Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Feb;20(2):325-335.
doi: 10.1017/S1368980016002135. Epub 2016 Sep 9.

Farm production, market access and dietary diversity in Malawi

Stefan Koppmair  1 , Menale Kassie  2 , Matin Qaim  1
Affiliations

Farm production, market access and dietary diversity in Malawi

Stefan Koppmair et al. Public Health Nutr. 2017 Feb.

Abstract

Objective: The association between farm production diversity and dietary diversity in rural smallholder households was recently analysed. Most existing studies build on household-level dietary diversity indicators calculated from 7d food consumption recalls. Herein, this association is revisited with individual-level 24 h recall data. The robustness of the results is tested by comparing household- and individual-level estimates. The role of other factors that may influence dietary diversity, such as market access and agricultural technology, is also analysed.

Design: A survey of smallholder farm households was carried out in Malawi in 2014. Dietary diversity scores are calculated from 24 h recall data. Production diversity scores are calculated from farm production data covering a period of 12 months. Individual- and household-level regression models are developed and estimated.

Setting: Data were collected in sixteen districts of central and southern Malawi.

Subjects: Smallholder farm households (n 408), young children (n 519) and mothers (n 408).

Results: Farm production diversity is positively associated with dietary diversity. However, the estimated effects are small. Access to markets for buying food and selling farm produce and use of chemical fertilizers are shown to be more important for dietary diversity than diverse farm production. Results with household- and individual-level dietary data are very similar.

Conclusions: Further increasing production diversity may not be the most effective strategy to improve diets in smallholder farm households. Improving access to markets, productivity-enhancing inputs and technologies seems to be more promising.

Keywords: Agricultural technology; Dietary diversity; Malawi; Nutrition-sensitive agriculture; Smallholder farmers.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Marginal effect of production diversity score on household (n 408) and individual (children below 5 years, n 519; mothers, n 408) dietary diversity scores (DDS) by distance to district market (formula image, far from district market; formula image, close to district market; based on mean value of the variable ‘time to district market’); smallholder farm households, rural central and southern Malawi, 2014. **P<0·05
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (2015) The State of Food Insecurity in the World. Rome: FAO.
    1. International Food Policy Research Institute (2016) Global Nutrition Report 2016. From Promise to Impact: Ending Malnutrition by 2030. Washington, DC: IFPRI.
    1. Black RE, Victora CG, Walker SP et al.. (2013) Maternal and child undernutrition and overweight in low-income and middle-income countries. Lancet 382, 427–451. - PubMed
    1. Frelat R, Lopez-Ridaura S, Giller KE et al.. (2016) Drivers of household food availability in sub-Saharan Africa based on big data from small farms. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113, 458–463. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pinstrup-Andersen P (2007) Agricultural research and policy for better health and nutrition in developing countries: a food systems approach. Agric Econ 37, 187–198.

Publication types