An Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Training Offered to Smallholder Scavenging Chicken Farmers in Raymond Mhlaba Local Municipality, Eastern Cape Province, South Africa

Abstract

Smallholder scavenging chicken farmers (SCFs) are constantly faced with the challenge of improving productivity. One profound challenge is that many SCFs lack comprehensive knowledge and the skills necessary for operating an efficient production system. This study evaluated the effectiveness of the training offered to SCFs in Raymond Mhlaba Local Municipality (RMLM) on the best approach to improve scavenging chicken production. The data obtained was analysed quantitatively to assess differences in the management practices of the trained farmers before training (BT) and after training (AT). A paired sample t-test and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used to conduct the study’s analysis. The results showed that the average flock size of the birds significantly increased post-training. There was a significant increase in the farmers’ use of supplementary feeding, local feedstuffs, artificial brooding and care of chicks, amongst other practices. These results indicate a marked improvement in their management practices post-training. Therefore, building the capacities of SCFs through training significantly improves their knowledge and skillsets. Periodic training of SCFs is recommended to keep them abreast of evolving management practices in SC production, as continual improvement in related competencies is important for enhancing local and national economic development.

1. Introduction

There is a strong need to create innovative and practical solutions to the hunger and food insecurity which plagues many South African households, particularly in rural communities [1]. Many initiatives to boost food security have been disjointed and barely noticeable in their effects [1]. There is, therefore, a need for fresh thinking and renewed vigour to solve the burgeoning crisis. De Bruyn et al. [2] recommend mapping a variety of approaches that address ‘context-specific constraints’ if food security is to be enhanced in resource-deprived zones of the country. In Sibhatukt and Qaim’s [3] (p. 1) view, ‘the small farm sector is a crucial entry point for policy interventions to improve food security’, implying that a focus on rural small-scale agricultural production is key to alleviating poverty and food insecurity. The role of agriculture in the growth of the rural economy is significant; Von Bormann and Gulati [4] point out that, in Sub-Saharan Africa, agriculture has been found to be eleven times more efficient than non-agricultural enterprises at reducing poverty.

Many African countries have yet to consider scavenging chicken (SC) production as a major agricultural and economic activity [5]. As a result, they have failed to initiate suitable schemes to address the many constraints faced by rural farming households in SC production. Smallholder SC producers face constant challenges in improving productivity [6]. In [7,8,9,10,11,12], it is noted that the smallholder production system of scavenging chickens has continuously suffered from low meat and egg productivity. Oke et al. [13] refer to literature which suggests that the characteristically poor growth, size and quality of SC produce has affected its competitive edge in markets. This line of reasoning is maintained by Maliwan, Khempaka and Molee [14], who note the inability of producers to meet market demands for scavenging chickens as a result of low production capacity, extreme variances in egg sizes, and inconsistency in the quality of products. For this reason, the potential for commercialisation has remained unfulfilled, despite the comparative advantage of the meat in terms of taste [6].

Low knowledge and skills capacity regarding improved SC production has played a major part in limiting the production efficiency of producers [15]. A 2014 knowledge and skills gap and training needs assessment by Yusuf, Lategan and Masika [16] of SC farmers in Raymond Mhlaba Municipality (then known as Nkonkobe Local Municipality), Eastern Cape Province, revealed that many farmers lacked comprehensive technical knowledge and the skills necessary for efficient SC management. Moreover, the research revealed a lack of capacity development interventions by the extension service and other related institutions for SC producers in the municipality. The critical areas where knowledge gaps hampered production, as identified by the study, were brooding, housing and healthcare, predator control, hygiene and litter management, feeding, record keeping and marketing. The study pointed to a dire need to develop a training schedule to help increase the skills and knowledge of farmers for improved management practices of SC production.

Knowledge facilitates growth in any economic sector, including agriculture [17]. Training farmers is one of many ways of increasing their knowledge base and skills to improve production performance. In simple terms, training aims to educate farmers to enable them to acquire new knowledge, skills and zeal to improve production efficiencies [17,18]. Yusuf et al. [16] observed that many studies had shown that training and capacity building of SC farmers was important in helping them grow their production capacities. Strengthening their knowledge base is especially significant.

Based on Yusuf et al.’s [16] research findings, Department of Agricultural Economics and Extension (DoAE&E), University of Fort Hare (UFH) in conjunction with the Department of Rural Development and Agrarian Reform (DRDAR), Eastern Cape Province (ECP) South Africa, collaborated on the design and implementation of a two-week training programme on improved practices in indigenous chicken farming for poultry farmers in the municipality. The training was offered to representatives of 16 villages. A total of 213 farmers, 30 agricultural extension advisors and five agricultural extension masters’ students were involved. The training covered seven key areas: (1) Housing: SCFs were taught how to construct housing units with local materials, 2 m by 3 m in size, well-ventilated and raised to prevent predators. SCFs were also trained on the use of the traditional brooding basket, i.e., the liuli. Other training activities on housing included the use of plastic to prepare the laying scoop with grass as bedding materials, the construction of a confined cage for chicks, and the use of wire and wire netting. (2) Production systems: Methods of selecting breeding stock. (3) Feeding: The use of local feedstuff, grains and fresh greens, the provision of chicks’ mash for brooding chicks in a confined environment, the provision of oral rehydration therapy (ORT) in the first two days after hatching, and the use of aloe in water as a prophylactic treatment. (4) Management: The training focused on managing the day-old chicks and pullets, the provision of a safe, dry, dark area for hens to lay, the daily collection of eggs, record-keeping of eggs, storage of eggs, use of the only eggs laid within the past 14 days for hatching, and the use of the mother hen, surrogate or incubator. General cleaning of housing after hatching, the use of hot ash to control insects, such as fowl lice. (5) Health management: The use of aloe in water for all ages of birds. (6) Business: SCFs were taught the types of records to keep and what to look out for among birds using records. For example, production records should include number of chickens by sex, number of eggs laid, birds’ starting date and brooding date, date of hatching, number of eggs hatched and not hatched, mortality records, number of eggs consumed by households, and number of birds slaughtered. (7) Cooperative establishment. The business part of the training included a profit analysis of the improved indigenous chicken management system, which demonstrated the comparative advantage of the model over the traditional method used by the farmers. A training manual, rich in photographic illustrations, was produced for the farmers to serve as a quick and easy ‘go-to’ guide.

The programme’s goal was to train farmers and capacitate agricultural extension personnel on the best approach to improving scavenging chicken production. The programme was intended to achieve a number of specific objectives, including: (1) training scavenging chicken farmers (SCFs) on simple methods of constructing chicken coops; (2) explaining and demonstrating the types of production systems in scavenging chicken production; (3) identifying locally available feeds and demonstrating how to process them into feeds for different ages of chicken; (4) demonstrating symptoms of various diseases in chickens; (5) training on biosecurity of the chicken coop; (6) gaining understanding of the use of indigenous methods to promote and develop the immunity of birds; (7) preparing simple business plans on production that could stimulate scaling up by farmers; and (8) introducing, explaining and demonstrating the workability of scavenging chicken cooperatives to the farmers.

Following the DoAE&E and DRDAR training objectives, the overall aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of the training offered to the SCFs with the specific objective of analysing whether there were significant differences in how farmers reared their chickens before and after training. This study may therefore be helpful in establishing the validity of claims that training SCFs could improve their knowledge and skill sets and result in better SC production techniques and outcomes. There is a need for cross-sectional integrated planning to address critical issues relating to the education of SCFs in rural areas. This would help establish improved indigenous chicken production patterns and promote sustained production.

2. Literature Review

Growing and sustaining rural livelihoods and food security is germane to national development. Although little empirical evidence exists to support the significance of production of SC in households and national economies [5], available studies [5,11,19,20,21,22,23,24] have indicated that SC production could serve as a tool for economic growth and poverty alleviation, as it plays a critical role in providing livelihoods and some form of household earning (revenue generation) and meets some level of household food needs (food security). It also affects the ability to save, invest and buy insurance. Having been overlooked as a viable economic activity for a long period, SC production is now receiving attention from researchers and development partners as an important contributor to economic welfare [25,26,27].

In South Africa, even though the national government has put in place several financial support systems, such as social grants, to minimise livelihood and food security threats for resource-deprived households, there are still critical indicators of high household food insecurity [28]. This indicates the need for poor rural households to shift from excessive dependence on government support to a financially independent pathway through the enhancement of agricultural production practices, including SC production. Studies [29,30] noted that interventions from support systems tend to improve the production and profitability of scavenging chickens because production losses decline, and returns are maximised. It is therefore clear that enhanced SC management practices could contribute immensely to the economic growth of poor households. Products derived from SC production (meat and eggs) could be sold to augment household incomes, which, in turn, could be used to purchase other essential food commodities. Thus, SC production has the potential to constitute a vital component of food security. People should be able to have consistent access to food by producing their own foods and purchasing those they are unable to self-produce [20,21,22,24,26,28,31]. Both purchasing and self-production are elements of household livelihoods and food security. Because rural households are especially prone to diverse economic risks and shocks [32], it is important that more effort be put into initiating, implementing and sustaining livelihood developmental schemes that focus on improving rural livelihoods [33]. One livelihood development scheme with high potential is SC production; systems that stimulate improved production would, in the long run, positively impact rural livelihoods and food security.

Extensively distributed across rural Africa and reared by at least 70% of rural households [8,20], scavenging chickens are arguably the most common livestock in Africa, described in the literature as highly adapted to small farm production systems [34]. They have become an integral part of rural livelihood across South Africa, with most rural households rearing scavenging chickens [19,35]. They are known to be hardy and to possess good genetic traits that allow them to adapt extremely well to harsh environmental conditions, thus requiring minimal maintenance [36,37,38]. More significantly, there is a guaranteed market for them [22]. Although their commercialisation potential has yet to be exploited, they remain an essential component of functional markets [39], yielding a comparatively high annual total gross return and rapid return on investment [22]. Apart from being a non-capital-intensive enterprise, scavenging chickens are pest- and disease-resistant, and are greatly valued for their eggs and meat [40,41,42,43]. In an FAO [26] report, SC egg production was recognised as being critical to providing a regular supply of nutrients of high organic value to household members. They are, thus, an essential component of household nutrition and food security.

Enhancing SC production has long been a central need for the majority of its producers. Critical production performance traits in birds include fertility, broodiness, hatchability, rate of survival, number of eggs produced, egg weight and egg size [44,45,46,47,48]. The frequency of egg production, for instance, is noted as a critical performance element for laying birds [49,50]. In the view of Pathak et al. [51], the quality of both table and hatching eggs plays a major role in determining their market price. However, the many challenges of SC production may hinder local breeds from exhibiting high performance traits. For instance, scavenging chickens thrive mainly on the scavenging feed resource base (SFRB). This includes kitchen waste, crop residue, insects and other unconventional feed resources, the availability of which is difficult to access, and is generally observed to be low in both quality and quantity [10,52,53,54,55]. A scarce SFRB is likely to influence the production performance of scavenging chickens, as improper dietary intake affects their growth and constrains optimum body development in terms of weight and size.

