RURAL CHICKEN FLOCKS IN THE NORTHWEST OF ALGERIA: THEIR HUSBANDRY, PERFORMANCE INDICES, AND MARKETING

K. Zouaoui¹, L. Dahloum^2,*, M. Halbouche², F. Soltani², A. Homrani¹ and A. Yakubu³

¹ Laboratoire des Sciences et Techniques de Production Animale (LSTPA), Abdelhamid Ibn Badis University, PO. Box 188, Mostaganem 27000, Algeria

² Laboratoire de Physiologie Animale Appliquée (LPAA), Abdelhamid Ibn Badis University PO. Box 188, Mostaganem 27000, Algeria

³ Department of Animal Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Nasarawa State University, Keffi, Shabu-Lafia Campus, P.M.B. 135, Lafia 950101, Nigeria

Corresponding author’s email: Lahouari.dahloum@univ-mosta.dz

ABSTRACT

The present study was undertaken to contribute towards a better understanding of the production systems, productivity, and trait preferences of local chicken farmers in Algeria. Data were collected from a total of 160 randomly selected smallholder poultry farmers in 3 provinces of the northwest of Algeria. The free-range system of production was predominant and mainly managed by women (61.3%). For 91.9% of the smallholders, selling live birds was the main purpose for keeping chickens whereas eggs were used for both home consumption and income (56.2%). Flock capacity averaged 16.9 birds with an overall hen: cock ratio of 6.5:1. An average number of clutches per hen per year and the average number of eggs per clutch were 4.87 and 12.75, respectively. The mean annual egg production per hen was estimated at 45 eggs per year. Egg hatchability was 79.36% while the chick survivability rate was 61.5%. Predation (55%), diseases (19.4%), and cold temperature (16.2%) were the major causes of chick mortality. The average price of adult indigenous cocks and hens was about 7 USD/bird and 5.5 USD/bird, respectively, while the average selling egg price was about 0.14 USD/egg. Rural chickens and egg marketing appeared to be a profitable business, especially for middlemen. Therefore, more attention should be paid to promoting small-scale chicken production and marketing through involving women in various projects aimed at safeguarding and improving local chicken breeds through selection and cross-breeding.

Keywords: commercialization, consumer’s preference, management system, native birds, productivity.

https://doi.org/10.36899/JAPS.2023.1.0589
Published first online September 20, 2022

INTRODUCTION

In Africa, nearly 80% of the estimated 1.3 billion chickens comprise indigenous breeds reared by village farmers extensively (Guèye 1998 as cited in Dana et al., 2010). Although free-ranging local chicken is generally characterized by poor productivity compared to exotic chicken (Mafeni et al., 2005; Dana et al., 2011), they still make a significant contribution to poultry meat and egg production and consumption and might improve the rural economy in many developing and underdeveloped countries (Vali, 2008; Besbes, 2009). The native breed chickens are the reservoir of genomes and major genes for improvement of high-yielding exotic germplasm for tropical adaptability and disease resistance (Padhi, 2016). Indigenous breeds have better adaptability to the harsh climate, scarce feed resources, and a high level of disease tolerance compared to exotic breeds (Iqbal et al., 2012; Gheisari et al., 2016; Nhara et al., 2020). Products derived from rural chicken are of higher biological value (Millward et al., 2008), specifically eggs of the local chicken which have a higher consumption rate due to their distinctive features (Yaman et al., 2020).

In Africa, following the introduction of exotic strains from developed countries, the genetic erosion of the indigenous chicken population will be expected, thereby affecting the purity of the native breeds (Thakur et al., 2009; Melesse, 2014). Researches on indigenous chicken breeds are therefore necessary for elucidating their conservation and their sustainable development strategies (Nguyen et al.,2020). In Algeria, poultry production has registered the most notable development in recent years (Mouffok et al., 2019) and a great phenotypic and phaneroptic diversity of local poultry genetic resources has been found in the rural areas (Dahloum et al., 2016; Dahloum, 2017).

There is, however, a lack of information about indigenous poultry production characteristics in Algerian rural areas. Therefore, this study aimed at analyzing the small-scale poultry production systems in the northwest of Algeria in terms of management practices, performance indices, and marketing. This will permit the suggestion of appropriate breeding strategies for a sustainable increase in rural chicken productivity and profitability.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study area: The study was conducted in three provinces, Chlef, Mascara, and Mostaganem, located in the northwest of Algeria, between the Mediterranean Sea and Saharan Atlas chain (Fig. 1). The study area is well known for its agricultural potential and livestock production compared to other provinces of the zone. Different landscapes can be found in the area, due to the influence of several topographic factors (latitude, altitude, and distance from sea) on climate, and consequently on geomorphological and pedological processes (Dahloum et al., 2016). Chlef (plains zone), which is located at 36°09′54″ N, 1°20′04″ E, at an altitude of 116 m, has an area of 4851 km², and is characterized by a semi-arid climate. Mascara (mountainous zone), located at 35°55′52″ N, 0°08′24′′E, at an altitude of 590 m, with an area of 5135 km², and is characterized by a semi-arid climate. Mostaganem (littoral zone), is located at 35°55′52′′N, 0°05′21′′E, with an altitude of 85m, has an area of 2269 km² large, and is characterized by a Mediterranean climate. The average yearly temperatures and total precipitation amounts are 17.9^°C and 347 mm for Mostaganem, 16.7^◦C and 347 mm for Mascara, and 18.6^◦C and 394 mm for Chlef, but maximal temperatures are higher by 3.4^°C to 4.1^°C.

Sampling of households and data collection: The sampling design involves four stages: Firstly, three provinces (Chlef, Mascara, and Mostaganem) were purposively selected based on their poultry production potential compared to other provinces of the zone. In the second stage of sampling, sixteen districts municipalities were purposively identified according to the following distribution: (1) El Karimia, Ouled Abbes, Harchoun, Beni Rached, and Medjadja from Chlef province, (2) Sig, Chorfa, Bouhanifia, Hassine, Ghriss, and Mohammadia from Mascara province, and (3) Sidi Ali, Sidi Lakhdar, Achacha, Bouguirat, and Ain Nouissy from Mostaganem province; In the third stage, three separate villages were purposively chosen within each district municipality based on the presence of poor and small scale farmer’s who depend on chicken keeping for household’s socioeconomic strength, and accessibility for transport services. Furthermore, villages in close proximity to large cities were avoided to keep at minimum the influence of urban-affiliated farming systems on a typical rural village based chicken management system (Desta et al., 2013 ; Dahloum et al., 2016). In stage four, the respondents were randomly selected in each village from the list of the households where the indigenous chickens are kept in the study areas. The list of households was established with local veterinarians and agriculture extension agents. The required sample size for this study was at least 150 chicken keepers. In order to take non-response into account, the target sample size was increased to 195 chicken smallholders, assuming a non-response rate of 30%. The sample size was estimated following the Yamane (1967) formula which is used when the population size is known.

