Indian Journal of Animal Research

  • Chief EditorK.M.L. Pathak

  • Print ISSN 0367-6722

  • Online ISSN 0976-0555

  • NAAS Rating 6.50

  • 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

Research Article

Indian Journal of Animal Research, volume 54 issue 3 (march 2020) : 388-391

Assessment of hatchability of Tunisian local turkey compared to commercial turkey and its relationships with physical egg traits

A. Djebbi, N. M’Hamdi, B. Haddad
1Laboratory of animal and food resources, National Agronomic Institute of Tunisia
Cite article:- Djebbi A., M’Hamdi N., Haddad B. (2017). Assessment of hatchability of Tunisian local turkey compared to commercial turkey and its relationships with physical egg traits. Indian Journal of Animal Research. 54(3): 388-391. doi: 10.18805/ijar.B-770.

ABSTRACT

A study was conducted to evaluate the hatchability of local turkey comparedto commercial turkey eggs, and its relationships with physical egg traits. A total of 410 local turkey eggs and 252 commercial turkey eggs were usedfor this study and the data were submitted to analysis of variance. Average fertility (%) and fertile egg hatchability (%)were significantly (P<0.05) lower in local turkeys compared to commercial turkeys. Furthermore, infertile eggs (%),early-, mid-, and late-period deaths during incubation were higher in the local turkeys compared to the commercial turkeys. Embryo mortality occurred mainly days 27th and 28th of incubation. Based in this result, hatchability of turkey local eggs was very low when compared with commercial turkey eggs; this reduction resulted in part from in high rate of infertility, embryonic mortality caused by poor management system and genotype. The results of effect of physical egg traits (weight, shell thickness, maximum width and length) on hatchability showed no significant effect on percentage hatchability of fertile eggs (>0.05). Hatchability was affected by egg shape index.

REFERENCES

  1. Alabi, O. J., Ngambi, J. W., Norris, D., Mabelebele, M. (2012). Effect of egg weight on hatchability and subsequent performance of potchefwtroom koekoek chicks. Asian J Anim Vet Adv., 7:718-725.
  2. Alasahan, S.I., Copur, A.G. (2016). Hatching characteristics and growth performance of eggs with different egg shapes. Braz J Poultry Sci., 1:001-008.
  3. Anna Anandh, M., Richard Jagatheesan, P.N., SenthilKumar, P., Rajarajan, G.and Paramasivam.A. (2012). Effect of rearing systems on reproductive performance of Turkey. Vet. World, 5: 226-229.
  4. Anna Anandh, M.and Richard Jagatheesan, P.N. (2015). Reproductive performance of Beltsville small White and Broad Breasted Bronze Turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) under hot humid climatic condition. Indian J. Anim. Res,49: 847-850.
  5. Elibol, O., Akman, N. Turkoglu, M., Corduk, M. and Gummi, M. B. (2009). Comparison of growth performances of American Bronze, Large White turkeys and their crosses under intensive and semi-intensive management conditions. Arch.Geflügelk., 73 : 13–20.
  6. FAO. (2011). Production et santé animales. Evolution du secteur avicole en Tunisie.
  7. Hocking, P.M., Robertson, G.W. and Teverson, D. (2007). Fertility and early embryonic mortality in traditional breeds of chicken in the UK. In. Proc. 5th European Poultry Genetic Symposium, Braedstrup, Denmark., pp.108.
  8. Huwaida E.E. Malik, Ahmed I.Y. Sakin, Hind A.A. Elagib, Bakhiet M. Dousa, Khalid M. Elamin (2015). Effect of egg weight and egg shell thickness on hatchability and embryonic mortality of cobb broiler breeder eggs.GJASR. 3 :186-190.
  9. King’ori, A.M (2011). Review of the factors that influence egg fertility and hatchabilty in Poultry. Int. J. Poult. Sci.,10: 483-492.
  10. Marchewka, J., Watanabe, T. T. N., Ferrante,V., Estevez, I.(2013). Review of the social and environmental factors affecting the behavior and welfare of turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo). Poult. Sc.,92:1467–1473.
  11. Lotfi A, Shadryar HA, Maheri-Sis N, Abedi AS, Nahand MK. (2011). Hatching characterizes of Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica) eggs with different egg shape indexes. Am Eurasian J Agric Environ Sci, 10:475- 477.
  12. Mroz E., Orlowska A. and Stepinska M. (2010). Hatchery waste and hatchability of turkey eggs. Pol. J. Natur. Sci. 25, 143-153.
  13. Mroz E., Michalak k., Or³owska A. (2007). Embryo mortality and poult quality depend on the shell structure of turkey hatching eggs. Anim. Sci. Pap. Rep., 25: 161–172.
  14. Narushin VG, Romanov MN.(2002). Egg physical characteristics and hatchability. World. Poult .Sc.i J., 58: 297-303. 
  15. Ndofor-Foleng, H.M. Vivian Oleforuh-Okoleh1, G.A. Musongong2, J. Ohageni and U. E. Duru. (2015). Evaluation of growth and reproductive traits of Nigerian local chicken and exotic chicken. Indian J. Anim. Res.,49 : 155-160.
  16. Sari, M., Tilki M, Saatci M, Isik S, Onk K. (2010) Effect of parental age, egg weight and Egg shape index on hatchability traits and liveability in Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix japonica).Veter. J. Health. Sci.,2:93-97. 
  17. Sharaf, M.M., Taha, A.E. and Ahmed, N.A.E. (2010) Deformities and abnormalities of Egyptian chicken embryos as reason of poor hatchability percentages. Egypt. Poult. Sci., 30:317-337.
  18. Taha, AE. (2011) Analyzing of quail eggs hatchability, quality, embryonic mortality and malpositions in relation to their shell colors.Online J. anim. feed res., 1:267- 273.
  19. Yamak, USI., BOZ, MA. Ucar, A., Sarica, M., Onder, H. (2016). The Effect of Eggshell Thickness on the hatchability of Guinea Fowl and Pheasants. Braz .J.poult Sci., 2: 053- 058.
  20. Zahraddeen, D., Ahemen, T., Aliyu,P.I.( 2011). On-farm studies on breeding characteristics of turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) in parts of Jos Plateau, Nigeria. Adv. Appl. Sci. Res., 2:179-184. 
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)