Biology Reference
In-Depth Information
then that is a Heart Healthy Diet. Modern dietary guidelines encourage a so called
Mediterranean Diet that has smaller portions and a high olive oil content, red wine, and nuts
because it is associated with a 10% lower mortality risk, particularly from heart disease
(11%) and 5% lower risk of cancer. The benefits are thought to be due to mostly less beef and
dairy product consumption (17%), high vegetable consumption (16%), high fruit and nut
content (11%), olive oil (11%, high monounsaturated to saturated fat ratio, the main source of
energy in the diet), and legumes (10%). The actual Mediterranean Diet is however poorly
defined but includes on a daily basis about 150g - 200g of protein and fat from dairy products,
beef 70g, fish 20-25g, legumes 10g and the bulk from 125g-140g each of fruit, and also
separately of vegetables, and of cereals (total about 375g-420g).
For pastoralists, cattle could also be used as currency to obtain wives. This was called
“lobola.” The more daughter's men produced the more they could trade them for more cattle
and in turn trade cattle for more wives, or wives for their sons. Hence, a man's wealth was
measured by his cattle herd and the more cattle he had, the greater the stature in his tribe,
although the chiefs would often restrict who owned cattle or used the land. They may even
have lent cattle to their underlings for dairy production but not meat.
The issue of lobola is important in understanding the complexities of African societies in
terms of building sustainable wildlife population. If land is going to be restored from cattle
farming (financial and land issues are discussed elsewhere) to wildlife conservatives, or as
we argue sustainable restorancy, removing cattle and replacing them wildlife areas needs to
address many issues. If a man's wealth and his ability to find a wife and marry in rural areas is
dependent on cattle for lobola, how can this be replaced in favor of wildlife? The obvious
answer is that it has to be financially rewarding and also have other merits, particularly in a
gift economy, for the advancement of the community. The implication being that the individual
Africans in the rural areas bordering the restorancies need to see hard cash, financial rewards
from some type of shares, and also the benefits of red meat for their family (not only chicken
meat and eggs or milk, if even obtainable), education for their children, more working
opportunities, building material, firewood, and improved healthcare. Some of that has to come
from the governments' revenues from tourists, meat exports, skin and hide sales, trophy
licenses or fees depending who collects them, hotel revenues, taxes on concession operators,
commercial taxes and transportation taxes. The CAMPFIRE programs in Zimbabwe and for
example the LIRDP (Luangwa Integrated Resource Development Project) program in Zambia
have shown this is feasible. The basic programs ensure that locally communities benefit from
their wildlife and in turn they protect the land and animals because they understand the
importance of these for their own survival. The programs have, however, shown that hunting
by tourists brings the greatest financial and dietary rewards to the communities, which
challenges the increasing Western ethic that no animals should be killed as part of conserving
animals. This puts Africans and Western views in direct opposition in the management of
wildlife areas. But, the fact remains, international charities will never be able to come up with
the money to fund wildlife conservation in Africa and also protect the animals from poaching.
The costs are just too great and thus the areas have to contribute to their own survival.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search