Abstract
Cold storage is expensive for smallholder farmers and seed processors in developing countries. Smallholder farmers continue to resort to traditional storage methods such as polypropylene (PP) bags for maize grain storage. They often dose the grains with chemicals to preserve them. However, hermetic bags have proven to provide superior protection to grains during storage without chemical treatment. With the advent of the COVID-19 virus which distorted many food systems across continents, stakeholders in the grain industry need to adopt better systems to reduce post-harvest food loss and improve food security. In this study, maize grain quality, nutritional content and viability were compared under three storage methods (PP bags with Phostoxin treatment, cold storage, and hermetic bag) over a storage period of four months. The results showed that the hermetic bag maintained the moisture content (MC) of the stored grains with 0.40% variations from the initial MC of 13% at the end of the storage period compared to 0.70% and 1.10% for grains stored under cold storage and in PP bags, respectively. Grain damage after the 4th month of storage in the hermetic bag had only increased by 0.40% from an initial 13.3% before storage compared to an increase of 6% for cold storage, which was attributed to unstable power during the storage period, and 4.30% for grains stored in the PP bag. Carbon dioxide concentration in the hermetic bag was maintained at about 11% throughout the storage period indicating low microbial activity. The hermetic bag technology was identified as the best option for quality preservation during storage of maize grain over the other methods, and its adoption by smallholder farmers in Ghana should be considered.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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
The hermetic bag held maize grain moisture content to a 0.40% variation from the initial 13% at the end of storage, compared with cold storage and PP bags.
- Treatment
- hermetic bage1
- Outcome
- moisture content (MC) of the stored grainse1
- Direction
- maintainede1
- Value
- 0.40%e1
- Qualifier
- variations from the initial MC of 13%e1
- Comparator
- cold storage and in PP bagse1
Zea maysOrganisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In this study, maize grain quality, nutritional content and viability were compared under three storage methods (PP bags with Phostoxin treatment, cold storage, and hermetic bag) over a storage period of four months”
e1“the hermetic bag maintained the moisture content (MC) of the stored grains with 0.40% variations from the initial MC of 13% at the end of the storage period compared to 0.70% and 1.10% for grains stored under cold storage and in PP bags”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize grain stored under cold storage showed a 0.70% moisture content variation over the storage period.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In this study, maize grain quality, nutritional content and viability were compared under three storage methods (PP bags with Phostoxin treatment, cold storage, and hermetic bag) over a storage period of four months”
e1“the hermetic bag maintained the moisture content (MC) of the stored grains with 0.40% variations from the initial MC of 13% at the end of the storage period compared to 0.70% and 1.10% for grains stored under cold storage and in PP bags”
Claim · model-written summary
Maize grain stored in PP bags showed a 1.10% moisture content variation over the storage period.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In this study, maize grain quality, nutritional content and viability were compared under three storage methods (PP bags with Phostoxin treatment, cold storage, and hermetic bag) over a storage period of four months”
e1“the hermetic bag maintained the moisture content (MC) of the stored grains with 0.40% variations from the initial MC of 13% at the end of the storage period compared to 0.70% and 1.10% for grains stored under cold storage and in PP bags”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain damage in the hermetic bag increased by only 0.40% after the fourth month of storage, compared with cold storage.
- Treatment
- hermetic bage2
- Outcome
- Grain damagee2
- Direction
- increasede2
- Value
- 0.40%e2
- Qualifier
- after the 4th month of storagee2
- Comparator
- cold storagee2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In this study, maize grain quality, nutritional content and viability were compared under three storage methods (PP bags with Phostoxin treatment, cold storage, and hermetic bag) over a storage period of four months”
e2“Grain damage after the 4th month of storage in the hermetic bag had only increased by 0.40% from an initial 13.3% before storage compared to an increase of 6% for cold storage, which was attributed to unstable power during the storage period, and 4.30% for grains stored in the PP bag”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain damage under cold storage increased by 6%, which was attributed to unstable power during storage.
- Treatment
- cold storagee2
- Outcome
- Grain damagee2
- Direction
- increasee2
- Value
- 6%e2
- Qualifier
- attributed to unstable power during the storage periode2
- Comparator
- hermetic bage2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In this study, maize grain quality, nutritional content and viability were compared under three storage methods (PP bags with Phostoxin treatment, cold storage, and hermetic bag) over a storage period of four months”
e2“Grain damage after the 4th month of storage in the hermetic bag had only increased by 0.40% from an initial 13.3% before storage compared to an increase of 6% for cold storage, which was attributed to unstable power during the storage period, and 4.30% for grains stored in the PP bag”
Claim · model-written summary
Grain damage in PP bags increased by 4.30% over storage, compared with the hermetic bag.
- Treatment
- PP bage2
- Outcome
- Grain damagee2
- Direction
- increaseinferrede2
- Value
- 4.30%e2
- Comparator
- hermetic bage2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In this study, maize grain quality, nutritional content and viability were compared under three storage methods (PP bags with Phostoxin treatment, cold storage, and hermetic bag) over a storage period of four months”
e2“Grain damage after the 4th month of storage in the hermetic bag had only increased by 0.40% from an initial 13.3% before storage compared to an increase of 6% for cold storage, which was attributed to unstable power during the storage period, and 4.30% for grains stored in the PP bag”
Claim · model-written summary
Carbon dioxide concentration in the hermetic bag was maintained at about 11% throughout storage, indicating low microbial activity.
- Treatment
- hermetic bage3
- Outcome
- Carbon dioxide concentratione3
- Value
- about 11%e3
- Qualifier
- indicating low microbial activitye3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In this study, maize grain quality, nutritional content and viability were compared under three storage methods (PP bags with Phostoxin treatment, cold storage, and hermetic bag) over a storage period of four months”
e3“Carbon dioxide concentration in the hermetic bag was maintained at about 11% throughout the storage period indicating low microbial activity”
Claim · model-written summary
The hermetic bag technology was identified as the best option for preserving maize grain quality over the other methods.
- Treatment
- hermetic bag technologye4
- Outcome
- quality preservation during storagee4
- Direction
- best optione4
- Comparator
- the other methodse4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“The hermetic bag technology was identified as the best option for quality preservation during storage of maize grain over the other methods, and its adoption by smallholder farmers in Ghana should be considered”
Claim · model-written summary
Adoption of the hermetic bag technology by smallholder farmers in Ghana should be considered.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e4“The hermetic bag technology was identified as the best option for quality preservation during storage of maize grain over the other methods, and its adoption by smallholder farmers in Ghana should be considered”
The same questions in other papers
poly(propylene) · pest · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
7 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
6 papers more in this group
See all 10 papers →cold · pest · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results
6 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- no effect
5 papers more in this group
See all 9 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.