The World Food Summit in 1996 emphasizes the multidimensionality of food security: food security exists when all people at all times have physical and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food to meet their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life [1]. This definition has widely established the four pillars of food security: availability, accessibility, utilization and stability. Availability, access and utilization are hierarchical in nature. Food availability is necessary but not sufficient for food accessibility and access is necessary but not sufficient for utilization. 

Food utilization, which is typically reflected in the nutritional status of an individual, is determined by the quantity and quality of dietary intake, general childcare and feeding practices, along with health status and its determinants. Utilization is commonly understood as the way the body makes the most of various nutrients in the food. It deals with the metabolism of food and the capacity of the body to fully absorb it. Poor infant care and feeding practices, inadequate access to, or the poor quality of health services are also major determinants of poor health and nutrition. While important for its own sake as it directly influences, human well-being, improved food utilization also has feedback effects, through its impact on the health and nutrition of household members and therefore, on labour productivity and income earning potential. Dietary diversity is an indirect measure of dietary deficiencies [2,3].

Food stability refers to the situation where the system maintains the availability, access and utilization at all times. The fifth dimension, sustainability, is the ability of the ecosystem to maintain the required food production for generations [4]. Sustainability requires proper attention to the environment. It entails (especially in rural agriculture) integrated crop management such as forage-legume rotations, conservation, tillage, integrated pest management and integrated crop-livestock systems [5].

Study Area

Kashere town is a settlement among the seventeen (17) District areas under Pindiga Emirate Council Ako L.G.A, Gombe State, Nigeria. The town is located on lat 9°46'0" N and 10°57'0"E. It is located at an elevation of 431m above sea level with landmass of about 2,627km2 [6]. The town plays host to Federal University, of Kashere (FUK) established by Goodluck Jonathan Administration in 2011. Kashere is bounded in the north by Pindiga settlement, in the south by Kaltanga settlement, in the west by Futuk settlement and in the east by Dongol settlement. The projected population of Kashere is 297,262 persons using 3.2% growth rate Gombe State Office [7]. There are six cluster areas that make up Kashere town. These include Ungwan Tafida, Ungwan Tumburu, Ungwan Santuraki, Ungwan Wakili, Ya‟adda and Ungwan Ubandoma. The town comprises of different tribes and ethnic groups such as Jukun, Kanuri, Fulanis and Tangale. The vegetation in Kashere comprises of light trees with under shrubs and sparse growth of grasses to a more open grass of less height, stunted trees and dense growth grasses. 

The indigenous people of Kashere are Jukun, later on Kashere was dominated by Hausa, Fulani, Tangale and others who came to the area for many purposes [8]. The main economic occupation of the people of Kashere village is farming and animal rearing with few civil servant and business men/women. The town has a fertile soil for cultivation of many varieties of crops such as maize, guinea corn, millet, rice and cowpea (Figure 1).

Data Types, Sources and Collection Methods

Both qualitative and quantitative data from primary source was collected using structured questionnaire as well as interview was used to collect data in the study area and supplemented with secondary data.

Sampling Procedure

The sampling technique adopted was a multi-stage sampling technique. In the first sampling stage, simple random sampling technique was used to select four cluster areas from the six cluster area (Ungwan Tafida, Ungwan Tumburu, Ya‟adda and Ungwan Ubandoma) in the sampling frame. Purposive sampling was adopted to select hundred (100) farming household. In the final sampling stage simple random sampling technique was used to select twenty-five (25) respondents each from the cluster areas making a total of a hundred (100) respondents.

Analytical Techniques

Food Dietary Diversity: Dietary diversity was employed as a qualitative measure of food consumption in the study area. It reflects household access to a wide variety of six food groups (included in the Household Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS). Dietary diversity indices have been shown to be good proxies for calorie intake and nutritional outcomes [9]. To better reflect quality diet of households in the study area; households were grouped into low dietary diversity (˂4.5), medium dietary diversity (4.5-6) and high dietary diversity (˃6). The number of different food groups consumed was calculated, rather than the number of different foods consumed.

Food Expenditure Share

This indicator measures the percentage of each household’s total expenditures devoted to food. It is an access measure based on the following premise: the greater the burden of food within a household’s overall budget (relative to other consumed items/services), the more economically vulnerable the household. That is households that spend a large share on food are highly vulnerable to food insecurity regardless on their current consumption status. Household with a food expenditure above 75% are considered very economically vulnerable, household with a food expenditure within 65-75% are considered highly economically vulnerable, household with a food expenditure within 50-65% are considered averagely economically vulnerable while household with a food expenditure below 50% are not economically vulnerable.

Food expenditure =

Socio-Economic Characteristics of Farming Households

The distribution of the household heads based on sex presented in Table 1 revealed that 77% of the respondents were male while only 23% were females. This pattern is most prevalent among farm households in Nigeria [10].

Table 1: Qualitative Socio-Economic Characteristics of Farming Households

Sources: Field Survey, 2020

The marital status of farming household heads showed that majority 80% were married, 19% were single and 1% was a widow.

The educational level of respondents revealed that 35% respondents of the sampled population had tertiary education. However, 34% had secondary education, 18% had primary education and 12% had no formal education. Educational level of respondents is an additional factor which is thought to influence the food security status of households. The awareness of food groups necessary for human growth and wellbeing may be dependent upon the level of education of the household head. The knowledge of these food groups ultimately influenced nutritional decisions that enhanced quality food intake.

