The study was conducted in Jimma zone of three Agro-ecology in six-selected farmer’s kebele starting from March to June 2017 with the aim to phenotypic ally characterize selected indigenous chicken, identify poultry management and breeding practices in three agro-ecologies of Jimma Zone. A survey was carried out on 180 randomly selected respondent as well as 555 heads of native chickens, (445 females and 105 males) for qualitative and quantitative trait measurements.
In Ethiopia, the agricultural sector is a corner stone of the economic and social life of the people. The livestock sector in Ethiopia contributes 12% and 33% of the total and agricultural Gross Domestic Product (GDP), respectively, and provides livelihood for 65% of the population. The sector also accounts for 12-15% of the total export earnings. These livestock genetic resources are important or vital to development of the economic ,social and environmental of the one country. The diverse agro-ecology and agronomic practice prevailing in the country together with the huge population of livestock in general and poultry in particular, could be a promising attribute to boost up the sector and increase its contribution to the total agricultural output as well as to improve the living standards of the poor livestock keepers.
Poultry production, as one segment of livestock production, has a peculiar privilege to contribute to the sector. This is mainly due to their small size and fast reproduction compared to most other livestock and its well fitness with the concept of small-scale agricultural development. Moreover, it goes eco-friendly and does not compete for scarce land rest.The majority of indigenous chickens in the tropics are maintained under village chicken production systems. These production systems are typically characterized by low input and low output systems, mainly in terms of egg and meat production. However, they also lay small sized eggs and grow slowly. Regardless of this low output, indigenous chickens in the tropics can survive and produce with irregular supplies of feed and water and with minimum health care. They are often part of ‘balanced’ farming systems, which have important roles in the rural household as a source of high quality animal protein and emergency cash income, and play a significant role in the socio-cultural life of the rural community
TABLE OF CONTENT
DEDICATION
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
TABLE OF CONTENT
ABSTRACT
1. Introduction
1.1. Statement of Problem and Justification
1.2. Research question
1.3. Objective
1.3.1. General objective
1.3.2. Specific Objectives
2. Literature Review
2.1 Origin and Domestication of Chickens
2.2. Breed and breeding of indigenous chickens
2.3. Poultry Population and Distributions in Ethiopia
2.4. Chicken Flock Demography
2.5. Flock ownership and management.
2.6. The Production and Reproduction Performance of Indigenous Chicken
2.7. The Major Constraints of Poultry Production in Ethiopia
2.8. Management Practices in Chicken Production System in Ethiopia.
2.8.1. Feed and feeding
2.8.2. The Practices of watering chicken
2.8.3. Housing
2.8.4. Disease and predator control.
2.9. Breeding Management
2.9.1 Farmers breeding practice
2.9.2. Mating system and culling practice.
2.9.3. Trait preference of the farmers
2.10. Phenotypic Character of Indigenous Chicken
2.10.1. Quantitative traits variation
2.10.2. Qualitative traits variation
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Study Area Description
3.1.1.1. Sokoru district
3.1.1.2 Dedo
3.1.1.3. Seka-Chokorsa district
3.2. Sampling Techniques
3.3. Sample size Determination of Household
3.4. Methods of Data Collection.
3.4.1. The Breeding management and performance data collection methods
3.4.2. Phenotypic traits data collection methods
3.4.3. The Quantitative traits
3.4.4. Functional traits
3.5. Effective Population size and Inbreeding Coefficient Estimation
3.6. Data Analysis and Statistical Model
3.6.1 Qualitative data analysis
3.6.2. Productive and reproductive parameters
3.6.3. Quantitative traits data
3.6.4 Multivariate trait analysis
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. General Respondents Socio economic Information
4.1.1. Household profile and family’s size
4.1.2 Live stock holding per household characteristic in study area
4.1.3 Flock size character and age composition of chicken
4.1.4. The Ownership and responsibility of family member in chicken rearing activity
4.1.5. The Trend of indigenous chicken
4.2 Indigenous Chicken Population Management Practices
4.2.1. Housing system of chicken
4.2.2 .Source of feed and feed supplementing techniques
4.2.3. Source of water and watering of the chicken flock
4.2.4 Disease outbreak and controlling mechanisms
4.2.5. Predator and controlling system
4.2.6 Hatching and broody hens management
4.2.7. Marketing of egg and chicken
4.2.8. Effect of agro-ecology, supplement feed & health care on productive and reproductive performance.
4.2.9. Flock composition based function trait of indigenous chicken in monitoring
4.3. Chicken Breeding Management
4.3.1. Source of first breeding Stock
4.3.2. Breeding practices
4.3.3. Selection the breeding chicken, criteria’s and culling in study agro ecology
4.3.4 . Breeding objective and trait preferences of farmer in study district
4.3.4.1 Breeding objective of the respondent
4.3.4.2. Farmer preferences of traits in breeding cock and hens
4.3.4.2.1. Trait preferences for selection breeding hens
4.3.4.2.2. Trait preferences for selection breeding cocks
4.3.5. Effect of the population size and Rates of inbreeding
4.4. Phenotypic and Morphological Characterization of Indigenous Chicken
4.4.1 . Phenotypic characterization
4.4.2. Quantitative trait of indigenous chickens
4.4.3 Multivariate Analysis
4.4.3.1. Principal component analysis of chicken morph metric trait
4.4.3.2 Stepwise discriminante analysis
4.4.3.3 Canonical Discriminant Analysis
4.4.3.4. Discriminant Analysis
5. Summary and Conclusion
5.1 Summary
5.2 .Conclusion
6. Recommendations
7. References
8. APPENDEX
DEDICATION
I dedicate this paper to my late Father Siraj Abakoyas, for nursing me with affection and love until his pass away and he was the security behind in success of my life so I dedicated this work for his; you are forever fresh in my memory. May Allah rest your soul in Gent!
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to provide the appreciation and gratitude to my major devisor Dr.Tatek Woldu for his generous support and guidance starting from thesis proposal writing to completion study by giving constructive comment. I am grateful to W/r. Meseret Molla for all the effort she has made and follow to shape beginning proposal writing up to completion of the thesis manuscript. Thanks to the Department of Animal Science, Jimma University, for their contribution in the process of developing the research proposal and provision of various services and providing me a great opportunity to advance intellectually.
I am grateful to my place of work: Sokoru Woreda administration and Animal & Fishery Office for giving me full sponsor and allowing me to study for a Masters degree.
My special thanks go to for both my beloved mother and wife W/ro Tajirre A/foge and Khadija A/bor who has always been with her love and for their consult , care of ours child & me as well as had been encouragement in my study a success and brought my vision to life . I am especial thank to the staff of Jimma zone , Seka-chokorse, Dedoo and Sokoru districts Livestock Development and Animal health for their voluntary in providing the necessary information for this study.
And also, I would like to acknowledge the Development Agents in the studied PAs for their critical support in data collection especial Dilbe A/moga and Zaker Sh/husien for their kindly support me in facilitating site and participant farmer selection for interviewing and the respondent farmers in the study areas for their willingness to spend the time in providing the required information through the designed questionnaire ,focus group discussions and allow me as measuring of their chicken.
I express my deepest appreciation to Ato M/hassen A/boson, Muste Jamel, and Husien A/duraa for their logistical support and valuable advice proposal preparation, in analysis of the data and writing the thesis.
For all thinning, I thank the almighty ALLAH who helped me in every aspect of my life and to come the finishing of this Thesis manuscript preparation
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
illustration not visible in this excerpt
ABSTRACT
Phenotypic Characterization and Assessment of Management Practices of Indigenous Chicken in Jimma zone
The study was conducted in Jimma zone of three Agro-ecology in six-selected farmer’s kebele starting from March to June 2017 with the aim to phenotypic ally characterize selected indigenous chicken, identify poultry management and breeding practices in three agro-ecologies of Jimma Zone. A survey was carried out on 180 randomly selected respondent as well as 555 heads of native chickens, (445 females and 105 males) for qualitative and quantitative trait measurements. On average chicken flock, size per household is 10.28±0.75. The trend of indigenous chicken ownership significantly (p<0.05) decreased in past ten years with an average 67.2%. About 13.3% household had separate chicken house, 97.23% of the respondent give supplement feed to chicken, only 13.3% of owners have access to veterinary service and 68.9% had experiences of selecting brooding hens and egg for incubation. The Overall average weight of, day old, one month and two-month chicken were (30.41gm±0.43) (143.8gm±2) and (289.0gm±2.4), respectively. 65.5% of respondents get their first breeding stock through purchasing and about 33.3% respondent had been experiences of breeding practices through selection and crossing. The objective of rearing chicken was cash in-came, consumption & replacement. Egg production/hen, body weight, plumage color& body conformation were the farmer-preferred trait to be improved on their stock. The plumage colours include; red (27.4%), brown (21.1%), grayish (14.2%), white (11.2%), black (7.9%) and multi-color (7.7%). The predominante shank colour was yellow (35.7%) followed by whitish (27.9%), greyish (21.5%), red (13.5%) and silver (1.4%). The Ls- mean of adult body weight, thigh circumference, comb length, shank length, wingspan, body length, and neck length were 1437.6gm±16, 9.0cm±0.06, 3.25cm±0.06, 9.23cm±0.07, 35.0cm±0.22, 30.7cm±0.13 and 12.9cm±0.11, respectively. The longest distances observed is (61.14) between high land and low land male ecotypes and the shortest distances is (14.62), which is between mid lands and low land ecotypes. Generally, current morphometric diversity of chicken ecotype absorbed might be the contribution of variation in agro-ecology, climatic conditions and the purpose of rearing in different agro-ecology and management practices of the chicken. There is a need to design stockholder based breed improvement programs for utilization and conservation of genetic diversity of these indigenous chicken populations.
Key words: management practices, phenotypic variation, define breeding objective and evaluation functional trait
1. Introduction
In Ethiopia, the agricultural sector is a corner stone of the economic and social life of the people. The livestock sector in Ethiopia contributes 12% and 33% of the total and agricultural Gross Domestic Product (GDP), respectively, and provides livelihood for 65% of the population (FAOSTAT, 2013). The sector also accounts for 12-15% of the total export earnings (Tewodros et al., 2015).These livestock genetic resources are important or vital to development of the economic ,social and environmental of the one country (ESAP,2004). The diverse agro-ecology and agronomic practice prevailing in the country together with the huge population of livestock in general and poultry in particular, could be a promising attribute to boost up the sector and increase its contribution to the total agricultural output as well as to improve the living standards of the poor livestock keepers. Poultry production, as one segment of livestock production, has a peculiar privilege to contribute to the sector. This is mainly due to their small size and fast reproduction compared to most other livestock and its well fitness with the concept of small-scale agricultural development. Moreover, it goes eco-friendly and does not compete for scarce land rest (Mekonnen , 2007).The majority of indigenous chickens in the tropics are maintained under village chicken production systems. These production systems are typically characterized by low input and low output systems, mainly in terms of egg and meat production. However, they also lay small sized eggs and grow slowly. Regardless of this low output, indigenous chickens in the tropics can survive and produce with irregular supplies of feed and water and with minimum health care. They are often part of ‘balanced’ farming systems, which have important roles in the rural household as a source of high quality animal protein and emergency cash income, and play a significant role in the socio-cultural life of the rural community (Nigussie et al., 2011a).
Indigenous breed is a general terminology to describe those birds kept in the extensive system, scavenging in the free-range, have no identified description, multi-purpose and unimproved (Horst, 1989 ; Pedersen, 2003).The local chickens, which are basically non-descriptive types, vary widely in body size, conformation, plumage color and other phenotypic characteristics (Halima, 2007). Moreover, McAinshb et al. (2004) reported that indigenous chickens are not classified into specific breeds; rather they are heterogeneous in phenotype and probably also in genotype Indigenous chickens have special importance to the local community of a country and are a good gene pool for the genetic improvements of a chicken species. These, importance indigenous chicken breeds and types, will gradually disappear due to unplanned and uncontrolled exotic breed utilization for instant the present ambitious distribution of exotic poultry breeds (ESAP, 2004).
For conservation and utilization of thus, indigenous breeds characterization is first step of long-term genetic improvement as it provides the basis for any other livestock development interventions and pre-requisite information for designing appropriate breeding programs (Johannes et al. , 2009). Characterization of the chicken genetic resources generally requires information on their adaptation to a specific environment, possession of unique traits of current or future economic value and socio-cultural importance, which are crucial inputs to decisions on conservation and utilization of chicken (Romanov, 2001). Moreover, Characterization includes a clear definition of the genetic attributes of an animal species or breed, which has a unique genetic identity and the environment to which species or breed populations are adapted or known to be partially or not adapted at all (FAO, 2004 ; Rege, 1992). It should also include the population size of the animal genetic resources, its physical description, uses, prevalent breeding systems, population trends, predominant production systems, description of the environment in which it is predominantly found, indications of performance levels (meat, growth, reproduction, egg) and the genetic distinctiveness of the animal (Weignd & Romanov, 2003). On other hand, provide information of the indigenous breeding practices, breeding objectives and trait preferences of farmers’ need for designing, planning and implementing agro-ecologically friendly and sustainable and holistic genetic improvement programme of indigenous chickens.
Indigenous chickens have variable morphological identity carrying genes that have adaptive values to their environment and diseases. According to Horst (1989), indigenous chickens can be considered as gene reservoir, particularly, for those genes that have adaptive values in the tropical conditions such as naked-neck, Frizzle, Dwarf, Silky, Slow feathering, Non-inhibitor, Fibro-melanosis, Pea comb and Blue shell. However, there was no research carried out in Jimma zone to identify thus particular character or genes in village chickens. Most of the indigenous chickens have evolved through adaptation to various agro-climatic conditions, they possess gene combinations and special adaptations not found in other improved modern breeds (Egahi et al., 2013).Variations in major morphological traits such as outline and feather contours, shank and ear-lobe colors, comb types are common among indigenous chicken populations (Teketel, 1986). These characteristics provide a basis for grouping according to their phenotypic and morphological appearances.
The distribution and density of birds vary from place to place, but they are found in most parts of the country, which is suitable for human settlement (Getu and Tadesse, 2014). According to (CSA, 2015/2016) the chicken populations of Ethiopia are estimated at 60. 5 million heads. With regard to breed composition, 94.33%, 3.21% and 2.47% of the total poultry were reported to be indigenous, hybrid and exotic, respectively. The indigenous chickens, indicating the significance of local chickens as potential for AnGR in the country most of the chicken types being local ones, which show a large variation in body conformation, plumage color, comb type and productivity (Teketel, 1986; Tadelle ,1996 ;Halima, 2007).
In different part of the country several researches had been studied for the characterization of village poultry production and market system in Alamata and Atsbi-wonberta woreda of Tigray region (Dawit, 2010), in three districts of SNNPRs (Mekonnen, 2007), in Halaba district of southern Ethiopia (Nebiyu, 2014), in Gomma woreda of Jimma zone (Meseret, 2010), in Gondar town (Wondu, 2013) and in Bure woreda (Fisseha, 2009). Generally, they reported that the productivity of local scavenging chicken is low with high mortality of chicks. Nigussie (2011a) also examined the morphological and genetic characterization of indigenous chickens in different parts of Ethiopia (Oromia, Amhara, Benshan gulgumuze, South nation and nationality people and Gamabela) and identified that there were sufficient genetic variation between groups of indigenous chickens.
Moreover, a number of studies had been carried out on the unique adaptation features and several scholars have recently reported morphological variations of Ethiopian indigenous chicken population. Halima et al. (2007) reported the phenotypic variation of indigenous chicken populations in North West Ethiopia. Similarly, studies were conducted by (Duguma, 2006;Nigussie et al.( 2010); Emebet,2015;Shishay,2014;Aberra and Tegene,2011) also in Southern nation nationality people region of Ethiopia focusing on the characterization of indigenous chicken populations at specific locations. That may not necessarily represent the genetic resources of indigenous chickens distributed in the all parts of the country, especial in Southwest of Ethiopia in particular jimma zone. Thus, there was little attempt to study the indigenous chicken populations in the southwest Ethiopia for a defined purpose at their in situ or habitation, this is especial true for jimma zone. The genetic potential of indigenous chicken remains undefined forming a major barrier for the development and implementation of suitable genetic improvement strategies at regional and a national level.
1.1. Statement of Problem and Justification
Poultry in study area is a source of self-reliance for women and children since, poultry and egg sales around road-side by women, girls and boys provide an immediate income to meet household expenses and sources of food. Poultry require limited space, feed and capital for investment compared to other domestic animals kept in the area. Thus, indigenous chicken have a unique position in the rural household economy and plays a significant role in the religious and cultural life of the society. However, those important breed, are under threat due to various factors such as changing production systems and indiscriminate crossbreeding. It is, however, important to maximize the use of the existing genetic diversity by improving the current level of production (Petrus, 1988; Tadelle, 2003). This is particularly true in developing countries where breeds or ecotypes have not yet been fully recognized and characterized (Nigussie et al., 2011a) .And also, there is little information and very little research has been done on phonotypical and molecularly characterize of indigenous chicken to conserve, improve, and utilize genetic resources of this native chicken in these zone. The characterization of the Jimma local chickens were an important step towards establishing inventory data that might be used as case study for similar chicken production systems.
1.2. Research question
- Is there phenotypic variation in qualitative and quantitative traits among indigenous chicken in diverse agro-ecologies of Jimma zone?
- Are there management practices for indigenous chicken in this zone?
- Which traits do farmers prefer from their indigenous chicken? And why?
- What are the current productive and reproductive performances of indigenous chicken that are found at farmer level?
1.3. Objective
1.3.1. General objective
- To generate comprehensive information on selected indigenous chicken phenotypic variations, management and breeding practices for future genetic improvement of local chicken.
1.3.2. Specific Objectives
- To identify, characterize and describe the phenotypic variation of indigenous chicken in selected districts of Jimma zone.
- To asses management practices of indigenous chicken under village production system in selected districts of Jimma zone.
- To define breeding objectives, trait preference and selection criteria for study population of farmer households.
- To evaluate functional traits of the selected indigenous chicken populations in the study area.
2. Literature Review
2.1 Origin and Domestication of Chickens
Domestic chickens are closely associated with humans, and they rely entirely upon humans for their dispersal and indirectly for their survival. The species are therefore important biological markers of agricultural, trade and cultural contacts between societies and civilizations (Hanotte, 2013).The origin of domestic chickens is well documented by many authors. Using the archaeological evidence, authors such as (Crawford, 1984; Zeuner ,1963) pointed out that chickens were first domesticated in Southeast Asia in the region called Indus valley by 2000 BC (Petrus, 2011). Domesticated fowl (chicken) was believed to have descended from the wild Indian Jungle Fowl and the South East Asia Red Jungle Fowl (Mason, 1984; Moiseyeva et al., 2003). This specie is one of the most common and wide-spread domestic animals with a population of more than 24 billion in 2003 and kept primarily as a source of food for their both meat and eggs (Mason, 1984; Ganabadi, 2009).In Africa, those popular chickens are believed to have been originated and domesticated from Southeast Asia and red jungle fowl, respectively (Addis, G. 2014). Furthermore, archaeological discoveries and protein polymorphisms and morphological characteristics providing that domestic chicken were derived from red jungle fowl (Moiseyeva, 2003).According to Nigussie (2011a) there is information deficiency to shows time and ways of chicken introduced to Africa. Crawford (1990) indicated that chicken with black feathers meat, bones were found in Mozambique in 1635, bearing the fibro -melanosis mutant known at the India not Europe. This implies that India is the most likely origin of chicken that imported to Africa (Nigussie, 2011a).
2.2. Breed and breeding of indigenous chickens
Breeding and selection of indigenous poultry has been largely left to nature and to date no differentiation into broiler or layer strains has occurred (Petrus, 2011). Many names have been used to describe the indigenous chickens. The following are some of the examples; African hen, bush hen, or Sahel (Guèye and Bessei, 1997). In other reports, names like, Family poultry, local chickens, deshi chickens have also been used to describe indigenous chickens (Sonaiya, 1999).
In most cases, the variations among local chickens are due to indiscriminate breeding practiced at farm level, both male and female chickens run together and are housed together (Guèye, 1998; Barua and Yoshimura, 1997). Furthermore, local chicken populations in literature, which often grouped and described according to their phenotypic characteristics or geographical location. Studies on diversity have revealed that classification into breeds or types of indigenous chickens in many developing countries is very limited. Studies that have been conducted thus far have classified few of them into ecotypes based on the plumage colours, feather structures and patterns as well as body sizes and length (Petrus, 2011).
Work in Cameroon resulted in the classification of indigenous chickens into breeds like Dzaye, Tsabathi, Dongwe and Zorwa (Ngou Ngoupajou, 1990). The same can be said of the Beldi or Roumi of Morocco (EI Houadfi, 1990) and Baladi and Betwil of northern Sudan (Musharaf, 1990). Similarly, in Mali, the native breeds like Kolochie, Kolokochie, Toulouchi, Centrichrochie, are the names of some breeds that have been identified (Sonaiya, 1990; Gueye, 1998).
Similarly, in Ethiopia only small portion of indigenous chicken are identified and characterized (Nigussie, 2011a; Halima, 2007; Tadelle, 2003; Bogale, 2008). Those identified chickens are taken their name based on their niches like, Chefe, Jarso, Tilili, Horro and Tepi (Tadelle et al., 2003), Gelila, Debre-Elias, Melo-Hamusit, Gassay, Tilili, Horro, Guangua and Mecha (Hailma,2007) and Nigussie (2011a) at Farta, Konso, Mandura, Horro and Sheka .
2.3. Poultry Population and Distributions in Ethiopia
Poultry include all domestic birds kept for the purpose of human food production (meat and eggs) such as chickens, turkeys, ducks, geese, ostrich, guinea fowl and doves and pigeons. In Ethiopia ostrich, ducks, guinea fowls, doves and pigeons are found in their natural habitat (wild) whereas, geese and turkey are exceptionally not common in the country. Thus the word poultry population is synonymous with chicken population under the present Ethiopian conditions (Halima, 2007 ).Chicken populations can be categorized into; wild populations and indigenous or local breeds that are unselected but domesticated. There is no recorded evidence indicating the exact time and locations of introduction of the first batch of exotic breeds of chickens into Ethiopia. It is widely believed that missionaries probably did the importation of the first batch of exotic poultry. Four breeds of exotic chicken (Rhode Island Red, Australop, New Hampshire and White Leghorns) were imported to Jimma and Alemaya (now Haramaya) university in 1953 and 1956, respectively under USAID project (Solomon ,2007). Indigenous chickens in Ethiopia are found in huge numbers distributed across different agro-ecology categories under a traditional family-based scavenging management system (Tadelle, 1996 ; Aschalew, 2014; Solomon, 2007).
