Practices, Housing and Diseases Within Indigenous Poultry Production in Eastern Cape, South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an effort to improve the livelihood of indigenous farmers in South Africa, little input has been accorded to documentation and validation of some practices of poultry production farmers in Eastern Cape Province, South Africa which is the objective of this study. One hundred and Sixty (160) structured questionnaires were administered in six villages from two district municipalities using non-probabilistic (snowball) sampling method from July 2017 to June 2018. Results reveal that 73.1% of indigenous farmers are female, 24.38% reared mostly for household consumption, 48.1% flock ranges from 10-50. In addition, about 46.2% of farmers practiced semi-intensive rearing systems. Diseases (63.52%) and Theft (51.94%) are major challenges affecting most chickens. Most farmers used both ethno veterinary (Aloe ferox 32.5%) and medicinal drugs (Terramycin 42.5%) for treatment of diseases respectively. Correlation between diseases and housing was insignificant across different villages. The cleaning system, place of purchase and stage of purchase are highly significant across different villages. Most farming practices are positively correlated across different villages. There is need to assess farming practices adopted, this will help in proper planning and in maximizing profit across indigenous poultry production.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".