Browse

Journals By Subject

Life Sciences, Agriculture & Food
Chemistry
Medicine & Health
Materials Science
Mathematics & Physics
Electrical & Computer Science
Earth, Energy & Environment
Architecture & Civil Engineering
Education
Economics & Management
Humanities & Social Sciences
Multidisciplinary

Books

Publish Conference Abstract Books
Upcoming Conference Abstract Books
Published Conference Abstract Books
Publish Your Books
Upcoming Books
Published Books

Proceedings

Events

Events
Five Types of Conference Publications

Join

Join as Editor-in-Chief
Join as Senior Editor
Join as Editorial Board Member
Join as Associate Editor
Become a Reviewer

Information

For Authors
For Reviewers
For Editors
For Conference Organizers
For Librarians
Article Processing Charges
Special Issue Guidelines
Editorial Process
Manuscript Transfers
Peer Review at SciencePG
Open Access
Copyright and License
Ethical Guidelines
Submit an Article
Research Article | | Peer-Reviewed

Phenotypic Characteristics of Indigenous Chicken in Awi Zone, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia

Ayana Birhanu*,  Mengistie Taye,  Kefyalew Alemayehu
Published in Advances in Applied Sciences (Volume 10, Issue 2)
Received: 29 May 2025     Accepted: 23 June 2025     Published: 15 July 2025
Views:       Downloads:
Download PDF
Abstract

This study aimed to describe the phenotypic characteristics of indigenous chickens in three districts of Awi Zone, Amhara region, Ethiopia. Nine qualitative and 12 quantitative traits from 486 chickens were considered for morphological parameters. The General Linear Model procedures (PROC GLM) of SAS 9.0 software to analyze body measurements, considering factors like agro-ecology, sex, and their interactions. Mean comparisons were conducted using Duncan’s multiple range test, and correlation analysis was applied to examine relationships between quantitative traits. The study revealed that 96.1% of the chickens had feathers, while 3.9% were naked-neck. The most common plumage colors were red (37.7%), white (19.8%), black (10.1%), Gebsema (17.3%), Teterma (8.8%), and multi-colored (6.4%). All measured quantitative traits in the study area showed statistically significant differences (P<0.001) between male and female chickens, with males displaying greater body weights and sizes than females. The average body weight of indigenous chicken was 1.67±0.31 kg for males and 1.47±0.29 kg for females. The overall mean body length was 37.09±1.25 cm, and this did not vary significantly (P>0.05) across different agro-ecological zones. Male chickens had an average body length of 37.37±1.47 cm, compared to 36.95±1.10 cm for females. The study found significant phenotypic variations among indigenous chickens across different agro-ecological zones. It recommends further genetic studies using molecular markers were needed to assess genetic diversity and relationships within these populations.

Published in Advances in Applied Sciences (Volume 10, Issue 2)
DOI 10.11648/j.aas.20251002.12
Page(s) 29-37
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), 2025. Published by Science Publishing Group
Previous article
Keywords

Agro-ecology, Indigenous Chicken, Qualitative, Quantitative Traits

1. Introduction
According to the
[1]
report, Ethiopia's poultry population is approximately 56 million, with indigenous chickens making up 88.2%, while crossbred and exotic breeds account for 5.6% and 6.4%, respectively. Rural communities primarily raise indigenous chickens under a scavenging management system, supported by favorable agro-climatic conditions.
Despite their diversity, indigenous chickens have low productivity, characterized by slow growth, late maturity, small eggs, limited clutch sizes, broodiness, and high chick mortality. To enhance poultry production, the Ethiopian government has introduced exotic breeds, importing egg-laying and dual-purpose commercial chickens to meet the increasing demand for poultry products. However, this has led to continuous gene flow, causing genetic erosion of indigenous chicken breeds. The replacement of native breeds with exotic ones, along with uncontrolled crossbreeding, threatens the survival of certain indigenous chicken breeds, putting them at risk of extinction, especially on small-scale farms
[2]
.
Characterization is the foundational step for long-term genetic improvement, serving as the basis for livestock development initiatives and guiding the design of effective breeding programs. It involves describing a breed’s origin, development, structure, population, and both quantitative and qualitative traits under specific management and climatic conditions
[3]
.
Breeds can be identified using morphological and molecular methods, with phenotypic characterization being a cost-effective and simple approach
[3]
. While extensive research has been conducted on indigenous chicken characterization across Ethiopia, including the Amhara region, no recent studies have focused on the Awi Zone, specifically in Banjia, Dangila, and Jawi districts. Therefore, gathering baseline data on the morphological traits of indigenous chickens is essential to assess genetic variation and the relationships among different populations.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Description of the Study Areas
The study was conducted in Awi Zone, Amhara regional state, Ethiopia. Awi Zone is one of the 11 zones in the region and is named after the Awi sub-group of the Agew people, some of whom reside there. It borders with the Benishangul-Gumuz Region to the west, the Semien Gondar Zone to the north, and Mirab Gojjam to the east. The administrative center of the zone is Injibara.
Awi Zone features relatively flat and fertile terrain, with elevations ranging from 1,200 to 3,100 meters above sea level. The area receives an average annual rainfall of 1,750mm, and monthly temperatures range between 17°C and 27°C
[4]
. This zone is traversed by nine permanent rivers that flow into the Abay (Blue Nile) River. It also has notable water bodies, including the crater lakes Zengena and Tirba, as well as the Zimbiri marsh, located 5 km southwest of Addis Kidam. The livestock population in Awi Zone includes 1,231,447 cattle, 676,509 sheep, 162,576 goats, and 206,035 equines (96,136 horses, 93,052 donkeys, and 16,667 mules), 1,151,708 poultry, and 128,906 bee colonies
[5]
.
Table 1. Description of the study districts.

Variable

Districts

Banja

Dangila

Jawi

Temperature

11-19°C

16-27°C

32- 40°C

Rainfall (mm)

2200-2400

1500-2200

700-1200

Altitude (m. a. s. l)

2300-2870

2137

1225

Human Population

101,300

158,688

71,357

Poultry population

92,106

116,854

107,124

Cattle population

171,221

182,383

169,574

Sheep population

50,562

52,654

42,876
Source:
[6]
Figure 1. Map of the study districts.
2.2. Sampling Techniques and Sample Size Determination
A preliminary field survey was conducted before the main study to confirm the geographical distribution, concentration, and population size of indigenous chickens. This survey also helped identify the peasant associations within each sample district and establish a sampling framework for selecting districts. The districts were categorized into three agro-ecological zones: highland, midland, and lowland. Based on their potential for chicken production, Banja was selected from the highland zone, Dangila from the midland, and Jawi from the lowland. In consultation with the district agricultural offices, selection criteria such as indigenous chicken population size, production potential, and road accessibility were considered. As a result, three peasant associations per district and a total of nine rural peasant associations were purposively chosen for phenotypic measurements.
2.3. Data Collection
2.3.1. Qualitative Traits
Through direct observation of sexually mature chickens and additional details provided by their owners, a total of 486 chickens, each at least six months old (162 from each district), were used to collect qualitative traits. These traits included feather distribution, plumage color, comb type, shank feathering, beak color, shank color, earlobe color, eye color, and head shape, following the standard breed descriptor list
[3]
. Data on these qualitative characteristics were recorded by photographing each surveyed chicken.
2.3.2. Quantitative Traits
For linear body measurements, 486 adult indigenous chickens, each over six months old, were selected by asked chicken owners. Of these, 162 (1%) were cocks (male chickens) and 324 (2%) were hens (female chickens), following
[7]
guidelines. Measurements were taken early in the morning to prevent feeding and watering from affecting the chickens’ size and body conformation. Following the
[3]
methodology, the linear body measurements included body weight, chest circumference, shank length, neck length, body length, wingspan, wattle width, wattle length, earlobe length, beak length, comb length, and comb width. Body dimensions were recorded to the nearest centimeter, while body weight was measured in kilograms using a spring balance.
2.4. Data Management and Statistical Analyses
The qualitative and quantitative traits of the indigenous chicken populations were entered and coded in statistical package for the social science (SPSS version 22) for analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize the qualitative data, and the chi-square (χ2) test was applied to compare categorical variables for significance across different agro-ecologies. For the analysis of linear body measurements, the General Linear Model (PROC GLM) procedure in SAS 9.0 was employed, considering fixed effects such as agro-ecology, sex, and their interactions. Means were compared using Duncan’s multiple range test, with values considered significant at P<0.05. Additionally, correlation analysis was performed to explore the relationships between quantitative morphological traits.
The statistical model used for linear body measurements were:
Yijk= µ + Ai+Bj+ABij+eijk
Where: Yijk: The corresponding quantitative trait of indigenous chicken in the ith agro-ecology and jth sex
µ: overall population mean for the corresponding quantitative trait
Ai: fixed effect of ith agro-ecology (i = highland, midland, and lowland)
Bj: fixed effect of jth sex (j=male & female)
ABij: interaction effect of agro-ecology and sex
eijk: residual error
3. Results and Discussions
3.1. Variation in Qualitative Traits
Table 2 presents the qualitative traits of the indigenous chicken population in Awi Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. The study found that 95.9% of the chickens were predominantly normal feathered, while 3.9% had naked-neck traits. This finding is consistent with
[8]
, who reported that 95% of chickens in Bench Maji Zone, South-Western Ethiopia, were normal, feathered, with the remaining 5% being naked-neck. Similarly,
[9]
observed that 75.9-83.6% of local chickens in West Hararghe Zone, Oromia Region, Ethiopia, had normal feathers, while 3.2-5% was naked-neck and 12.3-20% was crested. The naked-neck gene is considered important for heat tolerance and overall fitness in tropical chickens. The low frequency of this trait may be due to farmers’ preferences against naked-neck chickens, which has led to the selection against this gene. This poses a threat to the adaptation of chickens to tropical conditions, particularly in lowland areas, unless conservation efforts are made to preserve this valuable genetic trait.
The predominant plumage color of indigenous chickens in the study area was red (39.9%), followed by white (17.5%) and grayish (Gebsema) (17.3%). In the highland region, female chickens primarily had red (38%), white (20.4%), and grayish (16.7%) plumage, while male chickens displayed red (40.7%), white (13.0%), grayish (16.7%), and Teterma (14.8%). In the midland, the majority of female chickens exhibited red (44.4%), white (18.5%), and grayish (14.8%) plumage, while male chickens were characterized by red (37%), white (18.5%), and multi-colored (16.7%) plumage. In the lowland, female chickens were mostly red (38%), Gebsema (21.3%), and white (16.7%), while male chickens were red (40.7%), white (14.8%), and Gebsema (11.1%). The preference for red and white plumage could be attributed to random mating, natural selection, and farmers’ preference for these colors, as they influence consumer demand in the market. This finding aligns with Agide (2015), who observed similar plumage colors in North Shewa Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Likewise,
[8]
found that red, Gebsema, and white plumage were common in chickens in Bench Maji Zone, South Western Ethiopia. Feather color variations are influenced by genetic differences, including sex-linked traits and gonadotropic hormones
[11]
.
The most common beak colors across all agro ecologies were yellow (38.7%), white (30.2%), red (22.8%), and black (8.2%). In the highland, female chickens had white (36.1%) and yellow (35.2%) beaks, while male chickens primarily had yellow (48.1%), red (22.2%), and white (22.2%) beaks. In the midland, both female and male chickens had predominantly white, red, and yellow beaks. Similarly, yellow, white, and red beaks were most common in the lowland for both sexes. This variation in beak color is likely due to differences in breed types among indigenous chicken ecotypes. The study also found that the most common comb type was double (61.9%), followed by pea (22.4%) and single (15.6%) combs. Double combs were dominant in both male and female chickens across all agro ecologies, which is consistent with the findings of
[9]
. In contrast,
[12]
reported that indigenous chickens in Tanzania predominantly had single combs. Combs play an essential role in heat dissipation, which is especially important in the tropical climate where high temperatures prevail.
The majority of indigenous chickens in the study area (93.6%) did not have shank feathers. This is in line with findings from
[8, 13]
, who also observed a high percentage of chickens without shank feathers in other parts of Ethiopia. The predominant shank colors in the study area were yellow (33.3%), red (29.2%), white (22.2%), black (9.7%), and brown (5.6%). In the highland, female chickens had yellow (40.7%), red (29.6%), and white (19.4%) shanks, while male chickens had white (29.6%), red (25.9%), and yellow (14.8%) shanks. In the midland, female chickens mostly had yellow (44.4%), red (23.1%), and white (19.4%) shanks, while male chickens had yellow (37%), red (24.1%), and white (18.5%) shanks. The preference for a deep yellow shade in shanks among buyers may be linked to consumer preferences. Additionally, certain poultry diseases, such as coccidiosis, can cause shank pigmentation changes. Yellow pigmentation is linked to carotenoid pigments, while varying shades of black are due to melanic pigments. The findings also align with
[8]
, who observed a high frequency of yellow shanks among indigenous chickens.
Table 2. Qualitative traits of indigenous chicken in the study area.

Agroecology

Variable

Highland

Midland

Lowland

Overall

Female (108)

Male (54)

Female (108)

Male (54)

Female (108)

Male (54)

(486)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

N (%)

Feather distribution

Normal

108 (100)

50 (92.6)

102 (94.4)

50 (92.6)

106 (98.1)

51 (94.4)

467 (96.1)

Naked neck

-

4 (7.4)

6 (5.6)

4 (7.4)

2 (1.9)

3 (5.6)

19 (3.9)

X2 value /p value

412.971/.000

Plumage colour

Red

41 (38)

22 (40.7)

48 (44.4)

20 (37)

41 (38)

22 (40.7)

194 (39.9)

White

22 (20.4)

7 (13.0)

20 (18.5)

10 (18.5)

18 (16.7)

8 (14.8)

85 (17.5)

Black

14 (13)

4 (7.4)

14 (13)

2 (3.7)

13 (12)

2 (3.7)

49 (10.1)

Gebsema

18 (16.7)

13 (24.1)

16 (14.8)

8 (14.8)

23 (21.3)

6 (11.1)

84 (17.3)

Teterma

9 (8.3)

8 (14.8)

7 (6.5)

5 (9.3)

9 (8.3)

5 (9.3)

43 (8.8)

Multi colour

4 (3.7)

-

3 (2.8)

9 (16.7)

4 (3.7)

11 (20.4)

31 (6.4)

X2 value /p value

219.284/.000

Beak colour

White

39 (36.1)

12 (22.2)

41 (38)

11 (20.4)

33 (30.6)

11 (20.4)

147 (30.2)

Yellow

38 (35.2)

26 (48.1)

34 (31.5)

29 (53.7)

36 (33.3)

25 (46.3)

188 (38.7)

Red

22 (20.4)

12 (22.2)

21 (19.4)

10 (18.5)

32 (29.6)

14 (25.9)

111 (22.8)

Black

9 (8.3)

4 (7.4)

12 (11.1)

4 (7.4)

7 (6.5)

4 (7.4)

40 (8.2)

X2 value /p value

97.325/.000

Eye colour

Red

34 (31.5)

12 (22.2)

31 (28.7)

14 (25.9)

35 (32.4)

12 (22.2)

138 (28.4)

Orange

38 (35.2)

28 (51.9)

38 (35.2)

28 (51.9)

40 (37)

30 (55.6)

202 (41.5)

Brown

22 (20.4)

3 (5.6)

25 (23.1)

2 (3.7)

18 (16.7)

3 (5.6)

73 (15)

Blue

14 (13)

11 (20.4)

14 (13)

10 (18.5)

15 (13.9)

9 (16.7)

73 (15)

X2 value/p value

94.29/.000

Comb type

Double

65 (60.2)

36 (66.7)

61 (56.5)

34 (63)

66 (61.1)

39 (72.2)

301 (61.9)

Pea

31 (28.7)

8 (14.8)

34 (31.5)

9 (16.7)

21 (19.4)

6 (11.1)

109 (22.4)

Single

12 (11.1)

10 (18.5)

13 (12)

11 (20.4)

21 (19.4)

9 (16.7)

76 (15.6)

X2 value/p value

182.259/.000

Head shape

Plain

44 (40.7)

15 (27.8)

45 (41.7)

24 (44.4)

42 (38.9)

36 (66.7)

206 (42.4)

Crest

64 (59.3)

39 (72.2)

63 (58.3)

30 (55.6)

66 (61.1)

18 (33.3)

280 (57.6)

X2 value/p value

11.267/.001

Ear lobe colour

White

28 (25.9)

18 (33.3)

29 (26.9)

10 (18.5)

27 (25)

19 (35.2)

131 (27)

Red

32 (29.6)

18 (33.3)

31 (28.7)

14 (25.9)

39 (36.1)

19 (35.2)

153 (31.5)

Black

5 (4.6)

-

7 (6.5)

-

3 (2.8)

2 (3.7)

17 (3.5)

White &red

43 (39.8)

18 (33.3)

41 (38)

30 (55.6)

39 (36.1)

14 (25.9)

185 (38.1)

X2 value/p value

131.975/.000

Shank feather

Present

-

4 (7.4)

7 (6.5)

6 (11.1)

10 (9.3)

6 (11.1)

31 (6.4)

Absent

108 (100)

50 (92.6)

101 (93.5)

48 (88.9)

98 (90.7)

48 (88.9)

455 (93.6)

X2 value/p value

369.91/.000

Shank colour

Yellow

44 (40.7)

8 (14.8)

48 (44.4)

20 (37)

34 (31.5)

8 (14.8)

162 (33.3)

Red

32 (29.6)

14 (25.9)

25 (23.1)

13 (24.1)

45 (41.7)

13 (24.1)

142 (29.2)

White

21 (19.4)

16 (29.6)

21 (19.4)

10 (18.5)

23 (21.3)

17 (31.5)

108 (22.2)

Black

5 (4.6)

12 (22.2)

7 (6.5)

6 (11.1)

3 (2.8)

14 (25.9)

47 (9.7)

Brown

6 (5.6)

4 (7.4)

7 (6.5)

5 (9.3)

3 (2.8)

2 (3.7)

27 (5.6)

