Evaluation of the Socio-Economic Benefits of Maize Farming Against Local Chicken Production as a Means of Livelihood in Chankumba Agricultural Camp of Chibombo District, Zambia.

Evaluation of the socio-economic benefits of Maize Farming against Local Chicken production as a means of livelihood in Chankumba agricultural camp of Chibombo district, Zambia.

Prepared by:

EDWIN M. MASIMBI

A Dissertation Submitted in partial fulfillment of the award of Bachelor of Science Degree in Agroforestry

THE COPPERBELT UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF NATURAL RESOURCES Department of Forest Resource Management

Submitted to: Mr. Felix Njovu

December, 2010

DECLARATION

I Edwin Mungala Masimbi, hereby declare that the work contained in this thesis is my own original work and has not been previously in its entirety or in part been submitted to any university for the award of a degree

Author Signature……………………… Date………………………… Edwin Mungala Masimbi Supervisor Signature……………………… Date………………………… Mr. Felix Njovu

Assistant Dean Signature……………………. Date………………………….. Mr. Robby Kasubika

ABSTRACT

In a study conducted in Chankumba Agricultural Camp of Chibombo district (Kabwe Rural) of Central province of Zambia, the socio-economic benefits of maize farming against local chicken production were investigated. Primary data were collected using semi-structured questionnaires. Field observations and secondary data supplemented the questionnaires. Secondary data were obtained from reports and other documents from various offices. Data collected was analyzed by using Microsoft Excel and the Statistical Package for the Social Science (SPSS); descriptive statistics were used in the analysis. The results showed that: local chicken production has more and better socio-economic benefits than maize farming and is a better activity towards contributing to household food security. Female participation is higher in the management of chickens than in maize. From this study the following recommendations were made: There is need for government and other common interest groups to create awareness of local chicken production as a viable alternative means of livelihood besides maize farming and Extension services need to be improved. Government, as well as other common interest groups should realize the importance of sustainable improvements in local chicken production.

DEDICATION

This thesis is dedicated to a few good men I have known in my life: my hardworking father, Langson Masimbi; my uncle, Bismarck Simalaambo (late) and Fr. Emmanuel Bwalya; my mother Violet Mweene for how she has raised me and ever being there for me-always. I extend my dedication to my beloved brothers and sister.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am deeply indebted to my supervisor, Mr. Felix Njovu for his guidance in this research.
I would further like to thank Mr. Mukubesa, my aunties and uncles in Chibombo for their untiring help during data collection. Many thanks also go to the people of Chankumba for their cooperation during data collection. I am sincerely grateful to my family and friends for their encouragement and support during the period of my study.
I would also like to thank the staff at Chibombo DACO offices, GART and MLF Chibombo offices.
Finally to the only true God, Jehovah, the maker of life. I am thankful. It has been a long time coming.

ACRONYMS

AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
CSO Central Statistics Office
FNDP Fifth National Development Plan
FRA Food Reserve Agency
GDP Gross Domestic Product
HIV Human Immune Virus
MACO Ministry Of Agriculture and Cooperatives
VP Village Poultry
ZMK Zambian Kwacha
NGOs Non Governmental Organisations
JAICA F Japan Association for International Collaboration of Agriculture and Forestry
GART Golden Valley Agriculture Research Trust
MLF Ministry of Livestock and Fisheries

Table of Contents
DECLARATION ii
ABSTRACT iii
DEDICATION iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS v
ACRONYMS vi
LIST OF FIGURES x
LIST OF TABLES xi
CHAPTER ONE 1
INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Background 2
1.2 Problem statement 3
1.3 Objectives of the study 4
1.3.1 Overall objective 4
1.3.2 Specific objective 4
1.4 Justification 4
1.5 Hypothesis 5
1.6 Research Assumptions 5
CHAPTER TWO 6
LITERATURE REVIEW 6
2.1 Smallholder Maize Production in Zambia 6
2. 1.1 Overview 6
2.1.2 Uses of maize 6
2.1.3 Comparison with Other Staple Crops 7
2.1.4 Production Issues of maize 7
2.1.5 Production limiting factors 8
2.2 Poultry Farming 9
2.2.1 Village poultry production 9
2.2.2 Contribution of village chickens in the smallholder sector 10
CHAPTER THREE 14
STUDY AREA AND METHODOLOGY 14
3.1 Location of Chankumba Agricultural Camp 14
3.2 Description of the Livelihood System 16
3.3 Methodology 17
3.3.1 Data collection 17
3.3.2 Sample size and sampling procedure 18
3.3.3 Method of data Analysis 18
CHAPTER FOUR 19
RESULTS 19
4.1 Description of households surveyed 19
4.2 Education distribution and external funding of respondents 21
4.3 Livelihood strategies 22
4.4 Annual labour demand and gender differences 23
4.5 Production Inputs-And-Costs and Income Realized from Maize and Chickens (Year 2009) 25
4.5.1 Inputs-and-costs 25
4.5.2 Income realized from maize and local chicken production 27
4.6 Contribution of maize farming and local chicken production towards household food security 28
4.7 The contribution of maize and local chicken and other activities to acquisition of household assets 29
4.8 Household amenities and the activity/source of contribution 29
4.9 Household access to facilities and activities/sources of contribution 30
4.10 The Constraints and Risks facing farmers in maize and local chicken farming 31
4.11 Sources of information for farming 32
CHAPTER FIVE 33
DISCUSSION 33
5.1 Socio economic characteristics of respondents 33
5.1.1 Age of respondents 33
5.1.2 Gender and Marital status of respondents 33
5.1.3 Education and Occupational distribution 34
5.2 Incomes from Local Chicken Production and Maize Farming 34
5.3 Maize and local chicken production in addressing gender equity 34
5.4 Contribution of maize farming and local chicken production to household Food security 35
5.5 Challenges and risks facing the farmers 35
5.6 Labour profile 36
5.7 General observations and findings 36
CHAPTER SIX 37
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 37
6.1 Conclusion 37
6.2 Recommendation 37
REFERENCES 40
APPENDICES 45
Appendix 1: Questionnaire 45
Appendix 2: results analysed using SPSS 55

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: District map profile of Zambia

Figure 2: Figure 2: District map profile of Zambia
Figure 3a: Age distribution of respondent

Figure 3b: Gender of Respondent

Figure 3c: Level of education of Respondents

Figure 3d: Households’ response to external funding

Figure 4: Different livelihood strategies of households
Figure 5: The gender division of labour in maize and local poultry production.

Figure 6: Contribution of maize, local chicken and other activities to acquisition of household assets
Figure 7: household amenities and the source of contribution

Figure 8: Households ' access to facilities and the activity/source of contribution

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1a: Annual Labour demand in maize
Table 1b: Annual labour demand in local chicken production
Table 2a: Annual inputs and costs of Maize farming per hectare (2009).
Table 2b: Annual inputs and costs of producing 100 Local Chickens (2009).

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Smallholder agriculture plays an important role in the Zambian agriculture in terms of its contribution to people 's livelihoods and to economic development at large. Agriculture provides not only food but also a platform for the survival of industries such as; the milling companies, stock feed companies, the irrigation and fertilizer companies. It is thus clear that farming today is no longer just a way of life but is as much a business with a valuable contribution on the socio-economic status of people’s livelihoods. The Zambian agriculture sector is dominated by small-scale maize-mixed farmers who mostly depend on rain fed farming. However, the changing weather patterns, cost shifts in agricultural inputs, inefficient market systems filled with unscrupulous dealers who batter maize with second hand clothes and Kapenta have made the diversification of incomes for most maize-mixed farmers very difficult. Worse still, the loss of labour though rural urban migration and the high prevalence of HIV/AIDS and other unavoidable factors within this framework have hit the small-scale maize farmers the most because of their limited capacity to adapt, this being attributed to lack of specialization.
The direct effect is the change in local business activity occurring as a result of the change in household and/or business operating cost and conditions that have made farming a little less predictable and a high risk venture.
In view of the current state of affairs, it is important that research is carried out so that the farming communities are helped to make informed choices towards an improved quality of life by offering alternative courses of action within farming. However, the diversification route to higher incomes for rural households requires that farmers specialize, investing in high potential areas which may give the highest returns. The challenge thus is to target investment that will maximize the returns of net benefits.
Therefore, this paper will compare the farming activities between maize farming and local chicken production in rural areas so as to determine which activity offers better socio-economic benefits in people’s livelihoods.

1.1 Background

Agriculture’s contribution to Zambia’s GDP in 2007 was estimated at 13 per cent in the primary sector and 9 per cent in the secondary sector (CSO, 2008). Agriculture also employs two thirds of the population and, therefore, occupies a very strategic position to contribute to economic growth and improved human well-being. More than 65% of the poor are in rural areas pre-occupied with subsistence farming (Jayne, 2007). For these reasons, Zambia’s Fifth National Development Plan (FNDP) strategy emphasized the revitalization of agriculture as an engine of economic growth and development.
In the last fifteen years, agriculture has emerged as the main pre-occupation for the majority of households in Zambia. Despite agriculture employing a large number of the country’s population in the past 15 years, the sector has remained stagnant and continues to do so (Govereh et al., 2009). Govereh et al. also point out that low productivity is partially attributed to misplaced spending priorities. The allocations are not going to programs with high returns for growth and poverty reduction. Programs with high returns for growth seemingly are given lower priority than politically expedient programs such as maize. For instance, Public agriculture poverty reduction programs have wholly been about subsidizing maize; maize subsidies have increased but the sub-sector performance has not shown any corresponding additional change. Maize area, yields and output have remained stagnant. It is thus doubtful under these conditions that agriculture’s spending priorities gives value for money.
Moreover, rural incomes have remained low with poor living standards and nutrition. Most of all, farmers are unwilling to give up farming, even when they are aware that their capital and labour could bring in higher and more certain rewards in other occupations. However, the course of action as to where the farmer commits his/her resources matters the most in farming

1.2 Problem statement

Smallholder agriculture plays an important role in Zambia agriculture in terms of its contribution to people 's livelihoods and to economic development. However, the Zambian policy setting on various investments in farming has left a lot of small scale farmers in the cold. Most rural farmers lack the proper guide to their choice of action to allocate resources at their command between various farming activities so as to maximize on their returns in order that they enhance their livelihood.

1.3 Objectives of the study

1.3.1 Overall objective

➢ To investigate the socio-economic benefits of maize farming as compared to local chicken production in rural livelihoods.

1.3.2 Specific objective

➢ To conduct the cost benefit analysis of maize farming and local chicken production.

➢ To find out the style of life generated from local chicken production and maize farming.

➢ To find out the gender division of labour in chicken production and maize farming

1.4 Justification

The information generated will help pave way for income diversification in a package of reducing poverty and improving the rural livelihoods. This will help the farmers, investors in subsistence farming and policy makers to make decisive decisions on which activity between maize farming and local chicken production best provides socio-economic benefits. Consequently, this will help reduce the rural-urban migration and give individuals living with HIV/AIDS a better option to be involved in considering labour requirements. To help farmers diversify from maize production to other agricultural activities like poultry farming so that they could wean themselves from farmer input support programmes and stop dependence on the government by creating a better development initiative in rural-based Income-Generation.

1.5 Hypothesis

Local chicken production has better social-economic benefits than maize farming in rural livelihoods.

1.6 Research Assumptions

➢ All respondents will cooperate during data collection and will be free to give the researcher as much information as required. ➢ Information collected from respondents will be true and reliable.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Smallholder Maize Production in Zambia

2. 1.1 Overview

Maize (Zea mays L.) originates from Latin America. Its cultivation is considered to have started by 3000 BC at the latest. In 1492, maize caught the eye of Christopher Columbus, who reached Cuba on his voyage to discover Americas (Kodamaya and Shiro 2003). The crop that he brought back to Spain spread immediately around the Mediterranean rim, before it was introduced to West and East Africa probably in the 16th century. At that time, the Zambian staple crops were sorghum (Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) and millet (Eleusine coracana Gartner), as an African original product, but gradually replaced by maize. In 1964, when the country gained its independence, maize already accounted for over 60% of the planting area of major crops (Kodamaya and Shiro 2003). .

2.1.2 Uses of maize

Zambian maize is mostly used as food, although it is also used for brewing and animal consumption (Yonena and Miyamoto 1999). As a staple crop, most of the maize is milled and then boiled in hot water until it thickens like dough for eating. This staple food, known as nsima in Zambia, is very similar in its preparation to what is called tô in Burkina Faso and ugali in Kenya and Tanzania, both serving as staple food. The white flint varieties are definitely preferred over the yellow ones.

2.1.3 Comparison with Other Staple Crops

Zulu et al., (2007) compared maize with other staple crops (cassava, sweet potato, sorghum), and concluded that maize is more susceptible to drought, and its production may be hit substantially by bad weather. Furthermore, inputs such as chemical fertilizer and improved seeds are essential for realizing a high yield. Sufficient maize production is simply impossible without those inputs. As the government liberalized the distribution of products and inputs and scaled down subsidy programmes in the 1990s, the prices of inputs rose, and the producer price of maize declined, in remote areas. Thus, the farther a farmer lives from the capital, the less favourable is the condition for producing and selling maize.

2.1.4 Production Issues of maize

Maize accounted for some 60% of the crop growing area in the 1970s and 1980s (Jayne et al. 2007). However, the ratio has fallen below 30% since the 1990s, largely because commercial farmers have shifted from maize to exportable crops with higher added values such as cotton, soya and sunflower (Zulu et al. 2007). The loss of maize’s attractiveness as cash crop is ominous in the face of continued dependence of the Zambian population on maize as staple crop. The hybrid varieties introduced to increase production has not lived up to expectations, as their yields stand on a par with those of indigenous varieties. Given that maize requires a substantial amount of water for growth, some of the current planting areas are not deemed suitable for maize production. Cultivating the crop in such areas is not considered to be a wise choice.

A sample survey conducted by Zulu et al., (2007) indicates that only 20% of rural households sell maize after satisfying their own needs. At the other end of the spectrum, 35% of them purchase maize to cover the deficit of their production.

2.1.5 Production limiting factors

The primary factors limiting production seem to be the scale of farming households and extensive agriculture. According to JAICAF (2008), considerable yield (4.5t/ha) would be expected if appropriate fertilizer application and watering were ensured along with weeding and pest/disease control. As it is, however, 97% of the maize growers are smallholder households. With only five or six workers available per household, maize farming may be characterised as subsistence agriculture. It is also a rain-fed, extensive agricultural practice, only using hoe and other simple implements. The potential yield cannot be achieved as the use of chemical fertilizer and improved seeds are substantially limited. At the same time, the attractiveness of maize as cash crop is now fading. Maize production suffers further constraints as growers are switching to cotton and other more easily cashable crops. Therefore, the monocropping of Maize by smallholder farmers is disadvantageous in economic terms.

2.2 Poultry Farming

2.2.1 Village poultry production

Despite the rapid global development of the commercial poultry industry, it has been estimated that still more than 80% of the world’s poultry population occurs in traditional family-based production systems and that the latter contribute up to 90% of the total poultry products in many countries (Gueye, 2005a; Mack et al., 2005). Therefore, commercial poultry production, which is becoming increasingly industrialized, will continue to co-exist with household or Village Poultry (VP) farming for a considerably long time (Mcleod et al., 2009).

VP displays some common characteristics, although minor variations from one country to another. Households involved in this type of production which is also called family poultry farming usually specialize in small-scale agriculture (Muchadeyi et al., 2005) and generally the education level of the families is quite low (Halima et al., 2007; Aboe et al., 2006a). It is usually, women and children who are responsible for rearing VP (Kondombo et al., 2003; Dessie and Ogle, 2001). The primary aim of VP farming in many African countries is meat production; egg yield, votive offerings and income generation are the other purposes (Muchadeyi et al., 2007; Aboe et al., 2006b; Kondombo et al., 2003; Mwalusanya et al., 2002).

In some countries commercial poultry sector and extensive village poultry farming co-exist (Mcleod et al., 2009). Being one of these countries, Turkey has a typical transition economy with a 29.5% rural population. In fact, Turkey is one of the few countries, where the commercial poultry industry has developed most successfully in the last 30 years. The Turkish poultry sector used to consist entirely of small scale family poultry production enterprises up until 1970s; following rapid development, large scale production capacity has been achieved. The production figures in 2008 were 1, 069 696 tons of chicken meat and 1, 123, 022 tons of poultry meat. Egg production in 2008 was 13.2 billion.

VP farming has been constantly ignored by academics and relevant institutions in Turkey. The existence of an advanced commercial large-scale poultry industry appears to justify ignoring village poultry farming. In fact, according to Gueye (2005b), small-scale poultry farming is not yet regarded by many researchers, development and extension workers as an area of importance in terms of political significance or scientific prestige. However, it is promising to see that village poultry has already started to receive attentions in Turkey (Sekeroglu and Aksimsek, 2008; Aksoy et al., 2008). The aim of this study was to determine the extent of VP farming in the rural areas of the two provinces in Western Turkey and to analyze the relationships between VP farming and some socio-economic characteristics.

2.2.2 Contribution of village chickens in the smallholder sector

Although chickens are important in providing food and income, their monetary contribution to household economy is viewed as low (Pedersen, 2002; Miao, 2005; Muchadeyi et al., 2005). The low returns of village chicken production in rural areas can be attributed to insufficient empirical case studies, the use of conventional and sometimes inappropriate economic models to measure production and financial returns and failure to consider all uses. This is also due to the chickens ' multiple non-cash outputs, such as manure, traditional purposes, home consumption, social obligations and status. Since poultry products consumed by the farming family only passes through non-formal marketing channels, researchers and decision-makers do not adequately appreciate the economic importance of such products. There is need to understand the perceptions of the farmers on the functions of village chickens and the value of their products under the existing production systems in order to improve village chicken productivity and sustainability in rural areas.

Village chickens provide cheap, readily harvestable protein-enriched white meat and eggs with high quality, digestible protein for immediate home consumption and sale for income generation (Dolberg and Petersen, 2000; Mapiye and Sibanda, 2005; Miao, 2005). Thus, there is need to assess the monetary value of chicken and eggs and estimate their contribution to household income and food security. Chickens are used as buffers or banks in cases where they are sold to pay for school fees, medical costs, village taxes and other uncertainties. The extent to which chickens are used as buffers or banks depends on the socioeconomic status of each rural household (Julian, 1992; Muchadeyi et al., 2004).

Village chickens play a vital role through their contribution to cultural and social life of smallholder farmers (Dolberg and Petersen, 2000; Pedersen, 2002). In some cases farmers give birds and eggs as gifts to visitors and relatives, and as starting capital for youth and newly married women as well as token of appreciation for services rendered (Kusina and Kusina, 1999). Chickens are reserved for special guests or at ceremonial gatherings such as marriage feasts, weddings and funerals. Village chickens are used to strengthen relationships with in-laws and to maintain family contacts by entrusting them to other family members (Muchadeyi et al., 2004). They are given as sacrificial offerings to appease avenging spirits and ancestors. Village chicken feathers are used to make special clothes (skirts, hats and pillows) for the traditional healers for their day-to-day use and for spirit mediums to wear during traditional ceremonies. The chickens perform a valuable sanitary function by eating discarded food and controlling pests in gardens. Cocks are also used as alarm clocks in rural areas (Kusina and Kusina, 1999). However, it is difficult to compare monetary values of sale and consumption to spiritual or socio-cultural benefits, hence a unilateral procedure is required to evaluate and compare the monetary and spiritual or socio-cultural contribution of village chickens to rural livelihoods.

Indigenous chickens are an important reservoir of genomes that may be used in future to produce hybrid birds since most strains have superior genetic constitution that has not been fully exploited (Pedersen, 2002). Another important role of village chickens is the provision of manure. Manure from chickens is applied in vegetable gardens, and is regarded to be of high value for vegetables in comparison to goat or cattle manure (Maphosa, et al., 2004; Muchadeyi et al., 2004). Village chicken litter, offals and feathers can be used as ruminant feed to supplement protein, hence if treated to eliminate bacterial infection can offer an attractive option for smallholder farmers. To date there are no detailed studies conducted targeting comprehensive description of use patterns of village chicken and its products, and understanding the associated socio-economic conditions, roles and functions of local chickens. This will have considerable relevance for future research and development. Therefore, research should be conducted with the objectives of understanding the use patterns of village chicken and its products, and its socio-cultural functions.

CHAPTER THREE

STUDY AREA AND METHODOLOGY

This chapter is divided into two sections. The first section introduces the study area, while the second section explains the research design and methodology that was used in the study. In the first section, a district profile of Chibombo is presented, before discussing the Chankumba Agricultural Camp within which the study was conducted. The first section concludes with a description of the livelihood system of Chankumba Agricultural Camp, the study area itself. The second section explains the data collection methods that were used to investigate the research questions. Sample size selection and the sampling procedure used in the research are explained. The section concludes with a brief discussion of the analysis instruments that were employed.

