Village Chicken Constraints and Traditional Management Practices in Jamma District, South Wollo, Ethiopia

Mammo Mengesha, Berhan Tamir* and Tadelle Dessie**

Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), Debre Zeit – Center
mammomengesha@yahoo.com
* Addis Ababa University, FVM, Ethiopia,
** ILRI, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
P.O. Box 32, Debre Zeit, Ethiopia

Abstract

This study was conducted in four Peasant Associations in Jamma district. A total of 120 households from four PAs were involved in the study. Ninety eight percent of farmers were supplementing extra feeds and water for their chickens, with the main proportion of food leftover (26.4%) followed by spoiled grain (25.1%). The proportions of households providing supplementary feeding were: 19.8, 21.5, 37.3 and 21.4% in the morning, at noon, afternoon and evening respectively. Most of the households (77.7%) were not giving feeds separately to the flock compositions. Households were practicing of chicken selection with the main characters of egg productivity (35.4) and body weight (38.4%). Majority of households (78%) were using their living room for birds penning at night and women were more (72%) responsible for flock management. The larger eggs with oval shape and smooth in eggshell were the preferred characters in selection of incubating eggs. Farmers (38%) adapted a practice of mixing local eggs with exotic or crossbred eggs while incubating for better hatchability of exotic or crossbred eggs. Around 73% the respondents reported that the highest mortality of chicks was occurring up to 2 weeks of age. But around 12.6% of the households were treating their sick birds with traditional-treatments. Ninety-one per cent of farmers pointed out that more frequently occurring and devastating disease was Newcastle Disease.

Keywords: production constraints, traditional management practices, village chicken

Background and justification

Population, urbanization and anticipated income growth in Africa in general and in Ethiopia in particular is believed to influence the demand for foods of animal origin. We are expected to increase poultry production, besides other livestock development efforts in order to satisfy the growing demand. Such an increase needs substantial progress in the use of improved technologies, expanded use of inputs with favorable economic policies and with good interactions of holistic approaches (Amsalu et al 2001).

The egg production potential of local chicken is 30-60 eggs/year/hen with an average of 38g egg weight under village management conditions, while exotic breeds produce around 250 eggs/year/hen with around 60 g egg weight (Tadelle 1996; Alganesh et al 2003) in Ethiopia. In most African countries, the chicken kept in the villages have no regular health control program, may or may not have shelter and scavenge for most of their nutritional needs. According to Tadelle (1996), Alganesh et al (2003), Negussie et al (2003) and Solomon (2003), the low productivity of the local scavenging hens is not only because they are low producers of small sized eggs and slow growers but also the system is characterized by its high chick mortality before they reach around 8 weeks of age. Moreover, the local chickens are the results of uncontrolled breeding between various local chicken ecotypes, which have not been selected by Systematic breeding methods.

Many poultry development projects have failed to meet their objectives, due to the inability to identify appropriate technologies and define the poultry production practices and constraints. Low levels of inputs and outputs characterize village poultry production systems. To harness the potential of village chicken Kitalyi (1998) suggests a new approach, aiming at increasing flock productivity through improved extension services, farmer training and preferential treatment of chicks. Therefore, the causes, magnitude and consequent impact of the problems for the poultry productivity under traditional management must be studied and well documented before attempting any technological intervention to improve the village/traditional poultry production system.

Objectives

• To identify and prioritize village chicken production constraints
• To assess the common traditional village chicken management practices

Materials and methods

Site selection

Jamma district was selected because it is among the areas known to have high potential for poultry production (LRPA 2002). The district consists of 21 Peasant Associations (PAs), which are located in two different agro-ecologies. The two-agro-ecologies were stratified based on annual rainfall and altitude as:

• Moist-II (M₂) having an altitude from 2165 to 2654 m.a.s.l. and annual rainfall ranging from 500 to 3600 mm, representing the highland (Dega).

• Sub-Moist-II (SM₂) having an altitude from 1754 to 2165 m.a.s.l. and annual rainfall ranging from 300 to 1600 mm, representing mid to highland (Woinadega) (EARO 2000).

Peasant Associations were selected based on the potential for poultry production, relatively the larger in household numbers, larger in area coverage and representatives for the study areas (i.e. Debreguracha and Yedo (PAs) representing Dega whereas Faji and Zerkami representing Woinadega agro ecologies).

Sampling procedure

Because of accessibility and infrastructure problems, purposive sampling method was used, while selecting the four Peasant Associations. The total numbers of households per PA were: 1050, 1188, 2075 and 1050 and out of which the sampled (selected) size of households to be studied were also: 24, 26, 46 and 24 for Debreguracha, Yedo, Faji, and Zerkami, respectively. The allocation of the households was based on the population (household) size of each PA and the households were selected using simple random sampling procedures from each PAs. The whole households of the district (or Peasant Associations) had been stratified in to 3 wealth ranks by government (GAM 2005) for the ease of developmental interventions, as self sufficient (rich), partially sufficient (medium) and Non- self-sufficient groups (poor). Self-sufficient groups were those farmers who mainly had two oxen (or more) and arable lands. Partially self-sufficient groups were those farmers who had one ox and arable lands. Non-sufficient groups were those farmers who had either no ox or no arable lands.

Then after knowing the shared size of the households per each PA, again proportional numbers of the households were selected by simple random sampling procedure from each 3 wealth rank category (poor, medium and rich with 29, 68 and 23 households, respectively for district). The number of households in different wealth groups for different PAs were also distributed as follows, Debreguracha (9, 11 and 4), Yedo (5, 13 and 8), Faje (9, 31 and 6) and Zerkami (6, 13 and 5) poor, medium and rich, respectively.

Data collection

Quantitative and qualitative data were collected on functions and importance of poultry in the socio-economic issues of the community. In addition, information on poultry production and management system and other related issues of poultry productions (e.g. relationship between wealth ranks and poultry keeping of the households). Problems prevailing in poultry production in the study area and opportunities for improving poultry production were assessed. The socio-religious roles of poultry were also assessed as well as problem solving assumptions of the households were gathered during the survey work.

Statistical analysis

Qualitative and quantitative data sets were analyzed using (SPSS 1996) version 11.5, a computer based statistical program and (SAS) (1999). General Linear Model was fitted to some parameters which was appropriate for analysis. For most factors (qualitative factors) descriptive statistics was used. Standard error of mean (SE) was also used while describing the mean.

Results and discussion

Constraints

Inputs

About 50% of the households had accesses to agricultural extension-services in poultry production and 30% of the households were given improved poultry breeds. Around 89% the respondents did not have accessed to credit services for poultry production. The interviewed households suggested that for both foundation and replacement purposes, stocks were mainly found by purchasing from markets (in 75.5% of the respondents). Fifty-six percent of the households responded that they keep their laying hens for more than 2-years. Although, productivity decreases after one year of production-time, keeping of laying birds for long time is common practice in order to ensure continues supply of eggs and chicken to the households.

Disease and predators

According to (64%) of the respondents, the main causes of chicken mortality and/or losses were not only diseases, but also predators such as big birds like eagles, hawk and crown were the more causes of chick-losses. On the other hand wildcats and dogs were causes for the adult chicken-losses, particularly for exotic breeds. Both farmers and government might be contributing for aggravation of disease around the area for instance farmers considered birds as sideline activity, not cooperating with vaccination program and lack of knowledge about causes of disease transmission, on the other hand lack of health coverage-services and medicine provision were some of the problems of the government. Around 63% of the households were keeping different age groups of chickens together and this type of management might be contributing for easy transmission of diseases, which commonly difficult for young-chicks to get sufficient nutrient. Sonaiya and Swan (2004) reported that the chicks competed for the same supplement with older birds thereby due to insufficiency of feed, chicks lack disease resistance.

