Next Article in Journal
Population Monitoring, Egg Parasitoids, and Genetic Structure of the Invasive Litchi Stink Bug, Tessaratoma papillosa in Taiwan
Previous Article in Journal
Comparing the Feeding Damage of the Invasive Brown Marmorated Stink Bug to a Native Stink Bug and Leaffooted Bug on California Pistachios
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Insects
Volume 11
Issue 10
10.3390/insects11100689
insects-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparative Study of Cowpea Storage Technologies in the Sahel Region of Niger

by
Ousmane N. Bakoye
1,
Baoua Ibrahim
1,
Haoua Seyni
2,
Laouali Amadou
3,
Larry L. Murdock
4 and
Dieudonne Baributsa
4,*
1
Département des Sciences et Techniques de Productions Végétales, Université Dan Dicko Dankoulodo de Maradi, Maradi BP 465, Niger
2
Département de Chimie, Université Abdou Moumouni de Niamey, Niamey BP 10662, Niger
3
Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique du Niger (INRAN), Maradi BP 240, Niger
4
Department of Entomology, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Insects 2020, 11(10), 689; https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11100689
Submission received: 9 September 2020 / Revised: 5 October 2020 / Accepted: 9 October 2020 / Published: 12 October 2020
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:

Simple Summary

Cowpea farmers in the West Africa lose a significant portion of their crop during storage due to insects (cowpea weevil). To help farmers deal with this issue, we tested several storage technologies including hermetic (SuperGrainbagTM, AgroZ® bag, EVALTM, and Purdue Improved Crop Storage-PICSTM bags), an insecticide-treated woven bag (ZeroFly®), and a polypropylene (PP) woven bag. After 8 months of storage, we observed that all hermetic bags were effective at maintain the quality of cowpea. No further damage and weight loss was observed in grain stored in hermetic bags; germination decreased modestly, by a maximum of 16%. However, grain stored in ZeroFly® and woven bags continued to deteriorate during the storage period due to continued insect population growth, resulting in weight loss of about 25%. Loss in germination was more serious in cowpea stored in the ZeroFly® (37.0%) and woven bags (28.8%) than in hermetic bags. Farmers and development agencies in the West Africa (particularly in the Sahel) can use and/or recommend these hermetic technologies to greatly reduce cowpea storage losses due to insects.

Abstract

Cowpea stored on smallholders’ farms suffers serious losses to insect pests. A study conducted in Niger compared five postharvest technologies marketed in sub-Saharan Africa to protect stored grain. Naturally-infested cowpea stored for eight months showed adult Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) mortality of 97% to 100% in the hermetic bags (PICSTM, SuperGrainbagTM, AgroZ®, EVAL™, and ZeroFly® bags). There was no change in grain damage and weight loss of cowpea stored in hermetic bags. There was, however, a loss of up to 10 to 16% in germination when the grain was stored in hermetic bags. Results observed for grain stored in ZeroFly® bags impregnated with deltamethrin were substantial and similar to those in control woven bags. In both ZeroFly® and woven bags, (1) adult C. maculatus population augmented by 35.7% and 78.6%, (2) increased weight losses of 27.3% and 25.2%, and (3) reduced germination of 37.0% and 28.8%, respectively. After opening the bags, abrasions were noted on the liners of hermetic bags, potential damage that could limit their reuse if they only have a single liner. Smallholder farmers in the Sahel can safely store their cowpea in all the hermetic bags tested. However, further research is needed to mitigate insect damage on liners of hermetic bags to improve their performance and reusability.

1. Introduction

Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp) is an ancient crop that originated and was domesticated near Ethiopia [1]. Cowpea, widely cultivated in West Africa, is an important source of protein, and plays a major role in generating income and ensuring food security for many smallholder farmers [2,3,4,5]. In Niger, cowpea represents a quarter of all agricultural grain production with about 2 million tons produced in 2017 [6]. Niger is the second producer of cowpea only after Nigeria; both countries produce about 70% of the world production [7]. Niger, like many other countries in West Africa, has the potential and the need to increase cowpea productivity; however, there are many constraints. Among challenges to increase cowpea productivity and utilization are the availability of quality seed, together with field, postharvest, and market constraints [8]. Insect pests are the major postharvest storage challenge in the Sahel. Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Crysomelidae), the most important cowpea storage pest, is responsible for losses of up to 60% or higher during storage [9,10].
Cowpea storage in West and Central Africa has significantly improved over the last decade thanks to the introduction and large-scale dissemination of the Purdue Improved Crop Storage (PICSTM) bags [11,12]. PICSTM is a chemical-free hermetic technology that maintains grain quality by stopping insect development and reproduction in the commodity stored inside the bag [13]. After the PICSTM bag is filled with infested grain and closed, insects consume the remaining oxygen inside the container leading to hypoxia and eventual death by desiccation [13]. PICSTM bags are effective at protecting a wide range of cereal and legume crops during storage, including cowpea against C. maculatus [13,14,15,16,17].
Wide dissemination of PICSTM bags led to the development and commercialization of several alternative hermetic bags as well as other storage technologies in sub-Saharan Africa, especially in East and Southern Africa [18]. In addition to PICSTM bags, other storage technologies that have been tested for maize storage in sub-Saharan Africa include SuperGrainbagTM, AgroZ®, EVAL™, and ZeroFly® bags [15,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29]. These studies have provided evidence that hermetic bags are effective at protecting grain during storage, while the ZeroFly® bag has limited success. A few studies have compared several hermetic storage bags for cowpea storage [15,30]. Results suggest that all these hermetic bags are effective at preserving cowpea for more than six months.
The dissemination of the PICS bags for cowpea storage in West and Central Africa has helped farmers reduce postharvest losses, improve food security, and increase income [31,32]. As of 2014, the PICSTM technology had reached more than 2.5 million farmers in about 31,000 villages in West and Central Africa [12]. Adoption studies have shown that one of the challenges to further increase the use of the technology by farmers is the unavailability of PICSTM bags in rural areas due to the limited private sector distribution networks [12,32,33]. Several development organizations and private sector companies have since become interested in expanding the market for hermetic and other storage solutions in West Africa for cowpea storage. The present research was conducted to assess the performance of existing and recently commercially available storage solutions for cowpea preservation before major efforts are undertaken to scale them up in the Sahel. The results will be useful to cowpea producers and traders, as well as development partners interested in using or promoting postharvest storage solutions in the Sahel.

