1. Introduction
Since ancient times, the storage of grain, especially wheat in the Mediterranean area, has been particularly important [
1]. In Europe castles and monasteries were used until the 19th century as wheat storage facilities [
2]. Storage methods changed radically with the introduction of the grain elevator in Buffalo, USA, in 1843: traditional horizontal granaries were replaced by tall structures called ‘silos’ or ‘vertical storage units’ [3-5]. In late 19th-century Portugal, wheat imports sparked protests by domestic producers, which resulted in the enactment of protectionist laws from 1889 to 1899 [6-8] aimed at ensuring a minimal profit for producers without harming consumers; this led to an increase in domestic production [
9,
10]. At the beginning of the 20th century, over half of Portugal’s wheat production came from the districts of Evora, Portalegre, and Beja. The Alentejo region, which boasted favourable growing conditions but a large amount of uncultivated land, was targeted to increase national production [
11]. From 1914 onwards, multiple political and social crises had their impact on protectionist wheat policies, and urgent measures were taken accordingly to reduce the cost of bread. Under these measures, collectively known as Pão Político (political bread), the state imported wheat and sold it on to flour mills at below market value [
10]. The authoritarian regime known as the Estado Novo (New State) arrived in 1926. That same year, the I Congreso Nacional do Trigo (First National Wheat Conference) was held with the aim of achieving national self-sufficiency in wheat production [
12]. In 1929 the Campanha do Trigo (Wheat Drive) (
Figure 1) was run to bring large unfarmed areas, especially in the Alentejo region, into production, leading to deforestation, landscape change, and subsequent erosion issues [13-15].
Production was supported through subsidies and loans for wheat growers [
10]. As a result of the Campanha do Trigo, production rose and the price of wheat fell, leading to conflicts between wheat growers and flour millers [9, 17, 18]. So, the national authorities created the Federação Nacional de Produtores do Trigo (FNPT, National Wheat Growers Federation) in 1932 [
10] and the Federação Nacional dos Industrais do Moagen (FNIM, National Milling Industries Federation) in 1934, in an endeavour to control wheat production, processing, and marketing [12-19]. In 1935 the FNPT commissioned Professor Ruy Mayer of the Instituto Superior de Agronomia (ISA, School of Agriculture) in Lisbon to prepare a study in which the country was divided into eight zones based on the amount of grain produced (
Figure 2). Zones I, II, III, and VIII were wheat-exporting zones, while the others were wheat importers. The study proposed the construction of a network of 30 silos to store and distribute wheat, using the railway to link production zones with consumption zones. Three types of silos were envisioned: (i) central silos, (ii) auxiliary silos, and (iii) other (smaller silos and granaries) [12, 15, 20].
Something similar to what happened in Portugal occurred in other European countries under authoritarian regimes as well. In Italy, from 1925 to 1931, Mussolini decided to pursue self-sufficiency in wheat production, which ultimately turned out to be a complete failure [
21]. Later, around 1936, the ammasso (stockpile) was established in Italy, which mandated the delivery of all wheat crops to the state [22, 23]. In Spain the Servicio Nacional del Trigo (SNT, National Wheat Service) established a monopsonistic grain market and set up the National Network of Silos and Granaries, which began building storage units in 1951 and continued right up to 1990 [
24]. The Portuguese government established a free market for wheat in 1947, offering a guaranteed price for other grains, such as maize and rye. It also purchased all barley intended for breweries, resulting in significant growth for the FNPT [
9]. This led to the creation of the Instituto dos Cereais (IC, Grain Institute) in 1972, which represented the entire grain sector and held coordination and discipline functions in economic intervention until its dissolution in 1977 [
25].
