Improving Local Chicken Productivity: An Evaluation of Malawian Local Chicken Phenotypes and their Response to Nutritional Intervention

Abstract

<p>A comprehensive study was conducted in Lilongwe, Malawi, on local chicken production to understand the current situation, within the scavenging system, and to produce baseline information that will help to develop interventions to improve local chicken productivity. The outcome of the study will also contribute to the research database on local chicken production. Four experiments were conducted, resulting into a series of scientific documents: An on-farm investigation through a survey was conducted in Mitundu and Mkwinda Extension Planning Areas (EPA) in Lilongwe District, where a pretested questionnaire was administered to a random sample of 148 farmers. Information was collected on socio-economic and livelihood characteristics of farmers involved in local chicken production (Chapter 3), local chicken production, marketing and challenges under the scavenging production system (Chapter 4), and the prevalence of different local chicken phenotypes and their productivity (Chapter 5). The second study was an assessment of the physical and nutrient composition of feedstuffs scavenged by local chickens kept by smallholder farmers under the scavenging system (Chapter 6), where a total of 56 chickens of both sexes were assessed in the wet and dry season in Mitundu EPA in Lilongwe district. Then, the performance of scavenging chickens managed by communities under different diet supplementation regimes was evaluated (Chapter 7). This study was also conducted in Mitundu EPA, where 12 households and 61 chickens were involved in the study. There were three treatments, scavenging only (SO), scavenging and supplementation with maize bran (SMB) and scavenging and supplementation with simple diet (SSD). The simple diet was a mixture of locally available ingredients, maize, maize bran and soybeans, in equal proportions. Finally, an assessment was made of the productivity of local chickens under an intensive system, fed diets with varying energy and protein levels (Chapters 8 and 9). The three diets were high energy, high protein content (HEHP), medium energy, medium protein (MEMP) and low energy, low protein (LELP). The HEHP, MEMP and LELP represent 100, 90 and 80 % respectively, of the requirements of Hyline chickens. The metabolizable energy and protein contents of the diets (Chapter 8) were 12.1, 11.5 and 10.4 MJ/kg for starter mash for HEHP, MEMP and LELP, diets respectively, and 11.9, 11.2 and 10.8 MJ/kg for grower mash for HEHP, MEMP and LELP, diets respectively. The crude protein contents were 206, 193 and 183 g/kg (starter mash) and 191, 166 and 163 g/kg (grower mash) for HEHP, MEMP and LELP, respectively. The metabolizable energy and crude protein content of layer mash was 11.7, 11.1 and 9.8 MJ/kg for HEHP, MEMP and LELP, respectively, and 172, 157 and 159 g/kg for HEHP, MEMP and LELP, respectively. Chapter 10 provides a general discussion on the findings from the study, the conclusion, and recommendations for future research</p> <p>The results from the baseline study showed that land ownership among smallholder farmers was minimal, and that of the female-headed households was lower than the national average. Farmers practised mixed farming, growing crops and keeping livestock, and local chickens were kept by almost all the households. Farmers, especially from female-headed households gained more income from smaller-sized animal species, such as goats and chickens, but mostly local chickens. On the management of local chickens, farmers did not follow some of the recommended poultry management practices in terms of housing, feeding, breeding and poultry health; and this affected the productivity of local chickens. Although some farmers supplemented the diets of their chickens, the productivity of local chickens remained low. Breeding of local chickens was indiscriminate, and most farmers did not own any cocks. The farmers’ objectives for keeping local chickens included for consumption, as a source of income, provision of manure, and socio-cultural purposes. The growth rate (cockerels) and egg production (hens) were the most important traits that farmers looked for in breeding stock. Markets for local chickens are available, but farmers only had bargaining power when selling chickens at the village level, middlemen/traders took control of the pricing beyond this point. The value of the phenotype at the market influenced the prevalence of and the farmers’ preference for the phenotype. It was, however, not possible in the current study to document the productive and reproductive performance of the different phenotypes, since farmers were not able to provide data on the performance of the different phenotypes, despite acknowledging that performance differed. Diseases, especially Newcastle disease, predation, and feed scarcity were identified as the main challenges to local chicken production.</p> <p>The composition of feedstuffs scavenged by local chickens was affected by season, although there were no significant differences in the weight of the contents of the crop and gizzard plus proventriculus, between seasons or between sexes. The nutrient content of the scavenging feed resources was found to be limiting in both the wet and dry seasons, with the exception of some amino acids in the wet season. The energy content of the crop and G+P contents in male chickens was higher in the wet season (7.5 MJ/kg) than in the dry season (5.8 MJ/kg), while, in female chickens it was the same in both seasons (6.9 MJ/kg). The crude protein content of the crop and G+P contents was higher in the wet season than in the dry season, and, higher in female chickens than in male chickens. Protein content of the crop and G+P contents was 97 and 73 g/kg for male chickens in the wet and dry seasons, respectively, and 100 and 86 g/kg in the wet and the dry season, respectively, for female chickens.</p> <p>The results from the diet supplementation study showed that supplementation of maize bran and simple diet did not have any influence on body weight, egg production, nor egg fertility, as these were the same as in birds that were on a scavenging only regime. Hatchability, on the other hand, was significantly higher in birds that received a supplement of simple diet; however, the benefits of the improved hatchability were nullified by the high chick mortality. Hens that were on SSD had 20 % better hatchability than those that were on SO and SMB. The birds on SO and SMB had 80 % hatchability on a fertile-egg basis. The results for the standard feeding trials under an intensive system, showed that feeding local chickens diets high in energy and protein levels did not influence body weight gain, egg production, egg characteristics or development of the reproductive tract. The results further indicated that it was not economically justifiable to raise local chickens using high-cost diets.</p> <p>The results from these studies indicate that local chicken productivity remains low and that there are a number of factors that affect productivity, such as inadequate feed resources, poor management, poor local chicken marketing procedures, among others. To improve productivity, there is need, to develop a comprehensive intervention that encompasses all areas that affect productivity of local chickens. Such interventions should not be expensive so as to maintain the low cost of production, which is one of the characteristics of local chicken production under the scavenging system.</p>