In China, state depots for grain storage commonly use phosphine fumigation to prevent
insects, although it is not acceptable for farmers with storage in the house [60,71]. Other insecticides,
such as actellic super, shumba dust, super grain dust, and diatomaceous earth, are readily available in
the market and can be directly used by farmers (based on personal communication with smallholder
farmers in Tanzania, and [34]). Pesticides provide an alternative method of grain preservation in areas
with limited access to effective grain storage systems, and to energy and equipment for drying and
maintaining grain at safe moisture levels. Pesticides can effectively control pest and insect infestations
and prevent grain losses; however, their effectiveness can be reduced over time, after which the grain
is susceptible to losses [55].

Table 4. Insecticides used during grain storage in developing countries [34,72,73].

Insecticide Common Name Chemicals Used Application Rate Comments

Pirimiphos methyl and
Actellic Super 50 to 100 g in 90 kg LGB, maize weevils
Permethrin
Deltamethrin and
Shumba dust 50 g in 90 kg LGB, maize weevils
Fenitrothion
Super grain dust Bifenthrin 100 g in 90 kg LGB, maize weevils
LGB
Fumigant
6 tablets for 1 ton of Very toxic
Phostoxin or Phosphine Aluminum phosphite
maize under tarp Require trained
applicators
No residual protection
Weevil, beetle, moth
Diatomaceous earth Silica 250 g in 90 kg maize Low grain moisture and
RH preferred
NeemPro Neem 6 g per kg of maize Maize weevils

An increased use of these chemicals has, however, resulted in resistance among targeted species
and, thus, reduced their effectiveness [74,75]. In addition, adulteration of these pesticides within
the supply chain, associated environmental and health-related concerns due to unwanted pesticide
Agriculture 2018, 8, 57 12 of 21

exposure to smallholder farmers, and higher costs for marketing new chemical pesticides have limited
the emergence of new chemicals effective for grain storage [74,76–78].

4.3. Non-Hermetic Storage

Non-hermetic storage systems are common in most developing countries. In most cases, these storage
systems provide safety against attack from insects, pests, and rodents and from rain and sun. They also
protect the grain from being stolen when stored inside houses or warehouses. However, they do not
provide any barrier for air during storage and thus, are not effective against insects, pests, and mold
already present in the grain. Different chemicals can be used in conjunction with these storage structures
to preserve the grain against the insects, pests, and mold already present in the grain. Non-hermetic
storage systems are usually comprised of household-scale self-build silos and community-scale storage
structures and warehouses.

4.3.1. Self-Build Silos

The self-build silo is made of corrugated galvanized iron (commonly used as a roofing material)
or HDPE sheets sandwiched between earthen walls, which act as an insulation between the stored
grain and the surrounding environment. These storage structures are being promoted in rural African
villages and have been widely adopted in rural India (commonly known as Pusa bins) for smallholder
farmers [56,79,80]. These silos usually have capacities between 1 and 2 cubic meters. The cost of
constructing a self-build silo is relatively low. Material costs are low because of their local availability.
In addition, advanced technologies are not required to construct these silos so smallholder farmers can
easily fabricate them in rural villages. The corrugated galvanized iron sheet used as a roofing material
for rural houses is normally used to make metal bins or silos. The cost of earthen walls for insulating
the silos only includes the cost of labor [79].

4.3.2. On-Farm Storage and Community Storage Structures

On-farm storage structures provide farmers with maximum flexibility and the ability to maintain
control on their farmstead. The storage bins are usually tower silo bins with a much higher capacity
than self-build silos, and the grain is usually dried to safe moisture levels before storage. The storage
system protects the grain from weather elements, insects, pests, and mold when stored at safe moisture
levels. Fumigants and preservation chemicals can be used with these storage systems to further protect
the grain. However, it is a challenge for rural smallholder farmers to invest in large-scale on-farm
storage structures unless they unite in groups since they requires a large investment of capital [81].
The condominium storage space is an option that is provided by a commercial elevator, which manages
the storage and guarantees the grain quality throughout the storage period. The technologies associated
with these storage systems require higher technical skills and capital investment, which makes it
infeasible for a smallholder farmer in developing countries [81]. On-farm storage structures and
condominium storage structures could be feasible for rural smallholder farmers in developing countries
if they are purposely made for a group or cooperative of smallholder farmers.

4.3.3. Warehouses
Community- or government-run storage, such as warehouses or cover and plinth (CAP) structures,
are also common grain storage options for smallholder farmers in developing countries [56]. These are
housed storage spaces that protect the grain from the elements. Smallholder farmers can store certain
types of grain including maize, typically using bags for effective record-keeping, in these systems,
paying a specified fee [82]. CAP storage refers to the storage of stacks of bagged grain on top of
wooden pallets, with waterproof low-density polyethylene sheets or tarps covering the top and all
four sides [82]. Food grain is stored in CAP storage for six to 12 months. The CAP storage system
in India was originally promoted as a necessity rather than a better storage option because harvest
volumes were higher than the available warehouse storage space [83]. Although these storage systems
Agriculture 2018, 8, 57 13 of 21

allow for large-scale grain storage, protect the grain from the elements, and are economical, they are
not effective in terms of grain protection from rodents, insects, pests, and mold. For insect and pest
control in such a storage system, pesticides such as malathion and deltamethrin and fumigants such as
phosphine are used. For rodent control, poison baits are commonly used [56].