Around 73% of the respondents suggested that the highest mortality of village chicken was seen up to 2 weeks of age groups followed by one up to two months of age groups. This mortality rate may not only due to diseases but also other factors like harsh production environment where they scavenge on. Similarly, mortality during brooding stage (up to 8 week of age) was high for village chickens (Kitalyi 1998, Tadelle and Ogle 2001, Udo et al 2001 and Maphosa et al 2004). These authors further explained that this (mortality) represents the major loss in the scavenging system of production, but most of the losses were not clearly known.

Although diagnosis of diseases based on the symptoms explained by farmers was very difficult, 90.9% of the respondents reported that, more frequently occurring diseases in the studied areas was Newcastle Disease/locally named as, Fengil or Enkurif/and next diarrhea. This is inline with the reports of Leulseged (1998), Kyvsgaard et al (2001), Maphosa et al (2004); Sonaiya and Swan (2004) who reported that diseases were difficult to be identified because farmers couldn’t provide enough detail to allow for conclusive diagnosis. According to the respondents, Newcastle Disease was the most devastating disease for scavenging chicken of the study area. This is inline with the report of Yongolo (1996) and Sonaiya and Swan (2004) who disclosed that Newcastle Disease was the most severe disease in village chicken production with devastation up to 100% particularly in young chicks. Around 54% of the households reported that, commonly seen symptoms for Newcastle Disease, diarrhea and respiratory diseases were ruffling of wings (stressed and nervousness), yellow-waterish feces and sneezing, respectively.

In addition to the presence of different types of diseases in chicken with final fate of death around the study areas, often effect of disease on recovered birds appeared to be low in productivity.

Limitations against poultry product consumption

Major constraints affecting poultry product (egg and meat) consumption in the households are shown in Table 1. There was a variation in constraints affecting poultry product consumption across study PAs and agro ecologies. Around 45% of respondents in Faji constrained by scarcity of poultry products from home consumption followed by 35% in Yedo gave priority for income generation than consumption and 52.6% from Debreguracha were affected by the expensiveness to prepare the dish.

Around 27.7% and 37.7% of households in Dega and Woinadega agro ecology were constrained from consuming more poultry product at home by prioritizing for income generation and unavailability of the poultry products, respectively.

The study revealed that, the primary constraint affecting poultry product consumption was expensiveness to prepare the dish (39.2%) followed by unavailability of products (harvestable products) (35.5%) and giving priority for income generation (25.3%) in the study areas. There was also variation in major constraints affecting poultry product consumption at home between wealth ranks. The study revealed that, 37.3% of the rich wealth group followed by 36.6% poor and 34.3% medium were more constrained from consuming poultry product at home due to unavailability of the poultry products, giving priority for income generation and expensiveness to prepare the dish, respectively than other factors. Chicken and eggs from poor households and owned by children’s in the family were more likely to be sold as a sources of cash income.

Some village chicken management practices

Egg handling and utilization

A majority (63%) of the households adapted storing their incubating eggs as well as table or marketing eggs to improve the shelf life by putting in cold containers up to two weeks of duration, without consideration of egg-position. Since the temperature of the cold container was not clearly known and the longer storing time might be contributed to low shelf life of stored eggs. Similarly Sonaiya and Swan (2004) reported that eggs were stored in clay pot, which is buried and watered around. But Dereje (2001) and Tadelle et al (2003) in Ethiopia indicated that, eggs were stored up to two weeks of age preferably in the grain-store (especially in tef), without considering egg positions.

The larger, oval-shaped and smooth egg-shelled eggs were the preferred characters in selection of eggs for incubating by the respondents. This was also in agreement with the report of Dereje (2001) who stated the larger and medium sizes of eggs selected for incubation whereas small sized eggs were used for consumption or for sale. If there was external contamination of eggs, farmers were treating (rubbing) the preferred eggs before incubation using dry materials (cloth). This result agreed with the report of Sonaiya and Swan (2004) that rubbing slightly the dirty eggs with a rough cloth is better than wet cleaning. This method of cleaning external eggs from dirt by the respondents contradicted with the report of Dereje (2001) who stated the use of soaked clothes.

