Assessing the Food Security Determinants among Rural Households in Kano, Nigeria

Assessing the Food Security Determinants among Rural Households in Kano, Nigeria
AJAERD
Assessing the Food Security Determinants among Rural
Households in Kano, Nigeria
*Mukhtar Mustapha1, Roslina B. Kamaruddin2, Shri Dewi3
1,2,3
University Utara Malaysia, School of Economics, Finance and Banking, Sintok 06010, Kedah, Malaysia
Food security is a serious challenge in Nigeria as a whole and Kano in particular. Numerous
factors combine to make households food insecure, especially the rural households in Kano
State. The aim and objective of the study is to indicate the food status of the rural households
and identify the major determinants of food security in the region. Using a sample size of 326 rural
households from eight local government areas in Kano, this study assessed the food security of
rural households through a food security index (FSI). A binary regression was applied to identify
the factors that determine food security in rural Kano. The FSI result revealed that 60% of the rural
households are food insecure. Binary regression outcome revealed that age of household head,
education, involvement in farming, farm size, expenditure, livestock ownership, household size
and income of household members were found to be statistically significant factors. It is
suggested that household heads, especially males, should curtail the size of the household;
women in the study area need to be educated on the basic nutritional requirements and minimum
standards of hygiene so that households; food security could be improved.
Key words: food security determinants, rural households, Kano State.
INTRODUCTION
The concept of food security in the eyes of the world has
taken a different dimension. The Food and Agricultural
Organization (2017) projected that the figure of people
suffering from hunger in the world was approximated at
815 million, indicating an upward movement from 775
million in 2014 and 777 million in 2015. Out of the total
figure, 98% of the hungry people resided in developing
countries, while the remaining 2% were located in
developed countries. The finding also indicated that 1 in
10 individual in the world is faced with chronic food security
challenge.
FAO (2017) estimated that 27.4% of the total populations
in the African continent were facing a serious and chronic
food security issue, which is estimated to be four times
more than any other continent in the world. This is an
increase from the estimated previous figure of 22.7% by
the end of 2016. Sub Saharan Africa has the highest
number of hungry individuals in Africa estimated at about
306.7 million and that West Africa accounted for an
estimated 12% of the total figure of hungry people in Africa.
Among the causes identified were the unpredictable rise in
global food price, government continuous neglect in the
agricultural area, conflicts especially in Eastern Africa,
climate change, gender inequality and high level of
unemployment (FAO, 2012).
In early 2017 the United Nations declared that more than
20 million people were at the risk of famine in four
countries including Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan and
Yemen. Specifically in the Northeastern part of Nigeria, an
estimated of 4.5 million people were facing serious food
security challenge due to conflict (United Nations
Development Programme, 2017a and Von Grebmer et al.,
2017). Global Hunger Report positioned Nigeria at number
90th out of 105 countries in the World in 2015 (Von
Grebmer et al., 2015), and number 84th out of 118
countries in 2017. The report indicated that the level of
food insecure people in the country was 25.4% (46 million
people) of the estimated population of 180 million (Von
Grebmer et al., 2017).
*Corresponding author: Mukhtar M. Mustapha,
University Utara Malaysia, School of Economics, Finance
and Banking, Sintok 06010, Kedah, Malaysia. Email:
mustaphamukhtar@ymail.com
Journal of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development
Vol. 4(2), pp. 501-512, October, 2018. © www.premierpublishers.org, ISSN: 2167-0477
Research Article

Mustapha et al. 502
The concept of food security was first presented to the
World Food Conference in the year 1974 and a definition
based on providing adequate and available food at the
national level was coined without considering the
individual household. However World Bank (1986)
modified the definition to include individuals at all level that
is characterized by accessibility to adequate and enough
food with the required nutritional quality for a healthy as
well as dynamic life. Food security is achieved, when there
is a present of physical and economic access to a safe,
sufficient and nutritious food, that satisfy a healthy and
vigorous life (FAO, 1996). However, a recent definition
was given by FAO (2015) as a condition where individuals
at all level and always possess physical, social as well as
economic accessibility to a safe and sufficient as well as
nutritional food that converge with people dietary
requirement as well as inclination in term of food, which in
turn ensure a dynamic life plus healthy life style. Thus food
security is much more than the issue of food production
and food accessibility. To achieve food security both the
necessary and sufficient condition need to be satisfied,
these conditions are what we term as food security
components, according to Gross et al. (2000) these
components include availability, accessibility, utilization
and stability of food. Food availability is a mirror image of
food supply and is a necessary condition, but not sufficient
to guarantee food security either at the national level,
household level or even individual level; in the same vain
food access is a necessary condition but not sufficient to
guarantee enough food and nutritional status (Barrett and
Lentz, 2009).
Source: Gross et al., 1996.
Researches on food security status have been conducted
in various locations of the world including Brazil (Felker-
Kantor and Wood, 2012); Ethiopia (Bogale, 2012); Ghana
(Owusu et al. 2011 and Kuwornu et al. 2011); India
(Saxena, 2018); Kenya (Kassie et al, 2014 and Korir et al,
2018); Malaysia (Solaymani, 2018); Pakistan (Asghar and
Mohammad, 2013); Punjab (Bashir et al. 2013) and
Zimbabwe (Mango et al. 2014). Just like the rest of the
world, there are various researches on food security status
in Nigeria especially among rural households (Babatunde
et al. 2007; Arene and Anyaeji, 2010 and Omonona and
Agoi, 2007). Numerous approaches were adopted in
finding the food security status of households ranging from
dietary diversity, household income and expenditure
approach, food security index and aggregate household
food security index etc.
The recent studies conducted in Nigeria on rural
households’ food security status include: Abu and Soom
(2016) their study investigated the analysis of factors
affecting food security in Benue State, Nigeria using a food
security index and a probit regression model. Result
revealed that 53.3% and 62.2% of the rural and urban
households were food secure respectively. Major factors
affecting households’ food security status include,
household head income, family size, farm size and
household head age.
Oyekale et al. (2017) studied the analysis of rural
households food security status in Ogun State, Nigeria,
using descriptive analysis and probit regression model, the
result indicated that 70.1% of the rural households were
food secure using household per capita expenditure.
While, Okpokiri et al. (2017) conducted an assessment of
food security status of rural households in Abia State,
Nigeria, using a food security index and probit regression
analysis approach. Results revealed that 36.7% were food
secure. Result from probit regression revealed that
household head’s farm size; marital status; family size and
farm income were the major determinants of food security
among the households.
Ehebhamen et al. (2017) researched in rural households’
food security and coping strategies adaptation in Edo
State, Nigeria using calorie intake estimate, food poverty
line, coping strategies index and logit regression. Result
revealed that 47.3% of the rural households were found
food secure. Household head’s income, education, size of
land cultivated, level of livestock ownership, age and
family size were the major determinants affecting
household food security status in the area. Another study
by Arene and Anyaeji (2010) investigated the determinants
of food security among households in Nsukka metropolis
of Enugu State, Nigeria using household expenditure
approach and the binary logistic model. Result revealed
that 40% of the households were food secure and that
income and age were the major determinants of food
security status among the households in the area.
From the above literature reviews there is little or no
information is known concerning the current food security
status of rural households in Kano State, Nigeria, therefore
this study fills the gap. Discovering the food security status
of the rural households and the factors that influence the
food security status are very important to suggest the
appropriate policy recommendations. The policies to
overcome the food insecure based on the status should
not be a blanket policy. Hence, a tailor made policy can be
suggested if we manage to identify the food security status
and factors affecting them.