Where n is the sample size, N is the total population (in this study, N=554 chicken herders), and e is the confidence level (7%). However, during the field visits, some smallholder farmers refused to participate in the survey. Other farmers almost gave up raising local chickens (less than 3 chickens) and were therefore excluded from the study. Thus, the information provided in this study concerns only 160 smallholder farmers. This comprised 45 respondents from Chlef, 50 from Mascara, and 65 from Mostaganem. Data were collected using questionnaires and semi-structured based interviews. The information collected included some social characteristics of smallholder farmers, chicken flock structure, performance traits, health status, and breeding purpose. In order to evaluate chicken products’ commercialization, 30 chicken owners selected from those who used eggs either for income only or for home consumption and income, and 30 traders/middlemen from 3 urban markets and 3 rural markets (5 traders/market/province) were asked on prices of village chickens’ product. Furthermore, each traders at the market level was asked to rank traits/attributes and factors (previously identified) that influence consumer’s choice and variation price of eggs and live rural birds, respectively from the most important (4) to the less important (1). Due to the small sample size of sellers, ranks from the three provinces were combined. The survey was undertaken between February and June 2019.

Statistical analysis: Pearson’s chi-square (χ2) test with Bonferroni’s adjustments was used to compare categorical variables between provinces. To estimate the strength of the association between categorical variables and locations, Phi and Cramer’s V tests were used. Comparisons of mean ranks of traits that influence consumer’s preference and those of factors influencing variation price of indigenous chicken products were performed using the Friedman test followed by Wilcoxon’s pairwise post hoc test with Bonferroni correction. The level of statistical significance was set at p≤0.05. All statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS version 22.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Socio-economic characteristics of farmers: The household characteristics of indigenous chicken producers are presented in Table 1. The survey results showed that the gender of the respondents and education level were highly different (p<0.001) among the studied provinces. In Mascara and Mostaganem provinces, women were highly involved (61.3%) in indigenous chicken management followed by men (29.7%). These findings are in agreement with previous studies (Fotsa et al., 2007; Mahammi et al., 2014; Letebrhan et al., 2015; Nebiyu, 2016; Mugumaarhahama et al., 2016; Mahoro et al., 2017; Kejela, 2020) where the majority of the free-range chicken's owners were women. However, the reverse was found to be the case in Chlef province where men appeared to play the major role in indigenous chicken management responsibilities followed by women. This is in line with the previous report in Batna State (Alloui and Sellaoui, 2015). Despite regional differences observed in the current study with regard to the proportions of men and women involved in the family poultry production, it should be indicated that the day-to-day care and management of chickens are nearly always the task of women even if sometimes they have limited decision-making power on chicken production. A greater proportion of men producers compared to women producers was reported in other African countries such as Cameroun (Djitie et al., 2015), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (Katunga et al., 2020), and Niger (Moussa et al., 2018).

Farmers’ age proportions observed in this study were not different (p>0.05) between the three provinces. Rural chicken farmers are usually adults aged 20-65 years. The farmers’ age group of 40-55 years old was the most represented and accounted for 39.4% of the total respondents. In Sudano-sahelian zone of Cameroon, more than half (52%) of the indigenous chickens’ keepers were in middle age (30-50 years) (Haoua et al., 2015). Similarly, in western Kenya, the farmer’s overall average age was 43 years (range 21 to 80) (Ochieng et al., 2013). However, the current study showed that children had no participation in village chicken management, maybe because they are generally more involved in other livestock activities especially cattle and sheep rearing which require more care compared to rural birds. This result was different from observations made in many African countries (Yakubu, 2010; Yusuf et al., 2014; Mahoro et al., 2017) where children were actively involved in the chicken husbandry practices such as the provision of supplementary feed and water and chicken house cleaning. There was a difference (p<0.001) between the three study zones about the education level. Although there were some smallholder’s farmers (1.9%) who had a university degree in Mascara and Chlef, the global education level in the study area was low as almost half of smallholders (46.9%) has never gone to school and nearly 25% had attained only primary school level. The findings of the present study are similar to those obtained in Nigeria (Yakubu et al., 2019), Cameroon (Djitie et al., 2015; Haoua et al., 2015), and Senegal (Nahimana et al., 2016). However, the results are different from what was reported in Rwanda by Hirwa et al., (2019) that 25% and 43% of farmers were of university level in Kigali city and the north zone, respectively. Additionally, in Bishoftu, Ethiopia, Ebsa et al. (2019) reported that 53.8% of poultry producers had tertiary education. Access to education could be important in improving farmers’decision-making skills and developing favorable mental attitude towards new technologies which may significantly enhance productivity and farmers’ incomes.

Table 1. Some characteristics of the sampled households in Chlef, Mascara, and Mostaganem provinces

In this study, most of the smallholders interviewed (73%) have more than 10 years of experience in local chicken breeding and management which is in line with previous reports (Mekonnen, 2007; Shahjahan and Bhuiyan, 2016). In Kamuli plains in Uganda, Natukunda et al. (2011) stated that the level of profit obtained by the farm poultry producers was significantly influenced by both education level and experience in indigenous chicken rearing. However, in the current study, the number of years in raising indigenous chicken did not differ (p>0.05) between the three provinces.

Management practice and breeding purposes: The survey results revealed that supplemental income from the sale of live birds was the main objective of keeping chickens in all study areas (Table 2). The findings contradict those of Mugumaarhahama et al. (2016) where indigenous chickens were reared exclusively for household consumption. However, differences (p<0.05) were observed between provinces with regard to the primary purpose of egg production. In Mostaganem and Chlef, eggs were primordially produced for both income and home consumption while in Mascara, eggs were mainly used for household consumption. Higher house consumption of chicken and eggs, according to Kejela (2020), is expected to have a positive effect on the health of the members of the family specifically children and nursing mothers. In this survey, only 18% of the smallholders interviewed provided appropriate housing to their birds but the majority of them (85.7%) said that they cleaned their chicken house twice weekly. All the farmers surveyed provided water to birds but only 40.6% of them offered some additional feed at least once a day. Birds mostly acquired their feed by scavenging which cannot provide enough nutrition for growth and egg production (Henry, 2019). The results of the current study confirmed those reported previously (Dahloum et al., 2016). However, the present findings are in contrast with those reported in Ethiopia (Meseret, 2010; Ebsaet al., 2019) and Uganda (Natukunda et al., 2011) where more than 90% of farmers provided supplementary feeding to their birds and most of them utilized commercial ration. According to smallholders, supplementary feed included mainly household waste products, couscous, bread, and minimal amounts of cereal grains (wheat and crushed barley) and commercial concentrate feed. In recent years, progress in the role of insects as an alternative source of protein source in poultry feed has been reported (Khan, 2018; Zegeye, 2020). Sankara et al. (2018) mentioned that 78% of the farmers from Burkina Faso used termites to feed their poultry.