About 94% of the households reported that eggs laid at home were used for incubation. Rarely some of the households buy eggs for incubating and hatching, whenever they are informed about sources of eggs and if that was from preferred breed for production. Dereje (2001) reported also that about 43.3% set eggs were purchased from markets. Around 55% households pointed out that, mixing local egg with exotic or crossbred eggs, while incubating for hatching resulted in better hatchability of exotic or crossbred eggs.

Around 61% of the households responded that they could identify normal eggs from the spoiled by the visual observation. Around 76.90% of the households were throwing away hatchery wastes rather than recycling as supplementing feed for the birds particularly for layers as mineral sources. The common source of feed for brooded-hen was as usual, with a little bit more (frequent) supplementation, and some times soften injera was given or supplemented. After hatching the chicks were fed softened (with water) injera and fine grains replacing the soften injera as chicks grow.

Respondents from Yedo (35.6%), Zerkami (33.2%), Debreguracha (33.6) and Faji (15%) were primarily prioritizing egg utilization for consuming at home, for selling, for incubations and for gift, respectively for each specific parameter accordingly. Moreover there was variation in proportion of egg utilization by households across study agro ecologies. Farmers in both agro ecologies were almost on similar (30.6 and 33.9% for Woinadega and Dega, respectively) trend, which was more in proportion of egg utilization for consumption and least for gift (10.5 and 6.8% respectively). The overall percentage egg utilization proportions in the household were 32.2, 30.7, 28.4 and 8.7% for consumption, incubation, sale, and gift, respectively. Proportion of egg utilization among wealth rank groups are shown in Appendix Table 4. There was egg utilization variation between wealth rank categories in the study areas. The overall result revealed that, poor group respondents in overall study areas were using 44.5, 34.9 and 20.6% for sell, incubation and home consumption, respectively.

The medium wealth group respondents were also using 36.6, 32.0 and 31.4% proportion of eggs for home consumption, sale and incubation, respectively. On the other hand, those rich farmers were also using 38.5, 30.4 and 31.1% of egg proportions for home consumption, incubation and for sale, respectively. The observed egg-utilization differences across PAs and agro ecologies might be due to market place proximity, on the other hand, presences of high proportion of poor households per PA (i.e. mostly the poorer group prefer eggs for selling rather consume at home). Allocation of the second large (>30%) proportion of produced eggs for incubation in frequently cycling manner in all wealth groups might be the main cause for not to be benefited from produced eggs for sell or consumption and at last contributed for discouraging of producers from investing for poultry production. The results of the egg utilization priority in this study disagreed with the report of (Tadelle et al 2003), who reported that the highest portion of home produced eggs were used for incubation mainly to compensate the high death rate of young scavenging village chicken production.

Traditional methods of breaking broodiness

Traditional methods for breaking broodiness are shown in Appendix Table 3. A majority (83%) of the households were practicing the traditional methods of breaking broodiness of a hen that a hen resumes laying of eggs in order to increase number of eggs obtained from a single bird in a certain period of time. About 30% of the respondents indicated that they take broody hen to neighborhoods, 25% hang upsides down the broody hens, 22% piercing feather^’s shank into nostril of the broody hen and 23% replacing the laying material with other materials. According to the respondents, after breaking broodiness, broody hen resumed back to egg laying and egg production per hen per year will increase. This is in agreement with report of Rushton (1996b) as cited by Kitalyi (1998) that the higher egg productivity (143 eggs/ hen/year) in Ethiopia can be obtained by manipulation of the laying cycle of a hen such as discouraging broodiness. Tadelle (1996), Dereje (2001), Tadelle et al (2003) and Resource-Center (2005) who reported that traditionally households attempted to break broodiness to resume egg laying with final goal of increasing egg productivity.

Disease and predator control

Methods of traditional disease controlling and treating measures practiced by households are shown inTables3. Prevention measures taken by households to minimize losses due to disease were different across the study areas. Around 63.2% households from Yedo and 33.5% from Debreguracha, were practicing of isolation of sick birds from healthy to decrease disease transmission. Moreover, around 36% of the respondents from Faji were also using slaughtering of birds immediately before sickness to minimize chicken losses due to diseases.

On the other hand, around 24.4% of the households from Debreguracha did not take any measures as to prevent disease risk on birds. Disease prevention methods were different in different agro ecologies. About 48.4% of respondents from Dega were isolating sick birds from others. However, around 29.4% of the households from Woinadega were also slaughtering birds before sickness.

About 46.1% of the overall average respondents in the study areas reported that isolation was an important measure taken whenever sick birds were being seen followed by 25.9% slaughtering of birds immediately before sickness and 15.5% didn’t take any measure, but only 12.5% were treating sick birds with traditional methods.

Farmers were trying to treat their birds traditionally (Table 4). Around 48.5% respondents in Faji were feeding a mixture of garlic-onion and alcohol with soften injera as traditional treatment for sick birds, whereas 16.6% from Debreguracha were using plugging of feather as traditional treatments. The study revealed that, 43.2% of the households primarily traditionally treat their sick birds by feeding a mixture of garlic onion, local alcohol with injera followed by 21.7% Pepper, Feto & fumigation with leaves and 18% Piercing of the blood vessel for bleeding, but only 17.1% used plugging of feather as traditional treatment in the study areas. This is in agreement with the reports of Sonaiya and Swan (2004) who reported that traditional treatment and control of poultry disease is important as most developing countries like Ethiopia cannot afford to import veterinary medicine and vaccination for chickens.

On the other hand, 41.6% of the households from Woinadega and Dega respectively were protecting their birds from predator by growing plants, which used as hiding birds under it. The overall study revealed that, about 77.7% of the households were using different means of protecting chickens from predators for instance 38.1, 22.2, 21.3 and 18.4% of the households were protecting their birds from predators by growing plants to hide chicken from birds of prey, by trapping, hanging frustrating materials on fences and housing at day time, respectively. This is inline with the reports of (Resource-Center, 2005) who reported that housing played a major role in decreasing mortality of chicken due to reduce predations. About 81.80% of the respondents didn’t slaughter sick birds for home-consumption. However, around 69.4% and 30.6% of the respondents were avoiding died birds by throwing to dogs and burying, respectively. Prabakaran (2003) who reported that, sporadic death of birds is quite common on poultry farms, moreover, if these dead birds not properly disposed, pose a danger to other flocks and farms and cause soil, air and water pollution, but the best solution is burying.

Feed and feeding practices

Supplementing feed types and time on which these feeds were given is shown in Table 5. As we expect, scavenging is the major feed source for village chicken. Almost all (98%) of the respondents were supplementing their chickens with extra feeds and providing water to increase their chicken productivity, however, the amount was not clearly known. This is inline with reports of Bassei (1993), Tadelle (1996) and Maphosa et al (2004) who stated that village chickens don’t receive regular and enough supplements. 

Respondents across the study areas were giving different types as well as amounts of feed-supplements to their chickens. Those from Zerkami (PA) were more dependent on food leftover (41.5%) followed by grain (36.6%) and with minimum of kitchen wastes (5.4%). Actually Zerkami (PA) being found relatively in lower altitudes is grain (Sorghum) producing area and thus uses more grain as feed supplements for chicken than other feed types. Around 37.9 and 36.8% of the respondents from Debreguracha were mainly supplementing their chicken with kitchen wastes and low-grade grain, respectively. Debreguracha is found relatively in higher altitudes, where wheat and pulses are major producing areas. The study revealed that the overall percentage of feed supplementation by household for their chicken were primarily food left over (26.4%) followed by lower grade grain (25.2%) and grain (24.9%) at last kitchen wastes (23.5%). The variation of feed type resources for village chicken might be due to PAs^, settling area of agro ecology with implication of grain type produced by farmers.

