1. bookVolume 21 (2021): Issue 4 (October 2021)
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
25 Nov 2011
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
access type Open Access

Temporal Trends in Performance and Hatchability Traits of Eight Strains of Hens Covered by the Gene Pool Protection Programme in Poland

Published Online: 28 Oct 2021
Page range: 1347 - 1366
Received: 25 Nov 2020
Accepted: 29 Jul 2021
Journal Details
License
Format
Journal
First Published
25 Nov 2011
Publication timeframe
4 times per year
Languages
English
Abstract

The aim of the study was to determine trends in performance and hatchability traits of eight strains of hens that have been covered by the gene pool protection programme in Poland over ten years/generations. The study involved conservation populations of laying hens: Greenleg Partridge (Z-11), Yellowleg Partridge (Ż-33), Sussex (S-66), Leghorn (H-22, G99), Rhode Island Red (R-11, K-22) and Rhode Island White (A-33), which were maintained at the Experimental Station of the National Research Institute of Animal Production in Chorzelów. The following productive traits were analysed for each population: body weight at 20 wk (g), egg weight at 33 and 53 wk, sexual maturity and number of eggs laid per hen up to 56 wk of age. Mortality and culling were also recorded during rearing and production periods. Furthermore, effective population size (Ne) and inbreeding coefficient in the population (Fx) were calculated for each strain. The analysis of the performance results of the eight strains of hens and their trends indicate that the methods of conservation breeding adopted for these populations enable effective implementation of the conservation programme. The strains were found to differ in all the performance traits subjected to evaluation. Over the 10 generations, the strains examined showed high survival and hatchability parameters during both rearing and production periods. The currently used random mating system proved effective to prevent the populations from an increase of inbreeding. However, a worrying downward trend in body weight was observed in some strains.

Keywords

Abdelqader A., Wollny C. B. A., Gauly M. (2007). Characterization of local chicken production systems and their potential under different levels of management practice in Jordan. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 39: 155–164.Search in Google Scholar

Alderson L. (2010). Breeds at risk. Criteria and classification. Report from a seminar held in London. 16–17.02.2010, Convenor, 1: 1–14.Search in Google Scholar

Anang A., Mielenz N., Schüler L. (2000). Genetic and phenotypic parameters for monthly egg production in White Leghorn hens. J. Anim. Breed. Genet., 117: 407–415.Search in Google Scholar

Boichard D., Maignel L., Verrier E. (1997). The value of using probabilities of gene origin to measure genetic variability in a population. Genet. Sel. Evol., 29: 5–23.Search in Google Scholar

Borzemska W. B., Kosowska G. (1997). Major problems of pathology in poultry hatch (in Polish). Zesz. Nauk. Prz. Hod., 3: 25–31.Search in Google Scholar

Brodacki A., Zięba G., Cywa-Benko K. (2001). Genetic distance between selected breeds and lines of laying hens. Electron. J. Pol. Agric. Univ. - Anim. Husb., 4: 1–4.Search in Google Scholar

Brodacki A., Tarkowski J., Flis J. (2003). Genetic distances in hens estimated with protein genes frequencies and procedures of DNA analysis. Electron. J. Pol. Agric. Univ. - Anim. Husb., 6: 56–61.Search in Google Scholar

Caballero A., Toro M. A. (2000). Interrelations between effective population size and other pedigree tools for the management of conserved populations. Genet. Res., 75: 331–343.Search in Google Scholar

Calik J. (2002). The relationships between body weight of hen and egg weight (in Polish). Rocz. Nauk. Zoot. Supl., 16: 95–102.Search in Google Scholar

Calik J. (2008). Analysis of some genetic and productive parameters and egg quality of hens from RIW (A-33) and RIR (K-22) conservation lines. Ann. Anim. Sci., 8: 113–119.Search in Google Scholar

Calik J. (2009). Trends for productive and genetic parameters in three lines of laying hens over eight generations (in Polish). Rocz. Nauk. Zoot., 36: 31–43.Search in Google Scholar

Calik J., Krawczyk J., Szefer M. (2012). Population status of laying hens enrolled in the animal genetic resources conservation programme in Poland (in Polish). Wiad. Zoot., 4: 31–39.Search in Google Scholar

Cervantes I., Goyache F., Molina A., Valera M., Gutierrez J. P. (2011). Estimation of effective population size from the rate of coancestry in pedigreed populations. J. Anim. Breed. Genet., 128: 56–63.Search in Google Scholar

Cywa-Benko K. (2002). Genetic and phenotypic characteristic of native chicken breeds encompassed in biodiversity conservation program (in Polish). Rocz. Nauk. Zoot., Rozpr. Hab., 15: 1–112.Search in Google Scholar

Dobrzański J., Calik J., Krawczyk J., Szwaczkowski T. (2019). Conservation of goose genetic resources in Poland – past and present status. World’s Poultry Sci., 75: 387–400.Search in Google Scholar

Fathi M. M., Al . -Homidan I., Abou-Emera O. K., Al-Moshawah A. (2017). Characterisation of Saudi native chicken breeds: a case study of morphological and productive traits. World’s Poultry Sci., 73: 916–927.Search in Google Scholar

Gryzińska M., Batkowska J., Al-Shammari K., Ambro ż kiewicz J., Je ż ewska-Witkowska G. (2015). Hatchability of selected breeds of hens maintained as Polish conservation flocks. Elect. J. Pol. Agric. Univ. - Anim. Husb., 18: 1–8.Search in Google Scholar

