Livestock Research for Rural Development 27 (4) 2015 Guide for preparation of papers LRRD Newsletter

Citation of this paper

Comparative growth and livability performance of exotic, indigenous chickens and their crosses in Tanzania

W G Munisi, A M Katule1 and S H Mbaga1

Tanzania Livestock Research Institute - Mpwapwa, P.O.Box 202 Dodoma, Tanzania
wilfredmunisi@yahoo.com
1 Department of Animal Science and Production, Sokoine University of Agriculture,
P. O. Box 3014, Morogoro, Tanzania

Abstract

A study was conducted in central Tanzania to compare growth performance and livability of two exotic stocks namely Broiler (B) and Black Australorp (A), and two indigenous chickens sourced from warm (W) and cool(C) ecological zones and their crossbreds. The four parental stocks were used in 4x4 diallel crossing to produce 16 genetic stocks totaling 1256 experimental chicks. Birds were fed on nutritionally balanced diets to meet their requirements as per age and physiological stage. Variables studied were livability from day old to 48 weeks of age and body weights at day old, 4, 8 and 12 weeks of age. The data on growth traits were recorded on individual bird basis and analyzed using the General Linear Models procedure of SAS (2003), while frequency procedure of SAS (2003) was used for livability analysis.

 

Results revealed that genetic stocks differed in body weight at various ages. The broiler genetic stock (BB) was the heaviest at all ages. Among the indigenous ecotypes, the genetic stock from cool ecological zone (CC) was heavier than that from warm ecological zone (WW). However, at 12 weeks of age, the cross between the indigenous chickens from warm ecological zone and broiler (WB) in female birds as well as the cross between the broiler and indigenous chickens from the warm ecological zone (BW) in male birds had body weights which were close to that of straight broiler stocks (BB). The mean body weights of 12 weeks of age of the crosses ranged from 625g in the cross between indigenous chickens from the warm ecological zone and the indigenous chickens from the cool ecological zone (WC) to 1537g in the cross between the warm ecological zone and the broiler stocks (WB) for female birds. Similarly at 12 weeks of age, the mean body weights for male birds ranged from 894g in the cross between the indigenous chickens from the warm ecological zone and Black Australorp (WA) to 1833g in the cross between the broiler and indigenous chickens from the warm ecological zone (BW). Livability also differed significantly (p< 0.001) among genetic stocks in favor of the cross between Black Australorp and broiler (AB) females and its reciprocal (BA). The survival rate for female birds ranged from 32.3% in the indigenous chickens from the warm ecological zone (WW) to 72.3% in the cross between the broiler and the Black Australorp stocks (BA).The additive genetic contribution from the broiler stocks (BB) was higher than those of other stocks with respect to body weights. It is concluded that if is aimed at improving body weight and overall survival rate, then both broiler and Black Australorp crosses would offer the best option under moderate input production conditions.

Key words: additive breed effects, body weight, diallel crossing, dual purpose chickens, genetic stock, heterosis, reciprocal effects, synthetic breeding


Introduction

Indigenous chickens of developing countries are characterized by low productivity. However they possess other important merits like scavenging behavior and ability to survive in harsh environmental conditions and poor management systems (Yakubu et al 2008). Furthermore, these chickens are able to tolerate various diseases (Minga et al 2004; Ajayi, 2010). There are many factors contributing to low productivity of the birds, but the most fundamental is their low genetic potential (Katule 1992, Kitalyi 1998).  Nonetheless, genetic variability exists in productive and disease resistance traits (Msoffe et al 2004, 2006). The variability, if fully exploited, can provide the basis for genetic improvement (Adebambo et al 2010).

 

Genetic improvement of indigenous chickens may be achieved through either selection or crossbreeding using improved breeds or through employment of both approaches. Selection captures the benefits associated with additive gene action. However, simulation studies by (Lwelamira et al 2008) revealed that Kuchi, a large indigenous chicken ecotype in Tanzania, would require between three to six years of selection to attain 1300 g body weight at 16 weeks of age under intensive management system. This implies that a lot of time and resources would be needed to arrive at intended genetic improvement of indigenous chickens when selection within breed is opted for.

 

On the other hand crossbreeding between indigenous stock and exotic commercial chickens, would take advantage of productive merits which have already been accumulated through selection in the exotic chickens as well as merits for hardiness which have been endowed in indigenous chickens through decades of natural selection (Rajkumar et al 2011). Furthermore, crosses will have advantage emanating from the phenomenon of heterosis (Katule 1990; Guéye 1998). In recent time crossbreeding through provision of exotic cocks has been the main approach to improve indigenous chickens in Tanzania (Massawe 2009). However, the major setback in the crossbreeding program has been the need for repeated provision of exotic birds for crossing. This has been hampered by unreliable supply and high costs of acquiring and maintaining exotic breeding cocks. In other countries, reduction in fitness in imported breeding cocks due to genotype x environment interaction obstructed optimum utilization of this genetic improvement approach (Ndofor-Foleng et al 2006).

 

An alternative improvement approach would be to carry out crossing between two or more populations to create a single population of chickens followed by selection within the crossbred population, a method which is popularly known as synthetic breeding (Aggarwal et al 1979). With synthetic breeding, only one population with all desirable traits has to be maintained instead of two or more parental populations needed in regular crossing programs. Depending on the genetic diversity between the parental breeds, various levels of heterosis would be expected. However, before adopting any breeding strategy, adequate information on qualities and capabilities of different breeds of chickens is required. The information is important in order to select the right type of breeds/genetic stocks to cross so as to blend desirable qualities of the original parental stocks in one stock.

 

The current work focused on evaluating the performance of various parental breeds and crossbred genetic stocks and assessing the relative importance of additive breed effects, heterosis and reciprocal effects as determinants of growth and livability performance of chickens.   


Material and methods

Experimental site

 

The study was carried out at the Tanzania Livestock Research Institute (TALIRI) – Mpwapwa, located in central Tanzania. The area receives on average 660 mm of rainfall annually, falling mainly from November to April, with a dry spell in February and a long dry season from May to November. The Institute is at an elevation of around 1100 m above sea level with mean temperature ranging between 240C to 29 0C.

 

Study layout and procedure

 

Four stocks (two exotic and two indigenous) of chickens were used in a 4 x 4 diallel crossing to produce sixteen different genetic stocks. A total of 1256 experimental chicks were produced in three hatches. The exotic stocks used were the meat type (Broiler) chickens (B) used in Tanzania and an egg type Black Australorp (A) from the TALIRI farm. The indigenous stocks consisted of one stock collected from a warm ecological zone of central Tanzania (W) and another stock which was obtained from a cool highland zone of Tanzania (C). The mating arrangement and the resultant progeny genetic stocks were as shown in Table 1. The obtained progeny genetic stocks were compared for growth and livability performance.

Table 1: Mating arrangement of chickens to produce experimental birds and progeny genetic stocks arising from the mating

Females (♀)

Broiler, B
(61)

Black Australorp, A
(64)

Warm ecotype, W
(68)

Cool ecotype, C
(41)

Broiler, B (15)

BB

BA

BW

BC

Males (♂)

Black Australorp, A (14)

AB

AA

AW

AC

Warm ecotype, W (14)

WB

WA

WW

WC

Cool ecotype, C (11)

CB

CA

CW

CC

Figures in parenthesis represent numbers of breeding birds

Management of experimental birds

 

Chicks were wing banded at day old and brooded separately by genetic stocks for four weeks. The composition of the diets offered was as shown in Table 2. The chicks were vaccinated against Newcastle disease when they were 10 days old and then every after three month’s interval. They were also vaccinated against gumboro disease at day 14th and 28th. At 10 weeks of age they were vaccinated against fowl pox disease. The chickens were transferred to floor rearing pens after two months of age where female chickens were raised until they reached 48 weeks of age.

Table 2: Gross and calculated nutrient composition of diets fed to experimental birds at different ages.

 

 

Ages in weeks

 

Ingredients, %

1-8

9-16

17-48

Gross composition

 

 

 

Hominy meal

42.5

42.5

43.5

Maize meal

26

25

20

Sunflower seed cake

22

20

20

Fish meal

3

5

5

Lime stone

2.5

3

4

Bone meal

2

3

4

Premix

0.5

0.5

0.5

Common salt

0.5

0.5

0.5

Lysine

0.25

0.25

0.25

Methionine

0.25

0.25

0.25

Calculated nutrient composition

 

 

 

Metabolizable energy, (kcal/kg)

2750

2700

2700

Crude protein, (%)

18

16

16

Data collection

 

Individual birds were weighed at day old and thereafter, at four week intervals up to the age of 12 weeks using an electronic balance. Data on livability were obtained from the record book maintained on daily basis. The average number of birds of each genetic stock alive in a given period was obtained by summing up the number of birds alive each day during the respective period and dividing by the number of days in that period. The livability was recorded from day old to 48 weeks of age.

 

Statistical data analysis and merit component estimation

 

The data on weights of birds were analyzed using the SAS General Linear Models (GLM) procedure using statistical model 1.

 

Yijk = µ + Gi + P(G) ik + eijk   …………………………………………………………………………………………………………(1)

 

Where:

 

Yijk is an observation from the kth bird in the jth pen of the ith genetic stock,

µ = general mean common to all birds in the experiment,

Gi= the fixed effect of the ith genetic stock

P (G)ij = effect of the jth pen within the genetic stock,

eijk = random effects peculiar to each individual bird.  

 

On the basis of this statistical model, least squares means for weights at various ages were computed and compared between the genetic stocks. In addition, constant estimates for various components of merit (additive, heterosis and reciprocal effects) were derived using the SAS (2003) General Linear Models procedure with the solution option. The analysis was based on the following mathematical model:-

Means for components of merit were compared using t-test.

 

Xαβ= p1G+ p2G2 +...+ pnGn+c11H11+ c12H12+c21H21  +c22H22+ c13H13 +c31H31 +c33H33+…+ cinHin +cniHni +…+cnnHnn+ k11R11 …+ knnRnn ……...............................................................................(2)

 

Where:

 

Xαβ = performance of the βth bird from the αth genetic stock,

p1,p2,…,pn= pi = proportion of inheritance from the ith breed in a given genetic stock,

G1,G2,…Gn= Gi = additive effect of the ith breed,

c11, c12,...cin= cij =constant representing level of heterozygosity emanating from the ith and jth parental breeds in a given genetic stock

H11,H12,…,Hnn= Hij= magnitude of heterosis in the cross between the ith and jth parental breeds

k1,k2,…kn= ki = constant representing the presence or absence of reciprocal effects in a given genetic stock

R11,R12,…,Rnn= Rij = magnitude of reciprocal effects expressed when the ith and jth parental breeds are interchanged as sire and dam breeds.

 

The constants p, c and k were fitted in the above equation in accordance with the following procedure:

The proportion of inheritance from a given breed (p) was coded 1.0 if the genetic stock under consideration was a parental breed, ½ or 0.5 for F1 cross with another breed and 0.0 if the breed’s germplasm was not represented in the genetic stock being considered. For heterosis, the coding was either 1.0 or 0.0 depending on the expected level of heterozygosity (c) in the progeny resulting from a given pair of parental breeds. The constants for reciprocal effects (k) were coded 1.0 for genetic stocks arising from dissimilar parental breeds with the breed of interest being on the paternal side and -1.0 for genetic stocks from dissimilar parental breeds with the breed of interest being on the maternal side, as summarized in the design matrix in Table 3 below.  However, except for reciprocals, the constant estimates for additive and heterosis were biased, the bias being imposed by the procedure used to compute the constant estimates. To obtain unbiased constant estimates for additive genetic and reciprocal effects the procedure used by Katule (1990) was adopted.

Table 3: Design matrix indicating coefficients for expected contribution of various genetic effects in different genetic stocks of parental and crossbred progeny

 

 

 

Additive effects

Heterosis

Reciprocal effects

Sire breed

Dam breed

Progeny genetic stock*

A

C

W

B
"p"

AC

AW

AB

CW

CB

WB
" c"

AC

AW

AB

CW

CB

WB
"k"

A

A

AA

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

C

C

CC

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

W

W

WW

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

B

B

BB

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

A

C

AC

0.5

0.5

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

C

A

CA

0.5

0.5

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

−1

0

0

0

0

0

A

W

AW

0.5

0

0.5

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

W

A

WA

0.5

0

0.5

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

−1

0

0

0

0

A

B

AB

0.5

0

0

0.5

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

B

A

BA

0.5

0

0

0.5

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

−1

0

0

0

C

W

CW

0

0.5

0.5

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

W

C

WC

0

0.5

0.5

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

−1

0

0

C

B

CB

0

0.5

0

0.5

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

B

C

BC

0

0.5

0

0.5

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

−1

0

W

B

WB

0

0

0.5

0.5

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

1

B

W

BW

0

0

0.5

0.5

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

−1

*Sire- breed listed first: The Sire, Dam and progeny genetic stocks are described in Table 1 (p, c and k constants are defined above

The data on livability were analysed using the frequency procedure of SAS (2003). Chi-square tests were applied to test associations between genetic stocks and livability.


Results and discussions

Variation among genetic stocks with respect to juvenile body weights

 

Table 4.1 shows least squares means for body weights of female birds summarized by genetic stocks. The genetic stocks were significantly (p < 0.001) different in body weights at all stages of growth. With the exception of the cross between the indigenous chickens from the warm ecological zone and the broiler (WB) at hatching time, broiler stocks (BB) were consistently heavier than other genetic stocks. The broiler stocks grew more quickly than other genetic stocks due to the fact that they have been intensively selected for rapid growth and heavy body weights. This conforms to Katule’s (1992) observations that the highest performance is expected in the breed which had been developed purposely for higher performance in that trait. Olawumi and Fagbuaro (2011) reported higher body weights at eight weeks of age for broiler chickens than the values obtained in the current study. The difference in the results of these studies may be due to broiler strains or environment differences. Similarly, Binda et al (2012) observed that meat breeds were heavier than native chickens from hatching to week 8 of age.  However, at 12 weeks of age, the cross between the indigenous stock from the warm ecological zone and broiler (WB) did not differ significantly in weight (P>0.05) from broiler stock (BB).This indicates that crossing indigenous chickens from warm ecological zone (W) and broiler (B) stocks produced crossbreds that close the gap due to broiler breed additive effects and heterosis effects. The results are comparable with the study carried out by Momoh et al (2010) who showed that crossing heavy ecotypes with light ecotype tend to produce crossbreds with body weights close to that of heavy ecotypes.

 

With regard to males, the results presented in Table 4.2 indicate that at 12 weeks of age, the cross between broiler and indigenous chickens from warm ecological zone chickens (BW) did not differ significantly in weight from broiler stocks (BB). The results reveal that crossing broiler chickens (B) with indigenous chickens from warm ecological zones (W) resulted into crossbreds with body weights close to that of broiler chickens. The result were in conformity with the findings of Gnakari (2007) who reported comparable body weights between pure bred broiler and broiler crossbred after eight weeks of age in Côte d'Ivoire.

 

Overall, the results of the study showed that the crossbreds with inheritance from broiler stocks were generally heavier than other crossbreds at all ages. This was expected because of the fact that body size is influenced by additive genetic effects as well as heterotic effects. The obtained result also conforms to what has been reported by other investigators (Katule 1990; Sunett 2013).

