Current IssueSpecial IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive
Current IssueSpecial IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive

Full Research Article

Selection of Feed-efficient Guinea Fowl (Numida meleagris) based on FCR, RFI, RG and RIG: Effects on Growth, Carcass and Meat Quality

P
P. Mohammed Shameeh1
S
Simmi Tomar1,*
0009-0008-7770-5793
S
S. Buddhe Lokesh1
G
G.H. Hudson1,2
B
B. Gudaghe Hrishikesh3
K
Komal Mishra4
1ICAR-Central Avian Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly-243 122, Uttar Pradesh, India.
2Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chennai-600 051, Tamil Nadu, India.
3Division of Animal Nutrition, ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly-243 122, Uttar Pradesh, India.
4Department of Poultry Science, ICAR-Central Avian Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly-243 122, Uttar Pradesh, India.

ABSTRACT

Background: Guinea fowl (GF) generally exhibit lower feed efficiency, requiring greater feed intake to achieve a comparable body-weight gain to that of chickens. The feed conversion ratio (FCR) of guinea fowl is approximately 3.0-3.2, compared with 1.5-1.6 in meat-type chickens. Pearl guinea fowl have good growth potential, but the lower feed efficiency highlights the need to identify feed-efficient birds.

Methods: A total of 100 Pearl guinea fowl keets were evaluated from 5 to 12 wks for feed conversion ratio (FCR), residual feed intake (RFI), residual body weight gain (RG) and residual intake and body weight gain (RIG). Birds were ranked using a combined index and classified into high feed-efficient (HFE) and low feed-efficient (LFE) groups representing the top and bottom 20%, respectively.

Result: HFE birds showed significantly higher body weight gain (650.65 g), lower feed intake (2124.80 g) and better FCR (3.30) than LFE birds (545.00 g, 2313.75 g and 4.28, respectively). HFE birds also had lower RFI (-143.95 g), higher RG (36.37 g) and positive RIG (180.33), confirming superior feed efficiency. Carcass and most meat quality traits were not significantly affected by feed-efficiency status. The study concludes that combined selection for FCR, RFI, RG and RIG can effectively identify feed-efficient guinea fowl for future genetic improvement.

INTRODUCTION

Feed accounts for approximately 65-70% of total poultry production costs, making improved feed efficiency essential for profitable and sustainable production (Shrikisan et al., 2025). Feed conversion ratio (FCR), expressed as feed consumed per unit of body weight gain, is widely used to assess feed efficiency, with lower values indicating better efficiency (Singh et al., 2018). The ratio-based measures can introduce bias. An alternative measure, residual feed intake (RFI), introduced by Koch et al., (1963), represents the difference between observed and predicted feed intake, adjusted for maintenance and production. Residual gain (RG) and residual intake and body weight gain (RIG) further integrate feed intake with growth, offering a more comprehensive assessment of feed efficiency (Berry and Crowley, 2012).
       
Guinea fowl are valued for their meat, eggs and ornamental feathers and are particularly important in rural production systems, where they are commonly reared under free-range conditions (Tomar et al., 2026). Their adaptability to diverse agro-climatic conditions makes them a promising species for sustainable poultry production. In India, the pearl variety is the most common, particularly among village populations (Chatterjee, 2017). Genetic improvement of guinea fowl was initiated at ICAR-Central Avian Research Institute (CARI) in 1980. The founder stock was collected from Punjab and Uttar Pradesh. Through systematic genetic selection and breeding, two distinct strains, Pearl and Lavender were developed (Tomar and Tiwari, 2024).
       
Pearl strain exhibits good growth and reproductive performance, with body weights of approximately 600-620 g at 8 wks and 1000-1035 g at 12 wks. Consumers value guinea fowl meat for its rich vitamin content and low cholesterol (ICAR). Das et al., (2021) reported superior growth performance of the Pearl variety of guinea fowl, highlighting its suitability for rural farming and potential for genetic improvement. So, poor feed efficiency highlights the need for targeted genetic selection. Hence, birds were selected from the same population, with the primary objective of developing feed-efficient guinea fowl.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study was conducted at the ICAR-Central Avian Research Institute, Izatnagar, in 2024, under the approval and guidelines of the Institutional Animal Ethics Committee. A total of 100 guinea fowl keets of pearl variety were sourced from the CARI germplasm unit and reared for 12 wks under a completely randomised design (CRD). Keets were group-reared on deep litter from 0-4 wks and individually housed in metal cages from 5-12 wks of age.
       
Diets were formulated according to ICAR-2013 recommendations (Mandal, 2013) and are presented in Table 1. Feed was offered daily in measured quantities in mash form and refusals were recorded to estimate feed intake. Body weight was recorded at 0, 4, 8 and 12 wks using a digital weighing balance (±0.10 g). Body weight gain (BWG), feed intake and feed conversion ratio (FCR) were calculated for each feeding period, whereas RFI, RG and RIG were estimated for the overall period from 5-12 wks.

Table 1: Gross and chemical composition of the grower and finisher diet used.


 
RFI
 
The difference between the actual and expected feed intake was referred to as residual feed intake (based on regression). The RFI was calculated using linear regression, as suggested by Yi et al., (2015) for poultry. The FCR, RFI and residual body weight gain (RG) and RIG were calculated as follows:
       
 
Formula 1: RFI = TFI - [b0 + b1 MMW + b2 BWG]
Formula 2: RG = WG - [b0 + b3MMW + b4TFI]
Formula 3: RIG = RG - RFI
 
        In formulas 1 and 2, MMW is calculated as follows:
 

Whereas,
In formulas 1, 2 and 3,
TFI- Total feed intake during the 4-week interval.
MMW- Metabolic mid weight.
BWG- Body weight gain during the 4-wks interval.
b0- Intercept.
b1- Partial regression coefficient of MMW.
b2- Partial regression coefficient of BWG.
WG- Weight gain.
b3- Partial regression coefficients of MMW.
b4- Partial regression coefficient of TFI.
       
Based on overall performance across the four feed efficiency traits (FCR, RFI, RG and RIG), birds were ranked and classified into high and low feed-efficiency groups.
       
At the end of the experiment, twelve birds from each group were weighed before slaughter, followed by defeathering, dressing and evisceration. Breast, thigh, wing and drumstick weights were recorded and their yields were expressed as percentages of carcass weight. Meat samples were stored at -18°C for five days before evaluation. Before analysis, samples were thawed at 4°C for 24 h. Meat pH was measured using a digital pH meter according to Trout et al., (1989). Drip loss was determined by measuring the weight difference after holding the samples at 4°C for 24 h. Extract release volume (ERV) and water-holding capacity (WHC) were determined following Jay (1990).
       
