Phenotypic characterisation of indigenous chicken in the central zone of Tanzania

Edward Moto; Chrispinus D. K. Rubanza

doi:10.1515/opag-2022-0218

Article Open Access

Phenotypic characterisation of indigenous chicken in the central zone of Tanzania

Edward Moto and Chrispinus D. K. Rubanza

Published/Copyright: September 21, 2023

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information Explore this Subject

From the journal Open Agriculture Volume 8 Issue 1

Abstract

The study was conducted to assess the phenotypic diversity within the indigenous chicken population in Tanzania, the central zone, preciously Dodoma and Singida regions. Six districts from two regions were purposively selected based on their potential for chicken population. A total of 176 adult local chickens of both sexes were used to estimate the body weight, linear body measurements and visual assessments of phenotypic traits. The results indicated that the predominant comb type was single (90.9%) followed by pea comb (6.8%). The dominant plumage colour was a combination of different colours (66%), followed by black (14%). Yellow shank colour (59.1%) was dominant over other colours. The estimated overall mean values of body weight, body length, chest circumference, and shank length were 1.80 kg, 39.3, 31.3, and 8.8 cm, respectively. Males were significantly heavier than females (2.2 vs 1.3 kg; p < 0.05). The values of most linear body measurement traits were significantly different (p < 0.01). The chest circumference was not significantly different across the studied districts. The present finding suggests that indigenous chickens in the study area possess unique genetic potentials that would be used for further breeding programs for optimum utilisation of these genetic resources by the rural communities.

Keywords: Tanzania; indigenous chicken; genetic diversity; qualitative traits; quantitative traits

1 Introduction

The genetic potential of the local chicken population in the tropical region including East Africa and Tanzania in particular has not been optimised in part due to a lack of proper documentation of the existing local chicken ecotypes as well as due to a lack of proper selection and breeding strategies [1–4]. Phenotypic and the associated genetic characterisation represent important pathways towards the identification of chicken ecotypes as well as traits of economic importance. Phenotypic characterisation and the subsequent documentation of economic traits such as body weight, chest circumference, ulna bone length, shank length (SHL), carcass weight, and egg production potential would contribute positive efforts towards the identification and conservation of elite local chicken ecotypes at both global and national scales [2,3,5,6]. There is a general lack of systematic documentation of important local chicken ecotypes in tropical regions, East Africa and Tanzania in particular. The selection of chicken with desirable traits and the associated crossbreeding represent strong tools for the improvement of economic traits, for instance, growth rate, body weight, egg laying efficiency and egg number [2]. Little is known about the performance of the local chicken population in the tropical region including Tanzanian. A wide range of literature has been documented on the chicken genetic potential in the tropical region [1,2,4,7–11]. A study by Kitalyi in Uganda [1] reported important local chicken ecotypes which included “Nganda,” “Nsoga,” “Nkedi,” and “Nyoro.” These chickens are named based on regions where they are regarded as indigenous. Similarly, in Tanzania, the nomenclature of the local chicken ecotypes is based on vernacular nomenclature which is largely based on morphological attributes/body size [4,9,12]. There is also a high possibility of the same ecotype being named differently in a different locality based on the fact that there are no clear criteria that define a given ecotype. Local chicken ecotypes exhibit a wide range of variability in all characteristics including plumage, feather distribution, body size, comb type, wattle size, ear lobe size, and colour [13]. Some of the attributes used for the description of the different chicken ecotypes include morphology, body size (for instance, small, medium, and large), and even based on plumage and feathers patterns, for example, naked-neck, and even rough feathers. Different “Kuchi” related ecotypes have been recognised in the Lake Victoria basin of Tanzania as well as the coast areas of both Kenya and Tanzania.

