Citation of this paper |
Two-generations of crossbreeding experiment involving Baladi Saudi (S) and White Leghorn (L) chickens were evaluated for age at first egg (AFE), first three-month egg production (EP3) and annual egg production (AEP). Six genetic groups of LxL, SxS, LxS, SxL, LxSL and SxLS were produced in this experiment (two pures, two F1 crosses and two backcrosses). Variance components and heritabilities for these egg traits were estimated using DFREML procedure of multi-trait animal model. The genetic model of Dickerson was used to estimate the genetic components of this experiment in terms of direct (GI) and maternal (GM) additive effects, direct (HI) and maternal (HM) heterosis, and direct recombination loss (RI). Backcross of Lx¾L¼S recorded higher egg production than other crossbred groups. Heritabilities for AFE, EP3 and AEP were 0.55, 0.31 and 0.54, respectively. Direct additive effects (GI) for AFE, EP3 and AEP were considerable and in favour of the L breed. L-sired hens had high GI compared to the S-sired hens for the traits. For maternal additive effects (GM), a reversible trend was recorded in favour of S breed. Crossbred hens recorded positive estimate of HI for AEP and negative estimate for AFE. The estimates of HI were -2.7 % for AFE and 2.7% for AEP. Estimates of HM in daughters of crossbred dams for EP3 and AEP were positive, while the estimate for AFE was negative and favourable. The estimates of HM were -16.4% for AFE, 19.1% for EP3 and 12.3% for AEP. Estimates of RI in crossbred hens for AFE, EP3 and AEP were 1.6 days, -11.9 egg and -28.3 egg, respectively; RI for age at first egg was limited, while the two estimates for egg production were high.
Crossbreeding between egg-type breeds and Saudi chickens raised under the hot conditions of Saudi Arabia is not widely carried out. To date, publications concerning crossbreeding of local chickens with egg-type breeds (e.g. White Leghorn) seem to be not available. Direct and maternal additive effects, direct and maternal heterosis, and direct recombination effects from crossbreeding experiments including Saudi chickens were expected to be important, especially for economic traits such as age at first egg and egg production. In hot climate countries, White Leghorn was found to exhibit an outstanding maternal ability (Al-Sobayel 1985; Thakur et al 1989; Sharma et al 1992; Ahmed et al 1993; Singh et al 2000b). To judge the genetic potential of different crosses including Saudi genes, it is necessary to characterize their ages at first egg along with their egg production. Therefore, this study was conducted to quantify direct and maternal additive effects, direct and maternal heterosis and direct recombination effects for age at first egg, first 90-day egg production and the annual egg production in a crossbreeding experiment involving local Saudi chickens and egg-type breed of White Leghorn.
Three-year crossbreeding experiment of two generations
was carried out in the poultry farm of the Research Center of the
Agricultural Experiments (RCAE), College of Agriculture and
Veterinary Medicine, King Saud University, Saudi Arabia. The
experiment was started in January 1997.
Hens used in this study represented two generations of crossbreeding of one local breed (Baladi Saudi, S) with world wide used (White Leghorn, L). Chicks of the parental stock were raised up to the age of five months in the rearing house. In the first generation of the crossbreeding experiment, half-sib hens of each of the two breeds were randomly divided into two breeding groups. The first group of half-sib hens of each of the two breeds was artificially mated with cocks from their own breed (pure line mating), while the second group was artificially mated with cocks from the other breed (cross line mating). The cocks were randomly assigned to mate the hens with a restriction to avoid the mating of birds with common grandparents, i.e. related birds are not mated. Accordingly, four genetic groups of LxL, SxS, LxS and SxL hens were obtained. Birds of the first generation were hatched on 1/1/1997 and started their egg production in May 1997. In the second generation, the same four genetic groups of hens of the first generation were produced in addition to the hens produced from mating of LxSL and SxLS. Birds of this second generation hatched on 14/11/1997 and began their season of egg production during April 1998. Throughout the two generations, each sire was mated with about four dams and each dam was represented randomly by one daughter to attain half-sib hens, i.e. paternal half-sib hens in different genetic groups were choosen randomly. The distribution of breeding sires and dams and number of hens used in the genetic groups are presented in Table 1. Eggs in both generations were collected when the birds were approximately 24 weeks of age and continued for 12 months, i.e. eggs collected represented the annual egg production of the hen.
Table 1. Number of sires and their paternal half-sib hens used in different genetic groups of the study |
||||
Genetic group+ |
First generation |
Second generation |
||
Sires |
Hens++ |
Sires |
Hens++ |
|
L x L |
28 |
111 |
28 |
78 |
S x S |
32 |
143 |
31 |
64 |
S x L |
9 |
37 |
8 |
29 |
L x S |
10 |
45 |
14 |
75 |
Sx(LxS) |
- |
- |
31 |
60 |
Lx(SxL) |
- |
- |
30 |
54 |
Total |
79 |
336 |
142 |
360 |
+
L = White Leghorn; S = Saudi; Breed of cock listed first |
All one-day old chicks were wing-banded and floor
brooded and reared in semi-closed houses up to the age of 16 weeks
(11 chicks per m2). Temperature was controlled (17-32
oC) using separate electric heaters and
air-conditioners, while the ventilation was controlled using
electric extractor fans. Chicks were vaccinated against New Castle
disease via the drinking water during the first week (strain
Hitchner) and at 8 weeks (strain Lassota) and they were regularly
vaccinated thereafter every three months. All chicks were treated
and medicated similarly and regularly. They were subjected to the
same management, hygienic and climatic conditions
At the age of 5 months, pullets were individually housed in three-tier batteries equipped with feeding hoppers and drinking nipples. The pedigreed eggs from each individual hen were collected and recorded daily.
During the brooding and rearing periods, all chicks
were fed ad-libitum using a standard starter ration
(21% crude protein and 12.1 MJ Metabolizable energy per kg of feed)
up to 8 weeks of age and a finisher ration (14% crude protein and
11.1 MJ Metabolizable energy per kg of feed) thereafter up to 18
weeks. During the laying period, all hens were fed
ad-libitum using a ration containing 17% crude
protein, 3.6% calcium and 11.9 MJ Metabolizable energy per kg of
feed.
Data of age at first egg (AFE), first
three-month of egg production (EP3) and annual egg
production (AEP) were collected from 696 hens over the two
generations. Data of egg components (egg weight, yolk weight,
albumen weight, shell weight) for this experiment was published
previously (Khalil et al 2002). Data were analysed using the
following animal model:
Where:
yi = vector of observations
for the ith egg trait of hens;
bi= vector of fixed
effects (represented by genetic groups and generations) for the ith
trait;
uai= vector of random effects of the hen for the
ith trait;Xi
Zai are incidence
matrices relating records of the ith trait to fixed effects and
additive genetic effect of the hen, respectively, and
ei= Vector of random residual effects for the ith
trait.
Data was analyzed by running MTDFREML program of
Boldman et al (1995). The inverse of the numerator relationship
matrix (A-1) was considered; Var(a)=
As2a
and Var(e)= Is2e. Variance components
obtained by multi-trait animal model were used to estimate
heritabilities as:
Where s2A and
s2e are variances for direct additive genetic
and random error effects, respectively.
The animal model was used to demonstrate the
calculation of linear contrasts for the effect of genetic group for
different traits under study. The Dickerson's genetic model
(Dickerson 1992) was used to derive the following linear
contrasts:
Individual (direct) additive effect of the hen
(GI):
GI = GIL
- GIS = LL - SS - SL - LS
Maternal additive effect of the dam of hen
(GM):
GM = GML -
GMS = SL - LS
Direct heterosis in the crossbred hen
(HI):
HI = [SS + ¾L¼S] - [LL -
¾S¼L]
Maternal heterosis in the crossbred dam
(HM):
HM = [¾L¼S + ¾S¼L] -
¼[LL + SS + SL + LS]
Direct recombination effect in the individual hen
(RI):
RI = ½ [LL + LS - SS -
SL]
Coefficients presented in Table 2 for the expected contribution of genetic effects (in S or L and their crosses) were computed according to Dickerson (1992). The standard errors were computed for all the genetic effects using the inverse matrix of the sub-class numbers and the error standard deviation.
Table 2. Coefficients of expected contribution for genetic effects in different groups of purebreds and crossbreds |
|||||||||
Sire genotype |
Dam genotype |
Hen genotype+ |
DirectAdditive |
MaternalAdditive |
Direct heterosis, HI |
Maternal heterosis, HM |
Recombination effect (RI) |
||
L |
S |
L |
S |
||||||
L |
L |
L |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
S |
S |
S |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
S |
L |
½S½L |
½ |
½ |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
L |
S |
½L½S |
½ |
½ |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
S |
½L½S |
¾S¼L |
¾ |
¼ |
½ |
½ |
½ |
1 |
¼ |
L |
½S½L |
¾L¼S |
¼ |
¾ |
½ |
½ |
½ |
1 |
¼ |
L =
Leghorn ; S = Saudi
|
Least-squares means for AFE, EP3 and AEP in different genetic groups are presented in Table 3. The LxL genetic group showed a higher egg production and later age at first egg compared to the SxS mating. However, the estimates for Leghorn chickens are lower than those estimates reported in most studies of developed countries. These results were expected and reflect that L used in this study might be affected by hot climatic conditions in Saudi Arabia. Clear differences of 7.6 day, 13.7 egg and 38.6 egg for AFE, EP3 and AEP (P<0.001) were in favour of L breed, respectively. Genetic group of ¾L¼S surpassed other crossbreds in egg production. Abdel-Hamied (1993) in Egypt stated that crossbreds of Golden Montazah X New Hampshire were slightly exceed their parental purebreds in egg production during the first 3 or 6 months of laying.
Table 3. Purebred and crossbred means (±SE) for age at first egg (AFE), the first three-month egg production (EP3), and the annual egg production (AEP) |
|||
Hen genotype+ |
AFE, Day |
EP3, Egg |
AEP, Egg |
L |
175.2±7.6 |
66.4±1.3 |
215.9±4.4 |
S |
167.6±9.1 |
52.7±1.2 |
177.3±5.1 |
½S½L |
179.3±12.8 |
54.3±2.1 |
191.3±7.5 |
½L½S |
168.5±12.7 |
64.5±1.7 |
209.4±7.1 |
¾S¼L |
157.5±3.4 |
64.6±1.7 |
204.6±3.9 |
¾L¼S |
159.6±3.4 |
65.8±1.7 |
216.5±4.1 |
Significance |
*** |
*** |
*** |
L =
Leghorn ; S = Saudi |
Heritabilities estimated by multi-trait animal model for egg traits were moderate or high (Table 4). The estimate for AFE was 0.55, while the estimates for EP3 and AEP were 0.31 and 0.54, respectively. These moderate or high estimates may be attributed to the existence of covariances among traits (Wei and Van Der Werf 1993). The substantial estimates obtained in this experiment lead us to select birds of the subsequent generations of the experiment according to AFE and EP3. These results indicate also that early selection of hens themselves may be effective for the improvement of performance of egg production under such crossbreeding experiment.
Table 4. Heritabilities (h2) and the ratio of variance of non-genetic effects to phenotypic variance (e2) estimated by animal model for age at first egg (AFE), the first three-month egg production (EP3), and the annual egg production (AEP) |
||
Trait |
h2 |
e2 |
AFE |
0.55 |
0.45 |
EP3 |
0.31 |
0.69 |
AEP |
0.54 |
0.46 |
Heritabilities of the present study were nearly similar to those reported in the literature although published heritabilities estimated by animal model for egg traits in chickens are few (e.g. Besbes et al 1992; Ahmed et al 1993; Wei and Van Der Werf 1993; Wezyk and Szwaczkowski 1993; Danabaro et al 1995; Koerhuis and Mckay 1996; Francesch et al 1997; Koerhuis et al 1997; Singh et al 2000b). In genetic analysis of purebred and crossbred pullets of White Leghorn in India, Singh et al (1996) indicated that heritabilities for egg number traits in crosses were higher than in purebreds (resulted from higher additive genetic variance). Accounting for additive relationship between sires, Wei and Van Der Werf (1993) in Britain using multi-variate sire model reported that heritabilities for egg number traits in crossbreds ranged from 0.40 to 0.51. However, highly heritable egg traits would exhibit less heterosis compared to lowly highly heritable traits.
Estimates of genetic correlations among the three traits showed that all of these associations were similar in sign and magnitude to the corresponding estimates of environmental correlations (Table 5). As expected, correlations among egg production during the first three-month and annual egg production were positive and high, i.e. part-whole relationship. Therefore, the first three month egg production could be used as indicator for early selection.
Table 5. Estimates of genetic and environmental correlations among traits |
||
Traits correlated |
Genetic correlations |
Environmental correlations |
AFE and EP3 |
-0.39 |
-0.31 |
AFE and AEP |
-0.36 |
-0.32 |
EP3 and AEP |
0.81 |
0.62 |
Age at first egg was negatively moderately genetically
correlated with the first three-month egg production (-0.39) and
the annual egg production (-0.36). This favourable trend indicated
that selection for earlier age at first egg is likely to be
associated with moderate gain in egg production. Negative estimates
of genetic correlations between age at maturity and egg production
were also reported by Thakur et al (1989) in India (-0.691) and by
Koerhuis and Mckay (1996) in Netherlands (-0.76).
The linear contrasts of direct additive effects for egg production were in favour of the L breed (Table 6). L-sired hens had higher values of direct additive effects than S-sired hens for all traits. Francesch et al (1997) and Koerhuis et al (1997) reported that direct additive genetic effects were important for egg traits. The percentages of GI {GI%= [GI in units/ (average of L + L-sired crosses)] x 100} for egg production were high. The estimates were 36.4 % for EP3 and 26.5% for AEP (P<0.001). These considerable direct additive effects recorded for L breed for egg production traits lead us to suggest that L chickens could be used as a terminal sire-breed in any crossbreeding program to improve egg production of local chickens in Saudi Arabia.
Table 6. Estimates of direct (GI) and maternal (GM) additive effects for age at first egg (AFE), the first three-month egg production (EP3), and the annual egg production (AEP) |
||||
Trait+ |
Direct additive |
Maternal additive |
||
Units ±SE |
GI% |
Units ±SE |
GM% |
|
AFE |
-3.2±1. |
-1.9* |
10.8±1.4 |
6.5*** |
EP3 |
23.9±1.6 |
36.4*** |
-10.1±1.3 |
-16.6*** |
AEP |
56.7±3.8 |
26.5*** |
-18.1±3.2 |
-9.0*** |
GI%=
[GI in units / (average of L + L-sired
crosses)]x100 |
The estimates of GM for EP3
and AEP were in favour of the S dams (Table 6), i.e.
hens produced from the ½L½S dams had generally
better egg production than those from ½S½L dams.
The percentages of GM for egg production
{GM%= [GM in units/ (average of
S + S-maternal crosses)]x100} were moderate (Table 6). The
percentages were -16.6% for EP3 and -9.0% for AEP.
The estimates obtained showed that additive breed maternity had a
meaningful effect on the variations of egg production. These
results indicate also that daughters of S dams showed higher
egg production and longer AFE than daughters of S
dams, i.e. additive maternity of S dams showed later
AFE and higher egg production than additive maternity of
S dams. Siewerdt and Dionello (1990) and Sharma et al (1992)
observed an evidence for the significant maternal effects on egg
production traits.
Negative estimate of HI (-2.7%) for AFE (Table 7) suggests that crossing of L and S chickens gave a decrease in age of hen at first egg. Most of the estimates available in literature (e.g. Siewerdt and Dionello 1990; Singh et al 2000a) gave an evidence for such negative estimate of HI for AFE. Zatter (1994) reported that estimates of heterosis for age at sexual maturity in Norfa X Matrouh and Matrouh X Alexandria crossbreds in Egypt were -5.8% and 6.54 %, respectively. For all possible crosses of Alexandria, Silver Montazah, Mandra and Gimmiza in Egypt, El-Hanoun (1995) found that the estimates of heterosis for AFE ranged from -4.9% for Silver Montazah X Gimmiza to 2.6% for Mandra X Silver Montazah. El-Safty (1999) found that estimates of heterosis for AFE were -1.19% for the cross of Mandarah X Golden Montazah and -1.82% for the cross of Golden Montazah X Mandarah.
Table 7. Estimates of direct (HI) and maternal (HM) heterosis calculated in actual units and percentages for age at first egg (AFE), the first three-month egg production (EP3), and the annual egg production (AEP) |
||||
Trait |
Direct heterosis |
Maternal heterosis |
||
Units ±SE |
HI, % |
Units ±SE |
HM, % |
|
AFE |
4.6±2.1 |
-2.7* |
-28.2±2.1 |
-16.4*** |
EP3 |
-0.8±0.19 |
-1.3NS |
11.4±1.9 |
19.1*** |
AEP |
-0.8±0.19 |
2.7NS |
24.1±4.8 |
12.3*** |
NS = Non-significant; * = P < 0.05; *** = P<0.001 |
Estimates of direct heterosis were -1.3% for
EP3 and 2.7% for AEP (Table 7). The positive estimate
of HI for AEP and the negative estimate
for AFE suggest that crossing L with S in
adverse environment was associated with a little increase in egg
production along with a reduction in age at first egg. Fairfull et
al (1987) with different crosses of White Leghorn found that
estimates of heterosis for 497-day egg production ranged from 5.8
to 11.9%. Flock et al (1991) indicated that heterosis for egg
production was considerably low which was interpreted as a
consequence of pure line selection. In Egypt, Zatter (1994) with
Matrouh, Alexandria and Norfa reported that estimates of heterosis
for egg number laid during the first 90 days of production of
F1 crosses and their reciprocal lines ranged from 19.6%
to 24.1%. For all possible crosses of Alexandria, Silver montazah,
Mandra and Gimmiza, heterosis estimates reported by El-Hanoun
(1995) for the first 90-day of egg production ranged from -4.6% for
Silver Montazah X Mandra to 27.2% for Mandra X Alexandria. El-Safty
(1999) found that estimates of heterosis for EP3 were -3.76
% for the cross of Mandarah X Golden Montazah and -10.85 % for the
cross of Golden Montazah X Mandarah.
The trends of estimates of HM for
AFE and AEP are in agreement with those estimates of
direct heterosis (Table 7). Significant and negative estimate of
HM for AFE (-16.4%) shows that crossbred
dams had earlier AFE than their crossbred daughters.
However, negative estimate of HM for AFE
along with positive estimates of HM for
EP3 (19.1%, P<0.001) and AEP (12.3%, P<0.001)
would be favourable for the poultry producers in developing
countries to use crossbred hens on commercial scale. This indicates
also that crossbred dams showed earlier AFE together with
higher egg production in their crossbred daughters than in their
purebred dams.
The estimates of RI for AFE,
EP3 and AEP were 1.6+0.85 day (P>0.05),
-11.9+0.79 egg and 28.3+1.9 egg (P<0.001),
respectively. Estimates of RI for EP3 and
AEP were different to those estimates of direct heterosis,
which implies that the dominance effects on these traits were of
considerable importance. The parental epistasis may be responsible
for the low residual heterosis in F2. Negative
RI for AFE revealed that crossbred hens
with L genes could mother hens with shorter AFE than
purebred L hens when both groups of hens were mated to cocks
from the same L purebred. In general, the two-locus model of
heterosis reflects dominance and half additive-by-additive
interaction effects, whereas the recombination effect included only
half of the additive-by-additive interaction effects. In this
respect, Szwaczkowski (1999) stated that those additive-by-additive
epistatic effects on age at first egg, egg weight and egg
production traits were important.
Since maternal heterosis for different traits were
favourable, this will be an encouraging factor for the producer in
Saudi Arabia to obtain crossbred hens characterized by high egg
production rate. Therefore, there is advantage to use crossbred
dams resulting from crossing Leghorn with Saudi chickens to develop
parental strains to be used in crossbreeding stratification systems
in hot climate regions particularly in Saudi Arabia.
Abdel-Hamied E F 1993 A study of some genetic and environmental factors affecting performance of laying hens and their crosses. Ph D Thesis, Faculty Agriculture, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
Ahmed M, Vyas O P, Jana S P, Kirloskar M S and Bhagwat A L 1993 Heritability estimates and genetic correlations between egg number and egg weight in White Leghorn. Indian Veterinary Journal 70(7): 633-635.
Al-Sobayel A A 1985 Studies on Saudi Arabian Baladi and SCW Leghorn: Effect of breed, hatching season and sex on body weight, growth rate and viability. Egyptian Poultry Science 5: 12-24.
Besbes B, Ducrocq V, Foulley J L, Protais M,
Tavernier A, Tixier B M and Beaumont C 1992 Estimation of
genetic parameters of egg production traits of laying hens by
restricted maximum likelyhood applied to a multiple-trait reduced
animal model. Genetic Selection Evolution 24(6):
539-552.USA.
Danbaro G, Oyama K, Mukai F, Tsuji S, Tateishi T
and Mae M 1995 Heritabilities and genetic correlations from a
selection experiment in broiler breeders using restricted maximum
likelihood. Japanese Poultry Science 32(6): 257-266
Dickerson G E 1992 "Manual for evaluation of
breeds and crosses of domestic animals". Food and Agriculture
Organization of the United Nations, Rome, PP 47.
El-Hanoun A M 1995 Effect of crossing among four Egyptian strains of chickens on growth and egg production traits. M. Sc. Thesis, Faculty Agriculture, Alexandria University, Egypt.
El-Safty S E A 1999 Combining abilities and heterosis from diallel crosses in fowls. M. Sc. Thesis, Faculty Agriculture, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
Fairfull R W, Gowe R S and Nagai J 1987 Dominance and epistasis in heterosis of White Leghorn strain crosses. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 67: 663-680.
Flock D K, Ameli H and Gloder P 1991 Inbreeding and heterosis effects on quantitative traits in a White Leghorn population under long-term reciprocal recurrent selection. British Poultry Science 32(3): 451-462.
Francesch A, Estany J, Alfonso L and Iglesias M 1997 Genetic parameters for egg number, egg weight and egg shell color in three Catalan poultry breeds. Poultry Science 76(12): 1627-1631.
Khalil M H, Al-Homidan A H and Hermes I H 2002 Genetic evaluation for egg components in crossbreeding experiment of Saudi chickens with White Leghorn. Egyptian Journal of Animal Production 39(1): 67-76.
Koerhuis A N M, Mckay J C 1996 Restricted
maximum likelihood estimation of genetic parameters for egg
production traits in relation to juvenile body weight in broiler
chickens. Livestock Production Science 46(2):
117-127.
Koerhuis A N M, Mckay J C, Hill W G and Thompson R 1997 A genetic analysis of egg quality traits and their maternal influence on offspring-parental regression of juvenile body weight performance in broiler chickens. Livestock Production Science 49(3): 203-215.
Sharma D, Johari D C, Kataria M C and Singh D P 1992 Combining ability analysis for egg production traits of light and heavy breed crosses of egg type chicken. Indian Journal of Poultry Science 27(4): 183-187.
Siewerdt F and Dionello N J L 1990 Comparison
of egg production of three Leghorn strains and their reciprocal
crosses. Revista Da Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia 19(3):
209-218.
Singh N P, Chaudhary M C, Brah G S and Sandhu J S 1996 Heritabilities of and correlations among part- and annual-traits in pure- and cross-line White Leghorns. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 66(8): 806-810.
Singh V K, Mohen M, Verma S B, Mandal K G and Singh D B 2000a Genetic effect on egg weight in pure and crossbred chicken. Indian Veterinary Medical Journal 24(2): 95-97.
Singh B, Singh H, Singh C V and Singh B 2000b Genetic parameters of growth, egg production and egg quality traits in White Leghorn. Indian Journal of Poultry Science 35(1): 13-16.
Szwaczkowski T 1999Additive and additive-by-additive genetic variability of productive traits in laying hens. Journal of Animal and Food Sciences 8(2): 191-201.
Thakur Y P, Singh B P and Singh H N 1989 Estimates of various genetic and phenotypic parameters in a flock of White Leghorn. Indian Journal of Poultry Science, 24(3): 148-152.
Wei M and Van der Werf J J 1993Animal model
estimation of additive and dominance variances in egg production
traits in poultry. Journal of Animal Science 71(1):
57-65.
Wezyk S and Szwaczkowski T 1993 Animal Model as
a tool for estimation of laying hen breeding value in Poland -
Current possibilities and prospects. Biuletyn Informacyjny.
Instytut Zootechniki 31(1-2): 3-14 (Biological Abstract, 97(5):
63361).
Zatter O M 1994 Effect of crossbreeding between new local strains of chickens on some productive traits. M. Sc. Thesis, Faculty Agriculture, Alexandria University, Egypt.
Received 12 September 2003; Accepted 15 September 2003