Nig. J. Anim. Prod. 2021, 48(4): 227 - 239.

Nigerian Journal of Animal Production

© Nigerian Society for Animal Production

Food insecurity access scale and dietary score as proxy indicators of nutritional
status among backyard livestock households during COVID-19 pandemic in
Southwest Nigeria
Popoola, M. A., Yahaya, M. O., Awodola-Peters, O. O., Adebisi, G. L., Bolarinwa, M. O.,
Adedeji, Y. O., Olaniyi, T. A. and Saka, A. A.
Federal College of Animal Health and Production Technology,
Ibadan, Oyo state, Nigeria
*Corresponding author: [email protected]
Abstract
Food insecurity and dietary diversity of households are important nutrition outcome which
have been found reliable in assessing the dietary intake of a population during a determined
period and they have been used as indicators of food security among households. A facility
based cross-sectional study design was conducted on 374 households that were involved in
backyard livestock production in Southwest Nigeria during COVID-19 pandemic lockdown.
Household dietary diversity (HDD) was measured using 12 different foods from which the
HDD score was estimated, which is a continuous score ranged from 0 to 12, and was recoded
to a three-level ordered categorical variable. Food insecurity was also assessed using
household food insecurity access scale (HFIAS) generated from nine items (questions)
specific to an experience of food insecurity occurring within the previous four weeks among
the households. A probit regression model was specified to determine the variables
responsible for increasing the probability of the households being food insecured during the
lockdown. Result showed that more than half of households involved in backyard livestock
production was within medium dietary diversity category (71.7%) and moderately had
access to food (75.4%). State of residence, household size, income generated by members of
households, species of livestock raised and purpose of livestock production were major
determinants of food insecurity (access) during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown among
the respondents. Thus, there is need to promote sustainable and diversification of livelihood
among households through backyard livestock production in a bid to increase and sustain
their food security status.
Keywords: Backyard livestock, COVID -19 pandemic, dietary diversity, food security,
lockdown

Échelle d'accès à l'insécurité alimentaire et score diététique comme indicateurs

indirects de l'état nutritionnel des ménages d'élevage de basse-cour pendant la
pandémie de COVID-19 dans le sud-ouest du Nigéria

Résumé
L'insécurité alimentaire et la diversité alimentaire des ménages sont des résultats
nutritionnels importants qui se sont avérés fiables pour évaluer l'apport alimentaire d'une
population pendant une période déterminée et qui ont été utilisées comme indicateurs de la
sécurité alimentaire des ménages. Une conception d'étude transversale basée sur les
installations a été menée sur 374 ménages impliqués dans la production de bétail de basse-
cour dans le sud-ouest du Nigéria pendant le confinement de la pandémie COVID-19. La
diversité alimentaire des ménages (HDD) a été mesurée à l'aide de 12 aliments différents à
partir desquels le score HDD a été estimé, qui est un score continu allant de 0 à 12, et a été
recodé en une variable catégorielle ordonnée à trois niveaux. L'insécurité alimentaire a
227
 Food insecurity access and COVID-19 pandemic in Southwest Nigeria

