ARSI UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

PRODUCTIIVE AND REPRODUCTIVE PERFORMANCES OF

CHICKEN UNDER FARMERS’ MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES IN ROBE DISTRICT OF ARSI
ZONE, OROMIA, ETHIOPIA

MSc. THESIS

BY

TESFAYE ASNAKE LEMA

DECEMBER, 2022
ASELLA, ETHIOPIA
PRODUCTIIVE AND REPRODUCTIVE PERFORMANCES
OF CHICKEN UNDER FARMERS’ MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES IN ROBE DISTRICT OF ARSI
ZONE, OROMIA, ETHIOPIA

TESFAYE ASNAKE LEMA

MAJOR ADVISOR: BELETE SHENKUTE (PhD)

THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL

SCIENCE, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL
SCIENCE, ARSI UNIVERSITY

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ANIMAL PRODUCTION

DECEMBER, 2022
ASELLA, ETHIOPIA
 APPROVAL SHEET I
This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Productive and Reproductive Performances of
Chicken under Farmers’ Management Practices in Robe District of Arsi zone, Oromia,
Ethiopia” submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master's with
specialization in Animal Production, the Graduate Program of the Department of Animal
science, and has been carried out by Tesfaye Asnake Lema ID.No.GS/R/007/12 under my
supervision. Therefore, I recommend that the student has fulfilled the requirements and hence
hereby can submit the thesis to the department.

Approved by

Belete Shenkute (PhD) _______________________________

Name of major advisor Signature Date

__________________ _________________ ______________

Name of co-advisor Signature Date

i
 APPROVAL SHEET II
We, the undersigned, member of the board of examiners of the final open defense by Tesfaye
Asnake Lema have read and evaluated his thesis entitled “Productive and Reproductive
Performances of Chicken under Farmers’ Management Practices in Robe District of
Arsi zone, Oromia, Ethiopia” and examine the candidate. This is, therefore, to certify that
the thesis has been accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Master
of Science in Animal Production.

______________________ _________________ ______________

Chairperson Signature Date

______________________ _________________ ______________

External Evaluator Signature Date

______________________ _________________ ______________

Internal Evaluator Signature Date

______________________ _________________ ______________

SGS Approval Signature Date

______________________ _________________ ______________

Department Head Signature Date

ii
 DEDICATION
I dedicate this thesis manuscript to my mother Amaru Bedada and my father Asnake Lema
for nursing me with affections and love and her dedicated partnership in the success of my
life. Long live for my mother.

iii
 DECLARATION

I declare that this thesis is my original work and that all sources of material that are used for
this thesis have been duly acknowledged. This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for MSc degree at Arsi University and is deposited at the university
library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the library. I solemnly declare that
this thesis is not submitted to any other institution anywhere for the awards of any academic
degree, diploma or certificate.

Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission provided that
accurate acknowledgment of source is made. Request for this manuscript in whole or in part
may be granted by the head or the dean of the School of Graduate Studies when in his or her
judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interest of scholarship. In all other
instances, however, permission must be obtained from the Author.

Name: Tesfaye Asnake Lemma

Signature: _______________
Place: Arsi University, College of Agriculture & Environmental Science
Date of Submission: ____________

iv
 BIOGRAPHY OF THE AUTHOR
Mr. Tesfaye Asnake Lema, the author, was born in 1975 at Ticho District, of Arsi Zone,
Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. I attended my elementary school education in Kereyu and
Gerjeda elementary school, between 1985 and 1991 and my secondary school education in
Ticho secondary school, between 1992 and 1995. From 1997 I joined Holota ATEVT
College and graduated with Diploma in Animal Science in 1999. After graduation, I was
employed in Robe Woreda Livestock and Fishery Resource Development Office at the end of
1999 and served for 4 (1999 to 2003) years. Then, I joined Haramaya University in 2004 and
graduated with BSc degree in Animal Science in July 2006. After graduation, again I served
Robe Woreda Livestock and Fishery Resource Development Office for 3(2007 to 2009) year
as Senior Livestock Production Expert. Again, I served at Arsi University Agricultural and
Environmental Science on Beef Cattle Production Team Leader for 1(2010) year. Finally, I
served Robe Woreda Livestock and Fishery Resource Development Office on LFSDP Project
Coordinator until I joined Arsi University, School of Graduate Studies, to pursue my study
for the Degree of Master in Animal Production in 2020.

v
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First and foremost, I thank Almighty God who has given me the strength, courage and
wisdom to pursue my postgraduate studies and start undertaking my thesis work endeavor.
Then, I am grateful to extend my heartedly thanks to my advisor Dr. Belete Shenkute
Gemeda (PhD) for his critical effort, corrections, assistance, encouragement, academic
stimulation as well as productive and constructive comments starting from research proposal
by investing his precious time. His continuous encouragement and critical comments that
helped in shaping this research thesis as it is presented now.

It is also my pleasure to take this opportunity to thank my beloved family: my Wife W/o
Gadise Sisay and my mother Amaru Bedada and my father Asnake Lema for their
encouragement, multiple supports. In addition, I would like to express my appreciation and
thanks to Arsi Robe Livestock Resource Development office and Experts for giving me the
status of poultry breeds and production performances in Robe District.

vi
 ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
ANOVA Analysis of Variance
AU Arsi University
CACC Central Agricultural
CSA Central Statistical Authority
EU European Union
FAO United Nation’s Food and Agricultural Organization
FDRE Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
HHs Households
IC Indigenous Chicken
IBD Infectious Bursal Disease or Gumboro
m.a.s.l. Meters above the sea level
MD Marek Disease
MT Mega Tons
NCD Newcastle Disease
OED Organization for Economic Development
RSBA Regional State Bureaus of Agriculture
SFRB Scavenging Feed Resource Base
SLC Scavenging Local Chicken
SNNP Southern Nations and Nationalities and Peoples
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences
SSA Sub-Saharan Africa
UKAID United Kingdom’s Aid

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPROVAL SHEET I ................................................................................................................ i
APPROVAL SHEET II .............................................................................................................ii
DEDICATION ......................................................................................................................... iii
DECLARATION ...................................................................................................................... iv
BIOGRAPHY OF THE AUTHOR ............................................................................................ v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...................................................................................................... vi
ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS ................................................................................vii
ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................... x
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... xi
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................................xii
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Background of the Study ................................................................................................. 1
1.2. Statement of the Problem ................................................................................................. 2
1.3. Objective of the Study ..................................................................................................... 3
1.3.1. General Objective ......................................................................................................... 3
1.3.2. Specific Objectives ....................................................................................................... 3
1.4. Research Questions ......................................................................................................... 3
2. LITERATURE REVIEW ...................................................................................................... 5
2.1. Chicken population and its current status in Ethiopia ..................................................... 5
2.2. The Importance of Chicken Rearing/Farming ................................................................. 5
2.3. Chicken Production Systems ........................................................................................... 6
2.3.1. Village or Farmer-Based Chicken Production Systems................................................ 6
2.3.2. Small-Scale Chicken Production System...................................................................... 7
2.3.3. Large-Scale/Commercial Chicken Production System ................................................. 7
2.4. Performance of exotic chickens managed by smallholder farmers ................................. 8
2.5. Poultry’ Production Challenges of Smallholder Farmers .............................................. 10
2.5.1. Diseases....................................................................................................................... 11
2.5.2. Poor Chicken Management (Feeding, Housing and HealthCare) ............................... 13
2.5.3. Replacement of Indigenous Poultry by Exotic Chicken Breeds ................................. 15
2.5.4. Lack of Organized Market and Poor Access to Main Market .................................... 16
2.5.5. Lack of Training and Inefficiency of Extension Education and Services .................. 17
2.5.6. Adoption Challenges of Exotic Breeds ....................................................................... 18

viii
 2.5.7. Imbalance Between Demand and Supply of Improved Poultry.................................. 18
2.5.8. Genetic Dilution of Local (Indigenous) Breeds .......................................................... 18
2.5.9. Vaccination ................................................................................................................. 19
2.5.10. Biosecurity ................................................................................................................ 19
3. MATERIALS AND METHOD ........................................................................................... 21
3.1. Description of the Study Area........................................................................................ 21
3.1.1. Location ...................................................................................................................... 21
3.1.2. Population and topography and climate ...................................................................... 21
3.2. Research Design, Sampling and Data Collection .......................................................... 22
3.3. Data Analyses ................................................................................................................ 25
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .......................................................................................... 26
4.1. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents ............................................... 26
4.2. Flock Composition, Size and Structure ......................................................................... 27
4.2.1. Livestock Flock Composition, Size and Structure ...................................................... 27
4.2.2. Chicken flock Composition, Size and Structure ......................................................... 28
4.2.3. Flock’ Sources and Related Issues .............................................................................. 29
4.3. Farmer’s Poultry Management Practices ....................................................................... 30
4.3.2. Feeds and Feeding Management ................................................................................. 31
4.3.3. Provision of water ...................................................................................................... 35
4.3.4. Housing Managements................................................................................................ 37
4.4. Health Management ....................................................................................................... 39
4.5. Production Performances of Chickens in the study area ............................................... 41
4.5.1. Growth and production performance .......................................................................... 41
5.5.2. Hatching and Brooding ............................................................................................... 46
4.6. Provision of Livestock Extension Service in the Study Area ........................................ 47
4.7. Challenges of Poultry’ Production ................................................................................. 48
5. CONCLUSIONAND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 49
5.1. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 49
5.2. Recommendations .......................................................................................................... 50
7. REFERENCES .................................................................................................................... 52
APPENDICES ......................................................................................................................... 52
Appendix I: Information Sheet and Consent Form ............................................................... 62
Appendix II: Household Survey Questionnaires .................................................................. 63
Appendix III: Direct Observational on Farm Monitoring Checklist .................................... 73
ix
 Productive and Reproductive Performances of Chicken under Farmers’ Management
Practices in Robe District of Arsi zone, Oromia, Ethiopia.
By Tesfaye Asnake
Advisors: Belete Shenkute (PhD)

ABSTRACT
Poultry’s production plays a significant role in the supply of human food and source of
income in rural and urban areas to smallholder farmers. Information was lacking about the
challenges, production and reproduction performance of local and exotic chicken breeds
managed under farmer’s management practices in the specific study settings. Therefore, the
objective of the study was to assess challenges, production and reproduction performances of
the chicken under farmer’s management practices in Robe District of Arsi Zone. A
community-based cross-sectional descriptive survey design was employed among 216
households situated in seven rural Kebeles and three towns selected purposively that were
selected using systematic random sampling techniques. Collected data was analyzed using
SPSS statistical tool. The majority of respondents manage their chicken in backyard system
followed by small proportion of semi-intensive system. There were statistically significant
differences in the production performances of exotic, crossbreeds and indigenous poultry
under farmer’s management practices in Robe District. The overall average flock size of
exotic, indigenous, crossbreed and overall flock were 13.98, 6.59, 7.85 and 27.26 per
households, respectively. Sizes of hens were 2.55 for exotic, 1.3 for indigenous, 1.55 for
hybrid poultry flocks and hence resulting in an overall poultry’ size of 4.98 per households. A
cock to hen ratio was 1:1.16. The flocks were dominated by chicks (41.43%). The
predominant flock management practices practiced by the households were scavenging or
free ranch system followed by semi-intensive. The average number of eggs per year per hen
for exotic hens were 233, for hybrid hens were 187 eggs and for indigenous hens were 73
eggs. The corresponding minimum and maximum number of eggs were 120 and 360 eggs,
150 and 215 eggs, and 32 and 112 eggs respectively. The production performances of exotic
and hybrid breeds were good respectively as compared to the indigenous poultry. Presence of
disease, shortage of feed from surrounding, lack of time due to farm work activities, attacks
of predators, poor veterinary services at village level and poor poultry management
knowledge were the six top most stated challenges affecting poultry production, reproduction
and productivity performances of the participant farmers in decreasing rank orders. The
production and productivity of chicken can be improved through appropriate technological
intervention such as housing, feeding, health care, etc. Thus the extension services rendered
by GOs and NGOs should be focused towards providing appropriate intervention.

Key Words: Challenges, production performance, local and exotic chickens, Robe District,
farmer’s management practices, Ethiopia

x
 LIST OF TABLES
SN Table Page
Table 1. Some socio-economic characteristics of the studied household heads
1
shown by categories of PAs
Table 2. Mean (standard error) number of livestock holding/household in the
2
three areas categorized according to small ruminant density
Table 3. Mean (SE) of the number of breed types and their structure of the
3
chickens’ holdings per studied households
Table 4. Sources of exotic poultry breeds and their husbandry practices in the
4
study area
Table 5. Chicken management practices in the study area. Values in the body
5
are percentages of the households under the respective category
Table 6. Chicken feeds and feeding management practiced by studied
6
households
Table 7. The responses of households on feeding systems and frequency of
7
feeding
Table 8. The amount of feeds (in gm) of offered per single chicken by
8
households in the study area (Mean ± SE)
9 Table 9. Chicken feeds and feeding practices in the study area
Table 10. Source of drinking water and chicken watering practices in the
10
study area
11 Table 11. Housing systems, types and housing management in the study area
12 Table 12. Housing systems, types and housing management in the study area
13 Table 13. Flock’s healthcare management systems practiced by respondents
14 Table 14. Growth performances of the poultry as function of breed types
15 Table 15. Production performances of the poultry as function of breed types
Table 16. Egg storage and incubation practices by the respondents in the study
16
area
17 Table 17. Chicken extension services in the study area
18 Table 18.The constraints of chicken production in the study are described

xi
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
Figure 1. Location map of Robe District and selected rural Kebeles and towns 22
Figure 1. Marital status of the respondent heads of the sampled households 27

xii
 1. INTRODUCTION
1.1. Background of the Study

Poultry is the largest livestock group in the world. It is estimated to be about 23.39 billion
and mostly consisting of chicken, ducks and turkeys. Out of these, poultry alone reached over
one billion (FAO, 2020). It has remained to be important in the enhancement of food security
and livelihood (Tadelle et al., 2013; Emebet, 2015) and contributing about 28-30 % of all
animal protein consumed in the world (FAO, 2020). As a country, Ethiopia is endowed with
many livestock species with an estimated population of 60.4 million cattle, 31.3 million
sheep, 32.7 million goats and 56.1 million chickens which exist in private holdings (CSA,
2020). Poultry production provides the following benefits: production of eggs for hatching,
sale and home consumption, and production of birds for sale, processing, replacement, and
home consumption (Tadelle et al., 2013; CSA, 2020; FAO, 2020). It also contributes to
poverty alleviation and socio-economic inclusion of vulnerable groups such as the urban
poor, women, the disabled, orphans, and the unemployed to provide them with a decent
livelihood (Tadelle et al., 2013).

Chicken have a short generation interval and higher feed conversion efficiency, thus
providing a cheap source of animal protein that is the most palatable and easily digestible that
contains essential amino acids required for human beings (FAO, 2020). Poultry meat and egg
contributed more than 28% of the total animal protein produced worldwide in 1997 and for
about 20% of protein consumed in developing countries (Askov and Dolberg, 2002). This
contribution of poultry is estimated to reach 40% by the year 2020; the major increase will be
in the developing world (Delgado et al., 1999). The amount of poultry meat produced per
person/capital was about 2 kg and 8 kg per year in the developing and developed world,
respectively (Owen et al., 2005). It is also indicated that the per capital consumption of meat
increased in the developing world from 14 kg in 1980 to 29 kg in 2002 (Steinfeld et al., 2006)
with an even more spectacular increase in the consumption of poultry.

There is an increased demand for poultry and poultry products. Hence, poultry production is
becoming one of the major income generating enterprise and creating employment
opportunities directly and/or indirectly through supplying different inputs. Despite this
opportunity the productivity of village poultry production systems in general and the free
range system in particular is low this is due to low egg production and high mortality rate

1
(Deneke et al., 2014; Asfaw et al., 2019; Negesse, 2020). Such systems are also characterized
the low productivity due to low egg production performance, production of small sized eggs,
slow growth rate, late maturity, small clutch size, an instinctive inclination to broodiness and
high mortality of chicks (Asfaw et al., 2019; Deko, 2020).

The major chicken production system in Ethiopia ranges from no input traditional free
ranching to intensive/commercial production system using relatively advanced technology.
However, the traditional system is predominantly prevailing in the country and it is
characterized by small flock, minimal inputs, periodic devastation with short lifecycle, quick
turn over and unorganized marketing system (Asfaw et al., 2019; FAO, 2020). The small
scale production system is mostly found in rural, peri-urban and urban areas with a medium
level of feed, water, and veterinary service inputs and minimal to low bio-security (Nebiyu et
al., 2013; Kefyalew and Zewdu, 2014; Emebet, 2015). Thus the production and productivity
of Ethiopian chicken is generally low due to sudden disease outbreak, the high cost of
commercial ration, unavailability of day-old-chicks in time, market instability and poor sales,
poor supply and quality of vaccine, shortage of land, lack of access to credit, and inadequate
training (Nebiyu, 2016; Asfaw et al., 2019; Negesse, 2020).

It was various indicated the paramount importance of mitigating the adverse impacts of
production and productivity challenges of local and exotic chicken in most production
systems; there is no sound intervention actions taken by all stakeholders. In addition,
information about the production challenges, production and reproduction performance of
local and exotic poultry breeds managed under farmer’s management practices is still not
exhaustive. Therefore, the importance of evaluating the production performance of local and
exotic poultry breeds under farmer’s management practices was the key points to deliver
combined information to the beneficiaries. Hence, the significance of investigating into the
thematic issues of challenges, production and reproduction performances of local and exotic
poultry under farmer’s management practices in Robe District of Arsi Zone was
unquestionable.

1.2. Statement of the Problem

Assessing the productive and reproductive performance and production challenges of local
and exotic poultry under farmer’s management practices was believed to contribute much
towards local and national efforts that aimed at improving chicken production performances.

2
Under Robe District of Arsi Zone chicken production and productivity challenges were not
systematically investigated and documented. In addition, growth and egg production
performances of existing breeds were not investigated under farmers’ management
conditions. Therefore, the current research was conducted to close the problems stated.

1.3. Objective of the Study

1.3.1. General Objective

 The general objective of the current study was to assess the production
performance of indigenous and exotic chickens in Robe District of Arsi Zone,
Ethiopia.

1.3.2. Specific Objectives

The specific objectives of this study were to:

 To assess the production performance of indigenous and exotic chickens,
 To identify the status of poultry production, and
 To describe the existing constraints and challenges in poultry production in the
study area

1.4. Research Questions

The major research questions for the present study were:

 Which poultry production systems do the farmers in the study area practice?
 What are those factors affecting the production and productivity of chicken in the study
area?
 What is the productive performance of indigenous and exotic chicken in the study area?
 What are the existing constraints and challenges in poultry production in the study area?

1.5. Significance of the Study

The findings of the study were believed to contribute much towards designing and
implementing evidence-based intervention strategies that can alleviate the hindering effects
of production challenges of exotic and local poultry breeds in the Woreda. It will also help
the extension workers and experts to gear their services towards minimizing impacts of
production challenges and towards improving the production performances of local and

3
exotic poultry breeds under farmer’s management practices in the Woreda. In addition to
these, it would provide baseline information for private, public, governmental organization
and decision makers. Finally, the findings of this study would help broaden the scope of
knowledge and enrich body of empirical findings on the main thematic issues of the study.

