Advances in Environmental Biology

Advances in Environmental Biology, 8(17) September 2014, Pages: 744-749
AENSI Journals
Advances in Environmental Biology
ISSN-1995-0756
EISSN-1998-1066
Journal home page: http://www.aensiweb.com/AEB/
Food Security Performance of Farmer Household at Three Aagroecosystems
Types (Case Study in South Sulawesi)
1
Mais Ilsan, 2Mohammad Muslich Mustadjab, 3Nuhfil Hanani Syafrial
1
Brawijaya University, Doctoral Program, Agriculture Economic Deparment, Agriculture Faculty, 65144 Malang, Indonesia
Brawijaya University, Promoter, Agriculture Economic Deparment, Agriculture Faculty, 65144 Malang, Indonesia
3
Brawijaya University, Co-Promoter, Agriculture Economic Deparment, Agriculture Faculty, 65144 Malang, Indonesia
2
ARTICLE INFO
Article history:
Received 25 July 2014
Received in revised form
8 July 2014
Accepted 25 November 2014
Available online 16 December 2014
Keywords:
Food Security, Household Farmers,
Coastal
Agroecosystems,
Field
Agroecosystems,
Mountains
Agroecosystems.
ABSTRACT
Food security achievement at household level is an absolute thing that must to be
achieved in order to achieve food security at national territory level. This is consistent
with mandate of Law No. 18 of 2012 on food security. This research purpose is to
analyze the food security at household farmer’s level for three types of agroecosystem
in South Sulawesi. Research location is determined by "Multistage Sampling" method
and "Systematic Sampling" is used to determine the respondent. Data analysis method
is descriptive analysis using Table Measurement of Food Security at Household Level
which consists of 4 components and 18 indicators to determine the degree of household
food security. Food security at household level in coastal agroecosystem types is
Rather Crisis Food (RCF), field agroecosystem is Rather Secure Food (RSF) and
mountain agroecosystem is Rather Crisis Food (RCF).
© 2014 AENSI Publisher All rights reserved.
To Cite This Article: Mais Ilsan, Mohammad Muslich Mustadjab, Nuhfil Hanani Syafrial., Food Security Performance of Farmer
Household at Three Aagroecosystems Types (Case Study in South Sulawesi). Adv. Environ. Biol., 8(17), 744-749, 2014
INTRODUCTION
Agricultural sector will continue to play an important role for overall economic development and provide
food security for community [22]. Rural development aims is to achieve food security in a region with
integrated facilities and infrastructure ranging from food availability until food consumption to meet and realize
household food security [4]. RI Law No.18 of 2012 on food, Article 1, paragraph 4 states that Food security is
the conditions fulfillment for State and individual. It is reflected in availability of sufficient food, both in
quantity and quality, safe, diverse, nutritious, equitable, and affordable in accordance with beliefs and culture of
community, to be able to live healthy, active, and productive in a sustainable manner. www.Deptan.go.id.
Food security conditions in South Sulawesi Province shows that vegetable food production as food sources
already grow, except for cassava decrease 7.86 percent, peanuts decrease 9.80 percent, green beans decrease
14.88 percent and fruit decrease 0.99 percent. The increase of rice commodity is 9.11 percent, corn increase
20.00 percent, sweet potatoes increase 7.94 percent, soy increase 47.62 percent and vegetables increase 16.08
percent. Animal food sources with high enough increase are fish of 51.59 percent, egg of 24.44 percent and
poultry meat of 24.44 percent. While ruminant meat decreased by 10.69 percent (Agency for Food Security in
South Sulawesi, 2012).
Aspect of food availability for rice shows the consumption rate is 111.88 kg/capita/year or 878.267 tones,
achieved a surplus of 1,552,708 tons, reaching 6.47 percent when compared to year 2008 of 1,452,264 tons.
Aspects of average energy availability for South Sulawesi population reaches 5,123 kcal/capita/day or
232.86 per cent above the supply level of 2200 kcal/capita/day and for availability of protein has reached 154.90
grams/capita/day or 271.75 percent above the provision level of 57 grams/capita/day. However there are some
areas that still have sub-standard energy supply, especially in isolated areas in coastal and mountainous
agroecosystem.
Although energy availability already above the ideal standard, but food diversity (the balance between food
groups) still has inequality. Grain food groups ideally only accounts about 50 percent of total energy. In fact, it
contribution is high enough of 83.43 per cent, as well as other food groups are still lower than expectation. In
other hand, PPH score ideally have availability level of 86.31, or about 86 percent of 100 ideal PPH score. The
Corresponding Author: Mais Ilsan, Indonesia Muslim University, Agriculture Department, Agriculture Faculty, 90231,
Makassar, Indonesia. Office Addres: Jl. Urip Sumoharjo Km 6.
Tel: (+62)411 440412
745
Mais Ilsan et al, 2014
Advances in Environmental Biology, 8(17) September 2014, Pages: 744-749
food group that has reached the ideal score is grains, tubers, nuts and sugar, while the food group that does not
meets the ideal PPH score is animal, oils and fats, fruits/vegetables and oily seeds and fruit.
Basis Theory:
Generally, food security consists of four subsystems, namely: food availability, food access, food utilization
and food stability, whereas nutrition status is the outcome of food security. Relation of food security subsystem
can be seen in Figure 1.
Fig. 1: Food Security Subsystem (Source: Hanani Nuhfil, 2012).
Mais Ilsan [12] doing research with title "Indicator mapping arrangement of food crisis at Takalar District".
One analysis result at 9 districts and 77 villages is Subdistrict Galesong as one districts shows very low food
availability, food access in middle category but food utilization within high category. Based on these three
aspects, food security level of Galesong District is categorized in rather crisis food.
Research Waspodo examines the coastal and marine resources usage for household food security of
fishermen in West Lombok, based on level of production, household income, food consumption, food prices,
food science and nutrition in household fishermen.
Adi et al. observed consumption and household food security based on ecology in Pasuruan, East Java
Regional District to get conclusion that a new energy consumption level is 68.1% EAN (Energy Adequacy
Number) and protein intake level is 96.91% PAN (Protein Adequacy Number). While peoples in less fertile land
show relatively low level of food consumption where energy consumption level is 60.1% EAN and protein
consumption level is 78.3% PAN.
Ariani and Rachman [2] examine the conception and food security performance. They conclude that
household food security generally is characterized by several adequacy indicators, as availability and access to
food, socio-economic conditions (income, education, family structure, food prices and food expenditures).
Household food security conditions for energy consumption level are only 84% of adequacy norms. Based on
score of PPH, food consumption is not balanced, equal to 70% of ideal score. Energy source consumed by
households is still dominated by rice, and animal protein consumption is still very low.
Research Methods:
This study was conducted in South Sulawesi province, with consideration that South Sulawesi is one barns
in eastern Indonesia. Location of study object is determined by using Multistage sampling, with four stages,
namely the determination of district, sub-district, village and households for the last.
The method used to determine the household respondent is purposive sampling with following provisions:
(1) household head has a household staple job as a farmer, (2) has a wife and child. Total population of selected
households will be selected using structured random method to determine the number of households that will
become respondent. The number of selected respondents i.e. 88 households in coastal agroecosystem types, 100
households in rice agroecosystem type and 67 households in mountains agroecosystem types. Data analysis
methods used is descriptive analysis and analysis of household food security level.
Research Result:
Farmer Socio-Economic Characteristics at Three Agroecosystems Types in South Sulawesi:
Socio-economic characteristics consist of age, education, number of dependents, alternative job of
household head, and work performance of his wife and family members. Research results show that respondents
age belong to productive agroecosystem, i.e. 41 years for coastal agroecosystem (AEPES), 49 years for field
agroecosystem (AEPER) and 42 years for mountains agroecosystem (AEPEG). Formal education levels in all
types of household heads are relatively low for AEPES and AEPER namely elementary school and average of
746
Mais Ilsan et al, 2014
Advances in Environmental Biology, 8(17) September 2014, Pages: 744-749
formal education level for AEPEG is junior high school. Family dependents classification for AEPES and
AEPEG are 5 and AEPER are 4 people
Job alternative of farm household (chart 2) for three types of agroecosystem is very diverse, but the
percentage of households without alternative job is still very high. Household head without alternative job are
AEPER of 68%, AEPEG of 43.14% and AEPES of 4.55%. For AEPES, dominant alternative job are fishing
(39.77%), making brick (20.45%) and self-employed (14.77%). For AEPER, the alternative job is construction
worker (13%), trader self-employed (12%) and motorcycle taxis (3%). For AEPEG, dominant alternative jobs
are entrepreneurship (17.91%), 13.43% and construction workers (5.97%).
