Household characteristics

From household characteristics of interviewed village chicken owner, 90% of the respondent households were male headed while the remaining 10% were female headed (Table 1). The result was similar to that reported from Western zone of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia (Shishay, 2014), and North-West (Fisseha, 2009), in which proportions of males (80, 86.3, 85.1 and 74.4%) were higher than females (20, 13.7, 14.9 and 25.6%) headed households, respectively. Regarding education level, 21% of the respondents were illiterate while 28% of them are found to be capable of reading and writing. About 33 and 9% of respondents attained primary education and secondary education respectively whereas 5 and 4% of the respondents were diploma and degree holder, respectively.  The   proportion  of  secondary   education, diploma and degree (10, 50 and 40%) in the intensive farm production system, respectively indicates that the households have equal access to education services in the three strata. Intensive chicken production needs high level of education to understand the chicken farming system like feeding, marketing. Education status was better than illiterate (41.5 and 41.3%), as reported from South-West Showa, Gurage zone of Ethiopia (Emabet, 2015) and Western zone of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia (Shishay, 2014), respectively.

Chicken flock composition

The survey disclosed that the mean total indigenous flock size per household in the strata significantly varies across the three strata (Table 2). The mean indigenous flock size per household of the third stratum (33.2±8.83) was significantly greater than both 1^st (10.14±2.83) and 2^nd (18.95±2.57) stratum while the 2^nd stratum (18.95±2.57) was significantly higher than 1^st stratum (10.14±2.83). Regarding the mean exotic flock size per household, the 3^rd stratum  (25.67 ±8.99)  was  significantly  greater  than both 1^st (8.00±0.00) and 2^nd strata (8.00±0.00). Also, pertaining to the mean crossbred chickens flock size per household, 2^nd stratum (23.0±8.54) was significantly higher than 3^rd (5.0 ±2.83) and 1^st stratum (3.00 ±0.00). The result of the study showed that the average flock size per stratum varied mainly due to knowledge of chicken production, economic status of chicken owners, availability of feed resource and the occurrence of diseases and predators.

Housing

The proportions of separate chicken house, constructing material and cleaning frequency were significantly different across the strata (p<0.05). Overall, (61.1%) of the respondent construct separate house for their chicken while the rest (38.9%) of them did not construct such for theirs. As regards total households chicken house construction for their chicken, with 40% found to come from stone wall with grass roof, and 22.2% wooden made with plastic sheet roof, the corrugated iron sheet having wall,  roof  and  stone  made  with  corrugated iron   sheet (very short on the ground) are equally 1.1% for each. From the overall household interviewed, 54.4% of the producers clean the chicken house whereas 45.6% household interviewed do not clean chicken house (Table 3). The result is similar to that reported by Addisu et al. (2013) and Halima (2007), but contrasts with that of Shishay (2014).

Ownership and gender role in chicken production

It was observed also that chicken shelter construction was done more by father (17%) than mother (13%); mother, father and male sole children (10%), hired person (9%), all family members (3%); and mother with children, father with children and female sole children (1%) in the study area (Figure 1). Mother had greater responsibility in the 3^rd stratum (16.7%) than both 2nd (13.3%) and 1^st (13.3%) strata indicating that when chicken number increased, mother in Lobar division especially in shelter construction increased. Although hired individuals had huge responsibility in chicken shelter construction under intensive chicken production (80%), this might be because necessary skills are required for constructing intensive chicken house. However, construction result by Alem et al. (2014) has revealed that the father is more responsible in chicken house construction (100%) in father’s headed household. Samssom and Endalew (2010) had also reported that the men (57.5%) had the heighest share of chicken house construction followed by children accounting for 30% in the mid Rift valley of Oromia, whereas father were mainly (63.9%) involved in chicken shelter construction (Bogale, 2008) and (97.5%) (Fisseha, 2009).

Overall, women participated more (53%) in feeding the chicken followed by father and mother (13%), and then hired person (7%). From the overall family members, mother share majorly (46%) in chicken watering, followed by father with mother (14%), all family members (10%) while mother with female children, sole male with hired person (6%) were equally watering chicken in the study area (Figure 1). This result is close to that reported by Bogale (2008) that women (59.72%) were more responsible for offering feed and water. As regards cleaning of chicken house in the three strata, mother was highly responsible, however, for intensive chicken production system, hired person were more responsible owing to its having above 50 chickens per respondent in the study area. Table 4 shows that father equally sells chicken (10%) in 2^nd and 3^rd strata and (50%) in the intensive chicken production. Overall, selling of eggs by mother was 68%, however, selling by father was 3.3, 3.3, 6.7 and 10% in the 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd strata and intensive, respectively.

The responsibility of cleaning chicken house by mother obtained in this study is fairly comparable from result (41.8%) reported by Shishay (2014)  but  lower  than  that (91%) reported by Meseret et al. (2011) and 82.5% reported by Mengesha and Tsega (2008). Father’s share of responsibilities of purchasing drug/treatment/ for chicken were (10, 40, 20 and 70%), 1st, 2nd, 3rd strata and intensive respectively. This result varies with report by Shishay (2014) that father (79.7%) share the responsibilities, mother (16.6%), male children (1.6%) and mother and female children (0.5%). However, the decision making share of the household members for egg selling and purchasing drug/treatment/ did not differ among the three strata (p<0.05) (Table 5). The survey reveals that mother had a greater share in deciding on the chicken and egg selling (51.1 and 74.5%), drug purchased/treatment (52.3%) whereas father’s decision making regarding chicken and egg selling (11 and 18.9%), and drug purchased/treatment (47.7%), respectively, indicated that father might be busy with other farming activities like cropping and managing large livestock (shoat, cattle and equine). This results were lower than that reported by both Shishay (2014) indicating that mother had the greatest share in deciding on the eggs selling (97.4%), and chicken selling (93.5%) and Alem et al. (2014) who reported that mother in female headed households were responsible for decision making on selling eggs (80 and 70%), selling chickens (82.5 and 72.5%), and purchasing of drugs (100 and 100%) in lowland and midland agro-ecology central zone Tigray. Except in the intensive production system mother participate on shelter construction according to Figure 1. The 1st strata 70%, 60%, and 43.3% chicken feed provided by mother respectively (Figures 2 to 4).

Feeding and feed resources

This study indicated that respondents (100%) of all strata practice supplementary feeding on the scavenging chicken. From all type of feed, supplemented maize (63%) account for scavenging chicken whereas complete feed (formulated feed) (100%) was for intensive chicken production; at scavenging, respondents has lack of knowledge in feeding chicken. This finding is fairly similar to the results reported by Shishay (2014) (100%), Werku et al. (2012) from West Amhara of Ethiopia (100%), and by Meseret (2010) (97.8%). Maize account for 76.7, 70 and 63.3% in the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd strata, respectively and wheat (20, 23.3 and 23.3%) in the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd strata, respectively whereas complete feed in 3^rd stratum and intensive were (3.3%) and (100%), respectively. In addition, Werku et al. (2012) reported that type of grain used as supplementary feeds varied across agro-ecology and (50.4%) of the households use maize as major source of feed supplementations while 39.3 and 10.3% of them used wheat and barley, respectively.

Thrice a day (morning, afternoon and evening) (46%), twice a day (morning and afternoon) (34%) and morning (8%) are the predominant practiced feed supplementation times per day presented in Table 6. Greater half of the respondent in the 3^rd stratum and intensive were (53.3%) and (60%), respectively whereas feeding were morning, afternoon and evening, indicating that it was due to increase in number of chicken per households. Emabet (2015) reported that 23.6% chicken owners offered supplementary feed to their chicken three times a day, 44.6% of them provided supplementary feeds two times a day and 31.7% of them provided supplementary feeds three times a day in the Southwest Showa and Gurage zones of Ethiopia. Tadesse et al. (2013) revealed that 78.9% of local chicken owners offered supplementary feed to their chicken three times a day (morning, afternoon and evening) whereas 21.9% provided supplementary feed two times a day. This implies that the perception of farmers towards proper feed supplementation of chickens improve chicken productivity (egg and meat yields) brooding egg increase (time chicken sit on egg) and health increase as time goes through acquired knowledge from their past experience and extension services. Thus, chicken under scavenging producers should be encouraged to offer diversified supplementary feed resources to chicken based on chicken age, breed categories and their production level in order to ensure sustainable improved chicken production, thereby impacting on food security of farmers and reducing the likelihood of children illnesses through diversification of consumable foods.

The study indicated that the basis for providing supplementary feeds had no variation among the strata (p<0.05) (Table 7). Offering of supplementary feeds were to increase egg yield, improve growth and health (36.7%), increase egg yield and growth (26.7%), increase egg yield (14.4%) and increase egg yield, improve health, growth and broodiness (13.3%), growth and improve health (5.6%) and increase egg yield and improve health (3.3%). The result contrast with the finding of Shisay (2014) report that majority of supplementary feeds are offered to increase both meat and egg yields and to maintain health status (90.6%), and to increase both meat and egg yields (6.2%). In addition, Addisu et al. (2013) reported that the major objective of feed supplementation of chicken owners were to increase  egg yields (33.99%), to increase meat yields (34.97%) and maintain health (31.7%).

The survey indicate that there were no significant variation observed with regard to improvement perceived due to feed supplementation and season of extra feeding across the three strata in the study area (p<0.05) (Table 6). The result obtained from extra supplementary feed (43.3, 36.7 and 20%) perceived egg yield, growth and improved  health  status  in  the  1^st,   2^nd   and   3^rd  strata, respectively, and for which the 3^rd stratum had lower proportion households than both 1^st and 2^nd strata. The summer season of supplementary feeding (Jul-Sept) indicated that the 3^rd stratum (70%) had lower proportion of respondents than the 1^st (83.3%) and 2^nd strata (83.3%). From the entire summer season (Jul-Sept), high supplementation   feed   observed   across   the  strata  is possibly because at summer there is lack of feed for scavenging chicken in the study area. Overall, the result indicates that 78.9% of total households interviewed responded that season of critical extra feeding was summer (Jul-Sept). Similar finding reported by Samson and Endalew (2010) in mid rift valley of Oromia revealed that 95% of the respondents are  of  the  opinion  that  the critical time of supplementary feeding was from June-August whereas the remaining 5% of them indicated that March-May was the critical time of feed supplementation. Feed has continued to be a critical problem especially in wet season under village scavenging chicken production system, thus it may have necessitated persuading the farmer to practice strategic supplementation to increase meat and egg production thereby impacting on food security.

Water resources and watering

Water plays an important part in the digestion and metabolism of the fowl; in addition, it serve as a media to administer some important vaccines. Generally, 71% of the respondents provided water for their chicken at ‘bega’ (dry season) whereas the rest (29%) provides water for their chicken in all seasons (bega and kiremt) in all the years as stated in Table 10. Despite variations in sourceof water and frequency of watering, almost all of the respondents provided water for their chickens. This is a promising and good experience and could be considered as one aspect of their concern to their chickens. Concerning the source of water, the water given to chickens was drawn from well water (underground water) (68%), river (3%), tap water (18%) and river and tap water (11%). Majority of respondents (90%) provided water for their chicken ad-libitum (freely), 6% do this three times per day, 3% twice a day and 1% once per day. Concerning the drinking materials, plastic made formal waterier was (10%), plastic made (55%), earthen pot (2%), wooden trough (5%), stone made (21%), half of pot (broken) (1%), half ‘jerrycan’ (4%), and metallic made (2%) (Table 10). Achievement of sustainable improved chicken productivity requires provision and adlib fresh water on clean waterier on a regular basis. Training for chicken producers on the use of water to achieve chicken productivity, thereby increases economic return and ensure food security on small farmers. According to Kathy (2012), water is critically  important   to   chickens   because   it   plays  an important role in regulating body temperature, digesting food and eliminating body wastes. Water is by far the single greatest constituent of body and represents about 70% of total body weight. It is very crucial for egg production since egg consist of approximately 75% water; and without access to a regular clean supply of water, a hen would be physically unable to produce eggs.

Production and reproduction performance of village chicken

The survey revealed that average eggs/hen/clutch was not significantly different across strata (Table 8). Total egg productions per hen per year was 76.4±29.4 regardless of breed type, and number of eggs wasted per set in 1^st stratum was higher (3.5±1.2) than 2^nd (2.6±1.3) and 3^rd strata (3.2±2.3). The average age of scavenging cockerels at first mating and pullets at first egg were 24.4±7.3 weeks and 24.2±4.0 weeks, respectively. The results were comparable with Moges. et al. (2010) who reported that the average age of local cockerels at first mating and pullets at first egg were 24.6 weeks (5.74 months) and 27.5 weeks (6.42 months), respectively. Also, the results of survey were similar to that of Halima (2007) who reported that 77.4% of cocks of local chicken ecotypes reached maturity at 20-24 weeks of age.

Intensive production

From total interviewed, intensive farms that have been rearing chicken with > 4 years’ experience were only 40%. Forty percent of the respondents get the chicks from foreign country by importing parent stock and final hybrid whereas sixty percent were getting the final hybrid chicken from Bishoftu city. According to the respondents, a good available opportunity for intensive chicken farming  includes good climate, more land, access to human lobar and near market root (Addis Ababa capital city and others) (90%). From the total intensive farm, 50% of them were   correspondingly  included  in   layers   and   broiler production, indicating that broiler can generate income within two months but layers income will be obtained after seven months on average. This implies that broiler is used to generate income that further helps with layer chicken (egg production). Even though good opportunity is available, there are constraints with chicken production such as high price of feed (30%), lack of reliable market (30%),  lack   of  improved  chick  breed  (20%),   disease outbreak (10%) and lack of capital (10%). For sustainable chicken production, the respondents revealed that except for the freedom from tax by the government which was 30%; encouragement was 20%, fulfilled facility infrastructure like road and electricity (10%), regular follow up (30%) and make market chain (10%) is observed in the study area. The intensive farms (40%) do sell their chicken product at holidays season (to consumers) whereas 30% sell to traders (intermediate), 10% sell to supermarkets while 20% recently joined chicken farming so they have not started selling as presented in Table 9. Generally, chicken feed and nutrition is one of the most critical constraints to poultry production under both the rural smallholder and large-scale systems in Ethiopia. The problem is mainly associated with lack of processing facilities, inconsistent availability and distribution as well as sub-standard quality of processed feeds, when available (Haftu, 2016). Currently, understanding the problem, the Ethiopian Quality   and   Standards  Authority  is  working  with   the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP) on feed quality standards and legislation (Mazengia et al., 2012; Dessie et al., 2013).