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 free-
range produced guinea fowls versus those reared under intensive management. The study
was therefore carried out by means of a survey, monitoring study and an experiment
conducted in chronological sequence as presented below.

The study was conducted in three wards from June to July 2002 to characterize guinea
fowl production systems and determine productivity. Seventy-three guinea fowl owners
were interviewed through administration of a structured questionnaire. The survey
revealed a breeding flock of 3 ± 2 per farm. The common management practices prevalent
comprised scavenging and/or semi-intensive. Mean egg production per hen per breeding
season was 89 ± 50 while hatchability of eggs and keet survivability were 64% and 60%,
respectively.

As a follow-up, the monitoring study was carried out to evaluate productivity of 30 guinea
fowl flocks in the study site during the period September 2002 to May 2003. Quantitative
data were collected using participatory rural appraisal techniques while quantitative data
were collected through administration of data sheets. Results from the monitoring study
indicated that mean egg production per hen was 42 ± 26 while hatchability and keet
survival rate recorded was 71.2 ± 14.3 % and 36 ± 10.3, respectively. Within flocks,
monthly mortality was high at 55% in keets compared to 5.1% in the breeding stock.

In the experiment, a total of one hundred and twenty 7-week old guinea fowls were
randomly distributed among five farmers and reared for the next 9 weeks. Each farmer
reared 24 guinea fowl: 12 under the semi-extensive management system and another 12
under intensive management system. Guinea fowls reared under the intensive management
had higher body weight (1072g vs 822g) and carcass yield (838g vs. 620g) (p < 0.001)
than those under semi-extensive management. There was no significant difference (p >
0.05) in chemical composition (CP of 75 vs 72 % and Fat of 15 vs 20 %) of guinea fowl
meat from the birds raised under the two management systems. However, it was more
economic to rear the guinea fowls under semi-extensive management than under intensive
management system.

This study revealed that most production parameters of guinea fowls reared under
smallholder farmer management were suboptimal mainly due to management related
constraints. Thre is a potential to increase production through improvement of
management practices.

ii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

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 SEMI-
EXTENSIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS …………………………..53
5.1 Introduction ………………………………………………………………..53
5.2 Materials and methods ……………………………………………………. 54
5.2.1 Experimental animals …………………………………………………..54
5.2.2 Management systems ………………………………………………….. 54
5.2.3 Data collection ………………………………………………… ………55
5.2.4 Estimation of feed intake and composition ……………………………. 55
5.2.5 Determination of carcass composition ………………………… ………55
5.2.6 Statistical and economic analysis ………………………………………56
5.3 Results ……………………………………………………………………. 56
5.3.1 Feed intake …………………………………………………………….. 56
5.3.2 Growth ………………………………………………………………… 57
5.3.3 Carcass composition ……………………………………………………57
5.3.4 Economic benefit ……………………………………………………… 63
5.4 Discussion ………………………………………………………………… 63
5.5 Conclusion ………………………………………………………………... 68
6 GENERAL DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ……………………. 70
6.1 Discussion ……………………………………………………………….. 70
6.2 Conclusion ……………………………………………………………….. 74
6.3 Future research…………………………………………………………… 75
7 REFERENCES………………………………………………………… 76
8 APPENDICES ………………………………………………………… 85

v
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1: Means, standard error (SE) and coefficient of variation (CV) of body
weight at different ages of guinea fowl …………………………….. 8
Table 3.1: Structure of surveyed guinea fowl flocks …………………………...29
Table 3.2: Production estimates of guinea fowls for 2001/2002 breeding season
…………………………………………………….…………………31
Table 4.1: Summary of production performance of helmented guinea fowls under
smallholder farmer management in Zimbabwe……………………..44
Table 4.2: Mean mortality of breeders and keets from November 2002 to March
2003…………………………………………………………………46
Table 4.3 Growth performance of guinea fowls from hatching to 16 wk of
age…………………………………………………………………. 48
Table 5.1 Feeding programme for guinea fowls under intensive management system
from 8-16 weeks of age …………………………………….. 58
Table 5.2: Composition of guinea fowl crop and gizzard contents under semi-
extensive management system …………………………………….. 58
Table 5.3: Proximate analysis of guinea fowl crop contents under two management
systems…………………………………………………………… 59
Table 5.4: Performance (means ± SE) of guinea fowls reared under intensive and semi-
extensive management systems …………………………………… 60
Table 5.5: Carcass characteristics of guinea fowls reared under semi-extensive and
intensive management systems ……………………………………. 62
Table 5.6: Chemical composition of guinea fowl meat ……………………… 64
Table 5.7: The partial budgeting of two guinea fowl management systems…... 65

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 3.1: Map of the Ward 2, 3 and 4 of Lower Guruve District ……………….. 25
Figure 3.2: Guinea fowl ownership pattern in Wards 2, 3 and 4 of Guruve
District………………………………………………………………………28
Figure 4.1: Mean flock size and composition of guinea fowl during 2002 to 2003 breeding
season…………..………………………………………………………….. 43
Figure 4.2: Pattern of eggs production, eggs hatching and total number of layers according
to month from October 2002 to March 2003 ………...……………………. 45
Figure 5.1: Body mass of guinea fowls under intensive and semi-extensive management
systems from 7 to 16 wk of age …………………………………………… 61

vii
 LIST OF APPENDICES

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 semi-
extensive 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 protein-

energy-malnutrition and increase income. The foraging ability, hardiness and minimal

production input requirements of guinea fowl would ensure a reasonable profit for the

farmers. The opportunity to tap modern technology in guinea fowl production, for

example, strategic supplementary feeding, sexing, use of light control programmes for

breeders, control of feral behaviour and selection, may lead to an increase in guinea

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 Laying and incubation of eggs

2.3.2.1 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 Mean ± SE (g) CV %

Day old 23.82 ± 0.03 11.14

4th week 124.70 ± 0.56 31.23

8th week 384.30 ± 1.41 23.94

12th week 702.41 ± 2.15 18.27

16th week 985.04 ± 2.65 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 pre-

requisite 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 Katunguka-

Rwakishaya, 2000; Kusina J, Kusina N. T. and Mhlanga, 2000). Despite research and

development work on chickens, very little has been done to promote other poultry

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 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.2.1 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 crop-

livestock-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 RESULTS

3.3.1 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 free-

range 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 G ro u p F a m ily
C la s s

Key: Youth: men or women between the ages of 18 and 30 yr and were not married

Figure 3.2: Guinea fowl flocks ownership pattern in Wards 2, 3 and 4 of Guruve District

31
Table 3.1: Total number (n) and proportion (%) according to class of guinea fowl in the study area

1 2
Flock composition Number (n) Percentage in flock

Growers 438 72

Breeding hens 95 16

Breeding cocks 69 12

1
Total number of guinea fowl recorded
2
Percentage in flock – proportion of class of guinea fowl

32
respectively, resulting in a sex ratio of 1.38: hens to 1 cock. Production estimates of the

guinea fowls under the current management systems practised by the farmers are

shown in Table 3.2. According to the farmers, guinea fowls breed from October to

April. Three methods were used to incubate the guinea fowl eggs. These included

natural incubation, use of surrogate hens and artificial incubation. No figures were

provided for artificial incubation but poor hatchability results were reported for eggs

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 Mean ± SD Range

Flock size (n) 8 6 2-30

1
Breeding hens (n) 3 2 1-9
2
Breeding period (mo) 4 3 3-7
3
Egg production/hen/year 89 50 10-200
4
Hatchability (%) 64 31 0-100

Keet survival rate (%) 60 30 0-100

5
Brooding period (d) 12 3 0-120
6
Point of lay (mo) 9 2 7-14

Age at slaughter (mo) 6 1 3-10

7
Productive life span (yr) 1 1 1-3

1
Breeding hens – guinea fowls that reached the reproductive stage
2
Breeding period - the time from the start to end of laying during one breeding season
3
Egg production per hen: - number of eggs produced by one guinea fowl during one

breeding season
4
Hatchability (%) - the proportion of incubated eggs that successfully produce a keet at

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
7
Productive life span (yr) - number of years a guinea fowl is allowed to breed before

culling

34
incubation and rearing of keets, inconsistent feed supply, poor housing, mortality and

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 MATERIALS AND METHODS

4.2.1 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 RESULTS

4.3.1 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

500
NUMBER OF BIRDS

400

300

200

100

0
SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MARCH APRIL MAY
MONTH

TOTAL HENS COCKS GROWERS KEETS

Figure 4.1: Number and composition of guinea fowls monitored during the 2002 to 2003 breeding season

45
Table 4.1: Summary of production performance of helmeted guinea fowls under smallholder farmer management in Zimbabwe

Parameter Mean ± SD

Egg production/hen 42 ± 26

Length of breeding season (months) 5±1

Hatchability (%) 71.2 ± 14.3

Keet survival rate (%) 36 ± 10.3

46
 1800

TOTAL NUMBER OF EGGS/LAYERS……

1600 Eggs Laid

1400
Eggs Incubated

1200
Eggs Hatched
1000

N umber of
800 layers

600

400

200

0
OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR
MONTH
2002 2003

Figure 4.2: Pattern of egg production, incubation and eggs hatching and total number of layers according to month from October
2002 to March 2003

47
Table 4.2: Mean mortality of breeders and keets from November 2002 to February 2003

Month Mortality (%)

1 2
Keets Breeders

November - 2.0

December 57.1 7.3

January 59.4 6.9

February 48.4 4.2

1
Keets - < 6 weeks of age
2
Breeders (including growers) - > 6 weeks of age

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 ethno-

veterinary practice.

51
A most surprising observation was the minimal consumption (approximately 8

eggs/household) and/or sales (33 eggs /household). The result was inconsistent with the

thought that improvement in fowl production would translate into increased household

protein intake. Similarly, there was no corresponding enhancement of sales for revenue

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 SEMI-
EXTENSIVE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

Smallholder farmers rear a wide range of poultry species including guinea fowls. The

guinea fowls are managed mostly under semi-extensive production systems in Africa

(Ayeni, 1983). This system of production predisposes the birds to mortality due to

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 MATERIALS AND METHODS

5.2.1 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 semi-

extensive management scavenged on household refuse and were on free range but were

housed over-night. Under both management systems, the guinea fowls had ad libitum

54
Table 5.1 Feeding programme for guinea fowls from 8-16 weeks of age

Age (in weeks) Feed/Animal/Day(g) Type of feed

8 45 Broiler Finisher Phase 2

9 50 18% CP, 13MJ/KgDM

10 50

11 55

12 55

13 60

14 60

15 60

16 65

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 DM (g) Proportion (%)

1
Grain 13.1 9.7

Grass seed 26.8 19.7

Grass leaves 47.5 34.9

Insects 37.2 27.4

Pebbles (grit) 11.3 8.3

1
Grain - maize/white or red sorghum

59
Table 5.3: Proximate analysis of guinea fowl crop contents under two management systems

Component Management system

Intensive² Semi-extensive²

DM 45.6 51.8

Crude protein 14.3 14.8

Ether extract 3.9 8.6

Crude fibre 2.4 5.5

Ash 23.6 43.2

1
ME (MJ/kg) (estimated) 11.83 9.38

1
Estimated using a method by Oduguwa et al (2000) i.e.: ME (kcal/kg) = 37 x %CP + 81.8 x %EE + 35.5 x% NFE
1 calorie = 4.184 joules

² The samples from crop contents from the 16 guinea fowls (8 from each management system) were mixed prior to proximate analysis to
give a representative sample for each management system.

60
Table 5.4: Performance (means ± SE) of guinea fowls reared under intensive and semi-extensive management systems

Management system Intensive Semi-extensive

Initial weight (g) 301a ± 16.95 285a± 16.95

Weight at 12 wk (g) 807a ± 17.24 591b± 18.03

Final body weight at 16 wk 1072a ± 17.24 822b ± 18.57

Average daily weight gain (g) 12.3 8.6

Mortality (%) (n) 3.3 (2) 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 13 14 15 16
W eek

Fig 5.1: Weekly body mass mean (± SE) of guinea fowls under intensive and semi-extensive management systems from 7 to 16 wk of age

*** Within the same week, treatment means are different P < 0.001

63
Table 5.5: Mean (± standard deviation) carcass characteristics of guinea fowls
reared under intensive and semi-extensive management systems

Carcass traits Intensive Semi-extensive

Body weight before slaughter 1110a ± 93 866b ± 86

Dressed weight 838a ± 77 620b ± 64
Dressing percentage 75.4 71.6
Total edible meat (TEM) 443a ± 66 292b ± 54.
1
PDW 52.9 47.1
Flesh to bone ratio 2a 1.6b
Cut parts (g)
Neck 65.5a ± 5.3 50.8b ± 6.0
Skin 73.9a ± 9.3 59.3b ± 9.0
Thigh 131.7a ± 15.5 96.7b ± 9.1
Drumstick 105.6a ± 11.1 78.5b ± 8.5
Breast 260.8a ± 33.0 191.5b ± 24.2
Wing 121.3a ± 10.7 90.4b ± 8.3
Back 130.0a ± 15.3 107.4b ± 14.0
Muscle of cut parts (g)
Thigh 100.4a ± 12.6 66.8b ± 7.8
Drumstick 73.9a ± 8.9 52.1b ± 6.5
Breast 179.6a ± 30.7 121.8b ± 17.3
Wing 56.2a ± 9.5 37.1b ± 5.2
Back 34.1a ± 7.3 23.5b ± 5.6
Bones of cut parts (g)
Thigh 18.6a ± 1.3 16.0b ± 1.9
Drumstick 24.5a ± 2.3 18.4b ± 1.9
Wing 45.1a ± 4.5 37.0b ± 4.2
Back 78.1a ± 7.1 60.4b ± 6.4
Breast 55.4a ± 4.9 46.9b ± 7.5
1
PDW- Total edible meat as a percentage of dressed weight
a-b
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 Intensive Semi-extensive

%DM 22.9a 26.1a

%CP 75.4a 72.7a

%Ash 9.3a 7.8a

%Fat 14.8a 19.9a

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

66
Table 5.7: Partial budgets for the two guinea fowl management systems in 2003

Item Intensive (Z$) Semi-extensive (Z$)

1
Fence 1389 1389
1
Equipment 10 649 0

Chicks 150 000 150 000

Feed 571 950 112 500

Antibiotics 43 500 43 500

Total cost 777 488 307 389

2
Gross Income 972 150 620720

Net income (live birds) 194 662 313331

Net Income per bird 3244 5222

1
Fence and equipment costs were amortilised for a period of five years
2
Gross income was based on body weight of the birds at 16 weeks of age

67
the intake of a high proportion of pebbles observed in the crop and gizzard contents

and is lower than their requirements for optimum meat yield (Mandal et al., 1999). The

high proportion of pebbles is associated with the pecking of feed on the ground, which

also resulted in high ash content (43.2%) of the diet. The high level of pebbles could

improve the digestion of feed in the gizzard in free ranging birds. Research carried out

in Nigeria and elsewhere revealed that guinea fowls under intensive management

perform well when fed a diet containing 200 g CP /kg DM and 12.11 MJ/kg DM from

5 to 8 weeks and 160 g CP /kg DM and 12.53 MJ/kg DM from 9 to 16 weeks of age

(Mandal et al., 1999; Embury 2001). The energy level of guinea fowl diets under semi-

extensive 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 over-

estimated the number of eggs laid. The variation could also have resulted from annual

variation in the scavenging resource base (Tadelle, 1996). The 2002 to 2003 breeding

season was generally a bad cropping season for the Lower Guruve District due to poor

rainfall. This could have also limited the feed resource base of the farmers themselves

and limited supplementary feeding and the available feed scavenged by the guinea

fowls.

Contrastingly, hatchability of guinea fowl eggs recorded in the survey was lower than

that recorded in the monitoring study. Survey hatchability estimates were similar to

those reported by Kabera (1997) while the monitoring study records were close to those

achieved by commercial guinea fowl farmers in France (Galor, 1983). The high

hatchability could have resulted from improved handling and storage of eggs in

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 semi-

extensive 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 semi-

extensive 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- de-
Elevage-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): 887-
893.

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

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-de-
Medicina-Veterinaria 19(5): 206-208.

Statistical Analysis Systems (SAS), 1998. User’s Guide: Statistics, SAS Institute Inc.,
Cary, North Carolina, USA.

Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), 1998. User’s Guide. SPSS Inc.
Chicago, Illinois, USA.

Swan, S.E.J. 1999. The poultry development strategy of the livestock development
project in Bangladesh. The Danish Agricultural and Rural Development Advisors
Forum. Ed. Frands Dolberg and Poul Henning Petersen. Proccedings of a workshop on
poultry as a tool in poverty alleviation and promotion of gender equality, Tune
Landboskole, Denmark March 22-26, 1999. pp 128-135.

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 Number
Adult females
Adult males
Keets and growers

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 Who is responsible?
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)?
Adult Keets Location Materials Size
D N D N
Tree
Guinea fowl house on the

85
 ground
Elevated guinea fowl house
In the kitchen
In the family house
On top of family house
Household yard
Fields

7. Do you separate other poultry species from the place you keep guinea fowl during the day or at night?
Day Night

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 Number
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?

24. Are you satisfied with the production of your guinea fowls?
Yes / No (circle the correct response) Why?

Marketing
25. How much do you receive for your guinea fowl and eggs when you sell them?
Guinea fowl Egg
Never sell
Money
Exchange for other products -
what?
Where do you sell them?

86
26. When and why do you sell your guinea fowl and eggs?

27. How many guinea fowls and eggs have you sold in the last six months?

Health
28. In your opinion, what are the main causes of guinea fowl mortality?
Birds of prey
Cats and dogs
Wild mammals
Theft
Accidents
Lack of feed
Diseases

29. What common diseases reduce the productivity of your guinea fowl?

30. How many of your birds have died in the last six months?
From disease Slaughter Other causes
keets Adults keets Adults keets Adults
Guinea fowl
Chickens
Other - what?

31. What do you do with your guinea fowl when they are sick?
Eat them
Sell them
Treat them
Other - what?

32. What treatment do you give your birds? How do you prepare the treatment?
Conventional Traditional
Treatment
How to
prepare and
administer

33. Where do you get this treatment?

Veterinary Services Traditional healer
Pharmacy NGO/Project
Shop/market 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 Time of year
Nothing

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: Village:
District: Province:
Male/Female: Age:
Ethnic group: Local languages:
Who is the head of your family:

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 growers hens cocks
Previous recording
Sold
Gifted
Consumed
Died
Lost
Transferred out a
Purchased
Entrusted
Transferred in b
Number at visit A

Observed check

Sold
Gifted
Consumed
Died
Lost
Transferred out a
Purchased
Entrusted
Transferred in b
Number at visit B
Observed Check

a
moved from one age category to the other, i.e. keets become growers once they are independent of their
mother or above the brooding age.
b
moved from the previous age category, which for keets is hatched eggs

89
2 Egg production

Record the number of hens that laid eggs since the previous visit. Also record the number of hens that are
currently sitting on eggs and looking after keets

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

Observe the number of eggs in nests and the number of eggs being incubated. Check the number of eggs
sold, eaten, hatched and wasted since the last visit.

Eggs in nest Eggs incubated

Previous visit
Consumed
Sold
Hatched
Wasted
Laid
Begun incubation
Number at visit A
Consumed
Sold
Hatched
Wasted
Laid
Begun incubation
Number at visit B

3 Record feed inputs purchased since the last visit.

Type Quantity Price
Visit A

Visit B

4 Veterinary and other inputs for poultry since the last visit

Veterinary medicine purchased other inputs purchased

Type quantity price type Quantity Price
Visit A

Visit B

90
5 Mortality of guinea fowls

date Keets Growers Hen Cock Cause disposal method Prevention method

6. Marketing of guinea fowl products

Eggs keets growers hens cocks

Quantity
Unit ¨Price
Total income
Buyer

7 Comments from the farmer

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………

91
Appendix 3

Weekly guinea fowl production summary sheet

Eggs Egg Eggs under Keets hatched Keet mortality Keets Keets sold Balance stock on
collected spoiled incubation surviving hand
wk total wk total wk total wk total wk total wk total wk total Wk total
to to to to date to date to date to date to date
date date date
Total C/F
from
monday

tuesday

wednesday

thursday

Friday

saturday

sunday

Totals for
week
Totals for
season C/F

92
Appendix 4

Flock inventory form

Name of Farmer………………………….
Farmer code……………………Date______/______/________

Guinea Fowls keets Rearing females 1st parity hens 2rd parity hens 3rd parity hens Cockereals Breeding
cocks
Number in flock

in out In out in out in out in out in out in out

Purchase/sale

Gifts

Slaughter

Hatch/death

Theft

Move group

TOTAL + - + - + - + - + - + - + -

Closing flock

93
Appendix 5:

SAS output on body mass of guinea fowls under intensive (1) and semi-extensive

management systems (2)

The MIXED Procedure

Table A5.1 Tests of Fixed Effects

Source NDF DDF Type III F Pr > F

TRT 1 950 471.00 0.0001

FARMER 4 950 7.92 0.0001
WEEK 8 950 283.06 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 8 950 10.35 0.0001

Table A5.2 Least Squares Means

Effect TRT FARMER WEEK LSMEAN Std Error DF t Pr > |t|

TRT 1 775.95097530 5.80953640 950 133.57 0.0001

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

94
Table A5.3 Differences of Least Squares Means
Effect TRT FARMER WEEK _TRT _FARMER _WEEK Difference Std Error DF t Pr > |t|
TRT 1 2 184.36071244 8.49487108 950 21.70 0.0001
FARMER 1 2 25.98410860 13.60111923 950 1.91 0.0564
FARMER 1 3 -4.81038924 13.12237367 950 -0.37 0.7140
FARMER 1 4 54.51640853 13.21252777 950 4.13 0.0001
FARMER 1 5 -8.51302428 12.98433624 950 -0.66 0.5122
FARMER 2 3 -30.79449785 13.76226869 950 -2.24 0.0255
FARMER 2 4 28.53229993 13.84612728 950 2.06 0.0396
FARMER 2 5 -34.49713288 13.63979306 950 -2.53 0.0116
FARMER 3 4 59.32679777 13.38241124 950 4.43 0.0001
FARMER 3 5 -3.70263504 13.17202077 950 -0.28 0.7787
FARMER 4 5 -63.02943281 13.26138440 950 -4.75 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 7 1 9 -258.7164196 24.06780698 950 -10.75 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 7 1 10 -357.5000000 23.96606290 950 -14.92 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 7 1 11 -404.1666667 23.96606290 950 -16.86 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 7 1 12 -505.7333470 24.17244114 950 -20.92 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 7 1 13 -586.8704082 24.28004676 950 -24.17 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 7 1 14 -639.3540366 24.17244114 950 -26.45 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 7 1 15 -752.4673114 25.98149272 950 -28.96 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 7 1 16 -771.2505883 24.17244114 950 -31.91 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 7 2 7 16.66666667 23.96606290 950 0.70 0.4870
TRT*WEEK 1 7 2 9 -138.1218349 24.17245457 950 -5.71 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 7 2 10 -185.5303030 24.50469337 950 -7.57 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 7 2 11 -241.7649823 26.50286316 950 -9.12 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 7 2 12 -289.7921182 24.74694865 950 -11.71 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 7 2 13 -359.9513220 25.14330206 950 -14.32 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 7 2 14 -440.0475298 25.14607868 950 -17.50 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 7 2 15 -456.2234126 27.09756909 950 -16.84 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 7 2 16 -522.0475298 25.14607868 950 -20.76 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 9 1 10 -98.78358044 24.06780698 950 -4.10 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 9 1 11 -145.4502471 24.06780698 950 -6.04 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 9 1 12 -247.0169274 24.27371343 950 -10.18 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 9 1 13 -328.1539886 24.38107999 950 -13.46 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 9 1 14 -380.6376171 24.27371343 950 -15.68 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 9 1 15 -493.7508918 26.07939143 950 -18.93 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 9 1 16 -512.5341688 24.27371343 950 -21.11 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 9 2 7 275.38308623 24.06780698 950 11.44 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 9 2 9 120.59458467 24.27375231 950 4.97 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 9 2 10 73.18611653 24.60421019 950 2.97 0.0030
TRT*WEEK 1 9 2 11 16.95143729 26.59859662 950 0.64 0.5241
TRT*WEEK 1 9 2 12 -31.07569863 24.84480180 950 -1.25 0.2113
TRT*WEEK 1 9 2 13 -101.2349024 25.24025473 950 -4.01 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 9 2 14 -181.3311102 25.24415827 950 -7.18 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 9 2 15 -197.5069930 27.19229238 950 -7.26 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 9 2 16 -263.3311102 25.24415827 950 -10.43 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 10 1 11 -46.66666667 23.96606290 950 -1.95 0.0518
TRT*WEEK 1 10 1 12 -148.2333470 24.17244114 950 -6.13 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 10 1 13 -229.3704082 24.28004676 950 -9.45 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 10 1 14 -281.8540366 24.17244114 950 -11.66 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 10 1 15 -394.9673114 25.98149272 950 -15.20 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 10 1 16 -413.7505883 24.17244114 950 -17.12 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 10 2 7 374.16666667 23.96606290 950 15.61 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 10 2 9 219.37816511 24.17245457 950 9.08 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 10 2 10 171.96969697 24.50469337 950 7.02 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 10 2 11 115.73501773 26.50286316 950 4.37 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 10 2 12 67.70788181 24.74694865 950 2.74 0.0063
TRT*WEEK 1 10 2 13 -2.45132197 25.14330206 950 -0.10 0.9224
TRT*WEEK 1 10 2 14 -82.54752975 25.14607868 950 -3.28 0.0011
TRT*WEEK 1 10 2 15 -98.72341256 27.09756909 950 -3.64 0.0003
TRT*WEEK 1 10 2 16 -164.5475298 25.14607868 950 -6.54 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 11 1 12 -101.5666803 24.17244114 950 -4.20 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 11 1 13 -182.7037415 24.28004676 950 -7.52 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 11 1 14 -235.1873700 24.17244114 950 -9.73 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 11 1 15 -348.3006447 25.98149272 950 -13.41 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 11 1 16 -367.0839217 24.17244114 950 -15.19 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 11 2 7 420.83333333 23.96606290 950 17.56 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 11 2 9 266.04483177 24.17245457 950 11.01 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 11 2 10 218.63636364 24.50469337 950 8.92 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 11 2 11 162.40168439 26.50286316 950 6.13 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 11 2 12 114.37454848 24.74694865 950 4.62 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 11 2 13 44.21534470 25.14330206 950 1.76 0.0790
TRT*WEEK 1 11 2 14 -35.88086309 25.14607868 950 -1.43 0.1539
TRT*WEEK 1 11 2 15 -52.05674589 27.09756909 950 -1.92 0.0550
TRT*WEEK 1 11 2 16 -117.8808631 25.14607868 950 -4.69 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 12 1 13 -81.13706123 24.48288569 950 -3.31 0.0010
TRT*WEEK 1 12 1 14 -133.6206897 24.37576887 950 -5.48 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 12 1 15 -246.7339644 26.17788167 950 -9.43 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 12 1 16 -265.5172414 24.37576887 950 -10.89 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 12 2 7 522.40001363 24.17244114 950 21.61 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 12 2 9 367.61151207 24.37693784 950 15.08 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 12 2 10 320.20304393 24.70657274 950 12.96 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 12 2 11 263.96836469 26.69601621 950 9.89 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 12 2 12 215.94122877 24.94650921 950 8.66 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 12 2 13 145.78202499 25.33868984 950 5.75 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 12 2 14 65.68581721 25.34147153 950 2.59 0.0097
TRT*WEEK 1 12 2 15 49.50993440 27.28576636 950 1.81 0.0699
TRT*WEEK 1 12 2 16 -16.31418279 25.34147153 950 -0.64 0.5199
TRT*WEEK 1 13 1 14 -52.48362842 24.48288569 950 -2.14 0.0323
TRT*WEEK 1 13 1 15 -165.5969032 26.28038314 950 -6.30 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 13 1 16 -184.3801801 24.48288569 950 -7.53 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 13 2 7 603.53707486 24.28004676 950 24.86 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 13 2 9 448.74857330 24.48409523 950 18.33 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 13 2 10 401.34010517 24.81186202 950 16.18 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 13 2 11 345.10542592 26.79618497 950 12.88 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 13 2 12 297.07829001 25.05003613 950 11.86 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 13 2 13 226.91908623 25.44007123 950 8.92 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 13 2 14 146.82287844 25.44163582 950 5.77 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 13 2 15 130.64699564 27.38337924 950 4.77 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 13 2 16 64.82287844 25.44163582 950 2.55 0.0110
TRT*WEEK 1 14 1 15 -113.1132748 26.17788167 950 -4.32 0.0001

95
Effect TRT FARMER WEEK _TRT _FARMER _WEEK Difference Std Error DF t Pr > |t|
TRT*WEEK 1 14 1 16 -131.8965517 24.37576887 950 -5.41 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 14 2 7 656.02070328 24.17244114 950 27.14 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 14 2 9 501.2322017 24.37693784 950 20.56 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 14 2 10 453.82373359 24.70657274 950 18.37 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 14 2 11 397.58905435 26.69601621 950 14.89 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 14 2 12 349.56191843 24.94650921 950 14.01 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 14 2 13 279.40271465 25.33868984 950 11.03 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 14 2 14 199.30650686 25.34147153 950 7.86 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 14 2 15 183.13062406 27.28576636 950 6.71 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 14 2 16 117.30650686 25.34147153 950 4.63 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 15 1 16 -18.78327695 26.17788167 950 -0.72 0.4732
TRT*WEEK 1 15 2 7 769.13397806 25.98149272 950 29.60 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 15 2 9 614.34547650 26.16192777 950 23.48 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 15 2 10 566.93700836 26.47915765 950 21.41 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 15 2 11 510.70232912 28.16408460 950 18.13 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 15 2 12 462.67519320 26.72816511 950 17.31 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 15 2 13 392.51598942 27.10711986 950 14.48 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 15 2 14 312.41978164 27.10845455 950 11.52 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 15 2 15 296.24389883 28.72345334 950 10.31 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 15 2 16 230.41978164 27.10845455 950 8.50 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 16 2 7 787.91725501 24.17244114 950 32.60 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 16 2 9 633.12875345 24.37693784 950 25.97 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 16 2 10 585.72028531 24.70657274 950 23.71 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 16 2 11 529.48560607 26.69601621 950 19.83 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 16 2 12 481.4584701 24.94650921 950 19.30 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 16 2 13 411.29926637 25.33868984 950 16.23 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 16 2 14 331.20305859 25.34147153 950 13.07 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 16 2 15 315.02717578 27.28576636 950 11.55 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 1 16 2 16 249.20305859 25.34147153 950 9.83 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 2 7 2 9 -154.7885016 24.17245457 950 -6.40 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 2 7 2 10 -202.1969697 24.50469337 950 -8.25 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 2 7 2 11 -258.4316489 26.50286316 950 -9.75 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 2 7 2 12 -306.4587849 24.74694865 950 -12.38 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 2 7 2 13 -376.6179886 25.14330206 950 -14.98 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 2 7 2 14 -456.7141964 25.14607868 950 -18.16 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 2 7 2 15 -472.8900792 27.09756909 950 -17.45 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 2 7 2 16 -538.7141964 25.14607868 950 -21.42 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 2 9 2 10 -47.40846814 24.70658588 950 -1.92 0.0553
TRT*WEEK 2 9 2 11 -103.6431474 26.68074519 950 -3.88 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 2 9 2 12 -151.6702833 24.94907666 950 -6.08 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 2 9 2 13 -221.8294871 25.34392101 950 -8.75 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 2 9 2 14 -301.9256949 25.34670139 950 -11.91 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 2 9 2 15 -318.1015777 27.27271614 950 -11.66 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 2 9 2 16 -383.9256949 25.34670139 950 -15.15 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 2 10 2 11 -56.23467924 26.99091665 950 -2.08 0.0375
TRT*WEEK 2 10 2 12 -104.2618152 25.26893930 950 -4.13 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 2 10 2 13 -174.4210189 25.65723026 950 -6.80 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 2 10 2 14 -254.5172267 25.65995126 950 -9.92 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 2 10 2 15 -270.6931095 27.57509885 950 -9.82 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 2 10 2 16 -336.5172267 25.65995126 950 -13.11 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 2 11 2 12 -48.02713592 27.23419545 950 -1.76 0.0781
TRT*WEEK 2 11 2 13 -118.1863397 27.60492145 950 -4.28 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 2 11 2 14 -198.2825475 27.60611240 950 -7.18 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 2 11 2 15 -214.4584303 29.19353821 950 -7.35 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 2 11 2 16 -280.2825475 27.60611240 950 -10.15 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 2 12 2 13 -70.15920378 25.88172212 950 -2.71 0.0068
TRT*WEEK 2 12 2 14 -150.2554116 25.88437997 950 -5.80 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 2 12 2 15 -166.4312944 27.81201063 950 -5.98 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 2 12 2 16 -232.2554116 25.88437997 950 -8.97 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 2 13 2 14 -80.09620778 26.25481830 950 -3.05 0.0023
TRT*WEEK 2 13 2 15 -96.27209059 28.17045072 950 -3.42 0.0007
TRT*WEEK 2 13 2 16 -162.0962078 26.25481830 950 -6.17 0.0001
TRT*WEEK 2 14 2 15 -16.17588281 28.16995624 950 -0.57 0.5660
TRT*WEEK 2 14 2 16 -82.00000000 26.25350653 950 -3.12 0.0018
TRT*WEEK 2 15 2 16 -65.82411719 28.16995624 950 -2.34 0.0197

