Maize report

EVALUATING THE EFFECT OF STORAGE METHODS ON MAIZE QUALITY AND
HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY.
A CASE STUDY OF KIGUMBA SUB-COUNTY, KIRYANDONGO DISTRICT
A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE IN A
PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AWARD OF A
DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF AGRICULTURE OF UGANDA MARTYRS
UNIVERSITY
OKELLO PATRICK
2019-B053-10079
JULY 2023
DECLARATION
I, OKELLO PATRICK declare that this work is entirely mine and solely a result of my own
effort. It has never been submitted in any institution for the academia award.
Signed by …………………………………………………………….
Date ………………………………………………………………….
APPROVAL
This is to certify that this research proposal has been under my supervision and is now ready for
submission for academic purposes
Signature ……………………………………………………………….
(SUPERVISOR)
Date……………………………………………………………………….
DEDICATION
I dedicate this research report to my beloved family and friends for their passion about my
education which has motivated me this far. I love you so much and I officially dedicate this
dissertation to you.
May God bless you al1.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I thank the Almighty God for giving me strength and energy through the process of my
dissertation.
Special thanks to my supervisors from my work place Ministry of Agriculture, animal industry
and fisheries (MAAIF) especially from the department of crop inspection and certification Mr.
Muzira Fred and Mr. Otut Alex who are senior agricultural Inspectors. My lovely wife for her
tremendous efforts and her tireless dedication and encouragement throughout my course and
finally to the farmers in Kiryandongo District
Accomplishment of this dissertation is indebted to many individuals who gave me advice,
encouragement, assistance and guidance through inspiration especially my friends and family. It
is my pleasure to express my sincere gratitude to my supervisor for his assistance and patience in
making broad and critical review, comments and useful suggestions to this dissertation. My
special tributes go to all my classmates for their honorable support as well

Table of content
DECLARATION.......................................................................................................................................2
APPROVAL...............................................................................................................................................3
DEDICATION...........................................................................................................................................4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................................................................................................5
Abstract......................................................................................................................................................6
CHAPTER ONE........................................................................................................................................7
INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................7
1.1 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................7
1.2 Background of the study.....................................................................................................................8
1.2.1 Post-Harvest Losses and Household Food Security.....................................................................10
1.2.2 Maize Production and Importance................................................................................................10
1.3.2 Maize storage problems and maize quality...................................................................................12
1.4 Statement of the problem..................................................................................................................13
1.5 General objective...............................................................................................................................14
1.5.1 Specific objectives...........................................................................................................................15
1.5.2 Research questions.........................................................................................................................15
Scope of the study....................................................................................................................................15
1.6.1 Content scope..................................................................................................................................15
1.6.2 Geographical scope.........................................................................................................................16
1.6.3 Time scope.......................................................................................................................................16
1.7 Justification of the study...................................................................................................................16
1.8 Significance of the Study...................................................................................................................17
1.9 Conceptual framework......................................................................................................................17
1.9 Definition of Key Terms....................................................................................................................18
1.10 Conclusion........................................................................................................................................18
CHAPTER TWO.....................................................................................................................................19
LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................................19
2.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................19
2.1 Food security......................................................................................................................................19
2.3 Agricultural production and food security......................................................................................25
2.4 Maize storage facilities......................................................................................................................26
2.5 Different ways of assessing crop storage methods:.........................................................................32
2.6 Conclusion..........................................................................................................................................37
CHAPTER THREE.................................................................................................................................38
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY...........................................................................................................38
3.0 Introduction.......................................................................................................................................38
3.1 Research design.................................................................................................................................38
3.2 Description of the study area............................................................................................................38
3.3 Study population................................................................................................................................40
3.4 Sample size and Sampling procedure...............................................................................................40
3.5 Types and Sources of data.................................................................................................................41
3.5.1 Types of data...................................................................................................................................41
3.5.2 Sources of Data...............................................................................................................................42
3.5.3 Primary data...................................................................................................................................42
3.5.4 Secondary data................................................................................................................................42
3.6 Methods of Data Collection...............................................................................................................43
3.6.1 Interview..........................................................................................................................................43
3.6.2 Questionnaire..................................................................................................................................43
3.6.3 Questionnaire return rate..............................................................................................................44
3.7 Quality Data Control.........................................................................................................................44
3.7.1 Reliability........................................................................................................................................44
3.7.2 Validity............................................................................................................................................45
3.8 Data Analysis and Presentation........................................................................................................45
3.8.1 Quantitative Analysis.....................................................................................................................45
3.8.2 Qualitative Analysis........................................................................................................................45
3.9 Ethical considerations.......................................................................................................................45
3.10 Limitations of the study...................................................................................................................46
CHAPTER FOUR.....................................................................................................................................47
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS.....................................................47
4.0 INTRODUCTION.............................................................................................................................47
4.1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents.................................................................................47
4.1.1 Sex of the respondents....................................................................................................................48
4.1.2 Marital status of the respondents..................................................................................................49
4.1.3 Age of respondents..........................................................................................................................49
4.1.4 : Level of Education........................................................................................................................50
4.1.5: Agri-business group......................................................................................................................51
4.1.6 : Household Size..............................................................................................................................52
4.2 Identify the storage methods, and factors influencing their selection and assess quantities of
maize that farm households harvested and stored................................................................................53
4.2.1 Major Agricultural Activity...........................................................................................................53
4.2.2 Maize Storage Methods and Quantities of stored maize..............................................................54
4.2.2 Factors Influencing the Selection of maize storage method.........................................................56
4.3 Farm households' food security status and their perception of food security from an eco-health
perspective................................................................................................................................................59
4.3.2 The severity of the farm household’s food insecurity:.................................................................60
4.4 Commonly used maize storage methods and their implication on the quality of stored maize and
household food security...........................................................................................................................63
CHAPTER FIVE.......................................................................................................................................64
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..............................................................64
5.0 Introduction.........................................................................................................................................64
5.1 Summary of Findings..........................................................................................................................64
5.1.1 Farm Households' Food Security Status and Perception...................................................................64
5.1.2 Storage Methods Applied by Maize Farmers....................................................................................64
5.1.3 Factors Influencing Selection of Storage Methods and Quantities of Maize Harvested and Stored:.65
5.2.4 Implications of Storage Methods on Maize Quality and Household Food Security:.........................65
5.2 Conclusion...........................................................................................................................................66
5.3 Recommendations...............................................................................................................................66
REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................69
APENDIX 1..............................................................................................................................................72
QUESTIONNAIRE.................................................................................................................................72
Appendix 11.............................................................................................................................................82
Some field pictures taken during data collection..................................................................................82
List of tables
Table 4.1: Age of respondents

Table 4.2: Level of Education
Table 4.3: Factors influencing the selection of maize storage method
Table 4.4: Reasons for which the farm households perceived themselves as food secure
Table 4.5: Commonly used maize storage methods and their implication on the quality of stored
maize and household food security.
List of figures
Figure 1.1 Conceptual Framework

FDigure 4.1 :Sex of the respondents
Figure 4.2: Marital status of the respondents
Figure 4.3: Agri-business group
Figure 4.4: Household Size
Figure 4.5: Major Agricultural Activity
Figure 4.6: Bar chart showing maize storage method
Figure 4.7: The severity of the farm household’s food insecurity:
Abstract
The study's main objective is to determine the effectiveness of different storage methods
employed by farmers on maize quality and the effects on family food security and the specific
objectives were; to examine farm households' food security status and their perception of food
security from an eco-health perspective, to identify the storage methods applied by the different
maize farmers, to examine factors influencing their selection and assess quantities of maize that
farm households harvested and stored and to identify the commonly used maize storage methods
and their implication on the quality of stored maize and household food security.
The findings of the study revealed that farm households in Kigumba Sub- County experienced
varying degrees of food security. While some households had adequate access to food and
achieved food security, others faced challenges in accessing sufficient and nutritious food. The
perception of food security among farm households was influenced by multiple factors,
including income levels, household size, and availability of storage methods to preserve
harvested maize. More so, the methods of storage included traditional storage methods such as
cribs, polypropylene bags, and storage in open spaces, as well as improved storage methods like
hermetic storage bags and metal silos and the selection of storage methods was influenced by
factors such as affordability, availability, knowledge, and cultural preferences.
Generally, the study recommended that, efforts should be made to increase access to and
adoption of improved storage technologies among farmers since it promotes food security in
Kigumba Sub- County.

CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Introduction
Maize (Zea mays) is a vital staple crop that contributes significantly to food security and
livelihoods in many regions of the world. In sub-Saharan Africa, maize is a primary source of
calories and nutrients for a large population, particularly in rural areas (Abate et al., 2015).
However, despite its importance, post-harvest losses pose a significant challenge to achieving
food security goals. Inadequate storage methods and facilities often result in reduced maize
quality, leading to decreased household food security (FAO, 2011).
Kigumba Sub-County, located in Kiryandongo District, Uganda, relies heavily on maize
production for both subsistence and income generation. Smallholder farmers in this region face
numerous difficulties in storing maize effectively, resulting in substantial post-harvest losses and
compromised food security (Rubaihayo et al., 2012). Factors such as improper storage facilities,
limited knowledge of appropriate storage methods, and limited access to improved storage
technologies contribute to these challenges (Mutungi et al., 2013). Therefore, it is imperative to
evaluate the effect of storage methods on maize quality to identify effective strategies that can
enhance household food security in Kigumba Sub-County.
1.2 Background of the study.

Maize (Zea mays L.) is one of the most important staple crops in Uganda, providing a significant
contribution to household food security. It is a versatile crop used for various purposes, including
human consumption, animal feed, and industrial processing (Jjagwe et al.,2020). In many rural
areas, maize constitutes a significant portion of the diet and serves as a crucial source of calories
and essential nutrients. However, the quality and availability of maize are often compromised
due to post-harvest losses, especially during storage (Kumar et al., 2017).
Post-harvest losses occur at various stages, with storage losses being a major concern. Improper
storage methods can lead to a decline in maize quality, resulting in reduced nutritional value,
increased susceptibility to pests and diseases, and economic losses for farmers (Kiaya, V., 2014).
Furthermore, inadequate storage practices can directly impact household food security, as they
can limit the availability of maize during periods of scarcity, such as the lean season.
Seasonal production, particularly of staple crops, is partly to blame for transient hunger, maize in
the case of the Kigumba sub-county (Shinyekwa et al., 2017). By smoothing seasonal food
output, effective storage helps to stabilize the food supply at the household level. Despite major
developments in food storage systems, many African cultures continue to rely on traditional
food, fodder, and seed preservation methods (Thamaga-Chitja et al., 2004; Pretty et al., 2011).
Traditional storage methods, despite being relatively easy and inexpensive to build and operate,
result in significant post-harvest losses. Inadequate post-harvest storage adds considerably to
food insecurity, especially in locations with high humidity (Rajapaksha et al., 2021), as is
experienced in Kigumba.
Storage facilities do not only provide the opportunity to alleviate hunger between staple crop
harvests, but farmers may be able to boost farm revenues by keeping products and selling at
premium rates later in the post-harvest period when demand outstrips supply (Thamaga-Chitja et
al.,2004; Sinyolo, S., 2020). Because crop retail prices are heavily influenced effective storage is
critical to improving agricultural revenues and food security for small-scale farmers. Crop
storage efficiency is determined by storage length, storage losses (including quality decline), and
storage volume. Disease, pests, and oxidative damage are the primary causes of losses (Salunke
and Desai, 1986: Adetunji et al., 2021).

