Topic: Determinant of Level of Food Security of Fish Farming Households in Oshimili

South Local Government Area of Delta State, Nigeria.

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Maintaining an adequate level of food security remains a crucial challenge for most rural

households in developing countries, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa (Mutea, et al., 2019).

The Food and Agriculture Organization (2002) defines food security as ‘when all people at

all times have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that

meets their dietary needs and food preferences for an active and healthy life’. Drought,

conflicts, poverty, and rapid population growth are the main factors exacerbating food

security problems in Nigeria. Large parts of Nigeria are arid and semi-arid, with erratic and

unreliable annual rainfall amounting to less than 500 mm, thereby contributing to the

frequency and severity of droughts (FSIN, 2017).

According to FAO (2002), Food security is a situation existing when all people, at all times,

have physical, social and economic access to sufficient, safe and nutritious food that meets

their dietary needs and food preference for active and healthy living. There are four

dimensions of food security (i) Availability of sufficient amount of food which is a function

of food production, (ii) Stability of supply over time which depends on the ability to preserve

produced food and supplement available food through imports if necessary (iii) Access to the

available food which depends on the income level and its distribution and (iv) food utilization

which encompasses procurement, ingestion, and digestion all of which are dependent on

nutritional quality, education and health.

However, fish farming is very popular in developing countries like Nigeria because of its

ability to improve the welfare of particularly less wealthy and landless-food insecure

1
households through employment, income generation and nutrition from direct consumption

(Kawarazuka, 2010). In Africa and Asia, several developmental interventions related to fish

consumption, aquaculture, and capture fisheries have aimed at improving the nutritional

status of households through direct dietary intake, production and increase in household

income (Kawarazuka, 2010).

Fish is an aquatic animal which serves as sources of food, nutrition, income and livelihood

for millions of people in the world (G/Michael & Fantahun, 2019). Fish farming has quickly

grown as an animal-based food production sector since the ancient civilization of Egypt and

China (Olaoye et al., 2013; Tilahun, Alambo, & Getachew, 2016). Fish farming or

pisciculture involves commercial breeding of fish, usually for food, in fish tanks or artificial

enclosures such as fish ponds made of either or concrete, earthen or tarpoline. According to

data from FAO 2016 global fish production was at its peak in 2016. According to FAO

(2018), the total fish scale value of fisheries and aquaculture production in 2016 was

estimated at USD 362 billion, of which USD 232 billion was from aquatic production. With

capture fishery production becoming relatively static since the late 1980s, aquaculture has

been responsible for the continuing impressive growth in supply of fish for human

consumption.

Also, in fish farming the exist cage aquaculture which involves the growing of fishes in

existing water resources while being enclosed in a net cage which allows free flow of water.

It is an aquaculture production system made of a floating frame, net materials and mooring

system (with rope, buoy, anchor etc.) with a round or square shape floating net to hold and

culture large number of fishes and can be installed in reservoir, river, lake or sea. A catwalk

and handrail is built around a battery of floating cages. There are 4 types of fish-rearing cages

namely: i) Fixed cages, ii) Floating cages, iii) Submerged cages and iv) Submersible cages.

Economically speaking, cage culture is a low impact farming practice with high returns and

2
least carbon emission activity. Farming of fish in an existing water body removes one of the

biggest constraints of fish farming on land, i.e., the need for a constant flow of clean,

oxygenated water. Cage farms are positioned in such way to utilize natural currents, which

provide the fish with oxygen and other appropriate natural conditions.

The growth in fish production is mainly market-driven, with diversified and increased sales

of aquaculture products. Economically, the expanded market opportunities for aquaculture

small businesses and fish farmers ultimately lead to farm sustainability and increased

profitability for businesses and farmers. There are also linkages to economic development in

communities, which bring improvements in the rural agricultural economy. In addition, the

growth of the aquaculture sub-sector and accompanying expanded activities have social

implications on employment and other social benefits to communities, especially among rural

communities along the Volta lake. However, there have been growing concerns about the

sustainability of cage aquaculture in the Volta Lake in Nigeria because of the potential effects

of electrocution on the lake including biodiversity, escapes and urgent discharges (Vigani and

Magrini, 2014). However, given adequate regulatory infrastructure, aquaculture in Nigeria

can develop towards a sustainable alternative solution for the supply of seafood due to the

decline in wild capture fisheries.

The food insecurity situation in Nigeria is more about access and stability than availability.

Food insecurity is a national issue in Nigeria due to widespread poverty. The problem exists

in both rural and urban areas with the rural areas being the most affected. Nigeria’s food

insecurity is heightened by irregularities of fluctuations in the seasons and production. The

latter is highly dependent on rainfall, high food prices and low incomes at the household level

(Saaka and Osman, 2013). The most food insecure regions in Nigeria are the three Southern

regions and the least food insecure areas are Greater Delta and the Southern regions

(Thilsted, James, Toppe, Subasinghe & Karunasagar, 2014). Also, in the delta region, a study

3
of fish farming and non-fish farming households over a period of four weeks revealed no

significant differences between households in terms of nutritional status. Fish farming

households cultured the fish mainly for selling purposes and not for consumption as fish

consumption by producing households was very low (Maxwell, Coates and Vaitla, 2013).

The per capita consumption of fish for the average Nigerians is about 25 kg per annum,

making Nigeria one of the highest fish consumer in Sub-Saharan Africa. Fish represents

about 60% of the animal protein consumed in Nigerian homes (Vigani and Magrini, 2014).

The commonest types of fish consumed is tilapia and cat fish which are also, the most

commonly farmed fish as well (Saaka and Osman, 2013).

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Food security has remained a daunting challenge in Nigeria. According to Farm Radio

International, FRI (2023), about 40% of the Nigerian population is food insecure. The Food

and Agriculture Organization (FAO) has projected that about 25.3 million people in Nigeria

would face acute food insecurity during the June to August 2023 lean season (Premium times

news, 2023). Food security in the country is worsened as a result of several factors such as

insecurity, high level of inflation and naira re-design policy. The current removal of the fuel

subsidy is expected to drive more millions of Nigerians into food insecurity.

In Nigeria, food insecurity is highest among Agricultural households. This is due to their

level of poverty and low agricultural productivity. In Delta State, fish farming is the

predominant agricultural livelihood activity, arising from the abundance of water resources in

the area. However, empirical information on food security in the area, is limited in literature.

This has created a gap which the study intends to fill, by providing answers to the following

research questions.

i) What are the socioeconomic characteristics of the fish farmers?

4
 ii) What are the various types of fish caught /reared and the fishing tools used by the

respondents?

iii) What are the levels of food security of the respondents?

iv) What factors influence the levels of food security of the respondents?

v) How do the respondents cope against food insecurity?

vi) What are the challenges facing the respondents in fish production?

1.3 Objectives of the study.

The broad objective of the study is to examine the determinants of food security levels of fish

farming household in Oshimili South Local Government Area of Delta State, Nigeria.

The Specific Objectives are to:

i) Identify the socio-economic characteristics of fish farmers in the study;

ii) Identify the various types of fish of fish reared/ caught by the respondents and their

fishing tools and equipments ;

iii) Determine the level of food security of the fish farming households in the study;

iv) Determine the factors that influence the level of food security;

v) Identify the coping measures against food insecurity by the respondents;

vi) Descried the constraints to fish production activities of the respondents.

1.4 Research Hypothesis

The following hypothesis will be tested:

H0: Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents do not significantly influence their

level of food security.

1.5 Justification for the study

The study will drive evidence-based policies of government, non-governmental organizations

and development partners by providing empirical information on the level of food security of

fish farming households.

5
This will be of immense benefits to the fish farming households as it will lead to

improvements in their levels of food security and livelihood conditions, thereby reducing the

menace of hunger, malnutrition, deprivation and poverty in the country.

The study will also contribute to enriching the literature on food security and fish farming

household, which will provide bases for further studies. As such, students and researchers

will find the study invaluable.

6
 CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Conceptual Review

Various literatures that investigates food security and its determinants among fish farming

households are thoroughly reviewed in this chapter to buttress the study.

