Nutritional status and growth performance of Fijian local chickens and their crosses with broilers under different production systems

Nutritional status and growth performance of Fijian local chickens and their crosses with broilers under different production systems | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Nutritional status and growth performance of Fijian local chickens and their crosses with broilers under different production systems Lorenzo T. Berukilukilu, Archibold G. Bakare, Paul A. Iji, Titus Jairus Zindove This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3761670/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Under Review Version 1 posted 4 You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The study compared nutrient content intake and growth performance of local chickens and local x broilers crossbreds under scavenging and indoor conventional systems. A total of 48 male and 48 female chickens for each of the two chicken types were allocated to four outdoor free-range pens and allowed to scavenge whilst being supplemented with sorghum plus kitchen waste and broilers growers from week 5 to week 13 of age. The same design was repeated on indoor pens with the chickens being fed the same diets without scavenging. The crops and gizzards contents from local chickens had the same crude protein and crude fat as their crosses with broilers under both systems (P > 0.05). The energy content of crop and gizzard contents from scavenging chickens was lower than that from chickens under indoor conventional system (P < 0.05). Chickens of the same type had high iron content in their crops and gizzards contents under scavenging system than the conventional system (P < 0.05). Local chickens and their crosses with broilers had higher growth rates under the scavenging system than the indoor production system (P 0.05). Crossbreds between local chickens and broilers matches the scavenging abilities of the local chickens but have lower growth rates under scavenging systems. Local chickens crossbreeding production systems growth performance nutrient intake Figures Figure 1 Figure 2 Figure 3 Introduction Local chickens, which are also commonly referred to as indigenous chickens, are regaining their popularity in many regions due to appreciation of their desirable traits such as adaptability to low input scavenging production systems and highly desirable meat and eggs (Dessie et al., 2011 ). The local chickens, however, are characterized by slow growth rates (Batkowska et al., 2015 ) which is one of the biggest concerns of most chicken producers. In quest of optimizing productivity under free range conditions, there has been a general drive towards promotion of crossbreeding between the local and fast-growing chickens such as broilers (Dana, 2011 ). Although there is abundant literature on the characteristics of both local and improved chickens under different production systems (Batkowska et al., 2015 ; Castellini et al., 2016 ), their crossbreds are not well characterized. Local chickens and fast-growing improved breeds have distinguished nutritional status under different production systems due to their differences in scavenging abilities, digestive capabilities, and environmental requirements (Mekonnen et al., 2009 ). With most poultry improvement programs promoting the use of crosses between local chickens and fast-growing improved breeds, it is important to determine how they perform under different production systems. Besides adaptability and growth performance, the nutritional status of chickens under any production system is of paramount importance. The type of nutrients that a chicken consumes, and their proportions determines growth performance, health status and the quality of its meat (Ferket et al., 2006). For scavenging systems, nutritional composition of crop and gut contents can be one of the ways to obtain information about nutrient intake (Raphulu and Jansen van Rensburg, 2018 ; Yadav et al., 2019). The nutrient intake of scavenging chickens depends on their scavenging ability and availability of supplements (Magothe et al., 2012 ). Commonly used supplements for scavenging systems include grains such as sorghum and kitchen waste (Etuk et al., 2012 ; Manuya et al., 2020 ). Although the scavenging ability of many local chicken breeds, as denoted by nutrient intake, has been extensively studied (Mwalusanya et al., 2002 ; Pousga et al., 2005 ; Raphulu, 2019 ), such studies are limited for crossbreeds between local chickens and fast-growing commercial breeds. Data on the performance of the crossbreds fed on common supplements such as sorghum and kitchen waste are also scanty. In attempt to reduce pressure on maize, recent poultry improvement programs are targeting the efficient use alternative energy sources such as sorghum for enclosed production systems (Gualtieri et al., 1990; Alders et al., 2009). Local chickens have been reported to efficiently digest whole sorghum when under scavenging systems whilst sorghum-based diets are associated with inferior broiler performance under both scavenging and enclosed systems (Selle et al., 2018 ). To our knowledge, there is very little, if any, literature on performance of crosses between broilers and local breeds supplemented with and/or fed on sorghum-based diets under any production system. Since there is a paucity of information on the nutrient intake and growth performance of local chickens x broilers crossbreds despite their importance, the present study was undertaken to compare their performance to that of local chickens under different production systems. Such data will go a long way to evaluate the potential for genetic improvement of the productive efficiency of the local chickens through crossbreeding them with fast growing improved breeds whilst maintaining their valuable desirable properties such as good scavenging ability and utilization of lowly digestible feed sources. It was hypothesized that local chickens x broilers crossbreds’ crop and gizzard nutritional content and growth performance is higher than that of local chickens under both the scavenging and enclosed production systems. Materials and methods Study site The study was contacted at the Fiji National University (FNU) crop farm in Koronivia. Koronivia is situated in Naitasiri district located at 18°0243.1 S and 178°3150.7 E and 11m above sea level (Zindove et al., 2022 ). Naitasiri district is located on Fiji’s largest island, Viti Levu. It experiences a tropical climate characterized by rainfall throughout the year, totaling about 3500 mm (Zindove et al., 2022 ). The average temperature is around 27°C. The plots used for the experiment were previously used for planting cassava, maize, and taro. The plots currently have scattered coconut trees. There are also two contour ridges which are filled with still water throughout the year. The common grass species growing on the plots is Para grass ( Brachiaria mutica ). Experimental chickens A total of 500 eggs from local scavenging chickens purchased from households in Ra, Nadroga-Navosa and Ba provinces were used in this experiment. The eggs were incubated until hatching at the FNU livestock farm. A total of 323 eggs hatched. A total of 500 local chicken x broiler F1crossbred day-old chicks were also purchased from a chicken farm in Ba province, Fiji and were reared at the FNU livestock farm. The two batches of chicks were kept inside two separate brooders at 32ºC from day 1 to day 28 (4 weeks). The FNU livestock farm chicken house contains floors covered with about 5 cm thick layer of wood shavings and well-ventilated cages. A conventional starter diet and water were provided ad libitum until the chickens were four weeks old. Treatments and experimental design Chickens were moved to the experimental site at the FNU crop farm at the start of week 5. They were sexed by looking at body, comb, and wattles sizes. Those with enlarged combs and wattles were confirmed as male (Tao et al., 2000). From the total flock of each of the chicken types (local and local x broiler crossbreds), 96 males and 96 females were selected randomly to be used in the experiment. The chickens were then allocated to 4 outdoor free-range pens and 4 indoor conventional system pens. For the outdoor free-range pens, two pens were allocated 12 cages each: 6 with male local chickens and the other 6 with male local x broiler crossbreds. The other two pens were also allocated 12 cages each: 6 with female local chickens and the other 6 with female local x broiler crossbreds. There were 4 chickens of the same sex and chicken type in each cage. Each cage represented an experimental unit. Two supplementary diets, sorghum + kitchen waste and broiler commercial grower diet, were then randomly allocated to pens with male chickens (one diet per pen). The same diets were also randomly allocated to the two pens with female chickens. The same design was repeated in the 4 pens in the indoor conventional system. Table 1 below illustrates the experimental design used. Each of the chickens was tagged using numbered chicken leg rings. Cages were also labeled with corresponding numbers of the allocated chickens. The free-range pens measured 900m 2 each and were demarcated by a chain link fence reinforced by wooden poles. There was forage grass, crop residues and coconut waste inside the pens. Table 1 Layout of the experimental design Scavenging system (Outdoor free-range pens) Indoor conventional system pens Sorghum + kitchen waste Males Local chicken = 6 cages, 4 chickens in each cage Local x broiler Crossbred = 6 cages, 4 chickens in each cage Males Sorghum + kitchen waste Females Females Broiler grower diet Males Males Broiler grower diet Females Males Each cage represents an experimental unit The cages were wooden, measuring 2.5 x 2 x 1.5 m. The cages, with slatted floors, were elevated 1m above the ground surface and fitted with wire mesh doors. For the scavenging system, the doors were left open during the day and the chickens were enclosed at night. A standard plastic drinker was placed near each cage to provide clean water. For the conventional production system, cages with the same design were used and placed in a chicken house. The chickens were enclosed throughout the experiment. Kitchen waste was collected from the university canteens and local restaurants at the end of every day during the experiment. It was mixed and ground using a NAIZEA electric dry-wet grinder. Sorghum grown at FNU crop farm was used as whole grain. For the scavenging system, 250 grams of sorghum plus 250 grams of ground kitchen waste were supplemented per cage every day for those on the sorghum plus kitchen waste diet. A total of 500 grams of broiler grower diet were supplemented per cage for those on broiler grower diet. Chickens in the conventional system were fed ad libitum as per experimental design. Growth performance At the start of the experiment, all the chickens were weighed to determine the initial average weight. Body weight changes were determined by measuring live weight for chickens in each cage at the end of every week during the experiment. To determine the average weight of chickens in each cage, the chickens were put together in the crate and the weight of the crate with chickens was measured using a digital electronic scale. The weight of the crate was then subtracted from the total weight and divided by four to get the average weight of chickens. Weekly average daily gain (ADG g/bird/day) of the chickens was obtained by subtracting the initial average weight per cage from the final average weight per cage and then dividing by 7 days. Slaughtering of chickens and sample collection Eight weeks after the experiment commenced, all the chickens were slaughtered by cervical dislocation. The chickens were slaughtered between 1300hs and 1600 hours. All the contents in crops and gizzards were collected and put into plastic bags within 20 mins of slaughtering. The samples of the crops and gizzards contents were weighed and kept at 4ºC inside the refrigerator. Chemical analyses Freeze-dried samples of the crops and gizzards contents were sent to the Fiji Agricultural Chemistry Laboratory at Koronivia Research Station for chemical analyses. Procedures described by AOAC were used to determine crude protein (CP) (AOAC official method 990.03), crude fat (AOAC official method 920.39), calcium (AOAC official method 935.13), sodium (ISO official method 6869), iron (AOAC official method 968.08), magnesium (AOAC official method 968.08), manganese (AOAC official method 968.08), copper (AOAC official method 968.08), zinc (AOAC official method 968.08), moisture (AOAC official method 930.15) and gross energy were analyzed using a bomb calorimeter (Par Instrument Co., Moline, IL) for crops and gizzards contents. All analyses were performed in duplicate. Statistical analyses The effect of the production system, sex, feed regimen and chicken type on growth performance and chemical properties of the crops and gizzards contents was determined using the PROC GLM of SAS (2012). The following model was used: Y ijklm = µ + P i + C j + F k + S l + (CxP) ij + (FxC) jk + E ijklm Where: Y = average daily weight gain (AGD) and chemical properties of the crops and gizzards contents (moisture, crude protein, calcium, crude fat, phosphorus, magnesium, sodium, iron, manganese, copper and zinc levels in the crops and gizzards contents), µ = overall mean, P i= effect of i th production system (indoor conventional system; scavenging system), C j =effect of j th chicken type (local chickens; local chickens x broiler crossbreds), F k =effect of k th feed regimen (sorghum + kitchen waste; broiler grower diet), S l = effect of l th sex (male, female), C x P = interaction between production system and chicken type, F x C = interaction between feed regimen and chicken type, E ijklm = random error. All first and second-order interactions were tested. Only significant interactions were included in the final model. Mean separation was performed using the LSMEANS using the PDIFF option (SAS, 2012). Results Table 2 shows the interaction of production system and chicken type on the nutrient and mineral composition of crop and gizzards contents. The moisture content of the crop and gizzard contents was lower under indoor conventional system compared the scavenging system (P < 0.05). Under the scavenging system, local chickens had crops and gizzards contents with more moisture content than that from their crosses with broilers (P 0.05). The crop and gizzard contents from local chickens had the same crude protein and crude fat as their crosses with broilers under both systems (P > 0.05). Crude fat content in crop and gizzard contents was higher under the scavenging system than under the indoor conventional system (P < 0.05). The energy content of crop and gizzard contents from scavenging chickens was lower than that from chickens under indoor conventional system (P < 0.05). Chickens of the same type had high iron content in their crops and gizzards contents under scavenging system than the conventional system (P < 0.05). Local chickens under the conventional system had lower manganese and zinc in crops and gizzards contents than the rest of the chickens (P < 0.05). Table 2 Interaction between production system and chicken type on nutrient and mineral composition of crops and gizzards contents Scavenging system Indoor conventional system Nutrient composition Local x broiler crossbred Local chicken Local x broiler crossbred Local chicken Moisture (%) 11.3 ± 0.67 a 13.1 ± 0.77 b 9.4 ± 1.04 c 9.4 ± 0.50 c crude protein (%) 30.1 ± 1.78 a 30.4 ± 2.81 ab 28.7 ± 2.72 ab 25.4 ± 2.87 b Crude fat (%) 12.5 ± 1.18 a 17.4 ± 5.98 a 16.5 ± 6.93 ab 10.3 ± 0.59 b Energy (MJ/kg) 17.1 ± 0.55 a 16.2 ± 1.47 a 20.3 ± 0.78 b 25.8 ± 2.63 b Calcium (%) 0.8 ± 0.10 0.8 ± 0.19 1.3 ± 0.37 1.0 ± 0.37 Phosphorus (%) 0.9 ± 0.05 0.9 ± 0.06 1.1 ± 0.20 1.1 ± 0.17 Potassium (%) 1.3 ± 0.09 1.3 ± 0.15 1.2 ± 0.13 1.4 ± 0.14 Magnesium (%) 0.2 ± 0.02 a 0.2 ± 0.03 ab 0.3 ± 0.02 c 0.3 ± 0.03 bc Sodium (%) 0.5 ± 0.02 0.5 ± 0.04 1.4 ± 0.65 0.6 ± 0.05 Iron (mg/kg) 1619.38 ± 353.75 a 655.7 ± 155.25 b 621.4 ± 160.40 b 156.1 ± 38.01 c Manganese (mg/kg) 178.6 ± 19.71 a 120.3 ± 28.83 b 178 ± 43.49 ab 127.8 ± 43.69 ab Copper (mg/kg) 45 ± 7.38 49 ± 12.63 87 ± 42.26 99.5 ± 68.54 Zinc (mg/kg) 323.3 ± 59.52 a 280.2 ± 62.80 a 275.3 ± 55.24 a 218.1 ± 42.05 b ab Means with different superscripts, within a row, are different (P < 0.05) Table 3 shows the interaction of feed regimen and chicken type on the nutrient composition of crops and gizzards contents. Local chickens fed sorghum plus kitchen waste had the highest energy content in their crops and gizzards contents when compared to local chickens fed on broiler grower diet and crossbreds fed on both feed regimens (P < 0.05). Irrespective of chicken type, chickens fed on sorghum and kitchen waste had lower Cu, Zn, Ca and P levels in their crops and gizzards contents than those fed on broiler grower diets (P < 0.05). Table 3 Interaction between feed regimen and chicken type on nutrient and mineral composition of the crops and gizzards contents ab Means with different superscripts, within a row, are different (P < 0.05) Sorghum plus kitchen waste Broiler grower diet Nutrient composition Local x broiler crossbred Local chicken Local x broiler crossbred Local chicken Moisture (%) 10.0 ± 0.99 a 10.4 ± 0.87 ab 10.8 ± 0.86 ab 11.9 ± 0.77 b Crude protein (%) 28.8 ± 2.53 a 27.5 ± 2.40 a 29.9 ± 2.05 a 29.4 ± 2.88 a Crude fat (%) 11.5 ± 1.55 a 14.5 ± 4.69 a 17.5 ± 6.75 a 11.6 ± 0.64 a Energy (MJ/kg) 18.9 ± 0.92 a 27.3 ± 4.32 b 18.5 ± 0.89 a 19.1 ± 1.81 a Calcium (%) 0.7 ± 0.22 a 0.4 ± 0.13 a 1.4 ± 0.28 b 1.4 ± 0.26 b Phosphorus (%) 0.8 ± 0.05 a 0.9 ± 0.08 a 1.3 ± 0.15 b 1.1 ± 0.15 b Potassium (%) 1.1 ± 0.10 a 1.5 ± 0.14 b 1.3 ± 0.11 b 1.2 ± 0.09 ab Magnesium (%) 0.3 ± 0.02 a 0.2 ± 0.03 a 0.2 ± 0.025 a 0.2 ± 0.03 a Sodium (%) 0.7 ± 0.16 a 0.6 ± 0.06 a 1.2 ± 0.66 a 0.6 ± 0.02 a Iron (mg/kg) 1297.6 ± 406.22 a 558.3 ± 182.13 bc 943.1 ± 219.13 ab 420.3 ± 156.42 c Manganese (mg/kg) 143.4 ± 42.16 a 52.8 ± 16.15 c 213.3 ± 12.38 b 194.5 ± 26.69 ab Copper (mg/kg) 74.8 ± 43.12 a 24.4 ± 4.92 b 57.3 ± 9.25 a 121.5 ± 65.59 a Zinc (mg/kg) 168.8 ± 18.76 a 155.1 ± 34.02 a 429.8 ± 39.26 c 334.6 ± 36.97 b Figure 1 shows the growth performance of local chickens and their crosses with broilers under different production systems. Local chickens and their crosses with broilers had higher average daily weight gain under the scavenging system than the indoor production system (P < 0.05). Local chickens x broiler crossbreds had higher average daily gain than local chickens under the indoor conventional system and vice versa under the scavenging system (P < 0.05). Figure 2 shows the growth performance of local chickens and their crosses with broilers fed different feed regimens. For both chicken types, the average daily weight gain of chickens fed on broiler grower feed was higher than those on sorghum plus kitchen waste (P 0.05). Local x broiler crossbred chickens had higher liveweights from week 1 to 8 when fed on broiler growers than when fed on sorghum + kitchen waste diet (P < 0.05; Fig. 3 a). Local x broiler crossbred chickens under the scavenging system had higher liveweights than those in indoor conventional system from week 1 to week8 (P < 0.05; Fig. 3 b). Discussion There is increasing interest in combining the hardiness of local chickens with the feed efficiency of fast-growing improved breeds through crossbreeding. As such, it is important to understand the performance of the crossbreds between local and fast-growing improved chickens under different production systems. The observed differences in moisture content in gizzard and crop contents of scavenging and non-scavenging chickens can be due to differences in diet, exercise, and environmental conditions. In tropical climates, scavenging chickens consume more water than those indoors because they are exposed to high temperatures and exercise more as they scavenge (Abioja and Abiona, 2021). Scavenging chickens also consume feed resources such as a fresh plant leaves and grass which have high water content (Ncobela and Chimonyo, 2015). The high moisture content can therefore be ascribed to high water intake of scavenging chickens coupled with low water loss due to humid conditions. High moisture content in the gizzard and crop contents may promote digestive activities in the gastrointestinal tract of the chickens (Rodrigues and Choct, 2018). The finding that local chickens had gizzard and crop contents with more moisture content than their crosses with broilers might be an indication of genotype-based physiological differences among scavenging chickens as an adaption to the production systems. Further studies on the physiological and behavioural factors behind the observed differences in moisture content of the gizzard and crop contents are necessary. High fat content in gizzard and crop contents of scavenging chickens resonated with Pousga et al. (2005) and Mwalusanya et al. (2010) who argued that fat intake by scavenging chickens can be high in tropical areas due to abundance of fat sources such as insects and worms among others for the scavenging chickens. The same reason can be tributed to the high iron content in gizzard and crop contents for scavenging chickens than those kept indoors. Low energy content in gizzard and crop contents of scavenging chickens as compared to those under indoor systems might be an indication that the scavenging feed resource base had low energy sources. Energy has been reported as a major limiting nutrient for scavenging chickens (Rashid et al., 2004; Ncobela and Chimonyo, 2016). Scavenging chickens, therefore, requires energy supplementation. The energy, fat and iron intake, however, also depends on the scavenging ability of the chickens (Ncobela and Chimonyo, 2016). The fact that crosses between local chickens and broilers herein had gizzard and crop contents with the same iron, energy, and fat content as that from local chickens shows that they have the similar scavenging abilities for iron, energy, and fat sources. In agreement to findings herein, Raphulu et al. (2015) reported low concentrations of trace elements in crop contents of scavenging local chickens. The finding that crosses between local chickens and broilers had more Mn and Zinc than local chickens could be an indication that they ingest more soil which is the main source for trace elements for scavenging chickens (Raphulu et al., 2015). The finding that energy content in gizzard and crop contents of local chickens fed sorghum plus kitchen waste was higher than broilers x local chickens crossbreds on the same diet could because of the variability in composition of kitchen waste and, thus nutrient content. One of the challenges for scavenging chicken systems is the large daily and seasonal variability in nutritional content of feed sources such as kitchen waste (Alshelmani et al., 2021). The feed sources for scavenging systems can, sometimes, have higher energy content than conventional feed sources (Raphulu, 2019) as observed in this study were gizzard and crop contents from local chickens fed on kitchen waste plus sorghum diet had more energy content than those fed on broiler diets. This is, however, not consistent, and the ability to adapt the variability in nutrient content of the feed sources is a desirable characteristic for scavenging chickens. The finding that trace elements such as Cu, Zn, Ca and P were low in gizzard and crop contents of chickens fed on kitchen waste and sorghum than those fed on broiler growers’ diet was expected. Although sorghum grain is a rich source of minerals including magnesium zinc and calcium (Mabelebele et al, 2015), a sorghum plus kitchen waste only diet cannot meet the chickens’ Cu, Zn, Ca and P requirements as it cannot match the levels in broiler growers’ diet. This might also be part of the explanation of why chickens fed on growers had higher growth rates and liveweights than those on sorghum plus kitchen waste. The finding that both local chickens and their crossbreds with broilers had higher growth rates and liveweights under the scavenging systems contradicts literature. Li et al. (2017) found that the growth performance of medium-growing chickens was higher under cage and indoor-floor systems than the free-range system. Li et al. (2011) also found that the performance of Chinese local chickens under scavenging systems was lower than under indoor systems. Limited feed resource base, exposure heat and increased exercise whilst scavenging have been attributed as the major causes of poor growth performance of scavenging chickens (Ncobela and Chimonyo, 2016). The observed differences might be due to differences in shed provision in form of coconut trees in the pens, supplementation and a rich feed resources base found under tropical conditions. The observed growth performance differences between local chickens and their crossbreds with broilers under the two production systems are more likely to be genetic. Youssao et al. (2012) suggested that differences in growth performance