See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/256801494

Effectiveness of hermetic systems in controlling maize storage pests in Kenya

Article  in  Journal of Stored Products Research · April 2013

DOI: 10.1016/j.jspr.2013.01.001

CITATIONS READS

73 816

6 authors, including:

Hugo De Groote Simon Chege Kimenju

International Maize and Wheat Improvement Centre Agri-Food Economics Africa
188 PUBLICATIONS   3,143 CITATIONS    24 PUBLICATIONS   788 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Paddy Likhayo Fred Kanampiu

Kenya Agricultural and Livestock Research Organization International Institute of Tropical Agriculture, Nairobi, Kenya
14 PUBLICATIONS   289 CITATIONS    70 PUBLICATIONS   1,177 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Rural institutions for increasing market access View project

innovation systems View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Paddy Likhayo on 16 June 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Stored Products Research 53 (2013) 27e36

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Stored Products Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jspr

Effectiveness of hermetic systems in controlling maize storage pests in Kenya

Hugo De Groote a, *, Simon C. Kimenju a,1, Paddy Likhayo b, Fred Kanampiu a, Tadele Tefera a, Jon Hellin c
a
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), P.O. Box 1041-00621, Nairobi, Kenya
b
Kenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARI), P.O. Box 57811-00200, Nairobi, Kenya
c
International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), Apdo. Postal 6-641, 06600 Mexico D.F., Mexico

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: To protect their maize from pests such as the larger grain borer (Prostephanus truncatus), and from theft,
Accepted 14 January 2013 farmers in Africa are abandoning traditional storage structures: they shell their maize earlier and tend to
store the grain inside the house in polypropylene bags. However, losses due to insects during storage
Keywords: remain high. Hermetic storage containers, such as metal silos (soldered airtight) and super grain bags
Maize (made from high-density polyethylene to reduce gas exchange), may enable farmers to reduce post-
Storage
harvest losses. To test the different containers’ effectiveness to control insect pests, on-station trials
Weevils
were conducted at three sites in Kenya under artificial infestation with maize weevils (Sitophilus zeamais)
Larger grain borer
Metal silos
and larger grain borers (P. truncatus). The experiment consisted of six treatments, using three different
Super grain bags types of containers and two different insecticides: i) polypropylene bags without insecticides; ii) poly-
Post-harvest loss propylene bags with Actellic Super; iii) super grain bags without insecticide; iv) metal silos without
insecticide; v) metal silos with Actellic Super; and vi) metal silos with Phostoxin. Treatments were
replicated three times per site. The results demonstrated that metal silos are very effective in controlling
maize weevils and the larger grain borer. The use of both Actellic Super and Phostoxin in the metal silos
did not lead to a significant increase in insect mortality or reduction in grain weight loss. Super grain
bags controlled insect pests well, but insect mortality was not complete and all bags in the trial were
perforated, almost certainly by P. truncatus. We conclude that it is technically feasible to control storage
insects without insecticides in Africa by using hermetic storage, either metal silos or super bags. The
super bags, however, might not be suitable in areas with a high incidence of P. truncatus.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), the dominant insect pests that attack
stored maize are the larger grain borer (LGB), Prostephanus truncatus
(Horn) (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) and the maize weevil Sitophilus
zeamais Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculionidae) (Vowotor et al.,
2005). Prostephanus truncatus is more damaging, particularly in
small-scale and on-farm storage; in large-scale stores, fumigation is a
popular and cost-effective control option (Birkinshaw et al., 2002).
A review by the African Post Harvest Information Systems
synthesized 43 studies after taking into account home consump-
tion and standardizing the storage period to nine months (Hodges,
undated). The average loss due to insect pests in maize is estimated
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ254 722 4604; fax: þ254 722 4601.
E-mail address: h.degroote@cgiar.org (H. De Groote).
1
Current address: Department for Agricultural Economics and Rural Develop-
ment, Georg-August-University Goettingen, Heinrich-Düker-Weg 12, 37073 Göt-
tingen, Germany.
at 4%e5% in both cobs and shelled grain before the arrival of the
LGB, with an increase in losses of 1% in grain and 2%e3% in cobs
after the arrival of the LGB. In Kenya, only one rigorous study is
available, from prior to the LBG arrival, and this estimated loss in
maize storage at 5% (de Lima, 1979).
Farmers have traditional storage methods but these are not
effective against the LGB. Many households have responded by
shelling maize earlier, since shelled maize is less susceptible to
LGBs (Cowley et al., 1980). They also tend to store their shelled grain
in polypropylene bags inside the house in order to prevent theft.
Storage in polypropylene bags, unfortunately, reduces aeration and
can accentuate pest problems.
Generally, if the grain is dry, with 12%e13% moisture content,
P. truncatus can be controlled quite easily with fumigants such as
Phostoxin (Hodges, 1986). In most countries in Africa, however,
only licensed technicians are authorized to handle Phostoxin.
Farmers can use a mixture of pirimiphos-methyl (Actellic) and
permethrin, commercially sold as Actellic Super. In Tanzania, a
well implemented campaign to control the LGB was based on
shelling the maize, treating it with Actellic Super, and storing it in