4
 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1. Chicken Population and Its Current Status in Ethiopia

The world’s chicken population was about 16.2 billion (Goshu et al., 2015). Low-income
countries produced 67.5 million metric tons of poultry meat and 57.7 million metric tons of
poultry eggs, accounting for 71.6% of the total. Although Ethiopia’s population was
predictable at 56.1 million, 2.32, 0.38%, and 97.3 were hybrids, exotics, and indigenous that
produced a significant amount of poultry eggs and meat, respectively (CSA, 2020). On the
other hand, the poultry population was estimated to be 42 million based on the (Hiluf et al.
2018) census, excluding pastoral and agro-pastoral areas. The country also possesses about
60% of the entire chicken population of the East Africa sub-continent (Chaimiso, 2018).
Ethiopia is one of the few countries with a significantly large population of chickens, which
is expected to be about 56.5 million chickens, out of which 99% are local chickens.

2.2. The Importance of Chicken Rearing/Farming

Chicken production, is an essential sector of agricultural production, has a significant

contribution to the world, which is evident from the recent increase in demand for poultry,
meat, and eggs in fast-growing urban cities and, therefore, the increasing number of
economic poultry farms around urban and peri-urban areas (NkukWana, 2018). With a large
population size of chickens Ethiopia make up the largest benefit in terms of number
compared to other livestock genetic resources that can play a big role in human nutrition and
sources of income (Asfaw et al., 2019; Bibi et al., 2021). Village-managed indigenous
chickens generate 95.9% of total national poultry output (eggs and meat), with well-
developed exotic breed chickens accounting for 1.35% and hybrids accounting for 2.79% in
Ethiopia (Gezahegn, 2015). The chickens possess desirable characteristics like thermo
tolerance, resistance to diseases, better egg productivity, and hard eggshell, high fertility,
hatchability rates, and meat flavor and also have a high carcass percentage (Yemane et al.,
2014).

In Ethiopia, chicken production is a mainstay of animal agriculture, where human food

production is comparatively fast, initial capital investment is low, and uses are often made by
using available household labor (Deneke et al., 2014; Negesse, 2020). The sector shows a
clear distinction between traditional, low-input systems and improved production systems
using relatively advanced technology. On the other hand, in the outdated system of chick

5
production, greater than 90% of the national poultry, egg and meat output is from local
poultry (Chaimiso, 2018).

In Ethiopia, chicken added significant socio-economic impacts on food security, generating

income, and religious and other purposes (Deneke et al., 2014; Asfaw et al., 2019; Gulilat et
al., 2021). Poultry production in Ethiopia has a significant role in the country’s economy,
representing 98.5% and 99.2%, respectively, of chicken egg and meat production. The
country’s ultimate goal was to encourage small-scale production of exotic chick strains in the
agricultural farming population and to upgrade the indigenous chicks by hybridizing their
local hens with exotic males. However, the improved yield of the poultry subsector by using
exotic breeds in Ethiopia did not become a maintainable opportunity, mostly because this
strategy frequently tackled the problem of birds not being adopted by the poultry farms due to
environmental and socioeconomic problems (Habte et al., 2015). The indigenous chickens
are considered very low in egg production performance, attributed to their poor genomic
potential, and for this reason, efforts are needed to familiarize different exotic chick strains
with household farming methods in Ethiopia. Among these breeds of exotic chicks, Rhode
Island Red, New Hampshire, and White Leghorn were introduced to Ethiopia and widely
investigated later in the 1950s (Hailu et al., 2012; Sambo et al., 2015; Weyuma et al., 2015).

2.3. Chicken Production Systems

Different scholars classified chicken production system in Ethiopia as village, peri-urban and
urban-based on the chicken types, purpose of production, level of technologies used and their
production environment (Tadelle et al., 2013; Emebet, 2015). Some others report also
showed that poultry production in Ethiopia could be classified as extensive, semi-intensive/
small-scale and intensive/commercial based on their level of intensity of production,
confinement and production objectives set (Teshome and Tesfaye, 2015).

2.3.1. Village or Farmer-Based Chicken Production Systems

The village chicken production systems in Ethiopia are characterized by low input–low
output levels (Tadelle et al., 2013; Deko, 2021). A range of factors such as suboptimal
management, lack of supplementary feed, low genetic potential and high mortality rate are
the major causes for the apparent low output level. However, village chicken production is
part of a balanced farming system, plays an important role in the supply of high quality
protein to the family food balance, and provides small disposable cash income in addition to
6
the socio-religious functions important in the rural people’s lives (Buzayehu, 2020; Negesse,
2020). Village/backyard production system characterized by little or no inputs for housing,
feeding (scavenging is the only source of diet) and health care with minimum level of bio-
security, high off take rates and high level of mortality. Mostly, indigenous poultry are kept
while some hybrids and exotic chicken breeds may be kept under this system (Dawit et al.,
2009; Asfaw et al., 2019).

2.3.2. Small-Scale Chicken Production System

Small-scale chicken production systems are characterized by medium level of feed, water and
veterinary service inputs and minimal to low bio-security. Most small-scale poultry farms
obtain their feed and foundation stock from different large-scale commercial farms
(Nzietchueng, 2008). Small-scale flock sizes usually ranging from 50 to 500 exotic chicken
breeds kept for operating on a commercial basis are common in the urban and per-urban areas
of Addis Ababa (Dawit et al., 2009). The small-scale chicken farms could either be kept as
supplementary to family income or as full-time business. Some of the small-scale chicken
producers, along with Bureau of Agriculture, Cooperatives and Bishoftu Agricultural
Research Center distribute breeding germplasms and promote improved poultry feed and
feeding technologies (Nzietcheung, 2008).

2.3.3. Large-Scale/Commercial Chicken Production System

Commercial chicken is kept as a full-time business, highly dependent on the market for
inputs and the owners are wealthy by the Ethiopian standard. There are few private large-
scale/commercial chicken farms, all of which are located in and around Bishoftu. ELFORA,
Alema and Genesis are the top three largest commercial poultry farms in the country with
modern production and processing facilities. The large-scale/commercial chicken farms
provide fertile eggs, table eggs, day-old chicks, broiler /meat and adult breeding stocks to the
small-scale poultry farms (FAO, 2008). The general indications display that they supply eggs
and broilers/meat to urban and peri-urban populations, particularly to supermarkets and
hotels.

According to Bush (2006), the large-scale/commercial production system is highly intensive

production system involves an average of greater or equal to 10,000 poultry kept under
indoor conditions with a medium to high bio-security level. This system severely depends on
imported exotic breeds that require intensive inputs such as feed, housing, health, and

7
improved management systems. It is valued that this sector accounts for nearly 2 % of the
national poultry population. According to the findings of Getinet (2007), most of the supply
of chicken products to the Addis Ababa market shed is in the form of local eggs and chicken
sold in several market places and street corners as well as door-to-door by individual traders.
Broilers and eggs are supplied at farm gates and through the various outlet shops of ELFORA
and Alema poultry farms; while commercially organized suppliers of table eggs competing
for the market are Kalehiwot and Genesis.

2.4. Performance of exotic chickens managed by smallholder farmers

The importing of exotic breeds from different agricultural communities in numerous numbers
and using different methods (viz., through the introduction of cockerels, pullets, or fertile
eggs) had minimal impact on upgrading the genetic status of village stock, because parallel
improvements in feeding, housing, and health care were not considered (Demeke, 2014).
White Leghorn chickens can produce 82 eggs/chick based on estimation under scavenging
environments for 20 weeks with extra feed supplements (Dana et al., 2015). The average egg
that was produced per year in Northern Ethiopia was 144, 185, and 173 for Fayoumi, Rhode
Island Red, and White Leghorn, respectively, with 43, 52.5, and 52.1 grams of egg weight,
respectively (Yizengaw et al., 2022). Additionally, Getu et al. (2014) reported 185 eggs for
RIR breeds in Northern Ethiopia. In activity to reinforce partnerships and alter traditional
approaches to increasing rural community production by making use of commercialization
potential in suitable areas of Ethiopia, BB breeds and day-old poultry were disseminated to
growers in the Ada’a, Lume, and Akaki regions of Ethiopia (Yizengaw et al., 2022). The
annual eggs/bird is anticipated within the range of 60–70% of the performance recommended
by the breeder company for the top standard management systems. Another author indicated
a really positive prospect of profiting at 20 weeks of egg production (about 40 weeks of
bird’s age) and identified chicken as a potential source of income for rural smallholders in the
Adaa, Lume, and Akaki regions of Eastern Shewa, Ethiopia (Berima and Ishag, 2015).

A study at the Asella livestock farm showed that the mean production potential for
indigenous birds in Arsi under scavenging conditions was 34 eggs per hen yearly, with a
mean egg weight of 38 g. The egg production of local poultry is 30–60 eggs per year/hen,
weighing 38 g under rural community management conditions, but this figure might be
increased to 80 eggs when birds are given improved nutrition, housing and health care
(Woldegiorgiss, 2015). Similar studies indicated that the typical annual egg production of a

8
native chicken was 40 eggs under the farmer’s management, but higher egg production than
the 54.3 eggs/year/hen of local poultry (Getiso et al. 2017), described the yearly egg
production potential of native poultry in Ethiopia at Wolita Agricultural Development unit
was extended to between 30–60 eggs under a household free-range production system.

The mean egg weight of indigenous poultry around Arsi district, Ethiopia, was 38 g (Kassa et
al., 2021) and a mean egg weight of 42 and 49 g for nakedneck chicks and their F1 crosses
with NH breeds, respectively, reared in a better managed environment. The average egg
weight of 42.5, 58.0, 43.7, and 45.4 g. for Fayoumi, Rhode Island Red (RIR) Fayoumi, and
indigenous white chicken crosses and Rhode Island Red and indigenous white chicken
crosses, respectively, was reported by Kamel (2016). In the household management system in
Ethiopia, egg weight was measured as 52.1, 52.5, and 43 g for White Leghorn, Rhode Island
Red (RIR), and Fayoumi, from matured chickens respectively. The egg weight of Local Kei,
Fayoumicross (local chickens with their F1 cross of the Fayoumi breed) and Rhode Island
Red-cross (local chickens with their F1 cross of the Rhode Island Red) were 38.3, 40 and
44.2 g under farmer’s management conditions (Argaw, 2015).

Clutch size and length In Ethiopia, local household poultry lay around 36 eggs in three
clutches and 12–13 eggs per clutch per annum and an equivalent ends in about 16 days
(Tesfaye et al., 2018). The typical number of clutches per annum per hen reported by
Litigebew et al. (2021) in Northern Ethiopia was 3.2 for indigenous poultry extending from 2
to 5 with a mean clutch length of 21.6 days, 3.1 for cross-breed hens ranging from 18 to 40
days, and 3.2 for exotic breeds with an average clutch length of 44.4 days.

The mean number of eggs fixed for incubation per clutch of poultry in Northern Ethiopia was
10.2 eggs with a hatchability of 85.8% for indigenous eggs and 78.97% for cross-breed eggs
and 78.6% hatchability for local eggs from an equivalent place. In Bure Wenda, western
Ethiopia, local eggs had a hatchability of 82.6% (Belay et al., 2018). In southern Ethiopia,
Alemneh and Getabalew (2019) reported 73.7%, 54.7%, and 59.0% hatchability of total eggs
set for Fayoumi-cross, RIRcross, and native Kei, respectively, while the hatchability of
productive eggs was lower at both 73.7% and 54.7% (The eggs that were laid in the presence
of a rooster hen) was 85.8%, 80.4%, and 67.9% of Fayoumicross, local Kei, and Rholde
Island Red-crosses, respectively. The average hatchability percentage was 67.9, 78.6, 39.3,
and 76.1 for Fayoumi, Indigenous, Rhode Island Red, and White Leghorn, respectively, in
Northern Ethiopia. An average number of 14.74 eggs laid down per hen and 84.7%

9
hatchability for local chickens in Northwest Ethiopia (Misba and Aberra, 2015). A
hatchability gains of 13 egg sets per hen of 82.6% and 89.1% for Ethiopia, respectively
(Kamel, 2016), and 19% and 35% mortality between the primary day and eight weeks old,
and 5% and 12% mortality between the 4th and 12th months for Fayoumi and indigenous
white chicken cross and Rhode Island Red and indigenous white chicken cross, respectively.
The survival rates of chickens reaching the grower stage of 8 weeks were 65.8% and 63.7%
for local and cross-breed chickens, respectively.

2.5. Poultry’ Production Challenges of Smallholder Farmers

Indigenous poultry are good scavengers as well as foragers and have high levels of disease
tolerance, possess good maternal qualities and are adapted to harsh conditions and poor
quality feeds as compared to the exotic breeds. In Ethiopia, however, lack of knowledge
about poultry production, limitation of feed resources, prevalence of diseases (Newcastle,
Coccidiosis, etc.) as well as institutional and socio-economic constraints remains to be the
major challenges in village based chicken productions. According to Tadelle et al. (2013) the
primary problem cited by the village poultry farmers was high mortality of chicks.

The major causes of this problem as perceived by the community and in their order of
importance were disease (63.8 %), predation (21.8 %), lack of feed (9.5 %) and lack of
information (4.9%), as per the reports of (Tadelle, 2013; Asfaw et al., 2019; Deko, 2020;
Negesse, 2020). Insufficient water was also one of the causes of mortality in chicks and older
poultry and a contributing factor to low productivity. The major constraints of village
indigenous chicken production were partly due to poor management of the chicken
(prevailing diseases and predators, lack of proper health care, poor feeding and poor
marketing information). On the other hand, attempt of replacing indigenous poultry by exotic
chicken breeds was identified as a major threat in eroding and dilution of the indigenous
chicken genetic resources (Hunduma et al., 2010; Asfaw et al., 2019). Poultry’ production,
productivity and production performances of local and exotic breeds are hampered by several
challenges. These challenges may be overlapping or differing among local and exotic breeds
of poultry reared by farmers under traditional and/or scavenging production systems and/or
extensive farming systems that are being practiced predominantly by almost all rural, urban
and peri-urban households (HHs). For the sake of convenience and ease of presentation, the
major production challenges of HH poultry are categorized and discussed as follows.

10
2.5.1. Diseases

The disease is any abnormality which disturbs the daily movement/activity of an animal by
injuring either the internal or external part of the body. If an animal’s normal
activity/movement is disturbed or decreased by injuring all of either the internal or the
external part of the body that animal is called diseased/sick animal. A disease can be spread
in various ways: infection from animal to animal, infection from the environment, people can
spread disease by clothes or by air, all sorts of materials can spread disease and others (Nigist
and Haben, 2020). The innumerable diseases that can affect a chicken can be divided into
three categories: Those prevented by locally recommended vaccines (such as Newcastle),
those prevented by or treated automatically in a good management schedule (such as
coccidiosis), and those for which good sanitation and nutrition are the best means of
prevention (such as cholera or coryza) (Dessie, et al., 2013).

Many reports showed that Newcastle disease (NCD), Infectious Bursal disease (IBD) or
Gumboro, Marek disease (MD), Fowl typhoid, Cholera, Mycoplasmosis and Coccidiosisare
widely distributed in most African countries, Ethiopia is not exception to this situation
(Alem, 2014). The Ethiopian indigenous flocks are said to be relatively disease resistant and
adapted to their environment. However, survival rates of chicks kept under natural brooding
conditions is considered to be very low. Disease and predators are known to be the major
causes of mortality in the country (Negussie, 2011).

A survey conducted in Southern Ethiopia identified Fowl cholera followed by New Castle
Disease, Coccidiosis, Fowl influenza (Infectious Bronchitis), Fowl pox, Fowl typhoid and
Salmonella to be the major poultry diseases respectively. High incidence of chicken diseases,
mainly Newcastle Disease (NCD), is the major and economically important constraint for
village chicken production system. Mortality of village chicken due to disease outbreak is
higher during the short rainy season, mainly in April (66.8%) and May (31.4%). Newcastle is
one of the major infectious diseases affecting productivity and survival of village chicken in
the central highlands of Ethiopia (Hunduma et al., 2010; Asfaw et al., 2019; Negesse, 2021).
The major routes of contamination and spread of NCD from village to village are contact
between chicken during scavenging and exchange of chicken from a flock where the disease
is incubating and during marketing. The availability of vaccines and veterinary drugs in the
study Woredas is generally low. Lack of awareness about vaccines and vaccination and lack
of attention are also the major reasons for the wide prevalence of NCD. The available

11
vaccines and drugs are relatively expensive and sold in large quantity batches (for example,
in 50 doses for NCD vaccines) and it becomes uneconomic for farmers who generally keep
small flock sizes.

The major causes of death for village poultry production were commonly disease (mainly
New Castle Diseases locally known as (“Fengil”), followed by predation. High incidence of
chicken diseases, mainly NCD, is the major and economically important constraint for village
chicken production system (Fisseha et al., 2010; Hunduma et al., 2010; Asfaw et al., 2019).
Mortality of village chicken due to disease outbreak is higher during the short rainy season,
mainly in April (66.8%) and May (31.4%). Also another reported that the NCD is one of the
major infectious diseases affecting productivity and survival of village chicken in the central
highlands of Ethiopia (Serkalem et al., 2005). The major routes of contamination and spread
of NCD from village to village are contact between chicken during scavenging and exchange
of chicken from a flock where the disease is incubating and during marketing (Tadelle and
Ogle, 2001). Another study from Benishangul-Gumuz, Western Ethiopia done by
(Alemayehu et al., 2015) reported that Newcastle disease were the most prevalent and
economically important disease affecting chicken in the study areas mainly during the rainy
season. Shortage of supplementing feeds during rainy season makes the poultry more
vulnerable to diseases. In addition to Newcastle diseases, coccidiosis and fowl typhoid are the
major cause for chicken mortality (Addis and Aschalew, 2014). In Ethiopia sero-prevalence
surveys in village poultry have identified the presence of infectious bursal disease (Jenbreie
et al., 2012), salmonellosis (Berhe et al., 2012), pasteurellosis and mycoplasma infection
(Chaka et al., 2012). Parasitic diseases, including coccidiosis (Luu et al., 2013), helminthes
(Molla et al., 2012) and ectoparasites (Belihu et al., 2009) have also been demonstrated to be
highly prevalent in the country.

Fentie et al. (2013) also, recently reported that poor health care, incidence of predation, poor
housing and feeding management were the major constraints of village chicken production of
which, poultry diseases (46.2%) and predation (27.1%) were the most predominant causes of
chicken loss. New castle disease was the biggest constraints of family chicken production in
North Gondar of Northwest Ethiopia. Diseases and predators were the first and second major
constraints that cause loss of poultry in North West Ethiopia (Halima, 2007). A study
conducted in Mekele zone of North West Ethiopia also revealed that, seasonal outbreak of
diseases and predators were major factors that cause loss of poultry, and lack of credit

12
services, limited skill of management practices and low productivity of local poultry were
outlined as major constraints of chicken production (Solomon et al., 2013). The most serious
constraint hindering poultry production is predator and poor housing system and the
scavenging feeding system of poultry leads for this problem in Arbegona Woreda of Sidama
Zone in Southern Ethiopia (Feleke et al., 2015).

