Husbandry practices of village poultry technology package and the nutritional quality of majorly used poultry feeds in the Central Oromia Region, Ethiopia

Ermias T Tsadik, Berhan Tamir and Zemelak Sahile¹

Addis Ababa University, College of Veterinary Medicines and Agriculture, Debreziet, Ethiopia.
t.termias@yahoo.com
¹ Debreziet Agricultural Research Centre, Debreziet, Ethiopia

Abstract

This study was carried out to assess the husbandry practices of village poultry technology package, and to evaluate the nutritional quality of majorly used chicken feeds. One hundred eighty respondents were selected using multi-stages random sampling method and used for the study. Structured questionnaire, open discussion and field observation were conducted to collect detailed information. Samples of majorly used chicken feeds were collected, clustered and composite samples were taken for chemical analysis. To analyze collected data, SAS and SPSS software packages were used.

The study revealed that most respondents (65.0%) practiced scavenging chicken production system. About 44.6% local, 38.7% exotic and 16.7% crossbred chicken breeds were kept in the production systems. The major objective of the production system was for income source (78.3%). A mean of 17.8, 13.4 and 11.2 chicken flock size were owned per household in the highland, mid-altitude and lowland agro-ecologies, respectively. Flock size per household was significant (p<0.05) between the highland and lowland agro-ecologies. Mother owned 65.6% of the chicken flock and mostly participated on chicken management, makes decision to sell the outputs, selling and treating of sick birds. About 65.6% of the respondents practiced cross breeding where 59.4% conducted uncontrolled breeding. Respondents incubated a mean of 12.2 eggs per local broody hen where 80.0% of the respondents incubated odd number of eggs. Dry season was the most preferred season for egg incubation. To get more male chicks, respondents preferred either Wednesday or Friday days for egg incubation. Except home mixed ration I, the rest home mixed rations have a very good CP content. The supplement feeds had very good content of ME, and if birds were supplemented with enough quantity, their ME requirement can be satisfied. About half the respondents constructed separate chicken house but during housing, about 68.3% the respondents didn’t consider the space requirements of the chicken. Newcastle disease was the major challenging and killing disease in the study areas. Therefore, to improve the husbandry practices of the technology, more attention should be given for women. Moreover, technical support, availability of affordable quality feeds, poultry equipments, vaccines and medicaments will be needed.

Key words: agro-ecology, cross breeding, feed quality, medicaments, production systems

Introduction

Ethiopian indigenous chicken are low in egg production, produce small sized eggs, have slow growth rate and low survival of chicks (Tadelle and Ogle 1996). To improve village chicken productivity, the Ethiopian Ministry of Agricultural and Rural Development (MoARD) developed and implemented various village poultry technology packages into different agro-ecological zones of the country since 1970s (Ibrahim 2004). The technology package mainly focus on exotic chicken breeds distribution that perform better than local breeds with extension follow up and technical supports on improved feeding, housing, watering and disease control (Teklewold et al 2006). Millions of exotic breeds have been distributed to smallholder farmers in the form of fertile eggs, baby chicks, pullets and cockerels (Yami and Dessie 1997). Even though, efforts were done on the technology packages development, there were no studies reported on the husbandry practices of the technology and the nutritional quality of majorly used chicken feeds for the technology. Agro-ecology, disease, feed quality, housing, water supply and management systems can influence village poultry husbandry practices. Therefore, this study carried out to assess the husbandry practices of village poultry technology package, and to evaluate the nutritional quality of majorly used chicken feeds for the technology.

Materials and methods

Description of the study areas

This study was conducted in the central Oromia Region, Ethiopia located between 3^o24'20" to 10^o23'26"N latitudes and 34^o 07'37" to 42^o58'51"E longitudes (OBoFED 2008). The region is characterized by vast climatic diversity having three major climatic categories called dry, tropical rainy and temperate rainy climates (OADB 2003). Wolmera, Ade’a and Boset Woredas (districts) are located between 8^o00’ to 9 ^o30’N latitudes and 38^o00’ to 40^o00’ E longitudes (DPPA 2006). The districts are majorly characterized by highland, mid-altitude and lowland agro-ecologies, respectively.

Sampling procedures and sample size

Three Woredas (Wolmera, Ade’a and Boset) were purposely selected based on their agro-ecology and best so far poultry technology package interventions (CSA 2012). Based on the technology package interventions, 5 Kebeles were randomly selected from each Woreda. Using multi-stages random sampling method, 180 male and female technology participants (12 participants per Kebele) were selected and used for the study.

