The Influence of Trait Preferences and Breeding Practices on Local Chicken Genetic Resource Conservation in Igunga District, Tanzania



Abstract Views
402

Downloads
390

Citations

Share

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.sidebar##

Submitted Dec 23, 2022
Published Jan 31, 2023
10.24018/ejfood.2023.5.1.628

Abstract viewed = 402 times

Table of Contents

##plugins.themes.bootstrap3.article.main##

A cross-sectional study was conducted to determine the influence of farmers’ trait preferences and breeding practices on local chicken genetic resource conservation in Igunga District, Tabora Region of Tanzania. The study used proportionate random sampling to obtain 384 respondents in ten study villages within two wards. Data were collected through a household survey, key informant interviews (n=5), and focus group discussions (n=10). Descriptive statistics such as mean, percentage and frequencies are used to present the findings. Chi-square establishes the association between variables. The relative importance indices (RII) model determines the level of importance of preferred local chicken traits. The findings indicates that natural mating and slaughter of the chickens with undesirable characteristics as main breeding methods and are statistically significant in between the two wards (p<0.05). Furthermore, findings show that Kuchi is the most preferred local chicken ecotype due to its large body weight and size. Findings on RII on breeding hen indicates that hen egg number with RII=0.9 as the most preferred trait (first rank) followed by hatchability with RII=0.87 (second rank) and mothering behavior with RII =0.86 (third rank). Furthermore, the cock body size ranks first with RII=0.9 followed by cock weight as a second rank with RII = 0.86 and cock disease resistance which ranks third with RII=0.85. Government officials affirm that local chickens are more resilient to diseases than other breeds. The local chicken traders contend that the market value of the local chickens depends on large body weight or frame and plumage color whereas farmers confirm that the preferred breed and traits is focused on economic motives. The study suggests that characterization of local chickens is an important step prior to setting strategies for breeding, utilization and conservation of the resources.