également été évaluée à l'aide de l'échelle d'accès à l'insécurité alimentaire des ménages
(HFIAS) générée à partir de neuf éléments (questions) spécifiques à une expérience
d'insécurité alimentaire survenue au cours des quatre semaines précédentes parmi les
ménages. Un modèle de régression probit a été spécifié pour déterminer les variables
responsables de l'augmentation de la probabilité que les ménages soient en situation
d'insécurité alimentaire pendant le confinement. Les résultats ont montré que plus de la
moitié des ménages impliqués dans la production de bétail de basse-cour appartenaient à la
catégorie de diversité alimentaire moyenne (71,7%) et avaient modérément accès à la
nourriture (75,4%). L'état de résidence, la taille du ménage, les revenus générés par les
membres des ménages, les espèces de bétail élevées et le but de la production animale étaient
les principaux déterminants de l'insécurité alimentaire (accès) pendant le confinement de la
pandémie COVID-19 parmi les répondants. Ainsi, il est nécessaire de promouvoir la
durabilité et la diversification des moyens de subsistance parmi les ménages grâce à la
production de bétail de basse-cour dans le but d'augmenter et de maintenir leur niveau de
sécurité alimentaire.
Mots clés: Bétail de basse-cour, pandémie COVID -19, diversité alimentaire, sécurité
alimentaire, confinement
by other states of Federation. Measures to
Introduction mitigate COVID- 19 outbreaks are already
The Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is affecting global food supply chains. Border
the global health crisis of this time which is restrictions, lockdowns and other measures
the greatest challenge faced globally since are affecting agricultural activities, slowing
World War II (UNDP, 2020). Since its harvests; many workers are out of their jobs
emergence in Wuhan city, China in 2019 the without means of livelihoods, while also
virus has spread to every continent of the constraining transport of food to markets.
world with rising cases in America, Europe Meat processing plants and food markets
and Africa. According to UNDP (2020), are being forced to close in many locations
COVID-19 is much more than a health due to serious COVID-19 outbreaks. As a
crisis, it has potentials of creating social, result, many people in urban centres now
economic and political crises. In Nigeria, struggle to access fresh fruits and
the first confirmed case of the pandemic vegetables, dairy, meat, fish and other
was announced on 27th February, 2020, agricultural produce. The restrictions on
when an Italian citizen in Lagos (one of the movements caused consumers to spend
Southwestern states in Nigeria) tested primarily on essential goods and services as
positive for the virus. On 9th March, 2020, a well as low expectations of income which
second case of the virus was reported in will generally lead to fall in household
Ewekoro, Ogun state (another consumption. The pandemic is impacting
Southwestern state), a Nigerian citizen who global food systems, disrupting regional
had contact with the Italian citizen. On 29th agricultural value chains and posing risks to
March, 2020, Lagos, Abuja and Ogun states household food security (FAO, 2019).
were locked down for 14 days under the Hundreds of millions of people were
emergency measures announced by already suffering from hunger and
Nigeria's President, Muhammadu Buhari malnutrition before the virus hit. Prior to the
which was extended on 10th April, 2020, in onset of this pandemic, more than 820
furtherance of the emergency measures and million people were already identified as
to prevent the spread of the virus. These chronically food insecured (IPC, 2019).
measures were adopted and implemented Thus, the combined effects of COVID-19
228
 Adebiyi, Adebiyi, Thomas, Majekodunmi and Olatunji

itself, as well as corresponding mitigation pointed out that the existence of this
measures, and the emerging global disasters problem of food insecurity as at 2004 was
could, without large-scale coordinated more than a third of the population (34.9%)
action, disrupt the functioning of food lived in a state of food poverty and
systems. Such disruption can result in worsened over a five year period in 2010 to
consequences for health and nutrition of a 38.7% of the Nigerian population.
severity and scale unseen. Moreover, the Sustainable livestock production plays an
pandemic came at a time when food security important role in solving food insecurity
and food systems were already under threats among farmers' households in Nigeria. The
due to the effects of conflict, natural productivity of livestock farmers in Nigeria
disaster, climate change, occurrence of is still low and this affects their income and
pests and plagues which preceded COVID- household food security. Livestock have the
19 and were already undermining food potentials to be transformative by
security in many contexts. Food insecurity enhancing food security, and providing
is a condition in which people lack basic income to pay for education and other
food intake necessary to provide them with needs, livestock can enable poor children to
energy and nutrient required for develop into healthy, well-educated and
productivity. Transitory food security productive adults (Smith et al., 2013).
occurs when there is a temporary decline in There are some common livestock species
access to adequate food because of that are raised at backyard within
instability in food production, food price households which are purposively
increase or income shortfalls (Omonona produced to improve household food
and Agoi, 2007). Campbell (1991) outlined security. Such livestock species include
the four essential components of a measure poultry, small ruminants, pig and mini-
of food security at the individual and livestock species (rabbit, guniea pig,
household levels as: (i) availability of grasscutter). Raising of livestock species
having sufficient quantity of food, (ii) such as poultry birds (chicken, turkey,
quality of the available food concerning the geese, quail, duck), sheep and goats, pig and
food types and the diversity of the diet, (iii) minilivestocks have been reported to help
physiological acceptability relating to households in improving their food and
feelings of food deprivation, restricted food nutrition security through increase in
choice, and anxiety about the quantity and animal protein consumption, used to meet
quality of food on-hand in the households immediate cash needs and some other
stores, and (iv) social acceptability of socio-cultural functions (Popoola, 2019).
consumption patterns, determined by social Several indicators have been used to
norms in respect of meal frequency, measure household food security as there is
composition and way of food acquisition no single indicator that measures it.
such as being able to purchase foods instead Emphasis on addressing constraints to food
of having to beg, scrounge, or steal food. security has intensified the search for
Food insecurity remains a fundamental accurate, rapid, and consistent indicators of
challenge in Nigeria as the Food and food security. Barrett (2010) reported that
Agriculture Organization (FAO, 2004) approaches to measurement follow the four
enlists Nigeria among countries faced with major “pillars” of food
serious food insecurity. In Nigeria, there is security—availability, access, utilization,
high level of food insecurity for the past and risk (that is stability or vulnerability)
four decades (Otaha, 2013). The National —which in turn tend to follow different
Planning Commission (NPC, 2005; 2010) strands of analysis. Food may be available

