952
Views & Citations10
Likes & Shares
This
study was conducted in Gena Bossa district with the objective of assessing
village chicken production system and constraints of chicken production system.
Multistage stratified purposive and random sampling methods were used and a
total of 138 households were participated for the interview. 15, 54 and 69
farmers selected for interview from highland, midland and lowland
agro-ecologies, respectively. From the interviewed farmers 47, 47 and 44
farmers were poor, medium and rich wealth leveled, respectively. Farmers were
categorized to their education level and 34, 34, 35 and 35 respondents were
interviewed from illiterate, reading and writing, primary first and primary
second cycle education level, respectively. The overall flock size of chickens
was 10.86 per household. About 92.2% of the respondents practice scavenging
with supplementary feeding system. Only 10.4% of the respondents constructed
separate house for chickens. Newcastle disease was the main disease which
affects the flock and only 31.42% of the respondents practice vaccination. Predators
and diseases were the main constraints for production, and feed accesses and
veterinary service were opportunities to increase performance of chickens.
Lowest production performance of indigenous chickens were recorded under farmer
management condition which needs further improvement from the government by
organizing trainings for farmers on disease control, housing and feeding of
chickens to improve productivity.
Keywords: Agro-ecology, Education level,
Wealth status, Constraints, Gena Bossa
INTRODUCTION
Agriculture dominates the Ethiopian economy
and contributes 45% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and provides more than 80%
of employment. Ethiopia has the highest livestock populations in Africa and
accounts for 17%, 20%, 13% and 55% of cattle, sheep, goats and equines,
respectively [1]. Livestock production accounts for about 32% of agricultural
GDP and 61% agricultural total export [2-4].
The global poultry population has been
estimated to be about 16.2 billion, of which 71.6% is found in developing countries
[5]. In Africa, village poultry contributes over 70% of poultry products and
20% of animal protein intake [6]. In East Africa over 80% of human population
live in rural areas and over 75% of these households keep indigenous chickens.
The Ethiopian poultry population is estimated to be about 60.5 million, of
which 94.33%, 2.47% and 3.21% is indigenous, exotic and hybrid chickens,
respectively [1]. According to CSA report 83.5%, 7.1% and 9.4% meat and egg
product comes from indigenous, hybrid and exotic breeds of chickens in
Ethiopia, respectively.
The Ethiopian indigenous chickens are known
to possess desirable characters such as thermo tolerant, resistance to some
disease, good egg and meat flavor, hard egg shells, high fertility and
hatchability as well as high dressing percentage [7]. According to Abubakar [8]
the impact of the Ethiopian village chicken in the national economy and its
role in improving the nutritional status, family income, food security and livelihood
of many smallholders is significant
In
Ethiopia, the contribution of indigenous chickens to farm household and rural
economies is not proportional to their large numbers. The production systems
are affected by different constraints which cause low productive and
reproductive performance of chickens. These constraints which affect chicken
production include diseases, poor management practices, predation and lack of
organized markets from which the most important in the village chicken are
disease and improper housing conditions which expose birds for predation
[7,13-15].
There
are numerous chickens existing in the study area but still now producers got
little products from their chickens. However, the productivity of indigenous
chicken and the production system has not been studied extensively in Gena
Bossa district of SNNPR. Cognizant of this, this research was designed with the
objectives of assessing village chicken production system and constraints of
chicken production in the Gena Bossa district of SNNPR.
MATERIALS AND METHOD
Description of the study area
This
study was conducted at Gena Bossa district. The district is found in Dawro zone
of South Nation Nationalities and Peoples Region State (SNNPRS). Karawo is the
town of the district which is located at about 508 km south west of Addis Ababa
across Shashemene and Wolayita, 303 km from Hawassa Town of SNNPRS. The total
surface area of the district is 90,122 hectare. The total population of Gena
Bossa district is about 109,401 and from this 54,870 is male and 54,531 is
female.
Selection of study households
Multistage stratified purposive and random
sampling methods were used to study population that produces indigenous
chickens. Based on the number of chicken population and the potential of each kebeles and its representativeness to
the district, three kebeles from
lowland, two kebeles from midland and
one kebele from highland were
selected to collect data. Farmers were categorized to different wealth levels
poor, medium and rich. Then, those farmers which separated by wealth status
were re-categorized by education level. Finally, 138 respondents randomly
selected from different agro-ecologies which was categorized based on wealth
and education level. 15, 54 and 69 farmers were selected from highland, midland
and lowland agro-ecologies, respectively to determine the effect of
agro-ecology on chicken production. This also divided to wealth status and 47,
47 and 44 farmers selected from poor, medium and rich wealth leveled farmers,
respectively to determine the effect of wealth on chicken production. Finally;
34, 34, 35 and 35 farmers from illiterate, reading and writing, primary first
cycle and primary second cycle education level, respectively were selected from
those farmers classified by wealth status to determine the effect of education
level of respondents on chicken production.
