Abstract
This study extended the agricultural household model to explain food storage, consumption and sales behaviors of farming households in northern Uganda using two major staple grains: finger millet and beans. Using secondary data collected by the Uganda Bureau of Statistics from 782 millet and beans producing households (388 households below poverty level and 394 households above poverty level), seemingly unrelated regressions were performed and risk neutrality tests were carried out. It was found that all finger millet and beans producing households in northern Uganda were risk neutral regarding storage and sales decisions with only millet producing households below poverty line being risk averse in their consumption decisions. However, households above poverty line produced and stored more millet and beans implying that they were more food secure than households below poverty level. Therefore, strategies to boost incomes, production and prudent management of millet and beans stocks at the household level are critical for food security alleviation in northern Uganda. Key words: Food security, household, precautionary storage, consumption, sales, price risk, Uganda.
Highlights
Numerous studies have shown that precautionary food storage behavior of households differs by income level (Jalan and Ravallion, 2001; Deininger et al, 2007; Carter and Lybbert, 2012; Michler and Balagtas, 2013)
Almost three-quarters of sampled households were male headed and, there was no significant difference in age and education level of household head (Table 1)
Household access to extension services, credit and membership to farmer groups or associations were generally low in the study districts, households below poverty line appeared to have had more access to these services than their counterparts
Summary
Numerous studies have shown that precautionary food storage behavior of households differs by income level (Jalan and Ravallion, 2001; Deininger et al, 2007; Carter and Lybbert, 2012; Michler and Balagtas, 2013). Deininger et al (2007) argued that the concern for food security motivates household storage even when arbitrage is unlikely to insure food. Better access to credit, for example, increases household food storage for arbitrage and decreases storage for food security purpose implying an overall positive or negative net effect on storage (Park, 2006; Michler and Balagtas, 2013)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