Prioritization of feeding chicken classes by households is shown in Table 6. The farmers were nearly programmed the time of supplementing feeds for their chickens, for instances Yedo, Faji, Zerkami and Debreguracha (PAs) were mainly feeding their chicken in morning (28.8%), at-noon (31.5%), afternoon (63.2%), and evening (34.5%), respectively. The study revealed that in all study areas, 37.3% of the households were supplementing their scavenging chicken afternoon followed by around 21.5% (both at evening and at noon) and only 19.7% in the morning.

In spite of the fact that the economic benefit hasn’t been identified on supplementation time-schedule of a day, respondents responded that, the reason why they were supplementing more feeds in their adopted time-schedule as morning, at-noon, afternoon and evening was to energize (empower) birds on all the daytime scavenging with implication of production improvement and supplementation was also affected by favorite time. Despite the purpose of extra feed supplementation was to increase egg production, 77.7% of the respondents weren’t giving feeds separately to the layers, except to the chicks. Except those from Zerkami (36.9%), all respondents were giving priority for chicks rather than other classes of birds in the flock, while supplementing feeds.

Moreover, there was variation in giving priority for chicken classes while supplementing feed between agro ecologies, for instances Dega (32.2%) and Woinadega (29.3%) were the prioritizing primarily chicks and layers, respectively. Around 30.5, 26.5, 25.6, and 17.4% of the overall average mean households were supplementing feeds with priority for chicks, cockerels, layers and pullets respectively in the study area. This result is inline with the report of Kitalyi (1998) who reported that chicks were fed separately.

The priority has been done assuming that chicks could not be able to meet their needs of nutrients for survival by scavenging as to matured-once. Feed scarcity as well as supplementation was mainly in long wet seasons. This report is inline with report of Leulseged (1998) who reported that more scarcity of feed was in wet season. Availability of resources of feeds for the scavenging village chicken might be depended on season and backyard conditions.

In summer (rainy) season there are relatively plenty of worms and vegetables to be eaten by chickens while scavenging around the backyard by village chickens. Scavenge-able feed resource availability might be also affected by backyard conditions. This feed resource variation was mainly due to excess manure which facilitate for maggot-production. The settlement area of the household residence might be also contributed for feed plenty ness for village chickens (personal communications and field observations). About 65% of the respondents reported that due to supplementations, primarily egg production, chicks-survival rate and growth rates of village flocks were improved. There was no commercially formulated ration as an alternative supplement to feed for village chickens around the study areas. Regarding to feeding managements of village chickens, households have found to adjusting flock number with feed resources and some of them were even giving ground bone & meat to their chickens.

Breeding practices

Preferred characteristics in selecting breeding chicken and culling methods are shown in Table 7. Almost all households (91%) were practicing chicken selection for breeding-purpose, out of which 35.9% of them preferred the body weight followed by 33.4% of egg productivity, and 30.7% plumage colors while selecting of the local breeding chickens in the overall result values. Moreover, from farmers’ perspectives, broody-hen with large size and good sitting-habit character could be selected for better hatchability. Sonaiya and Swan (2004) stated that the broody hen chosen for natural incubation should be large. On the other hand the overall study revealed that, 57.9% of the households were culling of unproductive chickens by selling and 42.2% by consuming at home.

Around 87% of households were interested for exotic birds due to higher egg productivity (52.4%), growth rate (29.4%) and plumage colors (18.2%) in overall result. Regarding to breeding purpose, the study revealed that, the overall male to female chicken ratio in the study area was 1:3. This ratio was in agreement with report of Tadelle et al (2003) who reported the males were more than required for breeding purpose, but respondents interested to maintain males for long time for spiritual needs as well as without paying attention to the consequence of feed competition with layers. Around 39.3% of the respondents were primarily selecting females followed by 32.4% males and the least 28.3% for both of the sexes chicken for breeding purposes.