229
 Food insecurity access and COVID-19 pandemic in Southwest Nigeria

but not accessible to certain households severity of food insecurity faced by

during a given period of time if they cannot households due to lack of or limited
acquire a sufficient quantity or diversity of resources to access food. It is composed of
food through these mechanisms (Fanzo, nine questions, and these questions relate to
2017). This necessitates the development of three different domains of the access
methodological tools to identify and assess component of food insecurity: anxiety and
the different dimensions of food insecurity uncertainty about household food access,
among households particularly during the insufficient quality, and insufficient food
COVID-19 pandemic. Household Dietary intake (Swindale et al., 2006). The method
Diversity Score (HDDS) is a qualitative is based on the idea that the experience of
methodology that has been validated in food insecurity (access) causes predictable
different countries as an approximate reactions and responses that can be captured
measure of food availability and food and quantified through a survey and
accessibility aspects of food security (Ruel, summarized in a scale. Then, when the
2003; Cordero-Ahiman et al., 2017). HFIAS classifies a household into severely
According to FAO (2008), dietary diversity food insecured with under nutrition, it
scores consist of a simple count of food implies that at least some members, or a
groups that a household or an individual has member, of the household are experiencing
consumed over the past 24 hours. The under nutrition due to inadequacy of food
HDDS is used as a proxy measure of the access, but not all members, because this
socio-economic level of households scale has been found reliable for describing
(Swindale et al., 2006), it assesses number the status of a population. Based on this
of different food groups consumed in the growing body of evidence, FAO-FANTA
household during a defined reference (2007) have identified a set of questions that
period, such as the last 24 or 48 hours or the have been used in several countries and
last 7 or 14 days (Cordero-Ahiman et al., appear to distinguish the food secure from
2017). HDDS was used to assess number of the insecure households across different
different food groups consumed in the cultural contexts . The information
household during lockdowns. Thus, a generated by the HFIAS can be used to
diversified diet was linked to the economic assess the prevalence of household food
ability of a household to access a variety of insecurity (access) for geographic targeting
foods by obtaining a number of different and to detect changes in the household food
food groups consumed during the insecurity (access) situation of a population
lockdowns. In general, conditions of food over time for monitoring and evaluation
insecurity are believed to affect all (Coates et al., 2007). Thus, assessing food
household members, although not insecurity access and nutritional status
necessarily in the same way. Food among backyard livestock households
Insecurity Access Scale (HFIAS) is an during COVID-19 Pandemic in Southwest
adaptation of the approach used to estimate Nigeria makes it particularly relevant given
the prevalence of food insecurity in the the effects of restrictions and lockdowns on
United States annually (Coates et al., 2007). their levels of food security.
The household food insecurity access scale
(HFIAS) is a measure developed by FANTA Methodology
to assess food access problems faced by The study was conducted in Southwest
households during a recall period of 30 Nigeria, being one of the regions mostly
days. It aims to capture the changes in food affected by COVID-19 pandemic in the
consumption patterns and reflect the country. The region is made up of six States