2. Materials and Methods

The experiments described here were part of an effort to test several hermetic and other storage solutions for grain storage in the Sahel. This study was conducted at the National Agricultural Research Institute of Niger (INRAN) Maradi station (latitude: 13.8460 N, longitude: 07.8080 E) located in the south-central region of Niger. The study was launched on 1 August 2016 during the rainy season and was completed on 30 March 2017 during the dry season (a total of 218 days or about eight months). Tested storage solutions included four hermetic bags (PICSTM, SuperGrainbagTM, AgroZ®, EVAL™) as well as the ZeroFly® bag, a woven bag impregnated with an insecticide (deltamethrin). Conventional polypropylene (PP) woven bags typically used by farmers for grain storage were used as a control. Detailed characteristics of the various bags used in this experiment including brand, composition, thickness, and suppliers are provided in a similar study evaluating the use of hermetic bags for maize storage in Benin [19]. Liners were checked for holes or tears by filling them with air and bags were closed using strings after filling them with cowpea [34]. Naturally-infested cowpea was thoroughly mixed before filling 50 kg in each of the 4 replicates of every treatment (hermetic bag type). Bags filled with cowpea were randomly stored in four blocks, each containing a treatment. After filling, the bags were stored at ambient temperature and relative humidity in a laboratory at INRAN Maradi for the duration of the experiment.
Cowpea infestation was assessed using twelve (n = 12) samples of 500 g each randomly collected per treatment (three samples per replicate) at the beginning and the end of the trial. Each 500 g was sieved to separate and count live adults of cowpea bruchids. Three sub-samples of 100 grains were randomly collected from each of the three 500 g samples, resulting in 900 grains per replicate (n = 36 per treatment). These 100-grain sub-samples were used to estimate grain with eggs, grain damage, and grain dry weight. We determined insect-damaged grain [35] and the weight losses [36] using the formulas below:
%   I n s e c t   − d a m a g e d   g r a i n =   ( N u m b e r o f d a m a g e d g r a i n s ) T o t a l   g r a i n   c o u n t   × 100
%   w e i g h t   l o s s =   D W o   − D W t D W o   × 100
where DWo is dry weight at the beginning, and DWt is dry weight at the end.
To assess germination, we used two sub-samples of 25 grains that were randomly taken from each of the three 500 g samples (n = 24 per treatment), resulting in 150 seeds per replicate. Percentage grain germination was calculated as shown below:
%   G e r m i n a t i o n =   N u m b e r   o f   g e r m i n a t e d   g r a i n s T o t a l   n u m b e r   o f   g r a i n s   t e s t e d × 100
Grain moisture content was assessed at the start and the end of the experiment using the Dickey John mini GAC (Dickey-John, Auburn, IL, USA). The oxygen level in each bag were recorded several times (24 h and 8 d after closing the bags, and every month thereafter) for the first four months using a non-invasive method—OxySense 5250i (Devens, MA, USA). The OxySense 5250i relies on a light sensitive oxygen sensor, OxyDot®, that fluoresces under ultraviolet light. The OxySense 5250i reads and interprets this fluorescence, and displays an oxygen concentration level in a given volume. The OxyDots® are first attached to the inside of the container prior to sealing. Measurements are taken from outside the container over the OxyDot® by holding the fiber-optic reader pen attached to the OxySense 5250i. Temperature and relative humidity were recorded every hour during the trial using data loggers (EL-USB-2 model, Lascar; Erie, PA, USA) placed in one bag of each treatment. Data presented in the plots are daily averages of temperature and relative humidity. At the end of the trials, liners of hermetic bags were inspected to assess insect abrasions and perforations (holes).
We used Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Office, Redmond, WA, U.S; version 2013) to estimate means and standard errors of means. SPSS 24.0 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY, USA) was used to conduct statistical analysis. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by least significant difference (LSD) was used to compare means of oxygen content, germination, weight loss, grain with holes, grains with eggs, and liner abrasions and perforations.