3.1 Location of Chankumba Agricultural Camp

Chibombo district is in the Central Province of Zambia. All Chibombo farming households are organized into Agricultural camps. Chankumba lies within a geographical coordinate system of Latitude. -14.83° and Longitude. 28.3°

[pic]

Figure 1: District map profile of Zambia (Source: CSO 2000 Census of population and housing)

[pic] Figure 2: District map profile of Zambia (Source: Chibombo DACO Offices)

3.2 Description of the Livelihood System

Farming in Chankumba is mostly dominated by small scale farmers and people have been farming as far as could be recalled. Maize remains the most important crop grown by the small-scale and emergent farmers in Chankumba although there has been considerable crop diversification during the past decade. Crops grown next to maize include: groundnuts, pumpkins, tomatoes, potatoes, and water melons. Simple hand tools are used in the cultivation of these crops. The level of mechanization is rather very low.

The people of Chankumba involved in rearing livestock with chickens being the most reared. In the production of local chicken, scavenging is the major feeding system. However, from time to time, the chickens ' food is supplemented with household refuse and grains. Supplementation is critical during chick rearing. In some households, chickens are housed same as the household members while in other households they are housed separately in fowl runs. Local chickens have a premium price compared with the broiler chickens in towns and market involves a number of villages and buyers from town, mostly Lusaka.
Alternative means for income include the selling of cooked foods and second hand clothes, brick making, collecting honey, charcoal production, fishing, beer brewing and piecework’s.

3.3 Methodology

3.3.1 Data collection

This included both primary and secondary data gathering. Secondary data was collected from published literature (books, articles, magazines etc). Primary data collection was done through administering of questionnaires and physical assessment/inspection of what was happening on the ground.

3.3.2 Sample size and sampling procedure

A representative sample for the study was selected based on Boyd’s formula:
[pic]
C represents a figure greater or equal to five percent of the camp household population, N is the total households in the Camp (Chankumba Agricultural camp) and n is the number of selected households (Boyd et al., 1981). Therefore, the sample size that was selected by employing Boyd’s formula with C set at 10% in this study was 25, determining the number of interviews that were conducted. Non random convenient sampling was used as the sampling procedure.

3.3.3 Method of data Analysis

Data was analysed using Statistical package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and Microsoft Excel. The household survey questionnaire consisted of both closed and open ended questions. Coding was engaged after data collection so as to transform the data into a computer readable format. Open ended questions resulted in non numerical responses which had to be coded before analysis. The purpose of coding is to reduce a wide variety of idiosyncratic items of information to a more limited set of attributes composing a variable (Babbie and Mouton 2001). The numeric codes of the data were then entered into the statistical software (SPSS) and Microsoft Excel for analysis.

CHAPTER FOUR

RESULTS

This chapter presents both the primary and secondary findings of the household survey, of data collected during interviews with informants and personal observations on the socio-economic benefits of Maize farming against local chicken production.

4.1 Description of households surveyed

A total of 25 households were interviewed in the household survey. In the study area, 76% 0f the heads households were men, while 24% were women. The age of the majority of respondents (48%) ranged between 31 and 40 years (see Figure 3a). The average number of individuals in a household was six.

[pic] Figure 3a: Age distribution of respondent

The findings of the research showed that 92% of the households were married, 4% separated and 4% were widowed. This is shown in the figure below, figure 3c.

[pic] Figure 3b: Marital status of respondents

4.2 Education distribution and external funding of respondents

The result in Figure 3d shows that majority of the respondents (32%) in the study area had no formal education.28% attained the level of primary education and 40% had secondary level of education.

[pic] Figure 3c: Level of education of Respondents

With funding that either came from family members, relatives or any other external sources such as NGOs, the households interviewed showed that only 16% were funded while 84% were not being funded.

[pic] Figure 3d: Households’ response to external funding

4.3 Livelihood strategies

Households interviewed apply a diversity of means to earn income. Almost 90 percent of the households surveyed indicate that they apply more than one strategy to sustain their households. The main economic occupations carried out by households in the study area are maize farming, local chicken production and piece works. The other income generating activities that the rural people are involved in include charcoal production, honey collection, brick making, selling of indigenous fruit, selling of cooked foods and second hand clothes and fishing.

[pic] Figure 4: Different livelihood strategies of households

4.4 Annual labour demand and gender differences

Findings from the study of the farming activities, maize farming and local chicken production, revealed that the demand for labour in both maize and local chicken farming ran throughout the year. However, labour input in maize farming, compared to local chicken production, is more intensive. Table 1a shows the annual demand of labour in maize. Table 1b shows the annual labour demand in local chicken production and Figure 5 shows the gender division of labour in maize and local poultry production.

Table 1a: Annual Labour demand in maize
| | Month |
| |Sep |
| |Sep |Oct |Nov |
|Basal dressing fertilizer | | | |
| |4×50kg bag |150,000 |600,000 |
|Top dressing fertilizer |4×50kg bag |150,000 |600,0000 |
|Empty bags | 70 |2,000 |140,000 |
| |50kg bags/Ha | | |
|Hiring Labour: | |An equivalent cost of 3 |56,000 |I68,000 |
| |cultivation |50kg bags of maize | | |
| |weeding |100 lines |1500 |150,000 |
|maize seed |2×10kg bag |125, 000 |250,000 |
|pesticides (if any) |N/A | 0 |0 |
| |Total cost |1908000 |

Source: MACO-Chibombo, MACO Crop Forecast Survey and field

Table 2b: Annual inputs and costs of producing 100 Local Chickens (2009).
|Inputs |Quantity |Unit price (Kwacha) | Total input |
| | | |cost (Kwacha) |
|chicks |100 birds |1500 |150,000 |
|vitamins | |24,000 | 24,000 |
|Supplement Feed(a mix): |Soya(protein) |7× 4 Medas |10,000 |280,000 |
| |Maize (energy) |7×12 Medas |2000 |168,000 |
|labour |Extremely minimal |0 | 0 |
|feeding at the market |5 Medas of maize |2000 | 10000 |
|stock movement permit | |2000 | 2000 |
|district council levy |100 |K500 per chicken | 50,000 |
| |Total cost: |684,000 |

Source: Ministry of livestock and fisheries and the field

4.5.2 Income realized from maize and local chicken production

Results of the study showed that one 50kg bag of maize sold to FRA fetched a price of Sixty Five Thousand one Hundred Zambian kwacha (ZMK65,100) and that sold at the local market and to other maize dealers fetched a range of prices lower than maize sold to FRA. A local Chicken sold at the Local markets and by the road side fetched a price of Twenty Seven Thousand Zambian kwacha (ZMK27,000). According to 2007/8 Crop forecast survey by MACO the acceptable maize yield of an average maize farming household that applied all inputs as in table 2a, produces 3500kg of maize from a hectare which are seventy 50kg bags of maize translating to ZMK4,557,000. Therefore, farmers realized an annual profit of ZMK2,649,000 at a production cost of ZMK1,908,000.
A total profit of ZMK2,016,000 was realized after raising 100 local chickens at a cost of ZMK684,000. However an average farming household has an annual flock size of 300 to 400 which implies that household generates annual profits of ZMK6,048,000 to ZMK8,06 4,000 from production costs of ZMK2,052,000 and ZMK2,736,000.

