An experiment targeted the adaptation and performance evaluation of the Bovan Brown chicken breed in peri-urban areas of Agro-pastoralist was conducted in the Malle district. One kebele and 25 households were selected purposively. Training was provided and 21 pullet chickens were distributed to each household. Vaccination was given for the common poultry diseases. The commercial feed was used for the first two months, and then home-prepared feed in addition to kitchen refusal, garden forages, insects, and worms. Mortality was the collective effect of disease, stress, predators, and injury. The average body weight of the breed was 1.5 Kg with an average age of sexual maturity of 6 months. On average the breed laid 237 eggs per hen per year with a relative egg weight of 48, 51, 53, and 57 g at 5%, 10%, 50%, and 95% lay periods, respectively. The breed was preferred due to its survival, egg production, feed conversion ability, and fast age of sexual maturity with some constraints such as feed shortage, absence of the breed, veterinary drugs, and vaccines in the district. The “Bovan Brown” breed was adapted, performed well, and was preferred by the users with the limitation of chicken feed and the awareness gap of keepers. Therefore, the chicken keepers should be trained for the preparation of the layers feed, especially, protein sources, and the distribution of the breed should be limited to urban, per-urban, and trained keepers with access to the road to buy inputs and sale outputs.

The total of 50.5 million chickens in Ethiopia, 81.71, 7.43, and 10.86% were indigenous, exotic, and hybrid chickens, respectively [1]. The South Nation Nationalities Peoples region covers 7.3 million (5.8 million local, 1.1 million hybrid, and 3.65 thousand exotic types), and the South Omo Zone comprises only 3.47 thousand chickens (2.63 thousand local, 83 thousand hybrid and newly distributing exotic types).

Compared to other livestock production, Chicken production requires minimum land and capital for people with weak economic backgrounds [2]. It also plays a vital role in socio-economic inclusion, poverty lessening, and sustainable income provision for unemployed job-seeker groups [3]. Although the country has many numbers of chicken populations, the average number of eggs produced per year in Ethiopia is about 317 million [1]. As the same author reported, the average number of eggs laid per local, hybrid, and improved breeds in Ethiopia was about 13, 51, and 120 eggs, respectively. 

The low egg production of the country might be due to the cumulative effect of more numbers of local breeds and their low productivity, backyard production system, weak access to drugs, and feed shortage. Similarly, slow growth, late sexual maturity, and low egg production are some of the determinant characteristics of the local breed [4]. In line with [5], stated that the genetic potential that attributed to the variation of productivity between local and improved breeds was enforcing the distribution of exotic breeds and replacing local breeds. 

Like the other parts of Ethiopia, the chicken production of the South Omo zone is affected by the absence of improved chicken breeds, especially layer breeds. There was limited production of chicken eggs in the South Omo Zone generally and Malle district particularly due to the absence of best-laying, early-maturing breeds, and other production constraints in the area. Previously no scientific trial was conducted regarding the layer breeds adaptation and performance evaluation, particularly the “Bovan Brown” breed. In addition, the preference of chicken keepers and constraints of layer breed production were not evaluated. So, the gap and opportunity to solve the gap was invited to conduct the adaptation and performance evaluation trial. Therefore, this study was targeted with the demonstration, performance evaluation, perception evaluation of chicken keepers, and identification of challenges and opportunities of the “Bovan Brown” chicken breed in the peri-urban areas of the Malle district.

Description of the study area

The study was conducted in the Malle districts of the South-Omo zone. Astronomically it is located between 4085'-5067' North latitude and 35075'-36023' East longitude with a total land area of 1,432 km2. The altitude of the district is situated between 600-1500 mean above sea level with a relative annual temperature of 18-35ºc. Its agroecology is comprised of 15% midland and 85% lowland, with an annual rainfall of 800-1200 mm. The dominant crops that are being grown in the district are maize, sorghum, finger millet, ‘Teff’, and sunflower. The estimated human population of the district was 97,339 with 67.9 people per sq. km, according to the South Omo Zone Finance and Economy Development Department [6].

The site and household selection

The study kebele and households were selected purposively based on the chicken keeper's back chicken-keeping practice, and willingness to manage chickens and construct chicken houses. Based on the criteria a total of 25 households were selected and participated in this experiment.

Distribution of the experimental chicken and Management   

A total of 525 pullets "Bovan Brown" layer breed were purchased from Debre-Zeit, Ethiopia, and were distributed to each participant household.

Feeding and Disease Prevention

For the first two months concentrate pullet feed was used then the chicken keepers prepared supplementary feed from locally available feeding resources like maize, sunflower, sorghum, salt, and miller feed refusals. As a basal feed chickens used kitchen refusals, forage, flying insects, and worms. The feeder, drinker, and poultry house construction materials were contributed by the chicken keepers, but experimental chickens were contributed by the research center. Routine health follow-ups were undertaken by livestock health experts and vaccination was provided against common poultry diseases.

Training and awareness creation 

Training was given to agro-pastoralists, animal health experts, and development agents about feeding, house provision, vaccination, health, egg handling, and data recording. The data collection format was distributed to each household and development agent. Finally, the technical backup, data collection, monitoring, and evaluation were taken by the researchers. 

Data collection

The data such as survival, mortality, causes of mortality, body weight, age at first egg laying, number of eggs/hen/years, Egg weight, variable cost, and income were collected.

Data analysis

The mean and percentage of the collected data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version [7].

Survival and Mortality 

The average survival, mortality, and causes of mortality of chickens are presented in (Table 1). The average survival and mortality of the “Bovan Brown” commercial breed in peri-urban areas of the Malle district were 93.1 and 6.9%, respectively. The overall mortality in general and mortality due to disease was low; attributed due to the cumulative effect of the chicken’s adaptation, vaccination package, and chicken keeper’s awareness to protect from exposure.

A more promising result was recorded and shows that the per-urban areas were better grounds for commercial layer breeds if there was no other hindering factor like the feed shortage and awareness gap of chicken keepers on improved breed management. The mortality of chickens was low and it was the collective effect of different causes such as disease, stress due to long journeys, predators, and mechanical damage. A similar mortality value was reported by Bangu [8], the average mortality of the “Bovan Brown” chicken breed in the Wondogenet district, Ethiopia was 1.74% and Solomon et al [9], the average survival of “Bovan Brown” chicken breed for Eastern Amhara region, Ethiopia was around 94%. Similarly, Elias [10] also reported that the mortality due to disease was lower, due to the effective use of the vaccination schedule as recommended by the National Veterinary Institute for Chicken.

Table 1. Survival and Mortality of Chickens

HH = Household. Values in the table represent the numbers of chickens, respective mortality, and causes of mortality.

Body Weight 

The average body weight of the “Bovan Brown” chicken breed at the age of 3rd, 5th, and age at first egg laying was presented in (Table 2). The average body weight of the “Bovan Brown” layer breed was 1.5 Kg. Some higher body weight value was reported than the report of Bangu [8] and Habtamu et al [11], the average body weight of the “Bovan Brown” breed at the age of first egg laying was 1.3612 Kg and the average body weight of Lohman Brown chicken breed at 20 weeks was 1.1006 Kg respectively, attributed due to supplementation of locally formulated feeds that enhances the increment of the body weight of chickens.

Age at first egg Laying

The average age at the first egg lay of the “Bovan Brown” breed was presented in (Table 2). The “Bovan Brown” layer breed reached the age of sexual maturity at 26 weeks. Late age of sexual maturity was reported than the report of Bangu [8] for the Wondogenet district, the average age of sexual maturity was 21.5 weeks, and might be due to the supplemental feed difference, i.e. the chickens in the former study used commercial feed, whereas, it was locally formulated feed in the current study. Similarly, the fast age of first egg laying was reported by Habtamu et al. [11], the age at first egg laying of the Lohmann Brown layer breed was 21 weeks, due to the cumulative effect of breed, agro-ecology, feed, and feeding. 

Table 2. Body Weight and Age at First Egg Laying 

HH = Household. G = Gram. Kg = Kilogram. Values in the table represent body weight and age at the first egg laying.

Egg Production Potential of the Breed

The average number of chickens/households, number of eggs/chicken/years, and total number of eggs/household/years are presented in (Table 3). The “Bovan Brown” chicken breed produced 237 medium to large-sized eggs per hen per year. Similarly, the average egg production of the “Bovan Brown” layer breed was 266.32 eggs per year per hen [12]. However, a higher average number of eggs/hen/years was reported than the report of Amanuel and Abdissa [13], the average number of eggs per hen per year of the Bovan Brown commercial breed was 189 eggs. 

The average egg weight of the “Bovan Brown” chicken breed at different egg-laying periods is presented in (Table 3). The egg weight of the “Bovan Brown” layer breed at 5%, 10%, 50%, and 95% laying period was 48, 51, 53, and 57 g, respectively, with an overall egg weight of 52.25 grams. The weight of the egg was increasing from one laying period to another, and the lowest egg weight was recorded in the 5% egg-laying period whereas the highest was in the 95% egg-laying period. In line with Bangu [8]; the average egg weight of the same breed was 55.688 g for the Wondogenet district, and Habtamu et al. [11]; the average on-farm egg weight of the Lohman Brown layer breed was 54.2 g for Benishangul Gumuz region, Ethiopia. 

Table 3. Egg production and weight   

HH = Household. Values in the table represent the number of chickens/households, number of eggs/ chicken/years, total number of eggs/household/years, and average egg weight of hens.

Chicken keeper's Perception and preference 

The “Bovan Brown” layer breed was prepared due to its egg production, large egg weight, fast age of sexual maturity, feather color, ability to convert the supplemental feed to egg, and ease of manageability. However, some of the chicken keepers were worried about the feed shortage, absence of commercial feed, breed sources, and chicken veterinary drugs/vaccines problems.

Partial budget analysis

The partial budget analysis of the “Bovan Brown” layer breed is presented in (Table 4). It was based on changes in the Total Return (ΔTR), and Total Variable cost (ΔTVC). The change in Total Variable Cost (ΔTVC) included chicken purchase, feed purchase, and medication cost whereas, the change in Total Return (ΔTR) included income from the sale of eggs, sale of unproductive hens, and sale of laying hens. Finally, the change in net income (ΔNI) was the change in total return (ΔTR) and the change in total variable costs (ΔTVC). 

ΔNI = ΔTR – ΔTVC

ΔNI = 423232 – 208775 

      = 214457 for 25 members 

ΔNI = 8578.28 Ethiopian birr for each.

There was a difference in the change in total return (ΔTR) and income among members of households due to the variability of change in total variable costs and, finally each member of the household got an income of 8578.28 Ethiopian birr on average. 

Challenges and opportunities

The shortage of chicken feed, drought, absence of infrastructures, lack of access to veterinary drugs and vaccines, and market problems were some of the challenges but, newly emerging agricultural farming system and irrigation opportunities, human power and merchants flow from the central area were some of the opportunities that give hope to expand the chicken production. 

Table 4. Partial budget analysis 

TVC = total variable cost; TR = total return; NI = Net Income; Δ = change; values (numbers) in the table represent the amounts of the respective variable.

The “Bovan Brown” layer breed adapted, performed well, and was preferred by chicken keepers due to its survival, egg production, disease resistance, and fast age of sexual maturity. The higher body weight value and late age of sexual maturity were recorded. Although the breed adapted and performed well, there were some limitations such as feed shortage, limited access to commercial feed, absence of initial breed, veterinary drugs/vaccines, and awareness gap of chicken keepers. Therefore, the chicken keepers should be trained about the layer’s feed ingredients, especially, protein sources, and the distribution of the breed should be limited to urban, peri-urban, model, and trained keepers with access to infrastructure such as roads to get inputs and sale outputs.

P.O, Post Office; Kg, Kilogram; g, gram; sq., square kilometer; Km, Kilometer; mm, mill meter; oc, degree Celsius; SPSS, Statistical Package for Social Science; HH, House Holds; Δ, change; TR, Total Return; TVC, Total Variable Cost; NI, Net Income; CSA, Central Statistical Authority; FAO, Food and Agricultural Organization; and SOZFEDD, South Omo Zone Finance and Economic Development Department. 

The authors would like to thank the Low Land Resilience Project (LLRP) for logistics support. The authors also express their great appreciation to Malle district Livestock extension experts, and agro-pastoralists, who participated in this adaptation trial.

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest and the paper has not been submitted for publication to another journal.

Mr. Elias Gonta wrote the entire manuscript in addition to conducting the research work and data collection. Mr. Mekete Girma was involved in proposal development and manuscript editions.