4.6 Article

Home-grown school feeding: promoting local production systems diversification through nutrition sensitive agriculture

期刊

FOOD SECURITY
卷 10, 期 1, 页码 111-119

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s12571-017-0760-5

关键词

Production diversity; Dietary diversity; Sustainable food systems; Policy approaches; Structured demand; Sub-Saharan Africa

资金

  1. Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The consumption of some non-staple crops such as legumes and dark, green leafy vegetables can address common deficiencies in key nutrients such as vitamin A and iron; however, limited markets and supply chain development impede their production and accessibility to consumers. This study investigates the pathways to promote agricultural production and dietary diversity for a local market intervention called Home-Grown School Feeding (HGSF). School feeding menus from 24 districts across 10 regions in Ghana during the 2014-15 school year were analysed in terms of food groups and several individual foods. The menus were then compared with food groups produced by households during the past year or consumed in the past seven days using data collected from a household survey. Greater inter-food group diversity in the menus was associated with higher production levels for tubers and dark, leafy green vegetables in the South and cereals in the North. A correspondence between the frequency in which a food group appeared in a menu and the share of households who consumed foods from the food group was also noted. Key issues, such as optimizing supply chains, enabling farm linkages and supporting diverse nutrient rich food groups, that underlie the success of Home-Grown School Feeding and other agricultural policies with similar goals of promoting production and dietary diversity are highlighted through commodity specific examples. The findings of this study may help strengthen operational linkages between agriculture production and nutrition for HGSF and other similar interventions.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据