In Tanzania, for instance, phenotypic characterisation of the local chicken population has been done in some areas of the country. A study by Msoffe et al. [14] characterised five ecotypes of Tanzanian local chickens, namely, Ching’wekwe, Kuchi, Morogoro Medium, Pemba and Unguja, from different regions. A similar study by Lyimo et al. [12] established five morphological traits, namely, ulna bone length, keel length, SHL, shank thickness and live body weight of selected chicken ecotypes indigenous to Tanzania. “Kuchi” and closely ecotypes demonstrated relatively longer ulna bone lengths, keel lengths, shank sizes, short parrot-like beaks, and high body weight and thus relatively high carcass weights than the other local chicken ecotypes [12]. The “Kuchi” and related ecotypes have become in part due to their typical shy breeders and in part highly scouted for various uses including cock fighting and their ethno-veterinary uses. However, a detailed phenotypic characterisation of local chicken ecotypes in Tanzania is still lacking. It is essential to document the chicken ecotypes based on standard defined criteria such as those defined in FAO Pictorial Guidance for Phenotypic Characterisation [15]. Recommended phenotypic attributes for a description of chickens [15] include comb type and size, nostril, beak type, wattle type and colour, shoulder coverts, wing bow, wing coverts, breast, toes, eye colour, ear lobe type, and colour. Other recommended phenotypic attributes include SHL, shank colour as well as feather pattern, for instance, naked neck or beard and muffs [15]. A study was therefore conducted to characterise chickens indigenous to central Tanzania in Dodoma, Chamwino, Kongwa, Kondoa, Manyoni, and Singida districts into distinct phenotypic characteristics as recommended by Cuesta [15], and assess selected economic traits. The study was based on two specific objectives: (1) to characterise qualitative phenotypic traits (plumage colour, comb type and size), and (2) to determine quantitative phenotypic traits (body weight, body length [BL], chest circumference, and SHL).

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Study area

Data were collected on indigenous Tanzania chickens from Dodoma and Singida regions, in which six districts, namely, Kongwa, Chamwino, Kondoa, Manyoni, and Singida districts were used in the study. Singida region is located below the equator between latitudes 3°52′ and 7°34′. Longitudinally, the region is situated between 33°27′ and 35°26′ east of Greenwich. To the north, it shares borders with Shinyanga, Arusha, and Manyara regions, and on the east borders the Dodoma region. To the south, it shares borders with Iringa and Mbeya regions while on the west there is the Tabora region. Dodoma region is one of Tanzania’s 31 administrative regions. The regional capital is the city of Dodoma. The region is located in central Tanzania and is bordered by the Singida region to the west; the Manyara region to the north; the Iringa region to the south; and the Morogoro region to the east (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Map showing districts where local chickens were sampled.

2.2 Chicken sampling

A total of 176 adult local chickens including males and females were sampled. Qualitative traits such as plumage colours and comb type were used. The body size parameters were also measured including body weight, body circumference, and body height and SHL, comb type and size, nostril, beak type, wattle type and colour, shoulder coverts, wing bow, wing coverts, breast, toes, eye colour, and ear lobe type and colour based on standard criteria recommended by FAO [15]. Direct observation of chicken was conducted and scored against qualitative data such as plumage colour, comb type, feather morphology, feather distribution, shank colour, and skin colour. Quantitative traits such as body weight, BL, and width, were measured by using a tape measure. The breast height and chest circumference were taken at the tip of the pectus (hind breast), using a fibre tape (±0.01 cm). The BL was measured from the tip of the beak to the tip of the tail (excluding feathers) with the neck fully stretched (±0.01 cm). The SHL was taken from the hock joint to the spur of either leg [15].

Ethical approval: The research related to animal use complied with all the relevant national regulations and institutional policies for the care and use of animals.

2.3 Data analyses

Quantitative data on body weight and BL were analysed into descriptive statistics (mean, standard error) using ANOVA (analysis of variance) of SAS Vers. 1.3. Qualitative data such as plumage colour and shank colour were analysed by IBM SPSS statistics version 20 (Statistical package for social sciences).

3 Results

3.1 Phenotypic characteristics of the local chicken ecotypes

3.1.1 Quantitative characteristics

The average body weight of local chickens ranged from 1.1 to 3.8 kg for males and 1.0 to 1.7 kg for females. The local chicken from Kondoa district was heavier than local chicken from other districts (Tables 1 and 2). The average SHL of males and females were 9.9 and 7.8 cm, respectively. Indigenous chickens from Kongwa were observed to have longer SHL of about 12.0 cm for males and 7.5 cm for females. Next were indigenous chickens from Chamwino having an SHL of 11.37 cm for males and 9.5 cm for females (Table 2).