4.6 Contribution of maize farming and local chicken production towards household food security

While all food acquisition strategies are in action, chickens remain the source of income in sustaining the rural livelihoods even in the most difficult months (January and December) in terms of food security. When faced with reduced crop production as a result of hazards, households in this agricultural camp have a number of response strategies of which chicken sales have a sensible contribution in these strategies.

4.7 The contribution of maize and local chicken and other activities to acquisition of household assets

In the acquisition of different household assets maize farming, local chicken production and other activities had the following contribution as presented in the figure below; figure 6. Chicken production alone contributed 13% while maize farming alone as well contributed 10%. The other activities contributed 12%.

[pic] Figure 6: Contribution of maize, chickens and other activities in acquisition of household assets

4.8 Household amenities and the activity/source of contribution

Findings on the contribution of maize, chicken and other activities on various households’ access to various amenities including sources of water supply, toilet facility, means of garbage disposal, lighting energy and cooking energy are presented in the figure below; figure 7.

Maize had the largest contribution to the various households’ access to amenities with 43.75% followed by other activities, these being defined by other livelihood strategies with 31.25% and finally chicken production which had a contribution of 25%.

[pic] Figure 7: Household amenities and the source of contribution

4.9 Household access to facilities and activities/sources of contribution

Figure 8 presents results on the households’ access to such facilities as school, hospital or clinic, church, recreation centres, transportation and clothing with maize, chicken and other activities being the sources of income. The results revealed that local chicken production had a contribution of 43%. Maize contributed 20% and other activities which included all alternative livelihood strategies had a contribution of 37%.

[pic] Figure 8: Households ' access to facilities and the activity/source of contribution

4.10 The Constraints and Risks facing farmers in maize and local chicken farming

From the study it was recorded that the farmers in both the production of maize and chickens operate within a framework of limiting factors. For instance, it was observed that in maize production, most farmers depend on the subsidized inputs by the government. Other main limiting factors were the untimely availability of inputs and poor transport. Also, because FRA keeps farmers for a long time before buying their maize even when these farmers have problems and needs to be addressed, most farmers end up selling their maize to some maize dealers from towns and to scrupulous businessmen at lower prices. As a result, the farmers cannot nearly recoup their production costs. The main risk that farmers face in maize farming is the shift in the rainfall pattern from whose occurrence farmers lose their seeds after planting and not having rained.
In local chicken production, such limiting factors as poor feed, poor housing and health management are the problems farmers face. Predation and diseases such as Newcastle were recorded as the major threats in village chicken production. Most common predators are dogs, cats, snakes, eagles, hawks and thieves. Chicks are the most vulnerable.

4.11 Sources of information for farming

In Maize production, farming information is well communicated to farmers unlike in local chicken production. Farming information in maize is sourced from neighbours, friends and from extension works while in local chicken production the farmers mostly depend on either their neighbours or their friends; contact with veterinary and extension personnel is not sound and a lot of problems go unnoticed.

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION

This chapter discusses the socio-economic benefits of local chicken production against maize farming. The discussion is based on the objectives of the study in relation to results from Chankumba agricultural camp which are presented in the previous chapter.

5.1 Socio economic characteristics of respondents

5.1.1 Age of respondents

Age distribution of respondents is very important in any production activity, since there is inequality in the production capacity of adults and children. The result in Figure 3a reveals that majority of the respondents (48%) were within the age group of 31- 40 years, while about 28% of the respondents were within the age bracket of 41-50 years.

5.1.2 Gender and Marital status of respondents

Majority of the respondents (76%) in the study area were male (Figure 3b). This is because households in the study area were male headed households. This finding agrees with the CSO 2004 report. Only 24% of the respondents were females.

5.1.3 Education and Occupational distribution

The result in Figure 3c shows and suggests that any individual with or no formal educational can be involved in farming.
Maize production especially in the rainy season is the major occupation of the respondents in the study area. All respondents engage in other economic related activities such as trading, tailoring, public services, commercial driving among others besides farming; in essence indicating that maize farming does not primarily satisfy many of the farmers problems.

5.2 Incomes from Local Chicken Production and Maize Farming

The cost examination of the research findings of the two activities, maize and local chicken production, shows that farm management should be committed to local chicken production because it is the activity with better financial returns: Farmers would have better incomes if they improved the production systems of local chicken, concentrated on the activity then increased the annual flock size.

5.3 Maize and local chicken production in addressing gender equity

Both maize farming and local chicken production are gender activities, participated by both male and female. Males dominate decision making and have a higher participation in land management operations. Female participation rate is higher in local chicken production compared to the men. These results are similar to findings by the CSO (2004) in which males dominate decision making activities because they head most households. Therefore, Local chicken production is an important activity in trying to promote the participation of women in farming thus recognizing gender equality in farming.

5.4 Contribution of maize farming and local chicken production to household Food security

According to FAO (2005), a household is considered food secure when its occupants do not live in hunger or fear of starvation. Therefore, for the smallholder farmers of Chankumba, the findings reveal that the farming of maize alone, even if largely allocated resources, food security is not rendered to the farming households because farmers still have to worry about what they will eat the next day. In this case, village poultry plays a better role in providing food security. Local chicken production guarantees food security because benefits are throughout the year.

5.5 Challenges and risks facing the farmers

Maize farmers lack external funding sources like NGOs and are have no available information on modeled farming strategies to adapt to the changing weather patterns which affects their maize production. It was also observed that farmers did not apply inputs as required in a hectare. Inputs were under-applied thus the unacceptable maize yields.
It has been hard for farmers to uplift their current position where local chicken production is concerned because there has been a general lack of information by research extensionists specialized in livestock production like chicken. Farmers would be in a better position to face the challenges and risks faced in local chicken production if they had the information required and some external funding.

5.6 Labour profile

Although chicken demands for labour throughout the year, the labour involved is not intensive as compared to that in maize production such that even individuals living with HIV and AIDS can be involved in the serious production of local chickens and a have an income generating source.

5.7 General observations and findings

Whenever farming is brought up as a topic, the first thing that comes to farmers’ minds is maize farming. They simply are not aware of other farming activities of growing other crops (e.g. cotton) on larger scale or improve their local chicken production for better financial returns in farming. Farmers lack knowledge on different farming activities that could be a source of their livelihood.

CHAPTER SIX

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The objective of this study was to investigate the socio-economic benefits of maize farming against local chicken production so as to determine which activity between the two provides better socio-economic benefits.

6.1 Conclusion

The households of Chankumba are more involved in maize farming than local chicken production in which a bigger portion of resources allocated to but with less derived socio-economic benefits than in local chicken production.
This paper has attempted to bring out the better socio-economic benefits between maize farming and local chicken production. It has been worth noting that the allocation of resources at farmers’ command are better prioritized to local chicken production which has more and better socio-economic benefits than maize farming which is currently being prioritized. Local chicken production encourages female participation in farming and has less labour requirements involved such that in individuals living with HIV/AIDS can have an income generating source.

6.2 Recommendation

Based on the key findings of this study, the following recommendations were formulated. 1) The realization of sustainable improvements in local chicken production may forms the basis for transforming the rural poultry sector from subsistence to a more economically productive base because village chicken production has a substantial impact on increased household food security and promoting gender equity.

