PERFORMANCE OF RHODE ISLAND RED, BLACK AUSTRALORP AND NAKED NECK CROSSBRED UNDER FREE RANGE, SEMI INTENSIVE AND INTENSIVE HOUSING SYSTEMS

SOHAIL AHMAD2008-VA-476

A THESIS SUBMITTED IN THE PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE

OF

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

IN

POULTRY PRODUCTION

UNIVERSITY OF VETERINARY AND ANIMAL SCIENCES LAHORE, PAKISTAN

2019

i

ii

DEDICATION

This scientific work is dedicated to

My Family and Friends

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am very thankful to Almighty ALLAH who is real force behind completion of this uphill, great and noble task. Innumerable thanks to Holy Prophet, Muhammad (SAWW) whose life is always a source of inspiration to do something for the welfare of mankind. I would like to express my sincerest thanks to my supervisor Prof. Dr. Athar Mahmud, Chairman, Department of Poultry Production, for the friendship, guidance, respect and patience that he has shown me over the years. I will never be able to thank Late Prof. Dr. Muhammad Akram who inspired me throughout my academic carrier. I am fortunate to express my deep gratitude to Prof. (Retd.) Dr. Khalid Javed, Ex-Chairman Department of Livestock Production for guiding and helping me during difficult moments of my studies.It is the matter of great honor to extend my thanks to Dr. Jibran Hussain and Dr. Shahid Mehmood, Assistant Professors, Mr. Muhammad Usman, Mr. Faisal Hussnain, Mr. Muhammad Shabir Shaheen, Mr. Muhammad Waqas, Lecturers, Mr. Abd ur Rehman, Veterinary Officer and Mr. Muhammad Zaid, Teaching Assistant.I gratefully acknowledge Pakistan Agricultural Research Council (ALP), Project No. S-135 for their financial support to conduct this study. I would especially like to thanks my dearest Family and Friends. I don’t know how I would have made it through without either of you. Thank you for always challenging me to do my best.

SOHAIL AHMAD

iv

CONTENTS

DEDICATION i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii LIST OF TABLES iv LIST OF PUBLICATIONS vi ABSTRACT viiSR. NO. CHAPTERS PAGE NO.

1. INTRODUCTION 12. REVIEW OF LITERATURE 23. EXPERIMENT NO. 1 214. EXPERIMENT NO. 2 445. EXPERIMENT NO. 3 576. SUMMARY 71

v

LIST OF TABLESTable No. TITLE Page No.

2.1 Effect of crossbreeding on quantitative traits of indigenous chicken 43.1 Weekly feed allowance (g) in growing phase (7-16 weeks) 233.2 Composition of experimental rations (starter and grower) 243.3 Proximate analysis of legumes cultivated at range area 243.4 Ethogram of behavioral pattern 25

3.5 Effect of genotype and housing system on male morphometric traits at 16 weeks of age 32

3.6 Interaction effects (genotype × housing system) on male morphometric traits at 16 weeks of age 33

3.7 Effect of genotype and housing system on female morphometric traits at 16 weeks of age 34

3.8 Interaction effects (genotype × housing system) on female morphometric traits at 16 weeks of age 35

3.9 Effect of genotype and housing system on male behavioral traits at 16 weeks of age 36

3.10 Interaction effects (genotype × housing system) on male behavioral traits at 16 weeks of age 37

3.11 Effect of genotype and housing system on female behavioral traits at 16 weeks of age 38

3.12 Interaction effects (genotype × housing system) on female behavioral traits at 16 weeks of age 39

3.13 Effect of genotype and housing system on male carcass traits at 16 weeks of age 40

3.14 Interaction effects (genotype × housing system) on male carcass traits at 16 weeks of age 41

3.15 Effect of genotype and housing system on female carcass traits at 16 weeks of age 42

3.16 Interaction effects (genotype × housing system) on female carcass traits at 16 weeks of age 43

4.1 Weekly feed allowance (g) in rearing phase (17-21 weeks) 464.2 Composition of experimental rations during rearing phases (17-21 weeks) 464.3 Proximate analysis of legumes cultivated at range area 46

4.4 Effect of genotype and housing system on male morphometric traits at 21 weeks of age 51

4.5 Interaction effects (genotype × housing system) on male morphometric traits at 21 weeks of age 52

4.6 Effect of genotype and housing system on female morphometric traits at 21 weeks of age 53

4.7 Interaction effects (genotype × housing system) on female morphometric traits at 21 weeks of age 54

4.8 Effect of genotype and housing system on female serum chemistry and antibody response at 21 weeks of age 55

4.9 Interaction effects (genotype × housing system) on female serum chemistry and antibody response at 21 weeks of age 56

5.1 Ingredient and nutrient composition of experimental ration 595.2 Proximate analysis of legumes cultivated at range area 59

vi

5.3 Effect of genotype and housing system on productive performance (26-46 weeks) 64

5.4 Interaction effects (genotype × housing system) on productive performance (26-46 weeks) 65

5.5 Effect of genotype and housing system on egg characteristics at 26 weeks 66

5.6 Interaction effects (genotype × housing system) on egg characteristics at 26 weeks 67

5.7 Effect of genotype and housing system on egg characteristics at 46 weeks 68

5.8 Interaction effects (genotype × housing system) on egg characteristics at 46 weeks 69

5.9 Effect of genotype and housing system on hatching traits 705.10 Interaction effects (genotype × housing system) on hatching traits 70

vii

LIST OF PUBLICATIONS Sohail Ahmad, Athar Mahmud, Jibran Hussain, Khalid Javed. 2019. Morphological and carcass traits

of three chicken genotypes under free-range, semi-intensive, and intensive housing systems. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences. 43(3): 342-352 doi:10.3906/vet-1902-9

Sohail Ahmad, Athar Mahmud, Jibran Hussain, Khalid Javed. 2019. Morphometric traits, serum chemistry and antibody response of three chicken genotypes under free-range, semi-intensive and intensive housing systems. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science. 21(1):1-8 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1806-9061-2018-0921

Sohail Ahmad, Athar Mahmud, Jibran Hussain, Khalid Javed. 2019. Productive performance, egg characteristics and hatching traits of three chicken genotypes under free-range, semi-intensive and intensive housing systems. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science. (Accepted) 21(2):

viii

ABSTRACT

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the performance of three chicken genotypes under free range, semi intensive and intensive housing systems. The study was included three experiments; in Experiment I, the effects of housing systems (free-range, semi-intensive and intensive) on performance of early-phase chickens (7-16 weeks of age) over 10 weeks were compared across sex (cockerel vs. pullet) and genotype [purebred Naked Neck (NN) and two crossbreds Rhode Island Red × Naked Neck (RIR × NN = RNN) and Black Australorp × Naked Neck (BAL × NN = BNN)]. Twenty birds were assigned to each of the 18 treatments (housing system [3] × sex [2] × genotype [3]; n = 360 total birds) in a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD). Body weight, behavioral repertoires (walking, jumping, running, drinking, feeding, standing, sitting, aggressiveness, dust bathing and wing flapping), morphometrics (body, shank, keel, neck, drumstick and beak length, shank, and drumstick circumference, wing spread and body weight) were measured weekly. At age of 16 weeks, 3 birds from each treatment (n = 54); were euthanized and carcass characteristics [weight at slaughter, dressed weight, carcass yield, giblets weight (liver, gizzard and heart), breast, drumstick, thigh and wings] were also evaluated. In Experiment II, the influence of housing systems on performance of different genotypes (NN, RNN & BNN) were observed from 17-21 weeks, similarly as described earlier in experiment I (n =260 birds). Blood samples were collected from 27 pullets to evaluate serum chemistry (glucose, total protein, albumin, globulin, uric acid, creatinine and cholesterol) and antibody titers against Newcastle Disease and Infectious Bronchitis. Experiment III, was the continuation of experiment-II, where 260 birds were used. Out of these 260 birds, 180 birds (48 pullets and 12 cockerels from each of 3 genotypes) were moved to breeding coops at ratios of 4 pullets to one cockerel. The effects of housing system on different performance traits was recorded from 27th to 46 weeks of age. Eggs were collected on a daily basis to study egg production rates, egg weight (g) and egg mass (g). A total of 45 eggs, comprising 5 eggs per treatment group were subjected to quality assessment (shape index, surface area, volume, egg weight, Haugh unit, yolk index and shell thickness) at the start (26 weeks) and at the end (46 weeks) of the experiment. Eggs were stored at 13-15°C and 70-80% relative humidity for seven days and then set in the hatchery at Avian Research and Training Centre (ARTC), University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences (UVAS), Lahore under standard condition for studying hatching traits (hatchability, fertility, early dead embryo and dead in shell percent). Collected data were statistically analyzed by two-way ANOVA technique followed by Tukey’s HSD test. Regarding morphometric traits at 16 weeks, drumstick length (12.24 vs. 11.65, 11.47cm; P = 0.0029) and circumference (8.63 vs. 7.23, 7.04 cm; P = 0.0029) of male birds was higher in NN chickens than BNN and RNN. Shank circumference was higher in BNN chickens followed by RNN and NN (P < 0.0001). Higher beak length was noted in RNN and BNN chickens than NN (3.28, 3.23 vs. 3.12 cm; P = 0.0008). Significantly higher wing spread was found in NN and BNN chicken as compared to RNN (9.02, 8.93 vs. 8.28 cm; P = 0.0002). In terms of housing systems, keel length was higher in semi-intensive and intensive birds as compared to free-range birds (10.66, 10.42 vs. 9.93 cm; P = < 0.0004). Higher drumstick length was observed in semi-intensive and free-range birds than intensive system (11.98, 11.93 vs. 11.46; P = 0.0468). Drumstick circumference (7.86, 7.65 vs. 7.38 cm; P = 0.0028) and beak length (3.26, 3.23 vs. 3.13 cm; P = 0.0043) were higher in free-range and intensive birds as compared to semi-intensive birds. In the interaction between genotypes and housing system, significant differences were observed regarding keel length (P < 0.0001), drumstick length (P = 0.0002), drumstick circumference (P < 0.0001), shank circumference (P < 0.0001), beak length (P < 0.0001) and wing spread (P = 0.0027). Regarding females, higher drumstick circumference was found in NN chicken as compared to RNN and BNN (8.07 vs. 6.65, 6.48 cm; P < 0.0001). Shank circumference was higher in BNN chicken followed by RNN and NN (P < 0.0001). Maximum wing spread was recorded in BNN and NN chickens than RNN (8.29, 8.21 vs. 7.55 cm; P = 0.0020). In terms of housing system, body length (57.79, 55.74 vs. 52.94 cm; P = 0.0005) and shank circumference (3.54, 3.52 vs. 3.25 cm; P = 0.0028) were maximum in semi-intensive and free-range birds than intensive system. Drumstick length was maximum in intensive birds than free-range and semi-intensive systems (11.66 vs. 10.47, 10.36 cm; P = 0.0007). Higher drumstick circumference was observed in free-range birds as compared to intensive and semi-intensive systems (7.42 vs. 7.03, 6.75 cm; P = 0.0017).

ix

Interactions were significant between genotypes and housing systems regarding body length (P = 0.0004), keel length (P = 0.0003), drumstick length (P = 0.0017), drumstick circumference (P < 0.0001), shank circumference (P < 0.0001), beak length (P = 0.0467) and wing spread (P = 0.0174). Regarding behavioral response, male birds under intensive system were more aggressive and showed more sitting (P < 0.0001) and standing (P < 0.0001) behaviors followed by semi-intensive and free-range systems (P < 0.0001). Birds under free-range system spent most of their time in feeding followed by semi-intensive and intensive systems (P < 0.0001). Jumping (P < 0.0001), running (P < 0.0001), walking (P < 0.0001) and wing flapping (P < 0.0001) behaviors were more pronounced in semi-intensive birds followed by free-range and intensive systems. Interactions were significant between genotypes and housing systems regarding aggressiveness (P < 0.0001), dust bathing (P < 0.0001), feeding (P < 0.0001), jumping (P < 0.0001), running (P < 0.0001), sitting (P < 0.0001), standing (P < 0.0001), walking (P < 0.0001) and wing flapping (P < 0.0001). Regarding females, RNN and BNN chicken revealed the highest running behavior than NN (6.66, 6.65 vs. 6.52%; P = 0.0466). In terms of housing systems, birds under intensive conditions were more aggressive along with spending more time in sitting (P < 0.0001) and standing (P < 0.0001) positions followed by semi-intensive and free-range systems (P < 0.0001). Birds under free-range system spent most of their time in feeding (P < 0.0001) and wing flapping (P < 0.0001) followed by semi-intensive and intensive housing systems. Jumping (P < 0.0001), running (P < 0.0001) and walking (P < 0.0001) were more pronounced in semi-intensive system followed by free-range and intensive system. Interactions were significant between genotypes and housing systems regarding aggressiveness (P < 0.0001), dust bathing (P < 0.0001), feeding (P < 0.0001), jumping (P < 0.0001), running (P < 0.0001), sitting (P < 0.0001), standing (P < 0.0001), walking (P < 0.0001) and wing flapping (P < 0.0001). Regarding carcass traits, RNN male chickens had the highest weight at slaughter at the age of 16 weeks (1491.12 vs. 1390.30, 1333.76g; P = 0.0009) and breast weight (158.35 vs. 128.26, 118.37g) as compared to BNN and NN. Liver weight (37.82 vs. 23.51, 23.02 g; P < 0.0001) and intestinal length (153.38 vs. 133.61, 130.59cm; P = 0.0009) were higher in NN chicken as compared to BNN and RNN. Higher gizzard weight was observed in NN and RNN chickens than BNN (25.03, 20.75 vs. 15.24g; P = 0.0001). Intestinal weight was higher in BNN and NN chickens than RNN (66.59, 63.80 vs. 52.01g; P = 0.0011). Drumstick weight was higher in BNN chickens than NN and RNN (142.74 vs. 122.57, 120.50 g; P = 0.0002). In terms of housing system, birds under intensive and semi-intensive systems had the highest weight at slaughter (1498.02, 1482.78 vs. 1234.37g; P < 0.0001) and dressed weight (829.78, 829.05 vs. 729.87g; P = 0.0007) than free-range birds. Highest carcass yield was found in free-range birds than semi-intensive and intensive systems (59.21 vs. 55.87, 55.35%; P = 0.0139). Liver weight (32.91 vs. 26.12, 25.32g; P = 0.0064) and intestinal weight (69.46 vs. 60.02, 52.92; P = 0.0005) were higher in semi-intensive birds as compared to free-range and intensive systems. Interaction were significant between genotypes and housing systems regarding weight at slaughter (P < 0.0001), dressed weight (P = 0.0001), carcass yield (P = 0.0162), liver weight (P < 0.0001), heart weight (P = 0.0285), gizzard weight (P = 0.0018), breast weight (P < 0.0001), intestinal weight (P < 0.0001), intestinal length (P = 0.0015), neck weight (P = 0.0003), wings weight (P = 0.0051), drumstick weight (P = 0.0003) and thigh weight (P = 0.0207). Regarding females, BNN and RNN chickens had significantly higher weight at slaughter (1175.39, 1168.32 vs. 1057.10g; P < 0.0001) and ribs and back weight (192.79, 189.37 vs. 167.99g; P < 0.0001) than NN. Dressed weight (P < 0.0001) and carcass yield (P < 0.0001) were higher in RNN chickens followed by BNN and NN. RNN chickens had the highest breast weight followed by BNN and NN (P < 0.0001). BNN chickens had the highest wings weight (P < 0.0001), drumstick weight (P < 0.0001) and thigh weight (P < 0.0001) followed by RNN and NN. In terms of housing systems, carcass yield was higher in semi-intensive system followed by free-range and intensive system (P < 0.0001). Intensive birds exhibited higher neck weight (45.11 vs. 35.61, 33.54g; P = 0.0002), wings weight (66.10 vs. 57.39, 54.06g; P < 0.0001), drumstick weight (124.93 vs. 93.41, 86.43g; P < 0.0001), thigh weight (132.85 vs. 107.68, 97.13 g; P < 0.0001) and ribs and back weight (209.66 vs. 174.42g; P < 0.0001) as compared to free-range and semi-intensive. Interactions were significant between genotypes and housing systems regarding weight at slaughter (P < 0.0001), dressed weight (P < 0.0001), carcass yield (P < 0.0001), liver weight (P = 0.0070), heart weight (P = 0.0021), gizzard weight (P < 0.0001), breast weight (P = 0.0219), intestinal

x

weight (P = 0.0028), intestinal length (P = 0.0192), neck weight (P = 0.0009), wings weight (P = 0.0019), drumstick weight (P < 0.0001), thigh weight (P < 0.0001) and ribs and back weight (P < 0.0001). Regarding morphometric traits at 21 weeks of age, RNN and BNN male chickens had significantly higher body weight (1817.25, 1811.17 vs. 1616.05g; P = 0.0015) and shank circumference (4.25, 4.06 vs. 3.58cm; P = 0.0150) than NN. Drumstick circumference was higher in NN chicken than BNN and RNN (10.13 vs. 801, 8.00 g; P < 0.0001). In terms of housing systems, birds under intensive and semi-intensive systems had higher body weight than birds in free-range system (1849.97, 1774.89 vs. 1619.60g; P = 0.0012). Interactions were significant between genotypes and housing systems regarding body weight at 21 weeks of age (P = 0.0009) and drumstick circumference (P = 0.0039). Regarding females, BNN and RNN chickens had significantly higher body weight than NN (1456.22, 1425.17 vs. 1256.79g; P < 0.0001). Keel length was higher in NN and BNN chickens as compared to RNN (11.58, 10.89 vs. 10.04cm; P = 0.0002). Higher drumstick circumference was observed in NN chickens than BNN and RNN (9.82 vs. 7.03, 6.70cm; P < 0.0001). In terms of housing systems, birds reared in intensive system had the highest body weight followed by semi-intensive and free-range birds (P < 0.0001). Body length was maximum in semi-intensive and free-range birds than intensive system (66.76, 65.49 vs. 58.58cm; P < 0.0001). Interactions were significant between genotypes and housing systems in body weight at 21 weeks of age (P < 0.0001), body length (P < 0.0001), keel length (P < 0.0001) and drumstick circumference (P < 0.0001). Regarding serum chemistry, the highest cholesterol levels was observed in NN chickens, while, BNN showed the lowest value (143.87 vs. 127.11 mg/dL; P = 0.0123). Antibody titer against ND was significantly higher in RNN chickens and lower in BNN (5.10 vs. 4.77 HI titter; P = 0.0204). In terms of housing systems, birds reared under intensive system had the highest glucose level than semi-intensive and free-range systems (185.45 vs. 158.93, 138.43mg/dL; P = 0.0008). Antibody titer against IB was found higher in free-range birds followed by birds in semi-intensive and intensive systems (P = 0.0001). Interactions were significant between genotypes and housing systems glucose level (P = 0.0164), cholesterol (P = 0.0103) and antibody titer against IB (P = 0.0067). Regarding productive performance, BNN chickens had the highest body weight at 26 weeks (P < 0.0001) of age. Similarly, BNN chickens showed the highest hen day production % (P < 0.0001) and total egg mass (P < 0.0001) followed by RNN and NN. At the age of 46 weeks, BNN chickens were heavier than RNN and NN (1679.74 vs. 1484.45, 1391.25g; P = 0.0025). RNN and BNN chicken had significantly higher egg weight as compared to NN (53.16, 53.13 vs. 46.68g; P < 0.0001). In terms of housing systems, birds reared under intensive housing system had the highest body weight at 26 (P < 0.0001) and 46 (P < 0.0001) weeks followed by semi-intensive and free-range systems. Hen day production was higher in intensive birds than free-range and semi-intensive systems (59.70 vs. 57.80, 57.56%; P < 0.0001). Average egg weight (P < 0.0001) and total egg mass (P < 0.0001) were higher in intensive system followed by semi-intensive and free-range systems. Interactions were significant between genotypes and housing systems regarding body weight at 26 (P < 0.0001) and 46 weeks (P < 0.0001) of age. Production percent (P < 0.0001), egg weight (P < 0.0001) and egg mass (P = 0.0036) also showed significant differences in the interactions between genotypes and housing systems. Regarding egg characteristics (at 26 weeks), RNN and BNN chickens had significantly higher egg shape index (74.24, 73.98 vs. 71.91; P = 0.0002), egg surface area (58.24, 58.13 vs. 55.78cm2; P < 0.0001), egg volume (40.92, 40.81 vs. 38.37cm3; P < 0.0001), egg weight (44.82, 44.70 vs. 42.02g; P < 0.0001) and Haught unit score (78.84, 77.23 vs. 74.56; P = 0.0002) as compared to NN chicken’s. Shell thickness was the highest in NN chicken eggs the lowest in BNN (0.34 vs. 0.32mm; P = 0.0787) eggs. Interactions were significant between genotype and housing systems regarding egg shape index (P = 0.0053), egg surface area (P = 0.0057), egg volume (P = 0.0060), egg weight (P = 0.0060) and Haugh unit score (P = 0.0060). Regarding egg characteristics at 46 weeks of age, BNN and RNN chicken eggs had higher egg surface area (65.12, 64.75 vs. 59.59cm2; P < 0.0001) and volume (48.36, 47.97 vs. 42.35cm3; P < 0.0001) as compared to NN eggs. Egg weight (55.54, 52.97 vs. 46.39g; P < 0.0001), Haught unit score (82.44, 82.12 vs. 75.38; P < 0.0001) and yolk index (49.20, 48.00 vs. 37.47; P = 0.0004) were higher in RNN and BNN chickens than NN. Interactions were significant between genotypes and housing systems regarding egg surface area (P = 0.0002), egg volume (P = 0.0003), egg weight (P = 0.0003), Haugh unit score (P < 0.0001), yolk index (P = 0.0044) and shell thickness (P = 0.0012). Regarding hatching traits,

xi

RNN chickens had the highest hatchability followed by BNN and NN (P < 0.0001). Higher fertility was observed in RNN and BNN chickens than NN (87.43, 86.69 vs. 81.74%; P < 0.0001). In terms of housing systems, higher hatchability was noted in free-range birds followed by semi-intensive and intensive system (73.61 vs. 67.28 vs. 64.07%; P < 0.0001). Free-range birds showed the highest fertility than semi-intensive and intensive (88.42 vs. 84.71, 81.72 %; P < 0.0001). Interactions were significant between genotypes and housing systems regarding hatchability (P < 0.0001), fertility (P < 0.0001) and infertile eggs percent (P < 0.0001). On the basis of the above results it can be summed up that among different genotypes, an improvement was observed in RNN and BNN chickens in terms of body weight, morphological and carcass traits during growing phase as compared to NN chickens. During rearing period, RNN and BNN male chickens had higher body weight and shank length than NN; however, NN females chickens had the highest keel length, drumstick circumference and cholesterol levels. RNN females had the highest titers against ND. BNN chickens were better in terms of productive performance and egg characteristics as compared to RNN and NN. However, hatching traits were better in RNN chickens than BNN and NN. Regarding housing systems, male chickens reared under semi-intensive system had the maximum drumstick and keel length during growing stage than free-range and intensive birds. Female chickens reared under semi-intensive were better in terms of body and keel length and shank circumference as compared to the birds under free-range and intensive systems. Chickens (male as well as female) reared under semi-intensive system exhibited more pronounced explorative and maintenance behaviors than free-range and intensive systems. Chickens of both sexes reared under intensive system had better carcass traits as compared to semi-intensive and free-range birds. Glucose level was higher in female chicken under intensive as compared to the birds reared under semi-intensive and free-range systems; however, antibody titer against IB was higher in free-range birds followed by semi-intensive and intensive birds. During production stage, birds reared under intensive system showed better performance than semi-intensive and free-range production systems, however, hatching traits were better in free-range birds than semi-intensive and intensive birds.Key words: Housing system, chicken genotype, behavior, morphometric, serum chemistry, productive performance, egg quality, hatching traits.

xii

CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION

The global human population is continuously increasing with about 70 % of the increase occurring in developing countries (Atela et al. 2016; FAO, 2015). As a result, food demand has increased, and demand for protein sources specifically in developing countries has increased tremendously. Development of the poultry sector in Pakistan can assist in meeting this protein demand, while improving overall nutrition and alleviating poverty. Rural (back-yard) poultry, has significant potential to improve livelihoods of rural communities to meet the needs of the growing protein demands. According to the Economic Survey of Pakistan (2018-19), total population of domestic poultry is 88.49 million birds, which contribute 4,315 million eggs and 122.28 metric tons of meat, yearly and annual growth rates of approximately 1.5 %.Managing indigenous chicken under free-range conditions is a viable strategy to improve agricultural sustainability. Chicken owners usually keep between 5-50 chickens per household (Olwande et al. 2010). About 90-95 % of the chicken reared in backyards by rural households’ farmers generally allow chickens to scavenge for feed during the daytime, but often supplement the birds with cereal grains like millet, sorghum or maize and even household kitchen leftovers (Kingori et al. 2010). In addition, free-range indigenous chickens usually receive few inputs such as medication or vaccinations. The egg and meat outputs of indigenous chicken are generally lower than commercial chicken breeds or strains due to poor nutrition, diseases, predators, and parasites (Olwande and Mathenga 2012). Similarly, productivity is normally low due to poor feed conversion efficiency, minimum use of modern technologies and least refined genetics (Gakige et al. 2015; Khobondo et al. 2015).

In local markets in rural and developed areas, demand of indigenous chicken’s meat and eggs is high due to consumers’ preference for texture and taste from these products. Although indigenous poultry can be an effective source of subsidiary income for poor farmers, it has always been neglected and because of short supply of indigenous chicken their products carry much higher price than that from commercial poultry (Atela et al. 2016). Recent studies revealed that price of per kg body weight of indigenous bird can be 50-60 % higher than commercial chickens (Rath et al. 2015). Chickens require feed that provide them with necessary nutrients for performance parameters such as egg and meat production. Most often, these requirements are not met adequately simply by scavenging (Kingori et al. 2010). Some indigenous chickens have proved to have higher number of eggs laid per clutch per year than commercial ones, indicating the genetic and performance potential of these birds under some systems (Olwande et al. 2010; Bebora et al. 2005). Inability of small farmers to raise commercial breeds of chicken is due to lake of both infrastructure and feed quality requirement of commercial chicken breeds in villages of small farmer. It is, therefore, important to evaluate the systems used in backyard poultry production with efforts aimed at developing systems that afford great production from chickens that are acclimatized to local conditions. This will enable improved body weights, final weight gain, clutch sizes, egg hatchability and increased number of chicks per hen.

1

CHAPTER 2REVIEW OF LITERATURE

In Pakistan, there are three indigenous breeds viz., Desi, Naked Neck and Aseel. Among these, Naked Neck has greater production potential as the other two breeds are very late maturing, slower growing, and produce fewer and lighter eggs. The Naked Neck (NN) has the potential to be developed as a dual-purpose breed and kept by farmers for both egg and meat production due to its better survivability in adverse rural conditions (Shafiq et al. 2018). The Naked Neck gene is also known to have the potential to alleviate heat stress in birds (Syafwan et al. 2011). Rhode Island Red is originally bred in Adamsville (Rhode Island), and is an, American chicken breed popular for its better meat and egg production. Black breasted red Malay cock was considered as one of the foundation sires of this breed and officially displayed at Smithsonian Institution as the father of Rhode Island Red (Anonymous, 2011).

Black Australorp is a highly successful commercial line, originating from Australia via selective breeding with Black Orpington (Anonymous, 2011). It is dual purpose breed having dark textured meat and is a good producer of brown eggs (Van Marle-Köster et al. 2009). This breed holds a unique record of producing 364 eggs in 365 days (Dohner, 2010).Crossbreeding is a useful technique to exploit the genetic variation and is generally termed as the mating of two individual having different genetic makeup (Siwendu et al. 2012). Crossbreeding increase heterozygosity in the population (Razuki et al. 2011), with the main objective being to produce offspring that have qualities of both parent lineages (Saadey et al. 2008). Crossbreeding is generally helpful not only as it creates combinations of desirable characters, but is also produce heterosis or hybrid vigour. It also responsible for rapid change in population with introduction of new breeds (Momoh and Nwosu 2008). 2.1 HeterosisHeterosis is also referred to as hybrid vigour and average percentage increase of desired traits in crossbred offspring as compared to the average performance of their purebred parents on the desired trait. Numerous studies report that crossbreeding is beneficial for producing individual having desired characters, including maternal characteristics, additive effect (Lui et al. 1995) and growth traits (Saadey et al. 2008).2.2 Breed complementarityBreed complementarity is another advantage of crossbreeding. All breeds have certain strengths and weaknesses. In a specific crossbreeding program, different breeds are combined to balance positive and negative traits of each cross (Thomas, 2006).Crossbreeding of exotic breeds with indigenous birds is an efficient tool to exploit the productive efficiency in the exotic breeds and robustness in local breeds (Padhi, 2016). Crossbreeding can improve growth rates, feed conversion and reproductive performance of the bird without effecting adaptation to the indigenous environment, hence, reducing total cost of production (Adebambo et al. 2011). Another study reported that it is more substantial to crossbred suitable and robust exotic breeds with indigenous chickens for upgrading the local germ plasm (Khawaja et al. 2013). Rhode Island Red is more successful in terms of its adaption in local climatic condition in rural areas of Asia subcontinent and better egg production as compared to Fayoumi and White Leghorn (Javed et al. 2003). Rhode Island Red (RIR) have better meat and egg production which can be better utilized by crossing with Pakistan’s indigenous chicken such as naked neck (Fosta et al. 2010). On the contrary, trials conducted on indigenous non-descript desi chicken have shown that this chicken is late maturing; produces only around 46 eggs annually (Anjum et al. 2012). In another comparative study, Desi, RIR and Fayoumi breeds matured at 202.67, 171.00 and 145 days of age and produced 4.89, 13.36 and 13.67 dozen eggs, respectively. The performance of desi chicken was very poor (Bhatti and Sahota 1996).

2

REVIEW OF LITERATUREThe study regarding crossbred of Rhode Island Red and Fulani ecotype chicken in southern guinea savanna revealed improvement in weight gain, cost benefit ratio, livability and reproductive traits (Amao, 2017). When Naked Neck was crossed with commercial broiler in tropical climates it showed relatively lower body temperature, improved weight gain, carcass traits and FCR compared to full feathered broilers (Hagan and Adjei 2012). In Botswana (Africa), crossbreeding of Tswana Naked Neck chicken with Black Australorp exhibited faster growth rate under intensive management system (Mothibedi et al. 2016a).

