Land and Food Systems, Faculty of
DSpace
UBCV
Gitunu, Anthony Mwai Macharia
Master of Science - MSc
University of British Columbia
During the months of April through July 1991 and June through July and 1992, a study was conducted to describe and compare the primary factors that affect management practices in two ecological agro—pastoral communities (Kasikeu: eco—zone IV and Mtito-Andei: eco-zone V) in Makueni district of Kenya. Sample families were chosen from Kasikeu (n=32) and Mtito Andei (n=31). A questionnaire was used for filling in the information as perceived and given by the respondents. Family heads were the interviewees but where they were absent, wives or resident sons represented them. The agro-pastoralists of Kasikeu and Mtito-Andei belong to a major bantu tribe called Akamba and generally have the same traditional and cultural background. The two communities therefore generally practised similar farm production activ ities regardless of their land ecological potential. The two communities were also affected more or less similarly by factors such as human population pressure, intro duction of a cash economy, education and amenities associated with sedentarization. Generally these factors have caused the agro-pastoralists to adopt diversified lifestyles which were normally not adopted in the old traditional systems. Such practices include habitation of tsetse fly infested areas, change of land tenure, adoption of sedentary lifestyle, use of cash as a basis for most transactions, use of livestock manure and chemicals to improve crop and livestock production, adoption of commercial horticultural farming, change of dietary habits, engagement in various small—scale business activities, and emphasis on child education and training. Albeit the differences in ecological potential of the study areas, management practices and other behaviours were similar in both study areas (eco—zones). In a few cases however, differences in the management levels existed between the two communities. For instance, the proportions of livestock owned in terms of cattle, sheep, goats, chickens, rabbits and ducks and varied (P<0.00l) between eco—zones. Kasikeu maintained higher proportions than Mtito-Andei of sheep (11.2% versus 7.2%) and rabbits (2.8% versus 0.2%) but a smaller proportion of goats (22.4% versus 30.4%). The number of donkeys encountered in the two areas were too few to warrant inclusion in the analysis. The proportions of livestock prices offered by buyers and accepted by the agro—pastoralists at the local market places, for cattle, sheep and goats varied (P<0.001) between eGo— zones. Kasikeu earned higher proportions than Mtito—Andei of the income from cattle sales (91.5% versus 79.2%) whereas Mtito-Andei earned higher proportions than Kasikeu of the income from sales of sheep (4.8% versus 1.0%) and goats (16.0% versus 7.5%). Proportions of the on—farm and off—farm watering places also varied (P<0.004) between eco—zones. Kasikeu respondents more commonly than Mtito—Andei respondents (77.4% versus 40.7%), watered their livestock on water sources located within their farms. The proportions of the total off-farm income attributed to salary/wage earning as being either greater or less than 50%, varied ( P<0.032) between eco—zones. Mtito—Andei recorded a higher proportion than Kasikeu (87.5% versus 64.5%), of the respondents receiving 50% or less of their total farm income from salary/wage earning. Although the proportions of incomes from the sources of the total off—farm income did not vary between eco—zones, those proportions varied (P<0.046) between sources in the entire study area. Greater proportions of the respondents indicated that over 50% of off—farm income came from small scale local businesses (36.5% versus 23.8% for salary/wage and 17.5% for kin remittance). The proportions of the total farm income attributed to crop and livestock production did not vary between eco—zones but varied (P<0.001) between production types in the entire study area. Crop production contributed more than a half (76.2% versus 22.2%). Similarly, proportions of the respondents ranking items of total family income expenditure in terms of purchase of foodstuff, school expenses, household expenses, purchase of clothes and miscellaneous expenses did not vary between eco— zones but varied (P<0.001) between items of expenditure in the entire study area. School expenses, had the greatest proportion (74.1%) of the respondents ranking it as number one user of total family income than any other item, Clothing and household expenses had the greatest proportions of the respondents (65. 2%) and (43 . 5%), respectively ranking them as number two users of the total family income. The following global recommendations are envisioned as necessary. 1. a. Promotion of integrated research efforts to develop technologies appropriate for small holdings in rangelands should be one of the aims within the framework of policy planners and, research and social scientists. For the agricultural research, the following areas may be given emphasis: soil and water conservation; dryland farming including small-scale irrigation methods; establishment of dryland fodder and shrub species; and improved dual purpose livestock including poultry and beekeeping, to mention a few. b. Promotion of small—scale business training and management activities the benefit of the interested farmers. c. Promotion of child basic education through government and non—governmental subsidies. d. Posting by government of adequate home—economic extension workers to teach family life education since a considerable number of respondents of the study were women. Area—specific recommendations are envisioned to include the following. 2. a. Kasikeu farmers, should promote growth of fodder crops to increase milk from cows whereas Mtito—Andei farmers should grow fodder shrubs for their goats. b. Due to small land sizes, farmers in Kasi]ceu and in Mtito— Andei should consider keeping fewer but productive dual purpose cattle and goats, respectively. c. Whereas farmers in Mtito-Andei would posssibly need to form committees to protect communal water from misuse, Kasikeu farmers would need to take care of their own individual water sources. e. Promotion of the small—scale rural industries especially in Mtito-Andei ‘area which is far away from the city for the creation of jobs. 3. Further research would be necessary to asses other agro— pastoral communities not only in Makueni district but also in other sub-divided range districts of Kenya. The design of such research should have replicated eco—zone units to allow for a wider and reliable generalization of the findings. This will be possible only if research budget, personnel and logistics are well taken care of. 4. Adoption of the above recommendations should not be expected to offer lasting solutions to the problems of farmers.
3783215 bytes
application/pdf
Description and Comparison of the Factors AffectingProduction and Management Practices in Two EcologicallyDifferent Agro-Pastoral Communities of Makueni District,Kenya.byAnthony Mwai Macharia GitunuDip. (Range Management), Egerton College, Njoro, Kenya, 1976B. Sc. (Range Science), Utah State University, USA, 1982A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREEOF MASTER OF SCIENCEinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES(Department of Plant Science)We accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAMarch 1994J Anthony Mwai Macharia Gitunu, 1994In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.(Signature)__________________________Department of SC I C eThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDate Y14’RC1 1-i- Th’. /99 L/DE-6 (2)88)abstractDuring the months of April through July 1991 and Junethrough July and 1992, a study was conducted to describe andcompare the primary factors that affect management practicesin two ecological agro—pastoral communities (Kasikeu: eco—zoneIV and Mtito-Andei: eco-zone V) in Makueni district of Kenya.Sample families were chosen from Kasikeu (n=32) and MtitoAndei (n=31). A questionnaire was used for filling in theinformation as perceived and given by the respondents. Familyheads were the interviewees but where they were absent, wivesor resident sons represented them.The agro-pastoralists of Kasikeu and Mtito-Andei belongto a major bantu tribe called Akamba and generally have thesame traditional and cultural background. The two communitiestherefore generally practised similar farm production activities regardless of their land ecological potential.The two communities were also affected more or lesssimilarly by factors such as human population pressure, introduction of a cash economy, education and amenities associatedwith sedentarization. Generally these factors have caused theagro-pastoralists to adopt diversified lifestyles which werenormally not adopted in the old traditional systems. Suchpractices include habitation of tsetse fly infested areas,change of land tenure, adoption of sedentary lifestyle, use ofcash as a basis for most transactions, use of livestock manureand chemicals to improve crop and livestock production,11adoption of commercial horticultural farming, change ofdietary habits, engagement in various small—scale businessactivities, and emphasis on child education and training.Albeit the differences in ecological potential of thestudy areas, management practices and other behaviours weresimilar in both study areas (eco—zones). In a few caseshowever, differences in the management levels existed betweenthe two communities. For instance, the proportions oflivestock owned in terms of cattle, sheep, goats, chickens,rabbits and ducks and varied (P<0.00l) between eco—zones.Kasikeu maintained higher proportions than Mtito-Andei ofsheep (11.2% versus 7.2%) and rabbits (2.8% versus 0.2%) buta smaller proportion of goats (22.4% versus 30.4%). Thenumber of donkeys encountered in the two areas were too few towarrant inclusion in the analysis.The proportions of livestock prices offered by buyers andaccepted by the agro—pastoralists at the local market places,for cattle, sheep and goats varied (P<0.001) between eGo—zones. Kasikeu earned higher proportions than Mtito—Andei ofthe income from cattle sales (91.5% versus 79.2%) whereasMtito-Andei earned higher proportions than Kasikeu of theincome from sales of sheep (4.8% versus 1.0%) and goats (16.0%versus 7.5%).Proportions of the on—farm and off—farm watering placesalso varied (P<0.004) between eco—zones. Kasikeu respondentsmore commonly than Mtito—Andei respondents (77.4% versus11140.7%), watered their livestock on water sources locatedwithin their farms.The proportions of the total off-farm income attributedto salary/wage earning as being either greater or less than50%, varied (P<0.032) between eco—zones. Mtito—Andei recordeda higher proportion than Kasikeu (87.5% versus 64.5%), of therespondents receiving 50% or less of their total farm incomefrom salary/wage earning.Although the proportions of incomes from the sources ofthe total off—farm income did not vary between eco—zones,those proportions varied (P<0.046) between sources in theentire study area. Greater proportions of the respondentsindicated that over 50% of off—farm income came from smallscale local businesses (36.5% versus 23.8% for salary/wage and17.5% for kin remittance).The proportions of the total farm income attributed tocrop and livestock production did not vary between eco—zonesbut varied (P<0.001) between production types in the entirestudy area. Crop production contributed more than a half(76.2% versus 22.2%).Similarly, proportions of the respondents ranking itemsof total family income expenditure in terms of purchase offoodstuff, school expenses, household expenses, purchase ofclothes and miscellaneous expenses did not vary between eco—zones but varied (P<0.001) between items of expenditure in theentire study area. School expenses, had the greatestivproportion (74.1%) of the respondents ranking it as number oneuser of total family income than any other item, Clothing andhousehold expenses had the greatest proportions of therespondents (65. 2%) and (43 . 5%), respectively ranking them asnumber two users of the total family income.The following global recommendations are envisionedas necessary.1.a. Promotion of integrated research efforts todevelop technologies appropriate for small holdings inrangelands should be one of the aims within the frameworkof policy planners and, research and social scientists.For the agricultural research, the following areas may begiven emphasis: soil and water conservation; drylandfarming including small-scale irrigation methods;establishment of dryland fodder and shrub species; andimproved dual purpose livestock including poultry andbeekeeping, to mention a few.b. Promotion of small—scale business training and managementactivities the benefit of the interested farmers.c. Promotion of child basic education through government andnon—governmental subsidies.d. Posting by government of adequate home—economicextension workers to teach family life education since aconsiderable number of respondents of the study werewomen.vArea—specific recommendations are envisioned to includethe following.2.a. Kasikeu farmers, should promote growth of fodder crops toincrease milk from cows whereas Mtito—Andei farmersshould grow fodder shrubs for their goats.b. Due to small land sizes, farmers in Kasi]ceu and in Mtito—Andei should consider keeping fewer but productive dualpurpose cattle and goats, respectively.c. Whereas farmers in Mtito-Andei would posssibly need toform committees to protect communal water from misuse,Kasikeu farmers would need to take care of their ownindividual water sources.e. Promotion of the small—scale rural industries especiallyin Mtito-Andei ‘area which is far away from the city forthe creation of jobs.3. Further research would be necessary to asses other agro—pastoral communities not only in Makueni district butalso in other sub-divided range districts of Kenya. Thedesign of such research should have replicated eco—zoneunits to allow for a wider and reliable generalization ofthe findings. This will be possible only if researchbudget, personnel and logistics are well taken care of.4. Adoption of the above recommendations should not beexpected to offer lasting solutions to the problems offarmers.viTable of ContentsAbstract iiTable of Contents viiListofTables ixListofFigures xiListofAppendices xivAcknowledgements1. Introduction 11.1 Study Objectives and Hypotheses 151.1.1. Objectives 151.1.2. Research Hypotheses 151.1.3. Statistical Hypotheses 162.StudyLocations 202 . 1 . The Tribe 212.2. History, Economy and Occupation 242.3. The Culture 333. Materials and Methods 363.1.SampleSelection 363 • 2 . The Survey • 3 83.2.1. Family Background Information . . 403.2.2. Farm—Dependent Persons 403.2.3. Livestock Information . . . . • . 403.2.4. Food Crop Information • 413.2.5. Livestock Marketing Information • • 413.2.6. Milk Production Information . . • 423.2.7. On—farm and Off—Farm Incomes 423.2.8. Items of Family Income Expenditure 423.2.9. Wildlife Information 433.2.10. Ethnic Influx 433.2.11. Community Social Amenities . . 433.2.12. Government Extension Services . 433.3 Statistical Analysis . • . • . 434. Results 454.1. Distribution and Ownership of Farm Livestock 484.2. Livestock Prices at the Local Market • . . 484.3. Livestock Watering and Grazing Sources . . 524.4. Livestock Species Milked . • 524.5. Sources of Family Income 524.5.1. Salary/Wage Earning 524.5.2. Off—farm Income between Sources . 52vii4.5.3. Crop and Livestock Production. . . . 534.6. Family Expenditure 535 . Discussion 605.1. Livestock Ownership 605 . 1 . 1 . Goats 6 15 . 1 . 2 . Sheep 625 . 1. 3 . Rabbits .. 635.2. Sales and Prices of Various Livestock Spe—cies 645 . 2 . 1 . Cattle 675 . 2 . 2 . Goats 685. 2 . 3 . Sheep 705.3. Sales and Prices of Various Livestock Types 715.3.1. Bulls, Steers and Heifers 715.3.2. Does, Rams and Bucks 745.4. Grazing and Watering Places . . . . . . . . 745.5. Food Types and Milk Disposal 815.5.1. Food Types 815.5.2. Milk Production, Consumption and Sale 855.6. Family Income Sources 915.6.1. Farm Production Income 945.6.2. Total Family Income. 1005.6.2.1. On—farm and Off—farm Incomes • 1005.7. Family Expenditure 1145.8. Conclusions and Recommendations 1196.0. LiteratureCited 128viiiList of TablesTable 1. Classification of Kenya’s Rangelands by “Agro—climatic” or “Moisture—availability” zones(fromJacobs 1983).. . . . . . . 5Table 2 Mixed Farming Range Districts of Kenya(from Jacobs, 1983) . . . . . . 5Table 3. Pastoral Range Districts of Kenya (fromJacobs, 1983) .. . . . . 5Table 4. Rangeland districts by major eco—zone andproduction system, Kenya, 1979 (from Jacobs1983) 7Table 5. Summary table of statistical results,Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992 46Table 6. Relationship between ecological zone and climatic vegetation types (from Pratt and Gwynne1977) 66Table 7. Proportions of the respondents (P<O.121) indicating grazing places in terms of on—farm andoff—farm pastures, Makueni district, Kenya,1991/1992 77Table 8. Average straw yield and nitrogen content ofcrop residues in the semi—arid zone (fromJahri)ce 19 8 2 ) 77Table 9. Proportions of respondents (P<O.188) indicating livestock watering frequency, Makueni dis—trict,Kenya,1991/1992 79Table 10. crop food reliability as perceived by agropastoralists, Makueni district, Kenya,1991/1992 88Table 11. Food types and their sources (%), asreported by agro—pastoralists of southernMachakos (Makueni) district before, duringand after the major 1983/84 drought in Kenya(from Mukhebi, 1985) 89Table 12. Proportions of crop residue and other fodders(P<0.366) fed to livestock, Makueni district,Kenya, 1991/1992 90ixTable 13. Proportions of the children (P<O.189) attendingteaching institutions, Makueni district, Kenya,1991/1992 . . 92Table 14. Proportions of the amount of milk (P<0.235)consumed in litres at home and the amountsold, Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992. . 92Table 15. Traditional sources of total family income,Makueni district, Kenya (from Muthiani,1973). 93Table 16. Proportions of the respondents indicatingfractions of total farm income realisedfrom livestock production, Makueni district, Kenya, 1985. 94Table 17. Proportions of the respondents indicatingfractions of total farm income realised fromcrop production, Makueni district, Kenya,1985 95Table 18. Proportions of the respondents indicatingfractions of total family income realisedfrom on—farm production, Makueni district,Kenya , 19 85 . . 9 5Table 19. Proportions of the respondents indicatingfractions of total family income realisedfrom off-farm activities, Makueni district,Kenya , 1985 9 6Table 20. Proportions of the respondents indicatingfractions of total off—farm income realisedfrom business, Makueni district, Kenya,1985 96Table 21. Proportions of the respondents indicatingfractions total off—farm income realised fromwage earning, Makueni district, Kenya,1985. 96Table 22. Proportions of the respondents indicatingfractions of total off—farm income realisedfrom sons, daughters and other relatives,Makueni district, Kenya, 1985 96xList of FiguresFigure 1. Rangeland districts of Kenya. 2Figure 2. Kasikeu and Mtito-Andei study areas, Makuenidistrict, Kenya . . 23Figure 3. Proportions of the livestock species(P<0.00l) kept by agro—pastoralists, Makuenidistrict, Kenya, 1991/1992 49Figure 4. Proportions of income (Ksh) (P<0.00l)realised from sale of livestock species,species, Makueni district, Kenya,1991/1992 50Figure 5. Proportions of income in Kenya shilling,(P<0.001) realised from sale of livestocktypes, Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992 . 51Figure 6. Proportions of the respondents (P<0.004)indicating locations of livestock watering interms of on—farm and off—farm water sources,Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992 55Figure 7. Proportions of the respondents (P<0.002)indicating milking cows and goats, Makuenidistrict, Kenya, 1991/1992 56Figure 8. Proportions of the respondents (P<0.032)indicating fractions of total off—farm incomerealised from salary/wage earning as beingeither greater or less than 50% Makueni district, Kenya 1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57Figure 9. Proportions of the respondents (P<0.046)indicating fractions of business, salary/wageearning and kin remittance contributing tothe total off-farm income Makueni district,Kenya,1985 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58Figure 10. Proportions of the respondents (P<0.001)indicting fractions of total farm incomerealised from crops and livestock as eitherbeing greater or less than 50%, Makuenidistrict, Kenya, 1991/1992 59Figure 11. Proportions of the respondents (P<0.001)ranking items of family expenditure as beingeither first, second or third in priority,Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992 . . . . . 65xiFigure 12. Proportions of the family farm area, (ha)(P<0.0O1) allocated to livestock andcrop use, Makueni, district, Kenya,1991/1992 72Figure 13. Proportions of respondents (P<0.005) rankinglocal butchers as being either first orsecond priority, buyers of their livestock, Makueni district, Kenya,1991/1992. 73Figure 14. Proportions of the respondents (P<0.05)indicating types of livestock watersources, Makueni district, Kenya,1991/1992. . . 80Figure 15. Proportions of the respondents (P<0.946)indicating fractions of the total farm incomerealised from livestock production as beingeither greater or less than 50%, Makuenidistrict, Kenya, 1991/1992. 102Figure 16. Proportions of the respondents (P<0.714)indicating fractions of the total farm incomerealised from crop production as being eithergreater or less than 50%, Makueni district,Kenya, 1991/1992.. 103Figure 17. Proportions of the respondents (P<0.967)indicating fractions oftotal family incomerealised from on—farm production as beingeither greater or less than 50%, Makuenidistrict, Kenya, 1991/1992 104Figure 18. Proportions of the respondents (P<0.974)indicating fractions of total family incomerealised from off—farm sources as beingeither greater or less than 50%, Makuenidistrict, Kenya, 1991/1992 105Figure 19. Proportions of the respondents (P<0.225)indicating fractions of total off-farmincome realised from business as beingeither greater or less than 50%, Makuenidistrict,Kenya,1985 109Figure 20. Proportions of the respondents (P<0.697)indicating fractions of total off—farm incomeremitted by sons, daughters and other relativesas being either greater or less than 50%,Makueni district, Kenya, 1985 . . . . . . 