X2 value/p value

141.67/.000
N= sample size, X2 =chi square test
3.2. Variation in Quantitative Traits
The body weight (kg) and linear body measurements (cm) of indigenous chickens across different agro-ecologies, sexes, and interaction effects are shown in Table 3. All quantitative traits exhibited highly significant differences (P<0.001) between males and females, with male chickens showing higher body weights and measurements than females. This indicates sexual dimorphism, which can be attributed to the higher levels of male sex hormones responsible for greater muscle development in males
[14]
.
The overall average wing span of indigenous chickens across agro-ecologies was 37.10±1.57 cm. Male chickens had an average wing span of 37.68±1.42 cm, while females had 36.82±1.57 cm, with a highly significant difference (P<0.0001) between sexes. This finding aligns with
[15]
, who reported similar results in the Eastern Amhara Region, Ethiopia. However, there was no significant interaction effect (P>0.05) between agro-ecology and sex for wing span.
The overall mean wattle length across agro-ecologies was 2.33±0.15 cm. Wattle length varied significantly across the agro-ecologies, with the lowest values in the highland (2.31±0.13 cm) and midland (2.32±0.14 cm), and the highest in the lowland (2.36±0.18 cm). This variation is due to environmental factors, as wattles help with heat dissipation in hot climates. Male chickens had a significantly higher average wattle length (2.46±0.15 cm) than females (2.27±0.12 cm). These results were lower than those reported by
[15]
the average wattle length of male and female chicken in the eastern Amhara, region Ethiopia was 2.8±0.1 and 2.7±0.1cm, respectively.
The overall mean chest circumference of indigenous chickens across agro-ecologies was 27.41±1.59 cm, with no significant difference (P>0.05) across agro-ecologies. However, male chickens had a significantly larger chest circumference (28.15±1.4 cm) than females (27.03±1.56 cm), which is likely due to sexual dimorphism and higher male sex hormones promoting greater muscle development. This finding is similar to the results of
[16]
who reported that the average chest circumference of male and female chicken in Ethiopia was 28.85±0.36 and 27.22±0.24 cm, respectively.
The overall mean shank length was 8.30±1.57 cm, with no significant difference (P>0.05) across agro-ecologies. Male chickens had significantly longer shanks (8.93±1.28 cm) than females (7.98±1.31 cm). This result was lower than the findings of
[16]
who reported that the shank length of male and female indigenous chicken in Ethiopia was 9.99±0.12 and 8.51±0.08 cm, respectively. Similarly, [19] who indicated that the average shank length of male and female chicken in Guji zone of Oromia national regional state, Ethiopia was 9.7±0.10 and 8.0±0.05 cm, respectively. Longer shank lengths are advantageous for avoiding predators and improving heat dissipation in tropical climates.
The overall mean body weight of indigenous chickens was 1.53±0.31 kg, with no significant difference (P>0.05) across agro-ecologies. Male chickens had an average weight of 1.67±0.31 kg, while females weighed 1.47±0.29 kg. The average body weight of indigenous chicken had a highly significant difference (P<0.0001) between male and female chicken ecotype. Similarly,
[16, 17]
reported that the average body weight of male and female chicken in Ethiopia and in Sheka Zone, South Western Ethiopia was 1.69±0.03 and 1.29±0.02; 1.68±0.2 and 1.42±0.2 kg, respectively. The variation in body weight may be attributed to inaccuracies in weighing scales, individual measurement differences, the chicken's age, and seasonal variations in feed availability.
The overall mean body length was 37.09±1.25 cm, with no significant difference (P>0.05) across agro-ecologies. Male chickens had an average body length of 37.37±1.47 cm, while females had 36.95±1.10 cm. These results are consistent with the findings of
[10, 18]
reported that the average body length of male and female local chicken in north Shewa zone, Amhara, Ethiopia and in Benishangul-Gumuz Region, Western Ethiopia was 37.82±0.20 and 36.57±0.08; 37.8±4.32 and 35.31±3.29 cm, respectively. However, the current findings were lower than the report of
[19]
, who indicated that the average body length of male and female chicken in guji zone of Oromia national regional state, Ethiopia was 43.4±0.36 and 38.9±0.17 cm, respectively.
The overall mean comb length across agro-ecologies was 2.47±0.31 cm, with significant differences (P<0.001) across the agro-ecologies. The lowland area had the longest comb length (2.53±0.39 cm), which may be attributed to the comb’s role in heat loss in hot environments. This result is similar to
[10]
, who reported similar comb lengths in the North Shewa Zone, Amhara. There was also a significant interaction effect (P<0.0001) between agro-ecology and sex for comb length.
The overall mean neck length was 11.55±1.17 cm, with significant differences (P<0.05) across agro-ecologies. This variation may be due to genetic and environmental factors. Male chickens had a longer neck (12.02±1.24 cm) compared to females (11.3±1.06 cm). These findings align with the results of
[18] 
the average neck length of male and female chicken in Benishangul-Gumuz Region, Western Ethiopia, but were lower than those reported by
[17]
, who observed longer necks in chickens from Sheka Zone, South Western Ethiopia.
Table 3. The Mean±SD for Quantitative traits of indigenous chicken in different agroecology, sexes and interaction of the study area.

Variables

Agroecology

Highland

Midland

Lowland

Overall

P value

WS (cm)

36.98±1.62

37.10±1.57

37.23±1.53

37.10±1.57

0.1938

WL (cm)

2.31±0.13b

2.32±0.14b

2.36±0.18a

2.33±0.15

0.0001

BL (cm)

2.32±0.14

2.35±0.15

2.33±0.14

2.33±0.14

0.2344

CC (cm)

27.26±1.47

27.47±1.51

27.49±1.78

27.41±1.59

0.1118

SL (cm)

8.29±1.43

8.25±1.23

8.35±1.44

8.30±1.37

0.5569

BW (kg)

1.54±0.31

1.52±0.31

1.54±0.30

1.53±0.31

0.5547

EAL (cm)

1.68±0.30

1.69±0.32

1.69±0.31

1.69±1.25

0.8124

BD L (cm)

37.02±1.24

37.22±1.31

37.04±1.2

37.09±1.25

0.0856

CL (cm)

2.42±0.24b

2.46±0.27b

2.53±0.39a

2.47±0.31

<0.0001

CW (cm)

2.34±0.22b

2.36±0.25a

2.37±0.28a

2.36±0.25

0.0148

WW (cm)

2.10±0.50

2.06±0.59

2.09±0.54

2.08±0.55

0.9874

NL (cm)

11.39±1.15b

11.66±1.19a

11.60±1.15a

11.55±1.17

0.0176
Table 3. Continued.

Variables

Sex

Sex*agroecology

Male

Female

P value

P value

WS (cm)

37.68±1.42a

36.82±1.57b

<0.0001

0.3844

WL (cm)

2.46±0.15a

2.27±0.12b

<0.0001

0.4632

BL (cm)

2.361±0.12a

2.32±0.15b

0.0019

0.4818

CC (cm)

28.15±1.4a

27.03±1.56b

<0.0001

0.1139

SL (cm)

8.93±1.28a

7.98±1.31b

<0.0001

0.0345

BW (kg)

1.67±0.31a

1.47±0.29b

<0.0001

0.750

EAL (cm)

1.86±0.18a

1.6±0.33b

<0.0001

0.2988

BD L (cm)

37.37±1.47a

36.95±1.1b

0.0006

0.1200

CL (cm)

2.75±0.35a

2.33±0.16b

<0.0001

<0.0001

CW (cm)

2.59±0.23a

2.24±0.16b

<0.0001

0.0006

WW (cm)

2.44±0.31a

1.91±0.55b

<0.0001

0.2480

NL (cm)

12.02±1.24a

11.3±1.06b

<0.0001

0.1049
a b Means in a row with different superscript letters denote significant differences at (P<0.05); WS= wing span, WL=wattle length, BL=beak length, CC= chest circumference, SL= shank length, BW= body weight, EAL= ear lobe length, BDL= body length, CL=comb length, CW= comb width, WW= wattle width, NL= neck length
3.3. Correlation Between Body Weight and Other Linear Body Measurements
The correlation coefficients (r) between live body weight and other linear body measurements for the sampled chicken population in the study area are presented in Table 4. Positive correlations were observed between body weight and various body measurements, with highly significant correlations (P<0.01) between body weight and comb length (r=0.25), comb width (r=0.20), earlobe length (r=0.19), chest circumference (r=0.12), and shank length (r=0.17). These positive correlations suggest that assessing any of these body measurements can serve as a predictor for the body weight of indigenous chickens in rural farming contexts. This implies that improvements in traits such as shank length and chest circumference could lead to corresponding increases in body weight. The observed effects may be attributed to pleiotropic or gene linkage between these traits in indigenous chickens.
Additionally, a significant positive correlation (P<0.05) was found between body weight and wattle length (r=0.12), and between body weight and beak length (r=0.10). However, no significant correlations (P>0.05) were observed between body weight and wing span (r=0.09) or neck length (r=0.06). These findings are consistent with the results of
[19]
, who reported that live body weight was positively correlated (r= 0.73, 0.61, P<0.01) with chest circumference and shank length, respectively. Overall, understanding the relationships between body weight and linear body measurements is crucial for breed or species identification and for assessing the economic value of poultry. Furthermore, these relationships are valuable for predicting body weight and can be effectively utilized in selection and breeding programs for indigenous chickens.
Table 4. Correlation coefficient between body weight & other linear body measurements of indigenous chicken in the study area.

Traits

BW

WS

WL

BL

CS

SL

EL

BD L

CL

CW

WW

NL

BW

WS

0.09ns

WL

0.12*

0.26**

BL

0.10*

0.32**

0.30**

CS

0.12**

0.43**

0.30**

0.30**

SL

0.17**

0.31**

0.35**

0.22**

0.24**

EL

0.19**

0.11*

0.29**

0.07ns

0.14**

0.22**

BD L

0.09*

0.11*

0.24**

0.06ns

0.02ns

0.02ns

0.04ns

CL

0.25**

0.21**

0.54**

0.19**

0.41**

0.22**

0.33**

0.09ns

CW

0.20**

0.23**

0.41**

0.07ns

0.34**

0.16**

0.30**

0.12**

0.54**

WW

0.13**

0.09*

0.27**

0.05ns

0.14**

0.20**

0.18**

0.08ns

0.34**

0.35**

NL

0.06ns

0.25**

0.32**

0.29**

0.14**

0.07ns

0.24**

0.29**

0.22**

0.29**

0.21**
**. Correlation is significant at 0.01 levels (2-tailed); *. Correlation is significant at 0.05 levels (2-tailed); ns. Correlation is not significant at 0.05 levels (2-tailed). BW= Body Weight; WS= Wing Span; WL = Wattle Length; BL = Beak Length; CS = Chest Circumference; SL= Shank Length; EL= Earlobe Length; BDL= Body Length; CL = Comb Length; CW = Comb width; WW =wattle width; NL = Neck length
4. Conclusions and Recommendations
The indigenous chicken populations in the study area exhibited significant qualitative and quantitative variations. This variability presents substantial opportunities for breeders to enhance genetic improvement through selective breeding and crossbreeding of different indigenous chicken ecotypes. Additionally, further research utilizing molecular techniques is required to assess the genetic variation and relationships among the indigenous chicken populations.
Abbreviations

CSA

Central Statistical Agency

GLM

General Linear Model

SAS

Statistical Analysis System

SPSS

Statistical Package for the Social Science
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank chicken owners in Dangila, Banja and Jawi district for on condition that they are participated while the data are collected. We would also like to appreciate the study communities, Kebele livestock experts, district experts and zone experts, who have participated while the data are collected in the study area.
Author Contributions
All authors contributed equally to this research work. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Ethics Approval and Consent to Participate
The paper meets all applicable standards with regard to ethics and integrity. As a researcher and educator in animal breeding and genetics and along with the co-author, the paper has been submitted with full responsibility, following due ethical procedure, and there is no duplicate publication, fraud or plagiarism.
Availability of Data and Material
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
[1] Central Statistical Agency (CSA) (2017/18). Agricultural sample survey. Report on livestock and livestock characteristics (private peasant holdings); volume II, federal democratic republic of Ethiopia, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
[2] Tassew, M. (2023). A review of genetic diversity erosion in Ethiopia's local chicken gene pool: implications on determination of suitable breeding and conservation strategies. World’s poultry science Journal.

http://www.fao.org/10.1080/00439339.2023.2262436

[3] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (2012). Draft guidelines on phenotypic characterization of animal genetic resources, Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, 13th Regular Session, 18–22 July, 2011, Rome available at

http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/022/am651e.pdf

[4] Nigatu K, Teshome F (2012). Population dynamics of cattle ectoparasite in western Amhara regional state Ethiopia. Journal of veterinary medicine and animal health, 4(1): 22-26.
[5] Central Statistical Authority (CSA) (2016). Agricultural Sample Survey. Report on Livestock and Livestock Characteristics 2016/17 [2009 E. C] Volume II. Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Central Statistical Agency. 573 Statistical Bulletin. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
[6] OARD. (2019). Office of Agriculture and Rural Development, Awi Zone Report. Awi Zone, Amhara Region, Ethiopia.
[7] FAO. (2011). Guidelines for the measurement of animal production characteristics. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.
[8] Getachew B, Kefelegn K, Negassi A (2015). On-farm Phenotypic Characterization of Indigenous Chicken and their Production System in Bench Maji Zone, South Western Ethiopia. Science, Technology and Arts Research Journal, 4(1): 68-73.
[9] Bogale W, Yosef T, Negassi A (2019). On farm phenotypic characterization of indigenous chicken ecotypes in west Hararghe zone, Oromia region, Ethiopia. J Vet Med Animal Science 2(1): 1009.
[10] Agide Y (2015). On farm phenotypic characterization of indigenous chicken and chicken production practices in north Shewa zone, Amhara, Ethiopia. M. sc. thesis, Haramaya University, Ethiopia.
[11] Bell DD (2002). Anatomy of the Chicken. In D. D. Bell and W. D. Weaver. Commercial Chicken Meat and Egg Production. U. S. A. 5: 45-46.
[12] Badubi SS, Rakereng M, Marumo M (2006). Morphological characteristics and feed resources available for indigenous chickens in Botswana. Livestock Res. Rural Dev. 18(1).
[13] Emebet M, Singh H, Tesfaye S, Johansson AM (2014). Phenotypic characterization of indigenous chicken population in south west and south part of Ethiopia. British journal of poultry sciences, 3(1): 15-19.
[14] Jansson, J. O. Edén, S., and Isaksson, O. 1985. Sexual dimorphism in the control of growth hormone secretion. Endocrine reviews. 6(2): 128-150.
[15] Addis G, Mebratu M, Yared A (2014). Phenotypic characterization of indigenous chicken ecotypes in the eastern Amahara, region Ethiopia. Glob. J. Anim. Breed. Genet. 2(4): 079-085.
[16] Eskindir A, Tadelle D, Banerjee AK (2013). Phenotypic Characterization of Indigenous Chicken Population in Ethiopia. International Journal of Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Studies. 1: 24-32.
[17] Hailu A, Aberra M (2018). Morphological and Morph metric Characterization of Indigenous Chicken Populations in Sheka Zone, South Western Ethiopia. Poult Fish Wild Sci. 6: 200.
[18] Habtamu A, Alemayehu A, Fekadu B, Kedja A (2019). Phenotypic Characterization of Local Chicken Ecotypes of Benishangul-Gumuz Region, Western Ethiopia. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare, 9(7).
[19] Abebe H, Manaye M, Abrahm A (2017). On-farm phenotypic characterization of indigenous chicken populations in guji zone of Oromia national regional state, Ethiopia. International Journal of Development Research, 07: 16652-16661.
Cite This Article
Plain Text BibTeX RIS

  • APA Style

    Birhanu, A., Taye, M., Alemayehu, K. (2025). Phenotypic Characteristics of Indigenous Chicken in Awi Zone, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia. Advances in Applied Sciences, 10(2), 29-37. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aas.20251002.12

    Copy | Download

    ACS Style

    Birhanu, A.; Taye, M.; Alemayehu, K. Phenotypic Characteristics of Indigenous Chicken in Awi Zone, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia. Adv. Appl. Sci. 2025, 10(2), 29-37. doi: 10.11648/j.aas.20251002.12

    Copy | Download

    AMA Style

    Birhanu A, Taye M, Alemayehu K. Phenotypic Characteristics of Indigenous Chicken in Awi Zone, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia. Adv Appl Sci. 2025;10(2):29-37. doi: 10.11648/j.aas.20251002.12

    Copy | Download 

  • @article{10.11648/j.aas.20251002.12,
  author = {Ayana Birhanu and Mengistie Taye and Kefyalew Alemayehu},
  title = {Phenotypic Characteristics of Indigenous Chicken in Awi Zone, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia
},
  journal = {Advances in Applied Sciences},
  volume = {10},
  number = {2},
  pages = {29-37},
  doi = {10.11648/j.aas.20251002.12},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aas.20251002.12},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.aas.20251002.12},
  abstract = {This study aimed to describe the phenotypic characteristics of indigenous chickens in three districts of Awi Zone, Amhara region, Ethiopia. Nine qualitative and 12 quantitative traits from 486 chickens were considered for morphological parameters. The General Linear Model procedures (PROC GLM) of SAS 9.0 software to analyze body measurements, considering factors like agro-ecology, sex, and their interactions. Mean comparisons were conducted using Duncan’s multiple range test, and correlation analysis was applied to examine relationships between quantitative traits. The study revealed that 96.1% of the chickens had feathers, while 3.9% were naked-neck. The most common plumage colors were red (37.7%), white (19.8%), black (10.1%), Gebsema (17.3%), Teterma (8.8%), and multi-colored (6.4%). All measured quantitative traits in the study area showed statistically significant differences (P0.05) across different agro-ecological zones. Male chickens had an average body length of 37.37±1.47 cm, compared to 36.95±1.10 cm for females. The study found significant phenotypic variations among indigenous chickens across different agro-ecological zones. It recommends further genetic studies using molecular markers were needed to assess genetic diversity and relationships within these populations.},
 year = {2025}
}

    Copy | Download 

  • TY  - JOUR
T1  - Phenotypic Characteristics of Indigenous Chicken in Awi Zone, Amhara Regional State, Ethiopia

AU  - Ayana Birhanu
AU  - Mengistie Taye
AU  - Kefyalew Alemayehu
Y1  - 2025/07/15
PY  - 2025
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aas.20251002.12
DO  - 10.11648/j.aas.20251002.12
T2  - Advances in Applied Sciences
JF  - Advances in Applied Sciences
JO  - Advances in Applied Sciences
SP  - 29
EP  - 37
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2575-1514
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aas.20251002.12
AB  - This study aimed to describe the phenotypic characteristics of indigenous chickens in three districts of Awi Zone, Amhara region, Ethiopia. Nine qualitative and 12 quantitative traits from 486 chickens were considered for morphological parameters. The General Linear Model procedures (PROC GLM) of SAS 9.0 software to analyze body measurements, considering factors like agro-ecology, sex, and their interactions. Mean comparisons were conducted using Duncan’s multiple range test, and correlation analysis was applied to examine relationships between quantitative traits. The study revealed that 96.1% of the chickens had feathers, while 3.9% were naked-neck. The most common plumage colors were red (37.7%), white (19.8%), black (10.1%), Gebsema (17.3%), Teterma (8.8%), and multi-colored (6.4%). All measured quantitative traits in the study area showed statistically significant differences (P0.05) across different agro-ecological zones. Male chickens had an average body length of 37.37±1.47 cm, compared to 36.95±1.10 cm for females. The study found significant phenotypic variations among indigenous chickens across different agro-ecological zones. It recommends further genetic studies using molecular markers were needed to assess genetic diversity and relationships within these populations.
VL  - 10
IS  - 2
ER  -

    Copy | Download

Author Information
Download PDF
Submit an Article

About Us

Science Publishing Group (SciencePG) is an Open Access publisher, with more than 300 online, peer-reviewed journals covering a wide range of academic disciplines.

Learn More About SciencePG

Products

Information

Important Link

Copyright © 2012 -- 2025 Science Publishing Group – All rights reserved.