Abstract
Technologies and services provided to resource-poor farmers need to be relevant and compatible with the context in which they operate. This paper examines the contribution of extension services to the food security of resource-poor farmers in a rural village in South Africa. It considers these in terms of the local context and the production of African vegetables in household food plots. A mixture of participatory, qualitative and quantitative research tools, including a household survey, is used to argue that local production practices contribute more to food security requirements than the extension services. This is because of the ability of African vegetables to grow relatively well in semi-arid areas where other exotic plants do not, their ability to provide at least two foodstuffs during their life cycle, and the ability of either the fruit or the leaves, or both, to be dried and stored for consumption in the winter months. These crops can make a significant contribution in terms of household food security, but a number of social and agroecological factors are constraining their production and placing their availability under threat. Despite this, the extension services remain focused on certain activities within vegetable garden projects, even when these are not meeting their proposed purpose—food security by means of cash-crop production. The paper concludes that social and agroecological constraints could be improved if the extension services were changed. This could include the use of context specific and low-cost technologies to ensure that these crops are able to increase their contribution to household food security for resource-poor farmers in semi-arid areas.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
At the time of the study US$ 1.00 was equivalent to ZAR 7.00. With an average household size of 4.77 members 83% of the residents would be living on less than US$2 per day and 49% would be living on less than US$1 per day.
Intercropping was the norm on fields and in home gardens. Villagers argued that this was necessary for two reasons. Firstly, the small sizes of their fields and gardens meant the only way to their efficient? use of the land was to intercrop. Secondly, they argued that intercropping as practiced by them restored nutrients to the soil and that certain crops grew well together.
Reasons included (a) insufficient funds for purchasing fencing materials to enclose food plots and protect them from roaming livestock, and (b) no time to work in food plots.
Although a preference, red meat was seldom consumed. Chicken (mainly necks, head and feet) and fish (mainly canned fish or fish heads) were most often consumed. The regularity of consuming any type of meat depended largely on a household’s access to small livestock (poultry) and income, as most meat was purchased.
Observations indicated that quantities consumed, rather than regularity, decreased over the winter period as women tried to extend the supply until the summer rains.
Despite their preference for exotic vegetables the youth acknowledged having to consume African vegetables as their socioeconomic and ecological circumstances prevented them from purchasing or producing the preferred exotic vegetables most of the time.
Conventional technology here involves the cultivation of monocropped, hybrid varieties, requiring irrigation and which is managed using inorganic fertilizer, pesticide and herbicide.
Extension officers and their activities are embedded in a hierarchical bureaucratic structure and as such their activities are often highly dependent on national and provincial policies, objectives and budgets. These determine the focus and content of services. While some officials may see areas of concern and the significance of redirecting services towards these, they are largely powerless to change the focus of the current services due to policy design (see DOA 2001) and budget constraints. Criticisms are directed at the extension service as a whole and not at individual officials.
References
Adey, S. 2007. A journey without maps: Towards sustainable subsistence agriculture in South Africa. PhD. Thesis. Wageningen, Netherlands: Wageningen University.
AGIS. 2008. AGIS comprehensive atlas. Agricultural geo-referenced information system. http://www.agis.agric.za/agisweb/agis.html. Accessed 23 June 2008.
Aliber, M. 2009. Exploring Statistics South Africa’s national household surveys as sources of information about food security and subsistence agriculture. Unpublished Report, Centre for Poverty Employment and Growth, Pretoria, South Africa: Human Sciences Research Council.
Babbie, E., and J. Mouton. 2001. The practice of social research. (South African Edition). Cape Town, South Africa: Oxford University Press.
Bundy, C. 1988. The rise and fall of the South African Peasantry, 2nd ed. Cape Town, South Africa: David Phillip.
Chambers, R., A. Pacey, and L.A. Thrupp (eds.). 1989. Farmer first: Farmer innovation and agricultural research. London, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Chweya, J.A., and P.B. Eyzaguirre (eds.). 1999. The biodiversity of traditional leafy vegetables. Rome, Italy: International Plant Genetic Resources Institute.
DOA (Department of Agriculture, South Africa). 2001. The strategic plan for South African agriculture. Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Agriculture.
DOA (Department of Agriculture, South Africa). 2002. The integrated food security strategy for South Africa. Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Agriculture.
DOA (Department of Agriculture, South Africa). 2008. The state of extension and advisory service within the agricultural public service: A need for recovery. Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Agriculture.
