COMPUTING FOOD INTAKE, THE REQUIREMENT, AND WEIGHTING THE

RELATIVE RISK BETWEEN FOOD SECURE AND INSECURE HOUSEHOLDS IN

RURAL AREAS OF ETHIOPIA: THE CASE OF WEST HARARGHE ZONE

Author: Firew Hailemariam Mamo

Oda Bultum University, College of Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Economics, Chiro,

Ethiopia

Email address: hfirew993@gmail.com

Corresponding author: Firew Hailemariam Mamo

Abstract

This case study was conducted in west hararghe zone of Oromia region of Ethiopia. The study
selected sample of households for individual questioning, using a multi-stage sampling. This
research before all intended to measure the food security status of household, based on which
households would be compared by picking out various influencing factors. Food security status
was measured using the Household Food Balance Model (HFBM), to examine whether a
household is secured for food or not and in such away, obtained 1973 kilo calorie per individual;
kilo calorie actually taken, and 2108 kilo calorie; the needed. Facts from the study revealed that
to the year to which the data represented, either comparing with 2100 kcal or even with the level
actually required, no sensitive issues were found regarding food insecurity. But, to have the
knowledge in which amongst the study areas, would become more vulnerability to food
insecurity, the scale of evaluating food security was raised to 2200 kilo calorie, from which no
significant mean difference occur from the previous scale (2100 kilo calorie). At the later scale,
households in the studied area would become vulnerable to food insecurity in reaching 2200-kilo

1
calorie scale level at 95% confidence level. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on continuous
variables indicated; family size at 10% level, farming income at 5%, total income at 5% level,
years of engagement in farming at 10% and age of household head at 10% critical level showed
significant variation. Among the key findings, food security showed linear relationship along
higher education level, which urges a concern in improving farming societies’ literacy to the
desired level. The relationship between education and kilocalorie is significantly estimated by
gamma distribution scaled to 10% critical level. Reliability test between the standard
recommended daily allowances from the local specific requirement to the actual intake proved
that computation on kilocalorie requirement specific to the areas as symmetrically better
approach than comparing based on standard recommended daily allowance at 5% level of
significance.

Key words: food security, calorie, relative risk, kilocalorie, food intake

Introduction

In Ethiopia about 11.7 million smallholder households account for approximately 95 percent of
agricultural GDP and 85 percent of employment. From the total area of 1.13 million square
kilometers about 51.3 million hectares is arable land that has tremendous potential for
agricultural development. Nearly 55 percent of all smallholder farmers operate on one hectare or
less. The agricultural sector accounts for roughly 43 percent of GDP, and 90 percent of exports.
Nevertheless, food security remains a critical issue for many households and for the country [1].

According to name, World Bank there is no problem of under development more serious than
food insecurity or more important than studying food security. Analyzing food consumption
patterns in poor countries, such as Ethiopia, is therefore, critical in designing national policies,
which would promote food security [1].

The major objective of the study was to determine the food security status of households in West
Hararghe Zone of Oromia regional states of Ethiopia. The specific objectives include:

 Computing average annual per individual food intake;

 Determining the average food requirement;

 Comparing the relative risk between food secure and insecure households;

2
 Study Design

Sample Size Determination

There are several approaches to determine the sample size. These include using a census for
small populations, imitating a sample size of similar studies using published tables,
and applying formulas to calculate sample sizes. This study will apply a simplified
formula provide [2] to determine the required sample size at 95% confidence level,
the degree of precision (d) or the margin of error that is acceptable at 0.05 level of
error in addition applied a finite population correction factor to reduce the sample
size required.
2
Z ( pq ) n
n= ∧n adj =
[ ]
2
d ( n−1 ) ……..…………… (1)
1+
N

Where; n = the original sample size, nadj. = adjusted sample size, Z = standard normal deviate, p
= the proportion of population, q = 1-p, d = the level of statistical accuracy and N = the number
of total population. Thus, following formula (1) sample sizes computed according to their
proportion were shown under appendix section as table 1.

Data Analysis

Analysis process involves software such as Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS)
software and results obtained from the software were presented using descriptive statistics such
as mean, percentage, minimum, maximum, cross tabulation, t - tests, F-test, and chi - square test.