0022-474X/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2013.01.001
28 H. De Groote et al. / Journal of Stored Products Research 53 (2013) 27e36
polypropylene bags. This provided good control (Farrell and
Schulten, 2002). When applied correctly, it can protect stored
maize and other grains against insect pests for periods of at least 40
weeks (Stathers et al., 2008). Actellic Super is now widely used in
East and Southern Africa (Lalah and Wandiga, 2002). The potential
of insect pests developing resistance (and the potential health ef-
fects of storing grain with insecticides), inspired the search for
alternative storage methods (Golob, 2002), including inert dusts,
wood ash, botanicals, biological control and others, but none were
particular efficient and cost-effective (Golob, 2002; Golob and
Hanks, 1990; Smith et al., 2006).
Recent years have seen a growing interest in the use of
hermetically-sealed containers to control the LGB. Low oxygen
concentration causes insect mortality, so hermetic storage such as
Purdue Improved Cowpea Storage (PICS), super grain bags, cocoons
and others, are being promoted as cheap and effective ways to
control storage insect pests in Asia (Quezada et al., 2006), and
recently in Africa (Jones et al., 2011; Phiri and Otieno, 2008). PICS
bags, consisting of a double layer of high density polyethylene
(HDPE) bags, within the standard polypropylene woven bags, were
shown to effectively protect cowpeas against bruchid beetles in
West Africa (Baoua et al., 2012a, 2012b; Murdock et al., 2012). Super
grain bags consist of a single high density polyethylene bag used as
a liner in the standard polypropylene bags and have been suc-
cessfully disseminated in Asia (Villers et al., 2008).
Metal silos, also hermetically sealed but physically stronger,
have been heavily promoted in Central America (Hellin and
Kanampiu, 2008) and their feasibility is currently being explored
in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) (Tefera et al., 2011a). However, metal
silos are relatively expensive (Kimenju and De Groote, 2010),
especially compared to the super grain bags. The POSTCOSECHA
program (the Spanish term for ‘post-harvest’), promoted metal
silos in several Central American countries from the early 1990s
until 2003 (Hellin and Kanampiu, 2008), and was particularly
successful in El Salvador, where farmers now use approximately
65,000 silos (Bokusheva et al., 2012). In Central America, grain in
the metal silos is treated with Phostoxin, a highly poisonous
fumigant (Yusuf and He, 2011). In Kenya, as in most African coun-
tries, Phostoxin use is restricted to registered fumigation agents
(Guantai and Seward, 2010, p. 154).
In Western Australia, sealed metal silos in combination with
carbon dioxide treatment are popular for storing wheat and grain
legumes (Andrews et al., 1994). Further, a range of sealed flexible
storage structures, including super grain bags and cocoons, based
on the replacement of oxygen by carbon dioxide during the respi-
ratory metabolism of the biological agents of the grain, are now
being used in 32 countries worldwide (Villers et al., 2008).
Based on the success of the metal silos in Central America and
the growing popularity of PICS and super grain bags, hermetic
storage technologies are now being promoted in East and Southern
Africa. Before widely promoting such new technologies in Africa,
however, they should be thoroughly tested under local conditions.
Moreover, the use of Phostoxin by smallholders in Africa is prob-
lematic, so alternatives such as Actellic Super should be considered.
Finally, if the metal silos are expected to deplete the oxygen quickly
and kill the insects, the use of insecticides might not even be
necessary.
Trials were, hence, conducted at three sites in Kenya to compare
the efficiency of metal silos and super grain bags with the farmers’
current practice of using polypropylene bags with or without
Actellic Super, in controlling the major storage pests, maize weevils
and LGBs. Further, to assess the need of using insecticides in the
metal silos, they were tested with two popular insecticides, Phos-
toxin and Actellic Super, and compared to a control without
insecticides.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Description of the trial sites
The three sites Kiboko, Embu and Homa Bay (see Fig. 1) were
selected based on different climate conditions, the availability of
research facilities, and the confirmation from local farmers that
weevils and LGBs were serious post-harvest storage pests. Embu is
located on the slope of Mount Kenya at an altitude of 1350 m, and
has a cool and humid climate. Kiboko is located in the east of Kenya
at 961 m in a dry, hot plain, while Homa Bay is located on the shore
of Lake Victoria at an altitude of 1166 m and has a hot, dry climate.
The trial sites in Embu and Kiboko were located at KARI’s research
stations, while the site in Homa Bay was situated in the compound
of the Catholic Diocese.
2.2. The treatments
Metal silos, super grain bags and polypropylene bags (the
farmers’ common storage practice) were tested at each site. The
polypropylene bags and the metal silos were tested in combination
with Actellic Super (a.i. ¼ Pirimiphos-methyl 16 g/kg þ Permethrin
3 g/kg), a common insecticide used for storage pests in Kenya. The
metal silos were also tested in combination with Phostoxin
(a.i. ¼ aluminum phosphide, 57% w/w). The super grain bags were
not tested with insecticides, because they work on the principle of
oxygen depletion and would, therefore, not benefit from the in-
secticides. While the same principle would apply to the metal silos,
it was important to test the silos’ efficiency both with and without
insecticides, as the silos have conventionally been promoted in
conjunction with the use of an insecticide, and seldom without.
The experiment consisted of six treatments, using three
different types of containers and two different insecticides. The
treatments were: T1: polypropylene bags without insecticides
(untreated control); T2: polypropylene bags with Actellic Super;
T3: super grain bags without insecticide; T4: metal silos without
insecticide; T5: metal silos with Actellic Super; and T6: metal silos
with Phostoxin. The insecticides were applied only once, at the
beginning of the trials. The treatments were arranged in a
completely randomized design with three replications in the three
sites resulting in a total of 18 storage containers in each site, 54 in
total. The containers were placed in a room roofed with corrugated
iron. In Kiboko and Embu, the walls consisted of open mesh wire,
while in Homa Bay, the walls were made of concrete but were well
ventilated with open windows. In each of the three sites, the
different treatments were arranged in three rows, with .3 me1 m
distance between the rows and .3e.5 m within the rows. All the
treatments were kept under ambient conditions. The temperature
and relative humidity were recorded on a daily basis. The coolest
place was Embu, with a mean temperature during the trials of
21  C (and monthly averages from 19 to 22  C), followed by
Kiboko with 22.5  C (20e24  C), while the hottest place was
Homa Bay with an average of 26  C (26e27  C). Relative humidity,
on the other hand, was highest in Embu, with an average of 70%,
followed by Kiboko (55%) and Homa Bay (50%).
2.3. Description of the storage containers, grains and infestation
with insects
The metal silos, made from gauge 24 galvanized metal sheet
(0.6 mm), had a grain-holding capacity of 90 kg. They were made by
trained local tinsmiths, but different tinsmiths at each site, leading
to slight differences in dimensions: between 60 and 89 cm in
height, and 47 and 53 cm in diameter. The polypropylene bags were
bought from the local market; their dimensions were 130 cm
 H. De Groote et al. / Journal of Stored Products Research 53 (2013) 27e36
Fig. 1. Map of study sites and agroecological zones.
(height) by 75 cm (width), and they hold 90 kg of grain. To ensure
that the silos are hermetically sealed, the seams of the metal sheets
need to be properly soldered, a technique covered during the
training of the artisans. After filling the metal silos with grain, ox-
ygen was depleted by burning a candle, placed on top of the grain;
at the same time the inlet (the main opening in the top) and outlet
were covered with a lid and sealed with a rubber band (Tefera et al.,
2011a).
The super grain bags were provided by GrainPro Inc., the
manufacturer (http://www.grainpro.com/grainpro-supergrainbag.
php), through their agent in Kenya. Their dimensions were the
same size as the polypropylene bags so they can be used as liners.