J. Agric. Econ. Rural Devel. 503
METHODOLOGY
Data and Sample
The study used primary data via a structured questionnaire
administered and collected from a sample of 326 rural
household heads in Kano, Nigeria. A stratified sampling
technique was adopted to select four local government
areas each from Northern Kano and Southern Kano
(where rural areas were located) using a random selection.
Food Security Index (FSI) was used to identify the level of
food security among respondents and a Binary Logit
Model was used to analyze the factors that influence food
security status among the rural households in Kano.
Food Security Index
In most food security researches, there are two objective
approaches used in measuring food security, measuring
the gross production and purchase over a period of time
incurred by household which gives direction to either
increase or decrease of household stocks over a period of
time or measuring household consumption recall for
individual members in a household, then calorie intake
measured from each food item (Maxwell, 1996). The
consumption and expenditure report obtained through
survey provide the household calorie. The quantity of each
food items consumed daily was determined. Food items
were converted to grams and calories were obtained using
nutrients composition table of common food eaten in
Nigeria (appendix 1) adopted by Babatunde et al. (2007)
as provided by Oguntona and akinyele, (1995) and USDA
(2005).
By taking the estimated calorie of the household and
dividing it with household adult equivalent after taking into
account average consumption factors of household sex
and age category (Table 2.1) also considering adjusted
household size for adult equivalent table provided by
Stefan and Pramila, (1998) in (appendix 2). Per capita
intake of the calorie is obtained. A household per capita
calorie intake in excess or identical to 2,710 kcal daily is
regarded as food secure and any amount shy of the
recommended 2,710 kcal the household is regarded as
food insecure.
Table 1: Recommended Daily Energy intake and
Equivalent Scale
Age category (yrs) Average energy
allowance/day
Factor
equivalent
Children less than 6 yrs 1160 0.3
Children (6 – 18) yrs 2030 0.7
Adults (> 18) yrs 2710 1.0
Source: Kuwornu et al., 2013.
Calorie intake of individuals in the household is measured
by food security index FAO recommended average calorie
intake by individuals depending on the location and
country. Global average of calorie intake recommended by
FAO daily is 2,780 kcal (FAO, 2016). Nigeria average daily
calorie intake is estimated at 2,710 based on FAO food
balance sheet (Okwoche and Benjamin, 2012; Muche et
al., 2014; Fawole et al., 2016 and Schmidhuber et al.,
2018). The index is given as follows:
𝑌𝑖 =
𝑋 𝑖
𝑅
………………Equation (1)
Where Yi is food status of household ith assigning the value
of (1) representing food secure and (0) representing food
insecure; Xi represent per capita calorie intake of ith
household daily, R represents per capita daily calorie
recommended which in the case of Nigeria is 2,710 kcal.
The surplus/shortfall ratio index and head count are given
as follows:
(f) = ……….Equation (2)
Gi = …………Equation (3)
(f) =
1
𝑀
∑
𝑚
𝑖=1
…Equation (4)
Where M represents the number of households classified
as insecure in term of food (food secure household); Gi is
the per capita calorie deficiency (per capita surplus).
Surplus or shortfall provided the extent or severity to which
household either exceeded or fall short of food security
line.
Binary Logit Model
Depending on the outcome of food security index Yi, the
logit model was estimated to ascertain the food security
determinants among the rural household, thus the implicit
model form is given as follows:
Yi = 𝛽Xi+𝜇𝑖……….Equation (5)
Where Xi is the vector of the explanatory variables, 𝜇𝑖 is
the error terms and 𝛽 is the vector of the parameter
estimates. Thus explanatory variable included in the model
includes:
Household head age: Measured in years. The household
head age is expected to assume a major role on household
food production, which directly affects household food
security status. Age impacted on the supply of labour, job
opportunity as well as income generating activities. Thus
the younger the household head, the stronger and
energetic he would be, this can enable him cultivate a vast
farmland than the older household head. The expectation
of age could be positive and negative.