2.1.1 Concept of Fish Farming

Fish farming refers to the commercial production of fish in an enclosure or, when located in a

body of freshwater or marine water, in an area that is penned off from the surrounding water

by cages or open nets. Fish farming is a form of aquaculture and it connotes producing fish

commercially in ponds or specially designed tanks or cages built in rivers and lakes. Fishing

means either the breeding or harvesting of fish and other aquatic organisms, or more

generally, the place where such business takes place also known as fishing grounds.

Commercial fishing includes wild fisheries and storks, both in freshwater areas about 10% of

total catch and in sea areas about 90%. About 500 million people worldwide are

economically dependent on fishing. In 2016, 171 million tons of fish were produced, but

overfishing is a serious problem and some populations are declining.

Due to its economic and social importance, the fisheries industry is subject to complex

fisheries management practices and legal systems that vary widely from country to country.

Historically, the fishing industry has been treated on a firstcome, first-served basis, but the

recent threat of human overfishing and environmental problems has led to the need for a

more rigorous approach to fisheries to prevent conflict and increase the profitable economic

activity of the fishing industry. Regulation had to be tightened. Modern jurisdictions over

fisheries are often determined by a combination of international treaties and local laws.

Declining fish stocks, marine pollution and the destruction of critical coastal ecosystems have

increased concerns about important fisheries around the world and threatened economic and

7
food security in many parts of the world. These challenges are compounded by changes in the

oceans caused by climate change, which can extend the reach of some fisheries while

significantly reducing the sustainability of other fisheries.

A fish farm is similar to a fish hatchery in that both can contain 500,000 and more fish. But, a

fish hatchery is designed to raise the fish only to a young age before they are released into the

wild, usually to bolster the numbers of that species. In contrast, a fish farm is designed to

raise the fish until they are a size and age that makes them the best commercial value. The

fish are ultimately retrieved and sold, typically as whole or processed food.

Fish farming is the most common form of aquaculture, and commonly involves trout, salmon,

tilapia, cod, carp, and catfish. For a species such as cod, whose numbers in the Grand Banks

fishery off the east coast of the Canadian Maritime Provinces plummeted to near zero in the

1970s due to overfishing, and as of 2008 have yet to recover, the cod available from fish

farming represents almost the sole source of the fish in North American markets.

The example of cod is cited as one of the advantages of fish farming. Raising fish under more

controlled conditions that are possible in the wild avoids the problem of overfishing. As well,

because an operation takes up relatively little space, feeding and care of the fish can be done

under more controlled conditions, which is an economic advantage to those who own and run

the facility.

However, fish farming is a controversial practice. For example, on the Canadian west coast,

the farming of salmon typically uses species normally found in the Atlantic Ocean. The

escape of fish to the wild does occur, and has created concern that the presence of the species

in an environment that is unnatural to them could upset the marine ecology. Other concerns

of fish farming are the overcrowding of fish, which can make them more susceptible to

disease such as sea lice, and the use of antibiotics, which can also be released into the natural

environment.

8
2.1.1 Purpose of Fish Farming

In every business there are aims and objectives the business wants to achieve, fish farming is

not excluded. Most fish farmers engage in this lucrative trade in order to produce fish for

consumption and export. Here are the objectives of most fish farmers in Nigeria:

 Money Making: Most fish farmers engage in fishing farming in order to provide food

for themselves and their families. Fish farming is seen as a lucrative occupation

because a lot of fish farmers make massive profits from the sale and trade of their

fish.

 Providing Economic Boost: When fishing limitations were enacted in states with

robust fisheries, a number of state governments moved to mitigate the impact by

offering aquaculture training programs for commercial fishermen. Because of the

occupations associated with the construction and operation of a fish farm, coastal

areas, in particular, may benefit from having fish farm activities in their community.

 Food Production: Fishes are normally consumed as a form of food in most places

including Nigeria. Fish farmers rear these fishes in order to distribute the fish and

make it available to the public for consumption purposes.

 Protecting Species: Many fishermen engage in a fishing occupation for the purpose

of trading. This can lead to the extinction of a particular fish species if the fishes are

over-fished. Aquaculture experts are always on the lookout for fish species that can be

helped by fish farming and spared the risk of extinction.

2.1.1.2 Methods of Fish Farming

Since the present investigation obtained information from various types of fish farming, it

was imperative to have a glimpse of ideas about various methods of fish farming existing in

the study area.

9
Cage Fish Farming: as the name indicates, it is a system of fish farming by making cages in

open ponds, lakes, or seashore parts of the ocean. Sometimes, this is also called off-shore fish

cultivation (Martin, 2021). In this method, fish seeds are allowed to grow in the cage

structure and they are artificially fed. Since fish are grown in the natural environment, they

are unlikely to be affected by diseases. However, in most unfortunate times, fish may escape

into the wilderness of the ocean, causing losses to the farmers.

Pond Fish Farming System: This is a fish farming system done in ponds that hold water

sufficiently for the fish to grow. Although fish are artificially fed in this system, they are

prone to diseases as in the case of the cage fish farming systems. However, for a real farmer

who is engaged in other cultivation activities, the waste of fish can be used as fertilizer (Popp

et al., 2019).

Composite Fish Culture: This is also a pond fish farming system where the local species of

fish are grown along with imported species of fish while ensuring that their coexistence does

not lead to competition for food (Panda, 2016).

Biofloc Fish Farming: It is a high-density fish farming method requiring some inbuilt waste

management infrastructure (Hargreaves, 2013). This has been gaining wide popularity in

Kerala under the specially designed programme called Subiksha Kerala Scheme. Biofloc fish

farming is a solution to twin problems that we face today: Growing demand for fish which

can be hardly met properly by the existing alternative methods and the declining space or

land available for fish farming. It was first developed and practiced in Israel. In biofloc fish

farming floc, a composition of bacteria and flora and fauna are also grown along with the

fish. This floc naturally purifies the water by making the ammonia content zero in the water.

Besides being a natural water purifier, floc can be good fodder for fish. This twin advantage

makes biofloc fish farming a preferred one among the farmers. In Kerala, the State

government 60 percent subsidy for the starting of a biofloc fish farming system.

10
Aquaponics: This is an intensive fish farming system using tanks (Kyaw & Ng, 2017). The

importance of aquaponics lies in the fact that the quantity of fish produced in 50 percent of

the natural pond can be produced in one cent of land using this intensive fish farming

method. In this method, water is purified using a filter system built externally. Using pumps,

water is taken to the purifier and the recycled water is flown back to the tank.

2.1.1.3 Fish Varieties Cultivated

In Delta state Nigeria, different fish varieties are used for fish farming. Some of these

varieties are listed here:

a) Tilapia: this is the most common variety found in Kerala aquaculture. Four species of

tilapia are used in aquaculture: red tilapia, mono sex tilapia, gift tilapia, and the Nile

tilapia. Gift tilapia is a high-yield species.

b) Redbelly Natter: These are carnivorous species that can grow up to the size of 15 to

30cm. This variety is also called piranha. The period of cultivation of this variety

ranges from six months to one year.

c) Rohu: commonly known as Rui, it will group up to the size ranging from 15 cm to 70

cm. it is a freshwater variety. The duration of its cultivation is one to two years.

d) Catla: Also called major carp, catla can grow up to the size of 100 to 180cm in

freshwater. The duration of cultivation ranges from one to two years.

e) Anabas: These are carnivorous varieties, and they will grow up to the size of 15 to

30cm in length. Its duration of cultivation ranges from six months to one year. It can

survive without water for up to 8 hours.

f) Crab Farming: Crab is the brackish fish variety found in many parts of Kerala. It is

of two varieties: mud crab or green crab and red crab.

11
 g) Vannamei shrimp: This is a much sought-after variety of shrimp. These are

cultivated in coastal areas as it requires saline water. Biofloc farmers generally tend to

use this variety of shrimp for farming.

2.1.1.4 Advantages and Disadvantages of fish farming

Advantages of fish farming

 Stable supply with fish.

 Relief for our wild aquatic animals.

 Waste reduction related to commercial fishing.

 Protection of habitats.

 Mitigation of the endangered species problem.

 May be necessary to feed our growing world population.

 Local income source for people who stay near the seas.

