Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:35:27.745Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morphological features of indigenous chicken populations of Ethiopia

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 May 2010

Nigussie Dana ,
Tadelle Dessie ,
Liesbeth H. van der Waaij  and
Johan A.M. van Arendonk
Nigussie Dana*
Affiliation:
Ethiopian Agricultural Research Institute, P.O. Box 32, Debre Zeit, Ethiopia Animal Breeding and Genomics Center, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands
Tadelle Dessie
Affiliation:
International Livestock Research Institute, P.O. Box 5689, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Liesbeth H. van der Waaij
Affiliation:
Adaptation Physiology Group, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands
Johan A.M. van Arendonk
Affiliation:
Animal Breeding and Genomics Center, Wageningen University, P.O. Box 338, 6700 AH, Wageningen, The Netherlands
*
Correspondence to: Nigussie Dana, Ethiopian Agricultural Research Institute, P.O. Box 32, Debre Zeit, Ethiopia. email: negussiedana@yahoo.com
Get access

Summary

This study describes the variations in the physical features and the useful attributes of different populations of indigenous chickens. Five populations of chickens in different regions of Ethiopia were studied based on 13 qualitative traits recorded for a total of 1 125 chickens. Additional measurements on quantitative traits (shank length and body weight) were also included. Descriptive statistics (nonparametric and F tests) were used to analyze the data. Each of the study populations possessed multiple variants of plumage colours and other physical features. However, white body plumage is one of the prominent features of Farta chickens and red is predominant in the other populations. Pea comb is the dominant comb type in all regions. Most of the chickens in the high altitude regions have yellow skin. The geographic distribution and frequency of naked neck chickens are generally small, and the available small proportion is found mainly in the low altitude regions. Males in all populations are heavier and taller than the females. Body weights range from 1 411 g (Konso) to 1 700 g (Horro) in adult males and from 1 011 g (Konso) to 1 517 g (Sheka) in females. Most of the morphological traits that were studied showed a very low level of associations with each other.

Résumé

Cette étude décrit les variations des caractéristiques physiques et les attributs utiles des différentes populations de poules indigènes. On a étudié cinq populations de poules dans des régions différentes de l'Ethiopie sur la base de 13 caractères qualitatifs enregistrés sur un total de 1125 poules. D'autres mensurations sur les caractères quantitatifs, sur la hauteur du jarret et sur le poids corporel ont été également incluses. Les statistiques descriptives, les tests non paramétriques et du rapport des variances (test F) ont été utilisés pour analyser les données. Chaque population étudiée avait des variants multiples de couleurs du plumage et d'autres caractéristiques physiques. Cependant, le plumage blanc du corps est une des caractéristiques proéminentes des poules Farta tandis que le rouge est prédominant dans les autres populations. La crête en pois est la crête dominante dans toutes les régions. La plupart des poules des régions à haute altitude ont la peau jaune. La distribution géographique et la fréquence des poules Naked Neck sont généralement faibles et la petite proportion disponible se trouve principalement dans les régions des plaines. Les mâles de toutes les populations sont plus lourds et plus grands que les femelles. Les poids corporels variaient entre 1411 (Konso) et 1700 grammes par oiseau (Horro) pour les mâles adultes et entre 1011 (Konso) et 1517 grammes par oiseau (Sheka) pour les femelles. La plupart des caractères morphologiques étudiés indiquaient un niveau très faible d'association des uns avec les autres.

Resumen

Este estudio describe las variaciones en relación a características físicas y atributos útiles de diferentes poblaciones de gallinas locales. Se estudiaron cinco poblaciones de gallinas de distintas regiones de Etiopía, partiendo de 13 rasgos cualitativos recogidos sobre un total de 1.125 gallinas. También se incluyeron medidas adicionales sobre rasgos cuantitativos, como la longitud del tarso y la longitud del cuerpo. Descriptivos estadísticos, no paramétricos y pruebas F, fueron utilizados para el análisis de datos. Cada población estudiada poseía múltiples diferencias en cuanto al color del plumaje y a otras características físicas. Sin embargo, el plumaje de color blanco es una de las características más destacadas de las gallinas Farta, mientras que el color rojo es predominante en otras poblaciones. La cresta tipo guisante es la más común en todas las regiones. La mayor parte de las gallinas de las zonas de mayor altitud poseen la piel de color amarillo. La distribución geográfica y la frecuencia de gallinas de cuello desnudo es generalmente baja. Asimismo, es importante destacar que la menor proporción disponible para este tipo de gallinas se halla principalmente en las regiones de baja altitud. Los machos de todas las poblaciones son más pesados y poseen mayor talla que las hembras. Los pesos corporales variaron desde 1.411 (Konso) hasta 1.700 gr./ave (Horro) en machos adultos, y desde 1.011 (Konso) a 1.517 gr./ave (Sheka) en hembras. La mayor parte de los rasgos morfológicos estudiados demostraron estar poco relacionados con otros.

