0STUDIES ON POULTRY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, MARKETING SYSTEM AND EFFECT OF FEEDING FISH MEAL ON GROWTH PERFORMANCE AND CARCASS CHARACTERISTICS OF KOEKOEK CHICKENS IN BORA DISTRICT, EAST SHOA ZONE M.Sc. THESIS KEDIR ABDURAHMAN TERIE HAWASSA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, HAWASSA, ETHIOPIA JUNE, 2016 ISTUDIES ON POULTRY MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, MARKETING SYSTEM AND EFFECT OF FEEDING FISH MEAL ON GROWTH PERFORMANCE AND CARCASS CHARACHTERISTICS OF KOEKOEK CHIEKENS IN BORA DISTRICT ,EAST SHOA ZONE KEDIR ABDURAHMAN TERIE MAJOR ADVISOR: AJEBU NURFETA (PhD) CO ADVISOR: ABULE EBRO (PhD) A THESIS SUBMITTED TO SCHOOL OF ANIMAL AND RANGE SCIENCES HAWASSA UNIVERSITY COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN ANIMAL AND RANGE LANDS SCIENCES (SPECIALIZATION: ANIMAL PRODUCTION) HAWASSA, ETHIOPIA JUNE, 2016 II APROVAL SHEET 1 SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES HAWASSA UNIVERSITY This is to certify that the thesis entitled “studies on poultry management practices; marketing system and effect of feeding fish meal on growth performance and carcass characteristic of koekoek chicken in Bora district, East shoa zone”. Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science with specialization in Animal Production to the Graduate Program of the Department of Animal and Range Sciences, Hawassa College of Agriculture, and is a record of original research carried out by kedir Abdurrahman Terie ID. No. SGS/004/2006, under my supervision, and no part of the thesis has been submitted for any other degree or diploma. The assistance and help received during the course of this investigation have been duly acknowledged. Therefore, I recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the thesis requirements. Name of major advisor Signature Date Name of co- advisor Signature Date III APROVAL SHEET 2 SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES HAWASSA UNIVERSITY As members of the Examining Board of the Final MSc Open Defense, we certify that we have read and evaluated the thesis prepared by Kedir Abdurahman Terie entitled “studies on poultry management practices; marketing system and effect of feeding fish meal on growth performance and carcass characteristic of koekoek chickens in Bora district, East Shoa Zone” and recommend that it be accepted as fulfilling the thesis requirement for the degree of Master of Science in Animal and Range Sciences with specialization in Animal production, College of Agriculture Name of Chairman Signature Date ………………………………… ..…………………….. …..………………. Name of Major Advisor Signature Date ………………………………… ..…………………….. …..………………. Name of Co-advisor Signature Date ………………………………… ..…………………….. …..………………. Name of Internal Examiner Signature Date ………………………………… ..…………………….. …..………………. Name of External Examiner Signature Date ………………………………… ..…………………….. …..………………. Final approval and acceptance of the thesis is contingent upon the submission of the final copy of the thesis to the Department of Graduate Council (DGC) of the candidate’s school. ………………………………… ..…………………….. …..………………. School head signature Date I hereby certify that I have read this thesis prepared under my direction and recommend that it accepted as fulfilling the thesis require IV DEDCATION This thesis is dedicated to my father Abdurahman Terie who passed away when I was a child and didn’t see any of my fruits. VSTATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR I declare that this thesis is my original work and that all sources of materials used for this thesis have been duly acknowledged. This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for an M. Sc degree at Hawassa University and is deposited at the University library to be made available to borrowers under rules of the library. I also declare that this thesis is not submitted to any other institution anywhere for the award of any academic degree, diploma, or certificate. Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without special permission provided that accurate acknowledgement of source is made. Request for permission for extended quotation from or reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted by the head of the major department or the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies when in his or her judgment the proposed use of the material is in the interest of scholarship. In all other instances, however, permission must be obtained from the Author. Name Kedir Abdurahman Terie Place College of Agriculture, Hawassa University, Hawassa Date of submission -------------------------------- VI AKNOWLDGEMENT First of all praise is due to Allah (the lord of the universe) for giving me the inner strength and ability to accomplish this study. I would like to express my heartfelt thanks to my major advisor Dr. Ajebu Nurfeta for spending his precious time, to give regular advice, material assistance and to correct this manuscript from beginning of proposal to end of thesis. My heartfelt appreciations are also forwarded to my co-advisor Dr. Abule Ebro( LIVES Regional coordinator) for his support in selecting title, commenting the proposal, strengthening me and visit during the experiment at Meki site. My special thanks goes to International livestock Research Institute (ILRI) in general and livestock Irrigation Value chain of Ethiopian small holder (LIVES) in particular for sponsored me to join post graduate program ,to cover research cost and student stipend during my study. I would like to express my thanks to Bora woreda administration particularly Bora Livestock development and healthy agency for allowing me to join the MSC program and paying my salary throughout my study period. I would also like to express my gratitude to all staff members of Bora Livestock development and healthy agency, development agent and kebele manager for their willing and support for the survey work of this study. I would like to express my thanks to all the farmers who participated in this study, for their patience and give me their precious time, and willingness to share their experiences. My special thanks also go to Ato midhagsa Raggaasa with all his families for allowing me to use experimental house, providing me available materials and direct involvement in regular chicken management during experimental period. I express my sincere thanks to Badhadha cindi (Dugda livestock development and healthy agency extension team leader) for his facilitation and direct involvement in fish meal VII preparation process. I wish to acknowledge all my classmates in general and Tesfaye Moreda, Fikremarium Negasa and Guyyo Damissie in particular for their all round support. I also thank the school of graduate studies and department of Animal and Range Sciences for the facilitation of laboratory equipments for feed chemical analysis. I would like to express my deep gratitude from the inner core of my heart to my beloved wife Temima Abdurahman for her vision and encouragement during the whole study period, shouldering all the social and family responsibility, impossible patience in my absence, willingness to use her computer ,moral and financial support that facilitated successful completion of this study. Tamu I never forget your patience when you give birth our 2nd kids (Toltu) I leave you in Hospital alone and go for carcass analysis. My deepest thanks also go to my mother Kamila H/Hussein for her growing me both as father and mother and always with me in prayer. I also thanks my family member’s Muhammad Abdurahman, Jamal Abdurahman, Medina Jamal, Tahir Hassan and Zeynaba Hassan and my father &mother in law and all sister and brother in law, for their moral support, and encouragement. Finally, I extend my special thanks to my beloved children, Hamilton and Toltu Kedir for their love and patience a source of inspiration, motivation and strength for me to complete this study. VIII LIST OF ABRIVATIONS ANOVA Analyse of variance AOAC Association of Official Analytical Chemists ADBWG Average Daily Body Weight Gain BB Bovine Brown BLDHA Bora Livestock Development and Health Agency BLAO Bora Land Administration Office CF Crude fiber CRD Completely Randomized Design CP Crude protein CSA Central Statistics Agency DM Dray mater EE Ether Extract FAO Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nation FCR Feed Conversion Ratio GDP Gross domestic product GLM General Linear Model I B Isa Brown LIVES livestock and Irrigation Value Chain for Ethiopian Small Holder Projec ME Metabolizible Energy MRR Marginal Rate of Return IX NCFR Non –conventional feed resources NVI National Veterinary Institute NI Net Income P Phosphorus P Probability value PK Potchefstroom Koekoek RVMLZ Rift Valley Maize Livelihood Zone SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences TVT Total Variable Cost TR Total return UN United Nation VC Variable Cost XTABLE OF CONTENTS Contents STATEMENT OF THE AUTHOR……………………………………………………………………. V AKNOWLDGEMENT………………………………………………………………………………… VI LIST OF ABRIVATIONS……………………………………………………………………………...VIII TABLE OF CONTENTS………………………………………………………………………………. X LISTOFFIGRES………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….......XIV LIST OF TABLES IN APPENDAX………………………………………………………………….. XIV ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….XIV 1. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………………………………………… 1 2. LITIRATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………………………………….. 5 2.1. Poultry production systems in Ethiopia ....................................................................................... 5 2.1.1. Large scale commercial production system............................................................................ 5 2.1.2. Small scale intensive production system................................................................................ 6 2.1.3. Village/indigenous production system ................................................................................... 6 2.2. Poultry management practice in Ethiopia .................................................................................... 7 2.2.1 Poultry Feed Resources and feeding practice.......................................................................... 7 2.2.1.1. Conventional feed resource ............................................................................................ 8 2.2.1.2. Non-conventional feed resource........................................................................ 9 2.2.1.2.1. Fish meal................................................................................................... 9 2.2.2. Housing and watering.......................................................................................................... 11 2.2.3 Health management ................................................................................................................ 12 2.3. Marketing system of chicken and eggs ...................................................................................... 13 2.4. Challenges and opportunities of poultry production in Ethiopia ............................................... 14 2.5. Input supply and poultry value chain actors .............................................................................. 15 2.6. Effect feeding fish meal on growth performance and carcass characteristics............................ 16 3. MATERIAL AND METHODS………………………………………………………………………18 3.1. Description of the study area...................................................................................................... 18 3.1.1 Climate ................................................................................................................................... 18 XI 3.1.2 Human and livestock population ............................................................................................ 18 3.1.3 Land use pattern ..................................................................................................................... 19 3.2. Study type .................................................................................................................................. 19 3.2.1. Poultry management practices, marketing system ................................................................ 19 3.2.1.1. Sampling Method ......................................................................................................... 19 3.2.1.2. Data collection Method ................................................................................................ 20 3.2.2. The effect of feeding fish meal on growth performance and carcass characteristics ............ 22 3.2.2.1. Fish meal preparation ................................................................................................... 22 3.3.2. Feed ingredients and formulating ration................................................................................ 24 3.3.3 Experimental design ............................................................................................................... 25 3.3.4. Experimental chicks and their management.......................................................................... 26 3.3.5. Measurement of growth performance ................................................................................... 27 3.3.6. Measurement of carcass characteristics................................................................................. 27 3.3.7. Chemical analysis of feed ingredients ................................................................................... 28 3.3.8. Partial budget analysis........................................................................................................... 28 3.3.9. Statistical Analysis ................................................................................................................ 29 4. RESULTS…………………………………………………………………………………………… 31 4.1. Poultry management practices and marketing system ............................................................... 31 4.1.1. Household characteristics of respondents ............................................................................. 31 4.1.2. Land size and land use........................................................................................................... 33 4.1.3. Average livestock holding and composition ......................................................................... 33 4.1.4. Poultry management practices in the district......................................................................... 34 4.1.4.1. Feed and feeding practices ........................................................................................... 34 4.1.5.3. Housing facility in the district ...................................................................................... 36 4.1.5.4. Provision of water ........................................................................................................ 37 4.1.5.5. Health management ...................................................................................................... 38 4.1.6. Marketing system of egg and chicken ................................................................................... 39 4.1.7. Major Challenges and opportunities of poultry production................................................... 41 4.1.8. Input supply and service provision in the district.................................................................. 41 4.1.9. Poultry and egg value chain actor in the district ................................................................... 42 4.2. Effect of feeding fish meal on growth performance and carcass characteristics ....................... 44 4.2.1. Nutrient and energy contents of experimental diets .............................................................. 44 XII 4.2.2. Nutrient and energy intake of chickens ................................................................................. 45 4.2.3. Effect of feeding fish meal on body weight gain, and feed conversion ratio ........................ 46 4.2.4. Effect of sex on chicken fed fish meal .................................................................................. 47 4.2.5. Effect of age on chicken fed fish meal .................................................................................. 48 4.2.6. Carcass characteristics of chicken ......................................................................................... 49 4.2.6.1. Total edible Component (TEC) .................................................................................... 49 4.2.6.2 Total non-edible offal (TNEO)...................................................................................... 51 4.2.8. Partial budget analysis........................................................................................................... 53 5. DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………………………………… 54 5.1. Poultry management practices and marketing system ............................................................... 54 5.1.1. Household characteristics of respondents ............................................................................. 54 5.1.2. Average livestock holding and composition ......................................................................... 55 5.1.3. Feed and feeding practices .................................................................................................... 56 5.1.4. Housing facilities................................................................................................................. 57 5.1.5. Provision of water ................................................................................................................. 58 5.1.6. Health management ............................................................................................................... 59 5.1.7. Marketing system of eggs and chickens................................................................................ 60 5.1.8. Major Challenges and opportunities of poultry production................................................... 61 5.1.9. Input supply and value chain actors in the district. ............................................................... 61 5.2. The effect of feeding fish meal on growth performance and carcass characteristics................. 62 5.2.1. Nutrient and energy contents of the experimental diets ........................................................ 62 5.2.2. Nutrient and energy intake of chickens. ................................................................................ 64 5.2.3. Effect of feed, age and sex on growing chicken fed fish meal. ......................................... 64 5.2.6. Partial budget analysis........................................................................................................... 67 6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION…………………………………………………….. 68 6.1. Conclusion ................................................................................................................................. 68 6.2. Recommendation ....................................................................................................................... 69 7. REFERENCE……………………………………………………………………………………….. 70 8. APPENDIX…………………………………………………………………………………………. 79 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH……………………………………………………………………………92 XIII LIST OF FIGRES page Figure 1 Cooking of fish offal in the process of fish meal preparation .................................... 22 Figure 2 Fish offal drying process at Meki site.......................................................................... 23 Figure 3 brooding of experimental chicken at Meki site ........................................................... 26 Figure 4 Effect of sex on mean daily body weight gain (g/chick/bird) of koekoek chickens fed different levels of fish meal…………………………………………………………………….48 Figure 5 a and b relationship between ADBWG and FCR during the experimental period...... 49 XIV LIST OF TABLES IN APPENDAX Appendix1 Prices of feed ingredients used in experimental diets and cost of chicken .............79 Appendix 2 ANOVA results regarding effect of dietary treatment on nutrient (g/chick/day) and energy (kcal/chick/day) intake of koekoek chickens fed diet contains different levels fish meal………………………………………………………………………… .. ……………… 80 Appendix 3 Repeated measure ANOVA result regarding effect of treatment and age on feed conversion ratio ( g feed/g gain)of koekoek chicken fed different levels of locally prepared fish meal……………………………………………………………………. ............................81 Appendix 4 Repeated measure ANOVA result regarding effect of treatment (feed type),sex and age (weeks) on weight gain (g/chick/day) of koekoek chicken fed different level of fish meal……………………………………………………………………………………… 82 Appendix 5 ANOVA results regarding effect of treatment and sex and on carcass characteristic of koekoek chicken fed different level of locally prepared fish meal…………… …………..83 Appendix 6 Survey questionnaire format...................................................................................87 XV Studies on poultry management practices; marketing system and effect of feeding fish meal on growth performance and carcass characteristic of koekoek chicken in Bora district, East Shoa zone Kedir Abdurahman Major Advisor: Ajebu Nurfeta (PhD) and Co-Advisor: Abule Ebro (PhD) ABSTRACT Study was conducted to assess poultry management practices& marketing system, effects of feeding fish meal on growth performance and carcass characteristic of koekoek chicken in Bora district, East Zone, Oromia. The study involved cross-sectional Survey and feeding trail the survey involved 120 purposively selected respondents from six purposively selected kebels in the district. Semi-structured questioners were used to collect data from sampled households. In addition poultry traders, sellers; buyers, a total of twelve informants were randomly selected and interviewed. The feeding experiment was conducted to evaluate growth performance, carcass characteristics and economic benefit of koekoek chickens fed different levels of fish meal as replacement to soybean. Fish offal was collected from Koka reservoir and Ellen Lake and then cooked and sun dried. The treatments contained control (T1), 5% fish meal and 15% soybean meal; for T2, T3, and T4 fish meal were included at 10%, 15%, and 20%, respectively, to replace soybean in concentrate mixture. One hundred and twenty koekoek chickens were assigned to the dietary treatments in a completely randomized design, two replications each with 15 chickens per replications. The feeding trials lasted for forty eight days. At the ends of the trial 2 chickens (one male and one female) were randomly taken from each replication and slaughtered for carcass analysis. Survey results indicated that 95.8% of the respondents provided additional supplement for their chicken. About 91% of the respondents have no separate poultry house. All most all of respondents (99%) were providing water for their chicken of which 92.5% were tape water. The majority of the respondents (90%) did not vaccinate their chicken and they treat their chicken with traditional medicine (54.2%). Live bird (46.7%) and eggs (45%) were sold for household expenditure in village, local market and shops. About 70% of respondents bring their chicken to market by tying together and hangs them down. Diseases (50%) and predator (26%) were listed as major constraints in districts. T1 and T2 had higher dry matter and organic matter intake compared with T3 and T4. The lowest metabolizible intake was for T4. T4 had the highest (P<0.001) Ca and P intakes. Average daily gain for T1 was the highest (P<0.001) whereas T3 and T4 had the lowest value. Chicks fed on T1 produced higher slaughter weight (p<0.001), drumsticks (p<0.001), thighs (p<0.004), wings (p<0.001), and total carcass weight (p<0.001), total edible component (p<0.001). Dietary treatments did not produce significance difference (p>0.05) on total edible offal and dressing percentage. Incorporation of fish meal in the ration of grower chicks up to 10% is recommended in terms of performance and profits. Keywords: poultry, management, chicken, marketing, growth, carcass 11. INTRODUCTION Agriculture is the back bone of Ethiopian economy where the sector contributes about 42.3% to the total Gross Domestic product (GDP), (World Bank, 2014). Livestock sector as integral part of agriculture contributes about 40% of agricultural GDP and quarter (26.4%) of national GDP (ILRI, 2016) .In terms of number, Ethiopia has the largest livestock population in Africa and it is home to 56.71 million cattle, 29.33million sheep, 29.11 million goats, 2.03 million horses, 7.43 million donkeys, 0.4 million mules, 1.16 million camels and 56.87 million poultry (CSA, 2015). Huge livestock population in general and poultry in particular, could be expected to increase its contribution to the total agricultural output as well as to improve the living standards of small holder farmers (Thomas et al., 2009). This is mainly due to their small size, fast reproduction, low labor, low energy and low initial capital requirement and less detrimental impact on the environment compared to other livestock (David, 2010). Human population growth, urbanization and income improvements are causes of increased demands for foods of animal origin in the developing countries (Abdullah et al., 2011). Shortage of animal protein availability is a major problem in Africa and common cause for infant mortality (Mengasha, 2011). Poultry is the largest group of livestock species contributing about 33% of all animal protein consumed in the world (FAO, 2010). In Ethiopia there is a high demand for animal protein, particularly from poultry. However, the performance of chickens in Ethiopia is poor and consequently the demand for chicken products is not met (WPSA, 2013). Diseases, predators, poor feeding and poor access for 2market information are major constraints which have resulted in low production of poultry and poultry products in the country (Hunduma et al., 2010). Although substantial works have been done on poultry management practices many of them ignored potential role of poultry value chain development. According to Moges et al. (2010b) efforts to improve management of village chicken should be complemented by a supportive marketing system. Identifying opportunities and constraints of poultry production are also important in designing and implementing of village based chicken development program which can benefit smallholder farmers. Furthermore to increase production and productivity of poultry, horizontal and vertical linkage of poultry value chain actors and service providers are important. Identification of actors, their linkage and knowledge flow among actors’ enhanced production and productivity. Therefore it is an issues need to be addressed. In Ethiopia, availability and cost of feed is one of the major limitations to poultry production this is partly due to the fact that most ingredients of poultry feeds are also used for human consumption that led for competition in east Africa (Mengasha, 2011). Similarly, Gura (2008) reported that the competition between feed- foods is expected to make worse price of poultry feeds that force poultry producers to look for alternative and locally available feed sources. The situation currently faced by the small scale commercial poultry farmers in Ethiopia in general and Bora district in particular is that commercial feeds mainly protein sources for exotic poultry breed is often too expensive to purchase. 3However, in Ethiopia a number of by-products from agricultural processing and aquatic by- products are available, which are usually not utilized for human consumption, but may have a high potential for small-scale poultry production. The conversion of locally available by- products into high quality poultry protein can be a major contribution to improve the protein supply for the local human population. A lot of agricultural and agro-industrial by-products available in Ethiopia have been evaluated for their production potential as poultry and livestock feed (Adugna, 2007; Tadesse et al.; 2009 a, b; Ajebu, 2010). There are several feed processing plants in East Shoa zone mainly concentrated around major city of Bishoftu, Mojo and Adama. There are also lots of flour mill and edible oil processing factories in the same Zone. However, use of concentrate by smallholder farmers as poultry` feed was limited partly due to lack of knowledge and skill in its use (LIVES, 2013). Fish meal is one of the alternatives and a notable feed resource with high nutrient density and availability in the rift valley of Ethiopia (Asrat et al., 2007). It is an excellent source of protein for poultry and contains a good balance of amino acids such as methionine and lysine (Jacob, 2013). the use of agro industry by product and fish meal as poultry feed could reduce market competition with human food in one hand and improve the profitability of poultry framing by lowering the prices and avoid environmental pollution due to waste in the other hand. However, small holder farmers required knowledge and skill to formulate poultry ration using fish meal and agro industry by products. Therefore, the present study was conducted to fill this knowledge gap. 4Bora, a district in East shoa zone has access for such agro-industry by- products and aquatic by-products due to its proximity to Adama, Modjo, Bishoftu and presence of Lake Ellen, Koka reservoir and Awash River. With the aim of improving poultry productivity, different breeds of exotic chickens such as Isa Brown (IB), Bovine Brown (BB) and hybrid Potchefstroom Koekoek (PK) were introduced to East shoa zone from Bishoftu and Adama by extension service providers (Desalew 2012; LIVES, 2013). However, the productivity of this breed was not studied before in the district under farmer’s management condition. Thus the current research was conducted to assess poultry management practices and marketing system, growth performance and carcass characteristics of koekoek chickens fed different levels of fish meal Specific objectives  To assess poultry management practices and marketing system in Bora district of East shoa Zone  To identify major challenges & opportunities of poultry along the value chain  To evaluate the growth performance, carcass characteristics and economic return of koekoek chick fed different levels fish meal 52. LITIRATURE REVIEW 2.1. Poultry production systems in Ethiopia The poultry production system in Ethiopia can be characterized into three major production systems based on some selected parameters such as breed, flock size, housing, feeding, health, technology and bio-security. These are large scale commercial poultry production system, small-scale commercial poultry production system and village or backyard poultry production system (Bush, 2006). 2.1.1. Large scale commercial production system This is highly intensive production system involves an average of greater or equal to 10,000 birds kept under indoor conditions with a medium to high bio-security level. This system heavily depends on imported exotic breeds that require intensive inputs such as feed, housing, health, and modern management systems. It is estimated that this sector accounts for nearly 1.35 % of the national poultry population (CSA, 2015). All of these, except some managed by small scale intensive, are used by large scale (private and government) commercial poultry farms (FAO, 2008). This system is characterized by higher level of productivity where poultry production is entirely market oriented to meet the large poultry demand in major cities. The existence of somehow better bio-security practices has reduced chick mortality rates to merely 5% (Bush, 2006). Although traditional practices continue to dominate domestic poultry production in Ethiopia; there has been shift to industrial production (FAO, 2008). Kryger et al. (2010) reported that there are emerging signs of restructuring–with a shift away from small-scale commercial production towards larger-scale production. FAO (2007) as cited by Emebet (2015 ) also reported that average flock size of 6commercial production system ranges from 2500 to 50,000 that uses specialized breed and modern housing generally with concrete wall and regulated internal environment, the feeds were commercially compounded feed and standard and regular healthy program. They also used cold chain system for input-output distribution. 2.1.2. Small scale intensive production system It is characterized by medium level of feed, water and veterinary service inputs and minimal to low bio-security. Most small-scale poultry farms obtain their feed and foundation stock from large-scale commercial farms (Nzietcheung, 2008). There are few studies about diseases affecting poultry in this production system. Small scale intensive poultry is newly emerging in urban and peri urban areas where either broilers or egg type of exotic breeds are produced along commercial lines using relatively modern management methods this activities is being under taken as source of income in and round major cities and towns such as Debra-Zeit. FAO (2007) reported that small scale intensive production system used specialized and dual purpose breed range from 50-1000. The housing was varied from modern houses to simple houses made from locally available material while feed resources were commercially compounded feed, homemade mixture and scavenging. Disease control and healthy program were at varies levels. Input-output distribution based on existing trading center. 2.1.3. Village/indigenous production system This is characterized by little or no inputs for housing, feeding (scavenging is the only source of diet) and health care with minimal level of bio-security, high off take rates and high level of mortality FAO, (2008). As such, it does not involve investment beyond the cost of the 7foundation stock, a few handfuls of local grains and possibly simple night shades, mostly night time in the family dwellings. Mostly, indigenous chickens are kept although some hybrids and exotic breeds may be kept under this system (Dawit et al., 2008). 2.2. Poultry management practice in Ethiopia 2.2.1 Poultry Feed Resources and feeding practice In Ethiopia absence of purpose full feeding of local chicken make scavenging feed resource base the only source of diet for those chickens under village condition .it is in adequate and variable depend on season. For effective utilization of locally available feed resources scavenging production system is an appropriate and it is play an important role in converting house hold leftover ,wastes and insects into valuable and quality protein(doviet ,2005) scavenging feed resource base contain different feeding material which include crop seeds ,plant material ,worms ,insects and undefined materials for improving chicken performance feed supplementation as common practice has been reported in many countries including Ethiopia (Melkamu, 2013); Borkinafaso (kondombo et al., 2005). In Ethiopia 99%, 97.5% and 98% of chicken owners supplement feed to their chicks reported by (Halima, 2007; Mogoes et al., 2010; Mengasha et al., 2011). To improve growth reproductive rate and survival at village level: provision shelter, regular supply of drinking water and some supplementary feeds are important factor (Wilson, 2010). Habte et al. (2014) reported the supplementary feeds used in Amaro district were mainly combinations of maize and small grain (67.6%). In Ethiopian the majority of chicken owners supply feed to chickens on the ground. Wondu et al. (2014) reported that in North Gondar 58% of respondents supply feed to chickens on the ground. Feleke et al. (2015) also reported 83.7% respondents supplement 8feeds on bare ground. Most of chicken owners in different parts of Ethiopia feed their chicken together for instance Wondu et al. (2014) reported 73% of farmers fed their chicken together in North Gondar. Nebiyu et al. (2013) also reported that about 81.8% of the farmers provided supplemental feeds for different age groups together in Alaba district. The majority of the households offer supplement twice a day. Emebet (2015) reported about 44.6% Meseret (2010) 48.3 % of farmers offered supplemental feeds twice a day. 2.2.1.1. Conventional feed resource Conventional feed sources are those feeds which are commonly and traditionally used for chicken feed (Yaqoob, 2005). However, conventional feed resources are facing a problem of competition with human foods. Gura (2008) stated that the recent feed price increment may upset many of the plans to further development of industrial poultry productions. Concern on locally available feed sources utilization is very likely to improve prices increments of poultry feeds. Consequently, FAO (2009) reported that smallholders, if not protected, may be among those who will suffer most from price increases in local feed sources. In this regard, Emam and Hassan (2010) reported from Sudan that the feed cost is the main cost item in different poultry-farm types and sizes. While replacing alternative ingredients, equivalency of nutritional values, costs and side effects on birds should be assessed and considered. Moreover, the trend of poultry production and the poultry feed source situation analysis is required for a country. Chad (2007) reported that elevated levels of poultry feed availability will be required to meet feed demands of poultry production. The conventional feeds like wheat milling by product wheat bran and corn grain generally had higher crude protein (CP) and ME contents. 92.2.1.2. Non-conventional feed resource Non –conventional feed resources are (NCFR) are feeds which are not usually common in markets and not traditional ingredients. NCFRs are recognized for being non competitive in terms of human consumption ,very cheap to purchase ,by product or west product from Agriculture ,farm made feeds and processing industries and are able to serve as farm waste management in enhancing good sanitation. All these can be recycled to improve their value if there are economically acceptable and technological means for converting them into usable product 2.2.1.2.1. Fish meal There is chronic shortage of supply of protein concentrates for poultry that necessitates investigations of the potentials of some feed resources that are cheaper, locally available and have comparative nutritional value as the conventional protein sources. Fish meal is notable feed ingredient with high nutrient density and availability in the rift valley of Ethiopia that deserves attention as livestock protein source (Asrat, 2008). Most fish meals are good sources of proteins (Donald and William, 2002) and contain omega -3 and -6 fatty acids that protect health and welfare and reduce dependence of chicks on antibiotics and other drugs. Thus the meal is a satisfactory and cheap animal protein that can partly replace expensive plant protein sources such as soybean and oil seed cakes. Fish meal is a well known source of true protein with high biological value in the nutrition of monogastric animals Mikule et al. (2004). Karimi (2006) reported that fish meal as a natural balanced feed ingredient is high in protein and other macro and micro nutrients. It is reported by Donald and William (2002) that fish meals vary in their content of crude protein from 55 to 75%. 10 Good quality fish meal is usually marketed at 65% crude protein, but the crude protein content can vary from 57 to 77%, depending on the species of fish used (Miles and Jacqueline, 2006; Scanes et al., 2004). Jacob (2013) reported the composition of fishmeal will vary depending on the species of fish used, the method with which it was processed, and whether or not the fillets were removed prior to processing. On the other hand, it is also reported by Miles and Chapman (2006) that high-quality fish meal normally contains between 60% and 72% crude protein by weight. Negussie and Alemu (2005) reported 70% crude protein fish meal in Ethiopia. (Batal and Dale, 2010) reported Cp contain of fish meal as 53%. Fish meal is added to poultry diets as a source of highly digestible, "high quality", animal protein and excellent source of all amino acids which can offset the deficiencies of certain limiting amino acids in cereal grains (Miles and Jacqueline, 2006; Mikule et al., 2004).. The amino acid profile of fish meal is what makes this feed ingredient so attractive as a protein supplement. Proteins in cereal grains and other plant concentrates do not contain complete amino acid profiles and usually are deficient in the essential amino acids lysine and methionine. The protein in fish meal is an excellent source of the essential amino acids lysine, methionine and tryptophan (Miles and Jacqueline, 2006). It is because of this that fish meal is often used as a supplement of choice for plant proteins, especially soybean meal. Fish meal is an excellent source of calcium and phosphorus for poultry. The ash (mineral) content of fish meal can range from 10 to 25% (Miles and Jacqueline, 2006). However, Miles and Chapman (2006) reported the average ash content of good quality fish meal to vary from 17% to 25%. Wisenfeld et al. (2005) reported the fat content of good quality fish meal ranging 11 between 3.4 and 11.3%. Calcium and phosphorus constitute the majority of the ash found in fish meal 1.5% to 3% (Scane et al., 2004) 2.2.2. Housing and watering Housing systems in backyard system is rudimentary and mostly built with locally available materials. In traditional free range, there is no separate poultry house and the chickens live in family dwelling together with humans (Solomon, 2007a). Moges et al. (2010b) reported that in Bure district, North West Ethiopia, 77.9% of the village chicken owners provide only night shelter and only 22.1% provided separate poultry house. Another study by Mengasha et al. (2011) in Jimma district, South Wallo reported that 41.3% and 21.2% of chicken owners share the same poultry house, respectively. Addisu et al. (2013) reported 15.36% of respondents in North Wallo zone construct separate poultry house. Dinesh et al. (2008) as cited by Addisu et al. (2013) in Rattanakiri reported about 10.4% of the farmers provided separate house for their chicken. Emebet (2015) also reported that small number of respondents 17.9% uses various night sheltering places like part of the kitchen the main house and bamboo cages and purpose-made house for chickens. Desalew et al. (2012) observed that about 91.11% in Ada’a and 95.6% in Lume districts constructed a separate house entirely for poultry. Similarly, Khandait et al. (2011) in Bhandara district of India reported 90% of backyard chicken owners provided separate poultry house .Another study conducted by Meseret in Gomma woreda of Jimma zone indicate that about 94.4% of the respondents reported to have no separate poultry house which might be attributed to the fact that women own and manage rural household poultry whereas construction of poultry house is the job of husbands. Yusuf et al. (2014) in South Africa reported that Housing was mostly constructed with corrugated 12 iron sheets. With regard to frequency of cleaning house Halima (2007) reported in northern Ethiopia about 74.02 % of households cleaned their chickens’ house once per day, while 11.66 % of the owners cleaned it twice per day. Wondu et al. (2013) reported all respondents in north Gondar provide water for their chicken. Desalew (2012) also reported about 96% of respondents in Ada`a and lume district provided water to their chicken with free access. With regard to watering containers Emebet (2015) reported that majority of chicken owners (76.4%) provide water in plastic container followed by clay pots (20.3%) and a very small number of respondents use wooden (2.7%) or metallic (0.7%) container ) in south west shoa and Gurage zone. 2.2.3 Health management The majority of farmers in Ethiopia did not vaccinate their chicken. With this regard Desalew (2012) reported majority of the respondents (78.8%) in Ada’a district did not vaccinate their chicken. It has reported by Halima (2007) from Northwest Ethiopia most (72.43 %) farmers do not properly examine their chicken and provide no health management services. Hunduma et al. (2012) in rift valley of Oromia reported that about 44% of farmers treat their chickens with traditional medicine 41% did not take any measurement only 11% of respondents consult veterinarian when their chicken get sick .Mogoes (2012) also reported most farmers in west Amhara region usually treat sick chickens using traditional medicine. The Ethiopian indigenous flocks are said to be disease resistant and adapted to their environment. However, survival rates of chicks kept under natural brooding conditions is considered to be very low. Disease and predators are known to be the major causes of mortality in the country. survey conducted in Southern Ethiopia identified Fowl cholera 13 followed by New Castle Disease, Coccidiosis, Fowl influenza [Infectious Bronchitis], Fowl pox ,Fowl typhoid and Salmonella to be the Major poultry diseases respectively (Aberra et al., 2009). There is no practices of isolating sick birds from the household flocks and dead birds could sometimes be offered or left for either domestic or wild predators (Solomon, 2007). Hunduma et al. (2012) also report that the major constraint of village poultry in rift valley area of Oromia were commonly disease mainly Newcastle locally known as fungil/sombe followed by predator. The other study conducted by Serkalem et al. (2005) in central Ethiopia showed that New Castle disease is highly infectious and causes more losses than any other diseases in the tropics and it spreads rapidly through flock and mortality could reach up to 100%. 2.3. Marketing system of chicken and eggs Poultry marketing structure has not well studied in Ethiopia. The market outlets or channels available to producers are diverse at all markets, although their importance differs across markets. The major channels through which producers/farmers sell their chicken in the Markets are direct sold to consumers and/or to small retails that take the chicken to large urban centers (Kena et al., 2002). However, the smallholder farmers do have little knowledge on how the market works and why price fluctuates and have virtually no information on market conditions (Sonaiya, 2000). Thus, most farmers sell chickens within their locality. This can attribute to the small number of chickens offered for sale, long distance to the high demanding urban and pier urban markets and that selling of chickens is occasional and based on prevalent pressing needs of the family (Kena et al., 2002). Although local consumer generally prefer the indigenous birds The high consumption associated only with holy days 14 resulted in the largest off take rates from the flock to occur particularly during holidays and festivals and during the onset of disease outbreaks (Tadelle and peter, 2003). In such circumstances, prices fall dramatically due to the high supply compare to demand. Ultimately, affect the smallholder producers. Melkamu et al. (2013) also report that there was high chicken and egg price variation due to festivals based on their coat cover of the bird. There is no formal poultry and poultry product marketing channel and informal marketing of live birds and eggs involving open markets are common and 52.2% of chickens are collected by retailers and direct consumers (Mesrat, 2010). Regarding the marketing channel of live birds, most chicken owners (37.9%) sold birds directly to consumers and middle men. The rest of the birds were usually sold to other urban and rural chicken producers and retailers (hotels and restaurants (Moges, et al., 2010b). Desalew (2012) also reported higher proportion of respondents sell their chicken and eggs in shopkeeper and village markets. Income derived from the sale of chickens and eggs mostly used by female (76%) to purchase consumable food items, for school fees, grain milling services, purchasing of improved seeds of maize, wheat and other expenses, (Emebet, 2015). Farmers use different means of transportation to take their chicken to market. Village chicken owners (59.3%) used both hand carrying (hanging birds with stick) and carrying birds with bamboo made Containers to urban and village markets (Moges, et al., 2010b). Traders use plastic sacks (Madaberia) to transport chickens (LIVES, 2014) 2.4. Challenges and opportunities of poultry production in Ethiopia There are many complex and constraints to chicken production systems, which in turn influence their production and productivity. Understanding poultry production constraints 15 and opportunities are important to design poultry development programs. With this regard different researchers found constraints of poultry production in different part of Ethiopia among this; Hunduma et al, (2012) reported that the major challenges of poultry production in rift valley of Oromia were disease and predator, luck of proper healthy care, poor feeding and poor marketing information and eroding and dilution of genetic resource Melkamu (2013) also reported Feeding, health care, breeding, selection of highly productive and reproductive traits and housing, is very poor in Enebsie Sar Midir Woreda, Eastern Gojjam of Amhara region. A holistic and multi-disciplinary support of services like extension, training, veterinary and credit are critical in supporting village chicken improvement programs (Moges et al., 2010b). It is also reported that training for both farmers and extension staff focusing on disease control, improved housing, feeding, marketing and entrepreneurship could help to improve productivity of local chicken (Moges et al., 2010b). The main opportunities for village chicken production was market access, credit service, training and extension service, feed and water access (Melkamu et al., 2013) 2.5. Input supply and poultry value chain actors In put supply is very important for expansion of poultry industry. Kryger et al. (2010) reported that there are emerging signs of reformation with a shift away from small-scale commercial production towards larger-scale production. Likewise to this, Mekonen (2007) reported that efforts have to be made to shift the chicken production pattern to semi intensive in Ethiopia with a holistic support of services such as health, housing and feed to make it 16 productive and sustainable. Improved inputs lead to greater productivity, which not only increases farmer incomes but has the Potential to fight famine in many countries. Agricultural inputs supply in line with efficient extension service would lead to ensure enhanced production and productivity (kassu, 2009). Linkages between service providers in to service delivery system are critical to ‘make the system work as a system (Hagmann et al., 2002), and mandates of service providers need to be clarified and even more important; they need to ‘learn to play the roles’ and work together in synergistic way towards making a by applying the value chain approach, inputs can be viewed as more than just a way to increase production volume. The combination of new markets and new inputs can result in what is essentially a new product. By using the right inputs, smallholders can supply demanding international markets in today’s fast moving world of global trade and avoid the pitfall of production unresponsive to market demand. Actors at each functional level of the value chain were vertically linked to successive levels through supply and demand exchanges. The input suppliers sold inputs to farmers in the production function who in turn supplied the actors in the market function with products which were supplied to the consumption function actors (Ansem, 2012). 2.6. Effect feeding fish meal on growth performance and carcass characteristics Nutrition is the most important factor that affects the performance of animals in general and poultry in particular. The study conducted by Asrat (2008) indicate that the mean daily body weight gain of groups fed with rations containing fish meal is significantly higher (p ≤ 0.05) than the control and the highest daily body weight gain was achieved at 9.96% fish meal inclusion however, further increasing the level of fish meal depressed growth rate. Negussie 17 and Alemu (2005) suggested rations containing fish meal have best assortment of high levels of amino acids and is used to balance rations of plant protein sources that are severely limited in critical amino acids. Donald and William (2002) suggested that fish meal levels up to 8% will usually induce productive performance in broilers. Karimi (2006) explained further increasing the level of fish meal depressed growth rate. Sex and age had also affected daily body weight gain and final weight gain (Tagene and Asrat, 2010; Yoseph, 2013). Maigulema and Gernat (2003) reported significantly higher body weights up to 6 weeks of age in broilers and Binda et al (2012) also reported the highest weight gain were attained ate 7 weeks of age for meat strain chicken. Another study conducted by Asrat et al., (2008) pointed out that cooked and sun dried fish offal, can be incorporated up to 16.6% of the diets of growing RIR chicken without affecting health, feed intake and nutrient retentions; however best results of protein retention was obtained at 3.32%, and of energy retention at 6.64%. Replacement of soybean meal with tilapia by-product meal at various levels (up to 50% of soybean meal) in broiler diets resulted in significant differences in body weight, feed consumption and feed conversion without negatively affecting performance or carcass quality (Garnet, 2003).). The study conducted by Asrat (2008) indicate that Groups fed with rations containing fish meal were significantly superior (p< 0.05) to the control group in the carcass parameters. (Yoseph, 2013) reported that effect of sex on most carcass were significant in which male is superior to female. Carcass percentage, Pereventriculus, pancreas, spleen, heart and abdominal fat pad weights as a percent of live weight were not affected by the different diets. 18 3. MATERIAL AND METHODS 3.1. Description of the study area The study was conducted in Bora district which is located in East Shoa zone, Oromia National Regional State, Ethiopia. It is located 110 km south east of Addis Ababa and 50km south west of Adama on Addis Ababa Hawassa main road. Bora is found South of Lume West of Arsi zone, North of Dugda district and East of Gurage zone. The people in the area grow variety of crops for home consumption and sale mainly maize, wheat, haricot bean and teff (RVMLZ, 2008) 3.1.1 Climate The altitude of Bora district ranges from 1,500 to 1,800 meters above sea level (m.a.s.l).The minimum annual temperature ranges from 13.39oC to 28°C, while daily maximum temperature can reach as high as 28°C (RVMLZ, 2008).The area is dry Weinadega dominant with mean annual temperature of 20 0C.The mean annual rainfall of Bora vary from about 500 to around 800 mm, and it receives a bimodal rainfall ; the main rain season locally known as ( ganna) extend from June to September and the short rainy season (arfasa ) from April to May. The soil in the area is moderately fertile sand and clay (RVMLZ, 2008). 3.1.2 Human and livestock population According to CSA (2015), the total human population of the district was about 72,295 out of which 37,356 are male headed households and 34,939 are female headed households. According to these estimates, about 56,323 and 15,972 were rural and urban households, respectively. 19 The livestock population in the district was 89,964 cattle; 46, 044 sheep, 57,130 goat, 581 mule, 8,072 donkey and 38,992 poultry (BLDHA, 2014). 3.1.3 Land use pattern The total area of the district is about 53,977 ha, of which 27,550 ha was cultivated land, 2,743 ha allocated for forest, 3,123 ha for grassland, 1,073 ha for water body and the land uses for other purpose was 3,054 ha. Moreover, almost 82 % of the district is plain area, 6% mountain and 12% hill (BLAO, 2013). Koka reservoir (255km2) and Ellen Lake (54 ha) are the two main water bodies found in the district and mainly used for irrigation and fishery. Koka reservoir is also used for recreation while the primary purpose is for hydro- electric generation. 3.2. Study type The current study had two parts: Survey and feeding experiment. The survey was conducted to assess poultry management practice, marketing system and poultry value chain actors in the district. The feeding experiment was conducted to see the effect of feeding different levels of locally prepared of fish meal on growth performance, carcass characteristics and economic return 3.2.1. Poultry management practices, marketing system 3.2.1.1. Sampling Method Out of eighteen rural kebeles (lowest administrative unit) and three per-urban kebeles in the district, six representative kebeles, five from rural kebele namely; Malima Bari, Barta Sami, 20 Tuqa lagano, Dodo wadera and, Ellen and one from peri-urban (Bote 01) kebele were selected purposively based on the potential of poultry population and accessibility for transportation. From these kebeles a total of one hundred twenty households twenty from each kebele, who keep minimum of five and above chickens (local and exotic) were selected purposively. The household were interviewed to collect data on household characteristics (age, sex, marital status, household size, and educational background), poultry management practices, major challenges and opportunities of poultry production in the area . 3.2.1.2. Data collection Method Data were collected both from primary and secondary sources .Primary data were collected using semi-structured questionnaires which were pre-tested before the diagnostic survey. Moreover, key informants’ interviews with key informants and group discussion were employed using checklists. Secondary data were collected from secondary sources such as; district livestock office, district land administration office and CSA. Focus group discussion A total of six Focus group discussions (FDGs) were conducted, one in each kebele with knowledgeable farmers. The participants were selected with the aid of kebele development agents by considering both female and males of different age categories (younger and elder). The purpose of FDGs were to validate information collected by semi-structured questionnaires and discuss issues of available major poultry feed resources, poultry management practices, challenge and opportunities of poultry production, and marketing of poultry. 21 Key informant interview To identify a major challenge and opportunities of chicken marketing, live chicken and egg traders, sellers and buyers, a total of twelve informants were randomly selected and interviewed using /Checklists/ at the two main market places in the district, namely Bote (town of Bora district) and Ombolle (22km west of Bote) to collect relevant information on marketable live hen and eggs (twelve at each market place). The checklists were used to collect data on aspects like: -purpose of selling, major customer of egg and chicken, and way of bringing to market. Household survey Before conducting the formal survey, the semi- structured questionnaires were pre-tested and translated to Oromiffa. A total of six enumerators, one from each kebele, were trained for one day. Then household survey was carried out using local language (Oromiffa). The questioners were used to collect data on aspects like household characteristics (age, sex, marital status, household size, and educational background), landholding sizes (land area, land use, available poultry feed resource (type of feed, feeding system, feeding practice, frequency of feeding), housing, health management, challenge of poultry production, opportunity of poultry production and marketing of chicken and eggs. Field observation Prior to the actual survey, field visits were taken place in some households to observe the management practices of chicks (feeds and feeding, housing and health management) .The 22 markets of live chicks and eggs at the two main market places in the district, namely Bote (town of Bora district) and Ombolle (22km west of Bote) were also visited. 3.2.2. The effect of feeding fish meal on growth performance and carcass characteristics The feeding experiment was conducted to see the effect of feeding different levels of locally prepared of fish meal on growth performance, carcass characteristics and economic performance. 3.2.2.1. Fish meal preparation Before collecting fish leftover, all the materials used for collection (plastic bowls) were purchased and prepared. Prior to collection fishing and filleting activities were observed at landing site of Koka and Ellen Lake. People involved in fish filleting were informed to fillet their fish in clean stony ground to avoid adulteration. The offal's not suitable for human consumption such as gut, head, skin, scale, eyes, gills and gonads of cat fish, tilapia, and barbus was collected. To sterilize certain bacteria and parasites found in fish (Asrat, 2007) collected fish offal was cooked for about 20 minutes and sun dried for 2-3 day. Figure 1 Cooking of fish offal in the process of fish meal preparation 23 The cooking vessel (Figure.1) is made of sheet metal and has the dimensions of 65×65×85 (length × width × height) cm3 and has outlets for liquid discharge. The vessel is open at the top. Offal’s were mixed thoroughly at intervals. The floating material considered to be oil was gently removed. The liquid was discharged through the outlets then cooked offal was thinly & evenly spread and exposed to sunlight at an open place using red plastic sheet as drying material (Fig 2). During drying process it was covered with fine mesh wire to protect flies from landing on it. The drying time was from 8:30 A.M to 4:30 P.M. While drying, it was stirred three times daily so as to facilitate even drying. Close observation was made to protect from scavenger birds and animals until it was fully dried. Any visible foreign matter was hand-picked. When the entire estimated amount was dried, it was bulked thoroughly, weighed and stored. To avoid excessive fines during mixing, fine particles were screened using 2mm sieve size before milling. Oversize particles were ground using a hand mortar. Then, after fish meal was mixed with other feed ingredients to prepare experimental diets as shown in Table 2 and feed to the chicken during experimental period. Figure 2 Fish offal drying process at Meki site 24 3.3.2. Feed ingredients and formulating ration The feed ingredients used for ration include maize, wheat bran, soybean roasted, fish meal, limestone and salt, which were bought from local market. Soybean was roasted for 5 minutes until the beans were brown to deactivate trypsin inhibitor. The coarse feed ingredients were first ground and mixed using feed shredder in Meki experimental site. The treatment diets were formulated by taking the nutrient composition of each ingredient and balancing with nutrient requirement of broiler chicken. The ration was formulated by feed win computer soft ware containing approximately 21% CP and 13.2MJ/kg DM ME recommended by Ekreen et al., (1997) for broiler breed. Since most commercial feeds such as, Alma feed processing plant use 5% fish meal and 15% soybean meal it was taken as bench mark or control diet(T1)for current experiment. In T2, T3, and T4 fish meal were included at 10%, 15%, and 20%, respectively, to see growth performance, carcass characteristics and economic consideration of soybean replaced by fish meal. The commercial feed ingredients (T1, control diet ) was purchased from Alma feed processing plant which contains maize(51.6%), soybean(15%), wheat bran(16%), fish meal (5%), Nouge cake(10% ), methionine (0.01%),(premix 1%), limestone (1%) and salt (0.3%) while home formulated ration were prepared in such a way that it contain maize ( 52%), soybean (10%), wheat bran (26%), limestone(1%) and salt(1% ). The reason why methionine and premix was not included in T2, T3, and T4 is its high cost and unavailability for small holder farmers but could be replaced by those found in fish meal as reported by Miles and Jacqueline (2006) the protein in fish meal is an excellent source of the essential amino acids lysine, methionine and tryptophan. 25 Table 1 The proportion of feed ingredients used for experiment Ingredients T1 T2 T3 T4 Maize 51.6 52 52 52 Soybean meal 15 10 5 0 Wheat bran 16 26 26 26 Fish meal 5 10 15 20 Lime stone 1 1 1 1 Nouge cake 10 - - - Methionine 0.1 - - - Premix 1 - - - Salt 0.3 1 1 1 Total 100 100 100 100 3.3.3 Experimental design The experimental design used for this feeding trail was completely randomized design (CRD) consisting of four dietary treatment with two replication. All the chickens were assigned randomly to one of the four dietary treatments (Table 2) Table 2 Experimental design of the feeding trial Dietary treatments Inclusion rate fish offal Replications 1 2 Total 1 5% 15 15 30 2 10% 15 15 30 3 15% 15 15 30 4 20% 15 15 30 Total chicken 60 60 120 26 3.3.4. Experimental chicks and their management One hundred fifty day old Koekoek chickens were purchased from Debra Zeit Agricultural Research Center and brooded uniformly at experimental site. The house used for experimental chicks were obtained from volunteer farmer who constructed house for poultry production purpose using local building material. The wall was made from wood covered with mud and opened in the middle for aeration. The roof was covered with thatch and concrete floor. After brooding, one hundred twenty chicks were selected, leg tagged, weighed individually on digital balance and transferred to experimental pen with a surface area of1mx 180cm which was partitioned with mesh –wire and covered with sawdust litter material of 5 cm depth. The wet litter was changed with dry and clean sawdust whenever necessary. The chicks were fed commercial starter feed for two week until the start of the feeding trial and water were provided ad-libitum (20% refusal). Chickens in each replication feed in group and the experiment lasted for forty eight days. During the experimental period measured amount of feed were offered to each replicate. The refusal were collected and weighed at the end of the day. Moreover, anti coccidiostat and ox tetracycline was given with their drinking water. The chicks were vaccinated against Newcastle disease at 7th and21st days of age. . Figure 3 brooding of experimental chicken at Meki site Experimental house 27 3.3.5. Measurement of growth performance Body weight of chicken was taken at the beginning of the experiment and subsequently on weekly basis. Daily body weight gain (DBWG) and feed conversion ratio (FCR) were calculated Average Daily Body Weight Gain (ADBWG) = Final live weight - Initial live weight Number of experimental day FCR = Weight of dry feed fed (g) / live weight gain of chicks (g) 3.3.6. Measurement of carcass characteristics At the ends of the trial 2 chicken (one male and one female) were randomly picked from each replication and four chickens per treatment and total of sixteen chickens were slaughtered for carcass analysis. The chicks were starved for eight hours, slaughter weight measured and killed by severing the jugular vein to allow complete bleeding. Bloods were collected and weighed. The feather was hand plucked and weighed on digital balance. Weight of blood, feather, shank & claws, head, lungs, heart spleen, pancreas, crop, Pereventriculus, kidney, heart, lung, small and large intestines and abdominal fat were included in total non edible offal. Carcass weight were apportioned into back (thorax + lumber), two thighs, two domestics, two wings, breast and. Edible offal include skin, liver and gizzard Dressing percentage was calculated as percentage of dressed carcass to live weight. 28 3.3.7. Chemical analysis of feed ingredients Chemical analysis of feed ingredients was done at Hawassa University animal nutrition laboratory. Feed samples were analyzed for Dry matter (DM), crude fiber (CF), Crud protein (CP), Ether extract (EE) and ash was done according AOAC (1995). Calcium (Ca) and phosphorus (P) content of the feeds was determined at Debra Zeit Agricultural Research Center by atomic absorption spectrometer. Metabolizible energy (ME) of feed ingredients was determined according to (Wiseman, 1987) as follows: ME (kcal/kg DM) = 3951 + 54.4 EE - 88.7 CF - 40.8 Ash. 3.3.8. Partial budget analysis Partial budget analysis was done according to Upton (1979) to determine economic benefit of fish meal as replacement of soybean. Total variable cost includes cost of chicks, feeds and health costs during the experiment for each treatment group. Total return (TR) was considered as difference in sale and purchase price. The net income (NI) was expressed by subtracting total variable cost (TVC) from total return (TR). NI=TR-TVC The change in net income (ΔNI) expressed as the difference between the change in total return (Δ TR) and total variable cost (Δ TVC). ΔNI = Δ TR - Δ TVC The marginal ret of return (MRR) measures the increase in net income (ΔNI) related to each additional unit of expenditure (Δ TVC) and expressed in the percentage. MRR= ΔNI / Δ TVC 29 3.3.9. Statistical Analysis Data were analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Scientists (SPSS) version 17. Descriptive statistics such as mean, frequency and standard error were used to present the results. weight gains and FCR were analyzed using repeated measure ANOVA procedure. Carcass characteristics measurement were analysed by two way ANOVA procedure. Nutrient and energy intake were analysed by one way ANOVA procedure. Duncan Multiple Range test were used to determine the statistical differences between treatment means at 5% level of significance.The following statistical models used to summarize data The models used for nutrient and energy intake Yij = µ +Ti +eij Where; Yij = is the response variable of birds in jth replicate of ith deity treatment µ= overall mean Ti = effect of ith deity treatment (5%, 10%, 15% and 20% fish meal inclusion) eijk = random error Model used for DBWG and FCR: Yijkl = µ +ai +bj sk/ai+ ai*bj +bj*sk/ai+ abij + eijk Where; Yijkl = individual values of the dependent variable (DBWG and FCR) µ = over all mean ai = the ith treatment effect on the dependent variable (i=1, 2, 3, 4) bj = the effect of jth sex of birds (male and female) Sk/ai = the effect of the kth replicate trial under the ith feeding group (k= 1, 2) 30 ai*bj = interaction effect of between subject (main treatment) factor (feed) and Within subject (repeated measure) factor( age in week )of chicks. bj*sk/ai = interaction effect of within subject (repeated measure) factor and eijk = random error The model used for carcass characteristics: Yeijk = µ +ai +bj+abij + eijk Where; Yijk =Observation in the jth sex and ith treatment (the response variable); µ = over all mean ai = the ith treatment effect bj = the effect of jth sex eijk = random error 31 4. RESULTS 4.1. Poultry management practices and marketing system 4.1.1. Household characteristics of respondents Of the interviewed households, about 36.7% and 63.3% were male and female households, respectively. In terms of marital status of respondents, about 83.7 % were married and the remaining 7.5%, 5.8% and 3.3% were single, divorced and widowed, respectively. About 20% of respondents were illiterate while about30% could read and write and from grade 1 to 4. In terms of their occupation, the majority of the respondents (86.7%) were farmers. The majority of the households had an age between 16 to 60 years .The mean family size per household was 6.05± (0.23) while the overall mean age of the respondents was 39.47± (1.24) (Table 3) 32 Table 3 Household characteristics of respondents in study households Variables N=120 % Sex of respondent Male 36.7 Female 63.3 Marital status single 7.5 married 83.3 Divorced 5.8 Widowed 3.3 Educational level Illiterate 20 Read and write 30.0 Grade 1-4 30.8 Grade 5-8 14.2 Grade 9-12 2.5 College and above 2.5 Major occupation Farmers 86.7 Traders 6.7 Depend on manning activity 3.3 fisher men 1.7 Government worker 1.7 Age of family members > 60 years 7.5 Between 16 and 60 years 60.8 Between 6 and 15 years 23.3 < 5 years 8.3 Average family size/household(Mean ±SE) 6.05±(0.23) Age of respondent 39.47±(1.24) 33 4.1.2. Land size and land use The average land holding per household (ha) of the study district was 2.51± (0.105). On average about 2.28± (0.089) ha of land was allocated for cultivation of annual crop in study households Table 4 Land size and land use of the respondents in the study area 4.1.3. Average livestock holding and composition The total livestock population of the sampled house households in tropical livestock unit (TLU) was 7.67, 0.39, 0.44, and 1.01 for cattle, sheep, goats and equines, respectively, whereas poultry took 0.092. Regarding the breed of livestock, local breed are the dominant followed by cross breed in the sampled households of study district. Variables Mean ±SE Total Land size (ha) 2.51±(0.105) Land use (ha) Annual crop 2.28±(0.089) Perennial crop 0.103±(0.01) Grazing land 0.083±(0.016) Fallow land 0.04±(0.012) 34 Table 5 Average livestock holding and composition of livestock in studied households 4.1.4. Poultry management practices in the district 4.1.4.1. Feed and feeding practices As presented in Table 6, the majority (95.8%) of respondents reported that the chicken scavenge with additional supplementation. About 75.8% of respondents offer supplement twice a day Cereal grains such as maize and wheat (79.2%) are the major supplementary feeds offered. About 82.5% supplement farm produced feed. Only (25.7%) of the households used feeding equipment to provide supplementary feed while the majority (74.3%) spread feed simply on ground. About 75.8% of the households provided supplemental feeds for different age groups together. The majority of the respondents (63.3%) reported that they feed their flock twice a day (morning and afternoon) Livestock species Breed Local Mean ±(S.E)) Crossbreed Mean±(S.E) Oxen 2.22±(0.18) 0.38±(0.2) Cows 1.64±(0.208) 0.19±(0.19) Bulls 1.72±(0.11) 0.11±(0.11) Heifers 0.97±(0.17) 0.03±(0.03) Calves 0.35±(0.06) 0.06±(0.06) Cattle total 6.9±0.2 0.77± 0.03 Goat 0.39±(0.52) 0.00 Sheep 0.44±(0.49) 0.00 Equines 1.01±(0.97) 0.00 Poultry 0.082±(0.99) 0.01±(0.21) 35 Table 6 Feeding practices and feeding system in study household. Variables N=120 % Feeding system Scavenging only 1.6 Scavenging with additional supplementation 95.8 Purchased feed 2.6 Frequency of feeding Once a day 18.3 Twice a day 75.8 Three times and above 5.8 Type of grain supplement Maize only 4.4 Wheat only 2.9 Both wheat and maize 79.2 Source of feed supplement Farm produced 82.5 Purchased 17.5 Way of supplementation Spread on ground 74.2 Using feeders 25.8 Form of supplementation Separate different class 24.2 Together the whole group 75.8 Time of feeding Morning only 26.7 Afternoon only 5 Morning and afternoon 63.3 Morning, afternoon and evening 5 36 4.1.5.3. Housing facility in the district About 91.7% of the respondents reported that they have no separate poultry house (Table 8). Only 8.3% of respondents construct poultry house purposely. Among the respondents who constructed poultry house separately. About 53.3% construct their house from wood and thatch. Regarding frequency of cleaning the houses, about 74.2% of respondents clean their houses every day. Table 8 Night shelter, materials used for constructing houses and frequency of cleaning the house in the sampled households Variables (N=120) % Night shelter Kitchen 38.3 Main house 31.7 Perch 31.7 Purposive constructed house 8.3 The houses made of Mud blocks and thatch 5 Wood and thatch 53.3 Wood and corrugated Irion 41.7 Frequency of cleaning house Every day 74.2 Every two day 15.8 Every 3-6 days 1.7 Once a week 1.7 Never clean 6.7 37 4.1.5.4. Provision of water As indicated in Table (11), all most all of the respondents (99.2%) provided water for their chicken in the district. Regarding the source of water, (92.5%) of the respondents used tape water or pipe water for their chicken. The majority of respondents (78.3 %) used plastic made containers for providing water for their chicken. About 73.3% of the respondents clean drinking materials once a day. Table 9 provision of water in sampled respondents the study households Variables (N=120) % Provision of water Yes 99.2 No 0.8 Source of water Borehole 7.5 Tape water 92.5 Drinkers made of wood 16.7 Metal 2.5 Plastic 78.3 Stone 2.5 Frequency of cleaning drinker Once a day 73.3 Every three days 14.2 Once a week 3.3 Never clean 9.2 38 4.1.5.5. Health management The majority of the respondents (90.8%) did not vaccinate their chickens (Table 12). About 65% of respondents replied that the major diseases were Newcastle disease and 30% reported to be fowl pox. The majority of the respondents (54.2%) treat their chicken with traditional medicine while 25.8% did not take any measure when their chicken gets sick. Table 4 Major disease and measures taken when chicken get sick Variables (N=120) % Vaccinate chicken (yes/no) yes 9.2 No 90.8 Major disease Newcastle disease 65 Fowl pox 30 Coccidiosis 5 Measures taken when chicken get sick Treat with traditional medicine 54.2 Consult veterinarian 11.6 Sell them 4.1 Kill them 4.1 Did not take any measure 25.8 39 4.1.6. Marketing system of egg and chicken As indicated in Table (13) the respondents (46.7% and 45%) sell their eggs and chicken for household expenditure, respectively. Among the major customer of egg buyers in the district 41.7% were market collectors. With regard to major costumers of chicken, about 86.7% were market collectors. Most of chickens (47.5%) and eggs (57%) sellers in studied household were women. The majorities of respondents bring their eggs in plastic bag with grain and straw (43.04%). About70% of the respondents, bring their chicken to market by tying together and hanging them down. 40 Table 5 Marketing system of eggs and chickens in studied households Variables Eggs(N=120) % Chicken(N=120) % Purpose of selling Buying exercise for children 22.5 27.5 Household expenditure 46.7 45 Fetching water 30.8 10 For saving - 17.5 Major customer Village collector 32.5 5 Market collector 41.7 86.7 Local shopkeeper 5.8 Local consumer 20 travelers - - 8.3 Egg and chicken seller with family Women 47.5 57.9 Men 7.5 15 Children 45 25.8 Way of bringing eggs to market In the basket 9.2 - In the plastic bag with grain 21.7 - In the plastic bag with straw 21.7 - In cloth with grain 22.5 - Way of bringing chickens to market By cart - 21.7 BY bicycle - 8.3 Hanging them dawn - 70 41 4.1.7. Major Challenges and opportunities of poultry production The major constraints of village poultry production in the study district are presented in Table (14). About 50% of the respondents reported that the major challenge was disease. Regarding the opportunities in poultry production, about 50.8% and 47.5% replied the availability of extension service and market in the study district. Table 14 Major challenges and opportunities of poultry production in the sampled households Variables N=120 % Major challenges Predator 26.7 Disease 50 Feed shortage 7.5 Scarcity of exotic breed 15.8 Opportunity Market opportunity 47.5 Extension service 50.8 Accessibility of infrastructure 1.7 4.1.8. Input supply and service provision in the district Local chicken dominate the district (91.8%). With regard to the source, about 96.4% of exotic breed owners get through district livestock agency. The majority of respondents responded that they purchased pullet for egg production (99.15%). The broiler and day old chicken were not reared in the district mainly due to lack of awareness and knowledge how to manage day old chicken 42 Table 15 Type of breed owned, source of exotic breed and type of exotic breed purchased Variables (N=120) % Type of breed owned Local 91.8 Exotic 5.4 Hybrid 2.7 Source of exotic breed District livestock agency 96.4 Private company 3.6 Type of exotic breed purchased (in terms of age) Day old chicken 0.85 Pullets 99.15 4.1.9. Poultry and egg value chain actor in the district Input supply actor: Actors for the input supply function included pullet chickens supplier’s, commercial poultry feed, cage makers and veterinary drugs. However, sometimes one month old chickens were supplied by traders who obtained them from commercial poultry farms such as Alema and Genesis farms. Production function actors: they received inputs from suppliers and involved in poultry production function These were village chicken producers (farmers) and exotic breed owners in Bote town that used modern system of poultry production (cage system). 43 Market function actors: These included village chicken and egg collectors (collect chicken and eggs from producer farmers and sold to market collectors), individual consumers, hotels and restraints in Bote town). Market collectors collected chicken and eggs from village collectors, producers and travelled to Mojo, Adama and Addis Ababa. Consumption function actors: These included local restaurants, hotels and households that purchased chicken for household consumption. Hotels and restaurants prepared and sold cooked and roasted eggs with bread and ‘enjera’ however local dishes (Dorowat) was not prepared and sold in hotels and restaurants in the district because consumers do not have a culture of consuming as a result poultry meat is not generally found on the menus of restaurants. But, local dishes were prepared all most in every household during holydays and festivals. Support institutions: support institutions are involved in various activities in poultry and egg value chains. The main supporting institutions of poultry and egg value chain in the district were government (district livestock development and healthy agency) and NGOs such LIVES project. District livestock development and healthy agency (DLDHA) Concerned with provision of extension services to farmers through livestock experts, and development agent (DAs) who are responsible to transfer knowledge about animal production using individual and group contacts at farmers training center (FTC) and at farmers home. It is also engaged in facilitation and joint action of activities carried out by partners such as input suppliers, government organization (GO) and non government organization (NGOs). 44 4.2. Effect of feeding fish meal on growth performance and carcass characteristics 4.2.1. Nutrient and energy contents of experimental diets The nutrient and energy content of ingredients used in formulation of ration are presented in Table 16. The metabolizible energy and CP contents of fish meal were higher than soybean but had lower CF content compared with soybean. Table 16 Nutrient and energy content of feed ingredients on (DM %, unless specified) DM = Dry matter; CP = crude protein; CF = crude fiber; EE = ether extract; NFE = nitrogen free extract; Ca = calcium; P = phosphorus; ME= Metabolizible Energy The analyzed nutrient content and calculated metabolism energy (ME) value of experimental diet are indicated in Table 16. The crude protein (CP) contents varied between18.96 to 20.38%. The calculated CP (Table 2) and analyzed CP Table (16) for T1and T2 did not show any variation. The fat content (EE) slightly increased from T1 to T4. The composition of calcium and phosphorus linearly increased with increased fish meal inclusion levels. Nutrients Ingredients DM% CP EE CF Ash NFE Ca P ME(kcal/kgDM) Fish meal 94.22 51.83 15.78 2.95 25.32 23.16 4.0 1.2 3513.4 Soybean roasted 91.93 46.74 4.55 9.07 10.34 25.78 0.2 0.6 2972.1 Wheat bran 93.12 10.65 4.41 11.24 9.35 61.9 0.1 1.3 2813.5 Maize grain 91.54 10.71 3.38 12.36 10.51 57.88 0.1 0.3 2609.3 45 Table 6 nutrients and energy contents of experimental diets (on % DM basis, unless specified). Nutrients Diets DM% CP EE CF Ash NFE Ca P ME(kcal/KGDM) T1 92.52 20.36 7.33924 8.94 10.91 51.33 0.79 0.52 3115.8 T2 92.83 20.38 8.31378 9.38 10.34 52.69 0.96 0.64 3149.4 T3 91.90 19.80 11.3459 9.61 10.76 50.74 1.23 0.71 3277.9 T4 92.73 18.96 11.0597 9.79 10.52 53.42 1.57 0.78 3255.5 NFE=DM – (CP+EE+ CF +Ash); DM = Dry matter; CP = crude protein; CF = crude fiber; EE = ether extract; NFE = nitrogen free extract; Ca = calcium; P = phosphorus; ME= Metabolizible Energy T1= commercial feed with 5% fish meal T2 = formulated ration with10% fish meal; T3 =formulated ration with15% fish meal, T4 = formulated ration with20% fish meal 4.2.2. Nutrient and energy intake of chickens The effect of feeding diet containing different levels of fish meal on daily nutrient and energy intake of growing koekoek chicken are presented in Table 18. There was a significant difference among the treatments in the intakes of DM (p<0.002), CP (p<0.001), Ca (p<0.001), OM (p<0.003) and p (p<0.0001) values were observed among treatment. T1 had higher DM, CP, OM and ME intakes but statically similar with T2. T4 had higher Ca and P intakes. There were no significant different (p>0.05) in CF intakes among treatment. 46 Table 18 Nutrient (g/chick/day) and energy (kcal/chick/day) intake of koekoek chicken fed diet with various levels of fish meal SE= standard error, p=probability value T1= commercial feed with 5% fish meal T2 = formulated ration with10% fish meal; T3 =formulated ration with15% fish meal, T4 = formulated ration with20% fish meal 4.2.3. Effect of feeding fish meal on body weight gain, and feed conversion ratio Table 18 shows that average final weight gain, average daily body weight gain (ADBWG) and feed conversion ratio (FCR) of koekoek chicken fed different levels locally prepared of fish meal. Fish meal inclusion at varies level resulted in significant differences in ADBWG (p<0.001) and FCR (P <0.05). Chicken fed on T1 had the highest ADBWG whereas T3 and T4 had the lowest ADBWG. With regard to feed conversion ratio T1 and T2 had higher feed conversion ratio compared with T3 and T4. Parameters Dietary treatment T1 T2 T3 T4 SE P Dry matter 91.74a 89.74a 84.24b 84.2b 0.646 0.002 Crude protein 18.67a 18.29a 16.68b 15.96b 0.130 <0.001 Crude fiber 3.91 4.04 3.88 3.95 0 .028 0.065 Calcium 0.78d 0.92c 1.12b 1.43a 0.007 <0.001 Phosphorus 0.51c 0.61b 0.651b 0.70a 0.004 <0.0001 Metabolizible energy 309.02a 304.58a 300.48a 295.75b 2.21 0.051 47 Table 19 Body weight gain and feed conversion ratio of koekoek chicken fed different level of fish meal. Mean values with the same row bearing different subscript are significantly different (p<0.05); ADBWG = average daily body weight gain; FCR= feed conversion ratio; SE = standard error; P = probability value T1= commercial feed with 5% fish meal T2 = formulated ration with10% fish meal; T3 =formulated ration with15% fish meal, T4 = formulated ration with2 0% fish meal 4.2.4. Effect of sex on chicken fed fish meal As illustrated in Figure 8 both sexes showed increasing body weight gain as age increased. There were no significant differences in body weight gain of both sexes during the first two weeks of experiment. However, starting from third weeks of experiment and onwards, the males attained higher body weight gain than the females. Parameters Dietary treatment T1 T2 T3 T4 SE P Initial weight (g/chick) 114.8 115.3 114.7 115.5 0.37 0.35 Final weight (g/chick) 1024.3a 982b 892.78c 895.4c 11.88 <0.001 Total gain (g/chick) 909.6 866.4 778.08 779.52 ADBWG(g/chick/day) 18.95a 18.05b 16.21c 16.24c 0.222 <0.001 Feed Intake (g/chick) 4760.5 4642.2 4400 4360.7 FCR(g feed/g gain 5.23a 5.35a 5.6b 5.59b 0.154 0.018 48 Figure 4 Effect of sex on mean daily body weight gain (g/chick/bird) of koekoek chickens fed different levels of fish 4.2.5. Effect of age on chicken fed fish meal The relationship between ADBWG, FCR and experimental period were presented in Fig 9a and b, respectively. Without regarding dietary treatment ADBWG were highly affected by age (p<0.001). In both parameters (ADBWG and FCR) the value increased with an increase in age. However, in FCR week to week variation was not significantly different (p>0.05). 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 w1 MD BW G(g /ch ick /d ay) w2 w3 w4 w5age in weeks w6 Malefemale 49 a b Figure 4a and b relationship between ADBWG and FCR during the experimental period 4.2.6. Carcass characteristics of chicken Data on carcass measurement were presented in Table 19 (total edible component) and Table 20 (total non edible component) separately. 4.2.6.1. Total edible Component (TEC) Total edible component include total carcass and total edible offal. Feeding diet containing different levels of locally prepared fish meal brought significant different in different part of the experimental chickens. Slaughter weight (p<0.001), breast (p<0.001), drumsticks (p<0.001), thighs (p<0.004), wings (p<0.001), back (p<0.035), total carcass weight (p<0.001), TEC (p<0.001) were higher in T1 than in the other treatments (T2, T3, T4) in all carcass traits mentioned. Furthermore, diet had a significant effect on most carcass parameters except skin, gizzard, liver, Toe and dressing percentage. y = 0.302x + 5.402 R² = 0.967 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0 2 4 6 8 Me an FC R ( gfe ed /g/ gai n) Expermantal period ( weeks) y = 3.183x + 6.222 R² = 0.835 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 DB WG (g/ chi c/d ay) Expermantal peroid (weeks) 50 Table 20 Effect of diet and sex on total edible component of koekoek chicken fed different levels of fish meal. D i f f e r different superscript letters with the same row are significantly different (p<0.05); *total carcass =sum of commercial carcass (breast, drumstick, thighs, wings and back); TEO**=Total edible offal (sum of skin, gizzard and liver); TEC***=Total edible component (total carcass+ edible offal); TNEC = Total non-edible components include feather, blood, head, shank & claws, esophagus, crop, Pereventriculus, spleen, pancreas, kidney, heart, lung, small and large intestines and abdominal fat; SE= stander error; p = probability value Parameters Sex Dietary treatments p M F SE T1 T2 T3 T4 SE Diet Sex Slaughter weight(g) 974.62a 830.7b 38.2 1052a. 953.75b 918.5c 791.2d 11.15 <0.001 <0.001 Breast(g) 98.125a 84.50b 6.27 116.2a 90.75ab 78.5b 79.7 b 3.300 <0.001 0.003 Drumstick(g) 83.375a 69.12b 4.35 92.7a 77.2b 70 bc 65c 2.084 <0.001 <0.001 Thighs (g) 86.875a 68.75b 4.82 95.75a 78.75b 70.25b 66.5b 4.064 0.004 0.002 Wings (g) 41.500a 34.62b 2.32 46.75a 38.25b 35.00bc 32.25c 1.63 <0.001 0.003 Back(g) 71.375a 59.87b 3.47 76.75a 65.00ab 62.75b 58.00b 3.66 0.035 0.014 Total carcass* 414.25a 345.5b 20.9 461.5a 382.75b 348.25b 327.0c 11.18 <0.001 <0.001 Skin 58.500a 46.25b 3.46 60.5a 53.0a 46.5a 49.5a 4.52 0.229 0.027 Gizzard 39.250a 32.62b 1.78 39.5a 37.25a 33.00a 34.00a 2.42 0.281 0.026 Liver 24.625a 19.25b 1.13 23.25a 23a 21a 20a 1.75 0.559 0.015 TEC*** 536.62a 443.6b 24.4 584.75a 496.00b 449.25b 430c 12.494 <0.001 <0.001 Dressing% 52.96a 51.71a 0.66 55.43a 53.83a 53.07 54.4a 1.54 0.584 0.204 51 4.2.6.2 Total non-edible offal (TNEO) Although T1 had higher mean weight in most non-edible offal, it was statistically non- significant (p>0.05) except for blood and anus which was statistically significant (p<0.05). Sex had significant effect on most part of TNEO (p<0.05) such as blood (p<0.001), feather (p<0.047), head (0.003), shank_claw (p<0.001), Pereventriculus (p<0.029), lung (p<0.04), small intestine (p<0.009), stomach (p<0.027) and TNEC (p<0.018) in which males were superior to females (Table 19) 52 Table 21 Effect of diet and sex on total non- edible offal of koekoek chicken fed diet containing different levels of fish meal Parameters M F SE T1 T2 T3 T4 SE Diet sex Blood 39.25a 27.0b 1.41 41.2a 28.7a 33.00a 29.75a 2.000 0.008 0.001 Feather 66.25a 58.8a 2.22 65.5a 68.5a 57.5a 59.2a 3.140 0.131 0.047 Head 38.87a 30.5b 1.40 35.7a 34.7a 33.25a 35.0a 1.988 0.840 0.003 Shank_claw 58.75a 40.8b 1.83 56.7 49.50 47.25 45.75 2.601 0.069 0.001 Esophagus 2.06a 1.62a 2.12 1.87a 2.25a 1.62a 1.62a 0.300 0.453 0.183 Crop 10.37a 7.50a 1.16 9.75a 10.5a 7.75a 8.00a 1.654 0.651 0.120 Pereventriculus 6.250a 5.37a 0.23 5.50a 5.75a 5.50a 6.50a 0.331 0.186 0.029 Spleen 1.70a 1.45a 0.16 1.87a 1.87a 1.30a 1.25a .0.232 0.161 0.312 Pancrease 1.75a 1.77a 0.27 1.52a 1.75a 1.87a 1.90a 0.392 0.899 0.951 Kidney 8.37a 7.12a 0.50 6.25a 9.25a 7.25a 8.25a 0.707 0.077 0.115 Heart 5.87a 5.00a 0.364 5.75a 6.00a 5.00a 5.00a 0.515 0.441 0.128 Lung 7.250a 5.75a 0.43 7.00a 7.00a 6.00a 6.00a 0.612 0.487 0.040 small intestine 37.62a 25.1a 2.56 30.0a 33.7a 29.5a 32.25a 3.623 0.825 0.009 Large intestine 14.875a 12.8a 2.012 12.2a 13.0a 18.20a 12.0a 2.845 0.413 0.502 Abdominal fat 15.25a 22.0a 3.448 23.7a 19.7a 16.50a 14.50a 4.877 0.584 0.204 Cloacae 8.25a 6.75a 0.500 8.75a 8.50a 6.25a 6.50a 0.707 0.073 0.067 Bile 1.56a 1.46a 0.16 1.50a 1.87a 1.32a 1.35a 0.976 0.355 0.671 TNEC 313.7a 231a 19.5 321a 262a 236.0a 270.0a 27.57 0.246 0.018 Different superscript letters with the same row are significantly different (p<0.05); Total non-edible components include feather, blood, head, shank & claws, esophagus, crop, Pereventriculus, spleen, pancreas, kidney, heart, lung, small and large intestines and abdominal fat; SE= stander error; p = probability value; T1= commercial feed with 5% fish meal; T2 = formulated ration with10% fish meal; T3 =formulated ration with15% fish meal; T4 = formulated ration with 20% fish meal 53 4.2.8. Partial budget analysis Partial budget analysis was presented in (Table 21). T1 had significantly (p<0.008) higher cost and lower net income. Inversely, T4 had lower cost and higher net income which means the cost was reduced while the net income increased as fish meal replaced by soybean because soybean is the major protein source and the cost of soybean is more expensive than fish meal. Table 22 Partial budget analysis of chicken fed different levels of fish meal Parameters Treatments T1 T2 T3 T4 SE P Price of chicken ,Br/chick(VC) 10 10 10 10 Price of feed, Br /kg 10.89a 9.05b 8.51c 8.05d 0.008 < 0.0001 Healthy cost, Br/chick(VC) 6 6 6 6 Total feed consumed , kg/chick(VC) 4.75a 4.64b 4.4c 4.35d 0.010 <0.0001 Price of feed consumed , Br(VC) 51.87a 41.98b 37.4c 35.09d 0.007 <0.0001 Total variable cost (TVC) 67.88a 57.99b 53.4c 51.09d 0.008 < 0.001 Sale of chick , Br/chick (TR) 110 105 105 105 Net Income (NI)= (TR-TVC) 42.1d 47.01c 51.6b 53.9a 0.142 < 0.001 TVC= Total variable cost; VC =variable cost; TR= total revenue SE= stander error; p = probability value; T1= commercial feed with 5% fish meal; T2 = formulated ration with10% fish meal; T3 =formulated ration with15% fish meal; T4 = formulated ration with 20% fish meal 54 5. DISCUSSION 5.1. Poultry management practices and marketing system 5.1.1. Household characteristics of respondents The high proportion of females than males engaged in poultry farming the current study agrees with previous study (Desalew 2012; Emebet, 2015). In terms of educational level, the results of the current study are comparable with Zawide (2010) who reported that about 18.3% of respondents were illiterate in central rift valley (Ziway). The study was also consistent with Meseret (2010) who reported that 23.3% of the interviewed households were illiterate in Gomma woreda of Jimma zone. According to the interviewed farmers, younger family members preferred mining activities to generate daily income rather than education. The present findings agreed with that of Tesfaye (2008) but it is higher that of Habte et al. (2014) in Dilla area which reported 72% of respondents to depend on farm. The age range of the majority of the family members (60.8%) was 16-60 years which is consistent with the report of Tesfaye (2008) who found more than 50% in Metama district of Amhara region. This indicates that family members in the productive age group were higher than that of the non-productive age groups and this in return implies that in Bora district households have good sources of labor to utilize for different farm activities. The mean family size obtained in this study was slightly higher than 4.88 reported for east shoa zone (CSA, 2015). However, the present finding in close agreement with that of worku et al .,(2012) and Desalew (2012) who reported 6 and 5.5 persons per household in gonder town of west Amhara region and in Ada’a district, of Oromia region respectively. Moreover it 55 is similar to 5.36 reported for Oromia region (CSA, 2015).The overall mean age of the respondents in the current study was smaller than 43.2 years reported for west Amhara region (Worku et al., 2012) but comparable to 40.16 ± (0.84) reported for Matema district (Tesfaye ,2008). The average land holding per household of the study district was greater than that of Desalew (2012) who reported 1.4±1.25 ha in Lume and 1.1±1.26 ha in Ada`a districts. Furthermore average land holding per household of current study was higher than 1.82 reported for east shoa Zone and <1 ha for national average (CSA, 2015). However, it was lower than 4.2±0.4 ha reported for Central Rift Valley (Zewide 2012). This implies that land holdings was higher in rift valley than mid-highlands such as Ada`a and lume in particular. 5.1.2. Average livestock holding and composition The mean livestock holding per household in the current study agreed with the result of Tesfaye (2008) who reported 6.24 ± 0.45 for cattle, 0.43 ± 0.6 for goats, and 0.11 ± 0.03 for sheep, 0.31 ± 0.04 for equines. But, in current study, the numbers of equines were higher than the one reported by Tesfaye (2008) because equines are highly demanded for transportation purpose in central rift valley. The result of these findings was in agreement with that Yistella (2008) who reported for Alaba district (7.38, 0.27, 0.42 and 1.8 TLU for cattle, sheep, goats and equines, respectively). Chicken took the highest composition of TLU in the district and almost every households own chicken. This agreed with the finding of Habte et al., (2014) who reported average chicken holding per household to be 8.53±2.36 in Amaro district of southern region. Next to poultry, the peak value was held by oxen because oxen are the main source of 56 power for cultivation. Zewide (2012) argued that in the Central Rift Valley a larger number of herds were kept to maintain draught oxen related to the large cropland. Regarding, the breed of livestock, local breed are the dominant followed by cross breed in the district. The higher number of crossbred cows owned by urban farmers (Bote town) could probably be due to the better awareness of management of crossbred animals in the urban per-urban areas than rural farmers. 5.1.3. Feed and feeding practices Scavenging with additional feed supplementation was the major feeding practice in the current study area. Moges et al. (2010) and Desalew (2012) reported that about 97.5% and 97.8 % of the chicken owners provide supplementary feed in west Amhara region and Ada`a and Lume district of East shoa zone, respectively. The feed resources for scavenging insects, worms, seeds, plant materials, human meal left over, and fish left over in some kebels bordering Lake Ellen and Koka reservoir. Grains like wheat and maize are the major supplementary feeds. These findings were paralleled with finding of Habte et al. (2014) who reported the supplementary feeds used in Amaro district were combinations of maize and small grain. According to some respondents (2.6%), those who have no farm land but rear poultry purchase feeds from local market such as wheat bran. Some respondents (17.5%) who rear exotic breed also purchased commercial feeds from Adama, Bishoftu and Modjo towns. The reason could be due to the availability of agro industrial by-products in the districts and the ownership of exotic breeds which require improved feeds. Contrary to the current result, Worku et al. (2012) reported the majority of the respondents (87.2%) replied that supplement 57 farm produced feeds in west Amhara region. About 74.2% of the households provide supplementary feed by spread on ground the current report which is in line with kugonza et al. (2008) who reported 73% of farmers in Uganda provide supplementary feed by spreading it on the ground. In north Gondar zone, about 58% of the respondents supply feed to chickens on the ground Wondu et al. (2013). Worku et al. (2012) and Feleke et al. (2015) also reported 83.7% of the respondents to provide supplement feeds on bare ground. The practice of ground feeding affects poultry health and wastage since the feed is mixed with different dusty materials. In the current report, the major proportion of the households provide supplemental feeds for different age groups together which concurs the finding of Wondu et al. (2013). Nebiyu et al. (2013) also reported about 81.8% of the farmers provide supplemental feeds for different age groups together in Alaba district. The frequency of feeding in the current study is consistent with that reported by Meseret (2010) and Emebet (2015). Both reported the majority of the households offer supplement feed twice a day (morning and afternoon). 5.1.4. Housing facilities The number of households who constructed separate housing for poultry in the current finding was higher than that reported by Meseret (2010) who reported that only 3.6% of respondents construct poultry houses. However, the percentage of households who constructed houses was lower than that reported by Addisu et al. (2013) where about 15.36% of the respondents in North Wallo zone. Desalew et al. (2013) observed that about 91.11% of the respondents in Ada’a and 95.6% of the respondents in Lume districts constructs separate house entirely for 58 poultry. Similarly, Khandait et al. (2011) in Bhandara district of India reported 90% of backyard chicken owners provided separate poultry house. Moges et al. (2010) also reported that about 22.1% of village chicken owners provided separate poultry houses in Bure district, North West Ethiopia. This significant variation in different areas within country and outside the country might be due to differences in farmers’ awareness about the importance of poultry house. The majority of the households clean their house every day strongly agreed with finding of Halima (2007) which reported 74.02 % of households cleaned their chickens’ house once per day in northern Ethiopia. 5.1.5. Provision of water All most all of the respondents (99.2%) provided water for their chickens in the district. Similarly, Wondu et al. (2013) reported all respondents in north Gondar provide water for their chicken. Desalew (2012) also reported about 96% of the respondents in Ada’a and Lume districts provided water to their chicken with free access. Large proportion of the respondents use pipe water for their chicken which agreed with Wondu et al. (2013) who reported 92% of the respondents in north Gondar provided tap water for their chicken. The majority of the respondents used plastic made containers for providing water for their chicken which is consistent with the result of Emebet (2015) who reported the majority of chicken owners (76.4%) provide water in plastic container in south west Shoa and Gurage zones. Large numbers of the respondents clean drinking materials once a day in the current study. Similar watering practices were reported by Emebet (2015), (Moges et al., 2010), Mengasha (2011). 59 5.1.6. Health management As discussed with respondents, they used traditional medicines such as garlic, tabulate (tetracycline recommended for human) and leaf of trees locally known as Mimi (eucalyptus). The large use of traditional medicine was due to its low cost, local accessibility and ease of use. Wide uses of traditional medicine were also reported by Mogoes (2012) where farmers in west Amhara region usually treat sick chickens using traditional medicine. The majority of households did not provide regular vaccination for their chicken in current study and this finding was slightly higher than that reported by Desalew (2012) who reported the majority of the respondents (78.8%) in Ada’a district did not vaccinate their chicken. The higher figure in the current study indicates the low awareness of the farmers in the district about chicken vaccination than Ada’a district. However, a higher figure than the current study was also reported by Habte et al. (2015) where the majority of the farmers (95.6%) did not vaccinate their bird against diseases in Amaro district. Emebet (2015) also reported none of the farmers in south west Shoa and Gurage zones had any experience of getting their chicken vaccinated against diseases and the level of awareness about getting treatment to sick chicken is low. This significant variation in different areas within the country might be due to difference in farmers’ awareness regarding the importance of vaccinating chickens against diseases. With regard to major diseases, Newcastle disease and fowl pox were observed in study district. Similarly, Hunduma et al. (2012) reported the major disease in rift valley area of Oromia to be Newcastle locally known as fungil/sombe. The other study conducted by Serkalem et al. (2005) in central Ethiopia showed that New Castle disease is highly infectious and causes more losses than any other diseases in the tropics. 60 5.1.7. Marketing system of eggs and chickens The current study revealed that the majority of the respondents were women who sell chicken and eggs for household expenditure such as paying for traditional saving, buying exercise book for children, and purchase consumable items such as salt and oil. These results agreed with results of Emebet (2015) who reported the sale of chickens and eggs mostly used by females (74.7%) to purchase consumable food items, for school fees, grain milling services, purchasing of improved seeds of maize, wheat and other expenses. Regarding with major customer of egg and chicken, the majority were market collector for both egg (41%) and chickens (86%) in present observation this results was parallel with Mogoes et al. (2010)who reported Urban market was the first priority place for most chicken owners (70%) to sale eggs followed by nearest local markets and farm gate sales. Concerning the means of transportation of eggs, it is identified that the majority of village chicken owners used plastic bag with straw, plastic bag with grain and cloth with grains for bringing eggs to market. But, traders used baskets. However, the majority (70%) of the respondents transport chickens by tying together and hanging them down. this results agreed with report of Mogoes et al. (2010a) who reported the majority of village chicken owners (59.3%) used both hand carrying (hanging birds with stick) and carrying birds with bamboo made containers to urban and village markets. However, traders use plastic sacks. LIVES (2014) in Dugda district reported that nowadays, traders use plastic sacks (Madaberia) to transport chickens which is in line with present work. 61 5.1.8. Major Challenges and opportunities of poultry production The majority of respondents (50%) indicated that the major challenges for poultry production in the area were disease of different kinds. These results agreed with the finding of Wondu et al (2013) who reported disease as the major cause for the loss of chickens in north Gondar. Hunduma et al, (2012) also reported that the major constraint of village poultry in rift valley area of Oromia was disease mainly Newcastle locally known as fungil/sombe followed by predator. With regard to opportunities of poultry production the current results similar with Melkamu et al. (2013) who reported the main opportunities for village chicken production was market access, credit service, training and extension service, feed and water access in Enebsie Sar Midir Woreda, Eastern Gojjam of Amhara region. 5.1.9. Input supply and value chain actors in the district. The majority of chicken breed owned by households were local breed (91.8%) in the current study area. The result of this study is slightly higher than the result of Habte et al. (2015) who reported about 88.96% of the chickens were locals in Dilla area. Samson (2010) also reported the dominant chicken production system in the rift valley is free range system using the majority of indigenous chicken (94%). The proportion of exotic chicks recorded from the study area is slightly higher than the national average of 1.35% for exotic and 95.86% indigenous chickens of none descriptive breeds (CSA, 2015). With regard to source of exotic breed the majority of owners get through district livestock development and healthy agency. Similarly Bereket ( 2013) reported that in Dale district of southern Ethiopia poultry input supply include supply of exotic pullets, cockerels and day old 62 chickens were mainly supplied by government. The broiler and day old chickens were not reared in the district mainly due to the lack of awareness and knowledge how to manage day old chicken and scarcity of exotic breed. The district livestock agency provides vaccination to prevent disease such as Newcastle and Fowl cholera. However, the farmers were not actively participating in chicken vaccination compared to other livestock. There are several feed processing plants and many flour mills that provide by-products as an input for poultry feed such as wheat short, wheat bran and oil cake. However, the farmers have little knowledge how to combine this concentrate to formulate ration. They purchased commercial poultry feed from Bishoftu, Adamaa and Mojo with high cost at average 10 birr/kg without adding transportation. Actors for the input supply function included pullet chickens supplier’s commercial poultry feed, cage makers and veterinary drugs. This finding in line with Awole (2010) who reported poultry input supply includes exotic breeds, commercial feeds, drugs and vaccines which are characterized by high price and in consistent availability. Market function actors include producers, collectors, retailers and processors (hotel and restaurant). 5.2. The effect of feeding fish meal on growth performance and carcass characteristics 5.2.1. Nutrient and energy contents of the experimental diets The calculated and analyzed CP contents were within the recommended range as suggested by Scane et al. (2004), 20% and 18% CP for grower and finisher broilers, respectively. The fat content (EE) of the ration was slightly increased from T1 to T4 as fish meal inclusion level increased. Similarly, content of calcium and phosphorus content of the ration linearly increased with fish meal inclusion as also explained by Asrat (2008) and Scane et al, (2004). 63 The ME content of diets increased with increased levels of fish meal. But, it is in the range of the recommended ME of 3200 kcal ME/kg DM for broilers (Scane et al., 2004). The CP content of fish meal was lower (51.83%) than that reported by Negussie and Alemu (2005) 70% crude protein) for fish meal in Ethiopia. Good quality fish meal is usually marketed at 65% crude protein, but the crude protein content can vary from 57 to 77%, depending on the species of fish used (Miles and Jacqueline, 2006). But, my result was in close agreement with the result (53% CP) of Batal and Dale (2010). Lower values than the present finding were reported (40.48%, 44.7%) by Udom (2005) and by Asrat (2008), respectively. The difference in CP content might be due to method of preparation of fish meal as also reported by Jacob (2013). The composition of fishmeal will also vary depending on the species of fish used, the method with which it was processed, and whether fillets were removed or not prior to processing. The fat contents in the current study were higher than the one reported by Wisenfeld et al. (2005) who reported the fat content of good quality fish meal to vary between 3.4 to 11.3%. Higher fat content than the present finding were also reported by Asrat (2008) who reported the value of 21.62%. This difference could partly be due to the method of processing in which full recovery of fat could not be attained. With regard to crude fiber (CF), the result of this study was in agreement with that reported by Asrat (2008). Calcium content in the current experiment is lower than the values (6.08 and 6%) reported by Asrat (2008) and Scanes et al., (2004), while that of P was more or less similar to the value (1 and 1.5%) reported by the same authors. 64 5.2.2. Nutrient and energy intake of chickens. Feed intake is one of the most important factors which influence performance of animals and potential parameter to determine nutritive value of animals feed. In the present findings, replacement of soybean with various levels of fish meal resulted in significant differences (p < 0.05) in nutrient intakes in which T1 and T2 had higher(DM, CP and ME) intakes. These results are in agreement with the work of Ponce and Gernat (2002) who found significant increase in feed intake when tilapia by-product meal was added up to 6% in broiler’s ration and feed intake was depressed at higher levels of fish meal inclusion. Asrat (2007) also reported DM and nutrients intakes were stimulated with fish meal inclusion. Lower nutrient intake (DM, CP and ME) in T3 and T4 in the present study maybe related to higher P and Ca intakes that reduced feed intake as also reported by Isika et al. (2006) high mineral intake mainly P and Ca impairs nutrient digestibility and could be the possible explanation for the lower nutrient intakes. 5.2.3. Effect of feed, age and sex on growing chicken fed fish meal. In the present experiment, the maximum ADBWG was achieved at 5% fish meal inclusion (commercial) feed. These results agreed with Donald and William (2002) who suggested that fish meal levels up to 8% will usually induce productive performance in broilers. Inclusion of fishmeal at 15% and 20% resulted in lower ADBWG which is agreement with result of Asrat (2008), Karimi (2006) who explained further increasing the levels of fish meal depressed growth rate. Chickens were most efficient in converting feed to body weight at T1 (5% fish meal) inclusion level which is due to higher growth rate at this level. Faster growth is always 65 associated with better feed utilization. It has also been reported that growth rate and feed efficiency are highly correlated Scanes et al. (2004). Sex had a significant (P<0.001) effect on ADBWG. Male chickens attain higher ADBWG than female during the experiment which is in accordance with the results of Yoseph (2013) who reported higher body weight gain in male than female in growing koekoek chickens which can be caused by development and increased activity of sex hormone. Tegene and Asrat (2010) indicated the difference was associated with feed conversion efficiency of male birds than female birds. With regard to the effect of age the highest gains were observed around six weeks of experimental period (eight weeks of age). Similarly, Maigulema and Gernat (2003) reported significantly higher body weights up to 6 weeks of age in broilers. Binda et al. (2012) also reported highest weight gain at 7 weeks of age for meat strain chicken. Asrat (2008) reported consistent improvement in ADBWG in Rhode Island Red (RIR) with an increase in age which concur the findings of the current study. As age advances feed conversion ratio progressively decreased but statically non-significant which indicates that young chicken utilize feed in a better way. Yoseph (2013) also reported that young chickens to be more efficient in converting feed to body mass than older chickens and speculated that these phenomena might be associated with higher calorie requirement of chickens at latter ages to maintain heavier body weight. 5.2.4. Carcass characteristics 66 Slaughter weight was affected by sex where males were significantly heavier than females which could be due to the effect of sex hormone (androgen) in males that favors muscle development which is in agreement with the report of Tegene and Asrat (2010) that revealed males to have heavier slaughter weight due to higher feed intake of males than females in one hand and also due to sex hormones that favor fat deposition in females. It is also indicated that males grow more quickly and efficiently (Donald and William, 2002) than females. The heavier weight of total carcass and separate carcass components (breast, drumsticks, thighs, wings and back) at 5% fish meal level inclusion were observed in current study which might be associated with high deposition of protein. Tegegne and Asrat (2010) argued high carcass yield suggests more nutrient bioavailability for anabolic process than other diets since the true muscle development is an accumulation of protein. The lower weight of carcass parts of T2, T3, and T4 may be due to less deposition of protein. This might be attributed to the presence of methionine and premix which are the primary limiting amino acids in the control diet (T1) and their absence in T2, T3, and T4.On the other hand, the value of essential amino acid, lysine is relatively higher in soybean (Yoseph, 2013). In the current study, the concentration of soybean is higher in T1 than in other groups which in turn might result in higher lysine concentration. Thus, the availability of methionine and premix along with higher concentration of limiting amino acid lysine might have resulted in higher carcass weight component in chicken fed 5% fish meal. Total edible offal (TEO) under Ethiopian context includes gizzard, skin and liver (Asrat, 2008). Non- significant effect of fish meal inclusion up to 15 % on skin were reported by Asrat (2008) and gizzard and liver by Yoseph(2013). Ayssiwede et al. (2011) reported that the 67 increase in gizzard size is related to the volume of feed, increased time spent grinding the feed and increased frequency of gizzard contraction. The absence of change in gizzard weight with increasing level of fish meal in the current study indicate that fish meal did not exhibit any effect to delay the retention time of ingesta in gizzard to increase frequency of gizzard contraction. This could probably be due to high digestibility value of fish meal. The similarity in dressing percentage of the current study among treatments is in close agreement with the study by Maigualema and Gernat (2003) who found no significant differences (p>0.05) in dressing percentage by using tilapia by- product meal as feed ingredient for broilers. Female chicken being similar in dressing percentage to males contrast to their respective lower carcass yield is reflection of that both sexes are producing carcasses proportional to their body weight (Tegene and Asrat, 2010; Yoseph, 2013). Neither fish meal inclusion nor sex did affect abdominal fat in the present work which indicates that the chicks were still growing and actively building muscle tissues and did not yet start to accumulate fat. In the present study, although statistically non- significant, females had larger amounts of abdominal fat pad than males. It is a general fact that female birds are fatter than males (Scanes et al., 2004; Asrat, 2008) because female hormones stimulate fat deposition. 5.2.6. Partial budget analysis Partial budget analysis was calculated to see if there was economic benefit obtained by replacement of soybean with fish meal. As fish meal inclusion increase the cost decrease which in line with results of (Asrat, 2007) who reported inclusion of Fish meal of up 13% in growing chicken diet was cost effective. 68 6. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 6.1. Conclusion The major poultry feeding practice in study district was scavenging with additional supplementation. Cereal grains such as maize and wheat are supplemented to different age groups together. The chickens are perch in the kitchen, main house and on trees during night time and released for scavenging early in the morning that could expose them to disease and predators. There was no formal type of chicken and egg marketing system in the district. The producers mainly women sell their chicken and eggs to collectors, at village and market to cover household expenditures. The major challenges for poultry farming were predator, disease, and scarcity of exotic breed and high cost of feeds for exotic breed. There is also an opportunity which includes access to market, availability of infrastructure and extension service. Input suppliers, producers, collectors, retailers, processers and consumers were actors involved in poultry value chain and government and non government organization were support institution. Higher body weight gain, better feed conversion ratio and heavier carcass were obtained when fish meal was included at 5 % level compared with 20% inclusion level. Even if control group (5% fish meal) had higher weight gains and heavier carcass, it associated with high cost. Inversely T4 (20% fish meal) inclusion had lower weight gains and associated with low cost. Thus by considering weight gains, carcass parameters and costs, modest benefits were obtained at 10% fish meal inclusion. Based on the present findings it could be concluded that improving housing, feeding and healthy management and creating strong relationship among relevant actors (producers, processors, input supply, consumers and traders) could improve poultry 69 production and productivity. Incorporation of locally prepared fish meal in the ration of grower chickens up to 10% was cost effective and without any adverse effect on growth performance, carcass characteristics and can replace plant protein sources such as soybean. . 6.2. Recommendation  Practical based and continuous training should be given on construction of improved housing and feeding, predators and diseases control.  Creating strong relationship among relevant actors (producers, processors, input supply, consumers and traders) through training and workshops is essential to transfer knowledge and provision of inputs/services in efficient and effective manner.  Providing local fish offal processing machine for small holder farmers is important to reduce cost of feed, alleviate environmental problem caused by unpleasant fish offal odor and create job opportunity for job seekers. . 70 7. REFERENCE Abera M. & Tegene N. 2009. Study on the characterization of local chickens found in Southern Ethiopia. In: Proceedings of Annual Research Review Workshop May 16-17, 2009, Hawassa University, and Hawassa, Ethiopia. Abdullah B.W.K.Wan Embong and H.H Soh, 2011.Biotechnology in animal production in developing countries. Proceedings of the 2nd international Conference on Agriculture Animal science, November 25-27, 2011.singapore, pp: 88-91 Addisu H. Hailu M. Zewide W. 2013. Indigenous Chicken Production System nd Breeding Practice in North Wallo, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Poultry, Fishery Wild Life Science 1: 108 Adugna 2007. Feed resource for producing export quality meat and livestock in Ethiopia. Examples from selected woreda in Oromia and SNNP regional state. Ajebu N. 2010. Feed intake, digestibility, nitrogen utilization and body weight change of sheep consuming wheat straw supplemented with local agricultural and agro-industrial by-products. Tropical Animal Health and Production 42: 815 – 824. Ahlers C., Alders R., Bagnol B., Cambaza A., Harun M. Mgomezulu R, Msami H., Pym B., Wegene P., Wethl E.and.Young M.2009b. Improving village chicken production: manual for field workersandtrainers.ACIARMonographNo.139.Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research. Alders R.Young M.2009. Village chickens, poverty alleviation and the sustainable control of Newcastle disease. ACIAR, Proceedings No. 131. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research: Anonymous 2002. Fish meal facts and figures. Fish meal Information Network (FIN). International fish meal and oil manufacturers association, 2 College Yard, Lower Dagnall Street, St. Albans, Herts, AL3 4PA, U.K. Asrat T. 2007. Assessment of the impact of feeding fish meal prepared at small scale level on feed intake, growth and carcass trait of Rhode Island Red. MSc Thesis, collegeofAgriculture, Hawassa University, Hawassa, Ethiopia.108pp. 71 Asrat T. Tegene N. Aberra M. and Yosef T. (2008). Effect of Inclusion rate of cooked and sun dried fish offal on growth and feed efficiency of Rhode Island Red chickens. East African Journal of Science 2(2):111–118. Ayssiwede S. Mankor., Dahouda H. Hornic and Missohou.2011. Effect of moringa olifera leaf meal in corporation in diets on growth performance, carcass characteristics and economic results of growing Senegal chickens. Journal of natural 10(12):1132-1145 Asem B .Sakyi D, Ackah N, Colecraft E & Marquis G .2012. Enhancing back yard poultry Enterprise performance in the Techiman area: A value chain Analysis. Agricultural Extension, College of Agriculture and consumer sciences, University of Ghana, Legon, Ghana .12(1):61-73 Awol Z. 2010. Analysis of poultry market chain: the case of Dale and Alaba ‘special’ woreda of southern nation and nationalities, Ethiopia. M.sc.Thesis. Haramaya University, Ethiopia .146. pp. Babu U.S., P.L.Wisenfeld, R.B. Raybourne, M.J. Myers and D. Gaines. 2005.Effectof dietary fish meal on cell-mediated immune response of laying hens. International Journal of Poultry Science 4(9): 652-656. Batal. and N.Dale. 2010. Feedstuffs Ingredient Analysis Table: 2011 edition. [Online].Feedstuffs.Availableathttp://fdsmagissues.feedstuffs.com/fds/Reference_issue_2010/0 3_Ingredient%20Analysi %20Table%202011%20Edition.pdf)(verified 17 Oct 2013) Bereket D. 2013. Poultry value chain analysis in Dale district of sidama zone southern Ethiopia Msc thesis Hawassa University College of Agriculture School of Environment, Gender and Development Studies, Hawassa, Ethiopia 119pp. Binda B. D, IA. Yusuf, K.M. Elam in and H.E .Eltayeb .2012. A comparison of performance among exotic meat strain and local chicken ecotype under Sudan condition. International .Journal of .poultry .Science 11(8):500-5004. Bush J. 2006. The Threat of Avian Flu Predicted Impacts on Rural Livelihoods in Southern Nation, Nationalities and Peoples Region (SNNPR), Ethiopia. The FoodEconomy Group, May 2006. BLDHA (Bora Livestock Development and Healthy Agency) annual report 2014. 72 BLAO (Bora Land Administration Office) annual report 2013 Chad S. 2007.Future trends and developments in poultry nutrition.Preceeding of the international conference poultry in the 21st century, November 5-7, FAO, Bangkok, Rome, Italy CSA (central statistical Agency). 2015. Agricultural sample survey volume II report on livestock and livestock characteristics Addis Ababa August 2015 573statical bulletin 573. Dawit A. Tamrat, D., Stotaw, F., Nzietcheung, S. and Roy, D. 2008: Overview and background paper on Ethiopia’s poultry sector. Relevance for HPAI Research in Ethiopia. www.h pai-reserach net. Accessed 06 April 2011. David F. 2010. The Role of poultry in human nutrition. Poultry Development review. pp. 90–104 Desalew T. 2012. Management practice, productive performance and egg quality traits of exotic chickens under village production system in east shoa zone. Msc. Thesis Addis Ababa University College of veterinary medicine and Agriculture. Debra- Zeit 58pp Denish T, solkiner J, Wurzenger M. 2008. Characterization of indigenous production systems in compendia, Food and Agricultural organization of united nation (FOA) Rome. Donald D. and. William D. (2002). Commercial Chicken Meat and Egg Production. 5thed. Kluwer Academic Publishers. USA. pp 224-226. Dovit 2005, .effect of supplementation, breed, season and location on feed intake and performance of scavenging chicken in Vietnam: PHD thesis Swedish university of Agricultural seines pp; 45. Emebet M. 2015. Phenotypic and genetic characterization of indigenous chickens in south west shoa and Gurage zone .PHD dissertation Addis Ababa university college of veterinary Medicine January, 2015 Debar Zeit Emam A. A. and A.M .Hassan , 2010. Economics of egg poultry production in Khartoum state with emphasis on the open -system-Sudan .African .Journal of .Agricultural. Research, 5:2491-2496 Ekreen N.V., A. Mass H.W Saatkamp M. Verschuur.1997 small poultry production in tropics. (Agro dock 4, Agromissa. (CTA). 70. Feleke A. Teka, T Abeba. D. (2015). Challenges and Opportunities of Village Poultry Production in Arbegona Woreda, Sidama Zone, Southern Ethiopia. College of Agriculture Department of Animal and Range Sciences,,WolaitaSodo University, Developing Country Studies ISSN 2224-607X (Paper) ISSN 2225-0565 (Onlinewww.iiste.org) Vol.5, No.11, 2015 Addis Ababa, Ethiopia 73 FAO (2007) Poultry sector country review, Animal Production and Health Division, Emergency center for trans-boundary animal diseases socio economics, production and biodiversity unit, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United, Nations, Rome., Italy. FAO (2008).An Analysis of the Poultry Sector in Ethiopia. Poultry Sector Country Review. FAO, Rom. Italy.P.48. FAO (2009). The State of Food and Agriculture Livestock in Balance. FAO (2010). Poultry meat and Eggs Agribusiness hand book. Director of Investment Centre Division. FAO. Rome. Italy. P.77 Gura S. 2008. Industrial livestock production and its impact on small holder in developing country. Consultancy report to the league for pastoral peoples and Endogenouslivestock Development, Germany, pp: 65.http:www.astorial peoples.org/docs/gura-ind-livstock- prod.pdf Halima H. 2007. Phenotypic and genetic characterization of indigenous chicken population in North West Ethiopia. PhD thesis submitted to the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences Department of Animal, Wildlife and Grassland Sciences University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa HabtamuM..Selamawit.D, Berhan A. and Asmamaw .Y (2015).Villagen chickenproduction performances assessment under scavenging management system in Amaro district, SNNPRS of Ethiopia Dilla University. College of Agriculture and Natural Resources Department of Animal and Range Sciences, Wudpecker Journal of Agricultural Research ISSN 2315-7259 Vol. 4(3), pp. 021 - 034, Hunduma D. Regassa Ch, Fufa D, Samson L, Endale B (2010).Socio- economic importanceand management of village chicken production in rift valley of Oromia,Ethiopia.Livestock. Research. Rural. Development. 22(11) Hagmann J., M., Connolly, P., Ficarelli, J., Ramaru, 2002. The Service Delivery Framework: understanding the development of service systems as a systemic change and negotiation process within and across three levels of demand and supply. ILRI (International livestock Research Institute) 2016: unlocking the potential of Ethiopian livestock sector. Retrieved from https://news.ilri.org/.../unlocking-the- potential-of-the-livestock-sector-eth 74 Jacquie Jacob, 2013: Including Fishmeal in Organic Poultry Diets, Organic Agriculture University of Kentucky Karimi A.2006. The effects of varying fish meal inclusion levels on performance of broiler chicks. International Journal of Poultry Science 5(3): 255-258. Kassu K. 2009.Analysis of agricultural input supply system: the case of dale woreda southern nation nationalities and peoples region. MSc. thesis Haramaya University. Department of rural development and agricultural extension, Haramaya Ethiopia 110pp Kena Y., Legesse, D., and Alemu, Y. 2002. Poultry marketing: structure, spatial variations and determinants of prices in Eastern Shewa zone, Ethiopia. Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization, Debrezeit Research Center. 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).Research. Journal of. Agricultural. Science. 2 (1):110-113. Kryger KN. Thomsen KA, Whyte MA, Dissing M (2010).Small holder Poultry Production Livelihoods, Food Security and Socio-cultural Significance, Smallholder Poultry Production. FAO.Rome Italy. P76. Kondombo S., Nianogo A., Kwakkel, R., Udo, H. and Slingerland, M. (2003): Comparative analysis in village chicken production in two farming systems in Burkina Faso. Tropical, Animal, Health and Production, 35:563-574. LIVES, (livestock Irrigation value chain Ethiopian small holder) 2013. Zonal diagnosis and intervention plan for east shoa, Oromia Compiled by Nigatu Alemayehu April, 2013 LIVES (livestock Irrigation value chain Ethiopian small holder). 2014.Chicken and egg marketing insights from traders in Meki .oromia, Contributed by Abule Ebro (LIVES regional coordinator, Oromia) retrieved from https: //lives –ethiopia.org/…chicken. Meseret M. (2010). Characterization of village chicken production and marketing system in Gomma Woreda, Jimma zone, Ethiopia. M.Sc. Thesis, Jimma University, Jimma, Ethiopia Melkamu. B. Wube A. (2013). constraint and opportunities of village chicken production in Debsan Tikara kebele at Gonder Zuria woreda ,North Gonder, Ethiopia; International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 3, Issue 9, September 2013 1 ISSN 2250- 3153 75 Mengasha M. Berhan T. Tadelle D (2008). Socio-economical contribution and labor allocation of village chicken production in Jamma district, South Wollo, Ethiopia.20:60. Mengasha M. Tamir B. and Dessie T. (2011) Village Chicken Constraints andTraditional Management Practices in Jamma District, South Wollo, and Ethiopia. Livesestock. Research .for Rural Development., 23 (37). Retrievedhttp://wwww.lrrd.org/lrrd23/2/meng23037.htm Mekonen GM. 2007.Characterization of Smallholder Poultry production and Marketing System of Dale, Wonsho and Loka AbayaWeredas of Southern. Ethiopia. Msc Thesis, Hawassa University, Ethiopia’s. 111pp Mikule Ž. N. Mas, T. Mašek, and A. Strmotiæ. 2004. Soybean meal and sunflower meal as a substitute for fish meal in broiler diet. Veterinarski Arhiv 74 (4): 271-279. Miles R. D. and P. Jacqueline. 2006. Fishmeal: Understanding why this feed ingredient is so valuable in poultry diets. University of Florida. Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences Miles R.D. and F.A Chapman. 2006. The benefits of fish meal in aquaculture diets. University of Florida. FA122. (Available at http: //edis.ifas.ufl.edu.). Moges F. Aberra M. and Tadelle D. (2010a): 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. Agricultural. Research, 5 (13):1739- 1748. Moges F. Azage T. and Tadelle D. (2010b): Indigenous chicken production and marketing systems in Ethiopia: Characteristics and opportunities for market-oriented development.IPMS (Improving Productivity and Market Success) of Ethiopian Farmers Project Working Paper 24.Nairobi, Kenya, ILRI. Nzietcheung S. (2008): Characterization of poultry production systems and potential pathways for the introduction of highly pathogenic avian influenza in Ethiopia. Draft Report.InternationalLivestock Research Institute. Rift valley Maize Livelihood Zone (RVMLZ) annual report (2008) Serkalem T., Hagos A., and Zeleke A. (2005): Sero-prevalence study of Newcastle disease in local chickens in central Ethiopia. Interernational, Journal of. Applied. Research. Veterinary, Medicine, 3:1. 76 Solomon D. 2007a: Suitability of hay-box brooding technology to rural household poultry production system. Livestock, Research, Rural Development, 19 (1): RetrievedMay8, 2012, Solomon D., 2007b.Comparative nutritive value of Atella and industrial brewer’s grains inchickenretrievedMay26, 2015, Sonaiya E.B.2000. Family poultry and food security: research requirements in science, technology and socioeconomics. Proceedings XXI Word’s Poultry Congress. Montreal, Canada, August 20-24. Scanes C.G., G. Brant and M.E. Ensminger. 2004. Poultry Science.4th ed. Pearson Prentice Hall. New Jersey. pp: 105-106 Negussie D. and Alemu Y. 2005. Characterizations and classification of potential poultry feeds in Ethiopia using cluster analysis. Ethiopian Journal of Animal Production 5(1)-2006 107-123. Nebiyu Y. 2013. Characterization of village chicken production performance under Scavenging systems in Alaba district of southern.Ethiopia. Ethiopian .Veterinary .Journal, 17(1), 69-80 Tadelle D. and Peters K. J.2003. Indigenous chicken in Ethiopia: their genetic potential, attempts made in the past for improvement and future areas of Research. Humboldt University of Berlin, Animal Breeding for Tropics and sub-tropics Tadesse D. Getu K, Aemiro K, Seyoum B, Dereje F, Bayissa H and Liyusew A 2009a Feed Resource Status, Livestock Feeding and Management in the Central Highlands of Ethiopia. Proceedings of Ethiopian society of animal production 17th- ESAPTP 005. Tadesse D. Fassil A. and Seyoum B. 2009b .Reaction of Some Rumen Micro flora to Different Supplementary Feeds in Rumen Fistulated Animals. Ethiopian Journal of Science (SINET) 32(1), 65-74 Tegene N. And Asrat T.2010. Effect of feeding different level of cooked and sun dried fish of offal on carcass trait of growing Rhode Island Red chicken .Tropical .Animal .Health Production .42: 45: 54 Tesfaye D.2008. Assessment of feed resources and rangeland condition in Matema district of north Gondar zone. Msc Thesis. Haramaya University College of agriculture. Haramaya, Ethiopia 142pp 77 Thomas X. Diao and D. Roy, 2009.Impact of a potential avian flu outbreak in Ethiopia: multimarket model analysis .controlling avian flu and protecting people’s livelihoods in Africa and Indonesia,HPA research Brief No13.http://www.ifpria.org/sitesdefAult /files/publications/hpairb13.pdf Upton M. farm management in Africa, the principle of production and planning Oxforduniversity press, 380p Wilson R, 2010.poultry production performance in federal democratic republic of Ethiopia. Journal of World poultry., Science .66 Wisenfeld P.L, S.B. Uma, B. R. Richard, G. Dennis, O. D. Michael and J. M. Michael. 2005. Effect of dietary fish meal on chicken serum, liver and spleen fatty Acid metabolism. International Journal of Poultry Science 4(10): 728-733. Wiseman J.1987.Feeding of non-ruminant livestock. Butterworth, London.208 pp. Wondu M. Mehiret M. and Berhan. 2014. Characterization of Urban Poultry Production System in Northern Gondar, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia World Bank. 2014. Ethiopia’s Great Run – The Growth Acceleration and How to Pace It, Report No. 99399.ET. November, 2014. The World Bank Group WPSA (world’s poultry and science Association) 2013.Feed resources and chicken production in Ethiopia www.worldpoultry.net/.../2013/.../Feed-resources-and- chicken-production Yaqoob.2005. Feed resource of livestock in the Punjab, Pakistan. Livestock Research.Ruler Development, vol.17, No 2 Yeshitella A. 2008. Assessment of livestock feed resources utilization in Alaba district southern Ethiopia. Msc Thesis Haramaya University College of Agriculture Haramaya, Ethiopia 127pp Yoseph G.2013.Effect of feeding different levels of moringa stneptela leaf meal on growth performance, carcass traits and some serum Biochemical parameters of koekoek chickens .MSc thesis, Hawassa University college of Agriculture, Hawassa. Ethiopia 70pp Yusuf F. S Lategan1 and P. J. Masika, 2014.Characterization of Indigenous Poultry Production Systems in the Noncore Municipality, Eastern Cape Province South Africa. Journal, Agricultural Science, 5(1-2): 31-44 78 Zewide W. 2010. Livestock production system in relation with feed availability in high land and central riftivally. MSc. Thesis Haramaya University school of animal and Range land sciences. Haramaya, Ethiopia 79 8. APPENDIX Appendix1 Prices of feed ingredients used in experimental diets and cost of chicken Item Price (Br.) Source Maize/100kg 530 Maki commercial market Soybean/100kg 3000 Addis Ababa commercial market. Wheat bran/100kg 500 Maki commercial market Commercial feed 1090 Alema Farms PLC Fish meal/100kg 2000 Prepared at experiment site Salt/kg 1 Maki commercial market Lime stone/kg Korke adi kebele Chicken/head(purchased) 20 Debrazait agricultural research center Chicken/head(sold) 105-110 On site cost 80 Appendix2 ANOVA results regarding effect of dietary treatment on nutrient (g/chick/day) and energy (kcal/chick/day) intake of koekoek chickens fed diet contains different levels fish meal Source of variance Parameters Sumof square Degree of free dam Mean square F Sig Treatment DMI 88.8 3 29.6 35.489 0.002 OMI 58.35 3 19.45 32.01 0.003 CPI 9.99 3 3.33 97.98 0.000 CFI 0.86 3 0.29 3.53 0.127 Ca I 0.46 3 0.55 1.77 0.000 PI 0.039 3 0.13 396.12 0.000 MEI 192.77 3 64.25 6.58 0.05 Error DMI 3.337 4 0.834 OMI 2.43 4 0.608 CPI 0.136 4 0.034 CFI 0.032 4 0.008 Ca I 0.000 4 8.74 PI 0.000 4 3.30 MEI 39.06 4 9.70 81 Appendix3 Repeated measure ANOVA result regarding effect of treatment and age on feed conversion ratio ( g feed/g gain)of koekoek chicken fed different levels of locally prepared fish meal Source of variation Sum of square Degree of freedom Mean square F sig Between subject treatment 10.201 3 3.400 11.949 .018 Error 1.138 4 .285 Within subject Age 11.451 5 2.290 38.315 .000 Age *diet 4.159 15 .277 4.639 .001 Error(age) 1.195 20 .060 82 Appendix4 Repeated measure ANOVA result regarding effect of treatment (feed type), sex and age (weeks) on weight gain (g/chick/day) of koekoek chicken fed different level of fish meal Source of variation Sum of Squares Degreeof freedom Mean Square F Sig Between subject Feed type 5822.094 3 1940.698 43.261 .000 Sex 4469.649 1 4469.649 99.635 .000 Error (sex ,feed ) 358.880 8 44.860 Within subject age 157674.305 5 31534.861 142.015 .000 Age*sex 1284.393 5 256.879 5.887 .000 Age *feed type 14160.795 15 944.053 4.251 .000 Error (age) 8882.094 40 222.052 83 Appendix5 ANOVA results regarding effect of treatment and sex and on carcass characteristic of koekoek chicken fed different level of locally prepared fish meal Source of variance Parameters (g) Sum of square Degree of freedom Mean Square F Sig. Treatment Slauther weight 152193.688 3 50731.229 101.985 .000 Breast 3680.188 3 1226.729 28.160 .000 Drumstick 1755.500 3 585.167 33.679 .000 Thighs 2031.188 3 677.062 10.249 .004 wings 474.688 3 158.229 14.805 .001 back 762.250 3 254.083 4.738 .035 Total carcass 41867.250 3 13955.750 27.912 .000 Skin 436.750 3 145.583 1.775 .229 gizzard 107.188 3 35.729 1.524 .281 liver 27.188 3 9.063 .736 .559 TEO 1236.500 3 412.167 3.612 .065 TEC 56857.250 3 18952.417 30.354 .000 TNEC 18018.952 3 6006.317 19.321 .001 Abdominal fat 12.014 3 4.005 .417 .745 Dressing % 196.250 3 65.417 .688 .584 84 Appendix tabe5 (continued). ANOVA result regarding effect of treatment and sex on carcass characteristic of koekoek chicken fed different type of concentrate at different level of fish meal inclusion. Source of variance Parameters (g) Sum of square Degree of freedom Mean Square F Sig. sex Slauther weight 82800.062 1 82800.062 166.453 .000 Breast 742.562 1 742.562 17.046 .003 Drumstick 812.250 1 812.250 46.748 .000 Thighs 1314.062 1 1314.062 19.891 .002 wings 189.063 1 189.063 17.690 .003 back 529.000 1 529.000 9.865 .014 Total carcass 18906.250 1 18906.250 37.813 .000 Skin 600.250 1 600.250 7.320 .027 gizzard 175.562 1 175.562 7.491 .026 liver 115.563 1 115.563 9.386 .015 TEO 2352.250 1 2352.250 20.611 .002 TEC 34596.000 1 34596.000 55.409 .000 TNEC 15681.301 1 15681.301 50.443 .000 Abdominal fat 7.769 1 7.769 .810 .395 Dressing % 182.250 1 182.250 1.916 .204 85 Appendix table 5 (continued). ANOVA result regarding effect of treatment and sex on carcass characteristic of koekoek chicken fed different type of concentrate at different level of fish meal inclusion. Source of variance Parameters (g) Sum of square Degree of freedom Mean Square F Sig. error Slauther weight 3979.500 8 497.438 Breast 348.500 8 43.562 Drumstick 139.000 8 17.375 Thighs 528.500 8 66.062 wings 85.500 8 10.688 back 429.000 8 53.625 Total carcass 4000.000 8 500.000 Skin 656.000 8 82.000 gizzard 187.500 8 23.438 liver 98.500 8 12.312 TEO 913.000 8 114.125 TEC 4995.000 8 624.375 . TNEC 2486.955 8 310.869 Abdominal fat 76.764 8 9.595 Dressing % 761.000 8 95.125 86 Appendix table 5 (continued). ANOVA result regarding effect of treatment and sex on carcass characteristic of koekoek chicken fed different type of concentrate at different level of fish meal inclusion. Source of variance Parameters (g) Sum of square Degree of freedom Mean Square F Sig. Total Slauther weight 1.328E7 16 Breast 138553.000 16 Drumstick 95962.000 16 Thighs 100801.000 16 wings 23975.000 16 back 70790.000 16 Total carcass 2377082.000 16 Skin 45838.000 16 gizzard 21195.000 16 liver 7961.000 16 TEO 199588.000 16 TEC 3945356.000 16 . TNEC 1631466.910 16 Abdominal fat 47166.269 16 Dressing % 6922.000 16 87 Appendix 6 Survey questionnaire format Enumerator’s name ------------------------------------- Respondent name --------------------------------------- Respondent name number --- -------------------------- Region ---------------------------------------- ------------ District --------------------------------------- ------------- Kebele -------------------------------------- --------------- Date --------------------------------------------------------- I. General information 1. Sex: A/ Male B/ Female 2. Marital status: 1 = Single 2 = Married 3 =Widowed 4 = divorced 3. Educational level of the respondent 1. Illiterate 2. Read & write 3.1st –4th 4. 5th –8th 5. 9th-12th 6.collage and above 4. Occupation: 1 = Farmer 2 = Trader 3. Depend on mining activity 4 = fisher men 5. Government worker 5. Household size and composition: Age group (years) No. of members in the household Male Female Total >60 16-60 6-15 <6 88 6. Landholdings: # Land area(ha) Land use Annual crop Perennial crop Grazing land Fallow land 1 2 3 4 7. What are the populations of livestock that are used in your household? Species Number Species Number local Exotic Local Exotic Cattle Goats Cows Kids Oxen Bucks Bulls Equines Heifers Donkeys Steers Horses Calves Mules Sheep Poultry Lambs Layers Ewes Cockerels Pullets II. Feed Resources and Feeding Strategy 1. Do you practice supplementary feeding of your chicken? Yes----------No--------- 2 .How did you feed your chicken? 1. Scavenging only 2.Scavenging with additional supplementation 3. Supplement purchased feed 3. Frequency of feeding 1. Once a day 2.Twice a day 3. Three times a day 89 4. Type of grain supplement 1. Maize alone 2.Wheat alone. 3. Wheat +maize 4. Others 5. Source of feed supplement 1. Farm produced 2. Purchased 6. Way of supplementation 1. Spread on ground. 2. Using feeder 7. Form of supplementation 1. Separate different class 2. Together the whole group 8. Time of feeding 1.Morning only. 2. Afternoon only 3. Morning and afternoon 4. Morning and afternoon and evening Housing 1. Do you have separate poultry house? Yes---------------- No------------------------- 2. If you say no, where do your birds stay at night? 1. in the kitchen 2.Main house 3. Perch on trees 4. Purposive constricted house. 3. If you construct purposive house the house made from ----------------------------? 1/ Mud blokes and thatch 2/ Wood and thatch 3 / Wood and corrugated Irion 4. Do you practice cleaning of poultry house? Yes-------------- No----------------- 5. If your answer to question 4 is yes, how often you clean poultry house 1. Every day 2. Every two day. 3. Every 3-6 days 4. Once a week. 5. Never clean Provision of water 1. Do you provide water for your chicken? Yes-------------------no------------------ 2. Source of water 1. Tape water 2. Borehole water. 3. River water 4. Rain water 3. Drinkers made of ------------------------------------ 90 1. Wood 2. Metal 3. Plastic 4. Stone 4. Frequency of cleaning drinkers 1. Onece a day 2. Every three days 3. Once a week 4. Never clean Healthy management 1. Do you vaccinate your chicken? Yes--------------no------------------- 2. What is major disease in your area? 1. Newcastle disease 2. Fowl pox 3. Coccidiosis 4. Measurement taken when chicken gets sick 1. Treat with traditional medicine. 2. Consult veterinarian 3. Kill them. 4. Sell them Marketing system of egg and chicken 1. Fill the following table concerning with chicken and egg marketing purpose of selling Eggs) Chicken Buying exercise for children Household expenditure Fetching water Paid for traditional saving (equb) Major customer Village collector Market collector Local shopkeeper Local consumer travelers - Egg and chicken seller with family Women Men 91 Children Way of bringing to market (eggs) In the basket In the plastic bag with grain In the plastic bag with straw In the close with grain - Way of bring to market (chicken) By cart BY bicycle Tying together and hung down Challenge and opportunities of poultry production 1. What is the major problem of poultry production in your area? 1. Disease 2. Predator 3. Feed shortage 4. Scarcity of exotic breed a 2. What opportunities do you have for poultry production? 1. Market opportunities 2. Extension service 3. Infrastructure availability In put supply and service provision 1. Type of breed owned 1. Local 2. Exotic 3. Hybrid 2. Sources exotic breed 1. District livestock agency2. Private company 3. NGO 3. Type of exotic breed purchased (in terms of age) 1. Day old 2. Pullet 92 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Kedir Abdurahman was born in wakentira Maso kebele, Guna woreda of Arsi Zone on May 5, 1982. He attended his primary, secondary, high school and preparatory in Maso wakentira, Guna, Abajema, and Abomsa schools respectively until 2007. He then joined Bahir Dar University College of Agriculture in 2008 and graduated with B.Sc degree in Fishery wet land and wild life management in 2010. Then after he employed by ministry of livestock and fishery in Bora district of east shoa zone and served as fishery expert and as livestock extension team leader for three years until he joined Hawassa University for his Msc study. He joined school of graduate studies of Hawassa University, Hawassa College of Agriculture in 2013 to pursue M.sc degree in Animal production. Currently Kedir had married and father of two children.