Fig. 2: Research Conceptual Framework about Improving Household Food Security in South Sulawesi.
Job diversity for respondent wives is relatively high at research area. This is shown in Table 5, with total of
68.24% of respondents have a productive work wife, and 31.76% were not working. Respondent’s wives who
have a productive work are 79.54% for AEPES, 74.63% for AEPER and 68.24% for AEPEG. Respondent wife
who does not work are 20.45% for AEPES, 46% for AEPER and 31.76% for AEPEG. Figure 3 shows that
performance of respondent wife in South Sulawesi with productive work is 68.24%. The distribution for AEPES
types of 79.54%, AEPER types of 54%, AEPEG types of 74.63%. Work performance of household members in
Figure 4 shows that 37.75% of household members are not working, 55.69% of household members have 1
people work and 6.6% of household member has more than 1 person work. For AEPER type 53.41% working 1,
AEPER type of 53%, and AEPEG type of 55.69%.
Household Food Security Level for Three Agroecosystems Types in South Sulawesi:
Household food security indicators in this study include four components, namely, Food Availability (K1),
Access Food (K2), Food Utilization (K3) and Household Nutritional Status (K4). Indicators created in this
research are Self Food Production (X1), Purchased Food (X2), Reserves Food (X3), Food Aid (X4), Family
Head Income (X5), Wife Income (X6), Family Members Income (X7), Income Allocation for Food (X8),
Income Allocation for non Food (X9), Energy Sufficiency Rate (X10), Protein Sufficiency Level (X11),
Vitamin Adequacy Levels (X12), Food Diversity (x13), Toddlers Nutritional Status (X14), Baby Mortality
(X15), Life Hope (X16), Food Consumption Patterns (X17) and Housewife Knowledge (X18).
Table 1: Food Availability of Farmers Household in South Sulawesi.
Coastal
Food availability
(K1)
NKKP
Criterion
Self food production (X1)
1,92
RP
Purchased food (X2)
4,60
TP
Food reserve (X3)
5,05
TP
Food aid (X4)
2,01
RP
Source: Primary Data Analysis, 2013
Field
NKKP
1,90
4,71
5,29
1,81
Criterion
RP
TP
TP
RP
Mountain
NKKP
Criterion
2,27
RP
3,79
ATP
4,72
TP
1,64
RP
747
Mais Ilsan et al, 2014
Advances in Environmental Biology, 8(17) September 2014, Pages: 744-749
Table 2: Food Access of Farmers Household in South Sulawesi.
Coastal
Food Access
(K2)
NKAP
Criterion
Household head income (X5)
4,86
TP
Housewives income (X6)
2,20
RP
Family member income (X7)
1,65
RP
Income allocation for food (X8)
1,02
SRP
Income allocation for non food (X9)
3,07
ARP
Source: Primary Data Analysis, 2013.
Table 3: Food Utilization of Farmers Household in South Sulawesi.
Coastal
Food utilization
(K3)
NKPP
Criterion
Energy adequacy level (X10)
1,32
SRP
Protein adequacy level (X11)
2,80
ARP
Vitamin A adequacy level (X12)
2,75
ARP
Food diversity (X13)
4,88
TP
Source: Primary Data Analysis, 2013
Field
NKAP
4,85
1,76
1,93
1,07
2,92
Criterion
TP
RP
RP
SRP
ARP
Mountain
NKAP
Criterion
4,61
TP
2,09
RP
1,64
RP
1,19
SRP
3,03
ARP
Criterion
STP
TP
TP
TP
Mountain
NKPP
Criterion
4,04
ATP
4,10
ATP
4,95
TP
4,79
TP
Field
NKPP
5,60
5,22
4,96
4,75
Food analysis in this study is rice, maize, cassava and sweet potatoes. Foods are self production (X1) for all
types of food crisis agroecosystem, food purchased (X2) food secure AEPEG rather food secure, food aid (X3)
are all in of food secure, while backup all types of agroecosystem are classified as food crisis. Household access
consists of five indicators. Income households (X5) in three agroecosystem types are classified as food secure,
income wife (X6) and family income (X7) are in crisis food type for all types of agroecosystem. Income
allocation for food (X8) for all type agroecosystem is food crisis, while the indicator for income allocation for
non-food (X9) is within rather crisis.
Table 4: Nutritional Status of Farmer Households in South Sulawesi.
Coastal
Household nutrition status
(K1)
NKZG
Criterion
Toddler nutrient status (X14)
5,28
TP
Baby mortality (X15)
4,60
TP
Live hope age (X16)
5,07
TP
Food consumption patter (X17)
3,93
ATP
Housewife knowledge (X18)
3,43
ATP
Source: Primary Data Analysis, 2013.
Table 5: Food Security Level of Farmer Household in South Sulawesi.
Coastal
Household food security elements
NKKKP
Criterion
Food availability
3,40
ARP
Food Access
2,56
ARP
Food utilization
2,94
ARP
Household nutrient status
4,46
ATP
Average
3,36
ARP
Source: Primary Data Analysis, 2013.
Field
NKZG
5,57
4,86
4,92
3,31
3,30
Criterion
STP
TP
TP
ARP
ARP
Mountain
NKZG
Criterion
5,82
STP
4,85
TP
5,24
TP
4,75
TP
3,87
ATP
Criterion
ARP
ARP
TP
ATP
ATP
Mountain
NKKKP
Criterion
3,11
ARP
2,51
ARP
4,47
ATP
4,84
TP
3,74
ATP
Field
NKKKP
3,43
2,51
5,13
4,39
3,81
Food absorption (K3) consists of four indicators namely Energy adequacy level (X10), Protein adequacy
level (X11), Vitamin A adequacy level (X12) and Food diversity (X13). Research results showed that indicator
X10 for AEPES types is at a very crisis food category, AEPER type is very secure food category, AEPEG type
is rate secure food category. X11 indicator for AEPES type is in crisis food category, type AEPER in secure
food resistant, type AEPEG in category rather secure food category. X12 indicator for AEPES type is in rather
crisis food category, AEPEG type in secure food category, AEPER type in secure food category. Indicator X13
for all types of agroecosystem is in secure food category.
The nutritional status of households (K4) consists of 5 indicators namely Toddler nutrient status (X14),
Baby mortality (X15), Life hope age (X16), Food consumption pattern (X17) and Housewife knowledge (X18).
The analysis showed that X14, X15 and X16 indicators for AEPES type are in secure food category, X17 and
X18 indicators for AEPES type is in rather secure food category. X14 indicator for AEPER type is in very
secure food category, X15 and X16 indicators are classified secure food category and X17 and X18 indicators
are in rather crisis food category. X14 indicator for AEPEG type is in very secure food category, indicators of
X15, X16 and X17 is in secure food category, while X18 is in rather secure food category.
Table 5 shows the state of household food security which is the resultant of four components of food
security by 18 indicators. Coastal agroecosystem types have high levels of household food security in region are
on proficiency level rather vulnerable categories of food, agroecosystem type rice fields and mountains are at
levels somewhat resistant food. The difference in level of household food security in area of research due to
748
Mais Ilsan et al, 2014
Advances in Environmental Biology, 8(17) September 2014, Pages: 744-749
variation in level of food security indicators is analyzed. Composite value of food security indicators that are
analyzed are presented in Table 6 below.
Purchased food (X2) is most dominant indicators to make composite value components of food security for
Coastal and Mountain Agroecosystems, and for Agroecosystems Rice fields are Food Reserves (X3). Household
head income is most dominant indicators of Food Access components for all three agroecosystem types. Protein
adequacy level is most dominant indicator of Food Absorption composite score for all three agroecosystem type.
