Small Scale Egg Production: The Challenge of Portuguese Autochthonous Chicken Breeds
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Sample Size and Distribution
2.2. Study Site Characterization and Sample Animals Management
2.3. Data Analysis
3. Results
3.1. Flock Characterization: Number and Age of Hens
3.2. Breed Effect
3.3. Year and Month Effects
3.4. Correlations
4. Discussion
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Di Rosa, A.R.; Chiofalo, B.; Lo Presti, V.; Chiofalo, V.; Liotta, L. Egg quality from Siciliana and Livorno Italian autochthonous chicken breeds reared in organic system. Animals 2020, 10, 864. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Buzala, M.; Janicki, B. Review: Effects of different growth rates in broiler breeder and layer hens on some productive traits. Poult. Sci. 2016, 95, 2151–2159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). The State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture; Rischkowsky, B., Pilling, D., Eds.; Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- IPBES. Global Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; Brondízio, E.S., Settele, J., Díaz, S., Ngo, H.T., Eds.; IPBES Secretariat: Bonn, Germany, 2019. [Google Scholar]
- Castellini, C.; Dal Bosco, A. Animal welfare and poultry meat in alternative production systems (and ethics of poultry meat production). In Poultry Quality Evaluation; Woodhead Publishing: Duxford, UK, 2017; pp. 335–357. [Google Scholar]
- Özdemir, D.; Özdemir, E.D.; Marchi, M.; Cassandro, M. Conservation of local Turkish and Italian chicken breeds: A case study. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2013, 12, 313–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zanetti, E.; De Marchi, M.; Dalvit, C.; Cassandro, M. Genetic characterization of local Italian breeds of chickens undergoing in situ conservation. Poult. Sci. 2010, 89, 420–427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Castellini, C.; Bosco, A.D.; Mugnai, C.; Bernardini, M. Performance and behaviour of chickens with different growing rate reared according to the organic system. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2002, 1, 290–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vaarst, M.; Steenfeldt, S.; Horsted, K. Sustainable development perspectives of poultry production. Worlds Poult. Sci. J. 2015, 71, 609–620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Mugnai, C.; Bosco, A.D.; Castellini, C. Effect of rearing system and season on the performance and egg characteristics of Ancona laying hens. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2009, 8, 175–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franzoni, A.; Gariglio, M.; Castillo, A.; Soglia, D.; Sartore, S.; Buccioni, A.; Mannelli, F.; Cassandro, M.; Cendron, F.; Castellini, C.; et al. Overview of Native Chicken Breeds in Italy: Small Scale Production and Marketing. Animals 2021, 11, 629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gangnat, I.D.M.; Mueller, S.; Kreuzer, M.; Messikommer, R.E.; Siegrist, M.; Visschers, V.H.M. Swiss consumers’ willingness to pay and attitudes regarding dual-purpose poultry and eggs. Poult. Sci. 2018, 97, 1089–1098. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rizzi, C.; Marangon, A. Quality of organic eggs of hybrid and Italian breed hens. Poult. Sci. 2012, 91, 2330–2340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Rondoni, A.; Asioli, D.; Millan, E. Consumer behaviour, perceptions, and preferences towards eggs: A review of the literature and discussion of industry implications. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2020, 106, 391–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pettersson, I.C.; Weeks, C.A.; Wilson, L.R.M.; Nicol, C.J. Consumer perceptions of free-range laying hen welfare. Br. Food J. 2016, 118, 1999–2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Dumont, B.; Fortun-Lamothe, L.; Jouven, M.; Thomas, M.; Tichit, M. Prospects from agroecology and industrial ecology for animal production in the 21st century. Animal 2013, 7, 1028–1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Domestic Animal Diversity Information System (DAD-IS). Available online: http://www.fao.org/dad-is/en (accessed on 3 August 2021).
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Breeding Strategies for Sustainable Management of Animal Genetic Resources; FAO Animal Production and Health Guidelines No. 3; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Status and Trends of Animal Genetic Resources; Intergovernmental Technical Working Group on Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture; Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Inf. 6; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2020. [Google Scholar]
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Global Plan of Action for Animal Genetic Resources and the Interlaken Declaration; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Carolino, N.; Afonso, F.; Calção, S. Avaliação do Estatuto de Risco de Extinção das Raças Autóctones Portuguesas; Gabinete de Planeamento e Políticas, PDR2020: Lisboa, Portugal, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- SEAIA. Plano Nacional para os Recursos Genéticos Animais; Secretaria de Estado da Alimentação e da Investigação Agroalimentar; Ministério da Agricultura e do Mar: Lisbon, Portugal, 2013; p. 19. [Google Scholar]
- Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). Coping with Climate Change. The Roles of Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Gueye, E.F. Diseases in village chickens: Control through ethno-veterinary medicine. Ileia Newsl. 1997, 13, 20–21. [Google Scholar]
- Joost, S.; Bruford, M.W.; The Genomic-Resources Consortium. Advances in Farm Animal Genomic Resources. Front. Genet. 2015, 6, 333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Phocas, F.; Belloc, C.; Bidanel, J.; Delaby, L.; Dourmad, J.Y.; Dumont, B.; González-García, E. Towards the agroecological management of ruminants, pigs and poultry through the development of sustainable breeding programs: I-selection goals and criteria. Animal 2016, 10, 1749–1759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Souvestre, M.; Guinat, C.; Niqueux, E.; Robertet, L.; Croville, G.; Paul, M.; Schmitz, A.; Bronner, A.; Eterradossi, N.; Guérin, J.L. Role of backyard flocks in transmission dynamics of highly pathogenic avian influenza a(H5N8) clade 2.3.4.4, France, 2016–2017. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2019, 25, 551–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- CBD; Decision X/2. The Strategic Plan for Biodiversity 2011–2020 and the Aichi Biodiversity Targets. 2010. Available online: https://www.cbd.int/doc/decisions/cop-10/cop-10-dec-02-ar.pdf (accessed on 27 June 2021).
- CBD. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. In Proceedings of the Global Biodiversity Outlook 5, Montreal, QC, Canada, 18 August 2020. [Google Scholar]
- LPP; LIFE Network; IUCN–WISP; FAO. Adding Value to Livestock Diversity—Marketing to Promote Local Breeds and Improve Livelihoods; FAO Animal Production and Health Paper. No. 168; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Costa, L.; Leite, J.V.; Lopes, J.C.; Soares, L.; Arranz, J.J.; Brito, N.V. Genetic characterization of Portuguese autochthonous chicken breeds. In Proceedings of the 8th World Congress on Genetics Applied to Livestock Production, Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais, Brazil, 13–18 August 2006; pp. 8–10. [Google Scholar]
- Brito, N.V.; Lopes, J.C.; Ribeiro, V.; Dantas, R.; Leite, J.V. Biometric Characterization of the Portuguese Autochthonous Hens Breeds. Animals 2021, 11, 498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- DGAV. Raças Autóctones Portuguesas; Direção Geral da Agricultura e Veterinária: Lisbon, Portugal, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Soares, L.C.; Lopes, J.C.; Brito, N.V.; Carvalheira, J. Growth and carcass traits of three Portuguese autochthonous chicken breeds: Amarela, Preta Lusitânica and Pedrês Portuguesa. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2015, 14, 3566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lordelo, M.; Cid, J.; Cordovil, C.M.D.S.; Alves, S.P.; Bessa, R.J.B.; Carolino, I. A comparison between the quality of eggs from indigenous chicken breeds and that from commercial layers. Poult. Sci. 2020, 99, 1768–1776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brito, N.V.; Gouveia, A.; Leite, J.V.; Ribeiro, V.; Alves, M.; Dantas, R. Galinhas de Portugal; Município de Ponte de Lima, Associação Concelhia das Feiras Novas; Associação dos Criadores de Bovinos de Raça Barrosã: Ponte de Lima, Portugal, 2018; p. 127. [Google Scholar]
- Brito, N.V.; Lopes, J.C.; Ribeiro, V. Caracterización Productiva (Huevos) en tres Razas Avícolas Autoctonas Portuguesas. In XVIII Jornadas sobre Producción Animal AIDA; AIDA: Zaragoza, Spain, 2019; Volume I, pp. 60–62. [Google Scholar]
- Rizzi, C.; Chiericato, G.M. Organic farming production. Effect of age on the productive yield and egg quality of hens of two commercial hybrid lines and two local breeds. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2005, 4, 160–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Schiavone, A.; Mellia, E.; Salamano, G.; Raccone, V.; Tarantola, M.; Nurisso, S.; Gennero, S.; Doglione, L. Egg quality and blood parameters of “Bianca di Saluzzo” and Isa Brown hens kept under free range conditions. Ital. J. Anim. Sci. 2009, 8, 772–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Rizzi, C. Yield Performance, Laying Behaviour Traits and Egg Quality of Purebred and Hybrid Hens Reared under Outdoor Conditions. Animals 2020, 10, 584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Vargas, P.; González, F.; Landi, V.; Jurado, J.M.L.; Bermejo, J.V.D. Sexual dimorphism and breed characterization of creole hens through biometric canonical discriminant analysis across Ecuadorian agroecological areas. Animals 2019, 10, 32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Castillo, A.; Gariglio, M.; Franzoni, A.; Soglia, D.; Sartore, S.; Buccioni, A.; Mannelli, F.; Cassandro, M.; Cendron, F.; Castellini, C.; et al. Overview of Native Chicken Breeds in Italy: Conservation Status and Rearing Systems in Use. Animals 2021, 11, 490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soglia, D.; Sartore, S.; Maione, S.; Schiavone, A.; Dabbou, S.; Nery, J.; Zaniboni, L.; Marelli, S.; Sacchi, P.; Rasero, R. Growth performance analysis of two italian slow-growing chicken breeds: Bianca di saluzzo and bionda piemontese. Animals 2020, 10, 969. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows; Version 23.0; IBM Corp.: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- IPMA. Instituto Português do Mar e da Atmosfera/Portuguese Institute of the Sea and Atmosphere. Clima: Séries longas de dados das estações meteorológicas/Climate: Long Series of Weather Station Data. Available online: https://www.ipma.pt/pt/oclima/series.longas (accessed on 23 May 2021).
- INFPD; FAO; IFAD. Opportunities of Poultry Breeding Programs for Family Production in Developing Countries: The Bird for the Poor. In Proceedings of the An E-Conference, Online, 24 January–18 February 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Sirri, F.; Zampiga, M.; Soglia, F.; Meluzzi, A.; Cavani, C.; Petracci, M. Quality characterization of eggs from Romagnola hens, an Italian local breed. Poult. Sci. 2018, 97, 4131–4136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olawunmi, O.O.; Salako, A.E.; Afuwape, A.A. Morphometric Dierentiation and Asessment of Function of the Fulani and Yoruba Ecotype Indigenous Chickens of Nigeria. Int. J. Morphol. 2008, 26, 975–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Véstia, M.C. Galinhas Autóctones; Direcção Geral dos Serviços Pecuários (Estação de Avicultura Nacional), Ed.; Estação Zootécnica Nacional: Santarém, Portugal, 1959. [Google Scholar]
- González Ariza, A.; Navas González, F.J.; Arando Arbulu, A.; León Jurado, J.M.; Barba Capote, C.J.; Camacho Vallejo, M.E. Non-Parametrical Canonical Analysis of Quality-Related Characteristics of Eggs of Different Varieties of Native Hens Compared to Laying Lineage. Animals 2019, 9, 153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Simeon, R.; Milun, P.D.; Snežana, B.; Zdenka, Š.; Lidija, P.; Vladimir, D.; Veselin, P. Effect of Age and Season on Production Performance and Egg Quality of Laying Hens from different Rearing Systems. J. An. Pl. Sci. 2018, 28, 1602–1608. [Google Scholar]
- Bar, A.; Vax, E.; Striem, S. Relationships among age, eggshell thickness and vitamin D metabolism and its expression in the laying hen. Comp. Biochem. Physiol. 1999, 123, 147–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abdelqader, A.; Wollny, C.B.A.; Gauly, M. Characterization of local chicken production systems and their potential under different levels of management practice in Jordan. Trop. Anim. Health Prod. 2007, 39, 155–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Khan, A. Indigenous breeds, crossbreds and synthetic hybrids with modified genetic and economic profiles for rural family and small-scale poultry farming in India. World’s Poult. Sci. J. 2008, 64, 405–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kassim, M.; Horse, P.; Monreal, G. Immune response and health status of laying hens during long-term heat stress. Anim. Res. Develop. 1984, 20, 91–101. [Google Scholar]
- Hazan, A. The effect of high summer environmental temperatures on laying performance of different ages of heavy breeders. In Proceedings of the XVII World’s Poultry Congress and Exhibition, Helsinki, Finland, 8–12 August 1984; pp. 471–472. [Google Scholar]
- Zander, K.K.; Signorello, G.; De Salvo, M.; Gandini, G.; Drucker, A.G. Assessing the total economic value of threatened livestock breeds in Italy: Implications for conservation policy. Ecol. Econ. 2013, 93, 219–229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Zander, K.K.; Hamm, U. Consumer preferences for additional ethical attributes of organic food. Food Qual. Prefer. 2010, 21, 495–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tienhaara, A.; Ahtiainen, H.; Pouta, E. Consumer and citizen roles and motives in the valuation of agricultural genetic resources in Finland. Ecol. Econ. 2015, 114, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Trait | Age (Days) | Amarela | Branca | Pedrês Portuguesa | Preta Lusitânica | References | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Males | Body weight (g) | 180–360 | 2679 | 2932 | 2530 | 2336 | [32] |
361–720 | 3218 | 3265 | 3235 | 2684 | |||
>720 | 3379 | 4460 | 3500 | 2887 | |||
Body length (cm) | 180–360 | 45.8 | 46.5 | 46 | 44.3 | [32] | |
361–720 | 46.6 | 47.8 | 46.5 | 45.7 | |||
>720 | 47.4 | 47.9 | 46.2 | 46.2 | |||
Chest circumference (cm) | 180–360 | 36.4 | 37.6 | 37.2 | 33.4 | [32] | |
361–720 | 39.6 | 38.2 | 36.9 | 34.8 | |||
>720 | 37.8 | 40.8 | 40.3 | 36.4 | |||
Carcass weight (g) | 270–365 | 2020 | 2483 | 2043 | 2016 | AMIBA— unpublished data | |
Hens | Body weight (g) | 180–360 | 1781 | 2004 | 1898 | 1902 | [32] |
361–720 | 2078 | 2056 | 2100 | 2098 | |||
>720 | 2166 | 2284 | 2253 | 2231 | |||
Body length (cm) | 180–360 | 39.2 | 41 | 40.9 | 40.2 | [32] | |
361–720 | 39.4 | 40.5 | 40.9 | 40.7 | |||
>720 | 39.4 | 40.8 | 41.5 | 40.7 | |||
Chest circumference (cm) | 180–360 | 32.6 | 32.9 | 32.8 | 31.8 | [32] | |
361–720 | 33.4 | 33.9 | 33 | 32.4 | |||
>720 | 33.8 | 35 | 34.9 | 32.2 | |||
First season laying performance | (eggs/year) | 98 | 135 | 129 | 71 | AMIBA— unpublished data | |
Conservation program implemented since year | 2004 | 2014 | 2003 | 2003 | [27,36] | ||
Number of breeders | 166 | 136 | 272 | 202 | AMIBA—Genealogical Register (30 June 2021) | ||
