Consumption and production practices are part of the logics and habits of the different social structures. Every sociolinguistic community possesses its own food and cultural practices. Those practices and behaviors are not necessarily static. They can be influenced by external phenomena. This paper tries, through a socio-anthropological qualitative approach, to understand the consumption and production practices of rural households in the communes of Koumbia and Béréba. The study showed that the rural communities of Koumbia and Bereba have a diversity of cultivation practices and eating habits. However, this diversity of production does not correspond to what is consumed. The reason for this paradox stems from the perceptions that these communities have of food. Rural households are more focused an “eating their fill” than on the nutritional quality of what they consume. Thus, dietary behavior or food choices are ultimately much more determined by cultural values related to education, openness, curiosity, acquired and ethnic information than by technical-economic factors related to the resources of the farm or its environment as supported by classical theories. Food habits therefore remain determining factors in production and consumption practices. They favor change because societies are dynamic and highly functional in contact with modernity and the diffusionist current resulting in the mixing of cultures.
| Published in | Social Sciences (Volume 11, Issue 2) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.ss.20221102.15 |
| Page(s) | 85-95 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Food Diversity, Production/Consumption, Logics
| [1] | Kanazoé, A. (2017). La contribution du centre rural d’incubation de technologies agroalimentaires (crita) à la sécurité alimentaire des ménages de lebda au Burkina Faso, Mémoire de Master II Agrinovia, Université Ouaga I Pr Joseph KI-ZERBO, Burkina Faso. |
| [2] | CSAO-CILSS. (2008). Profil sécurité alimentaire Burkina Faso, Rapport, www.food-security.net 26p. |
| [3] | MAHRH, (2009). Enquête Nationale sur l’Insécurité Alimentaire et la Malnutrition, Rapport Définitif, Burkina Faso. |
| [4] | ACF. (2013). Réconcilier l’agriculture et la nutrition: étude de cas sur les politiques agricoles et la nutrition au Burkina Faso, Rapport http://www.actioncontrelafaim.org/fr/content/graines-bonne-nutrition, 64 p. |
| [5] | UNICEF, FAO, FIDA, PAM et OMS. (2020). Résumé de L’État de la sécurité alimentaire et de la nutrition dans le monde 2020. Transformer les systèmes alimentaires pour une alimentation saine et abordable. Rome, FAO. https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9699fr |
| [6] | Sanou, S. Ayantunde, A. et Nianogo, A. J. (2018). Consommation alimentaire des ménages et déterminants de la diversité alimentaire: cas de quatre communes dans la région du Nord, Burkina Faso, Int. J. Biol. Chem. Sci. 12 (4): 1784-1801. |
| [7] | Lourme-Ruiz, A. Dury, S. et Martin-Prével, Y. (2016). Consomme-t-on ce l’on sème? Relation entre diversité de la production, revenu agricole et diversité alimentaire au Burkina Faso, Cah. Agri. 25: 65001. |
| [8] | OpenStreetMap. (2020). OpenStreetMap contributors licensed under the Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODbL) by the OpenStreetMap Foundation (OSMF). https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright |
| [9] | Olivier De Sardan, J. P. (2003). L’enquête socioanthropologique de terrain, Enquête Collective Rapide d’Identification des conflits et des groupes Stratégiques, in Études et travaux n°13, LASDEL, 59 p. |
| [10] | Bardin, L. (2009). L’Analyse de contenu, Paris: PUF, coll. Quadrige, 291p. |
| [11] | Deslauriers, J. P. (1991). Recherche qualitative guide pratique, Montréal: Collection “thema”, 176p. |
| [12] | Quivy, R. et Campenhoudt, L. V. (2002). Manuel de recherche en sciences sociales, Paris: Dunod, 287p. |
| [13] | Weber, Max. (1965). Essais sur la théorie de la science, Paris: Plon. |
| [14] | Boudon, R. (1979). La logique du social. Introduction à l’analyse sociologique, Paris: Hachette Littératures. |
| [15] | Yao, Assogba. (1999). La sociologie de Raymond Boudon. Essai de synthèse et application de l’individualisme méthodologique, 350p, disponible sur http://classiques.uqac.ca/ |
| [16] | Bhagowalia, P. Headey, D. et Kadiyala, SS. (2012). Agriculture, income and nutrition linkages in India: insights from a nationally representative survey. In: IFPRI Discussion Paper 01195. |
| [17] | Jones, AD. Shrinivas, A. et Bezner-Kerr, R. (2014). Farm production diversity is associated with greater household dietary diversity in Malawi: Findings from nationally representative data. Food Policy, 46: 112. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2014. 02.001. |
| [18] | Torheim, LE. Ouattara, F. Diarra, MM. Thiam, F. D. Barikmo, I. Hatlloy, A. et al., (2004). Nutriem adequacy and dietary diversity in rural Mali: associations and determinants. Eur J Clin Nutr 58: 594-604. |
| [19] | Sibhatu, T. Krisna, V. et Qaim, M. (2015). Production diversity and dietary diversity in smallhoder farm households. Proc natl Acad Sci USA 112 (34): 10657-10662. |
| [20] | Zoyem, J-P. Diang’a, E. et Wodon, Q. (2008). Mesures et déterminants de l’insécurité alimentaire au Burundi selon l’approche de l’apport calorifique, The African Statistical Journal, Volume 6, pp. 35-66. |
| [21] | Grandval, F. (2012). Le potentiel de développement des micro et petites entreprises agro-alimentaires, in Grain de sel, nº 58 — avril – juin 2012 pp 8-10. |
| [22] | Tankari, M. R. (2016). Déterminants de la nutrition des ménages en Ouganda: le cas de la diversité alimentaire, STATECO N°110. |
