British Journal of Poultry Sciences 8 (2): 34-43, 2019 ISSN 1995-901X © IDOSI Publications, 2019 DOI: 10.5829/idosi.bjps.2019.34.43

Village Chicken Production Performances and Producers Trait Preference in Buno and Ilu Aba bor Zone South Western

11Yadeta Neme, Jabesa Ayele and 1 Mengistu Aserat

1Department of Animal Science, Mettu University, Bedele College of Agriculture and Forestry, P.O. Box: 318 Mettu, Ethiopia

Abstract: Production performances and producer’s trait preferences of village chicken was conducted in Bunno Bedele and Ilu Aba bor Zones south western Ethiopia. The objective of this study was to assess production performances and evaluation of producer’s trait preferences on village chickens. A multi-stage sampling procedure (random and purposive) was used to select the kebeles and target households. A total 384 households were selected from eighteen kebeles for interview. Structured questionnaire, primary and secondary data sources, focus group discussion and field observations were employed to generate the qualitative data. The surveyed data were analyzed using GLM ANOVA procedures for social sciences (SPSS, ). The result of the study indicated that the flock structure were dominated by layers (29.69%), which were followed by chicks (28.38%), grower (21.49%), cock (13.42%) and non layer (7.01%), respectively. There is no significant different (p<0.05) between the two zones of the study areas. The average age at first egg laying was 24.06±0.3 for local and 20.12±0.8 for exotic chicken and age at first mating of local cockerel of Bunno Bedele Zone was significantly (p<0.05) lower than Ilu Abba Bor zone. The mean annual egg production of the local chicken was 48.35±3 and 144.41±13 of exotic chicken. The hatchability and survival rate was 73.45%, 46.11% and 26.43%, 37.78%, local and exotic chicken, respectively. The selection criteria of farmer trait preferences were 52.3, 27.6 and 20.1% on body weight, plumage color and comb type, respectively in male chicken. However, for female farmer trait preferences 43.0, 35.5, 8.0, 7.3 and 6.0% were based on egg production, feather color, body weight, size of pelvic bones and white leg color, respectively. Hence the farmers should be rear the acceptable trait and best productive village chickens.

Key words: Performance Evaluation Village Chicken Trait

INTRODUCTION The total chicken egg and meat production in Ethiopia is estimated to be about 78, 000 and 72, 300 metric tons, is the foundation of the respectively [3]. More than 90% of the national chicken country's economy, accounting for 43 percent of growth meat and egg output is produced from indigenous domestic product (GDP) and 86 percent of export earnings chickens [4]. Therefore, almost all rural and many and the sector employs about 85% of the population [1]. peri-urban families keep small flock scavenging The livestock sector has further potential to increase and chickens [5]. According to the report of CSA [1], the total contributing to the economic development of the country poultry population at country level is estimated to be [1]. about 56.87 million and with regard to breeds, 95.86 Poultry production is fast growing sector which percent, 2.79 percent and 1.35 percent of the total poultry have an important economic, social and cultural population were indigenous, hybrid and exotic, benefit and plays a significant role in family nutrition in respectively. However, the economic contribution of the the developing countries. Poultry provides rural sector is not still proportional to the huge poultry households with scarce animal protein in the form of numbers, attributed to the presence of many constraints meat, eggs and a reliable source of petty cash [2]. [6, 7].

Corresponding Author: Yadeta Neme, Mettu University, Bedele College of Agriculture and Forestry, P.O.Box: 318 Mettu, Ethiopia. 34 British J. Poultry Sci., 8(2): 34-43, 2019

Poultry production is deeply embedded in Ethiopian western part of Ethiopia. The zones were located between society kept by all strata of society from the landless rural distances of 479-600km, south western of Addis Ababa, poor to rich [8]. The village chicken production system in capital city of Ethiopia. The agro-ecological setting of the Ethiopia followed a scavenging type with 5-20 birds per zones comprised of 10% is high land, 67% mid land and household, simple rearing in backyard with inadequate 23% low land. The altitude of the zone ranges from 800-2, housing, poor feeding and health care. Such production 575 meter above sea level. Annual precipitation ranges systems are characterized by slow growth of chicken, from 1500-2200mm with 6 to 9 months of rain fall. poor layer performance and small sized egg production The farming system of the districts were [9]. characterized by mixed farming system, comprising both No specific trait components were identified for the cropping and livestock production. It is mostly known for other trait categories like weight, conformations and its vegetation coverage, suitability for coffee, crop, breeding ability, except that all farmers stated that they livestock and bee production. The dominant crops being selected chickens that are heavier in respect of their age Maize, Teff, Coffee, Sorghum Barley, Wheat, different mates, those having attractive conformations and asking pulse crops, finger millet, fruits vegetables, spices and the owners by judging subjectively by hand weighing, rice. Agriculture is the mainly livelihood of people with a visual appraisal and in parents' history of chickens, mixed farming system and livestock plays an integral role respectively [10]. Nevertheless, poultry raised on small for agriculture. scale market oriented production make a significant Sampling Procedure:-A multi-stage sampling contribution, along with the commercial sector, to meet up procedure (random and purposive) was applied for the the rapidly growing demand for poultry products study. In the first stage, Bedele, and Cora especially in large and growing regional cities. districts from 10 listed districts of Bunno Bedele zone and Village chickens are underestimated because of their Mettu, and Gore districts from 14 listed of Ilu Aba poor performance. The challenge of fighting poverty and bor zone were selected randomly. In the second stage, malnutrition can be effectively met to a large extent by with the consultation of livestock development and strengthening village chicken production. Poor rural aquaculture district office, 3 kebeles from each district households are continuously involved in a struggle to having potential for chicken production performances was make ends meet; food security and family livelihood selected purposively. In the third stage, a simple random expenses being some of the major priorities. Construction sampling technique was applied to choose chicken owner of an established market structure of village chickens for respondents in each kebele by giving equal chance for developing family chicken requires a detail and organized those farmers with different flock size, chicken husbandry study of the production & marketing systems. practice and other related practices. The total number of Establishing market structure for village chicken is a households included in the study was determined pre-requisite for developing family poultry. according to the formula given by Cochran [25] In this respect, Bunno Bedele and Ilu abbabor zone z22( pq )( ) (1.96) (0.5)(0.5) are not exceptional and the same trend was observed due n = = = 384 22 to traditional poultry production system. In addition, d (0.05) along distribution of different breeds of poultry to rural where: n = the sample size, household farmers in the districts, no attempts have been z2 = value for selected alpha level of 0.025 in each tail 1.96, made to assess the village production performances in (p) (q) = the probability estimate value at 0.5 or ( maximum particular in so far. The objective of this study was to possible proportion (0.5) *1-maximum possible proportion assess village chicken production and reproductive (0.5) produces maximum possible sample size), performance and to evaluate the producer’s trait d = acceptable margin of error for proportion being preference in the study areas. estimated =0 .05

