Thesis Dubale PDF

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND QUALITY OF MAIZE STORED
IN TWO TRADITIONAL STORAGE CONTAINERS (GOMBISA AND

SACKS) IN SELECTED DISTRICTS OF JIMMA
M. Sc. Thesis
DUBALE BEFIKADU
June 2011
Haramaya University
A Thesis Submitted to School of Graduate Studies through the

Department of Food Science and Postharvest Technology,
HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER

OF SCIENCE IN FOOD ENGINEERING
By
Dubale Befikadu
June 2011
Haramaya University
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY
As Thesis Research advisor, I hereby certify that I have read and evaluated this Thesis
prepared, under my guidance, by Dubale Befikadu, entitled “Management Practices and
Quality of Maize Stored in Two Traditional Storage Containers (Gombisa and Sacks)
in Selected Districts of Jimma”. I recommend that it be submitted as fulfilling the Thesis
requirement.
Dr. Solomon Abera _________________ _______________

Major Advisor Signature Date
Dr. Geremew Bultosa _________________ _______________
Co-Advisor Signature Date
Dr. Waktole Sori _________________ _______________
Co-Advisor Signature Date
As member of the Board of Examiners of the M.Sc. Thesis Open Defense Examination,
We certify that we have read, evaluated the Thesis prepared by Dubale Befikadu and
examined the candidate. We recommended that the Thesis be accepted as fulfilling the
Thesis requirement for the Degree of Master of Science in Food Engineering.
___________________ ________________ _______________

Chairperson Signature Date
___________________ ________________ _______________
Internal Examiner Signature Date
___________________ ________________ _______________
External Examiner Signature Date
ii
DEDICATION
I dedicated this Thesis manuscript to my father Befikadu Chala and my mother Meselech
Weldesenbet.
iii
STATEMENT OF AUTHOR
First, I declare that this Thesis is my original work and all sources or materials used for
this Thesis have been duly acknowledged. This Thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for M.Sc. degree in Food Engineering at Haramaya University. It is
deposited at University’s Library to be made available to users upon formal request and
permission under the rules of the library. I earnestly declare that this Thesis is not
submitted to any other institutions anywhere for the award of any academic degree,
diploma or certificate.
Brief quotations from this Thesis are allowable without special permission provided that
the source accurately acknowledged. Requests for permission for extended quotation from
or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or part may be granted by the head of the
Department of Food Science and Postharvest technology or the Dean of the School of
Graduate Studies when in his/her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the
interest of and does not in any way jeopardize scholarship and academic standards.
Name: Dubale Befikadu Signature:

Place: Haramaya University, Haramaya
Date of submission: June 2011
iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ANOVA Analysis of Variance

BH-660 Bako Hybrid maize
DDT Di-chloro-Diphenyl- Trichloro ethane
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
m.a.s.l. Meters above sea level
MoA Ministry of Agriculture
v
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
The author, Dubale Befikadu, was born in Borana zone, Yabello town, in 1978. He
attended his Elementary, Junior and Secondary school education in the same town. He
successfully passed the Ethiopian School Leaving Certificate Examination (ESLCE), and
joined Debub University, currently renamed Hawassa University, in 1998. After five years
of study, he graduated with B.Sc. degree in Agricultural Engineering and Mechanization.
After his graduation, he was employed as an Assistant Researcher by Jimma Rural

Technology Research Center, currently renamed Jimma Agricultural Mechanization
Research Center of Oromia Region Agricultural Research Institute (OARI), in May 2003.
In October 2009, he joined the School of Graduate Studies of the Haramaya University,
Department of Food Science and Postharvest Technology for the post-graduate studies in
Food Engineering.
vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to all people who helped and encouraged me
in one way or another in connection with my M.Sc research work. First and foremost, I am
very much indebted to my supervisors Dr. Solomon Abera, Dr. Geremew Bultosa and Dr.
Waktole Sori, for their unreserved professional support, close supervision and guidance
rendered throughout my study. Their critical and valuable comments have been decisive
on the scientific merits and shape of this Thesis. My gratitude extends to Dr. G.
Sethumadhava Rao and Dr. Diriba Mulata without whom the fungal identification part of
the Thesis would have been very difficult.
My thanks go to Dr. Tilahun Siyoum who encouraged me to work on grain storage

problems. I appreciate Mr. Solomon Tulu, Mr. Balewgize Amare, Mr. Adugna Dabala and
Mrs. Fantu Gebremariam for their cooperation and material support during my study from
the very start of the work. I do not forget Mr. Tagel Hunde and Mr. Milkias Hasen for
their keen interest and help in the nutrition and microbiology laboratory work respectively.
My immense thank is to colleagues and friends for their encouragement during my study:
Teka Tesfaye, Abera Bekele, Dereje Worku, Beshir Keddi, Tadele Chala, Hussein
Abagisa and the late Yonas Regassa. I am glad to convey my sincere thanks to the staff of
Animal Nutrition and Plant Pathology Section of JUCAVM (Jimma University College of
Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine), for their assistance in routine laboratory activities:
Mrs. Wubit Jorga, Mrs. Mulu Abadidu, Mrs. Bereket Woldemariam and Mrs. Kasech
Belete. Special thanks go to Mr. Abrar Ahmed and Mr. Habte Jifar; Jimma Agricultural
Research Center staffs for their logistic support.
The survey works would have been impossible without the cooperation of the Jimma zonal
and district offices of the Ministry of Agriculture, their technical staffs and development
agents of the study districts. The MoA branch offices of Agricultural Development offices
of Kersa, Omo Nada, Sekoru and Tiro Afeta have given me exclusive assistance in sample
collection from the storage containers. My special thanks go to Mr. Terefe Fite and Mr.
Ragassa Kumsa. I also extend my thanks to those voluntary farmers who were willing to
allow me use their storage containers for grain sampling in the selected districts of Jimma.
vii
I would gratefully acknowledge Jimma Agricultural Mechanization Research Center for
the financial and logistic support for the project throughout my study. I would like to
thank Oromia Agricultural Research Institute for giving me the opportunity and the
educational leave for my M.Sc study. Finally, I am delightful to assert the honor I have
towards my fiancee, Sr. Bethlehem Tesfaye, who has been encouraging me during my
study. I lack words of appreciation for brothers and sisters who have helped me in their
prayer during my study period.
viii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
STATEMENT OF AUTHOR iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS v
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH vi
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ix
LIST OF TABLES xii
LIST OF FIGURES xiv
LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX xv
ABSTRACT xvi
1 INTRODUCTION 1
2. LITERATURE REVIEW 6
2.1 Maize Grain 6

2.2 Maize Grain Production in Ethiopia 7
2.3 Endosperm Texture of BH-660 8
2.4 Grain Storage 10
2.5 Factors Affecting Quality of the Stored Grain 10
2.5.1 Abiotic factors 11
2.5.2 Biotic factors 14
2.6 Losses of Grain 19
2.7 Losses of Maize Grain 20
2.8 Grain Quality 22
2.9 Quality Characteristics of Grains 23
2.9.1 Intrinsic quality 23
2.9.2 Induced qualities 27
2.10. Ethiopian Traditional Grain Storage Methods 29
2.11 Management and Control of the Stored Grain 29
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS 34
3.1 Description of the Study Area 34

ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
3.2 Experimental Design 34
3.3 Survey 35
3.4 Experimental materials 36
3.4.1 Maize Grain 36
3.4.2 Storage Containers 36
3.5 Loading of the Storages 38
3.6 Sampling of the Grain for Evaluation 39
3.7 Evaluation of Physical Parameters 40
3.7.1 Grain moisture content 40
3.7.2 Storage temperature and relative humidity 40
3.7.3 Seed germination test 41
3.7.4 Weight loss 41
3.7.5 Insect damage 41
3.7.6 Physically damaged kernel 42
3.7.7 Foreign matter 42
3.8 Chemical Analysis of Maize 42
3.8.1 Crude protein of maize 42
3.8.2 Dry matter 43
3.8.3 Crude fat 43
3.8.4 Ash 44
3.8.5 Free fatty acid 44
3.9 Major Biotic Factors Identification 45
3.9.1 Identification of fungi 45
3.9.2 Identification of insects and mites 45
3.10 Method of Data Analysis 46
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 47
4.1 Results of the Survey 47

4.1.1 Harvesting and Drying of Maize 47
4.1.2 Transportation 47
4.1.3 Threshing of maize 48
4.1.4 Cleaning of Gombisa and Sacks 48
x
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED)
4.1.5 Aeration 48
4.1.6 Pesticides suppliers and mode of treatment application 49
4.1.7 Grain inspection technique and corrective measures taken 50
4.1.8 Measures taken by farmers for signs of deterioration other than pest
attack 50
4.1.9 Loss estimate due to problems associated with storage 51
4.2 Results of the Experimental Study 51
4.2.1 Physical Quality Characteristics 51
4.2.2 Effect of storage periods on physical quality characteristics of maize
grain under intermediate agro-ecology 54
4.2.3 Effect of storage periods on physical quality characteristics of maize
grain under lowland agro-ecology 58
4.2.2 Effect of storage type on chemical composition and physical quality
characteristics of maize grain 61
4.2.4 Other characteristics of the stored maize grains 63
4.2.5 Chemical Analysis of Maize 64
4.2.6 Biotic Factors Identification 73
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 78
5.1 Summary and Conclusions 78

5.2 Recommendations 80
6. REFERENCES 81
7. APPENDICES 89
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Safe moisture content levels for cereals and pulses stored below 27°C ..................... 12
2. Maximum storage time in months for shelled maize ................................................. 14
3. Grading parameters for three grades of white maize ................................................. 26
4. Grading parameters for three grades of mixed maize ................................................ 26
5. The study plan .......................................................................................................... 35
6. Moisture content of maize grain sampled from Gombisa and Sacks under
intermediate and lowland agro-ecologies ................................................................. 53
7. Storage temperature and relative humidity profiles of Gombisa and Sacks under
intermediate agro-ecology as storage period increases. ............................................ 55
8. Storage temperature and relative humidity profiles of Gombisa and Sacks under
lowland agro-ecology as storage period increases .................................................... 56
9. Insect damaged kernels, weight loss and germination of maize grain sampled from
Gombisa and Sacks under intermediate agro-ecology for different storage days ....... 57
10. Number of insects (live and dead) per kg of stored maize grain sampled from
Gombisa and Sack under two agro-ecologies ........................................................... 59
11. Insect damaged kernels, weight loss and germination of maize grain sampled
from Gombisa and Sacks under lowland agro-ecology ............................................. 60
12. Chemical composition and physical quality parameters of maize stored in
Gombisa and Sacks under intermediate agro-ecology............................................... 62
13. Chemical composition and physical quality parameters of maize stored in
Gombisa and Sacks under lowland agro-ecology ..................................................... 62
14. Physical damage of maize grain sampled from Gombisa and Sacks ........................ 63
15. Foreign matter in maize grain sampled from Gombisa and Sacks............................ 64
16. Effect of storage periods on crude protein, crude fat and dry matter content of
maize grain stored in Gombisa and Sacks under intermediate agro-ecology ............. 65
17. Effect of storage periods on free fatty acid, total carbohydrate and ash content of
maize grain stored in Gombisa and Sacks under intermediate agro-ecology ............. 67
18. Effect of storage periods on crude protein, crude fat and dry matter content of
maize grain sampled from lowland agro-ecology ..................................................... 69
19. Free fatty acid, total carbohydrate and ash content of maize grain sampled from
Gombisa and Sacks under lowland agro-ecology ..................................................... 72
xii
LIST OF TABLES (CONTINUED)
20. List of fungi identified from Kersa and Omo Nada storage containers .................... 74
21. List of fungi identified from Sekoru and Tiro Afeta storage containers ................... 75
22. Percentages occurrence of fungi identified from stored maize in selected districts
of Jimma.................................................................................................................. 77
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figures Page
1. Flint, floury and dent maize varieties ............................................................................ 9
2. The study area ............................................................................................................ 35
3. Gombisa, the prominent type of maize storage container in Jimma zone ..................... 37
4. Stack of shelled maize stored in polypropylene sacks.................................................. 38
5. Perforated PVC tubes and cages used in Gombisa for cob sampling ............................ 39
6. Points of measurement and sample collection in Gombisa........................................... 40
xiv
LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX
Appendix Table Page
1. Correlation of insect infestation and chemical composition of maize grain ............... 90
2. Correlation of insect infestation, chemical composition and physical quality
characteristics of maize grain ................................................................................... 91
3. ANOVA for effect of storage period on chemical composition and physical
quality characteristics of maize grain sampled from Gombisa under intermediate
agro-ecology............................................................................................................ 92
quality characteristics of maize grain sampled from Sacks under intermediate
agro-ecology............................................................................................................ 93
quality characteristics of maize grain sampled from Gombisa under lowland agro-
ecology .................................................................................................................... 94
quality characteristics of maize grain sampled from Sack under lowland agro-
ecology .................................................................................................................... 95
7. ANOVA for effect of storage types on chemical composition and physical quality
characteristics of maize grain sampled from Gombisa and Sacks ............................. 96
xv
ABSTRACT
Management practices and quality of flint maize grain (BH-660) stored in two traditional
storage containers for a period of 180 days was studied in two agro ecologies of Jimma.
The survey conducted revealed that maize harvesting is entirely done manually. Chemical
pesticides and various plant extracts were used to treat the harvested maize to fight pests
though knowledge on exact dosage is not consistently followed. Farmers use different
types of stored maize management methods most of which are traditional. Percentages of
insect damaged kernels, weight loss and germination showed significant differences
(p<0.05) on cob grain in Gombisa and shelled maize in Sacks over the storage periods.
Significant increase in insect damaged kernels, weight loss and decrease in germination
were observed both in Gombisa and Sack grains as the storage period increased. Grain
stored in Gombisa under intermediate agro-ecology showed a significantly (p<0.05)
higher means in germination, dry matter and total carbohydrate than those stored in
Sacks during storage period of six months. Storage type significantly affected germination,
total carbohydrate and dry matter content whereas no significant (p>0.05) effect was
observed on the remaining quality parameters. No significant difference was also
observed due to storage type on all of chemical composition and grain physical quality
characteristics tested under lowland agro-ecology. Insect infestation increased from
1.83% to 101% and 82.33% in Gombisa and Sacks respectively over six months. Weight
loss increased from 1.82% to 5.06% and 1.87 to 4.87% while insect damaged kernels
increased from 2.42% to 20.92% and 2.33% to 20.08% for grains stored in Gombisa and
Sacks respectively. Germination percentage reduced from 98% and 97.5% to 68.5% and
80.5% for grains stored in Gombisa and Sacks respectively. Percentage of physically
damaged/broken kernels of maize grain was as high as 5.25% and that of foreign matter
0.51%. Crude protein, and dry matter percentages of grains stored in Gombisa, were
influenced by storage days significantly (p<0.05) whereas they were not significantly
affected grains stored in Sacks with storage time. Crude protein and dry matter contents
showed reduction from 7.29% and 89.3% to 5.29 and 72.42% for grains in Gombisa while
they were not significantly (p>0.05) influenced for grains stored in Sacks. Crude fat of the
grains under lowland agro-ecology decreased from 3.7% and 3.73% to 2.76 and 2.81%
respectively for grains stored in Gombisa and Sacks. Free fatty acid of grains in Gombisa
and Sacks showed no significant (p>0.05) difference with storage time. The ash content
increased from 0.96% and 1.03% to 2.95 and 2.71% for grains stored in Gombisa and
Sacks respectively. Weevils (Sitophilus spp.) and angoumois grain moth (Sitotroga
cerealella) were the two insect species identified from maize samples. Number of insects
showed significant difference (p<0.05) over the storage periods for grains sampled from
Gombisa and Sacks. An increasing value was observed in both storage containers as
storage period increased. Higher rate of infestation in both storage containers was
observed during 60, 120 and 180 days than at initial loading days. A total number of eight
species of fungi known to cause deterioration of maize and are health risks to human and
animals due to toxins they potentially produce were detected from maize grains.
xvi
1 INTRODUCTION
Agriculture is the mainstay of Ethiopia's economy and it provides all the necessary dietary
foods, raw materials for food industries and quality products for export market. The
country's agricultural potential for food production is known to be immense and over 90%
of its export earnings come from this sector. Available sources indicate that a total of 11.6
million tons of cereals, 1.3 million ton of pulses and 0.5 million ton of oil crops were
estimated produced annually (CSA, 2007). Despite the large production, the country has
never relieved itself from shortage of food.
The plight of hunger in developing countries is needlessly aggravated by farmers losing up

to half of their crops after harvest. Excessive rainfall, droughts, extreme temperatures,
contamination by microorganisms, and premature harvesting are among the causes of
post-harvest losses, which estimates put at anywhere from 15 to 50 percent of what is
produced (FAO, 2009b). Crops also lose value through damage, because of spillage, harm
from inappropriate tools, chemical contamination or rough handling including heat build-
up during harvesting, loading, packing or transportation.
Estimates suggest that the magnitude of post-harvest loss in Ethiopia is tremendous

ranging from 5% to 19% for maize and 5% to 26% for other cereals and pulses (Dereje,
2000). Although research results are scanty regarding postharvest loss of fresh produce in
the country, the figure is likely to be very much higher. Such figure is quite large and no
wonder that great majority of people are food insecure. The immediate victims of food
insecurity have traditionally been farmers who are the very producers of food.
Farmers compose the largest group of people in Ethiopia who live in the rural areas and
who have insufficient land and related resources to generate sufficient food or income.
Increase in production can contribute to overcoming the food insecurity problem, but
unless solution is sought to deal with the loss of the enormous portion of the produce
before it reaches the empty stomachs, the statistics of hunger will still remain going up. In
order to help small scale agriculture increase its contribution in ensuring food security in
the country, all aspects of production including harvest and post harvest handling of the
produce need equal and proper attention.
1
Deterioration of stored grains results from the interactions among the physical, chemical
and biological variables existing in the system. It is important to understand the inter-
relations and interactions of these variables in order to design an effective control and
management system of these factors for safe storage (Adejumo and Raji, 2007).
Environmental conditions, insects, rodents, birds, fungi, yeasts and bacteria highly affect
stored products (Hayma, 2003). In order to minimize the product postharvest losses in
quality and quantity, it is important to give priority to post-harvest studies and adopt
improved post-harvest grain management practices (Abebe and Bekele, 2006).
The respiration of organisms living with grain and off grain itself elevates the carbon
dioxide, relative humidity, and temperature levels inside the storage environment, even to
the extent of a process called grain heating. In turn, the high temperature and the
concomitant high relative humidity in the store reduce seed viability due to an increased
degree of invasion by storage fungi. Such invasion of maize and sorghum seed by storage
fungi will result in reduction of seed germination and discoloration of the germs. Severe
invasion also leads to other tremendous quantitative and qualitative grain deterioration
including low nutritive value, molding, mustiness, mycotoxins production, offensive odor,
rancidity, seed-cake and grain weight loss (Mashilla, 2004).
Today, more than ever, safe grain storage and prevention of post-harvest losses by farmers
has become a necessity than a rule to overcome shortage of grain and to tackle starvation
and hunger in Ethiopia. This is crucial to ensure food security and to feed the ever-
increasing population (currently over 85 million increasing at a rate of 3%) of the country
where more than 85% of the broad mass of the population earns its livelihood directly or
indirectly from agriculture (Mashilla, 2004). Minimizing the post-harvest grain losses due
to normal physiological processes and destructive agents need due attention by
researchers, grain managers, farming community and consumers. The need for
maintenance of the grain nutritive and other inherent qualities through improved storage
methods is unquestionable and timely. Improved post-harvest grain management practices
and capacities (and not just production and marketing) are important for many purposes
including the achievement of food security. Clearly, a better post-harvest grain
management capacity and practice should minimize the magnitude of the loss.
2
In Ethiopia, maize is a staple food and one of the main sources of calories in the major
producing areas (Girma et al., 2008). It ranks first in total production and yield per hectare
(CSA, 2007). This crop has been selected as one of the national commodity crops to
satisfy the food self-sufficiency program of the country to feed the alarmingly increasing
population (Girma et al., 2008). However, the grain undergoes quantitative and qualitative
losses during storage. The losses occur mainly because of improper storage (Ishrat and
Shahnaz, 2009). A large number of pathogenic fungi, bacteria, viruses and insects,
infecting maize grain cause combined worldwide annual losses of 9.4% (Shurtleff, 1980).
Fungi affect the quality of grain through increase in fatty acid, reduction in germination,
mustiness and finally spoilage of grain.
In the field as well as in the store, many pests and parasites attack maize. Insects are most
often considered as the principal cause of grain losses (Ali et al., 2007). However, fungi
are also the second important cause of deterioration and loss of maize (Scudamore and
MacDonald, 2000). Fungi could cause about 50 to 80% of damage on farmers maize
during storage if conditions are favorable for their development (Ali et al., 2007). The
major genera commonly encountered on maize in tropical regions are Fusarium,
Aspergillus and Penicillium. This is the cause of concern because this genera have species
capable of producing a wide spectrum of compounds shown to be toxic to man and
animals (Orsi et al., 2000). Its nutritional characteristics also expose it to the constant
attack of fungi and insect predators (Ali et al., 2007).
In a country like Ethiopia where production and productivity is low and post harvest loss
is quite high, much effort shall be made to generate technologies that would boost
production and minimizes loss. The post harvest aspect includes proper post harvest
handling practices, proper storage facilities and management practices, appropriate
packaging techniques and transportation systems (Shimelis, 2001). However, enough work
has not been done in that connection. A few studies focusing on engineering design
aspects of storage infrastructure were done without due attention to the management
practices (Abebe and Bekele, 2006). Moreover, the emphasis given by policy makers and
development practitioners was to raise the national production and productivity while post
harvest grain management issues remained untouched. This is probably because of the
often easily held assumption that what matters is production, and that success in increasing
3
production and productivity will lead to increased availability of grains both at the
household and market levels (Goletti and Wolff, 1999).
Survey conducted in three major grain producing areas of Ethiopia indicated that majority
of farmers (93.3%) using such traditional storage containers exposed their stored grains to
attack by storage pests and/or other factors. The per household, average actual loss was
about 12 percent of the average total grain produce (Abebe and Bekele, 2006). Since
deterioration of stored grains results from the interactions among the physical, chemical
and biological variables existing in the system, it is important to understand the inter-
relations and interactions of these variables in order to design an effective control and
management of these factors for safe grain storage (Adejumo and Raji, 2007).
In Jimma zone, like in other regions of the country, there had been some efforts to support
post harvest grain management through promotion and demonstration of improved storage
structures by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development Office. However, the
trend could not continue and grain deterioration problems (both in quality and quantity)
haven’t been solved (Kemeru, 2004).
Grain storage containers being used by majority of farmers in the zone (more than 97%)
are traditional ones that couldn’t protect the stored grain from deterioration (Kemeru,
2004). There is no information on the exact cause of deterioration of grains stored in these
traditional storages in the zone that could serve as basis to take corrective measures. The
patterns of storage temperature and relative humidity, quality and the associated pests of
maize stored in the traditional storage containers in the area are not clearly known and
documented.
It is therefore essential to study the existing management practices, storage environment