4.4. Hermetic Metal Silos

Hermetic metal silos (Figure 2), which are airtight storage structures constructed from a galvanized
metal sheet, have been promoted in recent years in most developing countries in Central America,
Africa, and Asia as an alternative to chemical use during grain storage [56,60,84–86]. They are commonly
known as Punjab Agricultural University (PAU) bins in the Indian subcontinent [56]. In the sealed
hermetic storage structure, respiration of living organisms depletes oxygen and produces carbon
dioxide, creating an environment that kills insects and pests in the stored grain [87,88]. It also acts
as a barrier for moisture exchange between the environment inside and outside the storage structure,
thus limiting mold formation [11,88,89]. In addition to this, metal silos are also effective against rodents,
birds, and insects [84,90]. The reduction in mold and pests contribute to better grain storage conditions
and lower grain losses.

Figure 2. Metal silos used for grain storage in developing countries.

Many research studies [10,11,49,84,91] have compared metal silos with conventional storage
structures and chemicals used for grain storage and concluded that metal silos are the most effective.
However, for cereals to be stored safely in a metal silo, the grain must be dried to a moisture content of
less than 14% to limit mold formation [84]. A propensity score has also been used to assess the impact
of silo structure on maize storage duration, storage losses, and costs [49]. A survey of farmers found
that smallholder farmers who adopted the silos lost an average of only 3 kg, worth $2, and were able
to store the grain for 1.8 to 2.4 months longer compared to an average loss of 157 to 198 kg of grain,
worth $104–132, for non-adopters.
Although metal silos substantially reduce insect and pest infestation and potentially improve
smallholder farmers’ food security and income, their high initial production cost compared to the
other storage structures, the limited availability of galvanized iron sheets in rural markets, and few
local metal silo manufacturers limit its widespread adoption by smallholder farmers in developing
countries [10,49,51]. The main production cost elements of metal silos are a galvanized iron sheet, labor,
and transportation. The initial cost of building the most common metal silos of 1 ton (the smallest
size considered to be cost-effective) and 1.8 ton capacities are $173 and 193 (cost adjusted for 2017),
respectively, which is very high for smallholder farmers [49,92]. Tefera (2011) reported the production
and distribution costs of metal silos in Kenya in 2008–2009 to be in the range of $29 (cost adjusted
Agriculture 2018, 8, 57 14 of 21

for 2017) for 90 kg capacity to $243 (cost adjusted for 2017) for 1800 kg capacity. In general, to be
cost-effective, it is recommended that the seeds for planting in subsequent years should be stored in
a small metal silo of 100–200 kg capacity, while those for consumption should be stored in a larger
metal silo of 300–3000 kg capacity [84]. Different sizes of metal silos have been promoted to the
rural smallholder farmers in Central America and Africa by providing a financial subsidy or credit,
which is crucial for the adoption. The favorable capacities of metal silos are 550 kg and 820 kg for most
families in developing countries, which corresponds to the annual grain consumption of an average
family of 5–6 members [84,93,94]. In addition, failure to maintain a hermetic seal during storage could
significantly reduce the effectiveness of storage. Determination of oxygen and carbon dioxide levels
inside the storage structures and pressure decay tests could be helpful in determining the hermeticity
and effectiveness of these storage structures [95,96].

4.5. Hermetic Bagging Technology

Hermetic bagging technology uses one or two layers of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) bags
together with another layer of polypropylene or conventional bags to store the grain. Two types
of hermetic bags, namely Purdue Improved Crop Storage (PICS) bags and SuperGrainBagTM ,
have commonly been used by smallholder farmers in developing countries in recent years. PICS bags
use a triple-bagging hermetic storage technology (Figure 3), and are used extensively in Africa and
Latin America [97]. A PICS bag consists of two inner layers of HDPE bags of 80-micron thickness,
which limit the oxygen permeability, and a third outer layer that is a woven polypropylene bag.
This layer acts as a casing for the two inner polyethylene bags and ensures the mechanical strength of
the storage bag as a whole [98,99]. SuperGrainBag developed by Grain Pro Inc. consist of an HDPE
inner lining with an oxygen barrier, which creates the hermetic conditions, and a protective propylene
bag. These are often sold only with the inner liner bag, with farmers using their own bags for outer
protection [51]. Bags with capacities between 25 kg and 100 kg are available at prices ranging from $3
to $5.3 for 90 kg bags and with a useful life of two to four years [39,51].

Figure 3. Triple-bagging hermetic storage for developing countries.

