guinea fowl
TRANSCRIPT
GUINEA FOWL (Numidia meleagris) PRODUCTION UNDER SMALLHOLDER FARMER MANAGEMENT IN GURUVE
DISTRICT, ZIMBABWE
By Happyson Saina
A thesis submitted to the
Department of Animal Science
Faculty of Agriculture
University of Zimbabwe
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
MASTERS OF PHILOSOPHY
October 2005
ii
ABSTRACT
The objective of this study was to characterize guinea fowl production under smallholder farmer management and compare growth performances and carcass quality between free-range produced guinea fowls versus those reared under intensive management. The study was therefore carried out by means of a survey, monitoring study and an experiment conducted in chronological sequence as presented below. The study was conducted in three wards from June to July 2002 to characterize guinea fowl production systems and determine productivity. Seventy-three guinea fowl owners were interviewed through administration of a structured questionnaire. The survey revealed a breeding flock of 3 ± 2 per farm. The common management practices prevalent comprised scavenging and/or semi-intensive. Mean egg production per hen per breeding season was 89 ± 50 while hatchability of eggs and keet survivability were 64% and 60%, respectively. As a follow-up, the monitoring study was carried out to evaluate productivity of 30 guinea fowl flocks in the study site during the period September 2002 to May 2003. Quantitative data were collected using participatory rural appraisal techniques while quantitative data were collected through administration of data sheets. Results from the monitoring study indicated that mean egg production per hen was 42 ± 26 while hatchability and keet survival rate recorded was 71.2 ± 14.3 % and 36 ± 10.3, respectively. Within flocks, monthly mortality was high at 55% in keets compared to 5.1% in the breeding stock. In the experiment, a total of one hundred and twenty 7-week old guinea fowls were randomly distributed among five farmers and reared for the next 9 weeks. Each farmer reared 24 guinea fowl: 12 under the semi-extensive management system and another 12 under intensive management system. Guinea fowls reared under the intensive management had higher body weight (1072g vs 822g) and carcass yield (838g vs. 620g) (p < 0.001) than those under semi-extensive management. There was no significant difference (p > 0.05) in chemical composition (CP of 75 vs 72 % and Fat of 15 vs 20 %) of guinea fowl meat from the birds raised under the two management systems. However, it was more economic to rear the guinea fowls under semi-extensive management than under intensive management system. This study revealed that most production parameters of guinea fowls reared under smallholder farmer management were suboptimal mainly due to management related constraints. Thre is a potential to increase production through improvement of management practices.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I acknowledge the guidance and supervision of Prof N T Kusina, Dr J Kusina and Dr
Chamhanza. My understanding of the subject grew from my frequent discussions and
association with them. I owe the same debt to Prof H Hamudikuwanda and Dr E Bhebhe
who also guided and supervised my work. The support of Dr S Lebel is greatly appreciated
as a field supervisor and for logistics. I also greatly appreciate the encouragement, advice
and support I got from my former counselor, the Animal Science Department Chairman,
Prof Makuza. Financial support from DANIDA, CIRAD, University of Zimbabwe
Research Board and AED-WKKF is greatly appreciated. I also thank the FACHIG for
accommodating me during my stay in the study area and the provision of logistical
support. I am indebted to my wife, Rachel and son, Ernest, for bearing with me during my
studies.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………………… vi LIST OF FIGURES ……………………………………………………………….. vii LIST OF APPENDICES …………………………………………………………... viii LIST OF ABREVIATIONS ………………………………………………………. ix
1 INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………. 1 1.1 General Introduction……………………………………………………….. 1 2 LITERATURE REVIEW …………………………………………….. 5 2.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………. 5 2.2 Guinea fowl management systems ……………………………………….. 6 2.3 Productivity of guinea fowls ……………………………………………… 7 2.4 Factors affecting guinea fowl production ………………………………… 12 2.5 Research methods ………………………………………………………… 18 2.6 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………….. 22 3 A SURVEY OF HELMETED GUINEA FOWL (Numidia meleagris)
MANAGEMENT AND PRODUCTION BY SMALLHOLDER FARMERS IN LOWER GURUVE DISTRICT OF ZIMBABWE …………………… 23
3.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………….. 23 3.2 Research methodology……………………………………………………. 24 3.2.1 Study area ………………………………………………………………24 3.2.2 Data collection ………………………………………………………… 26 3.2.3 Data analysis ……………………………………………………………26 3.3 Results ………………………………………………………….………… 27 3.3.1 Flock ownership and adoption ………………………………… ………27 3.3.2 Production systems ……………………………………………………. 27 3.3.3 Flock structure and production efficiency …………………………….. 27 3.3.4 Uses of Guinea fowl and products ……………… ……………………. 30 3.3.5 Factors limiting smallholder guinea fowl production …………………. 32 3.4 Discussion …….………………………………………………………….. 34 3.5 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………37 4 MONITORING STUDY OF GUINEA FOWL PRODUCTION UNDER
TRADITIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN GURUVE DISTRICT OF ZIMBABWE….……………………………………..……………….. 39
4.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………. ………39 4.2 Research Methodology …………………………………………………… 40 4.2.1 Study area ………………………………………………………………40 4.2.2 Farmer selection ………………….……………………………………. 40 4.2.3 Data collection ………………………………………………………… 41 4.2.4 Data analysis ……………………………….………………………….. 41 4.3 Results ……………………………………………………………………. 42 4.3.1 Productivity ………..………………………………………………… 42 4.3.2 Reproductive performance …………………………………….. ………42 4.3.3 Feeding and housing management…………………………………… 42 4.3.4 Keet growth performance……………………………………………… 42 4.3.5 Marketing and consumption…………………………………………… 47
v
4.4 Discussion ………………………………………………………… ………49 4.5 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………52 5 GROWTH AND CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS OF GUINEA FOWLS
(Numidia meleagris) REARED UNDER INTENSIVE AND SEMI-EXTENSIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS ………………………….. 53
5.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………..53 5.2 Materials and methods ……………………………………………………. 54 5.2.1 Experimental animals …………………………………………………..54 5.2.2 Management systems ………………………………………………….. 54 5.2.3 Data collection ………………………………………………… ………55 5.2.4 Estimation of feed intake and composition ……………………………. 55 5.2.5 Determination of carcass composition ………………………… ………55 5.2.6 Statistical and economic analysis ………………………………………56 5.3 Results ……………………………………………………………………. 56 5.3.1 Feed intake …………………………………………………………….. 56 5.3.2 Growth ………………………………………………………………… 57 5.3.3 Carcass composition ……………………………………………………57 5.3.4 Economic benefit ……………………………………………………… 63 5.4 Discussion ………………………………………………………………… 63 5.5 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………... 68 6 GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ……………………. 70 6.1 Discussion ……………………………………………………………….. 70 6.2 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………….. 74 6.3 Future research…………………………………………………………… 75 7 REFERENCES………………………………………………………… 76 8 APPENDICES ………………………………………………………… 85
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Means, standard error (SE) and coefficient of variation (CV) of body weight at different ages of guinea fowl …………………………….. 8 Table 3.1: Structure of surveyed guinea fowl flocks …………………………...29 Table 3.2: Production estimates of guinea fowls for 2001/2002 breeding season …………………………………………………….…………………31 Table 4.1: Summary of production performance of helmented guinea fowls under smallholder farmer management in Zimbabwe……………………..44 Table 4.2: Mean mortality of breeders and keets from November 2002 to March 2003…………………………………………………………………46 Table 4.3 Growth performance of guinea fowls from hatching to 16 wk of age…………………………………………………………………. 48
Table 5.1 Feeding programme for guinea fowls under intensive management system from 8-16 weeks of age …………………………………….. 58
Table 5.2: Composition of guinea fowl crop and gizzard contents under semi- extensive management system …………………………………….. 58 Table 5.3: Proximate analysis of guinea fowl crop contents under two management systems…………………………………………………………… 59 Table 5.4: Performance (means ± SE) of guinea fowls reared under intensive and semi- extensive management systems …………………………………… 60 Table 5.5: Carcass characteristics of guinea fowls reared under semi-extensive and intensive management systems ……………………………………. 62 Table 5.6: Chemical composition of guinea fowl meat ……………………… 64 Table 5.7: The partial budgeting of two guinea fowl management systems…... 65
vii
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 3.1: Map of the Ward 2, 3 and 4 of Lower Guruve District ……………….. 25 Figure 3.2: Guinea fowl ownership pattern in Wards 2, 3 and 4 of Guruve District………………………………………………………………………28 Figure 4.1: Mean flock size and composition of guinea fowl during 2002 to 2003 breeding season…………..………………………………………………………….. 43 Figure 4.2: Pattern of eggs production, eggs hatching and total number of layers according to month from October 2002 to March 2003 ………...……………………. 45 Figure 5.1: Body mass of guinea fowls under intensive and semi-extensive management systems from 7 to 16 wk of age …………………………………………… 61
viii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix1: Survey questionnaire on guinea fowl production by smallholder farmers…………………………………………………………………… 85 Appendix2: Monitoring questionnaire on guinea fowl production by smallholder farmers ……………………………………………………………………………... 89 Appendix 3: Weekly guinea fowl production summary sheet……………………. 92 Appendix 4: Flock inventory form……………………………………………….. 93 Appendix 5: SAS out put on body mass of guinea fowls under intensive (1) and semi- extensive management systems (2)……………………………………….. 94 Appendix 6: Descriptive statistics and paired-comparison T Test of carcass composition parameters…………………………………………………… 97 Appendix 7: Guinea fowl production technologies and systems practiced and tested in Lower Guruve District of Zimbabwe…………………………………….. 99
ix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AED-WKKF - Academic for Educational Advancement World K. Kellogg Foundation
ANOVA - Analysis of variance
CIRAD - Center for International Research in Agriculture and Development
CP - Crude protein
DM -Dry matter
FACHIG - Farmers Association of chief and headman investment groups
GLM - General linear model
kcal - kilo calories
kj - kilo joules
ME - Metabolisable energy
Mj - Mega joules
1
CHAPTER 1: GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Development of family poultry is regarded as an alternative way to alleviate poverty
and ensure food security for socially and economically disadvantaged rural households
(Branckaert and Gue’ye, 1999). In sub-Saharan Africa, there are several species of
poultry; their distribution varies from one region to the other depending on both the
physical and social environment. In rural Zimbabwe, these species include chickens,
guinea fowls, turkeys, ducks and pigeons (Kusina J and Kusina N. T, 1999).
The guinea fowl has ubiquitous distribution in Africa and has distinct popularity with
smallholder farmers (Microlivestock, 1991; Nwagu and Alawa, 1995; Bonds, 1997).
This bird occurs in few areas of Asia and Latin America as a semi-domesticated
species, while in Europe, North America and Australia, large scale production of
guinea fowl dominates (Microlivestock, 1991; Nwagu and Alawa, 1995; Bonds, 1997;
Embury, 2001). Its attractive plumage and value as a table bird with game-type
flavour and high meat to bone ratio has led to its worldwide acceptance (Embury,
2001). Moreover, guinea fowl has a unique ability to free range and is tolerant to most
common diseases of chicken (Bonds, 1997; Dieng, Gue’ye, Mahoungou-Mouelle and
Buldgen, 1999; Mandal, Pathak and Singh, 1999).
In Zimbabwe, especially along the Zambezi valley, there is an increase in the number
of smallholder farmers rearing guinea fowls (Anonymous, 1998; Kusina and Kusina,
1999; Dondofema, 2000; Saina, 2001). Chivandi, Mbundure and Mufumisi (2002)
reported that Binga, Gokwe, Guruve, Rushinga and the southeastern Lowveld area of
Matibi District are key areas of guinea fowl farming by communal farmers of
2
Zimbabwe. Production is currently spreading to other smallholder farming areas of
Zimbabwe. The increase in the production of guinea fowl has led to the development of
informal traders who buy and sell the birds for breeding and consumption, especially
during the festive seasons.
The acceptability of guinea fowl and guinea fowl products, due to their quality and
limited cultural barriers on consumption, indicates that there is a potential market.
Compared to village chickens, the guinea fowl’s advantages are: low production cost,
premium quality meat, greater capacity to scavenge for insects and grains, better ability
to protect itself against predators and better resistance to common poultry parasites and
diseases tha chickens; for example, Newcastle Disease and Fowl Pox (Microlivestock,
1991). This indicates that there is potential for smallholder farmers to improve guinea
fowl production in order to increase household protein supply, combat rural protein-
energy-malnutrition and increase income. The foraging ability, hardiness and minimal
production input requirements of guinea fowl would ensure a reasonable profit for the
farmers. The opportunity to tap modern technology in guinea fowl production, for
example, strategic supplementary feeding, sexing, use of light control programmes for
breeders, control of feral behaviour and selection, may lead to an increase in guinea
fowl productivity in the smallholder-farming sector.
The successful production of guinea fowl in Zimbabwe has great potential to improve
the economy through the selling of the birds to lucrative markets such as restaurants
and hotels. Zimbabwean farmers involved in farming of guinea fowls are reaping
substantial financial returns from sales of live guinea fowls and eggs. The market value
of mature live guinea fowl was US$9.71 to US$18.20 per bird (December, 2003;
3
market price) while the guinea fowl eggs on-farm price ranged from US$0.61 to
US$1.82 (2003/2004 breeding season) (Exchange rate – US$ 1: Z$ 824). In the case
that the local market becomes saturated, the guinea fowls can be exported for sale to
hotels and restaurants in the world as guinea fowl meat is regarded as a delicacy and
fetches a retail price ranging from £2.75 to £2.85 per bird in the UK (Smith, 2000).
Smallholder guinea fowl production provides a good avenue for poverty alleviation and
improvement of human protein nutrition in Zimbabwe. Currently, guinea fowl
production is mainly concentrated in very hot marginally productive areas thus
providing an alternative land use. The competition between livestock and human beings
for grain gives a competitive advantage of free ranging poultry over intensive poultry
production. In this case, guinea fowl production could be an alternative way to
alleviate poverty among the rural households. Moreover, guinea fowl have been known
to co-exist profitably with other livestock and crop enterprises. For example, guinea
fowls control ticks in livestock and insects in gardens without scratching the soil
(unlike chickens), and provide manure, which can be used to enhance growth of
horticultural and other crops.
1.2 Problem statement
The management requirements of guinea fowl are minimal as the bird can be kept
under free ranging conditions with minimal grain supplementation and provision of
basic overnight accommodation. Therefore, smallholder farmers can easily adopt the
production of guinea fowls for income generation and as a source of dietary protein.
However, scant information is available on traditional guinea fowl production practices
and marketing in Sub-Saharan Africa, including Zimbabwe. There is also limited
4
information on the performance of guinea fowl under semi-extensive and intensive
systems of production in Zimbabwe. Information on guinea fowl production and
marketing is necessary in order to identify opportunities to exploit and promote guinea
fowl production and marketing by smallholder farmers and enhance income generation,
ensure food security and contribute to poverty alleviation in smallholder farming
communities.
1.3 Objectives
The main objective of this study was characterizing guinea fowl production under
smallholder farmer management systems in the Guruve District of Zimbabwe. The
specific objectives were to:
• Determine guinea fowl flock dynamics and guinea fowl production parameters
• Determine productivity, particularly growth performance and carcass quality of
guinea fowls, under semi-extensive and intensive management systems
The hypotheses tested were:
• Guinea fowl production is low under the current systems of management by
smallholder farmers
• Productivity of guinea fowls reared under semi-extensive management system is
lower than those under intensive management system
5
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
Helmeted guinea fowls (Numida meleagris) originated in Africa (Belshaw, 1985;
Somes, 1996; Anonymous, 2001; Embury, 2001) and were first domesticated by
ancient Egyptians (Bonds, 1997; Oakland Zoo, 2001). They are currently being reared
in many parts of the world. In countries such as France, Belgium, Canada and Australia
the bird is now produced commercially on a large scale (Robinson, 2000; Embury,
2001), while in most African countries which include Nigeria, Malawi and Zimbabwe,
guinea fowl production is in its infancy (Nwagu and Alawa, 1995; Dondofema, 2000;
Ligomela, 2000; Smith, 2000; Saina, 2001).
In Zimbabwe, there are two types of guinea fowl species that could be found at rural
households. These include Numidia ptilorhycha and Numidia meleagris. . The N.
ptilorhycha (blue wattled guinea fowl) is indigenous to the country. It is medium sized
and greyish blue with white sports on its feathers and the adult can weigh up to 1.8 kg
(Belshaw, 1985; Microlivestock, 1991; Binali and Kanengoni, 1998). However, the N.
meleagris (red wattled guinea fowl) is from West Africa. It is a docile bird that can lay
in captivity (Belshaw, 1985; Microlivestock, 1991; Binali and Kanengoni, 1998). This
species of guinea fowl can be easily tamed and its production potential under
domestication resulted in its wide domestication in Africa and had been exported to
Europe for genetic improvement for intensive production.
The guinea fowl (N. meleagris) production is associated with smallholder farmers in
Africa (Smith, 2000) and is described as a “poor man’s pheasant” (Bonds, 1997). This
6
species of poultry is kept for various purposes depending on the society. Like chicken,
guinea fowls are a source of animal protein (Mallia, 1999). Some farmers keep guinea
fowls out of curiosity and as “watch animals” around homesteads because they have an
excellent eye-sight, a harsh cry, and shriek at the slightest provocation (Microlivestock,
1991; Mallia, 1999; Smith, 2000). In addition, they are kept for income generation
(Ligomela, 2000) and for control of snakes, mice, ticks, other pests and weeds (Cactus
Ranch, 2001; Frit’s Farm, 2001). The multiple purposes of guinea fowl lead to various
management systems being adopted by the farmers. However, management system,
nutrition, diseases, housing and the provision of extension services and the availability
of a market for the products influence the productivity of guinea fowl.
2.2 Guinea fowl management systems
Poultry management systems in Africa are differentiated on the basis of flock size and
input-output relationships (Kitalyi, 1999). These include extensive, semi-intensive and
intensive management systems. In the extensive management system, different species
of poultry that include guinea fowls, chickens, ducks and turkeys are kept. In general,
poultry production by smallholder farmers in rural areas is mainly extensive
(Branckaert and Gueye, 1999; Kitalyi, 1999) but backyard poultry production in urban
areas is either intensive or semi-intensive (Mallia, 1999). Under the extensive
management system, no standard poultry management practices are followed. The
system is characterized by minimum inputs, with birds scavenging, no investments
beyond the foundation stock, a handful of grain each day and simple night enclosures.
