Agricultural Waste Management Among Poul

AGRICULTURAL WASTE MANAGEMENT AMONG POULTRY
FARMERS IN SOUTH WESTERN NIGERIA
ODERINDE, ADEREMI IBRAHIM
168637
(BACHELOR OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY)
LADOKE AKINTOLA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, OGBOMOSHO,
OYO STATE, NIGERIA
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AWARD OF

THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE OF THE
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN,
IBADAN NIGERIA
DECEMBER, 2014.
1
DEDICATION
This Research Paper is lovingly dedicated to my beloved parents Mr and Mrs Oderinde who
have been my constant source of Inspiration. They have given me the drive and discipline to
tackle any task with enthusiasm and determination.
2
ABSTRACT
This study examined the generated existing poultry waste and its disposal techniques in south
western Nigeria. Multistage sampling procedure was used to select the respondents for the study.
Ogun, Oyo and Osun states were purposively selected for their leading roles in poultry
production in south western Nigeria. Data were analyzed using percentage, mean and correlation
statistics. The findings showed significant relationship between the respondent’s educational
level (p=0.000), tenure right (p=0.000), membership of farmers’ group (p=0.000), secondary
activity (p=0.000), other livestock (p=0.003), quantity of poultry waste generated by
respondents, possession of integrated waste management facilities and their attitude towards
integrated waste management practices. The study also revealed that there was a significant
relationship (p=0.000) between poultry farmers’ knowledge of integrated waste management
(r= -0.539, p=0.000) there was no significant relationship (p=0.921) between poultry farmers’
awareness of health and environmental effects of poultry wastes and there was a significant
relationship (p=0.000) between poultry farmers’ constraints to adoption of integrated waste
management practices and their attitude towards integrated waste management practices. It was
recommended that efforts should be made in exposing the poultry farmers to up-to-date
principles and practices of integrated waste management and encouragement in practicing
integrated waste management through provision of integrated waste management facilities at
subsidized prices and made readily available at government agricultural offices.
KEYWORDS: Agriculture, Waste Management and Poultry Farmers.
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Praise be to Allah (SWT) who has granted me perfection and guidance throughout this work.
My sincere gratitude also goes to my Supervisor, Dr (Mrs) P. Fawole, for her dedicated
supervision, patience throughout the course of this work, May Almighty Allah be with her and
her family.
To my Co-supervisor, Dr. I.O Badru without his care, understanding and support this project
would not have been made possible.
I also thank my parents, siblings and the entire family members for their support both financially
and spiritually also for their constant show of love and affection. Thanks for your co operations.
I am indebted to Mr L.A Adeagbo, Mr A.I Iyanda, Penon Research Consultancy for their support
and assistance.
My sincere gratitude goes to my H.O.D and all the lecturers in the Department of Agric.
Extension and Rural Development.
4
CERTIFICATION
I certify that this work was carried out under my supervision, by Mr A.I Oderinde in the
Department of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, University of Ibadan, Ibadan
Nigeria.
.................................................... ……………………………….
Date Supervisor,
Dr. Pipy, O. Fawole
Bsc. Msc. Phd. (Ibadan)
Department of Agric Extension and

Rural Development,
Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry,
University of Ibadan,
Ibadan, Nigeria.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Content Pages
TITLE PAGE 1
DEDICATION 2
ABSTRACT 3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv
CERTIFICATION PAGE v
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF TABLES ix
CHAPTER ONE 1
1.0 Introduction 1
1.0 Background to the study 1
1.1 Statement of research problems 5
1.2 Research objectives 6
1.3 Hypotheses of the study 7
1.4 Justification of the study 7
CHAPTER TWO 9
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 9
2.1 Poultry waste 9
2.2 Damaging effect of poultry waste 12
6
2.3 Poultry waste disposal methods 17
CHAPTER THREE 28
3.0 METHODOLOGY 28
3.1 The study area 28
3.2 Population of study 28
3.3 Sampling procedure and sample size 28
3.4 Validation of instrument 28
3.5 Reliability of instrument 29
3.6 Measurement of variable 29
3.7 Data Analysis 35
CHAPTER FOUR 36
4.0 RESULT AND DISCUSSION 36
4.1 Socioeconomic characteristics 36
4.2 Waste generated from poultry 43
4.3 Possession of integrated waste management facilities 44
4.4 Knowledge of integrated waste management 45
4.5 Level of awareness of the health and environmental effects of poultry wastes 47
4.6 Attitude to the adoption of integrated waste management practices 49
4.7 Constraints to the adoption of integrated waste management practices 51
4.8 Hypotheses testing 52
7
CHAPTER FIVE 60
5.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 60
5.1 Introduction 60
5.2 Summary 60
5.3 Conclusion 62
5.4 Recommendations 63
REFERENCES 64
APPENDIX 78
8
1.0
LIST OF TABLES PAGE
Table 1: Distribution of respondents based on their socioeconomic characteristics 40
Table 2: Distribution of respondents according to the waste generated 43
Table 3: Distribution of respondents according to the level of waste generated 44

Table 4: Distribution based on possession of integrated waste management facilities 44
Table 5: Distribution of respondents based on level of possession of integrated waste 45

management facilities
Table 6: Distribution of respondents based on knowledge of integrated waste 46
management
Table 7: Distribution based on level of knowledge of integrated waste management 47
Table 8: Distribution based on awareness of the health and environmental 48
effects of poultry wastes
Table 9: Distribution based on level of awareness of the health and environmental 48
effects of poultry wastes
Table 10: Distribution of the attitude of poultry farmers to the adoption of 49
integrated waste management practices
Table 11: Distribution based on level of attitude to the adoption of integrated waste 50
Management practices
Table 12: Distribution based on the constraints to the adoption of integrated waste 51
management practices
9
Table 13: Distribution based on level of constraints to the adoption of integrated waste 52
management practices.
Table 14: Chi-square test of relationship between socioeconomic characteristics and 54
attitude towards the adoption of integrated waste management practices.
Table 15: PPMC test of relationship between socioeconomic characteristics and 55
Table 16: PPMC test of relationship between quantity of poultry waste generated 55
and attitude
Table 17: PPMC test of relationship between possession of integrated waste 56
management facilities and attitude
Table 18: PPMC test of relationship between knowledge of integrated waste 57
management and attitude towards the adoption of integrated waste management practices.
Table 19: PPMC test of relationship between poultry waste generated and attitude 58
towards the adoption of integrated waste management practices
Table 20: PPMC test of relationship between constraints to adoption of integrated 59
waste management practices and attitude towards the adoption of integrated
waste management practices
10
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.0 Background to the study
Poultry farming is the raising of domesticated birds such as chicken, turkeys, ducks, and geese,
for the purpose of farming meat or eggs for food. The poultry industry is one of the major
employers of labour in south western Nigeria with dominance production in Ogun, Osun and
Oyo states (Odunsi 1999). Historically, the growth of poultry industry began as a result of its
high level of energy and protein, rapid turnover rate and short incubation period (i.e. 21 days)
which are advantages of poultry over other livestock (Mokwunye, 2000). Poultry business is
now gaining prominence of which it was known in the time past, as an important source of
livelihood and a means of creating employment for the people, both in urban and rural areas.
In Nigeria, the population growth rate and demand for food is over 3% while growth rate in food
production is between 1.0 – 1.5% leaving a short fall of 1.5 – 2% in annual food supplies. It is
important to note also the imbalance in these food supplies, between plant and animal sources;
the former contributing over 75% and the latter accounting for the remaining 25%. This is
mainly due to improper development of the livestock industry (Lamorde, 1998). Accurate
statistical data on the Nigerian livestock population are very scarce and are as varied as the
human population figures (Ikhatua, 2000). Various figures have been given by different sources
and at different times. The Nigerian’s livestock resources consist of 13,885,813 Cattle;
34,453,724 Goat; 22,092,602 Sheep; 3,406,381 Pigs; 104,247,960 poultry (RIM, 1992).
From these figures, poultry is about 58.72 percent of the total livestock production, which
indicates the place of poultry sub sectors in the livestock industry.
Worldwide, the poultry industry is growing rapidly and contributes towards addressing key
national development goals, as well as, in improving the standard of living of people through
poverty alleviation and creating employment opportunities (Agblevor, Beis, Kim, Tarrant, and
Mante, 2010), Although poultry is one of the most developed animal industries in Nigeria
(Oyebanjo, and Otunaiya, 2011), it is potentially hazardous because it causes pollution through
the emission of large quantities of wastes which have unpleasant and provocative odours. It is
poisonous when it gets in contact with surface and ground water (Fulluck, 1994).
11
Livestock waste produces gases such as ammonia NH3 carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),
ozone (O3), nitrous oxide (N2O) and other trace gases which affect the world’s atmosphere by
contributing about 5-10% to “global warming” i.e. global anthropogenic emissions (USEPA,
1995).
Generally, waste can be defined as something useless produced by the same action that produces
something useful or a by-product of industrial, agricultural municipal and mining activities.
Agricultural waste is therefore, waste produced at agricultural premises as a result of an
agricultural activity. This definition does not include waste produced at sites such as riding
stables, equine centres, farm shops, kennels and animal parks (Hall, Guo, Dore and Chow, 2009).
The livestock industry produces large amounts of waste that includes solid waste and
wastewater. The solid waste consists of bedding material, excreta (manure), feeds and feed mill
residues, feathers, hatchery waste (empty shells, infertile eggs, dead embryos and late
hatchlings), shells, sludge, abattoir waste (offals, blood, feathers and condemned carcasses) and
mortality. In Nigeria, ashes, which result from using coal for brooding, are also produced in large
quantities on farms, especially in medium and large-scale broiler operations as waste, and these
need to be disposed off. The wastewater results from washing and disinfection of chicken houses
and abattoirs.
Roeper, Khan, Koerner and Stegmann (2005), contended that the problem coming along with
poultry production is the manure that needs to be taken care of, as a non-appropriate treatment or
disposal can become risky for environment and humans. For instance, manure can support the
spread of diseases and may pollute soil and groundwater resources if not properly handled.
This is further compounded by the fact that poultry densities on farms continue to increase and
have caused manure related problems which are water, air and land pollution (Dong and Tollner,
2003).
Some researchers and agricultural specialists have argued that livestock waste is an asset or
potential hazard to the environment depending on the procedure by which it is managed.
Livestock and poultry wastes are good soil conditioners improving land productivity and can
also be used as feed supplement. (Moyo 1985; Khumalo 1988; Kunene 1992), and also as fuel
source either by direct combustion or converted to biogas (Jones, Nye and Dale, 2005).
12
Livestock wastes could also constitute nuisance through environmental pollution especially the
liquid component which seeps into the ground contaminating both surface and ground water
Where the wastes removed from a livestock unit are not immediately utilized, they should be
adequately stored to minimize their harmful effect (Charles 2005; NWP 2005). According to
FAO (1997), approximately 22% of 94 million tons total nitrogen fertilization and 38% of
phosphate is of animal origin. This represents about US$ 1.5 billion worth of commercial
fertilizer. Replenishing soil fertility is not the only benefit of using animal manure; it also helps
in creating a better climate for soil micro-flora and fauna. It is the best way of using crop
residues (FAO, 1997). It was further affirmed that livestock wastes are used as soil conditioner
(Hermanson, 2005), materials for wall plastering and construction of granaries (Muller, 1980),
source of fuel or energy either by direct combustion or when converted to biogas (Hutchinson,
Walters, Avery, Munro and Moore, 2005) and for feeding livestock and fish (Sevilleja, Torres,
Sollows and Little, 2005). Application of 15 tons/ha of farmyard manure to a loose soil in
Northern Nigeria significantly improved the aggregate soil stability as well as reduced soil
compaction and crust strength (FAO, 2006).
Generally, manure refers to faeces and urine produced by animals, and it contains organic matter
and nutrients, that has fertilizer value when applied on the land and used by crops. The proper
handling and management of manure can augment or replace purchased commercial fertilizers
(Tao and Mancl, 2008). Poultry litter is a type of livestock manure. It is a mixture of poultry
droppings and bedding materials, such as wood shavings and rice or peanut hulls. More also,
there are little knowledge about the integrated system of waste disposal systems among poultry
farmers in south western Nigeria with few farms operating at this level of standardized waste
disposal practices. For example, the use of manure storage system both within and outside the
pen house, box type manure spreaders, solid and semi-solid handling equipments, rendering and
composting mortality facilities, incinerator location and design, egg collection systems, electric
controlling systems, pressure sprayer for fumigation, automated litter dryer, temperature cooling
systems and a host of other integrated farm waste management facilities. Hence this level of
awareness gives them poor attitudes towards the practice of this standardized integrated system
of poultry operations.
13
1.1 Statement of research problems
One aspect of livestock and poultry operations that has not kept pace with the increase in the
intensity of poultry production is waste management. Poultry waste consists of droppings,
wasted feed, broken eggs, feathers, entrails and organs of slaughtered birds, processing waste,
water, bio-solids and feathers. It also includes the dead birds and hatchery waste, all which is
high in protein and contain substantial amount of calcium and phosphorus due to high level of
mineral supplement in their diet. Available statistics showed that, there is a steady increase in the
population of chicken in Nigeria from 122 Millions in 1994 to 137.6 Millions in 2003 (FAO,
2004). The volume of waste certainly has increased due to increasing birds’ population but
appropriate waste management process is still not widespread.
With multiples of Nigeria’s annual estimate of about 932.5 metric tonnes of commercial poultry
manure being currently expected (Adewumi, 2011) coupled with its environmental and health
implications. It is therefore imperative to study the waste management practices of poultry
farmers in order to be abreast of developments in the area and as such make appropriate
recommendations.
The study therefore seeks to answer the following research questions
1. What are the wastes generated by respondents in the study area?

2. Do respondents have waste management facilities on their farms?
3. Are poultry farmers in the study area aware of the various health and environmental
implications of poor poultry waste management?
4. What is the knowledge level of respondents of integrated waste management practices in
the study area?
5. What is the attitude of respondents to integrated waste management practices in the study
area?
6. What are the constraints to adoption of integrated waste management practices among
respondents in the study area?
1.2 Research objectives
The general objective of the study is to assess the waste management practices of poultry farmers
in south-western Nigeria.
14
The specific objectives are to:
1. identify the various wastes generated by respondents in the study area,

2. ascertain the waste management facilities available to respondents in the study area,
3. determine the respondents level of awareness of the health and environmental
implications of poultry waste management in the study area,
4. examine the knowledge level of respondents of integrated waste management practices in
the study area,
5. investigate the attitudes of the respondents to adoption of integrated waste management
practices of poultry farmers in the study area,
6. assess the constraints to the adoption of integrated waste management practices of poultry
farmers in the study area.
1.3 Hypotheses of the study
Ho1: There is no significant relationship between respondent’s personal characteristics and their
knowledge of integrated waste management practices
Ho2: There is no significant relationship between the wastes generated by respondents and their
attitude towards integrated waste management practices
Ho3: There is no significant relationship between possession of waste management facilities and
their attitude towards integrated waste management practices
Ho4: There is no significant relationship between knowledge of integrated waste management

and their attitude towards integrated waste management practices
Ho5: There is no significant relationship between awareness of health and environmental effects
of poultry wastes and their attitude towards integrated waste management practices
Ho6: There is no significant relationship between constraints to adoption of integrated waste

management practices and their attitude towards integrated waste management practices
15
1.4 Justification of the study
The first goal of any farm waste management system is to maximize the economic benefit from
the waste resources and maintain acceptable environmental standards. To be practical, the system
must also be affordable and suitable to the operation. The traditional method of disposing animal
wastes has been to spread them on the land because of their excellent fertilizing properties
(Muller, 1980). If the wastes are not properly disposed they can pollute surface and ground water
and also contribute to air pollution. The study will serve as a medium to know the level of
integrated waste management systems that exists in the study area and its adoption by the poultry
farmers. This will help them to increase their income through increase in output. It will prevent
pollution which would have been caused by dumping the wastes in the surroundings. The system
will maximise the space as livestock building such as poultry houses can be built on pond walls
(MOAC, 2005). The study will also promote research and researchers activities through new
ideas such as attempts to utilize livestock wastes to generate energy through Biogas and also as
fertilizers on farmlands. The results in this study will boost extension services as in the
dissemination of information on its findings to their clients. Based on these assertions, this study
will be useful for the determination of the importance of proper management of poultry wastes
and also the benefits that can be derived from them.
16
CHAPTER TWO
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 Poultry waste
The poultry industry is one of the largest and fastest growing agro-based industries in the world.
There is an increasing demand for poultry meat mainly due to its acceptance by most societies
and its relatively low cholesterol content. The poultry industry is currently facing a number of
environmental problems. One of the major problems is the accumulation of large amount of
wastes, especially manure and litter, generated by intensive production. Large-scale
accumulation of these wastes may pose disposal and pollution problems unless environmentally
and economically sustainable management technologies are adopted (Sharpley, Herron and
Daniel, 2007).
The production of poultry results in: hatchery wastes, manure (bird excrement), litter (bedding
materials such as sawdust, wood shavings, straw and peanut or rice hulls), and on-farm
mortalities. The processing of poultry results in additional waste materials, including offal
(feathers, entrails and organs of slaughtered birds), processing wastewater and bio-solids. The
major components of poultry waste include the bedding material, feather, manure and the spilled
feeds (Tasistro, Kissel and Bush, 2004). The waste contains plant nutrients, such as Nitrogen
(N), Phosphorous (P) and Potassium (K), trace elements, such as Copper (Cu), Zinc (Zn) and
Arsenic (As), pesticide residues, pharmaceuticals such as coccidiostats, endocrine disruptors and
microorganisms. As with other organic wastes, the moisture content, pH, soluble salt level, and
elemental composition of poultry manure and litter have been shown to vary widely as a function
of types of poultry, diet and dietary supplements, litter type, handling and storage operations.
Most of these by-products can provide organic and inorganic nutrients that are of value if
managed and recycled properly, regardless of flock size. However, they also give rise to
potential environmental and human health concerns as the sources of elements, compounds
(including veterinary pharmaceuticals), vectors for insects and vermin, and pathogenic
microorganisms. With the probable exception of veterinary pharmaceuticals, these factors are
17
also relevant to small flocks, including small family flocks that may be partially housed in
containment structures.
The poultry industry produces large amounts of waste that include solid waste and wastewater.
The solid waste consists of bedding materials, excreta (manure), feed, feathers, hatchery waste
(empty shells, infertile eggs, dead embryos and late hatchlings), shells, sludge, abattoir waste
(offals, blood, feathers and condemned carcasses) and mortality. In Nigeria, ashes which result
from the use of coal for chick brooding are also produced as waste in large quantities on broiler
operations, especially in medium scale and large-scale operations, and these need to be disposed
of (Moreki and Chiripasi, 2011).
In Nigeria, like any developing nation, there is a rapid expansion of small and medium scale
poultry farms with the attendant effect of huge poultry waste generation. The magnitude of this
generated poultry waste has given rise to improper disposal which include over application to
land, improper timing of application thereby creating pollution problem to soil water and air
environment. The problems confronting the industry is the accumulation of poultry waste which
may pose pollution problems unless it is managed in an environmentally friendly manner.
The rate of litter production from a farm and nutrient content of the litter is affected by many
factors, type and amount of bedding materials, number of flock reared, feed types and
rate of feeding, litter management strategy, collection frequency, stocking density and
ventilation Kelleher et al.,(2002). Quantity and nutrient values of poultry waste from layer
house also depend on feed formulation, type of bird reared, poultry waste collection and
management plan, collection frequency and stocking density.
According to Bolan et al., (2010) poultry waste contains about 75% of the nutrients fed to
poultry including nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium. Animals use only about 25% of nutrients
and excrete the rest. About 50% of nitrogen and 75% of potassium in poultry waste is found in
the liquid portion. Almost all the phosphorus is in the solids. When poultry waste is diluted by
water, nutrient concentrations are reduced.
Depending on the amount of water or bedding added, poultry waste can be solid, semi-solid or
liquid. Poultry waste contains high moisture content and other organic materials, which
create environmental problem such as fly breeding, odour nuisance and greenhouse gas
18
emission if not disposed of or managed appropriately Coufal.,(2006). Poultry waste is classified
according to Bolan et al., (2010) as a solid, semi-solid or liquid using the following criteria:
· Solid -contains greater than 20% solids. Bedding material contributes to the solids
3content of the poultry waste. It can be stacked and handled by any equipment that will
move bulk materials
· Semi-solid-(also referred to as slurry) - contains 5% to 20% solids. Semi-solid poultry
waste is produced in poultry housing systems where limited bedding is supplied. The
resulting semisolid does not flow as readily as liquid poultry waste, nor can it be piled
like solid poultry waste.
· Liquid-contains less than 5% solids. The additional liquid comes from washing and
spillage from watering systems. When agitated, liquid poultry waste can be pumped or
moved by gravity flow.
Poultry waste which includes bedding or poultry waste feed will require dilution if it is to be
handled as a liquid. The moisture content of the poultry waste determines the type of handling
and storage system.
2.2 Damaging effect of poultry waste
It is still a common site in Nigeria to see huge deposit of poultry waste around the farm, flushing
of the poultry waste into water courses through open canals from farms are also common
sites Ojolo, Oke, Animasahun, Adesuyi, (2007). These method is not only unsightly, it also
creates a lot of environmental nuisance as well as surface and groundwater pollution.
Another poor management method for the poultry waste that has gained prominence in
Nigeria is open burning after the poultry waste has been subjected to sun drying to reduce the
moisture content and thereby raising the calorific value. The open drying itself releases excessive
ammonia and other greenhouse gas emissions capable of creating climate change (Akinbile,
2012). The increasing size of poultry operations in Nigeria and the expanding residential land
use in rural areas has greatly increased environmental concerns over nuisance odours and the
potential for water pollution. With good poultry waste management practices, proper storage
facilities, and adequate separation distances between non-compatible land uses, most
environmental problems can be avoided.
19
Managing poultry by-products as potential pollutants centres on water, air and soil quality
concerns (FAO, 2008). Specific concerns that are well documented include degradation of
nearby surface and/or groundwater, resulting from increased loading of nutrients such as
nitrogen and phosphorus (and potassium in some locations). Air quality issues are less well
understood and include the effect of ammonia, hydrogen sulphide, volatile organic compounds
(VOCs) and dust particulates emitted from poultry production facilities. Greenhouse gas
emissions and health effects associated with nuisance odorants are also emerging and/or relevant
issues, owing to global climate change and increasing human populations in close proximity to
poultry operations, respectively.
Air quality has become a major environmental concern of the poultry industry. Dust, odours and
bio-aerosols (e.g. microbes, endotoxins and mycotoxins suspended in air) generated at
production, manure storage facilities and during land spreading of poultry litter constitute the
most frequent source of complaints against animal-based industries (Millner, 2009).
Uncontrolled decomposition of manure produces odorous gases, including amines, amides,
mercaptans, sulphides, and disulphides. These noxious gases can cause respiratory diseases in
animals and humans (Schiffman and Williams, 2005). Ammonia volatilisation from manure
creates odour problems, and it may also contribute to atmospheric deposition and acid rain
Walker, Aneja, and Dickey, (2000). Furthermore, greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide,
methane and nitrous oxides are also released from manure handling and storage facilities, which
are implicated in ozone depletion and global warming. Improved manure handling and storage
methods are needed to reduce the emission of these gases. Aneja et al., (2006).
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 (FAO, 2006). The transport and fate of ammonia
once it is emitted into the atmosphere are not well understood, but its presence in high
concentrations can trigger environmental effects that have impacts on local ecosystems and
human health. As such, consideration of the environmental effects on air sheds and watersheds of
nutrient loading from poultry production is important for long-term sustainability.
Ammonia from poultry operations is derived from nitrogen, which is an essential component of
dietary protein, amino acids and other bio-molecules necessary for life. However, dietary
20
nitrogen not converted into meat, eggs or other tissue is excreted in the form of organic nitrogen,
which is rapidly converted into ammonia under most, but not all, poultry production practices.
The amount of ammonia actually emitted into the atmosphere depends on multiple variables,
including climate, poultry housing design, and manure and litter storage and treatment practices,
such as methods for applying them to land.
Hydrogen sulphide and other VOCs can result from the metabolic breakdown of poultry waste
products, generally under low-oxygen conditions such as occur when manure is allowed to
ferment (anaerobically digest) in a pit beneath the birds, in an earthen lagoon or in other open-air
containment. Under open-air fermentation, hydrogen sulphide and VOCs can be emitted into the
atmosphere as pollutants, and can also be components of nuisance odour. Hydrogen sulphide can
be dangerous to humans at certain concentrations. Donham and Thelin (2006) note that agitation
of manure slurry in pits beneath animals can result in rapid elevation of ambient hydrogen
sulphide to lethal concentrations, within seconds. Particulate matter (or dust) is an aerial
pollutant of more concern than hydrogen sulphide and VOCs. It occurs in typical poultry
operations where appreciable numbers of birds are confined.
Dust emissions can contain dried fecal matter and may include bacteria, endotoxins, moulds,
mites and insect parts (Clark, Rylander and Larsson, 1983). Dust emissions from housing
facilities are highly variable, depending on the climate, building design, feed consistency (dry or
pellet) and control mechanisms for preventing large dust particles from leaving the area near the
building – in recent years, considerable progress has been made in developing low-cost dust
barriers to prevent dust dispersion (Poultry Science Association, 2009). Fine particulate matter
(e.g., PM-fine) resulting from the conversion of ammonia gas in the atmosphere into ammonium
salts can have greater consequences for human health, and is less likely to be mitigated by dust
barrier approaches for preventing larger dust particles. This is another of the factors that make
aerial ammonia emissions so important.
In addition, poultry waste has potential to pollute surface water and groundwater through:
a) direct animal access to waterways, runoff from poultry waste stockpiles, barn yards and
feedlots seepage from poultry waste storage areas, overflow from storage areas
b) runoff from fields where poultry waste has been applied
21
c) runoff from pastures Surface water problems which may result include:
d) harmful effects on fish from oxygen depletion in streams, ponds, and estuaries
e) nutrient enrichment of water systems due to increased levels of nitrates and phosphates
which can cause eutrophication (algae blooms) of surface waters
f) human and animal health hazards including high concentrations of bacteria in shellfish
Poultry waste and associated poultry wastewater can be farm liabilities if they are not handled
properly. Potential liabilities include:
a) Bacterial and nitrogen contamination of water supplies.

