Household food insecurity in Panamanian subsistence farming communities is associated with indicators of household wealth and constraints on food production

Abstract

Objective:To determine if constraints on agricultural production were a novel construct in the Panama Food Security Questionnaire (FSQ) and to characterize agricultural and economic determinants of food insecurity during the planting, growing and harvesting time periods in subsistence farming communities.Design:This longitudinal study followed households during land preparation, growing and harvest periods in one agricultural cycle. Agricultural production and economic variables were recorded and the Panama FSQ was administered. Exploratory factor analysis was used to verify construct validity of the FSQ. A food insecurity score (FIS), ranging from 0 to 42, was derived. Multiple regression analyses of FIS were conducted for each agricultural period.Setting:Fifteen rural villages in Panama.Participants:Subsistence farming households (n 237).Results:The FSQ contained four constructs: (i) ability to buy food; (ii) decreased amount/number of meals; (iii) feeling hungry; and (iv) lower agricultural production because of weather or lack of resources. Although most households were mildly food insecure in all time periods, determinants of food insecurity differed in each. Higher FIS was associated during land preparation with less rice and legumes planted and lower asset-based wealth; during growing months with less rice, more maize and pigeon peas planted and not selling produce; and during harvest with less rice planted, fewer chickens and lower income.Conclusions:Constraints on agriculture was a novel construct of the Panama FSQ. Different income-related variables emerged in each agricultural period. Planting staple foods and raising chickens were associated with food security, but some crop choices were associated with food insecurity.

Demonstration gardens improve agricultural production, food security and preschool child diets in subsistence farming communities in Panama

“…Importantly, increases in agricultural production happened without households increasing the size of their landholdings, indicating successful intensification of practices. Community demonstration gardens were a central component of this intervention, and continuing the gardens into the 5th year of the intervention appeared to impact sustainability of gains made by the intervention as households in communities with gardens used more of the agricultural knowledge learned through the Pooled data for all production variables have been previously reported (37) . †Different letters indicate differences in main effect (years in VERASAN) at P < 0.05 corrected for multiple pairwise comparisons (corrected P < 0.0167).…”

“…Data on household demographics, income and durable household assets for a household wealth index (HWI) were collected at the time of recruitment (37) . Data on agricultural techniques learned and used were collected early in the study as 0-year households began training in the community demonstration gardens.…”

“…Household food production in 2011 and 2012 was measured as diversity of crops planted (total crops, grains and starches, legumes and vegetables), quantities of staples planted and harvested (rice, maize, beans, plantain and cassava) and number of domestic animals kept for food, as previously reported (37) . Harvest data were only collected for 2011 because the study ended before the 2012 harvest was complete.…”

“…Household food insecurity score Household food insecurity was measured using an experience-based food security questionnaire adapted for Panama and validated for this population (37) that was administered to each household during land preparation, growing and harvest periods. Food insecurity scores (FIS) ranging from 0 ('food secure') to 42 ('severely food insecure') were calculated for each household in each period (37) .…”

“…During harvest, 165 households previously recruited during land preparation or growing months participated, and an additional eight households were recruited, resulting in a sample size of 173. Further details can be found in Krause et al (37) . Basic population characteristics are summarised in Table 1.…”