The Potential of Moringa oleifera as a Sustainable Broiler Feed Additive

[Full title: The Potential of Moringa oleifera as a Sustainable Broiler Feed Additive: Investigating Awareness, Perceptions and Use by Broiler Farmers and Moringa Farmers in South Africa]

Citation: Lungu, N.S.; Maina, J.G.; Dallimer, M.; van Marle-Köster, E. The Potential of Moringa oleifera as a Sustainable Broiler Feed Additive: Investigating Awareness, Perceptions and Use by Broiler Farmers and Moringa Farmers in South Africa Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 2208. https:// doi.org/10.3390/su 16052208 Academic Editors: Md Romij Uddin and Uttam Kumer Sarker Received: 11 January 2024 Revised: 23 February 2024 Accepted: 4 March 2024 Published: 6 March 2024 Copyright: © 2024 by the authors Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/) sustainability Article The Potential of Moringa oleifera as a Sustainable Broiler Feed Additive: Investigating Awareness, Perceptions and Use by Broiler Farmers and Moringa Farmers in South Africa Nobuhle S. Lungu 1, *, Joyce G. Maina 2 , Martin Dallimer 3 and Este van Marle-Köster 4 1 Centre for the Advancement of Scholarship, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0002, South Africa 2 Department of Animal Production, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Nairobi, P.O. Box 29053, Kangemi 00625, Kenya; joyce.maina@uonbi.ac.ke 3 Sustainability Research Institute, School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, Leeds LS 9 2 JT, UK; m.dallimer@leeds.ac.uk 4 Department of Animal Science, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0043, South Africa; este.vanmarle-koster@up.ac.za * Correspondence: nslungu@gmail.com; Tel.: +27-765-9288-436 Abstract: Moringa oleifera ’s high nutritional value and bioactive properties have attracted significant scientific research interest as an additive in broiler feed for sustainable broiler production. The tree’s multifunctional characteristics make it a potent alternative growth promoter for broilers and a valuable resource to address Sustainable Development Goals related to poverty alleviation, food security, good health, and responsible consumption. Moreover, it provides a less expensive and environmentally friendly alternative for broiler farmers. However, less is known about the awareness, perceptions, and prevailing practices of broiler farmers and M. oleifera farmers regarding the plant’s use as an additive. This study determined the awareness, perceptions, and practices of M. oleifera use among broiler and M. oleifera farmers in South Africa. Quantitative data collected from 165 purposively sampled small-scale broiler farmers, along with qualitative insights from 11 key informants, indicated that 66.7% of respondents, primarily females, knew about M. oleifera but lacked awareness of its benefits for broilers (82.4%). Awareness varied significantly ( p < 0.05) by gender Only 10.9% of those aware used M. oleifera , predominantly small-scale female farmers. Leaves and stems were common parts used, added to feed, or infused in water. Perceived benefits included improved growth rates and reduced mortalities. Large-scale broiler farmers expressed interest if provided with more information on the nutritional benefits and the availability of bulk M. oleifera to sustain their large operations. The study underscores the need for targeted awareness campaigns, especially among female farmers, and providing guidelines for M. oleifera use. Formulating broiler diets that include M. oleifera as an ingredient will require a consistent supply, which is currently lacking. Therefore, there is a need to address the production capacity to meet the requirements of larger broiler operations Keywords: antibiotics; growth promoters; broilers; natural alternatives; sustainable production 1. Introduction Broiler meat plays a significant role in meeting the growing global demand for animal protein. In South Africa, broiler production plays a crucial role in ensuring food security and contributing to economic growth and employment opportunities, which helps to reduce poverty and improve livelihoods [ 1 ]. While playing a significant role in economic growth and food security, the broiler industry faces an array of challenges including diseases, rising feed costs, and environmental concerns. One challenge that has gained significant attention is the ongoing debate surrounding the use of antibiotics for growth promotion. Over the years, antibiotics have played a crucial role in enhancing health Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 2208. https://doi.org/10.3390/su 16052208 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 2208 2 of 14 and promoting growth, thereby boosting production in the broiler industry [ 2 ]. However, there have been public health concerns that if overused in broiler production, antibiotic growth promoters (AGPs) could potentially contribute to the emergence and spread of antimicrobial resistance (AMR). South Africa has put measures in place for farmers to withdraw antibiotics from broiler diets prior to slaughter to allow time for the residues to be metabolised and flushed out of the system, making the broilers safe for human consumption. However, monitoring compliance with this guideline, particularly among small-scale farmers, could be challenging [ 3 ]. Moreover, using antibiotics is expensive, especially for resource-limited small-scale farmers. Therefore, there is a need to find affordable natural alternatives that are environmentally friendly Moringa oleifera is one plant that has shown significant potential as a natural growth promoter in broiler diets M. oleifera possesses an excellent range of antimicrobial and antioxidant properties attributed to its high content of bioactive compounds, including flavonoids and phenols [ 4 – 6 ]. Compounds found within M. oleifera , like kaempferol and quercetin, possess anti-inflammatory properties and immunomodulatory effects, meaning they can regulate and enhance the immune system’s response. The leaf powder is rich in essential amino acids, minerals, and vitamins, including vitamin B complex, vitamin C, provitamin A as beta-carotene, vitamin K, and manganese, that are essential for growth [ 7 – 9 ]. A study by [ 10 ] reported that the predominant minerals in moringa leaf powder included calcium, magnesium, potassium, iron, and copper at 20.32, 387.83, 1545.33, 26.69, and 0.83 mg/100 g, respectively. On a dry weight basis, the protein content in moringa leaves ranges between 24 and 30 g per 100 g of dry matter [ 11 , 12 ]. Scientific evidence confirms that dietary inclusion of M. oleifera at levels lower than 5% of the total dry matter intake can improve growth performance, animal health, feed conversion ratio, and meat quality [ 5 ]. Incorporating M. oleifera into broiler diets has been reported to reduce the cost incurred per kilogram of weight gain for birds compared to incorporating antibiotics [ 13 ]. There is still a gap in studies that have conducted cost–benefit analyses of incorporating M. oleifera Hence, there remains a need for additional research exploring the cost–benefit aspects of using moringa in various applications While several studies have focused on the scientific benefits of M. oleifera for broilers, little to no effort has been made to understand if farmers are adopting moringa as an alternative growth promoter. Addressing this knowledge gap is crucial in helping to identify the practical challenges and attitudes of farmers when it comes to adopting M. oleifera in their broiler production practices. Understanding whether and how farmers are incorporating M. oleifera in their broiler feeding strategies can provide valuable information for designing effective outreach, extension, and educational programs to promote the sustainable and optimized use of M. oleifera in broiler production. Additionally, this research can shed light on potential barriers or misconceptions that may hinder the wider adoption of M. oleifera as an alternative growth promoter 2. Materials and Methods 2.1. Study Site Description The study was carried out in the Limpopo and Gauteng provinces of South Africa Limpopo and Gauteng were chosen for the study because they are the primary M. oleifera - producing areas in South Africa [ 14 ]. It was convenient for broiler farmers to be sampled from the same provinces. The participants of the study were only broiler and M. oleifera farmers The specific study areas were Makhado, Sekhung, HaMulima, and Randfontein Municipality. These specific study areas were selected based on the availability of extension officers to facilitate meetings with farmers.