Chicken flock size and composition: As shown in Table 3, there was a very high difference (p<0.001) in terms of flock size and flock composition among the three study zones. The average flock size, the average number of hens and an average number of growers of various ages were highest (p<0.001) in Chlef and Mostaganem. Regarding the mean number of cocks, Mostaganem recorded a higher mean value (p<0.001) followed by Chlef and Mascara. The average overall mean of flock size in the current study was 16.9 (ranging from 4 to 60). A similar result was reported in North Gondar Zone, Ethiopia by Getu and Birhan (2014) with a mean flock size per household of 16.1. However, the average flock size obtained in this study is higher compared to 5.6, 11.8, and 13.9 reported in Bangladesh (Shahjahan and Bhuiyan, 2016), Rwanda (Mahoro et al.,2017), and Nigeria (Yakubu, 2010), respectively, but lower than the 17.5 and 24.3 recorded in Ghana at coastal savannah and rain forest zones, respectively (Hagan et al., 2013). The flock structure consisted of 71.2% adult hens, 9.7% adult cocks, and 19% of growers of various ages. Cocks’ proportion was the lowest mainly because cocks and cockerels are more sold in the market for their tastier meat than females which are often left for production. According to Yakubu (2010), the proportion of adult hens in the flocks is used to estimate flock productivity. The overall hen: cock ratio of 6.5:1 obtained in the current study is higher than the 3.4:1 and 3.9:1 reported in Nasarawa State, Nigeria (Yakubu, 2010) and Sheka zone, Ethiopia (Assefa et al.,2019), respectively. There was a difference (p<0.001) in sex ratio across the three locations of the current study. It was higher in Chlef (9.2 :1) and lower in Mostaganem (5.5:1). It would therefore be necessary to determine the optimal hen: cock ratio to achieve the best reproductive performance specifically fertility and hatchability.

Table 2. Breeding purposes and some management practices of local chickens according to the province.

Table 3. Local chicken flock composition in Chlef, Mascara, and Mostaganem provinces (Mean± SE).

Production and reproduction performance: The performance characteristics of free rural chickens in the three provinces studied are presented in Table 4. A large proportion of smallholder farmers (91.2%) stated that the age of indigenous pullets at first laying was between 6 and 7 months. The maturity of birds coincides with the age at first egg-laying (Kejela, 2020). There were differences (p<0.001) among provinces in terms of age at sexual maturity. This could be explained mainly by differences in feeding and health management practices (Alem, 2014). Overall, these findings indicate a late sexual maturity of indigenous chicken compared to the commercial lines. The reason for the low productive and reproductive performance of indigenous birds could be as a result of the non-availability of an organized and well-coordinated selection and breeding programmes to produce superior birds. This is congruous to the submission of Nguyen Van et al. (2020) where the low productivity of the indigenous chickens was attributed to the absence of an organized selection program, partly because of the small population size, and the difference in selection objectives between indigenous and specialized lines obtainable in commercial companies. The age at first egg observed in the current study is similar to the 6.31 ± 0.53 and 6.10 ± 0.30 months, respectively recorded both within and between locations in Ethiopia (Kejela, 2020). The results obtained from the current study are also comparable with other previous reports (Akouango et al., 2010; Letebrhan et al., 2015; Nahimana et al., 2016).

The overall average clutches/hen/year obtained in this study was 3.52 (range 2 to 6). Similar values ranging from 3.11 to 3.97 were reported in other African countries (Getu and Birhan, 2014; Letebrhan et al., 2015; Nahimana et al., 2016). However, the results deviate from those of Yakubu et al. (2010) who reported a mean value of 4.87 clutches/hen/year. The average egg production per clutch of 12.75 (range 8 to 20 eggs) obtained in this study was lower than 18.7, 14.7, 13.5, and 13.0 eggs/clutch reported in Kenya (Kamauet al., 2018), Democratic Republic of Congo (Katunga et al., 2020), Bangladesh (Shahjahan and Bhuiyan, 2016) and Rwanda (Francis et al., 2016), respectively. In the present study, the number of clutches per bird per year and clutch size did not differ (p>0.05) between the three locations. The mean annual egg production per hen was estimated at 45 eggs/year (range 28-80). A similar value was recorded by Guni et al. (2013). However, the result of the current study is higher than the mean value of 40.8 eggs/year reported by Assefa et al. (2019) but lower than 87 eggs/year recorded by Kouadio et al. (2013) in the semi-intensive system of production.

Moreover, the survey revealed that none of the interviewed farmers had any kind of egg incubator and only natural incubation and hatching by a broody hen are practiced in the study area. The results are consistent with earlier findings (Markos et al., 2014; Milkias, 2018). On average, 73.4% hatchability was found in the study area. This finding is lower compared to reports by Nahimana et al. (2016), Guni et al. (2013), and Melesse et al. (2013) whose findings revealed 88.0%, 79.1%, and 79.4% on hatchability rate, respectively, but much higher than the 22% obtained in southwest Ethiopia (Meseret, 2010). There were differences (p<0.05) between the three provinces in terms of hatchability; it was higher in Mascara and Mostaganem and lower in Chlef. This could be explained by differences in care and treatments given to broody hens. According to Addo et al. (2018), improperly storing eggs can greatly reduce fertility, hatchability, and chick quality. Therefore, the introduction of artificial egg incubators at the farm level could enhance egg production and hatchability rate. Similarly, Kugonza et al. (2012) reported that the use of a box for incubating and brooding hens resulted in significantly higher egg hatchability, lower live weight loss of the hens, and higher chick survival rates.

A high chick’s mortality rate of 39.5% (61.5% survived) was found in this study. Slightly the same results were obtained from different agro-ecological zones in Ethiopia (Melesse et al., 2013; Chebo and Nigussie, 2016). The current study revealed that the major causes of chicks mortality were predators mainly dogs, cats, and rats (55%) followed by diseases (19.4%) and cold weather (16.2%) (Table 5). Other mortality causes were also signaled by less than 10% of the respondents including mainly feed unavailability, lack of housing, and drowning. However, it seems that cold weather causes more mortality in Mascara province although there were no differences (p>0.05) between locations in terms of major factors of bird death. Overall, these causes of chicken mortalities were the most common in Africa (Fosta, 2008; Selam and Kelay, 2013; Alem, 2014; Djitie et al., 2015; Haoua et al., 2015; Waktole et al., 2018). The most common diseases that cause considerable losses in poultry production in Algeria according to several investigations (Alloui and Sellaoui, 2015; Berghicheet al., 2018; Debbou-Iouknane et al., 2018) are Colibacillosis, Mycoplasmosis, Salmonellosis, Newcastle (local name: Ettaoun), Gumburo, infectious bronchitis, and Coccidiosis. Other more frequent diseases such as the appearance of cysts in the eyelid of chickens (local name: Etellis) and that affecting the feather (local names: Eldjedri, Elkhabcha, Elgomila) have also been mentioned in a previous study (Halbouche et al., 2009). However, apart from some medicinal herbs and vegetable extracts (wild onion, black pepper, and essential oils) incorporated in the supplementary feed, nearly all the smallholders questioned (99.4%) claimed that they had never used any kind of prophylactic drugs such as antibiotics or vaccination for the health management of their birds and mentioned they had never received vaccination from the veterinary service teams. This may partly explain the high mortality rate observed in the current study. Providing training for farmers to adopt better disease management practices and carry out periodic vaccination exercises could significantly reduce the damage caused by devastating diseases and thus increase productivity and family farm income. Therefore, there is a dire need for government and non-governmental interventions to embark on an enlightenment campaign and also make available cheap and easily assessed vaccines of high potency and efficacy for the use of the smallholder farmers. Farmers should also have good knowledge of such vaccines and be able to use them with minimal supervision. This will go a long way in boosting chicken production in the studied area. According to Lindah et al.(2019), knowledge is a veritable component of extension support that facilitated high levels of uptake of vaccines. On another hand, exploiting the genetic variability to assess and select genotypes associated with great disease resistance remains an interesting alternative. In this context, the study of Dakpogan et al. (2012) revealed that naked neck bird was the most tolerant phenotype to Coccidiosis followed by normal feathered, silky, and frizzle birds whereas the dwarf phenotype was the most sensitive. The current findings are in contrast with what was reported in Zimbabwe by Nhara et al.(2020) that the availability of vaccines and their acceptance by farmers was higher.

Table 4. Some production and reproduction performance of local chickens in Chlef, Mascara, and Mostaganem provinces.

Table 5. Major causes of local chicken mortality according to province.

Status of commercialization of indigenous chickens: As presented in Table 6, the average selling price of the indigenous mature hen was 720 DZD (about USD 5.5) ranging from 400 to 1100 DZD (3-8 USD) and that of adult cock was 900 DZD (about USD 7) ranging from 500 to 1300 DZD (4-10 USD) while the average price of eggs from local hens was 18 DZD/egg (about USD 0.14) ranging from 10 to 30 DZD (from 0.08 to 0.23 USD). The survey showed that indigenous chicken’s products were mainly sold in both urban and weekly rural markets (Friday souk), but also at home and on roadsides. Marketing of indigenous poultry products was often unregulated and unorganized in all provinces studied, thus, more attention is needed to improve the marketing system of rural birds mainly through investing in market infrastructures and ensuring optimal hygienic and sanitation conditions. The current findings are partially in agreement with the previous study by Mahammi et al. (2014). The prices of live village chicken are often 1.5 to 2 times higher than that of exotic chicken whatever the year. This may be due to the high demand for their tasty meat and intensive yellow-orange egg yolk. Moreover, most consumers consider that eggs from indigenous chicken are free of disease and drugs, compared to those from exotic and commercial hens (Queenan, 2016). The findings of the current study align with what was earlier reported in many African countries such as South Africa (Mtileni et al., 2009), and Uganda (Emuron et al., 2010) Rwanda (Hirwa et al., 2019) where people were willing to pay an increased price for rural poultry products. Similarly, Bett et al. (2013) mentioned that Kenyan consumers are prepared to pay 23% per kg more for indigenous chicken meat and 41.5% for eggs. Moreover, the results of the current study showed that live rural birds and eggs sold by middlemen at the market cost nearly 60% and 74% higher than at the farm level, respectively. The current findings are in conformity with those reported in most developing countries (Abdelqader et al., 2007; Owuor and Bebe, 2009; Emuron et al., 2010; Mailu et al., 2012; Bwalya and Kalinda, 2014; Queenan et al., 2016). Middlemen, according to Mlozi et al. (2003) benefited more and earned 65% of the total profit generated in the local chicken market chain. Moreover, the average number of live indigenous birds and free-range eggs sold per middlemen were 44.4 mature hen/month (range 2-250), 100.4 cock/month (range 3-375), and 59.7 egg/day (range 40-100) while the average quantities sold per smallholders at household level were 1.66 mature hen/month (0-8), 2.43 cock/month (range 1-5) and 8.34 egg/day (range 4-45). These figures show that indigenous chicken marketing is a profitable business, especially for middlemen and traders. Further research is solicited to better analyze the marketing system for indigenous chickens and to propose an effective plan with the hope to increase the profitability of indigenous birds. Rural chicken owners according to Natukunda et al. (2011) have to understand the concept of profitability to take up commercial indigenous chicken rearing.

Table 6. Selling prices and average number of village chickens and eggs sold at farm gate and in the market (Mean±SE).

Consumer’s preferences towards indigenous chicken products: Based on the opinion of sellers, live body weight and sex of bird were identified as the main parameters that influence consumer’s preference towards village chicken followed by the health status of the bird whereas the age of the bird and phenotype ranked lower (Table 7). However, Bekuma et al. (2019) highlighted the influence of feather colour on consumers’ preferences; white, red, and mixture of white and red plumage colours were more preferred by consumers in Dedo District (Ethiopia). For eggs, the sellers interviewed in the present study deemed the egg size and eggshell integrity to be the most important traits influencing consumer’s choice. The present results are partially in line with what was reported in Kenya by Bett et al. (2013) and Ngeno (2017) were the most important attributes influencing consumer’s choice and consumption were egg size and yolk colour. In addition, Ndenga et al. (2017) reported that Kenyan consumers preferred small and medium-sized eggs and were willing to pay premium prices for brown shelled, non-oval eggs. Other attributes including size, price, shell colour, and freshness of the eggs have been reported by Sodjinou et al. (2015). Knowledge of consumer’s preference is therefore crucial and important not only for household farmers but also for merchants and especially public authorities in establishing efficient strategies that can be used to enhance rural smallholder poultry production and marketing.

Price variation of indigenous chicken products: In this study, live body weight, prices of other meat types, and religious events (Mawlid Enabawi, Achoura) were ranked as the major parameters affecting the price of live rural chickens (Table 8). However, the age of the bird, sex, and phenotype were ranked lower. These findings are slightly different from those of Abdelqader et al. (2007) where the major price-determining factors were age, sex, and phenotype of the bird and season. Other factors such as live weight, plumage colour, and general body condition have been reported (Bett et al., 2011; Yakubu et al., 2020). Additionally, the rose comb has strong cultural significance in Ethiopia and increases the market price of chickens (Dana et al., 2010; Bettridge et al., 2018). On the other hand, Sodjinou et al. (2015) reported in order of importance breed of the bird, plumage colour, meatiness, and the age of the bird as the main factors which significantly influenced the price of local chicken in Benin. It should be noted that the weighing scale is never used by the sellers (producers, middlemen, and traders) in all study zones; the live weight of the bird is often estimated from its size and conformation and by handling the bird. This could influence directly the household farmers and indirectly the productivity of the birds. These findings are in agreement with a previous report (Gondwe et al., 2005). Regarding free-range egg cost, it was mainly prone to price variation of eggs from commercial layers and season. All farmers interviewed in the study area mentioned the seasonal variation of egg production which decreased in winter leading to higher egg prices. This is in consonance with the report of Abdelqader et al. (2007) that egg production and survival rate were higher during the summer season compared to winter. However, the findings contradict those of Bekuma et al. (2019) where the market price of eggs decreased during the rainy season.

Conclusion: The study revealed that the majority of scavenging village chickens owners in the studied three provinces of Algeria are women. In general, even if the flock size is relatively large in some rural families, the management conditions are rudimentary which explain partially the low production performance observed. The commercialization of rural birds is informal and highly underdeveloped, similar to other developing countries. The current study provides additional basic information which is essential to put in place an appropriate strategy for the conservation of poultry resources that are well adapted to various environmental challenges and to improve their relatively low level of production and reproduction which can lead to an increase in both household food security and incomes.

Conflict of interest statement: The authors certify that there is no conflict of interest in the manuscript.

Funding sources: This work was financially supported by la Direction Générale de la Recherche Scientifique et du Développement Technologique (DG-RSDT, Algeria).

Acknowledgments: The authors are very grateful to all the indigenous chicken farmers and traders in all the regions visited who participated in our study.

REFERENCES

1. Abdelqader, A., C.B.A Wollny and M. Gauly (2007). Characterization of local chicken production systems and their potential under different levels of management practice in Jordan. Anim. Health. Prod. (39):155–164. doi.org/10.1007/s11250-007-9000-x
2. Addo A., J.A Hamidu, A.Y Ansah and K. Adomako (2018). Impact of Egg Storage Duration and Temperature on Egg Quality, Fertility, Hatchability and Chick Quality in Naked Neck Chickens. J. Poult. Sci. (17): 175–183. doi.org/10.3923/ijps.2018.175.183
3. Akouango, F., P. Bandtaba and C. Ngokaka (2010). Weight growth and
   productivity of the local hen Gallus domesticus in farm animals in Congo. (Croissance pondérale et productivité de la poule locale Gallus domesticus en élevage fermier au Congo). Genet. Resour. (46): 61–65. doi.org/10.1017/S2078633610000706
4. Alem, T (2014). Production and reproduction performance of rural poultry in lowland and midland agro-ecological zones of central Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. J. Agric. Res. (9): 3531–3539. doi.org/10.5897/AJAR2013.7351
5. Alloui, N and S. Sellaoui (2015). Socio-economic study of local poultry flocks in the Aurès area (Algeria). In Proceedings of the 12th Journées de la Recherche Avicole et Palmipèdes à Foie Gras, 5–6 April, 2017, Tours, France
6. Assefa, H., A. Melesse and M. Taye (2019). Characterization of indigenous chicken production systems in Sheka zone, south western Ethiopia. J. Res. Agric. Food Sci. 5(2): 1–16.
7. Bekuma, A., M. Asefa and T. Tadesse (2019). Analysis of Village Chicken Productivity, Egg Quality Traits and Marketing System in Dedo District, Jimma Zone, South West Ethiopia. Arch. Anim. Poult. Sci. 1(3): 52–58.
8. Berghiche A., T. Khenenou, A. Kouzi and I. Labiad (2018). An investigation on the predominant diseases, its diagnosis, and commonly used drugs in the poultry farms in the North-Eastern regions of Algeria. World. 11(7): 986–989.doi.org/10.14202/vetworld.2018.986-989
9. Besbes, B (2009). Genotype evaluation and breeding of poultry for performance under sub-optimal village conditions. Poult. Sci. J. 65: 260–271. doi.org/10.1017/S0043933909000221
10. Bett, H.K., K.J Peters and W. Bokelmann (2011). Hedonic price analysis to guide in breeding and production of Indigenous chicken in Kenya. Res. Rural. Dev. 23(6).
11. Bett, H.K., J. Peters, U.M. Nwankwo and W. Bokelmann (2013). Estimating consumer preferences and willingness to pay for the underutilised indigenous chicken products. Food Policy. (41): 218–225. doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2013.05.012
12. Bettridge, J.M., A. Psifidi, Z.G. Terfa, T.T. Desta, M. Lozano-Jaramillo, T. Dessie, P. Kaiser, P. Wigley, O. Hanotte and R.M Christley (2018). The role of local adaptation in sustainable village chicken production. Sustain. 1(10): 574–582. doi.org/10.1038/s41893-018-0150-9
13. Bwalya, R and T. Kalinda (2014). An Analysis of the Value Chain for Indigenous Chickens in Zambia’s Lusaka and Central Provinces. Agric. Stud. 2(2):32–51. doi.org/10.5296/jas.v2i2.5918
14. Chebo, C and H. Nigussie (2016). Performances, Breeding Practices and Trait Preferences of Local Chicken Ecotypes in Southern Zone of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. J. Poultry. Sci. (10):158–164. doi.org/10.3923/ajpsaj.2016.158.164
15. Dahloum, L., N. Moula, M. Halbouche and S. Mignon-Grasteau (2016). Phenotypic characterization of the indigenous chickens (Gallus gallus) in the northwest of Algeria. Anim. Breed. (59): 79–90. doi.org/10.5194/aab-59-79-2016
16. Dahloum, L (2017). Phenotypic characterization of the indigenous chickens (Gallus gallus) in the Northwest of Algeria, Major genes and thermotolerance (Caractérisation phénotypique de la poule locale Gallus gallus dans le nord-ouest algérien: gènes majeurs et thermotolérance). Doctoral dissertation, Mostaganem University, Algeria
17. Dakpogan H.B., S. Salifou, N. Muriel and A. Gbangbotche (2012). Comparative sensitivity of different phenotypes of free-ranges chicks to Eimeria tenella coccidiosis in Benin. Anim. Plant. Sci. (14): 1978–1984.
18. Dana N., L.H van der Waaij, T. Dessie and A.M van Arendonk (2010). Production objectives and trait preferences of village poultry producers of Ethiopia: implications for designing breeding schemes utilizing indigenous chicken genetic resources. Trop. Anim. Health. Pro. (42): 1519–1529. doi.org/10.1007/s11250-010-9602-6
19. Dana N., L.H van der Waaij and J.A.M. van Arendonk (2011). Genetic and phenotypic parameter estimates for body weights and egg production in Horro chicken of Ethiopia. Anim. Health. Pro. (43): 21–28. doi.org/10.1007/s11250-010-9649-4
20. Debbou-Iouknane N., H. Benbarek and A. Ayad (2018). Prevalence and aetiology of coccidiosis in broiler chickens in Bejaia province, Algeria. J. Vet. Res. 85(1): 1590. doi.org/10.4102/ojvr.v85i1.1590
21. Djitie F.K., C. Megueni, A. Teguia and D.L. Bitom (2015). Enquête socioéconomique et technique sur l'aviculture familiale dans la région de l’Adamaoua, Cameroun. Res. Rural. Dev. 27(2).
22. Ebsa, Y.A., S. Harpal and G.G. Negia (2019). Challenges and chicken production status of poultry producers in Bishoftu, Ethiopia. Sci. 98(11): 5452–5455. doi.org/10.3382/ps/pez343
23. Emuron, N., H. Magala, F.B Kyazze, D.R Kugonza and C.C. Kyarisiima (2010). Factors influencing the trade of local chickens in Kampala city markets. Res. Rural. Dev. 22(4)
24. Fotsa, J.C., D.K Poné, Y. Manjeli and J. Mafeni Mase (2007). A study of on-farm breeding systems and a phenotypic description of local fowls (Gallus gallus) in the forest zone of Cameroon. J. Agric. Sci. 32–38.
25. Fotsa, J.C (2008).Caractérisation des populations de poules locales (Gallus gallus) au Cameroun. Thèse de doctorat, Agroparistech, Paris, p. 301.
26. Francis, M., D. Majyambere, J. Mahoro and X. Rucamumihigo (2016). Characterization of low cost village Poultry production in Rwanda. 76–82. J. Livest. Prod. 7(9): 76-82. doi.org/10.5897/IJLP2016.0300
27. Getu, A and M. Birhan (2014). Chicken Production Systems, Performance and Associated Constraints in North Gondar Zone, Ethiopia. J. Agric. Res. 10(1): 25–33. doi.org/10.5829/idosi.wjas. 2014.10.1.1768
28. Gheisari A.A., G. Maghsoudinejad and A. Azarbayejani (2016). Evaluation of laying performance and egg qualitative characteristics of indigenous hens reared in rural area of Isfahan Province. J. Appl. Anim. Sci. (6): 957–962.
29. Gondwe, T.N., C.B.A Wollny and W. Kaumbata (2005). Marketing system and channels for scavenging local chickens in Lilongwe, Malawi. Res. Rural. Dev. 17(3).
30. Gueye, E.F (1998). Village egg and fowl meat production in Africa. Words. Sci. J. (54): 73–86.
31. Guni, F.S, A.M. Katule and P.A.A. Mwakilembe (2013). Characterization of local chickens in selected districts of the Southern Highlands of Tanzania: II. Production and Morphometric traits. Res. Rural. Dev. 25(9).
32. Hagan, J. K., M. Bosompem and I.A Adjei (2013). The productive performance of local chickens in three ecological zones of Ghana. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 8(1): 51–6.
33. Halbouche, M., L. Dahloum, A. Mouats, M. Didi, S. Ghali, W. Boudjenah and A. Fellahi (2009). Phenotypic inventory of local poultry populations in northwestern Algeria, morphological characterization of animals and eggs. (Inventaire phénotypique des populations avicoles locales dans le nord-ouest algérien, caractérisation morphologique des animaux et des œufs). In Proceedings of the 1st national Conference on local poultry genetic resources, 23 et 24 June 2009, Mostaganem, Algeria
34. Haoua, M.T., C.T. Keambou, M.Y. Poutougnigni and Y. Manjeli (2015). Characterisation of indigenous chicken production systems in the Sudano-sahelian zone of Cameroon. Res. Rural. Dev. 27(2).
35. Henry, H. (2019). Analysis of Rwandan Smallholder Poultry Farmer Needs in Production Manuals. Undergraduate Honors Thesis. Deptt. of Poultry Science. Arkansas, Fayetteville, United States.
36. Hirwa, C.D.A., D.R Kugonza, A. Kayitesi, T. Murekezi, F. Semahoro, G. Uwimana and R. Habimana (2019). Phenotypes, production systems and reproductive performance of indigenous chickens in contemporary Rwanda. J. Livest. Prod. 10(10): 213–231. doi.org/10.5897/IJLP2019.0618
37. Iqbal, A., M. Akram, A.W. Sahota, K. Javed, J. Hussain, Z. Sarfraz and S. Mehmood (2012). Laying characteristics and egg geometry of four varieties of indigenous Aseel chicken in Pakistan. Anim. Plant. Sci. 22(4): 848–852.
38. Kamau, C.N (2018). Impact of improved poultry production technologies among smallholder indigenous chicken farmers in Kakamega and Makueni, Kenya. M.Sc. thesis in Agribusiness Management, Kenyatta University, Kenya.
39. Katunga, M.M.D., K. F Balemirwe, F. Masheka and P. Zamukulu (2020). Production systems and contribution on characterization of local chickens in smallholder farmer in Sud-Kivu province, DRC. J. 7: e6171. doi.org/10.4236/oalib.1106171
40. Kejela, Y (2020). Production performance of chicken under farmers’ management and their roles at urban household economy in southern Ethiopia. Agric Sci. (11): 178-190.org/10.4236/as.2020.112011
41. Khan, S.H (2018). Recent advances in role of insects as alternative protein source in poultry nutrition. Appl. Anim. Res. 46(1): 1144-1157. doi.org/10.1080/09712119.2018.1474743
42. Kouadio, K.E., K. Kreman, G.S. Kouadja, B.J Kouao and A. Fantodji (2013). Influence du système d’élevage sur la reproduction de la poule locale Gallus domesticus, Côte d’Ivoire. Appl. Biosci. (72): 5830–5837. doi.org/10.4314/jab.v72i1.99669
43. Kugonza, D.R., G Kirembe, E. Tomusange-Nvule, R. Lutalo and E. Drani (2012). Experimental validation of farmer innovations in incubation and brooding management of chickens. Res. Rural. Dev.24(5).
44. Laosutsan, P., G. P. Shivakoti and P. Soni. (2019). Factors Influencing the Adoption of Good Agricultural Practices and Export Decision of Thailand’s Vegetable Farmers. Int J Commons. 13(2): 867–880. doi: https://doi.org/10.5334/ijc.895
45. Letebrhan, G., M. Aberra, B. Sandip and B. Gebremedhn (2015). Characterization of village chicken production system under traditional management in Gantaafeshum district of Eastern Tigray, Ethiopia. Res. Rural. Dev. 27(9).
46. Lindahl, J. F., J Young, A.Wyatt, M.Young, R.Alders, B.Bagnol, A. Kibayaand and G. Delia (2019). Do vaccination interventions have effects? A study on how poultry vaccination interventions change smallholder farmer knowledge, attitudes, and practice in villages in Kenya and Tanzania. Trop. Health. Prod. (51):213–220. doi.org/10.1007/s11250-018-1679-3
47. Mafeni, J.M., P. Horst, A. Verhulst and K.D. Pone (2005). Production performance and exploitation of heterosis in Cameroon indigenous and German Dahlem Red chickens and their crossbreds. Anim. Health. Prod. Afr. 53(4): 266–272. doi.org/10.4314/bahpa.v53i4.32720
48. Mahammi, F.Z., S.B.S. Gaouar, N. Tabet-Aoul, M. Tixier-Boichard and N. Saïdi-Mehtar (2014). Morpho-biometric characteristics and breeding systems of local chickens in the Oranie region (West Algeria). Agric. (23): 382–392. doi.org/10.1684/agr.2014.0722
49. Mahoro, J., T.K Muasya, F. Mbuza, R. Habimana and A.K Kahi (2017). Characterization of indigenous chicken production systems in Rwanda. 96(12):4245– doi: 10.3382/ps/pex240.
50. Mailu, S.K., M.A. Wachira, J.W. Munyasi, M. Nzioka, S.K. Kibiru, D.M. Mwangi, P. Kaguthi and J. Kithome (2012). Influence of prices on market participation decisions of indigenous poultry farmers in four districts of Eastern Province, Kenya. Agric. Soc. Res. (12):1-10.
51. Markos, S., B. Belay and T. Dessie (2014). Incubation and Brooding Practices of Local Chicken Producers in Ethiopia: The Case of Western Zone of Tigray. J. Biol. Agric.4(25):114–126.
52. Mekonnen, G (2007). Characterization of smallholder poultry production and marketing system of Dale, Wonsho and Loka Abaya Weredas of Southern Ethiopia. M.Sc. Hawassa University, Awassa, Ethiopia.
53. Melesse, A., W. Zemene and T. Yosef (2013). Assessment of the prevailing handling and quality of eggs from scavenging indigenous chickens reared in different agro-ecological zones of Ethiopia. J. Environ. Occup. Sci. 2(1):1–8.
54. Melesse, A (2014). Significance of scavenging chicken production in the rural community of Africa for enhanced food security. Poult. Sci. J. 70 (3): 593–606. doi.org/10.1017/S0043933914000646
55. Meseret, M (2010). Characterization of village Chicken production and marketing system. M.Sc. Thesis. Deptt. of Animal Science, Jimma University, Ethiopia.
56. Milkias, M (2018). Productive and reproductive performance of indigenous chickens in Ethiopia. J. Livest. Prod. 9(10): 253–259.
57. Millward, DJ., D K Layman, D. Tome and G. Schaafsma (2008). Protein quality assessment: impact of expanding understanding of protein and amino acid needs for optimal health. J. Clin. Nutr. 87:1576S–1581S. doi.org/10.1093/ajcn/87.5.1576S
58. Mlozi, M.R.S., A.V.M. Kakengi, U.M. Minga, A.M. Mtamboand J.E. Olsen (2003). Marketing of free range local chickens in Morogoro and Kilosa urban markets, Tanzania. Res. Rural. Dev.15(2).
59. Mouffok, C., L Semara, N. Ghoualmi and F. Belkasmi (2019). Comparison of some nonlinear functions for describing broiler growth curves of Cobb500 strain. Sci. J. 7 (1): 51–61. doi.org/10.22069/PSJ.2019.15965.1386
60. Moussa, H.O., T. C Keambou, K. Hima, S. Issa, S. J Motsa'a and Y. Bakasso (2018) Indigenous Chicken production in Niger. Anim. Sci. 7:100040. doi.org/10.1016/j.vas.2018.11.001
61. Mtileni, B.J., F.C. Muchadeyi, A. Maiwashe, P. M. Phitsane, T.E Heliman, M. Chimonyo and K. Dzama (2009). Characterisation of production systems for indigenous chicken genetic resources of South Africa. Anim. Husb. Rural. Dev. 1(2): 18–22.
62. Mugumaarhahama, Y., R.B.B Ayagirwe, V.B Mutwedu, J.M Sadiki, P. Baenyi, A.C. Mushagalusa and E.B. Bisimwa (2016). Local chicken production system assessment in two agro-ecological zones of South-Kivu (Democratic Republic of Congo). Res. Rural. Dev. 28 (1).
63. Nahimana, G., A. Missohou, S.B. Ayssiwede, P. Cissé, J. Butore and A. Touré (2016). Family poultry practices in Eastern Senegal and Haute-Casamance. Res. Rural. Dev. 28(5).
64. Natukunda, K., D.R Kugonza and C.C. Kyarisiima (2011). Indigenous chickens of the Kamuli Plains in Uganda: I. Production system and flock dynamics. Res. Rural. Dev. 23 (10).
65. Ndenga C., L.W. Kabuageand E.K. Bett (2017). Analysis of Consumer Preference in Product Attributes: A Case of Indigenous Chicken Eggs in Kenya. Econ. Sustain. Dev.8(2):145–151.
66. Nebiyu, Y.A (2016). Assessment of Urban Poultry Production Practices in Addis Ababa with Emphasis on Egg Production, Product Marketing, Feed Quality and Waste Management. PhD Dissertation, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, 174.
67. Ngeno, K (2017). Indigenous chicken meat and egg consumers are sensitive to sex, weight, tenderness, fat, meat part, plumage colour, age, egg size, egg yolk colour and price. Res. Rural. Dev. 29(12).
68. Nguyen Van, D., N. Moula, E. Moyse, L. Do Duc, T. Vu Dinh and F. Farnir (2020). Productive Performance and Egg and Meat Quality of Two Indigenous Poultry Breeds in Vietnam, Ho and Dong Tao, Fed on Commercial Feed. Animals (10): 408.
69. Nhara, R.B., T. Gombarume, T. Hungwe and N. Sakadzo (2020). Phenotypic characterisation of indigenous chickens in Rushinga district Tonderai. Sci. Agric. (4): 20–24.
70. Ochieng J, Owuor G and Bebe B O (2013). Management practices and challenges in smallholder indigenous chicken production in Western Kenya. Agric. Rural Dev. Trop. Subtrop.114, 51–58.
71. Owuor, G and B. Bebe (2009). What Influences Price Efficiency in Indigenous Chicken Markets in Africa ? Evidence from Smallholder Farmers in Kenya. 111 EAAE-IAAE Seminar ‘Small Farms: decline or persistence’ Univ. Kent, Canterbury, UK 26th.- 27th. June 2009. doi:22004/ag.econ.53075
72. Padhi, M.K (2016). Importance of indigenous breeds of chicken for rural economy and their improvements for higher production performance. Scientifica.org/10.1155/2016/2604685
73. Queenan, K., R. Alders, W. Maulaga, H. Lumbwe, E. Rukambile, E. Elasto Zulu, B. Bagnol and J. Rushton (2016). An appraisal of the indigenous chicken market in Tanzania and Zambia. Are the markets ready for improved outputs from village production systems?. Res. Rural. Dev.28(10).
74. Sankara, F., S Pousga, N.C.A Dao, D.S.J.C Gbemavo, V.A Clottey, K. Coulibaly, J.P Nacoulma, S. Ouedraogo and M. Kenis (2018). Indigenous knowledge and potential of termites as poultry feed in Burkina Faso. Insects. Food. Feed. 4(4): 211–218. Special issue: Edible insect value chains in Africa. doi.org/10.3920/JIFF2017.0070
75. Selam, M and B. Kelay (2013). Causes of village chicken mortality and interventions by farmers in Ada’a District, Ethiopia. J. Livest. Prod. 4(6): 88–94. doi.org/10.5897/IJLP12.021
76. Shahjahan, Md and A.K.F.H. Bhuiyan (2016). Socio-economic condition and indigenous poultry production scenario in a selected cluster area of Bangladesh. J. Biosci. Biotechnol. 1(3): 557–563.
77. Sodjinou, E., A. Henningsen, O. Delphin, G. Biaou and G. Mensah (2015). Consumers’preferences for “bicycle poultry” in Benin: Implications for the design of breeding schemes. Agric. Environ. Stud. (INRA Editions), 389–409. doi.org/10.4074/S196696071500301X
78. SPSS: Statistical Package for Social Sciences, SPSS Inc, 444 Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL60611, 2001.
79. Thakur, M.S., S. N Parmar, M.V Chaudhari and J K Bhardwaj (2009). Growth hormone gene polymorphism and its association with egg production in Kadaknath chicken. Res. Rural. Dev. 21(8).
80. Vali, N (2008). Indigenous chicken production in Iran: a review. Pakistan. J. Biol. Sci. (15): 2525–2531. doi.org/3923/pjbs.2008.2525.2531
81. Waktole, H., M. Almaw, D. Taweya, B. Wakjira, M. Kiflom, and H. Ashenafi (2018). Opportunities and challenges of indigenous chicken in Asella district, Arsi zone, Oromia, Ethiopia: implications for designing improved productivity schemes. J. Bacteriol. Mycol. 6(3): 229–235. doi.org/15406/jbmoa.2018.06.00210
82. Yakubu, A (2010). Indigenous chicken flocks of Nasarawa state, Nigeria: their characteristics, husbandry and productivity. Subtrop. Agroecosystems. 12(1): 69–76.
83. Yakubu, A., L Dahloum and E.G. Gimba (2019). Smallholder cattle farmers’ breeding practices and trait preferences in a tropical guinea savanna agro-ecological zone. Anim Health. Pro. (51): 1497–1506. doi.org/10.1007/s11250-019-01836-y.
84. Yakubu, A., O Bamidele, W.A Hassan, F.O Ajayi, U.E Ogundu, O. Alabi, E.B. Sonaiya and A. Adebambo (2020). Farmers’ choice of genotypes and trait preferences in tropically-adapted chickens in five agro-ecological zones in Nigeria. Trop. Anim. Health. Pro. (52): 95–107. doi.org/10.1007/s11250-019-01993-0.
85. Yaman, M.A., E. Zulfan, Y. Usman, C.A Fitri and H. Latif (2020). Increase in egg production, egg quality and immunity of local chicken resulted by cross-breeding. IOP Conference Series Earth Environ Sci. 425: 012043. doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/425/1/012043.
86. Yamane, T. (1967) Statistics, an Introductory Analysis. 2nd Edition, Harper and Row, New York.
87. Yusuf, S.F.G., F.S. Lategan and P.J Masika (2014). Characterization of Indigenous Poultry Production Systems in the Nkonkobe Municipality, Eastern Cape Province South Africa. J. Agri. Sci. 5(1-2): 31–44. doi.org/1080/09766898.2014.11884710
88. Zegeye, D.M (2020). Nutritional Evaluation of Insect’s Pupae-Larvae and its Utilization in Poultry Compound Feed. Agric. J. (14): 1–8. doi.org/10.2174/1874331502014010001