Table 1.Regional level and Zonal chicken population ('000) distribution in Oromia
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Source : (CSA, 2015/16)
2.4. Chicken Flock Demography
In Ethiopia the flock size is small in number with average of 7-10 mature birds in each household consisting of 2 to 4 adult hens, a male bird and a number of growers of various ages (Tadelle, 1996). Fisseha (2010) also reported the mean flock size of local chickens per household in Bure district of Amhara region is thirteen. Meseret ( 2010) reported that the mean flock size per household was 6.23 chickens in Gomma wereda of jimma zone furthermore the mean flock size of 8.8 and 9.2 chickens per household in Awassa Zuria reported by (Asefa ,2007) and Mekonnen (2007) for Dale woreda in Ethiopia, respectively. Moreover, Azage et al. (2009), who reported a mean flock size of 13 and 12 chickens per household for Bure and Fogera wereda in Ethiopia, respectively. The overall average flock size per household in East Gojam zone was 13 chickens of local chicken and less than 5 for crossbreed chickens (Melese, 2014). According to Tadelle et al. (2003) and Njenga (2005) an average flock size of 16 birds was also reported in the central parts of Ethiopia and in the Kwale district of the South coast Kenya. Halima (2007 ), overall average flock size per household for chicks & cocks and hens & pullets were 4.73 and 2.40 , respectively, with a total flock size of 7.13,which is similar to the report of Muchadeyi (2007) ,who reported that the flock sizes generally ranged from 5 to 20 fowls per African village household.
2.5. Flock ownership and management.
Chicken production in most developing countries is mainly based on scavenging system and rural women and children traditionally play an important role in management. They are generally in charge of most chicken husbandry practices, since small-scale animal production does not require heavy manual lab our (Bishop, 1995; Riise,2004). A survey in four African countries (Ethiopia, Gambia, Tanzania and Zimbabwe), showed that women dominate most activities of village chicken husbandry, except for shelter construction and marketing (Emebet, 2015). The result also showed that various gender based constraints such as poor access to information and heavy workloads should be addressed to meet the needs of women and opportunities for improving village chicken production (Kitalyi and Andre, 1998). As Abdelqader (2008) in a study conducted on village chicken production in some parts of Nigeria and Cameroon, all gender categories are involved in chicken management, with children having the highest responsibility of housing the chicken at night and letting them out in the morning. Halima (2007) also reported that rural women in Northwest Ethiopia are more responsible for chicken rearing in both male and female-headed households, while men are responsible for crop cultivation and other off-farm activities.
2.6. The Production and Reproduction Performance of Indigenous Chicken
Indigenous chickens are kept in many parts of the world irrespective of the climate, traditions, life standards, and/or religious taboos relating to consumption of eggs and chicken meat like those for pig meat. Studies by Tekleweld et al. (2006) and Nigussie et al. (2010), indigenous chickens comprise about 80% of the national flocks in Africa and Asia.
Results of several researchers such as (Muchadeyi F., 2007; Mwacharo et al., 2007; Halima, 2007 ) on biodiversity of indigenous chickens in many parts of Africa revealed the presence of high genetic variability between and within populations, thereby evincing the potential for genetic improvement of these chickens through selective breeding. Breeding female chicken attained sexual maturity at the age of 6.8 months and the overall mean egg laying performances of hens for the first, second and third clutches were 17.0, 20.9 and 24.8 eggs, respectively.At one laying period birds lay 7-10 eggs in rural, 11-13 eggs in urban and 10-11 eggs in peri-urban in Assosa (Nega et al., 2016). Additional, the average number of egg production/ hen/ clutch and mean annual egg production / hen in northern Wollo were 12.6 and 49.5, respectively (Addisu, 2013). On other hand, Meseret (2010) and (CSA, 2003) was reported that the mean egg number/ hen/clutch was 12.92 and 12 (national average of egg production/ hen/ clutch), respectively. The production level of scavenging hens are generally low, with only about 36-60 small sized eggs produced per bird on an annual basis especially under smallholder management conditions (Tadelle et al., 2000; FAO, 2004; Nigussie, 2010; Aberra and Tegene, 2011).
In the same way, the report of (Gueye, 2000) indicated that the adult chicken body weight of male and female African village chicken range from 1.2 to 3.2 kg, respectively. In Ethiopia, the meat production ability of local chicken stocks is limited. Indigenous male may reach 1.5 kg live weight at 6 month of age and female about 30% less (Alemu and Tadelle, 1997). The carcass weight of local stocks at 6 month of age was 550 gram, which was significantly lower than that of white leghorn 875gm. Local chicken are sold from 6-8 months of age for meat purpose when they weight around 700-1400gm. Body weight of 1.2 kg and 800gm is obtained at 32 weeks for normal size and dwarf breeds of local chicken in free-range system. However, indigenous chicken has a greater dressing percentage (Alemu and Tadelle, 1997).According to Solomon (2003), showed that there was no difference between white leghorn and local chicken raised under scavenging condition in mean daily body weight gain at 2 months.
Halima et al. (2009) ,she revealed in Northern Ethiopia estimated that, under scavenging conditions, the reproductive cycle of indigenous hens consists of 20 days of laying phase, 21days of incubation phase and 56 days of brooding phase. This fact implies that, the number of clutches per hen per year is probably 2-3, assuming three clutches per hen per year; the hen would have to stay for about 168 days out of production every year. The low productivity of the indigenous stock could partially be contributed to the inferior management at the traditional household village chicken production system. Teketel (1986) was in opinion that provision of proper and timely vaccination, improved feeding, clean water and nighttime enclosure can improve the performance of the indigenous chicken.
2.7. The Major Constraints of Poultry Production in Ethiopia
As stated by Tadelle and Ogle (2001), high mortality of chicks under village chicken production in the central highlands of Ethiopia is due to diseases, parasites, predation, lack of feed, poor housing and insufficient water supply. High incidence of chicken diseases, mainly (NCD) is the first and economically important constraint for village chicken production system following by feeds (Nigussie and Ogle, 2000; Halima, 2007). The other comprehensive study showed that (NCD) is highly infectious and more losses than any other diseases in the tropics and it spreads rapidly through the flock and mortality could reach up to 100% (Nigussie D. et al., 2003; Serkalem T., 2005; Nwanta, 2008). Among infectious diseases, salmonellosis, coccidioses and fowl pox are also considered to be the most important causes of indigenous chicken mortality while predators are the net causes for their loss (Eshetu , 2001).Despite diseases as major constraints for village poultry, the veterinary service has remained irregular, unevenly distributed and poorly organized at village level (Takele and Oli, 2011). Further, village poultry production is constrained by poor access to markets, goods and services, weak institutions, and lack of skills, knowledge and appropriate technologies (Gueye, 2003;Besbes, 2009) reported that poor nutrition and health problems are the main constraints. In addition, to the above extensive and random introduction of exotic breeds before appropriate characterization, utilization and conservation of indigenous genetic resources is believed to be the main cause of the loss of this important indigenous resource, which was adapted to the climate and farming practices of farmers (Halima, 2007; Besbes, 2009).
2.8. Management Practices in Chicken Production System in Ethiopia.
2.8.1. Feed and feeding
Family poultry production in Africa survives by scavenging and generally, no supplements feed provided for chicken except that sometimes, household waste fed to the birds and other circumstances the diet supplemented with grain (Dwinger, 2004). Similarly, in Ethiopia the smallholder chicken production system is characterized by keeping under free range system and the major feed sources are believed to be insect worms, seed and plant materials (Tadelle and Ogle, 1996a; Solomon,2004). Whereas, according to Agide (2015) the scavenging was the major sources of feed in all districts with some sort of supplementary feeding to their chicken , 63.33%, 35%, and 45.76% of respondent in Kowet, Menze Gera Mider and Moretina Jiru districts, respectively provided supplementary feed, especially during rainy season. Therefore, feed shortage is critical and the free roaming of chickens for scavenging was restricted to limited areas or they were kept in the main house and /or kitchens in order to control scavenging of newly planted seeds. However, Halima (2007), in her investigation was reported that about (99.3%) of the farmers supplied partial supplementation of feeds in North-west Amhara, Ethiopia. All of the farmers who practiced supplementary feeding system use home grown crops such as maize, barley, wheat, sorghum and household scraps to feed their chicken. The type of supplemental feeds varied based on the type of agricultural practice and season. There is no purposeful feeding of rural household chickens in Ethiopia and the scavenging feed resource is almost the only source of feed for local birds. According to Meseret (2010) , almost all of the respondents (97.8 %) reported to practice scavenging system with supplementary feeding in Gomma district. However, the supplementary feed is not sufficient in terms of quality and quantity still of supplementing their chicken was done in order to improve the productivity performance (Melese et.al, 2014).
The nutrient intake of indigenous chicken under free-range system is enough to meet maintenance requirement and support minimum growth rate and egg production (Kingori et al., 2014). This limited resource feed restricts the potential productivity of local birds to 40-60 eggs per hen per year and both egg production and egg size vary with season, as the quality and availability of feed for chicken varies (Mbugua, 1990).
2.8.2. The Practices of watering chicken
As usually, Chicken as other livestock require water especial in dry season to facilitate its metabolism system based on voluntary basis when allowed ad-libitum access to water. According to Emebet,M., (2015),as pointed out the type of waterer and frequency of cleaning waterer in Southwest Showa and Gurage zone was revealed that almost all respondents (99.7%) in the four districts of those two zones had the experience of watering their poultry. While about (76.4%) of chicken owners provide water in plastic container followed by clay pots (20.3%) and a very small number of respondents use wooden (2.7%) & metallic (0.7%) containers while on an average (22.6%) of the respondents in the study area did not clean the chicken waterer at all. Further, in other study also reported that about (92.6%) farmers were supplied water for their birds from river (66.1%) and tape water (21.7%). Moreover, about (48.7%) respondents were supplied water by wooden made materials, (16%) required water in plates and (6.4%) supplied by clay materials in west Oromia (Feyera, 2016).
2.8.3. Housing
Although no data are available about housing at national level, the indigenous birds are set free on free range whereby from the respondent of 280 chicken owners interviewed, only (22.1%) prepared separate house for village chicken (Badhaso, 2012). Housing systems in backyard production is rudimentary and mostly built with locally available materials. In traditional free range, there is no separate poultry house and the chickens live in family dwelling together with humans and livestock (Solomon, 2007).
The majority respondent (77.9%) of chicken owners did not prepare overnight houses and but kept birds on various night sheltering places including; perches inside the house (45.7%), on the floor covered by bamboo made materials (27.1%), on ceilings of the house (3.6%) and under locally constructed sitting place /"medeb"/(Emebet,2015)
In other report, the highest proportion of the respondents, in Ada’a and in Lume districts were constructed a separate house entirely for poultry; however, from total respondents who constructed separate poultry house only (35.6%) and (25.6%) based on recommended extension package in Ada’a and Lume districts, respectively. None of the respondent in Lume and (4.4%) in Ada’a districts kept their birds with other animals (Desalew, 2012).Commonly indigenous chickens are kept in the family house in this case birds are set free on free-range whereby they move freely during whole in the day and spend the night in the main house. Sometimes the chickens are housed overnight on have a different shelter for night enclosure in the same roof (12.8%) and perch on trees (4.3%). In all cases, chickens are housed during the night only. Lack of housing is one of the constraints of the chicken under extensive production system (Selamawit, 2015).
2.8.4. Disease and predator control.
The indigenous flocks are said to be disease resistant and adapted to their habiting environment. However, the survival rates of the Ethiopian indigenous chicks kept under natural brooding conditions considered low (Mekonnen, 2007). Disease and predators are known to be the major causes of mortality in the country (Hoyle, 1992 ; Nigussie, 1999). According to Nigussie and Ogle (1999), new castle disease accounted for the largest proportion of overall flock loss of poultry to be followed by fowl pox, coccidiosis and predator loss, respectively. Another study conducted in all zones of Southern nation region by (Aberra and Tegene, 2011) indicated that the major problems of poultry production in the study areas were; Fowl cholera (28.8%), New Castle Disease, Coccidiosis, Fowl influenza [Infectious Bronchitis] (15.4%), Fowl pox (3.4%), Fowl typhoid (3.4%) and Salmonella (1.4%). The prevalence of fowl cholera was considerably higher in the mid-altitude while fowl typhoid was a major problem in low altitudes accounting for the overall mortality. Most of the time the occurrence of thus diseases is seasonal where the highest chicken death rate was observed during the rainy season (June to August) (80%) followed by March to May (14.4%) ( Hunduma et al, 2010)
Predators such as snakes, rats, dogs, cats and foxes are the main causes of losses of chicken especially in young birds. Thefts are also another important cause for the loss of adult birds. Similarly, birds prey (locally called that “Culullee”) also accounted (34%), cats and dogs (16.3%) and wild animals (15%) were revealed as the major causes of village poultry in Rift valley of Oromia, Ethiopia ( Hunduma et al, 2010 ). According to Aberra and Tegene ( 2007),about 46% of the respondents in Southern Ethiopia reported, that wild birds (eagle, hawk, etc.) are the most common predators during the dry season, while wild cat (locally known as Shelemetmat) is the most dangerous predator during the rainy season.
2.9. Breeding Management
2.9.1 Farmers breeding practice
According to Shishay et al.(2014),breeding practice in Western Tigray overall, (99.7%) of the respondents practiced breeding for improving productivity of their flocks either by improving local chickens (99.5%) or by importing exotic breeds (0.5%). In same way , in North Wollo zone of Amhara regional state revealed that only 17.3% of village chicken producers practiced breeding for improving their chicken either by cross breeding (80%) or by line breeding (20%) (Addisu et al., 2013).
All farmers in different regions traditionally give greater selection emphasis for breeding and replacement males and females such as plumage color, live weight, comb type, conformation and laying performance of their parents (Halima, 2007; Nigussie, 2011a). Breeding, farmers in the Amhara (Farta) and Oromia (Horro) regions give the highest emphasis for plumage color while in the southern region (Konso and Sheka) live weight is used as the most important selection criteria. Okeno et al. (2011) in Kenya combination of two trait such as comb type and plumage color (28.30%) and egg production and broodiness performance (32.07%) were the major selection criteria of farmers in genetic improvement for male and female chickens, respectively. Similarly in Ethiopia as reported by (Fisseha, 2009) farmer selection based on comb type , plumage color, egg production and broodiness performance of chicken and also in other study the plumage color and comb type were some of selection criteria for breeding stock in Bure district (Addis, 2014). Even if farmers have their own breeding and selection criteria, there is no designed selection and controlled breeding of village chickens. Those local chickens are small in number per HH and the number of breeding male birds in each household was less than required for breeding purpose that alleviate inbreeding rate (Tadelle, D., 1996; Tadelle et al., 2003).
2.9.2. Mating system and culling practice.
As stated by Addisu. H., (2013) ,in North Wollo about (10.79%) of respondents practices control mating of their flock for at least two or three egg per clutch while (89.21%) of respondent had uncontrolled means natural mating system. Thus, farmers retaining the best indigenous or high yielding exotic cock (52.79%) with hens during conception period were the major way of control mate of their flock. Unlike to this study, there was no systematic mating practice in any regions of Ethiopia, which is reported by (Nigussie, 2011a). Moreover, the study carried out in the three districts of SNNPRS disclosed or exposed that the free-range feeding practice of chicken attributed to indiscriminate mating of cocks and hens (Mekonnen, 2007). Regarding of the culling system: slaughtering (53.27%), selling (41.18%) and devour or sell eggs of unwanted hens (5.56%) were a major means of culling less productive chicken from the flock (Addisu , 2014). Bogale (2008), reported that the home consumption and selling were the main culling mean of poor productivity (46.5%), old age and poor productivity (25%) and sickness (5.65%) chicken from their flock, similarly from Northwest Ethiopia by Halima (2007) also revealed that farmers cull poor productivity and old age chickens via selling.
2.9.3. Trait preference of the farmers
The trait traditionally considered as criteria for choosing breeding stock, which
is vital in explaining the adaptive attributes and genetic merits of the indigenous
chickens. The identifying farmers’ choice for breeding chicken and the underlying
factors that determine the choice of genetic stock used based like as plumage color, live weight, comb type, body conformation and breeding ability of chickens ( Gondwe and Wolny,2007;Nigussie et al., 2010). Accordingly, a number of egg production/clutch (37.91%) and plumage color (37.58%) were the major preferred trait by farmers in North Wollo region (Addisu , 2014). Higher percent of farmers found in high altitude select egg (46.00%) as primary trait whereas plumage color was primarily selected trait in low altitude (44.34%) (Addisu etal., 2013). In contrast to this researchers (Nigussie, 2011b) also reported that the farmers in different part of Ethiopia mainly was select adaptive traits, meat and egg test quality as their preferred traits. Moreover, the most important traits of farmers in Jordan were growth rate, disease tolerance, egg yield, body size and fertility (Abdelqader et al., 2007). The economic important trait such as growth rate, body size & egg production is essential for the development of breeding objectives. There for breeding programs for improving the productivity of indigenous chicken should target these traits and consider the current and future production circumstances.
2.10. Phenotypic Character of Indigenous Chicken
Phenotypic characterization of AnGRs is used to refer to the process of identifying distinct breed populations and describing their characteristics and those of their production environments (CSA, 2010). It should be also include the population size of the animal genetic resources, its physical description, adaptations, uses, prevalent breeding systems, population trends, predominant production systems, description of the environment in which it is predominantly found, indications of performance levels (meat, growth, reproduction, egg) and the genetic distinctiveness of the animal (Weignd & Romanov, 2003).
The indigenous chickens of Ethiopia have various names and characterized on different grounds, as in many other parts of Africa. The indigenous chickens are studied so far in two approaches as criteria for their differentiation and identification. One based on their ecological or main habitat, thus chickens are named after their area of geographical origin. Two depend on qualitative characteristics for identification of the breeds especially feather type and color (Mearg,F. 2016). On other hand, the identified chickens are taken their name based on their niches like, Chefe, Jarso, Tilili, Horro and Tepi ecotype by (Tadelle et al., 2003),Gelila, Debre-Elias, Melo-Hamusit, Gassay, Tilili, Horro, Guangua and Mecha characterized by (Halima, 2007). Similarly, Farta, Konso, Mandura ,Horro and Sheka also revealed by (Nigussie, 2011a).Further , based on their plumage color the indigenous chicken ecotypes named as Tikur, Key, Gebsima, Netch, Serrano, Libe work, Teterma, Tikur-Teterma and Key-Teterma (Bogale, 2008) were the major chicken ecotypes found in different part of Ethiopia.
The color of feathers has socio cultural roles amongst certain ancient communities of Ethiopia(Leulseged, 1998).This clearly suggests that qualitative traits with specific characteristics must be carefully identified and considered in developing breeding strategies. Large combs, large wattles and long legs are important morphological traits that allow better heat dissipation in the tropical hot environment. The comb and wattles have a large role in sensible heat losses. Some of these variants are due to the presence of major morphological marker genes, which increases the adaptability of these breeds to tropical climatic environments. For example, the comb type indicates that the bird have been favored by hot climatic conditions whereby large comb, such as single comb allows for efficient heat regulation (Apuno 2011).
2.10.1. Quantitative traits variation
Local chicken overall mean body weight at central zone of Tigray identified that were 1.36kg (1.54kg male and 1.34kg female),1.46kg from North Gonder ,1.27kg (1,035 gram female and1.5 kg male) from central highlands of Ethiopia, 1.7kg from Northwest Ethiopia (1,316 gm hen and 2049.07gm cock) (Mearg,2016; Addisu, 2013; Alemu and Tadelle (1997); Halima ,2007),respectively. Naked-neck chickens had highest body weight 1.7kg than the other three ecotypes ( Kei 1.5 kg, Gebsima 1.45kg and Wosera 1.46 kg) (Aberra and Tegene,2011). According to Emebet (2015), the Mehale Amba male indigenous chicken had longest shank length of 12.2 cm than 9.8±12&10.5±1.95, 10.0±1.81 cm Dawo,Seden Sodoo, and Mehurna Akilile ecotypes. Similarly, the Melo-Hamusit and Gassay cocks had shank lengths of 11.3 cm and 10.83 cm, respectively at 22 weeks of age, which is relatively long compared to the other chicken populations (Hailm, 2007). The Naked-neck and Wosera males had the longest shank of about 15 and 13 cm, respectively. Kei male chickens had large body weight shank length ratio compared to other indigenous chickens (Aberra and Tegene, 2011).
2.10.2. Qualitative traits variation
Morphological diversity within and between the indigenous chicken ecotypes were identified particularly; their plumage color is quite variable even within ecotype (pure black, white, silver white, gray, red and various combinations of several colors that was reported by (Duguma, 2006). The plumage colors were identified in two districts the predominantly colour brown mottled plumage color, 20.27% and 21.10% while A complete body red plumage is typical of 17.12% and 15.60% of chickens from Horro and Jarso districts, respectively. Excluding these two main phenotypes, plumage diversity was higher in both studied districts (Eskindir et al, 2013).
In the same way, plumage pattern of indigenous chicken of the Southwest Showa zones brown colour is the predominant in Dawo chicken 32.4% and Seden Sodo chicken 48.4% districts while grey mixture plumage 40% in Mehale Amba district and red brownish with black accounted 25% in Mehurena Aklile districts of Gurage zone (Emebet, 2015). On the other hand, the predominant color revealed was white (25.49 %) followed by a grayish mixture (22.23 %) and red (16.44 %) and considerable numbers of chickens which is indicted that the heterogeneity of thus chicken in North West Gojam (Halima, 2007). The red earlobe was the commonest, 44.8% in Horro and second common, 28.44% in Jarso districts (Eskindir, 2013).The huge variation observed in plumage colour might be the result of their geographical isolation as well as periods of natural and artificial selections.
3. Materials and Methods
3.1. Study Area Description
The study was carried out in three woredas of Jimma zone selected based on the chicken production potential and agro-ecological representation. The selected woredas were Sokoru, Seka-chokorsa, and Dedo representing low land, mid land and highland agro-ecology, respectively (figure.1). Geographically of Jimma zone is situated between the coordinates of 7°41'N 36°50'E latitude and longitude with altitude ranging from 1740 to 2660 (masl)meter above sea level . Rainfall pattern of the zone is bimodal type with small rainfall during the months of February to April followed by the main rainy season from July to September. Jimma zone consists of 17 woredas with total area coverage of 1800 km2 (JZLF, 2009). The zone had a total poultry population 1,951,129 (CSA., 2015/16). It has a diverse agro-ecology classified as high lands (dega), mid lands (woina-dega) and semi-dry low lands (kolla) covering 15%, 67% and 18%, respectively (Dechassa, 2000). The farming system of the zone is characterized as mixed crop and livestock farming. The zone receives mean annual rainfall ranging from 1,200 to 2,800 mm and the mean monthly maximum and minimum temperatures of the zone are11.3 0C and 26.2 0C, respectively. The zone endowed with different livestock resources such as cattle, small ruminants, equines, poultry and honeybee .
3.1.1.1. Sokoru district
Sokoru district is found in east of the zone and is located 255 km Southwest of the capital Addis Ababa far 101 km from jimma city in east direction and situated between 17038' and 8016'N latitude and 37016'and 37037'E longitude. The area receives an average annual rainfall ranging 1600mm.