Household Food Balance Model (HFBM)

A modified form of a simple equation termed as the House hold food balance model originally
developed by Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) and henceforth used by different
researchers in the field. The model was used to calculate the per capital food availability.
Generally, the computations of the per capital daily calorie intake involved the following steps
(3):

Step 1: calculating the net grain food available for consumption per household per year and
computed as:

3
NGA= ( GP+GB+ FA +GO ) −( HL+GR +GG + GS ) ………………………………… (2)

Where:

NGA=NET GRAIN AVAILABLE

GP = GRAIN PRODUCED PER YEAR PER HOUSEHO LD

GB = GRAIN BOUGHT PER YEAR PER HOUSEHOLD

F A = FOOD OBTAINED FROM AID PER YEAR PER HOUSEHOLD

G O = GRAIN OBTAINED THROUGH GIFT OR REMITTANCE

HL = POST HARVEST LOS S

GR = GRAIN RESERVED FOR SEED

GG = GRAIN GIVEN TO OTHERS

GS = GRAIN SOLD PER YEAR PER HOUSEHOLD

Step 2: converting the net food available in kg in to equivalent kilocalories. Since various crops
provides different amount of food energy (calories), their respective conversion factor used for
each crop.

Step 3: determining the per capital kilocalorie consumed per annum per individual. It is the
value obtained by dividing the total kilocalories calculated in step 2 to the total number of
household members.

Step 4: converting the kilocalorie per annum per individual in to average daily kilocalorie intake.
This value is obtained by the per capital kilocalorie obtained in step 3 by the number of days of a
year (365).

Results and Discussions

Demography

Under this research, the average age of household head was found to be around 37 years of age.
From the total 134 households it was found 716 family members had dwelling under their
common compound. The average family size in Meiso, Gemechis, and Chiro-Zura is 5.59, 4.66,

4
and 6.02 respectively. Their average family size is about 5.34 numbers of persons per each
family. However, this area showed no significance difference from their averages according to t-
test.

Table 2 under appendix section shows the frequency and in percent distribution of household
heads’ education level.

Primary level indicates grade level attained between one and six grades; secondary and high
school level indicates grade levels from 7 to 10 grades; preparatory level indicates grade levels
11, and above; whereas, categories outside these categories termed as households with no formal
education.

Figure 1- Symmetric distribution curve

Cross tabs between those groups in education levels with study areas indicated that education
level in Chiro Zuria has symmetrical extended positive tail to the right (as shown in figure 1)
from the reference line ( at 2.5) relative to others at 10% critical value (⅄= 1.649 & Approximate
Sig. = 0.099). Binomial analysis further showed that 80% of farmers in rural areas fall far
reaching not beyond than high school level education (Exact significance = 0.012 & N =134
samples). However, the number of households decline abruptly across higher level of education,
at 5% critical level (Kappa = -.816 & Sig. =.014). Moreover, the trend line (in figure 2) support

5
this concluding remark by the down falling trend line direction (the dotted line in figure 1) as
well as by the negative coefficient (-6.3) of “x” in the trend line equation: y= -6.3x + 40.7.

Percents
79.9

f(x) = − 6.26865671641791 x + 40.6716417910448

R² = 0.0477725118483413
14.9
2.2 3.0
No education Primary Secondary and high Preparatory

Figure 2 - Trend line

From all the three-study areas, male- headed households are exceedingly larger than the female-
headed households are. In sum, the number of male-headed households that randomly selected
was 123 that constitute 91.8% of the total respondent. T-test indicated that the number of male-
headed households outweighs female headed households at 95% level of significance (t = 3.45,
DF = 133 & Sig. = .015).

Most households included under this research were Muslims. Of the total number 109 (80%)
were Muslims, 21 of them (15.7%) were Orthodox Christianity followers and three in number
(7.3%) were Protestants. T-test showed that there exists a significant difference at 5% in number
of Muslim followers from Protestant followers and Orthodox followers (t = 6.16, DF = 2 & Sig.
= 0.025) across the study areas at 5% level of significance. In addition, correlation indicated
high degree of similarity in religion distribution among Gemechis, Chiro Zuria and Meiso at 5%
level of significance (r2 = .99 & Sig. = .040).