| [23] | Akakpo, K. Brou, L. Kpangni, B. Sylla, M. Tapé, C. et Tour, M. (2009). Evaluation approfondie de la sécurité alimentaire des ménages ruraux en Côte d’Ivoire, Rapport PAM, Ministère de l’agriculture, Cote d’Ivoire, 79p. |
| [24] |
Issanchou, S. et Nicklaus, S. (2011). Déterminants précoces du comportement alimentaire. Entretiens de Bichat, Sep 2011, Paris, France. 3 p., |
| [25] | Bourdieu, P. (1979). La distinction, Paris: Edition de Minuit. |
| [26] | Pauzé, E. (2015). La qualité de l’alimentation et l’accès alimentaire des ménages vulnérables habitant dans une zone d’intervention d’agriculture de santé publique en Haïti, Mémoire de Maîtrise ès Sciences en Sciences interdisciplinaires de la santé Faculté des sciences de la santé, Université d’Ottawa Ottawa, Ontario 180p. |
| [27] | Sebai, I. (2018). Sécurité alimentaire et diversité alimentaire des ménages en Haïti, Mémoire ès Sciences en nutrition, Université de Montréal, Faculté de médecine, 174p. |
| [28] | FAO. (2001). La nutrition dans les pays en développement. Les facteurs socioculturels en nutrition. Rome: FAO. http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/w0073f/w0073f05.htm |
APA Style
Tionyélé Fayama. (2022). Production Diversity and Food Diversification: An Analysis of Production and Consumption Logics of Farm Households in Tuy, Burkina Faso. Social Sciences, 11(2), 85-95. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20221102.15
ACS Style
Tionyélé Fayama. Production Diversity and Food Diversification: An Analysis of Production and Consumption Logics of Farm Households in Tuy, Burkina Faso. Soc. Sci. 2022, 11(2), 85-95. doi: 10.11648/j.ss.20221102.15
AMA Style
Tionyélé Fayama. Production Diversity and Food Diversification: An Analysis of Production and Consumption Logics of Farm Households in Tuy, Burkina Faso. Soc Sci. 2022;11(2):85-95. doi: 10.11648/j.ss.20221102.15
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.ss.20221102.15,
author = {Tionyélé Fayama},
title = {Production Diversity and Food Diversification: An Analysis of Production and Consumption Logics of Farm Households in Tuy, Burkina Faso},
journal = {Social Sciences},
volume = {11},
number = {2},
pages = {85-95},
doi = {10.11648/j.ss.20221102.15},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20221102.15},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ss.20221102.15},
abstract = {Consumption and production practices are part of the logics and habits of the different social structures. Every sociolinguistic community possesses its own food and cultural practices. Those practices and behaviors are not necessarily static. They can be influenced by external phenomena. This paper tries, through a socio-anthropological qualitative approach, to understand the consumption and production practices of rural households in the communes of Koumbia and Béréba. The study showed that the rural communities of Koumbia and Bereba have a diversity of cultivation practices and eating habits. However, this diversity of production does not correspond to what is consumed. The reason for this paradox stems from the perceptions that these communities have of food. Rural households are more focused an “eating their fill” than on the nutritional quality of what they consume. Thus, dietary behavior or food choices are ultimately much more determined by cultural values related to education, openness, curiosity, acquired and ethnic information than by technical-economic factors related to the resources of the farm or its environment as supported by classical theories. Food habits therefore remain determining factors in production and consumption practices. They favor change because societies are dynamic and highly functional in contact with modernity and the diffusionist current resulting in the mixing of cultures.},
year = {2022}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Production Diversity and Food Diversification: An Analysis of Production and Consumption Logics of Farm Households in Tuy, Burkina Faso AU - Tionyélé Fayama Y1 - 2022/03/29 PY - 2022 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20221102.15 DO - 10.11648/j.ss.20221102.15 T2 - Social Sciences JF - Social Sciences JO - Social Sciences SP - 85 EP - 95 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2326-988X UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ss.20221102.15 AB - Consumption and production practices are part of the logics and habits of the different social structures. Every sociolinguistic community possesses its own food and cultural practices. Those practices and behaviors are not necessarily static. They can be influenced by external phenomena. This paper tries, through a socio-anthropological qualitative approach, to understand the consumption and production practices of rural households in the communes of Koumbia and Béréba. The study showed that the rural communities of Koumbia and Bereba have a diversity of cultivation practices and eating habits. However, this diversity of production does not correspond to what is consumed. The reason for this paradox stems from the perceptions that these communities have of food. Rural households are more focused an “eating their fill” than on the nutritional quality of what they consume. Thus, dietary behavior or food choices are ultimately much more determined by cultural values related to education, openness, curiosity, acquired and ethnic information than by technical-economic factors related to the resources of the farm or its environment as supported by classical theories. Food habits therefore remain determining factors in production and consumption practices. They favor change because societies are dynamic and highly functional in contact with modernity and the diffusionist current resulting in the mixing of cultures. VL - 11 IS - 2 ER -
Email: