13,084 (126.29 US$) and for NPPT households was Kshs.
Production, consumption, and surplus here are measured in kilograms of the yields that come from the farm as a result of the specific farm practice (either PPT or NPPT).
But this study reveals that NPPT farming produces a little production effect compared to PPT-adoption farming.
Comparing production in 2015 between PPT and NPPT has indicated that quite a substantial distinction is derived from elevated results of the probable significance of PPT.
In the NPPT group, the numbers of households with food inadequacy across the months of 2015 were higher with a severe case in May, having 88 households affected.
The average food expenditure for the entire year of 2015 and the first third of 2016 revealed a slight difference between PPT and NPPT households.
The scale of agriculture to nutrition benefits is a researcher individual test seeking to know the benefits obtained in a comparative set up between PPT and NPPT. The benefits were standardized by a constructed tool investigating what achievement households accrue from certain farming practices (both PPT and NPPT) and the numbers of households that responded positively were noted for both groups.
It indicated that a maximum number of households, both PPT and NPPT, consumed food group A (108).
BMI presentations comparing PPT and NPPT households' children
Total numbers of underweight children were 11 for PPT households and 65 for NPPT households.