Assessing the impacts of transitioning from rice farming to sugarcane cultivation on food security: Case of the dietary energy intake in the Northeast of Thailand

ABSTRACT

Balancing economic gains and food security in the context of SDG 2, and focusing on the shift from rice farming to sugarcane cultivation, the nations can reap substantial economic gains by switching from food crops to cash crops. This change may affect the accessibility and price of food, which raises concerns about the possibility of food insecurity. The present study examined the impact of transitioning from rice farming to sugarcane cultivation on Dietary Energy Intake (DEI) in the Nong Bua Lamphu province in Northeast Thailand. Data was collected through a structured questionnaire survey and seven-day food consumption records from the farm households. Data was analysed through the methods of DEI: the minimum daily energy requirement (MDER), average dietary energy requirement (ADER) and probit regression. The results showed that income from farming irrespective of the type of farmer, food insecurity was relatively rare considering the MDER. The study found that 54% of small, 29% of medium and 4% of large farmers were having less DEI when considering their ADER. The regression model results showed that income from sugarcane, non-farm income and the % of land under sugarcane cultivation played a significant role in achieving DEI. This study emphasizes the need for balanced biofuel crop promotion policies in developing countries, focusing on smallholder farmers, to ensure food security, economic growth and sustainable development. Moreover, policies should be designed to provide support, resources and training to small farmers to ensure they can meet their dietary energy requirements while participating in cash crop cultivation.

KEYWORD:

• Food security
• dietary energy intake
• income
• SDG 2
• Northeast of Thailand

1. Introduction

The shift from subsistence agriculture to commercial agriculture plays a pivotal role in fostering economic development (Carletto et al., 2017). Market demand and economic profitability typically drive commercial farmers to broaden their crop choices (Broegaard et al., 2017). In addition to this, increasing global interest in renewable energy sources and efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions have driven up the demand for biofuels (Subramaniam et al., 2020). As a result, commercial farmers may find it economically attractive to grow crops specifically for biofuel production. The greater range of crops that can be cultivated as a result of this diversification has the potential to increase the variety of food available in local marketplaces. As a subset of food security, “food quality” refers to how well our diets are nourished and the nutritional results of rural residents are not solely dictated by the production of food in a certain area or the income of households (Sen, 1983). Moreover, these outcomes are significantly influenced by the availability and management of resources that contribute to an individual’s dietary intake (Carletto et al., 2017). Hence, the shift from food crops to biofuel crops can reduce the supply of food crops, potentially leading to higher food prices and food security concerns, especially in regions heavily dependent on specific staple foods (Santika et al., 2019).

Due to the exorbitant prices and detrimental effects of fossil fuels on the environment, both developed and developing nations have adopted policies emphasizing the substitution of biofuels for their obsolete and harmful alternatives (Pan & Dong, 2023). Such policies are encouraging farmers to produce biofuel crops and attracting private sector investments in biofuel production by offering incentives such as subsidized interest rates or interest-free credit, and developing necessary infrastructure (Thurlow et al., 2016). Backed by national policy support for its production, farmers in developing countries are gradually shifting from food crops to biofuel-crop production as the latter provides higher financial benefits than the former (Lakapunrat & Thapa, 2017; Yaseen et al., 2023). Biofuels are considered instrumental in bringing agricultural production that improves livelihoods in rural areas by offering new income-generating opportunities for rural farmers (Gasparatos et al., 2022). This is 2030 agenda of the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG-8): to attain full and productive employment, decent work and equal pay for work of equal value for all women and men, including youth and people with disabilities (UN, 2023). While the same policies can help in achieving the SDG 2: Zero Hunger. It implies that the shift from solely rice-based farming to a combination of sugarcane and rice cultivation can enhance the income level and food security (Suchato et al., 2021). Diversifying their farming system and involving household members in non-farming activities have contributed to their current and future food security. This relates to SDG 2’s aim of achieving food security, improving nutrition and promoting sustainable agriculture.

Beyond the challenge of meeting food needs, addressing the growing energy demands of the world is a crucial global concern. The unsustainable nature of fossil fuels, coupled with their negative impacts on the environment and climate change, uncovers the urgent need to explore and adopt alternative and sustainable energy sources (Defante et al., 2018). This transition to cleaner and renewable energy options is not only essential for mitigating the effects of climate change but also for ensuring a more secure and resilient energy future (Santika et al., 2019). For cleaner and renewable energy purposes, the sugarcane was used as one of the biofuel crops as well as food. This dual-purpose nature of sugarcane makes it an important agricultural commodity in many regions, contributing to both food security and efforts to address energy needs while reducing the reliance on fossil fuels (Defante et al., 2018). In the late 1980s, Thailand’s sugar cane cultivation witnessed substantial growth, aligning with favourable factors such as enticing sugar cane prices, the relocation of sugar factories, and favourable weather conditions. As a result of this expansion, Thailand emerged as the world’s second-largest exporter of refined cane sugar (Daniel, 2021). In the 1990s, a portion of the sugar industry had moved from the Central Plain to the Northeast, creating an incentive for farmers in the study village and elsewhere to cultivate this crop. Government control and support for sugar prices made sugarcane production more profitable and less risky than cassava production; consequently, the area of cassava production began to decline (Suebpongsang et al., 2020). Thailand ranked fourth among sugarcane-producing nations in terms of sugar production, contributing approximately 8.10% to the global sugar production. Sugar cane is undoubtedly a crucial agricultural commodity in Thailand, occupying a cultivated land area of more than 1.76 million hectares. Annually, the country processes over 130 million tonnes of sugarcane, resulting in a substantial revenue generating over 7 billion dollars (Suebpongsang et al., 2020). Moreover, it secured the second position in sugar exports in 2019, accounting for 16.95% of the global export volume with a total export value of $2.97 billion USD (Pipitpukdee et al., 2020).

To the best of our knowledge, the impact of the shift from rice to sugarcane cultivation on farmers’ DEI in Northeast Thailand has not yet been investigated. As noted above, despite increased income from biofuel crops like sugarcane in the context of Northeast Thailand, small farmers, in particular, would be vulnerable to food insecurity if the price of their staple foods were high. The study investigates the effect of the shift from rice to sugarcane cultivation on farmers’ DEI in Northeast Thailand. By examining household income, food expenditure and consumption patterns, the study sheds light on the potential impacts of this agricultural shift on farmers’ access to and availability of food. This information is crucial for understanding the relationship between biofuel crop promotion and DEI, which aligns with SDG 2’s objective of ensuring DEI, improving nutrition and promoting sustainable agriculture. The study further evaluates the extent of the shift from rice to sugarcane cultivation among farm households of different landholding sizes and analyses its effect on household income. This assessment is relevant to SDG 8’s goal of promoting sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth by examining the economic implications of agricultural transitions and their potential impact on livelihoods. The findings of this study have important implications for biofuel crop promotion policies not only in Thailand but also in other developing countries, particularly those within the ASEAN region.

