International Journal of Waste Resources

Poultry Waste Management Techniques, the Implication on Environment and Agricultural Productivity in Afijo Local Government Area, Oyo State, Nigeria

Ezekiel AA^1*, Ayinde OA², Oladeebo JO¹ and Adeyanju JA^{3 1}Department of Agricultural Economics, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso, Nigeria
²Department of Agricultural Economics and Farm Management, University of Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria
³Department of Food Engineering, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso, Nigeria
^*Correspondence: Ezekiel AA, Department of Agricultural Economics, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso, Nigeria, Tel: +2348035324310, Email:

Received: 01-Aug-2020 Published: 23-Feb-2021, DOI: 10.35248/2252-5211.21.11.397

Introduction

Poultry by-products are potential pollutants to water and air quality concerns, and in some cases on soil quality [1] Poultry production adversely affects the environment in numerous ways-through poor management of manure and litter, waste streams from processing plants (blood, bones, feathers, etc), birds’ carcasses, dust, insects, odour, etc. Furthermore, intensive poultry production is held responsible for the emission of greenhouse gasses, acidification, and eutrophication. The environmental impact of poultry production depends on numerous factors, among which are farm size, production system, diet composition, type of bedding used [2]. It is well known that, if properly managed, waste generated in the poultry can be source of soil fertility. According to [3] Organic fertilizers including farmyard manure and sheep manure may be used for the crop production as a substitute of the chemical fertilizers because the importance of the organic manures cannot be overlooked Worldwide, there is growing interest in the use of organic manures due to depletion in the soil fertility. Economic premiums for certified organic grains have been driving many transition decisions related to the organic farming. Continuous use of fertilizers creates potential polluting effect in the environment. Synthesis of chemical fertilizers consumes a large amount of energy and money. However, an organic farming with or without chemical fertilizers seems to be possible solution for these situations [4] organic sources and synthetic sources of nutrients not only supply essential nutrients but also have some positive interaction with chemical fertilizers to increase their efficiency and thereby reduce environmental hazards.

Statement of the Problem

Despite an increase intensive chicken keeping in early 1980’s, the withdrawal of subsidy by government on the prices of day-old chicks and feed ingredients led to a general decline in the number of poultry birds particularly under commercial production in the country [5]. The ever-increasing cost of feeds and management forced many commercial poultry establishments to fold-up. Most poultry manure and litter are applied to land near poultry production farms. With few exceptions, this is the preferred practice in developing countries and elsewhere. Such land management of poultry by-products brings the risk of surface and groundwater contamination from potential pollutants contained in the manure and litter. Air quality can be affected by aerial emissions of pollutants from poultry production facilities. Ammonia emitted into the atmosphere is arguably the most environmentally significant aerial pollutant associated with poultry production [6] sport and fate of ammonia once it is emitted into the atmosphere are not well understood, but its presence in high concentration can trigger environmental effects that have impacts on local ecosystems and human health. Based on the previous discussions on waste management, this study intends to answer the following questions:What are the socio-economic differentials of poultry waste users on the managementpattern of poultry waste in the study area?What are the poultry waste management and utilization techniques and their determinants in Afijio Local government area of Oyo State, Nigeria?What is the impact of poultry waste utilization on yield and revenue of the respondents in the study area? Specifically, this study assessed the economic impact of poultry waste on the environmental and agricultural productivity [7].

Research Methodology

This study was conducted in Afijio local government Area of Oyo State, Nigeria. Its headquarters is Jobele. It has an area of 722km2 and a population of 134,173 at the 2006 census. The postal code area is 21, which comprises of eleven (11) wards such as Ilora1, Ilora 11, Ilora 111, Fiditi 1, Fidity 11, Fiditi 111, Awe 1, Awe 11, Akinmori Jobele, Iware, and Imini. The local government is governed by an elected chairman and 10 councilors elected from each ward. Town under Afijio Local Government are (Awe, Akinmoorin, Fiditi, Ilora, Jobele, Iware, Imini, Ore lope).

Methods of data collection

Both primary and secondary data were collected using structured questionnaires. Random sampling technique was used to select 104 respondents for the purpose of this study.

Measurement of variables

The variable consists of both dependent and independent variables.The dependent variable is environment and agricultural productivity measured withCobb–Douglas production function. While independent variables were the socio-economic characteristic of the respondents. In its most standard form for production of a single good with two factors, the function is:

where:

• Y = total production (the real value of all goods produced in a year or 365.25 days)

• L = Labour input (the total number of person-hours worked in a year or 365.25 days)

• K = Capital input (a measure of all machinery, equipment, and buildings; the value of capital input divided by the price of capital)

• A = A total factor productivity.

• α and β are the output elasticities of capital and labor, respectively. These values are constants determined by available technology.

Output elasticity measures the responsiveness of output to a change in levels of either labor or capital used in production, ceteris paribus. For example, if α = 0.45, a 1% increase in capital usage would lead to approximately a 0.45% increase in output.

Sometimes the term has a more restricted meaning, requiring that the function display constant return to scale, meaning that doubling the usage of capital K and labor L will also double output Y. This holds if

α + β = 1, ……………………………......................................................(1)

If

α + β< 1,……………………………........................................................(2)

returns to scale are decreasing, and if

α + β>1,……………………………........................................................(3)

returns to scale are increasing. Assuming perfect competition and α + β = 1, α andβ can be shown to be capital's and labor's shares of output.

In its generalized form, the Cobb–Douglas function models more than two goods. The Cobb–Douglas Production function may be written as:

where:

• A is an efficiency parameter

• L is the total number of goods

• x₁, ..., x_L is the (non-negative) quantities of good consumed, produced, etc.

• is an elasticity parameter for good i

Cobb-Douglas production function was employed to determine the productivity of the farm. While Gross margin analysis and profitability ratio were used to examine the costs and returns of poultry farming in the study area.

Gross margin analysis is given by equation:

GM = TR-TVC ...................................………………………………(4)

Where

GM = Gross Margin (N)

TR = Total Revenue (N)

TVC = Total Variable Cost (N)

The performance and economic worth of the respondents can be determined by the use of the following Profitability ratios:

1. Benefit Cost Ratio BCR = TR/TC

2. Expense Structure Ratio ESR = FC/VC

3. Rate of Return ROR = NR/TC

4. Gross ratio GR = TC/TR

The Cobb-Douglas production function analysis explanation postulated for poultry farmers in the study area is implicitly presented as:

Q = f (X_l, X₂, X₃, X₄, X₅, X₆, X₇, X₈, X₉, X₁₀, X₁₁, X₁₂, ei)…………….(5)

Where

Q = Total Revenue (N)

X_I = Distance of poultry farm to residential households (Meters)

X₂ = Number of poultry birds (Units)

X₃ = Frequency of visit of poultry sanitation officials (per month)

X₄ = Age of poultry farm manager (Years)

X₅ = Quantities of water used (Litres)

X₆ = Number of farms labour (Family and Hired) (Man- day)

X₇ = Poultry farming experience of the farm manager (Years)

X₈ = System of operation of the farm (Deep Liter = 1, others = 0)

X₉ = Quantity of faecal materials generated (Kg)

X_I0 = Number of dead chicks/chicken (Numbers)

X_I1 = Frequency of waste clearance (per month)

X_I2 = Number of cracked/stale eggs (Number)

ei = Random (stochastic) factor external to the model.

The Semilog, Antilog and Cobb-Douglas production functions were evaluated using ordinary least square method.

Results and Discussion

Socio-economic Characteristics of Respondents Sex of Respondents

Table 1 showed that 52.9% of the respondents were male, while 47.1% were female. This implies that the percentage of male household head was slightly more than the female household heads.

Table 1: Distribution of Respondents by Sex.

Age of Respondents

Table 2 shows that the respondents within the age range of 20-30 years were 9.6% while those within the age range of 41-50 years were 25.0%. About 34.6% of the respondents were in the age group of 31-40 years and only 5.8% were above 60 years of age. This implies that 69.2% of the respondents were within the age range of 20 – 50 years, majority of the respondents were actively involved in farming. This finding tells that the higher the age of the household head, the more unstable the economy of the farm household.

Table 2: Distribution of Respondents by Age.

Marital status of Respondents

Table 3 showed that 9.6% of the respondents were single, 53.8% were married; 3.8% were divorced; while 32.7% were widow. From this result, it can be deduced that the highest fraction of the respondents were married, a clue that they are likely to have a number of dependents, which can affect their food security status.

Table 3: Distribution of Respondents by Marital status.

Educational level of the respondents

Table 4 revealed that 3.8% of the respondents have no formaleducation, 10.6% had primary education, 21.2% had secondary education while 64.4%attended an adult learning program. The table showed that the lowest percentageof the respondents were non-literates.

Table 4: Distribution of Respondents by educational level.

Religion of the respondent

Table 5 showed that 57.7% of the respondents are Christians, 41.3% were Muslims while the rest 1.0% were traditional worshippers. This implies that most of the respondents were Christians.

Table 5: Distribution of Respondents by Religion.

Year of experience of respondents

Table 6 showed the years of experience of the respondents, 73.2% of the respondents had range of 1-5 years of experience, 23.1% had 6-10 years of experience, while the rest 3.9% had 11-15 years of experience. This implies that most of the respondents had little good years of experience.

Table 6: Distribution of Respondents years of experience.

Type of birds

Table 7 shows that, 40.4% of the respondent’s rears layers, broilers were being reared by only 32.7% of the respondents while only 26.9% of the respondents were rearing cockerels.

Table 7: Distribution of Respondents based on kind of birds reared.

Waste disposal method

Table 8 showed that out of all the respondents 21.2% dispose poultry waste by pouring them into the river, 45.2% of the respondents disposal method is by burying them while the other 33.7% respondents runs their waste into a soak away.

Table 8: Distribution of Respondents based on waste disposal method.

Ingredients that increase or decrease waste smell

Table 9 below showed that 75% of the respondents agreed that some ingredients increases or decreases the smell of waste, 23.1% of the respondents says that no ingredients contribute to waste smell while 1.9% of the respondents says they were not sure.

Table 9: Distribution of Respondents based on Ingredients that affect smell.

Waste removal day interval

Table 10 shows that 62.5% of the respondents remove their waste between 2-3 days, while 37.5% of the respondents remove the waste in the interval of 5-7 days.

Table 10: Distribution of Respondents based on waste removal day interval.

Complain from people due to smell

Table 11 showed that 21.2% of the respondents got complaints from people about the smell of their poultry waste while the rest 78.8% respondents don't receive any complaint from people around. This means greater percentage of the respondents manages their poultry well or the poultry farm is situated in a non-residential area

Table 11: Distribution of Respondents based complains on smell.

Number of production cycle

Table 12 showed the production cycle of the respondents yearly, 51.0% of the respondents said they undergo 1 production cycle per year, 31.7% undergo 2 production cycle per year, 9.6% said they undergo 4 production cycle per year while 7.7% of the respondents undergo above 4 production cycle per year.

Table 12: Distribution of Respondents based Ingredients that affect smell.

Numbers of birds reared per cycle

Table 13 showed that 47.1% of the respondents had range of 500 to 100.000 birds in a single cycle, 39.4% reared 4000 birds in a cycle, 1.9% of the respondents reared 3000 birds per cycle while 11.5% of the respondent reared 4000 birds per cycle.

Table 13: Distribution of Respondents based on number of birds reared per cycle.

Purpose of rearing them

Table 14 showed that out of all the respondents, 7.7% of them rears for the purpose of feeding themselves and their families (subsistence), while 92.3% of the respondents’ rears for commercial purposes.

Table 14: Distribution of Respondents based on purpose for rearing.

Formulate feed yourself

Table 15 showed that 78.8% of the respondents formulate their feed for the birds themselves, while the rest 21.1% do not formulate the feed by themselves.

Table 15: Distribution of Respondents based on self feed formulation.

Ratio of feed/ overall maintenance

Table 16 showed the ratio of feed used by the respondents, 76.0% of the respondents have 70/30 feed overall maintenance while 24.0% have X0 20 feed overall maintenance

Table 16: Distribution of Respondents based on overall maintenance.

Kg of starter/finisher (2-3 kg per each bird)

Table 17 showed that all questioned respondents had a kg of starter or finisher that weighs 2 - 3 kg per each bird.

Table 17: Distribution of Respondents based on feed weight.

If yes what is it?

The information on the Table 18 below showed that 1.0% of the respondents’ kg starter/finisher have l-2kg per bird, while 99.0% of the respondent’s kg of starter/ finisher have 4-5 kg per bird.

Table 18: Distribution of Respondents based on if yes.

Do you use local finisher feeds?

Table 19 showed that 83.7% of the respondents uses local finishers to feed their birds while 16.3% of the respondents do not use local finisher feed for feeding their birds.

Table 19: Distribution of Respondents based on kind of feed used.

Amount used to rear each bird

Table 20 shows that 80.8% of the respondents’ uses 868 to rear each bird, that is the feed, drugs and maintenance, 11.5% of the respondent used 760 to rear each bird, while 7.7% of the respondents used 782 amounts to rear each bird.

Table 20: Distribution of Respondents based on amount to rear each bird.

Price sale of each birds.

Table 21 showed the different price of each bird, 41.3% of the respondents put a price of 1200 on each bird, 15.4% of the respondents puts a price range of 1300-1500 on each bird, 20.2% of the respondent put a price range of 1600-2000 on each bird, while 23.1% puts a price range of 2100.00-2500 on each bird.

Table 21: Distribution of Respondents based on price sale of ach bird.

Do you sell waste

Table 22 shows that 83.7% of the respondents sell their poultry wastes, 10.6% of the respondent do not sell their poultry waste, while 5.8% of respondents sometimes sell and sometimes do not sell.

Table 22: Distribution of Respondents based on do you sell waste.

Other waste apart from poultry litter

Table 23 shows that out of all the respondents only 58.7% of them have other wastes apart from poultry litter while 41.3% do not have any other waste apart from poultry litters.

Table 23: Distribution of Respondents based on other waste.

Who buys them?

Table 24 showed that 45.2% of the respondents says poultry farmers buys the waste from them, 6.7% of the respondents says the waste were bought by pig farmers, 6.7% of the respondents sells the waste to other industries, 35.6% of the respondents says the wastes were bought by crop farmers.

Table 24: Distribution of Respondents based on Who buys them?

Costs and Returns

Table 25 shows that 6.7% of the respondents had 70,000 as their annual returns, 24% of the respondents make 200,000 as their annual returns, 1% of the respondents made 360,000 as their annual returns, 7.7% makes 400,000 as their annual return, 2.9% of the respondents made 500,000 as their annual returns, 1.9% of the respondents had an annual returns of 750,000. 20.2% made 800,000 as their annual returns, 24% of the respondents made 100,000,000 annual returns, 1.9% made an annual return of 200,000,000 while 9.6% of the respondents made 440,000,000 as theirannual returns.

Table 25: Distribution of Respondents based on annual return.

Does wastes substitute fertilizer?

Table 26 showed that all the respondents substitute poultry waste for fertilizer.

Table 26: Distribution of Respondents based on Does wastes substitute fertilizer?

If yes what?

Table 27 shows that 27.9% of the respondents uses poultry waste to substitute NPK, 8.7% of the respondent’s substitute poultry waste with urea while 63.5% of the respondents’ substitute poultry waste with both NPK and urea.

Table 27: Distribution of Respondents that substituted wastes for fertilizer.

Which crop is the poultry waste best used for?

Table 28 shows that poultry wastes are used for planting cassava by 18.3% of the respondents. 68.3% used poultry waste for planting maize, while the rest 13.5% of the respondents used poultry waste for cultivating vegetables

Table 28: Distribution of Respondents based on best crop used for?

Price of fertilizer manure substitute

Table 29 showed that 45.2% of the respondents buys it at the rate of 5500 while 54.8% of the respondents buys it at the rate of 6000

Table 29: Distribution of Respondents based on manure fertilizer price?

How effective is it

Table 30 showed that 86.5% of all the respondents experienced the same effectiveness when using poultry wastes, while only 13.5% of the respondents says poultry wastes has more effectiveness on crops.

Table 30: Distribution of Respondents based on how effective is poultry wastes on crop.

Does it serve the same purpose with fertilizer?

Table 31 revealed that 90.4% of the respondents agreed that it serves the same purpose with fertilizer substitute while 9.6% of the respondents disagreed that it does not serves the same purpose with fertilizer.

Table 31: Distribution of Respondents based on did poultry waste serve the same purpose with fertilizer?

Regression Analysis Result

The result of multiple regression analysis is presented as follows, from the result, an adjusted R-squared value of 0.8154 revealed that 81.54 percent of the explained Variation poultry waste impact of respondents were captured by the estimated independent variables specified in the model, while the rest 18.46 percent of the unexplained variation in poultry waste impact of respondents may be due to certain variables of interest not specified in the model butresident in the error term.F-value is 5.74 and significant at 1%.The variables that have significant relationship with poultry waste impact of respondents include;

Waste remover day interval, significant at 5% level, but had a negative relationship with poultry waste impact, this implies that as the period for waste remover extends, there was a negative impact on the environment and performance of the poultry birds thus, resulting to low output. Purpose of rearing birds, years of experience and ingredient that increases/decrease waste smell were all significant at 1% level of significance respectively. Purpose of rearing birds had a negative and inverse relationship with poultry waste impact. Years of experience and ingredient that increases/ decrease waste had a positive and direct relationship with the impact of poultry waste on the environment and productivity of the farmer by implication, increase in the years of experience and ingredient that increases/decrease waste, brings about positive increase in agricultural productivity (Table 32).

Table 32: Results Multiple Regression.

Conclusion and Recommendation

Based on the result of the findings, the study showed that respondents in the study area were above their active and economic age, and were married. Average household size was 8members. The enterprise in the study area is not a bias one because the ratio the male to female is 1:1. The following was recommended: Farmers should be encouraged to increase hygiene by doing frequent sanitation so as to reduce the chances of disease infestation. Community-based surveillance of pathogens on poultry products should be intensified to ensure the success of programs undertaken. The farmers should be advised to attend waste management and health program to support year of experience. The government should assist through research institute, make available feed ingredient that will reduce waste without causing a detrimental effect on the poultry animal.

REFERENCES

1. Nahm KH. A strategy to solve environmental concerns caused by poultry production. World's Poultry Science Journal. 2000 Dec 1;56(4):379-88.
2. Akanni KA, Benson OB. Poultry Wastes Management Strategies and Environmental Implications on Human Health in Ogun State of Nigeria. 2014;11:14-15
3. Williams A, Audsley E, Sandars D. Determining the environmental burdens and resource use in the production of agricultural and horticultural commodities: Defra project report IS0205. Zufinden. 2006;5:12-13
4. Olumayowa O, Abiodun OO. Profit efficiency and waste management in poultry farming: the case of Egba Division, Ogun State, Nigeria. International journal of poultry science. 2011;10(2):137-42.
5. Zhang WF, Dou ZX, He P, Ju XT, Powlson D. New technologies reduce greenhouse gas emissions from nitrogenous fertilizer in China. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 2013 May 21;110(21):8375-80.
6. Wiebe van der sluis Intensive poultry production better for globalwarming. World Poultry. 2007;12:28-31.
7. Abdelhamid MT, Horiuchi T, Oba S. Composting of rice straw with oilseed rape cake and poultry manure and its effects on faba bean (Viciafaba L.) growth and soil properties. Bioresource technology. 2004;93(2):183-9.