According to (Buzby et al., 2015) estimates, around 133 billion pounds of food (31 percent of
total available food) was wasted at the retail and consumer level in the United States in 2010.
According to the studies, cereal crops, root crops, and fruit and vegetables account for
approximately 19%, 20%, and 44% of total agricultural commodity losses, respectively
(Gustavsson et al., 2017). Cereal crop losses account for the majority of losses in terms of
calorific content (53 percent). Cereal grains, such as wheat, rice, and maize, are the most popular
food crops in the world, serving as the foundation of most developing countries' staple diets.
Minimizing cereal losses in the supply chain could be one resource-efficient method to assist
increase food security, battling hunger sustainably, and reducing food wastage (Kumar et
al.,2017).
Kiryandongo District, specifically Kigumba Sub- County, faces significant challenges regarding
maize storage and household food security (Banga et al., 2021). The region relies heavily on
maize production, and farmers encounter difficulties in preserving maize for extended periods. It
is crucial to evaluate the effect of storage methods on maize quality in this context to identify
potential solutions that can enhance household food security and mitigate post-harvest losses.
1.2.1 Post-Harvest Losses and Household Food Security

Post-harvest losses, including losses incurred during storage, processing, and transportation, pose
a severe threat to food security, especially in developing countries. According to the Food and
Agriculture Organization (FAO), post-harvest losses can range from 15% to 50% in sub-Saharan
Africa, with significant variations depending on the crop and region (FAO, 2011). These losses
not only reduce the quantity of available food but also compromise its quality, resulting in lower
nutritional value (Mutungi et al., 2013).
Postharvest loss refers to food loss that occurs throughout the food supply chain, from crop
harvesting to consumption (Aulakh et al., 2013). Weight loss due to spoilage, quality loss,
nutritional loss, seed viability loss, and commercial loss are the most common types of losses.
The magnitude of postharvest losses in the food supply chain varies substantially across crops,
regions, and economies (Lipinski et al., 2013).
Household food security refers to the condition in which all individuals in a household have
access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and live an active and
healthy life (FAO, 2021). Inadequate storage methods contribute to post-harvest losses, which
can have detrimental effects on household food security. When households experience
significant post-harvest losses, their ability to meet their nutritional needs and maintain a stable
food supply is compromised (Abate et al., 2015).
1.2.2 Maize Production and Importance

Maize is a vital cereal crop globally, serving as a staple food for millions of people. It is rich in
carbohydrates, essential amino acids, and vitamins, making it a valuable source of nutrition
(FAO, 2011). In sub-Saharan Africa, maize is a key component of the diet, contributing to
approximately 50% of the caloric intake for many households (Makate et al., 2016). Maize
production and consumption are particularly significant in Uganda, where it is a staple crop for
both rural and urban populations (Rubaihayo et al., 2012). Smallholder farmers in Kigumba Sub-
County rely on maize farming as a primary livelihood activity, cultivating maize for household
consumption and sale in local markets (Mugisha et al., 2018).
1.3 Maize Production
The global maize area (for dry grain) amounts to 197 M ha, including substantive areas in sub-
Saharan Africa (SSA), Asia, and Latin America (FAOStat, 2021). It is an established and
important human food crop in a number of countries, especially in SSA, Latin America, and a
few countries in Asia, where maize consumed as human food contributes over 20% of food
calories (Shiferaw et al., 2011). Compared to wheat and rice, maize is a more versatile multi-
purpose crop. Globally, maize production has been steadily increasing over the years. According
to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the total global maize production reached 1.17
billion metric tons in 2020, reflecting an upward trend (FAO, 2021a). Major maize-producing
countries include the United States, China, Brazil, and Argentina, which collectively account for
a significant portion of global production (FAO, 2021a).
In Africa, maize is a staple crop and a critical component of food security. The continent
accounts for a significant share of global maize production. Africa produced roughly 89.3
million metric tons of corn in the trade year 2020/2021. The continent might increase maize
production to over 90 million metric tons in 2021/2022, according to the source's forecasts. Most
of the corn output originated from countries below the Sahara (FAO, 2021a; Erenstein et al.,
2022). The top maize-producing countries in Africa include Nigeria, South Africa, Ethiopia,
Tanzania, and Uganda (FAO, 2021b).
Over the years, total maize production in Uganda has gradually increased, from roughly 800,000
tonnes in 2000 to 2,575,000 tonnes in 2019. But this is largely due to a steady expansion of
maize acreage, little from improved productivity. In 2020, maize production for Uganda was
2,750 thousand tonnes. Before maize production in Uganda started to increase to reach a level of
2,750 thousand tonnes in 2020, it went through a trough reaching a low of 286 thousand tonnes
in 1980. In Uganda, maize is a vital crop both for subsistence and commercial purposes. It is
grown by smallholder farmers across the country, contributing significantly to household food
security and income generation (UBOS, 2019).

1.3.2 Maize storage problems and maize quality
The major disadvantage of maize storage is that it is vulnerable to pest assault, with insect pests,
molds, and rodents (Weinberg et al., 2008; Makate, 2010; Nwosu, L.C., 2018), topping the list of
the International Research Institute (IRRI) and International Maize and Wheat Improvement
Centre (CIMMYT). Storage pests have been linked to the loss of millions of tonnes of stored
maize due to insect infestations (Dhliwayo and Pixley, 2003; Alam et al., 2019) as well as
attacks by rats and fungi. Pests and diseases are predicted to destroy 30-40% of cereal grains,
45% of roots and tubers, and 40-80% of vegetables and legumes grown in Uganda. As a result
of the crop losses, consumers access inadequate amounts of food, which in turn has led to
malnutrition, anemia, and energy and vitamin deficiencies being common in Ugandans.
The attack also resulted in a loss in corn quality (IRRI and CIMMYT, 2009; Manu et al., 2018),
which included a decrease in the nutritional content of the maize. Stored maize can potentially
become dangerous to eat due to contamination by waste products and mycotoxins in the case of
molds (Sallam, 1999; Weinberg et al., 2008; Somali Agriculture Technical Group (SATG),
2009). On-farm storage technologies play a major role in determining the quality of stored maize
and determining quantities of maize that can be available to consumers. In turn, this improves
not only the purchasing power of the farm households by making it possible for them to market
the maize and raise income for purchasing non-farm products and food commodities that they do
not produce, but it also contributes to poverty alleviation and food security of the consumers.
The moisture content of grains, humidity, temperature, foreign materials in maize, and improper
handling of maize prior to storage are all factors that influence the development of
microorganisms in stored maize, resulting in maize losses and contaminations (Weinberget al.,
2008; Murdolelono and Hosang, 2009; Oni et al., 2022). Contamination of food items by
mycotoxins has been observed all over the world (Wild and Gong, 2010), and over 300 varieties
of mycotoxins have been identified, 20 of which have been found to exist naturally in foods and
feeds Institute of Food Science and Technology (IFST), 2009. Fusarium, Aspergillus, and
Penicillium species have been identified as the most common forms of fungi that infest stored
maize and produce mycotoxins that are dangerous to both humans and animals (Sweeney et al.,
2000).
While cereal product contamination has been observed in various places around the world (Wild
and Gong, 2010), significant quantities of mycotoxins in maize have been recorded in
underdeveloped countries (IFST, 2009). In Africa, outbreaks of diseases and deaths have been
linked to the use of contaminated maize-based diets and feeds (Wild and Gong, 2010).
Consumption of mycotoxin-contaminated corn may result in diseases such as cancer and kidney
issues (Hayes, 2000; Munkvold et al., 2009).
1.4 Problem statement

Crop losses have been linked to inefficient and poor storage solutions, resulting in low food
output. Maize production is mostly impacted by storage pests such as maize weevils, which
cause economic losses, as well as insect pests, mildew, and rats (Arrahman et al., 2021). The
attack of storage pests on stored maize has resulted in the loss of millions of tonnes of stored
corn due to insect infestations and rodent and mold attacks (Saenong and Arrahman 2017). Pests
and diseases are projected to destroy 30-40% of cereal grains, 45% of roots and tubers, and 40-
80% of vegetables and legumes grown in Uganda (Lebot, V., 2019). Because of agricultural
losses, consumers have access to insufficient amounts of food, which has resulted in
malnutrition, anemia, energy, and vitamin deficiencies being frequent in Uganda. Furthermore,
adults and children may experience hunger pangs, weariness, or disease because of insufficient
food. Even though this has become a major issue for many farmers, households, and researchers,
this subject of alternative storage methods has been mostly ignored.

To put it concisely, according to a World Bank development assessment (2021) diseases whose
susceptibility is raised by mycotoxin consumption account for 40% of the cost of the disease to
the economy of developing tropical countries (Kenya Maize Development Manual: Dar et al.,
2021). The Kenyan government halted importing maize from Uganda in March 2021 due to
quality issues caused by poor post-harvest treatment procedures (Nishimwe et al., 2021). There
is a need to address the issue of various storage methods as post-harvest principles since many
farmers and households have reported several losses, which are recognized over time as farmers
tend to postpone due to low market prices offered (Mohammed et al.,2022)
As a result, the purpose of this study is to fill a gap by evaluating the impact of various storage
methods on maize quality and family income for different farmers in the Kigumba Sub-County
Kiryandongo District. This study sheds light on storage methods in low-income areas and
contributes to a better understanding of how meteorological variables interact with storage
mechanisms to affect family food insecurity in such places.
1.5 General objective

The study's main objective is to determine the effectiveness of different storage methods
employed by farmers on maize quality and the effects on family food security.
1.5.1 Specific objectives

i. To examine farm households' food security status and their perception of food security
from an eco-health perspective.
ii. To identify the storage methods applied by the different maize farmers
iii. To examine factors influencing their selection and assess quantities of maize that farm
households harvested and stored.
iv. To identify the commonly used maize storage methods and their implication on the
quality of stored maize and household food security.

1.5.2 Research questions
a. What is the farmers’ perspective on food security?
b. What are the different maize storage systems employed by maize farmers?
c. What are the factors influencing their selection and assess quantities of maize that farm
households harvested and stored?
d. What are the commonly used maize storage methods and their implication on household
food security?
Scope of the study

The scope of the study includes the content scope, geographical scope and time scope
1.6.1 Content scope

The study will be carried out to determine the effects of storage methods on the quality of maize
and household food security. A case study of Kigumba sub-county, Kiryandongo district.
1.6.2 Geographical scope

Kigumba is a town in Kiryandongo District, northwestern Uganda. It is one of the urban centers
in the district. Kigumba lies at the location where the highway from Kampala to Gulu through
Kibangya and Rwekunye, joins the highway from Masindi to Gulu. The other urban centres in
Kiryandongo District include: a) Karuma b) Kiryandongo (c) Bweyale and (d) Masindi Port
(Kaboggoza, J., 2022).
Kigumba is located approximately 45 kilometres (28 mi), by road, northeast of Masindi (pop.
45,400 in 2011), the largest city in the sub-region (Fredrick. K, 2011). This location lies
approximately 221 kilometres (137 mi), by road, northwest of Kampala, the capital and largest
city in Uganda. Kigumba lies approximately 8 kilometres (5.0 mi), by road, south of
Kiryandongo, where the district headquarters are located. The coordinates of the town are:01 48
54N, 32 00 36E (Latitude:1.8150; Longitude:32.0100).
1.6.3 Time scope

The survey was conducted between the month of December 2022 and January 2023, because
during this period of time, the farmers were done with harvesting their maize thus the researcher
believes that this was the best time for the study to be conducted since they were about to
observe the various methods employed by the farmers.
1.7 Justification of the study.

Storage pests such as maize weevils, which cause economic losses, as well as insect pests,
mildew, and rodents, all have an impact on maize output (Arrahman et al., 2021). The attack of
storage pests on stored maize has resulted in the loss of millions of tonnes of stored corn due to
insect infestations and rodent and mold attacks (Saenong and Arrahman 2017). As a result of
these findings, farmers will have information on how to improve their management practices to
reduce grain losses at the household level. Other organizations, such as development partners,
will learn about progress toward attaining the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs),
particularly in the areas of hunger and poverty reduction/eradication, through the implementation
of enhanced post-harvest grain management technology.
1.8 Significance of the Study
1.9 Conceptual framework

The study's goal is to determine the effectiveness of different farmer storage methods on maize
quality and the effects on family food security. Food security and technological adoption are the
independent variables. Farmers' income levels, awareness of storage systems, and level of
engagement are the dependent variables, while their level of participation is the intervening
variable.
Figure 1.1 Conceptual Framework
Independent variables dependent variables
 Post-harvest losses
 Food availability
 Levels of income
 Food accessibility
 Post-harvest methods  Awareness of the post-harvest
 Technology adoption handling methods.
 Storage pests
 Productivity
Intervening variables
 Level of participation
 Unpredictable weather patterns
 Risks
1.9 Definition of Key Terms
Food security
Food security is the measure of an individual's ability to access food that is nutritious and
sufficient in quantity and quality. Some definitions of food security specify that food must also
meet an individual's food preferences and dietary needs for active and healthy lifestyles
(Pinstrup-Andersen, P., 2009).
Food accessibility
Food access is defined by USAID as when individuals have adequate incomes or other resources
to purchase or barter to obtain levels of appropriate foods needed to maintain consumption of an
adequate diet/nutrition level (Atteh, A.P., 2021)
Post-harvest systems
Refers to those activities encompassing the delivery of a crop from the time and place of harvest
to the time and place of consumption, with a minimum loss, maximum efficiency, and maximum
return for all involved (Lammerts and Struik, P.C., 2017)
1.10 Conclusion
Chapter one provided background to the study. It helped to define the objectives of the study,
defined the research questions, the scope, significance and justification of the study are provided
and these act as a basis for the next chapter that’s literature review which included research
variables/concepts Theoretical Framework. The next will presents literature review and other
theoretical review from other scholars.

CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 Introduction.
This chapter will discuss the various literature related of different storage methods employed by
farmers on maize quality and the effects on family food security. It will also identify gaps left by
other researchers of similar studies. However, this study will attempt to fill those gaps so that the
write-up can contribute to a new body of knowledge in the academic world.
2.1 Food security.
Household food security is an important issue in Uganda, given its high dependence on
agriculture and vulnerability to climate change and other factors. While I don't have access to the
latest research articles and publications beyond my knowledge cutoff in September 2021, I can
provide you with an overview of some key literature on household food security in Uganda.
Please note that you may need to conduct additional searches or consult recent academic
databases to find the most up-to-date research (Adem et al., 2018).
Achieving food security at both household and national levels is anchored in the Sustainable
Development Goals. SDG 1: End poverty in all its forms; SDG 2: End hunger, achieve food
security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture; and SDG 12: Ensure
sustainable consumption and production patterns. However, sustainable food security, especially
at the household level, remains the greatest challenge facing most developing countries (Henry,
P., 2021.). Various factors such as climate change, poor household organization of agronomic
activities, and poor on and out-of-farm management practices influenced by households‟ social
behavior are cited to exacerbate food insecurity (Adem et al., 2018).
Food security has been one of the top priorities and challenges for human societies, particularly
for developing countries like Uganda (Liu et al. 2014). This is why in 1948 the United Nations
(UN) recognized the right to food in its Declaration on Human Rights (FAO, 2006). According
to FAO (2006), food security exists when all people, at all times, have physical and economic
access to sufficient, safe, and nutritious food that meets their dietary needs and food preferences
for an active and healthy life. FAO (2009) identified four pillars of food security availability,
access, utilization, and stability. Food insecurity, on the other hand, is a situation of limited or
uncertain availability of nutritionally adequate and safe foods or limited or uncertain ability to
acquire acceptable foods in socially acceptable ways (Bickel et al. 2006).
Household food security exists when all members, at all times, have access to enough food for an
active healthy life (USDA, 2008), though this has not been the case in many households which
are faced with famine and hunger. Progress by both developed and developing countries has
been made in achieving food security, yet an acceptably large number of people still access
inadequate food they need for active and healthy life (FAO, WFP & IFAD, 2013). For example,
current estimates indicate that about 845 million people in the world were undernourished in
2014–2016. Undernourishment is experienced because most of the food produced is lost and/or
wasted (FAO, 2016).
Globally, quantitative food loss and waste have been major problems. Each year, there have been
losses in food and waste on various crops. For instance, 30% of food loss and waste has been on
cereals, 40-50% on root crops and fruit and vegetables, 20% on oil seeds, meat and dairy, and
30% on fish (Tatlidil et al. 2013). Despite emphasis by various studies on achieving food
security, African food production, supply, and consumption systems are not yet functioning to
optimal efficiency to reduce food loss and waste along the food production chain (Negatu &
Musahara, 2016). Most countries in particular Sub-Saharan Africa are faced with limited land,
inadequate inputs, scarce water, and increased weather variability, pre-harvest, and post-harvest
food losses, impeding the achievement of sustainable food security for the growing population
(FAO, 2011). Food losses in sub-Saharan Africa alone exceed 30% of total crop production and
represent more than US$4 billion in value every year (World Bank, 2011).
Fighting food deficiency in a rapidly changing world has been the goal of both developed and
developing countries, especially through reducing food loss and waste. The Global Hunger Index
Report (2012) observes that among the world’s regions, South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa
continue to have the highest reported levels of hunger, resulting from poor household food
resource handling procedures (Dietz, 2013). This represents acute suffering for millions of poor
populations in the two sub-continents (Beckel et al. 2000). However, the developed and
developing countries have remained heedful in the way they obtain and share information that is
paramount for designing and implementing food security strategies (Mabwabo, 2015), and the
focus being on agronomic practices, with little attention on other phases of food production and
people‟s socio-cultural behavior, which according to this study may partly influence household
food security.
Sub-Saharan Africa in particular, is the only region of the world that is experiencing extreme
chronic food insecurity (Devereux & Maxwell, 2001; Rukuni, 2002). Most of poor rural
population (86%) in the region depend on agriculture for their livelihoods in one way or another
and most of them are small scale farmers (World Bank, 2007). In light of this there are
similarities in the densely populated countries such as Rwanda and Ethiopia (Jayne et al. 2003).
Among the majority of people residing in rural areas, land scarcity continues to be a problem
which has negatively affected subsistence farming (FAO, 2010). While secure access to
productive land is critical for the livelihoods of millions of poor people living in rural areas,
current trends and patterns suggest that access to this key resource in these countries including
Uganda, has been declining due to growing demographic pressure, worsening land degradation
and land alienation (Cotula et al. 2004; Jayne et al. 2010). In their historical and contemporary
studies of famine and hunger, Sen (1981) and Dreze and Sen (1989) argue that resourceful
households rarely go hungry despite aggregate food shortages and that the poor are often hungry
even when the food supply is plentiful.
Economic growth may improve aggregate food supply, but because of unequal control of
economic resources and improper household food-resource handling procedures, households
continue experiencing food security problems, resulting from food loss and waste (WHO, 2013).
This study understands that food security implies the fulfillment of essential food needs of the
population of a country throughout the year. This requires an increase in food production relative
to the country’s population, improvement in per capita food supplies as well as controlled and
stable food prices with a reduction of food losses and waste. In the next section, the researcher
reviews various literature materials to ascertain the food security situation in Uganda.
2.2 Importance of storage facilities on Food security.
Storage facilities not only offer the opportunity to smooth hunger between staple crop harvests,
but farmers are possibly able to improve farm incomes by storing crops and selling at premium
prices when demand outstrips supply later in the post-harvest period (Florkowski & Xi-Ling,
1990: Sinyolo, S., 2022). As quality is an important determinant of crop retail prices effective
storage is crucial to improve agricultural incomes and food security for small-scale farmers. Crop
storage efficiency depends on storage length, losses during storage (including quality
deterioration), and storage volume. Losses are largely due to disease, pests, and oxidative
damage (Grote et al., 2021). Therefore, air-tight storage is important (Lindbland & Druben 1980:
Behamada, N., 2022). For storage to be effective, crop losses must be minimized (Takavarasha
& Rukovo, 1989:63-72: Thamaga-Chitja et al., 2004). The widespread and continued use of
traditional storage practices by South Africa’s small-scale and subsistence farmers despite
considerable losses warrants investigation with respect to improved storage and finding
appropriate, efficient, and inexpensive post-harvest technologies for small-scale farmers.
Storage facilities play a crucial role in ensuring food security by preserving and protecting
agricultural produce from spoilage, pests, and other factors that can lead to significant losses.
While there may not be specific literature available post-September 2021, I can provide you with
some general insights and references from the pre-September 2021 period that discuss the
importance of storage facilities in relation to food security (FAO, 2010).
Storage facilities play a crucial role in promoting food security in Africa. Africa is a continent
with diverse agro-ecological zones and significant variations in climatic conditions. As a result,
agricultural production is often subject to seasonal variations and vulnerable to crop losses due to
pests, diseases, and natural disasters. Efficient storage facilities help mitigate these challenges
and contribute to food security in the following ways:
Reducing post-harvest losses: post-harvest losses are a significant problem in Africa, with
estimates ranging from 20% to 50% of total food production. Inadequate storage facilities, such
as traditional granaries and open-air storage, expose crops to pests, rodents, and adverse weather
conditions, leading to spoilage and loss. Modern storage facilities, such as warehouses, silos, and
cold storage units, provide a controlled environment, protecting crops from damage and
extending their shelf life (Jayne et al. 2003).

Preservation of quality and nutritional value: Proper storage facilities help maintain the quality
and nutritional value of harvested crops. They protect against moisture, humidity, temperature
fluctuations, and pests that can degrade the quality of food over time. By preserving the
nutritional content of crops, storage facilities contribute to ensuring that the food available is safe
and nutritious for consumption (Rosgrant et al. (2013).
Facilitating market access and trade: Storage facilities enable farmers to store their produce
beyond the harvesting season, allowing them to access markets when prices are favorable. By
providing a buffer against seasonal fluctuations in supply and demand, storage facilities help
stabilize prices and promote agricultural trade. This encourages farmers to increase production
and invest in better farming practices, thereby enhancing food security (Baributsa et al., 2020).
Supporting value addition and agro-processing: Adequate storage facilities are crucial for value
addition and agro-processing activities. They enable farmers and food processors to store raw
materials and agricultural commodities for longer periods, facilitating the production of
processed and value-added products. Value addition enhances the marketability and profitability
of agricultural produce, while also creating employment opportunities along the agricultural
value chain (Odhiambo, 2012).
Buffer against food emergencies: Storage facilities serve as a buffer during food emergencies,
such as droughts, floods, or conflicts. In times of crisis, stored food can be distributed to affected
populations, ensuring access to food even when agricultural production is severely affected. This
helps prevent food shortages, malnutrition, and famines, contributing to overall food security in
the region (ASDS, 2010-2020).
To maximize the impact of storage facilities on promoting food security in Africa, it is essential
to invest in infrastructure development, capacity building for farmers and food handlers, and the
adoption of modern technologies for storage and preservation. Additionally, policies and
programs that encourage the establishment of storage facilities, improve market linkages, and
promote value addition can further strengthen the role of storage in achieving food security goals
in Africa (DRA, 2014).
2.3 Agricultural production and food security.
Over the past three decades, Uganda has brought back agriculture to the top of the development
agenda (AGRA, 2016), by investing an increased proportion of its budget from a growing
national revenue base. The Vision 2030 for instance, has linked well with Sustainable
Development Goals such as Goal 1: End poverty in all its forms; Goal 2: End hunger, achieve
food security and improved nutrition and promote sustainable agriculture; and Goal 12: ensure
sustainable consumption and production patterns. All these recognize the significance of
agriculture to its goal of achieving an average GDP growth rate of 10% per year up to the year
2040.
Uganda’s Agricultural Sector Development Strategy operationalizes Vision 2040 by focusing on
transforming smallholder agriculture from low-productivity subsistence activities to more
innovative, agri-business-oriented agriculture (ASDS, 2010-2020). Regarding adaptation to
climate change, ASDS prioritizes investments in weather information systems, research on
drought-tolerant crop varieties, soil and water conservation, water harvesting, and strengthening
integrated pest management systems. However, despite this focus, there has been a glimpse of
success, as the agricultural sector is largely a fragile success dependent on decisive government
support and consistency of investment (Odhiambo, 2012). Due to this, a third of Uganda’s
population is estimated to be food and nutrition insecure, while over 10 million people suffer
from chronic food insecurity and poor nutrition; with between two and four million people
requiring emergency food assistance at any given time (MoA, 2015). Nearly 30% of the
country‟s children are classified as undernourished, with micronutrient deficiencies widespread
(GoK, 2010).
According to Rosgrant et al. (2013), food loss and waste is a result are improper postharvest
handling, lack of appropriate infrastructure and poor food-resource household management
techniques. The study focused on this case. From the 1960s, the production of most basic food
crops did not keep pace with population growth and the basic crops, which such as potatoes,
sweet potatoes, rice and beans, performed well in the increase area increased eased in yield
(DRA, 2014). In 1961, Kenya could feed her population of 8.4 million at more than 10% of
world health organization requirements based on the fact below food contributed 75% of the
dietary energy.
2.4 Maize storage facilities.
Maize is a major staple food crop in several countries in sub-Saharan Africa. Significant crop
losses can occur during postharvest handling and storage. Maize postharvest losses vary
significantly by crop, stage in the value chain, and geography but may reach up to 20% or higher
(Costa, S.J. 2014). Losses are primarily caused by feeding associated with a population growth
of pests (particularly insects, rodents, etc.) and the presence of mycotoxins (Tubbs et al., 2016).
To deal with postharvest losses during storage, farmers employ a variety of measures including
traditional methods, applying chemicals, or selling their grain soon after harvest. Many of the
storage methods used by farmers have challenges. These include limited access and cost-
effectiveness, lack of scalability, and in some cases, they are not adapted to local situations.
Selling grain right after harvest results in loss of potential income and food insecurity at the
household level. Some smallholder farmers sell most of their grain due to households’ needs for
cash after harvest (Kadjo et al., 2018), resulting in food insecurity in subsequent months. Often,
grain prices significantly increase (e.g., may double) from harvest to lean season (Baributsa et
al., 2020). Hence, storing grain provides an opportunity to be food secure but also allows farmers
to tap into better grain prices.
In Africa, the poor status of small-scale farmers leads them to select storage methods that are
cheap to construct regardless of their inadequacy, consequently, most of the grain losses occur
during storage (Obetta and Daniel, 2007). This necessitates the improvement of storage
technologies. Factors that usually affect the farmers’ choice of storage methods include the cost
of building and running the storage method, availability of the materials and expertise for
building the storage facility, climatic conditions of the area, and the types of pest problems in the
area (FAO, 1985). Other factors include the amounts of crops that are to be stored and the
expected quality of the stored crops (FAO, 1985). Several storage technologies that small-scale
farmers commonly use in Africa are reviewed as below;
Sack storage
Storage sacks are made of different materials such as sisal natural fibers such as jute and
synthetic fibers, and they can store up to 100 kg of grain each (Lindblad and Druben, 1976). To
prevent the storage sacks from absorbing moisture from the floor, the sacks need to be stacked
on platforms raised off the floor, with space between them to allow air to flow under the sacks
and between them. This cools the stored crops from the heat that results from the respiration of
the grain. Regular inspection of crops stored in sacks is necessary for keeping the grains safe
from attacks by pests (De Groote, 2004). The weakness of sack storage is that sacks do not last
long (FAO, 1994). New storage sacks are likely to be needed after every harvest, which makes
this storage method expensive. Sack storage methods require that the storage sacks be treated
with pesticides prior to storage to reduce the chances of infestation (FAO, 1994: Jones et al.,
2019).
The advantage of sack storage is that it provides the farmer with ease of access to the stored
crops because the farmer can choose to store the grain-filled sacks at any convenient place in the
home. However, sacks can be easily damaged by rodents, which would expose the stored maize
to rodent infestations (Ng’ang’a, J.K., 2016). Lastly, although sack the storage method is
commended for having the capacity to keep stored grain cool, the extent to which the sack
storage method is efficient for protecting maize from moisture content problems, especially in
humid places, has not been given adequate attention. It was hypothesized that because storage
sacks allow aeration to take place, they can easily allow moisture to enter, which can lead to
moisture content problems and the development of fungi in the stored grain, especially in humid
places (Lopes, and Neto, 2019.)
Storage cribs
Storage cribs can offer stored crops for up to six months of storage, they can last more than a
year and the number of crops that they can store would depend on the size of the crib (Anthony
et al., 2019). The advantage of storage cribs is that maize stored in them continues to dry through
ventilation due to the manner in which the cribs are built. However, the rate at which maize dries
in a crib depends upon the force at which air currents pass through the maize cobs, and this is
influenced by the width of a crib (Davies, J.C., 1960: Stathers et al., 2013). Thus, maize would
dry faster in a cribs 60 cm wide crib than it would in a crib that is wider than 60 cm (FAO,
1987). Placing the longer side of the crib in line with the orientation of the prevailing wind has
also been found to be helpful in allowing as much air current as possible to be blown into the
maize cobs in the crib (FAO, 1987: Ng’ang’a, J.K., 2016). Thus, purposeful designing and
positioning of cribs may be helpful in maize drying. However, it has also been noted that it takes
eight to ten days to bring maize in a crib to the right moisture content during the dry season, and
80 days during the wet season (FAO, 1980). Generally, maize with 30 % moisture content at
harvest can take about six weeks to be appropriately dried in a crib (Shepherd, 2010). The length
of time that it takes for maize in storage cribs to dry is a lot longer than the time recommended
by Semple et al., 1989 and Reed et al., 2007) for drying maize that is not dry enough for storage
at harvest. As a result, the development of molds and insect pests on maize stored in cribs in
humid areas is likely to occur. Thus, cribs may not be suitable for use in areas characterized by
prolonged seasons of rainfall, coolness, and high humidity because they would create conditions
that are favorable for the growth of pests (Suleiman et al., 2013). Storage cribs can be metallic or
non-metallic. Walls and floors of non-metallic cribs are made using wood and mud, while roofs
are thatched. Rodents can easily make holes through them, while moisture can also penetrate into
the cribs and cause moisture content problems in the stored grain (Mboya, R.M., 2020). As
opposed to non-metallic cribs, metallic ones are made using materials that rodents cannot make
holes through such as iron or aluminum sheets, and they can be rodent proofed by fitting into
them structures that prevent rodents from getting into the cribs.
Airtight storage methods
Lindblad and Druben (1976) classified the use of different types of silos and other storage
methods such as the use of plastic bags that restrict the entrance of air into stored maize grain
under ‘airtight storage methods. With airtight storage methods grains are stored in metallic,
plastic, concrete, or earthenware containers that prevent air from getting into the crops (FAO,
2010). Maize is poured into the containers through an opening on the top part of each container,
followed by sealing the opening (Kitinoja et al., 2018). This eventually stops the respiration of
the stored crops and organisms in them if any, leading to death of the organisms. With the
exception of airtight plastic bags, maize from the airtight storage containers is accessed through a
small opening that can be closed tightly after every use. For effective storage, containers must
not have cracks or holes, and they must be filled to the top to keep air out of the containers
(Williams et al., 2017).
Roof storage
In most cases, farm households hang maize cobs on beams below the roof of the kitchen so that
smoke and heat from the fireplace can dry and protect stored maize from insect pests (Masiko,
M., 2018). However, due to the limited size of the area below the roof, farm households can store
relatively small amounts of maize using this type of roof storage method. Furthermore, this type
of storage is mostly used for storing seeds for planting. For prolonged storage, maize cobs are
piled on planks spaced in the roof space of a building. Using roof storage, farmers may store
maize for up to one year. Roof storage provides the farmer with a facility that can last for as long
as the roof lasts, and the farmer can also store as much harvest as possible depending on the size
of the roof (Mobolade et al., 2019). Heat and smoke from the fire are used to keep the stored
crops dry and to protect them from infestations by insects. Nevertheless, maize that has high
moisture content at storage may take a long time to dry in the roof storage facilities since it is
piled up. This may lead to the development of fungi and possible. Roof storage method
mycotoxin contamination of the stored grain.
Bag Storage: In this method, maize is stored in bags made of durable material such as jute or
polypropylene. The bags are usually stacked on pallets or raised platforms to prevent contact
with moisture or pests. Bag storage is commonly used for smaller quantities of maize and is
suitable for short to medium-term storage (Masiko, M., 2018).
Hermetic Storage: Hermetic storage involves using airtight containers, such as metal or plastic
drums, to store maize. The containers are sealed tightly to create a low-oxygen environment that
inhibits the growth of pests and molds. This method is effective for long-term storage and can
help preserve the quality of maize for an extended period (Kitinoja et al., 2018).
Grain Bins: Grain bins are specifically designed storage structures for maize and other grains.
They are usually made of steel and equipped with proper ventilation systems to control
temperature and humidity. Grain bins are commonly used on farms and larger-scale operations to
store large quantities of maize for an extended period (FAO, 2010.
Drying and Aeration: Proper drying of maize is crucial before storage to reduce moisture content
and prevent mold growth. Drying can be done using natural air-drying techniques or mechanical
dryers. Aeration systems are often used in storage facilities to provide airflow and maintain
uniform moisture levels within the stored maize (Williams et al., 2017).
Chemical Treatments: Chemical treatments, such as insecticides and fungicides, can be applied
to maize to protect it from pests and molds during storage. These treatments are typically used in
conjunction with other storage methods to enhance protection. It’s important to note that
regardless of the storage method used, regular monitoring of the maize's condition is essential.
Regular checks for moisture content, temperature, and signs of pests or mold can help identify
and address any issues early on, ensuring the maize remains in good quality during storage
(Ng’ang’a, 2016).
Cold Storage: Cold storage involves storing maize at low temperatures to inhibit the growth of
pests, insects, and molds. This method is commonly used in commercial settings, where large
quantities of maize need to be stored for an extended period. Cold storage facilities typically use
refrigeration or controlled atmosphere systems to maintain the desired temperature and humidity
levels (Williams et al., 2017).

Drying and Mechanical Storage: Before storing maize, it is important to dry it adequately to
reduce moisture content. Drying can be done using various methods, such as sun drying,
mechanical dryers, or a combination of both. Once dried, maize can be stored in mechanical
storage systems like metal bins or warehouses. Mechanical storage provides protection against
pests, rodents, and moisture, and is often used in commercial grain handling and storage facilities
(Ng’ang’a, 2016).
2.5 Different ways of assessing crop storage methods:
There are two main ways of assessing the efficiency of crop storage methods. They include
assessing losses of stored crops and using the matrix to score and rank storage technologies
depending on farmers’ perceptions (FAO, 1994).
Assessing storage losses using the quality of crops
Crop loss by quality can be measured through testing quality changes during storage. This can be
done through several ways which fall into three main methods, namely: observing crop losses by
weight using samples of the crops at intervals over a specific period of time (Golob et al., 2002),
determining levels of contaminations caused by metabolic activities of pests in stored grain and
determining the extent of damage through counting damaged grains. Other methods include
counting the number of insect pests in samples of grain at intervals over a specific period of time
(Derera et al., 2001), or inoculating dilutions made from infested grain on media to determine the
extent of infestation by micro-organisms such as bacteria or molds (Mid-West Seed Services,
2006).
Assessing storage losses by determining levels of contamination.
Uric acid is an excretory product produced in larger amounts by animals and in smaller
quantities by other living organisms. The presence of large amounts of uric acid in stored crops
suggest infestation of the crops by animals such as rodents (Majunder, 1982), or insect pests
(Jood and Kapoor, 2003). This method involves the isolation of urine from the stored crops
through chemical combinations with other chemical compounds or through ultraviolet absorption
or by adding arsenophosphotungtic acid and sodium cyanide to a solution obtained from the
sample crops (Majunder, 1982). A solution containing uric acid will develop a blue color when
these chemicals are added to it. The intensity of the blue color determines the concentration of
the uric acid in the tested crops (Majunder, 1982: Mboya, R.M., 2011).
Assessing storage loss using the mass of the crops
Grain loss can also be determined by measuring the weight of crops at the time of storage and
comparing it with their weight after storing them for a specific time (Golob et al., 2002). This
method has also been criticized because the grain weight may include unseen bodies of
microorganism molds or absorbed/reduced moisture, leading to inaccuracy in calculating crop
loss. This method may also provide inaccurate results, especially when applied on farms because
reduced grain weight may be due to the fact that grain is being consumed by the farm household
rather than due to infestations. Other methods include measuring the amount of carbon dioxide
resulting from the respiration of micro-organisms in the stored crops and inspecting kernels for
degradation caused by infestations (Majunder, 1982). These methods can provide a general
picture with respect to whether stored crops are infested or not without being specific regarding
the cause of crop loss and quantification (Kumar and Kalita, 2017)
The scale of maize production plays a significant role in determining the appropriate storage
method. Small-scale farmers may opt for simple storage methods like bags or traditional
granaries, while large-scale commercial operations may require more sophisticated storage
facilities such as silos or warehouses (Ng’ang’a, 2016).