and quality of maize taken to storage. To that effect, two major traditional storage
containers (Gombisa and Sacks) in the study area have been considered. Availability of
such information will help take corrective measures in improving post harvest grain
management and hence support the efforts being made to become a food secured country.
4
General objective of the study
 To study the storage practices and quality of maize grain stored in two traditional
containers, Gombisa and Sack, in Jimma zone
Specific objectives are:
1. To identify common pests and fungi of maize stored in traditional containers (Gombisa
and Sacks) used in the study area.
2. To study qualitative and quantitative changes of maize stored in Gombisa and Sacks.
3. To study management practices of maize stored in Gombisa and Sacks.
5
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
It is estimated that in the tropics each year between 25 and 40% of stored agricultural
products is lost because of inadequate farm- and village-level storage (Hayma, 2003). In
the field and during storage the products are threatened by insects, rodents, birds and other
pests. Moreover, the product may be spoiled by infection from fungi, yeasts or bacteria. In
order to minimize the losses during storage it is important to know the optimum
environmental conditions for storage of the product, as well as the conditions under which
its attackers flourish. Much of the theory on the storage losses of agricultural products
focuses on the storage environment and the moisture content of the products.
2.1 Maize Grain
Maize plant has an erect, solid stem, rather than the hollow one of most other grasses. It
varies widely in height, some dwarf varieties being little more than 60 cm at maturity,
whereas other types may reach heights of 6 m or more. The average is 2.4 m (Moseman,
2009). The leaves, which grow alternately, are long and narrow. The main stalk terminates
in a staminate (male) inflorescence, or tassel. The tassel is made up of many small flowers
termed spikelets, and each spikelet bears three small anthers, which produce the pollen
grains, or male gametes. The pistillate (female) inflorescence or ear is a unique structure
with up to 1,000 seeds borne on a hard core called the cob. The ear is enclosed in modified
leaves called husks. The individual silk fibers that protrude from the tip of the ear are the
elongated styles, each attached to an individual ovary. Pollen from the tassels is carried by
the wind and falls onto the silks, where it germinates and grows down through the silk
until it reaches the ovary. Each fertilized ovary grows and develops into a kernel.
Many varieties of maize show widely differing characteristics. Some varieties mature in 2
months; others take as long as 11 months. The foliage varies in intensity of color from
light to dark green, and it may be modified by brown, red, or purple pigments. Mature ears
vary in length from less than 7.5 cm to as much as 50 cm. The number of rows of kernels
ranges from 8 to 36 or more with 12 to 16 kernels per row (Moseman, 2009; Emily and
Sherry, 2010). Six general groups of varieties are differentiated by the characteristics of
the kernel (Boyer and Hannah, 1994). Dent maize is one type of maize whose sides of the
6
kernel consist of hard, so-called horny starch, and the crown contains soft endosperm. As
the grain matures and get dry, this soft endosperm shrinks, forming the characteristic dent.
In flint maize, the horny endosperm extends over the top of the kernel, so that there is no
denting. Some varieties of flint maize, which are used for the same purposes as dent
maize, are favored in cold climates because of their ability to germinate at low
temperatures, or in tropical climates because of their resistance to attack by weevils. Pop
corn is a light, highly popular snack throughout the United States particularly, throughout
the world generally a variant of flint maize with small kernels of great hardness of
virtually all horny endosperm. When heated, the moisture in the kernels expands, causing
the kernels to pop open.
Floury maize contains a preponderance of soft or less densely packed starch, and it is
readily ground into meal. It is grown extensively in the Andean regions of South America
that were part of the Inca Empire. Sweet corn is the type commonly grown in the United
States for human consumption as a vegetable. The sugar produced by the sweet-corn plant
is not converted to starch during growth, as it is in other types. The seeds are
characteristically wrinkled when the plant is allowed to mature. Pod- maize is seldom used
as food but is often grown as a decorative plant; each kernel is enclosed in its own set of
diminutive husks. Another decorative maize, commonly called Indian maize, consists of
multicolored varieties of flour and flint types (Moseman, 2009).
2.2 Maize Grain Production in Ethiopia
Maize is an important cereal crop in Ethiopia as a source of both food and cash. In terms
of area coverage on a national basis, it is next to teff (CSA, 2007). Of all food crops,
maize has received special attention owing to its wide cultivation and its great significance
among food crops. This can be seen from the fact that at mean annual growth rate of
1.62%, the total area of land under maize cultivation has increased significantly from
75,500 ha in 1961 to about 1.69 million ha in 2006/07. It constituted 12.8 % of the total
area under cereal crops in 1961 and 20% in 2008. Annual production is more than 3.8
million tons, accounting for nearly 29% of the total cereal production in the country. The
rates of increase in maize production and its share in the total cereal output have been at
7
3.27% and 1.92 %, respectively. Average yields have also increased from 9.6 q/ha in 1961
to 22.29 q/ha in 2007, growing at an annual rate of 1.62% (Getachew et al., 2010).
Major varieties of maize grown
According to survey conducted in maize belt areas of Ethiopia including Jimma, the major
varieties grown are BH-660, BH-140, PHB-3253 and open pollinated local variety
(Berhanu et al., 2007). Study conducted in one of the major maize producing district of
Jimma zone (Kersa) also revealed that the major varieties grown are the hybrid and local
varieties. The local varieties found in the area include Kenya, Oromee, Affillo and Araba
(Negussie et al., 2005).
The maize sector has benefited from relatively better technological change in terms of
high-yielding varieties of seeds, fertilizer, chemicals and post-harvest techniques. The first
maize hybrid in the Ethiopian breeding programme was BH-140, which was released in
1988 from the Bako Research Center (Kebede, 1993). With subsequent efforts, BH-660
was also released in 1994 by the Bako Research Center and became one of the most
successful hybrid varieties. It has a wider adaptability, growing at altitudes ranging from
1650 to 2200 m, with annual precipitation of 1000–1500mm. It needs up to 170 days to
mature and performs better under high rainfall, good soil conditions and a high dose of
fertilizer. Maize research has yet to develop high-yielding and drought-tolerant varieties
for the drought prone farming zones.
2.3 Endosperm Texture of BH-660
The endosperm texture of BH-660 is horny (Solomon et al., 2008). One or a few genes
often control endosperm characteristics. These traits have a tremendous impact on the
suitability of varieties for various end-uses, but are not reliable indicators of genetic
diversity among varieties. The endosperm consists of starch granules embedded in a
protein matrix. Flinty endosperm has a more rigid protein structure and is also higher in
protein content than floury endosperm. Floury starch granules are also surrounded by a
protein matrix, but the matrix is thinner and tends to rupture upon drying, leaving air
pockets. With further drying, floury endosperm shrinks to some extent. In flinty
8
endosperm maize varieties, the endosperm forms a shell around the softer, floury
endosperm.
Figure 1 Flint, floury and dent maize varieties (a = horny endosperm; b = floury
endosperm; c = germ and d = dent)
Source: IITA, 1992
The grain of hybrid maize with a higher proportion of soft endosperm requires a smaller
necessary force until the rupture when compared to one that has a higher bigger ratio of
hard endosperm (Jamin and Flowers, 1998). It also has a higher probability of attack by
insects, due to easiness of penetration in endosperm (Butron et al., 2009). According to
Buerstmayr et al. (2003), the genetic resistance of the grain to infection by Fusarium spp
depends on two factors: resistance to the penetration of hyphae in the grain and resistance
to the fungi development in endosperm of the grain. In a study carried out by Ono et al.
(2006), moldy grains have a positive correlation with the number of units of colony of
Fusarium spp, indicating that grains with damages in pericarp is a way of fungi
contamination. The higher the soft ratio of the grains endosperm, the more susceptible to
the contamination it will be and therefore, the more easily it can be attacked by insects,
facilitating the deterioration (Tatiana et al., 2009).
9
2.4 Grain Storage
Grain storage is the practice of keeping grain in store houses, in bulks and bags in such a
way that seeds should retain both food and seedling value. The purpose of storing seeds is
to preserve planting stocks and various other uses from one season to the next, it involves
more than just placing grain in a suitably sized receptacle until it is needed.
The grain is a major asset in which the grower has invested preparation, sowing and
harvesting costs. The asset must be protected because while grain is in storage its quality,
and thus its value, deteriorates. High temperature and high moisture are the most
significant factors affecting grain quality in storage. Each can cause rapid decline in
germination, malting quality, baking quality, color, oil composition, and many other
quality characteristics (Ken, 2005).
Insects and molds impair the quality of grain directly by their feeding and development,
and indirectly through generation of heat and moisture. High temperature and moisture
favor development of insects and molds. Development of insects in cereal grains is limited
by temperatures below 15°C, and by moistures below 9%. Development of molds is
limited by temperatures below 10°C, and by moistures below 13% (Ken, 2005). Spraying
with insecticides or fumigating minimizes insect problems but leaves chemical residues in
the grain, which break down with time. Presence of residues, and their concentration,
affects acceptability of the grain to markets (Ken, 2005). Some markets prefer grain
without residues. Grain buyers will not knowingly accept grain treated at rates higher than
those specified on the label, or within the specified withholding period.
2.5 Factors Affecting Quality of the Stored Grain
Once the last grain has been put into the storage and the hatches closed, there is often a
tendency to forget about what is needed to maintain the grain at a high level of quality.
However, without proper management, that grain can rapidly deteriorate and becoming a
worthless mass (David and David, 1998).
Grain spoilage is usually the cumulative result of several different handling and
management operations and decisions. Thus, the better the overall management program,
10
the better the chance for maintaining grain quality. Four factors which greatly affect grain
storability are (1) grain moisture content; (2) grain temperature; (3) initial condition of the
grain; and (4) insects and molds (David and David, 1998 ). These factors are also all
interrelated.
Stored grains can have losses in both quantity and quality. Grain quality after harvest is
influenced by a wide variety of biotic and abiotic factors and has been studied as a stored
grain ecosystem. Losses occur when the grain is attacked by microorganism and other
organisms including insects, mites, rodents and birds. The grain losses found in quantity
and quality; can be in the form of depletion in seed viability, hardness, color, size and
shape, grain weight and various biochemical parameters viz., protein, carbohydrate and
vitamins under postharvest storages. The spoilage of grain in storage is brought about by
two variables, the biotic and abiotic. The biotic variables are different types of insects,
mites, rodents, birds and microorganisms (bacteria and fungi). The abiotic variables
include temperature and moisture content of the grains (Mathew, 2010b).
2.5.1 Abiotic factors
Moisture Content
If grain moisture content is too high, even the best aeration equipment and monitoring
management will not keep the grain from spoiling - it only delays the inevitable. All
microorganisms, including molds, require moisture to survive and multiply. If the
moisture content of a product is going in to store is too low, microorganisms will be
unable to grow provided that the moisture in the store is also kept low. Moisture should
therefore be prevented from entering the store. Table 1 lists the safe moisture content
levels for cereals and pulses, valid for storage temperatures up to 27°C. Slight variations in
safe moisture contents could also arise, depending upon the variety.
In general, it is essential that all grains are below their safe moisture content before they
enter the store. The safe moisture content is to some extent related to the storage time.
Moisture levels above safe moisture content can be tolerated if only short time storages are
required. The sitting and ventilation of the store are important. Condensation of moisture
can cause storage problems.
11
Table 1. Safe moisture content levels for cereals and pulses stored below 27°C
Product Maximum safe moisture content (%), for
short duration of storage (6 months)
Cereals: maize flour 11.5
Maize shelled 13.5
Millet 16.0
Rice (milled) 13.0
Rice 15.0
Sorghum 13.5
Wheat 13.5
Wheat flour 12.0
Pulses: broad bean, cow pea 15.0
Lentil, pea 14.0
Source: Hayma, 2003.
If the walls of a store are cooled below their dew point by low night temperature,
condensation can occur and increase the moisture in the layers of the stored grain near the
edge of the store. It is important to remember that the stored grains are alive and respiring
giving off moisture and vital heat.
Going into storage at the proper moisture content does not guarantee grain will remain at
that moisture. Grain may be rewet as a result of storage roof or sidewall leaks. Moisture
can also enter through downspouts from a bucket elevator or through hatches that have
been left open. Moisture condensation can also cause localized increases in grain moisture
content. Condensation, particularly on storage roofs and sidewalls, is common when warm
grain (10oC or above) is cooled during cold weather (-1oC or less), or when hot grain from
a dryer is cooled in a storage (David and David, 1998). Condensation can be minimized by
providing adequate exhaust vents in the cooling storage. Due to excessive humidity,
multiplication of fungi particularly Aspergillus spp., which produce dangerous toxins
(Aflatoxins), will make grain unfit for human consumption (Fandohan et al., 2003).
12
Grain Temperature
The temperature within a store is affected by the sun, outside air temperatures, heat
generated by the respiration of both the grain in the store and any insects present (Fleurat,
2004b). Direct temperature control of small stores is not usually a technical or economic
possibility. Therefore, other measures, particularly reducing the moisture content of the
stored produce, are necessary.
Whether holding wet grain for a short period of time or storing dry grain for longer
periods, it is important that grain temperatures be controlled by moving air through the
grain mass. Because both wet grain and molds respire and give off heat, aeration is needed
to keep the grain cool and to slow mold growth. Properly aerated grain can generally be
safely held about four times longer than non-aerated grain (David and David, 1998).
Aeration is needed, even if grain is dry and cool when placed in storage, to keep the grain
mass at the desired temperature and to keep temperatures equalized.
Differences in grain temperatures create convection currents, which can move and
concentrate moisture in the top center of the storage. Grain may take up moisture directly
from ambient air in the store or moisture migration from warmer to cooler parts of the
grain bulk may occur (Champ and Highley, 1986). Problems caused by this moisture
movement, or moisture migration, often become obvious in seasons of warm outside air
temperatures. The first indication of trouble is usually damp or tacky feeling kernels at the
grain surface, followed by the formation of a crust. Temperature is a key factor in the
regulation of pest populations in the stored grain. In the absence of metabolic heat release
by heavy infestations of insects, weather influences are the major cause of temperature
changes in bulk storage. Sensible heat is transferred through the bulk by conduction and,
where temperature gradients occur, by convection (Alabadan and Oyewo, 2005).
Initial Grain Condition
Grain quality will not improve during storage. At best, initial quality can only be
maintained. When dried to moisture contents below the safe moisture level, cereals can be
stored for periods of a year or more under a wide range of temperatures, if during storage
the moisture level does not rise and precautions against insects are taken. Insects may still
13
develop at a relative humidity of approximately 35% and temperatures of around 15°C.
The safe moisture content for any particular grain may vary slightly depending on the
variety. Higher temperatures require lower moisture content maxima (Hayma, 2003).
Often the products are dried in the field as much as possible. During pre-storage drying
period, and sometimes even before harvesting, the grains may easily become infested with
insects. When the grains have reached the safe moisture content, they can be stored
permanently.
Table 2. Maximum storage time in months for shelled maize

Maize moisture content
13% 14% 15% 16% 17% 18%
Maize temperature (°C) Storage time in months*
4 150 61 29 15 9.4 6.1
10 84 34 16 8.9 5.3 3.4
16 47 19 9.2 5 3 1.9
21 26 11 5.2 2.8 1.7 1.1
27 15 6 2.9 1.6 0.9 0.9
*Based on 0.5% maximum dry matter loss - calculated on the basis of USDA research at Iowa State
University
Source: Harold and Morey, 1991
Often they will be threshed first, as the threshed product takes up less storage space. Even
if the grains is still too moist it can be stored if during storage it can dry further. This will
require very good ventilation. This can be better achieved by storing the grain not
threshed. Maize can be stored in maize cribs; millet, sorghum, rice and pulses in baskets.
The advantage is that threshing can be postponed until more time is available. A
disadvantage is that more storage space is needed and that cribs and baskets protect the
grain only poorly against insect attacks. If necessary, they may be threshed when the safe
moisture level has been reached and they can then be stored in a less voluminous and
better-protected way. Threshed cereals and pulses can be further dried, if necessary, in the
sun on a threshing floor, mats or canvas, or artificially (Hayma, 2003).
2.5.2 Biotic factors
Damages of grains or loss of grains vary generally and are a function of crop variety, pest
and insects, climate, system of harvesting, system of processing, storage, handling and
14
marketing. The agents causing deterioration of stored grains also include microorganisms
(fungi, bacteria, and yeast/mold), rodents, birds, and metabolic activities (Mathew, 2010b).
Fungi
They belong to plant kingdom with no chlorophyll and are therefore, unable to
manufacture their own food by photosynthesis. They live on other living things or bodies
as parasite, on inactively alive or dead bodies as saprophytes. Parasitic fungi may cause
disease in the host body, while saprophytic fungus degrade or destroy the body on which
they feed. Saprophytic fungi are more important in relation to stored durable crops.
Invasion of cereal grains by fungi is frequently associated with a substantial risk of
contamination by mycotoxins.
On the basis of adverse effects on human and animal health and widespread
contamination, aflatoxins, deoxynivalenol, fumonisins, ochratoxin A, Trichothecenes ( T-
2) toxin, Patulin, and Ergot Alkaloids zearalenone are considered as the most important
mycotoxins on a worldwide scale (Miller, 1995). Species of Aspergillus, Fusarium,
Penicillium and Claviceps spp are known to produce these mycotoxins. Such fungi were
reported commonly found in the mycobiota of Ethiopian grains (Birhane, 1984; Amare et
al., 2006). Mycotoxins are poisonous chemical compounds produced by certain fungi. The
fungi that produce mycotoxins in food fall broadly in two groups: those that invade before
harvest, commonly called field fungi, and those that occur only after harvest, called
storage fungi (GASGA, 1997).
There are three types of toxicogenic field fungi:

 Plant pathogens such as Fusarium graminearum (Gibberellazeae) and F.
culmorum, (deoxynivalenol)
 Fungi that grow on senescent or stressed plants, such as F. moniliforme
(fumonisin) and sometimes A. flavus (aflatoxin); and
 Fungi that initially colonize the plant before harvest and predispose the commodity
to mycotoxin contamination after harvest, such as P. verrucosum (ochratoxin) and A.
flavus (aflatoxin).
15
In all these cases there is a more or less well-defined association between the fungus and
its plant host. Aspergillus and Fusarium species are likely to be the most significant
mycotoxin producing field fungi found in tropical developing countries. Fusarium kernel
rot is one of the most important ear diseases of maize in hot growing areas. It is associated
with warm, dry years and/or insect damage. There is a strong relationship between insect
damage and Fusarium kernel rot. It has been found during field survey work, for example,
that the incidence of the European corn borer increased F. moniliforme disease and
fumonisin concentrations (GASGA, 1997).
Bacteria
These also cannot be seen by the naked eye, but occur almost everywhere, especially in
moist environments. Under moist conditions they cause further deterioration of already
affected grains, cause chemical changes, and sometimes produce toxic substances. When a
product’s moisture content is equal to or below the safe moisture content, the danger of
attack by bacteria and fungi is negligible (Hayma, 2003). Bacteria will spread into and
through grains causing discoloration and lesions which may be the only manifestations of
infection if grain is dried before complete destruction can occur (Champ and Highley,
1986).
Insects
These are six-legged invertebrates. Their soft inside parts are protected by an external
skeleton. The life cycle of an insect goes through the following stages: adult - egg - larva -
pupa - adult. Adults and larvae damage grains, either by eating them or by spoiling them.
Infected products also become more vulnerable to other insects, fungi and bacteria.
Already in the field products may be infected by insects and during storage their number
will rapidly increase. The female adults lay their eggs on the surface of a grain, between
grains or sometimes inside the grain. The larvae hatching from the eggs are often the big
grain eaters. A larva growing inside a grain eats out the inside of it. The pupa is the
transitional stage between the larva and adult stages. During this stage the growing insect
needs no food. From the pupa the adult emerges, and continues eating the grain and then
lays more eggs. Most of the insects that affect stored grains develop most rapidly at
temperatures between 25 and 30°C and a relative humidity in between 70 and 80%.
16
However, they may still develop, although at a lower rate, at lower or higher temperatures
and relative humidity (Hayma, 2003).
Angoumois grain moth (Sitotroga cereallela (Olivier)) has good resistance to mold. Its
development ceases below 16°C. Sitophilus oryzae can develop only at temperatures of 13
to 34°C. Optimum temperature for the growth and development of stored product insects
is between 25 to 33°C (Fields and Muir, 1996). Grain temperatures of 60 to 65°C for a few
seconds or minutes are lethal to kill all stored grain insects (Banks and Fields, 1995;
Muhammad et al., 2006).
Controlling insects with insecticides, including fumigants, rather than using preventative
methods incurs great cost. In addition, infestation generally results in dissatisfied
customers and related marketing problems that develop from a poor reputation in
marketing channels. The most unfortunate consequence of not managing grain properly is
the loss of money, time, and effort to produce the grain (i.e., seed, fertilizer, field pest
management, harvesting, threshing costs). Store preparation, drying and cooling are the
main ways to protect against grain storage pests. Changing temperatures and increasing
moisture contents at the surface of grain bulks may allow residual infestations to develop.
Occasional control failures due to poor management may require remedy. Most storage
insects carry over from previously stored grain, so it is important to detect any residual
infestations. Chemical grain treatment may be justified if persistent infestations cannot be
controlled by drying and/or cooling.
Rodents
Rats and mice may cause considerable damage to crops in the field and products in
storage. This can occur in various ways: consumption of part of the product,
contamination of part of the product with their excrement, damage to buildings, storage
containers and packing material and they are also carriers of diseases which are harmful to
people (Hayma, 2003). Regardless of storage period, grain pest can invade the stored grain
and affect the quantity and its quality. Rodents cause high quality losses in stored grain by
contaminating the grain with urine and hair as they consume part of it (Ofor et al., 2009).
17
Birds
Like rodents, birds also consume some grain foods but also contaminate a greater quantity
with droppings. Losses caused by birds can be avoided by preventing their access to the
stored grain. In the field, birds may damage a standing maize kernels in the ear making it
suitable for fungal contamination usually Aspergillus flavus (Dick, 2008).
Metabolic activities
Cereal grains are living materials and their normal chemical reactions produce heat and
chemical reactions by products. Insects, mites and microorganisms also generate heat
which if presented in large number may lead to a significant rise in temperature of stored
products. Under aerobic condition the complete combustion of a typical carbohydrate
(starch), generating liquid water can be represented by the following equation (Fleurat,
2004b).
C6H12O6 + 6O2 6CO2+6H2O + 2817 kJ
The stored products, as well as the organisms attacking stored products are living things
and hence breathe. During respiration, oxygen is used up and carbon dioxide, water and
heat are produced (Hayma, 2003).
The rate of respiration, and thus the amount of carbon dioxide, water and heat that are
produced is strongly dependent on the temperature and the moisture content of the product
(Hayma, 2003). The rate of respiration is reduced approximately by one half for each 10°C
reduction in temperature. In fact, respiration is a self-accelerating process. The moisture
produced during respiration can increase the moisture content of the grain, which in turn
will create favorable conditions for fungus growth. Normally the respiration rate of well-
dried grains with low moisture content is extremely low and therefore no rise in
temperature will occur spontaneously. Consequently, the storage temperature is not of
such great importance, provided the products are stored as cool as possible.
Grain itself and the microbial contaminants respire slowly when stored dry. However, if
the water availability is increased to 15 to 19% moisture content, spoilage fungi grow
18
resulting in a significant increase in respiratory activity. This can result in an increase in
temperature and sometimes spontaneous heating from the colonization by a succession of
fungi resulting in colonisation by thermophilic fungi and actinomycetes (Fleurat, 2002;
Magan et al., 2004). The chemical Heating occurs when this energy is released faster than
it can escape from the grain. The requirement for oxygen increases with temperature, to a
maximum of 40°C, but does not decrease greatly until the temperature exceeds 65°C. At
this temperature, microbial growth is largely inhibited and heating results from exothermic
chemical oxidation (Naresh and David, 2007). Thus, the respiratory quotient (RQ) may be
0.7 to 0.9 up to 65°C but less than 0.5 at higher temperatures. By utilizing the RQ, CO2
production can be translated into dry matter loss.
Typically, complete respiration of carbohydrates gives a RQ, i.e. ratio of O2 consumed to