The study emphasizes the need to consider the potential trade-offs between biofuel crop production and DEI, especially for small farmers who may be vulnerable to food insecurity if the prices of staple foods are high. It highlights the importance of carefully assessing the impacts of agricultural shifts and implementing policies that prioritize the DEI and well-being of small farmers, ensuring equitable benefits and sustainable development. By considering these factors, policymakers can design and implement biofuel crop promotion strategies that support both economic growth and DEI objectives in developing countries.

2. Review of literature

2.1. Biofuel production and its impacts on food security in the global context

As part of their energy and environmental policies, some governments provide subsidies, incentives, or mandates to encourage the production of biofuels (Yaseen et al., 2023). These policies may include biofuel production targets in an effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or reduce reliance on fossil fuels (Subramaniam et al., 2020); therefore, farmers switched to these crops to align with the government’s environmental and energy goals. To take advantage of these incentives, farmers may transition to biofuel crops. As a result, the profitability of biofuel crops often exceeded that of certain food commodities, providing farmers with a strong economic incentive to shift their focus towards biofuel production (Brown et al., 2021). When prices for biofuel crops are favourable, producers may choose to cultivate biofuel crops in order to maximize their income (Malode et al., 2021). This choice is affected by market conditions, such as fluctuating food and fuel costs. The cultivation of biofuel crops can provide producers with an additional revenue stream, diversifying their revenue streams (Yaseen et al., 2023). This can assist farmers in reducing their reliance on a single commodity and mitigating the financial risks associated with food crop price fluctuations (Kumar et al., 2013; Lakapunrat & Thapa, 2017). In addition, the production of biofuels is often promoted as a more environmentally friendly alternative to fossil fuels (Subramaniam et al., 2020).

2.1.1. Negative impacts of biofuel crops

Biofuel crops often need more land that can be used to grow food. When a lot of land is used to make biofuel, it can take away from the amount of land that can be used to grow food (Yang et al., 2009). This making it harder for small farmers to have access to land and grow food crops. As more land and resources are used to grow crops for biofuel, the land available for food crops is reduced which led to less food available in the market (Brown et al., 2021), soared the food prices making it harder for low-income families to buy the food they need. In addition, some studies argued that increased biofuel crop production at the expense of decreased food crops would worsen food availability (Cotula et al., 2008; Koizumi, 2013; Tomei & Helliwell, 2016). Increasing biofuel crop production would require, not only the increase in agricultural productivity but also the cultivated land expansion. Subramaniam et al. (2019) revealed a negative coefficient of food security with biofuel production in all developing nations. Considering the limited land available globally to grow crops for food and fuel, there could be a competition between food and biofuel crop production (Salvatore & Damen, 2010; Yaseen et al., 2023). Furthermore, several studies have already shown direct and indirect land use changes triggered by implementing biofuel production crop policies (Van Stappen et al., 2011). The direct land use change occurred when biofuel crops displaced a prior land use (e.g. forests, grasslands, other crops), and indirect land use change was the ripple effect that resulted from using land currently used for food to produce biofuel crops (Abreu et al., 2022). The latter change led to an increase in food prices in the global market (Baffes, 2013), therefore threatened the food security of poor communities in both rural and urban areas by affecting food supply and price (Yaseen et al., 2023). The threat to food security is more challenging particularly in those developing countries where food-related expenses account for the major proportion of the total expenses of majority of people (Stürmer et al., 2013; Witcover et al., 2013). In addition, Broegaard et al. (2017) indicated that the shift of land use resulting from the expansion of agriculture and conservation initiatives, were linked to detrimental outcomes concerning the nutritional composition of meals, such as an elevated susceptibility to protein insufficiency. The aforementioned phenomenon was particularly notable in settlements that were situated in close proximity to central conservation areas.

2.1.2. Positive impacts of biofuel crops

On the farm household side, small farm households may benefit directly from biofuel crops, as they normally enjoy higher prices of biofuel crops than food crops (Caldas et al., 2014; Kumar et al., 2013). This would contribute to alleviating poverty and ensure the food security of small farmers (Fan & Rue, 2020). This is true, particularly in areas where farmers traditionally grow food crops despite land unsuitability. In addition, Salvatore and Damen (2010) found that small farmers are more likely to benefit economically by working as part-time wage labourers on large farms. However, previous studies indicated that large-scale farmers benefit more from increased income and food security from biofuel crops than smallholder farmers (Beyene & Muche, 2010; Kirimi et al., 2013). Moreover, Subramaniam et al. (2020) argued that when a nation’s environmental quality improves due to biofuels, the adverse impact of biofuels production on food security diminishes. Therefore, it is imperative to advocate for the advancement of biofuel development due to its potential to enhance environmental quality and increase food supply. Biofuel crops could not secure small farmers’ food as their small landholdings could not generate sufficient income for their livelihoods, and small farmers were undernourished (Cotula et al., 2008; Witcover et al., 2013; Wright, 2011). The problem of undernourishment is more pronounced in countries like Brazil, where bio-fuel crops rapidly expanded in areas under food crops (Ferreira Filho & Horridge, 2014). Regarding the food intake and biofuel crops, Sibhatu (2019) revealed that many farm families in Jambi, Indonesia, were not receiving sufficient food or micronutrients. Notably, people who have not started growing oil palms were more likely to be malnourished and micronutrients-deficient.

2.2. Biofuel crops and production in Thailand’s context

Thailand has adopted a long-term strategy for biofuel promotion since the Ninth National Economic and Social Development Plan (NESDP) 2002–2006 (The Government of Thailand, 2006; Prachason, 2009) to meet the ever-increasing energy demand and mitigate climate change. In addition to this, the Five-year plan (2017–2021) of the Ministry of Agriculture and Cooperatives (MOAC) aimed to increase both the area and productivity of sugarcane and cassava (Kuwornu et al., 2018). The MOAC has been urging farmers, especially those in the country’s Northeastern region, who have traditionally relied on rice cultivation despite being primarily dependent on rainfall for irrigation, to change/shift/convert to sugarcane cultivation. By doing so, they can take advantage of the land’s suitability and the presence of sugar mills in their area to increase their income significantly (Ekasingh et al., 2007; Prasertsri, 2014). Thus, the cultivation of biofuel crops in Northeastern Thailand has replaced rice farming to a considerable extent. The cultivation of sugarcane in this region saw a significant increase of almost 40% over the past decade. In 2011, it was grown in an area of nearly 500,000 hectares, which rose to 700,000 hectares by 2020 (OAE, 2012a, 2020).

This section has provided insights into the multifaceted relationship between biofuel crop production, economic development and DEI. The adoption of biofuel crops by farmers can be driven by a complex interplay of market forces, government policies and local conditions. While biofuel production holds the potential for economic growth and environmental sustainability. It also poses challenges, particularly when it competes with food crop production for limited resources.

