HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY, HARAMAYA

ON FARM PHENOTYPIC CHARACTERIZATION OF INDIGENOUS CHICKEN POPULATION AND THEIR PRODUCTION SYSTEM AT BORENA, WOGDI AND LEGAMBO DISTRICTS IN SOUTH WOLLO, ETHIOPIA MSc THESIS MELAKU TAREKE ADAL MAY 2016 HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY, HARAMAYA

ON FARM PHENOTYPIC CHARACTERIZATION OF INDIGENOUS CHICKEN POPULATION AND THEIR PRODUCTION SYSTEM AT BORENA, WOGDI AND LEGAMBO WOREDAS IN SOUTH WOLLO, ETHIOPIA A Thesis Submitted to the School of Animal and Range sciences, Post Graduate Program Directorate HARAMAYA UNIVERSITY In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ANIMAL GENETICS AND BREEDING Melaku Tareke Adal May 2016 Haramaya University, Haramaya

HARAMARA UNIVERSITY POST GRADUATEPROGRAM DIRECTORATE I here certify that I have read and evaluated this MSc. Thesis entitled On farm Phenotypic Characterization of Indigenous Chicken Population and Their Production System at Wogdi, Borena and Legambo Districts in South Wollo Ethiopia prepared under my guidance by Melaku Tareke Adal. I recommended that it be submitted as fulfilling the thesis requirement. Dr. Negasi Ameha Major Advisor Signature Date As member of the Board of examiners of the MSc thesis open defiance examination, I certify thati have read, evaluated the thesis prepared by Melaku Tareke Adal, and examined the candidate. I recommend that the thesis be accepted as fulfilling the Thesis requirement for the Degree of Master of Science in Animal Genetics and Breeding. Chair Person Signature Date Internal Examiner Signature Date External Examiner Signature Date ii

DEDICATION This work is dedicated to my beloved parents; my mother W/ro Ayalnesh Zeleke my father Ato Tareke Adal and my Wife Habtam Awoke who for giving their affection, love and encouragement. iii

STATEMENT OF AUTHOR By my signature below, I declare that this thesis is my own work. I have followed all ethical and technical principles of scholarship in the preparation, data collection, data analysis and completion of this thesis. Any scholar matter that is included in the thesis has been given recognition through citation. This thesis is submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for an MSc degree at Haramaya University. The thesis is deposited in the Haramaya University Library and is made available to borrowers under the rules of the Library. I solemnly declare that this thesis is not submitted to any other institution anywhere for the award of any academic degree, diploma or certificate. Brief quotation from this thesis may be made without special permission provided that accurate and complete acknowledgement of source is made.requests for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the Head of the School or Department when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interest of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the author the thesis. Name: Melaku Tareke Adal Signature: Data of submission: School/department: iv

ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AnGR BoARD Cm CSA D.E DA DNA EARS FAO GDP GLM Gm Ha HH Kms M.H. Mas Ml MOE MtDNA NA NCD RIR SAS SNNPRS WADU WL Animal Genetic Resource Bureau of Agriculture and Rural Development centimeter Central Statistical Agency Debre Elias Development Agent Deoxyribo Nucleic Acid Eastern Amhara Regional State Food and Agricultural Organization of the United State Growth Domestic Product General Linear Model gram Hector House Hold Kilometers Melo-Hamusite meter above sea level Mill Liter Minster of Education Methichonderial Deoxyribo Nucleic Acid Not applicable New Castle Disease Rhode Island Red Statistical Analysis System South Nation Nationality People Regional States Wolaita Agricultural Development Unit White Leghorn v

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH The author, Melaku Tareke Adale was born from his father Tareke Adal Tesema and his mother Ayalnesh Zeleke Asnakew in May 1988 in Betaso Peasant Association (PA) of Borena District, South Wollo Zone. He attended his elementary education in Dega Haway Elementary School from 1996 to 2001 and junior Borena elementary and secondary Borena high school from 2002 to 2005. He attended his Preparatory; education in Borena Preparatory School from 2006 to 2008. He then joined Wollo University, college of Agriculture and Veterinary medicine, was awarded a BSc Degree in Animal Science in 2011. After his graduation, he was employed by the Ministry of Edication in Madda Walabu University and served as graduate assistance from 2011-2013 E.C. He then joined the Graduate School of the Haramaya University for a Master of Science degree in Animal Breeding and Genetics in September 2013 E.C vi

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would like to provide the appreciation to my major devisor Dr. Negasi Ameha for his generous support and guidance during thesis proposal writing, research work and thesis write up. I am grateful to Dr. Kefelegn Kebede for all the effort he has made and follow to shape during thesis proposal writing up to data collection. Thanks to the Department of Animal and Range Science, Haramaya University, for their contribution in the process of developing the research proposal and provision of various services and providing me a great opportunity to advance intellectually.my special thanks go to my beloved mother Ayalnesh Zeleke and her sister Yewbanesh Zeleke, for their advice and care of me and had been the source of encouragement and implication that made my study a success and brought my vision to life. I would also like to thank Mr. Feyera Bodena for his intelligent supervision,generous effortand motivate to finalize the thesis work. Finally I am also grateful to the office of Agricultural Development and all staff members of Wogdi, Borena and Legambo districts for providing necessary baseline data required for this study. I thank also all interviewed village chicken owners, district agricultural office experts, development agents, key informants and other participants who helped to carry out every activity on this research. vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS STATEMENT OF AUTHOR ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX IV V VI VII VIII XIII XIV 1. INTRODUCTION 1 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 4 2.1. Origin, Domestication and Classification of Chicken Population 4 2.1.1. Origin and Domestication 4 2.1.2. Classification of Indigenous Chickens 5 2.1.3. Chicken Population in Ethiopia 5 2.2. Characterization of Indigenous Chicken Population of Ethiopia 7 2.2.1. Production System 8 2.2.1.1. Feeding and feed resources 9 2.2.1.2. Housing 10 2.2.1.3. Marketing and recording management 11 2.2.1.4. Diseases and predators 12 2.2.2. Phenotypic Characterization of Indigenous Chicken Population 12 2.2.3. Performance (quantitative traits) 14 2.2.3.1. Egg production 14 2.2.3.2. Meat production 15 2.2.3.3. Reproductive performance 16 2.2.3.4. Incubation and chick management practice 17 viii