The most important constraints impairing the existing chicken production system under
farmer’s management condition in their order of significance were disease, lack of veterinary
health service, traditional management system with limited feed supplementation, poor
housing and no access of improved breeds with limitation of extension service (Melese and
Melkamu, 2014).

2.5.2. Poor Chicken Management (Feeding, Housing and HealthCare)

The shortage of supplementary feed (19.4%) was the main constraint which hinders
indigenous chicken productivity in many part of the county (Asfaw et al., 2019; Buzayehu,
2021; Deko, 2021; Negesse, 2021). There is no purposeful feeding of poultry under the
village conditions in Ethiopia and scavenging is almost the only source of diet. Scavenge feed
resources are defined as the total amount of feed products available to all scavenging animals
in a given area. It depends on the number of households, the type of crop grown and crop
processing as well as climatic conditions (Sonaiya and Swan, 2004).

The local poultry in the farming community are allowed to wander freely inside and outside
the house in search of the food. Anything in and around the house is used as the most
important part of their diet. So, the important sources of the feed for bird are household
wastes, anything from the environment and small amount of grain thought to be useful
sources of nutrition (Meseret, 2010).

The local poultry in the farming community are allowed to wander freely inside and outside
the house in search of the food. So the important sources of the feed for bird are household
wastes, anything from the environment and small amount of grain thought to be useful
sources (Matawork, 2016).

In Ethiopia, village chicken production systems are usually kept under free range system and
the major proportion of the feed is obtained through scavenging. The major components of
Scavenging Feed Resource Base (SFRB) are believed to be insects, worms, seeds and plant

13
materials, with very small amounts of grain and table leftover supplements from the
household. Improving the diet of scavenging poultry is difficult because it is not known what
food they are eating (Smith, 1990). The amount and availability per bird of this SFRB is
significantly dependent on season, grain availability in the household, time of the grain
sowing and harvest, and the biomass of the village flock.

The limited capacity of the SFRB coupled with other factors; restricts the potential
productivity of local poultry to about 40 to 60 eggs per hen per year (Tadelle and Ogle,
1996). However, unlike intensively kept poultry the scavenging poultry are not in
competition with humans for the same food and every egg or quantity of meat produced
represents a net food increment. Any attempt at supplementation should take into
consideration what the poultry are actually eating (Smith, 1990) and the proportion of the
total diet scavenged by poultry. In village chicken production, it is difficult to estimate the
economic and/or physical value of feed resource input because there are no direct methods of
estimating the scavenged feed input. According to (Hunduma et al., 2010) feed shortage
mostly occurs from June to August time of the year for village poultry as it is not harvesting
season of cereal crops. Although no data are available about housing at national level, the
local poultry are set free on free range whereby they move freely during the day and spend
the night in the main house. Overnight housing, perched in trees or on roofs and overnight
housing within the main house are the common patterns of housing prevailing in the country.
Lack of housing is one of the constraints of the village poultry production systems. In some
African countries, a large proportion of village poultry mortality accounted due to nocturnal
predators because of lack of proper housing (Dwinger et al., 2003). Some research works also
indicated that the mortality of scavenging poultry reduced by improved housing. For instance,
in the Gambia livestock improvement program, which included improved poultry housing
resulted in lower chick mortality (19%) relative to that observed in Ethiopia (66%) and
Tanzania (33%), where no housing improvements were made (Kitalyi, 1998).

Poultry feed and nutrition is one of the most critical constraints to poultry production under
both the rural small holder and large-scale systems in Ethiopia. The problem is mainly
associated with lack of processing facilities, inconsistent availability and distribution and sub-
standard quality of processed feeds, when available (Tadelle et al., 2013). There is no
purposeful feeding of poultry under the village conditions in Ethiopia and scavenging is

14
almost the only source of diet. Scavenging feed resource base for local poultry are inadequate
and variable depending on season.

The amount of feed available for scavenging in relation to the carrying capacity of the land
areas and flock dynamics across the different seasons and agro ecologies is still not
adequately quantified. However, studies conducted in three villages of the central highlands
with different altitudes and in three different seasons revealed that the materials present in the
crop, as visually observed are, seeds, plant materials, worms, insects and unidentified
materials. Regular availability of good quality ingredients and a fully balanced complete feed
are essential for efficient poultry production. The most serious problems arise from the
unavailability of suitable micro-nutrient sources, vitamins and minerals (Dessie et al., 2013).

2.5.3. Replacement of Indigenous Poultry by Exotic Chicken Breeds

The local chicken genetic resources in the Amhara region of Northwest Ethiopia were
seriously endangered owing to the high rate of genetic erosion due to the extensive and
random distribution of exotic breeds, by both governmental and non-governmental
organizations, since they are believed to dilute the take different kind of indigenous genetic
stock. This threat is also in line with the food and agriculture organization (FAO) report
replacement of indigenous poultry by exotic chicken, which states that animal genetic
resources in developing countries in general, are being eroded through the rapid
transformation of the agricultural system, in which the main cause of the loss of indigenous
animal genetic resources is the indiscriminate introduction of exotic genetic resources, before
proper characterization utilization and conservation of indigenous genetic resources (FAO,
1999).

Replacement of indigenous poultry by exotic chicken breeds is also a major threat in eroding
and dilution of the indigenous genetic resources. Establishing a constructive breeding
program to address constraints related to poultry production is essential. However, the
chicken genetic resources in the Amhara region of Northwest Ethiopia are becoming very
sensitive due to the high rate of genetic erosion as a result of a high incidence of Newcastle
disease (Hunduma et al., 2010).

Furthermore, the massive distribution of exotic chicken breeds especially the Rhode Island
Red (RIR) by governmental and non-governmental organizations has resulted in the dilution of
indigenous genetic stock. If this trend continues at the current rate, the gene pool of the

15
indigenous poultry could be lost in the near future before they are properly described and
studied under different management conditions (Halima et al., 2006). Marketing and the
movement of poultry is the main cause of genetic mixing of chicken populations. This is why
poultry from different regions or agro-ecologies or geographical barriers and markets tend to
be more heterogeneous than poultry kept in a particular geographical location with a similar
type of production.

2.5.4. Lack of Organized Market and Poor Access to Main Market

Even though chicken meat is relatively cheap and affordable source of animal protein (Alemu
and Tadelle, 1997), lack of organized marketing system and the seasonal fluctuation of price
are the main constraints of the poultry market in Ethiopia. Variation in price mainly attributed
to high demand for poultry for Ethiopian New Year and holidays. It also partly influenced by
weight, age of poultry and availability. The plumage color, sex, combs types, feather covers
are also very important for influencing price. According to Gausi et al. (2004) the major
constraints in rural chicken marketing were identified as low price, low marketable output
and long distance to reliable markets. As a result, the smallholder farmers are not in a
position to get the expected return from the sale of poultry. Likewise, poor marketing
information system, poor access to terminal market, high price fluctuation and exchange
based on plumage color, age and sex are among the main constraints of chicken market in the
country (Kena et al., 2002). Despite the benefits of village poultry keeping to poor
households in most parts of the country, they face significant market constraints. The distance
to the nearest market is a key factor; the nearer the market, the shorter the marketing chain
and the higher the price received for both live poultry and eggs. It is also clear that increased
involvement of intermediaries leads to reduced prices for the producer. A price reduction of
68% for poultry and 25% for eggs was observed in areas with poor market access in Tigray
Regional State compared to those areas with better market access. Transaction costs may be
reduced through improving access to information, infrastructure and organization of the
poultry producers. However, the costs of transport, credit and marketing risks should be
carefully assessed (Aklilu, 2007).

A further constraint to the marketing of traditional household poultry and products is the fact
that there is no packaging and weight standardization of market eggs and that traditional
storage method can lead to deterioration of the quality of table eggs. According to Gausi et al.

16
(2004), small holder village chicken producers tend to ignore new technology even when it
appears to be better than their current practices due to market limitations.

There is no formal poultry and poultry product marketing channel and informal marketing of
live poultry and eggs involving open markets are common throughout the Woreda, which
affects production of indigenous poultry in Haramaya (Abera and Geta, 2014). Fluctuation
(seasonality) in prices of chicken products was the most prevailing chicken and egg
marketing constraint (Bikila, 2013). The major constraints in rural chicken marketing were
identified as low price, low marketing output and long distance to reliable markets. As a
result, the smallholder farmers are not in position to get the expected return from the sale of
poultry in North West Ethiopia (Awol, 2010).

Seasonal fluctuation of chicken and eggs, low supply (output) of poultry and eggs due to
disease and predation, presence of limited market outlets and lack of space for chicken
marketing in urban area were market related constraints which affects poultry production
(Moges et al., 2010).

2.5.5. Lack of Training and Inefficiency of Extension Education and Services

There was low extension support from responsible bodies to improve indigenous chicken
production in Eastern Ethiopia (Getachew et al., 2015). According to Bikila (2013), low
supply of exotic breed and limited credit for poultry production, weak extension service, lack
of appropriate chicken and egg marketing information to producer farmer and lack of enough
space for chicken marketing in urban markets were the major challenges which hinders
indigenous chicken productivity. The extension linkage between the research output and the
ministry of agriculture and the farmers are found to be extremely weak, thus in general there
is no consistent feedback to the research. Fisseha et al. (2007) also reported that, lack of
access to extension agents for chicken farmers is one of the main reasons for the lower
extension service in Burie district of Amhara region.

Lack of access to get extension agents was the main reason (31.8%) for absence of extension
service with regard to village chicken production. Lack of modern poultry rearing knowledge
through extension service and training was the other constraint in both districts of Ethiopia
(Fissaha et al., 2010). It is also reported that training for both farmers and extension staff
focusing on disease control, improved housing, feeding, marketing and entrepreneurship
could help to improve productivity of local chicken (Moges et al., 2010).

17
Lack of extension services is among the constraints that hinders development of poultry
industry in developing countries. Although extension and research are well-organized
systems that design and disseminate technological innovations to farmers, little emphasis has
been given to local chicken research and extension (Ali, 2012). Research conducted in
Ethiopia revealed that extension linkage between research output and the ministry of
livestock and the farmers are found to be extremely weak.

An absence of clear policy that defines the role of private and government institutions in
relation to poultry production, processing and marketing; unclear roles and unfair competition
from public sector constrains the entry of new producers to the sector and risks crowding out
existing commercial producers, with spill-over effects on the entire chain (LSA, 2014).

2.5.6. Adoption Challenges of Exotic Breeds

According to Ministry of Agriculture, in Ethiopia, like many African countries, attempts have
been made at various times to improve local chicken production through introduction of
exotic chicken breeds. Despite this huge distribution of exotic chicken breeds, the
contribution of improved chicken breeds in the current production system of the region is
very low. Some studies on the adoption of poultry technology in the highlands of Ethiopia
indicated that adoption has been limited by a set of factors such as lack of knowledge on
chicken husbandry (feeding, housing, health care, etc.), lack of complimentary inputs (feed,
alternative breeds, etc.), environmental changes and highly susceptibility of chicken, lack of
strong extension follow up and high disease prevalence (Fessiha et al., 2015).

2.5.7. Imbalance Between Demand and Supply of Improved Poultry

There is a chronic shortage supply of day old chicks, pullets and cockerels in Ethiopia. This
leads to many farmers abandoning poultry keeping because their poultry houses will often be
empty for months on end whilst they are waiting for new supplies from the hatcheries.
Although the available hatching capacity is adequate; its performance is rather poor and
needs improvement (Mebratu, 2015; Resource Center, 2005).

2.5.8. Genetic Dilution of Local (Indigenous) Breeds

The local chicken genetic resources in the Ethiopia were seriously endangered owing to the
high rate of genetic erosion due to the extensive and random distribution of exotic chicken

18
breeds, by both governmental and non-governmental organizations, since they are believed to
dilute the indigenous genetic stock. Genetic dilution in indigenous poultry has been faster and
wider due to their shorter generation interval (ILRI, 2013). Rhode Island Red poultry has
been distributed within almost all the Woredas of the country. Although crossbreeding was
intended to raise productivity, most of the crossbreeding programs have failed to achieve
their objectives at the farmer level because of the need for a high level of inputs.

2.5.9. Vaccination

The majority of the village poultry owners did not vaccinate their chicken, some of them are
vaccinated their chicken against Newcastle disease, infectious bursa disease, fowl typhoid,
and fowl pox (Tegegne, 2012). However, three vaccination strategies may be appropriate in
different situations: First, routine vaccination program which may take place in areas where
the disease is endemic. The aim should be to reduce the effects of the disease (including
mortality) and may also contribute to eradication campaigns; second, an emergency
vaccination program is an option during the introduction of infection in a previously
unaffected area. This may be used to reduce the impact of the disease in that area and help
prevent spread to other areas; Third, preventive vaccination program may be applied
wherever a high risk of introduction and further spread of a contagious poultry disease has
been identified. Prophylactic vaccination should be applied while the risk of infection exists
(Habte et al., 2017; Nigist and Haben, 2020).

2.5.10. Biosecurity

Developing and practicing daily biosecurity procedures as best management practices on

poultry production will reduce the possibility of introducing infectious diseases. Disease
outbreaks (from pathogenic bacteria and viruses) in poultry can spread and significantly
affect poultry growing enterprises. The risk of disease developing is influenced by many
factors, including the management of litter, feed, and water; disinfection of poultry house;
disposal of used litter and dead poultry; and the effectiveness of biosecurity measures
adopted for people and equipment (Stephen, 2012).

Biosecurity measures are very crucial in the poultry production like wearing of protective
clothes (Tuta and Boot), gloves and use the footpath in front of the entrance like formalin and
braking (Yitbarek, et al., 2016). Standards for bio-security measures are in progress. There
must be an awareness program to farmers’ level to update bio-security needs. A clean poultry

19
production system will make hygienic food chain and contribute towards improved
production. Bio-security will not only maintain a good environment but also minimize in-
fectious and zoonotic diseases and subsequently enhance public health (Haftom et al., 2015).

20
 3. MATERIALS AND METHOD
3.1. Description of the Study Area

3.1.1. Location

The study was carried out in Robe District of Arsi Zone of Oromia Regional State, South
Eastern Ethiopia. The administrative town of the Woreda is Robe town, which is located at
225 km southeast of Addis Ababa and about 102 km from the zonal capital town, Asella in
the northeast direction. It is bounded by Sude Woreda in the east, Gasera (Bale zone) in
south, Tena Woreda in western, Diksis and Sude Woreda in the northern. It is located
between 07° 51' and 56.08' latitudes north and 39° 37' and 47.58' longitudes east with total
area of about 67472.5 hectares.

3.1.2. Population and topography and climate

The Woreda comprises three climatic zones namely Dega (temperate), Woina Dega (middle
altitude) and kola (lower altitude). The Woreda’s predominant climatic zone is largely Woina
Dega which constitutes 90%. The Southern part of the Woreda is largely lowland with low
rainfall whereas the northwestern and northern part of the Woreda has Plato land and the
elevation of the Woreda on average ranges from 1300-3060 m.a.s.l.

Robe District’s population is projected to be 165, 210 in 2020/21 (2013 E.C.) fiscal year
(Robe District Annual Report, 2019/20). Out of these total rural households (HHs) or
populations, 5,674 are males headed HHs while the remaining are females headed HHs
whereas out of the projected urban HHs, 1223 are males headed HHs while the remaining are
females headed HHs. Thus, the total number of households that were covered in the study
was 11,796 [6897 were male headed HHs; and 4899 were female headed HHs].

21
Figure 1: Location map of Robe District and selected rural Kebeles and towns

According to documented information obtained from district Livestock and Fishery Resource
Development Office (DLFRDO, 2019), the livestock population of the district is cattle
(52,762), sheep (27,658), goats (24,991), horses (2,226), donkeys (13,532), mules (32),
camels (30) and total poultry (37,682) composed of indigenous (22,609), exotic and cross
breeds (15,073). The major food crops grown in the district are wheat, teff, maize and
sorghum.

3.2. Research Design, Sampling and Data Collection

Initially discussions were held with district livestock experts; secondary data were collected;
published and unpublished information were assessed; in addition, the Woreda was visited to
better understanding of agriculture in general and chicken production in particular. Then,
based on this information, the district kebeles were stratified into rural and urban based on the
production systems. Accordingly, Gado Leman, Jena Barbuko, Akiya Ayifila, Jawi Sire, Jena
Gedemsa, Kako Adejabo and Meseranje Temama were found to be under rural category,
whereas Habe, Sedika and Endato were under town or urban category, respectively. From
these strata of kebeles, 7 and 3 kebeles were selected from rural, urban category, respectively.

22
The primary data was obtained through formal ways by employing HH survey questionnaires
and using direct and sustained observational monitoring checklist. Thus, the sources of the
required data was household’s heads that had engaged in rearing chicken breeds in the
purposively selected seven rural Kebeles and three towns situated in the Woreda.
Additionally, personal field observation was used to augment quality and validity of the data.

The required sample size for the first specific objective was determined using a single
population proportion formula for single finite population (Pagano, 2009); i.e.,

Z  2 p(1  p)
n1  2

d2
Where,
n1= minimum sample size for statistically significant survey,
Z=is the significance interval (at 5%significance level is value is 1.96),
p=is the prevalence of HHs engaged in poultry rearing and based on previously
reported study findings, it is 85 percent or 085; and 1-p = 0.15, and
d=is the margin of error (it has been taken as margin of error and its value is 0.05).
1.962 * 0.85* 0.15
n1 
0.052
= 196
Then sample size was 196 households that were living in the seven selected rural Kebeles and
the three towns as a function of the agro ecologies of the Woreda. However, since the
numbers of the target HHs was infinite or greater than 10, 000, the computed sample size was
considered as the sample size of the respondents or HHs. Therefore, the sample size of the
study was 196 households’ heads. However, to overcome the effects of non-response rate on
the representativeness of the HHs sampled, ten percent of the computed sample size was
added to it. Accordingly, the adjusted sample size of the study was,

na  n  0.10* n , Where

na = Adjusted sample size of the households.

Substituting the respective values in the above equation, the adjusted sample size became:

na  196  196*0.10  216

23
 Total households sample sizes were 216 households (HHs).

The adjusted final sample size of the study was distributed proportionately to the numbers of
households in each of the seven rural Kebeles and the three towns.

Semi-structured HH survey questionnaires consisting of 152 items were administered to

heads of the households to be sampled who were living and engaged in rearing chicken
breeds in the purposively selected seven rural Kebeles and three towns of the Woreda. The
questionnaire contained seven parts. The first part of the questionnaire dealt with general
identifiers of the respondents and consisted of ten items; the second part of the questionnaire
was used to collect data on the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents and
consisted of 7 items. The third part was used to gather data on chicken’s structure,
composition, breed types and numbers and comprises of 5 items. The fourth part of the HH
survey questionnaire was used to collect data on farmer’s management practices of poultry
reared, and it contained 50 items; and the fifth part was used to gather data about chicken’s
production systems and egg production performances and contained 12 items. The sixth part
was used to collect data on meat-related production and reproduction performances, hatching
and broody as well as hatchability status of eggs and contains about 44 question items. The
final part of the instrument was applied to collect data on the production challenges of poultry
under farmer’s management practices and had 24 question items. In addition to HH-survey
instrument, on farm monitoring checklist was utilized to augment collected data with actual
records on the main thematic issues of the topic of the study so that the validity and reliability
of the data were increased and will became more reliable.

