This document summarizes research on agricultural, nutritional and dietary diversity among smallholder farmers in Western Kenya. The research had several key findings: 1) Smallholders access food from multiple sources, including farms, markets, and family/friends. They produce food for both home consumption and informal market sale. 2) Crop diversity varies between agro-ecological zones and seasons. Species richness is positively influenced by the age of household heads and negatively by migration. 3) Upcoming research will analyze on-farm nutrient diversity using a modified functional diversity metric, and examine the relationship between agricultural and dietary diversity between male- and female-headed households. The research concludes that diversified food products are needed

1. Variety for security: A case study of agricultural,
nutritional and dietary diversity among
smallholder farmers in Western Kenya
Mary Kanui
PhD Candidate
School of Geography & the Environment
University of Oxford
LCIRAH Seminar, 10th January 2014

2. Outline
1.
2.
3.
4.
Background
Objectives
Methods
Completed research: results
4.1 Market agrobiodiversity (3 points)
4.2 Farm agrobiodiversity (2 points)
5. Upcoming research: overview
5.1 On-farm nutrient diversity
5.2 Gender & dietary diversity
6. Conclusions & recommendations
2

3. 1. Agrobiodiversity as a path to household food security?
• Food security: food availability, access, utilization
• Agrobiodiversity: components of biodiversity of relevance to food &
agriculture
• In Africa, up to 80% of agriculture practised by smallholder farmers
• To what extent does agrobiodiversity contribute to food, nutrition &
health?
3

4. 1. Agrobiodiversity-Kenyan context
• Species numbers
– ~35,000 animal, plant and micro-organism species
– 3 sustaining species: maize, wheat, rice (Ekesa, 2009)
• High food shortfalls and malnutrition rate
– Yet local agrobiodiversity under-utilized as primary food security
resource (Frison et al., 2006)
• Western Kenya:
– High agrobiodiversity
– But 50% population below poverty line with high malnutrition and poor
health (Abukutsa-Onyango, 2002)
4

5. 2. Objectives
 Food accessibility & market integration
 Crop diversity & underlying factors
 On-farm nutrient diversity (plant & animals)
 On-farm dietary diversity between genders
5

6. 3. Methods (for completed research)
Farm surveys
Market surveys
• Goals: ABD richness, abundance&
usage
• Goal: food sources, prices & availability
• Time: Sep-Oct & Nov-Dec 2012
• Time: Sep-Oct 2012
• Scope: 7 markets
• Scope: 30 farms in 6 villages
6

7. 3. Study sites
7

8. 4 Completed research
4.1 Market agrobiodiversity
4.2 Farm agrobiodiversity
8

9. 4 Completed research
4.1 Market agrobiodiversity
4.2 Farm agrobiodiversity
9

10. 4.1.1 What is the role of markets in household food access?
Food sources in Mumias district
Food
group
Food sources in Vihiga district
Farm
Market
(%)
Total
Farm
Market
(%)
Family &
friends
(%)
Total
(%)
Family &
friends
(%)
(%)
(%)
39
53
8
100
47
52
1
100
52
23
11
86*
60
9
24
93*
65
25
9
99*
71
22
7
100
33
36
16
85*
47
12
40
99*
76
17
4
97*
81
9
9
99*
13
37
1
51*
28
15
13
56*
75
5
20
100
23
36
17
76*
17
16
0
33*
17
15
11
43*
(%)
10

11. 4.1.2 What are the uses of on-farm produce?
On-farm food use in Mumias district
Food group
On-farm food use in Vihiga district
Home
consumption
Informal
market
Home
consumption
Informal
market
(%)
(%)
(%)
(%)
78
5
17
100
87
77
2
13
92
76
5
15
83
0
73
Formal
market
(%)
Total
Formal
market
(%)
Total
0
0
87
67
0
3
70
96
81
1
3
85
12
95
68
1
3
72
9
9
91
77
4
3
84
30
0
25
55
27
0
23
50
0
0
83
83
50
0
0
50
89
0
11
100
33
0
67
100
(%)
(%)
11

12. 4.1.3 What is the extent of smallholder market integration?
• Out of the interviewed market traders:
– 15%: own production
– 10%: primary middlemen
– 75%: secondary middlemen
12

