The experiment determined the technical and financial efficiency of five storage techniques, specifically designed for SRF poplar chips stored at the farm site in small (20 m(3)) piles. The treatments on test were: uncovered storage, storage under a temporary roof structure, cover under a semi-permeable fleece sheet, cover under two types of plastic sheet (i.e. white and black). Each treatment was replicated 3 times. Researchers monitored temperature and moisture content trends inside the piles, and determined dry matter losses at the end of the 170 days storage period. In general, piles under plastic cover presented opposite trends compared to all other piles. They acquired moisture rather than losing it, and showed gradual temperature trends instead of a typical peak-and-drop behaviour. Dry matter losses varied from 5.1% to 9.8%, and were highest for the uncovered treatment, and lowest for the plastic cover treatment. Under the conditions of north-western Italy, uncovered storage was a cost-effective option. Protecting the piles with some cover incurred more cost than it saved, resulting in a higher storage cost per unit energy. Although more expensive, sheltering the piles under a simple roof structure offered the benefit of a higher reduction of moisture content, which may turn the chips into a higher quality fuel. Of course, these results were closely related to the Southern European climate, and the specific year of the test. Occasional wetter years may overturn these results. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.