Documentation of storage practices of major cereals followed by farmers

Introduction

Ensuring food security for a rapidly expanding population under the dual pressures of accelerating urbanization and climate change remains one of India's most pressing challenges. With an annual population growth rate of 1.26 per cent, India's population is projected to reach 166.8 crore by 2050 [1] . Since the advent of the Green Revolution in the mid-1960s, the country has achieved remarkable progress in food grain production, emerging as the second largest producer globally after China, with a total output of 317.58 million tonnes [2] . However, agricultural self-sufficiency has not translated proportionately into food and nutritional security. Nearly 224.3 million people, representing about 16 per cent of the population, continue to remain undernourished [3] , underscoring the critical role of postharvest management, storage, and distribution inefficiencies rather than production constraints alone. Post-harvest grain losses comprise both quantitative losses, including physical damage and storage losses, and qualitative losses such as nutritional degradation, contamination, handling damage, and decline in market value [4] . FAO estimates indicate that post-harvest losses of food grains in India range between 10 and 25 per cent, with storage losses alone accounting for more than five per cent of the total losses. These losses occur throughout the postharvest continuum-from harvesting and preprocessing to transportation, storage, and marketing-and result in weight loss, reduced seed viability, deterioration in grain quality, and substantial economic losses to farmers [5] . The World Bank has estimated that the magnitude of post-harvest grain losses in India could potentially feed nearly one-third of the country's poor population, highlighting the urgency of addressing storage-related inefficiencies [6] . Grain storage plays a pivotal role in agricultural sustainability by ensuring year-round food availability, safeguarding seed for subsequent cropping seasons, stabilizing farm income, and enhancing livelihood security [7] . Efficient storage enables farmers to retain produce for household consumption, seed purposes, livestock feeding, or delayed marketing to take advantage of favourable prices. Despite its importance, a considerable proportion of food grains in India continues to be stored under suboptimal www.extensionjournal.com conditions due to inadequate infrastructure, limited technical knowledge, and heavy reliance on traditional storage systems, resulting in significant grain deterioration and economic loss [8] . Stored grains are particularly vulnerable to damage by insect pests belonging mainly to the orders Coleoptera and Lepidoptera, which often initiate infestation during crop development in the field and continue their activity throughout the storage period. These pests cause direct quantitative losses through feeding and indirectly promote secondary fungal and microbial infections, thereby accelerating quality deterioration and loss of market value [9] . In addition, rodent species such as Bandicota bengalensis, Rattus norvegicus, Rattus rattus, and Mus musculus pose serious threats to stored grains by causing direct consumption, spillage, and contamination through droppings and urine, adversely affecting both grain quality and human health [10] . Environmental factors such as grain moisture content, relative humidity, temperature, and ventilation critically influence the extent of storage losses. Relative humidity levels exceeding 70 per cent favour insect multiplication and mold growth, whereas long-term safe storage of cereals requires grain moisture content below 13 per cent. Poorly designed and inadequately managed storage structures exacerbate pest infestation and moisture accumulation, particularly among smallholder farmers who largely depend on traditional storage methods such as gunny bags, earthen bins, and household-level storage structures. At the farm level, storage loss assessment is commonly based on visual observation of damage symptoms and estimation of weight loss, which may underestimate the actual magnitude of losses [11] . In this context, indigenous traditional knowledge related to grain storage assumes considerable significance. Indigenous storage practices, developed through generations of experiential learning and local adaptation, offer costeffective, environmentally sustainable, and culturally acceptable solutions to post-harvest challenges. Systematic documentation of such knowledge is essential to prevent its erosion and to ensure its continued relevance for present and future generations. Moreover, proper documentation facilitates scientific validation, refinement, and integration of indigenous practices with modern storage technologies, thereby enhancing their effectiveness and wider dissemination through agricultural extension systems [12] . Although several studies have examined post-harvest losses and storage constraints in different parts of India, systematic investigations focusing on cereal storage practices, pest incidence, associated losses, and the role of indigenous knowledge systems in the Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir remain limited. A comprehensive understanding of farmers' storage behaviour, purposes and duration of storage, extent of losses, pest management practices, indigenous innovations, and factors influencing storagerelated decision-making is essential for designing locationspecific extension strategies. Such evidence-based interventions can significantly contribute to reducing postharvest losses, improving household food availability, and strengthening overall food and nutritional security in the region.