The super grain bags are manufactured in high density poly-
ethylene that reduces gas exchange. Most agricultural commodities
stored in these bags will develop a modified atmosphere of low
oxygen and high carbon dioxide content, created by respiration of
living organisms such as insects and fungi (Villers et al., 2008). After
filling the super grain bag with grain, the free plastic portion (above
the grain) was squeezed in order to remove excess air. The opening
was then closed by tightly twisting the free portion and sealing it
with a special strap fastener provided by the manufacturer. The top
end of the bag was twisted once more, folded back and sealed with
another fastener. As recommended, the super grain bags were used
as a liner bag inside polypropylene bags, which provide support
and ease in handling. The outer bag was also closed.
In the three sites, different maize varieties were used, but all
were susceptible to storage insects. The grain was first cleaned by
removing broken and discolored seeds. Because of the quantities of
grain needed, sufficient grain could not be obtained from one va-
riety, so mixtures of three or four varieties were used, although the
grain was thoroughly mixed before filling the different containers.
In Kiboko and Embu, grain was obtained from the CIMMYT maize
breeding program. In Homa Bay, maize grain was purchased from
the local market in the Trans-Mara region of Kenya, and dried.
29
Before filling the containers, the grain was sampled and the
moisture content, germination rate and grain damage were
analyzed (Table 1). While the maize in Embu and Kiboko was of
good quality, the maize in Homa Bay had high levels of discolored
(17%) and damaged grains (7.1%). The moisture content of the maize
in Embu was 13.6%, slightly higher than the recommended 13.5%.
Maize weevil and LGB adults were obtained from the Kenya
Agricultural Research Institute’s (KARI) post-harvest insect labo-
ratory in Kiboko. The two insect species were raised separately on
maize variety H-513, a popular hybrid susceptible to storage in-
sects. Two kg of grain were placed in 4-L glass jars that were then
covered with perforated lids. About 200 unsexed LGB adult insects
and maize weevil were introduced in separate glass jars. After
seven to 10 days of oviposition, all adult maize weevils were
removed, and the jars stored for raising progeny. Progeny emer-
gence was monitored daily and all emerged progeny were trans-
ferred to other glass jars with fresh grain and kept at experimental
conditions until a sufficient number of such weevils were obtained
(Tefera et al., 2011b). However, both the LGB parent and LGB
progeny insects were reared together; unlike the maize weevil. It
was difficult to remove the LGB after introduction to the grain for
oviposition, as the LGBs bored and entered the grain a few hours
after introduction. Each container was filled with 90 kg of maize
grain, and 540 adult weevils and 540 adult LGBs were released into
each container.
Table 1
Grain quality analysis at the time of setting the trials.
Site Insect Discolored Moisture
damage (%) grain (%) content (%)
Kiboko .2 1.8 11.8
Embu 1.5 1.9 13.6
Homabay 7.1 17 12.4
30 H. De Groote et al. / Journal of Stored Products Research 53 (2013) 27e36
2.4. Data collected
From each container, grain samples were obtained with a
compartmentalized grain sampling spear (Seedburo Equipment
Company, Chicago, USA), six times at one month intervals, from
June to November 2009. The sampling spear was 1 m long, with five
slots, 15 cm long, evenly-spaced, and separated from each other by
a 2.5 cm-long wooden plug. For this study, maize samples of about
30 g per slot were taken with the bottom three slots.
Each container was sampled in the center and at the periphery,
following the four directions (North, East, South, and West),
providing samples from five probes for each container, and each
probe with a sample at the three depths, a total of 450 g. For each
container, the samples for each depth were placed on different
receptacles and the number of live and dead weevils and LGBs were
counted.
The samples were then transferred to a clean, labeled plastic bag
that was sealed with rubber bands and then transported to the
laboratory. For the metal silos treated with Phostoxin, the envelope
which had contained the Phostoxin capsule was removed at the
first sampling and burned in an incinerator. After each sampling
from the metal silos, oxygen was removed by the lighted candle
method and the silos resealed; in the case of the super grain bags,
the air was again squeezed out of the bag, as described above, and
then the bags were resealed.
In the laboratory, the samples were mixed for each container
and a sub-sample of approximately 225 g was taken. The damaged
and undamaged grains were separated and counted, and their
weight recorded. The moisture content of the grain was measured
using a Dickey-John Moisture Meter. The moisture content of the
grain ranged from 11.8% in Kiboko to 13.6% in Embu.
2.5. Measuring grain damage and weight loss in storage
Grain damage usually refers to physical spoilage or the apparent
evidence of deterioration such as holes, cracks and discoloration. It
is of a qualitative nature and is usually reported as a percentage of
grains damaged in a sample (Boxall, 2002). Grain weight loss, on
the other hand, refers to the disappearance of food, and is usually
expressed as a percentage weight loss. Several methods of esti-
mating damage and weight loss in storage have been developed,
most based on experience in developed countries (Harris and
Lindblad, 1978), but many have also been reviewed for use in
developing countries (Boxall, 1986).
The count and weigh method is the most common method to
measure loss by insect pests in storage (Adams and Schulten, 1978).
The weight loss in the sample is estimated by calculating the
average loss per damaged grain. This is determined by the differ-
ence between the average undamaged grain weight wu and the
average damaged grain weight wd, and multiplying this by the
number of damaged grains Nd. The percentage loss is calculated as
the weight loss over the estimated weight of the sample if none of
the grains was damaged which, in turn, is determined by multi-
plying the average undamaged grain weight by the total number of
grains in the sample, damaged as well as undamaged (Nu).
ðwu  wd ÞNd
%weight loss ¼
ðwu ÞðNu þ Nd Þ
The method has its drawbacks. Most importantly, if insects
prefer larger grains, the weight of the damaged grains can be higher
than that of the undamaged ones, leading to a negative enumerator
in the equation and negative storage loss estimations. Further, if
damage causes the grains to break into small fragments, as is often
the case with heavy LGB infestation, these grains would not be
counted and weighed, leading to an underestimation of losses.
Nevertheless, because of its simplicity, the method is widely used.
2.6. An empirical model to analyze storage loss in trials over time
The purpose of the research reported here is to analyze the ef-
fect of the different treatments on storage loss over time. Standard
ANOVA is problematic, because the dependent variable is not
normally distributed, and losses from samples taken from the same
containers at different times are likely to be correlated. These
problems can be avoided by regressing losses over time, using a
random error model, and accounting for the different sites and
treatments.
We assume there is no storage loss at time zero, and that loss
increases in an approximately linear trajectory over time. We are
only interested in the change of loss over time, and how this change
differs between the treatments and technologies.
The dependent variable is weight loss yijtk in site i, under
treatment j, at time t, in replicate k (in % of weight, estimated by the
count and weigh method). The independent variables are time t (in
months of storage, t ¼ 1, 2, . 6), a vector with binary variables for
sites z, and a vector with binary variables for treatments x. The sites
vector z has three binary variables (z1 ¼ 1 if the site is Embu, z1 ¼ 0
elsewhere; z2 ¼ 1 if the site is Kiboko, z2 ¼ 0 elsewhere; z3 ¼ 1 if the
site is Homa Bay, z3 ¼ 0 elsewhere). The treatment vector x has six
binary variables, one for each treatment (x1 ¼ 1 if the treatment is
polypropylene bags without insecticide and x1 ¼ 0 otherwise;
x2 ¼ 1 for polypropylene bags with Actellic Super and x2 ¼ 0
otherwise, and so on).
In its simplest format, a model to analyze storage loss yijtk in site
i, under treatment j, at time t, in replicate k, can be expressed as:
 