13. 4.1 Market agrobiodiversity: Summary
 Smallholders access food from
multiple sources
 Smallholders produce food for both
home consumption and for sale
 Smallholders are least involved as
sellers in formal markets
13

14. 4 Completed research
4.1 Market agrobiodiversity
4.2 Farm agrobiodiversity
14

15. 4 Completed research
4.1 Market agrobiodiversity
4.2 Farm agrobiodiversity
15

16. 4.2.1 Farm agrobiodiversity: most common plant species
Brassica
oleracea
Vigna
unguiculata
Zea mays
Vegetables
Sorghum
bicolor
Cereals
Saccharum
officinarum L.
Persea
americana
Sweets
Ipomoea
batatas
Starchy roots
Musa
sapientum
Fruits
Capsicum
annum
Spices
Phaseolus
vulgaris
Pulses
Arachis
hypogaea
16

17. 4.2.1 How crop diversity varies: timepoints & agro-ecological zones
Summed Dominance Ratio (SDR) between September- October 2012
Cereals
Vihiga
Starchy roots/ tubers/green bananas
Vegetables
Fruits
Mumias
Pulses/nuts/seeds
Sweets
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Spices/condiments
Summed Dominance Ratio (SDR) between November- December 2012
Cereals
Vihiga
Starchy roots/tubers/green bananas
Vegetables
Fruits
Mumias
Pulses/nuts/seeds
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Sweets
Spices/condiments
17

18. 4.2.2 Factors influencing species richness
• Stepwise multiple regression analysis
• Positively influenced:
– Age of household heads
• Negatively influenced:
– Migration of either husband or wife
Independent variables significant at p<0.05 , with standardized beta coefficient (with non-standardized beta coefficient in
brackets) as:1 0.513(0.354), 2 -0.422 (-5.415)
18

19. 4.2 Farm agrobiodiversity: Summary
 Importance of some food groups varies with agro-ecological zones
 Species richness is influenced by socioeconomic factors
19

20. 5 Upcoming research
5.1 On-farm nutrient diversity
5.2 Gender & dietary diversity
20

21. 5 Upcoming research
5.1 On-farm nutrient diversity
5.2 Gender & dietary diversity
21

22. 5.1 On-farm nutrient diversity
• Species richness explains taxonomic identity, not functional identity
•
Nutritional functional diversity metrics:
– Summarize nutritional diversity of cropping systems
• Previous studies:
– Presence/absence-based functional diversity metric (Remans et al., 2011, DeClerck
et al., 2011)
• Gap on abundance-based functional diversity metric
– Modified Functional Attribute Diversity (MFAD) metric (Schmera et al., 2009)
– To fill gap: available data on crop abundance, livestock diversity and uses,
income ranges
22

23. 5.1 On-farm nutritional diversity: key questions
 What nutrients are available and what are missing for smallholders
to meet a balanced diet?
 Using market price as proxy for food accessibility, how does food
accessibility compare to income levels?
23

24. 5 Upcoming research
5.1 On-farm nutrient diversity
5.2 Gender & dietary diversity
24

25. 5 Upcoming research
5.1 On-farm nutrient diversity
5.2 Gender & dietary diversity
25

26. 5.2 Gender and dietary diversity
• Households with higher incomes can compensate for reduced onfarm agrobiodiversity....
....but depends on who controls the income
• Subsistence-oriented crops viewed as women’s ‘domestic’ domain
• On-farm cultivation of nutritious foods....
.... doesn’t translate to equal food access for all household members
26

27. 5.2 Gender & dietary diversity: key questions
 How does on-farm crop diversity vary between female and male
headed households?
 Is there a relationship between agricultural and dietary diversity
among these households?
27

28. 6. Conclusions & recommendations
• Diversified food products are required to achieve dietary diversity,
food and nutrition security.
• Smallholder farmers utilize multiple channels to attain household
food security.
• Different food procurement channels need equal consideration in
extension, research and development.
28

29. Acknowledgements
• Supervisors:
• Sources of funding:
– Tuition funding at Oxford: Rhodes Trust
– Project funding at Bioversity (for completed research):GIZ-BMZ
• Smallholder farmers & market traders
• Local administration & contact persons
29

30. Thank you
mary.kanui@ouce.ox.ac.uk
30