Chapter 8: Livestock transactions, food consumption and household budgets

8.1 Functions of livestock
8.2 Livestock utilisation: Transactions for offtake and acquisition²
8.3 Milk sales
8.4 Milk, food consumption and nutritional status
8.5 Household patterns of income and expenditure
References

Pastoral systems in East Africa are dual operations which produce milk for subsistence and beef cattle and smallstock for sale. Many development projects have been criticised for emphasising beef production and for failing to realise the importance of dairying to pastoralists (Kerven, 1986; Grandin, 1988). The traditional Maasai were cited as representing the extreme of dependence on the direct consumption of livestock products, principally milk. They relied almost exclusively on cattle and only a few households kept smallstock (Jacobs, 1965). Smallstock now play a more important role but are still less important than cattle¹. Traditionally, Maasai pastoralists did not engage in cropping and their economic system was marked by relatively little exchange for agricultural products.

¹ Smallstock represent approximately 7% of animals in both value and biomass terms in the north, and 12% in the south (see Section 1.2.2: Producer heterogeneity and sampling design, and Section 4.1: Land, people, domestic and wild herbivores).

However, this pattern changed throughout Maasailand as the human population increased and the number of livestock per person decreased and the Maasai became increasingly involved in the market economy (Grandin, 1988). Cash from livestock sales is spent on food, clothing, domestic utensils and luxury goods and on inputs for livestock production. Despite an increasing reliance on agricultural foodstuffs, milk and meat still play an important role in the nutrition of the people.

Milk is the mainstay of the diet in the study area. Information presented in Chapter 7 (Productivity of cattle and smallstock) demonstrated that milk offtake per person was almost the same across wealth classes in normal times. This chapter discusses how producers in the study site fulfil various material and social goals through livestock transactions. Decision-making about production and utilisation can be understood only in terms of these goals and the socio-economic context in which the producer operates. Pastoralists' production goals can be summed up as: a year-round supply of milk

· occasional supplies of meat/fat
· animals to sell to generate desired cash income
· animals to give to friends and relations
· herd accumulation for long-term survival and social success.

The first section of this chapter briefly reviews the major functions of livestock in the Maasai system. These are many and often interwoven. However, it is important to understand the multifaceted functions of livestock in order to predict producer responses to possible development pathways. Next, livestock transactions are examined, including rates and types of offtake and acquisition and inventory change. (These data, together with milk offtake data, are used in Chapter 9 (An economic analysis of Maasai livestock production) to analyse economic returns to land, labour and capital.) The contribution of livestock products to the diet and nutritional status are reviewed. Finally, the household budgets are analysed to determine patterns of income and expenditure.

8.1 Functions of livestock

8.1.1 Short-term objectives
8.1.2 Long-term objectives

Livestock have both short- and long-term functions. The primary functions of cattle in the short term are to supply milk throughout the year and to generate cash income (Table 8.1). The long-term objectives are highly inter-related; they relate partly to livestock accumulation itself, but more importantly to survival of and recovery from drought (Table 8.1). The most important functions of smallstock are for use in developing and maintaining social ties and for slaughter

8.1.1 Short-term objectives

Year-round milk supply

In normal times cows provide almost all of the milk used by households. Goats may be milked, by herders during the day, by poorer households and during drought and periods of post-drought recovery, when their milk is a major food. Sheep are almost never milked.

Table 8.1. Functions of livestock in the Maasai production system.

Function	Cattle	Sheep	Goats
Short term
Year round milk supply	XXX
Cash income	XXX	X	X
Social ties	XX	XXX	XXX
Voluntary slaughter	X	XXX	XX
Long term
Wealth accumulation	XXX	X	X
Prestige/power	XXX	X	X
Build-up for next generation	XXX	X	X
Investment	XXX	X	X
Food security	XXX	XX	XX
Spreading production risks	XX	XX	XX

Degree of importance: X = low; XX = medium; XXX = high.

Cash income generation

The bulk of cash income is derived from cattle sales. Only certain areas have ready access to external markets for smallstock; in these, demand is higher for goats than for sheep because of consumers' food preferences.

Developing and maintaining social ties

Giving animals as gifts is an important social mechanism in Maasailand through which relationships are created and maintained. The type of gift depends largely on the receiver's situation. Animals may be given because a friend or relative is in need (of cash, of an animal to slaughter etc), as a present for a ceremony, for a female relative who has given birth, or purely for friendship. In many cases the gift is requested. Cattle are given only for major needs or events because of their high unit value. Gifts of smallstock are far more common and much more commonly used in cementing far-flung social ties.

Slaughter for home consumption

Animals are slaughtered either by choice for food or in extremis. Cattle are only rarely slaughtered by choice (e.g. for a circumcision or age-set ceremony). However, cattle slaughtered in extremis contribute substantially to food supplies. Most animals slaughtered by choice are smallstock, which is understandable given their lower value per head and the convenient amount of meat they provide. Meat from voluntarily slaughtered smallstock is a particularly important food during droughts, when it substitutes for milk. Sheep are generally desired for their fat, which is considered an important food for women (especially after child birth), for young infants, and during certain illnesses. It is also used cosmetically. Although the Maasai eat sheep meat they prefer fatty goat meat for its flavour. Thus, goats are more commonly slaughtered for visitors, and in richer households. Soup made from goat meat and herbs is also used as a treatment for many human illnesses. Smallstock slaughtered in extremis contribute considerably to the Maasai diet.

8.1.2 Long-term objectives

Livestock accumulation

Maasai have many reasons for accumulating livestock, including the desire to be "wealthy", to be successful in Maasai terms. Livestock accumulation is not only an end in itself; it has important implications for the ability of a producer to marshal social and political support through the prestige that accrues to the wealthy and through his ability to help less fortunate people. In addition, animals accumulated by a pastoralist represent the main inheritance of his sons. Lastly, wealth accumulation in livestock makes economic sense given the high return to the investment and the lack of alternative investment opportunities available to the traditional pastoralist.

Because of their high unit value, cattle are the most important means of wealth accumulation. However, smallstock play an important role. Their rapid rate of reproduction makes them a major means of post-drought recovery, particularly for poor households. Young men who are actively accumulating livestock tend to do so through smallstock, especially where there is a market for smallstock. Even where there are no markets, smallstock can be exchanged for cattle. Smallstock can be sold to meet household subsistence requirements, allowing cattle to be kept until they will fetch a higher price.

Survival and security

The Maasai are threatened by periodic disasters, mainly droughts, and are subject to various external uncertainties due to political and economic forces beyond their control. Currently, a high rate of population increase strains the system. Although famine relief has been provided at several times in Maasai history, its provision is uncertain, as is the availability of agricultural foodstuffs to purchase. Maasai pastoralists have no insurance and no pensions. Their family, friends and animals are their only sources of short- and long-term security. Although cattle are less likely to survive a drought than smallstock, their value (in terms of both money and milk supply) dictates their accumulation for long-term security. Smallstock play an important role in post-drought recovery as they have higher survival rates, they multiply much more rapidly, and goats provide milk (however little) much sooner after a drought than cattle. During drought periods, smallstock provide crucial food as milk supplies dwindle. Multiple species production makes fuller use of the environment and available labour, while spreading production risks. Factors which negatively affect one species may affect others less.

8.2 Livestock utilisation: Transactions for offtake and acquisition²

8.2.1 Introduction
8.2.2 Sales and purchases
8.2.3 Exchange
8.2.4 Gifts and other social transactions
8.2.5 Slaughter
8.2.6 Annual offtake and acquisition
8.2.7 Net offtake and inventory change

² For ease of comparison this section focuses on rich and poor households on Mbirikani and Olkarkar only. Money values (rather than number of animals) are used to aid cross-species comparisons. This section is based on Grandin (1983), Grandin (1985) and Grandin et al (1989).

8.2.1 Introduction

Maasai culture provides producers with a variety of means by which they can acquire and dispose of animals. Through these, producers in different locations and of different wealth classes utilise their animals to meet the short- and long-term objectives discussed above. The transactions in which Maasai engage can be grouped into seven types, four for offtake (sale, exchange, gift and slaughter) and three for acquisition (purchase, exchange and gift)³. This section describes each type of transaction, discussing where relevant their relative importance by group ranch and wealth class. Annual net offtake and inventory change are also discussed.

³ As they do not represent final utilisation, temporary transactions (e.g. lending a milk cow or sending animals to another location to escape disease threat) are not discussed.

8.2.2 Sales and purchases

Sales are particularly important as they serve as the interface between pastoralists and the wider economy, enabling the pastoral areas to support a larger population than would be possible if the pastoralists were to subsist on livestock products alone. Sales accounted for 82% of cattle offtake on Olkarkar and 76% on Mbirikani and 38% of smallstock offtake on Olkarkar and 10% on Mbirikani. However, many sales were not channelled through the market.

Animals sold were mainly young and adult males or castrates, followed by old females. With the decline in the traditional Maasai social support system in some areas, poor people may be forced to sell animals younger and at a lower price than rich producers. Rich producers on Olkarkar received 61 % more per unit cattle (KSh 1167 vs KSh 724) and 29% more per unit smallstock (KSh 170 vs KSh 132) than poor producers because they sold older and heavier animals. Differences were smaller on Mbirikani (7% and 4% respectively), largely because poor producers there had stronger social support mechanisms than their counterparts on Olkarkar, which enabled them to keep animals until maturity.

The importance of smallstock sales differed between producers of different wealth classes. Sales accounted for 43% of smallstock offtake of poor producers, compared with only 26% for rich producers (Table 8.2). The ready market for smallstock available to producers on Olkarkar has led to the development of a "smallstock strategy" under which some producers sell smallstock to provide cash for family needs and to purchase cattle.

This was done primarily by younger, medium-wealth producers who had the highest smallstock-to-cattle ratio on Olkarkar and who used this strategy to accumulate cattle. It was done also by poor producers, particularly wage earners who invested a portion of their income in smallstock (Grandin, 1985).

Some 67% of smallstock sold by Olkarkar producers went to Simba, the town adjacent to the ranch (Table 8.2). However, there were marked differences between wealth classes in the destination of animals sold. Most (84%) of the smallstock sold by rich producers on Olkarkar went to butchers, compared with roughly half of those sold by poor producers; the remainder were sold to other producers (Grandin, 1985). Most animals sold to other producers were younger, smaller animals, which were bought by medium-wealth producers for fattening and sale to butchers.

Table 8.2. Smallstock sales (location, proportion of offtake and number of animals sold per household annually) by poor, medium-wealth and rich households on Olkarkar.

	Wealth class1			Overall
	Poor	Medium	Rich
Location of sales (%)
Simba	47	72	82	67
Other town	4	1	4	3
Maasailand	49	28	13	30
Sales as a per cent	43	37	26	35
Number of animals sold/household per year	8	20	12	40

¹ Poor = <5 tropical livestock units (TLU) per active adult male equivalent (AAME); medium = 5-12.99 TLU/AAME; rich ³ 13 TLU/AAME.

Commercial transactions in Maasailand commonly involved friends, neighbours and relatives and were thus influenced by existing social relationships. On Olkarkar 60% (by value) of commercial transactions occurred in markets or towns, whereas sales in markets or towns accounted for only 32% of the commercial transactions on Mbirikani. This difference was largely related to the organisation of marketing within the area. Olkarkar producers lived closer to the main market and tended to take their own animals to market and sell them themselves, whereas Mbirikani producers tended to sell stock to local Maasai traders who then took the animals to the market.

Traders, commonly local Maasai known to the producers, purchased 75% (by value) of the animals sold but were the source of only 37% of the purchases (Table 8.3).

Purchases were much less common than sales and were mostly of animals for fattening. Producers preferred to know the history of animals acquired for rearing, hence few animals were purchased for breeding stock, and these rarely from strangers. Immature animals sold by the poor were commonly purchased by richer producers who fattened and resold them. Purchases accounted for 58% of the reported cattle acquisition on Olkarkar and only 37% on Mbirikani. For smallstock these figures were 47% on Olkarkar and 39% on Mbirikani. However, as social transactions were under-reported, these are overestimates of the true importance of purchase as a mode of acquiring livestock.

8.2.3 Exchange

Producers frequently exchanged one animal for another of a different species, age or sex. Commonly one of the parties acquired an immature heifer for breeding, while the other acquired an adult steer to sell or, more rarely, to slaughter. With smallstock, large castrates were often exchanged for an immature female or a young steer.

Exchanges have two advantages: they do not require access to a market and the history of the animal is known. In addition, exchanges are seen by the Maasai as an act of sociability, of helping someone.

The market values of the animals involved in an exchange were often quite different, the adult animal being worth more than the immature for which it was exchanged. However, immature females were difficult to obtain because producers were reluctant to dispose of them. Thus producers who were trying to build up their herds were willing to accept young females (whose market value was low) in exchange for adult castrates of higher market value. They placed considerable emphasis on the fact that they were acquiring the animal's future reproductive capacity. The other party to the exchange acquired an animal of greater immediate value but at the cost of future productivity.⁴

⁴ Exchanges were selectively reported; producers were happy to talk about exchanges in which they acquired immature animals but were less willing to admit to exchanging these out. Poor people were more selective in reporting exchanges; these are the people who most often had to exchange immature females for an adult animal.

Table 8.3. Relationship in livestock transactions: Percentage value by transaction type for Olkarkar Group Ranch.¹

On Olkarkar, 5% of reported offtake and 18% of acquisition was through exchange. On Mbirikani exchanges were more common, accounting for 12%-of offtake and about 35% of acquisition. As exchanges were under-reported more than other transactions, these represent minimum figures.

Exchange can be viewed as falling along a continuum from social to commercial transactions. Hence a wide range of partners is found, although friends, age-mates and clan-mates predominate (Table 8.3).

8.2.4 Gifts and other social transactions

The category gifts, as used here, includes outright gifts (for a ceremony, during illness, while visiting or often just in friendship) as well as permanent loans of animals (which the receiver or his descendants are ultimately expected to repay). The latter includes some delayed exchanges, in which the time lapse and sociability involved make them structurally similar to gifts. Gifts of cattle and smallstock are often requested⁵.

⁵ As with exchange, cultural values led to a selected under-reporting of gifts. Generosity is stressed in Maasai culture, whereas the need to "beg" an animal is the less desirable state. Also, it is thought improper to boast about the number of animals you have or have recently acquired. As a result, producers tended to report giving more animal gifts than they received. For the same species/age/sex category, gifts given out were also appraised at a higher value than gifts received.

The most common gifts were smallstock, mainly immature females (intended for rearing) followed by mature castrates which were commonly intended for slaughter. Steers and young female calves were occasionally given, but gifts of mature females of any species were rare.

Gifts represented 12% of reported offtake on both Olkarkar and Mbirikani, and about 30% of acquisition. In-laws were the single most common partners in gifts (see Table 8.3). Other social transactions include entrusting, lending and borrowing of animals.

8.2.5 Slaughter

As noted earlier, smallstock contributed importantly to the diet through voluntary slaughter whereas cattle only rarely did so. Dying animals or those that had broken a leg were usually slaughtered; this is referred to as forced slaughter. Voluntary slaughter was often related to a particular occasion or event such as a wedding or the birth of a child. It did, however, make an important contribution to the diet.

Voluntary slaughter of cattle was quite similar on Olkarkar and Mbirikani (KSh 44/person per year on Olkarkar compared with 50 KSh/person per year on Mbirikani) but the reported value of smallstock slaughtered on Mbirikani was more than three times that reported on Olkarkar (KSh 226 vs KSh 70). As a result, the total value of voluntary slaughter per person was almost two and half times as much on Mbirikani as on Olkarkar.⁶ However, slaughter rates for smallstock were unusually high on Mbirikani to compensate for the decline in milk production during the minor drought in 1982.

⁶ Mbirikani producers' estimates of the values of slaughtered animals were approximately 25% higher than those of Olkarkar producers. This was partly due to overestimation of value, but also reflected a real difference in size of animals slaughtered, especially for smallstock (see Section 8.2.2: Sales and purchases). When numbers rather than values were used, smallstock slaughter was still 2.4 times as high on Mbirikani as on Olkarkar.

Forced slaughter was an important source of food, particularly on Mbirikani. On Olkarkar, forced slaughter of cattle provided 60% of the beef consumed, whereas on Mbirikani it accounted for 95%. Voluntary slaughter was more important for smallstock, providing 60% of smallstock meat on Olkarkar and 50% on Mbirikani. Although forced slaughter occurred throughout the year it was most common during droughts and epidemics.

8.2.6 Annual offtake and acquisition

Table 8.4 shows reported rates and values for annual offtake and acquisition of livestock per household on Olkarkar and Mbirikani, broken down by type of transaction. On Mbirikani, offtake and acquisition rates were higher and a greater percentage of transactions went through non-commercial channels than on Olkarkar. The higher rates of non-commercial transactions on Mbirikani related to several factors:

· the drought, which necessitated more sales and more slaughter for home consumption

· the greater social commitments of Mbirikani producers, which were largely manifested through gifts and exchanges of animals

· the lack of access to markets on Mbirikani encouraged exchange and home consumption and discouraged sales and purchases.

Table 8.4 also underscores the importance of investigating all of a producer's transactions, rather than just sales, purchases and slaughter. Whereas on Olkarkar reported sales and slaughter accounted for 83% of reported offtake on Mbirikani they accounted for only 76%. Purchases accounted for only 52% of reported acquisition on Olkarkar and 38% on Mbirikani.

Sales represented the most important offtake of smallstock on Olkarkar, whereas slaughter for home consumption accounted for 54% of smallstock offtake on Mbirikani (Table 8:5).

8.2.7 Net offtake and inventory change

Although Maasai producers manipulated their herds and flocks to meet a variety of needs, they consistently attempted to accumulate animals in good years as a long-term survival strategy. Offtake can be fully understood only in connection with accumulation.

Table 8.4. Annual offtake and acquisition of livestock by value, rate end transaction type, Olkarkar and Mbirikani group ranches.

	Offtake		Acquisition
	Olkarkar	Mbirikani	Olkarkar	Mbirikani
Value (KSh)1	13249	22055	2585	6005
Rate (% of total holdings)	12	22	3	8
Type of offtake (% of total value of offtake)
Commercial	75	64	52	38
Exchange	5	12	18	35
Gift	12	12	30	27
Slaughter	8	12

¹ During the study period, the exchange rate fluctuated between US$ 1 = KSh 8.70 and US$ 1 = KSh 13.05, with a mean of US$ 1 = KSh 11.0.

Table 8.5. Net offtake of small stock on Olkarkar and Mbirikani group ranches.

	Per cent of all smallstock offtake
	Sold	Exchanged	Gifted	Slaughtered
Olkarkar	38	8	21	34
Mbirikani	10	18	17	54

Table 8.6 shows estimates of both annual net offtake and annual inventory change for Olkarkar and Mbirikani households. The most striking difference is that whereas almost all producers on Olkarkar showed net accumulation of both cattle and smallstock, on Mbirikani there was almost universal net decline in cattle inventory and many producers ended the year with a reduced smallstock inventory. This difference was due to the localised drought that affected Mbirikani but not Olkarkar. Voluntary offtake rate was higher on Mbirikani than on Olkarkar, reflecting the greater need for meat to replace milk in the diet during drought.

8.3 Milk sales

Milk sales were unimportant in the study area, accounting for less than 5% of milk offtake However, it is useful to examine patterns of selling in order to predict possible responses to increased opportunities for milk sales.