Table of content continued 2.2.4. Breeding Objectives and Practice 17 2.2.4.1. Traditional Breeding Practice in Ethiopia 18 2.2.4.2. Modern Breeding Practice in Ethiopia 19 3. MATERIALS AND METHODS 21 3.1. Description of the Study Areas 21 3.1.1. Socioeconomic of the Societies 22 3.1.2. Agro Ecological Condition of the Study Area 23 3.2. Methods of Data Collection 24 3.2.1. Sampling Methods 24 3.2.2. Data Collection 24 3.2.2.1. Production system description 24 3.2.2.2 Qualitative traits data collection 25 3.2.2.3. Quantitative trait data collection 25 3.3. Data Analysis and Interpretation 26 3.3.1. Univariate Analysis 26 3.3.2. Multivariate Analysis 27 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 28 4.1. Household Characteristics and Respondents Profile 28 4.2. Livestock holding of householders 29 4.3. Characteristics of Chicken Production System and Flock Structure 30 4.4. Roles of Indigenous Chicken 32 4.5. Production Performance of Indigenous chicken 33 4.5.1. Age at Sexual Maturity of Indigenous Chicken 33 4.5.2. Egg Production of Indigenous Chicken 34 4.6. Reproductive Performance of Indigenous Chicken 35 4.6.1. Hatchability of Indigenous Chicken and Survivability of Chicks 35 4.7. Hatching and Brooding Management of Indigenous Chicken 37 4.8. Breeding objective of chicken and Selection of Chicken 40 4.8.1. Breeding Practice of Chicken in the Study Districts 40 ix

Table of content continued.. 4.8.2. Trait Preferences of Respondents in the Study Districts 42 4.9. Indigenous Chicken Population Husbandry Practice 43 4.9.1. Feeds and Feeding management of indigenous chicken 43 4.9.2. Water Resources and Watering of Chicken 45 4.9.3. Chicken Housing Practices 46 4.9.4. Chicken Diseases and Control Measures 48 4.9.5. Predators and Their Management techniques 50 4.9.6. Chicken Marketing 51 4.9.6.1. Factors that Determine chicken price 52 4.10. Major Constraints of Chicken Production 53 4.11. Phenotypic Characterization of Indigenous Chicken Population 55 4.11.1. Qualitative Characteristics 55 4.11.2. Multiple Correspondence Analysis 59 4.11.3. Variation in Quantitative Traits 61 4.11.3.1. Effect of Fixed Factors to Quantitative Parameters 61 4.11.4. The Relationship among quantitative traits 63 4.12. Multivariate Analysis 66 4.12.1. Discriminant Analysis 66 4.12.2. Canonical Discriminant Analysis 67 4.12.3. Stepwise Discriminant Analysis 69 5. SUMMARY, CONCULSIONAND RECOMMENDATIONS 71 5.1. Summary and Conclusion 71 5.2. Recommendations 72 6. REFERENCES 74 7. APPENDIX 85 x

LIST OF TABLES Tables Page 1. Some Indigenous chicken and their special features 6 2. Regional and national chicken population ('000) distribution in Ethiopia 7 3. Production performance of indigenous chicken 14 4. The livestock population of the study districts 23 5. Socio-economic status of village chicken owners 29 6. Livestock holdings in the surveyed households 30 7. Chicken flock size/household in the study districts 31 8. Purposes of chicken rearing and egg production 33 9.Production performance of local chicken population 35 10. Hatchability performance of local hens 36 11. Incubation and brooding management 38 12. Breeding objectives and its index with rank values 40 13. Breeding and culling practice 42 14. Trait categories which influencing production and price of live chickens 43 15. Common feed sources 44 16. Feeding management of chicken 45 17. Water sources of chicken 46 18. Types of chicken housing and cleaning frequency 48 19. Common parasites, diseases and their control mechanisms 49 20. Methods used to prevent diseases 50 21. Common predators and prevention techniques 51 22. The prices of chicken and chicken products 52 23. Factors that determine chicken price 52 24. Constraints of chicken production and its index with ranks value 54 25. Plumage colour characteristics of indigenous chicken population 56 26. Head morphology of indigenous chicken 57 27. Shank and body morphology of chicken 58 28. Least square means of body weight (kg) and linear body measurements (cm) 62 xi

List of tables continued. 29. Pearson s correlations coefficient(r) between body weight and linear body measurements for female and male of chicken population 65 30. Number of observations and percent classified (blew in bracket) in three districts for male and female sample indigenous chicken population using discriminate analysis 66 31. Number of observations and percent classified (below in bracket) in three districts for female sample indigenous chicken population using discriminant analysis 67 32. Number of observations and percent classified (below in bracket) in three districts for male sample indigenous chicken population using discriminant analysis. 67 33. Mahalanobis distance among districts for the sampled chicken populations and areas of their separation 68 34. Multivariate discriminant function coefficients (total or Pooled-sample standardized canonical coefficient), canonical correlation and total variation explained by each functions 69 35. Multivariate tests and summary of discriminant stepwise selection among the three districts 70 xii

