Professional Documents
Culture Documents
By Happyson Saina
Faculty of Agriculture
University of Zimbabwe
MASTERS OF PHILOSOPHY
October 2005
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.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
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,
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.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
iv
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
v
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
vi
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
vii
LIST OF APPENDICES
viii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AED-WKKF - Academic for Educational Advancement World K. Kellogg Foundation
CP - Crude protein
DM -Dry matter
kj - kilo joules
ME - Metabolisable energy
Mj - Mega joules
ix
CHAPTER 1: GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
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
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
1
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
The acceptability of guinea fowl and guinea fowl products, due to their quality and
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
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;
2
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
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
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
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.
3
information on the performance of guinea fowl under semi-extensive and intensive
fowl production and marketing by smallholder farmers and enhance income generation,
communities.
1.3 Objectives
The main objective of this study was characterizing guinea fowl production under
• Determine guinea fowl flock dynamics and guinea fowl production parameters
smallholder farmers
4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
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;
In Zimbabwe, there are two types of guinea fowl species that could be found at rural
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
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
5
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
nutrition, diseases, housing and the provision of extension services and the availability
Poultry management systems in Africa are differentiated on the basis of flock size and
of poultry that include guinea fowls, chickens, ducks and turkeys are kept. In general,
(Branckaert and Gueye, 1999; Kitalyi, 1999) but backyard poultry production in urban
beyond the foundation stock, a handful of grain each day and simple night enclosures.
6
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
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;
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
smallholder farmers. In addition, the performance also varies between the guinea fowl
(Numidia meleagris) strains that include White, Black, Lavender, Pearl, Splashed and
7
Dan (Belshaw, 1985; Ayorinde, Ayeni and Oluyemi, 1989; Nwagu and Alawa, 1995;
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).
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
8
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
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,
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
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.,
Embury, 2001). The number of eggs laid per season varies from 50 to 170 (Nwagu and
environments. Breeders generally produce well for 2 to 3 years (United States (US),
9
Table 2.1 Means (± SE) and coefficients of variations (CV) of body weight at different ages of guinea fowl
11
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
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
12
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).
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
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%
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).
13
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
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,
14
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
There is a potential to increase guinea fowl meat and egg production through
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
15
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
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.
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
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,
16
Allan, Biggs, Gordon, and Jordan, 1977; Durojaiye, Agoha, Akpaive and Adene, 1992;
with a virulent virus isolated from outbreaks of Newcastle Disease in chickens killed
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
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
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
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,
17
1985) to cause disease in guinea fowls. Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale bacterium,
was isolated from a number of birds showing respiratory symptoms including a guinea
al. (1998) reported that other bacteria isolated from guinea fowls in surveys included,
bacterial diseases, especially salmonella cause convulsions and death will occurin two
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
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).
caudiflata, Eimeria species (Coccidioisis) (Nwagu and Alawa, 1995; Bessin et al.,
18
1998), while parasites such as Leucocytozoon naevei, cryptosporidiosis and cestodes
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
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
19
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
therefore, necessary to try to bridge this production gap. The rate of lay is affected by
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-
where they are mostly consumed on special occasions (Knox, 2000; Robinson, 2000).
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
20
2.5 Research 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
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
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;
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
(International Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA), 1983; Chikura, 1999). Errors can be
21
Long term monitoring studies are designed to provide data on livestock productivity
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
improving feeding systems and management. Methods used to estimate feed intake 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
22
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
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
from Roberts (1999) and modified by Olukosi and Sonaiya (2003) is:
SF = [H/P] x [n/T]
where:
The SF (kg/ flock per year) derived from calculations based on life performance of
SFRB = J x Ej/Es
where:
23
Ej= The ME requirement for daily maintenance and production of each bird
(kcal/bird)
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
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
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
24
determine sensory attributes of the meat through the use of panelists (Northcurt, 1997).
2.6 Conclusion
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
25
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
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
There are reports of increased domestication of the guinea fowl in some parts of
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
Guinea fowls are mainly reared to improve the livelihoods of the farmers through
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
26
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
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
Zimbabwe.
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
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
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,
27
Location of Lower Guruve District
3
2
1
28
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.,
2000).
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
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
The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) (SPSS, 1998) was used for entry
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
29
3.3 RESULTS
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
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,
The groups of guinea fowl farmers who were given the breeding stock through the
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
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%,
30
80
70
Percentage (%)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Men W om en Y o u th G ro u p F a m ily
C la s s
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
31
Table 3.1: Total number (n) and proportion (%) according to class of guinea fowl in the study area
1 2
Flock composition Number (n) 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
32
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
management and unreliable electrical power supply Guinea fowls were allowed to
breed for one breeding season and were then sold or slaughtered.