In the study period, opportunities for milk sales were limited and varied markedly between ranches and neighbourhoods. No sample household on Mbirikani sold milk, whereas 50% of Olkarkar households and 45% of Merueshi households reported some sales. Two sample households on Olkarkar and one on Merueshi regularly sold substantial quantities of milk. Other households, mainly poor ones, regularly sold small amounts of milk, while others sold milk only irregularly.

Table 8.6. Net offtake and inventory change (based on value) in livestock holdings of poor, medium-wealth and rich producers, June 1981-May 1983, Olkarkar and Mbirikani group ranches.

	Olkarkar			Mbirikani
	Poor1	Medium	Rich	Poor	Medium	Rich
Cattle
Value change (%)	20a	13	17	-2	-8	-5
Households with net loss (%)	0	10	0	75	100	66
Net voluntary offtake (%)	17	7	5	11	22	15
Smallstock
Value change (%)	17	19	18	-18	8	1
Households with net loss (%)	33	30	13	88	40	50
Net voluntary offtake (%)	7	6	3	16	7	5

¹ Poor = <5 tropical livestock units (TLU) per active adult male equivalent (AAME); medium = 5-12.99 TLU/AAME; rich = ³ 13 TLU/AAME;

^a Largely due to unreported gifts received.

The issue of whether Maasai sell only milk that is surplus to their household needs is not easily resolved (White and Meadows, 1981; Nestel, 1985). The issue ignores the facts that "needs" are not absolute (above minimum nutritional requirements) and that milk offtake per cow varies substantially. Although milk sales are seasonal and some households sold milk only in the wet seasons, some households sold milk throughout the year. On Olkarkar, poor households sold proportionally as much milk (8%) as rich households, while middle-wealth households sold almost none. On Merueshi the primary seller of milk was in the middle-wealth group; some poor households sold small amounts of milk but no rich household reported any sales. These differences suggest that the notion of "milk surplus to home consumption needs" is too simplistic and requires reconsideration.

Milk sales can be an important source of income to poor households. Highly-priced milk can be "exchanged" for an amount of maize that provides much more food energy. In addition, income from milk sales accrues to women, whereas most other income accrues to men. Although some men, particularly older and wealthier ones, were opposed to milk sales out of concern for calf survival, many others were beginning to see milk as a potentially important source of income, which can delay the need to sell an animal.

In sum, these results indicate that there is an important, untapped potential for milk sales, at least the northern, better-watered part of the study area (see Section 7.1.7: Milk offtake and lactation yield, and Section 10.2.3: Milk offtake).

8.4 Milk, food consumption and nutritional status

Over the past 25 years the Maasai diet has gradually changed from consisting almost entirely of livestock products to including cereals and sugar. The major factor pushing the Maasai to diversify their staple diet has been their inability to sustain a population growing at some 3% a year on a diet of livestock products alone. Improved infrastructure and communications with neighbouring agricultural tribes has made access to maize much easier.

Today, the staple diet of the Maasai consists of cow milk, butter, maize meal and meat. Milk is drunk fresh or in tea sweetened with sugar. Maize meal is cooked to make a porridge known as ugali. The porridge is cooked with milk and fat or butter when available; otherwise only water is used. Meat was eaten only irregularly, as indicated by the fact that forced slaughter provided half of the meat consumed in normal times. Butter was an important food for infants, while blood was rarely drunk and was taken only during drought or on ceremonial occasions.

Notwithstanding this diversification of the Maasai diet, milk remained the dominant staple, making the diet relatively rich in fat and protein. The availability of milk strongly influenced the quantity and type of other foods purchased and the nutritional status of the Maasai. When available, milk and butter provided some two-thirds of the daily energy intake. Nestel (1985), reporting data from a 24-hour diet recall study in July 1982-June 1983, noted that, across wealth classes, women and children on Olkarkar and Merueshi consumed an average of about 1 litre of milk/active adult male equivalent (AAME); daily, which corresponds very well with "target" and actual milk offtake person (see Section 7.1.7: Milk offtake and lactation yield). It was reported that men (and particularly moran) consumed more milk products than did women and children.

Table 8.7 summarises the results of Nestel's (1985) nutrition study. The pattern observed on Olkarkar and Merueshi represented the normal situation, whereas that on Mbirikani reflected the effect of the minor drought affecting that ranch at the time. Maize, sugar and other agricultural products supplied up to two-thirds of daily energy intake on Mbirikani, compared with roughly a third on Olkarkar and Merueshi. Rich households derived more of their energy from milk and butter than did poor or middle-wealth households, particularly during the dry season, because they had more milking cows at their disposal.

The seasonal variation in milk supplies and types of food consumed had a marked effect on energy intake. Energy intake declined during the short rains, when most dietary energy came from dairy products. Conversely, energy intake increased during the dry seasons, when crop products were the main source of energy. The reason for this is the difference in the energy content of milk and maize and the quantities of each available. The energy value of milk during the wet season fell from 77 to 59 kcal/100 g whereas that for ground maize meal was 346 kcal/100 g throughout the year. Household heads curtailed maize expenditure when the supply of milk increased, reducing the energy content of the diet.

