Assessment of poultry feed and handling mechanisms of poultry production challenges in Benishangul-Gumuz Region, Western Ethiopia

Abstract

The objective of this study was to assess the existing poultry feed resources, challenges of poultry production, and handling mechanisms practiced in Benishangul-Gumuz regional state, Ethiopia. The study locations and respondents were selected purposively based on the potentiality of farmers’ experiences on poultry production and accessibility. A semi-structured interview questionnaire was prepared and administered to 91 randomly selected respondents. In all districts included, local chickens predominate. Almost all of the chickens were scavengers. But there were practices of supplementing with grain and sometimes with non-conventional feed types. Supplementary feed types used were maize (84.1%), house waste (70.9%), sorghum (55.7%), grain byproducts (48.8%), and wheat (39.8%). Non-conventional feeds like green leaves (42.9%), worms, and insects (35.7%) were also used to feed their chicken. The constraints identified were diseases, feed shortage, predators, and lack of veterinary services. About 66.7% of respondents practice coping mechanisms for feed scarcity. They provide feed bought from the market (61%), house waste (13.6%), different green plants, vegetables, and selling of some chickens to reduce their number (8.5%). The use of modern and traditional medicines for health management, and keeping chickens in the house and making the area clean to prevent predators were practiced as a coping strategy. However, the coping mechanisms practiced were inadequate, and the management practices were poor. Therefore, awareness creation for small-holder farmers is required for the proper handling of chickens. Moreover, the preparation of poultry feeds from locally available feed resources is recommended.

Keywords:

• Benishangul-Gumuz region
• challenges
• feed
• handling mechanisms
• poultry

Reviewing Editor:

• Pedro González-Redondo, University of Seville, SPAIN

SUBJECTS:

• Agriculture;
• Agriculture and Food
• Animal Biochemistry

1. Introduction

Livestock production may be a means to out of poverty for many small-holder farmers in developing countries (FAO, 2004). They play an important role in rural livelihoods. They are the source of income and serve to manage risks (Herrero et al., 2012). Ethiopia has the largest livestock population in Africa and poultry is the majority of livestock species in the country (Alemneh & Getabalew, 2019; Emebet et al., 2014). The total chicken population in the country is estimated to be 57 million, of which 78.85% are indigenous, 12.03% hybrid, and 9.11% exotic chicken (CSA, 2021). Poultry production and product consumption are increasing in the world (Haftu, 2016). Poultry production has a great contribution to the economic improvement of developing countries (Sambo et al., 2015). In Ethiopia, chicken production plays an important role as the main supplier of eggs and meat in rural and urban areas and as a source of income, especially for women (Haftu, 2016).

Poultry production systems practiced in Ethiopia are large-scale, small-scale, and backyard production systems (Fitsum, 2014). Village or backyard production remains a major chicken production system in rural parts of Ethiopia, which mainly consists of indigenous chicken breeds. Even though many attempts have been made to introduce different exotic poultry breeds to small-holder farming systems to improve the existing low performance of indigenous chickens (Alemneh & Getabalew, 2019). The traditional way of management continues to dominate domestic chicken production in Ethiopia (Paolo & Abebe, 2008). Poultry production in the village takes place complementary to different household production activities (Hsu & Tan, 2013). Poultry production is attractive due to its various advantages in poverty reduction and quality protein supply (Fitsum, 2014). Poultry and poultry products represent a vital part of the human diet in most of the developing countries. It is an essential component of an integrated food production system. The majority of eggs and poultry meat consumed in the country are from indigenous birds produced by rural farmers (Paolo & Abebe, 2008). But in village chickens, extensive systems are dominant, they are not classified into specific breeds and scavenge for food (Mapiye et al., 2008).

Due to the increment in the human population and to low productivity of chicken in Ethiopia, there is a growing demand for the supply of animal products (Haftu, 2016). The most important inputs to meet the demand for poultry products are the introduction of improved breeds, improved feed quality, vaccines, and medicines (Tamir et al., 2015). Poultry products account for more than 30% of total animal protein consumption. And, over the past decade, the consumption of poultry products in developing countries has increased by 5.8% per year.

Chicken provides a great opportunity to increase protein production and income for smallholder farmers (Emebet et al., 2014). So, food security at the household level can be improved by promoting poultry production (Yirgu et al., 2016). However, many constraints faced by small-holder poultry producers include poultry diseases, predators, inadequate availability and poor quality of feed resources, lack of proper health care, and poor marketing information (Mohammed, 2018; Yirgu et al., 2017). Therefore, the objective of the study was to assess the poultry feed available, identify the major challenges of poultry production, and its handling mechanisms practiced in the Benishangul-Gumuz Region, Western Ethiopia.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Description of the study area

The study was conducted in Benishangul-Gumuz regional state, Ethiopia. The region has three zones (Assosa, Kamash, and Metekel) and one special district (Maokomo). Kamash and Dembie districts of the Kamash zone, Assosa and Bambasi districts of the Assosa zone, and Maokomo special districts were selected for this study. Assosa is the capital city of the region. The state has a diverse topography and climate. Classified as lowland, midland, and highland agro-ecologies. Kamash zone, Assosa zone, and Maokomo special district were selected for lowland, midland, and highland agro-ecologies, respectively. The altitude ranges from 550 to 2,500 meters above sea level. The average annual temperature reaches from 20 to 25 °C. During the hottest months (January–May) it reaches 28–34 °C. The annual rainfall amount ranges from 500 to 1800 mm and the rainy season spreads from May to October.

2.2. Sampling and data collection methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted to assess the available poultry feed, challenges, and handling mechanisms for poultry production. The districts included in the region were selected purposively based on agro-ecology and poultry production potential. The respondents were small-holder farmers and they were extensive poultry producers. The respondents selected were 14 from Kamash and 40 from Assosa zones, and 37 from Maokomo special district based on farmers’ poultry production experience and road accessibility. A total of 91 knowledgeable small-holder farmers were selected for this study.

2.3. Data management and analysis

The collected data was entered into the Microsoft Excel spreadsheet and then it was analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 20 software. Descriptive statistics, one-way ANOVA, and chi-square tests were employed for analysis. The confidence level was held at 95%, and p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

3. Result and discussions

3.1. Family size and respondents’ profile

The socio-economic characteristics of the respondents are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Exogenous household factors like agro-ecology, family size, and education levels, and endogenous factors such as income and livelihood opportunities were important factors influencing the poultry production decisions of households (Hsu & Tan, 2013). And in the present study, 91 respondents participated from different agro-ecologies in the region. The average household family size and age of respondents were 7.06 ± 3.53 and 37.31 ± 11.58 respectively (mean ± SD) (Table 1). In another study conducted in Sidama Zone, Southern Ethiopia, the mean household family size and age of the respondents were 6.88 ± 0.24 and 40.58 ± 0.85 respectively (Yirgu et al., 2017). The difference in the average age and family size of respondents were not statistically significant (p > 0.05) in the three agro-ecologies.

Table 1. Family size and average age of respondents.

Agro-ecology	District	No of respondents	Male family size (Mean ± SD)	Female family size (Mean ± SD)	Total family size (Mean ± SD)	Range	Average age of respondents (years) (Mean ± SD)
Lowland	Kamash	11	2.82 ± 1.54	3.09 ± 1.45	5.91 ± 1.97	3–9	32.91 ± 11.88
	Dembie	3	2.33 ± 2.31	2.00 ± 1.00	4.33 ± 1.50	3–6	33.67 ± 6.00
Mid-land	Assosa	19	3.61 ± 2.70	4.00 ± 3.16	7.28 ± 5.40	3–24	40.68 ± 13.26
	Bambasi	21	3.81 ± 2.04	3.24 ± 2.02	7.05 ± 3.30	3–19	38.57 ± 12.00
Highland	Maokomo	37	3.73 ± 1.63	3.78 ± 2.45	7.51 ± 2.86	1–15	36.46 ± 10.55
Total		91	3.57 ± 1.98	3.56 ± 2.39	7.06 ± 3.53	1–24	37.31 ± 11.58
	F-statistic (p-value)		1.550(0.218)	0.767(0.468)	1.585(0.211)		1.835(0.166)

Table 2. Sex and educational level of respondents.

Variables	Assosa	Bambasi	Kamash	Dembie	Maokomo	Overall mean (%)
Sex of respondents (%)
Male	63.2	61.9	63.6	66.7	89.2	73.6
Female	36.8	38.1	36.4	33.3	10.8	26.4
Education level of respondent (%)
Illiterate	10.5	42.9	20.0	33.3	40.5	32.2
Read and write	31.6	0.0	10.0	0.0	5.4	10.0
Grade 1–4	21.0	19.0	20.0	0.0	32.4	24.4
Grade 5–8	15.8	33.3	40.0	0.0	18.9	23.3
Grade 9–12	21.0	4.8	0.0	33.3	2.7	7.8
Above grade 12	0.0	0.0	10.0	33.3	0.0	2.2

The sex of respondents in percentage out of the total respondents (N = 91) were 73.6 and 26.4 for male and female-headed households respectively (Table 2). This finding was in agreement with the report of Moges et al. (2010), 74.6% and 25.4% of the interviewed small-holder farmers from Bure district, North West Ethiopia were male and female respectively. The educational status of respondents indicated that there was a high level of illiteracy among the respondents (32.2%), only 10.0% had secondary education and above, while the rest of the respondents had primary education. This was comparable with the studies conducted in the North Western Amhara Region, Ethiopia, where 31.8% of the households participating in the study were illiterate (Tamir et al., 2015). However, this finding is lower than the report of Yirga et al. (2012) and Jimma et al. (2016); who reported that 66.7% and 37% of the respondents were illiterate from Northern and Southern Ethiopia respectively. Education plays a great role in technology adoption and in the sustainable development of a country. The relatively better literacy levels observed in the study areas can be a better opportunity to implement improved technologies.

3.2. Chicken flock size and the type of breed

The average number of chickens and the type of breed in the study districts were described in Table 3. Exotic or commercial chicken breeds are not available in the Kamash and Dembie districts of Kamashi zone and this may be due to the farness from cities and towns to access chicken technologies easily. In this study, the average flock size was 10, ranging from 3 to 43 chickens per household, with a hen to cock ratio of 0.8:1, 2.46:1, and 2.3:1 for hybrid, local, and exotic chicken, respectively; with, overall hen to cock ratio of 2.37:1. In other reports, the average flock size per household was 13 (ranged from 1 to 57), with a hen to cock ratio of 3.7:1 (Moges et al., 2010). Mamo and his colleagues from Northern Gondar, Ethiopia, reported that the average flock size was 10.44 with a range of 2–18 birds (Mamo et al., 2013).

Table 3. Chicken flock size and the type of breed in the study districts.

District of respondents’	Chicken size of male hybrid breed	Chicken size of female hybrid breed	Chicken sizeof male local breed	Chicken size of female local breed	Chicken size of male exotic breed	Chicken size of female exotic breed	Average number of chicken
Assosa (n = 19)
Mean	0.263	0.263	2.680	6.630	0.211	0.947	11.000
SE	0.185	0.214	0.465	0.886	0.123	0.504	0.994
% of total sum	38.5%	45.5%	22.6%	22.6%	20.0%	39.1%	23.9%
Bambasi (n = 21)
Mean	0.240	0.095	2.047	4.285	0.333	1.000	8.000
SE	0.153	0.095	0.362	0.574	0.144	0.345	0.905
% of total sum	38.5%	18.2%	19.0%	16.2%	35.0%	45.7%	19.2%
Kamash (n = 11)
Mean	0.000	0.091	3.273	7.091	0.000	0.000	10.450
SE	0.000	0.091	0.648	2.473	0.000	0.000	2.387
% of total sum	0.0%	9.1%	15.9%	14.0%	0.0%	0.0%	13.2%
Dembie (n = 3)
Mean	0.000	0.000	4.333	12.333	0.000	0.000	16.670
SE	0.000	0.000	0.667	2.667	0.000	0.000	3.333
% of total sum	0.0%	0.0%	5.8%	6.6%	0.0%	0.0%	5.7%
Maokomo (n = 37)
Mean	0.081	0.081	2.243	6.108	0.243	0.189	8.950
SE	0.059	0.059	0.286	1.159	0.152	0.085	1.215
% of total sum	23.1%	27.3%	36.7%	40.6%	45.0%	15.2%	37.9%
Total (N = 91)
Mean	0.143	0.121	2.484	6.121	0.219	0.505	9.590
SE	0.058	0.056	0.195	0.616	0.075	0.141	0.664
% of Total	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%	100.0%

SE = Standard error of means.

The chicken breeds introduced in the area were Koekoek, RIR, and Bovans brown. Local chicken breeds dominated in all study districts than improved chicken and the average number of chickens per household was higher in Dembie (17) than in other study locations. The local chickens in the area have high phenotypic diversity with distinct physical variation for both qualitative and quantitative traits (Habtamu et al., 2020).

3.3. Chicken housing system

Housing systems in small-holder chicken production are rudimentary and mostly built with locally available materials. It is characterized by little input for chicken housing (Mohammed, 2018), and most of the respondents (42%) in this study, use simple shade to house their chicken, 34% of the respondents share their dwelling with their chicken, and only 22% construct proper chicken house. It is presented in Table 4. This finding was comparable with the report of Moges and his colleagues from Bure district, North West Ethiopia, 22.1% provided a separate overnight poultry house; and the rest (77.9%) kept birds in various nocturnal shelters (Moges et al., 2010). Another study conducted in the Halaba district of southern Ethiopia showed that 12.1% of the owners kept their chickens in a separate room which was enclosed in the main house (Yemane et al., 2013). However, Solomon reported that in the traditional free-range system, there is no separate poultry house and the chickens live in family dwellings together with humans (Solomon, 2007).

Table 4. Chicken housing system in the study area.

Housing type	Districts of respondents					Overall mean (%)	χ^2 (p-value)
	Assosa	Bambasi	Kamash	Dembie	Maokomo
Simple shade	47.4	47.6	63.6	66.7	29.7	42.9	30.237(0.003)
Proper chicken house	36.8	38.1	18.2	0	8.1	22
Sharing with family	10.5	14.3	18.2	33.3	62.2	34
Others	5.3	0	0	0	0	1.1

3.4. Chicken handling responsibility and ownership

Women were usually responsible in the family in many chicken handling practices like feeding (79.1%), watering (80.2%), cleaning chickens’ houses (76.9%), and collecting eggs (79.1%). This finding was in agreement with the report of Sambo and his colleagues that women played an important role in the backyard production system (Sambo et al., 2015). And another scholar from Bure district, North West Ethiopia reported that women’s contribution to chicken husbandry activities was essential, for feeding birds (81.7%), selling birds (83%), and selling eggs (54.6%) (Moges et al., 2010). But their ownership in this study (35.2%) is lower than men’s in contrast to a survey study conducted in Sidama Zone, Southern Ethiopia, in which women’s ownership was 49.5% and for men, 28% (Yirgu et al., 2017). The responsibility of all family members of the household for chicken handling and ownership of chicken are described in Table 5.

Table 5. Ownership and chicken handling responsibility.

Variables	Husband	Wife	Children	All family members	Total
Owner of chicken (%)	44.0	35.2	2.2	18.7	100.0
Decision maker to sell chicken (%)	39.6	39.6	8.8	12.1	100.0
Decision maker of using chicken and its products as food (%)	45.1	36.3	3.3	15.4	100.0
Responsibility for feeding chicken (%)	6.6	79.1	3.3	11.0	100.0
Responsibility for providing water to chickens (%)	5.5	80.2	3.3	11.0	100.0
Responsibility for cleaning chickens’ house (%)	3.3	76.9	7.7	12.1	100.0
Responsibility for collecting eggs (%)	2.2	79.1	6.6	12.1	100.0

3.5. Chicken feed supplements practiced in the study areas

3.5.1. Common feed supplements

Village chicken production in Ethiopia is generally characterized by scavenging as the only source of diet (Mohammed, 2018). In this survey study, almost all of the chickens were scavengers. But, there were some practices of offering additional feeds besides scavenging. Chickens were supplemented commonly with grain and sometimes with non-conventional feed types. Chicken supplementation was better in Bambasi, Assosa, and Maokomo than Dembie and Kamash districts. Different feed types like maize (84.1%), house waste (70.9%), sorghum (55.7%), grain byproducts (48.8%), and wheat (39.8%) were used to supplement their chicken and that is described for each study district in Table 6. During supplementation, 43.8% of respondents provide in group regardless of sex and age separation; 42.7% and 13.5% separate based on age and sex of chicken respectively. The supplements were provided more frequently in the morning before scavenging (93.1%) and it was through dispersing on the ground (95.5%).

Table 6. Feeding practices with common feed supplements.

Feeding practices	Assosa	Bambasi	Kamash	Dembie	Maokomo	Total (%)
Those practice feeding chicken (%)
	44.4	66.7	10.0	33.3	35.1	41.6
Those supplement their chicken (%)
	55.6	61.9	30.0	0.0	89.2	66.3
Those supplement their chicken with wheat (%)
	22.2	40.0	0.0	0.0	62.2	39.8
Those supplement their chicken with sorghum (%)
	33.3	20.0	90.0	100.0	73.0	55.7
Those supplement their chicken with maize (%)
	55.6	85.0	100.0	100.0	91.9	84.1
Those supplement their chicken with grain byproducts (%)
	47.1	63.2	22.2	50.0	48.6	48.8
Those supplement their chicken with house waste (%)
	83.3	84.2	33.3	66.7	67.6	70.9

3.5.2. Non-conventional feed supplements

Respondents in the study area supplemented their chicken with non-conventional poultry feeds in addition to common chicken feed types like green leaves (42.9%), worms and insects (35.7%) as presented in Table 7. The purpose of supplementation was to improve egg production (64.6%), maintenance (27.8%), and only 7.6% of respondents supplemented for meat production.

Table 7. Non-conventional feeds supplemented for the chicken.

Non-conventional feed types	Respondents (%)
Worms and insects	35.7
Green leaves	42.9
By products	11.9
Didn’t use any	9.5
Total	100.0

3.6. Respondents interest to expand their poultry farming

Respondents’ vision to expand their poultry farm is interesting and 97.8% of them are interested in expanding their chicken production. Even though 97.3% of respondents have an interest in rearing exotic chicken breeds in the future, only 42% of respondents have experience of rearing them. Improved chicken introduced in the area are Bovans brown, Koekoek, and RIR. Smallholder poultry production is very important since it serves as a source of immediate income to meet household expenses (Emebet et al., 2014). The majority of the respondents are interested in expanding their chicken production as indicated in Table 8. Therefore, they need to get training on how to manage poultry, especially improved chicken in the village poultry production system.

Table 8. Farmers’ response to their interest in poultry farm expansion.

Reasons for expansion of poultry farm	Respondents (%)
They have short generation interval and require low cost	14.9
They require less manpower and land	6.9
For egg and meat production	16.1
Home consumption	4.6
To increase income and improve life	57.5

3.7. Constraints of poultry production in the study area

The major constraints for small-holder poultry production in Ethiopia were identified as diseases, predators, lack of proper health care, and feed shortage (Mohammed, 2018). And the result of the current study indicated that poultry diseases were the major constraint of poultry production in all the study areas. It was comparable to the report from North Gondar, Ethiopia, in which the major cause of losses of chicken in the study area was disease (47%) (Mamo et al., 2013). Feed shortages were a major challenge in Assosa and Bambasi districts. The lack of improved breeds was a challenge in Kamash and Dembie districts. The loss of chicken by predators is also a major constraint to poultry production in Kamash and Maokomo districts. The major constraints listed by respondents are indicated in Table 9. In the rural economy, external factors like market access, credit, and extension facilities influence household decisions to engage in production or consumption activities (Hsu & Tan, 2013). In the present study, financial shortages were also indicated as a constraint in the Bambasi district.

Table 9. The major constraints of poultry production in the study districts.

Major constraints (%)	Districts of respondents					Total
	Assosa	Bambasi	Kamash	Dembie	Maokomo
Financial shortage	0.0	4.8	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.4
Lack of improved breeds and low performance	0.0	0.0	50.0	50.0	0.0	6.9
Lack of veterinary service	0.0	4.8	0.0	0.0	25.0	9.6
Loss of chicken by predators	0.0	4.8	25.0	0.0	20.8	10.9
Poultry diseases	50.0	71.4	25.0	50.0	54.2	54.8
Poultry diseases and feed shortage	50.0	14.3	0.0	0.0	0.0	16.4

Many constraints were described and among them, feed shortage was the major problem in the wet season of the year than the dry season in the study areas. Accordingly, July (80.2%), August (74.7%), and June (73.6%) were the months when the respondents faced feed shortage challenges. January, February, and March were better in feed availability and surplus feed in January and February compared to other months. It is presented in Table 10.

Table 10. Chicken feed availability in different months of a year.

Feed availability	Months
	Sept	Oct	Nov	Dec	Jan	Feb	Mar	Apr	May	June	July	Aug
Feed shortage (%)	34.1	19.8	12.1	6.6	3.3	3.3	7.7	9.9	15.4	73.6	80.2	74.7
Feed enough (%)	51.6	64.8	68.1	70.3	74.7	76.9	79.1	69.2	52.7	11.0	9.9	14.3
Surplus feed (%)	7.7	24.2	30.8	41.8	54.9	53.8	40.7	13.2	3.3	0.0	2.2	2.2

3.8. Feed scarcity coping mechanisms

Feed shortages occur in small-holder village poultry production mostly from June to August since it is the not-harvesting season for cereal crops (Dinka et al., 2010). It is more aggravated during the wet season (89.9%) rather than the dry season (10.1%). About 66.7% of respondents practice coping mechanisms for feed scarcity. Coping mechanisms practiced in each district are presented in Table 11. They provide feed bought from the market, house waste, different green plants, vegetables, available insects and termites, and the selling of some chicken to reduce numbers. And in another study conducted in Sidama Zone, Southern Ethiopia, different poultry feed scarcity coping mechanisms are feeding enset by-products, household waste, bran from the market, available green feeds, and non-conventional feed resources like growing worms and insects (Yirgu et al., 2017).

Table 11. Coping mechanisms practiced in feed scarcity.

Measures taken	Districts of respondents					Total
	Assosa	Bambasi	Kamash	Dembie	Maokomo
Feeding house waste	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	30.8	13.6
Feeding of different green plants and vegetables	0.0	10.0	0.0	0.0	3.8	3.4
Giving feed for chicken from human consumption	0.0	30.0	28.6	50.0	0.0	10.2
Make insect and termite available for feeding	0.0	0.0	28.6	0.0	0.0	3.4
Provide feed bought from market	78.6	50.0	42.9	0.0	65.4	61.0
Selling of some chicks to reduce number	21.4	10.0	0.0	50.0	0.0	8.5

Poultry diseases were the major constraint in the study areas. The interviewees responded to the repeated occurrence of poultry diseases. Although they didn’t know the type of the specific disease that occurred in the respective areas, the diseases occurred more in the wet season (69.8%) than dry season of the year. This was comparable with the study conducted from the Halaba district of Southern Ethiopia (Yemane et al., 2013), the occurrence of disease was higher in the rainy season (75.4%) than in the dry season (24.6%). The major practices taken to cope with disease challenges were visiting veterinary clinics (46.4%) and applying traditional medicines (44.3%). Predator and disease prevention and control methods practiced are presented in Table 12.

Table 12. Disease and predator control mechanisms.

Variables	Assosa	Bambasi	Kamashi	Dembie	Maokomo	Total
Season of occurrence
Wet season	8 (44.4)	11 (55.0)	8 (100.0)	3 (100.0)	30 (81.1)	60 (69.8)
Dry season	10 (55.6)	9 (45..0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	7 (18.9)	26 (30.2)
Measures taken for disease control and prevention
Visit Veterinary clinic	7 (38.9)	7 (33.3)	5 (55.6)	1 (33.3)	21 (56.8)	41 (46.6)
Apply for traditional medicines	9 (50.0)	12 (57.1)	3 (33.3)	2 (66.7)	13 (35.1)	39 (44.3)
No measures taken	2 (11.1)	2 (9.5)	1 (11.1)	0 (0.0)	2 (5.4)	7 (8.0)
Sale infected chicken	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	1 (2.7)	1 (1.1)
Predator prevention
Keeping chicken in the house	8 (44.4)	4 (19.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	20 (62.5)	32 (42.1)
Make the area clean and keep them in the house	10 (55.6)	13 (62.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	2 (6.3)	25 (32.9)
Fencing and rearing by dog	0 (0.0)	4 (19.0)	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	10 (31.2)	14 (18.4)
Guarding	0 (0.0)	0 (0.0)	4 (100.0)	1 (100.0)	0 (0.0)	5 (6.6)

3.9. Severity of the constraint in different seasons

The severity of different constraints for poultry production in the study areas are described in Table 13. Diseases were a major constraint in the rainy season of the year in village chicken production under a scavenging system in the Halaba district of Southern Ethiopia (Yemane et al., 2013). In addition to poultry diseases, predators, feed shortages, and poor marketing information are the major constraints of village poultry production in Ethiopia (Mohammed, 2018).

Table 13. Constraints in different seasons of the year.

Constraints at different seasons	Severity of the constraints
	Very high	High	Some extent	Limited	No problem
Shortage of scavenging resource
Long-rainy season	9.0	12.4	19.1	10.1	49.4
Long-dry season	13.5	21.4	24.7	16.9	23.6
Shortage of grains for supplementing chicken
Long-rainy season	16.9	33.7	29.2	13.5	6.7
Long-dry season	1.1	5.6	23.6	27.0	42.7
Disease as a constraint
Long-rainy season	47.2	38.2	9.0	2.2	3.4
Long-dry season	37.1	23.6	21.4	3.4	14.6
Predator attack
Long-rainy season	14.6	28.1	34.8	20.2	2.3
Long-dry season	2.3	10.2	51.1	21.6	14.8
Poor hatchability
Long-rainy season	2.3	12.6	29.9	35.6	19.5
Long-dry season	6.8	17.0	25.0	31.8	19.3
High chick mortality
Long-rainy season	10.3	41.4	18.4	13.8	16.1
Long-dry season	3.4	9.0	39.3	19.1	29.2
Spoilage of eggs
Long-rainy season	3.4	7.9	18.0	19.1	51.7
Long-dry season	12.4	19.1	22.5	18.0	28.1
Poor access to market
Long-rainy season	9.0	6.7	19.1	16.9	48.3
Long-dry season	2.3	3.4	4.5	21.3	68.5
Low egg price	5.6	5.6	15.7	16.9	56.2
Low chick price	6.7	10.1	12.4	12.4	58.4
Thief as a constraint	1.1	2.2	10.1	28.1	58.4

4. Conclusion and recommendations

Poultry production plays a great role in the livelihood improvement of individuals in food security and income generation. In the present study, almost all chickens in Benishangul-Gumuz Region, Western Ethiopia, get their feed through scavenging with little supplementary feed provisions. Chickens were supplemented with grain and sometimes with non-conventional feed types. The major poultry production constraints identified were diseases, feed shortages, predators, and lack of veterinary services in the area. Coping mechanisms practiced for feed shortage were purchasing feed from the market, and using house wastes, different green plants, vegetables, and selling some chicken. The use of modern and traditional medicines for health management, and keeping chickens in the house, and making the area clean to prevent predators were practiced. However, the feeds offered were inadequate and the housing for chickens in the area was poor, which aggravated predator loss and disease occurrence. Therefore, housing of chickens and proper handling are required. Awareness creation is needed for small-holders to understand well the proper handling of chickens. Preparation of poultry feeds from locally available feed resources is recommended to get access to them at a lower cost.

Authors’ contributions

DA and AA proposed and designed the study. HA, AA, and DA collected the data, analyzed the data, and interpreted it.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank small-householder farmers who participated in this study and district Livestock experts for coordinating the interview to be conducted.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

This study was supported by Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research.

Notes on contributors

Dessie Abera

Dessie Abera is an animal health researcher at Debre Markos Agricultural Research Center, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Ethiopia. His specialization is in Veterinary Microbiology.

Alemayehu Abebe

Alemayehu Abebe is a senior researcher in animal science at Assosa Agricultural Research Center, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Ethiopia. His area of interest is in climate-smart agriculture.

Habtamu Alebachew

Habtamu Alebachew is an animal breeder at Assosa Agricultural Research Center, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Ethiopia. His specialization is in animal breeding and genetics.