 Employment opportunities are at a high rate since the production of fish is high.

 Fish farming may mitigate the starvation issue.

 Supply with large amounts of omega-3.

Disadvantages of fish farming

 Use of antibiotics.

 Use of growth hormones.

 Genetic manipulation.

 Water pollution.

 Fish feed is partially made out of wild fish.

 Problems if farm fishes escape and breed with wild fish.

 Can be regarded to be unnatural.

 Conditions in fish farms are usually quite poor.

12
  The general public may not accept fish from aquaculture.

 Fish farming is quite inefficient.

 Ecosystems are altered.

 Pests in fish farms can spread to wild aquatic animals.

 Adverse health effects for humans.

 Regulations regarding fish farming vary across countries.

 The commercial fishing industry may suffer.

2.1.2 Concept of Food Security

Food security is a flexible concept as reflected in the many attempts at definition in research

and policy usage. Food security as a concept originated only in the mid-1970s, in the

discussions of international food problems at a time of global food crisis. The initial focus of

attention was primarily on food supply problems - of assuring the availability and to some

degree the price stability of basic foodstuffs at the international and national level. That

supply-side, international and institutional set of concerns reflected the changing organization

of the global food economy that had precipitated the crisis. A process of international

negotiation followed, leading to the World Food Conference of 1974, and a new set of

institutional arrangements covering information, resources for promoting food security and

forums for dialogue on policy issues. The issues of famine, hunger and food crisis were also

being extensively examined, following the events of the mid 1970s. The outcome was a

redefinition of food security, which recognized that the behaviour of potentially vulnerable

and affected people was a critical aspect.

The idea of food security was presented for the first time at the World Food Conference in

1974 viewed solely from the perspective of having adequate availability of food on a national

scale. Today, it is a condition in which all people have access at all times to enough food of

an adequate nutritional quality for a healthy and active life (World Bank, 1986 as cited in

13
Tollens, 2000). There are four dimensions to this: (i) availability of sufficient amount of food

which is a function of food production (ii) stability of supply over time which depends on the

ability to preserve/store produced food and supplement available food through imports if

necessary (iii) access to the available food which depends on income levels and its

distribution and (iv) food utilization which encompasses procurement, ingestion and

digestion all of which are dependent on nutritional quality, education and health (Tollens,

2000).

Food security exists at both the macro and micro levels. National Food Security (NFS), the

macro dimension, is possession by a nation of the capacity to procure enough food through

production or imports to feed its population. This is a necessary condition but not a sufficient

condition for Household Food Security and Individual Food Security since food availability

on a national scale does not preclude the lack of adequate access to such food by many of the

inhabitants due to weak markets, poor infrastructure and information system, and inequality

in resource and income distribution. Various composite indices have since been developed to

measure Food Security incorporating all the dimensions of food security. Popular among

these are the Aggregate Household Food Security Index (AHFSI) by the United Nation's

Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) and the Food Security.

Experts have argued that significant food and nutrition problems exist in Nigeria (Okuneye

2012). The basic aim of deregulatory policy measures in the food sub-sector was to correct

this problem. Olayide (2012) conceived the food and nutrition problem in terms of food

supply and demand imbalance. Factors that constrain food supply and food demand

invariably affect food security. On the supply side major factors hampering the supply of

food in Nigeria are ownership of productive assets and resources which are biased against

agricultural producers, nature of farm organization and technology which are crude and

undeveloped, and the lack/primitive state of marketing infrastructures and mechanisms, all of

14
which influence food output and availability. The demand for food is affected by poor

growth rate/distributional structure of income, high food prices, preference structure which is

largely in favour of foreign products, and various socio-cultural factors relating to poor state

of nutrition education, intra household food distribution decisions, poor cooking technologies

and low access to adequate health care (Tollens, 2010).

2.1.2.1 Dimensions of Food Security

Food security is a multi-dimensional phenomenon. National and international political action

seems to require the identification of simple deficits that can be the basis for setting of

targets, thus necessitating the adoption of single, simplistic indicators for policy analysis.

Something like the “State of global food insecurity” analysis has to be undertaken. Since food

insecurity is about risks and uncertainty, the formal analysis should include both chronic sub-

nutrition and transitory, acute insecurity that reflects economic and food system volatility.

Such formal exploration is usefully complemented by multi-criteria analysis (MCA) of food

security. This should lead to qualitative, if not quantitative, comparisons. Where the focus of

investigation is on sub-nutrition, then the linkages between sub-nutrition and inadequate food

intake need to be carefully explored. Some elements that need to be considered are:

 sources of dietary energy supply - taking account, for example, of different foods,

trends in the acquisition of food from subsistence to marketing;

 climatic variability as a source of volatility and short-term nutritional stress;

 health status, especially changes in the incidence of communicable diseases, most

obviously HIV/AIDS;

 spatial distribution within countries of poverty and forms of food insecurity, drawing

on evidence from vulnerability assessment and mapping supported by the Food

Information and Vulnerability Mapping Systems (FIVIMS), the FAO and the World

Food Programme (WFP) interagency initiative.

15
It is sometimes suggested that there should be more practical use of Sen’s entitlement theory

If this were to involve the re-labelling of indicators of food needs as entitlements, it would be

less useful than, for example, reflecting entitlement failure in a formal MCA.

Entitlement as a construct introduces an ethical and human rights dimension into the

discussion of food security. There has been a tendency to give food security a too narrow

definition, little more than a proxy for chronic poverty. The opposite tendency is international

committees negotiating an all-encompassing definition, which ensures that the concept is

morally unimpeachable and politically acceptable, but unrealistically broad.

Food security in a population means that all people, at all times, have sufficient access to

food to meet their dietary needs for a productive and healthy life. The three components of

food security availability (having sufficient quantities of appropriate food

available), access  (having adequate income or other resources to access food),

and utilization/consumption (having adequate dietary intake and the ability to absorb and use

nutrients in the body) provide the basis for FANTA’s state-of-the-art technical support to

strengthen food security policies, programs, and systems in developing countries.

Our work to improve food security included:

 Conducting formative research on the political, economic, social, behavioral, and

other factors that influence food-insecure populations.

 Providing technical assistance to USAID and its implementing partners in the design

and implementation of their food security-focused programming.

 Providing technical assistance to USAID Bureaus for the monitoring and

evaluation of programs, including development of indicators and tools, capacity

building for monitoring and evaluation, and assistance with reporting and data

analysis.

2.1.2.2 Elements of Food Security

16
Four elements build the framework of food and nutrition security: availability, access, use

and utilization, and stability. The graph below illustrates the three dimensions describing the

food flow from availability and access to use and utilization as well as the aspect of

sustainability. These aspects are listed in the bottom rectangle in the graph below,

representing the temporal determinant, as well as aspects of an enabling environment or

frame conditions of Food and Nutrition Security. Stability fundamentally affects all other

elements from the basis.

Availability

Availability refers to the physical existence of food. On national level food availability is a

combination of domestic food production, commercial food imports and exports, food aid and

domestic food stocks. On household level food could be from own production or bought from

the local markets. Regarding food production, water resources are required to produce the

crops. Due to population growth and climate change, the pressure on existing natural

resources, namely land and water, increases. Impacts of climate change are often leading to

land degradation, lack of irrigation water, reduced soil moisture and therefore losses of
17
economic livelihoods. Together with an increase in conflicts over usage of water resources

(cultivation of crops for energetic use vs. cultivation of crops for nutritional use, use by other

sectors like drinking water, industry and environment), this may be a threat for long-term

food security. The Stockholm International Water Institute (SIWI) emphasizes the growing

importance of green water, i. e. the water hidden in the ground as soil moisture (while blue

water refers to water available in lakes, rivers and aquifers). With suitable adaptation

measures to soil such as irrigation systems improving water-use efficiency through

cultivation methods and technologies, or infrastructure development for water harvesting and

(re)use of marginal quality water and treated waste water, or improved soil-water

management in rain fed systems like, the resilience of agricultural systems can be

strengthened, risks reduced and livelihoods secured. Support of local water user groups and

strengthening their planning and management skills can help minimize risks of scarce

resources and reduce conflicts.

Access

Access is ensured when all households have enough resources to obtain food in sufficient

quantity, quality and diversity for a nutritious diet. This depends mainly on the amount of

household resources and on prices. In addition, accessibility is also a question of the physical,

social and policy environment. Drastic changes in these dimensions may seriously disrupt

production strategies and threaten food access of affected households. As an example,

developing countries may be affected by severe droughts or floods more and more frequently.

Accordantly, the harvest volume shrinks and the prices for food increase, affecting on the

availability and accessibility of food for households. To prevent such negative developments,

different technical adaptation measures exist. The construction of infrastructure such as small

dams and reservoirs or water spreading weirs to hold back water and raise the shallow

groundwater tables is one of them, dykes and improved drainage systems for floods are other

18
ones. In addition, the preservation and rehabilitation of ecosystems, flood sensitive planning

or early warning systems and emergency plans further enhance the capabilities to deal with

extreme weather events and to preserve the physical environment.

Use and Utilization

Use describes the socio-economic aspects of household food and nutrition security,

determined by knowledge and habits. Assuming that nutritious food is available and

accessible, the household has to decide what food to purchase and how to prepare it as well as

how to consume and allocate it within the household.

Another aspect is the biological utilization. This relates to the ability of the human body to

take food and convert it. This gained energy is very important when it comes to daily

physical activities, for example working in agriculture. Beside that utilization requires a

healthy physical environment and adequate sanitary facilities as well as the understanding

and awareness of proper health care, food preparation, and storage processes. In this context

safe drinking water plays an important role, especially for preparing food and creating a

healthy environment for the population. Safe drinking water is connected to groundwater

which is often contaminated through human, industrial or agricultural waste water in

combination with other factors 884 million people worldwide have no access to adequate

drinking water.

Stability

Stability describes the temporal dimension of food and nutrition security, respectively the

time frame over which food and nutrition security is being considered. Stability is given

when the supply on household level remains constant during the year and in the long-term.

That includes food, income and economic resources. Furthermore it is important to minimize

external risks such as natural disaster and climate change, price volatility, conflicts or

epidemics through activities and implementations improving the resilience of households.

19
Such measure include insurances e.g. against drought and crop failure as well as the

protection of the environment and the sustainable use of natural resources like land, soil and

water.

2.1.2.3 Food Security Status and Distribution in Nigeria

Some of the major factors identified to be contributing to food insecurity in Nigeria include

poverty, climate change, conflict and insecurity, increasing population, poor policy

implementation, inefficient agricultural practices, post-harvest losses and low budgetary

allocation to agriculture, among others.

In the past decade, the number of people living in extreme poverty in Nigeria has been

increasing significantly. In effect, high levels of poverty make it difficult for people to access

and afford nutritious food.

Between 2016 and 2022, the population of Nigerian men living in extreme poverty rose from

35.3 million in 2016 to 44.7 million last year just as that of women increased from 34.7

million in 2016 to 43.7 million last year, according to Statista.

In 2022, an estimated population of 88.4 million people in Nigeria lived in extreme poverty,

data on the website showed. While the number of men living on less than $1.90 per day in the

country reached around 44.7 million, the count was at 43.7 million for women.

Apart from poverty, harsh weather patterns, droughts, extreme temperatures and floods also

impact agricultural productivity and food production not only in Nigeria but also globally.

Within the past decades, the impact of climate conditions is evident on crop production

across the country’s different regions.

Data from Nigeria’s Meteorological Agency (NiMet) shows that the duration and intensity of

rainfall have changed from normal across some states over the years, with devastating

impacts on agricultural practices.

20
Last year, Nigeria witnessed one of its worst floods in the last decade as hundreds of villages

and urban centres were submerged in waters, displacing over 2.4 million people.

According to official statistics, over 600 Nigerians died in the disaster, while expansive

hectares of farmlands were also destroyed, with ripple effects on the country’s state of food

availability, affordability and safety.

2.1.2.3 Factors Influencing Household Food Security Status

Factors influencing household food security status are complex and multidimensional.

There are no universal causes of food insecurity but the phenomenon varies from country and

cultures and from one household to individual, depending on their coping strategies. Several

factors are responsible for household food insecurity in the study area. This was clear during

the survey that factors such as the socio-economic characteristics of the household are crucial

in determining household food security. The most vulnerable groups to food security are rural

households who depend on crop production for livelihood. Moreover, the relationship

between food insecurity and poverty are strongly correlated. Poverty not only leads to food

insecurity but also decreases purchasing power for other goods and services such as housing,

energy and water needed for their household.

Household food insecurity means that people either do not have access to food or are unable

to purchase food needed for family consumption. In either case, they had to suffer from the

hardships of hunger and poverty as a result of food insufficiency. Earlier researches and

literatures suggests that the causes of household food insecurity include among others, long

period of poverty, lack of adequate productive resources, corruption, fiscal imprudence, huge

debts and policy inconsistency, number of extension visits, access to proper irrigation

facilities, sustainable land management, access to market information and market

infrastructure, good electricity systems to transform and store food items, good road network

21
systems and above all, early warning systems to adapt and mitigate the effects of climate

change on food security dimensions, etc.

Moreover, the age of household members, household education level, the size of the

household, household income, the main economic activities of the household, access to

market, access to credit, household access to assistance, remittances and food aid as well as

household assets and land ownership as lamented by Mango et al. (2014) are among the other

factors that are likely to influence household food security status. This augment was

supported by Asghar and Muhammad, (2013) who reported that low household income is a

major element that can negatively affect household food status. This is evident in fact that,

households with low income lack sufficient funds to purchase food items during food

shortage and thus, are likely to face food insecurity.

Furthermore, ownership of land, access to credit and assistance (cash or kind) combined with

advance agricultural technologies have the potential to increase agricultural production and

productivity of households who depend on rain-fed agriculture for their food production

(Kassie et al. 2011). The findings further revealed that improved in agricultural technologies

such as use of improved crop varieties, and overall improvement in agronomic practices that

are geared towards increasing crop yields can significantly mitigate and reduce household

food insecurity. (Kassie et al. 2012) also opined that the risk of crop failure can be mitigated

through water use efficiency technologies, for example (drip) irrigation thereby increasing

household food production.

2.1.2.5 Food Consumption at Household Level

Household food consumption is typically used as an indicator for food security. As noted

above, food consumption will depend on non-economic factors e.g. availability and access as

well as economic factors e.g. prices and incomes among others. The question then that arises

is how to model food consumption at household level. Theoretically, micro economic theory

22
provides the standard approach by which to model consumption, with the traditional

consumption theory investigating the relationship between demand for goods and their prices

and the incomes (or expenditures) of consumers under the assumption of utility maximization

and rational behavior. However, for food consumption, the assumption is that households

consider characteristics such as energy content of the food, taste, health, status and

environmental properties and financial cost when deciding what to consume (Fischer,

undated). It is assumed that decisions on what to consume and how much to consumer are

determined by the household head, where the need for calories can be considered the main

driver for food consumption. It is worth noting that intra-household food distribution patterns

determine the dietary intake and nutrition level of each individual member.

2.2 Theoretical Review

2.2.1 Ester Boserup’s Theory on Population (Boserup 1965)

The Boserup theory states that humanity will develop new agricultural practices to support

the increase of population. This theory was detailed in her book, published in 1965, The

Conditions of Agricultural Growth: The Economics of Agrarian Change under Population

Pressure. Boserup maintains that population growth is the cause rather than the result of

agricultural change and that the principal change is the intensification of land use. The theory

of agricultural development posed by Boserup is more subtle and complex than that of any of

her predecessors. She sees population pressure as a major cause of change in land use,

agricultural technology, land tenure systems, and settlement form.

Boserup argues that population growth is independent of food supply and that population

increase is a cause of changes in agriculture. The principal means of increasing agricultural

output is intensification. Boserup's work has had a varied response from readers; other

economists have been less than enthusiastic. It might seem as if the critics of Boserup's

theory have left it in tatters. Her central argument, that intensification reduces labor

23
productivity, remains unproven. There are few who would agree that an increase in the

frequency of cropping is the only possible response to population pressure; the extensive

margin can be extended, higher yielding crops adopted, and methods that increase yields

introduced independently of increases in the frequency of cropping. Emigration or the control

of numbers may relieve population pressure. Intensification can also take place without

population pressure, under the stimulus of urban growth or the development of trade. It is

difficult to accept that population pressure is the only cause or agrarian change or that the

increased frequency of cropping is the only response to population pressure, yet the thesis is a

fruitful interpretation of agrarian change. 

2.2.2 The Lewis Model

This theory was propounded by Sir Arthur Lewis, (1954). The "Dual Sector Model" is a

theory of development in which surplus labor from traditional agricultural sector is

transferred to the modern industrial sector whose growth over time absorbs the surplus labor,

promotes industrialization and stimulates sustained development.

In the model, the traditional agricultural sector is typically characterized by low wages, an

abundance of labour, and low productivity through a labour intensive production process. In

contrast, the modern manufacturing sector is defined by higher wage rates than the

agricultural sector, higher marginal productivity, and a demand for more workers initially.

Also, the manufacturing sector is assumed to use a production process that is capital

intensive, so investment and capital formation in the manufacturing sector are possible over

time as capitalists' profits are reinvested in the capital stock. Improvement in the marginal

productivity of labour in the agricultural sector is assumed to be a low priority as the

hypothetical developing nation's investment is going towards the physical capital stock in the

manufacturing sector.

24
Since the agricultural sector has a limited amount of land to cultivate, the marginal product of

an additional farmer is assumed to be zero as the law of diminishing marginal returns has run

its course due to the fixed input, land. As a result, the agricultural sector has a quantity of

farm workers that are not contributing to agricultural output since their marginal

productivities are zero. This group of farmers that is not producing any output is termed

surplus labour since this cohort could be moved to another sector with no effect on

agricultural output. (The term surplus labour here is not being used in a Marxist context and

only refers to the unproductive workers in the agricultural sector)

If a quantity of workers moves from the agricultural to the manufacturing sector equal to the

quantity of surplus labour in the agricultural sector, regardless of who actually transfers,

general welfare and productivity will improve. Total agricultural product will remain

unchanged while total industrial product increases due to the addition of labour, but the

additional labour also drives down marginal productivity and wages in the manufacturing

sector. Over time as this transition continues to take place and investment results in increases

in the capital stock, the marginal productivity of workers in the manufacturing will be driven

up by capital formation and driven down by additional workers entering the manufacturing

sector. Eventually, the wage rates of the agricultural and manufacturing sectors will equalise

as workers leave the agriculture sector for the manufacturing sector, increasing marginal

productivity and wages in agriculture whilst driving down productivity and wages in

manufacturing. The end result of this transition process is that the agricultural wage equals

the manufacturing wage, the agricultural marginal product of labour equals the manufacturing

marginal product of labour, and no further manufacturing sector enlargement takes place as

workers no longer have a monetary incentive to transition.

2.3 Empirical Reviews

25
Lawal, (2022) study examined the determinants of food utilization in Nigeria. It employed

Auto Regressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) cointegration approach on annual time series data.

The results of the study reveal the existence of long run relationship between food security

index, level of education, food exports, educational attainment, rural and urban population.

The results further indicate that educational attainment and urban population have a positive

and statistically significant effect on educational attainment on food utilization while both

food exports and the share of rural population to total population have a negative effect e on

food utilization.

Adegoroye, A., Olutumise, and Aturamu, A. O., (2021), study examined the food security

status and coping strategies to food insecurity of rural arable crop farming households in

Ondo State, Nigeria. Primary data were used and a multistage sampling procedure was used

to select 150 respondents. Food Security Index (FSI), Probit regression model and Coping

Strategy Use Index (CSUI) were employed to carry out the analysis. The empirical findings

revealed that (54%) of rural arable crop farming households in the study area were food

secure based on the recommended minimum calorie of 2260Kcal. Furthermore, the empirical

analysis revealed that gender of the household head, household size, farm size and farm

income of the household head had significant influence on the household food security status.

The most widely employed coping strategy was withdrawal from personal savings as

indicated by 14.82 percent of household and while reliance on less expensive food and

purchasing food on credit were ranked second and third respectively with 13.66 and 12.85

percent by the food insecure households. In other to ensure sustainable food security among

the households.

Mebrie, (2023), research study analysed the household food security situation in

Libokemkem Woreda of the Amhara region in Ethiopia using 285 randomly selected sample

households. The Household Calorie Acquisition (HCA) is used to measure the diet quantity

26
aspect of food insecurity, and 225 kg/year/ AE is used as a food security threshold. The

Household Diet Diversity Score (HHDDS) is used to measure the diet quality aspect of food

insecurity, and consuming four food groups is used as a food security line. Approximately 83

per cent of the total households achieved minimum food security status in terms of diet

quantity, and 64 per cent were food secure in terms of diet quality. Determinants of food

security in terms of diet quantity and quality were analysed using Tobit and logit regression

models, respectively. Sex, family size, farm size, number of oxen, expenditure on agricultural

technology, agroecology zone and distance from market centre are statistically significant

determinants of food security in terms of diet quantity. On the other hand, sex, education

status, off-farming activities, livestock ownership and agroecology zone are statistically

significant determinants of food security in terms of diet quality or diversity.

Joshi and Joshi, (2016), used agricultural census data of 2011/12 to identify the determinants

of household level food security in the eastern region of Nepal. Being the censored type

sample population, tobit model has been used. On an average, the households experienced no

food shortages for 8.5 months, the cultivated land per household was 0.85 hectare and around

34 percent of the cultivated land was irrigated. The results showed that the size of the land

holding, nearness to the market, male headed household, households’ members with

agriculture and allied occupation and the educational level of household head were positive

and significant variables while household size was negative and significant variable to food

security. It was also revealed that the hills and the mountains were more food insecure than

Terai region. Hence, investment in human capital, creation of off-farm employment

opportunities, increasing physical access through markets and roads development and access

to land and augmenting their quality are needed to further improve the food security situation.

Okpokiri, Agwu, and Onwukwe, (2017), conducted a study and determine the status of food

security in the study area, to identify the major determinants of food security among the rural

27
household and challenges faced by households in their bid to stay food secure. 60 farming

households were randomly selected in the three agricultural zones of Abia State; food

security index and probit analysis model were the major tools used in the study. The survey

result shows that about 36.7% of sampled farmers were food secure. Farm Size, marital

status, gender, household size, and farm income were significant variables having varying

degrees of influence on household food security.

Amao and Ayantoye, (2017), analyze food insecurity status among farming households.

Panel data survey method was used to collect relevant information from 283 rural households

in North Central, Nigeria from September to December 2013 during food crops harvesting

season (HS) and from April to June 2014, during food crops planting season (PS). Data were

collected with well-structured questionnaire and were analyzed using descriptive statistics,

FGT 1984 Food insecurity index and Probit regression model. Based on the recommended

daily energy level (L) of 2250 kcal, the food insecurity line (Z) was estimated at ₦1652.38

per month per adult equivalent during the harvesting season, while the food insecurity line

(Z) during the planting season was ₦1795.80 per month per adult equivalent. Forty-two and

seventy-eight percent of the households were food insecure during the harvesting and

planting seasons respectively. Probit regression analysis revealed that household size,

educational status of head, age, asset ownership, remittances, occupational status of head, and

access to credit and access to extension services are factors that significantly determine these

movements.

Akua and Kwamena, (2019), study adopted the Propensity Score Matching (PSM) approach

in a logit framework to achieve this objective and address the endogeneity from the bias of

self-selection by creating a statistically similar-looking control group. The results suggest that

fish farming households have higher nutritional quality and frequency of food consumed than

the non-fish farming households through direct consumption. The probability of adopting fish

28
farming increases with wealth, location, ecological zone and household size but decreases

with household income per capita. The average effect of adopting fish farming on household

nutritional quality is 15.5 Food Consumption Score points. Policies that encourage women to

engage in not only fish processing, but production as well are advised.

