# Local and crossbred chicken production systems in the region of Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso

Kisito Tindano<fnref n="1" />* Karim Savadogo<fnref n="2" />

## Keywords

chickens, crossbreeding, animal genetic resources, suburban areas, production system, Burkina Faso

OPEN ACCESS

© K. Tindano et al., 2025 published by Cirad

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY).

Type: Short article

Submitted: 21 March 2024

Accepted: 16 September 2025

Online: 19 November 2025

DOI: 10.19182/remvt.37435

## Summary

**Background:** The growing demand for animal products has driven changes in the livestock sector. As a result, a new poultry farming system has recently emerged in Burkina Faso's urban and suburban areas with the production of local chicken breeds and crossbreds in permanent confinement. **Aim:** This study aims to characterize the production system and genetic resource management using a survey.

**Methods:** Snowball sampling was employed using 11 independent entry points in different Ouagadougou suburban areas. A total of 120 producers were sampled and interviewed. **Results:** The results showed that the average age of farmers was 38 ± 12 years, with a fairly high level of education. Chicken farming was essentially a secondary activity. The main objective was commercial. Various food resources were used, including industrial feed, household waste, grain, and insects. Health management revealed that antibiotics were used as a preventive measure. Crossbred chicks were produced with no precise crossbreeding scheme, and crossbred cockerels were often used or sold as breeding stock, even in rural areas. **Conclusions:** Given its characteristics, this production system occupies an intermediate position between free-range systems and the intensive production of commercial strains. However, this ad hoc approach to breeding may contribute to genetic erosion.

Moreover, the preventive use of antibiotics raises concerns about the presence of residues in consumer products. Strengthening the management of animal genetic resources and improving poultry health practices would help safeguard both local genetic diversity and public health.

■ How to cite this article: Tindano, K., & Savadogo, K. (2025). Local and crossbred chicken production systems in the region of Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso. *Revue d'élevage et de médecine vétérinaire des pays tropicaux, 78, 37435*. https://doi.org/10.19182/remvt.37435

## INTRODUCTION

Local chickens play an important role in the animal production sector in developing countries (Mahoro et al., 2017; Mottet & Tempio, 2017). In general, they are reared in scavenging systems and are appreciated for their adaptation to diverse and harsh environments (Mahoro et al., 2017). However, given their low productivity, local breeds are often crossed with exotic breeds.

In Burkina Faso, for example, local breeds make up 98% of the poultry population and produce 99% of the poultry meat (FAO, 2018). Crossing local chickens with exotic breeds is a common practice.

In recent decades, the increasing demand for animal products has induced changes in livestock production systems (Chaiban et al., 2020). In Burkina Faso, in urban and suburban areas, large-scale producers keep commercial breeds in permanent confinement. This practice is being adopted by small-scale producers who raise local and/or crossbred chickens. In addition, farmers are now taking the initiative to crossbreed their poultry.

Studies show that crossbreeding can improve productivity if better food and housing are also provided (Balcha et al. 2021; Bilalissi et al., 2022). On the other hand, poorly managed crossbreeding can threaten local breeds (Leroy et al., 2016). Good rearing conditions and cross-breeding management preserving local genetic resources are key to the sustainability of crossbreeding systems. However, we know little about how crossbreeding is managed in the Ouagadougou region.

This study focused on farmers rearing local and crossbred chickens in permanent confinement in Ouagadougou's urban and suburban areas. It aimed to characterize the production system and the animal genetic resource (AnGR) management. An analysis of the system's characteristics will help identify factors to improve AnGR and production management.

<footnote n="1">1. Institut de l'Environnement et de Recherches Agricoles (INERA), Laboratoire de Biologie et Santé animales, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso</footnote>

<footnote n="2">2. Institut de l'Environnement et de Recherches Agricoles (INERA)-Gestion des Ressources Naturelles, Cellule Macroéconomie et Economie de Filière, Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso</footnote>

<footnote>* Corresponding author
Phone: +226 70327690; E-mail: kis_zito@yahoo.fr</footnote>
## MATERIAL AND METHOD

### Study area

The study was conducted in Ouagadougou's urban and suburban areas, in the northern soudano-sahelian zone. Livestock farming is widespread in the region. The annual average temperature is around 29 °C. Average rainfall is 600–800 mm per year from June to October. The vegetation consists of trees and shrubs, with an abundant herbaceous layer during the rainy season. The human population is estimated to be around 2.5 million (INSD, 2020).

### Sampling and data collection

We did not use probability sampling because it was difficult to establish a satisfactory sampling frame in the absence of a list of producers. Instead, we used a snowball sampling method in which participants are chosen based on referrals. This approach can introduce bias if the participants are similar. To address this issue, 11 independent entry points in different areas were used to increase diversity. A total of 120 producers were sampled and interviewed. One producer was removed from the sample due to inconsistent data, leaving a final sample size of 119.

A questionnaire was prepared including questions about socioeconomic characteristics, and the use and management of AnGR. We identified the farmers' production targets, and asked each one to rank their three main targets. In this way, we estimated the relative importance of their targets, which enabled us to improve our understanding of genetic resource management.

An interviewer was recruited and trained to administer the questionnaire. Data were collected between April and June 2022.

### Statistical analysis

The data were analyzed using R software (version 4.0.4) (R Core team, 2022). Descriptive statistics were calculated, including means and frequencies. Nine qualitative variables were then used for multiple correspondence analysis, followed by hierarchical classification. These variables were the farmer's gender, level of education, main activity, first production target, type of production, type of coop, feeding system, perception of profitability, and whether or not the farmer had received training in poultry production. To test the relationship between some variables or to compare means, we performed CHI2 and ANOVA I. Lastly, indices were calculated using the ranking data for production targets. Each target was assigned 3 points for first place, 2 points for second place, and 1 point for third place. The overall points ($N_k$) for each production target (i) were then calculated as follows:

$$N_k = 3 \cdot n_{1i} + 2 \cdot n_{2i} + n_{3i} \quad (\text{equation 1})$$

Where, $n_{1i}$, $n_{2i}$ and $n_{3i}$ are the number of respondents who answered rank 1, rank 2, and rank 3, respectively, for the i-th production target. The index ($I_i$) for a production target (i) was calculated as follows:

$$I_i = \frac{N_k}{\sum_{k1}^{t} N_k} \quad (\text{equation 2})$$

Where t is total production targets.

## RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

### Socioeconomic characteristics

The producers were predominantly men (77.9%) from the Mossi ethnic group (77.1%), with an average age of 38 ± 12 years. Most had a high level of education: 33.3% had a university-level education; 39.5% had a secondary education; and 12.3% had a primary education. The rest were either literate in the local language or had received no formal education. On the majority of farms (56.9%), at least one person had training in poultry production. Hodzi *et al.* (2025) reported on results linked to high levels of education among indigenous chicken farmers in the urban area of Harare. Indeed, well-educated farmers may have a comparative advantage, for example in terms of adopting new technologies and organizational capacity. However, 70.1% of our sample did not belong to any producer organization. This can be explained by the fact that livestock farming was a secondary activity for 60.1% of respondents. Farmers involved in other activities, including agriculture, wage labor, and trade did not have the time to join producers' organizations. Chicken farming was the primary activity for 34% of respondents. Yet, 62% of them were qualified and looking for a better job. Therefore, chicken farming appears to be a source of additional income or a default option.

When they started rearing chickens, most producers (82.5%) used a scavenging system with local breeds only, before developing a permanent confinement system. Their average experience in chicken farming was 13.6 ± 12 years, whereas in the confinement rearing system their experience was limited to 2.9 ± 2.6 years. The change in the production system was triggered by a shift in the farmers' objectives.