Storage capacity: The quantity of maize to be stored is an essential consideration. Storage
methods should be able to accommodate the projected volume of maize without causing
overcrowding or compromising on ventilation and quality. The capacity of the storage method
should match the expected harvest and storage requirements (Shepherd, 2010).
The intended duration for which maize needs to be stored impacts the choice of storage method.
Short-term storage may involve simpler and less expensive methods, while long-term storage
requires more advanced facilities that can maintain the quality of maize over extended periods,
such as airtight silos or controlled atmosphere storage (Kumar and Kalita, 2017).
Cost and affordability: The cost of implementing a storage method and its affordability for the
farmers or stakeholders involved is a significant factor. Different storage methods have varying
costs associated with construction, maintenance, and operation. The financial resources available
will influence the choice of storage method (Reed, 2002)
The existing infrastructure in the area, including roads, transportation networks, and utilities, can
influence the selection of a maize storage method. Adequate infrastructure is necessary for
efficient transportation of maize to and from the storage facility. Additionally, the availability of
utilities like electricity and water supply can impact the feasibility of certain storage methods
The scale of maize production plays a significant role in determining the appropriate storage
method. Small-scale farmers may opt for simple storage methods like bags or traditional
granaries, while large-scale commercial operations may require more sophisticated storage
facilities such as silos or warehouses (Ng’ang’a, 2016).
The climate and environmental conditions of the storage location play a crucial role.
Temperature, humidity, rainfall patterns, and the prevalence of pests and diseases can affect the
choice of storage method. For example, in areas with high humidity, facilities with good
ventilation and moisture control may be preferred to prevent spoilage and mycotoxin
development (Shepherd, 2010)..
The susceptibility of maize to pests and diseases in the storage environment is an important
consideration. Some storage methods provide better protection against pests, such as airtight
containers or fumigation systems. Integrated pest management strategies may also influence the
selection of a storage method to ensure effective control measures can be implemented
(Shepherd, 2010)..
The maintenance of maize quality and safety is critical. Some storage methods are better suited
for preserving the nutritional value, flavor, and appearance of maize. Proper aeration, moisture
control, and protection against contamination are factors that contribute to the quality and safety
of stored maize (Ng’ang’a, 2016).
The ease of access to the storage facility and convenience of loading and unloading operations
are factors to consider. This includes factors such as proximity to transportation routes,
availability of labor, and ease of handling. Storage methods that facilitate efficient loading,
unloading, and retrieval of maize are often preferred (Mboya, 2011).
Compliance with local regulations and quality standards is essential when selecting a maize
storage method. Regulatory requirements may dictate specific construction standards, hygiene
practices, or safety protocols that need to be followed. Adhering to these regulations ensures
compliance, mitigates risks, and maintains the credibility of the stored maize (Kumar and Kalita,
2017).
By considering these factors, stakeholders can make informed decisions regarding the selection
of an appropriate maize storage method that suits their specific needs, resources, and
environmental conditions (Mboya, 2011)..

Maize needs to be stored in facilities with proper moisture control. High moisture levels can lead
to mold growth, spoilage, and the development of mycotoxins, which can be harmful to human
and animal health. Therefore, storage facilities should have effective ventilation and humidity
control mechanisms (Kumar and Kalita, 2017).
Maize should be stored in facilities with controlled temperatures. High temperatures can
accelerate the growth of pests and microorganisms, leading to spoilage. On the other hand, very
low temperatures can cause moisture condensation, which can also result in spoilage.
Maintaining an optimal temperature range is crucial for preserving the quality of maize (Kumar
and Kalita, 2017).
Maize is susceptible to attacks by pests such as weevils, beetles, and rodents. Storage facilities
should have measures in place to prevent and control infestations. This may include regular
cleaning, fumigation, the use of insecticides or traps, and proper sealing of storage containers
(Mboya, 2011).
The type of storage containers used can greatly impact maize storage. Common options include
bins, silos, bags, or warehouses. Factors to consider when choosing containers include their
capacity, durability, airtightness, ease of loading and unloading, and protection against pests and
moisture ( Golob et al., 2002).
Proper handling and transportation practices are essential to avoid damage and contamination
during the transfer of maize from the field to the storage facility. Care should be taken to prevent
physical damage, exposure to excessive moisture, and contamination by pests, chemicals, or
foreign matter (Kumar and Kalita, 2017).

Regular quality assessments and monitoring of stored maize are crucial to detect any signs of
spoilage, pests, or mold growth. This can be done through visual inspection, sampling, and
laboratory testing. Early detection allows for timely intervention and mitigation measures (Golob
et al., 2002).
The infrastructure and location of the storage facility are important considerations. The facility
should be well-built, structurally sound, and designed to prevent water seepage, pest entry, and
damage from external factors such as floods or strong winds. The location should also be easily
accessible for transportation and have appropriate facilities for loading and unloading (Kumar
and Kalita, 2017).
The length of time maize needs to be stored will influence the choice of storage facility and
management practices. Short-term storage may require different considerations than long-term
storage. Facilities designed for long-term storage should have additional features to maintain
maize quality over extended periods.
Compliance with relevant regulations and safety standards is crucial for maize storage facilities.
These regulations may cover aspects such as structural integrity, hygiene, fire safety, and
occupational health and safety. Adhering to these standards ensures the well-being of workers,
the integrity of the stored maize, and compliance with legal requirements (Shepherd, 2010).
2.6 Conclusion.
A large number of different storage methods employed by farmers on maize quality studies some
that the researcher has discussed above, have shown that farmers optimize family stores with
reference to keeping their maize. Food security and technological adoption are the independent
variables. Farmers' income levels, awareness of storage systems, and level of engagement are the
dependent variables, while their level of participation is the intervening variable.

CHAPTER THREE
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.0 Introduction
This chapter presents the research methodologies which the researcher used to collect, analyze
and interpret data. This chapter includes the research design, study area. Study population,
sample size, sampling techniques, data sources, data collection instruments, quality control,
measurement of variables, data analysis and presentation of results, ethical issues and study
limitations.
3.1 Research design
Research design provides the bond that holds the research project together. It attributes the kind
of data collected; the nature and pattern the research will follow. Kothari (2003) defines a
research design as the conceptual structure within which the research is conducted. The study
will employ a cross-sectional sectional research design as the logical structure of inquiry. This
will help the researcher to gather as much about the effect of storage methods on maize quality
and household food security. Data was gathered through questionnaires, interviewing techniques,
direct observation, and a review of the pertinent literature regarding knowledge, attitudes, and
practices regarding value addition in cassava processing. Cross-sectional will be used because
this approach provides depth and detail by looking deeper than analyzing ranks and counts by
recording attitudes, feelings and behaviors, and more so it creates openness by encouraging
people to expand on their responses.
3.2 Description of the study area
The study was conducted from Kigumba sub-county, which is a town in Kiryandongo District,
north-western Uganda. It is one of the urban centres in the district. The other urban centres in
Kiryandongo District include: (a) Karuma b) Kiryandongo (c) Bweyale and (d) Masindi Port.
Kigumba is located approximately 40 kilometres (25 mi), by road, northeast of Masindi (pop.
110,500 in 2020), the nearest large city. This location lies approximately 200 kilometres (124
mi), by road, north-northwest of Kampala, the capital and largest city in Uganda. Kigumba lies
approximately 10 kilometres (6 mi), by road, south of Kiryandongo, where the district
headquarters are located. The coordinates of the town are:01 48 54N, 32 00 36E
(Latitude:1.8150; Longitude:32.0100).
According to the Uganda National Bureau of Statistics, the census in 2002 enumerated the
population at 8,439 people. In 2014, the national population census and household survey put the
population of Kigumba at 18,625. In July 2020, the Uganda Bureau of Statistics estimated the
midyear population of the town at 22,000. The population agency calculated that the population
of the town had increased at an average annual rate of 2.98 percent, between 2014 and 2020.
Many women in the town engage in such activities as farming mainly maize production, roadside
groceries, market vending, restaurants, hair care, and health care clinics. Men are mainly
engaged in wholesale and retail merchandising, taxi driving, and Boda Boda (motorcycle and
bicycle) for-hire transportation. Increasingly, residents of Kigumba Town are employed in
salaried and non-salaried positions at the district headquarters in Bweyale.
Figure 1 : A map showing the location of Kigumba Sub- County.
3.3 Study population
A population is the complete collection (or universal) of all the elements (units) that are of
interest in a particular investigation Amin (2005). Population refers to the group of individuals
that have one or more characteristics in common that are of interest to the researcher, therefore
the population of the study was comprised of Local farmers, district leaders, and the youth
involved directly and indirectly in agriculture. The categories represent the various core staff of
rural farmers.
3.4 Sample size and Sampling procedure
The study employed a simple random selection of respondents where all respondents had an
equal chance of being selected. The technique will be employed because it ensures the selection
of respondents without bias. Purposive sampling was used to select key informants including
District Agriculture Officers on the targeted community and district extension officers. The
sampling population of the study included private companies but due to limited time, the sample
frame contained 545 respondents from five selected parishes within Kigumba Sub-County,
Kiryandongo district. The sample size of 160 respondents was obtained by using the formula
developed by Yamane in 1967 the number was chosen because reflected the limit of budget and
the time to distribute questionnaires to all teachers from the study area.
Sample size formula
n = N
(1+ Ne²)
Where; ‘n’ = sample size,
‘N’ = population sample and,
‘e’ = Margin of error (0.1).
N = 545 people.
Therefore,
n = 545 / (1+240x0.12):
Total sample size (n) ≈ 160.
Then, 160 samples were analyzed.

