Indian Journal of Animal Research

  • Chief EditorK.M.L. Pathak

  • Print ISSN 0367-6722

  • Online ISSN 0976-0555

  • NAAS Rating 6.40

  • SJR 0.263

  • Impact Factor 0.4 (2024)

Frequency :
Monthly (January, February, March, April, May, June, July, August, September, October, November and December)
Indexing Services :
Science Citation Index Expanded, BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Scopus, AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Full Research Article

Effect of Sex, Locations and Seasons on Nutritional Status of Non-descript Free-range Scavenge Chicken of Assam, India

R. Islam1,*, J.D. Mahanta1, K. Begum1, M. Rahman2, A. Ali3
1Department of Poultry Science, College of Veterinary Science, Assam Agricultural University, Khanapara, Guwahati-781 022, Assam, India.
2Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying, SCS College of Agriculture, Assam Agricultural University, Rangamati, Dhubri-783 339, Assam, India.
3Department of Veterinary Microbiology, College of Veterinary Science, Assam Agricultural University, Khanapara, Guwahati-781 022, Assam, India.

ABSTRACT

Background: The inferior productivity of non-descript free-range scavenge chicken might be due to poor nutrition. Further, nutritional status of such chicken varied with seasons, locations etc. In the present study, nutritional status of indigenous free-range chicken was investigated in different seasons and in different agro-climatic zones of Assam to formulate nutritional strategies to optimize their production potential.

Methods: Altogether, 160 chickens (80 males and 80 females) of 7 to 10 months of age were collected randomly from different agro-climatic zones viz. Lower Brahmaputra Valley Zone (LBVZ), Upper Brahmaputra Valley Zone (UBVZ), Central Brahmaputra Valley Zone (CBVZ) and North Bank Plain Zone (NBPZ) of Assam during different seasons viz. Pre-monsoon (PRM), Monsoon (MON), Post-monsoon (PTM) and Winter (WIN) seasons and were slaughtered and their crop contents were separated out for physical and chemical analysis to assess the nutritional status of them.

Result: The grains and by-products were significantly (P<0.05) higher during PTM season. The green forages were significantly (P<0.05) higher in CBVZ than other zones. The DM contents was significantly (P<0.05) higher in PTM season than other seasons. The proportions of CP were significantly (P<0.05) higher during MON season. Both DM and CP contents were significantly (P<0.05) higher in LBVZ zone. It could be concluded that the scavenged feed resource base varied with seasons and locations and was alsodeficient in some major nutrients in different locations and seasons and hence could not be fulfil nutritional requirement of free-range chicken. Therefore, it is very imperative to provide strategic incremental feeds along with minerals to free-range chickens to improve their production potential.

INTRODUCTION

Free-range scavenging chicken is an indispensable part among resource-poor and under-privileged rural communities of low-income food-deficit countries throughout the world. They play a major role in providing income, nutritional security and socio-cultural values among the rural poor (Alders and Pym, 2009). Backyard chicken farming has been a potential tool to alleviate poverty, to eradicate malnutrition, to empower women and to employ family labours among rural tribals in India (Chatterjee and Rajkumar, 2015; Rajkumar and Rama Rao, 2015; Islam et al., 2021). Despite their multi-faceted utility, less attention has been paid by researchers and policy makers for overall development of such non-descript type of free-range chicken. Moreover, the production potential of such chicken is much lower than intensive commercial chicken due to inferior genetic make-up, sub-optimal nutrition, improper management and in-appropriate disease control programme. In addition to proper management and disease control programme, nutrition could play a vital role in achieving better productive and reproductive outputs in scavenging chicken,as the local scavenging chickens are generally deficient in their nutritional profile (Mwalusanya et al., 2002). Moreover, the nutritional status of scavenging chicken varies with seasons and locations as the scavenging feed resource base (SRFB) differs with seasons and locations (Goromela et al., 2008). Hence, most of the farmers provide supplemental feed to their scavenged chicken in order to meet the nutritional requirement of chicken as the availability of scavenged feed resource base varies with different seasons and regions (Rajkumar et al., 2021). It would be unwise to formulate feeding strategies for free range chicken without knowing the actual nutritional status of scavenged chicken. Hence to develop a comprehensive feed formula for scavenging chicken,the present study was planned with an objective to assess the nutritional status of such non-descript type of chicken under free-range scavenge condition by analyzing physical and composition of crop ingesta in different seasons and agro-climatic zones of Assam, India.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Locations and seasons of the study
 
The latitude of Assam, India is 26.2006° N and the longitude is 92.9376° E. The climate is typically “Tropical Monsoon Rainforest Climate” with high humidity and heavy rainfall. The paddy is the most important and staple food crop, while tea is the principal cash crop grown in the state of Assam. It has six agro-climatic zones. The present study was carried out in four agro-climatic zones viz. Upper Brahmaputra Valley Zone (UBVZ), Lower Brahmaputra Valley Zone (LBVZ), North Bank Plain Zone (NBPZ) and Central Brahmaputra Valley Zone (CBVZ). One district from each zone was selected on the basis of population of non-descript type of chicken. The district, which had highest such type of chicken as per 20th Livestock Census, 2019 (DAHD, 2021) was selected from each zone. Thus, a total of four districts were selected as shown in the Table 1. The study was carried out in all four seasons viz. pre-monsoon (March-May), monsoon (June-September), post-monsoon (October-November) and winter (December-February) seasons during 2023-24. The temperature in different seasons and annual average rainfall in different zones are shown in Table 2.

Table 1: Selected agro-climatic zones with respective districts.



Table 2: Temperature and rainfall of different agro-climatic zones during different seasons.


 
Selection of birds
 
The indigenous chickens reared under free-range scavenging system having 7 to 10 months of age were considered for the study. The birds were purchased/collected from selected farmers from each zone based on their experience in indigenous chicken farming and accessibility to the investigator. Altogether 40 farmers (10 from each zone) were selected randomly for this purpose. From each zone and each season 10 (1 chicken per farmer) such scavenged chickens (5 cocks and 5 hens)were randomly selected. The selected birds were collected directly from the selected farmer’s household between 4 to 6 pm.In this manner 40 chickens were collected during one season from all zones. Thus, altogether 160 chickens (40 chickens per season x 4 zones) were collected for the whole study and were utilized for crop sample collection.
 
Collection of crop contents
 
The birds so collected were then slaughtered on the spot by severing the jugular vein after recording their individual body weights. Then, each bird was eviscerated, the crop was separated and preserved in ice for further laboratory analysis.
 
Physical analysis of crop contents
 
For physical analysis, contents were separated out from the crop, kept in aluminum foil and weighed before physical analysis. The different feed items found in the crop of each bird were identified visually and were separated physically with the help of forceps into different categories as shown in the Table 3. The contents after separating physically under different categories were sundried and weighed.

Table 3: Physical categorization of crop contents.


 
Chemical analysis of crop contents
 
For chemical analysis, the dried contents were mixed together and ground after the grits and other inanimate objects were removed from the sample. The ground crop contents were analyzed for the proximate components of dry matter (DM), crude protein (CP), ether extract (EE), crude fibre (CF) and ash as per standard method [9] while, calcium and total phosphorus were estimated as per the method described by (Talapatra et al., 1940). The chemical analysis of the crop samples was carried out at the post-graduate laboratory, Department of Poultry Science, College of Veterinary Science, AAU, Khanapara, Guwahati in collaboration with National Research Centre on Pig, Rani, Guwahati.
 
Statistical methods
 
Variations of physical and chemical composition of crop content of birds with respect to different agro-climatic zone were analyzed as per standard statistical methods.Fixed effect general linear models were fitted with the datasets using PROC Univariate procedure of Statistical Analysis System (SAS 9.3) and the model of analysis of variance defined below
 
               Yijkl= µ+ Zi+Sj+Gk+ (ZS)ij+(SG)jk+(GZ)ki+eijkl
               
Where,
Yijklm = Observation of studied trait.
µ = Overall mean of the observed trait.
Z, S and G = Effects of ith agro-climatic zone jth season and kth sex respectively.
ZS, SG and GZ = Interaction effects between agro-climatic zone and season; season and sex; and sex and agro-climatic zone respectively.

The residual error in the model is represented by eijklm with the assumption of normal and independently distributed with mean zero and variance σ2e. The analyzed data were expressed as Mean±SE. Whenever the effect was significant, the differences were tested for significance by Duncan’s multiple range test (DMRT) as modified by (Kramer, 1957).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Physical composition of crop content
 
Effect of season
 
The physical composition of the crop contents of free-range non-descript type of chicken is presented in the Table 4. The results indicated that the contents of grains and by-product along with kitchen wastes, green forages, insects and worms and indigestible miscellaneous particles of free-range chicken cropvaried significantly (P<0.05) across seasons. The grains and by-products were significantly (P<0.05) higher during PTM season followed by WIN, PRM and lowest during MON season. The kitchen wastes were higher (P<0.05) during PRM season followed by MON, WIN and PTM seasons. Higherproportions of green forages were recorded in MON season than other seasons. However, the corresponding values for green forages were comparable between PRM and WIN seasons. The proportion of insects and worms in the crop was also higher in MON season as compared to other seasons. Similarly, the quantities of indigestible miscellaneous particles were significantly (P<0.05) higher in MON and WIN seasons. However, the corresponding values during PRM and PTM were comparable between themselves.

Table 4: Physical composition of crop contents in different seasons, locations and sexes.


 
Effect of location
 
The results revealed that there were no significant differences of contents like grains and by-products, kitchen wastes, insects and worms and indigestible miscellaneous particles across zones, while green forages were significantly (P<0.05) higher in CBVZ than other zones (Table 4). However, the corresponding values for green forages in LBVZ, UBVZ and NBPZ were statistically similar and did not show any significant differences. The study also indicated that the total intake also significantly higher in CBVZ and NBPZ as compared to other zones.
 
Effect of sex
 
The results also revealed that contents like kitchen wastes, green forages and indigestible miscellaneous particles significantly (P<0.05) differed between two sexes, while grains and by-products and insects and worms did not differ significantly between hen and cock (Table 4).The proportions of kitchen wastes, green forages and indigestible miscellaneous particle were higher in females than their male counterparts.Theinteractions between season and zone also varied significantly (P<0.05) with regard to grains and by-products, kitchen wastes and green forages. It was also found that the effect of interaction for zone and sex and for season and sex differed significantly (P<0.05) with regard to green forages and kitchen wastes respectively. 
 
Chemical composition of crop contents
 
Effect of season
 
The chemical composition of the crop contents is depicted in Table 5. The study revealed that the chemical composition of contents varied with season and location. The results indicated that the mean DM was significantly (P<0.05) higher in PTM season as compared to other seasons. However, the values for DM during PRM and WIN were statistically similar and were higher than MON season. The proportions of CP were significantly (P<0.05) higher during MON season however, the values were comparable with PTM and WIN seasons. There were no significant differences across seasons in regard to ether extract contents. The CF contents were significantly (P<0.05) higher in PRM season as compared to other seasons; however, the values for MON, PTM and WIN seasons were statistically similar. The mean values for ash were higher in PRM season than other seasons. Further, the values recorded during PTM season were comparable with MON season and higher than WIN season. The proportions of Ca were higher in PRM season as compared to other seasons, however the values recorded in MON, PTM and WIN seasons were statistically similar. The P contents did not show any significant differences across seasons.

Table 5: Proximate principles of crop contents in different seasons, locations and sexes.


 
Effect of location
 
The proportions of DM in the crop were higher in LBVZ than other zones, however comparable with CBVZ and NBPZ (Table 5). The mean CP recorded in LBVZ was significantly (P<0.05) higher as compared to other zones. Further, levels of CP in CBVZ and NBPZ were comparable to each other and were higher than UBVZ. The ether extract contents in LBVZ, CBVZ and NBPZ were statistically similar but higher than UBVZ. The CF contents did not show significant differences among LBVZ, CBVZ and UBVZ, however the values were higher than NBPZ. The proportions of ash were significantly (P<0.05) higher UBVZ than other zones, however the corresponding values were comparable with LBVZ. The ash contents did not show significant differences CBVZ and NBPZ. The Ca contents were also higher (P<0.05) in LBVZ than other zones, however the values recorded for CBVZ, UBVZ and NBPZ did not differ among them. The total P contents of the crop did not vary significantly across zones.
 