TABLE OF FIGURES Figure Page 1. Study areas map 22 2.The bi-dimensional graph showing the correspondences among the categories of the different morphological characteristics considered 60 xiii

LIST OF TABLES IN THE APPENDIX Table Page 1. Questionnaires 86 2. GLM for quantitattable 1Table 2ive measurements 99 3. Egg storage and incubation materials and fertility test tetchniques 102 4. GLM for livestock 102 5. Multivariate statistics and F approximation from CanDisc procedure 106 6. Important plumage color and comb type determine chicken price in the study areas 106 xiv

On farm Phenotypic Characterization of Indigenous Chicken Population and Their Production System at Wogdi, Borena and Legambo Districs in South Wollo, Ethiopia ABSTRACT A study was conducted in three selected districts (Wogdi, Borena and Legambodistricts) in south Wollo, Ethiopia to phenotypically characterize various types of indigenous chicken population and their production system with the objectives of to describe the production system and to identify, characterize and describe the phenotypic variation of indigenous chicken populations in the study districts. Based on random sampling a total of 180 house holder having indigenous chicken population were interviewed and 600 chickens (150 male and 450 females) aged more than 6 month were considered under field condition. Univariate and multivariate analysis were done with SAS version 9.1. Qualitative traits such as characteristics of plumage color, comb type, shank color, eye and earlobe colour, and beak colour were observed and documented. And also the production system and production constraints were considered. Quantitative traits included body weight and linear morphometric measurements such as shank length, body length, wattle length, wing span, chest circumference, beak length, keel of sternum length, comb width and comb length were considered. Occurrence of different qualitative features varied significantly (P<0.05) between study districts, sexes and among phenotypic groups as shown by chi square analysis. Multivariate analysis showed significant relationships of body weight with every linear body measurement traits. The average number of chicken per house holds was 9.18 ± 0.60.The average age of indigenous cockerels and pullets at first mating and laying is 5.87 ± 0.08 and 5.86 ± 0.10 months, respectively. The number of clutch per hen, eggs per clutch and total eggs produced per hen per year were 3.45 ± 0.10, 12.81 ± 0.36 and 53.18 ± 1.04 eggs, respectively. The hatchability and survival rate of chicks were 64.85 % and 62.34 %, respectively. A total of 15 plumage colors were identified in all districts. Among these white (19.5%), black (11.33%) and black with white strip (10.17%) were the dominate plumage colour of chicken in the study districts. The local chickens possessed variant in shank colour, skin colour, comb type, eye colour. Yellow shanks, white skin, rose/double combs and white earlobecolour were predominately seen across all the study districts. The mean body weight of indigenous male and female chickens was 1.35 ± 0.01 kg and 1.19 ± 0.01 kg, respectively. The present phenotypic information complimented with genetic analysis may serve as a basis for designing appropriate conservation, breeding and selection strategies. Generally, morphological and phenotypical variations were observed among the indigenous chicken populations, which suggest that there is an opportunity for genetic improvement through selection. From this work it is recommend that farmers should have get awareness of chicken production constraints, in depth characterization of production traits should be carried out. Keywords: Characterization, Indigenous chicken population management, morphometric traits, phenotypic diversity and productivity xv

1. INTRODUCTION Ethiopia is believed to have the largest livestock population in Africa. This livestock sector has been contributing considerable parts to the economy of the country and contributes 20% to the total GDP, supporting the livelihoods of 70 % of the population and generates about 11% of annual export earnings. Livestock sector are still promising to the economic development of the country (CSA, 2011). The total chicken population at country level with out Addis Ababa is estimated to be about 56.87 million. Chicken includes cocks, cockerels, pullets, laying hens, non-laying hens and chicks. Consequently, most of the poultry are chicks (37.68 percent), followed by laying hens (33.1 percent). Pullets are estimated to be about 5.91 million in the country. Cocks and cockerels are also estimated separately, and are 5.81 million and about 3.21 million, respectively. The others are non-laying hens that make up about 2.95 percent (1.68 million) of the total poultry population in the country. With regard to breed, 95.86 percent, 2.79 percent and 1.35 percent of the total poultry were reported to be indigenous, hybrid and exotic, respectively (CSA, 2014-2015). In Ethiopia, most chicken populations are non-descriptive type. However, they showed a great variation in their production environment which might be due to their wide spread distribution and adaptive response to different ecological conditions (Tadelle et al. 2003; Halima, 2007; Fisseha et al. 2010, Addis, 2013). Indigenous chickens show great phenotypic variability which is important for adapting various tropical environment conditions (Tadelle and Alemu, 1997). There is no proper poultry feeding program in rural Ethiopia. Scavenging is the most important component of the poultry diet. Full day scavenging poultry are usually capable of finding feeds for their maintenance requirement plus the production of few eggs and are vulnerable to predators and spread of infection (Mekonen et al., 2011). Indigenous chicken (95.86 %) in Ethiopia is found in huge number distributed across different agro-ecological zones (CSA, 2015) under a traditional family-based scavenging management system (Alemu and Tadelle, 1997). This indicates that they are highly important in farm animals kept as a good source of animal protein and income to most of the rural populations. Furthermore, their widespread distribution indicates their adaptive potential to the local environmental conditions, diseases and other stresses (Halima, 2007). The totalchicken egg and meat

