Review on Phenotypic Characterization of Indigenous Chicken and Farmer Breeding Trait Preference Ecotypes in Sekela Woreda, Northern Ethiopia

Bekele Kindie; Chala Tamiru

doi:doi:10.11648/j.bio.20210902.13

| Peer-Reviewed

Review on Phenotypic Characterization of Indigenous Chicken and Farmer Breeding Trait Preference Ecotypes in Sekela Woreda, Northern Ethiopia

Bekele Kindie, Chala Tamiru

Published in American Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering (Volume 9, Issue 2)

Received: 13 March 2021 Accepted: 9 April 2021 Published: 26 April 2021

Views: Downloads:

Download PDF

Share This Article

Twitter
Linked In
Facebook

Abstract

This study was conducted in Sekela woreda in Surba Bifeta and Gisha Abay kebeles to characterize chickens phenotypically. A total of 226 chicken owner households were selected randomly. Ten qualitative traits from 446 local chickens and eleven quantitative traits from 48 local chickens were used. The overall predominant plumage color of chicken in the study area were red (34.4%) followed by gray mixture (17.7%) and brownish (17.3%). The commonest comb color observed was red color combs. The majority of chickens possessed comb shape was double shape (44.6%), followed by single (38.8%) comb shape. Double comb shape was predominant in male chicken in Surba Bifeta than Gish Abay Sekela. The result indicated that crest head shape were the common predominant observed head shape in Surba Bifeta both female (40.5%) and male (32.8%). while flat plain head shape were highest proportion observed in Gish Abay both female (86.5%) and male (91.2%), thus there was significancely (p<0.05) differences in head shape between the study area. The overall predominant earlobe color was red (36.1%) followed by red and white (34.3%). Almost all chickens (91.6%) of the study area were not having spurred. The spurs were more proportion observed in male chickens similarly in both study rather than female chickens. The predominant observed eye coloration was orange color in both study area. The most observed predominant feather distributions were normal feathered. The most predominant observed shank color was white (44.2%) followed by yellow (28.5%). Almost all chicken in the study area had no Shank feathers. The plumage color, comb type, sex of chicken, shank color, smoothness of shank, and body size were the major factors that cause vary in the price of chickens. The selection criteria of farmers’ used to breeding hen, egg size, plumage color, broodiness, disease resistance and hatchability was the highest selection criteria and ranking. The quantitative traits were indicated the significance differences (P<0.05) were observed between agro ecology with respect to wing spin (17.61), neck length (18.72), spur length (8.42), chest circumferences (28.3), body length (19.66), wing length (22.51), and shank length (11.47), But not significance differences were observed on the body weights (2.36), wattle length (2.33), thigh circumferences (11.40) and breast width (13.09) traits.

Published in	American Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering (Volume 9, Issue 2)
DOI	10.11648/j.bio.20210902.13
Page(s)	49-59
Creative Commons	This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright	Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Science Publishing Group

Keywords

Chicken Ecotype, Quantitative Trait, Qualitative Trait, Farmers Trait Preference, Selection and Ranking

