Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-03T03:13:51.314Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Egg production and certain behavioural characteristics and mortality pattern of indigenous chicken of India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2017

P.G. Kumar ,
R.R. Churchil ,
A. Jalaludeen ,
K. Narayanankutty ,
P.A. Peethambaran ,
P.E. Praveena ,
B. Chacko  and
B. Ajithbabu
P.G. Kumar
Affiliation:
College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lakkidi, Pookot, Wayanad 673576, Kerala, India
R.R. Churchil*
Affiliation:
Veterinary College and Research Institute, Orathanadu 614625, Tamil Nadu, India
A. Jalaludeen
Affiliation:
Kerala Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Lakkidi, Pookot, Wayanad 673576, Kerala, India
K. Narayanankutty
Affiliation:
College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Mannuthy, Thrissur 680651, KeralaIndia
P.A. Peethambaran
Affiliation:
College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Mannuthy, Thrissur 680651, KeralaIndia
P.E. Praveena
Affiliation:
Central Institute of Brackishwater Aquaculture, Chennai, India
B. Chacko
Affiliation:
College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Mannuthy, Thrissur 680651, KeralaIndia
B. Ajithbabu
Affiliation:
College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Mannuthy, Thrissur 680651, KeralaIndia
*
Correspondence to: R.R. Churchil, Veterinary College and Research Institute, Orathanadu 614625, Tamil Nadu, India. email: drchurchil@gmail.com
Get access

Summary

A survey to document the behaviour characteristics and mortality pattern of indigenous chicken of Kerala and a field egg recording study to record egg production characteristics of these birds were conducted. Flight distance and height was 13.29 and 3.97 m, respectively. The territory radius of cocks was 121.15 m. The chick survivability at 4 weeks of age was 64.98 percent. The day-old and 8th week body weights were 28.83 and 347.24 g, respectively. The 20th and 40th week body weight of males were 1,428.42 and 1,936.67 g and that of females were 1,114.04 and 1,445.63 g, respectively. The mortality up to 72 weeks was 69.38 percent and major cause of mortality during chick, grower and layer stage were mongoose (44.63 percent), wolf (24.29 percent) and diseases (52.18 percent) respectively. The fertility was 71.22 percent and hatchability on total and fertile egg set were 62.26 and 87.42 percent, respectively. There were 2.13 clutches in a laying cycle with inter-clutch intervals of 1.11 days. The average clutch size and number of eggs per cycle were 7.27 and 14.32, respectively. The egg number up to 72 weeks on hen-day and hen-housed basis was 116.81 and 85.84, respectively and the eggs were laid in 7.7 cycles. The age at first egg and average age at sexual maturity were 155 and 199.26 days, respectively. The egg weight at 28, 40 and 72 weeks of age was 37.80, 40.74 and 43.31 g, respectively, and egg mass per bird was 4,659.04 g. The broodiness and incubation pause were 26.03 and 121.75 days, respectively.

Résumé

Une enquête pour connaître les caractéristiques du comportement et le patron de mortalité des poules indigènes du Kerala et une étude sur le terrain pour contrôler la production d’œufs de ces volailles ont été menées. La distance et la hauteur de vol ont été, respectivement, de 13,29 et 3,97 m. Le rayon du territoire des coqs a été de 121,15 m. La survie des poussins à quatre semaines de vie a été de 64,98 pour cent. Le poids corporel a été de 28,83 g à l’éclosion et de 347,24 g à la huitième semaine de vie. Aux vingtième et quarantième semaines, le poids corporel des mâles a été de 1428,42 et 1936,67 g, respectivement, et celui des femelles de 1114,04 et 1445,63 g, respectivement. Jusqu’à la soixante-douzième semaine, la mortalité a été de 69,38 pour cent, la principale cause de mortalité étant la mangouste (44,63 pour cent), le loup (24,29 pour cent) et les maladies (52,18 pour cent) aux stades de poussin, croissance et ponte, respectivement. La fertilité s'est élevée à 71,22 pour cent et le taux d’éclosion a été de 62,26 pour cent sur le nombre total d’œufs et de 87,42 pour cent sur le nombre d’œufs féconds. Il y a eu 2,13 couvées par cycle de ponte avec des intervalles entre couvées de 1,11 jours. En moyenne, la taille des couvées et le nombre d’œufs par cycle ont été de 7,27 et 14,32, respectivement. Jusqu’à la soixante-douzième semaine, le nombre d’œufs a été de 116,81 par jour de poule élevée et de 85,84 par poule logée, les œufs ayant été pondus en 7,7 cycles. L’âge au premier œuf et l’âge moyen à la maturité sexuelle ont été de 155 et 199,26 jours, respectivement. Le poids de l’œuf aux semaines 28, 40 et 72 d’âge a été de 37,80, 40,74 et 43,31 g, respectivement, et la masse d’œuf par poule s'est élevée à 4659,04 g. Le comportement de couvaison et la pause pour l'incubation ont duré 26,03 et 121,75 jours, respectivement.

Resumen

Se llevaron a cabo una encuesta para conocer las características del comportamiento y el patrón de mortalidad de las gallinas autóctonas de Kerala y un estudio de campo para determinar la producción de huevos de estas aves. La distancia y la altura de vuelo fueron, respectivamente, de 13,29 y 3,97 m. El radio del territorio de los gallos fue de 121,15 m. La supervivencia de los pollitos a las cuatro semanas de edad fue de 64,98 por ciento. El peso corporal fue de 28,83 g el primer día de vida y de 347,24 g en la octava semana de vida. En la vigésima y cuadragésima semana, el peso corporal de los machos fue de 1428,42 g y de 1936,67 g, respectivamente, y el de las hembras de 1114,04 g y 1445,63 g, respectivamente. Hasta la semana 72, la mortalidad fue de 69,38 por ciento, siendo la principal causa de muerte durante las fases de pollito, crecimiento y puesta la mangosta (44,63 por ciento), el lobo (24,29 por ciento) y las enfermedades (52,18 por ciento), respectivamente. La fertilidad ascendió a 71,22 por ciento y la incubabilidad sobre el número total de huevos y sobre el número de huevos fértiles fue de 62,26 por ciento y de 87,42 por ciento, respectivamente. Se dieron 2,13 nidadas por ciclo de puesta con intervalos entre nidadas de 1,11 días. De media, el tamaño de las nidadas y el número de huevos por ciclo ascendieron a 7,27 y 14,32, respectivamente. Hasta la semana 72, el número de huevos fue de 116,81 por gallina-día y de 85,84 por gallina alojada, habiendo sido los huevos puestos en 7,7 ciclos. La edad al primer huevo y la edad media a la madurez sexual fueron de 155 y 199,26 días, respectivamente. El peso del huevo a las 28, 40 y 72 semanas de edad fue de 37,80, 40,74 y 43,31 g, respectivamente, siendo además la masa de huevo por ave de 4659,04 g. La cloquera y la pausa para la incubación duraron 26,03 y 121,75 días, respectivamente.

Keywords

behaviourbroodinessegg productionmortalitynative chickencomportementcouvaisonproduction d’œufsmortalitépoules indigènescomportamientocloqueraproducción de huevosmortalidadgallinas autóctonas
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Genetic Resources/Resources génétiques animales/Recursos genéticos animales , Volume 59 , December 2016 , pp. 27 - 36
Copyright
Copyright © Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2016 