Sample size determination
The total size for household was determined
by using probability proportional size-sampling technique Cochran’s (1977).
no = Z2* (P)(q) / d2
Where;
no=Desired sample size according
to Cochran’s (1977) when population greater than 10,000
Z=Standard normal deviation (1.96 for 95%
confidence level)
P=0.10 (proportion of population to be
included in sample, i.e., 10%)
q=is 1-P, i.e., (0.90)
d=is degree of accuracy desired (0.05)
Data collection methods
Questionnaire survey: The data were collected by using both primary
and secondary source of data. The primary data were collected by using
semi-structured questionnaire. The parameters like flock composition, types of
breed, productive and reproductive performances, feeding and watering, housing
and health control systems, breeding, socio-economic contribution, constraints
and opportunities of traditional chicken production system were gathered by
using questionnaire. The secondary data were collected from written document of
Gena Bossa Agricultural and Natural Resource Development Office, Animal and
Fisher Development Office of the district and other sources.
Data management and analysis: Descriptive statistics such as percentage,
mean and frequency were calculated and all survey data were analyzed by using
SPSS Version 20 [16]. Descriptive statistics were employed for describing data
gathered by questionnaires for management practices.
Respondents gave ranks to constraints and
opportunities of chicken production. Then priority index was used to rank the
constraints and opportunities of traditional chicken production according to
their severity and based on their relative importance, respectively.
Priority Index = Sum (n × number
of HHs ranked first) + (n-1) × number of HHs ranked second + (n-2) × number of
HHs ranked third +...+ 1 × number of HHs ranked last) for one factor divided by
the sum of (n × number of HHs ranked first+ (n-1) × number of HHs ranked second
+ (n-2) × number of HHs ranked third +.... + 1 × number of HHs ranked last) for
all factors
Where,
n=number of factors under consideration and
HH=Households. The variable with the highest index value is the highest
economically important.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Demographic characteristics, land
size and livestock number of households
Demographic
structures, land size and livestock numbers of the study area were shown in Table 1. According to the data
collected 57.2% were males and the rest 42.8% were females. The average ages of
respondents were 37.66 years and the mean family size per household were 6.8.
About 63.8% of respondents were the followers of protestant followed by
Orthodox and Catholic religious followers. Regarding to marital statuses of
respondents 73.2% were married and the rest were divorced and widows.
Flock size and structures of chickens
According to this study average chickens per
household in Gena Bossa district were 10.86 + 1.52 and from this cocks,
hens, pullets, cockerels and chicks were 1.67 + 0.14, 4.06 + 0.38,
1.62 + 0.28, 0.95 + 0.26 and 2.56 + 0.46, respectively (Table 2).
The mean number of chickens
obtained in this study was comparable to the reported mean flock size of 7-10
mature chickens/households in Ethiopia and in South Ethiopia 9.22 chickens/household. This
result was similar with Endale et al.
[17] who reported that the flock size in south western zone was 11.22 per
household. In contrary, this result was higher than Bikila [18] report in which
the flock sizes per household were 3.81 in Chelliya district of Western Shewa.
But this result was lower than Gebremariam et al. [19] report in which the
flock size was 24 chickens per household and flock structure per household were
13.29, 1.72, 4.84, 0.46 and 3.7 for hens, cocks, pullets, cockerels and chicks
in the Southern zone of Tigray, respectively. There were highest numbers of
hens followed by chicks in the flock. This variation in hen number might be the
farmers’ interest to increase egg production for selling, consuming and
hatching purposes. Also it might be there were no strong culling practice of
unproductive old aged hens which increases the number of hens in the flock and
most of chicks were lost by predators at brooding age when they scavenging feed
and water.
The mean number of chickens per
household was significantly (p<0.01) different at different agro-ecology.
Significantly lowest (8.47 + 0.92) chicken number was recorded from
lowland of the study area. Comparably this result was higher at highland and
midland but similar at lowland agro-ecologies to Aberra [20] result in which
mean number of indigenous chickens reared at different agro-ecological zones of
Ethiopia were 8.5, 7.4 and 8.4 at highland, midland and lowland agro-ecologies,
respectively. According to Zemene [21] finding lowest numbers of chickens were
obtained from highland (8.5) and midland (7.4) of Western Amhara and similar
chicken flock size obtained from lowland (8.4) agro-ecologies with present
finding. Highest number of chickens were reported by Ahimedin and Mangistu [22]
in Gorogutu district of Eastern Hararghe, the mean number of chickens were
16.69, 17.76 and 18.79 at highland, midland and lowland agro-ecologies,
respectively.
The mean number of cocks, hens,
pullets and cockerels were significantly different (P<0.05) at different
agro-ecologies (Table 2). There were
significantly (p<0.05) lowest numbers of cocks (1.44 + 0.08), pullets
(1.18 + 0.17), cockerels (0.45 + 0.16) and hens (3.46 + 0.23)
at lowland. Significantly (p<0.05) highest number of cocks (1.95 + 0.10)
and hens (4.58 + 0.27) were recorded in midland. This difference might
be due to midland farmers’ interest to increase egg production and to sell
cocks by highest price. Cockerels (1.42 + 0.36) and pullets (2.16 +
0.39) were significantly highest at highland agro-ecology. This might be due to
highland farmers want to replace parent and unproductive stocks by pullets and
cockerels. Chicks were the second highest in flock which accounts 2.79 +
0.64, 2.95 + 0.33 and 1.97 + 0.28 at highland, midland and
lowland agro-ecologies, respectively. This might be some farmers at different
agro-ecology control their chicks from predators at brooding age by
incarcerating mother hens by skip, and provides feed and water. In this study
there were no significant difference (P>0.05) in flock size at different
wealth status, educational levels and at different interaction points (Table 2).
Management systems of chickens
Feeding and watering systems: Feed
and water are the basic necessity for growth, production and health of
chickens. In rural area chickens search their feed by scavenging in almost all
part of Ethiopia. According to the result of this study, 92.2% of the
respondent uses scavenging with supplementary feeding system and 7.8% uses only
scavenging system of feeding (Table 3).
This study is in line with that of Meseret [23] in Gomma wereda (97.8%), Addisu
et al. [24] in North Wollo (89.87%), Emebet et al. [25] in Dawo and Seden Sodo
district (96.3%) and Fisseha et al. [26] in Bure district (97.5%) practice
scavenging system with supplementary feeding. In this study the respondents
provide supplementary feed to their poultry to increase egg production
(79.81%), to improve meat yield (7.37%) and for brooding hen (12.82%) to
improve hatchability of eggs. About 52.24%, 45.39% and 2.37% of respondents
were provide maize and wheat, maize and sorghum, and other (theff, barely, etc.) for chickens as a
supplementary feed, respectively. This result was in agreement with Addisu et
al. [24] in North Wollo of Amhara region 36.27%, 36.27% and 23.53% provides
wheat, sorghum and maize for their chickens as a supplementary feed,
respectively.
In this study, 80.8% of
respondents provided supplementary feed for the whole groups of chickens
together but only 19.2% give feed separately to different age class. Regarding
to ways of feeding chickens, 74.91% provide feed throw on the ground for collective
feeding, 24.31% provide on locally made feeding trough and 0.78% put feed in
any container to fed chickens. This result shows highest percent of producers
gave feed by locally made feeding trough and separately to different class than
reported by Meseret [23] in Gomma wereda only 2.8% of producers provide
supplementary feeds separately in different class and 100% give feeds throw on
the ground. Almost 97.95% of the respondent in the study area provides water
for chickens. This result was similar with Fisseha et al. [26] report 100% of
the respondent provides water in Bure district of North West Ethiopia.
Concerning the frequency (83.51%) free access, (6.08%) morning and evening,
(1.39%) afternoon and evening and 9.02% of respondents provide water only at
afternoon. Comparing to present result, highest percent of respondents (96%) in
Ada’a and Lume district provides water free access to their chickens [27].
About 100%, 85.2% and 95.7% of
the interviewed respondents practiced scavenging with supplementary feeding
systems as a major feeding system in highland, midland and lowland areas,
respectively (Table 3). This result
agrees with the report of Addisu et al. [24] in north Wollo of Amhara region
who reported 80%, 97.17% and 89.87% of respondents provided supplementary feed
in highland, midland and lowland altitudes, respectively. In this study, the
major reason of farmers for supplementing chickens was to increase egg
production and it accounts 93.3%, 72.3% and 80.6% at highland, midland and
lowland, respectively (Table 3).
This result agrees with Ahimedin and Mangistu [22] report in which 86.7%, 86.7%
and 90% of farmers in Gorogutu district provides supplementary feed to increase
egg production at highland, midland and lowland, respectively.
Regarding to provision of water
for chickens, 100%, 96.3% and 98.6% of respondents provides water at highland,
midland and lowland areas, respectively. There were differences on watering
frequency at different agro-ecologies of the study area. These differences
might be due to access of water and farmers’ awareness on providing water for
chickens. The majority of the respondents 93.3% in highland, 78.8% in midland
and 83.9% in lowland provided water in free access. According to Ahimedin and
Mangistu [22] in Gorogutu district of Eastern Hararghe 50%, 66.7% and 50% of
farmers at highland, midland and lowland provide water ad libitum for chickens,
respectively.
Majority of chicken owners practice scavenging with
supplementary feeding systems at different wealth status of producers (Table 3). According to this study
91.5%, 93.6% and 90.9% of poor, medium and rich wealth leveled farmers provide
supplementary feed to their chickens, respectively. The reason for supplementation
at different wealth status was to increase egg production, to improve growth
rate and for brooding. Most of farmers provide water free access to their
chickens at different wealth levels which account 89.1%, 80.9% and 78.6% at
poor, medium and rich wealth status, respectively. This result indicates poor
and medium wealth farmers provide great emphasizes to care their chickens in
terms of feed and water provisions and this might be due to the interest to get
more money from this sector.
Regarding to farmers with
different education level 88.3%, 88.3%, 97.1% and 91.4% of illiterate, reading
and writing, primary first and second cycle educated farmers follows scavenging
with supplementary feeding systems, respectively (Table 3). This result indicates most of educated farmers gave care
and provide supplementary feed to improve production performance of chickens.
Most of farmers provide supplementary feed to their chickens together to the
whole group but few farmers provide separately to different age classes. When
level of education increases, farmers understanding on usage of providing water
and other cares given for chickens also increased. The probability of
practicing proper feeding and water provision for chicken was significantly and
positively influenced by education level of producers [28]. Most of respondents
those were illiterate (90%), reading and writing (71%), primary first cycle
(80%) and primary second cycle (88.6%) educated farmers provide water free
access to chickens and the rest of farmers provide at different times (Table 3).
Housing systems
of chickens: Based
on this study, only 10.4% of the respondents constructed separate house for
their chickens (Table 4). This study
agrees with that of Tarekegn et al. [29] who reported 13.5% of the producers
provided separate houses for chickens. This result also agrees with the report
of Addisu et al. [24] in which only 15.36% of respondents in North Wollo of
Amhara region constructed separate chicken house. This result was higher than
those reported by Meseret [23] for chickens in Goma district which was 3.6%. In
contrary, this result was lower than Solomon et al. [15] reports in Metekel
zone of North West Ethiopia 48% of respondents constructed separate house and
Desalew [27] 91.11% in Ada’a and 95.6% in Lume districts constructed separate
house for chickens. About 96.12% of the respondent cleaned poultry houses daily
(58.66%) and weekly (32.95%). Majority (89.6%) of the farmers had no separate
chicken house, even if, they had no separate house they clean chickens bedding
place in which they shelter for night. This result was comparable to the report
of Fisseha et al. [30] for Fogera majority of respondent’s clean chicken
house/shelter daily and the remaining 20.8% clean weekly.
Majority of the respondents’
clean poultry houses at highland (93.3%), midland (96.3%) and lowland (97.1%)
agro-ecologies. Regarding to the frequency of cleaning chicken houses, about
71.4%, 61.5% and 52% of the farmers clean chicken house daily at highland,
midland and lowland agro-ecologies, respectively (Table 4).
Housing system of chickens at
different wealth status of the respondents was shown in Table 4. Only few farmers constructed separate house for their
chickens which accounts 4.3%, 19.1% and 11.4% of poor, medium and rich wealth
status of respondents, respectively. This difference might be due to high cost
of building house, lack of training and knowledge about the importance of
constructing separate house for chickens. As the annual income of the farmers
increased, the likelihood of farmer’s decision to adopt improved chicken
housing systems increased [28]. Cleaning poultry house prevents the occurrence
of diseases and about 95.7%, 95.7% and 97.7% of poor, medium and rich wealth
leveled respondents clean chicken houses at different time, respectively. About
33% poor, 46% medium and 37.6% rich farmers control free movement of chickens
to protect disease transmission and losses by predators.
Comparably highest percent of
primary first (14.3%) and second cycle (17.3%) educated farmer constructed
separate house for chickens. But illiterate and reading and writing leveled
farmers also constructed separate house but lower than educated farmers (Table 4). Hundred percent of primary
second cycle educated farmers clean poultry house which implies when education
level increases level of understanding about the importance of separate house
and cleaning poultry house also increases. About 49.1% of primary second cycle,
43.1% of primary first cycle, 32.9% of reading and writing and 30.3% of
illiterate farmers’ controls free movement of chickens to protect disease
transmission and losses by predators. So, educated farmers control free
movement of chickens and provide great emphasizes for their chickens to improve
flock productivity.
Breeding and culling practices of
indigenous chickens: There
were no controlled and systematic breeding practice in the study area and most
of the time aggressive cocks mate hens that reared at home as well as neighbor
that might had high or low egg production performance and growth rate. In this
study, 57.4% of producers select chickens for breeding based on egg production
(83.09%) followed by growth rate and feather color of the parent stocks (Table 5). This result agrees with that
of Solomon et al. [15] in which 63.1% of farmers trying to improve genetic
potential of local chickens based on egg production (59.4%), body weight
(44.3%) and feather color in Metekel zone. This kind of selection was not
scientifically sound way but farmers’ choice hens from a flock which produce
highest number of eggs.
Breeding practice varies at
different agro-ecologies of the study area (Table
5). Comparatively lowest numbers of farmers practice selecting indigenous
chicken for breeding at lowland (47.8%) than midland (64.8%) and highland
(66.7%) agro-ecologies. Egg production performance was the main criteria for
selection at highland, midland and lowland agro-ecologies which accounts 90%,
80% and 81.8%, respectively. This result agrees with Ahimedin and Mangistu [22]
report egg production was the primary criteria for selecting chickens for
breeding at highland (96.7%), midland (76.6%) and lowland (86.7%)
agro-ecologies of Gorogutu district. Depending on egg production performance,
growth rate and feather color 100%, 82.9% and 75.8% of farmers at highland,
midland and lowland choice both sexes of chickens for selection, respectively.