Table 1

Comb type of chickens from selected sites

Comb type	Frequency (N)	Percentage
Single	160	90.9
Pea	12	6.8
Others	4	2.3
Total	176	100.0

Table 2

Mean physical measurements (mean ± SE) of local chicken ecotypes in central Tanzania

District	Site	Live weight (kg)	BL (cm)	Chest circumference (cm)	SHL (cm)
Kondoa	Laikala	2.8 ± 0.19^a	41.3 ± 1.32^a	32.8 ± 1.74^ab	8.3 ± 0.53^ab
Singida	Manyoni	1.5 ± 0.07^b	41.6 ± 0.48^a	32.6 ± 0.63^a	8.8 ± 0.19^a
Kongwa	Mlali	2.0 ± 0.32^b	44.5 ± 2.24a^a	35.3 ± 2.93^ab	9.8 ± 0.81^ad
Dodoma	Ng’ong’ona	1.6 ± 0.10^b	37.4 ± 0.67^b	28.9 ± 0.87^b	7.5 ± 0.27^b
Manyoni	Sanjaranda	1.1 ± 0.11^c	32.2 ± 0.77^c	26.3 ± 1.01^c	8.2 ± 0.31^ac
Chamwino	Chalinze	1.6 ± 0.11^b	38.5 ± 0.75^b	31.6 ± 0.98^ab	10.4 ± 0.30^d
Mean		1.8	39.3	31.3	8.8
SEM		0.15	1.04	1.36	0.40
Significant effect of
Site		***	***	***	***
Sex		***	***	***	***
Site*Sex		***	***	N.S	*

^a,b,cRow means with different superscript letters are significantly different (p < 0.05); SE – standard error.

3.1.2 Correlation between quantitative traits

The correlation between the SHL and the BL of the indigenous chicken population in central Tanzania was moderate (0.55) (Figure 2). The results depict a moderate strength of association (r = 0.55) between SHL and BL. The correlation between the SHL and the body weight of the indigenous chicken population in selected districts of central Tanzania was low (r = 0.31) (Figure 3). The results of the correlation between the BL and weight are shown in Figure 4. The correlation between the SHL and body weight was low (r = 0.31). On the other hand, results demonstrated a moderate correlation coefficient (r = 0.43) between the BL and body height.

Figure 2

Correlation between SHL and BL.

Figure 3

Correlation between body weight and SHL.

Figure 4

Correlation between SHL and body weight.

3.1.3 Qualitative characteristics

The current study found that multi-colouration of the plumage dominated the local chickens. Some colours that were observed included black (13.6%), white (11.4%), and red (9.1%) while the most dominant colours were a combination of more than one colour (65.9%) (Table 3; Figure 5)

Table 3

Plumage colour of the local chicken population indigenous to central Tanzania

Plumage colour	Frequency (N)	Percentage
Black	25	13.6
White	19	11.4
Red	16	9.1
Combination of colours	116	65.9
Total	176	100.0

Figure 5

A photo of local chickens with a combination of different colours.

This study also showed that most of the indigenous chickens have small to medium comb sizes as presented in Table 4. A few were observed to possess large comb sizes.

Table 4

Common comb size among the local chicken population of central Tanzania

Comb type	Frequency (N)	Percentage
Small	84	47.7
Medium	60	34.1
Large	28	15.9
Others	4	2.3
Total	176	100.0

The current study showed variations in comb types and were rose, pea, and single. The dominant comb type observed was single at all sites (Table 1).

3.1.4 Quantitative trait variation according to the sampled site

Results on the phenotypic performance of local chicken ecotypes are given in Table 2. Phenotypic measurements revealed notable high variations in indices for live weight, BL, chest circumference, and SHL between sexes (p < 0.001), sites (p < 0.001) and due to the interaction effects of sexes and sites (p < 0.001). The mean body weight ranged from 1.1 to 2.8 kg (mean: 1.8 kg). The BL, chest circumference, and SHL varied from 32.2 to 44.5 cm, 26.3 to 35.5 cm, and 7.5 to 9.8 cm, respectively (Table 2).

