Role of Camel Milk in Pastoral Livelihoods in Kenya: Contribution to Household Diet and Income Yazan Ahmed Elhadi1*, Dickson M Nyariki1,2 and Oliver V Wasonga1
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Elhadi et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2015) 5:8 DOI 10.1186/s13570-015-0028-7 RESEARCH ARTICLE Open Access Role of camel milk in pastoral livelihoods in Kenya: contribution to household diet and income Yazan Ahmed Elhadi1*, Dickson M Nyariki1,2 and Oliver V Wasonga1 Abstract Pastoral livestock production in Kenya is subject to unpredictable rainfall and drought occurrences. These adverse climatic conditions have led to vulnerable and insecure pastoral livelihoods. Despite the potential to alleviate food insecurity of pastoral communities through continuous provision of milk and other products, the potential of camel milk is yet to be fully explored. This study was carried out to examine the contribution of camel milk to pastoral household food baskets and incomes. A semi-structured questionnaire was used to collect information targeting camel milk producers in Isiolo County, upper eastern region of Kenya. The findings show that camel milk contributes significantly to pastoral households. The contribution of the milk to a household food basket was found to be significantly higher (P ≤ 0.05) during the dry season than in the wet season. Camel milk sales contributed significantly (P ≤ 0.05) to household incomes throughout the year. These results show the role of camel milk as a complementary source of food and income for pastoral households. Therefore, interventions aimed at supporting pastoral households need to consider the promotion of camel milk production and marketing as an option for building pastoralists’ resilience against unpredictable weather. Keywords: Climate variability; Pastoral production; Food basket; Isiolo County Background interspersed with intense but shorter and unpredictable In East Africa, pastoralism makes sustainable use of about periods of rainfall (GoK 2007). Consequently, such wea- 50% of the total land surface (Kratli et al. 2013). This sec- ther patterns are likely to affect resource use patterns tor further contributes significantly to the agricultural and render pastoral households vulnerable to otherwise GDP of the countries within the region. For instance, in normal variability. For example, in the Kenyan drylands, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, the sector accounts for 16%, droughts have led to massive livestock losses; during the 45% and 32% of GDP, respectively (Behnke 2008). Pastor- 2011 drought, mortality rates of 40% and 70% were alism in Kenya is based on the consumption and sale of reported for goats and sheep, and cattle, respectively livestock and livestock products, mostly from cattle, goats, (Serna 2011). These droughts have consequently weak- sheep and camels. The flexibility of this system permits its ened the resilience of pastoral production, rendering the existence as the only efficient means of exploring available pastoralists poor and relief dependent. natural resources under ecologically marginal conditions, Several livelihood options have been proposed and available technologies and the prevailing economy implemented by different development agencies and (Chikamai and Eriksen 2011). institutions to enhance resilience of pastoral production Pastoral ecosystems in East Africa, Kenya included, systems in Kenya. These are dryland farming, apiculture, are faced with many challenges, chief of them being intensified investment in animal health, livestock mar- unpredictable rainfall and drought occurrences (Elhadi keting and non-land-based livelihoods (Cooper et al. et al. 2012). Climate projections for the ASALs of Kenya 2008; Homewood et al. 2009; Elhadi et al. 2012). Ad- may include longer and more frequent dry periods ditionally, more pastoralists are opting to adopt camels as a drought-tolerant species. This has mainly been driven by market demand for camel products as well as camels’ * Correspondence: [email protected] 1Department of Land Resource Management and Agricultural Technology, abilities to tolerate climatic extremes (Zeng and Edwards University of Nairobi, P.O. Box 29053-00625, Nairobi, Kenya 2010). Despite the abilities to support pastoral livelihoods Full list of author information is available at the end of the article © 2015 Elhadi et al.; licensee Springer. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. Elhadi et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2015) 5:8 Page 2 of 8 under harsh climatic conditions, camels have received lit- in Isiolo County from the neighbouring Counties of Wajir tle attention in comparison to other livestock species in and Garissa. The Borana, on the other hand, are trad- the field of scientific research and development in Kenya. itional cattle keepers and just recently diversified into In spite of the opportunities that camel production has camel rearing as a response to frequent droughts and shown as a potential pathway to a resilient pastoral pro- other calamities (Kagunyu and Wanjohi 2014). Despite duction system through milk production and rangeland the acceptance of camels as part of the mobile herd improvement, few studies in Kenya have provided an in- among the Borana community, the adoption rate of camel depth assessment of the role of camel milk in pastoral rearing is relatively low (Noor et al. 2013). livelihoods. Therefore, this study was conducted to de- termine the contribution of camel milk to the pastoral Methods household food basket and incomes in the drylands of Data collection Kenya, taking Isiolo County as a case study. A multistage sampling procedure was used to collect primary data from camel milk producers in the study Study area area. The sampling procedure involved data collection at This study was conducted in Isiolo County, located in three main levels. The first level was Isiolo County, the upper eastern region of Kenya and covering appro- which was purposively selected based on its high share ximately 25,000 km2. The altitude ranges from 200 to in the national camel milk production and marketing in 300 m above sea level (Noor et al. 2012). The area bor- Kenya (Noor et al. 2012). Secondly, two sub-counties ders Marsabit County to the north, Wajir and Garissa within Isiolo County were sampled, based on the num- Counties to the east, Tana River and Meru Counties to ber of camels, the intensity of milk production and level the south, and Samburu and Laikipia Counties to the of marketing. This is because the study ought to bring west. The county is classified as arid and semi-arid with out the contribution of camel milk to pastoral house- low, bimodal and erratic rainfall of 350 and 600 mm per holds who rely to a great extent on camels and their year (Herlocker et al. 1993). The rainy seasons are the products. In each sub-county, three sub-locations were long rains which last for three months starting from randomly sampled to attain a sample size of 202 house- mid-March and contribute to about 40% of the total pre- holds, which were drawn from 20 villages. This sample cipitation, and the short rains lasting for two to three size was determined using the probability proportional months, usually starting in October. The county is hot to size formula according to Yates and Grundy (1953). throughout the year with mean annual temperatures ran- One survey with retrospective data collection was car- ging between 24°C and 30°C (Jaetzold and Schmidt 1983). ried out between August and October 2012 to capture The erratic rains and droughts are devastating and lead to the information on both last wet season (March to May) loss of livestock and human lives (GoK 1997). The poverty and last dry season (June to August). A semi-structured level in the area, measured using 2 US dollars as the questionnaire was used to collect data such as demo- poverty line, is estimated at 70% (Kamunyan et al. 2013). graphic characteristics, camel milk production, camel The main livelihood is pastoralism, complemented with milk marketing, income sources and amount, household off-farm activities such as firewood collection, charcoal food consumption, and available resources such as land burning and casual labour. The main livestock species and other livestock species. Focus group discussions kept are cattle, goats, sheep and camels. It is estimated (FGDs) and key informant interviews (KIIs) were used that Isiolo County has about 40,300 camels mostly owned to complement the information gathered through the by Somali and Borana communities, with a daily milk semi-structured questionnaire. Six FGDs and fifteen KIIs production of about 50,000 L. The Somali camel breed is were conducted to clarify and give more insights on dominant in the county. About 87.5% of the produced aspects of camel milk production, consumption and camel milk is consumed either at the local trading centres marketing. or for subsistence at the household level (Musinga et al. 2008). Data analysis The collected data were analysed using the Statistical Study population Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Descriptive sta- The sample population consisted of Somali and Borana tistics were used to derive the contribution of camel pastoral households located in Isiolo Central sub-county milk to pastoral household food baskets and incomes and Kina sub-county, respectively. Communities in Isiolo during the wet and dry seasons. The results were pre- County are known to keep cattle, goats and sheep as the sented in forms of percentages, frequencies, averages main livestock species that constitute their mobile herds. and standard deviations. Further, the t-test was done to The Somali communities are known to be traditional determine if there were significant differences between camel keepers and were the first to introduce the species the contribution of camel milk to household food basket Elhadi et al. Pastoralism: Research, Policy and Practice (2015) 5:8 Page 3 of 8 and income during the wet and dry seasons. To deter- household was found to be 30 (Table 1).