Comparison of Economic Feasibility of Different Chicken Genotypes Under On-Station Condition

Misba Alewi Abdu; Atsbaha Hailemariam Gebreslassie

doi:doi:10.11648/j.ijsqa.20241001.11

Research Article |

| Peer-Reviewed

Comparison of Economic Feasibility of Different Chicken Genotypes Under On-Station Condition

Misba Alewi Abdu^*

, Atsbaha Hailemariam Gebreslassie

Published in International Journal of Science and Qualitative Analysis (Volume 10, Issue 1)

Received: 2 April 2024 Accepted: 23 April 2024 Published: 10 May 2024

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

The main objective of this study was to compare the economic feasibility of Cosmopolitan (C), Improved Horro (H), ♂Improved Horro*Cosmopolitan♀ (HC), and ♂Cosmopolitan*Improved Horro♀ (CH) in reference to Indigenous (L) and Koekoek (KK) genotypes. The study employed a completely randomized design, with a total of 180 samples (36/genotype) for egg sales, 54 samples (9/genotype) for live bird sales, and 36 samples (6/genotype) for meat sales. Each genotype's eggs, live birds, and meat sales were triplicate. All data were analyzed using the GLM model in SAS Software. At 8–24weeks, KK had the highest feed intake (AFI8–24) compared to HC, CH, and C; nevertheless, L had the lowest next to H. At 8–52 weeks, KK, CH, and HC hens had the highest feed intake (AFI8–52), whereas L, H and C hens had the lowest. L had the lowest meat yield (MYD) next to H, but the KK had the highest between 8 and 24 weeks followed by the HC, CH, and C. Live genotypes and meats sales showed that KK had the highest costs (TC1) and meat sales (TC2) followed by HC, CH and C, but the lowest for H and L. KK had the lowest total live sale return (TR1), whereas H had the highest followed by L, CH, HC, and C.L had the lowest total meat sale return (TR2), while KK had the highest followed by HC, CH, C, and H.L hen had the lowest total egg sale return (TR3) followed by C, while the highest was achieved by CH hen followed by H, KK and HC.H had the highest live net return (NR1) followed by L, CH, C, and HC, while KK had the lowest. Meat net return (NR2) was the lowest for L and the highest for KK followed by HC, CH, C, and H. H had the highest net return of egg sales (NR3) followed by CH, C, KK, and HC, but L had negatively least. H registered the highest cost-benefit ratio (TR1/TC1vs.TR3/TC3) compared to other genotypes (live chicken and eggs). KK showed the highest cost-benefit ratio (TR2/TC2) followed by HC, CH, C and H, whereas L had the lowest for meat. In conclusion, the net return and cost-benefit ratio for live genotypes, meats and eggs were notably positive and feasible except L had (for egg case) negative net return and cost-benefit ratio.

Published in	International Journal of Science and Qualitative Analysis (Volume 10, Issue 1)
DOI	10.11648/j.ijsqa.20241001.11
Page(s)	1-9
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2024. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Genotype, Chicken, Cost-Benefit Ratio, Return, Feasibility

References

[1]	Afolami, C. A., Aladejebi, O. J., & Okojie, L. O. (2013). Analysis of profitability and constraints in poultry egg farming under battery cage and deep litter systems in Ogun State, Nigeria: a comparative study. IJAFS, 4(2013), 20.
[2]	Alabi, A., & Aruna, B. (2005). Technical efficiency of family poultry production in Niger-Delta, Nigeria. Journal of Central European Agriculture.
[3]	Amalia, F. R., Daryanto, A., & Rujito, H. (2015). Comparative feasibility analysis of modern and traditional system of broiler chicken farm business. Indonesian Journal of Business and Entrepreneurship (IJBE), 1(2), 90-90.
[4]	Arega, H., Alemu, F., Getnet, M., & Abiyu, Y. (2021). Performance of Cobb500 Broilers under On-station Management at Pawe. Livestock Research Results, 841.
[5]	Desalew, T., 2012. Management practices, productive performances and egg quality traits of exotic chickens under village production system in east Shewa, Ethiopia. M.Sc Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Debre Zeit, Ethiopia.
[6]	Assefa, S., Melesse, A. and Banerjee, S. (2019) Egg Production and Egg Quality Traits of Local and Exotic Chicken Breeds Reared in Two Agroecologies under Traditional Management System. Research Journal of Food and Nutrition, 3, 11-17.
[7]	Ayinde, I. A., Ibrahim, S. B., & Arowolo, S. O. (2012). Economics of poultry egg production under two management systems in Ogun State, Nigeria. Nigerian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 3(1), 40-49.
[8]	Bedru, B. A. (2021). Comparative performance evaluation of local and tropical adapted exotic breeds of chickens in Ethiopia. Doctoral Dissertation, Haramaya University, Ethiopia.
[9]	Begum, I. A., Buysse, J., Alam, M. J., & Van Huylenbroeck, G. (2010). Technical, allocative and economic efficiency of commercial poultry farms in Bangladesh. World's Poultry Science Journal, 66(3), 465-476.
[10]	Belewu, K. Y., Ibrahim, H. K., Ajibade, B. T., & Adewusi, O. G. (2019). The cost benefit analysis of incorporating fungus treated Castor seed cake (FTCSC) (Ricinuscommunis) in the diet of (WAD) GOAT.
[11]	CSA (Central Statistical Agency). 2020/21. Report on Livestock and Livestock Characteristics (Private Peasant Holdings), Agricultural Sample Survey, Volume II Statistical Bulletin 587. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
[12]	Das, P. K., Ghosh, P. R., Pradhan, S., Roy, B., & Mazumdar, D. (2014). Benefit cost analysis of Rhode Island Red chicken rearing in backyard on the basis of egg production performance.
[13]	Dawud, I. Y. 2019. Comparative study of production and reproductive performance of parent stock and commercial layer chickens under different management conditions in Ethiopia. Doctoral Dissertations, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Science Journal, 10(1), 35-44.
[14]	Dutta, R. K., Islam, M. S., & Kabir, A. (2012). Assessment of the production performance and economic efficiencies of available chicken breeds (Gallus domesticus L.) in Rajshahi, Bangladesh. Univ. J. Zool. Rajshahi Univ, 31, 13-18.
[15]	FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 2019. Poultry Sector Ethiopia. FAO Animal Production and Health Livestock Country Reviews. No. 11. Rome. Italy.
[16]	Gafar, E. G., Abdo, S. G., Mahrous, M. Y., & Kamal, M. A. (2022). Effect of strain and sex on productive performance and carcass traits in some broiler chickens. Archives of Agriculture Sciences Journal, 5(1), 77-87.
[17]	Getnet, Z., Mengistu, U., Getachew, A., Wondmeneh, E., Tadelle, D. (2022) Comparative growth performance and carcass characteristics of guinea fowl (Numida meleagris) and three chicken genotypes. Ethiop. J. Sci. & Technol. 15(1): 81-99.
[18]	Hailemariam, A., Esatu, W., Abegaz, S., Urge, M., Assefa, G., & Dessie, T. (2022). Effect of genotype and sex on breast meat quality characteristics of different chickens. Journal of Agriculture and Food Research, 10, 100423.
[19]	Halima, H., Neser, F. W. C., van Marle-Koster, E., & De Kock, A. (2007). Phenotypic variation of native chicken populations in northwest Ethiopia. Tropical animal health and production, 39, 507-513.
[20]	Hassen, H., Neser, F. W. C., De Kock, A., & van Marle-Köster, E. (2009). Study on the genetic diversity of native chickens in northwest Ethiopia using microsatellite markers. African journal of Biotechnology, 8(7).
[21]	Islam, R., Nath, P., Bharali, A., & Borah, R. (2015). Analysis of benefit-cost (B: C) ratio of Vanaraja and local chicken of Assam under backyard system of rearing. Journal of Research in Agriculture and Animal Science, 3(7), 7-10.
[22]	Müller, S. K. (2018). Meat and egg production with dual-purpose poultry: biological background, feed requirements and efficiency, meat and egg quality (Doctoral dissertation, ETH Zurich).
[23]	Setiasih, S., Abdurrahman, A. M., Hermanto, C., & Saeri, M. (2021). Type and Feasibility of Agribusiness of Kub Chicken Household Scale. In E3S Web of Conferences (Vol. 316, p. 01003). EDP Sciences.
[24]	Sheikh, I. U., Kalita, N., & Mahanta, J. D. (2018). Economic analysis of indigenous, Vanaraja, and crossbred (PB2x Indigenous) chickens under intensive system of rearing.
[25]	Stinckens, A., Vereijken, A., Ons, E., Konings, P., Van As, P., Cuppens, H., & Cassiman, J. I. (2015). Art meets science: The Cosmopolitan Chicken Research Project. Facts, views & vision in ObGyn, 7(3), 163.
[26]	Wondmeneh, E. W. 2015. Genetic improvement in indigenous chicken of Ethiopia. Genetic improvement in indigenous chicken of Ethiopia.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Abdu, M. A., Gebreslassie, A. H. (2024). Comparison of Economic Feasibility of Different Chicken Genotypes Under On-Station Condition. International Journal of Science and Qualitative Analysis, 10(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsqa.20241001.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Abdu, M. A.; Gebreslassie, A. H. Comparison of Economic Feasibility of Different Chicken Genotypes Under On-Station Condition. Int. J. Sci. Qual. Anal. 2024, 10(1), 1-9. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsqa.20241001.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Abdu MA, Gebreslassie AH. Comparison of Economic Feasibility of Different Chicken Genotypes Under On-Station Condition. Int J Sci Qual Anal. 2024;10(1):1-9. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsqa.20241001.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijsqa.20241001.11,
  author = {Misba Alewi Abdu and Atsbaha Hailemariam Gebreslassie},
  title = {Comparison of Economic Feasibility of Different Chicken Genotypes Under On-Station Condition
},
  journal = {International Journal of Science and Qualitative Analysis},
  volume = {10},
  number = {1},
  pages = {1-9},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijsqa.20241001.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsqa.20241001.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijsqa.20241001.11},
  abstract = {The main objective of this study was to compare the economic feasibility of Cosmopolitan (C), Improved Horro (H), ♂Improved Horro*Cosmopolitan♀ (HC), and ♂Cosmopolitan*Improved Horro♀ (CH) in reference to Indigenous (L) and Koekoek (KK) genotypes. The study employed a completely randomized design, with a total of 180 samples (36/genotype) for egg sales, 54 samples (9/genotype) for live bird sales, and 36 samples (6/genotype) for meat sales. Each genotype's eggs, live birds, and meat sales were triplicate. All data were analyzed using the GLM model in SAS Software. At 8–24weeks, KK had the highest feed intake (AFI8–24) compared to HC, CH, and C; nevertheless, L had the lowest next to H. At 8–52 weeks, KK, CH, and HC hens had the highest feed intake (AFI8–52), whereas L, H and C hens had the lowest. L had the lowest meat yield (MYD) next to H, but the KK had the highest between 8 and 24 weeks followed by the HC, CH, and C. Live genotypes and meats sales showed that KK had the highest costs (TC1) and meat sales (TC2) followed by HC, CH and C, but the lowest for H and L. KK had the lowest total live sale return (TR1), whereas H had the highest followed by L, CH, HC, and C.L had the lowest total meat sale return (TR2), while KK had the highest followed by HC, CH, C, and H.L hen had the lowest total egg sale return (TR3) followed by C, while the highest was achieved by CH hen followed by H, KK and HC.H had the highest live net return (NR1) followed by L, CH, C, and HC, while KK had the lowest. Meat net return (NR2) was the lowest for L and the highest for KK followed by HC, CH, C, and H. H had the highest net return of egg sales (NR3) followed by CH, C, KK, and HC, but L had negatively least. H registered the highest cost-benefit ratio (TR1/TC1vs.TR3/TC3) compared to other genotypes (live chicken and eggs). KK showed the highest cost-benefit ratio (TR2/TC2) followed by HC, CH, C and H, whereas L had the lowest for meat. In conclusion, the net return and cost-benefit ratio for live genotypes, meats and eggs were notably positive and feasible except L had (for egg case) negative net return and cost-benefit ratio.
},
 year = {2024}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Comparison of Economic Feasibility of Different Chicken Genotypes Under On-Station Condition

AU  - Misba Alewi Abdu
AU  - Atsbaha Hailemariam Gebreslassie
Y1  - 2024/05/10
PY  - 2024
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsqa.20241001.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijsqa.20241001.11
T2  - International Journal of Science and Qualitative Analysis
JF  - International Journal of Science and Qualitative Analysis
JO  - International Journal of Science and Qualitative Analysis
SP  - 1
EP  - 9
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2469-8164
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsqa.20241001.11
AB  - The main objective of this study was to compare the economic feasibility of Cosmopolitan (C), Improved Horro (H), ♂Improved Horro*Cosmopolitan♀ (HC), and ♂Cosmopolitan*Improved Horro♀ (CH) in reference to Indigenous (L) and Koekoek (KK) genotypes. The study employed a completely randomized design, with a total of 180 samples (36/genotype) for egg sales, 54 samples (9/genotype) for live bird sales, and 36 samples (6/genotype) for meat sales. Each genotype's eggs, live birds, and meat sales were triplicate. All data were analyzed using the GLM model in SAS Software. At 8–24weeks, KK had the highest feed intake (AFI8–24) compared to HC, CH, and C; nevertheless, L had the lowest next to H. At 8–52 weeks, KK, CH, and HC hens had the highest feed intake (AFI8–52), whereas L, H and C hens had the lowest. L had the lowest meat yield (MYD) next to H, but the KK had the highest between 8 and 24 weeks followed by the HC, CH, and C. Live genotypes and meats sales showed that KK had the highest costs (TC1) and meat sales (TC2) followed by HC, CH and C, but the lowest for H and L. KK had the lowest total live sale return (TR1), whereas H had the highest followed by L, CH, HC, and C.L had the lowest total meat sale return (TR2), while KK had the highest followed by HC, CH, C, and H.L hen had the lowest total egg sale return (TR3) followed by C, while the highest was achieved by CH hen followed by H, KK and HC.H had the highest live net return (NR1) followed by L, CH, C, and HC, while KK had the lowest. Meat net return (NR2) was the lowest for L and the highest for KK followed by HC, CH, C, and H. H had the highest net return of egg sales (NR3) followed by CH, C, KK, and HC, but L had negatively least. H registered the highest cost-benefit ratio (TR1/TC1vs.TR3/TC3) compared to other genotypes (live chicken and eggs). KK showed the highest cost-benefit ratio (TR2/TC2) followed by HC, CH, C and H, whereas L had the lowest for meat. In conclusion, the net return and cost-benefit ratio for live genotypes, meats and eggs were notably positive and feasible except L had (for egg case) negative net return and cost-benefit ratio.

VL  - 10
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Misba Alewi Abdu

Ethiopia Agricultural Research Institute, Debrezeit Agricultural Research Centre, Bishoftu, Ethiopia

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7851-5731
Atsbaha Hailemariam Gebreslassie

Ethiopia Agricultural Research Institute, Debrezeit Agricultural Research Centre, Bishoftu, Ethiopia

Contact Email

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0297-4733

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Abdu, M. A., Gebreslassie, A. H. (2024). Comparison of Economic Feasibility of Different Chicken Genotypes Under On-Station Condition. International Journal of Science and Qualitative Analysis, 10(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsqa.20241001.11

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Abdu, M. A.; Gebreslassie, A. H. Comparison of Economic Feasibility of Different Chicken Genotypes Under On-Station Condition. Int. J. Sci. Qual. Anal. 2024, 10(1), 1-9. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsqa.20241001.11

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Abdu MA, Gebreslassie AH. Comparison of Economic Feasibility of Different Chicken Genotypes Under On-Station Condition. Int J Sci Qual Anal. 2024;10(1):1-9. doi: 10.11648/j.ijsqa.20241001.11

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.ijsqa.20241001.11,
  author = {Misba Alewi Abdu and Atsbaha Hailemariam Gebreslassie},
  title = {Comparison of Economic Feasibility of Different Chicken Genotypes Under On-Station Condition
},
  journal = {International Journal of Science and Qualitative Analysis},
  volume = {10},
  number = {1},
  pages = {1-9},
  doi = {10.11648/j.ijsqa.20241001.11},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsqa.20241001.11},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.ijsqa.20241001.11},
  abstract = {The main objective of this study was to compare the economic feasibility of Cosmopolitan (C), Improved Horro (H), ♂Improved Horro*Cosmopolitan♀ (HC), and ♂Cosmopolitan*Improved Horro♀ (CH) in reference to Indigenous (L) and Koekoek (KK) genotypes. The study employed a completely randomized design, with a total of 180 samples (36/genotype) for egg sales, 54 samples (9/genotype) for live bird sales, and 36 samples (6/genotype) for meat sales. Each genotype's eggs, live birds, and meat sales were triplicate. All data were analyzed using the GLM model in SAS Software. At 8–24weeks, KK had the highest feed intake (AFI8–24) compared to HC, CH, and C; nevertheless, L had the lowest next to H. At 8–52 weeks, KK, CH, and HC hens had the highest feed intake (AFI8–52), whereas L, H and C hens had the lowest. L had the lowest meat yield (MYD) next to H, but the KK had the highest between 8 and 24 weeks followed by the HC, CH, and C. Live genotypes and meats sales showed that KK had the highest costs (TC1) and meat sales (TC2) followed by HC, CH and C, but the lowest for H and L. KK had the lowest total live sale return (TR1), whereas H had the highest followed by L, CH, HC, and C.L had the lowest total meat sale return (TR2), while KK had the highest followed by HC, CH, C, and H.L hen had the lowest total egg sale return (TR3) followed by C, while the highest was achieved by CH hen followed by H, KK and HC.H had the highest live net return (NR1) followed by L, CH, C, and HC, while KK had the lowest. Meat net return (NR2) was the lowest for L and the highest for KK followed by HC, CH, C, and H. H had the highest net return of egg sales (NR3) followed by CH, C, KK, and HC, but L had negatively least. H registered the highest cost-benefit ratio (TR1/TC1vs.TR3/TC3) compared to other genotypes (live chicken and eggs). KK showed the highest cost-benefit ratio (TR2/TC2) followed by HC, CH, C and H, whereas L had the lowest for meat. In conclusion, the net return and cost-benefit ratio for live genotypes, meats and eggs were notably positive and feasible except L had (for egg case) negative net return and cost-benefit ratio.
},
 year = {2024}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Comparison of Economic Feasibility of Different Chicken Genotypes Under On-Station Condition

AU  - Misba Alewi Abdu
AU  - Atsbaha Hailemariam Gebreslassie
Y1  - 2024/05/10
PY  - 2024
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsqa.20241001.11
DO  - 10.11648/j.ijsqa.20241001.11
T2  - International Journal of Science and Qualitative Analysis
JF  - International Journal of Science and Qualitative Analysis
JO  - International Journal of Science and Qualitative Analysis
SP  - 1
EP  - 9
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2469-8164
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.ijsqa.20241001.11
AB  - The main objective of this study was to compare the economic feasibility of Cosmopolitan (C), Improved Horro (H), ♂Improved Horro*Cosmopolitan♀ (HC), and ♂Cosmopolitan*Improved Horro♀ (CH) in reference to Indigenous (L) and Koekoek (KK) genotypes. The study employed a completely randomized design, with a total of 180 samples (36/genotype) for egg sales, 54 samples (9/genotype) for live bird sales, and 36 samples (6/genotype) for meat sales. Each genotype's eggs, live birds, and meat sales were triplicate. All data were analyzed using the GLM model in SAS Software. At 8–24weeks, KK had the highest feed intake (AFI8–24) compared to HC, CH, and C; nevertheless, L had the lowest next to H. At 8–52 weeks, KK, CH, and HC hens had the highest feed intake (AFI8–52), whereas L, H and C hens had the lowest. L had the lowest meat yield (MYD) next to H, but the KK had the highest between 8 and 24 weeks followed by the HC, CH, and C. Live genotypes and meats sales showed that KK had the highest costs (TC1) and meat sales (TC2) followed by HC, CH and C, but the lowest for H and L. KK had the lowest total live sale return (TR1), whereas H had the highest followed by L, CH, HC, and C.L had the lowest total meat sale return (TR2), while KK had the highest followed by HC, CH, C, and H.L hen had the lowest total egg sale return (TR3) followed by C, while the highest was achieved by CH hen followed by H, KK and HC.H had the highest live net return (NR1) followed by L, CH, C, and HC, while KK had the lowest. Meat net return (NR2) was the lowest for L and the highest for KK followed by HC, CH, C, and H. H had the highest net return of egg sales (NR3) followed by CH, C, KK, and HC, but L had negatively least. H registered the highest cost-benefit ratio (TR1/TC1vs.TR3/TC3) compared to other genotypes (live chicken and eggs). KK showed the highest cost-benefit ratio (TR2/TC2) followed by HC, CH, C and H, whereas L had the lowest for meat. In conclusion, the net return and cost-benefit ratio for live genotypes, meats and eggs were notably positive and feasible except L had (for egg case) negative net return and cost-benefit ratio.

VL  - 10
IS  - 1
ER  -

Copy | Download