110xiiFigure 21. Proportions of the respondents (P<O.OO1)indicating fractions of the total familyincome realised from on—farm and off—farm asbeing either greater or less than 50%,Makueni district, Kenya, 1985 113xiiiList of AppendicesAppendix 1. Study Questionnaire 133Appendix 2. Tables of Frequencies 155Appendix 3. Non-significant Result Figures 167xivAcknowledgementsIt is my pleasure to express heart—felt gratitude to allindividuals and organizations who made completion of thisproject a reality: Dr. Michael D. Pitt, my academic and thesissupervisor, for his unreserved support, guidance and encouragement especially in my understanding of statistics andcomputers; Dr. Phyllis Johnson and Dr. Malcolm Tait, my othercommittee members for their contributions on data organizationand interpretation; Dr. D. Wachira and Dr.H. Cheruiyot,livestock and range research directors, respectively at KenyaAgricultural Research Institute (KARl) headquarters fornominating me for this scholarship; Mr. P. Kibet the currentNational Range Research Centre (NRRC), Kiboko director, Dr. B.Mwandotto and Dr. B. Woie, the former NRRC, Kiboko directorsfor strongly recommending me for further training; Dr. A.Mukhebi of International Laboratories for Research on AnimalDiseases (ILRAD), Kenya and Dr. N. Musimba of University ofNairobi (U0N), Kenya for their referee letters in support ofmy scholarship and also for Dr. Mukhebi’s contribution towardsconstruction of the study questionnaire; Mr. F. Chabari ofInternational Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA), Kenya forhis contribution on our discussion about range livestockmarketing; All research scientists of NRRC, Kiboko for theirmulti-disciplinary contribution and comments to the questionnaire; Mr. Ole Timoi, the District Livestock ProductionxvOfficer Machakos/Makueni for making his field extension staffavailable to lead my data enumerators to the respondents;Mr. R. Ng’etich and Mr. B. Musyoki my technical assistant anddriver, respectively for working tirelessly during the time ofdata enumeration and also for the role the former played inorganizing other technical assistants in summarizing data;J. Kang’ara, a fellow diehard Kenyan student and also Chairmanof the Kenyan Student Association at UBC for his concern aboutmy academic success; F. Njenga and T. Hooper, my fellowstudent and profession colleagues at UBC for their great senseof humour and the sharing of both material and academicknowledge that kept me elevated even during difficult times;Kathleen Pitt, for her “do—not—worry—you—can—make—it” encouragement; My Land lord/lady, Dr. and Mrs. Hasman for theirbrotherly treatment for the period I resided with them; Myfriends Mr. H. Lober for the spiritual/moral support and forallowing me use of his printer, Mr. M. Muraguri and Mr D.Mureithi in Kenya for assisting my wife when their help iscalled for; My wife, Eunah, our children, my brother R.Muriuki and my parents, Mr. and Mrs. Macharia for their kindunderstanding and tolerance of my long absence from home; myemployer, KARl for granting me Study Leave from my Job; andboth the Kenyan (KARl) and the Canadian (CIDA) governments forthe financial support of my scholarship through the GeneralTraining Funds (GTF).Finally, I laud the Almighty God, Jehovah through his sonxviJesus Christ for assisting me in completion of this thesis andbeing the only One who has the lasting solution (Matthew 6:33)to all mankind problems that we all endeavour to solve invain.xvii1. IntroductionKiboko, the National Range Research Centre (NRRC) of theKenya Agricultural Research Institute (KARl) is situated about160 km south-east of Nairobi--the capital city of Kenya. TheCentre is one of the few KARl National Research Centresresponsible for developing, designing and executing variousagricultural research work aimed at developing technologiesthat are feasible and easy to adopt within the framework ofthe average farmer’s financial capabilities. KARl’s emphasisis to develop applied research technologies with goals thatare realisable preferably within short—run periods. Kenya’seconomy is generally based on agriculture, and there is a direneed for the nation, not only to become self sufficient inquantity and quality of food production for its ever-increasing human population, but also to be able to producesurplus for export market.Rangelands cover about 82% of Kenya’s land area of583,000 km2 (Figure 1) and they support 25% of Kenya’s peopleand nearly 50% of the country’s livestock (Karue et al. 1989).Generally, range areas are unsuitable either for intensivearable farming or for intensive livestock production, for theyexperience periodic droughts and variability and unreliabilityof rainfall. Jacobs (1983), classified and suitnuarized themain defining characteristicsof the four major “agro—climatic” or “moisture—availability”zones comprising Kenya’s rangelands (Table 1).1uOAN £THiopq0.0UGANDAeWest PocotaeI’ELe0 Mar.k3\ V\ \\\,\\\ \toriRver AtjRdsstictsE tiPLoeau TANZANIAdistctFigure 1. Rangelands districts of Kenya.2Traditionally, agro—pastoralism and pastoralism were the mainproduction systems in these areas (Muthiani 1973, Sintio1989). Agro-pastoralism involved land cultivation especiallywhere rainfall and topography were suitable for food crops,and livestock keeping where land was unsuitable for foodcrops. This system was practised mainly in ecological zones IVand V (Table 2). In other words, agro—pastoralists, otherwisereferred to as partial pastoralists (Evangelou 1984) weresemi—nomadic in behaviour because whereas some members of thefamily, especially women, children and the aged, stayed inmore or less permanent settlement areas which were suitablefor farming, strong men moved about in their communal grazingland with their livestock, in search of water and pasture. Onthe other hand, pastoralism which involved continuous movementof nomads and their livestock from one place to anotherof their communally—owned land, in search of pasture andwater, was mainly practised in ecological zones V1 VI and VII.Districts such as Narok and West Pokot, however, which aremainly ecological zones IV, were traditionally known topractice pastoralism too (Table 3).In contemporary times, these production systems aregradually changing allegedly due to land pressure, migrationpatterns, movement towards a cash economy, changing dietaryhabits, education and amenities associated with sedentarizati—on. Our knowledge about these areas and how their changingproduction systems work in modern times is poor and incomplete3(Helland 1980a, King et al. 1982). During the whole of the1980’s, much survey work was done by the InternationalLivestock Centre for Africa (ILCA) especially in KajiadoMaasai pastoral district which is mainly eco—zone V1 in orderto asses the impact of group ranching on Maasai’s pastoralproduction system. Further research, however, is needed toinvestigate the impact of land subdivision and cultivation onpastoralism (Ngutter 1983). Ngutter (1983) further suggestedthat more studies need to be done on drought prediction, andlivestock and produce marketing strategies.Although it is generally perceived that range areas areeconomically unsuitable for crop production, traditionally ithas not been uncommon to see some small—scale cultivationgoing on in some of the Kenyan rangelands districts. Whereassome range districts of Kenya practice mixed farming (Table2), which includes both livestock keeping and cultivation,others, either due to extreme aridity or cultural backgroundof the inhabitants, have traditionally practised pastoralism(Table 3), which involves movement of pastoralists and theirlivestock in search of water and pasture.4Table 1. Classification of Kenya’s Rangelands by “Agroclimatic” or “Moisture-availability” zones (from Jacobs,1983).Zone Classi— Annual Vegetation Maize Failurefication Rainfall (mm) Rate (%)IV Semi-humid! 600—1100 Dry forest andsemi-arid Bushland 10—25V Semi—arid 450—900 Bushland 25—75VI Arid 300—550 Bushland andScrubland 75-95VII Very Arid 150-350 Desert Scrub 95-100Table 2. Mixed Farming Range Districts of Kenya (from Jacobs,1983).Eco—zone IV Eco—zone VMachakos /Makueni KituiNakuru BaringoEmbu LaikipiaMeru KilifiElgeyo-Marakwet KwaleLamuTaita-TavetaTable 3. Pastoral Range Districts of Kenya (from Jacobs, 1983)Eco—zone IV Eco—zone V Eco—zone VI Eco—zone VIINarok Kajiado Samburu TurkanaWest Pokot Isiolo WajirGarissaManderaMarsabitTana River5Due to socio—economic, demographic and political changesin Kenya, the pattern shown in Tables 1 and 2 above ischanging fast, with more pastoral districts becoming agropastoral districts in terms of production systems. Forinstance, it is reported that although Narok is basically andtraditionally a pastoral district, crop farming is beginningto make important in—roads (Agricultural Research Foundationfor the German Team 1987). Darkoh (1991) stated that Kenya’ssevere shortage of arable land is resulting in the inevitableexpansion of the cultivation boundary into the arid, drought-prone marginal range areas of the east and north. He continuedto say that monitoring by remote sensing clearly shows theshift in the agricultural boundary from the high potentialareas into the semi—arid areas of Kitui, Narok, and Kibwezidivision of Makueni.As a result of rapid population growth and its spill-overeffects from lands of high potential to those of marginalproductivity, some semi—arid districts such as Machakos (nowdivided administratively into Machakos and Makueni districts),Kitui, Embu, and Baringo are among the most threatenedmarginal lands in Kenya. All these lands are experiencingrapid population growth through natural increase and bymigration (Darkoh 1991). Jacobs (1983) too has shown population increase trend in range districts of Kenya (Table 4).6Table 4. Rangeland districts by major eco—zone and productionsystem, Kenya, 1979 (from Jacobs 1983).TotalPopulationDensity((2) % of1Inc.Rate ofGrowthKENYA TOTAL POPULATION 151= Percent of population increasecensus)327,061 27between 1969-7939.0(National3.4*= Districts 40% of which are estimated to consist of “rangelands”(RV)=Rift Valley, (E)=Eastern, (C)=Coast, (NE)=North-Eastern,Provinces.ECO—ZONE IV — (600—1100 mm.)Main “Pastoral” districts:1.Narok(RV) 210,306 13 68.0 5.32. W. Pokot (RV) 158,652 19 65.0 5.1Main “Mixed Farming” Districts:3. Machakos/Makueni (E) 1,022,522 72 45.0 3.74.Nakuru*(RV) 522,709 90 80.0 6.05. Embu (E) 263,173 96 47.0 3.96.Meru*(E) 830,179 83 39.0 3.37. Elgeyo—Marakwet (RV) 148,868 65 —6.5—0.6ECO—ZONE V — (450-900)Main “Pastoral” districts:8.Kajiado(RV) 149,005 7 74.0 5.79. Isiolo (E) 43,478 1 44.0 3.7Main “Mixed Farming” Districts:10.Kitui(E) 464,283 15 35.0 3.011.Baringo(RV) 203,792 20 26.0 2.312. Laikipia (RV) 134,524 13 102.0 7.313. Kilifi* (C) 430,986 34 40.0 3.414. Kwale* (C) 288,363 34 40.0 3.415.Lamu*(C) 42,299 8 89.0 6.6ECO—ZONE VI — (300—550)Main “Pastoral” districts:16. Samburu (RV) 79,908 4 11.0 1.0Main “Mixed Farming” Districts:17. Taita—Taveta (C) 147,597 8 33.0 2.9ECO—ZONE VII — (150—350)Main “Pastoral” districts:18.Turkana(RV) 142,702 2 —14.0 —1.319.Wajir(NE) 139,319 2 62.0 4.920. Garissa (NE) 128,867 2 100.0 7.221. Mandera (NE) 105,609 3 11.0 1.022. Marsabit (E) 96,216 1 87.0 6.423. Tana River (C) 92,401 2 82.0 6.27Another development being observed in some rangelanddistricts of Kenya, especially Kajiado and Samburu (zones Vand VI, respectively), is the trend towards land sub-divisioninto individual ownership. In 1981, the government of Kenyaadopted a policy to encourage pastoral people, especially theMaasai and the Samburu, to subdivide their group ranches andsettle down in individually owned farms or ranches. Thispolicy was adopted with the belief that such a move wouldimprove land productivity in these areas (Pasha 1986).In order to understand the concept of group ranching inKenya, it is important to look back into the influence andimpact the British rule in Kenya had on the lifestyles of thepastoral societies, especially the Samburu and Maasai people.Organized grazing schemes were first introduced and established in Kenya between 1944 and 1956 under the auspices ofthe African Land Development Board (ALDEV). In the plan,pastoralists were organized ethnically or traditionally intolarge grazing areas that were known as “grazing schemes.”Those schemes were established with the grant money providedby the British colonial government, and the only facilitiesprovided were for livestock water and for tick control. Inshort, because of the pastoral nomadic movements, whichfollowed wet—dry patterns in search of water and pasture, theschemes failed. However, those schemes provided experiencesnecessary for modification of other types of systems that werehoped to suit social, traditional, and other aspirations of8the pastoralists (Sadera 1986).Control over land in the form of grazing rights under thetraditional system was vested in the tribe and the locality.These units, however, were too large to provide a basis ofauthority over the use of forage and water resources. Thefirst step in establishing the group ranches was thus tocreate smaller groups, both in terms of geographic area andpopulation, within the former tribal lands held in trust bythe government (Helland 1980b). Thus the concept of “groupranching” was hatched.In the words of Sadera (1986),“group ranches, which were first established in 1964,are therefore modification of grazing schemes. Groupranches generally can be described as productionenterprises in which a group of people who jointlyhave freehold title to land maintain agreed stockinglevels and herd their livestock collectively whilecontinuing to own them as individuals. Membershipin the group is based on kinship and traditionalland rights. The objective is to establish a systemthat allows the modernization of livestock husbandryand still preserves many of the features of thetraditional way of life to avoid causing too greator abrupt a break with the past and to allow forpeople’s subsistence while avoiding social frictions.”9In short, under what was known as Phase I and Phase II ofthe Kenya Livestock Development Project (1968 to 1974 and 1975to 1982, respectively), funded by the World Bank, about 41group and more than 15 individual ranches were developed.The main constraints which adversely affected thesuccesses of group ranches were lack of capital, qualifiedmanagers and proper books of accounts. Currently, many of thegroup ranches are being sub-divided into individual landunits, some of which would be unviable as livestock—producingranches (Sadera 1986). A good example is that of Kajiadogroup ranches. Pasha (1986) has stated that the desire andhaste for individual tenure stems from a variety of factorswhich include:(1) Change of government policy;(2) Desire for individual land title deeds as collateralfor loans;(3) Desire by the second generation to be registered asmembers of group ranch; and(4) Frustration with the inefficiency of the organizationand management of group ranches.According to Pasha (1986), the Maasai people believe thatsubdivision of group ranches has its advantages and disadvantages. The Maasai who support subdivision point out that itwould:(1) Help self advancement and uplift the standard of livingfor the Maasai;10(2) Help the Maasai procure loans since most banks acceptfreehold title deeds as security;(3) Minimize exploitation of poor households by richerhouseholds;(4) Encourage the Maasai to engage in other agricultural orindustrial enterprises; and(5) Facilitate better operation and maintenance of infrastructures that currently are being poorly maintainedby the inefficient group ranch committees.The Maasai who are opposed to subdivision offer thefollowing reasons:(1) Alienation of their land to non-Maasai;(2) Cultivation of large tracts of land which will resultin soil erosion;(3) Influx of non—Maasai people will result in eventualloss of Maasai culture; and(4) That usual livestock movement will be curtailedespecially by those who might opt to undertake cropping, who will be forced to fence their farms in orderto prevent livestock and wildlife from grazing theircrops.The proponents of subdivision seem to be winning theargument. Pasha (1986) and the Agricultural Research Foundation for the German Agricultural Team (1987) reported thatseveral group ranch committees passed resolutions in generalassembly meetings to dissolve their group ranches. The11required quorum, 60% according to the former and 66.7%according to the latter, was achieved in all the generalassembly meetings called to dissolve group ranches. From thiswe can conclude that subdivision into individual ownership isalready taking place in Kajiado district and that this trendis imminent in other range districts. Sizes of individualholdings, once subdivided on the basis of equal shares, rangefrom 23 to 298 ha per member family depending on the size ofthe group ranch in question. If all the group ranches werecombined and subdivided on the basis- of equal shares, eachmember family would receive on average about 100 ha (Jacobs1983).There has been serious concern regarding what is going tobe the future of pastoral societies, especially the Maasai whotraditionally consider tillage of land as anathema. Somepeople think that the future of the pastoral people is goingto be lost once the sub—division is completed. Some peoplefear that for the first time in the history of Maasai people,there is going to be landless individuals since house holderswill have the right to sell their land percels if they wish todo so and thus become landless.Certainly, most of the individual land parcels will notmaintain an economic ranching enterprise capable of sustaininga family. It appears that the pastoral societies must changesome of their traditional and cultural outlooks and try toadopt/borrow/copy some of the virtues that enable other ethnic12groups to at least make ends come closer if not to make themmeet. It is wiser to try something, than to become hopeless.It is therefore, hoped that in a very near future, thepastoral communities living in the sub-divided area will seekknowledge as to how they should manage their smaller pieces ofland. When this happens, it will be a big challenge especially to research scientists, who will be expected to develop/produce a farm management package which is economicallyappealing to, and easily adoptable by the individual farmersoccupying personal pieces of land in arid and semi—arid areas.In my opinion as a research scientist, the best approachto developing this package, would be to start by studying,understanding and recording activities of other ethnic groupsliving under the similar ecological status. For instance,some rangeland inhabitants are known to engage in othereconomic occupations in addition to pastoralism. Examples ofrangeland inhabitants who for a long time have subsisted onsmall individually—owned land, are known. Akamba people ofKenya provide a good example. Hopefully, studying andunderstanding how people such as the Akamba organize and runtheir economy, might enable us to suggest areas of possibleimprovement and bring this to the attention of policy plannerswho would be expected to direct some resources towardachieving the suggested improvement goals.With the foregoing in mind, this study was designed toinvestigate, describe and compare factors affecting management13practices adopted by two ecologically different agro—pastoralrange communities of Makueni district of Kenya, in terms ofhuman, land, crop and livestock resources available to them.Makueni district lies mainly within two range eco—zones. Thenorthern part of the district in which Kasikeu study area issituated, is mainly eco—zone IV whereas the southern part,where Mtito-Andei study area is situated, is generally ecozone V. Jacobs (1983) has shown that agro-pastoralism inKenya takes place in both eco-zones IV and V (Table 2). Itshould be noted that until recently, Makueni district, wherethis study is based, used to be the southern part of Machakosdistrict. About four years ago, Machakos district was subdivided into two smaller districts for ease of administration.The southern part of the former Machakos became Makuenidistrict whereas the northern part remained as Machakosdistrict. Generally, Machakos district was classified undereco-zone IV since about two-thirds of the district, especiallyto the north, portrayed the main ecological characteristics ofeco-zone IV. However, about one—third of the district to thesouth portrayed main ecological characteristics of eco—zone V(Table 1). Therefore, the former southern part of Machakosdistrict which became Makueni district can generally be saidto comprise eco—zones IV to the north—west and V to the southeast.The results of this study will be used as a baseline forfuture studies in addition to making possible recommendations14regarding adjustment and survival of the rangeland pastoralsocieties whose land tenure is going to change from communalto individual ownership. It is important to note that theland in the whole study district is individually owned.1.1 Study Objectives and Hypotheses1.1.1. ObjectivesThe broad objectives of this study were:(1) to describe how the agro-pastoral production system ofMakueni district of Kenya, works in terms of human, land,crop and livestock resource management practices and howthis system is influenced by the changing life stylesemanating from land pressure, human migration patterns,movement towards a cash economy, feeding habits, educationand amenities associated with sedentarization; and(2) to compare various management practices between the twostudy areas (eco—zones IV and V) chosen from thisdistrict.1.1.2. Research HypothesesThis study was initiated on the expectation that agropastoralists in Kasikeu (eco—zone IV) and Mtito-Andei(eco—zone V) would differ in the following items:(1) Proportions of family members occupying individual basefarms;(2) Proportions of the livestock owned in individual familybase farms;(3) Proportions of family income earned from various species15and types of livestock;(4) Proportions of the families grazing and watering theirlivestock at the home base and off—home base farms;(5) Proportions of the families practising livestock andcrop husbandry;(6) Proportions of the types of food eaten, species oflivestock milked, amount of milk produced, consumed athome and sold out;(7) Proportions of the total family income earned fromlivestock/crop production and from off—farm sources; and(8) Proportions of the total family income allocated tovarious items of family expenditures.1.1.3. Statistical HypothesesThe following null hypotheses will be used to describethe research hypotheses summarized above.(1) Proportions of the family members living on the farm interms of female and male children (<14 years of age)and female and male adults (>14 years of age) areindependent of the study areas.(2) Livestock proportions owned in terms of cattle, sheep,goats, chicken, rabbits, ducks, and donkeys are independent of the study areas.(3) Proportions of livestock revenue offered by the buyersand accepted by the agro-pastoralists at the marketplaces for cattle, sheep and goats are independent ofthe study areas.16(4) Proportions of the respondents indicating places wherethe agro-pastoralists take their livestock for grazingand watering in terms of on—farm and off—farm grazingand watering are independent of the study areas.(5) Proportions of the livestock and crop husbandry practices as reflected by the agricultural extension services offered in terms of clinical services, and disease and pest control are independent of the studyareas.(6) Proportions of the foodtypes eaten, the livestockspecies milked, the amount of milk produced in themorning and in the evening, and the amount of milkconsumed at home or sold to either neighbours or tolocal hotels are independent of the study areas.(7) Proportions of the total farm income attributable tolivestock and crop production, proportions of the totalfamily income attributable to on—farm and off—farmcontributions and proportions of the total off—farmincome attributable to business, salary/wage earningand remittance from Sons, daughters and relatives areindependent of the study areas.(8)(a) Proportions of the respondents ranking items of thetotal family income expenditure in terms of purchase offoodstuff, school expenses, household expenses,purchase of clothes and miscellaneous expenses are17independent of the items used in the entire study area.(b) Proportions of the respondents ranking items of thetotal family income expenditure as either being firstor second priority in terms of expenses for schooling,clothing, household, foodstuff and “other” items areindependent of the study areas.The following information will be used to explain theresults of these eight primary statistical analyses.(1) If the null hypothesis (1) above is rejected, it will benecessary to determine:—whether the land sizes owned by the agro—pastoralistsdiffer for the two areas;(2) If the null hypothesis (2) above is rejected, it willbe necessary to determine:-whether the water sources availability and the distances travelled to those sources differ for the twoareas-whether the livestock loss, the livestock deaths, thelivestock sales, the livestock transfers, the livestockpredation, and the livestock home slaughters differ forthe two areas;-whether the land allocated to the livestock grazingdiffers for the two areas; and-whether the two study areas differ in the naturalforage types available.(3) If the null hypothesis (3) above is rejected, it will18be necessary to determine whether:the distance to, the type of, and the vicinity to themarket; the causes of low livestock prices; the kind oflivestock traders; the market livestock choosingcriteria; the livestock price determinants; theecological potential; and the livestock marketingproblems differ for the two areas.(4) If the null hypothesis (4) above is rejected, it willbe necessary to determine whether:the level of the livestock supplementation; the landallocated for livestock grazing; the extra family landowned elsewhere; and the topography differ for the twoareas.(5) If the null hypothesis (5) above is rejected, it willbe necessary to determine whether:the distances travelled to the cattle plungedips; the distances travelled to the offices of thelocal government extension workers; the levels ofincome; the level of the farmers trained in the FarmersTraining Centres (FTC); and the levels and types of thewildlife present differ for the two areas.(6) If the null hypothesis (6) above is rejected, it willbe necessary to determine whether:the number of cows milked; the number of times acalf is allowed to stimulate its mother for the milklet—down in the process of milking; the breeds of cows19being milked; the level of the livestocksupplementation; and the number of the nursery schoolchildren differ for the two areas.(7) If the null hypothesis (7) above is rejected, it willbe necessary to determine whether:the numbers of the livestock sold; the food typeseaten; the size of the livestock herds; the size of theland allocated to the crop growing; the distancestravelled to the livestock market yards; and the history of settlement differ for the two areas.(8) If the null hypothesis (8) above is rejected, it willbe necessary to determine:-whether the number of children going to the primaryschools, the number going to the secondary schools, thenumber going to the colleges, and the number going to theuniversities differ for the two areas; and—whether the types of food eaten and the number offamily members conducting either a business, earning awage, or engaged in a permanent employment differ forthe two areas.2. Study LocationsThis study occurred in Makueni district of Kenya. Thesampling areas border the Nairobi-Mombasa highway, Kasikeu tothe northern and Mtito-Andei to the southern parts of thedistrict (Figure 2). The study locations were classifiedaccording to their ecological potential and production20intensity as eco-zone IV with fairly intensive agro-pastoralproduction systems, and as eco—zone V with less intensiveagro—pastoral production systems.2.1. The TribeThe ethnic tribe of the study area is one of the severalBantu tribes of Kenya known as Akamba. The tribe occupies twomain administrative districts known as Machakos and Kitui(about 4 years ago, Machakos district was subdivided into twodistricts, namely Machakos and Makueni). These two districtsare separated by Yatta plateau and Athi river (Figure 1).Whereas Kitui district is mainly ecological zone V, Machakosis mainly ecological zone IV (Tables 3 and 4). Muthiani (1973)described Kitui district as being the larger, the drier andthe more sparsely populated of the two. The Akamba peoplespeak Kikamba language and both the Machakos and the KituiAkamba have no major language communication problems despitethe few dialectal jargons and some peculiar language accents(Muthiani 1973).Muthiani (1973) described the Akamba people thus,“like other Bantu tribes, the Akamba are medium instature. Their skin colour ranges from chocolatebrown to light brown and fair. One sees traces ofsome Mongoloid and Caucasoid characteristics also.According to outsiders they are as amiable as theyare generous. In Kenya they are known for theirlove of expressing themselves in music and their21witchcraft (the latter has been fading away veryrapidly).Their acrobatic dances are another unique feature.Through tourism and foreign trade the world has cometo know their skill in wood carving. They areskilful in fighting and they make good soldiers; andthey continue to produce a great number of army,police and prison personnel. Like anybody else,they resist new changes which affect their culture.After seeing beneficial results, however, they arevery quick to copy and retain the new traits”.Membership in the Akamba society is claimed by paternalparenthood. For instance Muthiani (1973) says his father wasa Mukamba while his mother was a Kikuyu in origin. He himselfis therefore, a Mukamba. This could be called ‘first-classmembership’. A ‘second-class’ membership would be enjoyed bya member of a different group who had lived in Akambaland aspart of the population for a long time. He may have come asa captive in war or he may have migrated voluntarily. In anynormal discussion he would be called by his former groupaffiliation and would not resent it unless it is intended tobe an insult. He would nevertheless be entitled to everyright an Akamba would be entitled to patrilinearly.2225’ 31’I I—4.K 14 y________0•%<.‘tiQi robI. t4ocKaJtQc IndicwIOc.enn4.. Ktui‘1orvtbasaIII II II KoskeuIISc.alt II :3OOO,OOO I)Surve3eJ4 Oc.eartFigure 2. Kasikeu and Mtito-Andei study areas, Makuenidistrict, Kenya.23The family he lived with would treat him as one of theirmembers, and when they trusted him enough they might evenassume the responsibilities of bride wealth which he wouldhave to pay at the time of marriage. If it is a girl, in thefirst place, what counts is the offspring, not the mother(maternal lineage). Secondly, she has to be married to anAkamba. Therefore, her children are Akamba automatically.This means she has already been incorporated into the society.If a stranger married an Akantha girl, it was assumed that theimmigrant had been incorporated into the society after hisfoster father had agreed to pay his bride wealth. He thuscame to exercise the rights of ‘jus soils’ (citizenship bysoil).2.2. History, Economy and OccupationMunro (1975) noted that the origin of the Akamba peopleis not clearly known. A few Akamba accounts suggest anoriginal homeland to the north or north-east, siting itvariously in Abyssinia, Libya, or even Egypt. However, twohypotheses are possible concerning their origin. First, theyare said to have left a settlement area called Shungwaya nearthe boundary of Kenya and Somalia to move into the Machakoshills in the thirteenth century, and second, that they did notoriginate from the Shungwaya settlement area, but migratedfrom some other area of south—eastern Kenya or north—easternTanzania.Munro (1975) continued to say that whether the Akamba24came to the highlands from Shungwaya or some other area, mostAlcamba traditions point to Alcamba migration into the Machakoshills from the south or south—east, usually expressed as‘coming from the mount Kilimanjaro side’. Some Akamba carrythe tradition of migration from the south even further andargue that the Akamba originated in Central Tanzania, wherethey lived with people called the Nyamwezi, offering asevidence the similarities between the Akamba and Nyamwezipractice of teeth-filing or chipping, and the joking relationsbetween the two peoples. This theory, however, fails toaccount for the differences in language and institutionsbetween the Akamba and Nyamwezi.Land was a major factor influencing the development ofAkamba society. When the incoming British settlers arrived inAkambaland (Machakos) between 1889 and 1901, it was apparentlyuninhabited by humans. The Akamba people however, owned thisland collectively although their settlement area was on amassif they called Ngai (God). The Akamba associated the namewith the discovery of good soils and plentiful water after themigrations through more desolate areas. The Akamba in bothMachakos and Kitui districts are said to have spread out fromthis area. Today twenty—five patrilineal clans are scatteredthroughout the two districts (Munro 1975).The topography of the land inhabited by the Akamba callsfor a mixed farming of livestock and crops. Traditionally,the Akamba made their fields along the river valleys and other25well—watered places for easy irrigation, supplemented byfertile, gentle slopes in the highland areas when there wasenough rain, Shifting cultivation was practised by the slash-—and—burn procedure, abandoning exhausted fields after a shorttime, depending on how long the soil fertility could hold.!4uthiani (1973) reported that in 1932, the Kenya Land Commission recorded 56,680 hectares under cultivation, 28,340hectares lying fallow, and about 121,457 hectares uninhabitedor abandoned because they were infested with tsetse fly inAkambaland. The remaining usable uncultivated land was usedfor grazing livestock which comprised cattle, goats and sheep.On their farms the Akamba raised maize (corn), sorghum,millet, and other traditional grains. For tubers they hadvarious kinds of sweet potatoes, some yams, and arrowroots inthe river valleys and swamps. In these well—watered placesthey also raised sugar cane and bananas, although one couldfind bananas growing on fertile, moist hills and gentlemountain depressions. They raised various kinds of legumes,including beans, cowpeas (black eye peas) and pigeonpeas.Common creepers were gourds or calabashes, squash, pumpkin,sweet potatoes, and melons. The gardens were usually abandoned when the soils became poor, and fertilizing was notcommon unless done by accident. In addition to animal andchicken droppings, decomposed homestead rubbish and farm cropresidue could serve as fertilizer but the practice of shiftingcultivation with the easy availability of farmland made the26Akamba not worry about fertilizing their gardens even thoughthey saw the places where they dumped the rubbish producingmore than any other area.Although it was not a real and dependable means ofliving, some people collected wild tubers and fruits. Thepopular ones were wild lungworts, keiapples and some kinds offigs. Berries were also popular and were usually collectedand eaten in the field by children (Muthiani 1973, Tignor1976). The Akamba had no recipe for such wild fruits and thismay be why they did not bother to domesticate any of them.Livestock wealth in the study areas had the highestprestige with cattle on the top consideration. This issimilar to the observation of several other scientists(Helland 1980a, O’Leary 1980, Field 1981 and 1985, Trevor andSeiuenye 1983, Bekure and Tilahun 1983, Rukandema et al. 1981,Mukhebi et al. 1985b, Chabari et al. 1987, Patterson andSemenye 1980, ILCA 1981), livestock wealth in the study areashad the highest prestige, with cattle on the topconsideration. Apart from meat, goats gave milk, which wasused only when one could not obtain cow milk. The fat-tailedAfrican type of sheep, popularly known as Red Maasai, was alsoused to supplement meat, and its fat was used for cooking,seasoning and also for religious ceremonial rituals. MostAkamba had a myth about sheep’s fat being a protection againstwitchcraft, when eaten. From the cow’s milk they producedbutter and ghee. Like many other foodstuffs, milk was stored27in calabashes and could be used fresh or sour. During a greatfamine, blood was drawn from cattle by partially suffocatingthe animal so that the blood was pumped to the jugular vein onthe neck of the animal. To do this, the animal would be tiedup and laid down, then using a special string bow and, anarrow locally known as ndia, the vein would be pierced and theblood collected in a calabash. Like many other pastoral andagro—pastoral societies, for instance, the Maasai, Akamba didnot slaughter their cattle for normal family food consumption(Spencer 1973 and 1988). Animal skins were used as babycribs, knife sheaths, quivers, men’s hats and bags as well assandals. Muthiani (1973) observed that there is also someevidence that the skins were used as clothes after intensivebeating and conditioning. Thus, domesticated animals,especially cattle, meant much to the Akamba.Muthiani (1973) continued to say that the Akamba acquiredtheir animals first by trading, but afterwards by raiding onthe surrounding peoples (mainly Maasai and Kikuyus) who alwayshad inferior weapons (swords, spears and clubs) compared todeadly bows and arrows used by the Akamba. After theirsuccessful raiding expeditions, or when they acquired livestock by way of trade, the Akamba grazed them freely in theircommunal land during the day and drove them home in theevening. The kraals in which they kept them were well-fencedwith thorn bushes to protect them from predators. The menwere always ready to grab their weapons on short notice in28case the animals were attacked by predators or in the eventthat raiders were approaching. Their short-horned, big-humpedtype of cattle, known as zebu, were hardy under harsh conditions, and were conditioned to running with only a minimumresistance when driven by raiders, as such raids were commonbetween the A]caiuba and the surrounding peoples. As a result,either protecting the livestock or raiding them from neighbouring tribes was thought of as an act of bravery andconsequently a functional means of existence.With their bows and arrows, Akamba men hunted during theday and killed predators as well as game ungulates, the formerto protect their livestock and the latter for food supplement.They also practised trapping (the string trap for smallanimals, and the pitfall for the large animals). The sameidea of the pitfall was practised for the porcupines that keptdamaging crops. Birds and small animals like ground squirrelsand rabbits were trapped with special cages made of intertwined special kinds of resilient and tensile soft sticks.Bee honey was used intensively. Akamba made log hivesand hung them on trees at slanting angle in order to drainrain water which would otherwise spoil the hive and the honey.The owners of the log hives cut in some geometric marks forease of identification. Honey was either eaten raw or used tobrew a local beer popularly known as uuki or mukondiu. Beehoney was also considered an important item for bride’swealth. Currently, bee honey production has been commercially29intensified in the district through introduction of what ispopularly known as Kenya Top Bar Hive (KTBH). Kaguthi (1991)had the following to say about honey production in his 1990annual report about animal production in Kibwezi division (Thedivision into which Mtito-Andei location falls):“Beekeeping is a major occupation for many farmersin the division. Majority of our farmers keep loghives but we have farmers who have gone into modernbeekeeping at present. We have over 2000 KTBH. Theyear under review was a good one as far asbeekeeping was concerned because many farmerscame to the office enquiring about bee hives. Manybought hives and the majority of those that werebought were occupied before the year ended. Honey hasalso been fetching good money in the market as it wentupto Ksh. 35 for semi refined per Kilo.”Other occupations of Akamba included blacksmithing,woodcarving, basketry and pottery. The Akamba were famoustraders, trade being of economic importance for them. Theywere the only tribe in Kenya to dominate all the threeprocesses of trade between the interior and the coast———collection, transportation and final exportation (Muthiani1973). Locally, at the Akamba market place, women mainlytraded foodstuffs and other things like pots and baskets theymade in their spare time. The men traded livestock and otherdeadstock such as ivory, tortoiseshells, and to a lesser30degree, iron and other cheap minerals.Before money was introduced by Asians, Persians, andChinese, all trade was done by bartering. This does not meanthat lack of cash money in their economy implied poverty.Agro—pastoralists were in fact wealthy with material goods,albeit use of cash was non—existent. This is supported bysavory (1988):“The distinction between wealth and money has takena few millennia to develop. Humans in a primitivestate organized around small family units had nomoney but they did have wealth.”Traditionally, local commodities in the study area werebartered for what a person needed. Most of the local tradewas intensified by local famines or a threat of it. Therefore, the value of foodstuffs had to fluctuate with times ofplenty and times of scarcity. Maize (corn), even though itwas very largely depended upon, was of lesser value thanlegumes because people always had more of it than anythingelse. On the side of animals, cattle were valued more thangoats and sheep because there were more uses for cattle thanfor the other two kinds of livestock. The normal exchangewas, at least, six goats for one bull. Traditionally, sheepwere not exchangeable for cattle until very late when theBritish administrators attempted to stabilize all animalexchanges. Because a cow was expected to bear otheroffsprings, it was worth two bulls. The size of the animal31did not matter as long as it was full—grown.Export commodities were transported on human back all theway to the east coast of the Indian Ocean, at the port ofMombasa. They were bartered for Indian, Arabian and otherAsian ornaments and much later they were bartered for cloth.Originally the coastal people known as Swahili, served asmiddlemen between the Alcamba and the Asians. However, withsome resistance, the Arabs occasionally made their way toAlcambaland, but their continual desire for slave trade causedtremendous animosity which changed the whole trade pattern tosilent barter.The process of silent or furtive barter is hard todescribe, but simply what it meant was that neither the Akambanor the Arab traders trusted each other to be in face—to-facehaggling. However, by use of this process, the bargain couldstill be concluded in absence of one party. Neither theAkamba nor the Arabs could trick each other for fear of endingtheir mutual trade contact. At the same time they were bothenemies———the Akamba feared that the Arabs would seize themfor slaves, whereas the Arabs feared that the Akamba wouldretaliate by attacking them for their kinsmen whom the Arabshad taken for slavery. With this mutual mistrust and fearestablished, the two sides compromised by utilizing a processthey referred to as ‘the—bell—ringer’. This process, whichwas the silent barter, required that the Arab, upon seeing theAkamba traders approaching, hide from the site leaving his32ware on the bargain table. When the Alcamba arrived, theyinspected the exchange commodities and placed aside the kindthey wished to be increased. Then they hit the bell anddisappeared. The Arab came out for the bargain, and if forany reason he thought he should not raise his bid, he put backthe articles the Aicamba were staging the bargain for, hit thegong again and left the scene. The Akamba came back, and ifthey were not satisfied, they carried their wares to anotherplace and underwent the same process. If they were satisfied,they took the exchange commodities and left theirs as indicated by the Arab, hit the gong, and left for good. When theArab came out again, he knew the Akamba were satisfied becausethey took his ware with them and left theirs behind. Thissilent barter went on successfully because each tradingpartner would not dare to trick the other as each one neededthe other for existence.2.3. The CultureThe Alcamba typical and original dwellings were networksof long thin laths with grass thatching (Muthiani 1973).First some laths were stuck in the ground in a circulararrangement with a high post at the centre of the circle ontowhich the top ends of the laths were tied, forming the shapeof the Eskimo igloo. The others were tied around to facilitate firm thatching. The inside was usually divided into tworooms. The first room served as the kitchen, the bedroom forseveral family members and a barn for young livestock and33chickens. The other inner room was the master bedroom. Veryyoung children shared this bedroom with their parents. Akambaused hides and skins until their trade with Asians brought incloth through barter. Some of them used barkcloth for a time.Roots of some special wild herb were used as soap until theEuropean soap was introduced. Generally Akamba were cleanpeople. For instance, when preparing for a dance, a boy or agirl would take a few baths, scratching the body, especiallythe face, with some special leaves until it shone.Akamba culture was rich with ornamentation.Scarification was practised by both female and male members.Girls scarified the face and the upper arm. Boys extended itto the chest and shoulders. Normally girls pierced theearlobes and enlarged them with plugs of different sizes.Both girls and boys had several styles of haircut. Akambablacksmiths made little chains of brass or copper for necklaces, bracelets, and anklets. Later the Indians beads wereintroduced and they, to a large extent, replaced brass andcopper. Both sexes extracted two lower front teeth. Boysfiled their upper front teeth making them look like those ofthe biting ants. Tattooing was occasional among boys.Sitting stools were carved from tree trunks. Elderly mencarried their small ornamented stools around on a long straphanging on the shoulder.All people were considered equal in status as humanbeings but a special generosity had to be shown to strangers.34Children were taught to respect their parents, (parents inthis case comprised biological parents and all people equal inage or considerably older than one’s parents) not out of fearbut for social rewards. In return, elderly people treated allchildren as their own. They were responsible for theirdiscipline even if their real parents were present.A woman was supposed to treat her babies well. Otherwomen would discipline her if, for instance, she exposed herlittle baby to the hot sun. Incapacitated people were treatedvery well by every member of the society. It was wrong tolaugh at a handicapped person because this was like prayingthat one would get the sante disability in the future. Everymember in the Akamba society was his own disciplinarian. Hefeared that if he maltreated anyone, he would sometime betreated likewise by someone else as a punishment. On theother hand, he believed that he would be rewarded if hetreated everyone fairly.Age gradation was practised in the same manner. Theeldest ruled the family. The wives were ministers to theirhusbands, children to their parents, and the younger to theirelders. The sex and age gradation was stretched to coverother daily activities such as division of labour, religion,and other social activities.A practice of extreme stratification concerned eating ofdomesticated animals (cattle, goats and sheep). Generallythere were some organs of an animal which were supposed to be35eaten by men only, some by women only and some by boys only.Any flesh—eater, bird or animal, was not supposed to be eatenby people. The idea behind it was simple. They argued thatthe flesh—eater might have eaten a person sometime. Anyoneeating it was therefore automatically cannibalistic, andcannibalism was socially unacceptable not only to this societybut also to most Bantu peoples.To be polite, benevolent, hospitable and generous werethe basic rules of thumb. A deviant from this establishedorder was undesirable to the society. Anyone knowing of anylocal danger and failing to pass the information so thatprecautions could be taken, was hated and almost consideredunwanted, depending on the nature and extent of the danger.In general, use of the principles of transparent livingwas expected of every member of this society. All societymembers were their own judge and lawyer. Members needed nooverseer to do what was required of them in the society.3. Materials and Methods3.1. Sample SelectionTwo areas were selected for sampling in Makueni district,Kasikeu, located in the northwestern part, and Mtito-Andei,located in the southeastern part of the district. These areasrepresent the mixed farming systems of Makueni district forthe relatively intensive production systems of Kasikeulocation (eco—zone IV), and rather extensive productionsystems of Mtito-Andei location (eco—zone V) Mukhebi et al.36(1985a). The study areas were selected because they represent the mixed farming systems of rangelands by small—scalefarmers. Target respondents were family heads but where theywere not available, their wives or resident sons representedthem.Random sampling of respondents in this study wasinitially done by the socio-economic team headed by a farmingsystems economist at NRRC, Kiboko, Kenya, in 1983. Thepurpose of the study then, was to assess the impact on livestock, of a severe drought that devastated most of the countries of Eastern and Southern Africa during 1983 and 1984(Mukhebi et al. 1985b).Local agricultural extension and administrative officershelped in furnishing a list of family farms in the targetedsurvey areas. To ensure independence and randomness, names ofthe heads of families of the farms in both Kasikeu and MtitoAndei study areas were written, each on a separate piece ofpaper. The pieces of paper were then folded, put in a tin andshuffled. Samples of 32 and 31 for Kasikeu and Mtito-Andeirespectively, were then drawn from the tins.Since I was personally involved in the drought impactstudy, I decided to interview the same respondents for thecurrent study, and by so doing, firstly it was easy to reachthe respondents quickly thus saving time and money, secondlyit was easy to approach and gain respondents’ confidencewhile responding to my questions, as I was already familiar to37them, thirdly it was possible for me to understand theirbehaviour as they responded to the questions and fourthly itwas possible to countercheck some similar information askedduring the drought impact study. In fact, some of the bestsurveys are those that repeatedly monitor the same respondents(Chambers 1987). The statistical package used for theanalysis of the data was Systat (Wilkinson 1988).3.2. The SurveyThis survey was conducted with the assistance of sometechnical members of staff from NRRC, Kiboko and with thefield guidance of local Ministry of Agriculture and LivestockDevelopment range/agriculture extension officers and localprovincial administrative officers to interview individualagro-pastoral families in April through July 1991 and Junethrough July 1992. Data on family sources of income was basedon an earlier survey conducted in May, 1985 in the same studyarea but had not been analyzed. Resident family heads, mainlymen, were the target of the interview. However, duringquestionnaire pre—testing, it was noted that some family headswere employed and living far away from their homes. Someother families belonged to deceased heads. In such families,wives were considered as representing heads of those families.Where a mature resident son was the only one available athome, he would be interviewed because it was assumed he wasconversant with the family affairs.To make sure that we were expected on specific dates and38time, we gave the local agricultural extension workers a listof the respondents within their areas of operation about twoweeks earlier so that they could arrange with the respondentsthe days and time convenient for them to be interviewed.Information for the study was