There were clear variations in terms of phenotypic performance between sexes with cocks having higher measurements than hens and pullets (Table 5).

Table 5

Mean physical measurements (mean ± SE) of hens/pullets and cocks of local chicken ecotypes in central Tanzania

District	Site	Live weight (kg)		BL (cm)		Chest circumference (cm)		SHL (cm)
		Female	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male	Female	Male
Kondoa	Laikala	1.7 ± 0.20^a	3.8 ± 0.32^b	34.0 ± 1.41^a	48.5 ± 2.24^b	28.0 ± 1.85^a	37.5 ± 2.93^b	7.0 ± 0.56^a	9.5 ± 0.89^b
Singida	Manyoni	1.3 ± 0.10^a	1.8 ± 0.09^b	38.8 ± 0.71^a	44.3 ± 0.65^b	31.4 ± 0.93^a	33.8 ± 0.85^a	7.5 ± 0.28^a	10.1 ± 0.23^b
Kongwa	Mlali	1.0 ± 0.46^a	3.0 ± 0.46^b	36.0 ± 3.16^a	54.0 ± 3.16^b	29.0 ± 4.14a^a	42.0 ± 4.14^b	7.5 ± 1.26^a	12.0 ± 1.26^b
Dodoma	Ng’ong’ona	1.6 ± 0.12^a	1.6 ± 0.15^a	37.8 ± 0.82^a	37.0 ± 1.06^a	30.0 ± 1.07^a	29.7 ± 1.38^a	7.3 ± 0.33^a	7.8 ± 0.42^a
Manyoni	Sanjaranda	1.0 ± 0.19^a	1.1 ± 0.12^a	34.0 ± 1.29 ^a	36.4 ± 0.85^a	24.7 ± 1.69^a	27.9 ± 1.11^a	7.8 ± 0.51^a	8.6 ± 0.34^a
Chamwino	Chalinze	1.3 ± 0.17^a	1.8 ± 0.13^b	35.9 ± 1.20^a	41.2 ± 0.91^b	30.0 ± 1.56^a	32.2 ± 1.20^a	9.5 ± 0.48^a	11.4 ± 0.36^b
Mean		1.3	2.2	35.6	43.6	28.9	33.9	7.8	9.9
SEM		0.21	0.21	1.43	1.48	1.87	1.94	0.57	0.58
Significant effect of
Site		***		***		***		***
Sex		***		***		***		***
Site*Sex		***		***		N.S		*

^a,b,cRow means with different superscript letters are significantly different (p < 0.05); SE – standard error.

A total of seven distinct shank colours were identified at all sites in which yellow was the most dominant, compared to yellow and green that was the less predominant in the study areas. The percentage of the dominant shank colour which is yellow in the two sites was 59.1% followed by black (27.3%). In the current study, the variation observed in terms of shank colours is shown in Table 6.

Table 6

Shank colour

Shank colour	Frequency (N)	Percentage
White	8	4.5
Yellow	104	59.1
Blue	4	2.3
Green	4	2.3
Black	48	27.3
Brown	8	4.6
Total	176	100.0

4 Discussion

4.1 Quantitative morphological traits

The body weight variation in the present study could be attributed to the ecotype differences among various local chicken populations. The average values of live weight of male and female chicken observed in the current study were equivalent to that found in previous studies conducted in different areas of Tanzania [3,12,14,16]. Previous studies reported that male chickens are relatively heavier than their counterpart female chickens. Chickens from Kondoa district for both sexes recorded high live body weight compared to chickens from other districts in the central zone (3.8 kg male and 1.7 kg female). Also, male chickens from other districts recorded high live mean body weight compared to their counterpart females. The variation of live weight of male and female chicken in the present study is due to sexual dimorphism and this agrees with the reports of other studies in the country [3,12,14,16]. Sexual dimorphism has been noted to be the key cause of variation in live body weight among chickens [3,12,14,16]. Such results have been also reported in other countries such as Nigeria, Benin, and Ethiopia by various scholars [17–21]. Sexual dimorphism in indigenous chicken reported in the current study agrees with the previous results from different countries, as reported by various scholars [16,22,23]. The variation of sexual dimorphism in the current study and previous studies elsewhere might be attributed to the growth rate in male and female chickens as a result of hormonal actions.