MATERIALS AND METHODS Therefore, a total of 384 households from the eighteen (18) kebeles were included in this study. Study Area: The study was conducted in selected three Thus, 384 respondents were randomly selected from the districts of Bunno Bedele and three from Ilu Abba bor total number of households in the eighteen kebeles for the Zones of National Regional State, located south present study.

35 British J. Poultry Sci., 8(2): 34-43, 2019

Sources Data: Both primary and secondary data was used RESULTS AND DISCUSSION to achieve the objectives of the study. Data was collected by interviewing household heads engaged in small scale General Characteristics of Households: The household livestock production in the area. A structured characteristics of the respondents revealed that the questionnaire was prepared and pre-tested before being proportion of males respondents were higher than females administered then, refining and corrections were made in in all cases of both districts of the zones with overall accordance to the respondents’ perception. Individual 78.9 % (Table 1). The current results were not agreed with household was interviewed by using the structured the finding of Desalew[11] in Ada’a and Lume districts of questionnaire at the kebele level. east shoa zone who reported female’s respondents greater Focused group discussions were undertaken using than males. The average age of respondents was ranged checklists to collect information on chicken production 40-50 years with overall zones about 41.7%. The analysis and productivity, trait preferences, challenge and for educational status indicated that majority of opportunity in village chicken production. The focus respondents were able to read and write with an overall group discussions were organized with 18 groups 38.4%. The possible reason may be due to adult consisting of 8-12 people from each kebeles. Key education. Others about 25.3 and 24.3% of respondents informants such as elders, community leaders, women were illiterate and educated primary school, respectively representative, animal health technician and development in the overall study zones. In both causes read and write agents were targeted for the focus group discussion. illiterate the current study were agree with Melesse and Melkamu [12]. The majority of the households were Data Collection: Socio economic characteristics (sex, age, Christians (52.9%) followed by Muslims (47.1%). family size, education level, land holding, farming characteristics, livestock population, etc.), chicken Family Size, Land and Livestock Holding: The results on productive and reproductivity, producers traits family size, land and livestock holding have been preferencesin order to achieve food security was presented in (Table2). There was no significant difference collected. (>0.05) among male, female members of the families and total family size across the districts of the two zones. Data Analysis: The collected household data was The overall average of total family size in BunnoBedele organized and analyzed with the help of Statistical and Ilu abbabor zones were 5.41±2.37 and 5.88±2.70, Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS, version 20, 2012). respectively in the present study. These values were Descriptive Statistical System software was employed to higher than the average family size of 5.5 reported from describe the various variables of chicken productive Oromia Regional State CSA[1]. In overall both zones male performances including age at first laying and service, family size is greater than female numbers. The average hatchability, survival rate, egg and flock size of chicken. land holding showed that significantly (p < 0.05) Wherever ANOVA test was employed, the following two difference in Bunno Bedele zone specifically crops and factorial ANOVA model was used. grazing lands. The possible reason may be some farmers have no their own lands.

Yijk = µ + i + ij + e ijk The overall average local chicken holding (Table 2) showed that significantly (p < 0.05) difference in Bunno where: Yijk = production performances parameter Bedele zone but not in Ilu Abba bor zone. The overall µ = Overall mean average flock size of respondent farmers was 8.63±5.76 th i = the effect of i district (i=1-6) and 9.04±5.00 respectively, in the Bunno Bedele and Ilu th ij = the effect of j breed type (j=1-2) Abba bor zones of the current study for local chicken. eijk = random error The overall average flock sizes per household in both zones were 8.83±5.68. The pair-wise comparison of means There are parameters that requiring ranking. in local chicken in Bedele showed not significant Therefore, indices will be calculated to provide ranking of differences from both Didessa and districts of trait preferences (for both male and female chicken), Bunno Bedele zone. The current results was lower adaptive feature for chicken and the indices were than Fisseha [3] who reported the mean flock size of calculated for ranking the parameters in all districts. 13 local chicken ecotypes per household in Bure district

36 British J. Poultry Sci., 8(2): 34-43, 2019

Table 1: Gender, age, educational level, marital status and religious belief of household heads in the two zones of districts Zones ------Bunno Bedele Ilu abbabor ------Bedele Chora Didessa Hurumu Mettu Gore Over all % Parameters N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%) Sex of the house holds Male 47 (12.2) 49 (12.8) 45 (11.7) 45 (11.7) 59 (15.4) 58 (15.1) 303 (78.9) Female 27 (7.0) 13 (3.4) 21 (5.5) 9 (2.3) 3 (0.3) 8 (2.1) 81 (21.1) AgAge of respondents Less than 20 - - - - 1 (0.3) ------1 (0.3) 20-30 10 (2.6) 3 (0.8) 4 (1.0) 5 (1.3) 13 (3.4) 7 (1.8) 42 (10.9) 30-40 25 (6.5) 21 (5.5) 24 (6.2) 20 (5.2) 9 (2.3) 27 (7.0) 126 (32.8) 40-50 25 (6.5) 31 (8.1) 27 (7.0) 23 (6.0) 25 (6.5) 29 (7.6) 160 (41.7) 50-60 6 (1.6) 6 (1.6) 8 (2.1) 5 (1.3) 14 (3.6) 2 (0.5) 41 (10.7) Greater than 60 8 (2.1) 1 0.3) 2 (0.5) 1 (0.3) 1 (0.3) 1 (0.3) 14 (3.6) Marital status Single 4 (1.0) 1 (0.3) - - 2 (0.5) - - - 7 (1.8) Married 60 (15.6) 59 (15.4) 60 (15.6) 50 ( 13.0) 62 (16.1) 66 (17.2) 357 (93.0) Divorced 9 (2.3) ------9 (2.3) Widow 1 (0.3) 2 (0.5) 6 (1.6) 2 (0.5) - - 11 (2.9) Educational status Illiterate 11 (2.9) 26 (6.8) 38 (9.9) 8 (2.1) 8 (2.1) 6 (1.6) 97 (25.3) Read and write 45 (11.7) 14 (3.7) 7 (1.8) 23 (6.0) 33 (8.6) 25 (6.5) 147 (38.4) Primary (1-8 grade) 9 (2.3) 22 (5.7) 19( 5.0) 8 (2.1) 10 (2.6) 25 (6.5) 93 (24.3) Secondary school and above 9 (2.3) - 2 (0.5) 14 (3.7) 11 (2.9) 10 (2.6) 46 (12.0) Religious Christian 24 (6.2) 24 (6.2) 33 (8.6) 47 (12.2) 30 (7.8) 45 (11.7) 203 (52.9) Muslim 50 (13.0) 38 (9.9) 33 (8.6) 7 (1.8) 32 (8.3) 21 (5.5) 181 (47.1)

Table 2: Family size, Land holding and Livestock holding per households in the two zones of the districts Bunno Bedele Ilu abbabor ------Bedele Chora Didessa Overall Hurumu Mettu Gore Overall Parameter Mean±SD Mean±SD Mean±SD Mean±SD P-value Mean±SD Mean±SD Mean±SD Mean±SD P-value Over all P-value Family size (numbers) 5.07±1.63 6.13±3.14 5.12±2.10 5.41±2.37 0.016 6.07±3.57 5.89±2.36 5.71±2.16 5.88±2.70 0.768 5.63±2.54 0.051 Male 2.78±1.35 3.31±1.81 2.85±1.76 2.97±1.65 0.145 2.65±1.50 3.11±1.56 2.98±1.30 2.93±1.46 0.217 2.95±1.56 0.217 Female 2.57±1.08 2.90±1.77 2.27±1.00 2.57±1.33 0.027 3.65±2.50 2.76±1.39 2.76±1.39 3.03±1.78 0.009 2.79±1.57 0.060 Land (hectors) 1.66±1.48 2.53±1.62 1.79±0.99 1.97±1.43 0.001 1.17±2.60 1.41±0.92 1.79±0.88 .47±1.62 0.104 1.74±1.54 0.000 Crop land 1.19±1.13 1.36±0.88 0.96±0.64 1.17±0.92 0.047 0.98±2.47 0.70±0.43 0.98±0.52 1.88±1.30 0.408 1.04±1.12 0.028 Grazing land 0.44±0.39 0.53±0.61 0.32±0.30 0.43±0.47 0.036 0.36±0.26 0.36±0.32 0.48±0.26 0.41±0.29 0.089 0.42±0.41 0.045 Homestead 0.37±0.33 0.58±0.47 3.45±17.0 1.49±0.45 0.173 0.25±0.19 0.46±0.46 0.45±0.25 0.40±0.34 0.003 0.99±7.72 0.144 Livestock (numbers) ` Local cattle 6.90±4.12 6.40±5.00 4.86±4.36 6.06±4.55 0.027 4.96±4.22 6.48±4.62 5.41±4.00 5.65±4.34 0.169 5.87±4.45 0.039 Exotic cattle 5.00±0.00 2.45±3.46 4.93±5.08 3.86±4.47 0.147 1.40±0.54 1.50±0.54 1.50±0.57 1.47±0.51 0.948 3.32±4.05 0.116 Sheep 2.89±2.22 4.62±2.30 4.67±2.78 4.03±2.53 0.003 3.06±1.45 3.68±2.45 3.32±1.75 3.35±1.93 0.303 3.64±2.23 0.000 Goat 3.26±1.95 3.56±2.28 2.50±1.22 3.27±2.00 0.543 6.00±6.84 6.00±7.34 3.89±4.98 5.10±4.09 0.745 3.81±3.68 0.341 Equine 1.83±1.11 1.75±0.98 1.70±0.82 1.75±0.94 0.921 1.57±0.53 1.55±0.52 1.55±0.52 1.58±0.66 0.980 1.69±0.61 0.957 Local chicken 6.95±5.87ba 8.38±4.84 10.60±5.99 a 8.63±5.76 0.002 7.92±5.16 9.68±5.71 9.35±8.37 9.04±3.00 0.593 8.83±5.68 0.110 Exotic chicken 2.78±1.33 2.50±1.53 1.00±0.05 2.82±1.48 0.129 2.43±1.27b 2.18±1.89 aa 1.58±2.60 5.00±4.08 0.035 2.07±1.63 0.001 SD= standard deviation, same superscript indicate non-significant differences, different superscript indicate significant differences

