Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-zzh7m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-28T03:48:18.778Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Phenotypic characterization of indigenous chicken populations in Southeastern Oromia Regional State of Ethiopia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 December 2014

Deneke Negassa ,
Aberra Melesse  and
Sandip Banerjee
Deneke Negassa
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, Adama Science and Technology University, Adama, Ethiopia
Aberra Melesse*
Affiliation:
School of Animal and Range Sciences, Hawassa University, Hawassa, Ethiopia Institute of Animal Nutrition, Hohenheim University, Stuttgart, Germany
Sandip Banerjee
Affiliation:
School of Animal and Range Sciences, Hawassa University, Hawassa, Ethiopia
*
Correspondence to: Aberra Melesse, Institute of Animal Nutrition, Hohenheim University, Emil-Wolffs-Str. 8 & 10, 70593 Stuttgart, Germany. emails: a_melesse@uni-hohenheim.de; a_melesse@yahoo.com
Get access

Summary

The objective of this study was to characterize the native chickens reared in three agro-ecological zones of Southeastern Oromia Regional State of Ethiopia. Data on visual appraisal and linear body measurements were obtained from a total of 600 matured local chickens of both sexes drawn from 240 households. The results indicated that the average flock size, age at first egg of hens and eggs produced per clutch were 11.9 heads, 6.2 months and 15.4 eggs, respectively. The majority of the male chicken possessed snake head shape (60.7 percent) and most of them had rose combs (57.9 percent), red feather plumage (46.1 percent), yellow shanks (86.3 percent), red earlobes (84.2 percent) and yellow skin (56.8 percent). Majority of the hens possessed single combs (43.5 percent), red earlobes (77.3 percent), yellow shanks (44.4 percent), yellowish brown feather (27.4 percent) followed by red (24.2 percent) and black (21.2 percent). The cocks were generally heavier (1.39 kg) than the hens (1.22 kg). The average values for breast angle (degrees), body length, body width, shank length, shank circumference, keel bone length, wing span, comb length and beak length of the cocks were 45.9, 24.1, 24.9, 7.43, 3.86, 9.63, 7.99, 4.86 and 1.91 cm, respectively. The corresponding values for the hens were 40.2, 22.7, 23.8, 7.43, 3.46, 8.95, 7.40, 2.47 and 1.71. The values for wing span, comb length, beak length, body weight, breast angle and keel bone length differed (P < 0.05) across the agro-ecologies. The best predictor for assessing the body weight of hens was breast angle and body length, whereas in the cocks it was best estimated using breast angle and shank circumference values. The present study suggests that indigenous chickens in the study area possess useful economic traits that could be improved through systematic breeding for enhanced productivity under scavenging production systems.

Résumé

L'objectif de cette étude a été de caractériser les poules indigènes élevées dans trois zones agro-écologiques de l'État Régional d'Oromia, au Sud-est de l'Éthiopie. Différentes données ont été collectées par observation et par mesures corporelles linéaires sur un total de 600 volailles locales adultes des deux sexes provenant de 240 foyers. Les résultats ont indiqué que la taille des groupes, l'âge des poules au premier œuf et les œufs pondus par couvée ont été en moyenne de 11,9 têtes, 6,2 mois et 15,4 œufs, respectivement. La plupart des mâles avaient une tête en forme de serpent (60,7 pour cent), une crête en rose (57,9 pour cent), un plumage de couleur rouge (46,1 pour cent), les tarses jaunes (86,3 pour cent), les oreillons rouges (84,2 pour cent) et la peau jaune (56,8 pour cent). La plupart des poules possédaient une crête simple (43,5 pour cent), des oreillons rouges (77,3 pour cent), des tarses jaunes (44,4 pour cent) et un plumage marron jaunâtre (27,4 pour cent), rouge (24,2 pour cent) ou noir (21,2 pour cent). En général, les coqs ont été plus lourds que les poules (1,39 versus 1,22 kg). Chez les coqs, les valeurs moyennes d'inclinaison de la poitrine (angle en degrés), de la longueur du corps, de la largeur du corps, de la longueur des tarses, de la circonférence des tarses, de la longueur du bréchet, de la longueur de l'aile, de la longueur de la crête et de la longueur du bec ont été de 45,9, 24,1, 24,9, 7,43, 3,86, 9,63, 7,99, 4,86 et 1,91 cm, respectivement. Les valeurs correspondantes pour les poules ont été de 40,2, 22,7, 23,8, 7,43, 3,46, 8,95, 7,40, 2,47 et 1,71, respectivement. Des différences significatives (p < 0.05) ont été décelées entre les zones agro-écologiques pour la longueur de l'aile, la longueur de la crête, la longueur du bec, le poids corporel, l'inclinaison de la poitrine et la longueur du bréchet. Les meilleurs prédicteurs pour estimer le poids corporel des poules ont été l'inclinaison de la poitrine et la longueur du corps alors que les variables qui ont prédit le mieux le poids des coqs ont été l'inclinaison de la poitrine et la circonférence des tarses. La présente étude suggère que les poules autochtones du territoire étudié possèdent des caractères d'intérêt économique qui pourraient être améliorés au moyen d'une sélection systématique cherchant à optimiser la productivité sous des systèmes d'obtention de la nourriture par picorage.

