Impact of farming models on the reproductive performance and egg quality of Vietnamese local chicken breeds: Ho and Dong Tao

ng performance and feed consumption of Ho hens by farming model types 
Criteria 
Battery cage model Traditional model 
P 
n1 Means ± SE n2 Means ± SE 
Total number of eggs in 52 weeks of 
laying (eggs) 
36 88.47 ± 3.87 5 65.52 ± 8.23 * 
Feed consumption per hen per day (g) 36 105.97 ± 0.71 5 97.32 ± 1.84 *** 
Feed consumption per hen in 52 weeks 
of laying (kg) 
36 38.57 ± 0.25 5 35.42 ± 0.67 *** 
Feed conversion ratio (FCR/10 eggs) 
(kg) 
36 4.36 ± 0.03 5 5.40 ± 0.10 *** 
Note: (n1): number of hens; (n2): number of blocks *** P<0.001; * P< 0.05; Means ± SE: Mean ± Standard Error 
Table 3. Laying performance and feed consumption of Dong Tao hens by farming model types 
Criteria 
Battery cage model Traditional model 
P 
n1 Means ± SE n2 Means ± SE 
Total number of eggs in 52 weeks of 
laying (eggs) 
36 94.91 ± 4.40 5 68.92 ± 8.61 * 
Feed consumption per hen per day (g) 36 105.79 ± 0.60 5 96.24 ± 2.01 *** 
Feed consumption per hen in 52 weeks 
of laying (kg) 
36 38.51 ± 0.22 5 34.80 ± 0.76 *** 
Feed conversion ratio (FCR/10 eggs) 
(kg) 
36 4.06 ± 0.02 5 4.57 ± 0.09 *** 
Note: (n1): number of hens; (n2): number of blocks; *** P< 0.001; * P< 0.05; Means ± SE: Mean ± Standard Error 
Table 4. Fertilizing ability of Ho chickens by farming model types 
Criteria 
Battery cage model Traditional model 
n Means ± SE n Means ± SE 
Incubated eggs (eggs) 46 27.15 ± 2.10 61 12.42 ± 0.28 
Embryonated eggs (eggs) 46 24.04 ± 1.89 61 8.93 ± 0.25 
Embryonated eggs/incubated eggs ratio 
(%) 
46 88.27 ± 0.82 61 75.52 ± 1.82 
Hatched eggs/incubated eggs ratio (%) 46 75.09 ± 1.38 61 61.78 ± 1.41 
Hatched eggs/embryonated eggs ratio 
(%) 
46 85.19 ± 1.47 61 85.95 ± 1.20 
Chick malformation ratio (%) 46 1.74 ± 3.19 61 1.27 ± 0.58 
Note: (n): number of incubation batches; *** P 0.05; Means ± SE: Mean ± Standard Error 
Impact of Farming Models on the Reproductive Performance and Egg Quality of Vietnamese Local Chicken Breeds 
500 Vietnam Journal of Agricultural Sciences 
Table 5. Fertilizing ability of Dong Tao chickens by farming model types 
Criteria 
Battery cage model Traditional model 
n Means ± SE n Means ± SE 
Incubated eggs (eggs) 47 36.36 ± 1.43 35 14.08 ± 1.41 
Embryonated eggs (eggs) 47 32.10 ± 1.26 35 9.85 ± 0.99 
Embryonated eggs/incubated 
eggs ratio (%) 
47 
88.70 ± 0.90 35 70.55 ± 1.42 
Hatched eggs/incubated eggs 
ratio (%) 
47 
75.73 ± 1.24 35 58.87 ± 2.52 
Hatched eggs/embryonated eggs 
ratio (%) 
47 
85.46 ± 1.21 35 83.52 ± 3.32 
Chick malformation ratio (%) 47 1.33 ± 0.60 35 1.78 ± 0.89 
Note: (n): number of incubation batches; *** P 0.05; Means ± SE: Mean ± Standard Error 
Table 6. Weight and external egg quality measurements of Ho hens by farming model type 
Criteria 
Battery cage model 
 (n = 1080) 
Traditional model 
 (n = 586) P 
Means ± SE Means ± SE 
Weight (g) 51.43 ± 0.17 50.37 ± 0.18 ** 
Length (mm) 52.47 ± 0.09 52.95 ± 0.10 NS 
Width (mm) 41.63 ± 0.05 41.65 ± 0.07 NS 
Shape index 1.26 ± 0.35 1.27 ± 0.15 NS 
Note: (n): number of specimens; ** P 0.05; Means ± SE: Mean ± Standard Error 
Table 7. Weight and external egg quality measurements of Dong Tao hens by farming model type 
Criteria 
Battery cage model 
(n = 1723) 
Traditional model 
 (n = 1106) P-value 
Means ± SE Means ± SE 
Weight (g) 51.69 ± 0.19 50.55 ± 0.14 ** 
Length (mm) 53.81 ± 0.11 52.81 ± 0.08 *** 
Width (mm) 40.79 ± 0.22 41.39 ± 0.06 *** 
Shape index 1.32 ± 0.38 1.28 ± 0.11 *** 
Note: (n): number of specimens; ** P< 0.01; *** P< 0.001; Means ± SE: Mean ± Standard Error 
Weight and external egg quality 
The indicators of weight and external egg 
quality measurements are presented in Table 6 
(for Ho breed) and Table 7 (for Dong Tao breed). 