### Production targets

Farms were essentially market-oriented: the sale of chickens had the highest index (0.43), and 89.1% of respondents stated that it was their production target (Table I). Nonetheless, some respondents mentioned that the scavenging system and the multi-functionality of livestock were important considerations. For example, they can produce for their own consumption and donate to others. Own consumption of chickens was ranked second with an index of 0.28. There was no significant association between educational level and the first target

<table><caption>**Table 1:** Frequencies of citation, ranks and indices for production targets /// Fréquences de citation, classements et indices à des fins de production</caption><thead><tr><td>Targets</td><td>Frequencies (%)</td><td>Rank 1 (n)</td><td>Rank 2 (n)</td><td>Rank 3 (n)</td><td>Indices</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Sale of chickens</td><td>89.1</td><td>90</td><td>14</td><td>4</td><td>0.43</td></tr><tr><td>Self-consumption of chickens</td><td>95.8</td><td>19</td><td>62</td><td>18</td><td>0.28</td></tr><tr><td>Donation</td><td>65.6</td><td>0</td><td>6</td><td>45</td><td>0.08</td></tr><tr><td>Self-consumption of eggs</td><td>89.1</td><td>0</td><td>13</td><td>30</td><td>0.08</td></tr><tr><td>Sale of chicks</td><td>21.0</td><td>8</td><td>13</td><td>3</td><td>0.08</td></tr><tr><td>Sale of eggs</td><td>18.5</td><td>2</td><td>9</td><td>9</td><td>0.05</td></tr><tr><td>Sacrifices</td><td>1.7</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td><td>0</td></tr></tbody></table>

n= number of producers
(Chi-squared test). Sale and own consumption were also cited by indigenous chicken producers in Harare (Hodzi *et al.*, 2025).

Egg sales were mentioned by 18.5% of producers. This figure refers to fertilized eggs intended for hatching chicks. As local and crossbred chickens are poor layers, their eggs tend to be kept for incubation. Similar results were observed by Kurz *et al.* (2023) in Madagascar.

## Production system

### Farm characteristics and typology

Most farms were family-run, with 78% employing only family labor. Producers fell into three categories: those who bought and fattened day-old chicks (8.4%); those who produced and fattened chicks (51.2%); and those who produced and sold chicks (7.6%). The remaining producers (32.8%) were involved in two or all three types of production (Table II). These results differed from those of Hodzi *et al.* (2025). Our findings show that the majority of producers did not specialize, but produced both chicks and chickens. However, the development of specialized and interconnected units could increase efficiency and improve the management of AnGR.

The number of chickens fattened per respondent ranged from: 24 to 1,000 for farmers who exclusively bought their chicks; 10 to 700 for farmers who exclusively produced their chicks; and 20 to 1,200 for those who did both. These figures highlight the huge differences in scale of the production units.

The quality of housing included coops that met technical standards (45%), semi-modern coops, cages, and backyard corridors (Table II). While most farms were equipped with modern feeders and drinkers (63%), kitchen utensils and traditional pottery were also used on some farms. Similar equipment was reported on urban family poultry farms in Senegal (Fall *et al.*, 2016). Chick producers used incubators (36%), and brooding hens (79.6%). When hens are used to incubate eggs, simultaneous hatching is not guaranteed, which makes production management more challenging. Farmers use unsuitable infrastructure and equipment due to a lack of resources. The choice of raising local or crossbred chickens is also linked to their limited resources.

Multiple correspondence analysis and hierarchical classification revealed three distinct groups, each with a different target. (i) The first group included 22 producers, 86.4% of whom cited self-consumption as their main production goal. Half of the respondents who used cages were in this group; (ii) The second group comprised 88 producers. Their main objective was to sell chickens (98.9%). They claimed that their activity was profitable (92%). Over half (52.3%) had housing that met technical standards. Forty-five per cent used complete feed exclusively, while 30.7% used a combination of complete feed and other resources. (iii) The third group (9 respondents) consisted of farmers who produced chicks. The sale of chicks was the main objective for 88.9%. Almost half (44.4%) declared that building contractor was their main activity.

The mean number of chickens in the three groups differed significantly (ANOVA I). Group 2 had the highest average (167.4 ± 217.5 birds), followed by Group 3 (91.6 ± 122.9 birds), and Group 1 (39.1 ± 28.5 birds). It is important to note that the figures are highly variable within each group. The level of education did not appear to be a determining factor in these groups (CHI-2 test).

### Feeding and health management

Chicken feed resources varied depending on the producer and the season. While 41.2% of producers said they only used complete feed, 21.8% did not use it at all, and 37.0% used it occasionally (Table III). Other feed resources included household waste, cereal grains, and insects. Similar feeding practices were observed in Senegal (Fall *et al.*, 2025).

