AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL AND MANAGEMENT SCIENCES ISSN Print: 2156-1540, ISSN Online: 2151-1559, doi:10.5251/ajsms.2013.4.1.1.7 2013, ScienceHuβ, http://www.scihub.org/ajsms Determination of farmers coping strategies to household food insecurity in Oyo State, Nigeria Ayoade Adenike Rebecca* and Adetunbi Saheed Ige* * Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, Ladoke, Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso, Oyo State. ABSTRACT This study determined the coping strategies of farmers to household food insecurity in Oriire Local Government Area of Oyo State. A well structured interview schedule was used in collecting data for the study and the data collected was based on stated objectives. A simple random sampling technique was used in selecting ninety (90) respondents for the study. Frequency counts, percentages and mean values were used as descriptive statistics while Pearson product moment correlation was used to determine the relationship between the socio economic characteristics of the respondents and their coping strategies. The results of the findings revealed that the mean age of the farmer was 48.5. Also most of the farmers had between 6 and 10 members in their household. About 83% of the respondents were male while 37.8% had no formal education. The findings of the study also revealed that 64.5% of the respondents were food insecure. Borrowing food materials was ranked first among the coping strategies with a mean score of (2.81) and outbreak of disease was the major effect of food insecurity. A significant relationship was found between age (r = 0.35*, p = 0.01), household size (r = 0.39*, p = 0.01) and the farmers coping strategies to food security. The study therefore recommends that Farmers household should improve on their eating habit especially the children by ensuring a balanced diet and maintain a three square meals which in turn reduces malnutrition and thereby prevents and controls outbreak of diseases. Keywords; food, effect, coping, strategies, insecurity INTRODUCTION Food security has been defined as when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life and as a point when all people at all times have both physical and economic access to sufficient food to meet their dietary needs for a productive and healthy life (Okunneye, 2001). The general economic situation in most of the developing countries has subjected majority of the households into problem of food crisis (food insecurity) and this condition further aggravated the poor nutrition and health status of the citizenry. Food consumption is the act of consuming food and the situation of food consumption in Nigeria has increased due to the increases in population. Food insecurity is therefore the absence of food security and it applies to a wide range of phenomena from famine to periodic hunger due to uncertain food supply. Hunger can be experienced by people who are not food secured as well as those who are food secured.10% of the world hunger is acute, when lack of food is short term and is often caused when shocks such as drought or war affect vulnerable populations. Chronic hunger is a constant or recurrent lack of food and result in underweight and stunted growth in children and high infant mortality. Farmers especially among the rural population in Nigeria experience pervasive poverty due to low agricultural productivity and relatively low income consequently resulting in their inability to access qualitative and quantitative amount of food to every member of their family all through the year (Abdulahi, 1992). In Nigeria, the production of food has not increased at the rate that can meet up with the demand of increasing population, while food production decreases annually at the rate of 2.5% due to high rate of annual population growth of 2.83%. Hence, the apparent disparity between the rate of food production and demand for food in Nigeria has led to a food demand and supply-gap, leading to a widened gap between the food available and the total food requirement, therefore posing a threat to national food security (Ojo, 2003). According to Omonona 2000, the problem enumerated has become more pertinent in view of the fact that Nigeria s agricultural production is mainly controlled by peasant holder, small resource farmers. To achieve the major objective, the study identified the socio economic characteristics of the respondents, determined their income generating activities and determined the level of food insecurity of the
respondents. The study also identified the effects of food insecurity on the farmers household and further determined the relationship between the socioeconomic characteristics of farmers and their coping strategies. METHODOLOGY The study was conducted in Orire Local Government area of Oyo State, The Local Government Area was created on the 10th of May, 1989, with their headquarter situated in Ikoyi-ile. Orire local government is located within longitude 8 0, 9 North and latitude 3 0,29' East, with mean temperature of 26.20c,lowest temperature of 24.30 0 C while highest temperature is 28.70 0 C. The major occupation of the people in this area is agriculture and other activities related to agriculture. The farming system practices of the people in this area is subsistence and some practice commercial farming but generally they make use of crude implement (crude tools) and family labor. Sampled farmers constituted the population for the study and Simple random sampling technique was employed to select respondents from the list of registered farmers which was collected from the local government area headquarter. From the list, ninety (90) farmers were randomly selected for interview. Primary data was obtained through administration of well structured interview schedule on farmers in the study area. Data collected include