Performance Evaluation of Indigenous and Exotic Chickens under Backyard Production

System, the case in Assosa Zone of Benishangul Gumuz Region

Yirga Tesfaw1, Nigussu Fekede1*, Befikadu Zewdie1, Biazen Aberar2

1
Agriculture and Rural development Office, Assosa, Ethiopia
1*
Department of Animal sciences, Assosa University, Ethiopia
1
Department of Animal Sciences, Assosa University, Ethiopia
2
School of Animal and Range Sciences, Haramaya University, Ethiopia;

Correspondence: *E-mail:zewdienati@gmail.com

Abstract
Assessment of performance of chickens under farmers’ management condition is necessary to
design appropriate strategy for sustainable chicken improvement. Accordingly, the present
study was conducted in Assosa, Buldiglu and Homesha districts of Assosa zone with the
objective to evaluate the production and reproductive performances of Indigenous and Exotic
chickens under backyard production system. The Data were collected from 260 households
through semi-structured and structured questionnaires. Data were analyzed using SPSS (20)
and SAS (9.4). The study result revealed households in the study area dominantly own both
(49.7%) indigenous (23.8%) and exotic (26.5%) chicken population. Age at maturity, body
weight at maturity and egg production were significantly (P<0.05) higher for sasso pullets
compared with the indigenous chickens. Mean egg production performance of sasso chicken
breed and localindigenous chickens were 212.71±11.38, 210.22±21.92, and 207.93±22.04 in
Assosa, Buldiglu, and Homesha districts, respectively. Average egg weight recorded for Sasso
(60.70 ±4.03g, 60.01 ±4.03g and 60.43 ±4.03g) in Assosa, Buldiglu and Homesha,
respectively were significantly (P<0.05) higher than localindigenous chickens (47.83 ±5.77g,
47.23 ±5.77g and 47.41 ±5.77g) in Assosa, Buldiglu and Homesha, respectively. The overall
mean number of egg laying per clutch, number of day per clutch and number of clutches per
year were significantly higher (P<0.05) for sasso compared with localindigenous chickens.
The survey results showed that the major constraints of poultry production were diseases

1
outbreak, feed shortage, predator and lack of awareness about the husbandry practice in that
order of importance. Therefore, iIn order to meet the current growing demand of poultry egg
and meat production chicken productivity should be improved. , improving feed resources,
feeding management, watering and health management and marketing efficiency through
provision of successive training and information on modern chicken husbandry practices to
the households are required for the improvement of chicken production and productivity

Keywords: Breed preference, Body weight, Chicken breed, Production system

1. INTRODUCTION
Poultry production has an important economic, social and cultural benefit with the significant
role in family nutrition in the developing countries. About 78.85% of the Ethiopian poultry
population consists of indigenous chickens, while the remaining 21.14% consists of exotic and
hybrid breeds of chickens (CSA, 2021). The total number of poultry at country level is
estimated about 57 million (CSA, 2021). The largest proportion of poultry consists of laying
hens (34.26%), followed by chicks (32.86%). Pullets account for an estimated 11.36% of the
country's population. Cocks and cockerels are estimated about 11.2% and 5.74%, respectively.
The rest is non-laying hens, which represent about 4.59% of the country's total poultry
population (CSA, 2021). The sector can be characterized into four categories, large scale
commercial, medium scale commercial, small scale commercial and village or backyard
commercial production system (Wondmeneh et al., 2017, FAO, 2019) based on some selected
parameters such as breed, flock size, housing, feed, health, technology, and bio-security.

Backyard chicken production system is the dominant poultry production system in Ethiopia
(CSA, 2021). In most tropical and sub-tropical countries the backyard production system
makes substantial contributions to household food security (Muchadeyi et al., 2007).
Indigenous breeds still contribute meaningfully to poultry meat and egg production where
they make up to 90% of the total poultry population. All over the developing world, these
low-input, low output poultry-husbandry systems are an integral component of the livelihoods
of most of rural, peri-urban, and some urban households and are likely to continue to meet this

2
role in the future decades due to inconsistent supply chain of poultry breed, feed, and health
facilities for commercial chicken production system (Besbes, 2009).

The Backyard chicken production system is extensive system where feeding is mainly based
on scavenging with occasional supplementation with cereals and their by-products. Chicken
production in the country is constrained by genetics, poor managements like feeding and
housing, diseases and predators with the consequent low productivity. Hence, improved
technologies like breeds and proper management interventions need to be introduced to
improve productivity and enhance the contribution of chicken to household livelihoods
(Alemayehu, et al., 2015).

Different breeds of exotic chickens (Rhode Island Red, Australorp, New Hampshire and
White Leghorns) were imported to Ethiopia since the 1950‟s to improve the productivity of
meat and egg. Since then higher learning institutions, research organizations, the Ministry of
Agriculture and Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO‟s) have disseminated many exotic
breeds of chicken to rural farmers and urban-based small-scale poultry producers (Solomon,
2008). Accordingly, Benishangul Gumuz region bureau of Agriculture has been thriving to
distribute exotic breeds of chicken like RIR, White leghorn in 2005; Koekoek and Fayoumi in
2010; and Sasso starting from 2015 for rural farmers in order to improve the productivity of
chickens (Regional Ext., 2021). The same report showed RIR, White leghorn and Fayoumi
breed of chickens were unable to survive in the area and disappeared from the production
system (Regional Ext., 2021). However, there is lack of information about the performances
of Sasso and localindigenous chickens still surviving in the production systems. Therefore,
there is a need to plan to evaluate management practices and production performances of
Sasso as well as the localindigenous breeds managed under backyard poultry production
system in Benishangul Gumuz Regional state, Ethiopia.

The indigenous flocks are considered to be very poor in egg production performance,
attributed to the low genetic potentials (slow growth, late sexual maturity and broodiness for
an extended period (Habteet al, 2015). Commercial chicken breeds have been developed for
an intensive management system and are often not suited to localindigenous conditions, as

3
they have demanded a high level of investment in feed, veterinary support and management.
Therefore, evaluating tropically adapted breeds which are suitable for semi-scavenging
system, high-producing with low-input, suited to localindigenous environment and searching
farmer preferred breeds could be another option to be considered. In this particular study,
Sasso as well as the localindigenous breeds was evaluated under farmer management
conditions. Thus, the current study was aimed with the objectives to evaluate the production
and reproductive performance of exotic and localindigenous chicken under farmers’
management condition in the study area.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Description of the Study Area

The study was conducted in an area where Governmental and Non-Governmental organization
were distributed Exotic chickens at Assosa, Buldiglu and Homesha districts of Assosa zone,
Benishangul Gumuz Regional state, Norh Western Ethiopia.