230
 Adebiyi, Adebiyi, Thomas, Majekodunmi and Olatunji

which are; Ekiti, Lagos, Ogun, Ondo, Osun weather condition; major crops grown in the
and Oyo (Fig. 1). The area lies between region include cassava, maize, cocoa, yam,
longitude 20 31 and 60 001 East and latitude 60 cocoyam, plantain, oil palm. Livestock
21 and 80 371 North. It has a total land area of animals like cattle, sheep, goat, poultry
77,818 km2 with 27 511 892 population species, and rabbits are also raised in the
(NPC, 2006). There are two distinct seasons region. Besides agriculture, other
in a year which are: rainy season (April- occupations like civil service jobs, artisan,
October) and dry season (November- trading, are also engaged in by the people of
March). The temperature zone ranges the region. The official language is English,
0 0
between 21 C and 28 C with high humidity while the major informal language for
of 77%. The region is suitable for communication in this region is Yoruba,
agricultural activities considering the with different dialects.
Table 1: Socio-economic characteristics of respondents
Variables Frequency Percentage Mean
Sex
Male 222 59.4
Female 152 40.6
Age (years)
< 20 26 7.0
20-24 46 12.3
25-29 96 25.7 34.6
30-34 100 26.7
35-39 34 9.1
40- 49 62 16.6
>49 10 2.7
Marital status
Single 152 40.6
Married 222 59.4
State of residence
Ekiti 61 16.3
Lagos 63 16.8
Ogun 63 16.8
Ondo 61 16.3
Osun 61 16.3
Oyo 65 17.9
Household size
1-3 102 27.3
4-6 214 57.2 5
7-9 44 11.8
>9 14 3.7
Educational level
Secondary 6 1.6
Tertiary 368 98.4
Occupation type/ status
Self- employed 108 28.9
Employee 160 42.8
Unemployed 104 27.8
Retiree 2 0.5
Tribe
Yoruba 348 93.0
Hausa 12 3.2
Ibo 14 3.7
Religion
Islam 168 44.9
Christianity 206 55.1
Monthly income (N)
<30,000 184 49.2
30,000 – 40,000 136 36.4
40,001 – 50,000 28 7.5
50,001 – 60,000 2 0.5 45,456.67
>60,000 24 6.4
231
 Food insecurity access and COVID-19 pandemic in Southwest Nigeria

Results of livestock production (18.2%) of the respondents raised the

characteristics of the respondents are animals for the purpose of sales. The result
presented in Table 2. Results showed that further revealed that more than half
most (48.7%) of the respondents were (64.4%) of the respondents got animals
engaged in chicken production, followed by they were raising from buying, followed by
39.8% who were raising sheep and goat those who started their stock from animals
(small ruminants) while the least livestock they inherited from their parents (13.6%),
raised by respondents was grasscutter this implies that these respondents started
(1.9%). Generally, the result revealed that their stocks through succession and
more than half (55.8%) of the respondents inheritance; 15.3% of the respondents
were raising poultry species (chicken, duck started their flock when animals were given
and guinea fowl), this may be due to the fact to them to raise on behalf of someone
that poultry species (particularly backyard (neighbor, family and friends), this is a
poultry system) requires less management common practice among people in
in terms of housing, feeding, handling and Southwest region of Nigeria; the least were
health compared to other livestock species. those who started their stocks from animals
The objective of production of more than given to them as gift by their parents,
half of the respondents (61.2%) was for grandparents, friends and other family
family consumption, followed by those who members. However, there was stock
were raising the animals for sales and outflow majorly (59%) when the
consumption (20.6%), this may be due to respondents slaughter the animals for
the fact that the respondents put their consumption, followed by sales (17.6%),
animals for sale when there was increase in when there was mortality (13.9%) and the
number of the animals and/or sold the least was when the animals were given out
animals to meet immediate cash needs of the as gift (9.4%) to family and friends.
family as reported by Popoola (2019). Few
Table 2: Livestock production enterprise of respondents
Variables Frequency (N = 374) Percentage (%)
Livestock species raised
Chicken 146 48.7
Rabbit 35 9.4
Sheep 64 17.1 .
Goat 85 22.7
Duck 19 5.1
Guinea fowl 10 2.0
Pig 8 2.7
Grasscutter 7 1.9
Purpose of production
Consumption 229 61.2
Sales 68 18.2
Sales and Consumption 77 20.6
Sources of stock (inflow)
Purchase 241 64.4
Gift 36 9.6
Contract raising 46 15.3
Succession and Inherited 51 13.6
Flock outflow
Sales 66 17.6
Slaughtered for consumption 221 59.0
Gift 35 9.4
Mortality 52 13.9

232
 Adebiyi, Adebiyi, Thomas, Majekodunmi and Olatunji

Distribution of households according to COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, more than

consumption of major food groups is half (75.4%) of the households worried that
presented in Table 3. As presented in the thy would not have enough food (75.4%);
result, food groups were consumed by were not able to eat the kinds of foods they
respondents in varying percentages. The preferred because of lack of resources
result revealed that in the previous 24 hours (63.1%); have to eat a limited variety of
during COVID-19 pandemic lockdown, food due to lack of resources (69.5%); have
most of the households consumed all the 12 to eat some foods that they really did not
groups of food - cereals; roots and tubers; want to eat because of a lack of resources to
vegetables; fruits; meat, poultry, offal; eggs; obtain other types of food (58.3%); had to
fish and seafood; pulses, legumes, nuts; eat a smaller meal than they felt they
milk and milk products; oil/fats; needed because there was no enough food
sugar/honey; condiments and spices. (61.5%); have to eat fewer meals in a day
Similar result was reported by Hussein et al. because there was not enough food (59.4%).
(2018) on household food insecurity and However, result also showed that more than
household dietary diversity of people living half of the households had no food to eat of
with HIV (PLHIV) and nutritional status any kind because of lack of resources to get
among PLHIV/AIDS. However, few of the food (67.9%); never went to sleep at night
households did not consume the food hungry because there was no enough food
groups in the previous 24 hours of the (88.8%); never went a whole day and night
lockdown. Diets of the households in the without eating anything because there was
study areas gave a clear idea of the quality of not enough food. The result further revealed
food that households have access to. that most of these households rarely
Table 4 shows the results on household experience these patterns of food access.
dietary status of the respondents. The result The food insecurity (access) of households
revealed that 4.8% of the households were using HFIAS scores is presented in Table 6.
within low dietary diversity category (with Result showed that more than half of the
dietary diversity score of less than or equal households (75.4%) moderately have
3). More than half (71.7%) of households access to food during the lockdown and
were within medium dietary diversity restrictions; some were less food insecured
category with scores ranging between 4 and during the lockdown and few (4.3%) were
6 points while the rest 23.5% were within mostly have access to food during the
the range of high dietary diversity category lockdown. The result showed the nutritional
with the score above 7 points. This implies outcomes of the respondents with most
that about 5% of the households do not have households recording moderate nutritional
adequate dietary diversification while status. The HFIAS index or prevalence
majority (about 95%) enjoyed good dietary represents the condition of household
diversification. This also indicates that members as a group, and not food insecurity
there was significantly better dietary as believed to affect all household
diversity (a proxy for the quality of diet to members, although the effect may not
which an average household has access) necessarily be in the same way during the
was experienced by the households, thus lockdown. Consequently, when the scale
dietary status of an average household was measure classifies a household to be
ranked as to be moderate. moderately food insecured, this implies that
Table 5 shows the household food during the lockdown, at least some
insecurity access scale generic questions households were experiencing hunger due
following the procedure of FAO-FANTA to insufficiency of resources, but not
(2007). Result revealed that during the necessarily all households.
233
 Food insecurity access and COVID-19 pandemic in Southwest Nigeria

Table 3: Distribution of households according to consumption of major food groups

Variables Frequency Percentage
Cereals and grains
Yes 366 97.9
No 8 2.1
Roots and tubers
Yes 310 17.1
No 64 82.9
Vegetables
Yes 310 82.9
No 64 17.1
Fruits
Yes 288 77.0
No 86 23.0
Meat, poultry, offal
Yes 290
No 84
Eggs
Yes 252 67.4
No 122 32.6
Fish and seafood
Yes 272 72.7
No 102 27.3
Pulses, legumes and nuts
Yes 268 71.7
No 106 28.3
Milk and milk products
Yes 246 65.8
No 128 34.2
Oil/fats
Yes 368 98.4
No 6 1.6
Sugar / Honey /Sweet
Yes 274 73.3
No 100 26.7
Condiments / Spices
Yes 328 87.7
No 46 12.3

Table 4: Household dietary diversity status of the respondents

Dietary diversity Cut-off values Frequency Percentage
Low dietary diversity (HDDS ≤3) 18 4.8
Medium dietary diversity (HDDS 4-6) 268 71.7
High dietary diversity ( HDDS 7-12) 44 23.5