In addition to these factors, the high mortality rate of chickens affects productivity, as regulatory measures for diseases are marginal, and episodic outbreaks of diseases, such as Newcastle disease and coccidiosis, tend to constrain production [10,30,56,57,58]. Singh et al. [24] see the high mortality rate of scavenging chickens as a consequence of there being little or no veterinary input or support systems in rural areas. In general, scavenging chickens have a higher feed conversation rate, lower weight gain and production of meat and eggs than commercial poultry breeds [59].

The lack of proper healthcare services is only one of many SC production-related problems affecting performance. Studies [5,15,57,59,60,61,62] concur that, for SC, housing, nutritional feed sources, disease control and other relevant inputs and services are minimal or non-existent. Dutta et al. [45] reviewed the related literature and found that lack of technical know-how and poor management practices are among the causative factors for low productivity, along with exposure to risks, and various social, economic, environmental and institutional problems [63,64,65]. Malatji et al. [66] observed that the lack of access to veterinary extension support from the South African Department of Agriculture affected the knowledge base of rural SC smallholder farmers in Limpopo and KwaZulu-Natal. According to the study, lack of knowledge on proper disease-control mechanisms increased the exposure of scavenging chickens to diverse parasites and diseases, affecting overall production.

From Mtileni et al.’s [67] study of related literature, it is evident that access to extension services significantly influences the performance of SC production systems. Extension services are required to facilitate management interventions and the training of SC farmers on the technicalities of management systems, such as proper housing construction using local resources, dietary feed formulation, control of diseases, the use of technical equipment and marketing ingenuity [6,21,30,67]. Extension could also train local artisans to construct simple production equipment [10], while community members could be trained as local vaccinators to facilitate delivery of vaccination programmes at the local level [30]. It is clear that agricultural extension could play a pivotal role in the training and capacity building of SC producers and that it is critical to increasing productivity.

Studies [29,64,68] have called for the strengthening of support systems and collaboration between extension and healthcare services, research institutions and smallholder farmers in developing and implementing training to enhance SC production systems. Training is a critical production performance enhancement tool [69]. Among the many benefits associated with training are that: it increases proficiency in basic farm functions [70]; it improves farm management skills [65]; and it informs better resource management and decision making [71]. It is therefore crucial for relevant stakeholders to collaborate on the planning and implementation of training interventions to assist local farmers in improving their SC production systems. Research by several authors indicates the willingness of farmers to upscale SC production; however, the majority are constrained by poor knowledge, skills and access to technologies that could support their transition to commercial-scale production [2,16,66]. The research findings of Yusuf et al. [16] in the study area showed that a deficiency in production knowledge and skills affected SCFs’ upscaling plans. As such, the DoAE&E and DRDAR training was meant to equip them with the necessary skills required to aid their expansion plans. Participation in the training was voluntary, with many of the farmers showing an eagerness to upscale their production.

Theoretical Concepts

Training interventions might especially involve educating SCFs on contemporary agricultural innovations and motivating them to adopt new approaches to indigenous chicken production. Roger [72] (p. 11) defined innovation as any ‘idea, practice, or object that is perceived as new by an individual or other unit of adoption’. Even if an innovation has been in existence for a while, it is considered novel to any individual who has not come across such an innovation [73]; therefore, any information or innovation that farmers have not had access to is considered new [74]. Diffusion of innovation is germane to agribusiness production [75] and its importance in increasing poultry farmers’ output cannot be disregarded [76]. The main goal of diffusing innovations to farmers is to enhance their production standards and products [77] but, for these objectives to be realised, such innovations must be adopted by the entire population among whom they are being promoted. This would enable their self-sustainability [76]. Diffusion of innovation is defined in this study as the dissemination of new knowledge or innovations to SCFs via training in order to increase their productivity.

The diffusion of innovation theory advanced by Rogers [72] helps to explain the process by which members of a social system, in this instance, SCFs, adopt new knowledge or innovations. The theory postulates that ‘innovation is communicated through certain channels over time among the members of a social system’ [77] (p. 5). The theory recognises four major elements that facilitate the process of innovation diffusion, namely: (1) innovation—this involves presenting new knowledge or inventions to a given population; (2) communication—this depends on the sources (individual or institutional) and channels (e.g., mass media—television, radio, newspaper—and interpersonal) through which the new knowledge or innovation is transmitted; (3) time—this refers to the period of time during which an innovation is introduced to the target population and accepted or rejected by the population, the time taken to familiarise people with the innovation, and the rate at which the innovation is adopted; and, (4) social system—this refers to the different social units (individuals, groups, organisations) which work collaboratively to achieve a common goal [72,73,78,79]. DoAE&E and DRDAR used the interpersonal channel of communication via a training programme, as this medium is considered more effective at influencing attitude change in individuals [73].

However, the production performances of SCFs may or may not be influenced by management interventions, since the impact of an intervention also depends on the attitude of the farmers towards adopting or rejecting innovations presented to them. It is particularly challenging to influence the adoption of innovations, regardless of their apparent benefits [75,78]. This is where the theory of perceived attributes of innovation plays a significant role [80]. According to Rogers [72] (p. 35) ‘the characteristics of an innovation, as perceived by the members of a social system, determine its rate of adoption’.

Botha and Atkins [81] examined the theory of perceived attributes. This theory is based on the notion that individuals will adopt a new knowledge or innovation if they perceive that it has the following attributes:

• has some relative advantage over an existing innovation or the status quo;
• is compatible with existing values and practices;
• is not too complex in application;
• has trial-ability—this means the innovation can be tested for a limited time without actual adoption; and
• it offers observable results.

This theory is applicable with respect to the SCFs adopting innovations presented to them on improved indigenous poultry management practices by DoAE&E and DRDAR. It explains why SCFs may be apprehensive about adopting certain innovations, even if there is awareness that their benefits exceed those of their current production techniques.

Botha and Atkins [81] describe the adoption process as a movement from a state of ignorance to a state of awareness which leads to either an immediate rejection of the innovation or the continuation of the decision-making process. Interest in innovation is, therefore, followed by rejection or comparison (where the individual compares the new innovation with existing methods), which may also result in rejection. A positive outcome of the comparison would result in testing the innovation (usually on a small scale). At this stage, further comparisons may be made with other possible options. Rejection might follow if it fails to make an impression, and acceptance will follow if it meets expectations. There is, however, no guarantee that, once adopted, the innovation will be used continually as there is a possibility of rejection after adoption.

The theory suggests that any new concept, technology or practice being diffused to SCFs must have all five attributes (i.e., relative advantage, compatibility, simplicity, trialability and observability) in order for SCFs to accept its use.

3. Methodology

3.1. Description of Training Area

The training took place in 16 villages in Raymond Mhlaba Local Municipality (RMLM): Xolani, Magalene, Tselamanzi, Hala, Hogsback, Msobomvu, Khayalethu, Woburn, Adelaide, Malangskraal, Lokwe, Ngwabeni, Bedford, Tukulu location, Mqalo and Lalini (Figure 1). The municipality is situated in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa, in the Amathole District, and covers about 6474 km². Raymond Mhlaba was established as a municipality with the merging of Nkonkobe and Nxuba Local Municipalities in August 2016. It comprises 23 wards. It is a mostly rural municipality, with agriculture playing a dominant role in the economic development of the whole region [82,83].

3.2. Research Method and Data Collection

A quantitative research approach was used for this study. The data obtained were analysed quantitatively to assess the differences between the management practices of the trained farmers and the numbers of indigenous chickens owned before training (BT) and after training (AT). RMLM was purposively selected because the training assessed by the study was conducted in the municipality. The units of analysis were trained smallholder SCFs. Of the 213 farmers trained, a total of 181 were interviewed. The remaining 33 trained farmers were not available at the time data was collected post-training, giving an 84.97% response rate.

The first and second pilot training programme were conducted in Tselamanzi and Hopewell villages on the 12 and 13, and the 19 and 20 September 2018, respectively. The training was then extended to 16 villages in RMLM from October 2018 to March 2021 (refer to

Table 1. Distribution of SCFs according to training attendance and data collection.

Villages	Date of Training	Attendance at the Training	Number Surveyed June 2022
Xolani	10 September 2019	9	8
Magalene	11 September 2019	12	10
Hala	14 October 2018	11	9
Msobumvu	15 October 2018	8	7
Khayalethu	12 September 2019	17	13
Woburn	13 September 2019	9	8
Adelaide	6 August 2019	15	11
Malangskraal	7 August 2019	16	15
Lokwe	8 August 2019 11 September 2020	18 23	16
Ngwabeni	13 August 2019	12	11
Bedford	15 August 2019	18	15
Tukulu	14 August 2019	9	8
Mqalo	27 August 2019	12	9
Lalini	28 August 2019	15	13
Hogsback	22 October 2019	9	7
Tselamanzi	23 October 2019	24	21
Total		213	181

). The pilot villages were excluded from evaluation in this study.

Data collection was carried out before the commencement of the training programme and after the training. A semi-structured questionnaire comprising closed and open-ended questions was used to obtain the data. Agricultural extension advisors (AEAs) and three master of agriculture (M. Agric.) students assisted with the data collection. The questionnaires were administered using the Xhosa language. The AEAs and the masters’ students were all Xhosa by birth.

3.3. Data Analysis

Both parametric and non-parametric tests were used in the study’s analysis, the former being the paired sample t-test and the latter being the Wilcoxon signed-rank test, using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, version 15, Chicago, IL, USA. The paired-sample t-test was used for those variables measured in actual numbers (e.g., total number of chickens BT and AT), while the WSR test was used for other variables measured at ordinal (ranked) levels.

4. Results

4.1. Profile of Respondents’ Personal Information in the Study Area

The demographic profile of the SCFs, as described in

Table 2. Demographic profile of respondents in the study area, n = 181.

	Frequency	Percentage
Gender
Male	42	23.2
Female	139	76.8
Age distribution
25–35	20	11.0
36–45	32	17.7
46–55	48	26.5
56–65	53	29.3
66 and above	28	15.5
Marital status
Single	67	37.0
Married	77	42.5
Divorced	3	1.7
Widowed/widower	34	18.8
Household size
1–2	10	5.5
3–4	75	41.4
5–6	62	34.3
7–8	32	17.7
9 and above	2	1.1
Head of households
Male	78	43.1
Female	103	56.9
Education
No formal schooling	4	2.2
Primary school	55	30.4
Some secondary school	70	38.7
Completed G10	27	14.9
Completed G12	7	3.9
Further Education Training	1	0.6
Certificate/Diploma	8	4.3
Pre-degree	3	1.7
Part Time Programme	6	3.3

, indicates that more females (76.8%) were involved in scavenging chicken production than males. A significant percentage (71.3%) of the SCFs were above 45 years of age; about 42.5% indicated they were married, while about 38.7% had some secondary school education. Analysis of other demographic profiles in the study showed that most (56.9%) of the households were headed by females, with the majority (41.4%) having a household size of between three and four members.

4.2. Paired-Sample t-test Results of Significant Difference in the Number of Poultry before and after Training

The t-test showed that there was a significant difference (t = −20.406) in the number of chickens kept by the farmers before and after training; the farmers had larger flocks after the training (33.24 ± 23.38) than before (mean = 9.01 ± 8.52). The average flock size of chicks, growers, hens and cocks had significantly increased post-training in the study area, as shown in

Table 3. Paired-sample t-test results of significant difference in the number of poultry category before and after training.

Variables	N	Mean	SD	R	T	Df	p
Number of chickens (6–21 weeks) BT	181	9.01	8.52	0.914 **	−20.406 **	180	<0.001>
Number of chickens AT	181	33.24	23.38
Number of chicks (0–6 weeks) BT	181	1.30	2.66	0.552 **	−13.705 **	180	<0.001>
Number of chicks AT	181	9.02	8.71
Number of growers (6–18 weeks) BT	181	1.95	3.13	0.642	−11.190	180	<0.001>
Number of growers AT	181	5.07	4.89
Number of hens (20–21 weeks and above) BT	181	3.35	3.10	0.750	−20.230	180	<0.001>
Number of hens AT	181	13.73	8.91
Number of cocks (19 weeks and above) BT	181	0.70	1.30	0.514	−19.733	180	<0.001>
Number of cocks AT	181	5.42	3.69

** Significant at 1%. BT = Before training; AT = After training; R = Correlation coefficient (although, in this case, it is not the value of focus/emphasis. However, paired-sample t-test outcomes come with an R value by default, which can be interpreted as a correlation coefficient between the values before and after). p represents the p-value; p-value is the significance level value. T = the t-statistic; this is the t-value for a paired-sample t-test which was used in the study. SD = Standard deviation; Df = Degrees of freedom.

. There was a significant difference (t = −13.705) in the number of chicks before and after training as the average number of chicks had increased after the training (9.02 ± 8.71) than before (mean = 1.301 ± 2.66); while the average number of hens owned by the SC farmers had also increased after the training (mean = 13.73 ± 8.911 AT vs. mean = 3.35 ± 3.096 BT) (Table 3).

4.3. Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test (Non-Parametric Test) of Difference in Management Practices before and after Training

The results of the Wilcoxson signed-rank test revealed that there was a significant difference in the SC farmers’ use of local feedstuffs to feed birds of various ages before training (2.57 ± 0.926) and after training (4.22 ± 0.629), as shown in

Table 4. Wilcoxon signed ranks test (non-parametric test) of difference in management practices before and after training.

Variables	N	Mean	SD		N	Mean Rank	Sum of Ranks	z	p
Use of local feeding stuffs to feed birds of different age groups				Negative ranks	169(a)	85.00	14,365.00	−11.518	<0.001>
				Positive ranks	0(b)	0.00	0.00
				Ties	12(c)
BT	181	2.57	0.926
AT	181	4.22	0.629	Total	181
Identify local feedstuffs at different period of the year to feed birds				Negative ranks	178(d)	89.50	15,931.00	−11.772	<0.001>
				Positive ranks	0(e)	0.00	0.00
				Ties	3(f)
BT	181	2.34	0.852
AT	181	4.25	0.676	Total	181
Use of supplementary feeding for birds of different age group				Negative ranks	169(g)	85.88	14,514.50	−11.444	<0.001>
				Positive ranks	1(h)	20.50	20.50
				Ties	11(i)
BT		2.23	1.043
AT		4.23	0.634	Total	181
Ability to identify high yielding birds				Negative ranks	79(j)	67.76	5353.00	−4.228	<0.001>
				Positive ranks	43(k)	50.00	2150.00
				Ties	59(l)
BT		3.72	1.040
AT		4.16	0.739	Total	181
Care of chicks against diseases and pests and predators				Negative ranks	83(m)	66.19	5493.50	−4.766	<0.001>
				Positive ranks	38(n)	49.67	1887.50
				Ties	60(o)
BT		3.61	1.046
AT		4.16	0.739	Total	181
Artificial brooding				Negative ranks	114(p)	80.00	9119.50	−7.422	<0.001>
				Positive ranks	32(q)	50.36	1611.50
				Ties	35(r)
BT		3.12	2.618
AT		4.16	0.739	Total	181
Supplemental feeds for brooding hen and chicks				Negative ranks	124(s)	78.04	9677.00	−8.538	<0.001>
				Positive ranks	22(t)	47.91	1054.00
				Ties	35(u)
BT		2.88	1.175
AT		4.16	0.739	Total	181
Identify laying conditions in hens				Negative ranks	91(v)	69.43	6318.00	−5.376	<0.001>
				Positive ranks	37(w)	52.38	1938.00
				Ties	53(x)
BT		3.56	1.007
AT		4.16	0.739	Total	181

Significant at 1%; BT = Before training; AT = After training; SD = Standard deviation; z = z score.

. The mean values for the farmers’ capacity to recognise and use local feedstuffs at various times of the year, and their use of supplementary feeding for birds of different age groups, also significantly increased after the training, with values of 4.25 ± 0.676 and 4.23 ± 0.634, respectively (Table 4). Results for the differences in the care of chicks against diseases, pests and predators indicated that the management practices of SC farmers for chicks had substantially improved after training (4.16 ± 0.739), while analysis of the difference in practices of artificial brooding showed that the SC farmers engaged more in these practices after training (4.16 ± 0.739) than before (Table 4).

5. Discussion

Scavenging chickens (SC) play a significant role in the livelihood patterns of rural farmers, with the literature indicating its importance in several areas. To upscale their SC operations and enhance production, farmers require knowledge of best management practices and skills to make optimum use of available resources. Farmer participation in capacity-building programmes could therefore lead to improved management and increased productivity [84,85]. The subsequent sections highlight important issues related to the variables examined in the study to assess the differences in the trained SCFs management practices before and after training.

5.1. Number of Various Classes of Birds in Farmers’ Flocks (Chicks, Hen, Cocks)

Results from the study showed that the number of scavenging chickens raised by SC farmers increased significantly following training, as measured by farmers’ mean flock sizes in the various categories: chicks (0–6 weeks), growers or cockerels (young male birds) (6–18 weeks), cocks or roosters (19 weeks and above) and, hens (adult female) (20–21 weeks and above) (Table 3). This outcome is consistent with the findings of similar studies in which farmers increased their flock sizes because of training [86,87].

An increase in flock size was one of the key criteria on which this study focused to understand the effects of the training offered by DoAE&E and DRDAR. Numerous studies have outlined various elements that could affect flock sizes, including seasonal variations, number of clutches per year, number of eggs in a clutch, hatchability (considered a primary flock replacement source), chick survival, purchasing to restock, feed materials and feeding, diseases, vaccinations and parasite control, mortality rate, sale of birds, market access, slaughtering for household consumption, and not adopting improved poultry management practices [7,24,88,89,90,91,92,93]. Notably, small flock numbers appear to reflect a high level of involuntary losses caused by death and predation (or other factors) [93]. Critical elements, such as health conditions, housing, feed sources, predators, breeding and the need for interventions in the management of the production system were cited as some of the production challenges preventing farmers from investing in and expanding SC production in the study area [16]. These issues may have had an impact on flock sizes in the region. The positive difference in the average flock size of the farmers after training may have been influenced by the contribution of DoAE&E and DRDAR to training the farmers on improved management practices, such as good housing, selection of good breeding stock, feeding using local materials, hatching, the collection of eggs, nesting, use of artificial incubators/hatcheries, brooding, proper rearing of chicks and general health management practices. In addition, SCFs were taught simple record keeping on production and were extensively monitored by the AEAs. The adoption of the technologies recommended to the SCFs via the training contributed to a significant decrease in the mortality rates of the chicks. Some of the new methods used as a result of the training were the use of ORT as an immunity booster for the day-old chicks, and confinement of chicks in an enclosure safe from attack by predators (land and aerial), pilfering and environmental hazards, e.g., rain, excessive heat and/or cold. SCFs were trained to confine chicks with the provision of quality feeds, water and medication (aloe in drinking water) as a prophylactic treatment. All of these were contributory factors to the increased flock size among the various age categories of the scavenging chickens. The adoption of good management practices by farmers is a precursor to increased flock sizes [86,94].

5.2. Use of Supplementary Feedstuffs, Appropriate Identification and Use of Local Feedstuffs

Analysis of SC farmers’ use of local feedstuffs to feed birds of various ages, their capacity to recognise local feedstuffs that become available at different times of the year, and their use of supplementary feeding for birds of different age groups revealed significant differences before and after training; the mean values of the variables significantly increased after the training (Table 4). Feeding is extremely important in the production of poultry, since it plays a significant role in determining meat and egg production [7,95]. According to the findings of a study on the effects of training on chicken farmers in Munger, India, trained farmers produced significantly more eggs under different feeding circumstances than untrained farmers [96].

To grow, remain healthy and become more productive, chickens need sufficient feed sources [7] and access to a variety of feed sources [26]. Although SC are able to obtain a relatively balanced diet, the quality and quantity of their diets are constrained by what they can locate [95]. Their diets typically provide only enough nutrients for maintenance, which results in limited productivity [7]. In addition, scavenging chickens typically have a small scavenging area, which is frequently over-scavenged [97], raising the risk of nutritional inadequacy [98]. In general, the nutrients in the feed that village chickens consume may be deemed insufficient [97]. Therefore, it is acknowledged that scavenging alone will not supply enough feed to fulfill the needs for development, production and survival, and that the introduction of supplementary feed can significantly improve production conditions [97]. Supplemental nutrition has been found to improve both egg production and bird growth and makes vaccination and parasite control efforts more effective [93,95,99].

In order to keep chicken feeds nutritionally balanced for greater health and performance, supplements must be added to their diets in appropriate quantities [100]. Some examples of energy, protein, mineral and vitamin supplements include maize, millet, wheat, rice, beans, bone and fish meal, insects, green plants and vegetables, amongst many others [7,95,97,101]. The DoAE&E and DRDAR training placed a strong emphasis on the provision of well-balanced feed rations and suggested a number of feed supplements, including maize, local fishmeal, fresh greens and insects, along with a variety of sources of carbohydrates and protein (e.g., grasshoppers, lucerne, termites, beans, maize, sorghum, sunflowers) and a constant supply of clean water.

A close analysis of the supplementary feedstuffs given to poultry at different stages of growth is critical because the requirement for feed varies according to the age and status of the bird (chicks, growers, layers or brooding hens), as well as the goal of production (meat or eggs). To reduce the danger of incorrect feeding, scavenging chicken farmers must have the essential knowledge of feed requirements for different age categories of birds and access to quality sources of various feed resources [99]. There was a marked improvement in the supplemental feeding of brooding hens and chicks after training (Table 4). It is hypothesised that supplementing the diets of brooding hens increases their productivity, which can help transform small-scale SC production into a partially commercial production system that is profitable [11].

Using feed that has been commercially made is common advice given to farmers; however, many farmers find the supply irregular and the price too high [26]. Either they do not have the resources to make the necessary investments, or their venture is not sufficiently profitable to make such expenditure worthwhile [102]. Feeds account for up to 70% of the entire cost of poultry production [100,101]. Rising feed prices are one of the main issues in SC production [85]; therefore, any effort to lower feed costs can result in a large decrease in the overall cost of production [100]. For this reason, supplemental feeding should also be inexpensive, to cut costs [95]. As a result, the training placed a strong emphasis on supplemental feeding with locally resourced feedstuffs that can be obtained relatively inexpensively. Farmers were shown how to appraise local feed resources in relation to the time of year and the nutrient needs of birds of various ages, and to use these to ensure a consistently balanced diet in their scavenging chickens. It was noted that, over the long term, there is a need to investigate the use of locally available alternative feedstuffs in terms of composition, since it is projected that the gap between local supply and demand for these traditional components will widen [97]. The use of alternative, non-traditional, locally available feed ingredients in poultry production has received a great deal of attention recently [7,24,91,100,102]. Using inexpensive agricultural by-products that are readily available locally could help SC farmers reduce the cost of feeding, which could translate into a reduction in the overall cost of producing meat and eggs, making them more readily available at lower prices [100].

In the study area, SC farmers relied on maize or rice as supplements because they lacked the knowledge to identify alternative local feed sources for supplemental rations. This reliance on maize and rice has implications for the farmers’ financial situations and their ability to feed their families [16]. DoAE&E and DRDAR placed a high emphasis on training SC farmers to make their own feed mixtures, using locally available ingredients, such as sun-dried sweet potato peels, sunflower seeds, soya beans, leaf meal (cabbage, lettuce, spinach), insects, earthworms, maggots and termites.

5.3. Appropriate Identification of High-Yielding Hens

Given that scavenging chickens are widely regarded as a genetically hardy poultry strain with inherent characteristics, such as high fecundity, disease tolerance and adaptability to acute environmental conditions with minimal maintenance [36,37,38,59,103], it is reasonable to anticipate a high level of productivity in this strain. However, this appears to be far from the case, as studies [6,30] have emphasized the continuous low output performance of the scavenging chicken production system. In recent years, poultry producers in rural areas have made efforts to raise their birds to an ideal body weight and to produce eggs of the right size [11]. However, the farmers continue to struggle to reach such heights of productivity for foraging hens, underachieving desired productivity levels in comparison to what is found among hybrid breeds [19,30,34].

Agricultural value chains influence the development of high production meat and layer breeds, where products are now valued based on weight [104] and other qualitative features. Poultry birds’ genetic potential significantly influences their ability to produce [89] and is a crucial consideration when farmers are choosing parent stock [85]. Although there are variations in production among the various indigenous bird species across locations, meteorological conditions and nutritional circumstances [26], it is well known that indigenous birds have poor genetic potential for producing meat and eggs [26,85,89,96]. Since poultry markets are now placing more emphasis on high-quality meat and egg products, SC farmers will need to achieve these standards. In order to accomplish this, they will need to be able to recognise high-yielding birds when choosing parent stock, which requires good knowledge and competence. Different abilities are needed to judge a day-old chick, a fully developed cock, or a laying hen, especially when dealing with diverse breeds that have distinctive looks, behaviours and different purposes, such as egg-laying or meat production, where the qualities to search for become more challenging [95]. DoAE&E and DRDAR also prioritised training farmers on the proper identification of good laying birds to help improve their production potential.

It is possible that SC farmers could be inspired to take advantage of breeding programmes to enhance the genetic potential of indigenous birds. Findings in the study area indicated that there was no stock breeding programme in operation there [16]. Lack of planned breeding programmes is a defining characteristic of the indigenous poultry farming system [105] and, because indigenous chicken breeding receives little attention from farmers, nearly all breeding that occurs in rural areas is random in nature [7]. The DoAE&E and DRDAR training programme included the recommendation that SCFs swap one or two cockerels and a few hens for those of distant neighbours in other villages to reduce inbreeding, since inbreeding causes poor growth or fewer eggs from the chicks. Some attempts have been made by government and non-government research organisations to crossbreed indigenous and high-yielding commercial poultry breeds to improve the productive performance of native birds [11,26,98,106]. However, this effort is constrained by the transient nature of most developmental projects [104]. Where research has been carried out, crossbred birds have been found to have significantly greater growth rates and/or egg output [26,98].

5.4. Care of Chicks against Diseases and Pests

The results for differences in the care of chicks to combat diseases, pests and predators, before and after training, indicated that the management practices of SC farmers for chicks substantially improved (Table 4). Chicks need to be adequately cared for in their early life stages [91] because they are particularly susceptible to diseases and predators, which leads to increased flock losses [89].

The health and production of poultry birds are greatly impacted by viral, bacterial and respiratory illnesses [104]. These illnesses include chronic respiratory disease (CRD), avian influenza, fowl cholera and typhoid, fowl pox, infectious coryza, infectious bronchitis (IB), gumboro, colibacillosis, coccidiosis, Marek’s disease (MD) and Newcastle disease (ND) [85,99,104,106,107]. Newcastle disease is acknowledged as a predominant disease contributing to rising poultry mortality worldwide and can completely wipe out all vulnerable stock [7,26,89,104]. Therefore, the DoAE&E and DRDAR training placed strong emphasis on vaccinating chicks against ND at four days of age, as improved poultry production practices can be built on a solid foundation of sustainable ND control [26]. This being the case, if scavenging chicken production is to become a dependable source of food and/or revenue for rural households, ND and other major poultry diseases must be regulated [26]. The training course stressed biosecurity, cleanliness of the chicken coops and sanitation as antidotes to diseases and pests in the coops where the birds sleep at night. The training also focused on promoting the use of oral rehydration therapy (ORT) to promote immunity.

Although vaccination can help prevent the breakout of diseases, its efficient use is fraught with difficulties, amongst which are the costs associated with procuring vaccines, vaccine maintenance, which includes refrigeration, and vaccinating procedures [89]. In addition, scavenging chicken vaccination has not received much attention from veterinary services in Sub-Saharan Africa, as the majority of financing from national governments and donors is directed towards the vaccination of ruminant animals [104]. In addition, vaccinating small flock numbers may not be cost efficient, which discourages SC farmers from using or demanding veterinary services. It is challenging to provide services to individual farmers, and a collective veterinary service approach may be more successful [89]. Because of this, a major component of the DoAE&E and DRDAR training was teaching SC farmers in each area how to raise chickens concurrently (through a specialised method that facilitates artificial brooding). This, along with the formation of SC cooperative societies in the study areas, makes planning for vaccinations easier.

Scavenging chickens are also susceptible to various parasites [7], amongst which are roundworms and tapeworms (internal parasites/endoparasites), and lice, ticks and fleas (external parasites/ectoparasites) [99]. These parasites can weaken scavenging chickens, making them more vulnerable to infectious diseases and, in some situations, may also serve as secondary hosts for other diseases [7]. Parasitic infections consequently impede SC productivity [104]. In rural areas, predatory problems are particularly prevalent [85,91]. In the extensive SC production system, young chicks are usually allowed to accompany the mother hen as soon as they hatch; as a result, the mortality rate of chicks is extremely high, especially in their first weeks [99]. Predators can cause over 80% of the mortality among chicks, which are particularly vulnerable to them [7]. Predators include snakes, dogs, cats, birds, such as eagles and hawks, rats, monkeys, and even humans who steal them [24,85,105]. Part of the technological training offered to the SC farmers was the construction of simple housing for the chicks that protects them from land and aerial predators. The results (Table 4) indicated a reduction in the number of mortalities from predators after training. Farmers generally assess the advantages of better housing in terms of increased biosecurity and pilferage [26]. If it is cost-effective as a result of the use of inexpensive available local building resources [91], the effort may be deemed worthwhile.

5.5. Appropriate Identification of Laying Conditions in Hens, the Practice of Artificial Brooding

Analysis of the difference before and after training in identifying laying conditions in hens and the practice of artificial brooding showed that the SC farmers engaged more in the use of artificial brooding after training (Table 4). The DoAE&E and DRDAR training placed a strong emphasis on the optimal conditions for laying hens in order to ensure the best possible production output. Optimal conditions include giving the hens appropriate food and water, providing a secure, dry, dark place for them to lay their eggs, collecting and storing the eggs daily, identifying the eggs that are good for hatching, and hatching the eggs with the help of mother hens and other broody hens. Because hens need to incubate their eggs until they hatch, natural brooding shortens the period of egg production; this has an impact on the rate at which eggs are produced [89,104,105]. This is in contrast to commercial breeds, which no longer have the ability to reproduce naturally and can, therefore, lay eggs continually under the right management conditions [26,104]. Therefore, promoting the partial or complete inhibition of natural brooding in the SC production system may boost their productivity levels [7,89,102]. Artificial brooding requires the provision of artificial heat sources for the chicks to increase their intake of food and water for proper growth [98,101]. The DoAE&E and DRDAR training demonstrated the efficient use of several heat sources, such as lanterns, kerosene brooders, charcoal stoves or charcoal placed in a metal container. The training programme also included the introduction of artificial incubators/hatcheries (40–55 egg capacity) to farmers with more than 50 birds. SCFs were also trained on the various techniques of withdrawing birds from brooding in order to be able to initiate egg production after two weeks.

6. Conclusions and Recommendations

Low productivity of SC enterprises has been associated with limited efforts put into improving the management system, which involves, among other things, providing proper housing, food and medical treatment for scavenging hens. The management intervention facilitated by DoAE&E and DRDAR was executed to fill the training needs of smallholder farmers in the study area to improve critical management skills for efficient production. This study, therefore, assessed the differences in the management practices of the farmers pre- and post-training to determine empirically whether the training had any significant effect. The study findings showed significant differences between practices BT and AT in critical management parameters, such as the use of supplemental feeding, the ability to identify and use suitable local feed materials, competency in identifying high-yielding birds and laying conditions in hens, the practice of artificial brooding, and the care of chicks against diseases, pests and predators. There was also a significant difference in the number of chickens owned by the farmers, with the average number of chickens increasing significantly post training.

All of this suggests that the training significantly helped farmers to improve their management practices. The training ultimately increased their flock sizes, indicating that there is good potential for improved food security and/or income generation for many of the trained SCFs. Therefore, this study’s findings reinforce preceding submissions that building the capacities of SCFs through training significantly improves their knowledge and skillsets in SC production.

Since agricultural extension institutions are the main change agents whose mediation is greatly needed to improve the production efficiencies of scavenging chicken production, there have been frequent requests in the related research literature for change interventions in the SC system of practice. The literature suggests that the more access farmers have to extension interventions, the better their acquisition of knowledge of improved agricultural techniques and the fewer their production errors. The importance of educating rural poultry farmers in major SC production management practices cannot be over-emphasised. Therefore, extension services are anticipated to close these essential gaps.

This study recommends periodic training of SCFs to keep them abreast of evolving management practices in SC production, as continual improvement in related competencies is important for enhancing local and national economic development.

7. Limitations of the Study and Training Programme

The lockdown and movement restrictions initiated during the COVID-19 epidemic caused a lengthy delay between training and data collection/final evaluation which was conducted in June 2022. The South African lockdown began on 5 March 2020, and was lifted on 4 April 2022. The time gap, however, enabled a thorough evaluation of the impact that the training had throughout the course of the nearly three-year period.

The lockdown also affected the physical monitoring of the trainees. The SCFs were unable to receive financial support from the trainers, and farmers were only trained to improve their knowledge and skills on SC production. However, the trained SCFs were encouraged to form cooperatives to ease their financial constraints in carrying out major projects, such as the purchase of artificial incubators and vaccination planning.