References

[1]	Addisu Hailu. (2013). Phenotypic Characterization of Indigenous Chicken Ecotypes in North Wollo, MSc. Thesis, Bahir Dar university, Amhara Regional, Ethiopia.
[2]	Arsham H. (2002). Descriptive Sampling Data Analysis. Statistical Thinking for Managerial Decision Making Retrieved from: http://ubmail.ubalt.edu/hasham/.
[3]	Badubi, S. S. and Marumo, M. (2006). Morphological characteristics and feed Resources available for indigenous chickens in Botswana. Livestock Res. Rural Dev. 18 (1).
[4]	Bhuiyan A. K. F. H., Bhuiyan M. S. A. and Deb G. K. (2005). Indigenous chicken genetic resources in Bangladesh: Current status and future outlook. AnGRs information. Rome, Italy.
[5]	Bogale Kibret. (2008). In situ characterization of local chicken eco-type for functional traits and Production system in Fogera District, Amhara Regional, Ethiopia. Pp. 123.
[6]	Daikwo I. S. and Ocheja J. O. (2011). Phenotypic Characterization of local chicken in Dekina International Journal of poultry science, 10 (6): 444-447.
[7]	Dana Almekinders, T. and van Arendonk A. M. J. (2010). Morphological Fetures of indigenous chicken populations of Ethiopia. Anim. Genet. Resour. 46: 11–23.
[8]	Desalew Azege., Singh H., Ashenefi M. and Tadelle Dessie, (2013). Study on marketing systems of village chicken in Shewa, Ethiopia. African Journal on Agric. Research, 8 (22): 2696-2702.
[9]	Duguma Rebuma, (2006). Phenotypic characterization of some indigenous chicken ecotypes of Ethiopia. Livest. Res. Rural Dev. 18 (9).
[10]	Egahi, J. O. and Gwaza, D. S. (2010). Variations in qualitative traits in the Nigerian local chicken. Int. J. Poultry Sci. 9 (10): 978–979.
[11]	Ensminger E. M. (1992). Poultry Science: Animal Agriculture Series. 3rd edition, Interstate Publishers, Inc. Denville, Illinois, pp 65-93.
[12]	FAO. (2012). Draft guidelines on phenotypic characterization of animal genetic resources, Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, 13th Regular Session.
[13]	Faruque, S., Siddiquee, N. U. and Islam, M. S. (2010). Phenotypic characterization of Native Chicken reared under intensive management system. J. Bangladesh Agric. Univ. 8 (1): 79–82.
[14]	Fisseha Moges, Tegegne Negesse. And Tadelle Dessie, (2010). Indigenous chicken production and marketing Systems in Ethiopia: Characteristics and opportunities of market -oriented Development. IPMS (Improving Productivity and Market Success) of Ethiopian Farmers Project Working Paper 24. Nairobi, Kenya, ILRI.
[15]	Griffin, A. M., Renema, R. A. and Zuidhof, M. J. (2005). The influence of rearing light period and the use of broiler or broiler breeder diets on 42-day body weight, fleshing and flock uniformity in broiler stocks. J. Appl. Poultry Res. 14: 204–216.
[16]	Hailu Addisu, Wuletaw Zewudu, Mazengia Hailu, (2014). Breeding practice and objective of indigenous chicken in North Wollo Zone, Amhara regional state, Ethiopia. International Journal of Livestock Production.
[17]	Halima Hassen, Neser, F. W. C. and deKock, A. (2007). Phenotypic variation of indigenous chicken populations in northwest Ethiopia. Trop. Anim. Health Product. 39: 507–513.
[18]	Khandait V., Gawande S. and Dhenge S. (2011). Adoption Level and Constraints in Backyard Poultry Rearing Practices at Bhandara District of Maharashtra (India). Res. J. Agri. Sci., 2 (1): 110-113.
[19]	Markos Shishay, (2014). Marketing and Price Determinant Factors of Village Chicken Products: The Case of Western Zone of Tigray. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare 4, no. 25: 152-161.
[20]	Mcainsh, C. V., Kusina, J. and Nyoni, O. (2004). Traditional chicken production in Zimbabwe. World's Poultry Sci. 60: 233–246.
[21]	Moges mihrete, Abera Melesse. And Tadelle Dessie, (2010). Assessment village chicken production system, evaluation of the productive and reproductive performance in Bure district, Ethiopia. African J. Agri. Res. 5 (13): 1739-1748.
[22]	Moges Mihrete, and Tadelle Dessie, (2010). Indigenous chicken production and marketing systems Characteristics and opportunities for market-oriented development. IPMS of Ethiopian Farmers Project Working Paper 24. Nairobi, Kenya, ILRI.
[23]	Msoffe, P. L. M., and Mtambo, M. M. A. (2001). Phenotypes including immune competence in scavenging Local chicken ecotypes in Tanzania. Trop. Anim. Health Product. 33: 341–354.
[24]	Muchadeyi, F. C., Wollny, C. B. A. and Simianer, H. (2007). Variation in village chicken production systems among agro-ecological zones of Zimbabwe. Tropical animal health and production, 39 (6), 453-461.
[25]	Musa, L. M-A. And Ahmed, M-K. A. (2006). On farm characterization of Butana and Kenana cattle breed production systems in Sudan. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 18: 56-61.
[26]	Nigussie, Dana, Tadelle Dessie and van Arendonk, J. (2010). Morphological features of indigenous chicken populations of Ethiopia. Animal Genetic Resource Information Journal, 46: 11-23.
[27]	Nigussie Dana, (2011). Breeding programs for indigenous chicken: analysis of diversity in production systems and chicken populations in Ethiopia. PhD thesis, Wageningen University. Pp. 148, December, 9-13, 1997.
[28]	Nesheim, C. M., Austic, E. R. and Card, E. L. (1979). Poultry production. 12th end, Philadelphia, PA, Lea and Febiger, pp. 58–92.
[29]	Reta Teklewold. (2009). Understanding the role of indigenous chickens during the long walk to food Security in Ethiopia. Red, 19: (9), 21-5.
[30]	Soelkner J, Nakimbugwe H and Zarate A V. (1998). Analysis of determinants for success and Failure of village breeding programmers’. In Proceedings of the Sixth World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Australia. 25: 273-280.
[31]	SPSS. (2010). Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS 16.0 for windows, release 16.0.
[32]	Tadelle Dessie, and Ogle, B. (2001). Village poultry production system in the central high lands of Ethiopia. Tropical Animal health and production, 33: 521-537.
[33]	Teketel Forsido, (1986). Studies on the meat production potential of some local strains of chickens in Ethiopia. J. L. University of Geissen, Geissen, Germany. 186 pp.
[34]	Weigend, S. & Romanov, M. N. (2001). Current strategies for the assessment and evaluation of genetic diversity in chicken resources. World Poultry Sci. J. 57: 275–287.

