Guinea fowl (Numida meleagris) has existed in the Carpathian Basin for centuries and now is becoming an important genetic resource for lowinput 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 m2 or 50 m2 freerange 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 feedkg BW gain, respectively) were recorded for the G ecotype of HLGF, which was kept in 50m2 freerange areabird. An ANOVA test showed that the ecotype of guinea fowl influenced BW and feed conversion, and the size of the freerange 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 freerange 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.
C 2015 Poultry Science Association Inc Assessing meat production of 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‡† ∗ 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 Hungarian Landrace Guinea Fowl (HLGF) ecotypes, from Hungarian gene banks (Godollo (G) and Hortobagy (H)) and one local type from Central Hungary (C) Beyond wk of age, birds were kept in enclosures of either 15 m2 or 50 m2 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 m2 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 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 2015 J Appl Poult Res 0:1–6 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 Carpathian Basin as pets around manor houses Corresponding author: phuong@hagk.hu 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 of which make the guinea fowl one of the best choices for premium quality natural production Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on January 19, 2016 Research Center for Farm Animal Gene Conservation (HaGK): Isaszegi ut 200, 2100 Godollo, Hungary; † University of West-Hungary, Faculty of Agricultural and Food Sciences (NYME-MEK): 9200, Mosonmagyar´ov´ar V´ar 2, Hungary; ‡ Szent Istvan University (SZIE): Pater Karoly utca 1, 2100 Godollo, Hungary; and § Association of Hungarian Small Animal Breeders for Gene Conservation (MGE): Isaszegi ut 208, 2100 Godollo, Hungary JAPR: Research Report 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 ecotypes consisted of 368 birds from the Godollo gene bank (G), 169 birds from the Hortobagy gene bank (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 wk, birds were kept in a closed animal house From the age of wk, for any ecotype, 140 birds were distributed between 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 m2 /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 m2 in the center The setup for the experiment is shown in Table The same feed and water were provided ad libitum throughout the study The experimental diet used is presented in Table [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 Table Arrangement of the experiment Wk of age Label HLGF∗ to G00 H00 C00 G15 H15 C15 G50 H50 C50 Godollo Hortobagy Central Hungarian Godollo Hortobagy Central Hungarian Godollo Hortobagy Central Hungarian to 14 ∗ Free-range area/bird Number of pens Number of birds/pen∗∗ m2 m2 m2 15 m2 15 m2 15 m2 50 m2 50 m2 50 m2 10 4 2 2 2 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 Hungarian Landrace Guinea Fowl Number of birds recorded at the beginning of experimental study ∗∗ Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on January 19, 2016 [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] and could be a reliable contributor 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 National Park (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 SZALAY ET AL.: HUNGARIAN GUINEA FOWL ECOTYPES Table Diets used for Hungarian Landrace Guinea Fowl feeding in different periods of the experiment [18] Composition Starter diet to wk of age Grower diet to wk of age Finisher diet to 14 wk of age 12.3 23.0 53.5 38.5 12.5 19.0 54.5 12.1 16.0 51.0 29.0 7.0 5.0 20.0 15.0 6.0 4.0 1.0 3.5 1.0 3.0 Metabolisable energy (MJ/kg) ∗ Crude protein (%) Corn (%) Soy 48% (%) Soy 46% (%) Wheat (%) Barley (%) Fin dry fat (%) ∗∗ Favorit 40 (%) Lime (%) Premix (%) ∗ 4.0 1.0 3.0 analysis of variance for experiments involving 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 2way 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 wk and 97.06% during the rest of rearing (from 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 2way 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 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 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 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 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 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 m2 or 50 m2 free-range area/bird Marked gaps could Downloaded from http://japr.oxfordjournals.org/ by guest on January 19, 2016 Calculated on dry matter basis Fat powder produced by Biofilter Kăornyezetvedelmi Zrt by recycling food waste JAPR: Research Report Table 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 m2 (00), 15 m2 (15) and 50 m2 (50) at and 14 wk of age Comparisons wk G00 H00 G00 C00 H00 C00 G15 H15 G15 C15 H15 C15 G50 H50 G50 C50 H50 C50 14 wk BW Feed conversion rate Mean SD P value Mean SD P value 315.00 258.24 315.00 237.83 258.24 237.83 1311.18 1219.43 1311.18 1153.53 1219.43 1153.53 1329.38 1254.55 1329.38 1180.00 1254.55 1180.00 75.38 77.43 75.38 66.45 77.43 66.45 80.93 100.06 80.93 105.91 100.06 105.91 101.47 110.26 101.47 105.03 110.26 105.03