m
i
iG
M 1
1
R
Ryi 
R
Ryi 

Mustapha et al. 504
Gender status of household head: This refers to the sex of
household head, measured as (1) for male headed and (0)
for female head, expectation here is household headed by
male would be food secured then household headed by
female, it is generally believed that male household can
easily mobilizes labour to the farm then a female
counterpart.
Household head marital status: Marital status of heads of
household could be married, divorced or widow.
Household considered married takes the value of (1) while
household headed by either divorced or widow are
considered unmarried, thus takes the value (0). The
expectation is that household headed by a married male;
with small size of family and a good source of income could
be food secure than a household managed by a female
with a large number of dependent individuals and no
means of income source.
Household head level of Education qualification:
Considered as social capital, with positive impact to the
food security status of the household, normally through
well-informed production and nutritional strategies.
Education is a dummy variable, thus the higher the level of
education qualification the higher the tendency of
household becoming food secure.
Primary occupation of household head: Occupation is the
source of income to the household heads, occupation
ranges from private, public and farming occupation or
none at all. Household head with occupation takes the
value (1) otherwise takes (0). Thus household head with a
good occupation is expected to be food secure, then
household head without occupation.
Household head total income: Expectation of household
head with high earning to be food secure is higher that
household with low income earning capacity. Measured in
Naira and converted into Dollar equivalent.
Household member’s earning: The higher the number of
household members earning income within the household
the higher the tendency of the household food security
status. Members earning measured in Naira and
converted to Dollar equivalent.
Household head involvement in farming: Either as a
primary occupation or otherwise, household involvement
in farming has a tendency of increasing household food
security status. Thus involvement in farming is expected to
increase household food security either through own food
production or cash crop production. Household head
involved in farming is assigned value (1) otherwise (0).
Household head farm size: farmland measured in hectares
(ha), the expectation is with large farmland by the
household head, the more food secures the household,
this is because all things being equal the higher the
productivity expected.
Fertilizer application in the farm: More productivity is
expected with application of fertilizer by the household
head, measured in kilogram (kg).
Total monthly expenditure: Household total expenditure in
a month was measured in Naira and converted to Dollar
equivalent. Household food security status increases with
high monthly expenditure on a food item, then with a lower
monthly expenditure.
Livestock ownership by household head: Household head
ownership of livestock could have a positive or negative
impact on food security. Livestock could be used during
stun; therefore household head with livestock was signed
(1) otherwise (0).
Household size: This measures the household size, which,
include the number of adult equivalent. A household with
large size, low income and low farm productivity are
expected to be food insecure, a small size household with
a high source of income and having high farm productivity
is expected to be food secure and it is measured in
number.
Method of Data Analysis and Model Specification
Descriptive statistics and binary regression were used to
conduct the analysis. The logit estimated the coefficients;
the logistic estimated the odds ratio while the marginal
effect (dy/dx) provided the percentage probability of the
outcomes. The empirical model is stated below:
Yi= 𝛽0 + 𝛽1 𝐻𝐻_𝐴𝑔𝑒 + 𝛽2 𝐻𝐻_𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑟 + 𝛽3 𝐻𝐻_𝑀𝑎𝑟𝑖𝑡𝑎𝑙 +
𝛽4 𝐻𝐻_𝑆𝑖𝑧𝑒 + 𝛽5 𝐻𝐻_𝑙𝑣𝑙𝑒𝑑𝑢𝑐 + 𝛽6 𝐻𝐻_𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑐𝑐 +
𝛽7 𝐻𝐻_𝐸𝑎𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 + 𝛽8 𝐻𝐻_𝑚𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑛𝑖𝑛𝑔 + 𝛽9 𝐻𝐻_𝑖𝑛𝑣𝑓𝑎𝑟𝑚 +
𝛽10 𝐻𝐻_𝑓𝑎𝑟𝑚𝑠𝑖𝑧𝑒 + 𝛽11 𝐻𝐻_𝑓𝑒𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑝 + 𝛽12 𝐻𝐻_𝑒𝑥𝑝 +
𝛽13 𝐻𝐻_𝑙𝑖𝑣𝑒𝑠𝑡𝑐𝑘 + 𝜇𝑖 ……………………………Equation (6)
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Socioeconomics of Respondents
Table 3 reveals finding on household heads socio-
economic characteristics, Statistical evidence revealed
that 88% of the total population were males, 12% females;
average age in the study area was 42 years with highest
age bracket within (41 – 50) of 37%; majority of the
household heads were married about 90%. About 35% of
the household heads possess National Certificate
Examination/Ordinary National Diploma educational
requirement; 11 persons per household was the average
household size in the study area with about 37% within the
range of (6 – 10) individuals and 33% within the range of
(11 – 15) individuals; children under the age of 18 years
old accounted for 56% of the total individuals in the
population; 47% of the rural household heads were
engaged in public sector occupation (government work),

Table 2: Description of the variables in the model
Variable Description Measurement A priori/Signs
Dependent
Yi Food Security Status of Household Binary - 1 food secure, 0 otherwise ≥1 or <1
Independent
HH_Age Household Head Age Number of years - Continuous +ve/-ve
HH_Gender Household Head Gender status Dummy - 1 male, 0 otherwise +ve
HH_Marital Household Head Marital Status Dummy - 1 married, 0 otherwise +ve
HH_Size Household Size Number - Continuous -ve
HH_lvleduc Household Head level Education Number of years spent- Continuous +ve
HH_PriOcc Household Head Primary Occupation Dummy – 1 educated, 0 otherwise +ve
HH_Earning Household Head Earning Naira/Dollar per month +ve
HH_memarning Household Members earning Naira/Dollar per month +ve
HH_Invlfrming Household Head Involve in farming Dummy - 1 farming, 0 otherwise +ve
HH_Farmsize Household Head Farm size Hectare - Continuous +ve
HH_Fertimp Household Fertilize improve Dummy -1 if improved, 0 otherwise +ve
HH_Expend Household Head Expenditure Naira/Dollar per month +ve
HH-Livestockown Household Head Livestock ownership Dummy - 1 livestock, 0 otherwise +ve/-ve
𝜇𝑖 represent error terms and 𝛽 is the vector of the parameter estimates.
while 41% were in core farming activities, 67% of the rural
households engaged in agricultural activities as full time
and part-time occupation. In term of household
consumption, rice was the most preferred food consumed
in the study area, while butter was the least consumed
food item.
Table 3 also reveals the economic characteristic of the
rural household heads, statistical evidence revealed that
household monthly average expenditure was N86, 534
(US$283) with 61% of the total household heads within the
range of N10, 000 – N100, 000 (US$33 – US$328) monthly
expenditure group; household head average monthly
income was N126, 120 (US$413) with majority of
household earning within the range of N10, 000 – N100,
000 (US$33 –US$328) monthly income accounting for
about 61% of the rural household population.
Table 3: Socio-economic Profile of Household Heads
Factors Pooled
(n = 326)
% mean
Gender
Male 88
Female 12
Age (yrs) 42
19 - Below 0
20 - 30 16
31 - 40 30
41 - 50 37
51 - Above 17
Marital Status
Single 0
Married 90
Divorced 1
Widowed 9
Educational Qualification
Primary Certificate 17
SSCE/GCE 20
NCE/OND 35
Bsc/HND 26
Msc/PhD 2
Household Size 11
(1 - 5) 17
(6 - 10) 37
(11 - 15) 33
(16 -20) 10
(21 - Above) 3
Children under 18 yrs 56 6
Children in School 19 2
Adult above 18 yrs 44 5
Household Occupation
Private Sector 12
Public Sector 47
Farming/Agriculture 41
Household Classification
Farming Household 67
Non-Farming Household 33
Household Expenditure
(N/$)/Monthly
10, 000 - 100, 000 61
(US$ 33 - US$ 328)
101, 000 - 200, 000 32
(US$331 - US$656)
201, 000 - 300, 000 0
(US$659 - US$984)
301, 000 – Above 7
(US$987 - Above)
Household Expenditure
(N/$)/Monthly
Naira - Average 86,534.00
Dollar - Average 283.00

