C 2015 Poultry Science Association Inc. Assessing meat production of 3 Hungarian Landrace Guinea Fowl ecotypes reserved for in vivo conservation I. T. Szalay, T. N. Lan Phuong,,1 T. R. Ferencz, K. D. T. Dong Xuan, K. Kustos, and K. Kovacsne Gaal Research Center for Farm Animal Gene Conservation (HaGK): Isaszegi ut 200, 2100 Godollo, Hungary; Association of Hungarian Small Animal Breeders for Gene Conservation (MGE): Isaszegi ut 208, 2100 Godollo, Hungary; University of West-Hungary, Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences (NYME-MEK): 9200, Mosonmagyaróvár Vár 2, Hungary; and Szent Istvan University (SZIE): Pater Karoly utca 1, 2100 Godollo, Hungary Primary audience: Poultry Experts, Researchers, Conservationists SUMMARY Guinea fowl (Numida meleagris) has existed in the Carpathian Basin for centuries and now is becoming an important genetic resource for low-input production. This study aimed to compare production traits, such as livability, BW, and feed conversion, of 3 Hungarian Landrace Guinea Fowl (HLGF) ecotypes, 2 from Hungarian gene banks (Godollo (G) and Hortobagy (H)) and one local type from Central Hungary (C). Beyond 5 wk of age, birds were kept in enclosures of either 15 m 2 or 50 m 2 free-range area per bird. The highest average BW and lowest feed conversion at 14 wk of age (1329.38 ± 101.47 g and 2.916 ± 0.253 kg feed/kg BW gain, respectively) were recorded for the G ecotype of HLGF, which was kept in 50 m 2 free-range area/bird. An ANOVA test showed that the ecotype of guinea fowl influenced BW and feed conversion, and the size of the free-range area was found to be a determining factor for feed conversion rate at 14 wk of age (P < 0.001). Our study results indicate that use of the G ecotype of HLGF is preferred for meat production and that the size of the free-range area is essential for keeping any types of HLGF after 5 wk of age. Different HLGF ecotypes also were shown to exist in rural Hungary, which should be of interest to future conservation programs. Key words: conservation, free range, local guinea fowl, production 2016 J. Appl. Poult. Res. 25:139 144 http://dx.doi.org/10.3382/japr/pfv071 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM Landrace varieties of guinea fowl originated from the African helmeted guinea fowl (Numida meleagris)[1,2] and have existed in Europe since the Roman era. Rodiczky [3] and Krenedits [4] reported that guinea fowls were kept in the 1 Corresponding author: phuong@hagk.hu Carpathian Basin as pets around manor houses and monasteries in the Middle Ages, although production of the local variety did not begin until the 20th century. In fact, no breeding programs were elaborated for this type of poultry, despite its excellent meat and egg quality, good adaptability to different environmental and keeping conditions, possible resistance to certain diseases, seeking habit, and low cost of keeping, all
140 JAPR: Research Report of which make the guinea fowl one of the best choices for premium quality natural production [5,6]. Moreover, recent studies have emphasized that the local landrace guinea fowls, which still exist in some regions of the Carpathian Basin, could be a promising genetic resource for the development of low-input, scavenging keeping systems [7,8] andcouldbeareliablecontributor to the livelihood of rural people [9 11]. In 2004, a local Hungarian guinea fowl was registered under the name of Hungarian Landrace Guinea Fowl (HLGF) by the Association of Hungarian Small Animal Breeders for Gene Conservation (MGE). Since then, it has been kept as part of the in vivo poultry gene bank by the Research Center for Farm Animal Gene Conservation (HaGK) and the Hortobagy NationalPark (HNP) as distinct ecotypes [7]. When considering how best to conserve any traditional breed of domestic animal, it is often useful to determine how it can best be used for production [12 15]. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to assess BW and feed utilization as important production traits for the guinea fowl and to examine the optimal range for traditional, scavenging keeping systems. To answer these questions, two HLGF ecotypes were compared with a local landrace from Central Hungary (C), whose hatching eggs had been collected before the study started for conservation purposes. MATERIALS AND METHODS Experimental Arrangements The study was conducted at the poultry farm of HaGK where one-day-old HLGF chicks were hatched. The study flocks of the 3 ecotypes consisted of 368 birds from the Godollo gene bank (G), 169 birds from the Hortobagy gene bank Table 1. Arrangement of the experiment. (H), and 158 birds of a local ecotype from C, eggs of which were collected directly from landrace flocks in a remote farm region. Although sexing methods exist for guinea fowl [16], this species does not exhibit sexual dimorphism in growth characteristics [17]. Therefore, males and females were pooled together for investigation. During the first 5 wk, birds were kept in a closed animal house. From the age of 6 wk, for any ecotype, 140 birds were distributed between 4 pens (35 birds/ecotype/pen) to study the effect of free-range keeping on BW and feed conversion rate. To mimic natural keeping with random and separated distribution of single ecotype flocks, all ecotypes were provided with a free-range area of either 15 or 50 m 2 /bird. The free-range area consisted of natural pasture that was divided by wire fencing into 12 identical plots (6 plots/row, 35 birds/plot). Each plot was covered with bird netting and equipped with a wooden house of 20 m 2 in the center. The setup for the experiment is shown in Table 1. The same feed and water were provided ad libitum throughout the study. The experimental diet used is presented in Table 2 [18]. All guinea fowl were fed the same diet, as recommended by the breeding organization [19]. Survival rate, weekly BW, and feed consumption were monitored until the age of 14 wk, which is the earliest slaughter age of guinea fowl in accordance with organic and HU-BA (Hungaricum Poultry) rules [19,20]. The study met the guidelines approved by the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). Statistical Analysis Data were processed by SPSS 20 [21], using univariate general linear model to conduct the Wk of age Label HLGF Free-range area/bird Number of pens Number of birds/pen 1 to 5 G00 Godollo 0 m 2 10 35 H00 Hortobagy 0 m 2 4 35 C00 Central Hungarian 0 m 2 4 35 6 to 14 G15 Godollo 15 m 2 2 35 H15 Hortobagy 15 m 2 2 35 C15 Central Hungarian 15 m 2 2 35 G50 Godollo 50 m 2 2 35 H50 Hortobagy 50 m 2 2 35 C50 Central Hungarian 50 m 2 2 35 Hungarian Landrace Guinea Fowl. Number of birds recorded at the beginning of experimental study.
SZALAY ET AL.: HUNGARIAN GUINEA FOWL ECOTYPES 141 Table 2. Diets used for Hungarian Landrace Guinea Fowl feeding in different periods of the experiment [18]. Composition Starter diet Grower diet Finisher diet 0 to 4 wk of age 5 to 8 wk of age 9 to 14 wk of age Metabolisable energy (MJ/kg) 12.3 12.5 12.1 Crude protein (%) 23.0 19.0 16.0 Corn (%) 53.5 54.5 51.0 Soy 48% (%) 38.5 Soy 46% (%) 29.0 20.0 Wheat (%) 7.0 15.0 Barley (%) 6.0 Fin dry fat (%) 5.0 4.0 Favorit 40 (%) 4.0 Lime (%) 1.0 1.0 1.0 Premix (%) 3.0 3.5 3.0 Calculated on dry matter basis. Fat powder produced by Biofilter Környezetvédelmi Zrt. by recycling food waste. analysis of variance for experiments involving 3 factors (ecotype, size of the free-range area, and pen). Levene s test was used to assess the equality of variances and was followed by a series of 2- way ANOVA tests. The 2-way ANOVA test was expected to give information about the effects of the ecotype, size of the free-range area, and pen factors, as well as their interacting effects on BW and feed conversion rate. Significant differences were determined for observed means by post hoc multiple comparisons (Tukey HSD test), and for medians by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to identify whether the mean ranks were the same in all the treatments while the Mann-Whitney test was used to identify whether the mean ranks are the same in selected pairs of treatments. Mortality was compared using the chi-square test. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Survival rate of guinea fowls was generally high at 90.62% during the first part of the rearing period until the age of 5 wk and 97.06% during the rest of rearing (from 6 to 14 wk of age) without any differences between the ecotypes (chi-square test, P > 0.05). Levene s test showed that the assumption of homogeneity of variances was not violated (P > 0.05). As shown by the 2- way ANOVA test, the effect of the ecotype was significant on both BW and feed conversion rate (P < 0.001 at 14 wk of age), while the effect of the size of the free-range area was significant solely on feed conversion rate (P < 0.001 for feed conversion and P > 0.05 for BW at 14 wk of age). However, 2-way ANOVA showed there was no significant effect of the pen and no interacting effects with other study factors on BW and feed conversion rate (P > 0.05 at 14 wk of age). Results of BW measurements and feed conversion rate calculated at both 5 and 14 