of chickens under the same production system can be attributed to differences in their genetic make-up. At can, therefore, be insinuated that local chickens in this study grow better than their crosses with broilers under the scavenging system because they are more suited to the system whilst the crosses do better than local chickens under indoor systems. The finding that local chickens and their crosses with broilers had the same growth rates when fed on the same feed regimen was unexpected. Khawaja et al. (2012), Castellini et al. (2016) and Mancinelli et al. (2023) reported that crossbreds between fast-growing and hardy slow-growing chickens have better growth performance than their purebred counterparts. The unexpected findings warrant further exploration. Conclusion Crosses between local chickens and broilers have the similar scavenging abilities as denoted the same energy and fat content in their crop and gizzard contents. The crosses between local chickens and broilers had high levels for trace elements in their crop and gizzard contents further indicating their scavenging abilities. Indoor chickens fed on kitchen waste plus sorghum diet have low levels of trace elements such as Cu, Zn, Ca, and P. Although crosses between local chickens and broilers grew better local chickens under indoor systems but not scavenging systems, their growth performance was better under scavenging systems than indoor systems. It can be concluded that crossbreds between local chickens and broilers matches the scavenging abilities of the local chickens but not their growth performance under scavenging systems. Further studies on feed intake and nutrient digestion of the crossbreds between local chickens and broilers are necessary. Declarations Author contribution Lorenzo Tiko Berukilukilu: study conception and design, data collection, analysis, and drafting the first version of the manuscript. Archibold Garikayi Bakare: study conception and design, data analysis, manuscript editing. Paul Ade Iji: study conception and design, manuscript editing. Titus Jairus Zindove: study conception and design, data analysis, manuscript editing. Funding The study was funded by Fiji National University research office for (Grant number: GS005) Data availability Data will be made available on request. Ethics approval The handling and usage of animals during the experiment were approved by the Fiji National University Animal Ethics Committee (FNU-AREC-22-002) Consent for publication All authors revised and approved the final manuscript. Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing interests. References Abioja, M.O. and Abiona, J.A. 2021. Impacts of climate change to poultry production in Africa: Adaptation options for broiler chickens. African handbook of climate change adaptation . Cham: Springer International Publishing. Alders, R. G. and Pym, R. A. E. 2009. Village poultry: still important to millions, eight thousand years after domestication. World's Poultry Science Journal, 65(2), 181–190. Alshelmani, M.I., Abdalla, E.A., Kaka, U. and Basit, M.A. 2021. Nontraditional feedstuffs as an alternative in poultry feed. Advances in Poultry Nutrition Research . IntechOpen. Batkowska, J., Brodacki, A., Zieba, G., Horbanczuk, O.J. and Lukaszewiez, M. 2015. Growth performance, carcass traits and physical properties of chicken meat as affected by genotype and production system. Institute of genetics and animal breeding polish academy of sciences. Archives of Animal Breeding, 58, 325–333. Castellini, C., Mugnai, C., Moscati, L., Mattioli, S., Guarino Amato, M., Cartoni Mancinelli, A. and Dal Bosco A. 2016. Adaptation to organic rearing system of eight different chicken genotypes: behaviour, welfare, and performance. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 15, 37–46. Dana, N. 2011. Breeding programs for indigenous chicken in Ethiopia. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University & Research, The Netherlands. Dessie, T., Taye, T., Dana, N., Ayalew, W. and Hanotte, O. 2011. Current state of knowledge on phenotypic characteristics of indigenous chickens in the tropics. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 67(03), 507–516. Etuk, E. B., Ifeduba, A. V., Okata, U. E., Chiaka, I., Okoli, I. C., Okeudo, N. J. and Moreki, J. C. 2012. Nutrient composition and feeding value of sorghum for livestock and poultry: Journal of Animal Science Advances, 2 (6), 510–524. Ferket, P. R. and Gernat, A. G. 2006. Factors that affect feed intake of meat birds. International Journal of Poultry Science, 5(10), 905–911. Gualtieri, M. and Rapaccini, S. 1990. Sorghum grain in poultry feeding. World's Poultry Science Journal, 46(3), 246–254. Khawaja, T., Khan, S.H., Mukhtar, N. and Parveen A. 2012. Comparative study of growth performance, meat quality and haematological parameters of Fayoumi, Rhode Island Red and their reciprocal crossbred chickens. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 11, e39. Li, L., Wang, H.H., Liu, S.Z. and Li, Y.X. 2011. Effects of different feeding methods on the production performance and fat deposition of Tibet chicken. Animal Husbandry and Feed Science, 32, 2–3. Li, Y., Luo, C., Wang, J. and Guo, F. 2017. Effects of different raising systems on growth performance, carcass, and meat quality of medium-growing chickens. Journal of Applied Animal Research, 45(1), 326–330. Mabelebele, M., Siwela, M., Gous, R.M. and Iji, P.A. 2015. Chemical composition and nutritive value of South African sorghum varieties as feed for broiler chickens. South African Journal of Animal Science, 45(2), 206–213. Magothe, T. M., Okeno, T. O., Muhuyi, W. B. and Kahi, A. K. 2012. Indigenous chicken production in Kenya: I. Current status. World’s Poultry Science Journal, 68(01), 119–132. Mancinelli, A.C., Menchetti, L., Birolo, M., Bittante, G., Chiattelli, D. and Castellini, C. 2023. Crossbreeding to improve local chicken breeds: predicting growth performance of the crosses using the Gompertz model and estimated heterosis. Poultry Science, 102 (8), 102783. Manuya, E. M., Ang’iyo, W. B. and Rachuonyo, H. A. 2020. Response to and cost effectiveness of Improved Kienyeji Chicken fed on Maize Substituted Sorghum-Based Rations. African Journal of Education, Science and Technology, 5(4), 185–198. May, J. D. and Lott, B. D. 2001. Relating weight gain and feed: gain of male and female broilers to rearing temperature. Poultry Science, 80(5), 581–584. Mcdonald, P., Edwards, R.A., Greenhalgh, J.G.D., Morgan, C.A., Sindeiv, L.A. and Wilkson, R.G. 2010. Animal nutrition (7th edition). Pearson Education Limited. Mekonnen, H., Mulatu, D., Kelay, B. and Berhan, T. 2009. Assessment of the nutritional status of indigenous scavenging chickens in Ada’a district, Ethiopia. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 42(1), 123–130. Mwalusanya, N.A., Katule, A.M., Mutayoba, S.K., Minga, U.M., Mtambo, M.M.A. and Olsen, J.E. 2002. Nutrient status of crop contents of rural scavenging local chickens in Tanzania. British Poultry Science, 43(1), 64–69. Ncobela, C.N. and Chimonyo, M. 2015. Potential of using non-conventional animal protein sources for sustainable intensification of scavenging village chickens: A review. Animal Feed Science and Technology, 208 , 1–11. Ncobela, C.N. and Chimonyo, M. 2016. Nutritional quality and amino acid composition of diets consumed by scavenging hens and cocks across seasons. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 48 , 769–777. Pousga, S., Boly, H., Lindberg, J.E. and Ogle, B. 2005. Scavenging pullets in Burkina Faso: Effect of season, location and breed on feed and nutrient intake. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 37, 623–634. Raphulu, T. 2019. Nutritional status, nutrient requirements and gastro-intestinal development of scavenging village chickens in the Vhembe district Municipality, Limpopo province. PhD Thesis, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Raphulu, T. and Jansen van Rensburg, C. 2018. Growth performance and digestive tract development of indigenous scavenging chickens under village management. The Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics, 119(1), 105–111. Raphulu, T., Jansen van Rensburg, C. and Van Ryssen, J.B.J. 2015. Assessing nutrient adequacy from the crop contents of free-ranging indigenous chickens in rural villages of the Venda region of South Africa. South African Journal of Animal Science, 45 (2), 143–152. Rashid, M.M., Islam, M.N., Roy, B.C., Jakobsen, K. and Lauridsen, C. 2004. Effect of dietary supplementation of energy and protein on production performance and egg quality of scavenging crossbred hens in rural areas under tropical conditions. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 16(8), 479–481. Rodrigues, I. and Choct, M. 2018. The foregut and its manipulation via feeding practices in the chicken. Poultry Science, 97(9), 3188–3206. Selle, P.H., Moss, A.F., Truong, H.H., Khoddami, A., Cadogan, D.J., Godwin, I.D. and Liu, S.Y. 2018. Outlook: Sorghum as a feed grain for Australian chicken-meat production. Animal Nutrition, 4(1), 17–30. Tao, Y. and Walker, J. 2000. Imaging and pattern recognition methods for feather sex separation of broiler chicks. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 43(2), 461–467. Yadav, S. and Jha, R. 2019. Strategies to modulate the intestinal microbiota and their effects on nutrient utilization, performance, and health of poultry. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology, 10(1), 1–11. Youssao, I. A. K., Alkoiret, I. T., Dahouda, M., Assogba, M. N., Idrissou, N. D., Kayang, B. B., Yapi-Gnaoré, C.V., Hospice, A., Houinsou, A.A., Ahounou, S., Tougan, U.P., Rognon, X. and Tixier-Boichart, M. 2012. Comparison of growth performance, carcass characteristics and meat quality of Benin indigenous chickens and Label Rouge (T55× SA51). African Journal of Biotechnology, 11(89), 15569–15579. Zindove, T. J., Bakare, A. G. and Iji, P. A. 2022. Indigenous chicken production in Fiji Islands: knowledge, constraints and opportunities. Animal Bioscience, 35(5), 778. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Under Review Version 1 posted Reviewers agreed at journal 29 Dec, 2023 Reviewers invited by journal 29 Dec, 2023 Editor assigned by journal 27 Dec, 2023 First submitted to journal 21 Dec, 2023 You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-3761670","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":264411718,"identity":"f07509c0-6f86-49b5-b202-0253e5354780","order_by":0,"name":"Lorenzo T. Berukilukilu","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Fiji National University","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Lorenzo","middleName":"T.","lastName":"Berukilukilu","suffix":""},{"id":264411719,"identity":"ceebdbbc-a819-482e-a6b0-58abf9ba11e9","order_by":1,"name":"Archibold G. Bakare","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Fiji National University","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Archibold","middleName":"G.","lastName":"Bakare","suffix":""},{"id":264411720,"identity":"d9cfa8f7-c24e-4c5a-93bb-e6724ed802d9","order_by":2,"name":"Paul A. Iji","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Fiji National University","correspondingAuthor":false,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Paul","middleName":"A.","lastName":"Iji","suffix":""},{"id":264411721,"identity":"e8505de7-9c20-484f-818d-669aea66fa60","order_by":3,"name":"Titus Jairus Zindove","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5358-5995","institution":"Lincoln University","correspondingAuthor":true,"submittingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Titus","middleName":"Jairus","lastName":"Zindove","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2023-12-16 04:39:49","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3761670/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3761670/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":49105206,"identity":"05dd378c-c816-4abf-b503-c523765774c1","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-03 07:23:51","extension":"jpg","order_by":1,"title":"Figure 1","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":42621,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAverage daily gain of local chicken and their cross with broilers under scavenging and indoor conventional systems\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"F1.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3761670/v1/aee501af372f7dcf779912e9.jpg"},{"id":49105515,"identity":"aa835e5b-0bb2-4a6b-a550-83f1bee391e9","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-03 07:31:51","extension":"jpg","order_by":2,"title":"Figure 2","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":54889,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eAverage daily gain of local chickens and their cross with broilers fed on sorghum plus kitchen waste and broiler grower diet.\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"F2.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3761670/v1/c57329c445d0957e5dc8ee41.jpg"},{"id":49105207,"identity":"c342a36f-4657-4675-9750-7f40cbd621ef","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-03 07:23:51","extension":"jpg","order_by":3,"title":"Figure 3","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"figure","size":35340,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"\u003cp\u003eLiveweight a) local x broiler crossbred chickens fed on sorghum + kitchen waste and broiler grower diet over a period of 8 weeks b) local x broiler crossbred chickens under indoor conventional and scavenging systems\u003c/p\u003e","description":"","filename":"F3.jpg","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3761670/v1/9b08bef98df1bd195f15c084.jpg"},{"id":49105637,"identity":"dd23b88d-51cf-4b76-b33d-3b99d9b28527","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2024-01-03 07:39:51","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":398164,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-3761670/v1/cc30ed60-10ad-4e7d-85b3-44c4f7d03817.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"","formattedTitle":"Nutritional status and growth performance of Fijian local chickens and their crosses with broilers under different production systems","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eLocal chickens, which are also commonly referred to as indigenous chickens, are regaining their popularity in many regions due to appreciation of their desirable traits such as adaptability to low input scavenging production systems and highly desirable meat and eggs (Dessie et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). The local chickens, however, are characterized by slow growth rates (Batkowska et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e) which is one of the biggest concerns of most chicken producers. In quest of optimizing productivity under free range conditions, there has been a general drive towards promotion of crossbreeding between the local and fast-growing chickens such as broilers (Dana, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). Although there is abundant literature on the characteristics of both local and improved chickens under different production systems (Batkowska et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR4\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Castellini et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), their crossbreds are not well characterized.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocal chickens and fast-growing improved breeds have distinguished nutritional status under different production systems due to their differences in scavenging abilities, digestive capabilities, and environmental requirements (Mekonnen et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e). With most poultry improvement programs promoting the use of crosses between local chickens and fast-growing improved breeds, it is important to determine how they perform under different production systems. Besides adaptability and growth performance, the nutritional status of chickens under any production system is of paramount importance. The type of nutrients that a chicken consumes, and their proportions determines growth performance, health status and the quality of its meat (Ferket et al., 2006).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFor scavenging systems, nutritional composition of crop and gut contents can be one of the ways to obtain information about nutrient intake (Raphulu and Jansen van Rensburg, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e; Yadav et al., 2019). The nutrient intake of scavenging chickens depends on their scavenging ability and availability of supplements (Magothe et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR15\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e). Commonly used supplements for scavenging systems include grains such as sorghum and kitchen waste (Etuk et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR8\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Manuya et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Although the scavenging ability of many local chicken breeds, as denoted by nutrient intake, has been extensively studied (Mwalusanya et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e; Pousga et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Raphulu, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e), such studies are limited for crossbreeds between local chickens and fast-growing commercial breeds. Data on the performance of the crossbreds fed on common supplements such as sorghum and kitchen waste are also scanty.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eIn attempt to reduce pressure on maize, recent poultry improvement programs are targeting the efficient use alternative energy sources such as sorghum for enclosed production systems (Gualtieri et al., 1990; Alders et al., 2009). Local chickens have been reported to efficiently digest whole sorghum when under scavenging systems whilst sorghum-based diets are associated with inferior broiler performance under both scavenging and enclosed systems (Selle et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR30\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). To our knowledge, there is very little, if any, literature on performance of crosses between broilers and local breeds supplemented with and/or fed on sorghum-based diets under any production system.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e Since there is a paucity of information on the nutrient intake and growth performance of local chickens x broilers crossbreds despite their importance, the present study was undertaken to compare their performance to that of local chickens under different production systems. Such data will go a long way to evaluate the potential for genetic improvement of the productive efficiency of the local chickens through crossbreeding them with fast growing improved breeds whilst maintaining their valuable desirable properties such as good scavenging ability and utilization of lowly digestible feed sources. It was hypothesized that local chickens x broilers crossbreds\u0026rsquo; crop and gizzard nutritional content and growth performance is higher than that of local chickens under both the scavenging and enclosed production systems.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Materials and methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStudy site\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe study was contacted at the Fiji National University (FNU) crop farm in Koronivia. Koronivia is situated in Naitasiri district located at 18\u0026deg;0243.1 S and 178\u0026deg;3150.7 E and 11m above sea level (Zindove et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). Naitasiri district is located on Fiji\u0026rsquo;s largest island, Viti Levu. It experiences a tropical climate characterized by rainfall throughout the year, totaling about 3500 mm (Zindove et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). The average temperature is around 27\u0026deg;C. The plots used for the experiment were previously used for planting cassava, maize, and taro. The plots currently have scattered coconut trees. There are also two contour ridges which are filled with still water throughout the year. The common grass species growing on the plots is Para grass (\u003cem\u003eBrachiaria mutica\u003c/em\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec4\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eExperimental chickens\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eA total of 500 eggs from local scavenging chickens purchased from households in Ra, Nadroga-Navosa and Ba provinces were used in this experiment. The eggs were incubated until hatching at the FNU livestock farm. A total of 323 eggs hatched. A total of 500 local chicken x broiler F1crossbred day-old chicks were also purchased from a chicken farm in Ba province, Fiji and were reared at the FNU livestock farm. The two batches of chicks were kept inside two separate brooders at 32\u0026ordm;C from day 1 to day 28 (4 weeks). The FNU livestock farm chicken house contains floors covered with about 5 cm thick layer of wood shavings and well-ventilated cages. A conventional starter diet and water were provided ad libitum until the chickens were four weeks old.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec5\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eTreatments and experimental design\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eChickens were moved to the experimental site at the FNU crop farm at the start of week 5. They were sexed by looking at body, comb, and wattles sizes. Those with enlarged combs and wattles were confirmed as male (Tao et al., 2000). From the total flock of each of the chicken types (local and local x broiler crossbreds), 96 males and 96 females were selected randomly to be used in the experiment. The chickens were then allocated to 4 outdoor free-range pens and 4 indoor conventional system pens. For the outdoor free-range pens, two pens were allocated 12 cages each: 6 with male local chickens and the other 6 with male local x broiler crossbreds. The other two pens were also allocated 12 cages each: 6 with female local chickens and the other 6 with female local x broiler crossbreds. There were 4 chickens of the same sex and chicken type in each cage. Each cage represented an experimental unit. Two supplementary diets, sorghum\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;kitchen waste and broiler commercial grower diet, were then randomly allocated to pens with male chickens (one diet per pen). The same diets were also randomly allocated to the two pens with female chickens. The same design was repeated in the 4 pens in the indoor conventional system. Table\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e below illustrates the experimental design used. Each of the chickens was tagged using numbered chicken leg rings. Cages were also labeled with corresponding numbers of the allocated chickens. The free-range pens measured 900m\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e each and were demarcated by a chain link fence reinforced by wooden poles. There was forage grass, crop residues and coconut waste inside the pens.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab1\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 1\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLayout of the experimental design\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"4\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScavenging system\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e(Outdoor free-range pens)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndoor conventional system pens\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSorghum\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;kitchen waste\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMales\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocal chicken\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6 cages, 4 chickens in each cage\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocal x broiler Crossbred\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;6 cages, 4 chickens in each cage\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMales\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSorghum\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;kitchen waste\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemales\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemales\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBroiler grower diet\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMales\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMales\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBroiler grower diet\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eFemales\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMales\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"4\"\u003e\u003cem\u003eEach cage represents an experimental unit\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe cages were wooden, measuring 2.5 x 2 x 1.5 m. The cages, with slatted floors, were elevated 1m above the ground surface and fitted with wire mesh doors. For the scavenging system, the doors were left open during the day and the chickens were enclosed at night. A standard plastic drinker was placed near each cage to provide clean water. For the conventional production system, cages with the same design were used and placed in a chicken house. The chickens were enclosed throughout the experiment.