The flock size ranged from 29.04±0.55 to 30.24±0.55 with an overall mean of 29.79±0.28 (Table 2). The flock size did not vary significantly (P<0.05) among different zones.

Comparatively lower flock size reported by Rawat et al. (2015) and Kumar et al. (2013) as 22.53 and 5.6 birds in India. The difference in flock size might be attributed to seasons, culling, disease outbreak and predation (Moges et al., 2010). The study also revealed that the flock of indigenous chicken mostly constituted by chicks (62.01%), followed by growers (21.42%) and adults (16.56%). Hussain et al. (2017) also reported chicken flock mostly comprised of chicks followed by adults in Jammu and Kashmir, India. In contrary, Keqa et al. (2017) found that chicken flock was dominated by adults followed by growers and chicks in Solomon Islands.

The main purposes of housing of indigenous chicken were night sheltering (56.5%) followed by to prevent predation (34%) and extreme climatic conditions (9.5%) as depicted in Table 3. Temporary housing for night sheltering (Yusuf et al., 2014) and permanent housing for providing protection against predators (Mapiye and Sibanda, 2005) were common to household in different parts of the world. Lack of proper housing facilities for indigenous chicken might be due to lack of awareness, cost and availability of housing materials. Majority (63%) of the chicken coops were located inside the dwelling house. The location of coop inside the dwelling house might be attributed to protection of chicken from predators and cost and availability of the construction materials (Nigussie et al., 2015). However, coops inside dwelling house might be attributed to lack of scientific knowledge of chicken rearing because same might cause foul odour and unhygienic condition inside the dwelling house due to faeces and other dirt objects. However, the coops were also found outside the dwelling house (26.5%), while some (10.5%) of them kept chicken in livestock shed (Table 3).

Proper housing management might lead to better sanitation; avoid predation and theft and overall better production. The results indicated that the coops were mostly constructed with some low cost locally available materials such as corrugated G.I. sheet, wooden and bamboo plates. Floors were mostly mud floor (77.5%), while walls and roofs were chiefly constructed with bamboo or wooden slates and G.I. sheet respectively. Similarly, Kumar et al. (2013) and Chaturvedani et al. (2016) also reported that small coops were constructed for indigenous chicken, which were chiefly made of locally available materials viz., bamboo, mud, wood, net, tin and straw. The results revealed that none of the respondents cleaned their chicken coop on daily basis, while majority (43%) of them cleaned it on monthly basis and few of them did not clean the coop. This might be due to lack of awareness among the farmers. Cleaning of coop on daily basis might provide better hygiene and health condition of the birds. Contrary to the present findings, Chutia (2010) reported that majority of the respondents cleaned coop daily in Assam, India.

In addition to scavenging, all the farmers provided supplemental feeds to their chicken. Among the supplemental feeds, mostly grains (65.5%) were provided, followed by-products (18.5%) and concentrate feeds (16%) (Table 4). Further, among the grains, paddy grains, mustard grains, oilseeds etc. were mostly given depending upon the availability of grains in different seasons. Home made by-products such as broken rice, rice bran, boiled rice, leafy vegetables in addition to kitchen wastes were supplemented to their backyard chicken. The present findings corroborated the results of Halima (2007) in Northern Ethiopia who reported that 96.8 per cent of the farmers supplied partial supplementation of feeds and 95.5 per cent of the feed was produced locally. More than two-third (69.5%) of the farmers provided supplemental feeds by throwing or broadcasting on the ground, while remaining (30.5%) respondents provided feeds in different types of containers (Table 4). Providing supplemental feed by throwing or broadcasting on the ground might cause wastage and contamination of feeds. Further, among containers, they used mostly broken earthen pots, unused plastic containers, plates, broken bowls etc. for feeding their chicken. Majority (71.5%) of the farmers offered feed together to all age groups of birds, while some (27%) offered feed to chicks and hen together and a few (1.5%) offered to only hen. The present findings of supplying feeds to all age groups of birds together, which also corroborated the findings of Larbi et al. (2013) in South Tunisia. Assefa et al. (2019) reported that about 59 per cent of the chicken owners in Yeki and 64 per cent in Masha provided supplemental feed frequently while 68.4 per cent of the households in Andracha provided to all age groups equally in Ethiopia. Feeding all ages of chicken together indicated that chicks were deprived of supplemental feeds as they were unable to compete with older birds during feeding leading to poor nutrition and growth.

Feeding chicks separately might result in better growth and start up of the chicks. The present findings are in close accordance with the observations of Halima et al. (2007a) and Deneke (2013). Most (40%) of the farmers preferred supplemental feed during monsoon followed by pre-monsoon (31.5%), post-monsoon (55%) and winter (11.5%) season (Table 4). Feed supplementation during monsoon season might be due scarcity of scavenged feed resources during due to rain and flood. Reduced feed supplementation during winter season might be due to availability of scavenged feed because of harvesting of paddy and other crops. Regarding use of feeder and drinker, it was found that most (86.5%) of the respondents did not use feeder and drinker, while only few of them used old containers as feeder and drinker made of plastic or metal. Use of feeder and drinker might reduce wastage and contamination of feed and water. In accordance with present findings, Billah et al. (2013) also reported that about 80 per cent of the farmers did not use feeders in Bangladesh. The survey revealed that most (90.5%) of the respondents did not provide water to their birds, while only 9.5 per cent provided water to birds. This could be due to farmers’ perception of availability of water round the year in the study areas. As water was not provided by majority of the respondents; hence most of the chicken consumed unclean water. The unclean water was one major source of contamination and infection in village chicken production, which might cause losses of chicken due to disease. The sources of water also varied with season and location.

More than one-third (34%) of the respondents used well water, while 33.5 and 32.5 per cent of them used pond water or any stagnant water respectively (Table 4).

None of the farmers practiced systematic breeding practice for their indigenous chicken which might be due to lack of knowledge. Majority (86.5%) of them used their own chicken’s eggs for hatching purpose, while 11 per cent of them procured hatching eggs from their neighbours and only a few (2.5%) purchased eggs from market for hatching purpose (Table 5). The farmers mostly used their home produced eggs for hatching purpose, which were in good agreement with the findings of Sankhyan et al. (2013) in India. All the farmers practiced natural incubation mostly by broody hen (96.5%) or broody duck (3.5%). This might be due lack of awareness or higher cost of the artificial incubator. Several workers (Halima et al., 2007; Dumrya et al., 2015; Alders et al., 2018) also reported natural incubation of chicken eggs. The selection of hatching eggs was not practiced by 68 per cent of the farmers, while rest practiced selection of eggs before incubation. The soundness of eggs was the main criteria for selection followed by cleanliness of egg shell. The survey also showed that the number of eggs set per broody hen or duck ranged from 13.06±0.26 to 13.77±0.25 with an overall mean value of 13.59±0.23 (Table 5). Mostly, the size and mothering ability of the hen or duck was considered for the number of eggs set per hen or duck. The present findings were in close proximity with the findings of Kumar et al. (2013) in India and Nigussie et al. (2015) in Northern Ethiopia. None of the farmer maintained proper male-female ratio in their flock and was varied from farmer to farmer, which might be due to lack of knowledge, however it ranged from 1:5 to 1:20 with an average of 1:7.5. It was believed that more number of male birds in the flock might be attributed to cannibalism. Improper male-female ratio and uncontrolled breeding (inbreeding) might reduced genetic potential of indigenous chicken. Bikila (2013) reported that traditional poultry production system was characterized by lack of systematic breeding programme in Western Shewa. The village chicken breeding was completely uncontrolled and replacement stock produced through natural incubation using broody hen (Nigussie, 2011) in Ethiopia.

Most (61.5%) of the respondents culled surplus birds for sale, while some (22%) of them culled chicken for self-consumption and a few (16.5%) practiced culling to entertain guests (Table 5). Most of the farmers culled their surplus chicken by sale that indicated income generation through indigenous chicken rearing, while they seldom consumed surplus birds to ensure their nutritional security. Income from selling of surplus stock directly came to women as indigenous chicken farming was mostly headed by women and thus helped in women empowerment. The findings were in concurrent with the findings of Kumar et al. (2013) and Wong et al. (2017). The criteria for culling were found as surplus stock (30%), senility (27%), sickness (23.5%) and poor productivity (19.5%). In most (58%) of the cases, the farmers culled their surplus stocks (male and female) chicken at the age 6 to 7 months, while rest of them culled their chicken at 1 and 2 years age (Table 5). Kumar et al. (2013) also reported similar culling age for male chicken; however, females were culled after 3 years of age in Kerala. In support of this study, Melese and Melkamu (2014) and Halima (2007) reported that about 74.7% of the reasons for culling of chicken in North West Ethiopia are poor productivity, old age and sickness as a whole.

The results presented in Table 6, revealed that most (43.5%) of the respondents observed greenish diarrhoea as one of the important symptoms during disease outbreak, followed by ruffled feather (36.5%) and huddling together (11.5%). The study showed that majority (54.5%) of the respondents did not treat their sick birds, which might be attributed to lack knowledge of disease management and inadequate veterinary services. The present findings were in line with Oladinnu and Fatuase (2014), who reported that rural poultry owners were unconcerned about chicken disease. Newcastle (Ranikhet) disease was the most fatal disease that caused maximum mortality in a flock as reported by most (84.5%) of the farmers (Table 6). The present findings were in close proximity with the results of Moreda et al. (2013) and Nigussie et al. (2015) who also observed that New Castle Disease was the major disease in Ethiopia. The disease was tentatively diagnosed on the basis of signs and symptoms such as coughing, sneezing, nasal discharge and heavy morbidity with mortality followed by post-mortem examination of the dead birds under field condition.

The higher mortality due to Newcastle disease might be due to lack of veterinary services to rural chicken farmers as it is a highly infectious disease and can cause 100 per cent mortality in a flock (Alders et al., 2010; Samal, 2011). Majority (54.5%) of the respondents did not treat their sick birds, while 18 per cent of them consult with veterinarian and rest slaughtered or sold the sick birds immediately. Majority (95.5%) of the farmers did not vaccinate their birds against any disease, while only a few (4.5%) farmers vaccinated their birds against Newcastle (Ranikhet) Disease. Similarly Nigussie et al. (2015) also reported that village chicken owner had no culture of vaccination against disease. Lack of awareness about the disease and presence of chicken vaccines, lack of attention to village chicken, low availability of vaccines and absence of small doses of vaccines for small number of flocks were the major reasons for lack of vaccination against diseases. None of the farmers practiced deworming. Majority of the farmers (78.5%) reported that disease was the most important cause of mortality among birds, while predation and senility caused mortality in case of 15.5 and 6.0 per cent of the farmers (Table 6).

The indigenous chicken was reared for both egg and meat production. The chickens were sold as live chicken mostly when they need cash. In most of the cases, farmers sold their chickens to neighbours, hawkers and to people who need chicken meat for weddings, birthday parties and other celebrations. Farmers rarely sold their chicken at market might be due to higher transportation cost and lack of access to chicken market (Abdelqader et al., 2007). There were no specific market where farmers could sell chickens and eggs. Hence farmers preferred to sale chicken at the doorstep to the middlemen (local vendor) resulted in reduced price of their produce due to exploitation by middlemen. Awol (2010) also reported that village chicken farmers were not in a position to get expected return from the sale of chicken in North West Ethiopia due to low price, low marketing output and long distance to reliable market. Getachew et al. (2015) also reported that informal marketing of poultry and poultry products at open markets were common in Eastern Ethiopia, where live chicken and eggs were sold on road-side stops. Most of the consumers preferred to purchase fresh eggs directly from the farmers. However, the study revealed that around 20 to 25% of the eggs and 10 to 15% of live chicken were sold directly to the consumers. The demand of local chicken and egg was always high than commercial eggs and birds and fetched always higher prices in the markets. However, the demand of local chicken increased further in some festive occasions such as Bihu, Eid, Kali Puja, Durga Puja etc. Getachew et al. (2015) reported that there was seasonal variation of demand for eggs and live chicken in Ethiopia. The demand decreased during fasting period for orthodox Christian and the demand increased during holiday’s festivities in Ethiopia.

Four marketing channels were identified as follows:

Channel I: Producer → Consumer

Channel II: Producer → Local Vendor → Consumer

Channel III: Producer → Local Vendor → Retailer → Consumer

Channel IV: Producer → Local Vendor → Hatchery man (In LBVZ particularly)

Four marketing channels were identified as follows:

Channel I: Producer → Consumer

Channel II: Producer → Local Vendor → Consumer

Channel III: Producer → Local Vendor → Retailer → Consumer

Channel IV: Producer → Local Vendor → Trader →

Retailer → Consumer