Both PICS bag and SuperGrainBag were found to be effective at controlling pests and limiting
grain loss compared to conventional woven plastic bags under similar storage conditions (Table 3) [53].
Conventional woven bags were compared with both new and reused PICS bags for storing cowpeas
for five months under normal conditions in Niger. The results showed that both new and used PICS
Agriculture 2018, 8, 57 15 of 21

bags were effective at controlling insect and pest infestations in cowpeas, and had 40% more grain
weight (12.6 to 13.9 g) per 100 cowpea grain when compared to the conventional woven bags (7.6 g
to 8.2 g) [100]. Both PICS and SuperGrainBag have been widely adopted in West and Central Africa
due to their effectiveness, simplicity, low cost, small storage space requirement, durability, ease of
production, and local manufacture [51,99,100]. Silo bags and plastic containers were also used as
hermetic grain storage, which showed reduced grain infestation compared to the control, in which
grain was stored in non-hermetic conditions [54]. Some of the major disadvantages of the hermetic
bags, when compared to other improved systems, are that they are highly susceptible to physical
damage, such as puncture from sharp protruding objects, as well as abrasions and perforations from
insects and rodents [10,53,101]. Additionally, they can burst during transportation from one location
to another, especially when the bags are large. Punctures and physical damage reduce the useful life of
the bags, and thus add to the cost of this system.

5. Comparison of Different Grain Storage Practices of Smallholder Farmers in

Developing Countries
Different grain storage technologies are available to smallholder farmers; each has different
pros and cons, as briefly summarized in Table 5. Traditional storage options such as granary and
polypropylene sacks are socially accepted, convenient, require minimal investment for smallholder
farmers, and prevent the grain from being attacked by external insects, pests, and rodents. However,
they allow air and moisture to pass through the grain; thus, insects, pests, and mold already present in
the grain may grow and infest the grain during storage. Using chemicals could be effective at killing
insects already present in the grain. However, they are expensive and may be potentially be toxic to
humans, which may make them socially unacceptable to farmers. In addition, for grain stored for a
longer duration, the efficacy of pesticides and preservatives in preserving the grain could significantly
reduce over time. Chemicals should be properly monitored during application to be effective against
pests and mold. They also need to be reapplied periodically. Adulteration of chemicals and limited
awareness to farmers on proper chemical use could create health hazards and reduce their effectiveness
for grain storage.
Hermetic storage technology limits the movement of air and moisture from the external
environment to the stored grain, which results in reduced oxygen and moisture conditions inside
the storage system. This creates an unfavorable condition for the survival and growth of insects,
pests, and mold, providing an effective control. In addition, hermetic bagging technology is easy to
use, involves low costs, and is readily available for smallholder farmers. However, the durability of
these bags is a major concern, as they are vulnerable to punctures from sharp objects, grain, insects,
and rodents while transporting or storing the grain. Punctures in the bag can sometimes be sealed by
grain, but there are also chances for the air to enter the storage bag, significantly reducing its effectiveness
for grain storage. Self-build silos are more durable compared to hermetic bagging technology as they
are fabricated from layers of metal or plastic sheets covered with grass and clay. However, the self-build
silo is permanent and is usually constructed for outdoor use. It cannot be moved from one place
to another. Hermetic metal silos also effectively maintain hermeticity and grain stored in them has
relatively lower losses compared to other conventional storage methods [10,11]. However, metal silos
are relatively expensive compared to other storage techniques, so smallholder farmers would require
credit or a subsidy to purchase these structures.
Agriculture 2018, 8, 57 16 of 21

Table 5. Advantages and disadvantages of different grain storage practices for smallholder farmers.

Grain Quality and

Storage System Advantages Disadvantages Cost
Losses after Storage
Simple to use Do not last long
US$ 0.65 per 90 kg poly
Conventional woven Available in different Easy access to pests and Low quality,
bag [39]
polypropylene sack storage capacities rodents High loss
US$ 1.6 for jute bags
Occupy less space Susceptible to water
Occupy large space all time
Simple to make and use Do not last long About US$ 10 [34] for
Low quality
Conventional granary Available in different Pests, insects, and rodents approx. 500 kg storage
High loss
storage capacities. can get into the structure capacity
easily
Actellic super cost US$
Can be effective if
3.3 per 90 kg bag [39] Low quality
Chemicals applied at correct doses Potential health hazards
Need to apply every 3 Low loss
Ease of use flexible
months
Simple to design and US$ 29 for 90 kg
Metal sheets are expensive
construct capacity High quality,
Hermetic metal silo High skills required for
Easy to use US$ 243 for 1.8 ton Low loss
construction
Durable capacity
Low cost of production
US$ 3 for PICS bag
Simple, flexible, and Can be destroyed by sharp High quality,
Hermetic bags US$ 5.3 for 90 kg
durable objects, pest, and rodents Low loss
SuperGrainBag [39]
Easy to use
Uses local materials
Remain fixed at one point
Self-build silo Very durable - -
outside the house
Simple to construct
Farmers incur both fixed
Can be owned or rented and variable costs
On-farm and Storage cost of US$ Quality and losses
by farmers Investment and operations
condominium storage 0.03 per sack per year depends on storage
Cost effective for farmers costs are high for
structures paid to operators 1 conditions
in developed countries smallholder farmers in
developing countries
1 Information based on personal communication with local farmers in southern India.

6. Desirable Features of an Improved Grain Storage System

The most important feature of grain storage systems is the ability to store grain for an extended
period of time, preferably several months, with minimal loss in grain quantity and quality. Improved
storage structures appropriate for smallholder farmers should be simple, easy to manufacture and
use, and the construction materials should be locally available. It should also ensure enough strength
and durability that it could be reused to effectively and efficiently store grain for multiple years.
The improved storage system should be designed for in-home use because most smallholder farmers in
developing countries like to store their grain within their living space to ensure security [8]. The initial
capital investment costs and complexity of the technology are major constraints to the adoption of
storage systems by smallholder farmers in developing countries. Thus, the appropriate grain storage
solution for these farmers should meet the following criteria: (1) provide effective storage conditions
for grain; (2) availability in the local market; (3) ease of placing inside residential units, and (4) ease
of moving from one point to another. Such an improved grain storage system will reduce losses and
maintain quality to ensure food security.

