**Abstract**

Storage is a crucial link in the food supply chain. It helps to even-out fluctuations in food demand and supply. This ensures food availability during the lean periods. Despite the immense contribution of storage, a knowledge gap exists on the storage types used by smallholder maize farmers, how they are acquired, used, and their cost in Uganda. Storage affects the social and economic well-being of smallholder maize farmers. In this study, smallholder maize farmers in three districts of eastern Uganda (Iganga, Manafwa, and Katakwi) were interviewed during the maize storage season of 2014/2015. The aim was to: describe the different storage types; find out how they were acquired and used; the length of storage and the cost. The findings show that sacks were the most used storage type. Storage types were acquired through purchase; however, some were constructed by the smallholder maize farmers. Affordability and accessibility determined the storage type used. Some storage types were not used across all the districts; for example, the granary was used in two out of the three sampled districts. Thus, the findings show that maize storage is a challenge. We recommend that maize storage facilities should be improved with affordable to the farmers.

**Keywords:** maize, storage, storage characteristics, smallholder maize farmers

#### **1. Introduction**

Maize (*Zea mays L.*) is among the most important cereal crops produced in the world [1–3]. Maize is the most popular temporary crops grown in Uganda besides, beans and cassava, with more than 50% of the agricultural households involved in their cultivation. Small scale farmers who constitute the bulk (80%) of the rural poor also account for the largest share of maize production. It is grown in every part of the country and a direct source of livelihood to over 2 million households. It is the most popular contributor to income and food for smallholder farmers and for institutions like the police, the army, prisons, schools, and hospitals. Thus, maize act as the main source of food for such institutions and contributes over 11% of the caloric intake [4–6].

In sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), maize forms an important part of the staple food supplies [3, 7]. In this regard, maize is a strategic crop [8]. Although important, its production is dominated by smallholder farmers [9]. As a popular food, maize is eaten by humans as well as used to brew local alcohol, used as feeds for animals, and birds, it is prudent that we understand its storage. Storage has been a challenge to smallholder farmers and greatly impacts on their income and food security. Hence, its storage becomes crucial. Therefore, the core of the thesis of this chapter stems from the dearth of descriptions of storage systems used by smallholder maize farmers, how they are acquired and used, and at what cost [10].

Udo and Vorotnikova [11, 12] argue that the challenge of grain storage affects farmers and merchants simultaneously. Consequently, grain storage is among the key constraints to food and income security in SSA [13]. These challenges sometimes compel smallholder maize farmers to harvest late [8]. After harvest, maize is dried and stored at the household level to provide food, cash, and seed for the next planting season [14].

Although maize is a subsistence crop which is produced seasonally, its demand is throughout the year [15]. Moreover, in some seasons, the harvest is poor because production in the tropics depends mainly on climatic conditions [16]. As a result, maize supply fluctuates widely and production hardly meets the high demand [9]. In some parts of the tropics, there is only one production season, which makes storage important for ensuring food supply during the off-season [17]. Maize storage at household level is critical due to its dual purpose of food and income security [18, 19]. Because little is written about the maize storage types in SSA, it became paramount to describe them [20]. This exploration was therefore necessitated by the need to describe the storage types used, how they are acquired, and why they are used in the Ugandan context.

Brennan [21] posits that "since production is not stable for all commodities, consumers demand that the storage function be performed so that the flow of commodities for sale will be made relatively stable". Wright [22] argues that storage is important in balancing consumption, supply and stock. In other words, storage occupies a crucial position in the socio-economic development of smallholder maize farmers. Therefore, maize storage is desired in guaranteeing domestic income and food supply [23].

In Uganda, as in other SSA countries, maize is a staple food [24] whose storage greatly moderates supply fluctuations from one season to another [8]. In addition, it makes a considerable input to diets of many rural and urban populations [25]. Govender et al. [23] posit that maize is a major source of energy and protein in the human diet. Therefore, maize needs to be stored well to preserve it against thieves, pests and diseases. Storage may, therefore, lead to quantity equalisation and market stabilisation [26]. Moreover, good storage of the seeds is critical to smallholder maize farmers because it determines the quality and quantity of maize to be produced in the subsequent seasons.

However, when maize is improperly stored, numerous challenges are encountered; for example, it can be destroyed by pests such as *Sitophiluszeamais*, it can rot due to rat damage, or it can be stolen. Maize storage among smallholder farmers is affected by temperature, moisture, carbon dioxide, oxygen, grain characteristics, micro-organisms, insects, mites, rodents, birds, geographical location, and the storage structure [23]. Consequently, smallholder farmers are often forced to sell off their maize immediately after harvest and later buy it back at higher prices for household consumption because of the lack of adequate and effective storage facilities [27].

#### *Smallholder Maize Farmers Need Better Storage for Food Security: An Exploratory Study… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109172*

All such risks affect the quality and quantity of maize produced. Prevention of pest damage during storage is critical for the availability of maize and its continued supply during the off-season [3]. Therefore, smallholder maize farmers struggle to ensure that maize is kept well for future use [26]. Proctor [15] argues that the only way the costs of storage may be reduced is by having a full understanding of the different storage types.

Although maize storage has evolved over the years and is considered a key component of economic development, storage is still poor and traditional in most developing countries [13]. Consequently, insect pests like *Sitrotogacerealella* (Olivier), *Plodiainterpunctella* (Hübner, 1813), *Sitophiluszeamais* (Motschulsky), *Rhyzoperthadominica* (F.) and larger grain borer, *Prostephanustruncatus* (Horn), cause enormous maize loss during storage. The same consequences are also reported by [8, 25]. The poor storage exacerbates post-harvest maize losses to levels that require attention [28]. The losses lead to a reduction in the quantity and quality of maize available on the market [29]. Maize scarcity is therefore not caused by low production per say*,* but mainly by wastage during storage.

Although smallholder farmers are the main producers of maize, they still use traditional storage methods. Hence, it is not always economically feasible for them to keep their maize long enough and in sufficient quantities to take full advantage of price changes in the marketplace [28]. Indeed, [25, 30] estimated that post-harvest loss due to pests in three months of storage stands at 20–30% in SSA. While fulfilling food demand is a global challenge, the loss in storage is still very high and has made it harder to meet the demand [7]. In Uganda, 63% of post-harvest maize losses are related to storage [31].

The losses of maize grain have far-reaching effects on the smallholder farmers leading to reduction in maize available for family consumption, deterioration in nutritional maize quality, and disruption of maize supply at household level, thus forcing farmers to buy maize later at higher prices. It also impacts on local maize processing and cross-border trade, leading to losses in food, revenue and profit, especially in rural areas. A study conducted in Uganda by [32] established that 83% of smallholder maize farmers sell off their maize within two months after harvest. This has forced some smallholder farmers in Katakwi district to eat tree leaves due to famine.

Although evidence of maize losses is glaring, little is known of the storage types, acquisition processes, and the reasons for use of particular storage methods among smallholder maize farmers. Indeed, in spite of the unprecedented contribution of storage, the description of storage types used has received little attention. No study so far has described the storage types used by smallholder maize farmers in Uganda. This is the void that this study intends to fill.

### **2. Types of maize storage**

Globally, smallholder maize farmers use different storage methods. Post-harvest losses resulting from poor storage are considered highest in grain [2]. In a bid to address the loss of maize due to poor storage, smallholder maize farmers have adopted different storage methods. Across the African continent, storage methods tend to vary even within the same country [28, 33]. Specifically, the variation in storage types among smallholder maize farmers are due to social and economic conditions, cultural traditions, production scale, and climatic zones [28]. The preference of one storage

type over another is based on the perceived relative safety of the storage type. Safety means that the storage system is capable of preserving the quality and quantity of the grain against damage by pests and by poor storage conditions [34]*.*

In this study, some storage types are considered traditional, while others are seen as modern. Traditional storage is the predominant type used by smallholder maize farmers [15, 34, 35]. These traditional methods include the granary, the basket, the crib, the house roof, the house corner, above-the-fire, clay pots, old jerry-cans, tins, and sacks. However, some smallholder maize farmers who are slightly better-off financially have adopted modern storage types such as metal silos, triple bags, modern cribs, and warehouses.

Stored maize is used for various purposes: selling, domestic consumption, planting, and brewing beer which is consumed by the household or sold. Of all the storage types used, sacks were predominantly found to be used for storage of maize for consumption and selling, while above-the-fire storage was mainly used for storage of maize seed for planting (because above-the-fire maize does not get weevilled). However, the effectiveness of storage depends on various ecological conditions of the storage, the nature and structure of the storage facility, how long the maize will stay in storage, the pesticides used (if any), and the characteristics of the maize to be stored [17].

Despite the various efforts directed towards storage, smallholder maize farmers still face significant losses resulting from inappropriate and/or ineffective storage practices [2]. Coupled with the inappropriate and or ineffective storage practices is the high cost of pesticides, which are necessary for the protection of maize from damage. In most developing countries, pesticides, besides being potentially adulterated, are prohibitively expensive for smallholders, most of whom earn less than USD1.00 per day, the internationally accepted minimum to keep one above the poverty line [36]. Unfortunately, solutions to post-harvest losses require modest financial investment, which the majority of smallholder maize farmers cannot afford [7].

There is a dearth of literature describing the storage types used by smallholder maize farmers [20]. However, some studies show that the dominant form of storage used by smallholder maize farmers include: baskets, clay pots, jute bags, polyethylene bags, open and closed cribs, house corners, tins, open-fields, platforms, trees, jerry-cans, granaries, and roofs of houses [2, 13, 25, 26, 32, 33]. The storage types used by most smallholder farmers in SSA are traditional and crude; they cannot enable smallholder maize farmers to store and then sell when prices are most attractive [26].

Maximum losses in maize are known to occur during storage due to inappropriate storage infrastructure [7]. Moreover, good hygiene in storage is known to limit insect infestation [8]. Although in the studies mentioned above some storage types are identified, there was no attempt to describe how they are made and/or acquired. Also, the reasons for the preference of one storage type over another were not reported, and yet it is pertinent.

Indeed, post-harvest maize storage losses resulting from traditional storage types is reported to range between 9% and 40% globally and 20% and 40% in Africa [2]. The storage structures used are susceptible to damage by natural calamities thereby causing considerable loss every season. When maize is lost in storage, other resources such as water, land, nutrients, inputs and labour that were used to produce the maize are lost too [7]. Therefore, [2] argue that effective storage is critical in order to keep adequate quantities of good quality maize grain until the next harvest. Accordingly, it is important for us to understand the characteristics of the storage types if we are to improve on maize storage by smallholder farmers in Uganda. It is

*Smallholder Maize Farmers Need Better Storage for Food Security: An Exploratory Study… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109172*

envisaged that reduced post-harvest grain losses could increase smallholder food availability, subdue pressure on natural resources, and improve smallholder maize farmers' livelihoods [7].

More important to note is the fact that as food becomes scarce due to global warming, deliberate effort should be directed to storage if we are to reduce excessive losses. For example, the Famine Early Warning System Network (FEWS NET) in its report on Uganda's food security outlook June 2016 to January 2017, indicated that poor households would spend nearly 100% of their income on food, compared to 55% spent in the previous year.

#### **2.1 Justification of the study**

Knowledge about the characteristics of storage types is still limited specifically in Uganda and generally in SSA. This study focused on household storage because it is what most smallholder maize farmers in Uganda practice. In addition, there are very few studies on storage and only 5% of research funding in the previous years has been directed to post-harvest storage [7]. Moreover, about USD one trillion is lost in postharvest food losses every year globally, while about USD four billion is lost in SSA. In east and southern Africa, the postharvest grain loss are valued at US\$1.6 billion/ year, or about 13.56% of the total value of grain production in the region. This could potentially reach nearly US\$4 billion/year in SSA out of an estimated annual value of US\$27 billion. Also, most studies on post-harvest storage have focused on losses and the issues and challenges surrounding the processes; only few studies have focused on describing storage characteristics.

Hence, the working hypothesis is that this knowledge is required to develop strategies that will improve maize storage at the household level. Therefore, the aim of this study is to describe the storage types used with the view of creating a clear understanding of the different storage characteristics. The central argument is that despite the importance of storage as a basis of food and income security for smallholder maize farmers, the storage structures used have not received the attention they deserve as shown by the few studies have attempted to describe them [20]. The dearth of information on the description, acquisition and why, how often and for how long the particular storage types are used, merits investigation in the Ugandan context.

## **3. Material and methods**

#### **3.1 Study area**

Uganda is divided into four administrative regions, namely: Northern, Eastern, Western and Central [37]. The study was conducted in three districts of Eastern Uganda between January and May 2014/2015. The area covers the major maize producing region of Uganda.

#### **3.2 Sampling**

In a cross-sectional survey, interviews were conducted to collect comprehensive data on maize storage among smallholder maize farmers in three districts of Eastern Uganda. The Eastern region was purposively selected because, based on Uganda Census of Agriculture (UCA) 2008/2009 [38], it produces the highest volume of

maize in the country. Three high (Iganga), medium (Manafwa) and low (Katakwi) ranking maize producing districts were selected for the study based on national ranking of maize production by volume (see coloured areas in **Figure 1**). While the highest and lowest maize producing districts were easily identified, for the medium producing district we chose the one whose production volume was closest to the average production of all the districts in the region.

Using maize production volume, we selected three sub-counties from each district. Thereafter, we contacted agricultural extension workers from each sub-county to provide registers of all smallholder maize farmers in their respective sub-counties. For the purpose of achieving gender balance in the sample, the lists were rewritten separating male from female smallholder maize farmers in each sub-county. Thereafter, the names were written on small pieces of paper which were then folded and put into two separate containers for each sub-county

**Figure 1.** *Map of eastern region showing sampled districts.*

*Smallholder Maize Farmers Need Better Storage for Food Security: An Exploratory Study… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109172*

containing names of male and female smallholder maize farmers. These were shaken to ensure proper mix. Then the researcher closed his eyes and used his hand to randomly pick a folded paper from each of the containers. This was done several times to align the respondents with the sample. Then the papers picked from the two containers were unfolded and the names were read to identify the respondents. Upon completing the reading of the names, the agriculture extension worker for each sub-county was asked for their contacts. The key respondents were later called, and appointments were fixed for interviews. This was done to avoid selection bias for interviewees.

In total, there were twenty-four interviews: six per district, and two per subcounty. Since there is no agreed sample size for qualitative data collection [39], the study adopted [40] view of 12-and-above participants. These were contacted for appointment and later briefed about the aim of the study and consent sought for their participation. The interviews were conducted at the smallholder maize farmers' homes. Where a farmer scheduled for an interview was absent from his or her home, the interview was rescheduled to another agreed day and time. This was important for courtesy and to increase the response rate.

#### **3.3 Data collection procedure**

Prior to the interview, each respondent was given a consent form to complete to confirm their willingness to participate in the interview [41]. Permission to record the conversation was sought and obtained. Respondents were also informed that they could stop the interview if they felt uncomfortable with the questions being asked. Each interview session started with an interviewee confirming that the respondent was responsible for maize storage in the household. An interview guide with open-ended questions was used, in order to avoid limiting the farmer's response and to stimulate the discussion [42]. The interviews were conducted in English and, where it became complicated, respondents were free to talk in their local languages. The researcher or a research assistant would then translate and record the responses in English. This was crucial if farmers were to adequately express their views. All translations were cross-checked with a language expert to ensure accuracy. However, most of the time, the researcher's translations accurately captured the meaning. Responses were voice-recorded and notes taken simultaneously. Information sought included farmers' demographic characteristics, characteristics of storage types used, process of acquisition and durability of the storage type.

#### **3.4 Data analysis**

This started in the field where quotes that were clearly stated were recorded verbatim. Themes were identified using Nvivo software. This helped to organise the data. Then, a Microsoft Word Document file was created. Codes were generated by reading each excerpt several times to ensure familiarity with the content [42, 43]. Content analysis was done based on the identified themes [41]. The themes were based on the different storage types because we needed to describe them. Descriptive analysis was done by gleaning from the interviews and recording the quotes. To understand the storage types and their cost, farmers were asked to describe how they were acquired and to give their local names. Pictures of the storage types were also taken.

#### **4. Results**

#### **4.1 Social-economic characteristic of smallholder maize farmers**

The farmer's ages ranged from 16 to 90 years with an average age of 41 years. Over half of the smallholder maize farmers interviewed had attained formal primary level of education. Many farmers were growing more than one crop and keeping a few domesticated animals. All of them depended on agriculture for their livelihood, and mainly employed family labour. The famers interviewed mainly used rudimentary tools such as hand hoes. Many farmers owned the land, and a few were renting. The majority of the families, which were extended, lived in small mud-and-wattle grassthatched huts. Some families had six to ten members in the household.

#### **4.2 Perception of the smallholder farmers of storage types**

The study captured smallholder maize farmers' general experience of storage. The study was carried out in the second harvest season of 2014/2015. All respondents stated that they experienced storage challenges arising from the storage methods they used. Since the majority of them rely on the maize produced for food and income, storage challenges affected their food and income security. The poor nature of storage negatively affected the quantity and quality of the maize. Sadly, the smallholder maize farmers reported that when they ran out of maize for food, they were forced to buy back at inflated prices the maize that they had sold off cheaply earlier in the year.