3. Materials and methods

3.1. Study area

This study focuses on Nong Bua Lamphu province of Northeast Thailand, as this province ranked first in terms of the increment in sugarcane area in the region. Sugarcane cultivation in this province increased by 68% during 2014–2022 (OAE, 2022). The total cropped area in Nong Bua Lamphu province was about 240,000 hectares in 2021. The main crops cultivated in the province were rice, sugarcane, para-rubber and cassava. Sri Boon Reuang district, where about 35% of the total 16,366 farm households were growing sugarcane (DoAe, 2021).

3.2. Research design

This study is based on primary information collected using a structured questionnaire and a 7-day food consumption survey from January to March 2021 (Springs Season). The structured questionnaire comprised questions on household characteristics, crops cultivated, including sugarcane and rice, and income from non-farming activities. The food consumption survey comprised information on food items consumed from their own farm, markets and other sources during the immediate past seven days from the day the survey was carried out. The past seven days were selected for food survey because Jensen et al. (2019) stated that a survey of consumption and expenditures during a short duration in any season adequately reflects the actual situation and also suggested by Hoddinott and Yohannes (2002); WFP (2009). International agencies such as the WFP (2009) and researchers, including Chege et al. (2015) and Thorne-Lyman et al. (2010) have carried out studies based on food consumption and expenditures during the immediate past seven days. The main reason for limiting the survey to the immediate past seven days-it was easier for consumers to keep records or to remember the amounts of foods consumed and related expenses. Accordingly, the sample farm households were asked to keep records of the amounts of food items consumed from both farm and non-farm sources and expenditures in the case of bought food items on a standard form provided to them.

3.3. Sample size

There are 12 sub-districts in the Sri Boon Reuang district of Nong Bua Lamphu province. Since conducting the survey in all sub-districts was impossible, Non Sa-at and Non Muang sub-districts, comprising 2,987 farm households (DoAe, 2021), were selected as the representative for the survey. Then, using the formula developed by Cochran (1977), a sample size of 230 households was determined to have a confidence level of 0.05. The sample households were identified randomly due to the unavailability of formal information on farm households growing sugarcane.

3.4. Data analysis

3.4.1. Measuring DEI

The Royal Thai Government and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations OAE (2012b) have analysed food security based on daily minimum dietary energy requirements (MDER) and average minimum dietary energy requirements (ADER) of Thais from the 2011 Thailand Household Socio-Economic Survey (THSES) and other anthropometric data. A measure of dietary energy requirements provides indicators of food scarcity relative to the needs of each country (FAO, 2012). The former is the amount of energy considered adequate to meet the energy needed to gain a minimum acceptable weight and normal height while performing light physical activity in good health. In other words, this is the energy requirement for maintaining minimum health conditions. The latter is the amount of energy required to gain average acceptable weight and normal height while performing moderate physical activities in good health. Accordingly, a MDER of 1,882 kcal and a ADER of 2,404 kcal are stipulated for Thais. This study analysed DEI by comparing the actual calorie intake with both MDER and ADER.

Based on the information collected, amounts of all consumed main food items were converted into their calorie equivalent following the ASEAN Food Composition Database prepared by the Regional Centre of the ASEAN Network of Food Data System (ASEANFOODS) and the Regional Database Centre of International Network of Food Data Systems (INFOODS) (Institute of Nutrition, 2014). The conversion tables provide information on the amount of nutrient content per 100 g of the edible portion of solid food (e.g. food products, mixed food dishes, fast foods), and per 100 ml of liquid food (e.g. milk, mixed soup). The surveyed households included male, female, pregnant women, children and elderly members whose food consumption varied in variety and amount. Therefore, the farm household size was converted into Adult Equivalent (AE) following the method used by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (Carletto et al., 2013). The total energy intake from all food items was divided by the number of AE in a household. Finally, this value was again divided by seven (days) times to determine the average daily calorie intake per AE. The daily per AE expenditure on food consumed was also determined by using the monetary values of consumed items. In this regard, monetary values of self-produced and foods available free of charge were determined based on the prices of those food items in the local market.

3.4.2. Measuring household income and DEI cost of food security

Measuring the average daily per AE farm income was straightforward. It involved the calculation of the total annual net income from all crops plus the total annual income from non-farm activities divided by 365 times the AE household size. The average amount of daily per AE food expenditures was used to determine the income required to meet farmers’ MDER and ADER. The average total food expenditure in the study area was found to be 83 THB/day/AE, with calorie intake of about 2,782 kcal/day/AE. Based on this, the daily average per AE income required to meet MDER and ADER was estimated to be 56 and 72 THB, respectively. Finally, the stipulated average incomes required to meet MDER and ADER were compared with the average income from farm and non-farm activities to determine whether farmers were food secure. For the change of income due to the sugarcane cultivation and its impacts on the food security, the study borrowed methods from Herrmann et al. (2018) and Defante et al. (2018).

3.4.3. Analysis of sugarcane’s contribution to DEI

To determine the contribution of sugarcane to farmers’ DEI, net income with and without sugarcane was compared with the income required to meet MDER and ADER. The required income was determined based on the analysis of food expenditures.

3.4.4. Statistical tests and regression model

The study has employed a combination of statistical tests to assess various aspects of the transition from rice farming to sugarcane cultivation. To investigate the shift in land use patterns, chi-square test was applied to examine the relative conversion of rice fields into sugarcane farms. This analysis allowed us to discern significant differences and trends in land use changes, shedding light on the evolving agricultural landscape. Furthermore, to evaluate the economic and dietary implications of this transition, the study utilized the Scheffe’ test for Average Per AE Net Income, Food Expenditure and Calorie Intake Contribution. This statistical approach facilitated the comparison of means across multiple groups (Nagasawa, 2002), enabling us to investigate statistically significant variations in economic and dietary parameters associated with the adoption of sugarcane farming. In addition to these tests, we developed multivariate regression model (Eq.1). The model included key independent variables such as the ADER and regressed on land under sugar cane as % of total land, farm size measured in rai, annual non-farm income measured in THB, and income from sugarcane in THB. Furthermore, the study has used the ADER as dependent variable and converted it into binary: 1 = the households have at least 2,404 kcal intake, 0 = otherwise. The study did not used MDER as a dependent variable because most of the households were meeting this requirement of energy intake.

(1) $P\left(Y_i=1\mid X\right)=\phi \left({\beta }_0+{\beta }_i{X}_i\right)$(1)

Where, $P\left(Y_i=1\mid X\right)$represents the probability that the binary response variable Y = 1 given the values of the predictor variables X. ${\beta }_i$ are the coefficients associated with each of the predictor variables and $\phi$ (⋅) is the cumulative distribution function of the standard normal distribution, also known as the probit function.