On farm monitoring records were used to collect quantitative household-based flock data that
served to estimate challenges, production and reproduction performances of local and exotic
poultry to describe the chicken husbandry practices of farmers, their production and
reproduction performances of reared poultry and their dynamics. Bi-weekly farm monitoring
records were taken for twelve punt five (12.5%) percent of the calculated sample size of
households; i.e., 27 HHs for six months or 26 weeks. This provided data on flock sizes, breed
types (indigenous, hybrid and exotic), production and reproduction challenges, egg
production and reproduction performances, chicken management and husbandry practices,
feed intakes, common disease outbreaks, availability and accessibility of veterinary extension
services, and housing types and facilities. In collaboration with research assistants,
agricultural extension agents and farmers, more than 1400 on farm chicken monitoring

24
records were collected between December 2020 and May 2021. The data collected using on
farm monitoring and recording sheets developed in English language that translated to local
language. Afan Oromo language was used for filling the questionnaires by research assistants
and agricultural extension agents under closer monitoring and following up of the principal
investigator.

3.3. Data Analyses

Data was analyzed by using descriptive and inferential statistics. Descriptive statistics
involved the use of measures of central tendency such as means, medians and modes as well
as measures of variability like standard deviations, variances and ranges. Inferential statistics
were used to determine the effect and extent of effects of production challenges and farmer’s
management practices on chicken’s production performances. Organized, processed and
edited data was analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS Version 21) for
Windows. Two-way analysis of variance (2-ANOVA) was used to evaluate the effect and
extent of effects of production challenges and farmer’s management practices on chicken’s
production performances. The level of significance was judged based on p-value which was
less than or equal to 0.05. Lastly, analyzed data was presented using descriptive accounts,
pictorial representations, frequency tables, charts and verbal description of the results and
their accounts.

25
 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents

The socio-economic characteristics of the household in the study area are detailed in Table 1.
About three fifth (58.33%) of the sampled HHs are headed by males. In the study area,
majority of family members are in working age group (16-65) indicating potential for
development. The mean ages of the respondents are 35.2 years. On the other hand the
retirement age group (>65 years) represented the least proportion in the family and
community.

Table 1. Some socio-economic characteristics of the studied household heads shown by

categories of PAs. Values in the body are percentages of the households under the respective
category.
Descriptor Category of PAs
Rural Urban Overall
No of Households 180 36 216
Family size 6.12 5.90 6.10
Sex of heads of HHs Female headed 39.4 52.8 41.7
Male headed 60.6 47.2 58.3
Age of HHs <15 years 15.0 16.7 15.9
15-65 76.0 72.0 74.3
>65 9.00 11.3 10.9
Education level of HHs No formal education 8.33 0.00 6.94
Read and write 10.0 5.56 9.26
Primary 35.6 16.7 32.4
Secondary 30.6 19.4 28.7
Certificate 11.7 19.4 12.9
Diploma 3.33 22.2 6.48
First degree+ 0.56 11.1 2.31
Religion of HHs Christian 48.5 8.89 44.5
Muslims 40.0 6.11 38.4
Traditional 10.0 3.33 11.1
Others 4.44 2.78 6.02
Current occupation of Farmer 55.6 0.56 46.7
House wife 37.8 1.11 32.4
HHs Self-employed 3.33 8.89 10.2
Student 0.56 1.11 1.39
Daily laborer 1.67 2.22 3.24
Others 1.11 6.11 6.02

In terms of the educational attainment of the respondents, the majority of the family members
were literate form which larger proportion (32.0%) completed primary level of education

26
followed by secondary level of educational qualification (28.7%). About 13.0% have had
certificates while about 8.80 percent have had diploma and higher educational attainment.
The overall average family size in the study district was found to be 6.10 head per household.
The family size, educational status of the study area was better than other reports in Arsi
zones of Oromia (Deko, 2020; Negesse 2020). Family size, a proxy to labor availability, may
influence the adoption of poultry technology positively as its availability reduces the labor
constraints faced in poultry production. Older farmers are more risk averse and less likely to
be flexible than younger farmers and thus have a lesser likelihood of adopting new
technologies, the observations being similar to those observed by Teklewold et al. (2006).
The results of this study pertaining to the average family size are lower than the findings of
Deneke (2013), Zemene (2011) and Fisseha et al. (2010), in Tiyo, Hetossa and Dodota
Woredas of Arsi Zone, Oromia, and Goncha Siso Enese woreda of Western Amahara region
and in Bure woreda of North West Amahara of Ethiopia, respectively.

The marital status of the selected household involved in this study is presented by Figure 1.
The majority (64.3%) of the interviewed HH heads were married or in a relationship while
7.87 % were divorced (divorcée), widow (or widower) and living together without marital
relationship for each of them.

0 0.00%
7.87% 6.02%
7.87%
Never married
7.87%
Currently married
6.02%
Separated

Divorced
64.35%
Widowed

Living together

Figure 1: Marital status of the respondent heads of the sampled households

4.2. Flock Composition, Size and Structure

4.2.1. Livestock Flock Composition, Size and Structure

Livestock constitute the main capital reserve of the households, serving as a coping strategy
that utilizes seasonally available low-cost feed resources and hence reduces risk and adds

27
stability to the overall farming system. The mean and the standard deviation of livestock
holding in the study area are given in Table 2. On average, a household owned 4.6 cattle; 3.6
sheep; 3.1 goats; 0.2 equines and 5.7 chickens. During group discussions held with farmers,
they explained that the most common roles of livestock were as a financial savings
mechanism, providing security, accumulating assets, maintaining social capital, providing
livestock products such as draught power and manure for crop farming, meat and milk for
consumption and market.

Table 2. Mean (standard error) number of livestock holding/household in the three areas
categorized according to small ruminant density.
Species Category Overall
Rural Urban
Cattle 8.5(0.3)b 1.8(0.6)a 7.6(0.3)
Sheep 8.7(0.3)a 0.3(0.3)c 5.6(0.2)

Goat 4.1(0.2)c 0.2(0.5)a 3.1(0.2)

Equines 0.3(0.0)a 0.2(0.5)b 0.2(0.0)

Chicken 6.1(0.4)b 3.5(0.7)a 5.7(0.3)

Superscripts with different letters across the rows differ significantly (p<0.05)

There was significant (p<0.05) differences among areas classified by the farming systems of
the study area in holding different species of livestock. Farmers in rural area own
significantly higher number of livestock species per HH; this may be due to relatively larger
land holdings. The number of animals owned by HHs is larger as compared to many other
reports (Belete et al., 2010; Tesfaye, 2015; Kedir 2019; Buzayehu, 2020) presumably due to
larger landholding in the area but smaller than and Deribe (2012) and Negesse (2020)

4.2.2. Chicken flock Composition, Size and Structure

The overall average flock size of exotic, indigenous, crossbreed and overall flock owned by
the HHs in the sampled rural and urban Kebeles of Robe District is indicated in Table 3. The
studied HHs own 2.55 exotic, 1.31 indigenous and 1.55 hybrid hen chicken with a total of
4.98 per HHs. The flocks were dominated by chicks (41.4%), followed by hens (18.3%),
cocks (15.7%), pullets (13.3%) and cockerels (11.3%), respectively. In addition, the

28
interviewed HHs kept majorly exotic breed for egg production purposes than the locals. A
cock to hen ratio was about 4:5.

Table 3. Mean (SE) of the number of breed types and their structure of the chickens’ holdings
per studied households
Breed types Structure
Chicks pullets Cockerels Hens Cocks Total
Exotic 6.40(0.02)a 1.82(0.08)a 1.40(0.22)b 2.55(0.76)a 1.80(0.08)a 14.0(0.18)
Indigenous 2.51(0.35)b 0.83(0.07)c 0.82(0.71)c 1.31(0.20)c 1.12(0.09)b 6.59(0.57)
Hybrid 2.38(0.43)c 1.09(0.09)b 1.17(0.09)a 1.55(0.44)b 1.76(0.47)a 7.96(0.28)
All 11.30(0.34) 3.61(0.20) 3.09(0.83) 4.98(0.44) 4.29(0.23) 27.3(0.57)
Superscripts with different letters across the column differ significantly (p<0.05)

The chicken population (per household) as observed in this study area significantly lower
than the findings of Deko (2020) and Negesse (2009) for West Arsi and Arsi Zone of
Oromia parts of Ethiopia, respectively. The values for the numbers of chicken per household
as assessed in the study find similarity with the observations of Tesfaye (2015). The results as
reported by Nigussie et al. (2010) are lower than those observed in this study but the results
reported by Deneke (2013) from Hawassa University and Hunduma et al. (2010) from Rift
valley region of Oromia however is in good agreement with the results of the present study.
Approximately one-third (36.5%) of poultry producers kept chicks (Wondu et al., 2013;
Asfaw et al., 2019). According to report of Wondu et al.(2013) in Northern Gonder
(Ethiopia) flocks were dominated by chicks (47.0%), hen (20.2%), cocks (9.5%), pullets
(14.8%), and cockerels (8.5%). Under intensive systems the highest average flock size was
represented by hens (2380.9) followed by pullets, chicks, cockerels, and cocks, respectively
(Asfaw et al., 2019). On the other report it was found that the minimum and maximum flock
size recorded under intensive poultry production system in Ethiopia were approximately
2,500 and 50, 000 specialized breeds (FAO, 2007)

4.2.3. Flock’ Sources and Related Issues

The sources of chickens for establishment for egg production and their sources are indicated
in Table 4. The interviewed HHs received chickens through purchasing from government and
private farms (43.5%), provision from district offices (22.2%) donation from government and

29
NGOs (15.3%), hatching at home by naturally (15.3%), by gifts from different sources
(5.00%). Some of the interviewed HHs also used their own indigenous breeds.

Table 4. Sources of exotic poultry breeds and their husbandry practices in the study area
Variables Responses (%)

Source of chickens to Purchased from Govt./Pvt. Hatchery 43.5

Provided by district offices 22.2
establish
Provided from NGO’s 15.3
production agents
Hatching of eggs naturally at home 28.1
Home breed 12.5
Gifted 5.09
Others 16.2
Total 100
Controlled husbandry No 22.7
Yes 77.3
Total 100
Reason of restriction To protect predator 6.94
To prevent disease 50.5
Other 45.4
Total 100
Source of the exotic Government extension 5.09
Market 35.2
poultry
Relative 61.1
Total 100

Based on the information gathered from farmers through field observation and on-farm
monitoring as well as individuals interviewed, most of the farmers obtained exotic breed
poultry by purchasing from private a day old chicks retailers and from agricultural extension
agents that occasionally distribute these breeds of chicks for the farmers with minimum costs.
The majority (77.3%) HHs accustomed to use the controlled husbandry management systems
to overcome disease dissemination (50.5%), to protect predatory (6.94%) and others (45.4)
such as provision of feeds and suitability for cleaning.

4.3. Farmer’s Poultry Management Practices

The predominant chicken flock management system practiced by the HHs was scavenging or
free ranch system (75.5%) followed by semi-intensive (20.8%) (Table 5). There is no
significant difference between urban and rural farmer’s management practices in terms of
intensity and magnitudes. Intensive and small scale commercial production systems were not

30
well developed in the study area. Only small proportion (<5%) of the interviewed HHs
practiced the intensive and Small scale commercial type of production.

Table 5. Chicken management practices in the study area. Values in the body are percentages
of the households under the respective category.
Variables Category of PAs
Rural Urban Overall
Scavenging or Free-Ranch 76.7 69.4 75.5
Semi-Intensive 18.3 33.3 20.8
Intensive 3.89 5.56 4.17
Small-Scale Commercial 1.11 2.78 1.39

Chicken producers in the area and similar farming systems accustomed to use scavenging
feed resource with supplementation of grains; however, the nutrient and production
requirements were not taken in to consideration. Other husbandries such as recommended
housing systems, use of productive breeds, routine healthcare, amino acid and vitamins
supplementations and other inputs were not taken in consideration. Chicken were reared with
available resources in their hand. As feeding is one of the limiting inputs in chicken
production, the combination of these feed sources sustains the life of the birds in the study
areas; however, chicken scavenging under trees and open field are at risk of predators in
general to the hawks and cats in particular (Zemene, 2011). Under such scavenging system
provision of supplementary feed, vaccination, and provision affordable inputs can ensure
better productivity of the birds (Gezahegn et al., 2016). Many authors reported similar type of
chicken in different part of Oromia (Buzayehu, 2021; Deko, 2020, Negesse, 2020).

4.3.2. Feeds and Feeding Management

The feeds and the feeding practices, feeding frequencies and the amount of feed offered for
chickens is given in Table 6,7 and 8, respectively. Almost all (98.2%) of the interviewed HHs
provided supplementary feeds for their chickens. The majority of feeds supplemented for the
chickens were home available cereal grains such as wheat, barley, maize and others. Only
small proportion of the respondents (19.4%) used mixed ingredients in their home and
supplement for their chickens. In the study area the farmers accustomed to provide available
cereal grains (80.7%), and home mixed ration (19.34%). Although most (91.98%) of the
respondents had awareness that home available feeds could not satisfy the nutritional
31
requirements of their poultry, formulated feeds commercially produced were not available in
the study area. Similar to the current finding the practice of the provision of available feeds
and supplementation was reported by Tadesse (2013) in Kersa district of east Hararghe;
Desalew (2012) and Desalew et al.(2013) in Ada’a and Lume districts of east Shewa.
Similarly Bosenu and Takele (2014) reported farmers in Haramaya district of Eastern
Ethiopia practiced scavenging system with supplementary feeding.

Table 6. Chicken feeds and feeding management practiced by studied households

Variables Responses (%)
Provision of supplementary feeds No 1.85
Yes 98.2
Total 100
Type of supplementary feeds Home available grains 80.7
Commercial feeds 0.00
Home mixed ration 19.4
Both feeds 0.00
Total 100
Home available feeds can satisfy the Yes 5.66
No 91.9
nutrient requirements of your poultry I don’t know 2.36
Total 100
Availability of commercial feeds No 100
Yes 0.0
Total 100

The majority (97.2%) of studied HHs practiced time interval feeding when they offer feeds
for their chickens. About 53.3% of HHs offered feeds three times a day while 29.7% offered
feeds three times a day. The majority (87.0%) of the respondents used to adjust the amount of
feeds they provided for their flocks according to the age and productivity of their chickens.
The dominant way of offering was spreading the feed on any sheet (46.30%) followed by
spreading on the ground (35.65%) are the most important ways they use to offer the feeds for
their poultry. The key informant and group discussants pointed out that the source of
supplementary feed for the chickens are maize grain, wheat grain, barely grain, wheat bran,
wheat middling, and other. However, provision of supplementary feed is highly dependent on
the season of harvest and availability of cereal grains. The grain sources of supplemental
feeds which include maize and wheat are good energy sources; however they are poor in
protein and minerals which implies that supplementation is not guarantee to adequacy of both
quality and quantity of nutrients. Even though almost all of the chicken owners provide
supplementary feed to their chicken, it is not possible to say that it is adequate both in

32
quantity and quality because they provide the feedstuffs without measuring (Deneke et al.,
2014; Negesse, 2020).

The amounts of feeds provided for the flocks varied based on the age structure of the flocks.
Accordingly, the amount of feed offered per head per day was 49.7, 77.1, 76.3, 102.3, 102.4
for chicks, pullets, cockerels, hens and cocks, respectively. Significantly higher amount of
feed was offered by urban HHs; however, the amount of feed offered under both system is
lower than the recommended amount.

Table 7. The responses of households on feeding systems and frequency of feeding

Variables Responses (%)
Type of feeding of feeding Without time limit (Ad libitum) 0.93
Hour’s interval offering feeds 97.2
system used
No feed offering 1.85
Total 100
Frequency of feeding in day Once 16.0
Twice 53.3
Three times 29.7
Four times 3.30
Five times 0.94
Not offered at all 1.42
Total 100
The use feed formulation No 12.7
Yes 87.3
technique
Total 100
Method if feed provision Spreading on the ground 35.5
Spreading the feed on any sheet 46.3
Using any feeding trough 8.80
Using poultry feeding trough 7.41
No feed offering 1.85
Total 100

Table 8. The amount of feeds (in gm) of offered per single chicken by households in the
study area (Mean ± SE)
Structure Category Overall
Rural Urban
Chicks 48.6(1.00)b 50.8(1.04)a 49.7(1.04))
Pullets 75.1(0.70)b 79.0(0.64)a 77.1(0.67)
Cockerels 70.6(0.70)b 82.5(0.72)a 76.3(0.71)
Hens 95.3(6)b 109.3(8)a 102.3(7)
Cocks 94.4(7)b 110.4(7)a 102.4(7)
Superscripts with different letters across the rows differ significantly (p<0.05)

33
The highest proportion of respondents (92.7%) in the study area practiced backyard system,
while 6.7% practiced semi-intensive system. It was also found that 95.7% of the HHs
practiced scavenging with grain supplementation. However, provision of supplementary feed
is highly dependent on the season of harvest and availability of cereal grains.

Table 9. Chicken feeds and feeding practices in the study area

Variables Category Total

Rural Urban
System of chicken management
Backyard 92.7 75.5 92.7
Semi-intensive 5.5 24.5 6.7
Intensive 1.8 0.0 0.6
Chicken feeding system
Scavenging only/No feeding 3.6 2.4 3.6
Scavenging with supplementation 94.6 97.6 95.8
Indoor/Total confinement feeding 1.8 0.0 0.6
Major type of feed supplemented for chicken
Not applicable 3.6 7.2 3.6
Maize grain 36.3 45.6 46.7
Wheat grain 18.3 30.9 18.8
Wheat bran 16.5 7.2 13.9
Wheat middling 7.2 1.8 3.6
Other (Commercial feeds/Leftovers) 18.3 7.2 13.3
Time of feeding chicken
Not applicable 3.60 7.20 3.6
In the morning only 9.00 16.5 16.4
In the morning and at mid-day 34.5 43.5 35.2
In the morning, at mid-day & in the evening 52.8 32.7 44.8
Method of feeding chicken
Throwing/spreading on the ground 81.9 89.1 87.9
Put feed in feeding materials 1.80 0.00 0.6
Both methods 18.3 10.8 11.5

The method of supplementing grain for chicken as supplementation used was throwing feed
on the ground by majority of the respondents (87.9%) while only small proportion used
feeding materials. Time of feeding was 44.8%, 35.2%, and 16.4% of the respondents fed their
chicken in the morning at mid-day and in the evening; in the morning and mid-day; and in the
morning only, respectively. Provision of adequate nutrient is the very important factor that
influences the health, production and productivity of chicken. It is impossible to expect
optimal production in the absence of adequate supply of the required nutrients. Many other
reports in similar farming system showed that scavenging dominated chicken feeding (Desale
2012, 2013; Tadesse 2013; Deko 2020; Negesse 2020). Samson and Endalew (2010) also

34
reported that 94% of the respondents in Mid Rift Valley of Oromia region practiced
scavenging with conditional supplementation. In addition, Bosenu and Takele (2014) also
reported that all (100%) of the respondents in Haramaya district of Eastern Ethiopia practiced
scavenging system with supplementary feeding. The supplementation of available grain by
poultry keepers was variously reported by many authors in many farming system (Zemene,
2011; Deko, 2020; Negesse, 2020), indicating that much must be done in developing
appropriate feeding package and extending in such systems to improve production and
productivity. On the other hand Halima et al. (2007a) reported that majority of the
interviewed households provide sufficient feed to the chickens but do not have enough
knowledge as to what and when to feed. These findings indicate that besides supplementary
and scavenging the respondents provide some food leftover feed, which is indicative of better
feeding practice. Provision of supplementary feed can ensure better productivity of the birds
(Gezahegn et al., 2016). The provision of supplementary feed can be correlated with better
awareness and knowing the importance of the supplementary feeds among the respondents
(Alemayehu, 2017).

