Keith Hammond
An important common feature of animal-level data from locally adapted family poultry genetic types is the large between bird variation for most traits - with coefficients of variation of 25-50% rather than the 5-15% found in the high input types and systems. It seems that this large variability exists for both intake and output traits. Some birds are both MUCH higher in production (output) and in productivity (output per unit of input) than others under these lower input production environments. This seems to suggest an opportunity for rapid improvement of local types. Secondly, what is the significance of this high variability to flock survival?

Jonathan G. Bell
Thank you very much for an excellent review on research and development options. I was particularly interested in the part about disease control. I certainly agree that a regional approach is necessary. In this respect the Atomic Energy project is a step in the right direction. If we are to look ahead and speak about "eradication" of Newcastle disease, I think we should give consideration to a vaccine which permits monitoring of vaccinal antibodies separately from antibodies to wild-type virus. This would permit detection of infected flocks in the presence of vaccination, which is a great asset in an advanced stage of a control programme, since in practice it is almost impossible to stop vaccination to see if the wild-type vaccine persists. The sort of vaccine that would be suitable would be a recombinant vaccine expressing only one of the two surface glycoproteins of Newcastle disease virus. Such a vaccine is currently being tested in chickens in Malaysia. Although the testing of this type of vaccine is not so far advanced as the testing of other vaccines, it might still be worthwhile to start with them in a new project, since the long term benefits for the control of the disease may be greater. The recombinant vaccine could be used in conjunction with two ELISA kits for seromonitoring: one which would detect antibodies against the glycoprotein in the vaccine, and the other which would detect antibodies against the other glycoprotein, which would only be present in the wild-type virus.

Incidentally, for the name of the Newcastle disease vaccination campaign in Africa, I have always favoured "Pan African Newcastle Immunisation Campaign", which is not so ambitious in its aim, as well as having an acronym with a pleasing sense of urgency.

Back

Saka Saheed Baba
I wish to comment on the observations of one of the subscribers Jonathan G. Bell)on the introductory paper. Though it sounds rather ambitious and imaginary, I quite agree with Dr. Bell's suggestions on "eradication of Newcastle disease" and the need to develop highly discriminative diagnostic tools that would readily differentiate between Newcastle disease virus (NDV) antibodies as a result of vaccination and those developed following natural infections by wild strains of the virus. Such tools would be useful in vaccine monitoring and disease surveillance.

A recombinant vaccine coupled with development of ELISA may resolve the problem of antibody cross-reactivity. However, the eradication protocol needs to be prioritized since there are preliminary epidemiological factors that have to be clearly defined. These include:

1. information on the current and future status (incidence/prevalence) of the disease in different parts of Africa.
2. possibility of simultaneous regional control and eradication?
3. clearly defining the roles of wild birds (in different countries) in the epidemiology of the disease and how to control the disease among the rampant wild bird populations.
4. sustainable approach to the control of the disease among scavenger village poultry (chicken, guinea fowl, duck etc). Results of preliminary trials in village poultry with the V4 thermostable vaccine have been quite promising but there still some problems.
5. determining the extent of genetic and antigenic differences and/or similarities between the available vaccine viruses used in different regions and the respective wild strains prevalent in that region.
6. cost-benefit analysis of the eradication programme should be given serious consideration whether or not it is worth the efforts.
It is after taken into account these factors, that we can start talking seriously about the development of diagnostic tools for monitoring of the control process.

Back

Saka Saheed Baba
Our concern at the moment in the control of Newcastle disease (ND) by vaccination should not be whether or not the Malaysian/Australian V4 thermostable vaccine is protecting the African village birds. Although our preliminary trial with V4 vaccine in guinea fowls gave encouraging results, the emphasis now should be on how to make the existing ND vaccines (La Sota, Komarov etc.) thermostable for use in tropical Africa as it has been done for rinderpest (RP) by Mariner and Co-workers. Results of the field trial of the thermostable RP vaccine in Cameroon have been quite promising. Since the existing ND La Sota and Komarov vaccine strains are already adapted to this environment and constitute little epidemiological hazard, they are therefore safer than the imported naturally occurring V4 vaccine. Our Department of Veterinary Microbiology, University of Maiduguri, Nigeria, in collaboration with LANAVET, Cameroon are presently attempting at the development of thermostable varieties from the existing La Sota and Gumboro vaccines using different chemical stabilizers by varying the lyophilization cycles. However this idea does not distract the need to look into the epidemiological factors enumerated in my earlier contribution.