CO2 produced of about 1.0 and it has been calculated that 14.7 g CO2 per kg of grain will
be released for every 1% loss of grain dry matter (Naresh and David, 2007). During
anaerobic fermentation, only about 0.493 g CO2 is evolved from a kg of grain for every
1% dry matter loss. Alternatively, a RQ <1.0 may result from lipid or protein metabolism.
The greater the CO2 production, the shorter the safe storage period without dry matter
loss.
Studies by Jonsson et al. (2000) utilized respiratory rates over a wide range of aw (water
activity) levels and temperatures to examine development of moulds in stored grain and
effects on germinability, fungal biomass and maximum safe storage times. They suggested
that the maximum storage time without mould growth was probably halved if moisture
content at harvest was increased by 1 to 3% or if storage temperature was increased by
5°C in grains (Naresh and David, 2007).
2.6 Losses of Grain
Grain loss during and after harvest is a major problem in agricultural production in
developing countries. Insect pests, rodents, and microorganisms comprise the largest
proportion of post-harvest losses. Storage fungi are known to be the dominant causes of
post-harvest deterioration of cereals, legumes and oilseeds in the world (Mashilla, 2004).
19
The handling, processing and preservation of crop produce at the time and after harvesting
may be identified as "Postharvest management" (Shimelis, 2001). Improved post-harvest
management depends on the quality and efficiency of handling, processing and
preservation techniques used. Thus, whether the gains in crop yield is marginal or
significant; it could be nullified because of inappropriate or unreliable post- harvest
management employed. Moreover, proper storage also helps to ensure household and
community food security until the next harvest and helps producers not to sell at low price
during the glut period that often follows a harvest. The major problem is that post- harvest
technology has been given less emphasis by concerned bodies and the public altogether.
Lack of awareness has negatively affected the development of the post- harvest sector
throughout the country. To attain high level of nutritional status, improve post- harvest
management, reduce post- harvest losses and produce value added products, effective and
efficient research programs on the post – harvest sector need to be strengthened and
promoted (Shimelis, 2001).
Post-harvest loss of maize in Ethiopia is estimated between 5 and 19% (Dereje, 2000). The
magnitude of post-harvest loss goes beyond the physical and deterioration in quality and
includes 'sunk' cost in terms of inputs used to produce the lost grain. The introduction of
well-managed warehouses in rural villages will reduce post-harvest grain losses which
ultimately support the country’s effort to ensure national food security (Abebe and Bekele,
2006).
2.7 Losses of Maize Grain
Maize is one of the world’s leading cereal grains along with rice and wheat (Emily and
Sherry, 2010). It is an important component of both human and animal diet. During
storage the grain undergoes quantitative and qualitative losses. The losses occur mainly
because of improper storage (Ishrat and Shahnaz, 2009). A large number of pathogenic
fungi, bacteria, viruses and insects, infecting maize grain cause combined worldwide
annual losses of 9.4% (Shurtleff, 1980). Fungi affect the quality of grain through increase
in fatty acid, reduction in germination, mustiness and finally spoilage of grain. The
importance of fungi is also due to production of toxins that causes health hazard in human
and animals (Ishrat and Shahnaz, 2009). Survey of literature shows that a number of fungi
viz., Alternaria alternata, Aspergillus spp., Bipolaris maydis, Fusarium moniliforme,
20
Fusarium spp., Cephalosporium spp., Helminthosporium spp., Mucor sp., and Penicillium
spp., have been reported from maize seed (Anne et al., 2000; Mohammed et al., 2001;
Desjardin et al., 2006; Tulin & Askun, 2006). Fungal development in grains is influenced
by temperature, humidity and period of storage (Ishrat and Shahnaz, 2009).
Reports indicate that maize is prone to fungal infection during the pre and post-harvest
period (Hussein and Brasel, 2001). Vasanthkumar (1986) demonstrated the infection of
maize by field and storage fungi during pre and post-harvest practices in relation to fungal
disease of maize. Contamination of crops such as maize usually reflects the incidence of
fungal infection which is affected by factors including environmental conditions (climate
temperature and relative humidity) insect infestation and pre and post-harvest handling
(Kacaniova, 2003)
In the field as well as in the store, many pests and parasites attack maize. Insects are most
often considered as the principal cause of grain losses (Ali et al., 2007). However fungi
are also the second important cause of deterioration and loss of maize (Scudamore and
MacDonald, 2000). Fungi could cause about 50 to 80% of damage on farmers maize
during storage if conditions are favorable for their development (Ali et al., 2007). The
major genera commonly encountered on maize in tropical regions are Fusarium,
Aspergillus and Penicillium. This is the cause of concern because this genera have species
capable of producing a wide spectrum of compounds shown to be toxic to man and
animals (Orsi et al., 2000). Its nutritional characteristics also expose it to the constant
attack of fungi and insect predators (Ali et al., 2007).
According to (Kemeru, 2004), rural farmers around Jimma and Ilubabor zones of
southwestern Ethiopia are facing the most challenging problem with stored grain
deterioration. Usually the seriously affected crop is maize which is susceptible to weevils
attack though it is common problem on other cereals and pulses. The other important agent
for deterioration of the stored grain is rat. Poor storage construction allows vertebrate loss
agents (rats, mice, birds, apes and monkeys) to easily attack the stored grain forcing the
farmers to store their grains in partitioned room inside the living house with sack or bag.
While mentioning the extent of the physical losses of the traditionally stored grain,
21
farmers repeatedly respond that they are equally sharing the stored crops with the
vertebrate animals and rodents especially with rats.
Post-harvest grain loss is the loss of grains (quality and/or quantity) between the moments
of harvest and consumption. Losses occur at all stages of the post-harvest handling,
including pre-processing, transportation, storage, processing and packaging and
marketing. Grain losses could arise either from poor post-harvest handling or from
production over and above the capacity of the available stores, or both. It is therefore
important to recognize that post-harvest grain management practices and capacities (and
not just production and marketing) are important for many reasons including the
achievement of food security objective (Abebe and Bekele, 2006).
Rodents cause high quality losses in stored grain by contaminating the grain with urine
and hair as they consume part of it. The other cause of storage losses is the multiplication
of fungi due to excessive humidity in particular Aspergillus spp. that produces dangerous
toxins (Aflatoxins) which make grain unfit for human consumption. Aflatoxins, even in
lower concentration are carcinogenic and at higher concentration are acute toxic
(Fandohan et al., 2003).
Grain quality is not solely a variety characteristic but also depends on the crop production
environment, harvesting, processing and handling systems. Therefore, maintaining good
grain quality is the concern of all disciplines such as breeding, agronomy, entomology,
grain science and technology.
2.8 Grain Quality
Grain quality is a nebulous term that means different things to different people. The term
has different meanings for those who are concerned with the handling, storage, processing
and utilization of grain, even though all will be looking for grain of 'good quality'. For
example, grain-handling agencies want dry, insect-free, undamaged grain, which will store
well. Millers want a grain, which will yield a high percentage of finished produce; and
consumers will be concerned with nutrition, flavor, appearance or cooking qualities of
grain. Grain quality depends on the grain type and its end use (Hoffman and Shaver,
22
2011). It includes a range of properties that can be defined in terms of physical (moisture
content, test weight, kernel size, total damaged kernels, heat damage, broken kernels,
stress cracking, breakage susceptibility), sanitary (fungi and mycotoxin count, insects and
insect fragments, rodent excrements, foreign material, toxic seeds, pesticide residue, odor
and dust) and intrinsic (milling yield, oil content, protein content, hardness, density, starch
content, feed value, viability, storability) quality characteristics.
The quality properties of a grain are affected by its genetic traits, the growing period,
timing of harvest, grain harvesting and handling equipment and techniques, drying system,
storage management practices, and transportation procedures. Apart from short-term aging
or maturation immediately after harvest, quality cannot be improved during storage,
handling and processing - on the contrary, it can be easily lost.
Only a few of these quality factors are usually used for grading grains. Often contracts
between processors and producers will specify specific varieties, quantities, and quality
criteria. Some processors offer premium for high quality grain as a function of how far
within the maximum or minimum specifications farmers deliver their crops. Thus, it is
important to understand how these quality characteristics are affected so that producers
can maintain and deliver these grain quality attributes, and receive deserved premiums.
Every type of grain can be said to possess properties which contribute to its overall
quality. A consideration of the various properties or qualities, either alone or together,
allows the grain to be graded and valued, or enables the design and development of
optimum methods for handling, storing and processing.
2.9 Quality Characteristics of Grains
2.9.1 Intrinsic quality
Intrinsic quality characteristics such as starch, oil and protein content can be directly
related to end use (Cecilia et al., 1991) and the potential for improving these
characteristics is quite high. Other maize properties that reportedly affect yield and quality
of maize products are test weight, kernel density, breakage susceptibility, kernel hardness,
water absorptivity and average kernel weight (Weller et al., 1988). Test weight is not a
precise indicator of any specific grain quality attribute. It remains a major pricing factor
23
because general quality defects associated with low test weight are not reflected in any
other category of the official grades. Both density of kernels and packing in the container
influence test weight. Maize has an average void volume (space between kernels in bulk)
of 42.3% (Cecilia et al., 1991). Measurements that eliminate void spaces give a more
accurate volume measurement for density calculations. The 1000-grain weight is a
function of seed size and density. The ratio of dense horny endosperm to floury endosperm
causes variation in kernel hardness. Maize with higher proportion of horny endosperm is
typically harder by mechanical measures of hardness. Hardness is an intrinsic quality
characteristics that can be altered by genetics and the environment.
Breakage susceptibility is a function of internal stress cracks. These cracks are found in
either type of endosperm starch and weaken the kernel. Breakage susceptibility is affected
by mechanical damage, heat treatment, and to a lesser extent, genetics, whereas true
hardness is affected by genetics only (Cecilia et al., 1991). This is because breakage
susceptibility, which is correlated with stress cracks, will increases as hardness increases
when stress cracks are present (Weller et al., 1988). Hardness and breakage susceptibility
provide useful information to dry millers. Maize with high ratio of horny endosperm free
of stress cracks produce high yields of large flaking grits.
Water absorption rate and kernel size are negatively correlated which is expected since
smaller kernels provide more surface area per unit mass (Cecilia et al., 1991). The water
absorption index (WAI) for maize may measure steeping performance. Steeping is the first
critical step to ensure a clean separation of germ, endosperm and fiber in maize wet
milling.
Consumers have become accustomed over the years to demanding grain with particular
qualities. Where consumers are close to the source of the grain, e.g. in local markets, their
own preferences and the laws of supply and demand will control the quality of the grain.
However, where grain is traded over large distances, particularly internationally, the
consumer will influence over the quality through regulatory standards established and
imposed to protect consumer rights. Therefore, criteria of grain quality must be established
and accepted by all parties in the grain trade. The criteria assigned to grain are the intrinsic
24
variety qualities and those which are environment or process induced. The more important
quality criteria as they relate to grading of grain are described below.
Color
Cereal grains are pigmented and range through the color spectrum from very light tan or
almost white, to black. Where extractive milling is required, highly-pigmented varieties
may give low yields of white flour. Table 3 and Table 4 shows the color specification for
white and mixed maize grain respectively based on Ethiopian quality standard (ECX,
2010).
Composition
Composition (protein, carbohydrate, lipids and their breakdown products) qualitatively

and quantitatively influences product acceptability by affecting texture and taste (FAO,
1994b). Quality changes evolve slowly in stored grain and more rapidly in milled or
processed intermediary products. Some grain components, for example husk, are inedible
and quantitatively influence product yield and gross nutrient available to the consumer.
Maize grain has proximate composition (as a percent dry matter weight) of 6.15 to 15.01%
proteins, 1.74 to 5.56 % fat, 77.4 to 89.5% carbohydrate and 0.62 to 6.28% ash. Total fatty
acid (as percentage of oleic acid) in refined maize oil ranges 18.6 to 39.2% (Ridley et al.,
2004). Other authors reported an average composition for mature white maize grain as it
contains 9.4 % proteins, 4.7% fat and 31.8% free fatty acid as percent of oleic acid. It
contains 75.8 % carbohydrate and 1.2% ash (USDA, 2004; Badu-Apraku and Fakorede,
2006).
Bulk Density
Each type or variety of grain when in optimum health, fully mature has a characteristic
bulk density. This is defined as the weight per standard volume measured in a standard
manner (FAO, 1994b). The same characteristic is variously known as 'test weight', 'bushel
weight' or 'specific weight'. If the bulk density varies the trend is usually downwards and
indicative of reduced overall quality of the grain. Factors which commonly affect bulk
density are the genetic make-up of the grain, insect infestation, excessive foreign matter
25
and high percentage moisture content in the grain. Bulk density of maize grain ranges 0.76
to 0.88 (g/cm3) depending on varieties (Mathew, 2010a).
Odor, aroma
Most grain types, when fresh, have a distinctive natural odor or aroma. This is generally
accepted as an indicator of good quality (FAO, 1994b).
Table 3. Grading parameters for three grades of white maize

Parameters WM1 WM2 WM3
Test Mass kg/hl. % min. 71 66 65
Total Impurities, % max 8 12 16
Of Which:
- Broken kernels, % max 2.0 3 5
- Foreign matter, % max. 0.5 1 1.5
- Damage, % max 5 7 8
- Other grains, % max 0.5 1 1.5
Contrasting Color, % max (for white maize only) 3 5 7
Color classification
White maize shall conform to the following color requirements
Percent of other color within white color, min. 3% 5% 7%
WM= white maize
Table 4. Grading parameters for three grades of mixed maize

Parameters MM1 MM2 MM3
Test Mass kg/hl. % min. 71 66 65
Total Impurities, % max 8 12 16
Of Which:
- Broken kernels, % max 2.0 3 5
- Foreign matter, % max. 0.5 1 1.5
- Damage, % max 5 7 8
- Other grains, % max 0.5 1 1.5
Color classification
Mixed maize shall conform to the following color requirements
Percent of other color within white color, min. 7%
MM= mixed maize
26
As with most natural produce, some grain varieties are better-liked than others because of
their odor. Offensive odor might resulted from invasion of grain by microorganisms which
means grain quality loss (Mashilla, 2004).
Size, shape
Grains are classified by size (length) and shape (length: breadth ratio) considering size in
their specification. In general a small range in size assists with processing and handling
(FAO, 1994b). Maize has a kernel size (mm) ranges of length (9.1 to 11.9), width (8.1 to
9.5) and depth (3.6 to 4.8) (Mathew, 2010a).
2.9.2 Induced qualities
Age
During the post-harvest phase, grain undergoes complex biochemical changes termed
'aging'. Changes to carbohydrate, lipids and protein fractions result in, for example,
firming of texture on cooking, and increased gas-retention capability. For most consumers,
the effects of these changes are considered to be desirable. When plotting consumer
acceptability of a grain product against its age since harvesting, generally it is considered
to be maturing during the upward curve of the graph, and deteriorates only when the curve
changes direction downwards.
Broken grain
Grain is marketed normally in whole grain form and is considered to be of inferior quality
if broken. Breakage may occur from fissures because of excessive drying/weathering
conditions in the field or during handling (FAO, 1994b). Breakage reduces quality by
reducing acceptability and by increasing susceptibility to infestation during storage. This
affects milling yield by contributing to weight loss.
Chalky or immature grain
Empty grains result from sterility and pre-harvest infections and insect attack. Immature
grain content is affected by time of harvest. Thin white (usually opaque) grains are caused
by incomplete grain filling and may result from pests or disease. Chalkiness is caused by
27
incompletely filled starchy endosperm which disrupts light transmission, causing opaque
regions. In most cereals, chalky areas have lower mechanical strength on crush tests and
may break during handling. The broken portion is more easily invaded by certain storage
pests (FAO, 1994b).
Foreign matter
Dilution of the prime product by foreign matter reduces the value, and also may affect
handling and processing. Foreign matter may be sub classified as animal origin (insects
and their products, rodent excrete), vegetable origin (straw, weeds, seeds, dust,
microorganisms/toxins) and mineral origin (stones, mud, dust, glass, metals, oil products,
pesticide residues). Elements from all three sub-classes may render the grain unfit for
consumption (FAO, 1994b). Potentially the greatest threat to health probably is from
microorganisms contamination with the bacterial products of poor sanitation, and with
toxins and chemical pesticide residues.
Infested, infected grain
Grain mass, and therefore yield, is reduced by infestation. Contamination not only has
direct food hygiene implications but also indirect ones, as invading microorganisms may
produce toxins under certain conditions which may lead to acute or chronic illness.
Mixed varieties
A mixture is an indication of poor pre- and post-harvest management and supervision, e.g.
seed selection, lot segregation, treatment and contamination. Grains differing in size and
other characteristics affect processing potential (FAO, 1994b). Whilst preference for a
particular variety may be influential nationally or regionally, internationally traded grain is
recognized usually by grain type rather than by variety e.g. yellow or white maize.
Moisture content
Moisture content of grain plays a crucial role in post-harvest processing and is associated
with most of the induced characteristics. Water vapor will diffuse throughout a bulk of
grain and the moisture content will tend to equalize. 'Hot spots' may occur at a site of
28
increased respiration (caused by sprouting, infestation or microbial activity), and
condensation may occur on cold grain or containers.
2.10. Ethiopian Traditional Grain Storage Methods
The traditional grain storage containers in different part of Ethiopia are made of various
locally available materials to store grains either in threshed or un threshed (usually maize
on cob) forms. The type of locally available materials usually dictates type of containers
and differs from region to region. Each of the storage methods has their own advantages
and disadvantages. Traditional storage structure found in Ethiopia includes: earthenware
pots and gourds, bark, baskets, sacks/bags (made of polyethylene, sisal or goat skin),
basket silos, roof storage, gotera, maize cribs, underground pits, small store houses,
earthen silos, Gombisa which is made from split or whole bamboo poles and grass
thatched roofing (Kemeru, 2004; Abebe and Bekele, 2006).
Farmers in the central, northern, southern parts of Ethiopia commonly store their seeds and
grains in above-ground bin known as gotera, which is made of bamboo sticks, wood
and/or mud (Mashilla, 2004). Common storage container of maize used by majority of the
farmers (about 97%) in Jimma and Ilubabor zones of south western Ethiopia is traditional
above-ground container locally known as Gombisa and Sacks (Kemeru, 2004).
Survey conducted in the three major grain producing areas of Ethiopia indicated that
majority of the farmers (93.3%) using such traditional storage containers lose their stored
grains due attack by storage pests and/or other factors (Abebe and Bekele, 2006).
2.11 Management and Control of the Stored Grain
Drying of grain
In the process of drying heat is necessary to evaporate moisture from the grain and a flow
of air is needed to carry away the evaporated moisture. There are two basic mechanisms
involved in the drying process; the migration of moisture from the interior of an individual
grain to the surface, and the evaporation of moisture from the surface to the surrounding
air. The rate of drying is determined by the moisture content and the temperature of the
grain and the temperature, the relative humidity and the velocity of the air in contact with
29
the grain. There is an essential need to dry grain quickly and effectively after harvest and
before storage to retain maximum quality, to attain a moisture content sufficiently low to
minimize infestation by insects and microorganisms (like bacteria and fungi), and to
prevent germination. Wherever possible, it is traditional to harvest most grain crops during
a dry period or season and simple drying methods such as sun drying are adequate to
lower the moisture to a level safe for storage (FAO, 1994b). However, maturity of the crop
does not always coincide with a suitably dry period. Furthermore, the introduction of high-
yielding varieties, irrigation, and improved farming practices has led to the need for
alternative drying practices to cope with the increased production and grain harvested
during the wet season as a result of multi-cropping.
The traditional practice of grain drying is to spread crop on the ground, thus exposing it to
the effects of sun and wind. The logic of this is inescapable; the sun supplies an
appreciable and inexhaustible source of heat to evaporate moisture from the grain, and the
velocity of the wind to remove the evaporated moisture is, in many locations, at least the
equivalent of the airflow produced in a mechanical dryer (FAO, 1994b).
In tropical countries, for several months of the year, the mean level of insulation upon the
ground is more than 0.5 kW/m² (measured as a mean over the hours of daylight). The heat
available therefore, assuming a 12-hour day, is 21.6 MJ/m², a quantity theoretically
sufficient to evaporate 9 kg of water (FAO, 1994b).
Today, sun drying of grain remains the most common drying method in tropical
developing countries. It is first employed when the crop is standing in the field prior to
harvest as is the case with maize cobs which are left on the standing plant for several
weeks after attaining maturity. Although not requiring labor or other inputs, field drying
may render the grain subject to insect infestation and mould growth, prevent the land from
preparation for the next crop and is vulnerable to theft and damage by animals. Drying in
the field may also be carried out after harvest with the harvested plants laid in stacks with
the grain, maize cobs or panicles raised above the ground and exposed directly to the sun.
Drying on flat exposed surfaces is the most common way of drying grain after harvesting
and threshing. For drying small amounts of the farm grain it may be spread on any
convenient area of land. Contamination with dirt cannot be easily avoided with this
30
method and a cleaner dried grain can be obtained by drying the grain on plastic sheets,
preferably black (FAO, 1994b).
Artificial dryers employ heat from combustion of fossil fuels and biomass resources,
directly or indirectly, and in both natural and forced convection systems. Hot-air drying
may be necessary to maintain the quality of high moisture grain. However, holding grain
at too high temperature for too long in the dryer will reduce grain quality. Using higher
airflow rates is a safer way to speed up drying than increasing temperature. Selling grain at
a moisture content below that allowed by market results in economic loss. Grain loses
approximately 1.2% of its weight for every 1% of moisture content reduction. For
example, selling grain with 9% moisture content when up to 12% is allowed means a loss
of about 3.6% of the value (Ken, 2005).
Temperature and moisture management
High moisture grain should not be stored long-term. Accepted moisture limits for trading
and storage of grains are generally below the limits at which molds develop. Moisture
moves around inside a silo. Daily and seasonal temperature changes near the silo walls
cause air movements that carry moisture to the coolest parts of the stored grain. Pockets of
high moisture grain or inclusion of green leaf material with the grain can affect quality of
all the grain in storage because of moisture movement. Water vapor will diffuse
throughout a bulk of grain and the moisture content will tend to equalize. 'Hot spots' may
occur at a site of increased respiration (caused by sprouting, infestation or microbial
activity), and condensation may occur on cold grain or containers (FAO, 1994b).
Correct moisture content of the grain is important. If the percentage moisture content of
the grain is above or below that which might be expected under ambient climatic
conditions, or is outside the limits prescribed by a grain grading standard, the grain may be
said to have acquired an abnormal moisture content. An abnormally high moisture content
encourages infestation by both insects and microorganisms and it allows the grain to
metabolize more rapidly than is desirable, resulting in unwanted chemical changes,
germination, premature aging, or increases in temperature leading to heat damage and
perhaps self-destruction of the grain.
31
An abnormally low percentage moisture content usually presents fewer problems. Grain is
unlikely to become badly infested by insects when very dry, and the risk of
microbiological infection is low or negligible (Champ and Highley, 1986).
Locally higher temperatures may occur in the centre of grain stored in bulk. Hot spots may
be caused by big differences in day and night time temperatures. It can also be caused by
insects. Hot spots results in and condensation of water vapor causing consequent spread of
the insects, fungal growth and grain sprouting. If the product is uniformly dry when put
into storage, and is kept dry and at a constant temperature, damage due to condensation
and transference of moisture will be minimal. Products with a high moisture content have
a fairly high respiration rate. Therefore high temperatures during storage limit the storage
period. Every degree that the temperature can be lowered means a longer storage period
(Hayma, 2003).
Aeration will slow the rate of deterioration of high moisture grain, but if the moisture is
more than two or three percent above the limits shown in Table 5, it should be dried before
long term storage. Early harvesting of grain at higher moisture produces higher quality and
higher yield of grain, but those advantages are lost unless aeration and drying are used to
minimize losses in storage (Ken, 2005).
When grain has been dried satisfactorily to safe moisture content and is kept in a store that
is structurally sound, it may still be at risk from the effects of serious increases in the
moisture content, which may be induced by prevailing climatic conditions (Champ and
Highley, 1986). Grain may take up moisture directly from the ambient air in the store, or
moisture migration from warmer or cooler parts of the grain bulk may occur. Moisture
uptake is likely to occur in those regions where humidity is consistently higher as in the
humid tropics or during a tropical rainy season and where grain is stored in bags rather
than in bulk. Moisture migration, on the other hand, is more likely to occur in grain bulks,
especially in metal silos or bins where the grain is in contact with the walls. Under these
conditions, solar heating of the silo walls can result in large temperature differentials. i.e.
high temperatures at one side or at the periphery of the structure. These differentials can
cause convection currents in the grain accompanied by moisture migration from high to
32
low temperature areas. As the air is cooled, its relative humidity rises and may reach
saturation at which point excess water will be deposited on the surface of the cooler grain.
Localized increases in moisture content can therefore occur and create conditions
favorable for the development of microorganisms and subsequent qualitative deterioration.
Aeration can prevent the occurrence of these potentially serious conditions and maintain
the quality of the stored grain (Champ and Highley, 1986). The passage of air through the
grain will have not only a cooling effect but will maintain a uniform, low temperature
throughout the bulk.
Maize grain production, quality and quantity losses and major deterioration factors, has
been reviewed in the literature under Ethiopian condition in general Jimma in particular.
Though scanty, there has been works on stored maize storage in traditional containers.
However, there is no information on the exact cause of deterioration. The storage
environment, the quality and the associated pests of maize stored in the traditional storage
containers in the area are not clearly known. It is therefore essential to study the existing
management practices, storage environment and quality of maize taken to storage. To that
effect, two major traditional storage containers (Gombisa and Sacks) in the study area
have been considered in this study. Availability of such information will help take
corrective measures in improving post harvest grain management and hence support the
efforts being made to become a food secured country.
33
3. MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 Description of the Study Area
The study was carried out in Jimma zone which is located at about 335 km to the South
west of Addis Ababa lying between latitudes 7°15´ N and 8°45´ N, and longitudes 36° 00´
E and 37°40´ E (DPPA, 2006). The zone has elevation ranging from 880 to 3360 m.a.s.l.
(Haile and Tolemariam, 2008). It experiences annual average rainfall of 1000 mm for 8 to
10 months. The main rainy season extends from May to September and the small rainy
season takes place in February, March and April. The temperature of Jimma varies from
8°C to 28°C with annual average temperature of 20°C.
The lowlands agro-ecology have altitude range of 1000 to 1500 m.a.s.l., the intermediate
lands 1500 to 2500 m.a.s.l. and highlands 2500 to 3360 m.a.s.l. (FAO, 2009a). Only the
former two agro-ecologies growing BH-660 maize variety were selected for the study
(BH-660 maize variety is not being produced currently in the highland agro-ecology of the
study area). Districts Omo Nada and Kersa were selected from intermediate agro-
ecologies and Tiro Afeta and Sekoru were selected from the lowland agro-ecologies of
Jimma zone. The selection of these districts to represent each agro-ecology were done
randomly among the dominant producers of BH-660 maize variety. These districts lie
between latitudes 07°42′50″ N and 07°53′50″N, and longitudes 37°11′22″E and
37°20′36″E, at an altitude of 1671 to 1864 m.a.s.l. the area has a sub-humid, warm to hot
climate with a mean annual temperature of 19°C and mean annual rainfall of between
1300 and 1800 mm (Delenasaw et al., 2010).
3.2 Experimental Design
Factorial arrangement using Complete Randomized Design (CRD) was employed for the
experiment. The factors were: traditional maize storage containers (Gombisa and Sack) at
two levels, agro-ecologies (lowland and intermediate) at two levels and storage periods at
four levels. The treatment combinations were replicated twice in an agro-ecology. The
study was conducted for six months by taking samples every two months, including at the
start of the study.
34
Table 5. The study plan
Storage containers Gombisa Sack
Agro-ecology Intermediate Lowland Intermediate Lowland
Storage period (months) 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6
Figure 2. The study area
3.3 Survey
Survey and data collection on the existing management practices of stored maize by
farmers was conducted using structured questionnaire. Interview was conducted to
selected 12 farmers (including those from where samples were collected) of each district
owning the target storage containers (Gombisa and Sacks) that makes up 24 respondents.
Pre-testing of the questionnaire was done on 6 farmers already considered in one of the
selected district in order to assess the time it would take to administer the questionnaire for
each respondent and to see whether it captured all the important issues required in the
survey.
35
3.4 Experimental materials
3.4.1 Maize Grain
The grain used for the study was that harvested in December 2009. The cobs stored in
Gombisa were de-husked by hand and were dried to 11.3 to 15.4% moisture content in
open sun drying. This is the usual practice in the study area to dry the grain to safe
moisture content. The grain used for Sack storage has been shelled by traditional method
of repeated beating of the cobs with a club while held inside Sacks or open barrels. The
shelled grain is dried to about 10.7 to 15.1% moisture content by the sun. It was spread on
a mat in thin layer and stirred frequently to ensure even drying to safe moisture content
level.
3.4.2 Storage Containers
3.4.2.1 Gombisa
Gombisa is an above ground traditional storage bin used to store maize cob in the study
area (Fig. 3). It is cylindrical in shape with vertical un-plastered wall made from woven
plant stems usually Eucalyptus. Conical grass- thatched roofing is used to cover the top
end of the cylinder usually overhanging it about 70 cm out of the wall. The structure rests
on a low level (10 to 60 cm) wooden platform mounted on four, six or eight stone pillars
or on a short yoked wooden post (10 to 60 cm) firmly driven in to the ground (penetrating
the ground). The floor is made of mats of woven bamboo splits and dry stalks of sorghum
under which a wooden beam of Eucalyptus laid. The floor is usually plastered with salt
and cow dung mixture (1.5 kg table salt per kg cow dung and a liter of water). The height
of Gombisa ranged from 124 to 155 cm while its diameter varies from 148 to 304 cm.
consequently the capacity varies from 10 to 25 Quintals (1 Quintal=100 kg) of maize cobs.
It is generally neither air tight nor moisture and insect proof. It is also not rodent proof as
the wooden post foundation has no rat guard unit. It is used to store maize cob. Maize cob
loading and unloading is effected by removing the thatched roofing. The container is
maintained or completely replaced after one to two years of service. It is susceptible to fire
36
damage, usually subjected to rodent attack, theft and flooding damage from bottom of the
floor. The cracks and crevices found over the wall would provide a breeding site to insect
pests and cause infestation of the stored maize. A single family owns one to four numbers
of Gombisas based on the quantity and grain type harvested.
Figure 3. Gombisa, the prominent type of maize storage container in Jimma zone
3.4.2.2 Sack
A polypropylene Sack (Fig. 4) is the other type of storage container used in the study area
to store shelled maize after treating it with either of traditional or modern pesticides. It is
made of woven synthetic fiber. It is a readily available and low cost (Birr 2 to 4) indoor
storage container that can hold 50 to 100 kg of shelled maize grain. A family in the study
area stores two to ten numbers of Sacks of shelled maize.
Rodents are known to dislike nibbling polypropylene Sacks, as the strands tend to get in
between their teeth (Peter and Hampton, 1992). These Sacks are slippery and not ideal for
stacking. They also tend to wear quickly and hence cannot be used repeatedly year after
year. It cannot be used for storing maize for long term storage (more than 6 months)
because the material tends to inhibit free circulation of air with in the Sack. Polypropylene
Sack is also difficult to fumigate. It is puncture resistant and has moderate permeability to
moisture, gases and odors (Peter and Hampton, 1992).
37
Figure 4. Stack of shelled maize stored in polypropylene Sacks
3.5 Loading of the Storages
Gombisa
Cob samples in Gombisa were placed in a meshed wire cages (Fig. 5) that can hold
about10 cobs each. The cages were placed at the bottom end of 11 cm diameter polyvinyl
chloride (PVC) tube the surface of which is perforated with 1.4 cm diameter so that the
environment in the cage and the PVC tube is identical to that in the rest of the Gombisa.
The cobs placed in the cages were each attached to a string the other end of which appears
at the top of the stored grain. This arrangement is to facilitate removal of the sample cobs
for analysis during the storage period. Three such cages connected to PVC tubes were
placed at the center and the two sides of the middle layer in each Gombisa filled with
maize cobs. They serve as representative samples of the stored maize cobs for evaluation
throughout the study period.
Sacks
After the shelled grain is taken in, the Sacks were sewed/tied up and stacked in 2 or 3
layers horizontally on top of each other, close to the wall usually near the door inside the
house. In the study area, a family stores 2 to 10 number of Sacks. Lumber or plastic sheet
is placed under it on usually cleaned floor to protect it from moisture coming through the
ground.
38
Figure 5. Perforated PVC tubes and cages used in Gombisa for cob sampling
3.6 Sampling of the Grain for Evaluation
Initial sample of 6 cobs were randomly taken before the bulk was loaded in to Gombisa,
shelled manually to make 1 kg and was kept in an air-tight plastic bag. The initial maize
samples from each storage containers were taken as a control at the beginning of the
storage. Subsequent sampling from Gombisa and Sacks was carried out at an interval of
two months for the storage period of six months. Three cobs were drawn from each cage
via the tube using strings, shelled manually and thoroughly mixed. Of these samples
collected from each Gombisa and Sack, 200g were kept in clean airtight plastic bag in a
refrigerator until needed for chemical composition analyses. The remaining parameters
were evaluated immediately following sample collection.
For sampling grain from the Sacks, procedure described in AOAC (1995) was followed.
The Sacks were laid horizontally and initial composite samples were taken from center,
sides and top of each sack immediately after the shelled maize was stored in to the Sacks
using a slotted, cylindrical lead Trier (50 cm long and 2 cm diameter) with pointed
metallic end point. The collected samples were thoroughly mixed manually on a clean
plastic sheet and 1 kg of it was kept in a clean airtight plastic bag for analysis. Quality
analysis of the maize was done first before storage and then after two, four and six months
of storage.
39
D
A B C
Figure 6. Points of measurement and sample collection in Gombisa (A, B, C and D are
temperature and relative humidity measurement and cob samples collection points; Points
A, B and C shows where the cages were installed).
3.7 Evaluation of Physical Parameters
3.7.1 Grain moisture content
The grain moisture content was measured using calibrated moisture tester (Dickey-john
Corp. Auburn, IL 62615 USA) immediately before storage and during the subsequent
grain sampling periods from each storage container. Each time the moisture meter was
calibrated using grain samples whose moisture content was determined by hot air drying
oven method following the instruction in the instrument manual (AOAC,1995).
3.7.2 Storage temperature and relative humidity
The storage temperature and relative humidity were measured at an interval of 15 days
(Muhammad et al., 2006) during the storage periods using portable digital Thermo-
Hygrometer (Hanna, HI8564, Italy, with accuracy level of 0.4°C and ± 2% relative
humidity by inserting its probe through the wall of the bin. Measurement for sacks was
also done by inserting probe of the meter through holes. Measurements were taken at the
center, sides and top points of both Gombisa and Sacks (Fekadu et al., 2000).
40
3.7.3 Seed germination test
Seed germination test was conducted using standard procedures of ISTA (1996). Four
hundred maize kernels per sample were used. The seeds were kept in petri-dishes lined
with filter paper moistened with about 4 ml distilled water in four replicates (100 seeds
per petri-dish) and incubated at room temperature (25°C) for 5 to 7 days. The germinated
seeds were counted visually up on appearance of radicle and/or plumule and percentage
germination was calculated as follows:-
3.7.4 Weight loss
The grain weight losses was determined using the thousand grain mass (TGM). Thousand
grain kernels were randomly taken and weighed using digital balance and recorded as
Thousand Grain Mass (Proctor and Rowley 1983; Mashilla, 2004). Then the percentage
weight loss was computed using the formula indicated below.
Where M1 is thousand grain mass (TGM) at the beginning of the study and Mx is the TGM
of grain at storage time, t.
3.7.5 Insect damage
Insect damage was assessed by count method. Two hundred seeds were randomly taken
from each sealed maize sample and the number of insect damaged and un-damaged was
observed with hand lens for the presence of hole or burrow. The percentage of insect
damaged seed was then calculated (Fekadu et al., 2000; Wambugu et al., 2009).
41
3.7.6 Physically damaged kernel
From each of the sample in sealed plastic bags, thousand grain kernels were randomly
selected among samples taken before storage of grains. The number of physically
damaged/broken and undamaged kernels was visually observed. Degree of damage due to
mechanical threshing or beating during shelling with club was evaluated by percentage of
damaged kernels was then calculated (AACC, 2000; Adugna et al., 2003).
3.7.7 Foreign matter
Of grain sampled from Sack storage, pure grains were separated from foreign matters by
visual sorting, weighed using digital balance and the percentage foreign matter was
determined (FAO, 1994a).
3.8 Chemical Analysis of Maize
The chemical composition analyses of the samples collected was done using standard
analytical procedures (AOAC, 1990; AACC, 2000). The chemical components analyzed
included percentages of crude protein, crude fat, dry matter, ash, total carbohydrate and
free fatty acid.
3.8.1 Crude protein of maize
Crude protein of maize was determined using Kjeldahl method as described in AOAC
(1990). About 0.3 g of ground maize flour (1 mm) was weighed in to Kjeldahl digestion
flask and catalyst mixture (K2SO4 mixed with CuSO4.5H2O in the ratio of 1:10) was added
in to each flask. Then, 10 ml of concentrated H2SO4 (98%) was added and the sample was
digested at a temperature of 420°C for about 3 hours until the solution was clear white.
With the completion of digestion (when the digested sample becomes colorless or light
42
blue) the samples were allowed to cool. After the samples were cooled, 30 ml of distilled
water was added in to each digestion flask followed by 25 ml of 40% NaOH. Immediately
the contents were distilled by inserting the digestion tube line in to the receiver flask that
contains 25 ml of 4% boric acid solution. The collected ammonia distillate was then
titrated against a standardized 0.1N HCl until the end of the titration is attained (where the
titration color changes from green to purple). Then the volume of HCl consumed to reach
the titration end point was read from the burette and the nitrogen content % was calculated
as follows:
Where VHCl is volume of HCl in liter consumed to the end point of titration, NHCl is the
normality of HCl used and 14 is the molecular weight of nitrogen. The obtained nitrogen
percentage was expressed on dry matter basis and the resulting value multiplied by a
factor of 6.25 to obtain percentage crude protein of each sample. Urea sample was used in
the analysis as control.
3.8.2 Dry matter
Dry matter was determined according to method described in AOAC (1990). Ground
maize (2 g) samples (less than 1 mm size) were dried in air draught oven at 135°C for 2
hours. The weight of the sample after drying divided by the initial weight and multiplied
by 100 represented the dry matter in percent.
Where m3 is weight of dish and the sample in g after drying, m1 is weight of dish in g and
minitial is sample weight before drying.
3.8.3 Crude fat
Crude fat was determined according to method described in AOAC (1990). Ground maize
(2 g) sample (less than 1 mm) was dried in air draught oven at 130°C for 1 hr. The sample
43
was extracted with anhydrous ether in a soxhlet extractor for about 4 hours and the ether
was allowed to drain out of the thimbles for 30 min. The solvent was evaporated by drying
the beakers at 105°C for 30 min in air draught oven and the mass left was determined as
percentage of crude fat.
3.8.4 Ash
Ash content was determined according to AOAC (1990). Ground maize (2 g) sample (less
than 1 mm size) was dried in air forced oven at 120°C for 1 hr, carbonized over a blue
Bunsen burner and was ignited in a muffle furnace at 600°C until free from carbon and
residue appears grayish-white. The percent of ash was calculated on dry matter basis (db)
as:
Where m1 is mass of crucible in g, m2 is mass of crucible and sample in g before ashing

and m3 is mass of crucible, the sample and ash after ashing in g.
3.8.5 Free fatty acid
Free fatty acid was determined according to AACC (2000). Maize grain (100 g) sample
was dried in an air draught oven at 65°C to a constant mass and was ground using mortar
and pestle to a fineness less than 500 µm. The ground maize sample (100 g) was added in
to 250 ml beaker. Diethyl ether (100 ml) was added in to a beaker containing maize flour
and the content was stirred using a magnetic stirrer for 15 minutes. The beaker was then
kept (for soaking) for about 4 hours. The supernatant solution was then decanted in to a
screw capped test tubes (15 ml) and was centrifuged for about 10 minutes at 2200 r.p.m
(revolutions per minute). The solution was again decanted in to another test tubes (30 ml)
and the solvent (diethyl ether) was evaporated in low temperature steam bath at a
temperature of 45°C until the solvent (diethyl ether) completely evaporates (about 30
minutes). Mass of oil remained in the test tube was weighed.
44
The extraction was done by rinsing the sample twice with the same volume of solvent
(100ml). Ethyl alcohol (50 ml) was neutralized by adding phenolphthalein (2 ml) indicator
solution and 0.1N NaOH solution. Mass in g of the extracted oil was added in to
neutralized alcohol and titrated with standardized 0.25 N NaOH with vigorous shaking
until permanent faint pink color appears and persists for at least a minute. Free fatty acid
was calculated from sodium hydroxide required to neutralize the acids in 100 g sample
and the result was expressed as a percent of oleic acid (AACC, 2000).
Where mL is milli liter of NaOH required, M is molarity of NaOH solution and F = 282 is
the equivalent weight of FFA as a percent of oleic acid.
Total carbohydrate was determined by difference according to AOAC (1990).
3.9 Major Biotic Factors Identification
3.9.1 Identification of fungi
Sixty maize seeds were randomly taken from each sealed plastic bags. Thirty seeds were
surface sterilized with 1% sodium hypochlorite and the remaining unsterilized. The
surface treated and untreated seeds were plated on potato dextrose agar (PDA), 10 seeds
per petri-plates and the petri-plates were incubated at 24 ±ºC in alternating cycle of 12
hours light and 12 hours darkness for 7 days. The samples were incubated for additional 5
to 7 days to detect late appearing and slow sporulating fungi. Mounts from each fungal
colony was prepared on a microscopic slide and the slide was examined under high power
magnification of a compound microscope. Fungi growing on seeds were identified (Ellis,
1971; Fekadu et al., 2000; Ishrat and Shahnaz, 2009). The percentage occurrence of seed
borne fungi detected from a total of 96 maize samples collected from four districts.
3.9.2 Identification of insects and mites
Each sample was sieved over 2mm mesh sieve (Abraham, 1995). Both live and dead
insects were removed, counted and identified to genus level using insect identification
45
procedure outlined by Borror et al. (2005). The samples were re-bagged and held at room
temperature (25ºC) to determine internal infestation or parasitism. After about a month
any emerged insects were counted and recorded as previous (Abraham, 1995). The
numbers of insects (live and dead) per a kilogram of a sample was recorded for each insect
species identified (El-Kashlan, et al., 1995).
3.10 Method of Data Analysis
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was performed on the chemical composition, insect population, insect-
damaged grain, germination and weight loss over the storage periods were analyzed using
analysis of variance (ANOVA) of SPSS Version 16.0. Means were compared for the
significant factors by least significant difference (LSD) test, and significance was accepted
at 5% level. Descriptive statistics was used for organizing and presenting the data of
remaining information including the survey data.
46
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Results of the Survey
4.1.1 Harvesting and Drying of Maize
Harvest maturity of maize in the study area is recognized mainly by visually observing
opening and drying up leaves and/or husks and drooping (hanging downward) of cobs on
the stalk. Few farmers also recognize the harvest maturity by shelling the kernel biting it
or pressing it between finger nails. Maize harvesting in the study area starts in October and
ends in January. The peak harvesting time is however November. Maize harvesting and
consumption starts while the cob is green (Berhanu et al., 2007). Harvesting is carried out
by all of the respondent farmers in the study area manually by removing the maize cob
from the standing stalk. Cobs are detached from the standing maize plants and either de-
husked or left in sheaths and made ready for transportation to the drying site or directly to
the storage containers.
Maize drying in the study area is mainly (75% of farmers) carried out in the field by
leaving it on the standing stalk until the cobs are harvested and taken to storage containers.
A few farmers (25%) allow further drying for 1 to 7 days in the sun before storage. Sun
pre-drying of cobs is on simply cleared un plastered bare ground in the farm or homestead
area, over which either dry maize stalk, tents or plastic sheets are spread. Those farmers
who pre-dry cob before storage use the detachability of kernels off the cob when manually
shelled (finger-palm shelling) and crushing sound produced when the kernel is tried to be
broken by teeth to recognize that the maize was dry enough to be stored. Other farmers
observe a normally white colored kernels turning somewhat pale reddish up on drying to
judge pre-storage sun drying.
4.1.2 Transportation
All respondent farmers transported the harvested cobs to the drying site or directly to
storage containers by human shoulders or donkey back except one respondent who used a
horse-cart.
47
4.1.3 Threshing of maize
Shelling or threshing of maize is the separation of grain kernels from ears. Shelling of the
dried cobs by majority of farmers (96%) in the study area is carried out by repeated
beating of the cobs with a club while held inside Sacks, open barrels or spreading it over
plastered ground floor in the house or outdoor. Mechanical maize sheller annually lent
from Jimma Agricultural Mechanization Research center is used to shell cobs for seeds by
farmers in Omo Nada district. Cleaning of the shelled maize grain is done through manual
winnowing and picking away un wanted materials such as leaves broken cobs by rodents
and rodent excreta.
4.1.4 Cleaning of Gombisa and Sacks
Gombisa and Sacks are cleaned before the new harvest is taken in. Almost all of the
farmers (96%) in the study area clean their Gombisa and Sacks before the new grain is
taken in. Gombisa is cleaned by sweeping the floor and wall using broom made of hard
grass or any plant twigs and leaves found in its vicinity. Sacks are cleaned by turning
inside out and shake them off to remove any remnant pest, egg or dirt. After cleaning, the
floor of Gombisa is smeared by cow dung and table salt mixtures (1.5 kg table salt per kg
cow dung and a liter of water) before the cobs are taken in.
4.1.5 Aeration
Aeration mechanism practiced for maize stored in Gombisa by majority of farmers

(reported by all Gombisa using farmers) in the study area is natural ventilation attained by
leaving the inside and outside of the wall un plastered. In addition, few farmers leave
about 30 cm aeration clearance between the roofing and top of the wall during
construction. For stacks of Sacks stored inside the living room all of the Sack using
farmers of the study area also use natural ventilation by keeping grains near the doors that
is usually kept open throughout the day.
48
4.1.6 Pesticides suppliers and mode of treatment application
Chemical pesticides used in the study area by most farmers (75%) are Actellic and DDT
supplied by MoA. Few farmers (4%) apply Malathion to cobs in Gombisa purchasing it
from local private shops. Some of the farmers (21%) apply DDT purchased from local
private shops. MoA advise the farmers for the dose and mode of application of pesticides
supplied to them although the farmers do not observe it to minimize costs and due to
shortage of supply. However, farmers reported that none of the local chemical sellers
advise and even know the right dose to be applied.
Chemical pesticides (Actellic or DDT) application in the study area is undertaken before
the grains are taken in to the storage containers. Gombisa users (92%) apply a powder
chemical pesticide by sprinkling it over grain and then mixing it manually (about 50 to
100 g per Gombisa and 10 to 50 g per Sack). Alternatively, a solution of 30 to 50 g
powder per liter of water is sprinkled to the cob between a layer of about three quintals.
The wall and floor of Gombisa is also dressed by powder of the same chemical pesticide
before cobs are taken in. There are also farmers (17% of Gombisa users) who apply the
pesticide solution prepared by boiling table salt and water together (about 60 g salt per
liter of water) on the cob. Application of pesticide for shelled grain stored in Sacks is by
sprinkling chemical powder and manually mixing the shelled maize grains on plastic
sheets before it is taken in to the Sack.
Those farmers in the study area who, for any reason, do not use chemical pesticides on
their grain use plant leaf and seeds. Plant materials used in the study area include the leaf
extract of Cheka (Senna siamea (Lam.) and Endod (Phytolacca dodecandra); seed extract
of Abayi (Maesa lanceolata) and Shenfa (Lepidium atvuim). About one kilogram of a sun
dried, ground seed or leaf of the traditional pesticide is mixed in a liter of cold water and
sprinkled once at the beginning of the storage, on cobs ready to be stored in Gombisa and
shelled grain to go in to Sacks as a main treatment. About 500 g powder per Gombisa and
20 to 50 g per Sack is used.
49
4.1.7 Grain inspection technique and corrective measures taken
Inspection of the stored maize cob in Gombisa is carried out every 7 to 30 days for the
presence of deteriorated grain and theft by majority (75%) of the Gombisa using farmers
in the study area. There are also farmers (17%) who do the inspection every day and also
who do not inspect their grain at all (12%) once stored in the Gombisa. Shelled maize
stored in Sacks are inspected every month by 12% of the respondents and every 2 to 4
months by 25% of the farmers in the study area. Few of the farmers (33%) do the
inspection every 2 to 15 days. Inspection of the stored maize cob in Gombisa is by
opening the thatched roofing and visually observing for the any signs of deterioration or
physical damage by rodents and other pests. Shelled maize grain stored in Sacks is
inspected by visually observing the grains on the palm for the damages.
Corrective measures adopted by most farmers (75%) in the study area for the control of
storage pests is mainly application of additional chemical pesticides like Actellic. Few
farmers (17%) also apply additional chemical pesticides such as DDT and Malathion as a
corrective measure following the inspection.
Most of the storage pest control practices are traditional and includes:
 Use of plant materials (leaf extract of Cheka (Senna siamea (Lam.) and Endod
(Phytolacca dodecandra); seed extract of Abayi (Maesa lanceolata) and Shenfa
(Lepidium atvuim))
 Sprinkling up to 15 liters of cold water on top of cob grains in Gombisa for cooling it
according to respondents. This is done one to two times during the storage periods
following the storage inspection and when farmers feel the structure became hot.
 Pre-cleaning of the store with broom before the new grains are taken in and
 Dressing of the floor of Gombisa with table salt and cow dung mixture (1.5 kg table
salt per kg cow dung and a liter of water).
4.1.8 Measures taken by farmers for signs of deterioration other than pest attack
Majority of farmers in the study area (88%) responded that they had never encountered
signs of deterioration other than pest attack. However, some (8%) of them encountered a
50
water leakage through grass thatched roofing and solved the problem by increasing the
compactness of the thatched grass to block leakage. Other farmer reported rodent (rat and
porcupine) attack and that they tried to solve by traps though they reported ineffectiveness
of the method.
4.1.9 Loss estimate due to problems associated with storage
The extent of maize grain loss estimated due to problems associated with storage in the
study area ranged from 10 to 70% of their total maize yield. Kerstin et al. (2010) reported
10 to 12% loss of maize stored in traditional storage containers similar to Gombisa due to
insect pests. Loss of about 18% was also reported in other African countries by the same
author for maize grain stored in polypropylene Sacks for the storage periods of six months.
Per household, average actual loss was reported about 12 % of the average total grain
produce (Abebe and Bekele, 2006).
Farmers of the study area had presented their request to Government or non-Governmental
organizations for an intervention to minimize stored grain quality deterioration problem
through the following points:
 Supply of effective (that enable them store for more than six months without any
deterioration) chemical pesticides that help control weevils, moth and termites
 Timely provision (supply) of right type and quantity of chemical pesticides
 Training for awareness creation on the right dosage and mode of treatment application
of right chemical and traditional pesticides
 Any rat protection technology in particular and any technology that help reduce stored
maize quality deterioration.
4.2 Results of the Experimental Study
4.2.1 Physical Quality Characteristics

Moisture content
The data of moisture content of maize grain sampled from intermediate and lowland agro-
ecologies is presented in Table 6. At the beginning of the storage in the intermediate agro-
51
ecology, the average moisture content of the shelled grain was found to be a bit higher,
13.5%, than that with cob stored in Gombisa (13.23%). Both grains lost moisture as
storage time increased to 60 days reaching a little over 10%. In the following storage
months, grain with the cob stored in Gombisa continued to lose moisture attaining the
lowest value of about 9%. The situation with shelled grains stored in the Sacks was
different in that the moisture content exhibited increment to 11.08% and 11.7% after 120
and 180 days of the storage time respectively.
At the beginning of the storage in the lowland agro-ecology, the average moisture content
of the grain with the cob and shelled grain was 14.58% and 13.58% respectively. In the
intermediate agro-ecology the average moisture content of the grain was 13.23% and
13.50% for the cobs and shelled in Sacks respectively. Differences in the initial grain
moisture content of grains could be due initial exposure of sampled grains to different
ambient temperature and relative humidity. Grains stored in both storage containers lost
moisture as storage time increased to 60 days reaching values of 10.47% and 9.93% in
Gombisa and Sack respectively. In the following storage days, grain with the cob stored in
Gombisa continued to lose moisture attaining the lowest value of about 9% after 180 days.
The situation with shelled grains stored in the Sacks was different in that the moisture
content exhibited increment to 10.8% at 120 days and 12.3% at 180 days of storage time.
This is probably due to poor level of natural aeration in the grain stored in Sacks as
compared to in Gombisa along with cumulative effect of respiration from grain itself,
insects and mold population existed. The decrease in the moisture content from grains in
both of Gombisa and Sacks could be due to release of moisture in to the surrounding dry
air. The decrease in the moisture content in Gombisa was higher than that in Sacks. This
might be due to more ventilating capacity of perforated wall of Gombisa than that of the
Sack. Polypropylene Sack is moderately permeable to moisture, gases and odors (Peter
and Hampton, 1992).
Maize grain stored in polypropylene Sacks also exhibited similar increment in moisture
content from 11.21% at initial storage loading day to 11.53% after 90 days of storage
(Kerstin et al., 2010 ; Chulze, 2010 ). The changes in grain moisture content can be
attributed to variations in ambient temperature and relative humidity during storage.
52
Table 6. Moisture content of maize grain sampled from Gombisa and Sacks under intermediate and lowland agro-ecologies
Moisture content (%)*
Intermediate agro-ecology Lowland agro-ecology

Storage period (days) Gombisa Sack X ± SE Gombisa Sack X ± SE
Initial loading day 13.23 13.50 13.37 ± 0.41 14.58 13.58 14.08 ± 0.33
60 10.07 10.57 10.32 ± 0.11 10.47 9.93 10.20 ± 0.22
120 10.10 11.08 10.59 ± 0.35 10.18 10.80 10.49 ± 0.19
180 9.17 11.70 11.18 ± 0.27 9.20 12.30 11.38 ± 0.32
*Means of six observations
53
The increase in moisture content in grain stored in Sacks at 4 and 6 months could be due
to the cumulative effect of respiration from fungi, weevils, moths and grain itself that kept
increasing and that might have added moisture to the grains. All durable stored products
are hygroscopic and can therefore absorb or desorb (release) moisture from and to the
surroundings depending on exposure to humid or dry air, respectively. Where the air
temperature and relative humidity are variable, the grain moisture content will also vary
(Ogendo et al., 2004). Mirna et al. (2007) observed similar moisture content variation
(decrease and abrupt increment) in Sack stored grain at a temperature of 20°C and varying
relative humidity.
Storage temperature and relative humidity
Data on temperature and relative humidity in Gombisa and Sack over 180 days of the
storage periods is presented in Tables 7 and 8. The average temperature had ranged from
19.9 to 32.5°C and 15.77 to 28.88°C for Gombisa and Sack respectively. Average relative
humidity ranges of 35 to 52.8% and 31.33 to 63.67% were recorded for Gombisa and Sack
respectively. These temperature and relative humidity records were optimal for the
identified fungi and insect pest species to flourish.
4.2.2 Effect of storage periods on physical quality characteristics of maize grain

under intermediate agro-ecology
Insect damage
The data of insect damaged kernels sampled from intermediate agro-ecology are presented
in Table 9. The damage level by insects at the beginning of the storage period was only
2.42%. Of course, this could be the attack while the crop was in the field before harvest
and later while in stack for drying. The data for both storage types indicated a swift
increase in degree of kernel damage with 11.5% and 10.75% of damage for Gombisa and
Sack respectively.
54
Table 7. Storage temperature and relative humidity profiles of Gombisa and Sacks under
intermediate agro-ecology as storage period increases.
Gombisa Sacks
Storage
period Temperature* Relative humidity* Temperature* Relative humidity*
(days) (ºC) (%) (ºC) (%)
ID 24.55 ± 1.72 36.17 ± 2.63 19.87 ± 0.39 29.33 ± 0.62
15 25.27 ± 2.14 34.00 ± 1.59 19.93 ± 1.89 30.83 ± 1.08
30 27.97 ± 1.27 36.67 ± 2.92 20.48 ± 0.43 30.00 ± 0.45
45 26.13 ± 2.94 30.83 ± 1.35 24.03 ± 1.81 33.33 ± 1.33
60 24.20 ± 1.11 38.50 ± 2.64 25.75 ± 0.35 32.00 ± 0.45
75 29.98 ± 1.09 34.33 ± 1.23 23.00 ± 1.30 30.50 ± 1.34
90 29.25 ± 0.65 42.00 ± 1.61 26.97 ± 0.12 40.00 ± 0.89
105 30.00 ± 1.74 41.83 ± 2.77 24.05 ± 1.82 40.00 ± 1.75
120 30.18 ± 0.34 47.67 ± 2.50 28.82 ± 0.53 48.83 ± 1.49
135 27.00 ± 1.64 51.00 ± 2.05 21.03 ± 1.08 65.17 ± 2.68
150 20.00 ± 1.42 49.00 ± 2.16 19.08 ± 1.29 53.00 ± 1.59
165 20.57 ± 2.86 52.00 ± 2.71 15.00 ± 1.30 60.00 ± 1.73
180 18.50 ± 0.79 54.67 ± 5.12 17.00 ± 0.82 41.00 ± 0.82
*Means of twelve observations; ID = Initial loading day
After two months of storage period the damage was significantly (p<0.05) higher than that
on grain loading day. The data showed continued damage in the following two months
with statistically significant increase (p<0.05) to 20.83% and 19.75% for Gombisa and
Sack respectively. The damage level remained unchanged in the final two months. The
damage levels in both storage types are quite enormous as one fifth of the grain was
subjected to damage during six months of the storage period.
Weight loss
Weight losses of the grains stored under intermediate agro-ecology for six months are
shown in Table 9. Consistent increase in weight loss have been observed with statistically
significant (p<0.05) difference between data of successive recordings at two months
55
interval. The losses in percent rose from 1.82% at 60 days of storage to close to 5% at the
end of 180 days.
Table 8. Storage temperature and relative humidity profiles of Gombisa and Sacks under
lowland agro-ecology as storage period increases
Gombisa Sack
Storage
period Temperature* Relative humidity* Temperature* Relative humidity*
(days) (ºC) (%) (ºC) (%)
ID 27.50 ± 0.74 40.00 ± 1.21 21.58 ± 0.69 32.33 ± 0.96
15 25.10 ± 2.63 43.00 ± 4.68 20.22 ± 1.97 35.00 ± 0.86
30 27.13 ± 1.92 41.17 ± 0.95 21.80 ± 0.39 32.67 ± 1.05
45 33.05 ± 2.95 39.17 ± 2.85 26.20 ± 2.26 29.83 ± 1.92
60 28.08 ± 0.53 42.33 ± 1.20 22.53 ± 0.45 35.00 ± 1.03
75 30.20 ± 1.99 39.33 ± 1.41 27.40 ± 2.32 32.00 ± 1.37
90 30.70 ± 0.28 43.00 ± 0.68 27.75 ± 0.23 45.33 ± 0.84
105 35.00 ± 1.82 43.00 ± 1.92 26.60 ± 2.24 45.00 ± 1.32
120 29.32 ± 0.30 45.00 ± 1.29 28.95 ± 0.20 56.83 ± 1.35
135 31.40 ± 1.89 41.00 ± 2.21 23.65 ± 1.10 62.17 ± 4.17
150 24.62 ± 1.22 47.00 ± 1.46 22.03 ± 1.36 58.17 ± 1.33
165 22.20 ± 0.97 49.83 ± 2.15 16.55 ± 1.19 62.33 ± 1.71
180 21.30 ± 1.24 51.00 ± 1.65 20.00 ± 1.43 53.00 ± 1.92
*Means of twelve observations; ID= initial loading day
The increase in weight loss in both storage types with storage time could be attributed to
insect attack as shown by the level of infestation in Table 10. UDA (1996) reported
angoumois grain moth (Sitotroga cerealella) causing about 24% weight loss per kernel of
maize in the store. Brown et al. (1995) also reported stored grain weight losses due to
fungal invasion.
Germination
Germination test data of the maize kernels collected from the stored grain under
intermediate agro-ecology is shown in Table 9.
56
Table 9. Insect damaged kernels, weight loss and germination of maize grain sampled from Gombisa and Sacks under intermediate agro-ecology
for different storage days
Storage Insect damaged kernels (%)* Weight loss (%)* Germination (%)*
period (days) Gombisa Sacks Gombisa Sacks Gombisa Sacks
c c d d a
Initial loading day 2.42 ± 0.20 2.33 ± 0.17 0.00 ± 0.00 0.00 ± 0.00 98.00 ± 0.52 97.50 ± 0.62 a
60 11.50 ± 0.84 b 10.75 ± 0.54b 1.82 ± 0.11 c 1.87 ± 0.12c 87.50 ± 1.23 b 92.00 ± 1.77 a
120 20.83 ± 0.79 a 19.75 ± 1.05a 3.84 ± 0.22 b 3.34 ± 0.14b 81.33 ± 4.73 b 80.17 ± 2.75 b
180 20.75 ± 0.96 a 20.08 ± 0.82a 5.06 ± 0.26 a 4.85 ± 0.22a 68.50 ± 2.90 c 80.50 ± 2.01 b
LSD (0.05) 9.08 8.42 1.22 1.47 10.50 11.50
*Means of twelve observations
Means ± standard error with different letters in a column are significantly different (p< 0.05) according to least significance difference test.
57
Initial test indicated 98% germination. However, the values exhibited statistically
significant (p<0.05) reduction as storage period increased. After two months, it dropped to
87.5% for kernels collected from Gombisa while it remained unchanged in Sacks. A
statistically significant (p<0.05) reduction to 80.17% was obtained for grains collected
from Sacks. The germination capacity of kernels obtained from Gombisa further plunged
to 68.5% in the six months, while that of the kernels stored in the Sack remain unchanged.
Germination loss in Gombisa and Sacks as the period of storage increased might be due to
destruction of seed embryo by weevils (Sitophillus spp.) and angoumois grain moth
(Sitotroga cerealella). Tables 10 and 9 indicate the rise in the levels of insect infestation
and kernel damage respectively as storage time increased. Fekadu et al. (2000), Anita
(2002) and Wambugu et al. (2009) reported kernel damage and germination loss due to
weevils killing the germ and damaging the seed. Ishrat and Shahnaz (2009) reported
reduction in germination due to fungal infestation.
Insect infestation
Data of number of insects (live and dead) per kg of grain sampled from Gombisa and
Sacks are presented in Table 10. Initially the number of insects was 1.83 in both storage
types and agro-ecologies. This could be from insect infestation on standing plant in the
field or later in stacks during sun drying. A statistically significant (p<0.05) increment was
observed in both storage containers and agro-ecologies for every two months increment in
the storage period. There was a highly significant (p<0.01) correlation between insect
infestation and chemical composition of maize grain.
4.2.3 Effect of storage periods on physical quality characteristics of maize grain

under lowland agro-ecology
Insect damage
The data of insect damaged kernels under lowland agro-ecology are presented in Table 11.
The damage level was initially 2.5% and 2.58% for maize sampled from Gombisa and
Sacks respectively. This damage could be due the attack while the crop was in the field
before harvest and later while in stack for drying. The data for both storage containers
indicated a rapid increase in degree of kernel damage with 11.83% and 10.58% of damage
in Gombisa and Sacks after two months of the storage periods respectively.
58
Table 10. Number of insects (live and dead) per kg of stored maize grain sampled from
Gombisa and Sack under two agro-ecologies
Storage Number of insects/kg of grain*
period Intermediate agro-ecology Lowland agro-ecology
(days) Gombisa Sack Gombisa Sack
Initial loading
1.83 ± 0.17 d 1.83 ± 0.17d 1.83 ± 0.17 d 1.83 ± 0.17d
day
60 50.50 ± 0.99c 35.50 ± 2.29c 53.17 ± 1.25 c 45.17 ± 3.36c
120 86.50 ± 2.39b 64.00 ± 3.37 b 90.50 ± 2.25 b 69.83 ± 4.97b
180 101.00 ± 2.45a 79.00 ± 3.68a 101.83 ± 2.51a 82.33 ± 3.67a
LSD (0.05) 14.50 15.00 11.33 12.50
Means ± standard error with different letters in a column are significantly different (p< 0.05) according to
least significance difference test. NS= not significant
Damage level are significantly (p<0.05) higher than that at the beginning of the storage.
The data showed continual damage in the following two months with statistically
significant increase (p<0.05) to 19.42% and 19.92% in Gombisa and Sacks respectively.
The damage level remained unchanged in the final two months. The damage levels
recorded in both storage containers are quite enormous as one fifth of the grain was
subjected to damage. This is consistent with insect infestation presented in Table 10.
Weight loss
Weight losses of the grains stored under intermediate and lowland agro-ecologies for six
months are shown in Table 11. Consistent increase in weight loss have been observed with
statistically significant (p<0.05) difference between data of successive recordings at two
months interval. The losses in percent rose from 2% at 60 days of storage to close to 5% at
the end of 180 days. The weight loss trend and levels are similar during the storage periods
in both storage containers. The weight loss could be due to fungal and insect pest
infestations. UDA (1996) reported angoumois grain moth (Sitotroga cerealella) causing
about 24% weight loss per kernel of maize in the store.
59
Table 11. Insect damaged kernels, weight loss and germination of maize grain sampled from Gombisa and Sacks under lowland agro-ecology
Storage Insect damaged kernels (%)* Weight loss (%)* Germination (%)*
Initial loading
2.50 ± 0.45c 2.58 ± 0.15c 0.00 ± 0.00 d 0.00 ± 0.00d 97.50 ± 0.76 a 96.50 ± 0.76 a
day
60 11.83 ± 0.67 b 10.58 ± 0.60b 1.97 ± 0.07 c 2.01 ± 0.04c 79.50 ± 7.29 b 86.00 ± 5.82 b
120 19.42 ± 0.55 a 19.92 ± 1.45a 3.80 ± 0.18 b 3.79 ± 0.19b 79.17 ± 4.24 b 83.67 ± 1.54 b
180 20.92 ± 0.54 a 18.08 ± 0.75a 5.01 ± 0.25 a 4.87 ± 0.30a 70.17 ± 4.29 b 83.83 ± 1.85 b
LSD (0.05) 7.58 7.50 1.22 1.08 18.00 10.50
Means ± standard error with different letters in a column are significantly different (p< 0.05) according to least significance difference test.
60
Germination
Germination test data of the maize kernels collected from the grain stored under lowland
agro-ecologies is shown in Table 11. Initial test indicated 97% germination. However, the
values exhibited statistically significant (p<0.05) reduction as storage period increased to
two months at which it dropped to 79.50% and 86% for kernels collected from Gombisa
and Sacks respectively. These values remained unchanged for the last four and six months
in both storage containers with final values of 70.17% and 83.83% in Gombisa and Sacks
respectively. Germination loss of grain stored in Gombisa and Sacks as the period of
storage increased might be due to destruction of seed embryo by weevils (Sitophillus spp.)
and angoumois grain moth (Sitotroga cerealella). Fekadu et al. (2000), Anita (2002) and
Wambugu et al. (2009) reported kernel damage and germination loss due to weevils
killing the germ and damaging the seed. Ishrat and Shahnaz (2009) also reported reduction
in germination due to fungal infestation.
4.2.2 Effect of storage type on chemical composition and physical quality

characteristics of maize grain
The data on the effect of storage type on chemical composition and physical quality
characteristics of maize grain under intermediate agro-ecology are presented in Table 12.
Storage type showed significant (p<0.05) influence on germination percent, total
carbohydrate and dry matter content of the grain. Germination percent in Sack (87.54%)
was significantly (p<0.05) higher than that in Gombisa (83.83%). Significantly (p<0.05)
higher value in total carbohydrate (87.45%) was obtained in Sacks than in Gombisa
(81.79%). The dry matter content in Sacks (87.45%) was also significantly higher than
that in Gombisa (82.31%). However, no statistically significant (p>0.05) difference was
obtained on the remaining chemical composition and grain physical quality characteristics.
The difference in carbohydrate and dry matter contents between the two storages could be
attributed to higher rate of insect infestation in Gombisa than in Sack. This is supported by
the insect infestation data presented in Table 10.
The data on the effect of storage type on chemical composition and physical quality
characteristics of maize grain under lowland agro-ecology are presented in Table 13.
61
Storage type showed no significant (p>0.05) effect on all of chemical composition and
grain physical quality characteristics tested under lowland agro-ecology.
Table 12. Chemical composition and physical quality parameters of maize stored in
Gombisa and Sacks under intermediate agro-ecology.
Quality parameters* Gombisa Sack X ± SE
Crude protein (%) 6.89 ± 0.27 7.03 ± 0.30 6.96 ± 0.20
b a
Dry matter (%) 82.31 ± 2.04 87.45 ± 1.47 84.88 ± 1.30
b a
Germination (%) 83.83 ± 2.59 87.54 ± 1.80 85.69 ± 1.58
Free fatty acid (%) 31.82 ± 0.45 31.06 ± 0.51 31.44 ± 0.34
b a
Total carbohydrate (%) 81.79 ± 2.02 87.45 ± 1.47 84.62 ± 1.30
Crude fat (%) 3.02 ± 0.12 3.17 ± 0.14 3.10 ± 0.09
Ash (%) 2.30 ± 0.17 2.25 ± 0.17 2.27 ± 0.12
Weight loss (%) 2.68 ± 0.41 2.51 ± 0.38 2.60 ± 0.28
Infestation 59.96 ± 8.02 45.08 ± 6.27 52.52 ± 5.15
Insect damaged kernel (%) 13.88 ± 1.63 13.23 ± 1.56 13.55 ± 1.12
Means followed by different letters across the row are significantly (p<0.05) different according to LSD
(least significance difference) test.
Table 13. Chemical composition and physical quality parameters of maize stored in
Gombisa and Sacks under lowland agro-ecology
Quality parameters* Gombisa Sack X ± SE
Crude protein (%) 7.05 ± 0.25 7.12 ± 0.18 7.08 ± 0.15
Dry matter (%) 82.33 ± 1.75 85.57 ± 1.90 83.95 ± 1.30
Germination (%) 81.58 ± 3.03 87.50 ± 1.84 84.54 ± 1.81
Free fatty acid (%) 33.37 ± 0.59 32.55 ± 0.80 32.96 ± 0.50
Total carbohydrate (%) 82.33 ± 1.75 85.57 ± 1.90 83.95 ± 1.30
Crude fat (%) 3.11 ± 0.11 3.27 ± 0.13 3.19 ± 0.08
Ash (%) 2.41 ± 0.19 2.38 ± 0.17 2.40 ± 0.13
Weight loss (%) 2.69 ± 0.40 2.67 ± 0.39 2.68 ± 0.28
Infestation 61.83 ± 8.18 49.79 ± 6.62 55.81 ± 5.28
Insect damaged kernel (%) 13.67 ± 1.54 12.79 ± 1.49 13.23 ± 1.06
62
4.2.4 Other characteristics of the stored maize grains
Physically damaged/broken kernels
Data of physically damaged kernels are presented in Table 14. Kernels damage levels of
up to 5.25% were recorded from initial maize sample. Damage observed in Sacks could be
due mechanical damage from beating the ear with clubs during shelling. Damage could
have also been occurred while the cobs were transported, loaded in to storage containers
and damped on to the ground. Mechanical damage to the grains depends on the method of
harvesting, threshing and moisture content of the grain during threshing. Grains with
relatively lower moisture content are more sensitive to breakage than grains with higher
moisture content (Hayma, 2003). Dry seeds with a moisture content of, for example, 8%
are more sensitive to breaking than seeds with a moisture content of 14%. The number of
broken grains affects the chance of infection by insects and fungi, which in turn results a
decrease in the germination capacity microorganisms like bacteria usually infest an
already damaged grain causing chemical changes to the grain and sometimes produce
toxic substances (Hayma, 2003).
Table 14. Physical damage of maize grain sampled from Gombisa and Sacks
Physically damaged kernels** (%)
Storage period Gombisa Sack
Initial loading day* 2.54 ± 0.74 5.25 ± 0.75

**Mean of twelve observations
* One kg samples (from which thousand grains were randomly taken) was only considered for physically
damaged/broken kernels at beginning of the storage days other than regular monthly sampling.
Breakage reduces quality by reducing acceptability and by increasing susceptibility to

infestation during storage. This affects milling yield by contributing to weight loss. The
broken portion is more easily invaded by certain storage pests (FAO, 1994b). The level of
damage recorded is much higher than standard (0.2%) set by (ECX, 2010) as quality white
maize (Tables 3 and 4).
63
Foreign matter
Data on foreign matter of maize grain is presented in Table 15. Foreign matter of up to
0.51% that is slightly higher than the standard value for quality maize was recorded. The
maximum of 0.5% foreign matter is set as standard for Ethiopian white maize as quality
maize according to (ECX, 2010) specification for Ethiopian grade 1 white maize, WM1
(Table 3 and Table 4). Dilution of the prime product by foreign matter reduces the value,
and may affect handling and processing. Inclusion of for instance green leaf material with
the grain can affect quality of all the grain in storage because of moisture movement from
the leaf to the grains in bulk (FAO, 1994b).
Table 15. Foreign matter in maize grain sampled from Gombisa and Sacks
Foreign matter* (%)
Storage period (days) Gombisa Sack
Initial loading day** 0.51 ± 0.06 0.44 ± 0.04

**Initial loading day was only considered
4.2.5 Chemical Analysis of Maize
4.2.5.1 Effect of storage periods on chemical composition of maize grain under

intermediate agro-ecology
Crude protein
The data on crude protein of grain sampled from Gombisa and Sacks under intermediate
agro-ecology are presented in Table 16. At the beginning of the storage crude protein was
7.29% and 7.59% for grains sampled from Gombisa and Sacks respectively. After two
months of the storage periods grains in Gombisa remain unchanged and except at six
months where it showed a significant decreased value of 5.29%. The value however
showed no significant (p>0.05) difference for grains stored in Sack. Decrease in crude
protein could be due to attacks by weevils (Sitophillus spp.) and angoumois grain moth
(Sitotroga cerealella) which is supported by the level of insect infestation that feed on
germ and endosperm of the kernel constituting 18.4% and 0.8% of crude protein
respectively (Watson, 1987). Insect infestation data in Table 10 supports the same.
64
Table 16. Effect of storage periods on crude protein, crude fat and dry matter content of maize grain stored in Gombisa and Sacks under
Storage Crude protein (%)* Crude fat (%)* Dry matter (%)*
Initial loading
7.29 ± 0.59a 7.59 ± 0.74 3.07 ± 0.31 3.42 ± 0.33 89.30 ± 0.75 a 90.03 ± 0.84
day
60 7.82 ± 0.32a 7.30 ± 0.77 3.05 ± 0.26 3.61 ± 0.24 86.87 ± 3.74 a 88.21 ± 3.21
120 7.18 ± 0.37a 6.99 ± 0.39 2.72 ± 0.18 2.72 ± 0.21 80.64 ± 3.08 a 87.31 ± 3.13
180 5.29 ± 0.22b 6.22 ± 0.44 3.25 ± 0.14 2.93 ± 0.23 72.42 ± 4.31 b 84.26 ± 3.92
LSD (0.05) 1.89 NS NS NS 14.45 NS
Means ± standard error with different letters in a column are significantly different (p< 0.05) according to least significance difference test. NS= not significant
65
Crude fat
The data on crude fat of grain sampled from Gombisa and Sacks under intermediate agro-
ecology are presented in Table 16. Initially crude fat was 3.07% and 3.42% for grains
sampled from Gombisa and Sacks respectively. In the following month, the value for
grains in Sack kept uniformity as initial storage period. Significant (p<0.05) reduction was
observed after four months of the storage period for grains in Sacks. However, no
statistically significant (p>0.05) difference was obtained for grains in Gombisa with
storage time. Reduction in crude fat content with increased in storage time could be due to
attacks by weevils (Sitophillus spp.) and angoumois grain moth (Sitotroga cerealella)
which is supported by the level of insect infestation. Insects feed on germ and endosperm
of the kernel which constitute 33.2% and 0.8% of crude fat (Watson, 1987) respectively.
Insect infestation data in Table 10 supports this result.
Dry matter
The data of dry matter content of grains sampled from Gombisa and Sacks under
intermediate agro-ecology are presented in Table 16. At the beginning of the storage, the
dry matter was 89.3% and 90.03% for grains stored in Gombisa and Sacks respectively.
The data for Gombisa remained unchanged in the following two and four months and
indicated significant (p<0.05) reduction at six months of the storage period. Grains
sampled from Sacks however showed no significant (p>0.05) difference over six months
of the storage periods. Though not statistically significant, a decreasing trend for grains
samples from Sacks was observed over the storage periods. Reduction in dry matter might
be due to decrease in crude protein and crude fat because of consumption of parts of the
grain by the identified insect pests. Data of insect infestation in Table 10 supports this
result.
Free Fatty Acid
Table 17 presents the data of free fatty acid content of the grain stored in both storage
types under intermediate agro-ecology. No significant (p<0.05) difference has been
observed among the values for grains stored in Gombisa and Sacks as related to storage
time.
66
Table 17. Effect of storage periods on free fatty acid, total carbohydrate and ash content of maize grain stored in Gombisa and Sacks under
Storage Free fatty acid (%)* Total carbohydrate (%)* Ash (%)*
Initial loading
31.60 ± 1.04 30.19 ± 1.37 87.23 ± 2.04 a 90.03 ± 0.84 0.96 ± 0.03 c 0.93 ± 0.02b
day
60 30.50 ± 0.75 30.00 ± 0.77 86.87 ± 3.74 a 88.21 ± 3.21 2.45 ± 0.07 b 2.42 ± 0.14a
120 31.50 ± 1.01 31.99 ± 0.77 80.64 ± 3.08 b 87.31 ± 3.13 2.84 ± 0.07 a 2.95 ± 0.08a
180 33.70 ± 0.19 32.09 ± 0.95 72.42 ± 4.31 b 84.26 ± 3.92 2.95 ± 0.10 a 2.71 ± 0.16a
LSD (0.05) NS NS 14.44 NS 0.39 0.53
67
Though not statistically significant, it appears that the free fatty acid content after 180 days
of storage has shown sign of increment with storage time. The free fatty acid levels in
grain indicate the degree of rancidity progress in the oil it contains. Unfavorable storage
conditions will cause rapid release of free fatty acids, which may then be oxidized and
cause rancidity (Eldrid et al., 1995).
Carbohydrate
The data of total carbohydrate content of the grain stored in both Gombisa and Sacks
under intermediate agro-ecology are shown in Table 17. For grains stored in Gombisa,
total carbohydrate decreased continuously throughout the storage time from 87.23% to
72.42% exhibiting statistically significant (p<0.05) difference. On the other hand, grains
stored in Sacks showed no significant difference (p<0.05) in total carbohydrate content
The difference between the two storages could be attributed to the fact that Gombisa was
located out door and thus is more susceptible to insect attack than the Sack. This is
supported by the insect infestation data presented in Table 10.
Ash content
The ash content of the stored grains under intermediate agro-ecology increased with
increase in storage period. As shown in Table 17 initial values were 0.96% and 0.93% for
Gombisa and Sack respectively. The values increased significantly (p<0.05) to 2.4% after
two months and further rose to over 2.8% in the following two months. No statistically
significant increment was observed at the end of the last two months in both storage types.
The explanation for the rise in ash content could be the cumulative effect of the reduction
in the carbohydrate, protein and crude fat contents. The result obtained by Fekadu et al.
(2000) is supportive to this study showing significant increment in ash content as storage
period increased.
4.2.5.2 Effect of storage periods on chemical composition of maize grain under

lowland agro-ecology
Crude protein
The data on crude protein grain sampled from lowland agro-ecology are presented in
Table 18.
68
Table 18. Effect of storage periods on crude protein, crude fat and dry matter content of maize grain sampled from lowland agro-ecology
Storage Crude protein (%)* Crude fat (%)* Dry matter (%)*
Initial
7.58 ± 0.30a 7.51 ± 0.23 3.70 ± 0.22 a 3.73 ± 0.21a 88.82 ± 1.03a 88.36 ± 1.63
loading day
60 7.29 ± 0.37 a 6.76 ± 0.50 3.23 ± 0.11b 3.67 ± 0.32a 84.02 ± 4.38a 85.07 ± 5.01
a c b ab
120 7.55 ± 0.60 7.22 ± 0.42 2.77 ± 0.09 2.87 ± 0.05 82.24 ± 1.84 89.25 ± 1.09
180 5.76 ± 0.46 b 6.99 ± 0.19 2.76 ± 0.13 c 2.81 ± 0.17b 74.25 ± 3.25b 79.59 ± 5.08
LSD (0.05) 1.53 NS 0.46 0.81 9.19 NS
69
At the beginning of the storage period, crude protein was 7.58% and 7.51% for grains
sampled from Gombisa and Sacks respectively. After two months of the storage periods
grains in Gombisa remain unchanged until six months where it showed a significantly
(p<0.05) decreased value of 5.29%. Crude protein content however showed no significant
(p>0.05) difference for grains stored in Sack. Decrease in crude protein Gombisa could be
due to attacks by weevils (Sitophillus spp.) and angoumois grain moth (Sitotroga
cerealella) which is supported by the level of insect infestation that feed on germ and
endosperm of the kernel constituting 18.4% and 0.8% of crude protein respectively
(Watson, 1987). Insect infestation data in Table 10 supports the same.
Crude fat
The data on crude fat of grain sampled from lowland agro-ecology are presented in Table
18. At the beginning of the storage, crude fat was 3.7% and 3.73% respectively for grain
sampled from Gombisa and Sacks respectively. The value continued without significant
(p>0.05) differences in the following two months of the storage periods in Sacks.
However, this value decreased significantly (p<0.05) after four months of storage until the
end of six months. Crude fat stored in Gombisa showed significant (p<0.05) reduction
after two months and four months of the storage period after which it kept statistically
uniform values until the end of six months. Reduction in crude fat content with increased
in storage time could be due to attacks by weevils (Sitophillus spp.) and angoumois grain
moth (Sitotroga cerealella) which is supported by the level of insect infestation. Insects
feed on germ and endosperm of the kernel which constitute 33.2% and 0.8% of crude fat
(Watson, 1987) respectively. Insect infestation data in Table 10 supports this result.
Dry matter
The data on dry matter of grain sampled from lowland agro-ecology are presented in Table
18. At the beginning of the storage, dry matter percent was nearly 88%. The value in
Gombisa kept unchanged on the following two and four months of the storage periods.
Significant (p<0.05) reduction in dry matter was however, observed at the end of 6 months
of storage period. No statistically significant (p>0.05) reduction in dry matter content was
observed for grains stored in Sacks with storage time. Reduction in dry matter might be
70
due to decrease in crude protein and crude fat because of consumption of parts of the grain
by the identified insect pests. Data of insect infestation in Table 10 supports this result.
Free Fatty Acid
Table 19 presents the data of free fatty acid of the grain stored under lowland agro-
ecology. At the beginning of the storage, the free fatty acid was 31.61% and 31.50% for
grain sampled from Gombisa and Sacks respectively. The value remained significantly
(p>0.05) unchanged throughout the storage period 6 months for grains sampled from both
Gombisa and Sacks. Although not statistically significant, it appears that the free fatty acid
has shown sign of increment after 180 days of storage. Insect pests and fungi activities
affect grain quality and promote an increase in free fatty acid (Ishrat and Shahnaz, 2009).
Carbohydrate
The data of total carbohydrate content of the grain stored under lowland agro-ecology are
presented in Table 19. At the beginning of the storage, total carbohydrate is 88%. In the
following 4 months of the storage periods, the value remained unchanged for grains stored
in Gombisa. At the end of 6 months, carbohydrate of grains sampled from Gombisa
reduced significantly (p<0.05) to 74.25%. No statistically significant (p>0.05) reduction in
carbohydrate was observed for grains stores in Sacks with storage time. reduction in
carbohydrate could be attributed to the increased insect infestation levels and hence attack
with storage time. This is supported by the insect infestation data presented in Table 10.
Ash content
Data of ash content of the stored grains stored under lowland agro-ecology are presented
in Table 19. At the beginning of the storage, total carbohydrate is 0.9% and 1.03% for
grains sampled from Gombisa and Sacks respectively. After two months of the storage
periods, the value increased significantly (p<0.05) in Gombisa and Sacks yielding a final
values of 3.11% and 3.08% respectively. The explanation for the rise in ash content over
the storage periods could be the cumulative effect of the reduction in the carbohydrate,
protein and crude fat contents. The result obtained by Fekadu et al. (2000) is supportive to
this study showing significant increment in ash content as storage period increased.
71
Table 19. Free fatty acid, total carbohydrate and ash content of maize grain sampled from Gombisa and Sacks under lowland agro-ecology
Storage Free fatty acid (%)* Total carbohydrate (%)* Ash (%)*
Initial
31.61 ± 0.88 31.50 ± 0.70 88.82± 1.03 a 88.36 ± 1.63 0.90 ± 0.03c 1.03 ± 0.10c
loading day
60 32.00 ± 0.54 31.50 ± 0.16 84.02 ± 4.38a 85.07 ± 5.01 2.67 ± 0.08b 2.70 ± 0.09b
120 32.48 ± 1.90 32.50 ± 2.85 82.24 ± 1.84 ab 89.25 ± 1.09 2.97 ± 0.10a 2.71 ± 0.16b
180 35.40 ± 0.62 34.70 ± 0.70 74.25 ± 3.25b 79.59 ± 5.0 3.11 ± 0.14a 3.08 ± 0.10a
LSD (0.05) NS NS 9.76 NS 0.29 0.37
72
Maize grain has proximate composition (as a percent dry matter weight) of 6.15 to 15.01%
proteins, 1.74 to 5.56 % fat, 77.4 to 89.5% carbohydrate and 0.62 to 6.28% ash. Total fatty
acid (as percentage of oleic acid) in refined maize oil ranges 18.6 to 39.2% (Ridley et al.,
2004). Other authors reported an average composition for mature white maize grain as 9.4
% proteins, 4.7% fat and 31.8% free fatty acid as percent of oleic acid. Maize grain bears
75.8 % carbohydrate and 1.2% ash (USDA, 2004; Badu-Apraku and Fakorede, 2006).
Variations in nutrient composition across the storage periods were reported (Eldrid et al.,
1995; Fekadu et al., 2000) due to biochemical changes the stored products undergo with
increase in storage time under the influence of abiotic and biotic factors, which was also
evident from result of this study.
4.2.6 Biotic Factors Identification
4.2.6.1 Identification of insects
Two insect species belonging to orders Coleoptera and Lepidoptera were identified from
maize samples stored in two traditional storage containers (Gombisa and Sack). Among
Lepidoptera, Angoumois grain moth (Sitotroga cerealella (Olivier)) belonging to family
Gelechiidae and among Coleopterans, Maize weevil (Sitophilus spp.) belonging to family
Curculionidae were identified. Both of the identified insect species are known to be the
primary pest of grains (TDRI, 1984).
4.2.6.2 Identification of fungi
A total number eight species of fungi were isolated from maize seeds. These included
Aspergillus flavus Link ex Grey, Aspergillus fumigatus Fres., Aspergillus niger Van
Tieghem., Aspergillus tereus , Drechslera halodes Subram & Jain., Penicillium
chrysogenum Thom and (Wehmer) Westling, Cladosporium cladosporioides (Fres) de
Vries, and Fusarium oxysporum Schlecht., Emend. Synd & Hans (Tables 20 and 21).
73
Table 20. List of fungi identified from Kersa and Omo Nada storage containers of intermediate agro-ecology
Kersa Omo Nada
Fungi identified Gombisa Sack Gombisa Sack
ID 60 120 180 ID 60 120 180 ID 60 120 180 ID 60 120 180

Aspergillus flavus + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A. fumigatus - - - - - - - - + + - - - - - -
A. niger + + + + + + + + + + + - + + + +
A. tereus - + - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Cladosporium + + - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
cladosporioides
Drechslera halodes + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Penicillium chrysogenum - - - - - - - - - - + - - - - -
Fusarium oxysporum + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Sterile mycelium (white) + + + + - - - - + + - - - + + -
+ is the presence and - is the absence of fungi; ID, 60, 120 and 180 are storage periods in days; ID = Initial loading day
74
Table 21. List of fungi identified from Sekoru and Tiro Afeta storage containers of lowland agro-ecology
Sekoru Tiro Afeta
Fungi identified Gombisa Sack Gombisa Sack
ID 60 120 180 ID 60 120 180 ID 60 120 180 ID 60 120 180
Aspergillus flavus + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
A.fumigatus + - - - - + - - + - - - - - - -
A.niger + + + - + + + + + + + + + + + +
Cladosporium + + + - - - - - - + - + - - - -
cladosporioides
Drechslera halodes + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Fusarium oxysporum + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
+ is the presence and – is the absence of fungi; ID, 60, 120 and 180 are storage periods in days; ID = Initial loading day
75
A. flavus, D. halodes, A. niger and F. oxysporum were the most frequent across the storage
periods and recorded from 90%, 72%, 51% and 44% of the seed samples respectively. A.
fumigatus and C. cladosporioides were detected from 3.6 and 1% samples respectively. A.
tereus and Penicillium species were detected from 0.5% and sterile white mycelium was
detected from 10% of samples (Table 22). The species A. flavus, D. halodes A. niger and
F. oxysporum were recorded from grains stored in both storage containers (Gombisa and
Sack) and almost in all of the four districts consistently throughout 180 days of the
storage periods (Tables 20 and 21). In all of the studied districts, the presence of A.
fumigatus C. cladosporioides A. tereus and Penicillium was inconsistent with the increase
in the storage days. The species P. chrysogenum and A. tereus were detected in districts
found under intermediate agro-ecology and they were detected only from maize samples
stored in Gombisa from Omo Nada and Kersa respectively (Table 20). The remaining
species were detected from maize samples stored in Gombisa and Sacks under both
intermediate and lowland agro-ecologies.
Presence of field fungal species like C. cladosporioides and A. flavus on maize stored in
Gombisa and Sacks could be due to infestation of standing grain in the field, or from
repeated use of same drying floor year after year. The optimum temperature for growth of
stored grain mold is about 25-30°C, but some species like Aspergillus spp. grow well at
35-37°C or above. Grains can be contaminated by spores of storage fungi during harvest,
transport and handling operations (Fleurat, 2004a).
A number of fungi isolated in the present study are known to produce mycotoxins which
are harmful for human health. Mycotoxins can cause severe damage to liver, kidney and
nervous system of man even in low dosages (Ishrat and Shahnaz, 2009)). Fusarium and
Aspergillus species are common fungal contaminants of maize and also produce
mycotoxins (Bakan et al., 2002; Verga et al., 2005). Aspergillus flavus produces aflatoxins
B1, B2, G1 and G2 which are carcinogenic and produce liver cancer (Pesta & Bonday 1990;
Ammirati and Seidl, 2009). Aflatoxins have powerful tetratogenic, mutagenic and hepato-
carcinogenic effects (Wang et al., 2001). A. tereus attacks human skin and nail and is
parasitic on human ear (Domsch et al., 1980). F. oxysporum produce Zeralenone α and
Zeralenone β causes haemorrhage and necrosis in bone marrow. Other mycotoxins include
trichothecenes and zearalenone, compounds known to injure the intestines, bone marrow,
76
lymph nodes, spleen, and thymus. They are produced by species of Fusarium that grow on
grain (Ammirati and Seidl, 2009). Species of Penicillium cause kidney disease in human
and pigs due to production of mycotoxin called Citrinin (Zuber et al., 1987).
Table 22. Percentages occurrence of fungi identified from stored maize in selected districts
of Jimma
Storage periods
Fungi Name ID 60 120 180 %
Aspergillus flavus 41 46 46 39 90
A.fumigatus 5 2 - - 3.6
A.niger 25 29 25 18 51
A.tereus - 1 - - 0.5
Cladosporium cladosporioides 2 3 2 7 1
Drechslera halodes 33 41 37 27 72
Fusarium oxysporum 16 20 24 24 44
Penicillium chrysogenum - - 1 - 0.5
Sterile mycelium (white) 3 11 3 3 10
- Is the absence of fungi; ID, 60, 120 and 180 represent storage periods in days
77
5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Summary and Conclusions
The survey conducted in the study area revealed that harvesting of maize is entirely done
manually. The majority of the farmers (75%) dry the maize crop in the field on standing
plant whereas a few of them (25%) dry by spreading the cobs or shelled grain on a
prepared ground surface in the sun. Shelling of maize is done by beating the cob with
clubs except where the grain is required for seed purpose. In the latter case manual
shelling is very common. The harvested maize is stored 96% of the time in Gombisa and
Sacks, which is often times, cleaned thoroughly before introducing new batch of maize.
Gombisa offers natural ventilation through clearances between the roof and the wall.
Chemical pesticides such as Actellic, DDT, Malathion and various plant extracts are
utilized to treat the harvested crop to fight pests. The survey revealed that the maize grain
loss varied considerably from 10 to 70% of the maize yield depending on various factors.
The average temperature ranges of 15 to 30.18°C and 16.55 to 35°C were recorded in
Gombisa and Sack under intermediate and lowland agro-ecologies respectively. The
average relative humidity range of 29.33 to 65.17% and 29.83 to 62.33% were recorded in
Gombisa and Sack under intermediate and lowland agro-ecologies respectively. These
temperature and relative humidity recorded were optimal for the identified fungi and
insects pest to flourish.
At the beginning of the storage, the average moisture content of the maize grain in
Gombisa and Sack was in the range of 13 to 14.5% in both agro-ecological zones. All
grains lost moisture as storage time increased to 60 days. Grain with the cob stored in
Gombisa continued to lose moisture until 180 days of storage. The situation with shelled
grains stored in the Sacks was different in that the moisture content increased after 120
and 180 days of the storage time (due to rise in the relative humidity of the air in the
house).
Insect infestation increased considerably with storage time reaching between 80 to over
100 per kg in both storage types and agro-ecological zones. As a result, insect damage
78
level increased with storage period reaching 20% after 6 months. This too holds true
regardless of agro-ecology or storage type. Similarly, the weight loss increased to close to
5%. The germination test also showed a consistent drop in germination rate from the initial
value of 97% to about 70% through six months of the storage time. The study also showed
that the physical damage level varied from 2.5% to a little over 5%. Furthermore, the
foreign matter in the grain was about 0.5%. The above differences exhibited in all physical
quality parameters associated with storage period were all found to be statistically
significant (p<0.05).
The study showed that grain stored in Gombisa exhibited statistically significant (p<0.05)
reduction in dry matter and total carbohydrate contents. They decreased from 89 and 88%
to 74 and 72% respectively by the end of six months storage period. Similarly the protein
content of maize stored in Gombisa dropped from 7 to 5.23% in the same period which is
also statistically significant (p<0.05). The ash content showed an overall increase of 2%
while in storage which is statistically significant (p<0.05). Similar changes recorded in
grains that were stored in Sacks under both agro-ecologies were all statistically not
significant (p>0.05).
Maize weevils (Sitophilus spp.) and angoumois grain moth (Sitotroga cerealella) are the
two primary insect species identified from maize samples stored in two traditional storage
containers (Gombisa and Sack) in the study. Number of insects showed significant
differences (p < 0.05) over the storage periods for grains sampled from Gombisa and
Sacks as well as intermediate and lowland agro-ecologies. Higher rate of infestation in
both storage containers and agro-ecologies was observed during 60, 120 and 180 than at
initial of the storage time.
A total number eight species of fungi known to cause deterioration of maize and having
health risk to human and animals due to toxins they produce were isolated from maize
grains. A number of fungi isolated in the present study are known to produce mycotoxins
which are harmful to human health.
The study showed that there is a considerable loss of maize grain harvested each year. The
losses are in various forms including quantitative loss of grains and qualitative losses in
79
terms of chemical composition, seed germination capacity, fitness for consumption and
safety. The efforts done so far to tackle the problem have contributed not much in view of
the large loss (10-70%) and low quality of grain. This calls for a multi-directional
approach in improving pre and postharvest activities including harvesting, drying, storage
methods and their management. It calls for the involvement of all stakeholders (farmers,
researchers, the government, NGO’s, traders) to organize their efforts to alleviate the
problem through various measures. This may include training the farmers, researching and
adopting improved technologies, consistent and adequate supply of pesticides and even
establishing modern storage centers or grain banks.
5.2 Recommendations
The following points are recommended to reduce maize grain deterioration in the study
area.
 Research on dosage, effectiveness and right form of application of traditionally used

plant leaves and seeds with pesticidal effects [Cheka (Senna siamea (Lam.), Endod
(Phytolacca dodecandra), Abayi (Maesa lanceolata) and Shenfa (Lepidium atvuim)] in
the study area should be done.
 Mixing of small and large grains, mixing grains with ash or sand, has proved to be an
effective method of pest control by farmers in farm storage study in Eritrea for the
storage of seeds. This technique should be tested under Jimma condition in identifying
ratio of small grains, ash or sand with the maize grain and be disseminated to other
farmers if proven effective.
 Training should be given to the farmers on the right dosage, mode of application and
type of traditional and modern chemical pesticides; on techniques of maize
monitoring, inspection and timely corrective measures to be taken for maize grain
storage handling. Upgrading farmers’ knowledge in the area of appropriate grain
harvesting, drying, cleaning and storage management proved to be essential. They
should also be aware the safety precautions while using chemical pesticides
 Dissemination and use of improved storage structures are also recommended for maize
grain storage in the study area.
80
6. REFERENCES
AACC (American Association of Cereal Chemists), 2000. Approved Methods of the

American Association of Cereal Chemists. 16th edition, American Association of Cereal
Chemists, St Paul, MN.
Abebe, H.G. and Bekele, H. 2006. Farmers' post-harvest grain management choices under
liquidity constraints and impending risks: Implications for achieving food security
objectives in Ethiopia. Poster Paper Presented at International Association of Agricultural
Economists Conference, Gold Coast, Australia, August 12-8.
Abraham, T. 1995. Insects and other arthropods recorded from stored maize in western
Ethiopia. African Crop Science Journal, 4(3): 339-343.
Adejumo, B. A. and A. O. Raji, 2007. Technical appraisal of grain storage systems in the
Nigerian Sudan savannah. Agricultural Engineering International: The CIGR Ejournal.
Invited Overview, 11(9): 1-12.
Adugna, H., Dagnew, G., Biniam, Z. and Biniam, A., 2003. On-farm storage studies in
Eritrea. Drylands Coordination Group (DGC) Report, 28. Norway.
Alabadan, B. A. and O. A. Oyewo, 2005. Temperature Variations within Wooden and

Metal Grain Silos in the Tropics during Storage of Maize (Zea Mays). Leonardo Journal
of Sciences, 6: 59-67.
Ali, R.H., M. Mahdi, R.B. Ali and S. Hojjatollah, 2007. Mycoflora of maize harvested
from Iran and imported maize. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 10(24): 4432-
4437.
Amare, A., F. Hartmut, L. Johann, B. Robert and D. Abate, 2006. Natural occurrence in
staple cereals in Ethiopia. Mycopathologia, 162:57-63.
Ammirati, J.F. and Seidl, M.T. "Fungus." Microsoft® Encarta ® 2009. © 1993-2008
Microsoft Corporation.
Anita, S. 2002. Tritrophic interactions in maize storage systems. A dissertation submitted

to the University of Neuchatel for degree of Doctor of Natural Sciences. 66-82pp.
Anne, E., D. Gyanu, M. Ronald, D. Plattner, C.M. Maragos, K. Shrestha, and S.P.
MeCormick, 2000. Occurrence of Fusarium species and mycotoxins in Nepalese maize
and wheat and the effect of traditional processing methods on mycotoxin levels. Journal of
Agriculture and Food Chemistry, 48(4): 1377- 1388.
AOAC. 1990. Official Methods of Analysis, 15th edition, Association of Official

Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.
81
AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists). 1995. Official Methods of Analysis
of Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Association of Official Analytical
Chemists, 16th edition, Vol. I, INC, Virginia, USA.
Badu-Apraku, B. and Fakorede, M.A.B, 2006. Zea mays L. In: Brink, M. & Belay, G.
(Editors). PROTA 1: Cereals and pulses/Céréales et légumes secs. [CD-Rom]. PROTA,
Wageningen, Netherlands.
Bakan, B., D. Richard, D. Molard and B. Cahagnier, 2002. Fungal growth and Fusarium
mycotoxin content in isogenic traditional maize and genetically modified maize grown in
France and Spain. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, 50(4): 278-731.
Banks, H.J. and P.G. Fields, 1995. Physical methods for insect control in stored grain
ecosystems. Pages 353409 in: Stored Grain Ecosystems, ed. D.S. Jayas, N.D.G. White and
W.E. Muir. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc. Claflin, J.K., Evans, D.E.
Berhanu, G. S.F. Rivera, M. Hasena, W. Mwangi and A. Seid, 2007. Maize and livestock:
Their inter-linked roles in meeting human needs in Ethiopia. Research Report 6. ILRI
(International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. 103 pp.
Birhane, S. 1984. The mycoflora associated with grain sorghum in pits and the role of four
species of fungi on the quality of sorghum grain in Alemaya district, Ethiopia, M.Sc.
Thesis. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Addis Ababa University. 98 pp.
Borror, D.J., D.M. DeLong, C.A. Triplehorn and F.J. Norman, 2005. Borror and Delong’s
Introduction to the Study of Insects. Peter Marshal Publisher. U.S.A. 377-610 pp.
Boyer, C.D. and C.L. Hannah, 1994. Kernel mutants of corn. In: Hallauer AR, editor.
Specialty corns. Ames, Iowa: CRC Press. 1–28 pp.
Brown, R.L., T.E. Cleveland, G.A. Payne, C.P. Woloshuk, K.W. Campbell, and D.G.
White, 1995. Determination of resistance to aflatoxin production in maize kernels and
detection of fungal colonization using an Aspergillus flavus transformat expressing
Escherichia coli ß-glucuronidase. Phytopathology, 85: 983-989.
Buerstmayr, H., B. Steiner, L. Hartl, M. Griesser, N. Angerer, D. Lengauer, T. Miedaner,

B. Schneider, M. Lemmens, 2003. Molecular mapping of QTLs for Fusarium head blight
resistance in spring wheat. II. Resitance to fungal penetration and spread. Theoretical and
Applied Genetics, 107: 503–508.
Butron, A., P. Revilla, A. Ordas and R.A. Malvar, 2009. Resistance to reduce corn borer
damage in maize for bread, in Spain. Crop Protection, 28: 1–5.
Cecilia, D.R., R.H. Charles, A.J. Lawrence and R.F. Steven, 1991. Relationships among
maize quality factors. Cereal Chemistry, 68 (6): 602-605.
Champ, B.R. and E. Highley, 1986. Preserving grain quality by aeration and in-store
drying: proceedings of an international seminar, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 9-11 October
1985. ACIAR Proceedings No. 15. 250 pp.
82
Chulze, S.N. 2010. Strategies to reduce mycotoxin levels in maize during storage: a
review. Food Additives and Contaminants, 27(5): 651–657.
CSA (Central Statistical Agency), 2007. Agricultural Sample Survey Report on Area and
Production of Crops (Private Peasant Holding, Meher Season). Statistical Bulletin, No.
388, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
David, P. S. and D. J. David, 1998. Management - The key to maintaining stored grain
quality. http://lancaster.unl.edu/ag/crops/i98.htm. Accessed on 5/25/2009.
Delenasaw, Y., Wondwossen, K., Kifle, W., Kora, T., S. Morankar, Daniel, K., D. Luc,
W.V. Bortel and S. Niko, 2010. The influence of the Gilgel-Gibe hydroelectric dam in
Ethiopia on caregivers' knowledge, perceptions and health-seeking behavior towards
childhood malaria. Malaria Journal, 9(1): 1- 47.
Dereje, A. 2000. The Utilization and Conditions of Postharvest Concept in Ethiopia. In

EARO. Postharvest Food Preparation and Storage, and Research and Extension on
Agricultural by-products Utilization Technologies. Amharic version.
Desjardin, A.E., M. Busman, R. Proctor and R.J. Stessman, 2006. Wheat kernel black
point and fumonisin contamination by Fusarium proliferatum [abstract]. National
Fusarium Head Blight Forum Proceedings. 115 pp.
Dick, E.A. 2008. Aflatoxin contamination of maize from different storage locations in
Ghana. An MSc Thesis Presented to the Department of Agricultural Engineering, Kwame
Nkrumah University of Science and Technology. 8 pp.
Domsch, K.H., W. Gams and T. Anderson, 1980. Compendium of Soil Fungi. Vol. 1.
Academic press. 859 pp.
DPPA (Disaster Prevention and Prepardness Agency), 2006. Administrative Map of

Oromia Region. DPPA Information Center.
ECX (Ethiopian Commodity Exchange), 2010. ECX Maize contracts: Details and grades.
Ethiopian Commodity Exchange, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Eldrid, L.M., G. Vogt, A. Nilsson and W. Frolich, 1995. Effects of Storage and Heat
Processing on the Content and Composition of Free Fatty Acids in Oats. Cereal
Chemistry, 72(l): 88-93.
El-Kashlan, I.H., H. Eglal, A. Madeha and M.A. Abdellatif, 1995. Insect pests associated
with stored grains in Alexandria Governorate. Journal of King Saud University of
Agricultural Science, 7(1): 123-127.
Ellis, M.B. 1971. Demotiaceous Hyphomycetes. C.M.I., Kew Surrey England, 608 pp.
Emily, T.N. and A.T. Sherry, 2010. Maize: A paramount staple crop in the context of
global nutrition. Comprehensive reviews in food science and food safety, 9: 417-436.
83
Fandohan, P., K. Hell, W.F.O. Marasas, M.J. Wingfield, 2003. Infection of maize by
Fusarium species and contamination with fumonisin in Africa. African Journal of
Biotechnology, 2 (12): 570-579.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization), 1994a. Post-harvest operations and

management of food grains. FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin, 93, Food and
Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization), 1994b. Grain storage techniques, Evolution
and trends in developing countries. FAO Agricultural Services Bulletin, 109, Rome, Italy.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), 2009a. Ethiopia:
Agriculture and environment. Rome. http://www.fao.org/ag/AGP/AGPC/doc/Counprof.
htm. Accessed on 12/10/2009.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization), 2009b. Post-harvest losses and management
of crops. http://www.un.org. Accessed on 12/15/2009.
Fekadu, L., Geremew, B., and Waktola, W., 2000. Quality of grain sorghum (Sorghum bi
color (L.) Moench) stored in traditional underground pits: Case studies in two agro-
climatic zones in Hararghe, Ethiopia. Journal of Food Science and Technology, 37(3):
238-244.
Fields, P. G. and W.E. Muir, 1996. Physical control. Pages 195221 in: Integrated
Management of Insects in Stored Products, ed. B. Subramanian and D.W. Hagstrum. New
York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
Fleurat, L.F. 2002. Qualitative reasoning and integrated management of the quality of
stored grain: a promising new approach. Journal of Stored Product Research, 38: 191-218.
Fleurat, L.F. 2004a. Stored grain: Pest management. In: Wrigley, C, Corke, H. and
Walker, C.E. (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Grain Science, 3, Elsevier, UK. 254-263 pp.
Fleurat, L.F. 2004b. Stored grain: Physico-chemical treatment. In: Wrigley, C, Corke, H.
and Walker, C.E. (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Grain Science, 3, Elsevier, UK. 254-263 pp.
GASGA (Group for Assistance on Systems relating to Grain After harvest), 1997.
Mycotoxins in Grain. Technical leaflet No. 3, CTA, The Netherlands.
Getachew, L., M. Jaleta, A. Langyintuo, W. Mwangi and R. La Rovere, 2010.

Characterization of maize producing households in Adami Tulu - Gido Kombolcha and
Adama districts in Ethiopia. Country Report – Ethiopia. Nairobi: CIMMYT.
Girma, D., Tadele, T. and Abraham, T., 2008. Importance of husk covering on field
infestation of maize by Sitophilus zeamais Motsch (Coleoptera:Curculionidea) at Bako,
Western Ethiopia. African Journal of Biotechnology, 7(20): 3777-3782.
84
Goletti, F. and C. Wolf, 1999. The Impact of Post-harvest Research. MSS Discussion
Paper No. 29. International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington, D.C.
Haile, A. and Tolemariam, T., 2008. The feed values of indigenous multipurpose trees for
sheep in Ethiopia: The case of Vernonia amygdalina, Buddleja polystachya and Maesa
lanceolata. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 20, Article No. 45.
Retrieved December 12, 2009, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd20/3/hail20045.htm.
Harold, A. and R.V. Morey, 1991. Management of stored grain with aeration. College of
Food, Agricultural and Natural Resources Science, University of Minnesota.
http://www.extension.umn.edu/tropics.html. Accessed on 4/28/2009.
Hayma, J. 2003. The Storage of Tropical Agricultural Products, Agrodok 31, CTA, The
Netherlands. 6-25 pp.
Hoffman, P.C. and R.D. Shaver, 2011. Grain Quality: A Dairy Cow’s Perspective.
Proceeding of the 2011 Wisconsin Crop Management Conference, 50: 63-73.
Hussein, S.H. and J.M. Brasel, 2001. Toxicity, metabolism and impact of mycotoxins on
humans and animals. Toxicology, 167: 101-134.
IITA (International Institute of Tropical Agriculture), 1992. Sustainable food production

in sub Saharan Africa. IITA’s contribution. IITA, Ibadan, Nigeria. 195 pp.
Ishrat, N. and D. Shahnaz, 2009. Detection of seed borne mycoflora in maize (Zea mays
L.). Pakistan Journal of Botany, 41(1): 443-451.
ISTA (International Seed Testing Association), 1996. International Rules for Seed Testing.
Vol. 24, Zurich, Switzerland.
Jamin, F. F. and R.A. Flores, 1998. Effect of additional separation and grinding on the
chemical and physical properties of selected corn dry-milled streams. Cereal Chemistry,
75, 166–170.
Jonsson, N., H. Petterson and J. Schnurer, 2000. Study of the relationship between storage
conditions and the growth of moulds and production of Ochratoxin A in grain preliminary
results. Proceedings of European Agricultural Engineering Symposium 2000, Warwick
University, U.K.
Kacaniova, M. 2003. Feeding soybean colonization by microscopic fungi. Trakya

University Journal of Science, 4: 165-168.
Kebede, M. 1993. ‘Maize Production Trends and Research in Ethiopia’. In: Benti, T. and
Ransom, J.K. (eds) Proceedings of the First National Maize Workshop of Ethiopia, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia.
Kemeru, D. 2004. Farm Level Survey on Farm Tools and Implements in Jimma and
Iluababor Zones. A research report, Oromiya Agricultural Research Institute, Jimma Rural
Technology Research Center, Oromiya, Ethiopia.
85
Ken, B. 2005. Grain storage basic design principles. http://www.qdl.gov.au/htm. Accessed
on 5/13/2009.
Kerstin, H., K.E. Ognakossan, A.K. Tonou, Y. Lamboni, K.E. Adabe and O. Coulibaly,
2010. Maize Stored Pests Control by PICS-Bags: Technological and Economic
Evaluation. 5th World Cowpea Conference in Saly, Senegal, 27 September -1 October
2010.
Magan, N., V. Sanchis and D. Aldred, 2004. Role of spoilage fungi in seed deterioration.
Chapter 28, In Fungal Biotechnology in Agricultural, Food and Environmetal
Applications, Edt. D.K.Aurora Marcell Dekker. 311-323 pp.
Mashilla, D. 2004. Grain Storage Methods and their Effects on Sorghum Grain Quality in
Hararghe, Ethiopia. Doctoral Thesis. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,
Uppsala. 7-15 pp.
Mathew, K.B. 2010a. Evaluation of suitability of commercially available maize grains for
‘tuwo’ production in Nigeria. African Journal of Food Science, 4(6): 371 – 381.
Mathew, S. 2010b. A Review on the Wheat Grain Quality under Post Harvest Storage.
International Journal of Pharmaceutical and Applied Sciences, 1(2): 38-42.
Miller, J.D. 1995. Fungi and mycotoxins in grain: implications for stored product research.
Journal of Stored Products Research, 31: 1-16.
Mirna, V., V. Rozman, I. Kalinovic, A. Liska, D. Kis, and B. Simic, 2007. Influence of
Relative Humidity and Temperature on the Changes in Grain Moisture in Stored Soybean
and Maize. Agriculturae Conspectus Scientifi cus, 72(3): 215-219.
Mohammed, S.S., A.Y. Abdul-Malik, M.A. Abdul-Sattar and A.A. Al-Abssy, 2001.
Mycobiota and mycotoxin of stored imported wheat grains in Egypt. Botany Department,
Faculty of Science, Assiut University, Assiut, Egypt, Biology Department, Faculty of
Science, Taiz University, Republic of Yemen.
Moseman, A.H. 2008. "Corn." Microsoft® Encarta® 2009 [DVD]. Redmond, WA:
Microsoft Corporation.
Muhammad, A.A., A. Akhlaque, A. Tasneem and A. Muhammad, 2006. Use of solar

radiation at village level for thermal disinfestation of wheat stored in galvanized steel bins.
Pakistan Entomology, 28 (1): 57-63.
Naresh, M. and A. David, 2007. Post-harvest control strategies: Minimizing mycotoxins in

the food chain. International Journal of Food Microbiology, 119: 131-139.
Negussie, E., G. Monica and P. James, 2005. Implications of an Extension Package

Approach for Farmers’ Indigenous Knowledge: The Maize Extension Package in South-
western Ethiopia. Journal of International Agricultural and Extension Education. 12 (3):
67-78.
86
Ofor, M.O. I.I. Ibeawuchi and A.M. Oparaeke, 2009. Crop Protection Problems in
Production of Maize and Guinea Corn in Northern Guinea Savanna of Nigeria and Control
Measures. Nature and Science. 7(12): 8-14.
Ogendo, J.O., A.L. Deng, S.R. Belmain, D.J. Walker and A.A.O. Musandu, 2004. Effect
of Insecticidal Plant Materials, Lantana camara L. and Tephrosia vogelii Hook, on the
Quality Parameters of Stored Maize Grains. The Journal of Food Technology in Africa,
9(1): 29-36.
Ono, E.Y.S., L. Biazon, M. Silva, E. Vizoni, Y. Sugiura, Y. Ueno and E.Y. Hirooka, 2006.
Fumonisins in corn: Correlation with Fusarium sp. count, damaged kernels, protein and
lipid content. Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology, 49, 63-71.
Orsi, R.B., B. Corca and C.R. Possi, 2000. Mycoflora and occurrence of fumonisins in
freshly harvested and stored hybrid maize. Journal of Stored Products Research, 36: 75-
87.
Pesta, J.J. and G.S. Bonday, 1990. Alternation of immune function following dietary
mycotoxins exposure. Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology, 68: 1009-
1016.
Peter, F. and A. Hampton, 1992. Small-scale food Processing: A Guide to Appropriate

Equipment. IT Publications/ CTA.
Proctor, D.L. and J.Q. Rowley. 1983. The thousand grains mass (TGM): A basis for better
assessment of weight losses in stored grain. Tropical Stored Products Information, 45: 19-
23.
Rehman, Z. U., F. Habib and S.I. Zafar, 2002. Nutritional changes in maize (Zea mays)
during storage at three temperatures. Food Chemistry 77: 197-201.
Ridley, W.P., R.D. Shillito, I. Coats, H.Y. Steiner, M. Shjawgo, A., Phillips, P. Dussold
and L. Kurtyka, 2004. Development of the International Life Sciences Institute crop
composition database. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 17: 423–438.
Scudamore, K.A. and S.J. MacDonald, 2000. A collaborative study of an HPLC method
for determination of ochratoxin A in wheat using immune-affinity column clean-up. Food
Additives Contaminants, 15: 401-410.
Shimelis, A. 2001. Post-harvest sector challenges and opportunities in Ethiopia. Ethiopian

Agricultural Research Organization, Addis Ababa.
Shurtleff, M.C. 1980. Compendium of Corn Diseases. American Phytopathological

Society. St. Paul Minnesota, 105 pp.
Solomon, A., Niguse, M. and Zeleke, H., 2008. Genotype- Environment Interaction and
stability analysis for Grain Yield of Maize (Zea mays L.) in Ethiopia. Asian Journal of
Plant Sciences, 7(2): 163-169.
87
Tatiana, R.D., D.S. Jaccoud-Filho, L. Henneberg, M.D. Michel, I.M. Demiate, A.T.B.
Pinto, M.M. Junior and A.C. Barana, 2009. Maize (Zea Mays L) Landraces from the
Southern Region of Brazil: Contamination by Fusarium sp, Zearalenone, Physical and
Mechanical Characteristics of the Kernels. Brazilian Archives of Biology and Technology
52:1-5.
TDRI (Tropical Development and Research Institute), 1984. Insects and Arachnids of
Tropical Stored Products: Their Biology and Identification (A Training Manual). TDRI,
Slough, England. 273 pp.
Tulin, J.M. and D.I. Askun, 2006. Investigation of fungal species diversity of maize
kernels. Journal of Biological Sciences, 6(2): 275-281.
UDA (UTAH Department of Agriculture), 1996. Study Guide for Fumigation/ Stored
Commodities Pest Control. Vol 1 (1996). Saltlake City, UTAH. 5 pp.
USDA, 2004. USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 17.
[Internet] U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Nutrient Data
Laboratory, Beltsville Md, United States. http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp.
Vasanthkumar, P. 1986. Studies on some seed-borne fungal disease of maize in Karantaka.

Ph.D Thesis, University of Mysore, India.
Verga, B.T. and J. Teren, 2005. Mycotoxin producing fungi and mycotoxins in foods in
Hungary. Journal of Acta Alimentaria/Akademiai, 267-275.
Wambugu, P.W., P.W. Mathenge, E.O. Auma and R. Havan, 2009. Efficacy of traditional
maize (Zea mays l.) seed storage methods in western Kenya. African Journal of Food
Agriculture Nutrition and Development, 9(4): 1110-1128.
Wang, J.S. and L. Tang, 2001. Hepatocellular Carcinoma and aflatoxin exposure in
Zhyqing village, Fusui County, people’s Republic of China Cancer Epidemiology
Biomark., 10: 143-146.
Watson, S.A. 1987. Structure and composition. pp. 53-82. In: S.A. Watson, P.E. Ramstad
(Eds.), Corn chemistry and technology. American Association of Cereal Chemists Inc., St.
Paul, MN.
Weller, C.L., M.R. Paulsen and M.P. Steinberg, 1988. Correlation of starch recovery with
assorted quality factors of four corn hybrids. Cereal Chemistry, 65: 392-397.
Zuber, M.S., E.B. Lillehoj and B.L. Renfro. eds., 1987. Aflatoxin in Maize: A proceedings
of the workshop. CIMMYT, Mexico. D.F.
88
7. APPENDICES
89
Appendix Table 1. Correlation of insect infestation and chemical composition of maize
grain
Crude Dry Free fatty
Infestation protein matter acid Carbohydrate
Insect Pearson
1 -.351** -.481** .276 ** -.460**
infestation Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .006 .000
N 96 96 96 96 96
Crude protein Pearson
-.351 ** 1 .196 -.151 .191
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .055 .142 .062
N 96 96 96 96 96
Dry matter Pearson
-.481 ** .196 1 -.208 * .990 **
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .055 .042 .000
N 96 96 96 96 96
Free fatty Pearson
.276** -.151 -.208 * 1 -.193
acid Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .006 .142 .042 .059
N 96 96 96 96 96
Total Pearson
-.460 ** .191 .990 ** -.193 1
Carbohydrate Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .062 .000 .059
N 96 96 96 96 96
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). N= number of samples
90
Appendix Table 2. Correlation of insect infestation, chemical composition and physical
quality characteristics of maize grain
Moisture Physical
Infestation Crude fat Ash content damage
Insect Pearson
1 -.425** .894** -.627** .261
infestation Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .218
N 96 96 96 96 24
Crude fat Pearson
-.425** 1 -.368** .212 * .067
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .038 .755
N 96 96 96 96 24
Ash Pearson
.894 ** -.368** 1 -.664** .323
Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .000 .000 .124
N 96 96 96 96 24
Moisture Pearson
-.627** .212* -.664** 1 -.305
content Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .000 .038 .000 .148
N 96 96 96 96 24
Physical Pearson
.261 .067 .323 -.305 1
damage Correlation
Sig. (2-tailed) .218 .755 .124 .148
N 24 24 24 24 24
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). *Correlation
is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). N =number of samples
91
Appendix Table 3. ANOVA for effect of storage period on chemical composition and
physical quality characteristics of maize grain sampled from Gombisa under intermediate
agro-ecology
Quality
parameters Source of variation Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Crude protein Between Groups 22.068 3 7.356 7.729 .001
Within Groups 19.034 20 .952
Total 41.102 23
Dry matter Between Groups 1021.416 3 340.472 5.328 .007
Within Groups 1278.023 20 63.901
Total 2299.438 23
Germination Between Groups 2733.000 3 911.000 18.662 .000
Within Groups 976.333 20 48.817
Total 3709.333 23
Free fatty acid Between Groups 32.465 3 10.822 2.655 .076
Within Groups 81.518 20 4.076
Total 113.982 23
Total Between Groups 866.811 3 288.937 4.170 .019
carbohydrate Within Groups 1385.754 20 69.288
Total 2252.565 23
Crude fat Between Groups .893 3 .298 .918 .450
Total 7.375 23
Ash Between Groups 15.151 3 5.050 170.084 .000
Within Groups .594 20 .030
Total 15.744 23
Weight loss Between Groups 89.450 3 29.817 159.114 .000
Total 93.198 23
Insect Between Groups 35141.125 3 11713.708 613.551 .000
infestation Within Groups 381.833 20 19.092
Total 35522.958 23
Insect damaged Between Groups 1395.708 3 465.236 135.014 .000
kernel Within Groups 68.917 20 3.446
Total 1464.625 23
92
physical quality characteristics of maize grain sampled from Sacks under intermediate
agro-ecology
Quality
Crude protein Between Groups 6.228 3 2.076 .926 .446
Total 51.069 23
Dry matter Between Groups 104.527 3 34.842 .642 .597
Within Groups 1085.939 20 54.297
Total 1190.466 23
Within Groups 453.833 20 22.692
Total 1791.958 23
Total 141.533 23
Total Between Groups 104.527 3 34.842 .642 .597
Total 1190.466 23
Crude fat Between Groups 3.051 3 1.017 2.514 .088
Total 11.143 23
Total 16.328 23
Total 79.593 23
Total 21727.833 23
Total 1348.990 23
93
physical quality characteristics of maize grain sampled from Gombisa under lowland agro-
ecology
Quality
Crude protein Between Groups 13.510 3 4.503 4.028 .022
Total 35.870 23
Within Groups 1025.500 20 51.275
Total 1687.265 23
Within Groups 2702.667 20 135.133
Total 5065.833 23
Total 192.984 23
Total 1687.265 23
Total 6.126 23
Total 20.180 23
Total 89.073 23
Total 36969.333 23
Total 1314.333 23
94
physical quality characteristics of maize grain sampled from Sack under lowland agro-
ecology
Quality
Crude protein Between Groups 1.870 3 .623 .815 .501
Total 17.171 23
Within Groups 1642.804 20 82.140
Total 1986.273 23
Within Groups 1207.667 20 60.383
Total 1876.000 23
Free fatty acid Between Groups 41.065 3 13.688 .871 .472
Within Groups 314.196 20 15.710
Total 355.261 23
Total 1986.273 23
Total 9.808 23
Total 16.800 23
Total 85.786 23
Total 24175.958 23
kernels Within Groups 91.333 20 4.567
Total 1218.458 23
95
Appendix Table 7. ANOVA for effect of storage types on chemical composition and
physical quality characteristics of maize grain sampled from Gombisa and Sacks
Quality Source of
parameters variation Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Crude protein Between Groups .245 1 .245 .158 .692
Total 145.843 95
Within Groups 7205.986 94 76.659
Total 7627.190 95
Within Groups 12503.896 94 133.020
Total 13059.740 95
Free fatty Between Groups 15.000 1 15.000 1.641 .203
acid Within Groups 859.044 94 9.139
Total 874.044 95
Total 7637.549 95
Crude fat Between Groups .564 1 .564 1.530 .219
Total 35.236 95
Ash Between Groups .040 1 .040 .054 .816
Total 69.458 95
Weight loss Between Groups .219 1 .219 .059 .808
Total 348.154 95
Total 123051.333 95
Insect Between Groups 13.878 1 13.878 .244 .623
damaged Within Groups 5349.224 94 56.907
kernel
Total 5363.102 95
96
Questionnaire
Questionnaire on stored maize management practices in Jimma zone

Note to the interviewer
This questionnaire is prepared to get feedback on Farmers’ Stored Maize Management

Practices in traditional storage containers, Gombisa and Sacks, in selected districts of
Jimma. I would appreciate for all the cooperation made.
Please introduce yourself and the objectives of the study to the interviewee very politely.
Complete the questionnaire by circling the letter of the choice and filling in the open
ended questions very patiently. One question may have more than one answer. Please
don’t forget to thank the interviewee after completing the interview.
Date:
Name of district:
Agro-ecological location
Name of interviewee:
Name of interviewer:
1. Which maize variety do you grow and store?

2. How do you harvest maize?
a/ manual harvesting of the cob from standing stalk
b/ Other method (specify)
3. How do you judge that the maize is ready for harvesting?
a/ Visual observation
b/ Shelling and checking for seed hardness
c/ Other means (specify)
4. What method do you use for transporting the harvested maize to drying site?
a/ Carrying on human shoulders or back of animals
b/ Wheel barrows
c/ Animal drawn carts
d/ Other means (specify)
5. How do you shell/ thresh the harvested maize?
a/ Beating the cobs with sticks inside sacks
b/ Finger-palm shelling
97
c/ Using mechanical shellers
d/ Other method (specify)
6. What tool/equipment do you use for transporting the shelled maize grain or cobs to
storage containers?
a/ Carrying on human shoulders or back of animals
b/ Wheel barrows
c/ Animal drawn carts
d/ Other means (specify)
7. Do you dry maize after harvest by sun spreading it on drying floor?
a/ Yes b/ No.
8. If your response to question No. 7 is yes, is the drying surface plastered or prepared
otherwise?
a/ Yes b/ No.
9. If your response to question No. 8 is yes, what is the finishing material used for
plastering?
10. Do you use the same drying floor year after year or you change the site?
11. If you do not use drying surface, how and where do you dry the grain?
12. How long would it take, at an average, to dry the grain to your satisfaction before
taking it in to storage containers? days.
13. How do you decide that the grain is dry enough to be stored?
14. What type of maize storage container do you use?
15. Do you clean your storage containers and the surrounding before storing newly
harvested grain?
a/ Yes b/ No.
98
16. Do you fumigate your storage container before taking new grains in?
a/ Yes b/ No.
17. If your response to question No. 16 is yes, what do you use for fumigating the grain?
a/ Smoking firewood
b/ Smoking pepper
c/ Smoking plant leaves (specify leaf type)
d/ Others (specify)
18. Do you aerate your stored grain?
a/ Yes b/ No.
19. If your response to question No. 18 is yes, how and how often do you do it?
20. How do you inspect the stored maize to check for any sign of deterioration so that you
could take measures on time?
21. How frequent do you inspect the stored grain?
22. What corrective measures do you take in response to your storage inspection if you
find sign of insect infestation?
a/ Use pesticides
b/ Use wood ash
c/ Use of plant materials
d/ Use other traditional protectant (Specify)
23. Describe briefly how you apply your treatment to the grain.
24. If you use pesticides to protect the stored grain from pests, write the names of the
pesticides and of your suppliers?
99
25. Do you get advice on how to safely and properly (right dose and mode of application)
use pesticides from suppliers, government or non-governmental agents?
26. If you find other signs of deterioration different from pest attacks what measures do
you take?
27. How much of your maize grain do you think you lose because of problems associated
with storage?
28. What do you suggest the government or non-governmental agents should do in order
to minimize stored grain quality deterioration problems in your area?
29. Are there any additional points you would like to raise regarding maize storage
(experiences to share to others, questions to ask, suggestions to make, etc)?
100

Thesis Dubale PDF

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Thesis Dubale PDF

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND QUALITY OF MAIZE STORED

IN TWO TRADITIONAL STORAGE CONTAINERS (GOMBISA AND

A Thesis Submitted to School of Graduate Studies through the

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER

Dr. Solomon Abera _________________ _______________

___________________ ________________ _______________

Name: Dubale Befikadu Signature:

ANOVA Analysis of Variance

After his graduation, he was employed as an Assistant Researcher by Jimma Rural

My thanks go to Dr. Tilahun Siyoum who encouraged me to work on grain storage

LIST OF TABLES xii

LIST OF FIGURES xiv

LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX xv

2.1 Maize Grain 6

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS 34

3.1 Description of the Study Area 34

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 47

4.1 Results of the Survey 47

5. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 78

5.1 Summary and Conclusions 78

The plight of hunger in developing countries is needlessly aggravated by farmers losing up

Estimates suggest that the magnitude of post-harvest loss in Ethiopia is tremendous

It is therefore essential to study the existing management practices, storage environment

Specific objectives are:

3. To study management practices of maize stored in Gombisa and Sacks.

2.1 Maize Grain

2.2 Maize Grain Production in Ethiopia

Major varieties of maize grown

2.3 Endosperm Texture of BH-660

2.5 Factors Affecting Quality of the Stored Grain

2.5.1 Abiotic factors

Initial Grain Condition

Table 2. Maximum storage time in months for shelled maize

2.5.2 Biotic factors

There are three types of toxicogenic field fungi:

C6H12O6 + 6O2 6CO2+6H2O + 2817 kJ

Typically, complete respiration of carbohydrates gives a RQ, i.e. ratio of O2 consumed to

2.6 Losses of Grain

2.7 Losses of Maize Grain

2.8 Grain Quality

2.9 Quality Characteristics of Grains

2.9.1 Intrinsic quality

Composition (protein, carbohydrate, lipids and their breakdown products) qualitatively

Table 3. Grading parameters for three grades of white maize

Table 4. Grading parameters for three grades of mixed maize

2.9.2 Induced qualities

Chalky or immature grain

Infested, infected grain

2.10. Ethiopian Traditional Grain Storage Methods

2.11 Management and Control of the Stored Grain

Temperature and moisture management

3.1 Description of the Study Area

3.2 Experimental Design

Figure 2. The study area

3.4.1 Maize Grain

3.4.2 Storage Containers

3.5 Loading of the Storages

3.6 Sampling of the Grain for Evaluation

3.7 Evaluation of Physical Parameters

3.7.1 Grain moisture content

3.7.2 Storage temperature and relative humidity

3.7.4 Weight loss

3.7.5 Insect damage

Dr. Solomon Abera ___ _

_____ _