Journal of Animal Science Advances
On Farm Characterization of Fulani Ecotype Chickens in the
Derived Savannah Zone of Nigeria Based on Breeding and
Husbandry System
Ige A. O.
J Anim Sci Adv 2014, 4(9): 1024-1032
DOI: 10.5455/jasa.20141009065002
Online version is available on: www.grjournals.com
ISSN: 2251-7219
IGE A. O.
Original Article
On Farm Characterization of Fulani Ecotype
Chickens in the Derived Savannah Zone of Nigeria
Based on Breeding and Husbandry System

*
Ige A. O.
Department of Animal Nutrition and Biotechnology, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology Ogbomoso, Oyo, State Nigeria.
Abstract
The study was undertaken to characterize the breeding and husbandry system of Fulani Ecotype Chickens
(FEC) in five local government of Ogbomoso, Oyo State Nigeria. A total of 200 structured questionnaire which
captured information on breeding and husbandry system was administered. Data generated was analyzed using
SAS to obtain descriptive statistics. Result indicated that Women participated in rearing of FEC than Men in all
the five flocks sampled, such that about 66.5 % (female) of the total sample size were involved as against 33.5%
male farmers, Forty one percent (41%) of the respondent were within the age of 20-30 years, 68 % were
illiterate, this shows that majority of the farmers were youth who cannot read nor write. Fulani Ecotype
Indigenous chickens are managed under extensive system of Animal husbandry, Extensive system of poultry
management was adopted by 98.5% of the farmer while just 1% reared their chickens under intensive system.
Respondents disclosed that chickens generally scavenge for feed throughout the day with about 91.5% of the
respondent provided supplementary feed to chickens, 99% provided water to their chickens with well water as
major source. Respondents cull chicken for three purposes: Consumption (52.5%), Sales for source of finance
(44.5%) and sacrificial purpose (3%). Poor productivity (75%) accounted culled chicken, followed by old age
(9%) and disease outbreak (16%). Sources of finance for replacement stock were sales of chicken (19%), Sales
of egg from hen (4%), Sales of farm crops (18%), Livestock sales (57.5%) and loans from family and friends
(1.5%). All the respondents relied on natural incubation provided by the Hens and their mothering ability to rear
the hatched chicks. Number of chicks reared up to maturity was very low relative to number of hatched chicken,
the survey revealed that 70% of the respondents reared 1-5 chicks to maturity. 88% of the respondent declared
that disease outbreak was one of the major factors contributing to low production. Marketing of poultry
products is generally affected by unstable price (29%), Poor sales (55.5%), Lack of Standard market place (4%),
Available substitute (4%) and poor infrastructure (4%). Extension services was not accessible as only 10.5% of
the respondents were reached by extension agents. Conclusively, study established that Indigenous chickens are
sources of income, protein intake and that they subsist under traditional Animal husbandry with little input.

Corresponding author: Department of Animal Nutrition and Biotechnology, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology Ogbomoso, Oyo, State Nigeria.
Received on: 18 Sep 2014
Revised on: 26 Sep 2014
Accepted on: 28 Sep 2014
Online Published on: 30 Sep 2014
1024
J. Anim. Sci. Adv., 2014, 4(9): 1024-1032
ON FARM CHARACTERIZATION OF FULANI ECOTYPE CHICKENS …
Improvement in management practices could significantly improve their output in terms of egg and meat
production.
Keywords: Husbandry system, Fulani ecotype, improvement, breeding.
Introduction
Indigenous chickens in Nigeria are locally
adapted to prevailing environmental factors
affecting Animal Production in the country. They
strive on low quality feed and occasional harsh
weather Their product are being consumed as relish
in villages, semi-urban and urban centers as there
are no cultural or religious taboos relating to
consumption of egg and meat. Benebdeljelik et al.,
(2001) remarked that organoleptic properties of
meat and eggs from Local chicken are markedly
superior to that of commercial broilers lacking
flavor and taste.
Another important consideration of Local
chicken can also be linked to a positive relationship
with socio economic conditions of rural farmers,
every egg or quantity of meat produced under
scavenging system represents a net increment to the
family food supply, source of income and other
social functions it serves to the household (Tadelle
et al., 2003). Indigenous poultry in essence
constitute a major asset to poor farmers who cannot
afford to maintain exotic chicken on intensive
management system. However little is known on
these flocks about their management and general
breeding performance despite the inherent
advantages it confers on rural farmers. This
information will reveal possible constraints and
challenges faced by the rural poultry farmers and in
the same vein, will explore the opportunities for
improvement of Local chicken by proposing
solutions to any constraints.
Scarcity of studies on local chickens and their
production system is feature of many developing
countries (Kondombo et al., 2003). Gondwe (2004)
suggested two components to improve the
productivity of Local chickens as improvement of
management practices and breeding method.
Abdelqader et al., (2007) opined that the potentials
for both components of improvement is still not
known for local chickens. Improvement programme
to support local chicken production require full
1025
J. Anim. Sci. Adv., 2014, 4(9): 1024-1032
characterization and understanding of their
husbandry system. Pedersen 2002 submitted that
characterization studies should be conducted under
on-farm
conditions
rather
than
through
experimental studies. Understanding the production,
management and breeding systems, and the
associated factors affecting village chicken
production, is essential to develop holistic
improvement strategies (Branckaert and Guèye,
1999).
Local chickens in Nigeria are broadly
classified based on ecotypes and they are Yoruba
and Fulani Ecotypes chicken. Fulani ecotype
chicken is a native to drier parts of the country. The
purity of the chicken is preserved by the isolated
family group-life style of the Fulani keepers which
largely hinder its interbreeding with other native
chicken. This study therefore consider it as
expedient and pertinent to obtain baseline
information on features of husbandry system of
Fulani ecotype chicken being an integral part of
population of local chickens in Nigeria.
Materials and Methods
Location of the Study
The study was conducted in Fulani villages of
Ogbomoso, Oyo state Nigeria. Geographically
Ogbomoso lies within the derived savannah region
and it is the gateway to the Northern and Southern
Nigeria. Ogbomoso is 104km North-East of Ibadan,
57km South-West of Ilorin and 58km North-West
of Osogbo. It lies approximately on longitude 40 151
and latitude 80 71 north of the equator. The mean
annual temperature is about 26OC and the mean
annual rainfall is 1200mm with humidity within the
range of 75-95 % (Oladuntan and Oladimeji 1999).
Scope of the Study and Data Collection
The study was carried out using a structured
questionnaires and field surveys and in addition
data were collected by personal interview of the
farmers. A total of 200 livestock owners were
sampled in five Fulani villages of the Agricultural
IGE A. O.
zone classified by Local Government area. Data
collected were on Socio-Economic Characteristics
of the Farmer, Chicken Management System,
Replacement stock and Finance, Culling, Fertility
and Hatchability of Egg, Factors contributing to
Low production, Marketing and Extension services.
Each Local Government area was separated by clear
delineation from Local Government Authorities.
rearing and husbandry is essentially the duty of
house wives while their husband cultivate crop and
rear Large ruminant Animals which equally
generate money for upkeep of the family. Gender
involvement of the study area is similar to the report
of Mcainsh et al., (2004) and Leta and Endalew
(2010) who indicated that most of the time the
women and children are responsible for chicken
rearing. It also agreed with work of Solomon, et al.,
(2013) who however further stated that men are
responsible for decision on sales of the chicken for
income generation. This is equally in line with the
results reported by Muchadeyi et al., (2007) and
Khandait et al., (2011). Gueye 1998 established that
approximately 80 % of the chicken flocks in a
number of African countries were owned and
largely controlled by women.
Forty one percent (41%) of the respondent
were within the age of 20-30 years, 68.5 % were
illiterate, this shows that majority of the farmers
were youth who cannot read nor write. It thus
appeared that level of education of this tribe is low
and this may explain the reliance on indigenous
knowledge for management by poultry keepers and
thus imply a difficulty in utilizing information from
extension workers for improvement of the chickens,
especially women who are more involved. Moreda
et al., (2013) equally submitted that most women
involved in rearing of local chicken are illiterate.
Solomon et al., (2013) observed similar result in
their study. Majority of the respondents (98.5%)
had 1-3ha of land for cultivation of crop and 70% of
the respondents had family size ranged between 6
and 10. These results generally agree with
Owoyesigire (2002) who reported slightly lower
values.
Animals and their Management
Fulani Ecotype Chicken were used for this
study. The chickens were managed under extensive
system of husbandry by Fulani Tribe. The tribe
preserved most of their cultural identity and
traditions with little input from the urban centers.
The husbandry system adopted in keeping their
Livestock Animals is unique in the sense that they
do not allow interbreeding with livestock from other
tribes. They were able to achieve this basically
because they live in isolation.
Statistical Analysis
The Statistical Analysis System (SAS) 1999
version was used to analyze the data generated from
the study. PROC MEANS procedure was used for
the descriptive statistics such as mean, range,
frequency and percentages.
Results and Discussion
Socio-Economic Respondent
The Socio-Economic characteristics of the
Respondent are depicted in Table 1. It was revealed
that Women participated in rearing of chicken than
Men in all the five flocks sampled, such that about
66.5 % (female) of the total sample size were
involved as against 33.5% male farmers. Poultry
Table 1: Socio-Economic Characteristics of the Respondents.
Sex of Respondent
Female
Male
Age (years)
20-30
31-40
41-50
1026
1
2
FLOCK
3
30(73.17)
11(26.83)
30(76.92)
9(23.08)
23(58.90)
16(36.59)
26(63.41)
15(36.59)
24(60)
16(40)
133(66.5)
67(33.5)
25(60.98)
9(21.95)
7(17.07)
6(15.38)
15(38.6)
18(46.15)
5(12.82)
6(15.38)
28(71.79)
24(58.54)
12(29.26)
5(12.19)
22(55)
5(12.5)
13(32.5)
82(41)
47(23.5)
71(35.5)
J. Anim. Sci. Adv., 2014, 4(9): 1024-1032
Total
4
5
ON FARM CHARACTERIZATION OF FULANI ECOTYPE CHICKENS …
Education
Illiterate
Primary
Secondary
Land Size (ha)
1-3
4-6
Family Size (No of
Person/Family)
1-5
6-10
11-15
39(95.12)
2(4.88)
0(0)
17(43.59)
21(53.84)
1(2.57)
10(25.64)
26(66.66)
3(7.69)
34(82.93)
6(14.63)
1(2.44)
37(92.5) 137(68.5)
3(7.5)
58(29)
0(0)
5(2.5)
41(100)
0(0)
39(100)
0(0)
37(94.87)
2(5.13)
40(97.56)
1(2.5)
40(100)
0(0)
197(98.5)
3(1.5)
4(9.76)
37(90.24)
0(0)
8(20.51)
22(56.41)
9(23.08)
15(38.46)
21(53.84)
3(7.69)
14(34.15)
25(60.98)
2(4.89)
4(10)
35(87.5)
1(2.5)
45(22.5)
140(70)
15(7.5)
Value in the parenthesis represent percentages while outside represents actual values sampled.
Management System
Extensive system of poultry management was
adopted by 98.5% of the farmer while just 0.5%
reared their chickens under intensive system (Table
2). This shows that there was no provision for
housing system as 98.5% of the chicken perched on
trees, 1% of the chicken were housed in a hand
woven basket which were placed in windowless
compound. This is in line with Solomon et al.,
(2013). As a result, Bell and Abdou (1995) opined
that large proportion of village poultry in most
African countries is lost due to nocturnal predators,
similar observation is also made in this study.
Respondents disclosed that chickens generally
scavenge for feed throughout the day with about
98.5% of the respondent provided supplementary
feed to chickens, Moreda et al., (2013) reported that
almost all the respondent in their study provided
supplementary feed to their chicken. This also agree
with the work done by Mapiye and Sibanda 2005,
who stated 96.8 % of the farmers in their study,
supplied partial supplementation of feeds and 95.5
% of the feed was sourced locally. On the contrary,
Halima et al., (2007) reported 99.28 % of the
farmers
in
Northwest
Ethiopia
provided
supplementary feeding to their chickens. Moges et
al., (2010) also reported higher values. 99.5% of the
respondent provided water to their chickens with
well water as major source. This agree with
Solomon et al., (2013) and Moreda et al., (2013)
who reported that 92.5% and 99.7% of the
respondent provided water to their chickens
respectively, Bogale kibret (2008) also submitted
that major source of water to indigenous chickens is
well water. This source of water thus predispose the
chicken to water borne diseases. Respondents cull
chicken for three purposes (Table 3): Consumption
(52.5%), Sales for source of finance (44.5%) and
sacrificial purpose (3%). Poor productivity (75%)
accounted culled chicken, followed by old age (9%)
and disease outbreak (16%). The result agreed with
work Atteh, 1989 and Moreda, et al., (2013),
however, Moreda et al., (2013) reported slightly
different values. After culling, farmers replaced
their stock for the next breeding season through
direct purchase from open market (21.5%), Newly
hatched chicks from breeding hen (63%) and
through inheritance from relative or Neighbors
(15.5%). Sources of finance for replacement stock
were sales of chicken (19%), Sales of egg from hen
(4%), Sales of farm crops (18%), Livestock sales
(57.5%) and loans from family and friends (1.5%).
Table 2: Management System practices.
System Management
Practised
Extensive system
Semi intensive
Intensive
1027
1
2
FLOCK
3
41(100)
0(0)
0(0)
39(100)
0(0)
0(0)
39(100)
0(0)
0(0)
J. Anim. Sci. Adv., 2014, 4(9): 1024-1032
Total
4
5
40(97.56)
1(2.44)
0(0)
38(95)
1(2.5)
1(2.5)
197(98.5)
2(1)
2(0.5)
IGE A. O.
Supplementary Feeding
Yes
No
Method of Feeding
Feed in container
Thrown on ground
Type of Shelter
Kitchen
Room in the house
Perch on trees
Hand woven basket
Provison of Water
Yes
No
Source of Water
Well
River
2(4.88)
39(95.12)
0(0)
39(100)
0(0)
39(100)
0(0)
41(100)
1(2.5)
39(97.5)
197(98.5)
3(1.5)
1(2.44)
40(97.56
1(2.56)
38(97.44)
0(0)
39(100)
2(4.88)
39(95.12)
8(20)
32(80)
13(6.5)
188(94)
0(0)
0(0)
41(100)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
39(100)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
39(100)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
40(97.56)
1(2.44)
1(2.5)
1(2.5)
38(95)
0(0)
1(0.5)
1(0.5)
197(98.5)
1(0.5)
41(100)
0(0)
39(100)
0(0)
39(100)
0(0)
41(100)
0(0)
39(97.5)
1(2.5)
199(99.5)
1(0.5)
0(0)
41(100)
0(0)
39(100)
0(0)
39(100)
0(0)
41(100)
0(0)
40(100)
0(0)
200(100)
Value in the parenthesis represent percentages while outside represents actual values sampled.
Table 3: Purpose, Reason for Culling Chickens, Sources of replacement stock and Finance.
FLOCK
1
2
3
4
5
Reason for Culling
Consumption
29(70.73)
16(41.02)
9(23.08)
25(60.98)
26(65)
Sales
11(26.82)
22(56.41)
30(76.92)
14(34.14)
12(30)
Sacrifice
1(2.44)
1(2.56)
0(0)
2(4.88)
2(5)
Factors that Determine the
Birds to be Culled
Poor productivity
Old age
32(78.04)
31(79.48)
36(92.30)
28(68.29) 23(57.5)
Sickness
4(9.76)
5(12.82)
2(5.12)
1(2.44)
6(15)
5(12.12)
3(7.69)
1(2.56)
12(29.26) 11(27.5)
Source of Replacement
Stock
Purchased
7(17.07)
11(28.20)
2(5.13)
13(31.70)
10(25)
Hatched
28(68.29)
17(43.58)
37(94.87)
24(58.54)
20(50)
Inherited
6(14.63)
11(28.20)
0(0)
4(9.76)
10(25)
Source of Finance
Poultry sales
0(0)
12(30.76)
21(53.85)
4(9.76)
1(2.5)
Egg sales
3(7.32)
0(0)
1(2.56)
1(2.44)
3(7.5)
Crop sales
11(26.82)
1(2.56)
0(0)
9(21.95)
15(37.5)
Livestock sales
27(65.85)
25(64.10)
17(43.58)
26(63.41)
20(50)
Family/friends
0(0)
1(2.56)
0(0)
1(2.44)
1(2.5)
Total
105(52.5)
89(44.5)
6(3)
150(75)
18(9)
32(16)
43(21.5)
126(63)
31(15.5)
38(19)
8(4)
36(18)
115(57.5)
3(1.5)
Value in the parenthesis represent percentages while outside represents actual values sampled.
Hatchability of Eggs, Survivability of Chicks
and Disease Outbreak
Summary of information on hatchability of
eggs and survivability of chicks to adult are
1028
J. Anim. Sci. Adv., 2014, 4(9): 1024-1032
presented in table 4. All the respondents relied on
natural incubation provided by the Hens and their
mothering ability to rear the hatched chicks.
Number of egg set for hatching were between 1-20,
ON FARM CHARACTERIZATION OF FULANI ECOTYPE CHICKENS …
while 21% , 74%, 2%, and 3% of the respondents
set 1-5eggs, 6-10 eggs, 11-15, and 16-20 eggs
respectively. Average number of chicks hatched per
set were between 6-10 as reported by 57% of the
respondents. Hatchability ranged between 55% to
65%. Solomon et al., (2013) reported higher
hatchability of 85% which thus contradicted what
was obtained in this study, variation in the value
may due to effect of ecotype as genotype
significantly affect hatchability. Number of chicks
reared up to maturity was very low relative to
number of hatched chicken, the survey revealed that
70% of the respondents reared 1-5 chicks to
maturity. 88.5% of the respondent declared that
disease outbreak was one of the major factors
contributing to low production. This agree with
submission of Serkalem et al., (2005) During
disease outbreak, majority of the respondent
(68.5%) treated the disease local knowledge, about
2% called Animal health personnel, 24.5% kill them
for consumption and 5.5% they were taken to
market for sale. It agrees with the submission of
submission of Moreda et al., (2013).
Table 4: Hatchability of eggs, Survivability of Chicks and Disease outbreak.
FLOCK
1
2
3
4
No of Eggs Used for Hatching
1-5
6-10
4(9.76)
17(43.58) 20(51.28)
1(2.43)
11-15
34(82.93) 21(53.84) 19(48.72)
38(92.6)
16-20
1(2.44)
1(2.56)
0(0)
0(0)
Hatchability (%)
2(4.87)
0(0)
0(0)
2(5)
55
60
57
63
No of Chicken Per Set
1-5
6-10
11(26.82) 20(51.28) 25(64.10)
2(4.88)
11-15
21(51.22) 18(46.15) 14(35.89) 38(92.68)
9(21.95)
1(2.56)
0(0)
1(2.44)
No of Chicken Surviving to
Adulthood
1-5
6-10
31(75.60) 28(71.79) 36(92.30) 20(48.78)
11-15
10(24.40) 11(28.21)
3(7.70)
21(51.22)
16-20
2(4.88)
16(41.02) 10(25.64)
3(7.32)
27(65.85) 23(58.97) 29(14.36) 28(68.29)
Experience oF Disease
Outbreak
Yes
38(92.68) 33(84.62) 32(82.25) 39(95.12)
No
3(7.32)
6(15.38)
7(17.94)
2(4.88)
Treatment oF Diseased Chicken
Treat by self
Call Trained personnel
38(85.36) 19(48.72) 15(38.46) 28(68.29)
Kill them
2(4.88)
1(2.56)
1(2.56)
0(0)
Sell them
3(7.32)
13(33.33) 21(53.84) 10(24.39)
0(0)
5(12.82)
2(5.12)
3(7.32)
Value in the parenthesis represent percentages while outside represents actual values sampled.
1029
J. Anim. Sci. Adv., 2014, 4(9): 1024-1032
Total
5
0(0)
36(90)
2(5)
2(5)
65
42(21)
148(74)
4(2)
6(3)
10(25)
23(57.5)
7(17.5)
68(34)
144(57)
18(9)
25(62.5)
15(37.5)
2(5)
23(57.5)
28(70)
12(30)
6.6(16.5)
26(65)
35(87.5) 177(88.5)
5(12.5) 23(11.5)
37(92.5) 137(68.5)
0(0)
4(2)
2(5)
49(24.5)
1(2.5)
2.2(5.5)
IGE A. O.
Marketing of Poultry Products
Marketing of poultry products (Table 5) is
generally affected by unstable price (29%), Poor
sales (55.5%), Lack of Standard market place (4%),
Available substitute (4%) and poor infrastructure
(4%). Prices of Live chicken were generally varied
with respect to size and sex. 68% , 23.5% and 8.5%
of the respondents bared that small Male chicken is
sold for ₦100 to ₦300, Medium male for ₦301 to
₦500 and Big male for ₦710 to ₦1000 while
74.5%, 21.5% and 4% sold corresponding female
chickens for the same price except big female
chicken which at a lower price of ₦510 to 700. The
prices were generally lower despite the quality of
meat from Local chicken.
Table 5: Marketing of Poultry Products.
Factors Related to
Marketing of Chicken
Unstable price
Poor sales
Lack of market place
Available substitute
Poor infrastructures
Selling Price of Male
Chicken (Prices are in
Naira)
100-300
310-500
700-1000
Selling Price of Female
Chicken (Value are in
Naira)
100-300
310-500
510-700
1
2
FLOCK
3
4
5
Total
25(60.98)
12(29.26)
2(4.88)
1(2.44)
0(0)
0(0)
35(89.74)
0(0)
0(0)
4(10.26)
0(0)
33(84.62)
3(7.69)
0(0)
3(7.69)
17(41.46)
14(34.14)
2(4.88)
4(9.76)
4(9.76)
16(40)
17(42.5)
1(2.5)
3(7.5)
3(7.5)
58(29)
111(55.5)
8(4)
8(4)
14(7)
23(56.09)
14(34.14)
4(9.76)
30(76.92)
5(2.82)
4(10.26)
34(87.18)
2(5.12)
3(7.69)
27(67.5)
13(32.5)
1(2.5)
22(55)
13(32.5)
5(12.5)
136(68)
47(23.5)
17(8.5)
26(63.41)
12(29.26)
3(7.32)
35(89.74)
3(7.69)
1(2.56)
37(94.87)
2(5.12)
0(0)
30(73.17)
8(19.51)
3(7.32)
21(52.5)
18(45)
1(2.5)
149(75.5)
43(21.5)
8(4)
Value in the parenthesis represent percentages while outside represents actual values sampled.
Extension Services
The respondents uncovered that services of
extension services was not accessible as only 10.5%
were reached by extension agents while 89.5% were
not, this therefore prevented majority of the
respondent to be informed on new management
techniques in rural poultry production. Information
on improved management system reached
respondents through Neighbors (42%) while others
are extension (9.5%), market (15%), Radio (31%),
Newspaper (0.5) and Television (2 %).
Table 6: Percentage of Farmers reached by Extension Service.
FLOCK
1
2
3
Provision of Extension
Service
Yes
5(12.19)
2(5.12)
0(0)
No
36(87.80) 37(94.87) 39(100)
1030
J. Anim. Sci. Adv., 2014, 4(9): 1024-1032
Total
4
5
8(19.51)
33(80.49)
6(15)
334(85)
21(10.5)
179(89.5)
ON FARM CHARACTERIZATION OF FULANI ECOTYPE CHICKENS …
Information on Exotic
Breed and Improved
Management
Yes
No
Source of Information on
Improved Production
Extension agent
Market
Neighbor
Radio
Newspaper
Television
23(56.10)
18(43.90)
14(35.89)
25(64.10)
5(12.82)
34(87.18)
26(63.42)
15(36.58)
23(57.5)
17(42.5)
91(45.5)
101(54.5)
1(2.44)
0(0)
17(41.46)
23(56.09)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
0(0)
26(66.66)
12(30.76)
0(0)
1(2.56)
0(0)
0(0)
36(92.30)
2(5.12)
0(0)
1(2.56)
7(17.07)
7(17.07)
4(9.76)
20(48.78)
1(2.44)
2(4.88)
11(27.5)
23(57.5)
1(2.5)
5(12.4)
0(0)
0(0)
19(9.5)
30(15)
84(42)
62(31)
1(0.5)
4(2)
Conclusion and Recommendation
The present study established that Indigenous
chickens are sources of income, protein intake and
that they subsist under traditional Animal husbandry
with little input. Improvement in management
practices could significantly improve their output in
terms of egg and meat production. The study further
establish that women are majorly involved
management and rearing of Indigenous chickens
and it is therefore recommended that they should be
empowered through skill acquisition programme
and provision of soft loans. This will go a long way
solving problems associated with traditional
indigenous poultry husbandry and its multiplier
effect will be increased benefits.
References
Atteh JO (1989). Rural poultry production in western middle
belt region of Nigeria. Proc. International workshop on
rural Poult. Dev. Afr., 13-16 November (1989). Ile-Ife,
Nigeria. pp. 211-220.
Bell JG, Abdou I (1995). Dynamics of village poultry
production in the Keita region of Niger. Nig. J. Anim.
Prod., 22: 141-144.
Benabdeljehl K, Arfaoui T and Johnson P (2001). Traditional
Poultry farming in Morocco Livestock Community and
Environment. Proceedings of 10th Conf. Assoc. Inst.
Trop. Vet. Med., Copenhagen, Denmark.
Kibret B (2008). In situ characterization of local chicken
ecotype for functional trait and production system in
fogara woreda, Amnara regional state. M. Sc thesis
Haramaya University.
Branckaert RDS and Guèye EF (1999). FAO’s programme for
support to family poultry production. In Dolberg F and
Petersen PH, eds. Poultry as a Tool in Poverty
1031
J. Anim. Sci. Adv., 2014, 4(9): 1024-1032
Eradication and Promotion of Gender Equality,
Proceedings workshop, March 22-26, Tune Landboskole,
Denmark.
Gondwe TNP (2004). Characterization of local chicken in low
input-low output production systems: is there scope for
appropriate production and breeding strategies in
Malawi? (PhD thesis, Georg-August-Universität
Göttingen, Germany).
Gueye EF (1998). Village egg and fowl meat production in
Africa. World’s Poult. Sci. J., 54: 73-86.
Halima H (2007). Phenotypic and genetic characterization of
indigenous chicken populations in North-West Ethiopia.
PhD thesis. Faculty of natural and agricultural sciences,
department of animal, wildlife and grassland Sciences.
University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.
Khandait V, Gawande S, Lohakare A and Dhenge S (2011).
Adoption Level and Constraints in Backyard Poultry
Rearing Practices at Bhandara District of Maharashtra
(India). Res. J. Agri. Sci., 2(1): 110-113.
Kondombo SR, Nianogo AJ, Kwakkel RP, Udo HM and
Slingerland M (2003). Comparative analysis in village
chicken roduction in two farming systems in Burkina
Faso. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 35: 563-574.
Leta S, Endalew B (2010). Survey on Village Based Chicken
Production and Utilization System in Mid Rift Valley of
Oromia, Ethiopia. Global Vet.
Mapiye C and S Sibanda (2005). Constraints and opportunities
of village chicken production systems
in
the
smallholder sector of Rushinga districts of Zimbabwe.
Livest. Res. Rural Dev., Vol. 17, Article 115. Retrieved
February 27, (2003), from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd17/
10/mapi17115.htm.
Mcainsh CV, Kusina J, Madsen J, Nyoni O (2004). Traditional
chicken production in Zimbabwe. World’s Poult. Sci.,
60: 233-246.
Moges F, Azage T, Dessie T (2010). Indigenous chicken
production and marketing systems in Ethiopia:
Characteristics and opportunities for market-oriented
development. IPMS (Improving
Productivity
and
IGE A. O.
Market Success) of Ethiopian Farmers Project Working
Paper 24. Nairobi, Kenya, ILRI.
Moreda E, Hareppal S, Johansson A, Sisaye T and Sahile Z
(2013). Characteristics of Indigenous Chicken
Production System in South West and South Part of
Ethiopia. Br. J. Poult. Sci., 2(3): 25-32.
Muchadeyi F, Wollny C, Eding H, Weigend S, Makuza M and
Simianer H (2007). Variation in
village
chicken
production systems among agro-ecological zones of
Zimbabwe. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 39: 453-461.
Oladuntan and Oladimeji (1999). The evaluation of resident
satisfaction of public utilities in Ogbomoso-North Local
Government area (An unpublished undergraduate
project), Department of Urban and regional Planning,
Ladoke Akintola Univ. Technol. Ogbomoso., Oyo State,
Nigeria.
Owoyesigire BB (2002). The role, potential and constraints to
women in livestock production in the Teso farming
system. B.Sc. Special project dissertation, Makerere
University.
Pedersen C (2002). Production of semi-scavenging chickens in
Zimbabwe. PhD thesis. Royal Vet.
Agri.
Univ.,
Copenhagen, Denmark. 213 pp.
SAS (1999). SAS /STAT Users Guide, Version 8.1, Cary, NC
USA.
Serkalem T, Hagos A, Zeleke A (2005). Seroprevalence study
of Newcastle disease in local chickens
in
central
Ethiopia. Int. J. Appl. Res. Vet. Med., 3(1): 25-29.
Zewdu S, Kassa B, Agza B and Alemu F (2013). Village
chicken
production systems in Metekel zone,
Northwest Ethiopia. Wudpecker J. Agr. Res. Vol. 2(9).
pp. 256-262.
Tadelle D, Million T, Alemu Y, Peters KJ (2003). Village
chicken production systems in Ethiopia: Use patterns and
performance valuation and chicken products and socioeconomic functions of chicken. Livest. Res. Rural Dev.,
(15): 1.
1032
J. Anim. Sci. Adv., 2014, 4(9): 1024-1032