This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier.

The attached
copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research
and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution
and sharing with colleagues.
Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or
licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party
websites are prohibited.
In most cases authors are permitted to post their version of the
article (e.g. in Word or Tex form) to their personal website or
institutional repository. Authors requiring further information
regarding Elseviers archiving and manuscript policies are
encouraged to visit:
http://www.elsevier.com/copyright

Author's personal copy

Crop Protection 30 (2011) 240e245

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Crop Protection
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cropro

Review

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
Tadele Tefera*, Fred Kanampiu, Hugo De Groote, Jon Hellin, Stephen Mugo, Simon Kimenju,
Yoseph Beyene, Prasanna M. Boddupalli, Bekele Shiferaw, Marianne Banziger
The International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), ICRAF House, UN Avenue, Gigiri, P.O. Box 1041, 00621 Village Market, Nairobi, Kenya

a r t i c l e i n f o

a b s t r a c t

Article history:
Received 26 May 2010
Received in revised form
12 November 2010
Accepted 20 November 2010

Traditional storage practices in developing countries cannot guarantee protection against major storage
pests of staple food crops like maize, leading to 20e30% grain losses, particularly due to post-harvest
insect pests and grain pathogens. As a result, smallholder farmers end up selling their grain soon after
harvest, only to buy it back at an expensive price just a few months after harvest, falling in a poverty trap.
The potential impact on poverty reduction and greater livelihood security will not be realized, however, if
farmers are unable to store grains and sell surplus production at attractive prices. Apart from causing
quantitative losses, pests in stored grain are also linked to aatoxin contamination and poisoning. To
address this problem, a metal silo was developed as a valid option and proven effective in protecting
stored grains from attack by storage insect pests. A metal silo is a cylindrical structure, constructed from
a galvanized iron sheet and hermetically sealed, killing any insect pests that may be present. The impact
of metal silo technology in Africa, Asia and Latin America includes, improving food security, empowering
smallholder farmers, enhancing income opportunities and job creation, and safeguarding the agroecosystems. The metal silo can be fabricated in different sizes, 100 kge3000 kg holding capacity by
trained local artisans, with the corresponding prices of $35 to $375. The use of metal silo, therefore,
should be encouraged in order to prevent storage losses and enhance food security in developing
countries.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords:
Food security
Insect pests
Maize storage
Metal silo
Post-harvest losses

1. Introduction
Traditional storage practices in developing countries cannot
guarantee protection against major storage pests of staple food
crops like maize. The lack of suitable storage structures for grain
storage and absence of storage management technologies often
force the smallholders to sell their produce immediately after
harvest. Consequently, farmers receive low market prices for any
surplus grain they may produce (Kimenju et al., 2009). Safe storage
of maize at the farm-level is crucial, as it directly impacts on
poverty alleviation, food and income security and prosperity for the
smallholder farmers. Without appropriate grain storage technologies, farmers are forced to sell maize when prices are low to avoid
post-harvest losses from storage pests and pathogens, cannot use
their harvest as collateral to access credit, and ultimately their food
security is undermined (Semple et al., 1992). Therefore, food

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: t.tefera@cgiar.org, tadeletefera@yahoo.com (T. Tefera).
0261-2194/$ e see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cropro.2010.11.015

security and safe storage at the farmer level go hand-in-hand. As

well as providing food security for times of scarcity, effective grain
storage is an ination-proof savings bank; grain can be cashed as
needed or used directly as a medium of exchange (i.e. in payment
for work such as eld clearing and weeding). Stored grain is also
needed for farm-level enterprises such as poultry production, beer
brewing and production of cooked foods for sale. It is, therefore,
crucial that appropriate, low cost storage technologies are readily
available to farmers for them to safely store and maintain quality of
their produce (Thamaga-Chitja et al., 2004).
To cope with the current and future food demands, governments have traditionally emphasized two lines of action: reducing
future demand by slowing population growth, and augmenting
food supplies by enhancing production and productivity. The third
and vital complementary measure, however, is reducing the loss of
food during and after harvest, which has not received as much
attention as it deserves (Mohy-ud-Din, 1998). Signicant amounts
of the food produced in the developing countries are lost after
harvest, thereby aggravating hunger. Food losses contribute to high
food prices by removing part of the supply from the market.