Resumen

El objetivo de este estudio fue caracterizar las gallinas nativas criadas en tres zonas agroecológicas del sudoriental Estado Regional de Oromía en Etiopía. Se recogieron diferentes datos por observación y por medidas corporales lineales sobre un total de 600 aves locales maduras, de ambos sexos, tomadas de 240 hogares. Los resultados indicaron que, de media, el tamaño de los grupos, la edad de las gallinas al primer huevo y los huevos puestos por nidada fueron respectivamente de 11,9 cabezas, 6,2 meses y 15,4 huevos. La mayoría de los machos presentaron cabeza con forma de serpiente (60,7 por ciento), cresta en rosa (57,9 por ciento), plumaje rojo (46,1 por ciento), tarsos amarillos (86,3 por ciento), orejillas rojas (84,2 por ciento) y piel amarilla (56,8 por ciento). La mayoría de las gallinas presentaron cresta sencilla (43,5 por ciento), orejillas rojas (77,3 por ciento), tarsos amarillos (44,4 por ciento) y plumaje marrón amarillento (27,4 por ciento), rojo (24,2 por ciento) o negro (21,2 por ciento). Por lo general, los gallos fueron más pesados que las gallinas (1,39 versus 1,22 kg). En los gallos, los valores medios de inclinación de la pechuga (ángulo en grados), longitud corporal, anchura corporal, longitud de los tarsos, circunferencia de los tarsos, longitud de la quilla, longitud del ala, longitud de la cresta y longitud del pico fueron respectivamente de 45,9, 24,1, 24,9, 7,43, 3,86, 9,63, 7,99, 4,86 y 1,91 cm. Los valores correspondientes para las gallinas fueron de 40,2, 22,7, 23,8, 7,43, 3,46, 8,95, 7,40, 2,47 y 1,71, respectivamente. Los valores de longitud del ala, longitud de la cresta, longitud del pico, peso corporal, inclinación de la pechuga y longitud de la quilla difirieron (p < 0.05) entre las zonas agroecológicas. Los mejores predictores para determinar el peso corporal de las gallinas fueron la inclinación de la pechuga y la longitud corporal mientras que las variables que mejor predijeron el peso de los gallos fueron la inclinación de la pechuga y la circunferencia de los tarsos. El presente estudio sugiere que las gallinas autóctonas del área estudiada poseen características de interés económico que podrían ser mejoradas a través de una selección sistemática encaminada a optimizar la productividad bajo sistemas de alimentación por picoteo de desperdicios.