 This finding was in line with the report of Leulseged (1998) who reported that farmers were interested to select hen rather than cocks. In contrary to this Kyvsgaard et al (2002) reported that there was no deliberate selection of hen for breeding, but cocks were selected on phenotypic characteristics.

Housing

The forms of housing systems of village chicken by households are shown in Table 8. In spite of the fact that village chickens spent more of the daytime in extensive scavenging in and around the house, housing was among the common flock-management practices in the sampled households. Therefore, about 60.5% of the farmers living in Debreguracha had been sharing the same room, while only 9.2% were housing separately, whereas 50.3% of the respondents from Yedo (PA) were housing in a different quarter in same roof and only 9.3% share the same room for chicken house. Around 40.4% of the respondents from Yedo were the only peasant association using separate chicken housing systems. 

 There was also a variation in forms of housing of village chicken across the study agro ecologies by the respondents for instance, respondents from Woinadega were more dependent (47.4%) on sharing the same room type of village chicken housing systems, whereas those from Dega agro ecology were using 40.4 and 24.7% for different shelter in same roof and have separate shelter, respectively. Generally the overall result indicated that, about 41.3% of the households shared the same room followed by a separate quarter in the same roof (37.5) and separately constructed houses (21.2%) the study area in form of village chicken housing. The sharing of the same roof with human being might be due to the small flock size per household and/or giving low emphasis for their birds or lack of facilities to construct separate houses. Sharing the same roof with people particularly overnight might be also associated with the protection from predators, which is very severe in the night than during daytime. This is in agreement with the findings of Kitalyi (1998) and Resource-Center (2005) that in Ethiopia and in Kenya, where it is reported that no separate housing for the chickens rather generally housed in the living room or in the kitchen where they scavenge for feed. But Maphosa et al (2004) from Zimbabwe reported that most farmers (>90%) had some structures that were especially constructed for poultry housing without internal facility like egg laying nests.

The housing forms were not uniform across the different age groups and vulnerability of village chicken in the study areas. Broody hen with chicks was given more care but simple roost was provided to other groups of chicken. In areas where there was high risk of predators, households were giving more care for all groups of chicken in nighttime. In addition to this, such housing systems only targeted to protect chicken from predators without giving consideration to negative-impact of harsh production environment on poultry productivity. Dhi (2001) reported that, the most serious problem facing birds at early age is inadequate environments. Till most of the farmers are not aware of the importance of separate poultry-house construction for better production and this trend might be resulted in low productivity and predations of chicken. Moreover these bird-quarters lack internal facilities like egg laying nest, roosts and feeder. Similar findings were reported by Maphosa et al (2004) and Farooq et al (2001). However, daytime housing was not recommended by Udo et al (2004) who found that, daytime housing was not economical in areas where there is no enough feed supply. Housing of village chickens in properly constructed house would facilitate for good productivity.

Acknowledgement

Amhara Regional State of Agricultural Bureau, in Ethiopia is appreciated for funding.

References

Alganesh Tola, Matewos Belisa and Gizaw Kebede 2003 Survey on traditional livestock production system. pp. 141-150. Proceeding 11^th Annual Conference of Ethiopian Society of Animal production, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, August 28-30, 2003. 

Amsalu Asefa, Alemu Yami and Solomon Moges 2001 Supplementary value of brewer’s dried yeast and rapeseed meal in broiler starter rations. pp. 181-211. Proceeding of the 9^th Annual Conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, August 30-31, 2001.

Bassei W 1993 Lesson from field experience on the development of poultry production strategies for sustainable Animal Agriculture in developing counties. Proceeding of the FAO experts consultation held in10-14 December, 1993. FAO United Nations. Rome, 1993. 271p.

