GUINEA FOWL (Numidia meleagris) PRODUCTION UNDER SMALLHOLDER FARMER MANAGEMENT IN GURUVE DISTRICT, ZIMBABWE

By Happyson Saina A thesis submitted to the Department of Animal Science Faculty of Agriculture University of Zimbabwe

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTERS OF PHILOSOPHY October 2005

ABSTRACT
The objective of this study was to characterize guinea fowl production under smallholder farmer management and compare growth performances and carcass quality between freerange 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
I acknowledge the guidance and supervision of Prof N T Kusina, Dr J Kusina and Dr Chamhanza. My understanding of the subject grew from my frequent discussions and association with them. I owe the same debt to Prof H Hamudikuwanda and Dr E Bhebhe who also guided and supervised my work. The support of Dr S Lebel is greatly appreciated as a field supervisor and for logistics. I also greatly appreciate the encouragement, advice and support I got from my former counselor, the Animal Science Department Chairman, Prof Makuza. Financial support from DANIDA, CIRAD, University of Zimbabwe

Research Board and AED-WKKF is greatly appreciated. I also thank the FACHIG for accommodating me during my stay in the study area and the provision of logistical support. I am indebted to my wife, Rachel and son, Ernest, for bearing with me during my studies.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ………………………………………………………………… vi LIST OF FIGURES ……………………………………………………………….. vii LIST OF APPENDICES …………………………………………………………... viii LIST OF ABREVIATIONS ………………………………………………………. ix 1 INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………. 1 1.1 General Introduction……………………………………………………….. 1 2 LITERATURE REVIEW …………………………………………….. 5 2.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………. 5 2.2 Guinea fowl management systems ……………………………………….. 6 2.3 Productivity of guinea fowls ………………………………………………7 2.4 Factors affecting guinea fowl production ………………………………… 12 2.5 Research methods ………………………………………………………… 18 2.6 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………….. 22 3 A SURVEY OF HELMETED GUINEA FOWL (Numidia meleagris) MANAGEMENT AND PRODUCTION BY SMALLHOLDER FARMERS IN LOWER GURUVE DISTRICT OF ZIMBABWE …………………… 23 3.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………….. 23 3.2 Research methodology……………………………………………………. 24 3.2.1 Study area ………………………………………………………………24 3.2.2 Data collection ………………………………………………………… 26 3.2.3 Data analysis ……………………………………………………………26 3.3 Results ………………………………………………………….………… 27 3.3.1 Flock ownership and adoption ………………………………… ………27 3.3.2 Production systems ……………………………………………………. 27 3.3.3 Flock structure and production efficiency …………………………….. 27 3.3.4 Uses of Guinea fowl and products ……………… ……………………. 30 3.3.5 Factors limiting smallholder guinea fowl production …………………. 32 3.4 Discussion …….………………………………………………………….. 34 3.5 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………37 4 MONITORING STUDY OF GUINEA FOWL PRODUCTION UNDER TRADITIONAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN GURUVE DISTRICT OF ZIMBABWE….……………………………………..……………….. 39 4.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………. ………39 4.2 Research Methodology …………………………………………………… 40 4.2.1 Study area ………………………………………………………………40 4.2.2 Farmer selection ………………….……………………………………. 40 4.2.3 Data collection ………………………………………………………… 41 4.2.4 Data analysis ……………………………….………………………….. 41 4.3 Results ……………………………………………………………………. 42 4.3.1 Productivity ………..………………………………………………… 42 4.3.2 Reproductive performance …………………………………….. ………42 4.3.3 Feeding and housing management…………………………………… 42 4.3.4 Keet growth performance……………………………………………… 42 4.3.5 Marketing and consumption…………………………………………… 47

iv

4.4 Discussion ………………………………………………………… ………49 4.5 Conclusion …………………………………………………………………52 5 GROWTH AND CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS OF GUINEA FOWLS (Numidia meleagris) REARED UNDER INTENSIVE AND SEMIEXTENSIVE 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 semiextensive 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 semiextensive 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
Appendix1: Survey questionnaire on guinea fowl production by smallholder farmers…………………………………………………………………… 85 Appendix2: Monitoring questionnaire on guinea fowl production by smallholder farmers ……………………………………………………………………………... 89 Appendix 3: Weekly guinea fowl production summary sheet……………………. 92 Appendix 4: Flock inventory form……………………………………………….. 93 Appendix 5: SAS out put on body mass of guinea fowls under intensive (1) and semiextensive management systems (2)……………………………………….. 94 Appendix 6: Descriptive statistics and paired-comparison T Test of carcass composition parameters…………………………………………………… 97 Appendix 7: Guinea fowl production technologies and systems practiced and tested in Lower Guruve District of Zimbabwe…………………………………….. 99

viii

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AED-WKKF - Academic for Educational Advancement World K. Kellogg Foundation ANOVA - Analysis of variance CIRAD - Center for International Research in Agriculture and Development CP - Crude protein DM -Dry matter FACHIG - Farmers Association of chief and headman investment groups GLM - General linear model kcal - kilo calories kj - kilo joules ME - Metabolisable energy Mj - Mega joules

ix

CHAPTER 1: GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Development of family poultry is regarded as an alternative way to alleviate poverty and ensure food security for socially and economically disadvantaged rural households (Branckaert and Gue’ye, 1999). In sub-Saharan Africa, there are several species of poultry; their distribution varies from one region to the other depending on both the physical and social environment. In rural Zimbabwe, these species include chickens, guinea fowls, turkeys, ducks and pigeons (Kusina J and Kusina N. T, 1999).

The guinea fowl has ubiquitous distribution in Africa and has distinct popularity with smallholder farmers (Microlivestock, 1991; Nwagu and Alawa, 1995; Bonds, 1997). This bird occurs in few areas of Asia and Latin America as a semi-domesticated species, while in Europe, North America and Australia, large scale production of guinea fowl dominates (Microlivestock, 1991; Nwagu and Alawa, 1995; Bonds, 1997; Embury, 2001). Its attractive plumage and value as a table bird with game-type

flavour and high meat to bone ratio has led to its worldwide acceptance (Embury, 2001). Moreover, guinea fowl has a unique ability to free range and is tolerant to most common diseases of chicken (Bonds, 1997; Dieng, Gue’ye, Mahoungou-Mouelle and Buldgen, 1999; Mandal, Pathak and Singh, 1999).

In Zimbabwe, especially along the Zambezi valley, there is an increase in the number of smallholder farmers rearing guinea fowls (Anonymous, 1998; Kusina and Kusina, 1999; Dondofema, 2000; Saina, 2001). Chivandi, Mbundure and Mufumisi (2002) reported that Binga, Gokwe, Guruve, Rushinga and the southeastern Lowveld area of Matibi District are key areas of guinea fowl farming by communal farmers of

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 during the festive seasons.

The acceptability of guinea fowl and guinea fowl products, due to their quality and limited cultural barriers on consumption, indicates that there is a potential market. Compared to village chickens, the guinea fowl’s advantages are: low production cost, premium quality meat, greater capacity to scavenge for insects and grains, better ability to protect itself against predators and better resistance to common poultry parasites and diseases tha chickens; for example, Newcastle Disease and Fowl Pox (Microlivestock, 1991). This indicates that there is potential for smallholder farmers to improve guinea fowl production in order to increase household protein supply, combat rural proteinenergy-malnutrition and increase income. The foraging ability, hardiness and minimal production input requirements of guinea fowl would ensure a reasonable profit for the farmers. The opportunity to tap modern technology in guinea fowl production, for example, strategic supplementary feeding, sexing, use of light control programmes for breeders, control of feral behaviour and selection, may lead to an increase in guinea fowl productivity in the smallholder-farming sector.

The successful production of guinea fowl in Zimbabwe has great potential to improve the economy through the selling of the birds to lucrative markets such as restaurants and hotels. Zimbabwean farmers involved in farming of guinea fowls are reaping substantial financial returns from sales of live guinea fowls and eggs. The market value of mature live guinea fowl was US$9.71 to US$18.20 per bird (December, 2003;

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 improvement of human protein nutrition in Zimbabwe. Currently, guinea fowl

production is mainly concentrated in very hot marginally productive areas thus providing an alternative land use. The competition between livestock and human beings for grain gives a competitive advantage of free ranging poultry over intensive poultry production. In this case, guinea fowl production could be an alternative way to

alleviate poverty among the rural households. Moreover, guinea fowl have been known to co-exist profitably with other livestock and crop enterprises. For example, guinea fowls control ticks in livestock and insects in gardens without scratching the soil (unlike chickens), and provide manure, which can be used to enhance growth of horticultural and other crops.

1.2 Problem statement
The management requirements of guinea fowl are minimal as the bird can be kept under free ranging conditions with minimal grain supplementation and provision of basic overnight accommodation. Therefore, smallholder farmers can easily adopt the production of guinea fowls for income generation and as a source of dietary protein. However, scant information is available on traditional guinea fowl production practices and marketing in Sub-Saharan Africa, including Zimbabwe. There is also limited

3

information on the performance of guinea fowl under semi-extensive and intensive systems of production in Zimbabwe. Information on guinea fowl production and marketing is necessary in order to identify opportunities to exploit and promote guinea fowl production and marketing by smallholder farmers and enhance income generation, ensure food security and contribute to poverty alleviation in smallholder farming communities.

1.3 Objectives
The main objective of this study was characterizing guinea fowl production under smallholder farmer management systems in the Guruve District of Zimbabwe. The specific objectives were to: • Determine guinea fowl flock dynamics and guinea fowl production parameters • Determine productivity, particularly growth performance and carcass quality of guinea fowls, under semi-extensive and intensive management systems The hypotheses tested were: • Guinea fowl production is low under the current systems of management by smallholder farmers • Productivity of guinea fowls reared under semi-extensive management system is lower than those under intensive management system

4

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Introduction
Helmeted guinea fowls (Numida meleagris) originated in Africa (Belshaw, 1985; Somes, 1996; Anonymous, 2001; Embury, 2001) and were first domesticated by ancient Egyptians (Bonds, 1997; Oakland Zoo, 2001). They are currently being reared in many parts of the world. In countries such as France, Belgium, Canada and Australia the bird is now produced commercially on a large scale (Robinson, 2000; Embury, 2001), while in most African countries which include Nigeria, Malawi and Zimbabwe, guinea fowl production is in its infancy (Nwagu and Alawa, 1995; Dondofema, 2000; Ligomela, 2000; Smith, 2000; Saina, 2001).

In Zimbabwe, there are two types of guinea fowl species that could be found at rural households. These include Numidia ptilorhycha and Numidia meleagris. . The N. ptilorhycha (blue wattled guinea fowl) is indigenous to the country. It is medium sized and greyish blue with white sports on its feathers and the adult can weigh up to 1.8 kg (Belshaw, 1985; Microlivestock, 1991; Binali and Kanengoni, 1998). However, the N. meleagris (red wattled guinea fowl) is from West Africa. It is a docile bird that can lay in captivity (Belshaw, 1985; Microlivestock, 1991; Binali and Kanengoni, 1998). This species of guinea fowl can be easily tamed and its production potential under domestication resulted in its wide domestication in Africa and had been exported to Europe for genetic improvement for intensive production.

The guinea fowl (N. meleagris) production is associated with smallholder farmers in Africa (Smith, 2000) and is described as a “poor man’s pheasant” (Bonds, 1997). This

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 management systems being adopted by the farmers. However, management system, nutrition, diseases, housing and the provision of extension services and the availability of a market for the products influence the productivity of guinea fowl.

2.2 Guinea fowl management systems
Poultry management systems in Africa are differentiated on the basis of flock size and input-output relationships (Kitalyi, 1999). These include extensive, semi-intensive and intensive management systems. In the extensive management system, different species of poultry that include guinea fowls, chickens, ducks and turkeys are kept. In general, poultry production by smallholder farmers in rural areas is mainly extensive (Branckaert and Gueye, 1999; Kitalyi, 1999) but backyard poultry production in urban areas is either intensive or semi-intensive (Mallia, 1999). Under the extensive management system, no standard poultry management practices are followed. The system is characterized by minimum inputs, with birds scavenging, no investments beyond the foundation stock, a handful of grain each day and simple night enclosures.

The semi-intensive poultry management system refers to the provision of permanent housing with access provided to a yard or the surrounding environment (Fanatico,

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 from the vagaries of nature through housing and disease control.

The intensive system of guinea fowl production is based on specialized breeds of guinea fowls (broilers, breeders and layers). Currently this system of management is mainly practised in developed countries where specialized breeds of guinea fowl have been developed and the production is commercialized (Galor, 1983; Robinson, 2000; Embury, 2001). In addition, standard poultry management practices such as appropriate housing, feeding and disease control programmes are followed.

In Zimbabwe, the guinea fowl management systems by smallholder farmers have not been well defined. The management systems need to be defined and the constraints faced by the farmers identified in order to develop appropriate programmes to assist the farmers to reach their goals. However, current information shows that the smallholder farmers keep the guinea fowls under almost free range basis with minimum grain supplements and provision of basic overnight accommodation (Chivandi et al., 2002).

2.3 Productivity of guinea fowls
There is a great variation in the performance of unimproved guinea fowls reared by smallholder farmers. In addition, the performance also varies between the guinea fowl (Numidia meleagris) strains that include White, Black, Lavender, Pearl, Splashed and

7

Dan (Belshaw, 1985; Ayorinde, Ayeni and Oluyemi, 1989; Nwagu and Alawa, 1995; Somes, 1996). The production characteristics of economic interest in guinea fowls which have been documented are slaughter weight, age at point of lay, egg production per season, incubation period, egg fertility, hatchability of eggs and rate of keet survival (Ayorinde et al., 1989; Mundra, Raheja and Singh, 1993; Nwagu and Alawa, 1995; Embury, 2001).

2.3.1 Body weight gain
Mundra et al. (1993) estimated the genetic and phenotypic parameters for growth and conformation traits of guinea fowl. They found that there is a high coefficient of

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 reared in developed countries such as France and Australia (Microlivestock, 1991; Embury, 2001).

The optimum age of slaughtering the guinea fowls is the 16th week of age on account of the subsequent decline in feed conversion efficiency (Ayorinde et al., 1989; Knox, 2000; Robinson, 2000; Embury, 2001). At this age liveweight of unimproved indigenous guinea fowl reach approximately 1 kg (Ayorinde et al., 1989; Mundra et al., 1993) while improved strains reach approximately 2 kg (Knox, 2000; Embury, 2001). Other improved guinea fowl strains such as the Galor guinea fowl can now be slaughtered at 11 weeks weighing 1.55 kg live weight (Galor, 1985).

