Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8rzl6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T06:18:00.165Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variation in qualitative traits in Bhutanese indigenous chickens

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2014

T. Tashi  and
N. Dorji
T. Tashi
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, College of Natural Resources, Royal University of Bhutan, Lobesa, Punakha, Bhutan
N. Dorji*
Affiliation:
Department of Animal Science, College of Natural Resources, Royal University of Bhutan, Lobesa, Punakha, Bhutan
*
Correspondence to: N. Dorji, Department of Animal Science, College of Natural Resources, Royal University of Bhutan, Lobesa, Punakha, Bhutan. emails: nepdorpion186@yahoo.com; nedup@cnr.edu.bt

Summary

The objective of the study was to determine the phenotypic variation among four Bhutan indigenous chickens (BIC) namely Seim (SM), Phulom (PL), Yuebjha Narp (YN) and Khuilay (KL). A total of 120 chickens (KL, 30; YN, 30; PL, 30; SM, 30) were included for the present study. Based on descriptive statistic analysis, the results illustrate that there are three types of comb and single type predominant. The Bhutanese chickens do not have feather on the shank and the head type is plain. The common colours of earlobe in four indigenous birds are white and red. White skin and shank colour rank high among BIC groups; however, in SM the yellowish skin colour is observed high. The predominant feather colour of four indigenous chickens is pure black in YN (48.28 percent), white in KL (30.00 percent), reddish brown in SM (33.33 percent) and PL (23.33 percent). In addition, breast, back and neck feather followed the similar pattern of colour. Among BIC populations, KL and YN strains present the greatest and lowest plumage colour diversity, respectively. For example, eight different colours of breast feather are surveyed in KL and PL birds. Therefore, considering the variation in feather colourings, KL and PL seems to have more diversity in morphology but, it requires further studies. On the other hand, YN appears to have less diversity requiring for appropriate development of conservation strategies in Bhutan. Moreover, the large variations present the possibility of making improvement among BIC.

Résumé

Le but de l'étude a été de déterminer la variation phénotypique entre quatre poules autochtones du Bhoutan, à savoir Seim (SM), Phulom (PL), Yuebjha Narp (YN) et Khuilay (KL). Cette étude a compris un total de 120 poules (KL, 30; YN, 30; PL, 30; SM, 30). Basés sur une analyse statistique descriptive, les résultats ont décelé qu'il existe trois types de crêtes, dont le type simple est le type prédominant. Les poules bhoutanaises n'ont pas de plumes sur les tarses et leur tête est du type simple. Les couleurs les plus courantes des oreillons sont, chez les quatre poules autochtones, le blanc et le rouge. La peau et les tarses sont blancs chez la plupart des poules bhoutanaises. Néanmoins, de nombreux spécimens SM présentent une peau de couleur jaunâtre. La couleur prédominante du plumage est le noir pur chez YN (48.28 pour cent), le blanc chez KL (30.00 pour cent) et le marron rougeâtre chez SM (33.33 pour cent) et chez PL (23.33 pour cent). En outre, le plumage de la poitrine, du dos et du cou suivent un schéma de couleur similaire. Parmi les différentes populations de poules bhoutanaises, les lignées KL et YN sont celles qui présentent, respectivement, la plus grande et la plus faible diversité chromatique dans leur plumage. Ainsi, par exemple, huit couleurs différentes ont été relevées pour le plumage de la poitrine des poules KL et PL. Par conséquent, d'après la variation chromatique du plumage, les lignées KL et PL semblent être celles ayant la plus grande diversité morphologique. Toutefois, des études plus approfondies s'avèrent nécessaires. D'un autre côté, la lignée YN semble être celle qui présente la plus faible diversité, comme quoi des stratégies devraient être mises en place au Bhoutan pour assurer la conservation de cette lignée. De plus, les grandes variations observées entre les différentes poules bhoutanaises ouvrent la possibilité de procéder à des projets d'amélioration génétique.