96
Appendix 6

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 Legs 10 105.590000 11.0758446

Intensive Thighs 10 131.740000 15.5337053
Intensive Wings 10 121.260000 10.6709575
Intensive Breast 10 260.800000 32.9631444
Intensive Back 10 138.030000 15.3084617
Intensive Neck 10 65.510000 5.3405056
Intensive Skin 10 73.850000 9.3842954
Semi-extensive Legs 10 78.540000 8.4829502
Semi-extensive Thighs 10 96.730000 9.0561275
Semi-extensive Wings 10 90.370000 8.3163894
Semi-extensive Breast 10 191.490000 24.2005716
Semi-extensive Back 10 107.410000 14.0248549
Semi-extensive Neck 10 50.840000 5.9989258
Semi-extensive Skin 10 59.320000 8.9546760

Table A6.3 Means and standard deviations of muscles of cut parts

------------WEIGHT-----------
TREATMENTT PART N Mean SD

Intensive Thigh 10 100.350000 12.5672635

Intensive Leg 10 73.880000 8.8673935
Intensive Wing 10 56.240000 9.4568259
Intensive Back 10 34.090000 7.2951201
Intensive Breast 10 179.620000 30.6937489
Semi-extensive Thigh 10 66.770000 7.8475828
Semi-extensive Leg 10 52.050000 6.5076451
Semi-extensive Wing 10 37.070000 5.1839603
Semi-extensive Back 10 23.460000 5.5632125
Semi-extensive Breast 10 121.830000 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 Fat 5 14.8160000 10.6467990

Intensive Dry matter 5 22.8900000 1.0684334
Intensive Crude protein 4 75.4200000 6.3213764
Intensive Ash 5 9.2860000 4.8740773
Semi-extensive Fat 5 19.9420000 14.3701538
Semi-extensive Dry matter 5 26.0940000 4.1170900
Semi-extensive Crude protein 4 72.7125000 10.0506861
Semi-extensive Ash 5 7.8440000 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|

--------------------------------------------------
Body weight 244.0000000 36.1693547 6.7460424 0.0001
Dressed weight 217.3000000 30.6021241 7.1008143 0.0001
Total meat yield 150.5000000 30.4292440 4.9459001 0.0008
Total bone yield 40.7000000 7.5248477 5.4087473 0.0004
Meat to bone ratio 0.3670000 0.1338909 2.7410373 0.0228
Dissected parts Legs 27.0500000 4.8188346 5.6133905 0.0003
Dissected parts Thighs 35.0100000 5.9571703 5.8769514 0.0002
Dissected parts wings 30.8900000 4.7497006 6.5035679 0.0001
Dissected parts Breast 69.3100000 12.7478752 5.4369845 0.0004
Dissected parts Back 30.6200000 7.9473098 3.8528761 0.0039
Dissected parts Neck 14.6700000 2.6887027 5.4561629 0.0004
Dissected parts Skin 14.5300000 4.7134571 3.0826630 0.0131
Muscle of cut parts Thigh 33.5800000 5.2265094 6.4249383 0.0001
Muscle of cut parts Legs 21.8300000 3.8948984 5.6047675 0.0003
Muscle of cut parts Wings 19.1700000 3.9158098 4.8955391 0.0009
Muscle of cut parts back 10.6300000 3.2343315 3.2866143 0.0094
Muscle of cut parts Breast 57.7900000 11.2504563 5.1366806 0.0006
Bones of cut parts Thighs 2.6250000 0.7806425 3.3626146 0.0084
Bones of cut parts Legs 6.0900000 1.0669218 5.7080095 0.0003
Bones of cut parts Wings 8.1000000 2.2231609 3.6434610 0.0054
Bones of cut parts Back 17.6900000 3.7713673 4.6906065 0.0011
Bones of cut parts Breast 8.5400000 2.4813169 3.4417209 0.0074
Proximate components Fat -5.1260000 2.0919049 -2.4503982 0.0704
Proximate components Dry matter -3.2040000 1.7142713 -1.8690157 0.1350
Proximate components Crude Protein 2.7075000 2.5534336 1.0603370 0.3668
Proximate components Ash 1.4420000 1.4898570 0.9678781 0.3879
--------------------------------------------------

98
Appendix 7:
Guinea fowl production technologies
and systems practiced and tested in
Lower Guruve District of Zimbabwe
Semi-extensive guinea fowl production
Natural incubation of guinea fowl eggs
Intensive guinea fowl production
system
Artificial incubation of guinea fowl eggs

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