Genetic Components of Growth Performance Traits of Progenies Derived from Crosses of Four Local and Exotic Chickens in Derived Savanna Environment of Nigeria

Received 18 Sep, 2023

Accepted 21 Dec, 2023

Published 31 Mar, 2024

Background and Objective: The genetic variation and the hybrid vigor can be exploited in animals by crossing of the different important characteristics of each breed and producing superior crosses for better animal performance. Therefore, the study aimed to contribute to the improvement productivity of Nigerian indigenous chickens through crossbreeding strategy in enhancing the growth characteristics between Nigerian indigenous and Rhode Island Red chickens. Materials and Methods: The growth performance characteristics were measured for chickens’ progenies produced from pure and crossbred of Nigerian indigenous chickens and Rhode Island Red birds and data obtained were statistically analyzed with analysis of variance and means separation with Duncan’s Multiple Range Test. Results: The growth performance characteristics were significantly (p<0.05) varied among the genetic components progenies produced and crossbred progenies of naked neck had the heavier body weight, body length, chest girth, keel length, shank length, thigh length, wing length coupled with lower feed intakes, higher weight gain and better FCR. Sex wisely, males of all the genetic components produced were better in terms of growth performance traits. Conclusion: The study concluded that NIC could be used appropriately as sires and exotic chickens as dams best suited for improving the local stocks for growth performance characteristics in the derived savanna environment of Nigeria.

INTRODUCTION

The animal proteins are greatest nutrient components derived for poultry production since the animals in this category have short generation interval coupled with quickest turnover rate when set side by side with other livestocks¹. Previous research findings indicated that the native chickens have good genetic attributes such as adaptability to Nigerian local environment, disease resistance, less feed requirements among others^2-4 but were very inferior in growth and egg characteristics compared with the exotic strains⁵. However, one way of achieving rapid improvement in production potential of the native chickens, while retaining those good attributes is by the judicious crossbreeding with exotic strains^5,6. Since the utilization of high-yielding improved strains developed in the temperate countries also has not been able to meet up with the demands due to lower performance than expected in the tropics, when compared with their performance in their countries of origin because of poor adaptability⁷.

Crossing is as method has been deduced for enhancing production performance in livestock production and poultry inclusive, with the main objective to produce superior crosses for production characteristics that affected by various genetic and non-genetic factors⁸. In Nigeria, many authors such as^2-5,9 have established the fact on the crosses between the native/local breeds of chicken with exotic adapted ones under tropics and sub-tropic conditions with better outcomes on production performance and potentials of crossbred chickens. Crossing constitute one of the tools for the exploitation of the genetic variation and the hybrid vigour by combination of the different important characteristics of each breed¹⁰ and by taking advantages of maternal genetic or sex-linked effects which related to particular blends between breeds or lines. The analysis of the combining aptitude and the difference between the productive performances of crossbreds helps in identifying the best possible combinations in the exploitation of hybrid vigor according to the desired objectives¹¹.

Mahmoud and El-full¹² reported that genetic variation within and between breed largely describes the performance comparisons among breeds and their crosses due to genetic differences among breeds or strains. These differences are as results of complementary and heterosis effects of crossbreeding which is regarded as an important potential source of genetic improvement in the efficiency of human food production from poultry production. It is also important for counting breed effects and attaining in-between values that are higher to reverse utmosts¹³. Meanwhile, the combined characters of better performing exotic lines and the indigenous chickens that produced crossbreds due to the exploitation of potentials of the Nigerian indigenous light chicken ecotype will give ways to the furnish resolution and decrease the camouring of accession of day-old chicks and breeder stocks which more costly now because of recent economic situation of Nigeria¹³. The study is therefore, designed to evaluate the genetic assessment of the Nigerian indigenous chickens, Rhode Island Red and their crossbred progenies in the derived savanna environment of Nigeria based on growth performance traits.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Experimental site: The experiment was carried out at the Poultry Unit of Teaching and Research Farm, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso, Oyo State, Nigeria. Ogbomosho is situated in the derived savanna zone of Nigeria and lies on Longitude 4°15'East of Greenwich Meridian and Latitude 8°15'North of the equator. The altitude is between 300 and 600 m above sea level while the mean temperature and annual rainfall are 27^oC and 1247 mm, respectively. The experiment lasted between February and December, 2018.

Experimental birds and their management: The Nigerian indigenous chickens (NIC) and exotic breeds of chickens were used for this experiment and the NIC strains are the frizzled feather, naked neck, normal feather and the Fulani ecotype. The NIC was selected from the available chicken population in the study area while the exotic chicken (Rhode Island Red cocks and hens) were acquired from a reputable farm at 18 weeks of age. A total of 100 birds was sourced and used as a parent for the experiment. This consists of 5 cocks and 15 hens each of naked neck, normal feather, frizzled feather, Fulani ecotype and Rhode Island Red chickens. Each chicken was properly tagged by the wings for means of identification wing tags made from industrial galvanized aluminum. The experimental chickens were strictly raised under the intensive management system of poultry production and the birds were individually housed in a 2 tiers galvanized battery cage with a space dimension. Birds were individually housed in a cell having 0.14×0.14 m² spacing. Prior to the arrival of the experimental parent birds, the pen and cage have been properly disinfected with formalin^® and morigard^® as instructed by the manufacturer.

Feeds and feeding: The standard commercial breeders and layers mash containing (16% crude protein and 2600 kcal kg^–1 metabolizable energy) and (16% crude protein and 2800 kcal kg^–1 metabolizable energy) were fed ad libitum to the cocks and hens respectively while clean and cool water was also provided ad libitum.

Mating technique: The sire’s vents were trimmed to clean up their feathers around the vent at two weeks’ interval and the semen was collected through a method of artificial insemination (AI) by the massage technique from the sires from 22 weeks by applying pressure at the back towards the tail many times before sperm production. The semen obtained was immediately inseminated into a doughnut shape in the left vent of the dams while 0.1 mL of undiluted fresh semen collected was used for insemination each time with an inseminator which was monitored twice in a week in the evening.