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.
Many factors were said to be constraints to optimal production and these included
33
Table 3.2: Production estimates of guinea fowls/ household flock for the 2001/2002
breeding season
1
Breeding hens – guinea fowls that reached the reproductive stage
2
Breeding period - the time from the start to end of laying during one breeding season
3
Egg production per hen: - number of eggs produced by one guinea fowl during one
breeding season
4
Hatchability (%) - the proportion of incubated eggs that successfully produce a keet at
under an enclosure
6
Point of lay (mo) - the age at which a guinea fowl hen starts laying eggs
7
Productive life span (yr) - number of years a guinea fowl is allowed to breed before
culling
34
incubation and rearing of keets, inconsistent feed supply, poor housing, mortality and
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
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
35
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.
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
mortality.
Most (94%) of the guinea fowl owners including those supported by the Bio-diversity
experience and from suppliers of breeding stock and other farmers. Additionally, there
36
was a notable absence of production records and organized marketing systems.
However, 96% of the farmers interviewed were interested in forming a guinea fowl
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
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
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
1999). However, there is need to determine the suitability of this model for guinea fowl
rearing in Zimbabwe.
37
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).
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
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
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
38
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
This study revealed that there were many factors limiting guinea fowl production under
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
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
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
39
management practices, respectively (Christophe, 1995; Embury, 2001; Frit’s Farm,
2001).
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
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
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,
general management aspects have recently been acknowledged (Idi, 1996; Kusina J
40
3.5 CONCLUSION
The major finding of this study is that guinea fowl flock sizes were small and
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
41
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
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
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).
cognisance of the fact that there is a dearth of information on guinea fowl production,
and Kusina, 1999; Maphosa, Kusina J, Kusina N. T, Makuza and Sibanda, 2004;
Faced with the economic meltdown prevailing in Zimbabwe today, logic dictates that
farmers adopt agricultural enterprises that ensure low input demands but are
42
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
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
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
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
43
management as well as sales and consumption. Some eggs were collected and
Data were processed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) (1998) to
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
4.3 RESULTS
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
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
44
700
600
500
NUMBER OF BIRDS
400
300
200
100
0
SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MARCH APRIL MAY
MONTH
Figure 4.1: Number and composition of guinea fowls monitored during the 2002 to 2003 breeding season
45
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
46
1800
1400
Eggs Incubated
1200
Eggs Hatched
1000
N umber of
800 layers
600
400
200
0
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR
MONTH
2002 2003
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
47
Table 4.2: Mean mortality of breeders and keets from November 2002 to February 2003
November - 2.0
48
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
The main feed source comprised scavenging although, when available, breeding guinea
fowls were offered supplementary feed constituting mainly sorghum and pearl millet
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
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
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
49
bushes instead of designated cages thereby exposing some eggs to predation.
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
availability; in this study the feed was obtained mainly through scavenging. Any
quality of the feed resources available to the guinea fowl during the breeding season to
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
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
50
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
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
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
(Galor, 1983), disease treatment and prevention was through the use of ethno-
veterinary practice.
51
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
intelligence and priority with emphasis to ensure sufficient breeding stock in view of
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
52
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
care (Nwagu and Alawa, 1995; Saina et al., 2003 a, b). Growth performance of guinea
involve high production inputs and require trained personnel that can be hardly
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
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
53
5.2 MATERIALS AND METHODS
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
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
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
54
Table 5.1 Feeding programme for guinea fowls from 8-16 weeks of age
10 50
11 55
12 55
13 60
14 60
15 60
16 65
55
access to borehole water.
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.
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
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
56
analysis (Panda, 1998; Van Marle-Köster and Webb, 2000). The parameters that were
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
Descriptive statistics were computed using the PROC MEANS procedure of the
MIXED procedure of SAS (1998) was used. The following model was used:
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
57
5.3 RESULTS
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
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.
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
58
Table 5.2: Composition of guinea fowl crop and gizzard contents under semi-extensive management system
1
Grain - maize/white or red sorghum
59
Table 5.3: Proximate analysis of guinea fowl crop contents under two management systems
Intensive² Semi-extensive²
DM 45.6 51.8
1
Estimated 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.
