Assessment of Smallholder Chicken Production Practices, Marketing and Constraints in Two Districts of South-Omo Zone, Ethiopia

  

    
Variables
    
 
    
Strata
    
 
    
X2-test� P-value LS
  
  

    
Disease and medication
    
Local

      (N=60)
    
Exotic (N=60)
    
Mixed (N=60)
    
Overall

      (N=180)
    
 
  
  

    
Disease    outbreak/year
    
 
    
 
    
 
    
 
    
11.48� 0.003�    *
  
  

    
Yes
    
43(71.67)c
    
57(95)a
    
48(80)b
    
148(82.2)
    
 
  
  

    
No
    
17(28.33)a
    
3(5)c
    
12(20)b
    
32(17.8)
    
 
  
  

    
Important    diseases
    
 
    
 
    
 
    
 
    
2.85� 0.83�    ns
  
  

    
Newcastle
    
16(37.2)
    
23(40.35)
    
18(37.5)
    
57(39.40)
    
 
  
  

    
Gumboroo
    
14(32.56)
    
15(26.32)
    
17(35.42)
    
46(32.23)
    
 
  
  

    
Coccidiosis
    
10(23.26)
    
11(19.29)
    
7(14.58)
    
28(32.23)
    
 
  
  

    
Parasitic disease
    
3(6.98)
    
8(14.04)
    
6(12.5)
    
17(10.80)
    
 
  
  

    
Action    while disease outbreak
    
 
    
 
    
 
    
 
    
33.86� 0.00�    ***
  
  

    
Nothing
    
18(41.86)a
    
4(7.02)c
    
7(14.58)b
    
29(19.59)
    
 
  
  

    
Treat with traditional medicine
    
13(30.23)b
    
18(31.6)a
    
6(12.5)b
    
37(25)
    
 
  
  

    
Sold live chickens immediately
    
2(4.65)b
    
3(5.26)b
    
9(18.75)a
    
14(9.46)
    
 
  
  

    
Treated with modern medicine
    
10(23.26)b
    
32(56.1)a
    
26(54.2)a
    
68(45.95)
    
 
  
  

    
Access for vaccination or drug
    
 
    
 
    
4.46� 0.11�    ns
  
  

    
Yes
    
11(18.3)
    
20(33.3)
    
12(20)
    
43(23.9)
    
 
  
  

    
No
    
49(81.7)
    
40(66.7)
    
48(80)
    
137(76.1)
    
 
  
  

    
Vaccination routine provider
    
 
    
 
    
 
    
 
    
12.84� 0.01�    *
  
  

    
Extension
    
11(100)a
    
16(80)b
    
9(75)c
    
36(83.72)
    
 
  
  

    
Self
    
0(00)c
    
0(00)c
    
3(25)a
    
3(6.98)
    
 
  
  

    
Research institute/NGO
    
0(00)c
    
4(20)a
    
0(00)c
    
4(9.3)
    
 
  
  

    
Access for veterinary drug
    
 
    
 
    
 
    
 
    
9.67� 0.008�    *
  
  

    
Yes
    
27(45)c
    
39(65)b
    
43(71.7)a
    
109(60.5)
    
 
  
  

    
No
    
33(55)a
    
21(35)b
    
17(28.3)c
    
71(39.5)
    
 
  
  

    
a,b,c means in the    row with different letters are significantly different; ns = not significant at P>0.05, * =    significant at P<0.05, ***    = significant at P<0.001, N=number of households and Figures in the    table represent frequency and percentage, respectively, LS = level of    significance. 
  

Table 5: Disease and medication practice.

No significant differences (P>0.05) among the chicken breed rearing strata regarding economically important diseases that cause the economic loss such as Newcastle, Gumboroo, Coccidiosis and parasitic diseases (Table 5). Similarly, economically important diseases such as Newcastle, coccidiosis, gumboro, fowl typhoid, infectious bronchitis and external parasites impacted the economy of chicken owners (Meseret, 2010).

There were significant differences (P<0.01) among the three chicken breed rearing strata regarding the action of farmers during disease outbreak (Table 5). The numbers of households that do not take any disease curing action were highest in local breed rearing strata; whereas, the numbers of respondent that treat with modern medicine were highest in exotic breed rearing strata. This difference might be due to the farmer's attention difference between the two breeds which is attributed due to their productive potential difference. Lemon, garlic, onion, hot pepper, and cassava leaf are local used traditional medicines to treat sick chickens.

The limited/no numbers of animal health clinics, limited numbers of animal health workers, far-ness of veterinary clinics, absence of veterinary drugs and vaccines were the main obstacles that hinder modern ways of medications in both districts. Similarly, about 59.6, 19.2 and 19.1% of respondents did nothing, traditional medicine and human-related medicine, respectively, (Matiwos et al., 2015) and about 74.4, 13 and 10% of respondents treated by veterinarian pharmacy, private pharmacy and traditional drug, respectively, (Alemayehu, 2017).

Due to the absence of live vaccines, vaccination schedule, awareness, and strong extension the vaccination program was not successful regarding the poultry sector. As respondents and development agents stated, there was frequent outbreak of disease in March to May and September to October due to the appearance of new weeds in the first rain and shifting up of season from rainy to dry period, respectively.

There were significant differences (P<0.05) among the three chicken breed rearing strata regarding vaccination provider (Table 5). About 83.72% of farmers get vaccination through extension and remaining by research center, NGO or self. Similarly, about 95.6 and 78.8% of farmers were not vaccinated and have no any experience of getting chicken to vaccination center, respectively, (Matiwos et al., 2015); and (Desalew et al., 2013).

As respondents stated, due to the far-ness of veterinary drug purchasing centers and absence of animal health clinics, 39.5% of respondents have no access for veterinary drug services (Table 5). Farmers with accessibility of veterinary drug mentioned that sometimes chicken keepers purchase drug from animal health experts, mix with water and allow to drink/sometimes forcefully. About 5, 22.2 and 12.4% of farmers in Bure, Fogera, and Dale districts, respectively, used veterinary drugs to treat sick chickens (Fisseha et al., 2010).

Chicken House and Housing access

There were significant differences (P<0.001) among the chicken breed rearing strata regarding the house access (Table 6). The numbers of respondents that provided housing access were highest in exotic breed rearing strata, due to the farmer’s awareness on exotic breed’s shelter requirement. As 11.7% of respondents stated, allowing chickens outside trees with perch decrease the disease exposure of chickens, simply allowing the free air movement and easy waste removal.

There was significant difference (P<0.001) among the three chicken breed rearing strata in kinds of chicken house. The numbers of respondents that use separate poultry house were highest in exotic breed rearing strata, because presence of separate poultry house is the first criteria while distributing exotic breeds. The numbers of respondents that used kitchen as poultry house were highest in local breed rearing strata, because rearing in kitchen and sharing with a human was the predominant and known housing access under smallholder local chicken producers. Due to fear of night attacking predators some chicken keepers in all strata confined in basket and make free during day time for scavenging. Similarly, about 96.7% of producers kept in separate house (Ermias, 2015) and about 23.3% of producers used separate poultry houses (Salo et al., 2016). About 25% of respondents in central Oromia region constructed poultry house based on recommended extension package (Ermias, 2015).

There was significant difference (P<0.05) among chicken breed rearing strata in chicken house cleaning frequency (Table 6). The highest and similar cleaning frequency was recorded in exotic and mixed breed rearing strata. As respondents stated chicken keepers add wood ash to dry and remove bad odor from chicken house after removing the solid part of waste. The house cleaning frequency may be daily for the farmers who use kitchen and basket as a night shelter, because they use the place for another purpose during the day time. Similarly, about 17.2, 31.8, 30.1, 11.1 and 9.8% of farmers cleaned daily, once a week, once a month, once a year and totally not practiced cleaning, respectively, (Emebet, 2015).

Chicken and Egg Marketing

No significant differences (P>0.05) among the three breed rearing strata regarding the factors that determine the market prices (Table 7). As respondents mentioned the yolk quality of egg (spoiled or normal) is checked by different ways such as seeing by different light sources, inserting in a container with water, and hearing the sound of egg simply by shaking. As respondents stated, Although there was no religious sacrificing trend currently, the market price of live birds with similar body weight but different feather colors (black and red) are not similar in market price because traditionally black chickens were sacrificed for different believes and bad idols. Similarly, single and double comb-type chickens are not similar in market price, but the basic reason behind variation due to the comb type is not known. Similarly, the market price of live chicken is highly related to feather color, comb type, body weight, sex, site of market, and health status of the chicken (Alemayehu, 2017).

There was significant difference (P<0.01) among three chicken breed rearing strata regarding variation of the market price of live bird and egg at different places (Table 7). The numbers of merchants, consumers, chicken keepers, season and times of the year, presence of infrastructures such as market, road, and governmental offices are the main factors that bring variation of price of live bird and egg.

There was significant difference (P<0.01) among chicken breed rearing strata regarding live chicken and egg selling responsibility (Table 7). The responsibility of chicken and egg selling performed by women was highest in local breed rearing strata, antagonistically; the responsibility of chicken and egg selling performed by husbands was highest in exotic breed rearing strata. This is because works with minimum income were threatened and left to women which is due to the productivity differences between the breeds (egg and body weight), this in turn, decreases the intervention of husband and other family members in local breed rearing households and vice versa. Similarly, women shoulder most of the responsibility in chicken and chicken product marketing (Fisseha et al., 2010).

There was significant difference (P<0.05) among the three breed rearing strata regarding clients of live chicken and egg marketing (Table 7). The numbers of respondents that sale live chicken and egg to village collectors were highest in local breed rearing strata, and differently, the numbers of respondents that sale live chicken and egg to market collectors were highest in exotic breed rearing strata. This difference might be due to in exotic breed production the production aim seams a little business oriented and producers sale at weekly market to get full price including the local collectors get through local market channel.

Generally, there was no formal market channel, the process of transporting chicken and egg was too traditional, market price depends on numbers of local merchants and there was price argumentation between the sellers and merchants without any market information. Similarly, there was no formal poultry and poultry product marketing channel (directly selling to consumers and local traders (Ermias, 2015) and about 34.4% in Ada"a and 50% in Lume district were selling eggs and chicken to local shopkeepers (Desalew, 2012).

Extension Access

No significant differences (P>0.05) among the three chicken breed rearing strata regarding the extension access and half of households have no extension access, might be due to far-ness of extension service center and service is not regarding poultry sector (Table 8).

There was significant difference (P<0.01) among the chicken breed rearing strata regarding the forms of extension service (Table 8). The numbers of respondent that get extension service in the form of advice were highest in local breed rearing strata, due to less alertness of local breed keepers for other forms of extension rather than advice. The numbers of respondents that get extension service in the form of provision of improved breeds were highest in exotic breed rearing strata, because exotic breed keepers use extension as the primary source of rearing and breeding stock. Similarly, the numbers of respondents that get all forms of extension services were highest in exotic breed rearing strata; because improved breed keepers are more conscious for extension approach than others. Although the extension access is the major determining factor for productivity and adoption of smallholder chicken production, there was a week and conditional extension services. As chicken keepers stated, in-adequate extension access in the districts especially veterinary drugs and vaccines retarded farmers from technology adoption. This is because the poultry sector was masked by other agricultural extension works such as crop and livestock production, and less attention was given for the poultry sector except for dissemination (exotic breeds). The extension service in the study districts was only focused on disseminating improved breeds, there was no regular follow up or monitoring and dissemination of improved breed was not based on scientific research output about the complementarity of breed with environment. Due to this and other limiting factors, the farmers participated in poultry sector were not profited, and being losing numbers of chickens when the disease outbreak occurs. Similarly, lack of extension services was the main constraint that hinders the development of poultry industry in developing countries (Ovwigho et al., 2009), extension linkage between research output, ministry of livestock and farmers were extremely weak (Mekonnen, 2007) and about 58.8 and 46.6% of respondents in Ada’a and Lume districts have no extension services, respectively, (Desalew, 2012).

Constraints of the Future Expansion of Chickens

Although there was no significant difference (P>0.05) among the three chicken breed rearing strata (Table 9), the important constraints and their burdens are discussed as follows.

Disease in one hand and absence of veterinary drugs and vaccine in another hand were the first and most hindering factors of chicken production in study districts (Table 9), due to the chickens pre-access to scavenge freely. The Disease outbreak due to absence of scheduled vaccination caused flock loss and culling, this in turn retarding the future expansion of chicken production especially more sensitive exotic breeds. Similarly, disease problem was the major health constraint that hinders the expansion of village chicken production (Addisu et al., 2013).

The second hindering factor of the future expansion of chicken production was in-availability of feed and competing with human for grain feeds. Due to the high cost of grain feeds, smallholder chicken keepers are suffering to purchase, this in turn hindering those planning to rear more consuming exotic breeds. Similarly, poultry industry in developing countries was facing some challenges due to increase in the cost of feed (Abbas, 2013) and the productivity of poultry sector in tropics limited by the scarcity and high prices of feed (Aberra et al., 2011).

The 3^rd constraint that hinders the future expansion of chicken production was the absence of separate poultry house. Due to awareness limitation and capital problem majority of farmers use kitchen, basket and trees around the garden as a night shelter, this in turn exposed chickens to wild predatory animals and retarding the future expansion of chicken production. Similarly, due to the absence of strong extension service farmers did not make the right kind of shelter (Ermias, 2015) and chickens are confined within family dwelling during night and released for scavenging at day time that cause mortality (disease or predators) (Meseret, 2010).

The 4^th constraint that affects the future expansion of poultry production was absence of strong extension service, which acts as a technology disseminator between the research outputs and end users. The disseminated exotic breeds were not productive due to in-complementarity of genotype with environment, attributed due to weak linkage between research and extension works. As respondents explained, conditional extension service in the study districts was promising farmers not to expand chicken production more. Similarly, there was no organized linkage between technology participants and agricultural offices (Ermias, 2015) and the extension linkage between research output, ministry of livestock and farmers were extremely weak (Mekonnen, 2007).

The 5^th factor that hinders the future expansion of chicken production was the conflict of neighborhoods due to damage of newly emerging crops while searching for feed and worms. As the producers explained chickens damage the gardens of neighbors while scavenging and due to which chickens confined at home without enough feed and this in turn retarding the future expansion of chicken production by increasing the disease exposure. The 6^th and 7^th factors that hinder the future expansion of chicken production were presence of predator and thief. Due to the absence of intensive production practice chickens are exposed to predatory wild animals especially, exotic breeds due to exotic breed’s lower ability to flight and less intelligence to refuse catching. Similarly, birds called “culullee” (34%), cats/dogs (16.3%) and wild animals (15%) were the major causes of chicken mortality (Shishay, 2016).

The 8^th factor that retards the future expansion of poultry production in the study districts was the absence of capital to fulfill inputs such as feed, breed, house constructing materials. There was hesitation to rear exotic breeds due to the absence of capital in one hand and absence of opportunity for accesses of credit services on another hand. Similarly, the major constraint to the adoption of recommended technology was lack of capital (Heaven light, 2013), and the access to capital and credit services was a severe constraint to the utilization of local chicken production technology (Olaniyi et al., 2008).

Conclusion

The most dominating form of production practice was seasonal/conditional supplementation for local and mixed breed keepers, whereas, regular supplementation for exotic breed keepers. As farmers change less producing local breeds by high producing exotic ones, the management intervention of farmers and selling responsibility change among the family members, due to the income level which is attributed by the productivity difference of breeds. Exotic breed rearing households have better awareness on chicken husbandry practices such as supplementary feed provision, separate house provision, disease curing action, and extension approach than the mixed and local breed rearing households might be attributed due to lower productivity. There was no formal market channel, the process of transporting chicken and egg was traditional, market price depends on the numbers of merchants and there was price argumentation between the producers and merchants. There was weak extension service that only focused on disseminating improved breeds and dissemination of improved breed was not based on scientific research output about the complementarity of breed with environment. Finally, due to weak extension services and other hindering factors farmers participated in poultry sector were losing a number of chickens and are hesitating to rear chicken as an income-generating business. Therefore, there should be a planned vaccination and follow up schedule, scientific and health trial research on traditionally used medication routines, the chicken and egg marketing chain should be improved and equal attention should be given to poultry sector with other agricultural sectors at lower levels.

Author Statements

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Southern Agricultural Research Institute for funding the research and Haramaya University for monitoring and evaluating the thesis work. All Animal and Range Sciences of Haramaya University staff members are acknowledged for their unreserved effort during thesis work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

1. Mengesha M, Tamir B, Dessie T. Village chicken constraints and traditional management practices in Jamma District, South Wollo, Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 2011; 23: 30-37.
2. Teshome F. Indigenous chicken farmers’ traits preferences, breeding objectives and marketing systems in Seka Chekorsa and Kersa Districts of Jimma Zone, Southwest Ethiopia (Doctoral dissertation, Jimma University). 2018.
3. Dana N, Dessie T, Van der Waaij LH, van Arendonk JA. Morphological features of indigenous chicken populations of Ethiopia. Animal Genetic Resources / Resources génétiques animals /Recursos genéticos animales. 2010; 46: 11-23.
4. Aila FO, Oima D, Ochieng I, Odera O. Biosecurity factors informing consumer preferences for indigenous chicken: a literature review. 2011.
5. Guteta A. Characterization of scavenging and intensive poultry production and marketing system at Lume woreda, East Shoa zone, Ethiopia (Doctoral dissertation, Haramaya University). 2017.
6. Tekletsadik E. Characterization of Husbandry Practices, Adoption and Impact of Village Poultry Technology Packages in the Central Oromia Region, Ethiopia (Doctoral dissertation, Addis Abeba University). 2015.
7. Addisu H, Hailu M, Zewdu W. Indigenous chicken production system and breeding practice in North Wollo, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Poultry, Fisheries & Wildlife Sciences. 2013.
8. Markos S, Belay B, Dessie T. Village chicken breeding practices, objectives and farmers’ trait preferences in western zone of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. E3 Journal of Agricultural Research Development. 2016; 6: 1-11.
9. South Omo zone statistical abstract; 2020. South Omo Zone statistical abstract of 2020. Jinka, Ethiopia.
10. SPSS Inc. Released 2007. SPSS for Windows, Version 16.0. Chicago, IL: SPSS Inc.
11. Ebsa Y. Evaluation of Chicken Production Systems and Effects of Homemade Ration on Growth and Carcass Characteristics of Cobb500 Broiler Chicken in Bishoftu, Ethiopia (Doctoral dissertation, Addis Abeba University). 2019.
12. Ochieng J, Owuor G, Bebe BO, Ochieng DO. Effect of management interventions on productive performance of indigenous chicken in Western Kenya. Livestock research for rural development. 2011; 23: 2011.
13. Moreda E. Phenotyipc and Genetic Characterization of Indgenous Chicken in Southwest Showa and Gurage Zones of Ethiopia (Doctoral dissertation, Addis Ababa University). 2015.
14. Woku Z, Melesse A, Yosef T, Giorgis. Assessment of village chicken production system and the performance of local chicken populations in west Amhara region of Ethiopia. Journal of Animal Production Advances. 2012; 2: 199-207.
15. Arega Kidie HABTIE. Characterization of Chicken Production System and On-Farm Evaluation of Introduced Exotic Chicken Breeds in Gondar Zuria and Kalu Districts of Amhara Region, Ethiopia (Doctoral Dissertation, Haramaya University). 2019.
16. Fitsum M. Phenotypic characterization of local chicken ecotypes in the central zone of Tigray in Northern Ethiopia (Doctoral dissertation, Jimma University). 2015.
17. Tadesse D, Singh H, Esatu AMW, Dessie T. Study on productive performances and egg quality traits of exotic chickens under village production system in East Shewa, Ethiopia. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 2013; 8: 1123-1128.
18. Molla M. Characterization of village chicken production and marketing system in Gomma Wereda, Jimma Zone, Ethiopia (Doctoral dissertation, Jimma University). 2010.
19. Habte M, Debele S, Admassu B, Yinnessu A. Village chicken production performances assess-ment under scavenging management system in Amaro district, SNNPRS of Ethiopia. Wudpecker J Agric Res. 2015; 4: 21-34.
20. Moges F, Mellesse A, Dessie T. 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. 2010; 5: 1739-1748.
21. Salo S, Tadesse G, Hilemeskel D. Village chicken production system and constraints in Lemo District, Hadiya Zone, Ethiopia. Poultry, Fisheries & Wildlife Sciences. 2016; 4.
22. Tadesse DT. Management practices, productive performances and egg quality traits of exotic chickens under village production system in east Shewa, Ethiopia (Doctoral dissertation, Addis Ababa University). 2012.
23. Ovwigho BO, Bratte L, Isikwenu JO. Chicken management systems and egg production in Delta State Nigeria. International Journal of Poultry Science. 2009; 8: 21-24.
24. Gebre-Egziabher MM. Characterization of smallholder poultry production and marketing system of Dale, Wonsho and Loka Abaya Weredas of southern Ethiopia (Doctoral dissertation, Hawassa University). 2007.
25. Abbas TE. The use of Moringa oleifera in poultry diets. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences. 2013; 37: 492-496.
26. Melesse A, Tiruneh W, Negesse T. Effects of feeding Moringa stenopetala leaf meal on nutrient intake and growth performance of Rhode Island Red chicks under tropical climate. Tropical and subtropical agroecosystems. 2011; 14: 485-492.
27. Lyimo HE. Impact of adoption of improved local chicken production methods in Tanzania: case study of UMADEP and ILRP SUA projects (Doctoral dissertation, Sokoine University of Agriculture). 2013.
28. Olaniyi OA, Adesiyan IO, Ayoade RA. Constraints to utilization of poultry production technology among farmers in Oyo State, Nigeria. Journal of Human Ecology. 2008; 24: 305-309.