Cite This Article

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Bekele Kindie, Chala Tamiru. (2021). Review on Phenotypic Characterization of Indigenous Chicken and Farmer Breeding Trait Preference Ecotypes in Sekela Woreda, Northern Ethiopia. American Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, 9(2), 49-59. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.bio.20210902.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Bekele Kindie; Chala Tamiru. Review on Phenotypic Characterization of Indigenous Chicken and Farmer Breeding Trait Preference Ecotypes in Sekela Woreda, Northern Ethiopia. Am. J. BioSci. Bioeng. 2021, 9(2), 49-59. doi: 10.11648/j.bio.20210902.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Bekele Kindie, Chala Tamiru. Review on Phenotypic Characterization of Indigenous Chicken and Farmer Breeding Trait Preference Ecotypes in Sekela Woreda, Northern Ethiopia. Am J BioSci Bioeng. 2021;9(2):49-59. doi: 10.11648/j.bio.20210902.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.bio.20210902.13,
  author = {Bekele Kindie and Chala Tamiru},
  title = {Review on Phenotypic Characterization of Indigenous Chicken and Farmer Breeding Trait Preference Ecotypes in Sekela Woreda, Northern Ethiopia},
  journal = {American Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering},
  volume = {9},
  number = {2},
  pages = {49-59},
  doi = {10.11648/j.bio.20210902.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.bio.20210902.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.bio.20210902.13},
  abstract = {This study was conducted in Sekela woreda in Surba Bifeta and Gisha Abay kebeles to characterize chickens phenotypically. A total of 226 chicken owner households were selected randomly. Ten qualitative traits from 446 local chickens and eleven quantitative traits from 48 local chickens were used. The overall predominant plumage color of chicken in the study area were red (34.4%) followed by gray mixture (17.7%) and brownish (17.3%). The commonest comb color observed was red color combs. The majority of chickens possessed comb shape was double shape (44.6%), followed by single (38.8%) comb shape. Double comb shape was predominant in male chicken in Surba Bifeta than Gish Abay Sekela. The result indicated that crest head shape were the common predominant observed head shape in Surba Bifeta both female (40.5%) and male (32.8%). while flat plain head shape were highest proportion observed in Gish Abay both female (86.5%) and male (91.2%), thus there was significancely (p<0.05) differences in head shape between the study area. The overall predominant earlobe color was red (36.1%) followed by red and white (34.3%). Almost all chickens (91.6%) of the study area were not having spurred. The spurs were more proportion observed in male chickens similarly in both study rather than female chickens. The predominant observed eye coloration was orange color in both study area. The most observed predominant feather distributions were normal feathered. The most predominant observed shank color was white (44.2%) followed by yellow (28.5%). Almost all chicken in the study area had no Shank feathers. The plumage color, comb type, sex of chicken, shank color, smoothness of shank, and body size were the major factors that cause vary in the price of chickens. The selection criteria of farmers’ used to breeding hen, egg size, plumage color, broodiness, disease resistance and hatchability was the highest selection criteria and ranking. The quantitative traits were indicated the significance differences (P<0.05) were observed between agro ecology with respect to wing spin (17.61), neck length (18.72), spur length (8.42), chest circumferences (28.3), body length (19.66), wing length (22.51), and shank length (11.47), But not significance differences were observed on the body weights (2.36), wattle length (2.33), thigh circumferences (11.40) and breast width (13.09) traits.},
 year = {2021}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Review on Phenotypic Characterization of Indigenous Chicken and Farmer Breeding Trait Preference Ecotypes in Sekela Woreda, Northern Ethiopia
AU  - Bekele Kindie
AU  - Chala Tamiru
Y1  - 2021/04/26
PY  - 2021
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.bio.20210902.13
DO  - 10.11648/j.bio.20210902.13
T2  - American Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering
JF  - American Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering
JO  - American Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering
SP  - 49
EP  - 59
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2328-5893
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.bio.20210902.13
AB  - This study was conducted in Sekela woreda in Surba Bifeta and Gisha Abay kebeles to characterize chickens phenotypically. A total of 226 chicken owner households were selected randomly. Ten qualitative traits from 446 local chickens and eleven quantitative traits from 48 local chickens were used. The overall predominant plumage color of chicken in the study area were red (34.4%) followed by gray mixture (17.7%) and brownish (17.3%). The commonest comb color observed was red color combs. The majority of chickens possessed comb shape was double shape (44.6%), followed by single (38.8%) comb shape. Double comb shape was predominant in male chicken in Surba Bifeta than Gish Abay Sekela. The result indicated that crest head shape were the common predominant observed head shape in Surba Bifeta both female (40.5%) and male (32.8%). while flat plain head shape were highest proportion observed in Gish Abay both female (86.5%) and male (91.2%), thus there was significancely (p<0.05) differences in head shape between the study area. The overall predominant earlobe color was red (36.1%) followed by red and white (34.3%). Almost all chickens (91.6%) of the study area were not having spurred. The spurs were more proportion observed in male chickens similarly in both study rather than female chickens. The predominant observed eye coloration was orange color in both study area. The most observed predominant feather distributions were normal feathered. The most predominant observed shank color was white (44.2%) followed by yellow (28.5%). Almost all chicken in the study area had no Shank feathers. The plumage color, comb type, sex of chicken, shank color, smoothness of shank, and body size were the major factors that cause vary in the price of chickens. The selection criteria of farmers’ used to breeding hen, egg size, plumage color, broodiness, disease resistance and hatchability was the highest selection criteria and ranking. The quantitative traits were indicated the significance differences (P<0.05) were observed between agro ecology with respect to wing spin (17.61), neck length (18.72), spur length (8.42), chest circumferences (28.3), body length (19.66), wing length (22.51), and shank length (11.47), But not significance differences were observed on the body weights (2.36), wattle length (2.33), thigh circumferences (11.40) and breast width (13.09) traits.
VL  - 9
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download