Yijkt ¼ g’ z þ a’ x t þ uijk þ eijkt (2)
where g is a vector of coefficients for the sites, a a vector of co-
efficients for the treatments, uijk the random effect of container ijk,
and eijkt the remaining error term.
If losses differ substantially between sites, we are also interested
in analyzing how treatment effects differ over sites. This can be
analyzed by including a matrix of site by treatment interaction
effects A in the long model:
 
Yijkt ¼ g’ z þ a’ x þ z’ Ax t þ uijk þ eijkt (3)
where Aij represents the interaction effect of site i on treatment j.
Three sites and six treatments provide 18 interactions.
3. Results
3.1. Number of live S. zeamais and P. truncatus in the samples
At the time of sampling, the number of live S. zeamais and
P. truncatus were counted in each sample (approximately 450 g). All
control methods provided good weevil control for four months
(Fig. 2). Super grain bags, however, were less effective after four
months, especially in Kiboko, while Actellic Super was not effective
(1)
after that period in Homa Bay. ANOVA results indicate significant
differences between sites, treatment, and their interactions, but not
between repetitions. The results are, therefore, presented by site.
In Embu, the control (T1: polypropylene bags without in-
secticides) was heavily infested with weevils from the second
month on, and the numbers increased gradually over the following
months. All other treatments were very effective in controlling the
weevils, except the super grain bags, where a low but consistent
 H. De Groote et al. / Journal of Stored Products Research 53 (2013) 27e36 31

3.2. Larger grain borers

While the trials were infested with equal numbers of larger

grain borers (LGBs) and weevils, the samples showed far fewer
LGBs than weevils (Fig. 3). As with the weevils, the results showed
substantial differences in LGB infestation over time and space and
between treatments. In Embu, the number of live LGBs only
exceeded an average of two in the last month in the control,
reaching an average of 10 LGBs per sample. All five other treatments
provided good control of LGBs, even up to the sixth month.
In Kiboko, the number of live LGBs in the control increased
rapidly from three in the first month to 30 in the fourth month. In
the fifth month, however, the numbers declined dramatically and
there were no insects left in the last month. The polypropylene bags
with Actellic Super (T2), on the other hand, had no or very few live
LGBs in the first three months, but afterward numbers gradually
increased to an average of 17 in the sixth month. In the last month
of the trial, there were no live LGBs in any of the treatments.

3.3. Damage

At all sites, grain in the control (T1: polypropylene bags without

insecticides) was heavily damaged (about 60% of the grains) from
the fourth month, reaching 70%e80% in the sixth month (Fig. 4).
Most of the damage likely comes from weevils, because few or no
LGBs were found in Embu (apart from the sixth month) or Homa Bay,
yet they showed an increasing damage pattern similar to Kiboko’s.
In Embu, all pest control treatments provided good control of
insect damage. Only the polypropylene bags with Actellic Super
(T2) and super grain bags (T3) recorded damage of more than 5%
(5% and 7% respectively). Although damage in the metal silos was

Fig. 2. Infestation levels of maize grain weevil in different storage containers over
time, by site (number of live insects per sample of about 450 g) (PP ¼ polyproplylene
bag, SGB ¼ super grain bag, MS ¼ metal silo, NI ¼ no insecticide, AS ¼ actellic super,
FT ¼ Phostoxin).

number of weevils was found (on average between five and 12 per
sample in all months).
In Kiboko, there were few weevils during the first three months.
In the fourth month, however, a sharp increase in numbers was
observed, which was substantially reduced in the fifth and sixth
months. Again, few live weevils were found in any of the other
treatments, except for the super grain bags, where they steadily
increased from an average of two in the first month to 77 in the last.
At this site, however, some live weevils were found in the metal
silos, especially those without insecticides (from three to 20 per
sample), but also in the one with Phostoxin (six weevils in the sixth
month). Actellic super, on the other hand, controlled the weevils
very well for up to five months.
In Homa Bay, the samples were infested from the first month,
likely because grain for the trial in this site was purchased from the
market and was already infested. Here, Actellic Super only
controlled the weevils during the first two months, with only a light
infestation during the third and fourth months. Starting in the fifth
month, however, the population increased rapidly to reach an
average of 34 weevils in the sixth month. Super grain bags only
showed a very light infestation (up to an average of three in the last
month), but the metal silos without insecticide showed a medium
infestation, of up to 10 weevils in the fifth month.
Fig. 3. Larger grain borer infestation levels of different storage containers over time
Dust was observed on the ground and around the super grain (number of live insects per sample of about 450 g) (PP ¼ polyproplylene bag,
bags. Close inspection of all super grain bags during the second visit SGB ¼ super grain bag, MS ¼ metal silo, NI ¼ no insecticide, AS ¼ actellic super,
found that all the bags had been perforated. FT ¼ Phostoxin).
32 H. De Groote et al. / Journal of Stored Products Research 53 (2013) 27e36
Fig. 4. Maize grain damage in storage over time (% of kernels) (PP ¼ polyproplylene
bag, SGB ¼ super grain bag, MS ¼ metal silo, NI ¼ no insecticide, AS ¼ actellic super,
FT ¼ Phostoxin).
small, it was not zero. It was 4% in the metal silos without in-
secticides and 1%e2% in the metal silos with insecticides.
In Kiboko, polypropylene bags with Actellic Super protected the
grain four months, but afterward a slow increase was observed,
reaching 18% of grains in the last month. Similarly, super grain bags
kept damage low for three months, followed by a gradual increase
in damage, reaching 13% in the sixth month. The metal silos with
insecticides kept the damage generally at or below 1%, but in those
without insecticides the damage reached 8%.
In Homa Bay, damage in the polypropylene bags with Actellic
Super reached 20% in the fourth month and 50% in the sixth month.
At this site, however, the initial damage of the grain was 7%, and
both the super grain bags and metal silos with Phostoxin kept it at
that level for the whole trial period. However, in the metal silos
without insecticide and in those with Actellic Super, damage star-
ted increasing after three to four months to reach 11% and 12%
respectively by the sixth month.
3.4. Grain weight loss in storage
The results of the grain weight losses were similar to the results
of damage (Fig. 5). In all sites, the grain stored as control (T1),
suffered substantial weight losses, although they varied from 33%
in Embu to 15% in Kiboko, and 11% in Homa Bay. The peak in the
fourth month was caused by a measurement of 50% weight loss in
one of the replications in Kiboko.
In Embu, all pest control treatments kept the losses at low levels.
In Kiboko, there was a clear increase in losses over the last two
Fig. 5. Crop loss in percentage of weight, calculated by the count and weigh method
(only non-negative values) (PP ¼ polyproplylene bag, SGB ¼ super grain bag,
MS ¼ metal silo, NI ¼ no insecticide, AS ¼ actellic super, FT ¼ Phostoxin).
months for super grain bags and polypropylene bags with Actellic
Super, although the losses only amounted to 3% in the last month.
In Homa Bay, the polypropylene bags with Actellic Super suffered
higher losses than the control (18%), and the super grain bags
recorded losses of 9%. The metal silos treated with Actellic Super
also recorded substantial losses, but this was likely the result of one
outlier.
3.5. Statistical analysis of storage losses
The storage weight loss data, excluding the negative losses, were
first analyzed using ANOVA. The results showed significant differ-
ences between the treatments (F5, 72 ¼ 25.93; P ¼ 0.01) and storage
time (F5, 72 ¼ 14.61; P ¼ 0.01) for grain weight loss. The least grain
weight loss was recorded from the three metal silo treatments (T4,
T5 and T6) and the super grain bags (T2) (Table 2). Grain stored in
polypropylene bags without insecticides (T1 or control), suffered
the highest weight loss, followed by polypropylene bags treated
with Actellic Super (T2). There were no differences between
treatments in grain weight loss in the first three months after
storage, although significant weight loss was observed six months
after storage. Treatment by storage time interaction was also sig-
nificant (F5, 72 ¼ 3.52; P ¼ 0.01), due to differences in responses of
the treatments with increasing storage time.
Because ANOVA does not take into account the progress of loss
over time, or the correlations between observations of the same
containers at different times, the regression without interaction,
based on Equation (2), was estimated (Table 3). For easy interpre-
tation of the significant coefficient, two different specifications of
the base category were used. In Model 1, the site with the lowest
 H. De Groote et al. / Journal of Stored Products Research 53 (2013) 27e36 33