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eKitchen waste was collected from the university canteens and local restaurants at the end of every day during the experiment. It was mixed and ground using a NAIZEA electric dry-wet grinder. Sorghum grown at FNU crop farm was used as whole grain. For the scavenging system, 250 grams of sorghum plus 250 grams of ground kitchen waste were supplemented per cage every day for those on the sorghum plus kitchen waste diet. A total of 500 grams of broiler grower diet were supplemented per cage for those on broiler grower diet. Chickens in the conventional system were fed ad libitum as per experimental design.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec6\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eGrowth performance\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eAt the start of the experiment, all the chickens were weighed to determine the initial average weight. Body weight changes were determined by measuring live weight for chickens in each cage at the end of every week during the experiment. To determine the average weight of chickens in each cage, the chickens were put together in the crate and the weight of the crate with chickens was measured using a digital electronic scale. The weight of the crate was then subtracted from the total weight and divided by four to get the average weight of chickens. Weekly average daily gain (ADG g/bird/day) of the chickens was obtained by subtracting the initial average weight per cage from the final average weight per cage and then dividing by 7 days.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec7\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eSlaughtering of chickens and sample collection\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eEight weeks after the experiment commenced, all the chickens were slaughtered by cervical dislocation. The chickens were slaughtered between 1300hs and 1600 hours. All the contents in crops and gizzards were collected and put into plastic bags within 20 mins of slaughtering. The samples of the crops and gizzards contents were weighed and kept at 4\u0026ordm;C inside the refrigerator.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eChemical analyses\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eFreeze-dried samples of the crops and gizzards contents were sent to the Fiji Agricultural Chemistry Laboratory at Koronivia Research Station for chemical analyses. Procedures described by AOAC were used to determine crude protein (CP) (AOAC official method 990.03), crude fat (AOAC official method 920.39), calcium (AOAC official method 935.13), sodium (ISO official method 6869), iron (AOAC official method 968.08), magnesium (AOAC official method 968.08), manganese (AOAC official method 968.08), copper (AOAC official method 968.08), zinc (AOAC official method 968.08), moisture (AOAC official method 930.15) and gross energy were analyzed using a bomb calorimeter (Par Instrument Co., Moline, IL) for crops and gizzards contents. All analyses were performed in duplicate.\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv id=\"Sec9\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e \u003ch2\u003eStatistical analyses\u003c/h2\u003e \u003cp\u003eThe effect of the production system, sex, feed regimen and chicken type on growth performance and chemical properties of the crops and gizzards contents was determined using the PROC GLM of SAS (2012). The following model was used: Y\u003csub\u003eijklm\u003c/sub\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;\u0026micro;\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;P\u003csub\u003ei\u003c/sub\u003e + C\u003csub\u003ej\u003c/sub\u003e + F\u003csub\u003ek\u003c/sub\u003e + S\u003csub\u003el\u003c/sub\u003e + (CxP)\u003csub\u003eij\u003c/sub\u003e + (FxC)\u003csub\u003ejk\u003c/sub\u003e+ E\u003csub\u003eijklm\u003c/sub\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eWhere:\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eY\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;average daily weight gain (AGD) and chemical properties of the crops and gizzards contents (moisture, crude protein, calcium, crude fat, phosphorus, magnesium, sodium, iron, manganese, copper and zinc levels in the crops and gizzards contents),\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e\u0026micro;\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;overall mean,\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eP\u003csub\u003ei=\u003c/sub\u003e effect of i\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e production system (indoor conventional system; scavenging system),\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eC\u003csub\u003ej\u003c/sub\u003e=effect of j\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e chicken type (local chickens; local chickens x broiler crossbreds),\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eF\u003csub\u003ek\u003c/sub\u003e=effect of k\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e feed regimen (sorghum\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;kitchen waste; broiler grower diet),\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eS\u003csub\u003el\u003c/sub\u003e = effect of l\u003csup\u003eth\u003c/sup\u003e sex (male, female),\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eC x P\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;interaction between production system and chicken type,\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eF x C\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;interaction between feed regimen and chicken type,\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eE\u003csub\u003eijklm\u003c/sub\u003e= random error.\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eAll first and second-order interactions were tested. Only significant interactions were included in the final model. Mean separation was performed using the LSMEANS using the PDIFF option (SAS, 2012).\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e shows the interaction of production system and chicken type on the nutrient and mineral composition of crop and gizzards contents. The moisture content of the crop and gizzard contents was lower under indoor conventional system compared the scavenging system (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Under the scavenging system, local chickens had crops and gizzards contents with more moisture content than that from their crosses with broilers (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05) whilst there was no difference for those under the indoor conventional system (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). The crop and gizzard contents from local chickens had the same crude protein and crude fat as their crosses with broilers under both systems (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Crude fat content in crop and gizzard contents was higher under the scavenging system than under the indoor conventional system (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). The energy content of crop and gizzard contents from scavenging chickens was lower than that from chickens under indoor conventional system (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Chickens of the same type had high iron content in their crops and gizzards contents under scavenging system than the conventional system (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Local chickens under the conventional system had lower manganese and zinc in crops and gizzards contents than the rest of the chickens (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab2\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 2\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInteraction between production system and chicken type on nutrient and mineral composition of crops and gizzards contents\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eScavenging system\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"4\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIndoor conventional system\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNutrient composition\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocal x broiler crossbred\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocal chicken\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocal x broiler crossbred\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c7\" namest=\"c6\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocal chicken\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"1\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c8\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoisture (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.67\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e13.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.77\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.04\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e9.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.50\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ecrude protein (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.78\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e30.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.81\u003csup\u003eab\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28.7\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.72\u003csup\u003eab\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.87\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCrude fat (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e12.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.18\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;5.98\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;6.93\u003csup\u003eab\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.59\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnergy (MJ/kg)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.55\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e16.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.47\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e20.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.78\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e25.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.63\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCalcium (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.10\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.19\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.37\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.37\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhosphorus (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.06\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.20\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.17\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePotassium (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.09\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.15\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.13\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.14\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMagnesium (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.02\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.03\u003csup\u003eab\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.02\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.03\u003csup\u003ebc\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSodium (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.02\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.04\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.65\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIron (mg/kg)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1619.38\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;353.75\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e655.7\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;155.25\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e621.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;160.40\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e156.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;38.01\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eManganese (mg/kg)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e178.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;19.71\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e120.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;28.83\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e178\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;43.49\u003csup\u003eab\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e127.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;43.69\u003csup\u003eab\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCopper (mg/kg)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e45\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;7.38\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e49\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;12.63\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e87\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;42.26\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e99.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;68.54\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eZinc (mg/kg)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e323.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;59.52\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e280.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;62.80\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c6\" namest=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e275.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;55.24\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e218.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;42.05\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003ctfoot\u003e \u003ctr\u003e\u003ctd colspan=\"8\"\u003e\u003csup\u003eab\u003c/sup\u003e Means with different superscripts, within a row, are different (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05)\u003c/td\u003e\u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tfoot\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eTable\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Tab3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003e shows the interaction of feed regimen and chicken type on the nutrient composition of crops and gizzards contents. Local chickens fed sorghum plus kitchen waste had the highest energy content in their crops and gizzards contents when compared to local chickens fed on broiler grower diet and crossbreds fed on both feed regimens (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Irrespective of chicken type, chickens fed on sorghum and kitchen waste had lower Cu, Zn, Ca and P levels in their crops and gizzards contents than those fed on broiler grower diets (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05).\u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"gridtable\"\u003e\u003ctable float=\"Yes\" id=\"Tab3\" border=\"1\"\u003e \u003ccaption language=\"En\"\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionNumber\"\u003eTable 3\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv class=\"CaptionContent\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eInteraction between feed regimen and chicken type on nutrient and mineral composition of the crops and gizzards contents \u003csup\u003eab\u003c/sup\u003e Means with different superscripts, within a row, are different (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/div\u003e \u003c/caption\u003e \u003ccolgroup cols=\"8\"\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c1\" colnum=\"1\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c2\" colnum=\"2\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c3\" colnum=\"3\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c4\" colnum=\"4\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c5\" colnum=\"5\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c6\" colnum=\"6\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c7\" colnum=\"7\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cdiv align=\"left\" class=\"colspec\" colname=\"c8\" colnum=\"8\"\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003cthead\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"3\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSorghum plus kitchen waste\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/th\u003e \u003cth align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c8\" namest=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eBroiler grower diet\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/th\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/thead\u003e \u003ctbody\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eNutrient composition\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c4\" namest=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocal x broiler crossbred\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c5\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocal chicken\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocal x broiler crossbred\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eLocal chicken\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMoisture (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.0\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.99\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.87\u003csup\u003eab\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e10.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.86\u003csup\u003eab\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.9\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.77\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCrude protein (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e28.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.53\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.40\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e29.9\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.05\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e29.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;2.88\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCrude fat (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.55\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e14.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.69\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e17.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;6.75\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e11.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.64\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eEnergy (MJ/kg)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18.9\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.92\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e27.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.32\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e18.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.89\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e19.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;1.81\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCalcium (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.7\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.22\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.13\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.28\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.26\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePhosphorus (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.05\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.9\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.08\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.15\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.15\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003ePotassium (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.10\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.14\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.11\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.09\u003csup\u003eab\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eMagnesium (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.02\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.03\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.025\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.03\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eSodium (%)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.7\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.16\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.06\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1.2\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.66\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e0.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;0.02\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eIron (mg/kg)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e1297.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;406.22\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e558.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;182.13\u003csup\u003ebc\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e943.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;219.13\u003csup\u003eab\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e420.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;156.42\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eManganese (mg/kg)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e143.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;42.16\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e52.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;16.15\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e213.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;12.38\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e194.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;26.69\u003csup\u003eab\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eCopper (mg/kg)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e74.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;43.12\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e24.4\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;4.92\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e57.3\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;9.25\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e121.5\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;65.59\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003ctr\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c1\"\u003e \u003cp\u003eZinc (mg/kg)\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c2\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c3\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e168.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;18.76\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colspan=\"2\" nameend=\"c5\" namest=\"c4\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e155.1\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;34.02\u003csup\u003ea\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c6\"\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c7\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e429.8\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;39.26\u003csup\u003ec\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003ctd align=\"left\" colname=\"c8\"\u003e \u003cp\u003e334.6\u0026thinsp;\u0026plusmn;\u0026thinsp;36.97\u003csup\u003eb\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e \u003c/td\u003e \u003c/tr\u003e \u003c/tbody\u003e \u003c/colgroup\u003e \u003c/table\u003e\u003c/div\u003e \u003c/p\u003e \u003cp\u003eFigure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig1\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e1\u003c/span\u003e shows the growth performance of local chickens and their crosses with broilers under different production systems. Local chickens and their crosses with broilers had higher average daily weight gain under the scavenging system than the indoor production system (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Local chickens x broiler crossbreds had higher average daily gain than local chickens under the indoor conventional system and vice versa under the scavenging system (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Figure\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig2\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e2\u003c/span\u003e shows the growth performance of local chickens and their crosses with broilers fed different feed regimens. For both chicken types, the average daily weight gain of chickens fed on broiler grower feed was higher than those on sorghum plus kitchen waste (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). When on the same feed regimen, local chickens and their crosses with broilers had the same growth rates (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Local x broiler crossbred chickens had higher liveweights from week 1 to 8 when fed on broiler growers than when fed on sorghum\u0026thinsp;+\u0026thinsp;kitchen waste diet (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003ea). Local x broiler crossbred chickens under the scavenging system had higher liveweights than those in indoor conventional system from week 1 to week8 (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05; Fig.\u0026nbsp;\u003cspan refid=\"Fig3\" class=\"InternalRef\"\u003e3\u003c/span\u003eb).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThere is increasing interest in combining the hardiness of local chickens with the feed efficiency of\u0026nbsp;fast-growing improved breeds through crossbreeding.\u0026nbsp;As such, it is important to understand the performance of the crossbreds between local and fast-growing improved chickens under different production systems. \u0026nbsp;The observed differences in moisture content in\u0026nbsp;gizzard and crop contents\u0026nbsp;of scavenging and non-scavenging chickens can be due to differences in diet, exercise, and environmental conditions. In tropical climates, scavenging\u0026nbsp;chickens consume more water than those indoors because they are exposed to high temperatures and exercise more as they scavenge (Abioja and Abiona, 2021).\u0026nbsp;Scavenging chickens also consume feed resources such as a fresh plant leaves and grass which have high water content (Ncobela and Chimonyo, 2015). \u0026nbsp;The high moisture content can therefore be ascribed to high water intake of scavenging chickens coupled with low water loss due to humid conditions. High moisture content in the gizzard and crop contents\u0026nbsp;may promote digestive activities in the gastrointestinal tract of the chickens (Rodrigues and Choct, 2018).\u0026nbsp;The finding that local chickens had gizzard and crop contents with more moisture content than their crosses with broilers might be an indication of genotype-based physiological differences among scavenging chickens as an adaption to the production systems. Further studies on the physiological and behavioural factors behind the observed differences in moisture content of the gizzard and crop contents are necessary.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eHigh fat content in gizzard and crop contents of scavenging chickens resonated with Pousga et al. (2005) and Mwalusanya et al. (2010) who argued that fat intake by scavenging chickens can be high in tropical areas due to abundance of fat sources such as insects and worms among others for the scavenging chickens. The same reason can be tributed to the high iron content in gizzard and crop contents for scavenging chickens than those kept indoors. \u0026nbsp;Low energy content in gizzard and crop contents of scavenging chickens as compared to those under indoor systems might be an indication that the scavenging feed resource base had low energy sources. Energy has been reported as a major limiting nutrient for scavenging chickens (Rashid et al., 2004; Ncobela and Chimonyo, 2016). Scavenging chickens, therefore, requires energy supplementation. The energy, fat and iron intake, however, also depends on the scavenging ability of the chickens (Ncobela and Chimonyo, 2016). The fact that crosses between local chickens and broilers herein had gizzard and crop contents with the same iron, energy, and fat content as that from local chickens shows that they have the similar scavenging abilities for iron, energy, and fat sources. In agreement to findings herein, Raphulu et al. (2015) reported low concentrations of trace elements in crop contents of scavenging local chickens. The finding that crosses between local chickens and broilers had more Mn and Zinc than local chickens could be an indication that they ingest more soil which is the main source for trace elements for scavenging chickens (Raphulu et al., 2015). \u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe finding that energy content in gizzard and crop contents of local chickens fed sorghum plus kitchen waste was higher than broilers x local chickens crossbreds on the same diet could because of the variability in composition of kitchen waste and, thus nutrient content. One of the challenges for scavenging chicken systems is the large daily and seasonal variability in nutritional content of feed sources such as kitchen waste (Alshelmani et al., 2021). \u0026nbsp;The feed sources for scavenging systems can, sometimes, have higher energy content than conventional feed sources (Raphulu, 2019) as observed in this study were gizzard and crop contents from local chickens fed on kitchen waste plus sorghum diet had more energy content than those fed on broiler diets. This is, however, not consistent, and the ability to adapt the variability in nutrient content of the feed sources is a desirable characteristic for scavenging chickens. \u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe finding that trace elements such as Cu, Zn, Ca and P were low in gizzard and crop contents of chickens fed on kitchen waste and sorghum than those fed on broiler growers\u0026rsquo; diet was expected. \u0026nbsp;Although sorghum grain is a rich source of minerals including magnesium zinc and calcium (Mabelebele et al, 2015), a sorghum plus kitchen waste only diet cannot meet the chickens\u0026rsquo; Cu, Zn, Ca and P requirements as it cannot match the levels in broiler growers\u0026rsquo; diet. This might also be part of the explanation of why chickens fed on growers had higher growth rates and liveweights than those on sorghum plus kitchen waste.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe finding that both local chickens and their crossbreds with broilers had higher growth rates and liveweights under the scavenging systems contradicts literature. Li et al. (2017) found that the growth performance of medium-growing chickens was higher under cage and indoor-floor systems than the free-range system. Li et al. (2011) also found that the performance of Chinese local chickens under scavenging systems was lower than under indoor systems. Limited feed resource base, exposure heat and increased exercise whilst scavenging have been attributed as the major causes of poor growth performance of scavenging chickens (Ncobela and Chimonyo, 2016). \u0026nbsp;The observed differences might be due to differences in shed provision in form of coconut trees in the pens, supplementation and a rich feed resources base found under tropical conditions.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe observed growth performance differences between local chickens and their crossbreds with broilers under the two production systems are more likely to be genetic. \u0026nbsp;Youssao et al. (2012) suggested that differences in growth performance of chickens under the same production system can be attributed to differences in their genetic make-up. At can, therefore, be insinuated that local chickens in this study grow better than their crosses with broilers under the scavenging system because they are more suited to the system whilst the crosses do better than local chickens under indoor systems. \u0026nbsp;The finding that local chickens and their crosses with broilers had the same growth rates when fed on the same feed regimen was unexpected. Khawaja et al. (2012), Castellini et al. (2016) and Mancinelli et al. (2023) reported that crossbreds between fast-growing and hardy slow-growing chickens have better growth performance than their purebred counterparts. The unexpected findings warrant further exploration.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eCrosses between local chickens and broilers have the similar scavenging abilities as denoted the same energy and fat content in their crop and gizzard contents. The crosses between local chickens and broilers had high levels for trace elements in their crop and gizzard contents further indicating their scavenging abilities. Indoor chickens fed on kitchen waste plus sorghum diet have low levels of trace elements such as Cu, Zn, Ca, and P. Although crosses between local chickens and broilers grew better local chickens under indoor systems but not scavenging systems, their growth performance was better under scavenging systems than indoor systems. It can be concluded that crossbreds between local chickens and broilers matches the scavenging abilities of the local chickens but not their growth performance under scavenging systems. Further studies on feed intake and nutrient digestion of the crossbreds between local chickens and broilers are necessary.\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eAuthor contribution\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eLorenzo Tiko Berukilukilu: study conception and design, data collection, analysis, and drafting the first version of the manuscript.\u0026nbsp;Archibold Garikayi Bakare: study conception and design, data analysis, manuscript editing. Paul Ade Iji: study conception and design, manuscript editing. Titus Jairus Zindove: study conception and design, data analysis, manuscript editing.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eFunding\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eThe study was funded by Fiji National University research office for (Grant number: GS005)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eData availability\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eData will be made available on request.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eEthics approval\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eThe handling and usage of animals during the experiment were approved by the Fiji National University Animal Ethics Committee (FNU-AREC-22-002)\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eConsent for publication\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e All authors revised and approved the final manuscript.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eConflict of interest\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003eThe authors declare no competing interests.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAbioja, M.O. and Abiona, J.A. 2021. Impacts of climate change to poultry production in Africa: Adaptation options for broiler chickens. \u003cem\u003eAfrican handbook of climate change adaptation\u003c/em\u003e. Cham: Springer International Publishing.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlders, R. G. and Pym, R. A. E. 2009. Village poultry: still important to millions, eight thousand years after domestication. World's Poultry Science Journal, 65(2), 181\u0026ndash;190.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eAlshelmani, M.I., Abdalla, E.A., Kaka, U. and Basit, M.A. 2021. Nontraditional feedstuffs as an alternative in poultry feed. \u003cem\u003eAdvances in Poultry Nutrition Research\u003c/em\u003e. IntechOpen.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eBatkowska, J., Brodacki, A., Zieba, G., Horbanczuk, O.J. and Lukaszewiez, M. 2015. Growth performance, carcass traits and physical properties of chicken meat as affected by genotype and production system. Institute of genetics and animal breeding polish academy of sciences. Archives of Animal Breeding, 58, 325\u0026ndash;333.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eCastellini, C., Mugnai, C., Moscati, L., Mattioli, S., Guarino Amato, M., Cartoni Mancinelli, A. and Dal Bosco A. 2016. Adaptation to organic rearing system of eight different chicken genotypes: behaviour, welfare, and performance. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 15, 37\u0026ndash;46.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDana, N. 2011. Breeding programs for indigenous chicken in Ethiopia. PhD Thesis, Wageningen University \u0026amp; Research, The Netherlands.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eDessie, T., Taye, T., Dana, N., Ayalew, W. and Hanotte, O. 2011. Current state of knowledge on phenotypic characteristics of indigenous chickens in the tropics. World\u0026rsquo;s Poultry Science Journal, 67(03), 507\u0026ndash;516.