Back

Prof. E.R. Orskov
This is a reply to Dr. Keith Hammond's comment (see comment 1):
As you know I am not a breeder but I think it would be wrong to think of using the variability this way. Maybe their variability is precisely why they survive under these conditions. Maybe we should select for more variability rather than less. Variability has survival value when the environment is not in control. Homogeniety can only be of advantage when the environment is controlled which it is not for scavenging chickens.

Back

Prof. Peter Spradbrow
It concerns me that we are even contemplating the eradication of a disease that we are unable to control adequately with our present resources. The birds in village flocks are not under effective control. The introduction of new susceptibles is constant. The most sophisticated serological testing will tell us only where the virus was, not where it is. Vaccines will not stop infection with, nor excretion of, virulent virus.

We do not know what role other species of domestic birds and free-living birds play in the spread of Newcastle disease virus. Surely we could not contemplate the slaughter of healthy village chickens as part of a disease eradication program.

I believe that the mere control of Newcastle disease in village flocks will be a sufficient test of our skill and determination.

Back

Andrew Speedy
would like to make a general comment on the introductory paper by Sonaiya et al. It is an excellent review of the information on family poultry. This is recognized as an important development priority for food security and poverty alleviation. Various statistics are quoted for the importance of family poultry and it is suggested in the conclusions that "a well adapted semi-commercial sub-sector could be progressively developed".

I would like to focus a comment on the scale and importance of this point, and this conference in general. World poultry production has gone up by 15% per annum in the last 35 years and is now 6 times what is what at that time. In Latin America and China, it is now 14 and 16 times respectively what it was in 1963. And this huge increase has been almost entirely based on industrial systems feeding corn and soya, and producing vast mountains of waste. These statistics are incredible.

I believe that we do not have a well defined alternative, which we urgently need to reduce the use of grain, fossil fuel and the associated pollution.

There needs to be development of ideas, infrastructure and communication, if small scale poultry producers are to organize in such a way as to produce and supply a much greater share of the 61 million ton market.

On a different matter, the authors give a good account of alternative feeds and feeding, stressing the need for supplementation at certain times. We could add that creep feeding of young birds (both for nutrition and security) is of great importance.

I think that feed requirements need to be viewed in 2 ways. Under many scavenging systems, there are deficiencies which must be met by supplementation. But in the whole farming system, if biomass production is raised by better use of water, crops, legumes and trees in an integrated way, then the overall feed supply for chickens will be increased and they have an important role to utilize the by-products. I would be interested in contributions from those working on integrated farming systems on the role of poultry and the feed supply.

Back

Keith Hammond
Comment 5 by Prof. E.R. Orskov is a plausible hypothesis. As suggested in my original (Comment 1), there is need for an understanding, in a genetic context, of this important issue.
Are participants aware of appropriate research results for any poultry species?

Datta V. Rangnekar and Sangeeta D. Rangnekar
We wish to compliment the authors (i.e. Sonaiya et al.) for excellent paper on family poultry dealing with various aspects related to research and development of family poultry. The authors, however, have received and discussed reports from Africa with some passing references from Bangladesh. Backyard poultry is traditional in al the South Asian countries - especially Pakistan, India, Sri Lanka, Myanmar - as also the East Asian countries. India is an example of rapid growth in poultry production in modern commercial sector which is hailed as a good example of growth without much Government help. While backyard poultry had major share of poultry products the position is reversed. However, the commercial poultry has benefited only a small number of families and can be adopted by those who can take risks, provided high inputs. It is a good example of mass production as against production by masses - as is traditional in South Asia with livestock and poultry (agriculture in general). Commercial poultry has very high dependence on external inputs and is not suited for rural areas and small farmers. It may be suitable for peri-urban areas and those who have access to resources and show risk taking ability.

While being associated with integrated rural development programmes (of NGOs) myself and Sangeeta studied backyard poultry production system in Tribal areas to understand the system, and more importantly, perceptions and priorities of tribal families. Research and development agenda has to be based on their priorities and problems. Keeping poultry is traditional in tribal families. However, conventional approaches in Government programmes to develop poultry production in these communities failed.

We propose to make a comprehensive note and send it in a few days.
Unfortunately very few studies are made in India on traditional poultry systems. However, there are some achievements now - especially with special emphasis on the extend of the benefits to the underprivileged people.

Back

Dr. Ed Wethli
Under the heading "Information Management" I wanted to emphasise the importance of developing appropriate training courses for small poultry producers. There is a Links Programme among some Australian and South African universities and for one of the projects a specific curriculum was developed for teaching about small scale poultry. Dr David Farrell is a subscriber to this Family Poultry Conference and he could give more details if required.

The Poultry Management Training Centre of the KwaZulu-Natal Poultry Institute offers three- to six-month intensive, experiential courses for people, some of whom we hope will, on completion of their course, be training smaller producers.

Back

Prof. O. B. Smith
Comments on improving family poultry productivity:
Several people both during this conference and elsewhere have highlighted the importance of family poultry enterprises, and their contribution to meeting the demand for poultry meat in many developing countries. Many have therefore made the plea that the production and productivity of these enterprises need to be improved for them to meet their full potential, through improved housing, supplementary feeding, health care and breed improvement. Sound advice and options but are they realistic, and can they be applied blindly to all producers?

Apparently the flock size of family poultry enterprises in Africa ranges for 3 to 97 (Sonaiya et al., this conference), and the same authors indicated that poultry keepers have different objectives: consumption and/or income, and cultural reasons (gifts, sacrifices etc.)

I suggest that before we start applying our improved production strategies which all come with some costs and require some measure of investment, we do a classification of owners, and only target those whose flock size and production objectives would make them receptive to such improvement strategies. Otherwise, we will end up with unutilized technologies as has been the case for several other livestock species.

I was once involved with a long term research and extension programme that targeted goat producers in the humid zone of West Africa, where several communities keep goats, but not for income generating purposes. We used the same approach of improving housing, feeding and health care. We did not venture into the more problematic and unrewarding breed improvement exercise. Of course we came up with exciting and improved production systems, which served us well in our research stations, and survived on the field with the few farmers we were "subsidizing" for as long as we were willing to subsidize. My diagnosis for the failure was that the farmers we targeted were not in the business for income, and were not therefore ready to invest in such a venture. Improved housing, feeding and health care no matter how rudimentary cost money and require some investments, and if my objective is not to make money, there is no way I would put out such an investment.

Solution to this dilemma? I suggest we identify owners whose primary objective is income generation and concentrate our efforts on these and these alone. Our chances of succeeding will be greater, and if we do succeed, with such owners, others may follow and adopt the systems to make money as well.

One other issue which I would like others to comment on. The issue of breed improvement through crossing with exotic breeds. Breed improvement is a long term activity that requires long term research, funding and policy commitment. These conditions do not exist in many countries in Africa as of now, and the advent of globalization, threatens to make them even more difficult to achieve in medium term. Should we as researchers continue to focus on breed improvement as one of our options, or should we concentrate on how to ensure that our indigenous breeds express and reach their maximum genetic potential through good feeding and adequate health care?

Back

Roger Oakeley
In response to Comment 10 on the Introductory paper, from Professor Smith, I am in full agreement with Professor Smiths' concerns over the classification of backyard poultry producers and their production priorities. The range of backyard flock size in Africa identified by Sonaiya et al. (this conference) of between 3 and 97 birds is clearly massive. It would undoubtedly be a mistake to aggregate the owners of these different sized flocks into one homogeneous group. I suggest that there are significant differences between them with respect to their production priorities, and the role that poultry play in their individual farming systems and livelihood strategies.

Socio-economic and production data generated by FAO's 'Emergency Assistance for the Control of Newcastle Disease' (Project TCP/ZIM/8821) during 1998 suggests that the majority of scavenge-based backyard poultry producers in Zimbabwe (average flock size of 20 mixed-age birds) operate a production system designed to be 'low input' and 'low output' (Oakeley, 1998). These producers are primarily crop farmers, while some also raise other animals invariably on a larger scale than their poultry production. One of the primary roles of these flocks is to provide readily accessible meat and eggs for household consumption, very often for social occasions and cultural events. In this sense, the scavenging flocks are not designed as direct income-generating activities, and to view them as such is to misinterpret the objectives of producers.

