Subscribe Now Subscribe Today
Research Article
 

Comparing the Natural Mating with Artificial Insemination (A.I) at Mazandran Native Hen



H. Khazaei Koohpar, H. Sayyahzadeh and Z. Ansari Pirsaraei
 
Facebook Twitter Digg Reddit Linkedin StumbleUpon E-mail
ABSTRACT

At the present study, a comparison was done between the natural mating and the A.I. in Mazandran native hen. 100 females and 10 males were randomly selected from the native hen flock, one male was determined per each ten females. First the natural mating was done between the flock. Each female’s egg was determined using trap nest and each individual female and males chicken's number was counted at the end of the test. The male were removed from the boxes for insemination and then the males were ready for collecting the semen. The abdominal rubbing of the males were done by using the Burous method and the resulting semen were immediately diluted using the low fat milk and 0.1cc of semen was inseminated to each female and the insemination was reported after each six days. The egg collecting stage and the stages following the same as the natural mating. The results of the statistical analysis showed that there is no significant difference between the fertility and hatchability traits of these two models (p>0.36). Yet the A.I. helped to mate the males and females having no mating will and thus the hatchability percentage increased. On the other hand, the male's keeping cost decreased.

Services
Related Articles in ASCI
Search in Google Scholar
View Citation
Report Citation

 
  How to cite this article:

H. Khazaei Koohpar, H. Sayyahzadeh and Z. Ansari Pirsaraei, 2010. Comparing the Natural Mating with Artificial Insemination (A.I) at Mazandran Native Hen. International Journal of Poultry Science, 9: 711-715.

DOI: 10.3923/ijps.2010.711.715

URL: https://scialert.net/abstract/?doi=ijps.2010.711.715

REFERENCES

  1. Abplanalp, H., 1982. Mating frequency in male chickens. Poult. Sci., 64: 317-323.


  2. Brillard, J.P. and M. de Reviers, 1989. Artificial insemination in the hen. Physiological basis and control of the fertilizing rate of eggs. INRA Prod. Anim., 2: 197-203.
    Direct Link  |  


  3. Brun, J.M. and C. Larzul, 2003. Inheritance of the reproductive traits of female common ducks (Anas platyrhynchos) in pure breeding and inter-generic cross breeding with muscovy ducks (Cairina moschata). Br. Poult. Sci., 44: 40-45.
    PubMed  |  Direct Link  |  


  4. Chowdhury, M.M.I., A. Ashraf, S.P. Mondal, N.M. Abu Al Moi Mondol and M.M. Hasan, 2004. Effect of season on the hatchability of duck eggs. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 3: 419-421.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  5. Hammerstedt, R.H., 1996. Artificial insemination using extended liquid semen: An old technology of great value to modern industry. USDA., 88: 3742-3752.


  6. Liu, S.J., J.X. Zheng and N. Yang, 2008. Semen quality factor as an indicator of fertilizing ability for geese. Poult. Sci., 87: 155-159.
    CrossRef  |  


  7. Makarechian, M., 2002. Application of Animal Genetics in Animal Production. 1st Edn., Shiraz University Press, Iran, ISBN: 964-462-342-8, pp: 573


  8. Taylor, L.W., 2003. Fertility and Hatchability of Chicken and Turkey Egg. Green World Publishers, Pakistan, ISBN: 81-87421-28-2, pp: 423


  9. Zahraddeen, D., I.S.R. Butswat, D.J.U. Kalla, S.M. Sir and M.T. Bukar, 2005. Effect of frequency of ejaculation on semen characteristics in two breeds of turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) raised in a tropical environment. Int. J. Poult. Sci., 4: 217-221.
    CrossRef  |  Direct Link  |  


  10. Zohari, M.A., 1995. Poultry Breeding Principles. 10th Edn., Tehran University Publication, Tehran, pp: 634


©  2022 Science Alert. All Rights Reserved