3. Results

Oxygen levels measured during a four-month period showed significant differences among treatments as soon as one day after closing the bags (F = 50.04; df = 5/18; p < 0.01); the same was the case four months later (F = 10.16; df = 5/18; p < 0.01) (Table 1). Oxygen levels in the bags dropped steeply, reaching below 1.5% (v/v) in all hermetic bags 8 days after closing the bags, but these levels significantly increased from the second to the fourth month. Oxygen in both the ZeroFly® and woven bag treatments remained at the ambient levels during the four months.
Average daily temperatures and relative humidities varied among the treatments during the 8-month storage period (Figure 1). Average temperatures among all of the hermetic bags exhibited the same trends (Figure 1a). Average relative humidities varied minimally (less than ±2.5%) among the various hermetic treatments (Figure 1b). By contrast, ZeroFly® and woven bags exhibited average temperatures that decreased and then slowly increased toward the end of the storage. However, relative humidity increased in the first three months and then consistently decreased until the end of the experiment.
The cowpea used in this trial had an initial infestation of 22.35 C. maculatus adults per 500 g (Table 2). After eight months of storage, there was a decrease in the numbers of adult weevils of between 97.05% and 100% in all hermetic bag treatments. However, in the ZeroFly® and woven bag treatments, there was an increase of 35.70% and 78.59% in the adult insect population, respectively. Grain stored in each of the hermetic bags maintained the same level of insect damages (holes) throughout the storage period as was present initially (Table 2). By contrast, there was an increase in damage of 61.47% and 59.36% of grain stored in ZeroFly® and woven bags, respectively. The proportions of seeds carrying C. maculatus eggs were comparable between the treatments within the airtight bags, whereas, in the ZeroFly® and control woven bag treatments, there was an increase of 63.80% and 65.80% in grain with eggs, respectively (Table 2).
The weights of 100 grains from hermetic bag treatments after eight months of storage were comparable to those observed at the beginning of the experiment (Table 3). However, in the ZeroFly® and control woven bag treatments, there was additional weight loss of 27.26% and 25.21%, respectively. There was no significant change in moisture content of cowpea from the beginning (8.1%) to the end of the experiment (8.7%); hence, we did not adjust the DW while estimating weight loss. There was a decrease in germination rates of about 10–16% of grain stored in hermetic bags, while it decreased by 37.0% in ZeroFly® bags and by 28.75% in control woven bags (Table 3).
At the end of the experiment, we observed abrasions and perforations on the liners of each type of hermetic bags, but there was not significant difference among the treatments (Table 4). For PICSTM bags, perforations were only observed on the first (most inner) liner, but not on the second (middle) liner.

4. Discussion

The increase in insect populations and damages to grain stored in ZeroFly® and control woven bags observed here corroborates findings of previous studies in which maize was stored in several different countries in sub-Saharan Africa [19,25,27,28,29]. The present study further confirmed that C. maculatus is the only insect species that attacks cowpea during storage in West Africa. In Zimbabwe, Callosobruchus rhodesianus (Pic.) was identified as the major insect pests of cowpea during storage [30]. The high survival rates of adult insects in grain stored in ZeroFly® and control woven bags for eight months may be explained by C. maculatus’ ability to withstand harsh environmental conditions such as high temperatures and low relative humidities [37], conditions similar to those observed in this study. C. maculatus, the major pest of cowpea, an indigenous crop in the dry Africa savannah, has adapted to these extreme environmental conditions. By contrast, insect populations of infested maize stored in both ZeroFly® and control woven bags in northern Benin decreased as temperatures increased and relative humidity decreased [19]. ZeroFly® storage bags do not adequately control C. maculatus because deltamethrin impregnated into the weaves of the woven bag does not affect eggs, larvae, and pupae as well as adults that do not come into direct contact with the bag wall.
Our study demonstrates that hermetic bags can significantly reduce insect populations and damage to infested grain stored for several months. This is consistent with several studies comparing hermetic bags for cowpea preservation in Niger (PICSTM and SuperGrainbagTM bags) and in Zimbabwe (SuperGrainbagTM, PICSTM, AgroZ®, AgroZ®Plus, and ZeroFly® hermetic bags) that showed complete suppression of adult cowpea bruchids, minimal additional grain damage, and a reduction in grain carrying eggs [15,30]. Most of these studies, like the current one, point to the efficacy of hypoxic environment in suppressing or minimizing the development of and damage by insects in infested grain stored in hermetic bags. Hypoxia with oxygen levels below 5% that prevailed for at least a fortnight during the first month of storage in this and other studies explains the effectiveness of hermetic bags. Such conditions are unfavorable to bruchid activities [38] and may explain the high mortality rates, which range between 97% to 100%. These mortality rates are similar to those reported in Niger (92–100%) during cowpea storage in PICSTM and SuperGrainbagTM [15]. The rise in oxygen levels after a sharp decrease due to insect activities has been observed in previous studies [14,39]. This rise is due to oxygen leaks into the bag from outside of the bags as the liners are not completely airtight.
Hermetic bags are effective at preserving grain quality by preventing further development of insect pests and hence grain weigh loss [13,14]. Despite differences in the composition of the various brands of hermetic bags (single versus double liners, and single versus multilayered-liners), the trend of oxygen depletion was the same during the first four months of the experiment. The quick drop in oxygen in less than two weeks after the launch of the experiment probably explains the negligible weigh loss (less than 3.5%) in these hermetic bags. Previous studies have shown similar weight losses during cowpea storage in Niger and other countries [9,14]. The large weight loss in control woven bags of 27.26% is comparable to the losses of 16.7% to 40% observed after 4.5 to 5 months of cowpea stored in Niger [14,40]. Similar to control woven bags, weight losses in grain stored in ZeroFly® storage bags increased over the initial value after eight months of storage, suggesting that deltamethrin did not substantially reduce or prevent the development of insects during storage. Our results are corroborated by findings from other studies on maize in several regions of sub-Saharan Africa. These studies showed weigh losses ranging from 3% to 35% [19,20,22,25,27,28,29]. Our results contradict laboratory studies conducted in both Ghana and Nigeria that claimed 100% insect mortality and no weight loss of cowpea stored in 5 and 10 kg ZeroFly® storage bags for 21 to 25 days [41]. These results are likely explained by (1) the extremely high surface-to-volume ratio in the small (5 and 10 kg) ZeroFly® storage bags used in the Vestergaard experiments and (2) the extremely short duration of the experiments. C. maculatus may have died due to their short lifespan as adults may live only for about 10 days [42,43].
ZeroFly® storage bags are better suited for preventing infestation from outside of the bags than for controlling insects in grain stored inside the bags. Pre-fumigated maize stored in ZeroFly® storage bags had insect-damaged grain of up 10% after 6 months [44]. When using ZeroFly® storage bags, it is recommended that grain first be disinfested (by fumigation or solarization) before storage or fumigated in case an infestation occurs during storage [41,45]. Most smallholder farmers store infested grains and would have challenges disinfesting it. Hence, it would be better for smallholder farmers to use the new ZeroFly® hermetic storage bags because they have shown to be effective at preserving infested cowpea during storage [30]. ZeroFly® hermetic storage bags are ZeroFly® storage bags fitted with a liner inside, to create an airtight environment [46]. Storing grain in hermetic bags has shown to maintain or minimally reduce its germination [40]. Significant losses of germination in grain stored in ZeroFly® storage bags and woven bags described here are likely due to grain damage due to insects [13,28,47].
A comparable number of abrasions and perforations observed on the single liners of AgroZ®, SuperGrainbagTM, EVAL™ bags, and the inner liner of the PICSTM bag have been reported by other studies [15,19,26,29]. A recent study from Zimbabwe reported similar findings and also noted insects making holes on the single liner of the ZeroFly® hermetic bag [30]. An increase in the number of holes on liners can eventually decrease the efficacy of these hermetic bags [48]. The lack of or severely limited damage to the second liner of the PICSTM bag may help increase its effectiveness and extend its useful life [16,18,19]. The composition of the liners of these different hermetic bag brands (single layer or multilayers and single liner or two liners) appears to have a minimal effect on their oxygen permeability and insect damage. A study conducted in Niger suggests that perforations by cowpea bruchids are made during the emergence of adults when the exit holes are against the liners [15]. There is a need to understand better how insects are able to make holes in the liners regardless of bag properties. This would help improve the performance and reusability of these hermetic bags. Beyond insect damage on the liners, potential exposure of these hermetic bags to the Sahelian extreme environmental conditions (e.g., stored outside for a limited time) would further reduce their longevity and reusability. A study conducted in Niger showed that a PICS bag stored outside and exposed to the sunlight cannot be reused and would only maintain cowpea quality for about 4.5 months [40].

5. Conclusions

Our results demonstrate that several brands of hermetic bags currently marketed in sub-Saharan Africa, including AgroZ®, SuperGrainbagTM, EVAL™, and PICSTM bags are suitable and effective for cowpea storage on smallholder farms in the Sahel. Scaling-up more hermetic bag brands in the Sahel would help improve the availability of these storage solutions and provide more options to smallholder farmers.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, D.B., B.I., and L.L.M.; methodology, D.B., B.I., and L.L.M.; validation, O.N.B., H.S., L.A., B.I., and D.B.; formal analysis, O.N.B., B.I., and D.B.; investigation, O.N.B., B.I., H.S., and L.A.; resources, B.I. and D.B.; data curation, B.I., O.N.B., H.S., and L.A.; writing—O.N.B., B.I., and D.B.; original draft preparation, O.N.B., B.I., and D.B.; writing—review and editing, B.I., H.S., L.A., D.B., and L.L.M.; visualization, B.I. and D.B.; supervision, B.I. and D.B.; project administration, B.I. and D.B.; funding acquisition, D.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the PICS3 project (Grant No. OPP1038622) funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) to Purdue University.

Acknowledgments

We thank all the INRAN staff members who helped with the data collection.

Conflicts of Interest

Dieudonne Baributsa and Larry Murdock are co-founders of PICS Global Inc., a social enterprise that commercializes post-harvest technologies (including PICS bags) to smallholder farmers across the world and hence declares a conflict of interest. The other authors declare no conflict of interest. The funder (BMGF) had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Gómez, C. Cowpea: Post-Harvest Operations; Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  2. Abadassi, J. Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp.) agronomic traits needed in tropical zone. Int. J. Pure Appl. Biosci. 2015, 3, 158–165. [Google Scholar]
  3. Diaw, S.C. Evaluation de la résistance variétale du niébé (Vigna unguiculata L. Walp.) à Callosobruchus maculatus (F.). In Mémoire Presenté Pour L’obtention du Diplôme D’ingenier Agronome; ENSA: Thies, Senegal, 1999; p. 74. [Google Scholar]
  4. Kristjanson, P.; Okike, I.; Tarawali, S.; Singh, B.B.; Manyong, V.M. Farmers’ perceptions of benefits and factors affecting the adoption of improved dual-purpose cowpea in the dry savannas of Nigeria. Int. Assoc. Agric. Econ. 2005, 32, 195–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Muhammad, L.S. Creating Functional Marketing of Cowpea as Source of Employment for Nigerian Youth. Int. J. Sci. Res. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2018, 4, 921–925. [Google Scholar]
  6. M.A. Rapport d’évaluation de la campagne agricole d’hivernage 2017 et perspectives alimentaires 2017–2018. In Dir. des Stat. Minist. l’Agric.; Ministere de l’Agriculute, Niger: Niamey, Niger, 2018; p. 42.
  7. Boukar, O.; Belko, N.; Chamarthi, S.; Togola, A.; Batieno, J.; Owusu, E.; Haruna, M.; Diallo, S.; Umar, M.L.; Olufajo, O.; et al. Cowpea (Vigna unguiculata): Genetics, genomics and breeding. Plant Breed. 2019, 138, 415–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. AATF. Constraints to Cowpea Production and Utilization in Sub-Saharan Africa; AATF: Nairobi, Kenya, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  9. Baoua, I.B.; Amadou, L.; Margam, V.; Murdock, L.L. Comparative evaluation of six storage methods for postharvest preservation of cowpea grain. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2012, 49, 171–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ogunkanmi, L.A.; Ogundipe, O.T.; Amusa, O.D.; Bolarinwa, B.; Akindele, O.O. Akindele Comparative evaluation of cold and container storage preservation efficiencies on cowpea grains against Callosobruchus maculatus Fab. Agricultura 2018, 107, 20–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Baributsa, D.; Lowenberg-DeBoer, J.; Murdock, L.; Moussa, B. Profitable chemical-Free Cowpea Storage Technology for Smallholder Farmers in Africa: Opportunities and Challenges. In Proceedings of the 10th International Working Conference on Stored Product Protection, Estoril, Portugal, 27 June–2 July 2010; Carvalho, M.O., Fields, P.G., Adler, C.S., Arthur, F.H., Athanassiou, C.G., Campbell, J.F., Fleurat-Lessard, F., Flinn, P.W., Hodges, R.J., Isikber, A.A., et al., Eds.; Julius-Kühn-Archiv: Estoril, Portugal, 2010; pp. 1046–1052. [Google Scholar]
  12. Baributsa, D.; Abdoulaye, T.; Lowenberg-DeBoer, J.; Dabiré, C.; Moussa, B.; Coulibaly, O.; Baoua, I. Market building for post-harvest technology through large-scale extension efforts. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2014, 58, 59–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Murdock, L.L.; Margam, V.; Baoua, I.; Balfe, S.; Shade, R.E. Death by desiccation: Effects of hermetic storage on cowpea bruchids. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2012, 49, 166–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Baoua, I.B.; Margam, V.; Amadou, L.; Murdock, L.L. Performance of triple bagging hermetic technology for postharvest storage of cowpea grain in Niger. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2012, 51, 81–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Baoua, I.B.; Amadou, L.; Lowenberg-DeBoer, J.D.; Murdock, L.L. Side by side comparison of GrainPro and PICS bags for postharvest preservation of cowpea grain in Niger. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2013, 54, 13–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Baributsa, D.; Djibo, K.; Lowenberg-DeBoer, J.; Moussa, B.; Baoua, I. The fate of triple-layer plastic bags used for cowpea storage. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2014, 58, 97–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Murdock, L.L.; Baributsa, D. Hermetic storage for those who need it most-subsistence farmers. In Proceedings of the 11th International Working Conference on Stored Product Protection, Chang Mai, Thailans, 24–28 November 2014; pp. 310–323. [Google Scholar]
