Morphological and morphometric traits of Türkiye's Aseel chicken

Abstract

This research studies the morphology and morphometry traits of Aseel chickens raised in various regions of Türkiye. We used Turkish Aseel genotypes to assess the live weight and physical features of 60 female and 58 male subjects of varying ages. We measured brood length, breadth, head and beak width, neck and body length, chest width, depth, and circumference, thigh diameter, length, and depth, and leg length. Males' average live weight, chest circumference, thigh length, and comb length, which affect game efficacy, are 3.23 kg, 37.88 cm, 20.69 cm, and 40.20 mm, respectively. Although there was a statistically significant difference between the gender groups for all evaluated characteristics, there was only a statistically significant difference between the age groups for head width and chest circumference, shank depth, diameter, and length, and live weight (P<0.05). The data showed differences among different areas, particularly about the measurements of the comb, prompting researchers to propose a hypothesis suggesting a potential correlation between these changes and regional temperature disparities. We evaluated Turkish Aseels for feather, comb, eye color, markings, and comb type. Medium-weight breeds with hair, earlobes, beards, and spurs Weight and characteristics determine the Turkish Aseel breed. Comb structures were shorter, and their live weight was lower than that of other game roosters or Aseel kinds. Based on their morphology, domestic Aseel males may have a distinct genotype and subtype. Evaluating morphometric characteristics is an important aspect of the research. However, conducting additional comparative research is crucial. Genotyping studies with larger numbers are necessary for greater accuracy.

Keywords

• Aseel
• live weight
• morphological characteristics
• morphometric characteristics

References

1. Akçapınar H, Özbeyaz C (2021): Animal Husbandry Basic Knowledge, 2nd edn, Medisan Publication Series: 91, Ankara.
2. Aldırmaz M (2020): Dövüş mü müsebaka mı? Folluk Dergisi, 34-46.
3. AL-Ramamneh DS, Makagon MM, Hester PY (2016): The ability of White Leghorn hens with trimmed comb and wattles to thermoregulate, Poultry Sci, 95, 1726-1735.
4. Assefa H, Melesse A (2018): Morphological and morphometric characterization ofiIndigenous chicken populations in Sheka Zone, South Western Ethiopia. Poult Fish Wildl Sci, 6, 200.
5. Atasoy A, Yüceer Özkul B, Özbaşer FT (2016): Türkiye’deki Aseel horoz ve tavuklarda bazı morfolojik özellikler. Lalahan Hay Araşt Enst Derg, 56, 56-62.
6. Baeza E, Williams N, Guemene D, et al (2001): Sexual dimorphism for growth in Muscovy duck and changes in insulin-like growth factor I (IGF- I), growth hormone (GH) and triiodothyronine (T3) plasma levels. Reprod Nutr Dev, 41, 173-179.
7. Brodsky LM (1988): Ornament size influences mating success in male rock ptarmigan. Anim Behav, 36, 662-667.
8. Endo H, Mori K, Hosojima M, et al (2012): Functional-morphological characteristics in the musculoskeletal system of standing-type cocks including some game breeds. Jpn J Zoo Wildl Med, 17, 131-138.

9. Erdem E, Özbaşer FT, Gürcan EK, et al (2024): Türkiye's indigenous genetic resource: Muradiye Kelebek pigeon. Ankara Univ Vet Fak Derg, 71, 41-49.
10. Imsland F, Feng C, Boije H, et al (2012): Rose-comb mutation in chickens constitutes a structural rearrangement causing both altered comb morphology and defective sperm motility. PLoS Genet, 8, e1002775.
11. Isaac JL (2004): Potential causes and life-history consequences of sexual size dimorphism in mammals. Mamm Rev, 35, 101-115.
12. Maciejowski J, Zieba J (1982): Genetics and Animal Breeding. Part A. Biological and Genetic Foundations of Animal Breeding (Developments in Animal & Veterinary Sciences), Netherlands.
13. Mahmood S, Rehman AU, Khan MS, et al (2017): Phenotypic diversity among indigenous cockfighting (Aseel) chickens from Pakistan. The J Anim Plant Sci, 27, 1126-1132.
14. Neto VI, Barbosa FJV, Campelo JEG, et al (2019): Phenotypic diversity between Brazilian fighting cocks and naturalized roosters. R Bras Zootec, 48, e20180271.
15. Oguntunji O, Ayorinde KL (2014): Sexual size dimorphism and sex determination by morphometric measurements in locally adapted Muscovy duck (Cairina moschata) in Nigeria. Acta Agric Slov, 104, 15-24.
16. Özbaşer FT, Erdem E, Gürcan EK, et al (2021): The morphological characteristics of the Muradiye Dönek pigeon, a native Turkish genetic resource. Ankara Univ Vet Fak Derg, 68, 107-112.
17. Özdamar K (2015): Paket Programları ile İstatistiksel Veri Analizi, Ankara.
18. Qureshi M, Qadri AH, Gachal GS (2018): Morphological study of various varieties of Aseel chicken breed inhabiting district Hyderabad. J Entomol Zool Stud, 6, 2043-2045.
19. Rajkumar U, Haunshi S, Paswan C, et al (2017): Characterization of indigenous Aseel chicken breed for morphological, growth, production, and meat composition traits from India. Poultry Sci, 96, 2120-2126.
20. Sarker MJA, Bhuiyan MSA, Faruque MO, et al (2012): Phenotypic characterization of Aseel chicken of Bangladesh. Korean J Poult Sci, 39, 9-15.
21. SPSS for Windows (2013): Base System User’s Guide, Version 18.0, IBM Corp, Armonk, NY, USA.
22. Tadele A, Melesse A, Taye M (2018): Phenotypic and morphological characterizations of indigenous chicken populations in Kaffa Zone, South Western Ethiopia. Anim Husb Dairy Vet Sci, 2, 1-9.
23. Takao O (2016): Growth and morphological traits for two lines of native Japanese Chicken, Oh-Shamo. Int J Poult Sci, 15, 358-364.
24. Ullengalaa R, Paswana C, Lawrence LLP, et al (2020): Studies on growth, carcass and meat quality traits in Aseel crosses suitable for small scale intensive broiler farming. J Appl Anim Res, 48, 507-514.
25. Wright D, Boije H, Meadows JRS, et al (2009): Copy number variation in intron 1 of SOX5 causes the pea-comb phenotype in chickens. PLoS Genet, 5, e1000512.
26. Zuk M, Thornhill R, Ligon JD, et al (1990): The role of male ornaments and courtship behavior in female mate choice of red jungle fowl. Am Nat, 36, 459-473.