CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.11 Summary
Arimond & Ruel (2004) stated that young children of different age groups have different eating patterns. Dietary diversity increases as children grow older and, therefore, the age group of children must be borne in mind when developing food group lists for a dietary diversity score. Children 12 - 23 months of age are expected to have a high dietary diversity of four (4) or more food groups out of seven (7) food groups in a day (Arimond & Ruel 2004). This is supported by the studies reviewed by Ruel (2003), which indicated that a mean of the dietary diversity score of more than five (5) in Kenya and Niger was associated with adequate nutrient intake.
However, Ruel (2003) stated that there are no standardized cut-off points and these can be determined by the number of food groups used. The higher the number of food groups used, the higher the cut-off point. Sayed (2004, p40) used 13 food groups and set the cut-off point at half (6) of the food groups. FANTA did not propose a cut-off point. Progress indeveloping a dietary diversity indicator has been slow because of lack of consistent methods and varying relationships or areas that received attention (Steyn, Nel, Nantel, Kennedy & Labadarios 2006). Given the many approaches currently being used and the lack of agreement on dietary diversity score method, the food group list used by Sayed (2004, p40) was used for this study for uniformity within South Africa.
58
could adequately improve micronutrient intakes. However, the methods fail to improve the household food security of households, particularly in rural areas.
Moreover, supplementation is a short-term measure and it is not sustainable in long- term. Dietary diversification, especially when using crop and small livestock production, is recommended because it addresses multiple micronutrient deficiencies and food insecurity at the same time as a long-term measure.
A review of agricultural intervention studies on the impact of production of crops only showed a positive link between crop production and nutrient intake, and crop production and the consumption of vegetables and fruits. A summary is in Table 2.11. Studies on crop production were limited to focus on promoting vitamin A nutrient intake, and vitamin A intakes were improved. Crop production studies produced mixed results with regard to anthropometric status in the few studies where anthropometry was investigated. Productions of crops and livestock as well as livestock only are not well researched areas and firm conclusions cannot be made.
Studies on the relationship between production of crops and/or livestock and food security were not found.
More research is required to determine if crop and/or livestock production improves multiple micronutrient intake, dietary diversity, food security and the anthropometric status of children. The above studies were looking at specific interventions. In contrast, this study is an observational study which aims to determine.and compare these parameters in households producing crops only, crops and livestock, livestock only and non-producers.
Reference, country Study purpose Nutrient intake Dietary Consumption of Consumption of Anthropometric status diversity eggs, meat and milk vegetables and fruits
CROPS ONLY
Jones et al 2005, Promote gardening to NI NI NI Vegetables & fruits t NI
Nepal t vit A & iron
Makhotla & Hendricks Assess gardening & NI NI NI NI stunting no change;
2004, Lesotho nutritional status link underweight & wasttnq 1
Taher et a12004, Promote gardening to VitA i NI NI Vegetables i NI
Bangladesh i vit A
Faber et al 2002a, Promote gardening & NI NI NI Vegetables t NI
South Africa GMP toi vit A
Faber et al 2002b, Promote gardening & iVitA, B6&C, NI NI NI NI
South Africa GMP toi vit A riboflavin
Faber et al 2001, Effects of gardening N/A NI NI NI No significant difference
South Africa on vitA status . for all indicators
Kidala et al 2000, Effects of horticulture NI NI NI Vegetables i NI
Tanzania & NE on vitA
Talukder et al 2000, Home gardening NI NI NI Vegetables i NI
Banuladesh national scale-up
Hagenimana et al Increase vit A intake NI NI NI Orange fleshed sweet NI
1999, Kenva potatoes t
Smitasiri & Dhanamitta Promote gardening to i Vit A & C, iron NI NI NI NI
1999, Thailand i vitA
Phillips et al 1996, Effectiveness of vit A VitA i NI NI NI NI
Guatemala interventions
Greiner & Mitra 1995, i production& NI NI NI Vegetables & fruits i NI
Bangladesh consumption of high carotene foods
Schmidt & Vorster Veg production, Energy & protein NI NI NI NI
1995, South Africa consumption, no significant nutritionalstatus difference
Attig et aJ 1993, Promote gardening to VitA i NI NI NI NI
Thailand i vit A
Solon et al 1979, Effects of horticulture, Vit A i in rural, NI NI NI Wasting t
Phillipines PH & NE on vitA but not urban
Key: t= increased. ~=decreased. GM= growth monitoring, NI = not investigated,NE= nutritioneducation, PH= public health, veg = vegetable production, vit = vitamin
VI
\0
Table 2.11 continued: Summary of studies on crops and/or livestock production and study variables
Reference, country Study purpose Nutrient intake Dietary Consumption of Consumption of Anthropometric status diversity eggs, meat and milk veaetables and fruits
LIVESTOCK ONLY
Ahmed et a/2000, Link dairy production i energy, protein, NI NI NI NI
Ethiopia &human nutrition retinol & iron
Begum 1994, Link dairy production t energy & NI NI NI NI
India &nutrient intake protein
Alderman 1987, i dairy production in i energy & NI NI NI NI
India rural areas protein
CROPS &
LIVESTOCK
HKIINepal 2004, i micronutrient intake NI NI NI Vegetables & fruits i NI
Nepal esoeciallv vit A
Ayalew et al 1999 Gardening & dairy to NI NI i milk intake Vegetables t No significant difference
improve vitA status for all indicators
English & Badcock Effects of gardening i energy, protein, NI NI Vegetables i Stunting t
1998, Vietnam on morbidity vit A & iron
Key: t= increased, L= decreased, GM = growth monitoring, NI = not investigated, NE = nutrition education, PH = public health, veg = vegetable production, vit = vitamin
0'\o