Agricultural Sciences, 2022, 13, 989-1011 https://www.scirp.org/journal/as ISSN Online: 2156-8561 ISSN Print: 2156-8553 DOI: 10.4236/as.2022.139061 Sep. 15, 2022 989 Agricultural Sciences Grain Hermetic Storage Adoption in Northern Uganda: Awareness, Use, and the Constraints to Technology Adoption Francis Okori1*, Sam Cherotich1, Alex Abaca2,3, Emmanuel Baidhe1, Francis Adibaku4, James Denis Onyinge5 1Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda 2National Agricultural Research Organization (NARO), Abi Zonal Agricultural Research and Development Institute, Arua, Uganda 3Department of Crop Science, Faculty of Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, Muni University, Arua, Uganda 4Department of Food Science and Postharvest Technology, Gulu University, Gulu, Uganda 5Agriculture and Market Support Programme, United Nations World Food Programme, Kampala, Uganda Abstract Post-harvest storage losses (PHLs) remain significant in Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) due to several factors mainly insect pests and molds. Hermetic storage technologies (HSTs) are being promoted to address these storage losses. In Uganda, HSTs were first introduced in 2012. However, its use among farming households remains low today. Data were collected from 306 smallholder farmers from four districts of Northern Uganda using a pre-tested semi- structured questionnaire to understand their knowledge, use, and constraints to the adoption of hermetic storage. A multivariate Logit regression model was used to find the significance of the factors affecting adoption. Results showed low awareness and use of hermetic storage among smallholder far- mers. Only 53.3% of the interviewed farmers were aware of the use of her- metic storage for grain storage. The SuperGrain bag was the most known form of hermetic storage (35.3%), followed by the Purdue Improved Crop Storage (PICS) bag (34.9%), metallic silo (15.5%), and plastic silo (14.4%). Hermetic storage use was even lower as only 17.6% of the surveyed farmers were using one or more forms of hermetic storage to store their grains. Insect pest management without chemical insecticides was the main reason (83.1%) for hermetic storage use. About 75.5% of those aware of hermetic storage had received training in the technology. Hermetic storage use in farming house- holds led to improved food availability, household income, and nutrition. Lack of local availability (50.2%), high costs (37.8%), and inadequate know- ledge (6.9%) were the main constraints hindering the adoption of hermetic How to cite this paper: Okori, F., Chero- tich, S., Abaca, A., Baidhe, E., Adibaku, F. and Onyinge, J.D. (2022) Grain Hermetic Storage Adoption in Northern Uganda: Awareness, Use, and the Constraints to Technology Adoption. Agricultural Sciences, 13, 989-1011. https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2022.139061 Received: May 20, 2022 Accepted: September 12, 2022 Published: September 15, 2022 Copyright © 2022 by author(s) and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Open Access https://www.scirp.org/journal/as https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2022.139061 https://www.scirp.org/ https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2022.139061 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ F. Okori et al. DOI: 10.4236/as.2022.139061 990 Agricultural Sciences storage in Northern Uganda. The logit regression models showed that only training in hermetic storage significantly (p = 0.002) affected farmers’ deci- sion to adopt hermetic storage. Understanding the factors that constrain the adoption of HSTs could provide policymakers with important information to initiate and design policies and programs aimed at reducing crop storage losses. Keywords Grain Crops, Post-Harvest Storage Losses, Hermetic Storage, Smallholder Farmers, Food Security 1. Introduction The goal of feeding the global population by 2050 has drawn the interest of world leaders, philanthropists, and development partners alike. According to projections, global food output will need to increase by up to 70% from current levels by 2050 to guarantee future food demands [1] [2] [3]. This projection is a concern because 957 million people currently do not have enough food to eat, with 239 million out of these requiring life-saving humanitarian assistance [4]. While the population of developed countries will remain stable or even decline, developing countries will have a high population growth rate causing a substan- tial increase in food demand [2] [5] [6]. This predicament is exacerbated by the fact that previous international agricultural development efforts tended to con- centrate on addressing concerns related to boosting crop production and prod- uctivity [7], with issues to do with post-harvest management receiving little to no attention [5]. Crop post-harvest management only started gaining attention recently due to the high magnitude of reported PHLs and the realization of its immense contributions to food security, health, and farming household incomes. Grain PHLs in SSA are mainly caused by insect pests and mycotoxin conta- mination [8] [9] [10]. These pose a substantial food security threat as they cause significant quantitative and qualitative losses of otherwise edible grains [11] [12] [13]. Globally, approximately one-third of the food produced for human con- sumption is lost or wasted annually post-harvest [14]. This quantity of food loss equates to the annual worth of cereal imports to SSA and exceeds the value of food aid supplied to SSA in a decade [15] [16]. Food that is lost or squandered on its way to consumption signifies a waste of resources in terms of land, labor, water, and other resources used to produce the food in vain [17] [18]. Because of the criticality of post-harvest food loss reduction, the 2030 Sustainable Devel- opment Goals (SDGs) emphasize raising global awareness of the issue. Target 12.3 of the SDGs calls for halving the global per capita food waste by 2030 and reducing food losses in the production and supply chains [19]. Grain PHLs during storage are estimated to be high, with dry weight losses reaching up to 30% [20] [21], but can be higher when considered together with https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2022.139061 F. Okori et al. DOI: 10.4236/as.2022.139061 991 Agricultural Sciences quality losses [22] [23]. Insects, rodents, and molds are the leading causes of grain storage losses [23] [24]. One of the factors contributing to high grain sto- rage losses is the vulnerability of existing traditional storage methods. High costs, lack of information and knowledge on use, and limited access to credit hinder smallholder farmers’ access to effective storage technologies [25] [26]. Many smallholder farmers often opt to sell their produce to grain traders shortly after harvest due to a lack of confidence in the ability of their storage technolo- gies to protect their stored grains [12] [22]. Regrettably, this is the time when grain prices are at their lowest. This is made worse by the fact that farmers have to buy grains from the traders during lean seasons at often relatively higher prices than sold to meet their household food needs. Among other factors, this has caused many smallholder farmers to live in a vicious cycle of poverty. When grains are not sold immediately after harvest, smallholder farmers employ syn- thetic insecticides to control insect pests in stored grains [27] [28]. Synthetic pesticides, however, have several drawbacks including high costs and associated dangers to consumer health and the environment [29] [30]. Besides, the protec- tive action of synthetic pesticides is known to wear over time, allowing pest re-infestation to occur [31]. Due to these, alternative safe, cost-effective, and sustainable grain storage systems are required. In Uganda, grain storage contributes significantly to smallholder farmers’ food security and