The respondents in the study areas provide supplemental feed to chicken mainly during times
of scarcity. The feeds are composed of grains, some concentrates and by-products or leftovers
of household foods. The grain sources of supplemental feeds which include maize and wheat
are good energy sources; however they are poor in protein and minerals which implies that
supplementation is not guarantee to adequacy of both quality and quantity of nutrients. Even
though almost all of the chicken owners provide supplementary feed to their chicken, it is not
possible to say that it is adequate both in quantity and quality because they provide the
feedstuffs without measuring. Spreading the feed on the ground for collective feeding, as was
observed in the present study is in accordance with the observations of Zemene (2011).

4.3.3. Provision of water

One of the very important nutrients that should be provided for chicken is water. It plays a
vital role in transport of nutrients, metabolic reactions and elimination of wastes. The
watering practice for chicken in the district is presented in Table 10. All of the respondents
(100%) in the District provided water for their chicken. 50.8%, 34.1%, 11.3%, 3.20% and
0.6% of the respondents provided water free access, morning, mid-day and evening, morning
and mid-day, morning only and morning and evening respectively. This finding is line with
other studied that were conducted in Arsi zones who reported only half of the households

35
provide water on ad libtum basis (Negese, 2020; Deko, 2020). On the hand Desalew et al.
(2013) reported that 96.1% of chicken in Ada’a and Lume district of east Shewa were
provided water free access basis for their chickens.

Farmers used various sources of water for chicken based on its availability in their vicinity.
Almost half of the interviewed HHs offer water free choice for their chickens. Other provided
three times (34.1%) a day or used to provide water early in the morning, mid day and in the
evening and twice a day. River water, pipe water, pond water and borehole water sources
were used as source of water for the chickens by 26.9%, 39.8%, 7.87 and 11.3.6% of the
respondents, respectively. Most of the chicken Owners (55.2%) provide water using watering
trough made of plastic. The remaining 27.9%, 11.5% and 5.5% provide using materials made
of wood, others (stone made/metal made) and standard drinkers of various types,
respectively. These results related to provision of water among the chickens are in accordance
with the other reports in similar agro-ecologies and farming systems (Desalew, 2012; Deko,
2020; Negesse, 2020). Water is one of the most important but neglected of all the nutrients;
both quality and quantity of water available to the chickens need to be optimum for overall
improvement in productivity (Ravindran, 2013). The present findings (of provision of water
adlib) are in accordance with the observations of Dirsha (2009) and Desalew (2012).
However, the finding by Meseret (2010) also reported that water is provided at certain times
of a day.

36
Table 10. Source of drinking water and chicken watering practices in the study area
Variables Responses in %

Major source of drinking water for chicken

River water 26.94
Borehole water 11.3
Pipe water 39.8
Pond water 7.87
Spring water 8.33
Any available water 5.7
Material used to serve drinking water to chicken
Plastic materials 55.2
Wooden materials 27.9
Standard drinkers of various types 5.5
Others (stone made/metal made) 11.5
Daily frequency of serving water to chicken
Free access 50.8
Morning only 3.20
Morning & mid-day 11.3
Morning and evening 0.6
Morning, mid-day & evening 34.1

4.3.4. Housing Managements

The details of flocks housing management by the selected HHs in the study area is indicated
in Table 11. It was found that the majority (94.9%) of the studied HHs kept their flocks in the
house; however, types varied among respondents. The HHs the larger (71.2%) number of
HHs have had separate houses for their flocks while the remaining respondents kept their
chicken with family or other group of animals. They used separate poultry house (67.6%),
kept in the houses with a family (12.9%), and livestock (10.2%). They also kept in the
kitchen (7.87%) and veranda (10.2%). Although the majority reported to use houses for their
chicken, they didn’t consider the space requirement as per recommendation. Similarly other
authors also reported such finding in Arsi Zones (Deko 2020; Negesse, 2020). In contrary
Desalew et al. (2013b) reported that 91.1% and 95.6% of the respondents constructed
separate houses for poultry in Ada’a and Lume districts of East Shewa, respectively.
According to Fisseha et al. (2010), 22.1%, 59.7% and 3.4% of the respondents constructed
separate houses entirely for the chicken in Bure, Fogera and Dale districts of Ethiopia,
respectively. Similarly, Meseret (2010) reported that about 94.4% of the respondents in
Gomma district did not have separate houses for their chicken. During the day, birds spend
most of their time scavenging around the family dwelling.

37
It was found out during key informant and group discussion that, although birds are protected
from predators, theft and bad weather at night time, there is a risk of disease transmission as
they share the same dwelling with family and other domestic animals. But the house did not
constructed as per livestock extension package recommendations.

Table 11. Housing systems, types and housing management in the study area
Variables Options Category Overall
Rural Urban
Housing No 5.20 0.00 5.09
Yes 94.8 100 94.9
Separated houses No 30.2 2.40 28.8
Yes 69.8 97.6 71.2
Type of housing Cage system 40.0 56.0 50.2
Deep litter system 18.0 22.0 20.5
No bedding material 16.0 12.0 14.6
No bedding material 26.0 10.0 14.6
Place of housing with
In thesome roosting
poultry house 58.5 89.0 67.6
In the livestock house 10.2 2.00 10.2
In the kitchen 8.00 7.00 7.87
In the family house 13.1 11.0 12.9
In the family veranda 10.2 10.5 10.2
Not sheltered at all 0.00 0.00 0.00
Housing based on commendation No 37.8 30.0 35.2
Yes 62.2 70.0 64.8
Reason poor Housing Not aware of the 5.81 7.89 5.85
Space problem 19.0 20.2 19.5
recommendation
Expensiveness 17.6 18.2 17.5
Workload 28.3 29.1 28.2
Non-awareness of its 34.1 35.0 34.2
advantage
During the diagnostic survey it was found that 86 % of the respondents clean the poultry
houses on daily bases but 86.0% of the HHs didn’t accustomed to disinfect the chicken
houses (Table 12). Among the few (12.0%) respondents who disinfect the houses, they used
sprays (88.5%), foams (42.3%), aerosols (30.8%) and fumigants (65.4%). The reasons why
most of the respondents do not disinfect the poultry’ houses were associated with lack of
knowledge and information, scarcity of disinfectants and financial problems. During routine
monitory it was observed that some of the HHs disinfect their poultry’ houses by using
sprays such as 5% sodium hypochlorite solution (cloth detergent called “Berekina”) to
eradicate external parasites of poultry. They fumigate the house using selected herbaceous
plants and/or commercially available fumigants.

38
Table 12. Housing systems, types and housing management in the study area
Variables Category Over all
Rural Urban
Frequency of cleaning Daily 80.0 92.0 86.0
Between 1 to 7 days 10.0 7.00 9.00
Between 7 to 15 days 5.0 1.00 4.00
After 15 days 5.00 0.0 4.00
Use of disinfection for the No 92.0 80.0 88.0
house Yes 8.00 20.0 12.0
Type of disinfectant Sprays 88.0 88.0 88.0
Foams 42.0 42.0 42.0
Aerosols 31.0 31.0 31.0
Fumigants 66.0 65.0 65.0
The reason for not using Lack of awareness 31.0 32.0 30.7
disinfection Lack of financial 86.0 85.0 85.7
resources
Unavailability 54.0 53.0 53.4

4.4. Health Management

A number of challenges deterred and adversely impacted the production performances of

flocks under farmer’s management system. About 48.6 percent of the respondents lost some
of their poultry due to disease problems (Table 13). Key informants and group discussants
found that the majorly sources of disease introduction to the flock were: incoming poultry to
the flock, poultry of neighboring households and neighboring village. The key informants
also asserted that Newcastle Disease (NCD), Intestinal diseases (61.90%), Gumboro and Snot
were the most frequent diseases of chicken in the study area. About 90 percent (89.8%)
respondents stated that they get appropriate healthcare services for their flocks from the
livestock clinics which are located at less than or equal to 10 km (43.8%) and 11 km to 20 km
(40.28%). Similarly, about 88% confirmed that they made their chickens vaccinated with
awareness that vaccination is important. Poultry isolation (96.30%) is the principal measure
that they take when their poultry get sick and 93.06 percent consult the veterinarians. About
61% indicated that they used modern medication while 20.8% reported to use traditional

39
medicines. There were also 13.0% found to use both types of medications to treat the diseases
encountered.

Table 13. Flock’s healthcare management systems practiced by respondents

Variables Response (%)
Access to healthcare services No 10.2
Yes 89.8
Distance to vet clinic < 10km 39.4
11-20km 36.1
>20km 24.5
Practice of vaccination No 12.0
Yes 88.0
Availability of health experts No 6.94
Yes 93.1
Type of medicaments used for sick Traditional 20.8
Pharmaceutical 61.1
chickens
Both traditional and pharmaceutical 13.0
None of them 5.10
Types of traditional medicines commonly Garlic (Allium sativum) 84.9
Feto (Lepidium sativum) seeds 80.8
used
Melia (Melia azedarach) leaves 93.2
Vernonia (Vernonia amygdalina) 23.3
Any combination of the above 96.0
leaves
Unidentified 97.0
Cost affordability No 9.26
Yes 90.7
Average annual cost spent on drugs and ≤25 ETB 60.7
[26, 50] ETB 17.9
medicaments
[51, 75] ETB 11.7
[76, 100] ETB 7.65
≥ 101 ETB 2.04

On the bases of personal observational and on-farm monitoring as well as surveying data, the
most commonly and widely used traditional medicaments include garlic (Allium sativum)
(84.9%), feto (Lepidium sativum) seeds (80.8%), melia (Melia azedarach) leaves (90.2%),
vernonia (Vernonia amygdalina) leaves (23.3%) and any possible combinations of these
(95.9%). Some of these medicaments were mixed with water and Injera and are fed to sick
poultry. Some respondents said that melia leaves are better to treat Newcastle disease
whereas others said melia leaves together with chili pepper is effective to treat Newcastle
disease.

In line with present results many authors reported that mortality due to diseases as the main
constraint to village poultry production (Buzayehu 2020; Deko 2020; Negesse, 2020).

40
According to Asfaw et al. 2021, there is lack of adequate scientific information on
occurrences and impacts of poultry diseases in the country, which could have negative
implications on establishing a sustainable and profitable chicken business in the country. The
occurrences of diseases were responsible for a number of adverse economic and social
impacts. Their occurrence depends on various factors including geo-climatic condition,
population density, management practices, and immunization status (Al Mamun and
Mehetazul, 2019; Asfaw et al., 2020). They lead to high mortality and morbidity of chickens,
high medication costs, loss in production and market, and can pose a risk to public health
through zoonoses (Wubet et al., 2019; Asfaw, 2020; Deko, 2020). Hence, poultry disease
status, poultry morbidity, and mortality are useful measurable indicators to judge the overall
health status of a flock and its productivity (Marangon and Busani, 2007).

Newcastle disease (ND), Salmonellosis, fowl cholera, Coccidiosis, and fowl pox were
reported as main infectious diseases causing high morbidity and mortality both in village and
in large-scale poultry farms in most part of the country (Wubet et al., 2019, Asfaw et al.,
2021). Higher mortality of chickens in northwest Ethiopia because of improper nutrition,
substandard hygienic conditions, lack of appropriate disease prevention, and control program
has compromised their expected contribution to household livelihoods (Mazengia et al.,
2012). Despite such evidence, except for a few efforts which are implemented in response to
outbreaks, almost no strategic poultry health interventions are being designed and
implemented in the country to reduce the negative impacts of poultry diseases and other
health problems in the poultry sub-sector. This, in turn, has led to difficulty to achieve the
ambitious targets of the poultry sub-sector (Shapiro et al., 2015).

4.5. Production Performances of Chickens in the study area

4.5.1. Growth and production performance

The major important production performance traits of the flocks comprise of egg’s weight,
number of eggs per hen per year, body weight of the females and males at first egg laying and
mating, weight at six months and at maturity, clutch size per hen per year, clutch length and
frequency, females age at first egg laying, males age at first mating, hatchability and
survivability of chicks. The important growth performance traits of chickens in the study area
are detailed in Table 14. Significantly higher performances were observed for urban
production systems for growth and reproduction performances of chickens than the rural

41
systems presumably due to better management and feeding conditions. Exotic females
weighed at first egg laying, six months and maturity ages about 2.31, 0.88 and 2.31
kilograms, respectively and exotic males body weighed in the same periods about 3.03, 0.94
and 3.03 kilograms, respectively.

On the contrary indigenous females were lighter and their weights at first egg laying, at six
months and at maturity were about 1.32, 0.84 and 1.32 kilograms, respectively. Hybrids
performed better than the indigenous but less than the exotics showing crossbreeding
improved performances. Female’s ages at first egg laying for the exotic, indigenous and
crossbreed flocks was 5.22, 6.04 and 5.62 months, respectively. Males ages at first mating for
the exotic, indigenous and crossbreed flocks were 6.15, 8.09, and 7.01 months, respectively.

Table 14. Growth performances of the poultry as function of breed types

Variables Breed types Category
Rural Urban Total
Age at first egg laying Exotic 5.40 (0.01)a 5.00(0.03) b 5.22(0.1))
(months) Indigenous 6.80(0.01) a 6.04(0.02) b 6.42(0.1)
Hybrid 6.00(0.05) a 5.42(0.05) b 5.71(0.5)
Age at first mating (months) Exotic 6.25(0.05) a 6.10(0.05) b 6.15(0.05)
Indigenous 8.00(0.04) a 7.80(0.04) b 8.09(0.03)
Hybrid 7.11(0.06) a 6.90(0.03) b 7.01(0.04)
Female body weight at first Exotic 2.30(0.08)b 2.39(0.04) a 2.31(0.09)
egg laying (kg) Indigenous 1.34(0.06) b 1.40(0.02) a 1.36(0.04)
Hybrid 2.00(0.01) b 1.97(0.07) a 1.99(0.05)
Male body weight at first Exotic 3.00(0.01) b 3.06(0.01) a 3.03(0.1)
mating (kg) Indigenous 1.50(0.01) b 1.56(0.01) a 1.51(0.01)
Hybrid 1.80(0.02) b 1.91(0.08) a 1.82(0.06)
Females body weight at Exotic 2.30(0.01) b 2.41(0.01) a 2.31(0.1)
maturity (kg) Indigenous 1.33(0.01) b 1.42(0.02) a 1.32(0.0.1)
Hybrid 1.94(0.03) b 2.10(0.01) a 1.93(0.0.1)
Males body weight at Exotic 3.00(0.01) b 3.09(0.03) a 3.03(0.02)
maturity (kg) Indigenous 1.50(0.01) b 1.60(0.02) a 1.51(0.01)
Hybrid 1.80(0.03) b 1.92(0.03) a 1.82(0.03)

The egg production performances of the poultry as function of breed types is given in Table
15. Exotic breed performed better in egg production than the indigenous and hybrids. In

42
addition production system also showed significant difference showing urban chicken
performed better than their rural counterparts.

The numbers of eggs laid per hen per year for exotic, indigenous and crossbreed flocks were
267.8, 69.0 and 140.3 per hen per year, respectively. Eggs weights for the exotic, indigenous
and crossbreed flocks were 55.6, 40.4, and 50.6 grams, respectively. The hatchability of eggs
of chick for the exotic, indigenous and crossbreed flocks are 79.3%, 78.9% and 79.1%,
respectively. Clutch sizes and clutch frequencies per hen per year for the exotic, indigenous
and crossbreed flocks were 2.89 and 1.58; 10.64 and 4.30; and 10.1 and 3.73, respectively.

Reproduction is one of the most important aspects of poultry breeding (Abou-Elewa and
Abdou, 2017) and it is characterized by parameters, such as, age at sexual maturity, fertility,
hatchability, clutch size and clutch length (Addisu, 2013). Among reproduction traits, sexual
maturity is paramount in terms of progress in poultry breeding (Chiemela et al., 2018). Age at
sexual maturity refers to age at which the reproductive system achieves its complete
development and it has long been considered as an important factor that determines fecundity
trait and affects subsequent performance (Forment et al., 2009). In females, age at sexual
maturity can be easily determined externally as age at which hens lay their first egg
(Tandondjou et al., 2014).

43
Table 15. Production performances of the poultry as function of breed types
Variables Breed types Category
Rural Urban Total
Annual egg production Exotic 265.8(1.0) 270.8(1.2) 267.8(1.1)
Indigenous 66.0(2.00) 72.00(2.1) 69.0(2.0)
Hybrid 138.0(1.0) 142.0(2.0) 140.0(1.5)
Eggs weight Exotic 54.6(0.50) 56.6(0.51) 55.6(0.52)
Indigenous 38.4(0.32) 42.4(0.34) 40.4(0.33)
Hybrid 50.6(0.25) 53.6(0.23) 52.1(0.24)
Number of eggs incubated Exotic 15.7(0.23) 15.7(0.23) 15.7(2.3)
Indigenous 11.5(0.10) 11.6(0.19) 11.5(0.15)
Hybrid 13.0(0.17) 12.1(0.17) 12.6(0.17)
Number of chicks hatched Exotic 12.2(0.22) 12.4(0.24) 12.3(0.22)
Indigenous 9.05(0.12) 9.01(0.01) 9.03(0.13)
Hybrid 10.3(0.10) 10.6(0.015) 10.4(0.13)
Hatchability Exotic 79.3(1.06) 79.3(1.06) 79.3(10.6)
Indigenous 78.7(0.8) 77.7(0.8) 78.5(0.9)
Hybrid 79.2(0.13) 87.1(0.03) 79.4(10.3)
Number of chicks survived Exotic 10.0(0.25) 10.9(0.20) 10.5(2.05)
Indigenous 7.00(0.1) 7.10(0.1) 7.05(0.1)
Hybrid 8.24(0.14) 8.24(0.1) 8.24(0.1)
Survivability Exotic 82.6(0.25) 82.6(0.25) 82.6(2.5)
Indigenous 77.0(0.44) 77.0(0.04) 77.0(4.4)
Hybrid 80.0(0.3) 77.7(0.30) 78.8(0.08)
Clutch sizes per hen per year Exotic 3.00 (0.10) 2.89 (0.14) 2.95
Indigenous 10.6(0.26) 10.0(0.2) (0..04)
10.3(0.2)
Hybrid 9.51(0.19) 10.2(0.01) 9.95(0.12)
Clutch frequency per year Exotic 1.58(0.07) 1.60(0.07) 1.59(0.05)
Indigenous 4.30(0.03) 4.30(0.013) 4.30(1.3)
Hybrid 3.78(0.01) 3.73(0.01) 3.73(0.11)

In spite of genetic variation, the average age at sexual maturity reported in different parts of
the country was different and it ranges from 19.6 to 26.8 weeks for male chickens (Asfaw,
2021) and 19.7 to 34.05 weeks for female chickens (Asfaw, 2021) and the current study was
also within this range. The variation observed in age at sexual maturity may be due to the
variation in environmental factors (temperature and nutrition) in different parts of the
country. Such variation was also observed between farming system and even within HHs
reflecting differences in husbandry. The differences in growth and production performances
of chickens caused by husbandry were also confirmed during group and key informant
discussions. This supported by Guni et al. (2013), who observed variation both between and

44
within districts with respect to age at first egg which is attributable to the genetic ecotype and
non-genetic factors.

