India produces hundreds of millions of tonnes of food grain every year, yet a staggering portion never reaches the consumer. The problem doesn’t always begin in the field – it starts in the storage structure. According to India’s Indian Grain Storage Management & Research Institute (IGMRI), annual storage losses in India are estimated at 14 million tonnes of food grain worth approximately ₹7,000 crore, with insects alone accounting for nearly ₹1,300 crore of that damage. Understanding why these losses happen – and what can be done about them – starts with looking at how grain is actually stored at the village level.
Table of Contents
Why grain storage matters at the rural level
In rural India, farmers rarely have access to the large, scientifically managed warehouses operated by the Food Corporation of India (FCI) or the Central Warehousing Corporation (CWC). Research published in the International Journal of Pure and Applied Biosciences estimates that 60-70% of food grain produced in India is stored at the home level in indigenous storage structures. Government agencies together cover only about 3-5% of total grain production, leaving the vast majority of grain – and the associated risk – with individual farmers and traders who often lack scientific storage infrastructure.
The consequences are significant. A peer-reviewed study in Cogent Food & Agriculture found that traditional storage structures, while inexpensive and eco-friendly, are prone to significant food losses due to their inability to provide complete protection against moisture, rodents, mould growth, and hazardous insects. Improving or replacing these structures is therefore not just a technical issue – it is a food security imperative.
Traditional rural storage structures
Traditional storage structures are built using locally available, organic materials like mud, bamboo, straw, and wood. They are cheap, easy to construct, and culturally familiar. But they come with serious limitations that lead to measurable post-harvest losses.
Mud bins (Kothis)
Mud bins are among the most widespread traditional storage structures in rural India. Also known as Kothis, these are typically rectangular or cylindrical containers made by mixing mud with straw, cow dung, and other organic materials. Their capacity ranges widely – from small household-scale containers to structures holding several tonnes. They are easy to build, require no special materials, and can be maintained by farmers themselves.
However, as documented by LEISA India, regular mud plastering is required to increase the lifespan of these structures and ensure safe grain storage. More critically, basic mud bins offer no reliable protection against two of the biggest threats to stored grain: moisture and rodents. Dampness causes fungal growth and accelerates mould, while the absence of any rat-proofing makes the grain vulnerable to rodent attack. Insect infestation is another persistent challenge, as the porous structure of mud does not create the airtight conditions needed to suppress pests.
Other common traditional structures
Beyond mud bins, rural India uses a range of other indigenous structures, each adapted to local materials and conditions.
Bamboo structures (Kanaja/Morai) are common in eastern and southern India. The Morai, for instance, is used to store paddy, maize, and sorghum and has a capacity of 3.5 to 18 tonnes. According to ICAR’s online course material, these structures are placed on raised platforms supported by wooden or masonry pillars – a design that helps reduce moisture absorption from the ground and limits rodent entry. However, the walls of bamboo structures allow free airflow, which can also allow moisture ingress and pest entry in humid conditions.
Underground pits (Hagevu) are used in dryer agro-climatic zones, especially in Karnataka. LEISA India notes that these pits are lined with straw ropes, and once filled, are sealed with thick layers of paddy straw and mud plaster. The advantage is that the cool, relatively airtight environment can preserve grain without fumigation for longer periods. However, this method is unsuitable for seed storage and does not work well in humid climates where moisture seepage is a risk.
Earthen pots are used for small-quantity household storage of grains and pulses. While they are airtight when properly sealed, their limited capacity makes them impractical for storing harvest surpluses.
Collectively, researchers writing in the Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge acknowledge that these structures have been tried and tested over generations and remain relevant for small farmers who cannot afford modern alternatives. The core problem, however, is that most of them provide incomplete protection against the four main causes of storage loss: insects, moisture, rodents, and mould.
Improved rural storage structures
To address the clear limitations of traditional storage, agricultural engineers and research institutions have developed improved structures that retain the low-cost, locally-buildable character of traditional methods while adding critical protections against moisture and pests. Two of the most important of these are the Coal Tar Drum Bin and the Pusa Bin.
Coal tar drum bin
The coal tar drum bin is a practical, low-cost improved storage solution developed primarily for small and marginal farmers. As described by IGMRI, these bins are made from used bitumen (coal tar) drums – the same drums used in road construction and discarded after use. The residual tar lining inside the drum acts as both an insulator and a moisture barrier. A local artisan can reshape the drum, fabricate a tight-fitting lid, and add a discharge chute, making it a functional grain storage unit.
According to FAO’s grain storage research, a coal tar drum bin with a 150 kg capacity for cereals costs significantly less than a new metal bin of the same size, making it financially accessible to small farmers. IGMRI notes that these bins can store approximately 1.3 quintals of wheat or maize, and their relatively airtight construction means they are well-suited for short-duration storage in areas with high humidity and moisture levels.
The key advantage of the coal tar drum bin over a plain mud bin is its inherent moisture resistance – the metal body and tar coating do not absorb or transmit moisture. The tight lid also significantly reduces the entry points for rodents and insects. While not designed for long-term, large-scale storage, it is a practical and affordable first step up from traditional mud containers.
Pusa bin
The Pusa Bin is one of the most significant innovations in rural grain storage in India. Developed by the Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI) in New Delhi, the Pusa Bin is a rectangular structure made from a combination of burnt and unburnt bricks, with a critical addition: a 700-gauge low-density polyethylene (LDPE) film embedded within the walls, floor, and roof.
This polyethylene lining is what sets the Pusa Bin apart from a standard mud or brick structure. FAO’s postharvest storage documentation explains that the LDPE film creates a moisture-proof and near-airtight internal environment, which suppresses insect activity and prevents fungal growth. The outer wall is built with burnt bricks up to 45 cm height – this makes the base rodent-proof, since rats cannot burrow through fired brick. The structure has a capacity of 1 to 3 tonnes, making it appropriate for small to medium farm households.
ICAR’s course material on improved storage structures notes that after filling, the top loading opening is sealed with a plastic sheet and mud, and the discharge outlet is fitted with an inclined wooden or steel pipe controlled by a cover. When the bin is filled completely and properly dried before use, grain and seed can remain safe for more than one year. The Pusa Bin has been widely adopted across India and has even been demonstrated in several African countries as a model for affordable, scientifically sound farm-level grain storage.
A scaled-up version, the Pusa Cubicle, is a room-like structure (approximately 3.95 m × 3.15 m × 2.60 m) capable of storing up to 24 tonnes, using the same polyethylene lining principle but built on a larger concrete platform. IGMRI’s storage guidelines confirm that this design is particularly useful for farmers or cooperatives with larger storage requirements.
Other improved structures worth knowing
Beyond the Pusa Bin and coal tar drum bin, several other improved structures have been developed for Indian rural conditions.
The Hapur Bin, developed by the Indian Grain Storage Institute (IGSI) in Hapur, Uttar Pradesh, is a galvanised iron or aluminium metal bin available in capacities from 200 kg to 1,000 kg. FAO notes that metal bins are fire-proof, moisture-proof, and highly durable, though their higher initial cost compared to the Pusa Bin or coal tar drum bin can be a barrier for small farmers.
The PAU Bin (Punjab Agricultural University Bin) is made of two bamboo walls with a polyethylene lining sandwiched in between, combining the affordability of bamboo with the moisture-proofing of plastic. IGMRI describes this as suitable for short-duration storage, particularly for small and marginal farmers who are already familiar with bamboo construction.
Hermetic storage bags represent a newer development in the same spirit. As reported by All About Agriculture, these airtight bags cut off oxygen supply to stored grain, effectively stopping both pest activity and fungal growth without the use of chemical pesticides – a significant advantage for grain safety and seed viability.
Why the upgrade from traditional to improved structures matters
The shift from traditional mud bins to improved structures like the Pusa Bin or coal tar drum bin is not about abandoning tradition – it is about addressing specific, measurable failure points. The core problems with traditional storage – inability to block moisture, inability to seal against insects and rodents, and structural fragility – are precisely what the improved structures are engineered to solve.
Research published in Foods (MDPI) found that using scientific storage methods can reduce grain losses to as low as 1-2%, compared to losses of 50-60% in the worst cases of unscientific storage. Even a modest improvement – from 10% loss to 3% loss in a one-tonne Pusa Bin – means an additional 70 kg of grain saved per storage cycle. For a small farmer, that directly translates to income, food security, and bargaining power in the market.
The National Economic Forum estimates that India suffers food losses worth approximately USD 18.5 billion annually due to post-harvest inefficiencies. While not all of this is attributable to on-farm storage alone, improving rural storage structures is one of the most cost-effective interventions available – requiring no large-scale infrastructure, no ongoing energy input, and no specialised operational knowledge once built correctly.
The challenge of adoption remains real, particularly for small and marginal farmers who face upfront cost barriers. Government schemes and subsidies – including the Gramin Bhandaran Yojana for rural godown construction – aim to bridge this gap, but awareness at the farm level remains critical.
What do you think? Given that 60-70% of India’s grain is still stored in traditional structures, what would it take for small farmers to genuinely transition to improved storage solutions like the Pusa Bin – is it primarily a matter of cost, awareness, or access to materials and construction support? And with improved structures proven to reduce losses to as low as 1-2%, why do you think adoption has remained slow despite decades of research and demonstration?
References
- https://igmri.dfpd.gov.in/igmri/foodgrain-storage
- https://www.ijpab.com/form/2018%20Volume%206,%20issue%204/IJPAB-2018-6-4-190-198.pdf
- https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311932.2023.2276559
- https://www.leisaindia.org/indigenous-grain-storage-structures/
- http://ecoursesonline.iasri.res.in/mod/page/view.php?id=912
- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228391180_Indigenous_grain_structures_and_methods_of_storage
- https://igmri.dfpd.gov.in/igmri/storage
- https://www.fao.org/4/x5002e/X5002e02.htm
- https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264348323_Grain_Storage_Structures_for_Farmers
- http://ecoursesonline.iasri.res.in/mod/page/view.php?id=914
- https://allaboutagriculture.in/top-grain-storage-techniques-in-india-traditional-to-modern/
- https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5296677/
- https://nationaleconomicforum.org/nef_articles/addressing-post-harvest-losses-in-india-a-silent-crisis-in-agriculture/
Leave a Reply