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 2208 3 of 14 2.2. Sampling Method and Data Collection Ethical clearance (reference number NAS 291/2022) to conduct the study was granted by the University of Pretoria Natural and Agricultural Sciences Ethics Committee. Ethical considerations were observed during and after the data collection period 2.2.1. Broiler Farmer Data Collection Data was collected using structured questionnaires. To validate the broiler farmer questionnaire, a draft version of the questionnaire was pre-tested using a subset of broiler farmers from Sekhung (one of the study areas). During this process, efforts were made to identify and categorise any information that was missing from the initial questionnaire draft. The questionnaire was divided into two sections. Section A focused on demographic variables, including age, gender, location of farm, level of education, marital status, and employment status, while Section B had questions on knowledge, awareness and practices relating to M. oleifera use. A Likert scale ranging from 1—“not at all”—to 5—“extremely knowledgeable or extremely aware”—was used to rate knowledge of M. oleifera and awareness of the benefits of M. oleifera Broiler farmers were purposively selected from the broiler farmers’ database by extension officers from the Department of Agriculture in the respective study locations. These farmers were invited to attend information sessions held on different days across the various study areas, during which the questionnaires were disseminated. Only farmers who indicated willingness to participate and signed the informed consent form were considered for the study. A total of 165 small-scale broiler farmers participated in the study. Although the study was primarily focused on small-scale producers, additional insights were obtained through direct communication with large-scale broiler producers who possess expertise in feed formulation and have extensive industry experience. While the sample size of this group was limited, the insights gathered were considered valuable for this study 2.2.2 M. oleifera Farmer Data Collection Open-ended interviews were conducted to collect data from eleven key informants with extensive knowledge and experience in M. oleifera production. These key informants were identified using a snowball approach of sequential referrals. The inclusion criteria for participation required that participants had at least 100 M. oleifera trees on their farms Each key informant was visited and interviewed individually at their respective farms. The research team consisted of 2 males and 2 females with previous experience in conducting interviews. Participants were provided with information about the purpose of the research, including the benefits and risks of participation. Respondents were assured of their right to withdraw from study participation at any point, and necessary precautions were taken to ensure and maintain confidentiality throughout the study. An interview guide with questions about the number of years involved in M. oleifera production, production constraints, and knowledge about the benefits of M. oleifera for broilers was used 2.3. Statistical Analysis 2.3.1. Quantitative Data Data from the broiler farmer survey were analysed statistically using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22 (IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows). Descriptive statistics were used to generate frequencies of response and means. The logistic regression model was used to determine the effect of farmers’ demographic characteristics on the use of M. oleifera in broiler feeding. The model parameters were estimated with maximum likelihood estimation technique. Binary logistic regression is a statistical technique used to estimate the probability of a dichotomous dependent variable, based on explanatory variables that are hypothesized to influence the outcome. In the current study, the dependent variable is the use or non-use of M. oleifera . Binary response (Yes or No)

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 2208 4 of 14 to the use of M. oleifera in broiler feeding was specified as the dependent variable in the model. The binary regression model is specified below: Y i = b 0 + b 1 X 1 + b 2 X 2 + b 3 X 3 + b 4 X 4 + b 5 X 5 + e where: Y i = Use of M. oleifera (1 = Yes, 0 No) X 1 = Age X 2 = Gender X 3 = Level of education X 4 = Marital status X 5 = Type of broiler ownership b 0 = Intercept e = Error term To ensure that statistical inferences made from the model are reliable and accurate, multicollinearity was determined, and the values were found to be within the accepted norms (tolerance not less than 0.1 and variance inflation factor of not more than 10). The Hosmer–Lemeshow test was not significant ( p > 0.05), meaning that the model was a good fit for the observed data. One-way ANOVA was used to assess differences in broiler farm sizes across different locations. Fisher’s exact test was employed to test for associations between demographic variables and awareness of the benefits of M. oleifera in broilers Fisher’s test was the most suitable because more than 20% of cells in the contingency table appeared to have frequencies <5. In such cases, Fisher’s exact test is appropriate to use [ 15 ]. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. The null hypothesis was that there is no significant difference in the awareness of M. oleifera by farmers based on age, gender, level of education, marital status, location, and type of broiler ownership. Since only few large-scale producers participated in the study, their findings were used for commentary in the discussion due to insufficient data for quantitative statistical analysis 2.3.2. Qualitative Data Interview data was analysed following an inductive approach, applying the sixstep thematic analysis proposed by [ 16 ]. Audio recordings were first transcribed and anonymised. The transcripts were read several times to identify emerging themes and sub-themes until no further themes emerged, which suggested that major themes had been identified and data saturation had been reached. Two research assistants coded transcripts independently, and the themes that emerged from their coding were compared with those found by the primary researcher as quality check and ensuring inter-reliability. The discussed themes were supported by verbatim text extracted from the transcripts Descriptive statistics were used to describe the interviewed participants characteristics 3. Results 3.1. Results 3.1.1. Household Demography The majority of the respondents across the three study sites were made up of females (67.3%) (Table 1 ). More than half (56.2%) of the respondents were between 20 and 50 years of age. Most of the respondents had a high school education (56.4), were self-employed (72.1%), and depended on broiler sales as their main source of income (96.4%). The mean number of broilers per cycle in Randfontein was significantly ( p < 0.05) different from the other study areas (Table 2 ).