3.5 Types and Sources of data
3.5.1 Types of data
The study gathered quantitative and qualitative data from the study area where, quantitative data
was collected by using questionnaires prepared by the researcher to collect information. These
will include, gender, age, marital status, education level, working experience, and others. Also,
the study gathered qualitative data like the effect of storage methods on maize quality and
household food security year in the study area.
3.5.2 Sources of Data.
The study employed primary and secondary sources of data to collect information from the study
area in Kigumba Sub- County.
3.5.3 Primary data.
The primary data was collected direct from the respondents, through the use of questionnaires
and interviews. The primary data for the study involved various factors like examining how farm
households' food security status and their perception of food security from an eco-health
perspective, identifying different maize storage systems, and researching the associated storage
challenges, with a focus on pest infestation of stored maize and subsequent losses, as well as the
implications for farm households' food security and determining the low-cost storage solutions
that are employed by farmers to alleviate food insecurity.
3.5.4 Secondary data
Secondary data was collected from different sources including schools’ documents, files, and
reports relating to food security and maize storage systems journals, research reports, books,
internet surfing, and other relevant materials from different areas concerning maize storage and
food security. The data collected will enable the researcher to examine how farm households'
food security status and their perception of food security from an eco-health perspective but also
proved the validity of data that will be obtained through interviews and questionnaires. The
collected data was then analyzed by the use of SPSS for data interpretation.
3.6 Methods of Data Collection
The study employed interviews, Survey questionnaire, and documentary review methods during
data collection in the study area.
3.6.1 Interview
An interview guide refers to a checklist of open-ended questions meant to guide the interviewer
during face-to-face conservations with the interviewee(s). In this particular study, the researcher
will conduct interviews with key informants consisting of the local farmers, extension workers,
and local government staff in the study areas. These respondents will be interviewed because the
researcher believed that they have adequate information. Interviews are considered advantageous
in this study because they are ideal for gaining insight and context into a topic by allowing the
respondent to freely express their views in detail.
The study used unstructured interviews to collect information from the key informants. There
was the involvement of the District Agriculture officers, Extension officers, private agriculture
companies, and sub-county leaders so as to ensure the collection of concrete information from
the key informants. This provided the researcher with the opportunity to probe beyond the given
answers for additional information or clarify concepts. The data to be collected include,
Awareness of post-harvest handling methods, storage pests, and productivity. This method will
be used because it helps to collect concrete data from the key informants but also helps the
collection of fresh and new primary information which is needed.
3.6.2 Questionnaire
Questionnaires were used to gather information from respondents in the study area. The type of
questionnaires involved includes both sets of closed and open-ended questions. Self-
administered questionnaires were used and the researcher will distribute the questionnaires to
selected respondents to fill the questionnaires given for the purpose of data collection on
evaluating the effect of storage methods on maize quality and household food security.
The data collected include examining how farm households' food security status and their
perception of food security from an eco-health. This method will be used because it helps the
researcher to gather information from various respondents within a short time from the study
area.
3.6.3 Questionnaire return rate
Questionnaire return is the proportion of the questionnaires returned after they have been issued
to the respondents. In this study questionnaires administered were with 545 questionnaires and
the researcher ensured that they are all returned. The reason for 100% was achieved in the
following way, the researcher administered them personally to the respondents, waited for them
to fill, and then they were handed back to him.
3.7 Quality Data Control
3.7.1 Reliability
The reliability of a measure is an indication of the stability and consistency with which the
instrument measures the concept and helps to assess the goodness of a measure (Sekaran and
Bougie, 2010). The study will administer one type of questionnaire to respondents and Cronbach
alpha will be applied to measure the reliability of the data. As proposed by George and Mallery
(2013), the study will be reliable if a Cronbach`s Alpha scale of 0.7 and above is obtained. In this
study, the Cronbach Alpha value of 0.91 was obtained, implying the tool suitable for evaluating
the effect of storage methods on maize quality and household food security. The researcher had a
checklist of the questions when making personal interviews with respondents so as to achieve
data consistency and completeness.
3.7.2 Validity
Validity refers to the issue of whether an indicator (or set of indicators) that is devised to gauge a
concept really measures the concept (Bryman, 2008). After the questions is being designed, they
will be pretested to respondents in the sample. This will help the researcher to identify
ambiguous questions in the instruments and then to be able to realign them with the objectives.
3.8 Data Analysis and Presentation
3.8.1 Quantitative Analysis
Raw data generated by questionnaires were analyzed quantitatively. Once raw is obtained, the
researcher cross-checked the responses to establish the correctness and completeness of the
questionnaire. Thereafter, responses were coded and then entered into a computer application
known as the statistical package for social scientists (SPSS) for Windows version 16.0. The
purpose was to obtain descriptive statistical results. The findings were then be presented in
tables, pie charts, and graphs showing the frequencies and percentages generated.
3.8.2 Qualitative Analysis
Raw data collected by the use of interviews were then analyzed qualitatively using content
analysis. The researcher categorized responses by extracting themes and then grouping them
thematically. Once the meaningfulness of responses was achieved then the outstanding responses
thematically categorized were then used as quotations to supplement quantitative findings.
3.9 Ethical considerations
According to Onen and Yuko (2008), the issue of ethics is very important in research. A
researcher describes how he or she ensures that ethical requirements are upheld in the study.
According to Shamoo and Resnick (2009), ethics in research involves honesty, objectivity,
integrity, carefulness, openness, respect for intellectual property, confidentiality, responsible
publication, responsible monitoring, respect for colleagues, non-discrimination, legality, and
human subject protection.
The researcher is aware of the boundaries regarding the approach to the different respondents to
sample and interview. Before the collection of data starts, the researcher will seek permission
from the appropriate authorities to collect the data. First, the researcher obtained a letter from
Uganda Martyrs University (faculty of Agriculture), and then presented the letter of introduction
to the various departments seeking recommendations to collect data.
3.10 Limitations of the study
I encountered a challenge of reluctance from respondents, as regards to their cooperation when
filling the questionnaire. This was because some farmers felt insecure to release information
about the farm’s strengths and weaknesses due to fear of being exposed. The researcher resolved
this by acquiring an introduction letter from the faculty Dean of Agriculture to present to the case
study in order to gain more trust and confidence from the respondents and also the introduction
letter from the local leaders.

CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS
4.0 INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the research analysis, interpretations, findings, and discussions of the
findings on demographic characteristics of respondents, storage methods, and factors influencing
their selection and assesses quantities of maize that farm households harvested and stored. The
data targeted a sample of 160 respondents of which these were well filled in and returned which
made a response rate of 100%.
4.1 Demographic Characteristics of Respondents
This section looked at the sex, age, education level, marital status, and agribusiness group to
which the respondent belongs. According to the study findings on the demographics
characteristics towards the effect of storage methods on maize quality and household food
security a study case of Kigumba sub-county in Kiryandongo district (table 2).

4.1.1 Sex of the respondents
Figure 4.1: Sex of the respondents
Sex of the respondents
41.20%
58.80%
Male Female
Source: Field data 2023
From figure 4.1, It was found that most of the participants were male 58.8 percent while 41.2
percent were female. The findings, it implied that both sexes were willing to participate in giving
information about the study. The distribution did not affect the results of the study after all males
and females were equally involved in the maize production in the Kigumba Subcounty –
Kiryandongo district.
4.1.2 Marital status of the respondents
Figure 4.2: Marital status of the respondents
Marital status of the respondents

45.00%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00%
20.00%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Single Married cohabiting separate
Marital status of the respondents
Since marital status has a significant implication on the nature of farming and access to
agricultural assets, especially in rural communities. It was found that 41.2 percent of the
respondents were single, 35.0 percent were cohabiting, and 15.0 percent were officially married
while 8.8 percent were separated and 0% were widows or widowers. In farming, household size
determines land productivity and food security and so, it was considered to generate varying
views regarding agribusiness production depending on their needs.
4.1.3 Age of respondents
Table 4.1: Age of respondents
Age of respondents Frequency Percentage
15-19 20 12.5
20-24 24 15
25-19 25 15
30-34 50 31.25
Above 35 10 26.25
Total 100
Source: Field Data, 2023
In addition to the study findings, of the total participants, 31.25 percent were aged between 30-
34 years, and this was the highest age of the respondents. Those between 20- 24 and 25-29 years
contributed 25%. Those aged between, 15-19 were only 12.5% and the those above 35 with
26.25. This indicates that a productive age was dominantly involved in agribusiness production
in the Kigumba Subcounty - Kiryandongo district. This age distribution in agricultural
participation reveals that the more energetic and flexible youths are entering the agricultural
business.
4.1.4: Level of Education
Table 4.2: Level of Education
Level of Education Frequency Percentage
Primary level 40 25.0
Secondary level 62 38.8
Bachelor’s degree 52 32.5
Master’s levels 6 3.7
Total 160 100
Source: Field Data, 2023

Results in table 4.2 further indicate that 38.8 percent had attained and dropped out from the
primary level followed by those who had dropped out from secondary 32.5 percent, followed by
those at the tertiary level at 16.2% and the least was for those who had never attained any form
of education at only 12.5%. This implied that the type of farmers that are involved in agricultural
production had at least attained a certain level of education (secondary) meaning that these are
able to adopt and practice agribusiness production and change their standards of living.
4.1.5: Agri-business group
Figure 4.3: Agri-business group
Agribusiness group
16%
30%
14%
40%
Farmer group SACCO Area cooperative Others
From figure 4.3, majority of the respondents belonged to the SACCOs contributing 40% of the
entire sample. This was followed by those in the farmers’ group contributing 30%, those in the
area cooperative contributed 16% and the rest of the groups contributed 16.20. This implies that
most of the farmers operate under SACCOs which is basically good as it is is easy to educate and
unite them.
4.1.6: Household Size
Figure 4.4: Household Size
Household Size
45.00%
40%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00% 29%
25.00%
20.00% 18%
15.00% 14%
10.00%
5.00%
0.00%
Below 5 5–8 12+ 9 to 12
Household Size
From figure 4.4, Majority of the families had 9 to 12 members contributing 40% of the entire
sample, those with 12 and above members contributed 28.8% of the sample, 18% had 5-8
members and the those with less than 5 members contributed 13.80%. This implies that most of
the families had enough labour.

4.2 Identify the storage methods, and factors influencing their selection and assess
quantities of maize that farm households harvested and stored.
4.2.1 Major Agricultural Activity
Figure 4.5: Major Agricultural Activity
Major Agricultural activity
10%
20%
70%
Crop husbandry Anima husbandy Both
From figure 4.5, the findings of the study revealed that majority of the respondents practiced
crop husbandry, contributing 70% of the sample, 20% were doing animal husbandry and 10% of
the respondents were doing both. This implies that most of the respondents had relevant
knowledge about the variables of the study.

4.2.2 Maize Storage Methods and Quantities of stored maize
Figure 4.6: Bar chart showing maize storage method
Maize storage method
crib 9.60%
structure store 5.30%
House 14.40%
Improved 30.20%
granaries
unimproved 40.40%
granaries
0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00%method

Maize storage 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00%
The findings indicated that the two most popular storage locations utilized by households were
the unimproved granaries (40.4%). Those that used the improved granaries were only 30.2% and
these were those that produce maize in large quantities. 14.4 % of the farmers store their maize
within the house where they are staying and 5.3% had structured stored specifically designed for
maize storage and only 9.6% used the maize cribs to store their maize from post-harvest losses.
The primary reason for storing grain inside a house is to minimize risks such as postharvest
losses from predators, pests, and theft (UBOS, 2010b). In Uganda, less than 40% of households
used improved granary structures overall. An improved granary is a storage structure that is
substantially raised off the ground (by about 1 meter or 3.3 feet) and supported by poles fitted
with rodent guards, which sits on concrete blocks and has walls made of mud and wattle and a
top made of reeds covered with grass. An unimproved granary is a structure not substantially
raised off the ground (about 0.3 meters or a foot off the ground), with the structure sitting on
poles or low stones or poles not fitted with rodent guards, with walls made of mud and wattle
and a top made of reeds and covered with grass. The contents of the unimproved granary are
prone to attack by rodents, leading to higher postharvest losses. A lower rate among households
of improved granary usage for storage may be attributed to the higher cost of building them, as
has been found in previous studies (Adegbola, 2010, cited in Affognon et al., 2015).
Farm households in the Kiryandongo district harvested maize between February and March
depending on the time when it was planted. For long-term storage of maize, the farm households
stored maize using either the roof storage method, the sack storage method, or both. Sacks were
mainly made from sisal and synthetic fibers. Maize grains were packed in sacks and sealed
before storing them in a place of the farmer’s choice. Farm households piled maize cobs where
roof storage was used in a designated storage space on the roof of the house.
In accordance with the findings of Mboya et al., (2019), they observed that 52 % of the maize
that the farm households harvested was stored using the roof storage method exclusively, 10 %
was stored using the sack storage method exclusively and 38% was stored using roof storage at
harvest and later shelled and stored using the sack storage method. The time in the year when
maize was shelled and stored using the sack storage method differed from farm household to
farm household. Thus, at some stage, 90 % of the harvested maize was stored using the roof
storage method, while 48 % was stored using the sack storage method. While the farm
households that used the roof storage method stored maize harvests in the roofs for two to 14
months, the farm households that stored maize using the sack storage method stored maize
harvests in the sacks for five to 14 months. Other storage technologies such as storing maize
using clay pots, storage baskets, and the practice of hanging maize cobs in the kitchen were
found to be only used for short-term storage or for storing seeds for planting, thus, were not
further pursued.
4.2.2 Factors Influencing the Selection of maize storage method.
Table 4.3: Factors influencing the selection of maize storage method
Factor Frequency Percentage
Age of household head (years) 22 13.9
Lack of well-constructed structures 29 18.1
Presence of enough funds to construct 32 19.4
Membership in farmer group 16 10.2
Poor prices for agricultural products 15 9.2
Household size (Adult Equivalent) 18 11.5
Distance to market 7 4.5
Education of household head 17 10.7
Others 4 2.5
Total 160 100
Source: Primary data 2023
It was observed that the absence of well-constructed structures influenced the selection of the
maize storage method by 18.1%. The presence of enough funds to lead the construction activities
was the main leading factor with 19.4%. The age of the house head contributed 13.9% of the
responses. The respondents added that even one’s educational level had a major impact on the
nature of the maize storage method to be used.