Data and feed sample collection

Structured questionnaire was used to collect information. The questionnaires were pre-tested and adjusted prior to the actual survey. Face to face interview, open discussion and field observation were conducted to collect detailed information. Samples of feeds majorly used for chicken feeding were collected from each respondent, clustered into their group and composite samples were taken to feed laboratory for their nutrient compositions analysis.

Feed samples laboratory analysis

Collected poultry feed samples were ground to pass through 1mm sieve to determine for dry matter (DM), ash, organic matter (OM), ether extract (EE), crude protein (CP) and crude fiber (CF) according to AOAC (1990) and calcium (Ca) was determined by Talapatra method (precipitation, filtration and titration) according to Mudgal (2012). The metabolizable energy (ME) values of each feed sample were calculated indirectly from EE, CF and ash according to Wiseman (1987).

Data analysis

Quantitative data sets were analyzed using general linear model (GLM) mean procedure of SAS version 9.0 and categorical data sets were analyzed using SPSS version 20.0 software packages. Cross tabulation analysis was used to compare the husbandry practices of the technology across the study agro-ecologies. To locate the significant difference among quantitative data and categorical variables, least significant difference (LSD) mean comparison and chi-square tests were used, respectively.

Results and Discussion

Socio-economic characteristics of the respondents

About 65.6% male and 34.4% female respondents were participated for this study. The age of the respondents ranges from 19-74 years with a mean of 42 years. Most of the respondents (39.4%) attended secondary education and above followed by respondents attended elementary education (36.7%). About 38.9% respondents had nil or less than 1 hectare (ha) farmland and most 65.6% of the respondents had less than 2 ha farmland. The chicken farming experience of the respondents ranges 5-58 years with a mean of 20.8 years. About 29.4%, 45.0% and 25.6% of the respondents received village poultry technology package inputs once, twice and more than twice, respectively.

Role of family members on the technology

This study found that, village poultry technology package activities can be conducted by two or more family members’ participation. Mostly father participated on training, chicken house construction and buying of technology inputs, whereas, mother mostly participated on chicken management, makes decision to sell technology outputs, selling of technology outputs and on treating of sick birds. The participation of boys and girls on village poultry was very small (Table 1). In agreement, Moges et al (2010) and Leta and Bekana (2010) reported that in Ethiopia village poultry production systems, mostly men are responsible for few activities like construction of shelter. Similarly, in many rural areas of Nigeria (Lawal 2011) and rural Western Kenya (Okitoi et al 2007), mostly men are participated on input purchase but women are more involved on taking care of chicken, make decision on money from chicken sale and control extra income. Moreover, Sonaiya and Swan (2004) and Mengesha et al (2008) reported that village poultry keeping uses family labor, women have often an important role in the development of family poultry production, make decision to sale eggs and chicken, and they are major beneficiaries.

Husbandry practices of the technology

Most of the respondents (65.0%) practiced scavenging chicken production system with some feed supplementation but about 15.0%, 7.2% and 12.8% the respondents practiced semi-intensive, intensive and only scavenging production systems, respectively. Semi-intensive and intensive village poultry production systems indicate, due to the technology interventions, farmers were trying to practice better chicken production systems. However, respondents’ participation on intensive production system was found very low. This might be due to expensiveness of the production system and lack of inputs. In agreement, Muchadeyi et al (2007) reported that village chicken production depending on the socio-economic, cultural, agro-ecological and biological factors within each system.

In the current study, the objectives of chicken production system were mainly for income source (78.3%) followed by for income and home consumption (21.7%). The proportions of chicken breeds kept in the production system were 44.6% local, 38.7% exotic and 16.7% crossbreds, where most of the respondent kept either local chicken breeds only or exotic chicken breeds together with local chicken breeds (Table 2). About 59.4% of the respondents kept less than 5 exotic or crossbred chickens and 40.6% kept 5 or more exotic/crossbred chicken in their production system. Chicken flock composition found in this study was much different as compared to reported by CSA (2012) for the entire chicken population of the country that was local breeds (96.46%), hybrids (0.57%) and exotic breeds (2.97%). This difference was due to the type respondents used for the study. The current study used only respondents who participated on village poultry technology package but the former study considered both technology participants and non-participants.

This study found that a mean of 17.8, 13.4 and 11.2 chicken flock size were owned per household in the highland, mid-altitude and lowland agro-ecologies, respectively (Table 3). Flock size per household was significant (p<0.05) between the highland and lowland agro-ecologies. In comparable to the current study, Moges et al (2010) reported that in the lowland and mid-altitude agro-ecologies of Northwest rural part Ethiopia (Amhara Region) but the highland agro-ecology is lower. In contrary, Worku et al (2012) reported lower chicken flock size per household for rural areas of Western Amhara Region. These differences might be only according to Sonaiya and Swan (2004), chicken flock size per household is related to farming objectives such as home consumption only, home consumption and cultural reasons, income and home consumption, and income.

In the current study, based to their contributions on the production system, about 65.6%, 21.1%, 7.2% and 6.1% of chicken flocks of the household were owned by mother, father, girls and boys, respectively. However, approximately ½ of the respondents (50.6%), work less than 1 hour per day on chicken production activities and ¼ of the respondents work between 1-2 hours per day but the remaining ¼ ( 24.4%) didn’t spend any hour for chicken production activities within a day. Moreover, about 74.4% of the respondents couldn’t keep records. Only ¼ of the respondents kept very poor records keeping mostly on income, expenses, egg production and mortality. Low egg productivity, old age and disease outbreak were the three major criteria used by the respondent to cull chicken from the production system.

Breeding

To improve the productivity of local chicken breeds, cross breeding of exotic chicken breeds with the local chicken breeds was conducted by the respondents. About 65.6% carried out cross breeding, where 59.4% carried out uncontrolled breeding. Approximately 86.1% of the respondents didn’t know the effect of uncontrolled cross breeding on local chicken breeds. In agreement, in rural areas of North Wollo of Ethiopia, mostly farmers practiced cross breeding to improve the productivity of chicken (Addisu et al 2013). Moreover, Dana (2011) and Demeke (2007) reported that Ethiopian village chicken breeding was completely uncontrolled and there was no systematic mating. In the current study, respondents replied that “uncontrolled breeding will reduce disease resistance of crossbreds, may increase the chance of new disease type transmissions, crossbreds may not as hardy as local birds to the environment, brooding nature of local hens will decrease, decrease hatchability of eggs and reduce good flavor quality of local chicken meat and eggs.” In agreement, Abera (2000) reported that Ethiopian indigenous chicken have desirable characteristics such as thermo-tolerant, resistant to some disease, have good egg and meat flavor, hard eggshells, high fertility and hatchability of eggs as well as high dressing percentage. Therefore, to balance these to extreme problems, cross breeding should be controlled.

Preferred number of eggs and seasons for incubation

In the current study, respondents incubated a mean of 12.2 eggs (7-20 eggs) per local broody hen. In agreement, (Dessie and Ogle 2001) reported that in the central highland of Ethiopian village chicken production systems, a mean of 13±2.2 eggs (7-19 eggs) are incubated per local broody hen. Similarly, Habte et al (2013) reported that in Western Wollega of Ethiopia a mean 10.2±0.23 and 11.32 eggs (6-20 eggs) eggs are set per broody hen, respectively. According Habte et al (2013), the number of eggs set per broody hen depends on availability of eggs, size of eggs and size of broody hen and the maternal instinct of the broody hen. Similarly, Tadelle et al (2003) reported that the number of eggs set per bird depends on season, experience and size of the bird.

In the current study, to incubate eggs, most of the respondents carried out the following procedures. The egg incubating area was bedded with straw, eggs will be put on sieve and exposed to sunset for few seconds, the broody hen will be threatened as if to be killed using opposite sharp edge of knife and then eggs will be incubated. On 21^th day of egg incubation, chili pepper and Injera (local fermented bread) were moistened with water and offered to the broody hen to eat, so that she will hatch most of the incubated eggs. Farmers believe that these activities will increase the hatchability of incubated eggs. Some respondents incubated all the laid eggs per a clutch without taking care on the size and shape eggs. Some respondents incubate only eggs laid by the broody hen. If eggs of other hen were included, they said “the hen will select her own eggs for hatching and allow the rest eggs to rot.”

Approximately, 80.0% of the respondents incubated odd number of eggs, whereas 1.7% and 18.3% incubated even number and odd or even number of eggs, respectively. The reason why mostly they incubated odd number of eggs was it is tradition. Some said “when odd numbers of eggs were incubated, some eggs may rot and the probability to get even number and more female chicks will be high.” Some said “if even numbers of eggs were incubated, all will not hatched.” In agreement, Dessie and Ogle (2001) reported that in the central Ethiopian highland village poultry production systems, about 88% respondents set odd number of eggs, owning to a belief that this increases the chance of successful hatching. In the current study, before eggs being incubated, best broody hen was selected based on her past best egg hatching performance. In agreement, in North Wollo of Ethiopia, broody hen selection was based on body size and mainly on broodiness ability history (Addisu et al 2013).

In the current study, respondents mostly preferred dry season for egg incubation (September to May). If eggs are incubated during rainy season, respondents said “the eggs may not get enough warming from the broody hen.” Moreover, “if eggs were incubated during rainy season, more eggs will rot and there will be high chick mortality due to cold stress” and some respondent replied “sound of thunder causes more eggs to rot and due to fear of thunder large number of chicks will die.” In agreement, in Western Wollega of Ethiopia, mostly eggs are incubate during dry seasons (Habte et al 2013) also Dessie and Ogle (2001) reported that in the central highland of Ethiopian farmers are not interested to set eggs before onset of rainy season (from mid of June to mid of September) because of the risk of cold weather for eggs spoilage. Similarly, in the Western Zone of Tigray of Ethiopia, June to February were the most preferred while March to May was the worst months to incubate eggs and to achieve best hatchability eggs (Markos et al 2014). These were true according to Kitalyi (1998), reasons differences in eggs hatchability performance of local broody hens might be attributed to the time or season of the year, since hatchability of eggs using broody hens was highly affected by season of incubation.

This study found that not only seasons but also days and times of a day were considered to incubate eggs. Respondents believe that to get more male chicks, either Wednesday or Friday were preferred days for egg incubation, whereas, if more female chicks were needed, the eggs will be incubated either on Monday or Tuesday or Thursday or Saturday. Moreover, farmers believe that “if the eggs were incubated during morning time, most of the chicks will be female but if the egg were incubated during the afternoon time, most chicks will be male and if the eggs were incubated at the mid day, equal sex ratio chicks will be hatched.”

Feeds and feeding systems

This study found that 90.6% of the respondents provide supplementary feeds for their chicken where 56.7% used home available feeds, 16.6% used either home mixed or commercial rations, and about 16.7% used both commercial and home mixed chicken rations. Maize and wheat were majorly used as supplement feed in the highland and mid-altitude agro-ecologies but in the lowland agro-ecology maize and sorghum were majorly used. Why respondents majorly used wheat to supplement their chicken was, it is easy available on farmer hand. Even though, maize was not majorly cultivated crop in the study areas, it was one of majorly used chicken feed. Respondents’ said “chicken like maize and maize price was low as compared to other grains and feeding of maize for egg layers increases egg production next to barley feeding.” In the lowland agro-ecology sorghum was one of the major grown crop and used for chicken feeding. In agreement, Tadelle and Ogle (1996) reported that grain supplement for chicken varies with grain availability in the household. Similarly, in Western Amhara Region of Ethiopia, the type of grains used for chicken supplementations varies among agro-ecologies, which was related to the type of crops grown (Worku et al 2012) and in Mid Rift Valley areas of Oromia Region of Ethiopia, majority of the farmers mostly used maize, wheat and sorghum as the main feed supplements for their chicken (Leta and Bekana 2010).

In the current study, respondents said “if layers continuously and excessively fed on wheat, they become too fat and their egg production become less; even stop egg lying.” “Barley feeding for layers results higher egg production as compared to other grains.” “Feeding of whole barley without processing increases egg production and causes the egg shell more strong.” The egg shell strength might be true because whole barley has better Ca content (1.098%) as compared to other cereal grains (Table 4). For most respondents (73.3%) commercial chicken rations were not accessible, affordable and have some quality problems. The major observed quality problems were slow chicken growth, lower egg production due to quality fluctuation, mold development, diarrhea problem, and fed chicken become weak.

Nutrient composition of majorly used chicken feeds

Except home mixed ration I, the rest home mixed chicken rations have a very good CP composition for chicken (Table 4). Home mixed ration II, IV and commercial layer rations have better ash and Ca compositions. Wheat bran has better CP content than cereal grains and home mixed ration I. In agreement, comparable CP, EE, ash and ME chemical composition were reported by Bediye et al (2007) and Leeson and Summers (2005) for barley, wheat, maize, sorghum and wheat bran but lower Ca content was reported by Leeson and Summers (2005). Similarly, Tesfaye et al (2013) reported comparable chemical compositions but lower Ca contents for maize and wheat bran. The difference might be the laboratorial method used. The former studies used atomic absorption method but the current study used Talapatra method for Ca content determination. Since most of the respondents supplement their chicken with cereals solely, only the ME requirement of all chicken age groups could be satisfied according to Leeson and Summers (2005) and Poultry CRC (2006). Offering of wheat bran had comparatively a better source of CP than cereal grains. According to Leeson and Summers (2005) and Poultry CRC (2006), except home mixed ration I, all home mixed and commercial rations can satisfy the nutrient requirements of all chicken age groups except Ca requirement for layers (Poultry CRC 2006). The problem of home mixed rations was they were not formulated based on isocaloric, isonitrognous and mineral requirements of the chicken. All the supplement feed had very good content of ME. Therefore, if birds were supplemented with enough quantity feed per day, their ME requirement can be satisfied.

Feeding systems

In the current study, about 88.3% of the respondents didn’t adjust the amount of feed offered according to age and productivity of the chicken. According to Poultry CRC (2006), chick, grower and layer can consume 13-37, 41-75 and 100-105 g/bird/day, respectively. In this study, the amount of feed offered per head per day was beyond the daily requirement of the chicken that might cause feed wastage (Table 5). Regarding the feeding systems, 86.1% of the respondents used hours interval feeding system, 4.4% used Ad libitum feeding and the remaining 9.4% couldn’t use any feeding system (only scavenging system). Approximately, 18.9% of the respondents offered the feed only once per day, whereas, 42.2% and 28.9% offered the feed twice and three times per day, respectively. In agreement, in the rural areas of North Wollo of Ethiopia, most farmers provide feeds two times per day (Addisu et al 2013). In contrary, according to Halima (2007) and (Leta and Bekana 2010) farmers in the rural areas of North Western part of Ethiopia and in Mid Rift Valley areas of Ethiopia, respectively, supplement their chicken mostly once per day.

In the current study, most the respondents (53.3%) spread the feed for chicken on the ground without using any feeding trough, 6.1% spread the feed on any available sheets, 19.5% used home available feeding troughs and 11.7% used appropriate chicken feeding troughs. Respondents found in the mid-altitude (18.3%) were better used appropriate and home available chicken feeding troughs followed by respondents found in the highland (10.0%) agro-ecology. This might accessibility of the equipments.

Housing managements

This study revealed that 96.2% of the respondents kept their chicken in the house but only half (50.6%) constructed the chicken house separately from people and livestock houses. Few farmers (3.3%) didn’t shelter their chicken at all; when night comes, chicken look for any place to shelter by themselves (Table 6). About ¼ of the respondents constructed the house according to the technology recommendation. The reason why most of the respondents didn’t construct the house were, most (45.6%) replied “there was no recommendation from professionals only we were asked to construct any type of chicken house”, 37.8% and 16.7% replied that “chicken house construction is expensive and due to workload”, respectively. In agreement, Halima (2007) reported that in the rural areas of Northwest Amhara Region of Ethiopia, almost all farmers provide night shelter for their chickens and about ½ respondents provide separate sheds for their chicken. In contrary, Leta and Bekana (2010) reported that in the rural areas of Mid Rift Valley of Oromia Region, only 14% shelter their chicken in separate sheds during night time. In contrary, India backyard poultry farming 97.5% households, construct separate house for their chicken as night enclosure (Mandal et al 2006) and in Zimbabwe, about 82% of the households in provide separate housing for their chicken (Muchadeyi et al 2004). These indicate Ethiopian village poultry housing system was not good as compared to comparable production systems of Zimbabwe and India.

Regarding the time of housing, about 17.8%, 65.5% and 16.7% of the respondents housed their chicken the whole day and night time, only night time and some hours at day time, and the whole night time, respectively. However, most of the respondents (68.3%) didn’t consider the space requirements of the chicken during housing. About 39.4% of the respondents cleaned the chicken house daily, 13.9% cleaned at weekly interval, 7.2% cleaned after a week, 3.3% cleaned after two weeks, 11.7% cleaned when all chicken out but 24.4% didn’t clean the chicken house at all. Only 28.9 % of the respondents disinfected the chicken house using 5% sodium hypochlorite solution (cloth detergent) and fumigated it using selected herbaceous plants to eradicate external parasites. Why most of the respondents didn’t disinfect the chicken house using appropriate disinfectants were due to lack of knowledge and information (1^st ranked reason), and absences and scarcity of appropriate disinfecting chemical (2^nd ranked reason). Few farmers believe that “the disinfecting chemicals may not be good for chicken health.”

Health care managements

Chicken health problem was the major challenges of village poultry technology. Most (86.1%) respondents lost their chicken due to disease problem. Newcastle disease was the major challenging and killing disease in the study areas mainly outbreak during short rainy season (March to May) and during main rainy season (July to September). Infectious coriza was the next challenging disease which occurs occasionally. Respondent said “infectious coriza could occur during cold season in the highland, at any time in mid-altitude and lowland agro-ecologies”. For half (51.6%) of the respondents, the veterinary clinic was found >20 km. Due to this only 26.1% respondents got health care services and only 32.8% vaccinated their chicken. Most (77.8%) didn’t know when their chicken should be vaccinated. In agreement with the current study, Dessie and Ogle (2001), Selam and Kelay (2013) and Leta and Bekana (2010) reported that Newcastle disease occurs seasonally and is the major chicken killing disease in different agro-ecologies of Ethiopia. In lined, Branckaert et al (2000) reported that Newcastle disease is the most serious epizootic poultry disease in the world, particularly in developing countries where in developing countries, occurs every year and kills on average 70 to 80% of unvaccinated village birds.

When their chicken became sick, 58.3% of the respondents isolated the sick from the healthy once but 41.7% leaved sick birds with the healthy. About 40.6% of the respondents consulted veterinarians. To treat sick birds, about 27.2%, 30.6% and 42.2% of the respondents used traditional, pharmaceutical and both traditional and pharmaceutical medicaments, respectively. Garlic (Allium sativum), feto (Lepidium sativum) seeds, lemon juice, melia (Melia azedarach) leaves, vinegar juice, chili pepper (Capsicum frutescens) called Mitmita (Amha), aloe juice, Milas golgul (Amha), neem tree (Azadirachta indica) leaves, vernonia (Vernonia amygdalina) leaves and food oil were commonly used as traditional medicaments. Most respondents (73.3%) said “the medicaments were affordable” but 61.7% didn’t well know how much dose should be given per a bird. The treatment expenses range from no expense up to 40.00 Ethiopian Birr with a mean of 10.10 Birr per bird per year. Regarding the effectiveness, about 14.4%, 32.2% and 3.3% of the respondents replied that “traditional, pharmaceutical, and mix of traditional and pharmaceutical medicaments more were effective to treat sick birds”, respectively. However, ½ of the respondents replied that “none of the medicaments were effective.” They said “all medicaments were good only for prevention not for treatment.” During diseases outbreak to prevent disease transmissions, proper hygiene and confinement of birds before dew evaporated were measures taken by the farmers. Similar to the current study, Dessie and Ogle (2001), Selam and Kelay (2013), Leta and Bekana (2010) reported that when chickens become sick, Ethiopian village chicken farmers usually treat sick birds using traditional methods. In agreement, Selam and Kelay (2013) and Addisu et al (2013) reported that in village poultry production system of Ethiopia garlic, feto, lemon, melia, chili pepper, vernonia and food oil are used as traditional medicaments to treat sick chicken. In the current study respondents said “both traditional and modern medicaments were good only for prevention not for treatment.” In agreement, Dessie and Ogle (2001) reported that traditional medicaments are not effective to treat Newcastle disease, vaccination is the only means to control Newcastle disease (Dessie and Ogle 2001; Huang et al 2004).

Provision of water for chicken

As water is an important nutrient for chicken, its hygiene and way of provision can influence the chicken growth, productivity and health. Almost all respondents (93.9%) provide drinking water for their chicken throughout the year. The sources of water were river (11.7%), spring (15.0%), ponds (5.0%), tap water (53.3%) and well (15.0%). About 75.0% and 18.9% of the respondents used any home available and appropriate chicken watering troughs, respectively. Few respondents (6.1%) didn’t use any watering trough, chicken were left to look for water by themselves. Most of the respondents (63.3%) taking care of about the hygiene of the water and 72.7% cleaned the watering troughs where 17.2%, 8.3%, 8.9%, 6.1% and 32.2% of the respondents cleaned the watering troughs once, twice, three times, four times and every day per week, respectively. About 27.3% of the respondents didn’t clean the watering troughs at all. About 77.8% of the respondents allowed the water to be available throughout the day and only 12.8% changed the water three times per day. However, most respondents (36.0%) changed the water twice per day and 23.9% changed the water once per. In comparable with the current study, Worku et al 2012) reported that in the rural areas of Western Amhara Region of Ethiopia, households use springs, tap water, river and ponds as source of water for their birds but in contrary to the current study they provide the water during the dry season (86.2%), rainy season (3.6%) and year round (10.2%). Similarly, Moges et al (2010) as a whole in Amhara Region of Ethiopia, most farmers provide water to their chicken only during the dry season and few farmers provide the water throughout the year.

Conclusions

• In conclusion, to improve the husbandry practices of the technology package in the study agro-ecologies, since women played the major roles of village poultry production systems, more attention should be given for women. Moreover, technical support, availability of affordable quality feeds, poultry equipments, vaccines and medicaments are needed for the technology participants.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their heartfelt thanks to Addis Ababa University for financial support to conduct this study. The authors also thank respondent farmers, experts and enumerators for their polite cooperation and devoting their time.

References

Abera M 2000 Comparative studies on performance and physiological responses of Ethiopian indigenous (Angete Melata) chickens and their F₁ crosses to long term heat exposure. PhD dissertation, Martin-Luther University. Halle-Wittenberg Germany. www.amazon.co.uk/Comparative-performance-physio

Addisu H, Hailu M and Zewdu W 2013 Indigenous chicken production system and breeding practice in North Wollo, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Poultry, Fish & Wildlife Sciences 2013, 1:2 http://esciencecentral.org/journals/indigenous-chicken-production-system-and-breeding-practice-in-north-wollo-amhara-region-ethiopia-pfw.1000108.php?aid=19316.

AOAC (Association of Official Analytical Chemists) 1990 Official methods of analysis. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington DC.

Bediye S, Silashi Z and Fekadu D 2007 Composition and nutritive value of Ethiopian feedstuff. Institute of Agricultural Research (IAR), Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Research report no.73.

Branckaert RDS, Gaviria L, Jallade J and Seiders RW 2000 Transfer of technology in poultry production for developing countries. In FAO Sustainable Development Dimensions, October 2000 and Proceedings WPC2000 Montreal, Canada. http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/y5169f/y5169f0b.htm.

CSA (Central Statistics Agency) 2012 The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Agricultural sample survey 2011/12 [2004 E.C].Vol.II. Report on livestock and livestock characteristics. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. http://www.catalog.ihsn.org/index.php/catalog/3399/download/48989

Dana N 2011 Breeding programs for indigenous chicken in Ethiopia: Analysis of diversity in production systems and chicken populations. PhD thesis. Wageningen, The Netherlands Wageningen University. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/32821

Demeke S 2007 Suitability of hay box brooding technology to the rural household poultry production system. International Journal for Research into Sustainable Developing World Agriculture.http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd19/1/deme19003.htm

Dessie T and Ogle B 2001 Village poultry production systems in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Tropical Animal Health and Production 33(6), 521-537. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1012740832558

DPPA (Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Agency) 2006 Administrative map of Oromiya region. www.dppc.gov.et/downloadable/map/administrative/Atlas_Oromiya.pdf.

Habte M, Ameha N and Demeke S 2013 Production performance of local and exotic breeds of chicken at rural household level in Nole Kabba Woreda, Western Wollega, Ethiopia. AfricanJournal of Agricultural Research, 8(11), 1014-1021. www.academicjournals.org/journal/AJAR/article-abstract/E218A0336390

Halima H 2007 Phenotypic and genetic characterization of indigenous chicken populations in Northwest Ethiopia. PhD dissertation, Department of Animal, Wildlife and Grassland Sciences, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.

Huang Z, Subbaih F, Abdul SY and Siba KS 2004 A recombinant Newcastle virus (NDV) expressing VP2 protein of infectious Bursal Disease Virus (IBDV) Protect Against NDV and IBDV. Journal of Virology, 78 (18): 10054-10063. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC514986/

Ibrahim M 2004 Extension experiences in Ethiopia. Paper presented at Improving Productivity and Market Success (IPMS) of Ethiopian Farmers project launching conference, 30^th June 2003, ILRI, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Kitalyi AJ 1998 Village chicken production systems in rural Africa household food security and gender issues. FAO, Rome, Italy. https://books.google.com/books?isbn=9251041601

Lawal AO 2011 Women's benefits from agricultural technologies: evidence from poultry production among Nigerian fisherfolk, Development in Practice, 21 (3), 371-378. http://www.developmentinpractice.org/journals/womens-benefits-agricultural-technologies-evidence-poultry-production-among-nigerian-fisher

Leeson S and Summers J 2005 Commercial poultry nutrition. 3^rd Edition, Nottingham University Press, England.

Leta S and Bekana E 2010 Survey on village based chicken production and utilization system in Mid Rift Valley of Oromia, Ethiopia. Global Veterinaria 5 (4): 198-203. www.idosi.org/gv/gv5(4)10/1.pdf

Mandal MK, Khandekar N and Khandekar P 2006 Backyard poultry farming in Bareilly district of Uttar Pradesh, India: An analysis. Livestock Research for Rural Development 18 (7):2006. www.lrrd.org/lrrd18/7/mand18101.htm

Markos S, Berhanu B. and Tadelle D 2014 Incubation and Brooding Practices of Local Chicken Producers in Ethiopia: The Case of Western Zone of Tigray. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare 4(25). http://www.iiste.org/Journals/index.php/JBAH/article/view/17383

Mengesha M, Tamir B and Dessie T 2008 Village chicken characteristics and their seasonal production situation in Jamma District, South Wollo, Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development 20(8) 2008. www.lrrd.org/lrrd20/8/meng20128.htm

Moges F, Mellesse A and Dessie T 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 5(13): 1739-1748. https://cgspace.cgiar.org/handle/10568/2484?show=full

Muchadeyi F C, Sibanda S, Kusina NT, Kusina JF and Makuza S 2004 The village chicken production system in Rushinga District of Zimbabwe. Livestock Research for Rural Development 16 (6). www.lrrd.org/lrrd16/6/much16040.htm

Muchadeyi F C, Wollny C BA, Eding H, Weigend S, Makuza SM and Simianer H 2007 Variation in village chicken production systems among agro-ecological zones of Zimbabwe. Tropical Animal Health and Production 39(6):453-61 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17966277

Mudgal V 2012 Practical in animal nutrition. New India Publishing Agency, New Delhi, India.

OADB (Oromiya Agricultural Development Bureau) 2003 Livestock breed survey of Oromia Regional State. Reporting Back Workshop, 25–26 February 2003, ILRI, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

OBoFED (Oromia Bureau of Finance and Economic Development) 2008 Socio-economic profile of Oromia National Regional State. www.pcdp.gov.et/Oromiya%20Regional%20Profile.pdf

Okitoi LO, Ondwasy HO, Obali MP and Murekefu F 2007 Gender issues in poultry production in rural households of Western Kenya. Livestock Research for Rural Development 19(2):2007. www.lrrd.org/lrrd19/2/okit19017.htm

Poultry Cooperative Research Centre (Poultry CRC) 2006 Nutrient requirements of egg laying chickens. Armidale, New South Wales, Australia. www.poultryhub.org.

SAS 2002 Statistical Analysis System, version 9, Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA.

Selam M and Kelay B 2013 Causes of village chicken mortality and interventions by farmers in Ada’a District, Ethiopia. International Journal of Livestock Production, Vol. 4(6), 88-94. www.academicjournals.org/journal/IJLP/article-abstract/B20445A1802

Sonaiya EB and Swan SEJ 2004 Small-scale poultry production: Manual technical guide. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

SPSS 2011 Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. Vision 20. IBM Corporation, SPSS Inc., Chicago IL.

Tadelle D, Million T, Alemu Y and Peters KJ 2003 Village chicken production systems in Ethiopia: 1. Flock characteristics and performance. Livestock Research for Rural Development 15 (1):2003. www.lrrd.org/lrrd15/1/tadea151.htm

Tadelle D and Ogle B 1996 Studies on village poultry production in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Integrated Farming in Human Development Proceedings of a Workshop held in March 25-29, 1996, Tune Landboskole, Denmark.

Teklewold H, Dadi L, Yami A and Dana N 2006 Adopting poultry breeds in the highlands of Ethiopia. Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research.

Tesfaye E, Animut G, Urge M and Dessie T 2013 Moringa Olifera leaf meal as alternative protein feed ingredient in broiler ration. International Journal of Poultry Science 12(5): 287-297. http://scialert.net/qredirect.php?doi=ijps.2013.289.297&linkid=pdf

Wiseman J 1987 Feeding of non-ruminant livestock. Butterworth and C. Ltd.

Worku Z, Melesse A and T/Giorgis Y 2012 Assessment of village chicken production system and the performance of local chicken populations in West Amhara Region of Ethiopia Journal of Animal Production Advances 2(4):199-207.  http://www.grjournals.com/Default.aspx?tabid=6606&articleType=ArticleView&articleId=1451083

Yami A and T Dessie 1997 The Status of poultry research and development. Poultry Commodity Research Program, Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Center, Alemaya University of Agriculture. Research Bulletin No. 4.

Received 18 January 2015; Accepted 13 March 2015; Published 1 April 2015

Go to top