It has an average minimum and maximum daily temperatures of 13°c and 28oc, respectively also it has 40 kebeles[1] administrations; 37 located in rural kebeles field offices and 3 urban kebeles (SWLFO, 2009) with a total population of 136,320 which is 68,469 males and 67,851 females (CSA, 2015/16). Sokoru had an estimated population density of 170.6 people per square kilometer the total poultry is 121,234 (SWLFO, 2009).
The livelihood of the people in this woreda depends mainly on mixed agriculture (crop-livestock production). The most commonly cultivated crops in the study sites include maize (Zea mays), teff (Eragrostis tef), sorghum (Sarga stipoideum), coffee (Coffee arabica), barley (Hordeum vulgare), chat (Catha edulis), and enset (Ensetev enrtricosum), in order of their importance. Maize and sorghum is the staple food crop for the majority of the community, while coffee and chat are the dominant cash crops in some parts of the woreda. Cattle are used as a source of draft power, manure, milk, meat and source of income from sell of animals (SWLFO, 2009).
3.1.1.2 Dedo
Dedo district whose administrative town is Sheki, located in southern of jimma zone at a distance of 377 km from Addis Abeba and 20 km from jimma city. It is situated between 7029 ' 53 " N and 36053 ' 29 " E at an altitude ranging from 2500 to 3360 meters above sea level. The area receives an average annual rainfall ranging from 1600-2600mm and average minimum and maximum daily temperatures of 20ºc and 28oc, respectively (Meaza, 2015). The 2007 national census reported a total population for this woreda of 288,457, of whom 143,935 were men and 144,522 were women. The district has total poultry population estimated around 49,109 chickens (JZLFO, 2009).
3.1.1.3. Seka-Chokorsa district
The Seka- Chekorsa district, situated at 7° 35′ 0″ N, latitude and 36° 33′ 0″ E longitude is one of the nearest in the Jimma zone and located about 375 km South-west of Addis Ababa and 19 km from Jimma city. The total poultry population is 318,473 (JZLFO,2009) according to livestock agency of the district office 4%, 76% and 20% of the area is classified as Dega, Woine-dega and kola agro-ecological zones, respectively. It was situated at an altitude ranging from 1580 to 2560 meters above sea level. The district receives rainfall, ranging from 1,200 – 2,800 mm per annual. The average minimum and maximum daily temperatures of the area are 12.60C and 29.10C, respectively (Meaza, 2015).
The farming system of Seka-chokorsa woreda was mixed farming, compromising both cropping and livestock. Enset is staple crop in the woreda. Other main crops grown in the woredas are maize, potatoes, barley, wheat, teff, sorghum, sweet potatoes, etc. In the mixed farming system, livestock are important for draught power. They are main source of cash income to cover household’s expense and supplemental diet. The woreda also known by its cash crop mainly coffee and chat especially in dry and moist woina-dega area of the woreda (Mesud, 2011) .
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Figure.1. Location map of study area
3.2. Sampling Techniques
A multi-stage sampling technique was employed based on (Workneh and Rowlands, 2004) for the selection of both districts and kebeles and also random sampling method was used for individual households selection. From each purposively selected kebeles, chickens were randomly caught for visual observation and trait measuring.
Based on the information obtained from secondary data sources the districts in the zone were stratified according to their agro-ecological variations low land / kola (<1500 m.a.s.l), medium land/waina-dega (1500-2500m.a.s.l), and high land/dega (>2500m.a.s.l). From each district, two kebeles were selected purposively according to indigenous chicken rearing activities and agro-ecology representations. Therefore, six (6) kebeles were included in the study. For the selection of the site, reconnaissance survey was made with help of Development Agents and Agricultural Office of the district.
3.3. Sample size Determination of Household
The number of sampled households for interview was determined by using the proportional probability sampling technique as had been used by livelihood (Cochran, 1963). Total sample size N = Where:
N=required sample size
P = (expected proportion) = 0.135 (if the population is homogenous)
D= (desired absolute precision) = 0.05
Zα = 1.96 (is the abscissa of a normal curve that cuts of an area at the tails (1-α equals to the desired confidence level, for 95%=1.96).For survey the required sample size of the respondent with 95% confidence level was calculated as, respondents were selected .
Thus, using the standard error of 0.135 with 95% confidence level, 180 households were included in the study and the numbers of respondents (farmers) per each selected kebele was determined by proportionate sampling technique as follows Z =, where:
Z= Number of respondents required per single kebele
A=Total number of households (farmers) living per a single selected kebele
B= Total Sum of households living in all selected sample kebeles and
No =the total required calculated sample size(http://www.raosoft.com/samplesize.html)
Based on the (Cochran, 1963) formula, randomly 180 households (HHs) were selected (10 percent of the total) who keep three (3) or more indigenous chickens within the household. Sample of households was selected from the total population of study site 4890 household from each kebele. Allocations of the number of sample households to each kebele was proportional to the number of household to each kebele; accordingly 29, 30, 30, 31, 30, and 30, sample households from ; Hand ode, Kulata, Sito, Kata, Gibee Bosoo and Ushanee Bosoo from low land ,high land and mid land were selected, respectively for the study.
A total of 30 farmers from each kebeles were selected randomly from the list of farmers who had chicken based on the same criteria. A total of 555 heads of native chickens, (445 females and 105 males) > 6 month old from each of the three districts were selected by randomly catching chickens raised by the respondents during the actual conduct of the phenotypic identification and body measurements. The number of samples follows 10-30 adult males and 100-300 adult females recommended by (FAO,2012).
3.4. Methods of Data Collection.
For this study, both primary and secondary data sources were used. In order to collect primary data, the Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA) involves local communities as active analysts of their own situations whereby they estimate, quantify, compare, pair wise rank of trait and list priorities of resources and constraints of poultry based on their circumstances (Bhandari, 2003). Focus Group discussion (FGD) was used to undertake discussion with groups composed of key informants like; development agents, expert in rural development of the respective districts, Elders, women delegates, poultry owners and youth delegates formed in group membership (5-8) in each study site and discussed(appendix 8). Based on the information generated through PRA, the questionnaire and record sheets were developed for the formal interview or main survey.
Pretesting of the questionnaire and record sheets were made as a pilot or preliminary survey, and based on information obtained during pre-testing, modification on sampled questionnaire were also made. The primary data collection was undertaken from randomly sampled respondents by using the semi-structured questionnaire. Data generated by the survey includes the respondent socio-demographic, economic characteristics and characteristics of livestock such family size, age, educational status, sex, income, livestock size per household, flock composition, and land holding size.
3.4.1. The Breeding management and performance data collection methods
Information on chicken production objectives, the functions and importance of chickens in the socio-economic aspects of the community such as traditional rituals, ownership pattern, Intra household dynamics (division of lab our, decision-making, etc) were collected.
Information on chicken management practices ( such as feeding, housing, watering , disease control or access to veterinary service , breeding, culling, brooding, hatching ) and flock composition and characteristics, flock performance, which was related parameters of chickens (age at first egg laying , number of clutches per year, clutch length, eggs/hen/year and inter clutch) ) were also generated .
Further, on chicken marketing practices (prices, eggs marketed), selection egg and chicken for incubation and constraints of poultry production in the study area was collected from individual farmer by using a semi-structured questionnaire (appendix 5).
3.4.2. Phenotypic traits data collection methods
Reconsunsus field survey, semi-structured questionnaires, participatory rural appraisal (PRA) and focus group discussion, field observation and body measurements was employed to develop required information. For the morphological and morphometric measurements, all matured chicken ecotypes n = 555, 105 males and 445 females were deliberated.
Qualitative traits such as feather distribution , plumage pattern , plumage color, body shape, comb type, earlobe color, and shank color, skin color, head shape and eye color that was documented through direct visualization(appendix 6).
3.4.3. The Quantitative traits
The measurable quantitative traits like body weight, breast width, thigh circumference, chest circumference, shank length , neck length , body length , wing length, wingspan, wattles width, wattles length, ear lobes width, ear lobes length, beak length , beak width, comb length , comb width, height at back were measured. Textile measuring tape to the nearest unit centimeter(cm) the nearest two digits and body weight was measured using five(5) kg and three(3) kg spring balance (FAO, 2012) (appendix 6).
3.4.4. Functional traits
Out of the total sample farmers, 10 farmers from each sampled district randomly selected and monitored for three month in every fifteen day to describe functional characteristics of the indigenous chicken eco-types in the study area (FAO, 2012). This was accomplished with collaboration of trained Agricultural development agents of each sampled kebele.
During this monitoring/home visits; hens in egg laying, hens sitting on egg, hens looking after chicks and idle hens. Eggs laid per clutch, number of eggs incubated, number of chicks hatched, number of eggs wasted, hatchability rate, survival rate up to one month, two months, three months age and average weight of day old chicks, tow week old chicks, a month, two month and three month old chicks were recorded and analyzed (appendix 7).
3.5. Effective Population size and Inbreeding Coefficient Estimation
The effective population size (Ne) and rate of inbreeding (∆F) was calculated using the following formula Ne= , where Nm is the number of breeding cocks; Nf is the number of breeding hens. Rate of inbreeding = (Maiwashe et al., 2006).
3.6. Data Analysis and Statistical Model
Descriptive statistics was employed for describing management practices in each kebeles. One way ANOVA model statement was used to investigate the effects of agro-ecology on difference household characteristics (family size, farm land holding and chicken flock size per household) and various performance related parameters of chickens (age at first egg, number of clutches per year, clutch length, eggs/hen/year and inter clutch).
3.6.1 Qualitative data analysis
The qualitative data was analyzed by using statically modeling to show correlation between traits, difference among sexes, and districts to characterize indigenous chicken population and their management system. Simple descriptive statistics like as frequencies and cross tabulations for management practices & qualitative trait in this study was applied. In addition, Pearson chi-square test (x2- test) was conducted to compare proportions for comb colour, tarsus or shank colour, eye colour, earlobe cooler, and those of dominant alleles of major genes between bird populations sampled in the three districts and between males and females. Indices also calculated for data required variables ranking by index are the sum of (10* for Rank1 +9* for Rank2 +…+1for Rank10th) /the sum of (10*for Rank1 +9* for Rank2 +…+1for Rank 10th) for all traits under consideration.
3.6.2. Productive and reproductive parameters
Model 1. General linear model (GLM) was employed to analysis least square means (Ls-mean) for effect of agro-ecology, feed supply and health care on various productive and reproductive parameters of indigenous chicken.
Yijkl = μ + Ai + Bj + Ck + (AB)ij+ (AC)ik +(BC)jk+ Eijkl
Where:
Yijkl = is chicken performance parameter estimate for bird lth in kth health care, jth supplement feed, and ith ecotype (i=3, Sokoru, Dedo, or Seka- chokorsa)
μ = is the overall mean
Ai = the effect of ith ecology (i=3, low land, mid land, and high land),
Bj= fixed effect of supplement feed (j=1or 0),
CK=fixed effect of health care or vet. Service (l=1or 0),
ABij= the interaction of ith ecology ( i=1-3) with jth supplement feed (i=1or 0)
ACik =the interaction of ith ecology (i=1-3 ) with kth health care or vet. Service (k=1or 0)
BCjk= the interaction of jth supplement feed (j=1or 0) with kth fixed effect of health care or vet. Service (k=1or0) and
E ijkl= the random error term.
3.6.3. Quantitative traits data
General linear model (GLM) procedure of SPSS version 23 and SAS soft ware (SAS 9.0 version, 2002) was employed to analysis of variance for body weight and linear body measurement of ecotypes by considering the fixed effects of sex and ecotype. Model 2.Yijk= μ + Ai + D j +ADij + Eijk
Where:
Yijk= the observed body weight and linear body measurement of chickens (SL, BL, CH, THC, WL, WS, NL and CL).
μ = overall mean
Ai = fixed effect of ith district (i =3, Sokoru, Dedo and Seka-chokorsa)
Dj = the effect of kth sex (j= male and, i= female)
ADji = the fixed effect interaction of ith district with jth sex
Eijk = random residual error.
3.6.4 Multivariate trait analysis
Moreover, quantitative data was analyzed by multivariate PRINCOMP, CANDISC, STEPDISC and DISCRIM analysis were performed by the same soft ware for both sex separately.
Stepwise discriminate procedure was applied using PROCSTEPDISC to determine which morphological traits have more discriminate power than the others do or to gain information about traits particularly important in the separation of sub-populations for eventual use in classification of ecotypes.
Canonical discriminate analysis using CANDISC procedure was employed to calculate the general squared distance between chickens of the agro-ecology and to obtain the function of all traits necessary for the separation of sub-populations.
PROCDSIC of multivariate statistical was used for discriminate function to separate a study population by one classification variable to sub groups, which is help to validate the differences between different chicken populations based on their morphological character and their agro-ecology.
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. General Respondents Socio economic Information
4.1.1. Household profile and family’s size
Overall, mean age of respondents and family size characters presented (Table 2). The analysis result also showed mean age of respondent in two agro-ecology low land (41.9 ±1.2) years and high land (43.21±1.5) year was signicantly (p<0.05) slightly lower than mid land agro-ecology (44.13±1.4) year. In addition, the survey indicated that means age of household was (43.08±1.4) year. This result strongly admires with (43±10.9) year, (44.7) years (Worku, 2012) in west Amhara region and (Mearg, 2015) in central zone of Tigray, respectively.
The average of family size with age less than 18 year old younger male and female was covered for (36.1%),while age greater (19-65) year old male and female also accounted (52.2%) the older men and women attribute for the remain percentage and this result indicate that the productive age caver the half of the family size .
Regardless of age category the mean family size (5.8±0.16), (6.75±0.17) and (6.18±0.5) low land, mid land and high land, respectively. Generally, over all mean of family size throughout districts (6.24±0.37). This result strongly admires with finding of (Fisseha, 2009) the average family size per household of the study woreda was 6.2 (ranged 1-12) in Bure and 6.9 (ranged from 2–18) in Dale district but higher than (5.41 ± 0.18) Wogdi ,Borena and Leg ambo family size that was reported by (Tareke, 2016).
Moreover, the survey results indicated that about (78.3%) of the interviewed farmers were males and (21.7%) females of the respondents (Table 2). About, (82.2%) of the respondents were married and (8.9%), (5.5%) and (1.7%) widower, divorced and unmarried from the proportion (78.3%) males and (21.7%) females, respectively. About, (87.5 %) farmers were based on full participated in farming activities for their livelihood the remaining (5.6%) of farmers were involved on merchants (3.9%) government employers and farming activities per time. Concerning, the education status of the respondents were (29.43%) illiterate, (36.1%) was basic education (write &read), 28.9% through primary school (1 to 8), (4.4 %) secondary high school (9 to 12) and (1.13 %) was attended college diploma, respectively. The proportions of the educational status of the respondents were significantly (p<0.05) different through agro-ecologies. The proportions of illiterate respondents in the mid land (18.3%) were lower than in low land (33.3%) and highland (36.7%).This result in line with 26.67% and 23.3% of the interviewed farmers were illiterate in Bench-maji zone and in Gomma district of Jimma zone, (Getachew,2014) and (Meseret, 2010),respectively.
Table 2. The Households profile and family size in study agro ecology
illustration not visible in this excerpt
4.1.2 Live stock holding per household characteristic in study area
Livestock size per households was showed in (Table 3). The survey raveled that varies type’s of livestock composition in breed and respondent reared age groups. Overall mean of cattle (P<0.05) in low land (5.88±0.57) was significaly higher than from both agro ecology (4.59±0.47) and (4.22±0.43) mid land and high land, respectively. However, there was not statistically variation in high land and mid land. The overall mean of cattle across agro-ecology (4.91±0.08) was revealed. An average mean of small ruminants (sheep and goat) were (2.55±0.4) and (3.09±0.4), While the mean of sheep in high land (3.9±0.48) was significantly (p<0.05) higher than from low land (1.68±0.38).
However, mean of goat in low land was (5.62±0.54) larger than of the high land (0.93±0.24) but not variation in the mid land (2.1±0.37) and (2.73±0.45) sheep and goats, respectively and the overall mean of equine (1.1±0.24) with mule (0.38±0.16), donkey (0.57±0.06) and hours (0.15±0.24) in investigated agro-ecology. The number of cattle population in this result was admired with the report of (Fisseha, 2009) who was stated that cattle (4.16), sheep (2.24), goats (0.25), donkeys (0.54), mules (0.02) hours (0.03) were the major livestock’s in Bure districts. In contrast, this result was higher than (3.04±0.19,1.88±0.21,0.61±0.13,0.05±0.03,0.02±0.01 and 0.04±0.03) of Cattle,sheep,goat,donkey,mule and horse that was reported by (Getachew, 2014) in Bench Maji zone, south western Ethiopia ,respectively.
Table 3.Character of live stock size and age composition in study district
illustration not visible in this excerpt
HH; household; source from survey data
4.1.3 Flock size character and age composition of chicken
The flock structure and the average chicken flock size per household in the surveyed households presented (Table 4). Regarding to the mean of hens and cocks flock size per household was not significantly different across in three agro-ecologies. However, the mean of pullet and cockerels per household in high land (1.95±0.17) and (0.82±0.12) was significantly lower than both in low land (2.7±0.16 &1.43±0.14) and mid land (2.91±0.2 &1.21±0.15) but not significantly different between lowland and midland agro-ecologies. An average chicken flock size per household in the three agro- ecologies or districts were observed to be (10.51±0.74); (10.14±0.17) and (10.20±0.78) chicken low land, mid land and high land, respectively with overall mean herd size (10.28±0.75) in studied district. This result is comparable with the reported mean flock sizes of 10.4±7.52 (Feyera,2016), 11.9±0.97 (Negassa et al.,2014) in Gobu-Sayo,Bako-Tibe , Danno and Tiyo ,Hetossa and Dodota weredas of Western and Eastern Oromia region. However, the figure was higher than the reported mean flock sizes of 6.3 and 6.23 chickens per household from Gomma woreda and Jarso woreda by (Meseret, 2010 ;Eskindir , 2013) , respectively.
Table 4. The average chicken flock size per household in study agro-ecolgy
illustration not visible in this excerpt
N; number of the respondents; sources from survey data
4.1.4. The Ownership and responsibility of family member in chicken rearing activity
The result of indigenous chicken ownership in investigated agro-ecology summarized in (Table 5). The proportion of ownership of chicken significantly (p<0.01) different among of agro-ecology (30 %) in high land, (20 %) mid land and (33.3 %) in low land occupied by women with overall average (27.8 %) followed by (21.7%) of birds which is occupied daughter while (16.2%) also owned by both women and daughter although (15.1%) of the chicken occupied by all family. Moreover, the small proportion (10.6%) and (8.9%) of chicken hold by son and men. The construction of perch and house for chicken dominated by men (64.8%) and the roles of women in this activity is the lowest one that was only (5%) out of the interviewed respondent. In contrast, significantly higher proportion (54.7%) of women involved in cleaning perch and house of chicken where the lower proportion of men had been carried out this activity.
Further, women, daughter and son share the responsibility offering feed and watering chicken about (42.5%) followed by women (40.2%) while men accounted for (16.1%) participated in give feed and water for chicken. Similarly, women and daughter significantly share higher proportion in selling egg and chicken (42.5%) and (38.5%) of this activity also covered by women. In contrast, the activity of the treatment the sicken chicken through agro-ecology accomplished by men and son with (61.5%) and (17.9%), respectively.
This result in line with Abubakar et al. (2007) observed that in Nigeria in most households, chickens belong to the entire family with women owning the majority of the birds, followed by children and then men last. In the same way, men were mainly involved in chicken shelter construction in Fogera district (63.9%) (Bogale, 2008) and also men (65.3%) took the highest proportion of chicken house construction followed by women (19.6%) and children (15.1%) in Jamma district of South Wollo zone of Ethiopia (Mengesha et al. ,2008).
Moreover, women and female children (56.6%) accounted the maximum share in offering feed and water for chickens followed by women (42.1%) in Southwest Tigray (Shishay, 2014). Although both women and female children and women took the highest share of responsibilities in selling chickens (54.5%) and (43.1%) and selling eggs (54.5%) and (42.9 %), respectively in Southwest Tigray and selling chickens (56.95%) and (82.95%) were practiced by women in Fogera (Shishay, 2014; Bogale, 2008). Similarly, study from outside country in the Rushinga district of Zimbabwe revealed that women were responsible for feeding (37.7%), watering (51.2%), and cleaning (37.2%) that were reported by (Mapiye and Sibada’s, 2005). This imply that the roles of women in activity of the producing chicken was significantly important in the study area beginning from owners up to selling egg and chicken itself except construction of the house for poultry this related to the norm of the society of area that means most of the time women did not participate in construction activity.
Table 5. Proportion of the ownership of chicken, house contraction in agro-ecology area
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Ns; non-significantly sources from survey data
4.1.5. The Trend of indigenous chicken
The result of survey data on trend of indigenous chicken indicated (Table 6). This result indicate that trend of indigenous chicken significantly (p<0.05) was decreased in past ten years throughout all agro-ecology with a frequencies of (56.7%),(81.7%) and (63.3 %) of the respondents in high land ,mid land and low land ,respectively with an overall average (67.2%) out of the total the respondents.
In contrast, (6.7%), (13.3%) and (20%) with overall frequencies (14.4%) of respondent was increasing indigenous chicken in study area for last ten years. This is similar with the findings of (Tareke, 2016) who was reported (61.67%),(73.33%) and 80.00%) decreases with over all mean frequencies (71.67%) and (38.33%), (26.67%) and (20.00%) increases with general mean accounted about (28.33 %) in Wogdi, Borena and Legambo districts in South Wollo zone.
In the same way, Nigussie et al. (2010) reported that the extremely small flock size in this study confirms the drastic drop in the total population of chickens in Ethiopia since the past decade. Furthermore, the result of focus group’s desiccation also confirms a result, which is get from respondents during actual survey in the fields; this result implied the indigenous chicken substituted with exotic breed through discriminate cross breeding without planned crossing breeding.
Table 6.The Trend of owner of indigenous chicken in three ecology
illustration not visible in this excerpt
N; Numbers of respondents; Sources from survey data
4.2 Indigenous Chicken Population Management Practices
4.2.1. Housing system of chicken
In all the study districts farmers have tendency to practice different housing system at night presented in (Table 7).There was significantly (p<0.05) different between agro-ecology. High proportions of (18.3%) in low land than in highland (8.3%) farmers have separate chicken house. Whereas, statically no different among mid-land (13.3%) with the other two (i .e. high land 8.3% and low land 18.3%).Generally, about (13.3%) out of the total respondents had separate house for their chicken in survived agro-ecology.
This finding was consist with the result of (Tareke, 2016) who was reported that (15%) of households construct separate poultry houses for their chickens in Wogdi, Borena and Legambo districts but higher than (6.67% ) which was reported by (Getachew, 2014) from Bench-maji zone. In contrast, it is lower than (Shishay, 2014) and (Mearg, 2015) those who were reported that 59.5% and 65.7% of the total respondents constructed separate chicken houses in Southwest and central zone of Tigray, respectively.