Assosa district: the district is located between 10° 02.922'N latitude and 34° 33.868 'E
longitude. The district receives an average rainfall of 950-1000mm annually and the average
annual temperature is 30°C with the hottest season occurring during March and May (Assefa,
2015). The district is characterized by diverse topography with altitude range of 580-1544
m.a.s.l., a long rainy season (June-September accounting for 75% of the total rainfall), a short
rainy season (February/March to April/May), and a dry season (October-January) AsARC
(2011). The district is bordered by Kurmuk and Homesha in the north, Menge in the northeast,
Oda buldiginu in the east, Bambasi in the southeast, Mao-Komo special district in the south
and Sudan in the west. The district also contains 82 Kebeles and categorized by 4 ketena with
the total house hold 26,580 from which 20,555 male and 6,025 female households. The total
chicken population is 201,338 for localindigenous bread and 88, 4786 for Sasso, respectively
(AWOA, 2021).

Buldiglu (Oda) district: The district is located between 10° 21381'N latitude and 35° 08.511
'E longitude. The district receives an average annual rainfall of 900-1400 mm and the average

4
annual temperature is 35°C with the hottest season occurring during March and May (district
ext. data, 2021). The district is characterized by diverse topography with altitude range of 650-
1140 m.a.s.l., a frequent rainy season (June-September accounting for 80% of the total
rainfall), a short rainy season (April to May), and a dry season (October-January) (ARC,
2011). The Buldiglu district is bordered by sherkole in the north, sedal woreda of kemash zone
in the east, Mendi district of Oromia region in the south and bambasi and Menge in the west
(BWOA, 2021). The district has 30 kebeles and the total house hold in the study district is
16,854 from which 7,414 and 9,440 are male and female households, respectively. The total
chicken population is 21,514 for localindigenous bread and 6,690 for Sasso (BWOA, 2021).

Homesha district: The district is located between 10° 6444'N latitude and 34° 370.92'E
longitude. It receives an average rainfall of 700-1200mm annually and the average annual
temperature is 28.8°C with the hottest season occurring during March and May (district ext.
data, 2021). The district is characterized by diverse topography with altitude range of 1373
m.a.s.l., a long rainy season (June-September accounting for 75% of the total rainfall), a short
rainy season (February/March to April/May), and a dry season (October-January) (ARC,
2011). The district is bordered by Menge in the north, Assosa district in the east and south and
Kurmuk in the west. The district has 15 kebeles and the total household in the study district is
34,400, from which 17544 and 16856 are male and female house hold, respectively. The total
chicken population is 19,187 for localindigenous bread and 6,253 for Sasso (HWOA, 2021).

5
Figure 1. Map of the study area

3.2. Sampling techniques and sample size

Stratified sampling technique was used to select study kebeles and respective poultry farmers.
From each three districts four from each and a total of twelve kebeles were used for this
study.. The following Yamane (1967:86) sampling formula was used for sampling the target
householders.

n=

Where: n= sample size, N= target population size, e= level of precision of 5% or at 95%

confidence level.

6
Based on the above formula a total of 260 households (93 from Assosa, 85 from Buldiglu and
82 from Homesha) were used for this study.

Table 1: The number of target population, sample and sampling in each study districts

No District Target population weight Sample size

1 Assosa 267 0.36 93
2 Buldiglu 243 0.33 85
3 Homesha 236 0.32 82
Total 746 100 260

From each of the selected kebeles a minimum (21) and maximum of 23 households were
selected based on their chicken possession. A total of 90 (15 localindigenous and 15 sasso
total 30 for each district) freshly laid egg from Sasso and localindigenous chicken in three
districts were collected for evaluation of egg quality traits.

3.3. Survey Data collection Methods

The data was collected using a pre-tested structured questionnaire in a field survey. The
questionnaires were designed to cover a wide range of topics and variables including,
demographic characteristics (Education level, family size, farmland holding and Chicken
flock size and composition); chicken management practices (feeds and feeding, feed
availability, types and frequency of feeding, housing, culling and selection practices,
localindigenous chicken reproduction performances (number of clutches per year and length
of inter-clutching, clutch length, eggs/hen per year) and diseases and health care practices
(major types, occurrences, symptoms and severity of diseases, and coping mechanism) and
Chicken market information.

3.4. Evaluation of External and Internal Egg Quality

Freshly laid egg samples from Sasso (15) and localindigenous (15) chicken in three districts
(30 for each district) were collected to evaluate internal and external egg quality traits. The
laboratory measurements of egg samples were taken to Debre Birhan University. External egg

7
quality traits such as egg weight and shell weight were measured using digital balance (g).
Egg shell thickness was measured using Digital Calliper (mm). The shell thickness was
measured at the three point (center, broad and tip or end) and calculated average of the three.

The eggs were broken onto a flat surface to measure albumen and yolk heights. The thick
albumen height (AH) was measured at its widest part at a position half way between the yolk
and the outer margin. Yolk height was measured the center part of yolk. The yolk was
carefully separated from the albumen. Albumen and yolk weight were determined by
weighing with electronic sensitive balance separately. The yolk colour was determined using
the Roche Colour Fan with a standard colorimetric system ranged 1-15. Individual Haugh
Units (HU) were calculated from the two parameters; height of albumen (AH) and egg weight
(EW) using the formula suggested by Haugh (1937).

Where: HU = Haugh Unit; AH= Albumen height in millimeters; EW= Egg weight in grams

3.5. Statistical Analysis

Data for household characteristics, chicken breeds, flock size, composition and source of
improved chicks were analyzed using chi-square. Age at maturity, body weight, egg
production and egg weight were analyzed using the general linear model procedure of
Statistical Analysis Systems software (SAS, 2011). Differences between districts were
separated using Tukey Kuramer Test. The following model was used for data analysis.

Where: Yij = represents the observation in the districts, μ = over all mean, Ti = district effect,
Bj = breed effect and eij = random error.

8
The purposes of chickens keeping, breed preferences and chicken production constraints were
calculated using index formula as Index = sum of [n for rank 1 + n-1 for rank 2 + 1 for rank n]
for particular trait divide by sum of [n for rank 1 + n-1 for rank 2.+1 for rank n] for all traits
4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Chicken flock size and structure and source of improved chicks

Breed preference, chicken flock structure and source of improved chicks in each study
districts are indicated in Table 2. Most of the respondents dominantly keep both indigenous
and exotic sasso chicken breeds (49.7%) as compared to local. Whereas those farmers kept
only localindigenous chicken (23.82.%) was higher than sasso chickens (26.52.%). The higher
proportion of sasso breeds existed in the study area might be due to various governmental and
non-governmental organizations frequently distributed exotic chickens. This implies that
exotic poultry breeds (sasso) are more preferred as compared to the localindigenous breeds
due to the fact that egg production performances of the exotic chicken breeds under the
existing production environment. Similarly study of Teklemariam (2017) reported indicated
that exotic poultry breeds are preferred over the localindigenous due to egg production
capacity, market price of egg and chicken fast growth under village management of North
West Tigray, Ethiopia.

