Agricultural support services and food security

Abstract

The study assessed the contribution of Agricultural Intensification Programme on Household Food Security among Smallholder Farmers in Kano State, Nigeria. The relationship between Enterprise Diversification, Agricultural Support and Market to Food Security was analysed. The study adopted descriptive and correlation research designs using both quantitative and qualitative approaches on a sample of 378 respondents. Data collection was achieved through Self-Administered Questionnaire, Interview Guide, Focus Group Discussion, primary and Secondary Document Analysis. The study made the following important findings: One, at the preliminary level, it was discovered that there is relationship between enterprise diversification and household food security. However, mixed farming (r = 0.481, p<0.00) had a more positive significant relationship with food security than mixed cropping (r = 0.364, p<0.00). At the confirmatory level, the two enterprise diversification methods namely, mixed cropping and mixed farming explained 26.7% of the variation in food security (adjusted R2 = 0.267). The regression model is significant at (F = 64.510, p< 0.05). This means there is positive and significant relationship between mixed cropping and household food security (β = 0.215, p = 0.000) and between mixed farming and household food security (β = 0.402, p = 0.000). However, their respective betas suggested that mixed farming is the most significant predictor of household food security followed by mixed cropping. Two, at the preliminary level, it was also established that there is a positive significant relationship between agricultural support and food security. However, services (r = 0.441, p< 0.00), had a more positive significant relationship than inputs (r = 0.216, p< 0.00). At the confirmatory level, the results showed that, the two agricultural support methods namely input and services explained 24.5% of the variation in household food security (adjusted R2 = 0.245). The regression model is significant (F = 57.171, p<0.05). Meaning that there is relationship between input and household food security (β = 0.244, p = 0.000) and between services and food security (β = 0.445, p = 0.000). However, their respective betas suggested that service is the most significant predictor of household food security followed by inputs respectively. Three, at the preliminary level, it was also discovered that there is relationship between market and food security. However, food price (r = 0.497, p< 0.00) had a more significant relationship than food supply (r = 0.191, p< 0.00). At the confirmatory level, the results showed that, the two market variables namely stability of supply and stability of price explained 24.5% of the variation in food security (adjusted R2 = 0.245). The regression model is significant at (F = 57.171, p< 0.05). However, there is no relationship between food supply and household food security (β = 0.055, p = 0.256 > 0.05) but there is positive significant relationship between food price and food security (β = 0.481, p < 0.05). Therefore, stability of food prices is a positive significant predictor of food security while stability of food supply was not. It is concluded that household food security can be achieved through enterprise diversification, agricultural support and expanded food market when other production factors such as climatic and socio-cultural orientation were addressed so that more food can be produced to make it available, accessible and affordable in the state.