Agboola, Akintunde, Jimoh, and Ajayi, (2020), measured food security status among farming

households in Lagelu Local Government area Oyo State, Nigeria. The complexity of the issue

of food security makes it more imperative for such study as it will contribute to the already

existing literature on food security. Well-structured questionnaire was used to source

information from 120 randomly selected farming households. Descriptive statistics, and

regression analysis were used to analyze the data. About 66.7% of the households were food

insecure. The factors influencing food security status were gender, age, level of education,

marital status and primary occupation of the respondents.

Endalew. Zeleke, Yenewa, and Ayalew, (2020), research study examined the determinants of

farm households’ participation in fish production. For this purpose, a cross-sectional survey

with 120 households was conducted to collect quantitative primary data. Descriptive

statistics, inferential statistics and binary logit model were used to analyze the data. The result

indicated that farm households’ participation in fish production is determined by various

socioeconomic and institutional factors. Age of the household head, educational status,

household size, extension service and access to modern transportation service had a

statistically significant effect on farm households’ participation in fish production.

Gill1, Kaeser, Ader, Urban and Bucyana, (2019). characterized the household food security

landscape within an intervention’s proposed target area, so that stakeholders can design

appropriate food security interventions. The food security status of households in Musanze

District, northwest Rwanda, was measured using both an experience-based scale and a 24-

hour dietary recall method, and calculated regression models to identify the significant

29
determinants of household food security in Musanze District. Findings indicated that urban

households which owned multiple assets, and had a household member with an education

beyond primary school were most likely to be food secure in Musanze District. Amount of

food purchased from the market was also identified as a significant determinant of household

food security in the dietary recall model. Implications include the need to: 1) use multiple

measures for food security characterization, 2) consider multiple educational pathways in

food security interventions for long-term, sustainable impact, and, 3) base food security

interventions on appropriate-scale data, including spatial context, to result in intended

impacts.

Mamma, S. M. & Badjie, M., (2019), investigated the factors influencing households’ food

security status. Semi structured questionnaires were used to collect data from 219 rural farm

households. Using a logistic regression model, the result show that, age of household head,

household income, household assets, household economic activities, assistance, remittance

and household land ownership had significant effect on households’ food security status.

From the findings, it is evident that food insecurity remains a challenge that affects rural

farmers in the southern part of central river region of The Gambia. Thus, households need be

encouraged to diversify their farming practices such as growing other non-traditional food

crops and other economic activities to attain food security.

Ubokudom, Namso, Egbe and Kesit, (2017), analyzed the food security status of rural farm

households in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria. A multistage sampling procedure was employed to

select 343 food crop farmers in the area. Primary data were obtained through survey and were

analyzed using descriptive statistics, food security index and binary logistic regression model.

The results showed that about 78% of the respondents were married, with mean household

size of 6 persons. Most (58%) of the respondents were male, with mean educational level of

11 years. About 91% applied fertilizer, while 60% adopted soil conservation practices. The

30
results further indicated that educational level (p> 0.10), marital status (p>0.05), use of

fertilizer (p>0.10) and adoption of soil conservation practices (p>0.10) positively influenced

the odd of the households being food secure, while household size (p>0.05) and dependency

ratio negatively influenced to the odd of the household being food secure.

Kuwornu, Suleyman and Amegashie, (2013), examined the Food Security Status of Farming

Households in the Forest Belt of the Central Region of Ghana. A multistage sampling

technique was used to select the respondents that were interviewed. In all 134 farming

households were interviewed but 120 were selected for analysis after removing the

questionnaires which were not properly administered. The households were selected from

eight communities in two districts. Food consumption data of 851 individuals in 120

households were used for the analysis. The study reveals that the majority of the farming

households (60%) were found to be food insecure. Further, the Binary Logit Model results

reveal that an increase in household’s income, having access to credit as well as increase in

the quantity of own farm production improve the food security status of farming households

in the Forest Belt of the Central Region of Ghana. However, holding all other factors

constant, increases in non-working member of households worsens the food security status of

farming households. Most of the food insecurity coping strategies adopted by households are

not severe and can only be used to avert the impact of food insecurity on a temporal basis.

Biam and Tavershima, (2020), determined Food Security Status of Rural Farming

Households in Benue State, Nigeria. Simple and stratified random sampling techniques were

employed in selecting a sample size of 360 rural respondent farming households. A structured

questionnaire was administered to the respondents and data collected were subjected to

descriptive statistics such as frequency counts, percentages and means, and inferential

statistics such as food security index and logistic regression model. Results of data analysis

revealed that 84.4% of the respondents with a mean age of 36 years were young and active in

31
agricultural production. In addition, 84.2% of the respondent households were male-headed,

53.3% had an output of over 1500 kg with a mean of 1394.59kg, 36.9% had large household

size with an average of 8 persons, 46.9% had low annual income with a mean value of N64,

043.54 (173.0910 USD), 40% had farm size of over 3.1 hectares with a mean of 2.18 hectares

and 69% had at least primary education. The results of food security analysis showed that

50.3% of the rural farming households were food insecure. The logistic regression model

results showed household size and household head education as significant variables at 5%

probability level among ten variables. Eleven point eight (11.8) percent of the respondents

identified poverty as the problem affecting food security among the rural farming households.

The implications of the rural farming household food security status for policy and poverty

reduction were that food security measures alone were likely to have a limited effect on the

income, food and nutritional wellbeing of the rural farming households, without a food

mediated poverty reduction policy.

Gisaor, Abdulwahab & Samuel, (2022), investigated the impact of fish farming on the

welfare of the farming households in Ibi Local Government Area. Using descriptive analysis

and logit regression to analyze the data obtained from 60 respondents through questionnaire

administration, it was found that adults between 21 and 40 years dominated the population

with secondary qualification. Majority were male who were majorly married with income

generation as the main reason for fish farming venture. Inadequate capital, high cost of

feeds/vaccine, insecurity, credit purchases from customers and poor technical services were

the major obstacles to fish farming.

Kwamena, Akua, Reginald and Sebastian, (2023), assessed the benefits that manifest

themselves in nutritional outcomes from households engaged in fish farming in Ghana

(Ashanti and Brong Ahafo regions) and Tanzania (Morogoro and Mbeya regions). Fish is an

important source of protein and essential micronutrients for many African households and

32
participation in fish farming could have both direct effect through fish consumption, and

indirect pathway through an income effect for nutritional impact. The study used the World

Food Program’s (WFP) Food Consumption Score (FCS) measures to assess nutritional

quality with a target on

fish. The average FCS value for fish-farming households in Ghana was 72 while that of non-

fish-farming households (control group) was 68. In Tanzania, it was 56 for fish-farming

households and 58 for the control group respectively. The results suggest that in Ghana, fish-

farming households have higher diet

diversity and food security than the non-fish-farming households, while in Tanzania, the

opposite is the case. A two-stage least squares (2SLS) approach used to analyze the data for

Ghana showed that household income, mother’s education and residing in an urban area

positively affect FCS and consequently dietary diversity and nutritional quality. In Tanzania

however, an ordinary least squares (OLS) analysis of the data showed household income,

residing in an urban area and the index for wealth positively affect dietary diversity and

nutritional quality. The mother’s education appears to be a very strong predictor of the

household FCS because of her being the main caregiver, and her influence on the household’s

nutrition can be substantial. Moreover, an educated person is assumed to know the right kinds

of foods to buy in terms of nutritional quality as well as the dietary diversity to boost

household

health. The index for wealth is a good indicator of the household’s socioeconomic status and

is assumed to influence the purchase and consumption of high-quality and nutritionally

balanced foods.

Amao, (2013), investigated the functioning poverty among fish farming households in

Southwest Nigeria. Oyo and Osun states were selected in Southwestern Nigeria based on the

large population of fish farmers in the two states. Ten fish farmers each were randomly

33
selected from randomly sampled fifteen Local Government Areas (LGAs) in each state.