234
 Table 5. Household food insecurity access scale generic questions
Occurrence questions Yes No Rarely Sometimes Often
Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. % Freq. %
During the COVID 19 pandemics lockdown did you worry that 282 75.4 92 24.6
your household would not have enough food?
How often did this (worry) happen? 158 56.0 104 36.9 20 7.1
During the COVID 19 pandemics lockdown, were you or any 236 63.1 138 36.9
household member not able to eat the kinds of foods you preferred
because of lack of resources?
How often did this happen? 100 42.4 92 39.0 44 18.6
During the lockdown, did you or any household member have to 260 69.5 114 30.5
eat a limited variety of food due to lack of resources?
How often did this happen? 120 46.2 80 30.8 60 23.0
During the lockdown did you or any household member have to eat 218 58.3 156 41.7
some foods that you really did not want to eat because of a lack of
resources to obtain other types of food?
How often did this happen? 98 45.0 62 28.4 58 26.6
During the lockdown did you or any household member have to eat 230 61.5 144 38.5
a smaller meal than you felt you needed because there was no

235
enough food?
How often did this happen? 110 47.9 78 32.1 46 20.0
During the lockdown did you or any household member have to eat 222 59.4 152 40.6
fewer meals in a day because there was not enough food?
How often did this happen? 190 85.6 32 14.4
During the lockdown was there ever no food to eat of any kind in 120 32.1 254 67.9
your household because of lack of resources to get food?
How often did this happen? 52 43.3 38 31.7 30 25.0
During the lockdown did you or any household member go to sleep 72 19.3 302 80.7
at night hungry because there was no enough food?
Adebiyi, Adebiyi, Thomas, Majekodunmi and Olatunji

How often did this happen? 30 41.7 22 30.6 20 27.7

During the lockdown did you or any household member go a whole 42 11.2 332 88.8
day and night without eating anything because there was not
enough food
How often did this happen? 20 47.6 14 33.3 8 19.1
 Food insecurity access and COVID-19 pandemic in Southwest Nigeria

Table 6: Food insecurity (access) of households using HFIAS index

Food insecurity Cut-off value Frequency Percentage
Less food insecurity (access) 0-11 76 20.3
Moderately food insecurity (access) 12-16 282 75.4
More food insecurity (access) >17 16 4.3

Table 7 shows the determinants of household size as significant determinants

household food insecurity (access) in of food security among farming
Southwest Nigeria during COVID-19 households. States of residence of households in
lockdown. The result revealed that as Southwest Nigeria were major determinants of food
regards the goodness of fit of the model, insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic
lockdown. The severity of food insecurity varies in
76.58% estimated coefficients of the model different states of Southwestern Nigeria. This was due
explained variations in observations of the to the fact that some states were under total lockdown,
food insecurity index. The explanatory lockdown in some states was partial while
variables were statistically significant since movements were not restricted in few states of the
region. Lagos state was under strict lockdown and
20.94 was obtained for the likelihood restrictions because it is epicenter of the pandemic in
statistic with p-value of 0.0734. Result Nigeria and Ogun state was also under strict
further revealed that state of residence of lockdown because it is the closest state to Lagos state.
households in Southwest Nigeria (p<0.01), Other states like Osun, Ondo and Ekiti were not under
household size in these regions of the total lockdown while Oyo state was neither under
lockdown nor movement was restricted. Thus, it can
country (p<0.01), income earned by be concluded that lack of access to food stores, local
members of households (p<0.01), species markets, health centers, farms and other essential
of livestock raised by the households facilities might intensify the vulnerability to food
(p<0.01) and purpose of livestock insecurity across different states in this part of the
country. The severity of access to food varies from
production by the households (p<0.01) had one state to another because of different levels of
propensity of being significant lockdown and restrictions in these states. Income of
determinants of the households being food household members was also a determining factor for
insecure during the period of COVID-19 food security, and was significantly related to food
lockdown. The result showed that one more security, with relevant decrease in food insecurity in
increase in household member increases the households as income generated increase. This
implies that income generated by household heads
probability of being classified as more food during the lockdown increases the access to food and
insecure. This implies that more children other resources needed by the households.
with limited income sources could lead to Households that are involved in backyard livestock
allocation of the already meager household production tend to be food secured during the
pandemic as some of these livestock species like
resources over wider range of competing chicken, duck, pig, rabbit, sheep and goat can be
needs; among these are investment on slaughtered and consumed by these households
children education and health with more during the restrictions when it was difficult to get
mouths to feed, which in turn, could lead to meat at the market because food markets were not
large negative effect on per capita income fully in operation during the lockdown. Also these
households can easily sell their stocks to meet their
growth of the households thereby resulting immediate cash needs within their neighbourhood if it
to less food access. Jones et al. (2014) was difficult for them to get to market. In a study
reported similar result with HDDS; the conducted by Popoola et al., (2017) on backyard
authors reported that increased household poultry production among households, the authors
reported that the purpose of production was found to
member will lead to increased HDDS. be significant determinants of food security.
Otunaiya and Ibidunni, (2014) also reported