In 1972 the FNPT revised Ruy Mayer’s silo plan to include new categories. The objective was to build silos with a large reception and dispatch capacity, where different products could be stored and seed could be selected as well. The FNPT was eager to own its own silos; it was leasing over 300 granaries in 1971, and this was proving costly. The construction of silos in the Azores was also considered. In 1976 the Empresa Pública do Abastecimento dos Cereais (EPAC) [
26] was established to replace the IC. The EPAC ensured the country’s supply of grain and seeds, defending the interests of growers and consumers and maintaining the quality of processing activities, all with the aim of protecting the interests of the Portuguese economy [27, 28]. During this period, significant investments were made in storage silos, although some storage silos, such as the one in Beato, Lisbon, had already been constructed with partial financing under the Marshall Plan in 1956.
Portugal’s admission to the European Economic Community (EEC) in 1986 brought market liberalisation and the policy of importing wheat at lower prices. In Portugal, as in other countries, like Spain, this resulted in a significant reduction in silo use [
29]. In 1987 the state created a company, Silos Portuários, SA (SILOPOR), so that Portugal’s port silos could continue to be used for international imports. The EPAC was transformed into Empresa para Agroalimentação e Cereais, SA, in 1991 [
30], and in 1999 it was dissolved [
31] and its assets were transferred to the Direção Geral do Tesouro e Finanças (DGTF, Directorate-General of the Treasury and Finances). In 2002 all the silos were placed under the responsibility of the Instituto Nacional de Intervenção e Garantia Agrícola (National Agricultural Intervention and Guarantee Institute) after the dissolution of SILOPOR in 2001 [
32]. The objective was to improve storage management and transfer silo ownership to growers and corporations. Many silos were let to agricultural cooperatives or private companies under 25-year leases that made the tenant responsible for maintenance [
10]. The port silos of Leixões, Beato, and Trafaria and the inland silo in Vale de Figueira, Santarem, are currently managed by companies under public concessions. These silos function as temporary customs warehouses, providing services for the reception, handling, storage, and dispatch of food commodities and products related with companies in the industry [
28]. Over time some tenants have returned silos they no longer use to the public authorities, and as a result these silos’ state of preservation has declined. In the 20th century, other countries, such as Spain and Italy, also set up networks of storage silos (primarily for wheat), most of which have since been either turned over to private interests or abandoned and only occasionally repurposed [9, 33]. National silo networks can become important again, since they are strategic elements of infrastructure that can mitigate dependency on grain-exporting countries in adverse scenarios, such as those caused by conflicts like the current war in Ukraine, pandemics, or blocked trade routes [
23].
Silos form as much a part of the skyline of Portuguese towns and cities as do castles and churches, and, like other agro-industrial assets, silos contribute to the country’s cultural heritage [10, 27, 34, 35]. In some cases, silos are being refurbished instead of being allowed to crumble away. These silos have value as part of Portugal’s industrial heritage, so it is important to document them and showcase them through reuse [25, 37, 38]. Similar efforts are being made in other countries [25, 29, 38, 39]. Drawing up a comprehensive inventory is the first step toward making decisions that factor in the present condition of silos and their environment. It is our duty to seek a second life for these structures, whose construction consumed significant resources in their day, so we can keep them from being demolished and work our way toward greater environmental sustainability and a smaller carbon footprint [
23].
The main objective of this project is to inventory the silos in Portugal’s EPAC network, analyse their construction and technological characteristics, and propose ideas for their reuse.
4. Conclusions
The methodology used by Fernández-Fernández et al. (2023) in Spain to characterize silos has been adapted for the EPAC silo network in Portugal and used to inventory the EPAC silos and evaluate potential alternatives for their reuse. Although planned in the 1930s, the EPAC silo network was mainly built and used in the 1970s. Its usage declined after the liberalization of the wheat market and Portugal’s accession to the European Economic Community (EEC). Silos are still present in many villages across Portugal and form part of the rural landscape. The silos in the EPAC network are located in 30 towns, primarily in the country’s biggest grain-producing regions, especially the Alentejo region, which has the largest number of silos and the greatest storage capacity. Altogether, 31 silos were built for the EPAC network, with a total capacity of 841,100 t, much larger than originally proposed. Most of these silos were enlarged in the 1970s and early 1980s.
Currently, over half of the silos are leased to agricultural cooperatives or private companies. The number of unused silos is expected to increase in the coming years as lease contracts expire, because not all tenants may choose to renew. EPAC silos exhibit a range of design and construction characteristics. The first silo, built in 1938 in Mértola, consists of two rows of square cells raised above the ground, constructed with reinforced brick and concrete pillars, with a capacity of 4,500 t. In 1952, the first silo with circular cells was constructed in Angra do Heroísmo, with a capacity of 11,000 t. In the 1950s and 1960s, several more silos were built with diverse capacities and designs. From the 1970s onwards, silos were designed with circular cells grouped into two or three rows, with the intercell space used for storage. These silos are taller and have larger capacities, ranging from 6,000 to 35,000 t. Their cells are built out of reinforced concrete. Most silos have an elevator tower at one end and a flat or sloping roof. The facades are made of reinforced concrete, mostly painted white.
The technological development of EPAC silos may be divided into various stages. Early silos (those built up to the 1960s) were equipped with vertical elevators that carried grain through tubes to storage cells. Shorter elevators were also used for cleaning and selecting grain. These silos had pneumatic systems to collect dust and extract coarse particles. From the 1970s onwards, two types of silos were built. First, there were reception and storage silos located at inland sites. They were highly mechanized and could perform operations such as loading, unloading, cleaning, weighing, and seed selection. These silos had elevators, horizontal conveyors, and probes to monitor grain temperature. Second, there were port silos designed to unload grain quickly from large vessels. These silos had larger capacities and were outfitted with mechanical or pneumatic unloaders, automatic weighing scales, and automated control systems. They did not have machinery for grain cleaning and selection, but they were equipped with real-time information systems and management programs for cargo dispatch.
The possibility of repurposing silos is now being explored, since several silos are expected to fall into disuse by 2030-2035. Unlike other agro-industrial buildings, silos present challenges due to their height and design. However, some innovative initiatives have been proposed, such as converting silos into event venues, museums, or biological stations, or creating a silo-based tourist route in the Alentejo region. Other countries, like Spain, have put together successful refurbishment projects, transforming silos into museums, theatres, spas, and homes. While some authorities may be reluctant to invest in repurposing silos, there is a growing interest in utilizing existing structures and promoting tourism based on the country’s cultural and industrial heritage. Through reuse, silos could become cultural and economic resources for cities and towns, particularly those with stable populations, good connections, and a well-rounded array of business activities. In short, this research can be considered the first step towards inventorying, documenting, informing about, and enhancing the value of abandoned silos in the defunct EPAC network, as well as raising awareness about the neglected state of some of these properties. Further studies can delve into specific refurbishment proposals for EPAC network silos.
Figure 1.
a & b) Campanha do trigo posters. c) Campanha do trigo 20th anniversary poster [
16].
Figure 1.
a & b) Campanha do trigo posters. c) Campanha do trigo 20th anniversary poster [
16].
Figure 2.
Left: sites of 30 silos designed by Ruy Mayer (1938) in Portugal; right: sites of 31 silos built by EPAC in Portugal.
Figure 2.
Left: sites of 30 silos designed by Ruy Mayer (1938) in Portugal; right: sites of 31 silos built by EPAC in Portugal.
Figure 3.
Methodology workflow.
Figure 3.
Methodology workflow.
Figure 4.
Cross-section and plan view of a typical EPAC silo.
Figure 4.
Cross-section and plan view of a typical EPAC silo.
Figure 5.
EPAC silo construction details: a) tower at the silo in Evora, Alentejo, b) gable roof on the silo in Vale Figueria, Centre, c) curved roof on the silo in Evora, Alentejo; Different types of semicircular façades: d) Type I, silo in Alter do Chão, Alentejo; e) Type II, silo in Portoalegre, Alentejo; f) Type III, silo in Trafaria, Lisbon.
Figure 5.
EPAC silo construction details: a) tower at the silo in Evora, Alentejo, b) gable roof on the silo in Vale Figueria, Centre, c) curved roof on the silo in Evora, Alentejo; Different types of semicircular façades: d) Type I, silo in Alter do Chão, Alentejo; e) Type II, silo in Portoalegre, Alentejo; f) Type III, silo in Trafaria, Lisbon.
Figure 6.
a) Reception hopper in silo in Aljustrel, Alentejo ; b) grain elevator and detail of elevator scoop in silo in Vila de Boím, Alentejo; c) upper horizontal belt conveyor and loading tubes in silo in Pavia, Alentejo; d) detail of drive chain and crossbars inside upper horizontal belt conveyor in silo in Mogadouro, North; e) offloading tubes and lower horizontal belt conveyor in silo in Mértola, Alentejo; f) external bulk offloading tube in silo in Portalegre, Alentejo; g) dust collector in silo in Vale de Figueira, Centre; h) underground horizontal conveyor from hopper to elevators in silo in Cuba, Alentejo; i) control panel in silo in Ferreira do Alentejo, Alentejo; j) temperature sensor controls in silo at Vale de Figueira, Centre; k) aerial view of Trafaria silos, Lisbon; l) detail of pneumatic unloader working in Trafaria silos, Lisbon; m) online scale in Trafaria silos, Lisbon; n) dispatch cells at Beato silos, Lisbon; o) computerized control room in silo in Leixões, North; p) computer terminal for haulers in Beato silos, Lisbon.
Figure 6.
a) Reception hopper in silo in Aljustrel, Alentejo ; b) grain elevator and detail of elevator scoop in silo in Vila de Boím, Alentejo; c) upper horizontal belt conveyor and loading tubes in silo in Pavia, Alentejo; d) detail of drive chain and crossbars inside upper horizontal belt conveyor in silo in Mogadouro, North; e) offloading tubes and lower horizontal belt conveyor in silo in Mértola, Alentejo; f) external bulk offloading tube in silo in Portalegre, Alentejo; g) dust collector in silo in Vale de Figueira, Centre; h) underground horizontal conveyor from hopper to elevators in silo in Cuba, Alentejo; i) control panel in silo in Ferreira do Alentejo, Alentejo; j) temperature sensor controls in silo at Vale de Figueira, Centre; k) aerial view of Trafaria silos, Lisbon; l) detail of pneumatic unloader working in Trafaria silos, Lisbon; m) online scale in Trafaria silos, Lisbon; n) dispatch cells at Beato silos, Lisbon; o) computerized control room in silo in Leixões, North; p) computer terminal for haulers in Beato silos, Lisbon.
Figure 7.
Examples of reused silos. a & b) Before and after refurbishment of silo in Vila de Boím, Alentejo; c) 3D view of Museo Zer0 in Catarina da Fonte do Bispo, Algarve; d) 3D view of future museum in Braganza, North; e) Silo in Angra do Heroísmo, Isla Terceira, Azores; f) ‘Titans’ project, silo in Herencia, Spain.
Figure 7.
Examples of reused silos. a & b) Before and after refurbishment of silo in Vila de Boím, Alentejo; c) 3D view of Museo Zer0 in Catarina da Fonte do Bispo, Algarve; d) 3D view of future museum in Braganza, North; e) Silo in Angra do Heroísmo, Isla Terceira, Azores; f) ‘Titans’ project, silo in Herencia, Spain.
Table 1.
Fieldwork variables used to inventory the 31 silos in the EPAC network. Adapted from Fernández-Fernández et al. (2023).
Table 1.
Fieldwork variables used to inventory the 31 silos in the EPAC network. Adapted from Fernández-Fernández et al. (2023).
Categories |
Variables of interest |
General features |
Region |
District Town |
Geolocation |
Year when built Ownership (state owned; leased to cooperative, institute, or private company; owned by private company or municipality) Use State of conservation |
Construction features |
Category |
Storage capacity (t) |
Height (m) Ground plan |
Roof shape |
Tower position |
Number of storage cells Number of rows of cells Number of rows of internal cells or intercellular spaces Cell shape Cell dimensions Façade types (straight or semicircular type I, II, or III) Cell construction material |
Technological facilities |
Receiving machinery capacity (t/h) Number of elevators Number of upper-storey horizontal conveyors Number of lower-storey horizontal conveyors Existence of firefighting system Existence of lift Existence of temperature sensors Existence of railway |
Lorry weighbridge (t) |
Railway weighbridge (t) |
Socioeconomic aspects |
Population Demographic patterns Yearly municipal budget (€) Economic activity Land communications |
Distances to larger urban centres (km) |
Table 2.
Location and capacity of silos proposed in Mayer’s study [12, 15, 20] and silos actually built in the EPAC network.
Table 2.
Location and capacity of silos proposed in Mayer’s study [12, 15, 20] and silos actually built in the EPAC network.
Proposed by Mayer (1938) |
EPAC network |
Zone |
Town |
Silo type |
Capacity (t x 1000) |
Region |
Town |
Capacity (t x 1000) |
1 |
Beja |
Auxiliary |
2.0 |
Alentejo |
Inside Beja |
15.0 |
1 |
Casa Branca |
Central |
16.0 |
Alentejo |
Outside Beja |
26.5 |
1 |
Ermidas |
Auxiliary |
1.4 |
Alentejo |
Alter do Chão |
8.0 |
1 |
Estremoz |
Auxiliary |
2.0 |
Alentejo |
Estremoz |
16.0 |
1 |
Evora |
Auxiliary |
2.0 |
Alentejo |
Evora |
23.0 |
1 |
Faro |
Auxiliary |
2.0 |
Alentejo |
Fronteira |
16.0 |
1 |
Lagos |
Granary-silo |
2.5 |
Alentejo |
Vila Viçosa |
2.3 |
1 |
Sta. Vitoria |
Granary-silo |
2.0 |
Alentejo |
Pavia |
18.0 |
1 |
Reguengos |
Granary-silo |
2.5 |
Alentejo |
Reguengos de Monsaraz |
35.0 |
1 |
Moura |
Granary-silo |
2.0 |
Alentejo |
Moura |
10.0 |
1 |
Serpa |
Granary-silo |
3.0 |
Alentejo |
Serpa |
19.0 |
1 |
Mértola |
Granary-silo |
2.0 |
Alentejo |
Mértola |
4.5 |
1 |
Baleizao |
Granary-silo |
2.0 |
Alentejo |
Portalegre |
10.0 |
1 |
Vidigueira |
Granary-silo |
2.0 |
Alentejo |
Vila de Boím |
4.0 |
1 |
Ferreira do Alentejo |
Granary-silo |
2.0 |
Alentejo |
Ferreira do Alentejo |
23.5 |
1 |
Aljustrel |
Granary-silo |
2.0 |
Alentejo |
Aljustrel |
14.5 |
1 |
Pias |
Granary-silo |
2.5 |
Alentejo |
Elvas |
15.0 |
2 |
Elvas |
Auxiliary |
1.4 |
Alentejo |
Cuba |
23.5 |
2 |
Crato |
Auxiliary |
2.0 |
Centre |
Alcains |
10.0 |
2 |
Alcains |
Auxiliary |
1.4 |
Centre |
Vale de Figueria |
24.0 |
2 |
Coruche |
Granary-silo |
2.0 |
Centre |
Caldas de Rainha |
6.5 |
2 |
Entrocamiento |
Central |
16.0 |
Lisbon |
Vila Franca de Xira |
6.5 |
2 |
Vila Franca de Xira |
Auxiliary |
3.0 |
Lisbon |
Beato |
120.0 |
3 |
Leiria |
Auxiliary |
1.2 |
Lisbon |
Trafaria |
200.0 |
3 |
Torres Vedrás |
Auxiliary |
1.2 |
North |
Mogadouro |
6.0 |
4 |
Barreiro |
Auxiliary |
2.0 |
North |
Braganza |
12.0 |
4 |
Lisbon |
Auxiliary |
2.0 |
North |
Leixões |
100.0 |
5 |
Pampilhosa |
Auxiliary |
1.2 |
Madeira |
Funchal |
16.0 |
6 |
Leixões |
Auxiliary |
8.0 |
Azores |
Punta Delgada |
34.0 |
8 |
Macedo de Cavaleiros |
Granary-silo |
2.0 |
Azores |
Angra do Heroismo |
21.0 |
|
|
|
|
Algarve |
Santa Catarina da Fonte do Bispo |
1.3 |
Total |
30 silos |
|
92.8 |
31 silos |
Total |
841.1 |
Table 3.
EPAC silo statistics.
Table 3.
EPAC silo statistics.
Category |
Total |
Min. |
Max. |
Mean |
Silo distribution in percentages |
Region |
7 |
|
|
|
58.1% Alentejo; 9.7% Lisbon; 9.7% Centre; 9.7% North; 6.5% Azores; 3.2% Madeira; 3.2% Algarve |
District |
|
|
|
|
25.8% Beja; 16.1% Evora; 16.1% Portalegre; 6.5% Lisbon; 6.5% Braganza; remaining districts each contain 3.2% of the silos in the network |
Town |
30 |
|
|
|
|
Year when built |
|
1938 |
1986 |
1970 |
|
Year when expanded |
|
1962 |
1985 |
1977 |
|
Ownership |
|
|
|
|
36.7% leased to cooperatives; 33.3% state owned; 13.3% leased to private companies, 10.0% owned by private companies; 3.3% owned by municipalities; 3.3% leased to institutes |
Use |
|
|
|
|
51.6% grain store; 38.7% disused; 9.7% reused |
State of conservation |
|
|
|
|
51.6% good condition, 33.3% fair condition, 9.6% unusable, 6.5% demolished |
Category |
3 |
|
|
|
|
Capacity (t x 103) |
|
2,300 |
200,000 |
27,132 |
|
Height (m) |
|
26 |
70 |
43.2 |
|
Ground plan |
|
|
|
|
96.7% square; 3.3% L-shaped |
Roof shape |
|
|
|
|
53.4% flat roof; 40.0% gable roof; 3.3% flat and gable roof; 3.3% vaulted roof |
Tower position |
|
|
|
|
83.4% front tower; 6.6% corner tower; 6.6% interior tower; 3.4% side tower |
No. storage cells |
|
11 |
157 |
36 |
|
No. rows of cells |
|
2 |
4 |
2.4 |
|
No. rows of internal cells or intercellular spaces |
|
1 |
3 |
1.5 |
|
Cell shape |
|
|
|
|
93.3% circular; 6.7% square |
Cell dimensions |
|
2 |
13 |
|
|
Façade types |
|
|
|
|
6.7% straight; 16.7% semicircular I; 53.3% semicircular II; 23.3% semicircular III |
Construction material |
|
|
|
|
93.3% reinforced concrete; 6.7% reinforced brick |
Receiving machinery capacity (t/h) |
|
50 |
3,000 |
195.6 |
|
No. elevators |
|
2 |
14 |
3.2 |
|
No. upper-storey horizontal conveyors |
|
1 |
10 |
2.6 |
|
No. lower-storey horizontal conveyors |
|
1 |
9 |
2 |
|
Firefighting system |
|
|
|
|
53.3% yes; 46.7% no |
Lift |
|
|
|
|
85.7% yes; 14.3% no |
Temperature sensors |
|
|
|
|
86.6% no; 13.3% yes |
Railway |
|
|
|
|
56.7% yes; 43.3% no |
Lorry weighbridge (t) |
|
30 |
100 |
66.4 |
|
Railway weighbridge (t) |
|
200 |
200 |
200 |
|