On average the flock structures are dominated by layers which account 45.67% of the flock
followed by chicks (31.93%) and hens (20.80%). The large proportion of layers per HH in the
study area might purposively farmers primarily preference for egg production for both
household consumption and family income. Higher numbers of chicks in current study implies
sustainability of chicken production and replacement flocks. Similarly study by Addis and
Malede (2014) noted that chicken flock dominated with chicks in North Gondar of Ethiopia.
The relatively small proportion of cockerels and pullets were found in all study districts,
which implies that few cockerels and pullet are enough in breeding as small numbers of them
can serve several female otherwise they are sold. Similar to the result of the present study,
Meseret (2010) also reported lower proportion of the cockerels and pullet within the
indigenous chicken population might be attributed to the selling. Chicken flock size per

9
household in all study districts had 1-5 numbers of chickens, however low chicken flock size
per household (6-10) was found in Assosa, Buldiglu and Homesha districts.

Table 2: Breed preference, flock size and sources of improved chicks in study districts

Districts
Overal
Chickens types and flock Assosa Buldiglu Homesha l ჯ2
size per household N=8
N=93 % 5 % N=82 %

Breeds preference

Indigenous 21 22.6 23 27.1 18 21.9 23.9 0.001

Exitic 28 30.1 17 20 24 29.3 26.5

Both 44 47.3 45 52.9 40 48.8 49.7

Chicken flock size per household

1-5 chickens 35 37.6 44 51.7 49 59.7 49.7

6-10 chickens 29 31.3 37 43.5 26 31.7 35.4 0.001

>10 chickens 29 31.1 4 4.7 7 8.54 14.8

Chicken flock structure

Pullets 33 35.4 22 25.8 1 1.2 20.8

Layers 42 45.1 45 52.9 32 39.0 45.7 0.001

Chickens 14 15.0 18 21.1 49 59.7 31.9

Cocks 4 4.3 - - - - -

Source of chicken breeds

Government /private 52 55.9 68 80 36 43.9 59.9
hatchery centers
Provided from research 8 8.6 - - 13 15.8 8.1 0.001
center
Provided from NGOS 6 6.4 - - 15 18.2 8.2

hatched naturally at home 27 29.0 17 20 18 21.9 23.6

10
χ 2 = chi square, N=Number of respondents, %=Percent

Based on the result of group discussion, the average flock size per household varied between
seasons due to feed availability, time of holidays, the occurrence of diseases, the presence of
predators and socio-economic status and management’s practices of the households. The
majority of the respondents 55.9% in Assosa, 80% in Buldiglu and 43.9 % in Homesha
districts purchased chicks from hatcheries while 29.0%, 20% and 21.9% respondents hatched
fertile eggs naturally at home in Assosa, Buldiglu and Homesha districts, respectively.

4.32. Purposes of keeping chicken

The major purpose of the community to keep chicken in the study area was for incomes
generation and egg for home consumption followed by egg production and meat production
(Table 3). The main reasons of giving higher rank for income generation is due to the value of
goat/sheep to generate money during regular and emergency needs and their ability to
reproduce quicker for replacement. The most important chicken production purpose with an
index value of 0.28, 0.28, and 0.29 for Assosa, Buldiglu, and Homesha districts, respectively
was income generation. The primary purposes of chicken rearing were was for income
generation through selling egg and live chickens. Farmer sale their chicken at the time of cash
need for the purchase of agricultural inputs, children’s school fee, buying cloth and other
household needs. These priorities in the study area may indicate the breeding objectives of the
community and they are related to traits with higher egg production rate, greater meat yield
hatchability and survival rate. The purposes of chicken keeping identified in the present study
is in line with the result of previous works (Melese and Melkamu, 2014; Waktole et al., 2018)
in Ethiopia. Therefore, the current study indicated that chicken production would be suitable
to maximize both income generation and egg production.

Table 3: Purposes of chicken rearing using index ranking

Districts Ranks
Assosa 1 st
2 nd
3rd 4th Index Rank
Incomes sources 31 28 18 16 0.28 1
Egg consumption 28 24 23 18 0.25 2

11
Egg production 31 14 23 25 0.24 3
Meat consumption 26 16 21 30 0.23 4
Buldiglu
Incomes sources 33 29 12 11 0.28 1
Egg Consumption 28 23 20 14 0.25 2
Egg production 26 18 31 10 0.24 3
Meat consumption 23 23 20 16 0.23 4
Homesha
Incomes sources 29 24 18 11 0.29 1
Egg Consumption 26 24 22 10 0.27 2
Egg production 23 18 22 19 0.25 3
Meat consumption 24 21 19 18 0.19 4
Index = [(4 × total responses for 1 priority + 3 × total responses for 2 priority + 2 × total
st nd

responses for 3rd priority + 1 × total responses for 4 th priority)] divided by [(4× number of
responses for 1st priority + 3 × number of responses for 2 nd priority + 2 × number of
responses for 3rd priority + 1 × number of responses for 4th)/the total respondents]

4.3. Productive performances of chicken

4.3.1. Body weight of chickens

Information on body weight and egg production performance of indigenous and Sasso chicken
reared are presented in Table 4. Egg production performance was significantly (p<0.05)
different between Sasso and localindigenous chickens breed under back yard production
system. Higher body weight was recorded for sasso compared with localindigenous chicken in
all study districts. Average body weight for sasso breed was 1.72±0.92kg, 1.58±0.61kg and
1.64±0.25kg in Assosa, Buldiglu and Homesha districts, respectively while, 1.36±0.48kg,
1.27±0.35kg and 1.24±0.25kg of average body weight was reported for localindigenous
breeds in Assosa, Buldiglu and Homesha districts, respectively. High body weight observed
for Sasso compared to local chickens. This result indicated that the higher body weight
observed in Sasso compared with localindigenous chickens might be attributed to the genetic
superiority of the Sasso in body weight which is a highly heritable trait. The average body
weight result found in the current study for sasso was higher than 1.55 kg for sasso in East

12
Shewa (Desalew et al., 2013) and 1.5kg at 20 weeks in SNNPR for Koekoek breed (Aman et
al., 2017) under village production system in Ethiopia.

4.3.2. Annual egg production

The overall least squares mean of egg production performance of Sasso and indigenous
chicken reared in the study districts is presented in Table 5. Egg production performance was
significantly (p<0.005) different between Sasso and indigenous chickens under back yard
production system. Higher number of eggs was laid by sasso chicken compared with the
indigenous chickens. The average numbers of egg per hen of Sasso breeds was 212.71±11.38,
210.22±21.92, and 207.93±22.04 in Assosa, Buldiglu, and Homesha, respectively while
51.22± 2.16, 42.59±4.41 and 45.65±3.48 annual egg production per hen was recorded for
indigenous breeds in Assosa, Buldiglu, and Homesha districts, respectively. The annual egg
production performance of indigenous chickens in the current study was within the range of
(27-45 eggs) reported by Mulugeta and Tebkew (2013) and 43.4 eggs by Alem (2014).
However, Hailu et al. (2017) recorded higher number of eggs (79.09±4.52) produced by
individual hen per year for indigenous chicken.

