Skip to content
SIH Buddyby Ganeev Singh
Dev
All problem statements
SIH26110Worth consideringacceptance 3/5

Development of a Low-Cost Light-weight Milk Chilling Can for Small-Scale Dairy Farmers

Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry & Dairying · Agriculture, FoodTech & Rural Development · Hardware

One of the more genuinely buildable hardware statements because passive cooling removes the power system entirely — but start your twelve-hour thermal trials immediately, since the evidence takes longer to gather than the can takes to build.

Data: Dairy temperature monitoring and milk quality datasets collected from local dairy cooperatives or experimental field trials

What it actually is

Milk spoils fast after milking, and farmers in hilly and remote areas have no cooling between the animal and the collection centre, so quality drops before it is ever weighed. Existing chilling cans are heavy and expensive. The ask is a light, cheap, insulated can that holds milk cold for hours without any electricity.

What to build

A thirty to forty litre insulated can built from food-grade lightweight material with a double-wall structure and low-cost insulation, cooled passively by reusable ice packs or phase change material sized to hold milk between four and eight degrees for six to twelve hours in typical rural ambient conditions, with a leak-proof lid and ergonomic handles for carrying, plus a temperature indicator on the outside so a farmer or collection agent can confirm the milk stayed within range without opening it.

Smallest thing that wins the room

Show a logged temperature curve from an overnight trial where the can held forty litres between four and eight degrees for twelve hours in ambient heat, alongside the can itself with its external indicator reading in range, and its weight against a conventional steel can on a scale.

How crowded this one gets

A guess, projected from the 2025 statements — the last year where both the submission counts and the winners were published.

Quiet55–130 teams expectedroughly 1 in 46–107 wins it

Quieter than 89% of the 226 · #26 of 226 by expected field

Few teams are likely to go here. The best odds on the board come from statements like this.

Why: central ministry statements sat below the average; hardware halves the field a software statement gets.

This is a guess, not a fact

Nobody has published 2026’s numbers yet. This is an analysed estimate from last year’s pattern, so please do not take it as the truth — check the live counter on the SIH portal before you decide anything. The range covers the middle half of likely outcomes, so one statement in two lands outside it. Entry closes at 500 ideas per statement, so no range goes past that — a statement that reaches the cap fills and shuts rather than drawing an unlimited crowd. The model reads only three things a team can see before choosing — software or hardware, the theme, and what kind of body posted it — and those explain about a quarter of the variation in last year’s field sizes (R² 0.25 on held-out statements). Trust the band more than the number, and the ordering more than either. It cannot see how good your idea is, which is the part that actually decides it.

The scores

The number is the shorthand. The line under it is the reason.

What you will be writing

  • Phase change material selection (organic PCM, 4–6°C melt point)
  • Polyurethane foam / vacuum insulation panel
  • Food-grade HDPE or aluminium alloy vessel
  • DS18B20 / SHT31 temperature logging
  • Thermal load calculation and heat-ingress modelling
  • Colour-change or e-ink external temperature indicator
  • Dairy cold chain
  • Passive thermal design
  • Rural livelihoods

Prior art to read before you start

passive cooling for perishable transport · insulated container thermal design · off-grid milk preservation

Analysed by Claude Opus. Every score above is a judgment call with its reasoning attached — kindly cross-check this against the official statement on the SIH portal before your team commits to it.