This study was conducted in Meanit Goldiya and Meanit Shasha districts found in Bench Maji Zone south, Western Ethiopia to characterize phenotypic variation of indigenous chicken populations. Visual appraisal was conducted to study qualitative traits of local chicken. Quantitative data were collected on body weight and other linear measurements by employing field measurements. 660 (60 male and 600 female) chicken were taken for phenotypic trait studies. Both Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS) and Statistical Analysis System (SAS) software were used to analysis qualitative and quantitative data. Among morphological study showed, the normal feather morphology (91.4%) and normal feather distribution (87.7%) were the commonest characters of local chicken followed by Silky normal feather morphology and Naked neck feather distribution which are (8.6%) and (12.3%) respectively in the study area. The Single comb was the dominant (62.0%), followed by rose (25.5%) while pea was the least (12.6%). Yellow color was the most (48.8%) dominant, whereas white and grey had 25.2 and 16.7 percentages respectively, while black (5.0%) and blue (4.2%) shank colors existed in small proportions. In terms of earlobe color Chickens with red earlobe accounted for the largest (45.3%) followed by red white earlobe (21.5%), white (14.1%), yellow (12.3%), Grey (4.7%) and black (2.1%). In the same way pink and yellow skin colors having the same frequency of 28.6% followed by White (27.7%), Blue-black (10.6%) and black (4.4%) for local chicken in the study area. Predominantly 17.0, 13.0, 12.7, 12.0, 11.5, and 11.4% of the chicken had Kokima, Key, Brown, Netch, Gebsima, and light brown plumage colors respectively. The rest of studied chicken had Tikur (7.9 %), Yellow and Tikur-teterima almost in the same proportions (5.9 and 5.8% respectively) and Key-teterima (2.7%) in small proportion. The overall measured mean values of Body weight, chest circumference, Wingspan, keel length body length, neck length, shank length, shank circumference, comb length, comb width, wattle length and wattle width were 1.45kg, 25.87cm, 44.24cm, 9.97cm, 37.10cm, 14.04cm, 7.43cm, 4.05cm, 3.64cm, 2.26cm, 2.63cm and 2.42cm, respectively in the study area. In addition, all the values estimated were lowest for female chicken. Qualitative and quantitative trait variations were identified among the studied local chicken; hence, detail molecular study is needed to prove the genetic difference among this chicken populations.
 Phenotypic and morphological characterization of indigenous chicken populations in southern region of Ethiopia. Animal Genetic Resources, 2011, 49, 19-31.
 Village Chicken Production Systems in Metekel Zone, Northwest Ethiopia. Wudpecker Journal of Agricultural Research, 2(9): 256-262.
 Breeding practice and objective of indigenous chicken in North Wollo, Amhara regional State, Ethiopia. International Journal of Livestock production, Vol.5 (1), pp. 15-22.
 Central Statistical Authority. Statistical Report on Livestock and Livestock Characteristics, Addis Ababa.
 Animal Genetic Resources Conservation in the Netherlands and Europe: poultry perspective. Poultry Science, 85(2): 216-22.
 Breeding programs for indigenous chicken in Ethiopia Analysis of diversity in production systems and chicken populations; PhD. Thesis submitted in fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of doctor at Wageningen University Netherlands. 148.
 Phenotypic characterization of animal genetic resources. FAO, Animal Production and Health Guidelines No.11. Rome. [on line]. [Accessed on 25.05.2014]. Available athttp://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2686e/i2686e00.pdf.
 Benchi maji zone agriculture and natural resource development office. Annual report.
 SAS for windows, Release 9.1. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC, USA.
 Morphological and Morphometric Characterization of Indigenous Chicken Populations in Sheka Zone, South Western Ethiopia. Poult Fish Wildl Sci., 6: 200.
 Comparative studies on performance and physiological responses of Ethiopian indigenous (Angete Melata) chickens and their f1 crosses to long term heat exposure. PhD dissertation, Martin-Luther University. Halle-Wittenberg Germany. P. 127.
 Indigenous Chicken Production System and Breeding Practice in North Wollo, Amhara Region, Ethiopia. Poult Fish Wild Sci., 1: 108.
 In Situ Characterization of Local Chicken Eco-Type for Functional Traits and Production System in Fogera District, Amhara Regional State. Msc.Thesis Submitted to the School of Graduate of Haramaya University, Haramaya, Ethiopia.
 Phenotypic Characterization of Indigenous Chicken Population in Ethiopia. International Journal of Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Studies, Vol. 1, No.1, 24-32.
 On-farmphenotypic characterization of indigenous chicken and chicken production systems in Horro and Jarso districts, Oromia regional state. Msc Thesis. Submitted to the Department of Animal and Range Science. Haramaya University. Ethiopia. P. 94.
 Quantitative Differentiation of Two Populations of Indigenous Chickens in a Derived Savannah Zone of Nigeria Using Morphometric Traits. International Journal of Research Studies in Biosciences (IJRSB), Volume 2, Issue 9. Pp. 1-16, ISSN 2349-0357. Online at www.arcjournals.org.
 Assessment of village chicken production system and evaluation of the productive and reproductive performance of local chicken ecotype in Bure district, North West Ethiopia. African J. Agri. Res., 5(13): 1739-1748.
 Characterization of local chickens in selected districts of the Southern Highlands of Tanzania: II. Production and Morphometric traits. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 25, Article #153. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd25/9/guni25153.htm.
How to cite this paper
Phenotypic Characterization of Indigenous Chicken Ecotypes in Selected Districts of Bench Maji Zone, South West Ethiopia
How to cite this paper: Yirmedie Bayou, Elias Bayou, Dessalegn Genzebu, Hailu Assefa. (2022) Phenotypic Characterization of Indigenous Chicken Ecotypes in Selected Districts of Bench Maji Zone, South West Ethiopia. International Journal of Food Science and Agriculture, 6(3), 293-300.