Düvel, G. 2004. Developing an appropriate extension approach for South Africa: Process and method. South African Journal of Extension 33: 1–10.
Hunter, L., W. Twine, and L. Patterson. 2007. ‘Locusts are now our beef’: Adult mortality and household dietary use of local environmental resources in rural South Africa. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health 35(Suppl 69): 165–174.
Jansen van Rensburg, W.S., W. van Averbeke, R. Slabbert, M. Faber, P. van Jaarsveld, I. van Heerden, H. Wenhold, and A. Oelofse. 2007. African leafy vegetables in South Africa. Water SA 33(3): 311–316.
Labadarios, D., R. Swart, E.M.W. Maunder, H.S. Kruger, G.J. Gericke, P.M.N. Kuzwayo, P.R. Ntsie, N.P. Steyn, I. Schloss, M.A. Dhansay, P.L. Jooste, A. Dannhauser, J.H. Nel, D. Molefe, and T.J.v.W. Kotze. 2008. National food consumption survey-fortification baseline (NFCS-FB-I) South Africa, 2005. South African Journal Clinical Nutrition 21(3 Supplement 2): 245–300.
Laker, M.C. 2007. Introduction to the special edition of Water SA on indigenous crops, water and human nutrition. Water SA 33(3): 317–326.
Maunder, E.M., and J.L. Meake. 2007. The current and potential contribution of home-grown vegetables to diets in South Africa. Water SA 33(3): 401–406.
Mazibuko, S., T. Hart, M. Aliber, M. Mogale, and S. Mohlakoana. 2007. Baseline information on Technology-oriented Initiatives in Rural Areas to Promote Economic Development, Unpublished Research Report. Pretoria, South Africa: Department of Science and Technology.
Mettrick, H. 1993. Development oriented research in agriculture: An ICRA textbook. Wageningen, Netherlands: International Centre for development oriented Research in Agriculture.
Nederlof, S., and C. Dangbégnon. 2007. Lessons for farmer oriented research: Experiences from a West African soil fertility management project. Agriculture and Human Values 24: 369–387.
Nelson, N., and S. Wright. 1997. Power and participatory development: Theory and practice. London, UK: Intermediate Technology Publications.
Nieuwoudt, L., and J. Groenewald (eds.). 2003. The challenge of change: Agriculture, land and the South African economy. Pietermaritzburg, South Africa: The University of Natal Press.
Parsons, N. 1993. A new history of Southern Africa, 2nd ed. London, UK: MacMillan.
Schippers, R.R. 2002. African Indigenous vegetables. An overview of the cultivated species 2002—revised version on CD-ROM. Aylesford, UK: Natural Resources International Limited.
Scheuermeier, U., E. Katz, and S. Heiland. 2004. Finding new things and ways that work: A manual for introducing participatory innovation development (PID). Lindau, Switzerland: Swiss Center for Agricultural Extension (LBL).
Stats, S.A. 2007. The general household survey 2007. Pretoria, South Africa: Statistics South Africa.
Twine, W., D. Moshe, T. Netshiluvhi, and V. Siphugu. 2003. Consumption and direct-use values of savanna bio-resources used by rural households in Mametja, a semi-arid area of Limpopo province, South Africa. South African Journal of Science 99: 467–473.
Vorster, H.J., W.S. Jansen van Rensburg, X.B. Mashele, and E. Ndlela. 2003. The effect of (re)creating awareness of traditional leafy vegetables on communities. Proceedings of the Indigenous Plant Use Forum Conference, 5–8 July 2003, Clanwilliam, South Africa.
Vorster, H.J. and W.S. Jansen van Rensburg. 2005. Traditional vegetables: An ignored resource? Proceedings of the Southern and Eastern Africa Association for Farming Systems Research-Extension Conference, 19–21 September 2005, Lilongwe, Malawi.
Acknowledgments
The author acknowledges the participation of the village residents and the research and fieldwork contributions of Ineke Vorster, Nicholas Mushwana, Audrey Mathebula and Willem Jansen van Rensburg. Michael Aliber is thanked for assistance with some of the statistical calculations. The Human Sciences Research Council and the Department of Science and Technology are acknowledged for the financial contribution made to the fieldwork. Willem A. Stoop, Harvey S. James and three anonymous reviewers are thanked for their critical and supportive comments of earlier drafts. The views expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of any other party.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hart, T.G.B. The significance of African vegetables in ensuring food security for South Africa’s rural poor. Agric Hum Values 28, 321–333 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-010-9256-z
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-010-9256-z