socio economic characteristics of the respondents, income generating activities of the respondents, level of food insecurity of the respondents and effects of food insecurity on farmers household. Descriptive and inferential statistics were both used in data analysis; percentages, frequency distribution and mean values were used for the descriptive statistics while Pearson product correlation was used to determine the relationship between the variables. The dependent variable of the study is the coping strategies which were measured by lists of strategies on a 3 point scale (always, sometimes and rarely) and was ranked with the weighted mean score while the independent variables were the selected socio economic characteristics of the respondents. RESULTS Socio-Economic characteristics of the Respondents: Distributions of respondents according to their socio-economic characteristics are shown in Table 1. The age distribution of the respondents revealed that the mean age was calculated to be 48.5 years which is recognized to be an economic productive year. 83.3% of the respondents were male while the remaining 16.7% were female. The table also shows that 82.2% of the respondents were married which shows that most of the respondents were family men and women who require family income to cater for their families. Furthermore, 62.2% of the respondents had one form of formal education or the other which implies that the literacy level amongst the respondents was very high. Furthermore 92.2% of the respondents were involved in farming as their primary occupation and majority (74.5%) of the farmers had about 20 years of farming experience while 38.8% had between 6 and 10 members in their household which may serve as a source of family labor. Income Generating Activities of the Respondents. Table 2 shows that 87.8% of the respondents were involved in vegetable production, 90% of the respondents were into yam production while 68.9% of the farmers produce cowpea. Also, 84.4% of the respondents produce maize, 64.4% of them produce pepper while 86.7% were into animal rearing. Furthermore, 5.6% of the farmers were into fish farming, 83.3% of the respondents were into farm land clearing while 82.2% were into processing of raw materials Household Food Insecurity Access relatedconditions: The level of food insecurity as indicated in table 3 was measured on a three point scale (often, sometimes and rarely) on how the respondents have coped with the household food insecurity access related condition in the last four weeks before the study was conducted. It was revealed that 51.1% often had sufficient food in the past four weeks. And another 51.1% claimed that they had three square meals sometimes and ate limited food rarely. The results of findings also revealed that 72.2% and 45.6% claimed that they ate balanced diet and hygienic food sometimes respectively. Also, 56.7% agreed that they took smaller meals often, while 54.4% also claimed that they had fewer meals. 75.6% of the respondents claimed that they went to bed without eating often and 51.1% agreed that they skipped their meals to make ends meet. 2
Table 1: Distribution of respondents by socio-economic characteristics Age (years) Frequency Percentage 21-30 1 1.1 31-40 19 20.9 41-50 17 18.7 51-60 20 22 61-70 17 18.7 71-80 16 18.6 Sex Female 15 16.7 Male 75 83.3 Marital Status Divorced 9 10 Separated 5 5.6 Single 2 2.2 Married 74 82.2 Level of Education No formal education 34 37.8 Adult literally classes 16 17.8 Primary school uncompleted 5 5.6 Primary school completed 7 7.8 Secondary school uncompleted 10 11.1 Secondary school completed 15 16.7 Post-secondary school 3 3.2 Primary Occupation Others 4 4.4 Selling petty trade 3 3.4 Farming 83 92.2 Years of Farming Experience 10 17 18.8 11-20 67 74.5 21-30 5 5.5 31-40 1 1.2 Household Size 1-5 22 24.4 6-10 35 38.8 11-15 22 24.5 16-20 7 7.8 21-25 4 4.5 Source of income Other sources of income 6 6.7 Agricultural production 83 92.2. 3
Table 2: Distribution of the Respondents on their Income Generating Activities. Activities Frequency* Percentage Vegetable production 79 87.8 Yam production 81 90 Cowpea 62 68.9 Maize 76 84.4 Pepper 58 64.4 Animal rearing 78 86.7 Fishery 5 5.6 Land clearing 75 83.3 Processing 74 82.2 Source: Field survey, 2011 *Multiple Responses Table 3: Distribution of the Respondents by Household Food Insecurity Access Related Condition. Items Often Sometimes Rarely Do you have sufficient food in the 46(51.1) 42(46.7) 2(2.2) Past four weeks? In the past four weeks did you worry that your household will 2(2.2) 52(57.8) 36(40) have enough food? In the past one month have you and your household been 42(46.7) 46(51.1) 2(2.2) having your 3 square meal? In the past one month does your household member need 1(1.1) 43(47.8) 46(51.1) eat limited food? In the past one month have you been eating balance diet with 23(25.6) 65(72.2) 2(2.2) your household? been taken hygienic food in the 46(51.1) 41(45.6) 3(3.3) Past one month? been taken smaller meals in the 1(1.1) 51(56.7) 38(42.2) Past one month? been taking fewer meals in the 2(2.2) 49(54.4) 39(43.3) past one month? Did you and your household go To sleep hungry for the past one 2(2.2) 20(22.2) 68(75.6) Month? Have you and your family been Skipping meals for the past one 1(1.1) 46(51.1) 43(47.8) Month? For the past one month go for a 0(0) 2(2.2) 88(97.8) Whole day without eating Source: Field Survey, 2011 * Multiple Responses 4
