Grain handling and storage practices of grain traders in Kenya and its implications in reducing food losses

Figures & data

Figure 1. Map of the grain traders study sites in three counties in Kenya.

Table 1. Socio-demography of grain traders in Nairobi, Machakos and Embu in Kenya.

Parameter	Survey area
	Nairobi	Machakos	Embu	Overall
	%	%	%	%
Sex
Male	37.1	42.9	16.8	32.5
Female	62.9	57.1	83.2	67.5
χ^2	34.819	31.571	65.584	119.08
P	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
Education
No formal education	1.7	0.0	5.3	2.3
Not completed primary school	5.2	7.6	24.8	12.4
Completed primary school	26.7	27.7	31.8	28.7
Completed secondary school	46.6	44.5	37.2	42.8
Tertiary education	19.8	20.2	0.9	13.8
χ^2	230.98	233.83	216.04	661.57
p	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
Age of respondents
18–35 years	53.4	47.9	22.1	41.4
36–55 years	38.8	41.2	58.4	46.0
Above 55 years	7.8	10.9	19.5	12.4
χ^2	37.879	27.697	32.088	70.155
P	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
Years in business
Less than 3 years	25.0	21.0	9.7	18.7
3–10 years	50.0	58.8	52.2	53.7
11–20 years	19.0	17.6	27.4	21.3
Above 20 years	6.0	2.5	10.6	6.3
χ^2	47.379	81.84	53.619	171.01
P	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

Table 2. Type of grain stored, source of grains, ownership and storage time of grains in traders’ stores in Nairobi, Machakos and Embu in Kenya.

Parameter	Survey area			Overall (N = 348)
	Nairobi	Machakos	Embu
	(N = 116)	(N = 119)	(N = 113)
Grain stored (%)
Maize	86.2	99.2	99.1	94.8
Sorghum	56.9	20.2	72.6	49.4
Wheat	50.0	8.4	37.2	31.6
Millet	56.9	23.5	71.7	50.3
Rice	89.7	64.7	33.6	62.9
Beans	97.4	95.0	90.3	94.3
Cowpeas	81.0	58.8	77.0	72.1
Green grams	92.2	84.0	88.5	88.2
Groundnuts	24.1	2.5	17.7	14.7
Pigeon peas	19.8	31.9	32.7	28.2
Dolichos	21.6	1.7	11.5	11.5
χ^2	168.45	368.68	194.16	603.24
p-value	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
Source of grains
Non-contracted farmers	10.3b	5.0b	12.4b	9.2b
Contracted farmers	2.6b	1.7b	6.2b	3.4bc
Retail brokers	57.8a	39.5a	22.1ab	39.9a
Farmer cooperatives	0.9b	0.8b	0.0b	0.2c
Non-contracted farmers and retail brokers	26.7ab	42.0a	51.3a	39.9a
Contracted farmers and retail brokers	1.7b	10.9b	8.0b	6.9b
χ^2	174.07	129.02	116.12	346.5
p-value	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
Ownership
Government	6.0b	1.7b	49.6a	18.7a
Private	6.0b	14.3b	3.5b	8.0b
Rented	87.9a	84.0a	46.9a	73.3 ab
χ^2	155.6	140.49	45.257	14.851
p-value	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001
Storage time
<1 month	42.2a	43.7a	48.7a	44.8a
1–3 months	47.4a	47.9a	40.7a	45.4a
>3 months	10.3b	8.4b	10.6b	9.8b
χ^2	28.052	33.597	27.31	86.966
p-value	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

For every county and overall sample, same lowercase letters within a column show no significant differences (p < 0.001).

Figure 2. (A) Grain traders storage structure used for grain storage; (B) Bags used for new grain stock in Nairobi, Machakos and Embu in Kenya.

Figure 3. Buyers of traders’ grains in Nairobi, Machakos and Embu in Kenya.

Figure 4. Determinants of resale price of traders’ grains in Nairobi, Machakos and Embu in Kenya.

Table 3. Procedures used by grain traders for incoming new grain stock in Nairobi, Machakos and Embu in Kenya.

Parameter	Survey area			Overall (N = 348)
	Nairobi	Machakos	Embu
	(N = 116)	(N = 119)	(N = 113)
New stock procedure (%)
Sampling	93.1	87.4	83.2	87.6
Drying	14.7	28.6	20.4	21.3
Sorting	65.5	67.2	74.3	69.0
Re-bagging	31.9	40.3	29.2	33.9
None	6.9	2.5	3.5	4.3
χ^2	143.47	115.48	130.19	381.54
p	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

Table 4. Grain trader’s practices with deteriorated grains in stores in Nairobi, Machakos and Embu in Kenya.

Parameter	Survey area			Overall (N = 348)
	Nairobi	Machakos	Embu
	(N = 116)	(N = 119)	(N = 113)
What happened to deteriorated grains?
Mix with superior quality	15.5ab	5.0bc	12.4bc	10.9c
Sell immediately	41.4a	49.6a	46.0a	45.7a
Donate	0.0c	0.8c	0.0c	0.2d
Sell to animal feed manufacturers	30.2ab	22.7ab	28.3ab	27.0b
Dispose	12.9bc	21.8ab	13.3bc	16.1bc
χ^2	59.776	87.849	70.584	208.01
p-Value	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001	<0.001

For every county and overall sample, same lowercase letters within a column show no significant differences (p < 0.001).

Figure 5. (A) Whether traders are aware of grain quality standards (B) those traders who use own or EAC standards, and (C) those who use different quality grades (Grade 1, Grade 2, Grade3) in Nairobi, Machakos and Embu in Kenya.

Figure 6. (A) Reason for sampling and (B) frequency of sampling grain by grain traders in Nairobi, Machakos and Embu in Kenya.

Table

Inthis survey, we are representing icipe to learn more about sanitation and post-harvest management practices affecting grain quality and pest proliferation to get an accurate understanding that will help in reduction of losses in grain traders’ stores
Questionnaire no
Interviewers’ name
Date
County
Sub-county
Ward
GPS Coordinates	Latitude: …………………………… Longitude: …………………………. Elevation: ………………………….

Table

Storage problem	Order of importance [1 = most important, 2 = important, 3 = moderately important, 4 = little importance]
Insects
Rodents
Birds
Moulds

Table

Protection against	Degree of protection
	[1 = very good, 2 = good, 3 = satisfactory, 4 = poor, 5 = very poor]
1. Insects
2. Rodents
3. Moulds
4. Spillage
5. Theft
6. Adverse weather

Data availability statement

Data will be made available on request.