Studies on Management Practices and Constraints of Back Yard Chicken Production in Selected Rural Areas of Bishoftu

This survey was conducted with the aim of assessing the flock characteristics, management practices and performance of indigenous chickens kept under backyard chicken production system from November 2013 to May 2014 in rural areas of Bishoftu, East Shewa, Ethiopia. A total of 160 selected respondents were included in the study from four purposively selected kebeles viz. Filtino, Dalota, Kality and Gote. An overall average flock size (Mean±SD) was 19.9±7.9 birds in the study area. About 35% of the respondents provide separate house to their birds. Majority of the respondents 70% in study area were using scavenging with additional supplements, out of which 56.3% of respondents were using food left over, frushika, maize and sorghum and 13.7% of respondents were using maize and frushika. Tap water was a major source in Dalota (100%) and Gote (67.5%) whereas river water accounts 62.5% as water source in Kaliti kebeles. About 55.6% of respondents use plastic ware for watering the birds. Major source of chicks was natural hatching (46.87%). Overall mean performance of the indigenous chicken in Bishoftu area for age at first lay, number of eggs laid/ hen/ clutch, numbers of clutches per hen/year, number of eggs laid/ hen/ year, number of eggs incubated/hen/clutch, number of eggs hatched/hen/ year, hatchability on the basis of eggs incubated and chicken mortality to an age of 8 weeks in the study area were found as 5.49±0.8 months, 13.18±3.5 eggs, 3.30±0.5 clutches, 44.20±9.6 eggs,10.92±3.1 eggs, 28.42±6.7 eggs, 72.10±5.5%, 27.52±4.7% respectively. The hatchability and mortality were significantly different (p<0.05) among four kebeles under study. The mortality of chicks was cited as major constraint in backyard chicken production in the area of study followed by diseases, predation and improper veterinary service at village level. Therefore, efforts should be geared towards the improvement of health and management practices to improve rural backyard chicken production.


INTRODUCTION
systems. It is estimated that about 80% of the Africa's The word poultry refers to all domesticated birds kept systems [3]. The system is characterized by a family for the production of eggs and meat for human ownership of the birds. The birds are then left to consumption including domestic fowl (chicken), turkeys, scavenge to meet their nutritional needs. The feed ducks, geese, guinea fowls, ostriches and others [1]. resources vary depending on local conditions and the Despite the rapid development of commercial poultry farming system. Housing may not also be provided [4]. production systems worldwide, it has been estimated that Poultry production is deeply embedded in Ethiopian more than 80% of the global poultry population occurs in society kept by all strata of society from the landless rural traditional family-based production systems and poor to the well off in the cities [5,6]. In the Ethiopian contribute up to 90% of the total poultry products in context poultry effectively means domestic chicken. many countries [2]. In many developing countries, Out of a total of 44.89 million chickens in Ethiopia, the particularly Africa, poultry production in rural and traditional back yard poultry production accounts peri-urban areas is based on traditional scavenging for about 98% mainly indigenous birds (96.6%) [7] and poultry population is found in traditional production contributes to more than 90% of the national chicken meat MATERIALS AND METHODS and egg output [8]. Indigenous chickens are nine descriptive breeds closely related to the Jungle fowl and Study Area and Animals: The study was conducted in vary in color, comb type, body conformation and weight.
selected rural area of Bishoftu, in all backyard rural There is no separate poultry house and chickens live in poultry kept by the farmers including local breeds, exotic family dwellings. The mean annual egg production of and hybrid breeds. Bishoftu is located 45 kilometers south indigenous chickens is estimated at 60 small eggs with east of Addis Ababa. The area is located at 9°N latitude thick shell and deep yellow yolk color [9]. and 40°E longitudes at an altitude of 1850 meters in central In Ethiopia poultry production systems show clear high land of Ethiopia. Study area includes Filtino, Dalota, distinction between traditional low input system on Kaliti and Gote Kebeles of Bishoftu, East shewa zone, the other hand and modern production systems [1].
Ethiopia. It has an annual rainfall of 866mm of which 84% The traditional poultry production system comprises of is in the long rainy season (June to September). The dry the indigenous dwellings together with human beings.
season extends from October to February. The mean There is no purposeful feeding of chickens and annual maximum and minimum temperatures are 26°C and scavenging is almost the only source of diet. There is no 14°C respectively, with mean relative humidity of 61.3% designed selection and controlled breeding. It is by [12]. Farmers in the vicinity of Bishoftu use a mixed crop natural incubation and brooding that chicks are hatched and livestock farming system. Moreover, Bishoftu and its and raised all over the rural Ethiopia. Prevalence of surrounding have variable and yet representative agropredators in the area, such as birds of prey, pets and some ecologies of the country. These agro-climatic zones are wild animals, all of which are listed as the major causes of inhabited with different plant and animal species [13]. premature death of chicks in Ethiopia. Diseases are the most important cause of economic loss since vaccination Study Design and Sampling Procedure: The survey work occurs only in response to an outbreak in the traditional was carried out from November 2013 to May 2014. A total poultry production system. The modern poultry sub-of 160 households, made up of 40 households each from sector comprises of the small scale intensive and large Filtino, Dalota, Kaliti and Gote kebeles, were purposely scale commercial production systems. There are several selected. The selection was carried out based on the private large scale commercial poultry farms in and in the accessibility easy of logistic and nearness to Bishoftu vicinity of Addis Ababa, the majority of which are located town. These four kebeles were approximately 8kms apart. in Bishoftu, Elfora, Alema and Genesis are the top 3 During the study period only those farmers who owned largest commercial poultry farms with modern production chickens and were willing to participate in this study were and processing facilities [10].
considered. The total households included in the study Traditional production system is advantageous due were determined according to the formula given by to free feed resources in the surrounding environment and Arsham [14]. kitchen leftovers, use of local breeds that are adapted to their environment and preserved ability to incubate and N=0.25/SE brood naturally. However, poor reproductive performance, poor growth rates, diseases, mortality, predation and low where, N= Sample size, SE= Standard error level of literacy among farmers are some of the major constraints in backyard chicken production [11]. To date, Thus, using the standard error of 0.04 with 95% there are limited studies conducted in rural area of Bishofu confidence level, 160 households were included in the targeting comprehensive description of the flock study. characteristics, production performance, associated constraints and management practice of backyard chicken Data Collection: Data of households were collected by in rural communities. Therefore this study was done with using semi-structured questionnaire and individually the objectives to characterize the flock structure and interview in order to obtain quantitative data. Direct management practices, evaluate the productivity and in observation of flocks, feeding and watering practices and order to identify the prevailing constraints of backyard poultry houses was carried out during the survey period. chicken production in the rural areas of Bishoftu.
Information regarding the types of poultry reared, flock size and composition, production and reproduction performance, management practices, provision of additional feed, vaccination, use of modern medication and constraints of backyard chicken production system were recorded using the questionnaire survey.
Data Management and Analysis: The data were entered using Microsoft excel spreadsheet and analyzed using SPSS (Version,20). Descriptive statistics were employed Fig. 1: Sex ratios of respondents in four kebeles in study for describing management practices in each kebeles. area Differences in productive performances were compared using means generated from one-way ANOVA.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Household Characteristics: The observations recorded for households characteristics for sex ratio in respondents ( Figure 1) revealed higher proportion of female respondents than males in all four kebeles under study. This reflected to the fact that village backyard chicken production is mostly managed by females. Similar observations were also reported by Meseret [15]; Fig. 2: Educational level of the respondents of the study Muchadeyi et al. [16]; Khandait et al. [17] and Desalew area et al. [18]. However, nearly equal proportion of males (49.5%) and females (50.5%) were reported in the South 9.2 by Mekonnen [19] in southern part of Ethiopia, 7.1 by part of Ethiopia [19]. Analysis of educational status Halima [22] in northwest Ethiopia, 8.8 by Asefa [23] (Figure 2) observed under the present study revealed that around Hawassa and 6.2 by Meseret [15] in Gomma on overall basis about 37% of the respondents in the Wereda, Jimma Zone, Ethiopia. In contrast, the mean flock study area were illiterates and this observation was in size recorded in this study was lower than the mean flock agreement with the report of Desalew et al. [18] who has size of 22 reported by Khalafalla [24] in Sudan, for village observed about 33.4% of the respondents in Lume district chicken production system. The backyard indigenous were illiterates. However, a better education status was chicken population of study areas were dominated by reported by Mekonnen [19] with only 6.9% of illiterate chicks (9.9±4.98) followed by hens (3.9) which was higher respondents in south part of Ethiopia. than 3.8 and 2.5 the corresponding figures for chicks and Flock Size and Structure: The overall mean flock size per part of Ethiopia. The present result revealed mean of household (Table 1) was 19.9 and ranged from 5-49 in the 1.8±1.5 and 2.0±1.3 cocks and cockerels which is the present study. This finding is in consistent with the lowest in flock size. The lower proportion of the cockerels reports from Philippines [20] and Uganda [21] who and cock observed within the indigenous chicken reported the mean flock sizes of 19 and 18 for village population in this study was in agreement with report of chicken production system, respectively. However, the Meseret [15] and this might be attributed to the selling of present flock size is higher than the reported flock size of cockerels and cocks. Flock size and composition vary hen respectively reported by Mekonnen [19] in southern       [27] in Bure district and 21.2% by kitchen and 26.6% of the chicken perches on tree in Mid Mengesha et al. [28] in north west Ethiopia, 5.6% by Rift Valley of Oromia, Ethiopia. Also there are reports of Meseret [15] in Gomma Wereda, 24.4% by Fentie et al.
58% and 68% of the chicken share the main house with [29] in north Gondar and 11.5% by Tadelle and Ogle [30] family in Mid Rift Valley of Oromia, Ethiopia [26] and in village poultry production systems in the central north Gondar [29] respectively, which was higher than the highlands of Ethiopia who have constructed separate present finding of 24% under the study area. Lack of shelter for their bird. In contrary, Mekonnen [19] reported knowledge and awareness and poor attention to village that there were no specific separate poultry houses in chicken production may be some of the reason for not Dale Wereda. The present overall average for separate constructing separate chicken house. poultry housing and facilities under this study was significantly lower than 91.1% in Ada'a and 95.6% in Poultry Feeding Practices: The results for feeding Lume districts Desalew et al. [18] and 90% in Bhandara practices (Table 3) revealed that an overall of 70% of the district of India Khandait et al. [17], reported of backyard respondents in study area of four kebeles in rural area of variation might be associated to the farmers' awareness to  Bishoftu practice scavenging system with supplementary 66% tap water which is higher than the present results feeding which was not in agreement with 97.8% reported (48.13%). However, Leta and Bekana [26] reported 15% of by Desalew et al. [18] in East Shewa; 95% by Asefa [23] river water in Mid Rift Valley of Oromia, Ethiopia which in Hawassa zuria; 98.1% by Mekonnen [19] in South is lower than 33.75% observed in the present study. Ethiopia; 98% by Leta and Bekana [26]; 99% by Halima The results for watering practices (Table 4) in four kebeles [22] in North West Ethiopia; 97.5% by Moges et al. [27]; under study, revealed that on overall basis about 48.75% 98% by Mengesha et al. [28]; 92.5% by Zewdu et al. [31] of respondents in the present study provided water to in Metekel zone and 97.25% by Khandait et al. [17] in their chicken with free access which is in agreement with India, backyard chicken owners provide additional the report from Mid Rift Valley of Oromia, Ethiopia (47%) supplement. [26], but lower than the report in village chicken The major supplementary feed in the surveyed area production from East Shewa, Ethiopia (95.6%) [18]. includes frushika, maize, sorghum and food leftover used Concerning the water drinkers, 55.6% respondents used by about 56.25% of the respondents in the study area.
plastic containers as water drinkers to their back yard Mekonnen [19] reported feeding practice of maize (6.3%), chicken in the study area and agreed with the study frushika (1.2%) and frushika (6.3%) in south part of conducted in South part of Ethiopia (56%) [19]. Ethiopia. This study also revealed that out of 70% respondents supplementing feed to their chicken about Source of Chicks: The results for source of chicken 14.4% supplements twice a day (usually morning and procurement (Table 5) revealed that an overall of 21.88% evening), 25.6% twice a day in morning and afternoon and respondents purchased chicks from private/ government 30% supplement their chicken three times a day usually hatcheries which were not in agreement with the morning, afternoon and evening (Table 3). According to reports of Desalew et al. [18] in Ada'a (84.4%) and Lume the report of Mekonnen [19] about 45.6% of respondents districts (80%) purchased chicks from private hatcheries. supplement twice a day (usually morning and evening) This study also revealed that about 52.5% respondents in and only13.8% of them provide three times a day.
Filtino, 47.5% respondents in both Kaliti and Gote Poultry Watering System: It is revealed from Table 4 that eggs naturally using broody hen at home with an overall all respondents used tap water in Dalota (100%) to their average of 46.87% respondents, in study area and this chicken, whereas river water (62.5%) was the major water finding is not in agreement with Khandait et al. [17] who source in Kaliti kebeles. On overall basis about 48.13% reported 100% hatching of eggs naturally at home in used tap water, 33.75% respondents used river water and backyard poultry production at Bhandara district of India. 18.13% respondents used both river and tap water to their However, only 15.6% and 20% respondents hatched chicken in the study area. Higher number of respondents fertile eggs naturally at home in Ada'a and Lume districts, used tap water in Dalota than other kebeles; this indicates respectively as reported by Desalew et al. [18] for village the availability of better water infrastructure in Dalota chicken in East Shewa, Ethiopia. In addition this finding than other kebeles. Leta and Bekana [26] reported use of also showed that about 27.5%, 35%, 25.0% and 37.5% of Kebeles and 40% respondents, in Dalota hatched fertile   The overall average number of eggs laid/clutch/hen of respondents purchased poultry chicks from the local (clutch size) were observed to be 13.18±3.5 eggs in the market in rural tribal areas of Sikkim, India. study area with non-significant variations between the Performance Characteristics of Backyard Indigenous of eggs/clutch/hen was lower than 15.1 eggs/clutch/hen Chickens: The performance characteristics of indigenous reported by Fentie et al. [29] in North Gondar which could chickens (Table 6) revealed that overall average age at be due to the more number of clutches (4.3 clutches) sexual maturity expressed in terms of age at first egg was reported by the same researcher. observed to be 5.49±0.8 month in the study area and age
the central highlands of Ethiopia. These results agreed with Tadelle and Ogle [37], as they The average number of eggs incubated / hen at a time have reported 3-4 clutches for indigenous chicken in the was found to be 10.92±3.1 with non-significant variations central highlands of Ethiopia and Moreki [33] also between the averages observed for four kebeles (Table 6).   under present study is lower than 13.2±1.8 eggs reported scavengers taken by the respondents. The overall mean by Fentie et al. [29] in Small-scale family poultry mortality was found to be 27.5±4.7% in the present study production in North Gondar. The mean percent was comparable to the mortality reported in Uganda (25%) hatchability (Table 6) observed for the four kebeles by Ssewannyana et al. [21] for village chickens in revealed the highest hatchability of 75.4±5.8% in Filtino, backyard system. However, chick mortality up to 8 weeks followed by 71.13±5.0% in Dalota, 70.9±5.1% in Kaliti and of age in the present study was lower than 61% reported 70.7±5.0% in Gote kebeles where significantly different by Tadelle and Ogle [37] from the central highlands of from each other. The differences in hatchability between Ethiopia; 55% by Mekonnen [19] from Dale wereda and four kebeles could be attributed to the season of the year, 93% by Brännänng and Pearson [40] from Assela. since hatchability of eggs is affected by season of incubation and agreed with Kitalyi [38]. The overall Poultry Healthy Management and Source of Chicken: average hatchability in the present study was observed Table 7 revealed that an overall average of 36.87% to72.10±5.5% which is closer to hatchability of 75% respondents practiced use of anti-ectoparasites in the reported by Wilson [5]. However, the present hatchability present study. This average was lower than 49.6% by estimate was lower than 84.6% reported by Fentie et al.
Khandait et al. [17] in backyard poultry rearing practices [29] in small-scale family production in North Gondar, 82% at Bhandra district of Maharashtra, used antihatchability reported by Kusina et al. [39] in Zimbabwe, ectoparasites. Village poultry keeping farmers tend to start 80.9% hatchability reported by Tadelle and Ogle [37] for dealing with disease control once the symptoms appear in Central highlands of Ethiopia and 89.1% reported by their flocks. They therefore treat symptoms instead of Mekonnen [19] for south part of Ethiopia.
diseases and link specific therapeutic preparations to The mean percent chicks mortality (to an age of 8 specific disease symptoms [41]. weeks) of the backyard chicken in this survey showed Purposeful culling of chickens (Table 7) was significant differences (P<0.05) between kebeles.
practiced by an overall average of 66.3% respondents in Accordingly, an overall survivability of chicks was found the present study due to various reasons like sickness, 72.5±4.5% with significant differences between the study poor productivity and old age which is lower than 88.75% areas. The significant variation in mortality and reported by Atsbeha [42] in central zone of Tigray; 100% survivability of chicken between kebeles could be reported by Desalew et al. [18] in East Shewa, Ethiopia attributed to the season of hatching the chicks, and 86.9% reported by Mekonnen [19] in south part of incubation and brooding facilities provided to the Ethiopia. It was also observed that none of the broody and measures of protection from predators and respondents vaccinated their birds against any disease in four kebeles under study area (Table 8). This observation On the other hand overall average of 23.1% was in agreement with Leta and Bekana [26]; Khandait et al. [17]; Moges et al. [27]; Mengesha et al. [28] and Takele and Oli [43] as they all have reported that none of the backyard poultry owner practiced vaccination of birds against poultry diseases in different areas of their study. However, Vaccination has been practiced in Lume and Ada'a districts and this was due to the tremendous and coordinated efforts of livestock experts, development agents (DAs) and field veterinarians in both districts Desalew et al. [18].

General Constraints on Traditional Backyard Poultry
Production: Information collected on constraints in back yard poultry production (Table 8) revealed that disease was the most important problem affecting poultry productivity with an overall average of 38.1% disease incidence in the study area and agreed with the reports of Aini [44] as he has also observed that in the free-range and backyard poultry production system, diseases are the major limiting factor to the production of backyard chickens. This disease incidence was higher than 33.1% incidence of disease reported by Desalew et al. [18] in East Shewa, Ethiopia. However, the present disease incidence was lower than 100% higher incidence of disease reported by Khandait et al. [17] in Bhandara district of Maharashtra (India).
The signs of the common diseases as perceived by the respondents in the four kebeles were loss of appetite, reduction in drinking and eating, watery and yellowish droppings, paralysis and, consequently, death. This syndrome was called 'fengle' by the community in the study area. This disease, which was probably Newcastle disease, was an acute condition, lasting for only 3-5 days and usually resulted in the death of the whole flock because transmission was very rapid. Outbreaks of this disease usually occurred at the beginning of the rainy season, that is at the end of May and beginning of June, but after villagization it became a problem throughout the year, even though it was still more serious at the beginning of the rainy season. The farmers did not have any preventive medicine or practice for this fatal disease and only treat their birds with accepted traditional medicines after the start of an outbreak. Similarly, Desalew et al. [18] and Meseret [15], Mekonnen [19]; Moges et al. [27] and Serkalem et al. [45] reported Newcastle disease as economically important diseases in North West Ethiopia. Survey from Tanzania indicated that Newcastle is the most devastating disease in village chickens [46]. respondents complained the presence of predators in the study area which is higher than 12% respondents complained the presence of predators reported by Desalew et al. [18] in East Shewa, Ethiopia. However, the present estimate was lower than 89.17% of the poultry owners facing the problem of attack of predator's reported by Khandait et al. [17] in Bhandara district of Maharashtra (India). Predation was reported to be highest in the rainy season because of the high density of vegetation, which attracted and provided cover for predator animals. Common predators were dogs, cats (domestic or wild), eagles, hawk and vultures in this study agreed with Khandait et al. [17].
Other constraints include inadequate veterinary services, feed shortage and lack of poultry production knowledge in the study area. Limited veterinary services for village chickens were also reported by Moges et al. [27] in North West Ethiopia, Leta and Bekana [26]; Takele and Oli [43] and Mengesha et al. [28] in different parts of Ethiopia. Lack of poultry production knowledge was the other constraint in all kebeles and agreed with the report of Moges et al. [27] in Ethiopia and Khandait et al. [17] in India.

CONCLUSION
Backyard chicken production is playing an important role in increasing socio-economic status of rural community and employment in rural areas. However the backyard chickens suffer low productivity and high mortality. Disease control and improved management in backyard chicken production are lacking in the study area. Diseases followed by predation were found to be the major constraint of backyard chicken production in rural area of Bishoftu. Interventions to improve backyard chicken production could have considerable benefits. This could considerably reduce the losses and maximize the returns which in turn increase off-take rates whether for home consumption or for sale. Therefore animal husbandry and health extension service units should be strengthened to train chicken farmers to increase the level of awareness and benefits from backyard birds. Furthermore, improvements in management by provision of feed and clean water to young chicks, indoor management of chicken and control of diseases and predators and improving the genetic potential should also be promoted. Vaccination schemes should be developed by availing vaccines and training to community vaccinators to carry out vaccinations at kebeles level in a wide coverage.