Industrial feed was sometimes mixed with cracked maize to increase volume and reduce costs. The prices of industrial feed ranged from 250 to 350 CFA francs per kilogram depending on the season. The feeding practices show that farmers are seeking alternative solutions to reduce feed costs. However, this can be problematic, for example when the feed ration does not meet the chickens' nutritional requirements, growth is slower. Similarly, mixing complete feed with cracked maize can lead to protein deficiencies. One way to reduce feed costs could be to produce insects, particularly housefly larvae, on a large scale. Numerous studies have demonstrated that the latter are easy to produce, and can effectively replace conventional sources of protein (Khan, 2018).

Mortality was common and caused by trampling, predation, pecking, diseases, and poor weather conditions. Most producers (80%) dewormed and vaccinated their chickens regularly (Table III), against Newcastle disease, fowl pox, Gumboro disease, avian coryza, bronchitis and avian cholera. The producers who did not vaccinate stated that it was out of negligence, although some claimed to have lost confidence in the vaccines' effectiveness. In addition to classic vermifuruges, plants, such as *Acacia nilotica*, *Khaya senegalensis*, *Balanites aegyptiaca* and *Parkia biglobosa* were used for deworming. Some farmers also used antibiotics as a preventive measure. This raises the issue of antibiotic resistance. In 2013, Kagambèga *et al.* (2013) isolated Salmonella enterica serotypes resistant to antibiotics from poultry feces in Burkina Faso. In addition to the development of antibiotic resistance, humans can develop allergic reactions or liver damage from consuming antibiotic residues in animal products (Selaledi *et al.*, 2020). Therefore, producers should be made aware of these risks, and alternative approaches should be promoted. These include using probiotics, prebiotics, plant extracts or organic acids, all of which have antimicrobial properties (Selaledi *et al.*, 2020). Applying strict biosafety measures alongside vaccination can also help reduce dependence on antibiotics.

### Marketing and financial management

The sale prices of the various products were as follows: 2.840 ± 580 CFA francs for chickens, 5.047 ± 1.309 CFA francs for a batch of 30 fertilized eggs, 638 ± 220 CFA francs for a bag of manure (about 25 kg), and 700 ± 353 CFA francs for a day-old chick. Chickens are sold for meat at an average age of 4.3 ± 2 months. This is younger than the age observed by Hodzi *et al.* (2025). Although almost all respondents stated that the activity was profitable, 81% did not record production costs. The level of education was not found to be a determining factor (CHI2). Respondents estimated the average gross profit margin to be 705 ± 379 CFA francs per chicken. Given that expenditure was not recorded, this figure is only an estimate and may differ from the actual figure. Although the estimated average gross profit margin was not significantly different at 5% (ANOVA I) in relation to level of education, the better educated farmers tended to declare a lower margin (p-value = 0.06). Further research is required to improve our understanding of the question of profitability.