Regarding feather color, most of farmers select chickens with golden color in
highland and lowland which accounts 46.7% and 55.1%, respectively. But at
midland farmers selects both red and golden feather colors which account 37%
and 35.2%, respectively. Concerning culling 46.7%, 38.9% and 55.1% of
respondents cull their chickens by selling, giving gift and consuming chickens
at highland, midland and lowland agro-ecologies, respectively (Table 5).
Lowest percent of poor (46.8%)
farmers practice selection for breeding comparing to medium (66%) and rich
(56.8%) respondents (Table 5). This
difference might be due to poor farmers have low income to select and buy
chickens with high production performance and growth rate to improve parent
stock in the flock. Most of poor, medium and rich farmers select both males and
females at the same time for breeding that accounts 86.4%, 90.3% and 68%,
respectively. Egg production was the main criteria to select chickens for poor,
medium and rich wealth level farmers which account 72.8%, 87.2% and 84%,
respectively. The most dominant color preferred by medium and rich farmers were
golden which accounts 61.7% and 40.9%, respectively but poor farmers mostly
interested on both red (44.7%) and golden (36.2) feather colored chickens.
Highest percent (61.7%) of medium economic leveled farmers cull their chickens
which was comparably more than poor (36.2%) and rich (45.5%) wealth status of
farmers. Those farmers cull sick, unproductive and unwanted feather colored
chickens by selling, giving gift and consuming at home.
Most of primary first (65.7%) and
primary second (82.9%) cycle educated farmers practice selection for breeding.
This difference indicates when education level increases selection for breeding
to improve production performance of the flock also increases. Educated farmers
may be likely to be contacted by agricultural extension workers looking for
model farmers to test innovations which improve productivity [31]. The main
criterion for selection was egg production which accounts 91.7%, 85.7%, 78.3%
and 79.4% of illiterate, reading and writing, primary first and second cycle
educated farmers, respectively (Table 5).
Regarding to culling of chickens 32.4% illiterate, 35.3% reading and writing,
57.1% primary first cycle and 65.7% primary second cycle educated farmers
practices culling sick, old aged unproductive and unwanted feather colored
chickens by selling, giving gift and consuming at home.
Health control mechanism: Health
is the main factor that affects production performance of chickens at village
as well as commercial production levels. Disease affects the flocks of
indigenous chickens in the study area. Most affecting disease in this study was
Newcastle disease (ND) (locally “fengile”)
(79.77%) and rest of flocks affected by Coccidiosis (locally “Tekimat”) and chronic respiratory disease (CRD) (locally “gunfan”). This result agrees with Addisu
et al. [24] report in North Wollo, ND was the most prevalent and economically
important disease affecting village chicken production (85.91%). This finding
was also in agreement with the reports that major causes of village chicken
death is ND outbreak in Bure district [26], in Gomma district [23], in four
region of Ethiopia (Oromia, Amhara, SNNP and Tigray) [32] and in north Gonder
zone [33].
Most of respondents could not use
vaccination (68.58%) but only 31.42% vaccinated chickens to protect chickens
from different diseases (Table 6).
Mostly affected classes in the flock were chicks (76.40%) followed by layers,
pullets and cockerels, and cocks. This might be scavenging systems of feeding
and watering exposes the chicken to different disease causing organisms and
chicks are the most susceptible group than the older ones. Also it might be due
to lack of full package vaccination and lack of practicing vaccination. This
result agrees with Bosenu and Takele [34] reports 91.67% chicks were affected
by diseases in Haramaya district. Only 11.8% of the respondents use modern
medicine to treat their chickens but 88.2% uses traditional medicines like
lemon juice, ginger and onion to treat diseases.
Prevalence of disease was
comparable at different agro-ecological zones in the study area. Newcastle
disease was highly prevalent diseases in highland (80%), midland (79.6%) and
lowland (79.7%) agro-ecologies (Table 6).
Farmers could not differentiate type of disease but they knew the symptoms of
diseases like bloody diarrhea, nasal discharge, sneezing, torticollis, dropping
wings, inability to drink and eat properly and deaths within few days.
According to veterinarian these symptoms are referring ND. This result
contradicts to Bikila [18] report at Chelliya district of Western Shewa highest
prevalence of ND occurs at highland agro-ecologies (96.7%) than midland (73.3%)
but in this study there were comparably similar occurrences of ND at different
agro-ecologies of the district. About 85.8%, 88.2% and 90.6% of chicken
producers use traditional medicines like lemon juice, ginger and onion to treat
diseases locally to treat chickens affected by different diseases at highland,
midland and lowland, respectively.
Only few respondents practice
vaccinations in highland (26.7%), midland (33.3%) and lowland (31.9%)
agro-ecologies. This result agrees with Ahimedin and Mangistu [22] in Gorogutu
district 13.3%, 10% and 16.7% of farmers practice vaccination for chickens at
highland, midland and lowland areas, respectively. This might be due to lack of
medicine for vaccination and lack of awareness given to protect chickens from
disease through vaccination. This result agrees with N’Goran et al. [35] report
in Kohogo area of Côte d’Ivoire, only 34.5% of village chicken producers
vaccinated their chickens against ND and the main reasons of producers those
could not practice vaccination were lack of knowledge of the existence of
vaccination as a mean of prevention of ND and lack of financial source. In this
finding mostly affected class in the flock was chicks at highland (66.7%),
midland (64.8%) and lowland (91.3%). This might be due to lack of proper and
clean house, scavenging system of feeding and lack of health care given to
chicks. According to Addisu et al. [24] report about 84%, 83% and 83.02% of
chicks were highly sensitive and susceptible for disease than younger and elder
at highland, midland and lowland areas of north Wollo, respectively.
The prevalence of ND at different
wealth level was 74.5%, 80.9% and 84.1% at poor, medium and rich wealth status
of respondents, respectively. Regarding to annual vaccination; only 29.8%,
40.4% and 25% of poor, medium and rich wealth leveled farmers practice annual
vaccination for chickens, respectively (Table
6). Since the lowest number of rich farmers use vaccination, the prevalence
of ND was highest in this group and this might be due to low attention is given
to the sector because of the low contribution of money to the household.
Comparably highest percent of
primary second cycle (45.7%) educated farmers practice annual vaccination that
was highest than that of illiterate (11.8%), reading and writing (38.2%) and
primary first cycle (31.4%) educated farmers (Table 6). This result shows educated farmers gave care and took
awareness for their chickens to improve flock size as well as productivity by
vaccinating their chickens. Highest percent of illiterate (84.1%) farmer
chickens were affected by ND. Mostly affect classes of chickens in the flock
was chicks which accounts 73.5%, 79.4%, 77.1% and 75.4% at illiterate, reading
and writing, primary first and second cycle educated respondents, respectively.
Constraints of village chicken production
There
were different challenges that reduce indigenous chickens in
traditional/scavenging extensive production systems in Ethiopia. Based on the
result of this study predators (1st), disease (2nd), feed
shortage (3rd), market access (4th), thieves (5th),
lack of veterinary service (6th), lack of knowledge about scientific
management practice (6th) and lack of time for farm activities (8th)
were the major constraints which affects chicken production (Table 7). All of the
constraints listed in Table 7 hinder
village chicken production systems at different agro-ecologies, wealth status
and education levels of the producers in the study area. Predator, disease and
feed were the most common bottleneck of village chicken production but the rest
challenges varies in the severity rank at different agro-ecology, wealth status
and education level of the farmers.
The
most important constraint that reduces chicken production performance in this
study that ranked first was predator with index value of 0.209. The predator
loss might be due to improper housing system and extensive scavenging
production system of feeding and watering. Diseases and feed shortage were also
challenges in present study that hinder chicken production and this might be
due to lack of vaccination, lack of clean feeders and waterier, and absence of
sufficient supplementing feeds. This result agrees with Feleke et al. [36] in which predator (1st),
flock mortality (2nd), disease (3rd), low production (4th),
feed shortage (5th), breed (6th) and market access (7th)
were the major constraints in Arbegona Woreda at Sidama Zone. Also it agrees
with report which says disease (1st), predators (2nd),
shortage of supplementary feeds (3rd), poultry housing problem (4th),
and lack of veterinary and extension services (5th) are the most
important constraints which affect village poultry production in Northern Godar
of Amhara region.
Opportunity of village
chicken production
There
were highest numbers of challenges that affects chicken production and causes
chicken losses in the study area. On the other hand, there were opportunities
to improve chicken production in the study area which was show in Table 8. The major opportunity of
chicken production in the study area was feed access with the index value of
0.298. This implies majority of farmers cultivate crop for home consumption and
for source of income. So, farmers provide cereal grain produced for other
purposes to their chickens to increase egg production and to improve growth
rate of chickens. Also they got additional feed from market and mill leftover
to their chickens. The second, third, fourth and fifth opportunities of chicken
production were veterinary and extension service, market access, training and
credit service with index values of 0.217, 0.176, 0.171 and 0.138,
respectively. This result was comparable to Shishay et al. [37] funding in
which feed access, market access, drinking water access and ease management of
village chickens were the main opportunities in Western Zone of Tigray at
Northern Ethiopia. It also agrees with the result of Feleke et al. [36] in which market access, feed
access, credit service and extension service were the main opportunities of
chicken production in Arbegona Woreda of Sidama Zone in Southern Ethiopia.
Market access, credit service, feed access and training and extension were the
major opportunities of chicken production in the Debsan Tikara of Gonder Zuria
woreda at North Gonder [38].
CONCLUSION
AND RECOMMENDATION
This result shows that average flock size per
household was 10.86 and about 92.2% of village chicken producers follow
scavenging feeding system with occasional supplementation. Only 10.4% of the
respondents constructed separate house for chickens. Highest numbers of
chickens were affected by ND and only 31.42% of farmers use annual vaccination
to prevent chickens from diseases. The following recommendations are suggested
based on the result of the current study [39,40]:
·
Full package vaccination reduces the outbreak of
different diseases which hinder chicken production and it also increases
survival rate of chickens. So, government should provide vaccination for
chickens to prevent loss of chickens by disease out breaking especially ND.
·
Training improves farmer’s awareness in order to
improve ways of feeding, housing and vaccinating chickens to increase chicken
production performance. So, government should organize training for farmers on
disease control, housing and feeding of chickens to improve chicken
productivity.
·
Farmers should protect chickens from predators by
constructing shelter from locally available materials.
·
Provision of credit service to traditional chicken
producers and linking the production system with marketing will encourage
chicken owners to boost up production.
1)
CSA (2015/16)
Agricultural sample survey report on livestock and livestock characteristics.
Volume II, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
2)
NABC (2010) Fact
Sheet: Livestock Ethiopia. Livestock in Ethiopia and opportunity analyses.
Dutch investment. Netherland as-African Business Council.
3)
PIF (2010)
Ethiopia’s Agricultural Sector Policy and Investment Framework. FDRE, Ministry
of Agriculture and Rural Development 2010-2020. Final Report.
4)
Tsegaye T (2014)
Reaching critical mass to rapid industrialization and agricultural
fundamentalism in Ethiopia. Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of
Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of
Social and Economic Geography. ORCID ID: 0000-0003-1383-0196.
5)
Gueye EF (2005)
Poverty alleviation, food security and the well-being of the human population
through family poultry in low income food-deficit countries. Senegalese
Institute of Agricultural research (ISRA), B.P.2057, Dakar-hann, Senegal.
6)
Kitalyi AJ
(1998) Village chicken production systems in rural Africa. Household food
security and gender issue. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper No. 142. Food
and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, p: 81.
7)
Melesse A (2000)
Comparative studies on performance and physiological responses of Ethiopian
indigenous (Angetemelata) chickens and their F1 Crosses to long term heat
exposure. PhD dissertation, Martin-Luther University. Halle-witten berg
Germany, p: 127.
7)
8)
Abubakar M,
Ambali A, Tamjdo T (2007) Rural chicken production: Effects of gender on
ownership and management responsibilities in some parts of Nigeria and
Cameroon. Int J Poult Sci 6: 413-416.
9)
Asresie A,
Eshetu M (2015) Traditional chicken production system and marketing in
Ethiopia. J Market Consumer Res 8.
10)
Hunduma D,
Regassa C, Fufa D, Endale B, Samson L (2010) Major Constraints and health
management of village poultry production in Rift valley of Oromia, Ethiopia. Am
Eurasian J Agric Environ Sci 9: 529-533.
11)
Mekonnen G,
Muhiye E (2007) Characterization of smallholder poultry production and
marketing system of Dale, Wonsho and Loka Abaya weredas of Southern Ethiopia. A
Thesis submitted to the department of animal and range sciences, Awassa College
of agriculture, school of graduate studies Hawassa University Awassa, Ethiopia.
12)
Sonaiya EB
(1997) African network on rural poultry development: Progress report. November
1989 to June 1995. Proceedings of African Network Rural Poultry Development
Workshop, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, pp: 134-143.
13)
Halima HM (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.
14)
Nebiyu Y, Brhan
T, Kelay B (2013) Characterization of village chicken production performance
under scavenging system in Halaba district of southern Ethiopia. Ethiop Vet J
17: 69-80.
15)
Zewdu S, Kassa
B, Agza B, Alemu F (2013) Village chicken production systems in Metekel zone,
north-west Ethiopia. Wudpecker J Agric Res 2: 256-262.
16)
Armonk (2011)
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Vision 20.0. IBM
Corporation, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL.
17)
Yadessa E, Tulu
D, Bogale A, Mengistu G, Aleme M, et al. (2017) Characterization of smallholder
poultry production systems in Mezhenger, Sheka and Benchi-Maji zones of south
western Ethiopia. Acad Res J Agric Sci Res 5: 10-19.
18)
Negari B (2013)
Study of production practices, productivity and egg quality of village chicken
in Chelliya district western Shewa, Ethiopia. A Thesis Submitted to the School
of Graduate Studies (School of Animal and Range Sciences). Haramaya University,
Ethiopia.
19)
Gebremariam B,
Mazengia H, Gebremariam T (2017) Indigenous Chicken production system and
breeding practice in southern Tigray, north Ethiopia. Poult Fish Wildl Sci 5:
179.
20)
Melesse A, Worku
Z, Teklegiorgis Y (2013) Assessment of the prevailing handling and quality of
eggs from scavenging indigenous chickens reared in different agro-ecological
zones of Ethiopia. J Environ Occup Sci 2: 1-8.
21)
Worku Z, Melesse
A, Teklegiorgis Y (2012) Assessment of village chicken production system and
the performance of local chicken populations in west Amhara region of Ethiopia.
J Anim Prod Adv 2: 199-207.