Keywords

agro-ecological zonesindigenous chickenslinear body measurementsphenotypic characterizationSoutheastern Ethiopiazones agro-écologiquespoules autochtonesmesures corporelles linéairescaractérisation phénotypiqueSud-est de l'Éthiopiezonas agroecológicasgallinas autóctonasmedidas corporales linealescaracterización fenotípicaSudeste de Etiopía
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Genetic Resources/Resources génétiques animales/Recursos genéticos animales , Volume 55 , December 2014 , pp. 101 - 113
Copyright
Copyright © Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aganga, A.A., Omphile, U.J., Malope, P., Chabanga, C.H., Motsamai, G.M. & Motsumi, L. 2000. Traditional poultry production and commercial broiler alternatives for small holder farmers in Botswana. Livestock Res. Rural Dev. (12)4. (available at http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd12/4/Aga124a.htm) Accessed 20 May 2013 Google Scholar
Apuno, A.A., Mbap, S.T. & Ibrahim, T. 2011. Characterization of local chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) in Shelleng and Song Local Government Areas of Adamawa State, Nigeria. Agric. Biol. J. North Am., 2(1): 6–14.Google Scholar
AZADO, 2011. Arsi zone agricultural development office. Arsi Zone, Oromia, Plan and Program Desk of Arsi Zone Agricultural Development Office.Google Scholar
Badubi, S.S., Rakereng, M. & Marumo, M. 2006. Morphological characteristics and feed resources available for indigenous chickens in Botswana. Livestock Res. Rural Dev., 18(1). (available at http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd18/1/badu18003.htm) Accessed 10 April 2013.Google Scholar
Baeza, E., Williams, J., Guemene, D. & Duclos, M.J. 2001. Sexual dimorphism for growth in Muscovy duck and changes in insulin-like growth factor I (IGF-I), growth hormone (GH) and triiodothyronine (T3) plasma levels. Reprod. Nutr. Dev., 41: 173–179.Google Scholar
Bhuiyan, A.K.F.H., Bhuiyan, M.S.A. & Deb, G.K. 2006. Indigenous chicken genetic resources in Bangladesh: current status and future outlook. Anim. Genet. Resour. Inf., 36: 73–84.Google Scholar
Crawford, R.D. 1990. Origin and history of poultry species. Poultry breeding and genetics. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, Elsevier, pp. 1–42.Google Scholar
CSA, 2012. Central Statistics Agency of Ethiopia. Report on Livestock and Livestock Characteristics, Agricultural Sample Survey 2011–12. Statistical Bulletin No. 532, Vol. II. March 2012. Addis Ababa Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Daikwo, I.S., Okpe, A.A. & Ocheja, J.O. 2011. Phenotypic characterization of local chickens in Dekina. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 10: 444–447.Google Scholar
Dana, N., Dessie, T., van der Waaij, L.H. & van Arendonk, J.A.M. 2010. Morphological features of indigenous chicken populations of Ethiopia. Anim. Genet. Resour. Inf., 46: 11–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dessie, T., Million, T., Alemu, Y. & Peters, K.J. 2003. Village chicken production systems in Ethiopia: 1. Flock characteristics and performance. Livestock Res. Rural Dev., 15: 1. (available at http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd15/1/tadeb151.htm) Accessed 15 November 2013.Google Scholar
Duguma, R. 2006. Phenotypic characterization of some indigenous chicken ecotypes of Ethiopia. Livestock Res. Rural Dev., 18(9): 131. (available at http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd18/9/dugu18131.htm) Accessed 8 January 2014. Google Scholar
Duguma, R. 2009. Understanding the role of indigenous chickens during the long walk to food security in Ethiopia. Livestock Res. Rural Dev., 21(8). (available at http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd21/8/dugu21116.htm) Accessed 10 January 2013.Google Scholar
Egahi, J.O., Dim, N.I., Momoh, O.M. & Gwaza, D.S. 2010. Variations in qualitative traits in the Nigerian local chicken. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 9(10): 978–979.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ensminger, M.E. 1992. Poultry science, 3rd edition. USA, Interstate Publisher Inc.Google Scholar
FAO, 2012. Phenotypic characterization of animal genetic resources. FAO Animal Production and Health Guidelines No. 11. Rome. (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2686e/i2686e00.pdf)Google Scholar
Faruque, S., Siddiquee, N.U., Afroz, M.A. & Islam, M.S. 2010. Phenotypic characterization of Native Chicken reared under intensive management system. J. Bangladesh Agric. Univ., 8(1): 79–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fayeye, T.R., Ayorinde, K.L., Ojo, V. & Adesina, O.M. 2006. Frequency and influence of some major genes on body weight and body size parameters of Nigerian local chickens. Livestock Res. Rural Dev., 18(37). (available at http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd18/3/faye18037.htm) Accessed 11 January 2013.Google Scholar
Guni, F.S. & Katule, A.M. 2013. Characterization of local chickens in selected districts of the southern highlands of Tanzania: I. Qualitative characters. Livestock Res. Rural Dev., 25(153). (available at http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd25/9/guni25153.htm) Accessed 10 November 2013.Google Scholar
Halima, H.M., Neser, F.W.C., Van Marle-Koster, E. & De Kock, A. 2007. Village-based indigenous chicken production system in north-west Ethiopia. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 39: 189–197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hunduma, D., Chala, R., Dawo, F., Bekana, E. & Leta, S. 2010. Major constraints and health management of village poultry production in Rift Valley of Oromia, Ethiopia. Am.-Euras. J. Agric. Environ. Sci., 9(5): 529–533.Google Scholar
Ikeobi, C.O.N., Ozoje, M.O., Adebambo, O.A. & Adenowo, J.A. 2001. Frequencies of feet feathering and comb type genes in the Nigerian local chicken. Pertanika J. Trop. Agric. Sci., 24: 147–150.Google Scholar
Iqbal, S. & Pampori, Z.A. 2008. Production potential and qualitative traits of indigenous chicken of Kashmir. Livestock Res. Dev., 20(11). (available at http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd20/11/iqba20182.htm) Accessed 2 January 2013.Google Scholar
Kibret, B. 2008. In situ characterization of local chicken eco-types for functional traits and production system in Fogera woreda, Amhara Regional State . Haramaya University, Ethiopia. 107 p. (M.Sc. Thesis).Google Scholar
Kugonza, D.R., Kyarisiima, C.C. & Lisa, A. 2008. Indigenous chicken flocks of Eastern Uganda: I. Productivity, management and strategies for better performance. Livestock Res. Rural Dev., 20(137). (available at http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd20/9/kugo20137.htm) Accessed 13 January 2014.Google Scholar
Mancha, Y.P. 2004. Characterization of local chickens in Northern part of the Jos Plateau. Animal Production Programme, School of Agriculture, ATBU, Bauchi, Nigeria. (A Ph.D. Thesis)Google Scholar
Mandal, M.K., Khandekar, N. & Khandekar, P. 2006. Backyard poultry farming in Bareilly district of Uttar Pradesh, India: an analysis. Livestock Res. Rural Dev., 18(7). (available at http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd18/7/mand18101.htm) Accessed 15 October 2013.Google Scholar
McCracken, K.G., Paton, D.C. & Afton, A.D. 2000. Sexual size dimorphism of the musk duck. Wilson Bull., 112: 457–466.Google Scholar
Mekonnen, G. 2007. Characterization of smallholder poultry production and marketing system of Dale, Wonsho and Loka Abaya Weredas of Southern Ethiopia. Hawassa University, Awassa, Ethiopia. (M.Sc. Thesis) (available at http://www.ipms41ethiopia.org). Accessed 12 November 2011.Google Scholar
Melesse, A. & Negesse, T. 2011. Phenotypic and morphological characterization of indigenous chicken populations in southern region of Ethiopia. Anim. Genet. Resour. Inf., 49: 19–31.Google Scholar
Melesse, A., Maak, S. & Von Lengerken, G. 2005. The performance of naked neck and their F1 crosses with Lohmann White and New Hampshire chicken breeds under long-term heat stress conditions. Ethiop. J. Anim. Prod., 5(1): 91–106.Google Scholar
Melesse, A., Worku, Z. & Teklegiorgis, Y. 2013. Assessment of the prevailing handling and quality of eggs from scavenging indigenous chickens reared in different agro-ecological zones of Ethiopia. J. Env. Occup. Sci., 2(10): 1–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mengesha, M., Tamir, B. & Dessie, T. 2008. Socio-economic contribution and labor allocation of village chicken production of Jamma district of South Wollo Ethiopia. Livestock Res. Rural Dev., 20(10). (available at http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd20/10/meng20160.htm). Accessed 14 September 2012.Google Scholar
Moges, F. 2008. Studies on production and marketing systems of local chicken ecotypes in Burie district of North West Amhara. Hawassa University, Hawassa, Ethiopia, 187 pp. (M.Sc. Thesis).Google Scholar
Moges, F., Melesse, A. & Dessie, T. 2010. Assessment of village chicken production system and evaluation of the productive and reproductive performance of local chicken ecotype in Bure district, North West Ethiopia. Afr. J. Agric. Res., 5(13): 1739–1748.Google Scholar
Msoffe, P.L.M., Mtambo, M.M.M., Minga, U.M., Olsen, J.E., Juu-lMadsen, H.R., Gwakisa, P.S., Mutayoba, S.K. & Katule, A.M. 2004. Productivity and reproductive performance of the free-ranging local domestic fowl ecotypes in Tanzania. Livestock Res. Rural Dev., 16(9). (available at http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd16/9/msof16067.htm) Accessed 12 July 2012.Google Scholar
Mulyono, R.H., Sartika, T. & Nugraha, R.D. 2009. A study of morphometric-phenotypic characteristic of Indonesian chicken: Kampong, Sentul and Wareng-Tangerang, based on discriminant analysis, Wald-Anderson criteria and Mahalanobis minimum distance. In 1st Int. Seminar on Animal Husbandry. Faculty of Animal Science, Bangor Agricultural University, pp. 278–288.Google Scholar
Ogah, D.M. 2011. Assessing size and conformation of the body of Nigerian indigenous turkey. Slov. J. Anim. Sci., 44: 21–27.Google Scholar
Ogah, D.M., Musa, I.S., Yakubu, A., Momoh, M.O. & Dim, N.I. 2009. Variation in morphological traits of geographical separated population of indigenous Muscovy duck (Cairina moschata) in Nigeria. In Proc. 5th Int. Poultry Conf., Taba, Egypt, pp. 46–52.Google Scholar
Owens, I.P.F. & Hartley, I.R. 1997. Sexual dimorphism in birds: why are there so many different forms of dimorphism? Proc. R. Soc., Biol. Sci., 265: 397–407.Google Scholar
Pedersen, C.V. 2002. Production of semi-scavenging chickens in Zimbabwe. Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen, Denmark, 143 pp. (Ph.D. Thesis).Google Scholar
Peters, S.O., Ikeobi, C.O.N., Ozoje, M.O., Famakinwa, O.A., Oshodi, Y.S. & Adebambo, O.A. 2007. Egg quality of the Nigerian local chicken as influenced by some major genes. Niger. J. Anim. Prod., 34: 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raji, A.O., Igwebuike, J.U. & Usman, M.T. 2009. Zoometrical body measurements and their relation with live weight in matured local Muscovy ducks in Borno state Nigeria. ARPN J. Agric. Biol. Sci., 4: 58–62.Google Scholar
Remes, V. & Szekeley, T. 2010. Domestic chickens defy Rensch's rule: sexual size dimorphism in chicken breeds. J. Evol. Biol., 23: 2754–2759.Google Scholar
Renema, R.A., Robinson, F.E., Beliveau, R.M., Davis, H.C. & Lindquist, E.A. 2007. Relationships of body weight, feathering, and footpad condition with reproductive and carcass morphology of end-of-season commercial broiler breeder hens. J. Appl. Poult. Res., 16: 27–38.Google Scholar
Roberts, V. 1997. British poultry standards, 5th edition. Butterworths, London, Blackwell Sci. Ltd, pp. 4–18.Google Scholar
Somes, R.G. 2003. Mutations and major variants of plumage and skin in chickens. In Crawford, R.D., ed. Poultry breeding and genetics, 3rd edition, pp. 169–208. The Netherlands, Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
SPSS. 2007. Statistical Package for Social Sciences. SPSS for Windows, User's guide: Statistics, ver. 16. Inc. Cary, NC.Google Scholar
Ssewannyana, E., Ssali, A., Kasadha, T., Dhikusooka, M., Kasoma, P., Kalema, J., Kwatotyo, B.A. & Aziku, L. 2008. On-farm characterization of indigenous chickens in Uganda. J. Anim. Plant Sci., 1(2): 33–37.Google Scholar
Van Kampen, M. 1974. Physical factors affecting energy expenditure. In Morris, T.R. & Freeman, B.M., eds. Energy requirements of poultry, pp. 47–59. Edinburgh, UK., British Poultry Science Ltd.Google Scholar
Worku, Z., Melesse, A. & Teklegiorgis, Y. 2012. Assessment of village chicken production system and the performance of local chicken populations in West Amhara Region of Ethiopia. J. Anim. Prod. Adv., 2(4): 199–207.Google Scholar
Yakubu, A. 2010. Indigenous chickens of Nasarawa state, Nigeria: their characteristics, Husbandry and Productivity. Trop. Subtrop. Agroecosyst., 12: 69–76.Google Scholar
Yakubu, A. 2011. Discriminant analysis of sexual dimorphism in morphological traits of African muscovy ducks. Arch. Zootec., 60: 1115–1123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Youssao, A.K.I., Tobada, P.C., Koutinhoun, B.G., Dahouda, M., Idrissou, N.D., Bonou, G.A., Tougan, U.P., Ahounou, S., Yapi-Gnaoré, V., Kayang, B., Rognon, K. & Tixier-Boichard, M. 2010. Phenotypic characterization and molecular polymorphism of indigenous poultry populations of the species Gallus gallus of Savannah and Forest ecotypes of Benin. Afr. J. Biotechnol., 9(3): 369–381.Google Scholar