The semi-intensive poultry management system refers to the provision of permanent
housing with access provided to a yard or the surrounding environment (Fanatico,
7
1998). Under this system of management, the birds are given supplementary feed and
water within the houses and the stocking density is up to 500 birds per acre (Embury,
2001). Diseases are also controlled to enhance productivity. Thus the semi-intensive
management system allows birds to get as much as they can from the environment. The
farmer complements these inputs by supplementary feeding, and protecting the birds
from the vagaries of nature through housing and disease control.
The intensive system of guinea fowl production is based on specialized breeds of
guinea fowls (broilers, breeders and layers). Currently this system of management is
mainly practised in developed countries where specialized breeds of guinea fowl have
been developed and the production is commercialized (Galor, 1983; Robinson, 2000;
Embury, 2001). In addition, standard poultry management practices such as appropriate
housing, feeding and disease control programmes are followed.
In Zimbabwe, the guinea fowl management systems by smallholder farmers have not
been well defined. The management systems need to be defined and the constraints
faced by the farmers identified in order to develop appropriate programmes to assist the
farmers to reach their goals. However, current information shows that the smallholder
farmers keep the guinea fowls under almost free range basis with minimum grain
supplements and provision of basic overnight accommodation (Chivandi et al., 2002).
2.3 Productivity of guinea fowls
There is a great variation in the performance of unimproved guinea fowls reared by
smallholder farmers. In addition, the performance also varies between the guinea fowl
(Numidia meleagris) strains that include White, Black, Lavender, Pearl, Splashed and
8
Dan (Belshaw, 1985; Ayorinde, Ayeni and Oluyemi, 1989; Nwagu and Alawa, 1995;
Somes, 1996). The production characteristics of economic interest in guinea fowls
which have been documented are slaughter weight, age at point of lay, egg production
per season, incubation period, egg fertility, hatchability of eggs and rate of keet survival
(Ayorinde et al., 1989; Mundra, Raheja and Singh, 1993; Nwagu and Alawa, 1995;
Embury, 2001).
2.3.1 Body weight gain
Mundra et al. (1993) estimated the genetic and phenotypic parameters for growth and
conformation traits of guinea fowl. They found that there is a high coefficient of
9
variation for body weight at four and eight weeks of age (Table 2.1). This is supported
by observations made by Nwagu and Alawa (1995) on four local varieties in Nigeria.
Indigenous guinea fowl varieties have lower body weights (Ayorinde, Oluyemi and
Ayeni, 1988; Mundra et al., 1993; Nwagu and Alawa, 1995) than improved strains
reared in developed countries such as France and Australia (Microlivestock, 1991;
Embury, 2001).
The optimum age of slaughtering the guinea fowls is the 16th week of age on account of
the subsequent decline in feed conversion efficiency (Ayorinde et al., 1989; Knox,
2000; Robinson, 2000; Embury, 2001). At this age liveweight of unimproved
indigenous guinea fowl reach approximately 1 kg (Ayorinde et al., 1989; Mundra et al.,
1993) while improved strains reach approximately 2 kg (Knox, 2000; Embury, 2001).
Other improved guinea fowl strains such as the Galor guinea fowl can now be
slaughtered at 11 weeks weighing 1.55 kg live weight (Galor, 1985).
2.3.2 Laying and incubation of eggs
2.3.2.1 Egg production
The age at first lay of a guinea fowl hen varies from 26 to 32 weeks (Belshaw, 1985;
Nwagu, 1997). The breeding of guinea fowl occurs during the rainy season, i.e.,
October to April in the Southern Hemisphere (Kabera, 1997; Anonymous, 1998;
Embury, 2001). The number of eggs laid per season varies from 50 to 170 (Nwagu and
Alawa, 1995; Anonymous, 1998; Binali and Kanengoni, 1998) in tropical
environments. Breeders generally produce well for 2 to 3 years (United States (US),
Department of Agriculture, 1976; Ayorinde et al., 1989).
11
Table 2.1 Means (± SE) and coefficients of variations (CV) of body weight at different ages of guinea fowl
Age Mean ± SE (g) CV %
Day old 23.82 ± 0.03 11.14
4th week 124.70 ± 0.56 31.23
8th week 384.30 ± 1.41 23.94
12th week 702.41 ± 2.15 18.27
16th week 985.04 ± 2.65 13.86
Adopted from Mundra et al. (1993)
12
2.3.2.2 Incubation
There are two main methods used to incubate guinea fowl eggs depending on the scale
of production; these are natural and artificial incubations. Most smallholder farmers use
chicken and turkey hens to hatch guinea fowl eggs, as the guinea hen will often leave
the nest after only a few guinea keets hatch (US Department of Agriculture, 1976;
Anonymous, 1998; Anonymous, 2001). Natural incubations are more reliable for small
flock sizes as there are no electricity power cuts, which are the major problem with
artificial incubations (Kabera, 1997), while the artificial incubators are more preferred
for large flocks. The eggs will be hatched within 26 to 28 days after incubation
(Belshaw, 1985; Smith, 2000; Anonymous, 2001; Embury, 2001). US Department of
Agriculture (1976) reported that 12 to 15 eggs may be set under a guinea fowl hen
while 20 to 28 may be set under a large chicken hen. However, Embury (2001) noted
that 12 to 15 fertile guinea fowl eggs are best hatched under a broody chicken hen.
Storage and incubation conditions are important for hatchability of guinea fowl eggs.
The recommended the storage conditions of guinea fowl eggs are 10-18ºC with relative
humidity of 70-80% (Galor, 1983; Belshaw, 1985; Binali and Kanengoni, 1998).
However, it is not recommended to store guinea fowl eggs intended for incubation for
more than 7 days because hatchability of guinea fowl eggs decreases rapidly with
storage time (Galor, 1983, Nwagu, 1997; Binali and Kanengoni, 1998). The incubation
conditions for artificial incubation of guinea fowl eggs varies from a temperature of
37.5- 37.8 ºC and 55-60% Relative Humidity (R.H) for the first 23-25 days, 37.4 ºC
and 70% R.H for the next 2 days and 36.4 ºC and 98% R.H. for the last 2 days of
incubation (Galor, 1983; Belshaw, 1985; Binali and Kanengoni, 1998). Incubation trap
doors should be adjusted to increase ventilation for the last 2 days of incubation. Egg
13
should be turned at least 5 times a day for the first 24 days to prevent embryo adhesion
to the shells (Galor, 1983; Belshaw, 1985; Binali and Kanengoni, 1998).
2.3.3 Fertility and hatchability
Fertility and hatchability are major constraints in guinea fowl production. Guinea fowl
cocks have smaller testicular size (1-9 g) than chicken cocks (14-16 g) (Belshaw, 1985;
Nwagu and Alawa, 1995). This may place guinea fowl at a disadvantage because sperm
production is associated with size of the testis in poultry (Ayorinde et al., 1989).
Nwagu and Alawa (1995) found that low relative humidity, low rainfall and high
temperature result in a reduction of semen production. This is also associated with low
spermatozoa concentration, a high percentage of sperm abnormality and a high dead to
live spermatozoa ratio. The fertility of guinea fowl eggs ranges from 49 to 58% in
naturally mated stock, while using artificial insemination results in egg fertility ranging
from 70 to 88% (Galor, 1983; Ayorinde et al., 1989). The low fertility in naturally
mated stock is also associated with monogamous sexual behavior of the guinea fowl in
addition to the fertility constraints with the male. On the other hand, handling of eggs
before incubation and period of storage greatly affect the hatchability of guinea fowl
eggs. Nwagu and Alawa (1995) reported that for every day of storage, the hatchability
deteriorated by nearly 4%. Hatchability rates of 67% (Kabera, 1997) and 70-75%
(Galor, 1983) have been achieved under artificial incubation.
2.3.4 Keet survivability
Guinea keet survival is essential for successful guinea fowl production. The
susceptibility of the keets to adverse weather conditions, diseases and poor mothering
by the guinea fowl hen led to high keet mortality (Embury, 2001; Frit’s Farm, 2001).
14
More than 50% mortality has been recorded in guinea fowl from day-old to eight weeks
(Nwagu and Alawa, 1995; Bessin, Belem, Boussin, Compaore, Kaboret and Dembele,
1998). Broody chicken and turkey hens can be the best mothers for keets (Anonymous,
1998). Guinea fowl keets should never be hatched or brooded on smooth surfaces as
they have a tendency to go “straddled legged” in a short time (Bell and Smith, 2003).
This is detrimental to the survival of the keets as it is almost impossible to get the bird
to walk normally again. The keets will subsequently die of starvation. Therefore, it is
essential to brood the keets for four to six weeks to improve their survival rates. When
the keets are properly managed, a normal keet mortality of 3 to 5% may occur from 0 to
24 days of age (Galor, 1983). In this regard, the aim of the guinea fowl farmer should
be to obtain large numbers of guinea fowl keets, which will survive into adult birds.
Nevertheless, the management system, nutrition, diseases, housing, and the availability
of a market for the birds and eggs determine the overall productivity of a guinea fowl
enterprise. In addition, access to extension services is essential to provide appropriate
technologies to enhance the productivity of guinea fowls.
2.4 Factors affecting guinea fowl production
2.4.1 Nutrition
Scavenging is the main feeding system under free-range guinea fowl production
systems in rural areas of Zimbabwe. According to Kusina and Kusina (1999), feed
supply is one of the main constraints to rural poultry production in Guruve District of
Zimbabwe. Guinea fowl have a unique ability to utilize a wide range of flora and fauna
as feed resource bases. They consume non-conventional feed that is not used in chicken
feeding (Bonds, 1997; Frit’s Farm, 2001; Oakland Zoo, 2001). Therefore, the guinea
fowl has competitive advantages over chicken as a free ranging bird. In addition,
15
guinea fowls digest nitrogen-free-extract and lignin components of feed better than
chicken but have a disadvantage of poor utilisation of crude protein (Nwagu and
Alawa, 1995). In this regard, there is need to determine how guinea fowls digest
nitrogen-free-extract and lignin components of feed.
There is a potential to increase guinea fowl meat and egg production through
improvements of some indigenous practices in extensive production systems. This
potential is closely linked to an appropriate use of the locally available feed resources.
The types of feed available to scavenging guinea fowl in rural areas of Zimbabwe are
not well known. Mandal, Pathak and Singh (1999) showed that the requirements for
ME for guinea fowl are 11.30 and 12.13 MJ/kg DM during the 0 to 4 and 5 to 12 weeks
of age with 220, 200 and 160 g CP/kg DM during 0 to 4, 5 to 8 and 9 to 12 weeks of
age, respectively.
Formulated rations for guinea fowl are available from commercial feed millers in
countries such as Australia, France and Italy (Galor 1983; Embury, 2001). Embury
(2001) reported that the starter ration should contain 240 g CP/kg DM and should be
given to the keets for the first four weeks of life; while a grower’s ration of 200 g
CP/kg DM should be used until eight weeks of age and a finisher ration of 160 g CP/kg
DM should be given until marketing. According to Galor (1983) guinea fowl breeders
and layers are given 170 g CP/kg DM and 2750 kcal/kg from 29 weeks of age to 40
weeks; after 40 weeks of age the protein levels would be reduced to 165 g CP/kg DM
in the diet for optimum production. According to Tadelle (1996) supplementing about
50% of the dietary needs of scavenging village poultry can improve productivity by a
16
factor of three. From day one to 25 weeks of age the quantity of feed used under
controlled feeding ranges between 9.75 kg and 10 kg per cock or 11.5 kg and 12 kg per
served guinea fowl hen (Galor, 1983). Galor (1983) indicated that a laying guinea fowl
hen would require 110 g of feed per day from 32 weeks of age to maximise egg
production. Therefore, a balanced ration, which meets the nutritional requirements, is
considered a prerequisite for efficient egg and meat production.
2.4.2 Health Management
Scanty information is available on health management of guinea fowls in Zimbabwe to
date. Nonetheless, there is a substantial body of literature worldwide on guinea fowl
health management, diseases and their effects on productivity. These can be broadly
classified under viral, bacterial and parasitic diseases as depicted in sections that
follow.
2.4.2.1 Viral diseases
Although guinea fowls are believed to be tolerant to the common diseases of chickens
such as Newcastle Disease and Fowl Pox (Microlivestock, 1991; Bonds, 1997; Dieng,
Gue’ye, Mahoungou-Mouelle and Buldgen, 1999; Mandal et al., 1999; Chivandi et al.,
2002), a wide range of viral, bacterial and parasitic poultry diseases have been reported
to affect both experimentally and naturally, this species. In some instances, some
disease outbreaks affecting chickens have not spared guinea fowls. An outbreak of a
highly pathogenic type of avian influenza (H7N1) in Italy caused mortalities of up to
100% in chickens and guinea fowls, whereas pheasants and ducks were tolerant
(Zanella, Dall’Ava, and Martino, 2001). Another important disease of poultry and other
birds, Newcastle Disease, was reported to occur naturally in guinea fowls (Aeitken,
17
Allan, Biggs, Gordon, and Jordan, 1977; Durojaiye, Agoha, Akpaive and Adene, 1992;
Haruna, Shamaki, Echeonwu, Majiyagbe and Shuayibu, 1993). Experimental infection
with a virulent virus isolated from outbreaks of Newcastle Disease in chickens killed
100% of keets inoculated after eight days of age.
An adenovirus associated with pancreatitis has been reported to occur in guinea fowls
(Zellen, Key and Jack, 1989; Chalton and Bickford, 1995). A similar disease was
experimentally reproduced in guinea fowls after inoculation with an adenovirus isolated
from an ostrich that had revealed lesions of pancreatitis at post mortem. Six out of 15
keets died in this experiment (Capua, Gouph, Scaramozzino, Lelli and Gatti, 1994).
Other viruses that have been reported in guinea fowls include reoviruses (Tanyi,
Glavits, Salyi, Rudas, Kosa and Szabo, 1994; Ito, Jerez, Miraj, Capellaro Cemp-dal and
Catroxo, 1996), a toga-like virus associated with high mortalities (Brahem, Demarquez,
Beyrie, Vuillaume and Fleury, 1992) and a pneumovirus associated with the swollen
head syndrome (Litjerns, Kleyn-van-Willigen and Sinke, 1989).
2.4.2.2 Bacterial diseases
Several bacterial diseases have been reported to occur in guinea fowls. Outbreaks of
Fowl Typhoid in guinea fowls were reported as far back as the 1930s and 1940s
(Johnson and Anderson, 1933; Moore, 1943), while in Australia, a disease associated
with high mortality, loss of weight and drooping of wings in ten-week old guinea fowls
was diagnosed to be caused by erysipelothrix, a zoonotic bacterium which is more
virulent in turkeys than in chickens (Campbell, Taylor and Harrower, 1992). This
organism has been reported by several workers in France (Laroche, 1985; Vaissaive,
Desmettre, Paille, Mivial and Laroche, 1985) and in Australia (Eamens and Schenk,
18
1985) to cause disease in guinea fowls. Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale bacterium,
was isolated from a number of birds showing respiratory symptoms including a guinea
fowl in France (Leroy-Sentrin, Flaujac, Thenaisy and Chaslus-Dancla, 1998). Bessin et
al. (1998) reported that other bacteria isolated from guinea fowls in surveys included,
E. coli, Salmonella, Klebsiella, Proteus, Pseudomonas and Enterobacter. The effect of
bacterial diseases, especially salmonella cause convulsions and death will occurin two
to five days (Belshaw, 1985).
2.4.2.3 Parasitic diseases
The most common parasitic infection reported in guinea fowls has been Heterakis
gallinarum (Khan, Iqbal and Ashraf, 1994a; Khan, Iqbal, Ashraf, 1994b; Nwagu and
Alawa, 1995; Santa-Cruz, Ortiz-de-Rott and Resoagli, 1998). This nematode, which is
relatively non-pathogenic in chickens, has been shown to cause granulomas in caeca of
guinea fowls in Pakistan (Khan et al., 1994a; Khan et al., 1994b). Haziev and Khan
(1991) reported H. gallinarum as having the highest incidence and affecting 100% of
all guinea fowls infected with helminths. Outbreaks and occurrences of Ascaridiosis
have been reported as well (Haziev and Khan 1991; Nwagu and Alawa, 1995; Souza,
Rodrigues, Lopes and De-Souza, 1997; Bessin et al., 1998). The species Ascaridia
numida has been associated with intestinal obstruction and mucoid enteritis leading to
emaciation and in some cases death of young guinea fowls (Souza et al., 1997).
However, other papers reported the ascarid in guinea fowl as Ascaridia galli, the main
ascarid of chickens (Haziev and Khan, 1991; Nwagu and Alawa, 1995).
Other internal parasites of importance reported in guinea fowls are: Capillaria
caudiflata, Eimeria species (Coccidioisis) (Nwagu and Alawa, 1995; Bessin et al.,
19
1998), while parasites such as Leucocytozoon naevei, cryptosporidiosis and cestodes
such as Raillietina tetragona have been encountered in guinea fowls (Lakshminarasimh
and Onyeanus, 1988; Blagburn, Angus and Blewett, 1989; Haziev and Khan, 1991).
Their importance as disease agents has not been proven. External parasites of guinea
fowls are almost the same as those of range chickens and include species of lice, mites,
fleas and soft ticks (Okaeme, 1988). However, a survey carried out in Nigeria by
Nwagu and Alawa (1995) reported the main ectoparasites in guinea fowls as Damalina
species of lice and the soft tick of chickens namely Argus persicus.
2.4.3 Housing
Housing requirements for adult and breeding birds differ from those of keets. Free
ranging poultry on smallholder farms are housed under small confinements where
different species and age groups of poultry are mixed. In some cases, poultry roost in
trees and are not housed (Kitalyi, 1999). Frits Farm (2001) reported that there is no
requirement for elaborate and expensive housing for guinea fowl. However, there is
need for adequate protection of keets from predators and harsh environmental
conditions. There is also need to provide overnight shelter to protect adult and breeding
birds from predation (Knox, 2000; Embury, 2001). Knox (2000) indicated that shelter
should be provided and that its construction should be dictated by management
methods. Nevertheless, the floor space for any type of house constructed for guinea
fowls should meet the stocking density of 20 keets per square metre at day old, 8 birds
per square metre by 10 weeks of age and 4 birds per square metre for the breeding
stock (Knox, 2000; Embury, 2001).