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 2208 5 of 14 Table 1. Demographic information of the participants in the study areas Characteristic Location of Farm HaMulima (%) n = 37 Makhado (%) n = 52 Sekhung (%) n = 40 Randfontein (%) n = 36 Gender Male 37.8 23.1 35 33.3 Female 62.2 76.9 60 66.7 Prefer not to mention 0 0 5 0 Total 100 100 100 100 Age 20–40 21.6 42.3 42.5 19.4 41–50 18.9 38.5 10 19.4 51–60 21.7 15.4 30 30.6 >60 37.8 3.8 17.5 30.6 Total 100 100 100 Level of Education Primary school 18.0 0 12.5 2.8 High school 51.0 57.7 60 55.6 Certificate 8.0 9.6 7.5 0 Diploma 14.9 23.1 10 16.6 Bachelor’s 2.7 7.7 7.5 22.2 Prefer not to mention 2.7 0 0 2.8 No formal education 2.7 1.9 2.5 0 Total 100 100 100 100 Employment status Employed—full time 2.7 5.8 10 0 Employed—part time 2.7 0 2.5 0 Unemployed 18.9 11.6 0 19.4 Self-employed 54.1 76.9 75 80.6 Seeking opportunities 2.7 3.8 7.5 0 Retired 18.9 1.9 5 0 Total 100 100 100 100 Marital status Married 51.4 44.2 52.5 44.4 Not married 48.6 55.8 47.5 52.8 Prefer not to mention 0 0 0 2.8 Total Table 2. Average number of broilers per cycle in different locations Location Test of Homogeneity of Variance ANOVA Means ± Std. Error Levene’s Statistic Sig. F Sig. HaMulima 338.46 34.234 10.284 0.001 13.056 0.001 Makhado 258.11 27.366 Sekhung 360.00 73.798 Randfontein 922.22 154.258 Location differences Locations Mean difference Sig HaMulima-Randfontein − 664.114 * 0.001 Makhado-Randfontein − 583.761 * 0.004 Sekhung-Randfontein − 562.222 * 0.011 * The mean difference is significant at p < 0.05.

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 2208 6 of 14 3.1.2. Knowledge about the M. oleifera Tree and Source of Knowledge The results showed that 33.9% of the respondents did not know about the M. oleifera tree (Table 3 ). The knowledge of M. oleifera differed significantly ( p < 0.05) according to gender and location (Table 4 ). Among the respondents who were knowledgeable about the M. oleifera tree, 56.89% cited their sources of knowledge as the community and family, while 25.86%, 15.52%, and 1.72% acquired their knowledge of the M. oleifera tree form the media, workshops, and extension services, respectively (Table 5 ). The majority of the respondents (82.4%) were not aware of the benefits of M. oleifera in broiler chickens (Figure 1 ). Awareness differed significantly ( p < 0.05) according to gender (Table 6 ). Table 3. Respondents’ knowledge of the M. oleifera tree Knowledge about the M. oleifera Tree Location (%) HaMulima Makhado Sekhung Randfontein Total Not at all 51.4 17.3 25 13.9 33.9 Slightly know 29.7 36.5 32.5 44.4 24.8 Somewhat know 13.5 15.4 0 8.3 7.3 Moderately know 2.7 21.2 27.5 22.2 21.8 Extremely know 2.7 9.6 15.0 11.1 12.1 Table 4. Effect of location, gender, level of education, marital status on knowledge of M. oleifera Variable Likelihood Ratio Degrees of Freedom p -Value Age 19.755 12 0.144 Gender 14.503 8 0.022 * Location 33.480 12 0.003 * Level of education 35.398 24 0.055 Marital status 7.791 8 0.346 Type of broiler ownership 8 0.320 * Significant at p < 0.05 Table 5. Respondents’ sources of knowledge about M. oleifera Location (%) Source HaMulima Makhado Sekhung Randfontein Total (%) Media 22.7 34.9 10 38.9 25.86 Extension service 0 0 5 2.8 1.72 Workshop 13.6 6.9 22.5 27.8 15.52 Community 36.4 39.5 27.5 22.2 35.34 Family 27.3 18.7 25.0 0 21.55 Table 6. Factors influencing the awareness of the benefits of M. oleifera Variable Likelihood Ratio Degrees of Freedom p -Value Age 18.354 12 0.206 Gender 16.602 8 0.020 * Location 20.243 12 0.058 Level of education 20.276 24 0.637 Marital status 4.639 8 0.605 Type of broiler ownership 10.939 8 0.472 * Significant at p < 0.05.