22)
Abdurehman A,
Urge M (2016) Evaluation of fertility, hatchability and egg quality of rural
chicken in Gorogutu district, eastern Hararghe, Ethiopia. Asian J Poult Sci 10:
111-116.
23)
Molla M (2010)
Characterization of village chicken production and marketing system. M.Sc.
Thesis Submitted to the Department of Animal Science, School of Graduate
Studies, School of Graduate Studies, College of Agriculture and Veterinary
Medicine, Jimma University, p: 110.
24)
Addisu H, Hailu
M, Zewdu W (2013) Indigenous chicken production system and breeding practice in
north Wollo, Amhara region, Ethiopia. Poult Fish Wildlife Sci 1: 108.
25)
Moreda E,
Hareppal S, Johansson A, Sisaye T, Sahile Z (2013) Characteristics of
indigenous chicken production system in south west and south part of Ethiopia.
Br J Poult Sci 2: 25-32.
26)
Moges F,
Mellesse A, Dessie T (2010a) Assessment of village chicken production system
and evaluation of the productive and reproductive performance of local chicken
ecotype in Bure district, north west Ethiopia. Afr J Agric Res 5: 1739-1748.
27)
Desalew T (2012)
Management practices, productive performances and egg quality traits of exotic
chickens under village production system in east Shewa, Ethiopia. A thesis
submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Addis Ababa University in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master in Tropical
Animal Production and Health.
28)
Demeke ET (2015)
Characterization of husbandry practices, adoption and impact of village poultry
technology packages in the Central Oromia region, Ethiopia. A dissertation
submitted to College of Veterinary Medicine and Agriculture, Addis Ababa
University for Fulfillment of the Requirement of Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
in Animal Production.
29)
Getachew T,
Kebede E, Ameha N, Terefe A (2015) Village chicken husbandry practice,
marketing and constraints in eastern Ethiopia. J Worlds Poult Res 5: 104-108.
30)
Moges F, Mellesse
A, Dessie T (2010b) Assessment of village chicken production system and
evaluation of the productive and reproductive performance of local chicken
ecotype in Bure district, north west Ethiopia. Afr J Agric Res 5: 1739-1748.
31)
Weir S (1999)
The effects of education on farmer productivity in rural Ethiopia. Center for
the study of African economics. Department of Economics, University of Oxford.
St Cross Building, Manor Road, Oxford OX1 3UL, United Kingdom.
32)
Goraga Z,
Luizinho C, Cassio W, Gudrun AB (2016) Characterization of village chicken
production systems and challenges across agro-climatic zones in Ethiopia. Int J
Livestock Prod 7: 94-105.
33)
Getu A, Birhan M
(2014) Chicken production systems, performance and associated constraints in
north Gondar zone, Ethiopia. J Fisheries Livestock Prod 2: 115.
34)
Abera B, Geta T
(2014) Study on challenges and opportunities of village chicken production in
Haramaya district, eastern Ethiopia. International Journal of Scientific and
Research Publications4.
35)
N’Goran KE, Loukou
NE, Dago DN, Ouattara D, Sidibé M, et al. (2016) Characteristics of village
chicken production in farming system in Côte d’Ivoire: case of Korhogo area.
Int J Environ Agric Res 2.
36)
Assefa F,
Tadesse T, Dancho A (2015) Challenges and opportunities of village poultry
production in Arbegona Woreda, Sidama zone, southern Ethiopia. Dev Country Stud
5.
37)
Markos S, Belay
B, Dessie T (2014) Village chicken production constraints and opportunities in
western zone of Tigray, northern Ethiopia. J Biol Agric Healthcare 4.
38)
Bezabih M,
Atalel W (2013) Constraints and opportunities of village chicken production in
Debsan TiKara Keble at Gonder Zuria Woreda, north Gonder, Ethiopia.
International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications 3.
39)
Cochran WG
(1963) Sampling Techniques. 2nd Edn. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
40)
Wondu M, Mehiret
M, Berhan T (2013) Characterization of urban poultry production system in
northern Gondar, Amhara regional state, Ethiopia. Retrieved from: http://www.scihub.org/ABJNA
-
Table 1 -
Table 2
-
Table 3
-
Table 4
-
Table 5
-
Table 6
-
Table 7
-
Table 8
QUICK LINKS
- SUBMIT MANUSCRIPT
- RECOMMEND THE JOURNAL
-
SUBSCRIBE FOR ALERTS
RELATED JOURNALS
- Advances in Nanomedicine and Nanotechnology Research (ISSN: 2688-5476)
- Journal of Microbiology and Microbial Infections (ISSN: 2689-7660)
- Food and Nutrition-Current Research (ISSN:2638-1095)
- Journal of Biochemistry and Molecular Medicine (ISSN:2641-6948)
- Journal of Genomic Medicine and Pharmacogenomics (ISSN:2474-4670)
- Proteomics and Bioinformatics (ISSN:2641-7561)
- Journal of Genetics and Cell Biology (ISSN:2639-3360)
