| Literature DB >> 24274394 |
Marinka van der Hoeven1, Jennifer Osei, Minrie Greeff, Annamarie Kruger, Mieke Faber, Cornelius M Smuts.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The dietary shift from indigenous and traditional plants (ITPs) to cash crops and exotic plant food sources increases the risk of malnutrition and other nutrition-related non-communicable diseases, especially in poor rural communities. Farm communities in South Africa have been associated with poor nutritional status and extreme poverty. ITPs have been found to be affordable sources of several micronutrients. However, knowledge of and the use of these plants are declining, and little is known about the child's acceptance of dishes prepared with ITPs. This knowledge can be used to improve the general acceptance of ITPs. This study aimed to gain insight into parents' knowledge and perceptions and their use of ITPs in a farming community in the North West Province and to assess children's acceptance of and preference for dishes made with African leafy vegetables (ALVs) and Swiss chard.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24274394 PMCID: PMC4176139 DOI: 10.1186/1746-4269-9-78
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ethnobiol Ethnomed ISSN: 1746-4269 Impact factor: 2.733
Figure 1Map indicating the study site in the North West Province of South Africa (adapted from 17).
Leafy vegetables used in dishes tested in sensory evaluation
| ALV: | Amaranth |
| ALV: | Amaranth and spiderplant |
| ALV: | Amaranth and pumpkin |
| ALV: | Amaranth and cowpea |
| Conventional vegetable: | Swiss chard |
Figure 2Five-point ordinal scale used for sensory evaluation (adapted from 30).
Characteristics of focus group participants (n = 29)
| | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| No education | 5 | 17.2 | | |
| Primary education | 14 | 48.3 | | |
| Secondary education | 10 | 34.5 | | |
| Household size | | | | |
| Children (0–18 years) | | | 3.0 | 1-7 |
| Adults (19–64 years) | | | 2.0 | 0-5 |
| Adults (65 and older) | | | 0.0 | 0-2 |
| Number of children taking care of | | | 3.0 | 1-7 |
| Work status | | | | |
| Employed | 17 | 58.6 | | |
| Unemployed/retired | 12 | 41.4 | | |
| Total monthly household income | | | | |
| Less than ZAR 1000 | 6 | 20.7 | | |
| ZAR 1000 – ZAR 2000 | 12 | 41.4 | | |
| ZAR 2000 – ZAR 3000 | 7 | 24.1 | | |
| More than ZAR 3000 | 4 | 13.8 | | |
| Monthly expenditures on food | | | | |
| Less than ZAR 400 | 8 | 27.6 | | |
| ZAR 400 – ZAR 800 | 13 | 44.8 | | |
| More than ZAR 800 | 8 | 27.6 |
ZAR: South African Rand; 1 USD ≈ 9.08 ZAR.
Identified edible ITPs
| Amadumbe (IsiZulu) | Leaves, stem | - | Y | - | - | |
| Bobete | Leaves | Y | - | - | - | |
| Chencha-keledi | Unknown | Fruit | - | Y | - | - |
| Kgobe-di-metsing | Leaves | - | - | - | Y | |
| Leleme-la-kgomo | Looks like | Fruit, seeds | Y* | Y* | - | - |
| Lekatane | Fruit, leaves | - | - | Y | - | |
| Lekgomane | Leaves | Y | Y | - | - | |
| Lerotho | Leaves | Y | Y | - | - | |
| Leshabe | Leaves | Y | - | - | - | |
| Motangtang/Mistrikadika (fruit) | Fruit | - | Y | - | - | |
| Mmilo | Fruit | - | Y | - | Y | |
| Mmoko | Unknown | Fruit | - | Y | - | - |
| Moetsa-wa-pere | Unknown | Roots | Y* | - | Y | - |
| Mokofi | Unknown | Seeds | - | - | - | Y |
| Morwetla | Fruit | - | Y | Y | Y | |
| Monokotshwai | Unknown | Fruit | - | - | - | Y |
| Motswetswejane | Unknown | Fruit | - | - | Y | - |
| Qhela | Unknown | Leaves | - | - | - | Y |
| Rapa/rape | Leaves, stem | - | - | Y | - | |
| Rotsane | Unknown | Fruit | - | Y | - | - |
| Sebitsa | Unknown | Leaves | - | - | Y | - |
| Sehuwe | Unknown | Leaves | Y | - | Y | Y * |
| Sekgalo | Unknown | Leaves | Y* | Y | Y | Y |
| Solele | Leaves | - | - | - | Y | |
| Senkgane/Sekgapapane/ Imbikilicane | Leaves | Y* | Y* | Y* | Y* | |
| Spaile | Leaves | Y | Y* | - | Y* | |
| Sepatlapatla | Leaves, stem | Y | - | Y | - | |
| Sthwanya | Unknown | Leaves | - | - | Y | Y |
| Storfyn | Unknown | Leaves | - | Y | - | - |
| Thepe | Leaves, stem | Y* | Y* | Y* | Y * |
The local names are given in Setswana, unless differently indicated. FG: Focus Group. (Y): the majority (75% or more) of participants within a particular focus group knew about the particular ITP mentioned and was familiar with its use. (*): the IPT was commonly/mostly used by the participants. (−): the ITP was not used and/or known.
Evaluation of differences between the different dishes including and excluding the dish made with Swiss chard
| | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.120 | 0.386 | 0.639 | 0.603 | |
| <0.001 | 0.003 | 0.426 | 0.261 | |
| <0.001 | 0.002 | 0.632 | 0.931 | |
| <0.001 | 0.039 | 0.599 | 0.931 | |
p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
1Kruskal-Wallis p-value refers to mean values. 2Pearson χ2 p-value refers to frequency.
Sensory evaluation scores (mean ± SD) for different dishes made with leafy vegetables
| 100% Amaranth | 77 | 3.83 ± 1.13a | 3.66 ± 1.22a | 3.53 ± 1.34a | 3.82 ± 1.44a |
| 80% Amaranth + 20% cowpea | 80 | 4.05 ± 0.98a | 3.95 ± 1.02a | 3.50 ± 1.45a | 3.71 ± 1.35a |
| 80% Amaranth + 20% pumpkin | 79 | 3.85 ± 1.16a | 3.65 ± 1.25a | 3.33 ± 1.47a | 3.57 ± 1.47a |
| 80% Amaranth + 20% spiderplant | 78 | 3.83 ± 1.19a | 3.85 ± 1.17a | 3.31 ± 1.41a | 3.59 ± 1.48a |
| 100% Swiss chard | 78 | 4.21 ± 0.93a | 4.33 ± 0.94b | 4.26 ± 1.19b | 4.38 ± 1.13b |
Score: five-point ordinal scale ranging from 5 (super good) to 1 (super bad). Dishes with different superscript differed statistically significant (p < 0.05).