Traditional grain storage methods: An exploration of their contribution to the sustainability of Indian agriculture

Figures & data

Figure 1. The flowchart of the literature selection process.

Source: Author’s own.

Table 1. A summary of traditional grain storage methods used in India, especially in rural areas

Traditional grain storage structures and methods	Description	Where it is common in India	Advantages	Disadvantages	Possible improvements	Citation(s)
Storage with ashes ad table salt	Indian farmers commonly treat food grains during storage with ashes produced from various sources, such as wood, cow dung, etc., in order to keep fungus and other hazardous insects at bay. Some farmers also treat food grains with regular table salts before storing them in various locally made facilities such as jute bags, earthen pots, etc.	Countrywide.	They are more environmentally friendly, inexpensive, and readily available to farmers.	They are mostly limited to small-scale grain storage.	They can be produced in huge quantities, packed in a variety of sizes, and used for small-scale and bulk storage of grains.	(Karthikeyan et al., 2009; Kiruba et al., 2006; Kumar & Kalita, 2017; Mobolade et al., 2019; Prakash et al., 2016; Somavat et al., 2017)
Gourds (Figure 6A)	Gourds are produced from the tough dried outer shell of the fruit belonging to the squash or Cucurbitaceae class, which is native to tropical and subtropical regions. They are usually kept inside the house, especially in areas where they would not be easily infested with insects or exposed to moisture.	Chhattisgarh.	They are inexpensive, protect grains effectively, and allow farmers to easily track insect invasions.	Their storage capacity is limited to 5 to 30 kg.	Increase their size to enhance their capacity to hold more grains.	(Mobolade et al., 2019; Shaila & Begum, 2021)
Kanaja/Galagi (Figure 6B)	Kanaja is a cylindrical grain-storing container made of bamboo and comes in a variety of heights. They are coated with a mud and cow dung mixture to avoid spills and misappropriation of grains. These kinds of structures are typically used in paddy-growing regions of the transition and hilly areas.	Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and other paddy-growing areas in rural India.	They are situated above the ground, allowing for easy grain monitoring while protecting the grains from soil moisture.	They are not ideal for preserving grains for lengthy periods.	Making them fully hermetic by adding an extra coating on their outer surfaces using readily available materials such as varnish, dry oil or pure cement will boost their ability to store grains for a long period of time.	(Gaur, 2016; Mann et al., 2016; Prakash et al., 2016)
Wooden Box/Sandaka/Sanduka (Figure 6C)	These are wooden boxes used to store pulses, seeds, and small amounts of grains for domestic consumption. Their storage space ranges from 3 to 12 quintals. They are typically covered with a large lid on top which contains a small outlet for removing the grains.	Uttar Pradesh, Himachal Pradesh, Rajasthan, Bihar, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, etc.	They are normally equipped with a locking mechanism to prevent grain theft, and are sometimes partitioned, allowing the same box to store two or three distinct species of grains. They are also built with a stand that keeps them a few centimeters off the ground to prevent the absorption of moisture.	They can only hold a maximum of 1200 kg of grain, which is a relatively small amount.	Increase their dimensions to enhance their capacity to hold more grains.	(Mann et al., 2016; Shaila & Begum, 2021)
Kothi (Figure 6D)	This is a proper room constructed with a large door for pouring grains. At the bottom of this room, there is a small passage that allows the grains to be discharged as needed. These structures are common in households where large-scale grain cultivation is practiced.	Himachal Pradesh, Madya Pradesh, Bihar, and Karnataka.	They can store relatively large quantities of grains, ranging from 1 to 50 tons.	Since these structures are constructed of mud and paddy stalks, they can collect ambient moisture, which can lead to the development of aflatoxin in the stored grains.	Coating these structures with a mixture of cow dung and clay, varnish, and, if necessary, even cement can improve their resistance to moisture absorption.	(Gupta et al., 2017; Mann et al., 2016; Mobolade et al., 2019; Ranjan et al., 1992; Shaila & Begum, 2021; Sharon et al., 2014)
Hagevu (Figure 6E)	This is a grain storage facility that is situated underground. It is essentially a small pit that is enclosed in straw rope to keep moisture out. It is sometimes built with stones as an interior structure.	Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and other areas in the dry agro-climatic zone.	They enable grains to be stored for longer periods of time without becoming contaminated by insects or fungi, eliminating the need for pesticide use.	They are only suitable for arid agroclimatic conditions, where the stored grains are not endangered by water tables.	These structures can be made versatile and adapted to various environmental conditions by elevating their neck a few centimeters off the ground and installing a well-designed drainage system to avoid precipitation infiltration.	(Naveena et al., 2017; Shaila & Begum, 2021)
Earthen pots/bins (Figure 6F)	These cylindrical structures constructed out of clay and carved to various sizes have been used for the storage of grains since ancient times. The pots’ inside is coated with clay, and the mouths are sealed with a thick cow dung solution that has been stiffened with fabric. They are usually placed on top of each other in the house’s corner.	Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Tamil Nadu, and other parts of South India.	No insects can access the grains because the pots fit perfectly atop one another. Furthermore, they are usually put on top of structures bearing spherical shapes constructed of crop remnants or pieces of old clothes to avoid moisture absorption from the ground.	They can only hold 200kg of grain at most, which is quite a small quantity.	Increase their size to enhance their capacity to hold more grains.	(Kiruba et al., 2006; Mann et al., 2016; Mobolade et al., 2019; Naveena et al., 2017; Shaila & Begum, 2021)
Mud silo	Mud silos, which are generally spherical and typically consist of three or four stones as a foundation, are employed to store food grains for a brief period. The structure’s storage volume ranges from 1 to 4 tons. They are often built using clay soil and sometimes termite mound soil.	Tamil Nadu and other parts of South India.	They are inexpensive, hence easily accessible to farmers.	They are susceptible to grain losses due to structural malfunctions as well as insect infestation since they are not airtight.	They can be protected from rain and other adverse weather conditions by roofing them with low-cost materials, such as straw, palm leaves, etc.	(Mobolade et al., 2019; Shaila & Begum, 2021;)
Bamboo baskets (Figure 6G)	These are structures that are mainly made of bamboo canes weaved into a basket form and contain a circular opening that allows the grain to move in and out easily. After loading the grains, they are usually covered with a mixture of cow dung and soil to create a hermetic atmosphere that keeps pests and insects at bay.	Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, and South India.	They have the ability to store grain for up to a year without losing its quality.	They can only hold a maximum of 1000 kg of grain, which is a relatively small amount.	Increase their size to enhance their capacity to hold more grains.	(;Kiruba et al., 2006; Shaila & Begum, 2021;)
Gunny Bags/Jute/Burlap bags (Figure 6H)	These are sacks that are made out of woven jute, sisal, cotton, and other locally sourced fibers. They are normally available in a variety of sizes, ranging from 20 kg to 100 kg or even more.	Countrywide.	They are inexpensive, simple to use, and don’t require any specific storage space, so they may be kept anywhere in the house. Additionally, they can be easily managed and transported without the need for specialized tools.	They are not airtight, hence do not provide complete protection against pest infestation, resulting in grain losses.	Making them fully hermetic, i.e., by adding an airtight layer inside made from synthetic or semi-synthetic materials that are less harmful to the environment.	(Kumar & Kalita, 2017; Mobolade et al., 2019; Shaila & Begum, 2021; Somavat et al., 2017)

