Abstract

IntroductionWildlife is an important source of protein for many people in developing countries. Yet wildlife depletion due to overexploitation is common throughout the humid tropics and its effect on protein security, especially for vulnerable households, is poorly understood. This is problematic for both sustainable rural development and conservation management.MethodsThis study investigates a key dimension of protein security in a cash-crop farming community living in a wildlife-depleted farm-forest landscape in SW Ghana, a region where protein–energy malnutrition persists. Specifically, we monitored protein sufficiency, defined as whether consumption met daily requirements, as benchmarked by recommended daily allowance (RDA). We focus on whether more vulnerable households were less likely to be able to meet their protein needs, where vulnerability was defined by wealth, agricultural season and gender of the household head. Our central hypothesis was: (a) vulnerable households are less likely to consume sufficient protein. In the context that most plant proteins were home-produced, so likely relatively accessible to all households, while most animal proteins were purchased, so likely less accessible to vulnerable households, we tested two further hypotheses: (b) vulnerable households depend more on plant protein to cover their protein needs; and (c) vulnerable households are less likely to earn sufficient cash income to meet their protein needs through purchased animal sources.ResultsBetween 14% and 60% of households (depending on plant protein content assumptions) consumed less than the RDA for protein, but neither protein consumption nor protein sufficiency co-varied with household vulnerability. Fish, livestock and food crops comprised 85% of total protein intake and strongly affected protein sufficiency. However, bushmeat remained an important protein source (15% of total consumption), especially during the post-harvest season when it averaged 26% of total protein consumption. Across the year, 89% of households experienced at least one occasion when they had insufficient income to cover their protein needs through animal protein purchases. The extent of this income shortage was highest during the lean season and among poorer households.ConclusionsThese findings indicate that despite wildlife depletion, bushmeat continues to make a substantial contribution to protein consumption, especially during the agricultural lean season. Income shortages among farmers limit their ability to purchase bushmeat or its substitutes, suggesting that wildlife depletion may cause malnutrition.

Highlights

  • Wildlife is an important source of protein for many people in developing countries

  • Cover their protein needs through animal protein purchases. The extent of this income shortage was highest during the lean season and among poorer households. These findings indicate that despite wildlife depletion, bushmeat continues to make a substantial contribution to protein consumption, especially during the agricultural lean season

  • The hunting of wild animals for food or income is an important source of animal protein and livelihood in rural communities around the world [7]. It acts as a safety net, contributing to income- and consumption-smoothing, both in vulnerable households throughout the year and in all households during times of vulnerability, e.g., the agricultural lean season [8,9]

Read more

Summary

Methods

This study investigates a key dimension of protein security in a cash-crop farming community living in a wildlife-depleted farm-forest landscape in SW Ghana, a region where protein– energy malnutrition persists. We monitored protein sufficiency, defined as whether consumption met daily requirements, as benchmarked by recommended daily allowance (RDA). We focus on whether more vulnerable households were less likely to be able to meet their protein needs, where vulnerability was defined by wealth, agricultural season and gender of the household head. Our central hypothesis was: (a) vulnerable households are less likely to consume sufficient protein. In the context that most plant proteins were home-produced, so likely relatively accessible to all households, while most animal proteins were purchased, so likely less accessible to vulnerable households, we tested two further hypotheses: (b) vulnerable households depend more on plant protein to cover their protein needs; and (c) vulnerable households are less likely to earn sufficient cash income to meet their protein needs through purchased animal sources

Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call