Smallholder aquaculture diversifies livelihoods and diets thus improving food security status: evidence from northern Zambia

Table 2 Dietary characteristics of aquaculture and non-aquaculture households

Characteristics	Aquaculture n = 177		Non-aquaculture n = 174
Characteristics	Mean ± SD		Mean ± SD
Total dietary scores from 24-h HDDS
Total HDD score	5.7 ± 1.3		5.5 ± 1.5
Total meals	3.1 ± 0.9		2.9 ± 0.9		*
Diversity of key food groups from FFQ^#
Simpsons Index for diet (0 to 1 indicating more diversity)	0.83 ± 0.04		0.81 ± 0.07		**
Richness of diet (total no. of food groups out of 12)	8.5 ± 1.6		8.0 ± 1.9		**
Diversity of fish from FFQ (28 days)
Simpsons Index for fish species	0.65 ± 0.23		0.58 ± 0.29		*
Richness of fish (total no. of species)	5.1 ± 3.3		4.4 ± 3.3
Total frequency of consumption of fish (daily rate)	1.1 ± 1.2		1.0 ± 1.4
	Freq.	%	Freq.	%
Household dietary diversity groups^†
Low HDDS: ≤ 4 food groups	28	15.8	45	25.9	*
Average HDDS: 5–6 food groups	96	54.2	91	52.3
High HDDS: ≥ 7 food groups	53	29.9	38	21.8

HDDS Household Dietary Diversity Score
^#Food Frequency Questionnaire
^†Statistical difference calculated with chi-squared test on six groups—aquaculture and non-aquaculture respondents in the three groupings based on HDDS
All other p values on mean differences between aquaculture and non-aquaculture groups calculated with one-way ANOVA, statistical significance marked with * (p < 0.05) or ** (p < 0.01) or *** (p < 0.001)

ISSN: 2048-7010