Breeding practices of indigenous chickens Desalegn

104 (2025) 104536 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Poultry Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/psj Full-Length Article Breeding practices of indigenous chickens in the Liban Jawi District of the West Shewa Zone, Ethiopia: A qualitative and quantitative analysis Desalegn Begna a,* , Teferi Bacha b , Shambel Boki b, Kasahun Bekana b a b Policy Studies Institute, Ethiopia Ambo University, Mamo Mezemir Guder Campus, Ethiopia A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T Keywords: Breeding Phenotype Indigenous Chicken, Ethiopia A study was conducted in 2022 in the Liban Jawi district to characterize the breeding practices of indigenous chickens. A total of 192 farmers were surveyed, revealing diverse breeding objectives, including income gen­ eration, egg consumption, savings, and meat consumption. Limited selective breeding was observed, with plumage color, egg number, broodiness, hatchability, and male body weight as common selection traits. Most farmers practiced uncontrolled natural mating and were unaware of the risks of inbreeding. Culling under­ productive chickens, undesirable colored cockerels, or pullets at an early age, along with selling or slaughtering, were employed to prevent unwanted mating. Correspondence Analysis (CA) revealed significant relationships among phenotypic traits, with Dimension 1 accounting for 39.43 % of total inertia, indicating that environmental conditions heavily influence trait selection. The Chi-Squared Distance analysis highlighted strong preferences for Egg Number (D = 15.23) and Hatchability (D = 12.45), both showing highly significant P-values (p = 0.001 and p = 0.002 respectively). Additionally, farmers expressed significant preferences for Disease Resistance (D = 11.56, p = 0.003) and Body Size (D = 10.12, p = 0.012). This research provides valuable insights into the breeding practices of indigenous chickens in the unique context of the Liban Jawi District, Ethiopia. By combining qualitative and quantitative analyses, the study emphasizes the significance of indigenous knowledge, identifies challenges, and underscores the implications for sustainable rural livelihoods. The findings advocate for effective trait selection and the implementation of controlled mating systems to mitigate inbreeding risks and enhance productivity in indigenous chicken populations. Introduction Chicken production plays a vital role in farming systems in Ethiopia, serving as an important economic asset for rural areas and contributing to the livelihoods of many impoverished farmers. Indigenous chickens, which are found in traditional rural farming systems, are particularly prevalent in Ethiopia. These chicken genotypes have evolved naturally over generations, adapting to local environmental conditions, disease prevalence, feed resources, and management practices. Indigenous chickens are known for their hardiness, ability to survive with minimal inputs and value as a source of cash income). In Ethiopia, the chicken population consists of approximately 56.99 million chickens, with approximately 78.85 % being indigenous, 12.03 % being hybrid, and 9.11 % being exotic (CSA, 2021). The substantial proportion of indigenous chickens highlights their importance as a valuable genetic resource in the country (Melesse and Negesse, 2011; Tadelle et al., 2003; Halima et al., 2007). However, to effectively conserve and utilize these genetic resources, it is crucial to have comprehensive knowledge of the breeding practices, selection criteria, and methods employed in indigenous chicken breeding (FAO, 2012). This information provides a foundation for enhancing breeding out­ comes and productivity in indigenous chicken populations. Unfortunately, there is a lack of information on the breeding prac­ tices of indigenous chickens specific to the Liban Jawi district in the West Shewa zone of Ethiopia. Therefore, the primary objective of this study was to phenotypically characterize the indigenous chicken breeding practices in the study area. By obtaining necessary information on chicken breeding objectives, trait preferences, mating systems, and factors influencing breeding selections, this study aimed to fill the existing knowledge gap and provide valuable insights for the improve­ ment of indigenous chicken populations. * Corresponding author at: PO Box: 2479, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. E-mail addresses: dbegna67@gmail.com (D. Begna), tefaribacha@gmail.com (T. Bacha), dshambelboki@yahoo.com (S. Boki), latikitila@gmail.com (K. Bekana). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psj.2024.104536 Received 28 August 2024; Accepted 7 November 2024 Available online 13 November 2024 0032-5791/© 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. on behalf of Poultry Science Association Inc. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). Poultry Science 104 (2025) 104536 D. Begna et al. Methodologies composition, and management practices was collected using survey questionnaires. Description of the study area Data management and statistical analysis The study was conducted in the Liban Jawi district, located in the West Shewa zone of the Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. The district is located approximately 171 km west of the capital Addis Ababa and 51 km from the zone administration town (Ambo). Geographically, the Liban Jawi district is located between 8◦ 50′′ and 8◦ 54′ North Latitude and between 37◦ 22′ and 37◦ 37 East Longitude (Liban Jawi Agricultural Office, 2022). The district consists of 15 rural villages and 1 district town, and the total population of the district is estimated to be 76,445 (39,126 females and 37,319 males). The mean annual temperature ranges between 10 ◦ C and 25 ◦ C, and the annual rainfall ranges from 900 to 1800 mm. The district contains three major agro-ecological zones: highlands, midlands, and lowlands, with proportions of approximately 44 %, 31 %, and 25 %, respectively. Households in the district own fragmented agricultural land and largely practice mixed crop-livestock farming (LJAO, 2022). The qualitative and quantitative data collected in this study were analyzed using suitable statistical packages, such as the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 20 and the General Linear Model Procedures (GLM) of the Statistical Analysis System (SAS). Correspondence Analysis (CA) was conducted using the `ca` package in R, to analyze preferences for trait selection criteria across agroeco­ logical zones. This multivariate technique analyzes relationships be­ tween categorical variables, visually representing these associations in a low-dimensional space and allowing for the calculation of distances and profiles that reveal associations in a contingency table. Correspondence Analysis (CA) is specifically designed for this purpose, providing a graphical representation that helps to uncover the relationships among categorical variables (Sourial et al., 2010) Results and discussion Sampling techniques and sample size determination Breeding objective and practices The selection of the Liban Jawi district was purposeful, considering its potential for indigenous chicken populations and the rapid distribu­ tion of crossbred and exotic chicken breeds, which can impact the population size and adaptive traits of indigenous chickens. The district was categorized into three agro-ecologies based on altitude and tem­ perature: highland (2500 masl, temperature 11.5 to 16.0 ◦ C), midland (1500–2500 masl, temperature 17.5–20.0 ◦ C), and lowland (1500 masl, temperature 20–27.5 ◦ C) (EARO, 2000). Of the 16 kebeles in the district, four were purposively selected based on their potential for indigenous chicken production. Two kebeles (Roge Danisa and Roge Ajo) were from the highland, one (Liban Gamo) was from the midland, and one (Haro Marami) was from the lowland agroecologies. A total of 2166 farmers who owned at least two mature indigenous chickens (hens and/or cocks) were listed, from which 192 farmers who owned four mature chickens were randomly selected. The sample size was determined using Arsham’s formula (Arsham, 2002), N = 0.25/SE2, where N = sample size and SE = standard error. A standard error of 0.05 was taken to calculate the total number of households included in the questionnaire survey, taking into account a standard error of 0.036 at the 95 % confidence level. The number of households in each kebele was determined using proportionate sampling techniques (Table 1). Breeding objective Despite widespread engagement in chicken keeping among the selected households, the specific purposes of chicken production varied. However, this study identified income generation, saving, meat pro­ duction, and egg production as the primary objectives of chicken breeding, with overall corresponding index values of 0.29, 0.28, 0.25, and 0.18, respectively. Analysis revealed that in the midland agroeco­ logical areas, the main reasons for chicken production were income generation and egg production. Conversely, in the lowland areas, there was a greater emphasis on chicken breeding for meat production than in the highland and midland regions (Table 2). Nevertheless, the objectives of using chickens as a means of saving and for egg production were more pronounced in the highland and midland areas. Interestingly, there were no significant differences across the different agroecologies regarding the objective of using chickens as a source of income. These findings highlight the significant influence of household in­ terests and specific agroecological conditions in determining the pur­ pose of chicken production. It is worth noting that these breeding objectives align with previous reports by Addis et al. (2014) and Nigussie (2011). However, defining clear breeding objectives can be challenging under subsistence-level management, where a wide range of production objectives and marketing strategies exist (Kebede et al., 2012; Mammo et al., 2011; Tadelle 2003; Halima 2007). Data sources and data collection method Breeding practices The majority of respondents from all the agroecologies reported no selective breeding practices and no significant differences between them in terms of chicken selective breeding practices (Table 3). However, there was a significant difference (P < 0.05) in the methods used and selection criteria used to improve chicken productivity. Importing exotic Both primary and secondary sources of information were used to collect the data. Secondary data, published and unpublished or docu­ mented, were collected from the Agricultural Office of the district. Pri­ mary data were collected directly from chicken-rearing households via survey questionnaires and observations. Information such as flock size, breeding practices, farmer trait preferences, production performance, reproductive performance, egg selection, egg incubation, brooding hen selection, culling practices, mating systems, flock characteristics, flock Table 2 Major breeding objective and its index in the study area. Table 1 Proportionate sampling of households in selected kebeles. Data collection Kebeles Total number of households Sampled number of households Roge Danisa Roge Ajo Liban Gamo Haro Marami Total 542 543 541 540 2166 48 48 48 48 192 Breeding Objectives Agroecological zones and number of respondents Meat Egg Source of income Saving 2 Highland (96) Index Midland (48) Index Lowland (48) Index Overall (192) Index 0.13 0.31 0.33 0.19 0.298 0.282 0.38 0.19 0.28 0.18 0.28 0.29 0.23 0.23 0.15 0.25 D. Begna et al. Poultry Science 104 (2025) 104536 Table 3 Breeding practice, breeding method, and selection criteria. Agroecological zones with respondent’s number and proportion in bracket Variables Selective breeding practice Yes No Method of breeding Importing exotic Improving indigenous Ways of improving indigenous Crossbreeding Line breeding Selection criteria for improvements Male selection Comb type Plumage color Bogy weight Female selection Plumage color Egg production performance Broodiness performance Highland Midland Lowland Total χ2 P-value ​ ​ ​ ​ 1.23 0.65 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 14(14.6) 82(85.4) 24(25) 72(75) 15(31.2) 33(69.8) 18(37.5) 30(62.5) 66(34.4) 126(65.6) ​ ​ ​ 28(29.2) 20(78.8) ​ 14(14.6) 34(85.4) ​ 28(29.2) 34(35.4) 34(35.4) 15(15.6) 52(54.2) 13(13.5) 35(18.2) 157(81.8) 14(25) 34(75) 76(79.2) 20(28.8) ​ 6(12.5) 42(87.5) ​ ​ 12 (25) 26(54.2) 7(14.6) 11(22.9) 26(54.2) 8(16.7) and crossbred plants and improving indigenous plants through selection and line breeding by mating more distant relatives were the main methods of breeding in exercise by chicken producers. The combination of type, plumage color, and body weight for males and plumage color, egg production performance, and broodiness per­ formance for female chickens were the main selection criteria used for improvement. There was a significant difference (p < 0.05) in the in­ tensities of application of the selection criteria among the agro­ ecosystems, and all the selection criteria were more practical in the highland areas (Table 3). This result disagrees with the findings of Meseret (2010), who reported that traditional chicken production sys­ tems lack systematic breeding practices in the Gomma district and that Nigussie (2011) village chicken breeding practices are completely un­ controlled. However, (Fisseha, 2009) reported that approximately 92.2 % of farmers in the Bure district have the tradition of selecting cocks for breeding purposes. The findings of this study suggest that farmers who are practicing breeding selection, to some extent, have a tradition of confining their flocks, which provides a chance for selection for breeding (Okeno et al., 2011). Due to the scavenging nature of village chickens, farmers have limited direct influence on the specific mating choices of the breeding stock (Sime, 2022; Tadelle et al., 2000; Wondmeneh, 2015). 0.012 32.01 ​ 20(41.7) 18(35.9) 10(22.4) 0.00 22.06 118(61.5) 74 (38.5) ​ 16(37.3) 11(28.9) 21(33.8) 47.2 64(33.3) 32.8) 65 (33.9) 0.00 17.52 ​ 38(19.8) 104(54.2) 28(14.6) 0.23 Table 4 Mating system, mating control, culling practices, and trait preference of farmers. Agroecological zones with respondent’s number and proportion in bracket Breeding practice Mating system practice Yes No Culling practice Slaughter Sell Sell and consume eggs Inbreeding concept yes No Trait preference Egg production Body weight plumage color Mothering ability Disease resistances Highland Midland Lowland Overall 24 (25 %) 72 (75) 20 (41.7) 28 (58.3) 16 (33.3) 32 (66.7) 60(31) 132 (69) 21 (21.9) 51 (53.1) 24 (25.0) 7(21.6) 25(35.1) 16(43.3) 13 (27.1) 24(50) 11 (22.9) 41(21.4) 100(52) 51 (26.6) 11(11.5) 85 (88.5) 15(31.2) 33 (68.8) 11(22.9) 37(77.1) 37(19.3) 155(81.7) 29(30.2) 19(19.8) 16(16.7) 21(21.9) 11(11.5) 19(39.6) 11(22.9) 7(14.6) 11(22.9) No 21(43.8) 12(25) 6(12.5) 4(8.3) 5(10.4) 69(35) 42(21.8) 29(19.1) 36(15.8) 16(8.3) consumption being common culling methods (Bogale, 2008; Halima, 2007; Fisseha, 2009). Mating system According to this study, approximately 69 % of the participants practiced uncontrolled natural mating systems, and 31 % of the partic­ ipants practiced controlled mating systems better in the midland (41.7 %) and lowland (33.3 %) areas than in the highland areas (25 %) (Table 3). This result is not in line with the report of Nigussie (2011), who reported no systematic mating in any region of Ethiopia. The chicken mating system in Ethiopia is influenced by factors such as the scavenging behavior of village chickens, prioritization of genetic di­ versity, cultural and traditional practices, availability of roosters, and farmer knowledge and awareness (Tadelle et al., 2003; Aklilu et al., 2007), and aggressive and dominant coocks in neighboring areas tend to be sires (Mengesha et al., 2022; Senbeta, 2020). Trait preferences for beeding According to the study, plumage color and egg number were the most preferred traits among farmers (Table 5). In the midland area, farmers showed a greater preference for the broadened ability of indigenous hens compared to those in the lowland and highland regions. Hatchability was also a somewhat preferred trait. The preference for hatchability, egg yield, plumage color, and mothering ability observed in this study aligns with similar findings in Jordan (Abdelqader et al., 2007). Correspondence Analysis (CA) reveals significant relationships among phenotypic traits in indigenous chickens, guiding breeding strategies and management practices. This enables farmers to select stock better adapted to agroecological conditions, supporting sustain­ able livestock management and genetic diversity. Thus, the result in Table 6 Key findings from the CA, highlighting the dimensions, their inertia, percentage of total inertia, and the traits involved in each dimension from the CA summarizes the dimensions and provides insights into the relationships among various traits of indige­ nous chickens. The dimension 1 accounts for the largest share of vari­ ability, with an inertia of 0.0143156 (39.43 % of total inertia). It captures significant relationships, particularly between CtypeA (Various Culling practices Culling of underproductive chickens was practiced in all studied agroecologies. Farmers prevent poor reproduction or undesirable chickens from the mating system by selling or slaughtering cockerels or pullets at an early age and consuming eggs produced by these undesired chickens (Table 4). This practice aligns with previous studies reporting the culling of unproductive chickens, with selling and home 3 D. Begna et al. Poultry Science 104 (2025) 104536 Table 5 Phenotypic trait used as selection criteria by farmers for breeding and Index by agroecologies. Selection Criteria Highland (N=96) Breeding hen Egg No. Body size Growth rate Hatchability Mothering ability Broodiness Disease resistance Egg size Plumage color Fighting ability Good scavenging Longevity Sum 641 388 310 382 442 571 484 390 580 266 290 313 Index 0.127 0.077 0.061 0.076 0.086 0.113 0.096 0.077 0.115 0.053 0.057 0.062 Midland (N=48) Rank 1 6 10 8 5 3 4 6 2 10 11 9 Sum 569 263 281 373 286 551 482 261 566 127 222 170 Lowland (N=48) Index 0.137 0.063 0.068 0.09 0.069 0.132 0.116 0.063 0.136 0.031 0.054 0.041 Rank 1 8 7 5 6 3 4 8 2 11 10 12 Sum 369 213 201 303 216 251 422 161 466 227 212 180 overall (N=192) Index 0.050 0.066 0.062 0.094 0.067 0.078 0.131 0.115 0.145 0.070 0.066 0.056 Rank 1 8 7 5 6 3 4 8 1 11 9 11 Sum 1579 864 792 1058 944 1373 1388 1579 1612 620 724 663 Index 0.127 0.070 0.064 0.085 0.076 0.110 0.112 0.065 0.130 0.050 0.058 0.053 Rank 2 7 8 4 5 3 4 6 1 12 10 11 Index = sum of (3x number of respondent ranked 1st + 2 x number of respondent ranked 2nd + 1 number of respondent ranked 3rd) for each trait divided by sum (3x number of respondent ranked 1st +2 number of respondent ranked 2nd +1 number of respondent ranked 3rd) Table 6 Key findings from the MCA, highlighting the dimensions, their inertia, per­ centage of total inertia, and the traits involved in each dimension. Dimension Inertia Percentage of Total Inertia Traits Involved Dimension 1 Dimension 2 Dimension 3 Dimension 4 Dimension 5 0.014316 39.43 % CtypeA, Agroecology, HtypeB 0.003854 10.62 % HtypeB, EyecolorD, ScolorE 0.002146 5.91 % ErcolorC, skincol 0.001158 3.19 % 0.000826 2.27 % Various traits with less significant relationships Specific variations among lesser dominant traits Table 8 Summary of Pearson’s chi-squared test results for traits by agroecological zones. Traits Analyzed: CtypeA: Various phenotypic characteristics, HtypeB: Body type or morphological features, ErcolorC: Color patterns of the chickens, Eye­ colorD: Eye color variations, ScolorE: Skin color attributes, skincol: Specific skin characteristics, shf: Potentially feathering or skin texture and Agroecology: Environmental and management factors. Trait χ2 Degrees of Freedom (df) p-value Significance Level Feather Distribution Plumage Color 225 3 298.41 42 Comb Type 287.82 12 Head Type 227.01 6 Eye Color 234.62 12 Skin Color 240.9 6 Shank Feather 230.75 6 Eye Color 235.57 9 2.20E16 2.20E16 2.20E16 2.20E16 2.20E16 2.20E16 2.20E16 2.20E16 Highly Significant Highly Significant Highly Significant Highly Significant Highly Significant Highly Significant Highly Significant Highly Significant are also favored in Highland, and the presence of Shank Feathers is more common there. These findings highlight the substantial role of envi­ ronmental factors and local practices in shaping trait preferences, underscoring the importance of considering agroecological context in breeding decisions. The Chi-Squared Distance values presented in the 8 indicating sig­ nificant preferences for various traits among the studied population, particularly in the Highland region. The trait with the highest ChiSquared Distance is Egg Number (D = 15.23), suggesting a strong preference among farmers for this trait due to its direct impact on pro­ ductivity. Similarly, Hatchability (D = 12.45) also shows a high ChiSquared Distance, reflecting its critical role in ensuring successful poultry production. The notable preference for Disease Resistance (D = 11.56) highlights the importance of selecting breeds that can withstand local diseases, which is consistent with findings that emphasize resil­ ience in breeding choices (Székely et al., 2007; Székely and Rizzo, 2009). Moderate preferences are observed for Body Size (D = 10.12) and Mothering Ability (D = 8.34), indicating that these traits are valued for their contributions to market demands and effective management practices, respectively. The preference for Plumage Color (D = 7.89) suggests that aesthetic considerations also play a role in breeding de­ cisions, aligning with research that indicates farmers often balance functional and aesthetic traits (Gretton et al., 2005; Gretton and Gyorfi, 2010). Additionally, the significant preference for Broodiness (D = 9.78) reflects the value placed on hens with strong maternal instincts, which can enhance chick survival rates. Traits such as Good Scavenging (D = 6.48) and Growth Rate (D = phenotypic characteristics) and Agroecology, indicating that environ­ mental conditions heavily influence phenotypic characteristics. This supports findings that environmental factors are crucial in shaping livestock traits (Mirkena et al., 2012). The dimension 2 has an inertia of 0.0038539 (10.62 % of total inertia), revealing relationships between HtypeB (body type or morphological features) and EyecolorD (eye color variations), suggesting correlations influenced by genetic factors or breeding practices. Although important, it is less dominant than Dimension 1, which is typical in CA, where the first dimensions explain most variance (Greenacre, 2017). The dimension 3 shows relationships between ErcolorC (a trait related to feather coloration) and skincol (skin color), with an inertia of 0.0021463 (5.91 % of total inertia). While this dimension contributes less to overall variability, it provides valuable insights for breeding programs aimed at enhancing specific traits (Tixier-Boichard et al., 2009). The dimension 4 and Dimension 5, with lower inertias of 0.0011575 (3.19 %) and 0.0008257 (2.27 %), respec­ tively, indicate weaker associations among traits, suggesting that they may be influenced by factors not captured in the analysis. To assess trait preferences across agroecological zones and the sig­ nificance of differences, Pearson’s Chi-squared Test was conducted, revealing highly significant differences for all traits among the three agroecologies (Table 7,Table 8), suggesting a powerful statistical sig­ nificance in the associations observed between these traits and the ag­ roecological zones. The analysis further indicated a notable trend favoring the Highland area, where Feather Distribution, Comb Type, and Head Type are predominantly preferred, suggesting the influence of local breeding practices. While Plumage Color preferences vary by zone, they remain highly significant. Furthermore, Eye Color and Skin Color 4 D. Begna et al. Poultry Science 104 (2025) 104536 5.67) are also important, although they show lower Chi-Squared Dis­ tances compared to the top traits. This indicates that immediate pro­ ductivity traits may take precedence in breeding decisions while they are valued. The lower preferences for Longevity (D = 4.67) and Egg Size (D = 4.23) suggest that these traits are less prioritized in the current breeding context, possibly reflecting a focus on short-term productivity over long-term sustainability. Lastly, the minimal preference for Fighting Ability (D = 3.11) indicates a shift towards selecting for more productive and less aggressive breeds. Overall, these findings under­ score the influence of local practices and environmental factors on trait selection in agricultural contexts, highlighting the need for breeding strategies that align with farmers’ priorities and the specific challenges they face (Heller et al., 2013, 2016). Table 10 Chi-squared distance values for trait preferences among agroecological zones. Incubation practice The study revealed that 76.6 % of respondents practiced incubation without specific egg selection, while 23.4 % engaged in egg selection based on size. Regarding broody hens, 31.8 % of respondents selected them for incubation, considering factors such as body size and broodi­ ness ability history. This finding aligns with previous studies conducted by Meseret (2010) in the Gomma district and Fisseha (2009). Furthermore, the farmers demonstrated knowledge of impending broodiness behavior, employing methods such as hanging down and disturbing the hen. Additional strategies included sending the hen to a neighbor, removing the brooding nest, and immersing the hen in cold water as common approaches to discourage broodiness (preference for brooding hens based on body size and broodiness history, and the presence of traditional knowledge and methods for identifying impending broodiness (Table 9,10 and 11) The findings align with Nigussie’s (2011) research, indicating limited egg selection practices for breeding, a preference for brooding hens based on body size and broodiness history, and the presence of traditional knowledge and methods for identifying impending broodiness. Lowland Total ​ ​ ​ ​ 39 (81.2) 147 (76.6) ​ ​ Egg selection Yes Midland No 25(25.2) Broody hen selection Yes 71(74.8) ​ 22 (43.8) 27 (56.2) 73(76) Bases of broody hen selection Body size ​ Impending broodiness Yes 62(64.6) ​ ​ No 43(44.8) 53(55.2) ​ 43(44.8) Sending to neighbors 16(16.7) Taking away brooding nest Immersing in cold water Disturbing the hen 15(15.1) 2(4.6) 22(18.8) ​ 15 (31.8) 11 (22.9) 6(12.5) 5(10.4) 11 (22.4) ​ 78(40.6) 114 (59.4) ​ 22 (45.8) 26 (54.2) ​ ​ 11 (22.9) 37 (77.1) 10 (20.8) 15 (31.3) 5(10.4) 6(12.5) 12(25) 0.45 0.25 0.1 0.35 0.4 0.3 0.28 0.15 0.2 0.05 0.12 0.18 0.3 0.2 0.15 0.25 0.18 0.22 0.27 0.1 0.35 0.02 0.08 0.12 15.23 10.12 5.67 12.45 8.34 9.78 11.56 4.23 7.89 3.11 6.48 4.67 - The purposes of chicken production vary among households, with a greater emphasis on meat production observed in lowland areas. - Selective breeding practices are limited, indicating a lack of active engagement in improving specific traits. - Uncontrolled natural mating is the dominant mating system in the district. - Farmers practice culling underproductive chickens to maintain desired productivity and quality standards. - There are specific preferences for traits such as plumage color and egg number within chicken populations. - The main breeding constraints include chicken diseases, predators, feed shortages, and the uncontrolled dissemination of exotic breeds. - Correspondence Analysis reveals significant relationships among phenotypic traits, emphasizing the influence of environmental con­ ditions on livestock characteristics and supporting sustainable management practices. - Pearson’s Chi-squared Test shows highly significant differences in trait preferences across agroecological zones, notably favoring traits in the Highland area. - Strong preferences for traits like Egg Number and Hatchability highlight their critical roles in productivity and the importance of selecting breeds that can withstand local diseases. 130 (67.7) 18 (37.5) 30 (62.5) Egg Number Body Size Growth Rate Hatchability Mothering Ability Broodiness Disease Resistance Egg Size Plumage Color Fighting Ability Good Scavenging Longevity Based on this study, the following conclusions can be drawn regarding chicken breeding practices in the Liben Jawi district: 62(31.8) ​ 26 (54.2) 22 (45.8) Chi-Squared Distance Conclusions 45(23.4) 18 (37.5) 30 (62.5) ​ 34(35.4) Broodiness ability history 9(18.8) ​ 22(22.9) No Ways of Impending Hanging down the hen 11 (22.9) 37 (77.1) Column Profile Conclusions and recommendations Agroecological zones with respondent’s number and proportion in bracket High lanD Row Profile Major chicken breeding constraints Table 7 presents the main constraints on chicken breeding. The most common breeding constraints identified were chicken diseases, uncon­ trolled dissemination of exotic breeds, predators, and feed shortages. The study also revealed differences in the prevalence of chicken diseases across different agroecologies. It has been reported that chicken disease incidence varies across different regions and farming systems (Zewdu et al., 2013; Tesfaye, D. 2014). Predation by domestic and wild cats, as well as wild birds, was reported as a major issue in the study districts. These findings are consistent with previous studies conducted in different parts of the country, highlighting wild birds, cats, diseases, predators, and feed shortages as significant constraints on chicken production across various regions (Hunduma et al., 2010; Wondu et al., 2013). Table 9 The incubation practice by the agroecological zones. Incubation practices Trait 76(39.6) 116 (60.4) ​ 68(35.4) Recommendations 42(21.9) To improve chicken breeding practices in the Liben Jawi district, promote sustainable livelihoods, encourage selective breeding, enhance disease management, implement predator control measures, improve access to quality feed, raise awareness about breeding best practices, 26(13.6) 11(5.7) 45(23.4) 5 D. Begna et al. Poultry Science 104 (2025) 104536 Table 11 Major indigenous chicken production constraints in the study area. Agroecological zones with respondent’s number and proportion in bracket Major constraints Highland (96) Midland (48) Lowland (48) Overall (192) χ2 P-v Disease Uncontrolled dissemination of exotic breed Predators Lack of feed resource Lack of marketing access Major predators attacking chicken Domestic cat Wild cat Wild birds (eagle) Dog 34.80 % 25.20 % 17.70 % 14.20 % 8.10 % 33.30 % 28.80 % 21.30 % 8.80 % 7.80 % 35.00 % 26.90 % 13.80 % 16.10 % 8.20 % 37.00 % 30.80 % 17.80 % 10.60 % 3.80 % ​ ​ ​ 21.3 9.78 14.6 11.1 7.2 12.2 0.04 0.23 0.021 0.04 0.01 0.001 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ 68.80 % 11.50 % 14.60 % 5.10 % 70.80 % 14.60 % 10.40 % 4.20 % 72.90 % 6.20 % 12.50 % 8.40 % 70.30 % 10.90 % 13.00 % 5.80 % N = no of respondent, HL = Highland, MLS = midland, LL = lowland, P-V = P value Table 7 Chi-squared distance values for traits by agroecological zones. Trait Highland Chi-Squared Distance (D) P-value Midland Chi-Squared Distance (D) P-value Lowland Chi-Squared Distance (D) P-value Egg Number Hatchability Disease Resistance Body Size Mothering Ability Broodiness Plumage Color Good Scavenging Growth Rate Longevity Egg Size Fighting Ability 15.23 12.45 11.56 10.12 8.34 9.78 7.89 6.48 5.67 4.67 4.23 3.11 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.012 0.020 0.005 0.030 0.045 0.060 0.080 0.090 0.150 10.15 9.30 7.50 8.20 6.80 5.90 6.00 5.20 4.50 3.80 4.00 2.50 0.005 0.010 0.025 0.015 0.040 0.055 0.050 0.065 0.075 0.120 0.100 0.200 8.75 7.20 6.50 5.90 5.25 4.80 4.20 5.10 3.80 3.00 3.50 2.00 0.007 0.015 0.030 0.050 0.060 0.070 0.090 0.065 0.110 0.150 0.130 0.220 conserve local chicken breeds, and support farmer cooperatives. This study provides insights into the current state of chicken breeding practices in the Liben Jawi district and highlights areas where interventions and improvements can be made to enhance productivity, disease management, and sustainable livelihoods for farmers. Availability of data and material Funding Authors’ contributions The research did not receive specific funding but was self-sponsored and performed as part of the MSc thesis of the authors. Desalegn: conducted the critical review, and wrote the whole manuscript, Teferi conceptualized the ideas; conducted a research and investigation process, Shambel: oversight and leadership responsibility for the research activities The data supporting the findings of this study are primarily included in the article. Additional data that may not be included can be made available by contacting the corresponding author upon request. Disclosures The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. This research was conducted with the sole purpose of advancing scientific knowledge and understanding in the field of indigenous chicken breeding practices. Preprints Authors confirm no preprint previously Acknowledgments Ethics approval The authors would like to extend their appreciation to Mamo Mezemir Campus of Ambo University, Ethiopia for granting permission to conduct the MSc study. N/A Consent to participate References The participants involved in this study have provided their informed consent to voluntarily take part in the research. Abdelqader, A.., Wollny, C.B.A., Gauly, M., 2007. Characterization of local chicken production systems and their potential under different levels of management practice in Jordan. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 39, 155–164, 2007. Addis, M., Tadelle, D., Gizaw, S., Dessie, T., 2014. Village chicken production system in Ethiopia: use patterns and performance evaluation and chicken products and socioeconomic functions. Livestock Res. Rural Dev. 26 (6). https://www.lrrd.or g/lrrd26/6/addis26093.htm. Aklilu, H.A., 2007. Village Poultry in Ethiopia: Sociotechnical Analysis and Learning with Farmers. Wageningen University, Wageningen, the Netherlands, p. 178 (Ph.D. thesis). Consent for publication The authors of this manuscript provide their consent for its publi­ cation in the designated journal 6 D. Begna et al. Poultry Science 104 (2025) 104536 Arsham H. (2002). Questionnaire Design and Surveys Sampling, SySurvey: the Online Survey Tool. SySurvey, Baltimore, MD. Bogale, K., 2008. In Situ Characterization of Local Chicken Eco-Type for Functional Traits and Production System in Fogera Woreda, Amhara Regional State. Msc.Thesis Submitted to. Haramaya University, Haramaya, Ethiopia. CSA, 2021. Agricultural sample survey. Report on Livestock and Livestock Characteristics Addis Ababa. Ethiopian Statistical Agency (CSA, Ethiopia. EARO, 2000. Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization (EARO). National Poultry Research Strategy. FAO, 2012. Draft guidelines on phenotypic characterization of animal genetic resources Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. 13th Regular Session, 1822, July 2011. Rome (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/meetin, 651e.pdf). Fisseha, M., 2009. Marketing System of Local Chicken Ecotypes in Bure Wereda, North west AmhaStudies on Production Andra. M.Sc. Thesis. Hawassa University, Hawassa, Ethiopia. Fisseha, M., 2009. Studies on Production and Marketing Systems of Local Chicken Ecotypes in Bure District, North‒West Amhara. M.Sc.Thesis. Hawassa University, Ethiopia, pp. 533–557. Greenacre, M., 2017. Correspondence analysis in practice. CRC Press. Gretton, A., Gyorfi, L., 2010. Consistent estimation of the Hilbert-Schmidt norm of the cross-covariance operator. The Annals of Statistics 38 (4), 1930–1953. https://doi.or g/10.1214/09-AOS754. Gretton, A., Fukumizu, K., Herbrich, R., Schölkopf, B., 2005. A kernel statistical test of independence. Adv Neural Inf Process Syst 18, 585–592. Halima, H.assen., 2007. Phenotypic and Genetic Characterization of Indigenous Chicken Populations in North‒West Ethiopia. Ph.D. 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, p. 186. Heller, R., Gyorfi, L., Karg, M., 2016. Testing independence in high dimensions with a kernel-based approach. Statistics in Medicine 35 (11), 1870–1887. https://doi. org/10.1002/sim.6812. Heller, R., Heller, R., Karg, M., 2013. A new method for testing the independence of two random variables. Journal of Multivariate Analysis 116, 125–140. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jmva.2013.02.002. Hunduma, D., Chala, R., Dawo, F., Bekana, E., Leta, S., 2010. Major constraints and health management of village poultry production in Rift Valley of Oromia, Ethiopia. Am.Euras. J. Agric. Envir on, Sci. 9 (5), 529–533. Kebede, K., Gebre-Michael, D., Tadelle, D., 2012. Village chicken production systems in Ethiopia: 1. Flock characteristics and performance. Ethiopian J. Anim. Prod. 12 (1), 47–61. LJAO, 2022. Liben Jawi Agricultural office (LJAO) Annual Report (unpublished). Mammo, M.engesha., Berhan, T., Tadelle, D.essie., 2011. village Chicken Constraints and Traditional Management Practices in Jamma District south wollo, Ethiopia. Melesse, A., Negesse, T., 2011. Phenotypic and morphological characterization of indigenous chicken population in southern region of Ethiopia Anim. Genet. Resour. Inf. 49, 19–31. Mengesha, Y., Kebede, E., Getachew, A., 2022. Review of Chicken Productive and Reproductive Performance and Its Challenges in Ethiopia. Journal of Animal Science and Technology, 64. Published by Taylor & Francis, Abingdon, UK, pp. 1–12. Meseret M.olla. (2010). Characterization of village chicken production and marketing system in Gomma wereda, jimma zone, Ethiopia, M.sc. thesis Meseret Molla Bogale jimma university, Ethiopia. Mirkena, T, Duguma, G, Willam, A, Wurzinger, M, Haile, A, Rischkowsky, B, Okeyo, AM, Tibbo, M, Solkner, J, 2012 Jun. Community-based alternative breeding plans for indigenous sheep breeds in four agro-ecological zones of Ethiopia. J Anim Breed Genet 129 (3), 244–53. 10.1111/j.1439-0388.2011.00970.x. Epub 2011 Oct 15. PMID: 22583329. Nigussie, D., 2011. Breeding programs for indigenous production and Health, technical livestock sector chicken in Ethiopia, Analysis of diversity in brief: Ethiopia. No. 1. Okeno, T., Kahi, A., Peters, K., 2011. Characterization of indigenous chicken production systems in Kenya. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 44, 601–608. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11250-011-9942-x. Senbeta, E.K., 2020. Chicken reproductive performances in Ethiopia. Turkish J. Agric. Food Sci. Technol. 8, 755–1762. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v8i8.17551762.3501. Sime, A. G. (2022). Review on poultry production, processing, and utilization in Ethiopia. 10.17352/2455-815X.000156). Sourial, G.F., Galal, S., Nizar, M.A., Osman, M.A., Shalaby, M.H., Aboul-Ela, M.B., 2010. Correspondence analysis of factors affecting the diversity of local animal genetic resources in Egypt. Animal Genetic Resources 46, 17–24. Székely, G.J., Rizzo, M.L., 2009. Distance correlation: A new concept in statistical dependence. The Annals of Applied Statistics 3 (2), 1236–1265. https://doi.org/ 10.1214/09-AOAS285. Székely, G.J., Rizzo, M.L., Bakirov, N.K., 2007. Measuring and testing dependence by correlation of distances. The Annals of Statistics 35 (3), 2769–2794. https://doi.org/ 10.1214/009053607000000505. Tadelle, D., Million, T., Alemu, Y., Peters, K.J., 2003. Village chicken production systems in Ethiopia: flock characteristics and performance. Livestock Res. Rural Dev. 15, 9. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd15/1/tadea151.htm. Tadelle, D., Alemu, Y., Peters, K.J., 2000. Indigenous chickens in Ethiopia: genetic potential and attempts at improvement. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 56 (1), 52–54. https:// doi.org/10.1079/wps20000005. Tesfaye, D., 2014. Challenges and opportunities of village chicken production in Ethiopia. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 70 (3), 581–590. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0043933914000340. Tixier-Boichard, M., Besse, P., Rognon, X., 2009. Genetic diversity in poultry species: A review. World’s Poultry Science Journal 65 (3), 1–12. Wondmeneh, E.W., 2015. Genetic Improvement in Indigenous Chicken of Ethiopia. Ph.D. Thesis. Wageningen Institute of Animal Sciences, Animal Nutrition Group, Wageningen University, Wageningen. Wondu, M., Mehiret, M., Berhan, T., 2013. Characterization of Urban poultry production system in Northern Gondar, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia. Agric. Biol. J. North Am. 4, 192–198. https://doi.org/10.5251/abjna.2013.4.3.192.198. Zewdu, Solomon A.ltaye., Kassa, B.inyam., Agza, B.ilatu., Alemu, F.erede., 2013. Village chicken production systems in Metekel zone, Northwest Ethiopia. Wudpecker J. Agric. Res., 2, 2315–7259. 7 View publication stats