Table 4: Food Insecurity Index Table FII Frequency Percentage Food secured (<19.80) 32 35.5 Food in secured (>19.80) 58 64.5 Total 90 100 Source: Calculated from Data Collected, 2011 Effects of food insecurity: The respondents were faced with the effects of food insecurity which were grouped into three categories (seriously affected, mildly affected and not affected), Susceptibility to sickness was ranked first (0.81) among the effects, Table 5: Distribution of Respondents by effects Food Insecurity. followed by malnutrition (0.56) and un-healthiness (0.47) (Table 5). Other effects were outbreak of disease (0.33), childhood death (0.16) and starvation (0.14). Effects of food Seriously Mildl Not Mean Weighted mean Rank Insecurity affected affected affected score score Sickness 7(7.8) 59(65.6) 24(26.7) 73 0.81 1 Disease 3(3.3) 24(26.7) 63(70) 30 0.33 5 Malnutrition 3(3.3) 44(48.9) 44(47.8) 50 0.56 2 Starvation 0(0) 13(14.4) 77(85.6) 13.14 7 Un-healthiness 1(1.1) 40(44.4) 49(54.4) 42 0.47 3 Childhood 2(2.2) 10(11.1) 78(86.7) 14 0.16 6 mortality Chronic 1(1.1) 8(8.9) 81(90) 10 0.11 8 Hunger Other effects 0(0) 42(46.7) 48(53.3) 42 0.47 3 Source: Field Survey, 2011 Coping Strategies to Food Security The coping strategies to household food insecurity were measured on a three point scale; always, sometimes and rarely (Table 6). Borrowing food materials was ranked 1 st (2.81) among the coping strategies, followed by eating less preferred food(1.94), others are getting money from informal sources(1.69), reduced number of meal per day (1.60) and reduced meal quantity was ranked last (1.56) Table 6: Distribution of the Respondents Based on the Coping strategies of Food Security. Items Always Sometimes Rarely Mean Weighted mean Rank Score Score Borrow food 26(28.9) 63(70) 1(1.1) 253 2.81 1 materials. Eating less 8(8.9) 69(76.7) 13(14.4) 175 1.94 2 preferred food. Getting money from informal 3(3.3) 52(62.2) 1(34.4) 152 1.69 3 sources. Reduce meal 1(1.1) 48(53.3) 41(45.6) 140 1.56 5 quantity. Reduce number 3(3.3) 48(53.3) 39(43.3) 144 1.60 4 of meal per day. Source: Field Survey, 2011 5
Test of Hypothesis. The hypothesis was tested using Pearson Product Moment Correlation to determine the relationship between the selected socio economic characteristics and coping strategies of the respondents. The results of the findings revealed that the coping strategies of the respondents were influenced by their age and household size at 5% level of significance. Table 7: Correlation Analysis for Relationship between Socio-economic Characteristics and Coping Strategies of the Farmers. Socio economic Correlation Remark Characteristics r(value) Age 0.352** Significant Sex 0.050 Not Significant Marital status 0.001 Not significant Years spent -0.215 Not significant Years of farming 0.324 Not significant experience Household size 0.385** Significant Source: Calculated from Data Collected, 2011 ** sig at 5% CONCLUSION Food insecurity results in catastrophic amount of human suffering and this was evident from the findings of the study which revealed that the major effects of food insecurity on the households were malnutrition and susceptibility to sickness. The age distribution reveals that the mean age of the respondents was an indication that most of the respondents should still be in their productive age and were expected to be active in agricultural production. Most of the respondents were male; hence, they were expected to be energetic, young and agile to actively participate in agricultural production. The high percentage of married respondents in the study area was an indication that the respondents enjoyed support from their spouses and children and that getting married is a highly cherished value among rural dwellers in Nigeria not only because of the need for children and the continuation of family name, but in some areas the women form a vital source of unpaid labor (Ekong, 2003). Most of the respondents had access to formal education and this may speed up the rate of adoption of innovations as higher level of education stimulates faster adoption of agricultural innovations (Ogunwale, 2000). The findings of the study further revealed that most of the respondents earn their living from agricultural production. The food insecurity index was calculated as 19.80 and 35.5% of the farmers were food secured while 64.5% of the farmers were food insecure. This study concludes that the percentage of household that were food insecure was higher than those that were food secured in the study area. It was established that most of the respondents resulted into borrowing food materials and eating less preferred as major coping strategies to food insecurity. Age and household size of the respondents were found to influence the farmers coping strategies to food insecurity and Since susceptibility to sickness and malnutrition were found as the major effects of food insecurity in the study area, the study therefore recommends that Farmers household should improve on their eating habit especially the children by ensuring a balanced diet and maintaining a three square meals which in turn reduces malnutrition and thereby prevents and controls the outbreak of diseases. REFERENCES Okuneye PA. 2001. Rural Poverty Assessment and Control in Africa. An invited specialization course paper presented at the United States IDEP, Dakar Senegal; June 19-22 Abdullahi A. 1992. Food Special Adviser on Food Security to the Present Federal Republic of Nigeria. Food Policy and Food Security in Nigeria. In Food Demand and Market Studies in the Drier Savanna of Nigeria 6
Ojo S.O. 2003. Productivity and technical efficiency of poultry egg production in Nigeria.International Journal of Poultry Science Vol (2), pp 18-24 Omonona B.T 2000. Poverty and its Correlate among Rural Farming Households in Kogi State. Unpublished Ph.D thesis. Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Ibadan; Page 23 Ekong E.E. 2003. An Introduction to Rural Sociology. Dove educational publisher p 40 Ogunwale A.B 2000. Influence of Socio-economic characteristics on women participation in selected LGA of Oyo State (Ed) Community Participation in rural development. Proceedings of the 10 th Annual Conference of the Nigerian Rural Sociological Association, OAU; pp 41-47 7