Data were analysed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) following Snedecor and Cochran (1994). Differences among treatment means were analysed using SPSS version 26.0.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The data on BWG, FI and FCR of pearl guinea fowl birds during 5-12 wks were presented in Table 2. The means for RFI, RG and RIG were equal to 0, since they represent residuals of a linear model.

Table 2: Production performance of guinea fowls at different ages (Mean±SE).


 
Body weight
 
The mean live body weights (BW) observed at 4, 8 and 12 wks of age were 148.03±2.96 (70-213), 357.24±6.16 (204-518) and 717.60±11.47 (500-960) g, respectively. Pandian et al., (2025) reported similar results, with recorded body weights of 180.85, 481.69 and 767.12 g at 4, 8 and 12 wks in the first generation of guinea fowl. Prabakaran and Ezhil Valavan (2021) recorded higher BWs of 207.85±3.01, 487.52±8.52 and 816.74±5.67 g at 4, 8 and 12 wks, respectively. The comparatively lower body weights observed in the present study may be attributed to differences in genotype, rearing system, nutrition and environmental conditions (Das et al., 2021).
 
Body weight gain
 
The mean body weight gain recorded in the present study during 5-8 and 9-12 wks was 209.21±4.12 and 360.36±7.07 g, respectively, showing a significant (p<0.05) increase with advancing age. The present values were higher than those reported by Kyere et al., (2020), who recorded BWG of 140.70-151.87 g during 5-8 wks and 194.48-237.21 g during 9-12 wks. The values were comparable with those of Poku et al., (2023), who reported daily weight gains of 8.64-9.68 g/day during 5-8 wks and 12.77-14.66 g/day during 9-12 wks. Chandankar et al., (2017) recorded higher BWG of 389.9-433.2 g during 5-8 wks and 433.2-480.2 g during 9-12 wks in pearl guinea fowls.

Feed intake
 
Khairunnesa et al., (2016) reported feed intake (FI) values of 865 g during 5-8 were alien with the resultswks and 1460 g during 9-12 wks. As shown in Table 2, the FI recorded in the present study was lower during 5-8 wks but remained comparable during 9-12 wks. Nahashon et al., (2006) recorded an FI of 1735 g during 9-12 wks, which was higher than the value observed in the present study. Das et al., (2021) recorded a comparatively higher cumulative FI at 10 wks of age. In contrast, Kyere et al., (2020) reported lower FI values ranging from 409.8-416.7 g and 526.7-558.2 g during the respective time and light periods.
 
Feed efficiency parameters
 
The FCR in Table 2, declined with advancing age. The values were comparable to those reported by Batkowska et al., (2021), who recorded FCRs of 3.31 at 4-5 wks, 3.59 at 5-6 wks and 3.97 at 6-7 wks in meat-type guinea fowl.  Das et al., (2021) reported a cumulative FCR of 3.45 at 10 wks. Khairunnesa et al., (2016) reported a better FCR of 3.28 and 2.92 at 5-8 wks and 9-12 wks, respectively. Yamak et al., (2018) also reported a better FCR of 3.88 at  12 wks in barn-reared guinea fowl. Batkowska et al., (2021) further observed that FCR increased with age and exceeded 4 kg feed/kg gain at later ages, supporting a decline in feed efficiency. This lower feed efficiency was likely influenced by genetic, environmental and management factors. The means for RFI, RG and RIG were equal to 0 for the respective period because they represent residuals of a linear model (Willems et al., 2013).
 
Phenotypic correlation among different production traits
 
BWG was positively correlated (P<0.01) with FI and RG, but negatively correlated with FCR, with comparable results reported by Sell-Kubiak et al., (2017). The negative correlation between BWG and FCR is expected because BWG has an inverse relationship with a component trait of FCR (Willems et al., 2013). BWG showed zero correlation with RFI. FI was positively correlated with RFI, but negatively correlated with RIG. FCR showed positive correlation with RFI, while RG was negatively correlated with FCR and showed zero with FI. RIG was negatively correlated with FI and FCR. The zero or weak phenotypic correlations among Feed Efficiency traits were due to their inclusion in the regression model used to calculate each of these traits (Willems et al., 2013) and due to confounding factors from linear combinations of RFI and RG into RIG traits, correlations were not calculated in some instances (Supplementary Table 1).

Supplementary Table 1: Phenotypic Correlations1 among different production traits of guinea fowls.


       
The data obtained for FI, BWG and MMW during the 5-12 wks period and their respective coefficients regression equation (Supplementary Table 2 and 3), FCR, RFI, RG and RIG were evaluated over the eight weeks.

Supplementary Table 2: RFI estimation using the coefficient of regression equation.



Supplementary Table 3: RG estimation using the coefficient of regression equation.


 
Ranking of guinea fowl birds
 
Based on the overall performance data from 5-12 wks for FCR, RFI, RG and RIG, the birds were ranked and categorised into High Feed Efficient (top 20%) and Low Feed Efficient (bottom 20%) groups using a combined index, as presented in Supplementary Table 4 and 5.

Supplementary Table 4: Ranking of selected top 20% of guinea fowl birds having HFE based on FCR, RFI, RG and RIG.



Supplementary Table 5: Ranking of selected bottom 20% of guinea fowl birds having LFE based on FCR, RFI, RG and RIG.



Production traits of selected birds (HFE and LFE) during 5-12 weeks
 
As given in Table 3, the HFE guinea fowl birds showed significantly higher BWG, lower FI, better FCR than LFE birds that aligned with the results of Shrikisan et al., (2025) and Willems et al., (2013). Based on Zampiga et al., (2021) and Shrikisan et al., (2025), feed-efficient birds often consume less feed because they have better digestive systems and use nutrients more effectively, which improves growth performance. FCR also tended to worsen with age, possibly due to increased maintenance energy requirements (Havenstein et al., 1994; Batkowska et al., 2021). In the study, the birds with negative RFI values consumed significantly less feed and showed better FCR than birds with positive RFI values. This indicates that RFI can be used as an effective trait for selecting feed-efficient birds. Selection for low RFI may also reduce feed costs, nitrogen losses and environmental impact (Rashid et al., 2020; Fathi et al., 2021). The RG positive values show that birds achieved greater weight gain while consuming less feed and vice versa. When RIG values were evaluated, HFE birds with positive RIG values consumed less feed while achieving higher weight gain. This highlights the benefit of considering both RFI and RG in evaluating FE. RIG reflects the desirable combination of low FI and high growth and is moderately related to BWG. Too much importance to growth in selection may negatively affect traits such as leg, hip structure, footpad condition and breast skin health. Changes may affect bird mobility and overall welfare (Shrikisan et al., 2025).

