Nutrition garden interventions in improving production, dietary diversity and livelihood security

Introduction

In recent times, agricultural productivity has improved; however, food insecurity continues to affect a significant proportion of the population, particularly in developing countries where access to adequate and nutritious food remains limited (FAO, 2014; Kumari et al., 2019) [1,2] . Recent estimates indicate that nearly two billion people experience moderate or severe food insecurity, while approximately 3.5 billion individuals suffer from different forms of malnutrition (FAO, 2022; WHO, 2022) [3,4] . Further, globalization and rapid dietary transitions have increased the consumption of processed and fast foods, extending beyond urban centers into rural and tribal areas, thereby aggravating nutrition-related health challenges (Kaur et al., 2022) [5] .In India, malnutrition remains a major public health concern. Findings from the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5) [6] reveal the coexistence of undernutrition, micronutrient deficiencies, and rising prevalence of overweight and obesity, representing the country's triple burden of malnutrition. India continues to report one of the highest child wasting rates globally (19.3%) along with a high prevalence of child stunting (35.5%), indicating considerable regional and socioeconomic disparities. The seriousness of the situation is further reflected in India's ranking of 105 th among 127 countries in the Global Hunger Index 2024, with a score of 27.3, categorized under a serious level of hunger. Recognizing these challenges, India has committed to achieving global nutrition targets under the World Health Assembly nutrition agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals aimed at eliminating hunger and all forms of malnutrition by 2030. National initiatives such as POSHAN Abhiyaan, launched in 2018, focus on improving nutritional outcomes among children, pregnant women, and lactating mothers through multisectoral convergence. Strengthening such initiatives requires closer integration between agriculture and nutrition systems, as agricultural production directly influences food availability, dietary diversity and household nutritional well-being. Farm women play a vital role in this linkage, acting as key agents connecting agricultural activities with household food preparation, consumption practices, and nutrition outcomes. Vegetable consumption in India remains considerably lower than the recommended level of 300 g per person per day. The current per capita availability is approximately 135 g per day, which is far below the quantity required for a balanced and nutritious diet. Consumption levels are even lower among rural households and economically weaker www.extensionjournal.com sections, often falling below 40 g per person per day (Kumari et al., 2019) [7] . The reduced consumption of green leafy vegetables, fruits, indigenous fruits and vegetables can also be associated with decreased dietary diversity. Inclusion of green leafy vegetables and diverse horticultural crops can substantially improve dietary quality. In this context, promotion of nutri-gardens provides a practical and sustainable strategy to enhance household food and nutrition security. A nutri-garden is defined as a cultivation method focused on planting and harvesting nutrient-dense crops in close proximity to residences such as backyards, terraces, or rooftops to fulfill a family's annual nutritional requirements. (Salam, 2024) [8] . Nutri gardens ensure year-round availability, accessibility, and stability of safe and nutritious food while promoting dietary diversity and addressing micronutrient deficiencies. They contribute to improved nutritional intake, additional income generation, efficient utilization of family labour and household resources, recycling of kitchen waste and wastewater, environmental sanitation, and enhanced participation of family members in nutrition-related activities (Kolekar, 2025) [9] . For small and marginal farmers, particularly women, nutri gardens support diversified diets, livelihood resilience and improved household well-being (Mamgai et al., 2021) [10] . Operationalizing these principles at the community level, the Nutrition sensitive kitchen garden: Nutrigarden approach has emerged as an innovative model integrating agriculture, nutrition, and rural development. The programme, implemented under the All India Coordinated Research Project on Women in Agriculture (AICRP-WIA) at the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bengaluru, aims to strengthen the objectives of POSHAN Abhiyaan through nutrition-sensitive agricultural interventions. The NSV programme was implemented in selected villages of Sidlaghatta taluk of Chikkaballapura district in Karnataka state. Major interventions under the programme included promotion of protective foods to improve dietary diversity, establishment of nutrition gardens for year-round availability of vegetables and fruits, to enhance household nutrition and income. Capacity-building programmes were also conducted to promote beekeeping, mushroom cultivation, and utilization of nutrient-dense foods. Continuous technical handholding, regular monitoring, and active community participation formed integral components of the intervention strategy, ensuring effective adoption and sustainability of nutrition-sensitive practices at the household level. In this context, the present study was undertaken to evaluate the contribution of homestead farming systems and nutrition-sensitive kitchen gardens interventions implemented under the Nutri-Smart Village approach toward enhancing household food and livelihood security in Karnataka. Specifically, the study examines changes in area under diversified crops, production of nutrient-rich food groups, household consumption patterns, and improvements in marketable surplus and income generation among participating farm households.