Effect of sex
 
The proportions of dry matter, crude protein, ether extract, total ash, calcium and phosphorous in the crop of male chickens did not differ significantly with their female counterparts, however the crude fiber contents in the crop of male chicken were significantly (P<0.05) higher than that of female chicken (Table 5). 

Paddy was the primary cereal crop grown across Assam and was normally harvested during post-monsoon season. Hence the chicken under scavenging system could consume left-over grains from paddy field during this season resulted in higher proportion of grains in the crop of chicken. Higher proportions of grains in the crop of chicken might be due to high availability of paddy grains during harvesting season. The present results also corroborated with the findings of other studies (Rashid et al., 2005; Momoh et al., 2010; Hayat et al., 2016; Prakash et al., 2020) where it was observed that crop of the scavenging chicken contained higher cereal grains during harvesting season than non-harvesting season. Similarly, Prakash et al., (2020) also reported lower proportion of grains during rainy (non-harvesting) season. Contrary to the present results, (Pousga et al., 2005; Ncobela and Chimonyo, 2016) reported comparatively higher per cent of grains during rainy season than the dry season. Higher proportions of kitchen wastes in the crop of scavenged chicken were found during MON (rainy) seasons, as most of the farmers had a tendency to supplement their chicken with kitchen wastes during that lean period. There was also scarcity of scavenged feed resource during MON (non-harvesting) season, as most of the crop fields were sub-merged with water during MON seasons that resultedin scavenged feed resources being unavailable to chicken. Moreover, availability of grains during MON (rainy season) were lower (Prakash et al., 2020) and no crops were harvested during MON seasons; hence scavenged chickens were dependent mostly on kitchen wastes. Similarly, (Rashid et al., 2005; Mekonnen et al., 2010) also observed higher proportion of kitchen wastes in crop during non-harvestingseason.There were plentiful growth of plants and other vegetations during MON (rainy) season resulted in higher contents of green forages in the crop. The higher proportion of green forages in CBVZ than other zones might be due to abundant growth of plants and vegetation in the said zone as there was higher annual rainfall in CBVZ than other zones (Table 2). Similarly, Momoh et al., (2010) also observed higher green forages contents in the crop during early rainy season.The present results also indicated that scavenged chicken consumed higher proportions of insects and worms during MON (rainy) season, as insects and worms were plentiful during rainy season (Goromela et al., 2008). The warmer and humid climatic condition provided favorable situation for growth of insects and worms and hence, made them available for scavenged chicken. During winter season most of the insects and worms tend to be hibernated resulted in lower contents of insects and worms in the crop of chicken. The higher occurrence of indigestible miscellaneous particles like sand, grit etc. in the crop of scavenged chicken during MON(rainy) season might be attributed to scarcity of scavengeable feed resources such as cereal grains or others (Goromela et al., 2008). Further, most of the crop fields were submerged with rain water during MON season and hence scavenged chicken tend to search feed on public roads resulted in presence of sand, grit and other inert materials in their crop.