Resumen

El objetivo del estudio fue determinar la variación fenotípica existente entre cuatro gallinas autóctonas de Bhután, concretamente entre Seim (SM), Phulom (PL), Yuebjha Narp (YN) y Khuilay (KL). En este estudio, se incluyeron un total de 120 gallinas (KL, 30; YN, 30; PL, 30; SM, 30). Con base en un análisis estadístico descriptivo, los resultados mostraron que se dan tres tipos de cresta, de los cuales predomina el tipo sencillo. Las gallinas butanesas no tienen plumas sobre los tarsos y la cabeza es de tipo sencillo. En las cuatro gallinas autóctonas, los colores de orejilla más comunes son el blanco y el rojo. Por lo general, el blanco es el color de la piel y de los tarsos en las gallinas butanesas. No obstante, muchos ejemplares SM presentan piel de color amarillento. El color predominante en las plumas es el negro puro en YN (48.28 por ciento), el blanco en KL (30.00 por ciento) y el marrón rojizo en SM (33.33 por ciento) y en PL (23.33 por ciento). Asimismo, las plumas del pecho, del dorso y del cuello siguen un patrón cromático similar. Entre las distintas poblaciones de gallinas butanesas, las variedades KL y YN son las que presentan, respectivamente, la mayor y la menor diversidad cromática en su plumaje. Así, por ejemplo, se han registrado ocho colores diferentes para el plumaje del pecho en las gallinas KL y PL. Por tanto, de acuerdo con la variación en el colorido de las plumas, KL y PL son probablemente las variedades que mayor diversidad morfológica presentan. Sin embargo, se precisan más estudios. Por otro lado, parece que la variedad YN es la que menor diversidad presenta, con lo que se hace necesario un adecuado desarrollo de estrategias para la conservación de esta variedad en Bhután. Por último, las grandes variaciones observadas entre las distintas gallinas butanesas abren la posibilidad de hacer mejora genética.

Keywords

indigenous chickensphenotypic variationdiversityconservationpoules autochtonesvariation phénotypiquediversitéconservationgallinas autóctonasvariación fenotípicadiversidadconservación

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Genetic Resources/Resources génétiques animales/Recursos genéticos animales , Volume 54 , June 2014 , pp. 73 - 77
Copyright
Copyright © Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2014 

Introduction

In developing countries, the majority of poultry products come from traditional production practices. Indigenous chickens continue to be most popular due to their adaptability to harsh conditions and their resistance against local diseases (Ajayi, Reference Ajayi2010; Dorji and Gyeltshen, Reference Dorji and Gyeltshen2012). This indigenous bird manifests a great deal of variation which is due to genetic and environmental factors (Olori and Sonaiya, Reference Olori and Sonaiya1992). Thus, they are reservoirs of genetic materials for genetic studies, improvement, preservation and conservation (Dorji, Duangjinda and Phasuk, Reference Dorji, Duangjinda and Phasuk2012). Poultry production has been playing crucial roles in sustaining and supplementing a cheap protein to the poor (Dorji and Gyeltshen, Reference Dorji and Gyeltshen2012). Importantly, indigenous chickens are kept for their socio-cultural importance (Dorji and Gyeltshen, Reference Dorji and Gyeltshen2012; Dorji, Duangjinda and Phasuk, Reference Dorji, Duangjinda and Phasuk2012). For example, society believes in consuming eggs and meat during pregnancy and after delivery.

The traditional sub-sector consists of poorly uncharacterized indigenous chickens (Dorji and Gyeltshen, Reference Dorji and Gyeltshen2012). Recently, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nation (FAO) Domestic Animal Diversity Information System (DADIS) listed ten indigenous strains of chicken in Bhutan. Dorji, Duangjinda and Phasuk (Reference Dorji, Duangjinda and Phasuk2012) conducted genetic study on four strains of Bhutanese local chicken based on the economic importance to the rural society and their popularity. Dorji, Duangjinda and Phasuk (Reference Dorji, Duangjinda and Phasuk2012) documented for greater genetic diversity of Khuilay (naked neck) and lowest for Yuebjha Narp (black chicken). Moreover, they did mention that the phenotypic variation was likely to be highest for Khuilay but they did not quantify. Therefore, the objective of the study was to access diversity of Bhutanese local chicken based on qualitative trait.

