Abstract
Despite the recent introduction of improved grain storage methods and technologies, many smallholder maize farmers in Ghana still use traditional storage practices and structures for storing their maize grains after harvest. This practice contributes to the high post-harvest losses in maize grain at the smallholder level largely due to insect pest infestation. Hermetic bag storage is a proven technology effective in reducing grain damage and losses from insect pests. In this study, the efficacy of the Purdue Improved Crop Storage (PICS) bag was compared with a polypropylene (PP) bag stored with maize treated with Betallic Super EC chemical and PP bag stored with maize without Betallic treatment (Control) during a 6-month storage period. Data on grain moisture content (MC), number of live insects, insect damaged kernels (IDK) and maize weight loss were collected monthly for analysis. Grain viability and nutrient analysis were also conducted before and after storage. The results showed initial grain moisture content of 11.4% was not significantly affected in the PICS bags but increased by 1-2% in the PP bags. Purdue Improved Crop Storage (PICS) bags and Betallic treatment significantly reduced insect damage grains with mean weight loss of < 5% and 6.35 % respectively compared to the control (PP bag without Betallic) treatment with mean weight loss of 21 % over the 6-month storage period. Germination rate of sampled seeds after storage in the PICS bags (75 %) was not significantly different to the initial germination rate (78 %) compared to the control (PP bag without Betallic) treatment of 56 %. Overall, maize grains stored in the PICS bags showed no signs of deterioration as compared to grains in the PP bags. The PICS bags were superior to the PP bags in terms of other grain quality metrics assessed and the nutrient characterization such as protein and carbohydrate which had no significant difference (p<0.05) between the initial and the three treatments. The results showed that PICS bags can be effective in protecting maize grains during storage. Smallholder farmers are therefore encouraged to consider this technology especially for controlling insect pests of stored maize. Key words: Insect pests, Polypropylene, Smallholder farmers, Purdue Improved Crop Storage bag
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 9
Claim · model-written summary
Maize grain moisture stayed statistically unchanged in PICS bags but rose in polypropylene bags.
- Treatment
- PICS bagse0
- Outcome
- grain moisture contente0
- Direction
- not significantly affectede0
- Value
- 11.4%e0
- Comparator
- PP bagse0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“initial grain moisture content of 11.4% was not significantly affected in the PICS bags but increased by 1-2% in the PP bags”
Claim · model-written summary
Moisture content increased by 1-2% in polypropylene bags.
- Treatment
- PP bagse0
- Outcome
- grain moisture contente0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Value
- 1-2%e0
- Comparator
- PICS bagse0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“initial grain moisture content of 11.4% was not significantly affected in the PICS bags but increased by 1-2% in the PP bags”
Claim · model-written summary
PICS bags significantly reduced insect damage, with less than 5% mean weight loss versus 21% in control bags.
- Treatment
- Purdue Improved Crop Storage (PICS) bagse0
- Outcome
- insect damage grainse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- < 5%e0
- Qualifier
- 21 %e0
- Comparator
- control (PP bag without Betallic) treatmente0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Purdue Improved Crop Storage (PICS) bags and Betallic treatment significantly reduced insect damage grains with mean weight loss of < 5% and 6.35 % respectively compared to the control (PP bag without Betallic) treatment with mean weight loss of 21 %”
Claim · model-written summary
Betallic treatment significantly reduced insect damage, with 6.35% mean weight loss versus 21% in control bags.
- Treatment
- Betallic treatmente0
- Outcome
- insect damage grainse0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 6.35 %e0
- Qualifier
- 21 %e0
- Comparator
- control (PP bag without Betallic) treatmente0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Purdue Improved Crop Storage (PICS) bags and Betallic treatment significantly reduced insect damage grains with mean weight loss of < 5% and 6.35 % respectively compared to the control (PP bag without Betallic) treatment with mean weight loss of 21 %”
Claim · model-written summary
Poststorage seed germination was 75% in PICS bags, statistically similar to the initial 78%, versus 56% in controls.
- Treatment
- PICS bagse0
- Outcome
- Germination ratee0
- Direction
- not significantly differente0
- Value
- 75 %e0
- Qualifier
- 78 %e0
- Comparator
- initial germination ratee0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“Germination rate of sampled seeds after storage in the PICS bags (75 %) was not significantly different to the initial germination rate (78 %) compared to the control (PP bag without Betallic) treatment of 56 %.”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize in PICS bags showed no deterioration compared with polypropylene bags.
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“maize grains stored in the PICS bags showed no signs of deterioration as compared to grains in the PP bags.”
Claim · model-written summary
PICS bags were superior to polypropylene bags on other grain quality measures.
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“The PICS bags were superior to the PP bags in terms of other grain quality metrics assessed”
Claim · model-written summary
Protein and carbohydrate characterization showed no significant difference among initial and storage treatments.
- Treatment
- three treatmentse0
- Outcome
- protein and carbohydratee0
- Direction
- no significant differencee0
- Comparator
- initiale0
Not reportedTaxon
Verbatim
e0“protein and carbohydrate which had no significant difference (p<0.05) between the initial and the three treatments”
Claim · model-written summary
Authors encourage smallholders to use PICS bags to control stored maize insect pests.
- Outcome
- controlling insect pests of stored maizee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Smallholder farmers are therefore encouraged to consider this technology especially for controlling insect pests of stored maize.”
The same questions in other papers
poly(propylene) · quality: grain · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
- negative
storage · quality: grain · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
4 papers in the same direction as this paper · 6 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- positive
- no effect
- no effect
8 papers more in this group
See all 12 papers →storage · pest · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
10 papers in the same direction as this paper · 5 in the opposite direction
- negative
- no effect
- negative
12 papers more in this group
See all 16 papers →storage · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
40 papers in the same direction as this paper · 20 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative
- negative
- no effect
- no effect
58 papers more in this group
See all 62 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.