**Table 1** shows the different storage types used by smallholder maize farmers. The findings show that ten different storage types were used by smallholder maize farmers in the sampled districts of Eastern Uganda. As can be seen from **Table 1**, storage types have different names in the different dialects. Sometimes, even within the same district they are referred to differently; for example, *edula* and *etuuja* to mean granary in Katakwi. Some storage types like the jerry-can had no local name in Ateso because it was not made locally. Respondents explained that some storage types were not used in their districts for various reasons. For example, while the granary storage type was common in Manafwa and Katakwi districts, it was not used in Iganga because of the local people had limited knowledge of how to construct it; and the materials used for making it were also scarce.

#### **4.3 Description, acquisition and usage of storage types**

In SSA, post-harvest losses contribute substantially to the total crop losses incurred by smallholder maize farmers. Most often, maize prices are very low just after the harvest, when there is plenty of maize on sale. Thus, farmers have to store grain for family consumption, for sale, and for seed in the next planting season. These, and many more factors, call for proper storage in order to serve these purposes when there is no production. The subsequent paragraphs present the description of the different storage types, how they are acquired, and why they are used.

#### *4.3.1 Granary storage type*

The granary has a conical roof made of poles, reeds, and grass, and the bottom is round and made of mud. It is normally raised above the ground to avoid damage from termites, rats, and ground moisture. Granaries are built for specific crops. For *Smallholder Maize Farmers Need Better Storage for Food Security: An Exploratory Study… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109172*


*1 The percentages are calculated to give the extent of use within the sample. However, because of the small sample size, this does not reflect the prevalence of the storage type.*

#### **Table 1.**

*Name in local dialect and percentage usage by storage type.*

example, a maize granary is different from a millet granary. Although at first glance it seems easy to construct, some smallholder maize farmers admitted that they do not use granaries because they are hard to construct and require expertise. The granary has an advantage of being cheap and made from locally available materials and can store relatively large amount of grain. However the disadvantage of such storage is that they are prone to fires and rodent attack which may destroy the stored maize grain (**Figure 2**).

On the construction of the granary, one participant had this to say:

*Depending on where one gets the materials for granary construction from, one may not need money to construct it because all the materials are locally available free of charge in some villages. However, if a farmer lacks the skills for granary construction, he/she has to hire someone to construct it. Since granaries are constructed outside the house one, must choose a strategic place where water flow is limited to protect it from floods. More so, the location should be safe to prevent easy access by thieves. Thus, granaries are normally constructed close to the main house for security purposes and are mainly used by male farmers (Male respondent, Omodoi sub-county, Katakwi district).*

The cost of a granary varies from farmer to farmer, village to village and district to district. This is because most smallholder maize farmers use locally available materials for construction (where these exist). The cost is difficult to estimate because the owners hardly know how to monetise the materials used. This is because materials are

#### **Figure 2.**

*A farmer explaining why maize granary is never smeared with mud.*

obtained freely from within their surroundings. In addition, the cost also varies with the size, shape and with the season. During dry spells, the grass and water become scarce, which increases the cost. However, by triangulating information from different farmers, the granary was estimated to cost on average about 67 USD.

A granary built for maize is not smeared with mud to allow for continuous flow of air, which is useful in maize drying, while the one for millet must be smeared because the grain is tiny. One participant had this to say:

*When making a granary, one starts by creating a sign of plus {***+***} by joining two short sticks of the desired bottom size which are either tied or nailed to keep them stuck together. Here, you start making it with small sticks or reeds. The length is determined by the size, in that if it is very tall and big, the granary can easily collapse. The granary is normally placed on four stones to prevent damage by flooding water. The stones help in raising the granary above the ground. The stones must be at the same level to avoid tilting the granary. The poles are supposed to support the granary and* 

*Smallholder Maize Farmers Need Better Storage for Food Security: An Exploratory Study… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109172*

*the roof. Stones are used to prevent storm water from damaging the stored maize (Male farmer, Butiru sub-county, Manafwa district).*

If the granary is well-kept, it can be used for two or more years, but it must be roofed properly and protected from termites. The main reason for using the granary is that it can keep a lot of maize outside the house, which reduces inconvenience to the inhabitants. However, the demerit of using the granary is its susceptibility to pests, floods, rats and thieves.

The use of traditional granaries to store maize is attributed to inadequate resources; even farmers who knew about modern storage types said their price was prohibitive. Besides, the modern storage types are scarce.

#### *4.3.2 Sack storage type*

Sacks were the most commonly used storage type (**Figure 3**).

From **Table 1**, 74.4% of the sampled smallholder maize farmers stored their maize in sacks. Even where a farmer used more than one storage type, a sack would be among them. Farmers used sacks because of their affordability, accessibility, and flexibility. Sacks were bought from the shops around the villages. They cost between 0.27USD and 0.40USD. The capacity of each sack is 100 kilogrammes. The advantages of this method is quick access and it could easily be re-used if it is not destroyed by rats. A participant said:

*Sacks can also keep the maize in one place and enable lifting for sun-drying easily. One would also know how much maize he/she has by just counting the sacks. The drawback of sacks is that it is susceptible to mould, pests, rats and termites (Female farmer, Ibulanku sub-county, Iganga district).*

Although sacks are used by the majority of the farmers, they absorb moisture when put on bare ground and offer little protection against pests. If they are not

**Figure 3.** *Maize stored in sack.*

damaged by rats, sacks can be used for one year. Well-to-do farmers have started adopting modern sacks referred to as hermetic triple bags, which are airtight [8]. However, they are expensive; each costs 1.88 USD to 2.14 USD, hence few smallholder maize farmers can afford them. Therefore, they are very scarce. This is demonstrated by the fact that it took 18 years for hermetic bags that were used in central America in 1990 to reach Africa in 2008 [10].

#### *4.3.3 Pot storage type*

Pots are made of clay and are burnt to make them strong and impermeable. Large and small pots with storage capacities ranging from 5 to 20 kilogrammes were used. The maize stored in pots would remain clean and safe, but it requires regular sundrying to kill off the pests and to avoid mould. One participant noted that:

*The challenges of using pots are that they are fragile, require continuous sun-drying, have limited capacity, and are very difficult to make. Pots are either purchased or made locally. Smallholder maize farmers with pot-making skills would make them for either home use or sell (Female farmer, Katakwi sub-county, Katakwi district).*

A big pot as shown in **Figure 4** costs 10.72 USD. The maize kept in a pot cannot be attacked by rats and other pests.

The top of the big pot is covered with small pot. Cow-dung mixed with soil or ash is used to seal off the top, thus preventing access by rats and other pests as shown in **Figure 4**. Air permeation is limited, but in case of excessive moisture around the pot, the maize may start to germinate. This is an ancient traditional storage type which is slowly getting extinct. However, smallholder maize farmers who use pots said that they did so for ancestral attachment. Pots are safe and can be stored in the house, are locally available, and are relatively cheap compared to cribs. Due to its fragile nature, the pot can be easily damaged, even by children. Hence, their durability depends on how careful the users are.

#### *4.3.4 Above-the-fire storage type*

This storage type was used by few of the smallholder maize farmers. Above-thefire storage type takes various forms. Some farmers use strings, while others use ropes or wire to tie the maize together. The tied maize cobs are then hung above the cooking fireplace. However, some farmers construct platforms above the cooking fireplace. The platform raised above the cooking fireplace is constructed by use of poles, nails and ropes. After harvest, maize is placed on this platform. When maize is off-season the platform may be used to keep other household items like firewood (**Figure 5**).

When ropes and wires are used, the maize is tied on the rope or wire and is hung above the cooking fireplace. The rope or wire is hung above the fire, which makes it very difficult for rats to attack the maize. The smoke from the cooking fireplace helps to protect the maize from damage by insects and rodents. This storage type is cheap and is easy to use, provided the cooking fireplace is safe. It also enables continuous drying of the maize. The maize kept above the fireplace was reported to germinate easily. Generally, this storage type is used mainly to preserve the seeds. A participant stated that:

*Smallholder Maize Farmers Need Better Storage for Food Security: An Exploratory Study… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109172*

**Figure 4.** *Pot used to keep maize.*

*The disadvantage with this storage type is that it cannot store big amounts of maize. Hence, it stores mainly for planting. The use of smoke makes our maize to turn brown or black and so we cannot eat it because it looks dirty (Male farmer, Omodoi subcounty, Katakwi district).*

The storage type is constructed with poles, strings, and nails, which are locally available. Smallholder maize farmers with cooking fire places do not incur extra cost in acquiring this storage type. It is a storage type that has been used for a long time and those who use it copied it from past generations. A participant noted that:

*Another important advantage of this storage type is that it can be used for many things in that when maize is not available it can store other household items (Female farmer, Ngariam sub-county, Katakwi district).*

**Figure 5.** *Above-the-fire storage type.*

This storage type was very difficult to monetise because the users normally got the materials free and used their own labour to construct it. Nevertheless, the estimated cost is about 26.81 USD.