household income as farming is the main economic activity yet the gap between one harvest and another can extend for longer than six to nine months. The woven polypropylene (PP) bag is the most common form of grain storage in Uganda used by more than 73% of farming households [22], yet it is ineffective in protecting grains from storage losses. Farmers need storage technologies that are sustainable, cost-effective, and easy to use to be successful [32]. In the quest for better grain storage, HSTs have proven effective in match- ing most of these requirements. Hermetic storage bags and metallic and plastic silos of various forms and sizes are among the HSTs extensively promoted and marketed in East Africa. There is a wealth of literature on the protective efficacy of different HSTs for grain storage [30] [31] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]. The United Nations World Food Programme (WFP) implemented a Special Operation Project in Uganda between 2013 and 2015 to improve smallholder on-farm post-harvest management [7] [38]. Some of the activities of this project included the promotion/dissemination of modern household grain handling and storage technologies in 28 districts of Northern and Eastern Uganda. Through this intervention, hermetic storage bags, plastic silos, and metallic silos were dis- tributed at subsidized rates to 16,600 families in the project areas. In participat- ing households, grain storage losses were reduced by at least 98% and household incomes doubled due to this intervention [38]. Since then, several other devel- opment partners in Uganda started the promotion of improved storage technol- ogies as part of their national and local agricultural programs. Currently, several HSTs are used for grain storage in Uganda’s farming communities. Despite the https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2022.139061 F. Okori et al. DOI: 10.4236/as.2022.139061 992 Agricultural Sciences initiative to promote hermetic storage use in Northern Uganda, little is known today about the awareness and use of these storage technologies in the region. The objective of this study was thus to understand smallholder farmer aware- ness, use, and constraints to the adoption of HSTs in Northern Uganda. 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Study Area and Timing This study was conducted in Northern Uganda in the districts of Adjumani, Amuru, Apac, and Dokolo during October and November 2020 (Figure 1). Figure 1. Map of Uganda showing the location of the study sites (in yellow) in Northern Uganda. https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2022.139061 F. Okori et al. DOI: 10.4236/as.2022.139061 993 Agricultural Sciences Northern Uganda was chosen since the promotion and dissemination of HSTs were previously carried out in the region by several projects since 2012. Villages for the survey were selected with the help of district and Sub-County agricultural extension officers in the study area. The geographical coverage was limited to the selected districts due to financial and logistical constraints. 2.2. Sampling, Data Collection, and Data Analysis Three hundred and six (306) smallholder farmers were purposively selected and interviewed from 43 villages across the four districts of Northern Uganda. In each village, seven (7) respondents (each representing a household) who are ac- tive farmers were randomly selected to participate in the survey. The selection of villages was based on active engagement in agricultural production. A pre-tested semi-structured questionnaire with open and closed-ended questions was de- signed and used to elicit information from respondents. Data were collected on household demographic and socioeconomic characte- ristics, access to agricultural information, crop production details, grain storage practices, hermetic storage awareness, use and constraints to adoption, and grain prices at harvest and during the lean seasons. Key informant interviews were used to validate some of the information obtained from the survey. Quantitative and qualitative data collected were coded, entered, and analyzed using the Statis- tical Packages for the Social Sciences (IBM SPSS Statistics 20; New York, United States). Descriptive statistics and frequencies were used to present the findings of the study. 2.3. Econometric Analysis The use of probability models to identify the key factors affecting the decision to adopt a new technology is commonly used [26]. Logit, Probit, and Tobit models are commonly used statistical models. To understand the adoption of hermetic storage in the study area, the binary logit model was used as is commonly used in new technology adoption studies. The binary logit model was used to deter- mine the effect of socioeconomic variables influencing the adoption of HSTs. In this kind of model, the dependent variable “hermetic storage adoption” is a di- chotomous variable and takes the value of 1 if the respondent adopts the use of hermetic storage and 0 otherwise. Socioeconomic variables such as age, gender, marital status, education, membership of an association, etc. were used in the lo- git model. The variables used in the regression analysis to develop adoption models are shown in Table 1. These variables were selected based on adoption literature and the experience of grain storage adoption factors [26] [39]. Multiple logit regressions were developed in which the dependent variable (hermetic storage adoption) was expressed as (Rabé et al., 2021): 0 1 2 3 4 i iY A B C D N eβ β β β β β= + + + + + + + (1) where https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2022.139061 F. Okori et al. DOI: 10.4236/as.2022.139061 994 Agricultural Sciences Table 1. Description of the variables applied in the logit regression model. Variables Description Form of variable Adoption 1 if a respondent adopted hermetic storage otherwise 0 Dependent variable Gender 1 if a respondent is male and zero for female Independent variable Age Continuous variable indicating the age of the respondent Independent variable Marital status 1 if a respondent is married and zero otherwise Independent variable Education 1 if a respondent is literate (know how to read and write) and zero otherwise Independent variable Household head 1 if a respondent is a household head and zero otherwise Independent variable Farmer group member 1 if a respondent is a member of a farmer group association or else zero Independent variable Owns a radio 1 if a respondent owns a radio and 0 otherwise Independent variable Received training on HSTs 1 if a respondent receives training on hermetic storage and 0 otherwise. Independent variable Access to extension services 1 if a respondent had access to extension services and 0 otherwise. Independent variable Y is the adoption of hermetic storage; 0β is the constant term in the logit model; iβ are the coefficients of the adoption factors to be estimated; , , , ,A B C N are the independent variables whose effects on the adoption of hermetic storage were investigated; and ie is the model error term. 3. Results 3.1. Demographic, Socioeconomic, and Farming Characteristics of the Farmers Northern Uganda is a kind of shrubby Grassland Savannah vegetation that rece- ives a bimodal rainfall pattern from March to May and August to November annually. Rainfall patterns have, however, been unpredictable in the past few decades. The demographic and socioeconomic characteristics of the respondents are shown in Table 2. Among the respondents, 55.9% were male while 81.0% were married. Forty-nine percent of the respondents were aged 18 - 35 years, and 59.5% had only completed primary school education. A large number of the respondents (41.8%) were smallholder farmers who owned 3 - 6 acres of land. Seventy percent of the respondents had more than 50% of total cultivated land under grain production. About 32% of the respondents earned between UGX 500,000 - 1,000,000 (USD 136 - 272) as their annual household