collected by means of aquestionnaire which had been prepared in the spirit of amultidisciplinary research effort (Grandstaff and Grandstaff1987) by means of discussion between my socio—economic sectionand biological research scientists in the centre, and alsobetween other collaborating institutions such as the University of Nairobi (U0N), International Livestock Centre forAfrica (ILCA), Ministry of Agriculture and LivestockDevelopment (MALD), and a private personal consultancy with amember of International Laboratories for Research on AnimalDiseases (ILRAD).Interviewers (myself and my assistants) made one—dayvisits and used a questionnaire that had been pre—tested underfield conditions before the actual survey was conducted. Topre—test the questionnaire, seven agro—pastoral familiesaround NRRC, Kiboko, were interviewed using the first questionnaire draft. It was thus possible to note where thequestionnaire needed adjustments such as addition of omittedquestions, deletion of redundant questions and re—phrasing ofthe wording or statements.Questionnaire pre—testing usually helped us to gain moreknowledge on the subject and subtopics so that on returning to39the office, we made a final revised questionnaire thatreflected increased understanding of the issue (Grandstaff andGrandstaff 1987).3.2.1. Family BackgroundThe respondents were asked: to give their names and theirage; to quantify in hectares the size of their base farm andof any other owned farms; to state their relationship to thefarm in terms of whether they were owners, managers or familymembers; to state their highest level of formal andprofessional training; to mention their other off-farmoccupations; and to state farm ownership status in terms ofhow it had been acquired, and whether a land title deed had orhad not been obtained.3.2.2. Farm—Dependent PersonsRespondents were asked: to quantify the number of personsliving on the farm by age/sex groups; to quantify the numberof persons attending teaching institutions; and to identifythe number of farm-dependent members of family and relativesengaged in either business, wage earning or permanent employment.3.2.3. Livestock InformationRespondents were also asked: to quantify their livestocknumbers in terms of species and types presently owned; toidentify the source of livestock breeding material and if thesource was reliable; to state if they were boarding theirlivestock to other farmers or vice versa and the reasons for40doing this; to state the annual number of livestock that died,number slaughtered for home consumption, number sold, numberbought, number given away, number given in, number strayed andnever recovered, and number lost to predation; to indicatetype and source of labour for livestock management; and toindicate livestock husbandry practised in terms of diseasecontrol, livestock plunge dips distances, manure disposal,grazing distances, watering sources and distances/frequencies,and livestock supplementation during dry/drought periods.3.2.4. Food CropsRespondents provided the following information: food croptypes grown and the ones considered either minor or major;type and source of labour for food crop management; and crophusbandry practised in terms of manuring and pest/diseasecontrol.3.2.5. Livestock Marketing InformationRespondents were also asked: to indicate the distancestravelled to the nearest public livestock market yards; tostate mode of livestock transport to the market yards and thetime it takes to get there; to rank types of livestock soldoften; to state criteria used to choose livestock for market;to state livestock prices received at the market yards; toindicate type of livestock traders and the role they play inlivestock marketing; to state the basis for price determination at the market yards; to state the main livestock pricedepressors; to indicate if any livestock loss was experienced41in transit to the market yards; and to mention problemsobserved/perceived regarding livestock marketing and theirperceived solutions to the problems.3.2.6. Kilk Production InformationRespondents were also asked to indicate: the number ofcows and goats they were milking; the amount milked in themorning and in the evening; the amount of milk used for homeconsumption and for sale; and how many times they used a calfto stimulate the mother’s udder for milk-let-down in theprocess of milking.3.2.7. On-farm and Off-Farm IncomesIn an earlier survey conducted in 1985, same respondentswere asked to indicate: the proportion of total family incomerealised from on—farm production and the proportion realisedfrom off—farm occupations; the proportion of on—farm incomerealised from livestock production and the proportion realisedfrom crop production; and the proportion of off—farm incomerealised from either permanent employment, wage earning orbusiness, and the proportion remitted by eithersons/daughters or relatives.3.2.8. Items of Family Income ExpenditureRespondents were also asked to indicate: their main itemsof expenditure; and the proportion of total family incomeallocated to each item of expenditure in terms purchase offood, school expenses, household expenses, purchase ofclothing and other miscellaneous expenses.423.2.9. Wildlife InformationRespondents were also asked questions about the presenceof wildlife species and how they either benefitted or incurredlosses from the presence of such wildlife.3.2.10. Ethnic InfluxRespondents were also asked: to name all other tribessettled among them; to rank those groups in order of theirpopulation magnitude; and to mention the influence thosegroups had on the respondents’ lifestyles.3.2.11. Community Social ]‘menitiesRespondents were also asked to indicate: the presence orabsence of those community social amenities such as schools,health centres shopping centres and others; the distancetravelled to those amenities; and how often they made use ofthe amenities.3.2.12. Government Extension ServicesRespondents were also asked to indicate if the serviceswere locally stationed; how far the services were stationedrelative to the respondents’ farms; and the types of servicesthey received and how often they received them.3.3. Statistical AnalysisData analysis was performed mainly with chi—square testsof independence for the two eco—zones. Two—way contingencytables were used to test independence (P<O.05) for variousmultivariate data collected from agro—pastoralists in eco—zones IV (Kasikeu Location) and V (Mtito-Andei Location).43Tabulation of the results of this study was done mainlyby “row—percent” in order to facilitate easier interpretationcomparisons of the results by eco—zones. In some cases,multivariate data were compared to one another for the entirestudy area in order to show that although there may not besignificant differences between eco-zones, highly significantdifferences could occur between the variables under test.The data were analysed with chi—square tests ofindependence, which are most appropriate for bivariate ormultivariate categorical variables for which frequencyobservations have been obtained (Ott 1988:249).444. ResultsThe statistical test results of the hypotheses aresmmnarized in Table 5. It should be taken as reasonably truethat where the test failed to reject certain null hypotheses,then the variables under test behaved similarly between thestudy areas or between items, productions and sources underinvestigation. Two—way contingency tables of frequencies ofsignificant and non-significant entries for the study arepresented in Appendix 2 to provide the reader with absolutefigures used in the analysis. Non—significant results figureslikewise are shown in Appendix 3 for reference when necessary.45Table 5. Summary of the study results for the entire area,Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992.Hypotheses Result1. Proportions of the family members living onthe farm in terms of female and male children(<14 years of age) and mature female and male(>14 years of age) are independent of the studyareas NS2. Proportions of the livestock owned in terms ofcattle, sheep, goats, chicken, rabbits, ducks,and donkeys are independent of the study areas.. *3. Proportions of livestock prices offered bybuyers and accepted by the agro—pastoralists atthe local market places for cattle, sheep andgoats are independent of the study areas *4. Proportions of the respondents indicating placeswhere agro—pastoralists take their livestock forgrazing and watering in terms of:a. On—farm and off—farm grazing MSb. On—farm and off—farm watering *are independent of the study areas.5. Proportions of the livestock and crop husbandrypractices, as reflected by the agricultural ext—nsion services offered in terms of veterinary,disease and pest control are independent of thestudy areas MS6. Proportions of:a. the types of foodstuff grown and eaten NSb. the livestock species milked *c. the amount of milk in morning and in evening MSd. the amount of milk consumed at home or sold MSare independent of the study areas.46Table 5. continued7.a. Proportions of the total farm income attributable to livestock and crop production NSb. Proportions of the total family income attributable to on—farm and off—farm sources NSc. Proportions of total off—farm income attributedto:i. business NSii. salary/wage earning *iii. remittance from sons/daughters/relatives NSare independent of the study areas.d. Proportions of total off-farm income attributedto business, salary/wage earning and, remittancefrom sons, daughters and relatives are independent of sources *e. Proportions of total farm income attributed tocrop and livestock production are independent oftypes of production . *8.a. Proportions of the respondents ranking items ofthe total family income expenditure in terms ofpurchase of foodstuff, school expenses, household expenses, purchase of clothes and miscellaneous expenses are independent of items used.. *b. Proportions of the respondents ranking individual items of the total family income expenditure as either being first or second in priorityin terms of:i . school expenses NSii. clothing expenses NSiii. household expenses NSiv. foodstuffexpenses NSv. “other” expenses NSare independent of the study areas.NS = Non-significant difference (P>O.05)*= Significant difference (P<O.05)474.1. Distribution and Ownership of Farm LivestockThe proportion of cattle, sheep, goats, chickens, ducks,and rabbits kept by the agro-pastoralists varied highly(P<O.OO1) between eco—zones. Kasikeu (eco—zone IV) maintainedhigher proportions of sheep and rabbits but a smaller proportion of goats than Mtito-Andei (eco—zone V) (Figure 3). Thenumber of donkeys encountered during the survey was too low(Kasikeu 3 donkeys and Mtito-Andei 5 donkeys) to warrantinclusion in the analysis.4.2. Livestock Prices at the Local MarketThe proportions of money realised from sale of variousbreeds of livestock varied (P<O.OO1) between eco—zones.Kasikeu earned higher proportions of the revenue than Mtito—Andei from cattle sales whereas Mtito-Andei earned higherproportions of income than Kasikeu from sales of sheep andgoats (Figure 4).When sales were analyzed using prices of various types oflivestock, the proportions of money realised from thoselivestock types also varied highly (P<O.OO1) between eco-zones(Figure 5). Again Kasikeu attained higher proportions of themoney realised from sale of bulls and steers whereas Mtito—Andei maintained higher proportions of the money realised fromsale of bucks, does rams and heifers. The income from thesale of ewes were not included in the analysis because none ofthe respondents in Kasikeu reported having sold any ewes.485040P30ERCENT20100STUDY AREADUCKA CATLLERABBITI GOATI I SHEEPI___ CHICKENFigure 3. Proportions of the livestock species (P.cO.OO1)kept by agro-pastoralists, Makueni district, Kenya,1991/1992.KASIKEU MTITO-ANDEI4910080___60RCENT402: I I I.KASIKEU MTITO—ANDEISTUDY AREA— CATTLE GOATS LZ SHEEPFigure 4. Proportions of money, in Kenya shilling,(P<O.OO1) realised from sale of various livestockspecies, Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992.5080—i”RAMrrn BUCKi DOE1 BULL*1 HEIFERI STEERFigure 5. Proportions of money, in Kenya shilling,(P.cO.OO1) realised from sal. of livestock types, Kakuenidistrict, Kenya, 1991/1992./- IPERCENT60-40-20-0KASIKEU MTITO —ANDEISTUDY AREA514.3. Livestock watering and Grazing SourcesThe proportions of on—farm and off—farm watering placesvaried highly (P<0.004) between eco—zones. Nearly 80% ofKasikeu respondents compared to 40% of Mtito—Andei respondentsmore commonly watered their livestock on water sources locatedwithin their farms, whereas on the other hand, 60% of theMtito-Andei respondents compared to about 20% those of Kasikeuwatered theirs on sources located outside their farms (Figure6).4.4. Livestock Species MilkedThe proportions of the respondents who owned and milkedcattle and goats varied (P<0.002) between eco—zones. Over 80%of Kasikeu respondents milked cattle, whereas Mtito-Andeirespondents maintained approximately equal proportions(slightly over 40%) of milking cattle and goats (Figure 7).4.5. Sources of Family Income.4.5.1. Salary/wage EarningThe proportions of the ‘fractions’ of total off-farmincome obtained from wage earning varied (P<0.032) betweeneco—zones. More than 80% of Mtito—Andei respondents comparedto about 60% of those of Kasikeu obtained 50% or less of theirtotal off—farm income from wage earning whereas, on the otherhand, nearly 40% of Kasikeu respondents compared to about 10%of Mtito-Andei respondents obtained more than 50% of theirtotal farm income from wage earning (Figure 8).4.5.2. Off—farm Income between Sources52The proportions of the ‘fractions’ of business, salary/wage earning and, remittance fromsons/daughters/relatives that contribute to the total off-farmincome varied (P<0.046) between sources in the entire studyarea. This comparison was necessary because some variableslacked enough data to enable comparisons between eco—zones.About 40% of the respondents said that business contributedmore than 50% to the total off—farm income compared toslightly over 20% and slightly below 20% for salary/wage andkin’s remittance, respectively. On the other hand, about 80%of the respondents said that kin’s remittance contributed 50%or less to the total off—farm income compared to about 70% andabout 60% for salary/wage and business, respectively(Figure 9).4.5.3. Crop and Livestock ProductionsAlthough the study showed that there were no differencesbetween eco—zones, proportions of the ‘fractions’ of totalfarm income obtained from crop and livestock production in theentire study area varied highly (P<0.001) between productiontypes. Nearly 80% and 20% of the respondents said that theyobtained more than 50% of their total farm income from cropand livestock productions, respectively (Figure 10).4.6. Family ExpenditureAlthough the items and services purchased for family usetook similar amount of money from total family income betweeneco—zones, the proportions of the relative priorities of those53items and services varied (P<O.OOl) between the various itemsand services. School—related expenses followed by purchase ofclothes and household goods took most of the total familyincome. Purchase of foodstuff especially those not grownlocally and also purchase of ‘other’ goods and services suchas medical, travelling, farm inputs, and entertainment, tomention a few, similarly took a considerable amount of familyincome though not regularly (Figure 11).54PER________C4o-TKASIKEUSTUDY AREAON-FARM L OFF-FARMFigure 6. Proportions of the respondents (P.c0.004)indicating locations of livestock watering in terms ofon—farm and off—farm water sources, Makueni district,Kenya, 1991/1992.8O-’60- / /720-MTITO-AN DEl55PERCENT10080-60-40-200-/KASIKEUSTUDY AREACOWS LI GOATSPiqure 7. Proportions (P.cO.oo2) of milking cows and goats,Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992,/ / 7/MT1TO-ANDEI56PERCENTSTUDY AREA<=HALF >HALFFigure 8. Proportions of the respondents (P<O.032)indicating fractions of total off—farm income realisedfrom salary/wage earning as being either greater or lessthan 50%, Makueni district, Kenya, 1985.100806040200KASIKEU MTITO-ANDEI57100 -/pRECENT80-BUSINESS<=HALFSOURCES>HALFFigure 9. Proportions of the respondents (P<O.046)indicating fractions of business, wage earning and kinremittance contributing to the total off-farm income,l4akueni district, Kenya 1985./60-40-20-WAGE KINS5810080-60-40200-AL F >HALFFigure 1.0. Proportions of the respondents (P<0.0O1)indicating fractions of total farm income realised fromcrops and livestock as being either greater or less than50% Nakueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992.PERCENT/1//1CROPS LIVESTOCK/PRODUCTION595. Discussion.Mainly, for the purpose of this thesis, variables thatshowed significant differences between the study areas orbetween items, productions and sources will be explained inthe best way possible but the discussion may also involvevariables whose differences are not found significant in thetest because those variables might have important roles inexplaining why the differences between the two study areas orthe differences between various managerial/behavioral practices occurred.5.1. Livestock Ownership.Livestock keeping as an integral occupation in an agro—pastoral setting has always been considered important. Thisis due to the many important roles it plays for the welfare ofthese societies. The roles of animals range from provision ofsubsistence and cash to provision of farm labour, manure andtransport (Jahnke 1982, Bekure et al. 1983, Muthiani 1973).This occupation is no exception for the agro—pastoralists ofMakueni district.Traditionally, agro-pastoralists grazed their livestock(cattle, goats and sheep) on communally owned land withintsetse-free areas (Jahnke 1982, Muthiani 1973). Whereas inthe past land was not a limiting factor to the number oflivestock each family could own, in the contemporary times,possibly due to increasing human population pressure, the landis no longer communally used. Every family has acquired60individually owned piece of land and has more or less assumeda permanent sedentary life (EARLS/Kenya 1982). As a result,it is logical to assume that the number of livestock eachfamily now owns is mainly limited by the size of land owned.A comparison of tables b. and c. in Appendix 2 would help tovisualise this logic in that the land has to be used for bothcrop and livestock production albeit the small average landsize owned by individual families. Another observation isthat whereas agro—pastoralists did not place much importanceon livestock such as chickens, rabbits and ducks this studyshows that these livestock are now considered as playing aconsiderable role in the welfare of the families. Forinstance, in both study areas, chickens comprised the greatestproportion among all other livestock (Figure 3). There isalso a remarkable trade in the sale of chickens and eggs fromthe rural to the urban areas. However, the study also showsthat there are differences in the proportions of livestocktypes owned between the two study areas, especially for goats,sheep and rabbits as shown in the following discussion.5.1.1. GoatsKasikeu (eco—zone IV), is classified as a land ofmarginal potential for agriculture, carrying as naturalvegetation dry forms of woodland and ‘savanna’, often anAcacia-Therneda association but including dry Brachystegiawoodland and equivalent deciduous or semi—evergreen bushland.Mtito-Andei (eco-zone V) is classified as land suited for61agriculture only where fertile soils coincide with veryfavourable distribution of rainfall, or receive run—off. Thezone is typically rangelands dominated by Cornmiphora-Acaciaand allied genera, mostly of shrubby habitat, which contributes highly to the main food for goats. Perennial grassessuch as Cenchrus ciliaris and Chloris roxburghiana candominate, but succumb readily to overgrazing.From the above classification of the eco—zones, it can bededuced that agro-pastoralists in Mtito-Andei would keephigher proportions of goats possibly, to make use of theacacia (dryland thorn-bush) and other shrubby vegetationextensively found in this zone. Goats are better browsersthan both cattle and sheep and they can also inhabit areaswith tsetse-flies (Pratt and Gwynne 1977).None of the agro-pastoralists in Kasikeu indicatedreceiving any service for treating trypanosomiasis whereas allthe 24 respondents who responded to having received thisservice came from Mtito—Andei. However, this does not explainwhy Mtito-Andei would keep higher proportions of goats thanKasikeu, but supports what Pratt and Gwynne (1977) say aboutgoats being able to survive in tsetse fly—infested eco—zone V.5.1.2. SheepThe proportions of sheep owned differed between the twoareas. Agro—pastoralists of Kasikeu (eco—zone IV) kept moresheep than those of Mtito-Andei (eco-zone V) (Figure 3). Oneof the likely reasons for this difference may be the proximity62to Tsavo national park, which borders the study area in MtitoAndei. In fact, predation was more common in Mtito—Andei thanin Kasikeu. Out of the 24 total sheep that were reported tohave been killed by predators in the study areas, 91.7% of thecases were in Mtito—Andei. Generally, sheep are known to bedocile animals that move in close flocks. This attribute islikely to render them more prone to predation. Agro—pastoralists in Mtito-Andei would possibly avoid keeping moresheep on this account.When agro—pastoralists in the study area were asked tomention the number of sheep they lost to any unknown causes(lost with no trace), all the 23 cases were in Mtito—Andei.This would again possibly indicate why this area has a lowerproportion of sheep.5.1.3. RabbitsKasikeu had a higher proportion of rabbits than MtitoAndei (Figure 3). This difference is possibly explained bythe different ecological potentials of the study areas. Agropastoralists in Kasikeu, which has a higher potential forarable farming than Mtito-Andei (Karue et al. 1989), wouldtherefore, be expected to do more intensive farming than thoseof Mtito-Andei. In fact, the proportion of the family landallocated to crop farming is greater (P<O.OO1) in Kasikeu thanin Mtito-Andei whereas the proportion allocated to livestockgrazing in Mtito—Andei is greater (P<O.OO1) than in Kasikeu(Figure 12). It would therefore, be expected that Agro63pastoralists in Kasikeu would grow various vegetables edibleby domestic rabbits which are normally kept in cages and fedwith vegetable residue from the farm. Similarly, wild foragessuch as Sonchus species especially Sonchus oleraceus L.,locally known to Akamba as uthunga and reported as particularly common in the Machakos district (Ivens 1989) and alsoIpomoea species such as morning—glory, are naturally preferredrabbit foods, which would be expected to grow better, asweeds, in Kasikeu, being a higher ecological zone, than inMtito-Andei. None of the respondents fed rabbits withcommercial feed concentrates.5.2. Bales and Prices of Various Livestock SpeciesUnlike the traditional ways, this study showed thatlivestock were no longer being traded in kind and that theirexchange was in cash money. Jahn]ce (1982) observed that alltropical African pastoralists sell, at least occasionally,some of their livestock for cash. Cash money is nowadays thebase of the agro—pastoralists economy. With cash money, allother required goods and services such as foodsstuff, clothes,shelter, education, medical services, bride’s wealth, farminputs, transport, to mention a few, can be obtained.Some differences in the proportion of money realised byagro—pastoralists from the sale of different livestock speciesand also from the sale of different livestock types wereobserved between eco—zones.6480-i’60-40200-SCHOOL CLOTHES HOUSEHLDITEMS OF EXPENDITUREFIRST SECOND I THIRDFigure 11. Proportions of the respondents (P.cO.OO1) rankingitems of family expenditure as being either first, secondor third in priority, Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992.PERCENT-VFOOD OTHERS65Table 6. Relationship between ecological zone and climaticvegetation types (from Pratt and Gwynne 1977).Ecological zone Climatic vegetation typesI Montane moorland and grassland.II All forests and associated types andmontane Acacia woodland.III Evergreen and semi—evergreen bushland andCorn.bretum woodland and savanna.IV Dry transitional Combretum savanna andupland Acacia woodland.V Thorn bushland and thicket.VI Desert thorn—scrub (dwarf shrub grasslandand other semi—desert types).66The following discussions possibly explain the observeddifferences.5.2.1. CattleAgro—pastoralists in Kasikeu are near (about 20 km) amajor livestock market at Emali in Kajiado district. Emali isthe biggest local livestock market serving both thepastoralists and agro—pastoralists of eastern Kajiado and ofMakueni (formerly known as southern Machakos) districts,respectively. The market deals mainly with cattle marketing(Bekure et al. 1983), where the Maasai in Kajiado and theAkaiuba from Makueni districts take their animals to exchangethem for cash, which in turn is used for acquiring goods andservices to