  18. Baributsa, D.; Njoroge, A.W.W. The use and profitability of hermetic technologies for grain storage among smallholder farmers in eastern Kenya. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2020, 87, 101618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Baributsa, D.; Bakoye, O.N.; Ibrahim, B.; Murdock, L.L. Performance of Five Postharvest Storage Methods for Maize Preservation in Northern Benin. Insects 2020, 11, 541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Paudyal, S.; Opit, G.P.; Osekre, E.A.; Arthur, F.H.; Bingham, G.V.; Payton, M.E.; Danso, J.K.; Manu, N.; Nsiah, E.P. Field evaluation of the long-lasting treated storage bag, deltamethrin incorporated, (ZeroFly® Storage Bag) as a barrier to insect pest infestation. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2017, 70, 44–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Villers, P.; Navarro, S.; De Bruin, T. New Applications of Hermetic Storage for Grain Storage and Transport. In Proceedings of the 10th International Working Conference on Stored Product Protection New, Estoril, Portugal, 27 June–2 July 2010; Carvalho, M.O., Fields, P.G., Adler, C.S., Arthur, F.H., Athanassiou, C.G., Campbell, J.F., Fleurat-Lessard, F., Flinn, P.W., Hodges, R.J., Isikber, A.A., et al., Eds.; Julius-Kühn-Archiv: Estoril, Portugal, 2010; pp. 446–452. [Google Scholar]
  22. Paudyal, S.; Opit, G.P.; Arthur, F.H.; Bingham, G.V.; Payton, M.E.; Gautam, S.G.; Noden, B. Effectiveness of the ZeroFly® storage bag fabric against stored-product insects. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2017, 73, 87–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Njoroge, A.W.; Affognon, H.D.; Mutungi, C.M.; Manono, J.; Lamuka, P.O.; Murdock, L.L. Triple bag hermetic storage delivers a lethal punch to Prostephanus truncatus (Horn) (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) in stored maize. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2014, 58, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Groote, H.D.; Kimenju, S.C.; Likhayo, P.; Kanampiu, F.; Tefera, T.; Hellin, J. Effectiveness of hermetic systems in controlling maize storage pests in Kenya. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2013, 53, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mlambo, S.; Mvumi, B.M.; Stathers, T.; Mubayiwa, M.; Nyabako, T. Field efficacy of hermetic and other maize grain storage options under smallholder farmer management. Crop Prot. 2017, 98, 198–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Coffi, H.; Nyabicha, J.; Ouma, J.O. The Use of Hermetic Bags for on Farm Storage of Grains and Pulses Against Insect Pests. Outlooks Pest Manag. 2016, 27, 231–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Abass, A.B.; Fischler, M.; Schneider, K.; Daudi, S.; Gaspar, A.; Rüst, J.; Kabula, E.; Ndunguru, G.; Madulu, D.; Msola, D. On-farm comparison of different postharvest storage technologies in a maize farming system of Tanzania Central Corridor. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2018, 77, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Chigoverah, A.A.; Mvumi, B.M. Comparative efficacy of four hermetic bag brands against Prostephanus truncatus (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) in Stored Maize Grain. J. Econ. Entomol. 2018, 111, 2467–2475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Singano, C.D.; Mvumi, B.M.; Stathers, T.E. Effectiveness of grain storage facilities and protectants in controlling stored-maize insect pests in a climate-risk prone area of Shire Valley, Southern Malawi. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2019, 83, 130–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Ngwenyama, P.; Mvumi, B.M.; Nyanga, L.K.; Stathers, T.E.; Siziba, S. Comparative performance of five hermetic bag brands during on-farm smallholder cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.Walp) storage. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2020, 88, 101658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Baributsa, D.; Ignacio, M.C. Developments in the use of hermetic bags for grain storage. In Advances in Postharvest Management of Cereals and Grains; Maier, D.E., Ed.; Burleigh Dodds Science Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2020; ISBN 9781786763525. [Google Scholar]