Keywords: breeding practices conservation chicken traits local chicken ecotypes

References

  1. Akbarian A, Michiels J, Degroote J, Majdeddin M, Golian A and De Smet S. Association between heat stress and oxidative stress in poultry; mitochondrial dysfunction and dietary interventions with phytochemicals. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology. 2016;7(1):37.
     Google Scholar
  2. Elbeltagy AR, Bertolini F, Fleming DS, Van Goor A, Ashwell CM, Schmidt CJ, et al. Natural selection footprints among African chicken breeds and village ecotypes. Frontiers in genetics. 2019;10:376.
     Google Scholar
  3. Wragg D, Mwacharo JM, Alcalde J, Hocking P and Hanotte O. Analysis of genome-wide structure, diversity and fine mapping of Mendelian traits in traditional and village chickens. Heredity. 2012;109(1):6–18.
     Google Scholar
  4. Guèye EHF. Village egg and fowl meat production in Africa. World's Poultry Science Journal. 1998;54(1):73–86.
     Google Scholar
  5. Msoffe PL, Minga UM, Olsen J, Yongolo M, Juul-Madsen HR, Gwakisa PS, et al. Phenotypes including immunocompetence in scavenging local chicken ecotypes in Tanzania. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 2001;33(4):341–54.
     Google Scholar
  6. Ngeno K, van der Waaij E, Kahi A and van Arendonk J. Morphological features of indigenous chicken ecotype populations of Kenya. Animal Genetic Resources/Resources génétiques animales/Recursos genéticos animales. 2014;55:115–24.
     Google Scholar
  7. Thornton PK, van de Steeg J, Notenbaert A and Herrero M. The impacts of climate change on livestock and livestock systems in developing countries: A review of what we know and what we need to know. Agricultural systems. 2009;101(3):113–27.
     Google Scholar
  8. Vanvanhossou SFU, Dossa LH and König S. Sustainable management of animal genetic resources to improve low-input livestock production: insights into local beninese cattle populations. Sustainability. 2021;13(17):9874.
     Google Scholar
  9. Mirkena T, Duguma G, Haile A, Tibbo M, Okeyo A, Wurzinger M, et al. Genetics of adaptation in domestic farm animals: A review. Livestock Science. 2010;132(1-3):1–12.
     Google Scholar
  10. Bett B, Kiunga P, Gachohi J, Sindato C, Mbotha D, Robinson T, et al. Effects of climate change on the occurrence and distribution of livestock diseases. Preventive veterinary medicine. 2017;137:119–29.
     Google Scholar
  11. Vanlauwe B, Coyne D, Gockowski J, Hauser S, Huising J, Masso C, et al. Sustainable intensification and the African smallholder farmer. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability. 2014;8(0):15–22.
     Google Scholar
  12. Jones PG and Thornton PK. Croppers to livestock keepers: livelihood transitions to 2050 in Africa due to climate change. Environmental Science & Policy. 2009;12(4):427–37.
     Google Scholar
  13. Yakubu A, Salako AE and Imumorin IG. Comparative multivariate analysis of biometric traits of West African Dwarf and Red Sokoto goats. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 2011;43(3):561–6.
     Google Scholar
  14. Kohler-Rollefson I, editor Community-Based Management of Animal Genetic Resources–with Special Reference to Pastoralists-Ilse Community-based management of animal genetic resource. Proceedings of the workshop held in Mbabane, Swaziland; 2001.
     Google Scholar
  15. HPI (Heifer Project International). Growing smarter: How technology improves yields and changes lives. Worldark Magazine. 2020:1–27.
     Google Scholar
  16. Padhi MK. Importance of indigenous breeds of chicken for rural economy and their improvements for higher production performance. Scientifica. 2016;2016.
     Google Scholar
  17. Kingori A, Wachira A and Tuitoek J. Indigenous chicken production in Kenya: a review. International Journal of Poultry Science. 2010;9(4):309–16.
     Google Scholar
  18. Assan N. Prospects for indigenous chickens genetic improvement and conservation in Zimbabwe. Sjournals 2015.
     Google Scholar
  19. Brown MM, Alenyorege B, Teye GA and Roessler R. Phenotypic diversity, major genes and production potential of local chickens and guinea fowl in Tamale, northern Ghana. Asian-Australasian journal of animal sciences. 2017;30(10):1372.
     Google Scholar
  20. Markos S, Belay B and Dessie T. Village chicken breeding practices, objectives and farmers’ trait preferences in western zone of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. E3 Journal of Agricultural Research Development. 2016;6:1–11.
     Google Scholar
  21. Bett H, Bett R, Peters K, Kahi A and Bokelmann W. Estimating farmers' preferences in selection of indigenous chicken genetic resources using non-market attributes. Animal Genetic Resources/Resources Génétiques animales/Recursos Genéticos Animales. 2011;49:51–63.
     Google Scholar
  22. FAO. Global plan of action for animal genetic resources and the interlaken declaration. Rome, Italy: FAO; 2007.
     Google Scholar
  23. Cao J, Baumung R, Boettcher P, Scherf B, Besbes B and Leroy G. Monitoring and progress in the implementation of the global plan of action on animal genetic resources. Sustainability. 2021;13(2):775.
     Google Scholar
  24. Hoffmann I. The global plan of action for animal genetic resources and the conservation of poultry genetic resources. World's Poultry Science Journal. 2009;65(2):286–97.
     Google Scholar
  25. Guni F and Katule A. Characterization of local chickens in selected districts of the Southern Highlands of Tanzania: I. Qualitative characters. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 2013; 25(153): 19.
     Google Scholar
  26. Mwambene PL, Kyallo M, Machuka E, Githae D and Pelle R. Genetic diversity of 10 indigenous chicken ecotypes from Southern Highlands of Tanzania based on major histocompatibility complex-linked microsatellite LEI0258 marker typing. Poultry science. 2019;98(7):2734–46.
     Google Scholar
  27. Moto E and Rubanza CC. Genetic diversity of local chicken ecotypes in selected parts of Central Tanzania. Int J of Biosciences. 2019;14(4):15–25.
     Google Scholar
  28. Omore A, Kidoido M, Twine E, Kurwijila L, O’Flynn M and Githinji J. Using “theory of change” to improve agricultural research: recent experience from Tanzania. Development in Practice. 2019;29(7):898–911.
     Google Scholar
  29. Vogel I. Review of the use of ‘Theory of Change’in international development. London: UK Department for International Development (DFID). 2012; p. 10.
     Google Scholar
  30. Stein D and Valters C. Understanding theory of change in international development. London School of Economics. 2012.
     Google Scholar
  31. Sapkota S, Kolakshyapati MR, Devkota NR, Bhattarai N and Gorkhali NA. Selective breeding to improve productive and reproductive performances and survivability of indigenous Sakini chicken. Journal of Nepal Agricultural Research Council. 2020;6:62–9.
     Google Scholar
  32. NBS. Annual Agriculture Sample Survey: Crop and Livestock Report 2016/17. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania 2018.
     Google Scholar
  33. Kapella LE, Nyanda SS and Mahonge CP. Knowledge, attitude, and practices towards local chicken genetic resource conservation: insights from farmers in Igunga district, Tanzania. The sub-Saharan Journal of Social sciences and Humanities (SSJSSH). 2022;1(1):44–59.
     Google Scholar
  34. De Vries J. Passing on the gift as an approach to sustainable development programmes. Development in Practice. 2012;22(3):373–84.
     Google Scholar
  35. Kothari CR. Research methodology: Methods and techniques. 2nd ed: New Age International; 2004.
     Google Scholar
  36. Bailey DK. Methods of social science research. New York: Free Press. Collier Macmillan Publisher; 1998.
     Google Scholar
  37. Cochran WG. Sampling Techniques. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 1977.
     Google Scholar
  38. Kanti K, Kim K and Mikidadi M. Public-private partnership supported health facilities and progress towards attainment of universal health coverage in Kilimanjaro, Tanzania. Rwanda Journal of Medicine and Health Sciences. 2022;5(2):216–32.
     Google Scholar
  39. Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16(3):297–334.
     Google Scholar
  40. Holt GD. Asking questions, analysing answers: relative importance revisited. Construction Innovation. 2014.
     Google Scholar
  41. Aziz N, Zain Z, Mafuzi RMZR, Mustapa AM, Najib NHM and Lah NFN, editors. Relative importance index (RII) in ranking of procrastination factors among university students. AIP Conference Proceedings; 2016: AIP Publishing LLC.
     Google Scholar
  42. Azman NS, Ramli MZ, Razman R, Zawawi MH, Ismail IN, Isa MR. Relative importance index (RII) in ranking of quality factors on industrialised building system (IBS) projects in Malaysia. In AIP Conference Proceedings 2019 Jul 30 (Vol. 2129, No. 1, p. 020029). AIP Publishing LLC.
     Google Scholar
  43. Chesoo BK, Oduho GW, Kios DK, Rachuonyo H and Kitilit J. Assessment of morphological characteristics of kuchi indigenous chicken ecotype of Kenya. African Journal of Education, Science and Technology. 2016;3(1):39.
     Google Scholar
  44. Okeno TO, Kahi AK and Peters KJ. Characterization of indigenous chicken production systems in Kenya. Tropical animal health and production. 2012;44(3):601-8.
     Google Scholar
  45. Yakubu A. Characterisation of the local Muscovy duck in Nigeria and its potential for egg and meat production. World's poultry science journal. 2013;69(4):931–8.
     Google Scholar
  46. Yemane N, Tamir B and Belihu K. Characterization of village chicken production performance under scavenging system in Halaba district of southern Ethiopia. Ethiopian Veterinary Journal. 2013;17(1):68–-80.
     Google Scholar
  47. Fitsum M. Production objectives, breeding practices and selection criteria of indigenous chicken in Central Zone of Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. Academic Research Journal of Agricultural Science and Research. 2017;5(7):521–8.
     Google Scholar
  48. Muhwezi L, Acai J and Otim G. An assessment of the factors causing delays on building construction projects in Uganda. International journal of construction engineering and management. 2014;3(1):13–23.
     Google Scholar
  49. Kesale A, Mahonge C and Mikidadi M. The determinants of the performance of Health Facility Governing Committees (HFGC) in selected primary health facilities in Tanzania. Tanzania Journal of Community Development (TAJOCODE). 2021; 1 (2): 53–66.
     Google Scholar
  50. Alem T. Production and reproduction performance of rural poultry in lowland and midland agro-ecologicalzones of central Tigray, Northern Ethiopia. African Journal of Agricultural Research. 2014;9(49):3531–9.
     Google Scholar
  51. Tandi Lwoga E, Stilwell C and Ngulube P. Access and use of agricultural information and knowledge in Tanzania. Library Review. 2011;60(5):383–95.
     Google Scholar
  52. Oyeyinka R. Poultry farmers' awareness and knowledge of improved production practices in Afijio, local government area, Oyo state, Nigeria. International Journal of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development. 2012;5(1):74–82-74–82.
     Google Scholar
  53. NBS. Basic demographic and socio-economic profile. Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. 2014.
     Google Scholar
  54. Muzo NN. Climate change and its impacts on agricultural land use practices in selected villages of Nzega District, Tanzania. University of Dar es Salaam; 2012.
     Google Scholar
  55. Kaijage HR. Impact of climate change on groundwater dynamics in Nzega district, Tanzania: triangulation of indigenous knowledge and empirical methods scenarial analytical approach. [Msc. Thesis University of Dar es Salaam]; 2012.
     Google Scholar
  56. Yongolo M, Machangu AM and Minga U. Newcastle disease and infectious bursal disease among free-range village chickens in Tanzania. Characteristics and parameters of family poultry production in Africa IAEA, Vienna. 2002.
     Google Scholar
  57. Minga U, Mtambo M, Katule A, Mutayoba S, Mwalusanya N, Lawrence P, et al., editors. Improving the health and productivity of the rural chicken in Africa: research and development efforts in Tanzania. Aciar proceedings; 2001: ACIAR; 1998.
     Google Scholar
  58. Anders P. Good practices in small scale poultry production: A manual for trainers and producers in east Africa; FAO. 2009.
     Google Scholar
  59. Zahraddeen D, Ahemen T and Aliyu P. On-farm studies on breeding characteristics of turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) in parts of Jos Plateau, Nigeria. Advances in Applied Science Research. 2011;2(2):179–84.
     Google Scholar
  60. Okeno TO, Magothe TM, Kahi AK and Peters KJ. Breeding objectives for indigenous chicken: Model development and application to different production systems. Tropical animal health and production. 2012;45(1):193–203.
     Google Scholar
  61. Fulla ST. Review on potential and impact of chicken crossbreeding in developing countries. World Scientific News. 2022;166:28–42.
     Google Scholar
  62. Getu A, Alemayehu K and Wuletaw Z. Phenotypic characterization of indigenous chicken ecotypes in North Gondar Zone, Ethiopia. American-Eurasian Journal of Scientific Research. 2013;8(6):248–55.
     Google Scholar
  63. Muchadeyi F, Sibanda S, Kusina N, Kusina J and Makuza S. The village chicken production system in Rushinga District of Zimbabwe. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 2004;16(6):2004.
     Google Scholar
  64. Muchadeyi F, Wollny C, Eding H, Weigend S and Simianer H. Choice of breeding stock, preference of production traits and culling criteria of village chickens among Zimbabwe agro-ecologicalzones. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 2009;41(3):403–12.
     Google Scholar
  65. Alemayehu T, B JE, Poole EJ, Getachew F, Goromela E, Mbaga S, et al. Household baseline data in Tanzania: Monitoring delivery of chicken genetic gains. ILRI Research Report. 2018.
     Google Scholar
  66. Chesoo BK, Nandwa A and Wanga J. Evaluation of growth and feeding characteristics of indigenous chicken ecotypes of Kenya. African Journal of Education, Science and Technolog. 2021; 6 (3).
     Google Scholar
  67. Magonka J, Sendalo D, Goromela E, Malingila P and Daniel E. Production performance of indigenous chicken under semi-intensive management conditions in Central Tanzania. Huria: Journal of the Open University of Tanzania. 2016;22(1):73–80.
     Google Scholar
  68. Mushi JR, Chiwanga GH, Amuzu-Aweh EN, Walugembe M, Max RA, Lamont SJ, et al. Phenotypic variability and population structure analysis of Tanzanian free-range local chickens. BMC veterinary research. 2020;16(1):1–10.
     Google Scholar
  69. Horst P. Native fowl as a reservoir for genomes and major genes with direct and indirect effects on the adaptability and their potential for tropically orientated breeding plans. Archiv fuer Gefluegelkunde (Germany, FR). 1989.
     Google Scholar
  70. Mlozi M, Kakengi A, Minga U, Mtambo A and Olsen J. Marketing of free range local chickens in Morogoro and Kilosa urban markets, Tanzania. Livestock Research for Rural Development. 2003;15(2):2003.
     Google Scholar
  71. Adebambo AO. Combining abilities among four breeds of chicken for feed efficiency variation: a preliminary assessment for chicken improvement in Nigeria. Tropical Animal Health and Production. 2011;43(8):1465–6.
     Google Scholar
  72. Chrysostome C, Bell J, Demey F and Verhulst A. Sero prevalences to three diseases in village chickens in Benin. Preventive veterinary medicine. 1995;22(4):257–61.
     Google Scholar
  73. Msoffe P, Mtambo M, Minga U, Gwakisa P, Mdegela R and Olsen J. Productivity and natural disease resistance potential of free-ranging local chicken ecotypes in Tanzania. Livestock Research for rural development. 2002;14(3):2002.
     Google Scholar
  74. Mpenda F, Schilling M, Campbell Z, Mngumi E and Buza J. The genetic diversity of local African chickens: A potential for selection of chickens resistant to viral infections. Journal of Applied Poultry Research. 2019;28(1):1–12.
     Google Scholar
  75. Sodjinou E, Henningsen A, Koudande DO, Biaou G and Mensah GA. Consumers' preferences for ”bicycle poultry" in Benin: implications for the design of breeding schemes. Review of Agricultural and Environmental Studies. (2015); 96 (3): 389–409
     Google Scholar
  76. Dana N, Van der Waaij LH, Dessie T and van Arendonk JA. Production objectives and trait preferences of village poultry producers of Ethiopia: implications for designing breeding schemes utilizing indigenous chicken genetic resources. Tropical animal health and production. 2010;42(7):1519–29.
     Google Scholar