*4.3.6 The jerry-can storage type*

Although jerry-cans are bought to fetch water, they have a dual purpose among smallholder maize farmers (**Figure 7**). When the jerry-cans get old, they are turned *Smallholder Maize Farmers Need Better Storage for Food Security: An Exploratory Study… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109172*

**Figure 6.** *Basket storage type.*

**Figure 7.** *Jerry-can storage type.*

into maize storage containers. Unlike other storage types, this particular one is not locally made. In this storage type, maize is put into the jerry-can and then sealed with a lid. One participant noted that:

*This storage type is better because the maize is protected from rats, pests and birds. When the jerry-can is put in a dry place, the maize can stay safe for one to two months. The jerry-can should not be placed on the cold wet ground because it will mould. The challenge with this kind of storage is that it cannot store maize for long and stores little in quantities. You also have to keep sun-drying (Female farmer, Makuutu sub-county, Iganga district).*

Although jerry-cans are readily available, they are not cheap. A new one costs about 1.88 USD; hence, farmers have to find damaged ones that can no longer be used to fetch water.

### *4.3.7 The crib storage type*

Cribs are either open or closed. During the interview, smallholder maize farmers explained that cribs are constructed using locally available materials*.* They are built like a house, roofed with iron sheets, or thatched with grass. **Figure 8** shows a crib made of eucalyptus tree poles, timber, nails and iron sheet without wire mesh.

The well-to-do farmers use iron sheets, timber, nails and wire mesh to construct the crib. However, the poor farmers (unfortunately the majority) use grass, papyrus, tarpaulins, reeds, poles and nails to construct cribs. A participant noted that:

*To protect maize from pilferage, we add chicken mesh on the crib, which makes it impossible for one to pick the maize cob. Sometimes we do not put a door but just leave a space towards the roof and use a ladder to put and remove the maize. Smallholder maize farmers construct cribs with doors when one has security in the home (Male farmer, Butiru sub-county, Manafwa district).*

This storage type is important because it enables continuous drying of maize and offers a large storage capacity compared to granaries. Farmers with no expertise in crib-making hire experts to undertake the construction. A crib is the most expensive storage type costing approximately 268.06 USD.

The crib may be made with two small doors to aid in adding new stock or taking out the maize. If the first part of the crib up to the first door level is full, the farmer uses the higher door to put in more maize. Similarly, in removing the maize one can use the first-in first-out (FIFO) method.

The use of crib storage type depends on the amount of maize produced. Smallholder maize farmers producing less than one tonne can hardly ever use them. The nature or type of a crib depends on the farmer's financial ability and expertise. Besides being expensive, the cribs are susceptible to attack by rats, pests, birds and thieves.

**Figure 8.** *Traditional crib.*

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

#### *4.3.8 The plastic bucket and iron container storage type*

Another storage type used by smallholder maize farmers is the plastic bucket and iron container. This storage type is an open round- or square-shaped container made of plastic or iron. The iron containers today are quite rare because plastic containers are more available. Plastic buckets are more common today. Buckets are either bought directly from the market for storage or obtained after emptying buckets containing products like washing detergent packaged in these containers. Buckets are hermetic (airtight) and limit many pests. However, they are susceptible to fire, besides being more expensive than sacks (**Figure 9**).

However, to prevent moulding, the container must be kept in a dry place and the maize must be clean and dry. The tins are of varying capacities ranging from two kilogrammes to 20 kilogrammes of grain. Tins are not locally made and hence have to be purchased at 0.54 USD for five kilogrammes to 8.04 USD for twenty kilogrammes. Thus, the majority of smallholder maize farmers find them expensive compared to sacks.

#### *4.3.9 The house-corner storage type*

The house-corner is another storage type used by smallholder maize farmers. Quite often, the farmers spread their harvested maize in the house-corners. Depending on whether the house is cemented or not, they turn one corner of the house into a storage place. This space is normally in their sitting room because it enables them to easily take the maize out for sun-drying.

However, the drawback with this storage type is that maize is susceptible to destruction by rats, birds and pests, which exacerbates grain losses. A participant noted that:

*This storage type is acquired through house construction. Once one has built a house then the maize seeds are just spread in one of the house corners. (Female farmer, Bulamagi sub-county, Iganga district).*

This storage was very difficult to monetise. Nevertheless, in this study, it is treated as a zero cost because the house is built for accommodation and not for storage.

**Figure 9.** *Sample of plastic bucket.*

#### *4.3.10 The house-roof storage type*

This storage type is transitional in that it does not keep maize for long. When maize is harvested, it can be stored on the rooftop of the house to help with continued drying. Maize cobs with or without husks are deposited on rooftops. It prevents domestic birds from destroying the maize because they cannot easily climb to the roof of the house. This storage type also limits pilferage and rat damage but is susceptible to mould and pests. One participant said:

*When the roof is thatched with grass, then the maize remains on the cob and with husks; but for an iron-roofed house, the maize may be removed from the cob (Female farmer, Ibulanku sub-county, Iganga district).*

House-rooftops store maize for a short period. They are also affected by weather changes, particularly during the rainy season. The storage type is difficult to monetise; first, because some rooftops are made of grass and others of iron sheets. Secondly, because the rooftops are part-and-parcel of their accommodation, farmers did not see it as an extra cost to acquire the storage type and hence it was difficult for them to monetize it.

#### **5. Discussion**

Household storage presents complex challenges for smallholder maize famers in Uganda. It leads to loss of grain in storage [11]. The description of the various storage types used reveals that there is an urgent need to tackle storage inadequacies among smallholder maize farmers [12]. This study concurs with [33] findings in his study of grain storage in Africa. He revealed that storage methods differ even within the same country. This study shows that, to a large extent, all the storage types described present a degree of risk. And yet maize has the potential of expanding the income and food security of the smallholder maize farmers in Uganda [19, 23, 24]. The storage challenge has contributed to escalating food and income insecurity, thereby condemning many smallholder maize farmers to perpetual poverty and famine [31, 33, 34].

Some storage types, such as sacks, are susceptible to pests and yet cribs that are less susceptible are quite expensive to construct. The findings show that smallholder maize farmers are still trapped in the traditional storage types that alarmingly exacerbate their income and food insecurity (**Table 1**). In developing countries, losses in traditional storage facilities account for a significant proportion of all post-harvest losses in cereals [7, 30]. In Uganda, storage losses of maize after harvest are about 6% of the quantity harvested, on average [31]. The findings lend some credence on how storage types are acquired and used and the reason for their use. This is pertinent to researchers and policy-makers because it adds anecdotal evidence on the description of storage types. This is crucial for policy formulation in the fight against food and income insecurity.

Purchasing was the most common method of acquiring the storage facilities used. However, while some farmers would construct their storage structures, others hired experts to construct the storage facilities for them. Given the limited financial ability of most smallholder maize farmers, it is hard for them to acquire better storage types.

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

This, therefore, constrains their effort to increase food supply since much is lost during storage. Farmers purchase the storage types that are available and affordable, but also remain committed to traditional attachments.

Taking the examples of the storage types used by smallholder maize farmers, the findings demonstrate that storage requires urgent attention because it impacts negatively on food and income security of the farmers. It is safe to say that deliberate efforts need to be directed towards improving maize storage at household level. Attention should be directed towards improving the existing storage technologies at household level, improving the storage efficiency, facilitating more storage capacity and perhaps extending the storage length, which is critical for income and food security. The emphasis on household storage is premised on the dire need for safe storage and the fact that much of the grain produced is for human consumption. Given the level at which the storage types currently operate, it seems the gains from such an approach would be high.

It is arguable that the current state of storage at household level cannot eradicate food and income insecurity. The storage types elucidated above clearly demonstrate the urgent need to improve on the structures if safety of the grain is to be achieved. When safety is threatened, smallholder maize farmers' participation in economic activity through the sale of maize is compromised. Unfortunately, the farmers' ability to improve the storage on their own seems limited given their continued use of traditional storage methods, despite the losses experienced. This has left them in a predicament because the rate of damage to the grain in storage by rats and other pests is alarming.

Consequently, this limits economic development because the majority of the farmers derive their livelihood from agriculture. And yet protection of the grains in the current storage types is almost impossible [25]. Besides, smallholder maize farmers predominantly use traditional protection methods like *neem* tree leaves, sun-drying, and smoking, which are not very effective in protecting the grains.

In conclusion, despite the predominant use of traditional storage types among smallholder maize farmers in Uganda, its safety is still very poor. It also causes high losses to the farmers. Clearly, these storage types need urgent improvement to enable the famers to become food and incomes secure [28]. Overall, the present storage types described suggest a need for change, which must be integrated in the way maize is stored at smallholder level. Apart from being traditional, the storage types have no ability to protect the maize from waste and, therefore, the farmers will certainly continue to suffer if no change is instituted. As a key component of family security, every effort should be directed at improving storage for better income and food security.

It can also be seen that farmers use different types of storage. Two aspects that need further research are:

