ISSN: 2536-7072
Model: Open Access/Peer Reviewed
DOI: 10.31248/JASP
Start Year: 2016
Email: jasp@integrityresjournals.org
https://doi.org/10.31248/JASP2020.200 | Article Number: 0012F4702 | Vol.5 (3) - June 2020
Received Date: 04 March 2020 | Accepted Date: 22 March 2020 | Published Date: 30 June 2020
Authors: Mekete Manjura* and Otoro Olke
Keywords: mortality, weight., Ethiopia, Basketo, chick, koikok
The study was conducted in two peasant associations (ZabaEla and GezaAyima) and in one city administration (laska) at Basketo special district of SNNPR, Ethiopia. The objective of this study was to compare Solomon hay-box brooder with Mekete bamboo brooder for growth and production performances of day-old chickens. Ten randomly selected households (5 participants with Solomon hay-box and 5 participants with Mekete Bamboo brooder) were involved and each received 50-dayoldkoikok breed chicks. The brooders were used during the night whereas chick-runs were used to hold and feed the chicks during the day. During the brooding period (up to 8 weeks old), chicks were fed on commercial starter ration. Water was provided to chickens at ad libitum. All collected data were analyzed by using statistical package for social science (SPSS) version 20.0. The total cost for building Solomon hay-box with 50 chicken capacities was 4600BIRR and 910BIRR for Mekete bamboo brooder. About 92, 89.2, 87.6 and 86% of chick survivability was recorded at 2nd, 4th, 6th and 8th weeks, respectively at Solomon hay-box and for Mekete bamboo brooder the result was 94.8, 91.6, 90 and 88.8% at 2nd, 4th, 6th and 8th weeks, respectively. The average age at first egg laying at Solomon hay-boxwas 139.6 days and 145.4 days at Mekete bamboo brooder. Average weight of eggs at Solomon hay-boxwas 39.16 g and 38.38 g at Mekete bamboo brooder. The average weight of male and female chicken at 20 weeks of age was 1.63 and 1.18 kg, respectively at Solomon hay-box and 1.61 and 1.18 kg for Mekete bamboo brooder. Both brooders have almost similar capacity in all compared parameters except that of cost of input. So, introducing economical brooder is compulsory to increases profitability of farmers.
| Addis, B., Tadesse, D., & Mekuriaw, S. (2014). Study on major causes of chicken mortality and associated risk factors in Bahir Dar Zuria District, Ethiopia. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 9(48), 3465-3472. | ||||
| Aregaw, A., & Mengistu, U., (2011). Body weight and dry matter intake of Horro, Koekoek and Lohmann silver chicken breeds under intensive management. Haramaya University 28th Annual Research and Extension Review Proceedings. March 2011, Haramaya University, Haramaya, Ethiopia. | ||||
| Atsbaha, H., Angesom, T., Haftom, M., Challa, E., Alemayehu, A., Tadios, H., Bethelihem, S., &Dawd, I. (2018). Evaluation and Demonstration of Potchefstroom Koekoek Chicken in and Around Mehoni areas of Southern Tigray Zone. Global Journal of Science Frontier Research,18(3), 25-29. | ||||
| Australian Agricultural Consulting and Management Company (AACMC) (1984). Livestock sub sector review, Volume 1. | ||||
| Banerjee, S., Melesse, A., Dotamo, E., Berihun, K., & Beyan, M. (2013). Effect of feeding different dietary protein levels with iso-caloric ration on nutrients intake and growth performances of dual-purpose Koekoeck chicken breeds. International Journal Applied Poultry Research, 2(2), 27-32. | ||||
| Central Statistical Agency - Ethiopia (CSA) (2018). Agricultural sample survey: Livestock and livestock characteristics. | ||||
| Debreziet Agricultural Research Center (DZARC) (2012). Annual Research Report 2012/13, Ethiopian Institute Agricultural Research, DebreZeit, Ethiopia. | ||||
| Dessie, T., & Ogle, B. (2001). Village poultry production systems in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 33(6), 521-537. Crossref |
||||
| Getiso, A., Yilma, M., Mekonnen, M., Jimma, A., Asrat, M., Tera, A., & Dako, E. (2016). Demonstration and evaluation of dual purpose chicken "Potchefstroom Koekoek" packages at Areka areas, SNNPR, Ethiopia. Global Journal of Science Frontier Research, 16(2), 20-26. | ||||
| Hoyle, E. (1992). Small-scale poultry keeping in Welaita, North Omo region. Technical pamphlet No. 3, Farmers Research Project (FRP). Farm Africa Addis Ababa. | ||||
| Kassa, B. (2016). Demonstration and Performance Evaluation of "Potchefstroom Koekoek" Chicken Package at Jimma Zone, South Western Ethiopia. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, 6(15), 85-87. | ||||
| Mulugeta, A., (2013). Modified chick brooding technology based on cotton-plate-as-cage (Mulugeta Brooder) for small scale poultry farming. British Journal of Poultry Sciences, 2(3), 33-37. | ||||
| Nigussie, D., Alemu, Y., Tadelle, D., & Samuel, W. H. (2003). On-station and on-farm evaluation of the hay-Box chick brooder using different insulation materials at DebreZeit Agricultural research center and Adaaworeda. Proceedings of the 10th annual conference of the Ethiopian society of animal production (ESAP), August 21-23, held in Addis Ababa Ethiopia. Pp. 211-213. | ||||
| Nithimo A. M., (2004). The phenotypic characterization of native Lesetho chickens. PhD thesis, University of the Free State, South Africa. 79p. | ||||
| Solomon, D. (2010). Chick brooder. News article of Spore, CTA. Bimonthly bulletin No.145. | ||||
| Solomon, D. (1999). Suitability ofhomemade hay-box chick brooder to the Ethiopian household poultry production system. Proceedings of the 7th Annual Conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. | ||||
| Solomon, D. (2007). Suitability of hay-box brooding technology to rural household poultry production system. Livestock Research. Rural Development.,19(1). Link |
||||