Phenotypic and genotypic characteristics of indigenous chickens in Ethiopia: A review

Abstract

Related research results and facts of indigenous chicken production in and out of Ethiopia were reviewed with the aim of delivering information to the improved production and for the breeding plan of a country. The study revealed that the common production system used was mostly extensive type that is characterized by small flock sizes; it needs no or less inputs and a periodic devastation of the flock by diseases. Sharing the house with the family is their housing methods and scavenging is also almost the only source of diets with no planned breeding. Some indigenous chicken groups of a country were characterized and the names of the flocks are mostly designated from their niche areas. The study also showed that there are large variations in plumage colors, comb types and shank types of the indigenous birds. Social cultures and believes of most of the community have been highly attached and attracted by these morphological variations of birds. Consequently, birds endowed with red or white plumage colors combined with pea shaped comb-types have always 15 to 35% exceeded price values at marketing, than those with similar age birds that endowed neither of the aforementioned combinations. The micro-satellites of indigenous chicken population were highly polymorphic. However, there is a minimum generation response for selection. As a conclusion, breeding and improved production programs to the local chickens should also incorporate the production objectives and trait preferences of the society. Moreover, the direct implication of the diversified phenotypic appearances of local chickens indicates the genetic potential for improvement. Hence, this huge gene pool should be protected from genetic erosion and be used for improvement through traditional selections together with genomic technology.

Full text

African Journal of Agricultural Research Vol. 6(24), pp. 5398-5404, 26 October, 2011
Available online at http://www.academicjournals.org/AJAR
DOI: 10.5897/AJAR11.434
ISSN 1991-637X ©2011 Academic Journals
Full Length Research Paper
Phenotypic and genotypic characteristics of indigenous
chickens in Ethiopia: A review
Mammo Mengesha1* and Wude Tsega2
1Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research, Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Center, Ethiopia.
2Debre Zeit Campus, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia.
Accepted 30 May, 2011
Related research results and facts of indigenous chicken production in and out of Ethiopia were
reviewed with the aim of delivering information to the improved production and for the breeding plan of
a country. The study revealed that the common production system used was mostly extensive type that
is characterized by small flock sizes; it needs no or less inputs and a periodic devastation of the flock
by diseases. Sharing the house with the family is their housing methods and scavenging is also almost
the only source of diets with no planned breeding. Some indigenous chicken groups of a country were
characterized and the names of the flocks are mostly designated from their niche areas. The study also
showed that there are large variations in plumage colors, comb types and shank types of the
indigenous birds. Social cultures and believes of most of the community have been highly attached
and attracted by these morphological variations of birds. Consequently, birds endowed with red or
white plumage colors combined with pea shaped comb-types have always 15 to 35% exceeded price
values at marketing, than those with similar age birds that endowed neither of the aforementioned
combinations. The micro-satellites of indigenous chicken population were highly polymorphic.
However, there is a minimum generation response for selection. As a conclusion, breeding and
improved production programs to the local chickens should also incorporate the production objectives
and trait preferences of the society. Moreover, the direct implication of the diversified phenotypic
appearances of local chickens indicates the genetic potential for improvement. Hence, this huge gene
pool should be protected from genetic erosion and be used for improvement through traditional
selections together with genomic technology.
Key words: Indigenous chickens, ecotypes, review, morphological variations, traits, production parameters,
systems.
INTRODUCTION
Poultry is by far the largest group of livestock (FAO,
2000a) species contributing about 30% (Permin and
Pedersen, 2000) of all animal protein consumed in the
world. From the total poultry population, chicken species
constituted around 98% in Africa (Gueye, 2003) and
almost 100% in Ethiopia (Alemu, 1995). Moreover,
indigenous chickens are widely distributed in the rural
areas of the tropics and sub-tropical countries where they
are kept by the majority of the rural poor. Despite the
introduction of exotic and crossbred types of chickens
deep into rural areas, their productivity, even existence is
*Corresponding author. E-mail: mammo21@fastmail.fm or
leulmammo@yahoo.com.
under question.
Poultry production in most tropical countries is based
mainly on scavenging production systems. Since
indigenous chickens in Africa are hardy, they can adapt
to rural environments and survive on little or no inputs.
They can adjust themselves to the fluctuations in feed
availability; thus, such ecotypes remain predominant in
African villages (Kitalyi, 1998). Thus, they are a potential
source of hardiness genes or traits that should be
conserved for future use. Such importance of indigenous
poultry breeds for subsistence farmers in many
developing countries combined with many consumers’
preference for their eggs and meat suggests that these
genetic resources are not under immediate threats.
However, gradual erosion of the genetic integrity of the

stock, through cross-breeding and upgrading program
is a cause for concern.
Despite the low productivity of local birds, smallholder
poultry production with unimproved stock and with low
inputs of locally available resources can be the most
appropriate production systems. The low productivity of
local chickens is mainly attributed by the low genetic
potential, feed (quantity and quality) problems and
diseases in the Tropics (Yongolo, 1996; Alexander, 2001;
Hunduma et al., 2010). Importantly, women and children
are generally in charge of poultry husbandry (Mammo,
2006). Local chicken is a source of self-reliance for
women, since poultry and egg sales are decided by
women (Aklilu, 2007) and chicken provide women with an
immediate income to meet household expenses such as
food. Moreover, poultry are used for strengthening
marriage partnerships and social relationships of the
society.
Reduction of the sizes of village flock numbers in both
households as well as national level may be attributed by
limited availability of scavenging feed sources that is
currently aggravated by reduced land sizes of the
backyards areas of Ethiopians. Thus, FAO (2008)
reported that Ethiopian poultry population has declined by
64% over the last 50 years, while the average number of
chickens per household has declined by 37% over the
last 20 years. And yet, CSA (2004, 2005) reported that
about 98% of the total national poultry population
consists of indigenous chickens sharing about 60% of the
total chicken population of East Africa (Mekonnen et al.,
1991).
Local chickens in Ethiopia have been contributing a lot
to increase food production and income for rural
communities of a country. Indigenous chickens have
special importance to the local community of a country
and are a good gene pool for the genetic improvements
of a chicken species. Moreover, McAinsh et al. (2004)
reported that indigenous chickens are not classified into
specific breeds; rather they are heterogeneous in
phenotype and probably also in genotype. Gueye (1998)
also stated that those native chickens reported as breeds
in Africa are just phenotypic descriptions. Multiple
variants of plumage colors and other physical features
are common to indigenous chickens of Ethiopia that
directly influences the market values of matured birds.
On the other hand, giving less attention to local
chickens, but adopting a fashion of importation and use
of improved chicken breeds from developed countries will
treat such indigenous chickens.
Improving the productivity of village chicken through
breeding and improved managements will result in
increasing opportunities of equitable distribution of food
and income for the households of rural areas of Ethiopia.
Therefore, reviewing the research results and the best
practices of local chicken productions in a country will
enable the delivering of good information that will also be
helpful for the future planning of the strategic breeding
programs, and generally for improved indigenous chicken
Mengesha and Tsega 5399
production projects of a country. Based on this outlined
background, the Objective of this paper was to review the
research findings of the indigenous chicken productions,
and thereby to deliver information for breeding and
improved village chicken production programs.
METHODOLOGY
Most of the research findings that have relation with indigenous
chickens in Ethiopia and some related issues fr om other countries
were reviewed. Reports of research findings that focused on
characterization of indigenous chickens were reviewed based on
their production systems on which birds were reared at times of the
original data collections. Findings of phenotypic characteristics of
indigenous chicken and their distribution rates were also reviewed,
depicted and sourced. Moreover, research findings on genetics of
indigenous chickens that have been reported by various scholars
were also reviewed and synthesized.
OUTLINED DESCRIPTION OF INDIGENOUS
CHICKENS
Indigenous chickens in Ethiopian are not exhaustively
described breeds, but are closely related to the jungle
fowl and are found in every corner of the country. They
vary in color, comb type, body conformation and weights
and may or may not possess shank feathers. In most of
the native flocks, broodiness (maternal instinct) is
pronounced. They are characterized by slow growth, late
maturity and low production performances. The mean
annual egg production of indigenous chickens is
estimated as around 60 small eggs with thick shells and a
deep yellow yolk color (Yami and Dessie, 1997).
The productivity of local scavenging chicken is low with
high mortality of chicks. Duration of brooding time of a
hen is wider with many cycles per a year. Moreover, the
low productivity of indigenous stocks partially, is attri-
buted to the low management standard of the traditional
production systems. However, provision of vaccination,
improved feeding, clean water and night time enclosure
relatively improves the production performance of
indigenous chickens.
QUALITATIVE (PHENOTYPIC) TRAITS OF LOCAL
CHICKENS
The reviewed data of phenotypic appearances and some
genetics of indigenous chicken populations, including
distribution rates were collected and depicted to contain
their parallel reference sources in Table 1. There are
large variations in morphological appearances, confor-
mation and body weights. Broodiness (maternal instinct)
is pronounced for indigenous chickens in Ethiopia.
These large variations in plumage color, comb types and
shank (feathers and colors) for indigenous chickens may
be basically attributed by geographical situation of a
country; isolation, natural and artificial selections. As a
result, some indigenous chicken groups were characterized

5400 Afr. J. Agric. Res.
Table 1. Morphologic al characteristics of indigenous chickens.
Characteristics Descriptions (distribution rates of the traits in the flocks (population) %) Rearing system Sources of references
Plumage colors Red White Black Others
15 18 7 16 (brown),15 (golden) Scavenging Nigussie et al. (2010a) (n=1125)
18.33 28.33 33.3 11.67 Intensive Faruq et al. (2010b) (n=60)
- 7.78 32.22 26.67 (Mottled) Intensive Egahi et al. (2010) (n=90)
28 30 8 - Scavenging Bogale (2008 )(n=50)
16.44 25.49 7.79 22.23 (grayish) Intensive Halima (2007) (n=300)
20 18.8 13.9 18.9 (red brown) Duguma (2006)
Comb shapes Single Pea Rose Others
13 53 16 13 (duplex) Scavenging Nigussie et al. (2010a) (n=1125)
26 24 50 - Scavenging Bogale ( 2008) (n=50)
13.34 50.72 16.6 13.37 (v-shape) Intensive Halima (2007) (n=300)
100 - - - Intensive Faruq et al. (2010b) (n=60)
43.33 23.33 17.78 15.56 (Walnut) Intensive Egahi et al. (2010 )(n=90)
Head shape types Plain Crest Flat Other
14 86 - - Scavenging Bogale (2008) (n=50)
48.82 51.18 - - Intensive Halima (2007) (n=300)
82.22 17.78 - - Egahi et al. (2010) (n=90)
Ear lob colors White Red White and red Yellow
40 52 - 8 Scavenging Nigussie et al. (2010a) (n=1125)
68.33 1.67 20 6.67 Intensive Faruq et al. (2010b) (n=60)
73.02 20.63 - - Intensive Egahi et al. (2010) (n=90)
26 - 74 - Scavinging Bogale (2008) (n=50)
Feathers on the neck Present Absent - -
98 2 - - Scavenging Nigussie et al. (2010b) (n=1125)
100 - - - Scavenging Bogale (2008) (n=50)
Shank feathers Absent Present - -
100 - - - Scavenging Bogale (2008) (n=50)
97.52 2.48 - - Halima (2007) (n=300)
100 - - - Intensive Faruq et al. (2010b) (n=60)
Shank colors White Black Greenish Yellow
28 12 - 60 Scavenging Nigussie et al. (2010b) (n=1125)
28 12 60 Scavenging Bogale (2008)(n=50)

Mengesha and Tsega 5401
Table 1. Contd.
13.99 9.61 11.98 64.42 Intensive Halima (2007) (n=300)
35 11.6 21 31 Intensive Faruq et al. (2010b) (n=60)
38.89 42.22 - 18.89 Intensive Egahi et al. (2010) (n=90)
Comb colors Red Brown Pale Others
55.00 35 10 - Intensive Faruq et al. (2010)(n=60)
Egg shell colors White Brown Cream Light brown
62.42 7.30 30.28 - Intensive Faruq et al. (2010b )(n=60)
-- - 34 43 intensive Halima (2007) (n=300)
Color of skin White Yellow - Others
48 52 - - Scavenging Nigussie et al. (2010b) (n=1125)
n= Number of the sample populations.
and the names are mostly designated from their
niche areas. Generally, Tadelle (2003) and
Halima (2007) reported that the names of the
indigenous chicken groups were being called as
chicken-ecotypes and native-chickens, respect-
tively. Some of the characterized and designated
chicken ecotypes (native chickens) of Ethiopia by
the same authors were: Tilili, Horro, Jarso, Tepi,
Gelila, Debre-Elias, Melo-Hamusit, Gassay/Farta,
Guangua and Mecha. On the other hand, other
scholars reported that the names of indigenous
chicken designated based on their plumage colors
like for instances: Tikur (black), Nech (white), Key
(Red) and extra in the country.
Moreover, such morphological variations may
also be due to the v ariations of qualitative genes
in the indigenous chicken gene pool of a flock.
Similarly, different scholars agreed that every
qualitative trait of an animal is affected by a single
gene. Consequently, plumage colors of
indigenous chicken of Ethiopia are diversified.
Commonly observed plumage colors of
indigenous chickens are: red, white, black,
multicolor, black with red strips, white with red
strips and red-brownish.
In addition to plumage colors, morphological
appearance variations between and within
indigenous chicken ecotypes (native chickens) of
Ethiopia is also expressed by comb types, shank
types and other qualitative traits variations. The
most common comb-types of indigenous chicken
are: rose, pea, walnut/strawberry, single and V-
shape. Shank types of indigenous chicken are
also expressed as presences and absences of
feather on the shank, and it can also be
differentiated on its colors.
Despite the fact that these qualitative traits have
less economic values for the other segment of the
society, social cultures and believes of most of the
rural community of Ethiopia have been highly
attracted by these variations in plumage colors,
comb types and shanks of indigenous chickens.
Consequently, such qualitative trait variations
have also been affecting the market values of
chickens. Study reports from different parts of
Ethiopia (Mammo et al., 2008; Bogale, 2008;
Fisseha, 2009) revealed that the influences of
morphological appearances, particularly plumage
color and comb types are significantly important
for price variations of the marketable birds of
various chicken-ecotypes. The same authors
reported that those marketable matured birds
(both male and female) endowed with red or white
plumage colors containing pea shaped comb-
types have always 15 to 35% exceeded price
values than those similarly matured birds but
endowed with neither of the combinations of such
qualitative traits. On the other hand, both
producer–sellers and intermediary traders
attached less preference for naked neck chickens,
if at all by the society in a country.
A study that has wider area coverage was
conducted by Nigussie et al. (2010a) in Ethiopia,
focusing on production objectives and trait
preferences of village poultry producers. This
author reported that morphologic traits, such as
plumage color and comb type were also found to
have significant economic values beside other
quantitative traits. The same authors added that

5402 Afr. J. Agric. Res.
Table 2. Genetic variations of indigenous chickens.
Parameter Mean values Sources of references
Number of alleles per chicken populations
5.59 Halima (2007)
5.80 Youssao et al. (2010)
1.65 Al-Atiyat (2010)
7.86+5.19 Ajayi (2010)
Heritability estimates of body weight Ranged between 0.43 to 0.30 Ajayi (2010)
Genetic similarity coefficient between chicken groups Ranged between 0.635 to 0.860 Yushi et al. (2008)( n=260)
Heterozygosity value of indigenous chickens
0.16 (observed) and 0.08 expected) Halima (2007)
0.55 (observed) and 0.55 (expected) Youssao et al. (2010)
0.58 (observed) and 0.39 (expected Al-Atiyat (2010)
Polymorphic information content (PIC) for the 7 chicken populations 0. 69 Halima ( 2007)
Genotypes (feathering of birds)
Sperm motility rates (%)
Normal Naked neck Frizzle Oke and Ihemeson (2010)
(n=54; at the age of 20 weeks)
77.90 77.90 52.50
Haematological variations
Normal Naked neck Frizzle
Peters et al. (2011)( n=60)
highest
mean values
Less mean
values
Less mean
values
n= Number of the sample populations.
plumage color followed by comb type is only
second in importance to live weight in affecting
market preference of chickens; moreover, in
Northern Ethiopia both producer–sellers and
intermediary traders attached the highest pre-
ference for plumage colors.
Halima (2007) reported that there is relatively
high genetic variation between groups of
indigenous chickens as indicated by the high
heterozygosity values in Ethiopia. Consequently,
this also suggests that the Ethiopian indigenous
chicken resources are not still highly diluted by
exotic breeds. Similarly, Ajayi (2010) reported that
heritability estimates of body weight of Nigerian
indigenous chicken possess dual potential to be
selected as meat type or egg-type bird, and also
Peters et al. (2011) reported that sufficient genetic
variation is existed for haematological parameters
in the native chickens of a country that may
represent indicator traits for further study. The
same author suggested the application of mole-
cular tools will provide better understanding and
application of these genetic differences. However,
Youssao et al. (2010) from Benin reported that
although indigenous chicken populations did not
show differences on the basis of molecular
polymorphism, they exhibited marked differences
in body weight. All reviewed data of indigenous
chicken on genetics of indigenous chicken are
shown in Table 2.
Various scholars reported that indigenous
chicken have immuno-competence and these
traits will also help for traditional selection.
Likewise to this, Msoffe et al. (2002, 2006) repor-
ted that free-ranging local chicken ecotypes in
Tanzania differ in both productivity and

selectable disease resistance potential to non-specific
host immune responses, although further study is
required.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Population number of indigenous otherwise native
chickens in Ethiopia is declining. On the other hand,
chicken is the only species that are expected to be found
in every poor household that is serving an income
sources. Therefore, emphasis should be given to
balancing the indigenous chicken population number
dynamism from the research and development bodies.
Ethiopia has diversified agro-ecologies, and that may
attribute for the presences of diversified phenotypic
appearances of local chickens. Communities from
different parts of a county have been attaching their
social believes and life-safeness with the morphological
characteristics of indigenous chickens that are used at
home. Such believes of the society on the morphological
appearances of birds are creating influences on the
market values of matured chickens. Thus, any breeding
and improved production programs of local chickens
should therefore incorporate the production objectives
and trait preferences of the society. Moreover, different
scholars indicated that the presences of diversified
phenotypic appearances of local chickens showed the
genetic potential for improvement. Moreover, indigenous
chicken have immuno-competence and these traits will
also help for traditional selection. Hence, these huge
gene pool should be protected from genetic erosion and
apply improvement through traditional selection together
with genomics technology.
REFERENCES
Aklilu HM (2007). Village poultry in Ethiopia; socio-technical analysis
and learning with farmers. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University,
Wageningen, the Netherlands.
Ajayi FO (2010). Nigerian indigenous c hicken: A valuable genetic
resource for meat and egg production. Asian J. Poult. Sci., 4: 164-
172. http://scialert.net/abstract/?doi=ajpsaj.2010.164.172
Al-Atiyat R (2010). Genetic diversity of indigenous chicken ecotypes in
Jordan. Afri. J. Biotechnol., 9(41): 7014-7019.
http://www.academicjournals.org/AJB. ISSN 1684–5315 © 2010
Academic Journals.
Alemu Y (1995). Poultry production in Ethiopia. W orld’s poultry sci. j.,
51: 197-201.
Alexander DJ (2001). Newcastle disease. British Poultry Science 42(1):
5-22
Bogale K (2008). In Situ Characterization of Local Chicken Eco-Type for
Functional Traits and Production System in Fogera W oreda, Amhara
Rgional State. A Thesis Submitted To Haramaya University-Ethiopia.
pp. 123.
Central Agricultural Census Commission (CSA) (2004-2005). Statistical
report on farm management practices, livestock and farm
managements. Central Statistic al Authority report of 2004- 2005, Vol.
II, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Duguma R (2006). Phenotypic characterization of some indigenous
chicken ecotypes of Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural
Development. Volume 18, Article #131. Retrieved November 24,
2010, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd18/9/dugu18131.htm.
Mengesha and Tsega 5403
Egahi JO, Dim N, Momoh I, Gwaza DS (2010). Variations in Qualitative
Traits in the Nigerian Local Chicken. International Journal of Poultry
Science 9 (10): 978-979, 2010: ISSN 1682-8356. University of
Agriculture, Makurdi, Nigeria.
FAO (2008). A nimal Production and Health Division, Emergency
Centre for Transboundary Animal Diseases Socio Economics,
Production and Biodiversity Unit: Poultry Sector Country Review.
HPAI Prevention and Control Strategies in Eastern Africa, the
Structure, Marketing and Importance of the Commercial and Village
Poultry Industry: an Analysis of the Poultry Sector in Ethiopia. Food
and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rom, Italy.
FAO (2000a). FAOSTAT. Statistical database of Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome., Italy.
Faruq S, Afrozp MA, Islamp MS (2010b). phenotypic characteristics of
native chicken reared under intensive management system. J.
Bangladesh Agric. Univ., 1: 79-82, 2010 ISSN 1810-3030 .
Bangladesh.
Fisseha M (2009). Studies on Production and Marketing Systems of
Local Chicken Ecotypes in Bure W oreda, North-West Amhara. M.Sc.
Thesis Submitted To Hawassa University, Ethiopia, p. 185.
Gueye EF (2003). Production and consumption trends in Africa. World
Poult., 19(11): 12-14.
Gueye EF, Ndiaye A, Branckaert RDS (1998). Prediction of body weight
on the basis of body measurements in mature indigenous chickens in
Senegal. Livest. Res. Rural Dev., 10(3)
http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd10/3/sene103.htm
Halima H (2007). Phenotypic and Genetic Characterization of
Indigenous Chicken P opulations in Northwest Ethiopia. PhD Thesis;
University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa, p. 186.
Hunduma D, Regassa C, Fufa D, Endale B, Samson L (2010a). Major
constraints and Health Management of Village Poultry Production in
Rift Valley of Oromia, Ethiopia. American-Eurasian J. Agric. Environ.
Sci., 9(5): 529-533, 2010. ISSN 1818-6769.
Kitalyi AJ (1998). Village chicken production s ystems in rural Africa.
House-holds food and gender issues. Animal Production and Health
paper 142, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations:
Rome Italy, 81pp.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w8989e/w8989e00.htm
Mammo M, Berhan T, Tadelle D (2008a). Village C hicken
Characteristics and Their Seasonal Production Situation in Jamma
District, South Wollo, Ethiopia. Livest. Res. Rural Dev., pp. 20-128.
Mammo M (2006). S urvey on village c hicken production under
traditional management system in Jimma W oreda, South W ollo,
Ethiopia. A Thesis submitted to Haramaya University, Graduate
School of Studies, p. 109
Mcainsh CV, Kusina J, Madsen J, Nyoni O (2004). Traditional chicken
production in Zimbabwe. W orld's Poult. Sci. J., 60: 233-246
Mekonnen G, Teketel F, Alemu G, Dagnatchew Z, Anteneh A (1991).
The Ethiopian Livestock Industry: Retrospect and prospects. Proc.3rd
National Livest. Improvement Conference, Institute of Agricultural
Research, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Msoffe PL, Mtambo MMMA, Minga UM, Gwakisa PS, Mdegela RH,
Olsen JE (2006). Differences in resistance to Salmonella enterica
serovar Gallinarum infection among indigenous local chicken
ecotypes in T anzania. Avian Pathology. J. Avian Pathol., 35: 270-
276.
Msoffe PL, Mtambo MMMA, Minga UM, Gwakis a PS, Mdegela RH,
Olsen JE (2002). Productivity and Natural Disease Resistance
Potential of Free-ranging Local Chicken Ecotypes in Tanzania.
Livest. Res. Rural Dev., 14(3) 2002.
http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd14/3/msof143.htm
Nigussie D, Liesbeth H, van der W, Tadelle D, J ohan AM, van A
(2010a). Production objectives and trait preferences of village poultry
producers of Ethiopia: implications for designing breeding schemes
utilizing indigenous chicken genetic resources. 2010 October. Trop.
Anim. Health Prod., 42(7): 1519-1529.
Nigussie D, T adelle D, Liesbeth H, van der W, Johan AM, van A
(2010b). Morphological features of indigenous chicken populations of
Ethiopia. Animal Genetic Resources, 2010. Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, 46: 11-23.
Permin A, Pedersen G (2000). Problems related to poultry production at
village level. Possibilities. Proc. of smallholder poultry projects in

5404 Afr. J. Agric. Res.
Eastern and Southern Africa, 22-25; May 2000, Morogoro, Tanzania.
Peters S, Gunn H, Imumorin I, Agaviezor B, Ikeobi C (2011).
Haematological studies on frizzled and naked neck genotypes of
Nigerian native chickens. Publisher: S pringer. Trop. Anim. Health
Prod., 43(3): 631-638(8).
Tadelle D (2003). Phenotypic and genetic characterization of chicken
ecotypes in Ethiopia. Ph.D. Thesis, Humboldt University of Berlin,
Germany, pp. 144-152.
Yami A, Dessie T (1997). The Status of Poultry Research and
Development in Ethiopia. In: Fifth National C onference of Ethiopian
Society of Animal Production (ESA P), 15-17 May 1997, Addis Ababa
Ethiopia, pp. 40-60.
Yongolo MGS (1996). Epidemiology of Newcastle disease in village
chickens in Tanzania. MVM Thesis, Sokoine University of Agriculture,
Tanzania, p. 234.
Youssao IAK, Tobada1 PC, Koutinhouin BG, Dahouda2 M, Idrissou ND,
Bonou GA, Tougan1 UP, Ahounou S, Yapi-Gnaoré V, Kayang B,
Rognon X, Tixier-Boichard M (2010). Phenotypic characterisation and
molecular polymorphism of indigenous poultry populations of the
species Gallus gallus of Savannah and Forest ecotypes of Benin. Afr.
J. Biotechnol., 9(3): 369-381: ISSN 1684–5315.
http://www.academicjournals.org/AJB.