Dependency Ratio (DR): Dependency ratio refers to the proportion of economically inactive
labor force (less than or equal to 14 and greater or equal to 65 years of age to the active labor
force (between 15 and 64 years of age [1].

DR=age below 15+ age equal ¿∨above 65 ¿ between 15 ¿ 64 ¿

age eqaul ¿
…………………………. (3)

6
A low dependency ratio means that there are sufficient people working who can support the
dependent population [4]. A higher ratio indicates more financial stress on working people and
possible political stress [5]. Computed dependency ratios were located as table 3 under appendix
section.

Kappa measure of agreement showed, high degree of similarity (at 5% critical level) among the
areas’ dependency ratio, from their mean (Kappa = 0.43, Approximate significance = 0.046 & N
= 4). A one sample t-test measured that among the study areas, the ability of individuals to carry
at least oneself as a minimum requirement was much worse in Gemechis woreda (test value =
one, t = 5.38, df = 3 & Sig. = 0.013).

The majority of the farm households have been practicing mixed farming system. In sum,
27.5%, 2.4 %, & 70.1% was crop only growers, only livestock raisers and both respectively.
Kappa measure of agreement indicated that a moderate degree of agreement among Gemechis,
Meiso, and Chiro Zuria at 10% level (Kappa = 0.25 & Sig. = .083), in their livelihood strategies;
but, the difference in amongst their strategies was highest to crop growing with a validity of 95%
confidence interval (⅄= 2.45 & Approximate significance = 0.014).

Cropping in general is rain fed pattern or dependent up on the seasonal rainfall. In sum, 0.7%
depends on irrigation, 91.8% depend on seasonal rainfall, and 7.5% depend farming practice on
both methods particularly, in producing crops. Pearson correlation indicated that the study areas
have similar pattern in cropping system significantly at 5% between any of the two considered at
a time (Average r2 = .99 & Sig. = .045). Symmetric measurement using lambda showed
dependency of kilocalorie produced and consumed (⅄ = 1.75 and significance = 0.08) on
cropping systems (rain or irrigated).

Land in rural area is the crucial asset for householders. A farmer has as large farm size as 4.5
hectares and there are farmers who have no land at all. Those who have no land at all constitute
6.6% of the total householders in Gemechis, 12.5% in Meiso and 2.4% in Chiro Zuria study
areas. The overall average land size per household was 0.83 hectares. A t-test made at 0.5
hectare cut off point (meaning from what is considered the country’s average land holding in
farming communities) indicated that the studied areas have greater average size in land holding
at 5% critical level (t = 9.45, DF =2 & Sig. = 0.022).

7
Kilo Calorie Intake versus the Requirement

In Gemechis woreda, the average female and male kilocalorie requirement was 2012.3 kcal per
person per day but the actual per caput intake was 1951 kcal per day per person. This area
during the study period exhibited in shortage of 61.3 kcal per day per person from local specific
energy requirement obtained. In Mieso woreda, the average requirement per person per day has
been 2064.8 kcal. The average actual intake per person per day for that specific year was 1933.2
kcal. This area scored food deficiency by 131.6 kcal on each person. In Chiro Zuria woreda, the
average daily calorie requirement per adult equivalent was 2248.5 kilocalorie per day per person
and the actual daily intake per person was 2011 kcal. When compared to the requirement was
deficient by 237.5 kcal/per day per person. The average daily per adult equivalent requirement
per person was 2108 kcal, the actual mean intake during this research undertaking years is 1973
kcal and compared to local wise per adult equivalent calorie requirement computed it was
deficient by 135-kilo calories.

Table 4 that found under appendix section provided the summary of food secured and insecure
households when compared with the requirement in frequency, percentage and some descriptive.

A test conducted to evaluate the statistical significance between the dietary requirement and the
actual intake showed no significant signal to food insecurity in all the study areas for that
particular year this study was conducted.

Kilo Calorie Intake versus the Standard Requirement

The other way to determine whether households are food secured or not was to compare their
available dietary energy per individual against the standard requirement recommended for
healthy person (2100-kilo calorie) per day per individual. However, there is no signal for food
deficiency up to that level. Therefore, to make some distinction 2200-kilo calorie (after
detecting that the change does not bring significant change on mean difference from the former
one) had used to detect areas more vulnerable to food shortage. Thus, the actual kilocalorie
taken was lower by 249-kilo calorie, 267-kilo calorie, 189-kilo calories, and 227-kilo calories in
Gemechis, Meiso, Chiro Zuria and the overall study areas average, respectively.

8
Using the test value: 2200-kilo calorie in descending order: Gemechis at 95%, Meiso at 90% and
Chiro Zuria farmers were at least at 90% would become vulnerability to food insecurity. The t-
test values computed were located under appendix as table 5.

Symmetrical association using cross tabulation showed local specific food requirement
calculation to determine the food security status of households as a more precise measure than
simply using the standard requirement for food kilocalorie at 5% critical level (value = 1.00,
assy. std. error = 2.449 & sig. = 0.014).

Relative Risk Analysis

The relative risk (RR) or risk ratio is the ratio of the probability of an outcome in an exposed
group to the probability of an outcome in an unexposed group. Together with risk difference and
odds ratio, relative risk measures the association between the exposure and the outcome [4].
Based on kilocalorie availability and the minimum daily allowance required household
responded separated to two groups. Based on that, various parameters selected and computed for
analysis. The five variables: Sex of Household Head (SXHH), Education of the Household Head
(EDLV), their Access to Non-Farm Activities (NFAC), Domestic Animal for Packing (DAP),
and their Access to Credit (CRAC) were considered as dichotomous variables. The detailed
description for those dichotomous variables was located under appendix section as table 6.

Access to Credit (CRACS): Household responses indicated 12.7% and 6.7% respectively from
FSEC (Food Secured) and not food secure households (FINSEC) lack credit or did usually
receive credit while, 46.3% and 34.3% from FSEC and FINSEC households respectively have
not been taken credit (N=134). Cochran’s test of conditional independence had proved the
difference between the two groups significant (ꭓ2 = 3.33, DF=one & Sig. = 0.068). But, the
directional measure analysis proved that food secured households have low chances of getting
credit than food insecure households (1.273 times, as indicated in table 16) and this acted
negatively towards securing their kilocalories requirement ( phi = -0.246 & Sig. = 0.068). At
95% confidence food, insecure farmers have 12.2% better chance of getting credit.

Access to Non-Farm Activities (NFAC): Regarding the access to non-farm activities, from
which households incur additional income, 26.1% from FSEC and 11.9% from FINSEC

9
responded to have the access and 32.8 % from food secure 29.1% from food insecure responded
not to have the access (N =134). Regarding the concern of this access FSEC households have
better chances than the FINSEC ones (Odds ratio = 2.145). Those who have the access valued a
cohort scale to 1.269 and those who have not valued to 0.592. The risk difference between them
is 0.677 (66.7%). Mantel-Haenszel Common Odds Ratio Estimate (Estimate = 2.145 and 0.056)
and Tests of Conditional Independence (ꭓ2 = 3.73, DF = one, and significance = 0.053) affirmed
the linearity between the accesses to non-farm activities and kilocalorie intake to a 90%
confidence level.

Domestic Animal for Packing (DAP): concerning the means households have to pack animals
42.5%, and 31.3% used to hire animals pack but 16.4% and 9.7% use their own animal pack (N
=134). From the FSEC and FINSEC households hiring animal for packing is pervasive in FSEC
households (Odds ratio = 1.043). The relative risk for hiring is 1.014 and not hiring is 0.972.
The risk difference between them is 0.042 (4.2%).

Sex of Household Head (SXHH): from the total households 38.1% and 58.7 % of males
belonged under FSEC and FINSEC group respectively and 3% and 5.2% of females belonged in
FSEC and FINSEC group respectively. Odds ratio (1.143) indicated farmers in food secure
household have a greater chance to secure their food. The cohort scale (1.048) of male is greater
than those for females (0.917) are. The relative risk difference between them is 0.131 (13.1%).
The likelihood of getting food insecure female is higher than male in significant manner to 90%
confidence level (Likelihood ratio = 3.124, DF = one, & significance = 0.077).

Education Level (EDLV): Education level as a dichotomous variable rearranged for ratio
analysis easiness. In such education levels: lower than secondary and high school level
generalized as low and the others as medium. From the whole sample, 33.6% from FSEC and
48.5% of respondents from FINSEC belonged to have low-level literacy level and 7.5% from
FSEC and 10.4% from FINSEC were belonged under medium level literacy. Risk estimation
indicated that food secure households have better chance to educate than insecure one by 1.014
folds. The risk ratio of being in low-level education is 0.995 and being in moderate level
education is 1.009. Being in a better education level has a 1.4% chance of upgrading their food
security level or kilocalorie. The relationship between education and kilocalorie is significantly
estimated by gamma distribution for the probability scale at 10% critical level (Ɣ = 0.593, app.

10
Std. error = .343, app. T = 1.889 & sig. = 0.059). A one Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), በይ
applying least Square difference method, tested to reveal which among other education levels
would make great contribution to food security entailed: greater advantage by those who
attended preparatory level in education at 10% critical level against no education at all (mean
difference = 1178 kcal, std. error = 282.8 and sig =0.087). The t- value would become 4.165
(1178/282.8).

Figure 3 - Kcal versus Education Plot

The odds ratio and for the above cohort values computed were found under appendix section as
table 7.

Test for Independence

Usually, the groups in a two-sample t-test are fixed by design, and the grouping variable has one
value for each group. However, there are times when assignment to one of two groups can be
made based on an existing scale variable. In our case study, this had been made using the
household food security above and below 2100 kcal as the independent groups. Descriptive and
independence test results were found under the appendix section as table 8.

Working Age Group (WAR): The descriptive mean for working age group of food secure
household is 1.45 and that of food insecure groups is 1.52. Here working group have been
represented as the ratio of incapable family members ratio to capable members. Therefore
higher WAGR indicates lump sum of burden on the behalf of other viable groups meaning in our
cases food secure households have more vigorous young groups than the food insecure ones.

11
The mean variance in working age between FSEC and FINSEC is (0.236) and ANOVA
displayed no variation in working age the two groups.

Family Size (FMSZ): The descriptive mean for family size of food secure household is 5.27 and
that of the food insecure is 5.42. The standard mean difference (0.6) between the two groups
showed equality in food security status, significantly at 10% level (t = 1.68, DF =132 & Sig. =
0.096).

Farm Income (FINC): The average income from sale of cereal crops and milk only per annum
is 12,937 for food insecure and 13,067 for food secured. The value of money incurred by FSEC
and FINSEC group has a descriptive mean difference of 130 birr - Farm Income here represent
the income farmers obtain from selling cereal crop and milk only - the standard mean variance
test resulted equality between the two groups, significantly at 5% critical level (F = 6.28 & Sig. =
0.013).

Total Income (TOIN): The in overall average income food insecure household earned is 13,654
birr annually and the food secure household earned is 13,835 birr annually - Total Income
constitute the cash obtained from non-farm activities such as daily labor and farm income - the
standard mean variance between the two categories was significantly similar at 5% level (F = 6.6
& Sig. = 0.011)

Gross Product (GPV): Gross product refers the total output produced per family per year
(includes consumed and sold in monetary terms). In average FINSEC, produce outputs
accounting 27,496 birr and the FSEC produce outputs accounting 25,805 birr. These standard
mean Gross Product variance (10,137 birr) between FSEC and FINSEC groups showed
similarity reliably at 95% confidence (F = 5.99 & Sig. = 0.016).

Age of Male Household Head (AGMH): The mean age of male household head of the FSEC
and FINSEC groups, have similarity at 10% significance.

Years of Owning Land (YROL): The descriptive mean for food insecure and food secure are
19.6 and 18, respectively. The group variance in Years of owning land between FSEC and
FINSEC groups had displayed similarity in farming trend significant at 90% confidence (t = =
1.62, DF = 132 & Sig. = 0.081).

12
 Conclusion and Recommendation

Cross - tabulation regarding education level indicated: the number of households was inversely
related as the level of education grows, at 5% level (kappa = -.816 & Sig. = .014). This issue
further affirmed by trending education across the levels, which showed a negative slope.
Symmetrical distribution curve illustrated that Chiro Zuria smallholder farmers have extended
right tail by two standard deviation (5%). The later result allow to make an inference which
stated as the proximity to education center, especially preparatory school, give farmers around
the town Chiro to continue educating to such a level. It was noted that advancing from that level
would have the impossibility. The plot constructed between kilocalorie consumed and education
level indicate the existence of a linear relationship between the two variables and opposite flow
with no education group (t = 4.16 and significance = 0.087) that is valid for 90% of the
population. Symmetrical distribution curve illustrated that Chiro Zuria smallholder farmers have
the opportunity to move upward the education levels. This result suggested encouraging farmers
to educate and the government to construct school structures nearby settlement. In all the study
areas illiteracy was a common feature. Therefore, future farming through full knowledge
potential must be propagated.

Dependency ratio when tested at least one individual to maintain itself does not work well in
Gemechis woreda, this issue reminded that most populated areas to be found in highlands with
wet climate than lowlands with hot weather conditions (t = 4.28 and Sig. = 0.05). Family size of
in food insecure is higher than food secure households are; therefore, practices such as family
planning should be intervened.

In the study areas about 91.8% of the population produce crops depending up on the seasonal
rainfall only and their daily kilocalorie consumed much depend on it (⅄ = 1.75 and significance
= 0.08); therefore, occurrence of seasonal food insecurity would become unquestionable. In the
study areas, about 91.8% of the population produce crops depending up on the seasonal rainfall
only and their daily kilocalorie consumed much depend on it; therefore, to tackle the food
insecurity problem alternative method of crop production should be constructed.

The food security status of farmers in the study area showed no deficiency scaled to 2100-kilo
calorie. Therefore, to detect the vulnerability, the scale of evaluating the food security status was

13
adjusted to 2200-kilo calorie without making any significant change on mean difference from the
former scale (2100) or the actual specific requirement (2108). Hence, the t-test values (t = 2.937
& significance = 0.022) indicated the vulnerability to food insecurity at 5% critical level of the
study areas in general. Mantel-Haenszel Common Odds Ratio Estimate (Estimate = 2.145 and
0.056) and Tests of Conditional Independence (ꭓ2 = 3.73, DF = 1, and significance = 0.053)
affirmed the linearity between the accesses to non-farm activities and kilo calorie intake to a
90% confidence level.

Appendix
Table 1- Sample size

Location Household size Proportion Adjusted Woreda

Kuni Segeriya 1207 0.3 39
Gemechis
Legelfto Soro 686 0.2 22
Husse Sodoma 485 0.1 16
Meiso
Husse Menidera 508 0.1 16
Yabdo Shembeko 714 0.2 23
Chiro Zuria
Wachu Efa Bas 563 0.1 18
Sum 4163 1 134
Source: Computed based on (CSA, 2014) raw data

Table 2 - Educational level

Areas Total
Level
Gemechis Chiro Meiso Frequency
No education 0 Zuria
1 2 3
Primary level 51 24 32 107
Secondary and high school 9 4 7 20
Preparatory level 1 3 0 4
Source: own survey computation (2019)

Table 3 - Dependency Ratio

Dependency ratio Average Meiso Gemechis Chiro Zuria

DR 1.41 1.39 1.46 1.19
SR 0.99 0.99 0.67 1.52
Mean test Gemechis: Test value = 1; t = 4.28; Df = 2; Significance = 0.05
Where, DR is Dependency Ratio and SP is Support Ratio

14
 Table 4 - Kilo Calorie Intake versus the Requirement

Gemechis Meiso Chiro Zuria Sum

Statistics
Frequency Frequency Frequency Frequency
Food Secure 27 13 14 54
Food Insecure 34 19 27 80
Mean (kcal) intake 1951 1933.2 2011 1973
Std. deviation 864.6 880.7 953 895.2
Minimum 255 264 631 255
Maximum 3978 3240 5214 5214
N 61 32 41 134