Table 8.7. Dietary energy sources of women and children in poor, medium-wealth and rich households on Olkarkar/Merueshi and Mbirikani group ranches, July 1982 - June 1983.

	Proportion of energy provided by source (%)
	Olkarkar/Merueshi			Mbirikani
Energy source	Poor1	Medium	Rich	Poor	Medium	Rich
Milk	52	55	61	21	31	36
Butter	11	7	5	3	3	2
Meat	1	3	4	6	13	7
Fat	1	1	0	4	5	3
Maize	21	20	12	39	35	27
Sugar	8	8	9	13	10	13
Other	6	6	9	14	3	12
Total	100	100	100	100	100	100
No. of observations	204	283	518	399	240	250

¹ Poor = <5 tropical livestock units (TLU) per active adult male equivalent (AAME); medium = 5-12.99 TLU/AAME; rich = >13 TLU/AAME;

Source: Nestel (1985).

The proportion of energy intake provided by milk varied little across wealth classes but differed markedly between seasons on Olkarkar and Merueshi (Table 8.8). Seasonal variation was similar across wealth classes, and variation was as large in rich households as in poor households.

The Maasai diet is rich in protein but relatively low in energy (Table 8.9). However, the Maasai attained normal height in adulthood though they tended to be thinner than standard measurements indicate is ideal. Pregnant women who had energy intakes of 50 to 55% of that recommended by FAO (1973) did not appear to deliver underweight babies, while lactating women who had energy intakes of 55 to 60% of the recommended level breast fed their babies for up to 2 years. This raises the question as to whether FAO's recommended daily intake for energy is set too high to be applicable to Maasai pastoralists.

Table 8.8. Annual, dry-season and wet-season contributions of milk to energy intake in poor, medium-wealth and rich households on Olkarkar and Merueshi group ranches, June 1982-May 1983.

Wealth class2	Contribution of milk to energy intake (% of RDI1)
	Annual mean	Dry season	Wet season
Poor	42	25	52
Medium	44	38	50
Rich	44	33	62

¹ Recommended daily intake, based on FAO (1973).

² Poor = <5 tropical livestock units (TLU) per active adult male equivalent (AAME); medium = 5-12.99 TLU/AAME; rich = ³ 13 TLU/AAME;

Source: Adapted from Nestel (1985)

8.5 Household patterns of income and expenditure

8.5.1 Cash income
8.5.2 Patterns of cash expenditure

8.5.1 Cash income

Sales of livestock and livestock products provided most of the cash income of households in the study area (Tables 8.10 and 8.11), although they provided a smaller proportion of income in poor households than in rich ones. Poor households derived about 23% of their cash income from gifts and wages, compared with 19% for middle-wealth households and 11% for rich households.

8.5.2 Patterns of cash expenditure

Pastoral households, being both consumption and production units, incur two types of expenditure. As consumers they buy food and non-food items and services. The level of these expenses is determined by the size of the household, its relative wealth and the attitudes of its adult members, particularly the head of the household. In their capacity as producers, pastoral households purchase acaricides, veterinary drugs and breeding and fattening stock. They may pay for watering or dipping livestock and occasionally hire labour for herding or marketing cattle. These production expenses are determined by the size of the household's livestock holding.

Table 8.9. Source of energy and adequacy of dietary protein and energy intakes of women and children in poor, medium-wealth and rich households on Olkarkar/Merueshi and Mbirikani group ranches, July 1982-June 1983.

		Olkarkar/Merueshi			Mbirikani
		Poor1	Medium	Rich	Poor	Medium	Rich
Source of energy (% of energy intake)
	Protein	13	15	15	13	14	14
	Fat	46	46	46	32	38	38
	Carbohydrate	41	38	38	55	48	48
	Alcohol	0	1	1	0	0	0
	Total	100	100	100	100	100	100
Energy intake (% of RDI2)		69	74	69	67	65	66
Protein intake (% of RDI)		212	238	239	179	199	189
No. of observations		204	283	518	399	240	250

¹ Poor = <5 tropical livestock units (TLU) per active adult male equivalent (AAME); medium = 5-12.99 TLU/MME; rich = ³ 13 TLU/AAME.

² Recommended daily intake, based on FAO (1973).

Source: Nestel (1985).

Data on cash expenditure of the sample households on consumption and production items were collected monthly. Despite the well known problems of recall error and respondent bias, the information obtained gives a good indication of the patterns of cash expenditures. What is important to note is the relative magnitude suggested by the figures rather than their absolute values.

Table 8.10. Mean annual cash income per household on Olkarkar Merueshi and Mbirikani group ranches, 1981-83.

Source	Mean annual cash income (KSh)
	Olkarkar	Merueshi	Mbirikani
Livestock products
Livestock sales	9505	9097	12143
Milk sales	314	356	5
Cow and calf hides	10	1	5
Sheep and goat skies	9	28	268a
Subtotal	9838	9482	12421
Other sources
Wages	1529	92	2111
Money transactions	912	1087	3556
Beer brewing	41	203	8
Other income	5	12	257
Subtotal	2487	1394	5932
Total cash income	12325	10876	18353

^a This high income for sheep and goat skins was due to the head of one sample household trading in sheep and goat skins.

Table 8.11. Mean annual income per household by wealth class of household, Olkarkar, Merueshi and Mbirikani group ranches, 1981-83.

Source	Wealth class1
	Poor	Medium	Rich
Livestock products
Livestock sales	5625	8800	6250
Milk sales	150	190	225
Cow and calf hides	10	0	5
Sheep and goat skies	285a	25	30
Subtotal	6070	9015	16510
Other sources
Wages	750	1320	1560
Cash gifts	1170	780	490
Beer brewing	195	60	45
Other income	255	5	30
Subtotal	2370	2165	2125
Total cash income	8440	11180	18635

¹ Poor = <5 tropical livestock units (TLU) per active adult male equivalent (AAME); medium = 5-12.99 TLU/AAME; rich = ³ 13 TLU/AAME;

^a This high income from sheep and goat skins was due to the head of one sample household trading in sheep and goat skins.

Table 8.12. Mean annual expenditure on consumption and production by households on Olkarkar, Merueshi and Mbirikani group ranches, July 1981-June 1983.

	Expenditure
	Olkarkar		Merueshi		Mbirikani		Weighted mean (all ranches)
	KSh	%	KSh	%	KSh	%	KSh	%
Consumption
Food	3060	30	2260	37	3460	31	2976	32
Non-food	3400	34	2280	37	3790	34	3220	34
Subtotal	6460	64	4540	74	7250	65	6196	66
Production	3650	36	1610	26	4020	35	3197	34
Total	10110	100	6150	100	11270	100	9393	100

The mean annual reported cash expenditure of the households was KSh 9400, two-thirds of which went on household consumption (Table 8.12). These figures are in agreement with those reported by White and Meadows (1981) for Olkarkar. Households on Merueshi spent much less than those on either Olkarkar or Mbirikani. This was related to three factors:

· These households were far from trading centres and thus had less opportunity for spending money on hotel food and drinks and for making sugar beer for sale. Their expenditure on these items was only half that recorded for Olkarkar and two-thirds of that for Mbirikani households.

· Merueshi households bought only half as many animals as those on Olkarkar and Mbirikani.

· Expenditure on tick control was very low on Merueshi, where tick-borne diseases were less troublesome.

The last two factors also contributed to the low proportion of total expenditure allocated to livestock production on Merueshi (26% compared with 35-36% for the other two ranches). As expected, wealth class strongly influenced both absolute expenditure and the proportions of expenditure allocated to consumption and production (Table 8.13).

Table 8.13. Mean annual expenditure on consumption and production by poor, medium-wealth and rich households, Olkarkar, Merueshi and Mbirikani group ranches, July 1981-June 1983.

	Expenditure
	Poor1		Medium		Rich
	KSh	%	KSh	%	KSh	%
Consumption
Food	2527	39	2677	29	3605	30
Non-food	2209	34	3241	35	4061	33
Subtotal	4736	73	5918	64	7666	63
Production	1780	27	3330	36	4598	37
Total	6516	100	9248	100	12264	100

¹ Poor = <5 tropical livestock units (TLU) per active adult male equivalent (AAME); medium = 5-12.99 TLU/AAME; rich = ³ 13 TLU/AAME;

Expenditure on food and beverages

Maize was a major staple in the Maasai diet and was purchased regularly, accounting for an average of about one-third of total per-caput expenditure on food and beverages (Table 8.14). However, the amount and proportion spent on maize differed markedly between ranches. Households on Mbirikani spent nearly twice as much on maize as those on the northern ranches. Expenditure on maize accounted for 40% of the expenditure on food and drink on Mbirikani but only 26% on Olkarkar. The amount spent on maize also differed markedly between wealth classes (Table 8.15), although there was little difference in this as a proportion of expenditure on food and drink.

Sugar was also an important item in the diet of the Maasai (Table 8.14). In addition to its usual consumption with tea and milk, Maasai women used sugar for brewing the local beer. Expenditure on sugar increased dramatically whenever households were preparing for major ceremonies such as a circumcision or a wedding. Some women who lived near trading centres or major water points made and sold beer and this was the cause of the high annual per caput expenditure on sugar on Olkarkar (Table 8.14).

Non-food consumption expenditure

The main non-food items on which Maasai spent money were clothing, transport and medical services (Table 8.16). Together these accounted for nearly three-quarters of their non-food expenditure.

Regression analysis of the expenditure data shows that the income elasticity of expenditure on household items was about 1.0. In contrast, the income elasticity of expenditure on livestock maintenance and livestock purchases was very high (2.25), implying that the wealthier a Maasai household became the bigger its investment in livestock production. This arose from a general lack of alternative investment opportunities available to them which they can manipulate with ease. Increasingly, livestock trading was becoming an alternative mode of investment and employment for the young and wealthy. A few were becoming shopkeepers; but the scope for this was limited as the low population density led to low demand for consumer goods and not many Maasai had the exposure and wider contacts required to make a success of shopkeeping.