3

4

Table 2.1. Effect of crossbreeding on quantitative traits of indigenous chickens.Trait Cross Performance Country Reference16 weeks BW BAL × NN M = 2435.64 g, F = 1769.80 g Botswana Mothibedi et al. 2016a20 weeks BW BAL × NN M = 2920.93 g, F = 2224.27 g Botswana Mothibedi et al. 2016a14 weeks BW NN × FR 1605g Ghana Hagan and Adjei 20126-14 weeks TFI NN × FR 2566g Ghana Hagan and Adjei 20126-14 weeks FCR NN × FR 2.4 Ghana Hagan and Adjei 20121-14 weeks Mortality% NN × FR 2.6% Ghana Hagan and Adjei 2012Dressing% NN × FR 74.48 Ghana Hagan and Adjei 201216 weeks BW BAL × PR × WLH M=1.84, F=1.40 South Africa Tyasi and Gxashika 201520 weeks BW BAL × PR × WLH M=2.40, F=1.70 South Africa Tyasi and Gxashika 201512 weeks BW Giri × Nm 1629g Nigeria Fadare, 201412 weeks BW Giri × FR 1352g Nigeria Fadare, 201412 weeks BW Giri × NN 1423.5g Nigeria Fadare, 201412 weeks BW Nm × Giri 1268.48g Nigeria Fadare, 201412 weeks BW FR × Giri 1039.18g Nigeria Fadare, 201412 weeks BW NN × Giri 1306.33g Nigeria Fadare, 201420 weeks BW RIR × Fym 1188g Pakistan Khawaja et al. 201320 weeks FCR RIR × Fym 4.4 Pakistan Khawaja et al. 201320 weeks FI RIR × Fym 5080.94g Pakistan Khawaja et al. 201320 weeks Mortality RIR × Fym 10% Pakistan Khawaja et al. 201320 weeks Dressing% RIR × Fym 62.40% Pakistan Khawaja et al. 201320 weeks BW Fym × RIR 1260g Pakistan Khawaja et al. 201320 weeks FCR Fym × RIR 4.55 Pakistan Khawaja et al. 201320 weeks FI Fym × RIR 5596.5g Pakistan Khawaja et al. 201320 weeks Mortality Fym × RIR 9.8% Pakistan Khawaja et al. 201320 weeks Dressing% Fym × RIR 62.6% Pakistan Khawaja et al. 201320 weeks BW Nm × Anak 1577.63g Nigeria Adeleke et al. 201120 weeks BW Frizzle × Anak 1414.92g Nigeria Adeleke et al. 201120 weeks BW NN × Anak 1031.00g Nigeria Adeleke et al. 201120 weeks BW Anak × Nm 1119.65g Nigeria Adeleke et al. 201120 weeks BW Anak × Frizzle 1179.33g Nigeria Adeleke et al. 201120 weeks BW Anak × NN 1514.14g Nigeria Adeleke et al. 201120 weeks BW DR × FU M= 1360g, F=1275g Nigeria Padhi, 201620 weeks BW FU × FR M=1333g, F=1333g Nigeria Padhi, 2016

RE

VIE

W O

F LITE

RA

TUR

E

5

20 weeks BW DR × Y M=1336g, F=1143g India Padhi, 201620 weeks BW SB × BN 1545g India Padhi, 201620 weeks BW SB × WN 1532g India Padhi, 201620 weeks BW BRN × WLH M=868g, F=691g India Padhi, 201620 weeks BW WLH × BRN M=871g, F=692g India Padhi, 201620 weeks BW K × J M=1587g, F=103g India Padhi, 201620 weeks BW (K × J) × J M=2240g, F=1780g India Padhi, 201620 weeks BW PB2 × A 998g India Padhi, 201620 weeks BW NP × DR 1414g India Padhi, 201620 weeks BW RIR × NU 1299g India Padhi, 201620 weeks BW Nu × RIR 1304g India Padhi, 201620 weeks BW PB2 × NU 2083g India Padhi, 201620 weeks BW NU × RIR × RIR 1653g India Padhi, 201620 weeks BW PB2 × NU × RIR 1878g India Padhi, 201620 weeks BW DR × NJ 1058g India Padhi, 201620 weeks BW PB2 × NJ 1632g India Padhi, 201620 weeks BW DR × (PB2 × NJ) 1525g India Padhi, 201620 weeks BW (PB2 × NJ) × DR 1869g India Padhi, 2016FCR SB × BN 2.61 India Padhi, 2016FCR SB × WN 3.52 India Padhi, 2016Chick weight NN × Frizzle 25.50 g Nigeria Nwenya et al. 2017Chick weight Frizzle × NN 29.50 g Nigeria Nwenya et al. 20174 weeks BW NN × Frizzle 187.00 g Nigeria Nwenya et al. 20174 weeks BW Frizzle × NN 194.17 g Nigeria Nwenya et al. 20174 weeks FI NN × Frizzle 28.80 g Nigeria Nwenya et al. 2017

6

4 weeks FI Frizzle × NN

29.40 g Nigeria

Nwenya et al. 2017

4 weeks FCR NN × Frizzle 5.30 Nigeria Nwenya et al. 20174 weeks FCR Frizzle × NN 5.50 Nigeria Nwenya et al. 20174 weeks BWG NN × Frizzle 57.89 g Nigeria Nwenya et al. 20174 weeks BWG Frizzle × NN 62.89 g Nigeria Nwenya et al. 20178 weeks BW NN × Frizzle 434.50 g Nigeria Nwenya et al. 20178 weeks BW Frizzle × NN 443.00 g Nigeria Nwenya et al. 20178 weeks FI NN × Frizzle 43.50 g Nigeria Nwenya et al. 20178 weeks FI Frizzle × NN 44.61 g Nigeria Nwenya et al. 20178 weeks FCR NN × Frizzle

5.61 Nigeria

Nwenya et al. 2017

RE

VIE

W O

F LITE

RA

TUR

E

7

8 weeks FCR Frizzle × NN 5.81 Nigeria Nwenya et al. 20178 weeks BWG NN × Frizzle 61.71 g Nigeria Nwenya et al. 20178 weeks BWG Frizzle × NN 64.84 g Nigeria Nwenya et al. 201712 weeks BW NN × Frizzle 747.33 g Nigeria Nwenya et al. 201712 weeks BW Frizzle × NN 757.83 g Nigeria Nwenya et al. 201712 weeks FI NN × Frizzle 58.50 g Nigeria Nwenya et al. 201712 weeks FI Frizzle × NN 59.10 g Nigeria Nwenya et al. 201712 weeks FCR NN × Frizzle 6.70 Nigeria Nwenya et al. 201712 weeks FCR Frizzle × NN 7.10 Nigeria Nwenya et al. 201712 weeks BWG NN × Frizzle 71.80 Nigeria Nwenya et al. 201712 weeks BWG Frizzle × NN 75.15 Nigeria Nwenya et al. 201716 weeks BW NN × Frizzle 895.96 Nigeria Nwenya et al. 201716 weeks BW Frizzle × NN 972.83 Nigeria Nwenya et al. 201716 weeks FI NN × Frizzle 70.53 Nigeria Nwenya et al. 201716 weeks FI Frizzle × NN 72.14 Nigeria Nwenya et al. 201716 weeks FCR NN × Frizzle 7.51 Nigeria Nwenya et al. 201716 weeks FCR Frizzle × NN 8.13 Nigeria Nwenya et al. 201716 weeks BWG NN × Frizzle 81.09 Nigeria Nwenya et al. 201716 weeks BWG Frizzle × NN 90.31 Nigeria Nwenya et al. 2017Chick weight Mn × ES 34.93 g Egypt Taha and El-Ghany 2013Chick weight ES × Mn 34.99 g Egypt Taha and El-Ghany 20132 weeks body weight Mn × ES 113.84 g Egypt Taha and El-Ghany 20132 weeks body weight ES × Mn 120.12 g Egypt Taha and El-Ghany 20134 weeks body weight Mn × ES 294.68 g Egypt Taha and El-Ghany 20134 weeks body weight ES × Mn 318.69 g Egypt Taha and El-Ghany 20138 weeks body weight Mn × ES 665.19 g Egypt Taha and El-Ghany 2013

8

8 weeks body weight

ES × Mn

674.39 g Egypt

Taha and El-Ghany 2013

12 weeks body weight Mn × ES 952.63 g Egypt Taha and El-Ghany 2013

12 weeks body weight

ES × Mn

1072.33 g Egypt

Taha and El-Ghany 2013

RE

VIE

W O

F LITE

RA

TUR

E

9

16 weeks body weight Mn × ES 1269.35 g Egypt Taha and El-Ghany 201316 weeks body weight ES × Mn 1458.33 g Egypt Taha and El-Ghany 201320 weeks body weight Mn × ES 1666.20 g Egypt Taha and El-Ghany 201320 weeks body weight ES × Mn 1793.98 g Egypt Taha and El-Ghany 2013Dressing percent TI × PR 62.4% Thailand Padhi, 2016Breast BG × NH 34.6 % of carcass weight Italy Lambertz et al. 2018Legs BG × NH 15.5 % of carcass weight Italy Lambertz et al. 2018Wings BG × NH 12.1 % of carcass weight Italy Lambertz et al. 2018pH24h BG × NH 5.83 Italy Lambertz et al. 2018Lightness BG × NH 53.6 Italy Lambertz et al. 2018Redness BG × NH 6.2 Italy Lambertz et al. 2018Yellowness BG × NH 5.9 Italy Lambertz et al. 2018Moisture BG × NH 59.1 % Italy Lambertz et al. 2018Drip Loss BG × NH 7.9 % Italy Lambertz et al. 2018Cooking Loss BG × NH 18.2 % Italy Lambertz et al. 2018Thawing Loss BG × NH 6.7 % Italy Lambertz et al. 2018Body weight XS × XJ 1460.1 g China Huang et al. 2011Body weight XS × (GX × XJ) 1499.0 g China Huang et al. 2011Carcass weight XS × XJ 1265.9 g China Huang et al. 2011Carcass weight XS × (GX × XJ) 1312.4 g China Huang et al. 2011Dressing percentage XS × XJ 86.71 % China Huang et al. 2011Dressing percentage XS × (GX × XJ) 87.54 % China Huang et al. 2011Breast muscle yield XS × XJ 143.0 g China Huang et al. 2011Breast muscle yield XS × (GX × XJ) 154.7 g China Huang et al. 2011Breast yield rate XS × XJ 16.12 % China Huang et al. 2011Breast yield rate XS × (GX × XJ) 15.76 % China Huang et al. 2011Leg muscle yield XS × XJ 206.8 g China Huang et al. 2011Leg muscle yield XS × (GX × XJ) 236.4 g China Huang et al. 2011Leg muscle rate XS × XJ 23.08 % China Huang et al. 2011Leg muscle rate XS × (GX × XJ) 23.86 % China Huang et al. 2011Breast DM Fym × RIR 26.75 % Pakistan Khawaja et al. 2016Breast DM WLH × (Fym × RIR) 25.70 % Pakistan Khawaja et al. 2016Breast CP Fym × RIR 84.25 % Pakistan Khawaja et al. 2016

10

Breast CP WLH × (Fym × RIR) 83.65 % Pakistan

Khawaja et al. 2016

RE

VIE

W O

F LITE

RA

TUR

E

11

Breast CF Fym × RIR 6.15 % Pakistan Khawaja et al. 2016Breast CF WLH × (Fym × RIR) 6.39 % Pakistan Khawaja et al. 2016Breast Ash Fym × RIR 4.25 % Pakistan Khawaja et al. 2016Breast Ash WLH × (Fym × RIR) 4.00 % Pakistan Khawaja et al. 2016Thigh DM Fym × RIR 28.46 % Pakistan Khawaja et al. 2016Thigh DM WLH × (Fym × RIR) 28.45 % Pakistan Khawaja et al. 2016Thigh CP Fym × RIR 67.55 % Pakistan Khawaja et al. 2016Thigh CP WLH × (Fym × RIR) 67.35 % Pakistan Khawaja et al. 2016Thigh CF Fym × RIR 17.90 % Pakistan Khawaja et al. 2016Thigh CF WLH × (Fym × RIR) 18.15 % Pakistan Khawaja et al. 2016Thigh Ash Fym × RIR 5.00 % Pakistan Khawaja et al. 2016Thigh Ash WLH × (Fym × RIR) 4.80 % Pakistan Khawaja et al. 201620 weeks TEC Fym × RIR 2.55 106/mm3 Pakistan Khawaja et al. 201620 weeks TEC WLH × (Fym × RIR) 2.77 106/mm3 Pakistan Khawaja et al. 201620 weeks Hb Fym × RIR 8.60 g/dL Pakistan Khawaja et al. 201620 weeks Hb WLH × (Fym × RIR) 9.00 g/dL Pakistan Khawaja et al. 201620 weeks PCV Fym × RIR 28.85 % Pakistan Khawaja et al. 201620 weeks PCV WLH × (Fym × RIR) 29.35 % Pakistan Khawaja et al. 201620 weeks ESR Fym × RIR 2.26 mm in 1st hour Pakistan Khawaja et al. 201620 weeks ESR WLH × (Fym × RIR) 2.73 mm in 1st hour Pakistan Khawaja et al. 201620 weeks MCV Fym × RIR 99.76 µm3 Pakistan Khawaja et al. 201620 weeks MCV WLH × (Fym × RIR) 112.56 µm3 Pakistan Khawaja et al. 2016ASM Mn × (SM × LB) 158.2 days Egypt Ghanem et al. 2012ASM SM × (Mn × LB) 156.2 days Egypt Ghanem et al. 2012BWSM Mn × (SM × LB) 1592.0 g Egypt Ghanem et al. 2012BWSM SM × (Mn × LB) 1509.0 g Egypt Ghanem et al. 2012EN90 Mn × (SM × LB) 40.0 Egypt Ghanem et al. 2012EN90 SM × (Mn × LB) 37.0 Egypt Ghanem et al. 2012EW90 Mn × (SM × LB) 49.23 g Egypt Ghanem et al. 2012EW90 SM × (Mn × LB) 51.86 g Egypt Ghanem et al. 2012EM90 Mn × (SM × LB) 2100.9 g Egypt Ghanem et al. 2012EM90 SM × (Mn × LB) 1897.0 g Egypt Ghanem et al. 2012EN365 Mn × (SM × LB) 225.8 Egypt Ghanem et al. 2012EN365 SM × (Mn × LB) 239.0 Egypt Ghanem et al. 2012

12

EW365 Mn × (SM × LB) 57.4 g Egypt

Ghanem et al. 2012

13

EW365 SM × (Mn × LB) 57.3 g Egypt

Ghanem et al. 2012

EM365 Mn × (SM × LB) 12936.5 g Egypt Ghanem et al. 2012EM365 SM × (Mn × LB) 13721.4 g Egypt Ghanem et al. 2012Egg weight RIR × Fym 43.80 g Bangladesh Islam and Dutta 2010Egg length RIR × Fym 5.46 cm Bangladesh Islam and Dutta 2010Egg width RIR × Fym 4.12 cm Bangladesh Islam and Dutta 2010Egg volume RIR × Fym 48.60 cm3 Bangladesh Islam and Dutta 2010Shell weight RIR × Fym 7.90 g Bangladesh Islam and Dutta 2010Shell percent RIR × Fym 18.13 % Bangladesh Islam and Dutta 2010Yolk weight RIR × Fym 16.40 g Bangladesh Islam and Dutta 2010Albumen weight RIR × Fym 19.50 g Bangladesh Islam and Dutta 2010Egg weight BPR × RIR 70.1 g Kenya Gikunju et al. 2018Egg length BPR × RIR 6.20 cm Kenya Gikunju et al. 2018Egg width BPR × RIR 4.52 cm Kenya Gikunju et al. 2018Shell thickness BPR × RIR 0.49 mm Kenya Gikunju et al. 2018Shell weight BPR × RIR 6.06 g Kenya Gikunju et al. 2018Albumen weight BPR × RIR 40.6 g Kenya Gikunju et al. 2018Albumen height BPR × RIR 7.18 mm Kenya Gikunju et al. 2018Albumen width BPR × RIR 7.23 mm Kenya Gikunju et al. 2018Yolk weight BPR × RIR 19.1 g Kenya Gikunju et al. 2018Yolk height BPR × RIR 1.46 mm Kenya Gikunju et al. 2018Yolk width BPR × RIR 4.33 mm Kenya Gikunju et al. 2018HU BPR × RIR 83 Kenya Gikunju et al. 2018Egg surface area BPR × RIR 79.7 cm2 Kenya Gikunju et al. 2018

RE

VIE

W O

F LITE

RA

TUR

E

14

Shell density BPR × RIR 0.04 g/cm3 Kenya Gikunju et al. 2018Egg volume BPR × RIR 65.8 cm3 Kenya Gikunju et al. 2018Egg density BPR × RIR 1.07 g/cm3 Kenya Gikunju et al. 2018Shape index BPR × RIR 73.1 Kenya Gikunju et al. 2018Shell index BPR × RIR 7.60 Kenya Gikunju et al. 2018Egg weight Fym × RIR 41.18 g Egypt Shafik et al. 2013Egg weight RIR × Fym 41.99 g Egypt Shafik et al. 2013HDEP Fym × RIR 54.41 % Egypt Shafik et al. 2013HDEP RIR × Fym 44.70 % Egypt Shafik et al. 2013HHEP Fym × RIR 51.65 % Egypt Shafik et al. 2013HHEP RIR × Fym 42.80 % Egypt Shafik et al. 2013

ASM Fym × RIR 142.00 days

Egypt Shafik et al. 2013

ASM RIR × Fym 142.00 days Egypt Shafik et al. 2013BWSM Fym × RIR 1332.52 g Egypt Shafik et al. 2013BWSM RIR × Fym 1291.01 g Egypt Shafik et al. 2013Fertility Fym × RIR 82.04 % Egypt Shafik et al. 2013Fertility RIR × Fym 83.99 % Egypt Shafik et al. 2013Hatchability Fym × RIR 72.95 % Egypt Shafik et al. 2013Hatchability RIR × Fym 76.63% Egypt Shafik et al. 2013Fertility Nm × Anak 78.3 % Nigeria Adeleke et al. 2012Fertility Frizzle × Anak 98.5 % Nigeria Adeleke et al. 2012Fertility NN × Anak 74.0 % Nigeria Adeleke et al. 2012Fertility Anak × Nm 82.0 % Nigeria Adeleke et al. 2012

RE

VIE

W O

F LITE

RA

TUR

E

15

Fertility Anak × Frizzle 89.3 % Nigeria Adeleke et al. 2012Fertility Anak × NN 58.3 % Nigeria Adeleke et al. 2012Hatchability Nm × Anak 100 % Nigeria Adeleke et al. 2012Hatchability Frizzle × Anak 96.8 % Nigeria Adeleke et al. 2012Hatchability NN × Anak 93.6 % Nigeria Adeleke et al. 2012Hatchability Anak × Nm 81.4 % Nigeria Adeleke et al. 2012Hatchability Anak × Frizzle 90.7 % Nigeria Adeleke et al. 2012Hatchability Anak × NN 86.9 Nigeria Adeleke et al. 2012Weak in shell Nm × Anak 0.0 % Nigeria Adeleke et al. 2012Weak in shell Frizzle × Anak 0.5 % Nigeria Adeleke et al. 2012Weak in shell NN × Anak 0.0 % Nigeria Adeleke et al. 2012Weak in shell Anak × Nm 0.4 % Nigeria Adeleke et al. 2012Weak in shell Anak × Frizzle 0.0 % Nigeria Adeleke et al. 2012Weak in shell Anak × NN 0.0 % Nigeria Adeleke et al. 2012Dead germ Nm × Anak 0.0 % Nigeria Adeleke et al. 2012Dead germ Frizzle × Anak 3.1 % Nigeria Adeleke et al. 2012Dead germ NN × Anak 0.0 % Nigeria Adeleke et al. 2012Dead germ Anak × Nm 7.7 % Nigeria Adeleke et al. 2012Dead germ Anak × Frizzle 6.2 % Nigeria Adeleke et al. 2012Dead germ Anak × NN 12.0 % Nigeria Adeleke et al. 2012Dead in shell Nm × Anak 0.0 % Nigeria Adeleke et al. 2012Dead in shell Frizzle × Anak 1.6 % Nigeria Adeleke et al. 2012Dead in shell NN × Anak 14.3 % Nigeria Adeleke et al. 2012Dead in shell Anak × Nm 11.0 % Nigeria Adeleke et al. 2012Dead in shell Anak × Frizzle 7.8 % Nigeria Adeleke et al. 2012

16

Dead in shell Anak × NN 7.2 % Nigeria

Adeleke et al. 2012

Egg weight WLH × NN 59.3 g Pakistan Ahmed et al. 2012Egg weight WLH × Fym 57.9 g Pakistan Ahmed et al. 2012Egg weight WLH × RIR 59.1 g Pakistan Ahmed et al. 2012Egg weight WLH × Aseel 59.1 g Pakistan Ahmed et al. 2012Egg weight WLH × Desi 50.1 g Pakistan Ahmed et al. 2012Chick weight WLH × NN 34.6 g Pakistan Ahmed et al. 2012Chick weight WLH × Fym 33.4 g Pakistan Ahmed et al. 2012Chick weight WLH × RIR 36.1 g Pakistan Ahmed et al. 2012Chick weight WLH × Aseel 35.9 g Pakistan Ahmed et al. 2012Chick weight WLH × Desi 30.2 g Pakistan Ahmed et al. 2012Fertility WLH × NN 90.6 g Pakistan Ahmed et al. 2012Fertility WLH × Fym 84.6 g Pakistan Ahmed et al. 2012Fertility WLH × RIR 87.0 g Pakistan Ahmed et al. 2012Fertility WLH × Aseel 55.0 g Pakistan Ahmed et al. 2012Fertility WLH × Desi 82.6 g Pakistan Ahmed et al. 2012HOF WLH × NN 85.3 g Pakistan Ahmed et al. 2012HOF WLH × Fym 84.6 g Pakistan Ahmed et al. 2012HOF WLH × RIR 83.9 g Pakistan Ahmed et al. 2012HOF WLH × Aseel 57.5 g Pakistan Ahmed et al. 2012HOF WLH × Desi 76.2 g Pakistan Ahmed et al. 2012Dead germ WLH × NN 2.0 g Pakistan Ahmed et al. 2012Dead germ WLH × Fym 2.0 g Pakistan Ahmed et al. 2012Dead germ WLH × RIR 2.0 g Pakistan Ahmed et al. 2012

RE

VIE

W O

F LITE

RA

TUR

E

17

Dead germ WLH × Aseel 2.3 g Pakistan Ahmed et al. 2012Dead germ WLH × Desi 2.0 g Pakistan Ahmed et al. 2012Dead in shell WLH × NN 2.4 g Pakistan Ahmed et al. 2012Dead in shell WLH × Fym 2.4 g Pakistan Ahmed et al. 2012Dead in shell WLH × RIR 2.6 g Pakistan Ahmed et al. 2012Dead in shell WLH × Aseel 5.4 g Pakistan Ahmed et al. 2012Dead in shell WLH × Desi 4.6 g Pakistan Ahmed et al. 2012Ejaculate volume BAL × NN 0.41 ml Botswana Mothibedi et al. 2016bSemen pH BAL × NN 7.05 Botswana Mothibedi et al. 2016bSemen color BAL × NN 1.0 Botswana Mothibedi et al. 2016bSperm motility BAL × NN 81.79 % Botswana Mothibedi et al. 2016bSperm concentration BAL × NN 4.78 × 109 sperm / ml Botswana Mothibedi et al. 2016bLive sperm BAL × NN 76.8 % Botswana Mothibedi et al. 2016bDead sperm BAL × NN 23.3 % Botswana Mothibedi et al. 2016b

BW: Body weight; BWG: Body weight gain; FCR: Feed Conversion Ratio; TEC: Total erythrocyte count; Hb: Hemoglobin; PCV: Packed Cell Volume; ESR: Erythrocyte Segmentation Rate; MCV: Mean Corpuscular Volume; ASM: Age at sexual maturity; BWSM: Body weight at sexual maturity; EN90: Egg number during the first 90 days; EW90: Average Egg Weight during first 90 days; EM90: Egg mass during first 90 days; EN365: Egg number during annual production; EW365: Average Egg Weight during annual production; EM365: Egg mass during annual production; HOF: Hatch of fertile; HDEP: Hen Day Egg Production; HHEP: Hen Housed Egg Production; M: Male; F: Female; BAL: Black Australorp; NN: Naked Neck; FR: Frizzle; PR: Plymouth Rock; WLH: White Leghorn; Fym: Fyoumi; RIR: Rhode Island Red; Giri: Giri-Raja; Nm: Normal feathered; Anak: Anak Titan; BN: Black Nicobari; BRN: Brown Nicobari; DR: Dahlem Red; FU: Fulani ecotype; K: Kadaknath; J: Jabalpur colour; NP: Palampur native; NU: Udiapur native; PB2: meat-type synthetic breed; SB: Synthetic broiler; WN: White Nicobari; Mn: Mandarah; ES: El-Salam; WLH: White Leghorn; Y: Yoruba; BG: Bresse-Gauloise; NH: New Hampshire; XS: Xiao-Shan; XJ: Xian-Ju; GX: Guang-Xi; SM: Silver Montazah; LB: Lohman Brown; BPR: Barred Plymouth Rock. R

EV

IEW

OF

LITER

ATU

RE

REVIEW OF LITERATURE2.3 Housing SystemsHousing systems for indigenous chicken largely depends on production objectives i.e., commercial or subsistence (only for home consumption). Rearing systems can be broadly divided into free-range, semi-intensive and intensive systems based on husbandry practices and levels of inputs and outputs (Sonaiya and Swan 2004). These rearing systems are practiced in both rural and urban areas of Pakistan; selection of rearing system depends on a household’s land availability and commercial activity involved. The purposes of rearing indigenous chicken may be cultural, for home consumption, or for increased income (Menge et al. 2005). Raising indigenous chicken under free range rearing system can be more profitable than semi intensive and intensive rearing system whereas utilization of intensive system is popular these days due to ever increasing human population resulting less available land for practicing free range system (Sonaiya and Swan 2004). To maximize the genetic potential of exotic breeds better exploitation of genetic potential of indigenous chicken require better management and therefore commercialization of indigenous chicken production (Menge et al. 2005).

2.4 Free Range System Free range system is generally used for meat and egg production for home consumption, for source of income and for socio-cultural purpose (Njenga, 2005). This rearing system is based on low input and low output management and used in rural area having low human population density. A smaller flock consisting less than 25 birds can be easily managed in this system without any supplementation and require minimum care (Nzioka, 2000). In the morning, birds left around the homestead to find available feed (usually include insects, seeds, grass and meal worms) and reached back to the night shelters to take care of themselves, occasionally birds are confined and offered with kitchen leftover (Birech, 2002). Meat or egg production is normally quite low due to low inputs but the cost per unit egg or meat is almost negligible (Okitoi et al. 2000).

2.5 Semi intensive System In semi intensive system, birds are kept in small flocks of at least 50 birds, mostly for sale and consumption. In this system, low to medium levels of input is employed depending upon the production level or economic activity involved (Magothe et al. 2012). The birds move around the homestead during day time and feed on worms, grass or kitchen leftovers or whatever the feed resource available. Apart from this free-range area, birds are also provided with some housing, ranging from night shelter to proper chicken shed (Magothe et al. 2012). Medication and vaccination are occasionally provided, depending upon level of enterprise. However, commercial feed is also often provided to the birds. Production (meat and eggs) in this system is moderate and this system is commonly used in rural areas having larger density of human population or per-urban areas (King'ori et al. 2007).

2.6 Intensive Rearing System Intensive systems involve larger flocks having more than 100 birds maintained in fully confined poultry sheds. Deep litter or battery cage system are very common in this rearing system and ideal management conditions must be provided. Birds are provided with commercially prepared rations. Production of meat and eggs are generally higher in this system due to higher inputs and low mortality rate (Okitoi et al. 2000).

2.7 Effect of Housing SystemMuscle growth in Gallus gallus is associated with level of activity and is more pronounced in body parts performing higher motor activity such as observed in leg muscles (Lei and Van Beek 1997). Among different production systems, chickens find maximum opportunities of exercise in extensive or free-range system. Free range and semi-intensive rearing system had been found to increase the taste of products compared to birds raised in conventional confined systems (Lewis et al. 1997). The production systems may produce variations in breast meat color and fatty acid contents (Husak et al. 2008). Higher shear force and breast and thigh percentage were observed in chickens reared under free range housing system (Dou et al. 2009). Similarity, others reported higher percentage of breast, thigh and drumstick of commercial broiler (Ross-308) reared under conventional indoor housing system (Poltowicz and Doktor 2011). In a later study, a linear

18

REVIEW OF LITERATUREincrease in breast yield with progress in free-range days and linear decrease in yield of the thigh, leg, thigh bone, and foot yields were noted (Tong et al. 2014). Fu et al. (2015) found that ratios of breast and abdominal fat weight to body weight in free-range birds were significantly greater as compared to caged birds. Significant variation in body weight of Aseel chickens were also observed under intensive, semi-intensive and confiend rearing system (Rehman et al. 2016). Other findings (Jiang et al. 2011; Mikulski et al. 2011) reported that provision of outdoor access to the commercial broilers did not influence the growth whereas lower weight gain was also reported in commercial broiler when reared in free range housing system (Castellini et al. 2002; Wang et al. 2009). Regarding productive performance and egg quality of laying hens, a significant interaction between rearing system and genotype has been observed (Basmacıoğlu and Ergül 2005). In study of commercial layer, better performance was recorded in conventional rearing system when compared with organic system (Mugnai et al. 2009). However, higher egg production of indigenous hybrid was observed in free range housing system (Şekeroğlu and Sarıca 2005). Geleta et al. (2013) reared the Fayoumi chicken under intensive management system and showed that feed consumption per day were 48.9 g, 71.4 g and 113.5 g in starter, grower and laying phases respectively. Rizwanual et al. (2011) reported 5.45% mortality in intensive production system and Geleta et al. (2013) noted higher (7.2%) value until 20 weeks. Sexual maturity in rural chicken was noted to be achieved at 238 days in Fayomi while living in semi scavenging system and maturity age became shortened to 212 days when birds were provided with some extra feed allowance (Barua et al. 1998). Annual egg production of Faymoi under intensive management had been found to 140.7 eggs in Bangladesh (Khan et al. 2006), but recent reports had shown that it can be up to 159.9 eggs per year (Geleta et al. 2013). Annual average egg production of local chicken under backyard production system was observed 150.47 eggs (Regassa et al. 2013). Regarding egg characteristics, egg weight, length, width and shell thickness, Fayoumi under intensive rearing were found to be 44.3 g, 50.77 mm, 39.3 mm and 0.35 mm, respectively (Geleta et al. 2013). Regassa et al. (2013) found egg weight and shape index of 44.68 g and 75.95 under scavenging system, respectively, and weight of yolk, albumen and eggshell were 14.54g, 24.61g and 5.63g, respectively which seems to be nearly equal as reported in intensive farming.

