The Potential of Using Wild Edible Animals As Alternative Food Sources

The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/2586-940X.htm Using wild The potential of using wild edible animals edible animals as alternative food as alternative sources among food-insecure food sources areas in Indonesia 247 Annis Catur Adi, Dini Ririn Andrias and Qonita Rachmah Received 17 July 2019 Revised 22 August 2019 Department of Nutrition, Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Airlangga, Surabaya, Accepted 26 August 2019 Indonesia Abstract Purpose – This study aims to assess the household food security status and explore the potency of wild edible animals as a food source in the food insecurity–prone area of Bangkalan district, Madura, Indonesia. Approach/methodology/design – This cross-sectional quantitative study used a mixed-method approach. A total of 66 participants were purposively recruited. Household food security was assessed using the short version of the U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module (US-HFSSM). A list of available wild edible animals was obtained from each interview using a structured questionnaire. For the qualitative study, an in-depth interview was conducted among key informants at subvillage level. Findings – We found that 33.4 percent of households were food insecure. At least 18 kinds of wild edible animal protein consumed by the respondents were identified in the study area, which consisted of five kinds of insects, five kinds of fish, three types of birds, and two mammals. Most of the wild edible animals were rich in protein. Originality/value – Wild edible animals can be promoted to support household food security. Villagers did not usually consider consuming wild edible animals as a normal practice as there were concerns about the taste and safety of eating wild animal foods. Methods of processing and cooking foods to improve the taste and safety aspects need to be explored. The information obtained from this study adds more evidence related to the potential of edible wild animals as a food alternative for households in food-insecure areas. Keywords Wild edible animals, Alternative food sources, Food insecure areas, Indonesia Paper type Research paper Introduction Household food insecurity is a critical issue as it can affect the nutritional status of each individual in the household. Moreover, optimum nutritional status is required for the foundation of healthy human development[1]. In accordance with national data, there has been an escalation of Indonesian people living in poverty rising from 11.07 percent to 14.47 percent[2]. Specifically, the Indonesian food insecurity atlas showed that all districts in Madura Island were included in a list of prioritized districts for provincial food security programs due to their insecurity status[3]. One of the underlying causes of food insecurity in Madura Island is poverty which limits the economic access to food sources. In the context of food insecurity, collecting wild foods can be a form of coping strategies to increase physical © Annis Catur Adi, Dini Ririn Andrias and Qonita Rachmah. Published in Journal of Health Research. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be seen at http://creativecommons. Journal of Health Research org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode Vol. 34 No. 3, 2020 pp. 247-257 The authors would like to thank the Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Airlangga for funding this Emerald Publishing Limited research, the enumerators, and the participants in the study. e-ISSN: 2586-940X p-ISSN: 0857-4421 The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest in this study. DOI 10.1108/JHR-07-2019-0156 JHR access to food. The Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) defined wild foods as plants 34,3 (including roots and tubers, leaves, vegetables, and fruits) and animals (including insects, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals) which were not cultivated or reared, are underutilized, and are gathered for food[4]. Some wild and underutilized foods are a good source of vitamins, and some of them even have a higher vitamin and mineral content than cultivated plants[5-9]. Wild foods have been a significant contributor to household food security through two general pathways, by 248 providing direct access to food and nutrients and by helping increase economic capability by selling the wild foods, which may then increase the household economic access to other foods. In southern Ethiopia, a study found that income earned from selling wild foods contributed significantly to fulfill the basic needs of poor households[10]. Similarly, in Amhara, Ethiopia, where seasonal food crises are common, the availability of wild fruits helps the community to fulfill their nutritional needs and also gives the potential for sale[11]. However, wild foods are usually considered as inferior food. In southern Sudan where giving prestigious foods to guests is common, sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) was given to male guests because it is considered more prestigious, whereas wild foods were given to women and children[12]. Unlike wild edible plants that have been documented largely in many studies, studies on wild edible animals are quite limited. Among edible animals explored in the previous studies, insects were most commonly studied[13-15]. Nowadays, insects are promoted as a real animal protein alternative and have been perceived as environmentally beneficial compared to poultry and livestock[16]. Other research studies in Bangladesh found wild animal foods obtained from freshwater an important part of the poor community’s diet. Small fishes, of less than 10 cms, and consumed with their bones, significantly contribute to calcium intake[17]. To our knowledge, there is very little evidence showing the utility of wild edible animals in Indonesia. Some villagers recognized the use of wild animals by their elders; however, the practice was not much used in recent times. The poor in low-income households in the food-insecure areas in Indonesia constantly needed any available sources of protein for their daily consumption. Therefore, wild edible animals are an obvious and sensible choice and sometimes a preferable one, as well. This study aims to observe the level of household food insecurity and the possibility of adding wild edible animals to the diet alongside assessing the nutrient and bioactive components of them. Methodology Setting This cross-sectional study was completed in Bangkalan district, located in the western part of Madura Island, East Java Province, Indonesia (Figure 1). Bangkalan district was purposively selected by considering the highest number of poor households and the possibility of gathering wild edible animals. Two villages, namely, Blega village and Geger village, were randomly selected. Figure 1. Bangkalan district, located in the western part of Madura Island, East Java Province, Indonesia Sampling and data collection Using wild This study used a mixed-method approach to collect the data. Quantitative research was edible animals conducted to assess household characteristics, food security levels, and lists of available wild edible animals. Household food security status was assessed by using a short version of the as alternative U.S. Household Food Security Survey Module (US-HFSSM) which was translated into the food sources Indonesian language. A total of 66 households from two selected villages, Blega village and Geger village in Bangkalan district, were randomly chosen for quantitative research. Interviews were carried out by trained enumerators with a nutrition background. In addition, 249 a qualitative study was conducted using an in-depth interview with key informants including two village chiefs, two farmer group leaders, and two food security agency staff helpers at the subdistrict level. Data management and analysis Quantitative data were checked for their completeness, and then univariate analysis was performed for each variable. Quantitative data collected in this study included household characteristics (household members, number of children, age of household head, educational background, occupation, and household income), household food security status, and coping strategies for food insecurity. Qualitative data were assessed through in-depth interviews in the form of recordings and images. In-depth interviews were carried out by a researcher using both the Madura and Indonesian languages and then transcribed into English. Before presenting the data, researchers double-checked for a non-English recording and an English version of the transcript. Transcription was then analyzed for the experience, practice, and potency of eating wild edible animals. Ethical consideration This study was ethically approved by the Health Research Ethics Committee, Faculty of Public Health, Universitas Airlangga (IRB number: 303-KEPK). Informed consent was obtained from all participants before the study was conducted. Results Household characteristics The majority of the households were a typical nuclear family consisting of a parent with their dependent children with an average of two from the median number of 4 (2–8). The mean age of the household head was 47.9 ± 15.3 years, and that of the spouse was 43.7 ± 13.1 years. Most household

Load more