الفهرس 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CONTENTSOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 174 |  |  |
| | | from | 174 | | |
Abstract
The objective of the present work was to use system approach to characterize geese production systems. The achievement of reliable data, including some social aspects, management and productive performance on these geese production systems, as well as identify the major constraints for geese productivity are very important to improve geese production in Sohag governorate.
A cross-sectional and longitudinal survey of 164 households was carried out through semi-structured interviews. The sample was collected from four districts namely Tima, Sohag, Dar El-Salam and Giarga according to the number of geese raised in these rural areas. A two-stage sampling process was designed. In which, three villages in each district were chosen. In the present work qualitative and quantitative approaches were used (Mixed-methods approach).
The obtained results could be summarized as follows:
1. System description
The family system is the only production system of producing geese which require minimal finance, care and attention. According to the criteria of housing style, the family gees production system includes three subsystems:
1) Non-mixed represented about 21.34% of the total respondents surveyed. Around 57.14 % of the respondents do not depend on geese rearing as a source of income.
2) Semi-mixed represented about 37.81% of the total sample. (Raising geese with other poultry species). Nearly 56.45 % of the respondents depend on geese selling income in their livelihood.
3) Mixed represented about 40.85% of the total sample. Around 60 % of the respondents do not depend on geese raising as a source of income.
2. Social characteristics of geese owners
Women comprise half or more of the workforce and do a fundamental role in geese production and food security. Females represented the higher portion as compared with males being 94.29%, 96.77% and 92.54% under the non-mixed, semi-mixed and mixed sub-systems respectively.
Age is very important factor because it demonstrates the ability of the householders to do tasks in an efficient way. The majority of householders (82.86%, 87.1% and 85.1%) were in the age group of 31-59 years (middle aged group) under the non-mixed, semi-mixed and mixed sub-systems respectively. The higher percentage of marriage indicates the availability of family labor for geese production. Most of them (65.71%, 59.68% and 77.61%) were married under the aforementioned subsystems.
The level of education, is related to decision making of an owner because it would contribute to their ability for efficient management. The majority of householders (65.71%, 77.4 % and 79.10 %) were illiterates under the non-mixed, semi-mixed and mixed sub-systems, respectively. Most of households (37.14%, 27.42%, and 40.30%) under the aforementioned subsystems, earn their living from farming.
The majority of respondents (65.71%, 67.74% and 70.15%) have experience period equal or more than 10 years. The higher the experience, the more the breeder would have gained more information and ideas on how to tackle his problems and the higher would be his income
3. Flock source, composition, structure, and size
Homebred geese (65.71%, 43.55% and 56.72%) are the main source of gosling for the non-mixed, semi-mixed and mixed subsystems respectively. Flock composition, structure, and size fluctuate over time, as an action of natural mobilization, disease occurrence and consumer consumption.
Chickens constituted the highest percentage of flock composition being 36% and 29.2% followed by pigeons (22.1%) and geese (21.3%) in the semi-mixed and mixed sub-systems, respectively. Geese constitutes the highest percentage of flock composition (25.6%) followed by chickens (23.9%) under the non- mixed subsystem.
The overall geese flock size varied widely ranging from 1 to 36 with an average of 9.83 ± 1.16 in the non –mixed, and from 1 to 22 with an average of 5.58 ± .87 in the semi-mixed and from 2 to 40 with an average 8.76± .84 for the mixed sub-system.
Under the non-mixed sub-system, gosling percentage was higher than the semi-mixed and mixed subsystems being 39.83 % versus 23.99 % and 31.95 % respectively.
4. Managerial practices responsibility
Women have the biggest role in taking care of the flock, with the involvement of kids however the participating of men is quite limited. Women almost exclusively are responsible for most of the management aspects related to geese represented by 77.14%, 79.03, and 67.16% of the total labor force for the non-mixed, semi-mixed and mixed sub-systems, respectively.
5. Flock ownership, decision making and purpose of raising geese
Family as a whole is the main owner of geese being 82.86%, 83.87% and 95.52% and women are more involved in activities related to the managerial practices under the non-mixed, semi-mixed and mixed subsystems respectively. The decision making in geese production process was the responsibility of women under the non-mixed (85.71%), semi-mixed (90.32%), and mixed (77.72%) subsystems.
The majority of farmers under the non-mixed (51.43%), semi-mixed (45.16%) and mixed (47.76%) subsystems ranked home consumption the most important.
6. Production practices
A. Housing
Geese are seldom raised or housed in confinement all the time. The farmers use local materials such as adobe bricks, reed, palm leaves, and used wood. These materials are relatively cheaper to use but less durable. Most of geese shelters were located on the roof of farmers dwellings (57.14%) under the non-mixed subsystem, while it was inside dwellings (38.71%) in the semi-mixed and in the backyard (89.55%) under the mixed subsystem.
The drinking equipment for geese varies from old kitchen utensils or old plastic jerkin (cut equally into two halves) and crockery. Old kitchen utensils (old kitchenware) was the most prevalence under the non-mixed, semi-mixed and mixed subsystems being 68.57%, 69.35% and 62.69%, respectively.
B. Feeding
There are two feeding patterns, the farmer either depends on available ingredients only or available ingredients plus purchased one. Available ingredients represented the largest percentage being 62.86 % while it amounted 43.55 % and 52.24 under the semi-mixed and mixed sub-systems, respectively.
There are five feed ingredients which were green forage, leftovers, wheat bran, grains, and finally commercial feeds. The main components was green forage and leftovers. Adding grains or commercial ration were on occasional basis and was linked with the financial ability of the householders. The supplementary feed, most frequently given consisted mostly of green forages, leftovers and grain under the non-mixed (40.0%), semi-mixed (54.84 %), and mixed (44.78 %) subsystems.
During the starter period of raising, about 65.71% and 52.24% of the householders are under the non-mixed and mixed subsystems respectively, expressed that they don’t use the commercial rations, while 56.45 % of them, under the semi-mixed subsystem mentioned that they use the commercial ration.
C. Watering
Farmers used deep large water utensils for geese watering, and geese either climbing into it or immersing their heads into water. The tape water considered the main source of water under the non-mixed subsystem (94.29%), semi-mixed subsystem (96.77%) and mixed subsystem (89.55%). However, the highest percentage of wells water was detected under the mixed system (10.45%).
D. Biosecurity and diseases control
Access to veterinary services is limited in the present study area. When the farmers got new birds most of the householders took no precautionary actions such as cleaning and disinfecting or quarantine. About 85.71%, 83.87%, and 83.28% of the respondents in the non-mixed, semi-mixed, and mixed subsystems respectively don’t use disinfectant. The disposal methods of dead geese were mainly varied between throwing in street, throwing in trash, throwing in canal, and burial method was the least widespread.
A minor percentage of the respondents (28.57%) in the non-mixed subsystem reported that they experienced geese disease problems compared with a little bit higher percentage under the semi-mixed and mixed subsystems being 41.94% and 52.24%, respectively. To conclude, the achieved results, indicated that there is no awareness of the need for biosecurity practices. Respondents appear to lack understanding and awareness of the risks of disease transmission and spread related with the wrong disposal of dead goose
E. Broodiness strategy
Broodiness (natural incubation) is the only available option for acquiring new goslings, since the artificial incubation of geese eggs is very limited. The majority of the respondents (60%, 67.14% and 77.61%) provide nest (khon) for broody hen under the non-mixed, semi-mixed and mixed subsystems respectively. The bedding materials were Deims, straw, and feathers. The majority of respondents mainly used Deims being 54.29%, 54.84%, and 64.18% under the non-mixed, semi-mixed, and mixed subsystems respectively.
The largest percentage of farmers (80.60%) under the mixed system kept the hatched goslings with the broody hen as compared to those under the non-mixed (65.71%) and semi-mixed (64.52%) subsystems. However, the recommendation is to take them after hatching and transfer them to a special gosling brooding place. This procedure will allow the goslings to take the required quantity of feed without competition from the others.
F. Marketing
The village geese sold to meet the sudden expenses for farmers. Most farmers under the non-mixed (54.29%), semi-mixed (59.68%) and mixed (62.69%) subsystems, sell their geese in the same village where they live. The purchasing patterns indicated most of geese originate from owner`s flock being 57.14%, 43.55% and 35.82% under the non-mixed, semi-mixed and mixed subsystems respectively. The respondents sell directly to the consumer. The majority of farmers depended on geese production as a secondary source of profit being 40%, 51.43% and 59.26% under the non-mixed, semi-mixed and mixed subsystems, respectively
7. Productivity indices of local geese
Male and female geese, raised under the non-mixed subsystem had significantly higher body weight means (3.57 and 3.04 kg) than those under the semi-mixed (3.37 and 2.92 kg) and mixed (3.39 and 2. 84 kg) subsystems. The female goose reared under the non-mixed, semi-mixed and mixed subsystems begin to lay at 10.97, 11.11, and 10.81 months respectively. Non-mixed subsystem exhibited the highest insignificant hatchability percentage (63.42%) as compared to the semi-mixed (56.24 %) and mixed (60.60%) subsystem. Geese have a low annually egg production of 19.86, 23.7 and 22.35 egg under non mixed, semi mixed and mixed subsystems, respectively.
Gosling mortality percentage increased under the semi-mixed (10%) and mixed (16.16%) subsystems than that of the non-mixed (8.41%) subsystem.
8. The problems facing householders under Geese production systems
Low productivity (ranked as the first problem) and high price of feed and low hatchability (ranked as the second problems) were the main problems facing the householders under the non-mixed subsystems.
Concerning the semi-mixed subsystem, the high prices of feeds ranked as the first problem facing the households, followed by diseases (2nd problem).
The foremost problem faced by the farmers under the mixed subsystem was diseases (1st problem) and low productivity (2nd problem).
9. Morphological characterization and body measurements of geese
A. Morphological characterization
It was obvious that there were four feather colors for male geese which were white, silver, gray and piebald. Concerning the female geese there were three plumage colors which were white, gray and piebald. Regarding beak color, orange and yellow were the only two colors for geese beak. Concerning the shank color, shanks were categorized as pale yellow, yellow, and orange. Regarding the eye color there were two colors brown and indigo.
B. Body measurements
The overall mean of neck length, trunk length, body length, and chest circumference of males were 28.05 ± 0.30, 30.42± 0.33, 58.47± 0.57, and 40.32 ± 0.47, respectively. The overall mean for the same variables in female were 26.21 ± 0.18, 28.11± 0.3, 54.32 ± and 36.90 ± 0.40 cm respectively.
Chest circumference showed positive and significant correlations with body weight (P<0.05) for male and female being 0.576 and 0.754, respectively
10. The SWOT analysis of geese production in Sohag governorate
Here is a summary from the result of the SWOT analysis
Strength
Geese are among the fastest growing avian species have a high resistance to diseases as compared to chickens. Geese can fed on leftovers and roughages, because it’s high capability to digest components of fiber, especially hemicellulose. Also, they require the lowest capital investment.
Weakness
Low productivity, high mortality, low hatchability and lack of sensitization, of the multifaced potential of geese. The Seasonal productivity of geese is another hinder for its spreading.
Opportunities
Geese can be an income generating opportunity, guaranteeing food security and source of gifts to strengthen social relationships between villagers. Empowering women because they are the main responsible for this sort of production. Increasing productivity will lead to a win-win situation for all the stakeholders.
Threats
Some of the threats and challenges are, no genetic selective breeding has occurred with geese so, it is expected that it’s breeding value and characteristics will decrease. An outbreak of avian influenza. Finally, there is no governmental health program for smallholders especially for geese vaccination.
There is barely anything we can do as regards this threats and challenges other than to be optimistic that things will continue to work in an efficient way.