Author Information

Bekele Kindie

Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute (EBI), Harar Biodiversity Center (HBC), Harar, Ethiopia
Chala Tamiru

Ethiopian Biodiversity Institute (EBI), Harar Biodiversity Center (HBC), Harar, Ethiopia

Download PDF

Sections

Plain Text BibTeX RIS

APA Style

Bekele Kindie, Chala Tamiru. (2021). Review on Phenotypic Characterization of Indigenous Chicken and Farmer Breeding Trait Preference Ecotypes in Sekela Woreda, Northern Ethiopia. American Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering, 9(2), 49-59. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.bio.20210902.13

Copy | Download

ACS Style

Bekele Kindie; Chala Tamiru. Review on Phenotypic Characterization of Indigenous Chicken and Farmer Breeding Trait Preference Ecotypes in Sekela Woreda, Northern Ethiopia. Am. J. BioSci. Bioeng. 2021, 9(2), 49-59. doi: 10.11648/j.bio.20210902.13

Copy | Download

AMA Style

Bekele Kindie, Chala Tamiru. Review on Phenotypic Characterization of Indigenous Chicken and Farmer Breeding Trait Preference Ecotypes in Sekela Woreda, Northern Ethiopia. Am J BioSci Bioeng. 2021;9(2):49-59. doi: 10.11648/j.bio.20210902.13

Copy | Download

@article{10.11648/j.bio.20210902.13,
  author = {Bekele Kindie and Chala Tamiru},
  title = {Review on Phenotypic Characterization of Indigenous Chicken and Farmer Breeding Trait Preference Ecotypes in Sekela Woreda, Northern Ethiopia},
  journal = {American Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering},
  volume = {9},
  number = {2},
  pages = {49-59},
  doi = {10.11648/j.bio.20210902.13},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.bio.20210902.13},
  eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.bio.20210902.13},
  abstract = {This study was conducted in Sekela woreda in Surba Bifeta and Gisha Abay kebeles to characterize chickens phenotypically. A total of 226 chicken owner households were selected randomly. Ten qualitative traits from 446 local chickens and eleven quantitative traits from 48 local chickens were used. The overall predominant plumage color of chicken in the study area were red (34.4%) followed by gray mixture (17.7%) and brownish (17.3%). The commonest comb color observed was red color combs. The majority of chickens possessed comb shape was double shape (44.6%), followed by single (38.8%) comb shape. Double comb shape was predominant in male chicken in Surba Bifeta than Gish Abay Sekela. The result indicated that crest head shape were the common predominant observed head shape in Surba Bifeta both female (40.5%) and male (32.8%). while flat plain head shape were highest proportion observed in Gish Abay both female (86.5%) and male (91.2%), thus there was significancely (p<0.05) differences in head shape between the study area. The overall predominant earlobe color was red (36.1%) followed by red and white (34.3%). Almost all chickens (91.6%) of the study area were not having spurred. The spurs were more proportion observed in male chickens similarly in both study rather than female chickens. The predominant observed eye coloration was orange color in both study area. The most observed predominant feather distributions were normal feathered. The most predominant observed shank color was white (44.2%) followed by yellow (28.5%). Almost all chicken in the study area had no Shank feathers. The plumage color, comb type, sex of chicken, shank color, smoothness of shank, and body size were the major factors that cause vary in the price of chickens. The selection criteria of farmers’ used to breeding hen, egg size, plumage color, broodiness, disease resistance and hatchability was the highest selection criteria and ranking. The quantitative traits were indicated the significance differences (P<0.05) were observed between agro ecology with respect to wing spin (17.61), neck length (18.72), spur length (8.42), chest circumferences (28.3), body length (19.66), wing length (22.51), and shank length (11.47), But not significance differences were observed on the body weights (2.36), wattle length (2.33), thigh circumferences (11.40) and breast width (13.09) traits.},
 year = {2021}
}

Copy | Download

TY  - JOUR
T1  - Review on Phenotypic Characterization of Indigenous Chicken and Farmer Breeding Trait Preference Ecotypes in Sekela Woreda, Northern Ethiopia
AU  - Bekele Kindie
AU  - Chala Tamiru
Y1  - 2021/04/26
PY  - 2021
N1  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.bio.20210902.13
DO  - 10.11648/j.bio.20210902.13
T2  - American Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering
JF  - American Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering
JO  - American Journal of Bioscience and Bioengineering
SP  - 49
EP  - 59
PB  - Science Publishing Group
SN  - 2328-5893
UR  - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.bio.20210902.13
AB  - This study was conducted in Sekela woreda in Surba Bifeta and Gisha Abay kebeles to characterize chickens phenotypically. A total of 226 chicken owner households were selected randomly. Ten qualitative traits from 446 local chickens and eleven quantitative traits from 48 local chickens were used. The overall predominant plumage color of chicken in the study area were red (34.4%) followed by gray mixture (17.7%) and brownish (17.3%). The commonest comb color observed was red color combs. The majority of chickens possessed comb shape was double shape (44.6%), followed by single (38.8%) comb shape. Double comb shape was predominant in male chicken in Surba Bifeta than Gish Abay Sekela. The result indicated that crest head shape were the common predominant observed head shape in Surba Bifeta both female (40.5%) and male (32.8%). while flat plain head shape were highest proportion observed in Gish Abay both female (86.5%) and male (91.2%), thus there was significancely (p<0.05) differences in head shape between the study area. The overall predominant earlobe color was red (36.1%) followed by red and white (34.3%). Almost all chickens (91.6%) of the study area were not having spurred. The spurs were more proportion observed in male chickens similarly in both study rather than female chickens. The predominant observed eye coloration was orange color in both study area. The most observed predominant feather distributions were normal feathered. The most predominant observed shank color was white (44.2%) followed by yellow (28.5%). Almost all chicken in the study area had no Shank feathers. The plumage color, comb type, sex of chicken, shank color, smoothness of shank, and body size were the major factors that cause vary in the price of chickens. The selection criteria of farmers’ used to breeding hen, egg size, plumage color, broodiness, disease resistance and hatchability was the highest selection criteria and ranking. The quantitative traits were indicated the significance differences (P<0.05) were observed between agro ecology with respect to wing spin (17.61), neck length (18.72), spur length (8.42), chest circumferences (28.3), body length (19.66), wing length (22.51), and shank length (11.47), But not significance differences were observed on the body weights (2.36), wattle length (2.33), thigh circumferences (11.40) and breast width (13.09) traits.
VL  - 9
IS  - 2
ER  -

Copy | Download