Materials and Methods

The present study was conducted during the agricultural year 2023-24 in selected villages of Jammu district, Union Territory of Jammu and Kashmir, to examine the storage practices adopted for major cereal crops. Jammu district was selected purposively owing to its substantial area under rice, wheat, and maize cultivation. A multistage sampling technique was employed. In the first stage, Jammu district was selected purposively. In the second stage, two irrigated blocks (Arnia and Bishnah) and two rainfed blocks (Bhalwal and Nagrota) were selected randomly. In the third stage, four villages from each selected block were chosen using simple random sampling, resulting in a total of sixteen villages. From these villages, 160 farmers (80 each from irrigated and unirrigated areas) were selected randomly to constitute the sample size. Primary data were collected through personal interviews using a structured and pre-tested interview schedule covering cereal storage practices, purpose and duration of storage, perceived storage losses, and factors influencing storage decisions. Informal discussions and field observations were also undertaken to validate responses and ensure reliability and consistency of the data.

Hypothesis of the study H₀1:

There is no significant difference in the storage practices of major cereals followed by the farmers. H₁1: There is a significant difference in the storage practices of major cereals followed by the farmers.

Testing of Hypothesis H₀₁ / H₁₁

The results revealed variations in storage practices across major cereals in terms of storage duration, structures used, pest management methods, and perceived losses. Hence, H₀₁ was rejected and H₁₁ was accepted, indicating a significant difference in storage practices of major cereals followed by the farmers. H₀2: Farmers do not significantly use modern storage structures and pest management methods for storing major cereals. H₁2: Farmers significantly use modern storage structures and pest management methods for storing major cereals.

Testing of Hypothesis H₀2 / H₁2

The widespread use of modern storage containers and chemical as well as botanical pest management practices across cereals demonstrates significant adoption of modern storage methods. Hence, H₀₃ was rejected and H₁₃ was accepted, indicating that farmers significantly use modern storage structures and pest management methods for storing major cereals.

Results and Discussion

Training Status and Cereal Storage Behaviour of Respondents

The findings revealed an extremely low level of formal training on cereal storage among the respondents, with almost the entire sample lacking exposure to institutional training programmes. This clearly indicates a major gap in post-harvest extension services in the study area. The absence of training may limit farmers' awareness regarding www.extensionjournal.com improved storage technologies and scientific grain management practices, which could otherwise help in reducing post-harvest losses. Similar observations highlighting inadequate extension support in post-harvest management have been reported in literature [13,14]. Despite the lack of training, almost all respondents reported storing cereals during the previous year. Storage was mainly undertaken for household consumption, followed by seed and animal feed requirements, while storage for speculative market sale was minimal. This pattern suggests that cereal storage in the study area is largely subsistence-oriented rather than commercially driven. Such subsistence-focused storage behaviour has also been reported, emphasizing the role of cereal storage in ensuring household food security rather than profit maximization [15] .

Grain Utilization and Storage Pattern

The results indicated that a substantial portion of harvested grains was sold immediately after harvest, while the remaining quantity was retained for domestic use. Immediate sale of produce may be attributed to farmers' urgent cash needs for meeting household expenses and financing the next cropping season, as also reported in literature [14] .

The longer duration of storage observed for rice compared to wheat and maize highlights its importance in ensuring year-round food availability. Rice, being a staple food, is commonly stored for extended periods to maintain household food security. Similar storage trends have been reported, noting that cereals intended primarily for consumption are stored for longer durations compared to those meant for sale [16] .

Type and Location of Cereal Storage Structures

The predominance of storage structures located within residential premises reflects farmers' preference for convenient monitoring and protection of stored grains.

Storing cereals within the household allows better supervision and reduces the risk of theft and pest infestation. Comparable findings were reported, observing that residential storage remains common among smallholder farmers [17] . The higher adoption of scientific storage structures, particularly in irrigated areas, may be attributed to better access to resources, higher production levels, and increased awareness of improved storage technologies. However, the limited adoption in unirrigated areas suggests disparities in technology access and extension outreach.

Adoption of Storage Containers

Hermetic metal silos emerged as the most preferred storage containers, either used independently or in combination with other containers. Farmers' preference for hermetic structures may be due to their effectiveness in minimizing insect infestation, moisture ingress, and rodent damage. The airtight nature of these containers creates unfavourable conditions for pest survival, thereby reducing storage losses. Similar preferences for hermetic storage technologies were reported, highlighting their role in improving grain preservation and reducing post-harvest losses [18] .

Storage Practices Followed by Farmers

The widespread adoption of cleaning, sun drying, and winnowing practices before storage reflects farmers' reliance on simple and cost-effective methods for maintaining grain quality. Immediate sealing of storage containers after filling and the separation of fresh and old grains further indicate farmers' awareness of basic storage hygiene practices. These practices help in preventing moisture absorption and pest infestation, thereby extending the shelf life of stored grains. Similar storage practices have been documented in the literature [19,20] . The widespread adoption of cleaning, sun drying, and winnowing practices before storage reflects farmers' reliance on simple and cost-effective methods for maintaining grain quality. Immediate sealing of storage containers after filling and the separation of fresh and old grains further indicate farmers' awareness of basic storage hygiene practices. These practices help in preventing moisture absorption and pest infestation, thereby extending the shelf life of stored grains. Similar storage practices have been documented in the literature [19,20] .

Pre-storage and Storage Management Practices

Sun drying was the most commonly adopted pre-storage practice, emphasizing its importance in reducing grain moisture and preventing spoilage. However, the limited practice of repeated sun drying may expose grains to moisture-related damage during prolonged storage.

Winnowing was widely used for cleaning, whereas sieving was rarely adopted, possibly due to the lack of appropriate equipment or awareness.

During storage, farmers relied on a combination of conventional and chemical pest management practices. Neem leaves were the most commonly used traditional material, owing to their repellent properties, as also reported in literature [21] . Chemical control measures were more prominently used in rice, wheat, and maize storage, reflecting farmers' perception of their effectiveness and rapid action against pests. Similar trends in the use of chemical insecticides were reported in the literature [22] . Perceived storage losses were highest in maize, followed by wheat and rice. This may be due to the higher moisture content of maize and its greater susceptibility to insect and fungal infestation during storage, as reported in the literature [13] .

Stored Grain Pests Observed by Respondents

Weevils were identified as the most destructive pests across all cereals. Their high reproductive potential and ability to infest grains internally make them particularly damaging during storage. Similar observations were reported in the literature [16,23]. Khapra beetle infestation was also observed across cereals, with a higher incidence in rice, while moth infestation was more common in maize, as illustrated in Figures 1,2, and 3. Figure 1 depicts the major storage pests infesting rice, Figure 2 shows the pest complex associated with wheat, and Figure 3 highlights the predominant pests observed in maize. The presence of these pests indicates inadequate storage sanitation and prolonged storage duration, which create favourable conditions for pest multiplication.

Perceived Factors Causing Damage to Stored Grains

Improper drying was perceived as the most significant factor contributing to insect damage, followed by climatic variations and poor ventilation. Excess rainfall was identified as the primary cause of moisture-related damage, leading to mould development and discoloration of grains.

Rodent damage was mainly attributed to external entry through burrows and mud floors, resulting in broken grains and contamination. These findings underline the combined influence of biological, environmental and infrastructural factors on storage losses and are consistent with the observations in the literature [24] . These findings underline the combined influence of biological, environmental, and infrastructural factors on storage losses and are consistent with the observations in the literature [24] that insects, moisture, and rodents as major contributors to post-harvest losses.

Conclusion

Overall, the study highlights distinct variations in postharvest losses, utilization patterns, and storage behaviour across major cereals. Rice emerged as the most vulnerable crop during harvesting, threshing, and transportation stages due to its fragile grain structure and high sensitivity to moisture conditions, which increase the risk of mechanical damage and quantitative losses. In contrast, maize exhibited greater susceptibility to storage losses, primarily owing to its relatively higher moisture content at harvest and increased vulnerability to insect and fungal infestations during prolonged storage. The predominance of consumption-oriented storage clearly reflects farmers' prioritization of household food security over market-oriented storage, with cereals largely retained for consumption, seed preservation, and livestock feeding. At the same time, the growing preference for improved storage structures, particularly hermetic metal silos, indicates a gradual transition towards scientific and more efficient storage solutions, even in the absence of adequate formal training or institutional support. This shift suggests farmers' experiential recognition of the benefits of improved storage in minimizing losses. However, the continued dependence on chemical pest control measures and the persistence of inadequate prestorage practices, such as improper drying and insufficient ventilation, remain key constraints contributing to postharvest losses. These shortcomings underline the need for greater emphasis on integrated storage management approaches that combine improved handling practices www.extensionjournal.com across the post-harvest chain with enhanced pre-storage preparation and the balanced adoption of scientific and ecofriendly storage methods. Addressing these issues can play a crucial role in reducing losses, improving grain quality, and enhancing the overall efficiency and sustainability of cereal storage systems in the study area.

