Morphology, Blood Chemistry and Behavioral Response of Crossbred Chickens Reared Under Alternative Production Systems

ABSTRACT

In the present study, the second generation of two genotypes RNN (Rhode Island Red × Naked Neck) and BNN (Black Australorp × Naked Neck) obtained by two self-crosses (RNN × RNN =RR and BNN × BNN= BB) and two reciprocal crosses (RNN × BNN = RB and BNN × RNN = BR) were evaluated in three alternative production systems (conventional cages, enriched cages, and aviary). In total 480 birds, comprising 240 pullets with 240 cockerels (60 pullets & 60 cockerels from each crossbred) were used during rearing phase (17-21 weeks). Higher body weight, shank circumference, body and drumstick length were noticed in RB and BR genotypes. Among different production systems, chickens reared in enriched cages showed higher body weight and body lengths than other production systems. Comparing the behavior of chickens, higher feeding, jumping and dust bathing were observed in chickens reared in aviary systems than in other production systems while the maximum perching behavior was showed by the chickens reared in enriched cages. The highest glucose level was observed in RR genotypes when reared in aviary systems. Antibody titers against ND and IB were highest in chickens reared in aviary systems. In conclusion, RB and BR genotypes had better performance in terms of morphometrics and blood biochemistry when reared under enriched cages and aviary systems.

Keywords: Alternative production systems; antibody response; genotypes; morphometrics; serum chemistry

INTRODUCTION

The increasing world population is tremendously demanding food production and measures to increase animal protein sources. In many countries, different strategies have been applied to develop a dual-purpose rural chicken breed with further improvement in its production traits (Mallia, 1999). The genetic improvement can be achieved through crossbreeding and selection. However, cross breeding is better in terms to instigate improvements in growth rate, reproductive traits and feed conversion efficiency without disturbing potential of acclimatization ultimately reducing production costs (Adebambo et al., 2011). Better productive performance and adaptability traits of naked neck can be exploited through heterosis led by its crossbreeding with Rhode Island Red and Black Australorp which have genes of better egg production and meat yield with higher potential of economic returns helping to develop a crossbred with improved production potential and maintained acclimatizing abilities.

In association with the genetic improvement, better management and provision of suitable environment is necessary for the exploitation of genetic potential (Menge et al., 2005). Traditional conventional cages have been long perceived as the most proficient and efficient system for egg type chicken but the negative effect of cage system on welfare of chicken is also being considered widely (Craig & Swanson, 1994). It has been observed that confinement and complexity in conventional cages restricts the birds to limited natural habitat which eliminates the expression of natural behaviors like roosting, nesting and scratching (Baxter, 1994). Banning of conventional cages by European Union and to overcome the lack of natural behaviors, the alternative housing systems are gaining strength day by day to cope with the consumer’s demand. It is assumed that alternative systems can help the birds not only to express their natural behavior but also enhance the economical production traits.

Blood biochemistry is an ideal evaluator of health profile and is frequently used to assess immune status by avian pathologists. Among different parameters of blood biochemistry, serum proteins are useful in estimating the quality of dietary proteins (Alikwe et al., 2010). Similarly, glucose and triglycerides are useful in drawing inference about energy requirement for the body’s biochemical functions and physiological response (Kral & Suchy, 2000). Information regarding the immune status is mandatory to understand the level of disease resistance against infectious diseases. Indigenous chickens can be used as the most efficient model to study immune status against different viral and bacterial infections (Haunshi et al., 2011). The availability of data regarding the performance of different crossbreds of Naked Neck, Black Australorp and Rhode Island Red under aviary and enriched cages is limited and need to be explored. So, its need of the time to work on developing new genotypes with improved growth, better immune response and better acclimatization to local climatic condition and to evaluate their genetic potential under alternative production systems.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present project was planned to evaluate the performance of different crossbreds of Naked Neck (NN), Black Australorp (BAL) and Rhode Island Red (RIR) under alternative production systems i.e., Conventional Cages, Aviary systems and Enriched Cages. The study was conducted at the Indigenous Chicken Genetic resource Centre (ICGRC), Department of Poultry Production, UVAS, Ravi Campus Pattoki, Pakistan. Pattoki city is located at 73º50‘60E and 31º1’0N with the altitude of 610 ft (186 m) and normally experiences tropical hot and humid climate where the temperature ranges between 12°C to 45°C.

Population Size

The present study was in the continuation of the previous research project in which the performance of progeny (F1) taken from Rhode Island Red × Naked Neck (RNN) and Black Australorp × Naked Neck (BNN) was evaluated (Ahmad et al., 2019). In the present study, the second generation (F2) of these crossbreds (BNN and RNN) were evaluated in reciprocal crosses. For this purpose, a total of 200 heterozygous partial feather chickens (discarding homozygous full feathered and homozygous naked neck) comprising 50 birds (10 ♂ × 40 ♀) from each crossbred of first generation i.e.; Crossbred I (BNN ♂ × BNN ♀), Crossbred II (BNN ♂ × RNN ♀), Crossbred III (RNN ♂ × RNN ♀) and Crossbred IV (RNN ♂ × BNN ♀) were used to take more than 1200 hatching eggs in the 33rd week of age (Figure 1). The birds were arranged according to a Completely Randomized Design (CRD). the birds were fed commercial breeder ration formulated according to the recommendations of Leeson & Summer (2005) (Table 1, 2). The chicks were brooded under standard managemental conditions up to 6 weeks of age. During brooding phase, the birds were vaccinated against IB and ND according to the local area schedule. After brooding, the birds were divided into three different production systems (conventional cages, enriched cages and aviary systems). A total of 480 birds comprising of 240 pullets with 240 cockerels (60 pullets and 60 cockerels from each crossbred) were used to evaluate the performance during rearing phase (17-21 weeks).

Table 1
Specification for each production system.

Specifications	Conventional cage (Separate for each sex)	Enriched cage (Separate for each sex)	Aviary (Straight run)
Dimensions (Length × Depth × Height) (ft)	2 × 2.5 × 2	3 × 3 × 3	10 × 10 × 10
Stocking Density	5 birds/ cage	5 birds/cage	50 birds / aviary
Floor space per bird	1.08 ft2 (931.9 cm2)	1.75 ft2 (1672 cm2)	2 ft2 (1858 cm2)
Dimensions of Dust bathing Area (Length × width) (ft)	------------------------	1.79 × 0.83	4.5 × 4.5
Dust bathing Space/bird	------------------------	0.3 ft2 (276 cm2)	0.4 ft2 (376 cm2)
Perches
Number	------------------------	1	2
Material	------------------------	Wooden	Wooden
Shape	------------------------	Round	Round
Diameter (cm)	------------------------	1.8	4.2
Length		4 ft	10 ft
Height from floor		1.5 ft	3 ft

Table 2
Weekly feed allowance (g) during growing phase.

Age (weeks)	Daily feed allowance (g)
17	44
18	46
19	48
20	50
21	52

Figure 1
Population size.

Production systems

Chickens reared in enriched cages and aviary systems were provided with perches and dust bathing area. Open sided windowed enclosures ventilated with ceiling fans were used for aviaries and enriched cages. Galvanized round feeders and plastic manual drinkers were used in aviaries and enriched cages. The physical characteristics of each system is explained in Table (3). Birds reared in conventional cage systems were maintained in environmental controlled poultry shed equipped with galvanized three-tiered battery cage system, automatic manure belt, automatic water nipple line and feed trolley (FACCO, Poultry Equipment-C3). Supply of ad libitum fresh water was ensured.

Table 3
Nutrition value and composition of experimental ration during growing phase.

Feed Ingredient (%)	Grower (17-21 weeks)	Nutritive value	Grower (17-21 weeks)
Corn	59	CP (%)	15.46
Soybean Meal	7	ME (Kcal/Kg)	2913
Rice tips	8.4	Ca (%)	1
Soybean Oil	1.2	Av. P (%)	0.42
Wheat grain	5	Lysine (%)	0.69
Wheat bran	5	Methionine (%)	0.39
Canola Meal	10
Limestone	2.4
Feather Meal	1.1
NaCl	0.30
Methionine	0.12
Total	100

Housing conditions

The duration of the experiments was 5 weeks (June and July) during which the minimum to maximum temperature and humidity were maintained between the range of 28°C to 35°C and 62 % to 77 % respectively inside open sided enclosures while in environmentally control houses the minimum and maximum temperature and humidity ranged between 26°C to 32°C and 66 % to 74 % respectively. Rice husk was used as litter material in both enriched cages and aviaries. Approximately 4 inches depth of bedding material was maintained and racking on daily basis was ensured to uphold its better condition.

Parameters evaluated

Data were collected for morphometric measure-ments on a weekly basis during rearing phase from 17- 21 weeks in terms of body, keel, drumstick and shank length, wing spread and drumstick and shank circumference with the help of measuring tape. To evaluate serum chemistry, 3ml of blood collected from the brachial vein of 3 birds per treatment group was centrifuged to collect serum in Eppendorf tubes and stored at -20^oC (Gunes et al., 2002). The serum was analyzed by the method adopted by Kumar & Kumbhakar (2015). Antibody response against NDV was evaluated by Hemagglutination inhibition technique (HI) (Xie et al., 2008).

Behavior

To evaluate the behavioral and welfare related traits, the birds from each treatment groups were observed keenly,11:00 AM to 01:00 PM on a weekly basis. Welfare traits were included dust bathing, jumping, perching, sitting and walking (Costa et al., 2012).

Statistical Analysis

The effect of production systems and genotypes were evaluated on morphometric measurements and carcass traits. Two-way ANOVA technique was used for analysis assuming production systems and genotypes as main effects. Tukey’s HSD test (Tukey, 1953) was employed to compare treatment means at significance level of p≤0.05. Mathematical model is given.

$Y_{ijk}=\mu +P_i+G_j+{\left(P\times G\right)}_{ij}+{Ԑ}_{ijk}$

Where,

Y_ijk = Observation of dependent variable recorded on i^th Production System and j^th Genotype

µ = Population mean

P_i = Effect of i^th Production System (i = 1, 2, 3)

G_j = Effect of j^th Genotype (j = 1, 2, 3, 4)

(P × G) _ij = Interaction between production system and Genotype

Ԑ_ijk = Residual error of k^th observation on i^th Production system and j^th genotype NID ~ 0, σ²

RESULTS

Morphometric measurements

The effect of genotypes, production system and their interaction on body weight and morphometric measurements for males and females are explained in Tables 4 and 5. RB and BR genotype chickens (male p<0.0001 and female p=0.0028) were heavier than RR and BB genotype chickens. Females reared in Enriched cages were heavier (p<0.0001) than females reared in Aviary and Conventional cages while males from enriched cages and conventional cages showed higher (p<0.0001) body weights than males reared in aviary system. The interaction between the genotypes and production systems showed the highest body weight of females (p<0.0001) from BR genotype reared in Enriched cage system while males (p<0.0001) of BB genotype reared in aviary system showed the lowest body weight than other interaction groups.

Table 4
Male morphometric measurements at 21 weeks of age.

GT	PS	BW	BL	SL	SC	DL	DC	KL	WS
RB		1927.82±32.60a	71.32±1.80a	10.61±0.17	4.17±0.04a	15.18±0.23a	9.20±0.22	13.55±0.20	10.48±0.16
RR		1787.92±37.09b	64.19±3.04ab	10.08±0.18	3.81±0.12bc	14.39±0.26ab	8.63±0.14	12.85±0.29	10.25±0.20
BR		1881.78±24.35a	69.34±2.05a	10.34±0.18	4.08±0.09ab	14.90±0.33ab	9.07±0.25	13.09±0.27	10.32±0.16
BB		1733.26±34.02b	57.26±0.90b	10.22±0.23	3.62±0.12c	14.06±0.21b	8.50±0.14	12.45±0.70	10.20±0.22
	CC	1859.77±21.55a	66.55±2.38ab	10.21±0.15	4.13±0.06a	14.57±0.19	8.80±0.21	12.20±0.22b	10.09±0.13
	AV	1716.71±33.83b	61.86±1.95b	10.35±0.13	3.72±0.10b	14.40±0.21	8.68±0.14	13.74±0.11a	10.47±0.14
	EC	1921.61±21.56a	68.17±1.94a	10.37±0.21	3.92±0.10ab	14.93±0.30	9.08±0.17	13.02±0.53ab	10.37±0.19
RB	CC	1974.89±34.05a	73.70±3.44ab	10.40±0.31	4.21±0.08a	14.85±0.24	9.11±0.54	12.77±0.34	10.24±0.34
RB	AV	1830.43±73.44ab	72.99±3.64abc	10.28±0.24	4.16±0.07ab	14.83±0.28	8.93±0.23	14.00±0.21	10.44±0.18
RB	EC	1978.14±32.45a	67.26±1.69abcd	11.14±0.24	4.16±0.10ab	15.87±0.48	9.57±0.36	13.88±0.22	10.76±0.28
RR	CC	1803.58±24.46ab	63.81±7.33abcd	9.72±0.20	4.19±0.13a	14.47±0.53	8.62±0.20	11.94±0.63	9.84±0.20
RR	AV	1638.23±42.43bc	57.32±2.50d	10.54±0.40	3.39±0.19b	14.09±0.29	8.53±0.21	13.35±0.07	10.42±0.45
RR	EC	1921.94±43.51a	71.45±3.55abcd	9.98±0.27	3.85±0.14ab	14.61±0.54	8.76±0.34	13.27±0.45	10.48±0.36
BR	CC	1863.57±33.55a	70.98±1.46abcd	10.04±0.36	4.18±0.16a	14.96±0.36	9.03±0.56	12.23±0.54	9.94±0.33
BR	AV	1807.20±21.26ab	60.30±2.66bcd	10.46±0.19	3.81±0.14ab	14.79±0.69	8.87±0.43	1378±0.31	10.56±0.16
BR	EC	1974.57±32.00a	76.74±0.65a	10.53±0.37	4.26±0.12a	14.96±0.73	9.33±0.40	13.26±0.24	10.46±0.30
BB	CC	1797.01±29.22ab	57.73±0.94cd	10.68±0.26	3.93±0.14ab	14.00±0.36	8.45±0.38	11.86±0.20	1035±0.15
BB	AV	1591.00±57.75c	56.83±1.66d	10.13±0.21	3.53±0.25ab	13.89±0.20	8.38±0.19	13.82±0.24	10.46±0.36
BB	EC	1811.77±18.69ab	57.23±2.18d	9.86±0.60	3.40±0.22b	14.27±0.55	8.66±0.13	11.68±2.09	9.80±0.56
SOV		ANOVA
GT		< 0.0001	< 0.0001	0.2950	0.0004	0.0165	0.0394	0.2588	0.7490
PS		< 0.0001	0.0355	0.7681	0.0043	0.2514	0.2414	0.0085	0.2473
GT × PS		< 0.0001	< 0.0001	0.1820	0.0002	0.2424	0.4542	0.1484	0.6199

• Note: Superscripts on different means within column differ significantly at p≤0.05.
• GT = Genotype; RB = RNN × BNN; RR = RNN × RNN; BR = BNN × RNN; BR = BNN × RNN; BB = BNN × BNN; PS = Production System; CC = Conventional Cages; AV = Aviary; EC = Enriched Cages; SOV = Source of Variation; BW = Body weight (g); BL = Body length (cm); SL = Shank length (cm); SC = Shank circumference (cm); DL = Drumstick length (cm); DC = Drumstick circumference (cm); KL = Keel length (cm); WS = Wing spread (cm); ANOVA = Analysis of Variance.

Table 5
Female morphometric measurements at 21 weeks of age.

GT	PS	BW	BL	SL	SC	DL	DC	KL	WS
RB		1524.07±2863a	67.18±1.73	8.90±0.56	3.45±0.11	14.31±0.32a	8.62±0.23a	10.84±0.32	10.02±0.21
RR		1390.12±54.21ab	62.00±3.02	8.25±0.39	3.29±0.18	13.39±0.30ab	7.82±0.22ab	10.13±0.33	9.53±0.21
BR		1465.09±58.87a	65.82±2.37	8.82±0.25	3.57±0.12	13.98±0.46ab	8.43±0.25ab	11.12±0.38	9.96±0.20
BB		1317.69±36.57b	60.22±0.89	8.03±0.40	3.10±0.06	12.82±0.30b	7.63±0.31b	10.34±0.36	9.70±0.20
	CC	1398.48±39.96b	64.97±2.09ab	8.37±0.35	3.44±0.11	13.70±0.29	8.20±0.18	10.40±0.28	9.54±0.20
	AV	1319.84±35.17b	59.71±1.79b	8.74±0.38	3.26±0.14	13.33±0.39	7.80±0.21	10.74±0.26	10.06±0.20
	EC	1554.41±36.76a	66.73±1.57a	8.38±0.36	3.35±0.09	13.85±0.28	8.37±0.29	10.68±0.38	9.80±0.12
RB	CC	1542.62±48.47abc	69.70±3.41ab	8.88±0.81	3.28±0.32ab	14.38±0.44	8.77±0.22	11.14±0.67	9.76±0.21ab
RB	AV	1499.21±32.63abc	68.36±3.43ab	9.75±1.13	3.52±0.13ab	13.96±0.61	8.15±0.58	10.40±0.44	10.89±0.32a
RB	EC	1530.36±70.33abc	63.48±1.68ab	8.07±1.02	3.56±0.13ab	14.59±0.67	8.95±0.30	10.98±0.61	9.42±0.22ab
RR	CC	1318.21±92.91bc	61.54±7.30ab	7.16±0.88	3.68±0.13a	13.52±0.31	7.87±0.19	10.26±0.76	9.17±0.53b
RR	AV	1233.21±37.28c	55.10±2.52b	9.26±0.52	2.62±0.30b	12.93±0.46	7.69±0.21	9.54±0.31	9.48±0.20ab
RR	EC	1618.95±17.40ab	69.36±3.24ab	8.34±0.19	3.57±0.28ab	13.71±0.76	7.90±0.68	10.59±0.60	9.93±0.26ab
BR	CC	1455.47±83.32abc	68.12±1.38ab	7.96±0.18	3.79±0.16a	14.05±0.67	8.55±0.28	10.53±0.41	9.76±0.45ab
BR	AV	1301.13±89.87c	55.42±3.44b	8.62±0.21	3.76±0.26a	13.92±1.29	7.88±0.52	11.21±0.24	10.28±0.38ab
BR	EC	1638.67±84.28a	73.92±0.82a	9.88±0.39	3.16±0.13ab	13.98±0.41	8.87±0.44	11.61±1.06	9.83±0.17ab
BB	CC	1277.61±33.93c	60.54±0.92ab	9.49±0.34	3.02±0.13ab	12.83±0.73	7.64±0.49	9.66±0.22	9.47±0.40ab
BB	AV	1245.81±39.99c	59.96±1.57ab	7.36±0.65	3.15±0.13ab	12.52±0.58	7.47±0.41	11.82±0.45	9.59±0.39ab
BB	EC	1429.65±80.43abc	60.18±2.23ab	7.24±0.63	3.12±0.06ab	13.11±0.22	7.77±0.77	9.54±0.58	10.04±0.28ab
SOV			ANOVA
GT		0.0028	0.0669	0.4024	0.0770	0.0245	0.0223	0.2001	0.2986
PS		< 0.0001	0.0187	0.7185	0.5488	0.4875	0.1805	0.7051	0.1291
GT × PS		< 0.0001	0.0009	0.0360	0.0035	0.4785	0.2838	0.0859	0.0833

• Note: Superscripts on different means within column differ significantly at p≤0.05.
• GT = Genotype; RB = RNN × BNN; RR = RNN × RNN; BR = BNN × RNN; BR = BNN × RNN; BB = BNN × BNN; PS = Production System; CC = Conventional Cages; AV = Aviary; EC = Enriched Cages; SOV = Source of Variation; BW = Body weight (g); BL = Body length (cm); SL = Shank length (cm); SC = Shank circumference (cm); DL = Drumstick length (cm); DC = Drumstick circumference (cm); KL = Keel length (cm); WS = Wing spread (cm); ANOVA = Analysis of Variance

Males of RB and BR genotype showed higher (p<0.0001) body lengths than BB and RR genotypes while non-significant differences (p 0.0669) were observed in body lengths of females among different genotypes. Regarding production systems, chickens reared in enriched cages (male p=0.0355 and female p=0.0187) showed longer bodies than chickens reared in aviary and conventional cages. Chickens of BR genotypes (Males p<0.0001 and females p=0.0009) reared in Enriched cage systems showed significantly higher body lengths than other interaction groups.

Higher (p=0.0004) shank circumference was observed in males of RB genotype followed by males of BR, RR and BB genotypes and conventional cage system (p=0.0043) followed by Enriched cage and aviary system. Shank circumference of females did not differ significantly among the genotypes (p=0.0770) and production systems (p=0.5488). Significant interactions in shank circumference of both sexes (male p=0.0002 female p=0.0035) were noticed.

The drumstick length (male p=0.2514, female p=0.4875) and circumference (male p=0.2414, female p=0.1805) did not differ significantly among birds reared in different production systems. However, longer drumsticks in chickens of RB genotype (male p=0.0165, females p=0.0245) were observed. Females of RB genotype showed higher drumstick circumference (p=0.0223) than other genotypes while males showed non-significant differences (p=0.0394) in drumstick circumference among different genotypes.

Keel length of both the sexes showed non-significant differences (male p=0.2588, females p=0.2001) in all genotypes. Males reared in aviary systems showed higher (p=0.0085) keel length than other males reared in enriched cage and conventional cage systems while females showed no influence (p=0.7051) of production system on keel length. Non-significant differences in wing spread (male p=0.7490, females p=0.2986) and shank length (male p=0.2950, females p=0.4024) of different genotypes and wing spread (male p=0.2473, females p=0.1291) and shank length (male p=0.7681, females p=0.7185) of different production systems were observed. Non-significant interactions were found in the drumstick length (male p=0.2424, females p=0.4785), drumstick circumference (male p=0.4542, females p=0.2838), keel length (male p=0.1484, females p=0.0859), shank length (male p=0.1820, females p=0.0360) and wing spread (male p=0.6199). However, females showed significant differences (p=0.0833) in wing spread among interaction groups.

Antibody response and serum chemistry

Serum chemistry and antibody response of Naked Neck, Black Australorp and Rhode Island Red crossbreds were studied under alternative production systems (Table 6). Among different genotypes, highest glucose level (p=0.0006) was observed in RR genotypes followed by RB, BR and BB genotypes. Among different production systems, the highest glucose level (p<0.0001) was observed in the chickens reared in aviary system followed by conventional cages and enriched cages. Antibody titer against ND (p=0.0235) and IB (p=0.0004) were highest in the chickens reared in aviary systems followed by enriched cages and conventional cages. Significant interactions between genotypes and production systems were observed in glucose (p<0.0001) and total proteins (p=0.0176) among serum chemistry parameters. Similarly, significant interactions in antibody titer against IB (p=0.0073) was observed.

Table 6
Serum chemistry of experimental birds.

GT	PS	GLU	TP	ALB	GLB	UA	CRT	CHO	ND	IB
RB		168.57±5.93ab	4.15±0.14	2.78±0.08	1.57±0.06	6.87±0.45	0.59±0.03	141.15±2.66	4.88±0.09	3704.53±70.35
RR		178.27±4.88a	4.60±0.13	2.65±0.09	1.59±0.06	6.94±0.46	0.58±0.05	136.07±3.55	4.61±0.08	3660.36±69.61
BR		158.36±7.78bc	4.34±0.10	2.66±0.07	1.50±0.04	6.79±0.52	0.59±0.04	138.84±3.24	4.82±0.09	3777.93±66.97
BB		150.51±6.26c	4.41±0.16	2.79±0.05	1.59±0.05	7.80±0.33	0.51±0.01	131.45±5.71	4.77±0.08	3640.27±54.34
	CC	163.89±5.44b	4.48±0.15	2.69±0.07	1.55±0.05	7.21±0.31	0.54±0.03	137.30±2.62	4.62±0.05b	3547.71±40.92c
	AV	182.06±3.74a	4.42±0.09	2.69±0.06	1.58±0.04	7.14±0.53	0.55±0.03	141.56±3.90	4.93±0.09a	3845.61±52.06a
	EC	145.83±4.66c	4.22±0.09	2.78±0.06	1.56±0.05	6.95±0.30	0.61±0.03	131.77±3.44	4.76±0.07ab	3694.00±51.91b
RB	CC	181.20±6.51ab	3.94±0.24c	2.71±0.21	1.66±0.15	7.40±0.58	0.63±0.01	132.87±2.73	4.57±0.14	3443.11±73.02d
RB	AV	176.06±3.56ab	4.34±0.20bc	2.91±0.10	1.55±0.10	6.32±1.28	0.56±0.07	149.56±1.89	5.10±0.04	3865.49±93.90ab
RB	EC	148.45±11.17cd	4.18±0.30bc	2.72±0.13	1.51±0.10	6.88±0.27	0.58±0.07	141.02±4.51	4.96±0.18	3804.99±74.29abc
RR	CC	178.25±4.15ab	5.13±0.18a	2.47±0.13	1.58±0.11	6.71±1.04	0.58±0.12	131.79±6.46	4.58±0.09	3674.49±70.27abcd
RR	AV	194.56±4.78a	4.39±0.12bc	2.57±0.14	1.58±0.13	7.42±0.86	0.52±0.09	145.61±4.10	4.72±0.19	3735.72±150.43abcd
RR	EC	162.01±6.75bc	4.29±0.02bc	2.91±0.14	1.60±0.11	6.71±0.69	0.62±0.07	130.80±5.90	4.53±0.17	3570.86±145.30bcd
BR	CC	160.81±8.45bc	4.53±0.20abc	2.63±0.05	1.37±0.06	7.47±0.54	0.45±0.03	138.45±6.03	4.60±0.14	3558.52±98.00bcd
BR	AV	185.19±5.74a	4.12±0.19c	2.63±0.14	1.62±0.09	6.79±1.48	0.59±0.10	141.17±8.14	4.99±0.23	3971.75±50.23a
BR	EC	129.08±5.88d	4.37±0.11bc	2.73±0.20	1.52±0.02	6.10±0.44	0.73±0.03	136.91±3.19	4.87±0.07	3803.52±91.75abc
BB	CC	135.31±4.29d	4.32±0.35bc	2.95±0.06	1.60±0.02	7.27±0.37	0.51±0.04	146.10±3.06	4.75±0.09	3514.71±64.61cd
BB	AV	172.44±10.69ab	4.85±0.08ab	2.66±0.08	1.57±0.02	8.04±0.71	0.52±0.01	129.90±12.07	4.89±0.22	3809.47±101.70abc
BB	EC	143.78±6.77cd	4.05±0.24c	2.77±0.07	1.61±0.17	8.09±0.68	0.50±0.03	118.35±8.64	4.68±0.07	3596.65±50.30bcd
SOV		ANOVA
GT		0.0006	0.1496	0.4543	0.6651	0.3809	0.4790	0.3348	0.1694	0.3222
PS		<0.0001	0.2796	0.5503	0.9211	0.8894	0.3545	0.1295	0.0235	0.0004
GT × PS		<0.0001	0.0176	0.3388	0.8789	0.8392	0.4009	0.0667	0.1695	0.0073

• Note: Superscripts on different means within column differ significantly at p≤0.05.
• GT = Genotype; RB = RNN × BNN; RR = RNN × RNN; BR = BNN × RNN; BR = BNN × RNN; BB = BNN × BNN; PS = Production System; CC = Conventional Cages; AV = Aviary; EC = Enriched Cages; SOV = Source of Variation; GLU = Glucose (mg/dL); TP=Total protein (mg/dL); ALB = Albumin (mg/dL); GLB = Globulin (mg/dL); UA = Uric acid (mg/dL); CRT = Creatinine (mg/dL); CHO = Cholesterol (mg/dL); ND = Newcastle Disease (HI titer); IB = Infectious Bronchitis (ELISA titer); ANOVA = Analysis of Variance.

Behavioral Parameters

Significant differences were observed in behavioral pattern of males and females among different production systems (Table 7, 8). As far as males are concerned, higher dust bathing (p<0.0001) was observed in BB genotype than RR, RB and BR genotypes. The rest of the observing parameters including feeding (p=0.9315), jumping (p=0.1032), perching (p=0.9623), sitting (p=0.0928) and walking (p=0.3486) remained the same among the chickens of different genotypes. Among different production systems, higher dust bathing (p<0.0001), feeding (p<0.0001), jumping (p<0.0001) and walking (p<0.0001) were observed in the males reared in aviary system than in the males reared in other production systems. Perching behavior (p<0.0001) was observed to be higher in the chickens reared in enriched cages than in the aviary system. Sitting behavior (p<0.0001) was highest in chickens reared in conventional cages followed by enriched cages and aviary system. Significant interactions among genotypes and production system were observed in the behavioral traits of males.

Table 7
Behavioral response of male birds.

GT	PS	Dust bathing	Feeding	Jumping	Perching	Sitting	Walking
RB		13.69±0.84b	16.20±0.61	0.78±0.14	15.72±1.13	14.75±2.20	10.77±2.68
RR		13.64±0.81b	16.05±0.63	0.74±0.13	15.82±1.13	14.67±2.23	10.69±2.67
BR		13.59±0.84b	16.20±0.61	0.72±0.13	15.72±1.13	14.75±2.20	10.77±2.68
BB		14.22±0.85a	16.28±0.65	0.73±0.13	15.82±1.11	14.31±2.30	10.86±2.68
	CC	--	13.98±0.18c	0.03±0.00c	--	23.66±0.09a	0.22±0.00c
	AV	16.29±0.07a	19.13±0.27a	1.25±0.01a	12.42±0.13b	3.36±0.12c	24.31±0.07a
	EC	11.28±0.07b	15.45±0.16b	0.94±0.01b	19.12±0.12a	16.77±0.12b	7.74±0.08b
RB	CC	--	14.09±0.30cd	0.04±0.00d	--	23.56±0.21a	0.21±0.00d
RB	AV	16.21±0.05b	19.15±0.59a	1.29±0.04a	12.36±0.31b	3.71±0.12c	24.29±0.10a
RB	EC	11.18±0.12d	15.38±0.29bc	1.01±0.04b	19.08±0.24a	16.98±0.22b	7.79±0.15bc
RR	CC	--	13.20±0.06d	0.03±0.00d	--	23.58±0.05a	0.23±0.00d
RR	AV	16.07±0.09b	18.98±0.13a	1.26±1.01a	12.45±0.29b	3.47±0.27cd	24.19±0.14a
RR	EC	11.22±0.10d	15.97±0.09b	0.93±0.02bc	19.18±0.29a	16.97±0.09b	7.66±0.18bc
BR	CC	--	14.09±0.30cd	0.03±0.00d	--	23.79±0.26a	0.21±0.00d
BR	AV	16.12±0.08b	19.15±0.59a	1.22±0.05a	12.33±0.24b	3.35±0.34cd	24.43±0.13a
BR	EC	11.05±0.08d	15.38±0.29bc	0.92±0.02c	19.11±0.17a	16.82±0.25b	7.52±0.06c
BB	CC	--	14.53±0.46cd	0.03±0.00d	--	23.71±0.16a	0.23±0.01d
BB	AV	16.76±0.08a	19.23±0.84a	1.23±0.03a	12.53±0.30b	2.91±0.13d	24.36±0.18a
BB	EC	11.68±0.17c	15.08±0.46bc	0.92±0.01bc	19.12±0.31a	16.33±0.30b	8.00±0.17b
SOV		ANOVA
GT		<0.0001	0.9315	0.1032	0.9623	0.0928	0.3486
PS		<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001
GT × PS		<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001

• Note: Superscripts on different means within column differ significantly at p≤0.05.
• GT = Genotype; RB = RNN × BNN; RR = RNN × RNN; BR = BNN × RNN; BR = BNN × RNN; BB = BNN × BNN; PS = Production System; CC = Conventional Cages; AV = Aviary; EC = Enriched Cages; SOV = Source of Variation; ANOVA = Analysis of Variance.

Table 8
Behavioral response of female birds.

GT	PS	Dust bathing	Feeding	Jumping	Perching	Sitting	Walking
RB		15.01±0.92	14.65±0.47	0.75±0.13	17.89±1.00	15.81±2.31	9.89±2.37
RR		15.23±0.85	14.62±0.40	0.74±0.13	17.87±1.00	15.74±2.32	9.95±2.37
BR		15.30±0.84	14.63±0.42	0.74±0.14	17.83±0.97	15.65±2.33	9.87±2.42
BB		15.15±0.92	14.67±0.54	0.74±0.13	17.85±1.00	15.69±2.32	9.98±2.41
	CC	--	12.93±0.06c	0.04±0.00c	--	25.08±0.08a	0.21±0.00c
	AV	17.80±0.04a	16.57±0.28a	1.25±0.02a	14.91±0.10b	4.14±0.06c	21.83±0.07a
	EC	12.54±0.13b	14.43±0.20b	0.94±0.01b	20.81±0.14a	17.94±0.08b	7.72±0.07b
RB	CC	--	12.95±0.14c	0.04±0.00c	--	25.10±0.19a	0.21±0.00d
RB	AV	17.74±0.07a	16.61±0.66a	1.24±0.03a	14.99±0.38b	4.29±0.22c	21.64±0.09a
RB	EC	12.28±0.34b	14.39±0.46b	0.97±0.02b	20.79±0.48a	18.03±0.22b	7.81±0.19b
RR	CC	--	12.88±0.08c	0.03±0.00c	--	25.15±0.15a	0.23±0.00d
RR	AV	17.77±0.05a	16.43±0.28a	1.24±0.03a	14.85±0.04b	4.21±0.08c	21.72±0.21a
RR	EC	12.68±0.12b	14.54±0.11b	0.94±0.03b	20.88±0.14a	17.85±0.15b	7.91±0.10b
BR	CC	--	12.91±0.07c	0.04±0.00c	--	25.10±0.22a	0.20±0.01d
BR	AV	17.81±0.12a	16.52±0.43a	1.26±0.06a	14.96±0.22b	4.01±0.04c	21.98±0.16a
BR	EC	12.79±0.18b	14.46±0.26b	0.92±0.04b	20.70±0.30a	17.83±0.19b	7.43±0.12c
BB	CC	--	12.98±0.22c	0.04±0.00c	--	24.97±0.09a	0.21±0.01d
BB	AV	17.89±0.05a	16.70±0.90a	1.25±0.02a	14.84±0.12b	4.04±0.03c	21.99±0.08a
BB	EC	12.41±0.35b	14.32±0.67b	0.92±0.02b	20.86±0.21a	18.06±0.13b	7.73±0.12bc
SOV		ANOVA
GT		0.5108	0.9990	0.9529	0.9966	0.6331	0.6859
PS		<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001
GT × PS		<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001	<0.0001

• Note: Superscripts on different means within column differ significantly at p≤0.05.
• GT = Genotype; RB = RNN × BNN; RR = RNN × RNN; BR = BNN × RNN; BR = BNN × RNN; BB = BNN × BNN; PS = Production System; CC = Conventional Cages; AV = Aviary; EC = Enriched Cages; SOV = Source of Variation; ANOVA = Analysis of Variance.

As far as behavioral parameters of females are concerned, non-significant differences were observed in the behavior of chickens from different genotypes. Among different production systems, higher dust bathing (p<0.0001), feeding (p<0.0001), jumping (p<0.0001), and walking (p<0.0001) were observed in the females reared in aviary system than in the females reared in other production systems. Perching (p<0.0001) was observed to be higher in females reared in enriched cages than in the females reared in aviary system. Sitting (p<0.0001) was highest in females reared in conventional cages followed by enriched cages and conventional cages. Significant interactions among genotypes and production system were observed in the behavioral traits of females.

DISCUSSION

Morphometric measurements

The present study revealed the effect of genotype and production systems on the growth, morphometric measurements, serum chemistry and antibody response. Body weight of both males and females were significantly higher in RB and BR genotypes when compared with RR and BB genotypes. This might be attributed to the additive gene action between genes of RNN and BNN genotypes. Similarly, both RB and BR genotypes showed significantly higher body length, shank length and drumstick lengths as compared to BB and RR genotypes. This might be ascribed by the body weight differences in genotypes as the positive association between body weight and body measurements is the well-known fact. However, non-significant differences were observed among genotypes in terms of wing spread. The effect of crossbreeding between Rhode Island Red, Black Australorp and Naked neck were also explained by Ahmad et al. (2019a) where they reported the higher body weight, shank circumference and keel length of progeny obtained when Rhode Island Red and Black Australorp were crossed with naked neck chicken. Variations in morphological traits among genotypes has also been explained by Qureshi et al. (2018) where they reported the differences in varieties of Aseel chicken of Pakistan. Adekoya et al. (2013) reported dissimilarities in morphometric traits among different chicken genotypes of Nigeria. As far as the production system is concerned, higher body weight and body lengths were observed in enriched cage system when compared with aviary and conventional cage systems. Higher keel length of males was observed in aviary system whereas non-significant differences were observed in the drumstick length and drumstick circumference. The lowest body weight of chickens in the aviary system might be attributed to their vigorous activities, as birds have enough space to do more exercise thus utilizing more nutrients and burning of calories. Higher body lengths associated with higher body weights in enriched cage system might be due to less stress and more countenance of natural behavior. Availability of perches and dust bathing in enriched cages provides stress free compact space less than aviary to prevent nutrient wastage and more than conventional cage in which no materials were provided to express natural behavior. Higher shank circumference was observed in the conventional cage system which showed the negative association of shank circumference and perching behavior as conventional cages were not equipped with any perching material. Similar findings have also been observed by Ahmad et al. (2019a) who found lower body weight of chicken reared in free range system compared with semi intensive and intensive systems in which chickens were 9- 14 % heavier. The present findings are also in accordance with the observations of Olaniye et al. (2012) and Rehman et al. (2016). Lower body weight of slow growing broilers reared in free range system has also been explained by Stadig et al. (2016).

Serum chemistry and antibody response

In the present study, higher glucose level was observed in BB genotype than in RR, RB and BR genotypes which might be attributed to the specific genetic makeup of BB chickens. Another possible reason behind the higher glucose level in BB genotype might be the insulin inhibition due to higher fat contents. However, in previous studies, non-significant effect of genotype on plasma glucose level has been reported (Ahmad et al., 2019a). In the present study, higher plasma glucose level was observed in chickens reared in aviary system followed by chickens reared in conventional cages and enriched cage. Similar findings have also been reported in previous studies in which significant variations has been observed in plasma glucose level of chickens reared in different production systems (Gunes et al., 2002, Rehman et al., 2016, Ahmad et al., 2019a). Non-significant variations in albumin, globulin, uric acid and blood cholesterol level was observed in the chickens of different production systems. Negligible effect of production systems on blood cholesterol level has been reported in previous studies (Elerogly et al., 2011, Diktas et al., 2015, Elerogly et al., 2015). As far as antibody response is concerned, the highest antibody titer against ND and IB was observed in chickens reared in aviary system followed by enriched cages and conventional cages. The highest antibody response in chickens reared in aviary system revealed its potential of acclimatization and survival in harsh climatic conditions. This might be attributed to stress free environment with better expression of natural behaviors in aviary system which may enhance the robustness against stressors and fighting ability against disease causing agents. This showed that increased stress in conventional cages inhibits the immune response against diseases while natural behaviors enhance the welfare traits and boosts immunity in aviary system. Ahmad et al. (2019a) also reported the higher antibody response in chickens reared in free range system when compared with those reared in semi intensive and intensive housing systems.

Behavioral Parameters

In the present study, higher dust bathing was observed in the males of BB genotype than in RR, BR and RB genotypes which might be due to its specific genetic adaptation. As far as production systems are concerned, dust bathing, feeding, jumping and walking behavior was higher in the aviary system than in the enriched cages and conventional cages. This might be due to the availability of ample space which provoked explorative behavior and stimulated foraging. Chickens were provided with the opportunity to express natural doings which enhanced the comfort zone with reduced stress and encouraged activities. In previous studies, Ponte et al. (2008) observed increased foraging behavior of commercial broilers in free range area when compared with confined area. Similarly, increased feeding behavior of commercial layers was noticed when provided with free range access (Shimmura et al., 2008). Restricted explorative behaviors in confinement has been explained by Irfan et al. (2016) who reported higher immobility of turkeys (Maleagris gallopavo) in confinement than free range chickens. Mench et al. (2001) found that frequency of perching, leg stretching and wing flapping was increased when broilers were provided with outdoor access. Rehman et al. (2018) reported increased walking of indigenous Aseel chicken in part time free range. In the present study, sitting behavior was noticed to be highest in the conventional cages than in the enriched cages and aviary system which might be attributed to less moving capacity in conventional cages which dampens the activities and bird movements which were restricted to sitting and stimulated short duration expressions. Similar findings have been reported by Ahmad et al. (2019b) who found higher aggressive, standing and sitting behavior of chickens in intensive cage system. Rehman et al. (2018) reported higher standing and sitting behavior of Aseel chickens in confinement. Irfan et al. (2016) observed more frequent standing and sitting behavior of turkeys in intensive system than in free range system.

CONCLUSIONS

It can be concluded that RB and BR genotypes had better body weight and body length. Among genotypes, chickens reared in enriched cage system had better morphological traits while plasma glucose level and antibody response were more pronounced in aviary production system along with more explorative natural behavior.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the Administration at Indigenous Chicken Genetic Resource Centre, University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Ravi Campus, Pattoki, Pakistan for their help during the biological trial.