Table 2
Average grain weight loss per month and per treatment (in % of weight, negative results excluded). Means followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD, 5%).

Treatment Storage time (months) Treatment

main effect
1 2 3 4 5 6
T1 (PP-NI) .66  .61 1.57  .61 2.98  .21 11.83  4.44 11.20  .81 23.99  9.81 8.71  2.49c
T2 (PP-AS) .43  .08 1.22  .71 .65  .08 3.93  3.03 5.00  1.68 8.24 þ 4.05 3.25  1.01b
T3 (SGB-NI) .29  .13 .41  .08 .32  .07 .75  .12 1.84  .55 6.34  1.86 1.66  .59a
T4 (MS-NI) 1.28  .08 .28  .14 .81  .07 .82  .09 .83  .46 1.36  .43 .90  .14a
T5 (MS-AS) .21  .32 .37  .20 1.55  .82 .44  .18 .31  .28 1.24  1.05 .69  .23a
T6 (MS-FT) .59  .18 .45  .18 .41  .15 .52  .23 .52  .24 .73  .57 .54  .11a
Time main effect .58  .12a .72  .18a 1.12  .25 ab 3.05  1.25bc 3.28  .98c 6.98  2.49d 2.62  .53

Mean values with the same letter(s) within a column (treatment) and row (storage time) are not different at P ¼ .01. ANOVA for treatments (F5, 72 ¼ 25.93; P ¼ .01); ANOVA for
storage time (F5, 72 ¼ 14.61; P ¼ .01); ANOVA for storage time by treatment interaction (F5, 72 ¼ 3.52; P ¼ .01).

storage weight loss (Embu) and the treatment with the lowest
weight loss (T6: metal silos with Phostoxin) were used as base
categories, so the coefficients are interpreted as the difference with
this base. The results show that the trend over time is not signifi-
cant, indicating there was no increase in storage weight loss over
time. This was expected since no loss was observed in the base
treatment at the base site. However, there were significant differ-
ences for the control (T1: polypropylene bags without insecticides)
and polypropylene bags with Actellic Super (T2). The effect of the
control was .027, indicating an increase of crop of 2.7% per month,
as compared to the base, the metal silos with Phostoxin.
The effect of the polypropylene bags with Actellic Super was
.009, or an increase in weight loss of .9% compared to the base.
There were no significant effects of the other treatments, indicating
that storage loss in metal silos without insecticides or metal silos
with Actellic Super did not significantly differ from loss in metal
silos with Phostoxin. In other words, in none of the three metal silo
treatments, weight loss was significantly different from zero. There
was, however, a significant effect of site: the treatments in Homa
Bay had a loss that was, on average, .6% higher per month than in
Embu. The coefficient for Kiboko x t was not significant, indicating
that the losses in Kiboko were not significantly different from those
in Embu.
If we use an alternative specification, and change the base cate-
gory of the regression to the site with highest storage loss (Homa
Bay) and the treatment with the highest loss (T1, polypropylene
bags without insecticides), all coefficients are significant and
Table 3
Basic linear regression model (dependent variable is weight loss in storage with
negative values excluded, explanatory variables are interaction effects with time).
negative (Model 2, Table 3). This indicates that all treatments reduce
storage losses significantly as compared to the control, and that both
Embu and Kiboko suffered less weight loss than Homa Bay.
Because there were significant differences between sites within
treatments, the interaction effect of sites with treatments were
introduced in the model, as specified in Equation (3) (Table 4).
Again, we first consider the best site and treatment as the base
(Model 3). In this model, there is again no main effect of time in the
base categories, but also no main effect of sites, because these have
been catered for in the interaction effects. In the main effects of
treatments, only the control is significant now, with a coefficient of
.03, indicating an increase of average loss of 3% per month. There
are no significant interaction effects with Kiboko, indicating that
this site is no different from Embu, but there are two significant
interaction effects with Homa Bay. The interaction of Homa Bay
with the control is negative (.019), indicating that increases in
losses are 1.9% less per month in the control here than in Embu. The
interaction effect with T2, polypropylene bags with Actellic Super,
is, however, positive (.019), indicating that in Homa Bay, the losses
are 1.9% higher per month in this treatment than in Embu.
In the alternative specification of the model with interactions,
the site and treatment with highest losses (Homa Bay and T1) are
again used as base category (Model 4, Table 4). The results show
that the main effect of time is now significant and equal to .015,
indicating a 1.5% increase of loss per month in the base categories.
However, the main effects of sites are also significant, indicating
that the loss in the control increased more strongly in Embu (by
1.6% per month) and in Kiboko (1.7%) than in Homa Bay. The main
effects of the treatments were, however, not significant, indicating
that they did not significantly reduce storage loss over the control
in Homa Bay. In Embu and Kiboko, however, a significant effect for
all treatments was observed.

Variable Model 1: Base categories are Model 2: Base categories

those with lowest loss: Embu are those with highest 4. Discussion
for site and T6 for treatment loss: Homa Bay for site
and T1 for treatment 4.1. Effect of the hermetic containers and insecticides in controlling
B Std. Sig. B Std. insect pests and losses
error error
t: trend in .001 .003 .789 .032 .003 .000 *** The research reported here demonstrates that metal silos, when
baseline used correctly, are very effective in controlling S. zeamais and
*
Embu  t .006 .003 .031 P. truncatus. A few insects of both species, however, were found to
*
Kiboko  t .001 .002 .705 .005 .002 .052
Homa Bay  t .006 .003 .031 * have survived in the metal silos that were not treated with in-
T1  t (PP e NI) .027 .004 .000 *** secticides. It is possible that the silos became re-infested with in-
* ***
T2  t (PP e AS) .009 .003 .012 .019 .003 .000 sects during reopening for sampling. In general, metal silos when
***
T3  t (SGB) .004 .004 .305 .024 .004 .000 used alone were as effective as metal silos combined with Phos-
***
T4  t (MS e NI) .001 .004 .879 .027 .003 .000
***
toxin or Actellic Super in controlling the insects. The effectiveness
T5  t (MS e AS) .001 .004 .746 .026 .004 .000
T6  t (MS e FT) .027 .004 .000 *** of metal silos and super grain bags to control insect pests without
R2 .394 .394 insecticides contributes to the trend to reduce pesticide use and
Sigma .063 .063 increase integrated pest management (IPM) applications (Arthur,
N 258 258 1996). Our research suggests that it is technically feasible to con-
* ** ***
¼ P > 0.05, ¼ P > 0.01, ¼ P > 0.001. trol maize storage insects without insecticides in Africa by using
34 H. De Groote et al. / Journal of Stored Products Research 53 (2013) 27e36

Table 4
Linear regression model with interactions between sites and treatments (Dependent variables is weight loss in storage with negative values excluded, all explanatory variables
are interaction effects with time).

Explanatory variables Model 3 Model 4

Base: best site (Embu) and Base: worse site (Homa Bay) and
treatment (MS þ P) treatment (PP without insecticide)

Coeff. Std. err. Coeff. Std. err.

*
t: trend in baseline .000 .004 .015 .005
*
Embu  t .016 .007
*
Kiboko  t .000 .006 .017 .006
Homa Bay  t .003 .006
***
T1  t (PP e NI) .030 .006
T2  t (PP e AS) .001 .006 .009 .006
T3  t (SGB) .002 .007 .007 .007
T4  t (MS e NI) .000 .006 .012 .006
T5  t (MS e AS) .000 .006 .007 .007
T6  t (MS e FT) .012 .007
Embu  T1  t (PP e NI)
***
Embu  T2  t (PP e AS) .038 .009
*
Embu  T3  t (SGB) .022 .010
*
Embu  T4  t (MS e NI) .018 .009
*
Embu  T5  t (MS e AS) .024 .009
*
Embu  T6  t (MS e FT) .019 .009
Kiboko  T1  t (PP e NI) .002 .008
***
Kiboko  T2  t (PP e AS) .002 .008 .037 .008
*
Kiboko  T3  t (SGB) .002 .009 .021 .008
*
Kiboko  T4  t (MS e NI) .001 .008 .019 .009
*
Kiboko  T5  t (MS e AS) .000 .008 .025 .009
*
Kiboko  T6  t (MS e FT) .021 .009
*
Homa Bay  T1  t (PP e NI) .019 .009
*
Homa Bay  T2  t (PP e AS) .019 .008
Homa Bay  T3  t (SGB) .003 .009
Homa Bay  T4  t (MS e NI) .000 .009
Homa Bay  T5  t (MS e AS) .005 .009
Homa Bay  T6  t (MS e FT)
R2 .454 .454
Sigma .061 .061
N 258 258
* ** ***
¼ P > 0.05, ¼ P > 0.01, ¼ P > 0.001.

