Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:59:10.806Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Storage Losses in Traditional Maize Granaries in Togo

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2011

C. U. Pantenius
C. U. Pantenius
Affiliation:
Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) Direction de la Protection des Végétaux, Projet Nigéro-Allemand, B. P. 10.155 Niamey, Rép. du Niger
Get access

Abstract

During the two years research 1983–1985 on traditional maize granaries in Togo, we studied three methods for loss assessment which are discussed by the FAO: the count and weigh method, the standard volume/weight method and the thousand-grain mass method.

In general, between 80 and 90% of the overall losses were caused by insect feedings. Besides Prostephanus truncatus (Horn), the most important storage pests were Sitophilus zeamais (Motsch.), Tribolium spp. and Cathartus quadricollis (Guèr.). Best results were given by the count and weigh method. The significantly highest losses of dry weight (12–13%) were found after 6 months in stored hybrids. At the same time, local varieties appeared much more adapted to traditional storage methods, exhibiting losses of only 3% under the same conditions. Lowest level of losses (<1%) were observed in regularly smoked granaries in the mountain regions. The mean losses of dry weight during primary season were found to be 6.4% after 6 months, while after a storage period of 4 months during the secondary season, losses were as high as 8%. In Togo, P. truncatus was observed for the first time in spring 1984. Because of the different damage P. truncatus causes on corn, a newly developed sample weight method was examined in an additional test. After 6 months of observation, this dangerous pest caused serious losses up to 30.2%.

Résumé

Lors des études sur les pertes dans les sytèmes traditionels de stockage du maïs au Togo, effectuées de 1983–1985, trois méthodes d'evaluation des pertes, discutées par la FAO, ont été appliquées: la Méthode du Comptage et du Pesage (MCP), la Méthode du Poids Volumique Standard (MPVS) et la Méthode du Poid de 1000 Grains (MPMG).

En général 80% à 90% des pertes en poids total sont causés par des insectes nuisibles. Après Prostephanus truncatus (Horn), les ravageurs de stocks les plus fréquents étaient Sitophilus zeamais (Motsch.), Tribolium spp. et Cathartus quadricollis (Guer). La MCP permettait d'obtenir les meilleurs résultats. Les espèces de maïs hybrides ont subis, au terme d'une période de stockage de 6 mois, les pertes relatives de MS les plus élevées (12 à 13%). Sous les conditions de stockage comparable, les espèces locales se sont avérées mieu adaptées au système de stockage traditionel, leur perte en poids n'accusait que 3% de MS. Les pertes en poids les plus faibles (mois de 1%) ont été observées dans les régions montagneuses, oú les greniers sont soumis à un enfumage quotidien.

Au cours de la primière saison de stockage de 6 mois, les pertes en poids MS s'élevaient à 6.4%, au par rapport à 8% après 4 mois de stockage pendant la deuxieme saison.

Dans le but d'étudier l'importance des pertes dûes à une infestation par P. truncatus, la méthode des échantillons (MPE) a été appliquée. Ce ravageur des stock très dangereux a été découvert pour la primière fois au Togo au printemps 1984. Les pertes occasionnées par P. truncatus recensées pour une periode de 6 mois atteignaient 30.2%.

Keywords

Maizestoragetraditionallossesassessment methodstropical
Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Tropical Insect Science , Volume 9 , Special Issue 6: On-Farm and Post-Harvest Losses of Cereal Crops in Africa due to Pests and Diseases , December 1988 , pp. 725 - 735
Copyright
Copyright © ICIPE 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Adams, J. M. (1976) A guide to objective and reliable estimation of food losses in small scale farmer storage. Trap. Stored Prod. Inf. 32, 5–12.Google Scholar
Adams, J. M. and Harman, G. W. (1977) The evaluation of losses in maize stored on a selection of small farms in Zambia with particular reference to the development of methodology. TPI publication G109.Google Scholar
Boxall, R. A. and Gillett, R. (1984) Farm level storage losses in Eastern Nepal. Trop. Stored Prod. Inf. 50, 20–25.Google Scholar
Boxall, R. A. (1986) A critical review of the methodology for assessing farm-level grain losses after the harvest. TDRI-Report No. G 191.Google Scholar
De Breve, M., Raboud, G., Sieber, J., Perdomo, J. A. and Velasquez, J. E. (1982) Proyecto Post-Cosecha. Informe Sobre los Primeros Resultados. Ministerio de Recursos Naturales: Cooperaction Suiza Al Desarrollo, Honduras.Google Scholar
De Lima, C. P. F. (1979) The assessment of losses due to insects and rodents in maize stored for subsistence in Kenya. Trop. Stored Prod. Inf. 38, 21–26.Google Scholar
De Lima, C. P. F. (1982) Strengthening of the Food Conservation Section (Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives). Project SWA/002/PFL Final Report, FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
Giles, P. H. and Leon, D. S. (1974) Infestation problems in farm stored maize in Nicaragua. Proceedings of the 1st International Working Conference on Stored Products Entomology. Savannah, Georgia, USA; Oct. 7–11th 1974, 68–76.Google Scholar
Golob, P. (1981a) A practical appraisal of on-farm storage losses and loss assessment methods in Malawi—1. The Shire Valley agricultural development area. Trop. Stored Prod. Inf. 40, 5–13.Google Scholar
Golob, P. (1981b) A practical appraisal of on-farm storage losses and loss assessment methods in Malawi—2. The Lilongwe Land Development Program area. Trop. Stored Prod. Inf. 41, 5–11.Google Scholar
Golob, P. and Hodges, R. I. (1982) A study of an outbreak of Prostephanus truncatus (Horn) in Tanzania. TPI-Report No. G.Google Scholar
Harris, K. L. and Lindblad, C. J. (1978) Post-harvest grain loss assessment methods. American Association of Agricultural Chemists. St. Paul, Minnesota.Google Scholar
Hoppe, T. (1986) Storage insects of basic food grains in Honduras. Trop. Sci. 26, 25–38.Google Scholar
Hyward, A. (1983) La mesure des pertes du mil infesté durant le stokage. Symposium Sur la Protection des Stocks Céréalières en Zone Sahélienne. Actes du séminaire de Dakar, 1983, 100–106.Google Scholar
Keil, H. (1987) Zur aktuellen Situation der Verbreitung des Grossen Kornbohrers (Prostephanus truncatus, Horn) in Afrika. Nachrichten-bl. Deut. Pflanzenschutzd, (Brauschweig) 39, 143.Google Scholar
Lepigre, A. L. and Pointel, J. G. (1971) Protection of maize stored in traditional Togolese granaries. Trop. Stored Prod. Inf. 21, 7–12.Google Scholar
National Research Council (1978) Postharvest Food Losses in Developing Countries. Commission on International Relations, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
Proctor, D. L. and Rowley, J. Q. (1983) The thousand grain mass (TGM): A basis for better assessment of weight losses in stored grain. Trop. Stored Prod. Inf. 45, 19–23.Google Scholar
Rawnsley, J. (1969) Crop storage. Technical Report FAO Food Research and Development Unit Accra (Ghana), Nr. 1 (PL:SF/GHA7). FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
Reader, R. A. (1971) Survey of Damage to Maize Under Village Conditions. Lilongwe Land Dev. Proj., Malawi, No. 6.Google Scholar
Rowley, J. Q. (1984) An assessment of losses during handling and storage of millet in Mali. Trop. Stored Prod. Inf. 47, 21–33.Google Scholar
Schulten, G. G. M. (1975) Losses in stored maize in Malawi and work undertaken to prevent them. Bull. Eur. Mediterr. Plant Prot. Organ. 5, 113–120.Google Scholar