However, only 279 gave consistent information which were used for the analysis. Data were

analyzed using descriptive statistics, input distance function and Foster, Greer and Thorbecke

(FGT) poverty measures. Total durable asset, education, housing condition and per capita

income (in declining order of importance) contributed to reduction of poverty. The least

contributors to poverty reduction (in declining order of importance) were empowerment and

participation, health, security, leisure and water poverty. At poverty functioning line of 12.99,

84.2% of the fish farmers were poor. Poverty incidence was highest among household heads

without formal education (95.3%), headed by persons with age range of 31-40 years (95.1%)

and those headed by divorced or separated persons (64.1%). Similarly, households headed by

persons with age range of 41-50 years, without formal education, having more than ten

members and married had the highest poverty intensities of 21.6%, 30.2%, 30.6% and 49.2%

respectively.

Béné, (2018), Small-scale fisheries in developing countries have often been perceived as a

low-productivity, backward informal sector. As a result, they are rarely considered as a

possible entry point in poverty reduction and rural development planning. Data collected in

Democratic Republic of Congo show that this perception may not reflect the empirical

reality. Through group and individual household interviews we investigate the dual role of

fish as food and cash-crop in this very remote rural area of Congo. The data show that-like in

a majority of inland fisheries- fishing is operated seasonally as part of a household-based

multiactivity livelihood strategy. Analysis shows that the poorest households rely more

heavily on fishing for their supply of protein-rich food, in particular through the fish caught

by women. Fishing also appears to be the main source of cash income for the majority of the

households, including farmers. In fact, households which have the opportunity to engage in

fishing often display a higher income than households.

34
Plamootti and Kumar, (2022), research study made an attempt to dwell on the performance of

some of the selected fish farming households in Kerala, India. Responses from 124 fish

farmers were collected from Ernakulam, Kollam, and Alappuzha Districts. The study

revealed that biofloc fish farming is a female dominant one, while pond fish farming is a

male dominant one. The mean age of fish farmers in the category of biofloc fish farming

turns out to be 37 years; whereas in the case of cage and pond fish farming, it is 44 years.

Excess rain causes many hardships to the farmers. In the case of cage fish farmers, only 7

percent do not seek any credit. Among those who source credit from money lenders, pond

fish farmers stand out with 60 percent. Among the fish farmers, 24.19 percent opine that they

receive a profit set above the normal profit. 39 percent consider labor cost as the most

volatile. Being more labor-intensive and eco-system-based, pond fishing can accelerate both

fish production and livelihood avenues for poor and disadvantaged rural households.

CHAPTER THREE

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Area of the Study

This study will be carried out in Oshimili South Local Government Area of Delta state,

Nigeria. It is one of the 25 LGA in the state. It has a landmass of approximately 603km 2 and

located is within latitudes 60430N and 60150N, and longitudes 60300E and 60150E. It is seated

on the rain forest belt with very large coverage of fresh water swamps and marshy soil

occasioned by the River Niger and its tributaries/estuaries.

According to data from the Nigeria Meteorological Agency reported in the Annual Abstracts

of Statistics, 2011 published by the National Bureau of Statistics, the average annual rain fall

of the area is put at 1,765.8mm, minimum and maximum temperature at 24 c and

35
33c respectively, while the relative humidity of the area (between 2006 & 2010) at 0900 GMT

was put at between 83.2% and 84.7%.

3.2 Sampling Technique

Purposive and random sampling techniques will be used to select 70 respondents for the

study. Firstly, two (2) fishing areas will be purposively selected from the- fishing areas in the

L.G.A. the fishing areas are to be selected based on the preponderance of fishing activities.

Lastly, 35 fish farmers will be randomly selected from each of the two fishing areas already

selected.

3.3 Data Collection

For this study, the data will be collected from primary sources. Structured questionnaire and

oral interview will be used in getting the information from the respondents. The information

to be collected will include: (a) socio-economic characteristics of the respondents;(b) their

household expenditures on food; (c) their fishing tools and types of fish caught/reared;

(d)their coping measures against food insecurity and hunger; and (e)their constraints to fish

production.

3.4 Analytical Technique

Objectives (i), (ii), (v) and (vi) will be realized using descriptive statistics such as frequency

distribution and percentages, means and mean scores on invert rating scales.

Objectives (iii) will be achieved using food security index. This index is specified as follows:

Per capita food expenditure for theith household

Fi=
2 ………………. (1)
mean per capita food expenditure for all households
3

Where:

Fi= food security index of the ith household

When Fi ≥ 1 = ith household is food secured

36
 Fi < 1 = ith household is food unsecured

Objective (iv) will be achieved using multiple regression analysis. This is specified explicitly

Equation (2) to (5) in the various functional forms

ϒ = a0 + b1X1 + b2X2 + b3X3 +…..+ bn Xn + ei (linear functional form) (2)

ϒ = …………………………………… (Semi-log functional form) (3)

ϒ = …………………………………… (Double-log functional form) (4)

ϒ = …………………………..……….. (Exponential functional form) (5)

Where;

ϒ = food security index

X1 = sex

X2 = age

X3 = marital status

X4 = household

X5 = level of education (years)

X6 = primary occupation (1 if fishing, 0 otherwise)

X7 = fishing experience (years)

X8 = fish income ()

X9 = membership of cooperative society/ trade union

X10 = purpose of fishing activity (I if commercial, 0 subsistence)

a0 = constant

b1 - b10 = parameter estimates

ei= error term

The hypothesis of the study will be achieved using student’s t-test analysis. This is specified

in Equation 6

bˆi−bi
t=
σ ( bˆi)

37
Where:

t = t-test

bi= estimated value of bi

bi = actual value of bi

σ (bi)= standard error of bˆi

REFERENCES
Abdulai, A.; Aubert, D. A (2004). Cross-Section of Household Demand for Food and
Nutrients in Tanzania. Agric. Econ., 31, 67–79. [CrossRef]
Adegoroye, A., Olutumise, A. I. & Aturamu, A. O., (2021). Determinants of Food Security
Status and Coping Strategies to Food Insecurity among Rural Crop Farming
Households in Ondo State, Nigeria. European Journal of Nutrition & Food Safety,
13(7), 39-50; Article no. EJNFS.76266 ISSN: 2347-5641
Adegoroye, A., Olutumise, A. I. & Aturamu, O. A., (2021). Determinants of Food Security
Status and Coping Strategies to Food Insecurity among Rural Crop Farming
Households in Ondo State, Nigeria. European Journal of Nutrition & Food Safety,
13(7): 39-50, Article no. EJNFS.76266 ISSN: 2347-5641
African States Bordering the Atlantic Ocean, (2017). Fishery and Aquaculture Industry in
Ghana. Series Report No. 1 of the Review of the Fishery and Aquaculture Industry in
the 22 ATFALCO Member States.

38
Afro-Asian Rural Development Organization (2010). Food Security Global Trends and
Perspective. Report of the 32nd RECA Seminar; AARDO: Delhi, India, 2010.
Agboola, T. O. Akintunde, O. K., Jimoh, L.O. & Ajayi, F. O., (2020). Determinants of The
Food Security Status of Farming Households in Lagelu Local Government Area of
Oyo State, Nigeria. Applied Tropical Agriculture, 25(2), 84-91
Aiga, H.; Matsuoka, S.; Kuroiwa, C.; Yamamoto, S. (2009). Malnutrition among Children in
Rural Malawian Fish-Farming Households. Trans. R. Soc. Trop. Med. Hyg., 103,
827–833. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ajayi C. O, Olutumise A. I. (2018). Determinants of Food Security and Technical Efficiency
of Cassava Farmers in Ondo State, Nigeria. International Food and Agribusiness
Management Review, 21(7): 915-928.
Akua, S. A. & Kwamena, K. Q., (2019). Assessment of Household Food Security in Fish
Farming Communities in Ghana. Sustainability, 11(2), 2807; doi:10.3390/su11102807
Amao, J. O. & Ayantoye K., (2017). Analysis of food insecurity status among farming
households in North Central Nigeria. Int. J. Adv. Agric. Res. (IJAAR), 5(2), 10-22,
ISSN 2053-1265
Amao, J. O., (2013). Investigating Functioning Poverty among Fish Farming Households in
Nigeria: An Input Distance Function Approach. American-Eurasian J. Agric. &
Environ. Sci., 13 (10): 1440-1447, ISSN 1818-6769: DOI:
10.5829/idosi.aejaes.2013.13.10.1281
Amare, M.; Asfaw, S.; Shiferaw, B. (2012). Welfare Impacts of Maize-Pigeon Pea
Intensification in Tanzania. Agric. Econ., 43, 27–43. [CrossRef]
Béné, C., (2018). Contribution of Fishing to Households’ Economy-Evidence from Fisher-
Farmer Communities in Congo. IIFET 2018 Vietnam Proceedings, 1(1), 1-11.
Bezu, S.; Kassie, G.T.; Shiferaw, B.; Ricker-Gilbert, J. (2014). Impact of Improved Maize
Adoption onn Welfare of Farm Households in Malawi: A Panel Data Analysis. World
Dev., 59, 120–131. [CrossRef]
Biam, C. K. & Tavershima, T., (2020). Food Security Status of Rural Farming Households in
Benue State, Nigeria. Afr. J. Food Agric. Nutr. Dev., 20(2): 15677-15694 DOI:
10.18697/ajfand.90.17980
Birara E., Melese Z., Workneh Y. & Zemen, A., (2020) Determinants of farm households’
participation in fish production in Southwest Ethiopia, Cogent Food & Agriculture,
6:1, 1728107, DOI: 10.1080/23311932.2020.1728107
Endalew. B., Zeleke, M, Yenewa, W & Ayalew, Z., (2020). Determinants of farm
households’ participation in fish production in Southwest Ethiopia. Cogent Food &
Agriculture. Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Science Research Article, 1(1), 1-12,
https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2020.1728107

39
Ghana Fisheries and Aquaculture Development Plan (2017). Republic of Ghana Fisheries and
Aquaculture Development Sector Development Plan. Available online:
Gill1, T., Kaeser, A., Ader, D., Urban, E. & Bucyana, T., (2019). Determinants of Household
Food Security in Musanze District, Rwanda. International Journal of Agriculture and
Food Security, 6(1), 168-182, ISSN: 0812-3497
Gisaor, V. I., Abdulwahab, S. & Samuel, P. A., (2022). The Impact of Fish Farming on the
Welfare of Selected Households in Ibi Local Government Area of Taraba State,
Nigeria. Studies in Economics & International Finance, 2(2), 243-256. https://DOI:
10.47509/SEIF.2022.v02i02.07
Joshi, G. R. & Joshi, N. B. (2016). Determinants of Household Food Security in the Eastern
Region of Nepal. SAARC Journal of Agriculture, 14(2): 174-188 doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/sja.v14i2.31257
Karikari, A.Y. (2016). Assessment of Environmental Impacts of Cage Aquaculture on Lake
Volta of Ghana. Ph.D. Thesis, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and
Technology, Kumasi, Ghana.
Kassam, L. (2014). Aquaculture and Food Security, Poverty Alleviation and Nutrition in
Ghana: Case Study Prepared for the Aquaculture for Food Security, Poverty
Alleviation and Nutrition Project; WorldFish Centre: Penang, Malaysia.
Kawarazuka, N. (2010). The Contribution of Fish Intake Aquaculture, and Small-Scale
Fisheries to Improving Food and Nutrition Security: A Literature Review; WorldFish
Center: Penang, Malaysia.
Kuwornu, J. K.M., Suleyman, D. M. & Amegashie, D. P. K., (2013). Analysis of Food
Security Status of Farming Households in the Forest Belt of the Central Region of
Ghana. Russian Journal of Agricultural and Socio-Economic Sciences, 1(13), 26-42.
Kwamena, Q., Akua, A., Reginald, A., & Sebastian C., (2023). Assessing the Nutritional
Impact of Aquaculture Policy in Fish Farming Districts in Tanzania and Ghana.
Human Nutrition and Human Health Impacts of Aquaculture, 1(1), 51-62.
Lawal, M. M., (2022). Examination of The Determinants of Food Utilization in Nigeria:
ARDL Cointegration Approach. UMYU Journal of Accounting and Finance
Research, 3(1), 203-218, ISSN: 2795-3831 E-ISSN: 2795-3823
Mamma, S. M. & Badjie, M., (2019). Factors Influencing Households’ Food Security Status
among Rural Farmers in The Central River Region South of the Gambia. Journal of
the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences (2017), doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssas.2017.05.003
Mango N, Zamasiya B, Makate C, Nyikahadzoi K, Siziba, S. (2018). Factors Influencing
Household Food Security among Smallholder Farmers in the Mudzi District of
Zimbabwe. Dev South Afr., 31(4): 625–40.
Available:https://doi.org/10.1080/0376835X.2014.911694.

40
Maxwell, D.; Coates, J.; Vaitla, B. (2013). How Do Different Indicators of Household Food
Security Compare? Empirical Evidence from Tigray; Feinstein International Center,
Tufts University: Somerville, MA, USA.
Mebrie, T., (2023). Rural household food security status and its determinants in Libokemkem
Woreda of the Amhara region, North Western Ethiopia. Journal of Poverty and
Social Justice, 20(20), 1–24, Print ISSN 1759-8273 Online ISSN 1759-8281;
https://doi.org/10.1332/175982721X16760300561102
Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture Development (2012). Fish Production Percentage
Contribution by Sector. Available online: www.mofad.gov.gh (accessed on 14
September 2016).
Ministry of Fisheries and Aquaculture Development (2016). Annual Report; Ministry of
Fisheries and Aquaculture Development: Accra, Ghana. Available online:
www.mofad.gov.gh (accessed on 14 April 2023).
Niles, M. T, Neff, R, Biehl, E, Bertmann, F, & Morgan E. (2020) Food access and security
during coronavirus survey (Internet); Available:https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/RQ6
NMG.
Nyanteng, V.K. (2013). Asuming-Brempong, S. The Role of Agriculture in Food Security in
Ghana. In Proceedings of the Roles of Agriculture International Conference, Rome,
Italy, 20–22 October 2014.
Odei, D. K. (2015). Sustainable Development of Aquaculture on the Volta Lake A Case
Study of the Asuogyaman District in the Eastern Region of Ghana. Master’s Thesis,
the Arctic University of Norway, Tromso, Norway.
Okpokiri, C. I, Agwu, N. M. & Onwukwe, F. O (2017). Assessment of Food Security Status
of Farming Households in Abia State, Nigeria. The Nigerian Agricultural Journal,
48(2), 93-98.
Otunaiya A. O, & Ibidunni O. S. (2014). Determinants of food security among rural farming
households in Ogun State, Nigeria. J. Sust. Dev. Afr.,16:33-44.
Plamootti, M. & Kumar B. P., (2022). The Prospects and Problems of Rural Household
Based Aquaculture: A Study of Selected Fish Farming Households in Kerala, India.
Egyptian Journal of Aquatic Biology & Fisheries, 26(4), 405-427, ISSN 1110-6131
Rurangwa, E.; Agyakwah, S. K.; Boon, H. & Bolman, B.C. (2015). Development of
Aquaculture in Ghana: Analysis of Fish Value Chain and Potential Business Cases;
Wageningen University and Research Centre: Gelderland, The Netherlands.
Saaka, M.; Osman, S.M. (2013). Does Household Food Insecurity Affect the Nutritional
Status of Preschool Children Aged 6-36 Months? University of Development Studies:
Tamale, Ghana.

41
Skonhoft, A.; Gobena, A. (2009). Fisheries and the Right to Food: Implementing the Right
Food in National Fisheries Legislation; Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of
the United Nations: Rome, Italy.
Thilsted, S.H.; James, D.; Toppe, J.; Subasinghe, R.; Karunasagar, I. (2014) Maximizing the
Contribution of Fish to Human Nutrition. In Proceedings of the ICN2 Second
International Conference on Nutrition, Rome, Italy, 19–21.
Ubokudom, E. O., Namso, N. F., Egbe, B. E. & Kesit, K. N., (2017). Household level food
status and its determinants among rural farmers in Akwa Ibom State, Nigeria.
Agricultural Science Research Journal, 7(10): 297-303, ISSN: 2026 –6073
Vigani, M.; Magrini, E. (2014). Technology Adoption and the Multiple Dimensions of Food
Security: The Case of Maize in Tanzania. In Proceedings of the EAAE Congress,
Ljubljana, Slovenia, 26–29.

42