References

1. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division. World Population Prospects 2022. https://population.un.org/wpp.
2. Directorate of Economics and Statistics. Digest of Statistics. Jammu: Planning and Development, Government of Jammu and Kashmir; 2023.
3. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Time for extraordinary efforts to continue walking the talk. https://www.fao.org/home/en/. Accessed 2026 Jan 13.
4. Befikadu D. Factors affecting quality of grain stored in Ethiopian traditional storage structures and opportunities for improvement. International Journal of Sciences Basic and Applied Research. 2014;18(1):235257.
5. Kumar D, Kalita P. Reducing postharvest losses during storage of grain crops to strengthen food security in developing countries. Foods. 2017. doi:10.3390.
6. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The World Bank Annual Report 1999. https://documents.worldbank.org/. Accessed 2026 Jan 20.
7. LCDM. The history and evolution of grain storage. https://lcdmcorp.com/grain-flow-101/. Accessed 2026 Jan 20.
8. Sharma BC, Slathia PS, Kumar R, Paul N. Indigenous storage of food grains and seeds in mid hills of Jammu division of Jammu & Kashmir. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge. 2022;21(4):890-894.
9. Deshwal R, Vaibhav V, Kumar N, Kumar A, Singh R. Stored grain insect pests and their management: An overview. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies. 2020;8(5):969-974.
10. Negi T, Solanki D. Tradition grain storage structures and practices followed by farm families of Kumaon region in Uttarakhand. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 2015;15(4):137-141.
11. Utono IM. Assessment of grain loss due to insect pest during storage for small-scale farmers of Kebbi. Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science. 2013;3(5):3850.
12. Prakash BG, Raghavendra KV, Gowthami R. Indigenous practices for eco-friendly storage of food grains and seeds. Advances in Plants and Agriculture Research. 2016;3(4):101-107.
13. Basavaraja H, Mahajanashetti SB, Udagatti NC. Economic analysis of post-harvest losses in food grains in India: A case study of Karnataka. Agricultural Economics Research Review. 2007;20(1):117-126.
14. Aggarwal S, Francis E, Robinson J. Grain today, gain tomorrow: Evidence from a storage experiment with savings clubs in Kenya. Journal of Development Economics. 2018;134:1-15.
15. Sethi N, Malaviya A. Scientific rationality of indigenous grain storage practices practised by rural women. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 2000;34(3):188-190.
16. Sharon M, Abirami CV, Alagusundaram K. Grain storage management in India. Journal of Postharvest Technology. 2014;2(1):12-24.
17. Oladejo JA. Economic analysis of maize storage techniques utilized by farmers in Osun state. International Journal of Scientific and Engineering Research. 2016;7(2):244-255.
18. Manandhar A, Milindi P, Shah A. An overview of the post-harvest grain storage practices of smallholder farmers in developing countries. Agriculture. 2018;8(4):57-65.
19. Nagesh N, Halakatti SV, Hanchinal SN. Management practices adopted by farmers for storage of food grains and fodder. Advance Research Journal of Crop Improvement. 2013;4(1):85-94.
20. Sahu G, Shrivastava KK, Chaturvedi BK. Adoption of storage practices of food grains among the farmers of northern hills of Chhattisgarh. Plant Archives. 2015;15(2):813-815.
21. Mobolade AJ, Bunindro N, Sahoo D, Rajashekar Y. Traditional methods of food grains preservation and storage in Nigeria and India. Annals of Agricultural Sciences. 2019;64(2):196-205.
22. Abamecha N, Dibaba K, Bayissa W, Hunde D, Mendesil E, Kassie M, et al. Impact of farmers' storage practices and storage hygiene on grain losses in Ethiopia. International Institute for Science, Technology and Education. 2020;93(1):42-51.
23. Bezabih G, Satheesh N, Workneh Fanta S, Wale M, Atlabachew M. Assessment of farmers practices and perception on maize grain storage insect pest in Mecha woreda, Amhara regional state, Ethiopia. Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection. 2022;55(6):1-25.
24. Hosakoti SS, Dolli SS, Hiremath US, Angadi JG. Methods of storage of grains by farmers and losses during storage. International Journal of Agricultural and Statistical Sciences. 2013;9(1):235-239.