Table 3: Production performance of selected guinea fowls (HFE and LFE) during 5-12 weeks.


 
Carcass traits
 
Dressing % was 66.63±0.29% in HFE and 65.74±0.50% in LFE birds, higher than the 51.66% reported by Musundire et al., (2017) but lower than the values reported by Singh et al., (2015) and Smiecinska et al., (2022). The weights of the major cut-up parts (breast, thigh, drumstick, neck) did not differ among groups. But back weight was significantly higher (P<0.05) in the HFE group, whereas wing weight was higher (P<0.05) in LFE birds (Table 4).


Table 4: Carcass yields of guinea fowls at 12 weeks of age.


 
Meat quality
 
a. Sensory quality of meat
 
No adverse effects on meat quality were observed. Meat from HFE and LFE birds showed no significant differences in sensory attributes, including colour and appearance, flavour, texture, juiciness and overall acceptability, indicating that feed-efficiency status did not adversely affect sensory meat quality. Fadare et al., (2019) reported high overall acceptability of guinea fowl meat compared with duck and chicken meat.
 
b. Physical properties of meat
 
The meat pH was significantly higher in HFE birds (5.89) than in LFE birds (5.61). The higher pH observed in more feed-efficient birds may be associated with greater body weight and breast muscle development, which can increase muscle fibre hypertrophy and reduce glycogen reserves (Petracci et al., 2017; Poompramun et al., 2022). Water-holding capacity, drip loss and extract release volume did not significantly differ. The water-holding capacity (WHC) was 74.19±1.25%, higher than the 61.67% reported by Laudadio et al., (2012). Higher WHC indicates greater ability of meat to retain moisture, contributing to better juiciness and processing quality. Similar WHC (72.20-75.12%) were reported by Sarica et al., (2019); it was not significantly affected by production system, slaughter age or sex. Batkowska  et al. (2021) also reported that feed efficiency status of birds did not markedly influence this meat quality trait.
 
Nutritive content of meat
 
Protein, fat and ash contents did not differ significantly between HFE and LFE birds. The moisture content was significantly higher (P<0.05) in LFE birds (73.10±0.34%) than in HFE birds (72.28±0.11%). Laudadio et al., (2012) reported similar results for moisture (73.25%), protein (23.61%) and ash (1.29%). Wegner et al., (2026) reported comparable moisture values, with 73.8% in breast and 73.4% in leg meat. Sarica et al., (2019) reported that higher physical activity in outdoor-reared birds may reduce fat deposition, while the relatively higher fat content observed in this study may be associated with restricted movements.

CONCLUSION

Based on the findings of the present study, it may be concluded that selecting birds using a combination of feed efficiency traits (RFI, FCR, RG and RIG) is more effective for enhancing growth performance and economic returns than selection based on a single trait. High feed-efficient guinea fowl birds consistently showed better feed efficiency, including lower FI, improved FCR and higher BWG. Carcass traits, meat quality and meat nutritive composition did not differ markedly between HFE and LFE birds, indicating that selecting for high feed efficiency did not adversely affect meat palatability, tenderness, or keeping quality. This multi-trait selection strategy not only improves growth performance but also lowers feed expenditure, reduces environmental impact by decreasing nitrogenous waste production and increases profitability in guinea fowl production. Future research should focus on gene expression patterns, genetic polymorphisms and gut microbiome interactions to identify the underlying mechanisms of feed efficiency and improve cost-effective, sustainable and environmentally efficient guinea fowl production.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The present study was supported by the ICAR-Central Avian Research Institute with the necessary facilities.
 
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.
 
Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process
 
While preparing this work, the authors utilised Grammarly Pro to enhance readability and language. Afterwards, they thoroughly reviewed and edited the content as required and they take full responsibility for the publication’s content.
 
Informed consent
 
All animal procedures for experiments were approved by the Committee of Experimental Animal Care and Handling Techniques and the University of Animal Care Committee.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

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

REFERENCES


  1. Batkowska, J., Drabik, K., Karwowska, M., Ahsan, U., Raza, I., Adamczuk, A. and Horecka, B. (2021). Growth performance and meat quality of meat-type guinea fowl fed different commercial diets. Archives of Animal Breeding. 64: 325-334.

  2. Berry, D.P. and Crowley, J.J. (2012). Residual intake and body weight gain: A new measure of efficiency in growing cattle. Journal of Animal Science. 90: 109-115.

  3. Chandankar, S., Palod, J., Singh, S., Singh, V., Kumar, A. and Singh, B. (2017). Production response of guinea fowls provided fenugreek and kalonji seed powder. International Journal of Livestock Research. 8: 96-102.

  4. Chatterjee, R.N. (2017). Backyard poultry production systems in India. In: Backyard poultry production systems in SAARC countries. SAARC Agriculture Centre. pp. 70-72.

  5. Das, S.C., Sultana, F., Dey, B., Afrin, A., Ahmed, T. and Lahiry, A. (2021). Comparative study on the growth performance of three varieties of guinea fowl (Pearl, white, lavender) under intensive rearing system in hot humid climatic condition. Journal of the Bangladesh Agricultural University. 19: 486-492.

  6. Fadare, A.O., Ologunowa, O.O. and Fesobi, M.E. (2019). Meat quality traits of indigenous chicken, guinea fowl and duck. FUTA Journal of Research in Sciences. 15: 231-238.

  7. Fathi, M.M., Galal, A., Al-Homidan, I., Abou-Emera, O.K. and Rayan, G.N. (2021). Residual feed intake: A limiting economic factor for selection in poultry breeding programs. Annals of Agricultural Sciences. 66: 53-57.

  8. Havenstein, G.B., Ferket, P.R., Scheideler, S.E. and Larson, B.T. (1994). Growth, livability and feed conversion of 1957 vs 1991 broilers when fed “typical” 1957 and 1991 broiler diets. Poultry Science. 73: 1785-1794.

  9. Jay, J.M. and Hollingshed, A.M. (1990). Two methods for determining extract release volume (ERV) of fresh and spoiled beef and poultry meats. Journal of Food Science. 55: 1475- 1476.

  10. Khairunnesa, M., Das, S.C. and Khatun, A. (2016). Hatching and growth performances of guinea fowl under intensive management system. Progressive Agriculture. 27: 70-77.

  11. Koch, R.M., Swiger, L.A., Chambers, D. and Gregory, K.E. (1963). Efficiency of feed use in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science. 22: 486-494.

  12. Kyere, C.G., Korankye, O., Duodu, A., Twumasi, G. and Dapaah, P.K. (2020). Effect of different lighting regime on growth and reproductive performance of the guinea fowl (Numida meleagris). World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews. 7: 294-302.

  13. Laudadio, V., Tufarelli, V. and Dario, M. (2012). Guinea fowl meat production: Effect of genotype and feeding system on carcass characteristics and meat quality. Italian Journal of Animal Science. 11: e67.

  14. Mandal, A.B., Raju, M.V.L.N., Elangovan, A.V., Bhanja, S.K. and Sahoo, S.K. (2013). ICAR-Nutrient Requirements of Poultry. Indian Council of Agricultural Research.

  15. Musundire, M.T., Halimani, T.E. and Chimonyo, M. (2017). Physical and chemical properties of meat from scavenging chickens and helmeted guinea fowls in response to age and sex. British Poultry Science. 58: 390-396.

  16. Nahashon, S.N., Aggrey, S.E., Adefope, N.A., Amenyenu, A. and Wright, D. (2006). Growth characteristics of pearl, gray guinea fowl as predicted by the richards, gompertz and logistic models. Poultry Science. 85(2): 359-363.

  17. Pandian, C., Ezhil, V.S., Sangilimadan, K. and Richard, C.R. (2025). Selective breeding to improve growth and reproductive traits of White Guinea fowl. Indian Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences Research. 52: 34-43.

  18. Petracci, M., Soglia, F. and Berri, C. (2017). Muscle Metabolism and Meat Quality Abnormalities. In: Poultry Quality Evaluation: Quality Attributes and Consumer Values. [Petracci, M. and Berri, C. (Eds.)], Woodhead Publishing. pp. 51-75.

  19. Poku, J.P.A., Kagya, J.K., Bonsu, F.R., Kwenin, W.K. and Kyere, C.G. (2023). Effect of season and dietary Moringa oleifera leaf meal on growth performance of the pearl guinea fowl. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition. 22: 27-37.

  20. Poompramun, C., Mignon-Grasteau, S., Juanchich, A., Hennequet- Antier, C., Thumanu, K., Bihan-Duval, E.L. and Molee, A. (2022). Phenotypic correlations between feed efficiency, growth and meat quality of slow-growing chickens. British Poultry Science. 63: 742-746.

  21. Prabakaran, R. and Ezhil, V.S. (2021). Production performance of guinea fowls in hilly area of Tamil Nadu, India. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies. 9: 440-442.

  22. Rashid, B., Pasha, T.N., Saima and Mahmud, A. (2020). Modulating the growth curve in broiler chicken through varying balanced protein regimen (Conventional all step-down). Indian Journal of Animal Research. doi: 10.18805/ IJAR.BF-1543.

  23. Sarica, M., Boz, M.A., Yamak, U.S. and Ucar, A. (2019). Effect of production system and slaughter age on some production traits of guinea fowl: Meat quality and digestive traits. South African Journal of Animal Science. 49: 190-198.

  24. Sell-Kubiak, E., Wimmers, K., Reyer, H. and Szwaczkowski, T. (2017). Genetic aspects of feed efficiency and reduction of environmental footprint in broilers: A review. Journal of Applied Genetics. 58: 487-498.

  25. Shrikisan, B.L., Tomar, S., Hudson, G.H., Narayan, R. and Tiwari, A.K. (2025). Expression profile of feed efficiency related genes in high and low feed-efficient colored synthetic male line (CSML) broiler chickens. Indian Journal of Animal Research. doi: 10.18805/IJAR.B-5638.

  26. Singh, K.D., Singh, K.V. and Paswan, K.V. (2018). Comparative production performance of Hubbard, Vencobb and Vencobb-400 broiler strains during tropical summer season. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 53: 685- 688. doi: 10.18805/ijar.B-3553.

  27. Singh, M.K., Singh, S.K., Sharma, R.K., Singh, B., Kumar, S., Joshi, S.K., Kumar, S. and Sathapathy, S. (2015). Performance and carcass characteristics of guinea fowl fed on dietary neem (Azadirachta indica) leaf powder as a growth promoter. Iranian Journal of Veterinary Research. 16: 78-82.

  28. Śmiecińska, K., Stêpieñ, A. and Kubiak, D. (2022). Effect of variety and sex on the carcass and meat quality traits of guinea fowl (Numida meleagris L.). Animals. 12: 2916. https:// doi.org/10.3390/ani12212916.

  29. Snedecor, G.W. and Cochran, W.G. (1994). Statistical Methods. 8th ed. Affiliated East-West Press.

  30. Tomar, S. and Tiwari, A.K. (2024). Prodhogik Kukkut Paalan. 1st ed. Daya Publishing House.

  31. Tomar, S., Ahmad, S.F., Gangwar, M., Azhaguraja, M., Kush, A., Trivedi, A., Gandham, R.K. and Tiwari, A.K. (2026). Comprehensive analysis of 122 guinea fowl genomes across three continents delineates their domestication and evolutionary patterns with special reference to India. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 27: 2994. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms27072994.

  32. Trout, G.R. (1989). Variation in myoglobin denaturation and color of cooked beef, pork and turkey meat as influenced by pH, sodium chloride, sodium tripolyphosphate and cooking temperature. Journal of Food Science. 54: 536-540.

  33. Wegner, M., Kokoszyñski, D., Kotowicz, M. and Lubawiñska, M. (2026). Comparison of carcass composition and meat quality of the guinea fowl (Numida meleagris) and the common pheasant (Phasianus colchicus L.). Animals. 16: 908. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16060908.

  34. Willems, O.W., Miller, S.P. and Wood, B.J. (2013). Assessment of residual body weight gain and residual intake and body weight gain as feed efficiency traits in the turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). Genetics Selection Evolution. 45: 26. https:// doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-45-26.

  35. Yamak, U.S., Sarica, M., Boz, M.A. and Ucar, A. (2018). Effect of production system (barn and free range) and slaughter age on some production traits of guinea fowl. Poultry Science. 97: 47-53.

  36. Yi, G., Yuan, J., Bi, H., Yan, W., Yang, N. and Qu, L. (2015). In- depth duodenal transcriptome survey in chickens with divergent feed efficiency using RNA-Seq. Plos One. 10: e0136765.

  37. Zampiga, M., Calini, F. and Sirri, F. (2021). Importance of feed efficiency for sustainable intensification of chicken meat production: Implications and role for amino acids, feed enzymes and organic trace minerals. World’s Poultry Science Journal. 77: 639-659.
Published In
Indian Journal of Animal Research
Article Metrics
Metrics Icon
29
Views
0
Citations
Reviewed By
Share Article
Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Full Research Article

    Selection of Feed-efficient Guinea Fowl (Numida meleagris) based on FCR, RFI, RG and RIG: Effects on Growth, Carcass and Meat Quality

    P
    P. Mohammed Shameeh1
    S
    Simmi Tomar1,*
    0009-0008-7770-5793
    S
    S. Buddhe Lokesh1
    G
    G.H. Hudson1,2
    B
    B. Gudaghe Hrishikesh3
    K
    Komal Mishra4
    1ICAR-Central Avian Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly-243 122, Uttar Pradesh, India.
    2Tamil Nadu Veterinary and Animal Sciences University, Chennai-600 051, Tamil Nadu, India.
    3Division of Animal Nutrition, ICAR-Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly-243 122, Uttar Pradesh, India.
    4Department of Poultry Science, ICAR-Central Avian Research Institute, Izatnagar, Bareilly-243 122, Uttar Pradesh, India.

    ABSTRACT

    Background: Guinea fowl (GF) generally exhibit lower feed efficiency, requiring greater feed intake to achieve a comparable body-weight gain to that of chickens. The feed conversion ratio (FCR) of guinea fowl is approximately 3.0-3.2, compared with 1.5-1.6 in meat-type chickens. Pearl guinea fowl have good growth potential, but the lower feed efficiency highlights the need to identify feed-efficient birds.

    Methods: A total of 100 Pearl guinea fowl keets were evaluated from 5 to 12 wks for feed conversion ratio (FCR), residual feed intake (RFI), residual body weight gain (RG) and residual intake and body weight gain (RIG). Birds were ranked using a combined index and classified into high feed-efficient (HFE) and low feed-efficient (LFE) groups representing the top and bottom 20%, respectively.

    Result: HFE birds showed significantly higher body weight gain (650.65 g), lower feed intake (2124.80 g) and better FCR (3.30) than LFE birds (545.00 g, 2313.75 g and 4.28, respectively). HFE birds also had lower RFI (-143.95 g), higher RG (36.37 g) and positive RIG (180.33), confirming superior feed efficiency. Carcass and most meat quality traits were not significantly affected by feed-efficiency status. The study concludes that combined selection for FCR, RFI, RG and RIG can effectively identify feed-efficient guinea fowl for future genetic improvement.

    INTRODUCTION

    Feed accounts for approximately 65-70% of total poultry production costs, making improved feed efficiency essential for profitable and sustainable production (Shrikisan et al., 2025). Feed conversion ratio (FCR), expressed as feed consumed per unit of body weight gain, is widely used to assess feed efficiency, with lower values indicating better efficiency (Singh et al., 2018). The ratio-based measures can introduce bias. An alternative measure, residual feed intake (RFI), introduced by Koch et al., (1963), represents the difference between observed and predicted feed intake, adjusted for maintenance and production. Residual gain (RG) and residual intake and body weight gain (RIG) further integrate feed intake with growth, offering a more comprehensive assessment of feed efficiency (Berry and Crowley, 2012).
           
    Guinea fowl are valued for their meat, eggs and ornamental feathers and are particularly important in rural production systems, where they are commonly reared under free-range conditions (Tomar et al., 2026). Their adaptability to diverse agro-climatic conditions makes them a promising species for sustainable poultry production. In India, the pearl variety is the most common, particularly among village populations (Chatterjee, 2017). Genetic improvement of guinea fowl was initiated at ICAR-Central Avian Research Institute (CARI) in 1980. The founder stock was collected from Punjab and Uttar Pradesh. Through systematic genetic selection and breeding, two distinct strains, Pearl and Lavender were developed (Tomar and Tiwari, 2024).
           
    Pearl strain exhibits good growth and reproductive performance, with body weights of approximately 600-620 g at 8 wks and 1000-1035 g at 12 wks. Consumers value guinea fowl meat for its rich vitamin content and low cholesterol (ICAR). Das et al., (2021) reported superior growth performance of the Pearl variety of guinea fowl, highlighting its suitability for rural farming and potential for genetic improvement. So, poor feed efficiency highlights the need for targeted genetic selection. Hence, birds were selected from the same population, with the primary objective of developing feed-efficient guinea fowl.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS

    The study was conducted at the ICAR-Central Avian Research Institute, Izatnagar, in 2024, under the approval and guidelines of the Institutional Animal Ethics Committee. A total of 100 guinea fowl keets of pearl variety were sourced from the CARI germplasm unit and reared for 12 wks under a completely randomised design (CRD). Keets were group-reared on deep litter from 0-4 wks and individually housed in metal cages from 5-12 wks of age.
           
    Diets were formulated according to ICAR-2013 recommendations (Mandal, 2013) and are presented in Table 1. Feed was offered daily in measured quantities in mash form and refusals were recorded to estimate feed intake. Body weight was recorded at 0, 4, 8 and 12 wks using a digital weighing balance (±0.10 g). Body weight gain (BWG), feed intake and feed conversion ratio (FCR) were calculated for each feeding period, whereas RFI, RG and RIG were estimated for the overall period from 5-12 wks.

    Table 1: Gross and chemical composition of the grower and finisher diet used.


     
    RFI
     
    The difference between the actual and expected feed intake was referred to as residual feed intake (based on regression). The RFI was calculated using linear regression, as suggested by Yi et al., (2015) for poultry. The FCR, RFI and residual body weight gain (RG) and RIG were calculated as follows:
           
     
    Formula 1: RFI = TFI - [b0 + b1 MMW + b2 BWG]
    Formula 2: RG = WG - [b0 + b3MMW + b4TFI]
    Formula 3: RIG = RG - RFI
     
            In formulas 1 and 2, MMW is calculated as follows:
     

    Whereas,
    In formulas 1, 2 and 3,
    TFI- Total feed intake during the 4-week interval.
    MMW- Metabolic mid weight.
    BWG- Body weight gain during the 4-wks interval.
    b0- Intercept.
    b1- Partial regression coefficient of MMW.
    b2- Partial regression coefficient of BWG.
    WG- Weight gain.
    b3- Partial regression coefficients of MMW.
    b4- Partial regression coefficient of TFI.
           
    Based on overall performance across the four feed efficiency traits (FCR, RFI, RG and RIG), birds were ranked and classified into high and low feed-efficiency groups.
           
    At the end of the experiment, twelve birds from each group were weighed before slaughter, followed by defeathering, dressing and evisceration. Breast, thigh, wing and drumstick weights were recorded and their yields were expressed as percentages of carcass weight. Meat samples were stored at -18°C for five days before evaluation. Before analysis, samples were thawed at 4°C for 24 h. Meat pH was measured using a digital pH meter according to Trout et al., (1989). Drip loss was determined by measuring the weight difference after holding the samples at 4°C for 24 h. Extract release volume (ERV) and water-holding capacity (WHC) were determined following Jay (1990).
           
    Data were analysed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) following Snedecor and Cochran (1994). Differences among treatment means were analysed using SPSS version 26.0.

    RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

    The data on BWG, FI and FCR of pearl guinea fowl birds during 5-12 wks were presented in Table 2. The means for RFI, RG and RIG were equal to 0, since they represent residuals of a linear model.

    Table 2: Production performance of guinea fowls at different ages (Mean±SE).


     
    Body weight
     
    The mean live body weights (BW) observed at 4, 8 and 12 wks of age were 148.03±2.96 (70-213), 357.24±6.16 (204-518) and 717.60±11.47 (500-960) g, respectively. Pandian et al., (2025) reported similar results, with recorded body weights of 180.85, 481.69 and 767.12 g at 4, 8 and 12 wks in the first generation of guinea fowl. Prabakaran and Ezhil Valavan (2021) recorded higher BWs of 207.85±3.01, 487.52±8.52 and 816.74±5.67 g at 4, 8 and 12 wks, respectively. The comparatively lower body weights observed in the present study may be attributed to differences in genotype, rearing system, nutrition and environmental conditions (Das et al., 2021).
     
    Body weight gain
     
    The mean body weight gain recorded in the present study during 5-8 and 9-12 wks was 209.21±4.12 and 360.36±7.07 g, respectively, showing a significant (p<0.05) increase with advancing age. The present values were higher than those reported by Kyere et al., (2020), who recorded BWG of 140.70-151.87 g during 5-8 wks and 194.48-237.21 g during 9-12 wks. The values were comparable with those of Poku et al., (2023), who reported daily weight gains of 8.64-9.68 g/day during 5-8 wks and 12.77-14.66 g/day during 9-12 wks. Chandankar et al., (2017) recorded higher BWG of 389.9-433.2 g during 5-8 wks and 433.2-480.2 g during 9-12 wks in pearl guinea fowls.

    Feed intake
     
    Khairunnesa et al., (2016) reported feed intake (FI) values of 865 g during 5-8 were alien with the resultswks and 1460 g during 9-12 wks. As shown in Table 2, the FI recorded in the present study was lower during 5-8 wks but remained comparable during 9-12 wks. Nahashon et al., (2006) recorded an FI of 1735 g during 9-12 wks, which was higher than the value observed in the present study. Das et al., (2021) recorded a comparatively higher cumulative FI at 10 wks of age. In contrast, Kyere et al., (2020) reported lower FI values ranging from 409.8-416.7 g and 526.7-558.2 g during the respective time and light periods.
     
    Feed efficiency parameters
     
    The FCR in Table 2, declined with advancing age. The values were comparable to those reported by Batkowska et al., (2021), who recorded FCRs of 3.31 at 4-5 wks, 3.59 at 5-6 wks and 3.97 at 6-7 wks in meat-type guinea fowl.  Das et al., (2021) reported a cumulative FCR of 3.45 at 10 wks. Khairunnesa et al., (2016) reported a better FCR of 3.28 and 2.92 at 5-8 wks and 9-12 wks, respectively. Yamak et al., (2018) also reported a better FCR of 3.88 at  12 wks in barn-reared guinea fowl. Batkowska et al., (2021) further observed that FCR increased with age and exceeded 4 kg feed/kg gain at later ages, supporting a decline in feed efficiency. This lower feed efficiency was likely influenced by genetic, environmental and management factors. The means for RFI, RG and RIG were equal to 0 for the respective period because they represent residuals of a linear model (Willems et al., 2013).
     
    Phenotypic correlation among different production traits
     
    BWG was positively correlated (P<0.01) with FI and RG, but negatively correlated with FCR, with comparable results reported by Sell-Kubiak et al., (2017). The negative correlation between BWG and FCR is expected because BWG has an inverse relationship with a component trait of FCR (Willems et al., 2013). BWG showed zero correlation with RFI. FI was positively correlated with RFI, but negatively correlated with RIG. FCR showed positive correlation with RFI, while RG was negatively correlated with FCR and showed zero with FI. RIG was negatively correlated with FI and FCR. The zero or weak phenotypic correlations among Feed Efficiency traits were due to their inclusion in the regression model used to calculate each of these traits (Willems et al., 2013) and due to confounding factors from linear combinations of RFI and RG into RIG traits, correlations were not calculated in some instances (Supplementary Table 1).

    Supplementary Table 1: Phenotypic Correlations1 among different production traits of guinea fowls.


           
    The data obtained for FI, BWG and MMW during the 5-12 wks period and their respective coefficients regression equation (Supplementary Table 2 and 3), FCR, RFI, RG and RIG were evaluated over the eight weeks.

    Supplementary Table 2: RFI estimation using the coefficient of regression equation.



    Supplementary Table 3: RG estimation using the coefficient of regression equation.


     
    Ranking of guinea fowl birds
     
    Based on the overall performance data from 5-12 wks for FCR, RFI, RG and RIG, the birds were ranked and categorised into High Feed Efficient (top 20%) and Low Feed Efficient (bottom 20%) groups using a combined index, as presented in Supplementary Table 4 and 5.

    Supplementary Table 4: Ranking of selected top 20% of guinea fowl birds having HFE based on FCR, RFI, RG and RIG.



    Supplementary Table 5: Ranking of selected bottom 20% of guinea fowl birds having LFE based on FCR, RFI, RG and RIG.



    Production traits of selected birds (HFE and LFE) during 5-12 weeks
     
    As given in Table 3, the HFE guinea fowl birds showed significantly higher BWG, lower FI, better FCR than LFE birds that aligned with the results of Shrikisan et al., (2025) and Willems et al., (2013). Based on Zampiga et al., (2021) and Shrikisan et al., (2025), feed-efficient birds often consume less feed because they have better digestive systems and use nutrients more effectively, which improves growth performance. FCR also tended to worsen with age, possibly due to increased maintenance energy requirements (Havenstein et al., 1994; Batkowska et al., 2021). In the study, the birds with negative RFI values consumed significantly less feed and showed better FCR than birds with positive RFI values. This indicates that RFI can be used as an effective trait for selecting feed-efficient birds. Selection for low RFI may also reduce feed costs, nitrogen losses and environmental impact (Rashid et al., 2020; Fathi et al., 2021). The RG positive values show that birds achieved greater weight gain while consuming less feed and vice versa. When RIG values were evaluated, HFE birds with positive RIG values consumed less feed while achieving higher weight gain. This highlights the benefit of considering both RFI and RG in evaluating FE. RIG reflects the desirable combination of low FI and high growth and is moderately related to BWG. Too much importance to growth in selection may negatively affect traits such as leg, hip structure, footpad condition and breast skin health. Changes may affect bird mobility and overall welfare (Shrikisan et al., 2025).

    Table 3: Production performance of selected guinea fowls (HFE and LFE) during 5-12 weeks.


     
    Carcass traits
     
    Dressing % was 66.63±0.29% in HFE and 65.74±0.50% in LFE birds, higher than the 51.66% reported by Musundire et al., (2017) but lower than the values reported by Singh et al., (2015) and Smiecinska et al., (2022). The weights of the major cut-up parts (breast, thigh, drumstick, neck) did not differ among groups. But back weight was significantly higher (P<0.05) in the HFE group, whereas wing weight was higher (P<0.05) in LFE birds (Table 4).


    Table 4: Carcass yields of guinea fowls at 12 weeks of age.


     
    Meat quality
     
    a. Sensory quality of meat
     
    No adverse effects on meat quality were observed. Meat from HFE and LFE birds showed no significant differences in sensory attributes, including colour and appearance, flavour, texture, juiciness and overall acceptability, indicating that feed-efficiency status did not adversely affect sensory meat quality. Fadare et al., (2019) reported high overall acceptability of guinea fowl meat compared with duck and chicken meat.
     
    b. Physical properties of meat
     
    The meat pH was significantly higher in HFE birds (5.89) than in LFE birds (5.61). The higher pH observed in more feed-efficient birds may be associated with greater body weight and breast muscle development, which can increase muscle fibre hypertrophy and reduce glycogen reserves (Petracci et al., 2017; Poompramun et al., 2022). Water-holding capacity, drip loss and extract release volume did not significantly differ. The water-holding capacity (WHC) was 74.19±1.25%, higher than the 61.67% reported by Laudadio et al., (2012). Higher WHC indicates greater ability of meat to retain moisture, contributing to better juiciness and processing quality. Similar WHC (72.20-75.12%) were reported by Sarica et al., (2019); it was not significantly affected by production system, slaughter age or sex. Batkowska  et al. (2021) also reported that feed efficiency status of birds did not markedly influence this meat quality trait.
     
    Nutritive content of meat
     
    Protein, fat and ash contents did not differ significantly between HFE and LFE birds. The moisture content was significantly higher (P<0.05) in LFE birds (73.10±0.34%) than in HFE birds (72.28±0.11%). Laudadio et al., (2012) reported similar results for moisture (73.25%), protein (23.61%) and ash (1.29%). Wegner et al., (2026) reported comparable moisture values, with 73.8% in breast and 73.4% in leg meat. Sarica et al., (2019) reported that higher physical activity in outdoor-reared birds may reduce fat deposition, while the relatively higher fat content observed in this study may be associated with restricted movements.

    CONCLUSION

    Based on the findings of the present study, it may be concluded that selecting birds using a combination of feed efficiency traits (RFI, FCR, RG and RIG) is more effective for enhancing growth performance and economic returns than selection based on a single trait. High feed-efficient guinea fowl birds consistently showed better feed efficiency, including lower FI, improved FCR and higher BWG. Carcass traits, meat quality and meat nutritive composition did not differ markedly between HFE and LFE birds, indicating that selecting for high feed efficiency did not adversely affect meat palatability, tenderness, or keeping quality. This multi-trait selection strategy not only improves growth performance but also lowers feed expenditure, reduces environmental impact by decreasing nitrogenous waste production and increases profitability in guinea fowl production. Future research should focus on gene expression patterns, genetic polymorphisms and gut microbiome interactions to identify the underlying mechanisms of feed efficiency and improve cost-effective, sustainable and environmentally efficient guinea fowl production.

    ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

    The present study was supported by the ICAR-Central Avian Research Institute with the necessary facilities.
     
    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.
     
    Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process
     
    While preparing this work, the authors utilised Grammarly Pro to enhance readability and language. Afterwards, they thoroughly reviewed and edited the content as required and they take full responsibility for the publication’s content.
     
    Informed consent
     
    All animal procedures for experiments were approved by the Committee of Experimental Animal Care and Handling Techniques and the University of Animal Care Committee.

    CONFLICT OF INTEREST

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

    REFERENCES


    1. Batkowska, J., Drabik, K., Karwowska, M., Ahsan, U., Raza, I., Adamczuk, A. and Horecka, B. (2021). Growth performance and meat quality of meat-type guinea fowl fed different commercial diets. Archives of Animal Breeding. 64: 325-334.

    2. Berry, D.P. and Crowley, J.J. (2012). Residual intake and body weight gain: A new measure of efficiency in growing cattle. Journal of Animal Science. 90: 109-115.

    3. Chandankar, S., Palod, J., Singh, S., Singh, V., Kumar, A. and Singh, B. (2017). Production response of guinea fowls provided fenugreek and kalonji seed powder. International Journal of Livestock Research. 8: 96-102.

    4. Chatterjee, R.N. (2017). Backyard poultry production systems in India. In: Backyard poultry production systems in SAARC countries. SAARC Agriculture Centre. pp. 70-72.

    5. Das, S.C., Sultana, F., Dey, B., Afrin, A., Ahmed, T. and Lahiry, A. (2021). Comparative study on the growth performance of three varieties of guinea fowl (Pearl, white, lavender) under intensive rearing system in hot humid climatic condition. Journal of the Bangladesh Agricultural University. 19: 486-492.

    6. Fadare, A.O., Ologunowa, O.O. and Fesobi, M.E. (2019). Meat quality traits of indigenous chicken, guinea fowl and duck. FUTA Journal of Research in Sciences. 15: 231-238.

    7. Fathi, M.M., Galal, A., Al-Homidan, I., Abou-Emera, O.K. and Rayan, G.N. (2021). Residual feed intake: A limiting economic factor for selection in poultry breeding programs. Annals of Agricultural Sciences. 66: 53-57.

    8. Havenstein, G.B., Ferket, P.R., Scheideler, S.E. and Larson, B.T. (1994). Growth, livability and feed conversion of 1957 vs 1991 broilers when fed “typical” 1957 and 1991 broiler diets. Poultry Science. 73: 1785-1794.

    9. Jay, J.M. and Hollingshed, A.M. (1990). Two methods for determining extract release volume (ERV) of fresh and spoiled beef and poultry meats. Journal of Food Science. 55: 1475- 1476.

    10. Khairunnesa, M., Das, S.C. and Khatun, A. (2016). Hatching and growth performances of guinea fowl under intensive management system. Progressive Agriculture. 27: 70-77.

    11. Koch, R.M., Swiger, L.A., Chambers, D. and Gregory, K.E. (1963). Efficiency of feed use in beef cattle. Journal of Animal Science. 22: 486-494.