Late sexual development is demonstrated among the local chicken populations in comparison
to different exotic pure breeds and hybrids (Chiemela et al., 2018) and one of the expressions
of low productivity of local chicken ecotypes was also late maturity (Abera, 2000). Similar to
the current finding for local chickens many of these traits was comparable with the result
reported by Deneke (2013), Tadesse (2013), Adem and Teshome (2016), Nebiyu et al, (2013)
and Meseret (2010). Early matured pullets laid their first egg before 136 days, while late
pullets matured when they were 152 days of age or more (Amira, 2008). As a consequence,
many researchers have conducted crossbreeding for improvement of age at sexual maturity
for native chickens in Africa (Chiemela et al., 2018) which is an attempt to increase poultry
production; hatchability and high level of survivability cannot be over looked (Ajayi and
Agaviezor, 2016).

Hatchability is the percentage of fertile eggs that hatch (King’ori, 2011; Ndofor-Foleng et al.,
2015). Hatchability determines levels of reproduction from the quantity of breeding stock
within a phase of time (Obike et al., 2014; Ajayi and Agaviezor, 2016). As such, they vary
across different breeds and diversified within same breed depending on genetic and
environmental influence (Ajayi and Agaviezor, 2016). High hatchability of eggs of breeder
stock and survivability of the chicks is necessary to produce large numbers of chickens
(Ndofor-Foleng et al., 2015). Hatchability of 80% (of eggs set) from natural incubation is
normal or a range of 75 to 80% is considered satisfactory (Sonaiya and Swan, 2004). Thus
the result obtained this study indicated that laying chickens performed satisfactory level
indicating need for improvement for higher profitability. However, high hatchability can
improve poultry production when there is good chick survival and good supply chain of day-
old chicks (King’ori, 2011). In addition, poultry breeders must consider total egg production
rate as key traits in egg stocks (Schmidt and Figueiredo, 2005). Conversely, total egg
production of a flock of hens is determined by the individual patterns of sequential laying,
number of clutches and size of the clutches (Johnston and Gous, 2003).

Laying sequence or clutch is defined as the number of eggs that are laid on consecutive days
and separated from another by one or more pause days (Tumova et al., 2017). Egg production
is characterized by the number of eggs in a clutch and the period between clutches, where
oviposition fails to occur because of pause, which results in missing egg between clutches

45
(Sakunthaladevi et al., 2011). Several scholars conducted research in different parts of
Ethiopia on indigenous, crosses and exotic chicken characterization but there are
inconsistencies among the various studies (Asfaw, 2021; Deko, 2021; Negesse, 2021).

5.5.2. Hatching and Brooding

Eggs storage and management is one of the important management practices which needs due
consideration profitable poultry production. Egg storage and incubation practices by the
respondents in the study area are given in Table 16. Based on analyzed data obtained through
on-farm monitoring about 61.4% the HHs store eggs in warm places with assumption warm
temperature is safer while 32.5% percent store inside the grains. In the study area farmers
only knew natural incubation and about half of the respondents’ practice egg incubation
during dry seasons. The practice during dry season due to suitability of temperature (91.8%),
cleanliness (95.5%) and high chance of growth and easy follow up (58.1%). The key
informant and the group discussants reflected that farmers consider size and shape uniformity
of the eggs to be incubated and preferred local hens for brooding. They also revealed that
exotic breed eggs have higher hatchability followed by hybrid breeds.

Table 16. Egg storage and incubation practices by the respondents in the study area
Variable Options Responses (%)
Practice of incubation for hatching No 47.22
Yes 52.78
Type of incubation Natural 100
Artificial 0
Preferred season for incubation Rainy season 0
Dry season 96.49
Any season 3.51
Reason for dry season preference Cleanliness 95.45
Warm is conducive for growth 91.82
High chance of growth follow up 58.19
Workload is less 40
Others 23.64
Egg storage Anywhere 0
Cold place 0
Inside the grain 32.46
Warm place 61.40
Other (specify) 6.14

46
4.6. Provision of Livestock Extension Service in the Study Area

The survey result revealed that about 76.4% of the farmers in the area had an access to
livestock extension services (Table 17). Although this is considerable figure according to the
group discussion with farmers there wasn’t sound extension service pertaining poultry
production in the area provided. Producers lack access to information on “best practices” for
village poultry operations and also lack opportunities to build business skills. A good
extension service is not only getting acceptance by farmers, rather it needs a regular follow
up of farmers and discuss problems raised in using extension system.

The values obtained in this report is higher than the report of Mengesha et al. (2011) and
Justus et al., (2011) but in line with the report of Negesse (2020) and Deko (2020). Even
though there is no significant difference among the two farming systems, chicken owners in
the urban had better access for extension services than those in rural areas due to better access
to purchase production inputs and information.

Table 17. Chicken extension services in the study area

Variable Responses (%)
Poultry production extension No 28.24
Yes 76.39
service
In what ways Advisory 80.61
Provision of improved chicks 33.94
Providing feed 10.30
Medicines and vaccines 70.30
Others 14.55
Is it satisfactory No 80.09
Yes 19.91
Main causes of chicks’ death Diseases 85.65
Predators 38.89
Poultry 54.17
Lack of feeds 69.91
Others 36.11

The farmers received: Advisory services such as training (80.6%), improved chickens
(30.9%), feed inputs (10.3%) and medicines and vaccines (70.3%) occasionally. During
group and key informant discussion it was indicated that the limited use of livestock
extension services was due to chicken owners cannot easily reach the extension agents and
lack of modern poultry production technologies accessible and affordable to the farmers. In
addition it was also indicated that, farmers lack interest to consult livestock extension agents.

47
Similar findings were also reported by many authors in different agro-ecologies and farming
systems (Deneke et al., 2014; Tadesse, 2013; Adem and Teshome, 2016; Nebiyu et al., 2013;
Asfaw, 2021; Deko, 2020; Negesse, 2020)

4.7. Challenges of Poultry’ Production

The constraints of chicken production in the study are described in Table 18. The high prices
of inputs such as feeds, drugs, medicaments, items for house construction were the major
constraint (1st ) often encountered by poultry farmers of the study area. Prevalence disease
and its cased mortality was the second challenge mentioned by the respondents. Shortage of
land and access to credit was the 3rd and the 4th challenge mention by the respondent.
According to key informant shortage of land and finance is a critical challenge for young and
landless groups. Similar to the current finding Ebsa et al. (2019) listed sudden disease
outbreak (1st), the high cost of commercial ration (2nd), unavailability of day-old-chicks in
time (3rd) market instability and poor sales (4th), and poor supply and quality of vaccine
(5th) as major challenges of poultry production in Ethiopia. In Addis Ababa (Ethiopia) the
high price of feed, shortage of land, unavailability of pullets in time, high cost of pullets, feed
quality, shortage of water, lack of available feed in nearby areas, marketing difficulties during
selling of poultry products, health problem, lack of access to credit, and inadequate training
were reported by Nebiyu (2016). On the other hand, major constraints of chicken production
among poultry producers under an intensive system in Tigray (Ethiopia) collectively were
lack of knowledge to prepare mixed feed, the high price of mixed feed, unavailability of
commercial feed in nearby area and unavailability and cost of feed ingredients (Tadesse et
al., 2017).

Table 18.The constraints of chicken production in the study are described

Parameter Response in % Rank
Shortage of access to credit 11.3 4th
Diseases and predators 20.2 2nd
High prices of inputs such as feed, drugs, etc 50.4 1st
Shortage of land 14.4 3rd
Lack of extension service 3.8 5th

48
 5. CONCLUSIONAND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1. Conclusion

In the study area, the majority of family members were in working age group and literate
form which larger proportion completed primary level of education followed by secondary
level of educational qualification indicating potential for development.

On average, a household owned 4.6 cattle; 3.6 sheep; 3.1 goats; 0.2 equines and 5.7 chickens.
The chicken flocks were dominated by chicks, followed by hens. In addition, the interviewed
HHs kept majorly exotic breed for egg production purposes than the locals.

Based on the information gathered from farmers through field observation and on-farm
monitoring as well as individuals interviewed, most of the farmers obtained exotic breed
poultry by purchasing from private a day old chicks retailers and from agricultural extension
agents that occasionally distribute these breeds of chicks for the farmers with minimum costs.
Chicken producers in the area and similar farming systems accustomed to use scavenging
feed resource with supplementation of grains; however, the nutrient and production
requirements were not taken in to consideration. Other husbandries such as recommended
housing systems, use of productive breeds, routine healthcare, amino acid and vitamins
supplementations and other inputs were not taken in consideration.

The majority of feeds supplemented for the chickens were home available cereal grains such
as wheat, barley, maize and others. Only small proportion of the respondents used mixed
ingredients in their home and supplement for their chickens. The respondents in the study
areas provide supplemental feed to chicken mainly during times of scarcity.

All chicken owners of the study area provided water to chicken, especially during the dry
season; and tap/pipe and river water were the major source of drinking water for village
chicken in the study area.

Almost near to half of the village chicken owners provided separate housing for their birds,
whereas the rest of them provided a room attached to human house, kitchen and purposively
constructed chicken house.

Majority of the village chicken owners in the study District were able to recognize the
occurrence of poultry diseases which are the main causes for the loss of chicken in the area;

49
Newcastle Disease (ND) (locally called ‘fengil’) being the major and economically important
health constraint that hinders the expansion of chicken production

Hybrids performed better than the indigenous but less than the exotics showing crossbreeding
improved performances. Female’s ages at first egg laying for the exotic, indigenous and
crossbreed flocks was 5.22, 6.04 and 5.62 months, respectively. Males ages at first mating for
the exotic, indigenous and crossbreed flocks were 6.15, 8.09, and 7.01 months, respectively.
The numbers of eggs laid per hen per year for exotic, indigenous and crossbreed flocks were
267.8, 69.0 and 140.3 per hen per year, respectively. Eggs weights for the exotic, indigenous
and crossbreed flocks were 55.6, 40.4, and 50.6 grams, respectively. The hatchability of eggs
of chick for the exotic, indigenous and crossbreed flocks are 79.3%, 78.9% and 79.1%,
respectively.

The high prices of inputs such as feeds, drugs, medicaments, items for house construction
were the major constraint (1st ) often encountered by poultry farmers of the study area.
Prevalence disease and its cased mortality was the second challenge mentioned by the
respondents. Shortage of land and access to credit was the 3rd and the 4th challenge mention
by the respondent.

5.2. Recommendations

The production and productivity of chicken can be improved through appropriate

technological intervention such as housing, feeding, health care, etc. Thus the extension
services rendered by GOs and NGOs should be focused towards providing appropriate
intervention.

There is a strong need for appropriate intervention in diseases and predator control activities
so as to reduce chicken mortality and improve productivity of chicken of the study woreda.
Control of diseases, mainly NCD, could be achieved through improvement in veterinary and
advisory services.

Provision of trainings to chicken producers on how to manage their chicken (housing,

feeding, health care and culling practice) formulate supplementary rations to chicken, using
locally available feed ingredients, are important to improve the feeds and feeding systems of
chicken.

50
Provision of appropriate marketing information to village chicken producers could be
important for the improvement of chicken and egg marketing system of the study Woreda.

51
 7. REFERENCES
Buzayehu, 2020
Deko, 2020
Deneke et al., 2014
Kefyalew and Zewdu, 2014
Negesse, 2020

52
Abera B., and Geta T. (2014). Study on Challenges and Opportunities of Village Chicken
Production in Haramaya District, Eastern Ethiopia. International Journal of Science
Research Publication 4(12):2250-3153.
Addis Getu, Kefyalew Alemayehu and Zewdu Wuletaw (2014). A Phenotypic
characterization indigenous chicken ecotype in North Gondar, Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis
Submitted in Animal Genetics and Breeding Bahir Dar University, 42-60pp.
Aderaw Litigebew, Fisseha Moges, Damitie Kebede (2021). Growth, survival and egg
production of exotic chicken breeds under small scale production system in Bahir Dar
City Administration, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Ethiop. J. Sci. Technol. 14(2): 123-
137, June 2021.
Aklilu Hailemchael (2007). Village poultry in Ethiopia; socio-technical analysis and learning
with farmers. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Alem T (2014). Production and reproduction performance of rural poultry in lowland and
midland agro-ecological zones of central Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. African Journal
of Agriculture, 9(49): 3531-3539.
Alemneh T, Getabalew M (2019) Exotic chicken production performance, status and
challenges in Ethiopia. Int J Vet Sci Res 5(2): 039-045. DOI:
http://dx.doi.org/10.17352/ijvsr.000040.
Alemu, Y. and Tadelle, D. (1997). The status of poultry research and development in
Ethiopia, research bulletin No.4, poultry commodity research program Debrezeit
agricultural research center. Alemaya University of agriculture, Ethiopia. Pp. 62.
Ali Siraji (2012). Family Poultry as a Tool in Alleviating Environmental Hazards in Settled
Areas of Transhumant Families in Gezira Scheme Sudan. Asian Journal of Rural
Development 2: 1-12.
Aman Getiso, Addisu jimma, Mebratu Asrat, Kebede H/Giorgis, Bereket Zeleke and
Teklayohannes Birhanu (2017). Management practices and productive performances
of sasso poultry breed under village production system in SNNPR, Ethiopia. Journal
of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, 7(7):120-135.
Argaw FA. 2015. Assessment of common practices of egg incubation and chick brooding of
backyard poultry production system in wolaita zone, southern Ethiopia. J Biol Agric
Healthc. 5(17).
Askov, H. and Dolberg, F. 2002. A conceptual framework for using poultry as a tool in
poverty alleviation. Aarhus, Denmark: University of Aarhus.

53
Awol Z (2010). Analysis of Poultry Market Chain: The case of Dale and Alaba ‘special’
woredas of SNNPRS, Ethiopia.
Belihu, K., Mamo, A., Lobago, F. and Ayana, D. (2009): Prevalence of
ectoparasitesinbackyard local poultry in three agroecologic zones of East Shoa,
Ethiopia. Rev. Med. Vet., 160: 537–541.
Berhe, N., Afera, B., Abebe, N., Tesfaya, A. and Kalayou, S. (2012). Seroprevalence of
Salmonella pullorum infection in local and exotic commercial chicken from Mekelle
areas, northern Ethiopia. Revista Electrónicade Veterinaria 13, 091204.
Berima M, Ishag I. 2015. Characterization of flock structure, breeding objectives and culling
criteria in Sudanese native.
Bibi S, Khan MF, Noreen S, Rehman A, Khan N, Mehmood S, Shah M. 2021. Morphological
characteristics of native chicken of village Chhajjian, Haripur Pakistan. Poult Sci.
100(3):100843.
Bikila N (2013). Study of Production Practices, Productivity, and Egg Quality of Village
Chicken in Chelliya District Western Shewa, Ethiopia. A Thesis Submitted to the
School of Graduate Studies (School of Animal and Range Sciences). Haramaya
University, Ethiopia.
Bush Jennifer. 2006. The Threat of Avian Flu Predicted Impacts on Rural Livelihoods in
Southern Nation, Nationalities and Peoples Region (SNNPR), Ethiopia. The Food
Economy Group, May 2006.
Chaimiso S. 2018. Review on village/backyard/poultry production system in Ethiopia. Pac Int
J. 1(3):33–40.
Chaka, H., Goutard, F., Bisschop, S.P.R. and Thompson, P.N. (2012): Seroprevalence of
Newcastle disease and other infectious diseases in backyard chickens at markets in
Eastern Shewa zone, Ethiopia. Poult. Sci., 91: 862–869.
CSA (2020). Ethiopia Population and Housing Census Report. Central Statics Agency, Addis
Ababa: Ethiopia.
Dana N, Duguma R, Teklewold H, Aliye S. 2015. Transforming village poultry systems into
small agro-business ventures: a partnership model for the transfer of livestock
technologies in Ethiopia. Livest Res Rural Dev. 18:169.
Dawit Alemu, Tamrat Degefe, Stotaw Ferede, Nzietcheung, S. and Roy, D. (2009). Overview
and background paper on Ethiopia's poultry sector: Relevance for HPAI research in
Ethiopia. A Collaborative Research Project, Africa/Indonesia Team Working Paper
No, 1, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), International Livestock
54
 Research Institute (ILRI), Royal Veterinary College (RVC), Washington, DC., USA:
16-35.
Delgado, C., H. Segrant, S. Steinfeld and C. Courbois, 1999. Livestock to 2020 the revolution
in food, agriculture and the environment. Discussion Paper, pp: 28.
Demeke S. 2014. Egg production performance of local and White Leghornhens under
intensive and rural household conditions in Ethiopia. Livest Res Rural Dev. 16:491–
501.
Deneke, N., Aberra, M. and Sandip, B. 2014. Phenotypic characterization of indigenous
chicken populations in Southeastern Oromia Regional State of Ethiopia. Animal
Genetic Resources, 55: 101-113.
Dessie T, Esatu W, Waaij L, Zegeye F, Gizaw S, et al. (2013). Village chicken production in
the central and western highlands of Ethiopia: Characteristics and strategies for
improvement. ILRI (aka ILCA and ILRAD), FAO report p: 43-65.
DLFRDO (2019). Robe District Livestock and Fishery Resource Development Office’s
Unpublished Report of 2019. Robe, Ethiopia.
Dwinger, R.H., Bell, J.G. and Permin, A. (2003). A program to improve family poultry
production in Africa.B.P. 6268, Rabat-Institutes, Morocco.
Emebet Moreda (2015). Phenotypic and genetic characterization of indigenous chicken in
Southwest Showa and Gurage Zones of Ethiopia. Ph.D. Thesis, Addis Ababa
University, 20-35pp.
FAO (2008). An analysis of the poultry sector in Ethiopia. Poultry sector country review.
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), Rome, Italy. pp: 1-48.
FAO (2020). Chicken genetic resources used in smallholder production systems and
opportunities for their development, by P. Sørensen. FAO Smallholder Poultry
Production Paper No. 5. Rome.
FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization) (1999). Animal genetic resources information,
No. 25, Rome, Italy.
Feleke A, Teka T, Abeba D (2015). Challenges and Opportunities of Village Poultry
Production in Arbegona Woreda, Sidama Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Developing
Country Studies 5(11). ISSN 2224-607X (Paper) ISSN 2225-0565 (Online).
Fentie T, Abebe B, Kassa T (2013). Small –Scale Family Poultry Production in North
Gondar: Characteristics, Productivity and Constraints. Livestock Research for Rural
Development 25 (9).