The results on linear body measurement traits recorded in the current study were comparable with the observations of the previous studies conducted in different parts of the country [3,7,14,16]. The average value of the BL in the present study was almost similar to the values reported by other studies in the country [3,12,14,16]. However, there were minor variations with the previous reports. Variations in BL in indigenous chickens might be attributed to the age of animals, status of nutrition, agro-climatic conditions, and management systems of chickens where data were collected.

The results obtained for the average SHL in the present study were somehow low compared to other studies in different parts of Tanzania. In this study, the average SHL was 7.8 and 9.9 cm for females and males, respectively. A study by Mushi et al. [16] reported average SHL to be 11.14 and 10.5 cm for males and females, respectively, in the Morogoro region. The variations might be contributed by the availability of scavenge feed resources both in quality and quantity in those different study locations. Dodoma and Singida regions normally experience a long period of drought associated with a shortage of food, while the Morogoro region is rich in food thus making also feed to be available to the indigenous chickens.

Compared to other studies in other countries like Ethiopia and Nigeria, the SHL in the present study was relatively lower than those reported for the Southern region of Ethiopia and Bauchi State in Nigeria [24–26]. The SHL in chickens reflects the degree of fleshing in relation to body size and it is normally higher with heavier body size [22]. Hence, the present study suggests that chicken populations could be a feasible option for meat production under free-range scavenging management systems due to their relatively higher body SHL. The current study also showed that the body weight and linear body measurement traits are significantly affected by the age of chickens. These findings are in line with the reports by Semakula et al. [27] and Ojedapo et al. [28] who noted that the body weight and linear body measurements increase with the age of chickens.

4.2 Prediction of live body weight

In the current study, correlations between the body weight and linear body measurement traits were observed to be positive and significant (p < 0.01). Such results were also reported by other scholars in different parts of the country [12,14,16]. These positive correlations of body weight with linear body measurements observed in the present study can be used to predict the weight of local chickens by small farmers in rural areas where it is not easy to use digital weight balance [29]. Furthermore, the findings of this study and other scholars suggest and recommend that the body weight of indigenous chicken populations can be improved by selection of any of the linear body measurable traits [9,26,30,31].

In the present study, the estimated R ² values ranged from low (0.313) to relatively high (0.434) indicating that the calculated parameters/equations can be used to predict the body weight of chickens. Extrapolative equations provide a readily available tool in body weight assessment and approximation. This is helpful and useful in rural areas where weighing scales are not available [16,26].

The predominant comb type observed in the current study was a single comb and small in size in both male and female chickens followed by a pea comb. The dominant plumage colour was a combination of different colours (more than one colour), followed by black, white, and red plumage. The plumage colour diversity is indicative of many genes governing the trait and random mating with respect to plumage colour. This suggests that there is no selection for this trait among the indigenous chickens farmers, thus leading to multicoloured plumage. Shank colours were represented by various colours in which yellow was the commonest colour followed by black across the study districts. Others shank colours were represented in small numbers. Variations in shank colours can also be due to a lack of selection during the breeding period [26]. Variations in linear body measurement traits indicated the existence of genetic differences in major performance traits, which makes selection between local populations a viable option to improve the genetic potential of local chicken populations. An in-depth molecular assessment to authenticate the level of genetic variations and relationships prevailing among the indigenous chicken population of the studied districts is highly recommended.