    12. Kyere, C.G., Korankye, O., Duodu, A., Twumasi, G. and Dapaah, P.K. (2020). Effect of different lighting regime on growth and reproductive performance of the guinea fowl (Numida meleagris). World Journal of Advanced Research and Reviews. 7: 294-302.

    13. Laudadio, V., Tufarelli, V. and Dario, M. (2012). Guinea fowl meat production: Effect of genotype and feeding system on carcass characteristics and meat quality. Italian Journal of Animal Science. 11: e67.

    14. Mandal, A.B., Raju, M.V.L.N., Elangovan, A.V., Bhanja, S.K. and Sahoo, S.K. (2013). ICAR-Nutrient Requirements of Poultry. Indian Council of Agricultural Research.

    15. Musundire, M.T., Halimani, T.E. and Chimonyo, M. (2017). Physical and chemical properties of meat from scavenging chickens and helmeted guinea fowls in response to age and sex. British Poultry Science. 58: 390-396.

    16. Nahashon, S.N., Aggrey, S.E., Adefope, N.A., Amenyenu, A. and Wright, D. (2006). Growth characteristics of pearl, gray guinea fowl as predicted by the richards, gompertz and logistic models. Poultry Science. 85(2): 359-363.

    17. Pandian, C., Ezhil, V.S., Sangilimadan, K. and Richard, C.R. (2025). Selective breeding to improve growth and reproductive traits of White Guinea fowl. Indian Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences Research. 52: 34-43.

    18. Petracci, M., Soglia, F. and Berri, C. (2017). Muscle Metabolism and Meat Quality Abnormalities. In: Poultry Quality Evaluation: Quality Attributes and Consumer Values. [Petracci, M. and Berri, C. (Eds.)], Woodhead Publishing. pp. 51-75.

    19. Poku, J.P.A., Kagya, J.K., Bonsu, F.R., Kwenin, W.K. and Kyere, C.G. (2023). Effect of season and dietary Moringa oleifera leaf meal on growth performance of the pearl guinea fowl. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition. 22: 27-37.

    20. Poompramun, C., Mignon-Grasteau, S., Juanchich, A., Hennequet- Antier, C., Thumanu, K., Bihan-Duval, E.L. and Molee, A. (2022). Phenotypic correlations between feed efficiency, growth and meat quality of slow-growing chickens. British Poultry Science. 63: 742-746.

    21. Prabakaran, R. and Ezhil, V.S. (2021). Production performance of guinea fowls in hilly area of Tamil Nadu, India. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Studies. 9: 440-442.

    22. Rashid, B., Pasha, T.N., Saima and Mahmud, A. (2020). Modulating the growth curve in broiler chicken through varying balanced protein regimen (Conventional all step-down). Indian Journal of Animal Research. doi: 10.18805/ IJAR.BF-1543.

    23. Sarica, M., Boz, M.A., Yamak, U.S. and Ucar, A. (2019). Effect of production system and slaughter age on some production traits of guinea fowl: Meat quality and digestive traits. South African Journal of Animal Science. 49: 190-198.

    24. Sell-Kubiak, E., Wimmers, K., Reyer, H. and Szwaczkowski, T. (2017). Genetic aspects of feed efficiency and reduction of environmental footprint in broilers: A review. Journal of Applied Genetics. 58: 487-498.

    25. Shrikisan, B.L., Tomar, S., Hudson, G.H., Narayan, R. and Tiwari, A.K. (2025). Expression profile of feed efficiency related genes in high and low feed-efficient colored synthetic male line (CSML) broiler chickens. Indian Journal of Animal Research. doi: 10.18805/IJAR.B-5638.

    26. Singh, K.D., Singh, K.V. and Paswan, K.V. (2018). Comparative production performance of Hubbard, Vencobb and Vencobb-400 broiler strains during tropical summer season. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 53: 685- 688. doi: 10.18805/ijar.B-3553.

    27. Singh, M.K., Singh, S.K., Sharma, R.K., Singh, B., Kumar, S., Joshi, S.K., Kumar, S. and Sathapathy, S. (2015). Performance and carcass characteristics of guinea fowl fed on dietary neem (Azadirachta indica) leaf powder as a growth promoter. Iranian Journal of Veterinary Research. 16: 78-82.

    28. Śmiecińska, K., Stêpieñ, A. and Kubiak, D. (2022). Effect of variety and sex on the carcass and meat quality traits of guinea fowl (Numida meleagris L.). Animals. 12: 2916. https:// doi.org/10.3390/ani12212916.

    29. Snedecor, G.W. and Cochran, W.G. (1994). Statistical Methods. 8th ed. Affiliated East-West Press.

    30. Tomar, S. and Tiwari, A.K. (2024). Prodhogik Kukkut Paalan. 1st ed. Daya Publishing House.

    31. Tomar, S., Ahmad, S.F., Gangwar, M., Azhaguraja, M., Kush, A., Trivedi, A., Gandham, R.K. and Tiwari, A.K. (2026). Comprehensive analysis of 122 guinea fowl genomes across three continents delineates their domestication and evolutionary patterns with special reference to India. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 27: 2994. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms27072994.

    32. Trout, G.R. (1989). Variation in myoglobin denaturation and color of cooked beef, pork and turkey meat as influenced by pH, sodium chloride, sodium tripolyphosphate and cooking temperature. Journal of Food Science. 54: 536-540.

    33. Wegner, M., Kokoszyñski, D., Kotowicz, M. and Lubawiñska, M. (2026). Comparison of carcass composition and meat quality of the guinea fowl (Numida meleagris) and the common pheasant (Phasianus colchicus L.). Animals. 16: 908. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani16060908.

    34. Willems, O.W., Miller, S.P. and Wood, B.J. (2013). Assessment of residual body weight gain and residual intake and body weight gain as feed efficiency traits in the turkey (Meleagris gallopavo). Genetics Selection Evolution. 45: 26. https:// doi.org/10.1186/1297-9686-45-26.

    35. Yamak, U.S., Sarica, M., Boz, M.A. and Ucar, A. (2018). Effect of production system (barn and free range) and slaughter age on some production traits of guinea fowl. Poultry Science. 97: 47-53.

    36. Yi, G., Yuan, J., Bi, H., Yan, W., Yang, N. and Qu, L. (2015). In- depth duodenal transcriptome survey in chickens with divergent feed efficiency using RNA-Seq. Plos One. 10: e0136765.

    37. Zampiga, M., Calini, F. and Sirri, F. (2021). Importance of feed efficiency for sustainable intensification of chicken meat production: Implications and role for amino acids, feed enzymes and organic trace minerals. World’s Poultry Science Journal. 77: 639-659.
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us
      Published In
      Indian Journal of Animal Research

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)