Materials and Methods

Study Area

The study was carried out in five villages Basavapattana, Bodhaguru, Hospete, Thippenahalli, and Yennaguru situated in Sidlaghatta taluk of Chikkaballapura district, Karnataka, India. The area belongs to the semi-arid agro-climatic zone, marked by irregular rainfall patterns, limited irrigation resources, and the dominance of small and marginal farmers. Agriculture and allied activities form the main source of livelihood for the rural households in the study region. These five villages, adopted under the Nutri-Smart Village Programme implemented by the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bengaluru, through the All India Coordinated Research Project on Women in Agriculture (AICRP-WIA), were purposively selected for the study and are illustrated in Figure 1.

Research Design

The study followed an ex-post facto research design to assess the impact of nutrition-sensitive agricultural interventions implemented under the Nutri-Smart Village (NSV) approach. The design enabled evaluation of changes in production, household consumption behaviour, and livelihood outcomes from nutri-rich crops following implementation of interventions.

Selection of Respondents

A total of 150 farm families were purposively selected for intervention under the Nutri-Smart Village programme based on their interest and willingness to adopt one or more nutrition-sensitive agricultural practices such as homestead nutrition gardens, millet cultivation, backyard poultry rearing (Giriraja birds), beekeeping, and mushroom cultivation.

Nutri-Smart Village Interventions

The major interventions included promotion of diversified cropping systems with emphasis on millets and other nutrient-rich establishment of homestead nutrition gardens to ensure year-round availability of diverse foods, along with promotion of beekeeping and mushroom cultivation; and introduction of Giriraja poultry birds as a subsidiary income-generating activity to enhance household nutrition and livelihood security.

List of vegetables and crops distributed under intervention

Season

Data Collection

Primary data were collected from beneficiary households using a pre-tested structured interview schedule. Baseline and post-intervention information was obtained through personal interviews and field observations. Data were collected on:

• Area under diversified crops

Statistical Analysis

The collected data were analyzed using appropriate statistical tools, including percentage analysis, mean and standard deviation, percentage change analysis, and paired comparison of pre and post intervention values to assess the impact of the interventions.

Results and Discussion

Area under nutrition sensitive crops before and after intervention Figure 1 presents the area under nutrition-sensitive crops and allied units before and after the interventions. The findings indicate a substantial increase in the cultivation of diversified and nutrition-rich crops following the intervention.