Keywords

indigenous chickensmorphological characterspoules indigènescaractères morphologiquesgallinas localescaracteres morfológicos
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Genetic Resources/Resources génétiques animales/Recursos genéticos animales , Volume 46 , April 2010 , pp. 11 - 23
Copyright
Copyright © Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aklilu, H.A. 2007. Village poultry in Ethiopia: socio-technical analysis and learning with farmers. Wageningen University, Wageningen, The Netherlands. 178 pp. (Ph.D. thesis)Google Scholar
Alemu, Y. 1995. Poultry production in Ethiopia. World Poult. Sci. J., 51: 197–201.Google Scholar
Badubi, S.S., Rakereng, M. & Marumo, M. 2006. Morphological characteristics and feed resources available for indigenous chickens in Botswana. CIPAV, Columbia, Livestock Research for Rural Development (available at http://www.cipav.org.co/).Google Scholar
Bhuiyan, A.K.F.H., Bhuiyan, M.S.A. & Deb, G.K. 2005. Indigenous chicken genetic resources in Bangladesh: current status and future outlook. Anim. Genet. Resour. Info., 36: 73–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brannang, E. & Pearson, S. 1990. Ethiopia animal husbandry. Uppsala, Sweden, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences. 127 pp.Google Scholar
Central Agricultural Census Commission. 2003. Statistical report on farm management practices, livestock and farm managements. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 420 pp.Google Scholar
Central Statistics Authority. 2005. Report of 2004–2005. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. 365 pp.Google Scholar
Crawford, R.D. 1990. Origin and history of poultry species. Poultry genetic resources: evolution, diversity, and conservation. In Crawford, R.D., ed. Poultry breeding and genetics, pp. 1–59, Amsterdam, Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Domestic Animal Genetic Resources Information System. 2008. International Livestock Research Institute, Nairobi (available at http://dagris.ilri.cgiar.org/).Google Scholar
Eriksson, J., Larsen, G., Gunnarsson, U., Bed'hom, B., Tixier-Boichard, M., Stromstedt, L., Wright, D., Jungerius, A., Vereijken, A., Randi, E., Jensen, P. & Andersson, L. 2007. Identification of the yellow skin gene reveals the hybrid origin of domestic fowl. PLoS Genet., 4(2): e1000010 (doi:10.1371/journal.pgen.1000010).Google Scholar
FAO. 1986. Animal genetic resources data banks: descriptor lists for poultry. Animal Production and Health Paper 59/3, pp. 13–27. Rome.Google Scholar
FAO. 2000. Production year book. Rome.Google Scholar
FAO. 2008. Domestic animal diversity information system. Rome (available at http://www.fao.org/dad-is/).Google Scholar
Gueye, E.F. 1998. Village egg and fowl meat production in Africa. World Poult. Sci. J., 54: 73–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halima, H., Neser, F.W.C. & vanMarle-Koster, E. 2007a. Village based indigenous chicken production system in north-west Ethiopia. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 39: 189–197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Halima, H., Neser, F.W.C., vanMarle-Koster, E. & deKock, A. 2007b. Phenotypic variation of indigenous chicken populations in northwest Ethiopia. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 39: 507–513.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Horst, P. 1989. Native fowls as reservoir for genomes and major genes with direct and indirect effect on the adaptability and their potential for tropically oriented breeding plans. Arch. Geflugel., 53(3): 93–101.Google Scholar
International Food Policy Research Institute & Central Statistical Agency. 2006. Atlas of the Ethiopian rural economy [CD-ROM]. Washington, DC, and Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.Google Scholar
Jiang, X. 1999. Broiler breeding: breeding goals, selection schemes and the usefulness of local breeds of China. Wageningen, The Netherlands, Wageningen University. 185 pp. (Ph.D. thesis)Google Scholar
Leulseged, Y. 1998. Study on production systems of indigenous and improved poultry in rural areas of North Wollo. Alemaya, Ethiopia, Alemaya University of Agriculture. 102 pp. (M.Sc. thesis)Google Scholar
Mebratu, G.Y. 1997. Experiences from an FAO poultry development project in Ethiopia. In Sonaiya, E.B., ed. Proceedings of the International Workshop on Sustainable Rural Poultry Production in Africa, pp. 57–65. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, International Livestock Research Institute.Google Scholar
Msoffe, P.L.M., Minga, U.M., Olson, J.E., Yongolo, M.G.S., Madesen, J., Gwaksa, P.S. & Mtambo, M.M.A. 2001. Phenotypes including immunocompetence in scavenging local chicken ecotypes in Tanzania. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 33: 341–354.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smyth, J.R. 1990. Genetics of plumage, skin and eye pigmentation in chickens. In Crawford, R.D., ed. Poultry breeding and genetics, pp. 109–168. Amsterdam, Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Somes, R.G. 1990. Mutations and major variants of plumage and skin in chickens. In Crawford, R.D., ed. Poultry breeding and genetics, pp. 169–208. Amsterdam, Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
SPSS. 2003. Statistical package for social sciences. SPSS 12.0 for Windows. Chicago, SPSS Inc.Google Scholar
Tadelle, D. 2003. Phenotypic and genetic characterization of local chicken ecotypes in Ethiopia. Berlin, Humboldt University of Berlin, 209 pp. (Ph.D. thesis)Google Scholar
Teketel, F. 1986. Studies on the meat production potential of some local strains of chickens in Ethiopia. Geissen, Germany, J.L. University of Geissen. 186 pp. (Ph.D. thesis)Google Scholar
Weigend, S. & Romanov, M.N. 2001. Current strategies for the assessment and evaluation of genetic diversity in chicken resources. World Poult. Sci. J., 57: 275–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar