____________________________________________________________________________________________ *Corresponding author: Email: suguribia@yahoo.com; American Journal of Experimental Agriculture 4(11): 1268-1279, 2014 SCIENCEDOMAIN international www.sciencedomain.org Participatory On-farm Evaluation of Some Storage Methods and Grain Protectants on Quality Characteristics of Maize (Zea mays L.) Issah Sugri 1* , Osei-Agyeman Yeboah 2 , John K. Bidzakin 1 , Cephas Naanwaab 2 , Stephen K. Nutsugah 1 and James M. Kombiok 1 1 CSIR-Savanna Agricultural Research Institute, P.O. Box 52, Tamale, Ghana. 2 School of Agriculture and Environmental Science, North Carolina Agriculture and Technical State University, 1601 E Market Street, Greensboro NC 27411, USA. Authors’ contributions This work was carried out in collaboration between all authors. Author IS was involved in project design, field data collection and first draft of manuscript. Author OAY was involved in study design, supervision and editing; author JKB participated in data collection, analysis and editing, author CN participated in initial study design and editing. Authors SKN and JMK. participated in project supervision and editing. All Authors read and approved the final manuscript. Received 5 th April 2014 Accepted 13 th May 2014 Published 31 st May 2014 ABSTRACT Aim: The study seeks to improve the livelihoods of farm families by deploying appropriate storage and grain protection methods to reduce on-farm storage losses. Place and Duration of Study: Multi-location experiments were established at 4 communities of the Upper East Region of Ghana from November 2012 to December 2013. Methodology: For each treatment, 50kg of maize was stored in jute sacs (JS), polypropylene sacs (PS), hermitic triple-layer sacs (HTS) and hermitic poly-tanks (HPT). Both Actellic and phostoxin fumigation were applied at recommended rates. Destructive grain sampling (100g) was done every 2 months for determination of grain characteristics and loss assessment. Scoring for grain quality was done using a 5-point objective scale. Results: Overall difference was due to the method of storage, influence of the 2 grain protectants was not consistent. Marginal loss of bulk density (9.6 to 14.8%) occurred in HTS and HPT compared to PS and JS (15-17%). Low postharvest losses (2.2-5.8%) was incurred in HTS and HPT compared to PS and JS which showed up to 7.2-31.5% losses. Original Research Article