Materials and methods

Sample sizes

Considering the agro-ecology, socioeconomic significance of chicken production and population of indigenous chickens, Tsirang was selected and this district has been recognized as important genetic resources of poultry in the country. Thus, farmers are being trained related to conservation activity of traditional birds. The study was based on four Bhutanese indigenous chicken comprising Khuilay (KL = 30), Yuebjha Narp (YN = 30), Phulom (PL = 30) and Seim (SM = 30).

Data collection and analysis

The data captured parameters which are visually judged for variation in the phenotypic traits such as colour of feather, shank, ear lobe and shank, comb type and head type (FAO, 2012). Descriptive statistics of SPSS 16 was used to analyze the data.

Results and discussion

Feather colour

The plumage colour of local chickens available was reddish brown constituting the maximum proportion of plumage colour in SM and PL varieties with 33.33 and 23.33 percent, respectively. An utmost plumage colour was white (30.00 percent) and black (48.28 percent) in KL and YN, respectively. Similarly, a predominant colouring as reddish brown (20.00 percent), black (30.00 percent) and reddish (30.00 percent) in neck feather was observed for PL, YN and SM, respectively. Neck feather was more varied in PL population. On contrary, YN contains the least variation of neck feather colours. The naked neck gene is a dominant gene and is responsible for general reduction of feather over body surface and total loss of feather in neck region (Merat, Reference Merat1986; Ige et al., Reference Ige, Salako, Yakubu and Adeyemi2012).

In terms of back feather colouration, the highest percentage was surveyed in SM, KL, PL and YN was reddish brown (40.00 percent), white (23.33 percent), brownish (20.00 percent) and black (46.67 percent), respectively. The same colour domination was examined for breast feather colourings in SM (reddish brown, 33.33 percent), KL (white, 36.67 percent), PL (brownish, 20.00 percent) and YN (black, 53.33 percent). Importantly, plumage, neck feather, back and breast feather colour were found to be more varied in KL and PL populations (Table 1). This probably explains the greater diversity with respect to feather colourations (Bhuiyan et al., Reference Bhuiyan, Bhuiyan and Deb2005; Faruque et al., Reference Faruque, Siddiqee, Afroz and Islam2010). On the other hand, lowest feathers colour was observed in YN indicating the least diversified among the four Bhutan indigenous chickens (BIC) populations agreeing with Dorji, Duangjinda and Phasuk (Reference Dorji, Duangjinda and Phasuk2012) findings. Their report was based on FAO recommended molecular tools. Moreover, the frizzling and naked neck genes is considered for increased feed efficiency, growth rate, egg production and disease tolerance (Ajayi, Reference Ajayi2010; Egahi, Dim and Momoh, Reference Egahi, Dim and Momoh2013). Moreover, genetic distance between broiler and KL was sufficiently close (Dorji, Duangjinda and Phasuk, Reference Dorji, Duangjinda and Phasuk2012).

Table 1.

Feather colour in four Bhutanese indigenous chicken populations (percent).

Comb type and earlobe

Only three types of comb (rose, pea and single) were found in all four indigenous chickens of Bhutan (Table 2). The finding agrees with the reports of Daikwo, Okpe and Ocheja (Reference Daikwo, Okpe and Ocheja2011) and Ige et al. (Reference Ige, Salako, Yakubu and Adeyemi2012) on native chickens of Nigeria. Egahi et al. (Reference Egahi, Dim, Momoh and Gwaza2010), Dana et al. (Reference Dana, Dessie, van der Waaij and van Arendonk2010) and Badubi, Rakereng and Marumo (Reference Badubi, Rakereng and Marumo2006) reported more than three comb types contradicting with present study. Nevertheless, the common comb occurring was single comb type as examined for Nigerian local birds (Egahi et al., Reference Egahi, Dim, Momoh and Gwaza2010; Apuno, Mbap and Ibrahim, Reference Apuno, Mbap and Ibrahim2011; Daikwo, Okpe and Ocheja, Reference Daikwo, Okpe and Ocheja2011). Parallel result was also obtained from native chickens of Botswana (Badubi et al., Reference Badubi, Rakereng and Marumo2006) and Bangladeshis (Bhuiyan et al., Reference Bhuiyan, Bhuiyan and Deb2005; Faruque et al., Reference Faruque, Siddiqee, Afroz and Islam2010; Uddin et al., Reference Uddin, Ali, Aktar and Khatun2011). This indicates that the bird have been favoured by hot climatic conditions whereby large comb, such as single comb allows for efficient heat regulation (Apuno, Mbap and Ibrahim, Reference Apuno, Mbap and Ibrahim2011). On the other hand, pea type was the most frequently sampled for Ethiopian traditional birds (Dana et al., Reference Dana, Dessie, van der Waaij and van Arendonk2010).

