RESEARCH ARTICLES

 

Phenotypic characterisation of four naked neck chicken ecotypes indigenous to Pakistan

 

 

M. Shafiq^I; J. Hussain^II; S. Mehmood^II; U. Farooq^III; R. Mustafa^III; S. Aslam^IV; M.T. Khan^{V, VI,} ; F. Ali^VII; M.F. Khalid^III; M.I. Ullah^VIII; B. Siddique^I; Z.M. Iqbal^IX; H. Khaliq^X; A. Ahmad^XI; Z. Li^XII, 

^ILivestock and Dairy Development Department, Poultry Research Institute, Rawalpindi-46300, Pakistan
^IIDepartment of Poultry Production, Faculty of Animal Production and Technology, University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore-54000, Pakistan
^IIISub Campus, Toba Tek Sing, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad-36050, Pakistan
^IVDepartment of Veterinary Surgery, University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Lahore-54000, Pakistan
^VDepartment of Poultry Science, Faculty of Animal Production and Technology, Cholistan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bahawalpur-63100, Pakistan
^VICentral Diagnostic Laboratory, Cholistan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bahawalpur-63100, Pakistan
^VIIDepartment of Theriogenology, Faculty of Veterinary Science, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur-63100, Pakistan
^VIIIFaculty of Veterinary Sciences, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan-60800, Pakistan
^IXDepartment of Livestock Management, Faculty of Animal Production and Technology, Cholistan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bahawalpur-63100, Pakistan
^XDepartment of Anatomy and Histology, Faculty of Veterinary Science, Cholistan University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Bahawalpur-63100, Pakistan
^XIDepartment of Pharmacy, King Saud University, Riyadh-11451, Saudi Arabia
^XIIQujing Normal University, College of Biological Resource and Food Engineering, 655011 Yunnan, China

 

 

---

ABSTRACT

This study characterised four naked neck chicken phenotypes (black, white-and-black, light brown, and dark brown) at 20 weeks of age, based on both qualitative and quantitative traits. A total of 320 birds were evaluated, with 40 males and 40 females per phenotype. Qualitative traits assessed included head shape, comb type, wattle size, plumage pattern, shank colour, spur presence, and number of toes. Quantitative traits measured included neck length, keel length, wingspan, shank length, shank circumference, drumstick length, drumstick circumference, and body length. Both sexes of all phenotypes exhibited a plain head and a single comb. Wattle size varied by sex, being medium-sized in females and highly developed in males. Feathers in the breast, wing bow, wing bar, wing bay, saddle, and tail areas most commonly had a plain pattern, followed by stippled, pencilled, and laced patterns. Shank colouration differed between the sexes, with males most commonly having yellow shanks, followed by grey, off-white, and green shanks. In contrast, females predominantly had grey shanks, followed by yellow, green, and off-white shanks. Among the phenotypes, white-and-black, light brown, and dark brown chickens exhibited the highest frequency of yellow shanks, while grey shanks were most commonly found in black birds. Males were significantly larger than females for most morphometric traits. Additionally, the light brown and dark brown phenotypes exhibited higher values for quantitative traits than the black and white-and-black phenotypes. All birds of the naked neck phenotype, regardless of sex, had four toes, normal spurs, and tufted feathers on the ventral neck region above the crop.

Keywords: circumference, indigenous poultry, morphometric, qualitative, quantitative

---

 

 

Introduction

Rural poultry farming with native breeds is widely practiced in many developing and underdeveloped countries (Magothe et al., 2012a; Magothe et al., 2012b). Although indigenous breeds are typically less productive, they possess valuable economic and cultural traits (Mangesha & Tsega, 2011) and play a vital role in ensuring household food security. Selective breeding for high productivity has resulted in the loss of numerous commercial, research, and indigenous genetic resources (Delany, 2006; Fulton, 2006; Woelders et al., 2006). While high-yielding breeds excel under intensive management systems, farmers using extensive production systems tend to favour indigenous breeds. These native breeds possess unique adaptive traits that enable them to withstand harsh environmental conditions, including poor nutrition, extreme climates, and minimal management, all of which are typical of low-input, low-output production systems (Mwacharo et al., 2007).

Indigenous poultry breeds play a vital role in poverty alleviation, food security, and gender empowerment in developing countries (Ahmed et al., 2021; Kumar et al., 2021; Tenza et al., 2024). This sector has significant potential that can be further enhanced through targeted management strategies and genetic improvement programmes. Globally, native livestock breeds face the threat of extinction because of their lower economic competitiveness, compared to high-yielding commercial breeds (Manyelo et al., 2020; Gonzalez Ariza et al., 2021). Concerns about this genetic erosion emerged in the late 20th century, prompting researchers and livestock keepers to emphasise the need for conservation. Given the ongoing challenges of climate change, evolving management practices, and shifts in feeding habits, preserving and evaluating diverse poultry genotypes has become imperative (Crawford, 1984). To address this need, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO, 2012) launched a global initiative for poultry genetic conservation (Scherf, 1994). The effective conservation and sustainable utilisation of domestic animal populations requires the comprehensive characterisation of these populations. Phenotypic characterisation plays a crucial role in this process, by allowing the categorisation of breeds based on morphological and productive traits (FAO, 2012). This categorisation enhances the understanding of genetic diversity and breed distinctiveness, which aids in their strategic management. However, because of the lack of detailed documentation, many local poultry breeds remain classified as non-descript, limiting their recognition and utilisation.

In Pakistan, backyard poultry farmers primarily utilise the Aseel, naked neck, Desi, and Fayoumi breeds, which are valued for their high-quality protein and economic benefits. Of these four breeds, the Aseel and naked neck chickens are particularly notable for their genetic potential. Naked neck birds exhibit a wide range of feather colours, including black-brown, multi-coloured, red-brown, and various black combinations (Faruque et al., 2010).

This study aimed to phenotypically characterise the different varieties of indigenous naked neck chickens, based on qualitative and quantitative traits, thereby providing essential data for future genetic conservation studies of native poultry breeds in Pakistan.

 

Materials and methods

The study was conducted at the Indigenous Chicken Genetic Resource Centre, Department of Poultry Production, University of Veterinary and Animal Sciences (UVAS), Ravi Campus, Pattoki, Pakistan. The study was approved by the Ethical Review Committee of UVAS, Lahore.

A total of 320 day-old naked neck chicks of various plumage colours were procured from a commercial hatchery in Gujranwala, Punjab. All experimental birds were maintained under uniform management and feeding conditions. At 20 weeks of age, data were collected from 80 birds (40 males and 40 females) in each plumage group to assess both qualitative and quantitative traits. Qualitative phenotypic characterisation was based on head appearance, comb type, wattle size, plumage pattern, shank colour, prevalence of spurs, and number of toes. Quantitative phenotypic characterisation was based on neck length, keel length, wingspan, shank length, shank circumference, drumstick length, drumstick circumference, and body length. Qualitative morphological traits were recorded through direct observation in accordance with the FAO (2012) guidelines for the phenotypic characterisation of animal genetic resources. Feather patterns were evaluated based on the British Poultry Standards (Roberts, 2008). Quantitative traits were measured using a measuring tape, following the FAO (2012) manual for the phenotypic characterisation of farm genetic resources. Table 1 provides a description of the measured quantitative variables.

 

 

Statistical analysis

The phenotypic characteristics of the four phenotypes were recorded and analysed using a factorial ANOVA (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, 2002-2003). Treatment means for the significant effects were compared using the Duncan multiple range test.

 

Results and discussion

The chickens of both sexes in all four naked neck phenotypes exhibited a plain head and a single comb type, and had head feathers that extended in a tassel-like form, consistent with the British Poultry Standards (Roberts, 2008). Aklilu et al. (2013) similarly reported that the plain head type was the most prevalent among indigenous chicken ecotypes; however, Sarker et al. (2012) observed some instances of strawberry and cushion combs (Everett, 2010). The 100% prevalence of a single comb recorded in the naked neck chickens in this study is consistent with the findings of Roberts (2008) and Faruque et al. (2010). Iqbal et al. (2015) also found a 100% occurrence of a single comb in naked neck chickens in Pakistan. However, Al-Rawi & Al-Athari (2002) reported only a 90% prevalence of a single comb in white naked neck chicken lines. Amexo et al. (2022) similarly reported a 100% prevalence of a single comb in local-exotic naked neck cross-bred chicken populations and normal feathered chicken populations. Onasanya et al. (2018) recorded a 99.3% prevalence of the single comb type in indigenous chicken populations across six states in Nigeria. Assefa & Melesse (2018) found that the single comb was the dominant type in the local chicken population of the Sheka Zone in Ethiopia. Meanwhile, Liswaniso et al. (2023) reported variations in comb types among indigenous chickens, and Aklilu et al. (2013) identified four distinct comb types in indigenous chicken ecotypes.

Wattles play a crucial role in regulating sensible heat loss in chickens (Aklilu et al., 2013). The results for wattle size are presented in Table 2. The majority of the black phenotype naked neck chickens had small wattles (56%), followed by medium (34%), very small (8%), and large (2%) wattles. In the white-and-black phenotype, medium-sized wattles (51%) were the most common, followed by small (26%), large (14%), and very small (9%) wattles. Medium-sized wattles (73%) were also predominant in the light brown phenotype, followed by small (16%), large (9%), and very small (2%) wattles. Similarly, in the dark brown phenotype, medium-sized wattles (68%) were the most common, followed by small (19%), large (10%), and very small (3%) wattles. These results align with those of Roberts (2008), who described medium-sized wattles in Transylvanian naked neck chickens. Similarly, Iqbal et al. (2015) reported that medium-sized wattles were the most common type in the naked neck ecotypes of Pakistan. Additionally, Amexo et al. (2022) found a significant effect of phenotype on wattle size in naked neck chickens, while Aklilu et al. (2013) reported significant variation in wattle length in indigenous chicken ecotypes.

 

 

The breast feather patterns observed in the different phenotypes of naked neck chickens are presented in Table 3.

 

 

Variations in breast feather patterns were noted between both the sexes and phenotypes. In female chickens, the plain feather pattern was the most prevalent, followed by stippled, single-laced, pencilled, and double-laced patterns. In contrast, males exhibited a higher proportion of stippled breast feathers than plain feathers. When examining the phenotypes, the black phenotype was found to have predominantly stippled feathers, followed by plain feathers. The white-and-black phenotype had the highest proportion of chickens with a plain feather pattern, compared to the other phenotypes. In light brown birds, both plain and stippled patterns were common, followed by pencilled and laced patterns. Similarly, dark brown birds had predominantly plain and stippled feather patterns on their breast feathers. These findings align with those of Iqbal et al. (2015), who reported that most naked neck chickens had a plain feather pattern, whereas Hamid (2019) highlighted that naked neck chickens exhibit diverse plumage colours. However, the existing literature provides limited details on the distribution of feather patterns across different body parts. In this context, the present study offers a more comprehensive analysis than is found in previous research.

The wing bow feather patterns observed in the different naked neck chicken phenotypes are presented in Table 4. Differences in feather patterns were noted between the phenotypes. In the black phenotype, 35% of the chickens had a plain wing bow feather pattern, 31% had a stippled pattern, 18% had a laced pattern, and 16% had a pencilled pattern. Of the white-and-black phenotype chickens, 70% had a plain pattern, 11% had a pencilled pattern, 10% had a stippled pattern, and 9% had a laced pattern. Of the light brown phenotype chickens, 55% had a plain pattern, 28% had a stippled pattern, 12% had a pencilled pattern, and 5% had a laced pattern, and, of the dark brown phenotype chickens, 52% had a plain pattern, 23% had a stippled pattern, 12% had a laced pattern, and 11% had a pencilled pattern. These findings align with those of Iqbal et al. (2015), who reported variations in wing bow feather patterns in both Aseel and naked neck chicken ecotypes. Sarker et al. (2012) also documented feather pattern differences, further supporting the results of this study.

 

 

The feather patterns on the wing bars of the different naked neck chicken phenotypes are presented in Table 5.

 

 

This study revealed variations in wing bar plumage patterns within all four phenotypes. The black phenotype most commonly had a plain feather pattern (45%), followed by stippled (26%), pencilled (15%), and laced (14%) patterns. The white-and-black phenotype had the largest proportion of chickens with a plain pattern (72%) of the four phenotypes, with smaller proportions of pencilled (14%), stippled (9%), and laced (7%) pattern chickens. The majority (64%) of the light brown phenotype chickens also had a plain pattern, followed by stippled (19%), pencilled (12%), and laced (5%); and 68% of the dark brown phenotype had a plain pattern, followed by stippled (16%), laced (8%), and pencilled (8%). These findings align with those of Iqbal et al. (2015), who reported variations in wing bar feather patterns in both Aseel and naked neck chickens.

The feather patterns on the wing bays of the different naked neck chicken phenotypes are presented in Table 6, highlighting the differences between the four phenotypes. The distribution of wing bay feather patterns was as follows: 36% of the black phenotype chickens had a plain pattern, 32% had a stippled pattern, 19% had a laced pattern, and 13% had a pencilled pattern; 70% of the white-and-black phenotype chickens had a plain feather pattern, 12% had a pencilled pattern, 10% had a stippled pattern, and 8% had a laced pattern; 60% of the light brown phenotype chickens had a plain pattern, 24% had a stippled pattern, 9% had a pencilled pattern, and 7% had a laced pattern; and 58% of the dark brown phenotype chickens had a plain feather pattern, 17% had a stippled pattern, 13% had a laced pattern, and 12% had a pencilled pattern. Similarly, Iqbal et al. (2015) reported variations in wing bay feather patterns in their study of Aseel and naked neck chickens.

 

 

The feather patterns on the saddles of the two sexes and four naked neck chicken phenotypes are presented in Table 7, highlighting the significant variations in pattern arrangement. Males predominantly exhibited plain feather patterns, followed by stippled, pencilled, and single-laced patterns. Females also most commonly had plain saddle feathers, followed by stippled, single-laced, and pencilled patterns. Regarding the different phenotypes, the white-and-black, dark brown, and light brown phenotypes all most commonly exhibited a plain feather pattern, followed by stippled, pencilled, and laced patterns. In contrast, the black phenotype most commonly exhibited a stippled feather pattern on the saddle, followed by plain, pencilled, and laced patterns. White-and-black females had the highest percentage of plain feather patterns, whereas light brown males had a higher proportion of chickens with stippled feather patterns than the other phenotype-sex combinations. Black females had the highest occurrence of single and double lacing, compared to the other groups, and dark brown males had the highest frequency of chickens with a pencilled pattern. Similarly, Iqbal et al. (2015) reported variations in saddle feather patterns in naked neck and Aseel chicken ecotypes in Pakistan.

 

 

The tail feather patterns observed in the different sexes and phenotypes are summarised in Table 8, revealing notable variations. Females exhibited a higher frequency of plain, pencilled, single-laced, and double-laced tail feather patterns than males. In contrast, males showed a greater occurrence of the stippled feather pattern.

 

 

Regarding phenotype-related differences, the white-and-black phenotype had the highest proportion of chickens with plain and pencilled feather patterns, compared to the other phenotypes. Stippled patterns were most commonly observed in the light brown phenotype, followed by the dark brown, black, and white-and-black phenotypes. The dark brown phenotype chickens had the highest occurrence of double-laced feathers, while the black phenotype had the highest proportion of the single-laced pattern. Black females had the highest percentage of chickens with single-laced feathers, while dark brown females had the highest proportion of chickens with double-laced feathers. Plain feather patterns were most prevalent among white-and-black males and light brown females, while the stippled pattern was most prevalent in light brown males. The pencilled feather pattern was most frequently observed in the white-and-black females. These findings align with those of Iqbal et al. (2015), who also observed variations in tail feather patterns among naked neck and Aseel chicken ecotypes in Pakistan.

The shank colour variations observed in the different sexes and phenotypes are presented in Table 9.

 

 

Males predominantly exhibited yellow shanks, followed by grey and off-white shanks. These findings align with those of Rogelio et al. (2013), who observed yellow shanks in roosters in Palawan, in the Philippines. The dark brown phenotype had the highest occurrence of yellow shanks, while the white-and-black phenotype had a greater proportion of off-white shanks, and the black phenotype showed a greater prevalence of grey and green shanks. White-and-black males exhibited the highest levels of yellow and off-white shank colouration, whereas black females displayed the highest levels of grey and green shank colouration. These findings align with those of previous studies. Faruque et al. (2010) found that yellow shanks were most common in naked neck chickens in Bangladesh, followed by white, black, and green shanks. Sarker et al. (2012) observed only yellowish shanks in Aseel chickens in Bangladesh. Aklilu et al. (2013) identified yellow as the dominant shank colour in the Horro indigenous chicken ecotype. Guni & Kutle (2013) noted that yellow shanks were the most frequent in native chickens from the Southern Highlands of Tanzania. Cabarles et al. (2012) also reported a prevalence of yellow shanks in native chickens in Iran, whereas Kaleri et al. (2023) and Liswaniso et al. (2023) both documented variations in shank colour among backyard and indigenous poultry. Assefa & Melesse (2018) identified yellow shanks as the dominant trait in the local chicken population of the Sheka Zone, Ethiopia. The presence of various shank colours in this study may be attributed to the pigment-controlling genes responsible for colour determination. According to Petrus (2011), the production of carotenoids, dermal melanin, and epidermal melanin is regulated by the W+, w-Id and id+ genes, as well as by the E and e+ genes, and these influence shank colour.

The morphometric trait results are presented in Table 10, highlighting the significant differences between the sexes and phenotypes in neck length, keel length, wingspan, shank length, shank circumference, drumstick length, drumstick circumference, and body length. Males had longer necks and keels than females, while, of the phenotypes, the light brown chickens had the longest necks and the light and dark brown chickens had the longest keels. In terms of the interactions between sex and phenotype, light brown males had the longest necks, whereas keels were longest in both light and dark brown males. These findings are supported by those of previous studies. Liyanage et al. (2015) reported that male naked neck chickens had longer keels than females, and Yakubu et al. (2009) found significant differences in neck length between various genotypes of indigenous Nigerian chickens, which aligns with our results. Similarly, Fadare (2014) observed significant variations in keel length among naked neck, frizzle feathered, and normal feathered chickens crossed with exotic Giri-Raja chickens. Liyanage et al. (2015) also noted differences in keel length between village chicken phenotypes in Sri Lanka. Furthermore, Alwell et al. (2018) reported variations in neck length within local chicken populations, further supporting our findings.

Males had greater wingspans, shank lengths, and shank circumferences than females. Shank length is a key indicator of leg development (Fayeye et al., 2014), and the longer shank length in males is necessary to support their larger body size. Similarly, shank circumference, another marker of leg development, was greater in males, aiding in the support of their greater body weight and size. These findings are consistent with those of Dana et al. (2010), who reported longer shank lengths in males than in females. Likewise, Amexo et al. (2022) observed that male chickens had significantly greater shank lengths and shank circumferences than females. The impact of sex on shank circumference aligns with the results of Tadele et al. (2018) for indigenous chicken populations in the Kaffa zone of South Western Ethiopia.

The light and dark brown phenotypes had longer wingspans and shanks, although no significant differences in shank circumference were observed across the phenotypes. Banerjee (2012) similarly reported variations in shank length among naked neck and frizzle feathered chickens in West Bengal and Sikkim. These findings also align with those of Udeh & Obgu (2011), who observed differences in wingspan among three commercial broiler strains (Ross, Arbor Acre, and Marshal). Aklilu et al. (2013) also found significant variations in wingspan and shank length between two indigenous chicken ecotypes, further supporting these results, and Alwell et al. (2018) reported similar differences in wingspan and shank length among local chickens. Additionally, Amexo et al. (2022) found significant differences in shank length and shank circumference across chicken phenotypes at 22 and 36 weeks of age. In the present study, dark brown males had the highest wingspan and shank length, compared to the other phenotypes. However, no significant differences in shank circumference were found between the males of the different phenotypes. Amexo et al. (2022) also reported a significant interaction between sex and phenotype for shank length at both 22 and 36 weeks of age, supporting the current findings.

Males had significantly longer bodies and drumsticks, and had greater drumstick circumferences than females. The difference in body length between the sexes can be attributed to sexual dimorphism, as males are generally larger and longer than females. These findings align with those of Amexo et al. (2022), who also reported that males had longer bodies than females.

Regarding phenotypic variations, drumstick length did not differ significantly between the phenotypes, whereas drumstick circumference was notably higher in the dark brown chickens. However, chickens of the light brown phenotype had longer bodies. Similarly, Dorji & Sunar (2014) found that frizzle feathered, Seim, and Bhutanese indigenous chicken breeds varied in drumstick length. Olawunimi et al. (2008) also observed that Bhutanese indigenous chickens had longer bodies than Nigerian chickens. Additionally, Dorji & Sunar (2014) reported that indigenous Bhutanese hens, as well as Seim, naked neck, and Yuebjha Narp chickens, had longer bodies than Shekheni and frizzle feathered chickens. Supporting these findings, Alwell et al. (2018) documented variations in body length among local chickens, and Amexo et al. (2022) highlighted a significant effect of phenotype on body length. In the present study, no significant differences in drumstick length were observed between males of different phenotypes. However, dark brown males had the highest drumstick circumferences, while light brown males had the longest bodies. These findings align with those of Amexo et al. (2022), who reported a significant interaction between sex and phenotype for body length. Similarly, Fayeye et al. (2014) documented a significant interaction between sex and genotype effecting body length in chicken ecotypes in Nigeria.

 

Conclusions

The results of this study revealed that both male and female chickens of all four naked neck phenotypes had a plain head and a single comb. Wattle size varied between the sexes, being moderately developed in females but highly pronounced in males. Overall, a plain feather pattern was the most prevalent in the breast, wing bow, wing bar, wing bay, saddle, and tail areas, followed by stippled, pencilled, and laced patterns. Regarding shank colouration, males most frequently had yellow shanks, followed by grey, off-white, and green shanks. In contrast, females predominantly had grey shanks, followed by yellow, green, and off-white shanks. Among the phenotypes, the white-and-black, light brown, and dark brown chickens had the highest occurrence of yellow shanks, while grey shanks were most common in black birds. Morphometric traits had significantly higher values in males than in females, and the light and dark brown phenotypes exhibited higher values for quantitative traits than the black and white-and-black phenotypes. Additionally, all male and female birds of all four naked neck phenotypes had four toes, normal spurs, and tufted feathers on the ventral neck region above the crop. These findings provide a valuable foundation for the conservation, selection, and sustainable improvement strategies aimed at enhancing the productivity and adaptability of local chicken breeds in future breeding programmes.

 

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to extend their sincere appreciation to the Department of Poultry Production, UVAS, Lahore, for facilitating the trial, and to the Researchers Supporting Project Number (RSP2025R350), King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The authors also extend their thanks to other researcher supporting projects, including the Special Basic Cooperative Research Program of Yunnan Provincial Undergraduate Universities' Association (202101BA070001-210, 202101BA070001-021), the Scientific Research Foundation of Yunnan Provincial Department of Education (2023J1037), the Special Basic Cooperative Research Innovation Program of Qujing Science and Technology Bureau and Qujing Normal University (KJLH2022YB06, KJLH2023ZD07), and the Special Program for Building a South and Southeast Asia-Focused Center for Science and Technology Innovation (202403AK140028).

Authors' contributions

MS conducted this study as part of his PhD research work. JH, SM, MTK, BS, HK, and UF helped review the manuscript. JH, SM, and MTK helped in the statistical analysis and formatting of the manuscript. FA, SA, RM, MFK, MIU, ZMI, AA, and ZL finalised the manuscript.

Conflict of interest declaration

The authors have no potential conflicts of interest to declare.

 

References

Ahmed, S., Begum, M., Khatun, A., Gofur, M.R., Azad, M.T., Kabir, A., & Haque, T.S., 2021. Family Poultry (FP) as a tool for improving gender equity and women's empowerment in developing countries: evidence from Bangladesh. European Journal of Agriculture and Food Sciences, 3(2):37-44. DOI: 10.24018/ejfood.2021.3.2.251        [ Links ]

Aklilu, E., Kebede, K., Dessie, T., & Banerjee, A.K., 2013. Phenotypic characterization of indigenous chicken population in Ethiopia. International Journal of Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinar/Studies, 1(1):24-32.         [ Links ]

Al-Rawi, A.A. & Al-Athari, A.K., 2002. Characteristics of indigenous chicken in Iraq. Animal Genetic Resources, 32:87-93. DOI: 10.1017/S1014233900001589        [ Links ]

Alwell, J.J.S., Abdur-Rahman, A., & Chukwujindu, N.S., 2018. Genetic characterization of local chickens population based on their quantitative traits in the tropics, Nigeria. SPC Journal of Agricultural Science, 1(1):1-5. DOI: 10.14419/ijamr.v1i1.9971        [ Links ]

Amexo, V.E., Adomako, K., & Ato-Agan, J., 2022. Phenotypic characterisation of local-exotic naked neck crossbred and normal feathered chicken population. Ghanian Journal of Animal Science, 13(1):1-12.         [ Links ]

Assefa, H. & Melesse, A., 2018. Morphological and morphometric characterization of indigenous chicken populations in Sheka Zone, South Western Ethiopia. Poultry, Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, 6(2):200. DOI: 10.4172/2375-446X.1000200        [ Links ]

Banerjee, S. 2012. Morphological characterization of indigenous chickens of Sikkim and West Bengal, India. Animal Genetic Resources, 51:57-71. DOI: 10.1017/S2078633612000343        [ Links ]

Cabarles Jr, J., Lambio, C., Vega, A.L., Captain, S.A., & Mendioro, M.S., 2012. Distinct morphological traits in Iranian native fowls. MSc thesis, Mazandaran University, Bablosar, Iran.         [ Links ]

Crawford, R.D., 1984. Assessment and conservation of animal genetic resources in Canada. Canadian Journal of Animal Science, 64(2):235-251. DOI: 10.4141/cjas84-031        [ Links ]

Dana, N., Dessie, T., Van der Waaij, L.H., & van Arendonk, J.A., 2010. Morphological features of indigenous chicken populations of Ethiopia. Animal Genetic Resources, 46:11-23. DOI: 10.1017/S2078633610000652        [ Links ]

Delany, M.E., 2006. Avian genetic stocks: The high and low points from an academia researcher. Poultry Science, 85(2):223-226. DOI: 10.1093/ps/85.2.223        [ Links ]

Dorji, N. & Sunar, S.K., 2014. Morphometric variations among five Bhutanese indigenous chickens (Gallus domesticus). Journal of Animal and Poultry Science, 3(3):76-85.         [ Links ]

Everett, C., 2010. Asils in the United States. Society for the Preservation of Poultry Antiquities (SPPA) Bulletin, 15:3-4.         [ Links ]

Fadare, A.O., 2014. Morpho-metric and growth Performance variations of Naked-Neck, Frizzled feathered and normal feathered crosses with exotic Giri-Raja chickens. Jordan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 10(4):811-820        [ Links ]

Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO), 2012. Phenotypic characterization of animal genetic resources. In: FAO Animal Production and Health Guidelines No. 11. FAO, Rome, Italy.         [ Links ]

Faruque, S., Siddiquee, N.U., Afroz, M.A., & Islam, M.S., 2010. Phenotypic characterization of native chicken reared under intensive management system. Journal of the Bangladesh Agricultural University, 8(1):79-82. DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.208468        [ Links ]

Fayeye, T.R., Hagan, J.K., & Obadare, A.R., 2014. Morphometric traits and correlation between body weight and body size traits in Isa brown and Ilorin ecotype chickens. Iranian Journal of Applied Animal Science, 4(3):609-614.         [ Links ]

Fulton, J.E., 2006. Avian genetic stock preservation: An industry perspective. Poultry Science, 85(2):227-231. DOI: 10.1093/ps/85.2.227        [ Links ]

Gonzalez Ariza, A., Arando Arbulu, A., Navas Gonzalez, F.J., Nogales Baena, S., Delgado Bermejo, J.V., & Camacho Vallejo, M.E., 2021. The study of growth and performance in local chicken breeds and varieties: A review of methods and scientific transference. Animals, 11(9):2492. DOI: 10.3390/ani11092492        [ Links ]

Guni, F.S. & Katule, A.M., 2013. Characterization of local chickens in selected districts of the Southern Highlands of Tanzania: I. Qualitative characters. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 25(9):153.         [ Links ]

Hamid, M.A., 2019. Chicken germplasms and their conservation in Bangladesh: a review. SAARC Journal of Agriculture, 17(1):119-134. DOI: 10.3329/sja.v17i1.42766        [ Links ]

Iqbal, A., Ali, A., Javed, K., Akram, M., Usman, M., Mehmood, S., Hussain, J., & Hussnain, F., 2015. Phenotypic characterization of two indigenous chicken ecotypes of Pakistan. The Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 25(2):346-350.         [ Links ]

Kaleri, R.R., Kaleri, H.A., Kalhoro, N.H., Mangi, R.A., Solangi, G.M., Bhuptani, D.K., Khosa, S.M., Solangi, A.W., Lashari, A.A., & Dari, S., 2023. Phenotypic characterization of indigenous backyard poultry birds in Tando Allahayar, Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Research, 36(2):135-141. DOI: 10.17582/journal.pjar/2023/36.2.135.141        [ Links ]

Kumar, M., Dahiya, S.P., & Ratwan, P., 2021. Backyard poultry farming in India: A tool for nutritional security and women empowerment. Biological Rhythm Research, 52(10):1476-1491. DOI: 10.1080/09291016.2019.1628396        [ Links ]

Liswaniso, S., Qin, N., Shan, X., Sun, X., & Xu, R., 2023. Phenotypic characterization of indigenous free range chickens in Kalomo, Zambia. Journal of Animal and Plant Sciences, 33(3):655-665. DOI: 10.36899/JAPS.2023.3.0658        [ Links ]

Liyanage, R.P., Dematawewa, C.M.B. & Silva, G.L.L.P., 2015. Comparative study on morphological and morphometric features of village chicken in Sri Lanka. Tropical Agricultural Research, 26:261-273. DOI: 10.4038/tar.v26i2.8090        [ Links ]

Magothe, T.M., Okeno, T.O., Muhuyi, W.B., & Kahi, A.K., 2012a. Indigenous chicken production in Kenya: I. Current status. World's Poultry Science Journal, 68(1):119-132. DOI: 10.1017/S0043933912000128        [ Links ]

Magothe, T.M., Okeno, T.O., Muhuyi, W.B., & Kahi, A.K., 2012b. Indigenous chicken production in Kenya: II. Prospects for research and development. World's Poultry Science Journal, 68(1):133-144. DOI: 10.1017/S004393391200013X        [ Links ]

Mangesha, M. & Tsega, W., 2011. Phenotypic and genotypic characteristics of indigenous chickens in Ethiopia: A review. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 6(24):5398-5404. DOI: 10.5897/AJAR11.434        [ Links ]

Manyelo, T.G., Selaledi, L., Hassan, Z.M., & Mabelebele, M., 2020. Local chicken breeds of Africa: their description, uses and conservation methods. Animals, 10(12):2257. DOI: 10.3390/ani10122257        [ Links ]

Mwacharo, J.M., Nomura, K., Hanada, H., Jianlin, H., Hanotte, O., & Amano, T., 2007. Genetic relationships among Kenyan and other East African indigenous chickens. Animal Genetics, 38(5):485-490. DOI: 10.111365-2052.2007.01641.x        [ Links ]

Olawunmi, O.O., Salako, A.E., & Afuwape, A.A., 2008. Morphometric differentiation and assessment of function of the Fulani and Yoruba ecotype indigenous chickens of Nigeria. International Journal of Morphology, 26(4):975-980.         [ Links ]

Onasanya, G.O., Ikeobi, C.O., & Amusan, S.A., 2018. Morphostructural profiling of comb types and plumage pigmentation and their influences on ecometric traits of extensively-managed Nigerian indigenous chickens. Nigerian Journal of Animal Science and Technology, 1(2):10-17.         [ Links ]

Petrus, N.P., 2011. Characterisation and production performance of indigenous chickens in Northern Namibia regions. PhD thesis, University of Namibia, Namibia.         [ Links ]

Roberts, V., 2008. British Poultry Standards, 6th edition. Blackwell Publishing, UK.         [ Links ]

Rogelio Jr, V.L., Lambio, A.L., Vega, R.S., & De Guia, A.P.O., 2013. Phenotypic characterization of native chicken in Palawan, Philippines. Philippine Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, 39(2):147-156.         [ Links ]

Sarker, M.J.A., Bhuiyan, M.S.A., Faruque, M.O., Ali, M.A., & Lee, J.H., 2012. Phenotypic characterization of Aseel chicken of Bangladesh. Korean Journal of Poultry Science, 39(1):9-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5536/KJPS.2012.39.1.009        [ Links ]

SAS Institute Inc., 2002-03. SAS/STAT User's Guide: Statistics. Version 9.1. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA.         [ Links ]

Scherf, B.D., 1994. Developing the global inventory for poultry genetic resources. In: Proceedings of the Third Global Conference on Conservation of Domestic Animal Genetic Resources. Queens University, Canada. pp. 81-93.         [ Links ]

Tadele, A., Melesse, A., & Taye, M., 2018. Phenotypic and morphological characterizations of indigenous chicken populations in Kaffa Zone, South-Western Ethiopia. Animal Husbandry, Dairy and Veterinary Science, 2(1):1-9.         [ Links ]

Tenza, T., Mhlongo, L.C., Ncobela, C.N., & Rani, Z., 2024. Village chickens for achieving sustainable development goals 1 and 2 in resource-poor communities: A literature review. Agriculture, 14(8):1264. DOI: 10.3390/agriculture14081264        [ Links ]

Udeh, I. & Ogbu, C.C., 2011. Principal component analysis of body measurements in three strains of broiler chicken. Science World Journal, 6(2):11-14.         [ Links ]

Woelders, H., Zuidberg, C.A., & Hiemstra, S.J., 2006. Animal genetic resources conservation in the Netherlands and Europe: poultry perspective. Poultry Science, 85(2):216-222. DOI: 10.1093/ps/85.2.216        [ Links ]

Yakubu, A., Kuje, D., & Okpeku, M., 2009. Principal components as measures of size and shape in Nigerian indigenous chickens. Thai Journal of Agricultural Science, 42(3):167-176.         [ Links ]

 

 

Submitted 23 September 2021
Accepted 8 April 2025
Published April 2025

 

 

# Corresponding authors: mtahirkhan@cuvas.edu.pk, lizhengtian@mail.qjnu.edu.cn