2) It would be more profitable for farmers to allocate a larger portion of resources at their command to local chicken production. Adoption of local chicken production followed by sustainable improvements would ensure that all household food requirements were met in a sustainable manner from on-farm production. 3) There is need for government research institutions to come up with and deliver to maize farmers modelled strategies on how to adapt to the changing weather patterns and cut out the risks involved in maize. Extension services also need to be improved in local chicken production. 4) There is need for government research institutions, farmers’ organisations (cooperatives), common interest groups, community-based organisations, and non-governmental organisations to wake up most farming households that maize farming is not the only source of income but they would generate incomes if they a devoted their resources and concentrated on a single activity like local chicken production. 5) There is also need for policies and institutional initiatives by the government and stakeholders that could lead to lower input prices and increase producer prices in order to encourage resource-poor farmers to invest in maize farming as a capital resource.

6) A considerable proportion of the smallholder farmers are suffering from the consequences of HIV infection. Most people in the study area are paying high prices for their irresponsible sexual behaviour. The cost of care for those affected and infected by HIV/AIDS also undermines the efforts to enhance food security, households’ incomes and livelihoods. The segment of population that is critically affected and infected is the most productive age group (31 to 40 years). Incapacitation of the most active proportion of smallholders has resulted in loss of labour, which is a very valuable resource in smallholder set-ups. Worst affected by shortage of labour as one of the consequences of HIV/AIDS pandemic have been women (especially the elderly women), who have to care for the infected and affected persons. More efforts to provide relevant and reliable information about the HIV/AIDS pandemic should be accompanied by guidance on how to manage sex more responsibly. Local HIV/AIDS committees should be more innovative and play an instrumental role in promoting education and information campaigns aimed at changing peoples’ attitudes and sexual behaviours. This is because healthy attitudes toward sex have not been adopted, despite the fact that extensive information about sex has been available.

REFERENCES

Aboe, P.A.T., K. Boa-Amponsem, S.A. Okantah, E.A. Butler, P.T. Dorward and M.J. Bryant, 2006. Free-range village chickens on the Accra Plains, Ghana: Their husbandry and productivity Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 38: 235-248.
Aboe, P.A.T., K. Boa-Amponsem, S.A. Okantah, P.T. Dorward and M.J. Bryant, 2006. Free-range village chickens on the Accra Plains, Ghana: Their contribution to household. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 38: 223-234.
Aksoy, T., Z. Yurt, N. Yapici, D.I. Curek and D. Narinc, 2008. A study of the attributes of rural households to towards poultry eggs and meat in Turkey. Proc. Worlds Poult. Cong., 2: 602-602.
Babbie, E., and Mouton, J. 2001. The practice of social research. Cape Town: Oxford University press, 676 pp
Boyd, H.K.; Westfall, P. and Stasch, S.F. (1981). Marketing Research. Text and Cases. Illinois, Richard D. Irwin, Inc. pp 80.
Dessie, T. and B. Ogle, 2001. Village poultry production systems in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 33: 521-537.
Dolberg, F. and P. H. Petersen. 2000. Poultry as a tool in Poverty eradication and promotion of gender equality. Proceedings of a workshop, March 22-26, 1999, Tune Landboskole, Denmark.
FAO 2005. Food Security research Project, Lusaka, Zambia. Available at http://www.fao.org/ag/AGAinfo/themes/en/infpd/documents/newsletters/Infpd151.pdf. Acessed: 18/10/2010.
Govereh, J., Malawo, E., Lungu, T., Jayne, T. Chinyama, K. and Chilonda, P. 2009. Trends and Spatial Distribution of Public Agriculture spending in Zambia: Implications for Agriculture Productivity Growth. ReSAKSS Working Paper No. 26. International Crops research Institute for the Semiarid Tropics (ICRASAT), International Food policy Research Institute (IFRP) and International Water Management Institute (IWMI).
Government of Zambia, CSO, 2008. The Monthly. Volume 64, Lusaka, Zambia
GRZ. CSO. 2004. Main Zambia Census Report. Vol 10.
GRZ. MACO. 2007/8. Crop Forecast Survey results.
GRZ. Ministry of Finance and National Planning (MNFP). 2008 Budget Address, Lusaka, Zambia
Gueye, E.F., 2005. Family poultry must no longer be a hidden harvest. INFPD Newsletter,Vol.15.
Gueye, E.F., 2005. Gender aspects in family poultry management systems in developing countries. Worlds Poult. Sci. J., 61: 39-46.
Halima, H., F.W.C. Neser, E. Van-Marle-Koster and A. De-Kock, 2007. Villaged-based indigenous chicken production system in North-West Ethiopia. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 39: 189-197.
JAICAF 2008. The Maize in Zambia and Malawi. Available at http:www.jaicaf.or.jp.htm. Accessed: 14/07/2010
Jayne, T. S., Govereh, J., Chilonda, P., Mason, N., Chapoto, A. and Haantuba, H., 2007. “Trends in Agricultural and Rural Development Indicators in Zambia,” Working Paper No.24, Food Security Research Project, Lusaka.
Julian, R. J. 1992. Poultry husbandryhusbandry

careful management of e.g. animals. Implies thrifty, humane, caring. See also animal husbandry. . XXIII World Veterinary Congress foundation. Montreal. Quebec, Canada. pp. 1-40
Kondombo, S.R., A.J. Nianogo, R.P. Kwakkel, H.M.Y. Udo and M. Slingerland, 2003. Comparative analsis of village chicken production in two farming systems in Burkina Faso. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 35: 563-574.
Kusina, J. F. and N. T. Kusina. 1999. Feasibility study The analysis of a problem to determine if it can be solved effectively. The operational (will it work?), economical (costs and benefits) and technical (can it be built?) aspects are part of the study. Results of the study determine whether the solution should be implemented.
..... Click the link for more information. of agricultural and household activities as they relate to livestock production in Guruve District of Mashonaland central Mashonaland Central is a province of Zimbabwe. It has an area of 28,347 km² and a population of approximately 998,265 (2002), representing about 8.5% of the total Zimbabwe population. Bindura is the capital of the province.
..... Click the link for more information. Province with emphasis on village chicken production. Report prepared for Household Agricultural Support Programme, Harare, Zimbabwe. p. 129.
Mack, S., D. Hoffman and J. Otte, 2005. The contribution of poultry to rural development. Worlds Poult. Sci. J., 61: 7-14.
Maphosa, T., J. F. Kusina, N. T. Kusina, S. Makuza and S. Sibanda. 2004. A monitoring study comparing production of village chickens between communal (Nharira) and small-scale commercial (Lancashire) farming areas in Zimbabwe. Livestock Res. Rural Dev. 16 (7). Available at: http://www.cipav.org.co/ lrrd/lrrd16/7/maph16048.htm. Acessed: 20/05/2010.
Mapiye, C. and S. Sibanda. 2005. Constraints and opportunities of village chicken production systems in the smallholder sector of Rushinga District of Zimbabwe. Livestock Res. Rural Dev. 17 (10). Available at: http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd17/10/mapi17115.htm. Acessed: 04/04/2010.
Mcleod, A., O. Thieme and S.D. Mack, 2009. Structual changes in the poultry sector: Will there be smallholder poultry development in 2030. Worlds Poult. Sci. J., 65: 191-199.
Miao, Z. H., P. C. Glatz and Y. J. Ru. 2005. Free-range poultry production--A review. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 18(1):113-132.
Muchadeyi, F. C., S. Sibanda, N. T. Kusina, J. F. Kusina and S. Makuza. 2004. The village chicken production system in Rushinga District of Zimbabwe. Livestock Res. Rural Dev. 16 (40). Available at: http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd16/06/much16040.htm. Acessed: 06/04/2010.
Muchadeyi, F.C., C.B.A. Wollny, H. Eding, S. Weigend, S.M. Makuza and H. Simianer, 2007. Variation in village chicken production systems among agro-ecological zones of Zimbabwe. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 39: 453-461
Muchadeyi, F.C., S. Sibanda, N.T. Kusina, J.F. Kusina and S.M. Makuza, 2005. Village chicken flock dynamics and the contribution of chickens to household livelihoods in a smallholder farming area in Zimbabwe. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 37: 333-344.
Mwalusanya, N.A., A.M. Katule, S.K. Mutayoba, M.M.A. Mtambo, J.E. Olsen and U.M. Minga, 2002. Productivity of local chickens under village management conditions. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 34: 405-416.
Pedersen, C. V. 2002. Production of semi-scavenging chickens in Zimbabwe. PhD Thesis The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University - Address: Thorvaldsensvej 40, DK-1871 Frederiksberg C, Denmark.
..... Click the link for more information., Copenhagen, Denmark.
Sekeroglu, A. and S.D. Aksimsek, 2008. Village chicken production in Turkey: Tokat province example. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 41: 103-108.
Yoneya, T. and Miyamoto, T., 1999. “Traditional Alcoholic Beverages in Africa.” University of Shizuoka Junior College Research Bulletin, 13 (1), pp.71-87. Zambia. Journal of African economies 15 (4): 603-25
Zulu, B., Janye, T. S., and Beaver, M., 2007. “Smallholder Household Maize Production and Marketing Behavior in Zambia and Its Implications for Policy,” Working Paper No.22, Food Security Research Project, Lusaka.