Author's personal copy

T. Tefera et al. / Crop Protection 30 (2011) 240e245

Storage insect pests, mainly the maize weevil Sitophilus zeamais

Motschulsky (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), the larger grain borer,
Prostephanus truncatus Horn (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae), angoumois
grain moth Sitotroga cereallela, Oliv. (Lepidoptera: Gelechiidae) and
the lesser grain weevil Sitophilus oryzae Linne (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), cause an estimated 20e30% loss of maize, thus impacting
food security and income generation (Abebe et al., 2009; Yuya et al.,
2009; Markham et al., 1994). Ear and kernel rots of maize, caused by
a variety of fungi, are prevalent in warm, humid, tropical and
subtropical maize growing environments. About 56% of the area
under maize production in subtropical, mid-altitude, transition
zone and highlands experience economic losses due to ear rots, and
up to 44% of maize grown in tropical lowlands is lost to ear rots
(Mukanga et al., 2010). Post-harvest losses also have an impact on
environmental degradation and climate change as land, water,
human labor and non-renewable resources such as fertilizer and
energy are used to produce, process, handle and transport food that
no one consumes (FAO, 2008).
Apart from causing grain weight losses, incidence of pest attack
on stored grains is also linked to mycotoxin contamination and
poisoning. Mycotoxin contamination (especially aatoxin and
fumonisin produced by Aspergillus avus and Fusarium verticillioides
Sacc Nirenberg, respectively) makes grain unsafe for food and
animal feed, thus adversely impacting food and feed safety.
Consumption of high doses of aatoxin leads to aatoxicosis
that can result in acute illness and death, usually through liver
cirrhosis. In April 2004, for example, one of the largest aatoxicosis
outbreaks occurred in rural Kenya, resulting in 317 cases and 125
deaths. Maize samples from affected area had aatoxin B1
concentrations as high as 4400 parts per billion (ppb), 220 times
the Kenyan limit for foods (Lewis et al., 2005).
Application of chemical insecticides has been recommended
in order to protect against insect pest and pathogen attack during
storage (Dales and Golob, 1997). However, insecticides are frequently
unavailable or too expensive for subsistence farmers in developing
countries, calling for economically feasible storage pest control
practice.
A metal silo is a cylindrical structure, constructed from a galvanized iron sheet and hermetically sealed. The metal silo technology
has proven to be effective in protecting the harvested grains from
attack not only from the storage insects but also from rodent pests
(SDC, 2008a; FAO, 2008; CIMMYT, 2009a,b). Metal silo is airtight; it
therefore, eliminates oxygen inside, killing any insect pest that may
be inside. It also completely locks out any pest or pathogen that
may invade the grains inside. The metal silo is a key post-harvest
technology in the ght against hunger and ensuring food security. It
is a simple structure that allows grains to be kept for long periods
and prevents attack from pests such as rodents, insects and birds
(Fig. 1), and promising to be one of the key technologies for effective post-harvest management of grains, and consequently
improving the food security for small-scale farmers, especially in
Africa, Asia and Latin America. The metal silo generally holds
between 100 and 3000 kg (SDC, 2008a; FAO, 2008; CIMMYT,
2009a,b).
Empirical information on the use of metal silo in preventing
post-harvest pests and loss, however, is scanty. We are not aware of
any published article with regard to the importance of the metal
silo in mitigating storage pests and improving food security of
smallholder farmers in developing countries. In this paper, therefore, we critically reviewed the work undertaken by various international organizations on deployment of the metal silo technology,
and the strengths of the technology in preventing/reducing the
storage pests/pathogen damage, and consequent impacts on
poverty alleviation, food security and income generation of the
smallholders in the developing countries.

241

Fig. 1. A metal silo of 100 kg maize grain holding capacity.