For Ho chickens, the weight of eggs produced by 
hens raised in battery cages was slightly higher 
than the weight of eggs produced by hens raised 
in the conventional farming model (51.43g and 
50.37g, respectively, P< 0.01). Other criteria 
about egg size (length, width, and shape index) 
showed no significant correlations with the 
farming model types (P> 0.05). For Dong Tao 
Nguyen Van Duy et al. (2020) 
https://vjas.vnua.edu.vn/ 501 
chickens, the difference of egg weights produced 
by hens raised in the two models was statistically 
meaningful (P< 0.01). The egg size criteria 
revealed a significant correlation with the farming 
model types (P< 0.001). Overall, the size of eggs 
laid by Dong Tao hens raised in a traditional flock 
were slightly higher than the size of eggs laid by 
Dong Tao hens raised in cages (Table 7). 
Discussion 
Reproductive traits and egg production 
Poultry reproductive performance is strongly 
regulated by genetic factors (Dottavio et al., 
2001). In this study, the egg productivity of Ho 
and Dong Tao chickens raised in traditional and 
battery cage models were recorded as 65.52-
88.47 eggs/hen/laying year and 68.92-94.91 
eggs/hens/laying year, respectively. Egg 
production depended on the farming model type. 
Compared to other studies, the laying 
performances of these two breeds were higher 
than that of fighting chickens (54.04 
eggs/hen/year) and the Mia breed (55-60 
eggs/hen/year) (MARD, 2016). However, the 
egg productivities of Ho and Dong Tao chickens 
were intensely lower than that of Ri chickens 
(123 eggs/hen/year) (FAO, 2008). The 
reproductive cycles of Ho and Dong Tao 
chickens usually last 2-3 weeks, with the 
frequency of one egg per 2-3 days. After the 
laying period, hens entered an incubation stage 
lasting about 3 weeks. Recently, small automatic 
incubators (500 eggs per plant) have been 
popularly used in farming households for egg 
incubation. This has contributed to an increase in 
egg production by decreasing the incubating 
period. In some cases, farmers use female turkeys 
for incubating. The purpose of these practices is 
to increase the hatching rates, and to also push 
the next reproductive cycle of the hens. However, 
the habit of hatching without eggs in Ho and 
Dong Tao hens is mostly unavoidable. 
Our results show that egg productivity of 
hens raised in battery cages was significantly 
higher than those raised in a traditional farming 
model type. This observation is compatible with 
the results of a previous study, in which the 
authors mentioned that stress might be an 
influential factor on changing physiological 
behaviors of laying hens (Özbey & Esen, 2007). 
According to our data, feed consumption for 
hens raised in battery cages was relatively higher 
than those raised in a traditional production type. 
The narrow space possibly stimulated the eating 
demand of the chickens. Nonetheless, the egg 
reproductive performance of chickens raised in 
battery cages was significantly higher than that 
of chickens raised on the ground, resulting in a 
more effective feed conversion ratio per 10 
eggs recorded. 
The rates of embryonated eggs in the Ho and 
Dong Tao experimental populations in the 
traditional model were considerably lower than 
that of other local chicken breeds. In detail, this 
rate in Ho and Dong Tao chickens was 75.52% 
and 70.55%, respectively, compared to this 
indicator in multi-toe chickens (80.45%) ( 
Nguyen Hoang Thinh et al., 2017) and in 
H’mong chickens (89.56%) (Duong Thi Anh 
Dao & Vu Thi Cuc, 2011). The massive bodies 
of Ho and Dong Tao chickens, which causes 
difficulties in mating, elucidates this low fertile. 
Besides, semen quality of Ho and Dong Tao 
cocks is not high (Do Thi Hue et al., 2017). 
Weight and external egg quality parameters 
This study showed that there was a 
significant difference in egg weight of both 
chicken breeds by farming model types. This 
result encounters a conflict with a previous 
report, which stated that eggs laid by chickens 
raised on the ground were heavier than those laid 
by chickens raised in battery cages (Özbey & 
Esen, 2007). However, a significant correlation 
between farming models and egg weight was also 
recorded in another research paper which showed 
that the eggs from cages were heavier than those 
from the litter (Tůmová et al., 2011). 