55
Fisseha Moges, Azage Tegegne and Tadelle Dessie (2010). Indigenous chicken production
and marketing systems in Ethiopia: Characteristics and opportunities for market-
oriented development. IPMS (Improving Productivity and Market Success) of
Ethiopian Farmers Project Working Paper 24. Nairobi, Kenya, ILRI.
Gausi, A., Safalaoh, J., Banda, D. and Ongola,N. (2004). Characterization of small holder
poultry marketing systems in rural Malingunde: a case study of Malingunde extension
planningarea; NtChell University of Malawi, Bunda College of Agriculture, Lion We,
Malawi.
Getachew T, Kebede E, Ameha N, Terefe AT (2015). Village Chicken Husbandry Practice,
Marketing and Constraints in Eastern Ethiopia. Journal of World's Poultry Research
5(4):104-108.
Getinet Hailu (2007). Marketing and sales strategies of ELFORA Agro-industries PLC,
Addis Ababa Ethiopia.
Getu A, Alemayehu K, Wuletaw Z. 2014. Phenotypic characterization of indigenous chicken
ecotypes in north Gondar zone, Ethiopia. Glob Vet. 12(3):361–368.
Gezahegn A. 2015. Value chain analysis of poultry sector-HPai in Ethiopia. A report was
submitted to IFPRI. Africa/Indonesia TeamWorking Paper 25 December. 38p.
Goshu M, Teketel F, Alemu G, Zeleke D, Addis A. 2015. The Ethiopia livestock industry:
retrospects and prospects. Proceeding of the Third National Livestock improvement
Conference, Institute of Agricultural Research (IAR), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, p. 9–19.
Gulilat L, Tegegne F, Demeke S. 2021. Hatchery and broody technologies and least cost
ration practice for poultry production improvement in Ethiopia. Cogent Food Agric.
7(1):1913793.
Habte M, Debele S, Admassu B, Yinnessu A. 2015. Village chicken production performances
assessment under scavenging management system in Amaro district, SNNPRS of
Ethiopia. Wudpecker J Agric Res. 4:21–34.
Haftom B., et al. (2015). Assessment of bio-security condition in small scale poultry
production system in and around Mekelle, Ethiopia. European Journal of Biological
Sciences, 7(3):99-102.
Hailu M, Grimachew S, Mehammed N. 2012. Challenges and prospects of village-based
exotic chicken development strategy in Amhara Regional State, Northwest Ethiopia.
Glob J Sci Frontier Res Agric Vet Sci. 12:785–786.
Halima Hassen (2007). Phenotypic and genetic characterization of indigenous chicken
populations in northwest Ethiopia.PhD thesis. Faculty of Natural and Agricultural
56
 Sciences, Department of Animal, Wildlife and Grassland Sciences, University of the
Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.
Hiluf G, Bsrat A, Kebede E, Hagos Y. 2018. Prevalence and identification of ectoparasites on
indigenous chickens in Seharti-Samre District, Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Ethiop Vet
J. 22(1):1–10.
Hunduma D, Regassa C, Fufa D, Endale B, Samson L (2010). Major Constraints and Health
Management of Village Poultry Production in Rift Valley of Oromia, Ethiopia.
American-Eurasian Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Science, 9(5):529-533.
ILRI (2013). (International Livestock Research Institute), Strategies to improve village
chicken Production report, Nairobi, Kenya p. 72.
Jenbreie, S., Ayelet, G., Gelaye, E., Kebede, F., Lynch, S.E. and Negussie, H. (2012).
Infectious bursal disease: seroprevalence and associated risk factors in major poultry
rearing areas of Ethiopia. Trop.Anim.Health Prod., 45: 75–79.
Kamel ER. 2016. Comparative study of crossbred chickens. Int J Curr Res.
Kassa B, Tadesse Y, Esatu W, Dessie T. 2021. On-farm comparative evaluation of
production performance of tropically adapted exotic chicken breeds in
westernAmhara, Ethiopia. J Appl Poult Res. 100194.
Kassa, B., Tadesse, Y., Esatu, W. and Dessie, T. (2021). On-farm comparative evaluation of
production performance of tropically adapted exotic chicken breeds in western
Amhara, Ethiopia. Journal of applied poultry research, 30(4):100194.
doi: 10.1016/j.japr.2021.100194.
Kena, Y., Legesse, D., and Alemu, Y. (2002): Poultry marketing: structure,spatial variations
and determinants of prices in Eastern Shewa zone, Ethiopia. Ethiopian Agricultural
Research Organization, Debrezeit Research Center.
Kitalyi, A.J. (1998): Village chicken production systems in rural Africa, Household food
security yand gender issue. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper No. 142. Food
and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, Pp. 81.
Lemma Gulilat, Firew Tegegne & Solomon Demeke (2021) Hatchery and broody
technologies and least cost ration practice for poultry production improvement in
ethiopia: Review, Cogent Food & Agriculture, 7:1, 1913793, DOI:
10.1080/23311932.2021.1913793
LSA (2014). Ethiopia livestock master plan and livestock sector analysis, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia p. 64-78.

57
Luu, L., Bettridge, J., Christley, R.M., Melese, K., Blake, D., Dessie, T., Wigley, P., Desta,
T.T., Hanotte, O., Kaiser, P., Terfa, Z.G., Collins, M. and Lynch, S.E. (2013):
Prevalence and molecular characterisation of Eimeria species in Ethiopian village
poultry. BMC Vet. Res., 9: 208.
Matawork Milkias (2016). Review on exotic chicken status, production performance and
constraints in Ethiopia. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, 6(15):103-
112.
Mebratu L (2015). Investment opportunities in the Ethiopian Poultry. Hatchery research on
Business Opportunity Report p. 15.
Melese Gashu and Melkamu Bezabih (2014). Assessment of chicken production under
farmers’ management condition in East Gojam Zone, Amhara Regional State,
Ethiopia. Greener Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 1(1): 001–010
Melese Gashu and Melkamu Bezabih (2014).Assessment of chicken production under
farmers’ management condition in East Gojam Zone, Amhara Regional State,
Ethiopia. Greener Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics. 1 (1): 001-010
Melkamu Bezabih Yitbarek, Berhan Tamir Mersso and Ashenafi Mengistu Wosen (2016).
Disease management and biosecurity measures of small-scale commercial chicken
production enterprises in and around Debre Markos, Amhara region, Ethiopia.
Journal of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Health 8: 136–144.
Meseret M (2010). Characterization of Village Chicken Production and Marketing System.
M.Sc. Thesis Submitted to the Department of Animal Science, Jimma University,
College of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine, School of Graduate Studies. P 110.
Misba Alewi and Aberra Melesse (2013). Evaluating the growth performance of local kei
chickens and their F1-Crosses with Rhode Island Red and Fayoumi Breeds in
Watershed Areas of Guraghe Administrative Zone, Southern Ethiopia. Tropical and
Subtropical Agroecosystems, 16 (2013): 39 – 50.
Moges F, Mellesse A, Dessie T (2010). Assessment of village chicken production system and
evaluation of the productive and reproductive performance of local chicken ecotype in
Bure district, Northwest Ethiopia. African Journal of Agricultural Research 5(13):
1739-1748.
Molla, W., Haile, H., Almaw, G. and Temesgen, W. (2012), Gastrointestinal helminths of
local backyard poultry in North Gondar Administrative Zone, Ethiopia. Rev. Med
Vet., 163: 362–367.

58
Nebiyu Yemane, Berhan Tamir and Kelay Belihu (2013). Characterization of village chicken
production performance under scavenging system in Halaba district of Southern
Ethiopia. Ethiopian Veterinary Journal 17(1): 69–80.
Nebiyu, Y. A. (2016). Assessment of urban poultry production practices in Addis Ababa with
emphasis on egg production, product marketing, feed quality and waste management.
PhD Dissertation, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, 174.
Negesse, T. (2018). Effect of Replacing Maize (Zea Mays L.) with Orange Fleshed Sweet
Potato Tuber (Ipomoea Batatas) on Performance of Cobb 500 Broiler Chickens.
Negussie D (2011). Breeding programs for indigenous chicken in Ethiopia, Analysis of
diversity in production systems and chicken populations PhD. Thesis submitted in
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of doctor at Wageningen University
Netherlands pp. 148.
Nigist B and F Haben (2020). Vaccine Failure in Poultry Production and its Control Methods:
A Review. Biomedical Journal of Scientific and Technical Research, 29(4):22588-
22596.
Nigussie, D., Alemu, Y., Tadelle, D., and Samuel, W. (2003): On station and on-farm
evaluation of the „hay-box chick brooder‟ using different insulation materials at
Debre Zeit agricultural research center and denbi village, Adaa Woreda. In:
proceedings of the 10thannual conference of the Ethiopian society of animal
production (ESAP), august 21-23, held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Pp. 211-216.
Nigussie, D., Van der waaij, L., Dessie, T. and Van Arendonk, J. (2010): Production
objectives and trait preferences of village poultry producers of Ethiopia: implications
for designing breeding schemes utilizing indigenous chicken genetic resources. Trop.
Anim. Health prod., 42: 519-529.
Nkukwana TT. 2018. Global poultry production: Current impact and future outlook on the
South African poultry industry. S Afr J Anim Sci. 48(5):869–884.
Nzietchueng, S. (2008). Characterization of poultry production systems and potential
pathways for the introduction of highly pathogenic Avian Influenza in Ethiopia. Draft
Report. International Livestock Research Institute. Vet. Med. 118:117–127.
Owen, E., Kitalyi, A., Jayasuriya, N. and Smith, T. 2005. Livestock and wealth creation.
Improving the husbandry of animals kept by resource-poor people in developing
countries. Nottingham, UK: Department for International Development, Nottingham
Press.

59
Pagano, R. R. (2009). Understanding Statistics in the Behavioral Sciences. Wadsworth,
Cengage Learning, 2009.
Resource-Centre (2005). Improved management of indigenous chicken. Kenya Agricultural
Institute. Kenya, (Retrieved from: resource center@Kari.org).
Robe town Annual Report (2018). Unpublished Annual Report of Arsi Robe Town for
2017/18 Fiscal Year. Robe Town Municipality, Oromia: Ethiopia.
Robe town Municipality (2018). Unpublished 2017/18 Solid Waste Management
Performance Report of Arsi Robe Town. Robe Town Municipality, Oromia: Ethiopia.
Sambo, E., J. Bettridge, T. Dessie, A. Amare, and T. Habte, Wigley, P., and R. M. Christley.
2015. Participatory evaluation of chicken health and production constraints in
Ethiopia. Prev. of Ethiopia. Wudpecker J. Agric. Res., 4: 21-34.
Serkalem Tadesse, Hagos Ashenafi and Zeleke Aschalew (2005). Sero-prevalence study of
Newcastle disease in local poultry in central Ethiopia. Int. J. Applied Res. Vet. Med.
3(1): 25-29.
Smith, A.J. (1990). Poultry-Tropical Agriculturist series. CTA, Macmillan Publishers,
London. Pp. 184-185.
Solomon Demeke (2004). Growth performance and survival of local and white leghorn
chicken under intensive management system. Ethiopian Journal of Health Sciences
27(2): 161–164.
Sonaiya, E. B. and Swan, S. E. J. (2004). Small-Scale Poultry Production: Technical Guide.
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
Steinfeld, H., Gerber, P., Wassenaar, T., Castel, V., Rosales, M., and De Haan, C. 2006.
Livestock’s long shadow. Environmental issues and options. Rome, Italy: Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.
Stephen, C. (2012). Best Practice Management for Meat Chicken Production in New South
Wales. Manual 2, in Meat Chicken Growing Management, PP. 4-20.
Tadelle D and Ogle B. (2001). Village poultry production system in the central highlands of
Ethiopia. Tropical Animal Health and Production 33(6):521–537.
Tadelle Dessie, Wondemeneh Esatu, Liesbeth Vander Waaij, et al. (2013). Village chicken
production in the Central and Western Highlands of Ethiopia: Characteristics and
Strategies for Improvement. International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI) report,
Ethiopia. 27-30.

60
Tegegne, D. T. (2012). Management practices, productive performances and egg quality traits
of exotic poultry under village production system in East Shewa, Ethiopia. MSc
Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Debre Zeit, Ethiopia.
Tesfaye E, Geremew H, Melese K (2018) On-Farm Evaluation of Cassava Root Chips and
Moringa oleifera Leaf Meal Supplementation on the Performances of Scavenging
Chicken. Poult Fish Wildl Sci 6: 201. doi:10.4172/2375-446X.1000201.
Teshome Gemechu and Tesfaye Amene (2015). Review on production, husbandry and
sustainability of free-ranging poultry production systems in Ethiopia. International
Journal of Science, Vol. 4 (04).
Weyuma, H., Singh, H. and Megersa, M. (2015): Studies on Management Practices
Constraints of Back Yard Chicken Production in Selected Rural Areas of Bishoftu.
J.Vet. Sci.Technol. S12: S12-003. doi:10.4172/2157-7579.1000S12-003.
Woldegiorgiss, W.E., 2015. Genetic improvement in indigenous chicken of Ethiopia. Ph.D.,
Thesis Wageningen University.
Yemane N, Tamir B, Belihu K. 2014. Characterization of village chicken production
performance under scavenging system in Halaba district of southern Ethiopia. Ethiop
Vet J. 17(1):69–80.
Yihun, Andualem. (2020). Husbandry Practice and Reproductive Performance of Indigenous
Chicken Ecotype in Awi Zone, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia. International
Journal of Applied Agricultural Sciences. 6. 179. 10.11648/j.ijaas.20200606.13.
Yitbarek MB., et al. (2016). Disease management and biosecurity measures of small-scale
commercial poultry farms in and around Debre Markos, Amhara Region, Ethiopia.
Journal of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Health, 8(10):136-144.
Yizengaw Mengesha, Ewonetu Kebede & Ashenafi Getachew (2022). Review of chicken
productive and reproductive performance and its challenges in Ethiopia, All Life,
15:1, 118-125, DOI: 10.1080/26895293.2021.2024894.
Yizengaw Mengesha, Ewonetu Kebede and Ashenafi Getachew (2022). Review of chicken
productive and reproductive performance and its challenges in Ethiopia. ALL LIFE,
2022, VOL. 15, NO. 1, 118–125.
Yizengaw, Y. S., Okoyo, E. N., & Beyene, F. (2015). Determinants of livelihood
diversification strategies: The case of smallholder rural farm households in Debre
Elias Woreda, East Gojjam Zone, Ethiopia. African Journal of Agricultural Research,
10(19), 1998–2013.

61
Yohannes Asfaw, Gobena Ameni, Girmay Medhin, Gezahegn Alemayehu, and Barbara
Wieland (2019). Infectious and parasitic diseases of poultry in Ethiopia: a systematic
review and meta-analysis. Poultry Science, 98:6452–6462.
APPENDICES
Appendix I: Information Sheet and Consent Form
ARSI UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL SCIENCES IN ANIMAL PRODUCTION AREA
Dear respondent,
The aim of this questionnaire will be to assess production performance of chicken under
farmers’ management practices in Robe/Didea Woreda, Arsi Zone, Ethiopia. The information
you provide in response to the items in the questionnaire would be used as part of the data
needed for a study of production performance of chicken under farmers’ management
practices in Robe/Didea Woreda, Arsi Zone, Ethiopia. The results of the study supply
valuable information to the understanding of the production performance of chicken under
farmers’ management practices in Robe/Didea Woreda and to design appropriate intervention
strategies to mitigate potential constraints that are either encountered or envisioned among
the smallholder chicken farmers in the specific study settings. All your responses will be kept
confidential and will be used for the academic purpose of this research only. As reports will
be prepared based on aggregated responses of all respondents, your identity and personality
will not be publicized at all. Your involvement will be regarded as a great input to the quality
of the research results. Your honest and thoughtful response will be valuable.
This study has been explained to me. I volunteer to take part in this research. I have had a
chance to ask questions. If I have questions later on about the research I can ask the
investigator listed above. If I have questions about my rights as a research subject, I can call
the Principal investigator at +251908846364. I will receive a copy of this consent form.
Signature of subject ____________________Date ___________________________
Thank you for your participation!!
With Best regards, Tesfaye Asnake
Mobile Phone Number: +251908846364
MSc Student of Arsi University, December, 2020

62
Appendix II: Household Survey Questionnaires
Part I: General Identifiers
101. Subject ID: CPT000 [EG. CPT001, CPT002, CPT003, …………, CPT208]
102. Study Code: TAR000 [EG. TAR001, TAR002, TAR003, ……., TAR208]
103. Setting: Rural Urban
104. Kebele: __________________________________________
105. Zone: ____________________________________________
106. Agro ecology: ______________________________________
107. Respondent Status: Female Head of household
Male head of household
Other adult
Part II: Socio-Demographic Characteristics of the Respondents
Tick the boxes or fill in the shaded boxes below as appropriate. Complete only one questionnaire per household.
Participation in this survey is voluntary and you do not have to answer any questions that you do not wish to. Do
you agree to participate? Yes No
Directions:The following questions ask about your personal information. So, please listen the question
attentively and thoroughly; and then select the options that best describe about you from the given alternatives.
Please circle the stated options for item(s) or questions answered by the respondent head of the selected
household.
SN Items Options Remarks
201 Age of respondent in completed 1. <20 years
years 2. 20-29 years
3. 30-39 years
4. 40-49 years
5. 50-59 years
6. 60-69 years
7. 70+ years
202 Level of education 1. No formal education
2. Read and write
3. Primary
4. Secondary
5. Certificate
6. Diploma
7. First degree and above
203 Marital status 1. Never married
2. Currently married
3. Separated
4. Divorced
5. Widowed
6. Living together
204 Respondent’s religion 1. Orthodox Christian
2. Protestant Christian
3. Muslims
4. Traditional
5. Others
205 Ethnicity 1= Amhara
2= Gurage
3= Oromo
4= Tigre
5= Others

63
206 Current occupation 1. Farmer
2. House wife
3. Merchant or self-employed
4. Student
5. Daily laborer
6. Others

Part III: Flock Structure, Breed Types, Composition and Size

Directions:The following questions ask about your flock structure, breed types, composition and size.
Compilation and confidentiality of the information will be made with due care. No individual data will be
reported. So, please listen the question attentively and thoroughly; and then select the options that best describe
about you from the given alternatives. Please circle the stated options for item(s) or questions answered by the
respondent head of the selected household.
Code Items Options Numbers of ------ adopted
1 2 3 4 5
301 Breed Types 1. Local
2. Sasso
3. Bovans Brown
4. Koekoek
I Indigenous 2
II Exotic-Meat and Egg
III purpose
Exotic layers
IV White Leghorn cross
V Rhode Island red cross
VI Bovan Brown
VII Fayoumi
VIII Others
302 Source of chicken breeds: 1. Purchased from Govt./Pvt. Hatchery
2. Provided from agriculture research
center
3. Provided from NGO’s
4. Hatching of eggs naturally at home
5. Home breed
6. Gifted
7. Others
303 Do you control free 0=No
movement of chicken? 1=Yes
304 If yes, what is the reason 1. To protect predator
2. To prevent disease
3. Other
305 Source of the exotic 1. Government extension
chicken 2. Market
3. Relative
Key: 1=Cocks; 2=Hens; 3=Cockerel; 4=Pullet; and 5=Chicks