4. Results

4.1. Change from rice to sugarcane production at the farm household level

There was a significant variation in the conversion of rice fields into sugarcane farms by landholding size (Table 2). In general, the tendency was towards increasing the proportion of rice fields converted into sugarcane farms with increasing landholding size. While nearly half of the small and medium farmers had converted less than 50% of their rice fields into sugarcane farms, less than 30% of large farmers had done so. However, nearly 41% of large farmers had converted more than 75% of their rice fields into sugarcane farms (Table 1).

Table 1. Relative conversion of rice fields into sugarcane farms (n = 230).

Converted Rice Field (%)	Small Farmers		Medium Farmers		Large Farmers		Pearson Chi-square	p-value
	f	%	f	%	f	%
<50	32	45.7	49	45.4	15	28.8	14.632	0.006**
50–75	19	27.2	43	39.8	16	30.8
>75	19	27.1	16	14.8	21	40.4
Total	70	100	108	100	52	100

Note: f = Frequency of farm household. ** Significant at the 0.01 confidence level.

Table 2. Average per AE net income, food expenditure and calorie intake.

Net Income, Food Expenditure, and Calorie Intake (THB/day/AE)	Small Farmers (n=70)	Medium Farmers (n=108)	Large Farmers (n=52)	F	p-value
	Mean (%)	Mean (%)	Mean (%)
Household net income
1. Sugarcane	40.49^b (32.4)	59.82^b (39.1)	131.26^a (54.7)	39.13	0.000**
2. Rice and miscellaneous farm products	9.56^b (7.6)	14.69^ab (9.6)	22.32^a (9.3)	6.89	0.000**
3. Non-farming activities	75.13 (60.0)	78.64 (51.3)	86.22 (36.0)	0.25	0.778
Total net income	125.18^b (100)	153.15^b (100)	239.79^a (100)	16.34	0.000**
Food expenditure
1. On-farm products	18.63^b (25.0)	22.88^b (29.5)	31.73^a (29.6)	9.55	0.000**
2. Purchased food	55.14^b (73.9)	53.78^b (69.2)	74.70^a (69.8)	11.87	0.000**
3. Food given free of charge	0.83 (1.1)	1.04 (1.3)	0.62 (0.6)	0.84	0.433
Total food expenditure	74.60^b (100)	77.70^b (100)	107.05^a (100)	20.94	0.000**
Calorie intake (kcal/day/AE)
1. On-farm products	1,259.96^b (51.9)	1,626.87^a (59.3)	1,675.88^a (50.1)	12.09	0.000**
2. Purchased food	1,141.63^b(47.1)	1085.29^b (39.6)	1,631.57^a (48.7)	12.35	0.000**
3. Food given free of charge	23.82 (1.0)	29.71 (1.1)	39.93 (1.2)	1.77	0.171
Total calorie intake	2,425.41^c (100)	2,741.86^b (100)	3,347.38^a (100)	59.44	0.000**

NB: 1US$ = 33.27 Baht, based on the exchange rate in March 2022.

^a,b,cThe table contains averages and the significance values are for the three-group mean comparison Scheffe test.

**Significant at the 0.01 confidence level.

4.2. Net income, food expenditure and calorie intake

4.2.1. Net income

In the food security literature, the researchers are using per capital income and food and adult equivalent scales. As a result of ignoring variations in household composition, per capita measurements can underestimate the actual calorie availability (Buse & Salathe, 1978; Claro et al., 2010). Notably, despite the high specialization of the farming system in the study area, daily per AE income from non-agricultural activities accounted for nearly 60% of the total per AE income of small farmers, and 51.3% and 36.0% of medium and large farmers, respectively (Table 2). Scheffe’s significance test of average daily net income found a significant variation among farmer groups in income from sugarcane, rice and miscellaneous farm produce combined, but there was no significant variation in income from non-farm activities.

The daily net income from sugarcane (131 THB/AE) of large farmers was significantly higher than the income of medium (60 THB/AE), and small farmers (41 THB/AE) as their landholdings were substantially larger than the landholdings of other farmers. Consistent with this, the daily net income from rice and other minor farm produce significantly differed between large (22 THB/AE) and small farmers (10 THB/AE). Overall, large farmers had significantly higher daily net income (240 THB/AE) than that of medium (153 THB/AE) and small farmers (125 THB/AE).

4.2.2. Food expenditures

Results in Table 2 show that purchased food accounted for nearly 75% of the food expenses of small farmers, whereas medium and large farmers’ expenses on such food accounted for 70%. As farmers were growing mostly sugarcane, they had to buy most of their food items. Moreover, farmers consumed high-price food items, including fish, meat, poultry and vegetables, mostly bought from the market. Small farmers’ higher expenses on purchased food were attributed to the fact that many of them had to buy even rice, as they could not produce enough rice for home consumption due to small landholdings.

4.2.3. Calorie intake

Food crops produced by farmers themselves played an important role in ensuring their DEI. Of the total daily calorie intake of 3,347 kcal/AE of large farmers, 1,676 kcal/AE or nearly 50% came from farm sources and the rest from the market, which was primarily attributed to rice being the major contributor of the total calorie intake and their large holdings. Medium farmers, whose daily average calorie intake amounted to 2,742 kcal/AE, derived 1,627 kcal/AE or about 60% from the farm source and the rest from the market. In the case of small farmers, the total daily calorie intake from the farm source was 1,260 kcal/AE or about 52% of the total intake of 2,425 kcal/AE and the rest from the market (Table 2). The analysis indicates that regardless of farm size, farmers in the study area depended on market sources to fulfill 40% to 49% of total calorie intake. The analysis also revealed that the daily calorie intake of large farmers from purchased food items (1,632 kcal/AE) was significantly higher than that of medium (1,085 kcal/AE) and small (1,412 kcal/AE) farmers. Rice and the food group comprising fish, poultry and meat were the major food groups consumed by all farmers, though there was variation by type of farmer. Small and medium farmers derived about 59% of their total daily per capita calorie intake from rice alone, while large farmers’ daily calorie intake from rice accounted for about 53% (Table 3). This indicates that small and medium farmers consumed more carbohydrate-rich food than large farmers. However, rice accounted for only 7% to 9% of total household food expenditures of both types of farmers due to its low price attributed to low-calorie availability per unit of weight (Table 3). Irrespective of farmer type, the second major contributors to the diet of farmers were meat, fish and poultry. These food items accounted for 35% of daily per capita calorie intake and 70% of total household food expenditures of large farmers, though there was variation in calorie intake from these foods even within this group of farmers. While these food items accounted for about 29% of the total daily per capita calorie intake and 65% of the total household food expenditures of small and medium farmers (Table 3). This clearly indicates that large farmers were consuming relatively more protein-rich and high-priced food items than the other two groups of farmers.

Table 3. Expenditure and calorie intake by food item.