37 British J. Poultry Sci., 8(2): 34-43, 2019 of Amhara region and Melese and Melkamu [12] in Ethiopia respectively. On the other hand, the mean flock Awobel Mechakel and Dejen districts of Amhara regional size recorded in this study was higher than the national state reported that the overall of local chicken per (4.1) and Oromia national Regional State (3.6); but households were 12.66±5.99. The possible reason in the comparable to that of Tigray (7.2), Gambela (7.5) and second authors, Melese and Melkamu [12] may be due to Benshangul-Gumuz (7.6) Regional States averages as the data of current result was collected after ester festivals reported by CSA, 2013, [1]. The flocks were dominated by at a time of most of Christians consume more chicken layers (29.69%), which were followed by chicks 28.38%, rather than Fisseha [3] data collected in from January to grower (21.49%), cock (13.42%) and non layer (7.01%), June. respectively. There is no significant different between the The overall average of exotic breed chicken two zones of the study areas. The present result was holding per households (Table 3) showed that agreement with Nebiyu et al. [15] who reported the significantly (p < 0.05) difference in the overall both average flock size per household was 8.53 at Halaba zones, specifically in Metu and Gore among the district of southern Ethiopia. selected districts of Ilu Abba bor zone by pair comparison The age at first egg laying of local chicken in the of the means. The results of the overall average of exotic study area ranged from 22 to 28 weeks with an average breed chickens holding per households were 2.82±1.48 in age at first laying of 24.06±0.3 (Table 5). The present , 5.00±4.08 in Ilu Abba bor zone and result was comparable with Nebiyu et al.,[15] who report 2.07±1.63 in overall the zones. Among the three chicken 24.62±0.25 weeks (6.15 months) and 6.53 months but breed type reared by respondents exotic breed chicken lower than the result reported by Mekonnen [16] with was the least than the two breeds. This current finding 7.07 months. Moreover, the age at first egg of local pullet was agreed with the report of Melkamu and Wube [13] for Ilu Abba bor zone was significantly (p<0.05) lower in North Gondar area districts. However, the than Buno Bedele zone. distributions of exotic breed chickens in the districts of Indigenous village male chicken (Table 5) in the Bunno Bedele zone in the current study (Table 4) were not study districts attains sexual maturity at an overall significantly different. The possible reason may be the average of 22.50±0.5 weeks. This is comparable with respondents could get the exotic breed chicken from the results reported 22.64±0.17 weeks (5.66 months), individual and NGO like Ethio-chicken projects which 24.6 weeks [3] and 26 weeks Alem [17]. This may be due supply day old SASO chicken for the cooperatives and to both genetic and environmental factors that then thus cooperatives sold to the farmers after 56 days influence sexual maturity for long period to attain. specially in Didessa district. Generally, majority of Furthermore, age at first mating of local cockerel of Bunno chickens in the study area were raised from local breeds Bedele Zone was significantly (p<0.05) lower than Ilu 8.83±5.68 followed by cross breed4.43±3.65 and exotic Abba Bor zone. breed 2.07±1.63, respectively. These results of majority The mean clutch number per year for indigenous chicken breed type reared by respondents were similar chicken was 5.40±0.1in this study area (Table 4). The with Melkamu and Wube [13] in North Gondar area present result was comparable with the results reported districts. by Mammo [18] 5.2 but higher than Mekonnen [16] with 3.7, Fisseha [3] reported 3.83. This might indicate the Reproductive Performance of Village Chicken variation of broodiness behavior among the Ethiopian Chicken Flock Size Structure: The average chicken chickens. In addition, number of clutch period in years of flock size per household and flock structure is presented local chickens in Ilu Abba bor zone was significantly in (Table 3). The average overall chicken flock (p<0.05) lower than Bunno Bedele zone. size/household for layer, young chicks, grower/pullets, The average number of eggs produced per clutch in cocks and non layer was 2.50±0.09, 2.39±0.22, 1.81±0.13, the study area was 11.43±0.2 (Table 4). This result was 1.13±0.06 and 0.59±0.07, respectively with a total almost similar with 12.92 eggs/hen/clutch Meseret [9] average flock size was 8.42 ± 1 per household. The result and 12.8 eggs/hen/clutch [ 21]. But the present result was of this study was relatively similar with Habte, et al. [14] lower than the result reported 14.9 eggs/hen/clutch who report 2.38±0.92, 1.17±0.46, 2.94±0.87 and 2.11±0.85 of Mekonnen [16], 18 eggs/hen/clutch [13], 13.3 chick, pullet, hen and cock, at Amaro district southern eggs/hen/clutch [15] and 13.6 (9-18) eggs/hen/clutch [17].