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 2208 7 of 14 Sustainability 2024 , 16 , x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 14 Figure 1. Percentage of farmers’ awareness of M. oleifera bene fi ts in broiler chickens. Table 6. Factors in fl uencing the awareness of the bene fi ts of M. oleifera . Variable Likelihood Ratio Degrees of Freedom p -Value Age 18.354 12 0.206 Gender 16.602 8 0.020 * Location 20.243 12 0.058 Level of education 20.276 24 0.637 Marital status 4.639 8 0.605 Type of broiler ownership 10.939 8 0.472 * Signi fi cant at p < 0.05. 3.1.3. Status of M. oleifera Use by Broiler Farmers A total of 89.1% of the respondents were not using M. oleifera in their feeding routine (Figure 2). Among the 10.9% of the respondents who indicated that they were using M. oleifera , the majority (61.1%) used leaf powder as an additive to the commercial feed, while the remainder added chopped stems to drinking water. The use of M. oleifera was signi fi - cantly ( p < 0.05) in fl uenced by gender and location (Table 7). Figure 1. Percentage of farmers’ awareness of M. oleifera benefits in broiler chickens 3.1.3. Status of M. oleifera Use by Broiler Farmers A total of 89.1% of the respondents were not using M. oleifera in their feeding routine (Figure 2 ). Among the 10.9% of the respondents who indicated that they were using M. oleifera , the majority (61.1%) used leaf powder as an additive to the commercial feed, while the remainder added chopped stems to drinking water. The use of M. oleifera was significantly ( p < 0.05) influenced by gender and location (Table 7 ). Sustainability 2024 , 16 , x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 14 Figure 1. Percentage of farmers’ awareness of M. oleifera bene fi ts in broiler chickens. Table 6. Factors in fl uencing the awareness of the bene fi ts of M. oleifera . Variable Likelihood Ratio Degrees of Freedom p -Value Age 18.354 12 0.206 Gender 16.602 8 0.020 * Location 20.243 12 0.058 Level of education 20.276 24 0.637 Marital status 4.639 8 0.605 Type of broiler ownership 10.939 8 0.472 * Signi fi cant at p < 0.05. 3.1.3. Status of M. oleifera Use by Broiler Farmers A total of 89.1% of the respondents were not using M. oleifera in their feeding routine (Figure 2). Among the 10.9% of the respondents who indicated that they were using M. oleifera , the majority (61.1%) used leaf powder as an additive to the commercial feed, while the remainder added chopped stems to drinking water. The use of M. oleifera was signi fi - cantly ( p < 0.05) in fl uenced by gender and location (Table 7). Figure 2. Percentage of farmers using M. oleifera in broiler chicken feed Table 7. Logistic regression results of factors influencing the use of M. oleifera Variables Coefficient (B) Standard Error Exp (B) p -Value Age − 0.003 0.021 0.997 0.88 Gender 1.738 0.802 5.687 0.03 a Level of education − 0.184 0.229 0.832 0.42 Location 0.597 0.267 1.817 0.03 a Type of broiler ownership − 0.066 0.553 0.515 0.230 Number of broilers per cycle 0.000 0.001 0.842 1.000 Constant − 2.611 a Significant at p < 0.05; − 2 Log likelihood = 87.571.

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 2208 8 of 14 3.2. M. oleifera Farmers Key Informant Interview Results The majority of the participants (63.6%) were female. More than half (54.5%) of the participants fell in the age range from 41 to 50 and had obtained formal education (72.7%) Only 27% of the participants were cultivating M. oleifera on more than 8 hectares of land, while the rest were cultivating less than that (Table 8 ). Three key themes emerged from the thematic analysis. Quotes included in the results are verbatim quotes recorded during individual interviews Table 8. Characteristics of the key informants interviewed Variable Frequency Male 4 Female 7 Age range 20–40 1 41–50 5 51–60 3 >60 2 Education Primary School 1 High School 4 Bachelor’s degree 2 Master’s degree 2 Not mentioned 2 M. oleifera farming experience (years) 1–3 0 4–7 4 8–10 2 >10 5 Area allocated for M. oleifera cultivation (hectares) 0–2 4 2.1–4 1 4.1–8 3 >8 3 3.2.1. Theme 1: M. oleifera Production Four subthemes, namely experience and reason for M. oleifera farming, cultivation and harvesting, constraints, and opportunities for expansion, were identified under this theme Experience and reasons for M. oleifera farming Participants stated a varied number of years in M. oleifera production. The number of years in production ranged from 6 years to more than a decade. Participants grew M oleifera for various reasons, including a source of income, for nutritional and health benefits, due to an interest in organic farming, and for soil health benefits “ A friend of mine introduced me to M. oleifera many years ago. I think he’s a permaculture specialist. How he introduced it to me, it was you can grow M. oleifera and make extracts and spray your crops. So, I grew M. oleifera, took the leaves, put in water, take the water, spray my crops and I had very good, good quality crops. So, I went on like that for years from 2002 just using M. oleifera for enhancing growth of my crops. And some of the leftover I would put in the compost, make compost . . In 2016, I started exporting M oleifera ” (F. 05) Cultivation and harvesting of M. oleifera Throughout the interviews, what was common across all participants was the ease of cultivating M. oleifera . “ These trees last for a long time and they require minimum attention once they are fully grown ” (F. 02) Participants reported that it takes between 3 and 12 months for a M. oleifera tree to grow and start harvesting leaves. The interviews revealed that the M. oleifera tree grew well in warmer temperatures, ideally between 25 ◦ C and 35 ◦ C, and did not perform well during colder seasons. Therefore, summer and spring were the preferred times of

