





























1 

 

In ternationa l
Scholars
Journa ls

  

African Journal of Agricultural Marketing ISSN: 2375-1061 Vol. 11 (4), pp. 001-010, April, 2023. Available 
online at www.internationalscholarsjournals.org © International Scholars Journals 

 

Author(s) retain the copyright of this article. 
 
 

Review 

 

Strategies to optimize the use of scavengeable feed 

resource base by smallholders in traditional poultry 

production systems in Africa: A review 
 

E.H.Goromela1*, R.P. Kwakkel2, M.W.A. Verstegen2 and A.M. Katule3
 

 
1National Livestock Research Institute, P.O. Box 202 Mpwapwa, Tanzania; 

2
Animal Nutrition Group, 

Wageningen University, P.O Box 338, 6700 AH Wageningen, The Netherlands; 
3
Sokoine University of 

Agriculture, P.O. Box 3004 Morogoro, Tanzania 
 

Accepted 12 November, 2022 
 
Traditional poultry production accounts for about 80% of the poultry population in Africa. Such poultry species are 
kept by smallholders, mostly in free-range and in backyard systems for food security, income and socio-cultural 
purposes. Flock productivity is low compared to high input systems due to sub-optimal management, lack of 
supplementary feeds, low genetic and diseases. Scavenging system provides most of the scavengeable feed 
resource base (SFRB) for rural poultry. However, the quantity and quality of SFRB for scavenging poultry varies with 
season, altitude, climatic conditions, farming activities as well as social, management and village flock biomass. In 
the present review, diets consumed by scavenging poultry indicates to contain on average low nutrient concentration 
of protein (100 g kg DM

-1
), energy (11.2 MJ kg DM

-1
) and minerals such as Ca (11.7 g kg DM

-1
) and P (5 g kg DM

-1
). This 

low concentration indicates that the amount of nutrients from SFRB alone cannot support optimal growth and egg 
production of scavenging poultry. Thus such nutrients which can not optimally supplied by SFRB should be provided 
as supplementary feeds. However, quantitative assessment of SFRB and nutrient concentrations could provide the 
best strategies to optimize the available SFRB for improving rural poultry productivity. 
 
Key words: Traditional, rural poultry, free-range, backyard, scavenging, scavengeable feed resource, nutrient, 

composition 

 
INTRODUCTION 

 
In many developing countries, particularly Africa, poultry 
production in rural and peri-urban areas is based on 
traditional scavenging systems. It is estimated that about 
80% of the Africa’s poultry population, is found in 
traditional production systems (Guèye, 1998; Branckaert 
et al, 2000) . These husbandry systems are 
characterized by a low input/low output production 
system and contribute significantly to household food 
security in developing countries (Branckaert et al, 2000). 
Traditionally, the scavenging system plays an important 
role in supplying local populations with additional income 
and high-quality food in the form of meat and eggs. 
Moreover, the production system is closely linked to the  
 
 
 
*Corresponding author’s E-mail: egoromela@yahoo.com. 

 
 
 
 
religious and socio-cultural lives of many farmers in 
developing countries (Kitalyi, 1998; Branckaert et al, 
2000). In traditional poultry production systems, different 
poultry species are kept and the most important being 
chickens, guinea fowls, ducks, pigeons, geese and 
turkeys. Productivity of these poultry species depends on 
the management systems adopted (Guèye 2003) and 
increases with the level of improved feeding and 
management (Sonaiya et al, 1999). In general under the 
scavenging systems whereby the low input/low output is 
the dominant husbandry system, several authors have 
acknowledged low productivity (Smith, 1990; Gunaratne 
et al, 1993; Guèye, 1998; Kitalyi, 1998; Guèye 2003), 
compared to high-input systems. The low productivity is 
caused by a number of factors, the most important being 
sub-optimal management, lack of supplementary feed, 
low genetic potential and diseases (Permin and Bisgaard, 
1999). However, much of the low performance of poultry 



2 

 

 
 
 

 
Table 1.: Characteristics of major types of husbandry systems practiced in traditional poultry production systems in Africa. 

 

Characteristics Traditional free range Backyard or subsistence Semi-intensive Small-scale intensive 

Flock size 1-10 birds 10-50 birds 50-200 birds 50-500 birds 

Key rearers Majority of rural families Moderate number of rural families Few rural families Urban families 

Ownership Mostly women & children Mostly women and family Middlemen Business men 

Type of breeds Indigenous breeds Indigenous and few crossbreds Local/improved Layers or broilers 

Feed resources Scavenging Scavenging and supplementation Commercial/local Balanced diets 

Health status No vaccination/medication Vaccination and little medication Vaccination Full vaccination 

Housing system No specific housing Simple and small houses Medium & improved Big and improved 

Egg production 30-50 eggsyear
-1

hen
-1

 50-150 eggsyear
-1

hen
-1

 80-160 eggsyear
-1

hen
-1

 250-300 eggsyear
-1

hen
-1

 

Growth rate 5-10g day
-1

 10-20g day
-1

 10-20g day
-1

 50-55g day
-1

 

Mortality rate High mortality Moderate mortality Low mortality Low mortality 

Use of products Home consumption Home consumption and sale Family income Business income 

Profit Small cash income Family income Family income Business income 

Socio-economic Social and cultural Social and micro-credit Credit based assets little social 
 

Source: Kitalyi (1998); Sonaiya et al (1999); Guèye (2003) and Riise et al (2004). 
 

 

under scavenging systems has been attributed to poor 
SFRB (Roberts and Gunaratne, 1992; Tadele and Ogle, 
1996). Thus if SFRB is improved in the traditional poultry 
production systems, productivity of local birds can be 
increased. However SFRB are dependent on extrinsic 
factors such as seasonal variables, and levels of 
predation, health, scavenging behaviour, age, and 
physiological status of the scavenging birds (Gunaratne, 
1999). This paper gives a review of the existing poultry 
production systems in particular African countries, the 
role of SFRB as a major nutritional input and the factors 
influencing its quantity and quality. The paper concludes 
by suggesting strategies that can be used to optimize the 
use of SFRB in traditional poultry production systems to 
maximize flock productivity. 

 

 

Poultry Production Systems In Developing Countries 

 

Generally four poultry production systems in developing 
countries can be described (Bessei, 1987, Sonaiya et al, 
1999, Branckaert and Guèye, 2000; Guèye, 2000a). 
These include the free-range system or traditional village 
system; the backyard or subsistence system; the semi-
intensive system and the small-scale intensive system. 
These poultry management systems are also found in 
smallholder poultry sector in Africa (Kitalyi, 1998). Some 
important characteristics of these poultry production 
systems in Africa are summarized in Table 1. However; 
according to Guèye (1998), free-range system and the 
backyard system are the main types of poultry husbandry 
system practiced in the traditional poultry production in 
Africa. The free-range system is commonly practiced by 
majority of the rural families. Flock sizes may vary from 
an average of 1-10 birds of indigenous poultry per rural 
household. The birds are owned mostly by women and 

 
 

 

children for home consumption, small cash income, social 

and cultural activities. These are left to scavenge around the 

homesteads during daytime feeding on household leftovers, 

waste products and environmental materials such as insects, 

worms, seeds and green forages. In addition, the birds are 

not regularly provided with water and other inputs such as 

supplementary feeds, houses, vaccination and medication. 

As a consequence, many birds die during pre-weaning 

periods due to starvation, diseases and predators. The level 

of productivity in terms of number of eggs produced (30-50 

eggs hen
-1

 year
-1

) and growth rate (5-10g day
-1

) is very low 

compared to improved free-range or backyard systems. The 

backyard or semi-scavenging system is practiced by a 

moderate number of rural families. They keep about 5- 50 

birds, which mostly are owned by women and family 

members. In the backyard system, birds are semi-confined 

either within an enclosure made from local materials, 

overnight shelters or within a fenced yard (Sonaiya, 1999). 

Thus in this system, there is a regular provision of water, 

grains and household wastes, improved night shelters, 

vaccination and little medication to control diseases and 

parasites and to some extent exchange of cockerels 

between the farms. Because of better management mortality 

is moderate and there is an increased egg production (50-

150 eggs hen
-1

 year
-1

) and growth rate (10-20g day
-1

). 

Moreover, profitability is high and products are used for 

home consumption, family cash income and as a source of 

micro- credit. The semi-intensive system is a sub- system of 

the intensive system. In this system, poultry are kept in 

complete confinement, fed with formulated diets either 

bought commercially or produced from feed mills (Sonaiya, 

1995; Aini, 1999). Sometimes they are fed with home-made 

rations by mixing various ingredients such as oyster shells, 

fishmeal, bone meal, blood meal, oil seed cakes, cereal 

grains, cereal by-products and kitchen 



3 

 

  
 
 

 
Table 2. Types and physical components of scavengeable feed resources (SFRB) found in the crop and gizzard 

contents of eviscerated scavenging birds 
 

Types of SFRB Physical components References 

Household materials   

- Grains Paddy, rice, broken rice Maize Huque (1999); Mwalusanya et al 
 and Wheat (2002) 
  Gunaratne et al (1993); Rashid et 
  al (2004) 

- Bran/polishings Rice bran, wheat bran and rice Huque (1999); Mwalusanya et al 
 polishings (2002) Rashid et al (2004, 2005) 

- Kitchen wastes Cooked rice, cooked pulses, egg Huque (1999); Mwalusanya et al 
 shells, dried fish scraps, intestine (2002) 
 vegetable trimmings and scales of Gunaratne et al (1993) 
 fish, pieces of bread, coconut  

 residues,  

Environmental materials   

- Seeds Grasses and fruits Tadelle (1996) & Rashid et al 
  (2004, 2005) 

- Green forages Green leaves of vegetables Mwalusanya et al (2002); Rashid 

 Grasses, plant materials et al 
  l(2004, 2005), Gunaratne et al 
  (1992); Tadelle (1996) 

- Insects and worms Small snails, earthworms, Huque (1999); Mwalusanya et al 
 Cockroaches, ants, flies (2002), Rashid et al (2004) 
  Gunaratne et al (1992) 

  Tadelle (1996) 

- Sand and grits Sand and insoluble grits, Gunaratne et al (1993); Rashid et 
  al (2004) 

Miscellaneous materials   

 Feathers, hair, polythene, Piece Rashid et al (2004, 2005) 
 of glass and brick paper products  

 and button  

Unidentified materials   

 Various feed particles Huque (1999); Rashid et al (2004 
 
 

 

wastes (Sonaiya, 1995; Kitalyi, 1998). In this system, 
flock size varies between 50 and 200 birds (Sonaiya, 
1990, Kitalyi, 1998) and a domestic fowl hen produces 

between 80 and 160 eggs year
-1

 (Sonaiya, 1990; Guèye, 

2003). However, genetically improved breeds or dual-
purpose breeds have been recommended as they are 
more efficient both in utilizing high-quality feeds provided 
by small-scale producers as well as economically than 
the indigenous breed (Roberts, 1999). The small-scale 
intensive or “small-scale confined” system is another 
sub-system of the intensive system. The system is based 
on specialized breeds of broiler and layer with a flock 
size ranging between 50 and 500 birds (Sonaiya et al, 
1999). This husbandry system is practiced by few rural 
families particularly those living in peri-urban and urban 
areas where there are markets for eggs and meat and is 
owned mainly by business men. Producers use the 
recommended standard practices such as appropriate 
housing, feeding, health and disease control 
programmes. Poultry productivity is as high as that of 

 
 

 

large-scale commercial poultry with production of 250-300 

eggs hen
-1

 year
-1

 and growth rate of 50-55g day
-1

(Sonaiya 

et al, 1999). However, according to Guèye (2000a) the 

choice of any of these production systems depends on the 

availability of resources and inputs needed for a particular 

production system. In poultry farming, feed is the most 

important input accounting for 60-70% of the total production 

costs (Smith, 1990; Gunaratne, 1999). 
 

 

SFRB As A Major Nutritional Input In Traditional 

Poultry Production Systems 
 
SFRB can simply be defined as those feed resources 
available at farm level that consists of household refuse 
and all the materials available in the immediate 
environment that the scavenging birds can use as feed. In 
Table 2, a range of SFRB and their physical components 
as given in various literature sources can be 
distinguished. More broadly, Sonaiya (2004) has defined 



4 

 

 
 
 

 
Table 3. Physical composition of crop contents of chickens summarised in relation to the season, climatic zone, altitude and type of bird 
 

Factors Physical components of crop contents (% fresh basis) References 

     Kitchen  
 Bran Grains Green forages Insects/worms wastes  

Wet season       

Short rains - 37.5 22.5 17.4 22.6* Tadelle (1996) 

Short rains 11.5 13.5 33.7 17.9 23.4 Mwalusanya et al (2002) 

Long rains - 25.9 31.8 18.9 23.4* Tadelle (1996) 

Long rains 19.3 37.4 22.6 7.6 13.1 Mwalusanya et al (2002) 

Dry season       

Dry period - 29.5 27.7 17.2 25.6* Tadelle (1996) 

No harvesting - 33.5 15.4 10.8 40.3 Rashid et al (2004) 

Harvesting - 54.5 14.7 12.4 18.4 Rashid et al (2004) 

Climatic zone       

Warm wet 13.7 38.8 25.1 5.5 16.9 Mwalusanya et al (2002) 

Warm dry 13.1 41.5 20.6 4.7 20.1 Mwalusanya et al (2002) 

Cool wet 30.0 20.1 23.6 7.1 19.2 Mwalusanya et al (2002) 

Altitude       

High - 33.2 28.2 17.8 20.8 Tadelle (1996) 

Medium - 32.0 27.9 17.4 22.7* Tadelle (1996) 

Low - 27.7 25.8 18.2 28.3* Tadelle (1996) 

Bird type       

Layers 19.3 38.2 23.1 5.8 13.6 Mwalusanya et al (2002) 

Layers - 42.2 16.1 11.9 29.8 Rashid et al (2005) 

Growers 19.2 38.4 22.6 5.6 14.2 Mwalusanya et al (2002) 

Growers - 46.0 14.2 11.2 28.6 Rashid et al (2005) 
 
*Unidentified feed materials 

 

 
SFRB as scavengeable feed resources which are the total 

sum of (1) household materials i.e. food left over, kitchen 

wastes, gardens, crop grains, orchards, and harvest 

residues (2) environment materials such as plant leaves and 

seeds, worms, insects, snails, slugs, stone grits and sand. 

Under normal conditions the proportion of the SFRB 

supplied by household materials as determined by the crop 

contents of scavenging birds usually forms a greater part of 

the total SFRB consumed per day (Roberts, 1999). In Sri 

Lanka, Gunaratne et al (1993) found that 72% of the crop 

contents of the 15 hens slaughtered consisted of household 

materials and the remaining of the crop contents came from 

the environment. Similar observations have been reported 

by Sonaiya (2004) in Nigeria where the household refuse 

made up 64% of the crop content. This trend can also be 

seen in Table 3, where several authors (Tadelle, 1996; 

Mwalusanya et al, 2002; Rashid et al, 2004) have indicated 

the greater proportions of SFRB being supplied by 

household refuse. However, the size of the household 

materials in scavenging systems always varies depending 

on factors such as population density (Roberts 1999), food 

crops grown, their processing methods and decomposition 

due to climatic conditions (Kitalyi, 1998) and the number of 

scavenging animals which all may compete with rural 

poultry (Sonaiya, 2004). 

 
 

 

As a result, the supply of SFRB in scavenging systems in 

developing countries is not always constant (Cumming 

1992; Tadelle and Ogle, 1996). 
 

 

Factors Influencing The Quantity And Quality Of 

SFRB 

 
 
Season, altitude and climatic conditions 

 

As it can be noted in Table 2, SFRB in the traditional 
scavenging systems consists of household refuse and 
environmental feed materials. During the rainy season 
there is abundant supply of insects, worms and green 
forage materials while in the dry or harvesting season 
there is high supply of cereal grains, cereal by-products 
and low supply of green forage and insects/worms (Table 
3). The amount of kitchen wastes as indicated in Table 3 
appears to be small in rainy season indicating that in this 
period there is less food available in most rural 
households compared with dry period. In Tanzania, 
Mwalusanya et al (2002) reported that during wet season 
there is less amounts of grains and kitchen wastes with 
high amount of insects/worms and green forages. In 



5 

 

             
 

Table 4. Chemical composition of crop and gizzard contents of scavenging indigenous chickens and ducks as influenced by season  
 

              
 

    Chemical composition (g Kg DM
-1

)   
References 

  
 

 

Season 
        

ME (MJ kg 
  

 

            
 

  DM CP EE CF ASH NFE Ca P DM
-1

)    
 

 Short rains 541 87 23 103 55 732 7 5 13.1 Tadelle (1996)   
 

 Short rains 425 123 68.2 58.8 137 613 6.7 4.8 - Mwalusanya et al (2002   
 

 Long rains 397 102 17 99 108 674 11 9 11.4 Tadelle (1996)   
 

 Long rains 437 85.7 54.1 57.7 114 688 6.5 2.4 - Mwalusanya et al (2002   
 

 Rainy - 79 14.9 90.9 113 581 38.7 4.1 - Huque (1999)   
 

 Dry period 610 76 12 105 81 726 8 7 11.5 Tadelle (1996)   
 

 Harvesting 514 109 26.6 81.3 113 674 9.4 3.5 11.2 Rashid et al (2005)   
 

 No harvest 443 102 14.9 47.1 137 700 9.7 3.9 11.8 Rashid et al (2005)   
 

 Winter - 87.4 14.3 99 99 571 28.5 4.7 - Haque et al (1994)   
 

 Winter - 79.9 14.6 94.4 113 574 37.3 4.2 - Huque (1999)   
 

 Summer - 87.7 15.2 91.2 104 582 36.8 4.1 - Huque (1999)   
 



6 

 

 
 
 

 

Ethiopia, type of altitudes seems to have no difference 
on the availability of insects and worms but in high and 
medium altitudes there is a high amount of grains and 
forages with low amount of kitchen wastes compared 
with low altitude (Tadelle, 1996). Moreover, observations 
show that not all materials that are part of the SFRB are 
available in each environment. This is apparently seen in 
some countries such as Ethiopia, Indonesia, Sri Lanka 
and Tanzania, where studies have shown that the 
amount of the available SFRB varies greatly with season, 
climate and location (Table 3). In addition, the SFRB 
could vary also with the type of birds due to their foraging 
behaviour and stage of growth. The proportion of the 
grains in the layers’ crop contents was lower compared 
to that in growers’ crop contents (Table 3) . The higher 
proportion of green forages, insects/worms and kitchen 
wastes in the layer crop contents could be due to their 
selective feeding behaviour which depends upon 
nutritional requirements of a particular age group of 
chickens and production stage. Since laying hens have 
higher requirement of CP and Ca, they are more likely to 
pick up feedstuffs rich in protein and calcium compared 
to growers to support egg production (Rashid et al., 
2005). According to Sonaiya et al (1999) most of the 
materials available for scavenging are not concentrated 
enough in terms of energy because they contain a lot of 
crude fibre. Thus a bird kept on free-range and backyard 
systems can certainly not find all the nutrients it needs 
for optimal production all the year round. These findings 
are in line with those of other authors (Huque et al 1994; 
Tadelle, 1996; Huque, 1999; Mwalusanya et al., 2002; 
Rashid et al., 2005) who observed that in different 
seasons, SFRB is critically deficient or unbalanced in 
nutrients. The chemical composition as indicated in 
Table 4, of crop and gizzard contents of scavenging 
indigenous chickens and ducks in various countries 
contains on average low amounts of protein (100 g kg 

DM
-1

), energy (11.2 MJ kg DM
-1

) and minerals such as 

Ca (11.7 g kg DM
-1

) and P (5 g kg DM
-1

). The difference 

in chemical composition could be due to differences in 
climate which determine the type and availability of 
SFRB consumed by scavenging birds. The protein 
content of SFRB tends to fall considerably during the 
short rainy season and dry season which could be due to 
the comparatively lower population of insects and worms 
(Tadelle and Ogle, 1996; Mwalusanya et al, 2002) which 
were of minor proportion in the diets of scavenging birds. 
Insects, snails, maggot larvae and earthworms are the 
potential feedstuffs which have reasonably high protein 
content (Smith 1990, Sonaiya et al., 1999). Studies in 
Ethiopia have indicated that energy supply is deficient in 
the diet of scavenging birds for most of the periods, 
throughout the year (Tadele and Ogle 1996) and the 
supply of energy is even more critically low in the dry 
periods (Tadelle (1996). The contents of the minerals 
such as calcium and phosphorus in the crop and gizzard 
contents of SFRB are also very low in the dry season. 

 
 
 
 

 

This might have been contributed by a minor proportion of 

succulent green forages in the diet consumed by 

scavenging birds (Table 3). 
 

 

Flock biomass and managemental factors 

 
Flock biomass is defined as the total liveweight or the 

number in the flock times the mean liveweight. Like other 

feed resources, the availability of SFRB can be determined 

by the total biomass of scavenging poultry that can be 

optimally supported by the available feed resources. Roberts 

(1995) has described this relationship between the 

availability of SFRB and village flock biomass using a model 

of the scavenging village chicken production system. The 

model of Roberts describes the village community in terms of 

families which discard household refuse and which then 

becomes available to the village chicken flock as SFRB. The 

remainder of the SFRB usually comes from the environment. 

In the absence of disease outbreaks or festival activities 

which diminish the flock, the biomass of the village flock 

which is the sum of the flocks of those families in the village 

which keep chickens, will remain at a level which can be 

supported by the available SFRB (Roberts, 1995). However, 

if the village flock biomass exceeds the carrying capacity of 

the SFRB, then there will be a strong competition pressure 

among chickens of different sex and ages on the available 

household refuse and environmental feed. Under this 

competition, chicks and growers because they are the 

weakest members of the village flock cannot compete with 

adult chickens for SFRB. In Nigeria, Sonaiya et al (2002b) 

found that the quantity of SFRB available for a chick was 

0.996 kg year 
-1

 whereas a hen had 11.04kg year
-1

 under a 

communal disposal of SFRB in six villages of south-western 

Nigeria. This small quantity of SFRB that was available to 

the chicks demonstrates that there is likelihood that both 

chicks and growers consume less amount of SFRB with low 

quality. As can be noted in Table 5, chicks and growers at 

this stage their requirements in terms of energy, protein and 

minerals are greater than other members of the poultry flock. 

This low concentration of energy, protein and minerals in the 

SFRB is inadequate to support growth for chicks and 

growers. As the result, chicks and growers grow slowly and 

the weaker birds may die due to starvation when there is 

strong competition for SFRB (Roberts, 1999). Thus, growth 

and survival of chicks and growers can be greatly improved if 

they are given preferential access to household refuse 

supplemented with energy, protein and mineral sources by 

smallholders. 
 
 
 

 

Social and bird behavioural factors 

 

The availability of SFRB provided by household refuse is 

directly related to the density of housing (Roberts, 1999). 



7 

 

  
 
 

 
Table 5. Recommended nutrient levels per bird type for commercial and village chickens in comparison with the nutrients supplied 

by SFRB in various villages of developing countries 
 

Flock class and bird type ME (MJ kg DM
-1

) 
Nutrient levels (g kg DM

-1)
 

Reference 
 

CP Ca P  

   
 

White egg layers (6-12 weeks) 11.9 160 8 3.5 NRC (1994) 
 

Brown egg layer (6-12 weeks) 11.7 150 8 3.5 NRC (1994) 
 

Broilers (3-6 weeks) 13.4 200 9 3.5 NRC (1994) 
 

White egg layers 12.1 150 32.5 2.5 NRC (1994) 
 

Brown egg layers 12.1 165 36 2.7 NRC (1994) 
 

Nutrient from SFRB of a village 9.6 94 - - Roberts (1999) 
 

Nutrient from SFRB in a village 12 88 9 6 Tadelle (1996) 
 

Nutrient from SFRB of a village 10.7 82 33.8 5.7 Ukil (1992) 
 

Nutrient from SFRB in a village 9.5 94 8 9 Gunaratne et al (1993) 
 

Nutrient from SFRB in a village - 104 6.5 3.6 Mwalusanya et al (2002) 
 

 
 
 

 

This means that in areas where the density of housing is 
high there is an abundant supply of house refuse 
provided that most of the village families do not keep 
large number of poultry. However, if the village families 
keep large number of poultry, this would lead into 
competition pressure for the household refusal and the 
poultry will have a limited land area for scavenging. The 
land area available for scavenging and distance a flock 
can travel to scavenge will depend on many factors such 
as flock size, feed availability, population density, 
agricultural activities and predators (Gunaratne, 1999). In 
some areas, social factors such as rapid urbanisation, 
development projects and environmental changes are 
causing restrictions on the availability and accessibility of 
the SFRB (Roberts, 1999). In Tanzania, the last few 
decades most post harvesting activities such as 
threshing; winnowing, pounding and milling were carried 
out at the homesteads. This situation allowed for more 
access of scavenging feed resource base to the rural 
poultry. However due to villagization programme, some 
farmers are living in the village or towns far away from 
the crop fields and most of post-harvest activities are 
carried out there or some processes such as milling of 
cereal grains are carried out by machines where some of 
the cereal by-products go to other livestock production 
systems. In addition, bird behaviour also determines the 
availability of SFRB. A participatory study in central 
Tanzania shows that some indigenous chickens have 
better scavenging ability compared to their counterpart 
crossbreds (Goromela et al., 1999). Similar findings have 
been reported by Gunaratne (1999) in behavioural 
studies in Sri Lanka where crossbred chickens released 
for scavenging environment tended to restrict their 
scavenging area close to the household compounds 

 
 
 

 

Strategies to Optimize Available SFRB in Traditional 

Poultry Production Systems 
 
Determination of SFRB available for scavenging birds 

 
The first attempt to determine quantity of SFRB in the free-

range system was done in south-east Asia by Roberts 

(1992) and Roberts and Gunaratne (1993). This method 

requires weighing the amount of household refuse from each 

family per day for a specific period of time and the proportion 

of the household leftovers determined from the crop content 

of a bird slaughtered after scavenging. However for precise 

estimates of SFRB, each family should have access to the 

household refuse and environmental feed. This approach 

helps to determine the quantity of SFRB required by each 

family flock per unit time. The contribution of household 

refuse and environmental feed to the total SFRB can easily 

be determined by examining the feed components in the 

chickens’ crops at different times of the day. This estimate 

however, does not show the proportion of the SFRB 

available to each individual bird category in the family flock 

(Sonaiya 2002a). Because of the variations within the family 

flocks due to age-group and sex; and because of competition 

for the SFRB in a communal scavenging condition, 

estimation of the SFRB on the basis of bird category such as 

cocks, hens, growers and chicks is more appropriate 

(Sonaiya et al., 2002a). In this case, any differential access 

to the SFRB by chicks, growers, hens and cocks in the 

family flock can be easily assessed. Thus Sonaiya et al 

(2002a) have proposed the concept of using “bird unit” by 

modifying the formula developed by Roberts (1992) and 

Roberts and Gunaratne (1993). According to Sonaiya et al 

(2002a), the advantage of the “bird unit” method is that, it 

shows the difference in the 



8 

 

 
 
 

 
Table 6. Chemical composition of crop and /or gizzard contents of scavenging indigenous chickens and ducks in developing countries 

 

   Chemical composition (g kg DM-1     
          ME (MJ  

 DM CP  EE CF ASH NFE Ca P kg DM
-1

) References 

Chicken crop
1
 432 97.3  60.4 55.2 132 655 7.5 3.7 - Mwalusanya et al (2002) 

Chicken crop
2
 429 111  61.9 61.3 119 647 5.8 3.5 - Mwalusanya et al (2002) 

Chicken crop
3
 431 104  61 58 125 652 6.3 3.6 - Mwalusanya et al (2002) 

Hen crop 523 88  19 102 - - 9 6 12 Tadelle and Ogle (1996) 

Crop & gizzard - 96.2  - - - - - - 11.7* Ali (2002) 

Crop & gizzard - 81.8  16.1 94.4 97.8 579 33.8 5.7 10.7 Ukil (1992) 

Layer crop 455 117  20.7 60.4 124 683 13.2 4.6 11.6 Rashid et al (2004) 

Grower crop 489 98.9  21.1 64 123 693 7.6 3.4 11.5 Rashid et al (2004) 

Crop & gizzard - 113  81.3 97.4 - - 13.8 5.3 - Prawirokusumo (1988) 

Crop & gizzard 344 94  92 54 160 600 8 9 9.5 Gunaratne et al (1993) 
 

* = Gross energy; Chicken crop
1
 = Adult female chickens; Chicken crop

2
 = Growers (2-4 months) of mixed sex; Chicken crop

3
 = Mean of adult 

female chickens and growers. 



9 

 

 
 
 

 

quantity of SFRB available for each bird category in a 
family flock. Using this method, Sonaiya (2002b) found 
that the quantity of SFRB that was available to a cock 

was 43.7g day
-1

 while a hen and the chick had access to 

34.98 and 2.19g day
-1

, respectively. This estimate shows 

that the quantity of SFRB available to a chick was very 
low and the results suggest that the chicks should be 
given supplementary feeds over a certain period of time 
in order to reduce losses that may occur due to 
starvation. Under scavenging conditions, starvation has 
been reported as one of the main causes of mortality 
rates in village chicks and growers in Africa and south-
east Asia (Ologhobo, 1992; Roberts and Senaratne, 
1992; Wickramaratne et al., 1993). In South-east Asia, 
chicks and growers which died had lower growth rates 
than the average chick in their groups had 
(Wickramaratne et al., 1993). This could be due to the 
fact that the amounts of nutrients supplied by the SFRB 
are generally too low for optimal growth of chicks and 
growers. Thus the low survival rates of chicks and 
growers reported in Africa and south-east Asia during a 
pre-weaning period could be greatly improved by 
providing them with small amounts of supplements. 

 

Determination of nutritional value of SFRB 
 
Determination of nutritional values of SFRB might help to 

develop appropriate feeding and management strategies for 
optimal performance of scavenging poultry. The nutritional 
values of SFRB as shown by the chemical composition of 
the crop and gizzard contents from scavenging birds in 
Table 6, demonstrate the presence of some variations. 
These variations in chemical composition might have a 

direct relationship with the differences in physical quantities 
and nutritional quality of SFRB consumed by scavenging 
birds from various environments (Table 3). The proximate 
analysis of the crop and gizzard contents of the sacrificed 
scavenging chickens indicates protein contents of the feed 

consumed ranged between 82 and 117 g kg DM
-1

 (Table 6). 

This indicates that the availability of protein was a constraint 
on poultry production in these countries. According to NRC 
(1994), the recommended levels of protein in growing 

chicken ranges from 150-200 g kg DM
-
 

 
1 and in mature chicken from 100-160 g kg DM

-1
 for the 

commercial birds (Table 5). Protein rich materials such 
as earthworms, snails, insects and young plant shoots 
can be used to correct the protein imbalance observed in 
these countries (Table 6). The crude fibre content in the 
scavenged feed was very high in almost all countries 

ranging between 54 and 102 g kg DM
-1

. Fibre fraction is 

known to contain cellulose, lignin and hemicelluloses that 
can not be digested efficiently by monogastric 
endogenous enzymes. The higher fibre content observed 
in the crop and gizzard feed might have a significant 
effect on the feed digestibility and nutrient intake in 
scavenging chickens. Moreover, the energy contents

 

  
  

 
 

 

from the SFRB were generally low ranging between 9.5 

and 12.0 ME (MJ kg DM
-1

) than the recommended levels 

of between 11.7 and 13.4 ME (MJ kg DM
-1

) for optimum 

growth of growers and 12.1 ME (MJ kg DM
-1

) for high egg 
production in layers (Table 5). The mineral contents such 
as calcium and phosphorus in the scavengeable feed 
resources were also low compared to the recommended 
levels of these minerals for growers and laying hens 
(Table 5) . These results indicate that there is a high 
chance of an imbalance of calcium: phosphorus ratio in 
the diets consumed by scavenging birds. The 
recommended optimal ratio of these two mineral elements 
in poultry is within the range of 1:1 to 2:1. Nevertheless, in 
laying hens the proportion of calcium in the diets is much 
higher since they require a large amount of this element 
for egg shell formation (McDonald et al, 2002). 
 

 

CONCLUSION 

 

The present review shows that most of the poultry in 
developing countries in particular Africa is found in 
traditional sector. These poultry play an important role in 
supplying the local people with additional income and 
high-quality protein food. Under traditional sector, four 
poultry management systems can be distinguished where 
free- range and backyard systems are mostly practiced by 
rural households. Flock productivity is generally low due 
to sub-optimal management, lack of supplementary feeds, 
low genetic and diseases. Scavenging is a dominant 
husbandry system and provides most of the SFRB 
consumed by scavenging poultry. However, the 
availability of SFRB varies with seasons, altitude, climatic 
conditions, farming activities, social, management, and 
flock biomass and bird behaviour. Moreover it is indicated 
that SFRB contain on average low amounts of protein 

(100 g kg DM
-1

), energy (11.2 MJ kg DM
-1

) and minerals 

such as Ca (11.7 g kg DM
-1

) and P (5 g kg DM
-1

) . The 

low concentration of these nutrients can only support 
maintenance, low growth rate and low egg production for 
scavenging poultry. The low concentration can be 
corrected by providing scavenging poultry with 
supplementary feeds rich in these nutrients. However, 
quantitative assessment of SFRB and its nutritional value 
could help in developing appropriate supplementation 
using locally scavengeable feed resources. In order to 
achieve this, further studies are needed to identify and 
characterize potential scavengeable resources in different 
farming systems at different periods of the year. 
 

 
REFERENCES 
 
Aini I (1999). Village Chicken Production and Health. Sout-East Asian 

Perspectives. $th Asia-Pacific Health Conference.  
http://www.avpa.cia.au/confer/ideris.htm.  

Ali MS (2002). Study on the effect of feed supplementation to laying hen 

under the rural condition of Bangladesh. M.Sc. Thesis.The Royal 

Veterinary and Agricultural University, Denmark. 



10 

 

 
 
 

 
Bessei. W. (1987). Tendencies of World Poultry Production. Paper 

presented at 3
rd

 International DLG-Symposium on poultry production 
in Hot climates. June 19-22, Hameln, Germany.  

Branckaert RDS, Gaviria L, Jallade J, Seiders RW (2000). Transfer of 
technology in poultry .production for developing countries. SD-
dimension. FAO http://www.fao.or/sd/cddirect/cdre0054.htm. 

Branckaert RDS, Guèye EF (2000). FAO’s Programme for support to  
familypoultryproduction. 
http://www.husdry.kvl.dk/htm/tune99/24.branckaert.thm. 

Cumming RB (1992). The Advantages of Free Choice Feeding for  
village chickens. Proceedings of the XIX World’s Poultry Congress. 
3: 627-630 Amsterdam, The Netherlands.  

Goromela EH, Komwihangil DM, Mwanga J (1999). Participatory Rural 
Appraisal studies in central Tanzania: Annual Report Livestock 
Production research Institute, Mpwapwa Tanzania. 

Guèye EF (1998). Village egg and fowl meat in Africa. Regional report.  
World’s Poultry Sci. J. 54: 73-86. 

Guèye EF (2000a). Approaches to family poultry Development. Proc. 
Of the 21

st
 World’s Poultry Congress. Montreal Canada.  

Guèye EF (2003). Gender issues in family poultry production systems 
in low income food deficit countries. Am. J. Alternat. Agric. 18: (4) 
185-195. 

Gunaratne SP, Chandrasir A, Halamatha W, Roberts JA. (1993). Feed 
resource base for scavenging village chickens in Sri Lanka. Trop. 
Anim. Health and Prod. 25 (4): 249-257. 

Gunaratne SP (1999). Feeding and nutritional of scavenging chickens. 
In: The Scope and Effects of Family Poultry Research and 
Development. International Network for Family Poultry Development- 
INFPD.  
http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/subjects/en/infpd/documents/econf_sc  
ope/add_paper2.html. 

Huque QME (1999) Nutritional status of family poultry in Bangladesh. 
Livestock Research for Rural Development (11) 3 Kitalyi AJ (1998).  

Kitalyi, A.J (1998). Village chicken production systems in rural Africa 
Household food security and gender issues. FAO Animal Production  

and Health Paper 
142:http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/W8989E/W8989E00.htm. 

Village  chicken  production  systems  in  rural  Africa  Household  food 
security and gender issues. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper  
142 http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/003/W8989E/W8989E00.htm. 

McDonald P, Edwards RA, Greenhalgh JFD, Morgan CA (2002). 
Animal Nutrition. 6 Edition. p.119. 
Mwalusanya NA, Katule AM, Mutayoba SK,  Minga UM, Mtambo MM, 

Olsen  JE  (2002).   Nutrient  status  of  crop  contents  of  rural 
scavenging local chickens in Tanzania. Br. J. Poultry Sci. 43: 64-69. 

NRC (1994). Nutrient requirements of poultry. Ninth revised edition. 
Subcommittee on Poultry Nutrition. National Academy Press. 
Washington DC,USA. pp. 61-79. 

Ologhobo AD (1992). The dilemma of animal feeds and indigenous 

poultry in Nigeria. Proceedings of 19
th

 World’s Poultry congress, 
Amsterdam. 2: 81-86.  

Permin A, Bisgaard M (1999). A general review on some important 
diseases in free range chickens. Poultry as a tool in Poverty 
Eradication and Promotion of Gender Equality. Proceedings of a 
Workshop, March 22-26, Tune Landboskole, Denmark. pp. 181-187. 

Prawirokusumo S (1988). Problems to improve small scale native 
chickens management in South East- Asian countries. In: 
Proceedings of XVIII world’s Poultry Congress, Nagoya, Japan. 
pp.113-117.  

Rashid MM, Islam MN, Roy BC, Jakobsen K, Lauridsen C (2005). 
Nutrient concentrations of crop and gizzard contents of indigenous 

scavenging chickens under rural conditions of Bangladesh. Livestock 
Research for Rural Development 17(2) . 
http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd17/2/rash17016.htm. 

Rashid M, Roy BC, Asaduzzaman. (2004). Chemical composition of 
crop contents of local chickens. Asian Network for Scientific 
Information (2004). Pak. J. Nutr. 3 (1):26-28. 

Riise JC, Permin A, McAinsh CV Frederiksen L (2004). Keeping village 

poultry. A technical manual on small-scale poultry production. 

Network for Small holder Poultry Development. Chapter 1. 

 
 
 
 

 
Roberts JA (1992). The scavenging feed resource base in assessments 

of the productivity of scavenging village chickens. In: Newcastle 
disease in village chickens. Edited by B.P.Spradbrow, Canberra-
Australia. Proc. Agric. Centre for Int. Res. (39): 29-32.  

Roberts JA (1995). Assessing the scavenging feed resource base for 
smallholder poultry development. In: Sustainable rural poultry 
production in Africa. Proceedings of an international workshop held 
on June 13-16, at the international Livestock Research Institute, 
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. pp. 40-52.  

Roberts JA (1999). Utilization of Poultry Feed Resources by 
Smallholders in the Villages of Developing Countries. Poultry as a 
Tool in poverty Eradication and Promotion of Gender Equality - 
Proceedings of a Workshop. 
http://www.husdyr.kvl.dk/htm/php/tune99/28-Roberts.htm. 

Roberts JA (1999) Utilization of Poultry Feed Resources by 
Smallholders in the Villages of Developing Countries. Poultry as a 
Tool in poverty Eradication and Promotion of Gender Equality - 
Proceedings of a Workshop.  
http://www.husdyr.kvl.dk/htm/php/tune99/28-Roberts.htm.  

Roberts JA, Senaratne R (1992). The successful introduction of hybrid 

egg laying into a Sri Lanka village. Proceedings of the 19
th

 World’s 
poultry congress. Amsterdam. 1: 818-821.  

Roberts JA. Gunaratne SP (1992). The scavenging feed resource base 

for village chickens in a developing country. Proceedings of the 19
th

 
World’s poultry congress. Amsterdam. 1: 20-24.  

Smith AJ (1990). The Tropical Agriculturalist - Poultry CTA-Macmillan 
Press London 106: 179-188.  

Sonaiya EB (1990).The context and prospects for development of 
smallholder rural poultry production in Africa. CTA seminar 
proceedings, Smallholder Rural Poult. Prod.1: 35-60. 

Sonaiya EB (1995).Feed resources for smallholder poultry in Nigeria. 
World Anim. Rev. 82 (1): 25-33. 

Sonaiya EB, Branckaert RDS  Guèye EF (1999). The scope and effect  
of family poultry research and development. Research and 
Development options for family poultry. First-INFPD/FAO Electronic 
Conference on Family Poultry.  
http://www.faoext02.fao.org/WAICENT/FAOINFO/AGRICULT/AGA/A 
GAP/LPS/FAMPO/intropap.html. 

Sonaiya EB, Dazogbo JS, Olukosi OA. (2002a). Further assessment of  
scavenging            feed            resource            base: 

http://www.iaea.or.at/programmes/nafa/d3/public/20-further-sonaiya.pdf 
Sonaiya EB, Olukosi OA, Obi O, Ajuwon KM (2002b). Vaccination and 

scavengeable   feed   resource   assessment   for   village   poultry: 
http://www.iaea.org/programmes/nafa/d3/mtc/sonaiya-doc.pdf. 

Sonaiya EB (2004) Direct assessment of nutrient resources in free 
range and scavenging systems. Regional report: In: World’s poultry 
Sci. J. 60:.523-535. 

Sonaiya EB, OA. Olukosi, Obi O, Ajuwon KM (2002b). Vaccination and 
scavengeable feed resource assessment for village poultry. 
http://www.iaea.org/programmes/nafa/d3/mtc/Sonaiya-doc.pdf . 
Sonaiya EB, Dazogbo JS Olukosi OA (2002a). Further assessment of  

scavenging            feed            resource            base. 
http://www.iaea.org/programmes/nafa/d3/public/20-further-sonaiya.pdf 
Sonaiya EB (2002). Feed resources for smallholder poultry in Nigeria. 
http://www.fao.org/ag/aga/AGP/WAR/wara11/v4440b/v4440b0a.htm. 

Tadele D (1996). Studies on village poultry production systems in the  
Central Highlands of Ethiopia MSc. Thesis. Swedish University of 
Agricultural Sciences. Uppsala, Sweden.  

Tadele D, Ogle B (1996). Studies on village poultry production in the  
Central Highlands of Ethiopia: 
http://www.husdyr.kvl.dk/htm/php/tune96/7tessier.htm. 

Ukil MA (1992). Availability of nutrients to scavenging chickens and 
ducks in Bangladesh. M.Sc. Thesis. Bangladesh Agricultural 
University, Bangladesh. 

Wickaramatne SHG, Gunaratne SP, Chandrasiri ADN (1993). Growth 

Performance of village chickens under different feeding systems. 

Trop. Agric. Res. 5: 359-367. 