Mating design: Pure, straight and reciprocal crosses were carried out amongst the Nigerian local chickens and Rhode Island Red to get the crossbred progenies. Below are mating procedures that were adopted:

Pure breeds:
Crossbreds
Straight crossing:
Reciprocal crossing:

Egg collection and incubation: Eggs were collected daily and tagged to identify egg belonging to each individual hen. The eggs were stored at room temperature for a few days and were set in the incubator. Eggs were candled on the 5th and 18th day of incubation for the identification of fertile eggs and clear eggs using a candler fixed with a neon florescent tube carried out in a dark room.

Management of the chicks: At hatch, chicks were also tagged according to their sires and were randomly placed into brooder compartments for brooding. All the chickens were reared intensively under natural light while vaccination and medication programs were duly observed from day old.

Feed and feeding of the chicks: During brooding stage, the standard commercial chick mash of 18% crude protein and 2650 kcal kg^–1 metabolizable energy was fed ad libitum from day old to eight weeks of age. The chicks were assigned to a feeder at the rate of 100 birds to one tray or 1 pan of tube feeder and one drinker of 2 to 4 L capacity. From eight weeks of age, birds were fed standard commercial growers mash containing 16% crude protein and 2700 kcal kg^–1 metabolizable energy. However, at 18 weeks of age, layers were fed commercial layer’s mash containing 16% crude protein and 2800 kcal kg^–1 metabolizable energy and water was supplied ad libitum.

Data collection: Data were obtained on the growth traits from 80 selected progenies generated from the mating of purebred, crossbred and reciprocal birds for the period of 20 weeks according to sex of the birds. However, the following measurements were taken on a weekly basis: body weight (g), body length (cm), keel length (cm), shank length (cm), thigh length (cm), breast girth (cm) and wing length (cm) (growth traits) while pooled data were used for feed intake (g), daily body weight gain (g) and feed conversion ratio (FCR) as described by FAO¹⁴.

Statistical analysis: Data obtained from growth performance characteristics was subjected to analysis of variance for the fixed effects of genotype and age using two-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) while the least significant difference was determined using the 2018 version of the Duncan’s Multiple Range Test. The significance level was at p<0.05. The general linear model procedure of SAS used. However, sex was included in the measurement of the growth traits and this model was adopted:

Y_ijk1 = μ+A_i+B_j+S_k+(AB)_ij+(AS)_ik+(BS)_jk+(ABS)_ijk+e_ijk1

Where,

	Yijk1	:	Observed value of a dependent variable
	μ	:	General mean
	Ai	:	Fixed effect of the ith genotype (i: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
	Bj	:	Fixed effect of the jth age (j: 1………………n)
	Sk	:	Fixed effect of the kth sex (k: 1, 2)
	(AB)ij	:	Interaction of ith genotype and jth age
	(AS)ik	:	Interaction of ith genotype and kth sex
	(BS)jk	:	Interaction of jth age and kth sex
	(ABS)ijk	:	Interaction of ith genotype, jth age and kth sex
	eijk1m	:	Random error common to measurement in each bird and assume to be normally and independently distributed with a mean of zero and variance δ2

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The genotypes significantly affected (p<0.05) bodyweight and linear measurements at all ages as shown in Table 1-6. At day old, RIR birds had the highest body weight (45.15 g) and thigh length (3.89 cm) while RIR×NF crosses were best in body length (7.25 cm), chest girth (9.36 cm) and wing length (7.25 cm) with FF birds having better shank length (2.39 cm). Similarly, body weight, body length, chest girth, keel length and wing length at 4 weeks’ old were highest in the resulting RIR×NN crossbred while NN birds had more of shank length and thigh length. The values obtained for body weight, body length, keel length, shank length and wing length in crosses involving NN×RIR at 8 weeks were significantly better than other crosses while chest girth and thigh length favoring FE×RIR and RIR×FF respectively.

Table 1:

Least square mean values and standard errors of growth traits of pure, straight and reciprocal F1 chickens as affected by genotypes and sex at day old