income. About 37.6% of respondents cultivate family-owned land while 29.4% use both family land and rented land (Table 2). At least 12-grain crops are cultivated by smallholder farmers in the survey area (Data not shown). These crops include legumes (common beans, pigeon peas, mung beans, groundnuts, and cowpeas), cereals (maize, finger millet, rice, and sorghum), and oil crops (soybean, sesame, and sunflower). Maize, common https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2022.139061 F. Okori et al. DOI: 10.4236/as.2022.139061 995 Agricultural Sciences Table 2. Demographic characteristics and socio-economic attributes of the respondents in Northern Uganda. Parameter % of respondents (n = 306) Gender Male 55.9 Female 44.1 Marital status Single 5.9 Married 81.0 Widowed 5.6 Divorced/separated 3.3 Living together/cohabiting 4.2 Age 18 - 35 years 48.7 36 - 53 years 36.6 Above 53 years 14.7 Education None 10.1 Primary 59.5 Secondary 18.3 Tertiary (Post-secondary education) 12.1 Household size 1 - 3 members 7.5 4 - 6 members 43.5 Above 6 members 49.0 Annual household income Less than UGX 500,000 30.4 UGX 500,001 - 1,000,000 32.0 UGX 1,000,001 - 1,500,000 16.3 UGX 1,500,001 - 2,000,000 4.9 Above 2,000,000 16.3 Land ownership Personal land 10.8 Family land 37.6 Personal land and family land 2.9 Rented or hired land 5.6 Personal land and rented land 6.2 https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2022.139061 F. Okori et al. DOI: 10.4236/as.2022.139061 996 Agricultural Sciences Continued Family land and rented land 29.4 Personal land, family land, and rented land 7.5 Total land under cultivation Less than 1 acre 1.0 1 - 3 acres 34.0 3 - 6 acres 41.8 Above 6 acres 23.2 Proportion of land under grain production Less than 25% 1.6 25% - 50% 28.4 Above 50% 69.9 n is the number of respondents. *1USD = 3674UGX at the time of the survey study. beans, soybeans, and groundnuts are the dominant crop commodities cultivated by 85.3%, 42.5%, 32.0%, and 28.4% of the respondents respectively. The least cultivated crops were cowpea, green gram, and pigeon pea cultivated by 1.0%, 5.2%, and 5.6% of the respondents respectively. 3.2. The Main Source of Livelihood for the Farmers Figure 2 shows the main source of livelihood of the respondents in the sur- veyed region. Overall, crop production is the main source of livelihood prac- ticed by 99.7% of the respondents, followed by livestock rearing (86.9%) and self-employment (23.5%). Crops are grown primarily for food security and household financial requirements such as school fees for the children. Besides crop production, farmers kept chicken, cows, goats, sheep, and pigs for income, diversification of their diets, and to fulfill other socio-cultural purposes. Other sources of livelihood for the farmers included casual labor, brick or charcoal burning, and formal employment. 3.3. Quantity of Grains Harvested, Stored, and Quantity Remaining after Three Months Maize was the commodity harvested in the largest quantity while green gram was the least harvested among the traditional grain crops in the study area (Figure 3). The most stored commodities following harvest were pigeon pea (95.3%), sorghum (80.6%), green gram (80.3%), common beans (75.7%), and finger millet (74.2%). The least stored commodities were sunflower (5.0%) and soybean (39.6%). Three months after harvest, most grain stocks in smallholder farming households were reduced to between 18.8% to 52.9% of the harvested quantity except for pigeon pea which still had an average of 59.3% remaining https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2022.139061 F. Okori et al. DOI: 10.4236/as.2022.139061 997 Agricultural Sciences Figure 2. The main source of livelihood of the respondents in Northern Uganda. Figure 3. Grain harvested, stored, and stock balance after three months in the study area (Quantity is reported in 100 kg bag capacity). after three months. Sunflower remaining after three months was less than 1% of the initial harvest. 3.4. Variations in Grain Price between the Harvest Season and Lean Periods Figure 4 shows the variations in the market prices of grain commodities be- tween the peak (harvest) seasons and lean periods in Northern Uganda. Varia- tions in grain prices were significant (p < 0.05) for all grain commodities but were insignificant (p > 0.05) for rice, pigeon pea, and cowpea. The differences in https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2022.139061 F. Okori et al. DOI: 10.4236/as.2022.139061 998 Agricultural Sciences Figure 4. Prices of grain crops during harvest seasons and lean seasons in Northern Uganda. prices between the lean season and harvest season amounted to USD 322, 302, 271, and 262 per metric ton for pigeon pea, common beans, sesame, and green gram. 3.5. Provision of Agricultural Extension Services, Information, and Training on Hermetic Storage Technologies Table 3 shows how grain farmers in Northern Uganda access general agricultur- al extension services, information, and training specifically on HSTs. About 66.3% of the respondents mentioned having had contact with agricultural exten- sion services provided in their area of operation. Of those who received exten- sion services, 50.7% had access to extension services from Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) while 40.4% accessed government extension or research services (Table 3). Concerning HSTs, a large number of respondents received information on HSTs from NGOs (50.0%), radio (20.8%), and farmer group ex- tension agents (15.7%) (Table 3). A paltry 4.7% of the respondents received in- formation on HSTs from government extension agents. This deviation empha- sizes the little effort put by the government to promote and disseminate im- proved grain storage technologies to Ugandan smallholder farmers in Northern Uganda. Other farmers were also important for the dissemination of improved grain storage technologies as 5.9% of the respondents obtained HST information from fellow farmers. About 75.5% of the total respondents had received training on HSTs. Training on HSTs was provided mainly by extension officers/village demonstrations (77.8%) and other farmers/neighbors (8.9%). 3.6. Farmers’ Knowledge/Awareness, Use, and Handling of HSTs in Northern Uganda Awareness of new agricultural technology is a key to promoting farmer accep- tance and adoption. Fifty-three percent of the respondents were aware of some https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2022.139061 F. Okori et al. DOI: 10.4236/as.2022.139061 999 Agricultural Sciences Table 3. Access to agricultural extension, information, and training on hermetic storage technologies in Northern Uganda. Description Parameter % of respondents Access to agricultural extension (n = 306) Yes 66.3 No 33.7 Source of agricultural extension (n = 203) Government research and extension 40.4 NGOs extension 50.7 Farmer group extension 8.0 Private entity 0.9 Source of information on HSTs (n = 163) Radio 20.8 Government extension agents 4.7 Agrodealers 2.1 NGOs 50.0 Other farmers 5.9 Roadshow 0.4 Leaflet or brochure 0.4 Farmer group extension 15.7 Received training on HSTs (n = 163) Yes 75.5 No 24.5 Source of HST training (n = 123) Extension officers/village demonstrations 77.8 Farmers/Neighbors 8.9 Training posters 0.7 Others 12.6 form of grain HSTs whereas 46.7% were unaware and had no prior knowledge of any form of HSTs (Table 4). The SuperGrain bag (35.3%) was the most com- monly known form of hermetic storage in Northern Uganda followed by the PICS bag (34.9%), metallic silo (15.5%), and plastic silo (14.4%) (Figure 5). The respondents were unaware of any other hermetic storage brands marketed in Uganda outside those indicated. Of those aware of HSTs (163), only 33.1% had ever used or were currently using one or more of the HSTs. Of these, 34.5%, 51.7%, 1.7%, and 12.1% had ever used or were using PICS bag, SuperGrain bag, metallic silo, and plastic silo respectively. 