Indigenous chicken production system and their productive performance in Yeki Woreda, Southwestern Ethiopia

AGRICULTURE AND BIOLOGY JOURNAL OF NORTH AMERICA ISSN Print: 2151-7517, ISSN Online: 2151-7525, doi:10.5251/abjna.2016. 7.5.266.274 2016, ScienceHuβ, http://www.scihub.org/abjna Indigenous chicken production system and their productive performance in Yeki Woreda, Southwestern Ethiopia Adem Abegaz 1 and Teshome Gemechu 2* 1 Livestock and Fishery Resource Development Staff at Yeki Woreda, Sheka Zone, South Nation Nationalities and People Regional State, Ethiopia 2 Department of Animal Science, College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Mizan-Tepi University, P.O. Box 260, Mizan-Tepi, Ethiopia, Corresponding Author Email: tgemechu4@gmail.com ABSTRACT The study was conducted to assess the existing indigenous chicken production system and their productive performance and to identify the major constraints in yeki woreda at three representative kebeles by using semi-structured interview, field observation and questioners. A total of 120 respondents were randomly selected for this study. This present study revealed that the dominant chickens production system in the study area was free scavenging production system. The average flock size per household was 9.13 chickens. The main purpose of chicken rearing were; for income generation (48.33%), hatching (39.17%) and for home consumption (12.5%). All members in the household were participating in chicken management but women mainly responsible for different management activities. About 70.83% and 29.17% of respondents were roost their chicken inside the family house and constructed separate small enclosure outside the family house at night, respectively. The average age of indigenous pullets for their first egg laying was 6.8 months and the average age of indigenous cockerels for their first mating was 5.33 months. The average number of eggs laid by indigenous hen was 14 eggs per hen per clutch and the mean annual average egg production was 56 eggs per hen per year with average egg weight of 40 gram. The major constraints for chicken production were disease (60%), predators (25%) absence of improved breeds (8.3%) and inadequacy of veterinary service (6.7%). Therefore, efforts have to be made to improve the productivity of indigenous chickens in sustainable way and to shift the existing free scavenging production system to semi-scavenging. Key words: Constraints, Indigenous chicken, Production Performance, Yeki Woreda INTRODUCTION Animal production in general and chicken production in particular plays important socio- economic roles in developing countries (Alders, 2004). Nearly all rural and peri-urban families in developing countries keep small flocks of free range chickens (Riise et al., 2004). Provision of animal protein, generation of extra cash incomes and religious/cultural considerations are amongst the major reasons for keeping village chickens by rural communities (Alders et al., 2009). The number of flock per household in most Ethiopian communities is small constituting on average of 7 10 mature chickens 20 24 adult hens, a male birds (cock) and a number of growers of varies ages. Such production system may result in slow growth and poor layers of small sized eggs (Tadellea and Ogle, 2001). The productive performance of indigenous scavenging chickens of Ethiopia is low because of their low egg production potential, high chicken mortality and longer reproductive cycle (slow growth rate, late sexual maturity and broodiness for extended period (Besbes, 2009). Even though the productivity of local chicken is very poor, they are very important to withstand certain harsh environmental conditions, and can perform better under poor management than cross and exotic breeds, they are also well known to possess desirable characters such as ideal mother, good sister, hatch their own eggs, excellent foragers, resistance to common poultry disease and special meat and egg quality (flavor), hard egg shells (Abdelqader et al., 2007). In Ethiopia Indigenous chickens are the most wide spread and almost every rural family owners of chickens, which provide a valuable source of family protein and income (Tadelle et al., 2003). Yeki Woreda is one of the potential areas for indigenous chicken production. Still to now, traditional free scavenging is the common production system in the

area (no adequate supply of feeding, housing and health care). This production system results poor productive performance of indigenous chickens (low egg production performance, small sized egg, long sexual maturity of hens and cockerels, high chicken mortality and chickens were exposed to predators). Because of non- genetic factors such as feeding, housing and health care and other management practices have a much greater impact on production than genetics under scavenging system of production. Even though, village chicken provide a valuable function in the livelihood of rural smallholders in the study area, yet, there is no research and development work has been carried out on the indigenous chicken production system and productive performance in the area. Therefore, this study was designed with the following objectives. To assess the existing indigenous chicken production system in the study area To explore the productive performance of indigenous chickens in the study area To assess the management practices and identify major constraints of indigenous chickens production system in Yeki Woreda. MATERIALS AND METHODS Description of the Study Area: The study was conducted in Yeki Woreda, which is located 611 km Southwest of Addis Abeba. Yeki Woreda is found in Sheka Zone, South Nation Nationalities and People Regional State. The minimum and maximum monthly temperature of the area varies from 15 0 C to 30 0 C, respectively. The area receives annual rainfall of 1591 millimeter. The area is located South West Ethiopia between the geographical coordinates 7 0 3' North Longitude and 35 0 0' East Latitude with altitude of 1200 meter above sea level. The major soil type found in the study area was clay soil (90%) and sandy soil (10%). The area is covered by 280 hectare artificial forest and 7340 hectare natural forest. The major livestock species includes 90,073 chickens, 42,640 cattle, 20,900 sheep, 9,443 goats, 3,343 donkeys, 394 mules, 964 horses and 11089 hives (Yeki Woreda Agricultural Office, 2014). Sample Size and Sampling Techniques: Three representative kebeles (Shayi, Selamber and Bechi) were selected by using purposive sampling technique based on the potential of indigenous chicken production. Before the start of ordinary survey, discussion was made with Woreda agricultural office to identify the areas which predominantly produce local chicken. A total of 120 respondents were selected using simple random sampling technique and interviewed using a semi structured kind of interview. Method of Data Collection: Both primary and secondary data were used for this study. Primary data were collected from all randomly selected 120 households who raised indigenous chicken by using semi- structured kind of interview, questionnaires and field observation. In addition, informal surveys in the form of group discussion were conducted with kebeles administers and extension worker to acquire relevant information. Those enumerators who are fluent in the local language were employed and trends on the contents of questionnaires and techniques of interviewing. Soon after training, they were started to collect data under the close supervision of researcher in order to minimize data collection error. Secondary data was also collected from written documents of Yeki Woreda Agricultural office, kebeles agricultural extension office, books and journals. Data Analysis: The collected data were coded and entered into a data base using statistical package for social science (SPSS). Simple descriptive statistics such as frequency, percentage and mean were used to analyze data using SPSS for windows version 20 (SPSS, 2011) and the result was presented in form of table. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION General characteristics of Respondents: The gender, age, marital status and educational level of the respondents in the study areas are shown in Table 1. From the total of 120 respondents that were interviewed, 87.5% were male and 12.5% were female. About 20.8% of the respondents were farmers who were above 60 years old, 18.3% of respondents were 50 to 59 years old, while 31.7% had a range of 40 to 49 years old, 26.7% of respondents were aged to 30 to 39 years old and only 2.5% of the respondents were aged less than 30 years. According to the result in Table 1, only 6.67% of the respondents were single, while 89.17% were married and 4.16% were widowed. Regards to educational levels, 22.55% of respondents can t read and write, while 27.5% of the respondents have basic education (can read and write), 31.67% have primary education (1-4) and 15% have secondary education (5-8), and only 3.33% have reached high school (9-10). 267

Flock Composition: The current study revealed that the dominant flock composition of chickens in the study area were chicks (36.23%) which was followed by hens (28.01%), cocks (14.14%), pullets (12.68%), cockerels (8.94% ). The average flock size to the household was 9.13. Similar report was carried out on the average flock size per household of 8.8 and 9.2 chickens by Assefa (2007) and Mekonnon (2007) from Awasa Zuria and Dale district, respectively. However, the average flock size was higher than that reported by CSA (2005) low average flock size of 4.1. Likewise, Teshome and Tesfaye (2015) reviewed the average flock size per household for hens, cocks, pullets, cockerels and young chicks was 3.3, 1, 2.3, 0.9 and 5.6, respectively; with a total flock size of 13 birds and a hen to cock ratio of 3.7:1. The average flock size per household varied between seasons mainly due to feed availability, the occurrence of diseases, the presence of predators as well as the socio-economic status of the owners. Generally, chicken production has occurred largely on smallholder farmer with limited capital investment and few inputs provide an overview of chicken production in Ethiopia (FAO, 2004; Alemu et al., 2008 and Wilson, 2010) Table 1. General characteristics of the respondents in the study area (n=120) Variables Frequency Percentage Gender of the respondents Male Female Age of the respondents 20-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 Above 60 years Marital status Single Married Divorced Widowed Educational level can t read and write can read and write primary(1-4) secondary (5-8) high school and above 105 15 3 32 38 22 25 8 107 0 5 27 33 38 18 4 n= number of respondents.table 2. Flock composition in the study area (n=120) 87.5 12.5 2.5 26.7 31.7 18.3 20.8 6.07 89.17 0 4.16 22.5 27.5 31.67 15 3.33 Chicken type No of chicken Total Percentage Hens (> 20 weeks) 108 98 101 301 28.01 Cocks(>20 weeks) 45 53 57 155 14.14 Pullets (8 20 weeks) 40 46 53 139 12.68 Cockerels (8 20 weeks) 28 36 34 98 8.94 Chicks (0 8 weeks) 140 118 139 397 36.23 Total 361 351 384 1096 100 n= number of respondents Breed Types and Number of Chickens: The majority of chickens in the study area were raised from the local breeds (95.07%) and the rest from cross breed (3.29%) and exotic breed (1.64%), respectively (Table 3). This approximately similar with the report of CSA (2013) who indicated that poultry production in Ethiopia is larger with 96.9%, 0.54% and 2.56% local, exotic and cross breed, respectively. This is because of low accessibility of improved breeds and low awareness of the 268

producers to use improved breed widely. The most dominant chicken types reared in the current study areas (local breed) were produced under a traditional production system with little or no inputs for housing, feeding or health care. Table 3. Breed types and number of chickens in the study area (n=120) Chicken type No of chicken Total Percentage Local Breed 342 336 364 1042 95.07 Cross Breed 15 9 12 36 3.29 Exotic Breed 4 6 8 18 1.64 Total 361 351 384 1096 100 n= number of respondents Purpose of Indigenous Chickens Production: Indigenous chicken production is a valuable and promising source of income for the rural households in the study area. Usually it is difficult to assess the contribution of indigenous chicken to the household cash income. Present study revealed that the sale of live chickens and eggs for cash income were the first purpose of rearing chickens (48.33%). Whereas, eggs hatching (39.17%) for replacement was the second purpose of chicken production (Table 4). The third important purpose of indigenous chicken rearing identified by the respondents was household or home consumptions (12.5%). Earning from the sale of chickens and eggs were used to purchase food items, cover educational expense for children s and to purchase clothes. Similarly Fisseha et al. (2010) reported that the major purpose of keeping indigenous chickens were for income generation (44.05%), egg hatching (33.86%) and for home consumptions (22.09%). In Ethiopia chickens are the most widespread and almost every rural family owns chickens, which provide a valuable source of family protein and income (Tadelle et al., 2003). Provision of animal protein, generation of extra cash incomes and religious/cultural considerations are amongst the major reasons for keeping village chickens by rural communities (Alders et al., 2009). Table 4. Purpose of indigenous chickens rearing in the study area (n=120) Purpose No of respondents Total Percentage Rank Sales for income 19 21 18 58 48.33 1 st Egg laying and hatching 16 15 16 47 39.17 2 nd Home consumption 5 4 6 15 12.5 3 rd Total 40 40 40 120 100 Management Practices Division of Household Labor: Table 5 showed that family labor allocation and utilization of chicken husbandry and marketing in the study area. All family members were directly and indirectly participated in chicken management practice in targeted area. As indicated in Table 5, men s (92.5%) mainly responsible for shelter construction (preparations of roosting materials). Women s were responsible for several activates like cleaning chicken house or shelter (70.83%), provision of supplementary feeds (76.12%) and selling of chickens and eggs (61.67%.). Children s were also participates in various chickens management activities like preparations of roosting material (6.7%), cleaning chicken house or shelter (9.17%) and provision of supplementary feed and water with women (Table 5). Similarly, Fisseh et al. (2010) reported that with exception of chicken house construction or arranging roosting materials, which was left for men (97.5%), women s take the lion share in accomplishing other chicken management activities including cleaning chicken house (74%), provision of supplementary feeds (73%) and selling chickens and eggs (54%). Additionally, Riise et al. (2004) reported that women s and children s were commonly responsible for rural village chicken management practices in developing countries. This indicated that most of the time the women s were responsible for chicken rearing, while men s were responsible for other off-farming activities. 269

Table 5. Family labor allocation for chicken production in the study area (n=120) Variables No of respondents Total n Percentage Shelter construction(preparation of roosting material) Men 36 37 38 111 92.5 Women 1 0 0 1 0.8 Children 3 3 2 8 6.7 Cleaning chicken house Women 27 29 29 85 70.83 Children 5 3 3 11 9.17 Women and children 8 8 8 24 20 Provision of supplementary feed Men 4 2 2 8 7.08 Women 28 30 28 86 76.12 Women and children 6 5 8 19 16.80 Selling chicken and eggs Men 3 3 5 11 9.17 Women 23 25 26 74 61.67 Women and children 5 4 3 12 10 Men and women 9 8 6 23 19.16 Feeding System: Feeding practices, feed used as supplementary feeds, sources of supplementary feeds and methods of feed provision in the study area is presented in Table 6. The results revealed that the dominant chicken production in the study area was free scavenging production system (95%) and the rest was semi-scavenging production system (5%). This indicates that the main feed resource in the study area was obtained from free ranges and waste disposal elsewhere in the surrounding. About 94.2% respondents were offer supplementary feeds for their chicken. However, this supplementary feed was not regularly supplied throughout the year because it highly depends on the availability of grains. Similar to present study, the early finding of Samson and Endalew (2010) revealed that the greater part of the feed for village chicken is obtained through scavenging, which includes the household cooking waste, cereals and cereal by-products, pulses, roots and tubers, oilseeds, shrubs, fruits and animal proteins. Additionally, related report of Tadelle and Ogle (2001) show that there was no full feeding of rural chicken in Ethiopia and free scavenging which consist of insect, grass and harvest left offer were almost the utmost source of feeds. The results of this study also show that all respondents obtained the supplementary feed source of chicken from farm produced and the majority of respondents used grain feed as supplementation of chicken feeds (90.8%) and the rest (9.2%) used household leftover. Similar research was reported from Jimma zone by Halima et al. (2007) who reported that cereals grain was the most important supplementary feed for chicken (98.5 %). Most chicken owners (87.1%) used cereal crop harvest (self-produced grains) as supplementary feed (Fisseha et al., 2010). Spreading of feed on the ground (93.3%) was the dominant method of feed provision in the study area. However, some of respondents (6.7%) used locally made material for feeding. Housing system: The type of chicken house in the study area is presented in Table 7. Housing is very important to keep chicken from predator, rains, wind and theft at night and day time. The result of this study shows that the majority of the respondents (70.83%) were used perch for their chicken inside the family house at night and rest 29.17 % of respondents constructed small enclosure outside the family house. Moges et al. (2010) and Takele and Ali (2011) reported that, the provision of electricity and litter material for indigenous chicken was not practiced in most parts of Ethiopia. Furthermore, this result was agreed with Meseret (2010) who reported that the majority chicken confined within the family house during night time and released for scavenging early in the morning. This indicates that in the study area, the respondents were not having enough knowledge about the importance of constructing separate house for chicken production. Therefore, they need assistance of professionals how they will construct chicken house and insight it is importance 270

Tables 6. Feeding system in the study area (n=120) Parameters Number of respondents Total n Percentage Do you provide supplementary feeds to your chickens? Yes 38 37 38 113 94.2 No 2 3 2 7 5.8 Feeds used as supplementary feeds Grain 36 36 37 109 90.8 Household left over 4 4 3 11 9.2 Source of supplementary feeds From farm produced 40 40 40 120 100 From purchased 0 0 0 0 0 Methods of feed provision Spread on the ground 37 37 38 112 93.3 Using local feeders 3 3 2 8 6.7 Table 7. Types of house for chicken in the study area (n=120) Night shelter (housing system) Number of respondents Total Shayi Belanber Bechi n Percentage Roost inside the family house with perch 28 25 32 85 70.83 Constructed small enclosure outside the 12 15 8 35 29.17 family house Total 40 40 40 120 100 Health Care Mechanism of Indigenous Chickens: The current study revealed that the respondents were used traditional treatment and modern treatment for sick chickens. The majority (75%) of the respondents were used traditional treatment, such as lemon mixed with water and tenadam leaf (Ruta chalepensis). This finding was agreed with Fisseha et al. (2010) who reported that the traditional treatment was used by the majority of rural smallholder chicken owners. On the other hand, about 20.83% respondents were didn t used any health care mechanism (Table 8). Similarly, Teshome and Tesfaye (2015) reviewed that, free-range chicken owners had no any culture of vaccinating birds against diseases in Ethiopia. This might be due to inadequate awareness about the presence of chicken vaccines, poor attention to freerange chickens and inadequacy of veterinary services in the area. Table 8. Health care mechanism of indigenous chickens in the study area (n=120) Mechanism Number respondents Total n Percentage Modern treatment 2 1 2 5 4.17 Traditional treatment 30 28 32 90 75 No measure were taken 8 11 6 25 20.83 Total 40 40 40 120 100 The rest a few (4.17%) respondents were used modern treatment and they also consult professional man (Table 8). In this study New castle disease (locally called Fengal) was the common disease. The provision of a mixture local alcohol (Arekie), lemon and onion to sick birds against New castle disease was the most widely used type of traditional treatment in the study area. Productive Performance of Indigenous Chickens: As indicated in Table 9, the indigenous chickens attain their sexual maturity of laying eggs at averages of 6.8 months. This value was earlier than 7-8 271

months which reported by Mogesses (2007) and later than 6.33 month s which was reported by Meseret (2010). The delayed sexual maturity observed for local chickens in the present study might be as a result of poor management (where almost all the farmers kept their flock under the extensive management system) and absence of intensive management system and selection among local chickens. The present study showed that, the average number of eggs laid by indigenous hens was 14 eggs per hen per clutches and mean annual egg production was 56 eggs per hen per year. This result was higher than the mean annual egg production of 50.8 eggs per hen per year reported by Nebiyu et al. (2013) and lower than 65 eggs reported by Melkamu and Andarge (2013). The significant difference in estimated annual egg for local chickens in the different ecological zones must be due to different climate conditions associated with the zones. The differences in annual egg production might also be due to differences in how the birds were managed by the caretakers and the availability of scavengable feed resource base in the various locations. The mean egg weight of 40 gram obtained from this study was higher than the value of 38 gram reported by Solomon (2007) and lower than the value of 44.8 gram reported by Keberet (2008) for local chickens. The result of this present study showed that an impressive as compared with egg laying exotics like leg horn breeds which produce more than 250 eggs per hen per year with an average egg weight of 60 gram. In the central high lands of Ethiopia, indigenous chickens kept under semi intensive management conditions produced 100 eggs per annual per hen (Tadelle and Ogle, 2001). In general, minimal additions of inputs, improving the existing free scavenging production system and changing the attitude of farmers can bring about considerable improvements in terms of egg production and the growth performance of indigenous chickens. The average number of eggs placed for hatching in the study area was 10 eggs and the average number of chicks hatched from placed eggs was 8. The hatchability percentage of local chicken showed in the study area was 80%. This result was higher as compared to the value of 70% reported by Solomon (2007) and 59.6% reported by Melkamu and Andarge (2013). The higher percentage observed due to small number of eggs sited per hen for hatching and preparation of good sitting material prior to incubation. This might be an indication of good fertility and brooding of indigenous chickens. Table 9. The productive performance of indigenous chickens in the study area (n=120) Parameters Sampled kebele Mean average age at first egg laying of indigenous pullets (month) 7 6.5 7 6.8 Average age of indigenous cockerels for the first mating (months) 5.5 5.5 5 5.33 Average clutch size per year 4 4 4 4 Average number of egg per clutch 13 15 14 14 Average number of eggs produced per hen per year 52 60 56 56 average egg weight (gram) 40 39 41 40 Average number of eggs set for hatching 10 11 9 10 Average number of chicks hatched from sited eggs 8 9 7 8 Hatchability (%) 80 82 78 80 Generally, the results from the current study revealed that low productive capabilities of local chickens in the study areas. This could be due to the extensive management system that was engaged by all the keepers, characterized by little or no investment in results in low productivity. Local farmers are therefore advised to invest in the production of local chickens by way of improving feeding, housing and health care so as to realize the full genetic potential of indigenous chicken. feeding, medication and housing. This normally 272

Major Constraint of Indigenous Chicken Production: Table 10 shows that the major constraint of indigenous chicken production in the study area. The current study showed that, the first and the most constraints of chicken production in the study area was disease (60%) followed by predator (25%). Similarly, Fisseha et al. (2010) reported that disease was the most constraint and that divested chicken production. Additionally, Hailu (2008) indicated that the main cause of chicken mortality found was disease (82.8%). The other constraints in the study area were lack of improved breed (8.3%) and inadequate veterinary service (6.7%). Table 10. Major constraint of indigenous chicken production in the study area (n=120) Major constraint Number of respondents Total Percentage Rank Disease 24 25 23 72 60 1 st Predator 8 10 12 30 25 2 nd Lacking improved breeds 4 3 3 10 8.3 3 rd Lack of veterinary service 4 2 2 8 6.7 4 th Total 40 40 40 120 100 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS It could be concluded that local chicken production is an important enterprise and contributes immensely to family income. Free scavenging chickens were pre dominantly produced in low input-output system and primarily used as source of animal protein and managed mainly by women and children. The productive performance of indigenous chickens was low due to poor quality and quantity of feeding, low genetic potential of the birds, no proper housing and health care. The chicken roost inside the family house at night (70.83 %) and the indigenous pullets attain their firs age of egg laying at average age of 6.8 months. The feed resources were mainly obtained through scavenging from free range and waste deposal elsewhere in the surrounding. Indigenous hen was produce 56 eggs peer hen per year with an average egg weight of 40 gram. Majority of the respondent were used traditional treatment to treat chickens when they become sick and disease was the major constraints (60%) of chicken production in the study area. Eventually, there was traditional production practices and poor productive performance of indigenous chicken production in the study area. Therefore, the following recommendations are suggested for the improvement productive performance of indigenous chicken in the study area: Indigenous chicken production should deserve greater attention from government, research and development organization and above all, from the rural farmers. The productivity of scavenging indigenous chicken should be improved by changing the management techniques (feeding, housing and health care). Genetic improvements should be carried out only when the existing production system has been improved in terms of feed supplementation, housing, controlling disease and predators. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The study was made possible through the financial support of the South Nation Nationalities and People Regional State under Ministry of Agriculture, Ethiopia. The authors want to thank the entire Poultry producer for their willingness and cooperation to provide me relevant information for the study. REFERENCES Albduqadir, Wolnnyc. BA and Gauly M. 2007. Characterization of local chicken production system and their potential under different level of management practices in Jordana. Animal breeding and husbandry in tropics and sub tropics, George Augest University, Gottingen, Germany. Alders R. 2004. Poultry for profit and pleasure. FAO diversification booklet 3.Rome, Italy Alders RG, Pym RAE. 2009. Village poultry: still important to millions, eight thousand years after domestication. World s Poult. Sci. J., 65:181. Alemu D, Alemu T, Degefe S, Ferede S, Nzietcheung D. Roy. 2008. Overview and Background Paper on Ethiopia's Poultry Sector: Relevance for HPAI Research in Ethiopia. DFID Pro-poor HPAI Risk Reduction Strategies Project Africa/Indonesia Region Report No. 1 Assefa Taddese. 2007. Poultry management practices and on farm performance evaluation of Rhode Island Red, Fayomi and local chicken in Sidamo Zone, Dale district, Ethiopia. 273

Besbes B. 2009. Genotype evaluation and breeding of poultry for performance under sub-optimal village conditions. World poultry science journal. 65:260 270. CSA (Central Statistical Agency). 2005. Agricultural Sample Survey 2004/05. Central Statistical Authority No. 2. Report on Livestock and livestock characteristics. Stat. Bull. P. 331 CSA (Central Statistical Agency). 2013. Agricultural sample survey 2012/13. Report on livestock and livestock characteristics, Statistical Bulletin Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 2:570. FAO (Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations). 2004. Small scale poultry production. Animal production and health Techinical shade.no 1, Rome, Italy. Fisseha Moges, Azage Tegene and Tadelle Dessie. 2010. Assessment of Indigenous chicken production system and evaluation of production and Reproduction performance of indigenous chicken in North West Ethiopia, Bure districts African Journal of Agriculture Research.Vo15:1739-1748. Hailu Meseret. 2008. Newcastle disease and infectious in chickens among households of bahirdar and Farta distric, North West Ethiopia. New castle disease and infection PhD dissertation, University of Reestate, Bole fontain, South Africa. Halima Hassen, Nesser F, Van Martle, Koster E. 2007. Phenotypic Variation of native chickens population in North West Ethiopia. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 39:507-513. Kibret Bogale. 2008. Insitu characterization of local chicken ecotypes for functional traits and production system in Fogera districts, Amhara Regional State. MSc. Thesis, Haromaya University, Haromaya, Ethiopia. Melkamu Bezabih and Andarge Zewdu. 2013. Performance evaluation of local chicken at Enebsie Sar Midir woreda, Eastern Gojam, Ethiopia. Unique Research Journals, 1(2): 006-010 Meseret Molla. 2010. Characterization of village chicken production and marketing system in Goma wereda, Ethiopia. MSc. Thesis, Jimma University, Ethiopia. Moges F, Abera M, Tadelle D. 2010. Assessment of village chicken production system and evaluation of the productive and reproductive performance of local chicken ecotype in Bure district, North West Ethiopia. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 5(13):1739-1748 Mogesse H. 2007. Phenotypic and genetic characterization of indigenous chicken populations in Northwest Ethiopia. Unpublished PhD Thesis, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, University of Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa. Nebiyu Yemam, Berhan Tamir and Kelay Bahilu. 2013. Characterization of village chicken productive system under scavenging system in Halaba District of southern Ethiopia. MSC. Thesis, Arbaminch university, Ethiopia. Riise Jc, Permin A, Mc Ainish Cv, Frederiksen L. 2004. Keeping village chicken, a technical manual for small scale poultry production. Copenhagen, Denmark. Samson L, Endalew B. 2010. Survey on Village Based Chicken Production and Utilization System in Mid Rift Valley of Oromia, Ethiopia. Global Vet., 5 (4): 198-203. Solomon Deneke. 2007. Growth performance and survival of local and white leg horn chicken under scavenging and intensive system of management in Ethiopia. Jimma College of Agricultural, Ethiopia. SPSS (Statistical Package for Social Sciences). 2011. SPSS version 20.0. Chicago, Illinois, USA. Tadelle Dessie and Ogle.B. 2001. Village poultry production system in central highlands of Ethiopia. Tropi Ani.Heal. and production 33:521-537. Tadelle Dessie, Million T, Alemu Yami and Peters K. 2003. Village chicken production system in Ethiopia, use pattern and performance of chickens, products and socio-economic functions of chickens. Takele T, Oli W. 2011. Uses and flock management practices of scavenging chickens in Wolaita Zone of Southern Ethiopia. Trop. Anim. Health Prod.44:537-544. Teshome Gemechu and Tesfaye Amene. 2015. Review on production, husbandry and sustainability of free-ranging poultry production systems in Ethiopia. 4(04): 28-34 Wilson RT. 2010. Poultry production and performance in the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. World's Poult. Sci. J. 66:441-454. 274