hermetic storage, as has been demonstrated with PICS bags against
bruchid beetles on cowpeas in West Africa and with large metal
silos for different crops in Australia (Andrews et al., 1994).
Polypropylene bags treated with Actellic Super are effective in
controlling both insect species for up to four months. The exception
was for Homa Bay, where the product was less effective. Actellic
Super in the polypropylene bags also controlled weevils relatively
better than P. truncatus. The effectiveness of Actellic Super in con-
trolling weevils (S. zeamais), especially in grains, is well docu-
mented (Dales and Golob, 1997; Golob et al., 1985). The product
used could have been adulterated, a practice also reported in Kenya
and in neighboring Tanzania (Urono, 1999), however, this is very
unlikely in the experiments reported here because the same
product of the same batch was used in the three sites. Actellic Super
kept insect damage to almost zero in Embu, and provided good
protection for the first four months in Kiboko. In Homa Bay, how-
ever, heavy damage was observed from the fifth month. Although
synthetic insecticides can work well, constraints regarding human
and environmental safety and insect resistance have led to more
sustainable methods of pest management through affordable
techniques. Super grain bags and metal silos are safer to use and
can be considered a good alternative to maize storage practices that
require the use of insecticides.
The super grain bags were effective in controlling the two insect
species for three to four months. The effectiveness of hermetic
containers against P. truncatus has been reported before in Mexico,
with 100% mortality of P. truncatus after only a few days when
storing grain in glass containers (Quezada et al., 2006). In our
research, however, the super grain bags were perforated by
P. truncatus, rendering the super grain bags largely ineffective. It
was not clear, however, whether the LGB had survived low oxygen
within the bags and subsequently perforated them or whether
insects originating outside the super grain bags caused the damage.
Perforation of PICS has also been reported in studies with cowpeas
in West Africa (Baoua et al., 2012b; Hell et al., 2010), although this
was mostly limited to the inner bag HDPE bag.
The level of control of the insects by the different treatments
was directly related to the grain damage levels observed. Under the
control treatment and under artificial infestation, there was pro-
nounced insect damage: more than half the grains are damaged at
three to four months, and more than three quarters after six
months. Levels of weight loss in storage also reflected the damage
levels. Substantial grain weight losses were observed in the control,
and in a linear approximation they can be estimated at 3% per
month in storage. This is, of course, under high levels of artificial
infestation and might not necessarily reflect the situation observed
by farmers (Hodges, undated). The improved storage technologies
(hermetic storage containers as well as the use of Actellic Super)
kept storage losses within acceptable levels. The exception was
polypropylene bags with Actellic Super in one site, a result that we
are unable to explain as the Actellic Super used at this site came
from the same batch as that used at the other sites.
4.2. Improving the methods for storage loss assessment
Our results indicate that several methodological issues remain.
First, despite repeating the same methodology at the three sites,
substantial differences were observed between the different sites
 H. De Groote et al. / Journal of Stored Products Research 53 (2013) 27e36
for the treatments in bags (T1eT3), so interactions needed to be
included in the analysis, leading to small sample sizes per treat-
ment and site (three repetitions only). Unfortunately, high vari-
ability within each treatment was also observed, leading to the
small statistical power of the tests. Future testing of storage tech-
nologies should increase the number of repetitions per site and
bring the initial conditions in the different sites closer to each other,
in particular the conditioning of the grain and using insecticides
from the same batch.
Second, the analysis was hampered by the relatively high
number of negative results when calculating loss using the stan-
dard formula. This could be caused by the high variation in the error
(measurement or sampling), or by the preference of insects for
larger grain. Frequently, the damage and loss estimates in one
period are lower than the damage observed in the previous, indi-
cating high measurement errors. More research is needed to esti-
mate the level of measurement error, as well as the preference of
both species for larger grains, to improve the quality of future loss
assessment trials, especially for on-farm trials.
Finally, opening the metal silos for sampling purposes might
have led to re-infestation by insects. Initially, the trial was
conceived without re-sampling. Unfortunately, this would have
made the trial five times the present size, which was beyond the
means of the project. On the other hand, repeat sampling from the
same containers reflects the situation in the field i.e. farmers open
the metal silos and super grain bags at regular intervals to provide
food for their households.
4.3. Further research
While the metal silos are very effective, they are also expensive.
Because half of their cost comes from the metal sheet, the cost per
kg of grain stored decreases with the volume of the container.
Economic analysis is, therefore, needed to determine the size at
which silos become economical, under different price conditions.
The speed of oxygen depletion for metal silos and super grain
bags is not known. It is not clear if the oxygen depletion in the super
bags is slow, allowing some insects to survive and perforate the
bags. It should be clearly established if the P. truncatus from within
the sealed super grain bags or P. truncatus from outside can
perforate the bags. If the P. truncatus that perforates the super bags
are from outside, this may call for additional protection; if the
P. truncatus from within the sealed bag can perforate the bags, this
may be corrected by measures that more rapidly deplete oxygen
within the bag. Using a double layer of HDPE such as in the PICS
bags should also be considered and tested. If the super grain bags
can only be used one time, economic analysis is needed to compare
them to other methods. Further, it is not clear if the use of candles
improves insect control in metal silos.
Finally, based on the cost of the popular plastic rainwater tanks,
the cost of plastic silos of the same size would be substantially less
than that of metal silos. In Kenya, plastic raintanks are currently
very popular. They are made from UV inhibited polyethylene resin,
usually in dark color, to protect the plastic from degradation from
sunlight and development of algae. While their expected lifespan is
not clear, some manufactures provide a five year warrantee.
Because LGB can drill through plastic, it is important to check if they
can do so from the inside before the oxygen is depleted, and if they
would do so from the outside.
4.4. Recommendations
Based on the results, several recommendations can be made to
reduce losses from insect pests in maize storage in Africa. Clearly,
metal silos are technically very effective, and control insects for at
35
least six months. Where they are economically feasible, they should
be recommended. The use of insecticides in metal silos is not
recommended.
Super grain bags also work, but if they are perforated, they can
only be used for one season. Until further research determines the
cause of perforation, it would be prudent not to recommend them
in areas with P. truncatus infestation, except for emergency storage
over one season.
Actellic Super provides good control for up to four months, at
least when the product is not adulterated. The product is cheap,
easy to use, and has low toxicity, and can, therefore, be recom-
mended for the short-term storage of small quantities with
repeated application every four months. This confirms the experi-
ence in Tanzania (Dales and Golob, 1997; Urono, 1999).
Finally, the results of the control show that, even under heavy
artificial infestation, if the maize is properly dried, damage and loss
for the first three months are relatively small. For storage of small
quantities over such a short period of time, more sophisticated
storage methods in terms of hermetically-sealed containers and/or
use of insecticides such as Actellic Super may not be necessary.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Charles Marangu for his help in
taking samples and counting the insects; Stephen Mugo for his
advice with the design of the experiments; Marianne Banziger for
initiating the Efficient Grains Storage Project that made this study
possible; and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation
for funding this project. We also thank the directors and staff of the
KARI centers in Kiboko and Embu, and the bishop and staff of the
Catholic Diocese of Homa Bay for hosting these trials, Kathleen
Sinclair for editing the manuscript, and two anonymous reviewers
for their insights and invaluable comments.
References
Adams, J.M., Schulten, G.G.M., 1978. Losses caused by insects, mites, and microor-
ganisms. In: Harris, K.L., Lindblad, C.J. (Eds.), Postharvest Grain Loss Assessment
Methods. American Association of Cereal Chemists, New York, pp. 83e95.
Andrews, A.S., Annis, P.C., Newman, C.R., 1994. Sealed storage technology on
Australian farms. In: Highley, E. (Ed.), Proceedings of the 6th International
Working Conference on Stored-product Protection, pp. 27e36.
Arthur, F.H., 1996. Grain protectants: current status and prospects for the future.
Journal of Stored Products Research 32, 293e302.
Baoua, I.B., Amadou, L., Margam, V., Murdock, L.L., 2012a. Comparative evaluation of
six storage methods for postharvest preservation of cowpea grain. Journal of
Stored Products Research 49, 171e175.
Baoua, I.B., Margam, V., Amadou, L., Murdock, L.L., 2012b. Performance of triple
bagging hermetic technology for postharvest storage of cowpea grain in Niger.
Journal of Stored Products Research 51, 81e85.
Birkinshaw, L.A., Hodges, R.J., Addo, S., Riwa, W., 2002. Can ‘bad’ years for damage
by Prostephanus truncates be predicted? Crop Protection 21, 783e791.
Bokusheva, R., Finger, R., Fischler, M., Berlin, R., Marín, Y., Pérez, F., Paiz, F., 2012.
Factors determining the adoption and impact of a postharvest storage tech-
nology. Food Security 4, 279e293.
Boxall, R.A., 1986. A Critical Review of the Methodology for Assessing Farm-level
Grain Losses After Harvest. Tropical Development and Research Institute,
Slough, U.K.
Boxall, R.A., 2002. Damage and loss caused by the larger grain borer Prostephanus
truncatus. Integrated Pest Management Reviews 7, 105e121.
Cowley, R.J., Howard, D.C., Smith, R.H., 1980. The effect of grain stability on damaged
caused by Prostephanus truncatus (Horn) and three other pests of stored maize.
Journal of Stored Products Research 16, 75e80.
Dales, M.J., Golob, P., 1997. The protection of maize against Prostephanus truncatus
(Horn), using insecticide sprays in Tanzania. International Journal of Pest
Management 43, 39e43.
de Lima, C.P.F., 1979. The assessment of losses due to insects and rodents in
maize stored for subsistence in Kenya. Tropical Stored Products Information 38,
21e26.
Farrell, G., Schulten, G.G.M., 2002. Larger grain borer in Africa; a history of efforts to
limit its impact. Integrated Pest Management Reviews 7, 67e84.
Golob, P., 2002a. Chemical, physical and cultural control of Prostephanus truncates.
Integrated Pest Management Reviews 7, 245e277.
36 H. De Groote et al. / Journal of Stored Products Research 53 (2013) 27e36
Golob, P., Changjaroen, P., Ahmed, A., Cox, J., 1985. Susceptibility of Prostephanus
truncatus (Horn) (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) to insecticides. Journal of Stored
Products Research 21, 141e150.
Golob, P., Hanks, C., 1990. Protection of farm stored maize against infestation by
Prostephanus truncatus (Horn) and Sitophilus species in Tanzania. Journal of
Stored Products Research 26, 187e198.
Guantai, S.M., Seward, P., 2010. Maize Handbook. ACDI/VOCA, Kenya Maize Devel-
opment Programme, Nairobi.
Harris, K.L., Lindblad, C.J., 1978. Postharvest Grain Loss Assessment Methods: a
Manual of Methods for the Evaluation of Postharvest Losses. American Asso-
ciation of Cereal Chemists, Bethesda, USA.
Hell, K., Ognakossan, K.E., Tonou, A.K., Lamboni, Y., Adabe, K.E., Coulibaly, O., 2010.
Maize stored pests control by PICS-bags: technological and economic evalua-
tion. In: Presentation at the 5th World Cowpea Conference, Saly, Senegal, 27
September e 1 October 2010.
Hellin, J., Kanampiu, F., 2008. Metal silos and food security in El Salvador. Appro-
priate Technology 35, 69e70.
Hodges, R.J., 1986. The biology and control of Prostephanus truncatus (Horn)
(Coleoptera: Bostrichidae), A destructive storage pest with an increasing range.
Journal of Stored Products Research 22, 1e14.
Hodges, R.J., undated. Postharvest weight loss estimates for cereal supply calcula-
tions in East and Southern Africa. African Post Harvest Losses Information
System (APHLIS). http://www.aphlis.net/downloads/Postharvest-losses-report.
pdf (accessed 07.03.12.).
Jones, M., Alexander, C., Lowenberg-DeBoer, J., 2011. Profitability of Hermetic Pur-
due Improved Crop Storage (PICS) Bags for African Common Bean Producers.
Working Paper #11e3. Dept. of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, Indiana.
Kimenju, S.C., De Groote, H., 2010. Economic Analysis of Alternative Maize Storage
Technologies in Kenya. Paper presented at the Third Conference of the African
Association of Agricultural Economists (AAAE), September 19e23, 2010,
Cape Town, South Africa (http://econpapers.repec.org/scripts/search/search.
asp?ft¼simonþkimenju).
Lalah, J.O., Wandiga, S.O., 2002. The effect of boiling on the removal of persistent
malathion residues from stored grains. Journal of Stored Products Research 38,
1e10.
Murdock, L.L., Margam, V., Baoua, I., Balfe, S., Shade, R.E., 2012. Death by desicca-
tion: effects of hermetic storage on cowpea bruchids. Journal of Stored Products
Research 49, 166e170.
Phiri, N.A., Otieno, G., 2008. Managing Pests of Stored Maize in Kenya, Malawi and
Tanzania. CABI Africa, Nairobi, Kenya.
View publication stats
Quezada, M.Y., Moreno, J., Vázquez, M.E., Mendoza, M., Méndez-Albores, A.,
Moreno-Martínez, E., 2006. Hermetic storage system preventing the prolif-
eration of Prostephanus truncatus Horn and storage fungi in maize with
different moisture contents. Postharvest Biology and Technology 39, 321e
326.
Smith, S.M., Moore, D., Oduor, G.I., Wright, D.J., Chandi, E.A., Agano, J.O., 2006. Effect
of wood ash and conidia of Beauveria bassiana (Balsamo) Vuillemin on mortality
of Prostephanus truncatus (Horn). Journal of Stored Products Research 42,
357e366.
Stathers, T.E., Riwa, W., Mvumi, B.M., Mosha, R., Kitandu, L., Mngara, K., Kaoneka, B.,
Morris, M., 2008. Do diatomaceous earths have potential as grain protectants
for small-holder farmers in sub-Saharan Africa? The case of Tanzania. Crop
Protection 27, 44e70.
Tefera, T., Kanampiu, F., De Groote, H., Hellin, J., Mugo, S., Kimenju, S., Beyene, Y.,
Boddupalli, P.M., Shiferaw, B., Banziger, M., 2011a. 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 Protection 30, 240e245.
Tefera, T., Mugo, S., Tende, R., Likhayo, L., 2011b. Methods of Screening Maize for
Resistance to Post-harvest Insect Pests. CIMMYT, Nairobi, Kenya, p. 38.
Urono, B., 1999. Evaluation of actellic super dust efficacy in the control of storage
insect pests, larger grain borer (LGB), Prostephanus truncatus (Horn) and maize
weevil spp. In: Northern Tanzania, Proc. Workshop on Farmer Coping Strategies
for Post Harvest Losses Problems with Particular Emphasis on the Larger Grain
Borer, August 1999, pp. 21e28.
Villers, P., Navarro, S., Bruin, T.D., 2008. Development of hermetic storage tech-
nology in sealed flexible storage structures. In: Daolin, G. (Ed.), Proceedings of
the 8th International Conference on Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation in
Stored Products, CAF 2008, Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation, Green,
Safe, Harmony and Development, Chengdu, China, September 21e26.
Grain Pro Inc, Chengdu, China. downloaded June 1, 2012. http://www.grainpro.
com/pdf/PU2015PV0708-CHENGDU-PAPER-CAF-Presentation-Development-of-
Hermetic-Storage-Technology.pdf.
Vowotor, K.A., Meikle, W.G., Ayertey, J.N., Markham, R.H., 2005. 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. Journal of Stored Products Research
41, 498e512.
Yusuf, B.L., He, Y., 2011. Design, development and techniques for controlling grains
post-harvest losses with metal silo for small and medium scale farmers. African
Journal of Biotechnology 10, 14552e14561.