Table 4: Overall Least square means (±SE) mature hen body weight and mean annual egg
production of Sasso and Indigenous type chickens in three districts
Chicken types Body weight (g) Annual egg
production /hen
Districts
Sasso 1.72±0.09a 212.71±0.118a
Assosa
LocalIndigenous 1.36±0.05 b
51.22±0.216b
Overall 1.54±0.07 131.5±0.167
* **
Sasso 1.58±0.061 a
210.22±0.021a
Buldiglu
LocalIndigenous 1.27±0.035 b
42.59±0.044b
Overall 1.45±0.048 126.42±0.032
* **
Sasso 1.64±0.025 a
207.93±0.220a
Homesha
LocalIndigenous 1.24±0.025b 45.05±0.348b
Overall 1.44±0.025 126.49±0.284
Significant level * **
Means within a column group and under the same parameter with the same letter are not

13
significantly different (P>0.05); SE: mean standard error; *P<0.05; **P<0.01.

According to group discussions with the respondents, higher egg production is often expected
from additional supplementation of feed, at the time of sowing and during and after harvesting
in which the availability of scavenging feed resource is adequate. It is indicated that extra
effort was done to improve localindigenous chickens through strategic management of
housing, breeding, feeding and health care.

4.3.3. Egg quality parameters

The mean egg weight, albumin weight, yolk color, Haugh unit were significantly (P<0.001)
different between breeds in all the districts (Table 5). Average egg weight recorded for Sasso
(60.70 ±4.03g, 60.01 ±4.03g and 60.43 ±4.03g) in Assosa, Buldiglu and Homesha,
respectively was significantly higher than that of localindigenous (47.83 ±5.77g, 47.23 ±5.77g
and 47.41 ±5.77g) recorded in Assosa, Buldiglu and Homesha districts, respectively. These
differences in egg weight between breeds indicate egg weight has highly heritable trait as
compared with yolk height, yolk weight and albumen height. On the other side, the result of
the discussion made with key informants indicated that all the respondents agree that the egg
weight of exotic chickens is superior to the indigenous chicken under improved management
system. Average egg weight in this study was nearly similar with Desalew et al. (2013) who
reported 58.75g and 60.27g for Isa Brown (IB) and Bovan Brown (BB), respectively. Higher
(p<0.05) yolk color value 11.79 ±1.98 in Assosa, 11.77 ±1.98 in Buldiglu and 11.76 ±1.98 in
Homesha from localindigenous chicken was recorded compared with 7.72 ±3.16 in Assosa,
7.74 ±3.16 in Buldiglu and 7.76 ±3.16 in Homesha for sasso chickens. The average albumin
weights for Sasso chicken 35.24 ±5.67g in Assosa, 35.22 ±5.67g in Buldiglu and 35.24 ±5.67g
in Homesha districts were significantly superior compared with 24.44 ±3.94g in Assosa, 24.25
±3.94g in Buldiglu and 24.26 ±3.94g in Homesha for localindigenous chicken. However, the
mean Haugh units75.26 ± 11.18 in Assosa, 75.21 ± 11.18 in Buldiglu and 75.24 ± 11.18 in
Homesha for LocalIndigenous chickens were significantly lower than the results 81.28 ±10.26
in Assosa, 81.24 ±10.26 in Buldiglu and 81.26 ±10.26 in Homesha for Sasso chicken. The
variation of egg albumin weights observed between breeds could be due to the effect of breed.

14
The average eggs hell thickness measured for Sasso in Assosa (0.35 ±0.035 mm), Buldiglu
(0.31 ±0.035mm) and Homesha (0.35 ±0.035mm) were also similar (p<0.05) compared with
Indigenous chickens in Assosa (0.28 ±0.016mm), Buldiglu (0.26 ±0.016mm) and Homesha
(0.28 ±0.016mm). The variation of eggshell thickness could also be due to the effect of breed.
The current result was comparable with Berhe (2019) who reported similar shell thickness in
Central Tigray, Ethiopia.

15
Table 5: Mean± SD egg quality parameters of Sasso and LocalIndigenous chickens in the study districts

District Chicken Egg weight Yolk height Albumin Yolk weight Yolk colour Albumin Haugh Units Shell thickness
types (g) (mm) height (mm) (g) Mean± SE weight (g) Mean± SE (mm)
Mean± Mean± SE Mean± SE Mean± SE Mean± SE Mean± SE
SE
Assosa Sasso 60.7 ±4.0a 17.7 ±1.6 6.8 ±1.6 15.8 ±1.7 7.72 ±3.1b 35.2 ±5.6a 81.2 ±10.2a 0.3 ±0.03
Indigenous 47.8 ±5.7 b
17.6 ±0.8 5.2 ±1.5 15.8 ±3.5 11.7 ±1.9 a
24.4 ±3.9b 75.2 ±11.1b 0.2 ±0.01
Overall 54.2±4.8 17.65±1.2 5.9±1.5 15.8±2.5 9.7±2.12 29.8±4.7 78.2±10.5 0.015±0.02
Significant level ** NS NS NS ** ** ** NS
Buldiglu Sasso 60.0 ±4.0 a
17.7 ±1.6 6.8 ±1.6 15.8 ±1.7 7.7 ±3.1 b
35.2 ±5.6 a
81.2 ±0.10 a
0.3 ±0.03
LocalInd 47.2 ±5.7b 17.6 ±0.8 5.4 ±1.5 15.8 ±3.5 11.7 ±1.9a 24.2 ±3.9b 75.2 ±0.11b 0.2 ±0.01
igenous
Overall 54.2±4.8 17.65±1.2 5.9±1.5 15.8±2.5 9.7±2.12 29.8±4.7 78.2±0.10 0.015±0.02
Significant level ** NS NS NS ** ** ** NS
Homesha Sasso 60.4 ±4.0 a
17.7 ±1.6 6.8 ±1.6 15.8 ±1.7 7.7 ±3.16 b
35.2 ±5.6 a
81.2 ±10.2 a
0.3 ±0.03
LocalInd 47.4 ±5.7b 17.6 ±0.8 5.3 ±1.5 15.7 ±3.5 11.7 ±1.9a 24.2 ±3.9b 75.2 ±11.1b 0.2 ±0.01
igenous
Overall 54.2±4.8 17.65±1.2 6.0±1.5 15.7±2.6 9.7±2.12 29.8±4.7 78.2±10.5 0.015±0.02
Significant level ** NS NS NS ** ** ** NS
a,b
Means with different superscripts between columns are significantly different at (p < 0.001); SE: Standard Error

16
4.34. Reproductive performance of Chickens

4.34.1. Age at first laying

Significant difference (p<0.001) was observed on age at first lying between breeds (Table 6).
Lower average age at first lying (5.38±0.46 month) was recorded for sasso compared with the
localindigenous breeds (6.72±0.66 months). The age at first lay of Sasso breed in this study
was much longer than the finding of Aman et al. (2017) who reported average age at first lay
of 4.76 months for Sasso breed in SNNPR of Ethiopia. However, it was lower than age at first
lay of 7.3 months for Koekoek in SNNPR of Ethiopia (Kasa and Saba (2016) under farmers’
management condition. The mean age at first lay (6.15 months) recorded by Gebremariam et
al (2017), (6.83 months) by Nebiyu et al. (2013), (7.07 months) was also higher than the result
recorded for localindigenous breeds in the current study. The variation in age at first laying
might be due to management activities delivered during different growth phases of chickens.

Table 6: Age at first laying, No egg laying per clutch, no of day per clutch and Number of
clutches per year overall mean of the three districts
Table 7: Age at first laying, No egg laying per clutch, no of day per clutch and Number of
clutches per year overall mean of the three districts

No of egg Number of
Age at first No of day per Significant
Breeds laying per clutches per
laying clutch Level
clutch year
Sasso 5.38±0.46b 48.41±3.23a 52.23±5.12a 4.24±1.02a
*
Indigenous 6.74±0.66a 14.41±2.07b 21.22±4.97b 3.35±0.93b
a,b
Means with different superscripts between columns are significantly different at (p <
0.05);

4.34.2. Number of clutches per year

The overall mean number of egg laying per clutch, number of day per clutch and number of
clutches per year were significantly higher (P<0.05) for sasso compared with localindigenous
chickens (Table 6). Tthe present result was nearly similar with the reported values of 3.7, 3.8,
3.6 and 3.8 by Fisseha et al (2010), Addisu et al. (2013), Nebiyu et al. (2013), respectively.

17
4.3.1. Hatchability and survival rate of localindigenous chickens

Hatchability and rate of chick survival are one of the major determinant factors of productivity
in poultry. The results of the hatchability and related factors obtained in this study are shown
in Table 7. The result obtained in this study area shows, hatch ability based on the fertile
basis was 10.70±2.41, 10.23 ±1.53, and 10.53 ±1.53 and rate of chick survival 6.26±2.12, 6.01
±1.28 and 6.02 ±1.28 for localindigenous chicken, Assosa buldiglu and Homesha, respectively
whichith show non-significant difference (P>0.001) across the study districts. This might be
the longer clutch length is led to getting relatively small numbers of fresh egg for brooding.
With this regard, small number of egg assumed to receive good condition for brooding and
probable high hatchability. The overall average of chicks hatch per brood of in this study was
smaller than Abebe et al. (2017) and Chencha and Hailemichael (2016) who reported
12.56±0.61 and 12.6 ± 0.19 chicks’ hatched/time/hen respectively. Generally, the variation in
hatchability and survival rate of chickens relative to other studies could be due to the variation
in type of equipment used for hatching, the difference in breed type, agro-ecological
differences, chicken health management and prevalence of predators.

4.3.4. Egg laying and incubated eggs of indigenous chicken

The number of eggs set for hatching was determined by the past performance and the body
size of the broody hen. The mean number of egg laying (15.15±3.26, 13.54±1.48
and14.54±1.48 and eggs incubated (12.97±0.10) and hatched (8.35±2.83, 8.04±1.68 and
8.24±1.68) in Assosa, Buldiglu and Homesha, respectively were indicated in Table 7. Number
of eggs incubated and number of eggs laying were significantly (p<.001) across the district.
This result is lower when compared to the finding of that with (Hagan et al., (2013) who
reported that recorded to be higher than 10.3 eggs incubated and the result reported for Nebiyu
et al. (2013) for 12 ggs incubated and 10.1 eggs hatched from Halaba district of Southern
Ethiopia where the mean number of eggs, which are incubated and hatched per hen is 12 and
10.1 eggs, respectively (Nebiyu et al 2013) but it was lower with 13 eggs incubated per
broody hen by Melese and Melkamu (2013) at Debremarkos district..

18
Table 8: Egg laying, Hatching rate, Incubated eggs and No of chicks surviving to adult of
the three districts
Assosa Buldiglu Homesha
LocalIndigenous Mean±SE Mean±SE Mean±SE Overall p-
breed value
Egg laying 15.15±3.26 a
13.54±1.48 c
14.54±1.48 b
14.41±2.07 ***
Hatching rate 10.70±2.41a 10.23 ±1.53a 10.53 ±1.53a 10.48±1.82 Ns
Incubated eggs 8.35±2.83a 8.04±1.68c 8.24±1.68b 8.21±2.06 ***
No of chicks 6.26±2.12 a
6.01 ±1.28 a
6.02 ±1.28 a
6.09±1.56 Ns
surviving to adult
a,b
Means with different superscripts between rows are significantly different at (p < 0.05); SE:
Standard Error

4.4. Chicken Management Activities

4.4.1. Chicken feed resource and feeding practice

The major feed resource and feeding practice of chicken in the study area is indicated in Table
8. In Assosa, Buldiglu and Homesha districts 23.6%, 8.2% and 48.7% of the respondents,
respectively used only scavenging feed resources to feed their chicken with no additional feed
supplements. Similarly, 48.3%, 50.5% and 7.3 % of the respondents used scavenging feed
with additional supplements in Assosa, Buldiglu and Homesha districts, respectively. Farm
respondents using purchased feed in Assosa, Buldiglu and Homesha districts were 7(7.5%), 22
(25.8%) and 36(43.9%), respectively while, (20.6%) in Assosa and (15.2) in Buldiglu provide
homemade feed. Only 35.4% farm respondents in the study districts provide supplement feeds
to their chicken.

The proportion of feed supplementation in this study was lower compared with the findings of
Tekalegn (2017) in Sidama zone who reported 99.2% of the smallholder farmers provide
supplementary feeds to their chicken. Getachew (2014) from Bench Maji Zone, southern
Ethiopia also indicated that all (100%) of the respondents practice supplementary feeding. The

19
feed is usually offered by throwing on the bare ground (for adult chicken collectively) and or
by putting on container (for chicks). Provision of mineral supplement was not practiced in all
districts. Grains and commercial feeds are the major supplementary feeds offered; the amount
of each supplementary feed depends on season of the year, quantity and availability of the
resources at household level.

Table 9: Poultry feeds and feeding practices in Assosa, Buldiglu and Homesha districts
Assosa Buldiglu Homesha
N % N % N % Overall ჯ 2
Feeding resources
Scavenging only 22 23.6 7 8.2 40 48.7 26.8
Scavenging with supplement 45 48.3 43 50.5 6 7.3 35.4 0.001
Purchased feed 7 7.5 22 25.8 36 43.9 25.7
Homemade feed 19 20.4 13 15.2 - - 11.9
Frequency of feeding
Morning and evening 26 27.9 6 7.0 18 21.9 18.9
Morning and afternoon 13 13.9 55 64.7 2 2.4 27.0
Morning and afternoon and
48 51.6 23 27.0 62 75.6 51.4 0.015
evening
Only scavenging 6 6.4 1 1.1 - - 2.5
Feed supplement
Provided 84 90.3 81 95.2 40 48.7 78.1 0.001
Not provided 9 9.6 4 4.7 42 51.2 21.8
Supplementary feed types
Maize 31 33.3 65 76.4 62 75.6 61.7
Sorghum 49 52.6 20 23.5 20 24.3 33.5 0.001
Furshika 13 13.9 - - - - 4.6
Minerals
Provided water for chickens
Provided 93 100 81 95.7 82 100 98.6
Not provided - - 4 4.3 - - 1.4 0.026
Source of water
whole water 7 7.5 6 7.0 42 51.2 21.9
River 30 32.2 16 18.8 17 0.001
Tap water 56 60.2 63 74.1 40 48.7 61
Frequency of watering
Free access - - 4 4.3 - - 1.43
Morning only 80 87.0 81 95.7 46 56.1 79.6 0.001
Morning and evening only 12 12.9 - - 36 43.9 18.9
χ 2 = Chi square; N=Number of respondents ; %= Percent

20
Regarding frequency of feeding, 27.9%, 7.06% and 21.9% of the respondents in Assosa,
Buldiglu and Homesha districts, respectively feed their chicken during morning and evening
times, while 13.9%, 64.7% and 2.4% of respondents provided during morning and afternoon.
More of the respondent 51.6% in Assosa, 27.0% in Buldiglu and 75.6% in Homesha districts
provide three times during morning, afternoon and evening. This finding agrees with the
results of Tekalegn (2017) where almost all farmers provide supplementary feeds such as
wheat, maize and sorghum during morning, afternoon and evening. According to the survey
conducted in the study area, 98.6% of the sample respondents provide water to their chicken
and 21.9%, 17% and 61% of all the respondents in the study districts indicated that the main
source of water for their chicken was whole water, river water and tap water, respectively
which they provide once daily.

In Assosa, Buldiglu and Homesha districts 87.0%, 95.7% and 51.1% of the respondents,
respectively provided water only in the morning while some of the respondents 12.9 % in
Assosa and 43.9% in Homesha provide water both in the morning and evening. A few of
respondents (4.3%) in Buldiglu districts provide water free access. This result was similar
with (Fisseha et al., 2010) who reported majority of chicken owners (98.2%) had watering
trough such as broken clay material, localindigenously called “shekila”, wooden trough and
plastic made trough were the most widely used.

4.4.2. Housing system and facilities

The highest proportion of the respondents, 65.5% in Assosa, 94.1% in Buldiglu and 73.1% in
Homesha, used backyard poultry management system (Table 10), while the remaining
proportion 34.4%, 5.9% and 26.8% of the respondents in Assosa, Buldiglu and Homesha,
respectively manage their chicken using semi-extensive management system in the study area.
Regarding the housing system, 63.4% in Assosa, 77.6% in Buldiglu and 48.7% in Homesha,
construct house for their chicken and the remaining respondents left their chicken to roost
under the roof of the household home. On the other hand, during the night the majority (89 %)
of the respondents kept their chickens in the kitchen. Mortality could be high due to predators
and other external factors for chickens kept without appropriate housing system. The result of

21
this study was consistent with the study of Netsanet (2017) who reported that majority of the
respondents (88%) were not constructing housing for their chicken in Debark and Dabat
districts of North Gonder zone, Amhara region. The type of poultry houses and housing
systems varies with the environmental temperature and the type of poultry production system
practiced in the areas.

Table 10: Poultry housing system and facilities in Assosa, Buldiglu and Homesha
districts
Districts
Poultry housing system and Assosa Buldiglu Homesha
facilities N % N % N % Overall ჯ2
Management system used
Backyard 61 65.6 80 94.1 60 73.2 77.6 0.001
Semi-intensive 32 34.4 5 5.88 22 26.8 22.4
Constructed poultry house
Constructed 59 63.4 66 77.7 40 48.8 63.3 0.006
Not constructed 34 36.6 19 22.4 42 51.2 36.7
Housing type
Provision of night shelter only 48 51.6 20 23.5 35 42.7 39.3
Entirely constructed for poultry 15 16.1 64 75.3 45 54.9 48.8 0.062
Separate house with ventilation
facility 37 32.3 - - - - 21.9
Provided litter material
Provided litter 34 36.6 70 82.4 39 47.6 55.5
Not provided 59 63.4 15 17.7 43 52.4 44.5 0.001
Type of litter material
Teff straw 33 35.5 - - 18 21.9 19.1
Maize 60 64.5 85 100 56 68.3 77.6
Haricot straw - - - - 8 9.8 3.3 0.001
χ 2 = chi square, N=Number of respondents, %= Percent

Rearing of chickens in free range during the day was attributed to lack of costs to manage
chickens. On the other hand, absence of separate house for chicken at night might be due to
small number of flock, lack of attention for poultry house and fear of predator. Accordingly,
the highest proportion of the respondents (75.2%) in Buldiglu and (54.8%) in Homesha
district, had separate house entirely constructed for poultry and 51.6% of the respondents in
Assosa district provided night time shelter only, whereas only 6.4%,1.1% and 2.4% of
respondents share the same house with people in Assosa, Buldiglu and Homesha districts,

22
respectively. The result of this study was similar with (Waktole et al., 2018) who reported
majority of the respondent use separate house in Asella district of Arsi zone. Ahmedin (2014)
also reported that more than 1/3 of chicken keepers used separate house for their chickens in
Gorogutu district, eastern Hararghe.

Maize litter material was used in the poultry house of 64.5% in Assosa, 100% in Buldiglu and
5% in Homesha district respondents, , where as 35.4% in Assosa and 21.9% in Homesha
district respondents used teff straw. Only 9.8% of the respondents in Homesha provided
Haricot straw and no respondents in Assosa and Buldiglu districts used Haricot straw as a
litter material.

Table 11: Chicken health management practices the study districts

Districts
Poultry health Assosa Buldiglu Homesha
management
N % N % N %
Overall ჯ 2
Type of disease
Newcastle 74 80.6 63 74.1 82 100 84.9 0.001
Mareck’s 4 4.3 22 25.8 - - 12.9
Fowl thyphoid 15 15.0 - - - - 5
Separation of sick
Separated 93 100 78 83.8 82 100 94.6 0.001
No separated - - 15 16.1 - - 5.36
Practice of Annual vaccination
Practice of vaccination 93 100 74 79.5 82 100 93.16 0.001
No practice of vaccination - - 19 20.4 - - 6.8
The use of anti-ecto- parasites
Used anti-ecto-parasites - - 43 50.5 - - 16.83
Not used anti-ecto- 83.13 0.001
93 100 42 49.4 82 100
parasites
Practice of deworming
Deworming - - 43 50.5 - - 16.83
No deworming 93 100 42 49.4 82 100 83.13 0.001
Coping mechanism
No Coping mechanism 93 100 85 100 82 100 100.00 0.001
N=Number of respondents χ 2 = chi square, %= percent

23
In the current result, most respondents 80.6% in Assosa, 74.1% in Buldiglu and 84.9% in
Homesha district reported that Newcastle was dominantly occurring poultry disease. The
current result was in agreement with Fisseha et al, (2010) who reported that majority of the
respondents in Bure district of Amhara region were experienced Newcastle disease for their
chicken. Separation of sick animals was practiced by all (100%) the respondents in Assosa
and Homesha districts. However, 16.13% of the respondents in Buldiglu district did not
separate sick animals. The current study also revealed that majority of the respondents
(79.57%) in Buldiglu district vaccinated their chicken; while 20.4% of the respondents left
their chicken unvaccinated while all of the respondents (100%) in Assosa and Homesha
district vaccinated their chicken against Newcastle disease, fowl typhoid and mareck’s
disease. This result indicated that most of the farmers do have an access to vaccines for small
flocks at farmers’ level and farmers gave attention to the healthcare of their chickens before
the disease outbreak. Only 50.5% of the respondents of Buldiglu districts used anti-ecto-
parasites and deworming for the chicken while all (100%) of the respondents in Assosa and
Homesha districts were not using anti-ecto-parasites and deworming. This is because, most of
the farmers do not accessed to anti-ecto-parasites and deworming tablets for small flocks at
farmers’ level and farmers did not give attention to the internal and external parasites of their
chickens.

4.5. Major constraints of Chicken Production system

Major constraints of chicken production in the study area are presented in Table 14. Disease
outbreak, feed problems and predator (specifically for growing chicks) and lack of awareness
about poultry management ranked as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th, respectively were serious challenges
in all the districts in the present study. This finding is in line with (Salo et al., 2016) who
reported that disease and predator were the main constraints of exotic and indigenous chicken
production at farmer management condition in Lemo district of Hadiya zone in southern
Ethiopia. Halima (2007) reported that, diseases and predator were the major factor that causes
loss of chicken in Northwest Ethiopia. Shishay et al. (2014) revealed that, both diseases and
predators have highly prevalent challenges, which hinder indigenous chicken productivity.
Majority of participants replied that Newcastle disease ( indigenously as known’ Fingili’) was
common in the study area particularity during and at the end of summer and is the major

24
economic loss of the chicken in the all study districts. In addition, respondents also reported
purchasing formulated feed from market is difficult due to market inflation in the study area.
The preying birds indigenously known as “Chalet” (sc. name: Buteo buteo) and “Culule” (sc.
name: Falco peregrinus) were serious enemy for growing chicks in the study area.
Table 12: Major constraints of poultry production in order of importance in Assosa,
Buldiglu and Homesha districts
1st 2nd 3rd 4th Total Index rank
Assosa
Presence of disease 71 16 4 2 342 0.317 1st
Lack of awareness poultry 24 27 32 10 251 0.232
3rd
management practices
The presence of predators 8 16 21 48 170 0.157 4th
Shortage of feed problem 56 23 8 6 315 0.292 2nd
Buldiglu
Presence of disease 53 18 12 2 292 0.290 1st
Lack of awareness poultry
11 27 35 12 207 0.206 4th
management practices
The presence of predators 18 29 24 14 221 0.220 3rd
Shortage of feed problem 48 23 9 5 284 0.282 2nd
Homesha
Presence of disease 43 26 7 6 270 0.285 1st
Lack of awareness poultry
28 16 34 5 233 0.246 3rd
management practices
The presence of predators 13 17 31 20 185 0.195 4th
Shortage of feed problem 34 32 9 7 257 0.271 2nd
Index = [(4 × total responses for 1 priority + 3 × total responses for 2 priority + 2 ×
st nd

total responses for 3rd priority + 1 × total responses for 4 th priority)] divided by [(5 ×
number of responses for 1st priority + 4 × number of responses for 2 nd priority + 3 ×
number of responses for 3rd priority + 2 × number of responses for 4 th +1× number of
responses for 5th)] the higher the rank for a given reason, the greater its importance.

The current result was similar with Milkias (2018) and who reported the major constraint
which affects productive and reproductive performance of indigenous chickens are diseases
and predators, feed shortages, lack of training and extension services and lack of proper
marketing systems.

5. Conclusion

The study revealed that chickens account for the largest share of the livestock and they are
kept as a primary source of cash income and egg consumption and production. In spite

25
multiple functions of poultry in the area, as an input for setting up sustainable improvement
strategies, the present survey identified several constraints that should be addressed. These
includes, poor housing system, poor quality and quantity of feeding, market facility problem,
incidence of disease, water, feed shortage and lack of awareness about poultry management.
Generally, exotic breed of Sasso were to have attained significantly heavier body weight and
egg production as compared to the localindigenous chicken under the farmer management
condition. The numbers of Sasso chicken breeds were higher as compared to localindigenous
chicken. This is due to various governmental and non-governmental organizations. This
implies that exotic poultry breeds (sasso) are more preferred as compared to the
localindigenous breeds due to the fact that egg production performances of the exotic chicken
breeds under the existing production environment. This indicate that, Sasso believe to have
good performance and ability to adapt, survive, produce, and reproduce in arid environment
might be a peculiar characteristics as compared to previously distributed others exotic
chickens breeds in the study area. This may indicate the presence of suitable survival traits
which fit the harsh environment. Therefore, in order to meet the current growing demand of
poultry egg and meat at localindigenous and international markets, both indigenous and
introduced chicken productivity should be improved by changing the management techniques
(feeding, housing, watering and health management) through provision of successive training
and information on modern chicken husbandry practices are required to improve chicken
production and productivity chickens. This is likely to be very important to require
management level interaction for further optimize the selective breeding program of the
localindigenous breed in order to improve the body weight and egg production of the
chickens.