  32. Moussa, B.; Abdoulaye, T.; Coulibaly, O.; Baributsa, D.; Lowenberg-DeBoer, J. Adoption of on-farm hermetic storage for cowpea in West and Central Africa in 2012. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2014, 58, 77–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Nouhoheflin, T.; Coulibaly, J.Y.; D’Alessandro, S.; Aitchédji, C.C.; Damisa, M.; Baributsa, D.; Lowenberg-DeBoer, J. Management lessons learned in supply chain development: The experience of PICS bags in West and Central Africa. Int. Food Agribus. Manag. Rev. 2017, 20, 427–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Baributsa, D.; Baoua, I.; Abdoulaye, T.; Murdock, L.L. A Guide on the Use of PICS Bags for Grain Storage; Purdue University: West Lafayette, IN, USA, 2015; Volume E-265-W. [Google Scholar]
  35. Tiongson, R.L. Storage losses and their estimation. In Towards Integrated Commodity and Pest Management in Grain Storage; Semple, R.L., Hicks, P.A., Lozare, J.V., Castermans, A., Eds.; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 1992; p. 526. [Google Scholar]
  36. FAO. Guidelines on the Measurement of Harvest and Post−Harvest Losses: Recommendations on the Design of a Harvest and Post-Harvest Loss Statistics System for Food Grains (Cereals and Pulses); Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, REGNET (RAS/86/189) Publication in Collaboration with NAPHIRE: Rome, Italy, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  37. Beck, C.W.; Blumer, L.S.; Habib, J. Effects of evolutionary history on adaptation in bean beetles, a model system for inquiry-based laboratories. Evol. Educ. Outreach 2013, 6, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Njoroge, A.W.; Mankin, R.W.; Smith, B.W.; Baributsa, D. Oxygen consumption and acoustic activity of adult Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (coleoptera: Chrysomelidae: Bruchinae) during hermetic storage. Insects 2018, 9, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Baoua, I.B.B.; Amadou, L.; Bakoye, O.; Baributsa, D.; Murdock, L.L.L. Triple bagging hermetic technology for post-harvest preservation of paddy rice Oryza sativa L. in the Sahel of West Africa. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2016, 68, 73–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Baoua, I.B.; Bakoye, O.; Amadou, L.; Murdock, L.L.; Baributsa, D. Performance of PICS bags under extreme conditions in the sahel zone of Niger. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2018, 76, 96–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Vestergaard ZeroFly® Storage Bag: The First Insecticide-Incorporated Polypropylene Storage Bag. Available online: https://www.vestergaard.com/zerofly/zerofly-storage/ (accessed on 8 September 2020).
  42. Yan, Y.; Williams, S.B.; Baributsa, D.; Murdock, L.L. Hypoxia treatment of callosobruchus maculatus females and its effects on reproductive output and development of progeny following exposure. Insects 2016, 7, 26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Kitch, L.W.; Ntoukam, G. Storage of Cowpea in Ash; Agronomic Research Institute of Cameroon, Maroua Research Center, CRSP Cowpea Storage Project: Maroua, Cameroon, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  44. Paudyal, S.; Opit, G.P.; Arthur, F.H.; Bingham, G.V.; Gautam, S.G. Contact Toxicity of Deltamethrin Against Tribolium castaneum (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae), Sitophilus oryzae (Coleoptera: Curculionidae), and Rhyzopertha Dominica (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) Adults. J. Econ. Entomol. 2016, 109, 1936–1942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Otitodun, G.O.; Ogundare, M.O.; Ajao, S.K.; Nwaubani, S.I.; Abel, G.I.; Opit, G.P.; Bingham, G.; Omobowale, M.O. Efficacy of phosphine and insect penetration ability in ZeroFly® bags. J. Stored Prod. Res. 2019, 82, 81–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Vestergaard ZeroFly® Hermetic. Available online: https://www.vestergaard.com/zerofly/zerofly-hermetic/ (accessed on 3 August 2020).
  47. Sanon, A.; Dabiré-Binso, L.C.; Ba, N.M. Triple-bagging of cowpeas within high density polyethylene bags to control the cowpea beetle Callosobruchus maculatus F. (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). J. Stored Prod. Res. 2011, 47, 210–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Mutambuki, K.; Affognon, H.; Likhayo, P.; Baributsa, D. Evaluation of purdue improved crop storage triple layer hermetic storage bag against Prostephanus truncatus/(Horn) (coleoptera: Bostrichidae) and Sitophilus zeamais (motsch.) (coleoptera: Curculionidae). Insects 2019, 10, 204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Insects 11 00689 g001 550
Figure 1. (a) daily average temperatures and (b) relative humidities in six types of hermetic and non-hermetic bags filled with naturally-infested cowpea stored for eight months in Maradi, Niger.
Figure 1. (a) daily average temperatures and (b) relative humidities in six types of hermetic and non-hermetic bags filled with naturally-infested cowpea stored for eight months in Maradi, Niger.
Insects 11 00689 g001
Table