Number of males | 959 | 562 | 1068 | 1049 | |||
Number of hens | 6393 | 3503 | 6439 | 6330 |
Number of Individuals (Hens) | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Farms | Breed | Flocks | 2017 | 2018 | 2019 | 2020 | 2017–2020 * |
33 | AM | 20 | 339 | 375 | 478 | 527 | 845 |
BR | 13 | 132 | 101 | 128 | 188 | 501 | |
PP | 24 | 352 | 362 | 456 | 525 | 889 | |
PL | 17 | 253 | 235 | 308 | 475 | 796 | |
Total | 74 | 1076 | 1073 | 1370 | 1715 | 3031 |
Year | Breed | N | Mean | SD | Max | Min | Year | Breed | N | Mean | SD | Max | Min |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2017 | AM | 20 | 13.5 | 6.6 | 20 | 3 | 2018 | AM | 20 | 12.9 | 5.9 | 20 | 5 |
BR | 13 | 13.1 | 5.4 | 20 | 7 | BR | 13 | 9.8 | 5.7 | 20 | 2 | ||
PP | 24 | 14.5 | 5.1 | 20 | 4 | PP | 24 | 15.1 | 5.1 | 20 | 2 | ||
PL | 17 | 15.3 | 5.2 | 20 | 5 | PL | 17 | 13.1 | 5.3 | 20 | 5 | ||
TOTAL | 74 | 14.1 | 5.6 | 20 | 3 | TOTAL | 74 | 12.7 | 5.6 | 20 | 2 | ||
2019 | AM | 20 | 14.5 | 5.2 | 20 | 6 | 2020 | AM | 20 | 15.1 | 5.9 | 20 | 2 |
BR | 13 | 11.6 | 5.9 | 20 | 2 | BR | 13 | 12.1 | 6.5 | 20 | 3 | ||
PP | 24 | 15.7 | 4.9 | 20 | 6 | PP | 24 | 15.3 | 5.2 | 20 | 5 | ||
PL | 17 | 16.3 | 5.1 | 20 | 5 | PL | 17 | 15.4 | 6.1 | 20 | 1 | ||
TOTAL | 74 | 14.5 | 5.3 | 20 | 2 | TOTAL | 74 | 14.5 | 5.9 | 20 | 1 |
Year | Breed | N | Mean | SD | Max | Min | Year | Breed | N | Mean | SD | Max | Min |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2017 | AM | 339 | 743.4 | 488.1 | 2585 | 172 | 2018 | AM | 375 | 756.8 | 523.0 | 2950 | 177 |
BR | 132 | 717.4 | 319.1 | 1856 | 232 | BR | 101 | 831.4 | 452.0 | 2221 | 177 | ||
PP | 352 | 845.8 | 613.6 | 2418 | 181 | PP | 362 | 760.9 | 614.7 | 2587 | 167 | ||
PL | 253 | 591.3 | 440.8 | 2354 | 152 | PL | 235 | 603.0 | 310.5 | 1587 | 153 | ||
TOTAL | 1076 | 737.9 | 514.6 | 2585 | 152 | TOTAL | 1073 | 731.5 | 517.5 | 2950 | 153 | ||
2019 | AM | 478 | 707.4 | 385.0 | 2191 | 173 | 2020 | AM | 527 | 753.5 | 439.2 | 2557 | 191 |
BR | 128 | 875.4 | 486.4 | 1868 | 185 | BR | 188 | 834.6 | 512.5 | 1918 | 199 | ||
PP | 456 | 803.2 | 608.8 | 2858 | 173 | PP | 525 | 845.0 | 448.5 | 2328 | 234 | ||
PL | 308 | 611.6 | 351.9 | 1769 | 161 | PL | 475 | 781.1 | 401.2 | 1623 | 174 | ||
TOTAL | 1370 | 733.4 | 481.3 | 2858 | 161 | TOTAL | 1715 | 793.5 | 445.5 | 2557 | 174 |
Month | Production Rate | °C Min. | °C Avg. | °C Max. | Season | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Month | 1 | |||||
Production rate | −0.273 ** | 1 | ||||
°C Min. | 0.485 ** | 0.048 ** | 1 | |||
°C Avg. | 0.403 ** | 0.077 ** | 0.977 ** | 1 | ||
°C Max. | 0.326 ** | 0.090 ** | 0.952 ** | 0.993 ** | 1 | |
Season | 0.841 ** | −0.152 ** | 0.523 ** | 0.488 ** | 0.458 ** | 1 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2021 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Brito, N.V.; Lopes, J.C.; Ribeiro, V.; Dantas, R.; Leite, J.V. Small Scale Egg Production: The Challenge of Portuguese Autochthonous Chicken Breeds. Agriculture 2021, 11, 818. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11090818
Brito NV, Lopes JC, Ribeiro V, Dantas R, Leite JV. Small Scale Egg Production: The Challenge of Portuguese Autochthonous Chicken Breeds. Agriculture. 2021; 11(9):818. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11090818
Chicago/Turabian StyleBrito, Nuno V., Júlio Cesar Lopes, Virgínia Ribeiro, Rui Dantas, and José V. Leite. 2021. "Small Scale Egg Production: The Challenge of Portuguese Autochthonous Chicken Breeds" Agriculture 11, no. 9: 818. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11090818
APA StyleBrito, N. V., Lopes, J. C., Ribeiro, V., Dantas, R., & Leite, J. V. (2021). Small Scale Egg Production: The Challenge of Portuguese Autochthonous Chicken Breeds. Agriculture, 11(9), 818. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture11090818