6. References

Abebe Hailu, Manaye Misganaw, Abrahm Assefa, Fassil. 2017. On-farm phenotypic
characterization of indigenous chicken populations in Guji Zone of Oromia
National Reginal state, Ethiopia. International Journal of Development Research, 7
(11):16652- 16661
Addis and Malede (2014) Chicken Production Systems, Performance and Associated
Department of Animal Production and Extension, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine,

26
 University of Gondar, P.O.Box: 196, Gondar, Ethiopia, E-mail:
birhan1975@gmail.comConstraints in North Gondar Zone, Ethiopia
Addisu Hailu, Zewdu Wuletaw and Hailu Mazengia (2013). Breeding practice and objective
of indigenous chicken in North Wollo, Amhara regional State, Ethiopia.
International Journal of Livestock production, 5(1):191-198
Ahmedin Abdurrahman. 2014. Study of production practices, Fertility, Hatchability and egg
quality of rural chicken in Gorogutu district Eaatern Hararghe, Ethiopia. Msc.
Thesis
AlemTadesse. 2014. Production and reproduction performance of rural poultry in lowland
and midland agro-ecological zones of central Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. African
Journal of Agricultural Research, 9: 3531-3539.
Alemayehu, T., Yilma, Z., Shibeshi and T., Workneh (2015).Village Chicken Production
Systems in Selected Areas of Benishangul-Gumuz, Western Ethiopia, Institute of
Agricultural Research, Assosa Agricultural Research Center, P.O. Box 265, Assosa,
Ethiopia ISSN 1819-3609 / DOI: 10.3923/ajpsaj.2015.123.
Aman Getiso, Addisu jimma, Mebratu Asrat, Kebede H/Giorgis, Bereket Zeleke and
Teklayohannes Birhanu (2017). Management Practices and Productive
Performances of Sasso Chickens Breed under Village Production System in
SNNPR, Ethiopia. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, 7 (7).
Berhe Teklay Lemlem. 2019. Characterization of Chicken Production System and On farm
Performance Evaluation of Exotic Chickens In Two Districts of Central Tigray,
Ethiopia" HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY, College of Agriculture and Environmental
Sciences, School of Animal and Range Sciences,
Besbes B (2009). Genotype evaluation and breeding of poultry for performance under sub
optimal village conditions. World’s Poultry Sci. J. 65:260-271.
CSA (Central Statistical Agency), 2021 Ethiopia’s Livestock Systems: Overview and Areas
of Inquiry. Gainesville, FL, USA: Feed the Future Innovation Lab for Livestock
Systems.
Desalew Tadesse, Harpal S, Ashenafi Mengistu, Wondimeneh Esatu and Tadelle Dessie.
2013. Study on productive performances and egg quality traits of exotic chickens
under village production system in East Shewa, Ethiopia. African Journal of
Agricultural Research, 8(13): 1123-1128.

27
FAO (2019) Poultry Sector Ethiopia FAO, Animal Production and Health Livestock
Country Reviews. No.11, Rome,
Fisseha Moges, Aberra Mellesse and Tadelle Dessie. 2010. Assessment of Indigenous
chicken production system and evaluation of production and Reproduction
performance of indigenous chicken in Bure districts, North West Ethiopia. African
Journal of Agriculture Research, 5 (13):1739-1748.
Gebremariam B, Mazengia H, Gebremariam T (2017) Indigenous Chicken Production
System and Breeding Practice in Southern Tigray, North Ethiopia. Poult Fish Wildl
Sci 5: 179. doi: 10.4172/2375-446X.1000179
Getachew Bekele. 2014. On-farm phenotypic characterization of indigenous chicken and
their production system in Bench- Maji Zone, South Western Ethiopia. M.sc. Thesis
Haramaya University, Ethiopia.
Habte, S Debele, B Admassu, A Yinnessu - Wudpecker J. Agric. Res, 2015 Village chicken
production performances assessment under scavenging management system in
Amaro district, SNNPRS of Ethiopia
Halima Hassen Mogesse. 2007. Phenotypic and genetic characterization of indigenous
chicken populations in northwest Ethiopia. PhD. Thesis, Free State, Bloemfontein,
South Africa.
Haugh, R. (1937): The Haugh unit of measuring egg quality.US egg Poult. Magazine,
43:552
Kasa Biratu and Saba Haile. 2016. Demonstration and Performance Evaluation of
“Potchefstroom Koekoek” Chicken Package at Jimma Zone, Southwestern
Ethiopia. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, 6(15): 53-58.
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. Vol. 1 (1), pp. 001-
010.
Meseret M (2010). Characterization of village chicken production and marketing system in
Gommawereda, Jimma zone,Ethiopia. A MSc. Thesis presented to school of
graduate studies of Jimma University, Jimma, Ethiopia P 110.
Milkias, M. (2018). Productive and reproductive performance of indigenous chickens in
Ethiopia. International Journal of Livestock Production, 9(10), 253–259.

28
 https://doi.org/10.5897/IJLP2018.0451
Muchadeyi FC, Eding H., Wollny CBA., Groeneveld E, Makuza SM., Shamseldin R.,
Simianer H, Weigend S (2007). Absence of population sub-structuring in
Zimbabwe chicken ecotypes inferred using microsatellite analysis, Anim. Genet.
38:332-339
Mulugeta Ayalew and Tebkew Adane, 2013. Evaluation of indigenous chicken productivity
by using a questioner survey, in selected Chagni town, Awi -administrative zone,
Amhara Region, Ethiopia. World Journal of Agricultural Sciences Vol. 1(1), pp.
026-035
Nebiyu Yemane, Berhan Tamir and Kelay Belihu, 2013. Characterization of Village
Chicken Production Performance under Scavenging System in Halaba District of
Southern Ethiopia. Agricultural Journal 8(5): 212-216
Netsanet T, 2017. On-farm phenotypic characterization of indigenous chicken and their
husbandry and breeding practices, in debark and dabat districts, north gondar,
ethiopia. Msc thesis, haramaya university, Ethiopia. Nigussie D, Tadelle D, Vander
Waaij LH, Van Arendonk JAM, 2010. Morphological features of indigenous
chicken populations of Ethiopia. Animal Genetic Resources, 46:11-23.
Regional Ext., 2021.Regional bureau of agriculture extension improvement and
development program by extension experts,
Solomon, D., 2008. The structure, marketing and importance of the commercial and village
poultry industry analysis of poultry sector in Ethiopia. A consultancy report to
FAO, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Tekalegn Yirgu, Meskerem Adamu and Alemayehu Amare. 2017. Small-scale Poultry
Production in Sidama Zone: Challenges, Ethnoveterinary Practices and Coping
Mechanisms. African Journal of Basic & Applied Sciences, 8 (4): 212-219.
Teklemariam Abadi. 2017. Perception of farmers on exotic chicken breeds and its
management condition in Northwestern zone of Tigray, Ethiopia. World Scientific
News, 86 (3):168- 179
Waktole Hika, Almaw Michael, Taweya Debella, Wakjira Berhane, Kiflom Musie,
Ashenafi Hagos and Ayana Dinka. 2018. Opportunities and challenges of
indigenous chicken in 52 Asella district, Arsi zone, Oromia, Ethiopia: implications
for designing improved productivity schemes. Journal of Bacteriology & Mycology,

29
 6(3): 229‒235.
Wondmeneh E., Alemayehu A., BewketSiraw and TsigeredaFekadu. 2017. Status of
Commercial Poultry Production in Ethiopia.Poultry working group, ministry of
livestock and fisheries.AddisAbeba, Ethiopia.

30