 

 The results also revealed that the cross between the indigenous chickens from the warm ecological zone and Black Australorp (WA) in both sexes were significantly (P<0.001) heavier than the indigenous chickens from the warm ecological zone (WW) at eight weeks of age (Tables 4.1 and 4.2). The observed higher body weights of the crossbreds (WA) than those of indigenous birds (WW) were probably due to breed complementarity and the fact that heritability for body weight is moderately high (Kadigi et al 1998). The results also conform to what was reported by Adedokun and Sonaiya (2002) who observed that crossbred males derived from Dahlem red x Nigerian native chicken were heavier than straight bred native males.  

 

It is also interesting to note that the body weights results of the Black Australorp crossbreds (AW and AC) as well as those of indigenous chickens from two ecological zones (WW and CC) in the present study were lower than those of Tswana crossbreds and Tswana straightbreds reported by Patrick and Phakedi (2013). The differences observed in the performances of genetic stocks with regard to body weights for the two studies could be attributed to genetic and nutritional background of both the exotic and indigenous breeds used in the respective studies.

Table 4.1: Least squares means (±SE) for body weights (g) of female birds summarized by genetic stocks

Genetic stock

Mean body weight (BWT) at different ages (weeks)

 

0

4

8

12

AA

32.3±0.3cd

161.2±5.9 bc

498.5±15.4 de

812.3±27.3 d

WW

27.4±0.4a

138.6±6.7a

371.3±18.4 ab

669.8±36.8 ab

CC

29.5±0.5b

151.3±7.7abc

419.2±20.7 bc

689.5±39.3 abc

BB

42.6±0.8g

404.9±12.4 f

1182.9±31.5i

1810.7±58.2 h

AW

28.5±0.9ab

182.2±14.0 c

538.4±35.8 e

828.4±67.2 d

WA

33.1±0.4de

156.8±6.7abc

447.9±17.3 c

703.4±30.9 abcd

AC

31.2±0.5c

155.5±8.3 abc

462.7±22.3 cde

757.7±39.9 bcd

CA

31.7±0.4c

150.1±7.2ab

454.4±19.1 cd

779.8±34.7 cd

AB

39.7±0.5f

262.0 ±7.6 e

889.9±19.5 h

1407.0±36.8 g

BA

33.9 ±0.4e

220.0±6.6 d

741.0±17.4 f

1195.0±31.1ef

WC

28.2±0.5ab

140.7±8.0a

343.5±21.4 a

625.0±40.5 a

CW

28.8±0.7 ab

150.7±10.9ab

458.6±29.2 cde

696.6±53.4 abcd

WB

44.2±1.5g

298.6±23.5e

893.5±66.9 h

1536.7±134.5gh

BW

29.2±0.8b

272.0±13.6 e

939.7±34.5 h

1429.1±62.3 g

CB

41.5±0.7g

270.3±10.9e

805.2±28.5 fg

1098.0±50.8 e

BC

32.4±0.9cd

243.7±15.2 de

885.2±38.6 gh

1392.3±67.2 fg

Least squares means with no superscript letters in common within a column are significantly different (p< 0.05)


Table 4.2: Least squares means (±SE) for body weights (g) of male birds summarized by genetic stocks

Genetic stock

Mean body weight (BWT) at different ages (weeks)

 

0

4

8

12

AA

33.8±0.4de

160.4±8.0ab

570.1±22.0 c

1008.7±38.8 b

WW

28.7±0.5a

140.5±11.0a

408.6±33.0 a

805.6±63.0a

CC

29.5±0.6a

166.0±10.8ab

508.4±29.5 abc

932.2±56.1 ab

BB

42.6±0.6g

395.6±10.7g

1255.3±30.1g

2011.9±56.1 f

AW

30.5±0.9ab

192.9±16.7 b

508.8±44.9abc

970.8±79.3 ab

WA

34.3±0.4e

160.1±8.4ab

529.1±23.6bc

894.1±45.8 ab

AC

31.5±0.5b

155.7±8.3 a

536.3±23.9 bc

928.7±44.5 ab

CA

32.7±0.5bcd

161.0±9.2ab

537.8±25.3 bc

923.1±47.8 ab

AB

39.8±0.6f

293.6±10.1 e

946.2±28.6 de

1493.1±50.1 cd

BA

34.1±0.4e

235.5±7.7c

844.6±22.7 d

1440.4±45.1 c

WC

31.7±0.5bc

157.7±9.9ab

467.4±30.1 ab

866.4±51.9 a

CW

29.6±0.7a

164.3±12.3ab

545.0±37.1 bc

936.4±73.4 ab

WB

40.8±1.1fg

339.7±20.1f

1054.0±53.9 ef

1687.7±91.5de

BW

30.8±1.0ab

333.4±18.2f

1074.1±48.8f

1833.1±91.5ef

CB

43.1±0.7g

287.5±12.3de

940.9±33.7de

1509.0±58.5 cd

BC

33.8±1.1cde

307.4±19.1ef

886.3±51.2d

1429.2±86.8c

Least squares means with no superscript letters in common within a column are significantly different (p< 0.05)

Variation among genetic stocks with respect to livability

 

Livability differed significantly (P<0.001) among genetic stocks in females (Table 5). The reciprocal crosses between broiler and Black Australorp stocks (BA and AB) in both sexes survived better than other genetic stocks. The improved performance in livability of the broiler and Black Australorp crossbreds might be due to inheritance from broiler line. The broiler stock (BB) appeared to survive better when compared to Black Australorp stock (AA). The broiler stock (BB) had a 63% survival rate while the WW stock had 32% survival rate. The results from the present study are in agreement with those of Iraq et al (2005) who found improvement in livability for crossbreds than purebreds. The poor livability of indigenous chickens observed in the current study was probably due to the fact that indigenous chickens are used to the free range environment and the confinement might impose a stress which could render them susceptible to disease ailment. During feeding indigenous chickens, unlike exotic chickens, displayed feed ingredient selectivity. This resulted to body weakness, signs of drooping wings and finally death. Some of birds developed habit of cannibalism which caused death to cannibalized individuals. The observed poor livability of indigenous chickens under intensive management corresponds to other investigators reports. Petrus et al (2012) reported cannibalism being among the causes of mortality in indigenous chickens kept under intensive management system. Tadelle and Ogle (1996), cited by Petrus (2012), showed that diseases and nutritional deficiencies caused more problems to local chickens than exotic stocks in intensive management system. Several other workers (Demeke 2003, Demeke 2004; Halima et al (2006) revealed the inferiority of indigenous chickens under intensive system with respect to livability. Nonetheless, the mortality observed in the current study in indigenous chickens is slightly higher than those reported in other studies (Tadelle et al 2003; Demeke 2004; Halima et al 2006). However there were no significant differences (P>0.05) among genetic stocks in males with respect to livability.

Table 5: Percentage of birds alive or dead by 48weeks of age summarized by genetic stocks and sex

Genetic stocks and proportion dead or alive (%)

Sex

Status

AA

BB

CC

WW

AC

CA

WC

CW

CB

BC

AW

WA

AB

BA

WB

BW

x2-test

F

Alive

44.9

63.2

52.2

32.3

62.0

53.5

42.1

48.0

46.2

58.2

40.1

62.0

71.0

72.3

59.2

50.0

***

Dead

55.1

36.8

47.8

67.7

38.0

46.5

57.9

52.0

53.8

41.8

59.9

38.0

29.0

27.7

40.8

50.0

M

Alive

61.0

57.0

61.0

42.5

65.4

58.0

59.4

48.0

82.0

79.8

59.9

55.7

75.0

53.0

77.0

63.0

ns

Dead

39.0

43.0

39.0

57.5

34.6

42.0

40.6

52.0

18.0

20.2

40.1

44.3

25.0

47.0

23.0

37.0

*** (P<0.001), ns (P>0.05), AA=Black Australorp, BB=Broiler, CC=Cool ecotype, WW=Warm ecotype, AC, CA = Reciprocal crosses between Black Australorp and Cool ecotype, WC, CW= Reciprocal crosses between warm and cool ecotypes, CB, BC,= Reciprocal crosses between Broiler and Cool ecotype AW, WA = Reciprocal crosses between Black Australorp and Warm ecotype, BA, AB= Reciprocal crosses between Broiler and Black Australorp, BW, WB= Reciprocal crosses between Broiler and warm ecotype.

Variation in additive breed effects with respect to juvenile body weights

 

The results in Table 6 show that for all body weight measurements and in both sexes, the additive breed constant estimate for the broiler (BB) genetic stock was significantly higher than those of other breeds. The indigenous chickens from the warm ecological zone (WW) had the lowest additive breed constant estimates except at the fourth week in both sexes. The observed higher additive breed constant estimate for the broiler chickens than for the other stocks is due to high selection for body weight which has been undertaken in this stock. The results in the current study correspond to those of Adebambo et al (2011) who reported higher additive breed constant estimates for Anak Titan (Israeli broiler chickens) than for other breeds. The observed higher values of additive breed constant estimates (Table 6) than for the heterotic estimates (Table 7) indicate the importance of additive breed effects rather than heterosis in determining body weight. This is in agreement with the findings of Mekki et al (2005) who observed that general combining ability estimates were more important and of higher value than specific combining ability in determining body weight at maturity of exotic cockerels.

Table 6: Additive breed constant estimates for body weights at different ages summarized by stocks

Sex

Traits

Additive breed constant estimates (g)

Black Australorp (A)

Cool ecotype (C)

Warm ecotype (W)

Broiler (B)

F

BWT0

30.96±1.1c

29.4±0.5bc

27.4±0.4a

42.6±0.8d

BWT4

77.1±20.5a

153.0±7.9c

138.4±6.6bc

404.8±12.6d

BWT8

442.8±53.9bc

419.2±21.6b

372.0±18.8abc

1182.8±32.9d

BWT12

791.2±100.3ab

689.4±41.4a

675.6±38.2a

1810.6±61.2c

M

BWT0

34.9±3.5b

29.5±0.6ab

28.7±0.6a

42.5±0.6c

BWT4

132.7±20.0ab

161.0±11.0b

135.5±11.2ab

390.6±10.9c

BWT8

535.8±57.7bc

508.4±30.5b

408.6±34.1a

1255.4±31.1d

BWT12

924.7±108.0ab

932.2±58.4b

805.6±65.6ab

2011.8±58.4c

Estimates with no superscript letters in common within a row are significantly different (p< 0.05)

Variation in heterotic effects with respect to juvenile body weights

 

Heterosis constant estimates in different crosses with respect to body weights are shown in Table 7. The results reveal that the cross between the indigenous stocks from the warm ecological zone and broiler (WB) had positive and higher heterosis constant estimates than those of other crosses at all ages and in both sexes except at day old in males. The statistical difference between this genetic stock (WB) with other crosses was observed at 8 and 12 weeks of age in females and at 4, 8 and 12 weeks of age in males. Similarly, the cross between the Black Australorp and indigenous chickens from the warm ecological zone (AW) had positive heterosis at all ages and in both sexes. The observed positive heterosis reported for the crosses between the indigenous chickens from the warm and broiler stock (WB) as well as the Black Australorp and indigenous chickens from the warm ecological zone (AW), reflects the superiority of these crossbreds to their respective parental means with respect to body weights. This can probably be attributed to complementation of the parent stocks in their F1 offsprings. On the other hand the larger heterosis observed for body weights in crosses involving the indigenous chickens from the warm ecological zone could have resulted from underestimation of body weights of the indigenous stock, a factor that would lower mid-parent value thus enlarging the figures for heterosis. The observed results are in line with the findings by Williham and Pollack (1985) that the smaller the degree of genetic resemblance between parental populations the higher the heterosis.  

 

The cross between the Black Australorp and broiler stock (AB) showed negative heterotic effects at all ages and sexes. The negative heterosis observed for body weight in the cross between the Black Australorp and broiler stocks (AB) might be due to the fact that the crosses could be less fit than either one or both parental breeds in a trait that is correlated to body size. These results are in line with those of other workers (Yalcin et al 2000; Keambou et al 2010) who also reported negative heterosis for crossbreds in their studies. Similarly, Katule (1990) observed negative heterosis for body weight in the cross between egg type chickens and meat type chickens.

Table 7: Heterosis constant estimates for body weights exhibited in crosses involving exotic and indigenous stocks at different ages.

Sex

Traits

Crosses and constant estimates for heterosis (g)

 

 

Black Australorp x Cool ecotype (AC)

Black Australorp x Warm ecotype (AW)

Black Australorp x Broiler (AB)

Cool ecotype x Warm ecotype (CW)

Cool ecotype x Broiler (CB)

Warm ecotype x Broiler (WB)

 

BWT0

0.1±0.4b

0.9±0.5b

-1.01±0.5a

0.1±0.5ab

1.01±0.8b

0.15±0.98ab

 

BWT4

4.3±6.8b

28.53±8.4c

-32.9±8.1ab

0.72±8.6b

-25.9±11.9a

18.4±16.7bc

F

BWT8

-11.7±18.6a

49.5±22.2b

-37.7±21.3a

6.3±23.6ab

25.4±31.4b

179.1±48.1c

 

BWT12

2.4±34.3a

18.7±42.2a

-21.0±39.7a

-18.8±45.0a

-29.5±56.8a

239.7±85.8b

 

BWT0

-0.2±1.8ab

0.56±1.8ab

-1.67±1.8a

1.67±0.6bc

2.2±0.8bc

-0.05±0.9a

M

BWT4

-7.2±8.4ab

23.5±11.1c

-16.2±8.4a

7.7±11.3bc

13.7±13.9bc

73.0±16.3d

 

BWT8

-5.9±23.9a

26.7±31.3a

-20.8±24.3a

47.7±33.7a

23.0±38.3a

238.3±45.2b

 

BWT12

-24.8±48.9a

47.1±57.7a

-22.3±45.4a

32.5±64.2a

-16.4±68.1a

357.8±82.2b

Estimates with no superscript letters in common within a row are significantly different (p< 0.05)

Variations in reciprocal effects with respect to juvenile body weights

 

Table 8 shows constant estimates for reciprocal effects in different genetic stocks. The results revealed that with exception of body weight at 12 weeks (BWT12) there was significant difference for the cross between Black Australorp and broiler stocks (AB) and the cross between broiler and Black Australorp stocks (BA) in both ages and sexes. The AB was heavier than BA. Similarly, the results reveal positive constant estimates for the cross between Black Australorp and broiler stock (AB) at all ages and in both sexes as a result of coding procedure adopted in isolating reciprocal effects. In a given mating type the contribution of reciprocal effects from the sires was coded +1 and that from dam was given -1. This implies that if the sign of the constant estimate in a particular cross, say AxB is +ve then that suggests that in that kind of cross, stock A should be on the sire side and stock B should be on the dam side. It is apparent from these results that progenies with heavy body weights are expected to be produced in crosses where the Black Australorp stocks are used as sires and broiler stocks as dams. These results are supported by the findings in tables 4.1 and 4.2 where the cross between Black Australorp sires and broiler dams (AB) were heavier than the cross between broiler sires and Black Australorp dams (BA). The reciprocal effect had major influence in the performance of the crossbreds than heterotic effects since the cross between Black Australorp and broiler stocks (AB) showed negative heterotic effects (Table 7). The results corroborate the findings of Katule (1990) who observed that heavy breeds were more favorable as dams than light breeds. This trend may be attributed to the higher weight of chicks at day old (week 0) due to the larger eggs from broiler dams than those from dams of lighter stocks. This fact has been reported elsewhere that chick weight is a linear function of egg weight (Momoh et al 2010; Tahir et al 2011). Wilson (1991) also documented that chick weight is primarily determined by initial egg weight and secondarily by strain, chick sex and other environmental factors. However, the results, in the current study indicate that reciprocal effects were significant only from hatch to 8 weeks of age and not thereafter in male birds. These results are in agreement with those of Aggarwal et al (1979) who reported reciprocal cross differences from day old to 6 weeks of age in broiler strains.

Table 8: Comparison between the constant estimates for reciprocal effects of genetic stocks involving exotic and indigenous stock at different ages

Sex

Traits

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

AW Vs WA

AC Vs CA

AB Vs BA

CW Vs WC

WB Vs BW

CB Vs BC

F

BWT0

-1.98±0.5*

-0.29±0.4

2.90±0.3*

0.26±0.4

5.64±0.9*

4.43±0.6*

 

BWT4

12.4±7.7

1.03±5.5

20.9±5.1*

5.1±6.9

18.1±15.1

18.1±9.3

 

BWT8

47.5±20.2*

0.2±15.1

72.0±13.6*

55.9±18.7*

17.6±44.2

-21.2±24.4

 

BWT12

69.8±37.6

-18.8±27.5

106.0±23.3*

32.9±35.1

53.8±77.9

-122.5±43.2*

M

BWT0

-1.90±0.5*

-0.6±0.3

2.9±0.4*

-0.97±0.4*

4.7±0.8*

4.4±0.6*

 

BWT4

16.5±9.5

-2.7±6.3

28.7±6.5*

3.3±8.1

7.8±14.3

-12.9±11.5

 

BWT8

-10.8±26.1

-0.75±17.9

50.9±18.7*

38.8±24.7

-3.8±38.9

18.5±31.5

 

BWT12

36.2±47.5

2.8±34.0

27.9±34.8

35.0±46.8

-66.6±69.5

26.5±54.2

AC Vs CA = Reciprocal crosses between Black Australorp and Cool ecotype, WC Vs CW= Reciprocal crosses between warm and cool ecotypes, CB Vs BC,= Reciprocal crosses between Broiler and Cool ecotype AW Vs WA = Reciprocal crosses between Black Australorp and Warm ecotype, BA Vs AB= Reciprocal crosses between Broiler and Black Australorp, BW Vs WB= Reciprocal crosses between  Broiler and warm ecotype, *= Reciprocals are significantly different (P<0.05)


Conclusions


Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the Commission of Science and Technology (COSTECH) for the financial support and National Livestock Research Institute (TALIRI-Mpwapwa) for providing infrastructures.


References

Adebambo A O, Ikeobi C O N, Ozoje  M O, Oduguwa  O O and Adebambo Olufunmilayo  A 2011 Combining abilities of growth traits among pure and crossbred meat type chickens. Arch. Zootec. 60 (232): 953-963

Adebambo AO, Adeleke M A, Whetto M, Peters S O and Ikeobi C O 2010 Combining abilities of Carcass Traits among pure and crossbred meat Type Chickens. International Journal of Poultry Science 9 (8):777-783.

Adedokun S A and E  Sonaiya 2002 Crossbreeding Nigeria Indigenous with the Dahlem Red chickens for improved productivity and adaptability. Arch. Tierz., Dummerstorf, 45: 297-305.

Aggarwal C K, Mohapatra S C, Sinha S P, Sharma P N and Ahuja S D 1979 Estimation of combining ability in broilers from a full diallel cross. British Poultry Science 20 (2): 185-190.

Ajayi F O 2010 Nigerian Indigenous chicken: A valuable Genetic Resource for Meat and Egg Production. Asian Journal of Poultry Science 4 (4): 164-172

Binda B D, Yousif I A, Elamin K M and Eltayeb H E 2012 A comparison of performance among exotic meat strains and indigenous chicken ecotypes under Sudan conditions. International Journal of Poultry Science 11 (8):500-504

Demeke S  2004: Egg production performance of local and White Leghorn hens under intensive and rural household conditions in Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development, Vol. 16, Art. #9, Retrieved October 9, 2014, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd16/2/deme1602.htm

Demeke S 2003 Growth performance and survival of Indigenous  and White Leghorn chickens under scavenging and intensive systems of management in Ethiopia . Livestock Research for Rural Development 15 (11). Retrieved May 14, 2014, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd15/11/deme1511.htm

Gnakari D, Beugré Grah A M et Agbo Adouko E 2007: Croissance corporelle et qualité organoleptique de la viande du poulet de chair et du poulet africain et leurs croisements en Côte d'Ivoire. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 19, Article #60. Retrieved October 25, 2014, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd19/5/gnak19060.htm

Guéye E F 1998 Village egg and fowl meat production in Africa. World Poultry Science Journal 54:73-86.

Halima Hassen, Neser F W C, Tadelle Dessie, de Kock A and Van Marle-Koster E 2006: Studies on the growth performance of native chicken ecotypes and RIR chicken under improved management system in Northwest Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 18, Article #76. Retrieved October 19, 2014, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd18/6/hass18076.htm

Iraqi M M, Afifi E A, Abdel-Ghany A M and Afram M 2005: Diallel crossing analysis for livability data involving two standard and two native Egyptian chicken breeds. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 17, Article #75. Retrieved November 10, 2013, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd17/7/iraq17075.htm

Kadigi, H J S, Phoya, R K D N and Safalaoh, A C L 1998 Comparative performance of Black Australorp, Malawian indigenous chicken and their f1 crossbred roasters. Indian Journal of Animal Science 68: 366-367.

Katule  A M 1992 Crossbreeding as a tool for genetic improvement of chickens in sub-optimum environments. Bulletin of Animal Production in Africa 41:71-80

Katule A M 1990 Studies on prospects of improving the performance of the indigenous chicken population in Tanzania by crossbreeding. Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Sokoine University of Agriculture, Morogoro, Tanzania. 

Keambou T C, Manjeli Y, Boukila B, Mboumba S, Mezui Mezui T and Hako Touko B A 2010: Heterosis and reciprocal effects of growth performances in F1 crosses generations of Indigenous  x Hubbard chicken in the Western Highlands of Cameroon. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 22, Article #11. Retrieved June 24, 2014, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd22/1/keam22011.htm

Kitalyi A J 1998 Village production systems in rural Africa. Household food security and gender issue, FAO. http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/w8989e/w8989E00.HTM

Lwelamira J, Kifaro G C and Gwakisa P 2008  Breeding strategies for improving performance of Kuchi chicken ecotype of Tanzania for production under village conditions. Volume 20, Article #171. Retrieved November 19, 2013, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd20/11/lwel20171.htm

Massawe F 2009 Indigenous chicken production for indigenous  markets, Mid-term report. Tanzania Agricultural Scale-Up programme, Oxfarm 12pp.

Mekki D M, Yousif I A, Abdel R M K, Wang J Y and Musa H H 2005 Growth performance of indigenous x exotic crosses of chicken and evaluation of general and specific combining ability under Sudan condition. International Journal of Poultry Science 4: 468-471.

Minga U M, Msoffe P L and Gwakisa P S 2004 Biodiversity (variation) in disease resistance and in pathogens within rural chickens. Proceedings of XXII World's Poultry Congress, Istanbul, Turkey

Momoh O M, Nwosu C C and Adeyinka I A 2010 Comparative evaluation of Nigerian Indigenous chicken ecotypes and their crosses for growth traits. International journal of Poultry Science 9 (8): 738-743.

Msoffe  P L, Mtambo  M M, and Gwakisa  P S 2006 Differences in resistance to Salmonella enterica serovar Gallinarum infection among indigenous chicken in Tanzania. Avian Pathology 35 (4): 270-276

Msoffe P L M, Mtambo M M A, Minga U M, Olsen J E, Juul-Madsen H R, Gwakisa P S, Mutayoba S K and Katule A M 2004: Productivity and reproductive performance of the free-range indigenous  domestic fowl ecotypes in Tanzania. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Vol. 16, Art. #67. Retrieved November 10, 2013, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd16/9/msof16067.htm

Ndofor-Foleng, Uberu C PN and Nwosu C C 2006 Estimation of body weight of two ecotype chicken reared in Nsukka in the Derived savanna In: Books of proceedings, 31th annual conference of Animal science Association of Nigeria. Ibadan Pp 222-226

Olawumi S O and Fagbuaro S S 2011 Productive performance of three commercial broiler genotypes reared in the derived savannah zone of Nigeria. Journal of Agricultural Research 6 (11): 798-804.

Patrick M K and Phakedi S 2013 Growth Performance of Australorp x Tswana Crossbred Chickens under an Intensive Management System. International Journal of Poultry Science 12 (6): 358-361

Petrus N P, Mpofu I and Shikongo-Nambambi M N N N 2012: Coping with Climate Change Challenges by Feeding Indigenous Chickens under Intensive Systems in Namibia. Journal of Petroleum and Environmental Biotechnology 3:128. doi:10.4172/2157-7463.1000128

Rajkumar U, Sharma R P, Padhi M K, Rajaravindra K S, Rddy B LN, Niranjan M, Bhattacharya T K, Haunshi S and Chatterjee R N 2011 Genetic analysis of juvenile growth and carcass traits in a full diallel mating in selected  colored broiler line. Tropical Animal Health and Production 43: 1129-1136.

SAS 2003 SAS Users Guides Version 9.1.3 for Windows, SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.

Sunett J 2013  The effect of genotype and rearing system on chicken meat quality. Unpublished Msc  Dissertation, Stellenbosch University

Tadelle D, Million T, Alemu Y and Peters K J 2003 Village chicken production systems in Ethiopia: 1. Flock characteristics and performance. Livestock Research for Rural Development (15) 1. Retrieved July 10, 2014, from http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd15/1/tadeb151.htm

Tahir M, Cervantes H, Farmer C W, Shim M Y and Pesti GM 2011 Broiler performance, hatching egg, and age relationships of progeny from standard and dwarf broiler dams. Poultry Science journal 90 (6): 1364-70.

Willham R L and Pollack  E 1985 Theory of heterosis. Journal of Dairy Science 68: 2411-2417

Wilson H R 1991 Interrelationships of egg size, chick size, post hatching growth and hatchability. World's Poultry Science Journal 47(1):5-20

Yakubu  A, Ogah  D M and Barde R E  2008 Productivity and egg quality characteristics of free range naked neck and normal feathered Nigerian indigenous chickens. International journal of Poultry Science 7 (6): 579-585.

Yalcin  S, Zhang X, McDaniel G R and Kuhlers D L 2000 Effects of divergent selection for incidence of tibia1 dyschondroplasia (TD) on purebred and crossbred performance. 2. Processing yield. British Poultry Science 41: 566-569


Received 28 December 2014; Accepted 8 March 2015; Published 1 April 2015

Go to top