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 2208 9 of 14 planting. Participants noted that the M. oleifera tree requires water during the early stages of development and is drought-tolerant once established. Some of the respondents stated that they were practicing organic M. oleifera production, which prohibits the use of synthetic chemicals such as fertilisers and pesticides. “ In all honesty, managing M. oleifera trees is not expensive at all. The plant is very resilient. I practice organic farming because that’s what our clients want. I grow the trees naturally; no pesticides or fertilisers are used in my farm ” (F. 09) Participants described the harvesting of M. oleifera leaves as a labour-intensive exercise because leaves must be carefully handpicked. Outsourcing labour, predominantly to women and youth from the community, was a common practice during harvesting. ” I usually recruit people from around the community to assist at the farm during harvesting and most of these are youth and women ” (M. 10). Harvesting of leaves from established trees was routinely carried out every 3 to 4 months, depending on availability of forage. While some participants were unable to provide precise leaf matter yield figures, a commonly anticipated leaf matter yield was a minimum of 15 metric tonnes per hectare each year 3.2.2. Theme 2: Broiler Market Access The prices of 1 kg of M. oleifera powder stated by participants was not uniform. Prices ranged from R 50 per kg to R 120 per kg. Respondents indicated that prices were negotiated based on the amount of input and cost of production. One responded stated that in most cases buyers determined the price. “ It’s very shocking. In this country, people will buy even 20 rand a kilo or something, 30 rand a kilo in the country. People will buy that. Because how they do it, they will buy it and go package it and sell for more. Because somebody will tell you, I’m a processor, I want M. oleifera, I want to go sell it, they will pay that small ” (F. 05) The M. oleifera market is still in its infancy in South Africa. Market access was described as one of the biggest challenges by some participants. Traders, agroprocessors, pharmaceutical companies, and community members were identified as the primary local buyers of M. oleifera . Participants involved in the export market were exporting M. oleifera at approximately $6.00/kg. These participants however indicated that the export market was costly and difficult to access, and required large quantities of M. oleifera supplies which they currently lack. “ The client, I sell for is looking for 15 tons every month. But I haven’t gotten to 10 tons every month because I still have fewer quantities of M. oleifera ” (F. 03) 3.2.3. Theme 3: Benefits of M. oleifera for Broilers M. oleifera was reported to be used not only in broiler feed but also for feeding goats, cattle, and rabbits. “. . Yes, we used to blend chicken feed with M. oleifera and feed it to broilers and layers to improve growth egg size. We were also saving money on feed. It took the layers 5 years to lay eggs. As a result, the period of egg production increased. The Department of Agriculture even came to ask how our chickens were still laying eggs after so many years, and we informed them it was due to feeding M. oleifera.... when we feed M. oleifera to goats, we get twins ” (M. 04) The interviews revealed that participants were not marketing M. oleifera powder to any animal feed producers or broiler farmers. One participant mentioned that marketing M. oleifera powder as a feed ingredient to broiler farmers was challenging due to misinformation and a lack of trust. “ Broiler farmers do not have enough knowledge about M. oleifera’s benefits for broiler chicks. When we approach them, they believe we can kill their chickens since we lack proof or sufficient evidence ” (M. 02). A significant limiting factor that emerged was the insufficient knowledge and absence of validated standards for using it as an animal feed. Participants expressed interest in exploring the broiler feed market, recognizing its potential to boost their market 4. Discussion The findings from this study showed that the majority of broiler farmers were female A similar trend was reported by [ 17 , 18 ], who found that women were primarily responsible for rearing chickens in South African smallholder farms. Women play a crucial role in raising broiler chickens in many smallholder farms in South Africa. In a survey conducted

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 2208 10 of 14 by [ 19 ], out of the 236 small-scale broiler farm owners interviewed, 144 were women. The common narrative is that women are usually responsible for managing smaller livestock such as chickens, goats, and sheep, which are reared closer to home [ 20 , 21 ]. This responsibility is often driven by the need to generate income for their families and the cultural expectation of women being responsible for household tasks This study showed that farmers averaged 450 birds per cycle with a range of 100–500 and largely relied on broiler sales as their major source of income. This concurs with findings by [ 22 ], who reported that more than 75% of smallholder farmers produced fewer than 1000 birds per cycle. This could be attributed to the fact that most smallholder farmers are resource-constrained and do not have input in or access to large markets. Despite having challenges in accessing markets, most smallholder broiler farmers obtain high gross margins per bird, since they can sell all birds in a batch within a few days in the informal market. The National Agricultural Marketing and Research Council (NAMC) recently conducted a study across eight provinces in South Africa and found that smallholder farmers typically raise 1300 birds per cycle and sell approximately 1100, generating net farm income ranging from USD 800.00 to USD 1340.00. According to [ 23 ], smallholder farmers use income from farm sales to pay school fees, cover medical bills, and purchase other agricultural inputs A significant number of respondents indicated that they knew about the M. oleifera tree There were no differences in knowledge across the different farm sizes, locations, genders, or age groups. Knowledge about the M. oleifera tree was attributed to the community, family history, or the media. A study by [ 24 ] also found that most consumers in Africa obtained their knowledge about M. oleifera from their families and communities. The extensive knowledge reported in the present study could be attributed to the widespread prevalence of M. oleifera production in the study areas. According to [ 14 ], the first M. oleifera seeds in South Africa were cultivated in the Limpopo province due to its favourable climatic conditions. Consequently, a majority of the Limpopo population owns a M. oleifera tree in their backyards Among the group of respondents who indicated their awareness of the M. oleifera tree, only a few were aware of M. oleifera ’s benefits for broiler chickens. The majority of those were females. This could be attributed to the African cultural practice in which custodians pass knowledge from one generation to another within families and communities. Given that females are more actively engaged in broiler production, it is likely that they have been sharing knowledge about the benefits of M. oleifera for broilers within their families and communities. Therefore, there is a need for awareness campaigns targeted at females to educate communities in other parts of the country about the benefits of M. oleifera for broiler chickens The same female farmers who were aware of the benefits of feeding M. oleifera to their broilers primarily used leaf powder and crushed stems. This suggests that there is an association between awareness and use. This supports findings by [ 25 ], who reported that low levels of awareness contributed to poor adoption of improved agriculture technologies. A study by [ 26 ] also concluded that training and farmers’ awareness positively influenced the use of a value addition technique by farmers. The lack of awareness and accurate information from trusted sources, such as public extension service providers largely contribute to farmers’ reluctance to adopt new technologies. The present study suggests that information regarding the potential benefits of M. oleifera for chickens has not reached a wider audience. This could be attributed to lack of community engagements to disseminate research findings. According to [ 27 ], the absence of structured support systems and networks, coupled with lack of regularisation strategies and clear criteria for supporting quality, protection, and presumed efficiency of plants like M. oleifera , has posed challenges in integrating them into both small scale and commercial production The leaf powder was added to commercial feed, while the crushed stems were mixed into drinking water. The bulk of the M. oleifera used by these farmers was sourced from their backyards. This aligns with recent findings by [ 18 ], who reported that smallholder

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 2208 11 of 14 chicken farmers in the Vhembe district municipality of South Africa were using M. oleifera leaves either soaked in water or as dried powder mixed with chopped fresh aloe vera in drinking water to treat conditions such as diarrhoea, Newcastle, and duck disease M. oleifera ’s effectiveness in treating infections could be attributed to its antimicrobial properties M. oleifera has been reported to possess polyphenolic compounds which are effective against a wide range of bacteria, viruses, and fungi [ 6 ]. Among large-scale farmers that gave insights for the study, none were incorporating M. oleifera in their operations. They primarily cited two main limitations: limited information on the nutritional benefits of M. oleifera and uncertainty regarding the consistent availability of M. oleifera supplies for their larger operations. However, the majority indicated that they would consider the use of M. oleifera if their concerns were addressed. The present study showed that M. oleifera farmers currently have limited production capacity to meet the demands that maybe required by larger broiler operations. The majority of the M. oleifera farmers identified in this study were female small-to-medium scale farmers who owned less than 5 hectares of land, producing at least 10 tonnes of leaf powder per hectare. Similar findings were reported by [ 28 ], who reported that the majority of M. oleifera farmers in South Africa were small-scale female farmers. Additionally, this study revealed that access to markets, advanced infrastructure, and equipment for processing were major challenges for M. oleifera farmers. Given the significant involvement of women in M. oleifera production, there is a need to create an enabling environment to provide women with greater access to land, financial support, and infrastructure Participants in the present study noted the ease of cultivating M. oleifera . According to [ 29 ], M. oleifera is a drought-tolerant crop that requires a minimum of 400 mm of rainfall per annum and can withstand a wide range of temperatures. The interviews further revealed that the cost of producing M. oleifera was not a challenge, as it required less intensive care and was drought-tolerant. This concurs with findings by [ 30 ], who reported that the majority of M. oleifera farmers in the Limpopo province of South Africa were either using organic fertilisers or allowing the trees to grow naturally. This suggests that the cultivation of M. oleifera is potentially affordable and can be practiced even by resource-limited farmers. Once the production is established, to encourage uptake of M. oleifera by large scale operations, the government can introduce incentives for largescale producers that incorporate M. oleifera in their operations. This will help improve the supply chain and attract support from large-scale broiler producers. Moreover, research has shown that M. oleifera trees are 20 times more efficient at absorbing carbon dioxide than general vegetation [ 31 ]. This means that upscaling M. oleifera production could potentially play a significant role in mitigating the effects of climate change through the carbon sequestration process The perceived benefits of M. oleifera for broilers reported by both small-scale broiler farmers and