wk in the study are shown in Table 3, respectively. By using a post hoc Tukey HSD test, statistically significant differences were detected in terms of BW and feed conversion among the ecotypes (P < 0.001), except for BW between H and C ecotypes (P > 0.05) at 5 wk of age; and for feed conversion between G and H ecotypes (P > 0.05) at 14 wk of age. Furthermore, the Kruskal-Wallis test showed statistically significant differences in BW and feed conversion between the different treatments (P < 0.001 at both 5 and 14 wk of age). The average BW of the G ecotype was significantly greater than that of the other ecotypes at both ages examined (Table 3). However, feed conversion rate in the G ecotype was found to be considerably lower than in other ecotypes at 5 wk of age and lower than C15 and C50 but comparable to H15 and H50 groups at 14 wk of age (Table 3). At the end of the 14-wk rearing period, the lowest average BW and highest feed conversion rate were recorded in the C50 group, whereas the highest average BW and the lowest feed conversion were found in the G50, as shown in Table 3. Figures 1(a) and 1(b) illustrate the comparison of BW and feed conversion rate, respectively, at 14 wk of age of C, G, and H ecotypes kept in either 15 m 2 or 50 m 2 free-range area/bird. Marked gaps could
142 JAPR: Research Report Table 3. Average BW (g) and feed conversion rate (kg feed/kg BW gain) comparison of Godollo (G), Hortobagy (H), and Central (C) Hungarian Landrace Guinea Fowl ecotypes kept with 0 m 2 (00), 15 m 2 (15) and 50 m 2 (50) at 5 and 14 wk of age. Age Comparisons BW Feed conversion rate Mean SD P value Mean SD P value 5 wk G00 315.00 75.38 <0.001 2.854 0.875 <0.001 H00 258.24 77.43 4.860 1.717 G00 315.00 75.38 <0.001 2.854 0.875 <0.001 C00 237.83 66.45 5.932 1.644 H00 258.24 77.43 0.093 4.860 1.717 <0.001 C00 237.83 66.45 5.932 1.644 14 wk G15 1311.18 80.93 <0.001 3.239 0.202 0.313 H15 1219.43 100.06 3.329 0.290 G15 1311.18 80.93 <0.001 3.239 0.202 <0.001 C15 1153.53 105.91 3.367 0.308 H15 1219.43 100.06 0.007 3.329 0.290 <0.001 C15 1153.53 105.91 3.367 0.308 G50 1329.38 101.47 0.008 2.916 0.253 0.844 H50 1254.55 110.26 2.930 0.274 G50 1329.38 101.47 <0.001 2.916 0.253 <0.001 C50 1180.00 105.03 3.792 0.358 H50 1254.55 110.26 0.009 2.930 0.274 <0.001 C50 1180.00 105.03 3.792 0.358 P value was calculated by Mann Whitney test; P 0.05 means medians on a test variable differ significantly between 2 groups [21]. be observed between feed conversion rates of G50 and G15, H50 and H15, and C50 and C15 ecotypes. Results from this study show that there are considerable variations in BW and feed conversion rate between 3 HLGF ecotypes, thus providing evidence for differences between conservation stocks (G and H) and local landraces (C). Therefore, it indicates that the ecotype can be an important factor in determining guinea fowl meat production. A larger free-range area, as demonstrated in this study, seems to improve considerably feed conversion without any negative effect on BW. This also underlines the importance of free-range keeping of different Hungarian guinea fowl ecotypes from an economic point of view. In addition, this is in accordance with the obligatory free-range keeping system for in vivo gene bank stocks of old poultry breeds in Hungary [14]. CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS 1. Direct production results from this study show that the G ecotype can be recommended for meat production, and the use of large (up to 50 m 2 /bird) free-range areas is suggested for keeping the studied types of HLGF on smallscale farms. 2. The study supports conservationists view that natural landrace ecotypes still exist in rural Hungary, and suggests their production capacities may vary due to their potential genetic differences in relation to their localities of origin. Searching for currently unknown local ecotypes, as well as coordinating their conservation programs should be the next steps towards protecting these rare landraces. 3. The location of rearing may have an influence on the performance of landrace guinea fowl. Since this study was conducted solely in Godollo, where the G ecotype has been kept in the gene bank for more than 20 yr, it might result in a better performance of that particular ecotype when compared with others. Similarly, outcomes related to the preferred size of the free-range area might also be influenced by the same above-mentioned reason. Therefore, additional research to investigate the performance of landrace guinea fowl in various locations, other than Godollo, is certainly needed.
SZALAY ET AL.: HUNGARIAN GUINEA FOWL ECOTYPES 143 Figure 1. Comparison of BW (A) and feed conversion rate (B) obtained from Central (C) Hungarian, Godollo (G) and Hortobagy (H) landrace guinea fowl ecotypes kept with either 50 m 2 (50) or 15 m 2 (15) free-range area/bird at 14 wk of age (P value was calculated by Mann Whitney test; P 0.05 means medians on a test variable differ significantly between 2 groups [21].) REFERENCES AND NOTES 1. Payne, W. J. A. 1990. An Introduction to Animal Husbandry in the Tropics, 4th ed., Longman Group Limited, Singapore. 2. Smith, A. J. 1990. Poultry. Pages 179 184 in Tropical Agriculturist series. CTA, Macmillan Publishers, London. 3. Rodiczky, J. 1902. Korultekintes a baromfitenyesztes osszes. Pallas Reszvenytarsasag Nyomdaja, Budapest. (in Hungarian) 4. Krenedits, O. 1920. Baromfitenyesztes. Athenaeum Irodalmi es Nyomdai Rt., Budapest. (in Hungarian) 5. Csukas, Z. 1935. A gazdasagi baromfiak tenyesztese. Patria Irodalmi Vallalat es Nyomdai Reszvenytarsasag, Budapest. (in Hungarian) 6. Baldy, B. 1940. A baromfitenyesztes elmelete es gyakorlati utmutatasai. 2nd ed., Patria Irodalmi Vallalat es Nyomdai Reszvenytarsasag, Budapest. (in Hungarian) 7. Szalay, I., J. Barna, and A. Korosine. Molnar. 2004. A gyongytyuk. Mezogazda Kiado, Budapest. (in Hungarian) 8. Dodu, M. A., and Z. S. Czirjak. 2012. Aspects regarding the incubation process of Guinea fowl population (Numida meleagris) from Bihor county. Analele Universitaţii din Oradea: 45 50. 9. Boko, C. K., M. T. Kpodekon, S. Farougou, M. Dahouda, A. K. I. Youssao, G. L. Aplogan, J. Zanou, and J. G. Mainil. 2011. Farmer perceptions and pathological constraints in helmeted guinea fowl farming in the Borgou department in North-East Benin. African Journal of Agricultural Research 6:2348 2357. 10. Moreki, J. C., and M. V. Radikara 2013. Challenges to commercialization of guinea fowl in Africa. International Journal of Science and Research, 2:436 440. 11.DongXuan,K.D.T.,I.Szalay,P.DucTien,P.T.Minh Thu, and T. N. Lan Phuong. (2014) Production Studies of a Guinea Fowl Variety of Hungarian Origin in the Tropical Regions of Vietnam. ATINER s Conference Paper Series, No. AGR2014-1298. 12. Szalay, I. 2002. Traditional Hungarian Poultry Breeds - Their use in sustainable agriculture. Hungarian Agricultural Research 11:15 19. 13. Dong Xuan, K. D. T., and I. T. Szalay. 2007. Agricultural research for Development - Trilateral Hungarian Vietnamese - Laos sample to develop poultry breeding in Southeast Asia. Pages 1 5 in Proc. 5th Vietnamese-Hungarian International Conference on Sustainable Animal Production and Aquaculture, Vietnam.
144 JAPR: Research Report 14.Szalay,I.,K.D.T.DongXuan,G.Virag,K.A. Szentes, and L. Bodi. 2009. Prospects for conserving traditional poultry breeds of the Carpathian Basin. Journal of Animal Welfare, Ethology and Housing Systems 5: 119 148. 15. Oke, U. K., C. A. Ariwodo, U. Herbert, S. N. Ukachukwu, I. A. Ukweni, A. H. Akinmutimi, I. I. Ezeigbo, and D. O. Chukwu. 2012. Impact of egg size on the fertility, hatchability and early growth traits of two varieties of guinea fowl in a humid tropical environment. Journal of Animal Science Advances 2 (Suppl. 3.2):299 305. 16. Iddriss, I. A., A. Bawa, A. J. Ian, E. R. Jane, and Y. O. Frederick. 2015. Sexing in guinea fowls (Numida meleagris). Poult. Sci. 94:311 318. 17. Nahashon, S. N., S. E. Aggrey, N. A. Adefope, and A. Amenyenu. 2006. Modelling growth characteristics of meat-type guinea fowl. Poult. Sci. 85:943 946. 18. Szalay, I. 2015. A gyongytyuk tenyesztese es fajtavedelme Magyarorszagon. Mezogazda Kiado, Budapest. (in Hungarian) 19. MGE. 2009. HU-BA: A Hungarikum baromfitermekek. Budapest, Hungary. (in Hungarian) 20. Roszik, P. 2013. Az okologiai gazdalkodasrol gazdaknak, kozerthetoen. Biokontroll Hungaria Nonprofit Kft., Budapest, Hungary. (in Hungarian) 21. IBM CORP. 2011. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0, Armonk, NY, IBM Corp.