More so 10.2% of the respondents revealed that Membership in farmer group affect the
selection, 9.2% said that the selection is affected by poor prices for agricultural products,11.5%
said that its affected by Household size (Adult Equivalent),4.5% said that distance to market is
another factor,10.7% revealed that Education of household head also typically affects the
selection and only 2.5% of the sample said that the selection is affected by other factors such as
presumed pests, weather condition and target market.
The findings were in with (Adetunji, M.O., 2009.) who found out that most of the farm
households used the roof storage method to enhance the drying of the stored maize. 43.1 % of
the farm households indicated that they stored maize using the sack storage method to be able to
easily monitor infestations, 18.8 % of the farm households said that they stored maize using the
sack storage method to accommodate large quantities of maize and easily monitor infestations.
Only 1.5 % of the farm households said that they used the sack storage method for maize storage
because they did not have an appropriate roof that they could use. Thus, a larger proportion of
the farm households that used the sack storage method used it to be able to easily manage and
monitor infestations.
Education improved the likelihood of adopting improved storage structures. The present findings
indicate that the probability of using an improved storage structure is correlated with the level of
education of the household head. Similar results were found in studies of the adoption of
improved storage structures for maize in Benin (Adegbola et al., 2011; Affognon et al., 2015),
and metallic grain silos in Malawi (Maongo et al., 2013). There is no doubt that education
improves the rate at which new techniques and skills can be absorbed and applied by farmers,
and this might explain increasing adoption rates as years of education increase. 10% of the
farmers agreed their membership in the farmer group can affect the type of storage technique to
be used. This agrees with findings from previous adoption studies of improved granaries for
maize in Mozambique (Cunguara & Darnhofa, 2011). This might be an indication that organized
farmers are empowered (including enhanced diffusion of knowledge and information about new
technologies) and have improved bargaining power for cost-effective technology acquisition
compared to their counterparts. The adoption by group members might also be due to peer
pressure (Lwala et al., 2016; Malima, Blomquist, Olson, & Schmitt, 2014).
The bigger the household size the higher the chance of using an improved storage technique,
since the construction of improved storage structures often requires intensive labor, and family
labor is a major source of on-farm labor in developing countries. In most developing countries in
the past, the people residing in a village were more or less an extended family and therefore
could assist each other for most of the activities. However, with the recent increase in rural-urban
migration in a number of developing countries by those in search of better employment
opportunities and an improved standard of living, a number of rural families have lost massive
family/village labor resources. This accelerated rural-urban migration to urban areas, particularly
by youth, has escalated labor costs for agriculture in rural areas; this is certainly the case in
Uganda, with a possible impact on the adoption of intensive labor technologies in agriculture,
including postharvest technologies.

4.3 Farm households' food security status and their perception of food security from an
eco-health perspective.
About 83.8 % of the farm households perceived themselves as food secure as opposed to only
16.2 % of the farm households that considered themselves food insecure. The main reason why
more than half of the farm households that took part in this study perceived themselves as food
secure was that they felt that they got enough food to eat. Reasons for which the farm
households perceived themselves as food insecure are indicated in Table 4 below;
Table 4.4: Reasons for which the farm households perceived themselves as food secure
Perception Frequency Percentage
We get enough food to eat 33 20.4
We ensure the cleanliness of the food we eat 15 9.3
We are satisfied with the food we have 7 5
We get all the necessary meals 32 20.2
We grow other food crops apart from maize and get good 16 10
harvests
We use pesticides in order to protect stored maize from insect 23 14.1
infestations, thus, we are worried that the pesticides may
endanger our health
We eat different varieties of food 18 11
Our maize harvest lasts long enough 16 10
Total 160 100
From table 4.4, 20.4% of the respondents revealed that they get enough food to eat,9,3 said that
they ensure the cleanliness of the food we eat,5% said that they are satisfied with the food they
have, 20.2% said that they get all the necessary meals and 10% said that they grow other food
crops apart from maize and get good harvests.
More so, 14.1% of the respondents revealed that they use pesticides in order to protect stored
maize from insect infestations, thus, we are worried that the pesticides may endanger our
health,11% said that they eat different varieties of food and 10% said that their maize harvest
lasts long enough. Therefore this implies that there is enough food security in the area since
respondents responded positively to questions used to measure this objective.
4.3.2 The severity of the farm household’s food insecurity:
Results were obtained by using the Household Food Security scale. The findings obtained
through the Household Food Security scale tool revealed that 76.5% of the farm households were
food insecure without hunger, 11.4 % were food insecure with moderate hunger, 9.4 % were
food insecure with severe hunger, and 2.7 % were food secure. The condition of being food
insecure without hunger could mislead the farm households into perceiving themselves as food
secure, thus, failing to take effective measures to fight against the status quo.
Figure 4.7: The severity of the farm household’s food insecurity:
Percentage of the response

90
80 76.5
70
60
Response in percentage
50
40
30
20
11.4 9.4
10
2.7
0
Food insecure without Food insecure with Food insecure with Food secure
hunger moderate hunger severe hunger
Response
Almost all of the farm households were food insecure, yet 83.8 % of the farm households
incorrectly perceived themselves as food secure. The farm households perceived themselves as
food secure for several reasons, of which the idea of having enough food to eat had the highest
scores which amounted to 75.8 % of the total scores. This is perhaps understandable considering
the fact that 86.5 % of the farm households were food insecure without hunger16. Thus,
regardless of the existence of food insecurity conditions such as the tendency to skip meals to
cope with food shortages, the farm households perceived themselves as food secure based on the
fact that they managed to have something to eat. As far as food security is concerned, sufficient
food has a lot to do with the capacity of individuals to constantly access safe, nutritious food for
a healthy and active life (Maxwell and Smith, 1992; The World Bank, 1986; Guha-Khasnobis et
al., 2007), which was not the case for the majority of the farm households in Kigumba Sub-
county.
Furthermore, the quality of food in terms of nutrition (Guha-Khasnobis et al., 2007; Webb and
Thorne-Lyman, 2007: Blackmore et al., 2020) and safety plays a major role in influencing the
health of the consumers, thus, food quality is an important aspect of food security. However, it
seems that farm households in the Kigumba Subcounty were not aware of this fact. Thus, the
farm households’ perception that they have sufficient food was incorrect for the majority of the
farm households. For the 16 % of the farm households that perceived themselves as food
insecure, the proportion of those whose perception was based on the fact that their maize supply
did not last long enough was larger than the proportion of those whose perception was due to
other reasons than the above. Very few farm households were able to link food security with its
other aspects apart from the availability of food. While only 0.8 % of the farm households linked
food insecurity with the contaminations caused by insect and rodent infestations on the stored
maize, none of the farm households linked fungal infections on stored food crops, particularly
maize with household food insecurity.
It is inferred that the majority of the farm households in the Kigumba Subcounty incorrectly
perceived themselves as food secure, mostly because they felt that they had access to enough
quantities of food to eat. The farm households that perceived themselves as food insecure did so
mostly due to the reason that their maize harvests did not last long. This also justifies the
argument that the majority of the farm households understood food security as having adequate
quantities of food regardless of its quality in terms of nutritive value and the degree to which it
was safe for consumption, which is a limited understanding of food security.

4.4 Commonly used maize storage methods and their implication on the quality of stored
maize and household food security.
Table 4.5: Commonly used maize storage methods and their implication on the quality of
stored maize and household food security.
Commonly used maize Frequency Percentage
storage methods
Sack storage 64 40
Cribs 40 25
Airtight storage method 24 15
Roof storage 32 20
Total 160 100
From table 4.5, 40% of the respondents revealed that they use sack storage method, followed by
those who store in cribs (25%), 20% said that they use roof storage method and only 15% of the
respondents revealed that they use Airtight storage method.

CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.0 Introduction
This Chapter presents a summary of the study findings and recommendations for further research
in the area of study. The Chapter ends with conclusions drawn from research objectives and
recommendations for improvement and further studies.
5.1 Summary of Findings
The findings of this study are summarized as follows:
5.1.1 Farm Households' Food Security Status and Perception.
The study revealed that farm households in Kigumba Sub- County experienced varying degrees
of food security. While some households had adequate access to food and achieved food
security, others faced challenges in accessing sufficient and nutritious food. The perception of
food security among farm households was influenced by multiple factors, including income
levels, household size, and availability of storage methods to preserve harvested maize.
Existing Storage Methods: The study revealed that farmers in Kigumba Sub- County
predominantly use traditional storage methods, such as cribs, polypropylene bags, and storage in
open spaces, due to limited access to improved storage technologies.
5.1.2 Storage Methods Applied by Maize Farmers.
The study identified a range of storage methods employed by different maize farmers in
Kigumba Sub- County. These methods included traditional storage methods such as cribs,
polypropylene bags, and storage in open spaces, as well as improved storage methods like
hermetic storage bags and metal silos. The selection of storage methods was influenced by
factors such as affordability, availability, knowledge, and cultural preferences. The quality
assessment of maize stored using different methods showed that there were significant variations
in grain moisture content, insect infestation, and fungal contamination among the different
storage methods. Improved storage methods, such as hermetic storage bags and metal silos,
demonstrated better preservation of maize quality compared to traditional methods.
5.1.3 Factors Influencing Selection of Storage Methods and Quantities of Maize Harvested and
Stored:
Various factors influenced the selection of storage methods and the quantities of maize harvested
and stored by farm households. Financial constraints, lack of awareness of improved storage
technologies, and cultural practices were identified as key factors influencing storage method
choices. The quantities of maize harvested and stored were influenced by factors such as land
size, labor availability, and market opportunities. The study identified several factors influencing
the choice of storage methods among farmers in Kigumba Sub-County. These factors included
limited financial resources, lack of awareness and knowledge regarding improved storage
technologies, and cultural preferences for traditional methods.
5.2.4 Implications of Storage Methods on Maize Quality and Household Food Security:
The study found that the commonly used maize storage methods had implications for the quality
of stored maize and household food security. Improved storage methods, such as hermetic
storage bags and metal silos, were associated with better preservation of maize quality, including
reduced grain moisture content, insect infestation, and fungal contamination. Farm households
utilizing improved storage methods were more likely to have improved household food security
outcomes, including reduced post-harvest losses and increased availability of maize for
consumption. The analysis of the impact of storage methods on household food security revealed
that households using improved storage methods had better food security outcomes compared to
those relying on traditional methods. Improved storage methods contributed to reduced post-
harvest losses, increased availability of maize for consumption and sale, and improved dietary
diversity.
5.2 Conclusion
This chapter presents the conclusions drawn from the evaluation of the effect of storage methods
on maize quality and household food security in Kigumba Sub- County, Kiryandongo District.
The study aimed to examine farm households' food security status and their perception of food
security, identify the storage methods applied by different maize farmers, examine factors
influencing their selection, assess quantities of maize harvested and stored, and identify the
commonly used maize storage methods and their implications on the quality of stored maize and
household food security. The findings contribute to understanding the interplay between storage
methods, maize quality, and household food security in the study area.
5.3 Recommendations
Based on the findings of this study, the following recommendations are made:
Promoting Awareness and Adoption of Improved Storage Methods:
Efforts should be made to raise awareness among maize farmers in Kigumba Sub- County about
the benefits of improved storage methods. This can be achieved through farmer training
programs, extension services, and collaboration with agricultural organizations. Additionally,
incentives and subsidies can be provided to encourage the adoption of improved storage
technologies.
Enhancing Financial Access and Affordability:

Financial support mechanisms should be developed to facilitate the affordability of improved
storage technologies for smallholder farmers. This may include access to microfinance or credit
facilities, as well as the establishment of community-based storage facilities that can be
collectively owned and operated by farmers.
Strengthening Agricultural Extension Services:
Agricultural extension services should be strengthened to provide training and knowledge
dissemination on improved storage methods, including best practices for post-harvest handling
and storage. This can empower farmers with the necessary skills to make informed decisions
about storage methods and enhance their ability to preserve maize quality and ensure household
food security.
Promotion of Improved Storage Technologies
Efforts should be made to increase access to and adoption of improved storage technologies
among farmers in Kigumba Sub- County. This can be achieved through targeted extension
programs, provision of financial support or subsidies, and collaboration with local agricultural
organizations to promote the benefits of improved storage methods.
Capacity Building and Awareness:
Farmers should be provided with training and capacity-building programs to enhance their
knowledge and skills on proper storage methods, including the use of hermetic storage bags and
metal silos. This can be achieved through farmer field schools, workshops, and demonstrations to
ensure the effective utilization of improved storage technologies.
Research and Development:

Further research is needed to explore innovative storage methods that are suitable for the local
context of Kigumba Sub- County. This includes the development of affordable and accessible
storage technologies that can address the specific challenges faced by farmers in the region.
Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research
It is important to acknowledge the limitations of this study. Firstly, the research focused solely
on the evaluation of storage methods and did not consider other factors that may influence maize
quality and household food security, such as agricultural practices and market access. Future
research should consider a comprehensive assessment of the entire maize value chain to provide
a more holistic understanding of the factors impacting food security.
Additionally, the study was conducted in Kigumba Sub- County, Kiryandongo District, and the
findings may not be generalized to other regions or districts in Uganda. It is recommended that
similar studies be conducted in different geographical locations to capture regional variations in
storage methods and their impact on maize quality and food security.
REFERENCES
Mboya, R., Tongoona, P., Yobo, K.S., Derera, J., Mudhara, M. and Langyintuo, A., 2011. The
quality of maize stored using roof and sack storage methods in Katumba Ward, Rungwe District,
Tanzania: Implications on household food security. Journal of Stored Products and Postharvest
Research, 2(9), pp.189-199
Mboya, R.M., 2011. A study of the effects of storage methods on the quality of maize and
household food security in Rungwe District, Tanzania (Doctoral dissertation).
Gitonga, Z.M., De Groote, H., Kassie, M. and Tefera, T., 2013. Impact of metal silos on
households’ maize storage, storage losses and food security: An application of a propensity score
matching. Food Policy, 43, pp.44-55.
Tefera, T., Kanampiu, F., De Groote, H., Hellin, J., Mugo, S., Kimenju, S., Beyene, Y.,
Boddupalli, P.M., Shiferaw, B. and Banziger, M., 2011. 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(3),
pp.240-245.
IS, A., Okoye, J.I. and Oni, K., 2017. Promotion of indigenous food preservation and processing
knowledge and the challenge of food security in Africa. Journal of food security, 5(3), pp.75-87.
Kumar, D. and Kalita, P., 2017. Reducing postharvest losses during storage of grain crops to
strengthen food security in developing countries. Foods, 6(1), p.8.
Wambugu, P.W., Mathenge, P.W., Auma, E.O. and Van Rheenen, H.A., 2009. Efficacy of
traditional maize (Zea mays L.) seed storage methods in western Kenya. African Journal of
Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, 9(4).

Tefera, T., 2012. Post-harvest losses in African maize in the face of increasing food shortage.
Food security, 4(2), pp.267-277.
Abass, A.B., Ndunguru, G., Mamiro, P., Alenkhe, B., Mlingi, N. and Bekunda, M., 2014. Post-
harvest food losses in a maize-based farming system of semi-arid savannah area of Tanzania.
Journal of stored products research, 57, pp.49-57.
Chukwudi, U.P., Kutu, F.R. and Mavengahama, S., 2021. Mycotoxins in maize and implications
on food security: A Review. Agricultural reviews, 42(1), pp.42-49.
Dijkink, B., Broeze, J. and Vollebregt, M., 2022. Hermetic bags for the storage of maize:
perspectives on economics, food security and greenhouse gas emissions in different sub-saharan
African Countries. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems, 6, p.767089.
Gitonga, Z., De Groote, H. and Tefera, T., 2015. Metal silo grain storage technology and
household food security in Kenya.
Mendoza, J.R., Sabillón, L., Martinez, W., Campabadal, C., Hallen-Adams, H.E. and Bianchini,
A., 2017. Traditional maize post-harvest management practices amongst smallholder farmers in
Guatemala. Journal of stored products research, 71, pp.14-21.
Snapp, S.S. and Fisher, M., 2015. “Filling the maize basket” supports crop diversity and quality
of household diet in Malawi. Food Security, 7, pp.83-96.
Likhayo, P., Bruce, A.Y., Tefera, T. and Mueke, J., 2018. Maize grain stored in hermetic bags:
Effect of moisture and pest infestation on grain quality. Journal of Food Quality, 2018, pp.1-9.
Nji, Q.N., Babalola, O.O. and Mwanza, M., 2022. Aflatoxins in maize: can their occurrence be
effectively managed in Africa in the face of climate change and food insecurity? Toxins, 14(8),
p.574.
Luo, Y., Huang, D., Miao, H., Wu, L. and Zhu, J., 2022. Impact of advanced storage facilities on
households’ maize storage losses and food security in China. Environment, Development and
Sustainability, 24(1), pp.221-237.
Mutungi, C., Manda, J., Feleke, S., Abass, A., Bekunda, M., Hoschle-Zeledon, I. and Fischer, G.,
2023. Adoption and impacts of improved post-harvest technologies on food security and welfare
of maize-farming households in Tanzania: a comparative assessment. Food Security, pp.1-17.
Stoev, S.D., 2013. Food safety and increasing hazard of mycotoxin occurrence in foods and
feeds. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 53(9), pp.887-901.
Chegere, M.J., Lokina, R. and Mwakaje, A.G., 2020. The impact of hermetic storage bag supply
and training on food security in Tanzania. Food Security, 12, pp.1299-1316.
Kang’ethe, E., 2011. Situation analysis: Improving food safety in the maize value chain in
Kenya. Report prepared for FAO. College of Agriculture and Veterinary Science, University of
Nairobi, Nairobi.
APENDIX 1
QUESTIONNAIRE
STRUCTURED INDIVIDUAL QUESTIONNAIRE
Dear household member,
I am Patrick Okello, a Student from Uganda Martyrs University pursuing a bachelor’s degree
in science in Agriculture. Am carrying out a study on the effect of storage methods on maize
quality and household food security in Kigumba, Sub-county Kiryandongo district. This
research is purely academic, and your contributions are highly appreciated. On behalf of your
household, I kindly request you answer the questions below. All the responses will be handled
confidentially and for the purpose of this study only and your identity shall not be revealed to
any other third party or in the report.
The interview will take about 30 minutes. With your consent, I would like to ask you a few
questions.
Respondent Consented… Yes … No……. (Tick Yes or No)
If yes,
SECTION A: SOCIO-DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
Q 01 What is your sex? (Observation) 2. Female
1. Male Q 02 What is your marital status?

Single Married
Co-habiting
Separated
Q 03 What is your highest level of education?
Primary Secondary level

Bachelor’s degree
Masters degree and above

Q 04 Which of the following agribusiness groups do you belong to?
1. Farmer Group
2. SACCO
3. Area Cooperative Enterprise
4. Others please Specify …………………………..
Q 05 What is your household size?
Below 5 members.
6 – 8 member
9 – 12 members
12+
SECTION B: STORAGE METHODS, AND FACTORS INFLUENCING THEIR

SELECTION AND ASSESS QUANTITIES OF MAIZE THAT FARM
HOUSEHOLDS HARVESTED AND STORED.
Qn 06 What is your major Agriculture Activity
Crop husbandry
Animal husbandry
Both
7). What are the different factors that influence the selection of maize storage methods?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………….
8). What is your favorite maize storage method?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………………………………………….
9). Why and what are the different factors that influence your answer above?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………….
10). Does this method affect the quality of maize in the end?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
……………………………………………………..
SECTION C: FARM HOUSEHOLDS' FOOD SECURITY STATUS AND THEIR

PERCEPTION OF FOOD SECURITY FROM AN ECO-HEALTH PERSPECTIVE.
11 a). Have you ever heard of food security?
Yes
No
11 b). If Yes, what does it mean?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………..
11 c). If No, (Researcher explains to the respondents)
From the above, do you think you are food secure?
Yes
No
I don’t know
12. If Yes, Support your answer
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
13). How many meals does your household consume in a day? ----------------------- Meals
14). Does your household have the number of meals you have indicated in your answer
to question (13), throughout the year?
(a) Yes
(b) No
15. If your answer is ‘YES’ to question 14, what months in the year do you have a number of
meals other than the number of meals you have indicated in your answer to question 13?
Months Total number of meals
16). If your answer is “No” to question 14, what are the reasons for changing the number
of meals?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
17. Food security status for the household.
Food security status for households. Findings
Food secure
Food insecure without hunger
Food insecure with hunger (moderate)
Food insecure with severe hunger

SECTION D: COMMONLY USED MAIZE STORAGE METHODS AND THEIR
IMPLICATION ON THE QUALITY OF STORED MAIZE AND HOUSEHOLD FOOD
SECURITY.
Do the following affect the method of maize storage that is to be applied by the farmer?
Please tick
Maize storage method
Yes No
Improved maize storage facilities
Household size
Household income
Household asset value
Household head education level
Household head age
Land size
Food expenditure
Livestock value
Unimproved maize storage facilities
Household size
Household income
Household asset value
Household head education level
Household head age
Land size
Food expenditure
Livestock value
Appendix 11
Some field pictures taken during data collection
Modern storage facilities at Kigumba sub-county, Kiryandongo district

Traditional storage facilities at Masindi port
Modern storage facilities for maize at Karuma B
Local storage facilities at Bweyale village

Maize report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Maize report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Maize report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EVALUATING THE EFFECT OF STORAGE METHODS ON MAIZE QUALITY AND

HOUSEHOLD FOOD SECURITY.

A CASE STUDY OF KIGUMBA SUB-COUNTY, KIRYANDONGO DISTRICT

A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE IN A

PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AWARD OF A

DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF AGRICULTURE OF UGANDA MARTYRS

submission for academic purposes

May God bless you al1.

finally to the farmers in Kiryandongo District

Accomplishment of this dissertation is indebted to many individuals who gave me advice,

special tributes go to all my classmates for their honorable support as well

Table 4.1: Age of respondents

Figure 1.1 Conceptual Framework

factors such as affordability, availability, knowledge, and cultural preferences.

Kigumba Sub- County.

quality, leading to decreased household food security (FAO, 2011).

Kigumba Sub-County, located in Kiryandongo District, Uganda, relies heavily on maize

technologies contribute to these challenges (Mutungi et al., 2013). Therefore, it is imperative to

enhance household food security in Kigumba Sub-County.

1.2 Background of the study.

due to post-harvest losses, especially during storage (Kumar et al., 2017).

result in significant post-harvest losses. Inadequate post-harvest storage adds considerably to

and Desai, 1986: Adetunji et al., 2021).

1.2.1 Post-Harvest Losses and Household Food Security

nutritional value (Mutungi et al., 2013).

regions, and economies (Lipinski et al., 2013).

food supply is compromised (Abate et al., 2015).

1.2.2 Maize Production and Importance

consumption and sale in local markets (Mugisha et al., 2018).

1.3 Maize Production

a significant portion of global production (FAO, 2021a).

Tanzania, and Uganda (FAO, 2021b).

security and income generation (UBOS, 2019).

issues (Hayes, 2000; Munkvold et al., 2009).

1.4 Problem statement

this subject of alternative storage methods has been mostly ignored.

tend to postpone due to low market prices offered (Mohammed et al.,2022)

contributes to a better understanding of how meteorological variables interact with storage

mechanisms to affect family food insecurity in such places.

1.5 General objective

1.5.1 Specific objectives

from an eco-health perspective.

households harvested and stored.

quality of stored maize and household food security.

households harvested and stored?

Scope of the study

1.6.1 Content scope

1.6.2 Geographical scope

(Kaboggoza, J., 2022).

54N, 32 00 36E (Latitude:1.8150; Longitude:32.0100).

1.6.3 Time scope

observe the various methods employed by the farmers.

1.7 Justification of the study.

of enhanced post-harvest grain management technology.

1.8 Significance of the Study

1.9 Conceptual framework

(Pinstrup-Andersen, P., 2009).

to purchase or barter to obtain levels of appropriate foods needed to maintain consumption of an

adequate diet/nutrition level (Atteh, A.P., 2021)