### Genetic resources and their management

#### Genotype used for production

The majority of producers reared local and/or exotic crossbred chicks. However, around 27.5% of the producers in our sample only raised local breeds. Interviewees reported 12 exotic breeds/strains used for crossbreeding. The most common were the Sasso, North Holland Blue, Brahma, Harco, and Isa Brown. The fast-growing Sasso and, to a lesser extent, the North Holland Blue produce better results for meat. The slow-growing Brahma has a high adult weight, which is also an asset for meat production. Conversely, Harco and Isa Brown are egg-laying breeds, which produce less meat. Crossbreeding in developing
<table><caption>**Table II:** Farm characteristics /// Caractéristiques des exploitations agricoles</caption><thead><tr><th>Variables</th><th>Modalities</th><th>Frequencies (%) or mean (n)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="4">Type of producers</td><td>Growers who buy chicks</td><td>8.4</td></tr><tr><td>Growers who produce chicks on farm</td><td>51.2</td></tr><tr><td>Chick producers</td><td>7.6</td></tr><tr><td>Combination of several strategies</td><td>32.8</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Initial production system</td><td>Scavenging system</td><td>82.5</td></tr><tr><td>Permanent confinement system</td><td>17.5</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Type of worker</td><td>Family labor</td><td>78.3</td></tr><tr><td>Salaried labor</td><td>15.8</td></tr><tr><td>Family and salaried labor</td><td>2.6</td></tr><tr><td>No employee</td><td>3.3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Type of coop (principal coop)</td><td>Corridors in backyard</td><td>21.8</td></tr><tr><td>Modern coops</td><td>45.4</td></tr><tr><td>Semi-modern coop</td><td>28.6</td></tr><tr><td>Cages</td><td>4.2</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Use of brooding hens</td><td>Yes</td><td>79.6</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>20.4</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Use of artificial incubators</td><td>Yes</td><td>36.1</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>63.9</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Availability of heating system for chicks</td><td>Yes</td><td>63.0</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>37.0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Use of modern feeders</td><td>Yes</td><td>82.4</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>17.6</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Use of traditional pottery feeders</td><td>Yes</td><td>7.6</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>92.4</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Use of old kitchen utensils as feeders</td><td>Yes</td><td>20.2</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>79.8</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Use of modern drinkers</td><td>Yes</td><td>84.9</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>15.1</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Use of traditional pottery drinkers</td><td>Yes</td><td>29.4</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>70.6</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Use of old kitchen utensils as drinkers</td><td>Yes</td><td>5.1</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>94.9</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Cattle rearing</td><td>Yes</td><td>16.0</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>84.0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Sheep rearing</td><td>Yes</td><td>29.4</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>70.6</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Goat rearing</td><td>Yes</td><td>30.3</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>69.7</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Guinea fowl rearing</td><td>Yes</td><td>38.7</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>61.3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Pig rearing</td><td>Yes</td><td>9.2</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>90.2</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Rearing of other species</td><td>Yes</td><td>42.0</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>58.0</td></tr><tr><td>Number of chickens per grower with bought-in chicks</td><td></td><td>299 ± 365.6</td></tr><tr><td>Number of chickens per grower combining several strategies</td><td></td><td>201 ± 252.4</td></tr><tr><td>Number of chickens per grower with chicks produced on farm</td><td></td><td>74 ± 100.7</td></tr></tbody></table>

n = number of chickens
<table><caption>**Table III:** Chicken nutrition and health management /// *Alimentation et gestion sanitaire des poulets*</caption><thead><tr><th>Variables</th><th>Modalities</th><th>Frequencies (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="3">Chicken feeding practices</td><td>Complete feed only</td><td>41.2</td></tr><tr><td>Absence of complete feed</td><td>21.8</td></tr><tr><td>Occasional use of complete feed</td><td>37.0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Origin of complete feed</td><td>Made on farm</td><td>26.9</td></tr><tr><td>Purchased</td><td>32.8</td></tr><tr><td>Combination of the two</td><td>40.3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Vaccination</td><td>Yes</td><td>79.8</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>20.2</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">Reason for non-vaccination</td><td>Negligence</td><td>45.8</td></tr><tr><td>Loss of confidence in vaccine's effectiveness</td><td>50.0</td></tr><tr><td>Organic production</td><td>4.2</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Regular deworming</td><td>Yes</td><td>80.2</td></tr><tr><td>No</td><td>19.8</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Reason for not deworming</td><td>Negligence</td><td>65.2</td></tr><tr><td>Deemed unnecessary</td><td>34.8</td></tr></tbody></table>

countries is a common practice (Leroy *et al.*, 2012; Manyelo *et al.*, 2020). On the chicken farms in our study, the innovation involved a shift from scavenging systems to permanent confinement.

Respondents reported that crossbreds had higher growth rates and adult weights than local breeds, but lower survival rates and greater feed consumption. Therefore, crossbreds have a comparative advantage over local breeds when in permanent confinement. Consequently, when producers lack the resources, skills or time to provide the optimal conditions for specialized breeds, crossbreeding is a good alternative. Clearly, improving the performance of crossbreds in terms of growth and adult weight will improve economic performance. Some producers said that consumers prefer the taste of meat from local chickens and crossbreds. This could give them an advantage over exotic broilers if consumers are willing to pay more.