236
 Adebiyi, Adebiyi, Thomas, Majekodunmi and Olatunji
Table 7: Probit regression of determinant of food insecurity among households involved in backyard
livestock production in Southwest Nigeria during COVID-19 lockdown
Variables Estimated coefficient (â) Standard error t-ratio

Sex -0.046 0.074 -0.618

Age -0.036 0.021 -1.1718
Marital status 0.071 0.084 0.843
State of residence 0.039** 0.018 -2.136
Household size 0.108** 0.051 -2.104
Educational level -0.663 0.294 -2.251
Occupational status -0.058 0.049 -1.188
Tribe 0.072 0.089 0.809
Religion -0.035 0.073 -0.480
Income 0.400** 0.036 -1.109
Livestock species raised 0.256** 0.016 -1.237
Purpose of production 0.231** 0.023 -1.177
Livestock inflow 0.045 0.093 0.461
Livestock outflow -0.367 0.087 -0.623
Log likelihood Function -90.672
scale factor 0.34233
% correctly predicted 76.58
Chow R-squared 0.11478
Cragg- uhler R-squared 0.15393
Likelihood ratio statistics 20.9366

p? chi squared 0.0734

F 0.11751
Sample size (N) = 374, ** sig at 0.01, df =10

Conclusion indicator for measuring nutritional status

The study showed that Food Insecurity among the backyard livestock households
Access Scale was a sensitive proxy in the study areas. Conclusively, the
indicator as compared to Household dietary lockdown and restrictions during the
diversity scale, but Household dietary COVID-19 pandemic affected an average
diversity scale is specific as compared to backyard livestock household access to
Food Insecurity Access Scale, this is due to food commodities. Food insecurity was
the recall period of 30 days for Food prevalent transiting from states with total
Insecurity Access Scale and 24 hours scale lockdown than those with partial lockdown;
for Household dietary diversity scale. larger backyard livestock households were
While Household dietary diversity scale significantly more food insecured than
focus on the dietary intake of household, smaller households, backyard livestock
Food Insecurity Access Scale tools combine production have potentials of improving
both dietary intake and food access items food security among the households. There
used to estimate food insecurity of the is need to promote sustainable and
households in the study areas. In assessing diversification of livelihood among
food security levels especially in limited households through backyard livestock
resource setting particularly during the production in a bid to increase and sustain
COVID-19 lockdown and restrictions, both their food security status as well as need
Food Insecurity Access Scale and establish the use of frequent food security
Household dietary diversity scale score monitoring systems to provide up-to-date
were found valid and reliable proxy information on the impacts of the outbreak
237
 Food insecurity access and COVID-19 pandemic in Southwest Nigeria