b) Potential disease in humans and poultry due to pathogenic bacteria.
c) Dangerous gases produced in poultry waste storage in the absence of oxygen. These
gases include ammonia; methane, which is odourless; and hydrogen sulphide, which
smells like rotten eggs. High concentrations of these gases can be harmful to the health of
animals and humans.
d) Nuisance to neighbours due to odours from poultry waste.
Most of the environmental problems associated with improper practices of land application of
manure by-products have centred on the contamination of ground and/or surface water with two
major nutrients, N and P. (Sims, Bergström, Bowman, and Oenema, 2005) However, manure
by-products may also contain other potentially toxic trace elements, such as arsenic (As), copper
(Cu) and zinc (Zn), which, to date, have received less attention (Toor and Hunger, 2009). For
example, poultry manure addition is considered to be one of the major sources of as input to
soils.
Nitrogen in the form of nitrates in drinking-water can cause adverse health effects; and
both nitrogen and phosphorus in certain concentrations and environmental conditions can result
in degradation of surface waters. Regarding nutrient loading from poultry manure and litter, the
focus is mainly on nitrogen and phosphorus, but certain metals such as copper and zinc, which
may also be contained in poultry excreta, should also be considered when planning long-term
sustainable nutrient balance in soils receiving poultry waste. In certain soil conditions, a build-up
of these metals can be detrimental (toxic) for some crops (Zublena, 1994).
22
To offset the environmental risks of manure land application, Edwards and Someshwar
(2000) pointed out that to reduce the risk of offsite contamination, land application guidelines
should be developed that consider the total composition of the manure by-products rather than
only one component, i.e., N and/or P concentration. On the other hand, the concentration of trace
elements in poultry litter and its by-products could be minimized by controlling the quality of
raw feed materials and reducing mineral additives in poultry diet (Van Ryssen, 2008).
2.3 Poultry waste disposal methods
The disposal of poultry carcasses presents significant environmental, biological, and financial
problems for the poultry industry Worldwide (Cai et al., 1994). There are several ways of
disposing of poultry waste including burial, rendering, incineration, compositing, feed for
livestock, fertilizer or source of energy. Each disposal option has advantages and disadvantages.
Malone (2004) estimated that in the United States (US), 40% of meat-type mortalities are
composted, ~20% incinerated, ~20% rendered and ~20% buried. For layers, rendering and
incineration are predominant and composting is the least used disposal option.
2.3.1 Application to arable lands
Poultry manure has long been recognized as perhaps the most desirable of all animal manures
(fertilizers) because of its high nitrogen content Sloan, Kidder and Jacobs (2003). As a result,
direct land application of poultry litter from broiler operations is the most widely used and cost
effective disposal method. Olexa and Goldfarb (2008) argued that if waste must be transported to
a disposal site, it must be placed in sealed containers to prevent spillage. Globally, an excess of
90% poultry waste is spread on land close to the poultry farms (Moore, Daniel, Sharley and
Wood., 1995). For some poultry producing regions, the spreading of poultry waste has become
less cost effective mainly because of restrictions on land availability. Excess nitrogen and
phosphorus have been noted in soils applied with poultry manure because of lack of soil analyses
to determine the mineral content of the soil. Coote and Zwerman (1975) pointed out that the risk
of nutrients, organic material, and pathogens contaminating water bodies and public water
supplies will greatly increase if manure is spread adjacent to streams, waterways, and lakes.
A recent study of Dikinya and Mufwanzala (2010) in Botswana revealed that chicken manure is
a potential source of nutrients and chemical conditioner. The investigators reported increased
23
electrical conductivity together with exchangeable bases with increased application rates of
chicken manure in all soil types, indicating positive effects on soils. Manure can be applied
directly to the soil or it can be pelleted before application. Pelleting manure converts a wet
heterogeneous material which is difficult to apply on the land uniformly into a uniformed matter
which is easy to handle and transport to areas where there are infertile soils to reduce the excess
of nutrients in soils and water in poultry producing regions (Hamilton and Sims, 1995). Also,
pelleting can allow for low quality manure to be fortified with inorganic fertilisers. Previous
study of Roeper et al. (2005) reported that pelleting results in approximately 75% of the total
nitrogen remaining in the pellets.
2.3.2 Poultry waste in livestock feeding
Poultry litter has been used in diets for poultry, swine, lambs, ewes, lactating cows, wintering
cattle and brood cows. Poultry litter and/or manure are used as livestock feed in most countries
(Smith and Wheeler, 1979) including Israel and some states in the US. Poultry waste used for
animal feeding is obtained primarily from laying hens (caged and not caged) as well as broiler
operations. Poultry litter is also used to feed livestock. Cage layer waste can be used by
ruminants as a source of supplemental protein. (Chaundry, Nasser, and Alkraidees., 1997) stated
that amino acid nitrogen of cage layer waste ranges from 37 to 40% of total nitrogen and that
about 40 to 60% of total nitrogen in poultry excreta is present in the form of non-protein nitrogen
(NPN). Uric acid, the major NPN source in poultry is degraded to ammonia by rumen microbes.
According to National Research Council (NRC) (1984), the maximum inclusion rate for poultry
waste in ruminant feeds is 20%. Crickenberger and Goode (1996) suggested that adding broiler
litter to beef cattle rations at a level of 20% or higher (as fed basis) generally meets the animal’s
needs for crude protein, calcium and phosphorus. The investigators reported beneficial effects of
feeding corn silage to which poultry litter has been added at a level of 30%. Furthermore, Muller
(1980) observed that poultry waste fed at levels above 35% usually covers almost the total
protein requirement of sheep, and contributes substantially to the energy of the total ration. The
investigator noted that the only problem encountered in feeding processed poultry waste to sheep
is the toxicity derived from the high copper level in poultry diets. Additionally, Chaudhry et al.
(1997) argued that the danger of feeding poultry waste to livestock includes health hazards like
24
pathogens and residues of pesticides. As a result, the investigators suggested that ensiling poultry
waste, i.e. slaughterhouse wastes with molasses and lactobacilli improves NPN and reduces
pathogens. Dried poultry waste contains 28% protein and 30% ash and is also an excellent source
of calcium, phosphorus, potassium, iron and zinc (NRC, 1984) which are useful in
supplementation of sheep in winter. Jordon, Kloptenstein, and Adams, (2002) measured body
conditions of sheep fed dried poultry waste, soybean or urea as winter supplements and
concluded that feeding a supplement containing dried poultry waste resulted in performance
similar to that of conventional supplements containing soya bean meal in Nigeria. (Owen,
Ngodigha, and Amakiri., 2008). Proximate composition of heat treated poultry litter (layers).
International Journal of Poultry Science, 7(11): 1033-1035. investigated the nutrient quality of
heat treated poultry litter and obtained dry matter (DM), crude protein, energy, crude fibre, ether
extract and ash values of 87%, 20%, 621.41 kcal/kg, 10.40%, 2.2% and 18.50%, respectively. In
addition, phosphorus, calcium, sodium, potassium and magnesium values in the litter were
4.50%, 2.00%, 0.10%, 2.05 and 0.48%, respectively. The investigators concluded that poultry
litter could be incorporated into animal feeds.
2.3.3 Burial
Besides burning and rendering, the carcasses of dead domestic animals may be disposed of by
burial. The carcasses may not be disposed of by dumping on any public road or right-of-way left
where they may be consumed by animals (Olexa and Goldfarb, 2008). According to Malone
(2005), on-farm burial has been the predominant disposal option for many catastrophic mortality
events such as avian influenza outbreaks. Anon (2005) mentioned that for mass disposal of
certain production animals (poultry, swine, and calves) burial pits may be used if they are
designed, constructed, maintained, and used in a manner to prevent the spread of diseases. Burial
is one of the simplest and most cost-effective methods employed to deal with many types of
mass mortality losses. However, burial of dead birds in a pit can lead to ground water
contamination (Cai et al., 1994) and public perception concerns if not properly managed. Payne
(1995) mentioned that when proper guidelines are followed, burial is a safe option but that poor
site selection, such as sandy soils or areas with high water tables, may pose a threat to
groundwater. Payne (1995) indicated that burial of mortality requires the construction of a pit,
which must be located at least 91.44 m away from any wells, waters of the state, neighbouring
25
residences, public areas or property lines. The bottom of the burial pit must be at least 30.48 cm
above any floodplain level and at least 60.96 cm above the seasonal-high water table. On the
other hand, Anon (2005) indicated that mortality to be buried must be located more than 30.48 m
away from any existing or proposed wells, water supply lines, or seasonable high water table of
any water source, and 4.57 m horizontal away from the edge of any embankment. Additionally,
burial sites must not be in areas with gullies, ravines, dry streambeds, natural or man-made
drainage ways or sinkholes. Payne stated that if there is bedrock in the area, the bottom of the pit
must be at least 60.96 cm above the bedrock. In addition, carcasses must be covered with a
minimum of 76.2 cm of top soil after placement in the pit. Anon (2005) stated that mortality
must be buried at least 0.91 m below ground level but no more than 2.44 m deep. Animals may
be buried in mass burial pits or in approved landfills. The soil for a burial site must be of
moderate or slow permeability and must be at least one 30.48 cm above the seasonal high
groundwater elevation.
2.3.4 Burning
In this disposal method, mortalities are fully burned at relatively high temperatures using fuels
such as wood, tyres or diesel. However, this waste disposal method may lead to atmospheric
pollution in the event of catastrophic mortalities resulting from outbreaks of highly infectious
diseases such as Newcastle disease and avian influenza. Anon (2005) argued that burning is not a
preferred method of disposal because of the resulting air pollutants. According to Anon (2005),
mass cremation of mortality should be performed in a flat area that is easily accessible to heavy
vehicles for transporting the carcasses and away from public view. The site must be located away
from buildings, public roads, and overhead electric and telephone lines, underground utility
wires, and shallow underground pipes or gas lines.
2.3.5 Incineration
Incineration is recognized as one of the biologically safest methods of disposal, eliminating the
threat of disease (Blake, Carey, Haque and Malone, 2008). Mortalities and condemned carcasses
from the slaughter facilities are burned at high temperatures in a purpose-built incinerator,
usually in the abattoirs. Incinerating poultry and small animals is biologically the safest disposal
method. The residue from properly incinerated mortality is largely harmless and does not attract
26
rodents or insects. Payne stated that incineration eliminates all pathogens but high operational
costs and incineration's potential to contribute to air pollution (if not properly maintained and
operated) decreases its usefulness for widespread use as a mortality carcass disposal option.
Malone (2005) argued that the incineration process is slow, loading decomposed carcass poses a
problem and it will require disposal of 0.3 tonnes of ash per tonne of carcass. Without the proper
sources of fuel and supervision of the process, smoke and odour can create nuisance complaints.
Cai et al. (1994) observed that incineration is expensive and can potentially pollute the air.
Therefore, this makes incineration not recommended for large-scale poultry operations that
produce large amounts of mortalities but mainly for poultry slaughter facilities.
2.3.6 Composting
Composting is a natural, biological process by which organic material is broken down and
decomposed (Malone, 2004). It is also the manipulation of the natural aerobic process of
biological decomposition of organic materials to increase the decomposition rate. This process is
carried out by successive microbial populations which function under increasing temperatures to
break down organic materials into carbon dioxide, water, minerals, and stabilized organic matter
(Evanylo, S, 2009). Composting of waste is viewed as a viable means of reducing litter needs by
recycling and reusing litter. Additionally, composting results in a product that is much more
environmentally acceptable than raw litter for land application. It is a biological process in which
organic wastes are stabilized and converted into a product to be used as a soil conditioner and
organic fertilizer (Brake, 1992). According to Anon (2002), composting provides an inexpensive
alternative for disposal of animal-based wastes and other biological residuals. Properly
composted material is environmentally safe and a valuable soil amendment for growing certain
crops. The basic objective in composting is to maximize microbial activity at the expense of the
waste material. To achieve this, maximum metabolic heat output by thermophilic bacteria must
be attained (Drake, 1992). According to Malone (2005), microorganisms will rapidly compost
carcasses in the presence of oxygen (>5%), moisture (40- 60%), and a proper carbon to nitrogen
ratio (20:1 to 35:1). This process produces carbon dioxide, water vapour, heat and compost.
Under proper conditions, thermophilic organisms will cause the compost to heat to temperatures
ranging from 57 to 63oC. Evanylo et al. (2009) stated that mesophilic bacteria thrive at
temperatures of 25° to 42°C, but they can survive at higher temperatures. Mesophilic bacteria
27
feed on the most readily available carbohydrates and proteins. Their metabolic activity raises the
temperature of the windrow sufficiently to allow the takeover by thermophilic bacteria which
perform best at temperatures ranging from 50° to 60°C. If the temperature raises much above
66°C, majority of the bacterial population and many other living organisms will die. Anon
(2002) stated that it takes 2 to 6 months for the animal to decompose. The benefits of composting
are manifold. Composting has the ability to reduce poultry litter, dispose of carcasses, stabilise
trace minerals and reduce odours (Turnell et al., 2007; Bonhotal et al., 2008). Also, composting
can kill pathogens and help control disease outbreaks; it can be done any time of the year and can
be done with equipment available on farms; hence it is economical (Bonhotal et al., 2008). The
most efficient temperature range for composting is between 40oC and 60oC. However, compost
pile temperatures are dependent on the amount of heat produced by the microorganisms that is
lost through aeration or surface cooling. In the opinion of Turnell et al. (2007), the
immobilisation of nitrogen and phosphorus during composting reduces the risk of these nutrients
entering the water systems. Imbeah (1998) stated that the decomposition process kills pathogens,
converts ammonia nitrogen to organic nitrogen and reduces waste volume. Furthermore,
composting reduces the pathogenic organisms due to the high heat produced during the process
of composting. Das et al. (2002) reported that hatchery waste composting reduces E. coli and
salmonella by 99.9% and 100%, respectively.
Composting of poultry litter offers a convenient and environmentally acceptable method of its
disposal (Chaudhry et al., 2007). The disadvantages of composting are loss of some nutrients
including nitrogen, the land area required for the composting and odour problems (Glatz et al.,
2011). A potential problem with composting is the emission of greenhouse gases such as
methane and nitrous oxide, which are efficient in absorbing infra-red radiation resulting in global
warming and acid rain. Animal production contributes 7% of greenhouse emissions worldwide
through the decomposition and degradation of manure (Hao et al., 2004).
2.3.7 Rendering
Rendering is a process of using high temperature and pressure to convert whole animal and
poultry carcasses or their by-products with little or no value to a safe, nutritionally and
economically valuable feed ingredient. It combines blending, cooking, pressurizing, fat melting,
water evaporation, and microbial inactivation (CAST 2008). Rendering process cooks the
28
product while killing pathogenic agents and converting the product into a value-added product
which can be used as pet feed ingredients or livestock feed ingredients. CAST (2008) argued that
rendering is only feasible if there is a local rendering plant close enough for convenient pickup.
Rendered products are used in feed production. In India, Santhi et al. (2011) reported
significantly (P<0.05) higher body weight, as well as, better feed conversion ratios in poult fed
diets with 25% poultry waste carcass meal crude protein replacement compared with diets
containing only fishmeal as a protein source. The investigators concluded that levels of poultry
waste carcass meal replacing the crude protein from fishmeal up to 25% appeared acceptable
based upon eighth week body weight and feed efficiency.
2.3.8 Conversion of poultry waste to energy
Poultry litter has been shown to be a viable, renewable biomass fuel. This conversion of poultry
litter to energy furnace provides a high value alternative to land application and helps to control
rising energy costs (Habetz and Echols, 2006). Anaerobic digestion and direct combustion are
technologies that can be used to convert poultry waste material to energy. Methane gas produced
during anaerobic digestion can be gas cleaned and used as a renewable energy in households for
cooking and heating (Collins et al., 2002). A recent study of Phanthavogs et al. (2011) in Laos
Peoples Democratic Republic showed that biogas generated from pig manure reduced the
amount of fuel wood and charcoal usage by 69.30% and 47.32%, respectively. Biogas
production appears to be an attractive technology given high energy costs, as well as, frequent
power outages. Other benefits to using biogas include less odours and lower fly populations, as
well as, reductions in greenhouse gas emissions (Phanthavongs et al., 2011). Heat and electricity
can be generated from manure combustion as renewable sources of energy. Habetz and Echols
(2006) noted that because of the controlled combustion process, the resultant ash is converted to
a concentrated fertilizer or fertilizer amendment, high in phosphorous, potassium, calcium,
magnesium and other valuable micronutrients. However, concerns have been raised due to the
gas emission into the air. As a consequence, it is necessary that technologies such as gas cleaning
are employed to reduce the impact of these emissions. Poultry litters from broiler chicken and
turkey houses, as well as, bedding material can also be converted into biocrude oil in a fast
pyrolysis fluidized bed reactor which is a source of renewable energy. The biocrude oil yield
depends on the source, age and bedding material content of the litter. The hardwood shavings
29
give a biocrude oil yield of 63%. The viscosity of the oils is a function of both the source of litter
and the pyrolysis temperature (Agblevor et al., 2010).
2.3.9 Use of poultry waste for treatment of heavy metal contaminated water
Utilization of poultry litter as a precursor material to manufacture activated carbon for treating
heavy metal- contaminated water is a value-added strategy for recycling the organic waste (Guo
et al., 2010). Poultry litter-based activated carbon possesses a significantly higher adsorption
affinity and capacity for heavy metals than commercial activated carbons derived from
bituminous coal and coconut shell and does not pose secondary water contamination risks.
30
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 METHODOLOGY
3.1 The study area
The study area is south western Nigeria which consists of Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo and
Ekiti states. It is also known as the south west geographical zone of Nigeria. The south-western
zone lies between latitudes 5oN and 9oN with a total land area of 78,505 km2, Inter census
growth rate of 3.22 and a projected population of 27, 722, 432 which covers about 21% of
Nigeria’s population in 2006 (NPC, 2006). The study area is bounded in the east by Edo and
Delta states, in the north by Kwara and Kogi states, in the west by the Republic of Benin and in
the south by the Gulf of Guinea. Livestock production, especially poultry production is an
important agricultural practice in the study area with Ogun, Oyo and Osun having the highest
population of poultry farmers.
3.2 Population of study
The population of this study comprises poultry farmers in selected local governments of Ogun,
Oyo, and Osun states of south western Nigeria.
3.3 Sampling procedure and sample size
Multistage sampling procedure was used to select the respondents for the study. Ogun, Oyo and
Osun states were purposively selected for their leading roles in poultry production in south west
Nigeria. A list of poultry farmers (PAN members) was generated from each state to give 230,
203 and 185 poultry farmers respectively. Snow ball sampling technique was also adopted to
generate a list of non-members of 180, 190 and 175 in each of the states respectively. 10% of
each of the registered and non-registered poultry farmers in each state was randomly selected to
give a total of 116 poultry farmers.
States selected No of 10% of registered 10% of non-

purposively farmers poultry famers No registered
31
of non-registered farmers
farmers
selected (PAN)
Oyo 203 20 190 19
Ogun 230 23 180 18
Osun 185 18 175 18
Total 61 55
Total selected 166

Table 3.1: Table showing selection of registered and non- registered poultry farmers in the study
area
3.4 Validation of instrument
Content validity of the research instrument was achieved through interactions with the research
supervisor and professionals in Agricultural Extension and Rural development. The process was
to result in the correction of defective questions, deletion of irrelevant questions and inclusion of
relevant ones.
3.5 Reliability of instrument
The pre-test instrument was administered on 30 poultry farmers in Ondo State after which split
half method was used to determine the reliability of the instrument. Pearson Product Moment
Correlation (PPMC) test produced a correlation coefficient of 0.70 was adjudged adequate.
3.6 Measurement of variable
The study consists of independent and dependent variables.
Independent variable
Section a: Socio-economic characteristics of respondents
Age: This was measured in terms of respondents’ actual age in years.
Sex: Measured as either male or female. Male was scored (1), while female was scored (2).
32
Marital status: This was measured as single, married, widowed, and divorced. Single was
scored (1), married (2), widowed (3), while divorced was scored (4).
Educational attainment: Respondents’ level of educational attainment was captured as

follows: No formal education, Primary education, Secondary education, Tertiary education,
Adult education and Vocational training. No formal education was scored (1), Primary education
(2), Secondary education (3), Tertiary education (4), Adult education (5), and Vocational training
was scored (6).
Religion: Respondents was asked to indicate their religions from: Christianity, Islam and
Traditional Religion. Christianity was scored (1), Islam (2), while Traditional religion was
scored (3).
Monthly income: Respondents were asked to estimate their monthly income in naira from their
primary occupation.
Household size: Actual number of people in the households of respondents was recorded.
Farming experience: Respondents were asked to indicate how long (number of years) they have
been in poultry production.
Types of birds reared: Respondents were presented with a list of poultry categories from which
they will be asked to indicate the ones they keep.
Other livestock reared: Respondents were presented with a list of other livestock apart from
poultry from which they were asked to indicate the ones they keep.
SECTION B: Waste Generated by respondents
Respondents were presented with a list of poultry wastes from which they indicated the ones
generated and the magnitude of the wastes generated .Extremely large quantity = 3, Large
quantity = 2, small quantity = 1, and Not generated = 0.
33
Waste generated Extremely large Large Small quantity Not generated
Quantity quantity
Dungs
Wasted feed
Broken eggs
Feathers
Entrails
Organs of slaughtered
animals
Dead birds
Hatchery wastes
Processing wastes
Bio-solids
Litter
SECTION C: Respondents’ knowledge level of waste management:
A list of knowledge statement was presented to the respondents, to which respondents were
asked to provide answers. Correct answers = 1, Incorrect answers = 0.
Knowledge statements Yes No

Manure and dead poultry are the only poultry wastes
Frequent packing of litters is only to prevent birds to contact
diseases
Poultry litter should be allowed to dry before transported for
land application
Storage of litter before land application must be done on the
farm for proper monitoring
Dry litters should be stored in the open for a long time
Composting poultry litters does not reduce their odour
Liquid manure can be used to produce methane gas
Poultry wastes have a high nutrient content for plant growth
Collection of dead birds every other day will prevent
spreading of disease
SECTION D: Respondents Attitude to waste management
Respondents’ attitude was tested with the use of an attitudinal scale, comprising a number of
items. Respondents level of agreement to each item was rated by 5, 4, 3, 2 and 1 for Strongly
34
Agree, Agree, Undecided, Strongly disagree and Strongly Disagree respectively. The scoring
was reversed for negatively worded statements.
SN Statements S A U D SD
A
1 Poultry wastes cannot be completely eradicated; why so much
emphasis
2 I will rather hand pick dead birds daily than allow it to stay ill the
following day
3 Beyond animals’; human health should be safeguarded by proper
waste management
4 I prefer to pack poultry dung near the farm since it has no effect on
human health
5 I will rather invest in farm equipment of immediate benefits than
spend so much on waste management facilities
6 Even though I have less cash, I use the available financial resources
for effective waste management
7 Why will I produce manure for crop farmers, I will rather allow my
poultry waste to waste away in a nearby location
8 Poultry manure is an important source of income to me as a poultry
farmer
9 With or without poultry waste, our health cannot be perfect after
all; why invest so much in waste management then.
10 Waste management is an important daily activity in my farm
11 My farm is so large that I cannot keep bearing the cost of poultry
management
12 Waste management have always prevented me from spending extra
cost treating infections infection
13 Poultry waste management is a strategy to reduce environmental
pollution
14 Huge labour requirement for poultry waste management has been a
worrisome issue
SECTION E: Constraints to waste management practices
A list of constraints to waste management was presented and respondents indicated the ones they
are constrained with, as well as the level of severity, ranging from very severe = 3, severe = 2,
not severe = 1 and not a constraint = 0.
35
Constraints Very Severe Not Not a constraint
severe severe
Insufficient fund
Scarcity of labour
Lack of extension information
Lack of demand for manure from
livestock farmers
Inadequate waste storage facilities
Inadequate knowledge of waste
Lack of extension contacts
Poor pricing of poultry manure
Inadequate access to land
Bad attitude of farm attendants
Inadequate waste disposal facilities
SECTION F: Waste management facilities
A list of waste management facilities was presented to respondents to indicate the ones available
on their farms. Possession = 1, Non Possession = 0
Equipment Possessed Not possessed
Box type manure spreaders

Waste truck
Incinerator
Pits flusher system
Pressure sprayer for fumigation
Automated litter dryer system
Solid and semi-solid equipments
Manure storage systems
SECTION G: Respondents’ level of awareness of health and environmental implication of

poultry wastes.
A list of items testing respondents’ level of awareness of health and environmental implication of
poultry wastes. Awareness was categorized into low for score less than the mean score and high
for scores higher than the mean score.
36
Awareness Aware Not aware
Depletion of ozone layer
Water pollution
Air pollution
Prevalence of poultry disease
Pest infestation
Risk of human infection
Extra unit cost on birds and eggs
Land pollution
Dependent variable
SECTION H: Waste management practices
Respondents indicated waste management practices as well as the frequency with which they
were practiced.
Waste management practices Always Occasionall Rarely Never

y
Dumping in bushes
Dumping on farms
Sun-drying
burning
Flushing into streams and rivers
Deposited on land surface within the farm
Incineration,
Rendering,
Burial
dropping into a buried disposal tank,
Composting.
Water treatment
Chemical treatment
Manure
Fish feeding
Sold
Apply to own land
Apply to neighbours land
Methane production
Fed to livestock
Reused as bedding
37
3.7 Data Analysis
Both descriptive and inferential statistics were used for the analyses. Descriptive statistics used
included mean, frequency counts, percentages and charts, while inferential statistics used was
Chi-square and PPMC. The hypotheses were tested as outlined below:
Ho1: PPMC and Chi-square
Ho2: PPMC
Ho3: PPMC
Ho4: PPMC
Ho5: PPMC
38
CHAPTER FOUR
4.0 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Socioeconomic characteristics
4.1.1 Age
The mean age of the respondents was 35-30. Table 1 shows that majority of the respondents fell
between the age range of 30-35(52.5%) followed by 36-40 (35.5%). While those that fell below
30 and 41-45 were 6%. This implies that poultry farming was practiced actively by young
famers. This age distribution among farmers suggests high level of vitality for agricultural
activities and play central role in productive enterprises (Durston, 1996).
4.1.2 Sex
As shown by Table 1, poultry farming in the study area was predominated by the male (83.6%).
This implies that majority of the farmers that ventured into poultry were male because the
activities involved are tedious and time consuming. This is in consonance with the findings of
Adeyemi et al. (2002) that reported a 62% male participation in poultry business.
4.1.3 Religion
Table 1 revealed that majority of the respondents in the study area were Christians (59.5%) and
Muslims were (40.5%). Both religions have no controversy over poultry business.
4.1.4 Marital status
Result of analysis on table 1 shows that majority of the respondents were married (64.5%) while
34.5% were single. This implies responsibilities in form of family needs that must be met by
these poultry farmers. This study supports the finding that married farmers were more involved
in backyard poultry farming than unmarried farmers (Amos, 2007; Maikasuwa and Jabo, 2011).
4.1.5 Education status
39
Education results in changes in overall behaviours, since, it is the process of imparting, or
acquiring knowledge and habit through instruction or study (Saha, 2003).
Table 1 shows that many (51.7%) of the respondents were graduates of polytechnics and
universities, 36.2% had OND/NCE and 12.1% had postgraduate diplomas and degrees. The
relationship between level of education and access to information established by previous studies
(Akinbile, 2005; Adekoya and Ajayi, 2000) make the level of education achieved by the
respondents good enough to aid their propensity to improve their production.
4.1.6 Years of experience
Experience is a measure of the skill that farmers have in the enterprise. Many (41.4%) of the
respondents had less than 3 years of poultry keeping experience. Generally, the result implies
that there are new entrants in the enterprise and the results also corroborates the earlier results
that majority of the respondents are graduates of higher institutions which is also an indication of
youth participation in Agriculture.
4.1.7 Monthly income
Majority (69.8%) of the poultry farmers earned less than N30, 000 on the average per month
while 30.2% earn more than N30, 000. This is an indication that the poultry farmers generate
income from their participation in the enterprise.
4.1.8 Tenure right
Result of analysis on table 1 shows that majority (64.7%) of the poultry farmers were using
facilities not owned by them, proving further that they were smallholder farmers. Only 35.3% of
them were operating on their self owned facilities. This implies that majority of the poultry
farmers cannot expand their production output because they do not own the facilities.
4.1.9 Membership of farmers’ association
Many new entrants into agriculture, especially the youths do not join farmers’ association; they
have the opinion that they can succeed on their own. The situation is different in this study,
40
17.2% of the respondents were not participating in any farmers’ group, while 82.8% were
participating in farmers’ association.
4.1.10 Other income generating activity
Many of the poultry farmers were also involved in civil service (40.5%) and trading (35.3%).
Few others were involved in crop farming (12.1%) and artisanal activities (12.1%). This is an
indication of hard work and multiple stream of income.
4.1.11 Household size
Majority (70.6%) of the poultry farmers have less than 5 household size. This implies low
household farm labour. Consequently, labourers may have to be employed and paid from the
meagre income or farm activities may have to be limited to what one or two people can handle.
This negates the findings of Emaikwu et al (2011). which states most of the studies that
confirmed large house size among the farming households where they see family size as a work
force that supply the most needed labour requirement for production activities in the study area.
4.1.12 Type of birds reared
Broilers (53.4%) were more raised among the poultry farmers than layers (34.5%) and cockerel
(12.1%). This is an indication that many of these farmers are mainly interested in quick money
and do not have much patience to delay business gratification.
4.1.13 Other livestock reared
Majority (75.9%) of these farmers were not keeping any other livestock. This is a negative point
because they were not optimizing the utilization of their farm facilities and not creating the much
beneficial opportunities for recycling - encouraging wastage.
41
Table 4.1: Distribution of respondents based on their socioeconomic characteristics n=116
Variable Frequency Percentage

Age
<30 7 6.0
30-35 66 52.5
36-40 41 35.5
41-45 7 6.0
Sex
Male 97 83.6
Female 19 16.4
Religion
Christian 69 59.5
Muslim 47 40.5
Marital status
Single 40 34.5
Married 76 64.5
Education status
OND/NCE 40 36.2
HND/BSC/BA 60 51.7
PG 14 12.1
Years of experience
1-2 48 41.4
3-4 34 29.3
5-6 34 29.3
Estimated monthly income
<20000 48 41.4
20,001 - 30,000 33 28.4
30,001 - 40,000 14 12
40,001 – 50,000 14 12
50,001 – 60,000 7 6
Tenure right /ownership
Self owned 41 35.3
Rent / leased 75 64.7
Member of farm Organization
Yes 96 82.8
No 20 17.2
42
Source: Field survey, 2013
Table 4.1: Distribution of respondents based on their socioeconomic characteristics n=116
Variables Frequency Percentage

Other income activity
Crop farming 14 12.1
Civil service 47 40.5
Artisan 14 12.1
Trading 41 35.3
Household size
2-4 77 70.6
5-7 21 18.1
>7 13 11.2
Type of birds
Broiler 62 53.4
Layers 40 34.5
Cockerel 14 12.1
Other livestock reared
None 88 75.9
Goat 7 6.0
Cattle 7 6.0
Pig 14 12.1
4.2 Waste generated from poultry
In descending order, Table 2 shows the major poultry waste generated by the respondents as
wasted feed (1.41), litter (1.41), feathers (1.13) and processing waste (1.11). The minor
poultry wastes generated by them were entrails (0.48), hatchery wastes (0.71), dung (0.78)
and broken eggs (0.79). Feed is a costly input in poultry keeping; its prevalent wastage is
thus disheartening. This result agrees with Moore et al. (2006) that poultry litter constitutes
the most part of poultry waste.
43
Table 2: Distribution of respondents according to the waste generated n=116
Variables Extremely large Large Small Not Mean

Quantity quantity quantity generated
F % F % F % F %
Dung 14 12.1 14 12.1 20 17.2 68 58.6 0.78
Wasted feed 13 11.2 21 18.1 82 70.7 0 0.0 1.41
Broken eggs 7 6.0 7 6.0 56 48.3 46 39.7 0.79
Feathers 7 6.0 48 41.4 14 12.1 47 40.5 1.13
Entrails 14 12.1 0 0.0 14 12.1 88 75.9 0.48
Organs of slaughtered birds 0 0.0 20 17.2 55 47.4 41 35.3 0.82
Dead birds 0 0.0 14 12.1 76 65.5 26 22.4 0.90
Hatchery wastes 7 6.0 14 12.0 33 28.4 62 53.4 0.71
Processing wastes 13 11.2 21 18.1 48 41.1 34 29.3 1.11
Bio-solids 7 6.0 20 17.2 48 41.4 41 35.3 0.94
Litter 0 0.0 62 53.4 40 34.5 14 12.1 1.41
According to Table 3, the proportion of poultry farmers that generated low amount of poultry
waste was 70.7%, while those that generated high amount of poultry waste were 29.3%. This
indicates that many of the farmers manage their poultry farms right enough. The result negates
the opinion of Ojolo et al. (2007) that poultry wastes are hugely generated in Nigeria.
Table 3: Distribution of respondents according to the level of waste generated n=116
Mean category Level Freq %

<11 Low 82 70.7
>11 High 34 29.3
4.3 Possession of integrated waste management facilities
In descending order, Table 4 reveals the most possessed integrated waste management facilities
of the poultry farmers to be incinerator (47.4%), solid and semi-solid handling equipment
(47.4%) and manure storage system (42.2%). The least possessed integrated waste management
facilities of the poultry farmers were pits flusher system (12.1%) and automated litter dryer
44
system (12.1%). This result negates the findings of Adeli et al. (2009) that poultry waste drying
(as in possession of automated litter drying system) and burning is common in Nigeria.
Table 4: Distribution based on possession of integrated waste management facilities
Variables Possessed Not possessed Mean

F % F %
Manure storage system 49 42.2 67 57.8 0.42
Box type manure spreaders 21 18.1 95 81.9 0.18
Incinerator 55 47.4 61 52.6 0.47
Pits flusher system 14 12.1 102 87.9 0.12
Automated litter dryer system 14 12.1 102 87.9 0.12
Double deck pre cleaner 28 24.1 88 75.9 0.24
Pressure sprayer for fumigation 28 24.1 88 75.9 0.24
Solid and semi-solid handling equipment 55 47.4 61 52.6 0.47
The proportion of poultry farmers that possess few integrated waste management facilities was
63.8%, while those that possess many integrated waste management facilities were 36.2%. This
is another reflection of the poultry farmers’ low tenure right; they are not expected to possess
much of integrated waste management facilities on rented/leased facilities. Also, it is a reflection
of their small holder nature. However, it could be out of negligence of waste management. This
result corroborates Akinbile (2012) that stated that waste management facilities are inadequate
and sometimes lacking among livestock keepers in Nigeria.
Table 5: Distribution of respondents based on level of possession of integrated waste

management facilities

<3 Low 74 63.8
>3 High 42 36.2
4.4 Knowledge of integrated waste management
45
According to Table 6, the prominent knowledge of integrated waste management were
‘composting poultry litters does not reduce their odour (100.0%)’, ‘poultry houses should be kept
dry all the time (94.0%)’, ‘water courses should be channelled far (about 50m away) from the
water sources like bore hole and well (94.0%)’.
Table 6: Distribution of respondents based on knowledge of integrated waste management
Variables Yes No Mean

F % F %
Manure and dead poultry are the only poultry 70 60.3 46 39.7 0.40
wastes
Poultry houses should be kept dry all the time 109 94.0 7 6.0 0.94
Frequent packing of litters is only to prevent 14 12.1 102 87.9 0.89
birds to contact diseases
Poultry litter is not useful for land application 81 69.8 35 30.2 0.30
Storage of litter before land application must be 81 69.8 35 30.2 0.70
done on the farm
46
Dry litters should be stored in the open for a 81 69.8 35 30.2 0.70
long time
Poultry wastes have a high nutrient content for 62 53.4 54 46.6 0.47
plant growth
Composting poultry litters does not reduce their 116 100 0 0.0 1.00
odour
Collection of dead birds every other day will 7 6.0 109 94.0 0.94
prevent spreading of disease
Waste water channels cannot constitute infection 62 53.4 54 46.6 0.47
in any way
Empty containers must be disposed according to 102 87.9 14 12.1 0.88
the discretion of the farmer
Biogas can be generated from poultry litter 54 46.6 62 53.4 0.47
The surroundings of the farm can be used as 68 58.6 48 41.4 0.41
dumping sites for poultry wastes
Waste can be spread within 10m of water 76 65.6 40 34.5 0.66
courses
Water courses should be channelled far (about 109 94.0 7 6.0 0.94
50m away) from the water sources like bore hole
and well
All water courses should be free of 95 81.9 21 18.1 0.82
contamination
Poultry wastes cannot be useful for other 96 82.8 20 17.2 0.17
purposes
Dead birds can be buried anywhere on the farm 89 76.7 27 23.3 0.23
Water courses on the farm are only means of 61 52.6 55 47.4 0.53
draining excess waste water
Hatchery wastes can be used to generate income 95 81.9 21 18.1 0.83
The proportion of poultry farmers that possessed low knowledge of integrated waste
management was 65.5%, while those that possessed high knowledge of integrated waste
management were 34.5%. This explains why many of them had few integrated waste
management facilities. However, Agbede and Ojeniyi (2009) opined that without adequate
knowledge of integrated poultry waste management, the use of the waste for soil enhancement
will still be environmentally hazardous.
Table 7: Distribution based on level of knowledge of integrated waste management
47
<13 Low 76 65.5
>13 High 40 34.5
4.5 Level of awareness of the health and environmental effects of poultry wastes
Table 8 shows that all the poultry farmers were aware that poultry waste could cause water
pollution. Many were also aware that the waste could cause pest infestation (88.8%), air
pollution (87.9%) and increase risk of human infection (87.9%). However, most of them were
not aware that poultry waste could cause further depletion of the ozone layer. The result is in
tandem with Bolan et al. (2010) that concluded that air pollution as a result of ineffective poultry
waste management cannot go unnoticed, even if other accompanying damages on air, water and
soil go unnoticed.
Table 8: Distribution based on awareness of the health and environmental effects of poultry
wastes
Variables Aware Not aware Mean

F % F %
Depletion of ozone layer 28 24.1 88 75.9 0.24
Water pollution 116 100 0 0.0 1.00
Air pollution 102 87.9 14 12.1 0.88
Prevalence of poultry disease 68 58.6 48 41.4 0.57
Pest infestation 103 88.8 13 11.2 0.89
48
Risk of human infection 102 87.9 14 12.1 0.88
Extra unit cost on birds and eggs 89 76.7 27 23.3 0.78
Land pollution 61 52.8 55 47.4 0.53
The proportion of poultry farmers that had high awareness of the health and environmental
effects of poultry waste was 58.6%, while those that had low awareness of the health and
environmental effects of poultry waste were 41.4%. This explains that many of these poultry
farmers were well aware of the health and environmental effects of poultry waste and are
expected to be very interested in poultry waste management.
Table 9: Distribution based on level of awareness of the health and environmental effects of
poultry wastes

<6 Low 48 41.4
>6 High 68 58.6
4.6 Attitude to the adoption of integrated waste management practices
The mean of the distribution on table 10 is 3.29 and attitudinal statements with mean higher than
3.29 are considered to be favorably considered by the respondents and vice versa. Table 11
therefore reveals that the poultry farmers acknowledged that ‘dead birds are better handpicked
daily – 4.43’, ‘proper poultry waste management is essential for human health – 4.36’, ‘poultry
waste can be completely eradicated – 4.20’, and ‘adequate poultry waste management reduce
birds’ infections and treatment cost – 3.92’.
49
Table 10: Distribution of the attitude of poultry farmers to the adoption of integrated waste
Attitudinal statements SA A U D SD Mean

Poultry wastes cannot be completely eradicated 0.0 11.2 0.0 46.6 42.2 4.20
I will rather hand pick dead birds daily than allow 65.5 23.3 0.0 11.2 0.0 4.43
it to stay till the following day
Beyond animals’; human health should be save 70.7 6.0 12.1 11.2 0.0 4.36
guarded by proper waste management practices
I prefer to pack poultry dung near the farm since 17.2 12.1 12.1 46.6 12.1 2.76
it has no effect on human health
I have small stock why spend so much on waste 6.0 0.0 35.3 46.6 12.1 2.41
management
Even though I have less cash, I use the available 41.4 17.2 6.0 35.3 0.0 3.65
financial resources for effective waste
management
I don’t need to produce manure since I am not a 6.0 24.1 40.5 29.3 0.0 2.93
crop farmer
Poultry manure is an important source of income 24.1 11.2 29.3 35.3 0.0 3.24
to me as a poultry farmer
With or without poultry waste, our health cannot 12.1 28.4 47.4 0.0 12.1 2.72
be perfect after all; why invest so much in waste
management then.
Waste management is an important daily activity 40.5 42.2 6.0 11.2 0.0 4.12
in my farm
Waste management is only applicable to small 12.1 34.5 24.1 11.2 18.1 2.89
scale producers
Waste management have always prevented me 40.5 35.3 0.0 24.1 0.0 3.92
from spending extra cost treating infections
Attitudinal statements SA A U D SD Mean

Huge labour requirement for poultry waste 17.2 42.2 12.1 17.2 11.2 2.63
management has very worrisome.
Good management practices of waste is natural to 29.3 59.5 11.2 0.0 0.0 4.18
me
I only manage waste on my farms so as to avoid 17.2 35.3 12.1 35.3 0.0 3.01
embarrassments from government agencies
I will rather invest on poultry expansion than on 17.2 34.5 12.1 6 30.2 2.97
poultry management
We cannot do without using burning aids such as 30.2 35.3 6 11.2 17.2 2.50
tyres on the farm
50
Effective recycling of waste cannot be achieved 23.3 35.3 35.3 6 0.0 2.24
in this side of the world
Establishing burial sites for dead animals can be 23.3 18.1 6.0 23.3 29.3 3.17
money consuming and affects poultry business
negatively
For sustainable environment, poultry wastes 53.4 23.3 0.0 23.3 0.0 4.07
should be handled with utmost care importance
The proportion of poultry farmers that had favourable attitude to the adoption of integrated waste
management practices was 52.6%, while those that had unfavourable attitude to the adoption of
integrated waste management practices were 47.4%. This explains that many of these poultry
farmers appreciated that adoption of integrated waste management practices was necessary.
Table 11: Distribution based on level of attitude to the adoption of integrated waste management
practices.

<69 Unfavourable 55 47.4
>69 Favourable 61 52.6
4.7 Constraints to the adoption of integrated waste management practices
According to Table 12, the major constraints to the adoption of integrated waste management
practices among the poultry farmers were insufficient fund (3.52), inadequate market channels of
waste storage facilities (3.41), difficulty in burning during raining season (3.41), poor pricing of
poultry manure (3.41), inadequate knowledge of waste management practices (3.30) and
inadequate access to land (3.23). The result is in tandem with Aneja et al. (2006) that stated that
financial challenge always top the list of farmers’ constraints when there is need to adopt best
Table 12: Distribution based on the constraints to the adoption of integrated waste management
practices
51
Constraints Very Severe Not severe Not a Mean
severe constraint
F % F % F % F %
Insufficient fund 60 51.7 56 48.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 3.52
Scarcity of labour due to 20 17.2 62 53.4 34 29.3 0 0.0 2.88
irritation
Lack of extension 28 24.1 74 63.8 7 6.0 7 6.0 3.06
information and contacts
Lack of demand for manure 26 22.4 14 12.1 34 29.3 42 36..2 2.21
from livestock farmers
Inadequate market channels 75 64.7 21 18.1 13 11.2 7 6.0 3.41
of waste storage facilities
Inadequate knowledge of 75 64.7 14 12.1 14 12.1 13 11.2 3.30
Difficulty to burn during 68 58.6 28 24.1 20 17.2 0 0.0 3.41
raining season
Lack of vehicle and transport 48 41.4 54 46.6 7 6.0 0 0.0 3.29
costs
Poor pricing of poultry 55 47.4 54 46.6 7 6.0 0 0.0 3.41
manure
Inadequate access to land 68 58.6 7 6.0 41 35.3 0 0.0 3.23
Bad attitude of farm 7 6.0 55 47.4 34 29.3 20 17.2 2.42
attendants
Inadequate waste disposal 40 34.5 55 47.4 12 18.1 0 0.0 3.16
As in Table 13, the proportion of poultry farmers that had high constraints to the adoption of
integrated waste management practices was 60.3%, while those that had low constraints to the
adoption of integrated waste management practices were 39.7%. This explains that the
constraints to the adoption of integrated waste management practices are enormous among the
respondents.
Table 13: Distribution based on level of constraints to the adoption of integrated waste

<37 Low 46 39.7
>37 High 70 60.3
52
4.8 Hypotheses testing
4.8.1 Hypothesis one
Ho1: There is no significant relationship between respondents’ socioeconomic characteristics and

their attitude towards integrated waste management practices
Table 14 reveals that there is a relationship between the poultry farmers’ educational level
(p=0.000), tenure right (p=0.000), membership of farmers’ group (p=0.000), secondary activity
(p=0.000), other livestock (p=0.003) and their attitude towards the adoption of integrated waste
management practices. These relationships are positive, meaning that there is a directly
proportional relationship between poultry farmers’ educational level, tenure right, membership of
farmers’ group, secondary activity, other livestock kept an d their attitude towards the adoption
of integrated waste management practices. The relationship between educational level and
attitude towards integrated waste management practices reflects the relationship between
knowledge and understanding of environmental consequences of ineffective poultry waste
management as opined by Agbede and Ojeniyi (2009). The relationship between tenure right and
attitude towards the adoption of integrated waste management practices also reveals that land
tenure plays one of the most vital roles in shaping farmers land use decisions (Li et al., 1998)
also the relationship between membership of farmers group and attitude towards the adoption of
integrated waste management practices shows that poultry farmers who belongs to one or more
poultry farmers associations are more likely to have access to information’s and synthesize
innovations in their locality than those who do not belong to farmers group.
However, there is no relationship between the poultry farmers’ marital status, types of birds kept
and their attitude towards integrated waste management practices. This implies that the poultry
farmers’ attitude towards the adoption of integrated waste management practices is a function of
their farmers’ educational level, tenure right, membership of farmers’ group, secondary activity,
other livestock kept and not a function of their marital status and types of birds kept.
Table 14: Chi-square test of relationship between socioeconomic characteristics and attitude
towards the adoption of integrated waste management practices.
53
Variables Chi-square df p-value Decision
value
Marital status versus attitude 0.164 1 0.686 Not significant
Educational level versus attitude 19.007 2 0.000 Significant
Tenure right versus attitude 32.076 1 0.000 Significant
Membership of farmers’ group versus attitude 21.790 1 0.000 Significant
Secondary activity versus attitude 46.637 3 0.000 Significant
Types of birds versus attitude 0.271 2 0.873 Not significant
Other livestock versus attitude 14.137 3 0.003 Significant
Table 15 shows that there is no significant relationship between these poultry farmers’ age
(p=0.413), monthly income (p=0.553), household size (p=0.953) and their attitude towards the
adoption of integrated waste management practices. This implies that poultry farmers’ attitude
towards the adoption of integrated waste management practices is not affected by their ages,
monthly incomes and household sizes. This relationship between monthly income and attitude
towards the adoption of integrated waste management practices shows that poultry farmers are
just being irresponsible about the environment as also suggested by Aneja et al. (2006).
On the other hand, their years of experience in poultry enterprise has a significant relationship
(p=0.022) with their attitude towards the adoption of integrated waste management practices.
The relationship is a positive one (r=0.212, p=0.022) and this indicates that the higher the poultry
farmers’ years of experience in poultry enterprise, the more favourable their attitude towards the
adoption of integrated waste management practices. The null hypothesis is thus rejected because
there are significant relationships between poultry farmers’ selected socioeconomic
characteristics and their attitude towards the adoption of integrated waste management practices.
Table 15: PPMC test of relationship between socioeconomic characteristics and attitude towards
the adoption of integrated waste management practices.
Variables r-value p-value Decision

Age versus attitude 0.077 0.413 Not significant
Years of experience versus attitude 0.212 0.022 Significant
Monthly income versus attitude 0.056 0.553 Not significant
Household size versus attitude 0.006 0.953 Not significant
54
4.8.2 Hypothesis two
Ho2: There is no significant relationship between quantity of poultry waste generated by

respondents and their attitude towards the adoption of integrated waste management practices
PPMC test of relationship on table 16 shows that there is a significant relationship (p=0.000)
between quantity of poultry waste generated by respondents and their attitude towards the
adoption of integrated waste management practices. This indicates that the higher the quantity of
poultry waste generated by respondents, the more favourable their attitude towards the adoption
of integrated waste management practices.
Table 16: PPMC test of relationship between quantity of poultry waste generated and attitude

Quantity of waste generated versus attitude 0.456 0.000 Significant
4.8.3 Hypothesis three
Ho3: There is no significant relationship between possession of integrated waste management

facilities and their attitude towards the adoption of integrated waste management practices
PPMC test of relationship on Table 17 shows that there is a significant relationship (p=0.001)
between possession of integrated waste management facilities and their attitude towards the
adoption of integrated waste management practices. This indicates that the higher the possession
of integrated waste management facilities by respondents, the more favourable their attitude
Table 17: PPMC test of relationship between possession of integrated waste management
facilities and attitude

Possession of integrated waste management 0.317 0.001 Significant
facilities versus attitude
4.8.4 Hypothesis four
55
Ho4: There is no significant relationship between knowledge of integrated waste management
and their attitude towards the adoption of integrated waste management practices
PPMC test of relationship on table 18 shows that there is a significant relationship (p=0.000)
between poultry farmers’ knowledge of integrated waste management and their attitude towards
the adoption of integrated waste management practices. Given that the relationship is negative
(r= -0.539, p=0.000), the higher their knowledge of integrated waste management, the less
favourable is their attitude towards the adoption of integrated waste management practices. The
poultry farmers that had higher knowledge of integrated waste management did not think much
of the adoption of integrated waste management practices. The relationship may imply that
farmers with higher knowledge of integrated waste management did not consider it as adoptable
by individuals. They may consider it as only adoptable by institutions or governments because of
its complexities and accompanying challenges.
Table 18: PPMC test of relationship between knowledge of integrated waste management and

Knowledge of integrated waste management -0.539 0.000 Significant
versus attitude
4.8.5 Hypothesis five
Ho5: There is no significant relationship between awareness of health and environmental effects
of poultry wastes and their attitude towards the adoption of integrated waste management
practices
PPMC test of relationship on Table 19 shows that there is no significant relationship (p=0.921)
between poultry farmers’ awareness of health and environmental effects of poultry wastes and
their attitude towards the adoption of integrated waste management practices. Their awareness of
health and environmental effects of poultry wastes does not have much to do with their attitude
56
Table 19: PPMC test of relationship between poultry waste generated and attitude towards the
adoption of integrated waste management practices

Awareness of health and environmental 0.009 0.921 Not significant
effects of poultry wastes versus attitude
4.8.6 Hypothesis six
Ho6: There is no significant relationship between constraints to adoption of integrated waste

management practices and their attitude towards the adoption of integrated waste management
practices
PPMC test of relationship on Table 20 shows that there is a significant relationship (p=0.000)
between poultry farmers’ constraints to adoption of integrated waste management practices and
their attitude towards the adoption of integrated waste management practices. The poultry
farmers’ attitude towards integrated waste management practices is a function of their constraints
to adoption of integrated waste management practices. . This relationship implies that adoption
of integrated waste management practices is challenging, indicating that the higher the adoption,
the more the challenges to surmount.
Table 20: PPMC test of relationship between constraints to adoption of integrated waste
management practices and attitude towards the adoption of integrated waste management
practices

Constraints to adoption of integrated waste 0.355 0.000 Significant
management practices versus attitude
Source: Field survey, 2013.
57
CHAPTER FIVE
5.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Introduction
The purpose of this chapter is to summarize the study that was conducted. Included in this
summary are a review of the purpose of the study, a restatement of the research questions, the
research methodology used, and a summary of the study results, conclusions and discussion.
Recommendations for further research and possible studies conclude this chapter.
5.2 Summary
58
Multistage sampling procedure was used to select the respondents for the study, According to the
specific objectives of this study it revealed that the majority of the poultry farmers generated a
low amount of poultry waste (70.7%), while (29.3%) generated high amount, The major poultry
waste generated were wasted feeds (1.41), litter (1.41) and processing waste (1.11) while the
minor poultry waste generated were entrails (0.48) hatchery waste (0.71), dung (0.78) and
broken eggs (0.79). The most possessed integrated waste management facilities were incinerators
(47.4), solid and semi- solid handling equipment (47.4) and manure storage system (42.2) while
the least possessed integrated waste management facilities were pits flusher system (12.1) and
automated litter dryer (12.1). It was observed that 65.5% of the farmers had low knowledge of
integrated waste management while 34.5% had high knowledge of integrated waste
management, the study shows high awareness of the health and environmental effects of poultry
waste (58.6%) while those that had low awareness were 41.4%. The study also revealed that
60.3% of the poultry farmers had high constraints to the adoption of integrated waste
management practices while 39.7% of the respondents had low constraints with the major
constraints being Insufficient funds (3.52), inadequate market channel of waste storage facilities
(3.41), difficulty in burning during dry season (3.41), poor pricing of poultry manure (3.41)
inadequate knowledge of poultry waste management practices (3.30) and inadequate access to
land (3.23).
The test of hypotheses for the study revealed that there was significant relationship between the
respondent’s educational level (p=0.000), tenure right (p=0.000), membership of farmers’ group
(p=0.000), secondary activity (p=0.000), other livestock (p=0.003) and their attitude towards the
adoption of integrated waste management practices. The relationship was positive which shows a
direct proportionality. Also there was a significant relationship (p=0.000) between quantity of
poultry waste generated by respondents and their attitude towards the adoption of integrated
waste management practices. There was also a significant relationship (p=0.001) between
possession of integrated waste management facilities and their attitude towards the adoption of
integrated waste management practices, this implies that, the more integrated waste management
facilities the respondents have the more favourable their attitude towards integrated waste
management. The study also revealed that there was a significant relationship (p=0.000) between
poultry farmers’ knowledge of integrated waste management and their attitude towards the
adoption of integrated waste management practices. Given that the relationship is negative (r=
59
-0.539, p=0.000), the higher their knowledge of integrated waste management, the less
favourable is their attitude towards adoption of integrated waste management practices.
Furthermore, the study revealed that there is no significant relationship (p=0.921) between
poultry farmers’ awareness of health and environmental effects of poultry wastes and their
attitude towards the adoption of integrated waste management practices. This is an implication
that, the awareness of health and environmental effects of poultry waste, doesn’t really have
much to do with their attitude towards adoption of integrated waste management practices. In
addition, there is a significant relationship (p=0.000) between poultry farmers’ constraints to
adoption of integrated waste management practices and their attitude towards integrated waste
5.3 Conclusion
This study examined the existing poultry waste generated and its disposal techniques in south
western Nigeria, based on the findings of the study majority of the poultry farmers were young
predominantly male with sound educational background. Varieties of birds were reared by the
respondents. Wastes generated by the respondents were mainly wasted feeds, waste water,
feathers and processing wastes. Majority of the farmers had little or no knowledge about
integrated waste management and possesses few integrated waste management facilities. The
study showed that most of the farmers were aware of the health and environmental implications
of poultry waste which could be water pollution, pest and disease infestation and air pollution,
they show favourable attitudes to the adoption of integrated waste management practices.
Insufficient funds, inadequate market channels of waste storage facilities, difficulty in burning
during raining season, poor pricing of manure and inadequate access to land were the major
constraints encountered by the respondents.
5.4 Recommendations
The following recommendations were therefore generated during the course of this study;
1. Efforts should be made in exposing the poultry farmers to up to date principles and practices
of integrated waste management.
60
2. Encouragement in practicing integrated waste management through provision of integrated
waste management facilities at subsidized prices and readily available at government agricultural
offices.
3. Farmers associations such as Poultry Association of Nigeria (PAN) should educate its
members on use and acquisition of integrated waste management facilities.
4. Farmers should endeavour to participate in the activities of PAN which will help them in
getting the link to acquire viable inputs and information from reputable producers which might
be difficult through personal contact.
5. The government should look into the tenure right of land ownership so as to encourage young
and vibrant poultry farmers.
6. The government should also increase funding into Agricultural sector so as to acquire
Agricultural inputs.
References
Adeli, A., Tewolde, H., Sistani, K.R. And Rowe, D.E (2009). Broiler Litter Fertilization And
Cropping System Impacts On Soil Properties. Agronomy Journal110: 1304-1310.
Adeoye, G.O., Sridhar, M.K.C and Mohammed, O.E (1994). Poultry waste management for crop
production: Nigerian experience. Waste Management and Research, 12: 2165-2172.
Agbede, T.M. And Ojeniyi, S.O. (2009). Tillage And Poultry Manure Effects On Soil Fertility
And Sorghum Yield In Southwestern Nigeria. Soil And Tillage Research 104: 74-81.
61
Agblevor , F.A., Beis S., Kim S.S., Tarrant R. and Mante, N.O. (2010). Biocrude oils from the
fast pyrolysis of poultry litter and hardwood. Waste Management, 30: 298-307
Agriculture and Natural Resources AEX-715-08, The Ohio State University Extension.
ohioline.osu.edu/aexfact/pdf/0715.pdf
Akinbile, C.O. (2012). Environmental impact of landfill on groundwater quality and agricultural
soils in Nigeria. Soil and Water Res. 7(1):18-26
Aneja, V.P., Schlessinger, W.H., Niyogi, D., Jennings, G., Gilliam, W., Nighton, R.E., Duke,
C.S., Blunden, J. And Krishnan, S. (2006). Emerging National Research Needs For Agricultural
Air Quality.Eos, Transactions Of The American Geophysical Union87: 25-36.
Anon (2002). Natural rendering: Composting livestock mortality and butcher waste. Cornell
Waste Management Institute. http://www.compost.css.cornell.edu/naturalrenderingFS.pdf
Anon (2005). Management of animal mortality in Georgia. January 2005.

http://www.agrosecurity.uga.edu/annexes/Annex06_Mortality.pdf
Blake, J.P., Hess, J.B. And Bock, B.R. (2007). Nutritional And Economic Value Of Poultry
Litter Ash As Afeed Stock. Proceedings International Symposium On Air Quality And Waste
Management For Agriculture Proceedings, Broomfield, Co., Asabe Pub. No. 701p0907cd.
Blake J.P, Carey J.B, Haque A.K.M and Malone G.W. (2008). Poultry carcass disposal options
for routine and catastrophic mortality. CAST Issue Paper Number 40, October 2008.
http://www.insta- pro.com/pdfs/CASTPoultryCarcassDisposal.pdf
Brake, J.D. (1992). A Practical Guide for Composting Poultry Litter. MAFES Bulletin 981
Mississippi State University. Retrieved 5th November 2011 from
http://www.poultry.msstate.edu/extension/pdf/guide_poultry_litter.pdf
Bolan, N.S., Szgozy, A.A., Chuasavathi, T., Seshadri, M.J., Rothrock, J.R. and Panneerselvam,
P. (2010). Uses and management of poultry litter. J World’s Poultry Sc. 66:673–698
62
Bouwman, A., K. Van Den Hoek and J. Oliveer, (1995).Uncertainties in the global source
distribution of nitrous oxide. Geophysics Resources., 100: 27852600.
Carr, L.(1994). Why And How Compost Works. In Proceedings Of The National Poultry Waste
Management Symposium, Athens, Georgia, Usa. 31 Oct–2 Nov. 1994, Pp. 104–108.
Proceedings 1994 National Poultry Waste Management Symposium. P. H. Patterson And J. P.
Blake, Ed. National Poultry Waste Management Symposium Committee. Auburn University
Printing Services, Auburn University, Al 36849.Isbn 0-9627682-6-4
Cai T., Pancorbo O., Merka W.C., Sander J.E. and Barnhart H.M. (1994). Stabilization of poultry
processing by- products and waste and poultry carcasses through lactic acid fermentation.
Journal of Applied Poultry Research, 3: 17-25.
Charles, D. F. (2005). Storing Poultry Litter. Retrieved April 8, 2005from

http:/muextension.missouri.edu/explore/envqual/wq0212.htm.
Chaundry, S.M., Nasser Z. and Alkraidees M.S. (1997). Nutritive evaluation of poultry waste
and sudex grass silage for sheep. Asian Journal of Animal Science 10:79-85.
Clark, S., Rylander, R. & Larsson, L.(1983). Airborne Bacteria, Endotoxin And Fungi In Dust In
Poultry And Swine Confinement Buildings. Am. Indus, Hygiene Assoc. J., 44(7): 537–541.
Coote , D.R. and Zwerman, P.J. (1975). Manure disposal, pollution control, and the New York
Dairy Farmer. New York’s Food and Life Sciences Bulletin No. 51, April 1975. Cornell
University. http://ecommons.cornell.edu/handle/1813/5051
Coufal, C.D., Chavez, C., Niemeyer, P.R. and Carey, J.B. (2006). Measurement of broiler litter
production rates and nutrients content using recycled litter. J World’s Poultry Sc. 85:398–
403
Crickenberger, R.G and Goode L. (1996). Guidelines for feeding broiler litter to beef cattle.
North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service. North Carolina State University.
www.bae.ncsu.edu/programs/extension/publicat/.../ag61.html.
63
Daniel, T. C., Sharpley, A. N. and Logan, T. J. (1992). Effect of soil testphosphorus on the
quality of the runoff water: Research needs. NationalLivestock, Poultry and Aquaculture Waste
Management. Proc. Natl.Workshop. Kansas City, Mo. ASAE, St. Joseph, MI, pp. 155–160.
Dikinya, O. and Mufwanzala, N. (2010). Chicken manure-enhanced soil fertility and

productivity: Effects of application rates. Journal of Soil Science and Environmental
Management, 1(3): 46-54.
Dong X. and Tollner E.W. (2003). Evolution of anammox and denitrification during anaerobic
digestion of poultry manure.Bioresource Technology, 86:139-145.
Donham, K. & Thelin, A.(2006). Agricultural Medicine – Occupational And Environmental

Health For The Health Professionals. Ames, Iowa, Usa; Oxford, Uk; And Victoria, Australia,
Blackwell Publishing. Isbn 978-0-8138-1803-0/2006
Dressler, J., (1983). StandatgerenchterLandbau (SGL) in

tropischenBergledSituationemundEntwicklungSmoglicheiteLandwintschaftlicherKleinbentriebe
in Rwanda (GTZ) Germany, pp: 142.
Edwards, J.H. And Someshwar, A.V.(2000). Chemical, Physical, And Biological Characteristics
Of Agricultural And Forest By-Products For Land Application, In: Dick, W.A. (Ed.) Land
Application Of Agricultural, Industrial, And Municipal By-Products, Pp. 1-62 (Madison, Wi,
Soil Science Society Of America).
Evanylo, G.K., Sherony C.A, May J.H., Simpson, T.W. and Christian, A.H. (2009). The Virginia
Yard-Waste Management Manual (Second Edition). Virginia Cooperative Extension,
VirginiaTech Publication 452- 055. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.
http://pubs.ext.vt.edu/452/452-055/452- 055_pdf.pdf
FAO. (2006). Livestock’s Long Shadow. Rome.
64
FAO. (2008). Poultry In The 21st Century: Avian Influenza And Beyond. Proceedings Of The
International Poultry Conference, Bangkok, 5–7 Nov. 2007, Edited By O. Thieme And D.
Pilling. Fao Animal Production And Health Proceedings No. 9. Rome.
FAO/CMS. (1996). Biogas Technology: A Training Manual For Extension.
FAO. (2004). http;//www.fao.Org/DOREP/004/x6519E/x 6518E00.htm
FDA (2009) Food And Drug Administration; Center For Veterinary Medicine. The Use Of
Chicken Manure/Litter In Animal Feed. Available At: Http://Www.Pickle-
Publishing.Com/Papers/Chicken-Litter-Animal-Feed.Htm.
Fibrowatt (2008). Power From Poultry Litter. Available At: Http://Fibrowattusa.Com.
Franzluebbers, A.J. And Doraiswamy, P.C.(2007). Carbon Sequestration And Land Degradation.
Climate And Land Degradation In: International Workshop On Climate And Land Degradation:
343-358 (Arusha, Tanzania).
Fulluck, A., (1994). Biology: Heineman Advanced Science. Heinemann Educational Publishers,
pp: 493-494.
Guo, M. And Song, W. (2009). Nutrient Value Of Alum-Treated Poultry Litter For Land
Application. Poultry Science88: 1782-1792.
Hall, K.D., Guo, J. Dore, M. and Chow, C.C (2009). The Progressive Increase in Food Waste in
America and its Environmental Impact. PloS one, 4:(11) e 7940. Hamilton CM and Sims JT
(1995). Nitrogen and phosphorus availability in enriched pelleted poultry litters. Journal of
Sustainable Agriculture, 5: 115-132.
Hamilton C.M. and Sims J.T. (1995). Nitrogen and phosphorus availability in enriched pelleted
poultry litters. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, 5: 115-132.
65
Harmel, R.D., Smith, D.R., Haney, R.L. And Dozier, M. (2009). Nitrogen And Phosphorus
Runoff From Cropland And Pasture Fields Fertilized With Poultry Litter.Journal Of Soil And
Water Conservation64: 400-412.
Hermanson, R .E. (2005). Managing Livestock Manure to Protect Groundwater. Washington

State University Cooperative Extension. Retrieved September 27, 2005 from
http://www.whatcomcd.org/FarmAssist/BMP/LivestockOps.htm
Hutchinson M. L, Walters L. D, Avery S.M, Munro F. and Moore A. (2005) Analyses of

Livestock Production, Waste Storage, and Pathogen Levels and Prevalences in Farm Manures.
Applied and Environmental Microbiology, March 2005, p. 1231-1236, Vol. 71, No.3. Retrieved
November 29, 2005 from http://aem.asm.org/cgi/content/full/71/3/1231.
Ikhatua, U.J. (2000). The Nigerian Livestock Industry - A Sleeping Giant, A Speech Delivered
At The 56th Series Of Inaugural Lectures University of Benin. (Unpublished).
Jones D. D, Nye J. C. and Dale A.C. (2005). Methane Generation from Livestock Waste.
Retrieved July 15, 2005 from http://danpatch.ecn.purdue.edu/~epados/swine/pubs/methane.htm
Jordon D.J, Kloptenstein T.J. and Adams D.C. (2002). Dried poultry waste for cows grazing low
quality winter forage. Journal of Animal Science, 80: 818-824.
Kaiser, D.E., Mallarino, A.P. And Haq, M.U. (2009). Runoff Phosphorus Loss Immediately
After Poultry Manure Application As Influenced By The Application Rate And Tillage. Journal
Of Environmental Quality 38: 299-308.
Kawata, K., Nissato, K., Shiota, N., Hori, T., Asada, T. And Oikawa, K.(2006). Variation In
Pesticide Concentrations During Composting Of Food Waste And Fowl Droppings. Bulletin Of
Environmental Contamination And Toxicology77: 391-398.
Kelleher, B.P., Leahy, J.J., Henihan, A.M., O’Dwyer, T.F., Sutton, D. and Leahy, M.J. (2002).
Advances in poultry litter disposal technology - a review. Bioresources Tech. 83:27-36
66
Khumalo N. A (1988). Effect of kraal manure on root-knot nematode and pod yield in Okra.
Unpublished B.Sc. Project, University of Swaziland.
Kunene, N.W. (1992). The contribution of livestock to the cash economy of Swaziland Nation
Land (SNL) farmers of area between Nkoyoyo and Nkaba in the Hhohho region of Swaziland.
Unpublished B.Sc. Project, University of Swaziland
Lamorde, A.G. (1998). Scenario building for the Nigerian Livestock Industry in the 21st century.
A paper presented at the Silver Anniversary Conference of the Nigerian Society for Animal
Production-Gateway Hotel, Abeokuta, Nigeria. March 21-26 1998.
Mahimairaja, S., Bolan, N.S. And Hedley, M.J.(1993). Absorption Of Ammonia Released From
Poultry Manure Onto Soil And Bark And The Use Of Absorbed Ammonia In The Dissolution Of
Phosphate Rock. Compost Science And Utilisation1: 10-21.
Mahimairaja, S., Bolan, N.S. And Hedley, M.J.(1995). Agronomic Effectiveness Of Poultry
Manure Composts. Communications In Soil Science And Plant Analysis26: 1843-1861.
Malone B. (2004). Compositing poultry losses. Proceedings 2004 Poultry Information Exchange.
Surfers Paradise, Queensland., Australia. April 19, 2004. Pp. 39-42.
Malone B. (2005). Compositing poultry losses. Proceedings 2004 Poultry Information Exchange.
Surfers Paradise, Queensland, Australia. April 19, 2004. pp. 39-42.
http://rec.udel.edu/poultryextension/Dead_Bird_Disposal/Composting%20Poultry%20Losses
%204_2004.pdf.
Mccaskey, T.(1995). Feeding Poultry Litter As An Alternative Waste Management Strategy. In

K. Steele, Ed. Animal Waste And The Land Water Interface, Pp. 475–484. New York, Lewis-
Crd.
67
Mcginley, B.C., Coffey, K.P., Humphry, J.B., Sauer, T.J. And Goodwin, H.L. (2003). Mineral
Content Of Forages Grown On Poultry Litter-Amended Soils.Journal Of Animal Science81: 106-
111.
Mcgrath, S., Maguire, R.O., Tacy, B.F. And Kike, J.H.(2009). Improving Soil Nutrition With
Poultry Litter Application In Low Input Forage Systems. Agronomy Journal102: 48-54.
Millner, P.D. (2009). Bioaerosols Associated With Animal Production Systems. Bioresource
Technology100: 5379-5385.
Mokwunye, U., (2000). Meeting the phosphorus Needs of the soils and crops of West Africa:
The Role of Indigenous Phosphate rocks. Paper presented on Balanced Nutrition Management
systems for the Moist Savanna and Humid Forest Zones of Africa at a symposium organized by
IITA at Ku Leuva at Cotonun, Benin Republic, October 9-12.
Moore Jr, P.A., Joern, B.C., Edwards, D.R., Wood, C.W. And Daniel, T.C. (2006). Effects Of
Manure Amendments On Environmental And Production Problems, In: Rice, J.M., Caldwell,
D.F., & Humenik, F.J. (Eds) Animal Agriculture And The Environment: National Center For
Manure And Animal Waste Management White Papers, Publication No 913c0306, Pp. 1-40 (St.
Joseph, Mi, Asabe).
Moore, P.A., Daniel T.C., Sharley A.N. and Wood C.W. (1995). Poultry manure management:
environmental sound options. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 50:321-327.
Moore, P.A., Daniel, T.C., Gilmour, J.T., Shreve, B.R., Edwards, D.R. And Wood, B.H. (1998).
Decreasing Metal Runoff From Poultry Litter With Aluminium Sulfate.Journal Of
Environmental Quality 27: 92-99.
Moreki, J.C. and Chiripasi, S.C. (2011). Poultry Waste In Botswana: A Review. J Anim
Feed Res. 1(6):285–292.
68
Moyo H.V. (1985). A review of some of the possible uses of poultry manure and a study of its
use as a feed supplement for growing rabbits. Unpublished B.Sc. Project, University of
Swaziland
Muller Z .O. (1980). Feed from Animal wastes: state of knowledge. FAO Animal Production and
Health Paper 18.Rome. http://www.fao.org/DOCREP/004/X6518E/X6518E00.htm
NIEA, (2010). Agricutural Waste Information Guidance,retrieve from