One can add to this picture the fact that management and husbandry of these birds is predominantly the responsibility of women and to a lesser extent children. Both these groups are constrained not only by the absolute level of other household and farming activities, but also by the timing of those activities. In particular, food preparation, child care, and schooling are all activities that take place at given times, and cannot be varied to any great degree. Poultry-related activities therefore occur around these other responsibilities, and significant increases in the management and husbandry demands of poultry production can only conflict with what are generally regarded as more important activities.

I would conclude, therefore, that 'low input' backyard poultry production strategies are entirely compatible with the farm and household system found in many areas of Zimbabwe. Obviously the system described is only one of many systems operated in Africa, Asia and elsewhere. Nevertheless, any attempt to develop this particular production system, and at the same time increase the level of management input, must be considered with extreme caution. It is therefore vital that backyard poultry systems are carefully classified, in order that any intervention is appropriate and compatible with the priorities and interests of individual producers.

Reference:
Oakeley, R., 1998, Emergency Assistance for the Control of Newcastle Disease, Consultancy report for the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (Project TCP/ZIM/8821-A), Rome, December 1998

Back

Dr. Asifo O. Ajuyah
Professor Smith's comments (i.e. comment 10 on the introductory paper)highlighted concepts that are commonly provided as reasons for low productivity with rural or small scale farmers all over the world. He proposed classification of stock owners to identify those that require assistance. It is logical if the information is lacking, however the story is slightly different in most countries in the South Pacific region, because questionnaires are designed to include most socio-economic variables. For example I came across a report yesterday stating that 92%, 94%, 100% and 100% of all the chickens in Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Tokelau and Nauru respectively are village chickens on zero input. These islands are atolls countries and therefore have intrinsic constraints on livestock production and development. What the Islanders require is comprehensive TRAINING AND SKILL DEVELOPMENT on feeding, housing, selection within the local population, disease control, etc. The role of research is to work within these confines with a proper understanding of the socio-economic, culture and tradition of the rural people. In some countries there is no anchor to the drama or even interlude because most the above basic information are lacking.

As a small boy attending boarding school in Northern Nigeria (Zaria) I used to buy local chickens with my pocket money for the kitchen staff to raise for me to take the surplus home (Jos) on holidays. My major problem then (75%) was birds of prey such as hawks, kites, etc. The cook advised me to paint all the chickens red, based on his understanding of the hawks feeding habit and that birds of prey are colour blind!, but my mother from Southern Nigeria suggested green colour to blend with the vegetation. My point is that any proposed improvement of village chickens should not remove the village from the chicken, but the farmer from the village. This is one of the major reason why many aid funded projects fail in most island countries. What we need today is a global inventory of success and failures of aid funded livestock projects to form basis for improvement.

Back to my story finally I painted the chicks green and predation from birds of prey was reduced to approximately 10-20%, may be I should have tried red colour.

Back

Dr. E. Z. Mushi
Comments on improving family poultry productivity:
Most households in Africa keep a few chickens (Gallus domesticus) which are regarded as rural family poultry. These village chickens are also known as indigenous chickens or traditional chickens otherwise also known as backyard chickens. These chickens are usually kept on a free-range system whereby the chicken scavenges for its food and water. The flock size of family poultry ranges from 3 to 97 (Sonaiya et al., 1999, this conference) while a typical flock in Southern African Development Community (SADC) countries comprises 5 to 30 birds (Anonymous, 1997). The reasons for these small flock sizes include high chick mortalities caused by predation and poultry diseases such as Newcastle disease, infectious bursal disease, fowl pox and parasitism (Guèye, 1998; Sa'Idu et al., 1994).

Predators were found to be responsible for 78% of chick losses in Ethiopia (Negesse, 1993). Birds of prey including eagles, kites and buzzards fed on poultry chicks during the day whereas, the four-legged predators including wild cats and foxes posed a danger at night. These losses would be minimised by properly constructed poultry houses for the nesting chickens at night.

Among the infectious diseases, Newcastle disease is the most devastating for it is capable of wiping out all the chickens in a village (Aini, 1999, this conference). Newcastle disease, fowl pox and infectious bursal disease cause outbreaks because village chickens are usually not vaccinated against these diseases.

The birds are generally slight in weight due to food shortage and internal parasitism. Internal parasites such as Ascaridia galli, Heterakis gallinarum, Capillaria spp., Syngamus trachea and Tetrameres absorb nutrients from the gastro-intestinal tract resulting in loss of weight. Similarly external parasites such as lice, ticks and mites irritate the birds leading to loss in condition. Also, the level of productivity from the village chickens is very low due to low-input and consequently low-output. Most of the chickens are left to scavenge for their feed and supplementary feeding with poultry feed is rarely done.

In summary, the village chickens have low productivity due to inadequate feeding and lack of proper housing. The latter predisposes the chicks to predation. Also infectious diseases and parasitism are responsible for heavy losses in the chickens.

In my opinion, family poultry can be greatly improved both in quantity and quality by taking corrective measures through the poultry extension agent. Initially, the poultry extension agent should select one farmer, preferably prosperous, and use the household as a demonstration unit. The selected farmer would be encouraged to construct a simple poultry house using locally available wooden poles and grass thatch. The house would be used by the chickens during the night and by the chicks during the day. This would go a long way in reducing chick mortality due to predation. Since the chicks are housed they should be supplied with some feed and water.

Secondly, all the chickens should be dewormed with a broad spectrum anthelmintic such as mebendazole or piperazine adipate in drinking water. Birds should also be dusted with malathion to control lice, ticks and mites.

Thirdly, the birds should be vaccinated against Newcastle disease, infectious bursal disease and fowl pox, which are the most common infectious diseases of chickens.

I believe these measures will result in an increase in the number of chickens which are more productive and upon their sale, some of the costs could be recouped. Visits by the other villagers to the demonstration unit should be organised so that they may learn how to improve their poultry.

References
Aini, I. (1999): Diseases in rural family chickens in South-East Asia. First INFPD/FAO Electronic Conference on Family Poultry: 7 December 1998 - 5 March 1999.

Anonymous (1997): Regional research priorities for crop and livestock resources in the SADC region. Southern African Centre for Cooperation in Agriculture and Natural Resources, Research and Training, Gaborone, Botswana, pp. 75.

Guèye, E.F. (1998): Village egg and fowl meat production in Africa. World's Poultry Science Journal 54: 73 - 86.

Negesse, T. (1993): Prevalence of diseases, parasites and predators of local chicken in Leku, Southern Ethiopia. Bulletin Animal Health and Production in Africa 41: 317 - 321.

Sa'ldu, L., Abdu, P.A., Umoh, J.U. and Abdullahi, U.S. (1994): Diseases of Nigerian indigenous chickens. Bulletin of Animal Health and Production in Africa 42: 19 - 23.

Sonaiya, E.B., Branckaert, R.D.S. and Guèye, E.F. (1999): Research and development options for family poultry. First INFPD/FAO Electronic Conference on Family Poultry: 7 December 1998 - 5 March 1999.

Back

Stephen E. J. Swan
Painting chickens red and training farmers:
This is in response to Dr. Asifo O. Ajuyah's observations (see Comment 12 on the Introductory paper).

There was an FAO Livestock project in the Pacific in which I was a mission member from October 1987 to March 1989 (RAS/86/039), involving Yap, Kosrae, Truk and Pohnpei (Federated States of Micronesia), Palau, Marshall Islands, Tuvalu, Kiribati and Tonga. I carried out family and small-scale commercial poultry training programmes in regional centres for these countries, as well as for Fiji and the Cook Islands.

I am now involved (since February 1998) in a US$42 million AsDB/Danida family poultry project in Bangladesh; planning, implementing and monitoring small $40 loans (via NGOs) to marginal farmers within the framework of a very specific semi-scavenger model based on 5 local hens and 5 crossbreds (RIR x Fayoumi). This model has been evolving in Bangladesh since 1983 as an excellent example of Government-NGO cooperation.

When I was last in Bangladesh for FAO from 1980-87, (BGD/73/010 and BGD/82/003) I came across several village poultry farmers who used a commercial red dye ("555") into which they dipped their day-old White Leghorn (the only breed available in the early days of the project, and totally inappropriate for village scavenger conditions) chicks. The hawks did not know what to make of these completely unfamiliar fluorescent red streaks and left them alone.

Back