2 production in Ethiopia is estimated to be about 78,000 and 72,300 metric tons, respectively (Fisseha et al., 2010a). From that, more than 90% of the national chicken meat and egg out put is from in digenous chickens (Nigussie, 2011). However, the productivity of indigenous chicken is low as compared to exotic breeds with average annual egg production of 60 eggs per hen (Fisseha et al., 2010a). On the other hand, the live weight of indigenous chicken is about 1.6 kg and 1.3 kg for male and female respectively at 6 months of age (Mekonnen, 2007). This indiscriminate introduction of exotic genetic resources, before proper characterization, utilization and conservation of indigenous genetic resources is the main cause of the loss of indigenous chicken genetic resource (Halima, 2007). Indigenous chicken production has a comparative advantage over other livestock s because of they have short generation interval, high feed conversion efficiency, natural brooding and a capacity to have a great number of chickens per unit area (Upton, 2004). Disease (Serkalem et al., 2005), predation (Halima, 2007), market system (Bogale, 2008), management and production system (Fisseha et al., 2010a) were major constraints of chicken in scavenging production system of Ethiopia. The rural household in South Wollo administration zone has an average 0.7 hectare of land. According to CSA (2011), there are around 14,048,486 chicken populations in Amhara region. Therefore, to support the livelihood of these small land holders and landless including women s improving chicken productivity may be the highest priority in the fight against food insecurity in the area. However, the genotype and phenotype characters of existing chicken have to be characterized for their overall merits and need subsequent improvement. Improvement of the productivity of indigenous chicken resource demands characterization of the available genotypes. Presently, studies on characterization (some phenotypic and very few genetic characterization) in Ethiopia are being taken up to generate useful information towards conservation of animal genetic resources, but these works are mostly on small ruminants and cattle rather than on chickens. Genetic characterization based on molecular assessment is reported to be most common method to evaluate genetic diversity among and within livestock

3 breeds, but it needs high technology and cost (Wimmers K. et al., 2000 andhillel J.M.A, 2003). Morphometric traits are the quantitative analyses of the structure, shape, and size of an organism. The derivation of body weight from body measurements (i.e. morphometric traits) has been reported to be a practical and easy technique, especially among rural poultry breeders with lack of resources and materials (Semacula et al. 2011). Phenotypic correlation estimates between body weight and morphometric traits could guide the breeder in the choice of body size traits to incorporate into his selection index. According to Olawunmi et al. (2008), characterization of indigenous chickens is a necessary pre-requisite for indigenous breed development and the development of rural poultry. In general, indigenous chickens are nondescriptive, with a variety of morphological appearances (Halima, 2007; Mekonnen, 2007). Tadelle (2003) studied five indigenous chicken ecotypes up to 18 weeks of age, which were selected from different parts of Ethiopia. Duguma (2006) also studied on phenotypic characterization of indigenous chicken of Ethiopia at Debre Ziet Agricultural Research Center. Characterization in smallholder poultry production and market system in three districts of SNNPRS (South Nation Nationality People Regional States) was conducted by (Mekonnen, 2007). In addition, Bogale (2008) dealt with Characterization of poultry productivity and market system in Fogera district. Halima (2007) studied on phenotypic and genetic characterization indigenous chicken in North West Ethiopia. Nigussie (2011) also examined on morphological and genetic characterization of indigenous chicken in different part of Ethiopia, however, with regard to breeding practice and traits preference of farmers, limited efforts were made; in addition, most previous works did not thoroughly included Wogdis, Borena and Logambo Districts in their phenotypic characterization study of chicken. Breed genetic improvement and subsequent proper utilization of indigenous chicken population strongly demands comprehensive characterization and conservation, including breeding practice. Therefore, this thesis focused with the following objectives. To describe the production system of the indigenous chicken in the study areas To identify, characterize and describe the phenotypic variation of indigenous chicken populations in the study area

4 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1. Origin, Domestication and Classification of Chicken Population 2.1.1. Origin and Domestication Chicken has been the most popular poultry species world wide in terms of their number and economic importance. Taking in to account the geographic range of the species (Crawford, 1990), archaeological discoveries (West and Zhou, 1998), protein polymorphisms and morphological characteristics (Moiseyeva et al., 2003), domestic chicken were derived from red jungle fowl. Furthermore, another study based on DNA, indicated that the ancestor of the domesticated chicken was a particular sub-species of the Red Jungle Fowel (Gallus gallus gallus) (Fumihito et al., 1994). Similarly, in a series of studies that analyzed 400 base pairs of the mtdna D-loop region of four species of genus Gallus (Gallus gallus, Gallus sonnerrati, Gallus lafayetti and Gallus varius), three sub-species of Gallus gallus (G.g gallus, G.gspadiceus, G.gbankiva) and nine domestic breeds of chicken from south Asia, south east Asia, Japan, Europe, shows an evidence which suggests that domestic chicken are derived from G.gallus (Akishinonomiya et al., 1996). In general, the idea of Akishinonomiya et al. (1996) on evolutionary history of chicken could be summarized in to three phases. The first phase started with the evolution of the genus Gallus, followed by the emergence of the domestic fowl from its progenitors and lastly the appearance of the large number of the current chicken breeds, varieties, strains and lines. Crawford (1990) indicated that chicken with black feathers, meat, bones were found in Mozambique in 1635, bearing the fibromelanosis mutant known at the India not Europe. This implies that India is the most likely origin of chicken that imported to Africa (Nigussie, 2011). In another way, Halima (2007) states that there is no information that shows introduction of chicken into Ethiopia.

