Socio-economical contribution and labor allocation of village chicken production of Jamma district, South Wollo, Ethiopia

Mammo Mengesha, Berhan Tamir* and Dessie Tadelle**

Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), Debre Zeit Agr. Research Center, P.O. Box 32, Debre Zeit, Ethiopia
*Haramaya University, Ethiopia
**ILRI, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
mammo21@fastmail.fm

Abstract

The mode of ownership of chicken in the family was various types, for instance shared ownership constituted about (57%) followed by individual ownership (43%) among the members of the households. More than around 70% of overall care-taking of chickens, feeding of chickens, cleaning of birds-quarter, treating of sick birds, decision for off take of poultry products were the responsibility of women. The major criteria used for judging of the price of local chickens were body weight (34.2%), plumage color (33.3%) and comp-type (32.4%). Fluctuations in the prices of the village chicken and chicken-products were mainly due to purchasing power of the consumers (33.4), fasting (33.2), and availability of products (32.5%). Almost all farmers were selling their chicken and chicken products in local markets.

Keywords: Caretaking of chicken, chicken judgment, chicken products, consumers, price, ownership

Background and justifications

The importance of village poultry in national economies of developing countries and its role in improving the nutritional status and incomes of many small farmers and landless communities has been recognized by various scholars and rural development agencies in the last two decades (Kitalyi 1998). Accordingly, Sonaiya (1990) reported that village chicken in Africa provide employment opportunity and disposable income for small scale farmers, particularly in the off seasons, rural poultry production can be  integrated very well into other farming activities as it requires very little time and investment.

Village chickens are more widely distributed in rural Africa than the other livestock species. The main function of chicken from farmers’ perspective is provision of meat and egg for home consumption. Moreover, chickens are also an important element in diversifying agricultural production and increasing household food security especially for the poorer members of the community, including increased distribution of resources through involvement of women. Women own, manage, sell and receive money from chicken sales in most of the households. Most of the farmers apply no specific techniques to boost production.  Poultry is one of the production system used to address gender issues in agricultural production activities.

Although women carry out the leading role in the activity related to livestock and poultry rearing, they gain less access to training programs on poultry production improvement techniques than men. As the result, an attempt to improve productivity in rural poultry farming suffers. The role of village leadership in rural areas is also important and if the leadership is innovative and risk taking it is easier for extension agencies to make technological improvement in rural poultry production. Rearing chickens have several advantages; it fits quite well to the condition of poor households. Due to their requirement of small feed, space and the low cost of the animal make poultry rearing a suitable activity for the poor. Poultry products are highly market-able and poultry rearing as a business has high turnover rates. However, as reported by Kenea et al (2003) efficient marketing system is one major component to increase village chicken contribution to the rural household economy. Inline with this, Mutizwa -Mangiza and Melmsing (1991) reported that economic evaluation of village-chicken at household and national levels is complicated by multiple functions of livestock in the economy. Moreover, estimating the value of rural poultry is even more difficult than for other livestock because of the lack of reliable production data. However, rural poultry doesn't rate highly in the mainstream national economies because of the lack of measurable indicators of its contribution to macro-economic indices such as gross domestic product.

Objectives

·                    To evaluate the socio-economical contribution of village chicken

·                    To identify ownership pattern and labor allocation in village chicken production

Materials and methods 

Site selection 

Jamma district was selected because it is among the areas known to have high potential for poultry production (LRPA 2002). The district consists of 21 Peasant Associations (PAs),   which are located in two different agro-ecologies. The two-agro-ecologies were stratified based on annual rainfall and altitude as:

-Moist-II (M₂) having an altitude from 2165 to 2654 m.a.s.l. and annual rainfall ranging from 500 to 3600 mm, representing the highland (Dega).

-Sub-Moist-II (SM₂) having an altitude from 1754 to 2165 m.a.s.l. and annual rainfall ranging from 300 to 1600 mm, representing mid to highland (Woinadega) (EARO 2000).

Peasant Associations were selected based on the potential for poultry production, relatively the larger in household numbers, larger in area coverage and representatives for the study areas (i.e. Debreguracha and Yedo (PAs) representing Dega whereas Faji and Zerkami representing Woinadega agro ecologies).

Sampling procedure

Because of accessibility and infrastructure problems, purposive sampling method was used, while selecting the four Peasant Associations. The total numbers of households per PA were: 1050, 1188, 2075 and 1050 and out of which the sampled (selected) size of households to be studied were also: 24, 26, 46 and 24 for Debreguracha, Yedo, Faji, and Zerkami, respectively. The allocation of the households was based on the population (household) size of each PA and the households were selected using simple random sampling procedures from each PAs. A diagnostic survey with single-visit and multi-subject types was conducted in November-December 2005, using structured questionnaires with Development agents (DAs) were enumerators.
 

Data collection

Quantitative and qualitative data were collected on functions and importance of poultry in the socio-economic issues of the community. In addition, information on poultry production and management system and other related issues of poultry. Problems prevailing in poultry production in the study area and opportunities for improving poultry production were assessed. The socio-religious roles of poultry were also assessed as well as problem solving assumptions of the households were gathered during the survey work.

Statistical analysis

Qualitative and quantitative data sets were analyzed using (SPSS 1996) version 11.5, a computer based statistical program. General Linear Model was fitted to some parameter which was appropriate for analysis. For most factors (qualitative factors) descriptive statistics was used. Standard error of mean (SE) was used while describing mean. Interaction effect on (flock size, egg number and number clutches) of household wealth ranks with agro ecologies was also subjected to (SAS 1999) program.

Result and discussions 

Village chicken contribution

The contribution of chicken and their products in family nutrition and egg preferences for consumption is shown in Table 1. There was variation in poultry product consumption in the family members across study areas. Around 75% of the respondents from Debreguracha (PA) were giving priority for adults in consuming of poultry products among the family members. Around 50.7% of the respondents from Dega agro ecology preferred adults chicken while prioritizing poultry product for family consumption. Moreover, about 49.3% of the respondents from Woinadega were primarily giving poultry products for adult group consumption as family nutrition.

Almost all (92.9%) of the respondents from Yedo had no egg color preferences for consumption; however, around 50.4% of the households from Faji preferred large egg size for consumption. Around 42.3% and 40.2% of the households from Woinadega and Dega agro ecologies preferred larger egg size for consumption, respectively.

Around 37.2% of the respondents were randomly selecting the quality of eggs for consumption followed by 36.3% using floating eggs in the water as a selection (quality) method and only 26.5% of the respondents were considering external eggshell quality for egg selection.

Marketing

Criteria of judging prices of chicken and causes of price fluctuation for poultry products are shown in Table 2. Respondents residing in Zerkami and Faji gave higher value for plumage colors like as 34.6% and 34.5%, respectively. Respondents from Debreguracha were giving highest (38.3%) value to body weight but those from Faji gave least (31.8%) while judging the price of chicken in the market. Those respondents from Yedo gave highest (34.8%) emphasis for comp-type. Respondents from Woinadega agro ecology also gave priority for plumage color (34.47%), but those from Dega were for body weight (36.0%). The study revealed that the overall percentage of households were using primarily body weight (34.2%) followed by plumage color (33.4%) and comp type (32.4%) in judging the price of chicken in the market. According to the respondents, there was a price fluctuation in the study areas. About 40.0% respondents from Yedo reported chicken price fluctuation was due to purchasing power of the consumers.

Purchasing power might be generally affected (governed) by festival days and grain availability around the area. However, 39.6 and 35.7% of the respondents reported that fasting and availability of poultry products were also claimed to be main causes for seasonal fluctuations of chicken and egg prices from Debreguracha and Zerkami (PAs), respectively. This result is inline with the report of Tadelle et al (2003); Amsalu (2003). Respondents (35.3 from Dega responded that, purchasing power of the consumers was main causes for chicken product price fluctuation, but (34.8%) from Woinadega reported that availability of products was main cause for price fluctuation. Fasting on the other hand is the religious obligation for the follower of the Orthodox Christianity in Ethiopia. Around 65% of eggs produced and chickens transported towards big cities by middlemen due to low purchasing power of the local consumers.

About 59.5% of the respondents preferred selling of their chicken in local markets and 33.10% of them sale to retailers. The average distance from the marketplace was around two and half-hours trips. Almost all (92.6%) respondents were using their hand as a means of transportation of chickens. This is in agreement with findings of Kitalyi (1998) and Sonaiya and Swan (2004) who reported that in none of case study countries like Ethiopia had organized market channel and producers and middlemen forced to transport poultry products to big cities. Most households were carrying their chicken upside down during transportation and this might be inhuman approach as well as create discomfort condition for birds and might result in low quality product (chicken).

Over all prices of poultry-product in different PAs and agro ecologies are shown in Table 3. Though there has been seasonal fluctuation of chicken and eggs prices, there were significant (P<0.01) differences in prices of chickens across study PAs, but not in study agro ecologies. Respondents in the Zerkami were selling their poultry products with relatively higher prices except eggs than other PAs. In contrary to this, respondents from Faji were selling their poultry product with relatively minimum prices except eggs and cocks. Respondents reported that relatively similar market prices for poultry products from both Dega and Woinadega.   The variation of prices across study PAs might be due to variation of proximity to marketplaces.

According to respondents, market price for eggs was mainly depended on number/ dozen than size of individual eggs in the study areas. This average price of eggs (0.3±0.04) found in the study area is lower than that reported by of Leulseged (1998) and Amsalu (2003) who reported that 0.35-0.50 Birr / eggs and 3.4 Birr/ dozen of eggs, respectively in Ethiopia.