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

BAHS. 2015. Basic Animal Husbandry Statistics, AHS Series 13. New Delhi – 110001, India, Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Animal Husbandry, Dairying and Fisheries, Krishi Bhawan.Google Scholar
Biswas, P.K., Uddin, G.M.N., Barua, H., Roy, K., Biswas, D., Ahad, A. & Debnath, N.C. 2008. Survivability and causes of loss of broody-hen chicks on smallholder households in Bangladesh. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 83: 260–271.Google Scholar
Chatterjee, R.N., Rai, R.B., Pramanik, S.C., Sunder, J., Senani, S. & Kundu, A. 2007. Comparative growth, production, egg and carcass traits of different crosses of Brown Nicobari with White Leghorn under intensive and extensive management systems in Andaman, India. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 19: 193.Google Scholar
Farooq, M., Mian, M.A., Durrani, F.R. & Syed, M. 2012. Prevalent diseases and mortality in egg type layers under subtropical environment. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 14: 3.Google Scholar
FAO. 2009. Characterization of indigenous chicken production systems in Cambodia. In Dinesh, M.T., Geerlings, E., Sölkner, J., Thea, S., Thieme, O. and Wurzinger, M.. Rome, Food and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/al677e/al677e00.pdf) [Accessed: 24 Feb 2014].Google Scholar
FAO. 2010. Chicken genetic resources used in smallholder production systems and opportunities for their development. In Sorensen, P., ed. Rome, Smallholder Poultry Production, Food and Agriculture Organization of The United Nations.Google Scholar
Haunshi, S., Doley, S. & Shakuntala, I. 2009. Intensive system production performance of indigenous chicken of northeastern region and improved varieties developed for backyard farming. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences, 79: 901–905.Google Scholar
Iqbal, S. & Pampori, Z.A. 2008. Production potential and qualitative traits of indigenous chicken of Kashmir. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 20: 11.Google Scholar
Kumar, S. & Kumar, D. 2007. Booklet on Local Hill Fowl of Uttarakhand State. Pant Nagar, Uttarakhand State, India, Department of Genetics and Animal Breeding, College of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, G.B. Pant University of Agriculture and Technology.Google Scholar
Kumar, P.G., Churchil, R.R., Jalaludeen, A., Narayanankutty, K., Joseph, L., Kannan, A. & Anitha, P. 2013. A survey on village chicken production in Kerala state of India. World's Poultry Science Journal, 69: 917–930.Google Scholar
Magothe, T.M., Okeno, T.O., Muhuyi, W.B. & Kahi, A.K. 2012. Indigenous chicken production in Kenya. II. Prospects for research and development. World's Poultry Science Journal, 68: 133–144.Google Scholar
Melesse, A. 2014. Significance of scavenging chicken production in the rural community of Africa for enhanced food security. World's Poultry Science Journal, 70: 593–606.Google Scholar
Mogesse, H.H. 2007. Phenotypic and genetic characterization of indigenous chicken populations in Northwest Ethiopia . Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, Department of Animal, Wildlife and Grassland Sciences, University of the Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa. (Ph.D. thesis) (available at http://etd.uovs.ac.za/ETD-db/theses/available/etd-11162007-080238/unrestricted/MogesseHH.pdf) [Accessed: 10 Dec 2014].Google Scholar
Mohammed, M.D., Abdalsalam, Y.I., Kheir, A.M., Jin-Yu, W. & Hussein, M.H. 2005. Comparison of the egg characteristics of different Sudanese indigenous chicken types. International Journal of Poultry Science, 4: 455–457.Google Scholar
Olwande, P.O., Ogara, W.O., Okuthe, S.O., Muchemi, G., Okoth, E., Odindo, M.O. & Adhiambo, R.F. 2010. Assessing the productivity of indigenous chickens in an extensive management system in southern Nyanza, Kenya. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 42: 283–288.Google Scholar
Pym, R. 2010. Poultry genetics and breeding in developing countries. In Poultry Development Review. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/019/i3531e/i3531e.pdf) [Accessed: 10 Dec 2014].Google Scholar
Rai, R.B. & Ahlawat, S.P.S. 1995. Evaluation of disease resistance characteristics of Nicobari fowl. Indian Veterinary Journal, 72: 354–357.Google Scholar
Reta, D. 2009. Understanding the role of indigenous chickens during the long walk to food security in Ethiopia. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 21: 8.Google Scholar
Savegnago, R.P., Cruz, V.A.R., Ramos, S.B., Caetano, S.L., Schmidt, G.S., Ledur, M.C., El-Faro, L. & Munari, D.P. 2012. Egg production curve fitting using nonlinear models for selected and non selected lines of White Leghorn hens. Poultry Science, 91: 2977–2987.Google Scholar
Sekeroglu, A. & Aksimsek, S.D. 2009. Village chicken production in Turkey: Tokat province example. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 41: 103–108.Google Scholar
Sonaiya, E.B. & Swan, S.E.J. 2004. Small-Scale Poultry Production: Technical Guide. FAO Animal Production and Health Manual. Rome, Italy, FAO of United Nations.Google Scholar
Vij, P.K., Tantia, M.S., Vijh, R.K. & Ahlawat, S.P.S. 2005. Chicken Breeds of India-Danki. Karnal 132001, India, Leaflet 23, National Bureau of Animal Genetic Resources, P.O. Box 129.Google Scholar
Vij, P.K., Tantia, M.S., Anilkumar, K., Vijh, R.K. & Ahlawat, S.P.S. 2007. Chicken Breeds of India-Tellichery. Karnal-132001, India, Leaflet 42, National Bureau of Animal Genetic Resources, P.O. Box 129.Google Scholar
Vijh, R.K., Vij, P.K., Tantia, M.S. & Ahlawat, S.P.S. 2005. Chicken Breeds of India-Kalasthi. Karnal 132001, India, Leaflet 21, National Bureau of Animal Genetic Resources, P.O. Box 129.Google Scholar
Vijh, R.K., Chatterjee, R.N., Vij, P.K., Tantia, M.S. & Ahlawat, S.P.S. 2006. Chicken Breeds of India-Nicobari. Karnal-132001, India, Leaflet 36, National Bureau of Animal Genetic Resources, P.O. Box 129.Google Scholar
Yakubu, A., Ogah, D.M. & Barde, R.E. 2008. Productivity and egg quality characteristics of free range naked neck and normal feathered Nigerian indigenous chickens. International Journal of Poultry Science, 7: 579–585.Google Scholar
Yousef, M. & Al-Yousef, . 2007. A survey study on the distribution of Saudi Baladi chickens and their characteristics. International Journal of Poultry Science, 6: 289–292.Google Scholar