Br Poult Sci. 2026 Jun 29:1-10. doi: 10.1080/00071668.2026.2686308. Online ahead of print.
ABSTRACT
1. The primary aim of this study was to conduct a cost-benefit analysis of Ethiopian indigenous chickens and to estimate the economic weights of key performance traits. Data were collected through structured questionnaires administered to smallholder poultry farmers and subsequently analysed using R statistical software.2. Data were analysed using a bio-economic model integrating biological performance parameters with economic parameters to assess the profitability and efficiency of production systems. It was applied to a standardised flock of 100 indigenous chickens (IC) to evaluate economic performance across systems for egg number (EN), body weight (BW), age at first egg (AFE) and survival rate (SV).3. The study revealed that production in Shambu and Fincha districts was predominantly based on a free-range production system (FRS), whereas production in Shagar City was mainly a semi-intensive system (SIS). The FRS generated a total income of US$1,687.28, while the SIS produced a significantly higher return of US$9,082.85. In both production systems, feed costs accounted for the largest share of production expenses, 61.21% (US$2,709.41) in FRS and 62.94% (US$18,346.63) in SIS followed by fixed costs, which represented 24.04% (US$1,064.28) and 24.27% (US$1,632.88), respectively.4. The major sources of income in both systems were the sale of surplus grower females and cockerels. Specifically, revenues for FRS and SIS were US$46.15 and US$162.80 from eggs; US$2,254.63 and US$3,044.84 from surplus females; US$3,529.42 and US$5,348.27 from surplus cockerels; and US$226.54 and US$236.04 from culled breeding stock, respectively. Under SIS, a 1% improvement in performance through selection and management would increase profits by 6.35 from EN, 54.75 from BW, 20.67 from AFE and 145.42 US$.5. The results suggested that meat-oriented production from indigenous chickens generates higher economic returns than egg production under the two systems. However, economic weights derived from marginal profit and genetic variance, integrating both market values and biological performance indicators, assigned the highest priority to EN (36.46), followed by BW (34.37), AFE (23.91) and SV (5.26).
PMID:42372246 | DOI:10.1080/00071668.2026.2686308