satisfy a variety of needs, ranging from food,clothing, schooling and medication to the purchase ofbreeding stock and livestock inputs for production purposes.The market is organised weekly and buyers include traderswho buy cattle for slaughter in the surrounding localbutcheries within Machakos/Makueni and Kajiado tradingcentres, those who buy for the slaughter houses surroundingthe cities of Nairobi and Mombasa, and producers who buymainly to stock their ranches and farms in Kajiado andMachakos/Makueni districts, respectively (Bekure et al. 1983).Small stock play insignificant roles in this market. Agricultural Research Foundation for the German Agricultural Team(1987) said that most of the smalistock kept especially by thewealthy Maasai households, are consumed by the producing67households. To support the foregoing statement, during itslivestock marketing study in Transmara sub—district, the teamis further quoted saying :“Resulting from the inability to record any meaningful transactions on smallstock, this report willmainly discuss cattle marketing activities”.Agro-pastoralists of Kasikeu, being only about 20 kilo-metres from this market, would benefit more by selling theircattle than the agro-pastoralists of Mtito-Andei who are about140 km away from the market. This possibly explains whyKasikeu realised a bigger proportion of money from the sale ofcattle compared to Mtito-Andei.5.2.2. GoatsAs explained earlier, Mtito-Andei is better suited forgoat keeping than Kasikeu and therefore, keep more goats.This would possibly mean that the agro-pastoralists of MtitoAndei have goats as one of their major marketable products.Mtito—Andei trading centre occurs on the main highway connecting the city of Nairobi and the main sea port town of Mombasa.The trading centre is also the main gate—way to west Tsavonational park, which is a major international and localtourists’ attraction. From the trading centre, travellers toand from Mombasa have to traverse the national park for over70 km before they can have a place to stop for refreshments.The trading centre thus becomes a busy highway town whichserves both the travellers and the national park interests.68It is, therefore, reasonable to suggest that the Agro—pastoralists have not failed to notice this readily availablemarket for their products, especially goats’ meat which playsa major role in the common diet of the travellers, which iseither roast or boiled meat popularly known to Kenyans asnyama choma or nyania chanicha, respectively. Out of the 244goats reported to have been sold by the agro—pastoralists inthe study area, 85% were sold by Mtito-Andei respondents.This is a possible explanation why Mtito-Andei had a greaterproportion of the money realised from sale of goats comparedto Kasikeu.The above observations are further supported by theproportions of respondents who reported butchers as eitherbeing first or second in priority (in the order of thelivestock traders———local butchers, producers, and citybutchers) buyers of their livestock. Third position rankingcould not be included in the analysis because the number ofrespondents (Kasikeu 2 and Mtito-Andei 3 respondents) was toolow. The analysis indicated differences (P<O.005) between ecozones (Figure 13), with the respondents of Mtito-Andei showinggreater proportions of those who said local butchers were thefirst priority buyers of their livestock. These are possiblysome of the reasons explaining why Mtito-Andei agropastoralists realised higher proportions of money from thesale of their goats than those of Kasikeu.695.2.3. sheepAgain Mtito-Andei agro-pastoralists realised a greaterproportion of money from the sale of their sheep (Figure 4)than those of Kasikeu. One probably would have expected tofind Kasikeu selling more sheep, thus realising more moneythan Mtito-Andei, given that the former kept a significantlyhigher proportion of sheep than the latter (Figure 3). Thereasons why the Akamba butchers rarely slaughter sheep forcommercial purposes were obscure. There were some unconfirmedhints that the sheep meat could have been associated with somecleansing rituals. In fact, Muthiani (1973) says that mostAkamba people had a myth about sheep’s fat being a protectionagainst witchcraft, when eaten. So any Akamba person nowadaysseen buying the mutton would be thought by others as perhapsintending to perform some kind of a traditional witchcraftprotection ritual. Since almost all the people in the studyarea claim to be Christians, they are reluctant to be associated with the traditional rituals even though this might occurbehind closed doors. In this study, it was therefore,uncommon to find mutton in any butchery especially in thetrading centres away from the Nairobi—Mombasa main highway.This observation was true for the two study areas.However, whereas Kasikeu local minor livestock marketyard was about 10 km from the Nairobi-Mombasa highway, that(Kambu market) of Mtito-Andei was on the highway. Butchers ofMtito—Andei trading centre would not be necessarily choosy as70to what species of livestock they slaughtered because theircustomers were more of a cosmopolitan nature, not bound by thelocal taboos. Furthermore, whereas none of Kasikeu respondents mentioned cohabitation of other ethnic tribal groups,Mtito-Andei had 71.9% response in affirmation. Agropastoralists of Mtito-Andei would possibly be expected tomarket more sheep and therefore, realise a bigger proportionof money than those of Kasikeu. Also some of the ethnicinfluences introduced in Mtito—Andei include businesses suchas butcheries and shopkeeping, some of which are owned byoutsiders. As such, the outsiders would not feel bound by thelocal taboos as to what animals to slaughter for theircosmopolitan customers.5.3. Sales and Prices of Various Livestock Types5.3.1. Bulls, Steers and HeifersThe foregoing reasoning could also be applied to possiblyexplain why agro—pastoralists of Kasikeu realised more moneythan those of Mtito—Andei, from sale of bulls and steerswhereas, Mtito—Andei realised more money than Kasikeu, fromsale of heifers (Figure 5). Heifers mostly were marketed forbreeding rather than for slaughter purposes. Since agro—pastoralists of Mtito-Andei allocated more land to livestockgrazing than did those of Kasikeu (Figure 12), it would beunderstood why producers of Mtito—Andei performed greatertransactions of heifer marketing thus realising a biggerproportion of money than the producers of Kasikeu.7180PERCENT/STUDY AREACROP LIVESTOCKFigure 12. Proportions of the family fare area (ha)(P.cO.OO1) allocated to livestock and crop use, Kakuenidistrict, Kenya, 1991/1992.60 -/40-20-/0 /KASIKEU MTITO—ANDEI728060PERCENT200STUDY AREAFIRST SECONDFigure 13. Proportion of respondents (0.005) ranking localbutchers as being either first or second priority buyersof their livestock, Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992.KASIKEU MTITO-ANDEI73This most likely indicates the desire by Mtito—Andeirespondents to expand their herds.5.3.2. Does, Rams and BucksFor small livestock types such as does, rams and bucks,Mtito—Andei realised larger proportions of income than Kasikeu(Figure 5) possibly due to the same reasons as already havebeen discussed under section 6.2.2. and 6.2.3. above.5.4. Grazing and Watering PlacesTraditionally, grazing and watering areas for the agro—pastoralists were considered as communal properties of all theAkamba (traditional name for the district inhabitants) people(Muthiani 1973). Agro-pastoralists could graze and watertheir livestock freely in those communal properties. Theyalso had a free choice of the number of livestock they couldindividually own while utilizing those free properties. Butall the families had a common place of sedentary living. Sucha place would be characterised by its potential to have somepermanent water sources and also its ecological ability tosupport some crop farming activities. In such an area, thewomen and children, the elderly, and the disabled would settlewith a few milk livestock. Capable members such as women andchildren then would be doing some farming on fertile placesand shift to other places once soil fertility declined (fallowor shift cultivation). Cultivated farms were individuallyowned but the fallow and wild arable lands were free for everymember of the Akamba society in the spirit of egalitarianism.74This production system was not only common among theAkamba people of Makueni district, Kenya but also among otheragro-pastoral societies of tropical Africa. In fact theKarimoja people of Uganda are a good example whose pastoralproduction comprised of a mixed farming system involving cropgrowing and livestock keeping in semi-arid areas (Jahnke1992).This study, however, has shown that neither shift farmingnor free communal grazing can any longer be practised becausethere is no more free arable and communal land. Agro—pastoralists now have individually owned land properties.Even the areas that traditionally were considered unsuitablefor arable farming, plus other areas not put to any usebecause of tsetse-fly infestation, which posed danger to bothlivestock and human health (Muthiani 1973, Jahnke 1982) arenow owned by individual family members. Regardless of theland potential, these families continue to practice cropfarming and livestock keeping on their land parcels.However, some public utility areas have been set asidefor communal use. Such utility areas include cattle plungedip yards, livestock watering sites, commercial plots, schoolsites, religious building sites and health centre areas, tomention a few. Nevertheless, some families are more fortunatethan others in that they have natural and/or artificial waterresources within their farms. Such families would water theirlivestock within their farms (on—farm) during a normal weather75year, whereas the less fortunate families would have to dependmainly on public off—farm water resources only.As regards grazing areas, agro—pastoralists have todepend on the individually owned pastures. However, somefamilies own more than one piece of land or are financiallycapable of renting pastures from their neighbours and therefore, can move their livestock from their base land propertyto those other (off—farm) pastures.Proportions of the respondents who indicated where theytook their livestock for grazing as either on—farm or off—farmdid not differ (P<O.121) between eco-zones. About 90% of allthe respondents indicated that they grazed their livestock ontheir home base land property, for the two study areas (Table7). However, the free natural grazing was supplemented by useof crop residue and/or stubble as supported by about 71.6% ofall respondents who affirmed this to be true. The importantrole played by stubble grazing can not be ignored. Jahnke(1982) stated that in northern Nigeria, stubble grazingamounts to almost one fifth of the annual grazing time and itprovides a considerable amount of dry matter and protein tolivestock (Table 8).However, the respondents who indicated places where theywatered the livestock as either on—farm or off—farm varied(P<0. 004) between eco-zones (Figure 6).76Table 7. Proportions of the respondents (P<O.121) indicatinggrazing places in terms of on-farm and off-farm pastures,Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992.Location On-farm Off-farm Total NKasikeu 83.9 16.1 100.0 31Mtito—Andei 96.3 3.7 100.0 27Total 89.7 10.3 100.0N 52 6 58Table 8. Average straw yield and nitrogen content of cropresidues in the semi-arid zone (from Jahnke 1982).Crops Straw (DM) t/ha Nitrogen kg/haGrass fallow 3.0 24Pearl millet 5.0 90Sorghum 7.0 21Maize 3.0 24Groundnut 2.5 70Cowpea 1.5 21A higher proportion of the agro-pastoralists of Kasikeuwatered their livestock on their farms whereas those of Mtito—Andei more commonly watered theirs off the farm. Topographically, Kasikeu is more hilly (Muthiani 1973) than MtitoAndei. For this reason, one would expect to find more naturalwatering sources in Kasikeu than in Mtito-Andei. Possibly,many of the agro—pastoralists of Kasikeu would have permanent77natural watering sources within their farms. On the otherhand, not many of the Mtito-Andei agro-pastoralists would belucky to have those sources within their farms; consequently,they would have to take their animals for water to communalwatering places, off their own home base farms. In fact, theanalysis of water sources available to the agro—pastoralistsindicated that proportions of the respondents who mentionedother communal/private sources of livestock/human waterdiffered (P<O.05) between eco—zones (Figure 14). WhereasKasikeu indicated a higher proportion of the respondentswatering their animals in rivers/streams than Mtito—Andei, thelatter indicated a higher proportion of the respondentswatering their animals in other water sources such as bore—holes, shallow wells, dams, natural pools/ponds and roofcatchment. Majority of those other water sources were found tobe public utilities. Furthermore, the analysis of wateringfrequency indicated that there were no differences (P<O.188)between eco—zones on how often animals were taken to wateringplaces. However, this analysis indicated that 86.2% of theagro—pastoralists watered their animals daily, whereas only13.8% watered them every other day (Table 12). This wouldmean that availability and distances travelled to livestockwater sources are not a problem in the study area probablybecause there are several sources.Probably, the foregoing discussion supports and explainswhy there was a highly significant (P<O.004) difference78between eco—zones in proportions of the respondents indicatingwhere they watered their animals in terms of on—farm and offfarm water sources.Table 9. Proportions of respondents (<O.lB8) indicatinglivestock watering frequency, Makuëni district, Kenya,1991/1992.Location Daily Otherday Total NKasikeu 80.7 19.4 100.0 31Mtito—Andei 92.6 7.4 100.0 27Total 86.2 13.8 100.0N 50 8 58797060-50-PR4OCENT30-20-10-KASIKEUSTUDY AREARIVER LIOTHERSFigure 14. Proportions of the respondents (PcO.05)indicating types of livestock water sources, Makuenidistrict, Kenya, 1985./0-MTITO-ANDEI805.5. Food Types and Milk Disposal5.5.1. Food TypesAccording to Muthiani (1973) and Munro (1975), Akambapeople traditionally raised on their farms such foodstuffs asmaize (corn), beans, cowpeas (black eye peas), pigeonpeassorghum, millet, sweet potatoes, bananas, sugarcanes, arrow—roots, gourds, squash, pumpkin, melons from their gardens and,meat, blood, milk, ghee and fat from their livestock.Muthiani (1973) continued to state that farm fertilization byuse of livestock or compost manure was only done by accident.This was so because agro—pastoralists had enough arable landand so could shift to fallow areas.This study confirmed that the same types of food cropsare still being grown but in addition, other food crops(mainly horticultural) such as green grams, cassava, oranges,tomatoes, kales, pawpaws, mangoes and guavas were encounteredduring the study.The above are the food crops that agro—pastoralists wouldnormally depend on under normal weather years. They areusually grown on their farms and they are classified in theorder of their importance, either as reliable or not reliable.For instance, maize (corn) and beans are classified as veryreliable in terms of the role they play in the family dietthroughout the year. Other food crops were also viewed asimportant but not all were categorised as reliable (Table 10).Possibly maize and beans were considered very reliable81perhaps due to their storage quality. These two food itemscould be stored for a long time without going bad, especiallyif pesticides are used to prevent insect damage duringstorage. Perhaps the most important reason for consideringmaize and beans very reliable was the many ways these fooditems could be prepared. For instance, maize could be used as“maize on comb” during the early maturity stage. When themaize is completely mature and dry, it could be shelled, mixedwith beans, boiled and when ready, make a dish popularly knownas githeri (a boiled mixture of maize and beans). Alternatively, this mixture could be added to edible green leaves,potatoes or bananas and mashed together to make anotherpopular dish known as kienyeji. Probably the most importantdish made from maize is what is nationally known as ugali.This dish is made of maize flour, and different stews andgravies can be used to make it tasty while eating it. Milk,especially the sour one is considered very ideal to go withthis dish. Other sour/sweet fluids such as tea, sodas, oniongravies, and salt solutions could also be used. The dish iseasy and takes less time to prepare. It is common among allpeople of Kenya and therefore, has a national importance notonly to the respondents of the study area, but also to allKenyans.Occasionally, agro—pastoralists eat meat either boughtfrom butcheries or slaughtered at home. Those who havemilking cows or goats use fresh milk for their tea or to feed82young children, and sour milk for their ugali mainly.Sometimes agro—pastoralists would buy food such as wheatflour, rice, sugar, tea, cooking oil and other essentialswhich are not locally grown or available.In times of drought, very few agro—pastoralists have foodin their stores and most of the food eaten is normallypurchased (Mukhebi et al. 1985b). The situation may become sobad that the government provides the agro-pastoralists withfamine relief. During the major 1983/84 drought in Kenya,Mukhebi et al. (1985b) who had studied the impact of thismajor drought that devastated most parts of east and southernAfrica, documented the impact of the drought on the samerespondents of this study. The documentation of this information was based on pre-drought, during drought and post-droughtsituations. He noted that most of the family foodstuff werepurchased during drought. He also noted that some agro—pastoralists obtained famine relief during this time (Table11). Ellis and Swift (1988) showed how devastating effects ofdrought can be to pastoral communities when they stated:“not only drought affects livestock production, butit also affects plant communities as well as humanfitness”.Whereas Mukhebi et al. (1985b) recorded a 61% livestock lossto the 1983/84 drought in Makueni district, Ellis et al.(1988) recorded a loss of 50-70% to the 1979/80 drought inparts of Turkana district.83Famine relief in arid and semi—arid areas is not uncommonespecially during drought periods. For instance, Helland(1980c) stated that a drought rehabilitation project had tobe started to avert starvation for the ‘Afar pastoralists ofnorth-eastern Ethiopia during the 1973/1974 drought, by givingthem free food and medical services. In this study, it wasnoted that whereas traditionally, the agro-pastoralists woulddraw blood especially during drought periods for food fromlive cattle, none of the respondents mentioned use of bloodas food any more. The reason for this could possibly beattributed to religious beliefs or to lack of bulls from whichto draw the blood. It would appear that possibly due toincreasing human population pressure on land, agro—pastoralists would no longer be able to keep many head ofcattle and therefore, in an attempt to compensate for thisthey would try to grow many varieties of foodtypes than theyused to when land was not a major constraint. In fact, over75% of the respondents in the entire study area affirmed thatthey did not own bulls and that they hired/borrowed neighboursbulls for the purpose of breeding. Where a family had a pairor two of steers available, those steers would in most casesbe kept as draught animals. As such, agro—pastoralists wouldpossibly consider it as stressful and cruel to subject suchsteers to further torture of drawing blood from them for food.Use of livestock manure for farm fertilization waspracticed by the majority of the respondents. Whereas 75.8%84of all the respondents indicated that they used livestockmanure to fertilize their farms, 24.2% of them said they soldtheir manure. In fact, Jahnke (1982) indicated that about3,000 kg (DM) of livestock manure, when fully applied to cropfields could lead to a yield increase of 100 kg or more ofgrain per hectare.It was also noted that, possibly due to the introductionof cash economy and maybe due to changing feeding habits,respondents indicated that they were buying foodstuffs such asrice, cooking oil, sugar, wheat flour and tea leaves amongothers. This was the general behaviour of the respondents inthe entire study area.5.5.2. Milk Production, Consumption and SaleThe study also showed that there was a difference betweenthe proportions of the respondents who said they milked cowsand goats (P<0.002) between eco—zones. Agro—pastoralistsmilked both their cattle and goats. In most cases however,only those families who did not have milking cows milked theirgoats, a fact which has already been confirmed by Muthiani(1973). Almost all cows milked were indigenous breeds knownas East Africa Short Horn Zebu. This is mainly a beef breedwell adapted to tropical range conditions. Whereas none ofthe of the respondents ofKasikeu indicated milking any exotic or crossbred cows, 3respondents of Mtito-Andei indicated milking some crossbredcows (2 Sahiwal X zebu and 1 Guernsey X zebu cows). All the85milking goats were what is popularly known as the Small EastAfrican Goat. Again, this is normally a meat goat welladapted to tropical range conditions.The proportions of the respondents who owned milk cattleand goats varied (P<O.002, Figure 7) between eco—zones.Probably Kasikeu agro-pastoralists would be expected to milkhigher proportions of cattle than goats, as the analysisshows, because they are relatively more intensive farmers thanthose of Mtito-Andei. As a result they would have eitherfodder crops grown or have more crop residue with which tofeed their cattle thus prolonging milking period or increasingthe amount of milk. In fact, although there was no difference(P<O.366) between the proportions of the crop residue andother fodders fed to livestock between the two eco—zones(Table 12), 61.2% of the Kasikeu respondents indicated feedingcrop residue and other fodders, whereas only 38.8% of theMtito-Andei respondents indicated feeding them. As long asthere is at least a cow being milked, agro—pastoralistsnormally would not milk their goats. On the other hand, agropastoralists of Mtito—Andei depend on natural range forage tofeed their livestock. Milking period for their cattle mightnot be long enough to give them milk throughout the year. Inthis case they might be tempted to milk their goats which theyhave in greater proportions than Kasikeu (Figure 3).The proportions of the amount of milk obtained in themorning and in the evening were similar (P<O.59) between eco—86zones. Agro—pastoralists pastured their livestock during theday time and drove them borne in the evening as has alreadybeen established (Muthiani 1973). Usually they milk theirlivestock in the morning before they are taken to the grazingpastures and again in the evening after they return frompastures. However, some agro-pastoralists do not milk theiranimals in the evening. Before the process of milking isstarted, the mother cow’s udder has to be stimulated by itscalf for milk let—down. Some agro—pastoralists use the calvesto stimulate the cows once, whereas others use them twice.However, there was no difference (P<O.204) between eco—zones,of proportions of the respondents who indicated using a calfto stimulate the milk animal either once or twice. The desireto stimulate the animal once or twice depends on how87Table 10. crop food reliability as perceived by agropastoralists, Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992.FOOD RELIABILITY (%)KASIKEU (N=31)LowFOOD TYPEHighMTITO-ANDEI (n=32)High LowMaize 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0Bean 100.0 0.0 78.1 9.4Cow peas 3.2 67.7 25.0 75.0Pigeon peas 3.2 67.7 31.3 43.8Green gram 0.0 9.7 3.1 34.4Finger millet 0.0 51.6 0.0 25.0Sorghum 0.0 16.1 3.1 37.5Bulrush 0.0 3.1Cassava 0.0 54.8 0.0 40.6Pumpkin 0.0 12.9 0.0 15.6Sweet potato 0.0 35.5 3.1 15.6Irish Potato 0.0 3.2Orange 0.0 19.4Pawpaw 0.0 9.7Mangoes 0.0 9.7Guava 0.0 6.5Banana 0.0 41.9Tomato 0.0 6.5 0.0 18.8Green vegetables 0.0 3.2 3.1 31.388Table 11. Food types and their sources (%), as reported byagro—pastoralists of southern Machakos (Makueni)district before, during and after the major 1983/84 droughtin Kenya (from Mukhebi, 1985).FOOD PRE-DROUGHT DURING DROUGHT POST-DROUGHTExplanation of Abbreviation:MKT = Market; FR = Famine ReliefFARM MKT FR FARM MKT FR FARM MKT FRUgaliMaizeBeansMeatMilkVegetablePotatoesRiceWheatMill—etsSorghumGreengramsPeasCass—avaFruitBananasSugar/TeaCook-oil0.1 0.03 0.0 0.01 50.0 0.0 0.1 0.04 0.0100 0.0 0.0 0.03 80.2 15.1 87.7 0.03 9.480.2 0.1 0.0 7.6 44.3 0.0 47.2 12.3 0.035.9 48.1 0.0 16.0 40.6 0.0 17.9 37.7 0.068.9 0.08 0.0 17.9 22.6 0.0 39.6 12.3 0.022.6 25.5 0.0 0.1 49.1 0.0 37.7 21.7 0.00.1 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.1 0.0 11.3 0.05 0.00.0 15.1 0.0 0.0 37.7 0.0 0.0 0.08 0.00.0 18.9 0.0 0.0 45.3 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.025.5 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 14.2 0.0 0.017.9 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.02 0.0 20.8 0.02 0.013.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 0.1 0.01 0.095.3 0.03 0.0 11.3 17.0 0.0 96.2 0.03 0.014.2 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.01 0.0 0.07 0.0 0.00.0 0.01 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.01 0.00.08 0.0 0.0 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.04 0.02 0.00.0 28.3 0.0 0.0 34.0 0.0 0.0 28.3 0.010.4 26.4 0.0 0.0 17.0 0.0 0.04 19.8 0.089much one cares for the health of the calf and how desperatelythe milk is needed. For instance, if a family has women withyoung children who need milk, the family may opt to allow twocalf stimulations so as to get as much milk as possible. Onthe other hand, a family without or with fewer young children,may opt to allow for one calf stimulation so as to leavefairly enough milk for the calf. Rarely will the calf getenough milk since the milk has to be shared between humanneeds and the calf.There was however, no significant difference (P<O.189)between eco—zones, on the proportions of family childrenattending teaching institutions, though Mtito-Andei recordeda slightly greater proportion (57.4%) than Kasikeu (42.6%) ofthe proportions of the children attending nursery schools(Table 13).Table 12. Proportions of crop residue and other fedders(P<O.366) fed to livestock, Makueni district, Kenya,1991/1992.Location Residue Others Total NKasikeu 64.6 52.6 61.2 41Mtito—Andei 35.4 47.4 38.8 26Total 100.0 100.0 100.0N 48 19 67Some agro—pastoralists do not milk their animals in theevening. They allow the mother and the calf to pasturetogether during the day time but separate them in the evening.This gives the calf enough milk in the course of the day. In90the morning, the animal is milked and the milk is mainly usedfor home consumption. Families who produce more milk thanthey need for their home consumption (especially immediatelyafter the growing season when forage is abundant and green),sell their surplus to either neighbours or local hotels.Proportions of the amount of milk consumed at home andthe amount sold were similar (P<O.235) between eco—zones.However, of the total amount of milk produced by all therespondents, only 7.8% went to the market (Table 14). Thisprobably showed that agro-pastoralists milked their animals touse the milk for home consumption only. Zebu cattle areusually not dairy, but beef animals. Therefore, high milkproduction would not be expected. In fact there is scarcelyenough milk for the calf alone considering that no milk cowwill go unmilked as long as there is a drop of milk from itsudder. Since these animals are not dairy but beef animals,and since the agro—pastoralists do not feed them for maintenance and production levels (they do not use commercial feedssuch as dairy meals for milk production), they can not beexpected to produce enough milk for both calves and humans.5.6. Family Income SourcesTraditionally, agro-pastoral families based their economymainly on farm income but they also earned a considerableincome from off—farm sources such as trade (Muthiani 1973).A breakdown of how those sources contributed to the totalfamily income is shown in Table 15.91More or less the same sources of total family income, asshown in Table 15, were identified during this study.However, trades such as those involving blacksmith andleatherwork were not encountered or mentioned by the respondents. This is possibly because blacksmithing andleatherworking are tedious and involving trades whose productshave been overtaken by cheap commercial substitutes such asgardening tools, fabrics and plastic products available fromcommercial establishments. In addition to trade areas shownin Table 15, some respondents also mentioned that they wereTable 13. Proportions of the children (P<O.189) attendingteaching institutions, Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992.Location Nursery Primary Highschool College Total NKasikeu 42.6 47.0 61.2 62.5 100.0 138Mtito—Andei 57.4 58.1 38.8 37.5 100.0 144Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0N 61 164 49 8 282Table 14. Proportions of the amount of milk (P<O.235) consumedin litres at home and the amount sold, Makueni district,Kenya, 1991/1992.Location Home Sale Total NKasikeu 93.5 6.5 100.0 138Mtito—Andei 87.8 12.2 100.0 41Total 7.8 100.0N 14 17992.216592Table 1.5. Traditional sources of total family income, Makuenidistrict, Kenya (from Muthiani, 1973).TOTAL FAMILY INCOMEI I0N_1 I IOFF_FARMhCROPS LIVESTOCKI TRADE I KIjGrains Cattle Blacksmith SonsLegumes Goats Woodcarving DaughtersFruits Sheep Basketry InlawsTubers Honey Bee Pottery RelativesGourds Chicken Leatherworkengaged in small—scale businesses such as shopkeeping, kioskoperation, hotel keeping, sale of secondhand clothes, hawking,milling, bicycle repair and motor mechanics. This againindicates the role the cash economy is playing in thelifestyles of the agro—pastoralists in contemporary times.The study also showed that another additional source ofoff—farm income was salary/wage earning by some family memberseither as permanent or casual employees, respectively. Thisshows that whereas employment was traditionally almost nonexistent, introduction of school education by the colonial93government and the need for a cash money to buy goods andservices, have motivated some agro—pastoralists, especiallythe learned ones, to look for jobs.5.6.1. Farm Production IncomeTotal farm income was attributed to both livestock andcrop production. The respondents indicated proportions of thetotal farm income they realised from each production activity.The biggest proportion of the respondents of both Kasikeu andI4tito-Andei indicated that they received about a quarter ofthe total farm income from livestock production and aboutthree quarters from crop production (Tables 16 and 17).Table 16. Proportions of the respondents indicating fractionsof total farm income realised from livestock production,Makueni district, Kenya, 1985.Loc None 1/8 1/4 1/2 3/4 7/8 Full Total NKas 3.2 22.6 48.4 3.2 16.1 6.5 0.0 100.0 31Mti 0.0 12.5 62.5 3.1 18.8 0.0 3.1 100.0 32Tot 1.6 17.5 55.6 3.2 17.5 3.2 1.6 100.0N 1 11 35 2 11 2 1 6394Table 17. Proportions of the respondents indicating fractionsof total farm income realised from crop production, Makuenidistrict, Kenya, 1985.Loc None 1/8 1/4 1/2 3/4 7/8 Full Total NKas 0.0 6.5 16.1 3.2 48.4 22.6 3.2 100.0 31Mti 3.1 0.0 18.8 3.1 62.5 12.5 0.0 100.0 32Tot 1.6 3.2 17.5 3.2 55.6 17.5 1.6 100.0N 1 2 11 2 35 11 1 63Respondents also reported the proportions of the totalfamily income they realised from on—farm production and fromoff-farm sources. About three—quarters of the total familyincome in the study area came from on—farm production, whereasabout one—quarter came from off—farm sources (Tables 18 and19). Furthermore, respondents indicated the proportions ofthe total off—farm income realised from business, salary/wageand remittance from sons/daughters/relatives. Whereas thebiggest proportions of the respondents in the study areaindicated that they received no income at all from the offfarm sources, the second biggest proportion of the respondentsindicated that they obtained all their offTable 18. Proportions of the respondents indicating fractions of total family income realised from on—farmproduction, Makueni district, Kenya, 1985.Loc None 1/8 1/4 1/2 3/4 7/8 Full Total NKas 0.0 0.0 6.5 3.2 51.6 22.6 16.1 100.0 31mti 0.0 3.1 3.1 3.1 46.9 18.8 25.0 100.0 32Tot 0.0 1.6 4.8 3.2 49.2 20.6 20.6 100.0N 0 1 3 2 31 13 13 6395Table 19. Proportions of the respondents indicating fractionsof total family income realised from off-farm activities,Makueni district, Kenya, 1985.Tot 23.8N 1517.5 49.2 3.211 31 2100.0 31100.0 32Table 20. Proportions of the respondents indicating fractions of total off-farm income realised from business,Makueni district, Kenya, 1985.Tot 58.7N 37Table 21. Proportions of the respondents indicating fractions total off—farm income realised from wage earning,Makueni district, Kenya, 1985.Loc None 1/8 1/4 1/2 3/4 7/8 Full Total N58.1 3.2 3.2 0.0 0.0 9.7 25.881.3 3.1 0.0 3.1 3.1 0.0 9.4Tot 69.8 3.2 1.6 1.6 1.6 4.8 17.5 100.0N 44 2 1 1 1 3 11 63Table 22. Proportions of the respondents indicating fractions of total off-farm income realised from sons,daughters and other relatives, Makueni district, Kenya,1985.Loc None 1/8 1/4 1/2 3/4 7/8 Full Total NKasMti58.1 16.1 6.584.4 0.0 0.00.0 0.0 6.5 12.90.0 0.0 0.0 15.6100.0 31100.0 32KasMtiLoc None 1/8 1/4 1/2 3/4 7/8 Full Total N22.6 16.1 51.6 3.2 6.5 0.0 0.025.0 18.8 46.9 3.1 3.1 3.1 0.04.8 1.6 0.0 100.03 1 0 63KasMti67.7 3.250.0 0.0Loc None 1/8 1/4 1/2 3/4 7/8 Full Total N0.0 0.0 9.7 6.5 12.93.1 3.1 0.0 3.1 40.6100.0100.01.6 1.6 1.6 4.8 4.8 27.0 100.01 1 1 3 3 17 633132KasMti100.0 31100.0 32Tot 71.4N 457.9 3.2 0.0 0.0 3.2 14.3 100.05 2 0 0 2 9 6396farm income from either business alone, wage alone, orsons/daughters/relatives alone (Tables 20, 21 and 22).Since chi—square analysis requires no more than 20% ofentries to be less than five, (Ott 1988) it was not appropriate to perform and rely on the results for Tables 16 through22 though the tables would help the reader to see how theagro—pastoralists responded to these questions. However, bycollapsing some entries, it was now possible to perform theanalysis as shown in Figures 8 and 15 through 20.Binomial statistical analysis gave results that indicatedlivestock production in the entire study area as being able tocontribute 50% or less whereas crop production contributedmore than 50% to the total farm income. For instance, whenthe respondents were asked to mention the proportions of thetotal farm income obtained from livestock and from cropproduction, of the 31 respondents interviewed in Kasikeu, 24said they obtained 50% or less from livestock productionwhereas, of the 32 respondents interviewed in Mtito-Andei, 25said they obtained 50% or less from livestock production.By use of binomial statistical analysis at the 5% levelof significance, it can be concluded whether there was or nota significant difference in the proportions between the twostudy areas. In this case the value (—0.067) of the calculated Z which approximates the difference in proportions doesnot fall into critical region (+-1.96). We therefore, fail to97reject null hypothesis (Ho: X1-X2 = 0) and conclude that thetwo proportions had come from the same population. This meansthat the proportions of the respondents who said that theyobtained 50% or less of their total farm income from livestockproduction were similar between the study areas (Figures 15,and 16).Consequently, since there were only two sources of incomecontributing to the total farm income---livestock and cropproduction---it would be logical to conclude that the agropastoralists obtained more than 50% of their total farm incomefrom crop production in the entire study area.Probably the best reason explaining why crop contributesa bigger proportion to the total farm income in the entirestudy area is as Jahnke (1982) puts it---that in agro-pastoralareas, cropping is the predominant form of land use andproduction. He continues to say that it is cropping, notlivestock, that provides the mainstay of subsistence andincome. He supports this by giving examples of the contribution of livestock to farm income in semi—arid Sukumaland,Tanzania, as slightly over 20%, and in semi—arid areas ofNigeria as about 18%. It is heartening to see how close thesefigures compare with the ones established by this study(Figures 15 and 16).Some of the reasons behind the foregoing observation inMakueni district, might be the ease at which farm crop producecan be converted into cash. A wide variety of food crops98(Table 10) are successfully grown by the agro-pastoralistswhenever the weather permits. Some of the foods grown arehighly perishable and the best use of such foods would be tosell them when they exceed family house demand. Non—perishable foods are also sold when the family concerned makes sureit has stocked enough to last until the next harvesting season(the assumption is that the following growing season would notfail).On the other hand, agro-pastoralists would sell theirlivestock, in most cases, only when there is a major andurgent financial need like school or medical expenses.Further more, it is not always easy to find a buyer forlivestock, in which case the animal can always be kept eitherindefinitely or until the next market day. An animal can notbe sold in piecemeal whereas farmers can do so with their foodcrops. Besides, a simple calculation based on Table b. ofAppendix 2 would show that on average, a respondent family inthe study areas kept about 11 head of cattle, 17 head ofgoats, and 6 head of sheep. These figures included old andyoung livestock and as they represented what each familyowned, it is easy to see how few they are. As such, it ispossibe that agro—pastoralists would rather save them for foodsecurity reasons in times of famine to support an averagefamily comprised of about 8 children, 5 adult men and 5 adultwomen as a simple calculation from Table a. of Appendix 2would indicate. In fact, Aboud (1986) said that pastoral99societies use livestock as their security in times of disaster.5.6.2. Total Family IncomeThis income comprised the proportion realised from on—farm production (crops and livestock) and the proportionrealised from off—farm sources (business, salary/wage earningand remittance from sons/daughters/relatives).5.6.2.1. On-farm and Off-farm IncomesBinomial statistical analysis gave results that indicatedon—farm production in the entire study area being able tocontribute over 50% whereas off—farm sources of incomecontributed less than 50% to the total family income. Forinstance, of the 31 respondents interviewed in Kasikeu, 28said they obtained over 50% of the total family income fromon—farm production. Likewise, of the 32 respondents interviewed in Mtito-Andei, 29 said they obtained over 50% of thetotal family income from on—farm production.By use of binomial statistical analysis at the 5% levelof significance, it can be determined whether there was or nota significant difference in the proportions of the respondentsbetween the two study areas. In this case the value (-0.041)of the calculated Z which approximates the difference inproportions does not fall into critical region (+-1.96). Wetherefore, fail to reject null hypothesis (Ho: X1-X2 = 0) andconclude that the two proportions had come from the samepopulation. This means that there was no difference between100the study areas, of the respondents who said that theyobtained more than 50% of the total family income from on-farmproduction (Figures 17 and 18).Since there were only two sources———on—farm and off—farm—--contributing to the total family income, it would be logicalto conclude that off—farm sources of income contributed 50% orless of the total family income in the entire study area.Logically, being farming communities basically, agropastoralists would be expected to realise the greatestproportion of their total family income from the farm. Thispossibly was the reason why over 90% of all the respondentssaid that more than 50% of their total family income came fromon—farm production.101100- /80-_____60-RCENT40-20-0-STUDY AREAHALF >HALFFigure 15. Proportions of the respondents (P<O.946)indicating fractions of the total farm income realisedfrom livestock production as being either greater or lessthan 50%, Makueni district, Kenya, 1985./- //KASIKEU MTITO-ANDEI102100- /80-60-40-20-STUDY AREAHALFMTITO-AN DEl>HALFFigure 16. Proportions of the respondents (P.cO.714) indicatingfractions of the total farm income realised from cropproduction as being either greater or less than 50% Makuenidistrict, Kenya, 1985.z. .PERCENT0-KASIKEU1031008060RCENT40200STUDY AREA<=HALF >HALFFigure 17. Proportions of the respondents (P.cO.967) indicatingfractionsof total family income realised from on—farmproduction as being either greater or less than 50%,Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992.KASIKEU MTITO-ANDEI104100- /80-60-RCENT40-20-0-KASIKEUSTUDY AREA<HALF >HALFPigure 18. Proportions of the respondents (P<O.974) indicatingfractions of total fai1y incose realised frog off—farsources as being either greater or less than 50%, Makuenidistrict, Kenya, 1991/1992./ ///MTITO-ANDEI105The sources of total off—farm income were comprised ofthe income earned from business and salaries/wages, and theremittance from either sons, daughters or other relatives.Proportions of the respondents indicating fractions of totaloff—farm income realised from business, and from remittance ofsons/daughters/relatives, were similar (P<O.225, P<0.697)between eco—zones, respectively (Figures 19 and 20).The proportions of the respondents indicating fractionsof the total off—farm income realised from salary/wage earninghowever, varied (P<O.032) between eco—zones. More than 80%of Mtito-Andei respondents compared to about 60% of Kasikeurespondents received less than 50% of their total off-farmincome from salaries/wages. On the other hand, 38% of Kasi]ceurespondents compared to 10% of those of Mtito-Andei earnedmore than 50% of their total off—farm income from salary/wageearning activities (Figure 8).Although off—farm sources of income contributed only asmall fraction of the total family income, they played quitean important role in the livelihood of agro—pastoralists.When a major drought strikes, most of the on—farm productionis lost and it is important that agro-pastoralists havesomewhere to turn to for subsistence. Small—scale businesssuch as food kiosks, milling, shops, wood carving, hawking andlivestock trading, to mention a few, contribute a substantialincome to families, though not all families are engaged inbusiness. Another source of income was remittance from sons,106daughters and relatives to their parents. Traditionally,children are supposed to support their aging parents amongmost African societies. For instance, ILCA (1981) stated thatthe Maasai families usually receive money remittance fromtheir sons, from close relatives and from friends to supportthe family, either regularly or on special occasions. Withthis regard, the agro—pastoralists of Makueni district are noexception. When sons and daughters marry and have their ownhomes, or when they are employed and they earn a salary/wage,they are expected by the society to always remember to usesome of their income to support their parents especially toenable those parents to educate their young sons and daughterswho still depend on them. Other relatives who are wealthiermay also want to support their kin especially in times ofhardships such as droughts, famine, sickness and school fees.Salary/wage earning, as earlier mentioned, was anothersource of family income. Possibly, Kasikeu had a higherproportion than Mtito-Andei, of the respondents receiving morethan 50% of the total off-farm income from salary/wageearnings due to their history of settlement. Kasikeu is ahigher agricultural potential land than Mtito-Andei and theagro-pastoralists are thought to have settled there a littlemore than three hundred years (Muthiani 1973). When theBritish arrived here in the late nineteenth century, one ofthe western ideologies introduced to the Akamba people was amissionary school system (Munro 1975). Mainly, those schools107were established in high potential eco—zones where the agro—pastoralists had already put up their sedentary homes. One ofsuch areas included Kasikeu, and people here would have had anopportunity to attend school and acquire good jobs whenunemployment was not yet a problem with educated people.On the other hand, most of the Mtito-Andei agropastoralists settled there after Kenya achieved independencein 1963. Mostly, the settlers were a young generation thatwas moving away from high populous eco—zones in search of landin less populous eco—zones. It was only after settling there,that they started building schools. Probably, by the timetheir first group of school going children went through theschool system, job positions were already very competitive. Inthis case, many of their school leavers would have become1088060PERC40-T20KASIKEU MTITO-ANDEISTUDY AREA<HALF >HALFFigure 19. Proportions of the respondents (P<O.225)indicating fractions of total off-farm income realised frombusiness as being either greater or less than 50%, Kakuenidistrict, Kenya, 1991/1992.0- /10910080PERCENT40200STUDY AREA<HALF LI >HALFFigure 20. Proportions of the respondents (PcO.697)indicating fractions of total off-farm income remitted bySons, daughters and other relatives as being eithergreater or less than 50%, Makueni district, Kenya,1991/1992.KASIKEU MTITO-ANDEI110unemployed. The community as a whole would therefore, getless proportions of off—farm income from salary/wage earnings.However, in all sources of their total off—farm income,greater proportions of all the respondents indicated receivingless than 50% from each source in the entire study area(Figures 8, 10, and 20).Although it has been shown that generally sources oftotal family income did not differ between eco-zones, highlysignificant differences were observed between sources of thoseincome (Figures 9, 10 and 21).Proportions of respondents showing fractions of incomesearned from crops and livestock production did not differbetween eco—zones but varied highly (P<0.001, Figure 10)between the productions in the entire study area. Similarly,the proportions of respondents showing fractions of on—farmand off-farm contributing to the total family income, alsovaried highly (P<0.001, Figure 21) between sources. Likewise,the proportions of respondents showing business, salary/wageearning and remittance from sons/daughters/relatives contributing to the total off-farm income, varied (p<0.046, Figure9) between sources.Whereas the greatest proportion of the respondents indicated business as contributing more than 50% to the total offfarm income than both salary/wage earning and kin remittance,the latter two had greater proportions of the respondentsindicating contribution of 50% or less to the total off—farm111incomethan the former. Possibly this was due to the fact that mostagro—pastoralists would strive to initiate small—scalebusiness operations where they have personal control and areready to take risks. On the other hand, it would not bepossible for them to influence employers and theirsons/daughters/relatives so as to get jobs and remittance fromthem, respectively.112SOURCES<HALF >HALFFigure 21. Proportions of the respondents (P.cO.OO1) indicatingfractions of the total family income realised from on—farmand off—farm as being either greater or less than 50%,Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992./PERCENT10080-60-40-200-//ON-FARM OFF-FARM1135.7. Family ExpenditureTraditionally, the main items of family expenditure didnot actually involve use of cash money. Agro—pastoralistsobtained what they wanted by exchanging with what they had inkind. This process was known as barter trade (Muthiani 1973).Like any other human society, agro—pastoralists caredfirst about food security, clothing and shelter. Food camefrom their farms in the form of livestock and crop products.Clothing came from livestock skins and later from fabricstraded with Asians. Alcamba household units consisted of awell organized division of labour in order to ensure sheltersecurity. For instance, livestock husbandry and protectionwas the man’s duty. The kraals in which livestock were keptwere well fenced with thorn bushes to protect livestock frompredators. Men slept with their weapons ready to defend theirfamilies and livestock from raiders. Men also concernedthemselves with building houses, huts, Kraals and granaries.While the boys helped their fathers with their jobs, the girlshelped their mothers to get thatching materials for anythingthat was built.However, in this study, a cash economy was found to havereplaced barter trade. Money was considered the nucleusaround which all the family items of expenditure in terms ofgoods and services were placed. Family expenditure was basically categorised under the following items: purchase of foodstuff; purchase of clothing material; purchase of household114requirements; payment of school fees and other school relatedexpenses; and payment of any other necessary expenses notincluded in the above four categories. For instance, medical,travelling, farm inputs and entertainment expenses werecategorised as “others”.Priorities for allocation of family income varied(P<0.00l) among expenditure items. Proportionally, more than75% of respondents identified schooling as the highestpriority followed by clothing (about 60%) and householdexpenses (about 40%) as second and third priorities, respectively (Figure 11). However, there were no significantdifferences in the proportions of expenditure on differentitems between eco—zones. Both study areas behaved similarly.School fees, uniforms, activity fees, stationary, textbooks and the fee paid to the person hired to coach childrenin their home studies during off—school time are some of