5 Conclusion

The noted results on phenotypic measurements of the local chicken population can predict economic traits in terms of chicken body weights or using the BL and SHL. This is due to the inherent close association among the BL, chest circumference, and SHL with the BL. The chicken weight could be predicted from phenotypic observations and measurements of the different parameters. It can be concluded that the higher the BL and chest circumference, the higher the body weight of the chicken. Similarly, the higher the SHL, the larger the body weight of the chickens.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful for the support provided by agricultural extension officers in all six districts where data were collected.

Funding information: The authors state no funding involved.
Conflict of interest: The authors state no conflict of interest.
Data availability statement: The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

[1] FAO. Village chicken production in rural Africa. Household Food Security and Gender Issues; by A.J. Kitalyi. FAO Animal Production and Health Paper No. 142. Rome; 1998.Search in Google Scholar

[2] Global plan of action for animal genetic resources and the interlaken declarate. Rome: FAO; 2007b.Search in Google Scholar

[3] Guni FS, Katule AM. Characterization of local chickens in selected districts of the Southern Highlands of Tanzania: I. Qualitative characters. Livest Res Rural Dev. 2013;25:art #190. http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd25/11/guni25190.htm.Search in Google Scholar

[4] Njenga SK. Production and socio-cultural aspects of local poultry phenotypes in coastal Kenya. MSc. Thesis. Tjele, Denmark: Danish Institute of Agricultural Sciences; 2005.Search in Google Scholar

[5] FAO. The state of the world’s animal genetic resources for food and agriculture, Commission on genetic resources for food and agriculture food and agriculture organization of the United nations, Rome; 2007a.Search in Google Scholar

[6] Oldenbroek JK. Introduction. In: Genebanks and conservation of farm animal genetic resource. DLO, Institute for Animal Science, Lelystad, The Netherlands; 1999. p. 1–9.Search in Google Scholar

[7] Mwalusanya NA, Katule AM, Mutayoba MMA, Olsen JE, Minga UM. Productivity of local chickens under village management conditions. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2001;34:405–16.10.1023/A:1020048327158Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[8] Tadelle D, Alemu Y, Nigusie D, Peters KJ. Evaluation of processing methods on the feeding value of grass pea to broilers. Int J Poult Sci. 2003;2(2):120–7.10.3923/ijps.2003.120.127Search in Google Scholar

[9] Msoffe PLM, Mtambo MMA, Minga UM, Olsen JE, Juul-Madsen HR, Gwakisa PS, et al. Productivity and reproductive performance of the free-range local domestic fowl ecotypes in Tanzania. Livest Res Rural Dev. 2004;16(9). http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd16/9/msof16067.htm.Search in Google Scholar

[10] Gondwe TN, Wollny CBA. Evaluation of growth potential of local chickens in Malawi. Intern J Poultr Sci. 2005;4:64–70.10.3923/ijps.2005.64.70Search in Google Scholar

[11] Guèye EF. Village egg and fowl meat production in Africa. World’s Poult Sci J. 1998;54:73–86.10.1079/WPS19980007Search in Google Scholar

[12] Lyimo CM, Weigend A, Janben-Tapken U, Msoffe PL, Samianer H, Weigend S. Assessing the genetic diversity of five Tanzanian chicken ecotypes using molecular tools. S Afr J Anim Sci. 2012;4:43.10.4314/sajas.v43i4.7Search in Google Scholar

[13] Ssewanyana SN. Food security and child nutrition status among urban poor households in Uganda: Implications for poverty alleviation. AERC Research Paper 130. African Economic Research Consortium, Nairobi; 2003.Search in Google Scholar

[14] Msoffe PL, Minga UM, Olsen JE, Yongolo MGS, Juul-Madsen HR, Gwakisa PS, et al. Phenotypes including immunocompetence in scavenging local chicken ecotypes in Tanzania. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2001;33(4):341–54.10.1023/A:1010544221028Search in Google Scholar

[15] Cuesta ML. Pictorial guidance for phenotypic characterization of chickens and ducks. FAO GCP/RAS/228/GER Working Paper No. 15. Rome; 2008. p. 1–11.Search in Google Scholar

[16] Mushi JR, Chiwanga GH, Amuzu-Aweh EN, Walugembe M, Max RA, Lamont SJ, et al. Phenotypic variability and population structure analysis of Tanzanian free-range local chickens. BMC Vet Res. 2020;16:360. 10.1186/s12917-020-02541-x.Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central

