CC BY
02024, Scienceline Publication
World's Veterinary Journal
World Vet J, 14(1): 38-52.
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.54203/scil.2024.wvj6 PII: S232245682400006-14
Constraints to the Development of Turkey Farming in Southern Benin
Ignace Ogoudanan Dotché* © , Aristide Agbokounou , Loukyatou Issimouha Baba , Nasser Adebo , Lionel Okambawa , Monique Koffi , and Issaka Youssao Abdou Karim©
Department of Animal Production and Health, Laboratory of Animal Biotechnology and Meat Technology, Polytechnic School of Abomey-Calavi, University of Abomey-Calavi, 01BP 2009, Cotonou, Benin
*Corresponding author's Email: ogoudanan@yahoo.fr; dotcheign@gmail.com ABSTRACT
The turkeys are reared throughout the national territory of Benin, but their breeding is less developed than other poultry species, such as chickens and ducks. The current study aimed to characterize turkey farming in Southern Benin to identify the constraints associated with the farming practice that limit its development. A survey was performed in 104 turkey farms in the Atlantic, Ouémé, and Zou departments. The frequencies of qualitative variables and average quantitative variables were calculated and compared across departments. The investigated variables included turkey housing, feeding practices, reproduction management, health management, difficulties encountered, marketing of animals, and farm products. It was found that the housing, feeding, health monitoring, and constraints varied from one department to another. The turkeys were raised in fence-run buildings in the Ouémé (76.7%), modern poultry houses in the Atlantic (75%), and traditional habitats (42.9%) with a free range in the Zou. The free range prevented farmers from separating the turkeys from other poultry species. The poultry species present with turkeys on studied farms were chickens, ducks, and guinea fowl. The turkeys were fed more with commercial feed in the Atlantic (100%) and Ouémé (92.7%) regions and with cereals and agricultural by-products in Zou (82.1%). The prophylaxis consisted of deworming the birds, vaccinating them against Newcastle disease, controlling bacterial infections with antibiotics, and giving them vitamins in drinking water. The farmers vaccinated more turkeys in Zou than in Atlantic and Ouémé. The vaccination and administration of antibiotics do not prevent the introduction of disease into farms due to poor farm biosecurity, resulting in animal deaths. In conclusion, this study identified the obstacles that limit the development of turkey farming by region in Southern Benin. These barriers are primarily related to housing, feeding, mating, and marketing. Scientific research could potentially solve some of these issues, notably those concerning feeding and mating success. However, housing and marketing concerns would necessitate support from the authorities.
Keywords: Constraint, Feeding, Prophylaxis, Turkey INTRODUCTION
Benin's poultry industry operates under two main systems, including traditional and modern, with local species being reared in the traditional system and exotic species in the modern system (Guezodje, 2009; FAO, 2015). In rural areas, traditional poultry farming is particularly prevalent as it serves various cultural, social cohesion, and economic purposes. These include the production of income for women, the use of local breed chickens and white-shelled eggs in traditional ceremonies and ethnopharmacology, and the production of meat and eggs for consumption and sale (Guezodje, 2009). The poultry species reared in Benin are chickens, guinea fowl, ducks, and turkeys. These birds' poor performance in this system prevents farmers from meeting customer demands. The relative studies have indicated that the poor performance of animals in this system is due to technical problems related to the lack of housing, the low genetic potential of the breeds reared, insufficient feed, and lack of health monitoring (Youssao et al., 2010, Boko et al., 2013; Houessionon et al., 2020). These mentioned studies have focused on chickens, ducks, and guinea fowl, and do not include turkeys. The results obtained have made it possible to improve the production methods of the species concerned, to provide farmers with many feed formulas, and to improve the performance of local breeds by crossbreeding with foreign breeds (Dahouda et al., 2009; Youssao et al, 2010; Boko et al., 2013). After the improvement of the birds' performance, the quality of their meat has been evaluated and improved to reassure consumers and facilitate their marketing (Tougan et al., 2013; 2018). Insufficient attention to turkey farming in Benin means that the meat production of this species decreases year after year, despite the efforts made by the farmers. It is therefore necessary to find ways and means to improve national turkey meat production to increase local production and productivity on farms. To achieve this, it is necessary to understand the characteristics of turkey farming. For this purpose, typology studies have been conducted in the north (Ouaké only) and south of the country (Dedéhou et al., 2018; Dotché et al., 2021). These studies carried out in the north of the country (Benin), did not take regional variations into account, which prevented identifying problems by region and better organizing improvement work. This study aimed to investigate the regional variation of turkey farming in Benin and to identify the problems that hamper the development of turkey farming in the study area.
ISSN 2322-4568
u >
c
T c i e s t e e d
R
ra
F
b r
- - - '
2-g — S 4 4
e o
Ol ü c
i 1
e g
d i
- 2
n a
U L
y A
S C
4 L E
_38
To cite this paper: Dotche IO, Agbokounou A, Baba L, Adebo N, Okambawa L, Koffi M, And Youssao Abdou Karim I (2024). Constraints to the Development of Turkey Farming in Southern Benin. World Vet. J., 14 (1): 38-52. DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.54203/scil.2024.wvj6
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Ethical approval
The research protocol has been approved by the ethics committee of the Laboratory of Animal Biotechnology and Meat Technology of Benin (N°214 DPSA/LBATV/D).
Study area
Data were collected from August 2018 to August 2019 in the departments of Atlantic, Oueme, and, Zou in Benin (Figure 1). The Atlantic department is located in the south of Benin and covers an area of 3233 km2. It extends from Godomey to the edge of Sehoue. It has eight communes and in the present study, data were collected in the communes of Abomey-Calavi and Allada. Atlantic Department has a four-season sub-equatorial climate (two rainy and two dry seasons) with an annual rainfall of 1060 mm (Dotche et al., 2021).
With nine communes, the department of Oueme has a total area of 1865 km2. This department has a four-season climate with 900-1500 mm of rainfall and is located in the sub-equatorial zone. Activities were conducted in this department's communes of Porto-Novo, Akpro-Misserete, Avrankou, and Seme-Podji (Dotche et al., 2021).
Zou covers an area of 5,243 km2 with 9 communes and has a climate of transition between the sub-equatorial climate and the humid tropical Sudano-Guinean climate of northern Benin. The annual precipitation ranged from 900 mm to 1200 mm on average. There are two rainy seasons and two dry seasons in Zou. The research was conducted in this department's communes of Bohicon and Djidja (Dotche et al., 2021). The communes chosen in each department were those where several turkey farmers were located.
Figure 1. Study area in Benin (2018-2019)
Methodology
The methodology used for data collection was a retrospective survey through direct interviews with the farmers. This survey collected information on the breeders and the characteristics of their farms. The data were collected in 104 farms of the Oueme, Atlantic, and Zou departments. In the absence of a list of breeders, it was necessary to contact the territorial agricultural development agencies to get into contact with the first farmers. Next, the "snowball" method was used to find the others (Goodman, 1961). All the farmers found by this method were interviewed. The number of turkeys per farm averaged 22.3 in the Atlantic, 14.3 in Oueme, and 36.7 in Zou. A multiple-choice survey form was used for data collection from farmers. The questions were open-ended and included the identification and education of breeders, habitats, production objectives, modes of animal acquisition, utilization of livestock products, identification of birds, selection of reproducers, breeding constraints, and marketing of livestock products.
Statistical analysis
The data collected were analyzed using SAS software (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA, 2013). The SAS Proc GLM procedure was used to conduct an analysis of variance for the quantitative variables (herd structure, product selling prices). The department impact was the only variation component taken into account in the analysis of the variance model. Where this factor (department) had an effect, comparisons between department averages were made two by two using the student t-test (p < 0.05).
The frequencies observed for the qualitative variables (study level, habitats, pathologies, and limitations) were determined using the SAS Proc Freq method. The bilateral Z test was used to compare the relative frequencies between the two departments and the Chi-square test was used to assess the department's impact on frequencies. For each relative frequency, a 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated according to Formula 1 (Rousson, 2013).
IC = 1,96 (Formula 1)
Where, P denotes the relative frequency and N is the sample size. The Correspondence Analysis (CA) function of the FactoMineR package of R4.1.3 was used for the Factorial Correspondence Analysis to explore the criteria used for the selection of reproducers by departments.
RESULTS
Profile of farms
The majority (95.29%) of the turkey farmers surveyed were married men. The farmers were composed of educated (81.4%) and uneducated (18.6%) people. Educated people have primary (21.18%), secondary (41.18%), and university (10.59%) levels (Table 1). The gender, education level, and marital status of respondents did not vary significantly from one department to another. The activities of the respondents were diversified. These activities were households, livestock, agriculture, fishing, handicrafts, trade, and state functions. Households were reported only in Atlantic (16.7%). The proportions of those engaged in animal husbandry as their main activity in the Atlantic (73.8%) and Zou (71.4%) were significantly higher than those in Oueme (15.2%, p < 0.001). In contrast, the proportions of traders and artisans keeping turkeys were significantly lower in the Atlantic and Zou regions than in Oueme. For these traders and artisans, turkey rearing was a secondary activity. Those holding state functions were met only in the Atlantic (14.3%) and Oueme (18.2%) departments.
The main motivation of the breeders for this breeding was its profitability for the majority of the interviewed people in the three departments (Table 2). Other reasons that motivated respondents to invest in turkey breeding were the ease of rearing, its hardiness (they appreciate its rusticity), and the pleasure (only in the Zou) of the species. The people who rear turkeys for pleasure are those who do it because they love it, not for profit. The proportion of people motivated by the hardiness of the species in the Atlantic (36.8%) was significantly higher than in Oueme (9.1%) and Zou (7.1%, p < 0.001). To start breeding, all the breeders in Atlantic and Oueme purchased the turkeys (Table 2). In Zou, 96.4% bought the turkeys to start rearing and 3.6% inherited them from their parents. The turkeys raised by the respondents were animals of local genetic type. The production objective on the majority of the surveyed farms was meat production. The other production objectives were eggs and young turkey production. The proportion of farmers producing eggs for marketing in Atlantic (60.4%) and Zou (60.7%) was significantly higher than that of Oueme (21.2%, p < 0.001). Young turkey production was more reported in Zou than in Atlantic and Oueme (p < 0.05). The products resulting from breeding were sold by the majority of respondents in all three departments. Besides sales, some breeders used the products for family consumption. Those who used the products for family consumption were more encountered in Zou (50%) than in Atlantic (2.3%) and Oueme (3%, p < 0.001).
Turkeys habitat
The majority (93.8%) of breeders had habitat for turkeys. The proportion of farmers who had habitat for turkeys in Zou (100%) was significantly higher than that in Oueme (81.8%, p < 0.05). The habitats used were hen houses, buildings and runs, and traditional habitats. Chicken houses were more used in the Atlantic (75%) than in Oueme (13.3%) and Zou (28.6%, p <0.001). The Oueme breeders (76.7%) used a fenced area (where the turkeys had a building with a run) more than the breeders in Zou (25%) and Atlantic (2.8%, p < 0.05). Traditional habitats were used more in Zou than in the Atlantic (15%, p < 0.05). Traditional habitats were not used in Oueme farms (Table 3). These traditional habitats used in
Zou (42.9%) and Atlantic (25%) are constructed of clay, wood, straw, and mosquito netting. The turkeys were housed separately from other poultry species on the majority of surveyed farms in the Atlantic (88.2%) and Oueme (55.7%) departments. The proportion of breeders performing this separation in the Atlantic was significantly higher than those in the Oueme and Zou departments (35.71%, p <0.05). The poultry species present with turkeys on studied farms were chickens, ducks, and guinea fowl (Table 3). Chickens were recorded in the majority of farms (97.6% in the Atlantic, 90.6% in Oueme, and 95.4% in Zou). Ducks were recorded on the majority of farms in Oueme (53.1%). The guinea fowl were more encountered in the Atlantic (70.7%) than in Oueme (31.3%) and Zou (22.7%, p < 0.001).
Turkey feeding
The turkeys were fed with commercial feeds, cereals, agricultural by-products, kitchen waste, and forages (Table 4). The commercial feeds were used more in Oueme (100%) and Atlantic (92.7%) than in Zou (67.9%, p < 0.001). On the other hand, cereals and agricultural by-products were more used in Zou (82.1%) than in Oueme (51.5%) and Atlantic (53.7%, p <0.05). The breeders in Oueme used more kitchen leftovers to feed the turkeys than those in the Atlantic. The fodders were used only in Zou (17.9%) and Atlantic (7.3%, p < 0.01). Cereals used in turkey feed were corn and sorghum. The agricultural by-products used in turkey feed were corn bran, rice bran, palm kernel meal, and soybean bran. The fodder used to feed the birds was the leaves of Ipomoea batatas, Moringa oleifera, Tridax procubens, and Manihot esculenta. The feed was served twice a day (morning and evening). The quantity served to turkeys is estimated by the breeder. This quantity is not measured. The breeder estimates it by taking into account the number of animals available and their age.
Table 1. Profile of turkey farms surveyed in Southern Benin during 2018-2019
Variable Atlantic (n = 43) Ouémé (n = 33) Zou (n = 28)
(%) CI (%) CI (%) CI
Sex
Men 93a 7.6 93.9a 8.1 96.4a 6.9 NS
Women 6.9a 7.6 6.1a 8.1 3.6a 6.9 NS
Level of education
Out of school 18.6a 11.6 30.3a 15.7 21.4a 15.2 NS
Primary 30.2a 13.7 21.2a 13.9 17.9a 14.2 NS
Secondary 37.2a 14.4 36.4a 16.4 53.6a 18.5 NS
University 13.9a 10.4 12.1a 11.1 7.1a 9.5 NS
Main Activity
Homemaker 16.7a 11.1 0 b 0 0 b 0 **
Breeder 73.8a 13.1 15.2b 12.2 71.4a 16.7 ***
Farmer 21.4a 12.3 18.2a 13.2 25a 16.0 NS
Fishermen 2.4a 4.6 3.0a 5.8 0a 0 NS
Artisan 2.4b 4.6 30.3a 15.7 3.6b 6.9 ***
Employee Merchant 14.3a 2.4b 10.5 4.6 18.2a 18.2a 13.2 13.2 0a 0b 0 0 NS **
n: Sample size, %: Percentage of surveys; **: p < 0.05; ***: p < 0.001; NS: Not significant; CI: Confidence Interval, ab the percentages of the same row followed by different letters differ significantly at the threshold of 5%.
Table 2. Production objective, origin of the turkey, and motivation of breeding in Southern Benin (2018-2019)
Variable Atlantic (n=43) Ouémé (n=33) Zou (n=28) Chi2 Test
(%) CI (%) CI (%) CI
Production target
Meat 90.7a 8.7 100a 0 100a 0 NS
Egg Young turkeys 60.4a 2.3b 14.6 4.5 21.2b 0b 13.9 0 60.7a 14.3a 18.1 12.9 *** **
Product uses Consumption of family Sale 2.3b 97.7a 4.5 4.5 3.0b 100a 5.8 0 50a 96.4a 18.5 6.9 *** NS
Origin of animals at the start of the farm Purchase Heritage 100a 0a 0.0 0.0 100a 0a 0 0 96.4a 3.6a 6.9 6.9 NS NS
Motivation for turkey farming Ease of breeding Rusticity Profitability Pleasure 21.1a 36.8a 81.6a 0b 12.2 14.4 11.6 0 9.1a 9.1b 96.9a 0b 9.8 9.8 5.8 0 14.3a 7.1b 89.3a 25a 12.9 9.5 11.4 16.1 NS ** NS ***
n: Sample size, %: Percentage of surveys; ** : p < 0.05; *** : p < 0.001; NS: Not significant; CI: Confidence interval, ab the percentages of the same
row followed by different letters differ significantly at the threshold of 5%.
Table 3. Turkey habitat in Southern Benin during 2018-2019
Variable Atlantic Ouémé Zou Significance
n (%) CI n (%) CI n (%) CI
Habitat for turkeys
Available 36 94.4ab 7.5 33 81.8b 13.2 28 100a 0 **
No habitats 36 5.6ab 7.5 33 18.2a 13.2 28 0b 0 **
Types of housing
Chicken house 36 75a 14.1 30 13.3b 12.2 28 28.6b 16.7 ***
Building and route 36 2.78c 5.4 30 76.7a 15.1 28 25b 16.0 ***
Traditional 36 25a 14.1 30 0b 0 28 42.9a 18.3 ***
Separation of turkeys from other birds
Yes 34 88.2a 10.8 29 55.7b 18.1 28 35.7b 17.7 ***
No 34 11.8b 10.8 29 44.3a 18.1 28 64.3a 17.7 ***
Species present Duck 41 43.9a 15.2 32 53.1a 17.3 22 22.7a 17.5 NS
Chicken 41 97.6a 4.7 32 90.6a 10.1 22 95.5a 8.7 NS
Guinea fowl 41 70.7a 7.5 32 31.3b 16.1 22 22.7b 17.5 ***
n: Sample size; %: Percentage of surveys; ** : p < 0.05 ; *** : p < 0.001 ; NS: Not significant; CI: Confidence Interval, ab the percentages of the same row followed by different superscript letters differ significantly at the threshold of 5%.
Table 4. Types of feed used for turkey farms in Southern Benin during 2018-2019
Variable Atlantic (n=41) Ouémé (n=33) Zou (n=28) Significance
(%) CI (%) CI (%) CI
Cereals and agricultural by-products 53.7b 20.3 51.5b 17.1 82.1a 14.2 **
Commercial feed 92.7a 8.3 100a 0 67.7b 17.3 ***
Kitchen scraps 31.7b 18.8 69.7a 15.7 46.4ab 18.5 **
Fodder 7.3ab 0 0b 0 17.9a 14.2 **
n: Sample size, %: Percentage of surveys; ** : p < 0.05; *** : p < 0.001; CI: Confidence interval, a the percentages of the same row followed by different superscript letters differ significantly at the threshold of 5%.
Management of reproduction in farms
Mode of reproduction
The mating was followed by the majority of farmers in Oueme (67.74%) and Zou (57.14%). The proportions of breeders who followed matings in the Oueme and Zou were significantly higher than those in the Atlantic (16.7%, p < 0.001). The number of eggs laid on Atlantic farms (13.89) was significantly higher than in Oueme (11.97) and Zou (11.79). All the farmers in Oueme, Zou, and the majority of those in the Atlantic (90.9%) practiced natural incubation. Besides natural incubation, some breeders practice artificial incubation (Table 5). The natural incubation was performed by a turkey or hen. Some breeders collect eggs from turkeys and give them to the hens to incubate. Incubation in turkey was practiced by the majority of respondents (87.5% in the Atlantic, 96.8% in Oueme, and 85.7% in Zou). Incubation under the hen was more performed in Zou (57.1%) than in the Atlantic (21.9%) and Oueme (3.23%, p < 0.001). The proportion of farmers using the hen to hatch eggs in the Atlantic was also significantly higher than that in Oueme (p < 0.05). In comparison to Zou, the Atlantic, and Oueme had significantly higher egg hatching rates (p < 0.05).
The age of entry into the reproduction of males in the Atlantic (9.15 months) was significantly higher than that reported in Oueme (8.1 months), which was in turn higher than that observed in Zou (6.04 months, p < 0.05). The same observation was made for the age of entry into reproduction of females (Table 6). The number of eggs laid per hatching was greater in the Atlantic than in Oueme and Zou (p < 0.05). The number of young turkeys alive at hatching in the Atlantic Department (12.4) was significantly higher than that of Oueme (8.6), which was also higher than the number of young turkeys alive at hatching in Zou (3.1, p < 0.001). The same finding was made for the number of weaned turkeys.
Choice of reproducers
The breeders have the criteria to select the best reproducers on the farms (Table 7). The criteria used to select male reproducers were mating ability, size (larger than females), health status, age (older than females), and hardiness (rusticity). Size was the criterion used by the majority of breeders in the three departments. The proposition of the breeders using the ability to mount in Zou (60%) was significantly higher than that of Oueme (18.2%) and Atlantic (0%, p < 0.001). The health and feather status (shiny) was used more in Atlantic (76.9%) than in Zou (32%) and Oueme (4.5%, p < 0.001). Correspondence factor analysis (CA) indicated that Zou breeders mainly used the mating ability
criterion to select males; while Atlantic breeders employed health, feather, and hardiness criteria (Figure 2). The farmers of Oueme considered mainly the age and size of animals (Figure 2).
The criteria used to select female reproducers were laying ability (good layer), incubation ability (good incubator), maternal ability (good mother), aplomb, health status, color, and acceptance ability of the male. According to poultry farmers, a good layer was a turkey that could lay more eggs per laying season, and a good incubator could hatch all the eggs laid. A good mother was a turkey who could bring all her young to weaning. She had to be able to defend her offspring against predators. The criteria, such as egg-laying, hatching, and maternal ability, were assessed through the performance of the mother of the subject to be selected, as these future mothers have not yet laid eggs to be judged on their own performance. Rearing ability and maternal ability were used more in the Atlantic and Oueme than in Zou (p < 0.001). In contrast, hatchability, plumage color, and ease of acceptance of males during mating were more used in Zou than in Oueme and Atlantic (p < 0.05). Health status was used only in the Atlantic. The results of the CA showed that Zou breeders mainly consider plumage color, aplomb, hatchability, and ease of male acceptance to select female reproducers (Figure 3). The Atlantic breeders mainly consider maternal ability and health status to selecting females and those of Oueme consider egg-laying ability (Figure 3).
Table 5. Reproduction mode of turkey farms in Southern Benin (2018-2019)
Variable n Atlantic Oueme (n=31) Zou (n=28) Significance
(%) CI (%) CI (%) CI
Mating assistance
Yes 36 16.7b 12.2 67.7a 16,5 57.1a 18.3 ***
No 36 83.3a 12.2 32.3b 16.5 42.9b 18.3 ***
Type of incubation
Artificial 33 18.2a 13.2 3.2a 6.2 10.7a 11.5 NS
Natural 33 90.9 a 9.8 100a 0 100a 0 NS
Natural incubation
Under turkey 32 87.5a 11.5 96.8a 6.2 85.7a 12.9 NS
Under hen 32 21.9b 14.3 3.2c 6.2 57.1a 18.3 ***
Type of reproduction
Seasonal 15 33.3a 23.9 6.5b 8.6 3.6b 6.9 ****
Non-seasonal 15 66.7b 23.9 93.6a 8.6 96.4a 6.9 ****
n: Sample size, %: Percentage of surveys; *** : p < 0.001; NS: Not significant; CI: Confidence interval, ab the percentages of the same row followed by different superscript letters differ significantly at the threshold of 5%.
Table 6. Age of breeders and laying performance of turkeys in Southern Benin (2018-2019)
Variable Atlantic Oueme Zou Significance
n Mean SE n Mean SE n Mean SE
Age of male breeders (months) 23 9.15a 0.36 24 8.13b 0.36 28 6.04c 0.33 ***
Age of female breeder (months) 22 8.84a 0.44 23 7.61b 0.44 28 5.91c 0.39 ***
Number of eggs laid per turkey 19 13.89a 0.72 32 11.97b 0.55 28 11.79b 0.59 **
Number of eggs hatching 10 12.37a 0.78 32 9.72ab 0.55 28 3.08b 0.59 **
Number of series of laying per year 10 2.10b 0.46 27 3.37a 0.28 26 3.81a 0.28 **
Number of turkeys at hatching 16 12.37a 0.73 32 9.72b 0.51 25 3.08c 0.58 ***
Hatching rate (%) 10 89.06a 14.80 32 81.20a 13.69 28 26.12b 16.44 **
Number of turkeys weaned 12 11.67a 0.79 32 8.63b 0.48 26 2.19c 0.54 ***
Number of dead turkeys 12 1.75a 0.34 32 1.09a 0.23 25 0.84a 0.26 NS
Age at culling of breeding stock (months) 10 28.20a 2.79 23 20.70a 1.83 25 21.84a 1.76 NS
n: Sample size, %: Percentage of surveys; **: p < 0.05; *** : p < 0.001; NS: Not significant; SE: Standard Error; abc Means of the same row followed by different superscript letters differ significantly at the threshold of 5%.
Table 7. Criteria for selection of reproductive male and females turkeys in Southern Benin (2018-2019)
... Atlantic Oueme Zou
Variable
(%)
CI
(%)
CI
(%)
CI
Chi2 Test
Criteria for choosing reproductive males
n 13 22 25
Skills for mating 0b 0 18.2b 16.1 60a 19.2 ***
Large size 76.9a 22.9 72.7a 18.6 60a 19.2 NS
Feathers and health status 76.9a 22.9 4.5c 8.7 32b 18.3 ***
Male older than female 0a 0 4.5a 8.7 0a 0 NS
Hardiness 7.7a 14.5 0a 0 0a 0 NS
Criteria for the selection of reproductive females
n 12 15 22
Good layer 66.7a 26.7 66.7a 23.9 0b 0 ***
Good incubator 8.3b 15.6 6.7b 12.7 45.5a 20.8 **
Good mother 66.7a 26.7 33.3a 23.9 4.5b 8.7 ***
Aplomb 8.3a 15.6 13.3a 17.2 40.9a 20.5 NS
Good health 16.7a 21.1 0b 0 0b 0 **
Color 8.3b 15.6 6.7b 12.7 45.4a 20.8 **
Ability to accept the male 0b 0 0b 0 27.3a 18.6 **
n: Sample size, %: Percentage of surveys; ** : p < 0.05; *** : p < 0.001; NS: Not significant; CI: Confidence interval. ab the percentages of the same row followed by different letters differ significantly at the threshold of 5%.
CA factor map
hi iN
o
(-5
CM
E
a
Age"
Oueme • Large si; e Atlantiqu e Hardiness *
' n Zou t • Skills for riding • Feathers and health status
-1
Dim 1 (63.75%)
Figure 2. Distribution of selection criteria of reproducer males by region in Southern Benin (2018-2019). For the selection of males, breeders in the Zou region take their skills for riding into account. Breeders in the Atlantic region considered the feathers, health status and hardiness (rusticity) and breeders in the Oueme region considered the large size.
CA factor map
£
E b
i 0 5
0.0
-0 5
-1.0
-15
Ouémé J. •
Aplomb 'ou Co!or Gooc layer
+ Accept the male Good incubator Good mother 4
Ulantique
( w Bood health
-1.0
0.0
0.5
1.0
Dim 1 (90.64%)
Figure 3. Distribution of selection criteria of reproducer females by region in Southern Benin. The criteria used to select reproductive females in Zou were included of color, aplomb, appropriate incubator and acceptance of male, good mother, and health in the Atlantic and good layer in Oueme.
Health monitoring and pathologies encountered
The sanitary monitoring of the farm was focused on the cleaning of breeding materials and medical prophylaxis. The prophylaxis applied consisted of deworming the birds, vaccination against Newcastle disease, control of bacterial infections with antibiotics, and administration of vitamins (Table 8). The treatments for bacterial infections are not targeted at specific bacteria, as breeders do not have the necessary knowledge to make the diagnosis. The proportion of those who dewormed the birds did not differ significantly between departments. On the other hand, the administration of antibiotics and vitamins to birds was more common in Oueme and Zou than in the Atlantic (p < 0.05). The farmers vaccinated more turkeys against the Newcastle disease in Zou (75%) than in Atlantic (34.5%) and Oueme (35.3%, p < 0.05). These precautions did not stop diseases from entering farms. The pathologies encountered by farmers are Newcastle disease, smallpox (an infectious disease caused by variola virus), respiratory diseases, coccidiosis, scabies, Gumboro disease, and bronchitis (Table 8). Fowl plague was more reported in Oueme (57.7%) than in Atlantic (11.5%) and Zou (3.8%, p < 0.001). Smallpox and scabies were more recorded in Zou farms than in the Atlantic and Oueme (p < 0.001). Respiratory diseases were reported only in the Atlantic (15.4%).
The farmers treated diseases when they appeared with modern or traditional medicine. Some of them combine both treatments (modern and traditional). The majority of farmers in all departments used modern medicine for the treatment of diseases because of its high efficacy (Table 8). The reasons for using traditional medicine were its low cost in Atlantic, efficacy in Oueme, and efficacy, low cost, and reduction of bacterial resistance in Zou.
Difficulties encountered
The difficulties encountered by the farmers were disease, mortality, theft, lack of a market for sale, and high production costs (Table 9). The proportion of farmers reporting high disease and mortality as difficulties in Ouémé (64.3%) and Zou (66.7%) was significantly higher than that of Atlantic farmers (15.8%, p < 0.001). High morbidity was recorded between hatching and the age of entry into reproduction in the majority of farms. The causes of morbidity do not vary from one department to another. These causes were lack of hygiene, pathogens, inadequate food, rain, wind, and coolness. The diseases sometimes lead to the deaths of the affected subjects. Other causes of bird deaths were accidents,
predators, and seasons (rainy seasons). The turkeys died much more in the rainy season, mainly in the Zou department. The mortality rate was highest in young turkeys that have not been weaned. The proportion of Atlantic farmers (100%) reporting mortality at this age was significantly higher than that of Oueme (64.3%) and Zou (66.7%).
No Atlantic farmer has reported predators as a cause of death of turkey poults before weaning. The diseases are more reported as causes of mortality of turkey poults in the Atlantic (75%) and Oueme (93.3%) than in Zou (36.4%, p < 0.05). Predators were more implicated in the mortality of turkey poults in the Oueme (93.3%) than in Zou (50%, p < 0.05). These predators kill more weaned turkeys in Oueme and Zou than in the Atlantic (p < 0.05). The cases of accidents of weaned turkeys were reported only in Oueme (52.2%). Disease remains the only cause of mortality of turkeys at reproductive age in the Atlantic. Accidents and predators were the main causes of mortality at this age in Oueme and Zou. Thefts were reported only in Oueme (57.14%). The absence of a market for the sale was reported more by farmers in Zou (37%) than in the Atlantic (15.8%) and Oueme (3.6%, p < 0.05). The high cost of production (especially feed) was more reported in the Atlantic (73.7%) than in the Oueme (7.1%) and Zou (14.8%, p <0.001).
Marketing of livestock products
The sales opportunities for livestock products were very diverse (Table 9). The end-of-year feast period was the period chosen by the majority of farmers to sell turkeys for slaughter. The proportion of Oueme farmers who sell during this period in Oueme (100%) was significantly higher than that of the Atlantic (64.3%) and Zou (74.1%, p < 0.05). Turkeys were sold more at the age of slaughter, during the children's back-to-school period, in the case of family care, and in the case of death in Oueme than in the other departments (Table 11). The farmers in Oueme (74.1%) and Atlantic (57.1%) sold more turkeys when they stopped laying than in Zou (14.8%, p < 0.001).
Turkey poults are sold at a higher price in the Oueme (5904 F cfa [the franc of the financial community in Africa]) than in Zou (3722 F cfa) and Atlantic (3279 cfa (p < 0.001). On the other hand, adult males for slaughter are more expensive in the Atlantic (28,058 F cfa, the franc of the financial community in Africa) than in Oueme (22,433 F cfa, p <0.05). The selling price of adult females for slaughter follows the same trends as that of adult males, but the difference between the price of Zou and Oueme was significant (p < 0.05). The price of reproducer males does not vary from one department to another (Table 10). On the other hand, reproducer females are more expensive in the Atlantic (23,708 F cfa) than in Oueme (12,857 F cfa) and Zou (17,071 F cfa, p < 0.001). The selling price of breeding turkeys in Zou was also significantly higher (p < 0.05) than in Oueme. The market price of turkeys is used by farmers in Oueme (87.1%) and Zou (81.5%), while those in Atlantic (54%) use the customer's profile to set the selling price (Table 11). Thus, a customer who appears richer may buy a more expensive animal than one who appears poorer.
Table 8. Health monitoring and pathologies encountered on turkey farms in Southern Benin (2018-2019)
Variable Atlantic Oueme Zou Significance
n (%) CI n (%) CI n (%) CI
Prophylaxis
Internal parasites control 29 65.5a 17.3 34 82.4a 12.8 16 75a 21.2 NS
Vaccination 29 34.5b 17.3 34 35.3b 16.1 16 75a 21.2 **
Antibiotic 29 58.6b 17.9 34 82.5a 12.8 16 93.8a 11.9 **
Vitamins 29 62.1b 17.7 34 85.3a 11.9 16 93.8a 11.9 **
Diseases encountered
Newcastle disease 26 11.5b 12.3 26 57.7a 18.9 26 3.8b 7.4 ***
Smallpox 26 46.2b 19.2 26 46.2b 19.2 26 92.3a 10.2 ***
Respiratory disease 26 11.5a 12.3 26 0b 0 26 0b 0 **
Coccidiosis 26 42.3a 19 26 3.9b 7.4 26 11.5b 12.3 **
Scabies 26 11.5b 12.3 26 0c 0 26 38.5a 18.7 ***
Gumboro, bronchitis 26 3.8a 7.4 26 3.8a 7.4 26 7.7a 10.2 NS
Modes of treatment
Traditional treatment 33 54.6a 17.0 30 26.7b 15.8 28 50a 18.5 **
Modern treatment 33 78.8b 13.9 30 96.7a 6.4 28 78.6b 15.2 **
n: Sample size, %: Percentage of surveys; **: p < 0.01; ***: p < 0.001; NS: Not significant; CI: Confidence interval, abc the percentages of the same row followed by different superscript letters differ significantly at the threshold of 5%.
Table 9. Causes of morbidity and mortality in Turkeys of Southern Benin during 2018-2019
Variable Atlantic Ouémé Zou Significan
n (%) CI n (%) CI n (%) CI ce
Difficulties encountered
High diseases and mortality 19 15.8b 16.4 28 64.3a 17.7 27 66.7a 17.8 ***
Theft 19 0b 0 28 57.1a 18.3 27 3.7b 7.1 ***
Lack of market 19 15.8b 16.4 28 3.6b 6.9 27 37.0a 18.2 **
Expensive breeding 19 73.7a 19.8 28 7.1b 9.5 27 14.8b 13.4 ***
High mortality period
Before weaning 20 100a 0 20 75b 18.9 25 68b 18.3 **
Between weaning and laying 20 5b 9.6 20 65a 20.9 25 40a 19.2 **
From the age at first laying of the turkey 20 0a 0 20 5a 9.5 25 0a 0 NS
Causes of pre-weaning mortality
Accident 20 55b 21.8 15 93.3a 12.6 22 45.5b 20.8 **
Predator 20 0c 0 15 93.3a 12.6 22 50b 20.9 ***
Disease 20 75a 19 15 93.3a 12.6 22 36.4b 20.1 **
Season 20 30a 20.1 15 13.3a 17.2 22 22.7a 17.5 NS
Causes of mortality between weaning and laying age of the turkey
Accident 6 0b 0 24 50a 20 8 0 b 0 **
Predator 6 16.7b 29.8 24 87.5a 13.2 8 62.5a 33.5 **
Disease 6 66.7a 37.7 24 75a 17.3 8 37.5a 33.5 NS
Season 6 16.7a 29.8 24 8.3a 11.1 8 37.5a 33.5 NS
Causes of mortality from the age at first laying of the turkey
Accident 4 0ab 0 24 54.2a 19.9 13 23.1a 22.9 **
Predator 4 0b 0 24 87.5a 13.2 13 76.9a 22.9 ***
Disease 4 100a 0 24 0b 0 13 0b 0 ***
Season 4 0a 0 24 8.3a 11.1 13 7.7a 14.5 NS
n: Sample size, %: Percentage of surveys; **: p < 0.05; ***: p < 0.001; NS: Not significant; CI: Confidence interval, ab the percentages of the same row
followed by different superscript letters differ significantly at the threshold of 5%.
Table 10. Sale period of turkeys in Southern Benin (2018-2019)
Variable Atlantic Ouémé Zou Significance
n (%) CI n (%) CI n (%) CI
Adult selling period
Of slaughterable age 14 50b 26.2 27 88.9a 13.7 27 11.1c 11.8 ***
Back to school for children 14 7.1b 13.5 27 48.1a 18.9 27 0b 0 ***
Family Care 14 7.1b 13.5 27 37.0a 18.2 27 0b 0 ***
Bereavement 14 0ab 0 27 14.8a 13.4 27 0b 0 **
Laying stop 14 57.1a 25.9 27 74.1a 16.5 27 14.8b 13.4 ***
End of the year party 14 64.3b 25.1 27 100a 0 27 74.1b 16.5 **
Any time 14 0b 0 27 0b 0 27 22.2a 15.5 **
Definition of the selling price 42.7b
Market price 21 21.2 31 87.1a 11.8 27 81.5a 14.7 ***
Weight and size of the animal 21 0a 0 31 9.7a 10.4 27 0a 0 NS
Client's head 21 54.14a 21.3 31 9.7b 10.4 27 62.9a 18.2 ***
n: Sample size; %: Percentage of surveys; **: p < 0.05; ***: p < 0.001; NS: Not significant; CI: Confidence interval, ab the percentages of the same row followed by different superscript letters differ significantly at the threshold of 5%
Table 11. Selling price in the African Financial Community (CFA france) for turkeys and eggs in Benin (2018-2019)
Variable Atlantic Ouémé Zou Significance
n Mean SE n Mean SE n Mean SE
Young turkeys 24 3279.2b 357.7 26 5903.8a 343.7 18 3722.2b 322.4 ***
Adult male 26 28057.7a 1180.4 30 22433.3b 1098.9 27 25055.6ab 1158.34 **
Adult female 26 20292.3a 837.9 30 11883.3c 780.12 27 14703.7b 822.3 ***
Egg 22 943.2a 51.9 8 912.5a 86.2 24 1008.3a 49.7 NS
Male reproducer 20 26500a 2013 7 25428.6a 2406 14 28428.6a 1701.3 NS
Female reproducer 12 23708.3a 951.6 7 12857.1c 1245.9 14 17071.4b 881 ***
n: Sample size; **: p < 0.05; ***: p < 0.001; NS: Not significant; ES: Standard Error; a letters differ significantly at the threshold of 5%
: Means of the same row followed by different superscript
DISCUSSION
Profile of farms
The majority of turkey farmers are men. Most male involvement in turkey farming has been previously reported in Cameroon and Nigeria (Ngu et al., 2014; Amao et al., 2017). In contrast to this study, Bakoji et al. (2012) report the majority involvement of women in turkey farming in Bauchi State, Nigeria. There are several reasons for the low involvement of women in turkey farming in Benin. These include a lack of resources and a lack of a market for the meat. Indeed, turkey meat is very expensive, which limits its consumption by the population, whereas women are often more active in the trade of products that are easily sold (Dotche et al., 2021). The majority of breeders are educated people and this finding contrasts with that reported by Dedehou et al. (2018) in the commune of Ouake in northern Benin that some farmers are out of school as reported by the majority of farmers in this study. The lack of schooling among these farmers is an obstacle to controlling the performance of livestock. As a result, because farmers are not educated, they are unable to record weights, and calculate egg-laying and profitability rates for their activity. The main production objective of the farmers is meat production for consumption. The same observation was made by Ngu et al. (2014) in Nigeria. The turkey farming has social, cultural, and economic importance for the surveyed farmers. This economic and cultural importance of turkey farming in Benin has already been reported in Southern Benin by FAO (2015).
Constraints of the development of turkey farming
The farmers in the Atlantic used chicken housing and those in the Oueme used buildings and fenced areas because they had less space to practice extensive farming characterized by free-range and traditional housing, as in Zou, where farmers are in a rural environment with a high availability of space. The traditional housing is built with precarious materials such as straw and rammed earth and prevents farmers in Zou from separating turkeys from other poultry species (chickens, ducks, and guinea fowl). This type of farming has already been reported in the commune of Ouake in the north (Attakpa et al., 2011). An important number of farmers in Oueme (44%) cannot separate turkeys from other poultry because the birds are kept on the range for a long period of the day, during which time they live with other species of birds such as local chickens, ducks, and guinea fowl, which are often reared on a free-range. This cohabitation of several species and age groups represents a biosecurity problem. Certain species have the capacity to harbor pathogens without becoming ill and spread them to other vulnerable species (Conan et al., 2012; Pauly et al., 2019; Correia-Gomes and Sparks, 2020). This is the case of H5N1 avian influenza, whose transmission increases with the mixing of several species (Conan et al., 2012). In the same sense, older birds that already have stronger immune systems can harbor pathogens and transmit them to younger birds (Conan et al., 2012). Therefore, farmers in Zou need to improve turkey housing to be able to separate them from other species and reduce the liberty of the birds as recommended by these authors (Conan et al., 2012). The improved housing in Zou would also provide more protection for the birds as traditional housing does not provide enough protection and exposes them to the weather (high wind and rain) and predators (Nyoni et al., 2019; Nyoni et al., 2021; Desta, 2021). This exposure is expressed in the high mortalities observed by farmers in younger and more fragile animals (Otte et al., 2021). The Oueme farmers may focus their breeding on a single species, particularly turkeys, to reduce cohabitation between several species.
Constraints related to turkey feeding
Commercial feed is used more in Oueme and Atlantic than in Zou, where farmers mainly use cereals and crop byproducts; this is related to the accessibility of these resources by farmers. Thus, in the department of Zou, agriculture is more developed and farmers in this area have more access to these products than farmers in the Atlantic and Oueme. The feed resources used in Zou have already been reported in turkey farms in Ouake (Attakpa et al., 2011; Dedehou et al., 2018) because the breeders in this commune are also farmers who rear birds in a system like that in Zou. The two forms of feed (commercial feed and agricultural by-products) have insufficiencies in terms of quality and quantity.
The deficiencies associated with feed quality relate to the imbalance between the intake and the needs of the animals. The agricultural by-products used in Zou are often unbalanced feeds and do not cover all the needs of the turkeys. The consequences of using only such a feed resource in poultry are decreased zootechnical and laying performance (Markos and Abdela, 2016). Some of these feeds, like cereal bran, can become contaminated during handling and transmit pathogens to the birds, as they are not treated (heated, for example) before being fed to the turkeys (Abdisa and Tagesu, 2017). The pathogens that untreated agricultural by-products can transmit to birds are Newcastle disease, avian influenza, salmonellosis and parasitosis (Abdisa and Tagesu, 2017; Sun et al., 2021). The available commercial feeds in Benin are well treated to prevent the transmission of pathogens, but they are unbalanced because they are made for chickens and not for turkeys. The farmers could use commercial turkey feed. Unfortunately, commercial turkey feed is not available in Benin. This forces some farmers to use chicken feed for
turkeys. As a result, these chicken feeds do not cover the needs of the birds equally, forcing farmers in the Atlantic and Oueme departments to give a very high quantity of feed to the birds, thus increasing their production costs. This solution fund by the farmers isn't the appropriate one because it increases the food costs. The best solution is to formulate feeds that consider the needs of the turkeys and their physiology. To achieve this, farmers need the assistance of researchers to have balanced formulas for the turkey, because these farmers often do not have the necessary qualifications for the formulation of feed.
The deficiencies in quantity are found in the lack of measurement of the quantities of feed provided to the turkeys. As a result, farmers cannot know if the quantity provided is appropriate or not. The lack of performance recording is a contributing factor in that the farmer cannot judge the effectiveness of the feed used. Thus, if the farmers kept accurate records of the performances, they would be able to determine how much the quantity or the quality of the feed used was inadequate. In fact, the nutrient composition and quantity of feed given to turkeys should vary according to the animal's status (reproducer, cull, fattened), age (young, adults) and weight.
Constraints related to the management of reproduction
Natural mating is the most common method of reproduction, in extensive and semi-extensive poultry farms in Benin (Youssao et al., 2013). This mating method's failure results from the females' frequent inability to bear the weight of the males, which forces them to move around a lot during mating and causes ejaculation outside of the female's genitalia. The same finding was reported by Chowdhury et al. (2014) in many Asian countries. These difficulties in successful natural mating have also been reported in turkey farming in Nigeria (Adebisi and Ewuola, 2019). To correct this problem, farmers in the Atlantic and Oueme choose heavier males whose weight may prevent the females from making enough movements. Unlike these farmers, those in Zou and Oueme assist the female during mating. The farmers' assistance consists of keeping the female in place to allow the male to perform a complete and effective mating. These two methods ensure mating but have negative consequences (aggression to females and biosecurity problems linked to assistance) for breeding. Thus, choosing heavier males results in terrifying the female and injuring her (Chowdhury et al., 2014; Ferrante et al., 2019). The female's assistance during mating could cause biosecurity issues because, in traditional poultry farms, hygiene is insufficient and farmers can contaminate females through their hands. In addition, the assistance of the female during mating increases labor time for the farmer. In order to solve the challenges associated with mating in Zou, farmers select males who are proficient mounters and females who readily accept males for reproduction. Artificial insemination is a method that could solve this problem (Chowdhury et al., 2014; Mohan et al., 2018; Adebisi and Ewuola, 2019). The semen of turkeys can be collected, analyzed, and used to inseminate females. In Southern Benin, incubation occurs naturally. The hatching rate in Atlantic and Oueme is higher than in Zou, indicating that the farmers in this area do not provide adequate conditions for bird mating, resulting in infertile eggs. This finding agrees with the results of Adebisi and Ewuola (2019) who reported a low egg fertility rate in naturally mated turkeys compared to artificially inseminated turkeys. Indeed, after laying, only fertilized eggs can hatch following incubation (Leborgne et al., 2013). This fertility problem in Zou is confirmed by the very low number of mean young turkeys hatching (3 young turkeys) in this department compared to those in the Atlantic (12 young turkeys) and Oueme (10 young turkeys). The farmers do not know the causes of this low fertility and attribute it to the incubation ability of the females, which leads them to choose good incubating females for reproduction and perform incubation under the hen. These efforts have not improved egg fertility in Zou. The farmers in the Atlantic and Oueme departments, in contrast to those in Zou, were more focused on the quantity of poults hatching and weaning than on egg fertility. As a result, they selected females from mothers who lay a lot of eggs and wean a lot of poults.
Constraints related to health monitoring and mortality
The primary challenges faced by the farmers in Oueme and Zou were diseases, as the animal housing in these two departments is insufficient to protect them. Thus, these animals are exposed to pathologies in the wild through contact with sick animals and contaminated objects (Conan et al., 2012; Samanta et al., 2018). The most common pathogens are viral diseases such as Newcastle disease (in Oueme), smallpox (in Zou), and parasitic diseases (scabies). These diseases are already reported in poultry farms in Benin generally (Boko et al., 2012; Youssao et al., 2013; Houessionon et al., 2020) and especially in turkeys (Attakpa et al., 2011). Farmers in these two departments treat birds against bacterial diseases, deworm them, and vaccinate them (particularly in Zou) in an effort to reduce disease. The farmers in these two departments also deworm their animals. These dewormings (the fight against internal parasites) are also practiced in the more developed farms of the Atlantic because these farmers are also confronted with parasitic diseases.
The diseases that breeders face on their farms are the main reasons why the youngest birds die, especially before they are weaned, as their immune systems are still developing and cannot fight off the illnesses. The same observation has already been made in turkey farms in the north of the country (Attakpa et al., 2011). The vaccination would increase
the immunity of the birds (Samanta et al., 2018; Otte et al., 2021) but young turkeys are not vaccinated by the respondents for financial reasons. Farms need to implement biosecurity protocols in order to preserve poults. Apart from diseases, predators and accidents are responsible for the deaths of turkeys in free-range farms. The same finding has already been made in free-range poultry (Otte et al., 2021). The farmers who use this method of rearing birds must build housing to limit the birds' mobility because adult mortality is also linked to predators and accidents. Reducing bird mobility will actually result in fewer accidents, diseases, predations, and deaths because it will confine turkeys and prevent them from contracting diseases from other free-ranging animals or accidentally coming into contact with predators (Conan et al., 2012; Samanta et al., 2018; Otte et al., 2021), but this reduction must consider the financial capacity of the farmers to avoid the elimination of their activity. The best way to raise turkeys is not to transform all the farms over to the better system used in the Atlantic, which would require expensive feed and building costs for new housing. It is necessary to consider a semi-free-range system, similar to that practiced in the Oueme Department, b ut exclusively for the rearing of turkeys. The system requires separating the animals based on their age.
Constraints related to the marketing
The main difficulty in marketing turkeys is the lack of an outlet market in Zou since turkeys are expensive for the population of the surveyed area, which is commonly rural. One strategy that could be used to facilitate the marketing of turkeys in this department is the installation of a slaughterhouse to sell turkey cuts. Currently, the main period for turkey sales in this department is the Christmas and New Year period, as the festive period is an occasion for high meat consumption. The sale of turkey during the year-end festive period has also been reported by FAO (2015) in Benin and by Ouedraogo et al. (2015) in Burkina-Faso. In the other two departments, the existence of demand means that turkeys are sold on various occasions. Selling during the children's school year, for family care, and at funerals shows that turkey farming plays an economic and social role for farmers.
The price of turkeys was higher in the Atlantic than in Oueme and Zou because the cost of production is higher in this department due to investments in housing and feed. In the Atlantic, farmers use improved poultry houses and turkeys are better monitored, while in the Oueme, turkeys are reared in small fences, and in the Zou in traditional housing.
CONCLUSION
The study performed from August 2018 to August 2019 on constraints to the development of turkey farming in Southern Benin shows that turkey farming is carried out with improved techniques in the Atlantic region, with traditional techniques in the Zou region, and with more or less improved techniques in the Oueme region. There are several obstacles standing in the way of this farming sector's growth including the high cost of food in the Atlantic; pathological issues (diseases from contact with other poultry species); social problems (theft cases) in the Oueme; and pathological issues and insufficient markets in the Zou. The improvement of turkey meat production should be by attention to these difficulties in the study regions. Improving the biosecurity of some farms and implementing it in others is necessary to reduce disease rates and young turkey mortality. To improve turkey production in Benin, the difficulties faced in each region must be addressed. Further studies are needed to focus on developing feed formulas specifically adapted to the needs of turkeys to rectify feeding issues. There is also a need for artificial insemination to overcome the mating difficulties identified by the breeders. Finally, the authorities should support this farming activity by providing financial assistance to breeders to enable them to build housing for their animals.
DECLARATIONS
Funding
This study received no financial support.
Aailability of data and materials
All data of the current study are available in this article.
Authors' contributions
Dotche Ogoudanan Ignace and Youssao Abdou Karim Issaka designed and planned the study, supervised data collection and analyzed the data. Adebo Nasser, Okambawa Lionel, and Koffi Monique collected data and drafted the first version of the manuscript. Agbokounou Aristide, Baba Loukyatou Issimouha, and Dotche Ogoudanan Ignace wrote the final version of the document and carried out the critical review. Youssao Abdou Karim Issaka corrected the document. All authors read and approved the final version of the article.
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Ethical considerations
The authors took ethical concerns and farmers' consent into account prior to the surveys. This article was originally written without copying from other articles.
REFERENCES
Abdisa T and Tagesu T (2017). Review on Newcastle disease of poultry and its public health importance. Journal of Veterinary Science & Technology, 8(3): 1000441. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.4172/2157-7579.1000441
Adebisi KA and Ewuola EO (2019). Fertility response of indigenous turkey hens to semen dosage and oviductal spermatozoa storage. Journal of Veterinary Andrology, 4(2): 33 39. Available at: http://cesica.org/publicaciones/index.php/journal veterinary andrology/article/viewFile/73/62
Amao RS, Ojedapo LO, and Olugbemiga KS (2017). On farm study of breeding and production systems characterization of turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) in Oyo Metropolis, Oyo State, Nigeria. International Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 5(6): 117-122. Available at: http://www.openscienceonline.com/journal/archive2?journalId=706&paperId=3707
Attakpa EY, Aplogan LG, Akossou AYJ, and Bosma RH (2011). Characteristics and health of turkey husbandry in Ouaké, North-Benin. International Scholarly Research Notices, 2011: 723091. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.5402/2011/723091
Bakoji I, Haruna U, Nasiru M, and Dahiru SI (2012). Economic analysis of small scale turkey production in toro locgovernment area, Bauchi State, Nigeria. Journal of Sustainable Development, 9(1-2): 47 52. Available at: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/ECONOMIC-ANALYSIS-OF-SMALL-SCALE-TURKEY-PRODUCTIQN-Bakoji-Hamna/6aaad44ffe0483f7686012541e68506e7ad5c153
Boko CK, Kpodekon TM, Duprez JN, Imberechts H, Taminiau B, Bertrand S, and Mainil JG (2013). Identification and typing of Salmonella enterica serotypes isolated from guinea fowl (Numida meleagris) farms in Benin during four laying seasons (2007 to 2010). Avian Pathology, 42(1): 1 -8. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.1080/03079457.2012.751484
Boko KC, Kpodekon TM, Dahouda M, Marlier D, and Mainil JG (2012). Technical and sanitary constraints on traditional guinea fowl production in sub-Saharan Africa. Annales de Medecine Veterinaire, 156(1): 25-36. Available at:
http://www.facmv.ulg.ac.be/amv/articles/2012 156 1 02.pdf\
Chowdhury VS, Sultana H, and Furuse M (2014). International perspectives on impacts of reproductive technologies for world food production in Asia associated with poultry production. In: G. Lamb, N. DiLorenzo (Editors), Current and future reproductive technologies and world food production. Advances in Experimental Medicine and Biology, Springer., New York, pp. 229 237. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8887-3_12
Conan A, Goutard FL, Sorn S, and Vong S (2012). Biosecurity measures for backyard poultry in developing countries: A systematic review. BMC Veterinary Research, 8(1): 240. DOI: http://www.doi.org/10.1186/1746-6148-8-240
Correia-Gomes C and Sparks N (2020). Exploring the attitudes of backyard poultry keepers to health and biosecurity. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 174: 104812. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.prevetmed.2019.104812
Dahouda M, Toléba SS, Senou M, Youssao AKI, Hambuckers A, and Hornick JL (2009). Non-conventional feed resources for poultry production in Africa: Nutritional values and constraints. Annales de Medecine Veterinaire, 153: 5 21. Available at: http://www.facmv.ulg.ac.be/amv/articles/2009 153 1 01.pdf
Dèdéhou VFGN, Attakpa EY, Gnimansou ADY, and Ibrahim AT (2018) Typology of local turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) breedings located in Ouaké commune in northwestern Benin. International Journal of Agronomy and Agricultural Research, 13(4): 111118. Available at: https://innspub.net/typology-of-local-turkey-meleagris-gallopavo-breedings-located-in-ouake-commune-in-northwestern-benin/
Desta TT (2021). The genetic basis and robustness of naked neck mutation in chicken. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 53(1): 95. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1007/s11250-020-02505-1
Dotché OI, Baba LI, Okambawa LF, Koffi M, Adebo N, and Youssao Abdou Karim I (2021). Typology of turkey farms in Southern Benin. Revue d'Elevage et de Medecine Veterinaire des Pays Tropicaux, 74(1): 13 -26. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.19182/remvt.36325
Food and agriculture organization (FAO) (2015). Poultry sector Benin. Animal production and health livestock country reviews. FAO., Italy. Available at: http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4583f.pdf
Ferrante V, Lolli S, Ferrari L, Watanabe TTN, Tremolada C, Marchewka J, and Estevez I (2019) Differences in prevalence of welfare indicators in male and female turkey flocks (Meleagris gallopavo). Poultry Science, 98(4): 1568-1574. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.3382/ps/pey534
Goodman LA (1961). Snowball sampling. The Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 32(1): 148-170. Available at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2237615
Guezodje L (2009). Poultry farming constraints and challenges in West Africa: the case of Benin. Grain de sel, 46 47: 24 25. Available at: https://www.inter-reseaux.org/wp-content/uploads/pdf p24 25 Aviculture Benin.pdf
Houessionon FJB, Bonou GA, Ahounou SG, Dahouda M, Dougnon TJ, Mensah GA, Bani Kogui S, and Youssao Abdou Karim I (2020) Characteristics of Muscovy duck farming in the agroecological zones of Southern Benin. Journal of Applied Biosciences, 145: 14862-14879. Available at: https://www.m.elewa.org/Journals/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/3.Houessionon-1.pdf
Leborgne MC, Tanguy JM, Foisseau JM, Selin I, Vergonzanne G, and Wimmer E (2013). Reproduction des animaux d'élevage, 3rd Edition. Educagri, Paris, p. 466.
Markos T and Abdela N (2016). Epidemiology and economic importance of pullorum disease in poultry: A review. Global Veterinaria, 17(3): 228237. Available at: https://www.idosi.org/gv/gv17(3)16/6.pdf
Mohan J, Sharma SK, Kolluri G, and Dhama K (2018). History of artificial insemination in poultry, its components and significance. World's Poultry Science Journal, 74(3): 475-488. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1017/S0043933918000430
Ngu GT, Butswat ISR, Mah GD, and Ngantu HN (2014). Characterization of small-scale backyard turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) production system in Bauchi State-Nigeria and its role in poverty alleviation. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 26(1): 19. Available at: http://www. lrrd.org/lrrd26/1/ngu26019.html
Nyoni NM, Grab S, Archer E, and Hetem R (2021). Perceived impacts of climate change on rural poultry production: A case study in Limpopo Province, South Africa. Climate and Development, 14(4): 389-397. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2021.1929803
Nyoni NM, Grab S, and Archer ER (2019). Heat stress and chickens: Climate risk effects on rural poultry farming in low-income countries. Climate and Development, 11(1): 83 90. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1080/17565529.2018.1442792
Otte J, Rushton J, Rukambile E, and Alders RG (2021). Biosecurity in village and other free-range poultry—Trying to square the circle?. Frontiers in Veterinary Science, 8: 516. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.3389/fvets.2021.678419
Ouedraogo B, Bale B, Zoundi SJ, and Sawadogo L (2015). Characteristics of village poultry farming and influence of improvement techniques on its zootechnical performance in the Sourou province, northwestern region of Burkina Faso. International Journal of Biological and Chemical Sciences, 9(3): 1528 1543. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.4314/ijbcs.v9i3.34
Pauly M, Snoeck CJ, Phoutana V, Keosengthong A, Sausy A, Khenkha L, Nouanthong P, Samountry B, Jutavijittum P, and Vilivong K (2019). Cross-species transmission of poultry pathogens in backyard farms: Ducks as carriers of chicken viruses. Avian Pathology, 48(6): 503 511. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1080/03079457.2019.1628919
Rousson V (2013). Statistics applied to life sciences. Springer., Paris, p. 321. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1007/978-2-8178-0394-4
Samanta I, Joardar SN, and Das PK (2018). Biosecurity strategies for backyard poultry: A controlled way for safe food production. Food control and biosecurity. Food control and biosecurity, pp. 481 517. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-811445-2.00014-3
Sun H, Li F, Liu Q, Du J, Liu L, Sun H, Li C, Liu J, Zhang X, Yang J (2021) Mink is a highly susceptible host species to circulating human and avian influenza viruses. Emerging Microbes & Infections, 10(1): 472 480. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.1080/22221751.2021.1899058
Tougan PU, Dahouda M, Salifou CFA, Ahounou GS, Kossou DNF, Amenou C, Kogbeto CE, Kpodekon MT, Mensah GA, Lognay G et al. (2013). Nutritional quality of meat from local poultry population of Gallus gallus species of Benin. Journal of Animal & Plant Sciences, 19(2): 29082922. Available at: https://www.m.elewa.org/JAPS/2013/19.2/3.pdf
Tougan U, Youssao AKI, Yayi E, Kpodekon M, Heuskin S, Beckers Y, Mensah GA, Koutinhouin GB, and Georges Lognay AT (2018). Fatty acids composition of meat of five native chicken (Gallus gallus) ecotypes of Benin reared under organic or conventional system. Journal of Experimental Food Chemistry, 4(2): 114. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.4172/2472-0542.1000137
Youssao IAK, Tougan UP, Ahounou SG, Houessionon BFJ, and Koutinhouin B (2013). Typology of local poultry breeding of Gallus gallus species in family poultry in Benin. International Journal of Agronomy and Agricultural Research, 3(4): 113. Available at: https://innspub.net/typology-of-local-poultry-breeding-of-gallus-gallus-species-in-family-poultry-in-benin/
Youssao IAK, Tobada PC, Koutinhouin BG, Dahouda M, Idrissou ND, Bonou GA, Tougan UP, Ahounou S, Yapi-Gnaore, Kayang VB et al. (2010) Phenotypic characterisation and molecular polymorphism of indigenous poultry populations of the species Gallus gallus of Savannah and forest ecotypes of Benin. African Journal of Biotechnology, 9(3): 369 381. DOI: https://www.doi.org/10.5897/AJB09.1220
Publisher's note: Scienceline Publication Ltd. remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
® Open Access: This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
© The Author(s) 2024