2.3.2
2.3.2.1

Laying and incubation of eggs
Egg production

The age at first lay of a guinea fowl hen varies from 26 to 32 weeks (Belshaw, 1985; Nwagu, 1997). The breeding of guinea fowl occurs during the rainy season, i.e., October to April in the Southern Hemisphere (Kabera, 1997; Anonymous, 1998; Embury, 2001). The number of eggs laid per season varies from 50 to 170 (Nwagu and Alawa, 1995; Anonymous, 1998; Binali and Kanengoni, 1998) in tropical environments. Breeders generally produce well for 2 to 3 years (United States (US), Department of Agriculture, 1976; Ayorinde et al., 1989).

9

Table 2.1 Means (± SE) and coefficients of variations (CV) of body weight at different ages of guinea fowl Age Day old 4th week 8th week 12th week 16th week Mean ± SE (g) 23.82 ± 0.03 124.70 ± 0.56 384.30 ± 1.41 702.41 ± 2.15 985.04 ± 2.65 CV % 11.14 31.23 23.94 18.27 13.86

Adopted from Mundra et al. (1993)

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 (Belshaw, 1985; Smith, 2000; Anonymous, 2001; Embury, 2001). US Department of Agriculture (1976) reported that 12 to 15 eggs may be set under a guinea fowl hen while 20 to 28 may be set under a large chicken hen. However, Embury (2001) noted that 12 to 15 fertile guinea fowl eggs are best hatched under a broody chicken hen.

Storage and incubation conditions are important for hatchability of guinea fowl eggs. The recommended the storage conditions of guinea fowl eggs are 10-18ºC with relative humidity of 70-80% (Galor, 1983; Belshaw, 1985; Binali and Kanengoni, 1998). However, it is not recommended to store guinea fowl eggs intended for incubation for more than 7 days because hatchability of guinea fowl eggs decreases rapidly with storage time (Galor, 1983, Nwagu, 1997; Binali and Kanengoni, 1998). The incubation conditions for artificial incubation of guinea fowl eggs varies from a temperature of 37.5- 37.8 ºC and 55-60% Relative Humidity (R.H) for the first 23-25 days, 37.4 ºC and 70% R.H for the next 2 days and 36.4 ºC and 98% R.H. for the last 2 days of incubation (Galor, 1983; Belshaw, 1985; Binali and Kanengoni, 1998). Incubation trap doors should be adjusted to increase ventilation for the last 2 days of incubation. Egg

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).

2.3.3

Fertility and hatchability

Fertility and hatchability are major constraints in guinea fowl production. Guinea fowl cocks have smaller testicular size (1-9 g) than chicken cocks (14-16 g) (Belshaw, 1985; Nwagu and Alawa, 1995). This may place guinea fowl at a disadvantage because sperm production is associated with size of the testis in poultry (Ayorinde et al., 1989). Nwagu and Alawa (1995) found that low relative humidity, low rainfall and high temperature result in a reduction of semen production. This is also associated with low spermatozoa concentration, a high percentage of sperm abnormality and a high dead to live spermatozoa ratio. The fertility of guinea fowl eggs ranges from 49 to 58% in naturally mated stock, while using artificial insemination results in egg fertility ranging from 70 to 88% (Galor, 1983; Ayorinde et al., 1989). The low fertility in naturally mated stock is also associated with monogamous sexual behavior of the guinea fowl in addition to the fertility constraints with the male. On the other hand, handling of eggs before incubation and period of storage greatly affect the hatchability of guinea fowl eggs. Nwagu and Alawa (1995) reported that for every day of storage, the hatchability deteriorated by nearly 4%. Hatchability rates of 67% (Kabera, 1997) and 70-75% (Galor, 1983) have been achieved under artificial incubation.

2.3.4

Keet survivability

Guinea keet survival is essential for successful guinea fowl production. The susceptibility of the keets to adverse weather conditions, diseases and poor mothering by the guinea fowl hen led to high keet mortality (Embury, 2001; Frit’s Farm, 2001).

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 enterprise. In addition, access to extension services is essential to provide appropriate technologies to enhance the productivity of guinea fowls.

2.4 Factors affecting guinea fowl production
2.4.1 Nutrition

Scavenging is the main feeding system under free-range guinea fowl production systems in rural areas of Zimbabwe. According to Kusina and Kusina (1999), feed supply is one of the main constraints to rural poultry production in Guruve District of Zimbabwe. Guinea fowl have a unique ability to utilize a wide range of flora and fauna as feed resource bases. They consume non-conventional feed that is not used in chicken feeding (Bonds, 1997; Frit’s Farm, 2001; Oakland Zoo, 2001). Therefore, the guinea fowl has competitive advantages over chicken as a free ranging bird. In addition, 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 nitrogen-free-extract and lignin components of feed.

There is a potential to increase guinea fowl meat and egg production through improvements of some indigenous practices in extensive production systems. This potential is closely linked to an appropriate use of the locally available feed resources. The types of feed available to scavenging guinea fowl in rural areas of Zimbabwe are not well known. Mandal, Pathak and Singh (1999) showed that the requirements for ME for guinea fowl are 11.30 and 12.13 MJ/kg DM during the 0 to 4 and 5 to 12 weeks of age with 220, 200 and 160 g CP/kg DM during 0 to 4, 5 to 8 and 9 to 12 weeks of age, respectively.

Formulated rations for guinea fowl are available from commercial feed millers in countries such as Australia, France and Italy (Galor 1983; Embury, 2001). Embury (2001) reported that the starter ration should contain 240 g CP/kg DM and should be given to the keets for the first four weeks of life; while a grower’s ration of 200 g CP/kg DM should be used until eight weeks of age and a finisher ration of 160 g CP/kg DM should be given until marketing. According to Galor (1983) guinea fowl breeders and layers are given 170 g CP/kg DM and 2750 kcal/kg from 29 weeks of age to 40 weeks; after 40 weeks of age the protein levels would be reduced to 165 g CP/kg DM in the diet for optimum production. According to Tadelle (1996) supplementing about 50% of the dietary needs of scavenging village poultry can improve productivity by a

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 production. Therefore, a balanced ration, which meets the nutritional requirements, is considered a prerequisite for efficient egg and meat production.

2.4.2

Health Management

Scanty information is available on health management of guinea fowls in Zimbabwe to date. Nonetheless, there is a substantial body of literature worldwide on guinea fowl health management, diseases and their effects on productivity. These can be broadly classified under viral, bacterial and parasitic diseases as depicted in sections that follow.

2.4.2.1

Viral diseases

Although guinea fowls are believed to be tolerant to the common diseases of chickens such as Newcastle Disease and Fowl Pox (Microlivestock, 1991; Bonds, 1997; Dieng, Gue’ye, Mahoungou-Mouelle and Buldgen, 1999; Mandal et al., 1999; Chivandi et al., 2002), a wide range of viral, bacterial and parasitic poultry diseases have been reported to affect both experimentally and naturally, this species. In some instances, some disease outbreaks affecting chickens have not spared guinea fowls. An outbreak of a highly pathogenic type of avian influenza (H7N1) in Italy caused mortalities of up to 100% in chickens and guinea fowls, whereas pheasants and ducks were tolerant (Zanella, Dall’Ava, and Martino, 2001). Another important disease of poultry and other birds, Newcastle Disease, was reported to occur naturally in guinea fowls (Aeitken,

16

Allan, Biggs, Gordon, and Jordan, 1977; Durojaiye, Agoha, Akpaive and Adene, 1992; Haruna, Shamaki, Echeonwu, Majiyagbe and Shuayibu, 1993). Experimental infection with a virulent virus isolated from outbreaks of Newcastle Disease in chickens killed 100% of keets inoculated after eight days of age.

An adenovirus associated with pancreatitis has been reported to occur in guinea fowls (Zellen, Key and Jack, 1989; Chalton and Bickford, 1995). A similar disease was experimentally reproduced in guinea fowls after inoculation with an adenovirus isolated from an ostrich that had revealed lesions of pancreatitis at post mortem. Six out of 15 keets died in this experiment (Capua, Gouph, Scaramozzino, Lelli and Gatti, 1994). Other viruses that have been reported in guinea fowls include reoviruses (Tanyi, Glavits, Salyi, Rudas, Kosa and Szabo, 1994; Ito, Jerez, Miraj, Capellaro Cemp-dal and Catroxo, 1996), a toga-like virus associated with high mortalities (Brahem, Demarquez, Beyrie, Vuillaume and Fleury, 1992) and a pneumovirus associated with the swollen head syndrome (Litjerns, Kleyn-van-Willigen and Sinke, 1989).

2.4.2.2

Bacterial diseases

Several bacterial diseases have been reported to occur in guinea fowls. Outbreaks of Fowl Typhoid in guinea fowls were reported as far back as the 1930s and 1940s (Johnson and Anderson, 1933; Moore, 1943), while in Australia, a disease associated with high mortality, loss of weight and drooping of wings in ten-week old guinea fowls was diagnosed to be caused by erysipelothrix, a zoonotic bacterium which is more virulent in turkeys than in chickens (Campbell, Taylor and Harrower, 1992). This organism has been reported by several workers in France (Laroche, 1985; Vaissaive, Desmettre, Paille, Mivial and Laroche, 1985) and in Australia (Eamens and Schenk,

17

1985) to cause disease in guinea fowls. Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale bacterium, was isolated from a number of birds showing respiratory symptoms including a guinea fowl in France (Leroy-Sentrin, Flaujac, Thenaisy and Chaslus-Dancla, 1998). Bessin et al. (1998) reported that other bacteria isolated from guinea fowls in surveys included, E. coli, Salmonella, Klebsiella, Proteus, Pseudomonas and Enterobacter. The effect of bacterial diseases, especially salmonella cause convulsions and death will occurin two to five days (Belshaw, 1985).

2.4.2.3

Parasitic diseases

The most common parasitic infection reported in guinea fowls has been Heterakis gallinarum (Khan, Iqbal and Ashraf, 1994a; Khan, Iqbal, Ashraf, 1994b; Nwagu and Alawa, 1995; Santa-Cruz, Ortiz-de-Rott and Resoagli, 1998). This nematode, which is relatively non-pathogenic in chickens, has been shown to cause granulomas in caeca of guinea fowls in Pakistan (Khan et al., 1994a; Khan et al., 1994b). Haziev and Khan (1991) reported H. gallinarum as having the highest incidence and affecting 100% of all guinea fowls infected with helminths. Outbreaks and occurrences of Ascaridiosis have been reported as well (Haziev and Khan 1991; Nwagu and Alawa, 1995; Souza, Rodrigues, Lopes and De-Souza, 1997; Bessin et al., 1998). The species Ascaridia numida has been associated with intestinal obstruction and mucoid enteritis leading to emaciation and in some cases death of young guinea fowls (Souza et al., 1997). However, other papers reported the ascarid in guinea fowl as Ascaridia galli, the main ascarid of chickens (Haziev and Khan, 1991; Nwagu and Alawa, 1995).

Other internal parasites of importance reported in guinea fowls are: Capillaria caudiflata, Eimeria species (Coccidioisis) (Nwagu and Alawa, 1995; Bessin et al.,

18

1998), while parasites such as Leucocytozoon naevei, cryptosporidiosis and cestodes such as Raillietina tetragona have been encountered in guinea fowls (Lakshminarasimh and Onyeanus, 1988; Blagburn, Angus and Blewett, 1989; Haziev and Khan, 1991). Their importance as disease agents has not been proven. External parasites of guinea fowls are almost the same as those of range chickens and include species of lice, mites, fleas and soft ticks (Okaeme, 1988). However, a survey carried out in Nigeria by Nwagu and Alawa (1995) reported the main ectoparasites in guinea fowls as Damalina species of lice and the soft tick of chickens namely Argus persicus.

2.4.3

Housing

Housing requirements for adult and breeding birds differ from those of keets. Free ranging poultry on smallholder farms are housed under small confinements where different species and age groups of poultry are mixed. In some cases, poultry roost in trees and are not housed (Kitalyi, 1999). Frits Farm (2001) reported that there is no requirement for elaborate and expensive housing for guinea fowl. However, there is need for adequate protection of keets from predators and harsh environmental conditions. There is also need to provide overnight shelter to protect adult and breeding birds from predation (Knox, 2000; Embury, 2001). Knox (2000) indicated that shelter should be provided and that its construction should be dictated by management methods. Nevertheless, the floor space for any type of house constructed for guinea fowls should meet the stocking density of 20 keets per square metre at day old, 8 birds per square metre by 10 weeks of age and 4 birds per square metre for the breeding stock (Knox, 2000; Embury, 2001).

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 on availability of guinea fowl products as product availability is seasonal. Research is, therefore, necessary to try to bridge this production gap. The rate of lay is affected by day length and temperature (Microlivestock, 1991). Possible ways to encourage breeding of guinea fowls throughout the year include intensive or semi-intensive production and using artificial lighting regimes that might allow the guinea fowl to breed throughout the year. However, there is need to ensure that there is an accessible market for the guinea fowl products (Knox, 2000). Market research is, therefore, a prerequisite for the success of smallholder commercial guinea fowl production. In addition, it is recommended that guinea fowl products be promoted, especially in areas where they are mostly consumed on special occasions (Knox, 2000; Robinson, 2000).

2.4.5

Extension services

Extension services for smallholder farmers are essential for improvement of guinea fowl management and marketing. Limited knowledge and research on guinea fowl biology and production led to extrapolation of data from chickens. There is risk associated with this because there are genetic and phenotypic differences between these species of poultry (Nwagu and Alawa, 1995).

20

2.5 Research methods 2.5.1 Survey methods
There are several methods that are used in collecting livestock production related data in on-farm studies. For the purpose of this study, informal and formal surveys and long term monitoring studies will be reviewed. Informal surveys are conducted in order to develop a rapid understanding of the farmer’s circumstances, practices and constraints (Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maizy Trigo (CIMMYT), 1980; Chikura, 1999). They are useful when collecting producers’ strategies, decision making, social aspects of the production process and other sensitive information which is difficult to collect using structural questionnaires (ILCA, 1983; Chikura, 1999). The information is collected using Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) techniques. Participatory Rural Appraisal was developed to gain information directly from rural communities and to enable the communities to do the analysis and planning using the information obtained. Participatory Rural Appraisal has three foundations: methods, behaviour and attitudes; and sharing (Chambers, 1993) and is used to collect qualitative data.

Formal surveys rely on the administration of precisely designed questionnaires through enumerators. They provide standardized and quantifiable data that can be analyzed statistically (CIMMYT, 1980; Chikura, 1999). The accuracy of the data collected from formal surveys depends on the quality of enumerators and questionnaires, the type of data to be collected, the frequency of visits and cooperation of respondents (International Livestock Centre for Africa (ILCA), 1983; Chikura, 1999). Errors can be minimized by proper selection, training and supervision of enumerators and paying attention to the details of the questionnaire (Chikura, 1999).

21

Long term monitoring studies are designed to provide data on livestock productivity such as egg production, hatchings, mortality, offtakes, weight gains/losses by season and year, meat production and/or flock dynamics. A minimum of 10 herds/flocks for each species should be used with not less than 300 animals of each species being recorded initially (Chikura, 1999). In the early stages, subsequent visits should be done in two week intervals or less. This can be reduced to between four and six weeks once confidence in the ability of both the researcher and the owner to record and report all events has been developed (ILCA, 1983; Chikura, 1999). In order to minimize seasonal effects, the study should take a minimum of 3 years (Chikura, 1999). However, some useful indications on productivity parameters will be available after 12 to 18 months of data collection (ILCA, 1983; Chikura, 1999).

2.5.2 Nutritional study methods
Proper estimation of feed intake by scavenging poultry is an important prerequisite for improving feeding systems and management. Methods used to estimate feed intake of scavenging birds include crop content analysis (Huque, 1999), calculation of scavenging feed resource base (SFRB) (Roberts and Gunaratne, 1992; Gunaratne, 1999; Olukosi and Sonaiya, 2003) and the novel pairing technique (Ajuyah, 1999). The crop content analysis method is used when determining the nutritional status of feed consumed by the free ranging poultry. It involves the collection of birds during the scavenging time, weighing and sacrificing the birds on the spot by bleeding at the cervical region. The birds are opened for internal organs. Feed in the crop and gizzards of the scavenging birds are collected for further analysis. The collected feed items are identified through eye observation. Proximate components (Dry Matter, Ash, Crude Protein, Ether extract, Crude Fibre, Nitrogen Free extract) of the feed samples are

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 phosphorus determination to find out the availability of these minerals in the scavenging feed resource base (Huque, 1999).

In order to estimate the quantity of scavengable feed available on the free range two methods are applied. These include one based on the measurement of household left overs and the other derived from calculations based on life performance of birds. The scavenging feed (g/bird/day) based on measurement of household leftovers as obtained from Roberts (1999) and modified by Olukosi and Sonaiya (2003) is: SF = [H/P] x [n/T] where: SF = scavengable feed (g/bird/day) H = quantity of household left overs, P = Proportion of H in the crop content, n = total of households in the village, T = Total number of birds in the village.

The SF (kg/ flock per year) derived from calculations based on life performance of birds as obtained by Roberts and Gunaratne (1992) formulae is: SFRB = J x Ej/Es where: SFRB = Scavengable feed resource base (kg/ flock/year) J = average flock size

23

Ej= The ME requirement for daily maintenance and production of each bird (kcal/bird) Es = the ME in the scavenged feed (Kcal/kg dry weight).

The amount of protein and energy in the scavengable feed resource base of scavenging poultry can be determined by crop content analysis. However, this method does not provide information on apparent and true digestibility of the feed. Ajuyah (1999) proposed the “novel pairing technique” which relates the nutrient composition of crop content to faecal excretion and ileum digesta content between different pairs of birds of similar age, weight and sex. This method enables the acquisition of quantitative and qualitative data to estimate feed intake and utilization by village poultry and the determination of the effect of supplementary feeding and feed composition on the scavenging ability and growth rate of rural poultry.

2.5.3 Carcass analysis techniques
There are several methods used to analyze carcass quality. For the purpose of this study three methods will be reviewed. These include physical dissection and chemical analysis (Panda, 1998; Van Marle-Köster and Webb, 2000), and organoleptic tests (Northcurt, 1997). Physical dissection involves precise cutting of a carcass into commercially cut parts and weighing the parts to determine meat and bone yield. In poultry commercially cut parts include thigh, breast, drumstick, wing, back and neck (Panda, 1998; Oduguwa, Oduguwa, Fanimo and Dipeolu, 2000). Chemical analysis is done to evaluate the nutritive value of the meat in terms of protein, fat, water and minerals using the proximate analysis (AOAC, 1990). Organolepric test go further to

24

determine sensory attributes of the meat through the use of panelists (Northcurt, 1997). These include appearance, texture and flavour.

2.6 Conclusion
There is a great potential to commercialize smallholder guinea fowl production in Zimbabwe. However, information on guinea fowl management and productivity is lacking. There is need for information on growth rate, body weights, mortality and causes of mortality, carcass yield, egg production, egg weights, laying intensity, fertility and hatchability of the guinea fowl eggs, especially under free ranging conditions. In addition, the information on diseases and parasites affecting the bird, which is necessary for designing disease control strategies, is lacking. Therefore, there is need for research on current smallholder guinea fowl management practices and productivity under the current management systems. There is also need to experiment whether improving the current management system has any significant effect on the productivity of the birds. The weight gain, mortality, carcass characteristics, egg production, egg fertility and hatchability of the guinea fowl need to be evaluated under different management systems in order to find out the management system optimal for commercial smallholder guinea fowl production.

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 elsewhere in Africa on village chickens, being the predominant poultry species, accounting for about 68% of all poultry types (Byarugaba, Olsen and KatungukaRwakishaya, 2000; Kusina J, Kusina N. T. and Mhlanga, 2000). Despite research and development work on chickens, very little has been done to promote other poultry species like guinea fowls.

There are reports of increased domestication of the guinea fowl in some parts of Zimbabwe including Guruve, Muzarabani, Gokwe and Binga Districts (Anonymous, 1998; Kusina and Kusina, 1999; Dondofema, 2000; Baudet, Hiscock and Hachileka, 2001; Saina, 2001, Chivandi et al., 2002). However, very little attention had been paid to guinea fowl production in terms of research and development. This has resulted in a scarcity of information on the status of guinea fowl production in Zimbabwe.

Guinea fowls are mainly reared to improve the livelihoods of the farmers through improved nutrition, income generation by selling of eggs and birds, employment creation and through eco-tourism (Kusina and Muchenje, 1999). Therefore, guinea fowl production has a great potential not only to alleviate poverty and improve the rural economy but also to encourage smallholder farmers to conserve the natural 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 information on the management and production of guinea fowls under smallholder farmer management. This information is essential if any prospective endeavours to improve the current production levels are to be undertaken successfully. The objective of this survey was to get an overview of guinea fowl production, utilization and management by smallholder farmers in Dande communal area, in Guruve District of Zimbabwe.

3.2 3.2.1

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Study area

The study was carried out between June and July 2002 in three wards of Dande Communal Area in Lower Guruve District. The wards are located to the north of the escarpment in the Zambezi Valley (Figure 3.1). The District is located at the northeastern end of the Mashonaland Central Province of Zimbabwe. Lower Guruve District lies within 30º 18' E and 30º 45' E and 16º 00' S, 16º 22' S at an altitude of approximately 400 m. The climate is semi-arid with two seasons; summer (wet and warm) and winter (dry and cold). During the summer and winter seasons the mean daily ambient temperatures of 40 0C and 25 0C, respectively, are experienced. Rainfall varies from 500 to 600 mm per annum. The main soil types in the area are well drained alluvial soils and coarse sandstones in Chisunga Ward, red sandstones in both Neshange and Gonono Wards, while sandy, deep, brown medium grained and alluvial soils are also found in Gonono Ward (Coid, Gaidet, Moyo, Poilecot, Poulet, Renaud, Ricard and Takawira, 2001). The vegetation is Savannah

27

Location of Lower Guruve District

3 2 1

Key: Names of rivers: 1- Manyame, 2 – Kadzi, 3 - Angwa Adapted from: Coid et al. (2001). Figure 3.1: Map of Wards 2, 3 and 4 of Lower Guruve District

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 croplivestock-based following the effective control of tsetse fly in the 1980s (Coid et al., 2001). Poultry management is mainly semi-intensive and extensive (Kusina et al., 2000).

3.2.2

Data collection

An informal survey was conducted in the study site to identify guinea fowl farmers. Simple random sampling was used to select 73 guinea fowl owners from 159 farmers rearing guinea fowls in the three wards. The selected farmers were interviewed and a structured questionnaire completed. Information collected through the structured

questionnaire included: reasons for adoption of guinea fowl rearing; type of guinea fowl reared; flock sizes and composition; retrospective production indices; product utilisation; housing; feed resources; health management; record keeping; and farmer recommendations on how to improve guinea fowl farming.

3.2.3

Data analysis

The Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) (SPSS, 1998) was used for entry and analysis of quantitative data to generate descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations and range) on flock size, number of breeding hens, breeding period, egg production per hen, hatchability, keet survival rate, brooding period, age at point of lay, age at slaughter and productive life span.

29

3.3 3.3.1

RESULTS Flock ownership and adoption

The study showed that men owned most (67%) of the guinea fowl flocks (Figure 3.2). A few farmers, through egg collection and incubation using surrogate hens, first domesticated wild guinea fowl (Numidia ptilohycha) in the study area in 1992. Some farmers and development agencies brought the current breed of guinea fowls (Numidia meliagris) from Binga and Gokwe Districts. Initially 15 groups or individual smallholder farmers in the Guruve Wards received the donated birds. Each group/individual received 10 breeding guinea fowls. This enabled most farmers to get breeding eggs and birds locally. Five varieties of helmeted guinea fowls (Numidia meleagris) were observed in the area. These included the white, lavender, splashed, pied or white breasted and pearl varieties.

3.3.2

Production systems

The groups of guinea fowl farmers who were given the breeding stock through the Biodiversity micro-project kept their flocks under a semi-intensive production system. The birds were kept in fowl runs and fed sorghum, millet, maize grain or hammer mill by-products. Nearly seventy-nine percent of the farmers kept the birds under a freerange production system with ad hoc supply of household food leftover (kitchen wastes) and grains such as sorghum and pearl millet.

3.3.3

Flock structure and production efficiency

The study revealed that the population of guinea fowls raised by the farmers selected was 602. The flock structure is presented in Table 3.1. Flocks were mainly composed of growers (72%) while breeding hens and cocks constituted 16% and 12%, 30

80 70 Percentage (%) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Men W om en Y o u th C la s s G ro u p F a m ily

` 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

Flock composition Growers Breeding hens Breeding cocks

1

Number (n) 438 95 69

2

Percentage in flock 72 16 12

1

Total number of guinea fowl recorded Percentage in flock – proportion of class of guinea fowl

2

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 incubated using artificial incubators. This was attributed to inappropriate incubator management and unreliable electrical power supply Guinea fowls were allowed to breed for one breeding season and were then sold or slaughtered.

3.3.4

Uses of guinea fowl and products

The farmers kept guinea fowls mainly as a source of income as they sold breeding stock and eggs to other farmers and traders. Culled growers were the main class of guinea fowl that was marketed. A total of 169 birds were sold between January and June 2002 and a few farmers (4%) sold guinea fowl eggs. The majority of the farmers traded guinea fowl eggs with chicken in order to increase surrogate hens for incubation of the eggs. Live guinea fowls were mainly sold from May to September while eggs were sold or disposed during the breeding season. Like other household produce, the farmers also kept the birds as a source of food (meat and eggs). The farmers reported that the manure excreted by guinea fowl was used as a source of organic fertilizer for gardening projects.

3.3.5

Factors affecting guinea fowl production

Many factors were said to be constraints to optimal production and these included breeder management, egg storage conditions, inappropriate methods of egg

33

Table 3.2: Production estimates of guinea fowls/ household flock for the 2001/2002 breeding season

Parameter Flock size (n)
1

Mean 8 3 4 89 64 60 12 9 6 1

± SD 6 2 3 50 31 30 3 2 1 1

Range 2-30 1-9 3-7 10-200 0-100 0-100 0-120 7-14 3-10 1-3

Breeding hens (n) Breeding period (mo) Egg production/hen/year Hatchability (%)

2

3

4

Keet survival rate (%)
5

Brooding period (d) Point of lay (mo)

6

Age at slaughter (mo)
7

Productive life span (yr)

1

Breeding hens – guinea fowls that reached the reproductive stage Breeding period - the time from the start to end of laying during one breeding season Egg production per hen: - number of eggs produced by one guinea fowl during one

2

3

breeding season
4

Hatchability (%) - the proportion of incubated eggs that successfully produce a keet at

the end of the incubation period
5

Brooding period (d) - number of days the keets are provided with warmth and feed

under an enclosure
6

Point of lay (mo) - the age at which a guinea fowl hen starts laying eggs Productive life span (yr) - number of years a guinea fowl is allowed to breed before

7

culling

34

incubation and rearing of keets, inconsistent feed supply, poor housing, mortality and limited extension services.

3.3.5.1

Management of breeders, storage of eggs, incubation and rearing of keets

The largest proportion (44%) of the farmers let guinea fowl hens lay eggs in the bush while others allowed guinea fowls to lay in the poultry houses (23%), along live fences, and in granary and family houses (33%). Fifty-five percent of the farmers collected the guinea fowl eggs at least once a day, while 45% of the farmers collected the eggs on an ad hoc basis during the breeding season. The farmers stored the eggs in a variety of containers which included metal and plastic containers, woven baskets, cardboard boxes, plates, clay pots and egg trays which were placed in family houses. Some farmers put maize meal or cotton lint in the containers before putting the eggs. The mean storage period of eggs by the farmers was 10 days with a maximum of 90 days. All the farmers used surrogate hens to incubate guinea fowl eggs. However, some farmers (21%) also sent some eggs for artificial incubation at the CIRAD base, at Mushumbi pools growth point. There were reports of high mortality of keets fostered by guinea fowl hens or brooded artificially.

3.3.5.2

Feed supply

Only 42% of the respondents provided small amounts of supplementary feed in the form of crushed maize, millet or sorghum grains for keets and whole grains for growers and breeders. Few farmers (12%) gave high protein feeds like sunflower and soyabeans or commercial feeds to their guinea fowls. Feed availability for the guinea fowls varied from one season to the other depending on annual rainfall and crop yields. The farmers

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.

3.3.5.4

Health management

Although the farmers reported that guinea fowls were tolerant to most poultry diseases, high mortality of keets was noted. The major causes of keet mortality were predators (e.g., wild cats, feral mink, dogs and eagles), poor management, and external parasites. External parasites such as mites, bugs and lice were found in guinea fowl night enclosures. They were reported to affect guinea fowl production through mortality of keets and low egg production of breeding hens. Some farmers burnt the guinea fowl houses yearly as a method of controlling the parasites. In addition to predators,

poisoning by agro-chemicals or alleged poisonous insects also caused adult bird mortality.

3.3.5.5

Extension services and farmer organization

Most (94%) of the guinea fowl owners including those supported by the Bio-diversity micro-project received no special training. They obtained information through

experience and from suppliers of breeding stock and other farmers. Additionally, there

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 producers association in order to facilitate their production and marketing needs.

3.4

DISCUSSION

The ownership of guinea fowl was surprisingly dominated by males who accounted for 67% of total guinea in the area. This result is rather surprising as it is common that women ownership is dominant where poultry is involved (Kusina and Kusina, 1999). The skewed ownership might be attributed to the perception that guinea fowl are very strong fliers, which creates difficulties in catching and holding them (Oke, Herbert and Nwachukwu, 2004) making it difficult for women to rear them. Nonetheless, it is important to take cognisance of the fact that despite the perceived problems of managing guinea fowl, the guinea fowls are reared in the study site and this indicates their importance to the livelihood of farmers.

The scavenging production system practised by the majority of the farmers (79%) in this study was similar to the system adopted on village poultry by smallholder farmers not only in Zimbabwe but also in most sub-Saharan African countries (Idi, 1996; Kusina and Kusina, 1999). In addition, the semi-intensive system of rearing introduced by the French through the Bio-Diversity Project was adapted from the Poultry Development Strategy currently used in Bangladesh for rearing of chickens (Swan, 1999). However, there is need to determine the suitability of this model for guinea fowl rearing in Zimbabwe.

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). Differences between studies might be attributed to a multitude of factors that include management of eggs and the surrogate hens.

The survivability of 60% observed in this study was higher than that reported in some earlier studies such as 50% in a Nigerian study (Nwagu and Alawa, 1995) but lower than the 73% reported by Binali and Kanengoni (1998) in Zimbabwe. Differences in keet survivability might be ascribed to the short brooding period as brooding periods as long as 3 to 6 weeks were recommended elsewhere, for example in Australia (Embury, 2001) and United States (US Department of Agriculture, 1976). On the other hand, the age at slaughter (24 weeks) reported in this study was longer than that of between 11 and 16 weeks reported by Galor (1983), Knox (2000) and Embury (2001). The differences could be attributed to differences in management systems, breed and feeding regime. The breeding of guinea fowls for only one year could have been the reason for lower productivity of the breeders as higher production levels were anticipated for breeders aged 2 to 3 years (US Department of Agriculture, 1976; Ayorinde et al., 1989).

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 comparison to village chickens as well as the lack of an organised ready market.

This study revealed that there were many factors limiting guinea fowl production under smallholder management practices. These included unsuitable storage places for guinea fowl eggs, long storage periods, inadequate and untimely availability of surrogate hens and unreliable artificial incubators due to frequent power cuts. In addition, improper management of guinea fowl keets, inconsistent feeding regimes and management of breeders reduced the survival rate of keets and breeding potential of guinea fowl hens, respectively. The high proportion of guinea fowls laying eggs in the bush (44%) may predispose the eggs to theft and predation. This could have resulted in under-estimation of the productivity of guinea fowl breeders. The ad hoc collection, poor storage facilities and long storage periods of guinea fowl eggs may be contributing to the low hatchability reported in this study. Belshaw (1985) reported that the correct storage condition for guinea fowl eggs to be a temperature range of 13 to 16 oC, a relative humidity of 70 to 80%, and proper ventilation. Experiments conducted elsewhere have shown that there is a decrease in hatchability of about 19% in eggs, which are 14 days old (Belshaw, 1985) while other authors recommended a storage period of not more than seven days (Galor, 1983; Binali and Kanengoni, 1998). The observation of lower survival rate of keets fostered by guinea fowl and brooded artificially could be due to the poor mothering ability of guinea fowl hens and poor

39

management practices, respectively (Christophe, 1995; Embury, 2001; Frit’s Farm, 2001).

Although a considerable number of farmers (42%) provided supplementary feed for the guinea fowls, it was difficult to estimate the dietary pattern of the birds because of the inconsistent feeding practices. The inconsistent feeding system could be a major contributor to under-nutrition and malnutrition leading to unhealthy keets and their early death. All the farmers provided water to the birds as the birds were reported to drink a lot of water because of the high temperatures (up to 40 oC maximum daily temperature) that is experienced in the Zambezi Valley, especially during the breeding season (Kusina N. T. and Kusina J., 1999).

The majority of the farmers provided a form of housing for guinea fowls except 8% of the farmers who allowed their guinea fowls to roost in the trees during the night. However, the houses were not meeting hygienic standards (dry and clean bedding, size of houses and easy to clean walls and floor) required to prevent the build up of parasites and control of parasitic infestation. Poor health management of guinea fowls by the farmers could have contributed to the high mortality (40%) of keets reported in this study. Efforts to increase productivity of village poultry, including guinea fowls, through improvements in handling of eggs, incubation, feeding, housing, health and general management aspects have recently been acknowledged (Idi, 1996; Kusina J and Kusina N. T., 1999; Ekue, 2002).

40

3.5

CONCLUSION

The major finding of this study is that guinea fowl flock sizes were small and management of guinea fowls needs to be improved to increase productivity. The main constraints encountered by guinea fowl owners were few hatching eggs and few keets that survive into adult birds. Poor management and predators caused high mortality of keets. The quality of data can be improved by a longitudinal (monitoring) study on the management and production of guinea fowls and by carrying out trials to determine the best management practices, which can yield the best results and are suitable for the smallholder farming system.

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 neglected by research and development agencies with regard to improving husbandry practices and capital investment.

Literature shows that guinea fowl products are accepted worldwide due to the bird’s attractive plumage, its value as table bird with game-type flavour and high meat to bone ratio. Evidence of the acceptability of guinea fowl in Zimbabwe is shown in the mushrooming of scattered sites around the country today that are now engaging in guinea fowl rearing (Kusina J and Kusina N. T, 1999; Saina, 2001; Saina et al. 2003a). Despite this renaissance of interest in guinea fowl production, it is important to take cognisance of the fact that there is a dearth of information on guinea fowl production, in contrast to indigenous chickens where extensive research is now available (Kusina and Kusina, 1999; Maphosa, Kusina J, Kusina N. T, Makuza and Sibanda, 2004; Muchadeyi, Sibanda, Kusina J, Kusina N. T, Makuza, 2004).

Faced with the economic meltdown prevailing in Zimbabwe today, logic dictates that farmers adopt agricultural enterprises that ensure low input demands but are 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 production performance of helmeted guinea fowls under smallholder farmer management and validate the information obtained from the survey.

4.2 4.2.1

MATERIALS AND METHODS Site description

The study was conducted from September 2002 to May 2003 in a semi-arid communal area in Lower Guruve District of Mashonaland Central Province. The site was described in Chapter 3, Section 3.2.1.

4.2.2

Farmer selection

A total of 30 farmers involved in rearing guinea fowl were selected at random to participate in this monitoring study during the breeding period of 2002 to 2003. The selected number constituted 19% of the guinea fowl farmers identified during a baseline study conducted prior to the commencement of the study.

4.2.3

Data collection

Qualitative data was obtained through use of participatory rural appraisal techniques (PRA) as outlined by Chambers (1993). Quantitative data were obtained through the use of data sheets supplied to each participating farmer. Data recorded on the data sheets included: flock size and structure, number of hens laying and non-layers, number of eggs produced/hen/day during the laying phase, type of housing and feed

43

management as well as sales and consumption. Some eggs were collected and incubated using artificial incubators at Mushumbi pools CIRAD base in close proximity of the study site and at University of Zimbabwe, Department of Animal Science Laboratory Hatchery.

4.2.4

Data analysis

Data were processed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) (1998) to depict descriptive statistics. Calculations were computed and expressed as proportions for fertility and hatchability. In this study, fertility is defined as the proportion of fertile eggs of all eggs laid over the breeding period by single hens or groups of hens. Fertility was determined by candling the eggs after 14 and 24 days of incubation. Hatchability was calculated as the proportion of live keets hatched from the total number of hatchable eggs incubated.

4.3 4.3.1

RESULTS Flock size and structure

The guinea fowl demographics are depicted in Figure 4.1 while overall performance is summarized in Table 4.1. The sex ratio of guinea fowl breeders at the beginning of the breeding season was 1.6 hens to 1 cock. The is a gradual decline of breeders during breeding season. The monthly size of keets varied with the highest proportion in April while the proportion of growers increased from February to May 2003.

4.3.2

Reproductive performance

The pattern of egg production, number of eggs incubated and hatched are illustrated in Figure 4.2 while survivability results are summarised in Table 4.2. A total of 2039 eggs 44

700 600
NUMBER OF BIRDS

500 400 300 200 100 0 SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN MONTH TOTAL HENS COCKS GROWERS KEETS FEB MARCH APRIL MAY

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 Egg production/hen Length of breeding season (months) Hatchability (%) Keet survival rate (%)

Mean ± SD 42 ± 26 5±1 71.2 ± 14.3 36 ± 10.3

46

1800

1600
TOTAL NUMBER OF EGGS/LAYERS……

Eggs Laid

1400

Eggs Incubated

1200

Eggs Hatched
1000

800

N umber of layers

600

400

200

0 OCT NOV DEC MONTH JAN FEB MAR

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

Month
1

Mortality (%) Keets
2

Breeders

November December January February
1

57.1 59.4 48.4

2.0 7.3 6.9 4.2

Keets - < 6 weeks of age Breeders (including growers) - > 6 weeks of age

2

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 recorded in the month of November 2003 and February 2003.

4.3.3

Feeding and housing management

The main feed source comprised scavenging although, when available, breeding guinea fowls were offered supplementary feed constituting mainly sorghum and pearl millet haphazardly. Housing comprised a variety of artisan structures made of wood, mud, bricks, mesh wire, and plastic with or without roofing. Average floor size measurements approximated 6 m2 with an earth (71%) or raised (29%) floor type. Some keets were brooded in movable cages mainly kept in the kitchen during the night and moved outdoor during daytime while others were allowed to forage during day and then kept in the poultry house together with surrogate hens at night and allowed to free range during the day.

4.3.4

Marketing and consumption

Approximately 230 eggs were consumed by at least 12 farmers during the course of the study and 985 eggs were sold to local community and research personnel.

4.4

DISCUSSION

Despite the enthusiasm exhibited by the producers in this study, productivity of the guinea fowl flocks was sub-optimal. Considerable challenges confront future improvement efforts in productivity mainly due to low hatchability, excessive keet mortality and predation losses that might account for the major losses observed. For example, there were problems in egg collection as some hens tended to lay eggs in the 49

bushes instead of designated cages thereby exposing some eggs to predation. Notwithstanding the difficulties encountered, the level of productivity reported here was lower than that reported in a study in Nigeria by Nwagu and Alawa (1995) where guinea fowl flocks produced on average 50 to 170 eggs per hen during the breeding season. There are numerous possible causal factors that might explain the differences between these studies. The level of productivity is partly modulated by feed availability; in this study the feed was obtained mainly through scavenging. Any differences between studies might be partly attributed to differences in quantity and quality of the feed resources available to the guinea fowl during the breeding season to meet ME requirements for maintenance and production.

An important factor that determines viability and economics of fowl production enterprise is fertility of eggs. The fertility result of 75% was higher than that reported by Nwagu and Alawa (1995) in Nigeria of between 49 and 58%. This could be explained by differences in sex ratio, which was higher in the study while the various sizes and parity of breeders managed by the farmers could explain the variability of egg sizes recorded in this study.

The mean hatchability of guinea fowl eggs incubated naturally (71%) was numerically higher than that reported by Nwagu and Alawa (1995) and Saina et al. (2003a) of 67% and 65%, respectively and was found to lie within the ranges reported by Galor (1983) and Binali and Kanengoni (1998). Nevertheless, hatchability results from eggs incubated using the artificial incubators were variable (36 to 82%). This was caused by power cuts experienced in the study area. A comparison of survivability among fowls managed on-farm and those that had eggs hatched on-station showed that the

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 critical role in enhancing opportunities of survival of keets following hatching.

On the other hand, guinea fowl keet survival is essential for successful guinea fowl production. The mortality rate of about 64% that occurred in keets managed under the traditional management system was higher than that of 40% reported in the survey (Saina et al., 2003a). Nwagu and Alawa (1995) and Bessin et al. (1998) also reported that more than 50% mortality has been recorded in guinea fowl from day-old to eight weeks. The mortality had been attributed to the susceptibility of guinea fowl keets to adverse weather conditions such as low temperature and very high temperature, diseases and parasites, and poor management (Embury, 2001; Frits Farm, 2001; Saina et al., 2003a). Proper brooding of guinea fowl keets for at least three weeks improves their survival rates (Embury, 2001). Guinea fowl breeders managed to reduce mortality of guinea fowl keets to 3 to 5% under an improved management system (Galor, 1985)

Few health problems were observed on the breeding guinea fowls but mortality was high in keets. Adult birds were lost (5.1%/month) due to poisoning, predators (snakes, dogs, wild cats), fighting, theft and floods while in keets mite infestations, malnutrition, cold and scorching heat, predators (snakes, dogs, wild cats and predatory birds), floods and physical injuries were the main causes of death. The mortality of breeders was higher than the 0.35% accepted for breeding guinea fowls in France (Galor, 1883). In contrast to use of veterinary drugs and vaccines in commercially managed flocks (Galor, 1983), disease treatment and prevention was through the use of ethnoveterinary 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 generation. Although the results appear to be unexpected, it might indicate farmer intelligence and priority with emphasis to ensure sufficient breeding stock in view of the excessive keet mortality compounded by egg losses.

4.5

CONCLUSION

From the results of this study, it is concluded that low egg production (42 eggs per hen/ per breeding season), excessive mortality of keets (64%) and general mismanagement of both eggs and keets compromised guinea fowl production. The production performance of guinea fowls in this study was close to the estimates provided in the survey except that egg production. The hatchability of guinea fowl eggs under natural incubation of 71% was consistent with that reported for commercially managed flocks. Therefore, increasing the number of hatching eggs and reducing keet mortality might improve productivity substantially.

52

CHAPTER 5: GROWTH AND CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS OF GUINEA FOWLS (Numidia meleagris) REARED UNDER INTENSIVE AND SEMIEXTENSIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS
5.1 INTRODUCTION

Smallholder farmers rear a wide range of poultry species including guinea fowls. The guinea fowls are managed mostly under semi-extensive production systems in Africa (Ayeni, 1983). This system of production predisposes the birds to mortality due to predation, parasitic infestation, snakebites, inadequate nutrition and lack of veterinary care (Nwagu and Alawa, 1995; Saina et al., 2003 a, b). Growth performance of guinea fowls can be improved by way of modern poultry management interventions (Branckaert and Gue’ye, 1999). However, modern poultry management systems involve high production inputs and require trained personnel that can be hardly afforded by smallholder communal farmers. In order to improve the growth performance of poultry with limited bought in stock feed, semi-intensive management systems can be an option for smallholder farmers.

There is little, if any, information on quality and size of scavenging feed resource base for guinea fowls and their growth rate and carcass yield and quality under free ranging conditions in Zimbabwe and elsewhere in Africa, particularly in the Zambezi Valley, where guinea fowls contribute to the livelihoods of smallholder farmers (Saina et al., 2003a). In view of this, this study was conducted to estimate the quality and amount of feed eaten by guinea fowls under semi-extensive production systems and to compare growth performance and carcass characteristics of guinea fowls under intensive and semi-extensive management systems.

53

5.2 5.2.1

MATERIALS AND METHODS Experimental birds

The eggs were collected from the University of Zimbabwe farm and incubated in an artificial incubator. Guinea fowl eggs were hatched at the Department of Animal Science, University of Zimbabwe, and reared under intensive and semi-extensive management systems by smallholder farmers in Lower Guruve. The keets were fed a commercial broiler starter mash which contained 22% CP and 12 MJ of ME/kg DM. A sample of 120 active (strong) guinea keets was selected for the on-farm experiment after seven weeks of brooding at the University of Zimbabwe Farm. The birds were allocated to five farmers (24 keets each) who had participated in an earlier monitoring study. Each farmer reared 12 birds under intensive management and 12 birds under semi-extensive management. The allocation of the clutches of guinea fowl keets was done through a randomization process. The design of the experiment was completely randomized design (CRD) where the treatments were intensive and semi-extensive management systems. The experimental unit was a group of 12 birds for each treatment. There were 5 replicates per treatment.

5.2.2

Management systems

The guinea fowls were reared for 9 weeks up to the age of 16 weeks under farmer management. The guinea fowls under the intensive management system were confined and received a ration of Broiler Phase 2 mash (Agrifoods Pvt. Ltd, Harare, Zimbabwe) which contained 18 % CP and 13 MJ of ME /kg DM. The feeding regime of the guinea fowls used is shown in Table 5.1 The other groups of guinea fowls under semiextensive 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 Age (in weeks) 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Feed/Animal/Day(g) 45 50 50 55 55 60 60 60 65 Type of feed Broiler Finisher Phase 2 18% CP, 13MJ/KgDM

Adopted from Galor (1983)

55

access to borehole water.

5.2.3

Data collection

The farmers were trained and given data sheets to record mortalities and other data. The causes of death were also recorded and post-mortems conducted by the researcher. Guinea fowls in all groups were weighed every week using a spring balance up to 16 weeks of age. The data was used to calculate the growth rates of the birds.

5.2.4

Estimation of feed intake and composition

At the end of the nine-week growth trial, 16 guinea fowls (eight from each treatment group) were confined in cages and feed withdrawn for 24 hours with water provided ad libitum. The next day all the guinea fowls were released to access feed under their respective management systems. One pair of guinea fowls from each management system was slaughtered every two hours starting from 09 00 to 17 00 h for physical and chemical determination of crop and gizzard contents resulting in 16 guinea fowls being slaughtered. The feed contents in the crop and gizzard were weighed and feed items identified through eye observation. Samples of the feed were dried, ground and mixed prior to proximate analysis dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), crude fibre (CF), ether extract (EE) and ash (AOAC, 1990).

5.2.5

Determination of carcass composition

When the guinea fowls reached the 16th week of age, four birds from each farmer (two from each management system) were randomly selected, feed withdrawn for 24 hours, weighed and slaughtered to determine carcass characteristics. Two methods were used to assess carcass characteristics, these included: physical dissection and chemical 56

analysis (Panda, 1998; Van Marle-Köster and Webb, 2000). The parameters that were measured through dissection included dressed weight, weights of drumstick, thigh, wings, breast and back, flesh to bone ratio, dressing percentage and total edible meat. Chemical analysis of muscles from cut parts was determined using Proximate Analysis for DM, CP, EE and ash (AOAC, 1990).

5.2.6

Statistical and economic analysis

Descriptive statistics were computed using the PROC MEANS procedure of the Statistical Analysis System (SAS) (1998) package. To determine the effect of management systems on growth performance and carcass characteristics, the PROC MIXED procedure of SAS (1998) was used. The following model was used: Yijkl = µ + Mi + Fj + Wk + MKijkl + Eijklm Where Yijkl = mean body mass from 7 to 16 weeks, µ = overall mean; Mi = effect of ith management system on body mass, i =1, 2; Fj = effect of the jth farmer on body mass, j=1… 5; Wk = effect of the kth week on body weight, k = 7, 9…16; MKijk = the effect of interaction of management system and week on body mass and Eijklm = the random error associated with the ijklmth record. Differences of least square means of guinea fowl body mass were determined using Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) (SAS, 1998). Paired ‘t’-tests (SAS, 1998) was used to determine significant difference between slaughter weight, dressed weight and weight of dissected parts and chemical composition of guinea fowls under the two management systems. The current prices (2004) in Zimbabwe were used for a gross margin analysis.

57

5.3

RESULTS

5.3.1 Feed intake
Grass leaves, insects and grass seed constituted the bulk (82.0%) of the feed consumed by the guinea fowls reared semi-extensively while grain supplements constituted only 9.7% of the diet (Table 5.2). Feed intake from the gizzard and crop contents indicated that the intensively managed birds consumed more (171 g vs. 136 g) feed than those under semi-extensive management. Proximate analysis results (Table 5.3) revealed that the diet of birds under semi-extensive management had numerically lower ME content while the CP, EE, CF, ash and DM percentages were numerically higher than in the diet given to the intensively managed guinea fowls.

5.3.2 Growth
Guinea fowls reared under the intensive management system had superior production performance than those reared under the semi-extensive management system (Table 5.4). The growth pattern (Figure 5.1) reveals that body mass increased during the experimental period and there were significant differences between body mass of the birds from the two management systems at each week from the 9th week until the end of the experiment.

5.3.3 Carcass composition
Carcass composition of guinea fowls (Table 5.5) indicate that the guinea fowls reared under intensive management had significantly higher (p < 0.001) body weight, dressed weight and total edible meat than those under the semi-extensive management system. In addition, the weights of all the dissected parts, muscles and bones, except for

58

Table 5.2: Composition of guinea fowl crop and gizzard contents under semi-extensive management system Items
1

DM (g) 13.1 26.8 47.5 37.2 11.3

Proportion (%) 9.7 19.7 34.9 27.4 8.3

Grain

Grass seed Grass leaves Insects Pebbles (grit)

1

Grain - maize/white or red sorghum

59

Table 5.3: Proximate analysis of guinea fowl crop contents under two management systems Component Intensive² DM Crude protein Ether extract Crude fibre Ash
1

Management system Semi-extensive² 51.8 14.8 8.6 5.5 43.2 9.38

45.6 14.3 3.9 2.4 23.6 11.83

ME (MJ/kg) (estimated)

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.

1

60

Table 5.4: Performance (means ± SE) of guinea fowls reared under intensive and semi-extensive management systems

Management system Initial weight (g) Weight at 12 wk (g) Final body weight at 16 wk Average daily weight gain (g) Mortality (%) (n)

Intensive 301a ± 16.95 807a ± 17.24 1072a ± 17.24 12.3 3.3 (2)

Semi-extensive 285a± 16.95 591b± 18.03 822b ± 18.57 8.6 16.7 (10)

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 W eek 13 14 15 16

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 Carcass traits Body weight before slaughter Dressed weight Dressing percentage Total edible meat (TEM) 1 PDW Flesh to bone ratio Cut parts (g) Neck Skin Thigh Drumstick Breast Wing Back Muscle of cut parts (g) Thigh Drumstick Breast Wing Back Bones of cut parts (g) Thigh Drumstick Wing Back Breast
1 a-b

Intensive 1110a ± 93 838a ± 77 75.4 443a ± 66 52.9 2a 65.5a ± 5.3 73.9a ± 9.3 131.7a ± 15.5 105.6a ± 11.1 260.8a ± 33.0 121.3a ± 10.7 130.0a ± 15.3 100.4a ± 12.6 73.9a ± 8.9 179.6a ± 30.7 56.2a ± 9.5 34.1a ± 7.3 18.6a ± 1.3 24.5a ± 2.3 45.1a ± 4.5 78.1a ± 7.1 55.4a ± 4.9

Semi-extensive 866b ± 86 620b ± 64 71.6 292b ± 54. 47.1 1.6b 50.8b ± 6.0 59.3b ± 9.0 96.7b ± 9.1 78.5b ± 8.5 191.5b ± 24.2 90.4b ± 8.3 107.4b ± 14.0 66.8b ± 7.8 52.1b ± 6.5 121.8b ± 17.3 37.1b ± 5.2 23.5b ± 5.6 16.0b ± 1.9 18.4b ± 1.9 37.0b ± 4.2 60.4b ± 6.4 46.9b ± 7.5

PDW- Total edible meat as a percentage of dressed weight Means with different superscripts across rows differ (p < 0.05)

64

the skin of guinea fowls under intensive management system were higher (p < 0.05) than those of the semi-extensively reared group.

Chemical composition of guinea fowls from the two management systems was similar (p > 0.05) (Table 5.6). Numerically, percentages of dry matter and fat of guinea fowls reared under the semi-extensive system were higher than those of the intensive group. On the contrary, the intensively reared guinea fowls had numerically higher percentage ash and crude protein.

5.3.4 Economic returns
The economic returns based on partial budgets were different due to input and production requirements (Table 5.7). A higher net income (Z$5222/bird) was obtained with the semi-extensive than the intensive management (Z$3244/bird).

5.4

DISCUSSION

The management systems had effects on growth and carcass yield of guinea fowls; this was most likely due to differences in feed composition and intake levels. The composition and quality of feed available to poultry under scavenging management systems depends on the scavenging feed resource base (SFRB) (Gunaratne, 1999; Roberts, 1999) and the foraging ability of the birds (Microlivestock, 1991). The feed found in the crop contents of the scavenging guinea fowls were similar to those obtained in South Africa (Gerard and Grant, 1999). The crop content analysis indicated that guinea fowls are good foragers. The mean percentage of CP (14.8%) obtained in this study is higher than that obtained from village chicken crop contents of about 9.4% CP (Roberts, 1999). However, the quality of the feed consumed was compromised by

65

Table 5.6: Chemical composition of guinea fowl meat Composition %DM %CP %Ash %Fat Intensive 22.9a 75.4a 9.3a 14.8a Semi-extensive 26.1a 72.7a 7.8a 19.9a

Means with similar superscripts across rows are not significantly different at p > 0.05. n = 10 guinea fowl carcasses per management system

a-b

66

Table 5.7: Partial budgets for the two guinea fowl management systems in 2003 Item
1

Intensive (Z$) 1389 10 649 150 000 571 950 43 500 777 488 972 150 194 662 3244

Semi-extensive (Z$) 1389 0 150 000 112 500 43 500 307 389 620720 313331 5222

Fence Equipment

1

Chicks Feed Antibiotics Total cost
2

Gross Income (live birds)

Net income

Net Income per bird

1 2

Fence and equipment costs were amortilised for a period of five years 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 semiextensive management of 9.38 MJ ME /kg DM is much lower than their requirements considering that there is need for more energy for movement in search of food and running away from predators.

The sub-optimal nutrition obtained by scavenging guinea fowls was evidenced by inferior weight gains and carcass yield. Body weights of intensively managed flocks at 12 weeks of age of 807 g and 1072 g at 16 weeks of age were comparable with those of improved guinea fowl breeds of 774.8 g (Ayeni, Tewe and Ajayi, 1983; Ayorinde, 1991) and 985.04 g (Mundra et al., 1993), respectively. However, the exotic guinea fowl weights at 12 weeks, which ranged between 1208 and 1550 g (Galor, 1985; Ayorinde, 1991) are higher than those of the current breeding stock in Zimbabwe. Elsewhere, free ranging guinea fowls aged between 15 and 20 wk achieved 1 to 1.5 kg body mass (Belshaw, 1985), which is well above that recorded in this study for the semi-scavenging guinea fowls. This could be attributed to the differences in the growth potential of the guinea fowl stock, the scavenging resource base and feed supplementation. The numerically higher mortality of guinea fowls under semi-

68

extensive management system (16.7%) was mainly caused by predators and is characteristic of free-range village poultry production systems (Mtambo, 1999; Kusina, et al., 2000). Mortality of guinea fowls under the intensive management system (3%) was mainly caused by internal parasites (round worms) and this could be attributed to inappropriate housing floor and bedding management.

The carcass yield of guinea fowls under the semi-extensive management system (620 g) was inferior to that of birds reared under intensive management (838 g). The dressing percentage of the guinea fowls of 75.4% and 71.6% for the intensive and semi-extensive group, respectively, were higher than that of 68% reported by Ayorinde (1991), but were lower than the 87.4% reported by Adeyemo and Oyejola (2004) for 10 weeks old guinea fowl pullets. In addition, the birds under the intensive management system were well-fleshed, with a meat to bone ratio of 2:1 which was numerically higher than that obtained for the semi-extensively managed birds of 1.6: 1 but both were inferoir to that of 2.3: 1 reported by Belshaw (1985). This variation could be attributed to differences in the diet of the guinea fowls and their management. The carcass grades fell under classes B and C for the intensive and semi-extensive groups, respectively according to the poultry classification system (Panda, 1998). The weight of cut parts and muscle tissue were directly related to the dressed carcass and total meat yields and the proportions are comparable to those reported by Ayeni et al. (1983) and Moran (1977) for guinea fowls and other poultry species.

The average percentage crude protein (CP) of the guinea fowl meat from both management systems was within the range of 20 to 25% reported elsewhere in Europe and India (Belshaw, 1985; Panda, 1998). Although management system did not

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 a semi-extensive management system, there is need to supplement the energy component of the diet to balance the protein and energy levels. This could improve the fleshing of the guinea fowls which is neccessary if the birds are sold as dressed carcasses for lucrative markets such as restaurants and hotels. Although the birds under intensive management gained more weight, the inherent low feed conversion efficiency of guinea fowls (Galor, 1983; Ayorinde, 1991; Mundra et al., 1993; Mandal et al., 1999; Adeyemo and Oyejola, 2004) and the high cost of conventional feeds in Zimbabwe does not warrant recommending this management system for smallholder guinea fowl farmers.

5.5

CONCLUSION

The results obtained from this study suggest that growth and carcass yield of guinea fowls under the semi-extensive management were suboptimal. However, it was more economic to rear the guinea fowls under the semi-extensive than under the intensive management system. Although the low input semi-extensive management system

70

being practised by the farmers is favoured economically the inferior carcass yield may not be suitable for lucrative commercial markets.

71

CHAPTER 6: GENERAL DISCUSSION, CONCLUSION AND FUTURE RESEARCH
6.1 Discussion
This thesis was carried out to characterise guinea fowl production under smallholder farmer management in Guruve District of Zimbabwe. Guinea fowl flock dynamics and production parameters under the traditional management system were determined through a survey and monitoring study. The growth performance and carcass quality of guinea fowls under semi-extensive and intensive management systems were also determined in the experiment. The purpose of this chapter is to put the findings from the three studies into perspective in relation to the study hypothesis and how the results can be used to increase guinea fowl productivity. Research gaps and future research directions in relation to solving problems faced by smallholder farmers are explored.

The survey (Chapter 3) showed that flock sizes were small, incubation facilities were limiting, and management practices were sub-standard. Small flock sizes could have been partly attributed to the infancy of guinea fowl (N. meleagris) production in the study area (Kusina and Muchenje, 1999). Results from the monitoring study indicated that flock sizes increased from December to May (Figure 4.1), which concides with the breeding season. Nevertheless, the breeding flock size was similar to the flock size reported in the survey. The small flock sizes reported in the survey could also be explaned by the observation that guinea fowl marketing occurs mainly from May to September each year. Therefore, the guinea fowls recorded in July 2002 might have been reserved for the breeding stock after cull birds were sold.

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 overestimated the number of eggs laid. The variation could also have resulted from annual variation in the scavenging resource base (Tadelle, 1996). The 2002 to 2003 breeding season was generally a bad cropping season for the Lower Guruve District due to poor rainfall. This could have also limited the feed resource base of the farmers themselves and limited supplementary feeding and the available feed scavenged by the guinea fowls.

Contrastingly, hatchability of guinea fowl eggs recorded in the survey was lower than that recorded in the monitoring study. Survey hatchability estimates were similar to those reported by Kabera (1997) while the monitoring study records were close to those achieved by commercial guinea fowl farmers in France (Galor, 1983). The high hatchability could have resulted from improved handling and storage of eggs in addition to the efficiency of chickens as surrogated hens.

High mortality rates of guinea fowl keets reared under smallholder farmer management were reported in both studies (Saina et al., 2003 a,b). Malnutrition, poor health and poor housing management were the main causes of mortality. These findings were consistant with observations by Nwagu and Alawa (1995) and Bessin et al. (1998) .

Therefore, high mortality of keets is a challenge to guinea fowl farming. A mortality rate of 3 to 5% for keets is accepted under commercial guinea fowl production (Galor, 1985). Technologies such as hay-box brooders could be used by smallholder farmers

73

and proper feed and medication provided for 3 to 6 weeks (US Department of Agriculture, 1976; Galor, 1985; Embury, 2001).

The body mass and carcass yield of guinea fowls under semi-extensive management was lower than that of intensively management guinea fowls. Body mass of intensively managed birds at 16 weeks were comparable with that achieved by improved guinea fowl breeds in Africa (Ayorinde, 1991; Mundra et al., 1993). Evidence from the study suggest that low body mass recorded by semi-extensively managed birds was due to sub-optimal nutrition especially energy obtained by the scavenging guinea fowls. This study indicates that there is a potential to improve body mass of guinea fowls managed by smallholder farmers.

Carcass yield was directly related to body mass of guinea fowls under the two management systems. This is supported by the similarity in the dressed percentage, which were 75 and 72% for the intensive and semi-extensive management systems, respectively. However, the low carcass yield and meat to bone ratio of semi-extensively reared guinea fowls supports the hypotheis that this management system results in low meat yield. Adeyemo and Oyejola (2004) reported higher dressing percentage for 10 weeks old guinea fowl pullets than the dressing percentage achieved in this study. In order to ameliorate the discripancies, there might be need to adquately supplement the scavenging diet of guinea fowls under smallholder farmer management.

Management system did not affect the chemical composition of guinea fowl meat (Table 5.5). This might indicate that the diet of the birds under the two management systems had insignificant effect on the birds' chemical composition. This is not

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 more work on the effect of management system on chemical composition of guinea fowl meat to validate these findings. This information might be essential in marketing guinea fowls managed by smallholder farmers.

Although guinea fowl production under smallholder farmer management is low, economic analysis (Table 5.7) indicates that it is more profitable to rear guinea fowls under the semi-extensive than intensive management system. This is consistant with the perceived advantage of rearing guinea fowls (Microlivestock, 1991). However, there is need for a detailed study on the economic benefits of rearing guinea fowls under semi-extensive management system that takes into account the whole production and marketing chain.

6.2

Conclusion

Smallholder farmers in Lower Guruve District of Zimbabwe have integrated guinea fowl farming into their crop-livestock farming system. Guinea fowl breeding flock sizes were small while keets and growers numbers varied with season owing to the seasonal breeding nature of the birds under free ranging conditions. The productivity of guinea fowls was suboptimal. Egg production per hen per breeding season was lower than expected. Fertility and hatchability of eggs under natural brooding were comparable with those found by commercial breeders. However, few eggs were incubated due to lack of incubation facilities. Survival rate of keets was low leading to few keets that survived into adult birds. Poor management and predators caused high mortality of keets. The growth rate and carcass yield of guinea fowls under smallholder

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 Guruve District is low and management practices needs to improve to increase production.

6.3 Future research
This study provided baseline information on guinea fowl production and performance under smallholder farmer management. More research is required in order to commercialise guinea fowl production in Zimbabwe. The following are research topics that need to be explored: 1. Determining the age at which guinea fowls reach slaughter age under semiextensive management system 2. Evaluating the effect of fattening diets on carcass yield of free range guinea fowls 3. Evaluation of cleast cost diets for guinea fowls under intensive management system 4. Determination of chemical composition and sensory attributes of free range guinea fowls 5. Economic evaluation of guinea fowl production and marketing under semiextensive management system.

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. Anonymous, 2001. Guinea Fowl. Nova Scotia Department of Agriculture and Fisheries Archives. Available: http://www.gov.ns.ca/nsaf/elibrary/archive/lives/feather/ guineas1.htm, pp 1-3. Date accessed: 25 November 2001. Ayeni, J.S.O. 1983. The biology and utilisation of helmeted guinea fowl (Numidia meleagris galeata pallas) in Nigeria. II, Food of helmeted guinea fowl in Kainji Lake basin area of Nigeria. African Journal of Ecology 21 (1): 1-10. Ayeni, J.S.O., Tewe, O. O. and Ajayi, S. S. 1983. Body measurements, egg characteristics and social aceptance of guinea fowls in Nigeria. Tropical Agriculture (Trinidad) 60: 224-226. Ayorinde, K.L.A. 1991. Guinea fowl as protein supplement in Nigeria. World Poultry Science Journal 47 (2): 21-26. Ayorinde, K.L., Ayeni, J.S.O. and Oluyemi, J.A. 1989. Laying characteristics and reproductive performance of four indigenous helmeted guinea fowl varieties (Numidia meleagris galeata pallas) in Nigeria. Tropical Agriculture (Trinidad) 66 (3): 277-280. Ayorinde, K.L., Oluyemi, J.A. and Ayeni, J.S.O. 1988. Growth performance of four indegenous helmeted guinea fowl varieties. Bulletin of Animal Health and Production Africa 36: 356-360. Baudet, T., Hiscock, E. and Hachileka, E. 2001. Zambezi basin wetlands conservation and resource project. Wetlands and Water Resources Programme. Available:

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- deElevage-et-de Medecine-Veternaire-des-Pays-Tropicaux 51 (1): 87-93. Binali, W. and Kanengoni, E. 1998. Guinea fowl production. A training manual produced for the use by farmers and rural development agents. Agritex, Harare, 35 pp. Blagburn, B. L., Angus, K.W. and Blewett, D.A. 1989. Avian cryptosporidiosis. Department of Pathology. Auburn University USA. Cryptosporidiosis. Proceedings of the First International Workshop. Edinburg, 1988, pp 27-42. Bonds, H. 1997. Alternative Farming: A “United Nations” of alternative farming on the Mornington Peninsula, Available: www.independentnewsgroup.com.au /archive/helmi/, pp 1-4. Date accessed: 19 November 2001. Brahem, A., Demarquez, N., Beyrie, M., Vuillaume, A. and Fleury, H. J. A. 1992. A highly virulent togavirus-like agent associated with the fulminating disease of guinea fowl. Avian Diseases, 36 (1): 143-148. Branckaert, R.D.S. and Gue’ye, E.F. 1999. FAO’s program for support to family poultry production. Proceedings of a Workshop: Poultry as a Tool in Poverty Eradication and Promotion of Gender Equality held at Tune Landboskole, Denmark, March 22-26 (1999), pp 244-256. Byarugaba, D.K., Olsen, J.E. and Katunguka-Rwakishaya, E. 2000. Production, management and marketing dynamics of rural scavenging poultry in Uganda, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda. 7 pp. Cactus Ranch, 2001. Guinea fowl assortment. Available: htttp://www.cactusranch gamebirds.com/guineaf.html, pp 1- 2. Date accessed: 10 December 2001. Campbell, G.W., Taylor, J.D. and Harrower, B. J. 1992. Eryspelothrix rhusiopathiae infection of guinea fowl. Australian Veterinary Journal 69 (1): 13. Capua, I., Gouph, R.E., Scaramozzino, P., Lelli, R. and Gatti, A., 1994. Insituto Zooprofilattico Sperimentale. Dell’abruzzo e del Molise “G. Caporale,” Italy. Avian Diseases 38 (3): 642-646. Chalton, B.R. and Bickford, A. A. 1995. Gross and histologic lesions of adenovirus group 1 in guinea fowl. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation 7 (4): 552-554.

78

Chambers, R. 1993. Challenging the Professions: Frontiers for Rural Development. Intermediate Technology Publications, London, UK. Chikura, S. 1999. An assessment of the role of goats in a smallholder crop-livestock production system of Zimbabwe. A Case Study of Wedza Communal Area. MPhil Thesis, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe, pp 39-43. Chivandi, E., Mbundure, A. and Mufumisi, T. 2002. Guinea fowl farming- A promising livestock enterprise. Department of Agricultural Research and Extension, Ministry of Agriculture, Zimbabwe. pp 2. Christophe, A.A.M. 1995. Methodologie du development de L elelevage de la pentade au BeninL institut National Agronomique, Paris, France. CIMMYT: Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maizy Trigo. 1980. Planning technologies appropriate for farmers: Concepts and Procedures. CIMMYT Economics programme, Mexico City, Mexico. pp 1-69. Coid, C., Gaidet, N., Moyo, C., Poilecot, P., Poulet, D., Renaude, P. C., Ricard, X. and Takawira, S. 2001. The mankind and the animal in the Zambezi Valley. Ed. Jean L. CIRAD-Emvt. Montpellier Cedex 5, France, 72 pp. Dieng, A., Gue’ye, E.F., Mahoungou-Mouelle, N.M. and Buldgen, A. 1999. Effect of diet and poultry species on feed intake and digestibility of nutrients in Senegal. Livestock Research for Rural Development 10 (3): 5-9. Dolberg, F. and Petersen, P.H. 1999. Poultry as a tool in poverty alleviation and promotion of gender equality. Proceedings of a workshop held at Tune Landboskole, Denmark, March 22-26, 1999, 363 pp. Dondofema, F. 2000. A Survey of agricultural production and marketing in Nenyunga Communal Lands with special emphasis on livestock. B.Sc., Hons. Dissertation, University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe. pp 30. Durojaiye, O.A., Agoha, N.J., Akpaive, S.O. and Adene, D.F., 1992. Pathogenicity of two strains of Newcastle disease virus in grey breasted helmeted guinea fowl. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Ibadan, Nigeria, Veterinary Quarterly 14 (2): 51-53. Eamens, G.J. and Schenk, E.A. 1985. Erysipelothrix in guinea fowl. Journal of Histotechnology, Australia 4: 127. Ekue, F.N. 2002. Increasing farmyard poultry production in Africa by improving vaccination against Newcastle and Gumboro diseases using nuclear based technologies: The case of Bamenda Highlands of Cameroon. Institute of Agricultural Research and Development (IRAD), pp 7. Embury, I. 2001. Raising guinea fowl. Agfact. A5.0.8. New South Wales Agriculture Publications, New South Wales, USA, pp 4.

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. Gunaratne, S. P. 1999. Feeding and nutrition of scavenging village chickens. The Scope and Effect of Family Poultry Research and Development. First IFPD/FAO Electronic Conference on Family Poultry. Free Communication. Available: http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/subjects/en/infpd/documents/econf_scope/add_paper2.h tml. pp 6. Date accessed: 14 January 2002. Haruna, E.S., Shamaki, D., Echeonwu, G.O.N., Majiyagbe, K.A. and Shuayibu, Y. 1993. A natural outbreak of Newcastle Disease (ND) in guinea fowl in Nigeria. Revue-scientifique-et-Technique –Office International –des- Epizooties 12 (3): 887893. Haziev, G.Z. and Khan, S.A. 1991. Helminths of guinea fowl in Bashkir ASSR. Veterinary Parasitology 38 (4): 349-353. Huque, Q.M.E. 1999. Nutritional status of family poultry in Bangladesh. Livestock Research for Rural Development 11 (3): 11. Idi, I. 1996. Peasant practices in traditional poultry farming. Research and Development. INRAN/DRVZ, Bulletin 1996. Available: www.fao.org/ag/ againfo/subjects/ en/infpd/documents/newsletters/Infpd83.pdf. pp 23. Date accessed: 14 January 2002. ILCA: International Livestock Cenre for Africa. 1983. Pastoral Systems Research Bulletin 16: 22. Ito, N.M.K., Jerez, J.A., Miraj, C.I., Capellaro Cemp-dal, M. and Catroxo, M.H.B. 1996. Studies with reovirus isolated from guinea fowl. Brazilian Journal of Veterinary Research and Animal Science 33 (2): 77-81. Johnson, E.P. and Anderson, G.W. 1933. An outbreak of fowl typhoid in guinea fowls. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Medicine Association 82: 258-259.

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. INFPD/FAO Electronic Conference on Poultry 3: 1-6. The First

Knox, I. 2000. Guinea fowl. Farm Diversification Information Service. Available: www.dpi.vic.gov.au/dpi/nreninf.nsf/childdocs/-89E7A8DAFEA417624A2568B30004 C26A-64B42202603AE380CA256BC700. pp 2. Date accessed: 24 November 2001. Kusina, J.F. and Kusina, N.T. 1999. Feasibility study of agricultural and household activities as they relate to livestock production in Guruve District of Mashonaland Province with emphasis on poultry. University of Zimbabwe, Zimbabwe, pp 93. Kusina, J.F. and Muchenje, V. 1999. Biodiversity, conservation and sustainable development in the Mid-Zambezi Valley. Action 5. Micro projects feasibility study in small animal breeding in Angwa, Neshangwe-Gonono, Guruve, Zimbabwe, pp 46. Kusina, J.F., Kusina, N.T. and Mhlanga, J. 2000. Poultry production in Mashonaland Central Province: The role and opportunities for women. Integrated livestock-crop production systems in smallholder farming systems in Zimbabwe. Proceedings of a Review Workshop, Harare, Zimbabwe 10-13 January 2000: pp 247-264. Lakshminarasimh, A. and Onyeanus, B.I. 1988. Leuco cytozoon neavei in grey breasted helmet guinea fowl. Indian Veterinary Journal 65 (12): 1082-1083. Laroche, M. 1985. Erysipelothrix in guinea fowl. Bulletin of Academic Veterinary, France 58: 259. Leroy-Sentrin, S., Flaujac, C., Thenaisy, K. and Chaslus-Dancla, E. 1998. Genetic diversity of Ornithobacterium rhinotracheale strains isolated from poultry in France. Letters-in-Microbiology 26 (3): 188-193. Ligomela, B. 2000. Population growth compatible with sustainable development. The Zambezi Newsletter. Musokotwane Environment Resource Center for Southern Africa. Available: http://www.sardc.net/imercsa/zambezi/ZNewsletter/issue3of2/district.htm, 3 pp. Date accessed: 25 November 2001. Litjerns, J.B., Willigen, F., Kleyn-van, C. and Sinke, M. 1989. Swollen head syndrome in a flock of guinea fowl. Tijdschrift-voor-Diergeneeskunde 114 (13): 719-720.

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. Northcurt, J.K. 1997. Factors affecting poultry meat quality. GeorgiaExtension Services Publications. Bulletin 157, June: pp 3. Nwagu, B.I. 1997. Factors affecting fertility and hatchability of guinea fowl eggs in Nigeria. World Poultry Science Journal 53: 279-285. Nwagu, B.I. and Alawa, C.B.I. 1995. Guinea fowl production in Nigeria. World Poultry Science Journal 51: 260-270. Oakland Zoo, 2001. Animals A-Z. Helmeted guinea fowl. Available: www.oaklandzoo.org/ atoz/ azguinea.html), pp 1. Date accessed: 10 December 2001.

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. Robinson, R. 2000. Regulatory Impact Analysis. Canadian Food Inspection Agency. Ontario. Canada, pp 3. Saina, H. 2001. Livestock production in the semi-arid smallholder farming area of Chirisa in Midlands Province of Zimbabwe. B.Sc. Honours. Dissertation. University of Zimbabwe, Harare, Zimbabwe. Saina, H., Kusina, N.T, Kusina, J.F, Bhebhe, E. and Lebel, S. 2003a. A survey of guinea fowl production under smallholder farmer management in Zimbabwe. Poster presentation. Proceeding of the XXVI International Congress of Game Biologists (IUBG) Quiaios Figueira da Foz, Portugal, 2003. Saina, H., Kusina, N.T., Kusina, J.F., Bhebhe, E. and Lebel, S. 2003b. Guinea fowl production under traditional management system. Paper presented at the Southern African Wildlife Management Association Symposium: Balancing Books for Biodiversity, Ganze Kraal Conference Centre, Cape West Coast, South Africa, 21-23 September 2003. Santa-Cruz, A.C.M., Ortiz-de-Rott, M.I. and Resoagli, E.H. 1998. Heterakiasis in Numidia meleagris. Boletin-Chilemo-de-Parasitologia 53 (3): 70-72.

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-deMedicina-Veterinaria 19(5): 206-208. Statistical Analysis Systems (SAS), 1998. User’s Guide: Statistics, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, North Carolina, USA. Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), 1998. User’s Guide. SPSS Inc. Chicago, Illinois, USA. Swan, S.E.J. 1999. The poultry development strategy of the livestock development project in Bangladesh. The Danish Agricultural and Rural Development Advisors Forum. Ed. Frands Dolberg and Poul Henning Petersen. Proccedings of a workshop on poultry as a tool in poverty alleviation and promotion of gender equality, Tune Landboskole, Denmark March 22-26, 1999. pp 128-135. Tadelle, D. 1996. The role of scavenging poultry in integrated farming systems in Ethiopia. In: Livestock Feed Resources within Integrated Farming Systems. Second FAO Electronic Conference on Tropical Feeds, pp 377-399. Tanyi, J., Glavits, R., Salyi, G., Rudas, P., Kosa, E. and Szabo, J. 1994. Pancreatitis caused by reovirus in guinea fowl. Avian Pathology 23(1): 61-77. United States, Department of Agriculture, 1976. Raising guinea fowl. Northern Region, Agricultural Research Service, Washington DC. Leaflet No. 519: pp7. Vaissaive, T., Desmettre, P., Paille, G., Mivial, G. and Laroche, M. 1985. Eryspelothrix in guinea fowls. Bulletin of Academic Veterinary of France 58: 259. Van Marle-Köster, E. and Webb, E.C. 2000. Carcass characteristics of South African native chicken lines. South African Journal of Animal Science 30 (1): 53-56. Zanella, A., Dall’Ava, P. and Martino, P.A. 2001. Avian influenza epidemic in Italy due to serovar 1+7NI. Avian Diseases 45: 257-261. Zellen, G.K., Key, D.W. and Jack, S.W. 1989. Adenoviral pancreatitis in guinea fowl. Avian Diseases 33: 586 –589.

84

APPENDICES
Appendix 1
Survey questionnaire on guinea fowl production by smallholder farmers
Date: Number of questionnaire:

1. How many guinea fowls are you rearing? Category Adult females Adult males Keets and growers Number

2. What are the tasks associated with keeping guinea fowl? 3. Who is responsible for doing the tasks? Person Tasks (give water/food, build the guinea fowl house, etc) Husband Wife Son(s) Daughter(s) Other - who? 4. Who owns the guinea fowls? (Mark the correct response with an “X”) Husband Wife Son(s) Daughter(s) Other - who? 5. Daily routine for guinea fowls rearing: Activity(ies) Time/Frequency Shut the guinea fowl in at night Let the guinea fowl out in morning Cleaning the guinea fowl house Give water Give food Treating of guinea fowl Marketing of the products Egg collection Other-what? 6. Where does the household keep guinea fowl during the day (D) and at night (N)? Location Materials Adult Keets D N D N Tree Guinea fowl house on the

Who is responsible?

Size

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 8. Do you keep different age groups of guinea fowls in different compartments?

Guinea fowl strain
11. What are the special features of your guinea fowls? Feature Description Colour of feathers Colour of legs Colour of beak Weight (at physiological maturity) Length of legs Breast length How do you identify the sex of you guinea fowl?

Guinea fowl productivity
Parameter 12.When does the guinea hen start laying eggs? 13.When do the guinea hens lay their last eggs? 14.Where does the guinea hens lay their eggs? 15.How often do you collect the eggs for incubation? 16.How many eggs on average does a guinea hen lay per clutch? 17.Where do you store the eggs before incubation? 18.How do you incubate the eggs? 19.How many eggs on average do you incubate at a time? 20.How many eggs on average hatch per clutch? 21.At what age will you allow the keets to free range? 22. How many chicks on average survive the first two months? 23. At what age do guinea fowl first lay eggs? Number

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 Never sell Money Exchange for other products what? Where do you sell them? Egg

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 keets Adults keets Adults Guinea fowl Chickens Other - what?

Other causes keets Adults

31. What do you do with your guinea fowl when they are sick? Eat them Sell them Treat them Other - what? 32. What treatment do you give your birds? How do you prepare the treatment? Conventional Traditional Treatment How to prepare and administer

33. Where do you get this treatment? Veterinary Services Pharmacy Shop/market

Traditional healer NGO/Project Other - where?

34. Do you ever vaccinate your guinea fowl against any disease? 35. If yes, what disease were the birds vaccinated against? 36. When were the birds vaccinated? Nutrition 37. What type of food do you give your chickens? Type of food Frequency Nothing

Time of year

87

Maize Sunflower Food scraps - what? Sorghum Maize bran Other - what? 38. How are the feeds presented to the guinea fowls? 39. Do you mix the feed for the birds? 40. If yes, how do you mix it? 41. When do you provide the guinea fowl supplementary feed? 42. How much feed do you give the guinea fowls per day? 43. Do you give water to your birds? Yes/No. If yes, where does the water come from? What type of container do you put the water in? Water source Container Borehole Plastic bowl Well Metal bowl River/stream Ceramic bowl Used Tin Rainwater Other Other 44. Do you have any other information that you would like to share on guinea fowl production? 45. Personal details: Name: District: Male/Female: Ethnic group: Who is the head of your family:

Village: Province: Age: Local languages:

88

Appendix 2
Monitoring data sheets for smallholder guinea fowl production

1 Flock dynamics data sheet Enumerator
Ward Household Date of visit A Date of Visit B keets Previous recording Sold Gifted Consumed Died Lost Transferred out a Purchased Entrusted Transferred in b growers hens cocks

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 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
a

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 Visit A Visit B Hens sitting on eggs Hens looking after keets Idle G. F hens

Observe the number of eggs in nests and the number of eggs being incubated. Check the number of eggs sold, eaten, hatched and wasted since the last visit. Eggs in nest Previous visit Consumed Sold Hatched Wasted Laid Begun incubation Number at visit A Consumed Sold Hatched Wasted Laid Begun incubation Number at visit B Eggs incubated

3 Record feed inputs purchased since the last visit.
Type Visit A Quantity Price

Visit B

4 Veterinary and other inputs for poultry since the last visit
Veterinary medicine purchased Type Visit A Visit B quantity price other inputs purchased type Quantity Price

90

5 Mortality of guinea fowls
date Keets Growers Hen Cock Cause disposal method Prevention method

6. Marketing of guinea fowl products Eggs
Quantity Unit ¨Price Total income Buyer

keets

growers

hens

cocks

7 Comments from the farmer
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………

91

Appendix 3
Weekly guinea fowl production summary sheet

Eggs collected wk total to date Total C/F from monday tuesday wednesday thursday Friday saturday sunday Totals for week Totals for season C/F

Egg spoiled wk total to date

Eggs under incubation wk total to date

Keets hatched wk total to date

Keet mortality wk total to date

Keets surviving wk total to date

Keets sold wk total to date

Balance stock on hand Wk total to date

92

Appendix 4
Flock inventory form
Name of Farmer…………………………. Farmer code……………………Date______/______/________
Guinea Fowls Number in flock in Purchase/sale Gifts Slaughter Hatch/death Theft Move group TOTAL Closing flock + + + + + + + out In out in out in out in out in out in out keets Rearing females 1st parity hens 2rd parity hens 3rd parity hens Cockereals Breeding cocks

93

Appendix 5:
SAS output on body mass of guinea fowls under intensive (1) and semi-extensive management systems (2)

The MIXED Procedure

Table A5.1 Tests of Fixed Effects Source TRT FARMER WEEK TRT*WEEK NDF 1 4 8 8 DDF 950 950 950 950 Type III F 471.00 7.92 283.06 10.35 Pr > F 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

Table A5.2 Least Squares Means Effect TRT TRT FARMER FARMER FARMER FARMER FARMER TRT*WEEK TRT*WEEK TRT*WEEK TRT*WEEK TRT*WEEK TRT*WEEK TRT*WEEK TRT*WEEK TRT*WEEK TRT*WEEK TRT*WEEK TRT*WEEK TRT*WEEK TRT*WEEK TRT*WEEK TRT*WEEK TRT*WEEK TRT*WEEK TRT 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 FARMER WEEK LSMEAN 775.95097530 591.59026286 697.20603980 671.22193120 702.01642905 642.68963127 705.71906408 300.83333333 559.54975289 658.33333333 705.00000000 806.56668030 887.70374153 940.18736995 1053.3006447 1072.0839217 284.16666667 438.95516823 486.36363636 542.59831561 590.62545152 660.78465530 740.88086309 757.05674589 822.88086309 Std Error 5.80953640 6.20886932 9.14939390 10.06759137 9.41749124 9.54334564 9.21461439 16.94656560 17.09015060 16.94656560 16.94656560 17.23719308 17.38777114 17.23719308 19.69395538 17.23719308 16.94656560 17.23721191 17.70011049 20.37684152 18.03400627 18.57416359 18.57792204 21.14455403 18.57792204 DF 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 t 133.57 95.28 76.20 66.67 74.54 67.34 76.59 17.75 32.74 38.85 41.60 46.79 51.05 54.54 53.48 62.20 16.77 25.47 27.48 26.63 32.75 35.58 39.88 35.80 44.29 Pr > |t| 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001

94

Table A5.3 Differences of Least Squares Means
Effect TRT TRT 1 FARMER FARMER FARMER FARMER FARMER FARMER FARMER FARMER FARMER FARMER TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 FARMER 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 3 4 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 13 14 WEEK _TRT 2 _FARMER 2 3 4 5 3 4 5 4 5 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 12 13 14 15 16 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 12 13 14 15 16 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 13 14 15 16 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 15 _WEEK Difference 184.36071244 25.98410860 -4.81038924 54.51640853 -8.51302428 -30.79449785 28.53229993 -34.49713288 59.32679777 -3.70263504 -63.02943281 -258.7164196 -357.5000000 -404.1666667 -505.7333470 -586.8704082 -639.3540366 -752.4673114 -771.2505883 16.66666667 -138.1218349 -185.5303030 -241.7649823 -289.7921182 -359.9513220 -440.0475298 -456.2234126 -522.0475298 -98.78358044 -145.4502471 -247.0169274 -328.1539886 -380.6376171 -493.7508918 -512.5341688 275.38308623 120.59458467 73.18611653 16.95143729 -31.07569863 -101.2349024 -181.3311102 -197.5069930 -263.3311102 -46.66666667 -148.2333470 -229.3704082 -281.8540366 -394.9673114 -413.7505883 374.16666667 219.37816511 171.96969697 115.73501773 67.70788181 -2.45132197 -82.54752975 -98.72341256 -164.5475298 -101.5666803 -182.7037415 -235.1873700 -348.3006447 -367.0839217 420.83333333 266.04483177 218.63636364 162.40168439 114.37454848 44.21534470 -35.88086309 -52.05674589 -117.8808631 -81.13706123 -133.6206897 -246.7339644 -265.5172414 522.40001363 367.61151207 320.20304393 263.96836469 215.94122877 145.78202499 65.68581721 49.50993440 -16.31418279 -52.48362842 -165.5969032 -184.3801801 603.53707486 448.74857330 401.34010517 345.10542592 297.07829001 226.91908623 146.82287844 130.64699564 64.82287844 -113.1132748 Std Error 8.49487108 13.60111923 13.12237367 13.21252777 12.98433624 13.76226869 13.84612728 13.63979306 13.38241124 13.17202077 13.26138440 24.06780698 23.96606290 23.96606290 24.17244114 24.28004676 24.17244114 25.98149272 24.17244114 23.96606290 24.17245457 24.50469337 26.50286316 24.74694865 25.14330206 25.14607868 27.09756909 25.14607868 24.06780698 24.06780698 24.27371343 24.38107999 24.27371343 26.07939143 24.27371343 24.06780698 24.27375231 24.60421019 26.59859662 24.84480180 25.24025473 25.24415827 27.19229238 25.24415827 23.96606290 24.17244114 24.28004676 24.17244114 25.98149272 24.17244114 23.96606290 24.17245457 24.50469337 26.50286316 24.74694865 25.14330206 25.14607868 27.09756909 25.14607868 24.17244114 24.28004676 24.17244114 25.98149272 24.17244114 23.96606290 24.17245457 24.50469337 26.50286316 24.74694865 25.14330206 25.14607868 27.09756909 25.14607868 24.48288569 24.37576887 26.17788167 24.37576887 24.17244114 24.37693784 24.70657274 26.69601621 24.94650921 25.33868984 25.34147153 27.28576636 25.34147153 24.48288569 26.28038314 24.48288569 24.28004676 24.48409523 24.81186202 26.79618497 25.05003613 25.44007123 25.44163582 27.38337924 25.44163582 26.17788167 DF 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 t Pr > |t| 21.70 0.0001 1.91 0.0564 -0.37 0.7140 4.13 0.0001 -0.66 0.5122 -2.24 0.0255 2.06 0.0396 -2.53 0.0116 4.43 0.0001 -0.28 0.7787 -4.75 0.0001 -10.75 0.0001 -14.92 0.0001 -16.86 0.0001 -20.92 0.0001 -24.17 0.0001 -26.45 0.0001 -28.96 0.0001 -31.91 0.0001 0.70 0.4870 -5.71 0.0001 -7.57 0.0001 -9.12 0.0001 -11.71 0.0001 -14.32 0.0001 -17.50 0.0001 -16.84 0.0001 -20.76 0.0001 -4.10 0.0001 -6.04 0.0001 -10.18 0.0001 -13.46 0.0001 -15.68 0.0001 -18.93 0.0001 -21.11 0.0001 11.44 0.0001 4.97 0.0001 2.97 0.0030 0.64 0.5241 -1.25 0.2113 -4.01 0.0001 -7.18 0.0001 -7.26 0.0001 -10.43 0.0001 -1.95 0.0518 -6.13 0.0001 -9.45 0.0001 -11.66 0.0001 -15.20 0.0001 -17.12 0.0001 15.61 0.0001 9.08 0.0001 7.02 0.0001 4.37 0.0001 2.74 0.0063 -0.10 0.9224 -3.28 0.0011 -3.64 0.0003 -6.54 0.0001 -4.20 0.0001 -7.52 0.0001 -9.73 0.0001 -13.41 0.0001 -15.19 0.0001 17.56 0.0001 11.01 0.0001 8.92 0.0001 6.13 0.0001 4.62 0.0001 1.76 0.0790 -1.43 0.1539 -1.92 0.0550 -4.69 0.0001 -3.31 0.0010 -5.48 0.0001 -9.43 0.0001 -10.89 0.0001 21.61 0.0001 15.08 0.0001 12.96 0.0001 9.89 0.0001 8.66 0.0001 5.75 0.0001 2.59 0.0097 1.81 0.0699 -0.64 0.5199 -2.14 0.0323 -6.30 0.0001 -7.53 0.0001 24.86 0.0001 18.33 0.0001 16.18 0.0001 12.88 0.0001 11.86 0.0001 8.92 0.0001 5.77 0.0001 4.77 0.0001 2.55 0.0110 -4.32 0.0001

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1

95

Effect TRT TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 1 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2 TRT*WEEK 2

FARMER

WEEK 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 16 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 12 13 13 13 14 14 15

_TRT 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

_FARMER

_WEEK 16 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 16 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 11 12 13 14 15 16 12 13 14 15 16 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 15 16 16

Difference -131.8965517 656.02070328 501.2322017 453.82373359 397.58905435 349.56191843 279.40271465 199.30650686 183.13062406 117.30650686 -18.78327695 769.13397806 614.34547650 566.93700836 510.70232912 462.67519320 392.51598942 312.41978164 296.24389883 230.41978164 787.91725501 633.12875345 585.72028531 529.48560607 481.4584701 411.29926637 331.20305859 315.02717578 249.20305859 -154.7885016 -202.1969697 -258.4316489 -306.4587849 -376.6179886 -456.7141964 -472.8900792 -538.7141964 -47.40846814 -103.6431474 -151.6702833 -221.8294871 -301.9256949 -318.1015777 -383.9256949 -56.23467924 -104.2618152 -174.4210189 -254.5172267 -270.6931095 -336.5172267 -48.02713592 -118.1863397 -198.2825475 -214.4584303 -280.2825475 -70.15920378 -150.2554116 -166.4312944 -232.2554116 -80.09620778 -96.27209059 -162.0962078 -16.17588281 -82.00000000 -65.82411719

Std Error 24.37576887 24.17244114 24.37693784 24.70657274 26.69601621 24.94650921 25.33868984 25.34147153 27.28576636 25.34147153 26.17788167 25.98149272 26.16192777 26.47915765 28.16408460 26.72816511 27.10711986 27.10845455 28.72345334 27.10845455 24.17244114 24.37693784 24.70657274 26.69601621 24.94650921 25.33868984 25.34147153 27.28576636 25.34147153 24.17245457 24.50469337 26.50286316 24.74694865 25.14330206 25.14607868 27.09756909 25.14607868 24.70658588 26.68074519 24.94907666 25.34392101 25.34670139 27.27271614 25.34670139 26.99091665 25.26893930 25.65723026 25.65995126 27.57509885 25.65995126 27.23419545 27.60492145 27.60611240 29.19353821 27.60611240 25.88172212 25.88437997 27.81201063 25.88437997 26.25481830 28.17045072 26.25481830 28.16995624 26.25350653 28.16995624

DF 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950 950

t Pr > |t| -5.41 0.0001 27.14 0.0001 20.56 0.0001 18.37 0.0001 14.89 0.0001 14.01 0.0001 11.03 0.0001 7.86 0.0001 6.71 0.0001 4.63 0.0001 -0.72 0.4732 29.60 0.0001 23.48 0.0001 21.41 0.0001 18.13 0.0001 17.31 0.0001 14.48 0.0001 11.52 0.0001 10.31 0.0001 8.50 0.0001 32.60 0.0001 25.97 0.0001 23.71 0.0001 19.83 0.0001 19.30 0.0001 16.23 0.0001 13.07 0.0001 11.55 0.0001 9.83 0.0001 -6.40 0.0001 -8.25 0.0001 -9.75 0.0001 -12.38 0.0001 -14.98 0.0001 -18.16 0.0001 -17.45 0.0001 -21.42 0.0001 -1.92 0.0553 -3.88 0.0001 -6.08 0.0001 -8.75 0.0001 -11.91 0.0001 -11.66 0.0001 -15.15 0.0001 -2.08 0.0375 -4.13 0.0001 -6.80 0.0001 -9.92 0.0001 -9.82 0.0001 -13.11 0.0001 -1.76 0.0781 -4.28 0.0001 -7.18 0.0001 -7.35 0.0001 -10.15 0.0001 -2.71 0.0068 -5.80 0.0001 -5.98 0.0001 -8.97 0.0001 -3.05 0.0023 -3.42 0.0007 -6.17 0.0001 -0.57 0.5660 -3.12 0.0018 -2.34 0.0197

96

Appendix 6
Descriptive statistics and paired ‘t’-test of carcass composition parameters from guinea fowls reared under intensive and semi-extensive management systems
Table A6.1 Means and standard deviations (g) of live weight, dressed weight, total meat yield and meat to bone ratio -----------RESPONSE---------TREATMENT PARAMATER N Mean SD Intensive Body weight 10 1110.00000 92.7960727 Intensive Dressed weight 10 838.06000 77.4657659 Intensive Meat yield 10 442.50000 66.3530122 Intensive Bones Yield 10 221.64000 12.4139885 Intensive Meat to bone ratio 10 2.00100 0.2784660 Semi-extensive Live weight 10 866.00000 86.2425520 Semi-extensive Dressed weight 10 620.72000 64.4608891 Semi-extensive Meat yield 10 292.00000 54.0431926 Semi-extensive Bone yield 10 178.52000 17.6558332 Semi-extensive Meat to bone ratio 10 1.63400 0.2484262 Table A6.2 Means and standard deviations of weight of cut parts ------------WEIGHT----------TREATMENT PART N Mean SD Intensive Intensive Intensive Intensive Intensive Intensive Intensive Semi-extensive Semi-extensive Semi-extensive Semi-extensive Semi-extensive Semi-extensive Semi-extensive Legs Thighs Wings Breast Back Neck Skin Legs Thighs Wings Breast Back Neck Skin 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 105.590000 131.740000 121.260000 260.800000 138.030000 65.510000 73.850000 78.540000 96.730000 90.370000 191.490000 107.410000 50.840000 59.320000 11.0758446 15.5337053 10.6709575 32.9631444 15.3084617 5.3405056 9.3842954 8.4829502 9.0561275 8.3163894 24.2005716 14.0248549 5.9989258 8.9546760

Table A6.3 Means and standard deviations of muscles of cut parts ------------WEIGHT----------TREATMENTT PART N Mean SD Intensive Intensive Intensive Intensive Intensive Semi-extensive Semi-extensive Semi-extensive Semi-extensive Semi-extensive Thigh Leg Wing Back Breast Thigh Leg Wing Back Breast 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 100.350000 73.880000 56.240000 34.090000 179.620000 66.770000 52.050000 37.070000 23.460000 121.830000 12.5672635 8.8673935 9.4568259 7.2951201 30.6937489 7.8475828 6.5076451 5.1839603 5.5632125 17.2577229

Table A6.4 Means and standard deviations of bones of cut parts ------------WEIGHT----------TREATMENT PART N Mean SD Intensive Thigh bone 10 18.5750000 1.31217589 Intensive Leg bone 10 24.4700000 2.25341716 Intensive Wing bone 10 45.0600000 4.45476025 Intensive Back bone 10 78.1200000 7.11864531 Intensive Breast bone 10 55.4200000 4.86090984 Semi-extensive Thigh bone 10 15.9500000 1.92426032 Semi-extensive Leg bone 10 18.3800000 1.90717942 Semi-extensive Wing bone 10 36.9600000 4.16605329 Semi-extensive Back bone 10 60.4300000 6.38001219 Semi-extensive Breast bone 10 46.8800000 7.51661863

97

Table A6.5 Means and standard deviations of chemical composition of guinea fowl meat -----------RESPONSE---------TREATMENT COMPOSITION N Mean SD Intensive Intensive Intensive Intensive Semi-extensive Semi-extensive Semi-extensive Semi-extensive Fat Dry matter Crude protein Ash Fat Dry matter Crude protein Ash 5 5 4 5 5 5 4 5 14.8160000 22.8900000 75.4200000 9.2860000 19.9420000 26.0940000 72.7125000 7.8440000 10.6467990 1.0684334 6.3213764 4.8740773 14.3701538 4.1170900 10.0506861 4.1734195

Table A6.6 Paired-comparison ‘t’-test of guinea fowl meat dissected parts and chemical composition for guinea fowls reared under intensive and semi-extensive management systems Analysis Variable: means are differences between intensively and semi-extensively reared guinea fowl carcass parameters Mean Std Error T Prob>|T| -------------------------------------------------244.0000000 36.1693547 6.7460424 0.0001 217.3000000 30.6021241 7.1008143 0.0001 150.5000000 30.4292440 4.9459001 0.0008 40.7000000 7.5248477 5.4087473 0.0004 0.3670000 0.1338909 2.7410373 0.0228 27.0500000 4.8188346 5.6133905 0.0003 35.0100000 5.9571703 5.8769514 0.0002 30.8900000 4.7497006 6.5035679 0.0001 69.3100000 12.7478752 5.4369845 0.0004 30.6200000 7.9473098 3.8528761 0.0039 14.6700000 2.6887027 5.4561629 0.0004 14.5300000 4.7134571 3.0826630 0.0131 33.5800000 5.2265094 6.4249383 0.0001 21.8300000 3.8948984 5.6047675 0.0003 19.1700000 3.9158098 4.8955391 0.0009 10.6300000 3.2343315 3.2866143 0.0094 57.7900000 11.2504563 5.1366806 0.0006 2.6250000 0.7806425 3.3626146 0.0084 6.0900000 1.0669218 5.7080095 0.0003 8.1000000 2.2231609 3.6434610 0.0054 17.6900000 3.7713673 4.6906065 0.0011 8.5400000 2.4813169 3.4417209 0.0074 -5.1260000 2.0919049 -2.4503982 0.0704 -3.2040000 1.7142713 -1.8690157 0.1350 2.7075000 2.5534336 1.0603370 0.3668 1.4420000 1.4898570 0.9678781 0.3879 --------------------------------------------------

Body weight Dressed weight Total meat yield Total bone yield Meat to bone ratio Dissected parts Legs Dissected parts Thighs Dissected parts wings Dissected parts Breast Dissected parts Back Dissected parts Neck Dissected parts Skin Muscle of cut parts Thigh Muscle of cut parts Legs Muscle of cut parts Wings Muscle of cut parts back Muscle of cut parts Breast Bones of cut parts Thighs Bones of cut parts Legs Bones of cut parts Wings Bones of cut parts Back Bones of cut parts Breast Proximate components Fat Proximate components Dry matter Proximate components Crude Protein Proximate components Ash

98

Appendix 7:
Guinea fowl production technologies and systems practiced and tested in Lower Guruve District of Zimbabwe Intensive guinea fowl production system
Artificial incubation of guinea fowl eggs

Semi-extensive guinea fowl production
Natural incubation of guinea fowl eggs

Surrogate hen brooding of guinea fowl keets

Intensive brooding of guinea fowl keets

Semi-extensive guinea fowl rearing Intensive rearing of guinea fowls growers

99