The overall average prices of 0.31±.04, 8.14±0.25, 12.1±0.31, 12.2±0.645 and 10.4±0.42 Birr per head, were the over all mean of the prices of egg, pullet, hen, cock and cockerel, respectively in the study area. Although variation of prices among chicken and eggs were not statistically significant (P>0.05) among wealth ranks groups, the poor groups seems to sale their chicken with slightly better prices as compared to other groups. This variation might be due to, in one hand, the poor groups may sell their heavier and good colored birds preferably for consumers; on the other hand, they may sell their birds in big towns rather for retailers and local markets.

In addition to this, the rich groups were selling their poultry products with relatively better prices than the medium groups. This may be again due to availability of feed resources for birds with implication of heavier body weight and capability of waiting Expensive market days than medium groups.

Young pullets were less priced than counterpart cockerels. Cockerels with good feather colors had been priced higher for the reason of socio religious commitments. Mostly, due to lack of their cooperation for transportation and selling in large towns, farmers probably forced to sell their chicken as well as eggs in local market/or retailers with probably very low price as compared to large towns. Sonaiya and Swan (2004) reported that for poultry and egg producers get 60 to 65% of the market price as it makes selling from house possible, but these traders take up to 35 per cent of market values.

Ownership pattern and labor allocation in chicken management

The mode of ownership of chicken in the family was various types, for instance shared ownership constituted about (57%) followed by individual ownership (43%) among the members of the households. These modes of ownership pattern play an important role in determining birds for home consumption and sale (off take).

 Those chickens owned by children of the houses might be allowed for selling, while those owned by owners of the houses ready to be slaughtered or some times used for selling. The shared mode of ownership was lower than the value 80 and 82% reported by Kitalyi (1998) for ownership patterns in Gambia and Tanzania, respectively. Majority of the respondents (60.30%) indicated that they spent more daytime while keeping (managing) of chickens. This finding contradicted with the report of Maphosa et al (2004), except feed supplementation, water provision and penning at night do not require times for keeping chicken.

Different activities of family members for village chickens management are shown in Table 4. According to the households, there has been a work division among family members in poultry productions. The overall care-taking of chickens, feeding of chickens, cleaning of birds-quarter, treating of sick birds, decision for off take of poultry products with 72.5, 84.5, 82.2, 48.6, 56.6%  were responsibilities of women in the family, respectively. This finding is inline with reports of Prabakaran (2003) and Sonaiya and Swan (2004) who regarded women for more responsibility for chicken production management. However, poultry house construction and slaughtering of chicken was the responsibility of men in the households. Despite the result figures seems less, the work division of poultry production at home for children boys and girls was considerable.

Even if there had been variation in the participation of all family members in poultry production, all members of the households in one way or another were participants in village chicken production.

References

Amsalu Asefa 2003 Practical poultry training manual (unpublished). Amhara Region Agricultural Research Institute, Kombolcha Poultry Research and Multiplication Center.

EARO (Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization) 2000 Summary of livestock research strategies. Animal Science Directorate, EARO. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.73p.

Kenea Yadeta, Legesse Dadi and Alemu Yami 2003 Poultry marketing: structure, special variations and determinants of prices in Eastern Ethiopia. Pp. 69-79. Proceeding of Annual Conference of 10^th Ethiopian Society of Animal Production. August 21-23, 2003. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Kitalyi A 1998 Village chicken production systems in rural Africa. House holds food and gender issues. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome Italy. 81p. http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/W8989E/W8989E00.htm#TOC

Leulseged Yosef 1998 A study on the production system of the indigenous and improved poultry in rural areas of Northern Wollo. M. Sc. Thesis Presented to School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University. 103p.

LRPA (Livestock resource potential assessment) 2002 in South Wollo Administrative Zone in Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia (unpublished document)

Maphosa T, Kusina J, Kusina N T,  Makuza S and Sibanda S 2004 A monitoring study comparing production of village chickens between Communal (Nharira) and small-scale commercial (Lancashire) farming areas in Zimbabwe.  Livestock Research for Rural Development 16 (7): http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd16/7/maph16048.htm

Mutizwa-Mangiza  N T and  Melmsing A J  1991 Rural development and planning in Zimambwe, Aldershot UK-Avebury. 234p.

Prabakaran R 2003 Good practices in planning and management of integrated commercial poultry production in South Asia. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations: Rome Italy. 97p. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/006/y4991e/y4991e00.pdf

Sonaiya E B 1990 The context and prospects for development of smallholder rural poultry production in Africa. Pp. 98-115. In: CTA, 9-13 October 1990. The Salaniki, Greece.

Sonaiya E B and Swan E S J 2004 Small scale poultry production technical guide. Animal Production and Health, FAO of United Nations. Rome Italy 2004. 114p. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/008/y5169e/y5169e00.pdf

SAS (Statistical Analysis System) 1999 SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA

SPSS (Statistical package for social science 1996 11.5 versions  SPSS user^’s guide.

Tadelle D, Million T, Alemu Y and Peters K J 2003 Village chicken production systems in Ethiopia: 1. Flock characteristics and performance.  Livestock Research for Rural development 15 (1): http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd15/1/tadea151.htm

Received 9 July 2008; Accepted 12 July 2008; Published 3 October 2008

Go to top