2. Effectively using the metal silo technology

2.1. Fabricating metal silos
Fabricating a metal silo requires galvanized iron sheet of
100
200 cm and 0.5 mm thick (Gauge No 26 or 24), tin bar
soldering (50% tin and 50% lead), hydrochloric acid, pine resin (to
clean and tin the soldering irons), aluminum paint (protects the
sheet from corrosion and improves silo appearance), and charcoal
(to heat the soldering iron). The detailed procedure for fabricating
the metal silo was provided by SDC (2008b).
2.2. Moisture content of the grain
The most important prerequisite for effectively storing the
grains in the metal silo is checking the moisture content of the
grain. After the grains are harvested, they are usually laid out in
the sun to dry before the actual storage begins. The grains should be
properly dried to less than 14% moisture content in case of cereals
and less than 10% for pulses and oilseeds. The farmer/consumer
needs to ascertain that the grains are completely dry before storing
them in the metal silo. In Africa, a simple method of checking the
grain moisture content using a glass bottle (http://www.cimmyt.
org/english/wpp/afr_livelih/BrochureMS.pdf) is recommended. A
few grains are put in a dry glass bottle together with a fair amount
of salt (2e3 spoons). The content would be mixed thoroughly for
a few minutes and left for a while (15e20 min). If the salt particles
are left sticking on the glass walls, it shows that they have absorbed
some moisture from the grains. This is an indication that the grains
are not yet dry; therefore, further drying is required. If the salt
particles do not stick to the glass walls, it is an indication that the
grains are now ready for storage in the metal silo.
2.3. Steps for appropriate use of metal silo
The rst step for appropriate metal silo use is cleaning and drying
the inside. The metal silo is placed under cover on a pallet. Grains are
introduced and one tablet of aluminum phosphide is placed on the
grain surface in an open paper bag for every 180 kg capacity metal
silo. Oxygen in the metal silo is depleted by placing a burning candle

Author's personal copy

242

T. Tefera et al. / Crop Protection 30 (2011) 240e245

at the top of the grain; the loading in-let sealed with the lid tightened
with a rubber band, while the candle is burning. The condition of the
seal is inspected and replaced when needed or after the grains are
removed for consumption or sell. After the grains are placed inside
the metal silo, the last crucial step for the technology to work well is,
placing the container cover tightly onto the metal silos top and
sealing with a rubber tubing (SDC, 2008b). This ensures that the
metal silo will remain airtight for months or years to come and that
no pests/pathogens can get into the container.
2.4. Production cost of metal silo
The major production costs include metal sheet, labor and
transportation. Although costs vary according to the circumstances
in each country, the prices of metal silos are, in general, reasonable
and affordable (FAO, 2008; CIMMYT, 2009a,b). The projects
implemented by the three international organizations (SDC, FAO,
and CIMMYT), promote metal silo purchase through revolving
credit funds and payment in cash and grain, among other strategies.
The storage cost per kg of grain falls as metal silo capacity increases
(Tables 2, 3, and 4) (FAO, 2008; CIMMYT, 2009a,b). It is generally
recommended to store seeds for planting in small metal silo
(100e200 kg capacity) and grains for consumption in larger metal
silo (300e3000 kg capacity).
3. Strengths and potential impacts of the metal silo
technology

in food storage methods, many smallholder farmers in developing

countries still rely on traditional storage methods for storing grain.
Although relatively simple and inexpensive to construct and
maintain, traditional storage systems lead to substantial postharvest losses (Mughogho, 1989). Inadequate post-harvest storage
contributes signicantly to food insecurity. Effective grains storage
plays an integral part in ensuring domestic food supply, and in
stabilizing food supply at the household level by smoothing
seasonal food production. The metal silo is gas-tight (oxygen (O2)
and carbon dioxide (CO2)). As a result, respiration of the biotic
components of the grain mass (fungi, insects and grain) increases
CO2 and reduces O2 concentrations that limit insect development
(Navarro and Donahaye, 2005). It was also observed that high CO2
concentration reduced the ability of Aspergillus avus to produce
aatoxin (Adler et al., 2000). Mann et al. (1999) found that adults of
Cryptolestes ferrugineus Stephens (Coleoptera: Staphylinidae) were
unable to infest wheat grain stored in sealed metal bin containers.
The metal silo is a useful food security element in the grain
storage and distribution chain. Smallholder farmers with a metal
silo could feed their family year round and free to decide when to
bring surplus harvest to market. Grains, particularly maize and
beans can be stored in the metal silo for up to three years without
any problem (SDC, 2008a). This helps schools, urban dwellers and
smallholder farmers to set aside the reserves needed when
changing climate conditions or natural disasters lead to crop failure
(FAO, 2008; CIMMYT, 2009a,b).
3.2. Empowering smallholder farmers

Crop storage efciency depends on storage length, losses during

storage (including quality deterioration) and storage volume
(Thamaga-Chitja et al., 2004). The metal silo is easy to handle and
can be produced in different sizes based on the requirements. Sacks
are traditionally used by farmers to store grain lie scattered all over,
drawing mice and rats and gathering rot and moulds. In contrast,
the metal silo, which is a tried-and-tested technology in several
countries offers the following major advantages: (i) maintains the
quality of the stored product; (ii) air tightness creates effective nonresidual fumigation; (iii) avoids the use of insecticides; (iv) requires
little space and can be placed inside or near the home; (v) reduces
post-harvest losses to virtually nil; (vi) enables smallholder farmers
to take advantage of uctuating grain prices; (vii) prevents rodents
and other pests/pathogens that could potentially harm consumer
health; and (viii) can be built in-situ with local labour and easily
available materials (FAO, 2008). The metal silo technology has
potential to create socioeconomic and environmental impacts as
described in the following headings.