theareas that make school possibly claim the highest proportionof the family’s total income.Education for the children is valued highly and it is theresponsibility of every parent to make sure that theirchildren acquire education at virtually any cost. Parents whodo not take their children to school are ridiculed by thecouuuunity. This does not apply only to the community underthe study but to all Kenyan parental communities. Agropastoralists probably know, from experience, that familieswith educated children are always better off especially if115their sons and daughters have acquired good jobs by virtue oftheir education and training. Although unemployment isincreasing, it is the hope of every parent that their educatedchildren would somehow acquire good jobs in the future. It isnot therefore, a surprise to see the respondents rankingeducation as the number one item into which their total familyincome contributes. Due to inflationary factors currentlybeing experienced not only by Kenyans but also many otherAfrican countries, the cost of school expenses has becomealmost unbearable to the parents. Suffice it to say thatparents have to forego many other livelihood needs at theexpense of their children’s education. The main concern ofevery family would probably be the education of theirchildren. Even the elderly families who have no school goingchildren would most likely see the need to assist their kinwho desperately need help to support their school-goingchildren.Clothing was another item that claimed a large proportionof the family’s total income. About 65% of respondents rankedclothing as the second highest priority for family expenditures. It was probably the wish of every family member toappear well dressed. Most of the respondents indicated thatthey were Christians and would attend weekly sunday service.Churches are places where people like displaying their newattire probably to please their creator and/or to impressother church goers. Whatever the reason, a considerable116amount of money is spent on purchasing clothing. The clothesmay not be brand new especially with the second—hand clothesmarket (popularly and locally known as Mituinba) becoming sopopular in the country. Many agro—pastoralists could affordto buy a couple of dresses from this cheap market. Therewould be no reason for anyone not to look smartly dressed.Sometimes, due to low prices of these second—hand clothes,respondents would unconsciously spend a lot of their moneybuying inexpensive clothes.Purchase of family’s household goods was ranked in thethird position after school and clothing expenses. Kitchenutensils, laundry requirement, dry cells for radios, for spotlights and for other home electrical gadgets, and othermiscellaneous household requirements would possibly take someconsiderable amount of total family’s income for they areitems that are regularly needed by most families in theirhousehold. Items and services such as foodstuff, transport,medical services and others were not ranked high possiblybecause those items and services were not always needed:Items such as foodstuff would come from farms; transportexpenses could be minimised by use of cheap means such as oxencarts, wheelbarrows, donkeys, bicycles or even trek on feet todesired destinations; medical services could not always beneeded and beside, some people could use local herbs to treatsome ailments; and possibly some agro—pastoralists could dowithout other items of expenditure such as farm inputs——117commercial fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides, commercialseeds and purchase of livestock for production.However, as far as eco—zones were concerned, there wereno significant differences between the proportions of family’stotal income used on various items of expenditure. Forinstance, the need for educating children would be equallyimportant for the parents of Kasikeu as for those of I4tito-Andei. Likewise, proportions of total family income spent onclothing, household goods, food and other items would besimilar between eco—zones. Possibly the reason for this isbased on the cultural values and traditional background of theAkamba families. They possibly have the same cultural outlookand traditional trends for the value of the above items,regardless of the ecological locations those families hailfrom.1185.8. Conclusions and RecommendationsThe results of the statistical analysis for most of thehypotheses of this study have enabled us to understand thatthere was not much difference between eco—zones on thevariables under test (Table 5). This could be supported bythe fact that both communities have similar cultural andsocio-economic background albeit living in different ecozones. They would therefore be involved similar productionsystems oblivious to their ecological potential even thoughproduction levels might differ between eco—zones. Wheredifferences were found however, probable supporting reasonshave been discussed.To qualify the above statement for instance, the following summary is given:Proportions of the following are independent of the studyareas.1. family members in terms of age/sex category living on thefarm.2. on—farm and off—farm grazing places.3. livestock and crop husbandry practices as reflected by theagricultural extension services offered by governmentofficers.4. types of foodstuff grown and eaten.5. amount of milk produced in the morning and evening.6. amount of milk consumed at home or sold.7. total farm income attributable to livestock and crop119production.8. total family income attributable to on-farm and off—farmsources.9. total off—farm income attributed to business engagement,and remittance from sons/daughters and other relatives.10. respondents ranking individual items of total familyincome expenditure as either being in first or secondpriority in terms of school, clothing, household, foodstuff and ‘other’ expenses.On the other hand, proportions of the following aredependent of the study areas.1. livestock owned in terms of cattle, sheep, goats, chicken,rabbits and donkeys.2. livestock prices offered by buyers and accepted by agropastoralists at their local markets.3. respondents indicating on—farm and off—farm wateringplaces.4. livestock species milked by agro-pastoralists.5. total off—farm income attributed to salary and wage earningactivities.Similarly, proportions of:6. total off—farm income attributed to business, salary/wageearning activities and remittance from sons/daughters andother relatives are dependent on the sources of thoseincome;7. total farm income attributed to crop and livestock produc120tion are dependent on production types; and8. respondents ranking total family income items of expenditure in terms of foodstuff, schooling, householding,clothing and ‘others’ are dependent of items purchased.Although it would be scientifically wrong for this studyto generalize the behaviour and management practices of allthe agro-pastoralists in the whole of Makueni district ofKenya, the study nevertheless, has established that generallythe families living in eco-zones IV and V of this district,have the same cultural—traditional and socio—economicbackground and therefore they both strive to make their endsmeet by engaging their daily activities in more or less thesame production and subsistence occupation (crop growing andlivestock keeping), oblivious to their land ecological potential. For many years, the families in Kasikeu (eco—zone IV)have considered mixed farming production which involvesgrowing of food crops and keeping of livestock, as their wayof life. But due to human population pressure and othersocial factors, younger and stronger members of most of thesefamilies have dispersed from their original homes in Kasikeuto settle down in Mtito—Andei and the surrounding areas so asto exploit and make use of the untapped natural resources ofthis region, regardless of the natural challenges tohumans/livestock/crops from tsetse fly/mosquito infestationsand wildlife menace that hinder their ability to optimizeproduction. In addition to farming and livestock activities,121agro—pastoralists also engage in some small—scale businessactivities.As they have for years, agro—pastoralists of these twoareas continue to practise land—tillage and livestock grazingactivities in rangelands without necessarily exposing thoselands to any apparent devastating land degradation. This haspossibly come about as a result of family commitment to takecare of their land holdings which are indeed their primarymeans of livelihood. However, in some areas especially wherethe land was steep, signs of gully erosion were encountered.Encountered too were areas where agro—pastoralists hadattempted to do some soil and water conservation practices.Despite this, it is important to remember that land deterioration comes gradually and may not be easy to notice at first.In the words of Stoddart et al. (1975),“If their animals are vigorous and thrifty, stockmensometimes consider range condition to be satisfactory.Research has shown, however, that range deteriorationmay progress for a considerable time before the changeis reflected in livestock condition. Forage conditionis a more sensitive indicator.”Heeding this warning, instead of being complacent in the wayagro—pastoralists manipulate their land, research scientistsshould assume an active role in assessing future impacts ofsuch manipulations with the view of developing a researchpackage which is not only going to be economically realisable122in the framework of the agro-pastoralists’ financial abilitybut which is also going to be morally/socially acceptable andin harmony with resource conservation measures.Contrary to the conception of many people includingsocial and range scientists, firstly that those societies areconservative and strongly attached to traditional beliefs andsecondly that they only keep livestock for prestige purposes,the study proved that the agro-pastoralists in the two studyareas respond positively to changes and will adopt new ideasespecially those relating to economically feasible andmorally/socially acceptable activities, with the aim ofimproving their standard of living.The study has also shown that in general, factors such ashuman population pressure, human migratory influx, education,use of cash economy and amenities associated withsedentarization, have considerably affected the Kasikeu andMtito-Andei agro-pastoral traditional ways of life and haveinfluenced them into accepting and practising diversified onfarm and off—farm economic production activities.A few significant differences were found between the twostudy areas. Where such differences were found especially infarm production and management practices, they were mainlyattributed to: eco-zonal potential differences; availabilityof infrastructure; period of human settlement; and developmentof education. Where significant differences were also foundbetween types of production and between the items/sources that123support the community economy, such differences were mainlyexplained by the reliability and the importance attached tothose parameters by the agro—pastoralists in general. Therecommendations suggested and based on the results of thisstudy pertain to the specific sample communities namelyKasikeu and Mtito—Andei areas. These results however, couldalso be used as an indicator of what might be happening inother communities of Makueni district.With the foregoing in mind the following globalrecommendations are envisioned as necessary.1.a. Since it has been shown that land tenure in rangelandscan be on individual ownership and that families can atleast subsist by engaging in various production activities, we can possibly be optimistic that something canbe done to help individual families in the sub-dividedrange districts increase productivity of their small—scale land holdings. This should be the outlookespecially when it is appreciated that in some cases,the felt need of many inhabitants of such districts alsocontribute to and support this rangeland sub—divisionmovement. Further, integrated research efforts todevelop technologies appropriate for small holdings inrangelands should be one of the aims within the frameworkof policy planners and, research and social scientists.For the agricultural research, the following areas may be124given emphasis: soil and water conservation; drylandfarming including small-scale irrigation methods;establishment of dryland fodder and shrub species; andimproved dual purpose livestock including poultry andbeekeeping, to mention a few.b. Small-scale business activities contributed significantlyto the total off—farm income of the families. Programmesthat would promote business training and management couldbe started for the benefit of the interested farmers.c. Since child basic education was mentioned to be the maininvestment for the familiy’s total income, government andnon—governmental organizations may want to subsidizeeducation to enable farmers meet other basic necessities.d. Government should consider posting more home—economicextension workers to teach family life education sincewomen were mainly involved in daily farm and homesteadactivities.Area—specific recommendations are envisioned to includethe following.2.a. Kasikeu farmers, being in a wetter zone than Mtito—Andeifarmers should be shown by the extension workers thetypes of fodder crops to grow in order to feed the cowsfor higher milk production. On the other hand, MtitoAndei farmers should be shown how grow dry area foddershrubs in order to promote milk production from goats.125b. Due to small land sizes, farmers in Kasikeu and inMtito-Andei should consider keeping fewer but productivedual purpose cattle and goats, respectively. This wouldenhance land improvement by being able to avoidoverstocking with many but less productive livestock.c. Whereas farmers in Mtito—Andei would posssibly need toform committees to protect communal water from misuse,Kasikeu farmers would need to take care of their ownindividual water sources.e. Promotion of the small—scale rural industries especiallyin areas like Mtito-Andei which are far away from thecity would be necessary for the creation of jobs.3. Further research would be necessary to asses other agro—pastoral communities not only in Makueni district butalso in other subdivided range districts of Kenya. Thedesign of such research should have replicated eco—zoneunits to allow for a wider and reliable generalization ofthe findings. This will be possible only if researchbudget, personnel and logistics are well taken care of.Spatial and erratic provision of research funds,personnel and equipment in piecemeal should be avoided iffuture surveys are expected to yield meaningful anddependable results.4. Adoption of the above recommendations should not beexpected to offer lasting solutions to the problems offarmers.1266.0. Literature CitedAboud, A.A. 1986. Range development constraints and researchin Kenya. Pages 365-375 in: Range development andresearch in Kenya. Proceedings of a conference. Agricultural Resources Centre Egerton College N:joro, Kenya,April 1-5, 1986. Cosponsored by Kiboko Range ResearchExpansion Project and Winrock International. Edited byRichard M. Hansen, Benson M. Woie and R. Dennis Child.Winrock International Institute for Agricultural Development, Morrilton, AR 72110, USA.Agricultural research foundation for the German agriculturalteam (GAT) 1987. Livestock marketing study. TransmaraAnimal Husbandry Research Station, Kenya.Bekure, S., and F. Chabari 1986. Livestock marketing ineastern Kajiado, Kenya. Pages 351-364 in: Range development and research in Kenya. Proceedings of a conference.Agricultural Resources Centre Egerton College Njoro,Kenya, April 1—5, 1986. Cosponsored by Kiboko RangeResearch Expansion Project and Winrock International.Edited by Richard M. Hansen, Benson M. Woie and R.Dennis Child. Winrock International Institute forAgricultural Development, Morrilton, AR 72110, USA.Bekure, S., and N. Tilahun. 1983. Livestock marketing studies.Pastoral Systems Research in Sub-Saharan Africa. ILCA,Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Chabari, F.M., A.C. Ackello-Ogutu, and M.O. Odhiambo. 1987.Factors determining market prices of small ruminants froma pastoral production system in Kenya. E. Afr. agric.For. J. 52: 286—292.Chambers, R. 1987. Shortcut methods in social informationgathering for rural development projects. Pages 33-46 in:Proceedings of the 1985 International Conference on RapidRural Appraisal. Khon Kaen, Thailand: Rural SystemsResearch and Farming Systems Research Projects.Darkoh, M.B.K. 1991. Land degradation and resource managementin Kenya. Pages 61-72 in: Desertification ControlBulletin No. 19, UNEP.EARLS/Kenya, 1982. Some lessons from the Kenya livestockdevelopment project. Programme document 32. ILCA, P.O Box46847, Nairobi, Kenya.Ellis, J.E., and D.M. Swift 1988. Stability of pastoralecosystem: Alternative paradigms and implication fordevelopment. J. Range Manage. 41(6): 450—459.127Evangelou, P. 1984. Livestock development in Kenya’sMaasailand. Pastoralists’ transition to a market economy.Westview press, Inc. 5500 Central Avenue Boulder,Colorado 80301, USA.Field, C.R. 1981. The IPAL cattle applied research programme.Pages 168-209 in: IPAL Technical Report No. A—5. UNESCOFRG-MAB IPAL.Field, C.R. 1985. Drought in Africa: Its incidence, trends,impact on animal production and socio—economic effects atproducer level. A paper presented at the workshop onlivestock policy, range and feed utilization: Guidelinesfor drought prone African countries, Khartoum, Sudan,November lOth.-l3th., 1985.Grandstaff, S.W., and T.B. Grandstaff 1987. Semi—structuredinterviewing by Multidisciplinary Teams in RRA. Pages129-143 in: Proceedings of the 1985 InternationalConference on Rapid Rural Appraisal. Khon Kaen, Thailand: Rural Systems Research and Farming SystemsResearch Projects.Helland, J. 1980a. Some issues in the study of pastoralistsand development of pastoralism. Working document 15.ILCA, P.O. Box 46847, Nairobi, Kenya.Helland, J. 1980b. An outline of group ranching in pastoralMaasai areas of Kenya. Working document 17. ILCA, P.O.Box 46847, Nairobi, Kenya.Helland, J. 1980c. An analysis of ‘Afar Pastoralism in thenorthern rangelands of Ethiopia. Working document 19.ILCA, P.O. Box 46847, Nairobi, Kenya.ILCA, 1981. Introduction to east Africa range livestocksystems study/Kenya. Working document 23. ILCA, P.O.Box 46847, Nairobi, Kenya.Ivens, GW. 1989. East African weeds and their control. Newedition. Oxford University Press, P.O. Box 72532,Nairobi.Jacobs, A.H. 1983. An overview of the population dynamics inKenya’s rangelands, 1969-1979. A report submitted to theDirector of Research, Ministry of Agriculture andLivestock Development, Government of Kenya, by WinrockInternational.128Jahnke, H.E. 1982. Livestock production systems and Livestockdevelopment in tropical Africa. Kieler Wissenschaftsver—lag Vauk, Postfach 4403, D—2300 Kiel 1, ISBN 3—9225553—12—5.Kaguthi, P.N. 1991. Annual report 1990. Ref: LP/AR/Vol I /20of January 29th., 1991. Divisional livestock productionoffice, P.O. Box 144, Kibwezi, Makueni district, Kenya.Karue, C.R., H. Cheruiyot, J.T. Njoka, and N. Musimba. 1989.The state of knowledge on rangelands research in Kenya.EDF Project No. 6100-30-32—009, University/IEMVT/KARILink. 34 pp.King, J.M., A.R. Sayers, C.P. Peacock, and E. Kontrohr. 1982.Maasai herd and flock structure in relation to householdlivestock wealth and group ranch development. Workingdocument 27. ILCA, P.O. Box 46847, Nairobi, Kenya.Mukhebi, A.W. 1986. Economic justification for range researchin Kenya. Pages 319-325 in: Range development andresearch in Kenya. Proceedings of a conference.Agricultural Resources Centre Egerton College Njoro,Kenya, April 1-5, 1986. Cosponsored by Kiboko RangeResearch Expansion Project and Winrock International.Edited by Richard M. Hansen, Benson M. Woie and R. DennisChild.Winrock International Institute for AgriculturalDevelopment, Morrilton, AR 72110, USA.Mukhebi, A.W., A.M. Gitunu, J. Kavoi, and J. Iroha. 1985a.Agro—pastoral systems of southern Machakos district.Socio—economics division, National Range Research Centre,Kiboko, Makindu, Kenya.Mukhebi, A.W., A.M. Gitunu, J. Kavoi, and J. Iroha. 1985b.Impact of the 1983/84 drought on cattle sheep and goatsin Kenya. Socio—economics division, National RangeResearch Centre, Kiboko, Makindu, Kenya.Munro, J.F. 1975. Colonial rule and the Akamba. Social changein the Kenya highlands, 1889-1939. Claredon Press,Oxford, England.Muthiani, J. 1973. Akamba from within. Egalitarianism insocial relations. Exposition Press, New York, USA.Ngutter, L. 1983. The strength and weakness of pastoralsystems research with particular reference to ILCA’sprogrammes. ILCA Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.129O’Leary, M. 1980. The growth and decline of householdherds in eastern Kitui, Kenya. Pages 211-229 in: Ethnographic Museum of Sweden, Stockholm. Vol. 45(III—IV)1980.Ott, L. 1988. An introduction to statistical methods and dataanalysis. Third Edition. Merrell Dow Research Institute.PWS-Kent Publishing Company, Boston.Pasha, I.K. 1986. Evolution of individuation of group ranchesin Maasailand. Pages 303—317 in: Range development andresearch in Kenya. Proceedings of a conference.Agricultural Resources Centre Egerton College Njoro,Kenya, April 1-5, 1986. Cosponsored by Kiboko RangeResearch Expansion Project and Winrock International.Edited by Richard M. Hansen, Benson M. Woie and R. DennisChild. Winrock International Institute for AgriculturalDevelopment, Morrilton, AR 72110, USA.Patterson, P.S., and P. Semenye. 1980. A study of Maasai herdson Elangata Wuas group ranch in Kajiado district, Kenya.Working document 14. ILCA, Nairobi, KenyaPratt, D. J., and M.D. Gwynne 1977. Rangeland management andecology in east Africa. Robert E. Krieger publishingcompany, Huntington, New York, 1977.Rukandema, M., J.K. Mavua and P. Audi. 1981. The farmingsystems of lowland Machakos district, Kenya. A report onfarm survey results from Mwala location. Technical reportNo. 1 UNDP/FAO Dryland Farming Research and DevelopmentProject, Katuinani, Kenya.Sadera, P.L.K. 1986. Group ranches in Kenya. Pages 19—27 in:Range development and research in Kenya. Proceedings ofa conference. Agricultural Resources Centre EgertonCollege Njoro, Kenya, April 1—5, 1986. Cosponsored byKiboko Range Research Expansion Project and WinrockInternational. Edited by Richard M. Hansen, Benson M.Woie and R. Dennis Child. Winrock International Institutefor Agricultural Development, Morrilton, AR 72110, USA.Savory, A. 1988. Holistic resource management. Island Press,1718 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 300, Washington, DC20009.Sintio, R.K. 1989. Perspectives of the precedents for thefailure on rangelands development projects in Kajiadodistrict of Kenya between 1960 and 1980. M.Sc. technicalessay, Dept. Plant sci., Univ. Brit. Columbia, Canada.130Spencer, P. 1973. Nomads in alliance. Symbiosis and growthamong the Redille and Samburu of Kenya. Oxford UniversityPress, New York, USA.Spencer, P. 1988. The Naasai of Matapato. “A study of ritualsof Rebellion”. Indiana University Press, Bloomington andIndianapolis in association with the InternationalAfrican Institute.Stoddart, L.A., A.D Smith, and T.W. Box. 1975. Range management. Third edition. McGraw-Hill Book Company.Tignor, R. 1976. The colonial transformation of Kenya: Akamba,Kikuyu and Maasai from 1900-1939. Princeton UniversityPress, New Jersey, USA.Trevor, W.R., and P.Semenye. 1983. Livestock productivity andmanagement. Pastoral System Research in Sub—SaharanAfrica. ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.131Appendix 1. Study QuestionnaireTHE NATIONAL RANGE RESEARCH CENTRE, KIBOKO, KENYA.(SOCIO-ECONOMIC DIVISION)A QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE SURVEY OF LIVESTOCK INVENTORY,PRODUCER’S BEHAVIOUR AND MARKETING IN SOUTHERNMACHAKOS AND KAJIADO DISTRICTS.PART I. GENERAL BACKGROUND:1. Date of interview2. Name of interviewers 1.2.3.3. Name of farm4. Size of farm (hectares)5. State the year when the farm was started6. Identify the geographic location of the farm (Table below).Administration Unit NameDivisionLocat ionSub-locationNearest shopping centre (1cm)7. Is there a weather station from here?Yes , No8. If Yes how far is this weather station fromhere? km.1329. Identify Interviewees background information (Table below).Name(s) Highest classformal education reachedName(s) Name other occupations, e.g.shop, crop farming, civil servantteacher, other business (name) etcName(s) Age Farm owner, Years spentmanager, member on farmHighest Professional training receivedMonths in ayear spenton the farm13310. Indicate the land tenure and ownership information (Tablebelow).Farm Size Legality Rented Inheri- Bought GivenNo. (Ha) Titled No Title ted11. Quantify the number of persons living on the farm (Tablebelow).Age/sex group Total numberAdult malesAdult femalesChildren (<14 years of age)13412. Quantify the number of persons attending teachinginstitutions and working or owning any business elsewhere(Table below).