Hazary R., Kataria M., Nath M. (2000). Response to selection for egg mass in Rhode Island Red flock. Proc. XXI World Poultry Congress. Montreal, Canada, 22–25.08.2000, 12: 3.Search in Google Scholar

Hocking P. M., Bain M., Channing C. E., Fleming R., Wilson S. (2003). Genetic variation for egg production, egg quality and bone strength in selected and traditional breeds of laying fowl. Brit. Poultry Sci., 44: 365–373.Search in Google Scholar

Krawczyk J. (2006). Determination of egg production profitability based on the relationship between chicken’s body weight and egg weight (in Polish). Rocz. Nauk. Zoot., 33: 255–262.Search in Google Scholar

Krawczyk J. (2018). Some productive traits of the native breeds of Greenleg Partridge and Yellowleg Partridge hens (in Polish). Wiad. Zoot., 2: 68–72.Search in Google Scholar

Krawczyk J., Calik J. (2010). Comparison of performance in five generations of laying hens from Polish conservation flocks (in Polish). Rocz. Nauk. Zoot., 37: 41–54.Search in Google Scholar

Krawczyk J., Puchała M., Obrzut J. (2012). Hatchability in laying hen flocks under the conservation programme (in Polish). Wiad. Zoot., 4: 41–46.Search in Google Scholar

Marquez G. C., Siegel P. B., Lewis R. M. (2010). Genetic diversity and population structure in lines of chickens divergently selected for high and low 8-week body weight. Poultry Sci., 89: 2580–2588.Search in Google Scholar

Mtileni B. J., Muchadeyi F. C., Maiwashe A., Chimonyo M., Dzama K. (2012). Conservation and utilisation of chicken genetic resources in Southern Africa. World’s Poultry Sci., 68: 727–747.Search in Google Scholar

Niedziółka J. (1997). Physiological and zoohygienic bases of incubating eggs of gallinaceous bird (in Polish). Zesz. Nauk. Prz. Hod., 31: 15–23.Search in Google Scholar

Özdemir D., Özdemir E. R., Marchi M. D., Cassandro M. (2013). Conservation of local Turkish and Italian chicken breeds: a case study. It. J. Anim. Sci., 12: 313–319.Search in Google Scholar

Padhi M. K. (2016). Importance of indigenous breeds of chicken for rural economy and their improvements for higher production performance. Hindawi Pub. Corp. Sci., 1: 1–9.Search in Google Scholar

Pham M. H., Tran X. H., Berthouly-Salazar C., Tixier-Boichard M., Chen C. F., Lee Y. P. (2016). Monitoring of genetic diversity in Taiwan conserved chickens assessed by pedigree and molecular data. Livest. Sci., 184: 85–91.Search in Google Scholar

Polak G., Krupiński J., Martyniuk E., Calik J., Kawęcka A., Krawczyk J., Majewska A., Sikora J., Sosin-Bzducha E., Szyndler-Nędza M., Tomczyk-Wrona I. (2021). Assessment of risk status of Polish local breeds under conservation programmes. Ann. Anim. Sci., 21: 125–140.Search in Google Scholar

Semik E., Krawczyk J. (2011). The state of poultry genetic resources and genetic diversity of hen populations. Ann. Anim. Sci., 11: 181–191.Search in Google Scholar

Singh B., Singh H., Singh C. V. (2000). Genetic parameters of growth, egg production and egg quality traits in White Leghorn. J. Poultry Sci., 35: 13–16.Search in Google Scholar

Spalona A., Ranving H., Cywa-Benko K., Zanon A., Sabbioni A., Szalay I., Benkova J., Baumgartner J., Szwaczkowski T. (2007). Population size in conservation of local chicken breeds in chosen European countries. Arch. Geflugelkd., 71: 49–55.Search in Google Scholar

Szwaczkowski T. (2003). Use of mixed model methodology in poultry breeding: estimation of genetic parameters. In: Poultry genetics breeding and biotechnology. CABI Publishing, pp. 165–203.Search in Google Scholar

Van Marle-Köster E., Hefer C. A., Nel L. H., Groenen M. A. M. (2008). Genetic diversity and population structure of locally adapted South African chicken lines: implications for conservation. South Afr. J. Anim. Sci., 38: 271–281.Search in Google Scholar

Vostrý L., Vostrá-Vydrová H., Moravčíková N., Hofmanová B., Rychtářová J., Machová K., Brzáková M., Kasarda R. (2020). Monitoring of genetic diversity in autochthonous Czech poultry breeds assessed by genealogical data. Czech J. Anim. Sci., 65: 224–231.Search in Google Scholar

Wężyk S., Cywa-Benko K., Siwek M., Bednarczyk M., Calik J. (2000). Studies on genetic differences in genetic reserve breeds of hens (in Polish). Rocz. Nauk. Zoot., 27: 115–127.Search in Google Scholar

Woelders H., Zuidberg C. A., Hiemstra S. J. (2006). Animal genetic resources conservation in the Netherlands and Europe. Poultry perspective. Poultry Sci., 85: 216–222.Search in Google Scholar

World Watch List for Domestic Animal Diversity (2000). FAO/UNEP, Roma, 3rd ed.Search in Google Scholar

Wright S. (1931). Evaluation in Mendelian populations. Genetics, 14: 97–159.Search in Google Scholar

Recommended articles from Trend MD

Plan your remote conference with Sciendo