Data_Sheet_1_Mainstreaming traditional fruits, vegetables and pulses for nutrition, income, and sustainability in sub-Saharan Africa: the case for Kenya and Ethiopia.docx

This study documented existing knowledge on traditional fruits, vegetables and pulses in Kenya and Ethiopia. The aim was to identify neglected and underutilized species with high potential for food security, for their economic value and contribution to sustainable agriculture, based on a literature review and confirmation of existing data by local experts. In order of priority, the top 5 fruit species in Kenya are Tamarindus indica L., Adansonia digitata L., Sclerocarya birrea (A.Rich.) Hochst, Balanites aegyptiaca (L.) Delile, and Ziziphus mauritiana Lam., for vegetables are Amaranthus spp., Vigna unguiculata (L.) Walp., Solanum spp., and Cleome gynandra L. Top fruits in Ethiopia are Balanites aegyptiaca (L.) Delile, Ziziphus spina-christi (L.) Desf., Cordeauxia edulis Hemsl., Cordia africana Lam., and Mimusops kummel A. DC., for vegetables are Brassica carinata A. Braun, Cucurbita pepo L., and Amaranthus spp. In both countries, priority pulse species (no ranking) are Phaseolus lunatus L., Sphenostylis stenocarpa (A.Rich.) Harms, Mucuna pruriens (L.) DC., Lablab purpureus (L.) Sweet, and Cajanus cajan (L.) Millsp. Generally, these priority species are good sources of key nutrients known for their inadequate dietary intakes in sub-Saharan Africa, represent a safety net for household income, and contribute positively to ecosystem resilience in existing agricultural systems. Complete, accurate and reliable nutrient composition data are needed to raise consumer awareness about their nutritional and health benefits. Since women play a central role in traditional food systems, their empowerment, and hence resilience, increase the positive impact they can have on the households’ dietary diversity. In particular, introducing small-scale processing techniques and marketing strategies could enhance their supply and consumption.</p

Usual daily dietary intakes of non pregnant/non lactating women in Kisangani (city), Turumbu women in Kisangani (city) and Turumbu women in Yaoseko (village)¹.

1<p>All values are usual intake means ± standard deviation, with adjustment for <i>recall day</i> and <i>interviewer</i>;</p>2<p>% of women under RDA, recommended daily allowances for adults <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0030533#pone.0030533-FAO2" target="_blank">[24]</a>;</p>3<p>ANOVA comparison of means. If p<0.05, a Tukey <i>post-hoc</i> test was performed. Different letters indicate statistically different means at 0.05 level;</p>4<p><i>P</i> adjusted for total energy intake in the model as described by <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0030533#pone.0030533-Willet1" target="_blank">[55]</a>.</p

Proportion of women that consumed food groups and food items¹.

1<p>Only food items consumed by at least 5% of a group are reported, except for WEP. All WEP consumed in this study are shown; they are preceded by an asterisk. For WEP herbarium references we refer to Termote et al. (2010, 2011).</p>2<p>The Turumbu living in the city were compared with the overall city sample and the Turumbu from the village were compared with the Turumbu from the city. χ²-tests were performed for all food groups and wild food items which were consumed by at least 10 persons over the two samples compared.</p>3<p>Safou (<i>Dacryodes edulis</i>) occurs native in Central Africa. This species is cultivated on a small scale around the homesteads, but also harvested from the wild. It can be considered as semi-wild.</p

Sample characteristics of the food consumption survey.

1<p>Mean with standard deviation;</p>2<p>calculated using χ²-tests for factor variables; ANOVA for comparison of means, if p<0.05, a Tukey <i>post-hoc</i> test was performed, different letters indicate statistically different means at 0.05 level.</p

Usual daily dietary intakes of non pregnant/non lactating WEP-consumers and non-consumers (safou included)¹.

1<p>All values are usual intake means ± standard deviation, with adjustment for <i>recall day</i> and <i>interviewer</i>;</p>2<p>people who consumed more than 10 g of WEP in at least one of both recalls (safou included);</p>3<p>Model based difference of means (WEP consumer – non WEP consumer), adjusted for the fixed effect <i>sample</i>;</p>4<p>Model-based adjusted for the fixed effect <i>sample</i>;</p>5<p>Adjusted for total energy intake in the model as described by <a href="http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0030533#pone.0030533-Willet1" target="_blank">[55]</a>.</p

Energy contribution of food groups and wild foods per sample¹.

1<p>All values are usual intake means ± standard deviation, with adjustment for <i>recall day</i> and <i>interviewer</i>;</p>2<p>ANOVA comparison of means. If p<0.05, a Tukey <i>post-hoc</i> test was performed, different letters indicate statistically different means at 0.05 level;</p>3<p>1 calorie = 4.1868 Joule.</p>4<p>expressed as percentage of total energy intake;</p>5<p>“-” indicates that the energy contribution from these foods was insignificant.</p