Profile of the poultry system and the socio-economic impact of native chickens as a potential development area in South Sulawesi, Indonesia

Most of the 385 respondents were in the adult category (73.77%). More male (55.06%) than female (44.94%) respondents were interviewed, and most of the respondents had an elementary school education level, which is the equivalent of 6 years. Finally, most respondents’ households were one to three people (54.55%), and 42.60% of respondents’ households had four to six people. (Table 1).

Raising native chickens is among the activities conducted by most households in rural areas, which is spread in various locations. Respondents who are also breeders in this study were dominated by men, in agreement with the findings of Fida et al. (2018), who demonstrated that native chicken farming activities are predominantly conducted by males, with an average of 56.3%. Notably, on the basis of interviews with respondents, females also have a significant role in the daily activities of rearing native chickens, particularly in providing feed sourced from food scraps or organic waste, which is congruent with Mapiye et al. (2008), who found that females are responsible for the care of the poultry and for selling meat and eggs. The role of females in raising poultry was also reported by Tadelle et al. (2003).

The respondents engaged in native chicken raising were primarily in the productive age range of 31–62 years, as defined in this study, with 73.77% of the respondents being in this category. This has been supported by findings from other studies. For example, a study in the Bure Regency of Northwest Ethiopia showed an average age of 40.9 years (Moges et al. 2010), and a study in Bangladesh indicated an age range of 31–50 years (Shahjahan and Bhuiyan 2016). Getiso et al. (2017) showed an average age of 36.5 years. Fida et al. (2018) found the average age of farmers who raise native chickens to be 38 years, and Getiso et al. (2015) reported that the average age of chicken farmers was 37.8 ± 9.3 years.

The education level of most of the respondents was elementary school, or the equivalent of 6 years, followed by junior high school. This indicated that the education level of native chicken farmers remains low, in agreement with the findings of Ngongolo et al. (2021) that most chicken famers are primary school leavers or have acquired a standard level of seven years of education.

The number of chickens raised by each household in the five regions investigated was primarily between 1 and 25 head. Barru, Enrekang, and Jeneponto regencies had almost the same average number of native chickens per each household (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2.

Percentage of native chickens owned on the basis of ownership scale.

The relatively small average number of between 1 and 25 head is because households generally raise native chickens only for consumption, savings, and amusement. This is also related to the low average number of household members of between one and three people, indicating insufficient resources to raise many native chickens, as the number of chickens that can be raised is also determined by the number of family members who can look after the chickens, since most of the respondents raised their chicken by releasing them into the yard.

Of the total of 385 respondents interviewed, most (45.70%) indicated a moderate response regarding the contribution of native chickens and socio-economic impact and 38.99% indicated a high response; however, the number of native chickens owned was predominantly in the very low category, at 73.77% (Table 2).

The constraints in raising native chickens were divided into two categories. First, technical production constraints, including housing, sanitation, and disease. Most of the respondents (87.53%) raised native chickens in a semi-intensive way, putting the chickens in a coop in the afternoon and releasing them into the yard in the morning. The issue of coop sanitation was also cited by most respondents (60.78%). Diseases that attack native chickens, such as Newcastle disease (ND), influenza, and other diseases, were also cited. Most of the respondents (72.99%) had never vaccinated their chickens. Infectious disease is also a threat to native African chickens (Mpenda et al. 2019). Second, market constraints were noted, as only one to five chickens can be sold per month, on average (62.60%) (Table 3).

Overall, the constraints cited by chicken farmers were similar in all areas and referenced raising native chickens traditionally. As noted, these obstacles included housing, feeding, and disease management, congruent with Mujyambere et al. (2022), who noted that the obstacles to the development of indigenous chicken enterprises in eastern Africa are dominated by feeding, housing, and chicken health. Most of the farmers release chickens into their yards, but some raise their chickens by keeping them in the coop in the afternoon and releasing them into the yard in the morning (semi-intensive). Getiso et al. (2017) also found that most (63.9%) native poultry (rearing) systems are free-range or extensive and only some of them (36.1%) are semi-intensive. The function of the coop is to protect chickens from predators (Aklilu et al. 2013; Meseret 2016), inclement weather conditions or theft at night, aligning with Nayak et al. (2020) who noteed that all farmers provided night shelter for their chickens. One potential approach advocated by Stadig et al. (2018) is the use of an automated positioning system for effectively monitoring chicken locations in a free-range area. In addition, it is essential to ensure adequate perching spaces, as this can lower predatory incidents; thus, availability of perches in outdoor areas has several benefits for chickens and such environmental complexities must be considered (Rodriguez-Aurrekoetxea et al. 2014). A drawback to the free-range method is that the quality of the feed consumed by chickens cannot be controlled because the chickens are given the freedom to find their own food around the yard. Therefore, dietary supplements must be considered even when free-range chickens are kept, as such supplements can improve chicken quality (Mutayoba et al. 2012). Tufarelli et al. (2018) demonstrated that free-range forage feeding has a role in the success of local poultry production. Prakash et al. (2020) determined that the nutrition required by free-range scavenging chickens differs depending on four different agroclimatic conditions (tropical, humid subtropical, cool-moderate, and semi-arid). Furthermore, chickens reared in cages will produce higher-quality eggs than do free-range chickens because farmers can control the type and quality of feed (Pires et al. 2021). Several studies have shown that egg quality will be the best in cages, followed by free-range, floor, organic, and aviary.

Several chicken farmers indicated that the diseases that often arise are caused by not maintaining the chicken health and the cleanliness of coops, as well as weather fluctuations from the rainy season to the dry season or vice versa. Therefore, another important consideration is the appropriate use of coop litter. Pepper and Dunlop (2022) indicated that litter turning can reduce the occurrence of caked litter, lower production costs, and improve moisture-holding capacity, which is also related to risks of ammonia concentration, litter beetle control, and disease transmission. Diseases that arise in chickens include ND, influenza, calcareous stools, and other ailments that cause losses to farmers. ND was also found in a study by Shahjahan and Bhuiyan (2016) in a selected cluster area of Bangladesh, at a 65.82% rate. The obstacles faced by chicken farmers were also described by Mahoro et al. (2017), noting that the challenges faced by indigenous chicken enterprises include disease outbreaks, lack of investment capital, predators, feed shortages, thieves, market price fluctuations, low education about modern chicken rearing, and a lack of attention to chicken coops. Some native chicken farmers claimed that they rarely vaccinated their chickens, which conforms with the Islam et al. (2021) finding that farmers seldom vaccinate birds against any disease. Rather than preventive vaccination, the treatment given when chickens become ill is generally medicine for the disease they are suffering from, in the form of either traditional or chemical drugs, and farmers more often use traditional treatments that are based on local knowledge that has been passed down from generation to generation. Sick chickens are often separated from healthy chickens to be treated; however, some farmers do not treat sick chickens, just leaving them alone to heal or die. On average, dead chickens are buried, but some farmers also reported dumping dead chickens without special handling.

Consequently, to increase productivity and raise native chicken performance, the cleanliness and sanitation of the coop must be maintained so that it does not become a medium for the growth of disease sources. Coop systems should be improved, particularly those used in brooding, including maintaining an adequate temperature and a suitable coop area (Yuwanta et al. 2002). In addition, the population density of the cage must also be considered for growth performance; Mosca et al. (2015) showed that interaction, bird density, sex, and age significantly affect poultry bodyweight. Tendencies toward aggressive behaviour in brightly lit coops can lead to feather pecking and cannibalism (Groves 2021). Feeding must also be considered, particularly the quality of feed at the beginning of growth (starter phase). In addition, regularly administering vaccines to improve chicken immunity so as to avoid certain diseases is crucial, as one of the main problems faced by chicken farmers is disease outbreaks, particularly ND (98.2%) (Moges et al. 2010). Tadesse et al. (2005) reported that ND affects productivity and native chicken survival in the central highlands of Ethiopia, and Ipara et al. (2019) argued that the governments must collaborate with development partners to develop innovative ways to disseminate information on ND.

The involvement of women in raising chickens cannot be ignored because the number of women who are involved in raising chickens is not small, being 44.94% (Table 1). This is because they generally have more time for household chores than do males. Muchadeyi et al. (2004) confirmed that women have a role in making decisions regarding chicken rearing, because women are exclusively responsible for caring for the poultry and selling the meat and eggs (Mapiye et al. 2008). Women have a substantial role in livestock production, sales, and food security and nutrition (Herrero et al. 2013). Indeed, Kumar et al. (2021) argued that women’s empowerment is one way to improve the status of backyard poultry farming in India. The government must provide practical education to chicken farmers to improve poultry systems (Das et al. 2008). Policymakers must establish initiatives to train chicken farmers (especially females) about basic technical brooding, the provision of quality feed, and disease prevention. Wong et al. (2017) and Bagnol et al. (2013) concluded that the constraints faced in the livestock enterprises in resource-poor areas can be overcome by increasing the role of females and extension activities. In Indonesia, Sonaiya (2007) showed that household poultry raising, which is mostly conducted by people in rural areas (women, in particular), can increase family and national income, reducing poverty levels in rural areas. Andrew et al. (2019) asserted that chickens can increase household incomes and improve livelihoods when integrating education with technical training on good farming practices, feed formulation, medication, and shelter to improve productivity.

Most native chickens are used for consumption as sources of animal protein, for either household family members or guests. Native chickens are also used to increase family income by selling them to the market or to collectors. Native chickens are also used as complements in religious and traditional ceremonies (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3.

Socio-economic impacts of native chickens for communities.

In this study, we observed that chicken production contributes socio-economically to local communities in areas that have the potential to develop the overall native chicken enterprise. Native chickens are raised in communities because they are considered to have both social and economic advantages, just as Das et al. (2008) demonstrated the significant role of chickens in socio-economic development in Bangladesh. The economic advantage is increased family income from both meat and egg production. The chickens owned by farmers can be sold anytime to finance family members’ schooling or to meet other urgent financial needs. They can also be consumed by family members or guests. Lan Phuong et al. (2015) found poultry rearing and consumption to be linked to improved socio-cultural and economic factors. Ngongolo et al. (2021) noted that chicken production contributes as a source of protein, schoos fees, income generation, and employment. Native chicken also has specific value for the community as a complement to traditional ceremonies, such as the celebrations of a new house, the rice harvest, or family members’ school graduation. Chickens are also used in religious events, such as Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha, the observance of the birthday of Prophet Muhammad (Mawlid) and honouring the departure and return of family members from the pilgrimage. Similarly, Moges et al. (2010) and Okeno et al. (2012) showed chicken production purposes include selling for income, egg hatching for replacement, consumption, as complements in cultural and/or religious ceremonies, and for egg production. A study in Ethiopia showed the spiritual advantages of the sacrifice of indigenous chickens in cultural, social, and religious functions (Gondwe et al. 2005). Furthermore, Jugessur et al. (2006) determined that people raise chickens to generate income (50%), for home consumption (43%), for cultural reasons (4%), and simply for leisure and amusement (3%), and Tadelle et al. (2003) found that households keep birds for the purpose of reproduction, sale, and consumption, especially for their socio-religious function.

People who have a relatively large number of chickens compared with the surrounding community average are considered to have a higher social status. Native chickens have a high value for communities because traditional and religious ceremonies generally require native chickens, as they are seen by some people facilitating fortune, business, and making the ceremonies or celebrations performed more sacred than by using purebred chickens. This has an impact on people’s preferences regarding the chickens used in such events. The criteria include the colour of the chickens’ feathers, the colour of the hair on the chickens’ legs, and the chickens’ performance in terms of both the bodyweight and agility of movement.

The following are some notable statements from respondents:

‘Native chicken has a distinctive taste, so it is more desirable for consumption than broiler chicken. In addition, it is more familiar to the community because it has been kept for generations both for consumption and for sale’ [one respondent in each of Jeneponto Regency, respondent number 29, respondent age 45 years; and Enrekang Regency, respondent number 52, respondent age 40 years].

‘Native chicken has its own value because it is used as a complement to traditional and religious parties. Mostly the native chicken used has a uniqueness in the feather colour, the colour of the hair on its leg. The price is relatively higher for chickens that meet the desired criteria as a complement to these traditional and religious events’ [one respondent in each of Maros Regency, respondent number 18, respondent age 36 years; Jeneponto Regency, respondent number 5, respondent age 54 years; Soppeng Regency, respondent number 87, respondent age 43 years; and Barru Regency, respondent number 64, respondent age 60 years].

The target market for native chickens differs in each regency. In Barru Regency, most of the respondents (81.25%; n = 64) stated that their chickens were sold to individuals who sought to buy them, such as neighbours and family members. As many as 73.00% of the respondents sold their chickens outside Barru Regency in the nearest regency, namely Enrekang, Jeneponto, and Soppeng. The respondents generally did not sell their chickens directly to restaurants, but in Barru and Maros regencies, chickens were sold directly to restaurants as well as through collectors, with a proportion of 50% to each. The local market tended to be used by respondents in Enrekang, Maros, and Soppeng regencies, while inter-regional markets (in other regencies) were mostly chosen by respondents in Barru and Maros regencies (Fig. 4). The most important factor to be considered in the development of native chicken enterprises is the sales aspect. In this study, each region sells chickens differently. In Barru Regency, most of the chickens are sold to neighbours and traders who come directly to the chicken farmers’ house (individuals). In other areas, chickens are sold in the nearest regencies weekly by adjusting to the market day in the targeted regencies. Some sales are not directly conducted by farmers, but traders are tasked with taking native chickens to sell in the markets in other regencies. This has been a long-term arrangement that makes selling native chickens more organised. A relatively small number of chickens was sold in local markets because the price offered by buyers was quite low in comparison to the price of chickens sold (or sent via traders for sale) in other regencies.

Fig. 4.

Potential market area for live native chickens in Barru, Enrekang, Jeneponto, Maros, and Soppeng regencies. Note: Yes, have a potential market; No, do not have potential market; x-axis, kind of potential market for live native chickens in every regency; y-axis, percentage of answers stating that they have or do not have market potential.

In Enrekang Regency, farmers prefer to sell their chickens to local and inter-regional markets through collectors because the price offered is relatively higher than when selling directly to neighbours and family. In addition, the quantity of chickens that can be sold is large, and farmers do not need to sell them directly because traders facilitate the sale of chickens, incur transportation costs, and even assume the risks that could occur during transportation from the farmer’s location to the target market area. Das et al. (2008) explained that traders bear transportation and other costs during the process of collecting and moving live native chickens from villages to cities for sale.

Jeneponto and Maros regencies have almost the same circumstances, as the market potential is more focused on selling individual chickens to neighbours, families, and traders, but there are also those who take chickens directly to the local market or sell them in other areas, such as Takalar and Bantaeng regencies as the closest areas to Jeneponto Regency. The potential market in Maros Regency is somewhat different, as the chickens are sold to restaurants in addition to being sold at the local market and sent to Makassar (inter-regional market). This is due to the location of this area, which is directly adjacent to Makassar, making Maros a buffer zone in the provision of native chickens. This is also true for restaurants in both Maros Regency and Makassar. The position of Maros Regency, which is near an urban area, has market advantages. This shows that the location and availability of traders in an area also influences the variation in sales objectives for native chickens.

There is a difference between the price of native chicken on ordinary days and on religious holidays, such as Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha, in addition to traditional ceremonies in some areas. The price can increase up to IDR25 000–30 000/head, i.e. increasing from IDR50 000–60 000/head to IDR75 000–80 000/head when there are religious and traditional ceremonies (Table 4). This causes farmers’ income to increase during religious holidays and commemorations of traditional events.

The price of chicken increases because the demand also increases. Some people prefer to serve food prepared from native chicken rathern than from purebred chicken because some traditional foods with raw materials from chicken are more suitable if using native chicken. In addition, native chicken has a slightly different and distinctive taste that is preferred by consumers. At certain traditional events, chicken criteria are based on plumage colour, sex and age, comb type and feather cover. This is what affects the price of native chicken, tending to rise at that time.

On the basis of the information obtained, the variation in average number and price of live native chickens and total income, it was noted that an average of 72 chickens were sold in Enrekang Regency every 3 months, followed by Maros Regency, with 70 chickens. The highest price received for native chicken was in Soppeng Regency, at IDR90 000/head. The lowest price was in Jeneponto and Maros regencies, at IDR60 000/head. The total income from native chicken sales in each region was IDR375 000/3 months in Barru Regency, IDR960 000/3 months in Jeneponto Regency, IDR4 200 000/3 months in Maros Regency, IDR4 590 000/3 months in Soppeng Regency, and the highest was IDR6 120 000/3 months in Enrekang Regency (Table 5).

As shown in Table 5, the amount of revenue obtained by chicken farmers in each regency varied widely, due to the difference in the number of chickens sold every 3 months and the price per head counted in this study. When the physical performance and attractiveness of a chicken is superior in terms of body size, eyes, and agility, the price tends to be high. Haunshi et al. (2012) asserted that bodyweight is among the economic traits that need to be improved on native chickens to advance economic performance. The price of chicken is also determined by the characteristics sought in accordance with the preferences and purposes of its use. For complementary purposes in religious events and traditional ceremonies, the attribute of the chicken that is an indicator of superiority is plumage colour. For example, if the chicken has a specific feather colour and a specific leg feather colour, the price will tend to be higher. Examples of these criteria include chickens with black, red, white, and red–yellow–brown (karame) feathers in Barru, Enrekang, Jeneponto, Maros, and Soppeng regencies. Moges et al. (2010) demonstrated that there are several main attributes that determine consumer preferences for traditional ceremonies, including plumage colours such as red and white. Abdelqader et al. (2007) also asserted that plumage colour is one of the indicators of chicken performance. This was echoed by Tadelle et al. (2003) who found that plumage colour, sex, comb type, feather cover, and the age of the bird are important considerations for socio-religious and traditional festivals. Moula et al. (2011) showed that some traditional ceremonies in the northern regions of Vietnam require chickens of colours, such as Ri chickens with yellow skin. With increased age, the colour of a laying hen shells will be lighter (Tůmová and Ledvinka 2009). Feathers are also determined by whether a chicken is kept in a cage, according to de Koning et al. (2019), who indicated better feather scores with a lower feather loss and decreased skin area results for chickens living outside of a coop than for those in a coop. Barnett et al. (1997) demonstrated that the presence of perches in a cage improved the quality of chicken bones and improved tail condition, whereas solid sides in a cage during hot weather will increase mortality.