38 British J. Poultry Sci., 8(2): 34-43, 2019

Table 3: Flock size structure per household Bunno Bedele zone Ilu Abbabor zone ------Bedele Chora Didessa Mean Gore Hurumu Mettu Mean Parameter Mean± SE Mean± SE Mean ± SE Mean ± SE Mean ± SE Mean ± SE Mean ± SE Mean ± SE Total Mean ± SE p-value Cock 0.82±0.13 1.35±0.18 1.47±0.16 1.21±0.15 1.14±0.11 0.98±0.12 1.02±0.13 1.04±0.12 1.13±0.06 0.01 Layer 1.85±0.15 2.50±0.16 2.42±0.16 2.25±0.16 2.67±0.25 2.57±0.34 3.10±0.34 2.78±0.31 2.50±0.09 0.007 Non layer 0.19±0.24 1.0±0.21 .68±0.24 0.95±0.23 0.38±0.13 0.04±0.04 0.19±0.09 0.20±0.08 0.59±0.07 0.001 Pullets 1.49±0.27 1.26±0.18 1.53±0.27 1.42±0.23 2.2±0.34 1.81±0.42 2.61±0.31 2.21±0.35 1.81±0.13 0.019 Chicks 1.53±0.38 2.13±0.39 2.85±0.42 2.17±0.39 2.58±0.61 1.93±0.76 3.40±0.64 2.63±0.66 2.39±0.22 0.018 Flock size 5.88±10 8.24±10 9.95±10 8.0±10 9.24±10 7.33±10 10.32±10 8.86±10 8.42±10 0.001 SE= Standard error, Significant different at (p<0.1) and non-significant different at (p>0.1) Reproductive performance of Indigenous Chicken

Table 4: Village chicken Production and Reproductive performance Bunno Bedele zone Ilu Abbabor zone ------Parameters Bedele Chora Didessa Mean Gore Hurumu Mettu Mean Total p-value Indigenous breed Age at first egg laying (week) 26.22±1.3 24.02±0.7 23.27±0.8 24.50±0.9 23.97±0.5 22.56±0.7 23.97±0.4 23.50±0.5 24.06±0.3 0.117 (mean ± SE) Sexual maturity of male (week) 25.08±1.4 19.76±1.5 18.32±1.3 21.50±1.4 23.52±0.3 22.57±0.6 23.06±0.5 23.05±0.5 22.50±0.5 0.002 (mean ± SE) Age maturity at slaughter (week) 15.34±2 14.56±1.4 17.36±1.2 15.75±1.8 22.61±0.5 20.67±1 20.77±0.8 21.35±0.7 18.55±0.5 0.001 (mean ± SE) Number of egg per year 32.97±3 41.0±4 50.83±14 41.60±7.0 52.79±4.0 62.52±6 50.0±2.4 55.10±4.1 48.35±3.0 0.001 Number of egg per clutch 10.99±0.8 11.16±0.4 10.74±0.4 10.96±0.5 11.64±0.2 11.74±0.4 12.32±0.2 11.90±0.3 11.43±0.2 0.034 Clutch number per year 4.0±0.3 7.3±0.4 7.73±0.4 6.30±0.4 4.8±0.1 4.46±0.2 4.11±0.2 4.45±0.2 5.40±0.1 0.001 Hatchability in (%) 83.70 74.15 70.70 76.18 63.14 67.50 81.44 70.69 73.45 0.002 Survival rate in (%) 53.40 47.20 49.50 50.03 37.87 41.32 47.40 42.19 46.11 0.001 Exotic breed Age at first egg laying(week) 18.19±1.8 19.34±1.5 19.44±1.5 19.00±1.6 23.76±0.5 17.04±1.8 22.90±0.5 21.23±0.9 20.12±0.8 0.001 Sexual maturity of male(weeks) 18.05±1.8 19.06±1.2 18.0±1.1 18.30±1.4 22.24±0.5 18.74±1.7 21.23±0.4 20.73±0.8 19.52±0.9 0.001 Age maturity at slaughter(week) 16.12±1.1 19.9±0.9 18.21±0.9 18.07±1.0 14.4±1.5 18.56±1.3 20.32±1.2 17.76±1.3 17.92±1.3 0.002 Number of egg per year 142.97±7 129±14 117.3±15 129.65±12 138.5±14 126±15 213±15 159.16±15 144.41±13 0.001 Number of egg per clutch 8.68±1.4 13.16±1.7 14. 0±1.8 11.94±1.6 44.97±1 26.93±1.7 44.97±1.1 38.95±1.2 25.45±1.4 0.001 Clutch number per year 1.8±0.4 4.2±0.5 4.41±0.5 3.47±0.5 2.3±0.5 3.11±0.7 3.55±0.5 3.0±0.6 3.24±0.5 0.366 Hatchability in (%) 31.70 24.15 20.70 25.51 23.14 27.50 31.44 27.36 26.43 0.003 Survival rate in (%) 33.40 37.20 39.50 36.70 37.87 31.32 47.40 38.86 37.78 0.001 SE=standarderror, %=percentage