Parameters	N	BDW (g)	BDL (cm)	CG (cm)	KL (cm)	Shank (cm)	Thigh (cm)	WL (cm)
Genotype
FE	80	31.95±0.64de	7.02±0.09b	8.25±0.06d	1.00±00	2.15±0.04b	3.08±0.06c	4.46±0.07f
FF	80	28.12±0.40h	6.77±0.10cd	7.89±0.05e	0.99±00	2.39±0.05a	3.10±0.06c	4.86±0.06e
NF	80	29.97±0.43g	6.82±0.10cd	7.88±0.10e	1.00±00	2.17±0.03b	3.12±0.07c	4.47±0.07f
NN	80	28.62±0.31gh	5.60±0.07f	7.49±0.05g	0.99±00	2.01±0.02c	2.74±0.05d	3.35±0.08g
RIR	80	45.15±0.80a	6.98±0.01c	8.94±0.03b	0.99±00	1.96±0.01c	3.89±0.03a	4.83±0.05e
RIR×FE	80	31.00±0.61e	6.08±0.04e	7.77±0.08f	1.00±00	2.14±0.04b	3.33±0.08b	6.83±0.20b
RIR×FF	80	30.70±0.15f	6.16±0.04e	8.50±0.90c	1.00±00	1.93±0.01c	3.00±0.01c	4.50±0.06f
RIR×NF	80	42.00±0.64ab	7.25±0.04a	9.35±0.06a	1.00±00	2.00±0.01c	2.05±0.00f	7.25±0.04a
RIR×NN	80	31.22±0.70de	6.17±0.08e	6.76±0.09h	0.99±00	1.96±0.00c	2.44±0.04e	6.39±0.17c
FF×RIR	80	34.40±0.55c	6.70±0.06d	7.60±0.07fg	1.00±00	1.92±0.02c	2.22±0.04f	7.15±0.15a
NF×RIR	80	32.85±0.87d	6.05±0.05e	7.61±0.11g	1.00±00	1.79±0.03d	3.81±0.17a	5.39±0.24d
NN×RIR	80	38.30±0.74b	6.65±0.08d	9.00±0.09b	1.00±00	1.94±0.01a	2.16±0.03f	7.25±0.09a
FE×RIR	80	38.33±0.14b	6.68±0.08d	9.02±0.03b	1.00±00	1.91±0.01ab	2.13±0.03f	7.23±0.05ab
Sex
Male	488	33.82±0.43	6.47±0.04	8.13±0.05	1.00±0.01	2.06±0.01	2.93±0.04	5.55±0.09
Female	552	32.95±0.32	6.56±0.04	8.05±0.05	1.00±0.01	2.01±0.01	2.89±0.05	5.57±0.09
abcdef Means along the same column at each subclass with different superscripts are significantly (p<0.05) different, N: Number of Observation, BDW: Body weight, BDL: Body length, CG: Chest girth, KL: Keel length, WL: Wing length, FE: Fulani ecotype, FF: Frizzle feather, NF: Normal feather, NN: Naked neck, RIR: Rhode Island Red, RIR×FE: Rhode Island Red Fulani ecotype crossbred, RIR×FF: Rhode Island Red frizzle feather crossbred, RIR×NF: Rhode Island Red normal feather crossbred, RIR×NN: Rhode Island Red naked neck crossbred, NN×RIR: Naked necked Rhode Island Red crossbred, NF×RIR: Normal feather Rhode Island Red crossbred, FE×RIR: Fulani ecotype Rhode Island Red and FF×RIR: Frizzle feather Rhode Island Red crossbred

Table 2:

Least square mean values and standard errors of growth traits of pure, straight and reciprocal F1 chickens as affected by genotypes and sex at 4 weeks of age

Parameters	N	BDW (g)	BDL (cm)	CG (cm)	KL (cm)	Shank (cm)	Thigh (cm)	WL (cm)
Genotype
FE	80	152.82±4.47d	11.69±0.12ab	13.53±0.09a	4.73±0.09c	4.00±0.09	5.73±0.08f	15.79±0.21e
FF	80	157..45±4.43d	10.81±0.15cd	11.84±0.12g	4.15±0.07c	4.36±0.07c	5.69±0.08f	17.69±0.15a
NF	80	133.45±3.12e	10.65±0.13d	12.47±0.10e	4.43±0.04f	4.15±0.04d	5.69±0.08f	16.27±0.13d
NN	80	169.45±3.47c	11.80±0.12ab	12.95±0.12d	4.18±0.05h	4.93±0.05a	7.34±0.07a	17.17±0.22b
RIR	80	148.93±3.37d	10.46±0.10d	11.56±0.08g	4.66±0.07d	3.55±0.07f	5.28±0.05d	16.61±0.19c
RIR×FE	80	148.00±3.52d	11.20±0.08b	12.30±0.06f	4.42±0.03f	3.95±0.05	6.45±0.05d	17.52±0.13a
RIR×FF	80	147.07±1.26d	11.13±0.03bc	13.32±0.07ab	4.25±0.05g	4.00±0.05	6.16±0.03e	16.85±0.05c
RIR×NF	80	171.70±4.88c	11.17±0.14b	12.72±0.15e	4.60±0.10d	4.46±0.29b	6.33±0.09de	17.39±0.22ab
RIR×NN	80	194.45±3.80a	11.99±0.08a	13.67±0.07a	5.10±0.05a	4.08±0.04e	6.79±0.09b	17.62±0.32a
FF×RIR	80	171.95±8.41c	11.18±0.21b	12.65±0.23e	4.81±0.07b	4.40±0.06bc	6.27±0.11de	17.12±0.27b
NF×RIR	80	151.90±5.26d	11..09±0.11bc	12.47±0.14e	4.61±0.08d	3.92±0.08e	6.46±0.08b	17.17±0.16b
NN×RIR	80	176.45±6.30bc	11.20±0.14b	13.20±0.16ab	4.52±0.06e	4.37±0.06c	5.67±0.07f	16.77±0.07d
FE×RIR	80	176.45±6.30bc	11.20±0.14b	13.20±0.16ab	4.52±0.06e	4.37±0.06c	5.67±0.07f	16.77±0.07d
Sex
Male	488	169.13±2.02a	11.22±0.05a	12.93±0.05a	4.63±0.03a	4.19±0.03a	6.32±0.05a	17.29±0.09a
Female	552	156.33±2.08b	11.08±0.05b	12.53±0.06b	4.49±0.05b	4.15±0.05b	6.21±0.04b	17.02±0.07
babcdefMeans along the same column at each subclass with different superscripts are significantly (p<0.05) different, N: Number of Observation, BDW: Body weight, BDL: Body length, CG: Chest girth, KL: Keel length, WL: Wing length, FE: Fulani ecotype, FF: Frizzle feather, NF: Normal feather, NN: Naked neck, RIR: Rhode Island Red, RIR×FE: Rhode Island Red Fulani ecotype crossbred, RIR×FF: Rhode Island Red frizzle feather crossbred, RIR×NF: Rhode Island Red normal feather crossbred, RIR×NN: Rhode Island Red naked neck crossbred, NN×RIR: Naked necked Rhode Island Red crossbred, NF×RIR: Normal feather Rhode Island Red crossbred, FE×RIR: Fulani ecotype Rhode Island Red and FF×RIR: Frizzle feather Rhode Island Red crossbred

Table 3:

Least square mean values and standard errors of growth traits of pure, straight and reciprocal F1 chickens as affected by genotypes and sex at 8 weeks of age

Parameters	N	BDW (g)	BDL (cm)	CG (cm)	KL (cm)	Shank (cm)	Thigh (cm)	WL (cm)
Genotype
FE	76	422.27±12.18d	14.84±0.15d	17.47±0.16bc	7.02±0.11b	6.08±0.08c	7.82±0.08g	24.04±0.26d
FF	78	363.75±12.35d	14.46±0.17d	17.06±0.15d	6.35±0.09d	5.45±0.09	9.72±0.26bc	25.20±0.26a
NF	77	321.55±12.45f	14.28±0.19e	16.94±0.17d	6.43±0.05d	5.48±0.06d	7.36±0.09g	22.51±0.21c
NN	72	322.10±15.13f	15.45±0.16c	17.30±0.16c	6.86±0.10c	5.64±0.08d	9.46±0.11c	24.97±0.22c
RIR	70	518.97±11.94b	15.61±0.13c	17.73±0.18b	7.40±0.08a	6.45±0.09b	9.93±0.12b	26.97±0.20a
RIR×FE	78	554.97±13.45ab	15.73±0.11bc	17.10±0.13d	7.36±0.09a	5.31±0.07e	9.98±0.11b	25.57±0.22b
RIR×FF	77	350.07±10.49f	14.08±0.11e	16.00±0.12f	6.48±0.06d	5.99±0.11c	10.81±0.10a	24.00±0.12d
RIR×NF	76	453.50±11.68c	14.50±0.05f	15.75±0.12f	6.62±0.07c	4.87±0.03f	9.25±0.07d	24.50±0.14d
RIR×NN	74	428.92±16.74c	15.59±0.19c	17.01±0.23d	7.12±0.12ab	4.89±0.09f	8.92±0.22e	24.49±0.28d
FE×RIR	72	515.25±12.64b	16.12±0.15b	18.12±0.18a	7.05±0.07b	4.85±0.06f	9.20±0.09d	25.81±0.22b
FF×RIR	75	510.45±21.95b	15.57±0.19c	17.70±0.27b	7.13±0.13ab	6.82±0.09a	9.88±0.13b	27.12±0.58a
NF×RIR	74	397.85±15.75e	14.93±0.17d	16.57±0.23e	6.58±0.09c	4.59±0.06g	8.59±0.14f	23.79±0.27b
NN×RIR	77	582.20±24.54a	16.79±0.22a	17.92±0.23ab	7.35±0.09a	6.79±0.07a	9.25±0.14f	27.62±0.26a
Sex
Male	480	470.44±8.70a	15.39±0.08a	17.30±0.09a	7.04±0.04a	5.78±0.05a	9.56±0.08a	25.34±0.13a
Female	496	415.52±6.55b	15.07±0.06b	16.95±0.08b	6.77±0.04b	5.49±0.05b	8.93±0.06b	24.34±0.14b
abcdefMeans along the same column at each subclass with different superscripts are significantly (p<0.05) different, N: Number of observation, BDW: Body weight, BDL: Body length, CG: Chest girth, KL: Keel length, FE: Fulani ecotype, FF: Frizzle feather, NF: Normal feather, NN: Naked neck, RIR: Rhode Island Red, RIR×FE: Rhode Island Red Fulani ecotype crossbred, RIR×FF: Rhode Island Red frizzle feather crossbred, RIR×NF: Rhode Island Red normal feather crossbred, RIR×NN: Rhode Island Red naked neck crossbred, NN×RIR: Naked necked Rhode Island Red crossbred, NF×RIR: Normal feather Rhode Island Red crossbred, FE×RIR: Fulani ecotype Rhode Island Red and FF×RIR: Frizzle feather Rhode Island Red crossbred

However, at 12 weeks, NN×RIR crossbred had the heaviest body weight (958 g), highest body length (20.85 cm), chest girth (23.10 cm), keel length (10.75 cm), thigh length (15.70 cm) and wing length (34.60 cm) while shank length favoring crosses involving RIR×NF of value 9.67 cm. Similarly, the ranking does not change at 16 weeks; NN×RIR crossbred recorded significant highest body weight (1444.20 g), body length (23.70 cm), chest girth (25.65 cm), keel length (11.37 cm), shank length (9.67 cm), thigh length (17.55 cm) and wing length (38.12 cm). The values recorded for body weight, body length, chest girth, shank length, thigh length and wing length of 1548.75, 27.60, 29.50 g and 10.89, 18.58 and 38.20 cm favored the crosses of NN×RIR birds while keel length (13.00 cm) was better in RIR chicken at 20 weeks of age. Consistently, values of body weight and other body conformations measured increased with the age of the birds in all the genetic stocks considered. The potential for an increase in all body weight and other linear body measurements of individuals in each genotype as growth of the birds advanced are expected and also agreed with the reports of Adedeji et al.¹⁵ that age is a major indicator of growth and physiological development. The significant genotype effects in the body weight measurements among the chicken genotypes corroborated with the earlier reports of studies^6,9,16,17. The variation in the values of linear body measurements in all the pure and the crosses can also be associated to different genetic backgrounds of the chicken as reported by Keambou et al.¹⁸.

Table 4:

Least square mean values and standard errors of growth traits of pure, straight and reciprocal F1 chickens as affected by genotypes and sex at 12 weeks of age

Parameters	N	BDW (g)	BDL (cm)	CG (cm)	KL (cm)	Shank (cm)	Thigh (cm)	WL (cm)
Genotype
FE	76	637.20±17.18ef	17.06±0.33c	19.43±0.21d	7.80±0.09g	7.17±0.09d	10.18±0.12g	29.78±0.28g
FF	78	532.37±21.41gh	17.15±0.21e	19.27±0.24d	7.85±0.14g	6.83±0.12e	12.27±0.22c	31.28±0.64de
NF	77	518.22±17.73h	15.97±0.46fe	19.13±0.26d	7.52±0.09h	6.61±0.10e	9.65±0.13e	27.48±0.23g
NN	72	674.87±24.67de	18.17±0.24d	20.98±0.20b	8.48±0.11e	7.53±0.10d	13.44±0.17b	32.12±0.17b
RIR	70	940.89 ±25.12a	18.42±0.37b	19.80±0.31c	8.61±0.10d	8.543±0.11b	11.95±0.19d	32.57±0.32b
RIR×FE	78	835.19±19.59a	18.99±0.16b	19.89±0.44c	8.47±0.12e	7.26±0.09d	12.23±0.14c	33.03±0.53a
RIR×FF	77	590.78±10.78g	17.97±0.16c	19.97±0.16c	8.24±0.04f	8.24±0.04b	13.00±0.08b	27.97±0.16g
RIR×NF	76	770.00±34.23c	18.37±0.21b	19.62±0.27c	8.00±0.19f	9.67±0.81a	13.25±0.49a	31.75±0.50c
RIR×NN	74	900.87±33.52ab	19.09±0.29b	20.87±0.28b	8.86±0.13c	7.50±0.14d	12.14±0.20c	30.19±0.63d
FE×RIR	72	816.60±18.92b	20.41±0.23a	21.95±0.29a	9.21±0.09b	8.02±0.08c	12.05±0.13c	32.58±0.17b
FF×RIR	75	840.15±18.92b	20.09±0.17a	22.19±0.24a	9.99±0.14a	8.41±0.08bc	12.22±0.21c	32.62±0.31b
NF×RIR	74	608.90±28.45f	18.38±0.29bc	19.52±0.50c	8.65±0.13c	7.31±0.14d	11.57±0.23d	30.52±0.41e
NN×RIR	77	958.35±29.47a	20.85±0.24a	23.10±0.41a	10.75±0.14a	8.78±0.09b	15.70±0.24a	34.60±0.44a
Sex
Male	480	780.73±14.64a	19.09±0.13a	21.11±0.12a	8.81±0.06a	8.35±0.16a	12.67±0.13a	31.96±0.19a
Female	496	624.28±9.21b	17.69±0.12b	19.45±0.12b	8.19±0.06b	7.25±0.04b	11.49±0.07b	30.29±0.17b
abcdefMeans along the same column at each subclass with different superscripts are significantly (p<0.05) different, N: Number of observation, BDW: Body weight, BDL: Body length, CG: Chest girth, KL: Keel length, WL: Wing length, FE: Fulani ecotype, FF: Frizzle feather, NF: Normal feather, NN: Naked neck, RIR: Rhode Island Red, RIR×FE: Rhode Island Red Fulani ecotype crossbred, RIR×FF: Rhode Island Red frizzle feather crossbred, RIR×NF: Rhode Island Red normal feather crossbred, RIR×NN: Rhode Island Red naked neck crossbred, NN×RIR: Naked necked Rhode Island Red crossbred, NF×RIR: Normal feather Rhode Island Red crossbred, FE×RIR: Fulani ecotype Rhode Island Red and FF×RIR: Frizzle feather Rhode Island Red crossbred

Table 5:

Least square mean values and standard errors of growth traits of pure, straight and reciprocal F1 chickens as affected by genotypes and sex at 16 weeks of age

Parameters	N	BDW (g)	BDL (cm)	CG (cm)	KL (cm)	Shank (cm)	Thigh (cm)	WL (cm)
Genotype
FE	75	984.02±23.62f	19.51±0.16f	22.14±0.22f	9.62±0.10e	8.89±0.11c	12.22±0.14e	32.83±0.32f
FF	76	879.12±28.08d	20.47±0.20e	22.80±0.20e	9.46±0.16f	7.77±0.13e	14.48±0.17c	33.40±0.50e
NF	76	815.87±25.85h	18.89±0.19g	21.37±0.24g	8.87±0.10g	8.06±0.14d	11.55±0.15f	31.83±0.39g
NN	71	1025.98±34.57e	21.29±0.19c	23.77±0.20c	10.47±0.13c	8.82±0.13c	15.62±0.20b	34.73±0.30d
RIR	68	1038.08±34.53e	20.77±0.33d	22.44±0.35e	9.89±0.13e	9.21±0.08b	14.14±0.28d	35.26±0.33c
RIR×FE	77	1050.38±28.30d	20.31±0.17e	23.25±0.18d	10.18±0.12c	7.70±0.12e	15.63±0.22b	35.91±0.50b
RIR×FF	76	795.00±20.81h	21.00±0.16c	23.00±0.16d	10.50±0.24c	8.75±0.12c	14.00±0.16d	34.00±0.16e
RIR×NF	75	973.60±46.69f	19.60±0.28f	22.70±0.46e	9.90±0.19e	7.40±0.13f	13.70±0.20d	33.08±0.45f
RIR×NN	73	1079.15±52.26c	22.15±0.47b	23.88±0.38c	10.83±0.15b	9.20±0.16b	15.16±0.27b	34.80±0.42d
FE×RIR	71	1145.69±15.07b	22.13±0.14b	23.93±0.11c	10.15±0.10c	9.31±0.08b	15.52±0.09b	35.08±0.30c
FF×RIR	73	1070.75±37.29c	21.97±0.17b	24.03±0.22b	11.52±0.12a	9.90±0.10a	14.55±0.15c	35.57±0.36b
NF×RIR	72	925.35±43.74f	20.77±0.29d	22.38±0.35e	10.00±0.18d	8.67±0.15c	14.59±0.28c	34.02±0.40c
NN×RIR	75	1444.20±45.26a	23.70±0.18a	25.65±0.29a	11.37±0.14a	9.67±0.17a	17.55±0.18a	38.12±0.32a
Sex
Male	480	1134.33±18.91a	21.80±0.13a	24.09±0.13a	10.72±0.07a	9.16±0.06a	15.20±0.12a	35.74±0.16a
Female	478	925.48±13.24b	20.31±0.10b	22.46±0.10b	9.81±0.06b	8.37±0.06b	13.97±0.10b	33.54±0.16b
abcdefMeans along the same column at each subclass with different superscripts are significantly (p<0.05) different, N: Number of observation, BDW: Body weight, BDL: Body length, CG: Chest girth, KL: Keel length, WL: Wing length, FE: Fulani ecotype, FF: Frizzle feather, NF: Normal feather, NN: Naked neck, RIR: Rhode Island Red, RIR×FE: Rhode Island Red Fulani ecotype crossbred, RIR×FF: Rhode Island Red frizzle feather crossbred, RIR×NF: Rhode Island Red normal feather crossbred, RIR×NN: Rhode Island Red naked neck crossbred, NN×RIR: Naked necked Rhode Island Red crossbred, NF×RIR: Normal feather Rhode Island Red crossbred

Table 6:

Least square mean values and standard errors of growth traits of pure, straight and reciprocal F1 chickens as affected by genotypes and sex at 20 weeks of age

Parameters	N	BDW (g)	BDL (cm)	CG (cm)	KL (cm)	Shank (cm)	Thigh (cm)	WL (cm)
Genotype
FE	75	1361.53±37.24c	21.94±0.31f	23.40±0.19g	10.69±0.11h	10.19±0.16c	15.18±0.20d	35.15±0.28f
FF	76	1164.70±33.26e	22.50±0.19e	24.50±0.23f	11.04±0.14g	8.40±0.11g	15.14±0.23d	36.10±0.40d
NF	76	1081.08±43.36f	20.28±0.21h	22.19±0.19	9.90±0.10ih	8.99±0.17f	13.47±0.20e	34.67±0.40g
NN	71	1349.73±50.61c	23.87±0.21d	26.07±0.22d	11.16±0.18d	10.08±0.30d	16.60±0.30c	37.07±0.33b
RIR	68	1504.25±57.90ab	26.65±0.20b	28.30±0.27b	13.00±0.13a	10.67±0.03b	17.30±0.21b	36.95±0.12c
RIR×FE	77	1423.33±43.04b	22.67±0.25e	25.03±0.24e	11.41±0.14e	8.67±0.14f	16.42±0.20c	36.84±0.48c
RIR×FF	76	1142.50±24.57e	22.50±0.08e	24.45±0.23f	10.90±0.04g	9.60±0.06e	15.15±0.26d	35.50±0.08f
RIR×NF	75	1224.00±34.19d	21.75±0.17f	24.25±0.23f	11.00±0.11g	8.00±0.14h	14.87±0.26f	36.12±0.34g
RIR×NN	73	1478.73±75.00ab	23.82±0.38d	25.52±0.44e	11.60±0.22d	9.47±0.18e	16.52±0.31c	35.85±0.50e
FE×RIR	71	1383.55±31.25c	25.30±0.16c	26.80±0.27c	12.05±0.16b	10.50±0.10b	16.92±0.13c	37.62±0.41b
FF×RIR	73	1122.90±63.25e	23.10±0.31e	25.00±0.39e	11.90±0.11e	9.43±0.12e	15.05±0.26d	36.30±0.37d
NF×RIR	72	1172.85±57.88e	22.88±0.42e	25.07±0.46e	11.16±0.23f	9.68±0.22e	16.89±0.39c	35.87±0.45e
NN×RIR	75	1548.75±71.66a	27.60±0.28a	29.50±0.38a	12.22±0.18b	10.89±0.18a	18.58±0.23a	38.20±0.61a
Sex
Male	480	1520.63±22.29a	24.32±0.15a	26.31±0.15a	11.86±0.07a	10.10±0.07a	17.05±0.11a	37.38±0.14a
Female	478	1154.87±19.14b	22.71±0.14b	24.61±0.16b	11.06±0.07b	9.13±0.07b	15.19±0.11b	35.56±0.16b
abcdefMeans along the same column at each subclass with different superscripts are significantly (p<0.05) different, N: Number of observation, BDW: Body weight, BDL: Body length, CG: Chest girth, KL: Keel length, WL: Wing length, FE: Fulani ecotype, FF: Frizzle feather, NF: Normal feather, NN: Naked neck, RIR: Rhode Island Red, RIR×FE: Rhode Island Red Fulani ecotype crossbred, RIR×FF: Rhode Island Red frizzle feather crossbred, RIR×NF: Rhode Island Red normal feather crossbred, RIR×NN: Rhode Island Red naked neck crossbred, NN×RIR: Naked necked Rhode Island Red crossbred, NF×RIR: Normal feather Rhode Island Red crossbred, FE×RIR: Fulani ecotype Rhode Island Red and FF×RIR: Frizzle feather Rhode Island Red crossbred

Table 7:

Pooled least square mean values of feed intake, weight gain and feed conversion ratio of pure, straight and reciprocal F1 chickens as affected by different genotype and sex

Parameters	N	Feed Intake (g)	Weight gain (g)	Feed conversion ratio
Genotypes
FF	75	63.24 ±1.56b	9.44±0.35d	6.92±0.25bc
RIR	76	99.59±1.22a	15.06±0.48a	8.97 ±0.44a
FE	76	59.39±0.86bc	12.42±0.67a	7.83±0.35c
NN	71	50.20 ±2.48d	8.77±0.45de	6.34±0.36bc
NF	68	48.99±0.47e	9.69±0.90d	7.15±0.35b
RIR×FE	77	51.47±0.22d	8.88±0.67de	7.11±0.45b
RIR×FF	76	52.08±1.88cd	9.29±0.44d	6.19±0.34bc
RIR×NN	75	47.12± 4.35e	14.24±0.22ab	4.32±0.66d
RIR×NF	73	57.22± 2.78c	12.48±0.48b	9.45±0.78ab
FE×RIR	71	56.47±2.33c	8.52±0.44d	8.34±0.04ab
FF×RIR	73	64.53±0.67b	11.66±0.88b	7.14±0.45b
NN×RIR	72	47.06±0.35f	15.99±0.48a	6.69±0.67e
NF×RIR	75	48.68±0.78f	8.16±0.69e	7.56±0.48b
Sex
Male	480	60.09±0.99a	12.47±0.45a	10.09±0.23a
Female	478	56.89±2.78b	10.56±0.67b	8.69±0.34b
abcde Means along the same column at each subclass with different superscripts are significantly (p<0.05) different, N: Number of observation, RIR: Rhode Island Red, FE: Fulani ecotype, NN: Naked neck, NF: Normal feather, RIR×FE: Rhode Island Red Fulani ecotype crossbred, RIR×FF: Rhode Island Red Frizzled feather crossbred, RIR×NN: Rhode Island Red naked neck crossbred, RIR×NF: Rhode Island Red normal feather crossbred, FE×RIR: Fulani ecotype Rhode Island Red crossbred, FF×RIR: Frizzle feather Rhode Island Red crossbred, NN×RIR: Naked neck Rhode Island Red crossbred, NF×RIR: Normal feather Rhode Island Red crossbred, ED: Early dry, LD: Late dry, EW: Early wet and LW: Late wet

The superiority in the body weight and other linear body measurements traits noted for crosses of NN×RIR chicken upon the pure and other crossbred counterparts suggested supported the earlier observations of previous studies^19-21 that crossbred chicken performed better than their purebred counterparts in respect to body weights and other linear measurements. It could be suggested that the improved local chicken has a good gene combining effects with the RIR (exotic) when a male line was used rather than female line. Sex significantly (p<0.05) affected all the body weight and other body parameters with most of the obtainable values for body weight and other linear measurement favored the male of the birds at all considered ages and these values consistently increases as the birds attaining ages for all the genotypes. The variations in the growth traits between the male and female birds across the genotypes might be associated to the fact that the muscle development occurs through the interaction of numerous factors, among which sex and hormonal factors are more significant and this favored the male as agreed with Akinbola et al.⁴. Males were superior in body weight and body conformations than their females’ counterpart. This result affirmed with the findings of previous studies^17,19,22, who reported that male birds were better significantly in respect to body weights and other linear measurements than its counterpart female birds. This may have resulted from the presence of the androgen hormone in males compared to the females which gave the male birds to be more aggressive and dominant when feeding, especially when both sexes are reared together.

The pooled least square mean values of feed intakes, weight gain and feed conversion ratio as affected by different genotypes and sex are presented in Table 7. The results showed that genotype significantly affected (p<0.05) feed intake, weight gain and feed conversion ratio. The RIR chickens as expected consumed more feed (99.59 g) than other genetic groups while NN×RIR crossbred consumed lowest feed of value 47.06 g. However, NN×RIR birds had the highest weight gain (15.99 g) than its counterpart genotypes with least weight gain recorded for NF×RIR crossbred chickens. The value recorded for feed conversion ratio in RIR was significantly highest among the different genotypes involved while the lowest feed conversion ratio was observed in the crosses of NN×RIR birds. The results indicated that crosses involving NN×RIR consumed less feed with better weight gain coupled with best feed conversion ratio than other genetic groups considered. This agreed with the observations of^11,23,24 that combining genes of crosses of chickens×RIR birds consumed more feeds than other genotypes of birds involved in their studies. These authors affirmed that genetic constituents influenced the growth performance characteristics of chickens. This could be due to the heterosis effect, leading to improved performance traits in the progenies. Sex significantly (p<0.05) influenced the values obtained for feed intake, weight gain and feed conversion ratio with higher values observed in the male birds than its counterpart female birds, thus agreed with the earlier reports of Amin¹⁹ that male consumed more feeds due to the aggressiveness and dominance because of the hormonal effects of androgen in male birds.

CONCLUSION

The study depicted that crossing between of NIC and RIR chickens exploits the advantages of heterotic effect on growth performance characteristics. It was observed that BDW and linear body measurements increased as the chickens attained ages in the thirteen genotypes produced which proved that these body measurements were directly proportional to age of the animals. The study also affirmed that growth traits and performance were affected by the genetic compositions of the animals involved. The crosses between naked neck and Rhode Island Red (NN×RIR) chickens that produced naked neck Rhode Island Red (NNRIR) crossbred chickens had superior growth traits coupled with its attributes to consume lesser feed and gain more weight than its counterpart genotypes. The male of all genotypes were better in terms of growth traits dues to the hormonal influence of androgen in the male birds. The findings further suggested that Nigerian indigenous chickens (NN, NF, FF and FE) could be used appropriately as sire and exotic chickens as dams was best suited for improving the local stocks for growth performance characteristics in the derived savanna environment of Nigeria.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

The potential of the local chickens cannot be overemphasized since indigenous chicken production is a widely known practice in tropical and sub-tropical countries as the chickens are kept majority by rural masses as a major source of protein and income but the genetic composition of these chickens was limited in respect of growth and other economic characters. Thus, these limiting factors can be improved through selection and mating methods. The study employed several mating methods as a means of exploring the genetic potential especially the growth performance traits and the results depicted that growth performance parameters were significantly varied among the genetic components with NNRIR having better growth performance characteristics than its counterpart genetic stocks.

REFERENCES

1. Alders, R., R. Costa, R.A. Gallardo, N. Sparks and H. Zhou, 2019. Smallholder Poultry: Leveraging for Sustainable Food and Nutrition Security. In: Encyclopedia of Food Security and Sustainability, Ferranti, P., E.M. Berry and J.R. Anderson, Elsevier Amsterdam, Netherlands, ISBN: 978-0-12-812688-2, pp: 340-346.
2. Adedeji, T.A., S.A. Amusan and O.A. Adebambo, 2015. Effect of chicken genotype on growth performance of pure and crossbred progenies in the development of a broiler line. Int. J. Agric. Innovations Res., 4: 134-138.
3. Rasheed, A.S., 2017. Effect of crossing Fulani ecotype with Rhode Island Red chickens on growth performance and reproductive traits in Southern Guinea Savanna region of Nigeria. J. Anim. Vet. Sci., 4: 14-18.
4. Akinbola, E.T., O.O. Ojebiyi, B.O. Olugbade, O.L. Olawale and S.R. Amao, 2023. Growth performance traits and egg quality of indigenous Yoruba ecotype chickens crossbred with Lohmann brown cocks. Slovak J. Anim. Sci., 56: 12-20.
5. Amao, S.R., I.L. Zalia and K.S. Oluwagbemiga, 2019. Effects of crossbred sires of normal feather Rhode Island Red on different dams of Nigerian indigenous chickens for fertility, hatchability and early growth performance. Discovery Agric., 5: 119-126.
6. Rasheed, A.S., 2017. Productive potentials of Nigerian indigenous chickens versus Rhode Island Red chicken reared southern guinea savanna environment of Nigeria. Int. J. Agric. Environ. Sci., 2: 49-55.
7. Adedeji, T.A., S.R. Amao, A.D. Popoola and R.I. Ogundipe, 2015. Fertility, hatchability and eggs quality traits of Nigerian locally adapted chickens in the derived savanna environment of Nigeria. Biol. Agric. Healthcare, 5: 36-42.
8. Soliman, M.A., M.H. Khalil, K. El-Sabrout, M.K. Shebl, 2020. Crossing effect for improving egg production traits in chickens involving local and commercial strains. Vet. World, 13: 407-412.
9. Obike, O.M., E.I. Chijioke , K.L. Akinsola, O.C. Ezimoha, U.C. Isaac and U.K. Oke, 2022. Growth performance and carcass characteristics of F₁ progenies of local x exotic chicken crosses. Niger. J. Anim. Sci., 24: 18-29.
10. Egahi, J.O., N.I. Dim and O.M. Momoh 2013. Crossbreeding and reciprocal effect on egg weight, hatch weight and growth pattern and the interrelationships between these traits in three genetic groups of native chickens of Nigeria. Asian J. Biol. Sci., 6: 187-191.
11. Mohammed, M.D., Y.I. Abdalsalam, A.R.M. Kheir, W. Jin-Yu and M.H. Hussein, 2005. Growth performance of indigenous x exotic crosses of chicken and evaluation of general and specific combining ability under Sudan condition. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 4: 468-471.
12. Mahmoud, B.Y.F. and E.A. El-Full, 2014. Crossbreeding components for daily gain and growth rate traits in crossing of Rhode Island Red with Gimmizah chickens. Egypt. Poult. Sci. J., 34: 151-163.
13. Amao, S.R., 2020. Growth performance traits of meat-type chicken progenies from a broiler line sire and Nigerian indigenous chickens’ dams reared in Southern Guinea Savanna condition of Nigeria. Discovery, 56: 66-73.
14. FAO., 2012. Phenotypic Characterization of Animal Genetic Resources. Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy, ISBN: 9789251071991, Pages: 142.
15. Adedeji, T.A., O.T. Aderoju, A.M. Adebimpe and B. Matheuw, 2015. Genotype-sex interaction in relation to heat tolerance attributes of pure and crossbred chicken progenies. J. Biol. Agric. Healthcare, 5: 43-49.
16. Taha, A.E.S. and F.A. Abd El-Ghany, 2013. Improving production traits for El-Salam and mandarah chicken strains by crossing i- estimation of crossbreeding effects for growth production traits. Alexandria J. Vet. Sci., 39: 18-30.
17. Kgwatalala, P.M. and P. Segokgo, 2013. Growth performance of Australorp×Tswana crossbred chickens under an intensive management system. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 12: 358-361.
18. Keambou, T.C., S. Mboumba, B.A.H. Touko, C. Bembide, T.M. Mezui, A.M.Y. Tedongmo and Y. Manjeli, 2015. Growth performances, carcass and egg characteristics of the local chicken and its first generation reciprocal crossbreds with an exotic strain in Cameroon. Adv. Anim. Vet. Sci., 3: 507-513.
19. Amin, E.M., 2015. Genetic components and heterotic effect of growth traits in 3x3 diallel crossing experiment in chickens. J. Am. Sci., 11: 62-77.
20. Balcha, K.A., Y.T. Mengesha, E.K. Senbeta and N.A. Zeleke, 2021. Evaluation of different traits from day-old to age at first eggs of fayoumi and white leghorn chickens and their reciprocal crossbreeds. J. Adv. Vet. Anim. Res., 8: 1-6.
21. Saleem, F., B.H. Ahmad, S. Zahid and B. Kabeer, 2014. Comparative productive performance of indigenous naked neck and naked neck crossbred layer chickens. Pak. J. Agric. Res., 27: 265-344.
22. Munisi, W.G., A.M. Katule and S.H. Mbaga, 2015. Comparative growth and livability performance of exotic, indigenous chickens and their crosses in Tanzania. Livest. Res. Rural Dev., 27.
23. Ekka, R., N.C. Behura, L. Samal, G.D. Nayak, P.K. Pati and P.K. Mishra, 2016. Growth performance and linear body measurements of Hansli, CSML and Hansli × CSML cross under intensive system of rearing. J. Livestock Sci., 7: 114-121.
24. Kamel, E.R., 2016. Comparative study of growth and economic performance of Fayoumi, Rhode Island Red and their reciprocal crossbred chickens. Int. J. Curr. Res., 8: 30613-30619.