## Goals and managing crossbreeding

The objectives of crossbreeding were to improve chickens' growth and weight for 100% of respondents and laying performance for 85.8%. The aim was to achieve these goals and maintain good survival rates. According to Desta (2021), crossbreeding could improve productivity while guaranteeing good survival rates, which would help to meet the demand for local chickens. The results suggest that producers were reluctant to purchase more inputs, and complained about the crossbreds' high feed consumption.

The crossbreeding schemes cited were mainly single crosses (two breeds) and triple crosses (three breeds). However, during the interviews, we observed that different genotypes of hens and cocks were kept together. This indicates that the crossbreeding schemes were not strictly followed. We also found that cocks from the different crosses were often sold as breeding roosters to other breeders, particularly

those with rural scavenging systems. This management of crossbreeding is not unique to the Ouagadougou region. According to Leroy *et al.* (2016), crossbreeding is seldom controlled in developing countries. Furthermore, observations and molecular analyses of local populations in many African countries have revealed the presence of genes from commercial strains (Leroy *et al.*, 2012). Indeed, indiscriminate crossbreeding is considered as a threat to local breeds (Leroy *et al.*, 2016). In our study, we observed that the importation of exotic breeds was not heavily regulated by the authorities. Therefore, indiscriminate crossbreeding could lead to the spread of various exotic genes, and weaken the local population over time. Additionally, using F1s for reproduction theoretically reduces heterosis.

Although crossbreeding can threaten local breeds, a well-organized crossbreeding system that promotes local breeds could be an effective means of conserving genetic resources. Indeed, the best way to conserve a breed, especially in developing country conditions, is to encourage its use by providing economic incentives to farmers (Lauvie *et al.*, 2014). The use of crossbreeds requires organization and monitoring, with specialized crossbreeding units to reduce the risk of eroding local genetic resources.

## CONCLUSION

The study investigated the practice of rearing local chickens and crossbreds in permanent confinement in urban and suburban areas. We found that chicken production was essentially a secondary economic activity, involving diverse feeding and health practices, and various infrastructure. Because of its characteristics, this production system can be positioned between free-range systems and the intensive production of commercial strains. The management of AnGR could be improved to safeguard local genetic resources. We propose the following recommendations: (i) Reduce feeding costs and provide a balanced diet, by encouraging farmers to produce fly larvae from feces and household waste. This protein source would be cheaper than fishmeal; (ii) Minimize the risks associated with the inappropriate use of antibiotics, by informing farmers and promoting alternative approaches; (iii) Raise awareness among farmers about the value of local AnGR and the importance of conserving local genetic resources; (iv) Provide support to farmers wanting to set up a producer organization, for example for local chicken breeders that supply breeding stock for crossbreeding, and for crossbred chicken farmers who produce solely for meat consumption; (v) Set up a selection programme to improve local chicken breeds.

## Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

## Competing Interests

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

## Author Contributions

KT and KS contributed to the study conception and design, material preparation, and data collection. Data analysis was performed by KT. The first draft of the manuscript was written by KT. KT and KS commented on previous versions of the manuscript. KT and KS read and approved the final manuscript.

## Ethics approval

Ethical approval was not required for this type of data collection in Burkina Faso.

## Data availability

The data were not deposited in an official repository. The data that support the study findings are available from the authors upon request.
# Declaration of Generative AI in the writing process

The authors did not use any artificial intelligence-assisted technologies in the writing process.

## REFERENCES

Balcha, K., Mengesha, Y., Senbeta, E., & Zeleke, N. (2021). Evaluation of different traits from day-old to age at first eggs of Fayoumi and white Leghorn chickens and their reciprocal crossbreeds. *Journal of Advanced Veterinary and Animal Research, 8*(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.5455/javar.2021.h478

Bilalissi, A., Lombo, Y., Kossoga, K. A., Tona, K., Batimsoga, B. B., Voemesse, K., Tare, T. P., et al. (2022). Influence of crossbreeding of Sasso and Faso chickens on some hatching events and post-hatch performances. *International Journal of Food Science and Agriculture*, 6(2), 228-236. http://dx.doi.org/10.26855/ijfsa.2022.06.013