In the aviary systems, maximum ground floor is available for the birds to show natural behaviours, including wing flapping, nesting, dust bathing, perching and running (Leyendecker et al. 2005). It has been observed that conventional battery cages in comparison with furnished cages may cause increased stress level, behavioral transitions, higher posture and increased walking time, whereas the level of preening is significantly higher in enriched cages (Pohle and Cheng 2009). Environmental enriched cages are specified with features promoting ordinary activities (Stricklin, 1995) providing opportunities to enhance natural behaviour of birds (Mellen and Macphee 2001) as explained in other studies, the positive influence of enriched cages on movement patterns (Leone et al. 2007) and better utilization of space as well (Cornetto and Este´vez 2001). Similarly, comparing the conventional cages with aviary systems, the behaviour and welfare traits significantly improved as the comfort level is 3.9 to 5.5 % and 0.7 to 0.9 % in aviary and cages respectively (Tanaka and Hurnik 1992). Moesta et al. (2008) reported better behaviour in aviary systems in terms of the welfare of laying hens, while increased activity of the birds in both caged and aviary system has been reported during first and last few hours of light (Tanaka and Hurnik, 1992). The enrichment of cages is beneficial in reducing stress and fear responses (Bizeray et al. 2002) and aggression (Cornetto et al. 2002), while Cornetto and Este´vez (2001) observed even distribution of commercial broiler breeder in enriched cages, ultimately, improving the productive and reproductive performance. Although the free-range systems are also beneficial for comfort and better bone and feather traits, there are drawbacks like increased feed consumption, dirty eggs, increased leg deformities, foot problems as compared to enriched and conventional cages (Dikmen et al. 2016). Similarly, better plumage conditions, shorter claws, stronger humerus, less toe pad hyperkeratosis and less body wounds have also been observed in furnished cages than conventional cages (Abrahamsson and Tauson 1995). In enriched cages, higher incidences of foot problems and feather damage have been observed as compared to the conventional cage systems depending upon the number of birds per cage (Appleby et al. 2002). Aviary systems result in increased dirty plumage, wounds, more keel abnormalities and foot deformities than enriched and conventional cages. Overall feather cover and pattern

19

REVIEW OF LITERATUREof feather loss was observed due to head pecking in aviary system and cage abrasions in enriched and conventional cages (Blatchford et al. 2016). It has been reported that hens kept in aviary system had significantly stronger tibia and humerus (bones); however, more wounds from inferior plumage conditions and dirty shanks and feet were observed (Abrahamsson and Tauson 1995).The immune response was reported to be good and may increase with the normal behaviour in non-cage rearing (Shimmura et al. 2007). The antibody titter was significantly increased with the improvement of immune system due to decreased stress level in enriched cages and CD8+ cell proportion and monocyte percentage in caged birds (Matur et al. 2016). However, it has also been reported that laying performance, plumage pattern, exterior egg quality and immune response of the birds kept in conventional cage system and enriched cages were found to be similar (Tactacan et al. 2009). Similarly, bird’s physical conditions and immune response did not differ significantly in different cage systems (Shimmura et al. 2007). Likewise, Jasper et al. (2015) found the non-optimal welfare and health of the birds kept in aviary system.On the basis of aviary designs and systems compared with red mite infestation houses, plastic slatted aviaries and those with no free-range system, better plumage conditions were found in wire mesh aviaries. Similarly, wire mesh floor aviaries in comparison with plastic slatted floor system may cause better laying, reduced death rate and the wounds on vent and back. Furthermore, Jasper et al. (2015) reported, increased rate of red mite infestation in plastic slatted aviaries. Moe et al. (2010) found the association of pathogenic load with environmental complexity rather than stress in enriched cages and free range, which affects the immune response of birds. As far as the effect of cage systems on different parameters of production performance is concerned, feed intake, egg weight, production percent and overall mortality did not differ significantly by cage systems (Tactacan et al. 2009). Similarly, Taylor and Hurnik (1996) observed non-significant effect of housing systems on egg mass per hen per month, overall production percent, egg weight and shell deformities. In free-range production system, dirty egg percent and egg mass were significantly higher as compared to the enriched and conventional housing systems (Dikmen et al. 2016). Although some scientists supported the conventional cage system in terms of better egg mass, egg production and feed conversion (Shimmura et al. 2007); however, Appleby et al. (2002) reported a greater number of eggs per hens with more feed intake while rearing small group of birds in enriched cages. Contrarily in study of Tauson (2005), production traits of conventional and furnished cages did not differ significantly, but egg quality traits were found to be affected by different models of furnished cages. Similarly, non-significant influence of cage designs has been observed in production traits in terms of hen housed egg mass (kg) and laying percentage of two production cycles (Wall, 2011). Aernia et al. (2005) reported reduced productivity of birds in aviary system than cage system and non-significant effect on cannibalism and mortality rates. Contrary findings (Tauson, 2005) have also been reported, where higher incidence of irregular cannibalism in medium heavy brown birds reared in aviary system may cause reduction in production traits compared with furnished cages regardless of litter and space.

20

REVIEW OF LITERATURE2.8 Statement of Problem

In Pakistan, Indigenous chickens are being reproduced with continuous random mating which has deteriorated the genetic potential of these birds, resulting in chicken breeds with poor growth characteristics, feed conversion ratio, fleshing ability, reduced egg production, hatching traits, resistance against diseases and overall vitality.On the basis of above discussion, the study was planned to evaluate the impact of housing systems (free-range, semi-intensive, and intensive) in crossbred of Rhode Island Red, Black Australorp and Naked Neck chickens on:

Morphometrics, behavioral pattern and carcass traits; Morphological traits, serum chemistry and antibody response; and Productive performance, egg characteristics and hatching traits of Rhode Island Red, Black

Australorp and Naked Neck crossbred chickens.

21

REVIEW OF LITERATURE2.9 REFERENCESAbrahamsson, Tauson. 1995. Aviary Systems and Conventional Cages for Laying Hens: Effects on

Production, Egg Quality, Health and Bird Location in Three Hybrids. Acta Agri Scand, Section A – Anim Sci.  45: 191-203.

Adebambo AO, Ikeobi CON, Ozoje MO, Oduguwa OO, Adebambo OA. 2011. Combining abilities of growth traits among pure and crossbred meat type chickens. Arch Zootech. 60: 953-963.

Adeleke MA, Peters SO, Ozoje MO, Ikeobi CON, Bamgbose AM, Adebambo OA. 2011. Growth performance of Nigerian local chickens in crosses involving an exotic broiler breeder. Trop Anim Health Prod. 43: 643-650.

Adeleke MA, Peters SO, Ozoje MO, Ikeobi CON, Bamgbose AM, Adebambo OA. 2012. Effect of crossbreeding on fertility, hatchability and embryonic mortality of Nigerian local chickens. Trop Anim Health Prod. 44: 505-510.

Aernia V, Brinkhofa MWG, Wechslera B, Oestera H, Frohlicha E. 2005. Productivity and mortality of laying hens in aviaries: A systematic review. World's Poult Sci J. 61: 130-142.

Ahmed BH, Saleem F, Zahid S. 2012. Comparative evaluation of fertility and hatchability of different crosses of chicken with white leghorn for backyard poultry. J Vet Anim Sci. 2: 107-112.

Amao SR. 2017. Crossing of effect Fulani Ecotype with Rhode Island Red chickens on growth performance, egg and reproductive traits under Southern Guinea Savanna region of Nigeria. Prod Agri Tech. (In press).

Anjum MA, Sahota AW, Akram M, Javed K, Mehmood S. 2012. Effect of selection on productive performance of desi chicken for four generations. J Anim Plant Sci. 22(1): 1-5.

Anonymous. 2011. South African show poultry organisation breed standards. Available at: http://www.saspo.org.za.

Appleby MC, Walker AW, Nicol CJ, Lindberg AC, Freire R, Hughes BO, Elson HA. 2002. Development of furnished cages for laying hens. Brit Poult Sci. 43: 489–500.

Atela JA, Ouma PO, Tuitoek J, Onjoro PA, Nyangweso SE. 2016. A comparative performance of indigenous chicken in Baringo and Kisumu of Kenya for sustainable agriculture. Int J Agri Pol Res. 4(6): 97-104.

Barua A, Howlider MAR, Yoshimura Y. 1998. A study on the performance of Fayoumi, Rhode Island Red and Fayoumi×Rhode Island Red chickens under rural condition in Bangladesh. Asian–Austr J Anim Sci. 11(6):635–641.

Basmacıoğlu H, Ergül M. 2005.Research on the factors affecting cholesterol content and some other characteristics of eggs in laying hens. Turk J Vet Anim Sci. 29(1):157–164.

Bebora LC, Mbuthia PG, Macharia JN, Mwaniki G, Njagi LW, Nyaga PN. 2005. Appraisal of Village Chicken’s Potential in Egg Production. Kenya Vet. 29: 10–13.

Bhatti BM, Sahota AW. 1996. A comparative study on growth and laying behaviour of Desi, Fayuomi and Rhode Island Red breeds of chickens maintained under local environmental conditions of Rawalpindi (Pakistan). Pak Vet J. 16(1): 26-30.

Birech EK. 2002. Feed and Nutrient intake of free-ranging chickens in Nakuru District, Kenya. MSc Thesis. Egerton University, Njoro, Kenya.

Bizeray D, Este´vez I, Leterrier C, Faure JM. 2002. Influence of increased environmental complexity on leg condition, performance, and level of fearfulness in broilers. Poult Sci. 81: 767–773.

Blatchford RA, Fulton RM, Mench JA. 2016. The utilization of the Welfare Quality® assessment for determining laying hen condition across three housing systems. Poult Sci. 95: 154-163.

Castellini C, Mugnai C, Dal Bosco A. 2002. Effect of organic production system on broiler carcass and meat quality. Meat Sci. 60: 219-225.

Cornetto T, Este´vez I, Douglass LW. 2002. Using artificial cover to reduce aggression and disturbances in domestic fowl. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 75: 325–336.

Cornetto T, Este´vez I. 2001. Behavior of the domestic fowl in the presence of vertical panels. Poult Sci. 80(10):1455-1462.

Dikmen BY, İpek A, Şahan Ü, Petek M, Sözcü A. 2016. Egg production and welfare of laying hens kept in different housing systems (conventional, enriched cage, and free range). Poult Sci. 95: 1564-1572.

22

REVIEW OF LITERATUREDohner JV. 2010. Black Australorp chickens: Heritage poultry breeds. Available at:

https://www.motherearthnews.com/homesteading-and-livestock/raising-chickens/black-australorp-heritage-poultry-zeylaf

Dou TC, Shi SR, Sun HJ, Wang KH. 2009. Growth rate, carcass traits and meat quality of slow-growing chicken grown according to three raising systems. Anim Sci Pap Rep. 27:361–369.

Economic Survey of Pakistan. 2018-19. Agriculture, Chapter 2. III. Livestock and Poultry. b. Poultry. p. 28.Fadare AO. 2014. Morphometric and growth performance variations of Naked Neck, Frizzled Feathered and

normal feathered crosses with exotic Giri-Raja chickens. Jord J Agri Sci. 10(4): 811-820.FAO. 2015. How to Feed the World in 2050. Available at:

http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/wsfs/docs/expert_paper/How_to_Feed_the_World_in_2050.pdfFosta JC, Rognon X, Tixier-Boichard M, Coquerelle G, Pone Kamderm D, Ngou Ngoupayou JD, Manjeli Y,

Bordas A. 2010. Caractérisation phénotypique des populations de poules locales (Gallus Gallus) de la zone forestière dense humide à pluviométrie bimodale du Cameroun. Anim Gen Resour. 46: 49-59.

Fu D, Zhang D, Xu G, Li K, Wang Q, Zhang Z, Li J, Chen Y, Jia X, Qu L. 2015. Effects of different rearing systems on meat production traits and meat fiber microstructure of Beijing-you chicken. Anim Sci J. 86: 729-735.

Gakige JK, King’ori AM, Bebe BO, Kahi AK. 2015. Effects of targeted phase supplementary feeding on gut morphology of scavenging ecotypes of indigenous chickens in Kenya. Livstk Res Rural Dev. 27(7): 1-7.

Geleta T, Leta S, Bekana E. 2013. Production performacne of Fayoumi chickens under intensive management condition of Adami Tulu research centre. Int J Livst Prod. 4(10): 172-176.

Ghanem H, Attia YA, El-Tahawy WS, Nawar AN. 2012. Developing a three-way cross of chickens for improving egg production traits 1-Heterossis effect and analysis of DNA polymorphism using RAPD-PCR. Egypt Poult Sci. 32(4): 833-849.

Gikunju MM, Kabuage LW, Wachira AM, Oliech GW, Gicheha MG. 2018. Evaluation of pure breeds, crossbreeds and indigenous chicken egg quality traits in Kenya. Livstk Res Rur Dev. 30:170.

Hagan JK, Adjei AI. 2012. Evaluation of the growth and carcass yield characteristics of crossbred Naked-Neck and Frizzle cockerel phenotypes reared under hot and humid environments. ARPN J Agri Bio Sci. 7(8): 576-582.

Huang A, Li J, Shen J, Tao Z, Ren J, Li G, Wang D, Tian Y, Yang F, Ding W, Yu T, Lu L. 2011. Effect of crossbreeding on slaughter tratis and breast muscle chemical composition in chinese chickens. Braz J Poult Sci. 13(4): 247-253.

Husak RL, Sebranek JG, Bregendahl K. 2008. A survey of commercially available broilers marketed as organic, free-range, and conventional broilers for cooked meat yields, meat composition, and relative value. Poult Sci. 87(11): 2367-2376.

Islam MS, Dutta RK. 2010. Egg quality traits of indigenous, exotic and crossbred chickens (Gallus domesticus L.) in Rajshahi, Bangladesh. J Life Earth Sci. 5: 63-67.

Jasper L, Heerkens T, Delezie E, Kempen I, Zoons J, Ampe B, Rodenburg BT, Frank A, Tuyttens M. 2015. Specific characteristics of the aviary housing system affect plumage condition, mortality and production in laying hens. Poult Sci. 94: 2008–2017.

Javed K, Farooq M, Mian MA, Durrani FR, Mussawar S. 2003. Flock size and egg production performance of backyard chickens reared by rural woman in Peshawar, Pakistan. Available from: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd15/11/jave1511.htm

Jiang S, Jiang Z, Lin Y, Zhou G, Chen F, Zheng C. 2011. Effects of different rearing and feeding methods on meat quality and antioxidative properties in Chinese Yellow male broilers. Br Poult Sci. 52: 352-358.

Khan MKI, Khatun MJ, Bhuiyan MSA, Sharmin R. 2006. Production performance of Fayoumi chicken under intensive management. Pak J Bio Sci. 9(2): 179-181.

Khawaja T, Khan SH, Mukhtar N, Parveen A, Fareed G. 2013. Production performance, egg quality and biochemical parameters of three way crossbred chickens with reciprocal F1 crossbred chickens in sub-tropical environment. Ital J Anim Sci. 12: 127-132

23

REVIEW OF LITERATUREKhawaja T, Khan SH, Parveen A, Iqbal J. 2016. Growth performance, meat composition and haematological

parameters of first generation of newly evolved hybridized pure chicken and their crossbred parents. Vet Arhiv. 86(1): 135-148.

Khobondo JO, Muasya TK, Miyumo S, Okeno TO, Wasike CB, Mwakubambanya R, Kingori AM, Kahi AK. 2015. Genetic and nutrition development of indigenous chicken in Africa. Livstk Res Rural Dev. 27 (7): 35-41.

King'ori AM, Tuitoek JK, Muiruri HK, Wachira AM, Birech EK. 2007. Protein intake of growing indigenous chickens on free-range and their response to Supplementation. Int J Poult Sci. 6: 617-621.

Kingori AM, Wachira AM, Tuitoek JK. 2010. Indigenous chicken production in Kenya. Int J Poult Sci. 9: 309-316.

Lambertz C, Wuthijaree K, Gauly M. 2018. Performance, behavior, and health of male broilers and laying hens of 2 dual-purpose chicken genotypes. Poult Sci. 97: 3564-3576.

Lei S, Van Beek G. 1997. Influence of activity and dietary energy on broiler performance. Carcase yield and sensory quality. Brit Poult Sci. 38: 183–189.

Leone EH, Este´vez I, Christman MC. 2007. Environmental complexity and group size: Immediate effects on the use of space by domestic fowl. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 102: 39–52.

Lewis PD, Perry GC, Farmer LJ, Patterson RLS. 1997. Responses of two genotypes of chicken to the diets and stocking densities typical of UK and ‘label rouge’ systems: I. Performance, behaviour and carcass composition. Meat Sci. 45: 501-516.

Leyendecker M, Hamann H, Hartung J, Kamphues J, Nueman U, S¨urie C, Distl O. 2005. Keeping laying hens in furnished cages and aviary housing system enhances their bone stability. Br Poult Sci. 46: 536–544.

Lui A, Nishimura T, Takahashi K. 1995. Relationship between structural properties of intramuscular connective tissue and toughness of various chicken skeletal muscles. Meat Sci. 43: 43-49.

Magothe TM, Okeno TO, Muhuyi WB, Kahi AK. 2012. Indigenous chicken production in Kenya: I. Current status. World’s Poult Sci J. 68: 119-132.

Matur E, Akyazi İ, Eraslan E, Ergul EE, Eseceli H, Keten M, Metiner K, Aktaran BD. 2016. The effects of environmental enrichment and transport stress on the weights of lymphoid organs, cell-mediated immune response, heterophil functions and antibody production in laying hen. Anim Sci J. 87: 284-292.

Mellen J, Macphee MS. 2001. Philosophy of Environmental Enrichment: Past, present, and future. Zoo Bio. 20: 211– 226.

Menge EO, Kosgey IS, Kahi AK. 2005. Bio-economic model to support breeding ofindigenous chicken in different production systems. Int J Poult Sci. 4: 1-13.

Mikulski D, Celej J, Jankowski J, Majewska T, Mikulska M. 2011. Growth performance, carcass traits and meat quality of slower-growing and fast-growing chickens raised with and without outdoor access. Asian-Aust J Anim Sci. 24: 1407-1416.

Moe RO, Guémené D, Bakken M, Larsen HJS, Shini S, Lervik S, Skjerve E, Michel V, Tauson R. 2010. Effects of housing conditions during the rearing and laying period on adrenal reactivity, immune response and heterophil to lymphocyte (H/L) ratios in laying hens. Anim. 4: 1709-1715.

Moesta A, Knierim U, Briese A, Hartung J. 2008. The effect of litter condition and depth on the suitability of wood shavings for dust-bathing behaviour. Appl Anim Behav Sci. 115: 160-170.

Momoh OM, Nwosu CC. 2008. Genetic evaluation of growth traits in crosses between two ecotypes of Nigerian local chicken. Livstk Res Rur Dev. 20: 580-690.

Mothibedi K, Nsoso SJ, Waugh EE, Kgwatalala PM. 2016a. Growth performance of purebred Naked Neck Tswana and Black Australorp x Naked Neck Tswana Crossbred chickens under an intensive management system in Botswana. Int J Livtk Res. 6(8): 6-14.

Mothibedi K, Nsoso SJ, Waugh EE, Kgwatalala PM. 2016b. Semen characteristics of purebred Naked Neck Tswana and Black Australorp x Naked Neck Tswana Crossbred chickens under an intensive management system in Botswana. Am J Res Comm. 4(10): 38-47.

Mugnai C, Dal Bosco A, Castellini C. 2009. Effect of rearing system and season on the performance and egg characteristics of Ancona laying hens. Ital J Anim Sci. 88: 175-188.

24

REVIEW OF LITERATURENjenga SK. 2005. Production and socio-cultural aspects of local poultry phenotypes in coastal Kenya. MSc

Thesis, Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences, Tjele, Denmark.Nwenya JMI, Nwakpu EP, Nwose RN, Ogbuagu KP. 2017. Performance and heterosis of indigenous chicken

crossbreed (Naked Neck × Frizzled Feather) in the humid tropics. J Poult Res. 14(2): 7-11.Nzioka M. 2000. Indigenous poultry production in the Katumani mandate districts: constraints and prospects.

Proc Agri Res Project Phase II Conf, Nairobi, Kenya. p. 213-225.Okitoi LO, Ondwasy HO, Obali M, Linyonyi A, Mukisira EA, De Jong R. 2000. The potential on-farm

impact of appropriate technologies on productivity of indigenous chicken in western Kenya. Proc 7th Kenya Agri Res Inst Bien Sci Conf, Nairobi, Kenya. p. 373-380.

Olwande J, Mathenge M. 2012. Market Participation among the Poor Rural Households in Kenya, A paper prepared for presentation at the International Association of Agricultural Economists (IAAE) Triennial Conference, Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil. Available at: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/126711/1/Olwande.pdf

Olwande PO, Ogara WO, Okuthe SO, Muchemi G, Okoth E, Odindo MO, Adhiambo RF. 2010. Assessing the productivity of indigenous chickens in an extensive management system in Southern Nyanza, Kenya. Trop Anim Health Prod. 42: 283-288.

Padhi MK. 2016. Importance of indigenous breeds of chicken for rural economy and their improvements for higher production performance. Sci. (2016): 1-9.

Pohle K, Cheng HW. 2009. Furnished cage system and hen well-being: Comparative effects of furnished cages and battery cages on behavioral exhibitions in White Leghorn chickens. Poult Sci. 88: 1559-1564

Poltowicz K, Doktor J. 2011. Effect of free-range raising on performance, carcass attributes and meat quality of broiler chickens. Anim Sci Pap Rep. 29: 139-149.

Rath PK, Mandal KD, Panda P. 2015. Backyard Poultry Farming in India: A call for skill upliftment. Res J Recent Sci. 4: 1-5.

Razuki WM, Mukhlis SA, Jasmin FH, Hamad RF. 2011. Productive performance of four commercial broiler genotypes reared under high ambient temperatures. Int J Poult Sci. 10 (2): 87-92.

Regassa SL, Bekana E, Geleta T. 2013. Production performance of Fayoumi chicken breed under backyard management condition in Mid Rift valley of Ethiopia. Herald J Agri Food Sci Res. 2 (1): 78 -81.

Rehman MS, Mahmud A, Mehmood S, Pasha TN, Javed K, Hussain J, Khan MT. 2016. Production performance of Aseel chicken under free range, semiintensive and confinement rearing systems. J Anim Plant Sci. 26(6): 1589-1596.

Rizwanual H, Ehteshamul H, Khan FM. 2011. Correlation between body weight and egg weight of dokki and Fayoumi hen in Pakistan. J Basic Appl Sci. 7(2):165-168.

Saadey SM, Galal A, Zaky HI, Zein el-dein A. 2008. Diallel crossing analysis for body weights and egg production traits of two native Egyptian and two exotic chicken breeds. Int J Poult Sci. 7: 64–71.

Şekeroğlu A, Sarıca M. 2005. The effects of free range system on egg productions and egg quality of brown and white layer genotypes. J Poult Res. 6(1):10–16.

Shafik BMN, El-Bayomi KM, Sosa GA, Osman AMR. 2013. Effect of crossing Fayoumi and Rhode Island Red on growth performance, egg and reproductive traits under Egyptian conditions. Benha Vet Med J. 24(2): 11-18.

Shafiq M, Mahmud A, Hussain J, Basheer A, Mehmood S, Khan MT, Ahmad S, Asif M. 2018. Comparative production performance of four different Naked Neck chicken phenotypes in Pakistan. J Anim Plant Sci. 28(1): 33-37.

Shimmura T, Hirahara S, Eguchi Y, Uetake K, Tanaka T. 2007. Behavior, physiology, performance and physical condition of layers in conventional and large furnished cages in a hot environment. Anim Sci J. 78: 314-322.

Siwendu NA, Norris D, Ng’ambi JW, Shimelis HA, Benyi K. 2012. Heterotic and combining ability for body weight in a diallel cross of three chicken genotypes. Trop Anim Health Prod. 20: 23-25.

Sonaiya EB, Swan SEJ. 2004. Small-scale poultry production technical guide. Animal Production and Health Paper No. 1, Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

Stricklin WR. 1995. Space as environmental enrichment. Lab Anim. 24: 24–29.

25

REVIEW OF LITERATURESyafwan S, Kwakkel RP, Verstegen MWA. 2011. Heat stress and feeding strategies in meat type chickens.

World’s Poult Sci J. 67: 653-674.Tactacan GB, Guenter W, Lewis NJ, Rodriguez-Lecompte JC, House JD. 2009. Performance and welfare of

laying hens in conventional and enriched cages. Poult Sci. 88: 698–707.Taha AE, El-Ghany FAA. 2013. Improving production traits for El-salam and Mandarah chicken strains by

crossing I- Estimation of crossbreeding effects for growth production traits. Alex J Vet Sci. 39: 18-30.Tanaka T, Hurnik JF. 1992. Comparison of Behavior and Performance of Laying Hens Housed in Battery

Cages and an Aviary. Poult Sci. 71: 235-243.Tauson R. 2005. Management and housing systems for layers – effects on welfare and production. World’s

Poult Sci J. 61: 477–490.Taylor AA, Hurnik JF. 1996. The long-term productivity of hens housed in battery cages and aviary. Poult

Sci. 75: 47–51.Thomas L. 2006. Practical crossbreeding for improved livelihoods in developing countries: the farm Africa

goat project. Liv Sci. 136: 38-44.Tong HB, Wang Q, Lu J, Zou JM, Chang LL. Fu SY. 2014. Effect of free-range days on a local chicken

breed: Growth performance, carcass yield, meat quality, and lymphoid organ index. Poult Sci. 93: 1883-1889.

Tyasi TL, Gxasheka M. 2015. Crossbreeding, description and quality attributes of three indigenous chickens. Int J Info Res Rev. 2(9): 1089-1092.

Van Marle-Köster E, Hefer CA, Nel LH, Groenen MAM. 2009. Genetic diversity and population structure of locally adapted South African chicken lines: Implications for conservation. S Afr J Anim Sci. 38(4): 271-281.

Wall H. 2011. Production performance and proportion of nest eggs in layer hybrids housed in different designs of furnished cages. Poult Sci. 90: 2153–2161.

Wang KH, Shi SR, Dou TC, Sun HJ. 2009. Effect of a free-range raising system on growth performance, carcass yield, and meat quality of slow-growing chicken. Poult Sci. 88: 2219-2223.

26

CHAPTER 3EXPERIMENT No. 1

Morphometric, behavioral pattern and carcass traits of three chicken genotypes during growing stage under free-range, semi-intensive and intensive housing systems 3.1 AbstractThe present study evaluated the effect of housing system on body weight, behavioral repertoires, and morphometric and carcass traits of three chicken genotypes. The effects of housing systems (free-range, semi-intensive and intensive) on performance of chickens (7-16 weeks of age) over 10 weeks period were compared across sex (cockerel vs. pullet) and genotypes [purebred Naked Neck (NN) and two crossbreds: Rhode Island Red × Naked Neck (RIR × NN = RNN) and Black Australorp × Naked Neck (BAL × NN = BNN)]. Twenty birds were assigned to each of the 18 treatments (housing system [3] × sex [2] × genotype [3]; n = 360 total birds) in a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD). Regarding morphometric traits, drumstick length (P = 0.0029) and circumference (P = 0.0029) was higher in NN male chickens than BNN and RNN. Shank circumference was higher in BNN chickens followed by RNN and NN (P < 0.0001). Higher beak length was noted in RNN and BNN chickens than NN (P = 0.0008). Higher wing spread was found in NN and BNN chicken as compared to RNN (P = 0.0002). In terms of housing system, keel length was higher in semi-intensive and intensive birds as compared to free-range birds (P = < 0.0004). Higher drumstick length was observed in semi-intensive and free-range birds than intensive system (P = 0.0468). Higher drumstick circumference (P = 0.0028) and beak length were noted in intensive and free-range birds than semi-intensive birds (P = 0.0043). Regarding females, higher drumstick circumference was found in NN chicken as compared to RNN and BNN (P <0.0001). Shank circumference was higher in BNN chicken followed by RNN and NN (P < 0.0001). Higher wing spread was recorded in BNN and NN chickens than RNN (P = 0.0020). In terms of housing system, body length (P = 0.0005) and shank circumference (P = 0.0028) were higher in semi-intensive and free-range birds than birds in intensive system. Drumstick length was maximum in intensive birds as compared to the birds from free-range and semi-intensive systems (P = 0.0007). Higher drumstick circumference was observed in free-range birds as compared to intensive and semi-intensive systems (P = 0.0017). Regarding behavioral response, male birds under intensive system were more aggressive (P < 0.0001) and showed more sitting (P < 0.0001) and standing (P < 0.0001) behavior followed by semi-intensive and free-range systems. Jumping (P < 0.0001), running (P < 0.0001), walking (P < 0.0001) and wing flapping (P < 0.0001) behaviors were higher in semi-intensive birds followed by free-range and intensive systems. Regarding females, RNN and BNN chicken revealed the higher running behavior than NN (P = 0.0466). In terms of housing systems, birds reared in intensive system were more aggressive (P < 0.0001) and showed increased frequency of sitting (P < 0.0001) and standing (P < 0.0001) behaviors followed by semi-intensive and free-range systems. Birds under free-range system spent most of their time in feeding (P < 0.0001) and wing flapping (P < 0.0001) followed by semi-intensive and intensive housing systems. Jumping (P < 0.0001), running (P < 0.0001) and walking (P < 0.0001) were more pronounced in semi-intensive system followed by free-range and intensive system. Regarding carcass traits, RNN male chickens had the highest weight at slaughter (P = 0.0009), dressed weight (P < 0.0001), breast weight (P < 0.0001) as compared to BNN and NN. Intestinal weight (P = 0.0011) and drumstick weight (P = 0.0002) were higher in BNN and NN chickens than RNN. In terms of housing system, birds under intensive and semi-intensive systems had the highest weight at slaughter (P < 0.0001) and dressed weight (P = 0.0007) than free-range birds. Highest carcass yield was found in free-range birds than semi-intensive and intensive systems (P = 0.0139). Liver weight (P = 0.0064), intestinal weight (P = 0.0005) and intestinal length (P = 0.0017) were higher in semi-intensive birds as compared to free-range and intensive systems. Regarding females, BNN and RNN chickens had the highest weight at slaughter (P < 0.0001) and ribs and back weight (P < 0.0001) than NN. Dressed weight (P < 0.0001), carcass yield (P < 0.0001) and breast weigh (P < 0.0001) were higher in RNN chickens followed by BNN and NN. Higher gizzard weight was observed in BNN chickens than RNN and NN (P < 0.0001). BNN chickens had the highest wings weight (P < 0.0001), drumstick weight (P < 0.0001) and thigh weight (P < 0.0001) followed by RNN and NN. In terms of housing systems, intensive birds had the highest weight at slaughter (P

27

EXPERIMENT NO. 1< 0.0001), gizzard weight (P < 0.0001), neck weight (P = 0.0002), wings weight (P < 0.0001), drumstick weight (P < 0.0001), thigh weight (P < 0.0001) and ribs and back weight (P < 0.0001) followed by semi-intensive and free-range birds. Carcass yield was higher in semi-intensive system followed by free-range and intensive system (P < 0.0001). It was concluded that RNN and BNN chickens had better weight, morphological and carcass traits and had some more pronounced explorative behaviors under semi intensive and free-range systems. Hence, these chickens could be used to revive the indigenous poultry in rural area of Pakistan especially under semi intensive type conditions.Key words: Housing system crossbred chicken, behavior, morphometrics, and carcass traits 3.2 Introduction Genetic improvement in rural poultry can be accomplished by selection or crossbreeding. Crossbreeding of indigenous germ plasm with exotic breeds can select for performance of exotic breeds and natural selection for resistance and acclimatization of indigenous breeds for local environment (Khawaja et al. 2013; Adebambo et al. 2011). Crossbreeding results in the development of birds that have better growth, morphometric, carcass characteristics and reproductive traits hence reducing total cost of production (Khawaja et al. 2012; Adebambo et al. 2011).Birds under free range housing system have access to enrich environment that promotes behavioral activities (i.e., scratching and foraging), which can improve overall welfare of the birds. Environmental enrichment can stimulate and encourage explorative behaviors and create a series of behavioral opportunities (Zhao et al. 2014). The benefits of enrichments are numerous and give an opportunity to birds to be more evenly distributed, which reduces aggression, stress and fear response (Bizeray et al. 2002). Such type of housing systems, coupled with higher welfare standards, can produce a better quality of poultry meat that is more suitable for consumer preferences in Europe, America and Asia (Zhao et al. 2014; Fanatico et al. 2006). Meat quality attributes of organic and free range housed chickens are often more valued by consumers. There are numerous factors which affect the quality of meat, including genotype, nutrition, housing system, slaughter age and motor activity (Dal Bosco et al. 2014; Fanatico et al. 2013; Castellini et al. 2008). Indigenous chicken breeds are generally used for free range housing system because of their hardy nature and better acclimatization in extreme weather conditions. Moreover, some studies reported that under intensive housing systems, birds are unable to exploit their maximum genetic potential and their growth is limited because of deficient nutrition (Batkowska et al. 2015; Gondwe and Wollny 2005). Meat quality is a complex trait and affected by genetic and non-genetic factors and the variation in meat quality within and between birds can be wider (Devatkal et al. 2018). Therefore, alternative housing system and genotypes need to be further investigated. It is necessary to provide concrete information regarding new genotypes to help producers and consumers to make informed decisions. Moreover, there is little information regarding performance of some indigenous breeds and their crossbreds. Therefore, the present study was planned to determine effect of different chicken genotypes and housing systems on behavioral response, morphometric and carcass traits. 3.3 Materials and Methods The present study was planned to evaluate the effect of different housing systems on morphometric traits, behavior repertoire and carcass characteristics in three different crossbreds of RIR, BAL and NN chickens during growing phase. This study was conducted at Department of Poultry Production, UVAS, A-Block, Ravi Campus, Pattoki, Pakistan. Pattoki is located at 31°1’0N and 73°50’60E with an altitude of 186 m (610 ft). This city experiences normally hot and humid tropical climate with temperature ranging from 13 in℃ winter and + 45 in summer. ℃

3.3.1 EthicsThe care and use of bird were in accordance with the laws and regulation of Pakistan and was approved by Committee of Ethical Handling of Experimental Birds (No. DR/124), University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences (UVAS).

28

EXPERIMENT NO. 13.3.2 Population SizeA baseline population of pure Rhode Island Red, Black Australorp and Naked Neck comprising 450 birds (90 male + 360 female), 150 from each breed (30 male + 120 female) is already maintained at Indigenous Chicken Genetic Resource Centre (ICGRC). For the present experiment, RIR and BAL males were crossed with NN females and their progeny were selected for further experimentation. NN males were also crossed with NN females to get the progeny and study different performance traits in comparison to RIR and BAL crosses progeny. A total of 480-day old chicks comprising 160 from each crossbred of RNN, BNN and NN hatched at Avian Research and Training Centre, UVAS, Lahore, were shifted into Indigenous Chicken Genetic Resource Centre (ICGRC), A-Block, UVAS, Ravi Campus, Pattoki. These chicks were brooded at well ventilated open sided house with standard management conditions till 6 weeks. Birds were provided with commercial broiler breeder ration formulated according to the recommendation of Leeson and Summers (2005), daily bird’s allowance was increased as per requirement (Table 3.1, 3.2). In brooding period, birds were vaccinated against Newcastle Disease (ND) and Infectious Bronchitis (IB) according to schedule of local area. During growing phase, out of 480 birds, cockerels and pullets were separated at the end of 6 th week, 360 birds (2 sexes × 3 genotypes × 3 housing systems × 20 birds = 360) comprising 180 cockerels and 180 pullets, 60 (30 cockerels and 30 pullets) from each crossbred of RIR, BAL and NN were subjected to 3 housing systems (Free range, semi intensive and intensive). A Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) was employed with 18 experimental units comprising 20 birds from each sex. 3.3.3 Free Range, Semi intensive and Intensive SystemAll the experimental birds were individually tagged and maintained in open sided shed (6.1m L × 6.1m W × 3.66m H) oriented east to west. A patch of fertile land measuring (10m L × 2.99m W; stocking density = 0.23m2 / bird) located in front of the shed was used as range area. Seasonal leguminous and non-leguminous plants were grown in the range area (Table 3.3). In the ranging area, two rows were made by using fishing nets (one for free range and other for semi intensive). Fresh ad libitum water was ensured through manual drinkers. For the protection of the birds 2.44 m high wire-mesh enclosure were installed which surrounded the range area. In free range and semi intensive systems, birds were given access to vegetation and drinking water from 06:00 AM to 06:00 PM and 06:00 AM to 12:00 PM, respectively. The later were offered with 50% grower ration in the evening.In intensive housing system, birds were managed at well ventilated poultry shed in battery cage system (FACCO, Poultry Equipment-C3) and were fed commercial grower ration as per recommendation of Leeson and Summers (2005). The daily allowance was increased corresponding to their growth and requirement.

Table 3.1. Weekly feed allowance (g) in growing phase (7-16 weeks).

Age (Week) Housing SystemFree Range Semi-intensive Intensive

7 0 12 248 0 14 289 0 15 3010 0 15 3011 0 17 3412 0 18 3613 0 19 3814 0 19 3815 0 20 4016 0 21 42

(NRC, 1994; Leeson and Summers 2005)

29

EXPERIMENT NO. 1Table 3.2. Composition of experimental rations.Feed Ingredient(%)

Starter Grower(0-6 weeks) (7-16 weeks)

Corn 59.63 61.55Soybean Meal 32.50 31.70Fish Meal 2.00 0.00Soybean Oil 2.00 3.00DCP 1.50 1.70NaCl 0.30 0.30Methionine 0.23 0.12Total 100 100Nutrient LevelsDM 89.3 89.5Crude Protein 21.54 20.02ME (Kcal/Kg) 2960 3020Calcium 1.02 0.91Phosphorus 0.45 0.35Lysine 1.21 1.09Methionine 0.57 0.43

(Leeson and Summers 2005)

Table 3.3. Proximate analysis of legumes cultivated at range area. Proximate Analysis (%)

Mung(Vigna radiate L.)

Black Eyed Pea(Vigna

unguiculata L.)

French Peas(Phaseolus vulgaris L.)

Lucerne(Medicago sativa

L.)Dry Matter 18.60 12.12 10.12 18.20Crude Protein 18.04 26.84 30.80 22.50Crude Fiber 17.75 21.58 16.52 24.00Ether Extract 2.13 2.02 1.79 1.70Ash 9.40 12.26 15.16 12.40

3.3.4 Parameters Studied3.3.4.1 Morphometric TraitsDuring growth phase (7-16 weeks), morphometric traits of each sex were measured on weekly basis. Data were recorded with the help of measuring tape (FT-070, China) regarding body, shank, keel, neck, drumstick and beak length, shank, and drumstick circumference, wing spread and body weight which was recorded with the help of electrical weighting balance (Wei Heng, China).

3.3.4.2 Behavioral TraitsEach experimental bird from 3 crossbreds and 3 housing systems were observed weekly, between 11:00 AM to 01:00 PM and time spent in each behavior were noted. The behavior repertoire was recorded according to the focal animal sampling method adopted by Rehman et al. (2017). Behaviour of chicken were included walking, jumping, running, drinking, feeding, standing, sitting, aggressiveness, dust bathing and wing flapping (Costa et al. 2012).

30

EXPERIMENT NO. 1Table 3.4. Ethogram of behavioral pattern1.Behavior Definition

Walking The bird moves at least two steps in succession. This may or may not include scratching with feet.

Jumping Movement of bird in rebound by leaping with all feet off the ground.Running An activity of wing-assisted running.Drinking Bird’s head is contact with drinker.

Feeding / Foraging Bird’s head is located inside feeder / towards forage and carrying out pecking, manipulating or ingesting feed once or repeatedly.

Standing The feet are in contact with ground. No other body part is touching the floor. The body posture is in upright position.

Sitting The ventral part of bird is in contact with ground. Legs are bent at knee with the fibula and tibia touching the ground.

Aggressiveness A response that delivers somewhat unpleasant, giving or receiving peck forcefully, the beak being above the receiver’s head.

Dust BathingDustbathing bouts of bird either in free range or semi intensive, squatting down in the substrate, with the use of wings, head, neck and legs performing sequential vertical wings shaking.

Wing Flapping Wings are extended horizontally from the body such that a space can been seen between the underside of the wing and the surface of the bird’s body.

1 Adapted from Mohammed et al. 2018; Rehman et al. 2018.

3.3.4.3 Carcass CharacteristicsAt the end of 16 weeks, 54 birds (27 cockerels and 27 pullets; 3 birds from each treatment group) were randomly picked and halal slaughtered to record the carcass characteristics i.e., live, dressed weight, carcass yield, weight of giblets (liver, gizzard and heart), breast, drumstick, thigh and wings (Raphulu et al. 2015).3.3.4.4 Statistical AnalysisThe experiment was set up as a RCBD with the following model:Yijk = µ + βi + τj + (β × τ) ij + ϵijk

Where,Yijk = Observation of dependent variable recorded on jth Housing System in ith Blockµ = Overall population meanβi = Effect of ith Block (i = 1, 2, 3) τj = Effect of jth Housing System (j = 1, 2, 3) (β × τ) ij = Interaction between block and housing systemϵijk = Residual error of kth observation on jth treatment in ith block NID ~ 0, σ2

Collected data regarding welfare, growth and carcass traits were analyzed by two-way ANOVA technique assuming genotypes and housing systems as main effects. Data were analyzed separately for male and female to assess the effect of treatments within sex. GLM procedures were used in SAS software, significant means were separated through Tukey’s HSD test (Tukey, 1953) and differences were considered statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05.

3.4 Results3.4.1 Morphometric TraitsMorphometric traits differed among housing system, genotype and their interactions (Table 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 & 3.8). Regarding males, mean keel length, drumstick length, drumstick circumference, shank circumference, beak length and wing spread differed significantly among genotypes. Keel length was maximum in BNN chickens followed by NN and RNN (P < 0.0001). Drumstick length was higher in NN chickens than BNN and RNN (12.24 vs. 11.65, 11.47cm; P = 0.0029). Similarly, maximum drumstick circumference was recorded in NN chicken as compared to RNN and BNN (8.63 vs. 7.23, 7.04 cm; P = 0.0029). BNN chickens had the highest sank circumference followed by RNN and NN (P = <.0001) chickens. Higher beak length

31

EXPERIMENT NO. 1was noted in RNN and BNN chickens than NN (3.28, 3.23 vs. 3.12 cm; P = 0.0008). Higher wing spread was found in NN and BNN chicken as compared to RNN (9.02, 8.93 vs. 8.28 cm; P = 0.0002). In terms of housing system, significant differences were observed regarding keel length, drumstick length, drumstick circumference and beak length. Keel length was higher in semi-intensive and intensive birds as compared to free-range birds (10.66, 10.42 vs. 9.93 cm; P < 0.0004). Higher drumstick length was observed in semi-intensive and free-range birds than intensive system (11.98, 11.93 vs. 11.46; P = 0.0468). Drumstick circumference was higher in free-range and intensive birds as compared to semi-intensive birds (7.86, 7.65 vs. 7.38 cm; P = 0.0028). Higher beak length was noted in intensive and free-range birds than semi-intensive birds (3.26, 3.23 vs. 3.13 cm; P = 0.0043). Interactions were significant between genotypes and housing system regarding keel length (P < 0.0001), drumstick length (P = 0.0002), drumstick circumference (P < 0.0001), shank circumference (P < 0.0001), beak length (P < 0.0001), wing spread (P = 0.0027).Regarding females, significant differences were observed regarding keel length, drumstick circumference, shank circumference, beak length and wing spread. Keel length was maximum in BNN than RNN chickens (10.45 vs. 9.55cm; P = 0.0078). Higher drumstick circumference was found in NN chicken as compared to RNN and BNN (8.07 vs. 6.65, 6.48 cm; P < 0.0001). Shank circumference was higher in BNN chicken followed by RNN and NN (P < 0.0001). Higher wing spread was recorded in BNN and NN chickens than RNN (8.29, 8.21 vs. 7.55 cm; P = 0.0020). In terms of housing system, significant differences were observed regarding body length, keel length, drumstick length, drumstick circumference, shank circumference. Body length was higher in semi-intensive and free-range birds than intensive system (57.79, 55.74 vs. 52.94 cm; P = 0.0005). Higher keel length was found in semi-intensive birds as compared to free-range system (10.47 vs. 9.52 cm; P = 0.0046). Drumstick length was maximum in intensive birds than free-range and semi-intensive systems (11.66 vs. 10.47, 10.36 cm; P = 0.0007). Higher drumstick circumference was observed in free-range birds as compared to intensive and semi-intensive systems (7.42 vs. 7.03, 6.75 cm; P = 0.0017). Shank circumference was higher in semi-intensive and free-range birds than intensive system (3.54, 3.52 vs. 3.25 cm; P = 0.0028). Interactions were significant between genotypes and housing systems regarding body length (P = 0.0004), keel length (P = 0.0003), drumstick length (P = 0.0017), drumstick circumference (P < 0.0001), shank circumference (P < 0.0001), beak length (P = 0.0467) and wing spread (P = 0.0174).

3.4.2 Behavioral TraitsThe behavioral pattern differed among genotypes and the interactions between genotypes and housing systems (Table 3.9, 3.10, 3.11 & 3.12). Regarding males, significant differences were observed among different housing systems in terms of aggression, dust bathing, feeding, jumping, running, sitting, standing, walking and wing flapping. Birds under intensive system were more aggressive following by semi-intensive and free-range systems (P < 0.0001). Dust bathing was more pronounced in free-range birds than semi-intensive system (15.15 vs. 12.43 %; P < 0.0001). Birds under free-range system spent most of their time in feeding followed by semi-intensive and intensive systems (P < 0.0001). Jumping (P < 0.0001) and running (P < 0.0001) behaviors were higher in semi-intensive birds followed by free-range and intensive systems. Sitting (P < 0.0001) and standing (P < 0.0001) behaviour were more pronounced in intensive birds followed by free-range and semi-intensive systems. Birds under semi-intensive spent most of their time in walking (P < 0.0001) and wing flapping behaviour following by free-range and intensive systems. Interactions were significant between genotypes and housing systems regarding aggressiveness (P < 0.0001), dust bathing (P < 0.0001), feeding (P < 0.0001), jumping (P < 0.0001), running (P < 0.0001), sitting (P < 0.0001), standing (P < 0.0001), walking (P < 0.0001) and wing flapping (P < 0.0001).Regarding females, significant difference was observed regarding running behavior among difference genotypes. RNN and BNN chicken revealed the intense running behavior than NN (6.66, 6.65 vs. 6.52%; P = 0.0466). In terms of housing systems, significant differences were observed regarding aggressiveness, dust bathing, feeding, jumping, running, sitting, standing, walking and wing flapping. Birds reared under intensive system were more aggressive followed by semi-intensive and free-range systems (P < 0.0001). Dust bathing was more pronounced in free-range birds than semi-intensive system (16.28 vs. 13.34 %; P < 0.0001). Birds under free-range system spent most of their time in feeding (P < 0.0001) and wing flapping (P < 0.0001) followed by semi-intensive and intensive housing systems. Jumping (P < 0.0001), running (P <

32

EXPERIMENT NO. 10.0001) and walking (P < 0.0001) were more pronounced in semi-intensive system followed by free-range and intensive system. Sitting (P < 0.0001) and standing (P < 0.0001) behavior were higher in birds under intensive system followed by free-range and semi-intensive systems. Interactions were significant between genotypes and housing systems regarding aggressiveness (P < 0.0001), dust bathing (P < 0.0001), feeding (P < 0.0001), jumping (P < 0.0001), running (P < 0.0001), sitting (P < 0.0001), standing (P < 0.0001), walking (P < 0.0001) and wing flapping (P < 0.0001).3.4.3 Carcass CharacteristicsCarcass traits differed among housing system, genotypes and their interactions (Table 3.13, 3.14, 3.15 & 3.16). Regarding males, significant differences were observed in carcass traits among different genotypes. RNN chickens had the highest weight at slaughter as compared to BNN and NN (1491.12 vs. 1390.30, 1333.76g; P = 0.0009). Dressed weight was higher in RNN chickens followed by BNN and NN (P < 0.0001). Higher carcass yield was observed in RNN chickens than NN (58.55 vs. 54.56%; P = 0.0145). Liver weight was higher in NN chicken as compared to BNN and RNN (37.82 vs. 23.51, 23.02 g; P < 0.0001). Higher gizzard weight was observed in NN and RNN chickens than BNN (25.03, 20.75 vs. 15.24g; P = 0.0001). Breast weight was maximum in RNN chickens as compared to BNN and NN (158.35 vs. 128.26, 118.37g; P < 0.0001). Intestinal weight was higher in BNN and NN chickens than RNN (66.59, 63.80 vs. 52.01g; P = 0.0011). Maximum intestinal length was noted in NN chickens as compared to RNN and BNN (153.38 vs. 133.61, 130.59cm; P = 0.0009). Drumstick weight was higher in BNN chickens than NN and RNN (142.74 vs. 122.57, 120.50 g; P = 0.0002). Higher thigh weight was observed in BNN than NN (157.86 vs. 133.12g; P = 0.0148). In terms of housing system, significant differences were observed regarding weight at slaughter, dressed weight, carcass yield, liver weight, gizzard weight, breast weight, intestinal weight and intestinal length. Birds under intensive and semi-intensive systems had higher body weight at slaughter (1498.02, 1482.78 vs. 1234.37g; P < 0.0001) than free-range birds. Dressed weight was higher in semi-intensive and intensive birds as compared to free-range system (829.78, 829.05 vs. 729.87g; P = 0.0007). Highest carcass yield was found in free-range birds than semi-intensive and intensive systems (59.21 vs. 55.87, 55.35%; P = 0.0139). Liver weight was higher in semi-intensive birds as compared to free-range and intensive systems (32.91 vs. 26.12, 25.32g; P = 0.0064). Gizzard weight was maximum in semi-intensive birds than intensive system (23.34 vs. 18.26g; P = 0.0234). Higher breast weight was noted in free-range birds as compared to semi-intensive system (149 vs. 119.94g; P = 0.0010). Intestinal weight was higher in semi-intensive birds than intensive and free-range systems (69.46 vs. 60.02, 52.92; P = 0.0005). Maximum intestinal length was found in semi-intensive bird as compared to free-range system (150.10 vs. 127.19cm; P = 0.0017). Interactions were significant between genotypes and housing systems regarding weight at slaughter (P < 0.0001), dressed weight (P = 0.0001), carcass yield (P = 0.0162), liver weight (P < 0.0001), heart weight (P = 0.0285), gizzard weight (P = 0.0018), breast weight (P < 0.0001), intestinal weight (P < 0.0001), intestinal length (P = 0.0015), neck weight (P = 0.0003), wings weight (P = 0.0051), drumstick weight (P = 0.0003) and thigh weight (P = 0.0207).Regarding females, significant differences were observed in carcass traits among difference genotypes and housing systems. BNN and RNN chickens had higher weight at slaughter than NN (1175.39, 1168.32 vs. 1057.10g; P < 0.0001). Dressed weight (P < 0.0001) and carcass yield (P < 0.0001) were higher in RNN chickens followed by BNN and NN. Higher gizzard weight was observed in BNN chickens than RNN and NN (26.67 vs. 19.09, 17.05g; P < 0.0001). RNN chickens had the highest breast weight followed by BNN and NN (P < 0.0001). Intestinal length was maximum in NN chickens than RNN (142.52 vs. 123.62cm; P = 0.0427). Higher neck weight was noted in BNN chickens as compared to NN (42.07 vs. 35.96g; P = 0.0255). BNN chickens had the highest wings weight (P < 0.0001), drumstick weight (P < 0.0001) and thigh weight (P < 0.0001) followed by RNN and NN. Ribs and back weight were higher in BNN and RNN chickens than NN (192.79, 189.37 vs. 167.99g; P < 0.0001). In terms of housing systems, intensive birds had the highest weight at slaughter followed by semi-intensive and free-range (P < 0.0001). Dressed weight was higher in intensive birds as compared to semi-intensive system (628.83 vs. 600.24g; P = 0.0059). Carcass yield was higher in semi-intensive system followed by free-range and intensive system (P < 0.0001). Intensive birds had the highest gizzard weight followed by free-range and semi-intensive systems (P < 0.0001). Intestinal length was maximum in intensive birds than semi-intensive system (140.72 vs. 120.36cm; P = 0.0250).

33

EXPERIMENT NO. 1Intensive birds exhibited higher neck weight (45.11 vs. 35.61, 33.54g; P = 0.0002), wings weight (66.10 vs. 57.39, 54.06g; P < 0.0001), drumstick weight (124.93 vs. 93.41, 86.43g; P < 0.0001), thigh weight (132.85 vs. 107.68, 97.13 g; P < 0.0001) and ribs and back weight (209.66 vs. 174.42g; P < 0.0001) as compared to free-range and semi-intensive. Interactions were significant between genotypes and housing systems regarding weight at slaughter (P < 0.0001), dressed weight (P < 0.0001), carcass yield (P < 0.0001), liver weight (P = 0.0070), heart weight (P = 0.0021), gizzard weight (P < 0.0001), breast weight (P = 0.0219), intestinal weight (P = 0.0028), intestinal length (P = 0.0192), neck weight (P = 0.0009), wings weight (P = 0.0019), drumstick weight (P < 0.0001), thigh weight (P < 0.0001) and ribs and back weight (P < 0.0001).3.5 DiscussionThe present study aimed to explore the genetic potential of different chicken genotypes under alternative production system. On overall basis, birds reared under free range and semi intensive housing system showed improved keel and drumstick length and drumstick circumference and this could be attributed to the higher exercise of the bird which ultimately affect morphological traits specially drumstick and keel length. Regarding genotypes, improved morphometric traits i.e., keel and beak length, drumstick and shank circumference and wing spread of BNN and RNN chickens could be due to the genetic basis of their parents, as Rhode Island Red and Black Australorp males have higher adult weight (~ 3-4 kg) and proportionately improved morphometrics which contributes in crossbred progeny. This corresponds to the findings of Fadare et al. (2014) who found variation in morphometric traits among Naked Neck, Frizzled Feathered and Normal Feathered crossed with Exotic Giri-Raja chickens. Similarly, Qureshi et al. (2018) reported variation in morphometrics of different Aseel chicken varieties in habiting district Hyderabad, Pakistan. Free range birds spent more time in dust bathing than semi intensive chickens and this could be due to infrequent behaviour which is initiated when birds given access to the ample space for movement and birds have opportunity to find material for its cleaning such as dust. According to RSPCA (2016) domestic chicken has intrinsic motivation for cleaning their feathers. This corresponds to the findings of Appleby et al. (2004) who reported that intensive system is not suitable for the birds because it restricts the expression of natural behaviors like dust bathing.Feeding behavior is more pronounced in free-range birds followed by semi-intensive and intensive system. It might be due to variation of stimuli in range area which provokes foraging behavior in the birds. Furthermore, due to ample space in free range system it provides lots of opportunity for the birds to initiate their explorative behavior. Similar findings were also suggested that foraging behavior increased in commercial broiler with the provision of free-range area as compared to confinement (Ponte et al. 2008). Moreover, Shimmura et al. (2008) supported enhance feeding behaviour of commercial layers when given access to free range system. Jumping, running walking and wing flapping behavior were more pronounced in semi intensive birds followed by free range and intensive system. The more likely explanation of these behaviors is due to fact that when birds are provided with enriched environment or outdoor access it promotes comfort level, reduce stress and stimulated activities. This corresponds to the findings of Irfan et al. (2016) who found increased immobility in turkey maintained in confinement than free range birds. Moreover, Mench et al. (2001) reported that frequency of leg stretching, perching and wing flapping of broiler chicken increased when given access to outdoor range. Similarly, enhanced walking behaviour of Aseel chicken was recorded when subjected to part-time free-range access (Rehman et al. 2018). In this study, increased aggressive, sitting and standing behavior in birds with intensive housing system might be attributed to the higher stocking density that restricts the bird’s activity and stimulates short duration behaviour such as aggression. This corresponds to the findings of Rehman et al. (2018) who found enhance sitting and standing behaviour of Aseel chicken varieties reared under confinement. Similarly, Irfan et al. (2016) observed higher frequency of sitting and standing behavior in turkeys (Maleagris gallopavo) when reared under intensive housing system as compare to free range system. Slaughter, dressed and gizzard weight were higher in intensive and semi intensive birds as compared to free range birds. Carcass yield was maximum in free range birds than semi intensive and intensive birds. Most likely explanation of this variation in carcass traits is that quality of meat largely depends upon differences in activity level because of outdoor access. Improved carcass yield in free range birds might be due to the

34

EXPERIMENT NO. 1feeding behavior of young birds, as they spent most of their time in scratching and eating insects and worms which fulfill their protein requirement and ultimately improved carcass yield. Similar findings also reported that breast yield linearly increased in Sequin yellow chickens; however, thigh, leg and foot yield decreased linearly with increasing free-range days (Tong et al. 2014). In other study, higher breast and thigh yield were also reported in Ross male chicken when exposed to outdoor access (Castellini et al. 2002). Moreover, carcass traits improved when the birds given access to the free-range area which enhances activity of the bird and improves comfort and welfare (Martínez-Pérez et al. 2017).Regarding genotypes, RNN chickens had better slaughter, dressed, breast, intestinal weight and carcass yield than BNN and NN chickens. Improved carcass traits in RNN chickens could be due to better genetics of their parents; Rhode Island Red chicken inherit the ability of faster growth rate and improved carcass traits from broad breasted red Malay and Naked Neck chicken has Na gene which is responsible for broader breast size, hence these characters contribute in RNN progeny. Wings, Thigh, drumstick and ribs & back weight were maximum in BNN chickens than RNN and NN chickens. Variation in carcass traits is due to higher breast and leg yields of slow growing genotype that might be attributed to large size of muscle fiber that if achieved by muscle fiber hypertrophy (Kim et al. 2013; Tang et al. 2009). Variation among chicken breeds due to muscle fiber is largely associated with the selection. This corresponds to the findings of Devatkal et al. (2018) who found variation in carcass traits among different meat type chickens. Higher slaughter weight was observed for white broiler and lowest for Aseel. However, carcass yields did not differ among different genotypes. In this study, liver and gizzard weight were found to be higher in NN chicken than RNN and BNN, it might be due to fact that indigenous chicken is more aggressive and active even under intensive conditions which leads to higher energy dissipation. Similarly, another study reported difference in carcass traits between indigenous Thai and crossbred chickens (Jaturasitha et al. 2008). 3.6 ConclusionsIt was concluded that RNN and BNN chickens had improved body weight, morphological and carcass traits and had some more pronounced explorative behaviors under semi intensive and free-range system. Hence, these chickens could be useful in rural area of Pakistan.3.7 AcknowledgementsThis study was supported by Pakistan Agricultural Research Council, ALP fund (Project No. AS-135). 3.8 ReferencesAdebambo AO, Ikeobi CON, Ozoje MO, Oduguwa OO, Adebambo OA. 2011. Combining abilities of

growth traits among pure and crossbred meat type chickens. Arch Zootec. 60: 953-963.Appleby MC, Mench JA, Hughes BO. 2004. Poultry Behavior and Welfare. In: Perceptions of Welfare.

CABI Publishing, Oxfordshire, UK. p. 118–175.Batkowska J, Brodacki A, Zieba G, Horbanczuk JO, Lukaszewicz M. 2015. Growth performance, carcass

traits and physical properties of chicken meat as affected by genotype and production system. Arch Anim Breed. 58: 325-333.

Bizeray D, Estevez I, Leterrier C, Faure JM. 2002. Influence of increased environmental complexity on leg condition, performance, and level of fearfulness in broilers. Poult Sci. 81: 767-773.

Castellini C, Berri C, Le Bihan-Duval E, Martino G. 2008. Qualitative attributes and consumer perception of organic and free range poultry meat. World’s Poult Sci J. 64: 500–513.

Castellini C, Mugnai C, Dal Bosco A. 2002. Effect of organic production system onbroiler carcass and meat quality. Meat Sci. 60: 219-225

Costa LS, Pereira DF, Bueno LGF, Pandorfi H. 2012. Some aspects of chicken behaviour and welfare. Braz J Poult Sci. 14(3): 159-232.

Dal Bosco A, Mugnai C, Rosati A, Paoletti A, Caporali S, Castellini C. 2014. Effect of range enrichment on performance, behavior and forage intake of free-range chickens. J Appl Poult Res. 23: 137-145.

Devatkal SK, Vishnuraj MR, Kulkarni VV, Kotaiah T. 2018. Carcass and meat quality characterization of indigenous and improved variety of chicken genotypes. Poult Sci. 97(8): 2947-2956.

Fadare AO. 2014. Morphometric and growth performance variations of naked neck, frizzled feathered and normal feather crosses with exotic Giri-raja chickens. Jord J Agri Sci. 10(4): 811-820.

35

EXPERIMENT NO. 1Fanatico AC, Brewer VB, Owens-Hanning CM, Donoghue DJ, Donoghue AM. 2013. Free-choice feeding of

free-range meat chickens. J Appl Poult Res. 22: 750-758.Fanatico AC, Pillai PB, Cavitt LC, Emmert JL, Meullenet JF, Owens CM. 2006. Evaluation of slower

growing broiler genotypes grown with and without outdoor access: sensory attributes. Poult Sci. 85: 337-343.

Gondwe TN, Wollny CBA. 2005. Evaluation of the growth potential of local chickens in Malawi. Int J Poult Sci. 4: 64–70.

Irfan, Javid A, Ashraf M, Mahmud A, Altaf M, Hussain SM, Azmat H, Iqbal KJ. 2016. Time-budgets of turkeys (Maleagris gallopavo) reared under confinement and free range rearing systems. Pak J Zool. 48: 1951–1956.

Jaturasitha S, Kayan A, Wicke M. 2008. Carcass and meat characteristics of male chickens between Thai indigenous compared with improved layer breeds and their crossbred. Arch Tierz Dummerstorf. 51(3): 283-294.

Khawaja T, Khan SH, Mukhtar N, Parveen A, Ahmed T. 2013. Comparative study of growth performance, meat quality and haematological parameters of three-way crossbred chickens with reciprocal F1 crossbred chickens in a subtropical environment. J Appl Anim Res. 41(3): 300-308.

Khawaja T, Khan SH, Mukhtar N, Parveen A. 2012. Comparative study of growth performance, meat quality and haematological parameters of Fayoumi, Rhode Island Red and their reciprocal crossbred chickens. Ital J Anim Sci. 11(2): e39.

Kim GD, Kim BW, Jeong JY, Hur SJ, Cho IC, Lim HT, Joo ST. 2013. Relationship of carcass weight to muscle fiber characteristics and pork quality of crossbred (Korean native black pig × Landrace) F2 pigs. Food Bioprocess Tech. 6: 522–529.

Leeson S, Summers JD. 2005. Commercial Poultry Nutrition. 3rd Ed. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, England. p. 297-305.

Martínez-Pérez M, Sarmiento-Franco L, Santos-Ricalde RH, Sandoval-Castro CA. 2017. Poultry meat production in free-range systems: perspectives for tropical areas. World’s Poult Sci J. 73: 1-11.

Mench JA, Garner JP, Falcone C. 2001. Behavioural activity and its effects on leg problems in broiler chickens. Proc. 6th Euro Symp Poult Welf. Zollikofen, Switzerland. p. 152–156.

Mohammed AA, Jacobs JA, Murugesan GR, Cheng HW. 2018. Effect of dietary synbiotic supplement on behavioral patterns and growth performance of broiler chickens reared under heat stress. Poult Sci. 97: 1101-1108.

NRC. 1994. National Research Council. Nutrient Requirement Table of poultry. 9th Ed. Washington, D.C. National Academy Press.

Ponte PIP, Rosado CMC, Crespo JP, Crespo DG. 2008. Pasture intake improves the performance and meat sensory attributes of free-range broilers. Poult Sci. 87: 71–79.

Qureshi M, Qadri AH, Gachal GS. 2018. Morphological study of various varieties of Aseel chicken breed inhabiting district Hyderabad. J Entomol Zoo Stud. 6(2): 2043-2045.

Raphulu T, van Rensberg CJ, Coertze RJ. 2015. Carcass composition of Venda indigenous scavenging chickens under village management. J Agri Rur Dev Trop Subtrop. 116(1): 27-35.

Rehman MS, Mahmud A, Mehmood S, Pasha TN, Khan MT, Hussain J. 2018. Assessing behavior in Aseel pullets under free-range, part-time free-range, and cage system during growing phase. Poult Sci. 97: 725-732.

RSPCA. 2016. The Welfare of Layer Hens in Cage and Cage-Free Housing Systems. RSPCA Australia, Deakin West ACT 2600, Australia.

SAS Institute. 2002-2004. SAS® Users Guide: Statistics. Version 9.01.SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.Shimmura T, Suzuki T, Hirahara S, Eguchi Y, Uetake K, Tanaka T. 2008. Pecking behaviour of laying hens

in single-tiered aviaries with and without outdoor area. Brit Poult Sci. 49: 396–401.Tang H, Gong YZ, Wu CX, Jiang J, Wang Y, Li K. 2009. Variation of meat quality traits among five

genotypes of chicken. Poult Sci. 88: 2212–2218.

36

EXPERIMENT NO. 1Tong HB, Wang Q, Lu J, Zou JM, Chang LL, Fu SY. 2014. Effect of free-range days on a local chicken

breed: Growth performance, carcass yield, meat quality, and lymphoid organ index. Poult Sci. 93: 1883-1889.

Tukey JW. 1953. The problem of multiple comparisons. In: The Collected Works of John W. Tukey VIII. Multiple Comparisons. Chapman and Hall, New York.

Zhao Z, Li J, Li X, Bao J. 2014. Effects of housing systems on behaviour, performance and welfare of fast-growing broilers. Asian-Aust J Anim Sci. 27(1): 140-146.

37

38

Table 3.5. Effect of genotype and housing system on male morphometric traits at 16 weeks of age.1

Trait (cm) Genotype P-value Housing System P-valueRNN (n = 60) BNN (n = 60) NN (n = 60) FR (n = 60) SI (n = 60) I (n = 60)BL 61.22 ± 0.83 60.02 ± 1.07 59.97 ± 0.56 0.4238 61.59 ± 0.73 60.02 ± 0.53 59.71 ± 1.14 0.2312KL 9.90 ± 0.14c 10.80 ± 0.15a 10.31 ± 0.10b <0.0001 9.93 ± 0.15b 10.66 ± 0.15a 10.42 ± 0.11a <0.0004DL 11.47 ± 0.13b 11.65 ± 0.10b 12.24 ± 0.24a 0.0029 11.93 ± 0.18a 11.98 ± 0.17a 11.46 ± 0.17b 0.0468DC 7.23 ± 0.12b 7.04 ± 0.11b 8.63 ± 0.06a <0.0001 7.86 ± 0.12a 7.38 ± 0.15b 7.65 ± 0.13a 0.0028SL 9.12 ± 0.20 9.34 ± 0.31 9.22 ± 0.17 0.8108 8.99 ± 0.14 9.36 ± 0.32 9.33 ± 0.20 0.4626SC 3.62 ± 0.05b 3.87 ± 0.05a 3.45 ± 0.04c <0.0001 3.58 ± 0.05 3.66 ± 0.06 3.70 ± 0.04 0.2148

BKL 3.28 ± 0.04a 3.23 ± 0.03a 3.12 ± 0.02b 0.0008 3.23 ± 0.04a 3.13 ± 0.02b 3.26 ± 0.03a 0.0043WS 8.28 ± 0.15b 9.02 ± 0.14a 8.93 ± 0.10a 0.0002 8.68 ± 0.12 8.68 ± 0.15 8.87 ± 0.14 0.5064

a-c Means in a row with no common superscript differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05. 1Values are least square mean ± standard error. RNN = Rhode Island Red × Naked Neck; BNN = Black Australorp × Naked Neck; NN = Naked Neck; FR = Free Range; SI = Semi Intensive; I = Intensive; BL = Body Length; KL = Keel Length; DL = Drumstick Length; DC = Drumstick Circumference; SL = Shank Length; SC = Shank Circumference; BKL = Beak Length; WS = Wing Span.

EX

PER

IME

NT N

O. 1

39

Table 3.6. Interaction effects (genotype × housing system) on male morphometric traits at 16 weeks of age.1

Trait (cm)

RNN BNN NNP-valueFR

(n = 20)SI

(n = 20)I

(n = 20)FR

(n = 20)SI

(n = 20)I

(n = 20)FR

(n = 20)SI

(n = 20)I

(n = 20)

BL 63.26± 1.54

61.33± 2.34

59.40± 1.76

62.42± 1.23

60.02± 1.17

57.62± 2.68

59.09± 0.79

58.71± 0.76

62.11± 1.16 0.0827

KL 9.43± 0.26d

10.37± 0.26bc

9.90± 0.18cd

10.37± 0.30bc

11.22± 0.27a

10.80± 0.17ab

9.99± 0.15cd

10.38± 0.22bc

10.57± 0.15abc <0.0001

DL 11.59± 0.17b

11.36± 0.32b

11.47± 0.17b

11.44± 0.14b

11.87± 0.23b

11.65± 0.14b

12.76± 0.43a

12.71± 0.24a

11.25± 0.47b 0.0002

DC 7.80± 0.16b

6.73± 0.25c

7.16± 0.15c

7.09± 0.18c

6.99± 0.23c

7.04± 0.14c

8.68± 0.10a

8.44± 0.07a

8.76± 0.14c <0.0001

SL 8.74± 0.23

9.50± 0.47

9.12± 0.27

8.99± 0.15

9.68± 0.83

9.34± 0.42

9.23± 0.31

8.89± 0.22

9.52± 0.33 0.7729

SC 3.50± 0.08cde

3.74± 0.10abc

3.62± 0.04bcd

3.83± 0.09ab

3.92± 0.11a

3.87± 0.07a

3.42± 0.05de

3.34± 0.04e

3.59± 0.10bcd <0.0001

BKL 3.37± 0.07ab

3.07± 0.03de

3.40± 0.06a

3.27± 0.08abc

3.18± 0.04cde

3.23± 0.04bcd

3.06± 0.02e

3.12± 0.04cde

3.16± 0.05cde <0.0001

WS 8.13± 0.21d

8.44± 0.34bcd

8.28± 0.24cd

8.97± 0.24abc

9.06± 0.28ab

9.02± 0.22ab

8.93± 0.08abc

8.56± 0.13bcd

9.31± 0.21a 0.0027

a-e Means in a row with no common superscript differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05.1Values are least square mean ± standard error. RNN = Rhode Island Red × Naked Neck; BNN = Black Australorp × Naked Neck; NN = Naked Neck; FR = Free Range; SI = Semi Intensive; I = Intensive; BL = Body Length; KL = Keel Length; DL = Drumstick Length; DC = Drumstick Circumference; SL = Shank Length; SC = Shank Circumference; BKL = Beak Length; WS = Wing Span.

EX

PER

IME

NT N

O. 1

40

Table 3.7. Effect of genotype and housing system on female morphometric traits at 16 weeks of age.1

Trait (cm) Genotype P-value Housing System P-valueRNN (n = 60) BNN (n = 60) NN (n = 60) FR (n = 60) SI (n = 60) I (n = 60)BL 55.96 ± 1.06 55.89 ± 1.10 54.62 ± 0.42 0.4686 55.74 ± 0.78a 57.79 ± 0.69a 52.94 ± 1.12b 0.0005KL 9.55 ± 0.24b 10.45 ± 0.24a 9.97 ± 0.13ab 0.0078 9.52 ± 0.20b 10.47 ± 0.20a 9.99 ± 0.23ab 0.0046DL 10.53 ± 0.32 10.69 ± 0.31 11.26 ± 0.17 0.1227 10.47 ± 0.23b 10.36 ± 0.31b 11.66 ± 0.25a 0.0007DC 6.65 ± 0.17b 6.48 ± 0.15b 8.07 ± 0.09a <0.0001 7.42 ± 0.14a 6.75 ± 0.19b 7.03 ± 0.16b 0.0017SL 7.78 ± 0.22 8.16 ± 0.30 7.85 ± 0.10 0.4490 7.84 ± 0.13 8.25 ± 0.29 7.70 ± 0.21 0.2025SC 3.45 ± 0.07b 3.65 ± 0.08a 3.20 ± 0.05c <0.0001 3.52 ± 0.06a 3.54 ± 0.07a 3.25 ± 0.07b 0.0028BKL 3.04 ± 0.04ab 3.11 ± 0.03a 3.00 ± 0.02b 0.0552 3.09 ± 0.04 3.04 ± 0.03 3.02 ± 0.03 0.2711WS 7.55 ± 0.19b 8.29 ± 0.18a 8.21 ± 0.08a 0.0020 8.20 ± 0.15 8.07 ± 0.17 7.77 ± 0.16 0.1384

a-b Means in a row with no common superscript differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05. 1Values are least square mean ± standard error. RNN = Rhode Island Red × Naked Neck; BNN = Black Australorp × Naked Neck; NN = Naked Neck; FR = Free Range; SI = Semi Intensive; I = Intensive; BL = Body Length; KL = Keel Length; DL = Drumstick Length; DC = Drumstick Circumference; SL = Shank Length; SC = Shank Circumference; BKL = Beak Length; WS = Wing Span.

EX

PER

IME

NT N

O. 1

41

Table 3.8. Interaction effects (genotype × housing system) on female morphometric traits at 16 weeks of age.1

Trait (cm)RNN BNN NN

P-valueFR(n = 20)

SI(n = 20)

I(n = 20)

FR(n = 20)

SI(n = 20)

I(n = 20)

FR(n = 20)

SI(n = 20)

I(n = 20)

BL 57.21± 1.57ab

57.99± 1.35a

52.67± 2.32bc

56.91± 1.53ab

60.02± 1.17a

50.75± 2.28c

53.12± 0.62bc

55.37± 0.80abc

55.39± 0.68abc 0.0004

KL 8.79± 0.38c

10.40± 0.41ab

9.47± 0.40bc

9.73± 0.39bc

11.25± 0.34a

10.37± 0.44ab

10.03± 0.20b

9.74± 0.80bc

10.15± 0.31b 0.0003

DL 10.30± 0.46bc

9.57± 0.63c

11.73± 0.48a

10.16± 0.43bc

10.08± 0.56bc

11.85± 0.53a

10.97± 0.25abc

11.42± 0.33ab

11.41± 0.29ab 0.0017

DC 7.54± 0.27a

5.88± 0.22c

6.54± 0.26bc

6.83± 0.26b

6.19± 0.27bc

6.42± 0.23bc

7.88± 0.14a

8.18± 0.19a

8.14± 0.15a <0.0001

SL 7.78± 0.27

8.12± 0.47

7.45± 0.37

8.02± 0.26

8.69± 0.71

7.76± 0.48

7.73± 0.15

7.93± 0.16

7.90± 0.20 0.6049

SC 3.54 ± 0.09ab

3.57± 0.13ab

3.24± 0.13bc

3.77± 0.14a

3.76± 0.12a

3.44± 0.15ab

3.26± 0.06bc

3.28± 0.09bc

3.06± 0.09c <0.0001

BKL 3.12± 0.07ab

3.02± 0.08b

2.97± 0.05b

3.21± 0.06a

3.04± 0.04ab

3.08± 0.05ab

2.94± 0.03b

3.05± 0.04ab

3.01± 0.05b 0.0467

WS 7.79± 0.28abc

7.69± 0.37bc

7.18± 0.32abc

8.64± 0.30a

8.31± 0.34ab

7.91± 0.31a

8.18± 0.14ab

8.22± 0.14ab

8.21± 0.14ab 0.0174

a-c Means in a row with no common superscript differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05.1Values are least square mean ± standard error. RNN = Rhode Island Red × Naked Neck; BNN = Black Australorp × Naked Neck; NN = Naked Neck; FR = Free Range; SI = Semi Intensive; I = Intensive; BL = Body Length; KL = Keel Length; DL = Drumstick Length; DC = Drumstick Circumference; SL = Shank Length; SC = Shank Circumference; BKL = Beak Length; WS = Wing Span.

EX

PER

IME

NT N

O. 1

42

Table 3.9. Effect of genotype and housing system on male behavioral traits at 16 weeks of age.1

Trait2 Genotype P-value Housing System P-valueRNN (n = 60) BNN (n = 60) NN (n = 60) FR (n = 60) SI (n = 60) I (n = 60)AGR 1.72 ± 0.08 1.71 ± 0.08 1.72 ± 0.08 0.8043 1.12 ± 0.01c 1.51± 0.01b 2.52 ± 0.02a <0.0001DB 13.79 ± 0.22 13.81 ± 0.23 13.79 ± 0.22 0.9641 15.15 ± 0.04a 12.43 ± 0.04b -- <0.0001FD 18.09 ± 0.30 18.06 ± 0.32 18.10 ±0.31 0.7965 21.28 ± 0.04a 17.30 ± 0.05b 15.67 ± 0.04c <0.0001JMP 0.74 ± 0.07 0.74 ± 0.07 0.73 ± 0.07 0.4673 0.92 ± 0.01b 1.25 ± 0.01a 0.04 ± 0.00c <0.0001RUN 7.82 ± 0.78 7.92 ± 0.80 7.84 ± 0.78 0.1994 8.89 ± 0.04b 14.69 ± 0.05a 0.00 ± 0.00c <0.0001SIT 13.54 ± 1.09 13.55 ± 1.08 13.58 ± 1.09 0.7129 8.42 ± 0.03b 6.92 ± 0.02c 25.33 ± 0.05a <0.0001STD 14.30 ± 1.19 14.25 ± 1.20 14.22 ± 1.19 0.2856 9.11 ± 0.03b 6.51 ± 0.02c 27.14 ± 0.05a <0.0001WAK 13.29 ± 1.38 13.21 ± 1.38 13.25 ± 1.38 0.4305 13.17 ± 0.05b 26.27 ± 0.06a 0.31± 0.00c <0.0001WF 10.66 ± 0.92 10.66 ± 0.92 10.73 ± 0.93 0.3972 15.08 ± 0.04b 16.28 ± 0.05a 0.69 ± 0.00c <0.0001

a-c Means in a row with no common superscript differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05. 1Values are least square mean ± standard error.2Traits are presented as percentage of time spent in different behavioral activities RNN = Rhode Island Red × Naked Neck; BNN = Black Australorp × Naked Neck; NN = Naked Neck; FR = Free Range; SI = Semi Intensive; I = Intensive; AGR = Aggressiveness; DB = Dust Bathing; FD = Feeding; JMP = Jumping; RUN = Running; SIT = Sitting; STD = Standing; WAK = Walking; WF = Wing Flapping.

EX

PER

IME

NT N

O. 1

43

Table 3.10. Interaction effects (genotype × housing system) on male behavioral traits at 16 weeks of age.1

Trait2RNN BNN NN

P-valueFR(n = 20)

SI(n = 20)

I(n = 20)

FR(n = 20)

SI(n = 20)

I(n = 20)

FR(n = 20)

SI(n = 20)

I(n = 20)

AGR 1.11± 0.02c

1.50± 0.02b

2.56± 0.05a

1.12± 0.02c

1.51± 0.02b

2.49± 0.04a

1.13± 0.02c

1.53± 0.02b

2.50± 0.04a <0.0001

DB 15.11± 0.07a

12.47± 0.08b -- 15.19

± 0.08a12.42

± 0.08b -- 15.16± 0.05a

12.41± 0.06b -- <0.0001

FD 21.22± 0.06a

17.28± 0.07b

15.76± 0.06c

21.35± 0.07a

17.30± 0.08b

15.54± 0.09c

21.27± 0.08a

17.32± 0.10b

15.72± 0.08c <0.0001

JMP 0.94± 0.02b

1.25± 0.02a

0.04± 0.00c

0.92± 0.01b

1.25± 0.02a

0.04± 0.00c

0.90± 0.02b

1.25± 0.01a

0.04± 0.00c <0.0001

RUN 8.87± 0.05b

14.60± 0.10a

0.00± 0.00c

8.90± 0.09b

14.85± 0.09a

0.00± 0.00c

8.91± 0.08b

14.60± 0.08a

0.00± 0.00c <0.0001

SIT 8.44 ± 0.06b

6.82± 0.04c

25.36± 0.10a

8.40± 0.07b

6.97± 0.05c

25.29± 0.07a

8.41± 0.06b

6.98± 0.03c

25.36± 0.10a <0.0001

STD 9.18± 0.04b

6.52± 0.03c

27.18± 0.07a

9.09± 0.06b

6.46± 0.05c

27.21± 0.08a

9.07 ± 0.06b

6.56± 0.03c

27.03± 0.09a <0.0001

WAK 13.27± 0.06b

26.29± 0.11a

0.31± 0.01c

13.12± 0.10b

26.19 ± 0.10a

0.31± 0.00c

13.14± 0.10b

26.31± 0.11a

0.31± 0.01c <0.0001

WF 15.02± 0.07b

16.26± 0.12a

0.69 ± 0.01c

15.04± 0.06b

16.26± 0.09a

0.68 ± 0.01c

15.18± 0.09b

16.32± 0.08a

0.69± 0.01c <0.0001

a-c Means in a row with no common superscript differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05.1Values are least square mean ± standard error.2Traits are presented as percentage of time spent in different behavioral activities RNN = Rhode Island Red × Naked Neck; BNN = Black Australorp × Naked Neck; NN = Naked Neck; FR = Free Range; SI = Semi Intensive; I = Intensive; AGR = Aggressiveness; DB = Dust Bathing; FD = Feeding; JMP = Jumping; RUN = Running; SIT = Sitting; STD = Standing; WAK = Walking; WF = Wing Flapping. E

XPE

RIM

EN

T NO

. 1

44

Table 3.11. Effect of genotype and housing system on female behavioral traits at 16 weeks of age.1

Trait2 Genotype P-value Housing System P-valueRNN (n = 60) BNN (n = 60) NN (n = 60) FR (n = 60) SI (n = 60) I (n = 60)AGR 1.53 ± 0.06 1.54 ± 0.07 1.51 ± 0.06 0.4963 1.04 ± 0.01c 1.36 ± 0.01b 2.18 ± 0.02a <0.0001DB 14.84 ± 0.25 14.78 ± 0.23 14.80 ± 0.24 0.7673 16.28 ± 0.05a 13.34 ± 0.05b -- <0.0001FD 17.58 ± 0.54 17.56 ± 0.54 17.60 ± 0.54 0.8064 23.10 ± 0.05a 16.47 ± 0.04b 13.17 ± 0.04c <0.0001JMP 0.89 ± 0.08 0.93 ± 0.09 0.91 ± 0.09 0.7702 1.25 ± 0.04b 1.45 ± 0.03a 0.03 ± 0.00c <0.0001RUN 6.66 ± 0.66a 6.65 ± 0.65a 6.52 ± 0.65b 0.0466 7.77 ± 0.07b 12.06 ± 0.05a 0.00 ± 0.00c <0.0001SIT 11.55 ± 0.90 11.53 ± 0.90 11.57 ± 0.91 0.7093 7.30 ± 0.03b 6.02 ± 0.02c 21.33 ± 0.05a <0.0001STD 12.45 ± 1.18 12.48 ± 1.19 12.45 ± 1.18 0.7398 6.39 ± 0.03b 5.72 ± 0.02c 25.30 ± 0.04a <0.0001WAK 13.09 ± 1.29 13.11 ± 1.29 13.14 ± 1.29 0.6572 14.77 ± 0.04b 24.34 ± 0.05a 0.23 ± 0.00c <0.0001WF 4.33 ± 0.37 4.29 ± 0.36 4.29 ± 0.36 0.5708 6.53 ± 0.03a 5.99 ± 0.04b 0.39 ± 0.00c <0.0001

a-c Means in a row with no common superscript differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05. 1Values are least square mean ± standard error. 2Traits are presented as percentage of time spent in different behavioral activities RNN = Rhode Island Red × Naked Neck; BNN = Black Australorp × Naked Neck; NN = Naked Neck; FR = Free Range; SI = Semi Intensive; I = Intensive; AGR = Aggressiveness; DB = Dust Bathing; FD = Feeding; JMP = Jumping; RUN = Running; SIT = Sitting; STD = Standing; WAK = Walking; WF = Wing Flapping.

EX

PER

IME

NT N

O. 1

45

Table 3.12. Interaction effects (genotype × housing system) on female behavioral traits at 16 weeks of age.1

Trait2RNN BNN NN

P-valueFR(n = 20)

SI(n = 20)

I(n = 20)

FR(n = 20)

SI(n = 20)

I(n = 20)

FR(n = 20)

SI(n = 20)

I(n = 20)

AGR 1.03± 0.02c

1.38± 0.01b

2.18 ± 0.04a

1.05 ± 0.02c

1.36± 0.02b

2.21± 0.04a

1.06± 0.01c

1.34± 0.02b

2.14± 0.03a <0.0001

DB 16.40± 0.08a

13.29± 0.07b -- 16.17

± 0.09a13.40

± 0.10b -- 16.28± 0.08a

13.32± 0.09b -- <0.0001

FD 23.12± 0.09a

16.48± 0.07b

13.14 ± 0.05c

23.02± 0.08a

16.51± 0.06b

13.14± 0.11c

23.16± 0.09a

16.42± 0.07b

13.22± 0.06c <0.0001

JMP 1.27± 0.07ab

1.38± 0.05ab

0.03± 0.00c

1.28± 0.07ab

1.46± 0.06a

0.03± 0.00c

1.21± 0.07b

1.51± 0.06a

0.03± 0.06c <0.0001

RUN 7.84± 0.10b

12.15± 0.10a

0.00± 0.00c

7.90± 0.12b

12.05± 0.07a

0.00± 0.00c

7.57 ± 0.11b

11.98± 0.06a

0.00 ± 0.00c <0.0001

SIT 7.30± 0.06b

6.02± 0.03c

21.35 ± 0.09a

7.30± 0.05b

6.04± 0.02c

21.25± 0.08a

7.31± 0.04b

6.02± 0.03c

21.38± 0.08a <0.0001

STD 6.45± 0.05b

5.70± 0.03c

25.31± 0.07a

6.34± 0.04b

5.73± 0.03c

25.36± 0.08a

6.40± 0.05b

5.72± 0.03c

25.24± 0.08a <0.0001

WAK 14.73± 0.08b

24.32± 0.07a

0.22± 0.01c

14.79± 0.08b

24.30± 0.09a

0.23± 0.01c

14.79± 0.08b

24.38± 0.08a

0.23± 0.01c <0.0001

WF 6.58± 0.06a

6.03 ± 0.08b

0.39± 0.00c

6.52± 0.05a

5.98± 0.07b

0.39± 0.00c

6.50± 0.05a

5.98± 0.08b

0.39± 0.00c <0.0001

a-c Means in a row with no common superscript differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05.1Values are least square mean ± standard error.2Traits are presented as percentage of time spent in different behavioral activities RNN = Rhode Island Red × Naked Neck; BNN = Black Australorp × Naked Neck; NN = Naked Neck; FR = Free Range; SI = Semi Intensive; I = Intensive; AGR = Aggressiveness; DB = Dust Bathing; FD = Feeding; JMP = Jumping; RUN = Running; SIT = Sitting; STD = Standing; WAK = Walking; WF = Wing Flapping. E

XPE

RIM

EN

T NO

. 1

46

Table 3.13. Effect of genotype and housing system on male carcass traits at 16 weeks of age.1

Trait Genotype P-value Housing System P-valueRNN (n = 9) BNN (n = 9) NN (n = 9) FR (n = 9) SI (n = 9) I (n = 9)WAS 1491.12±64.10a 1390.30±49.15b 1333.76±37.54b 0.0009 1234.37±19.95b 1482.78±50.15a 1498.02±33.65a <0.0001DW 870.12 ± 32.32a 794.07 ± 24.75b 724.51 ± 10.50c <0.0001 729.87 ± 15.49b 829.78 ± 37.63a 829.05 ± 24.74a 0.0007CY 58.55 ± 0.97a 57.22 ± 0.84ab 54.56 ± 1.26b 0.0145 59.12 ± 0.76a 55.87 ± 1.17b 55.35 ± 1.12b 0.0139LW 23.02 ± 1.07b 23.51 ± 2.01b 37.82 ± 2.68a <0.0001 26.12 ± 2.79b 32.91 ± 3.32a 25.32 ± 2.63b 0.0064HW 6.24 ± 0.77 7.57 ± 0.54 7.86 ± 0.95 0.1697 7.53 ± 0.72 6.84 ± 0.82 7.29 ± 0.86 0.7250GW 20.75 ± 1.78a 15.24 ± 1.29b 25.03 ± 2.32a 0.0001 19.42 ± 1.66ab 23.34 ± 3.32a 18.26 ± 0.84b 0.0234BW 158.35 ± 8.03a 128.26 ± 11.06b 118.37 ± 8.18b <0.0001 149.00 ± 8.03a 119.94 ± 15.26b 136.05 ± 3.43ab 0.0010IW 66.59 ± 6.13a 52.01 ± 3.06b 63.80 ± 3.84a 0.0011 52.92 ± 3.02b 69.46 ± 5.52a 60.02 ± 4.46b 0.0005IL 133.61 ± 5.71b 130.59 ± 2.90b 153.38 ± 5.42a 0.0009 127.19 ± 5.29b 150.10 ± 5.13a 140.28 ± 4.63ab 0.0017NW 48.06 ± 3.49 49.17 ± 3.04 52.91 ± 2.82 0.2364 48.83 ± 3.49 52.51 ± 2.69 48.80 ± 3.23 0.3539WW 77.77 ± 5.24 77.37 ± 3.59 71.68 ± 4.00 0.3454 70.85 ± 4.79 80.45 ± 3.43 75.51 ± 4.34 0.1351DMW 120.50 ± 4.98b 142.74 ± 6.63a 122.57 ± 3.19b 0.0002 122.27 ± 4.45 133.40 ± 3.92 130.14 ± 8.57 0.0641TW 140.23 ± 6.68ab 157.86 ± 9.38a 133.12 ± 4.10b 0.0148 134.07 ± 7.65 153.76 ± 6.88 143.36 ± 7.74 0.0640R&BW 200.56 ± 8.28 215.86 ± 8.35 196.47 ± 13.17 0.2921 192.35 ± 10.95 218.82 ± 10.61 201.55 ± 7.72 0.1265

a-c Means in a row with no common superscript differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05. 1Values are least square mean ± standard error. RNN = Rhode Island Red × Naked Neck; BNN = Black Australorp × Naked Neck; NN = Naked Neck; FR = Free Range; SI = Semi Intensive; I = Intensive; WAS = Weight at Slaughter (g); DW = Dressed Weight (g); CY = Carcass Yield (%); LW = Liver Weight (g); HW = Heart Weight (g); GW = Gizzard Weight (g); BW = Breast Weight (g); IW = Intestinal Weight (g); IL = Intestinal Length (cm); NW = Neck Weight (g); WW = Wings Weight (g); DMW = Drumstick Weight (g); TW = Thigh Weight (g); R&BW = Ribs and Back Weight (g).

EX

PER

IME

NT N

O. 1

47

Table 3.14. Interaction effects (genotype × housing system) on male carcass traits at 16 weeks of age. 1

Trait RNN BNN NN P-valueFR (n = 3) SI (n = 3) I (n = 3) FR (n = 3) SI (n = 3) I (n = 3) FR (n = 3) SI (n = 3) I (n = 3)

WAS 1260.36± 52.31c

1663.00± 47.32a

1550.00± 34.64ab

1244.18± 31.37c

1385.18± 56.78bc

1541.53± 51.51ab

1198.59± 5.49c

1400.14± 17.22bc

1402.54± 53.65bc <0.0001

DW 774.04± 19.21bcd

952.33± 47.96a

884.00± 42.15ab

722.11± 23.26cd

808.30± 42.66abcd

851.79± 25.21abc

693.45± 17.31d

728.71± 4.68cd

751.36± 12.24bcd 0.0001

CY 61.50± 1.02a

57.19± 1.28ab

56.97± 1.45ab

58.02± 0.56ab

58.34± 1.69ab

55.31± 1.59ab

57.84± 1.18ab

52.07± 0.88b

53.78± 2.82b 0.0162

LW 24.73± 0.79bc

24.99± 0.83bc

19.35± 1.52c

17.43± 0.59c

29.58± 3.13bc

23.52± 1.16bc

36.21± 1.72ab

44.15± 4.63a

33.10± 5.43ab <0.0001

HW 5.96± 1.17ab

8.67± 0.59a

4.09± 0.10b

7.52± 0.49ab

8.28± 1.01ab

8.91± 0.69a

9.12± 1.45a

5.56± 2.01ab

8.88± 0.80a 0.0285

GW 20.33± 2.52bcd

26.48± 0.34ab

15.44± 1.03cd

13.98± 0.68cd

12.08± 1.82b

19.66± 0.69bcd

23.96± 0.93abc

31.45± 5.23a

19.67± 0.99bcd 0.0018

BW 168.50± 0.96ab

178.22± 7.20a

128.32± 4.63cd

155.64± 11.31abc

87.92± 2.59e

141.23± 7.87abc

122.86± 9.58cde

93.66± 13.41de

133.58± 3.42bc <0.0001

IW 60.73± 1.29bc

89.81± 1.66a

49.23± 2.94bc

42.10± 1.90c

52.27± 1.03bc

61.67± 3.48bc

55.93± 3.22bc

66.31± 1.44b

69.15± 10.78ab <0.0001

IL 120.18± 12.35b

140.65± 1.53ab

140.00± 10.07ab

120.34± 3.00b

139.25± 0.38ab

132.18± 0.80b

141.06± 5.44ab

170.40± 2.03a

148.67± 9.32ab 0.0015

NW 44.28± 2.07ab

60.99± 1.41a

38.91± 2.64b

41.35± 0.85b

50.48± 4.05ab

55.67± 6.42ab

60.87± 5.50a

46.06± 3.08ab

51.80± 0.48ab 0.0003

WW 77.56± 8.12abc

93.25± 2.58a

62.50± 4.57c

70.02± 4.23abc

71.72± 2.22abc

90.36± 2.09ab

64.98± 12.29bc

76.39± 1.02abc

73.68± 2.15abc 0.0051

DMW 131.96± 5.29bc

126.12± 1.93bcd

103.41± 6.24d

121.43± 9.85bcd

146.89± 3.78ab

159.91± 5.82a

113.43± 5.15cd

127.18± 5.46bcd

127.11± 1.71bcd 0.0003

TW 141.77± 7.32ab

160.63± 2.08ab

118.28± 5.24b

135.87± 23.88ab

173.00± 3.14a

164.70± 9.82ab

124.59± 1.45b

127.66± 2.25ab

147.11± 6.74ab 0.0207

R&BW 201.41± 11.48

225.78± 1.97

174.50± 5.44

214.98± 19.95

212.73± 18.24

219.34± 9.74

160.65± 10.50

217.94± 31.17

210.80± 4.97 0.0917

a-e Means in a row with no common superscript differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05. 1Values are least square mean ± standard error. RNN = Rhode Island Red × Naked Neck; BNN = Black Australorp × Naked Neck; NN = Naked Neck; FR = Free Range; SI = Semi Intensive; I = Intensive; WAS = Weight at Slaughter (g); DW = Dressed Weight (g); CY = Carcass Yield (%); LW = Liver Weight (g); HW = Heart Weight (g); GW = Gizzard Weight (g); BW = Breast Weight (g); IW = Intestinal Weight (g); IL = Intestinal Length (cm); NW = Neck Weight (g); WW = Wings Weight (g); DMW = Drumstick Weight (g); TW = Thigh Weight (g); R&BW = Ribs and Back Weight (g).

EX

PER

IME

NT N

O. 1

48

Table 3.15. Effect of genotype and housing system on female carcass traits at 16 weeks of age.1

Trait Genotype P-value Housing System P-valueRNN BNN NN FR SI I

WAS 1168.32 ± 56.02a 1175.39 ± 31.51a 1057.10 ± 53.23b

<0.0001 1050.03 ± 54.35c 1126.53 ± 29.45b 1224.25 ±

48.35a<0.000

1

DW 686.54 ± 13.59a 625.37 ± 6.96b 532.26 ± 53.23c <0.0001 615.10 ± 9.35ab 600.24 ± 31.07b 628.83 ± 30.66a 0.0059

CY 59.49 ± 2.10a 53.40 ± 0.90b 50.74 ± 1.05c <0.0001 54.94 ± 1.81b 57.46 ± 2.28a 51.22 ± 0.63c <0.000

1

LW 22.26 ± 1.65b 23.25 ± 1.44b 32.27 ± 1.77a <0.0001 26.30 ± 3.16 24.05 ± 1.63 27.44 ± 1.48 0.1694

HW 6.13 ± 0.44 7.12 ± 0.97 6.23 ± 0.37 0.2739 6.01 ± 0.38 6.21 ± 0.41 7.26 ± 0.96 0.1465

GW 19.09 ± 1.61b 26.67 ± 4.91a 17.05 ± 1.29b <0.0001 20.88 ± 1.11b 16.68 ± 1.15c 25.07 ± 5.30a <0.000

1

BW 142.70 ± 4.57a 130.53 ± 2.22b 96.52 ± 2.72c <0.0001 126.31 ± 6.49 117.95 ± 6.90 125.50 ± 9.02 0.0671

IW 56.84 ± 2.08 59.12 ± 1.70 55.53 ± 3.32 0.3683 59.73 ± 2.40 54.54 ± 2.80 57.23 ± 1.95 0.1450IL 123.62 ± 6.48b 130.23 ± 6.21ab 142.52 ± 5.41a 0.0427 135.28 ± 8.77ab 120.36 ± 2.90b 140.72 ± 4.43a 0.0250NW 36.24 ± 2.16ab 42.07 ± 4.11a 35.96 ± 1.94b 0.0255 35.61 ± 1.70b 33.54 ± 2.21b 45.11 ± 3.33a 0.0002

WW 62.66 ± 1.24b 71.00 ± 4.21a 43.88 ± 1.79c <0.0001 57.39 ± 3.62b 54.06 ± 4.12b 66.10 ± 5.56a <0.000

1

DMW 106.84 ± 6.33b 117.30 ± 13.05a 80.63 ± 2.88c <0.0001 93.41 ± 2.91b 86.43 ± 2.51b 124.93 ± 13.70a <0.000

1

TW 111.61 ± 5.79b 130.93 ± 11.82a 95.12 ± 4.65c <0.0001 107.68 ± 2.05b 97.13 ± 3.42b 132.85 ± 13.23a <0.000

1R&BW 189.37 ± 13.10a 192.79 ± 11.48a 167.99 ± 7.40b <0.000

1 174.42 ± 5.73b 166.07 ± 6.09b 209.66 ± 14.13a <0.0001

a-c Means in a row with no common superscript differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05. 1Values are least square mean ± standard error.RNN = Rhode Island Red × Naked Neck; BNN = Black Australorp × Naked Neck; NN = Naked Neck; FR = Free Range; SI = Semi Intensive; I = Intensive; WAS = Weight at Slaughter (g); DW = Dressed Weight (g); CY = Carcass Yield (%); LW = Liver Weight (g); HW = Heart Weight (g); GW = Gizzard Weight (g); BW = Breast Weight (g); IW = Intestinal Weight (g); IL = Intestinal Length (cm); NW = Neck Weight (g); WW = Wings Weight (g); DMW = Drumstick Weight (g); TW = Thigh Weight (g); R&BW = Ribs and Back Weight (g).

49

EX

PER

IME

NT N

O. 1

50

Table 3.16. Interaction effects (genotype × housing system) on female carcass traits at 16 weeks of age. 1

Trait RNN BNN NN P-valueFR (n = 3) SI (n = 3) I (n = 3) FR (n = 3) SI (n = 3) I (n = 3) FR (n = 3) SI (n = 3) I (n = 3)

WAS 1028.47± 9.17e

1087.49± 5.90c

1389.00± 12.12a

1247.68± 4.90b

1050.15± 4.05d

1228.34± 4.04 b

873.95± 8.76f

1241.95± 4.02b

1055.41± 7.50d <0.0001

DW 650.76± 8.31b

681.85± 6.29ab

727.00± 25.24a

597.78± 2.00c

640.30± 1.85bc

638.02± 1.43bc

596.75± 4.70c

478.56± 2.02d

521.46± 4.10d <0.0001

CY 59.85± 1.09b

66.31± 0.76a

52.32± 1.37de

56.93± 0.38bc

51.32± 0.27def

51.94± 0.29de

48.05± 0.26f

54.77± 0.42cd

49.41± 0.53ef <0.0001

LW 22.52± 4.37

19.23± 2.17

25.03± 0.40

18.08± 0.22

26.32± 2.46

24.63± 1.83

37.56± 1.29

26.60± 1.88

32.65± 1.48 0.0070

HW 7.06± 0.61ab

6.08± 1.06b

5.25± 0.20b

4.98± 0.43b

5.91± 0.25b

10.46± 1.55a

5.98± 0.33b

6.65± 0.85ab

6.07± 0.83b 0.0021

GW 24.66± 0.26b

16.18± 2.42cd

16.43± 1.34cd

17.75± 1.10bcd

16.18± 2.23cd

46.07± 0.62a

20.24± 1.08bc

18.21± 1.88bcd

12.71± 0.40b <0.0001

BW 148.51± 6.15a

130.36± 6.65ab

149.23± 7.33a

124.38± 2.45bc

131.42± 4.32ab

135.79± 1.08ab

106.03± 2.86cd

92.05± 2.18d

91.47± 2.77d 0.0219

IW 58.82± 1.82ab

55.41± 4.76ab

56.31± 4.77ab

53.65± 3.04ab

62.13± 1.28a

61.59± 1.17a

66.72± 3.60a

46.08± 2.18b

53.79± 2.39ab 0.0028

IL 126.04± 19.93bc

118.37± 4.88c

126.44± 7.85bc

120.98± 9.36c

118.11± 4.95c

151.61± 2.55ab

158.81± 4.08a

124.61± 6.27bc

144.12± 0.70abc 0.0192

NW 36.81± 2.14b

29.62± 2.36b

42.28± 2.38b

30.73± 3.09b

38.53± 1.54b

56.95± 3.13a

39.30± 1.02b

32.48± 5.45b

36.10± 1.62b 0.0009

WW 65.45± 1.08b

59.11± 2.52bc

63.43± 0.76b

62.76± 3.31b

64.06± 4.34b

86.18± 3.03a

43.95± 2.85d

39.00± 1.61d

48.69± 2.04cd 0.0019

DMW 101.54± 6.30c

89.39± 1.42cd

129.60± 3.73b

91.14± 2.30cd

91.40± 1.99cd

169.35± 1.16a

87.54± 1.84cd

78.50± 4.61d

75.85± 6.09d <0.0001

TW 109.64± 1.13bc

95.64± 4.49c

129.54± 9.55b

108.58± 4.66bc

107.02± 5.61bc

177.19± 4.11a

104.82± 4.57bc

88.73± 1.87 c

91.81± 12.72c <0.0001

R&BW 166.34± 2.76bcd

161.48± 6.29cd

240.28± 7.96a

160.66± 3.28cd

184.86± 9.75bc

232.86± 11.14a

196.26± 3.06b

151.88± 4.81d

155.84± 4.59cd <0.0001

a-f Means in a row with no common superscript differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05. 1Values are least square mean ± standard error. RNN = Rhode Island Red × Naked Neck; BNN = Black Australorp × Naked Neck; NN = Naked Neck; FR = Free Range; SI = Semi Intensive; I = Intensive; WAS = Weight at Slaughter (g); DW = Dressed Weight (g); CY = Carcass Yield (%); LW = Liver Weight (g); HW = Heart Weight (g); GW = Gizzard Weight (g); BW = Breast Weight (g); IW = Intestinal Weight (g); IL = Intestinal Length (cm); NW = Neck Weight (g); WW = Wings Weight (g); DMW = Drumstick Weight (g); TW = Thigh Weight (g); R&BW = Ribs and Back Weight (g).

EX

PER

IME

NT N

O. 1

CHAPTER 4EXPERIMENT No. 2

Morphometric traits, antibody response and blood chemistry in three chicken genotypes during rearing period under free range, semi intensive and intensive housing systems

4.1 AbstractPresent study evaluated the effect of housing system on morphometrics, serum chemistry and antibody response of dual-purpose chicken genotypes. The effects of housing system on morphometric traits were measured in rearing-phase birds (17-21 weeks; n =260 birds remaining from Experiment I). At the end of 21 weeks, blood samples were collected from 27 pullets to evaluate serum chemistry and antibody response. Regarding morphometric traits, RNN and BNN male chickens had higher body weight at 21 weeks of age ( P = 0.0015) and shank circumference (P = 0.0150) than NN. In terms of housing systems, birds under intensive and semi-intensive systems had higher body weight than free-range system (P = 0.0012). Regarding females, BNN and RNN chickens had higher body weight (P < 0.0001) than NN. In terms of housing systems, birds under intensive system had the highest body weight followed by semi-intensive and free-range birds ( P < 0.0001). Higher body length (P < 0.0001) and keel length (P < 0.0001) were noted in semi-intensive and free-range birds than intensive system. Regarding serum chemistry, higher cholesterol levels were observed in NN chickens than BNN (P = 0.0123). Antibody titer against ND was higher in RNN chickens than BNN (P = 0.0204). In terms of housing systems, birds reared in intensive system had the highest glucose level than semi-intensive and free-range systems (P = 0.0008). Antibody titer against IB was found in free-range birds followed by semi-intensive and intensive systems (P = 0.0001). In conclusions, female chickens under semi-intensive system had the maximum beak and keel length than intensive and free-range birds. Glucose level was higher in female chicken reared under intensive system as compared to the birds reared under semi-intensive and free-range systems; however, antibody titer against IB was higher in free-range birds followed by semi-intensive and intensive birds.

Key Words: housing system, crossbred chicken, serum chemistry, antibody response

4.2 IntroductionCross breeding is an effective tool for the development of modern-day commercial chickens and equally important for the improvement of rural chickens (Sheridan, 1981). There are different types of crossbreeding comprising two-way, three-way, four-way, rotational crosses or back crosses. Crossbreeding also maximizes the expression of hybrid vigor, improved fitness characteristics generally reflected in the resultant cross. Three way or four-way crosses has to be employed in order to retain the heterosis in material traits (Hoffmann, 2005). In general crossing breeding involves in two-way cross between exotic breed and a local one. The aim of this crosses is to combine the properties of both genotypes and produced such individual which are more productive, having high resistance to disease and better adaptable to harsh climatic conditions (Khawaja et al. 2013). Despite having enormous potential, a little research work has been conducted for the improvement of indigenous chicken in developing countries. Some immature attempts have been made to improve the productive of indigenous chickens by cross breeding or upgrading with known exotics breeds and then leaving the offspring to natural selection (Njenga, 2005). In Pakistan, a dual-purpose chicken genotype was developed by adopting four-way cross breeding programs in which local chicken (desi = non-descript) was crossed with three exotic breeds white Cornish, New Hampshire and white leghorn. The resultant breed named as Lyallpur Silver Black (LSB) was developed that have better productive performance and survivability in harsh climatic conditions (Siddiqi et al. 1979).Blood biochemical profile is generally considered as an ideal indicator of health status, and frequently applied by avian pathologist to compare immunology and basic knowledge of specific poultry diseases. Regarding blood chemistry, total serum protein can be useful to draw inference about the quality of dietary protein (Bonadiman et al. 2009; Alikwe et al. 2010). Likewise, triglyceride and glucose level indicate the demand of

51

EXPERIMENT NO. 2energy required to fulfill the physiological response and facilitate the body’s biochemical functions (Kral and Suchy 2000). To understand the infection outcomes and bird’s performance, knowledge of immune response is essential. In this regard, indigenous poultry could be the most efficient model to study the immune response against bacterial and viral infections (Haunshi et al. 2011). There is still scarcity of data regarding information of maternal effects of distinct crosses. The lack of reference levels of serum chemistry and antibody response against diseases motivates the scientist to establish these references in particular crossbreds. Therefore, present study aimed to investigate whether differences in morphometric traits, serum chemistry and antibody response could be observed from dual purpose chicken genotypes either kept free range, semi intensive or intensive system.

4.3 Materials and MethodsThe present study was planned to evaluate different housing systems and their effect on growth performance, welfare traits, carcass characteristics, serum chemistry and antibody response in three different crossbred of Rhode Island Red (RIR), Black Australorp (BAL) and Naked Neck (NN) chickens during rearing phase. This study was conducted at Department of Poultry Production, UVAS, A-Block, Ravi Campus, Pattoki, Pakistan. Pattoki is located at 31°1’0N and 73°50’60E with an altitude of 186 m (610 ft). This city experiences normally hot and humid tropical climate with maximum temperature ranging from 13 in℃ winter and + 45 in summer. ℃ During rearing phase (17-21 weeks) birds were maintained at ICGRC, Department of Poultry Production, UVAS, Ravi Campus, Pattoki.

4.3.1 EthicsThe care and use of bird were in accordance with the laws and regulation of Pakistan and was approved by committee of Ethical Handling of Experimental Birds (No. DR/124), University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences (UVAS).

4.3.2 Experimental BirdsA total of 260 birds (156 pullets and 104 cockerels) left after Experiment-I, 260 birds comprising 52 pullets and 13 cockerels from each of 3 crossbreds were used in rearing phase. For this, 156 pullets and 39 cockerels were randomly picked from 18 treatment block groups according to Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD).

4.3.3 Free Range, Semi intensive and Intensive SystemAll the experimental birds were individually tagged and maintained in open sided shed (6.1m L × 6.1m W × 3.66m H) oriented east to west. A patch of fertile land measuring (10m L × 2.99m W; stocking density = 0.23m2 / bird) located in front of the shed was used as range area. Seasonal leguminous and non-leguminous plants were grown in the range area. In the ranging area, two rows were made by using fishing nets (one for free range and other for semi intensive). Fresh ad libitum water was ensured through manual drinkers. For the protection of the birds 2.44 m high wire-mesh enclosure were installed which surrounds the range area. The birds under free range and semi intensive system were given access to the vegetation and drinking water from 06:00 AM to 06:00 PM and 06:00 AM to 12:00 PM, respectively. The later were offered 50 % developer ration in the evening. The birds under intensive system were maintained at well ventilated poultry shed equipped with three-tiered battery cage system (FACCO, Poultry Equipment-C3), during rearing phase, 1.5sq ft. per bird floor space were provided. Birds were offered broiler breeder developed ration as per recommendation of NRC (1994) and daily feed allowance was increased corresponding to their growth and requirement (Table 4.1, 4.2, 4.3).

52

EXPERIMENT NO. 2Table 4.1. Weekly feed allowance (g) in rearing phase (17-21 weeks).

Age (Week) Housing SystemFree Range Semi-intensive Intensive

17 0 22 4418 0 23 4619 0 24 4820 0 25 5021 0 26 52

(NRC, 1994; Leeson and Summers 2005)

Table 4.2. Composition of experimental rations during rearing phase (17-21 weeks).Feed Ingredient (%) Rearing Phase (17-21 weeks)Corn 59.00Wheat grain 5.00Rice tips 8.40Wheat bran 5.00Soybean Meal 7.00Canola Meal 10.00Feather Meal 1.10Soybean Oil 1.20Limestone 2.40NaCl 0.30Methionine 0.10Total 100Nutrient LevelsDM 89.8Crude Protein 15.46ME (Kcal/Kg) 2913Calcium 1.00Phosphorus 0.42Lysine 0.69Methionine 0.35

(Leeson and Summers 2005)

Table 4.3. Proximate analysis of legumes cultivated at range area. Proximate Analysis (%)

Mung(Vigna radiate L.)

Black Eyed Pea(Vigna

unguiculata L.)

French Peas(Phaseolus vulgaris L.)

Lucerne(Medicago sativa

L.)Dry Matter 18.60 12.12 10.12 18.20Crude Protein 18.04 26.84 30.80 22.50Crude Fiber 17.75 21.58 16.52 24.00Ether Extract 2.13 2.02 1.79 1.70Ash 9.40 12.26 15.16 12.40

4.3.4 Parameters Studied4.3.4.1 Morphometric traitsMorphometric traits were measured on weekly basis using measuring tape (FT-070, China); parameters including beak, body, shank and drumstick length, wing spread, shank and drumstick circumference.

53

EXPERIMENT NO. 2

4.3.4.2 Serum Chemistry and Antibody ResponseAt the end of the experiment, 3 ml blood was collected from brachial wing vein of 3 birds from each treatment using syringe with anticoagulant. After centrifugation of blood, serum was collected in Eppendorf tubes and stored at -15°C to -20°C until analysis was done (Gunes et al. 2002). Serum was analyzed for glucose, total protein, albumin, globulin, cholesterol, uric acid and creatinin, which were estimated by the method adopted by Kumar and Kumbhakar (2015). Antibody response against NDV was determined by hemagglutination inhibition (HI) technique following the method adopted by Xie et al. (2008).

4.4 Statistical AnalysisThe experiment was set up as a RCBD with the following model:Yijk = µ + βi + τj + (β × τ) ij + ϵijk

Where,Yijk = Observation of dependent variable recorded on jth Housing System in ith Blockµ = Overall population meanβi = Effect of ith Block (i = 1, 2, 3) τj = Effect of jth Housing System (j = 1, 2, 3) (β × τ) ij = Interaction between block and housing systemϵijk = Residual error of kth observation on jth treatment in ith block NID ~ 0, σ2

Collected data regarding morphometric traits, serum chemistry and antibody response were analyzed by two-way ANOVA technique assuming genotypes and housing systems as main effects. Data regarding morphometric trait were analyzed separately for male and female to assess the effect of treatment within sex. A GLM procedures was used in SAS software, significant treatment means were separated through Tukey’s HSD test (Tukey, 1953) and difference were considered statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05.

4.5 Results4.5.1 Morphometric traitsMorphometric traits differed among housing system, genotypes and their interactions (Table 4.3, 4.4, 4.5 & 4.6). Regarding males, significant differences were observed in body weight, drumstick circumference and shank circumference among difference genotypes. RNN and BNN chickens had higher body weight at 21 weeks of age than NN (1817.25, 1811.17 vs. 1616.05g; P = 0.0015). Drumstick circumference was higher in NN chicken than BNN and RNN (10.13 vs. 801, 8.00 g; P < 0.0001). Higher shank circumference was observed in RNN and BNN chickens than NN (4.25, 4.06 vs. 3.58cm; P = 0.0150). In terms of housing systems, significant difference was observed regarding body weight at 21 weeks of age. Birds under intensive and semi-intensive systems had the higher body weight than free-range system (1849.97, 1774.89 vs. 1619.60g; P = 0.0012). Interactions were significant between genotypes and housing systems regarding body weight at 21 weeks of age (P = 0.0009) and drumstick circumference (P = 0.0039).

Regarding females, significant differences were observed in body weight at 21 weeks of age, keel length, drumstick circumference and wing spread among different genotypes. BNN and RNN chickens had the higher body weight than NN (1456.22, 1425.17 vs. 1256.79g; P < 0.0001). Keel length was higher in NN and BNN chickens as compared to RNN (11.58, 10.89 vs. 10.04cm; P = 0.0002). Higher drumstick circumference was observed in NN chickens than BNN and RNN (9.82 vs. 7.03, 6.70cm; P < 0.0001). NN chickens had the highest wings spread as compared to RNN (9.62 vs. 8.30; P = 0.0029). In terms of housing systems, significant differences were observed regarding body weight at 21 weeks of age, body length and keel length. Birds reared under intensive system had the highest body weight followed by semi-intensive and free-range birds (P < 0.0001). Body length was higher in semi-intensive and free-range birds than intensive system (66.76, 65.49 vs. 58.58cm; P < 0.0001). Higher keel length was noted in semi-intensive birds followed by intensive and free-range systems (P < 0.0001). Interactions were significant between genotypes and housing systems in body weight at 21 weeks of age (P < 0.0001), body length (P < 0.0001), keel length (P < 0.0001) and drumstick circumference (P < 0.0001).

54

EXPERIMENT NO. 2

55

EXPERIMENT NO. 24.5.2 Serum Chemistry and Antibody ResponseGlucose, cholesterol and antibody response against ND and IB differed among treatment groups (Table 4.7, 4.8). Regarding genotypes, higher cholesterol levels were observed in NN chickens than BNN (143.87 vs. 127.11 mg/dL; P = 0.0123). Antibody titer against ND was higher in RNN chickens than BNN (5.10 vs. 4.77 HI titter; P = 0.0204). In terms of housing systems, birds under intensive system had the highest glucose level than semi-intensive and free-range systems (185.45 vs. 158.93, 138.43mg/dL; P = 0.0008). Antibody titer against IB was found in free-range birds followed by semi-intensive and intensive systems (P = 0.0001). Interactions were significant between genotypes and housing systems regarding glucose level (P = 0.0164), cholesterol (P = 0.0103) and antibody titer against IB (P = 0.0067).

4.5.3 Discussion The present study aimed to compare morphometric traits, serum chemistry and antibody response among different housing systems. Although drumstick length, circumference, shank length, circumference and wing spread did not differ, Intensive and semi intensive male chickens were 9 to 14 % and females were 11-14% heavier on week 21, general market age of rural chickens, as compared to free range chickens. This might be attributed to the active behaviour of free-range chickens, in general, these birds have more exercise in their life and ultimately, they burn more calories. Results of present study are in accordance with the findings of Rehman et al. (2016) and Olaniyi et al. (2012). Similarly, reduced body weight in slow growing broiler was also reported by Stadig et al. (2016) when exposed to free range access. Body length was maximum for free range chickens, keel length was higher in semi intensive female chickens. Variation exist among different genotypes, RNN and BNN chickens were heavier on week 21, and have maximum shank circumference than NN chickens. Keel length was maximum in BNN chickens and drumstick circumference and wing spread were higher in NN chickens. Drumstick circumference of NN chickens could be due to lower body weight and small body size; as it is well known fact that smaller the body size higher will be the drumstick circumference. Differences in morphological traits corresponds to the findings of Qureshi et al. (2018) who found variation among different phenotypes of Aseel chickens in Pakistan. Similarly, Adekoya et al. (2013) and Fadare (2014) reported variation in morphological traits among five indigenous chicken genotypes in Nigeria. Plasma glucose level was higher in intensive female chickens than those of semi intensive and free range. This corresponds with Gunes et al. (2002) and Rehman et al. (2016) who studied variation in blood glucose level among egg type chickens under alternative production systems. It is possible that reduction of plasma glucose in free range chicken might be due to the intense exercise of the body which ultimately increases the insulin level and stimulated glucose metabolism. Cholesterol level was higher in NN female chickens as compared to BNN. Higher cholesterol level in NN chickens might be attributed to specific genetic makeup. Contradictory studies (Elerogly et al. 2011; Diktas et al. 2015; Eleroglu et al. 2015) also found negligible effect of housing system on cholesterol level among different chicken genotypes. Antibody titer against ND was higher in RNN female chickens than those of BNN and this could be attributed to the distinct genetic resistance against the disease which was more pronounce in RNN chickens as compared to BNN chickens. In addition, crossbreeding of Rhode Island Red and Naked Neck chickens improve progeny growth and immune organs, leading to higher immune response. Furthermore, higher antibody titer against IB was found in free range chickens followed by semi intensive and intensive system. Higher immunity in free range birds might be due to better acclimatization and survival in harsh environmental extremes. Similar differences in antibody response against ND and IB among different chicken and duck genotypes were obtained by Shini (2003), Arbona et al. (2011), Shi et al. (2011) and Rehman et al. (2016).

4.6 ConclusionsOn overall basis, morphometric traits and serum chemistry was not affected by housing system. Only a few differences were observed regarding body weight, body and keel length, plasma glucose, cholesterol and antibody response against ND and IB. Hence, alternative housing systems (semi intensive and free range) can successfully adopted for dual purpose chicken genotypes.

56

EXPERIMENT NO. 2

57

EXPERIMENT NO. 24.7 AcknowledgementsThis study was financially supported by Pakistan Agricultural Research Council, ALP fund (Project No. AS-135).

4.8 References Adekoya KO, Oboh BO, Adefenwa MA, Ogunkanmi LA. 2013. Morphological characterization of five

Nigerian indigenous chicken types. J Sci Res Dev. 14: 55-66.Alikwe PCN, Faremi AY, Egwaikhide PA. 2010. Biochemical evaluation of serum metabolites, enzymes and

haematological indices of broiler-chicks fed with varying levels of rumenepithelial scraps in place of fish meal proteins. Res J Poult Sci. 3: 27–31.

Arbona DV, Anderson KE, Hoffman JB. 2011. A comparison of humoral immune function in response to a killed Newcastle’s vaccine challenge in caged vs. free-range Hy- Line brownlayers. Int J Poult Sci. 10: 315–319.

Bonadiman SF, Stratievsky GC, Machado JA, Albernaz AP, Rabelo GR, Damatta RA. 2009. Leukocyte ultrastructure, hematological and serum biochemical profiles of ostriches (Struthio camelus). Poult Sci. 88: 2298–2306.

Diktas M, Sekeroglu A, Duman M, Yildirim A. 2015. Effect of different housing systems on production and blood profile of slow-growing broilers. Kafkas Univ Vet Fak Derg. 21: 521–526.

Eleroglu H, Yalcin H, Yildirim A. 2011. Dietary effects of Ca-zeolite supplementation on some blood and tibial bone characteristics of broilers. S Afr J Anim Sci. 41: 319–330.

Eleroglu H, Yıldırım A, Duman M, Sekeroglu A. 2015. The welfare of slow growing broiler genotypes reared in organic system. Emir J Food Agri. 27: 454–459.

Fadare AO. 2014. Morphometric and growth performance variations of Naked Neck, Frizzled Feathered and normal feathered crosses with exotic Giri-Raja chickens. Jord J Agri Sci. 10(4): 811-820.

Gunes N, Polat U, Petek M. 2002. Investigation of changes in biochemical parameters of hens raised in alternative housing systems. Uludag Univ Ver Fak Derg. 21: 39–42.

Haunshi S, Niranjan M, Shanmugam M, Padhi MK, Reddy MR, Sunitha R, Rajkumar U, Panda AK. 2011. Characterization of two Indian native chicken breeds for production, egg and semen quality, and welfare traits. Poult Sci. 90: 314–320.

Hoffmann I. 2005. Research and investment in poultry genetic resources challenges and options for sustainable use. World’s Poult Sci J. 61: 57-70.

Khawaja T, Khan SH, Mukhtar N, Parveen A, Fareed G. 2013. Production performance, egg quality and biochemical parameters of three way crossbred chickens with reciprocal F1 crossbred chickens in sub-tropical environment. Ital J Anim Sci. 12: 127-132

Kral I, Suchy P. 2000. Haematological studies in adolescent breeding cocks. Acta Vet Bmo. 69: 189–194.Leeson S, Summers JD. 2005. Commercial Poultry Nutrition. 3rd Ed. Nottingham University Press,

Nottingham, England. p. 297-305. Njenga SK. 2005. Productivity and socio-cultural aspects of local poultry phenotypes in Coastal Kenya. MSc

Thesis. Denmark: Department of Animal Breeding and Genetics, The Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University (KVL). p. 123.

NRC. 1994. National Research Council. Nutrient Requirement Table of poultry. 9th Ed. Washington, DC. National Academy Press.

Olaniyi OA, Oyenaiya OA, Sogunle OM, Akinola OS, Adeyemi OA, Ladokun OA. 2012. Free range and deep litter housing systems: effect on performance and blood profile of two strains of cockerel chickens. Trop Subtrop Agroecosyst. 15: 511–523.

Qureshi M, Qadri AH, Gachal GS. 2018. Morphological study of various varieties of Aseel chicken breed inhabiting district Hyderabad. J Ent Zool Std. 6(2): 2043-2045.

Rehman MS, Mahmud A, Mehmood S, Pasha TN, Hussain J, Khan MT. 2017. Blood biochemistry and immune response in Aseel chicken under free range, semi-intensive and confinement rearing systems. Poult Sci. 96: 226-233.

SAS Institute. 2002-2004. SAS® Users Guide: Statistics. Version 9.01.SAS Institute Inc., Cary, N.C.

58

EXPERIMENT NO. 2Sheridan AK. 1981. Cross breeding and heterosis. Anim Breed Abstr. 19:131-144.Shi SH, Huang Y, Cui SJ, Cheng LF, Fu GH, Li X, Chen Z, Peng CX, Lin F, Lin JS, Su JL. 2011. Genomic

sequence of an avian paramyxovirus type 1 strain isolated from Muscovy duck (Cairinam oschata) in China. Arch Virol. 156: 405–412.

Shini S. 2003. Physiological responses of laying hens to the alternative housing systems. Int J Poult Sci. 2: 357–360.

Siddiqi MZ, Qazi MA, Siddique M. 1979. Poultry industry in Pakistan (Mimeo). Faisalabad: Univ. Agri.Stadig LM, Rodenburg TB, Reubens B, Aerts J, Duquenne B, Tuyttens FAM. 2016. Effects of free-range

access on production parameters and meat quality, composition and taste in slow-growing broiler chickens. Poult Sci. 95: 2971-2978.

Tukey JW. 1953. The problem of multiple comparisons. In: The Collected Works of John W. Tukey VII. Multiple Comparisons. Chapman and Hall, New York.

Xie D, Wang ZX, Dong YL, Cao J, Wang JF, Chen JL, Chen YX. 2008. Effects of monochromatic light on immune response of broilers. Poult Sci. 87: 1535–1539.

59

60

Table 4.4. Effect of genotype and housing system on male morphometric traits at 21 weeks of age.1

Trait Genotype P-value Housing System P-valueRNN (n =12) BNN (n =12) NN (n =12) FR (n =12) SI (n =12) I (n =12)BW 1817.25 ± 45.32a 1811.17 ± 63.10a 1616.05 ± 30.99b 0.0015 1619.60 ± 20.88b 1774.89 ± 57.21a 1849.97 ± 56.20a 0.0012BL 69.64 ± 1.81 68.49 ± 2.39 69.41 ± 0.30 0.9044 69.53 ± 1.39 70.45 ± 1.57 67.56 ± 2.44 0.5539KL 11.68 ± 0.37 12.27 ± 0.36 12.27 ± 0.29 0.3783 11.54 ± 0.28 12.64 ± 0.33 12.03 ± 0.36 0.0910DL 13.69 ± 0.41 14.37 ± 0.31 13.76 ± 0.51 0.4638 13.38 ± 0.42 14.53 ± 0.45 13.92 ± 0.33 0.1755DC 8.00 ± 0.20b 8.01 ± 0.39b 10.13 ± 0.23a <0.0001 8.69 ± 0.44 8.70 ± 0.41 8.75 ± 0.39 0.9879SL 11.05 ± 0.55 11.10 ± 0.90 9.85 ± 0.27 0.4052 10.06 ± 0.33 11.35 ± 0.91 10.60 ± 0.51 0.3391SC 4.25 ± 0.21a 4.06 ± 0.10a 3.58 ± 0.11b 0.0150 3.98 ± 0.21 3.89 ± 0.18 4.01 ± 0.10 0.8485WS 10.25 ± 0.48 11.04 ± 0.46 10.01 ± 0.23 0.2312 10.10 ± 0.40 10.87 ± 0.47 10.34 ± 0.38 0.4506

a-b Means in a row with no common superscript differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05. 1Values are least square mean ± standard error. RNN = Rhode Island Red × Naked Neck; BNN = Black Australorp × Naked Neck; NN = Naked Neck; FR = Free Range; SI = Semi Intensive; I = Intensive; BW = Body Weight (g); BL = Body Length (cm); KL = Keel Length (cm); DL = Drumstick Length (cm); DC = Drumstick Circumference (cm); SL = Shank Length (cm); SC = Shank Circumference (cm); WS = Wing Spread (cm).

EX

PER

IME

NT N

O. 2

61

Table 4.5. Interaction effects (genotype × housing system) on male morphometric traits at 21 weeks of age.1

Trait RNN BNN NN P-valueFR (n = 4) SI (n = 4) I (n = 4) FR (n = 4) SI (n = 4) I (n = 4) FR (n = 4) SI (n = 4) I (n = 4)

BW 1639.84± 48.80bc

1875.10± 53.89a

1936.80± 30.57a

1645.64± 28.13bc

1822.51± 132.75ab

1965.38± 90.98a

1573.33± 23.43c

1627.07± 63.94bc

1647.75± 70.30bc 0.0009

BL 69.50± 3.40

69.64± 2.16

69.77± 4.44

72.68± 1.64

68.50± 3.16

64.31± 6.22

66.41± 0.72

73.22± 2.93

68.59± 5.15 0.6835

KL 11.28± 0.53

12.07± 0.85

11.68± 0.66

11.37± 0.67

13.16± 0.47

12.27± 0.48

11.98± 0.22

12.70± 0.30

12.14± 0.82 0.4278

DL 13.09± 0.50

14.29± 1.05

13.69± 0.49

14.23± 0.70

14.51± 0.65

14.38± 0.35

12.80± 0.92

14.77± 0.79

13.70± 0.85 0.5830

DC 8.19± 0.51b

7.81± 0.25b

8.00± 0.32b

7.97± 0.94b

8.05± 0.70b

8.01± 0.55b

9.90± 0.48a

10.24± 0.38a

10.24± 0.45a 0.0039

SL 10.04± 0.78

12.07± 1.28

11.05± 0.62

10.73± 0.34

11.47± 2.63

11.10± 1.35

9.40± 0.44

10.50± 0.44

9.65± 0.46 0.7999

SC 4.47± 0.51

4.03± 0.39

4.25± 0.17

3.98± 0.16

4.14± 0.21

4.06± 0.16

3.50± 0.17

3.51± 0.47

3.73± 0.12 0.2115

WS 10.04± 0.89

10.47± 0.98

10.25± 0.87

10.46± 0.90

11.63± 0.99

11.05± 0.60

9.79± 0.23

10.51± 0.47

9.72± 0.43 0.7358

a-c Means in a row with no common superscript differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05.1Values are least square mean ± standard error. RNN = Rhode Island Red × Naked Neck; BNN = Black Australorp × Naked Neck; NN = Naked Neck; FR = Free Range; SI = Semi Intensive; I = Intensive; BW = Body Weight (g); BL = Body Length (cm); KL = Keel Length (cm); DL = Drumstick Length (cm); DC = Drumstick Circumference (cm); SL = Shank Length (cm); SC = Shank Circumference (cm); WS = Wing Spread (cm).

EX

PER

IME

NT N

O. 2

62

Table 4.6. Effect of genotype and housing system on female morphometric traits at 21 weeks of age.1

Trait Genotype P-value Housing System P-valueRNN (n = 51) BNN (n = 51) NN (n = 51) FR (n = 51) SI (n = 51) I (n = 51)BW 1425.17 ± 18.35a 1456.22 ± 25.26a 1256.79 ± 34.92b <0.0001 1273.80 ± 31.76c 1412.12 ± 30.15b 1452.26 ± 19.65a <0.0001BL 63.27 ± 1.67 62.27 ± 1.78 65.29 ± 0.76 0.2510 65.49 ± 1.39a 66.76 ± 0.71a 58.58 ± 1.85b <0.0001KL 10.04 ± 0.35b 10.89 ± 0.32a 11.58 ± 0.17a 0.0002 9.86 ± 0.31c 11.75 ± 0.21a 10.89 ± 0.32b <0.0001DL 12.45 ± 0.49 12.64 ± 0.42 13.15 ± 0.26 0.4550 12.56 ± 0.35 12.57 ± 0.39 13.10 ± 0.46 0.5645DC 6.70 ± 0.22b 7.03 ± 0.24b 9.82 ± 0.11a <0.0001 7.56 ± 0.26 7.65 ± 0.31 8.04 ± 0.27 0.3905SL 8.42 ± 0.34 8.79 ± 0.44 9.46 ± 0.16 0.0939 8.66 ± 0.22 9.04 ± 0.39 8.97 ± 0.38 0.7079SC 3.56 ± 0.12 3.56 ± 0.11 3.35 ± 0.06 0.1908 3.44 ± 0.10 3.67 ± 0.09 3.36 ± 0.09 0.0641WS 8.30 ± 0.34b 8.94 ± 0.26ab 9.62 ± 0.14a 0.0029 9.01 ± 0.24 8.96 ± 0.28 8.90 ± 0.29 0.9631

a-c Means in a row with no common superscript differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05. 1Values are least square mean ± standard error. RNN = Rhode Island Red × Naked Neck; BNN = Black Australorp × Naked Neck; NN = Naked Neck; FR = Free Range; SI = Semi Intensive; I = Intensive; BW = Body Weight (g); BL = Body Length (cm); KL = Keel Length (cm); DL = Drumstick Length (cm); DC = Drumstick Circumference (cm); SL = Shank Length (cm); SC = Shank Circumference (cm); WS = Wing Spread (cm).

EX

PER

IME

NT N

O. 2

63

Table 4.7. Interaction effects (genotype × housing system) on female morphometric traits at 21 weeks of age.1

Trait RNN BNN NN P-valueFR (n =17) SI (n =17) I (n =17) FR (n =17) SI (n =17) I (n =17) FR (n =17) SI (n =17) I (n =17)

BW 1558.90± 9.62b

1388.32± 26.57d

1328.28± 23.82e

1242.62± 10.87f

1663.10± 14.25a

1462.93± 11.51c

1019.88± 8.68h

1184.93± 20.37g

1565.57± 33.90b <0.0001

BL 65.48± 2.99a

66.06± 1.50a

58.28± 3.57b

68.63± 2.32a

67.49± 1.21a

50.70± 3.19c

62.37± 1.62ab

66.73± 0.94a

66.76±1.08a <0.0001

KL 8.30± 0.44d

11.80± 0.52a

10.01± 0.57bc

9.56± 0.50c

12.24± 0.27a

10.86± 0.64abc

11.73± 0.28a

11.20± 0.24ab

11.81± 0.35a <0.0001

DL 12.31± 0.80

12.01± 0.87

13.02± 0.92

12.07± 0.62

12.70± 0.71

13.14± 0.85

13.31± 0.24

13.00± 0.40

13.14± 0.66 0.8618

DC 6.94± 0.30b

6.27± 0.49b

6.88± 0.34b

7.00± 0.46b

6.87± 0.39b

7.22± 0.39b

9.62± 0.15a

9.82± 0.15a

10.03± 0.25a <0.0001

SL 8.00± 0.43

8.79± 0.66

8.47± 0.66

8.55± 0.41

8.98± 0.97

8.85± 0.83

9.44± 0.20

9.34± 0.22

9.59± 0.40 0.6373

SC 3.57± 0.23

3.74± 0.19

3.37± 0.19

3.35± 0.19

3.96± 0.14

3.37± 0.18

3.40± 0.11

3.31± 0.09

3.33± 0.11 0.0748

WS 8.53± 0.57

8.21± 0.62

8.16± 0.62

9.07± 0.40

8.95± 0.51

8.80± 0.48

9.42± 0.17

9.71± 0.22

9.75± 0.34 0.1213

a-h Means in a row with no common superscript differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05.1Values are least square mean ± standard error. RNN = Rhode Island Red × Naked Neck; BNN = Black Australorp × Naked Neck; NN = Naked Neck; FR = Free Range; SI = Semi Intensive; I = Intensive; BW = Body Weight (g); BL = Body Length (cm); KL = Keel Length (cm); DL = Drumstick Length (cm); DC = Drumstick Circumference (cm); SL = Shank Length (cm); SC = Shank Circumference (cm); WS = Wing Spread (cm).

EX

PER

IME

NT N

O. 2

64

Table 4.8. Effect of genotype and housing system on female serum chemistry and antibody response at 21 weeks of age.1

Trait Genotype P-value Housing System P-valueRNN (n = 9) BNN (n = 9) NN (n = 9) FR (n = 9) SI (n = 9) I (n = 9)GLU 157.48 ± 8.55 167.62 ± 9.31 157.71 ± 10.72 0.5290 138.43 ± 5.63b 158.93 ± 10.11b 185.45 ± 3.18a 0.0008TP 4.30 ± 0.20 4.23 ± 0.14 4.51 ± 0.07 0.3397 4.51 ± 0.17 4.21 ± 0.14 4.32 ± 0.11 0.3003ALB 2.64 ± 0.10 2.70 ± 0.10 2.80 ± 0.09 0.5382 2.71 ± 0.07 2.66 ± 0.12 2.78 ± 0.10 0.7121GLO 1.61 ± 0.09 1.50 ± 0.07 1.52 ± 0.04 0.4513 1.50 ± 0.06 1.64 ± 0.09 1.49 ± 0.05 0.2269UA 7.65 ± 0.54 7.48 ± 0.36 6.37 ± 0.58 0.1994 7.31 ± 0.41 7.25 ± 0.68 6.93 ± 0.49 0.8622CRT 0.59 ± 0.06 0.52 ± 0.03 0.59 ± 0.05 0.5383 0.55 ± 0.05 0.55 ± 0.04 0.61 ± 0.06 0.6474CHO 134.48 ± 3.50ab 127.11 ± 5.85b 143.87 ± 3.13a 0.0123 128.96 ± 5.41 138.01 ± 4.44 138.48 ± 4.21 0.1274ND 5.10 ± 0.06a 4.70 ± 0.10b 4.95 ± 0.11ab 0.0204 4.98 ± 0.10 4.79 ± 0.14 4.97 ± 0.05 0.2546IB 3629.91 ± 53.88 3629.89 ± 70.91 3599.70 ± 87.39 0.8858 3823.56 ± 30.79a 3598.62 ± 31.44b 3437.32 ± 65.58c 0.0001

a-c Means in a row with no common superscript differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05. 1Values are least square mean ± standard error. RNN = Rhode Island Red × Naked Neck; BNN = Black Australorp × Naked Neck; NN = Naked Neck; FR = Free Range; SI = Semi Intensive; I = Intensive; GLU = Glucose (mg/dL); TP = Total Protein (mg/dL); ALB = Albumin (mg/dL); GLO = Globulin (mg/dL); UA = Uric Acid (mg/dL); CRT = Creatinine (mg/dL); CHO = Cholesterol (mg/dL); ND = New Castle Disease (HI titer); IB = Infectious Bronchitis (ELISA titer).

EX

PER

IME

NT N

O. 2

65

Table 4.9. Interaction effects (genotype × housing system) on female serum chemistry and antibody response at 21 weeks of age.1

Trait RNN BNN NN P-valueFR (n =3) SI (n =3) I (n =3) FR (n =3) SI (n =3) I (n =3) FR (n =3) SI (n =3) I (n =3)

GLU 130.74± 6.76c

154.60± 5.11abc

187.10± 2.17ab

152.11± 12.94abc

173.29± 25.88ab

177.46± 4.18ab

132.43± 5.09c

148.90± 19.21bc

191.80± 6.75a 0.0164

TP 4.81± 0.30

3.80± 0.28

4.29± 0.20

4.15± 0.33

4.28± 0.01

4.27± 0.33

4.57± 0.21

4.55± 0.11

4.39± 0.05 0.2056

ALB 2.70± 0.19

2.60± 0.19

2.63± 0.19

2.77± 0.11

2.67± 0.31

2.64± 0.12

2.64± 0.12

2.70± 0.17

3.06± 0.05 0.7411

GLO 1.51± 0.16

1.84± 0.13

1.48± 0.10

1.47± 0.12

1.61± 0.16

1.42± 0.10

1.53± 0.01

1.45± 0.10

1.56± 0.05 0.3118

UA 6.84± 0.90

8.74± 0.56

7.36± 1.19

7.87± 0.91

7.44± 0.43

7.12± 0.65

7.21± 0.38

5.58± 1.58

6.32± 0.85 0.4784

CRT 0.56± 0.09

0.51± 0.10

0.69± 0.14

0.48± 0.03

0.62± 0.04

0.46± 0.05

0.60± 0.11

0.51± 0.09

0.67± 0.09 0.5769

CHO 131.84± 3.06abc

140.83± 4.92ab

130.75± 9.09abc

112.83± 9.41c

123.11 ± 4.79bc

145.38± 4.69a

142.21 ± 5.60ab

150.09 ± 1.04a

139.30 ± 7.34ab 0.0103

ND 5.13± 0.07

5.08± 0.15

5.07± 0.09

4.80± 0.10

4.40± 0.13

4.92± 0.10

5.02± 0.28

4.89± 0.25

4.94± 0.08 0.1001

IB 3801.17± 51.87 ab

3588.95± 68.15abc

3499.61± 59.20c

3801.14± 69.18ab

3640.87± 22.34abc

3447.66± 154.03c

3868.35± 48.92a

3566.04± 72.42bc

3364.70± 140.52c 0.0067

a-c Means in a row with no common superscript differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05.1Values are least square mean ± standard error. RNN = Rhode Island Red × Naked Neck; BNN = Black Australorp × Naked Neck; NN = Naked Neck; FR = Free Range; SI = Semi Intensive; I = Intensive; GLU = Glucose (mg/dL); TP = Total Protein (mg/dL); ALB = Albumin (mg/dL); GLO = Globulin (mg/dL); UA = Uric Acid (mg/dL); CRT = Creatinine (mg/dL); CHO = Cholesterol (mg/dL); ND = New Castle Disease (HI titer); IB = Infectious Bronchitis (ELISA titer).

EX

PER

IME

NT N

O. 2

CHAPTER 5EXPERIMENT No. 3

Productive performance, hatching traits and egg characteristics in three chicken genotypes under free range, semi intensive and intensive housing systems

5.1 AbstractPresent study aimed to evaluate the effect of housing system on productive performance, egg quality and hatching traits of dual-purpose chicken genotypes. In total, 180 birds comprising 48 pullets and 12 cockerels from each of 3 genotypes were used in production phase (27-46 weeks). For this, 144 pullets and 36 cockerels were randomly picked from 18 treatment block groups were shifted to breeding coops, allotting 4 pullets to one cockerel. A Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) was employed. Three genotypes, purebred Naked Neck (NN) and two crossbred Rhode Island Red × Naked Neck (RIR × NN = RNN) and Black Australorp × Naked Neck (BAL × NN = BNN), were compared. Productive performance (body weight at 26 weeks, body weight at 4 weeks, hen day production percent, egg weight, egg mass, livability), egg characteristics (shape index, surface area, volume, egg weight, Haugh unit, yolk index and shell thickness) and hatching traits (hatchability percent, fertility percent, infertile egg percent, dead germ, dead in shell) were evaluated. Regarding productive performance, BNN chickens had the highest body weight at 26 weeks (P < 0.0001) and at 46 weeks (P = 0.0025), hen day production (P < 0.0001), egg mass (P < 0.0001) followed by RNN and NN. In terms of housing systems, birds reared under intensive housing system had the highest body weight at 26 (P < 0.0001) and 46 (P < 0.0001) weeks, egg weight (P < 0.0001) and egg mass (P < 0.0001) followed by semi-intensive and free-range systems. Regarding egg characteristics, RNN and BNN chickens had the higher egg surface area (initial, P < 0.0001; final, P < 0.0001), egg volume (initial, P < 0.0001; final, P < 0.0001), egg weight (initial, P < 0.0001; final, P < 0.0001) and Haught unit score (initial, P = 0.0002; final, P < 0.0001) as compared to NN chicken’s egg. In terms of hatching traits, RNN chickens had the highest hatchability followed by BNN and NN (P < 0.0001). Higher fertility was observed in RNN and BNN chickens than NN (P < 0.0001). In terms of housing systems, higher hatchability (P < 0.0001) and fertility (P < 0.0001) were noted in free-range birds followed by semi-intensive and intensive system. In conclusions, birds reared under intensive system showed better performance than semi-intensive and free-range birds. Hatching traits were better in free-rang birds than semi-intensive and intensive birds.Key Words: Housing system, crossbred chicken, productive performance, egg characteristics, hatching traits

5.2 IntroductionIn Pakistan, indigenous chickens are maintained in rural and peri-urban areas of the country for egg and meat production, source of high-quality protein and also contributed in the nation’s GDP (Economic Survey, 2017-18). The indigenous chicken breeds include Aseel, Desi (non-descript) and Naked Neck; however, some exotic breeds i.e., Black Australorp, Fayoumi, Rhode Island Red and their crosses are also reared by the rural farmers (Sadef et al. 2015). Indigenous chicken gaining its popularity round the globe due to better adaptability of local environmental conditions and good immune profile (Iqbal et al. 2012).

The quality of egg is considered as major consideration for egg industry and purely inclined towards consumer demands. Furthermore, inner content of an egg also affects the hatching results specially chick yield (Rehman et al. 2017). The development of embryonic tissues and efficient hatching require better albumen and yolk quality and influenced by egg morphometric. Shell thickness is also an important parameter in this regard, for ideal gaseous exchange and piping process egg must be free from any deformities and hair-like cracks to avoid unnecessary moisture loss. That is the reason most of the breeding companies focused on egg quality traits (Bain, 2005; Sekeroglu and Altuntas 2009).

Fertility and hatchability are the major constraints that determines the profitability of hatchery industry and depends upon genetics, physiology and extrinsic factors. Peter et al. (2008) reported variation in different chicken genotypes in terms of fertility and found comparable semen quality and quantity in local Nigerian

66

and exotic chickens. In study of three exotic and one indigenous chickens of Ethiopia, highest hatchability (79%)

67

EXPERIMENT NO. 3was noted in indigenous chicken (Lemlem and Tesfay 2010). Similarly, in dual purpose chicken genotypes, highest fertility and hatchability were reported in both pure and crossbred of Nigerian chicken genotypes and attributed to the gene segregation (Adeleke et al. 2012).Housing systems have a substantial effect on productive performance and egg quality traits; however, genotypes and feeding regimes are also considered as major factors which influence egg geometry and hatching traits (Chen et al. 2013). Over the last few years, people are more concern about the quality and welfare of poultry. In this regard, international rules and regulations have been developed to minimize the use of conventional cage system and promote welfare of the bird. After the ban on conventional cage in 2012 by European Union, farms are highly motivated to find some alternate housing systems such as enriched cages, free-range and semi-intensive systems (Leinonen et al. 2014). Birds in free range system are provided with seasonal leguminous and non-leguminous plants and grasses, moreover, earth worms are also available for birds. Free range system not only fulfills the welfare needs of the bird but availability of nutritional plants and worms also reduces the total cost of production (Lay et al. 2011). Indigenous chickens of Pakistan are generally termed as scavengers; however, their performance in alternative production systems is still unclear. Therefore, present study has been planned to evaluate the production performance, egg characteristics and hatching results of three chicken genotypes under free range, semi intensive and intensive housing systems.

5.3 Materials and MethodsThe present study was planned to evaluate different housing systems and their effect on productive, reproductive and egg characteristics in three different crossbreds of RIR, BAL and NN chickens during production phase. This study was conducted at Department of Poultry Production, UVAS, A-Block, Ravi Campus, Pattoki, Pakistan. Pattoki is located at 31°1’0N and 73°50’60E with an altitude of 186 m (610 ft). This city experiences normally hot and humid tropical climate with maximum temperature ranging from 13 in winter and + 45 in summer. ℃ ℃

5.3.1 EthicsThe care and use of bird were in accordance with the laws and regulation of Pakistan and was approved by committee of Ethical Handling of Experimental Birds (No. DR/124), University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences (UVAS).

5.3.2 Experimental birds The study was executed during 2017-2018, from June to April. Four-hundred-eighty, day old chicks comprising 160 from each genotype of RNN, BNN and NN hatched at Avian Research and Training Centre, UVAS, Lahore, Pakistan, were shifted into Indigenous Chicken Genetic Resource Centre (ICGRC), A-Block, UVAS, Ravi Campus, Pattoki. These chicks were brooded at well ventilated open sided house with standard managemental conditions till 6 weeks from June to July. Birds were provided with commercial broiler breeder ration (CP% 16, ME 2900Kcal/Kg). In brooding period, birds were vaccinated against Newcastle Disease (ND) and Infectious Bronchitis (IB) according to schedule of local area. At 6 weeks of age, 360 birds (2 sexes × 3 genotypes × 3 housing systems × 20 birds = 360) comprising 180 cockerels and 180 pullets, 60 (30 cockerels and 30 pullets) from each crossbred of RIR, BAL and NN were subjected to 3 housing systems (Free range, semi intensive and intensive). Weekly growth performance and welfare traits were studied. After 16 weeks of age, a total of 260 birds (156 pullets and 104 cockerels) left after growing phase, were used in rearing phase. For this, 156 pullets and 39 cockerels were randomly picked from 18 treatment block groups. Birds were fed with commercial diet (CP 15%, ME 2750 Kcal / Kg) and evaluated for blood biochemical profile and antibody responses. At 27 weeks of age, 180 birds comprising 48 pullets and 12 cockerels from each of 3 crossbreds were used in rearing phase. For production phase, 144 pullets and 36 cockerels were randomly picked from 18 treatment block groups were shifted to laying cages or breeding copes, allotting 4 pullets to one cockerel. Pan mating system was practiced followed to obtain fertile eggs.

5.3.3 Free Range, Semi intensive and Intensive System

68

EXPERIMENT NO. 3All the experimental birds were individually tagged and maintained in open sided shed (6.1m L × 6.1m W × 3.66m H) oriented east to west. A patch of fertile land measuring (10m L × 2.99m W; stocking density = 0.23m2 / bird) located in front of the shed was used as range area. Seasonal leguminous and non-leguminous plants were grown in the range area. In the ranging area, two rows were made by using fishing nets (one for free range and other for semi intensive). Fresh ad libitum water was ensured through manual drinkers. For the protection of the birds 2.44 m high wire-mesh enclosure were installed which surrounds the range area.All the laying birds were kept at well ventilated poultry shed equipped with three-tier battery cage system having steep wire floor to facilitate egg collection (FACCO, Poultry Equipment-C3). Under the floor of cages, dropping belts was placed to collect the fecal material. Floor space of 2 sq. ft. was available to each bird.

5.3.4 Experimental RationsThe laying hens under free range feeding system were offered bunches of 100 g fodder comprising seasonal legumes, beans, herbs and shrubs of free range, twice a day, supplemented with layer breeder ration @ 25% of the standard scale. Birds in semi intensive housing system were offered the same bunch of 100 g fodders once a day and rest of the requirement was fulfilled by offering 50% feed of standard scale. The birds in intensive housing system were offered breeder layer diet as per recommendation of NRC (1994) and Leeson and Summers (2005) (Table 5.1, 5.2).

Table 5.1. Ingredient and nutrient composition of experimental ration.Feed Ingredient (%) Female formulation (%) Male formulation (%)Corn 42.61 39.4Corn Gluten (60%) 1 --SBM 15.62 10.45Wheat Bran 13 15.8Rice Tips 19 31DCP 1.2 0.70CaCO3 7.42 2.65DL-Methionine 0.15 --NutrientCrude Protein 15.04 13.13ME (Kcal/kg) 2682 2848Calcium 2.81 1.09Phosphorus 0.34 0.22Lysine 0.86 0.74Methionine 0.45 0.39

(Leeson and Summers 2005)

Table 5.2. Proximate analysis of legumes cultivated at range area. Proximate Analysis (%)

Mung(Vigna radiate L.)

Black Eyed Pea(Vigna

unguiculata L.)

French Peas(Phaseolus vulgaris L.)

Lucerne(Medicago sativa

L.)Dry Matter 18.60 12.12 10.12 18.20Crude Protein 18.04 26.84 30.80 22.50Crude Fiber 17.75 21.58 16.52 24.00Ether Extract 2.13 2.02 1.79 1.70Ash 9.40 12.26 15.16 12.40

5.3.5 Parameters StudiedEggs were collected on daily basis to calculate hen day production percent, egg weight (g) and egg mass (g) (Shafik et al. 2013). Eggs were stored at 13-15°C and 70-80% relative humidity for seven days, eggs were

69

EXPERIMENT NO. 3set in the Hatchery at Avian Research and Training Centre, UVAS, Lahore under standard condition (Victoria Inc.) for studying hatching results (hatchability, fertility, early and late embryonic mortality percent) as adopted by Adeleke et al. (2012).A total of 45 eggs, comprising 5 eggs per treatment group were subjected to egg morphomtery (shape index, surface area and volume) and quality traits (egg weight, Haugh unit score, yolk index and shell thickness) at the start and at the end of experiment. Egg morphometry and quality traits were calculated by the methods adopted by Gikunju et al. (2018).

5.3.6 Statistical AnalysisThe experiment was set up as a RCBD with the following model:Yijk = µ + βi + τj + (β × τ) ij + ϵijk

Where,Yijk = Observation of dependent variable recorded on jth Housing System in ith Blockµ = Overall population meanβi = Effect of ith Block (i = 1, 2, 3) τj = Effect of jth Housing System (j = 1, 2, 3) (β × τ) ij = Interaction between block and housing systemϵijk = Residual error of kth observation on jth treatment in ith block NID ~ 0, σ2

Collected data regarding productive performance, egg characteristic and hatching traits were analyzed by two-way ANOVA technique assuming genotypes and housing systems as adjusted effects. GLM procedures were used in SAS software, significant treatment means were separated through Tukey’s HSD test (Tukey, 1953) and differences were considered statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05.

5.4 Results5.4.1 Productive PerformanceProductive performance differed among housing systems, genotype and their interactions (Table 5.2, 5.3). Regarding genotypes, significant differences were observed regarding body weight at 26 weeks and 46 weeks, production percentage, egg weight and cumulative egg mass. BNN chickens had the highest body weight at 26 weeks followed by RNN and NN (P < 0.0001). At the age of 46 weeks, BNN chickens were heavier than RNN and NN (1679.74 vs. 1484.45, 1391.25g; P = 0.0025). Production percent was higher in BNN chickens followed by RNN and NN (P < 0.0001). RNN and BNN chicken had higher egg weight as compared to NN (53.16, 53.13 vs. 46.68g; P < 0.0001). Egg mass was higher in BNN chickens followed by RNN and NN (P < 0.0001).In terms of housing systems, birds reared under intensive housing system had the highest body weight at 26 (P < 0.0001) and 46 (P < 0.0001) weeks followed by semi-intensive and free-range systems. Production percent was higher in intensive birds than free-range and semi-intensive systems (59.70 vs. 57.80, 57.56%; P < 0.0001). Egg weight (P < 0.0001) and egg mass (P < 0.0001) were higher in intensive system followed by semi-intensive and free-range systems. Interactions were significant between genotypes and housing systems regarding body weight at 26 weeks (P < 0.0001), 46 weeks (P < 0.0001), production percent (P < 0.0001), egg weight (P < 0.0001) and egg mass (P = 0.0036).

5.4.2 Egg CharacteristicsEgg morphometry and quality traits of chicken genotypes and their interactions with housing system showed several differences (Table 5.4, 5.5, 5.6 & 5.7). At the start of the experiment (26 weeks), significant differences were observed regarding shape index, surface area, volume, egg weight, Haugh unit score and shell thickness among different genotypes. RNN and BNN chickens had the higher egg shape index (74.24, 73.98 vs. 71.91; P = 0.0002), egg surface area (58.24, 58.13 vs. 55.78cm2; P < 0.0001), egg volume (40.92, 40.81 vs. 38.37cm3; P < 0.0001), egg weight (44.82, 44.70 vs. 42.02g; P < 0.0001) and Haught unit score (78.84, 77.23 vs. 74.56; P = 0.0002) as compared to NN chicken’s egg. Shell thickness was higher in NN chicken’s egg than BNN (0.34 vs. 0.32mm; P = 0.0787). Interactions were significant between genotypes and housing systems regarding egg shape index (P = 0.0053), egg surface area (P = 0.0057), egg volume (P

70

EXPERIMENT NO. 3= 0.0060), egg weight (P = 0.0060) and Haugh unit score (P = 0.0060); however, different housing systems did not show any significant effect on egg characteristic. At the end of the experiment (46 weeks), significant differences were observed regarding egg surface area, egg volume, Haugh unit score, yolk index and shell thickness. BNN and RNN chicken’s egg had the higher egg surface area (65.12, 64.75 vs. 59.59cm2; P < 0.0001) and volume (48.36, 47.97 vs. 42.35cm3; P < 0.0001) as compared to NN. Egg weight (55.54, 52.97 vs. 46.39g; P < 0.0001), Haught unit score (82.44, 82.12 vs. 75.38; P < 0.0001) and yolk index (49.20, 48.00 vs. 37.47; P = 0.0004) were higher in RNN and BNN chickens than NN. Maximum shell thickness was observed in RNN chicken’s egg followed by BNN and NN (P < 0.0001). Interactions were significant between genotypes and housing systems regarding egg surface area (P = 0.0002), egg volume (P = 0.0003), egg weight (P = 0.0003), Haugh unit score (P < 0.0001), yolk index (P = 0.0044) and shell thickness (P = 0.0012); however, different housing systems did not show any significant effect on egg characteristic.

5.4.3 Hatching TraitsHatchability, fertility and infertile egg percent differed among housing systems, genotypes and their interactions whereas dead in shell percent differed among housing systems (Table 5.8, 5.9). Regarding genotypes, RNN chickens had the highest hatchability followed by BNN and NN (P < 0.0001). Higher fertility was observed in RNN and BNN chickens than NN (87.43, 86.69 vs. 81.74%; P < 0.0001). Lower infertile eggs were observed in RNN and BNN chickens than NN (12.57, 13.31 vs. 18.26%; P < 0.0001). In terms of housing systems, higher hatchability was noted in free-range birds followed by semi-intensive and intensive system (P < 0.0001). Free-range birds had the highest fertility than semi-intensive and intensive (88.42 vs. 84.71, 81.72 %; P < 0.0001). Lower infertile eggs were observed in free-range birds as compared to semi-intensive and intensive (7.50 vs. 15.29, 17.28%; P < 0.0001). Interactions were significant between genotypes and housing systems regarding hatchability (P < 0.0001), fertility (P < 0.0001) and infertile egg percent (P < 0.0001).

5.5 Discussion Present study assessed productive performance, egg quality and hatching traits of three chicken genotypes under different housing systems. Chickens with intensive system were heavier on week 26 and 46 and have better productive performance (higher egg weight, egg mass and egg rate) than those of semi intensive and free-range chickens. Improved productive performance of intensive birds might be due to ideal managemental conditions and low movement which stimulates the ability of birds to convert the feed into eggs. The most likely explanation of lower body weight of free-range chicken is because of higher activity and movement of birds in free range area and ultimately burnt more calories. The differences in productive potential corresponds to the findings of Rehman et al. (2016) who found improved productive performance of Indigenous Aseel chicken reared under confined and semi intensive systems. Similarly, Hameed et al. (2012) reported better productive performance of different broiler breeder strains under controlled housing system. BNN chickens were heavier on week 26 and 46 and showed better productive performance as compared to RNN and NN chickens. Higher productive potential of BNN chickens might be attributed to the combination of Black Australorp and Naked Neck genes made this bird a phenomenal egg layer and better acclimatization to local environmental conditions; as the Black Australorp is popular for its egg laying potential and Naked Neck for its adaptability in extreme weather conditions. This corresponds to the findings of Rehman et al. (2016) who found variation in productive performance among different varieties of Aseel chickens and reported higher egg production in Peshwari and Sindhi varieties. Although egg shape index was higher in RNN and BNN chickens than those of NN; however, at the end of the experiment (46 weeks), egg shape index did not differ among housing systems, genotypes and their interactions. Higher egg shape index of RNN and BNN chickens during early stages could be due to higher egg weight (~ 54 g) of both crossbreds as compared to Naked Neck chicken (~ 45g). This corresponds with Rehman et al. (2017) who studied that egg shape index did not differ among the birds reared under free-range, semi-intensive and confinement. However, variation exists among different varieties of Native Aseel chicken in Pakistan. Similar findings also reported variation in egg shape index of indigenous chicken and

71

EXPERIMENT NO. 3commercial laying hens, respectively (Rayan et al. 2010; Van Den Brand et al. 2004). In this study, RNN and BNN chickens were higher in terms of egg surface area and volume than those of NN chickens which might be due to higher egg weight and slightly elongated shape due to increase in long axis rather than short axis. This difference corresponds to the findings of Rehman et al. (2017) and Rayan et al. (2010) who found variation in egg surface area and volume among different varieties of Aseel chicken and different broiler breeder strains, respectively. It was further noted that brown egg laying broiler breeder had higher egg surface area and volume as compared to white egg producer. Similar studies reported variation in egg surface area among different breeds (Islam et al. 2010) and strains (Anderson et al. 2004) of chicken. Regarding Haugh unit score, RNN and BNN chickens scored higher meaning that their albumen quality was better than NN chickens. Improved albumen quality in RNN and BNN chickens could be due to their parental genes, as Rhode Island Red and Black Australorp inherit this quality from brown and black leghorn mothers, respectively. The findings of present study are in line with the findings of Dunga (2013) who found variation in Haugh Unit score between Naked Neck and Aseel chickens. However, contradictory study also reported non-significant difference among different chicken genotypes (Rajkumar et al. 2009). Initially, yolk index and shell thickness did not differ among housing system, genotype and their interactions. However, at the end of the experiment (46 weeks), higher yolk index and shell thickness was found in RNN and BNN chickens than those of NN. This corresponds to the findings of Rajkumar et al. (2009) who found that yolk index of Naked Neck chicken’s egg was lower than normal feathered chickens. Similarly, Dunga (2013) reported variation in yolk index between naked neck and frizzled chickens in India. However, numerous studies reported no significant differences among different chicken genotypes regarding shell thickness (Rehman et al. 2017; Dukic-Stojcic et al. 2009; Hocking et al. 2003).Fertility and hatchability were higher in free range chickens followed by semi intensive and intensive. Contradictory study also reported improved semen quality traits and ultimately better fertility in Botswana chicken genotypes under intensive housing system (Mothibedi et al. 2016). Regarding genotypes, RNN chicken had the highest fertility and hatchability. Furthermore, RNN and BNN chickens showed the minimum infertile eggs than NN chickens. This difference corresponds with Adeleke et al. (2012) who found variation in hatching traits between frizzled and normal feathered chickens where frizzled and normal feather chickens had 90.5 and 84.8% fertility, respectively. Similarly, Anak Titan and Naked Neck showed 80.1 and 76.7% hatchability, respectively. Naked neck chickens had highest dead in shells while Anak Titan had highest dead germs.

5.6 ConclusionsFree range and semi intensive system largely influence productive performance, egg quality and hatching traits. Regarding genotypes, RNN and BNN crossbred perform better than NN purebred. Hence, RNN and BNN chickens can be useful for rural poultry farmers and can be reared under semi-intensive or free-range housing systems.

5.7 AcknowledgementsThis study was financially supported by Pakistan Agricultural Research Council, ALP fund (Project No. AS-135).

5.8 References Adeleke MA, Peters SO, Ozoje MO, Ikeobi CON, Bamgbose AM, Adebambo OA. 2012. Effect of

crossbreeding on fertility, hatchability and embryonic mortality of Nigerian local chickens. Trop Anim Health Prod. 44: 505–510.

Anderson KE, Tharrington JB, Curtis PA, Jones FT. 2004. Shell characteristics of eggs from historic strains of single comb White Leghorn chickens and the relationship of egg shape to shell strength. Int J Poult Sci. 3: 17–19.

Bain MM. 2005. Recent advances in the assessment of egg shell quality and their future application. World’s Poult Sci J. 61: 268–277.

72

EXPERIMENT NO. 3Chen X, Jiang W, Tan HZ, Xu GF, Zhang XB, Wei S, Wang XQ. 2013. Effects of outdoor access on growth

performance, carcass composition, and meat characteristics of broiler chickens. Poult Sci. 92: 435–443.Dukic-Stojcic M, Peric L, Bjedov S, Milosevic N. 2009. The quality of table eggs produced in different

housing systems. Biotech Anim Husb. 25: 1103–1108.Dunga GT. 2013. The effect of the naked neck (Na) and frizzling genes on the fertility, hatchability, egg

quality and pterylosis of locally developed commercial layer parent lines. PhD. Thesis. Kwame Nkrumah Univ Sci Tech, Kumasi, Ghana.

Economic Survey of Pakistan. 2017-18. Agriculture, Chapter 2. III. Livestock and Poultry. b. Poultry. p. 29.Gikunju MM, Kabuage LW, Wachira AM, Oliech GW, Gicheha MG. 2018. Evaluation of pure breeds,

crossbreeds and indigenous chicken egg quality traits in Kenya. Livstk Res Rur Dev. 30: 170.Hameed T, Bajwa MA, Abbas F, Sahota AW, Tariq MM, Khan SH, Bokhari FA. 2012. Effect of housing

system on production performances of different broiler breeder strains. Pak J Zool. 44(6): 1683-1687.Hocking P, Bain M, Channing C, Fleming R, Wilson S. 2003. Genetic variation for egg production, egg

quality and bone strength in selected and traditional breeds of laying fowl. Brit Poult Sci. 44: 365–373.Iqbal A, Akram M, Sahota AW, Javed K, Hussain J, Sarfraz Z, Mehmood S. 2012. Laying

characteristics and egg geometry of four varieties of indigenous Aseel chicken in Pakistan. J Anim Plant Sci. 22(4): 848-852.

Islam SM, Dutta RK. 2010. Egg quality traits of indigenous, exotic and cross bred chickens ( Gallus domesticus L.) in Rajshahi, Bangladesh. J Life Earth Sci. 5: 63–67.

Lay Jr. DC, Fulton RM, Hester PY, Karcher DM, Kjaer JB, Mench JA, Mullens BA, Newberry RC, Nicol CJ, O'Sullivan NP, Porter RE. 2011. Hen welfare in different housingsystems: A Review. Poult Sci. 90(1): 278-294.

Leeson S, Summers JD. 2005. Commercial Poultry Nutrition. 3rd Ed. Nottingham University Press, Nottingham, England. p. 297-305.

Leinonen I, Williams AG, Kyriazakis I. 2014. The effects of welfare-enhancing systemchanges on the environmental impacts of broiler and egg production. Poult Sci. 93(2): 256-266.

Lemlem A, Tesfay Y. 2010. Performance of exotic and indigenous poultry breeds managed by smallholder farmers in northern Ethiopia. Livstk Res Rur Dev. 22(7).

Mothibedi K, Nsoso SJ, Waugh EE, Kgwatalala PM. 2016. Semen Characteristics of Purebred Naked Neck Tswana and Black Australorp × Naked Neck Tswana Crossbred Chickens under an Intensive Management System in Botswana. Am J Res Comm. 4(10): 38-47.

NRC. 1994. National Research Council. Nutrient Requirement Table of poultry. 9th Ed. Washington, D.C. National Academy Press.

Peters SO, Shoyebo OD, Ilori BM, Ozoje MO, Ikeobi CON, Adebambo OA. 2008. Semen quality traits of seven strains of chickens raised in the humid tropics. Int J Poult Sci. 7(10): 949–953.

Rajkumar U, Sharma RP, Rajaravindra KS, Niranjan M, Reddy BLN, Bhattacharya TK, Chatterjee RN. 2009. Effect of genotype and age on egg quality traits in Naked Neck chicken under tropical climate from India. Int J Poult Sci. 8: 1151–1155.

Rayan GN, Galal A, Fathi MM, ElAttar AH. 2010. Impact of layer breeder flock age and strainon mechanical and ultra-structural properties of eggshell in chicken. Int J Poult Sci. 9: 139–147.

Rehman MS, Mahmud A, Mehmood S, Pasha TN, Hussain J, Khan MT. 2017. Comparative evaluation of egg morphometry and quality in Aseel hens under different rearing systems. J Appl Poult Res. 26: 401–409.

Rehman MS, Mahmud A, Mehmood S, Pasha TN, Javed K, Hussain J, Khan MT. 2016. Production Performance of Aseel Chicken under Free Range, Semi intensive and Confinement Rearing Systems. J Anim Plant Sci. 26(6): 1589-1596.

Sadef S, Khan MS, Rehman MS. 2015. Indigenous chicken production in Punjab: A detailed survey through participatory rural appraisals. J Anim Plant Sci. 25: 1273–1282.

Sekeroglu A, Altuntas E. 2009. Effects of egg weight on egg quality characteristics. J Sci Food Agri. 89: 379–383.

73

EXPERIMENT NO. 3Shafik BMN, El-Bayomi KM, Sosa GA, Osman AMR. 2013. Effect of crossing Fayoumi and Rhode Island

Red on growth performance, egg and reproductive traits under Egyptian conditions. Benha Vet Med J. 24(2): 11-18.

Tukey JW. 1953. The problem of multiple comparisons. In: The Collected Works of John W. Tukey VIII. Multiple Comparisons. Chapman and Hall, New York.

Van Den Brand H, Parmentier HK, Kemp B. 2004. Effect of housing system (outdoor vs cages) and age of laying hens on egg characteristics. Brit Poult Sci. 45: 745–752.

74

75

Table 5.3. Effect of genotype and housing system on productive performance (26-46 weeks).1

Trait Genotype P-value Housing System P-valueRNN (n = 48) BNN (n = 48) NN (n = 48) FR (n = 48) SI (n = 48) I (n = 48)

BW 26wk 1228.36± 30.52 b

1366.66± 40.62a

1064.75± 30.63c <0.0001 1082.16

± 16.93c1215.59± 51.65b

1362.03± 30.77a <0.0001

BW 46wk 1484.45± 100.73b

1679.74± 99.35a

1391.25± 72.91b 0.0025 1171.86

± 31.19c1467.94± 34.74b

1915.64± 95.95a <0.0001

PR 60.21± 0.14b

60.71± 0.18a

54.13± 0.29c <0.0001 57.80

± 0.59b57.56

± 0.43b59.70

± 0.35a <0.0001

EW 53.16± 0.15a

53.13± 0.14a

46.68± 0.06b <0.0001 50.11

± 0.36c51.31

± 0.49b51.54

± 0.49a <0.0001

CEM 4.79± 0.02b

4.82± 0.02a

3.80± 0.02c <0.0001 4.35

± 0.07c4.44

± 0.07b4.62

± 0.07a <0.0001

Liv 99.98± 0.01

99.96± 0.01

99.97± 0.01 0.7898 99.98

± 0.0199.95± 0.02

99.98± 0.01 0.1141

a-c Means in a row with no common superscript differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05. 1Values are least square mean ± standard error. RNN = Rhode Island Red × Naked Neck; BNN = Black Australorp × Naked Neck; NN = Naked Neck; FR = Free Range; SI = Semi Intensive; I = Intensive; BW = Body Weight (g); wk = week; PR = Production %; EW = Egg Weight (g); CEM = Cumulative Egg Mass per bird (Kg); Liv= Livability %.

EX

PER

IME

NT N

O. 3

76

Table 5.4. Interaction effects (genotype × housing system) on productive performance (26-46 weeks)1.

Trait RNN BNN NN P-valueFR (n = 16) SI (n = 16) I (n = 16) FR (n = 16) SI (n = 16) I (n = 16) FR (n = 16) SI (n = 16) I (n = 16)

BW 26wk 1074.54± 15.55e

1251.15± 23.82c

1359.40± 20.60b

1163.73± 14.35d

1430.93± 53.39ab

1505.32± 29.37a

1008.22± 6.41ef

964.68± 40.90f

1221.36± 17.49cd <0.0001

BW 46wk 1157.92± 31.66ef

1369.80± 49.82de

1925.63± 192.6ab

1318.34± 32.14def

1606.50± 36.42cd

2114.37± 182.59a

1039.31± 6.60f

1427.51± 49.07cde

1706.92± 82.50bc <0.0001

PR 60.09± 0.15b

59.43± 0.15c

61.11± 0.23a

61.07± 0.20a

59.67± 0.29bc

61.40± 0.26a

52.24± 0.20f

53.57± 0.14e

56.60± 0.26d <0.0001

EW 51.81± 0.12b

53.74± 0.08a

53.92± 0.10a

51.87± 0.11b

53.66± 0.06a

53.85± 0.09a

46.65± 0.12cd

46.53± 0.06d

46.85± 0.10c <0.0001

CEM 4.67± 0.02c

4.77± 0.02b

4.92a

± 0.024.74

± 0.02b4.78

± 0.02b4.94

± 0.02a3.66

± 0.02f3.76

± 0.01e3.99

± 0.02d 0.0036

Liv 99.98± 0.01

99.96± 0.03

99.90± 0.01

99.97± 0.02

99.94± 0.04

99.98± 0.01

99.99± 0.01

99.95± 0.02

99.98± 0.02 0.7423

a-f Means in a row with no common superscript differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05.1Values are least square mean ± standard error. RNN = Rhode Island Red × Naked Neck; BNN = Black Australorp × Naked Neck; NN = Naked Neck; FR = Free Range; SI = Semi Intensive; I = Intensive; BW = Body Weight (g); wk = week; PR = Production %; EW = Egg Weight (g); CEM = Cumulative Egg Mass per bird (Kg); Liv= Livability %.

EX

PER

IME

NT N

O. 3

77

Table 5.5. Effect of genotype and housing system on egg characteristics at 26 weeks.1

Trait Genotype P-value Housing System P-valueRNN (n = 15) BNN (n = 15) NN (n = 15) FR (n = 15) SI (n = 15) I (n = 15)SI 74.24 ± 0.42a 73.98 ± 0.38a 71.91 ± 0.34b 0.0002 73.48 ± 0.39 73.33 ± 0.60 73.32 ± 0.39 0.9503SA 58.24 ± 0.42a 58.13 ± 0.36a 55.78 ± 0.35b <0.0001 57.55 ± 0.42 57.31 ± 0.45 57.28 ± 0.57 0.8667EV 40.92 ± 0.44a 40.81 ± 0.38a 38.37 ± 0.36b <0.0001 40.21 ± 0.43 39.95 ± 0.46 39.93 ± 0.60 0.8695EW 44.82 ± 0.48a 44.70 ± 0.41a 42.02 ± 0.40b <0.0001 44.04 ± 0.47 43.76 ± 0.51 43.74 ± 0.65 0.8702HU 78.84 ± 0.75a 77.23 ± 0.66a 74.56 ± 0.39b 0.0002 76.53 ± 0.78 76.93 ± 0.82 77.17 ± 0.72 0.7844YI 49.65 ± 1.14 50.00 ± 0.76 47.94 ± 0.23 0.1883 49.93 ± 0.98 49.42 ± 0.82 48.25 ± 0.59 0.3512ST 0.33 ± 0.01ab 0.32 ± 0.01b 0.34 ± 0.01a 0.0787 0.34 ± 0.01 0.33 ± 0.01 0.32 ± 0.01 0.0724

a-b Means in a row with no common superscript differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05. 1Values are least square mean ± standard error. RNN = Rhode Island Red × Naked Neck; BNN = Black Australorp × Naked Neck; NN = Naked Neck; FR = Free Range; SI = Semi Intensive; I = Intensive; SI = Shape Index; SA = Surface Area (cm2); EV = Egg Volume (cm3); EW = Egg Weight (g); HU = Haugh Unit Score; YI = Yolk Index; ST = Shell Thickness (mm).

EX

PER

IME

NT N

O. 3

78

Table 5.6. Interaction effects (genotype × housing system) on egg characteristics at 26 weeks1.

Trait RNN BNN NN P-valueFR (n = 5) SI (n = 5) I (n = 5) FR (n = 5) SI (n = 5) I (n = 5) FR (n = 5) SI (n = 5) I (n = 5)

SI 73.93± 0.26ab

75.17± 0.76a

73.63± 0.93ab

74.33± 0.69ab

73.52± 0.86ab

74.09± 0.44ab

72.27± 0.64bc

71.31± 0.80c

72.24± 0.19bc 0.0053

SA 58.49± 0.52a

58.28± 0.85a

57.94± 0.91ab

58.10± 0.60ab

57.65± 0.40ab

58.64± 0.84a

56.08± 0.59bc

55.99± 0.73bc

55.26± 0.58c 0.0057

EV 41.18± 0.54a

40.97± 0.89a

40.61± 0.94ab

40.77± 0.62ab

40.30± 0.42ab

41.34± 0.89a

38.67± 0.61bc

38.59± 0.74bc

37.84± 0.60c 0.0060

EW 45.10± 0.60a

44.87± 0.98a

44.48± 1.03ab

44.66± 0.68ab

44.15± 0.45ab

45.28± 0.97a

42.36± 0.67bc

42.26± 0.81bc

41.44± 0.65c 0.0060

HU 78.62± 1.63ab

79.16± 1.16a

78.75± 1.34ab

76.14± 1.24abcd

77.95± 0.93abc

77.60± 1.33abc

74.84± 0.63cd

73.69± 0.85d

75.15± 0.45bcd 0.0088

YI 49.75± 2.81

50.20± 2.29

49.00± 0.53

51.24± 1.16

50.40± 0.77

48.35± 1.73

48.79± 0.37

47.65± 0.24

47.39± 0.33 0.5937

ST 0.34± 0.01

0.32± 0.00

0.32± 0.01

0.34± 0.01

0.32± 0.01

0.31± 0.01

0.35± 0.01

0.34± 0.01

0.34± 0.02 0.1800

a-d Means in a row with no common superscript differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05.1Values are least square mean ± standard error. RNN = Rhode Island Red × Naked Neck; BNN = Black Australorp × Naked Neck; NN = Naked Neck; FR = Free Range; SI = Semi Intensive; I = Intensive; SI = Shape Index; SA = Surface Area (cm2); EV = Egg Volume (cm3); EW = Egg Weight (g); HU = Haugh Unit Score; YI = Yolk Index; ST = Shell Thickness (mm).

EX

PER

IME

NT N

O. 3

79

Table 5.7. Effect of genotype and housing system on egg characteristics at 46 weeks.1

Trait Genotype P-value Housing System P-valueRNN (n = 15) BNN (n = 15) NN (n = 15) FR (n = 15) SI (n = 15) I (n = 15)SI 77.10 ± 0.82 76.60 ± 1.07 74.21 ± 1.07 0.1067 75.47 ± 1.40 76.47 ± 0.77 75.98 ± 0.84 0.7798SA 64.75 ± 0.84a 65.12 ± 0.71a 59.59 ± 0.46b <0.0001 63.01 ± 0.85 63.17 ± 0.97 63.29 ± 1.06 0.9619EV 47.97 ± 0.93a 48.36 ± 0.78a 42.35 ± 0.48b <0.0001 46.06 ± 0.92 46.24 ± 1.06 46.38 ± 1.15 0.9566EW 55.54 + 1.01a 52.97 ± 0.85a 46.39 ± 0.53b <0.0001 50.45 ± 1.01 50.65 ± 1.16 50.80 ± 1.26 0.9563HU 82.44 ± 0.77a 82.12 ± 0.74a 75.38 ± 0.79b <0.0001 80.45 ± 1.22 80.12 ± 0.93 79.37 ± 1.28 0.6153YI 49.20 ± 2.72a 48.00 ± 1.90a 37.47 ± 1.51b 0.0004 43.00 ± 2.48 43.93 ± 2.15 47.73 ± 2.75 0.2384ST 0.35 ± 0.01a 0.32 ± 0.01b 0.28 ± 0.01c <0.0001 0.32 ± 0.01 0.33 ± 0.01 0.31 ± 0.01 0.2441

a-c Means in a row with no common superscript differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05. 1Values are least square mean ± standard error. RNN = Rhode Island Red × Naked Neck; BNN = Black Australorp × Naked Neck; NN = Naked Neck; FR = Free Range; SI = Semi Intensive; I = Intensive; SI = Shape Index; SA = Surface Area (cm2); EV = Egg Volume (cm3); EW = Egg Weight (g); HU = Haugh Unit Score; YI = Yolk Index; ST = Shell Thickness (mm).

EX

PER

IME

NT N

O. 3

80

Table 5.8. Interaction effects (genotype × housing system) on egg characteristics at 46 weeks1.

Trait RNN BNN NN P-valueFR (n = 5) SI (n = 5) I (n = 5) FR (n = 5) SI (n = 5) I (n = 5) FR (n = 5) SI (n = 5) I (n = 5)

SI 79.09± 1.66

76.17± 1.16

76.03± 1.19

72.25± 2.54

77.36± 0.61

77.20± 2.14

72.05± 2.27

75.87± 2.07

74.72± 0.76 0.2843

SA 63.79± 0.95a

65.80± 1.33a

64.67± 2.04a

65.91± 0.70a

63.75± 1.89a

65.70± 0.71a

59.32± 0.68b

59.96± 0.27b

59.49± 1.26b 0.0002

EV 46.89± 1.04a

49.12± 1.50a

47.90± 2.25a

49.22± 0.78a

46.88± 2.07a

48.99± 0.79a

42.07± 0.73b

42.73± 0.28b

42.26± 1.33b 0.0003

EW 51.36± 1.14a

53.80± 1.64a

52.47± 2.47a

53.91± 0.85a

51.35± 2.27a

53.66± 0.86a

46.07± 0.79b

46.81± 0.31b

46.29± 1.46b 0.0003

HU 82.49± 1.71a

81.75± 1.54a

83.07± 0.84a

83.49± 1.19a

81.92± 1.41a

80.95± 1.24a

75.36± 1.25b

76.70± 0.54b

74.09± 1.96b <0.0001

YI 50.40± 5.12a

44.00± 4.21abc

53.20± 4.76a

42.40± 1.75abc

48.80± 3.77ab

52.80± 2.62a

36.20± 3.18c

39.00± 2.17bc

37.20± 2.85c 0.0044

ST 0.36± 0.01a

0.37± 0.02a

0.32± 0.02abc

0.31± 0.02bc

0.34± 0.02ab

0.32± 0.01abc

0.28± 0.02c

0.29± 0.02bc

0.28± 0.01c 0.0012

a-c Means in a row with no common superscript differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05.1Values are least square mean ± standard error. RNN = Rhode Island Red × Naked Neck; BNN = Black Australorp × Naked Neck; NN = Naked Neck; FR = Free Range; SI = Semi Intensive; I = Intensive; SI = Shape Index; SA = Surface Area (cm2); EV = Egg Volume (cm3); EW = Egg Weight (g); HU = Haugh Unit Score; YI = Yolk Index; ST = Shell Thickness (mm).

EX

PER

IME

NT N

O. 3

81

Table 5.9. Effect of genotype and housing system on hatching traits.1

Trait (%) Genotype P-value Housing System P-valueRNN (n =15) BNN (n =15) NN (n =15) FR (n =15) SI (n =15) I (n =15)HP 71.57 ± 1.24a 69.24 ±1.37b 64.14 ± 1.27c <0.0001 73.61 ± 0.91a 67.28 ± 1.39b 64.07 ± 0.99c <0.0001FP 87.43 ± 0.69a 86.69 ± 0.90a 81.74 ± 1.30b <0.0001 88.42 ± 0.80a 84.71 ± 0.83b 81.72 ± 1.35b <0.0001IP 12.57 ± 0.69b 13.31 ± 0.90b 18.26 ± 1.30a <0.0001 11.58 ± 0.80b 15.29 ± 0.83a 17.28 ± 1.35a <0.0001DG 7.91 ± 0.45 8.45 ± 0.76 8.66 ± 0.64 0.6430 7.50 ± 0.50 8.28 ± 0.67 9.24 ± 0.63 0.1168DIS 7.94 ± 0.49 9.00 ± 0.84 8.94 ± 0.55 0.4154 7.31 ± 0.51b 9.16 ± 0.72a 9.41 ± 0.57a 0.0456

a-c Means in a row with no common superscript differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05. 1Values are least square mean ± standard error. RNN = Rhode Island Red × Naked Neck; BNN = Black Australorp × Naked Neck; NN = Naked Neck; FR = Free Range; SI = Semi Intensive; I = Intensive; HP = Hatchability Percent; FP = Fertility Percent; IP = Infertile Percent; DG = Dead Germ Percent; DIS = Dead in Shell Percent.

Table 5.10. Interaction effects (genotype × housing system) on hatching traits1.

Trait (%) RNN BNN NN P-valueFR (n =5) SI (n =5) I (n =5) FR (n =5) SI (n =5) I (n =5) FR (n =5) SI (n =5) I (n =5)

HP 77.29± 1.16a

69.08± 1.22c

68.35± 1.03c

73.43± 0.44b

70.60± 2.55bc

63.69± 0.75d

70.11± 0.85bc

62.16± 1.47d

60.16± 0.43d <0.0001

FP 90.23± 0.84a

86.46± 0.79ab

85.60± 0.81b

88.35± 1.93ab

86.37± 0.44ab

85.34± 1.87b

86.69± 0.89ab

81.31± 1.47c

77.23± 1.89d <0.0001

IP 9.77± 0.84d

13.54± 0.79cd

14.40± 0.81c

11.65± 1.93cd

13.63± 0.44cd

14.66± 1.87c

13.31± 0.89cd

18.69± 1.47b

22.77± 1.89a <0.0001

DG 6.62± 0.98

8.71± 0.32

8.41± 0.63

7.24± 0.95

6.98± 1.12

11.12± 1.09

8.65± 0.50

9.14± 1.64

8.19± 1.11 0.1017

DIS 6.32± 0.73

8.67± 0.86

8.84± 0.46

7.68± 1.10

8.78± 1.90

10.53± 1.28

7.94± 0.81

10.01± 0.88

8.87± 1.08 0.2643

a-d Means in a row with no common superscript differ significantly at P ≤ 0.05.1Values are least square mean ± standard error. RNN = Rhode Island Red × Naked Neck; BNN = Black Australorp × Naked Neck; NN = Naked Neck; FR = Free Range; SI = Semi Intensive; I = Intensive; HP = Hatchability Percent; FP = Fertility Percent; IP = Infertile Percent; DG = Dead Germ Percent; DIS = Dead in Shell Percent.

EX

PER

IME

NT N

O. 3

CHAPTER 6SUMMARY

All across the globe, indigenous chicken meat and eggs have a specific attraction and are appreciated because of their texture and taste despite often higher prices comparison to meat and eggs from commercial broilers and layers. The difference in price may be 100% or higher even than in countries like Pakistan, but the overall share of rural poultry in total egg production is 27% out of which majority is used by rural folks for their domestic use as well as sold to the nearby markets. Hence, backyard type poultry play an important role especially in terms of ensuring family nutritional status and overall household economics. From chicken breeding point of view, most of the backyard type chicken breeds are developed with the main focus to perform in the lowest input systems. But, the performance indicators in terms of body weight, weight gain, egg production, fertility and hatchability are always set with reference to the highest input systems that may be defined as the intensive production system. The birds bred and reared under intensive production system may not exhibit the same performance in actual backyard type / free range production system. The expression of normal behavioral patterns with the insurance of the bird welfare in intensive production systems adds to uncertainty. Another important factor to be considered in any animal breeding and production plan is the phenomenon of global warming and Pakistan is among the countries under the highest level of threat. Such situation calls for continuous efforts to develop certain chicken genotypes with the ability to survive and perform better in least input systems under the worst environmental conditions. Some indigenous chickens have proved to have higher number of eggs laid per clutch per year than commercial ones under harsh environmental and managemental conditions. It is, therefore, important to evaluate different chicken genotypes under different production systems. Thus, in the present study we hypothesized that different chicken genotypes perform differently under alternative production systems (free range, semi intensive and intensive housing system). The aim of study was to evaluate the performance of three chicken genotypes under free range, semi intensive and intensive housing systems. Statistical analysis revealed that RNN and BNN genotypes had better growth performance, morphological and carcass traits and had more pronounced explorative behaviors under semi intensive and free-range systems. Overall, housing system did not show any significant impact on morphometric traits, and serum chemistry. However, body weight, body and keel length, blood glucose, cholesterol and antibody response against ND and IB differed significantly among different housing systems. Free range and semi intensive systems positively influenced productive performance, especially, egg quality and hatching traits. Regarding genotypes, RNN and BNN crossbreds performed better in terms of productive performance, egg characteristics and hatching traits than NN purebred. Hence, these crossbred chicken genotypes can be used to revive the backyard type poultry in rural areas of Pakistan. It is further suggested that rearing indigenous chickens in semi intensive system is better choice to gain improved performance of the birds in terms of growth, behavior, welfare, production, reproduction and adaptability.

82