[17] Ajayi FO, Agaviezor BO. Phenotypic characteristic of indigenous chicken in Selected Local Government Areas in Bayelsa State. Nigeria International Poultry Summit. Abeokuta; 2009; Feb. 22–26. p. 75–8.Search in Google Scholar

[18] Duguma R. Phenotypic characterization of some indigenous chicken ecotypes of Ethiopia. Livest Res Rural Dev. 2006;18(5):35–9.Search in Google Scholar

[19] Egahi J, Dim N, Momoh O, Gwaza D. Variations in qualitative traits in the Nigerian local chicken. Int J Poult Sci. 2010;10:978–9.10.3923/ijps.2010.978.979Search in Google Scholar

[20] Solomon D. Growth performance and survival of local and White Leghorn chickens under scavenging and intensive systems of management in Ethiopia. Livest Res Rural Dev. 2003;15(1):5–12.Search in Google Scholar

[21] Djimènou D, Edénakpo AK, Camus MA, Viviane LE, Richard OA, Delphin OK. Assessment of phenotypic diversity within Goliath chickens population in Benin. Trop Anim Health Prod. 2022;54:359. 10.1007/s11250-022-03338-w.Search in Google Scholar PubMed

[22] Getu A, Birhan M. Chicken production systems, performance and associated constraints in North Gondar Zone, Ethiopia. J Fish Livest Prod. 2014;2:2. 10.4172/2332-2608.1000115.Search in Google Scholar

[23] Mopate LY, Lony M. Survey on family chicken farms in rural area of N’Djamena, Chad. Livest Res Rural Dev. 1999;11(2).Search in Google Scholar

[24] Dana N, Dessie T, Vander Waaij LH, Van, Arendonk AM. Morphological features of indigenous chicken populations of Ethiopia. Anim Genet Resour. 2011;46:11–23.10.1017/S2078633610000652Search in Google Scholar

[25] Hossary MA, Galal ESE. Improvement and adaptation of the Fayoumi chicken. Gen Res Inf. 1994;14:33–41.10.1017/S1014233900000328Search in Google Scholar

[26] Shuaibu A, Ma’aruf BS, Maigado AI, Abdu I, Ibrahim Y, Mijinyawa A. Phenotypic characteristics of local chickens in Dass and Tafawa Balewa local government areas of Bauchi State, Nigeria. Niger J Anim Sci. 2020;22(2):19–31.Search in Google Scholar

[27] Semakula J, Lusembo P, Kugonza DR, Mutetikka D, Ssennyonjo J, Mwesigwa M. Estimation of live body weight using zoometrical measurements for improved marketing of indigenous chicken in the Lake Victoria basin of Uganda. Livestock Res Rural Dev. 2011;23.Search in Google Scholar

[28] Ojedapo LO, Amao SR, Ameen SA, Adedeji TA, Ogundipe RI, Ige AO. Prediction of body weight and other linear body measurement of two commercial layer strain chickens. Asian J Anim Sci. 2012;6(1):13–22. 10.3923/ajas.2012.13.22.Search in Google Scholar

[29] Dorji N, Sunar K. Morphometric variations among five Bhutanese Indigenous chickens. J Anim Poult Sci. 2014;3(3):76–85.Search in Google Scholar

[30] Marle-Koster EVM, Nel ELH. Genetic characterization of native southern African chicken population: evaluation and selection of polymorphic microsatellite markers. S Afr J Anim Sci. 2000;30:1–6.10.4314/sajas.v30i1.3866Search in Google Scholar

[31] Sudik LY. Characterisation and management of Giza chicken in Egypt. Afr J Anim Agriculture. 2007;13(6):38–43.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2023-02-06

Revised: 2023-06-16

Accepted: 2023-08-01

Published Online: 2023-09-21

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/opag-2022-0218

Keywords for this article

Tanzania; indigenous chicken; genetic diversity; qualitative traits; quantitative traits

Creative Commons

BY 4.0