Chaiban, C., Robinson, T. P., Fèvre, E. M., Ogola, J., Akoko, J., Gilbert, M., Vanwambeke, S. O. (2020). Early intensification of backyard poultry systems in the tropics: a case study. *Animals*, 14(11), 2387-2396. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175173112000110X

Desta, T. T. (2021). Sustainable intensification of Indigenous village chicken production system: Matching the genotype with the environment. *Tropical Animal Health and Production, 53*(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-021-02773-5

Fall, A. K., Dieng, A., Samba, A. N. S., Diallo, A. (2016). L'aviculture urbaine familiale au Sénégal : caractérisation et rôle socio-économique dans la commune de Thiès. *CAMES*, 4(02), 6-11.

FAO. (2018). *Elevage durable en Afrique 2050. Aperçu sur les systèmes de production animale : filières bovine et volaille au Burkina Faso*. Accessed 12 May 2025 on https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/4f646203-8399-4e25-9357-b0ed221242f8/content

Hodzi, P., Charambira, T., Mafigu, T., Masunda, B., & Nhara, R. (2025). Characterization of urban production of roadrunner (Indigenous) chicken in Harare, Zimbabwe. *Tropical Animal Health and Production*, 57(3). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-025-04397-5

INSD. (2020). Cinquième recensement général de la population et de l'habitat du Burkina Faso, synthèse des résultats définitifs. Accessed 15 March 2024 on https://www.finances.gov.bf/forum/detail-actualités

Kagambèga, A., Lienemann, T., Aulu, L., Traoré, A. S., Barro, N., Siitonen, A., & Haukka, K. (2013). Prevalence and characterization of Salmonella enterica from the feces of cattle, poultry, swine and hedgehogs in Burkina Faso and their comparison to human Salmonella isolates. *BMC Microbiology*, 13(1), 253. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2180-13-253

Khan, S. H. (2018). Recent advances in role of insects as alternative protein source in poultry nutrition. *Journal of Applied Animal Research*, 46(1), 1144-1157. https://doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2018.1474743

Kurz, B., Steinke, J., Sieber, S. (2023). Intervention options for small-scale family poultry development in south-eastern Madagascar: an expert survey. *Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics* 124(1), 23-36. https://doi.org/10.17170/kobra-202302217526

Lauvie, A., Couix, N., & Verrier, E. (2014). No development, no conservation: Elements from the conservation of farm animal genetic resources. *Society & Natural Resources*, 27(12), 1331-1338. https://doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2014.933922

Leroy, G., Kayang, B. B., Youssao, I. A. K., Yapi-Gnaoré, C. V., Osei-Amponsah, R., Loukou, N. E., Fotsa, J. C., et al. (2012). Gene diversity, agroecological structure and introgression patterns among village chicken populations across North, West and Central Africa. *BMC Genetics*, 13(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2156-13-34

Leroy, G., Baumung, R., Boettcher, P., Scherf, B., & Hoffmann, I. (2016). Review: Sustainability of crossbreeding in developing countries; definitely not like crossing a meadow.... *Animal*, 10(2), 262-273. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175173111500213x

Mahoro, J., Muasya, T. K., Mbuza, F., Habimana, R., & Kahi, A. K. (2017). Characterization of Indigenous chicken production systems in Rwanda. *Poultry Science*, 96(12), 4245-4252. https://doi.org/10.3382/ps/pex240

Manyelo, T. G., Selaledi, L., Hassan, Z. M., & Mabelebele, M. (2020). Local chicken breeds of Africa: Their description, uses and conservation methods. *Animals*, 10(12), 2257. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10122257

Mottet, A., & Tempio, G. (2017). Global poultry production: Current state and future outlook and challenges. *World's Poultry Science Journal*, 73(2), 245-256. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0043933917000071

R Core Team. (2022). A language and environment for statistical computing (Version 4.0.4) [Software]. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. https://www.R-project.org/

Selaledi, L. A., Hassan, Z. M., Manyelo, T. G., & Mabelebele, M. (2020). The current status of the alternative use to antibiotics in poultry production: An African perspective. *Antibiotics*, 9(9), 594. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics9090594
Résumé

**Tindano K., Savadogo K.** Système de production du poulet local et de ses croisés et gestion des ressources génétiques en zone urbaine et périurbaine de Ouagadougou

**Contexte** : La croissance de la demande en produits animaux entraîne des changements dans les systèmes de production. Ces dernières années, on observe l'émergence d'un nouveau système d'aviculture en milieu urbain et périurbain au Burkina Faso. Il consiste à élever le poulet local et les produits de ses croisements avec des races exotiques, dans un système en claustration. **Objectif** : La présente étude visait à caractériser ce système de production et la gestion des ressources génétiques à travers une enquête. **Méthodes** : L'échantillonnage en boule de neige a été mise en œuvre. Onze points d'entrée indépendants ont été utilisés dans différentes zones périurbaines de Ouagadougou, permettant de recueillir les pratiques de 120 aviculteurs. **Résultats** : Les résultats ont montré que les éleveurs avaient en moyenne 38±12 ans et un niveau d'instruction assez élevé. L'élevage de poulets était essentiellement une activité secondaire. La commercialisation était l'objectif principal. Les ressources pour l'alimentation des poulets étaient variées et comprenaient des aliments commerciaux, des déchets de ménage, des grains et des insectes. La gestion de la santé a révélé l'usage d'antibiotiques à titre préventif. La production de poussins hybrides ne suivait pas de schéma de croisement précis et les coqs hybrides étaient souvent utilisés ou vendus comme reproducteurs, y compris en milieu rural. **Conclusions** : Ce système de production peut donc être considéré comme intermédiaire entre un système de divagation et une production intensive de souches commerciales. Toutefois, la gestion ad hoc de la reproduction est susceptible de favoriser une érosion génétique. Par ailleurs, l'usage préventif d'antibiotiques soulève un risque de présence de résidus dans les produits destinés à la consommation. L'amélioration de la gestion de ce système apparaît donc nécessaire afin de préserver les ressources génétiques locales et de protéger la santé publique.

**Mots-clés** : poulet, croisement, ressource génétique animale, zone suburbaine, système de production, Burkina Faso

Resumen

**Tindano K., Savadogo K.** Sistema de producción de pollos locales, cruces y gestión de recursos genéticos en las zonas urbanas y periurbanas de Uagadugú

**Contexto:** El crecimiento en la demanda de productos animales comporta cambios en los sistemas productivos. En los últimos años se observa la emergencia de un nuevo sistema de avicultura el en medio urbano y periurbano de Burkina Faso. Consiste en criar el pollo local y los productos de sus cruces con razas exóticas, en un sistema en enclaustramiento. **Objetivo:** El presente estudio pretende caracterizar este sistema de producción y la gestión de recursos genéticos mediante una encuesta. **Métodos:** Se aplicó un muestreo en bola de nieve. Se utilizaron 11 puntos de entrada independientes en diferentes zonas periurbanas de Uagadugú, lo que permitió recoger las prácticas de 120 avicultores. **Resultados:** Los resultados mostraron que los ganaderos tenían como media 38±12 años y un nivel de instrucción bastante elevado. La cría de pollos era esencialmente una actividad secundaria. La comercialización era su objetivo principal. Los recursos para la alimentación de los pollos eran variados y comprendían alimentos comerciales, residuos domésticos, grano e insectos. La gestión de la salud reveló el uso de antibióticos a título preventivo. La producción de polluelos híbridos no seguía ningún patrón de crecimiento preciso y los gallos híbridos a menudo eran utilizados o vendidos como reproductores, incluso en medio rural. **Conclusiones:** Este sistema productivo puede, pues, considerarse como intermedio entre un sistema de divagación y una producción intensiva de estirpes comerciales. Sin embargo, la gestión ad hoc de la reproducción es susceptible de favorecer una erosión genética. Además, el uso preventivo de antibióticos entraña un riesgo de presencia de residuos en los productos destinados al consumo. En consecuencia, la mejora de la gestión de este sistema parece necesaria para preservar los recursos genéticos locales y proteger la salud pública.

**Palabras clave:** pollo, cruzamiento, recurso genético animal, zona periurbana, sistema de producción, Burkina Faso
<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>