Table 2.

Shank, skin and earlobe colour, comb type, heat type and ptilopody among four indigenous chickens of Bhutan (percent).

Except for the SM, all the BIC birds have ear lobes (Table 2). Earlobe colour was dominated by red (50.00 percent) in SM, white (46.67 percent) in KL, white and red (36.67 percent) and white (43.33 percent) in YN flocks. The dominant white colour was also reported in Nigerian (Egahi et al., Reference Egahi, Dim, Momoh and Gwaza2010; Ige et al., Reference Ige, Salako, Yakubu and Adeyemi2012), Bangladeshis (Faruque et al., Reference Faruque, Siddiqee, Afroz and Islam2010) and Ethiopian (Dana et al., Reference Dana, Dessie, van der Waaij and van Arendonk2010) indigenous chicken. Furthermore, Faruque et al. (Reference Faruque, Siddiqee, Afroz and Islam2010) documented that the red and white earlobe colour dominants in naked neck population and is in line with KL populations.

Ptilopody and head type

Throughout the study crested head and ptilopody were not found in all BIC populations (Table 2). The absence of feather on shank aligns with the finding of Halima (Reference Halima2007) in Northwest Ethiopian local birds. Faruque et al. (Reference Faruque, Siddiqee, Afroz and Islam2010) also observed that the shank feather phenomenon was absent in three genotypes of Bangladeshis native chicken. On contrary, lower percent of ptilopody among Nigerian local birds was examined (Daikwo, Okpe and Ocheja, Reference Daikwo, Okpe and Ocheja2011).

Skin and shank colour

The skin colour ranged from white to red among the studied BIC populations. However, the prime skin colour in SM, KL, PL and YN was yellowish (46.67 percent), reddish (33.33 percent), white (30 percent) and (33.33 percent), respectively (Table 2). Daikwo, Okpe and Ocheja (Reference Daikwo, Okpe and Ocheja2011) also reports multiple shank colour for Nigerian traditional birds. This was contradicting with the Ethiopian local bird's shank colour with white and yellow (Dana et al., Reference Dana, Dessie, van der Waaij and van Arendonk2010). Nevertheless, high percent colour of shank follow the same pattern.

Shank with white colour accounted the most in KL (26.67 percent) and PL (33.33 percent), yellowish (36.67 percent) in SM and black (36.67 percent) in YN. Faruque et al. (Reference Faruque, Siddiqee, Afroz and Islam2010) also mentioned that the white shank colouring dominants in Bangladeshis chickens. This contradicts with Mancha (Reference Mancha2004) whose finding in Plateau chicken was pink, dark ash, ash and light yellow. Genes that affect plumage colour also affect shank colour (Crawford, Reference Crawford1990).The presence of large variations further confirms that higher diversity in KL and PL as suggested by Daikwo, Okpe and Ocheja (Reference Daikwo, Okpe and Ocheja2011).

Conclusion

Bhutanese indigenous chicken has their place in contributing to the genetic collection because of their hardiness and aptitude to survive under low input conditions. Development of conservation strategies is very important to make genetic resources available for meeting the future unpredicted breeding requirement. Among four studied chicken strains in Bhutan, single comb type predominates and there was no feather on shank and head. Based on feather colours, Kuilay seems to be more diversed while Yuebjha Narp reflect lower morphological variation. It is further suggested to conduct morphometric study on Bhutanese chicken populations to confirm our claims.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank individual farmers for their active participation during this study.

