




































 

 

 
64 

† Corresponding author 
© 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 
VILLAGE CHICKEN PRODUCTION AND MARKETING IN WEST GOJJAM ZONE, 
ETHIOPIA 

 

Habtemariam Assefa1† --- Aklilu Bogale2 --- Berhanu Gebremedhin3 --- Zeleke Mekuriaw4 --- Teshome 

Derso5 ---  Yigzaw Dessalegn6 --- Azage Tegegne7 --- Dirk Hoekstra8 
1,4,6International Livestock Research Institute, LIVES Project, Bahir Dar, Ethiopia  
2,3,7,8International Livestock Research Institute, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 
5International Livestock Research Institute, West Gojjam, Ethiopia 

 

ABSTRACT 

Chicken production in West Gojjam zone was characterized by using indigenous chicken with low input-output level. Despite 

its diverse socio economic role for smallholder farmers, production and productivity of village chicken was very low. As the 

result, chicken producers were not benefited from the sector. Therefore, this study was conducted with the aim of characterizing 

chicken rearing practice, flock dynamics and determining the off-take rate of village chicken production system. It was conducted 

in West Gojjam Zone of Ethiopia. Multi-stage sampling technique was used to select representative respondents. A total of 500 

farmers were interviewed. In the study area, the average numbers of local and exotic chickens kept by smallholder producers 

were 8.44+0.42 and 0.49+0.10chicken, respectively with the overall mean 8.93+0.42chicken. The flock structure was highly 

dominated by young chicks (3.82+0.28) and hen (2.47+0.09). The average chicken migrated into the flock per household per 

annum was 10.32+ 0.80 birds, whereas the outflow from the flock was 16.62+0.85birds. The number of chicken was higher at 

the middle of the year than the beginning and end of the year. On average, 2.9+0.12 layer chickens were kept per household. 

From which, in average 307.2+ 20.2 eggs were produced from local and improved breed in a year. Marketing in the district 

and PA were important marketing places for egg and live birds with the off-take rate of 34.94%. To improve chicken 

production in the study area, adaptive improved chicken breed should be introduced. Strategic vaccination, semi scavenging 

practices should be introduced and promoted in order to reduce chicken mortality. Capacity building through training and 

intensive follow up should also be made in order to enhance the level of awareness of smallholders on improved small scale 

poultry keeping practices. 

Keywords: Flock dynamics, Flock structure, Chicken production, Off-Take rate, Marketing place, Indigenous breed, Exotic breed. 

 

Received: 28 July 2016/ Revised: 8 November 2016/ Accepted: 16 November 2016/ Published: 21 November 2016 

 

Contribution/ Originality 

This research contributes a lot in filling village chicken production knowledge gap in West Gojjam Zone. It 

reveals that how village chickens are reared, the nature of flock dynamics, chicken mortality rate and its cause, how 

to calculate off-take rate in chicken production, egg production and its purpose. Finally, it also gives insight the 

marketing place of live chicken and egg.     

 

1. INTRODUCTION 

Poultry production in Ethiopia is characterized by use of predominantly indigenous ecotypes with low input-

output levels. It is widely practiced in many part of the country [1]. The production is mainly practiced under a 

Current Research in Agricultural Sciences 
2016 Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 64-73 
ISSN(e): 2312-6418 
ISSN(p): 2313-3716 
DOI: 10.18488/journal.68/2016.3.4/68.4.64.73 
© 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

 
 
 
 
 

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.18488/journal.68/2016.3.4/68.4.64.73


Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 3(4): 64-73 

 

 
65 

© 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

traditional family-based management system [2] with irregular supplies of feed and water, poor healthcare and 

housing system [3]. Unlike other livestock farming, majority of village chicken (about 92.4%) are owned by females 

and childrenfamily members [4] since they require low capital, little supplied feed and the readily available 

household labor [5].  

Village chicken production has diverse socioeconomic roles [1]. Majority of chicken keepers use chicken for 

sale to cover household expenditure (44%), home consumption (24%), cultural and religious  ceremonies (22%) and 

means of saving (10%) in the rural family [4]. Village chicken production is also used as source of high quality 

protein food to smallholder farming families [4]. About 78,000metric tons of egg and 72,300 metric tons of meat 

are obtained from chicken production in the country more than 90% of which comes from indigenous chickens [2].  

Village chicken production is widely practiced and economically important sector in Amhara region. In the 

region, the total poultry population is estimated at 14,610770 chickens [6]. North Gondar and West Gojjam zones 

are the largest poultry producer zones of the region and they account for 24.8% and 15.5% of the region’s poultry 

population, respectively (ibid). Almost every farmer rears chicken in varying number of flock size for the purpose of 

producing egg and meat for household consumption, income generation, hatching and rearing of chicks for 

replacement of flock [1]. According to Fisseha, et al. [7] the most dominant (82.9–95.6%) chicken  production 

system in Bure and Fogera districts was scavenging production system using indigenous chicken ecotypes (95–

96.8%) with only seasonal feed supplementation. Researches in different years and places in the region revealed that 

the average flock size per household varies from year to year and place to place. For example: the total chicken flock 

size per household in East Gojjam zone was less than 18 chickens [1] in Bure district the size was 13 chickens [7] 

and in North Gondar16 chickens [8]. All groups of chicken were also kept together without age separation (ibid). 

This information implies that information in village chicken production, use pattern and marketing practices of the 

region particularly in West Gojjam zone was very scarce. Although some studies were conducted on poultry 

production systems in West Gojjam zone, they were not comprehensive enough and did not relate to chicken 

production and flock dynamics in village chicken production system. Some of the studies were also location specific. 

Therefore, understanding the prevailing village chicken structure and the nature of flock dynamic is essential to 

develop location specific development strategy and to introduce technological options for particular problem and 

location. Consequently, this study was initiated to generate relevant information about village chicken production 

and marketing practices and to suggest improvement options.  

 

1.1. Objectives of the study  

 To characterize village chicken production practice in the study area 

 To analyze chicken flock dynamics 

 To determine the off-take rate of village chicken system  

 To analyze chicken and egg use pattern and their marketing places   

 

2. RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 

2.1. Description of the Study Area  

The study was conducted in West Gojjam zone, North West of Ethiopia. West Gojjam zone is one of the 10 

zones in Amhara region and lies between 36o 30’ to 37o 5’ Longitudes East and 10016’ to 11054’ Latitudes North. 

The zone encompasses nine districts. For this study, Bahir Dar Zuriya, Mecha, Yilmana-Densa, North Achefer, Gonji-

Kolela, Quarit, and South Achefer districts were included in the survey. West Gojjam zone has a total of 2.63 million 

human populations. Of these 1.32 million are male and 1.31 million are female. The total land area of the zone is 

13,280 km2. Its elevation varies from 1500 to 3500 m.a.s.l. Most of the districts (75%) in the zone have ambient 

temperature ranging from15–200C and the remaining (17%) have 20–270C [9]. 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 3(4): 64-73 

 

 
66 

© 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

2.2. Sampling Techniques, Data Collection and Statistical Analysis  

Multistage sampling procedure was used to select representative respondents for this study. From the study 

zone, seven districts were selected purposively based on LIVES’s project districts and potentially affected districts. 

The study districts were classified broadly into three agro-ecologies such as lowland, midland and highland. The 

altitudinal range for the study area is from1648to 3083m.a.s.l.From these districts, 58 Peasant associations (PAs) 

were selected randomly across the three agro-ecologies. Proportional sampling technique was used to determine the 

sampling size of each PA. Once the sampling size of each PAs determined, the households were selected randomly 

from sampling framework using Research Randomizer software with the aid of internet. Therefore, a total of 500 

poultry keepers were participated for this interview. Of which, 17.5% of them were women poultry producers. 

Survey was conducted in 2014 and referring to the 2012/2013 production season. 

Descriptive statistics was used to analyze and present the data. To characterize chicken flock structure at the 

household level, the average flock size and their composition such as cocks, hens, pullet, and chicken were analyzed. 

Regarding flock dynamics, it was analyzed using the number of incoming and outgoing chickens of the 

household in a defined year by considering number of hatched, purchased and gift from others as inflow chickens; 

and slaughtered, dead, given to others, lost due to theft and sold were considered as outflow chickens. Besides, the 

trend in chicken flock size at different seasons of the year was also analyzed to see fluctuations in flock size in the 

year. To determine the off-take rate of village chicken production system, Net Commercial off-take rate was 

analyzed to determine the contribution of village chicken production system in supplying live birds to the market. It 

was given as the number of chicken sales minus purchases made by the households as a percentage of the average 

stock. According to Asfaw and Mohammad [10] net-commercial off-take rate was calculated as below. 

Net commercial off-take rate = (
                

                             
)*100 

The statistical tools such as percentages, frequencies, mean and standard deviations, standard error of mean 

were used to describe and present the data. T-test was also used to test the significance of variations across 

particular parameters for continuous variables.  

 

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION  

3.1. Chicken Production Characteristic 

3.1.1. Breed Types  

As illustrated in table 1, in West Gojjam zone, on average 8.93+0.42 chickens were kept per household.  Of 

which, 8.44+0.42 were indigenous and 0.49+ 0.10 were improved. The mean variation between indigenous and 

improved chicken breeds was significant (P<0.01). The overall mean value of the current study is in line with 

Nebiyu, et al. [11] who reported that the overall mean chicken per household was 8.5+ 0.28. However, mean value 

of this study was higher than values reported by Meseret, et al. [12] (6.23+4.4) and lower than that of Fisseha, et 

al. [13] in North West of Amhara region (13.7+1.1), Samson and Endalew [4] in mid rift valley (12.76) and 

Mekonnen [14] in Southern Ethiopia (9.22+0.35 ). The mean value for local chicken of this study was considerably 

lower than that of Melese and Melkamu [1] in East Gojjam (12.66±5.99) and Samson and Endalew [4] in mid rift 

valley of Ethiopia (12 chickens). This result implies that village chicken production system in West Gojjam zone has 

been relying mainly on indigenous breed and perhaps it could result in less egg and poultry meat production in the 

household.  

 

 

 

 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 3(4): 64-73 

 

 
67 

© 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Table-1. The average flock size of indigenous and improved chicken 

Breed type  Mean  Std. error  t-value Sig. value 

Local  8.44 0.42 16.088 0.00 

Exotic   0.49 0.10 
Overall  8.93 0.42 

                                   Source: 2014 cross-sectional survey  

 

3.2. Flock Size and Structure 

As showed in table 2, chicks (42.78%) and hens (27.66%) were the dominant chicken types in the flock structure 

of village chicken production system in the study area. The proportions of pullet and cock in the flock structure 

were 18.81% and 10.75%, respectively. In the flock composition, the average numbers of young chick, hen, pullet 

and cock per household were 3.82+0.42 and 2.47+0.09, 1.68+0.16 and 0.96+0.06, respectively. This young chicken 

dominant flock structure was in line with the study of Tadelle, et al. [3] in Ethiopia, Addis and Malede [8] in 

North Gondar, Nebiyu, et al. [11] in Halaba district and Wondu, et al. [15] in urban poultry production in 

Southern part of Ethiopia. Overall mean value of young chicks of the current study agreed with the reports of 

Nebiyu et al., (3.2+ 0.23 chicks). However, this result is not in line with Addis and Malede [8] and Wondu, et al. 

[15] who reported the average numbers of young chicks to be 9.07+ 0.28 and 4.91+ 0.43, respectively.  

 

Table-2. Flock size and composition per household 

Chicken groups  Mean Std. error Composition % 

Cock  0.96 0.06 10.75% 

Hen  2.47 0.09 27.66% 

Pullet  1.68 0.16 18.81% 

Chick  3.82 0.28 42.78% 

Total  8.93 0.42 100% 

                             Source: 2014 cross-sectional survey 

 

3.3. Flock Dynamics  

3.3.1. In-Flow and Out-Flow of Chickens  

In any village chicken production system, chickens could be migrated into the flock through hatching, 

purchasing and gift from others. At the same time, chicken could also be migrated out from the flock through 

slaughtering, death, gift, theft and sale. As shown in table 3, in the study area, the average number of chicken 

migrated into the flock per household per annum was 10.32+ 0.80, whereas out-flow from the flock was 16.62+ 0.85 

chickens. This study disagreed with the study of Nebiyu, et al. [11] in Halaba district who reported that the 

average numbers of chicken migrated into the flock and migrated out from the flock was 28.3+0.28 and 22.9+0.29, 

respectively. From the total in-flow of chickens into the flock, on average 9.88+0.80 chickens were from hatching 

and 0.44+0.05chickens were from purchasing, whereas the contribution of gift from others was very negligible. 

Regarding out-flow of chicken from the flock, chicken death has taken the highest share. On average, 

10.49+0.62 and 2.32+ 0.14 chickens migrated out from the flock due to death and slaughtering for household 

consumption, respectively. The mean values of out-flowing of chickens from the flock due to theft and gift to others 

were 0.13+0.03 and 0.12+0.03chickens, respectively. This implies that majority of chickens that migrated into the 

flock came from hatching, whereas death was the major out-flow of chickens from the flock. Similar result has been 

reported by Nebiyu, et al. [11] that the major means of in-flow and out-flow of chickens from the flock were 

hatching (27.0+0.28) and death (15.5+0.22), respectively, though their mean values were much higher than the 

results of the current study. Similarly, Tadelle, et al. [3] reported that higher mean values of out-flow due to selling 

(5.5+0.18) and slaughtering (3.1+0.09) than the mean values of current study. 

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 3(4): 64-73 

 

 
68 

© 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Table-3. In-flow and out-flow chickens per household Flock dynamics 

Variables Mean SE (mean) 

Migration to the flock 10.32 0.80 

Hatching  9.88 0.80 
Purchasing   0.44 0.05 
Obtaining as gift 0.007 0.004 

Migration out from the flock 16.62 0.85 
Slaughtering  2.32 0.14 

Death 10.49 0.62 
Gift to others 0.12 0.03 
Theft  0.13 0.03 
Sale 3.56 0.37 

                              Source: 2014 cross-sectional survey 

 

3.4. Trends of Chicken Numbers across the Year  

As shown in graph 1, the average number of chickens kept by the household could vary in different seasons of 

the year. The average number of chickens in dry season was higher than that of the beginning and end of the year 

which are the rainy season of the year in the study area. This is due to adequate feed availability, less disease and 

predator prevalence in the middle of the year, whereas in the two ends of the year, all the aforementioned problems 

become serious for chicken production due to higher rainfall, muddy scavenging areas, dense vegetation to hide 

predator and lower temperature for young birds. As the result, loss of chickens in the household became higher at 

the beginning and the end of the year.  

In the beginning and the middle of the year, the average number of cock, hen and pullet had similar value 

which ranged from one to four chickens, whereas the mean value of chicks in the middle of the year (15.76) was 

higher than the average number at the beginning (5.85) and end (1.79) of the year. Finally, at the end of the year the 

average numbers of all types of chicken dropped into just about between one and two.  In all three seasons, 

fluctuation of the average number of cock, hen and pullet was small throughout the year, whereas the mean 

difference of chicks was highly fluctuating across the seasons of the year. In the beginning, middle and end of the 

year, the overall mean number of chicken kept per household were 12.07, 22.4 and 5.79, respectively. 

 

 
Graph-1. Trend of average number of chickens per household across the year of 2012/13 (September-August) 

Comparatively, the average number of chickens at the beginning of the year was higher than that of the end of the year. This implies that the numbers of chickens 
declined and its contribution for the next year chicken flock building becomes less. At the same time, it is signal to take some corrective measures to reverse the 
trend. 

 

3.5. Chicken Mortality  

3.5.1. Mortality Rate  

With various reasons the number of chicken in the flock can be reduced. As shown in table 4, the major cause of 

out-flows of chicken from the flock was death (10.49+.62). From which, 80.65 % of the death was attributed to 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 3(4): 64-73 

 

 
69 

© 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

young chicks. On average, 8.46+0.55 young chicks have been died per household in year. However, the mortality 

rate of the other chicken class in the study area was relatively lower than younger chicks – pullet (8.87%), hen 

(7.53%) and cock (2.96%). The average death numbers of pullet, hen and cock per household per year were 

0.93+0.16, 0.79+0.07 and 0.31+0.05, respectively. This finding implies that the mortality rate of chicks was higher 

as compared to other chicken categories. It has a great negative effect on the building of chicken flock and on 

continuity of chicken rearing in village chicken production system. 

 
Table-4. Death across chicken types 

Chicken class   Mean  SE (mean) Percentage  

Cock  0.31 0.05 2.96% 
Hen  0.79 0.07 7.53% 
Pullet  0.93 0.16 8.87% 

Chick  8.46 0.55 80.65% 
Overall  10.49 0.62 100.00% 

 

                         Source: 2014 cross-sectional survey 

 

3.6. Cause of Mortality 

Chicken can be died with various reasons in small hold chicken production system. As table 5 shows, disease 

(76.5%) was the major cause chicken death in the study area and followed by injury/ accidents (9.4%). It was not 

similar to of Nebiyu, et al. [11] report in Southern part of Ethiopia. According to him, predator (51.1%) was the 

major cause of chicken loss and followed by diseases (45%). However, similar result reported by Wondu, et al. [15] 

that the major cause of chicken losses in North Gonder was disease (47%) though its percentage value was smaller 

than the current study.  The percentages of predator and poisoning in killing chicken in village chicken production 

system of the study area were 6.9% and 4.9%, respectively. Very few chickens were died due to getting old (0.2%) 

and other means (2.1%). 

 

Table-5. Frequency distribution of causes of poultry death 

Cause of death Frequency  Percentage  

Old age /natural death 1 0.2% 

Disease 401 76.5% 
Injury/accidents 49 9.4% 
Poisoning (acaricide, snake bite) 26 4.9% 
Predator 36 6.9% 
Other causes  11 2.1% 

  Source: 2014 cross-sectional survey 

 

3.7. Egg Production and Utilization  

3.7.1. Egg Production  

As table 6 shows, in West Gojjam zone, on average 2.9+ 0.12 egg layer chickens were kept per household. Of 

which, 2.6+0.11 were local hen and 0.3+ 0.12 were improved hen. Local hen in the study area has given, on average, 

14.8+ 0.23 eggs per a single egg production cycle. There was similar result reported by Nebiyu, et al. [11] in 

Southern Ethiopia (13.3 eggs/hen/ clutch (95% CI = 12.81 – 13.85)). However, the result of the current study was 

lower than the result of Melese and Melkamu [1] in East Gojjam zone (17.83±3.82). From a single improved hen in 

study area, on average 107.2+19.7 eggs were obtained per one production year. The average number of brooding 

cycle of local hen was 5.2+0.23. However, improved hens in the study area did not have any brooding behavior but 

they might stay long time without give any egg. With these numbers of egg layer chicken and productivity 

characters, on average 307.2+ 20.2 eggs were produced per household per a year from both local (2001.1+ 10.0) and 

improved (307.3+ 20.2) hens.   

 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 3(4): 64-73 

 

 
70 

© 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Table-6. Egg production and productivity 

Breed  Average number 
of layers  

Average number of 
eggs per cycle per 
layer 

Average number of 
brooding cycle per 
year per layer 

Average  egg 
production per year 
per household 

Mean  SE(mean) Mean  SE(mean) Mean  SE(mean) Mean  SE(mean) 

Local  2.6 0.11 14.8 0.23 5.2 0.02 200.1 10.0 
Improved  0.3 0.06 107.2 19.7 0 107.2 19.7 

Over all  2.9 0.12    307.3 20.2 

Source: 2014 cross-sectional survey 

 

3.8. Egg Use Pattern  

As indicated in the graph 2, chicken producers have obtained egg from both local and improved chicken breeds. 

From the total local egg production, 34.8% of the egg was used for hatching, 30.3% was for selling to earn money 

and 27.9% was used for household consumption. Very small proportion of egg has spoiled (6.7%) and was given to 

others (0.3%). Unlike local egg, majority of exotic egg was sold (55.9%) and household consumption (28.9%). Only 

11.6% of egg production was used for reproduction purpose. The rest 2.9% and 0.63% of egg was spoiled and given 

to others. This finding clearly shows that both local and exotic egg was not used for the same purposes. Local egg 

was mainly used for reproduction purpose, whereas exotic one was used for income generation.  

 

 
Graph-2. Egg use pattern 

Source: 2014 cross-sectional survey 

 

3.9. Chicken and Egg Marketing  

3.9.1. Chicken Off-Take Rate 

The main reason for calculating the off-take rate was to estimate the size of live animal supply to the market. It 

is usually defined as sale or slaughter at the end or during a production cycle as a percentage of the initial stock 

[16]. Therefore, off-take rate of the village chickens production system in West Gojjam zone is calculated as below. 

Net commercial off-take rate = (
          

               
)*100= 34.94%  

Chicken off-take rate of village chicken production in the study area was 34.94%. This positive value implies 

that the number of chicken sold exceeded the numbers of chicken purchased by poultry keepers in the study area. It 

clearly shows that, this village chicken production system had a great contribution in supplying chickens to the 

market. Hence, chicken producers in the study area were net sellers of live chicken. Even though chicken producers 



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 3(4): 64-73 

 

 
71 

© 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

in the study area were positive net chicken seller, their off-take rate was smaller than study of Mekonnen [14] in 

Southern Ethiopia (76.3%).  

  

3.10. Marketing Place  

Both live chicken and egg could be sold at different marketing places. Graph 3 shows, in the study area, large 

proportion of both local (37.7%) and exotic (43.7%) eggs were sold at district market places. PA marketing places 

were also important for village chicken producers to sale their local (34.6%) and improved (36.6%) eggs. Very small 

percentage of eggs were sold at farm get (i.e. 5.6% of local and 8.3% of improved) and other PA’s marketing places 

(i.e. 19.9% of local and 11.4% of improved). The role of zonal and regional market places for village chicken egg 

producers was insignificant.  

Regarding live chicken marketing, majority of improved chickens were sold at district marketing places 

(66.7%). The other 22.2% and 11.1% of improved chickens were sold at outside the PA and within the PA market 

places, respectively. No chicken producers have sold their improve chickens at farm get, zonal and regional market 

places. On the other hand, majority of local chickens were sold at inside the PA (34.9%), outside the PA (31.1%) and 

district (22.2%) market places. Few proportions of live chickens were sold at farm get (3.5%) and regional (1.9%) 

market place.  

 

 
Graph-3. Chicken and egg marketing places 

Source: 2014 cross-sectional survey 

 

4. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION  

The result of this study shows that village chicken production system in West Gojjam zone mainly relay on 

indigenous breed with very few number of exotic chickens per households. Chicks and hens were the dominant 

chicken categories in the flock structure. The size of flock was built up mainly using hatching, while death was the 

major factor for reducing the flock size. The major cause of death was diseases and it was more severe on young 

chicken. Chicken producers had various flock sizes at different seasons of the year. In the middle of the year, the 

number of chicken per household was relatively higher, whereas at the end of the year it was lower.  

In the study area, the average number of layer hen per household is 2.9+ 0.12. From which, on average 

307.2+20.2 eggs were obtained per year from both local and improved hens. District and PA markets were very 

important for both egg and live birds in the study area. There were also positive and good chicken off-take rate in 

the study area. Therefore, based on the result of this study, the following recommendations are suggested.   



Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 3(4): 64-73 

 

 
72 

© 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

Since chicken producers mainly relay on indigenous ecotypes, efforts should be made to shift from keeping local 

and less productive chicken into improved and more productive and adaptive breed so as to improve chicken 

production and productivity in the zone. 

Chicken death contributed the largest share for out-flow of chicken from households. It had a negative effect on 

chicken flock building and on economy of chicken keepers as well. Therefore, as a development strategy both 

governmental and non-governmental bodies should take a measures to reduce chicken mortality through strategic 

vaccination, improved feeding system and promoting semi-scavenging chicken rearing practice to prevent seasonal 

disease outbreak and attacking by predators. To do so, awareness creation should be made to improve small-scale 

poultry keeping practices to smallholder producers through intensive training and follow up.  

 

Funding: This study received no specific financial support. 
 

Competing Interests: The authors declare that they have no competing interests. 
 

Contributors/Acknowledgement: All authors contributed equally to the conception and design of the study.  

 

REFERENCES  

[1] G. Melese and B. Melkamu, "Assessment of chicken production under farmers management condition in East Gojam 

Zone, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia," Greener Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics, vol. 1, pp. 001-010, 2014. 

[2] H. Addisu, M. Hailu, and W. Zewdu, "Indigenous chicken production system and breeding practice in North Wollo, 

Amhara Region, Ethiopia," Poultry, Fisheries & Wildlife Sciences, vol. 1, p. 108, 2013. 

[3] D. Tadelle, T. Million, Y. Alemu, and K. J. Peters, "Village chicken production systems in Ethiopia: 1. Flock 

characteristics and performance," 2003. 

[4] L. Samson and B. Endalew, "Survey on village based chicken production and utilization system in mid Rift Valley of 

Oromia, Ethiopia," Global Veterinaria, vol. 5, pp. 198-203, 2010. 

[5] H. Matiwos, A. Negassi, and D. Solomon, "Evaluation of socio-economic role and challenges of rural poultry keeping 

in NoleKabba Woreda, Western Wollega, Ethiopia," Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences, vol. 1, pp. 33-39, 2013. 

[6] CSA, Report on livestock and livestock characteristics vol. 2. Addis Ababa: Central Statistic Agency, 2013. 

[7] M. Fisseha, T. Azage, and D. Tadelle, Indigenous chicken production and marketing systems in Ethiopia: Characteristics and 

opportunities for market-oriented development, ILRI/IPMS (Improving Productivity and Market Success) of Ethiopian Farmers 

Project, Working Paper No. 24. Nairobi, Kenya, 2010. 

[8] G. Addis and B. Malede, "Chicken production systems, performance and associated constraints in North Gondar Zone, 

Ethiopia," Journal of Fisheries & Livestock Production, vol. 2, p. 115, 2014. 

[9] G. Tilahun and M. Zeleke, "Diagnosis and intervention plans for West Gojjam Zone, Amhara Region." Retrieved from 

http://lives-ethiopia.wikispaces.com/file/view/West+Gojam+zonal+intervention+plan+report-+final.pdf. [Accessed 

March, 20, 2015], 2013. 

[10] N. Asfaw and J. Mohammad, "Commercial off-take of cattle under smallholder mixed crop-livestock production 

systemin Ethiopia, its determinants and implications for improving live animal supply for export abattoirs," presented 

at the International Conference on African Development Archives, Paper No. 129, 2007. 

[11] Y. Nebiyu, T. Berhan, and B. Kelay, "Characterization of village chicken production performance under scavenging 

system in Halaba District of Southern," Ethiopian Veterinary Journal, vol. 17, pp. 69-80, 2013. 

[12] M. Meseret, D. Solomon, and D. Tadelle, "Marketing system, socio economic role and intra household dynamics of 

indigenous chicken in Gomma Wereda, Jimma Zone, Ethiopia," Livestock Research for Rural Development, vol. 23, 2011. 

[13] M. Fisseha, N. Mohammad, and Z. Getenet, "Characterization of village chicken production and marketing system in 

selected Districts of North West of Amhara Region, Ethiopia," African Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 9, pp. 3091-

3097, 2014. 

http://lives-ethiopia.wikispaces.com/file/view/West+Gojam+zonal+intervention+plan+report-+final.pdf


Current Research in Agricultural Sciences, 2016, 3(4): 64-73 

 

 
73 

© 2016 Conscientia Beam. All Rights Reserved. 

[14] G. Mekonnen, "Characterization of smallholder poultry production and marketing system of Dale, Wonsho and Loka 

Abaya Weredas of Southern Ethiopia," M.Sc. Thesis, Hawassa University, Ethiopia, 2007. 

[15] M. Wondu, M. Mehiret, and T. Berhan, "Characterization of urban poultry production system in Northern Gondar, 

Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia," Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America, vol. 4, pp. 192-198, 2013. 

[16] N. Asfaw and M. Jabbar, "Livestock ownership, commercial off-take rates and their determinants in Ethiopia," 

Research Report 9. ILRI (International Livestock Research Institute), Nairobi, Kenya, 2008. 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY  

[1] T. Alem and T. Yayneshet, "Flock dynamics and composition of rural chickens in lowland and midland agro-ecological 

zones of central Tigray North Ethiopia," J. Livestock Research for Rural Development, vol. 25:7, 2013. 

[2] M. Fisseha, M. Abera, and D. Tadelle, "Assessment of village chicken production system and evaluation of the 

productive and reproductive performance of local chicken ecotype in Bure District, North West Ethiopia," African 

Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 5, pp. 1739-1748, 2010. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Views and opinions expressed in this article are the views and opinions of the author(s), Current Research in Agricultural Sciences shall not be responsible or 
answerable for any loss, damage or liability etc. caused in relation to/arising out of the use of the content. 

 

 


