Morphometry, Growth and Egg Production Characteristics of Red Jungle Fowl and Non-descript Deshi Chicken of Bangladesh

The production performance of non-descriptive deshi (ND) is comparatively lower than exotic chickens. The yearly egg production of deshi white chicken has been recorded as 90 eggs/chicken (Khan et al., 2017). It has been observed that deshi chickens show an average hatch weight of 29 g; age at the first egg at 175 days, the weight of pullet (900 g); mature body weight (1300 g); hatchability (52%); fertility (83%); a mortality rate of 9-15% up to 500 days of age (Bhuiyan et al., 2005; Sohel et al., 2019; Khan et al., 2017). The egg weight for all types of deshi chicken varies from 41.27 g to 43.85 g and the egg color of non-descriptive deshi chicken is generally white (Khan et al., 2017).
       
Comparative studies between Red Jungle fowl (RJf) and indigenous chickens have been done (e.g. Buctot  and Espina, 2015; Hanh et al., 2015) and already highlighting significant difference in egg production and egg weight. The RJF laid around 8.50 to 10.50 eggs per clutch, but a deshi hen showed comparatively higher eggs per clutch, though the differences were statistically non-significant (Buctot and Espina, 2015). However, in the literature, comprehensive comparative studies under semi-intensive conditions between the RJf and ND chickens are scanty  and existing studies are often limited to a few traits only. Therefore, the present study was conducted under semi-intensive management conditions with the objectives (i) to compare the morphometric traits of Red Jungle fowl (RJf) and Non-descript deshi (ND) chicken; (ii) to evaluate the comparative growth performance of RJf and ND chicken; and (iii) to study the productive and reproductive performance of RJf and ND chicken.

The research was conducted by Department of Genetics and Animal Breeding, Chattogram Veterinary and Animal Sciences University (CVASU) and at Hathazary Upazila (sub-district of Chattogram district) of Bangladesh from December 2018 to November 2019 after the approval of the ethical committee of CVASU (Memo no. -CVASU/Dir (R and E) EC/2015/799, Date 05/07/2017). Data were collected from the Red Jungle fowls (RJf) housed in the Aviary (a small population of RJf was reared) at the Research and Farm-based campus of CVASU and from the Non-descript deshi (ND) chickens of the surrounding local areas. Both the chicken genotypes were reared under semi-intensive conditions and provided supplementary feed ingredients (paddy, pulses and soybean).
       
Nowadays, the existence of Red Jungle Fowl (RJf) is increasingly threatened due to habitat destruction, predation and poaching Setianto et al., (2017). Until now, people are still hunting RJf in nature resulting in their availability becoming challenging. When captured for intensive rearing, it was seen that their behavior, physiology and production were changed. Due to small population of RJf, to get an overview of the productive and reproductive the unequal sex ratio was used in this study. A total of 03 cocks and 09 hens of Red Jungle fowls (RJf) and 16 cocks and 160 hens of ND mature chicken were reared. The sex ratio was 1: 3 (male: female) for RJf and 1: 10 for ND. The fertility percentage of eggs was calculated as the proportion of fertile eggs observed by candling to the number of eggs set. Similarly, hatchability percentage of fertile eggs was obtained by deducing the proportion of the number of day-old chicks hatched to the number of fertile eggs set. The eggs were hatched by a broody hen and obtaining 60 and 550 day old chicks respectively, from RJf and ND chickens, resulting in 17 males and 24 females for RJf and 155 males and 300 females for ND. After obtaining day old chicks, periodic live weight was taken using a digital balance from day-old up to mature age (38 week of age) and recorded. From the recorded data, age and weight at sexual maturity and mature weight of chickens were calculated. At the age of day 3, the chicks were vaccinated with the Baby Chicks Ranikhet Disease Vaccine (BCRDV) and a booster dose was applied at 21 days of age. Furthermore, ND (ND-killed vaccine, against Newcastle diseases) was provided to the chickens at 35 days of age and routine deworming was carried out. Eggs were collected from onset until a clutch was complete and the number produced per clutch was recorded. The egg production per chicken per clutch was then converted into yearly hen day egg production per hen. To measure the egg weights, a digital weighing balance (Digi scale™, Germany) with 0.01 g accuracy was used.
       
The morphometric characteristics like beak length, comb and wattle length, neck length, primary and secondary feather length, shank length and spur length and diameter of matured RJf and ND chickens under a semi-intensive management system were measured using a scale in centimeters and recorded. The mortality of the chickens was routinely recorded when a chicken died or was lost due to the predator. Broodiness, nesting behavior and eggshell color were observed for all the chickens.
       
The following statistical mixed model was used to obtain the least square means for the parameters from morpho-metric and growth using PROC GLM of SAS (SAS, 2010) and the values of the egg production parameter a completely randomized design (CRD) was used. The model is given as:
    

 

 
Where
Yij = Values of the trait.
µ = Overall mean.
Ti = Effect of chicken genotype.
Ti(G´S) = Effects of ith genotype and sex.
Sj = Effects of same sex under each genotype.
eij(k) = Residual effect, distributed as.
N (0, σ2). The mean differences were compared using the least significant difference (LSD) (Steel et al., 1997) at a 5% level of significance.

Morphometric characteristics of red jungle fowl and Non-descript deshi chicken
 
The mean with a standard error value of morphometric characteristics of the Red Jungle fowl (RJf) and Non-descript deshi (ND) chickens under semi-intensive conditions are presented in Table 1. Except for comb length, all the studied morphometric traits (beak, wattle, primary, secondary, sickle /tail feather, shank and spur lengths) of ND chickens showed significantly (P<0.05) higher values than the RJf (Table 1). Within the RJf genotype, between sexes, the values of morphometric traits were significantly higher in males than females and similar results were found for ND chickens, except for shank length. The differences in the morphometric traits of RJf and ND by sex have also been reported by other researchers elsewhere (Moreda et al., 2014, Kalia et al., 2016, Tadele et al., 2018). In the current study, the comb length value ranges from 2.96 to 10.73 cm irrespective of genotype and sex, which was similar to other researchers (Ferdaus et al., 2016), who reported the comb length value was 5.12 cm in females and 12.61 cm in male for the indigenous chicken of Bangladesh. The primary and secondary feather length of ND was significantly higher than the RJf. In the case of female to female, the beak length (2.00 cm) and primary feather length (5.95 cm) of ND were significantly (P<0.05) higher than RJf, whereas, the comb length of RJf (4.27cm) showed higher than ND (2.96cm). All other traits were not significantly different between females among both genotypes. The beak and spur length of RJf was consistent as reported by Condon (2012), who also stated that these two traits are most effective for males of RJf. The shank, spur and wattle length values under this investigation agreed with the study of Faruque et al., (2015) and Condon (2012) where they mentioned wattle length ranged from 4.09 to 5.12 cm and shank length from 10.35 to 11.09 cm and spur length 0.25 to 3.26 cm considering the genotypes, ND, Hilly and Naked neck and RJf. These trait differences might be due to genotypic variability and other environmental factors.


 
Live weight and live weight gain
 
The mean with standard error values of live weight and live weight gain of Red Jungle fowl (RJf) and Non-descript deshi (ND) chickens under semi-intensive conditions are presented in Table 2. Within both RJf and ND genotypes, all the trait values differed significantly between the males and females except the weight of day-old chicks. Among the genotypes, ND males showed significantly higher values for all traits compared to RJf males. Similar results were obtained for females among genotypes, except for the age at sexual maturity, which showed that ND was better than RJf females. The weight of day-old chicks depends on the egg weight. Nevertheless, the weight of the eggs of ND was higher than that of RJf and the day-old chicks of ND were also heavier. Similar values were reported by Faruque et al., (2015), Sohel et al., (2019) for ND chickens and by Vijh et al., (2007) for RJf.


       
Except for age at sexual maturity (158 days for RJf and 159.5 days for ND), all the traits differed significantly (P<0.05) between genotypes, with ND showing comparatively higher values than RJf (Table 2). Compared to RJf males, ND males showed later age at sexual maturity (152 days) but females came early sexual maturity (167 days) and the findings are similar to the findings of Jahan et al., (2017), Faruque et al., (2015). However, these findings did not agree with the findings elsewhere (Barua et al., 1992, Shahjahan et al., 2016), who reported higher ages at sexual maturity of 225 and 203 days, respectively and these differences might be due to differences in environmental factors (e.g. feeding, production system, etc.).
       
On the other hand, the weight at sexual maturity of RJf was higher than that of the ND and these values were similar with Sutherland et al., (2018) and for ND with Noor et al., (2021). The mature live weight at 38 weeks of age of ND was superior to the RJf and these values were similar to the other researchers elsewhere (Noor et al., 2021, Vijh et al., 2007).  
       
The weight gains up to sexual maturity and weight gain (g/day) up to mature age indicated that the ND grew faster than the RJf. The growth rate of chickens depends on the weight at maturity and mature live weight, as the weight gain was calculated from the difference of final weight minus the initial weight and this observed value was divided by the age of birds in days. However, the weight gain of ND chickens reported in the current study was similar to Khan et al., (2007) and for the RJf was with Sutherland et al., (2018).
 
Egg production characteristics
 
The mean with standard error value of egg production traits of RJf and ND chickens under semi-intensive conditionsis presented in Table 3. Fertility (%) of eggs, hatchability (%) of fertile eggs and clutch size (days) were significantly (P<0.05) higher in ND than in RJf. This statement was similar with Faruque et al., (2015) and Fazhana and Azhar (2014). The fertility (%) depends on various factors such as breed, season, pre-incubation holding period, lighting, level of nutrition, mating system and time of mating (Miazi et al., 2020) and temperature which is a major factor for the production of the fertile eggs. However, the number of egg in clutches per year (no) was higher in ND than in the RJf genotype. The clutch size found in this study was similar to Jahan et al., (2017) and Vijh et al., (2007), but was lower than the findings of Shahjahan et al., (2016). The difference inthe number of clutches per year may be due to geographical location, natural resources, nutrition and overall management practices.


       
Hen day egg production (HDEP) per year (no) and egg weight (EW) were also found to be significantly higher (P<0.05) in ND chicken (HDEP 52.8 no and EW 40.7 g) than the RJf (HDEP 28.0 no and EW 30.4 g). It was observed that RJf hens are seasonal breeders, whose laying season ranges from spring to monsoon, On the other hand, ND hens lay eggs throughout the year. The egg color of RJf was recorded as light brown, while ND eggs’ color was brownish or whitish. The difference was due to the seasonal breeding behavior of RJf. The result of ND chicken was similar to Shahjahan et al., (2016), though lower than the findings of Ahmed et al., (2012) and Faruque et al., (2015). On the other hand, the hen day egg production of RJf was similar to Vijh et al., (2007) and Kalia et al., (2016). The egg weight values of ND in the present experiment were similar to Barua and Howlider. (1990).
       
However, Ahmed et al., (2012) and Faruque et al., (2017) obtained slightly higher egg weight than the current study. On the other hand, the egg weight of RJf was similar to Vijh et al., (2007), who reported the average weight of RJf eggs was from 24 to 32 g. In addition, the laying season of RJf is spring to monsoon (March- July) but ND females laid eggs throughout the year. The differences between RJf and ND chickens may be caused by evolution due to domestication and also differences in breeding and management practice.

This study reveals that Non-descript (ND) chickens were morphometrically larger than Red Jungle Fowl (RJf) and live weight and weight gain of RJf was lower compared to ND chicken. However, an exception was obtained for age at sexual maturity, where RJf showed earlier maturity than ND chicken. Egg production characteristics in ND chicken were superior to the RJf. The egg weight was lower in RJf and the hatchability percentage of fertile eggs was much lower than the ND chicken. This study was done with a small population of both Red Jungle fowl and non-descript deshi under semi-intensive conditions. To better understand their performance and other characteristics, studies should be done in their natural habitats with a larger studied population.
 

The present study was supported by the Swedish Research Council (Vetenskapsrådet, VR; project 2015-05919) and Chattogram Veterinary and Animal Sciences University of Bangladesh. The authors are also grateful to the persons who assisted during the experiments.
 
Disclaimers
 
The views and conclusions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of their affiliated institutions. The authors are responsible for the accuracy and completeness of the information provided, but do not accept  any liability for any direct or indirect losses resulting from the use of this content.
 
Informed consent
 
All animal procedures for experiments were approved by the Committee of Experimental Animal care and handling techniques were approved by the University of Animal Care Committee of CVASU (Memo no. -CVASU/Dir (RandE) EC/2015/799, Date 05/07/ 2017).

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of this article. No DRF-449 funding or sponsorship influenced the design of the study, data collection, analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.