While the most dominant indicator for Household nutrition status is food consumption pattern (X17) for field
and coastal agroecosystem, and for Mountains agroecosystems is Toddler Nutrition Status (X14).
Conclusion:
Productive age that followed by an adequate education level would support the farmer households to
manage household food. Employment is economic variables that determine access and absorption of food as
part of household food security component. Higher work diversity in farm household affects to improve
household food security. Food security indicators in three agroecosystem types show different levels. AEPES
type is within rather crisis food insecurity, AEPER and AEPEG type is in rather secure food category. Food
availability and access to food in all three agroecosystem types are in rather crisis Food category. Food
absorption in coastal Agroecosystems type is in rather crisis food category, field agroecosystem types is in
secure food category and in mountains agroecosystem type are in rate secure food category. Household
nutritional status of coastal and filed agroecosystem is in rather secure food category, whereas mountain
agroecosystem type is in secure food category.
Table 6: Value Composite Household Food Security in Three Types of Agroecosystems in South Sulawesi.
Type and composite indicator value of household security indicator
Indicators
AEPES
AEPER
AEPEG
Self food production (X1)
9,66
19,00
8,28
Purchased food (X2)
36,82
23,55
48,36
Food reserve (X3)
10,09
26,45
15,58
Food aid (X4)
10,06
18,10
2,93
Household head income (X5)
24,32
24,25
39,10
Housewives income (X6)
6,61
8,80
22,99
Family member income (X7)
4,94
3,86
10,37
Income allocation for food (X8)
5,11
5,35
10,00
Income allocation for non food (X9)
12,27
8,76
18,28
Energy adequacy level (X10)
13,18
28,00
6,04
Protein adequacy level (X11)
27,95
52,20
17,31
Vitamin A adequacy level (X12)
13,75
24,80
15,30
Food diversity (X13)
24,38
23,75
5,00
Toddler nutrient status (X14)
26,42
27,85
29,10
Baby mortality (X15)
23,01
14,58
14,35
Life hope age (X16)
25,34
9,84
10,48
Food consumption patter (X17)
31,45
33,10
23,73
Housewife knowledge (X18)
24,02
16,50
19,33
329,33
368,74
293,54
Total composite value of household food security
(ARP)
(ATP)
(ARP)
Source: Primary Data Analysis, 2013.
REFERENCES
[1] Anonim, 2005. Food Insecurity Atlas (FIA) of Indonesia. A Collaborative Effort, Between Food Security
Council - Republic Of Indonesia and The United Nations World Food Programme (WFP-FAO), Jakarta.
[2] Ariani, M., H.P. Dan Saliem, 2002. Ketahanan Pangan, Konsep, Pengukuran dan Strategi, dalam Forum
Penelitian Agro Ekonomi, 20: 1. Pusat Penelitian dan Pengembangan Sosial Ekonomi Pertanian, Badan
Penelitian dan Pengembangan Pertanian, Departemen Pertanian. Bogor.
[3] Ariani, M., Dan T. Sudaryanto, 1991. Pola Konsumsi Makanan Pola Konsumsi Energi dan Protein di
Pedesaan Jawa Tengah. Departemen Pertanian Republik Indonesia, Jakarta.
[4] Henri-U-koha, A., 2011. The Level of Food Security/Insecurity by Gender in Selected Land Tenure System
Among Cassava-Based Farmers in Abia State, South East Nigeria : A Comparative Analysis. Internasional
Journal of Agrikulturan and Food Science, http://www.urpjournals.com. ISSN, 2249-8516.
[5] Baliwati, Y.F., 2001. Model Evaluasi Ketahanan Pangan Rumah Tangga Petani (Desa Sukajadi Kecamatan
Ciomas Kabupaten Bogor). Disertasi. Program Pascasarjana Institut Pertanian Bogor. Bogor.
[6] Badan Ketahanan Pangan Sulawesi Selatan, 2012. Laporan Kinerja Ketahanan Pangan Sulawesi Selatan
Tahun 2011. BKP, Sul-Sel.
[7] Chung, K., L. Haddad, J. Ramakrisna and F. Riely, 1997. Identifying the Food Insecure, The Application on
Mixed – Methode Approaches in India. Washington DC: International Food Policy Research Institute.
749
Mais Ilsan et al, 2014
Advances in Environmental Biology, 8(17) September 2014, Pages: 744-749
[8] Departemen Pertanian, R.I., 2004. Rencana Strategic dan Program Kerja Pemantapan Ketahanan Pangan
Tahun 2001 – 2004. Badan Bimas Ketahanan Pangan Departemen Pertanian. Jakarta www.deptan.go.id.
[9] FAO, 1996. Food Security Assessment (Document WFS 96/Tech/7). Rome. Gittinger, J.P., I. Leslie, and C.
Hoisington, 1987. Food Policy, Integrating Supply, Distribution and Consumption. The John Hopkins
University Press. Baltimore.
[10] FAO, 2003. Proceedings. Measurement and Assessment of Food Devrivation and Undernutrion.
International Scientific Symposium. Rome, 26-28.
[11] Hoddinoot, John, 2001. Food Security In Practice. Method for Rural Develomment Project. International
Food Security Policy Research Institute, Washingtong, D.C.
[12] Mais Ilsan, 2007. Penyusunan Indikator Rawan Pangan di Kabupaten Takalar, Kerjasama dengan Bappeda
Kabupaten Takalar Provinsi Sulawesi Selatan, Penerbit Bappeda Kabupaten Takalar.
[13] Maya Kant Awasthi, Samiksha Singh, 2010. System Analysis of Food Security Situation in India, Journal
of Food Security, http://www.ifsweb.nic.in ISSN : 0957-2994.
[14] Hanani Nuhfil, 2002. Analisis Harga Pangan di Jawa Timur. Makalah Seminar Badan Ketahanan Pangan
Jawa Timur. 4-5. Batu Malang. Jawa Timur.
[15] Hanani Nuhfil, H., 2012. Strategi Enam Pilar Pembangunan Ketahanan Pangan, Pidato Pengukuhan
Jabatan Guru Besar Dalam Bidang Ilmu Ekonomi Pertanian. Fakultas Pertanian Universitas Brawijaya.
[16] Pakpahan A., H.P. Saliem, S.H. Suhartini dan N. Syafaat, 1993. Penelitian tentang Ketahanan Pangan
Masyarakat Berpendapatan Rendah. Monograph Series No. 14. Pusat Penelitian Sosial Ekonomi Pertanian.
Bogor.
[17] Suhardjo dan Hardinsyah, 1989. Food Consumption and Availability in Five Provincies of Jawa Island.
Media Gizi dan Keluarga. Jurusan Gizi dan Sumberdaya Keluarga. Fakultas Pertanian Bogor. Bogor.
[18] Suhardjo, 1998. Sosio Budaya Gizi. Departemen Pendidikan dan Kebudayaan, Direktorat Jenderal
Pendidikan Tinggi, Pusat Antar Universitas Pangan dan Gizi IPB. Bogor.
[19] Sumarwan, Ujang dan Dadang Sukandar, 1998. Analisis Ketahanan Pangan Keluarga dan Kesejahteraan
Keluarga. Media Gizi dan Keluarga. XXII (1).
[20] Soetrisno, N., 1998. Perspektif Ekonomi Pangan, Dalam Repelita VI. Pangan, 18.
[21] Susanto, D., 1994. Meningkatkan Strategi Komunikasi, Informasi dan Edukasi (KIE) dalam Pengentasan
Masalah Gizi Kurang. Risalah Widyakarya Pangan dan Gizi IV. LIPI. Jakarta.
[22] Teki Surayya, 2010. Food Supply Chain Managemen : Chalelenger and Strategies. Journal of Food
Security. http://www.ifsweb.nic.in ISSN : 0957-2994.
[23] World Bank, 1986. Poverty ang Hunger : Issues and Options for Food Security in Developing Countries.
World Bank Policy Study. Washington DC.