Table 2 shows that, 37% of the respondents were in their youthful age within the age range of 31-40 years. The average age was approximately 39 years. This indicates that the respondents are in their active work life and can engage in diverse income generating opportunities.

Table 2: Quantitative Socio-Economic Characteristics of Farming Household

Sources: Field Survey,2020

The result presented also revealed that about 39% of the respondents had 5 household members or less. Also about 30% of the sampled population had between 6-10 household members, 16% had between 11-15 household members, 9% had between 16-20 household members, 4% had between 21-30 household members, 1% had between 31-35 household members, 1% had 36 and above household members and the average household size was 9 members. 

Increasing family size could exert more pressure on the level of consumption since food requirements tend to increase with the number and composition of persons in the households. This implies that as the household size increases, the probability of food security decreases.

The result on farming experience showed that majority (46%) of the sampled population has farming experience of 10 years or less. This implies that increase in farming experience predisposes farmers to acquisition of skills and better farming practices which will increase food production and decrease food insecurity incidence.

Table 3: Dietary Diversity of Farming Household

Sources: Computed from Field Data, 2020

The farm size of farmers in the study area showed that 70% farmers had farm size 3 hectares or less while 14% had farm size between 3.1- 6.0 hectares, 8% had between 9.1-12.0 hectares, 4% had between 12.1-15.0 hectares, 3% had between 6.1-9.0 hectares and 1% above 18.1 hectares. This show that majority of the farmers have small farm size and were not able to enjoy economy of scale in production in line with studies of Sani et al. [11]. Farm size is a reflection of own-food production ability and incomes of the farming households. It is believed that increase in farm size will result in increased food production which ultimately, increased likelihood of household food security.

About 83% of the respondents have monthly income of less than ₦50,000.00, 13% have a monthly income range between ₦50,000.00 - ₦99,999.00, only about 2% of the households have monthly income between ₦100,000.00 - ₦149,999.00 and only about 2% of the households have monthly income of ₦200,000.00 and above. As the monthly incomes of households increase and households invest in more income generating activities, purchasing power of households is expected to improve and probability of household food security also increases. Consequently, increased household income could positively influence food production and access to food in quantity and quality.

Food Diversity Intake

The dietary diversity measures among the sampled households revealed that about 56% belonged to the medium dietary diversity range while about 24% belong to the high dietary diversity range and 20% belong to the low dietary diversity range. The results are in contrast with the findings of Ahmed et al., [12].

Food Expenditure Share

From the result obtained on food expenditure share, 68% of the farming household are not economically vulnerable to food insecurity, 15% are very economically vulnerable to food insecurity, 9% have a medium economic vulnerability to food insecurity and 8% are highly economic vulnerable to food insecurity (Table 4).

Table 4: Food Expenditure Share

Sources: Computed from Field Data, 2020

The findings of the study showed that 77% of the farming households were male while the mean age of the farming household was 39 years with mean household size of 9 persons. Majority (80%) of the farming household were married with all having one form of education or the other.

Majority (68%) of the farming household is not economically vulnerable to food insecurity and 56% belonged to the medium dietary diversity range. The study suggests provision of nutrition education and enlightenment campaign where farming households should be taught on dietary.

1. FAO. The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2000. FAO, Rome, 2000.

2. Hoddinott, J. and Yohannes, Y. Dietary Diversity as a Food Security Indicator. FCND Discussion Paper no. 136, International Food Policy Research Institute, 2002.

3. Migotto, M. et al. Measuring Food Security Using Respondents’ Perception of Food Consumption Adequacy. UNU-WIDER Research Paper no. 2006/88, 2006.

4. Hanson, J.L. et al. “Family poverty affects the rate of human infant brain growth.” PLoS ONE, vol. 8, no. 12, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0080954.

5. Tweeten, L. “The economics of global food security.” Review of Agricultural Economics, vol. 21, no. 2, 1999.

6. Ogidi, A.O. et al. “Heavy metal content of agricultural soils at pindiga, akko local government area of Gombe State, Nigeria.” International Journal of Advance Research, vol. 6, no. 11, 2018, pp. 223–233.

7. National Population Commission (NPC). Census Results. NPC Gombe Office, 2009. http://june12post.com/national-population-commissions-housing-census.

8. Gombe State Government (GSG). History. www.gombestategov.ng, 2012.

9. Ruel, M.T. “Operationalizing dietary diversity: A review of measurement issues and research priorities.” Journal of Nutrition, 2006, pp. 1–11.

10. Oluyole, K.A. et al. “Food security among cocoa farming households of Ondo State, Nigeria.” ARPN Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences, vol. 4, 2009, pp. 7–13.

11. Sani, A.A. et al. “Assessment of household food security among sorghum farmers under agricultural transformation agenda in Gombe State, Nigeria.” Journal of Sustainable Development in Africa, vol. 19, no. 4, 2017.

12. Ahmed, F.F. et al. “Analysis of food security among farming households in Borno State, Nigeria.” Journal of Agricultural Economics, Environment and Social Sciences, vol. 1, no. 1, 2015, pp. 130–141.