M. oleifera farmers in this study included improved growth rates, increased body weight, and reduced mortality. These perceived benefits align with the benefits that are reported in literature. Scientific studies [ 13 , 32 – 37 ] showed that adding M. oleifera to broiler diets improved growth rate, meat quality, reduced mortalities, improved blood parameters, digestibility, egg mass, and feed conversion ratio 5. Conclusions The extensive knowledge in published scientific research regarding the benefits of M. oleifera and its potential as an antibiotic growth promoter alternative has not yet been disseminated widely. Broiler farmers remain uninformed about these benefits and methods of application. Moreover, there is a limited availability of bulk M. oleifera production for consistent supply for feed formulations. This underscores the need for initiatives to scale up M. oleifera production and to raise awareness and education regarding the benefits of moringa for broilers. This can potentially drive the broader adoption of M. oleifera as a natural growth promoter. The potential adoption of M. oleifera as a natural growth promoter not only benefits individual farmers but aligns with the larger agenda of fostering

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 2208 12 of 14 environmentally friendly and sustainable approaches in poultry production. By advocating for increased awareness and production, this article aims to play a pivotal role in catalyzing positive changes within the industry, fostering sustainable development in broiler farming, and promoting the wider acceptance of M. oleifera as a valuable resource for the future of poultry production Author Contributions: Conceptualization, N.S.L., M.D., E.v.M.-K. and J.G.M.; methodology, N.S.L., M.D., E.v.M.-K. and J.G.M.; validation, N.S.L., M.D., E.v.M.-K. and J.G.M.; formal analysis, N.S.L.; investigation, N.S.L.; resources, N.S.L.; data curation, N.S.L.; writing—original draft preparation, N.S.L.; writing—review and editing, N.S.L., M.D., E.v.M.-K. and J.G.M.; visualization, N.S.L., M.D., E.v.M.-K. and J.G.M.; supervision, M.D., E.v.M.-K. and J.G.M.; project administration, N.S.L.; funding acquisition, N.S.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript Funding: Funding was provided by FSNet-Africa. FSNet-Africa is funded by the Global challenges Research Fund (GCRF) (Grant ref: ES/T 015128/1), as a research excellence project under the partnership between UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) and the Africa Research Universities Alliance (ARUA). FSNet-Africa is a flagship project in the ARUA Centre of Excellence in Sustainable Food Systems (ARUA-SFS), which is hosted by the University of Pretoria (South Africa) in collaboration with the University of Nairobi (Kenya) and University of Ghana Institutional Review Board Statement: Ethical clearance (reference number NAS 291/2022) to conduct the study was granted by the University of Pretoria Natural and Agricultural Sciences Ethics committee Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study Data Availability Statement: Access to the data from this study is available upon request via email, in accordance with the FSNet-Africa data-sharing policy Acknowledgments: The authors express their gratitude to the Gauteng and Limpopo Department of Agriculture, Land Reform and Rural Development (DALRD), as well as to broiler farmers and M oleifera farmers for support in this research. Additionally, the authors would like to acknowledge the FSNet-Africa team for their valuable contributions to this study Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest References 1 Ramukhithi, T.F.; Nephawe, K.A.; Mpofu, T.J.; Raphulu, T.; Munhuweyi, K.; Ramukhithi, F.V.; Mtileni, B. An Assessment of Economic Sustainability and Efficiency in Small-Scale Broiler Farms in Limpopo Province: A Review Sustainability 2023 , 15 , 2030 [ CrossRef ] 2 Mak, P.H.W.; Rehman, M.A.; Kiarie, E.G.; Topp, E.; Diarra, M.S. Production systems and important antimicrobial resistantpathogenic bacteria in poultry: A review J. Anim. Sci. Biotechnol 2022 , 13 , 148. [ CrossRef ] 3 Andrew Selaledi, L.; Mohammed Hassan, Z.; Manyelo, T.G.; Mabelebele, M. The current status of the alternative use to antibiotics in poultry production: An African perspective Antibiotics 2020 , 9 , 594. [ CrossRef ] 4 Singh, T.P.; Singh, P.; Kumar, P. Drumstick ( Moringa oleifera ) as a food additive in livestock products Nutr. Food Sci 2015 , 45 , 423–432. [ CrossRef ] 5 Falowo, A.B.; Mukumbo, F.E.; Idamokoro, E.M.; Lorenzo, J.M.; Afolayan, A.J.; Muchenje, V. Multi-functional application of Moringa oleifera Lam. in nutrition and animal food products: A review Food Res. Int 2018 , 106 , 317–334. [ CrossRef ] 6 Lungu, N.S.; Afolayan, A.J.; Thomas, R.S.; Idamokoro, E.M. Quality and oxidative changes of minced cooked pork incorporated with Moringa oleifera leaf and root powder Sustainability 2021 , 13 , 10126. [ CrossRef ] 7 Amaglo, N.K.; Bennett, R.N.; Curto, R.B.L.; Rosa, E.A.; Turco, V.L.; Giuffrida, A.; Curto, A.L.; Crea, F.; Timpo, G.M. Profiling selected phytochemicals and nutrients in different tissues of the multipurpose tree Moringa oleifera L., grown in Ghana Food Chem 2010 , 122 , 1047–1054. [ CrossRef ] 8 Leone, A.; Fiorillo, G.; Criscuoli, F.; Ravasenghi, S.; Santagostini, L.; Fico, G.; Spadafranca, A.; Battezzati, A.; Schiraldi, A.; Pozzi, F.; et al. Nutritional characterization and phenolic profiling of Moringa oleifera leaves grown in Chad, Sahrawi Refugee Camps, and Haiti Int. J. Mol. Sci 2015 , 16 , 18923–18937. [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 9 Nouman, W.; Anwar, F.; Gull, T.; Newton, A.; Rosa, E.; Dom í nguez-Perles, R. Profiling of polyphenolics, nutrients and antioxidant potential of germplasm’s leaves from seven cultivars of Moringa oleifera Lam Ind. Crops Prod 2016 , 83 , 166–176. [ CrossRef ]

