ntributed less than 30% of the RDA for calories as well as proteins. For breakfast and lunch, the caloric adequacy of participants was significantly higher (24 ± 3.2% and 33.6 ± 4.3% of RDA) than that of the non-participants (20.4 ± 2.6% and 28.8 ± 5.6% of RDA). Even though the caloric adequacy at supper was not significantly (P>0.05) different between the two groups, the participants had higher intake than the non-participants.
Though there was no significant difference in protein adequacy for breakfast and supper between the two groups, there was a significantly higher (P<0.05) protein adequacy for lunch, among the participants (88.8 ± 125% of RDA) than the non-participants (53.3 ± 98% of RDA). The overall caloric adequacy per day was significantly higher among participants (83.5 ± 0.4% of RDA) than among the non-participants (73.3 ± 98% of RDA). Similarly, the protein adequacy among the participants (129 ± 16% of RDA) was significantly higher than among the non-participants (88.8 ± 5.4% of RDA).
Majority of parents who were found at home at the time of study were females. Most men had gone to work. The dependency ratio and household size are in line with results seen in other developing countries according to the FAO/WHO report . Large household sizes may have a negative effect on childrens' nutritional status due to a scarcity of resources especially food.
For both groups, lunch was the most important meal and source of kilocalories and proteins for children. There was a higher intake of kilocalories and proteins at lunch time than at both breakfast and supper. The lunch nutrient intake of participants was however significantly higher than the non-participants and contributed more than 30% of the RDA. This concurs with World Health Organization (WHO)  food composition tables' requirement that lunch should provide at least a third of RDA. This means that the school lunch contributed significantly to the total daily nutrient intake of participants and thus played a vital role in improving the nutritional status of the participants.
More emphasis was laid on lunch and supper than breakfast. The respondents explained that, once they had supper, they could perform adequately until lunch time the following day. This is also a coping mechanism that people adopt (adjusting to two or one meal per day) during food shortages and lack of money until it becomes routine although it is not appropriate for good nutrition. The difference in dietary intake adequacy between the two groups may be attributed to the fact that the school lunch provides a higher amount of calories and proteins for participants than that provided by the home lunch for non-participants. Thus, the school lunch plays a significant role in its contribution to the overall diet adequacy of the participants as it contributes more than a third of RDA of nutrients.
A good quality meal will improve nutritional status, which is vital for mental development and consequently academic performance. The school lunch provided the pupils with more than a third of the RDA. School lunches should provide a third of the RDA since lunch is one of the three main meals that a person is required to eat in a day. The other two are breakfast and supper. Pollit  also agrees that foods provided for school age children should satisfy the high demands of rapid growth, intense physical activity and mental development. Consequently, in cases of wasted school children, SFP are required to correct moderate wasting and prevent moderately undernourished children from becoming severely undernourished. Thus, the SFP should be nutritionally adequate to achieve this objective.
The lunch nutrient intake of the participants was significantly higher than that of the nonparticipants. This means that the school lunch contributed significantly to the total daily nutrient intake of participants. This may suggest that the school lunch significantly enhanced their nutritional status as compared to the non-participants. The significant relationship between school lunch and nutritional status (weight-for-age a