The Egg Production Performance of Improved Horro Chicken Crossed with Koekoek and Kuroiler Breeds

shambel Taye; Gebeyehu  Goshu; Misba  Alewi; Solomon  Abegaz

shambel Taye 1Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Center, Bishoftu, Ethiopia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2113-6340
Gebeyehu Goshu Addis Ababa University, College of Veterinary Medicine and Agriculture, Bishoftu, Ethiopia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6609-4025
Misba Alewi 1Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Center, Bishoftu, Ethiopia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1624-1963
Solomon Abegaz Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Center, Bishoftu, Ethiopia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2026-8691

Keywords: Additive effect, Crossbreeding, Egg production, Improv Horro, Heterotic effect

Abstract

Evaluation of cross-breeding effect on egg production traits of improved Horro chicken crossed with Koekoek and Kurioler chicken in direct and reciprocal mating was carried out for one generation at Debrezeit Agricultural Research Center. The experiment was done by mating foundation lines of improved Horro (H) and Koekoek(K) and Kurioler (Ku) chickens to obtain seven genotypes such as three pure lines (H), (K), (Ku) and their crosses (K×H, Ku×H, H×K, H×Ku). Day-old chicks from the seven genetic groups were randomly distributed between pens using a completely randomized design with three replications. The chickens were raised in a deep litter system for 40 weeks of age during which data on feed intake, age at first egg (AFE), bodyweight at first egg (BWFE), egg laid, average egg weight, and mortality rate were recorded. The hen-day egg production (HDEP), hen-housed egg production (HHEP) and feed conversion rate (FCR) were calculated. The result showed that genotype had significant effect on most egg production traits studied. Older age at first egg was recorded in improved Horro (156) followed by crossbred H×K (150.33) whereas the lowest number of days for AFE for was recorded for crossbred H×Ku (153) followed by K×H (136.67) and Ku×H (139.33). In comparing crossbred, the heaviest bodyweight at first egg was registered for crossbred pullet H×Ku (2448 g) followed by Ku×H (2372.33 g) whereas the lowest body weight was recorded for K×H (1726.33 g) followed by H×K (1777.78 g) crossbred pullet. In comparing all the genotypes, HxKu crossbred hen showed superior (P<0.05) performance in HHEP, HDEP, egg number except egg mass. However, egg weight was higher for Kuroiler, Ku×H, and H×K with comparable values but the lowest egg weight was registered for improved Horro chickens. Estimates of maternal effects (M^e) were significantly (P< 0.05) positive only for age at first egg while additive (A^e) and heterotic effect (H^e) were non-significant with negative values. Positive and significant effect values were reported for bodyweight at first egg. From this study, it can be recommended that crossbred hens be sired by improved Horro (H x Ku) for egg production potential genotypes for the family poultry production system in the forthcoming synthetic breed development program.

DOR: https://dorl.net/dor/20.1001.1.23454377.2022.10.1.5.3

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Adebambo A. (2011). Combining abilities among four breeds of chicken for feed efficiency variation: a preliminary assessment for chicken improvement in Nigeria. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 43: 1465-1466.

Adeleke M, Peters S, Ozoje M, Ikeobi C, Bamgbose A, Adebambo O. (2012). Effect of crossbreeding on fertility, hatchability and embryonic mortality of Nigerian localchickens. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 44:505–510.

Alewi, M., Melesse, A. and Teklegiorgis, Y. (2012). Crossbreeding effect on egg quality traits of local chickens and their F1 crosses with Rhode Island Red and Fayoumi chicken breeds under farmers’ management conditions. Journal of Animal Science Advances. 2(8), 697-705.

Ali K, A. Katule and O. Syrstad, (2000). Genotype X Environment interaction for growing chickens: Comparison of four genetic groups on two rearing systems under tropical condition. Acta Agriculture Scandinavica, Section A-Animal Sciences, 50: 65-71.

Alonso, V., del Mar Campo, M., Español, S., Roncalés, P. and Beltrán, J.A. (2009). Effect of crossbreeding and gender on meat quality and fatty acid composition in pork. Meat science, 81(1): 209-217.

Amao Sh. (2017). Effect of Crossing Fulani Ecotype with Rhode Island Red Chickens on Growth Performance and Reproductive Traits in Southern Guinea Savanna Region of Nigeria. Journal of Animal and Veterinary Sciences. 4(2): 14-18.

Amira, E., Kosba, E. Amin and M. El-ngomy. (2013). Effect of crossing between two selected lines of Alexandria chickens on some reproductive traits. Egyptian Poultry Science Journal. 33(4): 999-1016.

Ayman E., and Fawzy A. Abd El-Ghany. (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 Journal of Nutrition and Food Engineering, 7(10), pp.982-987

Bekele, F., T. Ådnøy, H.M. Gjøen, J. Kathle and A. Girma. (2010). Production performance of Dual-Purpose crosses of two indigenous with two exotic chicken breeds in sub-tropical environment. International Journal of Poultry Science, 9: 702-710.

Dana, N., E. Vander Waaij and J, M. Van Arendonk. (2011). Genetic and phenotypic parameter of estimates for body weights and egg production in Horro chicken of Ethiopia. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 43: 21-28.

Demissu H. (2020). Evaluation of productive and reproductive performances of different strains of chickens under varied management systems in western Ethiopia. PhD Dissertation, Addis Ababa University.

Dickerson, G. (1969). Experimental approaches to utilizing breed resources. In Animal Breeding Abstract, 37:191-202.

Duncan, D. (1997). Multiple Range and Multiple F Test. Biometric, 11(1): 1-42.

Halima H. (2007). Phenotypic and genetic characterization of indigenous chicken populations in Northwest Ethiopia. PhD Thesis, South Africa in university of Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa.

Halima H., Neser, A. de Kock and E. Van. Marle-Köster. (2006). Growth performance of indigenous chickens under intensive management, conditions in Northwest Ethiopia. Society for Animal Science Peer-reviewed paper: Proc. 41 Congress of the South African Society for poultry production: Animal Science, 71. South African Journal of Animal Science.

Hanafi, M. and M. Iraqi. (2001). Evaluation of pure breeds heterosis, combining abilities, maternal and sex-linked effects for some production and reproduction traits in chickens. Second International Conference on Animal Production and Health in Semi-Arid Areas,4-6, September., Organized by Faculty of Environmental Agricultural Sciences, Suze Canal University., El-Arish- North Sinai, Egypt, pp: 545-555.

Iraqi, M. (2008). Estimation of crossbreeding effects for egg production traits in a cross-breeding experiment involving two local strains of chickens. Egyptian Poultry Science, 28: 867-882.

Iraqi, M., E.A. Afifi, A.M. Abdel-Ghany and M. Afram, (2005). Diallel crossing analysis for livability data involving two standard and two native Egyptian chicken breeds. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 17(7).

Islam, M. and Nishibori, M. (2009). Indigenous naked neck chicken: valuable geneticresources for Bangladesh, World’s poultry science journal, 65, 125-138

Javed K, Farooq M, Mian MA, Durrani FR, Mussawar S. (2003). Flock size and egg production performance of backyard chicken reared by rural woman in Peshawar, Pakistan. Livestock Research for Rural Development 15(11)

Kayitesi, A. (2015). Management systems and location effects on growth and carcass traits of Kuroiler and local chickens. MSc thesis, Makerere University, Uganda, pp: 86.

Kedija H, Wondmeneh E, Gebeyehu G, and Solomon A. (2020). Crossbreeding Effect on Egg Production Traits of Horro Ecotype Crossed with Exotic Dominant Red Barred D 922 Chickens: A Step towards Synthetic Breed Development in Ethiopia. British Journal of Poultry Sciences. 9 (1): 01-17.

Kharayat N, Chaudhary G, Katiyar R, Balmurugan , Patel M., Uniyal S., Raza M., Mishra G. (2016). Significance of Artificial Insemination in Poultry. Journal of Veterinary Science and Technology. 5(1) 2349-3690.

Lemlem, A and Tesfay Y. (2010): Performance of exotic and indigenous poultry breeds managed by smallholder farmers in northern Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development. Volume 22, Article #133.Retrieved April3,2021, Available at http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd22/7/leml22133.htm).

Link W, Sauer J. (2016). Bayesian cross-validation for model evaluation and selection, with application to the North American Breeding Bird Survey. Ecology. 97:1746–1758.

Mekki D, Youif M, Abdel R, and Musa. (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

Melesse, A., M. Alewi and Y. Teklegiorgis. (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 Journal of Applied Animal Science, 3: 379-385.

Muchadeyi, F., Wollny, C., Eding, H., Weigend, S., Makuza, S. and Simianer, H. (2007). Variation in village chicken production systems among agro-ecological zones of Zimbabwe. Tropical animal health and production, 39(6),453-461.

Munisi, W., M. Katule and S. H. Mbaga. (2015). Comparative growth and livability performance of exotic, indigenous chickens and their crosses in Tanzania. Livestock research for rural development, Morogoro, Tanzania.

Pym,I and Alders R.(2012). Introduction to village and backyard poultry production. Alternative systems for poultry health, welfare and productivity. pp:97-109.

SAS. (2002) Statistical analysis systems. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA

Shapiro, B.I., G. Gebru, S. Desta, A. Negassa K. Nigussie, G. Aboset and H. Mechal. (2015).Ethiopia livestock master plan: A Roadmaps for growth and transformation, Transformation Plan II (2015-2020). A contribution to the Growth and Transformation Plan II (2015-2020). ILRI Project Report. Nairobi, Kenya: International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI), pp: 91-100.

Sohail, A., Muhammad, A, Hussain, J., Iqbal, A., Usman, M., Rehman, A. and Hussnain, F. (2013). Comparative study on production performance, egg quality, egg geometry and hatching traits of three age groups of indigenous Peshawari Aseel chicken. Journal of veterinary Advance Science, 2, pp.21-5.

Tabinda Khawaja, Sohail Hassan Khan, Nasir Mukhtar, MianAsghar Ali, Tanveer Ahmed & Abdul Ghafar (2012). Comparative study of growth performance, egg production, egg characteristics and haemato-biochemical parameters of Desi, Fayoumi and Rhode Island Red chicken, Journal of Applied Animal Research, 40:4, 273-283, DOI: 10.1080/09712119.2012.672310

Thornton, (2010). Livestock production: recent trends, future prospects. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Biological Sciences. 365(1554),2853-2867.

Williams, S.M., S.E. Price and P.B. Siegel. (2002). Heterosis of growth and reproductive traits in fowl. Poultry Science. 81: 1109-1112.

Wondemenh, E. (2015). Genetic improvement in indigenous chicken of Ethiopia. Ph D Thesis, Wagening University, The Netherlands, pp: 138.

Wondmeneh, E., D. Ibrahim, A. Amare, M. Adamu and T. Habte. (2011). Enhancing the genetic basis of the commercial layer industry through introduction and evaluation of dual-purpose chickens (Potchefstroom Koekoek breeds). Proceedings of the 9th Annual Conference of the Ethiopian Society of Animal Production (ESAP), December 15 to 17, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Yeasmin T. Howlider M. Ahammad M. (2003). Effect of introgression dwarf gene from Bangladeshi indigenous to exotic breeds on egg production. International Journal Poultry Science. 2: 264-266.

Yigzaw, M., Demeke, S., & Hassen Abate, W. (2020). Evaluation of Three Final Hybrid Layer Chicken Strains Under On-Station Management. Global Journal of Animal Scientific Research, 8(2), 83-93.