Flock dynamics and composition of rural chickens in lowland and midland agro-ecological zones of central Tigray North Ethiopia

Alem Tadesse and Yayneshet Tesfay*

Aksum University, Department of Animal Production and Ecotourism, PO Box 314, Shire, Ethiopia
lemtt@yahoo.com
* Mekelle University, Department of Animal, Rangeland, and Wildlife Sciences, PO Box 231; Mekelle, Ethiopia.

Abstract

A study on flock dynamics and composition of rural poultry production was conducted in lowland and midland agro-ecological zones of central Tigray, in northern Ethiopia having the objective of assessing flock structure and composition and identifying associated constraints and opportunities under rural household management. A total of 160 rural households, 80 from each district, were randomly selected and 50% of them were female headed households. Data were collected using semi-structured questionnaire and repeated farm recording methods. Red color was the most dominant color (52.3%) in the flock followed by grayish color (20.9%) in both agro-ecologies.

Flock size in midland (8.0±0.35) was higher than in lowland (5.6±0.35). Flock size per household was inversely correlated with number of cattle (r= -0.33, n= 160) and number of goats (r= -0.42, n= 160). Higher flock size per households was recorded in October, November, December and January. The size of flocks in the male and female headed households decreased by 38.2% and 28.6% during March in lowland and midland agro-ecology and increased by 50% and 42.8% in December respectively.  Indigenous chickens were dominant in lowland and midland areas that accounted for 88.8% with very small exotic breed Rhode Iceland Red (RIR) chickens.

Key words: ecotype, flock size, plumage

Introduction

Ethiopian chickens are estimated to be over 56 million, and almost every family in the rural areas of the country practice traditional chicken production system (ILCA, 1993; Solomon, 2003). Out of the total national poultry population the Amhara and Tigray regional states collectively own about 43% with the average number of chickens per household 7.2 in Tigray and 4.4 in Amhara regional state whereas at national level, flock size is estimated to be 4.1 chickens per household (Solomon 2008). The term backyard chicken production designates rearing of chickens on small scale (10-50 birds) for family use and up to some extent for generation of cash income (Farooq et al 2004) and chicken kept on small farms under extensive management system considerably contributed to the cash income of the rural families in most of the third world countries (Farooq and Mian 2001). There is no exact figure indicating the number of people raising chickens at the household level. However, it is believed that all the estimated agricultural households are engaged in small-scale household poultry production using indigenous chickens in different parts of the country depending on climatic conditions.  For instance, 97.82% of the population consists of local breed types under individual farm household management and the remaining 2.18% of birds are mainly in state-run modern production systems, with a very small proportion in private units (Berihun 2007). The traditional poultry production system is characterized by small flock sizes, low input, output, and periodic devastation of the flock by disease. Even with its challenges, backyard poultry production, which is still important in low-income food-deficit countries, is an appropriate system to supply the fast-growing human population with high quality protein (Tadelle et al 2003). It is also a source of employment for underprivileged groups in many local communities (Mengesha et al 2008a). However, there was no any research carried out in central zone of Tigray that addressed flock dynamics and breed composition of rural poultry. Moreover, the fate and flock composition of the introduced chicken breeds was not known. Therefore, it was imperative to conduct comprehensive studies that can cover the entire flock dynamics, proportion and flock composition of both exotic and indigenous breeds under the rural household management practices.

The objectives of this study were to assess flock composition and flock dynamics of rural poultry production in male and female headed households in the lowland and midland agro-ecological zones in central Tigray. 

Materials and Methods

The study was conducted in central Tigray, Northern Ethiopia which is locate between 13­⁰15’ and 14⁰39’ North latitude, and between 38⁰ 34’ and 39⁰25’ East longitude. Two sample districts, Adwa from midland and Merebleke from lowland agro-ecologies, were selected using systematic random sampling method. The average elevation of Adwa and Merebleke was 1907 and 1350 meter above sea level respectively. The study area receives annual rainfall ranging from 400mm to 650mm with maximum and minimum daily temperature of 27 ^oc &12 ^oc in Adwa and 40 ^oc &18 ^oc in Merebleke. The study area (central zone of Tigray) was stratified into two agro-ecologies as midland and lowland based on their altitude and as customarily used by the local administration and bureau of agriculture. A total of 160 sample farmers, 80 from each district, 40 male and 40 female headed households were selected randomly using lottery method from those households reared at least one chicken in the year.

Data like flock size, flock structure and chicken ecotypes, were collected using repeated farm recording methods and pre-tested formal semi-structured questionnaire. In addition four focus group discussions with an average group size of 16 individuals were conducted with key-informants (model farmers, elders, women association leaders, experts from ARD and REST office, administrative bodies, youths and extension workers) in both agro-ecological zones. Tape recorder was used to record the forwarded ideas during the group discussion. Statistical analysis were made using JMP5 (SAS 2002). Descriptive statistics such as mean, range and percentile were used. Chi- square test was employed for ordinal and nominal data such as flock size flock structure and chicken ecotypes.

Results and discussion

Flock structure and composition

The average flock size of chickens per household was 5.6 and 8 in lowland and midland agroecology, respectively, and ranged from 2 to 20 chickens (Table 1). This average number of chickens per household was more or less similar to the average flock size of Tigray regional state (7.2) reported by Solomon (2008) and 7.13 in North west Ethiopia by Halima et al (2007) and lower than the reported number of chickens in Burre wereda of 13 chickens/household (Fisseha et al 2010), in South Ethiopia 9.22 chickens/household (Mekonen 2007) and in Tanzania 16.2 (Mwalusanya et al 2004), in rural areas of Pakistan 26.1 and 23.1 chickens/household reported by Javed et al (2003) and Farooq et al (2004) respectively. The major flock increment in both agroecologies was through random mating and hatching of own chicks with some times buying of cocks from market and provision of exotic pullets from governmental and none governmental organizations. About 64% of the households in lowland and 23% in midland owned 2-5 chickens/household and 31% in lowland and 56% of the households in midland owned 6-10 chickens/household. 

The result of this study revealed that 62.5% of the households in lowland and 71.3% in midland bought chickens from the nearby market as their foundation flocks, 27.5% and 16.3% by inheritance and 10% and 12.5% acquired as gifts in lowland and midland agroecology, respectively. Concerning breed preference, 72.5% of the households preferred indigenous chickens.

Average flock size with respect to sex of household heads differed in both agroecological zones. Male and female headed households in the lowland and midland agroecological zones owned on average, 6.1 and 7.5 chickens/household, respectively. Most female headed households were poor characterized by low income, small land holding capacity and limited access to large animals and they might have focused on poultry production as a source of income. Number of cattle and goats per household was inversely correlated (r= -0.33; n= 160) and r= -0.42; n= 160, respectively) with chicken flock size per household (Table 2).

 In line with this result Swatson et al (2001a) reported that in households where no chickens were kept, comparatively larger numbers of cattle (10) and sheep (8) were reared. Chicken population in lowland and midland agroecology of the study area was dominated by local or indigenous breed type that accounted for 90.2% in male and 87.1% in female headed households in lowland and 94.1% in male and 94.8 in female headed households in midland agroecology. Cross breed chickens (local and RIR) covered 10.3% in male and 3.1% in female headed households in lowland and 4.1% in male and 3.7% in female headed households in midland agroecology and the rest 2.6% in male and 6.7% in female headed households in lowland and 1.8% in male and 1.1% in female headed households in midland agroecology were exotic breed chickens (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Chicken breed types in the male and female headed households in lowland and midland agroecological zones of central Tigray.

 About 12.5% of the respondents in lowland and 10% in midland reared exotic chickens mixed with local chickens. The major exotic breed found in the study area was Rhode Iceland Red (RIR). About 78% of the male headed households in lowland and 80% of the female headed households in midland preferred indigenous chickens and there was no difference in breed preference in both agroecologies (Table 3). The key informants in the discussion indicated that, in spite of their egg production performance, exotic breed chickens are not as active as local chickens in scavenging and are easily attacked by predators because they are not fast enough to escape from attack and are not resistant to disease and feed shortage. This is in line with the report of Farooq et al (2002) in Pakistan that farmers’ preference for the “local” Desi chicken reflected their greater capacity to survive and adapt to scavenging management systems.

According to the farmers in the group discussion, chickens were used by poor households as starter flock for the later acquisition of large animals. In line with this, Aklilu (2007) reported that Tigrian farmers describe the role of poultry as a starting capital for poor households by the expression ‘‘Poultry are the seeds you sow to get the fruits, cattle”. The preference of the farmers for large animals also emphasizes the above statement. About 50% of the female headed households in the lowland and 62.5% in midland preferred to produce poultry (Figure 2). There was a  difference  in preference of animals for production between male and female headed households in both agroecology zones.

Figure 2. Male and female headed households Preference for different animals in lowland and midland agroecological zones of central Tigray.

The overall mean of cock to hen ratio was 1:2.9 (Figure 3). This is lower than 1:2.2 male to female ratio reported by Mekonen (2007) but higher than 1:6.4 cock to hen ratio in Jordan (Abdelqader et al 2007). Higher flock size per households was recorded in October, November, December and January. This might be related with the presence of ample feed, free run area for scavenging, minimum risk of predators and favorable climatic condition.

Figure 3. Flock size dynamics in the year 2011/2012in the lowland and midland agroecological zones in central Tigray.

Chicken ecotypes

The study revealed that red color was the most dominant and accounted for 52.3% (Figure 4) followed by grayish (segemo, accounted for 20.9%) and multicolor (Checheq, accounted for 14.1%). Some of the multicolored chickens were of brown color with white spots, red with white spots, deep red with black strips, and white with black spots. This multi color plumage was observed more in male chickens (cocks and cockerels) than in female chickens (hens and pullets).

Figure 4. Chicken plumage color in the lowland and midland agroecological zones of central Tigray.

 A variety of plumage colors such as red, white, grayish mixture, black, brown and other mixed colors were also discovered by different researchers in Ethiopia (Halima et al 2007; Mengesha et al 2008b; Fisseha et al 2010). It was suggested that red plumage color was dominant followed by white plumage color chickens. 

In relation to preference of the producers towards plumage color, red color was more preferred by 60% and 51.3% of the respondents in lowland and midland agroecology zones, respectively followed by sigemo (gray), which was preferred by 16.2% and 13.8% of the respondents in lowland and midland agroecology zones, respectively. This could be the reason for the dominancy of red plumage color in the area that indicates farmers may practice selection of chickens for reproduction based on their preference for plumage color, comb type and other body conformation criteria. Traditionally, comb type of cocks was categorized in to two and locally called Sala for single type of comb and Dimdim for double (rose). Accordingly 66% of the recorded cocks in lowland and 78.8% in midland were Dimdim (double comb). In line with this Fisseha et al (2010) in North West Ethiopia reported that red was the most preferred (83.6%) plumage color and double comb cocks were the most preferred chickens (81.1%). According to Aklilu et al (2007), double combed birds were preferred to single combed birds but black color chickens were believed to bring bad fortune. Farmers also select double comb cocks for reproduction purpose in order to fulfill their ritual interest and to fetch higher price at market. They have different reasons for the preference of plumage color such as demand of consumers at market, camouflage to prevent chickens from attack of predators and other different spiritual reasons. Farmer’s preference for plumage color and comb type and their reason is displayed in Table 4.

The study revealed that 40% and 55% of the respondents in lowland and midland agro-ecological zones put consumers' demand as first reason for their preference of plumage color and comb type, respectively.

Conclusions

• Poultry production system in lowland and midland agro-ecological zones of central Tigray was based on indigenous chicken ecotypes with very small exotic breed (RIR) chickens provided by GOs and NGOs.

• The size of flocks in the male and female headed households decreased by 38.2% and 28.6% during March in lowland and midland agro-ecology, respectively and increased by 50% and 42.8% in December.

• Generally higher flock size per households was recorded in October, November, December and January.

• The composition of flocks both in the male and female headed households was dominated by chicks followed by hens and pullets.

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Adwa and Mereb-leke woreda Relief Society of Tigray (REST) coordination office staff members particularly to Ato Solomon Reda, Adwa office coordinator and to  Ato Kelem Tilahun, Mereb-leke office coordinator for their support in transportation and other office facilities.  Thanks are also to those interviewed chicken producer farmers for their hospitality and dedication during the interview who shared their experiences in this study.

References

Abdelqader A, Wollny C and Gauly M 2007 Characterization of local chicken production systems and their potential under different levels of management practice  in Jordan. Journal of Trop Anim Health Prod, 39:155–164.

Aklilu H 2007 Village poultry in Ethiopia; Socio-technical analysis and learning with farmers. PhD thesis, Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Aklilu H, Almekinders C, Van der Zijpp A 2007 Village poultry consumption and marketing in relation to gender, religious festivals and market access. Tropical Animal Health and Production 39: 165–177.

Berihun G 2007 Domestic Animal Genetic Resources of Ethiopia. Institute of biodiversity conservation. Retrieved March 29, 2010. http://www.ibc-et.org/ibc/dpt/animal/domestic_animals.html.  Unpublished.

Farooq M and Mian M A 2001 Contribution of backyard chicken to household economy produced by non member and member farmers of Women In Development (WID) under Sarhad Rural Support Program (SRSP) in Charsadda, Pakistan. J. Rural Development, 33: 89-97.

Farooq M, Gul N, Chand N, Durrani F R, Khurshid A, Ahmed J, Asghar A and Zahir-ud-Din 2002 Production performance of backyard chicken under the care of women in Charsadda, Pakistan. Accessed on March 26, 2010. Livestock Research for Rural Development, volume 14, article #1. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd14/1/faro141.htm.

Farooq M, Shakir M K, Mian M A, Mussawar S, Durrani F R and Cheema A 2004 Status of backyard chicken reared by women in chitral, Pakistan. Pakistan Vet. J., 24: 82-86

Fisseh, M, Abera M and 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. African Journal of Agricultural Research Vol. 5, 1739-1748.

Halima H, Neser F, Van Marle-Koster E and De Kock A 2007 Village-based indigenous chicken production system in north-west Ethiopia. Journal of Tropical Animal Health and Production, 39:189–197.

International Livestock Center for Africa (ILCA) 1993 Handbook of African Livestock Statistics. ILCA, Addis Abeba, Ethiopia.
 

Javed K, Farooq M, Mian M A, Durrani F R and Shah Mussawar 2003 Flock size and egg production performance of backyard chicken reared by rural woman in Peshawar, Pakistan. Livestock Research for Rural Development volume 15 article#11. Accessed on December 01, 2010 http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd15/11/jave1511.htm

Mekonnen G 2007 Characterization of smallholder poultry production and marketing system of Dale, Wonsho and Loka Abaya Weredas of Southern Ethiopia: M.Sc. Thesis Hawassa University, Ethiopia

Mengesha M, Tamir B and Tadelle D 2008a Socio-economical contribution and labor allocation of village chicken production of Jamma district, South Wollo, Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development volume 20 article #10. Accessed on March 28, 2010. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd20/10/meng20160.htm

Mengesha M, Tamir B and Dessie T 2008b Village chicken characteristics and their seasonal production situation in Jamma District, South Wollo, Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development volume 20 article # 7. Accessed on July 28, 2010.  http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd20/8/meng20128.htm

Mwalusanya N, Katule A, Mutayoba S, Mtambo M, Olsen J and Minga U 2004 Productivity of Local Chickens under Village Management Conditions.     Tropical Animal Health and Production, 34: 405-416.

SAS Institute Inc 2002 JMP-5 Statistical Software, Version 5.Cary, NC, USA.

Solomon D 2003 Growth performance and survival of Local and White Leghorn chickens under scavenging and intensive systems of management in Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development volume 15 article #1. Accessed on December 20, 2009.

Solomon D 2008 Poultry sector country review: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.  ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/ai320e/ai320e00.pdf. Accessed on March 20, 2010.
 

Swatson H K, Nsahlai I V and Byebwa B 2001a The status of smallholder poultry production in the Alfred District Of Kwazulu-Natal, South Africa: priorities for intervention. The Proceedings of the institutions for Tropical Veterinary Medicine. 10^th International Conference on “Livestock, Community and Environment” 20–23rd August 2001, Pp 143-149.

Tadelle D, MillionT, Alemu Y and Peters K J 2003 Village chicken production Systems in Ethiopia: Use patterns and performance valuation and chicken products and socio-economic functions of chicken. Livestock Research for Rural Development volume 15 article 1. Accessed on February 28, 2010. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd15/1/tadeb151.htm

Received 24 May 2013; Accepted 15 June 2013; Published 1 July 2013

Go to top