—Total•Business! TotalInstitution No.•Employment No.—Nursery School.Primary School.High school.University.College (name).Adult classes.PART II. LIVESTOCK INVENTORY AND OTHER SERVICES:13. Do you board your livestock to other farmer?yes , No14. If Yes, briefly list reasons why you do so.(a)(b)(C)(d)13515. Indicate the number of livestock types and classes hoardedaway and in, presently (Table below).Hoarding Cow Heifer Steer Bull Calf Goats SheepHoarded awayHoarded in16. Where do you hoard your livestock? (a) group ranch(b) individual ranch (c) private ranch(d) others (name)13617. In the last one year indicate the following livestockhandling activities (Table below).No. No. No. No. No. No. No. No. NoBn* Dd* Std* Sd* Ga* Gi* Bt* Lt* Pd*AGECattle<lyr. Male calfFemale calf1-2yr. BullHeiferSteer>3yr. BullCowSteer3heep<lyr. Male lambFemale lamb>lyr. EweRamWetherGoat<lyr. Male kidFemale kid>lyr. NannyBuckWetherOther* Bn=Born Sd=Sold Bt=BoughtDd=Died Ga=Given away Lt=LostStd=Slaughtered Gi=Given in Pd=Preyed13718. Quantify livestock numbers kept on the farm:Cattle owned now (Table below).CALVES (<lyr.) IMMATURE (1-3yr.) MATURES (>3yr.)TOTALMale Female Bull Heifer Steer Bull Cow Steer19. Indicate the major cattle breed: , others20. State the general condition of the herd: very goodgood , fair , poor21. Source of breeding material: Al , bullIs this source reliable? Yes————, No22. Do you own or use improved bull? If ‘yes’ name thebreed23. Sheep owned now (Table below).LAMBS (<lyr.) MATURES (>lyr.)TOTALMale Female Ewe Ram Wether24. Indicate the major sheep breed: , Others25. State the general condition of the flock: very goodgood , fair , poor26. Source of breeding material: A.I , ramIs this source reliable? Yes , No27. Do you own or use improved ram? If ‘yes’ name thebreed13828. Goats owned now (Table below).KIDS (<lyr.) MATURES (>lyr.)TOTALMale Female Nanny Buck Wether29. Indicate the major goat breed: , others30. State the general condition of the flock:very good , good , fair , poor31. Source of breeding material: A.I. , buckIs this source reliable? Yes————, No————32. Do you own or use improved buck? If ‘yes’ name thebreed33. Other livestock owned now (Table below).ConditionSpecies NumberVery good Good Fair Poor34. Indicate type and source of labour the followingactivities (Table below).Family Hired Male Labour Female LabourActivity Labour LabourAdult Young Adult YoungCattle herdGoat flockSheep flock13935. Indicate (tick) how you supplement your animals in dryseasons: Pasture hiring———, crop residue———, commercialfeeds———, others (name)———36. If crop residue is used which part of the plant is used?stems————, leaves————, seeds————, whole plant————.37. How do you dispose of farm manure?Sale————, Farm use————, burning————, left idle————38. How far are the agricultural extension agents from yourfarm? km. and how often do they visit you?regularly———, sometimes———, on request———, never———39. Indicate (tick) whether you receive/carry out thefollowing services (Table below).Service Never Regularly Irregularly RemarksClinical casesTrypanosomeDewormingMineral saltVaccinationsCrop husbandryHome economics40. If you do not receive any of the above extension services,state the reasons why?41. What can be done to improve this situation?42. Do you keep any farm/livestock records? YesNo14043. If ‘yes’, what kind of records do youkeep?44. Why don’t you keep them if “no”?45. Are there farm records you don’t keep and if ‘yes’,why?46. Who can help you and how can you be helped to keep recordscontinuously?47. If you were assured confidentiality of your records, wouldyou keep them? Yes----, No----48. Why can’t you keep them if “no”?49. What can the government do to enable you start keepingrecords continuously?50. Have agricultural extension agents asked/helped you keeprecords? yes———, No———51. What type of wildlife do you have in the area? Name thespecies14152. What benefits or losses do you get from the presence ofwildlife in this area? (Table below).Benefits Losses53. Identify major water sources for the Farm/Ranch in variousseasons for the Farm/Ranch in various seasons during theyear (Table below).Wet Season Dry Season QualitySourceNumber Distance Number Distance Hard, SoftMuddy, ClearRiven StreamDamPondPoolBoreholeShallow wellPiped waterOthers54. Is this the same water used for human consumption?yes———, no———.14255. If ‘no’ state why not and where water for humanconsumption comes from:56. How do you transport water for human consumption fromsources to the house? human , donkey ,bicycle , others (name)57. At present where are you taking your livestock for thefollowing activities? (Table below).Activity Stock type Name of Place Distance from Farm (kin)CattleGrazingSheep! GoatCattleWateringSheep/GoatWatering CattlefrequencySheep/GoatPART III. LIVESTOCK MARKETING:58. How far is the nearest livestock market or auction yardfrom your farm? km.59. Rank the type of livestock you sell often starting withthe most often sold: Cattle , Sheep , Goat60. How do you choose animals for market? AgeProduction , Sex61. Do middlemen and speculators play any role in livestockmarketing? Yes , No14362. What is the highest and the lowest price you have realisedin the last six months from the sale of your livestock?(Table below).‘Stock Highest Lowest Class/Sex of ‘Stock Acie Live Wt.Price Price 1 2 1 2CattleSheepGoat63. Rank the buyers of your livestock in order of theirpriority:ProducerButcherTraderK.M.C.L.M.D.Others (name)64. Rank where most money realised from the sale of livestockis spent on:ClothingFoodHousehold goodsSchool feesPurchase animalsOthers (name)65. On what basis do you sell your animals? block weightlive weight how much per kg? Ksh., Visualappraisal14466. Are there time you cannot sell your animals due to lack ofmarket/buyers? Yes————, no————67. If “yes” name such periods or seasons and briefly statethe reasons why:68. How do you transport your animals to the market place?Hoof--——, Motor Vehicle-----, Railway69. How long does it take to reach the market? hrs/days.70. State the estimated percent loss in transit if any:71. Rank the class of Livestock sold most as 1,2,3(Table below).Cattle Rank Sheep Rank Goat RankCow Ewe Nanniesbulls Rams Billiesweaners lambs kidsheifers hoggets hoggetssteers wethers castratesculls culls culls72. What do you do with the unsold animals on a market day?73. What can be done to improve the livestock market?14574. Indicate your family’s major food types and sources ofthose foods (Table below).Food type Source Reliability of source123456775. Rank the livestock you slaughter most for your family orvisitors as 1,2,3, etc.Cattle---—, Sheep----, Goat--—-, Chicken---—, Rabbits----,Others———— (name)76*. Indicate what you perceive as fractions from livestockand crop productions contributing to the total farmincome:Livestock: None————, 0.25,————, 0.50————, Full————Crop: None————, 0.25,————, 0.50————, Full————77* Indicate what you perceive as the fractions from on—farmproduction and from off—farm sources contributing to thetotal family income:On—farm: None———, 0.125———, 0.25———, 0.5———, 0.75———,0.875———, Full———off—farm: None———, 0.125———, 0.25———, 0.5———, 0.75———,1460.875———, Full———78*. Indicate what you perceive as the fractions from business,salary/wage, and from remittance of Children (sons anddaughters) as well as from other relatives contributing tothe total off—farm income:Business: None———, 0.125———, 0.25———, 0.5———, 0.75———,0.875———, Full———Salary/Wage: None———, 0.125———, 0.25———, 0.5———, 0.75———,0.875———, Full———Children/Relatives: None———, 0.125———, 0.25———, 0.5———,0.75———, 0.875———, Full———*= Data based on the 1985 survey work of the same study area.PART IV. MIGRATION PATTERN:79. What is the impact of ranch subdivision on your livestockkeepingactivities?14780. Are there other ethnic groups living here? Yes———, No—-—.If ‘yes’, rank those groups in order of their populationmagnitude starting with the most populous (Table below).Name of Group Ranking Main Occupation Remarks1234581. Has the influx of other ethnic groups influenced yourlifestyle? Yes----, No--—-.82. If ‘yes’ briefly explain how your lifestyle has beeninfluenced.(a) have started food crop farming(b) have started business(c) have started looking for jobs(d) have started educating children(e) have changed my dressing style(f) have leased apart of my farm for farming(g) Others (name)PART V. MILK PRODUCTION:83. How many cows are you milking now?84. Out of the animals being milked, how many are gradecattle85. How many milk let-downs do you milk before letting the148calf to suckle? one————, two—-——, three————, four————.86. Do you milk small stock? yes , no87. Record the following information (Table below).Indigenous GradeMilkingCow Goat Sheep Cow Goat SheepNumbermilkedAverage (kg)daily milkProduction88. What time of the day and how many times do you milk?(Table below).Morning Time Afternoon TimeCowsGoatSheep89. How much milk on average do you sell daily to:(a) Hotels Kg at Ksh per Kg.(b) neighbours Kg at Ksh per Kg.(C) Co-operative Kg at Ksh per Kg.(d) Others (name) Kg at Ksh per Kg.14990. How much milk on average do you set aside daily for homeconsumption? Kg.91. Indicate the following cattle breakdown (Table below).Cattle NumberBoran bullsBoran Cows/heifersSahiwal bullsSahiwal cows/heifersSahiwal X Boran cows/heifersSahiwal X Indigenous cows/heifersBoran X Indigenous cows/heifersIndigenous X Boran X Sahiwal cows/heifersIndigenous cows/heifersIndigenous bullsOther breeds (name)(1)(2)15092. Indicate the following sheep and goat breakdown(table below).aSheep types Number Goat types Number.Red Maasai•Small E. African.Dorper•Galla.Dorper X Red Maasai•Merino.Others (name) • Galla X Small E. Afr..(1)•Others (name).(2) . . . . . . . . . . .• (1) . . . . . . . . .15193. Indicate the presence/absence and the usage of thepublic utilities either being regular, irregular or non-usage (Table below).Sedentary Amenities Present Absent Distance — UsagReg Ireg NeverNursery SchoolPrimary SchoolSecondary/High Sch.College (name)ChurchMosqueHealth CentreTechnical SchoolShopping CentreAgric. OfficeVeterinary OfficeCattle plunge dipPublic TransportRural Water DevelopElectricity SupplyTelephone ServiceManufacture Factory(name)Tarmac roads152PART VI. RESPONDENT’S ASSESSMENT:94. Enumerators’ Assessment of the respondents’ behaviour(Table below).Tick Respondent(s)’ BehaviourFactorV. good Good Average Poor V. PoorCooperation in answering questionsSincerity in answering questionsHow well informed ishe/shePatience during theinterviewPrecision/decisivenessof respondent’s answers(1) Other factor_______state(2) Other factor_______state153Appendix 2. Tables of FrequenciesTable a. Family members by age/sex category Makueni district,Kenya, 1991/1992.Location Child Men Women TotalKasi]ceu 263 159 145 567Mtito—Andei 239 134 160 533Total 502 293 305 110Table b. Livestock species owned, Makueni district, Kenya,1991/1992.Location CA SH GO CH DU RA DO TotalKasikeu 388 230 458 907 9 57 3 2052Mtito—andei 311 150 631 968 11 4 5 2080Total 699 380 1089 1875 20 61 8 4132Explanation of Abbreviation:CA CattleSH SheepGO GoatCH ChickenDU DuckRA RabbitDO DonkeyTable c. Family farm (ha) allocated to livestock grazing andcrop growing, Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992.Location Crop Livestock TotalKasikeu 286 492 778Mtito—Andei 371 1051 1422Total 657 1543 2200154Table d. Income (Ksh) realised from sale of livestock species,Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992.Location Cattle Goat Sheep TotalKasikeu 48400 3960 540 52900Mtito—Andei 43900 8856 2660 55416Total 92300 12816 3200 108316Table e. Income (Ksh) realised from sale of livestock types,Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992.Location BK BU DO HE RN ST TotalKasikeu 3110 6800 850 2500 540 39100 52900Mtito—Andei 4090 3800 5016 23500 2110 16600 55116Total 7200 10600 5866 26000 2650 55700 108016Explanation of Abbreviation:BK BuckBU BullDO DoeHE HeiferRN RainST SteerTable f. Respondents ranking local butchers as buyers of theirlivestock, Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992.Location First Second TotalKasikeu 6 20 26Mtito—Andei 17 11 28Total 23 31 54155Table g. Respondents indicating grazing places, Makuenidistrict, Kenya, 1991/1992.Location On-farm Off-farm TotalKasikeu 26 5 31Mtito-Andei 26 1 27Total 52 6 58Table h. Respondents indicating watering places, Makuenidistrict, Kenya, 1991/1992.Location On-farm Off-farm TotalKasikeu 24 7 31Mtito-Andei 11 16 27Total 35 23 58Table i. Respondents indicating sources of water, Makuenidistrict, Kenya, 1991/1992.Location River Others TotalKasi]ceu 23 21 44Mtito-Andei 19 38 57Total 42 59 101Table j. Respondents indicating watering frequency,Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992.Location Daily Otherday TotalKasikeu 31Mtito-Andei 27Total 50 8 58252562156Table k. Extension services offered to agro—pastoralists,Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992.Loc CR DE HO MI TI VA CL TR TotalKas 21 21 11 11 30 31 31 0 156Mti 24 22 19 19 27 27 28 24 190Tot 45 43 30 30 57 58 59 24 322Explanation of Abbreviation:Loc LocationKas KasikeuTot TotalCR Crop husbandry servicesDE Deworniing services to livestockHO Hone economics servicesMI Mineral salts services to livestockTI Tick—borne disease servicesVA Vaccination services to livestockCL Clinical services to livestock for general diseasesTR Trypanosomiasis to livestockTable 1. Respondents indicating food crop types grown byagro-pastoralists, Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992.Loc MA BE PP CP MI GG CA SP OT TotKas 31 31 22 22 21 3 17 11 6 164Mti 32 28 24 32 22 12 12 5 11 178Tot 63 59 46 54 43 15 29 16 17 342Explanation of Abbreviation:MA Maize (Corn)BE BeansPP Pigeon peasCP Cow peasMI MilletsGG Green gramsCA CassavaSP Sweet potatoesOT Other157Table in. Respondents indicating milking cows and goats,Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992.Location Cows Goats TotalKasikeu 23 3 26Mtito—Andei 14 14 28Total 37 17 54Table n. Respondents indicating crop residue and other foddersfed to livestock, Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992.Location Residue Others TotalKasikeu 31 10 41Mtito-Andei 17 9 26Total 48 19 67Table o. mount of milk produced in the morning and in theevening, Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992.Location Morning Evening TotalKasikeu 82 60 142Mtito—Andei 25 15 40Total 107 75Table p. Respondents indicating stimulating milch animalseither once or twice, Makueni district, Kenya 1991/1992.Location Once Twice TotalKasikeu 11 13 24Mtito—Andei 10 5 15Total 21 18 39158Table q. Children attending teaching institutions, Makuenidistrict, Kenya, 1991/1992.Location Nursery Primary Highschool College TotalKasikeu 26 77 30 5 138Mtito—Andei 35 87 19 3 144Total 61 164 49 8 282Table r. mount of milk consumed at home and the amount sold,Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992.Location Home Sale TotalKasikeu 129 9 138Mtito-Andei 36 5 41Total 165 14 179Table s. Respondents indicating fractions of the total farmincome realised from livestock production, Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992.Loc None 1/8 1/4 1/2 3/4 7/8 Full TotalKas 1 7 15 1 5 2 0 31Nti 0 4 20 1 6 0 0 32Tot 1 11 35 2 11 2 1 63Table t. Respondents indicating fractions of total farm incomerealised from crop production, Makueni district, Kenya,1991/1992.Loc None 1/8 1/4 1/2 3/4 7/8 Full TotalKas 0 2 5 1 15 7 1 31Mti 1 0 6 1 20 4 0 32Tot 1 2 11 2 35 11 1 63159Table u. Respondents indicating fractions of the total familyincome realised from on-farm production, Makueni district,Kenya, 1991/1992.Loc None 1/8 1/4 1/2 3/4 7/8 Full fTotal NKas 0 0 2 1 16 7 5 31mti 0 1 1 1 15 6 8 32Tot 0 1 3 2 31 13 13 63Table v. Respondents indicating fractions total family incomerealised from off-farm activities, Makueni district, Kenya,1991/1992.Loc None 1/8 1/4 1/2 3/4 7/8 Full ITotalKas 7 5 16 1 2 0 0 31Mti 8 6 15 1 1 1 0 32Totl5 11 31 2 3 1 0 63Table w. Respondents indicating fractions of total off-farmincome realised from business, Makueni district, Kenya,1991/1992.Loc None 1/8 1/4 1/2 3/4 7/8 Full TotalKas 21 1 0 0 3 2 4 31Mti 16 0 1 1 0 1 13 32Tot 37 1 1 1 3 3 17 63Table x. Respondents indicating fractions of total off—farm income realised from wage, Makueni district, Kenya,1991/1992.Loc None 1/8 1/4 1/2 3/4 7/8 Full TotalKas 18 1 1 0 0 3 8 31Mti 26 1 0 1 1 0 3 32Tot 44 2 1 1 1 3 11 63160Table y. Respondents indicating fractions of total off-farmincome realised from sons/daughters/relatives and otherrelatives, Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992.Loc None 1/8 1/4 1/2 3/4 7/8 Full TotalKas 18 5 2 0 0 2 4 31Mti 27 0 0 0 0 0 5 32Tot 45 5 2 0 0 2 9 63Table z. Respondents indicating fractions of total farm incomerealised from livestock production, Makueni district,Kenya, 1991/1992.Location Half or less More than half TotalKasikeu 24 7 31Mtito-Andei 25 7 32Total 49 14 63Table aa. Respondents indicating fractions of total farmincome realised from crop production, Makueni district,Kenya, 1991/1992.Location Half or less More than half TotalKasikeu 8 23 31Mtito—Andei 7 25 32Total 15 48 63Table ab. Respondents indicating fractions of the total familyincome realised from on-farm production, Makueni district,Kenya, 1991/1992.Location Half or less More than half TotalKasikeu 3 28 31Mtito-Andei 3 29 32Total 6 57 63161Table ac. Respondents indicating fractions of total familyincome, realised from off—farm sources, Makueni district,Kenya, 1991/1992.Location Half or less More than half TotalKasikeu 29 2 31Mtito-Andei 30 2 32Total 59 4 63Table ad. Respondents indicating fractions of the total offfarm income realised from business, Makueni district,Kenya, 1991/1992.Location Half or less More than half TotalKasikeu 22 9 31Mtito—Andei 18 14 32Total 40 23 63Table ae. Respondents indicating fractions of total offfarm income remitted by sons, daughters and relatives,Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992.Location Half or less More than half TotalKasikeu 25 6 31Mtito-Andei 27 5 32Total 52 11 63Table af. Respondents indicating fractions of total off-farmincome realised from salary/wage earning, Makueni district,Kenya, 1991/1992.Location Half or less More than half TotalKasikeu 20 11 31Mtito-Andei 28 4 32Total 48 15 63162Table ag. Respondents showing fractions of crops andlivestock production contributing to the total farmincome, Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992.Production Half or less More than half TotalCrops 15 48 63Livestock 49 14 63Total 64 62 126Table ah. Respondents showing fractions of on—farm and off—farm contributing to the total family income, Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992.Source Half or less More than half TotalOn—farm 6 57 63Off—farm 49 4 53Total 55 61 116Table ai. Respondents showing fractions of business, salary/wage earning and, remittance from sons, daughters andrelatives contributing to the total on—farm income, Makuenidistrict, Kenya, 1991/1992.Source Half or more More than half TotalBusiness 40 23 63wage 48 15 63Kins 52 11 63Total 140 49 189163Table aj. Respondents ranking items of the family expenditureas either first, second or third in the order of the totalfamily income each item claims, Makueni district, Kenya,1991/1992.Item First Second Third TotalSchool 40 13 1 54Clothes 2 15 6 23Household 2 11 10 23Food 6 12 5 23Others 11 9 9 29Total 61 60 31 152Table ak. Respondents ranking school expenses as either firstor second in expenditure, Makueni district, Kenya,1991/1992.Location First Second TotalKasikeu 25 5 30Mtito—Andei 17 10 27Total 42 15 57Table al. Proportions of respondents (P<O.84) ranking clothingexpenses as either first or second in expenditure, Makuenidistrict, Kenya, 1991/1992.Location First Second TotalKasikeu 13 7 20Mtito-Andei 8 5 13Total 21 12 33164Table am. Respondents ranking household expenses as eitherfirst or second in expenditure, Makueni district, Kenya,1991/1992.Location First Second TotalKasikeu 8 6 14Mtito—Andei 5 6 11Total 13 12 25Table an. Respondents ranking food stuff expenses aseither first or second in expenditure, Makueni district,Kenya, 1991/1992.Location First Second TotalKasikeu 12 10 22Mtito-Andei 10 5 15Total 22 15 37Table ao. Respondents ranking “other” expenses as either firstor second in expenditure, Makueni district, Kenya,1991/1992.Location First Second TotalKasikeu 5 7 12Mtito-Andei 10 6 16Total 15 13 28165Appendix 3. Non-significant Result FiguresFigure a. Proportions (P<O.226) of family members, Makuenidistrict, Kenya, 1991/1992.50403o-RCENT20-10-KASIKEU___//__/MTITO-ANDEISTUDY AREAWOMEN LIMEN__CHILDREN1660-iFigure bi. Proportions (P.cO.172) of respondents indicatingfood types grown, Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992.20-’STUDY AREAG-GRAMSP-PEASMILLETI BEANS167I 1 C-PEASI MAIZE/PERCENT15-10-5-//0-jKASIKEU MTITO-ANDEIFigure b2. Proportions (P<O.172) of respondents indicatingfood types grown, Makueni district, Kenya, 199L/1992./STUDY AREAOTHERS S-POTATO168I___I CASSAVA12-i10-8-6-4-2-pERCENT1/ /zj0-KASIKEU MTITO-ANDEIFigure c. Proportions (PcO.121) of the respondents indicatinggrazing places, inakueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992.pERCENTSTUDY AREAON-FARM OFF-FARM/100-80-60-40-200- /KASIKEU/MTITO-AN DEl169Figure d. Proportions (P<O.188) of respondents indicatingwatering frequency, Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992.PERCENT100STUDY AREADAILY OTHERDAY/80-60-40-20-0- //KASIKEU MTITO-AN DEl170Figure e. Proportions (P.co.574) indicating governmentextension services, makueni district, Kenya 1991/1992.PERCENT25STUDY AREASALTSI TICKS___HOMEC I I CROPS WA DEWORMCLINICS VACCINES-20-15-10-5-0-KASIKEU MTITO-AN DEl171Figure f. proportions (P<O.59) of the amount of milk (Kg)produced in the morning and in the evening, Makuenidistrict, Kenya 1991/1992.5OSTUDY AREAMORNING___EVENING/7060-/pERCENT40-30-20-•10-KASIKEU MT ITO-AN DEl172Pigure g. Proportions (P<O.204) of respondents indicatingcalf-stimulation of the much animal, Makueni district,Kenya 1991/1992.60-KASIKEUSTUDY AREAONCE___TWICE70-/PERCENT//50-40-30-20-10-0- / /MTITO—AN DEl173Pigure h. Proportions (P<O.235) of the amount of (Kg) milkconsumed at home and the amount sold, Makueni district,Kenya, 1991/1992.PERCENTSTUDY AREAHOME I1SALE/7 //10080-60-4020//0-KASIKEU/MTITO-ANDEI174Figure i. Proportions (P<O.366) of the respondents feedingcrop residue/stubble and fodders, Makueni district, Kenya,1991/1992.70-60-50-4030-20-10-0KASIKEU MT ITO-AN DElSTUDY AREARESIDUE FODDERS/PERCENT/ / /175Figure j. Proportions (PcO.967) of respondents indicatingfractions of the total family income from on—farm, Makuenidistrict, Kenya 3.985.10O-80-60-RCENT40-200-KASIKEU MTITO-ANDEISTUDY AREA<.HALF >HALF/ / /176MT ITO-AN DE ISTUDY AREA<•HALF tS >HALF80-Figure k. Proportions (PcO.974) of respondents indicatingfractions of the total family income from off-farm, Makuenidistrict, Kenya, 1985.____/PERCENTI60-40-20-01/0- //KASIKEU177Figure 1. Proportions (P<O.946) of respondents indicatingfractions of the total farm income from livestock, Makuenidistrict, Kenya, 1985.100-60-40-20-/KASIKEU MTITO-ANDEISTUDY AREA<•HALF >HALF80- / / / /IPERCENTI I______/0-178Pigure m. Proportions (PcO.714) of respondents indicatingfractions of the total farm income from crops, Makuenidistrict, Kenya, 1985.100STUDY AREAc.HALF 1 >HALF80-60RCENT40-20-0-/‘/I/ I/KASIKEU MTITO-ANDEI179Figure n. Proportions (PcO.225) of respondents indicatingfractions of the total off—farm income from business,Makueni district, Kenya 1985.8060-pERC4o-T200-KASIKEUSTUDY AREAIMTITO-AN DEl<•HALF >HALF/180Figure 0. Proportions (P<O.697) of respondents indicatingfraction of the total off-farm income fromsons/daughter/kin Makueni district, Kenya, 1985.<•HALF >HALF7 //pERCENT80604020-0- /KASIKEU1Z?MTITO-ANDEISTUDY AREA181Figure p. Proportions (P<O.O81) of respondents ranking schoolexpenses as first or second priority, Makueni district,Kenya, 1991/1992.10060-40-20-KASIKEU MTITO-ANDEISTUDY AREAFIRST 1L SECOND80-PERCENT/0-182PERCENTFIRST___SECOND/Figure q. proportions (PicO.84) of respondents rankingpurchases of the clothing as first or second priority,Makueni district, Kenya, 1991/1992.7O-60-50-40-30-20-100- / IKASIKEU MTITO-ANDEI/ /STUDY AREA183Figure r. Proportions (P<O.561) of respondents rankingpurchase of household goods as first or second priority,Makueni district, Kenya, 1992.6040-PERC30-T20-10-/KASIKEUSTUDY AREAMTITO-AN DElFIRST iSECOND50-0-184Figure s. Proportions (PcO.274) of respondents rankingpurchase of other items as first or second priority,Makueni district, Kenya 1991/1992.pERCENT7060-50-40-3020-10-0-STUDY AREAFIRST \\ISECOND////—IKASIKEU MTITO-ANDEI185
Thesis/Dissertation
eng
Plant Science
Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library
For non-commercial purposes only, such as research, private study and education. Additional conditions apply, see Terms of Use https://open.library.ubc.ca/terms_of_use.
Graduate
Description and comparison of the factors affecting production and management practices in two ecologically different agro-pastoral communities of Makueni district, Kenya
Text