Mustapha et al. 506
Table 3 Continue:
Household Income (N/$)/Monthly
10, 000 - 100, 000
(US$ 33 - US$ 328) 63
101, 000 - 200, 000
(US$331 - US$656) 26
201, 000 - 300, 000
(US$659 - US$984) 5
301, 000 - Above
(US$987 - Above) 6
Household Income (N/$)/Monthly
Household Members' Income (N/$) Monthly
Household Consumption (kg)/Monthly
Millet 8
Sorghum 6
Maize 11
Rice 21
Groundnut 6
Beans 7
Bread 4
Egg 6
Meat 11
Fish 5
Butter 0
Tea/Beverages 4
Fruits 5
Vegetables 6
Source: Field survey, 2018
US$ exchange at CBN prevailing rate of N305
Table 4 reveals farming household profile, statistical
evidence revealed that average farming experience
estimated at 36 years, 47% of which, possessed between
(11 – 20 years) experiences in agriculture. Household
heads have an average cultivable land of 3 hectares; land
ownership indicated that majority about 64% possess their
land through inheritance directly from the family; 91% has
a farm size ranging from 1 – 10 hectares. Statistically
evidence revealed that all farmers applied fertilizer, with an
average of 1 kg per hectare of land; fertilizer classification
also revealed that 48% usage was between 1 – 100 kg;
farming household heads production in term of
Naira/Dollar value indicated that 6% of the total production
valued at an average of N63, 974 (US$210) were
consumed annually, 91% of the total agricultural
production valued at an average of N950, 000 (US$3,066)
were sold annually, 2% of the farming production valued at
an average of 21,355 (US$70) were used for seeding in
the next farming season, while 1% with an average value
of 21,709 (US$71) were used for donation.
Table 4: Farming Household Head - Socio-economic
Profile
Factors Pooled
(n = 217)
% Mean
Farming Experiences 36
1 - 10yrs 12
11 - 20yrs 47
21 - 30yrs 28
31 - Above 13
Land Cultivated (ha) 3
Land Ownership Structure
Individual 25
Family 64
Community 2
Rented 9
Farm Size (ha)
1 -10 ha 98
11 -20 ha 2
21-30 ha 0
31- Above ha 0
Fertilizer Usage (kg)
Actual Usage (kg) 1
Fertilizer Classification (kg)
1 - 100kg 48
101 -200kg 36
201 - 300kg 14
301 - Above 2
Household Production (N/$)/Yearly
Consumed 6
Sales 91
Dollar - Average 3,066.00
Seeds 2
Donations 1
Revenue -
US$ exchange at CBN prevailing rate of N305
Food security index results as reported in Table 5, 6 and 7
indicated that with calorie intake requirement (R) of 2,710
kcal daily as recommended by FAO, 40% of the rural
households were food secure in the study area, because
they meet up with recommended calorie per capita intake
of 2,710 kcal per capita or even exceeded it. Table: 4.3
also indicated that total household daily calorie
consumption (HHDCC) was 238,719 kcal, which is
obtained after multiplying the various food calorie
(Appendix 1); in grams with a number of the household
composition after taking into account the adjusted adult
equivalent in each of the household classified as food
secure.

For instance, households in Dawakin Tofa has adult
equivalent of 102 individuals under food secure comprising
of 44 infants under the age of less than 6 years with
assigned calorie intake of 1,160 kcal as per table: 2.1 - (0.3
– average consumption of individual ranging from 0 – 6
years - of 2,710 kcal), which will give a total calorie of
51,040 kcal, dividing the figure with 2,710 kcal will convert
the total of 44 infants into a value equivalent of 19 adults,
the same procedures is followed with total number of 36
children under the age of 7 years to 18 years (0.7 of 2,710),
will give us 27 adult equivalents and with total adults of 56
give us the total of 102 adult equivalent (HH AE). AE
multiply by the FAO recommended calorie intake of 2,710
will give us the total of Household calorie requirement
(HHCR) which is 275,880. To obtain the Household per
capita calorie consumption (HHPCC) in D/Tofa we divide
the total of household daily calorie consumption (HHDCC)
with adult equivalent AE (293,045/102). To getting the
household per capita calorie requirement (HHPCR), take
the total household calorie requirement (HHCR) and divide
by the adult equivalent (AE) the outcome become 2,705
kcal. Same calculations will be applied to obtain the result
in pooled data in the area, under household daily calorie
consumption (HHDCC), household calorie requirement
(HHCR), household per capita daily calorie consumption
(HHPCC) and household daily per capita calorie
requirement (HHPCR).
Applying equation (1) into our pooled data will give us the
overall food security status of households considered food
secure (Y) and since the result is above the threshold of 1,
by applying equation (4) we obtained a surplus index of
0.13 when converted into percentage it becomes 13%.
Table 5: Summary of Food Secure Households Based on Local Government Area
D/Tofa Gaya Gwarzo Karaye Kunchi Kura Sumaila Wudil Pooled
Percentage % 57 40 65 42 29 50 23 12 40
HHDCC 293045 157560 328534 325120 199007 344932 179436 82119 238719
HHCR 275880 146882 229880 283466 184280 321948 170730 74796 210983
HHPCC 2872 2918 3865 3096 2927 2899 2848 3041 3058
HHPCR 2705 2720 2704 2700 2710 2705 2710 2770 2715
Y 1.06 1.07 1.43 1.15 1.08 1.07 1.05 1.10 1.13
Surplus (Ps) 0.06 0.07 0.43 0.15 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.10 0.13
HH AE 102 54 85 105 68 119 63 27 77.88
Where HHDCC represent total households daily calorie consumption, HHCR represent total household daily calorie
requirement, HHCR represent household daily per capita calorie consumption, HHCR represent household daily per
capita calorie requirement, Y is the household food security status, Ps represent food surplus index and HH AE is the
household adult equivalent.
Source: Computed from the field study, 2018.
Table 5 represented the food insecure households in the rural Kano, as indicated 60% of the total households were food
insecure and pooled food security status (Y) revealed a figure of 0.4 indicating a food shortage of 0.6 from food security
status threshold which represented a food severity of 60% among the rural food insecure households. Estimated 1,775
adult (AE) were faced with serious food security problem in the study area.
Table 6: Summary of Food Insecure Households Based on Local Government Area
Percentage % 43 60 35 58 71 50 77 88 60
HHDCC 140672 167432 206376 289698 273767 213705 252520 223115 220911
HHCR 441180 501350 317612 537664 877498 482380 814084 795114 595860
HHPCC 868 905 1764 1463 845 1201 842 767 1082
HHPCR 2723 2710 2715 2715 2708 2710 2714 2732 2716
Y 0.32 0.33 0.65 0.54 0.31 0.44 0.31 0.28 0.40
Shortfall (Pi) 0.68 0.67 0.35 0.46 0.69 0.56 0.69 0.72 0.60
HH AE 162 185 117 198 324 178 300 291 219.38
requirement, HHCR represent household daily per capita calorie consumption, HHCR represent household daily per capita
calorie requirement, Y is the household food security status, Ps represent food surplus index and HH AE is the household
adult equivalent.

