Subscribe Now Subscribe Today
Research Article
 

Some Management Practices of SassoT44 Chickens under Traditional Production System



Fanu Woldemichael, Melkamu Bezabih Yitbarek and Emana Getachew
 
Facebook Twitter Digg Reddit Linkedin StumbleUpon E-mail
ABSTRACT

Background and Objective: SassoT44 chickens are classified under dual-purpose chicken. The study was designed to assess some management practices of SassoT44 chickens under traditional production system in north Shewa Zone, Amhara region, Ethiopia. Materials and Methods: The three districts were selected based on agro-ecology from north Shewa Zone. From these districts, a total of 9 kebeles were purposively selected. A simple random sampling was employed to select the respondents in each kebele who have four and above exotic chickens. Cross-sectional study design was used to assess the management practices of SassoT44 chickens. Results: The results reviled that 16.6% of the respondents used disinfectants to disinfect the chicken house after cleaning. Most (93.54%) of the respondents replied SassoT44 chickens got their feed through scavenging with little supplementation. The main feed supplement was maize (60.31%). The common source of water for chickens was river water (66.77%). The major disease reported in the study area was Newcastle disease (70.77%) due to less vaccination practice (27.69%) against the disease. Throwing (66.46%) of dead thicken were the main disposal method among others. Conclusion: The management practice has a gap in the study area. Therefore, giving of practical training focusing on best management practices is strongly needed to improve poultry production.

Services
Related Articles in ASCI
Similar Articles in this Journal
Search in Google Scholar
View Citation
Report Citation

 
  How to cite this article:

Fanu Woldemichael, Melkamu Bezabih Yitbarek and Emana Getachew, 2019. Some Management Practices of SassoT44 Chickens under Traditional Production System. Journal of Applied Sciences, 19: 109-114.

DOI: 10.3923/jas.2019.109.114

URL: https://scialert.net/abstract/?doi=jas.2019.109.114
 
Received: December 28, 2018; Accepted: February 01, 2019; Published: April 06, 2019


Copyright: © 2019. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the creative commons attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

INTRODUCTION

Poultry production plays a vital role for food security and contributes to the country’s economy1. It demands small investment compared to other livestock species2. Due to the high population growth, the demand for eggs and poultry meat has significantly increased in recent years across large parts of the country. In Ethiopia, there was also a strategy stated that the commercial production system of chicken be expanded to fulfill the increased demand for chicken meat and egg3, which is the major organization mandated with poultry extension work. Exotic chickens were facilitating proper management practice for good egg and meat production. Wilson4 suggested that provision of shelter, regular supplies of clean drinking water, care chicken health states and supplementary feeding would improve growth and reproductive rates and greatly increase survival of chicken production. Nutritional poultry feed ingredient used to improve poultry production and increase its efficiency as result, needs to focus on better utilization of available feed resources because of poultry feed cost accounts 60-70% of the total poultry production cost5. However, the consumption of poultry product in Ethiopia remained low: 0.4 kg eggs and 0.6 kg of chicken meat per annum6. Poultry production in Ethiopia commonly used low-input and low output poultry husbandry systems.

Moreover, there have been increase in the number of exotic breeds of chickens and at present it is estimated that the exotic breeds of chicken consists of about 6.45% of the national poultry population7. There has been a substantial effort to introduce exotic chicken especially SassoT44 breed to the smallholder farmers under traditional management in north Shewa Zone of Amhara National Regional state. In the study area there is no any documented study focusing to the exotic chicken’s management practice like feeding, watering, housing and chicken health condition. Hence, this study was designed to assess the sanitation and health status of SassoT44 chicken under traditional production system in the study districts of North Shewa Zone.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Description of the study area: The study was conducted in North Shewa Zone, Amhara National Regional state which is located 130 km of northeast of Addis Ababa, altitude between 2800-2845 masl. The annual temperature is ranged from 5-23°C. North Shewa has three different agro ecologies i.e., high land, mid land and low land. This study was conducted in Tarmaber district as a high land, Ankober district as mid land and Kewet district as low land (Fig. 1).

Sampling procedure: The study districts were selected based on three agro-ecologies such as highland (>2500 masl), mid-land (1500-2500 masl) and low-land (<1500 masl)8. Based on this information Tarmaber, Ankober and Kewet districts were selected as highland, mid land and lowland, respectively. Three rural kebeles from each agro-ecology (a total of 9 Kebeles) were purposively selected based on accessibility and chicken rearing experience. The number of respondents in each Kebele was taken by using simple random sampling technique from a respondents who have at least four SassoT44 chicken.

Image for - Some Management Practices of SassoT44 Chickens under Traditional Production System
Fig. 1: Map of Ethiopia and north Shewa zone

The total household heads in the study area was determined by the equation given by Yamane9 with 95% confidence level:

Image for - Some Management Practices of SassoT44 Chickens under Traditional Production System

Where:

n = Sample size
N = Population size
e = Desired level of precision

Based on this formula, a total of 325 respondents were selected and interviewed using a structured questionnaire.

Method of data collection: The primary data was collected from household using structured questionnaire through face to face interviews, field observation, focus group discussion and key informant interviews. Secondary data was collected from district and Zonal Agriculture Offices like, poultry population and way of chicken management system by reviewing different document.

Methods of data analysis: The data were analyzed by using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS version. 20). The statistical tools such as mean, frequency and percentage were used and present by tabulated form. Chi-square test was employed to know the association of categorical data in this study.

RESULTS

Hygiene and sanitation of poultry house: The hygiene and sanitation of the poultry house is presented in Table 1. About 55.4% of the respondents cleaned their chicken’s house in different times such as daily (12.9%), weekly (26.8%) and monthly (15.7%). About 16.6% of the respondents disinfected the chicken house to destroy any micro-organisms found in the chicken house.

Feed and feeding system: The feed and feeding system SassoT44 chicken is presented in Table 2. Majority (93.54%) of the respondents replied that the chicken has got their feed in scavenging with little supplementation. The most common supplementary feeds for chicken were maize (60.31%), wheat brain (14.15%), sorghum (8.31%), wheat (6.46%) and barley (4.31%) in the three districts.

Table 1: Hygiene and sanitation of poultry house in the study districts
Image for - Some Management Practices of SassoT44 Chickens under Traditional Production System
χ2: Chi square, N: Number of respondents, H: Highland, M: Midland, L: Lowland

Table 2: Feed and feeding system in the study districts
Image for - Some Management Practices of SassoT44 Chickens under Traditional Production System
χ2: Chi square, N: Number of respondents, H: Highland, M: Midland, L: Lowland. Letter of different superscript in same row did differ significantly

Table 3: Watering system in the study districts
Image for - Some Management Practices of SassoT44 Chickens under Traditional Production System
χ2: Chi square, N: Number of respondents, H: Highland, M: Midland, L: Lowland. Letter of different superscript in same row did differ significantly

Table 4: Chicken disease prevention and treatment method in the study districts
Image for - Some Management Practices of SassoT44 Chickens under Traditional Production System
χ2: Chi square, N: Number of respondents, H: Highland, M: Midland, L: Lowland. Letter of different superscript in same row did differ significantly

Among this 63.69% of the respondents offered feed for chicken by spreading on the ground and the rest respondents (29.85%) practiced feeding by feeder (feeding trough).

Watering: In the study districts, all chicken owners (100%) provided water for their chicken (Table 3). The water was provided for chicken in free access (88.31), morning and afternoon (10.77%) and morning (0.92%). Majority (80.92%) of the respondents used plastic made water trough than wood made (13.85%) and stone made (5.23%) across the three districts. Cleaning of the watering trough was being done (27.38%) regularly in the three study districts.

Chicken health condition: The most common (70.77%) prevalent disease in the three study districts was Newcastle disease (NCD) outbreak (Table 4). Farmers treated their chicken in different techniques. Most (30.77% ) of the respondents has treated their chicken by their own, 17.85% of them call veterinary experts to treat, while 14.77% of the respondents has treated by own and call veterinary experts and the other 7.38% killed their chicken immediately when diseased in the three districts. The respondents also used traditional medicine to treat their chicken.

DISCUSSION

Majority of the respondents had lack of awareness in cleaning and disinfecting the chicken house regularly. However, about 55.4% of the respondents cleaned the chickens’ house and disinfect it by using of disinfectants (16.6%). As a result, SassoT44 chicken was easily attacked by different disease and parasite which leads to irregular production and increase death rate in the study area. The result is nearly similar to Yitbarek et al.10, 67.3% of the producers cleaned the floor of the house at once at the end of production cycle; however, 22.4% of the producers had cleaned once per week. This result contradicted to the reports of Birhanu et al.11, about 88% of the farms disinfect the poultry houses in small holder farmers.

Most (93.54%) of the respondents has released their chicken outside for scavenging, however little supplementary feed were provided. This indicated that supplementation of feed for chicken required for sustain the production and productivity. The result of this study was in line with the report of Birhanu et al.11 and Salo et al.12, 95.6% and 95.1% the respondents provided supplementary feeds for their chicken in addition to scavenging, respectively. The majority of the respondents offered feed for chicken by spreading on the ground, which might be unhygienic way of feeding and creates competition of the flock. All chicken owners (100%) provided water for their chicken. This finding had similarity with the study of Salo et al.12 which reported that all chicken owners (100%) could be providing water for chickens. The highest (88.31%) proportions of the respondents provided free access of water for the chicken than morning and afternoon (10.77%) and morning (0.92%). The current study was comparable with the report of Abadi13, 96% of the respondents provided water for chicken with free access. In agreement with the present study, Mekonnen et al.14 reported that almost all materials used by the sample respondents for providing water for chickens were not cleaned and dirty as it was noticed during farm visit. The unhygienic watering troughs had shown in different chicken production system, which indicated that the chicken owners had no any awareness about the cleaning practice of the water trough.

According to agricultural experts and veterinary expert’s response, the most common prevalent disease in the three study districts was Newcastle disease (NCD) outbreak. The present study was in agreement with the finding of Mekonnen et al.14, who reported about 73.5% of the respondents reported that the most common exotic chicken disease was Newcastle disease. Most of the sick chickens were treated by own, call veterinary experts, treat by own and call veterinary experts in the three districts. However, Yitbarek et al.15 reported that prevention and treatments were the major mechanisms for controlling measure of the disease.

CONCLUSION

Some management practices undertaken in the study area were feeding of birds, provision of water, provisions of housing, controlling diseases and keeping the hygiene and sanitation of the chicken house. Majority of the farmers were provided supplementary feed in addition to the scavenging system. The most common supplement chicken feeds were maize, wheat brain, sorghum, wheat and barley. The water was provided in free access and the common sources were river water, which was provided by plastic, stone and wood made of water trough. The viral disease was considered as the frequent occurrence of disease in SassoT44 chicken under traditional production system in three districts of the study area. The most common prevalent disease of chicken in north Shewa Ethiopia was Newcastle disease (NCD). In general, the undertaken management practices of Sasso T44 chicken in the study area has a pronounced gap, therefore, giving of practical training focusing on best management practices is strongly needed for poultry producers to improve the existing poultry production.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

This study discovers some management practices of SassoT44 chicken under farmers’ condition. It helps to show the management gaps during the production process. Based on the observed management gaps, subsequent practical oriented training will be given to improve the existing management practices of poultry production to increase the productivity under traditional production system.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors would like to acknowledge the minister of education for the research grant. Special thanks go to North Shewa Zone Agricultural Experts and respondent farmers of Tarmaber, Ankober and Kewet districts for their kind cooperation for the study.

REFERENCES
1:  Gerima, G.T., M. Yifter and T.A. Ashenafi, 2016. Socio-economic characteristics of poultry production in lowland and midland agroecological zones of Central Tigray, Ethiopia. Afr. J. Poult. Farming, 4: 149-158.
Direct Link  |  

2:  Lawal, J.R., A.M. Bello, S.Y. Balami, Y. Wakil and Z.B. Yusuf et al., 2016. Prevalence and economic significance of ectoparasites infestation in village chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) Gombe, Northeastern Nigeria. Direct Res. J. Agric. Food Sci., 4: 94-103.
Direct Link  |  

3:  MoA., 2015. Ethiopia livestock master plan: Roadmaps for growth and transformation. Ministry of Agriculture, Addis Ababa and International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), Nairobi, Kenya.

4:  Wilson, R.T., 2010. Poultry production and performance in the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. World's Poult. Sci. J., 66: 441-454.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

5:  Leta, S. and E. Bekana, 2010. Survey on village based chicken production and utilization system in mid rift valley of Oromia, Ethiopia. Global Veterinaria, 5: 198-203.
Direct Link  |  

6:  The Poultry Site, 2013. Global poultry trends 2013-Asia produces one-third of world's broilers. http://www.thepoultrysite.com/articles/2928/global-poultry-trends-2013-asia-produces-onethird-of-worlds-broilers/.

7:  CSA., 2018. Agricultural sample survey, Volume II: Report on livestock and livestock characteristics (private peasant holdings). Statistical Bulletin 587, Central Statistical Agency, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, pp: 100.

8:  FAO., 2017. Agro ecological classification bases. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, pp: 1-50.

9:  Yamane, T., 1967. Statistics: An Introductory Analysis. 2nd Edn., Harper and Row, New York, Pages: 919.

10:  Yitbarek, M.B., B.T. Mersso and A.M. Wosen, 2016. Sanitation and waste management of small scale commercial poultry farms in and around Debre Markos, Amhara region, Ethiopia. Int. J. Adv. Life Sci., 9: 527-533.
Direct Link  |  

11:  Birhanu, H., A. Tehetna, H. Yohannes and T. Awot, 2015. Assessment of bio-security condition in small scale poultry production system in and around Mekelle, Ethiopia. Eur. J. Biol. Sci., 7: 99-102.
Direct Link  |  

12:  Salo, S., G. Tadesse and D. Hilemeskel, 2016. Village chicken production system and constraints in Lemo district, Hadiya zone, Ethiopia. Poult. Fish. Wildl. Sci., Vol. 4. 10.4172/2375-446X.1000158

13:  Abadi, T., 2017. Perception of farmers on exotic chicken breeds and its management condition in North Western zone Tigray, Ethiopia. World Scient. News, 86: 168-179.
Direct Link  |  

14:  Mekonnen, N., F. Begna and S. Abraha, 2017. Husbandry practices and egg production performances of exotic chicken breeds in Assosa town, Beneshangul Gumuze region, Ethiopia. Adv. Res. J. Multidisciplin. Discov., 18: 72-80.
Direct Link  |  

15:  Yitbarek, M.B., B.T. Mersso and A.M. Wosen, 2016. Disease management and biosecurity measures of small-scale commercial poultry farms in and around Debre Markos, Amhara region, Ethiopia. J. Vet. Med. Anim. Health, 8: 136-144.
CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  

©  2021 Science Alert. All Rights Reserved