The mean egg production of the local chickens was and health care can go a long way to improve the investigated to be 48.35±3 (Table 4) in the study areas. productive performance of local chickens in Ghana [21]. The present result was relatively agreement with The average reproductive life span of hen and male Birhane et al. [19] who reported the mean egg production chickens (years) were 3.30±0.22 and 2.51±0.07, per hen per year was 44.71±0.87 in southern Tigray of respectively. The variation in local chickens’ performance north Ethiopia. This is also comparable with 46.8 eggs for of this study might be associated to factors, Moreki [20], 49.51 eggs for Addis [10] and 50.8 eggs for mainly availability of feed resources for scavenging, Nebiyu et al., [15]. The result of focus group discussion socio-economic status and management system of also showed that higher egg production is often expected chicken owners. from additional supplementation of feed. It is advocated According to focus group discussion, artificial that extra effort in the management and improvement of incubation is not practiced by the respondents of all local chickens in the areas of housing, breeding, feeding districts because of having no artificial incubator facilities.

39 British J. Poultry Sci., 8(2): 34-43, 2019

Table 5: Egg laying interval and preferred season of hatching for village chicken (%) Bunno Bedele zone Ilu Abbabor zone ------No Parameters Bedele Chora Didessa Mean Gore Hurumu Mettu Mean Total I Indigenous breed Rate of egg laying: Daily 28.4 29.0 36.4 31.26 24.2 25.9 37.1 29.06 30.16 Two successive day 2.7 4.8 3.2 3.56 6.1 4.0 4.8 4.96 4.26 Every other day 58.1 59.7 56.1 57.96 69.7 63.0 56.5 63.06 60.51 Two days rest and one day laying 4.1 6.5 4.3 4.96 0.0 7.1 1.6 2.90 3.93 Season of hatching: Wet 5.5 0.0 0.0 1.83 3.2 0.0 8.5 3.90 2.86 Dry 81.3 90.3 96.6 89.4 78.7 86.5 72.4 79.6 84.50 Both 15.2 9.7 3.4 9.43 18.1 13.5 19.1 16.90 13.33 II Exotic breed Rate of egg laying: Daily 41.9 40.3 37.9 40.03 50.0 50.0 64.5 54.83 47.43 Two successive lay 29.7 9.7 22.4 20.60 22.0 11.2 2.0 11.73 16.16 Every other day 13.5 14.5 12.1 13.36 16.7 29.6 30.6 25.63 19.49 Two days rest and one day laying 14.9 12.9 10.6 12.8 11.3 9.2 2.9 7.80 10.30 Season of hatching: Wet 6.7 3.3 3.5 4.50 4.7 1.9 9.8 5.46 4.98 Dry 87.6 92.3 91.6 90.50 93.2 94.6 89.2 92.33 91.41 Both 5.7 4.4 4.9 5.00 2.1 3.5 2.0 2.53 3.76

Consequently, it was observed that for the hatching of managed under backyard management condition. The chicken eggs and growing chicks, farmers depend on variation in exotic chickens’ performance was due to lack broody hens. The study revealed that wet season was the availability of feed resources for scavenging and most no preferred season of the year for egg incubation management system of chicken owners. and brooding of young chicks using broody hen because Egg laying Interval and preferred Season for hatching of poor survivability performance of young chicks due to The egg laying interval and preferred hatching season in mud, rain (cold stress) and disease and feed shortage. the study area was presented in (Table 5). All of the The hatchability percentage and survival rate of respondents practiced natural incubation system with the indigenous chicken was 73.45% and 46.11% in the present help of broody hens. About 84.5% for indigenous and study area, respectively. This is mostly caused by disease 91.41% for exotic chicken was preferred respectively (26%), malnutrition (20.67%) and predators (52.33%) in the during dry season of incubation because of chick study area. mortality is very high at the wet/rainy season. The present The average age at sexual maturity male exotic result was relatively comparable with Habte et al. [14] who chicken was 19.52±0.9 in the study area from above reported 78.7% of indigenous chicken at Amaro district of (Table 5). The result was agreement with Birhane et al. southern Ethiopia. [19] who reported for backyard production performance The rate of egg laying for indigenous chicken was of exotic chicken was 19.91±0.11 at southern Tigray). 60.51%, 30.16%, 4.26% and 3.93% in every other day, The average age at first egg laying of exotic chicken in the daily, two successive days and two day rest, respectively. study area was 20.12±0.8 weeks. While for exotic chicken the egg laying rate was The mean egg production of the exotic chickens was 47.43%, 19.49%, 16.16% and 10.30% of daily, every other 144.41±13 in the study area (Table 6). The mean egg day, two successive day and two day rest, respectively. production found in this study was comparable with the The present study was comparable with Habte et al. [14] result reported 140.70 eggs/hen/year by Khan et al. [22], who reported rate of egg laying was 36.2% of every other 144 eggs by Abraham and Yayneshet [23] and 150.47 day, 31.9% of daily, 29.8% two successive lay and 2.1% eggs/hen/year by Samson and Endalew [24] for chickens two day rest at Amaro district of southern Ethiopia.

40 British J. Poultry Sci., 8(2): 34-43, 2019

Table 6: Major producer’s trait preferences of chicken in the two zones of the districts Zones ------Bunno Bedele Ilu abbabor ------Parameters Bedele Chora Didessa Hurumu Mettu Gore Over all rank (%) Male chickens N % N % N % N % N % N % N % Comb type: 12 3.1 17 4.4 17 4.4 13 3.4 8 2.1 10 2.6 77 20.1 Single 1 1.2 - - 3 3.7 - - - - 4 4.9 8 9.8 Rose 5 6.1 8 9.8 8 9.8 4 4.9 7 8.5 3 3.7 35 42.7 Pea 3 3.7 6 7.3 1 1.2 5 6.1 6 7.3 1 1.2 22 26.8 Strawberry 3 3.7 3 3.7 4 4.9 4 4.9 1 1.2 2 2.4 17 20.7 Plumage color: 12 3.1 21 5.5 20 5.2 14 3.6 21 5.5 18 4.7 106 27.6 Red 5 4.6 7 6.4 6 5.5 7 6.4 10 9.2 3 2.8 40 36.9 White 1 0.9 ------1 0.9 Yellow and Black 4 3.7 5 4.6 7 6.4 5 4.6 10 9.2 7 6.4 36 32.9 Black yellow and white 2 1.8 8 7.3 7 6.4 2 1.8 5 4.6 8 7.3 32 29.4 Body weight 50 13.0 24 6.2 29 7.6 27 7.0 33 8.6 38 9.9 201 52.3 Female chickens Egg production 33 8.6 2 7.0 23 6.0 23 6.0 30 7.8 29 7.6 165 43.0 Feather color 26 6.8 21 5.5 24 6.2 19 5 24 6.3 23 6 137 35.7 Body weight 8 2.1 5 1.3 6 1.6 5 1.3 2 0.5 5 1.3 31 8.0 White leg color 4 1.0 41.0 4 1.0 4 1.0 3 0.8 4 1.0 23 6.0 Size of the pelvic bones 3 1.0 5 1.3 9 2.3 3 0.8 3 0.8 5 1.3 28 7.3 N=number of households, % percentage

Major Producer’s Trait Preferences of Chicken: The current study was confirmed with Nigussie [4] who criteria pertaining to selection of male and females are reported red color is the most favored plumage/feather in presented in (Table 6). The body weight, plumage color the Benshangul Gumuz (Mandura), Oromia (Horro) and and comb type were the major selection criteria of farmers Southern Regions (Konso and Sheka), whereas white is for their satisfaction in further breeding and fetch more the body plumage color more favored by the Amhara price were ranked first, second and third with an overall community (Farta) irrespective of the sex of the birds. 52.3, 27.6 and 20.1%, respectively in male chicken But in case of white color in the present study it is the selection. The comp types specifically rose (42.7%) least preferred. This may be due to the white color was the and pea (26.8%) types were the most preferable in the most suspected to predators at a day time. overall in the studies areas. This results were not agree with Addis [10] who reported that about half of the CONCLUSSIONS respondents in mid agro-ecological zones considered comb type as selection criteria of male chicken while The study was conducted in selected districts of 29.2% respondents in high altitude and 31.6% Bunno Bedele and Ilu Abba bor Zones of Oromia National respondents in low altitude considered plumage color and Regional State, located south western part of Ethiopia. comb type were agree with this author. Other report of The production performances were performed in the study Fisseha [3] in Bure district disagree who reported that areas. The age at first egg laying of local chicken in the majority of respondents were select male chicken study area ranged from 22 to 28 weeks with 24.06±0.3. based on plumage color trait (45.4%) for breeding stock. Indigenous village male chicken in the study areas attains The possible reason for the current study may be body sexual maturity at an overall average of 22.50±0.5 weeks. weight focus may relate to the output meat. The mean clutch number per year for indigenous chicken Although each of plumage color trait categories was 5.40±0.1in the areas. The average number of eggs consisted of different component traits farmers described produced per clutch in the study area was 11.43±0.2. the specific trait components which used as selection The mean egg production of the local chickens was criteria (Table 6) like, red color (36.9%), yellow and black investigated to be 48.35±3 Producer’s trait preferences on (32.9%) and black yellow and white (29.4%) in (Table 3) village chickens was assessed as body weight, plumage ranked as the first three color preferred. The result of color and comb type were the major selection criteria of

41 British J. Poultry Sci., 8(2): 34-43, 2019 farmers for their satisfaction in further breeding and fetch 10. Addis Getu, 2014. Review work on farmer trite more price were ranked first, second and third with an preferences for their breeding objectives of local overall 52.3, 27.6 and 20.1%, respectively in male chicken chicken ecotypes in Ethiopia. selection. The comp types specifically rose (42.7%) and 11. Desalew Tadesse Tegegne, 2012. Management pea (26.8%) types were the most preferable in the overall practices, productive performances and egg quality in the studies areas. So farmers should be rear the chicken traits of exotic chickens under village production with best productive performances and producer’s trait system in east shewa, Ethiopia. preferences. 12. Melese Gashu Nigatu and Melkamu Bezabih, 2014. Assessment of Chicken Production under Farmers REFERENCES Management Condition in East Gojam Zone, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia. Greener Journal of Animal 1. CSA, 2013. Ethiopian agricultural sample enumeration Breeding and Genetics, 1(1): 001-010, February 2014. 2012/2013. Central Statistic Authority, Federal 13. Melkamu Bezabih and Wube Atalel, 2013. Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Volume II. Report Constraints and Opportunities of Village Chicken on livestock and livestock characteristics (private Production in Debsan TiKara Keble at Gonder Zuria peasant holdings). Woreda, North Gonder, Ethiopia. Volume 3, 2. Alders, R.G. and R.A.E. Pym, 2009. Village poultry: International Journal of Scientific and Research still important to millions, eight thousand years after Publications. ISSN 2250-3153. domestication. World`s Poultry. Sci. J., 65: 181. 14. Habte, M., A. Negassi and D. Solomon, 2013. 3. Fisseha, M., 2009. Studies on production and Production performance of local and exotic breeds of marketing system of local chicken ecotypes in Chicken at rural household level in Nole Kabba BureWereda, North West Amhara MSc. Thesis, Woreda, Western Wollega, Ethiopia. African Journal Hawassa University, Hawassa, Ethiopia. of Agricultural Research, 8(11): 1014-1021. 4. Nigussie, D., 2011. Breeding programs for indigenous 15. Nebiyu, Y., T. Berhan and B. Kelay, 2013. chicken in Ethiopia: analysis of diversity in "Characterization of village chicken production production systems and chicken populations. PhD performance under scavenging system in Halaba Thesis, Wageningen University, the Netherlands, District of Southern, " Ethiopian Vet. J., 17: 69-80. pp: 148. 16. Mekonnen Gegziabher, 2007. Characterization of 5. Jens, C.R., P. Anders, V. Charlotte, M.C. Ainsh and smallholder poultry production and marketing system F. Lone, 2004. Keeping of village poultry. A technical of dale, Wonsho and Loka Abaya Weredas of manual for small-scale poultry production. southern Ethiopia MSc. Thesis, Awassa College of Copenhagen, Denmark, pp: 34. Agriculture, Hawassa University, Hawassa, Ethiopia. 6. Aberra Melesse, 2000. Comparative studies on 17. Alem, T., 2014. Production and reproduction performance and physiological responses of performance of rural poultry in low altitude and mid Ethiopian indigenous (”Angete-melata”) chicken and altitude agroecological zones of Central Tigray, their F1 crosses to long term heat stress. PhD Thesis. Northern Ethiopia. British Jrl. Poult. Sci., 3: 6-14. Martin-Luther University, Halle-Wittenberg, Berlin. 18. Mammo, M., 2006. Survey of village chicken under 7. Halima, H., 2007. Phenotypic and Genetic traditional management. In Jammawored south wollo Characterization of indigenous chicken populations Ethiopia. in Northwest Ethiopia. PhD thesis submitted to the 19. Birhane, G., M. Hailu and G. Tikabo, 2017. On-Farm Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences Productive and Reproductive Performance of Local, Department of Animal, Wildlife and Grassland Exotic and Crossbred Chickens in Southern Tigray, Sciences University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, North Ethiopia. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and South Africa. Healthcare, 7(13): 2017. 8. Wilson, R.T., 2010. Poultry production and 20. Moreki, J.C., 2010. Village poultry production in performance in the Federal Democratic Republic of Serowe-Palapye sub-district of Botswana. Livestock Ethiopia. World's Poultry Science J., 66: 441-453. Research for Rural Development, 22(3). 9. Meseret, M., 2010. Characterization of village chicken 21. Hagan, J.K., M. Bosompen and I.A. Adjei, 2013. The production and marketing system in GommaWereda, productive performance of local chickens in three zone, Ethiopia. MSc. Thesis, Jimma University, ecological zones of Ghana. ARPN Journal of Jimma, Ethiopia. Agricultural and Biological Science, 8(1): 51-56.

42 British J. Poultry Sci., 8(2): 34-43, 2019

22. Khan, M.Y., M. Arshad and I. Hussain, 2011. 24. Samson, L. and B. Endalew, 2010. Survey on Village Epidemiology of newcastle disease in rural poultry in Based Chicken Production and Utilization System in Faisalabad, Pakistan. Int J. Agric. Biol., 13: 491-497. Mid Rift Valley of Oromia, Ethiopia. Global 23. Abraham, L. and T. Yayneshet, 2010. Performance of Veterinaria, 5(4): 198-203. exotic and indigenous poultry breeds managed by 25. Cochran, W.G., 1977. Sampling Techniques. Third smallholder farmers in northern Ethiopia. J. Livest. Ed., John Wiley, NY. Res. for Rural. Dev., 22: 7.

43