96.3% of the HST users do not apply chemical insecticides to grains before and during storage. Farmers use HSTs to store grains for several reasons. Insect pest control (83.1%), mold management (4.6%), rodent management (7.7%), and others (4.6%) were the main reasons cited by respondents for choosing HSTs over tra- ditional storage methods (Table 4). For those who were aware of HSTs but are not using them, the main reasons for not using HSTs for grain storage were https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2022.139061 F. Okori et al. DOI: 10.4236/as.2022.139061 1000 Agricultural Sciences Table 4. Awareness, use, and handling of hermetic storage technologies by farmers of Northern Uganda. Variable Parameter % of respondents Hermetic storage awareness (n = 306) Aware of HST 53.3 Not aware of HST 46.7 Hermetic storage use (n = 306) Have used HST 17.6 Have not used HST 82.4% Reason for using HSTs (n = 54) Insect control 83.1 Mould management 4.6 Rodent management 7.7 Others 4.6 Reason for not using HSTs (n = 109) Lack of availability 50.2 High cost 37.8 Lack of knowledge 6.9 Low grain production 1.4 Periodical purchase 0.9 Cultural preference for local storage methods 1.4 Others 1.4 HST reuse (n = 54) No reuse 9.3 Reuse for 1 season 5.6 Reuse for 2 seasons 33.3 Reuse for at least 3 seasons 51.9 Acquisition of hermetic storage (n = 54) Buy (or bought) 44.4 Receive(d) for free 55.6 HST reopening frequency (n = 54) Monthly 44.4 After 2 months 9.3 After 3 months 25.9 More frequently 20.4 Re-opening HSTs for (n = 54) Consumption 22.2 Sale 13.0 Both sale and consumption 64.8 Most suitable approach way to make HST available (n = 163) Farmer based organizations 41.4 Markets 16.7 Retail shops 34.0 Extension workers 5.6 Grain traders 1.9 Others 0.6 n is the number of respondents. https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2022.139061 F. Okori et al. DOI: 10.4236/as.2022.139061 1001 Agricultural Sciences Figure 5. Awareness of different grain hermetic storage technologies (n = 163) in North- ern Uganda. lack of availability (50.2%), high cost (37.8%), and lack of knowledge on how to use (6.9%) among others (Table 4). About 55.6% of HST users had received their HSTs for free while the rest acquired them through purchasing. Among the HST users, 51.9% of the respondents said they would like to reuse their HSTs for at least three seasons. About 44.4% of the respondents opened their hermetic storage containers every month while 25.9% opened after every three months (Table 4). Most of the respondents (64.8%) gave the reason for HSTs opening as to obtain grains for sale and consumption. To improve HSTs availability and use, most farmers think the use of farmer-based organizations (41.4%) and retail shops in their villages (34.0%) would be the most suitable ap- proaches. 3.7. Contributions of Hermetic Storage to Food Security and Household Income When asked about the benefits of using HSTs, the respondents described several benefits that originate from the adoption of improved grain storage technolo- gies. Among the HST users in our study, the benefits of using hermetic storage over conventional storage technologies included improved food availability in the farming households, household income, improved grain quality, and nutri- tion reported by 98.1%, 90.7%, 100%, and 90.7% of the respondents respectively (Data not shown). 3.8. Econometric Analysis Results The binary logit regression analysis was used to identify the important factors affecting the decision to adopt the use of hermetic storage in Northern Uganda. The determinants of adoption of HSTs are shown in the Logit model estimation results shown in Table 5. The logit model incorporates both quantitative and https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2022.139061 F. Okori et al. DOI: 10.4236/as.2022.139061 1002 Agricultural Sciences Table 5. Factors affecting the adoption of hermetic storage by smallholder farmers in Dokolo, Apac, Amuru, and Adjumani districts in Northern Uganda. Variables Coefficient Wald p-value Gender 0.233 0.207 0.649 Marital status 0.793 3.745 0.053 Age 0.096 0.772 0.680 Farmer group association member 0.947 0.516 0.066 Household head −0.416 0.623 0.430 Education −0.332 1.647 0.199 Access to radio −0.257 0.446 0.581 Received training on HSTs 2.032 9.34 0.002 Access to agricultural extension 1.092 2.552 0.110 Constant −4.22 4.692 0.030 qualitative variables to determine the significance of the adoption factors. Of all the independent variables, only one variable significantly affected the adoption of hermetic storage by users. This variable was training in the use of hermetic storage (p = 0.002). Respondents who received training on HSTs were signifi- cantly more likely to adopt the use of hermetic storage technology. 4. Discussions 4.1. Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Farmers In Uganda, agriculture is the mainstay of the population upon which people di- rectly or indirectly derive their livelihoods. Subsistence agriculture in the coun- try contributes significantly to the food and income requirements of about 85% - 90% of households in Uganda [40]. In our study, young people between 18 - 35 years made up nearly half (48.7%) of the surveyed population. The population of Uganda is one of the youngest in the world [41]. Young farmers are considered more energetic and productive in agricultural work as most fieldwork activities in smallholder farmer settings of SSA require physical effort characteristic of young people. Besides, young people are more likely to adopt new agricultural technologies faster than their aged counterparts [42]. The majority of Ugandan farmers are smallholder farmers who produce food chiefly to meet their food and income requirements. At least 76% of the surveyed population owned be- tween 1 - 6 acres of agricultural land, with grain production accounting for much of the total land under cultivation. Grain production is a key social and economic activity in Uganda, contributing to food security and smallholder far- mers’ household income requirements [43] [44]. This indicates that priority is given to grain crops when it comes to land allocation compared to traditional https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2022.139061 F. Okori et al. DOI: 10.4236/as.2022.139061 1003 Agricultural Sciences root and tuber crops in the study area. The majority of the respondents are low resource farmers (63.7%), earning up to a maximum of UGX 1,000,000 (USD 286) as their annual household income. Such low resource farmers may find it difficult to invest their little resources in improved grain storage technologies. 4.2. Quantity of Grains Harvested, Stored, and Quantity Remaining at Farming Households after Three Months Northern Uganda receives two rainy seasons from March to May and August to November each year, and there are at least six to eight months of grain storage before the next harvest season. This duration of food storage may affect the food security and household income of smallholder farmers especially if they lack better storage technologies. While food production is a seasonal activity, food consumption is an ongoing activity that must be met regularly and adequately [45]. Farmers should thus be able to store enough food to meet their household food and income needs during the lean periods. From our study, most small- holder farmers remained with only a limited quantity of grains in their food stores just three months following harvest. This indicates the vulnerability of many smallholder farmers during the lean periods and the struggle they go through to meet their household food needs between one harvest season and the other. In a study carried out in Tanzania, crop stocks were less by 63% - 94% of the harvest amount after just one month of storage [8]. Shortly after harvest, many smallholder farmers opt to sell most of their crops for several reasons. These include raising money for school fees, household re- quirements, and the perception of grain surplus above storability [8]. Besides, the onset of the crop harvest season coincides with financial pressures that farming households have been subject to during the lean periods, with the im- mediate option being the sale of some or all of the crop harvests. Other farmers also sell their surplus crop harvests for fear of losing them to the agents of dete- rioration during storage [22] [46]. When sold immediately after harvest, house- holds will be forced, in a few months, to buy grains at relatively higher prices than sold to meet their food needs [12] [47] [48]. Among other factors, this has kept many smallholder farmers of SSA in perpetual poverty. For all the grain commodities produced by farmers, prices during the lean seasons were significantly higher than during the harvest seasons, amounting to gains of US $322, 302, 271, and 262 per metric ton of pigeon pea, common beans, sesame, and green gram sold in the lean periods. This benefit of fetching higher prices when grains are sold during the lean periods is an opportunity for smallholder farmers to invest in and use effective and sustainable storage solu- tions such as hermetic storage that retain higher crop quality for longer in sto- rage. The ability to be able to store crops from harvest time until when local market prices are favorable could improve smallholder farmers’ incomes that would eventually break the perpetual cycle of poverty resulting from farmers’ poor grain storage habits [8]. Besides fetching higher market prices, storing https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2022.139061 F. Okori et al. DOI: 10.4236/as.2022.139061 1004 Agricultural Sciences grains in superior storage technologies that avoid storage losses can guarantee farmers’ food security in farming households [48]. 4.3. Provision of Agricultural Extension Services, Information, and Training on Hermetic Storage Technologies Agricultural extension services are important to enhance farmer knowledge and awareness of the availability of new and improved farming technologies [49]. A large proportion of the respondents in the study area had access to general agri- cultural extension services. Northern Uganda has several extension service pro- viders including NGOs, governmental agencies, and other private entities. Those with access to extension services in the study area relied on NGOs, Government research and extension services, and farmer-group extension service providers. NGOs accounted for the largest source of extension services followed by Gov- ernment research and extension services. The overreliance of smallholder far- mers on NGOs to offer extension services is worrying since the withdrawal of the services of such an entity at any time would drastically affect smallholder farmers. The lack of access to agricultural extension services by about 33.7% of the population could be attributed to limited government support to provide ex- tension services to these farmers. About 8.0% of the respondents received exten- sion services from farmer group extension workers. Sebaggala and Matovu [50] argued that formal extension workers are not the only source of agricultural ex- tension information for farmers as other informal sources have emerged. It has become common to see established farmer groups in Uganda employ skilled and trained personnel to provide agricultural extension services to their farmer group members in agricultural communities. The vast majority of respondents who were aware of hermetic storage had re- ceived some form of training on its use, primarily from agricultural extension workers in their area. The efforts of development partners mainly the WFP to promote sustainable post-harvest solutions that reduce grain handling and sto- rage losses brought to the knowledge and use of HSTs in Northern Uganda. De- spite these and other stakeholders’ efforts, our study indicated that awareness and use of HSTs remain low in Northern Uganda. Hermetic storage bags, plastic silos, and metallic silos were among the first HSTs promoted in Uganda between 2012 to 2016 by WFP and other partners [7] [38]. Since then, several other or- ganizations including the private sector have picked interest in activities such as technology dissemination, research, and manufacturing to meet the needs of smallholder farmers to improve grain storage in the region. 4.4. Awareness, Use, and Constraints to the Adoption of Hermetic Storage Our study indicated that awareness and use of HSTs in Northern Uganda are low among the surveyed farmers, and the same could be true for the whole country. Despite the promotion and dissemination of HSTs in Uganda by de- https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2022.139061 F. Okori et al. DOI: 10.4236/as.2022.139061 1005 Agricultural Sciences velopment partners including WFP from 2012 to 2016 and the inclusion of promotion and dissemination of HSTs into the activities of many development partners, a large proportion of the population in the surveyed area are still una- ware of improved forms of grain storage. Among those who are aware, the use of HSTs to store grains was even much lower as only 18% of total respondents were using one or more forms of hermetic storage. Compared to the study of Moussa, Lowenberg-DeBoer [51] where there was a 70% adoption level of HSTs in Bur- kina Faso and Niger for the storage of cowpeas, there is still a low adoption rate of hermetic storage in Uganda. The main reason for farmers to use HSTs was the management of insect pests during storage. Insect pests are the greatest chal- lenge to stored grains, causing significant quantity and quality loss of up to 40% in some commodities [52]. By using HSTs, insect pests cannot thrive due to the creation of interstitial modified atmospheres of low oxygen and high carbon dioxide [48] [53] [54]. Due to inadequate oxygen supply, cessation of insect feeding, growth, development, reproduction, and eventual death occurs for in- sect pest species and their life stages [55]. Besides, the lack of oxygen blocks the supply of vital metabolic water leading to the desiccation of insect pests and their life stages [55]. The main constraints to hermetic storage technology adoption in Northern Uganda were lack of availability and high cost compared to conventional grain storage methods. In West and Central Africa, lack of availability of HSTs and lack of information were noted as the top most important constraints hindering farmers from using hermetic grain storage [26]. In a related adoption study in West Africa, lack of availability and high price were the top reasons for the low adoption of PICS bags for grain storage [26]. The users of hermetic storage have to strike a balance between technology cost, availability, and durability [32]. The initial acquisition cost of HSTs is a major constraint to smallholder farmers in Uganda. Metallic silos cost about USD 35 for a 100 kg silo and USD 2 - 4 for a 100 kg hermetic bag compared to the popularly used woven PP bag which cost at most USD 0.4 for a 100 kg bag. From this, it is clear that the cost of HSTs is highly substantial for smallholder farmers given the limited financial capacity of smallholder farmers of SSA [12]. Among the HST users, most farmers received them for free or paid a small fraction of the total costs as promotion incentives offered by the promoters of the technology. To ensure rapid awareness and adoption of HSTs, development partners and other promoters of new storage technologies initially offer them to participating households at a small fraction of the total technology fee or com- pletely free [22]. This is usually done so that the beneficiary farmers and other farmers would learn about the benefits of the technology and later take personal interest to buy them for improved food security and incomes in their house- holds. Most of the surveyed farmers opened their HSTs periodically after sealing to obtain grains