Figure 2. Year of publication of included studies.

Source: Author’s own.

Figure 3. The area in India where the study was conducted.

Source: Author’s own.

Figure 4. The type of grain crop studied.

Source: Author’s own.

Figure 5. An overview of India’s grain supply chain’s most common traditional methods and practices.

Source: created by the authors based on the comprehensive review of the literature.

Figure 6. Some of the most common traditional grain storage structures and practices used by farmers in India: (A) gourds, (B) kanaja, (C) wooden box/Sandaka/Sanduka, (D) Kothi, (E) hagevu, (F) Earthen pots/bins (G) bamboo basket, and (H) gunny bags.

Source (Kiruba et al., 2006; Mann et al., 2016; Mobolade et al., 2019; Shaila & Begum, 2021).

Table A1. Databases and keywords utilized

Databases	Keywords utilized
Scopus and Google Scholar	(“Conventional grain storage structures” OR “Traditional grain storage facilities” OR “Indigenous grain storage structures” OR “Traditional grain storage systems” OR “Traditional grain storage structures” OR “Traditional grain storage practices” OR “Indigenous grain storage” OR “Traditional storage methods”) AND (“Farming communities” OR “Agriculture” OR “Farmers”) AND (“India”)

Table A2. The inclusion and exclusion criteria

Criteria	Eligibility	Exclusion
Type of Literature	Journals (research articles)	Book, review articles, chapter in the book, editorials, conference proceedings, etc.
Language	English	If not reported in English
Years of search	From 1990 to 2022	<1990
Country	India	Did not take place in India
Intervention	Focuses on traditional grain storage methods	If the article is not focused on traditional grain storage methods

Karthikeyan, C., Veeraragavathatham, D., Karpagam, D., & Firdouse, S. A. (2009). Traditional tools in agricultural practices. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge, 8(2), 212–217.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kiruba, S., Sam Manohar Das, S., & Papadopoulou, S. (2006). Prospects of traditional seed storage strategies against insect infestation adopted by two ethnic communities of Tamil Nadu, southern peninsular India. Bulletin of Insectology, 59(2), 129.

 Google Scholar

Kumar, D., & Kalita, P. (2017). Reducing postharvest losses during storage of grain crops to strengthen food security in developing countries. Foods, 6(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods6010008

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Mobolade, A. J., Bunindro, N., Sahoo, D., & Rajashekar, Y. (2019). Traditional methods of food grains preservation and storage in Nigeria and India. Annals of Agricultural Sciences, 64(2), 196–205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aoas.2019.12.003

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Prakash, B. G., Raghavendra, K. V., Gowthami, R., & Shashank, R. (2016). Indigenous practices for eco-friendly storage of food grains and seeds. Adv Plants Agric Res, 3(4), 00101. https://doi.org/10.15406/apar.2016.03.00101

 Google Scholar

Somavat, P., Huang, H., Kumar, S., Garg, M. K., Danao, M. G. C., Singh, V. & Rausch, K. D. (2017). Comparison of hermetic storage of wheat with traditional storage methods in India. Applied Engineering in Agriculture, 33(1), 121.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shaila, M., & Begum, N. (2021). Ancient farming methods of seed storage and pest management practices in India - a REVIEW. Plant Archives, 21(Suppliment–1), 499–509. https://doi.org/10.51470/PLANTARCHIVES.2021.v21.S1.077

 Google Scholar

Gaur, M. (2016). Traditional V/S modern methods of storage in India. PARIPEX Indian Journal of Research, 5(3), 406–407.

 Google Scholar

Mann, S., Dixit, A. K., Tushir, S., & Bashir, A. A. (2016). Traditional grain storage practices in India: SWOT analysis. Pp. 500–503. In: S. Navarro, D. Jayas, & K. Alagusundaram, (Eds.) Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Controlled Atmosphere and Fumigation in Stored Products (CAF2016), CAF Permanent Committee Secretariat, Winnipeg, Canada.

 Google Scholar

Gupta, A. K., Waghmare, D., Bhalavi, S., Marskole, T., & Maravi, S. (2017). Methods of grain storage in Jabalpur region. Journal of Postharvest Technology, 5(1), 27–29.

 Google Scholar

Ranjan, K. S., Sahay, S. S., & Sinha, A. K. (1992). The influence of storage structure on aflatoxin contamination in wheat and mustard. Journal of Stored Products Research, 28(3), 221–224. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-474X(92)90044-Q

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Sharon, M., Abirami, C. V., & Alagusundaram, K. (2014). Grain storage management in India. Journal of Postharvest Technology, 2(1), 12–24.

 Google Scholar

Naveena, N. L., Subramanya, S., Setty, S., & Palanimuthu, V. (2017). Grain storage losses in the traditional tribal settlements of Biligirirangana Hills, Karnataka, India. Journal of Asia-Pacific Entomology, 20(2), 678–685. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aspen.2017.04.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The corresponding author can provide the data used in this work upon request.