Prior to the intervention, the area under green leafy vegetables was 3.11 m², which increased to 9.28 m² after the intervention, indicating a considerable expansion in the cultivation of nutrient-rich leafy vegetables. Similarly, the area under other vegetables increased from 3.48 m² to 10.34 m², reflecting greater adoption of vegetable cultivation practices among the respondents. The cultivation area of roots and tubers also increased from 3.34 m² to 7.45 m², suggesting improved diversification in the cropping pattern. A notable improvement was observed in the cultivation of fruit crops, which increased from 0.24 m² before the intervention to 3.46 m² after the intervention, indicating enhanced awareness and adoption of fruit-based nutrition sources at the household level. The intervention also facilitated the introduction of several new nutrition-sensitive crops that were not cultivated earlier. Chia seeds and grain amaranth, which were not grown before the intervention, recorded cultivation areas of 11.01 m² and 167.47 m², respectively, after the intervention. This highlights the successful promotion and adoption of these highly nutritious crops among the beneficiaries. Similarly, millet cultivation was introduced after the intervention, with an average area of 0.53 acres, demonstrating increased emphasis on climate-resilient and nutrient-dense crops. In addition, allied nutrition-supporting activities such as beekeeping (0.29 units) and mushroom www.extensionjournal.com cultivation (2.22 kg) were also initiated after the intervention, contributing to improved household nutrition and livelihood diversification. Further, vegetable soybean cultivation, which was absent before the intervention, was adopted with an average area of 1.52 m² after the intervention. The observed improvement is in line with the findings of Birdi and Shah (2015) [11] , reported that the kitchen gardens in a specific area around the house increased from 52 per cent at baseline to 95 per cent at endline. Similarly, kitchen gardens established in the field increased from 51 per cent to 87 per cent, while cultivation along walls and rooftops showed a substantial rose from 45 per cent to 96 per cent. The findings of Ferdous (2016) [12] are in agreement with the results of the present study. The study reported that seasonal production was highest during the Rabi season, recording outputs of 224.6, 269.6, and 271.6 kg per farm among landless, marginal, and small farmers, respectively. This was followed by the Kharif-II season, with production levels of 121.9 kg per farm for landless farmers, 136.1 kg for marginal farmers, and 141.6 kg for small farmers. Similarly, Patil (2020) [13] reported a significant improvement in the percentage adequacy of average food consumption after nutri-garden implementation, with consumption levels across different food groups increasing by 4 to 34 per cent.In line with these findings, Chikkanna (2022) [14] documented a marked enhancement in vegetable consumption after the nutri-garden intervention. The intake of green leafy vegetables increased from 1.45 to 3.16, tuber crops from 3.75 to 5.56, and other vegetables from 5.54 to 7.25, reflecting improved availability and regular utilization of diverse vegetables in household diets. This contributed to enhanced dietary diversity and nutritional security among farm families. Consistent results were also reported by Birdi and Shah (2015) [11] , who found that the consumption of green leafy vegetables increased from 33.6 g in winter 2011 to 80.5 g in winter 2012, although intake declined during summer seasons (15.1 g in 2012 and 17.6 g in 2013), indicating seasonal variations in availability. Similarly, roots and tubers consumption improved from 46.8 g to 69.7 g during winter but decreased in summer, while the intake of other vegetables rose from 53 g to 97.8 g in winter with relatively stable summer consumption patterns. The findings of Bushamuka et al. (2005) [15] also support the present study, reporting significantly higher vegetable consumption among active households (85 kg) compared to control households (38 kg) (p < 0.001), indicating improved household access to nutritious foods. Further, Ferdous (2016) [12] observed that vegetable consumption was highest among small farmers (316.2 kg/year), followed by marginal farmers (296.9 kg/year) and landless farmers (218.2 kg/year). A similar trend was noted in per capita intake, with small farmers consuming 79.1 kg/year, marginal farmers 59.3 kg/year, and landless farmers 54.6 kg/year. Overall, vegetable consumption declined with decreasing farm size, likely because landless farmers marketed a larger share of their produce to meet household financial needs, resulting in lower quantities retained for home consumption.

Consumption Pattern

Sale of Produce

The intervention also facilitated marketable surplus and income enhancement. Sale of green leafy vegetables increased from nil to 1.

Economic value of production, consumption and net income of the family before and after the intervention

The figure 2 indicate the economic value of production, consumption and net income of the family after the intervention. The economic value of production increased markedly from Rs.2844.19 before the intervention to Rs.26123.81 after the intervention, indicating a significant enhancement in the productivity of nutrition garden crops and other introduced enterprises. Similarly, the economic value of consumption increased from Rs.2077.92 to Rs.16242.09, suggesting that the families were able to consume more of the produce from their nutrition gardens, thereby improving household food and nutritional security while reducing market dependency. The net income of the family also showed a remarkable increase from Rs.2501.25 before the intervention to Rs.23131.24 after the intervention, reflecting the positive economic impact of the intervention. Overall, the findings reveal that the intervention significantly enhanced the economic returns of the households by increasing production, promoting self-consumption and generating higher net income for the families. The findings of Bushamuka et al. (2005) [15] support the results of the present study, reporting that nearly 64 per cent of active households generated a median garden income of 347 taka, which was primarily spent on food expenses, compared to only 25 per cent of control households earning about 200 taka. This highlights the positive contribution of homestead gardening to household food security and income generation. Similarly, Bhavani (2024) [15] reported that vegetable production under the nutrigarden generated a total net income of ₹30, 592.09 during the Kharif season with an average net income of ₹611.84, while the Rabi season recorded a total net income of ₹26, 604.78 with an average net income of ₹532.10, indicating relatively higher economic returns during the Kharif season.

In another study, Karuppaswamy (2021) [16] reported that the total net income generated from demonstrated vegetable crops was ₹2, 76, 600. Likewise, Kumari et al. (2019) [2] documented that vegetables grown in nutri-gardens generated an annual net income of ₹10, 756.48, demonstrating the economic viability of nutri-garden interventions in enhancing household livelihoods.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementThe authors sincerely acknowledge the financial support, guidance, and technical assistance provided by the ICAR-Central Institute for Women in Agriculture (ICAR-CIWA), Bhubaneswar, for facilitating the conduct of this study. The authors also express their gratitude to the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bengaluru, for providing the necessary facilities and institutional support for carrying out the research successfully. The cooperation and valuable information provided by the farm women respondents of the study area are gratefully acknowledged.

References

1. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Guidelines for assessing nutrition-related knowledge, attitudes and practices. Manual 473. Rome: FAO; 2014. www.fao.org/docrep/019/i3545e/i3545e00.htm.
2. Kumari P, Mustafa MD, Somvanshi SPS, Singh C, Kumar P. Nutri-garden for sustainable food security and nutritional diversity in Hamirpur district of Bundelkhand Region (UP). 2019;55(4):107-113. doi:10.48165/.
3. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The state of food security and nutrition in the world. Rome: FAO; 2022. https://www.fao.org/emergencies/resourcesrepository/videos/detail/state-of-food-security-andnutrition-in-the-world-2022/en.
4. World Health Organization. Monitoring health for the SDGs, sustainable development goals. Geneva: WHO; 2022. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/978924005115
5. Kaur P, Borah PK, Uike PV, Mohapatra PK, Das NK. Non-communicable diseases as a major contributor to deaths in 12 tribal districts in India. Indian Journal of Medical Research. 2022. doi:10.4103/ijmr.ijmr_3332_21.
6. Salam S. Nutrition sensitive agriculture: extension's contribution to public health. Extension Vistas: Advances in Agriculture Extension. 2024;161.
7. Kolekar DV, Bhavana A, Yamuna N. Nutri garden: approach to enhance food and nutritional security of farm families. Mysore Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2025;59(1):139-149.
8. Mamgai R, Meena BL, Sahu MP. Model nutrition garden: an approach for nutritional security of farm families. International Journal of Plant and Soil Science. 2021;33(24):253-259. doi:10.9734/ijpss/2021/v33i2430715.
9. Birdi TJ, Shah SU. Implementing perennial kitchen garden model to improve diet diversity in Melghat, India. Global Journal of Health Science. 2015;8(4):1022. doi:10.5539/gjhs.v8n4p10.
10. Ferdous Z, Datta A, Anal AK, Anwar M, Khan AMR. Development of home garden model for year-round production and consumption for improving resourcepoor household food security in Bangladesh. NJASWageningen Journal of Life Sciences. 2016;78:103110. doi:10.1016/j.njas.2016.05.006.
11. Patil P. Nutri garden: a low cost sustainable approach to improve nutritional security of farm families. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2020. doi:10.20546/ijcmas.2020.911.440.
12. Chikkanna GS, Shashidhar KR, Jyothi K, Ambika DS. Development of organic nutri-gardens to enhance food and nutritional security in farm families. 2022.
13. Bushamuka VN, de Pee S, Talukder A, Kiess L, Panagides D, Taher A, et al. Impact of a homestead gardening program on household food security and empowerment of women in Bangladesh. Food and Nutrition Bulletin. 2005;26(1):17-25. doi:10.1177/156482650502600102.
14. Bhavani G, Anitha R, Syed SAQA. Economic benefit from nutrigarden to farmwomen of Wanaparthy District, Telangana, India. Archives of Current Research International. 2024;24(4):203-211. doi:10.9734/acri/2024/v24i4680.
15. Karuppasamy P. Nutriguarden -a way forward for enhancing farmer's income and household nutritional security. Journal of Krishi Vigyan. 2021;9(2):159-162. doi:10.5958/2349-4433.2021.00030.1.