Table 1. Change in oxygen levels during the first four months in hermetic and non-hermetic bags filled with naturally infested cowpea stored for eight months in Maradi, Niger.
Table 1. Change in oxygen levels during the first four months in hermetic and non-hermetic bags filled with naturally infested cowpea stored for eight months in Maradi, Niger.
Oxygen Concentration (%; Mean ± Standard Error of the Mean)
Treatments2/Aug/201610/Aug/20162/Sep/20162/Oct/20162/Nov/20162/Dec/2016
PICSTM bag14.13 ± 0.39 b1.16 ± 0.21b5.04 ± 0.75b15.55 ± 0.55b18.34 ± 0.13b19.33 ± 0.15a
AgroZ® bag15.33 ± 0.33b0.94 ± 0.13b5.02 ± 0.94b14.95 ± 0.82b18.08 ± 0.10b19.22 ± 0.24a
SuperGrainbagTM14.59 ± 0.66b1.24 ± 0.17b3.99 ± 0.58b11.74 ± 0.85c13.28 ± 1.19d16.72 ± 0.92b
EVAL™ bag14.63 ± 0.59b0.96 ± 0.21b4.08 ± 0.64b12.54 ± 0.65c16.36 ± 0.33c18.93 ± 0.11a
ZeroFly® bag20.46 ± 0.21a20.35 ± 0.07a20.33 ± 0.07a20.33 ± 0.07a20.23 ± 0.02a20.19 ± 0.02a
Woven bag20.73 ± 0.18a20.39 ± 0.05a20.38 ± 0.06a20.32 ± 0.07a20.23 ± 0.01a20.14 ± 0.06a
ANOVAF = 50.04; df = 5/18; p < 0.01F = 4060.00; df = 5/186; p < 0.01F = 180.63; df = 5/90; p < 0.01F = 38.88; df = 5/90; p < 0,01F = 26.77; df = 5/90; p < 0,01F = 10.16; df = 5/18; p < 0.01
Means in the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD, 5%).
Table
Table 2. Live insect populations (numbers of adults per 500 g of grain), damaged grains (%) and grains with eggs (%) of naturally-infested cowpea stored in hermetic and non-hermetic bags for eight months in Maradi, Niger.
Table 2. Live insect populations (numbers of adults per 500 g of grain), damaged grains (%) and grains with eggs (%) of naturally-infested cowpea stored in hermetic and non-hermetic bags for eight months in Maradi, Niger.
TreatmentsnAdult Insects/500 g of Grains n% Grains with Holes% Grains with Eggs
Initial 7222.35 ± 0.72c21635.58 ± 0.51a33.67 ± 0.71a
After 8 months
PICSTM bag 120.00 ± 0.00d3632.30 ± 1.26a29.50 ± 1.34a
AgroZ® bag 120.08 ± 0.08d3635.22 ± 1.28a31.38 ± 1.79a
SuperGrainbagTM 120.00 ± 0.00d3633.11 ± 1.63a35.03 ± 2.55a
EVAL™ bag 120.66 ± 0.33d3633.58 ± 1.38a33.86 ± 2.41a
ZeroFly® bag 1230.33 ± 1.96b3697.05 ± 0.79b97.47 ± 1.26b
Woven bag 1239.91 ± 5.88a3694.66 ± 1.08b99.47 ± 0.16b
ANOVA F = 70.96; df = 6/137; p < 0.01 F = 206.68; df = 6/425; p < 0.01F = 430.99; df = 6/425; p < 0.01
Means in the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD, 5%).
Table
Table 3. Weight of 100 grain (g) and germination (%) of naturally infested cowpea stored in hermetic and non-hermetic bags for eight months in Maradi, Niger.
Table 3. Weight of 100 grain (g) and germination (%) of naturally infested cowpea stored in hermetic and non-hermetic bags for eight months in Maradi, Niger.
Treatmentsn100 Grains Weight (g)n% Germination
Initial 21614.16 ± 0.05a14476.41 ± 1.26a
After 8 months
PICSTM bag 3613.73 ± 0.10a2460.33 ± 4.34b
AgroZ® bag 3613.77 ± 0.13a2461.16 ± 3.17b
SuperGrainbagTM 3613.97 ± 0.13a2464.25 ± 3.45b
EVAL™ bag 3613.69 ± 0.10a2466.50 ± 4.30b
ZeroFly® bag 3610.30 ± 0.18b2439.41 ± 4.54c
Woven bag 3610.59 ± 0.15b2447.66 ± 4.45c
ANOVA F = 102.71; df = 6/425; p < 0.01 F = 22.39; df = 6/281; p < 0.01
Means in the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD, 5%).
Table
Table 4. Number of abrasions on liners of hermetic bags containing naturally infested cowpea stored for 8 months in Maradi, Niger.
Table 4. Number of abrasions on liners of hermetic bags containing naturally infested cowpea stored for 8 months in Maradi, Niger.
TreatmentsnAbrasionsPerforations
PICSTM bag inner44.00 ± 0.91a4.00 ± 1.78 a
PICSTM bag middle41.25 ± 1.25a0.00 ± 0.00 a
AgroZ® bag 43.00 ± 1.22a2.00 ± 1.68 a
SuperGrainbagTM 41.50 ± 0.86a0.25 ± 0.25 a
EVAL™ bag 41.75 ± 1.03a1.00 ± 0.71 a
ANOVA F = 0.496; df = 3/12; p = 0.692F = 0.951; df = 4/15; p = 0.447
Means in the same column followed by the same letter are not significantly different (LSD, 5%).

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bakoye, O.N.; Ibrahim, B.; Seyni, H.; Amadou, L.; Murdock, L.L.; Baributsa, D. Comparative Study of Cowpea Storage Technologies in the Sahel Region of Niger. Insects 2020, 11, 689. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11100689

AMA Style

Bakoye ON, Ibrahim B, Seyni H, Amadou L, Murdock LL, Baributsa D. Comparative Study of Cowpea Storage Technologies in the Sahel Region of Niger. Insects. 2020; 11(10):689. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11100689

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bakoye, Ousmane N., Baoua Ibrahim, Haoua Seyni, Laouali Amadou, Larry L. Murdock, and Dieudonne Baributsa. 2020. "Comparative Study of Cowpea Storage Technologies in the Sahel Region of Niger" Insects 11, no. 10: 689. https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11100689

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop