Characterization of Husbandry Practices, Adoption and Impact of Village Poultry Technology Packages In the Central Oromia Region, Ethiopia
| dc.contributor.advisor | Tamir, Berhan (Professor) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Tekletsadik, Ermias | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2018-06-28T08:15:22Z | |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2023-11-08T11:32:55Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2018-06-28T08:15:22Z | |
| dc.date.available | 2023-11-08T11:32:55Z | |
| dc.date.issued | 2015-12 | |
| dc.description.abstract | This study was conducted in three selected agro-ecologies to characterize the husbandry practices, adoption and impact of village poultry technology packages in the central Oromia Region, Ethiopia. Using multi-stage random sampling method, 180 technology participants were selected. Structured questionnaire, field observations and focus group discussions were employed to collect quantitative and qualitative information. Chemical composition of feed samples was analyzed using proximate analysis. Descriptive statistics was used to evaluate the husbandry practices of the technology. Binary logistic regression was employed to assess the determinant factors of technology adoption. Ranked variables were analyzed using NPAR1WAY Wilcoxon procedures. Logit model propensity score matching procedures was used to assess the impact of the technology. Scavenging chicken production system with some feed supplement was dominantly practiced by technology participants. Overall about 44.6%, 38.7% and 16.7% local, exotic and crossbred chicken breeds were kept in the production systems, respectively. A mean of 17.8(2.50), 13.4(2.17) and 11.2(1.25) chicken were owned per household in the highland, mid-altitude and lowland agro-ecologies, respectively. Most of the respondents (65.6%) practiced crossbreeding of these 59.4% conducted uncontrolled breeding. The supplement feeds had very good CP and ME contents but home mixed ration I had lower CP content. About ½ of the respondents constructed separate chicken house. However, during housing, 68.3% didn’t consider the space requirements of the chicken. Newcastle disease was the major challenging and killing disease in the study areas. Respondents received a mean of 4.7(0.80) pullets with cockerel and 10.1(1.25) pullets for the technology but their demands were xx 64.0(6.11) and 97.9(16.27) pullets with cockerels and only pullets, respectively. Technology inputs dissemination was not well organized. Improved chicken breed adoption was better as compared to other technology elements. Respondents residing in the mid-altitude agro-ecology were better adopters of improved chicken feeds and feeding, housing, healthcare and water provision. Bovan Brown chicken breed adoption was higher (26.1%) than other chicken breeds. The adoption of pullets with cockerels technology form was higher (22.2%) than the rest forms. The overall adoption status of the technology was 39.4%. The adoption level of the technology was categorized as low level. The overall technology adoption was significantly influenced by extension (P<0.001), healthcare (P<0.05) and training (P<0.001) services. The distance of veterinary clinics, unavailability of appropriate chicken feeding and watering equipment were the major limitations that negatively influenced the technology adoption. More of the covariates included in the model less likely influenced the probability of adoption. Adopters significantly (P<0.001) benefited from the technology by 68.5% and could produce 101 more eggs/layer/year, consumed 18 more eggs/household/year and got 168.65 Birr more income/layer/year as compared to non-adopters. In conclusion, to improve the husbandry practices of the technology package, more focus should be given to mothers. To improve the adoption status of the technology, technology inputs distribution should be well organized and more efforts are needed from concerned organizations, professionals and farmers. To increase the farmers’ decision of technology adoption, more attention should be given to inputs supply, extension, healthcare and training services. Moreover, technical, financial, managerial and market supports are majorly needed. Keywords: Adoption; Agro-ecology; Determinants of adoption; Husbandry practices; Impact of the technology; Village poultry package | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://etd.aau.edu.et/handle/123456789/4527 | |
| dc.language.iso | en | en_US |
| dc.publisher | Addis Ababauniversity | en_US |
| dc.subject | Adoption | en_US |
| dc.subject | Agro-ecology | en_US |
| dc.subject | Determinants of adoption | en_US |
| dc.subject | Husbandry practices | en_US |
| dc.subject | Impact ofthe technology | en_US |
| dc.subject | Village poultry package | en_US |
| dc.title | Characterization of Husbandry Practices, Adoption and Impact of Village Poultry Technology Packages In the Central Oromia Region, Ethiopia | en_US |
| dc.type | Thesis | en_US |