5 2.1.2. Classification of Indigenous Chickens The Ethiopian indigenous chickens are none descriptive breeds closely related to the Jungle fowl and vary in plumage color, comb type, body conformation and weight. They are characterized by slow growth rate, late sexual maturity and low production as well as low reproductive performance (Meseret, 2010). Some Ethiopian ecotype chicken were identified and characterized. This include as Tilili, Horro,Jarso and Tepi (Tadelle et al., 2003), Gelila, Debre Elias, Melo-Hamusit, Guangua and Mecha (Halima, 2007), Farta, Konso, Mandura and Sheka (Nigussie, 2011) and Hemete, Kukuate and Yeberha Tsehaye (Addis, 2014) (Table 1). 2.1.3. Chicken Population in Ethiopia Poultry production has a major role in the economy of developing countries, including an important role in poverty alleviation by means of income generation and household food security (Abdelqader et al., 2007 and Abubakar et al., 2007). In Ethiopia, Ayele et al., (2009) and Wilson (2010), more than half of Ethiopian households both in rural and urban areas keep chickens, although there is considerable variation in the distribution of chicken keeping, with most households in highland areas keeping chickens, and far fewer doing so in lowland pastoral areas. Production is characterized by free range backyard or village systems (Sonaiya, 1990; Guèye, 2003) and chicken production is considered an integral part of many families livelihoods (Tadelle et al., 2003). Studies across Africa and in Ethiopia in particular, show women often directly control the income generated from the sale of chickens and chicken products, and that this is sometimes their only source of independent income. Hence, chicken production is important in developing countries where options for income generation for women are limited (Gueye et al., 1998; Pederson, 2001; Tadelle and Ogle, 2001; Seeberg, 2002; FAO, 2004; Aklilu et al., 2008; and Halima et al., 2007).

6 Table 3. Some Indigenous chicken and their special features Ecotypes Peculiar feature Reference Jarso Red plumage colour, no naked neck, black eye colour, single (Dguma,2006) combed, red skin colour Tepi Red plumage colour, no naked neck, black eye colour, single (Dguma,2006) combed, red skin colour Tilili Crest head shape,pea comb type, lack of shank feather, yellow (Halima,2007) shank colour D.E Plain head shape, pea comb type, no single and v shaped comb, (Halima,2007) do not have shank feather, yellow skin colour. Gelila Plain head shape, pea comb type, lack of shank feather, yellow (Halima,2007) shank colour M.H Crest head shape, all comb type (57% pea), except strawberry do (Halima,2007) not have shank feather, yellow shank colour Gassay Crest head shape, all comb type (84% pea), except strawberry no (Halima,2007) (Farta) shank feather, yellow shank colour Guangua Crest and plain head shape, pea comb type, no shank feather, (Halima,2007) yellow shank colour Mecha Plain and crest head, pea comb type, do not have shank feather, (Halima,2007) yellow shank colour Horro Flat head shape, pea comb type, blocky body shape, yellow (Nigussie,2011) shank colour Farta Crest head shape, pea comb type, blocky body shape, yellow (Nigussie,2011) shank colour Konso Flat head shape, pea comb type, blocky body shape, yellow (Nigussie,2011) shank colour Mandura Crest head shape, pea comb type, blocky body shape, yellow (Nigussie,2011) shank colour Sheka Flat head shape, pea comb type, blocky body shape, yellow (Nigussie,2011) shank colour Hemete completely red in body plumage colors, white skin color, single (Addis,2014) combs, rose combs, had plain headed facial appearance Kuakuate predominantly white with thin black, body plumage color, rose (Addis,2014) combed Yeberha Tsehaye brown (100%) body plumage color, 33.3% black with white tips followed by 29% red and 26.7% Grayish mixture comb type, 30 % are rose comb type, 43.3% triangular body shape and 36.7% plain headed (Addis,2014) In 2003, more than 35 million indigenous chickens were estimated (CSA, 2003). However, it shows an increment to 56.9 million chickens in 2014/2015 of which 95.86 % (48.3 million) were indigenous (CSA, 2011). Regionally: Oromia, Amhara and SNNPR take the first, second and third position in chicken population size respectively (Table 2).

7 The average flock size of indigenous chickens kept per rural smallholder family varied from 6 to 10 (Halima, 2007) and an overall average flock size per household for chicks and cocks and for hens/pullets was 4.73 and 2.40, respectively, with a total flock size of 7.13 (Emebet, 2013). Nevertheless, according to Nigussie (2011) the average estimated size of indigenous flocks per household is about 3.5 (ranging from 2.1 in Konso to 6.5 in Sheka).The average flock chicken structure varies though out Ethiopia, (10.44 chickens) by Wondu et al., (2013), (7.13 chickens) per household reported by Halima (2007) in North Western Ethiopia. And 8.8 and 9.2 chickens per household reported by Assefa (2007) and Tadelle (2003) for Southern and Central highlands of Ethiopia, respectively. But it was lower than 18.8 chickens per household reported by Khalafalla et al. (2000) in Sudan and 18 chickens per household reported by Sewannyana et al. (2004) in Uganda. Table 4. Regional and national chicken population ('000) distribution in Ethiopia Region 2003/04 2010/11 2014/2015 Tigray 3,725.11 4,308.595 6,189,8 4 8 Afar 49.29 67.319 132.2 1 5 Amhara 11,243.77 14,048.486 18,031.1 2 1 Oromia 12,761.34 18,762.281 20,076.1 2 9 Somale 173.19 106.114 162. 8 8 4 BenishangulGumuz 785.36 1,149.069 1,375. 3 2 6 SNNPR 6,779.90 10,407.807 10,433.7 7 3 Gambella NA 303.019 307.3 8 7 Hareri 31.59 53.277 71.4 1 9 Addis Ababa 62.36 NA NA Dire Dawa 44.48 80.963 86.6 1 7 Country total 35,656.39 49,286.932 56,866, 7 1 9 Source: CSA 2003, 2011 and 2015 2.2. Characterization of Indigenous Chicken Population of Ethiopia Phenotypic characterization of animal genetic resources used to refer the process of identifying distinct breed populations and describing their characteristics and their production environments (FAO, 2012). It should also include the population size of the animal genetic resources, its physical description, adaptations, uses, prevalent breeding systems, population trends, predominant production systems, description of the environment in which it is predominantly found, indications of performance levels (meat, growth, reproduction, egg) and

8 the genetic distinctiveness of the animal (Weigend and Romanov, 2001). Indigenous breed is a general terminology to describe those birds kept in the extensive system, scavenging in the free-range, have no identified description, multi-purpose and unimproved (Horst P, 1989 and Pedersen C.V, 2001). The Ethiopian indigenous chickens are none descriptive breeds closely related to the Jungle fowl and vary in plumage color, comb type, body conformation and weight (Halima, 2007) management scavenging system (Tadelle et al., 2003). Indigenous chickens are reported to have variable morphological identity carrying genes that have adaptive values to their environment and diseases. According to Horst, 13 indigenous chickens can be considered as gene reservoir, particularly, for those genes that have adaptive values in the tropical conditions. 2.2.1. Production System Most poultry in Africa is kept under traditional production systems where chickens are allowed to roam free and scavenge for food around the household (Branckaert et al., 2000). Scavenging chickens are an efficient waste disposal system converting insects and leftover grains and human foods into valuable protein foods, such as eggs and meat (Minh, 2005). Production costs are generally low as no supplementary feeds and medication are used and the chickens are genetically adapted to harsh environments. Besides being a source of high quality food protein for rural communities (Qureshi, 1990; Wattanachant et al., 2004), indigenous chickens are also kept for religious and cultural purposes (Swatson et al., 2001). In Ethiopia; scavenging type of production system using a majority of indigenous chicken population with only seasonal/conditional feed supplementation is the most dominant chicken production way (Halima, 2007; Mekonnen, 2007; Fisseha, 2009, Addisu, 2013, Emebet, 2013). In scavenging chicken production system, the main feed resources are thought to be insects, worms, seeds, plant materials, etc. with very small amount of grain and table left over supplements from the household and characterized as low input and output (Tadelle et al., 1996). Farmers do not purposely construct chicken house. Hence chicken has not been managed under suitable environment. A study conducted in Halaba district southern Ethiopia by Nebiyu

9 (2013) revealed that 77.5 % and 12.1 % of farmers kept their chicken on perch inside the main house and separate room inside the house. However in northern part of Ethiopia by Halima (2007) revealed that 50.77% of farmers kept their chicken outside the main house in sheds built for other purpose. Only 22.1% of chicken owners in Bure district prepared a separate overnight house for chickens and the rest (77.9%) kept chickens in various night sheltering places (Fisseha et al., 2010b). These and other traditional chicken management systems hinder productivity of indigenous chicken (Nigussie, 2011). 2.2.1.1. Feeding and feed resources Chicken production in tropical countries is characterized by traditional scavenging system and low output per bird (Aichi, 1998). In a study conducted by Mapiye and Sibanda (2005) in Rushinga district of Zimbabwe, about 3.2% of the households practice Zero supplementation; 96.6% partial supplementation; and 0.2% always provides supplementary feed to their chickens. In Ethiopia the smallholder chicken production system is characterized by keeping under free range system and the major feed sources are believed to be insect, worms, seed and plant materials etc. with very small amount of grain and table left over supplements from the house hold (Tadelle and Ogle, 1996a; Solomon, 2004). A study conducted in north western Ethiopia (Solomon et al., 2013) the farmers were found to supplement their chickens occasionally with household refuse and grains (mainly paddy rice, maize and sorghum) during dry (92.5%) and rainy (7.5%) seasons. Feeding chicken according to their age and production status is still uncommon practice in Ethiopia. A study conducted in Halaba district southern Ethiopia by Nebiyu (2013) revealed that 81. 8% of farmers fed their chicken in whole flocks. Only chicks have been managed in separate group for few weeks unless other chicken categories scavenge freely around the back yard without any restriction. According to Solomon et al. (2013) 83.6% of the respondents were feeding their chicken flock in group and the rest 16.4% of the respondents fed separately to the different age classes of chickens.

10 One of the major production constraints to the development and growth of the rural family poultry in most developing countries is the estimation of feed intake and feed utilization under scavenging conditions. Such data will provide the basis for improvement in feeding management, in terms of supplementary feeding and stocking density or birds per unit scavenging area (Gunaratneet al., 1993). However, the crop analysis result indicated that the physical proportion of seeds was higher in the short rainy season and the concentration of crude protein; calcium and phosphorus were below the recommended requirements for egg production and the diet are also unbalanced (Tegene, 1992; Tadelle and Ogle, 1996b; Tadelle and Alemu, 1997). This limited resource feed restricts the potential productivity of local birds to 40-60 eggs per hen per year. Both egg production and egg size vary with season, as the quality and availability of feed varies (Mbugua, 1990). Tadelle and Ogle (1996) reported that the feed resource is deficient in protein, energy and probably calcium for layer birds, and this is confirmed from the results of supplementation trial, which show that supplementation of local birds with feed sources containing energy, protein and a calcium source brings a considerable increase in egg production and meat yield. Shortage of protein in scavenging feed resource base is not presumed to be a major constraint (Smith, 1990; Ogle etal., 2004). Chickens are expected to get adequate proteinfrom scavenging insects, snails and leguminous grains. 2.2.1.2. Housing Lack of housing is one of the constraints of the smallholder chicken production systems. According to Bell and Abdou (1995) and Dwinger, et al. (2003), large proportion of village poultry in most African countries is lost due to nocturnal predators. Some research works also indicated that the mortality of scavenging birds reduced by improved housing. For instance, in the Gambia livestock improvement program, which included improved poultry housing resulted in lower chick mortality (19%) relative to that observed in Ethiopia (66%) and Tanzania (33%), where no housing improvements were made (Kitalyi, 1998).A study conducted in Halaba district, Southern Ethiopia, Yemane (2009) indicated that there was no chicken house built exclusively for chicken outside the main house. Whereas, a study conducted in Sudan (Khalafalla et al., 2000) reported that 48.7% of the household provided over night housing for the birds and chickens in 20.6% of the households were kept over night

11 within the main house, while 12.8% of the birds perched in trees or roofs. Halima (2007) and Wondu et al. (2013) reported that 50.77% and 63 %, respectively, of farmers kept their chickens outside the main house which is exclusively made for chickens in North Western Ethiopia. Solomon et al. (2013) in North Wester Ethiopia, Meketel Zone, also reported that only 48% of the respondents constructed separate houses for their birds; the other 52% kept in various over night sheltering places. Chicken house is made of locally available material with minimal costs. For instance a study conducted in Meketel Zone, north western Ethiopia, showed that houses/night shelters were made using locally available materials such as bamboo for making ceilings (86.7%), mud blocks and hat (11.1%), a house made of iron sheet roof (1.5%) and basket made of bamboo (0.7%). 2.2.1.3. Marketing and recording management Indigenous chickens are also increasingly becoming important in niche markets, given their organic way of being raised (Angel 2010). In rural settings birds are kept under traditional systems which are highly extensive. Farmers do not gain adequately enough from chicken rearing partly because there are no standards for determining the economic value of chicken. There are no weighing scales in poultry markets and/or villages. The marketing system is generally, informal and haphazard (Emuron et al 2010). Birds are sold on face value and not by actual weight which reduces the farmers bargaining power for premium price. In Ethiopia the price of live chicken was determined by body weight, comb type, plumage colour, age and sex (Bogale, 2008, Nigussie, 2011, Addisu, 2013).Furthermore, seasonal demand, lack of infrastructure, market site, and health status had great effect on chicken price in North West of Ethiopia (Halima, 2007). Some of the obstacles which determine chicken marketing, indicated by Addisu et al. (2013) in North Wollo, were instable chicken price; lack of market place, poor infrastructure enforced the majority of farmers to sell their chicken and chicken products to small retailers at low price. Meseret (2010) also reported that unstable chicken price and seasonal demand of eggs and live chicken were some of subjective forces of farmers to sell their chicken and chicken product to small retailer in low price.

12 2.2.1.4. Diseases and predators Scavenging chicken production system is characterized by high chick mortality in the first two weeks of life, caused by predators and Newcastle diseases (Aberra and Tegene, 2010). Addisu et al.(2013) reported that Newcastle Disease (NCD) (locally called as fengile ) was the most prevalent and economically important disease affecting village chicken production in North Wollo. In addition of NCD, cannibalism (locally called melalat ) was observed as a constraint in mid altitude and low altitude areas at dry and sun-drenched season (Adisu Hailu et al, 2013). Other researchers also report that a major cause of indigenous chicken death is seasonal outbreak NCD in North West Ethiopia (Halima, 2007), in Bure district (Fisseha, 2009), in Fogera district ( Bogale K, 2008) and in Gomma district (Meseret M, 2010). Similarly, Yongolo (1996) also supported the argument of NCD was the most devastating disease and considered as a major constraint to the development of both village and commercial chicken industry in Africa. Halima (2007) revealed that diseases and predators were the first and the second major factors that cause loss of chicken in North West Ethiopia. Aberra and Tegegne (2007) also indicated that Newcastle disease and fowl cholera are the major problems limiting chicken production in Ethiopia. The major predators which cause loss of chicken were Shelemetimat, cat and Wildbbirds (locally called chilfit ) (Melese and Melkamu, 2014).Solomon (2007) and Addis (2013) who reported that the bio-security of the backyard poultry production system is very poor and risky, since scavenging birds live together with people and other species of livestock. Solomon et al. (2013) reported that both incidence of chicken disease and predator attack were found to be higher in the wet season (May to November) than in the dry season (October to April). Diseases, mainly Newcastle, and predation were the major constraints in all areas surveyed in Meketel Zone. 2.2.2. Phenotypic Characterization of Indigenous Chicken Population Genetic variation is essential; without it there is no possibility of selection and sustained genetic improvement. And while relatively few breeds and biological types may best fit today s environments and market conditions, genetic diversity is critical if populations are to adapt to changing environments and markets in the future (Bourdon, 2000). Genetic variations in chickens can be described, among other approaches, using monogenic traits based on

13 pigmentation differences and comb types. Pigmentation differences, which are attributable to melanin, produce a variety of plumage colour in the chicken population. The presence and level of melanin pigments such as trichochrome is related to feather colour and is considered to be indicative of genetic differences among certain plumage colour (Smyth, 1990). Similarly, the presence or absence of the carotenoid pigments, primarily xanthophylls, in the feed is responsible for the diversity in skin colour of chickens. The genetic basis of this variation was described by Eriksson et al. (2008). Identification and characterization of the chicken genetic resources generally requires information on their population, adaptation to a specific environment, possession of traits of current or future value and socio cultural importance, which are crucial inputs to decisions on conservation and utilization (Weigend and Romanov, 2001). Indigenous chickens of the tropics are important reservoirs of useful genes and possess a number of adaptive traits (Horst, 1989). In addition to their significance in describing genetic variations and adaptive attributes, qualitative morphological traits have important economic value in chickens. There are specific choices for plumage and skin colour that affect preferences of different geographic markets around the world (Jiang, 1999; Smyth, 1990). In Ethiopia there is no specific preference for skin colour, and plumage colour is only second in importance to live weight in affecting market preference for chickens (Nigussie et al., unpublished data). In certain communities of Ethiopia (Leulseged, 1998) and other parts of Africa (Gueye, 1998) it has cultural and religious functions as well. In northern Ethiopia both producer sellers and intermediary traders of chickens attach the highest market preference to plumage colour and feather distribution followed by comb type (Aklilu, 2007). This clearly suggests that qualitative traits with specific characteristics must be carefully identified and considered in developing breeding strategies.

14 The indigenous chickens of Ethiopia have various names and characterized on different grounds, as in many other parts of Africa. Chicken show heterogeneity in terms of plumage colour, shank length, comb type and growth performance (Fisseha et al., 2010a). Based on their plumage colour the indigenous chicken ecotypes named as Tikur, Key, Gebsima and Netch, Ambesma, Seran, Libework, Netch Teterma, Tikur Teterma, and Key Teterma (Bogale, 2008). 2.2.3. Performance (quantitative traits) The indigenous chicken have desirable characteristics such as thermos tolerant, resistance to some diseases, good egg and meat flavor, hard egg shells, high fertility and hatchability as well as high dressing percentage (Aberra, 2000). Indigenous chickens or local scavenging chicken are poor in production and reproductive performance which characterize by small sized eggs, slow growth rate, late maturity (longer reproductive cycle), slow age at first mating, small clutch size, a natural learning to broodiness (broodiness for an extended period) and high mortality of chicks (Bogale, 2008; Fisseha, 2009; Meseret, 2010; Adissu,2013). Comprehensive report showed that productive and reproductive performances of local chickens are varied because of genotype and environment (Table 3). Table 5.Production performance of indigenous chicken Performance Site Authors 30 to 60 eggs/hen/ year WADU (Kidane, 1980) 34 eggs /hen/ year Asella (Brannang and Pearson, 1990) 18-57 eggs/year/ hen Northwest Ethiopia (Halima, 2007) 55.2 egg/hen/ year Sothern Ethiopia (Mekonnen, 2007) 36 eggs /3cluch/year Fogera (Bogale, 2008) 3.78 ± 0.07 clutch /year Bure (Fissiha, 2009) 53-60 egg/hen/year Northwest Ethiopia (Fisseha et al. 2010a) 2.2.3.1. Egg production According to Nigussie and Ogle (2000) the mean annual egg production of the indigenous chicken ecotype was 30-60 egg (under village condition) and pointed that; this could be improved to 80-100 eggs on station with improved feeding, housing and health care. Halima (2007) also described that the total number of eggs produced per hen per year ranges from 18-

15 57. The average length of a single egg-laying period per hen isestimated to be about 21, 31 and 129 days for local, hybrid and exotic breeds, in that order. The average number of eggs laid per hen per egg- laying period in the country is about 12, 25 and 107 eggs, correspondingly (CSA, 2015). The total number of clutch periods/hen/year was 4 (ranged 2-6) with annual egg production performance of 60 eggs/hen (ranged 24-112) under farmer s management condition (Fisseha et al., 2010a). According to Bogale (2008) the average number of eggs incubated/hen was 13 from this on average 11 chicks were hatched. A laying hen needs about 120-130 days to accomplish one production cycle that is 40-50 days of laying, 21 days of incubation and 60 days of brooding chicks. Average egg production per clutch and mean annual egg production/hen shows an increment at clutch number three and four than at first and second clutch periods (Adiss, 2013). Tadelle et al., (2003) and Fisseha et al. (2010a) also revealed the overall mean egg laying performances of hens for the first, second and third (higher) clutches were 17.0, 20.9 and 24.8 eggs respectively with average number of 16 (ranged 8-28) eggs laid/clutch. Even though the productivity of indigenous chicken under good housing, feeding and management system don`t reach to an economically acceptable level, they show an increment (Alemu and Tadelle, 1997). 2.2.3.2. Meat production Various reports indicated that the meat production ability of indigenous chicken were limited and is measured based on growth performance (FAO, 2010). Growth performance from seven indigenous chicken populations found within a range of 1045-1517g (male) and 642-874 (female) live weight at the age of 22 weeks. This is much lower when compared to the average weight of Rhode Island Red breeds (1736 and 1263 for respective sexes) kept under the same environment (Halima, 2007). Local males may reach 1.5 kg live weight at 6 months of age and females about 30% less is with the carcass weight of 550 gram, which was significantly lower than White Leg Horn (875 gm) (Bogale, 2008). However, indigenous chicken breed has a higher dressing percentage (Alemu and Tadelle, 1997). According to Solomon (2003), there was no difference between White Leghorn and indigenous chickens raised under scavenging condition in mean daily body weight gain at 2 months of age. In addition, he reported that the