The higher percent of DM contents in the crop during PTM (harvesting) season than other seasons might be due to higher intake of paddy grains during said season, as paddy was the primary crop in the study areas. The present DM contents in the crop across seasons and zones corroborated the findings of Rashid et al., (2005) and were much lower than (Dessie and Ogle, 2000; Mekonnen et al., 2010). Theintake of DM was also higher in LBVZ than other zones, which might be due to higher annual rainfall that could facilitated more production of other cereal crops. The CP contents were higher during MON (non-harvesting) season as compared to other seasons, which could be due to higher intake of animal protein like insects, worms, maggots, larvae etc as they were abundant during non-harvesting seasons (Sonaiya, 2004; Mekonnen et al., 2010). However, the CP contentsin different seasons and zones in the study areas were much lower (9.94% to 10.85%) than the (NRC, 1994) recommendation (16% for layer and 14.5% for grower) to maintain optimal growth and production. However, the present CP contents were comparable with the findings of Prakash et al., (2020). Thus, the present results indicated that scavenged chickens were deficient in CP in their feed. The higher EE contents in the crop of backyard chicken in LBVZ and CBVZ zones than other zones might be due to higher intake oil seeds like mustard, linseed etc. which were abundantly grown in the said zones. However, the corresponding values recorded across seasons and zones were much lower than the reports of Mekonnen et al., (2010). The CF contents across seasons, sexes and zones were much higher than the recommendation of 5% by Feltwel and Fox (1978) could result in poor availability of nutrients. Further, CF contents recorded in PRM season was highest than other seasons, which might be attributed to consumption of undesirable particles like feathers, wood savings etc. during that season (Ncobela and Chimonyo, 2016). The ash contents during MON (rainy) and PTM seasons were higher than other seasons. This was attributed to higher consumption of inorganic materials such as soil, sand, stones, grits, egg shells, chicken bones etc. during rainy season (Ncobela and Chimonyo, 2016). However, the present values of ash contents in different seasons (10.23 to 11.32%) and zones (10.43 to 10.94%) were comparable with Sheikh et al., (2021) and much lower than the reports of (Ncobela and Chimonyo, 2016; Preetam et al., 2019). The mean Ca contents of crop were relatively higher in LBVZ zone than other zones. Similarly, it was also higher during PRM season than other seasons. The relatively higher Ca contents in the crop could be attributed to the higher intake of kitchen wastes, which comprised of green vegetables, chicken and fish bones etc., were major sources of Ca. The present Ca values across seasons, zones and sexes were comparable with the values obtained in previous studies of Raphulu et al., (2015); Afolabi et al., (2019) and Prakash et al., (2020). The man P contents in crop were more constant (0.38 to 0.43%) and were not affected by seasons, zones and sexes (Raphulu et al., 2015). However, both Ca and P contents in the crop of scavenged chicken were relatively much lower while compared with (NRC, 1994). Hence, supplementation of Ca and Pto scavenged chicken could improve the nutritional status, which in turn might augment their productivity (Raphulu et al., 2015).
 

CONCLUSION

From the above study, it may be concluded that nutritional status of free-range scavenging chickens varied with locations and seasons andwere nutritionally deficient in some major nutrients like protein, calcium etc. which are the most vital nutrients for their optimal production. Hence, strategic and season and location specific supplemental feeding could be recommended for such chickens to improve their overall productivity, which could in turn benefit the resource poor and economically weaker section of the society.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

The author (s) declare no potential conflict of interest.

REFERENCES


  1. Afolabi, K.D., Ndelekwute, E.K., Abu, O.A. and Nyong, I. (2019). Assessment of nutritional quality of crop contents of scavenging chicken in Akwa Ibom state of Nigeria. Advances in Life Science and Technology. 76: 52-58. doi: 10.7176/ALST.

  2. Alders, R.G. and Pym, R.A.E. (2009). Village poultry: Still important to millions, eight thousand years after domestication. World’s Poultry Science Journal. 65(02): 181-190.

  3. Chatterjee, R.N. and Rajkumar, U. (2015). An overview of poultry production in India. Indian Journal of Animal Health. 54(2): 89-108.

  4. DAHD. (2021). Annual Report 2020-21. Department of Animal Husbandry and Dairying. Ministry of Fisheries, Animal Husbandry and Dairying. Government of India. New Delhi.

  5. Dessie, T. and Ogle, B. (2000). Nutritional status of village poultry in the central highlands of Ethiopia as assessed by analysis of crop contents. Ethiopian Journal of Agricultural Science. 17: 47-56.

  6. Feltwell, R. and Fox R. (1978). Practical Poultry Feeding. Faber, Boston, London.

  7. Goromela, E.H., Kwakkel, R.P., Verstegen, M.W.A. and Katule, A. M. (2008). Effect of season and farming system on the quantity and nutritional quality of scavengeable feed resources and performance of village poultry in central Tanzania. Journal of Cell and Animal Biology. 2(3): 63- 71.

  8. Hayat, M., Solomon, D. and Meseret, M. (2016). Chemical composition of Scavenging feed resources of indigenous chickens. Asian Journal of Animal Sciences. 10(3): 182-188.