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eEtuk, E. B., Ifeduba, A. V., Okata, U. E., Chiaka, I., Okoli, I. C., Okeudo, N. J. and Moreki, J. C. 2012. Nutrient composition and feeding value of sorghum for livestock and poultry: Journal of Animal Science Advances, \u003cem\u003e2\u003c/em\u003e(6), 510\u0026ndash;524.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eFerket, P. R. and Gernat, A. G. 2006. Factors that affect feed intake of meat birds. International Journal of Poultry Science, 5(10), 905\u0026ndash;911.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eGualtieri, M. and Rapaccini, S. 1990. Sorghum grain in poultry feeding. World's Poultry Science Journal, 46(3), 246\u0026ndash;254.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eKhawaja, T., Khan, S.H., Mukhtar, N. and Parveen A. 2012. Comparative study of growth performance, meat quality and haematological parameters of Fayoumi, Rhode Island Red and their reciprocal crossbred chickens. Italian Journal of Animal Science, 11, e39.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi, L., Wang, H.H., Liu, S.Z. and Li, Y.X. 2011. Effects of different feeding methods on the production performance and fat deposition of Tibet chicken. Animal Husbandry and Feed Science, 32, 2\u0026ndash;3.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eLi, Y., Luo, C., Wang, J. and Guo, F. 2017. Effects of different raising systems on growth performance, carcass, and meat quality of medium-growing chickens. Journal of Applied Animal Research, 45(1), 326\u0026ndash;330.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMabelebele, M., Siwela, M., Gous, R.M. and Iji, P.A. 2015. Chemical composition and nutritive value of South African sorghum varieties as feed for broiler chickens. South African Journal of Animal Science, 45(2), 206\u0026ndash;213.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMagothe, T. M., Okeno, T. O., Muhuyi, W. B. and Kahi, A. K. 2012. Indigenous chicken production in Kenya: I. Current status. World\u0026rsquo;s Poultry Science Journal, 68(01), 119\u0026ndash;132.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMancinelli, A.C., Menchetti, L., Birolo, M., Bittante, G., Chiattelli, D. and Castellini, C. 2023. Crossbreeding to improve local chicken breeds: predicting growth performance of the crosses using the Gompertz model and estimated heterosis. Poultry Science, \u003cem\u003e102\u003c/em\u003e(8), 102783.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eManuya, E. M., Ang\u0026rsquo;iyo, W. B. and Rachuonyo, H. A. 2020. Response to and cost effectiveness of Improved Kienyeji Chicken fed on Maize Substituted Sorghum-Based Rations. African Journal of Education, Science and Technology, 5(4), 185\u0026ndash;198.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMay, J. D. and Lott, B. D. 2001. Relating weight gain and feed: gain of male and female broilers to rearing temperature. Poultry Science, 80(5), 581\u0026ndash;584.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMcdonald, P., Edwards, R.A., Greenhalgh, J.G.D., Morgan, C.A., Sindeiv, L.A. and Wilkson, R.G. 2010. Animal nutrition (7th edition). Pearson Education Limited.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMekonnen, H., Mulatu, D., Kelay, B. and Berhan, T. 2009. Assessment of the nutritional status of indigenous scavenging chickens in Ada\u0026rsquo;a district, Ethiopia. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 42(1), 123\u0026ndash;130.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eMwalusanya, N.A., Katule, A.M., Mutayoba, S.K., Minga, U.M., Mtambo, M.M.A. and Olsen, J.E. 2002. Nutrient status of crop contents of rural scavenging local chickens in Tanzania. British Poultry Science, 43(1), 64\u0026ndash;69.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNcobela, C.N. and Chimonyo, M. 2015. Potential of using non-conventional animal protein sources for sustainable intensification of scavenging village chickens: A review. Animal Feed Science and Technology, \u003cem\u003e208\u003c/em\u003e, 1\u0026ndash;11.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eNcobela, C.N. and Chimonyo, M. 2016. Nutritional quality and amino acid composition of diets consumed by scavenging hens and cocks across seasons. Tropical Animal Health and Production, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e, 769\u0026ndash;777.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003ePousga, S., Boly, H., Lindberg, J.E. and Ogle, B. 2005. Scavenging pullets in Burkina Faso: Effect of season, location and breed on feed and nutrient intake. Tropical Animal Health and Production, 37, 623\u0026ndash;634.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRaphulu, T. 2019. Nutritional status, nutrient requirements and gastro-intestinal development of scavenging village chickens in the Vhembe district Municipality, Limpopo province. PhD Thesis, University of Pretoria, South Africa.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRaphulu, T. and Jansen van Rensburg, C. 2018. Growth performance and digestive tract development of indigenous scavenging chickens under village management. The Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics, 119(1), 105\u0026ndash;111.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRaphulu, T., Jansen van Rensburg, C. and Van Ryssen, J.B.J. 2015. Assessing nutrient adequacy from the crop contents of free-ranging indigenous chickens in rural villages of the Venda region of South Africa. South African Journal of Animal Science, \u003cem\u003e45\u003c/em\u003e(2), 143\u0026ndash;152.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRashid, M.M., Islam, M.N., Roy, B.C., Jakobsen, K. and Lauridsen, C. 2004. Effect of dietary supplementation of energy and protein on production performance and egg quality of scavenging crossbred hens in rural areas under tropical conditions. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 16(8), 479\u0026ndash;481.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eRodrigues, I. and Choct, M. 2018. The foregut and its manipulation via feeding practices in the chicken. Poultry Science, 97(9), 3188\u0026ndash;3206.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eSelle, P.H., Moss, A.F., Truong, H.H., Khoddami, A., Cadogan, D.J., Godwin, I.D. and Liu, S.Y. 2018. Outlook: Sorghum as a feed grain for Australian chicken-meat production. Animal Nutrition, 4(1), 17\u0026ndash;30.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eTao, Y. and Walker, J. 2000. Imaging and pattern recognition methods for feather sex separation of broiler chicks. Transactions of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 43(2), 461\u0026ndash;467.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYadav, S. and Jha, R. 2019. Strategies to modulate the intestinal microbiota and their effects on nutrient utilization, performance, and health of poultry. Journal of Animal Science and Biotechnology, 10(1), 1\u0026ndash;11.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eYoussao, I. A. K., Alkoiret, I. T., Dahouda, M., Assogba, M. N., Idrissou, N. D., Kayang, B. B., Yapi-Gnaor\u0026eacute;, C.V., Hospice, A., Houinsou, A.A., Ahounou, S., Tougan, U.P., Rognon, X. and Tixier-Boichart, M. 2012. Comparison of growth performance, carcass characteristics and meat quality of Benin indigenous chickens and Label Rouge (T55\u0026times; SA51). African Journal of Biotechnology, 11(89), 15569\u0026ndash;15579.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e \u003cli\u003e\u003cspan\u003eZindove, T. J., Bakare, A. G. and Iji, P. A. 2022. Indigenous chicken production in Fiji Islands: knowledge, constraints and opportunities. Animal Bioscience, 35(5), 778.\u003c/span\u003e\u003c/li\u003e\u003c/ol\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":false,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":true,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":true,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"tropical-animal-health-and-production","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"trop","sideBox":"Learn more about [Tropical Animal Health and Production](https://www.springer.com/journal/11250)","snPcode":"11250","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/11250/3","title":"Tropical Animal Health and Production","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false},"keywords":"Local chickens, crossbreeding, production systems, growth performance, nutrient intake","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3761670/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-3761670/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003e The study compared nutrient content intake and growth performance of local chickens and local x broilers crossbreds under scavenging and indoor conventional systems. A total of 48 male and 48 female chickens for each of the two chicken types were allocated to four outdoor free-range pens and allowed to scavenge whilst being supplemented with sorghum plus kitchen waste and broilers growers from week 5 to week 13 of age. The same design was repeated on indoor pens with the chickens being fed the same diets without scavenging. The crops and gizzards contents from local chickens had the same crude protein and crude fat as their crosses with broilers under both systems (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). The energy content of crop and gizzard contents from scavenging chickens was lower than that from chickens under indoor conventional system (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Chickens of the same type had high iron content in their crops and gizzards contents under scavenging system than the conventional system (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Local chickens and their crosses with broilers had higher growth rates under the scavenging system than the indoor production system (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026lt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Local chickens and their crosses with broilers had the same growth rates when fed the same diet (P\u0026thinsp;\u0026gt;\u0026thinsp;0.05). Crossbreds between local chickens and broilers matches the scavenging abilities of the local chickens but have lower growth rates under scavenging systems.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Nutritional status and growth performance of Fijian local chickens and their crosses with broilers under different production systems","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2024-01-03 07:23:47","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-3761670/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0},{"type":"reviewerAgreed","content":"","date":"2023-12-29T18:58:41+00:00","index":0,"fulltext":""},{"type":"reviewersInvited","content":"","date":"2023-12-29T18:56:34+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"editorAssigned","content":"","date":"2023-12-27T07:54:56+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""},{"type":"submitted","content":"Tropical Animal Health and Production","date":"2023-12-21T17:56:03+00:00","index":"","fulltext":""}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"tropical-animal-health-and-production","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":false,"externalIdentity":"trop","sideBox":"Learn more about [Tropical Animal Health and Production](https://www.springer.com/journal/11250)","snPcode":"11250","submissionUrl":"https://submission.nature.com/new-submission/11250/3","title":"Tropical Animal Health and Production","twitterHandle":"","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":true,"editorialSystem":"em","reportingPortfolio":"Springer Hybrid","inReviewEnabled":true,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":false}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"61b7c63d-6613-4b35-afee-77c0740faeb1","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 3rd, 2024","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"under-review","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2024-04-09T05:50:48+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2024-01-03 07:23:47","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-3761670","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-3761670","identity":"rs-3761670","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"7rjqhiLT3MXkJMwkYKINL","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}