Secure post-harvest storage empowers smallholder farmers.

Post-harvest storage facilities not only offer the opportunity to
smooth hunger between staple crop harvests but also farmers are
able to improve farm incomes by storing crops and selling it at
premium prices when demand outstrips supply later in the postharvest period (Florkowski and Xi-Ling, 1990). As quality is an
important determination of crop retail prices (Kohl and Uhl, 1998),
effective storage is crucial to improve agricultural incomes and food
security for smallholder farmers. Farmer learnt to monitor the
market and time their sales accordingly with the introduction of
the metal silo. In many cases, metal silo owners were able to
increase their annual income by simply holding onto their stocks
until market conditions were right for them (FAO, 2008). The
additional income improved the standard of living of rural inhabitants and gives farmer families the possibility of investing in their
farms and developing new products. Metal silo has improved the
status and self-esteem of women farmers; this is because women
farmer are the ones who manage metal silo content (SDC, 2008a).

3.1. Improving food security

3.3. Enhancing income opportunities and job creation
Food security exists when all people, at all times, have access to
sufcient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and
food preferences for an active and healthy life (http://www.fao.org/
spfs/en/, accessed 30 April 2010). Several people in the developing
countries, however, are food insecure. Despite signicant advances

Engaging in metal silo fabrication and marketing can create jobs

and rural enterprise development. For instance, the POSTCOSECHA
Programme relied on a large number of local tinsmiths for the
production of metal silo (SDC, 2008a). In 2007, there were 892

Table 1
Metal silo technology up-scaling and deployment in four countries of Central America by the SDC.
Year

1995
2001
2003
2007
a
b

Hon.a

Nica.

Guat.

El Sal.

Total

Silo

Tins.b

Silo

Tins.

Silo

Tins.

Silo

Tins.

Silo

Tins.

70,000
123,706
145,931
185,000

130
151
184
200

4470
33,176
53,007
80,796

92
175
132
175

5556
67,813
103,364
176,468

51
344
386
410

459
27,817
46,920
57,879

8
111
103
107

80,485
252,512
349,222
500,143

281
781
805
892

Hon. Honduras; Nica. Nicaragua; Guat. Guatemala; El Sal. El Salvador.

Tins. Tinsmiths.Source: SDC 2008a, with permission.

Author's personal copy

T. Tefera et al. / Crop Protection 30 (2011) 240e245

Table 2
Production costs (in US$) for varying capacity of metal silo in selected countries
under the FAO-sponsored projects.
Country

Afghanistan
Bolivia
Burkina Faso
Cambodia
Chad
Guinea
Madagascar
Malawi
Mozambique
Namibia
Senegal
a
b
c

Metal silo capacity

120 kg

250 kg

500 kg

900 kg

1800 kg

e
20
26
12
e
e
e
e
20
e
23

28
35
29
20
66
e
40
22
34
e
42

70
60
42
30
97
59
50
45b
54
22a
60

e
e
56
e
128
e
70
60c
75
e
76

92
e
70
50
187
70
100
e
e
e
100

A metal silo of 400 kg.

A metal silo of 700 kg.
A metal silo of 1000 kg.Source: FAO 2008, with permission.

metal silo manufacturers working in El Salvador, Guatemala,

Honduras and Nicaragua (Table 1). The metal silo manufacturing
activity is, therefore, an additional source of income for tinsmiths;
when they are not working in the elds, they spend their time
producing metal silo. From the production of metal silo alone,
tinsmiths annually earn a net annual income of about US $ 470
(SDC, 2008a). The proximity to farmers enabled tinsmiths to
immediately respond to their needs. Most farmer-tinsmiths
accrued extra seasonal income that they are able to earn by
manufacturing metal silos when they are not working in the eld.
In some cases, tinsmiths included jobless rural youth engaged in
manufacturing metal silos (CIMMYT, 2009a,b).
3.4. Safeguarding the agro-ecosystems
Metal silo technology reduces post-harvest food losses
(CIMMYT, 2009a,b; FAO, 2008; SDC, 2008a) and thereby contributing to sustainability. Reducing waste of already scarce food
supplies is more sustainable than increasing production to
compensate for post-harvest losses. Increasing production leads to
more intensive farming or to an expansion of the area under cultivation, both of which may have negative effects on the environment; this is particularly true when poor rural households tend to
farm in fragile ecosystems or on marginal land (Calderon, 1981).
Inadequate post-harvest storage contributes signicantly to food
insecurity, more land cultivation to produce adequate food, land
degradation, dam siltation, increased energy consumption due to
water purication, all of which negatively affect the environment
(Bai and Dent, 2006). The metal silo technology also contributes to
sustainability by nding alternatives to the use of pesticides which
can have negative impacts on the environment, and can be
hazardous for human health when application instructions are not
followed (Konstantinou et al., 2006).
Table 3
Production and distribution of the metal silos by CIMMYT in Kenya during
2008e2009.
Metal silo
holding capacity (kg)

Farmers
beneted

Unit Price
(Kenyan shillings)

Unit Price (US Dollar)

90
270
450
540
720
1800
Total

1
19
4
4
10
67
105

3000.00
5500.00
6,8000
8600.00
9800.00
25,200.00

40
74
89
115
130
336

Source: Catholic Diocese of Embu and Homa bay, and Artisans.

243

Table 4
Price of the metal silo in Malawi in 2010.
Metal silo
capacity (kg)

Unit Price
(Malawian Kwacha)

Unit Price
(US Dollar)

1000
1500
2000
3000

50,000
55,000
65,000
75,000

320
350
420
480

Source: World Vision International- Malawi and Artisans.

4. Technology deployment in developing countries

4.1. Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC)
The Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) rst
sponsored and introduced the manufacture and use of the metal
silo in four Central America countries (Honduras, Guatemala,
Nicaragua and El Salvador) in the 1980s, under the project POSTCOSECHA (Spanish term for post-harvest), which means any
approach that helps to ensure that agricultural products can be
stored for personal consumption or later sale (SDC, 2008a).
The POSTCOSECHA has had positive experiences and impacts in
storing maize and beans, the main staple crops. The massive spread
of metal silo manufactured by local smiths enabled smallholder
farmers to considerably reduce crop loss and enhance food security.
When metal silo is used properly, crop loss can be reduced almost
to zero. At the same time, metal silo created rural businesses, which
in turn generated employment. Farmers are able to save an estimated 50,000 tons of grain loss each year, which amounts to about
US $12 million (SDC, 2008a). The POSTCOSECHA Programme
disseminated metal silo to 2.35 million rural inhabitants in the four
countries; about 16% of the 15 million farmers in Nicaragua, El
Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala are metal silo users (SDC,
2008a). Between 1995 and 2007, a total of 500,143 metal silos
were manufactured and sold to farmers which correspond to an
annual growth rate of 11% (Table 1).
The institutional anchoring of the POSTCOSECHA Programme
with agricultural authorities in each of the countries, coupled with
the active involvement of several non-governmental organizations
(NGOs), accelerated the spread of metal silo technology in Central
America. The POSTCOSECHA programme relied on three actors for
successful dissemination of the metal silo: NGOs, national coordination units and self-employed farmer tinsmiths. The NGOs introduced farmers and tinsmiths to the new technology through
training, workshops, audio-visual discussions and provision of
credit facilities. By 2007, there were 175 NGOs in the region
marketing metal silo and providing technical advice to farmers
(SDC, 2008a). The uninterrupted demand shows that the metal silo
is ideally suited for smallholder farmers. The national coordinating
units were established in each of the four Central American countries where POSTCOSECHA metal silo storage technology was
introduced. Working through the national institutions or ministries
in respective countries, these coordinating bodies were responsible
for promoting the metal silo technology and maintaining contacts
with NGOs and metal silo manufacturers.
4.2. The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
(FAO)
The FAO has successfully disseminated 45,000 metal silos to
16 countries (Afghanistan, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Chad,
Ecuador, guinea, Iraq, Madagascar, Mali, Malawi, Mozambique,
Namibia, Panama, Senegal, East Timor), during 1997e2007, through
the Agricultural and Food Engineering Technologies Service (AGST)

Author's personal copy

244

T. Tefera et al. / Crop Protection 30 (2011) 240e245

of its Rural Infrastructure and Agro-Industries Division (AGS) (FAO,

2008). These metal silos aided in storing about 38000 tons of grain
with an estimated value of US $8 million. More than 1500 professionals, technicians and craftsmen were trained in the construction,
and use of household metal silos (FAO, 2008).
A socioeconomic study carried out for the FAO Post-harvest
Project in Bolivia identied the household metal silo as the most
widely accepted among the six post-harvest technologies analyzed
(FAO, 2008). Approximately 96% of the 142 beneciary farmerusers of metal silos in four departments of Bolivia stated that the
household metal silo improved food security, reduced post-harvest
losses, maintained grain quality and safety, and thus safeguarded
human health and nutrition (FAO, 2008). One of the main factors for
successful dissemination of the metal silo was the strong linkage
between technology transfer institutions, market authorities,
agricultural governmental and non-governmental organizations,
and technicians and craftsmen with shared responsibilities toward
enhanced food security in the beneciary communities.
4.3. The International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center
(CIMMYT)
Since June 2008, the International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT) has been implementing a project titled
Effective Grain Storage for Sustainable Livelihood of African
Farmers, with funding from the Swiss Agency for Development
and Cooperation (SDC) (CIMMYT, 2009a). The project successfully
introduced the development and deployment of metal silo technology in Kenya (Embu and Homa Bay districts) and Malawi (Dowa
and Mchinij districts), in collaboration with Catholic diocese of
Embu and Homa Bay in Kenya, and World Vision InternationalMalawi. The project targeted training of farmers, trainers, and
tinsmiths in metal silo construction in order to provide farmers
with better alternative storage solutions. In collaboration with the
SDC, training of trainers was performed through the SoutheSouth
Cooperation in May 2009. The trainers came from El Salvador,
travelled to pilot areas in Kenya and Malawi and trained trainers,
artisans on how to fabricate and handle the metal silo. A total of
four trainers and 41 artisans were trained so far in Kenya and
Malawi (CIMMYT, 2009b).
A total of 105 metal silos of various capacities were produced
and distributed to farmers in Kenya (Table 3). In Malawi, 41 metal
silos were distributed to farmers in Mchinji and Dowa districts.
Though the metal silo technology was primarily targeted for the
benet of smallholder farmers, schools and urban communities in
the two countries are also using the metal silos. This helped them to
buy grains at peak harvest time when prices were low, and to use it
throughout the year. As a result, several countries and organizations in Africa have shown interest or engaged in metal silo
production and dissemination. The metal silo was promoted
through demonstrations and the media, which directly and indirectly created a critical mass of interest among stakeholders,
including farmers, technicians, artisans, NGOs, government line
ministries and consumers in general (CIMMYT, 2009a,b).
5. Deployment of metal silos: successes and challenges
Strategies used by the three organizations for the successful
dissemination of the metal silo included their focus on food security, partnership with NGOs and national coordination unit, and
training of tinsmiths in fabrication and marketing metal silos. With
the introduction of metal silos, projects implemented by the
organizations focused exclusively on food security, which is a major
problem faced by the poor in rural regions of Africa, Asia and
Central America (SDC, 2008a,b; FAO, 2008; CIMMYT, 2009a,b). The

smallholder farmers were offered a technology that matched their

needs, was easy to handle and cost-efcient. The metal silo
manufacturers were able to give advice and guidance to farmers
because of their geographic proximity. With some exceptions,
metal silo manufacturers are farmers themselves and have a clear
understanding of the intrinsic benets, want the metal silo technology to be successful. The fact that manufactures are in the
immediate vicinity of customers (farmers), particularly when road
access is difcult, manufacturers build the metal silo directly on the
purchasers farm (FAO, 2008).
For most agricultural technologies, it is true that the rate of
adoption is dependent on the cost-effectiveness of the new technology. While the metal silo is a simple and effective grain storage
technology, there are several challenges that require both innovation and creativity if poor farmers or consumers have to effectively
benet from the same. One of the biggest challenges in Africa is an
initial high cost of the metal silo. In Kenya, the cost of the metal silo
varies according to capacity, from 3000 Kenyan Shilling (Ksh) for
a 90 kg capacity metal silo to 25200 Ksh for an 1800 kg capacity
(1 US Dollar 78 Ksh) (Table 3). It appears that metal silos are more
expensive in Malawi than in Kenya, ranging from $320 (for 1000 kg
holding capacity) to $480 (3000 kg) (Table 4). Studies undertaken
by CIMMYT (Kimenju et al., 2009) in Kenya indicated that the metal
sheets constitute the largest portion of metal silo cost averaging
60%. If the farmer retains the metal silo for 10 years, the present
worth of future net benets will be equivalent to 60,498.57 Ksh,
encouraging farmers to invest in the technology. However,
considering that the metal silo can be used for over 10 years, with
minimum or no maintenance costs, they are much cheaper than
conventional storage technologies (Kimenju et al., 2009). The metal
silo can also protect grain in storage for a much longer period of
time than the four months under conventional storage systems.
One of the strategies CIMMYT employed to ensure that needy
farmers acquire metal silos was to establish a revolving fund, where
metal sheets are purchased and labor costs of the tinsmiths are
paid. However, establishing a revolving loan scheme is by itself not
enough. Sensitizing the community on the effectiveness of the
metal silo through trainings, participatory evaluations and
demonstrations is important to speed up the rate of adoption.
Subsidies are used to produce and sell metal silos at an initial stage
of most of the projects (SDC, 2008a,b).
Disseminating metal silos to a large number of users across
broad geographical area is another challenge. This calls for partnerships among different organizations including publicepublic
and publiceprivate collaborations working in the areas of agricultural development and food security. Achieving successful collaboration, however, is not easy. Although the potential for positive
synergies is apparent, diverse institutional value and reward
systems need to be negotiated. As Roper (2002) discusses, organizations could differ in their perspectives on learning from alliances.
A successful collaboration between the learning alliances requires
a common language that acknowledges these differences and, at
the same time identies common ground or purpose, complementary skills, or strengths, and invests in the creation of personal
and organizational trust among participants (Roper, 2002).
A key feature of any work with the metal silo is making it widely
available to farmers on a sustainable basis. Though NGOs will play
an important role in the short and medium term, increased
involvement of the private sector in metal silo production and
farmer uptake is crucial in up-scaling the technology. Hence additional collaboration in publiceprivate sector support may well be
required. Such a balance has been a feature of POSTCOSECHAs
work in El Salvador (SDC, 2008a,b). Therefore, government support
and mainstreaming these activities within a governments extension service is probably the most sustainable way in the long-run.

Author's personal copy

T. Tefera et al. / Crop Protection 30 (2011) 240e245

6. Conclusions
Minimizing post-harvest losses is a very effective way of
reducing the area needed for production and thereby increasing
food production efciency. By preventing post-harvest losses, the
household metal silo also becomes an important technology for
enhancing food security, particularly for small-scale farmers in the
developing countries. In most countries where the metal silo has
been introduced, the silo has created a positive impact among
stakeholders directly or indirectly associated with the grain
production and storage. Continued progress in solving post-harvest
storage problems via metal silo promotion will require cooperation
and effective communication among government organizations,
non-government organizations, manufacturers and farmers.
Acknowledgement
We acknowledge the nancial support received from the Swiss
Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) for implementing
the Effective Grains Storage Project in Africa. We would like to thank
the collaborators of this project, particularly World Vision International, Malawi, and the Catholic Dioceses of Embu and Homa Bay,
Kenya, for partnering with CIMMYT in dissemination of the metal silo
technology. The FAO and SDC are acknowledged for use of their data.
Andrew Chavangi is acknowledged for sketching the metal silo.
References
Abebe, F., Tefera, T., Mugo, S., Beyene, Y., Vidal, S., 2009. Resistance of maize varieties
to the maize weevil Sitophilus zeamais (Motsch.) (Coleoptera: Curculionidae).
African Journal of Biotechnology 8, 5937e5943.
Adler, C., Corinth, H.G., Reichmuth, C., 2000. Modied atmospheres. In:
Subramanyam, B.H., Hagstrum, D.W. (Eds.), Alternative to Pesticides in Storedproduct IPM. Kluwer Academic Publisher, Boston, pp. 106e146.
Bai, Z.G., Dent, D.L., 2006. Global Assessment of Land Degradation and Improvement:
Pilot Study in Kenya. Report 2006/01. ISRIC e World Soil Information, Wageningen.
Calderon, M., 1981. The ecosystem approaches for apprehending the extent of
postharvest grain losses. Phytoparasitica 9, 157e167.
CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center), 2009a. Effective
Grain Storage for Better Livelihoods of African Farmers Project. http://www.
cimmyt.org/fr/programs-and-units/global-maize-program/projects/effectivegrain-storage-project (accessed 12.11.10).
CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center), 2009b. Annual
Report. Effective Grain Storage for Better Livelihoods of African Farmers Project.
CIMMYT, Nairobi, Kenya, pp. 3e27.
Dales, M.J., Golob, P., 1997. The protection of maize against Prostephanus truncatus
(Horn), using insecticide sprays in Tanzania. International Journal of Pest
Management 47, 39e43.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations), 2008. Agricultural
and Food Engineering Technologies Service. Household Metal Metal Silo: Key
Allies in FAOs Fight against Hunger. Rome, Italy.

245

Florkowski, J., Xi-Ling, W., 1990. Simulating the impact of pecan storage technology
on farm price and growers income. Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics
22, 217e222.
Kimenju, S.C., De Groote, H., Hellin, H., 2009. Preliminary Economic Analysis: Cost
Effectiveness of the Use of Improved Storage Methods by Small Scale Farmers in
East and Southern Africa Countries. International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center (CIMMYT), pp. 5e16.
Kohl, R.L., Uhl, J.N., 1998. Marketing of Agricultural Products, eighth ed. PrenticeeHall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Konstantinou, I.K., Hela, D.G., Albanis, T.A., 2006. The status of pesticide pollution in
surface waters (rivers and lakes) of Greece. Part I. Review on occurrence and
levels. Environmental Pollution 141, 555e570.
Lewis, L., Onsongo, M., Njapau, H., Schurz-Rogers, H., Luber, L., Kieszak, S.,
Nyamongo, J., Backer, L., Dahiye, A.M., Misore, A., DeCock, K., Rubin, C., 2005.
Aatoxin contamination of Commercial maize products during an outbreak of
acute aatoxicosis in Eastern and central Kenya. Environmental Health
Perspectives 113, 1763e1766.
Markham, R.H., Bosque-Perez, N.A., Borgemeister, C., Meikle, W.G., 1994. Developing
pest management strategies for the maize weevil, Sitophilus zeamais, and the
larger grain borer, Prostephanus truncatus, in the humid and sub-humid tropics.
FAO Plant Protection Bulletin 42, 97e116.
Mann, D., Jayas, D.S., White, N.D., Muir, W.E., 1999. Preventing insect entry into
a welded-steel hopper. In: Zuxun, J., Quan, L., Xianchang, T., Lianghua, G. (Eds.),
Stored Product Protection. Schiuan Publ. House Sci. Technol., Chengdu, pp.
1326e1332.
Mohy-ud-Din, Q., May 1998. Post harvest losses in agricultural commodities and
their containment. Economic Review.
Mughogho, M.J.K., 1989. Malawi: food security issues and challenge for 1990s. In:
Rukuni, M. (Ed.), 1989. Food Security Policies in the SADC Region. Harare.
University of Zimbabwe and Michigan State University Food Security Research
in Southern Africa Project. Department of Agricultural Economics and
Extension.
Mukanga, M., Derera, J., Tongoona, P., Laing, M.D., 2010. A survey of pre-harvest ear
rot diseases of maize and associated mycotoxins in south and central Zambia.
International Journal of Food Microbiology 141, 213e221.
Navarro, S., Donahaye, J., 2005. Innovative environmentally friendly technologies to
maintain quality of durable agricultural produce. In: Shimshon, B.Y. (Ed.),
Environmentally Friendly Technologies for Agricultural Produce Quality. CRC
Press, Boca Ratn, Florida, pp. 203e260.
Roper, L., 2002. Achieving successful academic-practitioner research collaborations.
Development Practioner 12, 338e345.
SDC (Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation), 2008a. Latin America
Section: Fighting Poverty with Metal Silo and Job Creation. Berne. Switzerland.
SDC (Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation), 2008b. Metal Silos. Manual
for Manufacturing Metal Silos for Grain Storage, second ed., Berne. Switzerland.
pp. 58e118.
Semple, R.L., Hicks, P.A., Lozare, J.V., Castermans, D.A., 1992. Regional Training
Course on Integrated Pest Management Strategies in Grain Storage
Systems, Conducted by the National Post Harvest Institute for Research
and Extension (NAPHIRE), Department of Agriculture, June 6e18, 1988,
Philippines. A REGNET (RAS/86/189) Publication in Collaboration with
NAPHIRE.
Thamaga-Chitja, J.M., Hendriks, S.L., Ortmann, G.F., Green, M., 2004. Impact of maize
storage on rural household food security in Northern Kwazulu-Natal. Tydskrif
vir Gesinsekologie en Verbruikerswetenskappe 32, 8e15.
Yuya, A., Tadesse, A., Azerefegne, F., Tefera, T., 2009. Efcacy of combining Niger
seed oil with malathion 5% dust formulation on maize against the maize weevil,
Sitophilus zeamais (Coleoptera: Curculionidae). Journal of Stored Products
Research 45, 67e70.