64
Part IV: Poultry Management Practices
Directions:The following questions ask about your poultry management practices. So, please listen the question
attentively and thoroughly; and then select the options that best describe about you from the given alternatives.
Please circle the stated options for item(s) or questions answered by the respondent head of the selected
household.
Code Items Options Remark
401 Management practice 1. Extensive
2. Semi-intensive
3. Intensive
4. Scavenging system
5. Scavenging with some feed
supplementation system
6. Any combination of the above systems
A Feeds and Feeding Management
402 Did you provide supplementary feeds for 0=No
your poultry? 1=Yes
403 If yes, what type feeds did you supplement 1. Home available feeds
for them? 2. Commercial feeds
3. Home mixed ration
4. Both commercial & home available
feeds
404 Do you think home available feeds can satisfy 1. Yes
the nutrient requirements of your chicken? 2. No
3. I don’t know
405 Were the commercial poultry feeds 0=No
accessible? 1=Yes
406 Is the price of commercial poultry feeds 0=No
affordable? 1=Yes
407 Did you face quality problems on commercial 0=No
poultry feeds so far? 1=Yes
408 If yes, what problems you observed? __________________________
__________________________
__________________________

409 What type of feeding system did you use for 1. Feeding without time limit (Ad libitum)
your poultry? 2. Hour’s interval feeds offering
3. No feed offering
410 How many times you offered the feed per 1. Once
day? 2. Twice
3. Three times
4. Four times
5.five times
6. Not offered at all
411 Did you adjust the amount of feed according 0=No
to the age & productivity of your poultry? 1=Yes
412 What amount of supplement feed you offered 0=No
for 5 poultry per day? 1=Yes
Home available feeds (kg)
Chicks
Pullets/cockerels
Layers/cocks
Commercial poultry feed(kg)
Chicks
Pullets/cockerels
Layers/cocks
413 How did you offer the feed for your chicken? 1. Spreading the feed on the ground
2. Spreading the feed on any sheet
3. Using any home available feeding trough
4. Using appropriate chicken feeding

65
 trough
5. No feed offering
B Housing Managements
414 Did you keep your chicken in the house? 0=No
1=Yes
415 Was the house separated from human or other 0=No
livestock houses? 1=Yes
416 Where you did shelter your chicken? In the chicken house
In the livestock house
In the kitchen
In the family house
In the family veranda
Not sheltered at all
417 Did you construct the house according to 0=No
package recommendation? 1=Yes
418 If no, why? 1. There was no package recommendation
2. Space problem
3. House construction is expensive
4. Workload to construct the house
419 What type of housing system did you use? 1. Cage system
2. Deep litter system
3. No bedding material with some roosting
4. No bedding material without roosting
housing system
420 During chicken housing, did you consider 0=No
their space requirement? 1=Yes
421 When did you keep your chicken in their 1. Day and night time
house? 2. Only night time
3. Some hours a day time and whole night
time
422 Did you keep chicken in their house during 0=No
risky weather condition? 1=Yes
423 Did you clean the chicken house? 0=No
1=Yes
424 If yes, in what time interval? 1. Daily
2. Weekly
3. After a week
4. After 15 days
6. When all chicken out
425 Did you disinfect the chicken house? 0=No
1=Yes
426 What type of disinfectant did you use? __________________________
__________________________
__________________________

427 If no, why? __________________________

__________________________
__________________________

C Healthcare Management
428 Did you get appropriate healthcare services? 0=No
1=Yes
429 How far the livestock clinic from your house? 1. < 10km
2. 11-20km
3. >20km
430 Did you vaccinate for your chicken? 0=No
1=Yes
431 Did you know when chicken should be 0=No
vaccinated? 1=Yes

66
432 What measure did you take when your 1. Leave the poultry as they are
poultry become sick? 2. Chicken isolation
433 Did you consult a veterinarian? 0=No
1=Yes
434 What type of medicaments did you use? 1. Traditional
2. Pharmaceutical
3. Both traditional and pharmaceutical
4. None of them
435 If you use traditional medicines, what are 0=No
they? 1=Yes
436 Did you know how much doses should be 0=No
given? 1=Yes
437 Which medicament was more effective to 1. Traditional
cure the diseases? 2. Pharmaceutical
3. Mixes of the two
4. None of them are effective
438 Was the treatment cost affordable to you? 0=No
1=Yes
439 On average, how much birr you spend per ________ birr per year
chicken per year?
D Provision of Water
440 Did you provide drinking water for you 0=No
chicken? 1=Yes
441 What type of water source did you use? 1. River
2. Spring
3. Pond
4. Tap water
5.Lake water
6. Well water
442 Did you use watering trough? 0=No
1=Yes
443 If yes, what type of watering trough did you 1. Home available any trough
use? 2. Appropriate chicken watering trough
3. No watering trough
444 Did you care about the hygiene of the water? 0=No
1=Yes
445 Did you use hygienic watering trough? 0=No
1=Yes
446 Did you clean the watering trough? 0=No
1=Yes
447 How often you cleaned the watering trough 1. Once
per a week? 2. Twice
3. Three times
4. Four times
5. Five times
6. Every day
7. Not at all
448 Was the water available for the chicken via 0=No
day and night? 1=Yes
449 How many times did you change the water 1. Once
per a day? 2. Twice
3. Three times
4. Four times
5. More than five times
6. Not at all
450 What is your major source of information on 1. Do not get such information
improved poultry production practices? 2. Television
3. Radio
4. News paper

67
 5. Other farmers
6. Extension agent
7. Market women
8. Cooperative leaders
9. Neighbors
10. Relatives
11. Others
Key: 1=Local breeds; 2=Exotic layers only breeds; and 3=Dual purposes exotic breeds
Part V: Production Systems and Performances of Poultry
Directions:The following questions ask about your production systems and performances of poultry. Please
listen the question attentively and thoroughly; and then select the options that best describe about you from the
given alternatives. Please circle the stated options for item(s) or questions answered by the respondent head of
the selected household.
Code Items Options
501 How would you describe your 1. Extensive
chicken production system? 2. Semi-intensive
3. Intensive
4. Any combination of the above systems
5. Scavenging system
6. Scavenging with some feed supplementation system
Production characteristics (RIR= Rhode Island Red, WLH= White Leghorn)
Code Production factor RIR WLH Bovan Brown Sasso Local Crossbred
502 Age at first egg (month)
503 Number of clutch per year
504 Number of eggs per clutch
505 Age of culling (year)
506 What were your criteria to
cull chicken from the
production system?
If old aged
If space problem
If low egg production
If disease risk
To get extra money
If feed shortage
507 Would you compare the
performance exotics vs
local?
Yes
No
508 If yes, which one is good?
Exotics
Indigenous
509 Do you perceive
improvement due to extra
supplements?
Yes
No
510 If Yes, which one has
improved?
a. egg production
b. growth
c. other
311 Color of the eggs
312 Weight of the egg (in gran(
Part VI: Reproduction Performances of Poultry
Directions:The following questions ask about the reproduction performances ofpoultry. Please listen the
question attentively and thoroughly; and then select the options that best describe about you from the given

68
alternatives. Please circle the stated options for item(s) or questions answered by the respondent head of the
selected household.
SN Items Options Remark
A Reproduction Performance
601 Pullets age at first egg (weeks)
602 Laying hen mature weight (gm/kg)
603 Total number of eggs laid per hen/year
604 Approximate age of sexual maturity -----------months
605 Age of first mating male in months
607 Weight of males at 6 months of age
608 Weight of females at 6 months of age
609 Egg weight in gram
610 Egg laying period in days
611 Body weight at 6 months
B Hatching and Brooding
612 Do you practice incubating hatching eggs? 0=No
1=Yes
613 If yes, what type of incubation do you use? Natural
Artificial
614 Number of eggs in one clutch/bird
615 How many times do you brood/year?
616 How many eggs incubate per hen at a time?
617 How many eggs do you incubate per local broody hen? ______eggs
618 What number of eggs do you incubate per local broody hen? 1. Odd number
2. Even number
3. As we like
619 If odd or even number of eggs why? ____________
____________
____________
____________
____________
620 Which season is preferred to incubate eggs? 1. Rainy season
2. Dry season
621 Why? ____________
____________
____________
____________
____________
622 If you use natural, what type of poultry do you use? Broody
Non broody
Other
623 If you incubate eggs by natural what type of material do you ____________
use? ____________
____________
____________
____________
624 If you use artificial incubator what type of incubator do you Electrical incubator
use? Kerosin incubator
Sun power incubator
Straw incubator
625 At which season you are practicing incubating eggs? Rainy season
Dry season
626 Do you have an experience to break broodiness? 0=No
1=Yes
627 If yes, what way do you use? ____________
____________
____________
____________
____________

69
628 Do you select egg for incubation? 0=No
1=Yes
629 If yes, which size do you select? Small
Medium
Large
630 Do you clean external part eggs before setting? 0=No
1=Yes
631 If yes, what type of material do you use? ____________
____________
____________
____________
____________
632 Do you select the size of hen for incubation? 0=No
1=Yes
633 If yes, which size is preferred? Small
Medium
Large
634 How many eggs do you set/broody hens? 1=≤ 10
2=[11, 15]
3=[16, 20]
4=≥ 21
635 What type of brooder used? Broody hen
By salesman hey box
brooder
636 If broody hen used, how many chicks grow out of totally 1=[1, 25] percent
hatched? 2=[26, 50] percent
3=[51, 75] percent
4=[76, 100] percent
637 How long you do use in one broody time? One month
Two months
Three months
Four months
Five months
C Hatchability Problem
638 On average, for how long do you store the eggs before you 1=One week
incubating them? [In weeks] 2=Two weeks
3=Three weeks
4=Four weeks and
above
639 Where do you store the eggs? 1. Anywhere
2. Cold place
3. Inside the grain
4. Warm place
5. Other (specify)
640 Do you take care on the size and shape uniformity of the eggs to 0=No
incubate local broody hen? 1=Yes
641 How many percent of the incubated eggs hatch into chick(s) in 1=[1, 25] percent
one incubation period? 2=[26, 50] percent
3=[51, 75] percent
4=[76, 100] percent
642 Which chicken breed eggs have higher hatchability? 1=Local/indigenous
2=Hybrid/cross breed
3=Exotic
643 Did you know the reason why the eggs are not hatched? 0=No
1=Yes
644 If yes, mention the reasons ____________
____________
____________
____________

70
 ____________
Key: 1=Local breeds; 2=Exotic layers only breeds; and 3=Dual purposes exotic breeds
Part VII: Challenges of Poultry’ Production
Directions:The following questions ask about your challenges of poultry’s production. So, please listen the
question attentively and thoroughly; and then select the options that best describe about you from the given
alternatives. Please circle the stated options for item(s) or questions answered by the respondent head of the
selected household.
Code Items Options Remark
701 Have you lost some of your 0=No
poultry due to disease problem? 1=Yes
702 Which diseases were the major 1. Newcastle Disease
challenging diseases in your 2. Infectious fowl coryza
area? 3. Salmonellosis
4. Fowl pox
5. Coccidiosis
703 Which diseases were the major 1. Newcastle Disease
chicken killing diseases? 2. Infectious fowl coryza
3. Salmonellosis
4. Fowl pox
5. Coccidiosis
704 In which seasons the diseases __________________________
were very common? __________________________
__________________________

705 Do you have access to 0=No

veterinary services? 1=Yes
706 Do you discuss your poultry 0=No
production problems with 1=Yes
extension agent?
707 If no, state the reasons? 1. Have not heard of them
2. Cannot easily reach them
3. There is no need
4. Other
708 What are the main causes of 1. Disease
chicks’ death? 2. Predators
3. Poultry
4. Others
709 When is the chick’s death and at 1. First week
what time? 2. Second week
3. Third week
4. Forth week
5. Sixth to eighth weeks
710 In which season do you lose 1. Rainy season
most of your poultry? 2. Dry season
3. Both seasons
711 What was the source of 1. Own flock
infection? 2. Incoming chicken
3. Neighboring household
4. Neighboring village
5. Unknown
712 The most frequent disease 1. Newcastle Disease (ND)
2. Snot
3. CRD
4. Gumboro
5. Avian Influenza (AI)
6. Intestinal disease
7. Don't know
713 Barriers to village chicken 1. Disease problem (mainly Newcastle disease) and
production lack of proper health care

71

714 Do you have access extension
service in the area?
715 If yes, in which?
716 Do you get poultry production
extension service?
717 If yes, in what ways?
718 Have you ever got any training
on poultry production?
719 If yes, for Q. 5. When?
720 Did you get credit service when
you start poultry business?
721 If yes, for what purpose did use
the credit?
722 What are constraints in adoption 1. Presence of disease
of improved breeds? (Rank)
723 Which of these barriers may
deter your productions of
poultry in the future expansion? 3. Labor
Key: 1=Local breeds; 2=Exotic layers only breeds; and 3=Dual purposes exotic breeds
2. Predation
3. Poor productivity of local chicken
4. Land shortage
5. Feed shortage
6. Poor management practices (feeding, housing,
disease control etc.)
7. Others (lack of capital, lack of technical
information, marketing problems, theft problem)
0=No
1=Yes
1. Crop production
2. Dairy production
3. Sheep production
4. Goat production
5. Poultry production
0=No
1=Yes
1. Advisory
2. Provision of improved chicks
3. Providing feed
4. Veterinary (medicine, vaccine)
5. Complete package
6. Others
0=No
1=Yes
1. Before starting the business
2. After the business started
0=No
1=Yes
1. Day old chicks
2. Poultry feed
3. Poultry equipment
4. If others (specify)
3. Shortage of feed from surrounding
4. Attacks of predators (which age group is
affected)____________
5. Thieves
6. Lack of market
7. Lack of time due to farm work activities
8. Improper service of veterinary doctors at village
level
9. Lack of knowledge about scientific poultry
management practices
10. Any other, if any
1. Land
2. Capital
4. Technical information
5. Feed
6. Marketing
7. Theft
8. Disease
9. Others
72
Appendix III: Direct Observational on Farm Monitoring Checklist
Subject ID: ________________________________
Study Code: _______________________________
Poultry Management Practices, Production Systems and Performances of Poultry, Reproduction
Performances of Poultry and Production Challenges
The following questions will be used to directly observe and monitor flock structure and
composition, poultry management practices, production systems and performances of poultry,
reproduction performances of poultry and production challenges of some HHs
Code Items Options Week number
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 T
301 Breed Types & No.
I Indigenous Chicks
Pullets
Cockerels
Hens
Cocks
II Exotic Chicks
Pullets
Cockerels
Hens
Cocks
III Cross breeds Chicks
Pullets
Cockerels
Hens
Cocks
302 Do you control free No
movement of Yes
chicken?
303 If yes, what is the To protect predator
reason To prevent disease
Other
304 Source of the exotic Government
chicken extension
Market
Relative

SN Variables Breed type Weeks number

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 T
Weight of egg Cross breed
Exotic
Indigenous
Number of eggs per hen Cross breed
per year Exotic
Indigenous
Clutch length/hen/year Cross breed
Exotic
Indigenous
Clutch size/hen/year Cross breed

73
 Exotic
Indigenous
Clutch Cross breed
frequency/hen/year Exotic
Indigenous
Age at first egg laying Cross breed
Exotic
Indigenous
Age at first mating Cross breed
Exotic
Indigenous
Female age at maturity Cross breed
Exotic
Indigenous
Male age at maturity Cross breed
Exotic
Indigenous
Female weight at first Cross breed
egg laying Exotic
Indigenous
Male weight at first Cross breed
mating Exotic
Indigenous
Female weight at 3 Cross breed
months Exotic
Indigenous
Male weight at 3 months Cross breed
Exotic
Indigenous
Female weight at 6 Cross breed
months Exotic
Indigenous
Male weight at 6 months Cross breed
Exotic
Indigenous
Egg color Cross breed
Exotic
Indigenous
Amount of homemade Cross breed
feeds offered to 5 chicks Exotic
per day for
Indigenous
Amount of homemade Cross breed
feeds offered to 5 Exotic
pullets/cockerels per day
Indigenous
for
Amount of homemade Cross breed
feeds offered to 5 Exotic
hens/cocks per day for
Indigenous
Eggs laying days per Cross breed

74
month Exotic
Indigenous
Eggs’ storage days before Cross breed
incubation Exotic
Indigenous
Number of eggs Cross breed
incubated Exotic
Indigenous
Number of eggs hatched Cross breed
Exotic
Indigenous
Hatchability of eggs Cross breed
Exotic
Indigenous
Number of chicks Cross breed
survived and grown Exotic
Indigenous
Survivability of chicks Cross breed
Exotic
Indigenous
Number of hatches per Cross breed
year Exotic
Indigenous
Preferred season to Cross breed
incubate eggs of Exotic
Indigenous
Size of selected eggs for Cross breed
incubation Exotic
Indigenous
Type of housing system Cross breed
used Exotic
Indigenous
Sheltering place in the Cross breed
evening Exotic
Indigenous
Cleaning the chicken Cross breed
house Exotic
Indigenous
Brood length of broody Cross breed
hen Indigenous
Frequency of brooding Cross breed
per year Indigenous
Broody hen used Cross breed
Indigenous
Type of material used for Cross breed
natural incubation Indigenous
Length of one broody Cross breed
time Indigenous

75
Observed production Cross breed
challenge I Exotic
Indigenous
Observed production Cross breed
challenge II Exotic
Indigenous
Observed production Cross breed
challenge III Exotic
Indigenous
Observed production Cross breed
challenge IV Exotic
Indigenous
Observed production Cross breed
challenge V Exotic
Indigenous
Observed production Cross breed
challenge VI Exotic
Indigenous
Observed production Cross breed
challenge VII Exotic
Indigenous
Observed production Cross breed
challenge VIII Exotic
Indigenous
Observed production Cross breed
challenge IX Exotic
Indigenous
Observed production Cross breed
challenge X Exotic
Indigenous
Observed feeding system Cross breed
Exotic
Indigenous
Observed housing system Cross breed
Exotic
Indigenous
Observed water provision Cross breed
system Exotic
Indigenous
Observed health Cross breed
management system Exotic
Indigenous
Observed management Cross breed
system Exotic
Indigenous
Observed feeds offering Cross breed
ways Exotic
Indigenous

76
Disinfecting the chicken Cross breed
house Exotic
Indigenous
Observed measures taken Cross breed
when their poultry Exotic
become sick
Indigenous
Type of medicaments Cross breed
used Exotic
Indigenous
Type of traditional Cross breed
medicines they used Exotic
Indigenous
Using watering trough Cross breed
Exotic
Indigenous
Type of watering trough Cross breed
they used Exotic
Indigenous
Cares taken about the Cross breed
hygiene of the water Exotic
Indigenous
Using hygienic watering Cross breed
trough Exotic
Indigenous
Cleaning the watering Cross breed
trough Exotic
Indigenous
Season they lose most of Cross breed
their poultry Exotic
Indigenous

77