| Literature DB >> 26213437 |
Kathleen A Galvin1, Tyler A Beeton2, Randall B Boone3, Shauna B BurnSilver4.
Abstract
This study assesses the nutritional status of Maasai pastoralists living in a period of great social, economic and ecological changes in Kajiado County, southern Kenya. Data on weight, height, skinfolds, and circumferences were collected from 534 individuals in the year 2000. The data were used to describe mean differences in human nutrition between ages, sexes, and within and among three Group Ranches. Nutritional data and diet recall data were compared with past studies of Maasai nutrition from 1930 to 2000. Results indicate that nutritional status is poor and has remained so despite numerous changes to the social-ecological system including livelihood diversification, sedentarization, human population growth and decreased access to vegetation heterogeneity. Imbirikani Group Ranch had better access to infrastructure and markets and some measures of nutritional status were better than for individuals in other group ranches. However, nutritional status remains poor despite transitioning to greater market integration.Entities:
Keywords: Anthropometry; Human nutrition; Maasai pastoralists; Nutrition transition; Social-ecological change; Southern Kenya
Year: 2015 PMID: 26213437 PMCID: PMC4512275 DOI: 10.1007/s10745-015-9749-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Hum Ecol Interdiscip J ISSN: 0300-7839
Social-ecological changes in Kajiado County
| Change | Past | Present | Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Land tenure | Communal | Mosaic of group ranches (Group Leasehold Title) and individual parcels (Private Property) | Reid |
| Economic activity | Livestock based subsistence consumption | Diversified; agropastoralism to extensive pastoralism with market engagement | BurnSilver |
| Livestock production | Extensive; seasonal transhumance | A mosaic of landuse: sedentary agropastoralism--> | BurnSilver |
| Mobility type | Open | Limited in subdivided areas and in sedentary areas (eg. swamps and highland agricultural areas). | BurnSilver |
| Sedentarization | Low (few houses) | High in agricultural areas. | Worden |
| Human population density | Low | High | BurnSilver |
| Biodiversity | High | Some species in decline | BurnSilver |
| Vegetation heterogeneity access | High access | Low access | BurnSilver |
| Rainfall variability | Increasing | Ogutu | |
| Drought severity frequency | Lower | HIgher | Ogutu |
Fig. 1Study area and associated group ranches
Group ranch characteristics for Imbirkani, Eselengei and Olgulului/Lorashi group ranches
| Group ranch characteristics | Imbirikania | Eselengeia | Olgulului/Lorashia |
|---|---|---|---|
| Area (km2) | 1361 | 797 | 1566 |
| Average distance to nearest village (km) | 2.4 | 12.9 | 17.2 |
| Land tenure | Communal | Communal | Communal |
| Land use | Extensive-sedentary | Extensive | Extensive |
| Infrastructure access | Medium-High | Low-Medium | Very low |
| Mean TLU per AUb,c | 5.55 | 6.55 | 8.7 |
| Gross livestock income ($) | 1177 | 959.5 | 1415 |
| % HH with agricultural income | 64 | 20 | 31 |
| % HH with off-land income | 49 | 63.5 | 52 |
| Mean HH off-land income ($) | 661.5 | 675.5 | 297 |
| % HH with wildlife-based income | 12.5 | 6.5 | 10 |
| Mean HH wildlife-based income ($) | 1,258 | 642 | 191 |
| % HH mobile | 78 | 95.85 | 95.7 |
| Mean number of moves per year | 3.25 | 2.95 | 1.9 |
| Daily mean distance traveled (wet) | 8.2 | 6.55 | 9.9 |
| Daily mean distance traveled (dry) | 10.4 | 10.2 | 8.7 |
Group ranch characteristics adapted from BurnSilver et al. 2008; BurnSilver 2009
aAverage of study areas in GR: Imbirikani = N. & S. Imbirikani; Eselengei = Eselengei & Lenkisim; Olgulului/Lorashi = Emeshenani (Burnsilver et al. 2008; BurnSilver 2009)
bTLU (Tropical Livestock Unit): exchange ratio as function of body and metabolic weight so that different species of varying sizes may be compared using standard units (1 TLU = 250 kg Cattle)
cAU (Adult Unit): standard reference adult, based on food or metabolic requirements. Adult male = 1 AU; adult female = 0.9; M/F 10–14 years = 0.9; M/F 5–9 years = 0.6; MF 2–4 = 0.52 (Homewood and Rogers 1991)
Age and sex distribution of study sample participants
| Age category | ♂ | ♀ | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| Infants (0–1.9) | 31 | 30 | 61 |
| Children (2–6.9) | 56 | 64 | 120 |
| Juveniles (♂ 7–11.9; ♀ 7–10.9) | 17 | 33 | 50 |
| Adolescents (♂ 12–17.9; ♀ 11–17.9) | 19 | 56 | 75 |
| Adults (18+) | 96 | 132 | 228 |
| Total | 219 | 315 | 534 |
Adult only sample by sex and group ranch
| Imbirikani | Eselengei | Olgulului/Lorashi | Total | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ♂ | 47 | 33 | 16 | 96 |
| ♀ | 50 | 55 | 25 | 130 |
| Total | 97 | 88 | 41 | 226 |
Mean comparison of height-for-age (HAZ), weight-for-height (WHZ), body-mass index (BMIZ), under arm muscle area (ZUMA), and tricep skin fold (ZTSF) z-scores by age and sex across all group ranches
| Sex | Infants | Children | Juveniles | Adolescents | Adults | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HAZ | ♂a | −1.31 | −1.57 | −0.92 | −1.58 | −0.25 |
| ♀b | −1.43 | −1.21 | −1.26 | −0.92 | −0.19 | |
|
| NS | NS | NS | <0.01 | NS | |
| WHZ/BMIZ | ♂ | −0.04 | −1.42 | −1.88 | −1.81 | −1.54 |
| ♀c | −0.06 | −1.62 | −1.79 | −1.37 | −1.27 | |
|
| NS | NS | NS | <0.01 | <0.01 | |
| ZUMA | ♂d | – | −2.04 | −2.30 | −2.53 | −2.04 |
| ♀e | – | −1.46 | −1.86 | −1.31 | −0.91 | |
|
| 0.03 | 0.02 | <0.001 | <0.001 | ||
| ZTSF | ♂f | – | −0.29 | −1.25 | −0.75 | −0.43 |
| ♀ | – | −0.59 | −0.95 | −0.87 | −0.83 | |
|
| NS | NS | NS | <0.01 |
P-Values shows significant differences between male and females
aMale adults have significantly higher HAZ than all male groups except for Juveniles (F = 22.07, P < 0.01)
bFemale adults have significantly higher HAZ than all other female groups (F = 20.4, P < 0.01)
cJuvenile females have significantly lower BMIZ than adolescent and adult females (F = 5.22, P < 0.01)
dMale adults have significantly higher ZUMA than male adolescents (F = 3.02, P < 0.05)
eFemale adults have significantly higher ZUMA than any other group; Female adolescents have significantly higher ZUMA than female juveniles (F = 19.34, P < 0.01)
fMale children have significantly higher ZTSF than male juveniles; male adults have significantly higher ZTSF than male juveniles (F = 3.99, P < 0.01)
Proportion of individuals by age and sex who are stunted, wasted/underweight, overweight, obese, and/or malnourished
| Age Group | Infants | Children | Juveniles | Adolescents | Adults | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex | ♂ | ♀ | ♂ | ♀ | ♂ | ♀ | ♂ | ♀ | ♂ | ♀ |
| Stunted | 28.6 % | 44.0 % | 27.3 % | 26.9 % | 21.4 % | 24.1 % |
|
| 0.0 % | 2.3 % |
| Wasted/Underweight | 8.0 % | 6.9 % | 45.2 % | 51.1 % | 70.6 % | 71.0 % |
|
| 51.0 % | 59.0 % |
| Overweight/Obese | – | – | 2.4 % | 2.2 % | 0.0 % | 0.0 % | 0.0 % | 0.0 % | 4.1 % | 4.6 % |
| Malnourished | – | – |
|
| 71.4 % | 48.3 % |
|
|
|
|
Boldface type indicates significant gender effect (p < 0.05)
Mean comparison of adult height-for-age (HAZ), body-mass index (BMIZ), under-arm muscle area (ZUMA), and triceps skin fold (ZTSF) z-scores by group ranch and sex
| Group ranch | ♂ | ♀ |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| HAZ | Imbirikani | −0.21 | −0.11 | NS |
| Eselengei | −0.39 | −0.19 | NS | |
| Olugulului/Lolorashi | −0.06 | −0.34 | NS | |
|
| NS | NS | ||
| BMIZ | Imbirikani | −1.41 | −0.99 | <0.05 |
| Eselengei | −1.62 | −1.46 | NS | |
| Olugulului/Lolorashi | −1.77 | −1.43 | NS | |
|
| NS | <0.01c | ||
| ZUMA | Imbirikani | −1.86 | −0.83 | <0.01 |
| Eselengei | −2.26 | −1.04 | <0.01 | |
| Olugulului/Lolorashi | −2.21 | −0.81 | <0.01 | |
|
| <0.05d | NS | ||
| ZTSF | Imbirikani | −0.39 | −0.81 | <0.05 |
| Eselengei | −0.37 | −0.75 | NS | |
| Olugulului/Lolorashi | −0.70 | −1.07 | NS | |
|
| NS | NS |
aIndependent sample t-test shows significant difference between sexes
bANOVA p-value shows significant differences between group ranches; see special notes below
cFemales in Imbirikani have significantly higher BMIZ than females in Eselengei (F = 6.17, P < 0.01)
dMales in Imbirikani have significantly higher ZUMA than males in Eselengei ((F = 4.04, P < 0.05)
Proportion of individuals who are characterized as underweight, overweight/obese, and malnourished by group ranch and sex
| Group ranch | Sex | Underweight | Overweight/Obese | Malnourished |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Imbirkani | ♂ | 38.3 % | 2.1 % |
|
| ♀ | 43.1 % | 9.8 % |
| |
| Eselengei | ♂ | 57.6 % | 9.1 % |
|
| ♀ | 70.4 % | 1.9 % |
| |
| Olugulului/Lolorashi | ♂ | 75.0 % | 0.0 % |
|
| ♀ | 68.0 % | 0.0 % |
|
Boldface type indicates significant gender differences within group ranches (P < 0.001)
Fig. 2Mean comparison of boys and girls height for age and weight for age in reference to 5th and 50th percentile standards (Kuczmarski et al. 2002). We compared our study sample to a Maasai sample from Tanzania (McCabe et al. 1989, 1992): a) girls weight for age; b) boys weight for age; c) girls height for age; d) boys height for age
Fig. 3Proportion of individuals below 90 % of reference population in weight-for-height, an indicator of short term nutritional status. Our sample is compared to Nestel’s (1986) study of Maasai in Kenya and McCabe et al.’s (1989, 1992) study of a Maasai group in Tanzania. (Nestel’s (1986) anthropometry data were collected every two months over the course of a year and then averaged to get an annual mean. McCabe’s data were collected in June and July 1989 and our data were collected in May and June 2000. We did not account for the potential effects of seasonality or of summed data in the analysis.)
Descriptive statistics for adult Maasai weight, height, and BMI from sample populations spanning 1930–2000. Data adapted from Homewood (1992), which includes anthropometric data from Orr and Gilks (1931) and McCabe et al. (1989) compared to this study
| Sex | Weight | Height | BMI |
| SD | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (kg) |
| SD | (cm) |
| SD | |||||
| Kenya 1931a | ♂ | 60.2 | 362 | 169.3 | 362 | 21 | 362 | |||
| ♀ | 54.2 | 333 | 155.5 | 333 | 22.4 | 333 | ||||
| Tanzania 1989b | ♂ | 57.6 | 88 | 7.89 | 171.2 | 88 | 6.54 | 19.7 | 88 | 2.3 |
| ♀ | 49.1 | 180 | 6.6 | 159.9 | 180 | 5.5 | 19.1 | 180 | 2.3 | |
| Kenya 2000 | ♂ | 56.5 | 96 | 9.19 | 172.55 | 96 | 5.97 | 19.02 | 96 | 3.06 |
| ♀ | 47.5 | 130 | 8.69 | 160.26 | 130 | 5.54 | 18.58 | 130 | 2.83 | |
Adapted from Homewood (1992)
aData from Orr and Gilks (1931)
bData from McCabe et al. (1989, 1992)
Fig. 4Average reported use of pastoral vs. non-pastoral products by group ranch. Because the diet recall was framed by types and not total foods consumed we do not have a measure of total intake. Therefore we cannot assume that together pastoral foods and nonpastoral equal 100 % of intake. Although cow milk remains the main staple in most households, members in Imbirikani reported using purchased foods on average more than those in other groups (Pastoral foods include milk and meat while non-pastoral foods included tea leaves, sugar, salt, maize meal, fat, rice, beans, potatoes, tomatoes, onions, Sukuma, wheat flour, chicken and combinations thereof.)