  9. Islam, R., Kalita, N., Sapcota, D., Sheikh, I.U., Mahanta, J.D. and Sarma, M. (2021). Characterization of Free-range Indigenous Chicken Production System in North-East India (Assam). Journal of Animal Research. 11: 59-70. doi: 10.30954/2277-940X.01.2021.

  10. Kramer, C.T. (1957). Extension of multiple range tests to group corrected adjusted means. Biometrics. 13: 13-18. doi: 10.2307/3001898.

  11. Mekonnen, H., Mulatu, D., Kelay, B. and Berhan, T. (2010). Assessment of the nutritional status of indigenous scavenging chickens in Ada’a district, Ethiopia. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 42: 123-130.

  12. Momoh, O.M., Egahi, J.O., Ogwuche, P.O. and Etim, V.E. (2010). Variation in nutrient composition of crop contents of scavenging local chickens in North Central Nigeria. Agriculture and Biology Journal of North America. 1(5): 912-915.

  13. Mwalusanya, N.A., Katule, A.M., Mutayoba, S.K., Minga, U.M., Mtambo, M.M.A. (2002). Nutrient status of crop contents of rural scavenging local chickens in Tanzania. British Journal of Poultry Science. 43: 64-69.

  14. Ncobela, C.N. and Chimonyo, M. (2016). Nutritional quality and amino acid composition of diets consumed by scavenging hens and cocks across seasons. Tropical Animal Health and Production. dio: 10.1007/s11250-016-1025-6.

  15. NRC. (1994). Nutrient Requirement of Poultry. 9th Revised edition. National Academics of Science. Washington D.C., USA.

  16. Pousga, S., Boly, H., Lindberg, J. E. and Ogle, B. (2005). Scavenging chickens in Burkina Faso: effect of season, location and breed on feed and nutrient intake. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 37: 623-634. doi: 10.1007/s11250- 005-4304-1.

  17. Prakash, B., Verma, S.K., Rama, Rao, S.V., Raju, M.V.L.N., Paul, S. S., Kannan, A., Mishra, S., Singh, V. and Shankhyan, V. (2020). Feeding status of free-range scavenging chickens in different agro-climatic regions of India. British Poultry Science. 61(1): 26-32. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 00071668.2019.1671956.

  18. Preetam. V.C., Srinivas, G. and Qudratullah, S. (2019). Evaluation of performance of Rajasri birds under different management situations. Indian Journal of Animal Nutrition. 36(3): 305- 308. doi: 10.5958/2231-6744.2019.00050.1.

  19. Rajkumar, U., Rama Rao, S.V., Raju, M.V.L.N. and Chatterjee, R.N. (2021). Backyard poultry farming for sustained production and enhanced nutritional and livelihood security with special reference to India: a review. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 53: 176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11250-021- 02621-6.

  20. Rajkumar, U. and Rama Rao, S.V. (2015). Gramapriya, a prolific brown egg layer for rural backyards. Indian Farming. 65: 32-34.

  21. Raphulu, T., Rensburg, C.J. and Ryssen, J.B.J. (2015). Assessing nutrient adequacy from the crop contents of free-ranging indigenous chickens in rural villages of the Venda region of South Africa. South African Journal of Animal Science. 45(2): 143-152.

  22. Rashid, M.M., Islam, N.N., Roy, B.C., Jakobsen, K. and Lauridsen, C. (2005). Nutrient concentration of crop and gizzard contents of indigenous scavenging chickens under rural conditions of Bangladesh. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 17(2). doi: http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd17/2/ rash17016.htm.  

  23. Sheikh, I.U., Kalita, N., Mahanta, J.D., Islam, R. and Barman, K. (2021). Performance and nutrient status of crop contents of indigenous, Vanaraja and crossbred chickens under scavenging system. Asian Journal of Dairy and Food Research. doi: 10.18805/ajdfr.DR-1717.

  24. Sonaiya, E.B. (2004). Direct assessment of nutrient resources in free range and scavenging systems. Regional report: In: World’s Poultry Science Journal. 60: 523-535.

  25. Talapatra, S.K., Ray, S.C. and Sen, K.C. (1940). Estimation of phosphorous, chloride, calcium, sodiumand potassium in food stuffs. Indian Journal Veterinary Science and Animal Husbandry. 10: 243-258.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)