Food Group	Type of Food	Small Farmers (n=70)				Medium Farmers (n=108)				Large Farmers (n=52)
		Food Expenditure (THB/day/AE)		Calorie Intake (kcal/day/AE)		Food Expenditure (THB/day/AE)		Calorie Intake (kcal/day/AE)		Food Expenditure (THB/day/AE)		Calorie Intake (kcal/day/AE)
		Mean (S.D.)	% Share	Mean (S.D.)	% Share	Mean (S.D.)	% Share	Mean (S.D.)	% Share	Mean (S.D.)	% Share	Mean (S.D.)	% Share
1. Main staples	1.1. Rice: glutinous and non-glutinous	6.79 (2.97)	9.1	1,432.96 (291.98)	59.1	6.51 (3.81)	8.4	1,616.94 (320.64)	59.0	7.50 (3.80)	7.0	1,776.96 (446.48)	53.1
	1.2. Cereal grains and processed cereals	2.14 (3.33)	2.9	42.40 (57.97)	1.7	2.20 (2.76)	2.8	47.92 (57.57)	1.7	2.17 (2.56)	2.0	43.51 (45.86)	1.3
	Sub-total	8.93 (4.24)	12.0	1,475.35 (288.26)	60.8	8.72 (3.70)	11.2	1,664.86 (318.17)	60.7	9.66 (4.22)	9.0	1,820.47 (434.76)	54.4
2. Vegetables	Vegetables and tubers	8.43 (6.10)	11.3	65.77 (46.65)	2.7	8.45 (5.41)	10.9	65.36 (37.66)	2.4	11.64 (6.64)	10.9	68.03 (33.91)	2.0
3. Fruits	Fresh and dry fruits	2.87 (3.74)	3.8	45.42 (57.14)	1.9	2.58 (3.95)	3.3	45.81 (76.84)	1.7	2.53 (2.02)	2.4	56.01 (61.72)	1.7
4. Pulses	Beans, nuts and other products made from beans	0.18 (0.60)	0.2	2.00 (8.36)	0.1	0.12 (0.46)	0.2	1.94 (8.91)	0.1	0.06 (0.29)	0.1	0.87 (3.81)	0.1
5. Meat and fish	5.1. Meat: pork, beef, rat and products	17.22 (16.91)	23.1	204.37 (133.82)	8.4	18.03 (13.33)	23.2	250.72 (116.03)	9.1	26.53 (17.06)	24.8	412.48 (156.09)	12.3
	5.2. Poultry: chicken, duck, bird and products	9.18 (6.66)	12.3	148.10 (93.18)	6.1	8.59 (6.55)	11.0	178.86 (261.90)	6.5	13.69 (11.23)	12.7	261.90 (118.78)	7.8
	5.3. Eggs: hen and duck	2.35 (2.69)	3.2	69.75 (61.52)	2.9	2.67 (2.28)	3.4	86.64 (74.71)	3.2	3.20 (2.14)	3.0	101.87 (73.07)	3.0
	5.4. Fish: finfish, shellfish, other aquatic animals and products	19.86 (16.98)	26.6	272.88 (158.92)	11.2	21.23 (14.47)	27.3	290.90 (196.13)	10.6	31.21 (22.50)	29.2	404.62 (183.18)	12.0
	Sub-total	48.61 (29.03)	65.2	695.10 (302.40)	28.6	50.52 (23.49)	64.9	807.12 (283.16)	29.4	74.64 (26.80)	69.7	1,180.87 (280.27)	35.1
6. Dairy	Milk, cheese, yogurt and other dairy products	1.33 (2.39)	1.8	30.64 (48.18)	1.3	1.21 (2.40)	1.6	30.92 (40.71)	1.1	1.26 (2.08)	1.2	52.31 (64.95)	1.6
7. Oil	Oils and fats: palm oil, soybean and vegetable oils	0.18 (0.17)	0.2	16.05 (8.75)	0.7	0.20 (0.14)	0.3	18.02 (9.18)	0.7	0.37 (0.32)	0.3	26.25 (12.46)	0.8
8. Sugar	Candy, chocolate, jams, ice cream, honey and sugar	0.35 (0.76)	0.5	25.38 (21.89)	1.0	0.57 (0.59)	0.7	23.97 (14.95)	0.9	0.80 (0.61)	0.7	29.77 (18.57)	0.9
9. Miscellaneous	Mixed food, insects and lizard products	3.72 (4.06)	5.0	69.70 (62.34)	2.9	5.34 (5.63)	6.9	83.87 (78.55)	3.1	6.10 (7.32)	5.7	112.79 (125.69)	3.4
Total		74.60 (33.52)	100	2,425.41 (393.40)	100	77.70 (27.00)	100	2,741.86 (452.33)	100	107.06 (31.45)	100	3,347.38 (570.52)	100
Overall food expenditure (THB/day/AE)		83.40 (32.64)
Overall calorie intake (kcal/day/AE)		2,782.45 (571.78)

Vegetables, fruits, pulses, dairy products, sugar and items made from sugar, and mixed food items like noodles were other types of food consumed by all types of farmers. However, the overall contribution of these food items to the total calorie intake of all types of farmers was very low, ranging from about 10% to 11% (Table 3). Vegetables that accounted for less than 3% of the total calorie intake accounted for nearly 12% of the total food expenditures of all types of farmers. Although rice was the primary staple food, contributing to over 50% of the daily calorie intake for all farmers, small farmers relied on purchased rice for almost 29% of their total rice calorie intake, as shown in Table 4. This suggests that these farmers heavily depend on the market for their rice supply. In the case of medium farmers, only 14% of their total calorie intake from rice came from bought rice, implying that these farmers’ dependency on the market was significantly lower than that of both small and large farmers.

Table 4. Amount, expenditure and calorie intake from rice by source.

Landholding Size	n	Self-produced			Bought			Total
		Amount (g/day/AE)	Expenditure (Baht/day/AE)	Calorie Intake (kcal/day/AE)	Amount (g/day/AE)	Expenditure (Baht/day/AE)	Calorie Intake (kcal/day/AE)	Amount (g/day/AE)	Expenditure (Baht/day/AE)	Calorie Intake (kcal/day/AE)
		Mean (%)	Mean (%)	Mean (%)	Mean (%)	Mean (%)	Mean (%)	Mean (%)	Mean (%)	Mean (%)
Small farmers	70	289.90 (71.5)	3.64 (53.6)	1,027.31 (71.7)	115.77 (28.5)	3.15 (46.4)	405.64 (28.3)	405.67 (100)	6.79 (100)	1,432.96 (100)
Medium farmers	108	390.89 (86.4)	4.89 (75.1)	1389.00 (85.9)	61.69 (13.6)	1.62 (24.9)	227.94 (14.1)	452.58 (100)	6.51 (100)	1,616.94 (100)
Large farmers	52	390.81 (79.2)	5.08 (67.8)	1,391.30 (78.3)	102.50 (20.8)	2.41 (32.2)	385.66 (21.7)	493.32 (100)	7.49 (100)	1,776.96 (100)

4.2.4. Farm household DEI

All large farmers were consuming food required to meet MDER or the needed minimum calorie intake of 1,882 kcal/day/AE (Table 5). While most small and medium farmers could meet MDER, slightly less than 5% of small farmers and about 2% of medium farmers could not fulfill this requirement. Overall, most farmers did not have a problem with dietary deficiency and, therefore, did not have food insecurity from the perspective of MDER. However, more than half (54%) of small farmers were found to be food insecure from the perspective of ADER of 2,404 kcal/day/AE, followed by medium farmers (29%) and large farmers (4%) (Table 6).

Table 5. Farmers’ DEI based on MDER and ADER.

Dietary Energy Requirement (kcal/day/AE)	Small Farmers (n=70)	Medium Farmers (n=108)	Large Farmers (n=52)
	%	%	%
MDER: minimum dietary energy requirement = 1,882 kcal/day/AE
Food insecurity (<1,882 kcal)	4.3	1.9	-
DEI	95.7	98.1	100.0
Total	100	100	100
ADER: average dietary energy requirement = 2,404 kcal/day/AE
Food insecurity (<2,404 kcal)	54.3	28.7	3.8
DEI	45.7	71.3	96.2
Total	100	100	100

Table 6. Contribution of sugarcane and rice to DEI.

Food expenditure and net income	Small farmers (n=70)	Medium farmers (n=108)	Large farmers (n=52)
	Mean (%)	Mean (%)	Mean (%)
Total food expenditure (THB/day/AE)	74.60	77.70	107.05
Net income assuming all landholdings used for growing rice only (THB/day/AE)	21.77 (38.6)* (30.2)**	34.29 (60.8)* (47.6)**	83.22 (147.5)* (115.5)**
Net income from sugarcane only (THB/day/AE)	40.49 (71.8)* (56.2)**	59.82 (106.0)* (83.0)**	131.26 (232.7)* (182.2)**
Net income from rice and miscellaneous farm products (THB/day/AE)	9.56 (16.9)* (13.3)**	14.69 (26.0)* (20.4)**	22.32 (39.6)* (31.0)**
Net income from sugarcane, rice and miscellaneous farm products (THB/day/AE)	50.05 (88.7)* (69.5)**	74.51 (132.1)* (103.4)**	153.58 (272.3)* (213.1)**
Net income from non-farm activities (THB/day/AE)	75.13 (133.2)* (104.3)**	78.64 (139.4)* (109.1)**	86.22 (152.8)* (119.7)**
# Needed net income to meet MDER of 1,882 kcal (THB/day/AE)	56.41
# Needed net income to meet ADER of 2,404 kcal (THB/day/AE)	72.06

#calculated from the average total food expenditure and Calorie intake (Table 3).

*% of total income required to meet MDER.

**% of total income required to meet ADER.

4.2.5. Does sugarcane contribute to DEI?

The daily average per AE income required to meet MDER and ADER was estimated to be 56 and 72 THB, respectively (Table 6). The result of the analysis reveals that the net incomes of small and medium farmers would have failed to reach the MDER (Minimum Dietary Energy Requirement) if they had persisted with the conventional method of rice mono-cropping without supplementary income from non-farming activities. Small farmers would have been able to meet about 39%, and medium farmers would have been able to meet about 61% of MDER if they had mono-cropped rice without any non-farming activities (Table 6). However, large farmers would have been able to meet both MDER and ADER even if they had continued growing rice only.

Switching over from rice mono-cropping to sugarcane and rice or sugarcane mono-cropping substantially benefitted all farmers regarding net income and DEI. Small farmers’ net income from sugarcane alone could meet nearly 72% of MDER and 56% of ADER (Table 6). The net farm income, including sugarcane, rice and miscellaneous farm produce, could meet nearly 90% of MDER and nearly 70% of ADER. As mentioned above, small farmers would have been able to meet only about 39% of MDER, not to mention ADER, if they had continued growing rice only, without any income from non-farming activities. In the case of medium farmers, the net income from sugarcane alone (60 THB/day/AE) exceeded the income required to meet MDER (56 THB/day/AE). It could contribute to meeting nearly 83% of the ADER of these farmers. The net income from sugarcane combined with rice and miscellaneous farm produce exceeded the amount of income required to meet their ADER (Table 6), indicating that these farmers would have been at least theoretically food secure even without any income from non-farming activities. Large farmers’ net income from sugarcane alone was substantially higher (131 THB/day/AE) than the income required to meet both MDER (56 THB/day/AE) and ADER (72 THB/day/AE).

4.2.6. Factors affecting DEI

The results of the probit model examined the factors determining Average Dietary Energy mentioned in Table 7. Overall, the model had a good fit shown by the LR chi2(4) with a p-value <0.01. Moreover, another goodness-of-fit (Gof) test was applied; with a p-value >0.05 (Fagerland & Hosmer, 2012). Results in Table 7 show that a positive coefficient (0.009) linked to the variable “Land Change to Sugarcane” indicated that the transformation of agricultural land for the purpose of cultivating sugarcane has a significant effect (p-value <0.05) on the Average Dietary Energy Requirement (ADER). It implied that allocating additional land for sugarcane cultivation was associated with a rise in ADER, suggesting a potential enhancement in dietary energy consumption. This result is consistent with the concept that agricultural diversification, specifically the growing of profitable crops such as sugarcane, might improve food security by increasing the availability of dietary energy. The farm size provided a positive and statistically significant coefficient, suggesting that larger farms had a tendency to make a positive contribution to ADER. The marginal effects of land size (0.013) showed that a unit increase in the landholding increased the likelihood of ADER by 1.3% keeping other variables constant. The significance of “Non-Farm Income” and “Sugarcane Income” as significant factors (p-values <0.05) highlighted the significance of income diversification. A higher ADER is associated with an increase in non-farm income, which reflected the financial resources available for food consumption. ADER is positively affected by sugarcane income, indicated that sugarcane cultivation might not only provided income but also contributed to DEI.

Table 7. Regression model results.

	Model Estimates			Marginal effects
Variables	Coefficient	Std. err.	p-value	Coefficient	Std. err.	p-value
Land change to sugarcane	0.009	0.004	0.027*	0.003	0.0012	0.030*
Farm Size	0.044	0.013	0.000**	0.013	0.004	0.000**
Non-farm Income	3.2×10^−6	1.2×10^−6	0.028*	9.57×10^−7	0.000	0.028*
Income from Sugarcane	4.6×10^−6	2.0×10^−6	0.031*	1.38×10^−6	0.000	0.022*
Constant	−1.55	0.341	0.000**	-	-	-
Log likelihood	−111.05
Prob > chi2	0.0000
n	230

Note: *=significance at 5% and **=significance at 1%.

5. Discussion

Despite low yields arising from the relative unsuitability of land and shortage of irrigation water, farmers in the study area were traditionally growing rice on most of their farmlands until the implementation of the sugarcane production promotion policy, as it was their staple food. The low yield combined with the low price of rice had constrained farmers in meeting their basic requirements, including DEI, for enjoying a relatively good quality of life. They gradually began converting rice fields into sugarcane farms after implementing the sugarcane production policy instruments, including the government’s guaranteed prices and additional price support. This contributed to making sugarcane production financially superior to rice. Despite differences in landholding size, farmers have continued to grow rice on their farmland to achieve self-sufficiency in their staple food. The results showed that rice produced by small farmers accounts for slightly less than half of their total calorie intake of 2,425 kcal/day/AE. Our results are consistent with Negash and Swinnen (2013) who revealed that in Ethiopia, Castor cultivation benefits the food security of participating households in multiple ways: by producing cash income from castor contracts, they are able to store food for the lean season; castor beans preserve well on the field, allowing farmers to sell them when they need cash. Carletto et al. (2017) revealed that even the poorest and smallest landholders in the three African countries under consideration were actively engaged in commercializing their agricultural production which was evident from the high rates of market participation by smallholders. This study did not find a clear and direct link between increased participation in agricultural markets and improved nutritional outcomes. This finding challenged the conventional assumption that greater involvement in cash crop cultivation and market-oriented agriculture led to better nutrition for farming households. In addition to this, Broegaard et al. (2017) stated that changes in the shifting cultivation landscape in Laos have negative consequences for nutrition, specifically in terms of protein deficiency. However, our study has not investigated the nutrients intake after shifting from rice farming to sugarcane cultivation. In the case of medium and large farmers, the contribution of self-produced rice was less, as they consumed relatively more protein-rich food, including meat and fish, bought from the market. The tendency among small farmers to use relatively more farmland for growing rice was directly attributed to their relatively small amount of household income and high vulnerability to rice insufficiency arising from small landholdings. This kind of findings are reported from India, large farmers had the potential sources of income are the sale of both food and cash commodities, with minimal livestock integration. These producers have the greatest potential for food security relative to others (Lopez-Ridaura et al., 2018).

There exists a positive correlation between the commercialization of high-value export crops and income (Abdullah et al., 2019). The results of present study also showed that conversion of rice fields into sugarcane farms increased farmers’ income and contributed to DEI considerably, though small farmers could not derive as much of such benefits as medium and large farmers because of their small landholdings. Other important factors explaining the low income of small and medium farmers from sugarcane were that most of them could not gain benefit from additional price supports at the rate of 160 Baht/mt, and that they could not sell sugarcane based on its sweetness. As per the policy, only those farmers who had joined the quota system offered by sugar mills, most of whom were large farmers, were entitled to such additional benefits. Still, small and medium farmers could earn far higher incomes from shift, accounting for the major proportion of total income from farming (Table 6). The findings are consistent with another study from Thailand, who revealed that farmers’ concerns about cash flow, access to the sugarcane market, climatic conditions, soil fertility, loan burden and unclear support policies can all play a significant role in their decision-making process regarding the transition to sugarcane cultivation (Suchato et al., 2021). However, the relationship between agriculture commercialization and the welfare of smallholder households is complex. It involves various interconnected factors such as income levels, access to markets, changes in land use and shifts in dietary patterns (Maertens et al., 2012). Regarding the factors that affect the energy intake, this study has revealed that the percentage of landholding change to sugarcane, total landholding, non-farm income and farm income from sugarcane positivity affected the ADER. However, there is limited literature to provide evidence that there is relationship between sugarcane production and food security (El Chami et al., 2020). While Kshirsagar (2006) revealed that organic sugarcane cultivation has been shown to have a positive impact on both income generation and yield stability, hence contributing to the enhancement of food security. In addition to this, the diversity of these factors can make it challenging to identify a simple and direct cause-and-effect relationship. The findings of this study provided a foundation for further investigations that can delve deeper into the complexities of agricultural commercialization, income and food security among smallholder farmers.

As in the case of smallholder agriculture in developing countries (Davis et al., 2010), farmers in the study area earned income from non-farming activities, accounting for 60% of the household income for small farmers and slightly more than half for medium farmers. This strategy was employed to increase income and ensure both present and future DEI. Furthermore, it is not just DEI that is a concern. Humans have multiple needs, and food is only one of the basic needs. Although medium and large farmers had DEI (though their cash income was still low), smaller farmers depended on non-farm income to meet ADER and non-food needs. Using incomes from both farming and non-farming activities, small farmers could spend at the rate of 75 THB/day/AE on food, whereas for medium and large farmers, spending on food amounted to 78 and 107 THB/day/AE, respectively. As a result, small farmers’ daily/AE calorie intake from food was found to be the highest (3,347 Kcal), followed by medium farmers (2,742 Kcal) and small farmers (2,425 Kcal). The use of non-farm income and diversified income strategies is commonly found in smallholding farmers worldwide. It is critical to increase cash income, ensure food security and meet other non-food needs (Haggblade et al., 2010; Yemiru, 2011). While our results are inconsistent with the findings of Dewey (1981), who challenged the assumption that a rise in income accompanied by the adoption of commercial farming will automatically result in enhanced nutrition; there was no consistent correlation between income levels and nutritional status. Moreover, recent studies in Brazil and Malawi indicated that sugarcane enhanced food security, and that sugarcane growers had higher socio-economic standards and higher food crop yield than the control group because they spent more money on food and crop inputs (Defante et al., 2018; Herrmann et al., 2018). When the actual average calorie intake from food consumption is compared against the required intake to meet MDER of 1882 kcal/day/AE and ADER of 2404 kcal/day/AE, none of the farmer groups in the study area were food insecure from both perspectives. In reality, most small farmers and nearly all medium and large farmers could meet their MDER using income from both farming and non-farming activities, but slightly more than half of small and nearly 30% of medium farmers could still not fulfill their ADER, although the income from sugarcane had considerably contributed towards increasing their overall household income. This was largely due to resource constraints such as small landholdings and lack of access to subsidized production quotas that were available to mostly large farmers. The findings of the study are consistent with Abay et al. (2022). They revealed that farmers’ access to subsidized fertilizers might vary depending on farm size and farmers’ legal standing regarding land ownership. As was previously said, the amount of free nitrogen fertilizer available to farmers depends on the size of their farm and the crops they plan to cultivate that year. It is easier for plot owners to get their hands on subsidized fertilizer than for tenants, who must show their lease and get permission from their landlords before they can get any. Since most farmers in Northeast Thailand are small (Ekasingh et al., 2007), any effect on this group is likely to influence a significant amount of the population. Large farmers did not face such a situation because of a substantially high amount of sugarcane production from their large landholdings combined with the additional price support they could get by joining the quota system.

The income from sugarcane substantially contributed to making small farmers, particularly food secure in terms of MDER, as reflected by this income accounting for nearly three-fourths of the income required to meet MDER (Table 6). While these farmers had more than enough supplementary income from rice and non-farming activities to meet both MDER and ADER, medium and large farmers could earn more than enough income from sugarcane alone to meet their MDER. This was again attributed to the landholdings of these farmers being substantially larger than the landholdings of small farmers and large farmers, in particular, being able to sell sugarcane through the quota system. However, the case in the developed countries is different. Terry and Ogg (2017) reported from Switzerland that the small landholders had been allocated sufficient quota that is always to be filled, which is the reason that they have better life than their counter parts in the developing countries.

This research has made the picture of biofuel production more complicated in terms of its effect on income and DEI. Previous authors have pointed out that biofuel crops negatively affect food availability and increase prices, which can drive up the cost of food, especially for the poor (Cotula et al., 2008; Koizumi, 2015; Tomei & Helliwell, 2016). The results of this study have shown the contrary in the context of DEI of small and medium farmers in particular. Nearly 60% of small farmers and 40% of medium farmers would not have been able to meet MDER, not to mention ADER if they had continued growing only rice without any non-farming activities (Table 6). One might argue that they would have used the income from non-farming activities, which was more than enough to meet even the ADER of both groups of farmers, to ensure DEI. In reality, it is not possible. Farmers, like other humans, have to fulfil their various needs using the available income at their disposal. This would not have been possible for small and medium farmers in the study area if the major proportion of income from non-farming activities was used for food.

Conclusively, conversion of rice fields into sugarcane farms resulted in increased income for farmers and significantly contributed to DEI. This indicates the potential benefits of diversifying crops and exploring alternative agricultural practices to improve farmers’ livelihoods and DEI. By transitioning from rice to sugarcane cultivation, farmers in the study area were able to increase their income and significantly contribute to their DEI. This aligns with SDG 2s objective of ensuring access to safe, nutritious, and sufficient food for all. The study highlights the importance of diversifying crops and improving agricultural practices to enhance DEI, particularly for small farmers who are vulnerable to food insecurity. This shift from rice to sugarcane cultivation has impact on farmers’ income and livelihoods. It highlights the differential benefits among farmer groups, with small farmers facing challenges in deriving the same level of benefits as medium and large farmers. This underscores the need for policies and support mechanisms that promote inclusive and sustainable economic growth, particularly for smallholder farmers. By addressing issues such as limited landholdings, access to support programs, and clear policies, efforts can be made to enhance farmers’ income and improve their overall well-being, in line with SDG 8’s objective of promoting inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all.

6. Conclusion

In line with our study’s objective, which was to examine the impact of transitioning from rice farming to sugarcane cultivation on DEI in the Nong Bua Lamphu province in Northeast Thailand, our findings provide valuable insights into the intricate relationship between agricultural policy, crop choice and DEI outcomes in the region. The policies put in place to support sugarcane output, especially the guaranteed price, have made it much more likely for farmers in the study area to switch from growing only rice to growing both rice and sugarcane. This approach aims to increase their financial return and minimize vulnerability to food insecurity.

6.1. Main findings

This shift was profitable, as the income of the households was increased which contributed to enhance DEI. However, quota system offered by sugarcane mills has allowed large farmers to benefit more than small and medium farmers could benefit more than small and medium farmers as the quota system offered by sugarcane mills enabled most of them to receive additional price support and sell sugarcane based on the amount of sugar concentration. Most small and medium farmers were deprived of any such additional benefit. As a result, most of them could fulfill MDER using the income from sugarcane, but slightly more than half of small farmers and nearly 29% of medium farmers could not meet ADER. The regression model results showed that percentage of land used for sugarcane production, income from sugarcane and non-farm income contributed to meet ADER. Learning a lesson from this, any policy measures aimed at increasing farmers’ income should rather focus on providing benefits to small farmers who are constrained due to their small resource base. At the least, any policy instrument should not be biased against those who deserve more public support. Farmers in the study area have ensured their current and future DEI by diversifying their farming system from solely rice-based to a combination of sugarcane and rice cultivation and involving some household members in non-farming activities. This approach has not only ensured their current DEI but also protects against potential moderate reductions in household income, given that their current income is more than sufficient to meet both their average daily energy requirement (ADER) and minimum daily energy requirement (MDER). However, how long they would be able to sustain such a situation would, in addition to other factors, depend on the sustainability of the current price support they are receiving.

6.2. Policy implications

To ensure coherence and coordination among different sectors and agencies involved in agricultural and rural development, the coordination between agricultural, energy and environmental ministries or departments is necessary to align policies and avoid trade-offs between food and biofuel production. Collaborative efforts can maximize the benefits of biofuel crop promotion while minimizing potential negative impacts on food security. The smallholder farmers should have the opportunity to engage in biofuel crop production while maintaining food security. To achieve SDG 2 (Zero Hunger) and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) in developing countries, it is important to promote sustainable agricultural practices that ensure food security while also creating opportunities for decent employment and economic growth. This can be done by supporting smallholder farmers in diversifying their farming systems, providing access to resources and markets, and promoting inclusive and sustainable value chains that integrate both food and biofuel crops. By adopting such approaches, countries can work towards eradicating hunger, reducing poverty and fostering sustainable economic development by 2030.

6.3. Limitations of the study

We acknowledge certain limitations inherent in our study. In this study, the food security is measured through calorie intake, and we recognize that food security encompasses a multifaceted approach that includes dimensions such as diet quality, diversity and the shift towards less nutritious options, including ultra-processed foods, which may not be fully captured by our focus on calorie intake. The use of self-reported dietary information presents the possibility of recall bias and may not fully encompass dietary quality or other characteristics associated to micronutrients. Insufficient attention is given to the comprehensive examination of socioeconomic determinants that impact individuals’ food preferences, while the influence of external influences on farming practices may not be sufficiently recognized. We have assumed that income from sugarcane is equivalent to what would have been consumed from the farm. However, the diet choice is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon influenced by various factors, including cultural preferences and economic considerations. Our analysis may not fully capture the nuances of dietary decisions among farmers.

6.4. Recommendations for future studies

In future investigations, our intention is to integrate this particular aspect in order to offer a more all-encompassing comprehension of the nutritional value of diets within the framework of agricultural changes. Investigating the effects of sugarcane cultivation on micronutrient consumption and dietary variety can provide more insights into the dietary consequences of these shifts and contribute to the development of more focused interventions aimed at enhancing food security and nutrition. Moreover, future research should delve deeper into the dietary choices of small and medium farmers, considering not only the sources of income but also the factors influencing their food preferences and investigate the trade-offs in the allocation of time and labour between sugarcane cultivation and other agricultural activities.

Availability of data and materials

The data will be available upon reasonable request to the corresponding authors by email.

Consent to participate

Written consents from the respondents were obtained prior to conduct interviews.

Consent for publication

Consents were obtained from the respondents for publishing their information without showing their direct identity.

Acknowledgments

This research project is supported by the Second Century Fund (C2F), Chulalongkorn University. The authors are also grateful to all study participants who spared their time to provide the necessary data and information.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This research received no external funding.