|
African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development
Rural Outreach Program
ISSN: 1684-5358 EISSN: 1684-5358
Vol. 17, No. 4, 2017, pp. 12953-12974
|
Bioline Code: nd17105
Full paper language: English
Document type: Study
Document available free of charge
|
|
African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, Vol. 17, No. 4, 2017, pp. 12953-12974
en |
IMPACT OF PUSH-PULL TECHNOLOGY ON THE NUTRITIONAL STATUS OF FARMERS’ CHILDREN IN WESTERN KENYA
Ogot, NO; Pittchar, JO; Midega, CAO & Khan, ZR
Abstract
This study examined the impact of push-pull technology (PPT) on the nutritional status
of children aged 1-12 years. Non-push-pull (NPPT) farmers were used as a control
group to establish a comparative model for this study. It determined household
production, consumption, and surpluses, comparing the PPT adopters to the nonadopters;
found out the incomes and food expenditures from farm products; found out
the household dietary diversity scores; and finally found the nutritional status of the
two household groups. A six faceted household-level metrics was employed. A sample
of 216 households that registered 326 children was derived. This study was conducted
in western Kenya: Busia, Butere, Siaya, Vihiga, Kisumu, and Migori. In this study 53%
were male and 47% female from the households assessed. Households with married
couples were 87.5%, 1.9% were single parents, 0.5% were separated and 10.2% were
widowed. Averagely, 7.20 members came from PPT households, while 6.99 were from
NPPT households. Each household (both PPT and NPPT) had an average number of
three children. The study further showed that 88 households of PPT had their income
sources from farm products sales as NPPT had 67 households on the same. Income was
averagely 126.29US$ for PPT and 91US$ for NPPT. Push-pull households had 1303 Kgs
of farm production while NPPT had 578 Kgs per year. The scale of agriculture to nutrition
benefits recorded 8.7/10 for PPT and 7.14/10 for NPPT. Finally, PPT registered 12% of
≥+2SD, 84% of between -2 and > +2SD and 4% of ≤ -2SD for children under five years
and 3% of ≥+2SD, 89% of between -2 and > +2SD and 8% of ≤ -2SD for children aged
between 6 to 12 years. Non Push-pull households controversially registered 3% of ≥+2SD,
61% of between -2 and > +2SD and 36% of ≤ -2SD for children less than five years and
3% of ≥+2SD, 53% of between -2 and > +2SD and 44% of ≤ 2SD for children aged
between 6 to 12 years. In conclusion, PPT is proven as an agricultural intervention that
has enhanced nutritional improvement.
Keywords
Push-pull Technology (PPT); Non Push-pull Technology (NPPT); nutrition; dietary diversity; food security; Body Mass Index (BMI); agriculture
|
|
© Copyright 2016 - African Journal of Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development Alternative site location: http://www.ajfand.net/
|
|