Table 5 - Intake and the Standard Requirement

Test Value = 2200

Areas Confidence Interval
t df Sig. (2-tailed)
Lower Upper
Gemechis -2.25 60 0.028 -470.4 -27.53
Meiso -1.71 31 0.097 -584.33 50.7
Chiro Zuria -1.08 40 0.285 -469.04 141.73
Over all -2.76 133 0.022 -392.26 -72.98

Table 6 - Descriptive of Dichotomous Variables

Variables Response Food secure Food insecure

Percen
Frequency Percent Frequency
t
Yes 9 16.4 17 21.5
Credit access No 46 83.6 62 78.5
Total 55 100 79 100
low 45 81.8 65 82.3
Education moderate 10 18.2 14 17.7
Total 55 100 79 100
Yes 16 29.1 35 44.3
Non-farm access No 39 70.9 44 55.7
Total 55 100 79 100
Yes 42 76.4 57 72.2
Domestic Animal Packing No 13 23.6 22 27.8
Total 55 100 79 100
Male 51 92.7 72 91.1
Sex Female 4 7.3 7 8.9
Total 55 100 79 100

Table 7 - Risk Estimation

Risk Estimate Value 95% Confidence Interval

15
 Lower Upper
Odds Ratio for SXHH (MALE/ FEMALE) 1.143 0.316 4.129
For cohort SXHH2 = MALE 1.048 0.659 1.666
For cohort SXHH2 = FEMALE 0.917 0.403 2.083
Odds Ratio for NNFA (YES /NO) 2.145 0.981 4.690
For cohort NNFA2 = YES 1.269 1.007 1.601
For cohort NNFA2 = NO 0.592 0.338 1.037
Odds Ratio for DAP (HIRED / OWNED) 1.043 0.463 2.354
For cohort DAP2 = HIRED 1.014 0.769 1.338
For cohort DAP2 =OWNED 0.972 0.568 1.663
Odds Ratio for EDLV (LOW/ MODERATE) 0.986 0.387 2.516
For cohort EDLV2 = LOW 0.995 0.728 1.361
For cohort EDLV2 = MODERATE 1.009 0.541 1.883
For cohort CRAC1 = NO 1.273 1.087 1.49

Keys: Cohorts with subscript ‘1’ indicated variables representing the food insecure categories
and cohorts with subscript ’2’ indicated variables categorized as food secure households.
Table 7 - Test of Independence

Variable’s Descriptive Independence test

designation Mean Std. Deviation Test results
FMSZ1 5.42 1.42
T = 1.68, DF =132 & Sig. = 0.096
FMSZ2 5.27 1.35
YOLD1 19.65 8.52
T= 1.62, DF = 132 & Sig. = 0.081
YOLD2 18 9.57
FINC1 12937 21712
F = 6.28 & Sig. = 0.013
FINC2 13067 17780
TOTI1 13654 22068
F = 6.6 & Sig. = 0.011
TOTI2 13835 17967
GPV1 27496 31937
F= 5.99 & Sig. = 0.016
GPV2 25805 26589
AGMH1 36.2 14.5
F = 3.283 & Sig. = .072
AGMH2 33.3 17.2

References

[1] World Bank (2008). Agriculture for Development: An over view. Agriculture for

Development.

[2] Rose, et al. (2015). Formulae for Determining Sample Size: Applying the Principles.

Management Research, Chapter 9.

16
[3] Tolosa, Degefa (2003). Causes of Seasonal Food Insecurity in Oromia Zone of Amhara

Region Farmers’ View. Norweign University Press.

[4] Sistrom, C. L. and Garvan, C. W. (January, 2004). Proportions, Odds, and Risk. Radiology.

January 2004, Vol. 230, 1, pp. 12-19.

[5] Ahmed, A. (2014). The Socio-economic and Political Impacts od Youth Buldge: The Case

of Sudan. Journal of Social Science Studies. 2014, Vol. 1, 2, pp. 224-235.

17