APPENDICES

Appendix 1: Questionnaire

THE COPPERBELT UNIVERSITY
SCHOOL OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Department Of Forest Resource Management

Questionnaire to be used for data collection for this study Dear respondent,

The information given in this interview is confidential; it is strictly for academic purposes only.

Questionnaire No .................................................
Date .......................................................................
Province ..................... district ...............................
Village................................chief.............................
Headman ...............................................................

Q1.0 IDENTIFICATION SECTION
Q1.1 Name of the farmer .........................................................................................
Q1.2 Marital status ......................
Married single divorced widowed separated
Q1.3 Age group of the respondent
10-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51 and above
Q1.4 level of education attained by respondent
Primary Junior secondary Senior secondary college/university None

2.0 FARMING IN GENERAL
Q2.1 why did you decide to start farming and for how long have you been in farming? .........................................................................................
Q2.2 who is/was involved in you starting farming? ........................................................................................................
Q2.3 are you being funded or receiving any financial assistance from any non-Governmental organization or government organization
Yes No Q2.4 If yes, in what ways is the mentioned NGO or government organization in question 2.3 above assisting you? ..........................................................................................................
Q2.5 if not, how do you sustain your operations where farming is concerned? ..........................................................................................................
Q2.6 what is/are your farm produce? .....................................................................................................................
Q2.8 in what ways is/are the produce helping you as a family? .........................................................................................................
Q2.9 How is the selling/marketing of your farm produce done?
......................................................................................................................
Q2.10 Do you sell/market your products as an individual?
Yes No

Q2.11 what are some of the challenges you face? ........................................................................................................
Q2.12 what other activities are you involved in apart from farming? .........................................................................................................
Q2.13 what are the reasons for doing so or not doing so? ..........................................................................................................

3.0 FARMING INFORMATION
Q3.1 Which farming activity between maize farming and local chicken production is largely practiced? ......................................................................................................................
Q3.2 Why is it largely practiced and how has this activity helped you improve the level of mechanisation on your farm? ...........................................................

Q3.3 Farming activities of the respondent and the inputs involved per annum.
3.3.1Maize Farming
|Inputs |Quantity Required |Unit price (in kwacha) |Total input cost|
|Basal dressing fertilizer | | | |
|2. Top dressing fertilizer | | | |
|3. Empty bags | | | |
|4. Labour | | | |
|5. maize seed | | | |
|pesticides (if any) | | | |
| |Total cost | |

3.3.2 Production of 100 Local Chickens
|inputs |Quantity |Unit price (in kwacha) |Total input cost |
|chicks | | | |
|vitamins | | | |
| supplement Feed | | | |
| | | | |
|labour | | | |
|feeding at the market | | | |
|stock movement permit | | | |
|district council levy | | | |
| |Total cost: | |

Q3.4. what area of land do you own and what hectarage of maize is cultivated?
......................................................................................................................

Q3.5. How much maize do you harvest per year?
......................................................................................................................
Q3.6. How much is one 50kg bag of maize sold for?
......................................................................................................................
Q3.7 How much space do you need to for chicken rearing
......................................................................................................................
Q3.8. what is your annual flock size? ..............................................................................
Q3.9. How much is a local chicken sold for? ...............................................................................

Q3.10. how much household labour (household members) do you need for each activity
......................................................................................................................
Q3.11 How are the annual labour distributions of chicken production and maize farming?
......................................................................................................................

Q 4.0 Gender division of labor in Agricultural Activities
|Activity |Women |Girls |Men |Boys |
| | | | | |
|1 Making Decisions | | | | |
|Crops: | | | | |
|- which crops to grow | | | | |
|Livestock: | | | | |
|-which livestock to rear | | | | |
|2. Growing crops: | | | | |
|-land management operations | | | | |
|3 Livestock (Chickens): | | | | |
|- management of chickens | | | | |

Fill in: XXX = Predominantly Responsible, XX = Contributing, X = Occasional Contribution

Q5.0 how many children do you have and how many are school-going?

....................................................................................................................

Q5.1 how do you manage to pay for the school-going children and which activity has a larger contribution. .....................................................................
Q6.0 what are the risks involved in:
(a) maize farming (b) chicken production

.............................................. ...........................................

