Impact of push-pull technology on the nutritional status of farmers’ children in western Kenya

  • N.O. Ogot
  • J.O. Pittchar
  • C.A.O. Midega
  • Z.R. Khan
Keywords: Push-pull Technology (PPT), Non Push-pull Technology (NPPT), nutrition, dietary diversity, food security, Body Mass Index (BMI), agriculture

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

Published
2017-12-05
Section
Articles

Journal Identifiers


eISSN: 1684-5374
print ISSN: 1684-5358