Dereje Duressa 2001The effect of some common methods of storage and duration on egg quality and hatchability in East Wolegga, Ethiopia. M. Sc. Thesis Submitted to School of Graduate Studies Alemaya University. 83p. 

Dhi Alchalabi 2001 Monitoring poultry house environments. Poultry International, Production, Processing and Marketing Worldwide. 40(10): 29-35. 

Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization (EARO) 2000 Summary of Livestock Research strategies. Animal Science Directorate, EARO. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.73p. 

Governmental Administration Members (GAM), unpublished 2005 In Amhara Regional State South Wollo, Ethiopia. 

Kitalyi Aichij 1998 Village chicken production systems in rural Africa. House holds food and gender issues. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome Italy. 81p 

Kyvsgaard Niels Chri, Luz Adilial Una and Peter Nansen 2002 Analysis of traditional grain and scavenge based poultry systems. Poultry as a tool of in poverty eradication and promotion of gender equality: proceeding workshop Nicaragua. 

Leulseged Yosef 1998 A study on the production system of the indigenous and improved poultry in rural areas of Northern Wollo. M. Sc. Thesis Presented to School of Graduate Studies of Alemaya University. 103p. 

Livestock resource potential assessment (LRPA), unpublished document 2002 South Wollo Administrative Zone in Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia.

Maphosa T, Kusina J, Kusina N T, Makuza S and Sibanda S 2004 A monitoring study comparing production of village chickens between Communal (Nharira) and small-scale commercial (Lancashire) farming areas in Zimbabwe. University of Zimbabwe. Live stock Research for Rural Developments16/7/2004. (mkhonto@avu.org). 

Negussie Dana, Alemu Yami, Tadelle Dessie and Samual W/Hana 2003 On farm and on station evaluation of the ‘’hay box chicken brooder’’ using different insulation materials at the Debrzeit Agricultural Research Center and Denbi Village Adaa Woreda. PP. 211-216. Proceeding Annual Conference of 10^th Ethiopian Society of Animal Production, August 21-23/2003.

Prabakaran R 2003 Good practices in planning and management of integrated commercial poultry production in South Asia. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations: Rome Italy. 97p.

Sonaiya E B and Swan E S J 2004 Small scale poultry production technical guide. Animal Production and Health, FAO of United Nations. Rome Italy, 2004. 114p.

Statistical Analysis System (SAS) (1999) SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.

Statistical packages for social sciences (SPSS 1996), version 13

Statistical package for social science (SPSS) 1996 11.5 versions. SPSS user^’s guide.

Tadelle Dessie 1996 Studies of village poultry production system in the central high land of Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis Swedish University of Agricultural Science Department of Animal Nutrition Management .72P.

Tadelle D and Ogle B 2001 Village poultry production systems in the central high lands of Ethiopia. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 33(6): 121-537.

Tadelle D, Million T, Alemu Y and Peters K J 2003 Village chicken production systems in Ethiopia: 1. Flock characteristics and performance Humboldt University of Berlin, Animal Breeding for Tropics and Sub-tropics.Debrezeit Agricultural Research Center. Debrezeit, Ethiopia. 15(1), 2003.

Rushton J 1996b Emergency assistance to Newcastle Disease control in Zimbabwe, consultant report, projects TCP/ZIMB/4553. Rome, FAO.

Udo H M J, Asgedom A H and Viets T C 2001 Modeling the impact of intervention in village poultry productions. Livestock Community and Environment. Proceeding of the 10^th Conference of the Association of Institution for Tropical Veterinary Medicine Copenhagen, Denmark. Mekele University College, Ethiopia.

Yongolo M G S 1996 Epidemiological of Newcastle disease in village chickens in Tanzania. MVM Thesis, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania. 125p.

Received 11 September 2010; Accepted 7 November 2010; Published 1 February 2011

Go to top