Participatory evaluation of chicken health and production constraints in Ethiopia.
Bottom Line: Several programmes, in Ethiopia and elsewhere, have attempted to improve chicken production as a means to reduce poverty.Many of the challenges faced by both groups were associated with difficulty accessing agricultural and veterinary inputs and expertise.Provision needs to be made to allow access to inputs for a wide range of business models, particularly for those, such as women, who have limited access to the capital to allow them to make the jump from backyard to semi-intensive producer, and require support to slowly build up a flock into a profitable venture.
Affiliation: The Institute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, CH64 7TE, United Kingdom.Show MeSH
Mentions: Although detailed information was not recorded for each individual during discussion of livelihood activities, it was noted that almost all participants reported that they were engaged, to some extent, in mixed livelihood activities; these included a variable mix of agricultural (both crop and livestock) and non-agricultural activities (such as trading and civil service). Only three people (all semi-intensive chicken producers) reported that chicken production was their sole source of income. Among the livestock activities, cattle ranked as the most economically important animal to backyard chicken producers in all groups, receiving a median of 38 of the 100 counters (Fig. 1). Chickens (median 19.5 counters) donkeys (16.5) and sheep and goats (15) were the next most economically important animals, although there was wide variation between the groups as to the order in which they ranked these species. Dogs and cats were given low rankings, but were valued as guard animals and for rodent control, respectively. Backyard producers did not mention pigs or horses as economically important species.
Affiliation: The Institute of Infection and Global Health, University of Liverpool, Leahurst Campus, CH64 7TE, United Kingdom.