Mustapha et al. 508
Table 7 indicated that overall 60% representing majority of the households in the study area were food insecure and with
overall food security status (Y) threshold achievement of 0.60 we finalized that the area is food insecure. The
shortfall/surplus indicating the severity or the extent of deviation from the line of food security or above it in Table 2.3
reported that households considered food secure surpass the daily calorie requirement by 13% while households
considered food insecure, fall short of the daily calorie intake recommendation of 2,710 kcal by 60%.
Table 7: Summarized Food Security Indices (Pooled) in the Study Area
HHDCC 433717 324992 534910 614818 472774 558637 431956 305234 459630
HHCR 717060 648232 547492 821130 1061778 804328 984814 869910 806843
HHPCC 3740.35 3822.82 5629 4559.5 3771.53 4099.18 3689.92 3808.16 4140.06
HHPCR 5428.04 5430.04 5418.25 5415.15 5418.33 5415.45 5423.61 5502.57 5431.44
Y 0.60 0.50 0.98 0.75 0.45 0.69 0.44 0.35 0.60
Shortfall (Pi) 0.68 0.67 0.35 0.46 0.69 0.56 0.69 0.72 0.60
Surplus (Ps) 0.06 0.07 0.43 0.15 0.08 0.07 0.05 0.1 0.13
HH AE 264 239 202 303 392 297 363 318 297.26
requirement, HHCR represent household daily per capita calorie consumption, HHCR represent household daily per capita
calorie requirement, Y is the household food security status, Ps represent food surplus index and HH AE is the household
adult equivalent.
Recent studies conducted in Africa revealed that about
60% - 70% of households especially in rural areas in the
continent were insecure in term of food need, which also
confirmed the finding of this research (Arene and Anyaeji,
2010; Omueme et al., 2012; Olayemi, 2012 and Orewa
and Iyangbe, 2013). Numerous scholars also adopted the
food security index in assessing household security status
in term of food in Africa, notable of which include,
Babatunde et al., (2007); Kuwornu et al., (2013) and
Onafeso et al., (2015).
Factor Influencing Food Security Status
Binary regression analysis is presented in Table 8 with the
food security status of rural households in mind,
regression report revealed that out of the 16 independent
variables, 3 variables were dropped due to low coefficients
and odds ratio revealing their insignificant in the model,
results from Table 4.6 also revealed that eight out of the
remaining regressors were statistically significant in the
model and describe the variation in regressand of rural
households in the study area. These regressors include
household head age, composition, level of education,
members earning, involvement in farming activities, farm
size, expenditure and livestock ownership while household
head gender, marital status, primary occupation, total
earning and fertilizer application possess high coefficient
and odds ratio but statistically not significant.
Household head level of education: Household level of
education has a direct and positive correlation with food
security status of household. As expected odds ratio of
2.069 indicates an increase in household food status
resulting from a slight change in the education level of
household head’s qualification, thus the more the
education qualification of rural household head, the higher
the tendency of food secure the household become. The
variable is statistically significant at 1% and a probability of
6% chance. This outcome is in line with findings of Amaza
et al. (2009) and Jabo et al. (2016). However, Omotayo et
al. (2018) discovered a negative coefficient in their study.
Household members’ earning capacity: Household
members’ earning has a positive coefficient of 1.943
indicating an increase food security status resulting from a
unit increase in household members earning, the variable
is statistically significant at 1%. The variable has a 16%
probability chance. The studies of Bashir et al. (2010);
Gebre (2012) and that of Ahmed et al. (2016) also
established a positive coefficient between household
members income and food security status of the
household.
Household head involved in farming: the variable has a
positive coefficient of 5.630 indicating a positive and strong
relationship with household food security status,
suggesting an increase in food security status of
household as a result of unit change in household head
involvement in farming activities which is according to the
a priori expectation. The variable is significant at 1% and
has 46% probability chance, which is also considered high.
The finding is against the work of Ameh and Iheanancho,
(2017); Metu et al. (2016) and Ogundari (2017). However,
inline with works of Akinnifesi et al. (2007).
Household monthly expenditure: With a positive coefficient
of 1.596, indicating a direct relationship with household
food security status. In other words household food
security status is expected to increase with a unit change
of household monthly expenditure. The variable indicates
significant at 1% and 13% probability chances of
occurring. This is also inline with the expectation, more

