Hunde Weyuma, Harpal Singh and Mulisa Megersa
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, and 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 their birds. Major source of chicks was natural hatching (46.87%). Overall mean performance of the indigenous chicken for age at first lay, number of eggs laid/hen/clutch, numbers of clutches/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 chicken was observed 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.
PDFShare this article
Veterinary Science & Technology received 4472 citations as per Google Scholar report