The information presented in Tables 8.15 and 8.16 suggests that poor households had a markedly lower standard of living than wealthier households. However, the life style of the wealthiest was not that much different from the average and the per caput consumption of the wealthiest group suggests they enjoyed a lower standard of living than the middle-wealth group. This may be explained by the fact that many of the wealthier households were headed by older men who were more conservative and whose main interest was in the accumulation of livestock.

Table 8.14. Mean annual expenditure per person on food and beverages on Olkarkar Merueshi and Mbirikani group ranches, 1981- 83.

Item	Expenditure (KSh)
	Ranch			Weighted mean	%
	Olkarkar	Merueshi	Mbirikani
Maize	94	96	176	125	35
Wheat	1	9	25	12	3
sugar	101	64	70	79	22
Tea	45	28	29	34	9
Fat/oils	10	9	34	19	5
Potatoes	6	6	6	6	2
Vegetables	1	1	1	1	0
Meat	4	3	8	5	1
Other foods	15	14	6	11	3
Hotel food	35	11	34	27	8
Hotel	37	15	40	32	9
Tobacco	8	9	12	10	3
Total	357	265	441	361	100

Table 8.15. Mean annual expenditure per person in poor, medium-wealth and rich households, Olkarkar Merueshi and Mbirikani group ranches, 1981-83.

Item	Expenditure (KSh)
	Wealth class1			Weighted mean	%
	Poor	Medium	Rich
Maize	90	135	120	125	35
Wheat	12	12	9	12	3
sugar	66	94	80	79	22
Tea	28	43	32	34	9
Fat/oils	22	21	10	19	5
Potatoes	8	4	6	6	2
Vegetables	2	0	0	1	0
Meat	7	5	4	5	1
Other foods	10	11	12	11	3
Hotel food	16	35	29	27	8
Hotel drinks	29	34	43	32	9
Tobacco	11	7	7	10	3
Total	301	401	352	361	100

¹ Poor = <5 tropical livestock units (TLU) per active adult male equivalent (AAME); medium = 5-12.99 TLU/AAME; rich = ³ 13 TLU/AAME;

Table 8.16. Mean annual expenditure per person on non-food consumption in poor, medium-wealth and rich households, Olkarkar, Merueshi and Mbirikani group ranches, 1981-83.

Item	Expenditure (KSh)
	Wealth class1			Weighted mean	%
	Poor	Medium	Rich
Clothing	84	133	121	118	43
Transport	40	67	49	54	19
Medical	19	32	40	30	11
Kerosene	15	16	13	15	5
Soap	10	15	12	13	5
Durable goods	8	12	10	11	4
Beads	4	7	6	6	2
Cash gift	17	52	28	30	11
Subtotal	197	334	279	277	100
Money lent	19	85	78	69
Loan repaid	38	45	56	53
Total cash outflow on non-food items	254	464	413	399

¹ Poor = <5 tropical livestock units (TLU) per active adult male equivalent (AAME); medium = 5-12.99 TLU/AAME; rich = ³ 13 TLU/AAME.

References

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations). 1973. Energy and protein requirements. Report of a Joint FAD/WHO ad hoc Expert Committee, FAO, Rome. FAO Nutrition Report Series No. 52.

Grandin B E. 1983. Livestock transactions data collection. In: Stewart R A (ed.), Pastoral systems research in sub-Saharan Africa. Proceedings of the workshop held at ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 21 to 24 March, 1983. ILCA (International Livestock Centre for Africa), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. pp. 277-287.

Grandin B E. 1985. Utilization of sheep and goats in two Maasai group ranches. In: Proceedings of the Fourth Small Ruminant CRSP Workshop, Kakamega, Kenya, March 1985. Small Ruminant Collaborative Research Support Program, Nairobi, Kenya. pp. 238-251.

Grandin B E. 1988. Wealth and pastoral dairy production. A case study from Maasailand. Human Ecology: An Interdisciplinary Journal 16:1-21.

Grandin B E, de Leeuw P N and Lembuya P. 1989. Drought, resource distribution and mobility in two Maasai group ranches in southeastern Kajiado district. In: Downing T E, Gitu K W and Kamau C M (eds), Coping with drought in Kenya. National and local strategies. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Boulder, Colorado, USA. pp. 245-263.

Jacobs A. 1965. The traditional political organization of the pastoral Maasai. PhD thesis, Nuffield College, Oxford University, Oxford, UK. 417 pp.

Kerven C. 1986. Some research and development implications for pastoral dairy production in Africa. ILCA Bulletin 26:29-35.

Nestel P S. 1985. Nutrition of Maasai women and children in relation to subsistence food production. PhD thesis, Queen Elizabeth College, University of London, London, UK. 223 pp.

White J M and Meadows S J. 1981. Evaluation of the contribution of group and individual ranches in Kajiado District, Kenya, to economic development and pastoral production strategies. Ministry of Livestock Development, Nairobi, Kenya. 185 pp. [Available on microfiche from ILCA: Microfiche no. 31185]