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 2208 13 of 14 10 Rajput, H.; Prasad, S.G.M.; Srivastav, P.; Singh, N.; Suraj, L.; Chandra, R. Chemical and phytochemical properties of fresh and dried Moringa oliferiea (PKM-1) leaf powder Chem. Sci. Rev. Lett 2017 , 6 , 1004–1009 11 Alakali, J.; Kucha, C.; Rabiu, I. Effect of drying temperature on the nutritional quality of Moringa oleifera leaves Afr. J. Food Sci 2015 , 9 , 395–399 12 Isitua, C.C.; Lozano, M.J.S.; Jaramillo, C.; Dutan, F. Phytochemical and nutritional properties of dried leaf powder of Moringa oleifera Lam. from machala el oro province of ecuador Asian J. Plant Sci. Res 2015 , 5 , 8–16 13 Makanjuola, B.A.; Obi, O.O.; Olorungbohunmi, T.O.; Morakinyo, O.A.; Oladele-Bukola, M.O.; Boladuro, B.A. Effect of Moringa oleifera leaf meal as a substitute for antibiotics on the performance and blood parameters of broiler chickens Livest. Res. Rural Dev 2014 , 26 , 144 14 Lekgau, J Moringa oleifera: A Tree Giving Life to Rural Communities ; National Agricultural Marketing Council: Pretoria, South Africa, 2011 15 Kim, H.-Y. Statistical notes for clinical researchers: Chi-squared test and Fisher’s exact test Restor. Dent. Endod 2017 , 42 , 152–155 [ CrossRef ] [ PubMed ] 16 Braun, V.; Clarke, V. Using thematic analysis in psychology Qual. Res. Psychol 2006 , 3 , 77–101. [ CrossRef ] 17 Vusi, N.; Oladele, O. Analysis of constraints faced by small scale broiler famers in Capricorn district in Limpopo province Life Sci J 2013 , 10 , 2990–2996 18 Ndlovu, W.; Mudimeli, N.R.; Mwale, M.; Ndou, T.M.; Obadire, O.S.; Francis, J. Ethnoveterinary Practices for Indigenous Poultry Health Management by Smallholder Farmers. In Herbs and Spices—New Advances ; InTech Open: London, UK, 2023 19 SAPA—South African Poultry Association. 2021 Industry Profile. 2021. Available online: https://www.sapoultry.co.za/wpcontent/uploads/2023/01/2021-Industry-Profile.pdf (accessed on 15 November 2023) 20 Farnworth, C.R.; Kantor, P.; Kruijssen, F.; Longley, C.; Colverson, K.E. Gender integration in livestock and fisheries value chains: Emerging good practices from analysis to action Int. J. Agric. Resour. Gov. Ecol 2015 , 11 , 262–279. [ CrossRef ] 21 Ransom, E.; Bain, C.; Halimatusa’Diyah, I. Livestock-livelihood linkages in Uganda: The benefits for women and rural households? J. Rural Soc. Sci 2017 , 32 , 3 22 Louw, M.; Davids, T.; Scheltema, N. Broiler production in South Africa: Is there space for smallholders in the commercial chicken coup? Dev. South. Afr 2017 , 34 , 564–574. [ CrossRef ] 23 Yitayih, M.; Geremew, K.; Esatu, W.; Girma, T.; Getachew, F.; Worku, S.; Dessie, T Economic and Marketing Performance of Chicken Value Chain Actors in Ethiopia: Challenges and Business Opportunities for Sustainable Livelihoods ; ILRI Research Report; International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI): Nairobi, Kenya, 2021 24 Hedhili, A.; Akinyemi, B.E.; Otunola, G.A.; Ashie-Nikoi, P.A.; Kulkarni, M.; Husson, F.; Valentin, D Moringa oleifera Lam.: A comparative survey on consumer knowledge, usage, attitude and belief in Africa and India S. Afr. J. Bot 2022 , 147 , 153–162 [ CrossRef ] 25 Ullah, A.; Saqib, S.E.; Kächele, H. Determinants of farmers’ awareness and adoption of extension recommended wheat varieties in the rainfed areas of Pakistan Sustainability 2022 , 14 , 3194. [ CrossRef ] 26 Musyoka, J.K.; Isaboke, H.N.; Ndirangu, S.N. Farm-level value addition among small-scale mango farmers in Machakos County, Kenya J. Agric. Ext 2020 , 24 , 85–97. [ CrossRef ] 27 Chidembo, R.; Ndlovu, W.; Mwale, M.; Obadire, O.; Francis, J. Opportunities and challenges in the commercialisation of medicinal plants used in village chicken health management J. Med. Plants Econ. Dev 2023 , 7 , 7. [ CrossRef ] 28 Mashamaite, C.V.; Pieterse, P.J.; Mothapo, P.N.; Phiri, E.E Moringa oleifera in South Africa: A review on its production, growing conditions and consumption as a food source S. Afr. J. Sci 2021 , 117 , 1–7. [ CrossRef ] 29 Tshabalala, T.; Ncube, B.; Moyo, H.; Abdel-Rahman, E.; Mutanga, O.; Ndhlala, A. Predicting the spatial suitability distribution of Moringa oleifera cultivation using analytical hierarchical process modelling S. Afr. J. Bot 2020 , 129 , 161–168. [ CrossRef ] 30 Mabapa, M.; Ayisi, K.; Mariga, I. Effect of planting density and harvest interval on the leaf yield and quality of moringa ( Moringa oleifera ) under diverse agroecological conditions of northern south Africa Int. J. Agron 2017 , 2017 , 2941432. [ CrossRef ] 31 Villafuerte, L.; Villafurte-Abonal, L Data Taken from the Forestry Agency of Japan in Moringa ; Malunggay Phillippines, Apples of Gold Publishing: Singapore, 2009; p. 240 32 Olugbemi, T.; Mutayoba, S.; Lekule, F. Effect of Moringa ( Moringa oleifera ) inclusion in cassava based diets fed to broiler chickens Int. J. Poult. Sci 2010 , 9 , 363–367. [ CrossRef ] 33 Mandal, A.B.; Biswas, A.; Yadav, A.S.; Biswas, A.K. Effect of dietary Moringa oleifera leaves powder on growth performance, blood chemistry, meat quality and gut microflora of broiler chicks Anim. Nutr. Feed. Technol 2014 , 14 , 349–357 34 Nkukwana, T.; Muchenje, V.; Pieterse, E.; Masika, P.; Mabusela, T.; Hoffman, L.; Dzama, K. Effect of Moringa oleifera leaf meal on growth performance, apparent digestibility, digestive organ size and carcass yield in broiler chickens Livest. Sci 2014 , 161 , 139–146. [ CrossRef ] 35 Sarker, M.S.K.; Rana, M.M.; Khatun, H.; Faruque, S.; Sarker, N.R.; Sharmin, F.; Islam, M.N. Moringa leaf meal as natural feed additives on the growth performance and meat quality of commercial broiler chicken Asian J. Med. Biol. Res 2017 , 3 , 240–244 [ CrossRef ]

Sustainability 2024 , 16 , 2208 14 of 14 36 Khalique, A.; Pasha, T.; Mehmood, S.; Ahmad, S.S.; Khan, A.; Hussain, K. Influence of Moringa oleifera leaf meal used as phytogenic feed additive on the serum metabolites and egg bioactive compounds in commercial layers Braz. J. Poult. Sci 2018 , 20 , 325–332 37 Aiyedun, J.O.; Oladele-Bukola, M.O.; Olatoye, I.O.; Oludairo, O.O.; Ogundipe, G.A.T. Growth, antibacterial properties and haematological parameters of broiler chickens fed moringa and neem leaf meals as additives Niger. J. Anim. Sci 2020 , 22 , 126–139 Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.