On other hand, (26.7%) of household used perch in family house, perch in kitchen (31,7%) of the house hold shared with their poultry ,which makes bio-security of indigenous chicken production pattern vulnerable. While the remain 12.2% in live stock house,(8.3%) perch in veranda and (7.8 %) on floor under large bamboo basket/ guboo/ was kept their chicken at night.
The factory was hindered to construct chicken separate house lack of knowledge (25%) , lack of importance of poultry (small size) (34.4), risk of predators (25.6%),risk of thief (8.9%) and lack of construction material (6.1%). On an average (27.8% ) out of the respondent daily cleaning of their chicken house and perches ,(22.8%) clean the house and perches in one week while the rest cleaning in two, three and four week, respectively.
Table 7.The housing of chicken and cleaning frequency of the house and Perches
illustration not visible in this excerpt
*(p<0.05) at p (0.05) and n; number respondents interview ; Sources survey data Pou; poultery
4.2.2 .Source of feed and feed supplementing techniques
The result of survey showed that above (97.23 %) respondent supplemented in addition to free scavenge of chicken summarized (Table 8). The current result admires with (97.8 %,100% , 90.1% & 97.5% ) which was reported by (Meseret, 2010;Shishay, 2014 ;Mearg, 2015; Fisseha, 2009) those reported that the practice scavenging system with the supplementary feeding from Gomma woreda of Jimma zone, Southwest , central zone of Tigray and Bure woreda of North west of Ethiopia ,respectively.
In this study was revealed, (12.23%) of respondent provided feed to their poultry by feeder and above (82.8%) household provided by spreading on floor. Further, the purpose of supplementing the village chicken in this study was indicated to increasing egg production, meat production, for growth of chicks, for health care and to improving hatchability of chicken according to respondents.
Types of feed give to chicken across agro-ecology significantly (p <0.05) different among the agro-ecology were barley (16.7%) in high land but not commons in two agro-ecology (i.e. mid land low land). However,maize (21.7%),sourghum(14.43%),wheat (10%) , maize , injera & bread (20%),maize and sorghum (18.33%) , sourghum , injera and breads (7.23%) are types of feed supplemented to chicken along to free scavenge.
Concerning the frequency of feeding the chicken was not significantly at (p< 0.05) overall of the district whereas feeding condition of chicken population was varies ( 46.7%) of the respondents had been feed all groups together ,(32.8 %) separate group and ( 20.6 %) wholes and group of chicken.
This result is agreed with Tareke (2016) who reported (50.56%) was group feeding common practice in Wogdi, Borena and Legambo district.
Table 8.Feeding, purpose of feeding, sources and types of feed available for chicken
illustration not visible in this excerpt
N; numbers of respondent; cl. Class; sources survey data
4.2.3. Source of water and watering of the chicken flock
Water plays a great role in facilitating the digestion and metabolism system for the chicken in addition to serve as a media to administer some important drugs and vaccines (Bekele, 2014).In reference with watering of chicken 100% the owner of chicken provided water during dry season in all agro-ecology (Table 9). The current study revealed that the main sources of water for local chickens were: hand pump and springs water (25.5%), hand pump/hand operated pipe/ water (21.1%), river (18.33%), spring (16.7%), locally constructed underground water /well water / birr/ (11.13%) and tap water (7.8%) are the main source of water. Lower proportion of respondents were used river and well water as main sources in high land 5% and 1.7% than the two agro- ecology mid land (18.3% and 16.3% ) and low land (25%) and (15%),respectively.
This result was consistence with Worku (2012) who was reported that household used different sources of water to drink their birds such as springs (60.2 %), pipe (21.4%), river (12.2%) and pond (6.2%) in west Amhara region . However, buoyed with Shishay(2014) was pointed out that well water (31.7%), tap water (29.1%), river (27.3%), tap water and well water (6.2%), river and tap water (4.2%) as well as river and well water (1.6%) in western Tigray.
Regarding, the frequency of watering, most chicken producers (61.7%) practiced adlibtum type (free access of water to chicken every time by putting one places ), 24.43% give once a day and (13.9%) of owner twice a day .Concerning of the waterer in present study indicated that majority of chicken owners (98.9%) had watering trough/materials/. Among of them Plastic made covered (41.1%), broken earth pot (21.63%), metallic (14.46%), wooden trough (11.13%) and stone (5.6%) were the most widely used types of watering troughs in the study area.
The frequency of cleaning watering trough/material (36.13%) cleaned every day and (30.6%) of chicken owners cleaned in one week. However, the remain of chicken owners having watering trough was cleaning in two week, three week and four week.
Table 9. The Source of water available and watering trough in the district
illustration not visible in this excerpt
N; Number of respondents; source survey data H; high land; M; mid land and L; low land.
4.2.4 Disease outbreak and controlling mechanisms
In the current study about (97.8%) of the respondents confirmed the presence of prevalence’s disease outbreak in the three agro-ecology there was no significantly (p<0.001) variation within low land, mid land and high land where as the proportions of respondents who practiced different techniques of treating sick birds varies across agro-ecologies. Newcastle (53.9%), infections bronchia’s (flow influenza) (19.4%) and flow salmonella (10.6%) of owner of chicken was acknowledged as most economic importance disease for all age and sex of chickens ecotypes were affected without isolation or discriminately.
Regarding, the chance of sick chicken in high land about (31.7%) of the respondent treat themselves this proportion higher than from both the rest of two agro-ecology (i.e.16.7% in mid land and 18.3% in low land) used traditional or local treatment. On other hand, low proportion of the household in high land (18.3%) taken to veterinary technician found surrounding than (24.4%) the mid land and (26.7%) in low land and although (12.23%) of the respondent sell immediately of sick chicken and (7.2%) used for home consumption (Table 10).
This result admires with Meseret ( 2010) (36.7%), (30.6%), (20.6%) and (12.2%) in which the farmers treated sick birds by themselves , sell them all immediately , slaughter them for home consumption and sell them all immediately and slaughter them for home consumption, respectively. The average vaccination of chicken of ecotypes only (13.3%) but about (86.7%) not accessed to vaccine their chicken. This finding is in line with Tareke (2016) who reported that (12.22%) vaccine and (87.78%) not vaccine the chicken in Wogdi, Borena and Legambo districts. However, lower than (Agide,2014) about 50% of farmer in all study districts have vaccination program before the occurrence of disease outbreak in North showa.
Generally, the current study showed that chicken producers have poor experience of vaccination of chickens. Achievement of sustainable improved chicken productivity requires provision of vaccine and health care for our chicken on a regular basis. Training for chicken producers on importance of vaccine for their chicken and health care should be given in order to enhance sustainable improved chicken productivity there by to increase economic returns and ensure food security of small-farmers.
Table 10. Disease occurrence, measurement taken, and controlling system
illustration not visible in this excerpt
N, numbers of the respondents; sources survey data
4.2.5. Predator and controlling system
The regarding predator and controlling mechanism was revealed in the survey is presented (Table 11). Predator recalled as second position in cause of chicken loss followed by diseases in the high land, mid land and low land ecotypes.
According to respondent wild brides like( eagal,hawks, cululle and murtu),wild cat locally called / shelemetmat/, dog, domestic cat and honey burger locally called / iyyaa/ the most commons predator influenced production of ecotypes in all age-ecology.
Concerning, the severity of the predator significantly vary (p <0.001) among chicken ecotypes. The proportion in low land (30%) significantly higher than from other two agro-ecology (i.e.mid land 16.7% and high land 13.3%).However, there was not variation in wild cat (23.3%) in high land, (25%) in mid land and (20%) in low land although wild bird like / cululle and murtu / (33.3%),(35.0%) and (28.3%) high land ,mid land and low land ,respectively.
However ,dog high dangerous in low land (25%) than high land (16.7%) and mid land (10%) in area this result agreed with the findings of (Hunduma, 2010) who reported that birds of prey locally called “cululle” (34%), cats & dogs (16.3%) and wild animals (15%) were identified as major causes of village chicken mortality in Oromia Rift valley.
In addition, this study revealed that predator controlling method practices by respondent also kept in door of house with give food and water (26.7%),make shad outside house (22.8%),cleaning surround of home and compound (17.23%),looking after by young child (15%),chased by dog (7.23%) and kept in large bamboo basket especial in mothering time (11.1%) was observed .
This result supported by Tareke ( 2016) who reported that (39.4%) kept in door and (16.67%), chased by dog in Wogdi, Borena and Legambo districts and Feyera ( 2016) keeping indoors, rearing surroundings, chasing by dogs, cleaning holes in home from Gobu Sayo,BakoTibe and Danno districts.
Table 11. Character’s of the predator and controlling mechanism
illustration not visible in this excerpt
N; numbers of the respondents; Sources from survey data
4.2.6 Hatching and broody hens management
About 99.43% out of house hold incubate their chicken natural by broody hens were described in (Table 12).In the same way, the experience of selection broody hens and egg was incubated also revealed ( 51.7%) high land ,(76.7%) mid land and (78.3%) in low land with overall (68.9%) among owner of chicken. This outcome was agreed with mean (72.33%) of the respondents had practices of selection of eggs before incubation in Wollo zone (Tareke, 2016) . Furthermore, base of egg selection of respondent egg size (28.43%) ,egg size and cleanness of egg (27.53%) ,egg shape(12.03%),age of egg/duration/ (11.9%),cleanness of egg (11.1%) and crackles of egg (9%) had been seen with significantly different proportion in agro-ecology (p<0.001).
Similarly, the study also identified trait of respondent used to select broody hens like body size (29.4%),previous hatching history (24.4%),mothering ability (22.2%),egg laying frequency (15.0%) and plumage color (2.2%) with significantly different proportion among districts. This finding agreed with (Fisseha , 2010) who reported that the past egg incubation performance (73.9%), large body size (7.9%) in Bure and (66.7%) of the respondents in Fogera was trait used for selecting broody hens .And also, comparable with Meseret ( 2010) reported that body size, ample plumage cover and previous hatching history was criteria used for broody hens selection in Gomma district.
Likewise, overall average of (32.2%) household incubated at December to February, (26.6%) September to November, (18.43%) March to April and September to February (19.5%) of the respondent incubated to obtain the replacement of chicken stock. None of the less, sitting their chicken on egg in June to August across all agro-ecology this indicated that natural broody by hens it depend on season in years special dry seasons. According to the farmer, the main reasons for this are poor hatchability of eggs and poor survival rate of chicks due to cold stress, high predation in summery and shortage of feed occur at this time. This result was in lined with (Getachew,2014) who reported that wet season was the most non-preferred time of the year due to mud, rain (cold stress), disease and feed shortage in North-bench, Sheko and South-bench districts. In other way, the survey revealed that the most of interviewed respondents used different traditional methods of breaking broodiness to continue egg production by stimulating broody hens as indicated (Table 12). The traditional technique used by farmers in the study area had significantly different among study agro-ecology (p<0.05) tying hens for a few days with give food and water (71.3%) in mid land,(38.3%) out of the interview low land and (26.7%) high land were implemented.
Generally, tying hens for a few days with given feed and water (45.43%), disturbing nest (31.7%), changing of place (14.43%, hang upside dawn (3.33%) was common method practiced to intervention the frequently broody of indigenous chicken for rehabilitation herself and to restart egg production. This is comparable with (Getachew, 2014) taking to other places in North-Bench (25%),Sheko (23.33%) and South-Bench district (26.67%) followed by tying wings (21.67%) in both North-Bench and (18.33 %) in Sheko and hanging upside down (18.33%) in South-Bench.
The temperament behavior significantly different among chicken ecotypes .High proportion of chicken in high land docile (16.7%) followed by mid land (11.7%) but none in low land .However, aggressiveness characters high in low land (48.3%) ,(38.3%) in mid land and lower in low land. This is agreement with (Bogale, 2008) temperament of male chicken was docile (24%) and moderately tractable (76%) and female chickens were (100%) moderately tractable from Fogera woreda .
Table 12.Hatching broody chicks, criterion used for selection of broody hens & egg and seasons
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Sources from survey data N, numbers of respondent
4.2.7. Marketing of egg and chicken
There was significant different with respect to the proportions of house hold selling egg and chicken in different market location between the agro-ecologies (p<0.05).High proportions of households sold chicken products to their local market (35.8%) in high land followed by low land (29.6%) of respondents where in mid land (21.8%). None of the respondents had selling of chicken products to neighborhood in the low land agro-ecology while lower proportion of household in both mid land and high land. However, largest proportions of respondents sold their chicken products informal market like road side to car driver and traveler in low land (40.7%) than the others two agro-ecology (i.e. mid land 12.7% and high land 7.5%) in respect to road side selling. In the same way, about (40%) of respondent sold at woreda market, (28.3%) high land and (20.4%) in low land.
The current result agreed with chicken products was sold at the farm gate, primary market (small village market) or at secondary market (at large woreda town) in Gomma woreda of Jimma zone (Meseret, 2010). Similarly, Bogale (2008) also reported that (41.7%) and (33.3%) of the respondents sold their chicken products in the nearest market and woreda market during market days, respectively while (19.4% ) sold their products within their respective kebeles during non-market days. Whereas, this result lower than (Mearg, 2016) who reported that chicken and egg was sold in woreda market (76.5%) followed by nearest market (12.2%) and neighborhood (6.6%) in central Tigray.
The result of analyzed survey data the prices determinant trait or factory of live indigenous chicken in the study agro-ecology described (Table 13). Among of them body weight ,comb types, plumage colour ,comb types and body weight, seasons of the years and body standing or boy conformation ' qumena ' of the indigenous poultry were revealed through all agro-ecology as cause of prices determinant. There was higher proportion in low land (25%) than high land (18.3) and low land (16.7%) of respondent in respect to comb types. Similarly, there was variation among the district high land (36.7%) which was significantly (p<0.05) greatest to both of (i.e. low land 11.7% & mid land 10%) in respect to plumage colour, comb types and body weight.
In contrast , about (21.7%) mid land followed by (18.3%) low land while least in high land (13.3%) of respondent reported that seasons of years particularly religions festively was significant in determining the prices of chicken in study area.
This result admires with Mengesha et al. (2008) who was reported that body weight (34.2%), plumage color (33.3%) and comb type (32.4%) were the most predominant criteria’s commonly used for judging the prices of local chickens in Jamma district of South Wollo zone. Similarly, plumage color, comb type, plumage color and comb type, body weight, age, sex and seasons were relevant factors that brought variations on the price of live chickens at market level in Fogera district that was reported by (Bogale, 2008). Further, Tareke (2016) about (31.11 % ) cultural and religious holidays, (37.22%) qualitative and quantitative traits like plumage colour, comb type, sex and physical standing or "kumena", (19.44%) season in the year and (12.22 %) infrastructure were the most predominant factors that determine chicken price in the market in South wollo zone.
Table 13. The proportion of chicken marketing places, way of transportation, and prices determining factor in the districts
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Plu.; plumage colour bwt.; body weight sources from survey data
4.2.8. Effect of agro-ecology, supplement feed & health care on productive and reproductive performance.
The least square mean of matured female body weight ,egg production per hen per years ,age of first mating , age at first laying and length of clutch in day were significant (p<0.05) as given in (Table 14). However, number of clutch per year, number of egg per clutch, hatchability and survival age were not significant (P>0.05). High land ecotypes significantly had relatively longer Ls-means value, which is (6.37±0.13) month than the rest of two (i.e. mid land and low land 5.53±0.12 and 5.50±0.09) mean age of male at first mating, respectively.
In the same way, low land ecotypes had shorter values, which is (5.87±0.13) months for mean age of female at first egg laying and (5.50±0.09) months for mean age of male at first mating. This showed that pullets and cockerels found in low land had relatively matured faster than chicken of the other ecotypes (i.e. mid land & high land).This indicated that the presence of better awareness in management practices such as supplementary feed and availability of scavenging resources in low land agro-ecology.
The overall mean age at first egg laying (6.46±0.41) months recorded in this study was similar with Meseret (2010) age at first egg laying was reported to be 6.47 months in Gomma district and Eskindir’s (2013) reported the average age of cockerels at first mating of (6.51 and 6.99) months in Horro and Jarso, respectively. Whereas, lower than (7.19 ±0.04) month for sexual maturity of pullet in Southwest Tigray (Shishay,2014).The overall mean age at first mating for cockerels (5.87) month was highly in agreement with the findings of Getachew (2014) and Bogale (2008), who reported 5.74 and 5.87 month North-bench, Sheko and South-bench zone and Fogera district.
Moreover, an average numbers of clutch per years (4.01) for high land, (4.05) mid land and (4.38) in low land ecotypes with the generally mean values (4.15) clutch in years. This was comparable with Hailemichael (2013) who reported (4.25) in Raya-azebo district. However, higher than the finding of Meseret (2010) and Worku et al. (2012) those reported (3.43) the average number of clutch per years in Gomma district as well as (3.24) in west Ahmara region.
The average number of egg per clutch per hens were (12.37±0.20) there was significantly variation across agro-ecology (p<0.05).On other hand, the overall mean of egg per years per hens (46.3±0.95) was revealed. This result was similarly with Meseret (2010) who reported that (43.8) annual mean egg in Gomma district. In contrast, this result was lower than Fisseha et al. (2010) and Mekonnen (2007) who was reported that the mean annual egg yield of indigenous chickens (60 eggs) in Bure district and (62.95±2.29) eggs at Wonsho district, respectively.
Similarly, the effect of supplement feed and health care were highly significant (P < 0.05) for trait studied like matured female body weight ,egg production / hen / year ,age first mating and age at first egg laying through ectypes. Where the supplemented and vaccinated chicken had shorter age first mating, age at first egg laying and clutch length.
The analyzed least square means showed that a consistently ascending from high land to lowland agro-ecologies for matured females body weight, egg production ,first mating and first egg laying. This might, to some extent, be explained by environmental factors and management system such as supplement of feed and health care. The present finding reflected that there were wide variations among the three ecotypes, which influenced all the productivity and reproduction traits studied.
This result was in agreement with Abdelqader et al. (2007), who reported that the effect of different management level such as feed supplements, vaccination, treatment, house cleaning and disinfection and provision of proper housing and nesting places on hen productive performance like egg production per hen per years ,egg mass, age at sexual maturity adult females body weight hatchability and survivability in Jordan native flows.
Table 14. Effect of agro-ecology, supply feed and health care on production and reproductive performance of indigenous chickens
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Values of LS-means with different superscripts in the same row are significantly different (p>0.05)
*** Significantly, ns non significant
4.2.9. Flock composition based function trait of indigenous chicken in monitoring
As the monitoring data analysis showed that the flock composition and some functional trait of indigenous chicken presented (Table 15).The average number of egg was sat for incubation there was not significantly different among the agro-ecology (p<0.05).Generally ,overall means of egg sat for hatching (10.7±0.13) was revealed.
In the same way, there was not variation between high land and low land in respect to numbers of wasted where as high proportion of egg was wasted in low land (2.5±0.45) with overall mean of eggs wasted (1.8±0.22) had been recorded. This result same what lower than the finding of Bogale (2008) who reported that average number of eggs wasted was (3.47) in Fogera woreda. About, 1.97±0.23 (10.91%), 1.47±0.18 (8.2 %), 1.37±0.17 (7.6%) and 1.8±0.19 (9.44%) of egg lying, sitting on egg, look after of their chicks and idle hens, respectively.
The overall mean number of hens was sitting on egg and look after of their chicks during the previous nesting (before starting survey) in the mid land was significantly lower than both low land and high land. However, no significant variation was observed between low land and highland ecotypes 1.2±0.25, (6.7%) and 1.2±0.33, (6.7%) in the mid land while 1.4±0.25, (7.8%) and 1.8±0.25, (10%) a hens sitting on egg.
However, the proportion of egg laying hens significantly fewer in low land 1.7±0.33, (9.43%) although there was no different in mid land and high land 2.1±0.33, (11.6%) and 2.1±0.33, (11.6%), separately. Similarly, the overall mean number of hens in laying eggs, sitting on eggs, looking after chicks and idle hens during current nesting ( in the monitoring period) 2.07±0.17,(11.47%),1.93±0.18,(10.73%),1.67±0.15,(9.26%) and 2.17±014,(12.0%) of flock composition was revealed. The average of egg laying hens significantly had variation across agro-ecology a greater mean value were observed in low land 2.5±0.3,(13.87%) than 2.1±0.3 ,(11.1%) mid land and 1.7±0.3(9.45%) high land.
In contrast, high proportion of the hens sitting on the egg was revealed in high land 1.8±0.25, (10.0%) than of the two ecotypes 1.2±0.2, (6.7%), 1.4±0.25, (7.8%) in mid land and low land, respectively. This finding was comparatively lower than the finding of (Bogale, 2008) and ( Shishay, 2014.) who reported that (28.93%), (22.22%), (34.26%), and (17.59 %) and (40.14±1.84%), (15.89±1.55%) ,(23.31±2.08%) and (23.34±13.6%) of hens in laying eggs, sitting on eggs, looking after chicks and idle hens during current nest in Fogera and Southwest Tigray, respectively.
Furthermore, the average body weight of day old, two weeks, one-month, two-month and three-month recorded that was described in (Table 15). Overall mean value of day-old (30.41±0.43) gram, two-week (48.5±0.53) gram, one-month (143.8±2) gram, two-month (289.0±2.4) gram as well as three-month (508.3±3) gram was revealed in the study area at time of monitoring. The present result was admires with (37.96±0.18) gram, (40.19±0.19) gram, (144.13±0.53) gram, (303.04±1.23) gram and (517.25±1.25) gram in Southwest Tigray ( Shishay et al., 2014.) ,in Fogera (28.76±2.15) gram range from (22-43) gram Bogale (2008) and in Northwest Ethiopia (27.3) gram (Halima,2007).
Table 15. Functional trait of indigenous chicken in monitoring
illustration not visible in this excerpt
4.3. Chicken Breeding Management
4.3.1. Source of first breeding Stock
According to household an average (65.5%) of household was purchased, (14.5 %) gift (mostly parent given for younger children), (10.9%) purchased and custody (mean of sharing the output to the owner) (9.1%). Moreover, the sources of replacement of breeding female and male purchased and hatched (38.9%), hatched (38.3%) and only purchase (20.6%) was revealed.
This was comparable with the funding of Tadelle (2003) reported that (65%) Purchase only, and (55%) hatching and purchase were the main sources of birds for foundation and replacement stocks in Tepi, respectively. However, lower than 91.9% respondent obtained their initially chicks by purchasing 4.4% hatching and 3.7% by gift in Southwest Shawo and Gurage zone (Emebet, 2014).
Table 16. Sources of first breeding chicken described percentage in study agro-ecology
illustration not visible in this excerpt
N; numbers of the respondent’s, sources survey data
4.3.2. Breeding practices
The result of analyses data showed that about (33.3%) out of the total respondent had been experiences of breeding practices in local chicken through in different way of breeding method presented in (Table 17). Likewise, line breeding or selection with in chicken (27.2%), cross with exotic breed (49.4%) and line and cross breeding (23.3%) was the way performed by farmer to improve productivity of ecotypes. The present result was strongly admires with (31.67%) of farmer in South Wollo Ethiopia practices breeding either by crossbreeding (29.82%) for egg production or by line breeding (70.18%) has been implemented to improve chicken productivity (Tareke, 2016).
Whereas, higher than the (17.3%) of respondents have breeding practice in improving their chicken productivity either by cross breeding (80.0%) or line breeding (20.0%) farmer in North Wollo (Addisu et al,2014). And also, lower than (99.7%) of the respondents had breeding practices for improving productivity of their flocks either by improving indigenous chickens (99.5%) or by importing exotic breeds (0.5%) in Southwest Tigray (Shishay, 2014). In contrast, unlike to this study controlled mating/breeding was virtually unknown in Assosa district and lack of systematic breeding practice is one of the characteristics of traditional chicken production in Gomma district (Nega et al., 2016; Meseret, 2010).
Table 17.Farmer breeding experiences and the way of genetic improving practices in district
illustration not visible in this excerpt
N; numbers of respondents, Sources from survey data
4.3.3. Selection the breeding chicken, criteria’s and culling in study agro ecology
According to farmer about (85.6%) of respondents had been own selection practices based on their indigenous knowledge point of view. Nevertheless, the proportion of selection practices was significantly different among the agro-ecology (p<0.001).High proportion in high land (95%) than the other two (i. e. low land 86.7% and mid land 75%) had been got in the current study. In addition, regarding the sex of breeding chicken selection an average both sex (44.6%), male (36.7%) and female (18.7%) was identified. Moreover, mid land (9.4%) lower than both of two agro-ecology (i.e. high land 26.4% and low land 20%) in respecting to females sex . This result was agreement with report of Feyera (2016) who reported that (81.0%) farmers traditional selection based on their plumage color, weight and both sex (52.9%) ,male (19.6%) and female (13.2%) in western Oromia.
In other way, farmer in study agro-ecology have their own parameter and strategies or plane for culling unwanted chicken and the trait determinant before culling of chicken was given in (Table 18).Based on the result described in table 18 the respondent depopulate their poultry numbers as necessary through year. Interestingly, about (35.6%) owners due to poor productivity,(24.4%) also poor production, old age and sickness,(21.7%) for old age as well as the rest (13.9%) culling the sick from their chicken. The present finding is in line with respect to the higher farmers culling chickens for productive than morphological traits implying that village chickens are kept mainly for economic and food security reasons (Mearg, 2015).
In the same way, the depopulate animals were utilized for different purpose; home consumption and sale were the most popular chances of chicken culled from population according to respondents.
Table18.Selection criteria, culling management practices, and dilution frequency summary
illustration not visible in this excerpt
N, numbers of respondents, sources from survey data
4.3.4. Breeding objective and trait preferences of farmer in study district
4.3.4.1 Breeding objective of the respondent
The main objective of rearing chicken included for cash in came from sale, egg consumption, hatching for replacement, brooding and meat consumption or ceremony with an indices value of 0.284, 0.234, 0.195, 0.163 and 0.123 (Table 19 and 20). It is similarly with Hailemichael (2013) who reported that the first most important function of rearing chicken was sale for cash followed by hatching for breeding stock and home consumption.
In the same way, cash from sale, meat consumption, egg consumption, for replacement, for brooding, spiritual/religious, ceremony, cultural and manure with an index values of 0.101, 0.092, 0.115, 0.120, 0.242, 0.093, 0.046, 0.018 and 0.003 in central Tigray were purpose of producing chicken (Mearg,2015). In all agro-ecology the first two purpose of chicken rearing significantly similarly, high land 0.280, mid land 0.285 and low land 0.287 in respect to cash income and egg consumption.
Interestingly, there is significantly different within agro-ecology on third objective which mean that farmer in mid land meat consumption rate as third (3red) with index 0.206 while, the rest two (i.e. high land and low land) replacement for next generation with indices of 0.202 and 0.202, respectively. However, rearing of chicken for spiritual purpose there was not revealed through agro-ecology. In general, the result of this study indicated that farmers have multiple breeding purpose of indigenous chicken. In current study, most of selected sample households were participated in poultry producing but the purpose of production differs based on the wish or interest of producer per household.
Table 19. The Purpose of household producing indigenous chicken ranked index based on interest of owner
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Index is thindex is sum of (5times first order +4times second order ... + 1times fifth order) for individual variables divided by the sum of (5times first order +4times second order ….. +1times for fifth order for all parameter
Table 20. The purpose of Household producing indigenous chicken ranked index based on interest of owner
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Index is the sum of (5times first order +4times second order ... + 1times fifth order) for individual variables divided by the sum of (5times first order +4times second order ….. +1times for fifth order for all parameter
4.3.4.2. Farmer preferences of traits in breeding cock and hens
According to Zewdu (2004), the traits that represent breeding goal should be measured easily and its heritability value has to be considered and traits that are not easy to measure must have a high genetic correlation with indicator trait, and desirable economic value, either as a marketable commodity or as a means of reducing production costs. The traits traditionally considered as criteria for selecting breeding stock are important in describing the adaptive attributes and genetic merits of the indigenous chickens and in identifying farmers’ choice of chicken breeds and the underlying factors that determine the choice of genetic stock used (Nigussie et al., 2010). Egg production/hen, body weight, plumage color, body conformation / qumena / and diseases resistance were the farmer has preferred trait to be improved.
4.3.4.2.1. Trait preferences for selection breeding hens
The Analyzed data from both focus group discussion and interviewed to rank the indices of farmer trait preference in chicken rearing (Table 21). The results of indices for trait preference in breeding hens were revealed that farmers in all agro-ecology more attracted to egg production traits, live weight, conformation / qumena /, plumage color, adaptive and mothering with indices value 0.185, 0.177, 0.157, 0.132, 0.114 and 0.091, respectively. However, hatchability, brooder, comb types and, longevity was selected least frequently value 0.068, 0.047, 0.022 and, 0.005, separately.
Consequently, all respondents gave greatest attention to economic trait (egg production performances& live body weight) and functional trait (i.e. mothering ability) rather than reproduction trait and comb type. The attention given to each trait category was highly similarly in three agro-ecology especially in the first two traits. This indicated that egg production in all agro-ecology was the main trait farmer want/interested to improving on their hens due to they had got more benefits from selling egg, home consumption especially for infant and incubated for next generation replacement. This result corroborated with the egg laid per clutch , body weight growth, adaptation , reproduction /hatching, plumage color , mothering ability preferred traits to be improved through breeding in Southwest Tigray (Shishay, 2014).Similarly ,Bogale, (2008) who indicated that most of the respondents (66.7%) selected hens based on egg production in Fogera district.
Table 21.The Trait preferences of farmer for hens selection in breed improvement.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Index is the sum of (10* for Rank1 +9* for Rank2 +…+1for Rank 10th) given for each trait divided by the sum of (10*for Rank1 +9* for Rank2 +…+1for Rank 10th) for all traits under consideration
4.3.4.2.2. Trait preferences for selection breeding cocks
In the same way, trait preferred for cock more associated to female trait those are body conformation or growth rate ,live weight, plumage color, comb types and adaption (resistance to disease) the most emphasis traits for selection of the breeding cock with index 0.168, 0.165, 0.165, 0.146, and 0.115 , separately. However, the functional trait like hatchability, brooder, mothering, and longevity and egg production was selected with least frequently value 0.011, 0.024, 0.045, 0.069 and 0.093, respectively.
The attention given to each trait category was similarly in three agro-ecology especially adaptation, mothering and egg production between other traits. Nevertheless, in other trait significantly different preference in location for instance in high land live body weight more important than in the rest two agro-ecology (i.e. mid land and low land) in respect to body weight. And also, comb types in low land was more important trait than the remains two study site (i. e. high land and mid land) in respect to comb types.
This findings indicate that the chicken producer knew the importance of selecting the breeding stocks and they were primarily concerned with the improvement of body conformation, yet retaining the physical attributes of native chickens, like plumage color and comp types.
The current result supported with the finding of Tareke (2016) traits considered for male were weight (0.19), plumage colour (0.27), comb type (0.2) and physical appearance (0.17) in South Wollo Ethiopia. Similarly, large body size and plumage color was used as the most important selection criteria in South-bench district (Getachew et al, 2014).However, it was not in lined with recent research of Feyera (2016) who reported that breeding cock’s importance for market and cultural values like as plumage color and active courtship was desirable traits in western Oromia region.
Table 22.Trait category preferred by respondent for selection breeding Cock in study Agro-ecology.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Index=the sum of (10 times first order +9 times second order ... + 1times 10th ninth order for individual variables divided by the sum of (10 times first order +9 times second order ….. +1times for 10th order for all parameter.
4.3.5. Effect of the population size and Rates of inbreeding
The effect of the population size(Ne) observed in the current investigation indicated (Table 23).The overall mean was analyzed for low land, mid land and high land of native chicken flocks depend on numbers of matured breeding male and matured breeding females were 2.49,2.61 and 2.88 ,respectively. Generally, 2.66 is overall mean of study woreda in respect to the effect of population size. In addition ,the rate of inbreeding coefficient (∆F) there was no significantly different with in agro-ecology low land (0.20),mid land( 0.19) and high land (0.17) with the whole average (0.18) in respect to inbreeding coefficient in study area.
This result relatively lower than with the finding of (Mearg ,2016;Bogale,2008;Feyera,2016; Getachew,2014; Hailush,2013) those who reported that 3.99 and 0.113 in central Tigray 3.9 and 1.95 Fogera district,4.41 and 0.12 in Western Oromia,4.13 and 0.122 Southern Tigray and 3.37 and 0.15 in Bench-maij zone . The effect of population size recorded with the lowest inbreeding coefficient rate and the numbers of breeding individual is very small.
Table 23. Effect of population size and inbreeding rate of indigenous chicken in study area
illustration not visible in this excerpt
4.4. Phenotypic and Morphological Characterization of Indigenous Chicken
4.4.1. Phenotypic characterization
In the current study, the qualitative trait of indigenous chicken evaluated was summarized in (Table 24).The feather distribution, normal feathered chickens (93.7%) were most frequent predominated and feather shank and feet (3.24%) while the occurrences of naked-neck chickens (3.1%) was identified in quite small proportion in the current study. There was Significant different with respect to distributions of both feathered shank and naked-neck chickens were appeared among the chicken ecotypes. However, no significantly (p<0.001) variation in distribution of normal feathered chicken among chicken ecotypes. Furthermore, different with respect to the distribution of naked-neck chickens were observed between chicken ecotypes in the lowland (3.1%) of the total chicken population. Nonetheless, in both chicken ecotypes (i. e. mid land and high land).
This finding confirmed that naked-necks and frizzle feathers expression caused by incomplete dominant genes Na and F mostly found at warm and hot climate, separately. The naked-neck genotype is characterized by featherless skin on the neck, on the breast and on ventral part of the thigh (Khobondo et al, 2015). Similarly, the naked-neck trait is described as the expression of major gene pool found in indigenous chicken population of the tropics and it is considered to have desirable effect on heat tolerances (Horst, 1989). Reduced feather coverage should improve and enhance heat dissipation and consequently alleviate the effects of heat on chickens reared in hot climates (Aberra and Tegene, 2011).
The proportion of naked-neck revealed in current study was close to the 3 % reported from in three districts of South Wollo Ethiopia Tareke (2016) and higher than 2 % that was reported from five parts such as Farta, Mandura,Horro,Konso,and Sheka of Ethiopia (Nigussie et al, 2010).
In contrasts, the proportion of the feather shank and feet significantly high (p<0.001) in both high land and mid land (3.24%) but none in low land ecotypes. In the same way, this finding agreement the feathered chickens/genotypes are predominant in cold climates, their body is well covered with feathers ,which is help them for insulation and protection against losing body heat (Khobondo et al, 2015).
Regarding, plumage colour, red (27.4%), brown/ bunama (21.1%), grayish (14.2%), white (11.2%), black (7.9%) and multi-color (7.7%).However, black-brown/ nibama, wheaten, red-brown/ kokima, white with red strips and wosera were very rarely occurred plumage pattern through sex and agro-ecology of study area. This study supported with red (32%) , grayish/sigem (17.5%), brownish/ bunama (17%), wheaten (7.8%), multi-color (6.9%), black (6.5%), white (5.4%),and gold (5.2%) the dominant color in central Tiragy in hens (Mearg,2016). Similarly, in consist with kei (red), tikur (black), gebsima and netch (white) plumage colour at a proportion of (37%), (20.7%), (15.3 %) and (12.3 %), respectively was predominantly character in Southern Ethiopia (Abera and Tegeng, 2011). Large diversity in plumage colours across in agro-ecology was found might be due to uncontrolled breeding of indigenous chickens in village since random mating is typical breeding practices under free scavenging management system.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Figure 2. Same characterized naked-neck chicken upper left &right side red brown &lower left & right are wheaten naked necks
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Figure 3. Humbles plumage of white with red strips
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Figure 4 .Shanks & feet feathered chicken
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Figure 5. Crest head chicken with unique shank colour left shank green & the right shank is white colour as well as crest head brown in the right with single comb types
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Figure 6. Grayish left hand side and blue-black the right side one
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Figures.7 phenotypic heterogeneity of indigenous chicken
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Tables 24.The Proportion of body plumage colour and feather distribution of local chicken in study
N, numbers of the respondents; sources survey data
Moreover, earlobe colour significantly differences were observed between both agro-ecology and sexes. About (36.8%) of total chickens had red earlobes. The second most frequent earlobe colour was white and red patched (24.5%) and (19.6%) of the chickens had yellow earlobes while whitish (19.1%) of the chicken, whitish being the least occurring earlobe colour. Overall, most cock chickens had red and white earlobes while most female chickens had yellow earlobes. The current result was agreed with (52%) red,(40%) white and (8%) yellow in Farta,Mandura,Horro,Konso,and Sheka of five woredas of Ethiopia (Nigussie et al., 2010).
The analyzed survey result showed (3.24 %) out of all sampled chicken had feathered shank. There is significantly different (p<0.001) in agro-ecology with respect to the occurrence of shank feathered. High proportion of feathered shank was found in high land and mid land than low land .In current study, the different shank colour was revealed. Yellow shank the first most frequently predominate (35.9%) followed by whitish (27.7%), greyish (21.4%), red (13.5%) and silver (1.4%).There was significantly variations in both agro-ecology and sex in respect to shank colours. In mid land and low land the most frequent was yellow and whitish shank colour, whereas in high land was predominated by greyish shank colour chicken.
This result in harmony with (43.64 %, 37.90 % & 54.09%) and (33.18 %, 32.88 %, &24.55%) yellow shanks and grey shank color was dominant in North-bench, Sheko and South-bench, respectively (Getachew, 2014). Similarly, (32.48%, 33.73%, 26.30% and 7.75 %) of the chickens had yellow, white, brown and black shank colour, respectively in Southwest Showa and Gurage zones of Ethiopia (Emebet, 2015).
Concerning, the skin colour the most frequently (40.4%) of chickens had whitish skin colour, (28.5%) of local chicken occupied yellowish skin colour, blue-black skin colour (16.8%) and the rest (14.4%) was red skin colour observed. Significantly different among the agro-ecology in respect to skin colour whitish colour predominate in low land chicken while red skin colour least frequently on low land chicken .This result comparable with Guni & Katule (2013) who reported that white (51.2%) and yellow was the second most predominant skin colour (48.8%) in Southern highlands of Tanzania.
An average, most (74.4%) chickens had red combs, followed by brown-combed chickens (20.4%) while pale comb (5.6%) was revealed. A higher proportion of red-combed chickens were observed in high land and mid land agro-ecology (87% and 78.9%) than in low land (61.9%) agro-ecologies.
The comb types were observed in the present study significantly various between districts and within sexes in respect to comb types. Single comb types was the most dominant (51.5%) comb type followed by rosé (26.5%),pea comb types (14.2%), cushion (3.4%) and plain (4.3%) was most common comb types .According to Msoffe et al (2001) indicated certain comb types to occur more frequently in some ecotypes than in others and the exact significance of this phenomenon could not be explained. The present finding strongly in line with (Aberra and Tegene ,2011) who reported that ( 55 %) of the investigated chickens were single combed, rose (28.5 %) and pea (15.2 %) combs in southern region of Ethiopia and seemed to the result of Fisseha et al.(2010) also described that both single and rose comb types are found in Bure district. The occurrence of varieties of different comb types observed might be due to interactions of different genes responsible for comb expression (Guni & Katule, 2013). And also, as reported by (Crowford ,1990) the heredity of comb type in chickens is attributed to two autosomal pairs of genes (RR for Rose type and PP for Pea type).The predominated eye-colour was orange (30.4%), yellow (20.7%), brownish (20.3%) ,red (14.4%) and blue-black (14.1%) were identified. The result was in lined with orange (73.4%) eye-colour, brown (16.3%) and yellow (9.23%) most frequent in Tanzanian chicken populations (Guni & Katule, 2013).
Moreover, Eskindir et al. (2013) who was reported that (87.84%) and (9.01%), (72.48%) and (24.31%) of chickens of Horro and Jarso districts of Ethiopia to be orange and red eye colour, respectively. On other hand, in studied chicken ecotypes (75.65%) in high land, (79.45%) in mid land and (72.45%) in low land had plain head type. The corresponding values for crest head type were (22.35%) high land, (20.55%) mid land and (27.55%) in low land, separately with overall (72.3%) plain head and (27.7%) crest. This strongly agreed with (72.8%) and (27.2%) were plain and crest/gutuye/ head shape of chicken ecotypes in Southwest Oromia and Gurage zone (Emebet, 2014).
Table 25.The Proportions of head morphology ,skin colour and shank colour of sampled indigenous chicken population
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Table 26. Proportion of comb color, comb types, and comb size in indigenous chicken characterized
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Sources from survey data
Table 27. The proportion of head morphology of indigenous chicken in agro-ecology
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Sources from survey data
4.4.2. Quantitative trait of indigenous chickens
Body weight and liner body measurements are the most important characters, which are help to identifying the breeds of chicken when supported with phenotypic characterization and the agro-ecology of indigenous chicken habited. The least squares mean of body weights (Bwt), thigh circumference (TC), chest circumference (Cc) ,shank length (Sl) wingspan (Ws), body length (Bl), neck length (Nl) , comb length (Cl), comb width (Cw),ear lobe length (El),ear lobe width (Ew), wattle length (Wl), wattle width (Ww) and beak length (Bk) . The measurement was taken from total 555 matured cocks and hens of indigenous chicken populations were summarized (Table 28 ,Table 29 and Table 30). The overall least squares mean of body weight (Bwt), thigh circumference (Tc), comb length (Cl), chest circumference (Cc) ,shank length (Sl) wingspan (Ws), body length (Bl), and neck length (Nl) of the three ecotype (1.437.6±16.2kg ,9.0±0.06, 3.25±0.06,29.3±0.08,9.23±0.07,35.0±0.22,30.7±0.13 and 12.9±0.11) cm, respectively.
The current survey result indicated that the overall least squares mean body weight 1.437.6±16.2 kg(male 1.534.1±16.9kg and females 1.341.8±8.12kg) of indigenous chicken revealed .The average body weight of adult cocks and hens were significantly (p<0.05) different between ecotypes. This result strongly admired with 1.36 kg (1.54kg male and 1.34kg female) in central Tigray and (1.46kg) mean values from North Gonder by (Mearg, 2016; Addisu, 2013).
Agro-ecology effect: the analysis quantitative traits result showed that there was significant (P<0.05) variation in all traits between the three ecotypes. The least square mean values of body weight, spur length, thigh circumference, shank length, neck length, body length, wing span, ear lobe length, ear lobe width, comb width and height at back significantly (p<0.05) maximum in lowland chicken ecotypes followed by mid land while the least mean was recorded from highland chickens.
In the same way, significantly (p<0.05) greater value of breast width, chest circumference, wattle width and beak width was observed from high land followed by low land and quit low in mid land ecotypes. Moreover, wattle length and comb length significantly (p<0.05) longer in low land than of the two ecotypes (i.e. mid land & high land).Whereas, no significantly (p<0.05) variation in beak length throughout all ecotypes.
Effect of the sex on quantitative trait significantly (p<0.05) different among male and females chicken so far in this study cock showed greater value than hens in all quantitative variables. This findings agreed with Mearg (2016) who reported that male shows higher values of all parameter than female except breast width and beak width in central Tigray.
Further ,the variation of quantitative trait measurement between male and females observed in the present study was in line with result reported from Jarso and Horro ,North Gonder, Southern region and South Wollo by (Eskindir et al.,2013;Addisu,2013;Aberaa and Tegene,2011 ; Tareke ,2016). This variation might be due to the attributed of the actively foraging behavior and over computation nature of males than females and females gone through egg laying and broody behavior by (Tadelle et al., 2003).Besides, such differences are due to the differential effects of the androgens and estrogens hormones on growth (Yakubu et al., 2010).
The interaction effect on quantitative trait: As showed in table 26 significantly (p<0.05) vary effect of sex by agro-ecology on body weight and body measurement. Least squares mean values significantly (p<0.05) greatest for male and females body weight in low land (1.644±19.1 and1.430.7±14.0 kg) followed by mid land (1.586.5±19.1and 1.357.6±14.0kg) while less in high land (1.372.0±19.1 and 1.237.2±14.0kg), respectively.
This is in line with the values reported from Southern Tigray for male and female (1.676±0.01kg, 1.579±0.01kg ,1.451±0.01kg) and (1.272±0.01kg, 1.270±0.01kg , 1.192±0.01kg) low land, mid land and high land ,separately (Shishay, 2014). But lower than the values were reported (1.90±0.05kg, 1.62±0.05kg and 1.85±0.36 kg) for cocks in Gobu Sayo, Bako Tibe and Danno, district, respectively (Feyera., 2016).
The average shank length for both sex significantly (p<0.05) longer in low land (10.6± 0.13 and 9.2±0.06 cm), mid land (9.4±0.13 and 8.7±0.06 cm) and (9.2±0.13 and 8.6±0.06 cm) for high land male and female ecotypes. This result comparable with values (10.31cm) reported from Northwest part of Ethiopia ( Halima, 2007) and with (11.32 cm) and (9.99cm) that were reported from Horro and Jarso district (Eskindir et al., 2013). However, longer than (6.6-7.8 cm) in five ecotypes of Ethiopia that was reported by (Nigussie et al., 2010).As to thigh circumferences, there is not different significantly between the two ecotypes for both sexes (i.e. high land and mid land) but in low land showed significant difference among males and females of the ecotypes.
Table 28.Least square means body weight, thigh circumference, shank length interaction of chickens summarized by agro ecology and sex
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Bwt, body weights, Brwth, breast width, SPl, spur length, TC, thigh circumference, Cc, chest circumference SL, shank length. , ***=Significantly ns =non significantly
LS-means with the different letter in the same column are significantly different (p<0.05)
Moreover, least square mean value of the body length for both sex (36.2±0.02cm and 31.4±0.11cm) low land followed by the mid land (31.3±0.02cm and 28.4±0.11cm) while less figure obtained from high land ecotypes (28.6±0.02cm and 28.2±0.11cm), respectively. In same context, significantly (p<0.05) longest mean value of the wingspan was recorded for male and females chicken in low land (38.4±0.04cm and 35.9±0.2cm), the mid land (37.5±0.04 and 34.7±0.2 cm) and less values from high land ecotypes (34.1±0.04cm and 29.4±0.2cm).
This result was corroborated with Mearg (2016) who was reported that the overall mean values of body length and wing span (27.26±0.28cm and 36.27±0.34cm) as well as (26.14±0.14cm and 32.17±0.17cm) of native chicken of male and female central Tigray ,respectively . In addition, overall mean values of body length (36.77±0.03cm) and wingspan (38.09±0.24cm) was revealed from north Gonder of Amhara region (Addis et al. 2014). However, same what greater than to finding of Emebet (2015) who reported that the body length for male (24.0± 0.15cm ,24.2 ± 0.12cm and 24.1±0.15cm) and female (22.6±0.13cm ,22.8±0.09cm and 22.6±0.12cm) of local chicken in Southeastern Oromia region and Gurage zone .
Overall values of wattle length and wattle width were different among lowland (2.10±0.03cm & 1.2±0.03cm) and high land (1.48±0.03cm &1.4±0.03cm) female chicken which is significantly (p<0.05) higher than values of mid land female chicken ecotypes (1.47±0.03cm &1.1±0.03cm). In contrast, wattle length and wattle width were in lowland (3.9±0.07cm & 2.3±0.06cm) and mid land (3.6±0.07cm & 2.0±0.06cm) male chicken ecotypes which was significantly (p<0.05) higher than values of highland males birds (3.5±0.07cm & 2.2±0.06cm).
The current result higher than Addis et al. (2014) who reported that wattle length (1.42±0.07 cm) and wattle width (1.18±0.07 cm) for local hens in three districts of Northe Gondar. But lower than(4.51±0.11cm & 3.90±0.09cm and 1.83±0.02cm &1.26±0.44cm ) wattle length and wattle width of cocks and hens local poultry in Western Oromia, respectively (Feyera , 2016).
Table 29.Least square means neck length, body length, and wingspan and wattle length interaction of chickens revisited by agro-ecology by sex
illustration not visible in this excerpt
NL, neck length, BL, body length, WL, WS, wing span, WAW, wattle width, WAL, wattle length
LS-means with the different letter in the same column are significantly different (p<0.05).
*** Significant, ns non-significant
Least square mean values of comb length and comb width were comparable in both mid land (2.53±0.05cm & 1.6±0.04 cm) and high land (2.47±0.05cm &1.5±0.04 cm) females chicken ecotypes which was significantly lower (2.69±0.05cm &1.8±0.04 cm) from female chicken of low land. Moreover, mean values of comb length and comb width of male higher in lowland (4.11±0.11cm & 3.6±0.09cm) than two ecotypes (i.e. mid land and high land). Average mean values of ear lobe length significantly (p<0.05) different between agro-ecology and sex of chickens were greater in low land followed by mid land while less in high land for both sex (i.e. male &females).Whereas, there was no significant (p<0.05) different mean values of beak length among of the ecotypes. The present finding comparable with (3.1±0.1cm & 2.3±0.3cm) and (2. 7±0.1cm & 1.9±0.1cm) of comb length and width of male and female chicken of Eastern Amahara region (Addisu et al., 2014).
This quantitative traits result was ascertained that significant variations almost in all of the quantitative traits were studied between the three chicken ecotypes. The phenotypic variability of indigenous chickens of this zone was implied that the existence of the wide genetic variability among the three ecotypes, which is assist for genetic improvements of the indigenous chicken ecotypes through selection.
Table 30. Ls-mean value of comb length, ear lobe length and height at back of ecotypes chicken sex by agro-ecology
illustration not visible in this excerpt
EAW, earlobe width BKL, beak length, BK W, beak width, EAL, earlobe length, CoL, comb length Cow, comb width, HB= height at back
LS-means with the different letter in the same column are significantly different (p<0.05) *** significantly, ns non significantly
4.4.3 Multivariate Analysis
4.4.3.1. Principal component analysis of chicken morph metric trait
The quantitative trait data further analyzed by applying multivariate Principal component analysis (PCA) statistical methods which is help to reduces the set of dependent variables(i.e. attributes) to a small set of underling variables (called factors) based on pattern of correlation between the original variables (Lawless and Heymann,1998). Principal components representation is important to visualize the multivariate data by reducing it to graph-able dimensions and it is way to picture the structure of the data as completely as possible by using as few variables as possible (Cary, 2014)
The quantitative data were investigated total nineteen (19) which is allowed for multivariate principle component analysis are body weight, breast width, spur length ,thigh circumference , chest circumference, shank length ,wingspan ,body length , neck length ,comb length , comb width ,ear lobe length ,ear lobe width , wattle length , wattle width ,beak length ,wing length ,beak width and height at back. That quantitative variable firstly tested for sampling adequacy and Sphericity by Kaiser-Meyer- Olkin and Bartlett´s test and the criterion used to determine number of components retained , Eigen value greater than 1 (Kaiser criterion). For reduction of trait to Eigen vector or principle component (PC) the varimax rotation system employed and six and eight Eigen vectors extracted from female and male birds data which had about 57.32% and 70.57 % of cumulative variances , respectively.
In female birds the principal component one (PC1) was highly related with traits like wing span, body length, spur length, wattle length, neck length, height at back, wing length, ear lobe width, thigh circumference and comb width, which showed about 20.15% of variations with 3.83 of the total Eigen values.
The principal component two (PC2) also loading on body weight wattle width ,chest circumferences , which expressed about 10.74% of the observed trait variation with Eigen value 2.04 within female ecotypes. Similarly, (PC3) explained about 8.46% of the total variation Eigen value 1.61 mainly on beak length and beak width. Further, (PC4) also described 6.36% of the observed variation with Eigen value 1.21 mainly on break length and comb width. The principle component five (PC5), mainly explained on height at back and breast width which is attributed about 8.36% of variation and 1.18 of the Eigen value. PC6 also carried about 5.42% of the total variation and 1.03 of Eigen value, which contain breast width and ear lobe length.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Table 31.Eigen values, total variance along with correlation coefficient and communalities of the body measurements of female local chicken
Bwt= body weights, Brw=breast width, SPl= spur length, TCir=thigh circumference, Ccir= chest circumference, SL= shank length. NL= neck length, BL=body length, WL= WS, wing span, WAW= wattle width, WAL=wattle length EAW= earlobe width= BKL= beak length, BKW, = beak width, EAL= earlobe length, CL= comb length Co= comb width, HB= height at back
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Figure 8.Females principal component the screed plot of Eigen values
In the same way, the first principal component (PC1) of cocks birds were primarily considered by body weight ,shank length, body length wing span ,ear lone length ,wing span, comb width and height at back ,which showed about 22.57% of morphometric trait variations with 4.28 of the total Eigen values .
And also, the second principal components (PC2) solely loading on wattle width and beak width which accounted about 8.69% of the observed trait variation and had Eigen value 1.65 in male ecotypes. Moreover, PC3 also determined about 7.74% of the total variation Eigen value 1.47 that was contributed on the comb length and comb width of male of indigenous chicken. Further, PC4 again accounted for 7.38 % of the variation with Eigen value 1.40 related with thigh circumferences and chest circumferences. PC5 greatly associated with beak width and neck length, which is attributed about 6.72% of variation and 1.28 of the Eigen value. PC6, also share about 6.23% of the total variation and 1.18 of Eigen value which contain beak length and ear lobe width. PC7 accounted 5.93% with Eigen value 1.12 related spur & comb width and & PC8 had 5.32% variation 1.01 Eigen values mostly determined by beak length and ear lobe length.
The current result was strongly agreements with finding of (Mearg, 2016) who reported that 58.45% of the total variation were explained by five factory in female local chicken of the central Tigray. In addition, the first four principal components showed about 69.77% in the female and seven principal component in male explained about 74.26% of the total morph metric traits variability in Northwest Tigray of chicken ecotypes (Shishay, 2014).
4.4.3.2 Stepwise discriminante analysis
The stepwise discriminante analysis carried out based on nineteen explanatory variables of the three ecotypes to evaluate the importance of these quantitative traits in discriminating or differentiating those three ecotypes chicken populations sampled by stepwise analysis (Table 32). In this procedure, the STEPDISC models enter the variable, which have high discriminating power and removing the least discriminate one by forward selection and back ward elimination based on Wilks’ Lambda significances (0.0001).
There are 12 and 11 traits remains for female and male, respectively after each step processing, which used to discriminate the ecotypes. In females wingspan followed by body length the highest discriminate with R2 (0.5774%) and wing length is lower one. Similarly, in male chicken body length, the first discriminate and body weight had least the discriminate power significances.
Table 32. Stepwise Selection significant traits by discriminant analysis on data of the female sampled population chicken in agro-ecology
illustration not visible in this excerpt
The P-values for both Wilks‟ lambda and ASCC (Average Squared Canonical Correlation) were highly significant (P<0.000), Thigh cir, Thigh circumference
Table 33. Stepwise Selection significant traits by discriminates analysis on data of the male sampled population chicken in agro-ecology.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
The p -values for both Wilks‟ lambda and ASCC (Average Squared Canonical Correlation) were highly significant (P<0.000).TC, Thigh circumferences
4.4.3.3 Canonical Discriminant Analysis
A canonical analysis was performed by CANDISC to find linear combinations of the quantitative variable that best summarize the differences among the classes. The canonical discriminant analysis of the quantitative traits of males and females ecotypes revealed that two canonical function variables were extracted for both sex. While the first canonical variable (CAN1) function explained 79.27% for hens chicken ecotypes out of the whole variation and the second canonical variable (CAN2) also expressed about 20.72% of the total variation.
The canonical function (CAN1) one significantly related with wingspan, spur length, neck length, height at back, body weight, thigh circumferences, comb width, ear lobe width, shank length and ear lobe length where body length, wattle length, beak width, wattle width, breast width ,beak length, chest circumferences, wing length, and comb length also correlated with canonical function two (CAN2) .
In the same way, in cock’s ecotypes the first canonical (CAN 1) mainly determined 89.73% as well as canonical two or the fisher leaner discriminate function also described 10.27% of variation among of the original morphometric trait. In case of male ecotypes canonical one (CAN1) significantly (p<0.0001) related with body length, ear lobe length, height at back, wing length, neck length, body weight ,comb width, beak width, beak length and spur length wing span ,comb length, wattle width, thigh circumferences, breast width, ear lobe width, chest circumferences ,wing length and shank length with canonical two (CAN2). This result was comparable with shank length, body length, comb width, body weight, wing span and comb height were found to have more discriminating power causing morphological variations between Horro and Jarso chicken ecotypes of Ethiopia that was reported by ( Eskindir et al., 2013).
Further, from countryside the foot length, neck length, thigh circumferences and body length were more discriminating traits were explaining morphological variability between ducks from the two zones of Nigerian ducks (Yakubu et al. 2011). In addition, so far body weight, body length, heart girth and height at back showed the largest discriminatory power between three Jordanian chicken genotypes (Abdelqader et al., 2007)
Table 34. The Total –sample standardized canonical coefficients, canonical correlations and total variation explained by each trait of the local chicken ecotype
illustration not visible in this excerpt
CAN=canonical function
4.4.3.4. Discriminant Analysis
The classifications of the chicken ecotypes were evaluated by estimating the probability of the error counted rate. Overall, average of error rate was (5.71%) for all sampled male ecotypes, which means that (94.29%) correctly classified were (3.6%) of the error rate observed in females which means that about (96.4%) properly categorized. Further, the result analyzed showed that low land male chicken ecotypes were correctly classified (100 %) followed by high land chicken (97.14%) while the mid land male chicken was less correctly classified (85.71%) this showing that high land male ecotype is divergent from the other types. However, in female’s ecotypes (98%, 94.67% &96.67%) was success classified in high land, mid land and low land, respectively.
Moreover, pair wise generalized squared distances between chicken ecotypes were significant (p<0.0001) as summarized in (Table 35). The longest distance value was calculated between low land and high land female chicken ecotypes (32.00) followed by mid land and high land (15.85) but the shortest distance value was observed between low land and mid land chicken (12.92). Interestingly, the pair wise distances of male ecotypes revealed that the greatest distances between high land and low land (61.14) followed by mid land and low land with the distances values (28.41) was as low between mid land and low land (14.62).
Accordingly, significantly (p<0.0001) the longest distances were identified among male ecotypes than females chicken, which was implied that the genes fellow of male ecotypes higher than females chicken ecotypes. In both sex low land ecotype had longest distances than the other two ecotypes (i . e. high land &mid land).
Table 35. Classification summary of male chicken number of observations and percent classifies ecotypes
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Table 36.Classification summary of female chicken number of observations and percent classified
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Table 37.Proximity matrix or generalized squared distance of male and female’s local chicken ecotypes male about the diagonal and females distances below the diagonal.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
The current morphometric diversity of chicken ectype are might be the contribution of variation in agro-ecology, climatic conditions and the purpose of chicken rearing in different agro-ecology and production environments of this chicken resources in areas assumed .
5. Summary and Conclusion
5.1 Summary
The breeds of indigenous chicken play importance role in socio-economic of the poorest housed in world especial in developing country because of this most farmer in Ethiopian participated in production of chicken with different aim and management system to become beneficiary. An average chicken flock size per household in the three agro-ecologies was identified to be 10.20±0.78 chicken. The trend of indigenous chicken ownership significantly (p<0.05) was decreased in past ten years throughout agro-ecology with a frequencies of 56.7%,81.7% and 63.3 % according to respondents in high land ,mid land and low land ,respectively .
The chicken production system of the study districts is a backyard extensive system and management of the ecotypes are scavenging with feed supplementation. The purpose of supplementing of the village chicken to increasing egg production, meat production, for growth of chicks, for health care and to improving hatchability of chicken according to respondents.
The major source of these supplementary feeds were homegrown grains and household leftovers/by products. Types of feed give to chicken barley and wheat in high land .However, maize, sorghum, wheat, injera & bread are types of feed supplemented to chicken in two-agro ecology. All respondent in the study area provided water to birds, especially during the dry season and the hand pump and springs , river was the major source of drinking water for village chicken in the study area. About (13.3%) of respondents had separate chicken house and perch in main house, perch in kitchen while the remains in livestock house was kept at night.
Regarding, the disease outbreak about (97.8%) of the respondents ascertain prevalence’s of disease outbreak mostly at rain season throughout agro-ecology. Newcastle (54.43%), infections bronchia’s (19.43%) of respondent underline as the most economic importance disease for all age and sex of ecotypes. The practices of vaccination chicken ecotypes were low only (13, 33%) of farmer accessed. Moreover, predators were second cause in chicken loss followed by diseases a crossed agro-ecology. kept in door of house ,make shad outside house ,looking after by young child and chased by dog and kept large bamboo basket especial in mothering time among the controlling method practices in area .
All most all the respondents employed natural broody hens to incubation of their chicken. The selection experience of broody hens and egg also revealed (51.7%) high land, (76.7%) mid land and (78.3%) in low land among owner of chicken.
The Analyzed least square means showed that a consistently ascending from high land to low land agro-ecologies for body weight of female, egg production ,first mating and first egg laying . Generally, lower Ls-means values observed in most traits for high land ecotypes compared to other two ecotypes. This might be explained by environmental factors such as nutrition and management conditions of respondents.
The overall mean values of hens in laying eggs, sitting on eggs, looking after chicks and idle hens during the monitoring period 2.07±0.17,(11.47%),1.93±0.18,(10.73%),1.67±0.15,(9.26%) and 2.17±014,(12.0%) of flock composition was revealed, respectively. Overall, weight of day old ,two weeks ,one month, two month and three month was taken mean , (30.41±0.43) gram , (48.5±0.53) gram , (143.8±2) gram, (289.0±2.4) gram as well as (508.3±3) gram, respectively.
Breeding experiences of the household (33.3%) had practiced through in different way of genetic improving method. Like as line breeding or selection with in chicken (27.2%), cross with exotic breed (49.4%) and line and cross breeding (23.3%) was performed by farmer to improve productivity of ecotypes. According to farmer about (85.6%) of respondents had been own selection experiences based on their indigenous knowledge point of view .In addition , farmers have their own parameter and strategies for culling unwanted chicken from their population.
The main objective of chicken producer for cash in came, egg consumption, hatching, replacement, brooding and meat consumption were ranked as main aim of the owner. Egg production performances, live weight, body conformation / qumen /, plumage color, adaptive and mothering ability preferred traits of the breeding hens. Similarly, trait preferred for cock was body conformation or growth rate, live weight, plumage color, comb types and adaption (resistance to disease) the most emphasized traits for selection of the breeding cocks. The effect of population size 2.66 and the rate of inbreeding coefficient (∆F) (0.18) were calculated within ecotypes.
About, (93.7%) of chicken ecotypes were normal feathered, feather shank and feet (3.24%) and naked-neck chickens (3.1%) was revealed in quite small proportion. Plumage colour, red (27.4%), brown/ bunama (21.1%), grayish (14.2%), white (11.2%), black (7.9%) and multi- color (7.7%).However, black brown/ nibama, wheaten, red-brown/ kokima, white with red strips and we sera were plumage pattern through sex and agro-ecology .
Red ear lobe is the first predominant in chicken ecotypes (36.7%) while white and red patched covered (24.7%) the next most frequent earlobe colour and whitish earlobes also (22.7%) out of the chickens ecotypes while yellow being the least occurring earlobe colour. Yellow shank colour occurred in high frequencies (35.7%) followed by whitish (27.9%) and greyish (21.5%). Whitish skin colour was one of the most frequently predominant (40.4%) of ecotypes, (28.5%) of local chicken occupied yellowish skin colour and blue-black skin colour explained (16.8%) was observed. Red combs colour (74.4%) out of chicken ecotypes followed by brown-combed chickens (20.4%) while pale comb (5.6%) was revealed. The orange eye-colour accounted (30.4%), yellow (20.7%), brownish (20.3%), red (14.4%) and blue-black (14.1%) were identified.
The least squares mean(Ls-means) of body weight (Bwt),thigh circumference (Tc), comb length (Cl), chest circumference (Cc) ,shank length (Sl) ,wingspan (Ws), body length (Bl), and neck length (Nl) of the three ecotypes (1.437.6±16.2kg),(9.0±0.06cm),(3.25±0.06cm), (29.3±0.08cm),(9.23±0.07cm),(35.0±0.22cm),(30.7±0.13cm) and (12.9±0.11cm) , respectively. Further, multivariate principle component analysis were applied by quantitative traits like body weight, breast width, spur length ,thigh circumference , chest circumference ,shank length ,wingspan , body length , neck length and comb length.
The varimax rotation system used to reduction of trait to principle component (PC), based on this six and eight Eigen vector was extracted from females and males chicken data that had about 57.32% and 70.57 % of cumulative variation , respectively.
The STEPDIS models enter the variable, which have high discriminating power and removing the least discriminate one by forward selection and back ward elimination based on Wilks’ Lambda significances (0.0001).
Finally, 12 and 11 traits were remained for female and male ecotypes, respectively after each step processing. Subsequently, in females wing span followed body length the highest discriminate with R2 (0.5774%) and wing length lower one. Similarly, in male body length, the first discriminate and body weight had least the discriminate power.
Moreover, the canonical discriminant analysis of the quantitative traits of cocks and hens ecotypes were revealed that two canonical function extracted for both sex while the first canonical variable (CAN1) function explained 79.27% and 89.73% the second canonical variable (CAN2) also expressed about 20.72% & 10.27% of the total variation hens &cocks ecotypes, respectively.
The classification of the individuals correctly into their original group was highest in lowland male chicken ecotypes (100%) and high in the high land (97.14%) while the mid land male chicken were the less correctly classified (85.71%) this showing that high land male ecotype is divergent from the other types.
The longest distance value was calculated among low land and mid land; female chicken ecotypes (32.00) followed by mid land and high land (15.85). The shortest distance value is (12.92) ,which is between low land and mid land chicken.Also the greatest distances is (61.14), which is between high land and low land male ecotypes and the shortest distances is (14.62) ,which is between mid lands low land was absorbed.
The current morphometric diversity of chicken ecotypes are might be the contribution of variation in agro-ecology, climatic conditions and the purpose of chicken rearing in different agro-ecology and production environments of those chicken resources assumed
5.2 .Conclusion
- This study indicated existence of phenotypes variation within indigenous chicken, which showed the genetic variability of ecotypes and this genetic variability it may be due to management system & geographical wide range of Ethiopia.
- The management practices of indigenous chicken identified in this survey was traditional with different shortcomings. Therefore, need awareness creation on management system of chicken for stockholders and concerning body.
- This investigation revealed that, the indigenous chicken traits have large variation in body length, height at back and shank length. Supplemented chicken had good productive and reproductive performance.
- In addition, important traits for breeding in tropical agro-ecology conditions, such as naked-neck, specifically in low land agro-ecology. However, the distribution and frequencies of these chickens were very limited in number. Therefore, the measures are need for its conservation before extinction.
6. Recommendations
- The Productive and reproductive performances of indigenous chicken were very low ,thus improvement of ecotypes performance through within breed selection and improving the management conditions such as feed supplementing, housing, watering and health care for chicken ecotypes should be given due attention.
- There is a strong need for appropriate intervention in disease and predator control activities to reduce chicken loss and grant sustainable productivity. Control of diseases, mainly NCD (New castle disease), could be achieved through vaccination by the improving veterinary access and advice services.
- Phenotypic characterization of these indigenous chickens should be followed by genetic characterization methods to identify the variability of chicken at molecular levels that will further clarify the genetic similarity and different among the ecotypes.
- There is a need to design stakeholder based breed improvement programs in order to increase the genetics potential of chicken depend on their trait preference through selection breeding for utilization and conservation of the huge genetic diversity of these indigenous chicken populations .
7. References
Abdelqader, A., Wollny, C. B. A. and Gauly, M. 2007.‘Characterization of local chicken production systems and their potential under different levels of management practice in Jordan’ Animal breeding and husbandry in tropics and subtropics, Georg August University Gottingen, Kellnerweg 6, 37077 Gottingen, Germany, pp. 155–164.
Abdelqader1 , C.B.A. Wollny2 & M. Gauly3 2008.On-farm investigation of local chicken biodiversity and performance potentials in rural areas of Jordan. Animal Genetic Resources Information, No. 43:49-57.
Aberra, M. and Tegene, N. 2011. Phenotypic and morphological characterization of indigenous chicken population in Southern region of Ethiopia. Animal Genetic Resource Information Journal, 49: 19-3.
Aberra, M. and Tegene, N. 2007. Study on the characterization of local chicken in Southern Ethiopia. Proceedings held in Awassa, March 16-17.
Abubakar MB, Ambali AG and Tamjdo T.2007.Rural chicken production: Effects of gender on ownership and management responsibilities in some of parts of Nigeria and Cameroon. International Journal of poultry science, volume , 6:413-416.
Addisu, G. 2014. Review on Ethiopian Poultry Origin, Domestication, Classification and Characterization of Its Production Systems. Middle-East Journal of Scientific Research 22 (7): 1025-1032.
Addisu Hailu.2013. Phenotypic Characterization of Indigenous Chicken Ecotypes in Northwollo, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia. M.Sc Thesis submitted to graduate study of Bahidar University …
Alemu, Y. & Tadelle, D.1999.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.
Addisu, H., Zewdu, W. & Hailu, M. 2014. Breeding Practices and Objectives of Indigenous Chicken in North Wollo Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia. International Journal of livestock
production, 5(1):55-22.
Agide, 2015. On- Farm Phenotypic Characterization of Indigenous Chicken and chicken Production Practices in North Shewa Zone, Amhara, Ethiopia. MSc Thesis pp 61.
Apuno, A.A., Mbap, S.T. & Ibrahim, T. 2011.Characterization of Local Chickens (Gallus Gallus Domesticus) in Shelleng and Song Local Government Areas of Adamawa State, Nigeria .Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America, 2(1):6-14.
Asefa T. 2007. Poultry management practices and on farm performance evaluation of Rhode Island Red (RIR), Fayoumi and local chicken in Umbullo Wachu watershed. M.Sc. Thesis submitted to the school of graduate studies of Hawassa University, Awassa, Ethiopia.
Azage Tegegne, Tesfaye Mengistie, Tesfaye Desalew, Worku Teka and Eshete Dejen, 2009. Transhumance cattle production system in North Gondar, Amhara Region, Ethiopia: Is it sustainable? IPMS (Improving Productivity and Market Success) of Ethiopian Farmers Project. Working Paper No.14. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. pp 73.
Badhaso, B. 2012. The Status of Indigenous Village Chicken production and Marketing System in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa University.
Barua, A. and Y. Yoshimura, 1997. Rural poultry keeping Bangladesh. World Poultry Sci. J. 53: 387 – 394
Besbes, B. 2009. Genotype evaluation and breeding of poultry for performance under suboptimal village conditions, World’s Poultry Science Journal, 65, 260-27 .
Bhandari ,B. B. 2003 . Participatory Rural Appraisal, Module 4. Institute for global environmental strategies. http://enviroscope.iges.or.jp/contents/eLearning/waterdemo/bhandarim4.pdf
Bogale, K. 2008. In Situ Characterization of Local Chicken Eco-Type for Functional Traits and Production System in Fogera Woreda, Amhara Regional State.Msc.Thesis Submitted to Haramaya University, Haramaya, Ethiopia.
Bishop, P. 1995. Chickens: Improving small-scale production. Echo technical note .
Cochran, W. G. 1963. Sampling Techniques, 2nd Ed., New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Crawford, R. D.1990. Origin and History of Poultry Species. In: Poultry Breeding and Genetics. Ed. By R. D. Crawford. Elsevier, Amsterdam.
Crawford, R.D.1984. Domestic Fowl. In Evolution of Domesticated Animals, ed.L.L.Mason, 298-311.London.
CSA. 2015/16. Agricultural Sample Survey 2009/10. Report on Livestock and Livestock Characteristics, vol.2. Statistical Bulletin No. 468. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
CSA. ,2010. Agricultural Sample Survey 2010/11. Statistical Bulletin 2: 505 Report on Livestock and Livestock Characteristics, Addis Ababa.
CSA . 2014. Agricultural sample survey 2013/14. Report on livestock and livestock characteristics, 2. Statistical Bulletin No. 468. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
CSA , 2003. Statistical report on livestock and farm implements, part 5, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Dawit, G. 2010. Market Chain Analysis of Poultry: The Case of Alamata and Atsbi-Wonberta Woredas of Tigray Region. A Thesis Submitted to the Department of Agricultural Economics, School of Graduate Studies of Haramaya University. Haramaya, Ethiopia, pp 81.
Dechassa,2000. Field Assessment Report: Jimma Zone of Oromia Region, UN-Emergencies Unit for Ethiopia.
Desalem,T., 2012. Management Practices ,Productive Performance and Egg Quality Trait of Exoticion Chickensuc under village Production System in East Shewof Ethiopia.MSc,Thesis of Addis Ababee University,pp. 210
Duguma, R .2006. Phenotypic Characterization of Some Indigenous Chicken Ecotypes of Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Vol. 18:131 .
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, M., Singh, H., Sisaye, T., & Johansson, A. M. 2014. Phenotypic Characterization of Indigenous Chicken Population in South West and South Part of Ethiopia. British Journal
of Poultry Sciences, 3 (1), 15-19.
Emebet, M. 2015 .Phenotyipc and Genetic Characterization of Indgenous Chicken in Southwest Showa and Gurage Zones of Ethiopia’.Ph.D dissertetion at Addis Ababee University pp.127.
Egahi, J.O., Dim, N.I., Momoh, O.M. & Gwaza, D.S. 2010.Variations in qualitative traits in the Nigerian local chicken. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 9 (10): 978–979.
El Houadfi, M,. 1990. Report sur la production avicole et problems lies aux elevages traditional au Maroc.In: CTA Seminar proceedings, volume 2, Smallholder Rural Poultry Production, Thessaloniki, Greece, pp 161-171.
Eskindir, A., Kefelegn, K., Tadelle, D. & Banerjee, A.K. 2013. Phenotypic Characterization of Indigenous Chicken Populations in Ethiopia . International Journal of Interdisciplinary and
Multidisciplinary Studies, 1(1):24-32.
ESAP (Ethiopian Society of Animal Production) 2004. Farm Animal Biodiversity in Ethiopia: Status and Prospects. Asfaw Yimegnuhal and Tamrat Degefa (Eds). Proceedings of the 11th Annual conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP) held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,August28-30,2003.ESAP, Addis Ababa ,pp 441.
Eshetu Y., E. Mulualem, H. Ibrahim, A. Berhanu & K. Aberra. 2001. Study of gastrointestinal helminths of scavenging chickens in four rural districts of Amhara region, Ethiopia. Rev. sci. tech. Off. Int. Epiz. 20 (3), 791-796.
FAO, 2010. 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,2012. Draft guidelines on phenotypic characterization of animal genetic resources Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. 13th Regular Session, 18–22 July, 2011, Rome (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/022/am651e.pdf)
FAO, 2004. Manual Small Scale Poultry production technical guide by Sonaiya E.B and Swan S.E. J. FAO Animal Production and Health Series No.1.Available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/y5169e/y5169e00.HTM date accessed 04-09-2009.
FAOSTAT Database, 2013. Retrieved October 10, 2017, from http://faostat.fao.org/faostat/, FAO, Rome.
Feyera ,B.2016.Phenotypic Characterization of Indigenous Chicken and Their Production System in Gobu Sayo,Bako Tibe and Danno Districts of Western Oromia, Ethiopia’. MSc. Thesis submitted to the Haramaya University, Haramaya , pp 130.
Fisseha, M. 2009. Studies on production and marketing systems of local chicken ecotypes in Bure district, North-West Amhara. M.Sc. Thesis, Hawassa University, Ethiopia.
Fisseha, M., Azage, T. and Tadelle, D. 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.
Ganabadi,S. S., M.A. Mutuviren, S.M.A. Babjee , H . Yaakub,and S.Fakurazi, 2009 . Carcass Composition of Jungle Fowl in Comparison with Broilers and Indigenous. Chicken. Asian Journal of Animal Sciences 3 (1) pp 13-17 .
Getachew Bekele,2014. On-farm phenotypic characterization of indigenous chicken and their production system in bench maji zone, south western Ethiopia. MSc.Thesis Submitted to the, School of Graduate Studies Haramaya University,Ethiopia, pp 108.
Getachew Bekele, Kefelegn Kebede and Negassi Ameha. 2015. On-farm Phenotypic Characterization of Indigenous Chicken and their Production System in Bench Maji Zone, South Western Ethiopia. Sci. Technol. Arts Res. J., 4 (1): 68-73.
Gondwe, T.N. and Wollny, C.B.A. 2007. Local chicken‟ production systems in Malawi: Household flock Structure, dynamics, management and health. Tropical Animal Health and Production . 39, 103-113
Gueye, E. , 1998. Village egg and fowl meat production in Africa. World’s Poult. Sci. 54: 73- 86.
Gueye, E.F. 2000. Women and family poultry production in Africa. Development in Practice 10:98– 102.
Gueye, E.F., 2003. Family poultry research and development in low income food deficit
countries: approaches and prospects. Outlook on Agriculture. Volume 31, Number 1. Pp32 .
Guèye, F.F. and W. Bessei, 1997. The importance of poultry farming in Senegal. Animal Research and Production 45: 82 -88 .
Guni, F. S . and Katule,A. M.,2013.Characterization of local chickens in selected districts of the Southern Highlands of Tanzania: I. Qualitative characters. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 25(9).
Hanotte O. and Jianlin H. 2005. Genetic characterization of livestock populations and its use in conservation decision-making: The role of biotechnology, 5-7 March, 2005, Villa Gualino, Turin, Italy.
Hailemichael Nigussie,2013.On-farm phenotypic characterization of indigenous chicken and chicken production systems in Southern Zone of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia, Thesis Submitted to the, School of Graduate Studies Haramaya University,Ethiopia,pp 106.
Halima Hassen, 2007. Phenotypic and genetic characterization of indigenous chicken populations in North-West Ethiopia. Ph.D Thesis. Submitted to the faculty of natural and agricultural sciences department of animal, wildlife and grassland Sciences. University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa. Pp 186 .
Halima H, Neser FWC., Kock A., Marle-Köster E., 2009. Study on the genetic diversity of native chickens in northwest Ethiopia using microsatellite markers. Afr. J. Biotech., 8: 1347-1353.
Horst, P., 1989. Native fowls as reservoir for genomes and major genes with direct and indirect effect on the adaptability and their potential for tropically oriented breeding plans.Arch. Geflugel., 53(3): 93–101.
Hoyle, E. 1992. Small-scale poultry keeping in Welaita, North Omo region. Technical pumpblet No. 3 Farmers Research Project (FRP). Farm Africa Addis Ababa.
Hunduma, D., Chala, R., Dawo, F., Bekana, E. & Leta, S. 2010. Major constraints and health management of village poultry production in Rift Valley of Oromia, Ethiopia. Am.-Euras. J. Agric. Environ. Sci., 9 (5): 529–533.
Johann, S.r , Maria, W. & Zewdu, W. 2009. First progress report on genetic and phenotypic characterization and designing of breeding strategy for an indigenous cattle breed in north western Ethiopia: Acontribution for sustainable genetic resources utilization, Vienna, Australia.
Khobondo J O, Okeno T O, Lihare G O, Wasike C B, and Kahi A K 2014 .The past, present and future genetic improvement of indigenous chicken of Kenya. Animal Genetic Resources, 125.
Kingori A M, Wachira A M and Tuitoek J K 2014 Influence of energy intake on egg Production and weight in indigenous chickens of Kenya. International Journal of Poultry Science 13: 151-155.
Kitalyi A. and Andre M. 1998. Village-chicken production systems in rural Africa: Household food security and gender focus. FAO Animal Health and Production Series Paper No. 142. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), Rome, Italy.
Kitalyi, A.J. 1998. Village chicken production systems in rural Africa. Households food and gender issues. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome Italy. pp 81.
Lawless, H. T., and H. Heymann. 1998. Pages 606–608 in Sensory Evaluation of Food: Principles and Practices. Chapman & Hall, New York, NY
Leulseged Y. 1998. Study on production systems of indigenous and improved poultry in rural areas of North Wollo. Alemaya, Ethiopia, MSc.Thesis Summited to Alemaya University of Agriculture,Ethiopia, PP 102 .
Maiwashe A, Nephawe K A, van der Westhuizen R R, Mostert B E and Theron H E .2006. Rate of inbreeding and effective population size in four major South African dairy cattle breeds. S outh African Journal of Animal Science 36: 50–57.
Mapiye, C., and S., Sibanda. 2005. Constraints and opportunities of village chicken Production systems in the smallholder sector of Rushing district of Zimbabwe. Livestock Research
for Rural Development, 17 (10).
Mason, I.L. 1984. Domestic Fowl. In: evolution of domestic animals. Long man Inc., NewYork,pp 360
Markos Shishay 2014. Phenotypic Characterization of local chicken ecotypes in Western Zone of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. M.Sc.Thesis Submitted to Grauate studies of Jimma University pp 284.
Markos, Shishay, Berhanu Belay and Tadelle Dessie. 2015. on Farm Performance Evaluation of Three Local Chicken Ecotypes in Western Zone of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Journal of
Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare 5, no. 7 : 158-169.
Mbugua, P.N. 1990. Rural Smallholder poultry production in Kenya. In Proceedings of a
seminar of an International Workshop. Thessaloniki, Greece.
McAinsh, C.V., J. Kusina, J. Madsen, and O. Nyoni, 2004. Traditional chickens‟ production in Zimbabwe. World‟s Poult. Sci 60: 232-242.
Mekonnen G/gziabher, 2007. Characterization of the small holder poultry production and marketing system of dale, wonsho and loka abaya districts of SNNPRs. MSc Thesis. submitted to Hawassa University.
Melese Gashu Nigatu 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.
Mengesha, M., Tamir, B., and Tadelle, D. 2008. Socio-economical contribution and labor allocation of village chicken production of Jamma district, South Wollo, Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development 20 (10).
Mearg,F.,2016. phenotypic Characterization of Local Chicken Ecotypes in the Central Zone of Tigray in Northern Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis Submited to graduate study of jimma universit. pp 148 .
Meaza, 2015. Participatory Variety Selection And Variability Of Potato (Solanum Tuberosum L.) Varieties at Jimma Zonne, Southwest Ethiopia MSc. Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies Jimma University College of Agriculture and Veterinary Medicine . Pp
Maleku ,Tareke,2016.On farm Phenotypic Characterization of Indigenous Chicken Population and Their Production System at Wogdi, Borena and Legambo Districts in South Wollo Ethiopia” M.Sc .Thesis Submitted to the School of Animal and Range sciences, of Haramaya University. Pp 106.
Mesud, 2011. The E ffect of Livestock Production and Management System on Environmenta Resources, in Mixed Farming area . The case of Seka -chockorsa Woreda , Jimmma Zone of Oromia Regional State. MSc. Thesis Submitted to Graduate Studies of Addis Ababa University,PP
Mengesha, M., Tamir, B. and Dessie, T. 2011 . Village chicken characteristics and their seasonal production situation in Jamma District, South Wollo, Ethiopia . Livestock Research for Rural Development 20 (7).
Mesert, M. 2010. Characterization of village chicken production and marketing system in Gomma District, Jimma Zone, Ethiopia.MSc.Thesis Summited to the Jimma University,Ethiopia. pp. 110
Moiseyeva I., Romanov M., Nikiforov A., Sevastyanova A. and Semyenova S. 2003. Evolutionary relationships of red jungle fowl and chicken breeds. Genetics,Selection,
Evolution. 35: 403-23.
Msoffe P. L. M., Minga U. M., Olsen J. E., Yongolo M. G. S., Juul-Madesen H.R., Gwakisa P. S. and Mtambo M. M. A. 2001. Phenotypes including immunocompetence in scavenging local chicken ecotypes in Tanzania. Trop. Anim. Hlth Prod., 33 (4): 341-354.
Muchadey, F.C., H. Eding, C.B.A. Wollny, S.M. Groeneveld, R. Shamseldin, H Simianer, and S.Weignd, 2007. Absence of population sub structuring in Zimbabwe chickens Ecotypes inferred using microsatellite analysis. Anim. Genet. 38,332-339.
Musharaf A.N.1990. Rural poultry production in Sudan. In CTA Seminar proceedings on Small holder Rural Poultry production. Thessaloniki, Greece, 2: 227-232.
Mwacharo JM, Nomura K, Hanada H, Jianlin H, Hanotte O, Amano T., 2007.Genetic relationships among Kenyan and other East African indigenous chickens. Animal Genetics. 38:485–490
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: 212-216.
Nega Mekonnen, Aklilu H/Michael, Haimanot Disassa,2016. Reproductive and Productive Performance of Poultry Kept in Rural, Peri-Urban and Urban Settings in Assosa District, Benishangul Gumuz Region, Western Ethiopia. Nature and Science 41(1):8-14 ,http://www.sciencepub.net/nature .
Ngou Ngoupanyou, J.D., 1990. Country report on small holder rural poultry production in Cameroon. In: CTA Seminar proceedings on Small holder Rural Poultryproduction, 9-13 October 1990, Thessaloniki, Greece, 2: 39–41.
Nigussie Danna. 1999. Evaluation of the performance of local Rhode Island Red (RIR) and Fayoumi breeds of chicken under different management regimes in the high lands of Ethiopia. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal Nutrition and Management.
Nigussie D, Alemu Y, Tadelle D, Samuel W. 2003. On station and on-farm evaluation of the ‘hay-Box chick brooder’ using different insulation materials at DebreZeit Agricultural Research Center and Denbi village,Adaa woreda .In Proceedings of the 10th annual conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP), August 21-23, held in Addis Ababa,Ethiopia. pp. 211-216.
Nigussie, D., Tadelle, D., van der Waaij LH, van Arendonk, J.2010. Morphological features of indigenous chicken populations of Ethiopia. Animal Genetic Resource Information Journal, 46: 11-23.
Negussie Dana and Ogle, B., 1999. On farm evaluation of Rhode Island Red (RIR) anlocalchickens under different management regimes in the high land of Ethiopia. M.Sc thesis,presented Swedish Univeristy of Agricultural Sciences, pp 79.
Nigussie Dana. 2011a Breeding programs for indigenous chicken in Ethiopia: analysis of diversity in production systems and chicken populations. Ph.D Thesis, Wageningen University, the Netherlands (2011),81 PP 148 .
Nigussie D, Van der Waaij LH, Dessie T, Van Arendonk JAM. 2011b. 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. 42:1519-529.
Nigussie Dana and Ogle, b. 2000. On farm evaluation of the performance of local and Rhode Island Red breeds of chicken maintained under different management regime in central high altitudes of Ethiopia. In proceedings of 8 th annual conference of the Ethiopian society of animal production (ESAP), Addis Abeba, Ethiopia,pp 123-134.
Njenga S.K. 2005. Productivity and socio-cultural aspects of local poultry phenotypes in coastal Kenya. M.Sc.Thesis. The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Nwanta J.A., Egege S.C., Alli-Balogun J.K and Ezema W.S. 2008. Evaluation of prevalence and seasonality of Newcastle disease in chicken in Kaduna, Nigeria. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 64 : 416–423.
Okeno T. O., Kahi A. K. and Peters K. J. 2011. Breed selection practices and traits of economic importance for indigenous chicken in Kenya. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Vol. 23, Article #209.
Pedersen, C.V.,2002. Production of semi-scavenging chicken in Zimbabwe. PhD thesis, Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen,Unpublished
Peters K.J. 1988. Principles in evaluation of goat populations in tropical and subtropical environments. World Review of Animal Production, 24 (1).
Petrus, N. P .2011 . Characterisation and Production Performance of Indigenous Chickens in Northern Namibia Regions. PhD Dissertation, University of Namibia.pp 219.
Rege J. E. O. 1992. Background to ILCA’s AnGRs characterization project, project objectives and agenda for the research planning workshop. African animal genetic resources: Their characterization, conservation and utilization. Proc. the research plan workshop, 19-21 February 1992, ILCA, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Riise, J.C., Permin, A., Mc Ainsh, CV. and Frederiksen, L. 2004. Keeping village poultry. A technical manual on small-scale poultry production. Network for small holder poultry development. Chapter 1.
Romanov, W. A. ,2001. Current strategies for the assessment and evaluation of genetic diversity in chicken resources. World Poult. Sci. J., , 57: 275–287.
SAS (Statistical Analysis System), 2008. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.v,9.0 .
Selamawit., M. A. 2015. Village chicken production performances assessment under scavenging management system in Amaro district, SNNPRS of Ethiopia International Journal of Innovative Research in Technology & Science(IJIRTS) 3
Serkalem Tadesse, Hagos Assenafi and Zeleke Aschalew, 2005. Sero-prevalence study of Newcastle disease in local chickens in central Ethiopia. International Journal of Applied
Research. Vet. Med. Vol. 3, No. 1.
Solomon Demeke, 2003. Growth Performance and Survival of Local and White Leg Horne chicken under scavenging and intensive System of management in Ethiopia. Jimma College of Agriculture. Jimma Ethiopia
Solomon, D. 2004. Egg production performance of local and white leghorn hens under intensive and rural household conditions in Ethiopia.Jimma College of agriculturep.obox.307,Jimma, Ethiopia.
Solomon D. 2007. Suitability of hay-box broodingtechnology to rural household poultry productionsystem. Jimma University College of Agriculture andVeterinary Medicine Jimma Ethiopia, pp: 1-2.
Sonaiya E.B. 1990. Toward sustainable poultry production in Africa. In: A paper presented at the FAO expert consultation on strategies for sustainable animal agriculture in developing countries. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations), Rome, Italy.
Sonaiya E.B., Branckaert R. D. S. and Guèye E. F. 1999. Research and development options for family Poultry. First INFPD/FAO Electronic Conference on Farm Poultry: 7 December 1998 - 5 March 1999.
SPSS (Statistical Packages for Social Sciences.) Window 2007 .SPSS User’s guide Version 23.0. SPSS Institute Inc., Cary NC.
Tadelle, D. and B. Ogle, 2001 Village poultry production systems in the central high lands of Ethiopia Tropical Animal Health and Production, 33 (6): 521-537.
Tadelle, Dessie,1996. Studies on village poultry production systems in the central highlands of Ethiopia. M.Sc Thesis, Swedish University of Agricultural sciences.
Tadelle D. 2003. Phenotypic and genetic characterization of chicken ecotypes in Ethiopia. PhD thesis. Humboldt University, Germany. PP 208.
Tadelle, Dessie, T. Million, Y. Alemu and K.J Peters, 2003(a).Village chicken production system in Ethiopia. Paper (1) Flock characteristics and performances Livestock research for rural development. 15(1).htp;//www.cipav.org.co/irrd/irrd15/1/ tadaa 151.htm.
Tadelle D., Alemu Y. and Peters K.J. (2000). Indigenous chicken in Ethiopia: Genetic potential and attempts at improvement. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 56:45–54.
Takele Taye Desta & Oli Wakeyo,2011. Uses and flock management practices of scavenging chickens in Wolaita Zone of southern Ethiopia. Trop Anim Health Prod, DOI 10.1007/s11250-011-9933.
Teketel Forsido, 1986, studies on the meat production potential of some local strains of chicken in Ethiopia. Ph.D.Thesis,J.L. Giessen University. University. PP 29.
Teklewold, H., Dadi, L., Yami, A. and Dana, N., 2006. Determinants of adoption of poultry technology: a double hurdle approach, Livestock Research for Rural Development, 18 (3)
Tewodros, M. M. A. M. G. 2015. Assessment of livestock genetic resource diversity in Ethiopia: An implication for conservation Journal of Gene c and Environmental Resources Conserva on, 3.
Weigend, S. & Romanov, M.N. 2003.The World watch list for domestic animal diversity in the context of conservation and utilization of poultry biodiversity. World’s Poult. Sci. 58 (4): 411- 430
Wondu, M., Mehiret, M. and Berhan,T.2013.Characterization of Urban Poultry Production System in Northern Gondar, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia. Journal of agriculture and biology, North America. Science Huβ, http://www.scihub.org/ABJNA .
Workneh Ayalew and J. Rowlands (eds), 2004.Design, Execution and Analysis of the Livestock Breed Survey in Oromiya Regional State, Ethiopia.OADB (Oromiya Agricultur Development Bureau), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya. PP 260.
Worku, Z., Melesse, A. & T/giorgis, T. 2012. Assessment of Village chicken production system and the performance of local chicken population in West Amhara Region of Ethiopia. Journal of Animal Production Advances, 2 (4): 199-207.
Yakubu, A.2010. Indigenous chickens of Nasarawa state, Nigeria: their characteristics, Husbandry and Productivity. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyst., 12: 69–76.
Yakubu, A.2011. Discriminant analysis of sexual dimorphism in morphological traits of African muscovy ducks. Arch. Zoo tec., 60:1115–1123.
Zeuner, F.E., 1963. A history of domesticated animals. Hutchison, London. pp 189 .
Zewdu,W.,2004.Indigenous cattle genetic resources, their husbandry practices, and breeding objectives in Northwestern Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis. Haromaya University, Haromaya, Ethiopia. p.143.
8. APPENDEX
APPENDEX 1. The ANOVA of chicken per household
Tables 1. The ANOVA for hens per household
Sum of
Source DF Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F
Model 2 10.0333333 5.0166667 4.06 0.0190
Error 177 218.9166667 1.2368173
Corrected Total 179 228.9500000
Tables 3. ANOVA of cock per household
Sum of
Source DF Squares Mean Square F Value Pr > F
Model 2 0.53333333 0.26666667 0.62 0.5406
Error 177 76.46666667 0.43201507
Corrected Total 179 77.00000000
Table 3. The ANOVA for pullets per respondents.
Sum of
Source DF Squares Mean Square F -Value Pr > F
Model 2 30.5333333 15.2666667 7.54 0.0007
Error 177 358.4166667 2.0249529
Corrected Total 179 388.9500000
Table 4. The ANOVA for cockeler per households
Sum of
Source DF Squares Mean Square F -Value Pr > F
Model 2 11.7444444 5.8722222 4.95 0.0081
Error 177 209.9000000 1.1858757
Corrected Total 179 221.6444444
APPENDEX.2.The Cross Tabulation of Ownership of chicken
Table 5. Cross Tabulation of Ownership of chickens
APPENDEX.3.The ANOVAs tables for effect of Agro-ecology, supplied feed &Health care
Tables 6. ANOVAs for Agro-ecology, sup.feed & health care on females’ body weight
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Tables 7. ANOVA table Agro-ecology,sup.feed & health care on egg production per hen per years
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Tables 8 ANOVA tables Agro-ecology,sup.feed & health care for first mating cockeler
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Tables 9 .ANOVA table Agro-ecology, sup. Feed & health care on first egg laying the pullets.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Tables 10.ANOVA Agro- ecology,sup.feed & health care on clutch length in days
illustration not visible in this excerpt
a. R Squared = .381 (Adjusted R Squared = .360)
Table 11.The ANOVA Ls-means of body weight
Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F
Agro-ecology 2 3277694.604 1638847.302 55.18 <.0001
Sex 1 3155725.407 3155725.407 106.23 <.0001
Sex*AEZ 2 145220.658 72610.329 2.44 0.0877
Error 549 16305943.48 29701.17
Corrected Total 554 2376694.15
Table 12.The ANOVA Ls-mean breast width
Source variation DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr >F
Agro ecology 2 5.98117989 2.99058995 13.55 <.0001
Sex 1 10.34315060 10.34315060 46.87 < .0001
Sex*AEZ 2 0.86801521 0.43400760 1.97 0.1409
Error 549 121.1554742 0.2206839
Corrected Total 554 138.0477917
Table 13. ANOVA of Ls-mean of spur length
Source variation DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F
Agro-ecology 2 5.4411302 2.7205651 19.59 <.0001
Sex 1 234.6109407 234.6109407 1689.65 <.0001
Sex*AEZ 2 6.4654675 3.2327337 23.28 <.0001
Error 549 76.2297215 0.1388520
Corrected Total 554 341.8808998
Table 14.ANOVA Ls-mean of thigh circumference
Source variation DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F
Agro-ecology 2 32.60199412 16.30099706 15.93 <.0001
Sex 1 28.08443436 28.08443436 27.45 <.0001
Sex*AEZ 2 13.52257141 6.76128571 6.61 0.0015
Error 549 561.7274083 1.0231829
Corrected Total 554 686.9717838
Table 15. ANOVA Ls-mean for shank length
Source variation DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F
Agro-ecology 2 72.56437246 36.28218623 54.64 <.0001
Sex 1 70.58454401 70.58454401 106.29 <.0001
Sex*AEZ 2 10.65485895 5.32742947 8.02 0.0004
Error 549 364.5778403 0.6640762
Corrected Total 554 514.4631182
Table 16. ANOVA Ls-mean of neck length
Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F
Model 5 378.022191 75.604438 52.60 <.0001
Agro-ecology 2 102.2192253 51.1096127 35.56 <.0001
Sex 1 35.9358728 35.9358728 25.00 <.0001
Sex*AEZ 2 36.7572188 18.3786094 12.79 <.0001
Error 549 789.112508 1.437363
Corrected Total 554 1167.134700
Table 17. ANOVA Ls-mean for body length
Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F
Model 5 2651.666545 530.333309 261.84 <.0001
Agro-ecology 2 1811.717298 905.858649 447.25 <.0001
Sex 1 610.565182 610.565182 301.46 <.0001
Sex*AEZ 2 287.550541 143.775271 70.99 <.0001
Error 549 1111.938292 2.025389
Corrected Total 554 3763.604837
Table 18. ANOVA Ls-mean wing length
Source DF Type III SS Mean Square F Value Pr > F
Model 5 197.0329098 39.4065820 35.25 <.0001
Agro-ecology 2 70.92761557 35.46380778 31.73 <.0001
Sex 1 87.91420849 87.91420849 78.65 <.0001
Sex*AEZ 2 1.17419286 0.58709643 0.53 0.5917
Error 549 613.6650549 1.1177870
Corrected Total 554 810.697964
APPENDEX.4. Malt variant analyzed principal component of females chicken
Table 19. Malti- variant analyzed principal component of females chicken
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Questionnaire for the phenotype characterization and production system of indigenous chicken in Jimma zone
APPENDIX .5. Questionnaire
I. Instruction to the Enumerator
Please introduce yourself before starting to question and explain Objective study. Please ask each question patiently until the farmer gets the point.
1. Socio-economic characteristics
illustration not visible in this excerpt
1.1. Family size living in the house by age and sex 1.2. Educational level (tick one)
illustration not visible in this excerpt
1.3. HH head sex 1. Male 2. Female
1.4. Position in household (circle no) 1.Household head 2. Spouse of head 3. Son 4.Daughter 5.Others (specify)
1.5. Marital status of the respondents:
1. Single, 2. Married, 3. Divorced, 4. Widow/widower
1.6. What is your main farming activity?
1. Livestock production 2. Crop production 3. Mixed 4. Trade 5.employed 6. Other
1.7. What is the average land holding (ha)? - 1 = Nil, 2 = small ≤ 0.5 ha, 3= medium: ≤ 0.75 ha, 4= 1 ha 5.=1.5 6. = 2.5> 7=>5 ha.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
2. Production and management practices
A. herd size, livestock composition, flock structure and HH responsibilities
2.1 Total numbers of livestock species owned by the HH & rank based on their relative importance.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
2.2. Classify your chicken flock according to age, sex and breeding category (number)
illustration not visible in this excerpt
2.3 Member of households who own chicks?
1. Head 2.spouse 3. Head and spouse together 4.sons 5.dauther 6.other
2.4. What are the uses of chicken products
2.5. Labor division, ownership and decision making for poultry production in HH members.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
3. Production system
3.1 What type of poultry production system do you practice?
1. Backyard (free ranging) 2. Scavenging only 3. Scavenging +Seasonal supplementation
4. Semi + scavenging 5 Intensive system
4. Housing
4.1. Where do chickens stay at night?
1. Separate shelter 2. Perches in the house 3. Perches in the kitchen
4. Perches on the veranda 5. Other (specify)
4.2. If separate house, what type of poultry house?
1. Stone made with corrugated iron sheet 2. Wooden made with grass roof 3. Wooden made with corrugated iron sheet 4. Other (specify)
4.3 If you don’t have a separate house for your chickens, why not?
1. Lack of knowledge (Awareness) 2. Lack of importance of poultry(small size)
3. Lack of construction materials (Availability and Cost) 4. Risk of predators
5. Risk of theft 6.Other (specify)
4.4. How many days do you clean the house?
4.5. How do you dispose of manure?
1. No special disposal or storage 2. Feed to other animals 3. Use as fertilizer
4. Other describes
5. Feed and feeding
5.1. Do you provide supplementary feed for your chicken? 1.Yes 2.No
5.2. If no what is the reason?
1. Lack of awareness 2.Unavailable 3.Expensive 4. time shortage
5.3 If yes, what type(s) of supplementary feed do you provide write based on their rank?
illustration not visible in this excerpt
5.4 Source of supplementary feed?
1. Purchased from market 2. From household 3.crop Harvest
4. Harvested and purchased 5. Other specify
5.5. Which breed of chicken gets supplementary feeding most frequently?
1. Local breed 2.cross breeds 3. Exotic breed 4.all breeds
5.6 What is the frequency of providing supplemental feed?
1. Every day 2. Every other day 3. Every3 day
5.7 Mark tick the months you provide additional feed?
illustration not visible in this excerpt
5.8 Which age group of chicken given priority for feeding?
illustration not visible in this excerpt
5.9. How do you provide the feed?
1. By feeder 2.spreading on the floor 3.other (specify)
5.10. If you use feeder, what types of feeder do use?
1. Plastic made 2.earthen plot 3.wooden trough 4. Stone made 5.other (specify)
5.11. Indicate availability of supplementary feed resources (Tick accordingly)
illustration not visible in this excerpt
6. Watering
6.1. Do you provide water to your chicken?
1. Yes 2. No. If yes how frequent do you provide water to your chicken?
1. once a day 2.Twice a day 3.adlibitem
6.2. Sources of water, distance to the nearest source and its quality during dry and wet season.
illustration not visible in this excerpt
6.3 .Distance to the nearest water source?
1. at home, 2. < 1km, 3. 1-3 km, 4. 4-7 km, 5. >7km
6.4. Do you have waterer? 1. Yes 2.No
6.5. If yes what types of watering trough do you have?
1. Plastic made, 2. Earthen pot,3. Wooden trough, 4.stone made, 5.other
7. Chicken population trend
7.1.Did your chicken flock size change during the last 10 years? (Circled for the selected)
1=no, remained same 2=yes, increased 3=yes, decreased Reason
Did your chicken flock size change with season? 1= yes 2= No.
8. Health care
8.1. Is there any poultry disease in your area? 1. Yes 2. No
8.2. Discuss the major economically important disease?
illustration not visible in this excerpt
8.3. What are the measures that you are taken?
1. Take the chicken to vet 2.Treat them by myself 3.Sloughter for consumption 4. Sell to market 5.No action 6.Other (specify)
8.4. Access to veterinary services and distance to the nearest service?
illustration not visible in this excerpt
8.6. What type of traditional control measures (Indigenous knowledge) you used to prevent the risk of economically important diseases?
8.7. Have you observed any variation in disease resistance among your chickens?
1. Yes 2.No
8.8. If yes what the unique characteristics of these birds?
8.9. Do you have access to advisory (technical) support from extension workers on poultry production? 1. Yes 2. No
8.10. Is there poultry vaccination campaign held in your area in the past 12months?
1. Yes 2.No
8.11. If yes what types of vaccination
8.12. To which breed do you vaccinate? 1. to local 2. To exotic 3. To cross 4. To all
8.13. If not what is the reason
9. Culling
9. 1. Do you practice culling of birds? 1. Yes 2.No
9.2 If yes, what is your reason for culling (multiple answers are possible)
Old age Poor productivity.. Unwanted plumage color/pattern.
Illness.. Bad temperament... Excess in number Other (Specify)
9. 3. What is your culling practice of less productive chickens?
1. Slaughter, 2.sell, 3. Sell or consume eggs, 4. If others specify
9.4. Do you purposely cull your chickens at any time? 1. Yes 2. No
9.5. What factors determine which bird you will cull?
1. Poor productivity, 2.Old age, 3.Sickness, 4. Frequent broodiness, 5. Lack of broodiness, 6.Other, specify
10. Production constraints
10.1. Is there any predator in your area? 1. Yes 2. No
10.2. fill the following table
illustration not visible in this excerpt
11. Marketing
11.1 Do you sale chicken? a. Yes b. No
11.2 If yes, Where do you sale your chicken (Circle accordingly)?
A. in local market B. to the neighbor-hood C. in nearby areas D. other specify
11.3. Distance in KM-
11.4. Means of transportation /specify/
11.5. Do buyers have quality specification in poultry products a. Yes b. No
11.6. If yes, what are these? -
11.7. What is the demand of poultry and poultry products in the market?
a. Very high b. High c. Medium d. Low e. Very low
11.8. How do you evaluate the local market price for your product? a. High b. Medium c. Low
11.9. How is the price trend of poultry in your locality? 1. Increasing 2. Decreasing 3. Stable Reasons
11.10. Do you sale eggs? a. Yes b. No
11.11. If yes, Where do you sale your Eggs (Circle accordingly)
A. in local market B. to the neighbor-hood C. in nearby areas D. other specify
11.12. How do you transport chicken to local market?
1. Embracing by hand 2. Hanging by hand upside down 3. In baskets 4. By car 5.Others
11.13. How do you transport eggs to local and urban markets?
1. Eggs with grain 2. Eggs with straw 3. In plastic container 4. Others
11.14. What are the major determinant factors that affect (control) the price of chicken?
1. Plumage colour 2. Comb type 3. Sex of chicken 4. Shank color 5. Other.
11.15. What are the major problems relating to marketing of poultry and poultry products?
12. Functional traits (Reproductive and productive performances)
illustration not visible in this excerpt
12.1 How frequent hens lay eggs until the end of the clutch period?
1. daily 2. Every other day 3. Every 3 day 4. No egg (stop laying)
12.2 What do you think about the trend of the clutch period as the age of the bird increases?
a. Increase b. Decrease c.No change d. No observation
illustration not visible in this excerpt
12.3 How frequent do you collect your eggs?
1. Every day 2. Every 2 days. 3. Every 3 days 4. Weekly 5. Not collected until incubation/sale
12.4 After which clutch period the hen is supposed to set eggs for hatching chicks.
13. Hatching, brooding and egg storage practice
13.1.Do you prepare laying place nest for the layer? 1. Yes, 2. No
13.2.The laying nests: 1. Common for all layers, 2. Individual
13.3. Do you collect the laid eggs? : 1. Yes, 2. No, 3. as necessary
13.4. Where do you store eggs used for incubation and hatching purpose? -
1. Mixed with grain. 2. Mixed with flour. 3. Put in straw. 4. Plastic container
13.5. Why?
13.6. How long do you store your eggs before incubation in dry season?
1. One week 2. Two weeks 3. Three weeks 4. Until incubation
13.7. How long do you store your eggs before incubation in wet season?
1. One week 2. Two weeks 3. Three weeks 4. until incubation
13.8. Do you mix eggs obtained from different hens? 1. Yes 2. No
13.9. Do you select eggs before incubation? 1. Yes 2. No
13.10. If yes which criteria’s you practice?
1. Large size 2. Small size 3. Shape of the egg 4. Cleanness of the eggs (dirtiness) 5. Shell condition (crackness) 6. Other specify
13.11. Tick the months when you prefer to set eggs for hatching.
A September-December B January-Match C April-June D July-Augast
13.12. Why you prefer to set in this month?-
13.13. Why do you not set in these other months?.
13.14. What material do you use during incubation?
1. Mud containers 2.Clay 3.Wooden containers 4.Others, specify
13.15. What kind of bedding materials are used during the incubation of eggs?
13.16. What method do you use for brooding and rearing chickens?
1. broody hen(natural methods) 2. Hay box brooder 3. Electricity 4.All methods
13.17. How would you describe broodiness in your hens?
1. Common 2. Sometimes 3...Rare
13.18. Interval between two consecutive brooding period (months)
13.19. How do you deal with unwanted broodiness behavior? (Multiple answers are possible).
illustration not visible in this excerpt
13.20. How would you describe the temperament of your chickens?
1. Docile Moderately 2.Tractable 3.Wild/Aggressive
14: Breeding Practices
14.1 what type of mating system do you practice? 1.1. Control mating 1. 2.uncontrolled mating system
14.2. Do you practice breeding? 1. Yes, 2. No
14.3. If your response to Q (2) is yes, which method of breeding do you use? 1. Importing exotic, 2. Improving indigenous
14.4. If your method of breeding is improving indigenous, what is your way of improving indigenous?
4. 1. Cross breeding, 4.2. Line breeding
14.5. Do you select chicken for breeding and production? : 1. Yes, 2. No
14.6. If yes, in which sex do you practice selection? 1. Male, 2. Female, 3. Both
14.7. Do you practice mating system for genetic improvement? 1. Yes, 2. No
14.8. If your answer to Q (7) is yes, your way(s) of mate controlling is: 1. culling poor productive, 2. cull at early age, 3. retaining, 4. Preventing mate, 5. others specify
14.9. Selection criteria used for breeding:
illustration not visible in this excerpt
15. The Breeding objectives or and trait preferences of the farmers.
15.1. Have you reared chickens objectively? 1. Yes, 2. No
15.2. what are your breeding objectives of chickens (rearing purposes)?
illustration not visible in this excerpt
15.3. What are your trait preferences of your chickens? And rank according to their degree of preferences(as 1st , 2nd , 3rd , 4th , 5th , 6th , 7th , 8th , 9th and etc)
illustration not visible in this excerpt
APPENDEXI .6. Phenotypic & Morphometric description of chicken
Phenotypic description of chicken (morph metric)
Name District kebeleAgro-ecology
Farmerfarmerfarmerfarmer
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Sources Mearg, 2015 with same modification
APPENDEX. 7. Questionnaire for monitoring
1. Enumerator 2. Ecotype 3. Kebele 4. Household 5. Date
Monitoring data collection matrix (to be completed every 15 days)
illustration not visible in this excerpt
8. Total no. of chicken
illustration not visible in this excerpt
Sources Bogale, 2008 with some modification
APPENDEX.8. Check List for Focal Group Discussion
1. The history and preference of the indigenous chicken breed & exotic breed’s reason.
2. Social laws.
- Poultry keeping
- Religious taboo
3. Major loss of indigenous chicken in the past, Reason?
4. Indigenous knowledge in managing the breed
- Breed identification
- Distinguishing features of indigenous chicken
- Special qualities of indigenous chicken
- Good and undesirable character of indigenous chicken compared with other livestock
- Trait preference
5. Major indigenous chicken production constraints
- Breed..
- Diseases & predatory.
- Feed shortage
- Initial capital .
- Farm disturbing-
- Others
6. Major management practices
Feeding
Housing
Water availability and watering material..
Health care
Hatchery practices
6.1. Do you have matting practice and breed improvement?
6.2. Do you have culling practice poor productive chicken…
When.
Do you select broody hen?...
Do you have practice of preventing broodiness?
7. Indigenous chicken population trend in the last 5 years?
APPENDEX.9.Trait code protocol used in data collection
1. Feather characteristics
A. Feather morphology: 1.Normal, 2.Silky, 3.Frizzle 4. Others
B. Feather distribution: 1. Normal, 2. Necked Neck, 3. Feathered shanks & Feet 4. Muffs and bread, 5. Vultures hocks, 6. Others (specify)
C. Feather growth rate: 1. Fast feathering, 2. slow feathering
D. Plumage color: 1. completely white, 2.Completly black, 3. completely red 4. Grayish/Gebsima, 5. Multicolor/Ambesma, 6. Black with white stripes /Teterma 7. Red brownish/Kokima, 8. White with red spots/Seran, 9. Others/Specify
E. Breast feather colour: 1. Black, 2. Red, 3. White, 4. others/specify
F. Neck feather colour: 1. completely white, 2.Completly black, 3. completely red, 4.Grayish/Gebsima 5. Multicolor/Ambesma, 6. Black with white stripes/Teterma 7. Red brownish/Kokima, 8. White with red spots /Seran, 9. Others/Specify
G. Back feather colour: 1. completely white, 2.Completly black, 3. completely red 4. Grayish/Gebsima, 5. Multicolor/Ambesma, 6. Black with white stripes /Teterma 7. Red brownish/Kokima, 8. White with red spots/Seran, 9. Others/Specify
2. Skin characteristics:
A. Skin colour: 1. White, 2. Yellow, 3. red, 4. Pink, 5.others
B. Shank colour: 1. Yellow, 2. Black, 3. White, 4. Blue 5.Gresh, 6.Silver
3. Shank feather &feet: 1. Present2.Absent
4. Spur presence: 1. Present 2. Absent
5. Comb type: 1. Single 2.Rose, 3.Pea 4.Plain, 5.Cushion
6. Ear lobe colour: 1. White, 2.Red, 3.Yellow, 4. White & red, 5. others, specify
7. Body Shape: 1. Blocky, 2. Triangular, 3. Wedge
8. Head shape: 1. Plain/Ebab-ras, 2. Crest/Gutya, 3. others, specify
9. Comb size: 1. small, 2. Medium, 3. Large
10. Eye color: 1. Black, 2.orange, 3.brown, 4.Red, 5.Yellow 6.blue-black
11. Comb color: 1.red, 2.pale, 3.brown, 4.black, 5.other
APPENDEX. 10. Definition of body measurement
1. Weight (wt): was taken by 3kg spring & 5kg balance using to the nearest 100g for birds
2. Shank length (SL): From hock joint to foot
3. Comb length (CL): From beak base to head
4. Comb height (CH): from the base of comb at skill to the tip of comb using telemeter to the nearest millimeter.
5. Ear lobe length (EL) from the base of the ear job at the ear along dorsal to the tip of earl lob to the nearest cent meter-using tape.
6. Spur length (SPL) from the base of spur at the shank along dorsal surface to the tip of the spur using tape meter to the nearest cent meter.
7. Wattle length (WL) from the base of wattle at the lower part of beak along dorsal to the tip of wattle using tape meter to the nearest cent meter.
8. Wing spans (WS): from the base of using span at shoulder to lip of primary flights
9. Height at back (HB): from foot to back
10. Body length from pin bone to calvic
[1] Smallest administrative
- Quote paper
- taju siraj (Author), 2017, Phenotypic Characterization and Assessment of Management Practices of Indigenous Chicken in Jimma Zone, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/383485
-
-
-
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X.