References

Ajayi, F.O. 2010. Nigerian indigenous chicken: a valuable genetic resource for meat and egg production. Asian J. Poultry Sci., 4: 164–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Apuno, A.A., Mbap, S.T. & Ibrahim, T. 2011. Characterization of local chickens (Gallus gallus domesticus) in Shelleng and Song local government areas of Adamawa state, Nigeria. Agric. Biol. J. N. Am., 2(1): 6–14.Google Scholar
Badubi, S.S., Rakereng, M. & Marumo, M. 2006. Morphological characteristics and food resources available for indigenous chickens in Botswana. Livestock Res. Rural Dev. (available at http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd18/1/badu18003.htm).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. Animal Genet. Res. Inf. (AGRI), 36: 73–84, FAO, Rome.Google Scholar
Crawford, R.D. 1990. Poultry breeding and genetics. New York, Elsevier Press, pp. 109–169.Google Scholar
Daikwo, I.S., Okpe, A.A. & Ocheja, J.O. 2011. Phenotypic characterization of local chickens in Dekina. Int. J. Poultry Sci., 10(6): 444–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dana, N., Dessie, T., van der Waaij, L.H. & van Arendonk, J.A.M. 2010. Morphological features of indigenous chicken populations of Ethiopia. Animal Genet. Res., 46: 11–23.Google Scholar
Dorji, N. & Gyeltshen, T. 2012. Characterisation of family poultry production in Haa and Mongar districts of Bhutan. Livestock Res. Rural Dev. (available at http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/9/dorj24155.htm).Google Scholar
Dorji, N., Duangjinda, M. & Phasuk, Y. 2012. Genetic characterization of Bhutanese native chickens based on an analysis of Red Junglefowl, domestic Southeast Asian and commercial chicken lines. Genet. Mol. Biol., 35(3): 603–609.Google Scholar
Egahi, J.O., Dim, N.I., Momoh, O.M. & Gwaza, D.S. 2010. Variations in qualitative traits in the Nigerian local chicken. Int. J. Poultry Sci., 9: 978–979.Google Scholar
Egahi, J.O., Dim, N.I. & Momoh, O.M. 2013. The effect of plumage modifier genes on egg quality indices of the Nigerian local chicken. J. Agric. Vet. Sci., 2(2): 04–06.Google Scholar
Faruque, S., Siddiqee, N.U., Afroz, M.A. & Islam, M.S. 2010. Phenotypic characterization of native chicken reared under intensive management system. J. Bangladesh Agric. University, 8: 79–82.Google Scholar
Food and Agriculture Organization. 2012. Phenotypic characterization of animal genetic resources. FAO Animal Production and Health Guidelines 11, Rome.Google Scholar
Halima, H.M. 2007. Phenotypic and genetic characterization of indigenous chicken populations in Northwest Ethiopia. University of Free State, Bloemfontein, South Africa. (Ph.D. thesis).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ige, A.O., Salako, A.E., Yakubu, A. & Adeyemi, S.A. 2012. Qualitative traits characterization of Yoruba and Fulani ecotype indigenous chickens in derived Savannah zone of Nigeria. Int. J. Poultry Sci., 11(10): 616–620.Google Scholar
Mancha, Y.P. 2004. Characterization of local chickens in Northern part of the Jos Plateau. Animal Production Programme, School of Agriculture, ATBU, Bauchi. (Ph.D. thesis).Google Scholar
Merat, P. 1986. Potential use of Na (naked neck) gene in poultry production. Int. J. Poultry Sci., 42: 124–142.Google Scholar
Olori, V.E. & Sonaiya, E.B. 1992. Effect of length of lay of Nigerian indigenous chicken on their egg composition and shell quality. Nig. J. Anim. Prod., 19: 95–100.Google Scholar
Uddin, A.H., Ali, A., Aktar, Y. & Khatun, M.A. 2011. Geographical distribution, classification, characterization and conservation of different native chicken varieties of Bangladesh. Bangladesh Res. Publ. J., 5(3): 227–233.Google Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Feather colour in four Bhutanese indigenous chicken populations (percent).

Figure 1

Table 2. Shank, skin and earlobe colour, comb type, heat type and ptilopody among four indigenous chickens of Bhutan (percent).