20
2.4.4 Marketing
Guinea fowl’s attractive plumage and value as a table bird with game-type flavour and
high meat-to-bone ratio has ensured its wide acceptance. Its meat is highly priced in
Africa (US Department of Agriculture, 1976; Nwagu, 1997) and is mainly served in
gourmet markets (Smith, 2000). The seasonal breeding nature of the bird leads to
seasonal supply of its products. This is a major limitation and has adverse implications
on availability of guinea fowl products as product availability is seasonal. Research is,
therefore, necessary to try to bridge this production gap. The rate of lay is affected by
day length and temperature (Microlivestock, 1991). Possible ways to encourage
breeding of guinea fowls throughout the year include intensive or semi-intensive
production and using artificial lighting regimes that might allow the guinea fowl to
breed throughout the year. However, there is need to ensure that there is an accessible
market for the guinea fowl products (Knox, 2000). Market research is, therefore, a pre-
requisite for the success of smallholder commercial guinea fowl production. In
addition, it is recommended that guinea fowl products be promoted, especially in areas
where they are mostly consumed on special occasions (Knox, 2000; Robinson, 2000).
2.4.5 Extension services
Extension services for smallholder farmers are essential for improvement of guinea
fowl management and marketing. Limited knowledge and research on guinea fowl
biology and production led to extrapolation of data from chickens. There is risk
associated with this because there are genetic and phenotypic differences between these
species of poultry (Nwagu and Alawa, 1995).
21
2.5 Research methods
2.5.1 Survey methods
There are several methods that are used in collecting livestock production related data
in on-farm studies. For the purpose of this study, informal and formal surveys and long
term monitoring studies will be reviewed. Informal surveys are conducted in order to
develop a rapid understanding of the farmer’s circumstances, practices and constraints
(Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maizy Trigo (CIMMYT), 1980; Chikura,
1999). They are useful when collecting producers’ strategies, decision making, social
aspects of the production process and other sensitive information which is difficult to
collect using structural questionnaires (ILCA, 1983; Chikura, 1999). The information is
collected using Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) techniques. Participatory Rural
Appraisal was developed to gain information directly from rural communities and to
enable the communities to do the analysis and planning using the information obtained.
Participatory Rural Appraisal has three foundations: methods, behaviour and attitudes;
and sharing (Chambers, 1993) and is used to collect qualitative data.
Formal surveys rely on the administration of precisely designed questionnaires through
enumerators. They provide standardized and quantifiable data that can be analyzed
statistically (CIMMYT, 1980; Chikura, 1999). The accuracy of the data collected from
formal surveys depends on the quality of enumerators and questionnaires, the type of
data to be collected, the frequency of visits and cooperation of respondents
(International Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA), 1983; Chikura, 1999). Errors can be
minimized by proper selection, training and supervision of enumerators and paying
attention to the details of the questionnaire (Chikura, 1999).
22
Long term monitoring studies are designed to provide data on livestock productivity
such as egg production, hatchings, mortality, offtakes, weight gains/losses by season
and year, meat production and/or flock dynamics. A minimum of 10 herds/flocks for
each species should be used with not less than 300 animals of each species being
recorded initially (Chikura, 1999). In the early stages, subsequent visits should be done
in two week intervals or less. This can be reduced to between four and six weeks once
confidence in the ability of both the researcher and the owner to record and report all
events has been developed (ILCA, 1983; Chikura, 1999). In order to minimize seasonal
effects, the study should take a minimum of 3 years (Chikura, 1999). However, some
useful indications on productivity parameters will be available after 12 to 18 months of
data collection (ILCA, 1983; Chikura, 1999).
2.5.2 Nutritional study methods
Proper estimation of feed intake by scavenging poultry is an important prerequisite for
improving feeding systems and management. Methods used to estimate feed intake of
scavenging birds include crop content analysis (Huque, 1999), calculation of
scavenging feed resource base (SFRB) (Roberts and Gunaratne, 1992; Gunaratne,
1999; Olukosi and Sonaiya, 2003) and the novel pairing technique (Ajuyah, 1999). The
crop content analysis method is used when determining the nutritional status of feed
consumed by the free ranging poultry. It involves the collection of birds during the
scavenging time, weighing and sacrificing the birds on the spot by bleeding at the
cervical region. The birds are opened for internal organs. Feed in the crop and gizzards
of the scavenging birds are collected for further analysis. The collected feed items are
identified through eye observation. Proximate components (Dry Matter, Ash, Crude
Protein, Ether extract, Crude Fibre, Nitrogen Free extract) of the feed samples are
23
determined according to Association of Official Analytical Chemists (A O A C) (1990).
The ground samples are weighed out and digested with di-acid mixture for calcium and
phosphorus determination to find out the availability of these minerals in the
scavenging feed resource base (Huque, 1999).
In order to estimate the quantity of scavengable feed available on the free range two
methods are applied. These include one based on the measurement of household left
overs and the other derived from calculations based on life performance of birds. The
scavenging feed (g/bird/day) based on measurement of household leftovers as obtained
from Roberts (1999) and modified by Olukosi and Sonaiya (2003) is:
SF = [H/P] x [n/T]
where:
SF = scavengable feed (g/bird/day)
H = quantity of household left overs,
P = Proportion of H in the crop content,
n = total of households in the village,
T = Total number of birds in the village.
The SF (kg/ flock per year) derived from calculations based on life performance of
birds as obtained by Roberts and Gunaratne (1992) formulae is:
SFRB = J x Ej/Es
where:
SFRB = Scavengable feed resource base (kg/ flock/year)
J = average flock size
24
Ej= The ME requirement for daily maintenance and production of each bird
(kcal/bird)
Es = the ME in the scavenged feed (Kcal/kg dry weight).
The amount of protein and energy in the scavengable feed resource base of scavenging
poultry can be determined by crop content analysis. However, this method does not
provide information on apparent and true digestibility of the feed. Ajuyah (1999)
proposed the “novel pairing technique” which relates the nutrient composition of crop
content to faecal excretion and ileum digesta content between different pairs of birds of
similar age, weight and sex. This method enables the acquisition of quantitative and
qualitative data to estimate feed intake and utilization by village poultry and the
determination of the effect of supplementary feeding and feed composition on the
scavenging ability and growth rate of rural poultry.
2.5.3 Carcass analysis techniques
There are several methods used to analyze carcass quality. For the purpose of this study
three methods will be reviewed. These include physical dissection and chemical
analysis (Panda, 1998; Van Marle-Köster and Webb, 2000), and organoleptic tests
(Northcurt, 1997). Physical dissection involves precise cutting of a carcass into
commercially cut parts and weighing the parts to determine meat and bone yield. In
poultry commercially cut parts include thigh, breast, drumstick, wing, back and neck
(Panda, 1998; Oduguwa, Oduguwa, Fanimo and Dipeolu, 2000). Chemical analysis is
done to evaluate the nutritive value of the meat in terms of protein, fat, water and
minerals using the proximate analysis (AOAC, 1990). Organolepric test go further to
25
determine sensory attributes of the meat through the use of panelists (Northcurt, 1997).
These include appearance, texture and flavour.
2.6 Conclusion
There is a great potential to commercialize smallholder guinea fowl production in
Zimbabwe. However, information on guinea fowl management and productivity is
lacking. There is need for information on growth rate, body weights, mortality and
causes of mortality, carcass yield, egg production, egg weights, laying intensity,
fertility and hatchability of the guinea fowl eggs, especially under free ranging
conditions. In addition, the information on diseases and parasites affecting the bird,
which is necessary for designing disease control strategies, is lacking. Therefore, there
is need for research on current smallholder guinea fowl management practices and
productivity under the current management systems. There is also need to experiment
whether improving the current management system has any significant effect on the
productivity of the birds. The weight gain, mortality, carcass characteristics, egg
production, egg fertility and hatchability of the guinea fowl need to be evaluated under
different management systems in order to find out the management system optimal for
commercial smallholder guinea fowl production.
26
CHAPTER 3: A SURVEY OF HELMETED GUINEA FOWL (Numidia meleagris) MANAGEMENT AND PRODUCTION BY SMALLHOLDER FARMERS IN LOWER GURUVE DISTRICT OF ZIMBABWE 3.1 INTRODUCTION
Village poultry production has recently been recognized as a tool that could be used to
reduce poverty and promote gender equality in rural households (Dolberg and
Petersen, 1999). Extensive work has so far been carried out in Zimbabwe and
elsewhere in Africa on village chickens, being the predominant poultry species,
accounting for about 68% of all poultry types (Byarugaba, Olsen and Katunguka-
Rwakishaya, 2000; Kusina J, Kusina N. T. and Mhlanga, 2000). Despite research and
development work on chickens, very little has been done to promote other poultry
species like guinea fowls.
There are reports of increased domestication of the guinea fowl in some parts of
Zimbabwe including Guruve, Muzarabani, Gokwe and Binga Districts (Anonymous,
1998; Kusina and Kusina, 1999; Dondofema, 2000; Baudet, Hiscock and Hachileka,
2001; Saina, 2001, Chivandi et al., 2002). However, very little attention had been paid
to guinea fowl production in terms of research and development. This has resulted in a
scarcity of information on the status of guinea fowl production in Zimbabwe.
Guinea fowls are mainly reared to improve the livelihoods of the farmers through
improved nutrition, income generation by selling of eggs and birds, employment
creation and through eco-tourism (Kusina and Muchenje, 1999). Therefore, guinea
fowl production has a great potential not only to alleviate poverty and improve the
rural economy but also to encourage smallholder farmers to conserve the natural
27
resources in conservancies close to the communal areas. Despite the importance of
guinea fowls, their production is still in its infancy. At present there is lack of
information on the management and production of guinea fowls under smallholder
farmer management. This information is essential if any prospective endeavours to
improve the current production levels are to be undertaken successfully. The objective
of this survey was to get an overview of guinea fowl production, utilization and
management by smallholder farmers in Dande communal area, in Guruve District of
Zimbabwe.
3.2 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.2.1 Study area
The study was carried out between June and July 2002 in three wards of Dande
Communal Area in Lower Guruve District. The wards are located to the north of the
escarpment in the Zambezi Valley (Figure 3.1). The District is located at the
northeastern end of the Mashonaland Central Province of Zimbabwe. Lower Guruve
District lies within 30º 18' E and 30º 45' E and 16º 00' S, 16º 22' S at an altitude of
approximately 400 m. The climate is semi-arid with two seasons; summer (wet and
warm) and winter (dry and cold). During the summer and winter seasons the mean
daily ambient temperatures of 40 0C and 25 0C, respectively, are experienced. Rainfall
varies from 500 to 600 mm per annum. The main soil types in the area are well drained
alluvial soils and coarse sandstones in Chisunga Ward, red sandstones in both
Neshange and Gonono Wards, while sandy, deep, brown medium grained and alluvial
soils are also found in Gonono Ward (Coid, Gaidet, Moyo, Poilecot, Poulet, Renaud,
Ricard and Takawira, 2001). The vegetation is Savannah
28
Key: Names of rivers: 1- Manyame, 2 – Kadzi, 3 - Angwa Adapted from: Coid et al. (2001). Figure 3.1: Map of Wards 2, 3 and 4 of Lower Guruve District
1 2
3
Location of Lower Guruve District
29
woodland dominated by Colophospermum mopane and Acacia species. The woodland
had been opened up mainly for cotton production and residential areas but the wards
are also endowed with conservancies with a diversity of wild life and tropical plants
(Coid et al., 2001). The agricultural production system in the District is now crop-
livestock-based following the effective control of tsetse fly in the 1980s (Coid et al.,
2001). Poultry management is mainly semi-intensive and extensive (Kusina et al.,
2000).
3.2.2 Data collection
An informal survey was conducted in the study site to identify guinea fowl farmers.
Simple random sampling was used to select 73 guinea fowl owners from 159 farmers
rearing guinea fowls in the three wards. The selected farmers were interviewed and a
structured questionnaire completed. Information collected through the structured
questionnaire included: reasons for adoption of guinea fowl rearing; type of guinea
fowl reared; flock sizes and composition; retrospective production indices; product
utilisation; housing; feed resources; health management; record keeping; and farmer
recommendations on how to improve guinea fowl farming.
3.2.3 Data analysis
The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) (SPSS, 1998) was used for entry
and analysis of quantitative data to generate descriptive statistics (means, standard
deviations and range) on flock size, number of breeding hens, breeding period, egg
production per hen, hatchability, keet survival rate, brooding period, age at point of
lay, age at slaughter and productive life span.
30
3.3 RESULTS
3.3.1 Flock ownership and adoption
The study showed that men owned most (67%) of the guinea fowl flocks (Figure 3.2).
A few farmers, through egg collection and incubation using surrogate hens, first
domesticated wild guinea fowl (Numidia ptilohycha) in the study area in 1992. Some
farmers and development agencies brought the current breed of guinea fowls (Numidia
meliagris) from Binga and Gokwe Districts. Initially 15 groups or individual
smallholder farmers in the Guruve Wards received the donated birds. Each
group/individual received 10 breeding guinea fowls. This enabled most farmers to get
breeding eggs and birds locally. Five varieties of helmeted guinea fowls (Numidia
meleagris) were observed in the area. These included the white, lavender, splashed,
pied or white breasted and pearl varieties.
3.3.2 Production systems
The groups of guinea fowl farmers who were given the breeding stock through the
Biodiversity micro-project kept their flocks under a semi-intensive production system.
The birds were kept in fowl runs and fed sorghum, millet, maize grain or hammer mill
by-products. Nearly seventy-nine percent of the farmers kept the birds under a free-
range production system with ad hoc supply of household food leftover (kitchen
wastes) and grains such as sorghum and pearl millet.
3.3.3 Flock structure and production efficiency
The study revealed that the population of guinea fowls raised by the farmers selected
was 602. The flock structure is presented in Table 3.1. Flocks were mainly composed
of growers (72%) while breeding hens and cocks constituted 16% and 12%,
31
`
Key: Youth: men or women between the ages of 18 and 30 yr and were not married
Figure 3.2: Guinea fowl flocks ownership pattern in Wards 2, 3 and 4 of Guruve District
01 0
2 03 04 0
5 06 0
7 08 0
M e n W o m e n Yo u th G ro u p F a m ily
C la s s
Perc
enta
ge (%
)
32
Table 3.1: Total number (n) and proportion (%) according to class of guinea fowl in the study area
Flock composition 1Number (n) 2 Percentage in flock
Growers 438 72
Breeding hens 95 16
Breeding cocks 69 12
1 Total number of guinea fowl recorded
2 Percentage in flock – proportion of class of guinea fowl
33
respectively, resulting in a sex ratio of 1.38: hens to 1 cock. Production estimates of the
guinea fowls under the current management systems practised by the farmers are
shown in Table 3.2. According to the farmers, guinea fowls breed from October to
April. Three methods were used to incubate the guinea fowl eggs. These included
natural incubation, use of surrogate hens and artificial incubation. No figures were
provided for artificial incubation but poor hatchability results were reported for eggs
incubated using artificial incubators. This was attributed to inappropriate incubator
management and unreliable electrical power supply Guinea fowls were allowed to
breed for one breeding season and were then sold or slaughtered.
3.3.4 Uses of guinea fowl and products
The farmers kept guinea fowls mainly as a source of income as they sold breeding
stock and eggs to other farmers and traders. Culled growers were the main class of
guinea fowl that was marketed. A total of 169 birds were sold between January and
June 2002 and a few farmers (4%) sold guinea fowl eggs. The majority of the farmers
traded guinea fowl eggs with chicken in order to increase surrogate hens for incubation
of the eggs. Live guinea fowls were mainly sold from May to September while eggs
were sold or disposed during the breeding season. Like other household produce, the
farmers also kept the birds as a source of food (meat and eggs). The farmers reported
that the manure excreted by guinea fowl was used as a source of organic fertilizer for
gardening projects.
3.3.5 Factors affecting guinea fowl production
Many factors were said to be constraints to optimal production and these included
breeder management, egg storage conditions, inappropriate methods of egg
34
Table 3.2: Production estimates of guinea fowls/ household flock for the 2001/2002
breeding season
Parameter Mean ± SD Range
Flock size (n) 8 6 2-30
1Breeding hens (n) 3 2 1-9
2Breeding period (mo) 4 3 3-7
3Egg production/hen/year 89 50 10-200
4Hatchability (%) 64 31 0-100
Keet survival rate (%) 60 30 0-100
5Brooding period (d) 12 3 0-120
6Point of lay (mo) 9 2 7-14
Age at slaughter (mo) 6 1 3-10
7Productive life span (yr) 1 1 1-3
1Breeding hens – guinea fowls that reached the reproductive stage
2Breeding period - the time from the start to end of laying during one breeding season
3Egg production per hen: - number of eggs produced by one guinea fowl during one
breeding season
4Hatchability (%) - the proportion of incubated eggs that successfully produce a keet at
the end of the incubation period
5Brooding period (d) - number of days the keets are provided with warmth and feed
under an enclosure
6Point of lay (mo) - the age at which a guinea fowl hen starts laying eggs
7Productive life span (yr) - number of years a guinea fowl is allowed to breed before
culling
35
incubation and rearing of keets, inconsistent feed supply, poor housing, mortality and
limited extension services.
3.3.5.1 Management of breeders, storage of eggs, incubation and rearing of
keets
The largest proportion (44%) of the farmers let guinea fowl hens lay eggs in the bush
while others allowed guinea fowls to lay in the poultry houses (23%), along live fences,
and in granary and family houses (33%). Fifty-five percent of the farmers collected the
guinea fowl eggs at least once a day, while 45% of the farmers collected the eggs on an
ad hoc basis during the breeding season. The farmers stored the eggs in a variety of
containers which included metal and plastic containers, woven baskets, cardboard
boxes, plates, clay pots and egg trays which were placed in family houses. Some
farmers put maize meal or cotton lint in the containers before putting the eggs. The
mean storage period of eggs by the farmers was 10 days with a maximum of 90 days.
All the farmers used surrogate hens to incubate guinea fowl eggs. However, some
farmers (21%) also sent some eggs for artificial incubation at the CIRAD base, at
Mushumbi pools growth point. There were reports of high mortality of keets fostered
by guinea fowl hens or brooded artificially.
3.3.5.2 Feed supply
Only 42% of the respondents provided small amounts of supplementary feed in the
form of crushed maize, millet or sorghum grains for keets and whole grains for growers
and breeders. Few farmers (12%) gave high protein feeds like sunflower and soyabeans
or commercial feeds to their guinea fowls. Feed availability for the guinea fowls varied
from one season to the other depending on annual rainfall and crop yields. The farmers
36
gave grass seeds and milling by products to guinea fowl keets during drought periods.
All the farmers allowed their birds to have unlimited access to drinking water.
3.3.5.3 Housing
A variety of structures for guinea fowl housing were used. These included raised
structures (43%), deep litter (32%), and fowl runs with shade (17%). Other farmers
(8%) let their flocks sleep in trees or on top of family houses. The roofs of the houses
were thatched and farmers burnt the thatch annually to control external parasites. The
other farmers also swept the litter from the deep litter houses to control the parasites.
3.3.5.4 Health management
Although the farmers reported that guinea fowls were tolerant to most poultry diseases,
high mortality of keets was noted. The major causes of keet mortality were predators
(e.g., wild cats, feral mink, dogs and eagles), poor management, and external parasites.
External parasites such as mites, bugs and lice were found in guinea fowl night
enclosures. They were reported to affect guinea fowl production through mortality of
keets and low egg production of breeding hens. Some farmers burnt the guinea fowl
houses yearly as a method of controlling the parasites. In addition to predators,
poisoning by agro-chemicals or alleged poisonous insects also caused adult bird
mortality.
3.3.5.5 Extension services and farmer organization
Most (94%) of the guinea fowl owners including those supported by the Bio-diversity
micro-project received no special training. They obtained information through
experience and from suppliers of breeding stock and other farmers. Additionally, there
37
was a notable absence of production records and organized marketing systems.
However, 96% of the farmers interviewed were interested in forming a guinea fowl
producers association in order to facilitate their production and marketing needs.
3.4 DISCUSSION
The ownership of guinea fowl was surprisingly dominated by males who accounted for
67% of total guinea in the area. This result is rather surprising as it is common that
women ownership is dominant where poultry is involved (Kusina and Kusina, 1999).
The skewed ownership might be attributed to the perception that guinea fowl are very
strong fliers, which creates difficulties in catching and holding them (Oke, Herbert and
Nwachukwu, 2004) making it difficult for women to rear them. Nonetheless, it is
important to take cognisance of the fact that despite the perceived problems of
managing guinea fowl, the guinea fowls are reared in the study site and this indicates
their importance to the livelihood of farmers.
The scavenging production system practised by the majority of the farmers (79%) in
this study was similar to the system adopted on village poultry by smallholder farmers
not only in Zimbabwe but also in most sub-Saharan African countries (Idi, 1996;
Kusina and Kusina, 1999). In addition, the semi-intensive system of rearing introduced
by the French through the Bio-Diversity Project was adapted from the Poultry
Development Strategy currently used in Bangladesh for rearing of chickens (Swan,
1999). However, there is need to determine the suitability of this model for guinea fowl
rearing in Zimbabwe.
38
The mean flock size of eight guinea fowls is similar to work from Tanzania as reported
by Ajala, Nwagu and Otchele (1997). Age at point of lay of guinea fowl hens observed
in this study was within the range of 26 to 32 weeks reported elsewhere and the
breeding season duration was similar to that reported by Belshaw (1985), Nwagu,
(1997) and Binali and Kanengoni (1998). On the other hand, guinea fowl egg
production per breeding season of 89 eggs per breeding season was two-fold lower
than that reported by the same authors. Hatchability was similar to that reported by
Kabera (1997) but lower than the 88% reported by Binali and Kanengoni (1998).
Differences between studies might be attributed to a multitude of factors that include
management of eggs and the surrogate hens.
The survivability of 60% observed in this study was higher than that reported in some
earlier studies such as 50% in a Nigerian study (Nwagu and Alawa, 1995) but lower
than the 73% reported by Binali and Kanengoni (1998) in Zimbabwe. Differences in
keet survivability might be ascribed to the short brooding period as brooding periods as
long as 3 to 6 weeks were recommended elsewhere, for example in Australia (Embury,
2001) and United States (US Department of Agriculture, 1976). On the other hand, the
age at slaughter (24 weeks) reported in this study was longer than that of between 11
and 16 weeks reported by Galor (1983), Knox (2000) and Embury (2001). The
differences could be attributed to differences in management systems, breed and
feeding regime. The breeding of guinea fowls for only one year could have been the
reason for lower productivity of the breeders as higher production levels were
anticipated for breeders aged 2 to 3 years (US Department of Agriculture, 1976;
Ayorinde et al., 1989).
39
Similar to earlier observations on village poultry production on the same site (Kusina
and Kusina, 1999), there was no organized marketing systems in place for guinea fowl
and/or their products. Evidence was provided by the observations that only 21% of
farmers reported having sold at least a single bird during the year. The low sales might
be partly attributed to small flock sizes, the high prices paid for the guinea fowl in
comparison to village chickens as well as the lack of an organised ready market.
This study revealed that there were many factors limiting guinea fowl production under
smallholder management practices. These included unsuitable storage places for
guinea fowl eggs, long storage periods, inadequate and untimely availability of
surrogate hens and unreliable artificial incubators due to frequent power cuts. In
addition, improper management of guinea fowl keets, inconsistent feeding regimes and
management of breeders reduced the survival rate of keets and breeding potential of
guinea fowl hens, respectively. The high proportion of guinea fowls laying eggs in the
bush (44%) may predispose the eggs to theft and predation. This could have resulted in
under-estimation of the productivity of guinea fowl breeders. The ad hoc collection,
poor storage facilities and long storage periods of guinea fowl eggs may be
contributing to the low hatchability reported in this study. Belshaw (1985) reported
that the correct storage condition for guinea fowl eggs to be a temperature range of 13
to 16 oC, a relative humidity of 70 to 80%, and proper ventilation. Experiments
conducted elsewhere have shown that there is a decrease in hatchability of about 19%
in eggs, which are 14 days old (Belshaw, 1985) while other authors recommended a
storage period of not more than seven days (Galor, 1983; Binali and Kanengoni, 1998).
The observation of lower survival rate of keets fostered by guinea fowl and brooded
artificially could be due to the poor mothering ability of guinea fowl hens and poor
40
management practices, respectively (Christophe, 1995; Embury, 2001; Frit’s Farm,
2001).
Although a considerable number of farmers (42%) provided supplementary feed for
the guinea fowls, it was difficult to estimate the dietary pattern of the birds because of
the inconsistent feeding practices. The inconsistent feeding system could be a major
contributor to under-nutrition and malnutrition leading to unhealthy keets and their
early death. All the farmers provided water to the birds as the birds were reported to
drink a lot of water because of the high temperatures (up to 40 oC maximum daily
temperature) that is experienced in the Zambezi Valley, especially during the breeding
season (Kusina N. T. and Kusina J., 1999).
The majority of the farmers provided a form of housing for guinea fowls except 8% of
the farmers who allowed their guinea fowls to roost in the trees during the night.
However, the houses were not meeting hygienic standards (dry and clean bedding, size
of houses and easy to clean walls and floor) required to prevent the build up of
parasites and control of parasitic infestation. Poor health management of guinea fowls
by the farmers could have contributed to the high mortality (40%) of keets reported in
this study. Efforts to increase productivity of village poultry, including guinea fowls,
through improvements in handling of eggs, incubation, feeding, housing, health and
general management aspects have recently been acknowledged (Idi, 1996; Kusina J
and Kusina N. T., 1999; Ekue, 2002).
41
3.5 CONCLUSION
The major finding of this study is that guinea fowl flock sizes were small and
management of guinea fowls needs to be improved to increase productivity. The main
constraints encountered by guinea fowl owners were few hatching eggs and few keets
that survive into adult birds. Poor management and predators caused high mortality of
keets. The quality of data can be improved by a longitudinal (monitoring) study on the
management and production of guinea fowls and by carrying out trials to determine the
best management practices, which can yield the best results and are suitable for the
smallholder farming system.
42
CHAPTER 4: MONITORING STUDY OF GUINEA FOWL PRODUCTION UNDER THE TRADITIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN GURUVE DISTRICT OF ZIMBABWE 4.1 INTRODUCTION
Previous reports (Ayorinde et al., 1989; Chivandi et al., 2002; Saina, Kusina N. T,
Kusina J, Bhebhe and Lebel, 2003a) indicated that guinea fowls could lay more eggs
per year and their keets grow faster than indigenous chickens. This may be attributed to
the guinea fowl's foraging ability, hardiness and minimal production input requirements
(Microlivestock, 1991). Besides these characteristics, guinea fowl farming has been
neglected by research and development agencies with regard to improving husbandry
practices and capital investment.
Literature shows that guinea fowl products are accepted worldwide due to the bird’s
attractive plumage, its value as table bird with game-type flavour and high meat to bone
ratio. Evidence of the acceptability of guinea fowl in Zimbabwe is shown in the
mushrooming of scattered sites around the country today that are now engaging in
guinea fowl rearing (Kusina J and Kusina N. T, 1999; Saina, 2001; Saina et al. 2003a).
Despite this renaissance of interest in guinea fowl production, it is important to take
cognisance of the fact that there is a dearth of information on guinea fowl production,
in contrast to indigenous chickens where extensive research is now available (Kusina
and Kusina, 1999; Maphosa, Kusina J, Kusina N. T, Makuza and Sibanda, 2004;
Muchadeyi, Sibanda, Kusina J, Kusina N. T, Makuza, 2004).
Faced with the economic meltdown prevailing in Zimbabwe today, logic dictates that
farmers adopt agricultural enterprises that ensure low input demands but are
43
sustainable. Guinea fowl production provides one of the best alternatives for the rural
populace to access meat and eggs as well as potential for revenue generation through
sales of live fowl and/ or eggs. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine
production performance of helmeted guinea fowls under smallholder farmer
management and validate the information obtained from the survey.
4.2 MATERIALS AND METHODS
4.2.1 Site description
The study was conducted from September 2002 to May 2003 in a semi-arid communal
area in Lower Guruve District of Mashonaland Central Province. The site was
described in Chapter 3, Section 3.2.1.
4.2.2 Farmer selection
A total of 30 farmers involved in rearing guinea fowl were selected at random to
participate in this monitoring study during the breeding period of 2002 to 2003. The
selected number constituted 19% of the guinea fowl farmers identified during a
baseline study conducted prior to the commencement of the study.
4.2.3 Data collection
Qualitative data was obtained through use of participatory rural appraisal techniques
(PRA) as outlined by Chambers (1993). Quantitative data were obtained through the
use of data sheets supplied to each participating farmer. Data recorded on the data
sheets included: flock size and structure, number of hens laying and non-layers, number
of eggs produced/hen/day during the laying phase, type of housing and feed
44
management as well as sales and consumption. Some eggs were collected and
incubated using artificial incubators at Mushumbi pools CIRAD base in close
proximity of the study site and at University of Zimbabwe, Department of Animal
Science Laboratory Hatchery.
4.2.4 Data analysis
Data were processed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) (1998) to
depict descriptive statistics. Calculations were computed and expressed as proportions
for fertility and hatchability. In this study, fertility is defined as the proportion of fertile
eggs of all eggs laid over the breeding period by single hens or groups of hens. Fertility
was determined by candling the eggs after 14 and 24 days of incubation. Hatchability
was calculated as the proportion of live keets hatched from the total number of
hatchable eggs incubated.
4.3 RESULTS
4.3.1 Flock size and structure
The guinea fowl demographics are depicted in Figure 4.1 while overall performance is
summarized in Table 4.1. The sex ratio of guinea fowl breeders at the beginning of the
breeding season was 1.6 hens to 1 cock. The is a gradual decline of breeders during
breeding season. The monthly size of keets varied with the highest proportion in April
while the proportion of growers increased from February to May 2003.
4.3.2 Reproductive performance
The pattern of egg production, number of eggs incubated and hatched are illustrated in
Figure 4.2 while survivability results are summarised in Table 4.2. A total of 2039 eggs
45
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MARCH APRIL MAY
MONTH
NU
MB
ER
OF
BIR
DS
TOTAL HENS COCKS GROWERS KEETS
Figure 4.1: Number and composition of guinea fowls monitored during the 2002 to 2003 breeding season
46
Table 4.1: Summary of production performance of helmeted guinea fowls under smallholder farmer management in Zimbabwe
Parameter Mean ± SD
Egg production/hen 42 ± 26
Length of breeding season (months) 5 ± 1
Hatchability (%) 71.2 ± 14.3
Keet survival rate (%) 36 ± 10.3
47
Figure 4.2: Pattern of egg production, incubation and eggs hatching and total number of layers according to month from October 2002 to March 2003
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR
MONTH
TO
TA
L N
UM
BE
R O
F E
GG
S/L
AY
ER
S……
Eggs Laid
Eggs Incubated
Eggs Hatched
Number oflayers
2002 2003
48
Table 4.2: Mean mortality of breeders and keets from November 2002 to February 2003
Month Mortality (%)
1Keets 2Breeders
November - 2.0
December 57.1 7.3
January 59.4 6.9
February 48.4 4.2
1Keets - < 6 weeks of age
2Breeders (including growers) - > 6 weeks of age
49
were incubated naturally using broody guinea fowl and a mean of 71.2% hatchability
recorded. Hatchability varied from one month to the other with the highest hatchability
recorded in the month of November 2003 and February 2003.
4.3.3 Feeding and housing management The main feed source comprised scavenging although, when available, breeding guinea
fowls were offered supplementary feed constituting mainly sorghum and pearl millet
haphazardly. Housing comprised a variety of artisan structures made of wood, mud,
bricks, mesh wire, and plastic with or without roofing. Average floor size
measurements approximated 6 m2 with an earth (71%) or raised (29%) floor type. Some
keets were brooded in movable cages mainly kept in the kitchen during the night and
moved outdoor during daytime while others were allowed to forage during day and
then kept in the poultry house together with surrogate hens at night and allowed to free
range during the day.
4.3.4 Marketing and consumption
Approximately 230 eggs were consumed by at least 12 farmers during the course of the
study and 985 eggs were sold to local community and research personnel.
4.4 DISCUSSION
Despite the enthusiasm exhibited by the producers in this study, productivity of the
guinea fowl flocks was sub-optimal. Considerable challenges confront future
improvement efforts in productivity mainly due to low hatchability, excessive keet
mortality and predation losses that might account for the major losses observed. For
example, there were problems in egg collection as some hens tended to lay eggs in the
50
bushes instead of designated cages thereby exposing some eggs to predation.
Notwithstanding the difficulties encountered, the level of productivity reported here
was lower than that reported in a study in Nigeria by Nwagu and Alawa (1995) where
guinea fowl flocks produced on average 50 to 170 eggs per hen during the breeding
season. There are numerous possible causal factors that might explain the differences
between these studies. The level of productivity is partly modulated by feed
availability; in this study the feed was obtained mainly through scavenging. Any
differences between studies might be partly attributed to differences in quantity and
quality of the feed resources available to the guinea fowl during the breeding season to
meet ME requirements for maintenance and production.
An important factor that determines viability and economics of fowl production
enterprise is fertility of eggs. The fertility result of 75% was higher than that reported
by Nwagu and Alawa (1995) in Nigeria of between 49 and 58%. This could be
explained by differences in sex ratio, which was higher in the study while the various
sizes and parity of breeders managed by the farmers could explain the variability of egg
sizes recorded in this study.
The mean hatchability of guinea fowl eggs incubated naturally (71%) was numerically
higher than that reported by Nwagu and Alawa (1995) and Saina et al. (2003a) of 67%
and 65%, respectively and was found to lie within the ranges reported by Galor (1983)
and Binali and Kanengoni (1998). Nevertheless, hatchability results from eggs
incubated using the artificial incubators were variable (36 to 82%). This was caused by
power cuts experienced in the study area. A comparison of survivability among fowls
managed on-farm and those that had eggs hatched on-station showed that the
51
survivability of the hatched keets was significantly higher on-station compared on-farm
(71 vs. 41%). Such an observation provides evidence that management might play a
critical role in enhancing opportunities of survival of keets following hatching.
On the other hand, guinea fowl keet survival is essential for successful guinea fowl
production. The mortality rate of about 64% that occurred in keets managed under the
traditional management system was higher than that of 40% reported in the survey
(Saina et al., 2003a). Nwagu and Alawa (1995) and Bessin et al. (1998) also reported
that more than 50% mortality has been recorded in guinea fowl from day-old to eight
weeks. The mortality had been attributed to the susceptibility of guinea fowl keets to
adverse weather conditions such as low temperature and very high temperature,
diseases and parasites, and poor management (Embury, 2001; Frits Farm, 2001; Saina
et al., 2003a). Proper brooding of guinea fowl keets for at least three weeks improves
their survival rates (Embury, 2001). Guinea fowl breeders managed to reduce mortality
of guinea fowl keets to 3 to 5% under an improved management system (Galor, 1985)
Few health problems were observed on the breeding guinea fowls but mortality was
high in keets. Adult birds were lost (5.1%/month) due to poisoning, predators (snakes,
dogs, wild cats), fighting, theft and floods while in keets mite infestations, malnutrition,
cold and scorching heat, predators (snakes, dogs, wild cats and predatory birds), floods
and physical injuries were the main causes of death. The mortality of breeders was
higher than the 0.35% accepted for breeding guinea fowls in France (Galor, 1883). In
contrast to use of veterinary drugs and vaccines in commercially managed flocks
(Galor, 1983), disease treatment and prevention was through the use of ethno-
veterinary practice.
52
A most surprising observation was the minimal consumption (approximately 8
eggs/household) and/or sales (33 eggs /household). The result was inconsistent with the
thought that improvement in fowl production would translate into increased household
protein intake. Similarly, there was no corresponding enhancement of sales for revenue
generation. Although the results appear to be unexpected, it might indicate farmer
intelligence and priority with emphasis to ensure sufficient breeding stock in view of
the excessive keet mortality compounded by egg losses.
4.5 CONCLUSION
From the results of this study, it is concluded that low egg production (42 eggs per hen/
per breeding season), excessive mortality of keets (64%) and general mismanagement
of both eggs and keets compromised guinea fowl production. The production
performance of guinea fowls in this study was close to the estimates provided in the
survey except that egg production. The hatchability of guinea fowl eggs under natural
incubation of 71% was consistent with that reported for commercially managed flocks.
Therefore, increasing the number of hatching eggs and reducing keet mortality might
improve productivity substantially.
53
CHAPTER 5: GROWTH AND CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS OF GUINEA FOWLS (Numidia meleagris) REARED UNDER INTENSIVE AND SEMI-EXTENSIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Smallholder farmers rear a wide range of poultry species including guinea fowls. The
guinea fowls are managed mostly under semi-extensive production systems in Africa
(Ayeni, 1983). This system of production predisposes the birds to mortality due to
predation, parasitic infestation, snakebites, inadequate nutrition and lack of veterinary
care (Nwagu and Alawa, 1995; Saina et al., 2003 a, b). Growth performance of guinea
fowls can be improved by way of modern poultry management interventions
(Branckaert and Gue’ye, 1999). However, modern poultry management systems
involve high production inputs and require trained personnel that can be hardly
afforded by smallholder communal farmers. In order to improve the growth
performance of poultry with limited bought in stock feed, semi-intensive management
systems can be an option for smallholder farmers.
There is little, if any, information on quality and size of scavenging feed resource base
for guinea fowls and their growth rate and carcass yield and quality under free ranging
conditions in Zimbabwe and elsewhere in Africa, particularly in the Zambezi Valley,
where guinea fowls contribute to the livelihoods of smallholder farmers (Saina et al.,
2003a). In view of this, this study was conducted to estimate the quality and amount of
feed eaten by guinea fowls under semi-extensive production systems and to compare
growth performance and carcass characteristics of guinea fowls under intensive and
semi-extensive management systems.
54
5.2 MATERIALS AND METHODS
5.2.1 Experimental birds
The eggs were collected from the University of Zimbabwe farm and incubated in an
artificial incubator. Guinea fowl eggs were hatched at the Department of Animal
Science, University of Zimbabwe, and reared under intensive and semi-extensive
management systems by smallholder farmers in Lower Guruve. The keets were fed a
commercial broiler starter mash which contained 22% CP and 12 MJ of ME/kg DM. A
sample of 120 active (strong) guinea keets was selected for the on-farm experiment
after seven weeks of brooding at the University of Zimbabwe Farm. The birds were
allocated to five farmers (24 keets each) who had participated in an earlier monitoring
study. Each farmer reared 12 birds under intensive management and 12 birds under
semi-extensive management. The allocation of the clutches of guinea fowl keets was
done through a randomization process. The design of the experiment was completely
randomized design (CRD) where the treatments were intensive and semi-extensive
management systems. The experimental unit was a group of 12 birds for each
treatment. There were 5 replicates per treatment.
5.2.2 Management systems
The guinea fowls were reared for 9 weeks up to the age of 16 weeks under farmer
management. The guinea fowls under the intensive management system were confined
and received a ration of Broiler Phase 2 mash (Agrifoods Pvt. Ltd, Harare, Zimbabwe)
which contained 18 % CP and 13 MJ of ME /kg DM. The feeding regime of the guinea
fowls used is shown in Table 5.1 The other groups of guinea fowls under semi-
extensive management scavenged on household refuse and were on free range but were
housed over-night. Under both management systems, the guinea fowls had ad libitum
55
Table 5.1 Feeding programme for guinea fowls from 8-16 weeks of age
Age (in weeks) Feed/Animal/Day(g) Type of feed
8 45
9 50
10 50
11 55
12 55
13 60
14 60
15 60
16 65
Broiler Finisher Phase 2
18% CP, 13MJ/KgDM
Adopted from Galor (1983)
56
access to borehole water.
5.2.3 Data collection
The farmers were trained and given data sheets to record mortalities and other data.
The causes of death were also recorded and post-mortems conducted by the researcher.
Guinea fowls in all groups were weighed every week using a spring balance up to 16
weeks of age. The data was used to calculate the growth rates of the birds.
5.2.4 Estimation of feed intake and composition
At the end of the nine-week growth trial, 16 guinea fowls (eight from each treatment
group) were confined in cages and feed withdrawn for 24 hours with water provided ad
libitum. The next day all the guinea fowls were released to access feed under their
respective management systems. One pair of guinea fowls from each management
system was slaughtered every two hours starting from 09 00 to 17 00 h for physical
and chemical determination of crop and gizzard contents resulting in 16 guinea fowls
being slaughtered. The feed contents in the crop and gizzard were weighed and feed
items identified through eye observation. Samples of the feed were dried, ground and
mixed prior to proximate analysis dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), crude fibre
(CF), ether extract (EE) and ash (AOAC, 1990).
5.2.5 Determination of carcass composition
When the guinea fowls reached the 16th week of age, four birds from each farmer (two
from each management system) were randomly selected, feed withdrawn for 24 hours,
weighed and slaughtered to determine carcass characteristics. Two methods were used
to assess carcass characteristics, these included: physical dissection and chemical
57
analysis (Panda, 1998; Van Marle-Köster and Webb, 2000). The parameters that were
measured through dissection included dressed weight, weights of drumstick, thigh,
wings, breast and back, flesh to bone ratio, dressing percentage and total edible meat.
Chemical analysis of muscles from cut parts was determined using Proximate Analysis
for DM, CP, EE and ash (AOAC, 1990).
5.2.6 Statistical and economic analysis
Descriptive statistics were computed using the PROC MEANS procedure of the
Statistical Analysis System (SAS) (1998) package. To determine the effect of
management systems on growth performance and carcass characteristics, the PROC
MIXED procedure of SAS (1998) was used. The following model was used:
Yijkl = µ + Mi + Fj + Wk + MKijkl + Eijklm
Where Yijkl = mean body mass from 7 to 16 weeks, µ = overall mean; Mi = effect of ith
management system on body mass, i =1, 2; Fj = effect of the jth farmer on body mass,
j=1… 5; Wk = effect of the kth week on body weight, k = 7, 9…16; MKijk = the effect
of interaction of management system and week on body mass and Eijklm = the random
error associated with the ijklmth record. Differences of least square means of guinea
fowl body mass were determined using Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference
(HSD) (SAS, 1998). Paired ‘t’-tests (SAS, 1998) was used to determine significant
difference between slaughter weight, dressed weight and weight of dissected parts and
chemical composition of guinea fowls under the two management systems. The current
prices (2004) in Zimbabwe were used for a gross margin analysis.
58
5.3 RESULTS
5.3.1 Feed intake
Grass leaves, insects and grass seed constituted the bulk (82.0%) of the feed consumed
by the guinea fowls reared semi-extensively while grain supplements constituted only
9.7% of the diet (Table 5.2). Feed intake from the gizzard and crop contents indicated
that the intensively managed birds consumed more (171 g vs. 136 g) feed than those
under semi-extensive management. Proximate analysis results (Table 5.3) revealed that
the diet of birds under semi-extensive management had numerically lower ME content
while the CP, EE, CF, ash and DM percentages were numerically higher than in the
diet given to the intensively managed guinea fowls.
5.3.2 Growth
Guinea fowls reared under the intensive management system had superior production
performance than those reared under the semi-extensive management system (Table
5.4). The growth pattern (Figure 5.1) reveals that body mass increased during the
experimental period and there were significant differences between body mass of the
birds from the two management systems at each week from the 9th week until the end
of the experiment.
5.3.3 Carcass composition
Carcass composition of guinea fowls (Table 5.5) indicate that the guinea fowls reared
under intensive management had significantly higher (p < 0.001) body weight, dressed
weight and total edible meat than those under the semi-extensive management system.
In addition, the weights of all the dissected parts, muscles and bones, except for
59
Table 5.2: Composition of guinea fowl crop and gizzard contents under semi-extensive management system
Items DM (g) Proportion (%)
1Grain 13.1 9.7
Grass seed 26.8 19.7
Grass leaves 47.5 34.9
Insects 37.2 27.4
Pebbles (grit) 11.3 8.3
1 Grain - maize/white or red sorghum
60
Table 5.3: Proximate analysis of guinea fowl crop contents under two management systems
Component Management system
Intensive² Semi-extensive²
DM 45.6 51.8
Crude protein 14.3 14.8
Ether extract 3.9 8.6
Crude fibre 2.4 5.5
Ash 23.6 43.2
1ME (MJ/kg) (estimated) 11.83 9.38
1Estimated using a method by Oduguwa et al (2000) i.e.: ME (kcal/kg) = 37 x %CP + 81.8 x %EE + 35.5 x% NFE 1 calorie = 4.184 joules ² The samples from crop contents from the 16 guinea fowls (8 from each management system) were mixed prior to proximate analysis to give a representative sample for each management system.
61
Table 5.4: Performance (means ± SE) of guinea fowls reared under intensive and semi-extensive management systems
Management system Intensive Semi-extensive
Initial weight (g) 301a ± 16.95 285a± 16.95
Weight at 12 wk (g) 807a ± 17.24 591b± 18.03
Final body weight at 16 wk 1072a ± 17.24 822b ± 18.57
Average daily weight gain (g) 12.3 8.6
Mortality (%) (n) 3.3 (2) 16.7 (10)
a-b Mean with different superscripts across rows differ (p < 0.001)
63
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
W eek
Bod
y m
ass
(g)
IntensiveSem i-extensive
******
******
***
******
***
Fig 5.1: Weekly body mass mean (± SE) of guinea fowls under intensive and semi-extensive management systems from 7 to 16 wk of age
Within the same week, treatment means are different P < 0.001***
64
Table 5.5: Mean (± standard deviation) carcass characteristics of guinea fowls reared under intensive and semi-extensive management systems Carcass traits Intensive Semi-extensive
Body weight before slaughter 1110a ± 93 866b ± 86 Dressed weight 838a ± 77 620b ± 64 Dressing percentage 75.4 71.6 Total edible meat (TEM) 443a ± 66 292b ± 54. 1PDW 52.9 47.1 Flesh to bone ratio 2a 1.6b Cut parts (g) Neck 65.5a ± 5.3 50.8b ± 6.0 Skin 73.9a ± 9.3 59.3b ± 9.0 Thigh 131.7a ± 15.5 96.7b ± 9.1 Drumstick 105.6a ± 11.1 78.5b ± 8.5 Breast 260.8a ± 33.0 191.5b ± 24.2 Wing 121.3a ± 10.7 90.4b ± 8.3 Back 130.0a ± 15.3 107.4b ± 14.0 Muscle of cut parts (g) Thigh 100.4a ± 12.6 66.8b ± 7.8 Drumstick 73.9a ± 8.9 52.1b ± 6.5 Breast 179.6a ± 30.7 121.8b ± 17.3 Wing 56.2a ± 9.5 37.1b ± 5.2 Back 34.1a ± 7.3 23.5b ± 5.6 Bones of cut parts (g) Thigh 18.6a ± 1.3 16.0b ± 1.9 Drumstick 24.5a ± 2.3 18.4b ± 1.9 Wing 45.1a ± 4.5 37.0b ± 4.2 Back 78.1a ± 7.1 60.4b ± 6.4 Breast 55.4a ± 4.9 46.9b ± 7.5 1PDW- Total edible meat as a percentage of dressed weight a-b Means with different superscripts across rows differ (p < 0.05)
65
the skin of guinea fowls under intensive management system were higher (p < 0.05)
than those of the semi-extensively reared group.
Chemical composition of guinea fowls from the two management systems was similar
(p > 0.05) (Table 5.6). Numerically, percentages of dry matter and fat of guinea fowls
reared under the semi-extensive system were higher than those of the intensive group.
On the contrary, the intensively reared guinea fowls had numerically higher percentage
ash and crude protein.
5.3.4 Economic returns
The economic returns based on partial budgets were different due to input and
production requirements (Table 5.7). A higher net income (Z$5222/bird) was obtained
with the semi-extensive than the intensive management (Z$3244/bird).
5.4 DISCUSSION
The management systems had effects on growth and carcass yield of guinea fowls; this
was most likely due to differences in feed composition and intake levels. The
composition and quality of feed available to poultry under scavenging management
systems depends on the scavenging feed resource base (SFRB) (Gunaratne, 1999;
Roberts, 1999) and the foraging ability of the birds (Microlivestock, 1991). The feed
found in the crop contents of the scavenging guinea fowls were similar to those
obtained in South Africa (Gerard and Grant, 1999). The crop content analysis indicated
that guinea fowls are good foragers. The mean percentage of CP (14.8%) obtained in
this study is higher than that obtained from village chicken crop contents of about 9.4%
CP (Roberts, 1999). However, the quality of the feed consumed was compromised by
66
Table 5.6: Chemical composition of guinea fowl meat
Composition Intensive Semi-extensive
%DM 22.9a 26.1a
%CP 75.4a 72.7a
%Ash 9.3a 7.8a
%Fat 14.8a 19.9a
a-b Means with similar superscripts across rows are not significantly different at p > 0.05. n = 10 guinea fowl carcasses per management system
67
Table 5.7: Partial budgets for the two guinea fowl management systems in 2003
Item Intensive (Z$) Semi-extensive (Z$)
1Fence 1389 1389
1Equipment 10 649 0
Chicks 150 000 150 000
Feed 571 950 112 500
Antibiotics 43 500 43 500
Total cost 777 488 307 389
2Gross Income 972 150 620720
Net income (live birds) 194 662 313331
Net Income per bird 3244 5222
1Fence and equipment costs were amortilised for a period of five years 2Gross income was based on body weight of the birds at 16 weeks of age
68
the intake of a high proportion of pebbles observed in the crop and gizzard contents
and is lower than their requirements for optimum meat yield (Mandal et al., 1999). The
high proportion of pebbles is associated with the pecking of feed on the ground, which
also resulted in high ash content (43.2%) of the diet. The high level of pebbles could
improve the digestion of feed in the gizzard in free ranging birds. Research carried out
in Nigeria and elsewhere revealed that guinea fowls under intensive management
perform well when fed a diet containing 200 g CP /kg DM and 12.11 MJ/kg DM from
5 to 8 weeks and 160 g CP /kg DM and 12.53 MJ/kg DM from 9 to 16 weeks of age
(Mandal et al., 1999; Embury 2001). The energy level of guinea fowl diets under semi-
extensive management of 9.38 MJ ME /kg DM is much lower than their requirements
considering that there is need for more energy for movement in search of food and
running away from predators.
The sub-optimal nutrition obtained by scavenging guinea fowls was evidenced by
inferior weight gains and carcass yield. Body weights of intensively managed flocks at
12 weeks of age of 807 g and 1072 g at 16 weeks of age were comparable with those
of improved guinea fowl breeds of 774.8 g (Ayeni, Tewe and Ajayi, 1983; Ayorinde,
1991) and 985.04 g (Mundra et al., 1993), respectively. However, the exotic guinea
fowl weights at 12 weeks, which ranged between 1208 and 1550 g (Galor, 1985;
Ayorinde, 1991) are higher than those of the current breeding stock in Zimbabwe.
Elsewhere, free ranging guinea fowls aged between 15 and 20 wk achieved 1 to 1.5 kg
body mass (Belshaw, 1985), which is well above that recorded in this study for the
semi-scavenging guinea fowls. This could be attributed to the differences in the growth
potential of the guinea fowl stock, the scavenging resource base and feed
supplementation. The numerically higher mortality of guinea fowls under semi-
69
extensive management system (16.7%) was mainly caused by predators and is
characteristic of free-range village poultry production systems (Mtambo, 1999; Kusina,
et al., 2000). Mortality of guinea fowls under the intensive management system (3%)
was mainly caused by internal parasites (round worms) and this could be attributed to
inappropriate housing floor and bedding management.
The carcass yield of guinea fowls under the semi-extensive management system (620
g) was inferior to that of birds reared under intensive management (838 g). The
dressing percentage of the guinea fowls of 75.4% and 71.6% for the intensive and
semi-extensive group, respectively, were higher than that of 68% reported by Ayorinde
(1991), but were lower than the 87.4% reported by Adeyemo and Oyejola (2004) for 10
weeks old guinea fowl pullets. In addition, the birds under the intensive management
system were well-fleshed, with a meat to bone ratio of 2:1 which was numerically
higher than that obtained for the semi-extensively managed birds of 1.6: 1 but both
were inferoir to that of 2.3: 1 reported by Belshaw (1985). This variation could be
attributed to differences in the diet of the guinea fowls and their management. The
carcass grades fell under classes B and C for the intensive and semi-extensive groups,
respectively according to the poultry classification system (Panda, 1998). The weight
of cut parts and muscle tissue were directly related to the dressed carcass and total meat
yields and the proportions are comparable to those reported by Ayeni et al. (1983) and
Moran (1977) for guinea fowls and other poultry species.
The average percentage crude protein (CP) of the guinea fowl meat from both
management systems was within the range of 20 to 25% reported elsewhere in Europe
and India (Belshaw, 1985; Panda, 1998). Although management system did not
70
significantly affect (p > 0.05) chemical composition of guinea fowls in this study, the
cold dressed guinea fowl carcasses of the intensively reared guinea fowls had
numerically lower percentages of DM and fat but had higher CP and ash (on DM basis)
percentages than those of the semi-extensively managed group. This is consistant with
the norm that the percentage moisture and protein is inversely related to fat content
(Panda, 1998). This also shows that birds under the semi-extensive management system
were feeding to meet their energy requirements at the expense of weight gain leading to
accumulation of more subcutaneous and intramuscular fat than in the intensive group.
Although it was more profitable for smallholder farmers to rear the guinea fowls under
a semi-extensive management system, there is need to supplement the energy
component of the diet to balance the protein and energy levels. This could improve the
fleshing of the guinea fowls which is neccessary if the birds are sold as dressed
carcasses for lucrative markets such as restaurants and hotels. Although the birds under
intensive management gained more weight, the inherent low feed conversion efficiency
of guinea fowls (Galor, 1983; Ayorinde, 1991; Mundra et al., 1993; Mandal et al.,
1999; Adeyemo and Oyejola, 2004) and the high cost of conventional feeds in
Zimbabwe does not warrant recommending this management system for smallholder
guinea fowl farmers.
5.5 CONCLUSION
The results obtained from this study suggest that growth and carcass yield of guinea
fowls under the semi-extensive management were suboptimal. However, it was more
economic to rear the guinea fowls under the semi-extensive than under the intensive
management system. Although the low input semi-extensive management system
71
being practised by the farmers is favoured economically the inferior carcass yield may
not be suitable for lucrative commercial markets.
72
CHAPTER 6: GENERAL DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION
AND FUTURE RESEARCH
6.1 Discussion
This thesis was carried out to characterise guinea fowl production under smallholder
farmer management in Guruve District of Zimbabwe. Guinea fowl flock dynamics and
production parameters under the traditional management system were determined
through a survey and monitoring study. The growth performance and carcass quality of
guinea fowls under semi-extensive and intensive management systems were also
determined in the experiment. The purpose of this chapter is to put the findings from
the three studies into perspective in relation to the study hypothesis and how the results
can be used to increase guinea fowl productivity. Research gaps and future research
directions in relation to solving problems faced by smallholder farmers are explored.
The survey (Chapter 3) showed that flock sizes were small, incubation facilities were
limiting, and management practices were sub-standard. Small flock sizes could have
been partly attributed to the infancy of guinea fowl (N. meleagris) production in the
study area (Kusina and Muchenje, 1999). Results from the monitoring study indicated
that flock sizes increased from December to May (Figure 4.1), which concides with the
breeding season. Nevertheless, the breeding flock size was similar to the flock size
reported in the survey. The small flock sizes reported in the survey could also be
explaned by the observation that guinea fowl marketing occurs mainly from May to
September each year. Therefore, the guinea fowls recorded in July 2002 might have
been reserved for the breeding stock after cull birds were sold.
73
The estimated egg production per hen per year of 89 reported in the survey was higher
than the mean egg production per hen of 42 recorded in the monitoring study from
September 2002 to May 2003 but were close to figures reported elsewhere in Africa
(Nwagu and Alawa, 1995). This might suggest that most farmers could have over-
estimated the number of eggs laid. The variation could also have resulted from annual
variation in the scavenging resource base (Tadelle, 1996). The 2002 to 2003 breeding
season was generally a bad cropping season for the Lower Guruve District due to poor
rainfall. This could have also limited the feed resource base of the farmers themselves
and limited supplementary feeding and the available feed scavenged by the guinea
fowls.
Contrastingly, hatchability of guinea fowl eggs recorded in the survey was lower than
that recorded in the monitoring study. Survey hatchability estimates were similar to
those reported by Kabera (1997) while the monitoring study records were close to those
achieved by commercial guinea fowl farmers in France (Galor, 1983). The high
hatchability could have resulted from improved handling and storage of eggs in
addition to the efficiency of chickens as surrogated hens.
High mortality rates of guinea fowl keets reared under smallholder farmer management
were reported in both studies (Saina et al., 2003 a,b). Malnutrition, poor health and
poor housing management were the main causes of mortality. These findings were
consistant with observations by Nwagu and Alawa (1995) and Bessin et al. (1998) .
Therefore, high mortality of keets is a challenge to guinea fowl farming. A mortality
rate of 3 to 5% for keets is accepted under commercial guinea fowl production (Galor,
1985). Technologies such as hay-box brooders could be used by smallholder farmers
74
and proper feed and medication provided for 3 to 6 weeks (US Department of
Agriculture, 1976; Galor, 1985; Embury, 2001).
The body mass and carcass yield of guinea fowls under semi-extensive management
was lower than that of intensively management guinea fowls. Body mass of intensively
managed birds at 16 weeks were comparable with that achieved by improved guinea
fowl breeds in Africa (Ayorinde, 1991; Mundra et al., 1993). Evidence from the study
suggest that low body mass recorded by semi-extensively managed birds was due to
sub-optimal nutrition especially energy obtained by the scavenging guinea fowls. This
study indicates that there is a potential to improve body mass of guinea fowls managed
by smallholder farmers.
Carcass yield was directly related to body mass of guinea fowls under the two
management systems. This is supported by the similarity in the dressed percentage,
which were 75 and 72% for the intensive and semi-extensive management systems,
respectively. However, the low carcass yield and meat to bone ratio of semi-extensively
reared guinea fowls supports the hypotheis that this management system results in low
meat yield. Adeyemo and Oyejola (2004) reported higher dressing percentage for 10
weeks old guinea fowl pullets than the dressing percentage achieved in this study. In
order to ameliorate the discripancies, there might be need to adquately supplement the
scavenging diet of guinea fowls under smallholder farmer management.
Management system did not affect the chemical composition of guinea fowl meat
(Table 5.5). This might indicate that the diet of the birds under the two management
systems had insignificant effect on the birds' chemical composition. This is not
75
consistant with observation made by Panda (1998) who indicated that diet has a
significant effect on chemical composition of poultry meat. There is need to carry out
more work on the effect of management system on chemical composition of guinea
fowl meat to validate these findings. This information might be essential in marketing
guinea fowls managed by smallholder farmers.
Although guinea fowl production under smallholder farmer management is low,
economic analysis (Table 5.7) indicates that it is more profitable to rear guinea fowls
under the semi-extensive than intensive management system. This is consistant with
the perceived advantage of rearing guinea fowls (Microlivestock, 1991). However,
there is need for a detailed study on the economic benefits of rearing guinea fowls
under semi-extensive management system that takes into account the whole production
and marketing chain.
6.2 Conclusion
Smallholder farmers in Lower Guruve District of Zimbabwe have integrated guinea
fowl farming into their crop-livestock farming system. Guinea fowl breeding flock
sizes were small while keets and growers numbers varied with season owing to the
seasonal breeding nature of the birds under free ranging conditions. The productivity
of guinea fowls was suboptimal. Egg production per hen per breeding season was
lower than expected. Fertility and hatchability of eggs under natural brooding were
comparable with those found by commercial breeders. However, few eggs were
incubated due to lack of incubation facilities. Survival rate of keets was low leading to
few keets that survived into adult birds. Poor management and predators caused high
mortality of keets. The growth rate and carcass yield of guinea fowls under smallholder
76
farmer management were compromised by suboptimal nutrition. The improved
survival rate and body weight gain of guinea fowls under the intensive management
system showed that improvement in feeding and housing management could increase
the productivity of guinea fowls under smallholder farmer management. Finally, this
study establishes that guinea fowl production under smallholder farmer management in
Guruve District is low and management practices needs to improve to increase
production.
6.3 Future research
This study provided baseline information on guinea fowl production and performance
under smallholder farmer management. More research is required in order to
commercialise guinea fowl production in Zimbabwe. The following are research topics
that need to be explored:
1. Determining the age at which guinea fowls reach slaughter age under semi-
extensive management system
2. Evaluating the effect of fattening diets on carcass yield of free range guinea
fowls
3. Evaluation of cleast cost diets for guinea fowls under intensive management
system
4. Determination of chemical composition and sensory attributes of free range
guinea fowls
5. Economic evaluation of guinea fowl production and marketing under semi-
extensive management system.
77
REFERENCES
Adeyemo, A.I. and Oyejola, O. 2004. Performance of guinea fowl (Numidia meleagris) fed varying levels of poultry droppings. International Journal of Poultry Science 3 (5): 357-360. Aeitken, I., Allan, W.H., Biggs, R.M., Gordon, R.F. and Jordan, F.T.W. 1977. Newcastle disease: Poultry Diseases. Ed., R. F. Gordon, Tindal, London, pp. 81-84. Ajala, M.K., Nwagu, B.I. and Otchele, E.O. 1997. Socio-economics of free range poultry production amoung agroparastoral Fulani women in Kaduna State, Nigeria. International Network for Family poultry Development Newsletter 8 (2): 3-6. Ajuyah, A.O. 1999. Novel pairing technique for estimating feed intake and nutrient digestibility by scavenging village chickens. First INFPD/FAO Electronic Conference on Family Poultry. 8pp. Available: www.fao.org/ag/againfor/subjects/en/ infpd/documents/econf-scope/cal_add7.html), Date accessed: 16 January 2004. AOAC, 1990. Official methods for analysis, 15th Edition. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington DC, USA. Anonymous, 1998. Domesticating and raising of guinea fowl on free range. Small livestock and wildlife. Farming World, May 1998. 24 (5): 25-26. Anonymous, 2001. Guinea Fowl. Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Fisheries Archives. Available: http://www.gov.ns.ca/nsaf/elibrary/archive/lives/feather/ guineas1.htm, pp 1-3. Date accessed: 25 November 2001. Ayeni, J.S.O. 1983. The biology and utilisation of helmeted guinea fowl (Numidia meleagris galeata pallas) in Nigeria. II, Food of helmeted guinea fowl in Kainji Lake basin area of Nigeria. African Journal of Ecology 21 (1): 1-10. Ayeni, J.S.O., Tewe, O. O. and Ajayi, S. S. 1983. Body measurements, egg characteristics and social aceptance of guinea fowls in Nigeria. Tropical Agriculture (Trinidad) 60: 224-226. Ayorinde, K.L.A. 1991. Guinea fowl as protein supplement in Nigeria. World Poultry Science Journal 47 (2): 21-26. Ayorinde, K.L., Ayeni, J.S.O. and Oluyemi, J.A. 1989. Laying characteristics and reproductive performance of four indigenous helmeted guinea fowl varieties (Numidia meleagris galeata pallas) in Nigeria. Tropical Agriculture (Trinidad) 66 (3): 277-280. Ayorinde, K.L., Oluyemi, J.A. and Ayeni, J.S.O. 1988. Growth performance of four indegenous helmeted guinea fowl varieties. Bulletin of Animal Health and Production Africa 36: 356-360. Baudet, T., Hiscock, E. and Hachileka, E. 2001. Zambezi basin wetlands conservation and resource project. Wetlands and Water Resources Programme. Available:
78
(http://www.iucn.org/themes/wetlands/zambezi.html). pp. 1- 8. Date accessed: 25 November 2001. Bell, M. and Smith, K. 2003. Guinea fowl production. Agency for Food and Fibre Science. Ed. Paul Kent. The State of Queensland (Department of primary Industries), 3pp. Belshaw, R. H., 1985. Guinea fowl of the world ”world of ornithology”. Minirod Book Services, Hampshire, England. Bessin, R., Belem, A.M.G., Boussin, H., Compaore, Z., Kaboret, Y. and Dembele, M.A. 1998. Causes of mortality in young guinea fowl in Burkina Faso. Revue- de-Elevage-et-de Medecine-Veternaire-des-Pays-Tropicaux 51 (1): 87-93. Binali, W. and Kanengoni, E. 1998. Guinea fowl production. A training manual produced for the use by farmers and rural development agents. Agritex, Harare, 35 pp. Blagburn, B. L., Angus, K.W. and Blewett, D.A. 1989. Avian cryptosporidiosis. Department of Pathology. Auburn University USA. Cryptosporidiosis. Proceedings of the First International Workshop. Edinburg, 1988, pp 27-42. Bonds, H. 1997. Alternative Farming: A “United Nations” of alternative farming on the Mornington Peninsula, Available: www.independentnewsgroup.com.au /archive/helmi/, pp 1-4. Date accessed: 19 November 2001. Brahem, A., Demarquez, N., Beyrie, M., Vuillaume, A. and Fleury, H. J. A. 1992. A highly virulent togavirus-like agent associated with the fulminating disease of guinea fowl. Avian Diseases, 36 (1): 143-148. Branckaert, R.D.S. and Gue’ye, E.F. 1999. FAO’s program for support to family poultry production. Proceedings of a Workshop: Poultry as a Tool in Poverty Eradication and Promotion of Gender Equality held at Tune Landboskole, Denmark, March 22-26 (1999), pp 244-256. Byarugaba, D.K., Olsen, J.E. and Katunguka-Rwakishaya, E. 2000. Production, management and marketing dynamics of rural scavenging poultry in Uganda, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. 7 pp. Cactus Ranch, 2001. Guinea fowl assortment. Available: htttp://www.cactusranch gamebirds.com/guineaf.html, pp 1- 2. Date accessed: 10 December 2001. Campbell, G.W., Taylor, J.D. and Harrower, B. J. 1992. Eryspelothrix rhusiopathiae infection of guinea fowl. Australian Veterinary Journal 69 (1): 13. Capua, I., Gouph, R.E., Scaramozzino, P., Lelli, R. and Gatti, A., 1994. Insituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale. Dell’abruzzo e del Molise “G. Caporale,” Italy. Avian Diseases 38 (3): 642-646. Chalton, B.R. and Bickford, A. A. 1995. Gross and histologic lesions of adenovirus group 1 in guinea fowl. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation 7 (4): 552-554.
79
Chambers, R. 1993. Challenging the Professions: Frontiers for Rural Development. Intermediate Technology Publications, London, UK. Chikura, S. 1999. An assessment of the role of goats in a smallholder crop-livestock production system of Zimbabwe. A Case Study of Wedza Communal Area. MPhil Thesis, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe, pp 39-43. Chivandi, E., Mbundure, A. and Mufumisi, T. 2002. Guinea fowl farming- A promising livestock enterprise. Department of Agricultural Research and Extension, Ministry of Agriculture, Zimbabwe. pp 2. Christophe, A.A.M. 1995. Methodologie du development de L elelevage de la pentade au BeninL institut National Agronomique, Paris, France. CIMMYT: Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maizy Trigo. 1980. Planning technologies appropriate for farmers: Concepts and Procedures. CIMMYT Economics programme, Mexico City, Mexico. pp 1-69. Coid, C., Gaidet, N., Moyo, C., Poilecot, P., Poulet, D., Renaude, P. C., Ricard, X. and Takawira, S. 2001. The mankind and the animal in the Zambezi Valley. Ed. Jean L. CIRAD-Emvt. Montpellier Cedex 5, France, 72 pp. Dieng, A., Gue’ye, E.F., Mahoungou-Mouelle, N.M. and Buldgen, A. 1999. Effect of diet and poultry species on feed intake and digestibility of nutrients in Senegal. Livestock Research for Rural Development 10 (3): 5-9. Dolberg, F. and Petersen, P.H. 1999. Poultry as a tool in poverty alleviation and promotion of gender equality. Proceedings of a workshop held at Tune Landboskole, Denmark, March 22-26, 1999, 363 pp. Dondofema, F. 2000. A Survey of agricultural production and marketing in Nenyunga Communal Lands with special emphasis on livestock. B.Sc., Hons. Dissertation, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe. pp 30. Durojaiye, O.A., Agoha, N.J., Akpaive, S.O. and Adene, D.F., 1992. Pathogenicity of two strains of Newcastle disease virus in grey breasted helmeted guinea fowl. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Ibadan, Nigeria, Veterinary Quarterly 14 (2): 51-53. Eamens, G.J. and Schenk, E.A. 1985. Erysipelothrix in guinea fowl. Journal of Histotechnology, Australia 4: 127. Ekue, F.N. 2002. Increasing farmyard poultry production in Africa by improving vaccination against Newcastle and Gumboro diseases using nuclear based technologies: The case of Bamenda Highlands of Cameroon. Institute of Agricultural Research and Development (IRAD), pp 7. Embury, I. 2001. Raising guinea fowl. Agfact. A5.0.8. New South Wales Agriculture Publications, New South Wales, USA, pp 4.
80
Fanatico, A. 1998. Sustainable chicken production. Livestock Production Guide. Appropriate Technology for Rural Areas, National Centre for Appropriate Technology, US Department of Agriculture, Akansas, USA, pp 12. Frit’s Farm, 2001. Raising guinea fowl. Available: www.guinea fowl.com, pp 7. Date accessed: 10 December 2001. Galor, 1983. The French guinea fowl. Presentation. Service Technique, Galor, Amboise, France, pp 15. Galor, 1985. Note book for the keeping of guinea fowl broilers. The Technical Service, Amboise, France, pp 17. Gerard, M. and Grant, A.B. 1999. Agricultural land use patterns and the decline of the helmeted guinea fowl (Numidia meleagris) in Kwazulu Natal, South Africa. Agricultural, Ecosystems and Environment 73 (19): 29-40. Gunaratne, S. P. 1999. Feeding and nutrition of scavenging village chickens. The Scope and Effect of Family Poultry Research and Development. First IFPD/FAO Electronic Conference on Family Poultry. Free Communication. Available: http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/subjects/en/infpd/documents/econf_scope/add_paper2.html. pp 6. Date accessed: 14 January 2002. Haruna, E.S., Shamaki, D., Echeonwu, G.O.N., Majiyagbe, K.A. and Shuayibu, Y. 1993. A natural outbreak of Newcastle Disease (ND) in guinea fowl in Nigeria. Revue-scientifique-et-Technique –Office International –des- Epizooties 12 (3): 887-893. Haziev, G.Z. and Khan, S.A. 1991. Helminths of guinea fowl in Bashkir ASSR. Veterinary Parasitology 38 (4): 349-353. Huque, Q.M.E. 1999. Nutritional status of family poultry in Bangladesh. Livestock Research for Rural Development 11 (3): 11. Idi, I. 1996. Peasant practices in traditional poultry farming. Research and Development. INRAN/DRVZ, Bulletin 1996. Available: www.fao.org/ag/ againfo/subjects/ en/infpd/documents/newsletters/Infpd83.pdf. pp 23. Date accessed: 14 January 2002. ILCA: International Livestock Cenre for Africa. 1983. Pastoral Systems Research Bulletin 16: 22. Ito, N.M.K., Jerez, J.A., Miraj, C.I., Capellaro Cemp-dal, M. and Catroxo, M.H.B. 1996. Studies with reovirus isolated from guinea fowl. Brazilian Journal of Veterinary Research and Animal Science 33 (2): 77-81. Johnson, E.P. and Anderson, G.W. 1933. An outbreak of fowl typhoid in guinea fowls. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Medicine Association 82: 258-259.
81
Kabera, C. 1997. Breeding guinea fowl in Vhumba. The Farmer, March 20, 1997, 67 (12): 16-17. Khan, S.A., Iqbal, M. and Ashraf, S.K. 1994a. Pathological changes associated with Hoecakes gallinarum infection in guinea fowl. International Journal of Animal Science 9 (1): 77-80. Khan, S.A., Iqbal, M. and Ashraf, S.K. 1994b. Occurrence and pathology of cecal granuloma in guinea fowl associated with Heterakis gallanirum infection. International Journal of Animal Science 9(2): 143-145. Kitalyi, A.J. 1999. Family poultry management systems in Africa. The First INFPD/FAO Electronic Conference on Poultry 3: 1-6. Knox, I. 2000. Guinea fowl. Farm Diversification Information Service. Available: www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/nreninf.nsf/childdocs/-89E7A8DAFEA417624A2568B30004 C26A-64B42202603AE380CA256BC700. pp 2. Date accessed: 24 November 2001. Kusina, J.F. and Kusina, N.T. 1999. Feasibility study of agricultural and household activities as they relate to livestock production in Guruve District of Mashonaland Province with emphasis on poultry. University of Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe, pp 93. Kusina, J.F. and Muchenje, V. 1999. Biodiversity, conservation and sustainable development in the Mid-Zambezi Valley. Action 5. Micro projects feasibility study in small animal breeding in Angwa, Neshangwe-Gonono, Guruve, Zimbabwe, pp 46. Kusina, J.F., Kusina, N.T. and Mhlanga, J. 2000. Poultry production in Mashonaland Central Province: The role and opportunities for women. Integrated livestock-crop production systems in smallholder farming systems in Zimbabwe. Proceedings of a Review Workshop, Harare, Zimbabwe 10-13 January 2000: pp 247-264. Lakshminarasimh, A. and Onyeanus, B.I. 1988. Leuco cytozoon neavei in grey breasted helmet guinea fowl. Indian Veterinary Journal 65 (12): 1082-1083. Laroche, M. 1985. Erysipelothrix in guinea fowl. Bulletin of Academic Veterinary, France 58: 259. Leroy-Sentrin, S., Flaujac, C., Thenaisy, K. and Chaslus-Dancla, E. 1998. Genetic diversity of Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale strains isolated from poultry in France. Letters-in-Microbiology 26 (3): 188-193. Ligomela, B. 2000. Population growth compatible with sustainable development. The Zambezi Newsletter. Musokotwane Environment Resource Center for Southern Africa. Available: http://www.sardc.net/imercsa/zambezi/ZNewsletter/issue3of2/district.htm, 3 pp. Date accessed: 25 November 2001. Litjerns, J.B., Willigen, F., Kleyn-van, C. and Sinke, M. 1989. Swollen head syndrome in a flock of guinea fowl. Tijdschrift-voor-Diergeneeskunde 114 (13): 719-720.
82
Mallia, J.D. 1999. Observations on family poultry units in parts of Central America and sustainable development opportunities. Livestock Research for Rural Development 11 (3): 10. Mandal, A.B., Pathak, N.N. and Singh, H. 1999. Energy and protein requirements of guinea keets (Numidia meleagris) as meat birds in a hot Climate. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 79: 523-531. Maphosa, T., Kusina J.F., Kusina, N.T., Makuza, S.M. and Sibanda S. 2004. A monitoring study comparing production of village chickens between communal (Nharira) and small-scale commercial (Lancashire) farming areas of Zimbabwe. Livestock Research for Rural Development 16 (7): 13. Microlivestock, 1991. Little known small animals with promising economic future. Board on Science and Technology for International Development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press, Washington, pp 115-125. Moore, E. N. 1943. Fowl typhoid diagnosed in guinea fowl. Poultry Science Journal 25: 387-388. Moran, E.T. 1977. Growth and meat yield in poultry. In: Growth and meat production Ed. K. N. Booman and B. J. Wilson. British Poultry Science Ltd, Edinburgh. UK. pp. 145-173. Mtambo, M.M.A. 1999. Improving the health and productivity of rural chickens in Africa. Proceedings of a Workshop: Poultry as a Tool in Poverty Eradication and Promotion of Gender Equality held at Tune Landboskole, Denmark, March 22-26 (1999), pp 118-127. Muchadeyi, F. C., Sibanda, S., Kusina, N. T., Kusina, J. and Makuza, S. 2004 The village chicken production system in Rushinga District of Zimbabwe. Livestock Research for Rural Development 16(6). pp 12. Mundra, B.L., Raheja, K.L. and Singh, H. 1993. Genetic and phenotypic parameter estimates for growth and conformation traits in guinea fowl. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 63 (4): 445-450. Northcurt, J.K. 1997. Factors affecting poultry meat quality. GeorgiaExtension Services Publications. Bulletin 157, June: pp 3. Nwagu, B.I. 1997. Factors affecting fertility and hatchability of guinea fowl eggs in Nigeria. World Poultry Science Journal 53: 279-285. Nwagu, B.I. and Alawa, C.B.I. 1995. Guinea fowl production in Nigeria. World Poultry Science Journal 51: 260-270. Oakland Zoo, 2001. Animals A-Z. Helmeted guinea fowl. Available: www.oaklandzoo.org/ atoz/ azguinea.html), pp 1. Date accessed: 10 December 2001.
83
Oduguwa, O.O., Oduguwa, B.O, Fanimo, O.A. and Dipeolu, M.A. 2000. Potency of two proprietary micronutrient premixes for broiler chickens at marginally deficient protein contents. Archivos de Zootecnia 49 (188): 433-444. Oke U.K, Herbert U. and Nwachukwu, E.N. 2004 Association between body weight and some egg production traits in the guinea fowl (Numidia meleagris galeata pallas). Livestock Research for Rural Development 16(19): 1-10. Okaeme, A.N. 1988. Ecto-parasites of guinea fowl and local chicken in Southern Guinea Savanna, Nigeria. Veterinary Research Communications 12 (4): 277-280. Olukosi, O.A and Sonaiya, O.B. 2003. Determination of quantity of scavenging feed for family poultry on free range. Livestock Research for Rural Development 15 (5) 2003. 7pp. Available: http://www.cipav.org.co/irrd/irrd15/5/oluk115.html. Date accessed: 16 January 2004. Panda, P.C. 1998. Textbook on egg and poultry technology. Vikas Publishing House, Delhi, India. 216 pp Roberts, J.A. and Gunaratne, S.P. 1992. The scavenging feed resource base for village chickens in a developing country. Proceedings of the 19th World Poultry Congress 1: 822-825. Roberts, J.A. 1999. Utilisation of poultry feed resources by smallholders in the villages of developing countries.The Danish Agricultural and Rural Development Advisors Forum. Ed. Frands Dolberg and Poul Henning Petersen. Proccedings of a workshop on poultry as a tool in poverty alleviation and promotion of gender equality, Tune Landboskole, Denmark March 22-26, 1999. pp 312-335. Robinson, R. 2000. Regulatory Impact Analysis. Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Ontario. Canada, pp 3. Saina, H. 2001. Livestock production in the semi-arid smallholder farming area of Chirisa in Midlands Province of Zimbabwe. B.Sc. Honours. Dissertation. University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe. Saina, H., Kusina, N.T, Kusina, J.F, Bhebhe, E. and Lebel, S. 2003a. A survey of guinea fowl production under smallholder farmer management in Zimbabwe. Poster presentation. Proceeding of the XXVI International Congress of Game Biologists (IUBG) Quiaios Figueira da Foz, Portugal, 2003. Saina, H., Kusina, N.T., Kusina, J.F., Bhebhe, E. and Lebel, S. 2003b. Guinea fowl production under traditional management system. Paper presented at the Southern African Wildlife Management Association Symposium: Balancing Books for Biodiversity, Ganze Kraal Conference Centre, Cape West Coast, South Africa, 21-23 September 2003. Santa-Cruz, A.C.M., Ortiz-de-Rott, M.I. and Resoagli, E.H. 1998. Heterakiasis in Numidia meleagris. Boletin-Chilemo-de-Parasitologia 53 (3): 70-72.
84
Smith, J. 2000. Guinea fowl. Diversification Data Base. Scottish Agricultural College. Available:http://www.sac.ac.uk/management/external/diversification/tableofcontents. htm, pp 3. Date accessed: 24 November 2001. Somes, R.G. 1996. Guinea fowl plumage color inheritence, with particular attention on the dun color. The Journal of Heredity 87 (2): 138-142. Souza, P.C.A., Rodrigues, M.L.A., Lopes, C.W.G. and De-Souza, P.C.A. 1997. An outbreak of ascaridiosis in an intensive guinea fowl farm. Revista-Brasileira-de-Medicina-Veterinaria 19(5): 206-208. Statistical Analysis Systems (SAS), 1998. User’s Guide: Statistics, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina, USA. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), 1998. User’s Guide. SPSS Inc. Chicago, Illinois, USA. Swan, S.E.J. 1999. The poultry development strategy of the livestock development project in Bangladesh. The Danish Agricultural and Rural Development Advisors Forum. Ed. Frands Dolberg and Poul Henning Petersen. Proccedings of a workshop on poultry as a tool in poverty alleviation and promotion of gender equality, Tune Landboskole, Denmark March 22-26, 1999. pp 128-135. Tadelle, D. 1996. The role of scavenging poultry in integrated farming systems in Ethiopia. In: Livestock Feed Resources within Integrated Farming Systems. Second FAO Electronic Conference on Tropical Feeds, pp 377-399. Tanyi, J., Glavits, R., Salyi, G., Rudas, P., Kosa, E. and Szabo, J. 1994. Pancreatitis caused by reovirus in guinea fowl. Avian Pathology 23(1): 61-77. United States, Department of Agriculture, 1976. Raising guinea fowl. Northern Region, Agricultural Research Service, Washington DC. Leaflet No. 519: pp7. Vaissaive, T., Desmettre, P., Paille, G., Mivial, G. and Laroche, M. 1985. Eryspelothrix in guinea fowls. Bulletin of Academic Veterinary of France 58: 259. Van Marle-Köster, E. and Webb, E.C. 2000. Carcass characteristics of South African native chicken lines. South African Journal of Animal Science 30 (1): 53-56. Zanella, A., Dall’Ava, P. and Martino, P.A. 2001. Avian influenza epidemic in Italy due to serovar 1+7NI. Avian Diseases 45: 257-261. Zellen, G.K., Key, D.W. and Jack, S.W. 1989. Adenoviral pancreatitis in guinea fowl. Avian Diseases 33: 586 –589.
85
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
Survey questionnaire on guinea fowl production by smallholder farmers
Date: Number of questionnaire: 1. How many guinea fowls are you rearing? Category Number Adult females Adult males Keets and growers 2. What are the tasks associated with keeping guinea fowl? 3. Who is responsible for doing the tasks? Person Tasks (give water/food, build the guinea fowl house, etc) Husband Wife Son(s) Daughter(s) Other - who? 4. Who owns the guinea fowls? (Mark the correct response with an “X”) Husband Wife Son(s) Daughter(s) Other - who? 5. Daily routine for guinea fowls rearing: Activity(ies) Time/Frequency Who is responsible? Shut the guinea fowl in at night Let the guinea fowl out in morning
Cleaning the guinea fowl house Give water Give food Treating of guinea fowl Marketing of the products
Egg collection
Other-what? 6. Where does the household keep guinea fowl during the day (D) and at night (N)? Adult Keets D N D N
Location Materials Size
Tree Guinea fowl house on the
86
ground Elevated guinea fowl house In the kitchen In the family house On top of family house Household yard Fields 7. Do you separate other poultry species from the place you keep guinea fowl during the day or at night? Day Night 8. Do you keep different age groups of guinea fowls in different compartments? Guinea fowl strain 11. What are the special features of your guinea fowls? Feature Description Colour of feathers Colour of legs Colour of beak Weight (at physiological maturity) Length of legs Breast length How do you identify the sex of you guinea fowl? Guinea fowl productivity Parameter Number 12.When does the guinea hen start laying eggs? 13.When do the guinea hens lay their last eggs? 14.Where does the guinea hens lay their eggs? 15.How often do you collect the eggs for incubation?
16.How many eggs on average does a guinea hen lay per clutch?
17.Where do you store the eggs before incubation?
18.How do you incubate the eggs? 19.How many eggs on average do you incubate at a time?
20.How many eggs on average hatch per clutch? 21.At what age will you allow the keets to free range?
22. How many chicks on average survive the first two months?
23. At what age do guinea fowl first lay eggs? 24. Are you satisfied with the production of your guinea fowls? Yes / No (circle the correct response) Why? Marketing 25. How much do you receive for your guinea fowl and eggs when you sell them? Guinea fowl Egg
Never sell Money Exchange for other products - what?
Where do you sell them?
87
26. When and why do you sell your guinea fowl and eggs? 27. How many guinea fowls and eggs have you sold in the last six months? Health 28. In your opinion, what are the main causes of guinea fowl mortality? Birds of prey Cats and dogs Wild mammals Theft Accidents Lack of feed Diseases 29. What common diseases reduce the productivity of your guinea fowl? 30. How many of your birds have died in the last six months? From disease Slaughter Other causes keets Adults keets Adults keets Adults
Guinea fowl Chickens Other - what? 31. What do you do with your guinea fowl when they are sick? Eat them
Sell them
Treat them
Other - what?
32. What treatment do you give your birds? How do you prepare the treatment? Conventional Traditional Treatment How to prepare and administer
33. Where do you get this treatment? Veterinary Services Traditional healer Pharmacy NGO/Project Shop/market Other - where? 34. Do you ever vaccinate your guinea fowl against any disease? 35. If yes, what disease were the birds vaccinated against? 36. When were the birds vaccinated? Nutrition 37. What type of food do you give your chickens? Type of food Frequency Time of year
Nothing
88
Maize Sunflower Food scraps - what? Sorghum Maize bran Other - what? 38. How are the feeds presented to the guinea fowls? 39. Do you mix the feed for the birds? 40. If yes, how do you mix it? 41. When do you provide the guinea fowl supplementary feed? 42. How much feed do you give the guinea fowls per day? 43. Do you give water to your birds? Yes/No. If yes, where does the water come from? What type of container do you put the water in? Water source Container Borehole Plastic bowl Well Metal bowl River/stream Ceramic bowl Used Tin Rainwater Other Other 44. Do you have any other information that you would like to share on guinea fowl production? 45. Personal details: Name: Village:
District: Province:
Male/Female: Age:
Ethnic group: Local languages:
Who is the head of your family:
89
Appendix 2
Monitoring data sheets for smallholder guinea fowl production
1 Flock dynamics data sheet Enumerator Ward
Household Date of visit A
Date of Visit B keets growers hens cocks Previous recording Sold Gifted
Consumed
Died Lost Transferred out a
Purchased Entrusted Transferred in b
Number at visit A
Observed check
Sold Gifted
Consumed Died
Lost Transferred out a
Purchased
Entrusted Transferred in b
Number at visit B Observed Check
a moved from one age category to the other, i.e. keets become growers once they are independent of their mother or above the brooding age. b moved from the previous age category, which for keets is hatched eggs
90
2 Egg production
Record the number of hens that laid eggs since the previous visit. Also record the number of hens that are currently sitting on eggs and looking after keets
Hens in lay Hens sitting on eggs Hens looking after keets Idle G. F hens Visit A
Visit B
Observe the number of eggs in nests and the number of eggs being incubated. Check the number of eggs sold, eaten, hatched and wasted since the last visit. Eggs in nest Eggs incubated Previous visit
Consumed
Sold
Hatched Wasted Laid Begun incubation Number at visit A Consumed
Sold Hatched Wasted
Laid Begun incubation Number at visit B
3 Record feed inputs purchased since the last visit. Type Quantity Price Visit A
Visit B
4 Veterinary and other inputs for poultry since the last visit
Veterinary medicine purchased other inputs purchased
Type quantity price type Quantity Price Visit A Visit B
91
5 Mortality of guinea fowls
date Keets
Growers
Hen
Cock
Cause disposal method
Prevention method
6. Marketing of guinea fowl products Eggs keets growers hens cocks Quantity Unit ¨Price Total income
Buyer 7 Comments from the farmer
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
92
Appendix 3
Weekly guinea fowl production summary sheet
Eggs collected
Egg spoiled
Eggs under incubation
Keets hatched Keet mortality Keets surviving
Keets sold Balance stock on hand
wk
total to
date
wk
total to
date
wk
total to
date
wk total to date
wk total to date
wk total to date
wk total to date
Wk total to date
Total C/F from
monday tuesday wednesday
thursday Friday saturday
sunday Totals for week
Totals for season C/F
93
Appendix 4
Flock inventory form
Name of Farmer…………………………. Farmer code……………………Date______/______/________
Guinea Fowls keets Rearing females 1st parity hens 2rd parity hens 3rd parity hens Cockereals Breeding
cocks Number in flock
in out In out in out in out in out in out in out
Purchase/sale
Gifts
Slaughter
Hatch/death
Theft
Move group
TOTAL + - + - + - + - + - + - + -
Closing flock
94
Appendix 5:
SAS output on body mass of guinea fowls under intensive (1) and semi-extensive
management systems (2)
The MIXED Procedure
Table A5.1 Tests of Fixed Effects Source NDF DDF Type III F Pr > F TRT 1 950 471.00 0.0001 FARMER 4 950 7.92 0.0001 WEEK 8 950 283.06 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 8 950 10.35 0.0001 Table A5.2 Least Squares Means Effect TRT FARMER WEEK LSMEAN Std Error DF t Pr > |t| TRT 1 775.95097530 5.80953640 950 133.57 0.0001 TRT 2 591.59026286 6.20886932 950 95.28 0.0001 FARMER 1 697.20603980 9.14939390 950 76.20 0.0001 FARMER 2 671.22193120 10.06759137 950 66.67 0.0001 FARMER 3 702.01642905 9.41749124 950 74.54 0.0001 FARMER 4 642.68963127 9.54334564 950 67.34 0.0001 FARMER 5 705.71906408 9.21461439 950 76.59 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 7 300.83333333 16.94656560 950 17.75 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 9 559.54975289 17.09015060 950 32.74 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 10 658.33333333 16.94656560 950 38.85 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 11 705.00000000 16.94656560 950 41.60 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 12 806.56668030 17.23719308 950 46.79 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 13 887.70374153 17.38777114 950 51.05 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 14 940.18736995 17.23719308 950 54.54 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 15 1053.3006447 19.69395538 950 53.48 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 16 1072.0839217 17.23719308 950 62.20 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 7 284.16666667 16.94656560 950 16.77 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 9 438.95516823 17.23721191 950 25.47 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 10 486.36363636 17.70011049 950 27.48 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 11 542.59831561 20.37684152 950 26.63 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 12 590.62545152 18.03400627 950 32.75 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 13 660.78465530 18.57416359 950 35.58 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 14 740.88086309 18.57792204 950 39.88 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 15 757.05674589 21.14455403 950 35.80 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 16 822.88086309 18.57792204 950 44.29 0.0001
95
Table A5.3 Differences of Least Squares Means Effect TRT FARMER WEEK _TRT _FARMER _WEEK Difference Std Error DF t Pr > |t| TRT 1 2 184.36071244 8.49487108 950 21.70 0.0001 FARMER 1 2 25.98410860 13.60111923 950 1.91 0.0564 FARMER 1 3 -4.81038924 13.12237367 950 -0.37 0.7140 FARMER 1 4 54.51640853 13.21252777 950 4.13 0.0001 FARMER 1 5 -8.51302428 12.98433624 950 -0.66 0.5122 FARMER 2 3 -30.79449785 13.76226869 950 -2.24 0.0255 FARMER 2 4 28.53229993 13.84612728 950 2.06 0.0396 FARMER 2 5 -34.49713288 13.63979306 950 -2.53 0.0116 FARMER 3 4 59.32679777 13.38241124 950 4.43 0.0001 FARMER 3 5 -3.70263504 13.17202077 950 -0.28 0.7787 FARMER 4 5 -63.02943281 13.26138440 950 -4.75 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 7 1 9 -258.7164196 24.06780698 950 -10.75 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 7 1 10 -357.5000000 23.96606290 950 -14.92 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 7 1 11 -404.1666667 23.96606290 950 -16.86 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 7 1 12 -505.7333470 24.17244114 950 -20.92 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 7 1 13 -586.8704082 24.28004676 950 -24.17 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 7 1 14 -639.3540366 24.17244114 950 -26.45 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 7 1 15 -752.4673114 25.98149272 950 -28.96 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 7 1 16 -771.2505883 24.17244114 950 -31.91 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 7 2 7 16.66666667 23.96606290 950 0.70 0.4870 TRT*WEEK 1 7 2 9 -138.1218349 24.17245457 950 -5.71 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 7 2 10 -185.5303030 24.50469337 950 -7.57 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 7 2 11 -241.7649823 26.50286316 950 -9.12 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 7 2 12 -289.7921182 24.74694865 950 -11.71 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 7 2 13 -359.9513220 25.14330206 950 -14.32 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 7 2 14 -440.0475298 25.14607868 950 -17.50 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 7 2 15 -456.2234126 27.09756909 950 -16.84 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 7 2 16 -522.0475298 25.14607868 950 -20.76 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 9 1 10 -98.78358044 24.06780698 950 -4.10 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 9 1 11 -145.4502471 24.06780698 950 -6.04 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 9 1 12 -247.0169274 24.27371343 950 -10.18 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 9 1 13 -328.1539886 24.38107999 950 -13.46 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 9 1 14 -380.6376171 24.27371343 950 -15.68 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 9 1 15 -493.7508918 26.07939143 950 -18.93 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 9 1 16 -512.5341688 24.27371343 950 -21.11 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 9 2 7 275.38308623 24.06780698 950 11.44 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 9 2 9 120.59458467 24.27375231 950 4.97 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 9 2 10 73.18611653 24.60421019 950 2.97 0.0030 TRT*WEEK 1 9 2 11 16.95143729 26.59859662 950 0.64 0.5241 TRT*WEEK 1 9 2 12 -31.07569863 24.84480180 950 -1.25 0.2113 TRT*WEEK 1 9 2 13 -101.2349024 25.24025473 950 -4.01 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 9 2 14 -181.3311102 25.24415827 950 -7.18 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 9 2 15 -197.5069930 27.19229238 950 -7.26 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 9 2 16 -263.3311102 25.24415827 950 -10.43 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 10 1 11 -46.66666667 23.96606290 950 -1.95 0.0518 TRT*WEEK 1 10 1 12 -148.2333470 24.17244114 950 -6.13 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 10 1 13 -229.3704082 24.28004676 950 -9.45 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 10 1 14 -281.8540366 24.17244114 950 -11.66 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 10 1 15 -394.9673114 25.98149272 950 -15.20 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 10 1 16 -413.7505883 24.17244114 950 -17.12 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 10 2 7 374.16666667 23.96606290 950 15.61 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 10 2 9 219.37816511 24.17245457 950 9.08 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 10 2 10 171.96969697 24.50469337 950 7.02 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 10 2 11 115.73501773 26.50286316 950 4.37 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 10 2 12 67.70788181 24.74694865 950 2.74 0.0063 TRT*WEEK 1 10 2 13 -2.45132197 25.14330206 950 -0.10 0.9224 TRT*WEEK 1 10 2 14 -82.54752975 25.14607868 950 -3.28 0.0011 TRT*WEEK 1 10 2 15 -98.72341256 27.09756909 950 -3.64 0.0003 TRT*WEEK 1 10 2 16 -164.5475298 25.14607868 950 -6.54 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 11 1 12 -101.5666803 24.17244114 950 -4.20 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 11 1 13 -182.7037415 24.28004676 950 -7.52 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 11 1 14 -235.1873700 24.17244114 950 -9.73 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 11 1 15 -348.3006447 25.98149272 950 -13.41 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 11 1 16 -367.0839217 24.17244114 950 -15.19 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 11 2 7 420.83333333 23.96606290 950 17.56 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 11 2 9 266.04483177 24.17245457 950 11.01 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 11 2 10 218.63636364 24.50469337 950 8.92 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 11 2 11 162.40168439 26.50286316 950 6.13 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 11 2 12 114.37454848 24.74694865 950 4.62 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 11 2 13 44.21534470 25.14330206 950 1.76 0.0790 TRT*WEEK 1 11 2 14 -35.88086309 25.14607868 950 -1.43 0.1539 TRT*WEEK 1 11 2 15 -52.05674589 27.09756909 950 -1.92 0.0550 TRT*WEEK 1 11 2 16 -117.8808631 25.14607868 950 -4.69 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 12 1 13 -81.13706123 24.48288569 950 -3.31 0.0010 TRT*WEEK 1 12 1 14 -133.6206897 24.37576887 950 -5.48 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 12 1 15 -246.7339644 26.17788167 950 -9.43 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 12 1 16 -265.5172414 24.37576887 950 -10.89 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 12 2 7 522.40001363 24.17244114 950 21.61 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 12 2 9 367.61151207 24.37693784 950 15.08 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 12 2 10 320.20304393 24.70657274 950 12.96 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 12 2 11 263.96836469 26.69601621 950 9.89 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 12 2 12 215.94122877 24.94650921 950 8.66 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 12 2 13 145.78202499 25.33868984 950 5.75 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 12 2 14 65.68581721 25.34147153 950 2.59 0.0097 TRT*WEEK 1 12 2 15 49.50993440 27.28576636 950 1.81 0.0699 TRT*WEEK 1 12 2 16 -16.31418279 25.34147153 950 -0.64 0.5199 TRT*WEEK 1 13 1 14 -52.48362842 24.48288569 950 -2.14 0.0323 TRT*WEEK 1 13 1 15 -165.5969032 26.28038314 950 -6.30 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 13 1 16 -184.3801801 24.48288569 950 -7.53 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 13 2 7 603.53707486 24.28004676 950 24.86 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 13 2 9 448.74857330 24.48409523 950 18.33 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 13 2 10 401.34010517 24.81186202 950 16.18 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 13 2 11 345.10542592 26.79618497 950 12.88 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 13 2 12 297.07829001 25.05003613 950 11.86 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 13 2 13 226.91908623 25.44007123 950 8.92 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 13 2 14 146.82287844 25.44163582 950 5.77 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 13 2 15 130.64699564 27.38337924 950 4.77 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 13 2 16 64.82287844 25.44163582 950 2.55 0.0110 TRT*WEEK 1 14 1 15 -113.1132748 26.17788167 950 -4.32 0.0001
96
Effect TRT FARMER WEEK _TRT _FARMER _WEEK Difference Std Error DF t Pr > |t| TRT*WEEK 1 14 1 16 -131.8965517 24.37576887 950 -5.41 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 14 2 7 656.02070328 24.17244114 950 27.14 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 14 2 9 501.2322017 24.37693784 950 20.56 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 14 2 10 453.82373359 24.70657274 950 18.37 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 14 2 11 397.58905435 26.69601621 950 14.89 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 14 2 12 349.56191843 24.94650921 950 14.01 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 14 2 13 279.40271465 25.33868984 950 11.03 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 14 2 14 199.30650686 25.34147153 950 7.86 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 14 2 15 183.13062406 27.28576636 950 6.71 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 14 2 16 117.30650686 25.34147153 950 4.63 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 15 1 16 -18.78327695 26.17788167 950 -0.72 0.4732 TRT*WEEK 1 15 2 7 769.13397806 25.98149272 950 29.60 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 15 2 9 614.34547650 26.16192777 950 23.48 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 15 2 10 566.93700836 26.47915765 950 21.41 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 15 2 11 510.70232912 28.16408460 950 18.13 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 15 2 12 462.67519320 26.72816511 950 17.31 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 15 2 13 392.51598942 27.10711986 950 14.48 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 15 2 14 312.41978164 27.10845455 950 11.52 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 15 2 15 296.24389883 28.72345334 950 10.31 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 15 2 16 230.41978164 27.10845455 950 8.50 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 16 2 7 787.91725501 24.17244114 950 32.60 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 16 2 9 633.12875345 24.37693784 950 25.97 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 16 2 10 585.72028531 24.70657274 950 23.71 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 16 2 11 529.48560607 26.69601621 950 19.83 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 16 2 12 481.4584701 24.94650921 950 19.30 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 16 2 13 411.29926637 25.33868984 950 16.23 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 16 2 14 331.20305859 25.34147153 950 13.07 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 16 2 15 315.02717578 27.28576636 950 11.55 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 1 16 2 16 249.20305859 25.34147153 950 9.83 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 7 2 9 -154.7885016 24.17245457 950 -6.40 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 7 2 10 -202.1969697 24.50469337 950 -8.25 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 7 2 11 -258.4316489 26.50286316 950 -9.75 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 7 2 12 -306.4587849 24.74694865 950 -12.38 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 7 2 13 -376.6179886 25.14330206 950 -14.98 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 7 2 14 -456.7141964 25.14607868 950 -18.16 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 7 2 15 -472.8900792 27.09756909 950 -17.45 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 7 2 16 -538.7141964 25.14607868 950 -21.42 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 9 2 10 -47.40846814 24.70658588 950 -1.92 0.0553 TRT*WEEK 2 9 2 11 -103.6431474 26.68074519 950 -3.88 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 9 2 12 -151.6702833 24.94907666 950 -6.08 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 9 2 13 -221.8294871 25.34392101 950 -8.75 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 9 2 14 -301.9256949 25.34670139 950 -11.91 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 9 2 15 -318.1015777 27.27271614 950 -11.66 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 9 2 16 -383.9256949 25.34670139 950 -15.15 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 10 2 11 -56.23467924 26.99091665 950 -2.08 0.0375 TRT*WEEK 2 10 2 12 -104.2618152 25.26893930 950 -4.13 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 10 2 13 -174.4210189 25.65723026 950 -6.80 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 10 2 14 -254.5172267 25.65995126 950 -9.92 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 10 2 15 -270.6931095 27.57509885 950 -9.82 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 10 2 16 -336.5172267 25.65995126 950 -13.11 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 11 2 12 -48.02713592 27.23419545 950 -1.76 0.0781 TRT*WEEK 2 11 2 13 -118.1863397 27.60492145 950 -4.28 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 11 2 14 -198.2825475 27.60611240 950 -7.18 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 11 2 15 -214.4584303 29.19353821 950 -7.35 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 11 2 16 -280.2825475 27.60611240 950 -10.15 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 12 2 13 -70.15920378 25.88172212 950 -2.71 0.0068 TRT*WEEK 2 12 2 14 -150.2554116 25.88437997 950 -5.80 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 12 2 15 -166.4312944 27.81201063 950 -5.98 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 12 2 16 -232.2554116 25.88437997 950 -8.97 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 13 2 14 -80.09620778 26.25481830 950 -3.05 0.0023 TRT*WEEK 2 13 2 15 -96.27209059 28.17045072 950 -3.42 0.0007 TRT*WEEK 2 13 2 16 -162.0962078 26.25481830 950 -6.17 0.0001 TRT*WEEK 2 14 2 15 -16.17588281 28.16995624 950 -0.57 0.5660 TRT*WEEK 2 14 2 16 -82.00000000 26.25350653 950 -3.12 0.0018 TRT*WEEK 2 15 2 16 -65.82411719 28.16995624 950 -2.34 0.0197
97
Appendix 6
Descriptive statistics and paired ‘t’-test of carcass composition parameters from
guinea fowls reared under intensive and semi-extensive management systems
Table A6.1 Means and standard deviations (g) of live weight, dressed weight, total meat yield and meat to bone ratio
-----------RESPONSE---------- TREATMENT PARAMATER N Mean SD Intensive Body weight 10 1110.00000 92.7960727 Intensive Dressed weight 10 838.06000 77.4657659 Intensive Meat yield 10 442.50000 66.3530122 Intensive Bones Yield 10 221.64000 12.4139885 Intensive Meat to bone ratio 10 2.00100 0.2784660 Semi-extensive Live weight 10 866.00000 86.2425520 Semi-extensive Dressed weight 10 620.72000 64.4608891 Semi-extensive Meat yield 10 292.00000 54.0431926 Semi-extensive Bone yield 10 178.52000 17.6558332 Semi-extensive Meat to bone ratio 10 1.63400 0.2484262 Table A6.2 Means and standard deviations of weight of cut parts ------------WEIGHT----------- TREATMENT PART N Mean SD Intensive Legs 10 105.590000 11.0758446 Intensive Thighs 10 131.740000 15.5337053 Intensive Wings 10 121.260000 10.6709575 Intensive Breast 10 260.800000 32.9631444 Intensive Back 10 138.030000 15.3084617 Intensive Neck 10 65.510000 5.3405056 Intensive Skin 10 73.850000 9.3842954 Semi-extensive Legs 10 78.540000 8.4829502 Semi-extensive Thighs 10 96.730000 9.0561275 Semi-extensive Wings 10 90.370000 8.3163894 Semi-extensive Breast 10 191.490000 24.2005716 Semi-extensive Back 10 107.410000 14.0248549 Semi-extensive Neck 10 50.840000 5.9989258 Semi-extensive Skin 10 59.320000 8.9546760 Table A6.3 Means and standard deviations of muscles of cut parts ------------WEIGHT----------- TREATMENTT PART N Mean SD Intensive Thigh 10 100.350000 12.5672635 Intensive Leg 10 73.880000 8.8673935 Intensive Wing 10 56.240000 9.4568259 Intensive Back 10 34.090000 7.2951201 Intensive Breast 10 179.620000 30.6937489 Semi-extensive Thigh 10 66.770000 7.8475828 Semi-extensive Leg 10 52.050000 6.5076451 Semi-extensive Wing 10 37.070000 5.1839603 Semi-extensive Back 10 23.460000 5.5632125 Semi-extensive Breast 10 121.830000 17.2577229 Table A6.4 Means and standard deviations of bones of cut parts ------------WEIGHT----------- TREATMENT PART N Mean SD Intensive Thigh bone 10 18.5750000 1.31217589 Intensive Leg bone 10 24.4700000 2.25341716 Intensive Wing bone 10 45.0600000 4.45476025 Intensive Back bone 10 78.1200000 7.11864531 Intensive Breast bone 10 55.4200000 4.86090984 Semi-extensive Thigh bone 10 15.9500000 1.92426032 Semi-extensive Leg bone 10 18.3800000 1.90717942 Semi-extensive Wing bone 10 36.9600000 4.16605329 Semi-extensive Back bone 10 60.4300000 6.38001219 Semi-extensive Breast bone 10 46.8800000 7.51661863
98
Table A6.5 Means and standard deviations of chemical composition of guinea fowl meat -----------RESPONSE---------- TREATMENT COMPOSITION N Mean SD Intensive Fat 5 14.8160000 10.6467990 Intensive Dry matter 5 22.8900000 1.0684334 Intensive Crude protein 4 75.4200000 6.3213764 Intensive Ash 5 9.2860000 4.8740773 Semi-extensive Fat 5 19.9420000 14.3701538 Semi-extensive Dry matter 5 26.0940000 4.1170900 Semi-extensive Crude protein 4 72.7125000 10.0506861 Semi-extensive Ash 5 7.8440000 4.1734195 Table A6.6 Paired-comparison ‘t’-test of guinea fowl meat dissected parts and chemical composition for guinea fowls reared under intensive and semi-extensive management systems Analysis Variable: means are differences between intensively and semi-extensively reared guinea fowl carcass parameters Mean Std Error T Prob>|T| -------------------------------------------------- Body weight 244.0000000 36.1693547 6.7460424 0.0001 Dressed weight 217.3000000 30.6021241 7.1008143 0.0001 Total meat yield 150.5000000 30.4292440 4.9459001 0.0008 Total bone yield 40.7000000 7.5248477 5.4087473 0.0004 Meat to bone ratio 0.3670000 0.1338909 2.7410373 0.0228 Dissected parts Legs 27.0500000 4.8188346 5.6133905 0.0003 Dissected parts Thighs 35.0100000 5.9571703 5.8769514 0.0002 Dissected parts wings 30.8900000 4.7497006 6.5035679 0.0001 Dissected parts Breast 69.3100000 12.7478752 5.4369845 0.0004 Dissected parts Back 30.6200000 7.9473098 3.8528761 0.0039 Dissected parts Neck 14.6700000 2.6887027 5.4561629 0.0004 Dissected parts Skin 14.5300000 4.7134571 3.0826630 0.0131 Muscle of cut parts Thigh 33.5800000 5.2265094 6.4249383 0.0001 Muscle of cut parts Legs 21.8300000 3.8948984 5.6047675 0.0003 Muscle of cut parts Wings 19.1700000 3.9158098 4.8955391 0.0009 Muscle of cut parts back 10.6300000 3.2343315 3.2866143 0.0094 Muscle of cut parts Breast 57.7900000 11.2504563 5.1366806 0.0006 Bones of cut parts Thighs 2.6250000 0.7806425 3.3626146 0.0084 Bones of cut parts Legs 6.0900000 1.0669218 5.7080095 0.0003 Bones of cut parts Wings 8.1000000 2.2231609 3.6434610 0.0054 Bones of cut parts Back 17.6900000 3.7713673 4.6906065 0.0011 Bones of cut parts Breast 8.5400000 2.4813169 3.4417209 0.0074 Proximate components Fat -5.1260000 2.0919049 -2.4503982 0.0704 Proximate components Dry matter -3.2040000 1.7142713 -1.8690157 0.1350 Proximate components Crude Protein 2.7075000 2.5534336 1.0603370 0.3668 Proximate components Ash 1.4420000 1.4898570 0.9678781 0.3879 --------------------------------------------------
99
Appendix 7: Guinea fowl production technologies and systems practiced and tested in Lower Guruve District of Zimbabwe Intensive guinea fowl production system Artificial incubation of guinea fowl eggs
Intensive brooding of guinea fowl keets
Intensive rearing of guinea fowls growers
Semi-extensive guinea fowl production Natural incubation of guinea fowl eggs
Surrogate hen brooding of guinea fowl keets
Semi-extensive guinea fowl rearing