COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS FOR PRODUCTION TRAITS OF LOCAL CHICKEN AND ISA BROWN IN KGR-IRAQ

                                                                                                                              Assiut University web-site: www.aun.edu.eg

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS FOR PRODUCTION TRAITS OF LOCAL CHICKEN AND ISA BROWN IN KGR-IRAQ

ABDULMALEK A. OMER¹; SHAHLA M.S. KIRKUKI² and HERSH K. ABDULLA³

¹ Banmaqan Station, Agricultural Research Center in Sulaimani, Ministry of Agriculture, KGR- Iraq

² Animal Production Department, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Sulaimani University, Sulaimani, Iraq

³ Animal Production Division, Agricultural Research Center in Sulaimani, Ministry of Agriculture, KGR-Iraq

Received: 17 February 2016;    Accepted: 15 March 2016

INTRODUCTION

Over the years, the chicken is considered one of the important sources for the provision of animal protein through meat and eggs. In addition it emerged as a biological model to resolve more problems related to diseases (Bacon et al., 2000), nutrition and genetics (Haeslar et al., 2004). In the last period many countries resolved food security problems faced by the partial depending on egg production at the rural level (Usman et al., 2014), due to its flavor compared with the strains and various commercial hybrids that have in abundance on the first production and egg weight. But, regardless of the small size of the domestic chicken eggs and the lack of production are such that enjoys other specifications and is immune against disease, environmental adaptation and in addition to that a lot of customers bought eggs at a price more expensive than the price of commercial chicken eggs.

Corresponding author: Dr. Shahla M.S. Kirkuki

E-mail address: shahan26@gmail.com

Present address: Animal Production Department, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Sulaimani University, Sulaimani, Iraq

Although studies on the local chickens in Kurdistan Region were started in the few years ago, and some researchers (Hermiz et al., 2012; Hermizand Ali, 2012; Abas et al., 2014 and Abdulla et al., 2016) used same lines in their studies, more researches are needed to increase knowledge about its performance and economic utilization. Generally more developing countries of the world now turn to the local rating their chickens by studying the chemical and physical properties of the egg, as well as the economics of production. Moreover, several researchers were studying the performance of local chicken lines, strains and breeds (Rahman et al., 1997; Adedokun and Sonaiya, 2002; Khan, 2004; Sunder et al., 2005 and Tixier-Boichard et al., 2006).

Production differences between these genetic lines for egg production traits, age at first egg and egg weight until now are not well known. The aim of this study was to estimate the differences between these genetic lines for egg production traits, such as age at first egg, peak production, and egg weight at different periods.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present study was conducted at Animal Production Division of Agricultural Research Center in Sulaimani, Ministry of Agriculture and water recourse, KGR, Iraq. The research was designed to compare the egg production egg weight, age at first egg production and egg production between three lines of local chicken and ISA brown under the semi open system of production. Three lines of local chicken (generation 11) were identified according to the color of feather as Pure black (line 1), Black with brown Neck (line 2), White (line 3) and Isa Brown (line 4).

Experimental periods initiated at week (19) continue to week (75) age old, were classified to 4 periods: period 1(19-32), period 2 (33-43), period 3 (44-60) and period 4 (61-75). Age at first egg (day and week), reach to sexual maturity (5% egg production), reach to (50%) egg production and reach to peak production were recorded.

Egg collection was recorded daily to evaluate egg production traits at each period (Age at sexual maturity (5% egg production), reach to 50% production, peak production and long duration of egg production. Hen day production (%) was determined by the following:

Hen day production (HDP %) = [egg number/ (periods X number of hen)] X100

Egg collection daily was to determine the egg weight, egg/ hen/ for all periods and its percentage, egg/ hen/ weeks for all different lines and periods.

Statistical Analysis

The analysis of variance was carried out for all recorded data to find out the differences between groups Statistical program PASW Statistics Student Version 18 (SPSS, 2007). An ANOVA using the general linear models procedure included the main effects of genetic groups and periods on some egg production traits. Collected data were subjected to two-ways analysis of variance for egg weight and egg production traits during different periods and significant differences between means were furtherseparated using Duncan's Multiple Range Test (Duncan, 1955).

RESULTS

Although there were no significant differences between lines for the first day or week of egg production, reach to 5% production, but the differences between lines to reach 50% production peak production, and long duration of peak production were significant (p<0.05) (Table 1 and 2). The line 2 showed the least period (138.50 day or 19.79 week) to produce egg, followed by line 3 (140.60 day or 20.14 week), line 1 (145.60 day 20.80 week) and line 4 (167.57 day 23.44 week). Concerning to reach 5% and 50% production, line 2 had the least period (9 weeks) to reach (5.71%) and (29 weeks) to reach (50.95%) HDP%, respectively. While the HDP% of line 1 did not reach to 5% production before (week 23) which reached (7.94%) and at (week 37) reached (46.83) HDP%. As well as the exclude production of lines 3 and 4 were 46.83, 45.58 and 43.65 at week 50 and 52, respectively. Line 2 significantly (p<0.05) reached to peak production (63.10) egg at week 55 after the other 3 lines followed by line 1, which reach to peak production (47.62) at week 51.Line 3 had showed numerically the least period to reached peak production at week 50. Line 1, 2 and 4 significantly showed longer duration 9, 8 and 7 weeks, respectively to produce egg before and after peak production compared with line 3 that was 3 weeks. Furthermore, the long duration of line 1 was between 49- 57 weeks, line 2 was between 51-58 weeks, line 3 was between 48-56 weeks and line 4 was between 48-54 weeks with average HDP % 40.86, 50.60, 38.50 and 38.63%, respectively.

Table 1: Effect of different genetic lines of on age at first egg and age at sexual maturity (5% eggproduction).

Table 2: Effect of different genetic lines on egg production (50%, peak and long duration of peak egg production) at different periods.

^a–b For each means of same traits in each row with different letters differ significantly (P<0.05).

Egg weight of line 4 was significantly (p<0.05) heavier than line 3, which also significantly (p<0.05) heaviest than line 1 and 2 as showed in (Table 3). Egg number/ hen for all periods were significantly (p<0.05) different between lines. Line 3 and 4 significantly (p<0.05) had higher number of eggs (108.75 and 102.75) respectively, than line 2 (84.50), that also significantly (p<0.05) differed with line 1 (75.58). The egg/ hen/ week was significantly (p<0.05) higher in line 4 3.66 eggs compared with line 2 and 1 (2.85 and 2.34 eggs), respectively. Concerning egg/ hen/ all periods% and HDP%, the line 2 was significantly (p<0.05) showed the higher percentage (33.20 eggs and 34.30%), respectively (Table 3).

Table 3: Effect of different genetic lines of chicken on egg weight and egg production performance.

^a-c For each means of same traits in each row with different letters differ significantly (P<0.05).

Results in Table 4 showed that hens at period 4 attained significantly (p<0.05) the heaviest weights compared with the other periods (1, 2 and 3). Thesignificant (p<0.05) large number and percentage of eggs/ hen for each period were obtained at period 3 (139.58) eggs and (42.56%) followed by period 2, 1 and 4 (117.58, 69.92 and 44.25) eggs and (28.82, 17.73 and 14.54%), respectively. Although there was no significant difference between period 2 and 3of egg/ hen/ week and hen day production%, there was an observed significant difference between these periods with period 1 and period 4. 

Table 4: Effect of different periods on egg weight and egg production performance of genetic lines of chicken.

^a–c For each means of same traits in each row with different letters differ significantly (P<0.05).

DISCUSSION

There was no significant difference (p>0.05) in the first day or week of egg production, and reach to 5% production among all the genetic lines (Table 1). These local genetic lines lay the first egg earlierthan that mentioned by Hossary and Galal (1994) there were also, found no significant differences in age at first eggs (days) between three lines of Fayoumi hens, but Tixier-Boichard et al. (2006) found significant differences between Fayoumi and ISA Brown chickens and their crosses in age at first egg (days). The age at first egg (days) of Fayoumi was (136) days compared with ISA Brown (127) days which isearlier than ISA Brown (167days) in this study. This finding was agreed with Rahman et al. (1997); Tadelle et al. (2000); Adedokun and Sonaiya (2002) and Khanh (2004) when they found no significant differences in age at first egg weeks between breeds. This result however did not consistent with the findings of Sunder et al. (2005) who observed that age at first egg (weeks) for White Leghorn was significantly earlier than local chickens. Also, Sharma (2004) found that the age at first egg (weeks) of local hens and its crosses with Indian breeds were significant. The results from these studies indicate that age at first of local chicken was later than the local genetic lines chicken in the present study.

In the present study (Table 2), means showed that reaching sexual maturity (weeks) of local chickens had an earlier ages than resulting by Taha and Abd El-Ghany (2013) when they found that reaching sexual maturity of El-Salam and Mandarah was significant and they attributed their results to the genetic makeup of different lines. As well as, the Egyptian strains Mandarah and Salam reached sexual maturity significantly at an earlier age than Canadian Shaver strains (Taha et al., 2012). Differences in age at sexual maturity between different lines of poultry were agreed with Udeh (2007); Niranjan et al. (2008); Yahaya (2009); Udeh (2010) and Udeh and Omeje (2011), but disagree with Al-Nasser et al. (2008) who found that there were no differences in age at sexual maturity for Lohmann LSL-Classic white and brown strains. Badreldin et al. (1961) reported that age at sexual maturity of Fayoumi was earlier than White Leghorn. Sexual maturity age of local Kei chickens was comparatively earlier than those reported by Halima et al. (2007) for local chickens and Melesse  et al. (2011) for Ethiopian naked-neck chickens reared under intensive management conditions. Udeh and Omeje (2011) found significant age at peak production of two exotic and local chicken, and age at first egg, age at peak egg production, egg weight, hen day rate were significantly (p<0.01) decreased in the two exotic but not in the local chicken. Fotsa and Manjeli (2010) and Kreman (2012) found minor differences observed probably due to the conjugated effect of genetic diversities, environments, and the rearing conditions of different local hens used by these authors.

The egg weight of line 4 significantly higher than other the genetic lines, as well as line 3 attained significantly higher egg weights compared with other genetic lines (Table 3). These finding were confirmed by Hermiz et al. (2012) when found the same different genetic lines significantly affected egg weights, although the Black with Brown Neck attained higher egg weight followed by Isa Brown, Pure Black and White. Several studies reported significant differences in egg weights between breeds, strains and lines (Silversides and Scott, 2001; Monira et al., 2003; Zita et al., 2009 and Ali, 2010). Differences in egg weights between different genotypes were also recorded by Abou El-Ghar et al. (2009) and Yousria et al. (2010). Moreover, Iraqi (2002) confirmed significant effects of breed on egg quality character and disagreed with Ezzeldinand El-Labban (1989) who found non-significant breed effects on egg weight. Ansari (2000a, b) found insignificant differences in egg weight between generation 1 and 2 of the Isfahan breed.

The eggs/ hen for all periods and egg/ hen/ week were significantly higher in genetic line 3 and 4. The eggs/ hen for all periods % and Hen Day Production% were significantly higher in genetic line 2 followed by genetic line 3, 4 and 1, respectively (Table 3). Differences in these traits of local chickens were recorded by several studies. The rate of lay% of different local chickens by Sunder et al. (2005) was less than the results in this study. Also Tadelle et al. (2000) showed that the eggs/ hen/ year and rate of lay (%) for first and second year of different local chicken were less than the results in the present study.

Minh et al. (2004) found the hen-day egg production rate of the Tamhoang breed significantly higher than the Ri breed. Although, the number of eggs and rate of lay% egg production in 8 months of four local breeds from northern Viet Nam did not significant showed by Khanh (2004) this rate in range approximately higher than the results in this study. The eggs/ hen and rate of lay percentage of local chickens in other studies were higher in some lines and lesser than the results in present study (Benabdeljelil et al., 2001; Mwalusanya et al., 2001 and Njenga, 2005).

The egg weight at period 4 was significantly (p<0.05) higher at period 3 than other periods for all genetic lines, but eggs/ hen/ period and egg/ hen/ period% were significantly (p<0.05) higher at period 3 (Table 4). In addition, the gg/ hen/ week and hen day production % were significantly (p<0.05) higher at period 3 and 2 compared with period 1 and 4. Tahaand Abd El-Ghany (2013) found that the egg weight and egg number of local chickens increased at different periods (90 days, 42 weeks and 65 weeks). The results in this study for egg number may attributed to the experimental periods that were longer than the total periods of the study by Taha      et al. (2012). Several results were studying the effects of different periods on egg weight and egg production of local chickens. In central and southern parts of Senegal, Missohou et al. (1998) recorded that lay 60 eggs/ year (rate of lay of 16.4 percent) with an egg weight of 31 grams. Bessadok et al. (2003) reported that 127 eggs were obtained over a one-year laying period. Mwalusanya et al. (2001) that eggs/ hen/ year (31.6) and egg weight (44.1g). Msoffe (2003) found that the egg size (37-49g) for seven Tanzanian ecotypes kept under station conditions. Altamirano (2005) indicated that the rate of lay was (55.8%) and egg weight (52.6g). Melesse et al. (2013) also found that local Kei chickens reached their peak egg production at about 38 weeks of age.

REFERENCE

Abas, K.A.; Hermiz, H.N.; Al-Khatib, T.R.; Amin, S.M.; Ahmed, A.M. and Hamad, D.A. (2014): Comparative productive performance of local hens in Erbil-kurdistan region. Journal of Zankoy Sulaimani, 16 (Special Issue), 203-206.

Abdulla, Sh.S.; Kirkuki, Sh.M.S.; Mohammed, R.M. and Ali, Sh.M. (2016): Effect of different lines of local Iraqi chicken and Isa brown on egg internal quality. Assiut Vet. Med. J. Vol. 62 (148): 1-6.

Abou El-Ghar, R.S.; Shalan, H.M.; Ghanem, H.H. and Aly, O.M. (2009): Egg quality characteristics from some developed strains of chickens and their crosses, Egypt. Poult. Sci. 2009, (29): 1173-1186.

Adedokun, S.A. and Sonaiya, E.B. (2002): Crossbreeding Nigeria indigenous with the Dahlem Red chickens for improved productivity and adaptability. Archivfür Tierzucht, Dummerstorf, 45: 297–305.

Al-Nasser, A.; Mashaly, M.; Khalil, H.A.; Albaho, M. and Al-haddad, A. (2008): A comparative study on production efficiency of brown and white pullets. Aridland Agriculture and Greenery Department/ Food Resources Division, Kuwait Institute for Scientific Research, anasser@kisr.edu.kw.1-4.

Altamirano, W.T. (2005): Egg production of two breeds and three diets in the highland of Bolivia. The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen. (MSc. Thesis).

Ali, S.H. (2010): Effect of strain and storage period on some qualitative and quantitative traits of table eggs. Diploma, College of Agriculture, Salahaddin University, Kurdistan Region-Iraq.

Ansari, S. (2000a): Study of improved performance in Isfahan native fowl and their crosses with exotic breeds. Isfahan, Islamic Republic of Iran, Isfahan Research Center of Animal Science and Natural Resources.

Ansari, S. (2000b): Study of performance in Isfahan native fowl and their crosses under rural conditions. Isfahan, Islamic Republic of Iran, Isfahan Research Center of Animal Science and Natural Resources.

Bacon, L.D.; Hunt, H.D. and Cheng, H.H. (2000): A review of the development of chicken lines to resolve genes determining resistance to diseases. Poultry Science 79: 1082-1093.

Badreldin, A.L.; El-itriby, A.A.; Kamar, G.A.R. and Mostageer, M. (1961): Effect of crossbreeding on egg production characters in chicken. Anim. Abs. 29:1065.

Benabdeljelil, K.; Arfaoui, T. and Johnston, P. (2001): Traditional poultry farming in Morocco. In Proceedings of the 10th Conference of the Association of Institutions for Tropical Veterinary Medicine, held 20–23 August, 2001, Copenhagen.

Bessadok, A.; Khochlef, I. and El-Gazzah, M. (2003): Etat des ressourcesgénétiques de la population locale du poulet en Tunisie. Tropicultura, 21: 167–172.

Duncan, D.B. (1955): Multiple Range and Multiple Test. Biometrics, 11, 1-42.

Ezzeldin, Z.A. and El-Labban A.F. (1989): Egg weight and egg characteristics of purebred and crossbred chickens. Third Egypt British conference on Animal, Fish and poultry production Alexandria, 983-992.

Fotsa, J.C. and Manjeli, Y. (2010): Caractérisationphénotypique des populations de poules locales (Gallus Gallus) de la zone forestière dense humide à pluviométriebimodale du Cameroun. Annales des Sciences Agronomiques du Bénin.2 (2): 181-192.

Haesler, S.1.; Wada, K; Nshdejan, A.; Morrisey, E.E.; Lints, T.; Jarvis, E.D. and Scharff, C. (2004): FoxP2 expression in avian vocal learners and non-learners." The Journal of Neuroscience 24 (13): 3164-3175.

Halima, H.; Neser, F.W.C.; van Marle-Koster, E. and de Kock, A. (2007): Phenotypic variation of indigenous chicken populations in northwest Ethiopia, Tropical Animal Health and Production, 39, 507–513.

Hermiz, H.N.; Abas, K.A.; Al-Khatib, T.R.; Amin, Sh.M.; Ahmed, A.M.; Hamad, D.A. and Denha, H.P. (2012): Effect of strain and storage period on egg quality characteristics of local Iraqi laying hens. Research Opinions in Animal andVeterinary Sciences.pp: 98-101.

Hermiz, H.N. and Ali, S.H. (2012): Effect of strain and storage period on some qualitative and quantitative traits of table eggs. World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, Paris, France 68: 1344-1348.

Hossary, M.A. and Galal, E.S.E. (1994): Improvement and adaptation of the Fayoumi chicken. Animal Genetic Resources Information, 14: 33–41.

Iraqi, M.M. (2002): Genetic evaluation for egg quality traits in crossbreeding experiment involving Mandarah and Matrouh chickens using animal model,’’ Egypt. Poult. Sci., (22): 711-726.

Khanh, V.V.T. (2004): Phenotypic characterization of ex-situ live animal conservation of some indigenous chicken breeds in Vietnam. Agriculture University of Norway. (PhD Thesis).

Kreman, (2012): Effet du tauxd’incorporation de la farine de manioc dansl’alimentsur les performances de croissanceet de ponte de la poulevillageoise. Thèse de Master en Biotechnologieet Production Animales de la FASA, Université de Dschang. 45-60p.

Melesse, A.; Maak, S. and Von Lengerken, G. (2011): Effects of genetic line × ambient temperature interactions on performance and physiological responses of Naked-Neck chickens and their F1 crosses with Lohmann White and New Hampshire laying hens. J. Anim. Feed Sci. 20, 588-601.

Melesse A.; Alewi M. and Teklegiorgis, Y. (2013): Evaluating the Reproductive and Egg Production Traits of Local Chickens and Their F1 Crosses with Rhode Island Red and Fayoumi Breeds under Farmers’ Management Conditions. Iranian J. Appl. Anim. Sci., 3(2): 379-385.

Minh, D.V.; Ly, L.V. and Ogle, B. (2004): Effects of energy and protein supplementation on the production and economic efficiency of scavenging improved (Tamhoang) and Local (Ri) breed hens under smallholder condition in Northern Vietnam. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 36(7): 703–714.

Missohou, A.; Sow, R.S. and Ngwe-Assoumou, C. (1998): Caractéristiquesmorphobiométriques de la poule du Sénégal. Anim. Genetic Res. Info., 24: 63–69.

Monira, K.N.; Salahuddin, M. and Miah, G. (2003): Effect of breed and holding period on egg quality characteristics of chicken. International Journal of Poultry Science, 2 (4): 261-263.

Msoffe, P.L.M. (2003): Diversity among local chicken ecotypes in Tanzania. Morogoro, United Republic of Tanzania, Sokoine University of Agriculture.

Mwalusanya, N.A.; Katule, A.M.; Mutayoba, S.K.; Mtambo, M.M.A.; Olsen, J.E. and Minga, U.M. (2001): Productivity of local chickens under village management conditions. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 34(12): 405–416.

Niranjan, M.; Sharma, R.P.; Rajkumar, U.; Reddy, B.L.N.; Chatterjee, R.N. and Battacharya, T.K. (2008): Comparative Evaluation of Production Performance in Improved Chicken Varieties for Backyard Farming. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 7(11): 1128-1131.

Njenga, S.K. (2005): Productivity and socio-cultural aspects of local poultry phenotypes in coastal Kenya. The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Copenhagen. (Ph.D. thesis).

Rahman, M.; Sørensen, P.; Jensen, H.A. and Dolberg, F. (1997): Exotic hens under semiscavenging             conditions in Bangladesh. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 9 (3).

Sharma, R.K. (2004): Utilization of heterosis between indigenous and exotic chicken under suboptimal condition in India 1. In Proceedings of the 22nd World’s Poultry Congress, held 8–13 June, 2004, Istanbul, Turkey (Session G1: Breeding for suboptimal conditions). World’s Poultry Science Association.

Silversides, F.G. and Scott, T.A. (2001): Effect of storage and layer age on quality of eggs from two lines of hens. Poultry Science, 80: 1240-1245.

SPSS (Version 18, IBM, USA). SPSS Inc. Released (2007): SPSS for Windows, Version 16.0. Chicago, SPSS Inc.

Sunder, J.; Chatterjee, R.N.; Rai, R.B.; Kundu, A.; Senani, S.; Singh, A.K. and Jeyakumar, S. (2005): Production performance of indigenous and crossbred poultry germplasm of Andaman and Nicobar Island. Indian Journal of Animal Science, 75: 1326–1328.

Tadelle, D.; Alemu, Y. and Peters, K.J. (2000): Indigenous chickens in Ethiopia; genetic potentials and attempts at improvement. World Poultry Sciences Journal, 56: 45–54.

Taha, A.E.; Abd El-Ghany, F.A. and Sharaf, M.M. (2012): Strain Effect On Some Productive And Reproductive Performance Traits Of Local Improved Egyptian And Canadian Chickens. Online Journal of Animal and Feed Research, 2 (3): 292-300.

Taha, A.E. and Abd El-Ghany, F.A. (2013): Improving Production Traits for El-Salam and Mandarah Chicken Strains by Crossing II-Estimation of Crossbreeding Effects on Egg Production and Egg Quality Traits. International Scholarly and Scientific Research and Innovation 7(10), pp. 635-640.

Tixier-Boichard, M.; Joffrin, C.; Gourichon, D. and Bordas, A. (2006): Improvement of yolk percentage by crossbreeding between a commercial brown-egg layer and a local breed, the Fayoumi. In Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, held August 13-18, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.

Udeh, I. (2007): Influence of weight lineing on the short term egg production of two strains of        layer type chicken. Animal Research International, 4(3): 741–744.

Udeh, I. (2010): Mode of Inheritance and Interrelationship among Age at First Egg, Body Weight at First Egg and Weight of First Egg in Local by Exotic Inbred Chicken Crosses. International. Journal of Poultry Science, 9(10): 948-953.

Udeh, I. and Omeje, S.I. (2011): Growth and Short Term Egg Production of Two Exotic (Layer Type) and the Local Chickens Compared with Their F1 Inbred Progenies. International Journal of Poultry Science, 10(3): 221-224.

Usman, M.; Basheer, A.; Akram, M. and Zahoor, I. (2014): A comparative study of production performance and egg quality parameters of nakedneck and indigenous aseel chicken of Pakistan. Journal of basic & applied sciences 10: 160-163.

Yahaya, H.K.; Oni, O.O.; Akpa, G.N. and Adeyinka, I.A. (2009): Evaluation of Layer Type Chickens            Under Reciprocal Recurrent Selection. Bayero Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences, 2(1): 177–182.

Yousria, K.; Afifi, M.; Aly, O.M. and Abou El-Ella, N.Y. (2010): Effect of crossing on the performance of local chicken strain. 4- Effect of strain and laying age on egg quality characteristics,’’ Egypt. Poult. Sci., (30): 1171-1188.

Zita, L.; Tůmová, E. and Štolc, L. (2009): Effects of genotype, age and their interaction on egg quality in brown-egg Laying Hens. Acta Veterinaria Brno, 78: 85–91.