on food security among households. FAO, 2010. Guidelines for measuring

household and individual dietary
References diversity. Rome.
Barrett, C. 2010. Measuring Food Hussein, F. M., Ahmed, A. Y. and
Insecurity. Science. 327: 825–828. Muhammed, O. S. M. 2018.
Campbell, C. 1991. Food Insecurity: A Household food insecurity access
Nutritional Outcome or a Predictor scale and dietary diversity score as
Variable? Journal of Nutrition a proxy indicator of nutritional
121(3): 408-415. status among people living with
Coates, J., Swindale, A. and Bilinsky, P. HIV/ AIDS, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia,
2007. Household Food Insecurity 2017. PLoS ONE 13(6): e0199511.
Access Scale (HFIAS) for https://doi.org/10.1371/journal .
Measurement of Food Access: pone.0199511
Indicator Guide V. 3. Food and Huluka, A. T. and Wondimagegnhu, B. A.
Nutrition Technical Assistance 2019. Determinants of household
Project (FANTA) Washington, dietary diversity in the Yayo
DC. biosphere reserve of Ethiopia: An
Cordero-Ahiman, O. V., Santellano- empirical analysis using
Estrada, E., and Garrido, A. sustainable livelihood framework,
2017. Dietary diversity in rural Cogent Food & Agriculture, 5:1,
households: The case of 1690829
indigenous communities in IPC Global Partners. 2019. Integrated
Sierra Tarahumara, Mexico. Food Security Phase Classification
Journal of Food and Nutrition technical manual version 3.0.
Research, 5(2), 86–94. Evidence and standards for better
Fanzo, J. C. 2017. Decisive decisions on food security and nutrition
production compared with decisions. Rome.
market strategies to improve Jones, A. D., Shrinivas, A., and Bezner-
diets in rural Africa. The Journal Kerr, R. 2014. Farm production
of Nutrition: Commentary, 147, diversity is associated with greater
1–2. doi:10.3945/jn.116.241703 household dietary diversity in
FAO, 2004. Technology review: Newcastle Malawi: Findings from nationally
disease with special emphasis on representative data. Food Policy,
its effect on village chickens. 46, 1–12.
Animal Production and Health National Planning Commission, 2005.
Paper No.161. Millennium Development Goals,
FAO, 2007. Guidelines for measuring 2005 Report; Published by the
household and individual dietary National Planning Commission,
diversity. Rome Garki, Abuja; 33pp.
FAO, 2008. An introduction to the basic National Planning Commission, 2010.
concepts of food security. FAO Millennium Development Goals,
Food Security Programme. Rome. Report 2010.
FAO, 2019. COVID-19 pandemic- impact Published by the National Planning
on food and agriculture. Available Commission. 16pp.
on http://www.fao.org/2019- National Population Commission, 2006.
ncov/q-and-a/en/ accessed on 10th Nigeria Census Report.
April, 2020. Odusina, O. A. 2014. Assessment of

238
 Adebiyi, Adebiyi, Thomas, Majekodunmi and Olatunji

Households' Food Access and Food Popoola, M. A., Adebisi, G. L., Osijinrin,
Insecurity in Urban Nigeria: A Case O. E., Babarinde, G. T., Lawal, A.
Study of Lagos Metropolis. Global M. and Kunuji, O. M. 2017.
Journal of Human-Social Science: Determinants of backyard poultry
E Economics Volume 14 Issue 1 production as strategy for food
Version 1. security among households in
Omonona, B. T and Agoi, G. A. 2007. An Ibadan Metropolis. Nigeria.
analysis of food security situation Proceedings of 6th ASAN-NIAS
among Nigeria urban households: Joint Annual Meeting. September
evidence from Lagos State, 10-14, 2017. Abuja
Nigeria. Journal Of Central Smith, J., Sones, K., Grace, D.,
European Agriculture. 8(3):397- MacMillan, S., Tarawali, S., and
406. Herrero, M. 2013. Beyond milk,
Otaha, I. J. 2013. Food Insecurity in meat, and eggs: Role of livestock in
N i g e r i a : Wa y F o r w a r d . food and nutrition security.
International Multidisciplinary A c c e s s e d f r o m
Journal, Ethiopia Vol. 7 (4), Serial https://academic.oup.com/af/articl
N o . 3 1 . D o i : e-abstract/3/1/6/4638645 on 23
http://dx.doi.org/10.4314/afrrev.7i June 2019.
4.2 Swindale, A., Coates, J and Bilinsky, P.
Otunaiya, A. O. and Ibidunni, O. S. 2014. 2006. Household Dietary Diversity
Determinants of food security Score (HDDS) for Measurement of
among rural farming households in Household Food Access Indicator
Ogun State, Nigeria. J. Sustain. Guide V 2. FANTA,.
Dev. Afr. 16(6):33-43 UNDP, 2020. COVID-19 pandemic:
Popoola, M. A. 2019. Strategies for Food Humanity needs leadership and
Security among Households in solidarity to defeat the
Nigeria: Livestock Production as a coronavirus. Accessed at
Case Study. A Book Chapter http://www.undp.org/content/undp
Contribution on Contemporary /en/ home
Issues In Nigerian Agricultural
Extnsion And Rural Livelihoods.
th
Pg 129-140 ISBN: 978-978-976- Received 18 December, 2020
th
608-6 Accepted 4 March, 2021

239