either to be used as food or to sell for income to meet their household needs. While the opening of hermetic storage interrupts the herme- https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2022.139061 F. Okori et al. DOI: 10.4236/as.2022.139061 1006 Agricultural Sciences ticity principle, sealing the container shortly after has been shown not to signifi- cantly impact grain quality [56]. The logit regression model results showed that training on HSTs was the main predictor of the adoption of storage technology in Northern Uganda. While other factors such as age, education, gender, and marital status among others are known to affect the adoption of storage technology [26] [39] [57], these were not the main factors in our study. It has been demonstrated that awareness-building exercises increase the adoption and use of new improved storage technologies [58]. Training and dissemination of knowledge and information about new technologies thus play a key role in raising awareness and subsequent diffusion of technologies among targeted users. Unlike in other hermetic storage adoption studies, education, membership in a farmer association, household headship, access to radio, and access to extension services did not significantly affect the adoption of hermetic storage in our study [26] [39]. This could be explained by the fact that the factors that affect hermetic storage adoption are area-specific and could have been different for Northern Uganda where our study was con- ducted. 5. Conclusions and Recommendations The users of hermetic storage rely on this improved storage technology to con- trol insect infestations without the need to use chemical insecticides. Despite the known effectiveness and superiority over conventional storage technologies, our study has shown that awareness and use of hermetic storage in Northern Ugan- da are low compared to other regions of SSA. Although numerous efforts have been put in by development partners, the awareness and use of hermetic storage remain low in Uganda. The most important constraints to the adoption of HSTs in Uganda are lack of availability and high costs as indicated by 50.2% and 37.8% respectively of the respondents in the study area. If the adoption and use of hermetic storage technology are to improve, these constraints should be ad- dressed by all interested stakeholders. Innovative awareness creation activities such as public demonstrations and radio programs among others could be useful to improve farmers’ knowledge and adoption of the technology. Acknowledgements We are grateful to the Government of Uganda through the Makerere University Research Innovations Fund (RIF) [Grant No. RIF1/CAES/022] for funding this study. In addition, we are indebted to the 306 smallholder farmers for their wil- lingness to participate in the survey. Finally, we wish to thank George Akwec, Ambrose Ogwal, Deus Basiime, and all the data enumerators for facilitating the process of data collection and data entry. Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate The smallholder farmers used as respondents and informants were informed of https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2022.139061 F. Okori et al. DOI: 10.4236/as.2022.139061 1007 Agricultural Sciences the purpose of the study and the rights to withdraw their participation at any stage of the interview. The collection and handling of the data have been done following the general data protection guidelines to ensure confidentiality and privacy. Conflicts of Interest The authors declare no known conflicts of interest, financial or non-financial. The funding organization had no role and interest in the study design, data col- lection, and analysis. Funding This work was funded by the Government of Uganda through the Makerere University Research Innovations Fund (Mak-RIF) [Grant No. RIF1/CAES/022]. References [1] Ghose, B. (2014) Food Security and Food Self-Sufficiency in China: From Past to 2050. Food and Energy Security, 3, 86-95. https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.48 [2] Diaz-Ambrona, C.G.H. and Maletta, E. (2014) Achieving Global Food Security through Sustainable Development of Agriculture and Food Systems with Regard to Nutrients, Soil, Land, and Waste Management. Current Sustainable/Renewable Energy Reports, 1, 57-65. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40518-014-0009-2 [3] Krishna Bahadur, K.C., Dias, G.M., Veeramani, A., Swanton, C.J., Fraser, D., Steinke, D., et al. (2018) When Too Much Isn’t Enough: Does Current Food Pro- duction Meet Global Nutritional Needs? PLOS ONE, 13, Article ID: e0205683. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205683 [4] Laganda, G. (2021) 2021 Is Going to Be a Bad Year for World Hunger. https://www.un.org/en/food-systems-summit/news/2021-going-be-bad-year-world- hunger [5] Hodges, R., Buzby, J. and Bennett, B. (2011) Postharvest Losses and Waste in De- veloped and Less Developed Countries: Opportunities to Improve Resource Use. The Journal of Agricultural Science, 149, 37-45. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859610000936 [6] UN (United Nations) (2017) World Population Projected to Reach 9.8 Billion in 2050, and 11.2 Billion in 2100. https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-pros pects-2017.html [7] CITE (Comprehensive Initiative on Technology Evaluation) (2017) Scaling Adop- tion of Hermetic Post-Harvest Storage Technologies in Uganda Comprehensive In- itiative on Technology Evaluation. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cam- bridge, MA. [8] Abass, A.B., Ndunguru, G., Mamiro, P., Alenkhe, B., Mlingi, N. and Bekunda, M. (2014) Post-Harvest Food Losses in a Maize-Based Farming System of Semi-Arid Savannah Area of Tanzania. Journal of Stored Products Research, 57, 49-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2013.12.004 [9] Tefera, T. (2012) Post-Harvest Losses in African Maize in the Face of Increasing Food Shortage. Food Security, 4, 267-277. https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2022.139061 https://doi.org/10.1002/fes3.48 https://doi.org/10.1007/s40518-014-0009-2 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0205683 https://www.un.org/en/food-systems-summit/news/2021-going-be-bad-year-world-hunger https://www.un.org/en/food-systems-summit/news/2021-going-be-bad-year-world-hunger https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021859610000936 https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.html https://www.un.org/development/desa/en/news/population/world-population-prospects-2017.html https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2013.12.004 F. Okori et al. DOI: 10.4236/as.2022.139061 1008 Agricultural Sciences https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-012-0182-3 [10] Voahanginirina, R. (2018) Influence of the Use of Capsaicin on the Storage of Rice Grain. Open Access Library Journal, 5, Article No. e4833. https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1104833 [11] Manandhar, A., Milindi, P. and Shah, A. (2018) An Overview of the Post-Harvest Grain Storage Practices of Smallholder Farmers in Developing Countries. Agricul- ture, 8, Article No. 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture8040057 [12] Tefera, T., Kanampiu, F., De Groote, H., Hellin, J., Mugo, S., Kimenju, S., Beyene, Y., Boddupalli, P.M., Shiferaw, B. and Banziger, M. (2011) The Metal Silo: An Effec- tive Grain Storage Technology for Reducing Post-Harvest Insect and Pathogen Losses in Maize While Improving Smallholder Farmers’ Food Security in Develop- ing Countries. Crop protection, 30, 240-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2010.11.015 [13] Olorunfemi, B.J. and Kayode, S.E. (2021) Post-Harvest Loss and Grain Storage Technology—A Review. Turkish Journal of Agriculture-Food Science and Tech- nology, 9, 75-83. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v9i1.75-83.3714 [14] Gustavsson, J., Cederberg, C., Sonesson, U., Van Otterdijk, R. and Meybeck, A. (2011) Global Food Losses and Food Waste. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome. [15] Affognon, H., Mutungi, C., Sanginga, P. and Borgemeister, C. (2015) Unpacking Postharvest Losses in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Meta-Analysis. World Development, 66, 49-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.08.002 [16] World Bank (2011) Missing Food: The Case of Postharvest Grain Losses in Sub-Saharan Africa. World Bank, Washington DC. [17] Bendinelli, W.E., Su, C.T., Péra, T.G. and Caixeta Filho, J.V. (2020) What Are the Main Factors That Determine Post-Harvest Losses of Grains? Sustainable Produc- tion and Consumption, 21, 228-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2019.09.002 [18] Lipinski, B., Hanson, C., Waite, R., Searchinger, T. and Lomax, J. (2013) Reducing Food Loss and Waste. World Resources Institute, Washington DC. [19] FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations) (2016) Sustainable Development Goals. https://www.fao.org/sustainable-development-goals/indicators/1231/en/ [20] Tibagonzeka, J., Akumu, G., Kiyimba, F., Atukwase, A., Wambete, J., Bbemba, J. and Muyonga, J. (2018) Post-Harvest Handling Practices and Losses for Legumes and Starchy Staples in Uganda. Agricultural Sciences, 9, 141-156. https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2018.91011 [21] Mwangi, J.K., Mutungi, C.M., Midingoyi, S.-K., Faraj, A.K. and Affognon, H.D. (2017) An Assessment of the Magnitudes and Factors Associated with Postharvest Losses in Off-Farm Grain Stores in Kenya. Journal of Stored Products Research, 73, 7-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2017.05.006 [22] Omotilewa, O.J., Ricker-Gilbert, J. and Ainembabazi, J.H. (2019) Subsidies for Agricultural Technology Adoption: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment with Improved Grain Storage Bags in Uganda. American Journal of Agricultural Eco- nomics, 101, 753-772. https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aay108 [23] Kumar, D. and Kalita, P. (2017) Reducing Postharvest Losses during Storage of Grain Crops to Strengthen Food Security in Developing Countries. Foods, 6, Article 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods6010008 [24] Boxall, R.A. (2002) Damage and Loss Caused by the Larger Grain Borer Prostepha- https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2022.139061 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-012-0182-3 https://doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1104833 https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture8040057 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2010.11.015 https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v9i1.75-83.3714 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2014.08.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.spc.2019.09.002 https://www.fao.org/sustainable-development-goals/indicators/1231/en/ https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2018.91011 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2017.05.006 https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aay108 https://doi.org/10.3390/foods6010008 F. Okori et al. DOI: 10.4236/as.2022.139061 1009 Agricultural Sciences nus truncatus. Integrated Pest Management Reviews, 7, 105-121. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026397115946 [25] Viola, A. (2017) Scaling up Post-Harvest Losses Interventions in Uganda through Market Forces. Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. [26] Moussa, B., Abdoulaye, T., Coulibaly, O., Baributsa, D., and Lowenberg-DeBoer, J. (2014) Adoption of On-Farm Hermetic Storage for Cowpea in West and Central Africa in 2012. Journal of Stored Products Research, 58, 77-86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2014.02.008 [27] Bwambale, J., Durodola, O.S. and Nabunya, V. (2020) Development and Evaluation of an Improved Maize Silo to Advance Food Security in Uganda. Cogent Food & Agriculture, 6, Article ID: 1834666. https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2020.1834666 [28] Chuma, T., Mudhara, M. and Govereh, J. (2020) The Effects of Grain Storage Technologies on Maize Marketing Behaviour of Smallholder Farmers in Zimbabwe. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics, 121, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.17170/kobra-20191217882 [29] Freitas, R.S., Faroni, L.R.A. and Sousa, A.H. (2016) Hermetic Storage for Control of Common Bean Weevil, Acanthoscelides obtectus (Say). Journal of Stored Products Research, 66, 1-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2015.12.004 [30] Mutungi, C.M., Affognon, H., Njoroge, A.W., Baributsa, D. and Murdock, L.L. (2014) Storage of Mung Bean (Vigna radiata [L.] Wilczek) and Pigeonpea Grains (Cajanus cajan [L.] Millsp) in Hermetic Triple-Layer Bags Stops Losses Caused by Callosobruchus maculatus (F.) (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Journal of Stored Products Research, 58, 39-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2014.03.004 [31] De Groote, H., Kimenju, S.C., Likhayo, P., Kanampiu, F., Tefera, T. and Hellin, J. (2013) Effectiveness of Hermetic Systems in Controlling Maize Storage Pests in Kenya. Journal of Stored Products Research, 53, 27-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2013.01.001 [32] Baributsa, D. and Njoroge, A.W. (2020) The Use and Profitability of Hermetic Technologies for Grain Storage among Smallholder Farmers in Eastern Kenya. Journal of Stored Products Research, 87, Article ID: 101618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2020.101618 [33] Atta, B., Rizwan, M., Sabir, A.M., Gogi, M.D. and Ali, K. (2020) Damage Potential of Tribolium castaneum (Herbst) (Coleoptera: Tenebrionidae) on Wheat Grains Stored in Hermetic and Non-Hermetic Storage Bags. International Journal of Trop- ical Insect Science, 40, 27-37. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42690-019-00047-0 [34] Baoua, I.B., Amadou, L., Baributsa, D. and Murdock, L.L. (2014) Triple Bag Her- metic Technology for Post-Harvest Preservation of Bambara Groundnut (Vigna subterranea (L.) Verdc.). Journal of Stored Products Research, 58, 48-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2014.01.005 [35] Baributsa, D., Baoua, I.B., Bakoye, O.N., Amadou, L. and Murdock, L.L. (2017) PICS Bags Safely Store Unshelled and Shelled Groundnuts in Niger. Journal of Stored Products Research, 72, 54-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2017.03.007 [36] Mlambo, S., Mvumi, B.M., Stathers, T., Mubayiwa, M. and Nyabako, T. (2017) Field Efficacy of Hermetic and Other Maize Grain Storage Options under Smallholder Farmer Management. Crop protection, 98, 198-210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2017.04.001 [37] Njoroge, A.W., Affognon, H.D., Mutungi, C.M., Manono, J., Lamuka, P.O. and Murdock, L.L. (2014) Triple Bag Hermetic Storage Delivers a Lethal Punch to Pros- https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2022.139061 https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026397115946 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2014.02.008 https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2020.1834666 https://doi.org/10.17170/kobra-20191217882 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2015.12.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2014.03.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2013.01.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2020.101618 https://doi.org/10.1007/s42690-019-00047-0 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2014.01.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2017.03.007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2017.04.001 F. Okori et al. DOI: 10.4236/as.2022.139061 1010 Agricultural Sciences tephanus truncatus (Horn) (Coleoptera: Bostrichidae) in Stored Maize. Journal of Stored Products Research, 58, 12-19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2014.02.005 [38] Costa, S.J. (2015) Taking It to Scale: Post-Harvest Loss Eradication in Uganda 2014-2015. UN World Food Programme, Kampala. [39] Ibro, G., Sorgho, M.C., Idris, A.A., Moussa, B., Baributsa, D. and Lowenberg- DeBoer, J. (2014) Adoption of Cowpea Hermetic Storage by Women in Nigeria, Niger and Burkina Faso. Journal of Stored Products Research, 58, 87-96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2014.02.007 [40] Gollin, D. and Rogerson, R. (2010) Agriculture, Roads, and Economic Development in Uganda. Working Paper No. 15863, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. https://doi.org/10.3386/w15863 [41] World Bank (2017) Uganda Economic Update, December 2017: Accelerating Uganda’s Development, Ending Child Marriage, Educating Girls. World Bank, Washington DC. [42] Njoroge, A.W., Baoua, I. and Baributsa, D. (2019) Postharvest Management Practices of Grains in the Eastern Region of Kenya. Journal of Agricultural Science, 11, 33-42. https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v11n3p33 [43] Ronner, E. and Giller, K.E. (2019) Background Information on Agronomy, Farming Systems and Ongoing Projects on Grain Legumes in Uganda. Gates Open Research, 3, Article No. 497. [44] Raheem, D., Dayoub, M., Birech, R. and Nakiyemba, A. (2021) The Contribution of Cereal Grains to Food Security and Sustainability in Africa: Potential Application of UAV in Ghana, Nigeria, Uganda, and Namibia. Urban Science, 5, Article No. 8. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci5010008 [45] Bonuedi, I., Kornher, L. and Gerber, N. (2021) Agricultural Seasonality, Market Access, and Food Security in Sierra Leone. Food Security, 14, 471-494. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-021-01242-z [46] Kadjo, D., Ricker-Gilbert, J. and Alexander, C. (2016) Estimating Price Discounts for Low-Quality Maize in Sub-Saharan Africa: Evidence from Benin. World Devel- opment, 77, 115-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.08.004 [47] Stephens, E.C. and Barrett, C.B. (2011) Incomplete Credit Markets and Commodity Marketing Behaviour. Journal of Agricultural Economics, 62, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2010.00274.x [48] Okori, F., Cherotich, S., Baidhe, E., Komakech, A.J. and Banadda, N. (2022) Grain Hermetic Storage and Post-Harvest Loss Reduction in Sub-Saharan Africa: Effects on Grain Damage, Weight Loss, Germination, Insect Infestation, and Mold and Mycotoxin Contamination. Journal of Biosystems Engineering, 47, 48-68. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42853-022-00130-4 [49] Kwapong, A.N. and Nkonya, E. (2015) Agricultural Extension Reforms and Devel- opment in Uganda. Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, 7, 122-134. [50] Sebaggala, R. and Matovu, F. (2020) Effects of Agricultural Extension Services on Farm Productivity in Uganda. Working Papers No. 379, African Economic Re- search Consortium, Nairobi. [51] Moussa, B., Lowenberg-DeBoer, J. and Baributsa, D. (2010) Adoption of Hermetic Storage for Cowpea in Niger and Burkina Faso in 2010. Proceedings of the Poster Presented during the Fifth World Cowpea Research Conference, Senegal, 27 Sep- tember-1 October 2010. https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2022.139061 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2014.02.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2014.02.007 https://doi.org/10.3386/w15863 https://doi.org/10.5539/jas.v11n3p33 https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci5010008 https://doi.org/10.1007/s12571-021-01242-z https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2015.08.004 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-9552.2010.00274.x https://doi.org/10.1007/s42853-022-00130-4 F. Okori et al. DOI: 10.4236/as.2022.139061 1011 Agricultural Sciences [52] Johnson, J.B. (2020) An Overview of Near-Infrared Spectroscopy (NIRS) for the Detection of Insect Pests in Stored Grains. Journal of Stored Products Research, 86, Article ID: 101558. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2019.101558 [53] Murdock, L.L. and Baoua, B. (2014) On Purdue Improved Cowpea Storage (PICS) Technology: Background, Mode of Action, Future Prospects. Journal of Stored Products Research, 58, 3-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2014.02.006 [54] Moreno-Martinez, E., Jiménez, S. and Vazquez, M.E. (2000) Effect of Sitophilus zeamais and Aspergillus chevalieri on the Oxygen Level in Maize Stored Hermeti- cally. Journal of Stored Products Research, 36, 25-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-474X(99)00023-5 [55] Murdock, L.L., Margam, V., Baoua, I., Balfe, S. and Shade, R.E. (2012) Death by De- siccation: Effects of Hermetic Storage on Cowpea Bruchids. Journal of Stored Products Research, 49, 166-170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2012.01.002 [56] Kiobia, D.O., Silayo, V.C.K., Mutabazi, K.D., Graef, F. and Mourice, S.K. (2020) Performance of Hermetic Storage Bags for Maize Grains under Farmer-Managed Conditions: Good Practice versus Local Reality. Journal of Stored Products Re- search, 87, Article ID: 101586. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2020.101586 [57] Rabé, M.M., Baoua, I.B. and Baributsa, D. (2021) Adoption and Profitability of the Purdue Improved Crop Storage Technology for Grain Storage in the South-Central Regions of Niger. Agronomy, 11, Article No. 2470. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11122470 [58] Muriuki, N., Munyua, C. and Wanga, D. (2016) Communication Channels in Adoption of Technology with a Focus on the Use of Purdue Improved Crop Storage (PICS) among Small Scale Maize Farmers in Kenya. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, 6, 8-12. List of Abbreviations HSTs: Hermetic Storage Technologies; PHLs: Post-Harvest Losses; NGOs: Non-Governmental Organizations; PICS bag: Purdue Improved Crop Storage bag; PP bag: Woven polypropylene bag; SDGs: Sustainable Development Goals; SSA: Sub-Saharan Africa; WFP: United Nations World Food Programme. https://doi.org/10.4236/as.2022.139061 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2019.101558 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2014.02.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-474X(99)00023-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2012.01.002 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspr.2020.101586 https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11122470 Grain Hermetic Storage Adoption in Northern Uganda: Awareness, Use, and the Constraintsto Technology Adoption Abstract Keywords 1. Introduction 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Study Area and Timing 2.2. Sampling, Data Collection, and Data Analysis 2.3. Econometric Analysis 3. Results 3.1. Demographic, Socioeconomic, and Farming Characteristics of the Farmers 3.2. The Main Source of Livelihood for the Farmers 3.3. Quantity of Grains Harvested, Stored, and Quantity Remaining after Three Months 3.4. Variations in Grain Price between the Harvest Season and Lean Periods 3.5. Provision of Agricultural Extension Services, Information, and Training on Hermetic Storage Technologies 3.6. Farmers’ Knowledge/Awareness, Use, and Handling of HSTs in Northern Uganda 3.7. Contributions of Hermetic Storage to Food Security and Household Income 3.8. Econometric Analysis Results 4. Discussions 4.1. Demographic and Socioeconomic Characteristics of the Farmers 4.2. Quantity of Grains Harvested, Stored, and Quantity Remaining at Farming Households after Three Months 4.3. Provision of Agricultural Extension Services, Information, and Training on Hermetic Storage Technologies 4.4. Awareness, Use, and Constraints to the Adoption of Hermetic Storage 5. Conclusions and Recommendations Acknowledgements Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate Conflicts of Interest Funding References List of Abbreviations