7. Conclusions
Different grain storage practices are adopted by smallholder farmers in developing countries
globally. Conventional storage practices include gunny bags, woven granaries and cribs, and wooden
boxes. Different locally available plant leaves, oil and ashes, as well as chemicals, are also used
during grain storage. In addition to these, larger-scale community-based grain storage practices are
also adopted by smallholder farmers. More recent technologies, such as hermetic metal silos and
multilayer bagging systems, have also been promoted in developing countries. Hermetic metal silos,
Agriculture 2018, 8, 57 17 of 21

multilayer bagging systems, and chemical use result in significantly lower grain losses during storage
of grain compared to the conventional storage systems. The design of new storage options should
focus on ensuring maximum air-tightness to maintain hermetic conditions. This type of storage has a
lower grain loss compared to the conventional storage methods. In the future, smallholder farmers
in developing countries could benefit from new grain storage technologies that use locally available
materials, involve low cost, and maintain hermeticity.

Acknowledgments: This work was supported in part by funding from the United States Agency for
International Development (USAID)-funded Innovative Agricultural Research Initiative project (iAGRI) (Award
No. CA-621-A-00-11-00009-00), NSF—iCorps Federal Award No.: 1322061 (Subaward No.: 535326-OSU 8),
and USDA NIFA Hatch project 1005665. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the views of the sponsoring agencies. The authors thank Ms. Mary Wicks (Food, Agricultural
and Biological Engineering Department, The Ohio State University) for critical review.
Author Contributions: Ashish Manandhar reviewed existing literature and wrote the manuscript. Paschal Milindi
reviewed existing literature and contributed in some sections of the manuscript. Ajay Shah conceived the idea
and provided critical suggestions throughout the manuscript development process. All authors reviewed
the manuscript.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Food and Agriculture Organization. The State of Food and Agriculture: Innovation in Family Farming; Food and
Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2014.
2. Food and Agriculture Organization. Smallholders and Family Farmers; Food and Agriculture Organization:
Rome, Italy, 2012.
3. Leff, B.; Ramankutty, N.; Foley, J.A. Geographic distribution of major crops across the world. Glob. Biogeochem. Cycles
2004, 18. [CrossRef]
4. Abass, A.B.; Ndunguru, G.; Mamiro, P.; Alenkhe, B.; Mlingi, N.; Bekunda, M. Post-harvest food losses in
maize-based farming system of semi-arid savannah area of Tanzania. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2014, 57, 49–57.
[CrossRef]
5. Pedrick, C. Going to Waste—Missed Opportunities in the Battle to Improve Food Security; The Technical Centre
for Agricultural and Rural Cooperation: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 2012.
6. Food and Agriculture Organization. Global Food Losses and Food Waste—Extent, Causes and Prevention;
Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome, Italy, 2011; ISBN 9789251072059.
7. Kumar, D.; Kalita, P. Reducing Postharvest Losses during Storage of Grain Crops to Strengthen Food Security
in Developing Countries. Foods 2017, 6, 8. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Sergiy, Z.; Nancy, M.; Luz, D.R.; Rick, H.; Ben, B.; Tanya, S.; Paul, M.; John, L. Missing Food: The Case of
Postharvest Grain Losses in Sub-Saharan Africa; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
9. Hodges, R.J. Postharvest Quality Losses of Cereal Grains in Sub-Saharan Africa. Afr. Postharvest Losses
Inf. Syst. 2012, 22.
10. De Groote, H.; Kimenju, S.C.; Likhayo, P.; Kanampiu, F.; Tefera, T.; Hellin, J. Effectiveness of hermetic systems
in controlling maize storage pests in Kenya. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2013, 53, 27–36. [CrossRef]
11. Chigoverah, A.A.; Mvumi, B.M. Efficacy of metal silos and hermetic bags against stored-maize insect pests
under simulated smallholder farmer conditions. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2016, 69, 179–189. [CrossRef]
12. Nganga, J.; Mutungi, C.; Imathiu, S.; Affognon, H. Effect of triple-layer hermetic bagging on mould infection
and aflatoxin contamination of maize during multi-month on-farm storage in Kenya. J. Stored Prod. Res.
2016, 69, 119–128. [CrossRef]
13. ICVolunteers Cowpea. Available online: www.agriguide.org/index.php?what=agriguide&id=161&
language=en (accessed on 19 March 2018).
14. Uhrig, J.W.; Maier, D.E. Costs of Drying High-Moisture Corn. Available online: https://www.extension.
purdue.edu/extmedia/gq/gq-3.html (accessed on 17 March 2018).
15. Proctor, D.L. Grain Storage Techniques: Evolution and Trends in Developing Countries; Food and Agriculture
Organization: Rome, Italy, 1994.
Agriculture 2018, 8, 57 18 of 21

16. Lindblad, C. Programming and Training for Small Farm Grain Storage. Appropriate Technologies for Development.
Manual No. M-2B; Burton International School: Detroit, MI, USA, 1981.
17. Fields, P.G. The control of stored-product insects and mites with extreme temperatures. J. Stored Prod. Res.
1992, 28, 89–118. [CrossRef]
18. Eeckhout, M.; Landschoot, S.; Deschuyffeleer, N.; De Laethauwer, S.; Haesaert, G. Guidelines for Prevention
and Control of Mould Growth and Mycotoxin Production in Cereals. 2013. Available online: http://synagra.
be/Download.ashx?ID=6421 (accessed on 16 November 2017).
19. North Carolina Public Health. Mold: Where It Can Grow. Available online: http://epi.publichealth.nc.gov/
oee/mold/grow.html (accessed on 21 December 2017).
20. Hellevang, K.J. Grain Moisture Content Effects and Management. Available online: www.ag.ndsu.edu/
pubs/ageng/grainsto/ae905.pdf (accessed on 18 November 2017).
21. Weinberg, Z.G.; Yan, Y.; Chen, Y.; Finkelman, S.; Ashbell, G.; Navarro, S. The effect of moisture level on
high-moisture maize (Zea mays L.) under hermetic storage conditions in vitro studies. J. Stored Prod. Res.
2008, 44, 136–144. [CrossRef]
22. Jay, E. Recent advanced in the use of modified atmospheres for the control of stored-product insects. In Insect
Management for Food Storage and Processing; Baur, F., Ed.; American Association of Cereal Chemists: St. Paul,
MN, USA, 1984.
23. Yakubu, A.; Bern, C.J.; Coats, J.R.; Bailey, T.B. Hermetic on-farm storage for maize weevil control in East
Africa. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2011, 6, 3311–3319.
24. Chi, Y.H.; Ahn, J.-E.; Yun, D.-J.; Lee, S.Y.; Liu, T.-X.; Zhu-Salzman, K. Changes in oxygen and carbon dioxide
environment alter gene expression of cowpea bruchids. J. Insect Physiol. 2011, 57, 220–230. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Navarro, S. Modified atmospheres for the control of stored-product insects and mites. In Insect Management
for Food Storage and Processing; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2006; pp. 105–146.
26. Xihong, R.; Zhanggui, Q.; Yongjian, F.; Shuzhong, F.; Quan, L.; Jin, Z.; Liang, Q.; Liang, Y.; Tan, X.; Guan, L.
Effects of oxygen concentration on the mortality of four adult stored-product insects in low dosage phosphine
fumigation. In Proceedings of the 7th International Working Conference on Stored-Product Protection,
Beijing, China, 14–19 October 1998; pp. 364–366.
27. Kamanula, J.; Sileshi, G.W.; Belmain, S.R.; Sola, P.; Mvumi, B.M.; Nyirenda, G.K.C.; Nyirenda, S.P.;
Stevenson, P.C. Farmers’ insect pest management practices and pesticidal plant use in the protection of
stored maize and beans in Southern Africa. Int. J. Pest Manag. 2010, 57, 41–49. [CrossRef]
28. Rajendran, S.; Sriranjini, V. Plant products as fumigants for stored-product insect control. J. Stored Prod. Res.
2008, 44, 126–135. [CrossRef]
29. Mulungu, L.S.; Lupenza, G.; Reuben, S.; Misangu, R.N. Evaluation of botanical products as stored grain
protectant against maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais (L.), on maize. J. Entomol. 2007, 4, 258–262.
30. Porter, J.H.; Parry, M.L.; Carter, T.R. The potential effects of climatic change on agricultural insect pests.
Agric. For. Meteorol. 1991, 57, 221–240. [CrossRef]
31. Kisimoto, R.; Dyck, V.A. Climate and rice insects. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Climate and Rice;
International Rice Research Institute: Los Banos, Philippines, 1976; pp. 367–390.
32. Hagstrum, D. Stored-Product Insect Resource; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016.
33. Food and Agriculture Organization. Pests and Diseases Management in Maize, Uganda. Available online:
http://teca.fao.org/read/7019 (accessed on 14 December 2017).
34. Phiri, N.; Otieno, G. Managing Pests of Stored Maize in Kenya, Malawi and Tanzania; The MDG Centre, East and
Southern Africa: Nairobi, Kenya, 2008.
35. Food and Agriculture Organization. Insect Damage: Post-Harvest Operations. Available online: http:
//www.fao.org/3/a-av013e.pdf (accessed on 12 December 2017).
36. Vowotor, K.A.; Meikle, W.G.; Ayertey, J.N.; Markham, R.H. Distribution of and association between the larger
grain borer Prostephanus truncatus (Horn) (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) and the maize weevil Sitophilus zeamais
Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) in maize stores. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2005, 41, 498–512. [CrossRef]
37. Jacobs, S.; Calvin, D. Weevils of Stored Grains; Entomological Notes; College of Agriculture Sciences
Cooperative Extension, Pennsylvania State University: State College, PA, USA, 2001.
38. Rugumamu, C.P. A Technique for Assessment of Intrinsic Resistance of Maize Varieties for the Control of
Sitophilus zeamais (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). TaJONAS Tanzan. J. Nat. Appl. Sci. 2012, 3, 481–488.
Agriculture 2018, 8, 57 19 of 21

39. CIMMYT. Effective Grain Storage for Better Livelihoods of African Farmers Project; CIMMYT: Texcoco, Mexico,
2011.
40. Food and Agriculture Organization. Insect pests of stored grains in hot climates. Available online: http:
//www.fao.org/docrep/t1838e/T1838E1f.htm (accessed on 12 January 2017).
41. Quezada, M.Y.; Moreno, J.; Vázquez, M.E.; Mendoza, M.; Méndez-Albores, A.; Moreno-Martínez, E. Hermetic
storage system preventing the proliferation of Prostephanus truncatus Horn and storage fungi in maize with
different moisture contents. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2006, 39, 321–326. [CrossRef]
42. Magan, N.; Lacey, J. Ecological determinants of mould growth in stored grain. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 1988, 7,
245–256. [CrossRef]
43. Fleurat-Lessard, F. Integrated management of the risks of stored grain spoilage by seedborne fungi and
contamination by storage mould mycotoxins—An update. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2017, 71, 22–40. [CrossRef]
44. Food and Agriculture Organization. Mycotoxins in Grains. Available online: www.fao.org/Wairdocs/
X5008E/X5008e00.htm#Contents (accessed on 7 January 2017).
45. Montgomery, M. Molds in Stored Grains. Available online: http://web.extension.illinois.edu/state/
newsdetail.cfm?NewsID=28028 (accessed on 7 January 2017).
46. Foroud, N.A.; Eudes, F. Trichothecenes in cereal grains. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2009, 10, 147–173. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
47. Pfohl-Leszkowicz, A.; Manderville, R.A. Ochratoxin A: An overview on toxicity and carcinogenicity in
animals and humans. Mol. Nutr. Food Res. 2007, 51, 61–99. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
48. European Union. Opinion of the Scientific Committee on Food on Fusarium Toxins. Part 4: Nivalenol; European
Union: Brussels, Belgium, 2000.
49. Gitonga, Z.M.; De Groote, H.; Kassie, M.; Tefera, T. Impact of metal silos on households’ maize storage,
storage losses and food security: An application of a propensity score matching. Food Policy 2013, 43, 44–55.
[CrossRef]
50. Wambugu, P.W.; Mathenge, P.W.; Auma, E.O.; Van Rheenen, H.A. Efficacy of traditional maize (Zea mays L.)
seed storage methods in western Kenya. Afr. J. Food Agric. Nutr. Dev. 2009, 9. [CrossRef]
51. Ndegwa, M.K.; De Groote, H.; Gitonga, Z.M.; Bruce, A.Y. Effectiveness and economics of hermetic bags for
maize storage: Results of a randomized controlled trial in Kenya. Crop Prot. 2016, 90, 17–26. [CrossRef]
52. Baoua, I.B.; Amadou, L.; Margam, V.; Murdock, L.L. Comparative evaluation of six storage methods for
postharvest preservation of cowpea grain. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2012, 49, 171–175. [CrossRef]
53. Baoua, I.B.; Amadou, L.; Lowenberg-Deboer, J.D.; Murdock, L.L. Side by side comparison of GrainPro
and PICS bags for postharvest preservation of cowpea grain in Niger. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2013, 54, 13–16.
[CrossRef]
54. Freitas, R.S.; Faroni, L.R.A.; Sousa, A.H. Hermetic storage for control of common bean weevil,
Acanthoscelides obtectus (Say). J. Stored Prod. Res. 2016, 66, 1–5. [CrossRef]
55. Mlambo, S.; Mvumi, B.M.; Stathers, T.; Mubayiwa, M.; Nyabako, T. Field efficacy of hermetic and other
maize grain storage options under smallholder farmer management. Crop Prot. 2017, 98, 198–210. [CrossRef]
56. Naik, S.N.; Kaushik, G. Grain Storage in India: An Overview. Available online: http://www.vigyanprasar.
gov.in/Radioserials/GrainStorageinIndiabyProf.S.N.Naik,IITDelhi.pdf (accessed on 7 November 2017).
57. Nukenine, E.N. Stored product protection in Africa: Past, present and future. Julius Kühn Arch. 2010, 425, 26.
58. Moreno, L.L.; Tuxill, J.; Moo, E.Y.; Reyes, L.A.; Alejo, J.C.; Jarvis, D.I. Traditional maize storage methods of
Mayan farmers in Yucatan, Mexico: Implications for seed selection and crop diversity. Biodivers. Conserv.
2006, 15, 1771–1795. [CrossRef]
59. Ganesh, K.K.C. Farm Level Grain Storage Pest Management in Nepal. Available online: http://www.fao.
org/docrep/x5048e/x5048E12.htm (accessed on 20 February 2018).
60. Shengbin, L. Study on farm grain storage in China. In Proceedings of the 9th International Working
Conference on Stored-Product Protection, ABRAPOS, Passo Fundo, RS, Brazil, 15–18 October 2006.
61. Paliwal, R.L. El Maíz en los Trópicos: Mejoramiento y Producción; Food and Agriculture Organization: Rome,
Italy, 2001.
62. Dunkel, F.V. Underground and Earth Sheltered Food Storage: Historical, Geographic, and Economic
Considerations. Available online: http://about.elsevier.com/media/tust-vsi/v9i5pp310-315.pdf (accessed
on 28 March 2018).
63. Nagnur, S.; Channal, G.; Channamma, N. Indigenous grain structures and methods of storage. Indian J.
Tradit. Knowl. 2006, 5, 114–117.
Agriculture 2018, 8, 57 20 of 21

64. Nduku, T.M.; De Groote, H.; Nzuma, J.M. Comparative Analysis of Maize Storage Structures in Kenya.
In Proceedings of the 2013 AAAE Fourth International Conference, Hammamet, Tunisia, 22–25 September 2013.
65. Murdock, L.L.; Seck, D.; Ntoukam, G.; Kitch, L.; Shade, R.E. Preservation of cowpea grain in sub-Saharan
Africa—Bean/Cowpea CRSP contributions. Field Crop. Res. 2003, 82, 169–178. [CrossRef]
66. Negi, T.; Solanki, D. Tradition Grain Storage Structures and Practices Followed by Farm Families of Kumaon
Region in Uttarakhand. Indian Res. J. Ext. Educ. 2015, 15, 137–141.
67. Bett, C.; Nguyo, R. Post-harvest storage practices and techniques used by farmers in semi-arid eastern
and central Kenya. In Proceedings of the 8th African Crop Science Society Conference, El-Minia, Egypt,
27–31 October 2007; Volume 8, pp. 1023–1227.
68. Rajashekar, Y.; Bakthavatsalam, N.; Shivanandappa, T. Botanicals as grain protectants. Psyche A J. Entomol.
2012, 2012, 646740. [CrossRef]
69. Kumar, S.; Mohapatra, D.; Kotwaliwale, N.; Singh, K.K. Vacuum Hermetic Fumigation: A review. J. Stored
Prod. Res. 2017, 71, 47–56. [CrossRef]
70. Hodges, R.J. The biology and control of Prostephanus truncatus (Horn) (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae)—A
destructive storage pest with an increasing range. J. Stored Prod. Res. 1986, 22, 1–14. [CrossRef]
71. Lv, J.; Jia, S.; Liu, C.; Zhu, Q.; Liu, Q.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, S.; Zhang, J. Electively applying Phosphine fumigation
technology in Tianjin area of China. In Proceedings of the 9th International Working Conference on
Stored-Product Protection, ABRAPOS, Passo Fundo, RS, Brazil, 15–18 October 2006; pp. 600–604.
72. Danga, S.P.Y.; Nukenine, E.N.; Fotso, G.T.; Adler, C. Use of NeemPro® , a neem product to control maize
weevil Sitophilus zeamais (Motsch.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) on three maize varieties in Cameroon.
Agric. Food Secur. 2015, 4, 18. [CrossRef]
73. Dowell, F.E.; Dowell, C.N. Reducing grain storage losses in developing countries. Qual. Assur. Saf. Crop. Foods
2017, 9, 93–100. [CrossRef]
74. Collins, P.J. Resistance to chemical treatments in insect pests of stored grain and its management. In Proceedings
of the 9th International Working Conference on Stored Product Protection, Campinas, São Paulo, Brazil,
15–18 October 2006; pp. 277–282.
75. Benhalima, H.; Chaudhry, M.Q.; Mills, K.A.; Price, N.R. Phosphine resistance in stored-product insects
collected from various grain storage facilities in Morocco. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2004, 40, 241–249. [CrossRef]
76. Harish, G.; Nataraja, M.V.; Ajay, B.C.; Holajjer, P.; Savaliya, S.D.; Gedia, M.V. Comparative efficacy of storage
bags, storability and damage potential of bruchid beetle. J. Food Sci. Technol. 2014, 51, 4047–4053. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
77. Stevenson, P.C.; Nyirenda, S.P.; Mvumi, B.; Sola, P.; Kamanula, J.M.; Sileshi, G.; Belmain, S.R. Pesticidal plants:
A viable alternative insect pest management approach for resource-poor farming in Africa. In Biopesticides in
Environment and Food Security: Issues and Strategies; Scientific Publishers: Valencia, CA, USA, 2012.
78. Sola, P.; Mvumi, B.M.; Ogendo, J.O.; Mponda, O.; Kamanula, J.F.; Nyirenda, S.P.; Belmain, S.R.; Stevenson, P.C.
Botanical pesticide production, trade and regulatory mechanisms in sub-Saharan Africa: Making a case for
plant-based pesticidal products. Food Secur. 2014, 6, 369–384. [CrossRef]
79. Barbari, M.; Monti, M.; Rossi, G.; Simonini, S.; Guerri, F.S. Self-build silos for storage of cereals in African
rural villages. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2014, 9, 1384–1390.
80. Said, P.P.; Pradhan, R. Food Grain Storage Practices—A Review. J. Grain Process. Storage 2014, 1, 1–5.
81. Edwards, W. Grain Storage Alternatives: An Economic Comparison; Ag Decision Maker, Iowa State University
Extension: Ames, IA, USA, 2015; pp. 1–7.
82. India Agronet. Storage and Warehousing. Available online: www.indiaagronet.com/indiaagronet/Agri_
marketing/contents/StorageandWarehousing.htm (accessed on 2 January 2017).
83. Garg, M.K. CAP storage, an economic warehousing technique. In Proceedings of the Conference of
International Federation of Public Warehousing Association, London, UK, 1985.
84. Tefera, T.; Kanampiu, F.; De Groote, H.; Hellin, J.; Mugo, S.; Kimenju, S.; Beyene, Y.; Boddupalli, P.M.;
Shiferaw, B.; Banziger, M. The metal silo: An effective grain storage technology for reducing post-harvest
insect and pathogen losses in maize while improving smallholder farmers’ food security in developing
countries. Crop Prot. 2011, 30, 240–245. [CrossRef]
85. Martinez, J.B. Metal Silos and Food Security. Lessons Learned from a Successful Central American Post-Harvest
Program; Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation: Quito, Ecuador, 2009.
Agriculture 2018, 8, 57 21 of 21

86. Bala, A.; Kaur, K. An Exploratory study on selected household food storage practices of women in Punjab.
J. Community Mobil. Sustain. Dev. 2015, 10, 70–75.
87. Anankware, P.J.; Fatunbi, A.O.; Afreh-Nuamah, K.; Obeng-Ofori, D.; Ansah, A.F. Efficacy of the
multiple-layer hermetic storage bag for biorational management of primary beetle pests of stored maize.
Acad. J. Entomol. 2012, 5, 47–53.
88. Bbosa, D.; Brumm, T.J.; Bern, C.J.; Rosentrater, K.A.; Raman, D.R. Evaluation of Hermetic Maize Storage in
208 Liter (55 Gal) Steel Barrels for Smallholder Farmers. Trans. ASABE 2017, 60, 981–987. [CrossRef]
89. Hell, K.; Edoh Ognakossan, K.; Lamboni, Y. PICS hermetic storage bags ineffective in controlling infestations
of Prostephanus truncatus and Dinoderus spp. in traditional cassava chips. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2014, 58, 53–58.
[CrossRef]
90. SDC. Central America: Fighting Poverty with Silos and Job Creation. Available online:
https://www.shareweb.ch/site/Agriculture-and-Food-Security/focusareas/Documents/phm_sdc_
latin_brief_silos_central_america_e.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2017).
91. Ognakossan, K.E.; Tounou, A.K.; Lamboni, Y.; Hell, K. Post-harvest insect infestation in maize grain stored
in woven polypropylene and in hermetic bags. Int. J. Trop. Insect Sci. 2013, 33, 71–81. [CrossRef]
92. Ognakossan, K.E.; Tounou, A.K.; Lamboni, Y.; Hell, K. Economic analysis of alternative maize storage
technologies in Kenya. In Proceedings of the Joint 3rd African Association of Agricultural Economists
(AAAE) and 48th Agricultural Economists Association of South Africa (AEASA) Conference, Cape Town,
South Africa, 19–23 September 2010; pp. 19–23.
93. Bokusheva, R.; Finger, R.; Fischler, M.; Berlin, R.; Marín, Y.; Pérez, F.; Paiz, F. Factors determining the
adoption and impact of a postharvest storage technology. Food Secur. 2012, 4, 279–293. [CrossRef]
94. Smale, M.; Jayne, T. Maize in Eastern and Southern Africa: “Seeds” of Success in Retrospect; Environment and
Production Technology Division, International Food Policy Research Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
95. Cardoso, M.L.; Bartosik, R.E.; Rodriguez, J.C.; Ochandio, D. Factors affecting carbon dioxide concentration in
interstitial air of soybean stored in hermetic plastic bags (silo-bag). In Proceedings of the 8th International
Conference on Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation in Stored Products, Chengdu, China, 21–26 September
2008.
96. Cardoso, L.; Bartosik, R.; Campabadal, C.; De La Torre, D. Air-Tightness Level in Hermetic Plastic Bags
(Silo-Bags) for Different Storage Conditions; Navarro, S., Banks, H.J., Jayas, D.S., Bell, C.H., Eds.; Instituto
Nacional de Tecnología Agropecuaria: Balcarce, Spain, 2012; pp. 583–589.
97. De Bruin, T.; Villers, P.; Wagh, A.; Navarro, S. Worldwide use of hermetic storage for the preservation
of agricultural products. In Proceedings of the 9th International Controlled Atmosphere & Fumigation
Conference (CAF), Antalya, Turkey, 15–19 October 2012; pp. 1–8.
98. Murdock, L.L.; Baoua, I.B. On Purdue Improved Cowpea Storage (PICS) technology: Background, mode of
action, future prospects. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2014, 58, 3–11. [CrossRef]
99. Baributsa, D.; Lowenberg-DeBoer, J.; Murdock, L.; Moussa, B. Profitable chemical-free cowpea storage
technology for smallholder farmers in Africa: Opportunities and challenges. Julius Kühn Arch. 2010, 425,
1046–1052.
100. Baoua, I.B.; Margam, V.; Amadou, L.; Murdock, L.L. Performance of triple bagging hermetic technology for
postharvest storage of cowpea grain in Niger. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2012, 51, 81–85. [CrossRef]
101. García-Lara, S.; Ortíz-Islas, S.; Villers, P. Portable hermetic storage bag resistant to Prostephanus truncatus,
Rhyzopertha dominica, and Callosobruchus maculatus. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2013, 54, 23–25. [CrossRef]

© 2018 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 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).