REFERENCES

• Adebambo AO, Ikeobi CON, Ozoje MO, Oduguwa OO, Adebambo OA. Combining abilities of growth traits among pure and crossbred meat type chickens. Archivos de Zootecnia 2011;60:953-963.
• Adekoya KO, Oboh BO, Adefenwa MA, Ogunkanmi LA. Morphological characterization of five Nigerian indigenous chicken types. Journal of Science Research and Development 2013;14:55-66.
• Ahmad S, Mahmud A, Hussain J, Javed K. Morphometric traits, serum chemistry and antibody response of three chicken genotypes under free range, semi-intensive and intensive housing systems. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 2019a;21(1):1-8.
• Ahmad S. Performance of rhode island red, black australorp and naked neck crossbred under free range, semi intensive and intensive housing systems [thesis]. Lahore (PK): University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences; 2019b.
• Alikwe PCN, Faremi AY, Egwaikhide PA. Biochemical evaluation of serum metabolites, enzymes and haematological indices of broiler-chicks fed with varying levels of rumen epithelial scraps in place of fish meal proteins. Electronic Journal of Environmental, Agricultural and Food Chemistry 2010;9(6):991-999.
• Baxter MR. The welfare problems of laying hens in battery cages. Veterinary Record 1994;134:614-619.
• Costa LS, Pereira DF, Bueno LGF, Pandorfi H. Some aspects of chicken behaviour and welfare. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 2012;14(3):159-232.
• Craig JV, Swanson JC. Welfare perspectives on hens kept for egg production. Poultry Science 1994;73:921-938.
• Diktas M, Sekeroglu A, Duman M, Yildirim A. Effect of different housing systems on production and blood profile of slow-growing broilers. Kafkas Universitesi Veteriner Fakultesi Dergisi 2015;21:521-526.
• Eleroglu H, Yalcin H, Yildirim A. Dietary effects of Ca-zeolite supplementation on some blood and tibial bone characteristics of broilers. South African Journal of Animal Science 2011;41:319-330.
• Eleroglu H, Yildirim A, Duman M, Sekeroglu A. The welfare of slow growing broiler genotypes reared in organic system. Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture 2015;27:454-459.
• Gunes N, Polat U, Petek M. Investigation of changes in biochemical parameters of hens raised in alternative housing systems. Uludag Universitesi Veteriner Fakultesi Dergisi 2002;21:39-42.
• Haunshi S, Niranjan M, Shanmugam M, Padhi MK, Reddy MR, Sunitha R, et al. Characterization of two Indian native chicken breeds for production, egg and semen quality, and welfare traits. Poultry Science 2011;90:314-320.
• Irfan, Javid A, Ashraf M, Mahmud A, Altaf M, Hussain SM, et al. Time-budgets of turkeys (Maleagris gallopavo) reared under confinement and free range rearing systems. Pakistan Journal of Zoology 2016;48:1951-1956.
• Kral I, Suchy P. Haematological studies in adolescent breeding cocks. Acta Veterinaria BRNO 2000;69:189-194.
• Kumar B, Kumbhakar NK. Haemato-biochemical profile of Aseel in Chhattisgarh Region. Indian Veterinary Journal 2015;92:40-42.
• Leeson S, Summers JD. Commercial poultry nutrition. 3rd ed. Nottingham: Nottingham University Press; 2005. p.297-305.
• Mallia JG. Observation on family poultry units in parts of Central America and sustainable development opportunities. Livestock Research and Rural Development 1999;11(3). Available from: https://www.lrrd.cipav.org.co/lrrd11/3/mal113.htm
  » https://www.lrrd.cipav.org.co/lrrd11/3/mal113.htm
• Mench JA, Garner JP, Falcone C. Behavioural activity and its effects on leg problems in broiler chickens. Proceedings of the 6th European Symposium on Poultry Welfare; 2001; Kingston: Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation; 2001. p.152-156.
• Menge EO, Kosgey IS, Kahi AK. Bio-economic model to support breeding of indigenous chicken in different production systems. International Journal of Poultry Science 2005;4:1-13.
• Olaniyi OA, Oyenaiya OA, Sogunle OM, Akinola OS, Adeyemi OA, Ladokun OA. Free-range and deep litter housing systems:effect on performance and blood profile of two strains of cockerel chickens. Tropical and Subtropical Agroecosystems 2012;15:511-523.
• Ponte PIP, Rosado CMC, Crespo JP, Crespo DG. Pasture intake improves the performance and meat sensory attributes of free-range broilers. Poultry Science 2008;87:71-79.
• Qureshi M, Qadri AH, Gachal GS. Morphological study of various varieties of Aseel chicken breed inhabiting district Hyderabad. Journal of Entomology and Zoology Study 2018;6(2):2043-2045.
• Rehman MS, Mahmud A, Mehmood S, Pasha TN, Javed K, Hussain J, et al. Production performance of Aseel chicken under free range, semiintensive and confinement rearing systems. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences 2016;26(6):1589-1596.
• Rehman MS, Mahmud A, Mehmood S, Pasha TN, Khan MT, Hussain J. Assessing behavior in Aseel pullets under free-range, part-time free-range, and cage system during growing phase. Poultry Science 2018;97:725-732.
• Shimmura T, Suzuki T, Hirahara S, Eguchi Y, Uetake K, Tanaka T. Pecking behaviour of laying hens in single-tiered aviaries with and without outdoor area. British Poultry Science 2008;49:396-401.
• Stadig LM, Rodenburg TB, Reubens B, Aerts J, Duquenne B, Tuyttens FAM. Effects of free-range access on production parameters and meat quality, composition and taste in slow-growing broiler chickens. Poultry Science 2016;95:2971-2978.
• Tukey JW. The problem of multiple comparisons. In: Braun H. The collected works of John W. Tukey. Multiple comparisons. v.8. New York: Chapman and Hall; 1953.
• Xie D, Wang ZX, Dong YL, Cao J, Wang JF, Chen JL, et al. Effects of monochromatic light on immune response of broilers. Poultry Science 2008;87:1535-1539.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  02 Sept 2020
• Date of issue
  2020

History

• Received
  28 Jan 2020
• Accepted
  19 Apr 2020