especially if such expenditure is incurred on foodstuffs
directly consumed by household. The finding of Omotayo
(2016) is in conflict with finding of the research, but inline
with Babatunde et al. (2007).
Household head age: Variable indicated a negative
coefficient -0.732 indicating a reduction in household food
security status, meaning a unit change in household age,
when other variables were held constant will result in a
reduction in household food security status by 0.73 with a
probability of 6% and statistically significant at 5% level.
This means that as the age of the household head
increase, the tendency of becoming food insecure
increases. This finding is inline with the findings of Adeniyi
and Ojo, (2013) and Asogwa and Umeh, (2012).
Household size: This variable indicated a negative
coefficient of -0.709 indicating a reduction in the food
security status of the household as a result of a unit
change in household size, when other variables are held
constant. Statistically significant at 5% and variable has a
6% probability chances. This finding is inline with the work
of Gebre (2012) and Baltenweck and Staal (2007).
Household head ownership of livestock: Variable has a
negative coefficient of -0.609 indicating a reduction in
household food security status as a result of unit change
in livestock ownership, which is also contrary to the a priori
expectation, this mighty be as a result of excess pressure
exacted by the livestock inform of feeding and other
activities directed to the livestock, before being put to use
or sales as the case may be, the variable has a probability
estimated at 1% and statistically significant at 5%.
Omotayo et al. (2016) and Delvaux and Paloma, (2017) all
discovered a negative coefficient in their work.
Household head farm size: Indicated a negative coefficient
of -1.424 suggesting a reduction in food security status of
household as a result of unit change of household head
farmsize, which is contrary to the expectation, this could
be as a result of inefficiently used of farmland and over
exploitation of the farmland. The variable is statistically
significant at 1% and 12% probability chances. This is
inline with the work of Olomola and Gyimah-Brempong,
(2014) and Harris and Orr (2014); however, against the
finding of Jabo et al. (2016).
Table 8: Binary Determinants of Household food security status
Factor Socio-economic
Coefficient Strd.Err z P>|z| Odds Ratio Marginal Eff
Household Head Age -0.732 0.326 -2.25 **0.020 0.481 -0.057
Household Head Gender 2.415 2.197 1.10 0.268 11.189 0.196
Household Head Marital Status -0.378 2.103 -0.18 0.857 0.685 0.031
Household Size -0.709 0.367 -1.93 **0.057 0.492 -0.058
Household Head level Education 0.727 0.290 2.51 ***0.009 2.069 0.059
Household Head Primary Occupation 0.724 1.627 0.44 0.656 2.064 0.058
Household Head Earning 0.362 0.271 1.34 0.176 1.436 0.029
Household Members earning 1.943 0.377 5.15 ***0.000 6.976 0.158
Household Head Involve in farming 5.630 1.533 3.67 ***0.000 278.730 0.457
Household Head Farm size -1.424 0.546 -2.61 ***0.006 0.241 -0.115
Household Fertilize improve 1.172 1.546 0.76 0.447 3.227 0.095
Household Head Expenditure 1.596 0.433 3.69 ***0.000 4.933 0.129
Household Head Livestock ownership -0.609 0.273 -2.23 **0.020 0.544 -0.049
Constant -7.946 2.342 -3.39 0.000 0.000 -
** Indicated level of significant at 5%, *** indicated the level of significant at 1%
Other variables: Variables like gender, has a positive
coefficient indicating an increase in household food
security status, when the household is headed by male
then female, however statistically insignificant, the
probability chance was estimated at 20%; marital status of
the household head has negative coefficient indicating an
inverse relationship with food security status of household,
this may be as a result of high number of spouses that the
household head married, which subsequently resulted in
high household size The probability chance has been
estimated at 3%; household primary occupation as
expected has a positive coefficient but statistically
insignificant, with 6% probability chance and household
head total monthly earning even though has positive
coefficient but statistically insignificant and 3% probability
chances of occurring.
CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
The paper has presented the important determinants that
affect rural households’ food security status in Kano,
Nigeria. Statistical evidence revealed that eight out of
thirteen (13) variables were important determinants among
rural households which, include household head age,
education, involvement in farming, farm size, expenditure,
livestock ownership, household composition and
household members earning. Statistical evidence also
revealed that the majority of the rural households were
food insecure estimated at about 60%. Also descriptive
analysis revealed that majority of the household heads
were male, 54% of the total household heads population
were within 41 years and above in term of age, in term of
income statistical evidence revealed household average

Mustapha et al. 510
monthly income of N126, 120 (US$413), this translated
into daily household head income of N4, 204 (US14), with
a total household adult equivalent of 2,378 individuals in
the study area, it will translate into N17, 289.79 (US$56.69)
individually monthly and N576.32 (US$1.89) daily,
marginally above the US$1.45 estimated poverty line.
Other household members’ income averaging N20, 115
(US$66) will result in adding little to the household food
security status. Statistical evidence also revealed that
monthly average expenditure of the household was N86,
534 (US$283), this translated into N291.12 (US$1) per
individual in the study area on monthly basis.
Outcome of food security indices could be regarded as a
fair representation of the household’s food status in the
Kano, Nigeria. Therefore it could serve as a reference
point in measuring food security in Nigeria in general and
in Northwest region in particular especially against
background of various agricultural policies to be
implemented by the present administration that seems to
focus more on farming with ultimate aim of reducing
hunger in the country. It is therefore suggested that
identified lapses should go along with new policies to be
implemented in reducing the food security challenges
especially among rural households.
Agricultural inputs should be provided at a very low cost,
timely and free from any form of corruption as well as
meeting the required standard in term of quantity and
quality, the outcome of which would be high yield. On the
supply side, the government should proactively engage in
providing adequate storage facilities to reduce the problem
of postharvest losses, good road networks, electricity etc
all of which can result in additional economic activities that
can subsequently resulted in extra income for rural
household head and household members.
Health education and environmental cleaning have to take
the center stage in a rural area, especially among the
household head’s spouses, a method of food preservation
need to improve, to reduce malnutrition among the rural
household and food waste in Kano, Nigeria. Lastly
government should come up with campaign and
sensitization in the local media and door-to-door education
on child birth control, this could reduce the high number of
household size in the study area.
REFERENCES
Adeniyi, O. R., & Ojo, O. A. (2013). Food security status of
rural farming households in Iwo, Ayedire and Ayedaade
local government areas of Osun State, South-Western
Nigeria. African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition
and Development, 13(5), 8209-8223.
Ahmed, U. I., Ying, L., Bashir, M. K., Abid, M., Elahi, E., &
Iqbal, M. A. (2016). Access to output market by small
farmers: The case of Punjab, Pakistan. Journal of
Animal and Plant Sciences, 26(3), 2016.
Amaza, P., Abdoulaye, T., Kwaghe, P., & Tegbaru, A.
(2009). Changes in household food security and
poverty status in PROSAB area of Southern Borno
State, Nigeria. International Institute of Tropical
Agriculture (IITA) Promoting Sustainable Agriculture in
Borno State (PROSAB). IITA, Nigeria.
Akinnifesi F.K., Makumba W., Sileshi G., Ajayi O., Mweta
D., (2007). Synergistic effect of inorganic N and P
fertilizers and organic inputs from Gliricidia sepium on
productivity of intercropped maize in Southern Malawi.
Plant Soil. 294, 203–217.
Ameh, M., & Andrew, C. (2017). Socio-Economic Factors
Influencing Agricultural Loan Acquisition among Small-
Scale Rice Farmers in Benue State, Nigeria.
Arene, C. J., & Anyaeji, R. C. (2010). Determinants of food
security among households in Nsukka Metropolis of
Enugu State, Nigeria. Pakistan Journal of Social
Sciences, 30(1), 9-16.
Asghar Zahid, Ahmed Muhammad, (2013). Socio-
Economic Determinants of Household Food
Insecurity in Pakistan.
Asogwa, B. C., & Umeh, J. C. (2012, December). Food
insecurity determinants among rural farm households
in Nigeria. In International conference on Ecology,
Agriculture and Chemical Engineering (ICEACS‟ 2012)
December (pp. 18-19).
Babatunde, R. O., Omotesho, O. A., & Sholotan, O. S.
(2007). Socio-economic characteristics and food
security status of farming households in Kwara State,
North-Central Nigeria. Pakistan Journal of
Nutrition, 6(1), 49-58.
Baltenweck, I., & Staal, S. (2007). Beyond One‐Size‐Fits‐
All: Differentiating Market Access Measures for
Commodity Systems in the Kenyan Highlands. Journal
of Agricultural Economics, 58(3), 536-548.
Barrett, C.B., and Lentz, E.C. (2009). “Food Insecurity.” In
The International Studies Compendium Project.
Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell Publishing.
Bashir, M. K., Naeem, M. K., & Niazi, S. A. K. (2010). Rural
and peri-urban food security: a case of district
Faisalabad of Pakistan. World Applied Sciences
Journal, 9(4), 403-411.
Bashir, M.K., Schilizzi, S., Pandit, R., (2013a). Impact of
socio-economic characteristics of rural households on
food security: the case of the Punjab, Pakistan. JAPS,
J. Animal Plant Sci. 23 (2), 611–618.
Bashir, M.K., Schilizzi, S., Pandit, Ram, (2013b). Regional
sensitivity of rural household food security: the case of
Punjab, Pakistan. JAPS, J. Animal Plant Sci. 23 (4),
1200–1206.
Bogale, Ayalneh, (2012). Vulnerability of smallholder rural
households to food insecurity in Eastern Ethiopia.
Food Security 4 (4), 581–591.
Delvaux, P. A. G., & y Paloma, S. G. (2018). Access to
common resources and food security: Evidence from
National Surveys in Nigeria. Food Security, 10(1), 121-
140.

Dercon, S., & Pramila, K. (1998). Changes in poverty in
rural Ethiopia 1989-1995: Measurement, robustness
tests and decomposition.
Ehebhamen, O. G., Obayelu, A. E., Vaughan, I. O., &
Afolabi, W. A. O. (2017). Rural households' food
security status and coping strategies in Edo State
Nigeria. International Food Research Journal, 24(1).
Ejikeme, J. O., Ojiako, J. C., Onwuzuligbo, C. U., & Ezeh,
F. C. (2017). Enhancing Food Security in Anambra
State, Nigeria Using Remote Sensing
Data. Environmental Review, 6(1).
Gebre, G. G. (2012). Determinants of food insecurity
among households in Addis Ababa city,
Ethiopia. Interdisciplinary Description of Complex
Systems: INDECS, 10(2), 159-173.
FAO, (1996). The State of Food and Agriculture 1996.
Rome: FAO.
FAO, (2013). The state of food insecurity in the world
2012. Economic Growth is necessary but not sufficient
to Accelerate Reduction of Hunger and Malnutrition.
FAO, Rome, Italy, 1-61.
FAO, (2015). Achieving Zero Hunger: The Critical Role of
Investments in Social Protection and Agriculture.
https://doi.org/I4951
FAO, (2016). The State of Food Insecurity in the World
2015. Meeting the 2015 international hunger targets:
taking stock of uneven progress. Food and Agriculture
Organization Publications, Rome.
Fawole, W. O., Ozkan, B., & Ayanrinde, F. A. (2016).
Measuring food security status among households in
Osun State, Nigeria. British Food Journal, 118(7),
1554-1567.
Felker-Kantor, Erica, Wood, Charles H., (2012). Female-
headed households and food insecurity in
Brazil. Food Security 4 (4), 607–617.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
(2017). State of food security and nutrition in the world
2017 (chinese edition): building Resilience For... Peace
and Food Security. FOOD & AGRICULTURE ORG.
Gross, R., Schoeneberger, H., Pfeifer, H., & Preuss, H. J.
(2000). The four dimensions of food and nutrition
security: definitions and concepts. SCN News, 20, 20-
25.
Gross, R., Schultink, W., & Sastroamidjojo, S. (1996).
Stunting as an indicator for health and wealth: an
Indonesian application. Nutrition research, 16(11-12),
1829-1837.
Harris, D., & Orr, A. (2014). Is rainfed agriculture really a
pathway from poverty?. Agricultural Systems, 123, 84-
96.
Jabo, M. S. M., Ismail, M. M., Abdullah, A. M., &
Shamsudin, M. N. (2017). Measurement and
determinants of rural food poverty in Nigeria: recent
evidence from general household survey
panel. International Food Research Journal, 24(3),
1011.
Kassie, M., Ndiritu, S.W., Stage, J., (2014). What
determines gender inequality in household food
security in Kenya? Application of exogenous switching
treatment regression. World Dev. 56, 153–171.
Korir, L., Rizov, M., & Ruto, E. (2018, April). Analysis of
household food demand and its implications on food
security in Kenya: an application of QUAIDS model.
In 92nd Annual Conference, April 16-18, 2018,
Warwick University, Coventry, UK (No. 273474).
Agricultural Economics Society.
Kuwornu, J. K., Mensah-Bonsu, A., & Ibrahim, H. (2011).
Analysis of foodstuff price volatility in Ghana:
Implications for food security. European Journal of
Business and Management, 3(4), 100-118.
Kuwornu, J. K., Suleyman, D. M., & Amegashie, D. P.
(2013). Comparative Analysis of Food Security Status
of Farming Households in the Coastal and the Forest
Communities of Central Region of Ghana. Asian
Journal of Empirical Research, 3(1), 39-61.
Mango, N., Zamasiya, B., Makate, C., Nyikahadzoi, K.,
Siziba, S., (2014). Factors influencing household
food security among smallholder farmers in the Mudzi
district of Zimbabwe. Dev. Southern Africa 31 (4), 625–
640.
Maxwell, S. (1996). Food security: a post-modern
perspective. Food policy, 21(2), 155-170.
Maxwell, S., & Smith, M. (1992). Household food security:
a conceptual review. Household Food Security:
concepts, indicators, measurements. Edited by S.
Maxwell and T. Frankenberger. Rome and New York:
IFAD and UNICEF.
Metu, A. G., Okeyika, K. O., & Maduka, O. D. (2016).
Achieving sustainable food security in Nigeria:
Challenges and way forward.
Muche, M., Endalew, B. and Koricho, T. (2014),
“Determinants of household food security among
Southwest Ethiopia rural households”, Food Science
and Technology, Vol. 2 No. 7, pp. 93-100.
Ogundari, K. (2017). Categorizing households into
different food security states in Nigeria: the socio-
economic and demographic determinants. Agricultural
and Food Economics, 5(1), 8.
Oguntona, E. B., & Akinyele, I. O. (1995). Nutrient
composition of commonly eaten foods in Nigeria-Raw,
processed and prepared.
Okpokiri, C. I., Agwu, N. M., & Onwukwe, F. O. (2017).
Assessment of food security status of farming
households in Abia State, Nigeria. Nigeria Agricultural
Journal, 48(2), 93-98.
Olomola, A. and Gyimah-Brempong, K. (2014). Loan
Demand and Rationing among Small- Scale Farmers in
Nigeria. International Food Policy Research Institute
(IFPRI), Abuja, Nigeria.
Olayemi, A. O. (2012). Effects of family size on household
food security in Osun State, Nigeria. Asian journal of
agriculture and rural development, 2(2), 136.
Omuemu, V. O., Otasowie, E. M., & Onyiriuka, U. (2012).
Prevalence of food insecurity in Egor local government
area of Edo State, Nigeria. Annals of African
medicine, 11(3), 139.

Mustapha et al. 512
Omotayo, A. O., Ogunniyi, A. I., Tchereni, B. H., & Nkonki-
Mandleni, B. (2018). Understanding the Link Between
Households' Poverty and Food Security in South West
Nigeria. The Journal of Developing Areas, 52(3), 27-
38.
Onafeso, O. D., Akanni, C. O., & Badejo, B. A. (2015).
Climate Change Dynamics and Imperatives for Food
Security in Nigeria. Indonesian Journal of
Geography, 47(2), 151-159.
Orewa SI, Iyangbe CO (2009). The food insecurity profile
among the rural and low income urban dwellers in
Nigeria. Am Euras J Sci Res 2009;4:302-7.
Owusu, V., Abdulai, A., Abdul-Rahman, S., (2011). Non-
farm work and food security among farm households
in Northern Ghana. Food Policy 36 (2), 108–118.
Oyekale, T. O., Ayegbokiki, A. O., & Adebayo, T. Y. (2017).
Analysis of rural households’food security status in
ogun state, nigeria. Journal of Agribusiness and Rural
Development, (1 (43)), 163-174.
Saxena, N. C. (2018). Hunger, under-nutrition and food
security in India. In Poverty, Chronic Poverty and
Poverty Dynamics (pp. 55-92). Springer, Singapore.
Schmidhuber, J., Sur, P., Fay, K., Huntley, B., Salama, J.,
Lee, A. ...& Afshin, A. (2018). The Global Nutrient
Database: availability of macronutrients and
micronutrients in 195 countries from 1980 to 2013. The
Lancet Planetary Health, 2(8), e353-e368.
Solaymani, S. (2018). Impacts of climate change on food
security and agriculture sector in Malaysia.
Environment, Development and Sustainability, 20(4),
1575-1596.
UNDP (2017a). Table 1: Human Development Index and
its Components. Available at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/
composite/HDI.
USDA, N. (2005). The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5
(http://plants. usda. gov). Data compiled from various
sources by Mark W. Skinner. National Plant Data
Center, Baton Rouge, LA, 70874-4490.
Von Grebmer, K., Bernstein, J., de Waal, A., Prasai, N.,
Yin, S., & Yohannes, Y. (2015). 2015 Global hunger
index: armed conflict and the challenge of hunger. Intl
Food Policy Res Inst.
World Bank, (1986); World Bank; Poverty and Hunger:
Issues and Options for Food Security in Developing
Countries. World Bank, Washington (1986).
Accepted 4 October 2018
Citation: Mustapha M, Kamaruddin RB, Dewi S (2018).
Assessing the Food Security Determinants among Rural
Households in Kano, Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural
Economics and Rural Development, 4(2): 501-512.
Copyright: © 2018 Mustapha et al. This is an open-access
article distributed under the terms of the Creative
Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted
use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author and source are cited.
APPENDIX
Appendix 1: common food items eaten
Food items Kcal/kg Food items Kcal/Kg
Staple food Fruits
Cassava Flour 3870 Plantain 770
Gari 3840 Banana 960
Soy flour 2600 Pineapple 320
Wheat Grain 3400 Apple 570
Cowpea (Beans) 5920 Coconut 580
Sweet Potato Tuber 1000 Guava 730
Maize Grain 4120 Sugarcane 360
Maize Flour 3500 Mango 590
Sorghum Grain 3500 Pawpaw 300
Millet Grain 3500
Meats &
Animal
prod
Groundnuts 5950 Cow Meat 2370
Vegetables Chicken 2380
Okro 4500 Fish 2230
Tomato 880
Eggs
(pieces)
1400
Pepper 3930 Drinks
Onion 440 Soft drink 620
Egg plants 440
Orange
Juice
400
Cucumber 270 Apple Juice 550
Pumpkin 440 Pineapple 560
Beverages
Dairy
Products
Cocoa 1200 Milk 4900
Tea 1200 Cheese 4000
Coffee 4100 Yoghurt 4100
Source: Babatunde et al., 2007.
Appendix 2: Adults equivalent for adjusting
household size
Age category in (years) Male Female
0-1 0.33 0.33
1-2 0.46 0.46
2-3 0.54 0.54
3-5 0.62 0.62
5-7 0.74 0.70
7-10 0.84 0.72
10-12 0.88 0.78
12-14 0.96 0.84
14-16 1.06 0.86
16-18 1-14 0.86
18-30 1.04 0.80
30-60 1.00 0.82
>60 0.84 0.74
Source: Stefan and Pramila (1998).

Assessing the Food Security Determinants among Rural Households in Kano, Nigeria

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Assessing the Food Security Determinants among Rural Households in Kano, Nigeria

Similar to Assessing the Food Security Determinants among Rural Households in Kano, Nigeria (20)

More from Premier Publishers

More from Premier Publishers (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Assessing the Food Security Determinants among Rural Households in Kano, Nigeria