60
Table 5.4: Performance (means ± SE) of guinea fowls reared under intensive and semi-extensive management systems
a-b
Mean with different superscripts across rows differ (p < 0.001)
61
140 0
120 0
***
***
***
100 0
***
***
***
Body mass (g)
80 0 ***
*** Intensive
S em i-extens ive
60 0
40 0
20 0
0
7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
W eek
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
63
Table 5.5: Mean (± standard deviation) carcass characteristics of guinea fowls
reared under intensive and semi-extensive management systems
64
the skin of guinea fowls under intensive management system were higher (p < 0.05)
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
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
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
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
65
Table 5.6: Chemical composition of guinea fowl meat
a-b
Means with similar superscripts across rows are not significantly different at p > 0.05.
n = 10 guinea fowl carcasses per management system
66
Table 5.7: Partial budgets for the two guinea fowl management systems in 2003
1
Fence and equipment costs were amortilised for a period of five years
2
Gross income was based on body weight of the birds at 16 weeks of age
67
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-
considering that there is need for more energy for movement in search of food and
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
68
extensive management system (16.7%) was mainly caused by predators and is
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
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
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
69
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
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
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
70
being practised by the farmers is favoured economically the inferior carcass yield may
71
CHAPTER 6: GENERAL DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION
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
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
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.
72
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
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) .
rate of 3 to 5% for keets is accepted under commercial guinea fowl production (Galor,
73
and proper feed and medication provided for 3 to 6 weeks (US Department of
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
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
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
74
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
fowl meat to validate these findings. This information might be essential in marketing
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
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
6.2 Conclusion
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
75
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
production.
This study provided baseline information on guinea fowl production and performance
commercialise guinea fowl production in Zimbabwe. The following are research topics
1. Determining the age at which guinea fowls reach slaughter age under semi-
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
guinea fowls
76
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.
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.
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:
77
(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.
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.
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.
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.
78
Chambers, R. 1993. Challenging the Professions: Frontiers for Rural Development.
Intermediate Technology Publications, London, UK.
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.
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.
Embury, I. 2001. Raising guinea fowl. Agfact. A5.0.8. New South Wales Agriculture
Publications, New South Wales, USA, pp 4.
79
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.
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.
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.
80
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.
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., 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.
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.
81
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.
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.
82
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.
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.
83
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.
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.
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.
84
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
Date:
Number of questionnaire:
Category Number
Adult females
Adult males
Keets and growers
4. Who owns the guinea fowls? (Mark the correct response with an “X”)
Husband
Wife
Son(s)
Daughter(s)
Other - who?
6. Where does the household keep guinea fowl during the day (D) and at night (N)?
Adult Keets Location Materials Size
D N D N
Tree
Guinea fowl house on the
85
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
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?
86
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
34. Do you ever vaccinate your guinea fowl against any disease?
Nutrition
37. What type of food do you give your chickens?
Type of food Frequency Time of year
Nothing
87
Maize
Sunflower
Food scraps - what?
Sorghum
Maize bran
Other - what?
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?
88
Appendix 2
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
89
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.
Visit B
4 Veterinary and other inputs for poultry since the last visit
Visit B
90
5 Mortality of guinea fowls
date Keets Growers Hen Cock Cause disposal method Prevention method
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………
91
Appendix 3
Eggs Egg Eggs under Keets hatched Keet mortality Keets Keets sold Balance stock on
collected spoiled incubation surviving hand
wk total wk total wk total wk total wk total wk total wk total Wk total
to to to to date to date to date to date to date
date date date
Total C/F
from
monday
tuesday
wednesday
thursday
Friday
saturday
sunday
Totals for
week
Totals for
season C/F
92
Appendix 4
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
Purchase/sale
Gifts
Slaughter
Hatch/death
Theft
Move group
TOTAL + - + - + - + - + - + - + -
Closing flock
93
Appendix 5:
SAS output on body mass of guinea fowls under intensive (1) and semi-extensive
94
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
95
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
96
Appendix 6
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
97
Table A6.5 Means and standard deviations of chemical composition of guinea fowl meat
-----------RESPONSE----------
TREATMENT COMPOSITION N Mean SD
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
98
Appendix 7:
Guinea fowl production technologies
and systems practiced and tested in
Lower Guruve District of Zimbabwe
Semi-extensive guinea fowl production
Natural incubation of guinea fowl eggs
Intensive guinea fowl production
system
Artificial incubation of guinea fowl eggs
99