4.3 Article

Free-range village chickens on the Accra plains, Ghana: Their husbandry and productivity

Journal

TROPICAL ANIMAL HEALTH AND PRODUCTION
Volume 38, Issue 3, Pages 235-248

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11250-006-4356-x

Keywords

village chickens; husbandry; productivity; Ghana

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A cross-sectional[4pc] survey investigating husbandry and productivity of free-range village chickens was carried out in four administrative districts within 60km of Accra. Responses were provided by 101 men and 99 women. The mean (SD) household flock size was 28.7 (25.97) and the median was 20. The factors included in the final model investigating variance in flock size were sex of the respondent (p=0.011), administrative area (p=0.004), the numbers of members in the household (p=0.017) and the number of cattle, sheep and goats owned by the household (p=0.031). Chickens were owned by individual members of the household, but women and children were the predominant providers of care for chickens. All respondents described their chickens as scavengers that were provided with supplementary feed, and over 80% of respondents named maize as a supplementary food source. Approximately 50% of respondents claimed difficulty in providing supplementary feed, with the degree of difficulty varying between administrative areas (p < 0.001). A majority of respondents (approximately 65%) claimed that their chickens laid 3-4 clutches of eggs per year. Over 70% of respondents estimated that each clutch contained 10-20 eggs, and approximately 70% of respondents estimated that 75% of the eggs hatched. Opinions on mortality varied, but 60% of men and 70% of women estimated that between 50% and 75% of both chicks and adult birds died each year. Approximately 80% of respondents named Newcastle disease as the most important health issue. The opportunities for and consequences of controlling Newcastle disease are discussed.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available