Q7.0 Household assets owned and the activity/source of contribution

|Asset owned |Maize farming |Local chicken production |other |
|Plough | | | |
|Crop sprayer | | | |
|Brazier Mbaula | | | |
|Bicycle | | | |
|Television | | | |
|Video Player | | | |
|Radio | | | |
|Grinding/hammermill | | | |
|Electric iron | | | |
|Refrigerator | | | |
|Deep freezer | | | |
|Cellular phone | | | |
|Satellite dish/decoder | | | |
|Sewing machine | | | |
|Knitting machine | | | |
|Electric stove | | | |
|Gas stove | | | |
|Scotch cart | | | |
|Oxen | | | |
|Donkey | | | |
|Computer | | | |
|Hoe | | | |
|Axe | | | |
|Hunting gun | | | |
|Table | | | |
|Sofa | | | |
|Bed | | | |
|Mattress | | | |
|Pick | | | |
|Hammer | | | |
|Shovel/spade | | | |
|Wheelbarrow | | | |
|Hand driven tractor | | | |
|Water pumps | | | |
|Hand hammermill | | | |
|Sheller | | | |
|Rump press/ oil expeller | | | |
|Hand saw | | | |

Tick where activity contributes

Q8.0 Housing characteristics and the activity/source of contribution

|Roofing |Walls |Window |Floor |painted |Building timber |
|Activity of contribution | | | | | | |

Fill in: C=from chicken, M= from maize, O=from other activities, N=maize and chicken, K=maize and other activities, X=chicken and other activities, Z= all activities

Q9.0 Household amenities and the activity/source of contribution

|Supply of water |Lighting energy |Means of garbage |Toilet facility |
| | |disposal | |
|Activity of contribution | | | | |

Fill in: C=from chicken, M= from maize, O=from other activities, N=maize and chicken, K=maize and other activities, X=chicken and other activities, Z= all activities

Q10. Household access to facilities and activities/ sources of contribution

| Clinic |Transportation |Clothing |Church |school |recreation |
|Chicken | | | | | | |
|Maize | | | | | | |
|Other | | | | | | |

Tick the activity of contribution
Q 11. what are your sources of information where local chicken production and maize farming are concerned .......................................................................

Appendix 2: results analysed using SPSS

Age Distribution of Respondents

| |Frequency |Percent |Valid Percent |Cumulative Percent |
|Valid |21 to 30 |1 |4.0 |4.0 |4.0 |
| |31 to 40 |12 |48.0 |48.0 |52.0 |
| |41 to 50 |7 |28.0 |28.0 |80.0 |
| |51 and above |5 |20.0 |20.0 |100.0 |
| |Total |25 |100.0 |100.0 | |

Gender of the Respondent

| |Frequency |Percent |Valid Percent |Cumulative Percent |
|Valid |male |19 |76.0 |76.0 |76.0 |
| |female |6 |24.0 |24.0 |100.0 |
| |Total |25 |100.0 |100.0 | |

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Level of education

| |Frequency |Percent |Valid Percent |Cumulative Percent |
|Valid |primary |7 |28.0 |28.0 |28.0 |
| |junior primary |5 |20.0 |20.0 |48.0 |
| |senior secondary |5 |20.0 |20.0 |68.0 |
| |none |8 |32.0 |32.0 |100.0 |
| |Total |25 |100.0 |100.0 | |

Total number of birds reared per year

| |Frequency |Percent |Valid Percent |Cumulative Percent |
|Valid |100 to 200 |2 |8.0 |8.0 |8.0 |
| |201 to 300 |6 |24.0 |24.0 |32.0 |
| |301 to 400 |12 |48.0 |48.0 |80.0 |
| |>400 |5 |20.0 |20.0 |100.0 |
| |Total |25 |100.0 |100.0 | |

-----------------------
[pic]

Marital status of respondent

23

92.0

92.0

92.0

1

4.0

4.0

96.0

1

4.0

4.0

100.0

25

100.0

100.0

married

widow/widower

separated

Total

Valid

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Households’ response to external funding

4

16.0

16.0

16.0

21

84.0

84.0

100.0

25

100.0

100.0

yes

no

Total

Valid

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

Area of land owned

5

20.0

20.0

20.0

19

76.0

76.0

96.0

1

4.0

4.0

100.0

25

100.0

100.0

0.6 to 1ha

1.1 to 2ha

2.1 to 3ha

Total

Valid

Frequency

Percent

Valid Percent

Cumulative

Percent

References: Aboe, P.A.T., K. Boa-Amponsem, S.A. Okantah, E.A. Butler, P.T. Dorward and M.J. Bryant, 2006. Free-range village chickens on the Accra Plains, Ghana: Their husbandry and productivity Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 38: 235-248. Aboe, P.A.T., K. Boa-Amponsem, S.A. Okantah, P.T. Dorward and M.J. Bryant, 2006. Free-range village chickens on the Accra Plains, Ghana: Their contribution to household. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 38: 223-234. Aksoy, T., Z. Yurt, N. Yapici, D.I. Curek and D. Narinc, 2008. A study of the attributes of rural households to towards poultry eggs and meat in Turkey. Proc. Worlds Poult. Cong., 2: 602-602. Babbie, E., and Mouton, J. 2001. The practice of social research. Cape Town: Oxford University press, 676 pp Boyd, H.K.; Westfall, P Dessie, T. and B. Ogle, 2001. Village poultry production systems in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 33: 521-537. Dolberg, F. and P. H. Petersen. 2000. Poultry as a tool in Poverty eradication and promotion of gender equality. Proceedings of a workshop, March 22-26, 1999, Tune Landboskole, Denmark. Government of Zambia, CSO, 2008. The Monthly. Volume 64, Lusaka, Zambia GRZ GRZ. MACO. 2007/8. Crop Forecast Survey results. GRZ. Ministry of Finance and National Planning (MNFP). 2008 Budget Address, Lusaka, Zambia Gueye, E.F., 2005 Gueye, E.F., 2005. Gender aspects in family poultry management systems in developing countries. Worlds Poult. Sci. J., 61: 39-46. Halima, H., F.W.C. Neser, E. Van-Marle-Koster and A. De-Kock, 2007. Villaged-based indigenous chicken production system in North-West Ethiopia. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 39: 189-197. Julian, R. J. 1992. Poultry husbandryhusbandry careful management of e.g Kondombo, S.R., A.J. Nianogo, R.P. Kwakkel, H.M.Y. Udo and M. Slingerland, 2003. Comparative analsis of village chicken production in two farming systems in Burkina Faso. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 35: 563-574. Mack, S., D. Hoffman and J. Otte, 2005. The contribution of poultry to rural development. Worlds Poult. Sci. J., 61: 7-14. Mcleod, A., O. Thieme and S.D. Mack, 2009. Structual changes in the poultry sector: Will there be smallholder poultry development in 2030. Worlds Poult. Sci. J., 65: 191-199. Miao, Z. H., P. C. Glatz and Y. J. Ru. 2005. Free-range poultry production--A review. Asian-Aust. J. Anim. Sci. 18(1):113-132. Muchadeyi, F.C., C.B.A. Wollny, H. Eding, S. Weigend, S.M. Makuza and H. Simianer, 2007. Variation in village chicken production systems among agro-ecological zones of Zimbabwe. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 39: 453-461 Muchadeyi, F.C., S Mwalusanya, N.A., A.M. Katule, S.K. Mutayoba, M.M.A. Mtambo, J.E. Olsen and U.M. Minga, 2002. Productivity of local chickens under village management conditions. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 34: 405-416. Pedersen, C. V. 2002. Production of semi-scavenging chickens in Zimbabwe. PhD Thesis The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University - Address: Thorvaldsensvej 40, DK-1871 Frederiksberg C, Denmark. Sekeroglu, A. and S.D. Aksimsek, 2008. Village chicken production in Turkey: Tokat province example. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 41: 103-108. Yoneya, T. and Miyamoto, T., 1999. “Traditional Alcoholic Beverages in Africa.” University of Shizuoka Junior College Research Bulletin, 13 (1), pp.71-87. Zambia. Journal of African economies 15 (4): 603-25 Zulu, B., Janye, T