REPRODUCTIVE PERFORMANCE, FEED INTAKE AND EFFICIENCY OF INDIGENOUS AND CROSSBRED TURKEYS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.51406/jagse.v18i1.1912Keywords:
reproductive traits, feed efficiency, productivity, turkey genotypeAbstract
This study assessed the reproductive performance of indigenous and crossbred parent stocks and the influence of sire genotype on the growth and efficiency of feed utilization by their progenies. A total of 300 poults, 150 for each genotype were generated from two crosses (Nicholas white x Indigenous and Indigenous x Indigenous turkeys). Data were collected on the reproductive performance of the parents while body weight and feed intake from day old to the 20th week of age were also collected from the progenies generated. The experiment was a complete randomized design with data generated subjected to two way analysis of variance using SAS. The result of the study showed that sire genotype had significant effect (p<0.05) on semen colour and semen volume while semen pH, motility, morphology and live dead ratio were not significantly affected. Crossbred tom had higher semen volume (0.39 ml) compared to 0.18 ml recorded in indigenous turkey. Genotype had no significant effect (p>0.05) on all female reproductive traits such as fertility, hatchability, dead in-germ, weak in-shell and dead in-shell. However, the indigenous turkey had higher fertility percentage (85%) while 80% hatchability was observed in crossbred turkey. Crossbred turkey significantly (p<0.05) had higher body weight (3330g) at 20 week of age compared to the indigenous turkey (2869g). Sexual dimorphism in favour of the male turkey was also observed throughout the period of the experiment. Although the crossbred turkey consumed more feed, the efficiency of feed utilization was better in the indigenous turkey. This findings suggested that the indigenous turkeys can be successfully improved with the introgression of exotic genetic material while crossbred turkeys can be further selected for improved productive and adaptive traits.
References
Akinokun, O. 1990. An evaluation of exotic and indigenous chicken as genetic materials for development of rural poultry in Africa. In: proceedings of an International Workshop on rural poultry development in Africa held at Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife. Nigeria. 13-16 Nov. 1989:36-61.
Boland, M.J, Rae, A.N, Vereijken, J.M., Meuwissen, M.P.M., Fischer, A.R.H., Van Boekel, M.A .J.S., Rutherfurd, S.M., Gruppen, H., Moughan, P.J., Hendriks, W.H. 2013: The future supply of animal-derived protein for human consumption. Trends in Food Science and Technology. 29 (1): 62 - 73
Burke, W.H. 1994. Sex difference in weight of turkey. Poultry Science. 73 (5):749-753.
Case, L.A., Miller, S.P. and Wood, B.J. 2010. Factors affecting breast meat yield in turkeys. World’s Poultry Science Journal. 66: 189–202.
Case, L.A., Miller, S.P., Wood, B.J. 2010. Factors affecting breast meat yield in turkeys. World's Poultry Science Journals. 66(2):189-202.
Christensen, V.L., Donaldson, W.E., McMurtry, J.P. 1996. Physiological differences in late embryos from turkey breeders at different ages. Poultry Science. 75:172-178.
Deeb, N., Cahaner, A. 2001. Genotype-by-Environmental interactions with broiler genotype differing in growth rate. 1. The effects of high ambient temperature and naked genotype on lines differing in genetics background. British Poultry Science. 30: 239-249.
Etches, R.T. 1996. Reproduction in poultry. CAB International Wallingford. Pp 318.
Fairchild, B.D. 2000. Turkey Hen Age, Fertility and sperm penetration of the inner perivitelline layer affects embryonic mortality, In : Christensen, V.L. 2000. Factors associated with early embryonic mortality. Proceedings of World Poultry.
Google Map. 2018. www.lgtnigeria.com/viewListing_page.php?id=6612.
Hafez, E.S.E. 1987. Reproduction in farm animals. 2nd edition. pp 237
Hancock, C.E., Bradform, G.D., Emmans, G.C. 1995. Potential growth of males and females of commercial broilers. British Poultry Science. 36: 247-264.
Hogan, C.M. 2008. Wild turkey: Meleagris gallopavo, GlobalTwitcher.com, ed.N. Stromberg.
Ibe, S.N., Nwosu, U.F. 1999. Influence of naked neck and frizzle genes on early growth of chickens. Book of Proceedings, 26 Annual NSAP Conference 21- th 25 March, Ilorin Nigeria, pp: 292-295.
Ibe, S.N. 1998. Improving productive adaptability of the Nigeria local chicken. In: Proceedings of the Silver Anniversary Conference of the Nigerian Society for Animal Production held at Gateway Hotel, Abeokuta, Nigeria 21-26 March, pp: 464-465
Ilori , B.M. , Peters , S.O., Ikeobi, C.O.N., Bamgbose , A.M., Isidahomen, C.E. and Ozoje, M.O. 2010. Comparative Assessment of Growth in Pure and Crossbred Turkeys in a Humid Tropical Environment. International Journal of Poultry Science 9 (4): 368-375.
Ilori, B.M., Peters, S.O., Yakubu, A., Imumorin, I.G., Adeleke, M.A., Ozoje, M.O., Ikeobi, C.O.N., Adebambo, O.A. 2011. Physiological adaptation of local, exotic and crossbred turkeys to the hot and humid tropical environment of Nigeria, Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section A – Animal Science, 61:4, 204-209.
Lake, P.E. 1962. Artificial insemination in poultry. In: Maile, J.P.(eds). The semen of animals and A.I. commonwealth Agric Bureau, England. Pp. 331-335.
Maikasuwa, M.A., Ala, A.L., Baba, M.D. 2014. Economic analysis of turkey production inzuru emirate, kebbi state, nigeria. International Journal of Modern Research and Reviews. Volume 2, Issue 7, pp 229-234.
Nestor, K.E., Anderson, J.w., Patterson, R.A. 2000. Genetics of growth and reproduction in turkey. 14 changes in genetic parameters over thirty generation of selection for increase body weight. Poultry Science. 79 : 445-452.
Ngu, G.T.R., Butswat, I.S., Mah, G.D., Ngantu, H.N. 2014. Characterization of smallscale backyard turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) production system in Bauchi State-Nigeria and its role in poverty alleviation. Livestock Research for Rural Development 26 (1).
Noran, S.A., Taylor, L.W., Gunns, C.A. 1990. The relative effects of inbreeding and outbreeding on reproduction in the domestic fowl. Hilgardia. 60: 529-628.
Oluyemi, J.A., Robert, F.A. 2000. Poultry production in warm and wet climates. Macmillan, London (Revised edition).
Oyawoye, E.O. 1999: A case for environmentally friendly small-Scale and backyard livestock production towards augmenting family protein needs. in: Orskov, E.R., Adegbola, T.A. and Butswat, I.S.R. (eds): Proceedings of International Seminar on promoting sustainable small – scale livestock production towards reduction of malnutrition and poverty in rural and sub-urban families in Nigeria.FAcE-PaM/ ATBU Bauchi, Nigeria 7 – 11 March 1999. pp 92 – 103.
Peters, S.O. 2000. Genetic variation in reproductive performance of indigenous chicken and the growth rate of its pure and half bred progeny. M. Agric. Thesis. Pp 120.
Roberson, K.D., Kalbfleush, J.L., Droanfield, D. 2004. Comparison of growth performance and carcass component yield of a New Genotype of Tom turkeys to other commercial Genotype. International journal of poultry Science. 3(12) 791-795.
San Diego, L.A.B., , Marvin B.S.S., Bumanlag, A.C., Ocampo, M.B., Ocampo L.C. 2017. Viability of carabao (Bubalus bubalus carabanensis) epididymal sperm from post mortem tests in semen extender at refrigerated temperature. Entomology and Applied Science Letters. 4(2): 5 - 10.
SAS. 1999. SAS Users guide: Stastistics released version 8.2. Stastical Analysis System Institute Inc., Cary, NC.
Sexton, T.J., Randen, J.A. 1998. Research note: Influence of damaged spermatozoa on the fertility of turkey semen stored 24 h at 50C. Poultry Science. 67: 1483-1485.
Thornton, E.K., Emery, K.F., Steadman, D.W., Speller, C., Matheny, R., Yang, D. 2012. Earliest Mexican Turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) in the Maya Region: Implications for Pre-Hispanic Animal Trade and Timing of Turkey Domestication. PLoS One. 7(8): e42630.
Yakubu, A., Peters, S.O., Ilori, B.M., Imumorin, I.G., Adeleke, M.A., Takeet, M.I., Ozoje, M.O., Ikeobi, C.O.N., Adebambo, O.A. 2012. Multifactorial discriminant analysis of morphological and heat-tolerant traits in indigenous, exotic and cross-bred turkeys in Nigeria. Animal Genetic Resources. 50, 21–27.
