Guide for

Livestock Research for Rural Development 28 (4) Citation of

preparation of LRRD Newsletter
2016 this paper
papers

Prospects for commercialization of indigenous chickens in

Makoni District, Zimbabwe
D Maumburudze1, J Mutambara, P Mugabe and H Manyumwa1

University of Zimbabwe, Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension, Box MP 167, Mt

Pleasant, Harare, Zimbabwe.
davyymau@gmail.com
1
University of Zimbabwe, Department of Animal Science, Box MP 167, Mt Pleasant, Harare,
Zimbabwe.

Abstract

Enhancing the production and productivity of indigenous chickens can accelerate

development of the rural social economy as indigenous chickens are an affordable
source of protein as well as a viable income earner. However, there are few success
stories of the commercialization of indigenous chickens in Africa south of the Sahara
as compared to Asia and Latin America. This study therefore investigates the
prospects for boosting production of indigenous chickens in Makoni District of
Zimbabwe. It does so by assessing the constraints to commercialization and
identifying the factors that significantly explain variation in indigenous chicken output
during the dry season. A triangulation of descriptive and inferential methods is used to
come up with possible answers to the commercialization conundrum as well
suggestive strategies for increased food, nutrition and income security through
indigenous chicken commercialization.

The results show that while respondents (rural farmers) indicated that the indigenous
chicken enterprise was the most preferable to commercialize, only 20% of the
respondents produced beyond subsistence levels. To overcome the constraints to
commercialization, the study finds that supplementing feeds and medication can assist
by reducing mortality rates and enhancing productivity. However, by employing a
variety of analytical methods to the research problem, the study results also suggest
that feed and medication supplementary strategies should not be over emphasized but
rather a holistic approach which combines these with sustainable animal husbandry
practices, for instance healthy and hazard-free housing, as well as sufficient price and
market incentives, is required to ensure successful commercialization of indigenous
chickens in rural areas such as Makoni District in Zimbabwe.
Key words: biosecurity, poultry production, rural economy, sustainable livelihoods

Introduction

This study focuses on the production of indigenous chickens by rural farmers in

Makoni District in Zimbabwe for both local and external markets. Commercialization
is increasingly gaining recognition in the smallholder agriculture and rural
development discourse. Rukuni et al (2006) define commercialization as a transition
from mostly subsistence agriculture (based on production for own consumption) to
production for the market, i.e. both local and export markets. Commercialization
implies managing or exploiting resources in a way to make profit. However, for
simplicity this study takes commercialization as the ability to produce quantities of
indigenous chickens beyond a certain threshold value in a particular time of the year.

Commercialization of indigenous chickens, like any other poultry enterprise, faces

threats from diseases. Disease is any condition that interferes with the normal
functioning of the living cells, tissues, organs or systems of the body (Fossum 2013).
Some causes of diseases in poultry include: consumption of toxic substances e.g.
poisons; physical damage e.g. from environmental extremes and/or injury; parasitic
infestations (both external and internal) such as lice and worms; and, infectious
diseases caused by micro-organisms e.g. bacteria and viruses. Vaccination is a
mitigation response to disease which entails triggering the birds’ immune system to
produce antibodies to fight infection. Biosecurity is the set of practices designed to
keep disease from a farm and to prevent the transmission of disease from an infected
farm to neighbouring farms (Nordmann 2010; Meyerson & Reaser 2002). An
inadequate biosecurity program increases the risk of disease, which may result in high
mortality and contribute to loss of farm income.

Commercialization of free range poultry production is fundamental for overcoming

poverty and food insecurity in Africa south of the Sahara where almost 80% of
livelihoods are agro-reliant and the majority of the world’s poor and food insecure
reside (AFDB 2010; UN 2014). Indigenous poultry commercialization in rural
households has potential economic and nutritional benefits, being a source of
additional income as well as household protein.

Poultry is amongst the world’s major and fastest growing sources of proteins, and
chickens are the most numerous birds in the world. Recent studies show that world
poultry populations have more than tripled, and commercial production of exotic
chicken breeds is dominating poultry in many countries, particularly in Zimbabwe
(Thornton 2010). Communal poultry production in sub-Saharan African countries
however, is dominated by indigenous chickens though they are seemingly being
replaced by the foreign breeds. Nearly all communal households in sub-Saharan
Africa depend on crop production for much of their livelihoods, and most of them
usually rear indigenous chickens which they usually use to supplement their crop
produce earnings. This study is born out of the need to ascertain whether there are any
prospects for commercializing indigenous poultry production in rural areas, with a
particular focus on Zimbabwe.

Multiple economic challenges beleaguered Zimbabwe over the decades 1998 to 2008.
This undermined the living standards of many rural communities largely driven by the
low capacity utilization and high unemployment levels in industry (RBZ 2014).
Fertilizer and seed shortages, a growing population, exposed to the vagaries of climate
change and degrading land resources impacted on the livelihoods of rural households
especially those that solely depend on producing crops as a source of livelihoods.

An advanced understanding of social and economic factors of the indigenous chicken

production system is required for its transformation into an economically rewarding
enterprise for rural households (Kitalyi 1997). Further, the socio-economic values of
local poultry should be recognized, but an investigation to identify and evaluate
problems, and plan appropriate intervention for development is paramount (Sonaiya
2000). Commercialization of indigenous chickens in the rural areas can be viewed as
step towards more sustainable and resilient agriculture and food systems as it has
lower input costs (Magothe et al 2012). However, it has been seemingly difficult for
communal farmers in African to commercialize free range chickens, with problems
such as low quality, high mortality rates and minimal participation in higher parts of
the value chain (Justus et al 2013).

Indigenous free-range species (Gallus Domesticus), remain predominant in rural

Africa despite the introduction of exotic types, because farmers have not been able to
acquire high quality inputs that exotic breeds require. Hence, rural households rely on
indigenous free range chickens which, usually have no regular health control program
and often may not require complex shelter. Indigenous chickens also play a pivotal
role in rural household food and nutrition security. While the commercialization of
free range chickens has proven successful in Bangladesh and in South East Asia, there
are no apparent improvements of the enterprise in sub Saharan Africa at present (FAO
2005; Kondombo 2005). This calls for research that examines the constraints to
commercialization of indigenous chickens in sub Saharan Africa, as this spur the
development and transformation of rural communities.

Materials and methods

Study site
Field work was conducted in Ward 16 of Makoni District in Manicaland Province of
Zimbabwe. The area is located within 15 km radius, south west of Rusape town, and
is flanked by two major roads (Wedza road and Mutare road) both emanating from
Rusape town. There are two growth centers in the area namely; Tsanzaguru and
Chiware. The area falls within Agro-ecological Region II b of Zimbabwe, with an
annual rainfall range of 850 – 1000 mm and average annual temperature range of 12-
24° C. Site selection was based on the availability of indigenous chickens reared
under the free-range system, the proximity of the area to formal markets particularly,
Rusape town. The area also has good major and minor roads that make it more
accessible than other rural areas.

Sampling strategy

Ward 16 of Makoni District consists of 26 communal villages. Cluster sampling

technique was used to randomly select ten villages namely: Munyengwa, Muziti,
Nezambe, Kanyangira, Mavhawani, Tekede, Manyeku, Chipomho, Gunda and
Muvhimwa. Thus, the population elements, i.e. communal farmers in Makoni District
were first divided into clusters, i.e. villages and then farmers were randomly selected
from the clusters to constitute the sample. Cluster sampling is cost effective,
especially for a population that is spread over a wide geographic area. The sampling
technique is also ideal for this particular study given that the sampling frame was not
available, making it impossible to conduct simple random sampling.

Data collection

Primary data were collected through a communal farmers’ survey. The survey
collected data such as: cost of producing the chickens; the monetary value of each
chicken produced and sold; diseases infecting the chicks and the percentage of the
chickens that is consumed by the household; income from sales; selection parameters
for brooding indigenous chickens; and, constraints to commercialization of indigenous
chickens among other issues.

The data collected were for the dry season of the year, i.e. from July to November.
This is because the majority of the farmers supplement feeds to free range chickens
especially in the dry seasons of the year because that is when there is little for the
chickens to scavenge. (Kondombo 2005) asserts that feed supplements of free range
chickens in the sub Saharan Africa region usually decreases or even disappears during
the wet season. Semi structured questionnaires were employed to collect the data
during the survey. These were used to obtain much required information on issues
which are directly or indirectly associated with indigenous chicken production.
Ethical considerations were made in collecting the data with the principles of
informed consent and voluntary participation upheld.
Assumptions of the study

The research assumed that each poultry farmer makes sales at a given price. The
biosphere of the study area is also assumed to be static. The value of the chicken
consumed was assumed to be equal to the value of the chicken sold, hence quantity of
chickens produced regardless whether they are sold or consumed is used as a proxy
for commercialization. Hence farmers who sold (or consumed) more than 49
indigenous chickens were taken to be commercializing them. Costs of labour and
housing are not included in the analysis as these are assumed not to vary sufficiently
from household to household.

Data Analysis

Farmers’ survey data were analysed using Software Package for Social Scientists
(SPSS). Determinants of indigenous chicken production were ranked and analysed
using Multiple Response frequencies and Multiple Linear regression model.
Descriptive statistics were used to describe the basic features of the data in the study
as they render simple summaries about the sample and measures. Each descriptive
statistic reduces vast data into a simpler summary, for example; a frequencies table of
the different constraints to commercialization shows the percentage of respondents
encountering a particular constraint.

The Independent-Samples t-Test, a well-known statistical hypothesis test, was

employed to ascertain whether the mean number of farmers operating at subsistence
level and the mean number of farmers operating at commercial level was significantly
different. In order to use the test, it was assumed that observations for the two groups
of farmers were independent random samples that are normally distributed obtained
from populations with the same variance.

The Multiple Response Frequencies method was used to analyse questions with
multiple responses. The method is a set of procedures which generates frequency
tables for sets of multiple response questions. Tabulation of the multiple categories’
set excludes variable cases with missing values. Usually, a case becomes missing only
when no one of its components is important within the given range. For example an
enumerator asks which of two livestock enterprises, indigenous chicken or beef is
preferred by farmers to be commercialized. After defining a multiple category set, the
values are tabulated by adding the same codes in the elementary variables together.
The counts and percentages (of cases and responses) for the two enterprises were
displayed in a single table of frequencies.

The model assumes the importance of counts and percentages as they essentially
describe information from any distribution. Merit for using Multiple Response
 Frequencies model is that, the total responses’ percentage represented by each service
is reported by the Percent column, as this is not easily obtainable from individual
frequency tables.

Multiple Linear Regression model

The multiple linear regression model was used to analyse the factors affecting the
output of the indigenous chicken enterprise. A linear relationship was assumed
between the dependent variable, output of indigenous chickens and explanatory
variables. The expected a priori function is as below;

Y= ∞+β1X1 + β2X2+…..+ β11X11+μ

Where Y is the criterion variable, and it represents output per enterprise, i.e. number
of birds sold or consumed. The explanatory variables XX is are: X1 (supplementary
feed costs), X2(vaccination/medication), X3 (selling price of birds), X4 (farm size),
X 5 (disinfection), X6 (age of the producer), X7 (mortality), X8 (education level),
X9 (experience by the producer), X10 (credit facility), and X11 (extension and training).
ßis are the coefficients of given variables, and μ is the error term and it represents the
unexplained variation in the dependent variable.

Table 1 shows an a priori expectation of the factors that explain variation in the output
of indigenous chickens, i.e. factors that determine the commercialization of
indigenous chickens by smallholder-communal farmers. The table also shows the
expected relationship between each elementary variable and the output and the
explanations to support the presumed relationship.

Y= ∞+β1X1 + β2X2+…..+ β11X11+μ

Table 1. A priori analysis for the determinants of commercialization of indigenous chickens in Makoni District,
Zimbabwe
Variable Expected Explanation
effect
Education level +ve As the farmer’s level of education increases he/she tends to employ
better management practices.
Producer’s experience +ve More years spend in the industry usually bring better understanding
about the industry.
Access to credit facilities +ve Enables the free range producer to have increased his/her scale of
production.
Age of the producer -ve Senescence decreases the human activity, i.e. as the farmer ages he/she
becomes less energetic.
Mortality rate -ve Decreases the output, and also de-motivates the farmer to produce more.
Disinfection +ve Reduces the chances of attacks by diseases and parasites.
Farm size +ve Provides large space for the chickens to scavenge, without encroaching
into neighbours’ premises. Also, implies more supplementary feed for the
chickens
Selling price +ve Increased bird price implies increased revenue.
Vaccination/medication +ve Vaccination decreases the incidence of disease and medication reduces
mortality.
Supplementary feed costs -ve Increase variable costs
Training and extension +ve Improves farmer management skills

Results

Level of production of indigenous chickens

While the majority of the respondents in the survey (67%) indicated that they would prefer to
commercialize indigenous chickens among other livestock enterprises, the survey also showed that only
20% of farmers actually commercialized their indigenous chicken enterprises, i.e. producing over 50
chickens in the dry period of July to November 2012. Table 2 provides descriptive statistics on
commercialization preferences of farmers involved in the survey. The data reveals that 21.7% and 8.30%
of the total respondents prefer to commercialize their cattle and goat enterprises respectively. 66.7%
prefer commercializing their indigenous chicken enterprises, and the remaining 3.30% prefer to
commercialize pigs. This shows that more than half of the farmers prefer to commercialize indigenous
chickens as compared to cattle, goats and/or pigs, with only a very small percentage preferring
commercializing the pig enterprise.

Table 2. Percentage of farmers according to their commercialization preference

Livestock enterprise preferred to be commercialized Proportion of respondents (%)
Cattle 21.7
Goats 8.30
Indigenous chickens 66.7
Pigs 3.30
TOTAL 100

While the statistics in Table 1 show that most respondent preferred to commercialize indigenous
chickens, only 20% of the indigenous chicken producers actually commercialized them.
Commercialization has been defined as producing a total output of more than 49 indigenous chickens,
over the dry season of the year between July and November. The majority of indigenous chicken
producers were not commercializing. This is illustrated by figure 1.

Figure 1. Percentage of indigenous chicken producers who are commercializing and those who are not
commercializing

While respondents showed a strong preference for commercializing indigenous

chickens, only a minority of them actually commercialized indigenous chicken
production. Average production levels remain below the commercialization
benchmark of 50 indigenous chickens in the dry season. To further investigate this,
inferential statistics, particularly the independent samples t-test and multiple linear
regression were applied to compare the socioeconomic characteristics of commercial
and non-commercial farmers as well as to assess the relative importance of the
determinants of commercialization among farmers.

Socio-economic characteristics of indigenous chicken producers

Independent samples t-test of comparing means was used to test the difference in
means of variables that include: demographic characteristics (measured by household
size, average age of farmer, education level of farmer); supplementing feed, medicines
or water (measured by the respective average cost and frequency of water provision);
benefits realized from indigenous chickens (measured by birds consumed, income
earned from birds, and price at which birds are sold); and mortality rate. Level of
operation, i.e. commercial or not commercial is the variable that was used to group the
data as shown in Table 3. The test was carried out at 5% level of significance, and
equal variances were assumed.

In terms of the difference in demographic characteristics between commercial and

non-commercial farmers, age of farmer and education level differed significantly with
commercial indigenous chicken producers being older and having spent less time in
formal education as compared to those who are not commercial. Average household
size however did not differ between commercial and non-commercial farmers.

The frequency of providing water significantly differed between those farmers who
are commercial and those who are not. Other supplementary activities such as the
average amount of money spent on medicines and commercial feed differed though
not significantly between commercial and non-commercial indigenous chicken
producers.

In terms of the difference in both the nutritional and economic benefits from
indigenous chickens between commercial and non-commercial farmers there was no
significant difference. Particularly, the number of birds consumed, the average income
from selling birds and the average price at which the birds are sold did not differ
significantly.

However, the mortality rate differed significantly, with that of commercial producers being lower than
that of non-commercial producers.

Table 3. Independent samples t-test results for socio-economic characteristics of commercial and
non-commercial indigenous chicken producers
Not Significance
Variable Commercial
commercial level
Household characteristics
Age of farmer (years) 53.9 50.1 **
Average number of years spent 9.67 9.88 ***
in formal education
 Average household size 6.50 5.19
Supplements
Average amount of money spent 14.0 5.00
on modern medicines (US$)
Average amount of money spent 86.0 19.0
on commercial feeds (US$)
Average frequency of providing 2.00 1.85 **
water per day
Benefits from indigenous chickens
Average number of birds 17.0 13.0
consumed
Average income generated from 311 104
indigenous chickens (US$)
Average price at which birds are 5.00 6.00
sold (US$)
Mortality rate (percentage) 9.32 29.9 ***
*p<0.1, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01

Determinants of commercial indigenous chicken production

The survey data were analysed using Multiple Response frequencies, and using the Multiple Linear
regression model to assess the determinants of commercial indigenous chicken production. The Multiple
Response frequencies method was used to find out the intensity of constraints to commercially produce
indigenous chickens, as given by the respondents. The results are shown in Table 4. The results show that
26.9% of the total respondents indicated that the lack of access to modern medicines prevented
commercialization of their indigenous chicken enterprises. 17.9% indicated that it is the lack of access to
commercial feeds, and 15.2% indicated that inadequate experience was the hindrance to
commercializing their indigenous chicken enterprises. Other constraints highlighted include poor pricing
system (cited by 11.0% of respondents), aging or senescence (by 10.3%), lack of access to credit (by
9.00%), theft (by 6.90%) and lack of training and extension on indigenous chickens (cited by 2.80% of
respondents).

Table 4. Frequencies of free-range chicken producers facing a particular constraint

Constraint Number of responses Percent ( %) Ranking
Lack of access to modern
39 26.9 1
medicines
Lack of access to commercial
26 17.9 2
feeds
Inappropriate experience 22 15.2 3
Poor pricing system 16 11.0 4
Ageing 15 10.3 5
Lack of access to credit facilities 13 9.00 6
High mortalities 10 6.90 7
Inadequate training and extension
4 2.80 8
on indigenous chicken
Total 145 100

The constraints were ranked order from the most important, i.e. lack of access to
modern medicines and lack of training and extension on rearing indigenous chickens
being the least important.
The Multiple Response frequencies analysis was coupled with Multiple Linear Regression analysis in
order to investigate the nature of the relationship between commercialization of indigenous chickens
and various explanatory variables. The backward method was used to run the regression analysis. The
backward regression method removes variables which are not important until the model is at its best.
The dependent variable was number of indigenous chickens produced which is a proxy for
commercialization. Major explanatory variables were medication, supplementary feeding and mortality.

Table 5. Model Summary

R R Square Adjusted R Square Durbin Watson
0.95 0.91 0.89 1.94

Multiple Linear Regression coefficients

Table 6 summarizes the Multiple Linear Regression results showing that economic
factors such as supplement feeds and medication costs, price per bird and access to
credit; biophysical factors such as mortality rate; and, experience significantly explain
the degree of commercialization.

There is a positive relationship between commercializing and the cost of supplement

feeds and medication. This relationship is statistically significant at 1% level. The
degree of commercialization is also positively related with the age of the farmer and
the relationship is significant at the 5% level.

The degree of commercialization is negatively related with the price per bird, mortality rate, access to
credit and production experience. The relationship between degree of commercialization and price per
bird as well as with production experience is statistically significant at 1%. The relationship between
degree of commercialization and access to credit is significant at 5%, while that with mortality is
significant at 10%.

Table 6. Multiple Linear Regression coefficients

B Part Significance
Symbol
Coefficient Correlation level
(Constant) 55.3 ***
Supplement feeds’ cost X1 0.37 0.51 ***
Price per bird X3 -4.74 -0.17 ***
Training and extension X11 -5.17 -0.05
Percent mortality rate X7 -0.14 -0.09 *
Access to credit X10 -7.60 -0.12 **
Medication X2 0.89 0.21 ***
Disinfection X5 -0.61 -0.06
Production experience X9 -0.39 -0.13 ***
Age of the farmer X6 0.25 0.11 **
Education X8 -0.58 -0.07
Dependent variable; output (number of birds sold and/or consumed during the entire
season).
*p<0.1, **p<0.05, ***p<0.01

Relative importance of explanatory variables

 The part correlations given in table 6 can be used to arrange the explanatory variables
in order of their relative importance. Similarly, the Multiple Response frequencies
were used to rank the responses of the farmers on the constraints to
commercialization. Table 7 shows a comparison of the results from the two analyses.
From the Multiple Response frequencies, the constraint for the majority of farmers
was lack of modern medicines, followed by lack of access to modern feeds,
inadequate producer experience, poor pricing system, aging (10.3%), lack access to
credit facilities, high chicken mortalities and lastly, lack of training and extension on
indigenous chickens.

From the Multiple Linear Regression analysis, supplementary feeds had the greatest
explanatory power as evidenced by highest absolute value of the part correlation of
0.51. This is then followed by lack of access to modern medicines with a part
correlation of 0.21, price per bird (0.17), producer experience (0.13), access to credit
facilities (0.12), producer age (0.11), and mortality rate (0.09).

However, in both methods, access to modern medicines, supplementary feeds, producer experience and
price per bird were among the top four factors affecting commercialization, while and training and
extension ranked the least important in both analyses.

Table 7. Ranking of factors constraining commercialization of indigenous chickens

Multiple response frequencies results Multiple linear regression results
Score % Rank Score % Rank
Modern medicines 26.9 1 20.7 2
Supplementary feed 17.9 2 51.0 1
Producer experience 15.2 3 12.9 4
Price per bird 11.0 4 16.7 3
Farmer’s age 10.3 5 11.4 6
Access to credit facilities 9.00 6 11.5 5
Mortality rate 6.90 7 8.50 7
Training and Extension 2.80 8 5.40 8*
* The variable has been ranked although it is not significant at 10% level in the Multiple Linear Regression analysis

Discussion

Socio-economic characteristics of indigenous chicken producers

The results displayed in table 3 showed that there is significant difference in age of
farmer, education level, frequency of providing water and mortality rate between
commercial and non-commercial indigenous chicken producers. The higher mortality
rate among subsistence producers shows underlying differences in animal husbandry
and management practices between the commercial and non-commercial producers.

Differences in supplementary feed and medication

Since the average amount spent on medication does not differ significantly between
the two groups of producers, it may be misleading to attribute the mortality
differences to modern medicines. This calls for a need to recognize other factors that
impact on productivity and mortality of free range chickens which may include the
conditions of the housing of the birds, e.g. in terms of safety from predators.
Kondombo 2005 asserts that a high mortality of indigenous chickens is observed due
to unfavourable environmental conditions in relation with housing and diseases. There
is still room to further understand the causes of mortality in indigenous chicken
production in rural areas.

Differences in water supply

nother interesting difference between the commercial and non-commercial producers

is the frequency at which additional water is provided to the chickens. Commercial
producers provided additional water more frequently than subsistence producers
possibly enhancing productivity. Water plays an essential role in digestion of feed by
the chicken. Hence, water and food consumption rates can be perceived as
interdependent leading to higher output (i.e. number of birds produced per time
period).

Benefits from indigenous chicken commercialization

Additionally, the income generated from selling indigenous chickens, the selling price
per bird as well the quantity of indigenous chickens consumed did not significantly
vary between the commercial and subsistence farmers. This reveals some critical and
marketing and agribusiness capacity gaps. Commercial indigenous chicken producers
need the right capacities to access the best markets and get the best price so that they
can maximise profits.

Determinants of commercialization of indigenous chickens

Supplementary feed and medicines

The multiple responses frequencies results showed that farmers perceive lack of
modern medicines as the major inhibitor of commercialization. Farmers perceived that
modern medicines such as ESB3 and Teramysine are effective in reducing mortalities,
than traditional medicines such as aloe vera and sodium carbonate rock (gova). Lack
of supplementary feeds was ranked the second after lack of access to modern
medicines. The farmers argued that supplementary feeding significantly enhances the
growth rate of free range chickens, especially when coupled with the use of modern
medicines. While the opinion of farmers should be respected, it is important to note
that this opinion is shaped by a variety of factors which may include perceived
benefits. The independent samples t-test provided results that differ from the multiple
response frequencies, showing that use of modern medicines and supplementary feeds
did not differ significantly between commercial and subsistence producers.

The regression analysis showed that there is a positive relationship between

supplementary feed costs and that indigenous chicken output. Using part correlations,
this is the variable that had the strongest explanatory power. According to Roberts et
al 2005, supplementing household food refuse with protein sources improves both
survival rate and growth rate in indigenous chickens. While supplementary feeding
may be assumed to enhance the growth rate of chickens, the results from other
analyses discussed earlier, particularly the independent samples t-test lead us to
conservatively attribute commercialization to supplementary feeds. There is a positive
relationship between the provision of modern medication and indigenous chicken
output as vaccination and modern medication increase the chances of survival of the
birds. The incongruence between regression and the group difference analysis is
expected because the correlation between variables does not always imply causation.

Age and experience

Multiple response frequencies showed that 15.2% of the farmers believed that
inappropriate experiences in indigenous chicken production was the major hindrance
to commercialization. Most farmers provide unstandardized fowl-runs for the
indigenous chickens, and use poor marketing strategies. Some traditional chicken
housing systems had a saddle roof and some were round thatched huts which are
usually not large enough, safe enough and/or may have unfavourable hygienic
conditions.

From the multiple responses frequencies results it was also observed that 10.3% of
respondents mentioned that ageing was the major constraint. However, the
independent samples t-test showed that age significantly differed between the two
groups of producers, with commercial producers being more aged. Only 2.80% of
respondents indicated that they were lacking training and extension on indigenous
chickens in order to commercialize indigenous chicken production. Traditional
training and extension does not offer adequate support in the area of indigenous
chicken commercialization since there is limited documented and applied research in
this area.

The regression analysis also shows that producer experience in indigenous chicken
production negatively explains variation in output, i.e. the higher the number of years
of experience the lower the average output of indigenous chickens. This may unearth
the concern that farmers that have had previous negative experience, for instance due
to market and price disincentives will produce less indigenous chickens.
Price and market incentives

The market incentives also remain poor for commercialization as 11% of respondents
indicated that pricing was poor. This is in line with the independent samples t-test
which revealed that the income from selling chickens did not differ significantly
between the commercial and subsistence producers.

There is agreement in our analyses based on multiple response frequencies and

independent samples t- test that market and price disincentives hinder
commercialization of indigenous chickens. Regression results on the other hand show
that selling price of birds is inversely related to output, i.e. the lower the price the
greater the output of indigenous chickens. A possible explanation to this relationship
is the existence of imperfect market conditions or asymmetric market information
among indigenous chicken producers which pushes the price realized by commercial
producers on the market downwards. Rural households may not fully comprehend or
possess the required business acumen to negotiate with traders and middlemen.

The regression analysis introduced another form of market disincentive in the

analysis, i.e. access to credit for commercialization. The results showed that there is
an inverse relationship between output of indigenous chickens and access to credit
facilities. This shows that credit for indigenous chicken commercialization may be
diverted to other uses.

Conclusion

The current study shows that there is a significant difference in the socio-economic
characteristics of indigenous chicken producers who are commercializing and those
who are not, i.e. in terms of; age, education level, and management systems used.
Also, the results showed that the bulk of farmers in Makoni District (approximately
80%) are not commercializing their free range chicken enterprises, i.e. they produce
less than 50 birds in the dry season between July and November 2012.

Supplementary feed and medication, selling price per bird are related to output of
indigenous chickens. However, the use of supplementary feed and medication does
not differ significantly between commercial and subsistence farmers though the
farmers’ opinion is that inadequate availability of supplementary feeds and modern
medicines are the main constraints to commercialization. This suggested the
importance of other husbandry and management practices such as housing and
security in reducing mortality and increasing productivity. Market and price
disincentives such as low prices and unfair negotiations with traders and middlemen
were also identified as an important constraint to commercialization.
While it may be helpful to supplement feed and medicines to promote
commercialization, this needs to be coupled with proper infrastructural support as well
as market development.

Recommendations for producers

Commercialization of indigenous chickens has nutritional and economic benefits

when the necessary preconditions have been met. Farmers can realize higher profits
from the free range enterprise. Some of these preconditions include healthy
environment particularly appropriate housing facilities. Farmers need to strengthen
animal husbandry practices to reduce mortality and enhance productivity.
Supplementing feed and medicines is encouraged though it should be done in
combination with the other factors, particularly regular provision of clean water for
the indigenous chickens.

Recommendations to training and extension agents

Training and extension agents are encouraged to employ demand driven and
commodity-based approaches to programming where farmers are trained on subjects
relevant to their knowledge needs and the market. Sustainable indigenous chicken
production is one such area. Such approaches are more focused than broad
programmes such as poultry production which may not go into enough detail.

Trainers and extension workers should work hand in glove with veterinary staff in
order to control disease in indigenous chickens. Vaccination programmes should be
targeted to prevent outbreaks. Trainers ought to emphasize in the benefits of
producing indigenous chickens. Training programmes should also include how to
maximize productivity by combining natural and supplementary feed.

Recommendations for policy

Indigenous chicken production can be an important tool for poverty alleviation. Policy
makers should therefore formulate policies that promote and strengthen the production
and marketing of indigenous chickens. Indigenous chickens should be promoted as an
integral part of diets and be a part of agriculture training and education curriculum.
Policies that reduce price and market disincentives for indigenous chicken
commercialization should be put in place.

Recommendations for public private co-operatio

There are also areas for co-operation between the government and the private sector.
This may include; input procurement, soft loans, training and extension services, and
marketing and product promotion, as well as research and development.
References
AFDB 20100 Agriculture sector strategy 2010-2014. Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire: African Development Bank, Retrieved
June 10, 2015, from http://www.afdb.org/fileadmin/uploads/afdb/Documents/Policy-Documents/Agriculture
%20Sector%20Strategy%2010-14.pdf

Chrysostome CAAM, Bell JG, Demey F and Verhulst A, 1995 Seroprevalences to three diseases in village
chickens in Benin. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, Volume 22, pp. 257-261

FAO 2005 Livestock Sector Brief Zimbabwe. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization, Retrieved June 10,
2015, from http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/resources/en/publications/sector_briefs/lsb_ZWE.pdf

Fossum T W 2013 Small Animal Surgery Textbook, 4th edition. Haryana, India: Elsevier Health Sciences

Gold MV 2010 Understanding organic labelling. Washington DC, USA: United States Department of Agriculture

Guirkinger C and Boucher S R 2008 Credit constraints and productivity in Peruvian agriculture. Agricultural
Economics, Volume 39, Issue 3, pp. 295-308

Ja'Afar Furo MR, Balla H G and Yakubu B 2007 Avian Influenza Bird Flu outbreak news scare and its economic
implication on poultry enterprises in Adamawa State, Nigeria. Global Journal of Agricultural Sciences, Volume 6,
Issue 1, pp. 61-68

Justus O, Owuor G and Bebe B O 2013 Management practices and challenges in smallholder indigenous chicken
production in Western Kenya. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics, Volume
114, Issue 1, pp. 51-58 Retrieved June 10, 2015,
from http://www.jarts.info/index.php/jarts/article/viewFile/2013030542607/429

Kitalyi A J 1997 Village chicken production systems in developing countries: What does the future hold? World
Animal Review Retrieved June 10, 2015, from http://www.fao.org/docrep/w6437t/w6437t07.htm

Kondombo S R 2005 Improvement of village chicken production in a mixed (chicken-ram) farming system in
Burkina Faso. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands

Magothe T, Okeno T, Muhuyi W and Kahi A 2012 Indigenous chicken production in Kenya: Current status. World
Poultry Science Association, Volume 68, Issue 1, pp. 119-132

Meyerson L and Reaser J 2002 Biosecurity: Moving toward a comprehensive approach. BioScience, Volume 52,
Issue 7, pp. 593-600

Mlambo T, Mbiriri D T and Mutibvu Tand Kashangura M T 2011 Village chicken production systems in
Zhombe communal area of Zimbabwe. Livestock Research for Rural Development, Volume 27, Article #7 Retrieved
June 10, 2015, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd23/7/mlam23154.htm

Nordmann B 2010 Issues in biosecurity and biosafety. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, Volume 36S,
pp. S66-S69 Retrieved June 10, 2015, from http://www.ijaaonline.com/article/S0924-8579(10)00266-9/pdf

RBZ 2014 Quaterly economic review. Harare, Zimbabwe: Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe Retrieved June 10, 2015,
from http://www.rbz.co.zw/pdfs/Quarterly/QUARTERLY%20ECONOMIC%20REVIEW%20JUNE%202014.pdf
 Rukuni M and Eitcher K 2006 Zimbabwe’s Agricultural Revolution Revisited, 2nd edition. Harare, Zimbabwe:
University of Zimbabwe Publications

Sonaiya E B 2000 Backyard poultry production for socio-economic advancements: Requirements for research and
development. Nigeria Poultry Science Journal, Volume 1, pp. 88-107

Tadelle D, Alemu Y and Peters K J 2000 Indigenous chickens in Ethiopia: Genetic potential and attempts at
improvement. World Poultry Science Journal, Volume 56, Issue 1, pp. 45-54

Thornton P 2010 Livestock production: Recent trends, future Prospects. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society, Volume 365, Issue 1554, pp. 2853-2867, Retreived June 10, 2015,
fromhttp://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royptb/365/1554/2853.full.pdf

UN 2014 The Millenium Development Goals Report 2014, New York, USA: The United Nations Retrieved June 10,
2015, from http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2014%20MDG%20report/MDG%202014%20English%20web.pdf

Received 1 June 2015; Accepted 4 November 2015; Published 1 April 2016

Go to top


ZIMPAPERS DIGITAL

 THE SUNDAY MAIL

 BUSINESS WEEKLY

 CHRONICLE

 SUNDAY NEWS
 B-METRO

 MORE +

 PLAY RADIO

 ADVERTISE
 SUBSCRIBE

26 MARCH 2018

 HOME

 TOP STORIES

 LOCAL

 BUSINESS

 SPORT

 INTERNATIONAL

 AFRICA

 ENTERTAINMENT

 MORE +

Flaws, solutions to Zim’s poultry industry

Free range chicken production can be profitable when practised in a proper and
planned way
Free range chicken production can be profitable when practised in a proper and

planned way

Charles Dhewa
Zimbabwean rural communities have traditionally given chicken a social value more
than an economic value. The consumption of chicken was associated with honouring
special relatives or visitors. A visitor would be shown a chicken before it was
slaughtered to show that this was going to be his/her relish.

The chicken would then be cooked and shared with the whole household. Chicken was
not consumed everyday but was part of a special diet.

Poultry was also a powerful currency that would facilitate commodity exchange such
as a cock with groundnut seed. To the extent that livestock ownership was gender-
related, chicken were mostly owned by women while men preferred owning big
animals like cattle.

Subtle issues like nutrition were rarely considered with consumption reserved for
visitors or special occasions like Christmas or holidays.

The fact that chicken were not eaten every day increased people’s appetite for chicken
meat and eggs. The longer people waited before eating chicken, the more their
appetite for chicken meat increased.

With the coming of urbanisation, commercial companies noticed this appetite among
people who had moved to work in cities such as Harare and Bulawayo in large
numbers.

An opportunity for mass production of chicken in order to satisfy the appetite for
chicken products among thousands of people who had migrated to urban centres
became a compelling business case for some companies.

This coincided with the mass production of maize meal which was replacing sorghum
and pearl millet in African diets. A fitting companion for sadza became chicken and
vegetables in the full commercialisation of food systems.

How indigenous chickens fell by the way side

The fact that indigenous chickens had multiple social uses meant they could not be
transformed fast enough to keep pace with mass consumption. Indigenous chicken
production processes were found too slow for rapid urbanisation and
commercialisation.
For instance, they would be grown from eggs, into chicks and then produce off-spring
before being killed for meat, in the case of hens. Cocks would also take many months
before they could be considered for the pot.

Noticing the limitations of indigenous chickens and the fact that raising indigenous
chicken in cities was not an attractive option, chicken companies were formed to
introduce commercial chicken production in the form of broilers and layers for eggs.

However, broilers and layers have come with serious knowledge gaps for small
producers who can only buy the chicks but cannot breed the way chicken production
has been done traditionally. The knowledge has been locked as a way of protecting the
industry.

On the other hand, it is not known how much farmers and communities have lost in
terms of knowledge and other favourable attributes by abandoning indigenous
chickens for broilers and layers. Faster growth associated with broilers and layers
have focused on productivity and mass production.

Rather than following the whole chicken production cycle associated with indigenous
chickens, small-scale producers can simply buy day-old chicks and go home to
produce full chickens within six weeks.

While it seems an easy business to enter for small chicken producers, these producers
do not have control over the growth of the entire industry, which is the preserve of a
few big commercial producers who also control chicken feed.

In fact, commercial feed is a business on its own where small producers have to buy a
range of feeds such as Starter Mash, Growers Mash and Finisher until a chicken is
ready for consumption in six weeks. Low entry barriers into commercial poultry
production have attracted too many producers such that production has now
outweighed demand in the past three years and seems to be getting worse.

While prices of commercial chickens have gone down or remained stagnant due to
over-production, the price of chicks has remained the same. A decrease in the profit
margin for small individual producers is threatening the viability of all poultry
enterprises.

Absence of clearly defined poultry value chains

One of the main reasons why the commercial poultry sector has reached its tipping
point is sustained absence of clearly defined value chains in terms of who produces
what and who takes over other activities until chicken products reach the end-users.

Unlike in informal markets where the difference between farmers, retailers,

transporters, wholesalers and other actors is clear, in the poultry industry small-scale
producers are constrained to a few value chain nodes while a few big players run the
whole economic race.

In fact the big players dominate the whole value chain. They have different business
units such as hatchery, feed section, chick production section as well as research and
development. All these business complement each other.

Small-scale chicken producers who buy chicks from the big players participate in the
market as traders of chicken rather than empowered growers. If small-scale producers
had capacity to produce chicks, eggs, feed and full chickens, they would be able to
control costs.
Since they buy chicks already packaged by big players, small growers have limited
capacity to create new sources of value. The biggest risk is competition with big
commercial players who also make money through chicks, eggs, feed and other
business units but want to compete with small guys in selling all chicken products.

Due to their size and historical advantages, big players can afford to dump some
chicken products in the market and still remain viable. Since they also produce layers,
big players can also offload layers into the broiler market once layers have stopped
laying eggs.

It means for big players, layers are another source of income through the egg market.
That is why they can afford to sell layers at $3 for a big bird. Such a price beats small-
scale producers who peg their broiler prices at $6 per bird. Given the low buying
power among consumers, the majority end up going for layers due to low prices.

Small-scale egg producers also buy point of lay chickens at $10 per bird from big
players. The egg market has also become congested since big players can offload eggs
that fail to hatch into chicks.

These eggs are found in the informal market where they compete with small players
who will have bought initial raw materials from the big player. Big players also make
money from breakages, offals and cutlets which are bought by vendors in large
quantities. These cutlets compete with a full chicken produced by a small producer.

Why should big players compete with their out-growers in the same market?
Being the suppliers of almost all raw materials, big players in the poultry industry
have the advantage of being able to track how many chicks, eggs, full chicken or
cutlets they have put in the market per given period.

Based on these insights, big players are able to either decrease or increase costs in line
with market dynamics. They even know the capacity of their small competitors. Small
producers do not have that competitive vantage point and privileged information.

Why is the modern way of structuring businesses into manufacturers, wholesalers,

retailers and end-users missing in the poultry industry? In the current situation,
youths and NGOs that are getting into poultry projects are wasting resources when the
market is already rigged in favour of big players.

Properly organising the poultry industry enables the sustenance of each economic
actor. You can’t have a manufacturer competing with a retailer or a small grower who
can only afford to produce 50 chickens.

When there is shortage of poultry feed, big players have the privilege to buy a lot of
maize from farming communities or import from neighbouring countries. That
strengthens their stranglehold on the poultry market at the expense of small players.

Just as we don’t see big players in the bread baking industry competing with tuck
shops in selling individual loaves directly to consumers, the same should happen in
the poultry industry.

At the moment it is like a maize seed company selling seed to farmers and competing
with the same farmers in growing maize and selling to the Grain Marketing Board. It
is also like Delta Beverages competing with bottle stores in selling beer.
Ideally, the big player (manufacturer of chicks) should supply chicks to out-growers
and become the main market rather than the competitor.

The big guys should buy from farmers and supply up-markets such as hotels and
supermarkets rather than supplying their own chickens and elbowing out small
farmers. Why not emulate some companies which contract farmers to produce beans
and then process those beans into cans for a different market including export
markets?

Why can’t the big chicken players concentrate on the export market and leave the
domestic market to small guys to whom they sell chicks?

Need for fair competition to avoid eroding the gains of infrastructure development. It
is impossible to distribute wealth creation opportunities to many people when a few
players are allowed to dominate such an important food industry. Given that
traditionally chickens were associated with women, by dominating chicken
production, big companies are encroaching on to what are supposed to be women’s
businesses.

The biggest poultry companies should be owned by women if the correct traditional
ownership and knowledge pathways were followed.

While decentralisation of outlets by big chicken players has positively led to

infrastructure development such as rural electrification and appropriate poultry
structures, market saturation is undoing all these benefits since rural players are out-
competed.
The small-scale chicken industry is collapsing because efforts to fully commercialise it
are being hampered by anti-competitive behaviours of big chick manufacturers.

Just as these big players need government protection from imports, small chicken
players need government protection from the big guys.

There are opportunities for big players to strengthen out-grower models like what is
happening in other value chains such as tea where Tanganda Tea Company contracts
farmers to produce tea while it concentrates on the export market.

The chicken market has reached its ceiling. At the ruling price of $4 to $6 per bird, 70
percent of households are now regular chicken consumers, almost daily. The price has
stayed the same for the past three to four years. That has become a cap and there is no
growth.

Price is no longer informing demand. Chicken is now going for $2,50 per kg compared
to $5/kg for beef. It means beef is now twice more expensive than chicken. Production
has remained high while prices of chicken have gone down.

Doing 25-50 chicks does not make economic sense for farmers unless they are doing
so for their own consumption.

For most farmers, chicken production is an on and off business where three months
are spent growing the chicken, a fourth month is used in selling, and production
begins in the following three months cycle. In most cases, by the time another batch is
acquired the price of either chicks or feed will have gone up.
Big companies should get out of this conflict of interest where they pretend to
empower their competitors when they know very well that they can out-compete them.

The fact that the price of chicks remains constant for some time suggests that big
players recoup their costs from many nodes along the value chain.

In response to market failure, most small-scale producers now produce for events like
weddings. Unfortunately that action has the effect of reducing market share because
chickens in the market end up with less buyers.

Other small-scale producers are targeting festive seasons. When an industry functions
on the basis of specific and ad hoc events, there is not business. You can’t build a
serious economy based on such practices.

The cost benefit analysis route

There is need to revisit the whole poultry value chain in Zimbabwe in order to unlock
new sources of value. Indigenous chickens have been demonised due to lack of
evidence. It is important to examine the cost benefit analysis between a broiler
chicken and an indigenous chicken.

What is the cost benefit analysis if you compare broiler production with indigenous
chicken production? New demand can be stimulated through new awareness brought
by such analysis.

What are the benefits of broilers compared to other classes of poultry such as turkeys,
guinea fowls, indigenous chickens, ducks and others?
What opportunities could be hidden in the alternatives? While a road runner may be
selling for $7, its production cost may be lower than the broiler. What if the fact that
indigenous chickens are slow growers only constitute 30 percent of challenges that
can be solved but lack of hatching technology is the main issue?

Indigenous chickens may guarantee smallholder producers high returns. For instance,
50 broilers @ $4 = $200 and 20 road runners @ $10 = $200. It means road runners
may give you more profit because your production costs are low compared to broilers.

Our veterinary policies also need recalibration. Why should we restrict the movement
of indigenous chicken merely because we are failing to deal with a primitive poultry
disease like Newcastle?

At the moment broiler chicks and full chickens can get to all parts of the country
without any problem yet indigenous chicks are considered bad resources that carry
contagious diseases.

We can only open sustainable foreign markets for our indigenous chickens rather than
exporting broilers to Europe where they are already part of staple food.

How can we use our natural feed systems to package and present the Unique Selling
Proposition of indigenous chickens?

That is one way of adding value to our local resources such as small grains. Instead of
worrying about technology for processing small grains, let’s feed small grains to
chicken and export high value chickens.

That can open alternative markets for small grains and other local resources.
 Why are restaurants and supermarkets not saving dressed indigenous chickens?
Would we be wrong to suspect collusion between these markets and big commercial
chicken suppliers?

Since scientific knowledge around broilers and layers has been kept secret for
decades, would consumers and other people be wrong to raise concerns and
speculations about GMOs finding their way into these chickens?

 Charles Dhewa is a proactive knowledge management

specialist and chief executive officer of Knowledge Transfer
Africa (Pvt) (www.knowledgetransafrica.com) whose flagship
eMKambo (www.emkambo.co.zw) has a presence in more than
20 agricultural markets in Zimbabwe. He can be contacted
on: charles@knowledgetransafrica.com; Mobile: +263 774
430 309 / 772 137 717/ 712 737 430.

Share This:

More Stories:

EDITORIAL COMMENT: US demands undermine ...26 MAR, 2018



Revisiting Lessing’s ‘The Story of t... 26 MAR, 2018

How United States sold the Iraq War26 MAR, 2018

o
o

Popular Posts

US raises new hurdles to re-engagement

March 24, 2018

MDC-T fires Khupe, Gutu

March 24, 2018
Opposition parties in panic mode
March 24, 2018

EDITORIAL COMMENT: US demands undermine re-enga...

March 26, 2018

Don’t expect miracles: Govt

March 26, 2018
Sponsored Links

AirtimeAccommodationAuto For SaleHome, OfficeJobsPropertyServicesWeb DesignWeb

PartsBroadbandCarsClassifiedsCell PhonesElectronicsEmail HostingDomain RegistrationOnline PaymentsPay TelOne
HostingPrepaid Electricity ADSL
Sponsored Links

Esaja Africa Buyers, Suppliers, Events & Business Opportunities

CV People Africa Jobs

Human Talent Development Africa

Vaka Building Materials

Murewa RDC

Status of Time Bank - Press Statement

S.Jacob Transport Building Materials Supply

News From Africa



Ramaphosa rewrites rule book in anti-graft drive

Sisi vows to crush ISIS

Ramaphosa suspends tax boss

“Warned of Boko Haram, Nigerian security lapses helped schoolgirls’

abduction”

E.African intelligence chiefs meet in Uganda over terrorism

Contact Us
 Herald House
Cnr George Silundika & Sam Nujoma
Harare
Phone: +263-04-795771
Email Us: Contact US

Other Publications

 The Sunday Mail

 Business Weekly
 Chronicle
 Sunday News
 H-Metro

Categories

 Top Stories

 Local News
 International
 Business
 Sport
 Entertainment

Subscribe

 Paper Subscription

 Digital Subscriptions
 Newsletter Subscription
 Advertise

© 2018 The Herald | Disclaimer | Copyright

Site & Hosting by Webdev