AN EVALUATION OF FAMILY POULTRY PRODUCTION

SYSTEMS IN THE NORTHERN REGION

By

NDIVHUHO EMMANUEL RANWEDZI

Dissertation submitted in the fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree

MAGISTER TECHNOLOGIAE: AGRICULTURE

in the

Department of Agricultural Management

at the

Technikon Port Elizabeth, George Campus

Supervisor : Dr A. E. Nesamvuni, Ph.D.

Co-supervisor : Mr. G. J. Tylor, M.Sc. Agric.

PORT ELIZABETH

JANUARY 2002

ii brought to you by COREView metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk

provided by South East Academic Libraries System (SEALS)

Declaration of independent work

I, NDIVHUHO EMMANUEL RANWEDZI, do declare that this dissertation submitted

for the degree MAGISTER TECHNOLOGIAE: AGRICULTURE is my own

independent work that has not been submitted before to any institution by anyone or else

as part of any qualification.

……………………… …………………

Signature Date

iii

Foreword

It is my wish that this dissertation serves to stimulate the interest of poultry researchers to

concentrate on improving indigenous chicken production systems under their natural

management conditions. This dissertation is presented in the form of two scientific

publications from chapter three to chapter four. These chapters are preceded by chapter

one, a general introduction that focuses on the history and the description of the

conditions in which these poultry survive, with chapter two being the literature review.

Chapter three reports the results based on the questionnaire with chapter four reporting

the growth patterns and dynamics of indigenous chickens under traditional farming and

system and chapter five being the general conclusions.

iv

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to express sincere gratitude and appreciation to the following persons

and supporting organizations for their considerable inputs, several of whom need to be

mentioned by name:

�

My Supervisor, Dr A.E. Nesamvuni from the University of Venda for Science and

Technology, for his dedication, commitment, encouragement, comments, constructive

criticisms and useful suggestions during the study.

�

I would like to extend my words of thanks to my co-supervisor, Mr. G. Tylor and

HOD (P.E Technikon) for his engagement, dedication, and motivation during the

study period.

�

The headman, Mr. L. Takalani for allowing me to administer my study in his

communal land and the whole of Mukula community for their contribution and

participation. I will also like to extend my words of appreciation to the twelve

families for their patience, in all the seasons spent collecting data from their flocks.

�

Mr. B. Magadani, Mr. T. Thandavhathu and Mr. K. Nethshishivhe for organizing the

households from their home villages for data collection.

�

Mr. D. Mphohoni, Ms. C. Nematei and Ms. L Gavhi, for their friendship and

motivational words they offered throughout the study.

�

Pastor N. D. Mulaudzi and Pastor H. B. Ramulifho for all their prayers offered for the

success of this study.

v

�

My fellow students, Mr. A. J. Nekhofhe, Mr. H. P. Siliga and Mr. D. Nembilwi for

your courageous words and assistance offered in good and bad times of the study.

�

Miss M. Radzivhoni for the love, endurance, support and inspiration you have shown

to me since we met.

�

The NRF institution for the financial assistance for tuition, books, running expenses

as well as the purchasing of the stationary.

�

The Technikon Port Elizabeth for its guidance and support, enabling me to perform

my work properly.

Finally, I would like to thank God the Almighty for giving me strength and guidance

from the beginning of this study until this end. Praise be to him. Your Majesty!

vi

Dedication

I would like to send this dedication to my parents, Mr.

Albert A. Ranwedzi and Mrs. Mavis M. Ranwedzi, for their

love and confidence in me. My brother Thinyadziwi and

Sisters Tshifhiwa and Florance for their support as their

big brother.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Declaration of Independent Work ii

Foreword iii

Acknowledgements iv

Dedication v

List of table vi

Abbreviations vii

Chapter

1 General introduction 1

2 The importance of Family Poultry in Rural communities 2

Introduction 2

Family Poultry rearing and production systems 4

Housing 4

Feeding 4

Breeding 5

Egg laying 5

Brooding 6

Growth and reproductive performance 7

Flock composition and reasons for keeping poultry 8

Adaptive advantages of Family Poultry 9

Common diseases and mortality 9

Control of Newcastle disease 11

Labour 12

The socio-economic importance of Family Poultry 12

Conclusion 15

viii

References 16

3 Characterization of Family Poultry Production Systems under

Traditional Management conditions. 19

Introduction 19

Materials and methods 20

Study area 20

Data collection 20

Data analysis 20

Results and discussions 21

Household structure 21

Ownership and introduction of a new bird in a flock 21

Social objectives attached to the use of chickens 22

Cultural taboos and believes attached to family poultry 22

Labour 23

Housing 24

Nutrition 25

Flock dynamics and production systems 26

Egg production 26

Production constraints 27

Mortality rate 28

Disease control 39

Marketing 30

Extension services and social networks 31

Conclusions 31

References 35

4 Growth patterns and dynamics of indigenous chicken under traditional

farming systems 37

Introduction 37

ix

Materials and methods 37

Study area 37

Chicken management 38

Data collection 38

Statistical analysis 39

Results and discussion 40

The effect of household within village, season and age on the growth

Performance of indigenous cocks and hens 40

Household within village 40

Season 41

Age 42

The effect of household within village, season and age on the growth

performance of indigenous cockerels and pullets 43

Household within village 43

Season 44

Age 44

The effect of household within village and age on the growth performance

and dynamics of indigenous chicks 45

Village 45

Age 45

Mortality 45

Growth 46

Flock composition 47

Conclusions 47

References 56

5 General conclusion and recommendations 59

Abstract 61

x

LIST OF TABLES

2.1 Estimated populations of Family Poultry in African countries, their

contribution the national flocks and the ratio of Family Poultry

population to village human population 3

2.2 Mature weights (kg) of village fowl in Africa 7

2.3 Breed and performance information in South Africa 7

2.4 Estimated numbers of Family Poultry per village household in various

Countries 8

2.5 Mortality due to ND in rural family chickens in various African countries 10

2.6 Purposes for keeping FP in various regions of Africa 14

3.1 Household information 32

3.2 Objectives for keeping Family Poultry 33

3.3 Percentage of labour distribution within the household in chicken

production activities and management 33

3.4 Poultry houses building materials for walls and floor 34

3.5 Influence of season on mortality 34

3.6 FP price as influenced by age of bird at marketing 34

4.1 Analysis of variance for body weight of indigenous cocks and cockerels 49

4.2 Analysis of variance for body weight of indigenous hens, pullets and

chicks 49

4.3 Least square means and standard errors (LSM ± SE) for body weights

matured indigenous cocks and hens 50

4.4 Least square means and standard errors (LSM ± SE) for body weights of

indigenous cockerels and pullets 51

4.5.1 Least square means and standard errors (LSM ± SE) for body weights of

indigenous chicks 52

4.6 Simple statistics for ages of indigenous chickens 53

4.7 Simple statistics on the effect of household within village 54

xi

4.8 Simple statistics on the effect of season 55

xii

ABBREVIATIONS

FP - Family poultry

ND - Newcastle Disease

MK - Mukondeni

PH - Phindula

ST - Satane

Kg - Kilogram

g - Gram

HV - Household within village

Chapter 1.

General introduction

Family Poultry (FP) are birds of indigenous breeds living in almost symbiotic

relationship with human communities. The chickens are usually free ranging, or have

very limited restrains on their access to the village environment. African livestock

population statistics for 1995 indicates poultry to be the most numerous species of farm

animal (Anonymous, 1996a). More than 80% of poultry are kept in rural areas and

contribute substantially to annual egg and meat production (Sonaiya, 1997). Throughout

Africa poultry production stems from ancient traditional practices. FP is the most

important type of poultry kept on the continent. In general, village producers keep small

flocks of between 5 and 20 birds per household (Gueye, 1997a). Women and children

play a key role in their management (Kitalyi, 1996).

Because of its productivity, FP production has been neglected and is frequently

considered by farmers as an insignificant occupation compared with other agricultural

activities. Nevertheless, outside urban centers and especially in non-coastal areas, FP

provides the population with a vital source of protein and income. In addition, they play

an important role within the context of many social and/ or religious ceremonies.

Although this type of poultry constitutes an important part of food security for rural

households in South Africa, scientists have not explored this area of research for

improving or recording this production system. Yet, FP survived for decades without

being wiped out, in the interim, their keepers have gathered and stored a wealth of

knowledge and experience, ensuring the survival of this genetic resource. The objective

of this study was to collect the baseline data on FP production systems, determine their

production constraints and achieve data for future use in the intervention strategies.

Chapter 2.

The importance of Family Poultry in Rural Communities: A Review

Introduction

More than 80% of poultry are kept in rural areas and contribute substantially to annual

egg and meat production (Sonaiya, 1997 as cited by Gueye, 1998). Barua and Yoshimura

(1997) indicated that rural poultry system relies on minimal input of resources. Family

poultry rearing play an important role in providing the rural population in substantial

income and high quality protein. Almost every rural family keeps small flocks of

indigenous domestic fowl under a backyard management system in Bangladesh (Barua

and Yoshimura, 1997).

Although family poultry are less producers of eggs and meat, compared to commercial

breeds, they are hardy and thrive well in harsh rural environment and some varieties have

a superior genetic constitution, which has not been fully explored (Barua and Yoshimura,

1997). According to Spradbrow (1993) family poultry are usually free ranging, or have

very limited restrains on their access to the village environment. Gueye (1998) also

emphasized that the fowls are generally raised on a free-range system and they survive as

scavengers. Rudimentary coops or shelters may be provided to give some protection

against bad weather and night predators. Poultry sheds in rural areas are made of locally

available materials.

Family poultry in Africa are maintained with a very low land, labour and capital inputs

and can therefore be kept by even the poorest social strata of the rural population (Gueye,

1998). Birds are fed with household wastes and most of their times are spent in

scavenging. There is no systematic breeding programme and close inbreeding occurs

among indigenous stocks. Shortage of feeds and high incidence of disease are the main

constraints to family poultry development.

Table 2.1. Estimated populations of family poultry in African countries, their contribution

to the national flocks and the ratio of family poultry population to village human

population (Gueye, 1998).

Country FP

population

(millions)

FP as a %

of the

National

flock

Ratio of FP

population to

village human

population

Reference

Cameroon 11.2 70 1.57 Ngou Ngoupayou

(1995)

Central African

Republic

2.2 80 1.06 Anonymous (1997)

Ivory Coast 15.4 73 2.44 Diambra (1990)

Ethiopia 55.9 99 1.22 Yami (1995)

Gambia 0.9 90 1.32 Andrews (1990)

Kenya 16.1 70 0.84 Musiime (1992a)

Lesotho 1.6 - 1.12 Khomari (1992)

Malawi 12.0 90 1.46 Upindi (1990)

Mali 18.0 90 2.50 Kounta (1992)

Nigeria 123.9 93 2.59 Ologhobo (1992)

Senegal 11.1 70 2.22 Gueye (1997b)

Sudan 21.0 70 1.09 EL Zubeir (1990)

Tanzania 21.0 75 1.14 Kabatang and Katule

(1989)

Togo 3.9 70 1.55 Lobi (1984)

Uganda 16.0 80 1.01 Mukiibi-Muka (1992)

Zimbabwe 8.9-10.7 25-30 1.41 Kalube (1990)

FP: Family Poultry

Family poultry rearing and production systems

Housing Generally, the farmers in rural areas keep poultry under free range management systems.

During daytime, fowls are let out to scavenge freely and at night they usually return to

their sheds (Barua and Yoshimura, 1997). According to Spradbrow (1993) family poultry

are sheltered in houses whose standard vary greatly. In many areas no specific housing is

provided, and the chickens roost in trees at night and shelter below elevated human

dwellings. In some areas primitive poultry houses are built from simple, locally available

materials while in other areas the chickens share part of human habitation.

According to Aini (1990) the provision of these small and poorly constructed sheds do

not necessarily mean that the chickens use them. Most of them sleep either under the

houses or on tree branches, but rarely in sheds. The sheds are provided mainly for safety

reasons, to protect the birds from predators. When sheds are provided, they are usually

made of materials that are easily available in the area, such as bamboo or wooden planks,

and they are usually built at the back of the owners’ house. Typically the roof is made of

palm that or galvanized iron. The feed and water troughs, if provided, are also usually

made of locally available materials or old plastic or aluminium basins. In Sri Lanka it is

common to see lightly constructed poultry shelters suspended between trees, at a height

that will give protection from predators and theft (Spradbrow, 1993). A study done by

Guarantee et al. (1993) in Sri Lanka also emphasized that all households reared their own

replacements chickens and had a simple night shelter on the ground for them, made from

local materials like bamboo slats, wattle and mud, and palm leaves.

Feeding

Katule (1999) indicates that family poultry are raised mainly under minimum investment

management conditions with little attention paid to housing, nutrition, and disease

control. Their owners rarely provide the birds with food or water. Instead they have to

fend for their amenities from the household yards. Family poultry are usually fed once or

twice a day (in the morning and/or in the evening) with kitchen leftovers such as rice or

used coconut pulp (or other foods such as vegetable wastes, left over raw fish, rice husks,

rice bran, etc.). They are also fed any food material that is cheap and easily available in

the village such as sago trunks, banana trunks, etc. Some farmers provide supplementary

commercial feed in very limited amounts, or grains such as broken maize, broken rice,

rice bran, paddy (rice in the husks) or wheat (Aini, 1990).

Barua and Yoshimura (1997) indicated that during the scavenging period, domestic fowl

usually eat earthworms, insects, young shoots and grasses. This confirms that family

poultry rearing is an extremely cost effective enterprise for the farm because there are

little or no financial inputs. It is further indicated that in many areas birds are allocated

their own drinking water. Some owners supply drinking water close to their house, even

when surface water is available. In the dry tropics where surface water is not always

available, water is carried from wells for the chickens when it is procured for human use

(Spradbrow, 1993).

Breeding

According to Aini (1990) farmers do not follow any systematic breeding programme, and

as a result close inbreeding frequently occurs among indigenous fowl. Barua and

Yoshimura (1997) supported this by indicating that males and females usually run

together in the flocks and are housed together at all times. The eggs are naturally

incubated by broody hens, which are provided with wooden boxes or bamboo baskets,

and straw bedding materials. Broody hens are known for their protective behaviour.

Egg laying

A study done by Katule (1999) indicated that indigenous birds in a village would on

average attain sexual maturity at the age of 7 months. The hen would lay about 36 eggs

per year in 3 laying cycles of 12-13 eggs with each laying cycle lasting about 16 days.

The hen spends 21 days incubating her eggs, 84 days rearing chicks, and another 18 days

recuperating before another cycle of production sets in. Thus each reproductive cycle

would last about 139 days, of which only about 16 days are spent on egg laying. It was

concluded that from the results that under the village management conditions the egg

production capacity of the indigenous hen greatly hampered by the burden of having to

incubate eggs and rear her young. Hens come into the next cycle of egg laying soon after

weaning their young and that after the onset of egg production the laying intensity is

quite high.

Gueye (1998) also indicated that village fowls are characterized by their late maturity.

Egg production of the indigenous fowl is very low. Under village conditions the annual

egg production per bird ranges from 20 to 100 eggs with an average weight ranging from

about 30 to 50g. Egg production in rural areas follows a pattern of 8 to 10 weeks periods

of production with intervening periods of broodiness. Few of the eggs of village fowls are

consumed; most are allowed to incubate under the mother hen because farmers are aware

of high mortality, especially in growing birds.

Brooding

Spradbrow (1993) indicated that nesting containers are often provided to simplify the

collection of eggs and to allow the control of brooding. Fertile eggs are hatched under

broody hens and those hens tend the clutches of chicks often without human intervention

in the form of special shelters or additional food. Consequently most of populations of FP

are characterized by excessively high losses during the brooding period (Spradbrow,

1993). The village hens produce clutches of 10 to 12 eggs, some three times each year. If

brooding is permitted the eggs hatch under the hen with a high (about 80%) hatchability

rate. The hen cares for chickens from the clutch for some weeks or months. It should be

noted that broodings is the constraint on egg production by village hens.

Growth and reproductive performance

Growth rate of family poultry that survive the brooding period are low (Spradbrow,

1993). Gueye (1998) also emphasized by indicating that indigenous fowl grow very

slowly and are rather small, with the adult females weighing about 1kg and adult males

seldom more than 2kg.

Table 2.2. Mature weights (Kg) of village fowl in Africa (Gueye, 1998).

Country Matured males Matured females Reference

Benin 1.2-1.8 0.7-1.2 Assan (1990)

Cameroon 2.5 1.3-1.8 Ngou Ngoupayou (1990)

Mali 1.6 1.02 Wilson et al. (1987)

Morocco 1.2 12 EI Houdfi (1990)

Senegal 1.8 12 Sall (1990)

Sudan 2.1 1.3 Wilson (1979)

Tanzania 1.2-2.9 1.0-2.1 Katule (1992)

Table 2.3. Breed and performance information in South Africa (Fowls For Africa, 2000).

Breed Age (Averages) Male Female

Naked neck 16 weeks 1.5 1.1

20 weeks 1.95 1.4

Ovambo 16 weeks 1.74 1.32

20 weeks 2.16 1.54

Venda 16 weeks 1.57 1.24

20 weeks 2.01 1.4

Koekoek 16 weeks 1.84 1.4

20 weeks 2.4 1.7

In Northern Thailand in one survey, family poultry at 45 days of age weighed only 205g

while commercial broilers in the same area where 1500g at the same age (Gunaratne et

al., 1993). It is probable that disease, malnutrition and poor management all contributed

to this low productivity. Indonesia family poultry kept under intensive conditions grew

more rapidly than their counter parts in the villages, while supplementary feeding of

family poultry in Sri Lanka ensured that almost all the birds survived to 5month of age.

Comparable populations receiving no supplement suffered a mortality rate of about 70%.

Flock composition and reasons for keeping poultry

Table 2.4. Estimated numbers of family poultry per village household in various

countries (Gueye, 1998).

Country Number Reference

Benin 7-12 Assan (1990)

Cameroon 10 Ngou Ngoupayou (1990)

Congo 19 Nkodia (1990)

Ethiopia 6 Yami (1995)

Kenya 7-14 Mbugua (1990)

Madagascar 20-50 Raveleson (1990)

Mali 20-30 Kounta (1991)

Morocco 2-40 EI Houadfi (1990)

Niger 12 Bell and Abdou (1995)

Senegal 10 Sall (1990)

Somalia 5-15 Lul (1990)

Sudan 5-10 EI Zubeir (1990)

Tanzania 12 Kabatange and Katule (1989)

Togo 21 Aklobessi (1990)

Uganda 2-20 Okot (1990)

Zimbabwe 20-25 Kulube (1990)

Gueye (1997a) reported that flocks sizes generally range from 5 to 20 fowls per African

village household. The numbers of males tend to be lower in flocks with high proportions

of growers, and to higher proportions in larger flocks. Males are generally removed from

flocks at an early age for sale, home consumption or cultural purposes. Gunaratne et al.

(1993) also indicated that the age structure of village flocks varies with use that is made

of the flock. In Malaysia about 75% of the chickens in village flocks were less than 6

months of age. Similar age distributions have been reported from Thailand, and from

other countries where chickens are kept primarily for meat production. A different age

structures pertains in a country such as Sri Lanka where chickens are kept mainly for egg

production with the proportion of adult birds being greater.

Adaptive advantages of family poultry

Family poultry tend to be very robust and are well adapted to harsh environmental

conditions such as hot or cold weather, rain and periodic feed shortages (Gueye, 1998).

They thrive well under adverse environments such as poor housing, management and

feeding with variable temperature and humidity (Khan, 1983a). Plumage colours of

indigenous fowls vary from simple colours (e.g. white, black, and red) to all possible

combinations including gold, silver, and fawn and mottling. Coloured indigenous

domestic fowls are acceptable to the farmers than international hybrids. These birds

possess motherly instincts i.e. broodiness, and can be used advantageously to incubate

and rear chicks under rural conditions (Barua and Howlider, 1990). According to farmers,

multi-colours serve as a camouflage coloured plumage, alertness and fighting characters,

these birds can protect themselves and chicks from predatory animals (Barua and

Yoshimura, 1997).

Common diseases and mortality

Disease is the main constraint in the production of family poultry (Aini, 1990). In many

African countries Newcastle disease is the more serious endemic disease (Spradbrow,

1993) which devastates village poultry population in periodical outbreaks. Sonaiya et al.

(1992) reported that major outbreaks of Newcastle disease regularly occur at the peak of

rains (June/ July) when it is wet and cold. However, according to village farmers in

Senegal outbreaks occur generally during dry season, from January to June, and the

affected birds show neurological symptoms, which manifest in strangely ‘mad’ behavior.

There is a belief that bad spirits that originally have the family as a target are diverted to

the birds.

Table 2.5. Mortality due to ND in rural family chickens in various African countries

(Gueye, 1999).

Location Mortality Source

Agou sub-district, Togo 80 Grunler et al. (1988)

Bilene District, Mozambique 43.1 Alders et al. (1997)

Togo* More than 50 Aklobessi (1990)

Sudan* More than 50 EI Zubeir (1990)

Kenya* 80-90 Mussime (1992)

Central River Division, The

Gambia

80 Bonfoh (1997)

Western Middle-Belt region,

Nigeria

60.6 Atteh (1990)

Uganda* 98 Mukiibi Muka (1992)

Morocco Up to 100 EI Houadfi (1990)

Serowe-Palapye sub-district,

Botswana

Up to 100 Moreki (1997)

Plateau of Sankaran, Guinea 54.7 Mourad et al. (1997)

* Throughout the country

Rearing looses are severe, with high mortality in young chicks being an important

component. It is estimated that mortality of indigenous fowl under traditional

management systems is up to 50% up to 8 weeks of age in Burkina Faso (Wilso, 1986)

and Northern Ghana (Veluw, 1987) 66% by 12 weeks of age in Senegal (Sall, 1990 as

cited by Gueye, 1998) 30- 50% up to 4 weeks of age in Mali (Kounta, 1992 as cited by

Gueye, 1998) 68% up to 6 weeks in Nigeria (Ologhobo, 1992), and 53% up to 4 weeks of

age in Cameroon (Agbede et al., 1995 as cited by Aini, 1990). The other common

diseases encountered are: Infectious bronchitis, Infectious coryza, Fowl cholera, Fowl

pox, Marek’s disease, Lymphoid leucosis, Pullorum, Chronic respiratory disease and

Haemoprotozoa and to a lesser extent microfilaria (Oh, 1987; Sani et al., 1987;

Supramanium, 1988, as cited by Aini, 1990).

The village environment is not friendly for young chicks. Hens which have large clutches

of chicks immediately after hatching tend to have very small families at the end of the

brooding period of 6 to 8 weeks (Yami, 1995). There is, however, a suggestion from

Indonesia by Sonaiya (1992) that unvaccinated village chickens may be more resistant

than unvaccinated commercial chickens to experimental injection with virulent

Newcastle virus.

Control of Newcastle disease

Village fowl are almost never vaccinated against Newcastle disease with Western

standard vaccines. In Gambia one of the preventative measures (vaccines) traditionally

used by farmers consist of blending excreta of any wild birds with goat’s milk and giving

the resulting mixture as a drink (Bonfor, 1997 as cited by Gueye, 1998). The finding of

these farmers have been confirmed by Martin (1992) who reported that velogenic,

mesogenic and lentogenic strains of Newcastle disease virus had been isolated from

numerous species of wild birds all over the world, and that they form a reservoir of the

virus.

In addition, some farmers were found to use the entrails of fowl that had died from

Newcastle disease to treat their birds against this disease (Gueye, 1998). The entrails are

soaked with goat’s milk before being given to the birds. The use of milk is scientifically

well founded since it serves generally as a stabilizer for inactivated virus in vaccine

preparation. A variety of ethno-veterinary practices are widely used by farmers in order

to control Newcastle disease in village fowl. Plant products with recognized medicinal

properties are generally involved.

Labour

Poultry keeping in most of the developing countries is the responsibility of women

(Yami, 1997). Tadelle and Ogle (1996a) as cited by Tadelle (1999) indicated that in a

study of three villages and the earnings from the sale of eggs and chickens are often their

only source of income. Most of the poultry extension workers, vaccination and key

poultry farmers are men.

The socio-economic importance of family poultry

The traditional system of poultry keeping is still considered quite efficient in the rural

areas. Capital and labour inputs are extremely low and the costs of production per egg or

per kg of bird are very small. As well as providing a side income for the farmers from the

sale of eggs and birds there are also other indirect benefits. An average of 10-15 layers

per household can supply cheap eggs and meat to provide an adequate level of animal

protein in the family’s diet.

Poultry generate income for about 40% to 45% people in the rural and urban areas,

respectively (Barua and Yoshimura, 1997). Domestic fowls also serve as an efficient

waste disposal system converting every left over grain into valuable protein for the

owners. Kitchen scraps such as rice, bread and other feed stuffs can be utilized to produce

eggs and meat instead of being wasted. At the same time, 15 adult fowls produce about

1.0-1.2kg of manure per day (Aini, 1990a) which is a valuable fertilizer for the fruit trees

and vegetables in the homestead areas, and encourages the development of earthworms in

the soil.

When poultry are allowed to range freely, these worms, together with termites and other

insects, form an additional source of feed for the poultry. By grazing young grasses and

other vegetation, they are also useful in the control of weeds. Poultry are therefore an

important component in an integrated farming system (Barua and Yoshimura, 1997).

Gueye (1998) also indicated that all ethnic groups through out the African continent are

involved in poultry production. In addition to providing farmers with eggs and meat for

their home consumption, poultry are kept for a variety of other reasons. The sale (barter)

of poultry products enables poultry keepers to obtain money to spend on their own family

needs. In the context of intra- inter- community exchanges, indigenous fowl have a

symbolic importance within many social activities (e.g. special banquets for distinguished

guests, gifts) and / or religious ceremonies (e.g. cocks as offering to deities) (Lul, 1990;

Okot, 1990; Yami, 1995 as cited by Gueye, 1998). In the Western Middle Belt region of

Nigeria, Atteh (1989) reported the reasons for keeping village fowls as being 11% for

income alone, 28% for consumption alone, 45% for income and consumption, 3% for

ceremonies, 11% for income and ceremonies, 3% for consumption and ceremonies and

1% for ornament. In the Keita region for Niger home consumption accounted for 47%,

sales for 38% and gifts for 16% (Bell and Abdou, 1995).

Table 2.6. Purposes for keeping FP in various regions of

Africa (Gueye, 1998).

Poultry

species

Study area Reported purposes*(%)

Chickens Western middle-Belt

region, Nigeria

C(27.5), I(10.5), I+C(44.7), SCR(3.4),

I+SCR(10.5), C+SCR (2.6), O(0.8)

Chickens North-Central Nigeria I(52.3), C(29.3), G(13.8), E(4.6)

Chickens Chitungwiza, Zimbabwe I+C(91.8)

Chickens Keita region, Niger C(46.7), I(37.7), G(15.6)

Chickens* Central River Division,

The Gambia

C(94.0), I(94.0), G(33.0), SCR(9.0)

Chickens** Serowe-Palapye-

Subdistrict, Botswana

C(100.0), I(65.0), SCR(55.0), H(14.0)

Guinea fowls North Central Nigeria I(43,5), E(23.7), C(20.9), G(11.9)

Guinea fowls Keita region, Niger I(45.7), C(27,2), G(27.1)

Ducks North Central Nigeria I(52.8), G(28.2), C(19.0)

Ducks Keita region, Niger C(80.0), G(50.0)

Pigeons North Central Nigeria C(80.0), G(20.0)

Pigeons Keita region, Niger C(42.8), G(42.8), I(14.4)

All species Northern Ghana SCR(34.7), I(27.8), C(15.3), G(12.5),

BS(9.7)

*: I= Income, C= Consumption, SCR= Socio-cultural and/ or religious ceremonies, O =

Ornamental poultry, H= Hobby, G= Gifts, E= Exchange, BS= Breeding stock

** Non-exclusive percentages

The consumption of poultry meat and eggs is usually unaffected by religious

prohibitions, except among populations that practice strict vegetarianism. However,

chickens and eggs produced for home consumption and cash or barter transactions in the

markets do not feature in calculations of gross national products. Consequently, family

poultry production has until recently been neglected by economists. Some studies

indicating the real value of family poultry are now becoming available. It is interesting

that account must be taken of the barter or exchange value of chickens, as well as their

cash value. In rural Uganda, subsistence farmers use chickens to obtain the few essentials

that they are unable to produce by themselves (Spradbrow, 1993). A single hen is the

equivalent of 1 bar of soap, 1kg of salt or 1 litre of cooking paraffin, while 2 hens will

pay school fees for a child for a term. It is also possible to trade-up, so that 5-8 chickens

will procure a goat.

CONCLUSIONS

Family poultry are raised mainly under minimum investment management conditions

with little attention paid to housing condition, nutrition or disease control. This condition

ultimately results in small growth and poor egg production, late sexual maturity and high

rearing mortality. However, the production of these birds is characterized by many

advantages such as good egg and meat flavour, hard shells, high dressing percentages and

especially low cost with little special care required for production. They are therefore

well suited to the very limited input that the mainly poor producers can provide.

However, efforts to increase productivity through improvements in health, feeding,

housing, genetics and daily management should be encouraged as they will result in

increased economic returns. It is speculated further that higher body weights of the

indigenous birds might be recorded if the environmental conditions in which the flocks

are kept are comparable to that in which the exotic breeds are normally raised.

REFERENCES

AINI, I., 1990. Indigenous chicken poultry production in South-east Asia. World’s

Poultry Science Journal, 46:51-57.

ATTEH, J. O., 1989. Rural poultry production in Western-Middle Belt region of Nigeria.

In. Proceedings on an international workshop on Rural Poultry Development in Africa

(Sonaiya, E.B., Ed.), Ile Ife, Nigeria, pp. 211-220.

BARUA, A. AND HOWLIDER, M. A. R., 1990. Prospects of native chickens in

Bangladesh. Poultry Adviser 23: 57-61.

BARUA, A. AND YOSHIMURA, Y., 1997. Rural poultry keeping in Bangladesh. World

Poultry Science Journal, 53: 387-395.

BELL, J. G. AND ABDOU, I., 1995. Dynamics of village poultry production in Keita

region of Niger. Nigerian Journal of Animal Production 22: 1141-144.

GUEYE, E. F., 1997a. Diseases in village chickens: control through ethno-vetenary

medicine. ILEIA Newsletter 13: 20-21.

GUEYE, E. F., 1998. Poultry plays an important role in African village life. World

Poultry. Elsevier vol 14, 10: 14-17.

GUEYE, E. F., 1998. Village egg and fowl meat production in Africa. World’s Poultry

Science Journal 54: 73-87.

GUEYE, E. F., 1999. Disease control using ethno-veterinary medicine. World Poultry.

Elsevier vol 15, 7: 48-51.

GUNARATNE, S. P.; CHANDRASIKI, A. D. M.; MANGALIKA HEMALATHA, W.

A. P. AND ROBERTS, J. A., 1993. Feed resources base for scavenging village chickens

in Sri Lanka. Trop Anim. Hlth Prod. 25: 249-257.

KATULE, A. M., 1999. A study on the productivity of indigenous chickens under village

management conditions.

KHAN, A. G., 1983a. Indigenous germ plasm (part 1). Poultry Adviser 16: 40-48.

Poultry Adviser 16: 40-48.

KITALYI, A. J., 1996. Socio-economic aspects of village chicken production in Africa:

the role of women, children and non-governmental organizations. Proccedings 20th

World’s Poultry congress, vol. 1, New Delhi, India, pp. 35-45.

MARTIN, P. A. J., 1992.The epidemiology of Newcastle disease in village chickens. In:

Newcastle Disease in Village Chickens (Spradbrow, p. b., Ed), Proceedings No. 39,

ACLR, Canberra, pp. 40-45.

OLOGHOBO, A. D., 1992. The dilemma of animal feeds and indigenous poultry

production in Nigeria. Proceedings 19th World’s Poultry Congress, Volume 2,

Amsterdam, The Netherlands, pp. 81-86.

SPRADBROW, P. B., 1993. Newcastle Disease in village chickens. Poult. Sci. Rev. 5:

57-96.

SONAIYA, E. B., 1990. The context and prospects for development of small holder rural

poultry production in Africa. In. CTA Seminar Proceedings, Volume 1, Small holder

Rural Poultry Production, Thessaloniki, Greece, pp. 35-52.

SONAIYA, E. B., 1997. African Network on Rural Poultry Development : Progress

report, November 1989 to June 1995. Proceedings ANRPD Workshop, Addis Ababa,

Ethiopia pp. 134-143.

TADELLE, D., 1999. The role of scavenging poultry in Integrated Farming System in

Ethiopia. Inhtt:// www. Fao. Org./ WAICENT/ FAOINT/ AGRICULT/ AGA, AGAP/ FRG/

conf 96/ tadelle. htm.

VELEW, K. van., 1987. Traditional poultry keeping in Northern Ghana. ILEIA News

letter 3: 12-13.

WILSON, R. T., 1986. Poultry production in Sub-saharan Africa. Outlook on Agriculture

15 : 121-127.

YAMI, A., 1995. Poultry production in Ethiopia. World’s Poultry Science Journal 51:

197-201.

Chapter 3

Characterization of Family Poultry Production systems under Traditional

Management conditions

Introduction

It is a common sight to find family poultry scavenging freely around houses in rural areas

of the Northern Province of South Africa. They constitute a significant portion of animals

kept by rural households for consumption, marketing and socio-cultural uses. It also has a

singular advantage of being able to provide households with significant cash income to

cope with basic needs. In most rural village communities of South Africa keeping of

indigenous chickens in a free range system has been practiced for many years. This

system is less intensive as compared to the battery system where the birds are caged in a

totally artificial environment.

These birds are given little or no feed supplements with minimal housing and little or no

animal health, and yet they adapt so well to the hard conditions and they still perform

relatively well. A study done by Mopate and Loney (1999) indicated that under adverse

conditions, indigenous breeds always perform more efficiently than the highly efficient

and improved breeds.

Although requiring minimal resource input and considered secondary to other agricultural

activities by farmers, this type of production has an important role in supplying local

populations with additional income and food supply. One purpose is to provide the food,

by converting locally available resources to meat and eggs. However, the productivity of

family poultry is generally low (Wethli, 1999), so that their potential contribution to the

alleviation of households food insecurity is not fully realized. The reasons for poor

productivity of family poultry are manifold and include a complex interaction of

socioeconomic and agro-technical factors. The purpose of this study was to characterize

FP production under traditional management system.

Materials and methods

Study area

The research was conducted at Mukula tribal land, Vhembe District of Northern

Province. Mukula is situated about 20km Northeastern side of Thohoyandou, and it fall

between latitudes of 300 33’ 00” and 300 36’ 00”, and the longitudes of between 220 51’

00” and 220 52’ 30’’. The annual rainfall ranges between 750mm-1000mm per annum.

The climatic condition of the area is warm in summer with cold winters. The study was

done in eleven villages, which are Satane, Mukondeni, Phindula, Matswalale, Tshapala,

Khavhambe, Marindili, Thembaluvhilo, Thondoni, Tshinyele and Tshinenye. The land

has an estimated population of over 10 000 citizens.

Data collection

Data on FP production and management systems were collected by a qualitative method

of using a prepared questionnaire, interviews and visual observations. From the eleven

villages, each village was allocated 10 questionnaires and they were randomly

administered to different household who were keeping indigenous chickens. The

questionnaire was designed to extract information such as area demography, housing

equipments, diseases, production systems, breeding, feeding, disease control, potential

markets, general management, production constraints, social networks and extension

services. Interviews and visual observations were done during questionnaires

administration. Farmers were interviewed individually and as group.

Results and discussions

Household structure

The discussion is based on Table 3.1.The highest number of household members

available were the people whose age ranged between 0 and 30, as they constitute 74.5%.

The other reason behind this might be the fact that older respondents could easily disclose

the ages of their children than of themselves. The academic qualification of residents was

determined and the highest percentage was the senior school scholars, which constituted

59.0%. However, these figures could possibly change, as some of the respondents were

not aware of their family members’ level of education. About 64.5% indicated that their

level of income ranges between R500-R1000 per months. This is highly influenced by the

higher percentage (23.6%) of pensioners, 29.3% of wage employed and 10.2% of self-

employed. The rate of unemployment is also high as it includes the housekeepers

(26.2%), disabled (1.3%) and partly the self-employed (10.2%) whose business are not

sustainable. Under these high rates of unemployment FP can plays an important role by

supplying families with protein.

Ownership and introduction of a new bird in a flock

It is common to find almost every household member owning a certain number of birds

within the flock. It extends from household head to women and children. When a new

chicken is introduced to a new place, it is traditional that such a bird has to be taken to a

cold hearth and get its claws scraped by the hearth. The reason behind this is that it is

believed that such a bird(s) won’t get back to where it was taken or bought from. After

that, few wing feathers are then pecked and put on a roof where such a bird is intended to

be housed, either at all times or only during the night. This is done with the belief that the

bird won’t forget where it has to sleep when the sun sets.

Social objectives attached to the use of chickens

About 37.1% indicated that they rear FP for meat only, with 62.0% for meat and eggs and

0.9% for other reasons which includes money and rituals. Aini (1990a) once stated that

poultry manure are used as valuable fertilizers for fruit trees and vegetables in the

homestead areas, and encourages the development of earthworms in the soil. The reasons

for keeping chickens were identified as indicated in table 3.2.

This is comparable to a study done by Atteh (1989) which reported reasons of keeping FP

to be income (11%), consumption (28%), Income and consumption (45%), ceremonies

(3%), income and ceremonies (11%), consumption and ceremonies (3%) and ornamental

(1%). However in the Keita region of Niger home consumption accounted 47%, sales for

38% and gifts for 16% (Bell and Abdou, 1995). Indigenous chickens are used for a

variety of social functions based on the social and spiritual background and association of

the owner. Social functions such as church party (65.7%), graduation party (65.7%), and

birthday party (77.8%). Also, rituals (68.5%), bereavement (70.4%), initiation

ceremonies (81.5%) are based on chicken meat. The highest percentage of respondents

uses meat (83.3%) in economic empowerment activities (stockvel). This also indicates

that the preference of FP is competitive to the exotic breeds for some reasons.

The rearing of FP was found to be basically for meat and eggs for consumption.

Cultural taboos and beliefs attached to family poultry

About 79.6% of respondents believe that taboos no longer carry the value they used to

carry before. However, 20.4% still believe that taboos are still existing, but with others

being relaxed due to the vast availability of eggs and meat from exotic breeds. The

following were taken as the most important taboos:

♦ Boys are not allowed to count eggs because they will all hatch to cocks only. The

reason behind this was to keep boys away from eggs, as they can be tempted to

steal them.

♦ Eggs should not be finger-pointed when counting them because they will all be

rotten. This was done to prevent people from touching eggs as they can possibly

contaminate the eggs with dirty hands.

♦ Young ladies are exempted from eating eggs as they may steal them when they

get married.

♦ Pregnant women are also exempted from eating eggs. This was done to limit

protein access to unborn children so as to avoid difficulties at birth.

♦ Eggs should not be consumed during brooding because the hen can sulk.

♦ The pelvis part, thigh and gizzard are normally for the household head, with head,

feet and offal being reserved for women and children.

However, due to vast availability of meat and eggs from the exotic breeds such taboos are

no longer practiced, though the last part is still practiced in certain families when an

indigenous chicken is slaughtered and more especially when the ownership of the

slaughtered bird was of the household head.

Labour

The results on the distribution of labour are presented in table3.3. Men are usually

involved with the building of poultry shelters with woman and children sharing most of

the rearing and management activities. This is comparable to the findings of Rangnekar

and Rangnekar (1999) which indicates that in about 70% of the families, the entire

operation, from feeding management to marketing, was handled by women. Selling of

eggs and birds in the village markets was by men in some communities and higher socio-

economic groups. In all these activities, no household member was found to be

compensated for any activity.

Housing

They are sheltered in houses whose standard vary greatly i.e. others have built primitive

poultry houses from locally available materials while others share part of human

habitation (Spradbrow, 1993). Most of them are housed in traditional kitchens where they

share their shelter with man and other domestic animals such as cats and goats. Others are

housed in summer, due to the fact that almost all villagers plant and grow maize and to

prevent them from scraping maize seedlings. They house them all day for a week or two

depending on the availability of food to supply them and the stage of their maize

seedlings. To prevent this, others also debeak their birds and crush their claws to prevent

them from scraping maize seedlings and this also lower their ability to scavenge for their

food and as a result they loose weight. The results indicate that only 0.9% have a modern

standardized shelter that keep chickens housed at all times, with only 8.3% housing

chicken for the whole day during summer (when planting maize) and during winter

(when planting agronomic crops such as vegetables in the garden) for a week or two.

About 79.7% were found to be housing their chickens at night only. Barua and

Yoshimura (1997) once stated this by indicating that during daytime, fowls are let out to

scavenge freely and at night they usually return to their sheds. Only 11.1% do not house

their chickens at all, and as a result they normally sleep on trees, old houses and below

elevated human dwellings. This confirms the findings of Aini (1990) which states that

others sleep either under houses or on the tree branches.

Table 3.4 indicates that from those that where housing their chickens, 80.2% where found

to be using thatching grass as roofing materials for their chicken houses, with only 19.8%

using corrugated irons as roofing materials. The renewals of these roofing materials

(thatching grass) were said to be seasonal and they are normally done after winter when

such grass is in abundance. This confirms the findings by Gunaratne et al. (1993) which

indicate that FP night shelter are made from local materials like bamboo slats, wattle,

mud and palm leaves.

Most of the houses used to shelter chickens are made of mud, i.e. walls and floor as they

were both 72.9% and some of these houses are hardly cleaned. The adoption of modern

chicken housing is fairly available as only 6.3% where found to be using sieve and iron in

walls with 24.0% having cemented floors. Only 1.0% was found to be using sawdust on

the floor with 2.1%, using wood for those that prefer to sleep on perches. Traditional

houses with walls made of sticks and bamboo (3.1%) were found to be used with perches.

The traditional silos used to store maize were also found to be used for housing of these

birds. However many respondents because of its risk to predators and theft discouraged

this shelter.

Nutrition

FP usually feed themselves through scavenging or scratching the ground for snails,

insects, earthworms, grains, worms, seeds, grass and other plants. In addition to that,

some also supply them with garden vegetables such as potatoes, spinach, carrots,

cabbage, etc. Very few have prepared feeding and drinking troughs. This is due to the

fact that not all households prepare feeding for their chickens. Katule (1999) once stated

this by indicating that FP is raised mainly under minimum investment conditions.

However 73.1% indicated that they give water to their chickens with 26.9% who

indicated that they don’t give water to their birds and as results, they only rely on water

splashed after washing the dishes or even bathing and around water taps or bore holes.

Those that said to be supplying water where using the following materials: troughs made

of cement (0.9%), old clay pots (14.9%), trays and pots lids (3.6%), old tires (3.6%),

plastic and aluminum basins (14.9%) and old aluminum basins (35.2%). About 93.5%

indicated that they feed their chickens, with only 6.5% who indicated that they do not

give feed to their birds. The feed supplied includes the following : maize (0.9%); maize

husks (0.9%); food leftovers (6.7%); maize and food leftovers (60.8%); maize, husks and

food leftovers (22.4%); maize, chicken feed and food leftovers (5.6%); maize and

chicken feed (0.9%); maize, chicken feed and husks (0.9%) and dregs of traditional beer

(0.9%). The major feed supplied is the maize, husks and food leftovers. Buying of

modern feeds seems to be very rare as only 5.6% indicated that they buy chicken feeds

from shops. Modern feeding and drinking troughs are hardly found to be used as chickens

are extensively reared and housed at certain times.

Flock Dynamics and production systems

Aini (1990) indicated that rural communities have kept indigenous poultry for many

generations and their traditional system of keeping these poultry is still considered quite

efficient in rural areas. About 2.8% acquired their birds as a reward after keeping or

looking after someone’s chicken(s) e.g. when a hen laid its eggs on the neighbours house,

and that neighbour takes care of that hen until it hatches.

Then that neighbour can be rewarded with a chicken or one of those chicks if they grow

to cocks and pullets, and that initiates the rearing of FP. About 74.0% of the respondents

indicated that they have been farming with FP for a long time and they can’t easily

explain when they started rearing the birds. Some only know that they grew up in

families were FP used to be raised and actually can’t remember how they were acquired.

Only 20.4% indicated that they bought their chickens at a price that ranges between

R10.00 and R20.00 depending on the conversation between the seller and the buyer. This

indicates that prices are not stable i.e. they are negotiable. About 2.8% were found to be

rearing chickens that where presented to them as gifts, with another 2.8% acquired them

through battering. The major flock increment was found to be through hatching of own

chicks without buying chicks or pullets and cockerels from a hatchery or any poultry

industry. This is also influenced by the fact that there are no breeding programs. The

breeding is not controlled as cocks and hens run together all seasons.

Egg production

About 98.1% indicated that they prepare nesting boxes using cheap local materials such

as large woven baskets, a large tin with end cut out, wood, stones or bricks. To protect

eggs from breakage and to provide warmth, they put grass or straws, piece of cloth with

others using maize bran during its abundance. Nesting containers provided to simplify the

collection of eggs and to allow the control of brooding were as well observed by

Spradbrow (1993). When there is no prepared nesting boxes, hens possibly lay their eggs

anywhere on the ground level of where they are normally housed or even on top of the

roofs. In case of laying on top of the roofs the wing feathers are subjected to cutting using

a knife or an axe, to prevent them from flying over the roofs. Some also lay their eggs on

the edge of the fence with others laying on a bulk of thatching grass packed around

during its abundance. Apart from being subject to predators and certain breakage, human

also play a role in lowering egg quantity for consumption. The following are results of

how eggs are used after being laid: consumption (24.0%), brooding (71.4%), hatched

(61.4%), rotten and broken (2.1%). FP egg consumption is reasonably low due to the vast

availability of eggs from the commercial breeds.

When eggs are consumed there are certain considerations made such as: when the hen

usually crash and drink its own eggs, bad mothering ability such as poor protection

against predators and bad weather, when the hen only lay eggs and do not brood, and

when a hen usually lays eggs in an unprotected spot. A hen that usually lay more eggs,

hatch many chicks and protect them until they become adults, their eggs are normally

exempted from consumption (Ramlah, 1996).

Similar conditions are also extended to the slaughtering of chickens depending on the

ownership of the flock or birds i.e. there should be a valid reasons for slaughtering which

includes : to lower the number of males as they usually injure or kill one another when

they compete for females, when there is an important visitor, when a hen does not lay

eggs or it usually lay very few or immature eggs (less than 10 eggs per laying period) or

do not lay at all, when a hen usually lays eggs in an unprotected spot, when a chicken is

badly injured, when there is a disease suspicion. All these are some of reasons, apart from

the normal desire of chicken meat, that contribute to chicken slaughtering.

Production constraints

It was reported by Khan (1983a) that FP thrive well under adverse environments such as

poor housing, management, and feeding with variable temperature and humidity. The

major constraints are diseases (57.4%) followed by predators (35.2%). Newcastle was

said to be the most problematic disease as its outbreak can lead to a total destruction of

the whole flock. Predators such as mongoose, etc., and domestic animals such as cats and

dogs were said to be very problematic, especially to chicks. Extreme climatic conditions

(1.9%) such as hot and cold weather also contribute, mostly to chicks, to the lowering of

chicken increment. Chicks are mostly found dead during rainy seasons and during winter

due to poor husbandry. It was also indicated that external parasites are severe as they also

go to an extent of killing chickens. Fleas (9.3%) and mites (77.0%) were said to be very

problematic as they bite and causes sores, and if the chickens are not taken care of, they

eventually die.

To eliminate the presence of such parasites the following are used : fire or hot ashes

(19.4%), dregs of traditional beer (16.7%), smear the floor with cattle dung (8.3%), Jeyes

fluid (0.9%), Blue death (0.9%), hot water (6.5%), paraffin (6.5%), chemicals from stores

(0.9%), pig fat (3.7%), burning chillis (0.9%), chemicals used to kill flies and other

domestic insects (9.3%). About 26.0% indicated that, in times of its abundance (external

parasites), they leave them to run their full course. The dregs of beer are spread on the

floor for a day or two, and that process is done when chickens are out for scavenging.

Others apply paraffin by spreading on top of chickens mostly in the evening, with others

using modern chemicals of eradicating flies such as doom. Due to their exposure to the

outside environment, many protruding objects and other scattered materials that tie them

up also injures FP. This contributes to more chicken loss as predators can easily attach

them when they are tied up with such materials.

Mortality rate

Since chickens share shelter with man and other animals, most chicks were reported to be

dying by falling into fire and by being crushed by man and animals they share habitation

with. In households that do not have surrounding fence, most of the chicks get lost, and

eventually become preys to predators. Adult birds are mostly troubled with diseases and

predators. Chickens from different household usually cluster and scavenge together, and

they get contact with one another and by so doing they spread disease. Due to poor

housing structures, predators also get access to where chickens are housed. The following

are the reasons for chicken losses: predators (14.8%), diseases (8.3%), predators and

diseases (49.1%), predators and theft (6.5%), predators and injuries (2.8%), predators,

disease and theft (11.1%), harsh climatic conditions (1.9%), external parasites (0.9%).

From the respondents, only 4.6% indicated that they don’t have any losses. It was

estimated that mortality of indigenous fowl under traditional management systems was

up to 50% up to eight weeks of age in Burkina Faso (Wilson, 1986), and Northern Ghana

(Veluw, 1987), 66% by 12 weeks of age in Senegal (Gueye, 1998).

Table 3.5 indicates the influence of season in chicken mortality. This supports the

findings by Spradbrow (1993) which states that the major outbreaks of ND regularly

occur at the peak of winter. To the contrary village farmers in Senegal indicated that

outbreaks occur generally during dry season. During winter chick mortality of 31.5% was

reported to be due to coldness as there are poor housing and brooding facilities. The

outbreak of Newcastle disease was said to begin at the end of winter and run its full

course during spring. This is much more influenced by the blowing of wind and extreme

changes of temperature from coldness to hotness. The ages that mostly die were

presented as follows way: chicks (11.1%), adults (11.1%), cockerels and pullets (6.5%),

all chickens (63.0%). About 8.3 % indicated that they don’t experience death caused by

diseases, they are only troubled by predators.

Disease control

The results show that about 75% of respondents indicated that Newcastle is the major

problematic disease killing chickens, with others indicating the following disease

symptoms: swollen feet (1.9%), swollen liver (13.0%), and swollen comb and eyes

(3.6%). About 6.5% were not aware of the type diseases that kill their chickens. About

52.8% indicated that they treat their chickens.

To remedy this situation some use traditional medications which includes the use of trees

such as Albizia versicolor (0.9%), Trichilia emitica (1.9%), Aloe vossii Reynolds

(36.1%), chilli (10.2%), Spirostachys africana (0.9%), and the leaves of Tobacco plants.

From the other plants they use the bark parts, which are firstly hammed and get mixed

with water, and then are given to chickens in a liquid form. Others also mix water with

salts (1.9%), powdery soap (2.8%) and manganese (2.8%). It is believed that when such

mixture is given to chickens, they will have a diarrhea, and by so doing they will have

internal cleaning. During disease outbreak, brooding hens are said to be very safe as they

don’t move around with others, and the same also happens to hens housed with chicks for

a certain period of time to give ample time for chicks to grow to an extent of following

the hen well during scavenging. However, some also buy modern vaccination chemicals

from local stores. Apart from doing that themselves, there were other men who moved

around villages vaccinating the chickens at a certain price, depending on the size of the

flock.

Marketing

None of the respondents was found to be selling eggs, with only few selling chickens

depending on the need. The price of the chickens usually depends on the relationship

between the consumer and the supplier and the need for money by the supplier. These

disclose the chances of bartering as once indicated by Bell and Abdou (1995) by stating

that a single hen is the equivalent of 1 bar of soap, 1kg of salt or 1 liter of cooking oil

paraffin. However, table 3.6 reflects the selling price their chickens.

Selling advertisements are not done as the chickens are not always on sale. Bartering is

also done in times of certain urgent needs such as school fees for the children, buying

books for children, etc. The exchange can either be done with maize or maize meal.

The traditional medicines used are not sold anywhere; they just share the information. It

is traditional to find almost all-household members having ownership to certain birds of

the flock. It normally extends from the household heads to women and children.

However, women and children usually do not carry the final decisions on the usage of

such birds without the consultation of the household head. This indicates that household

heads, usually man, have the final word.

Extension services and social networks

The whole production system is done with minimal Agricultural Extension support from

either Government or Non Governmental Organization. Many are just using their

indigenous knowledge they acquired as they grew in families where FP has been raised.

Their experience on the field serves as basic source of information. However, about

53.7% of the respondents indicated that they require training on poultry, especially the

exotic breeds. They were also ready to pay a maximum amount of R500.00 for the whole

training. The respondents indicated that they only share information with neighbours,

usually when there are strange things happening on their flocks. There is no farmers or

poultry organization from where they source information. They are members of certain

organizational structures such as political, religious, etc. but there is no agricultural

structure to address farmer’s issues.

CONCLUSIONS

Family poultry are widely kept by rural households in Northern Province for varied

purposes. One purpose is to provide food, by converting locally available resources to

meat and eggs. However, the productivity of FP is generally low and their potential

contribution to the alleviation of household food insecurity is not fully realized.

The reasons for poor productivity of FP are manifold and include a complex interaction

of socio-economic and agro-technical factors. The productivity of FP could be higher if

they are given good nutrition and husbandry, and even disease control. The role of

chickens in rural areas goes beyond providing meat and eggs, as is invariably the case in

the commercial sector. They are certainly multi-purpose and are valued assets embedded

in culture and tradition.

Table 3.1. Household information

Household particulars Number Percen

tage

AGE*

<10 35 24.8

10-20 50 34.5

21-30 22 15.2

31-40 11 7.6

41-50 7 4.8

51-60 7 4.8

>60 12 8.3

ACADEMIC QUALIFICATION

Junior school scholar 49 35.2

Senior school scholar 82 59.0

Tertiary education 8 5.8

OCCUPATION

Wage employed 66 29.3

Self employed 23 10.2

Housekeeper 59 26.2

Disabled 3 1.3

Unemployed 21 9.3

Pensioner 53 23.6

INCOME*

<R500 5 7.5

R500-R1000 43 64.5

>R1000 19 28.4

* It is a taboo for older people to disclose their age and household income information to

young people.

Table 3.2. Objectives for keeping Family Poultry

Objectives %

Money 0.8

Meat 30.5

Meat and money 1.9

Money and eggs 0.9

Meat and eggs 35.2

Meat and rituals 3.7

Meat, money and eggs 13.0

Meat, eggs and rituals 11.1

Meat, money, eggs and rituals 2.8

Table 3.3. Percentage of labour distribution within the

household on chicken production activities and management

ACTIVITY MOTHER FATHER CHILDREN RELAIVE HIRED

Building 0 75.6 12.2 7.3 4.9

Feeding 48.5 11.7 39.7 0 0

Egg collection 33.3 0 66.7 0 0

Cleaning packaging eggs 40 20 40 0 0

Cleaning chicken house 50.8 8.5 41 0 0

Purchasing of chicken 45.5 54.5 0 0 0

Marketing of chicken 40 40 20 0 0

Disease control 47.6 19.1 14.2 0 19.1

Internal parasites 47.6 19.1 14.2 0 19.1

External parasites 47.6 19.1 14.2 0 19.1

Table 3.4. Poultry houses building materials for walls and

floor

Building materials Walls (%) Floor (%)

Sticks and bamboo 3.1 -

Mud 72.9 72.9

Sieve and iron 6.3 -

Timber 3.1 -

Cement 14.6 24.0

Sawdust - 1.0

Wood - 2.1

Table 3.5. Influence of season on mortality

Season %

Summer 23.2

Winter 31.5

Spring 29.6

Autumn 0.9

Anytime 2.8

Unknown 12.0

Table 3.6. FP price as influenced by age of bird at

marketing

AGE R10 R15 R20 >R20 TOTAL

Pullets or cockerels 51.9 19.4 22.2 1.9 100

Hens 3.7 32.4 59.3 3.7 100

Cocks 6.4 25.0 59.3 9.3 100

REFERENCES

AINI, I., 1990. Indigenous chicken poultry production in Southeast Asia. World’s Poultry

Science Journal, 46:51-57.

ATTEH, J. O. Rural poultry production in Western-Middle belt region of Nigeria. In.

Proceedings on an international workshop on Rural Poultry Development in Africa

(Sonaiya, E. B., Ed), Ile Ife, Nigeria, pp. 211-220.

BARUA, A. AND YOSHIMURA, Y., 1997. Rural poultry keeping in Bangladesh.

World’s Poultry Science Journal, 53:387-395.

BELL, J. G. AND ABDOU, I., 1995. Dynamics of village poultry production in Keita

region of Niger. Nigerian Journal of Animal Production 22: 141-144.

GUEYE, E. F., 1998. Village egg and fowl meat production in Africa. World’s poultry

Journal 54:73-87.

GUNARATNE, S. P., CHANDRASIKI, A., D. M., MANGALIKA HEMALATHA, W.

A. P. AND ROBERTS, J. A., 1993. Feed resources base for scavenging village chickens

in Sri Lanka. Trop Anim. Hlth Prod. 25:249-257.

KATULE, A. M., 1999. A study on the productivity of indigenous chickens under village

management conditions.

KHAN, A. G., 1983a. Indigenous germ plasm (part 1). Poultry Adviser 16: 40-48.

Poultry Adviser 16: 40-48.

MOPATE, L. Y. AND LONY, M., 1999. Survey on family chicken farms in rural area of

N’Djamena, Chad. Livestock Research for Rural Development (11) 2. htt: // www. Cipav.

Org.co/ lrr/lrr11/2/chad 112. htm.

RAMLAH, A. H., 1996. Performance of village fowl in Malaysia. World Poultry Science

Journal, vol. 52. 75-79.

RANGNEKAR, D. V. AND RANGNEKAR, S., 1999. Traditional Poultry Production

systems and the role of Women in parts of Western India. Phtt://www.fao.org/

WICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGA/AGAP/FRD/ conf 96. Htm/ rangnek2.htm.

SPRADBROW, P.B., 1993. Newcastle Disease in village chickens. 57-96. Poult. Sci.

Rev. 5: 57-96.

VELUW, K. van., 1987. Traditional poultry keeping in Northern Ghana. ILEIA news

letter 3: 12-13.

WETHLI, E., 1999. The South African Chicken book. Juta & CO., Ltd., Kenwyn, SA.

WILSON, R. T., 1986. Poultry production in Sub-saharan Africa. Outlook on Agriculture

15: 121-127.

CHAPTER 4

Growth patterns and dynamics of indigenous chicken under traditional farming

systems

Introduction

Rural communities have kept family poultry for many generations. According to

Rangnekar and Rangnekar (1999) almost 80% of the rural families, from the under

privileged groups were found to keep backyard poultry in numbers varying from 6-20.

This custom is likely to continue and remain popular in rural areas (Gueye, 1998). The

birds are usually maintained as a source of meat, with few eggs being consumed or sold,

and the hens incubate practically every egg. When the young birds reach a live weight of

about 1kg, which takes up to 20 weeks, the birds are either sold or consumed by the

household. These birds are important providers of eggs and meat as well as being valued

in the religious and cultural life of society in general and the rural people in particular. As

pointed out by Sonaiya (1990) in recent years, rural poultry have much greater role as

suppliers of animal protein for both rural and urban dwellers. Although indigenous

poultry are poor producers of eggs and meat, they are hardy and thrive well in the harsh

rural environment and some varieties have a superior genetic constitution that has not

been fully explored (Barua et al., 1998). The objective of this study was to determine the

growth performance and dynamics of indigenous chicken under traditional farming

system.

Materials and methods

5 Study area

The research was conducted at Mukula tribal land in Northern Region of Northern

Province. The land is under Tshivhase Tribal Authority, under Greater Thohoyandou

Transitional Local Council. The land has about eleven villages, which are Satane,

Mukondeni, Phindula, Matswalale, Tshapala, Khavhambe, Marindili, Thembaluvhilo,

Thondoni, Tshinyele and Tshinenye. Mukula is situated about 20km Northeastern side of

Thohoyandou, and it falls between latitudes of 300 33’ 00” and 300 36’ 00”, and the

longitudes of between 220 51’ 00” and 220 52’ 30’’. The annual rainfall ranges between

750mm-1000mm per annum. The climatic conditions of the area is warm in summer with

cold winters.

6 Chicken management

Scavenging provided the basic food resource for the birds, with some supplementation

with maize. The supplementary feed was normally given once a day in the morning or in

the late afternoon, but sometimes twice a day. Chicks were fed maize supplement in a

crushed form. The entire flocks were kept in the homestead during the night. During

planting season, several flocks were housed during the day for a week or two, to prevent

them from scraping the seedlings. This keeping was done with a poor feed supply. Other

birds were debeaked with their claws smashed to prevent them from scraping the

seedlings. When the rest of the flock was released in the morning to scavenge, other hens

with chicks remained tethered in the homestead, and were only released for a limited time

at three to four hours a day to scavenge. This was done from about noon onwards, the

period that in the farmer’s experience holds the lowest risk of chick losses to birds of

prey.

Data collection

About three villages (Mukondeni-MK, Phindula-PH and Satane-ST) were selected with

four households from each village being randomly selected. All households selected had

more than five birds at the beginning of the data collection. Birds were categorized by

age, based on observed evidence and the key informant (a person in charge of the chicken

husbandry within the household). Production variables that were quantified included

body weight, mortality of chicks, flock size and structure, exists (deaths, sales,

consumption, etc.), entries (purchases, hatching, gifts, etc.) weights of representative

birds from each age and sex group. The age considered were chicks (0-8 weeks),

cockerels and pullets (9-20 weeks) and adult hens and cocks (21 weeks and above). The

weights and counting were done once a month for 12 month.

Statistical Analysis

The analyses were performed using the General Linear Models procedure of SAS

(Statistical Analysis System, 1989). The models included the effect of household within

village HV, season and age. It was difficult to get the correct ages of the birds because of

lack of record keeping. However, ages were categorized according to weights (kg) as

follows: Category 1= 0 - 0.3 kg; Category 2= 0.35 kg – 0.6 kg; Category 3= 0.65 kg –

0.75 kg; Category 4 = 0.8 kg – 1.0 kg; Category 5 = 1.05 kg –1.25 kg; Category 6 = 1.30

kg – 1.60 kg; Category 7 = 1.65 kg – 1.75 kg; Category 8 = 1.80 kg – 1.95 kg and

Category 9 > 2.00 kg. The following model (Model I for body weight)

Model I: Yijklm = µ + Hi(Rj) + Ak + Sl +Eijklm

Where: µ = Overall mean

Hi = Household

Rj = Effect of village

Ak = Effect of age

Sl = Effect of season

Eijklm = Error term

7. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The effect of village, season and age on the growth performance of the indigenous

cocks and hens.

The results of the Analysis of Variance are presented in Table 4.1 and Table 4.2. The

results indicate that all effects (village, season and age) included are a significant source

of variation for cocks and hens. The least square means and standard errors (LSM ± SE)

for effects of village, season and age in cocks and hens are indicated in Table 4.3.

Household within village

Cocks: The weights of cocks were found to vary significantly (P < 0.0001) between

villages as indicated in Table 4.1. Table 4.7 shows that the number of cocks weighed

were comparable between MK and ST, but yet higher than the second HV. This means

that the PH had fewer cocks compared to the rest of the HV. However it is in this village

(PH) where a higher body weight (2.25 ± 0.11) of cocks was observed. This weight is

comparable with the findings of Safalaoh et al. (1996) which indicate an average weight

live weight of 2.100 in cocks which is still higher than 1.778 ± 310 recorded by

Gunaratne et al. (1991).

Hens: The weights of hens were found to vary significantly (P < 0.0001) between

villages as indicated in Table 4.2. The number of hens was more than cocks in all HV.

They were all more than 250 hens weighed but yet less than 300 hens as shown in Table

4.7. Market weights of more than 1kg are attained at more than 20 weeks of age. The

highest body weight of hens (1.73 ± 0.04) was obtained from MK followed by PH as

shown in Table 4.3. Gueye(1998) indicated that indigenous chicken grow very slowly

and are rather small, with adult females weighing about 1kg and adult females seldom

more than 2kg. However, Table 4.7 indicates a highest mean weight of 1.67 ± 0.35. This

result proves that indigenous chicken can grow bigger than the figures indicated by

Gueye (1998), if improvements on management are done.

Season

Cocks: The season was found to cause a significant influence at P < 0.01 in cocks. The

highest number of cocks was observed during summer season as shown in Table 4.9 with

a decrease in autumn and winter, and a rise from spring season. This decrease indicates

the season in which chicken meat is highly utilized. This table indicates that more cocks

were used during summer season. The reason behind this decrement could be the fact that

it is a planting season and chickens are housed, so peasants prefer to remain with a

manageable flock. Secondly, it is a festive season with many ritual ceremonies performed

as almost all-household members come together. This was also speculated by Safalaoh

(1997) by stating that chickens particularly those white in colour have been used for

many years for medicinal or therapeutic purposes by the traditional healers. Table 4.3

shows that higher body weight (1.87 kg) in cocks was obtained during winter season

followed by spring. The reason behind this could be the fact that autumn had much

availability of maize grains. The nutrition of chicken has a greater influence in chicken

production in terms of body weights. In summer a lower body weight of cocks was found

as compared to the rest of the seasons. It is in this season where flocks are housed with a

lower feed supply. The quality of feed supplied also determines the weight gain of the

chickens. Barua and Yoshimura (1997) also emphasized this by stating that feed

efficiency for egg production of indigenous chickens is poor as compared with exotic

breeds.

Hens: The season was again found to cause a significant difference at P < 0.0001 in hens.

The number of hens was kept constant in spring, summer and autumn with a slight

decrease in winter as indicated in Table 4.8. This decrease may be influenced the

initiation schools as more chicken meat is again much more used. However, chicken meat

is used at all seasons, but with higher demand in certain seasons. Hens were found to

have higher body weight (1.55 ± 0.03) during spring as shown in Table 4.3. It is during

spring where hens prepare their bodies for higher egg production. There is a higher

availability of feed since most of the harvested maize is grainded for meals from winter.

So, during spring season there is more availability of maize bran and other by-products

from gardens, which are fed to chickens. Barua (1992) indicated that hatchability is

seasonably affected with the poorest results occurring during the hot dry season.

Age

Cocks: The age caused a significant variation (P < 0.0001) in cocks as indicated in Table

4.1. Table 4.6 shows that a larger number of cocks were observed on the last category

with a mean weight of 2.51 ± 0.47. This reveals that cocks have higher body weights

compared to the rest of the birds within the flock. There is flow of weight. Age 1-5 had a

minimum weight of 1.51. Ramlah and Shukor (1987) reported 1.520 kg of cocks and

1.370 kg of hens at this stage. The highest weight was in age 9 with a weight of 2.49 ±

0.03, and this is where the majority of the cocks where falling under. This proves that

indigenous hens can grow to higher boy weights if more care is being taken.

Hens: Table 4.1 reflects that the age also caused a significant variation of P < 0.0001 in

hens. Table 4.6 reveals the highest number of hens on the sixth category with a mean

weight of 1.42 ± 0.18. However, a little percentage was also obtained from the seventh

category with a mean weight of 1.64 ± 0.19. This indicates that the weights of hens are

less compared to cocks. Age 1-5 combined together constituted 1.32 ± 0.09, which was

the first category. It is comparable with the weight recorded by Kadigi (1996) of 1.376 kg

at the point of lay. The highest hen weight was 1.81 ± 0.02, which is lower compared to

the weight of the cocks. This results indicates that when a chick grows it adds more

weight to its body. A core of breeding birds is preserved to maintain the flock. If the

selection pressure is applied within village populations, higher body weights can be

improved. The performance of family poultry under village management conditions is

very much limited by the need for the hen to incubate her eggs and rear the young.

The effect of household within village, season and age in the growth performance of

indigenous cockerels and pullets.

The results of the Analysis of Variance presented in Table 4.1 and 4.2 indicates that all

effects (including village, season and age) caused a significant variation in cockerels with

only one effect (village) causing significant variation in pullets. The least square means

and standard errors (LSM ± SE) for body weights of indigenous cockerels and pullets are

presented in Table 4.4.

Household within village

Cockerels: Table 4.2 reflect that the weight of cockerels where found to have a

significant variation at P < 0.001 within villages. Table 4.7 indicates that more cockerels

were weighed from PH as compared to the rest of the HV. However the difference in

terms of number between all HV was not very high and they were all more than pullets in

all HV. Table 4.4 shows that the highest body weight among the villages was 1.40±0.06

obtain from PH with the lowest body weight (1.07 ± 0.07).

Pullets: Village was the only effect that which caused variation (P < 0.01) in pullets as

indicated in Table 4.2. Table 4.7 reflects that more pullets were observed from ST. It is

again this HV where large number of hens was obtained. This means that more pullets

were raised to have more hens for breeding purpose. The highest body weight was

obtained from PH with other villages having the majority of pullets that are less than 1.00

body weight as shown in Table 4.4. There are a number of maize fields around this

village and the chickens have an opportunity to scavenge on such areas at all times unlike

the other villages with few fields. The weights of the pullets were very less as compared

to the weights of the cockerels. This proves the ability of cockerels to grow bigger than

pullets of the same age. Kadigi (1996) reported 0.295kg and Safalaoh (1996) reported

0.615 to 0.623 weight of cockerels at similar age (8 weeks).

Season

Cockerels: The season had a significant influence (P < 0.01) on the weight of the

cockerels (4.1). Table 4.8 indicates that the highest numbers of cockerels were used

during summer season as the number was reduced from 111 in summer to13 in autumn.

There was no cockerels weighed during the winter season since cocks and cockerels are

mostly slaughtered during initiation schools as indicated by Table 4.8. During spring, a

large number of cockerels arose from sale and the growth of chicks. Table 4.4 indicates

that the highest body weight (1.37 ± 0.10) was obtained during autumn where there was a

higher availability of feed. It has been speculated that the improvement of feeding and

husbandry systems could result in sexual maturity being earlier i.e. from 25 to 20 weeks

of age (Barua and Yoshimura, 1997).

Pullets: Though there was no significant difference caused by season in pullets, the

highest body weight of pullets was obtained during winter (Table 4.2). Egg production in

rural areas follow a pattern of 8-10 week periods of production with intervening periods

of brooding. Indigenous stocks tend to have a good mothering ability. The hatchability of

eggs is estimated to be more than 70% and is correlated with the male/female ratio

(r = -0.67, p<0.05) reported by Barua (1992).

Age

Cockerels: The age caused a significant variation (P < 0.001) in the weight of the

cockerels (Table 4.2). Table 4.6 indicates that cockerels to appear on the fourth and fifth

categories. Table 4.4 shows that all ages were more than 1kg since the lowest weight was

1.08 ± 0.14 observed between 1and 4 category. The highest body weight was obtained in

age 9 with the lowest body weight between age 1- 4. This again indicates that the more

the bird grows, the more weight is added to its body. Adebanjo and Oluyemi (1981)

confirmed this by indicating that age has a profound effect on meat yields of indigenous

chicken. However, Bay-Petersen (1991) reported Korean native chickens to have the

market weights of 1.6kg at 16 weeks of age and 1.9kg at 20 weeks of age (Kang et al.,

1993). There was no significant variation caused by age in pullets.

The effect of household within village and age in the growth performance and

dynamics of indigenous chicks.

The results of the Analysis of Variance presented in Table 4.2 indicate that village and

age are the effects causing variation in chicks. The least square means and standard errors

(LSM ± SE) for body weights of indigenous chicks are presented in Table 4.5.

Household within village

Table 4.2 reflects that HV was found to cause a significant variation at P < 0.001 in

chicks. Table 4.7 indicates that more chicks were obtained from ST. This is where a large

number of hens were observed. Most of the households in this village have good fence

that protects their chickens from escaping, and that lowers the possibility mortality

through predators. Almost all households protected their chicks at early stages. MK and

ST had highest chick body weights compared to ST. Table 4.6 shows 0.02 weight which

is the lowest weight and it is the hatching weight. Gunaratne et al. (1991) observed a

mean weight of 0.027 at hatching with Safaloah (1996) observing 0.021.

Age

The age causes a significant variation at P < 0.0001 in chicks (Table 4.2). More chicks

were observed from the first category with the third category being the last to include

chicks. There was no significant difference caused by season in chicks. However, winter

and spring had higher weights than summer and autumn. Ramlah (1996) also indicated

that live weights at all ages decreases if there is a poor feed supply.

7 Mortality

Table 4.6 reveals that the chick survival is very less as the first category had 309 chicks

observed followed by 57 on the second category and 21 on the third category. Oh (1987)

also stated that chick mortality is very high in early chick’s life due to predators and poor

husbandry conditions. Chick mortality has also been reported as 60-70% in other

countries. Gunaratne et al. (1993) also reported a chick mortality of 65% within 70 days.

Cumming (1991) indicated that a major source of loss in all village chicken production is

the heavy mortality (about 70% of chicken hatched) that occurs between hatching and the

end of the brooding (about 6 weeks of age). The causes of death include a combination of

poor nutrition, predators and various disease factors, in fact the very hostile environment

the village chicken has to confront on hatching. Roberts (1992) suggested that that the

survival of chicks and growers is dramatically improved when indigenous chicken

receive a feed supplement. It was further suggested that the solution to high mortality is

to increase the consumption rate of eggs, and thus to reduce the number of chicks

incubated, or to reduce the number of hens and eggs and to grow the additional survivors

for meat. In the contrary, Gunaratne et al. (1991) suggested that the answer to this

problem is to improve nutrition and husbandry of the chicks, whose first few weeks of

life are spent scavenging the overgrazed and bare ground around the owner’s house. In

this contrast they are in constant competition for any feed with the older, more aggressive

birds in the flock.

8 Growth

Table 4.6 indicates that the first category had a mean chick weight of 0.11 ± 0.08. It very

less compared to what Dlamini and Slippers (2000) recorded as they recorded an average

chick weight of 0.30 at hatching. There was a greater difference between the first

category and the second category in terms of body weights. Gunaratne et al. (1991) also

reported a variation in growth rate with body weights ranging from 41g to 100g at 20

days, and at 70 days 142 g to 492 g., with a mean of 313 ± 163 g. However, Katule

(1999) speculated that higher body weights of the indigenous chicken could be attained if

the environmental conditions in which the flocks are kept are comparable with that in

which the exotic breeds are normally raised.

Flock composition

Katule (1999) indicated that indigenous chicken populations differ considerably with

respect to body sizes. Birds of different ages were raised together at all HV and seasons.

Table 4.7 reflects a ratio of 1:3 cock to hen in all HV combined together. This ratio was

not comparable to the 1:6 cock to hens suggested by Mopate and Loney (1999). There

was a lack of proper breeding and selection system in terms of the quantity or ratio of

cocks to hens. The cocks and run together at all times and this means that the breeding is

not controlled. Safalaoh (1997) indicated that the prevalent genotypes and phenotypes

have probably resulted from such breeding system. Eggs are naturally incubated and

brooding is also natural using the hen’s body heat. Eggs from a poor brooder and hatcher

hen are placed under a hen renowned for its high brooding characteristics to ensure high

hatchability. Johnson and Cumming (1991) suggested if husbandry is modified to

concentrate on egg production and still produce more growers for meat efficiently, the

advantages to the villagers will be considerable.

CONCLUSION

Family poultry represent an important reservoir of genetic variation that should be

conserved. They are well adapted to extensive husbandry systems and are utterly suitable

for poultry farmers endowed with very limited means, as is so often the case in the rest of

the continent. They scavenge for most of their food requirements, receiving sometimes a

small supplement of household scraps or food produced or procured specifically as

rations for chickens. The breeding system is usually one of the unplanned multiple

mating of the various domesticated breeds introduced into the area, and this makes it

difficult to standardize their characteristics and productive systems. These birds are

known to have some disadvantages arising from their slow growth and poor growth and

poor egg production, late sexual maturity and the fact that they suffer higher rearing

mortality. However, the production of these birds is characterized by many advantages

such as good egg and meat flavour, hard egg shells, high dressing percentages, and

especially low cost with little special input required for production. They are therefore

well suited to the very limited input that the mainly poor producers can provide. Fertile

eggs are hatched under broody hens and those hens tend the clutches of chicks, often

without human intervention. The village environment has an effect on the production of

these birds. The season and the activities done within the household in that particular

season also influence the production of these birds. The flock of the indigenous chicken

is composed of birds of various ages raised together. However, if efforts to increase

productivity through improvements in health, feeding housing, genetics and daily

management could be encouraged, they can result in increased economic returns.

Table 4.1. Analysis of Variance for body weight of indigenous cocks and cockerels.

COCKS COCKERELS Source DF MS DF MS

Household (Village) 11 0.55*** 10 0.24**

Season 3 0.43* 2 0.38*

Age 6 4.81*** 8 0.26**

R2 0.66 0.32

*** (P<0.0001) ** (P<0.001) * (P<0.01)

Table 4.2. Analysis of Variance for body weight of indigenous hens, pullets and

chicks

HENS PULLETS CHICKS Source DF MS DF MS DF MS

Household (Village) 11 0.99*** 11 0.11* 11 0.09**

Season 3 0.66*** 3 0.07ns 3 0.03ns

Age 8 2.55*** 6 0.03ns 8 1.12***

R2 0.47 0.24 0.31 *** (P<0.0001) ** (P<0.001) * (P<0.01) ns (Not significant)

Table 4.3. Least square means and standard errors (LSM ± SE) for matured indigenous

cocks and hens

COCKS HENS EFFECT NO. LSM ± SE NO. LSM ± SE Village Mukondeni 22 1.87 ± 0.09 29 1.18 ± 0.06 33 1.67 ± 0.09 89 1.73 ± 0.04 33 1.69 ± 0.09 67 1.44 ± 0.04 15 1.70 ± 0.11 42 1.44 ± 0.05 Phindula 13 1.74 ± 0.12 44 1.42 ± 0.05 14 2.25 ± 0.11 43 1.49 ± 0.05 18 1.78 ± 0.10 75 1.52 ± 0.04 32 1.91 ± 0.09 92 1.60 ± 0.04 Satane 34 1.67 ± 0.09 46 1.33 ± 0.04 24 1.58 ± 0.10 93 1.44 ± 0.03 23 1.83 ± 0.10 58 1.56 ± 0.04 27 1.61 ± 0.09 56 1.43 ± 0.04 Season Summer 90 1.67 ± 0.07 183 1.45 ± 0.03 Autumn 72 1.76 ± 0.07 189 1.41 ± 0.03 Winter 60 187 ± 0.08 168 1.46 ± 0.03 Spring 66 1.80 ± 0.07 194 1.55 ± 0.03 Age 1-5 8 1.51 ± 0.25 86 1.32 ± 0.09 6 4 1.62 ± 0.06 229 1.44 ± 0.02 7 2 1.83 ± 0.07 75 1.62 ± 0.03 8 42 1.96 ± 0.05 96 1.71 ± 0.03 9 166 2.49 ± 0.03 248 1.81 ± 0.02

Table 4.4. Least square means and standard errors (LSM ± SE) for body weights of

indigenous cockerels and pullets

COCKERELS PULLETS EFFECT NO. LSM ± SE NO. LSM ± SE Village Mukondeni 35 1.13 ± 0.06 2 0.90 ± 0.18 14 1.21 ± 0.09 10 0.84 ± 0.09

2 1.25 ± 0.21 22 0.97 ± 0.06 - - 13 0.79 ± 0.08

Phindula 10 1.03 ± 0.10 4 0.91 ± 0.13

9 1.31 ± 0.10 7 0.83 ± 0.10 27 1.40 ± 0.06 13 1.10 ± 0.08 25 1.28 ± 0.07 7 1.14 ± 0.10

Satane 25 1.15 ± 0.07 15 1.02 ± 0.08 20 1.06 ± 0.07 21 1.03 ± 0.07 1 1.29 ± 0.29 8 0.89 ± 0.10 19 1.07 ± 0.07 15 0.95 ± 0.08 Season Summer 109 1.10 ± 0.05 23 0.91 ± 0.07 Autumn 13 1.37 ± 0.10 51 0.98 ± 0.06 Winter - - 43 1.01 ± 0.06 Spring 65 1.13 ± 0.05 20 0.89 ± 0.07 Age 1-4 29 1.08 ± 0.14 17 0.84 ± 0.16 5 13 1.27 ± 0.09 2 1.08 ± 0.17 6 51 1.32 ± 0.06 30 0.98 ± 0.05 7 21 1.23 ± 0.07 13 0.91 ± 0.07 8 21 1.34 ± 0.08 12 0.99 ± 0.07 9 52 1.30 ± 0.05 63 0.98 ± 0.03

Table 4.5. Least square means and standard errors (LSM ± SE) for body weights of

indigenous chicks.

EFFECT NO. LSM ± SE

Village Mukondeni 54 0.22 ± 0.03 26 0.33 ± 0.04 149 0.33 ± 0.02 58 0.33 ± 0.03 Phindula 25 0.29 ± 0.04 79 0.25 ± 0.02 66 0.30 ± 0.02 95 0.26 ± 0.02 Satane 70 0.32 ± 0.02 128 0.27 ± 0.02 33 0.27 ± 0.03 71 0.34 ± 0.03 Season Summer 197 0.29 ± 0.02 Autumn 194 0.28 ± 0.02 Winter 189 0.30 ± 0.02 Spring 274 0.31 ± 0.01 Age 1 308 0.11 ± 0.11 2 57 0.43 ± 0.03 3 21 0.56 ± 0.04 4 23 0.27 ± 0.04 5 12 0.22 ± 0.05 6 151 0.22 ± 0.01 7 51 0.26 ± 0.03 8 12 0.28 ± 0.02 9 151 0.30 ± 0.01

Table 4.6. Simple statistics for ages of indigenous chickens

Age Variable No. Min. Max. Mean Std. Dev. 1 Chicks 309 0.02 0.03 0.11 0.08 2 Chicks 57 0.35 0.60 0.45 0.07 3 Chicks 21 0.04 0.75 0.58 0.02 4 Cockerels 14 0.80 1.63 0.94 0.20 4 Pullets 16 0.80 0.99 0.90 0.06 5 Cocks 1 1.17 1.17 1.17 - 5 Hens 8 1.08 1.62 1.22 0.17

5 Cockerels 13 1.06 1.23 1.15 0.05

5 Pullets 2 1.09 1.16 1.13 0.05 6 Cocks 47 1.08 2.00 1.49 0.18 6 Hens 229 1.01 2.72 1.45 0.18 7 Cocks 25 1.61 1.96 1.71 0.06 7 Hens 75 1.06 2.13 1.64 0.19 8 Cocks 42 1.64 1.97 1.89 0.06 9 Cocks 166 1.15 5.11 2.51 0.47

Table 4.7. Simple Statistics on the effect of Household within the village

Village Variable No. Min. Max. Mean Std Dev. Mukondeni Cocks 104 1.15 3.63 2.08 0.51

Hens 251 0.72 3.12 1.65 0.42 Cockerels 52 0.11 1.83 1.12 0.33 Pullets 48 0.12 1.29 0.92 0.23 Chicks 298 0.02 1.64 0.27 0.23

Phindula Cocks 78 1.17 5.11 2.42 0.70

Hens 279 1.05 2.92 1.67 0.35 Cockerels 73 0.52 2.87 1.32 0.37 Pullets 31 0.66 1.81 1.04 0.26

Chicks 269 0.03 1.65 0.22 0.23

Satane Cocks 110 1.06 2.95 2.01 0.45 Hens 281 0.87 2.41 1.54 0.32 Cockerels 65 0.63 1.88 1.11 0.25 Pullets 60 0.05 1.74 1.04 0.24 Chicks 322 0.03 0.40 0.25 0.31

Table 4.8. Simple Statistics on the effect of season Season Variable No. Min. Max. Mean Std Dev. Summer Cocks 94 1.06 3.63 1.87 0.49 Hens 212 0.92 2.72 1.56 0.35 Cockerels 111 0.11 2.17 1.14 0.33 Pullets 23 0.05 1.74 0.94 0.29 Chicks 205 0.02 0.40 0.29 0.36 Autumn Cocks 72 1.18 3.12 2.16 0.44 Hens 213 1.01 2.66 1.53 0.32 Cockerels 13 1.13 1.83 1.45 0.23 Pullets 51 0.12 1.81 1.00 0.28 Chicks 198 0.03 0.80 0.20 0.20 Winter Cocks 60 1.47 5.11 2.48 0.67 Hens 181 1.08 2.95 1.67 0.36 Cockerels 0 0 0 0 0 Pullets 44 0.73 1.48 1.05 0.19 Chicks 198 0.03 0.87 0.24 0.22 Spring Cocks 66 1.20 3.29 2.22 0.52 Hens 205 0.72 3.12 1.71 0.40

Cockerels 66 0.65 2.87 1.22 0.34 Pullets 21 0.66 1.29 0.94 0.17

Chicks 288 0.03 1.65 0.26 0.22

REFERENCES

ADEBANJO, A., AND OLUYEMI, J. A., 1981. Studies on meat production potential of

indigenous fowl of Nigeria: the effect of age on meat yield and quality: Bull. Anim.

Health and Prod. Agric. 29:389-392.

BARUA, A., 1992. A study on the performances of Rhode Island Red, indigenous

chickens and their crossbred chickens with or without extra feeding under the rural

conditions of Bangladesh. M.sc. Thesis, Department of Poultry Science, Bangladesh.

BARUA, A. AND YOSHIMURA, Y., 1997. Rural poultry keeping in Bangladesh. World

Poultry Science Journal, 53: 387-395.

BARUA, A.; HOWLIDER, M. A. R. AND YOSHIMURA, Y. 1998. Indigenous Naked

neck fowl of Bangladesh. World’s Poultry Journal, vol. 54. 278-286.

BAY-PETERSEN, J., 1991. Catalogue of the Native Poultry of South East Asia, Food

and Fertilizer Technology Centre for the Asian and Pacific Region, FFTC Book Series.

No 43, Kuo Thai color printing co., Ltd., Taiwan.

CUMMING, R. B., 1991. Village Chicken Production: Problems and Potential.

University of New England, Armidale, NSW 2351, 21-24.

DLAMINI, S. O. AND SLIPPERS, S. C., 2000. Village chickens in a Kwazulu Natal

rural household under spotlight.

GUEYE, E. F., 1998. Village egg and fowl meat production in Africa. World’s Poultry

Science Journal 54: 73-87.

GUNARATNE, S. P.; CHANDRASIRI, A. D. N.; MANGALIKA HELMALATHA, W.

A. P. AND ROBERTS, J. A. 1991. The Productivity and Nutrition of Village Chickens in

Sri Lanka. Trop. Vet. Science. 144-148.

GUNARATNE, S. P.; CHANDRASIKI, A. D. M.; MANGALIKA HEMALATHA, W.

A. P. AND ROBERTS, J. A., 1993. Feed resources base for scavenging village chickens

in Sri Lanka. Trop Anim. Hlth Prod. 25: 249-257.

JOHNSTON, J. AND CUMMING, R.B., 1991. Control of Newcastle Disease in Village

Chickens with Oral V4 vaccine. Canberra, ACIAR Economic Assessment series 7.

KADIGI, H. J. S., 1996. A study on the comparative performance of Black Australorp,

Malawi local chicken and their crosses. M.sc. Thesis, Department of Animal Science,

Bunda College of Agriculture, University of Malawi, Lilongwe.

KANG, B. S.; KIM, C. D.; YANG, C. B.; CHEONG, I. C. AND CHUNG, S. B., 1993.

Studies on performance and carcass characteristics of Korean Native fowls and their

crossbreeds. RDA J. Agric. Science and Livestock 35: 549-553.

KATULE, A. M., 1999. A study on the productivity of indigenous chickens under village

management conditions.

MOPATE, L. Y. AND LONY, M., 1999. Survey on family chicken farms in the rural

areas of N’djemena, Chad. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 11: 1-3.

OH, B. T., 1987. Malaysia: Economic importance In: Newcastle Disease in Poultry: a

New Food Pellet vaccine (Ed. Copland, J. W.). ACIAR Monograph No. 5, Canberra, 83-

85.

RANGNEKAR, D. V. AND RANGNEKAR, S. 1999. Traditional Poultry Production

Systems and the Role of Women in Parts of Western India.

Phtt://www.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGAP/FRG/conf96.htm/rangnek2.

htm.

RAMLAH, H., 1996. Performance of village fowl in Malaysia. World’s Poultry Journal,

5: 75-79.

RAMLAH, H. AND SHUKOR, M. N., 1987. Malaysia: Production systems. In:

Newcastle Disease in Poultry. A New Food Pellet Vaccine (Ed. Copland, J.W.), ACIAR

Monograph No.5, Canberra, pp. 86-88.

ROBERTS, J. A., 1992. The Scavenging Feed Resource Base in Assessments of the

Productivity of scavenging village chickens. Tropical Veterinary Science. 29-32.

SAFALAOH, A., 1996. In the tropics, commercial broilers do better than local breeds.

World Poultry Misset 12(8): 17-19.

SAFALAOH, A. C. L., 1997. Characteristics of indigenous chickens of Malawi. Animal

Genetic Resource Information, No. 22: 61-69.

SAFALAOH, A. C. L.; KADIGI, H. J. S. AND PHOYA, R. K. D., 1996. Growth

performance and carcass characteristics of Male Black Australorp, Dwarf Malawi local

chicken and their crosses from 8 to 20 weeks of age. Aniswa Res. J. Agric. Sci. and Tech.

1 (1): 61-67.

SONAIYA, E. B., 1990. The context and prospects for development of small holder rural

poultry production in Africa. In. CTA Seminar Proceedings, Volume 1, Small holder

Rural Poultry Production, Thessaloniki, Greece, pp. 35-52.

SAS / STAT , 1989. User’s Guide, Version 6, 4th Ed. Vol. 2. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.

Chapter 5

General conclusions and recommendations

The objective of this study was to evaluate the production performance of family poultry

under village or traditional management conditions. The rearing of this poultry is

prevalent in rural areas, where the social and economic standards of the people are

generally lower than in urban areas. Therefore, keeping of these poultry helps to

supplement incomes and the nutrition status of those families. These poultry will remain

the most prevalent breed for years to come. Their importance as a provider of animal

protein and income to the rural poor cannot and should not be undermined. The role of

these chickens in rural areas goes far beyond providing meat and eggs, as is invariably

the case in the commercialized sectors. They are certainly multi-purpose and are valued

assets embedded in culture and tradition.

These poultry are raised mainly under minimum investment management conditions with

little attention paid to housing condition, nutrition and disease control. The chickens are

maintained with few or no inputs and the main sources of feed are household refuse and

pickings from their surroundings. Some owners supply drinking water close to the house,

even when surface water is available. Due to lack of improved shelters during the night,

they usually become preys of many predators.

The performance of family poultry in terms of egg and meat production under free range

or scavenging system is consistently low. This can be attributed to the absence of a

systematic breeding program either through upgrading or selection. The majority of

stocks are kept in a free-range condition and they are dependent on scavenging for much

of their food and have to withstand various natural hazards. Poor chick survival in the

first few weeks of life is the major production constrains. Therefore, every effort should

be made to improve productivity through improved husbandry and nutrition. To preserve

the important characteristics they possess, and there is a need to conserve the indigenous

chicken genes through creation of genome banks. Genetic improvement can be achieved

either through selection and controlled mating indigenous birds or by introducing exotic

birds.

The overall results suggest that different area (village), seasons and ages have an

influence on the production performance of the indigenous chicken. The seasons were

found to cause a variation in body weights due to activities performed by the rural

community at that season, which directly or indirectly affect the rearing of chickens.

It is speculated further that higher body weights of the indigenous birds might be

recorded if the environmental conditions in which the flocks are kept are comparable to

that in which the exotic breeds are normally raised.

AN EVALUATION OF FAMILY POULTRY PRODUCTION SYSTEMS IN THE

NORTHERN REGION

By

NDIVHUHO RANWEDZI

Degree : M.Tech. (Agric)

Department : Department of Agricultural Management,

George Campus

Supervisor : Dr A. E. Nesamvuni

Co-supervisor: Mr. G. J. Taylor

Abstract

Family Poultry (FP) constitute a significant portion of birds kept in rural households for

consumption, marketing and socio-cultural uses. In many rural villages of Southern

Africa and indeed the rest of Africa, keeping of indigenous chickens in free-range

systems has been practiced for many years. Data on FP production and traditional

management practices were collected by qualitative method of (interviews and visual

observations) and quantitative method (weighing and counting). A questionnaire

instrument was designed based on Rapid Appraisal of Agricultural Knowledge System

(RAAKS). Sampling was done within traditional land of Mukula with eleven villages and

1500 households. The instrument was designed to extract information on FP housing,

equipments, diseases, production systems, breeding, feeding, potential market, production

constraints, social networks and extension services. Based on the current study FP serves

the main purpose of food security in traditional set-up. Their management is mainly

based on traditional practices as coping mechanism within the context of low household

income, illiteracy and cultural beliefs. Cultural practices have assisted these populations

in Africa to be genetically conserved for many years. Flock composition and dynamics of

these birds is dependent on other agricultural practices like sowing to harvesting of crops

and socio-economic factors. The current study suggests that FP are certainly a multi-

purpose and valued assets embedded in the culture and tradition of the rural poor. They

form a foundation on which the Livestock Revolution can occur in Africa.

A quantitative method of weighing and counting was also used to collect the data, to

determine the growth performance and dynamics of indigenous chicken under traditional

farming systems, from three villages of Mukula communal land for twelve months. Birds

were categorized by age and sex, based on observed evidence and the knowledge of the

key informant. Birds were housed in the evening and scavenging provided the basic food

resource. Chickens were weighed in the evening ones a month. The results indicate that

chicks form a larger number within the flock. Household within village, season and age

caused a significant variation at P < 0.0001 in hens and cocks, but with season causing a

variation at P < 0.01 in cocks. A significant variation of P < 0.001 was obtained in

cockerels, caused by household within village and age, and in chicks caused by

household within village. A significant variation of P < 0.01 was obtained in cockerels

caused by season, and in pullets caused by household within village. Season and age had

P > 0.05 in pullets with season causing P > 0.05 in chicks. It is concluded from the results

that under village management conditions, the growth is highly affected by harsh

environmental conditions and seasonal activities within the household.