{www.doeni.gov.uk/niea/}.january, 2013.
National Research Council (1984). Nutrient requirements of beef cattle (6th Edition). National
Academic Press, Washington D.C.
NWP (National Water Program) (2005). Animal Waste Management. Retrieved November 29,
2005 from http://www.uaswaterquality.org/themes/animal/default
Ojolo, S.J., Oke, S.A., Animasahun, K., Adesuyi, B.K. (2007). Utilization of poultry, cow and
kitchen wastes for biogas production: A comparative analysis. Iranian J Env Health Sc Eng.
4(4):223–228
Olexa M,T, and Goldfarb I, (2008). Hazardous waste regulation: Biological and animal waste
disposal. Food and Resource Economics Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service,
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.
http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/FE/FE77500.pdf
Owen O,J, Ngodigha E,M, and Amakiri A,O, (2008). Proximate composition of heat treated
poultry litter (layers). International Journal of Poultry Science, 7(11): 1033-1035.
Oyebanjo O.Otunaiya A. (2011). Profit Efficiency and Waste Management in Poultry Farming:
The Case of Egba Division, Ogun State, Nigeria. International Journal of Poultry Science10 (2):
137-142
69
Payne J. Proper Disposal of Routine and Catastrophic Livestock and Poultry Mortality.
http://osufacts.okstate.edu
Poultry Science Association. (2009). Research Demonstrates Effectiveness Of Trees And Shrubs
In Reducing Odours, Dust And Ammonia From Poultry Farms.
Preusch, P.L., Adler, P.R., Sikora, L.J. And Tworkoski, T.J, (2002). Nitrogen And Phosphorus
Availability In Composted And Uncomposted Poultry Litter.Journal Of Environmental Quality
31: 2051-2057.
Problems and Prospects. In: Issues in Agricultural and Rural Development. Proceedings of
theTraining Workshop on Agricultural and Rural Development. In Duroyaiye, B.O. (Ed),
Department of Agricultural Economics, Olabisi Onabanjo University, Ago-Iwoye, pp: 105-132.
RIM (1992). Nigerian Livestock resources. Four volume report to the Federal Government of
Nigeria. Submitted by Resource Inventory Management Limited. 1. Executive Summary and
Atlas. 2. National synthesis. 3. State Reports. 4. Urban Reports and commercially managed
livestock survey report.
Roeper H, Khan S, Koerner I and Stegmann R (2005). Low-tech options for chicken manure
treatment and application possibilities in agriculture. Proceedings Sardinia 2005, Tenth
International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy;
3-7 October 2005.
Sevilleja R, Torres J, Sollows J and Little D (2005). Using animal wastes in fishponds. Retrieved
August 12, 2005 from http://www.fao.org/documents/show_cdr.asp?
url_file=/DOCREP/005/Y1187E/y1187e34.htm SwazilandCentral Statistical Office 2003
2002/2003 Swaziland Census of Agriculture. Central Statistical Office, Mbabane.
Schiffman, S. And Williams, M, (2005). Science Of Odor As A Potential Health Issue. Journal
Of Environmental Quality 34: 129-138.
70
Sharma, M.C., Joshi, C. And Saxen, N, (2005). Mineral Toxicity In Livestock: A Review. Indian
Journal Of Animal Sciences, 75: 753-764.
Sharpley, A.N., Herron, S. And Daniel T, (2007). Overcoming The Challenges Of Phosphorus-
Based Management Challenges In Poultry Farming.Journal Of Soil And Water Conservation58:
30-38.
Sloan D,R, Kidder G, and Jacobs R,D, (2003). Poultry manure as a fertilizer. IFAS Extension
P51, University of Florida. http://www.edis.ifas.ufl.edu/pdffiles/aa/aa20500.pdf
Sims, J.T., Bergström, L., Bowman, B.T. And Oenema, O.(2005). Nutrient Anagement For
Intensive Animal Agriculture: Policies And Practices For Sustainability. Soil Use And
Management21: 141-151.
Sistani, K.R., Rowe, D.E, Miles, D.M. And May, J.D. (2001). Effects Of Drying Method And
Rearing Temperature On Broiler Manure Nutrient Content. Communications In Soil Science
And Plant Analysis32: 2307-2316.
Smith L.W, and Wheeler W.E, (1979). Nutritional and economic value of animal excreta.
Journal of Animal Science, 48(1): 144-156.
Smith, L.W. and Fries, G.F. (1973). Dehydrated Poultry Manure As A Crude Protein Supplement
For Lactating Cows. Journal Of Dairy Science56: 668-672.
Szogi, A.A. and Vanotti, M.B. (2009). Prospects For Phosphorus Recovery From Poultry
Litter.Bioresource Technology100: 5461-5465.
Tao J. and Mancl K. (2008). Estimating manure production, storage size, and land application
area. Fact Sheet
Tasistro, A.S., Kissel, D.E. and Bush, P.B. (2004). Spatial Variability of Broiler Litter
Composition In A Chicken House Journal Of Applied Poultry Research13: 29-43.
71
Toor, G.S. and Hunger, B.E. (2009). Phosphorus and Trace Metal Dynamics in Soils Amended
With Poultry Litter and Granulates. Soil Use and Management25: 409-418.
Turnell, J.R., Faulkner, R.D. and Hinch, G.N. (2007). Recent Advances in Australian Broiler
Litter Utilization. J World’s Poultry Sc. 63:223–231.
USEPA, (1995).Global Impact Domain Methane Emissions, Consultant Report for the Livestock
and the Environment Study. Washington D.C., http://www.epa.gov./ow/sec1/profile/index.htm
Van Ryssen, J.B.J. (2008). Trace Elements In Poultry Litter: Prevalence And Risks, In: Schlegel,
P., Durosoy, S. & Jongbloed, A.W. (Eds)Trace Elements In Animal Production Systems,Pp. 101-
113 (The Netherlands, Wageningen Academic Publishers).
Walker, J.D., Aneja, V.P. and Dickey, D.A.(2000). Atmospheric Transport And Wet Deposition
Of Ammonium In North Carolina.Atmospheric Environment34: 3407-3418.
Wenger, S.(1999). A Review Of The Scientific Literature On Riparian Buffer Width, Extent And
Vegetation. Institute Of Ecology, University Of Georgia, USA
Williams, M., Barker, J. and Sims, J. (1999). Management And Utilization Of Poultry Wastes.
Rev Environ Contam Toxicol., 162: 105–157.
Zublena, J. (1994). Excess Soil Levels Of Copper, Zinc, And Phosphorus Due To Poultry
Manure Applications. In: Proceedings 21st Annual Carolina Poultry Nutrition Conference, Pp
17–25. Charlotte, North Carolina, USA, 7–8 Dec. 1994.P.R. Ferket, Ed. Carolina Feed Industry
Association, Raleigh, NC - USA 27658
72
APPENDIX
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT.
FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE & FORESTRY
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN.
Dear Sir/Ma.
I am a student from the above named Institution and department, conducting a study on
AGRICULTURAL WASTE GENERATION AND DISPOSAL AMONG POULTRY
FARMERS IN SOUTH WESTERN NIGERIA. I hereby solicit for answers to questions
related to the research. Responses from you would be used strictly for research purposes.
Your contributions will be greatly appreciated.
Thank you for obliging.
73
A. Personal characteristics
Kindly respond to the following questions.
1. Age: ( ) in actual years

2. Sex: Male ( ), Female ( )
3. Religion: Christianity ( ) Islam ( )Traditional( ) Others( ) Specify…………….
4. Marital status: Single ( ) Married ( ) Divorced ( ) Widowed ( )
5. Educational Status: No formal Education ( ) Primary( ) Secondary ( ) OND/NCE ( )
HND/B.Sc/B.A ( ) Post- Graduate ( )
6. Years of poultry farming experience ( ) actual years
7. Estimated monthly income ( )
8. Tenure right/ownership: Self owned ( ) Rented/Leased ( )
9. Do you belong to any farmers association? YES ( ) NO ( ) If yes, specify……….
10. Other income generating activities.
· Crop farming ( )
· Civil service ( )
· Artisan ( )
· Trading ( )
11. Household size: ………….. members
12. Types of birds reared:
· Broiler ( ),
· Layers ( ),
· Cockerels ( ),
· Others ( )
13. Other livestock reared:
· Goat ( )
· Sheep ( )
· Cattle ( )
· Pig ( )
· None ( )
B: Waste Generated by respondents
74
What are the various wastes that are generated from your farm, and how will you rate each, from
the list of wastes provided below?
SN Waste generated Extremely Large Small Not

large quantity quantity generated
Quantity
1 Dungs
2 Wasted feed
3 Broken eggs
4 Feathers
5 Entrails
6 Organs of slaughtered animals
7 Dead birds
8 Hatchery wastes
9 Processing wastes
10 Bio-solids
11 Litter
12 Others:
C: Integrated waste management facilities
Kindly indicate the integrated waste management facilities you possess on your farm
Equipment Possessed Not possessed

Manure storage system
Box type manure spreaders
Incinerator
Pits flusher system
Automated litter dryer system
Double deck pre cleaner
Pressure sprayer for fumigation
Solid and semi-solid handling equipment
Others:
D: Knowledge level of integrated waste management:
75
Can you indicate your knowledge level of integrated waste management from the following
items, by ticking ‘Yes’ or ‘No’.
SN Knowledge statements Yes No

1 Manure and dead poultry are the only poultry wastes
2 Poultry houses should be kept dry all the time
3 Frequent packing of litters is only to prevent birds to contact
diseases
4 Poultry litter is not useful for land application
5 Storage of litter before land application must be done on the farm
6 Dry litters should be stored in the open for a long time
7 Composting poultry litters does not reduce their odour
SN Knowledge statements Yes No
8 Poultry wastes have a high nutrient content for plant growth
9 Collection of dead birds every other day will prevent spreading of
disease
10 Waste water channels cannot constitute infection in any way
11 Empty containers must be disposed according to the discretion of

the farmer
12 Biogas can be generated from poultry litter
13 The surroundings of the farm can be used as dumping sites for

poultry wastes
14 Waste can be spread within 10m of water courses
15 Water courses should be channeled far (about 50m away) from
the water sources like bore hole and well
16 All water courses should be free of contamination
17 Poultry wastes cannot be useful for other purposes
18 Dead birds can be buried anywhere on the farm
19 Water courses on the farm are only means of draining excess
waste water
20 Hatchery wastes can be used to generate income
E: Respondents’ awareness of the health and environmental effects of poultry wastes
Poultry wastes have been reported to constitute some negative effects on the environment.
Kindly indicate. Can you kindly indicate whether you are aware of some of the effects listed
below?
Awareness Aware Not aware

Depletion of ozone layer
76
Water pollution
Air pollution
Prevalence of poultry disease
Pest infestation
Risk of human infection
Extra unit cost on birds and eggs
Land pollution
F: Respondents Attitude to adoption of integrated waste management practices.
Kindly indicate whether you strongly agree (SA), Agree (A), are undecided (U), disagree (D) or
strongly disagree with each of the following attitudinal statements on integrated waste
SN Statements S A U D SD
A
1 Poultry wastes cannot be completely eradicated
2 I will rather hand pick dead birds daily than allow it to stay till the
following day
3 Beyond animals’; human health should be saveguarded by proper
4 I prefer to pack poultry dungs near the farm since it has no effect
on human health
5 I have small stock why spend so much on waste management
6 Even though I have less cash, I use the available financial resources
for effective waste management
7 I don’t need to produce manure since I am not a crop farmer
8 Poultry manure is an important source of income to me as a poultry
farmer
9 With or without poultry waste, our health cannot be perfect after
all; why invest so much in waste management then.
10 Waste management is an important daily activity in my farm
11 Waste management is only applicable to small scale producers
12 Waste management have always prevented me from spending extra
cost treating infections infection
13 Environmental pollution can occur from any other means,so why
spend so much on poultry waste management
14 Huge labour requirement for poultry waste management has very
worrisome.
15 Good management practices of waste is natural to me
16 I only manage waste on my farms so as to avoid embarrassments
from government agencies
17 I will rather invest on poultry expansion than on poultry
77
management
18 We cannot do without using burning aids such as tyres on the farm
19 Effective recycling of waste cannot be achieved in this side of the
world
20 Establishing burial sites for dead animals can be money consuming
and affects poultry business negatively
21 For sustainable environment, poultry wastes should be handled
with utmost care importance
G: Constraints to adoption of integrated waste management practices
Can you indicate the level of severity of constraints to adoption of integrated waste management
practices on your farm from the list provided in the table below?
Constraints Very Severe Not Not a

severe severe constraint
1 Insufficient fund
2 Scarcity of labour due to irritation
3 Lack of extension information and contacts
4 Lack of demand for manure from livestock
farmers
5 Inadequate market channels of waste
storage facilities
6 Inadequate knowledge of waste
7 Difficulty to burn during raining season
78
8 Lack of vehicle and transport costs
9 Poor pricing of poultry manure
10 Inadequate access to land
11 Bad attitude of farm attendants
12 Inadequate waste disposal facilities
79

Agricultural Waste Management Among Poul

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Agricultural Waste Management Among Poul

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

AGRICULTURAL WASTE MANAGEMENT AMONG POULTRY

FARMERS IN SOUTH WESTERN NIGERIA

ODERINDE, ADEREMI IBRAHIM

(BACHELOR OF AGRICULTURAL TECHNOLOGY)

LADOKE AKINTOLA UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, OGBOMOSHO,

OYO STATE, NIGERIA

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AWARD OF

KEYWORDS: Agriculture, Waste Management and Poultry Farmers.

Dr. Pipy, O. Fawole

Bsc. Msc. Phd. (Ibadan)

Department of Agric Extension and

Faculty of Agriculture and Forestry,

1.0 Background to the study 1

1.1 Statement of research problems 5

1.2 Research objectives 6

1.3 Hypotheses of the study 7

1.4 Justification of the study 7

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW 9

2.1 Poultry waste 9

2.2 Damaging effect of poultry waste 12

3.1 The study area 28

3.2 Population of study 28

3.3 Sampling procedure and sample size 28

3.4 Validation of instrument 28

3.5 Reliability of instrument 29

3.6 Measurement of variable 29

3.7 Data Analysis 35

4.0 RESULT AND DISCUSSION 36

4.1 Socioeconomic characteristics 36

4.2 Waste generated from poultry 43

4.3 Possession of integrated waste management facilities 44

4.4 Knowledge of integrated waste management 45

4.6 Attitude to the adoption of integrated waste management practices 49

4.7 Constraints to the adoption of integrated waste management practices 51

4.8 Hypotheses testing 52

5.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 60

LIST OF TABLES PAGE

Table 1: Distribution of respondents based on their socioeconomic characteristics 40

Table 2: Distribution of respondents according to the waste generated 43

Table 3: Distribution of respondents according to the level of waste generated 44

Table 5: Distribution of respondents based on level of possession of integrated waste 45

Table 6: Distribution of respondents based on knowledge of integrated waste 46

Table 7: Distribution based on level of knowledge of integrated waste management 47

Table 8: Distribution based on awareness of the health and environmental 48

effects of poultry wastes

Table 9: Distribution based on level of awareness of the health and environmental 48

effects of poultry wastes

Table 10: Distribution of the attitude of poultry farmers to the adoption of 49

integrated waste management practices

Table 14: Chi-square test of relationship between socioeconomic characteristics and 54

attitude towards the adoption of integrated waste management practices.

Table 15: PPMC test of relationship between socioeconomic characteristics and 55

attitude towards the adoption of integrated waste management practices.

Table 17: PPMC test of relationship between possession of integrated waste 56

management facilities and attitude

Table 18: PPMC test of relationship between knowledge of integrated waste 57

towards the adoption of integrated waste management practices

Table 20: PPMC test of relationship between constraints to adoption of integrated 59

waste management practices and attitude towards the adoption of integrated

waste management practices

1.0 Background to the study

The study therefore seeks to answer the following research questions

1. What are the wastes generated by respondents in the study area?