Egg weight is an indicator influenced by 
chicken body weight and genetic factors (Moula 
et al., 2009). In this study, the weight of eggs 
produced by Ho and Dong Tao chickens raised in 
two experimental farming model types were 
50.37-51.43g and 50.55-51.69g, respectively. 
Meanwhile, the egg weight of H’mong chickens 
and multi-toe chickens were 38.10g (Nguyen Thi 
Phuong et al., 2017) and 39.70g ( Nguyen Hoang 
Impact of Farming Models on the Reproductive Performance and Egg Quality of Vietnamese Local Chicken Breeds 
502 Vietnam Journal of Agricultural Sciences 
Thinh et al., 2017) on average, respectively. It 
can be seen that the egg weight of Ho and Dong 
Tao chickens was considerably higher than those 
of other local breeds. In addition, the egg shape 
index of Ho and Dong Tao eggs were 1.26-1.27 
and 1.28-1.32, respectively. According to our 
results, the egg shape index of chickens raised in 
battery cages was higher than those raised in the 
traditional model. This conclusion was also 
reported in the literature (Özbey & Esen, 2007) 
with the shape indices of eggs being 77.65% for 
eggs from cages and 75.39% for eggs from the 
ground. 
Conclusions 
The reproductive performance of Ho and 
Dong Tao chickens raised in battery cages 
showed considerable differences compared to 
chickens raised in a traditional farming model. 
The feed conversion ratio to produce 10 eggs for 
hens raised in the battery cages model was 
significantly lower than those raised in the 
conventional farming model. The weight of eggs 
produced by Ho and Dong Tao hens raised in 
battery cages were better compared to the 
traditional way. 
Our recordings and analyses in this study 
result in an implication that egg hatchability of 
these two valuable local chicken breeds can be 
considerably improved when the ameliorate 
farming model type was applied. However, the 
concern of animal welfare should remain when 
considering farming model types in real scale. 
Acknowledgements 
We would like to express our highest 
appreciation for the Académie de Recherche et 
d’Enseignement supérieur Commission de la 
Coopération au Développement (ARES – CCD) 
(Belgium) for its financial support to complete 
this research project. 
References 
Berthouly C., Leroy G., Van T. N., Thanh H. H., Bed'hom 
B., Nguyen B. T., Vu C. C., Monicat F., Tixier-
boichard M., Verrier E., Maillar J. C. & Rognon X. 
(2009). Genetic analysis of local Vietnamese chickens 
provides evidence of gene flow from wild to domestic 
populations. BioMed Central Genetics. 10: 1-8. 
Bui Huu Doan & Nguyen Van Luu (2006). A survey on 
distribution, conformation, growth and productivity of 
Ho chicken. Vietnam Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 
4: 95-99. 
Do Thi Hue, Nguyen Van Duy, Nguyen Thi Xuan, Do Duc 
Luc, Le Thi Tham, Dang Vu Binh & Vu Dinh Ton 
(2017). Semen quality and some factors affecting the 
semen quality of Dong Tao chicken. Vietnam Journal 
of Agricultural Sciences. 5: 598-604 (in Vietnamese). 
Dao Thi Hiep (2013). Production efficiency and 
consumption of some local chicken breeds: the case 
study of Ho and Dong Tao chickens: Hanoi University 
of Agricultural. 
Dottavio A. M., Canet Z. E., Alvarez M., Creixell B., Di 
Masso R. J. & Font M. T. (2001). Productive traits in 
hybrid hens with Fayoumi maternal 
genotype. Archivos Latinoamericanos de Producción 
Animal. 9 (2). Retrieved from 
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/articulo?codigo=506
9646 on July 2, 2019. 
Duong Thi Anh Dao & Vu Thi Cuc (2011). Studing on 
some growing and reproductive characteristics of 
H'mong chickens reared under scavenging and 
semidustrial conditions in Thuan Chau - Son La. 
Journal of Animal Husbandry Sciences and Technics. 
12:14-20. 
GSO (2018). Statistical handbook of Hanoi; Statistical 
Publishing House. 
FAO (2008). Poultry systems in Vietnam Prepared by Duc 
N. V. & Long T. GCP/RAS/228/GER working paper 
No. 4. Rome. Retrieved from 
 on May 25, 
2019. 
MARD (2016). Atlas of livestock breeds in Vietnam, 
Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (in 
Vietnamese). 
Moula N., Antoine-Moussiaux N., Farnir F & Leroy P. 
(2009). Comparison of egg composition and 
conservation ability in two Belgian local breeds and 
one commercial strain. International Journal of Poultry 
Science. 8: 768-774. 
Ngo Thi Kim Cuc (2010). Vietnamese local chicken 
breeds: Genetic diversity and prioritizing breeds for 
conservation. PhD Thesis. Georg-August Universität. 
Nguyen Hoang Thinh, Pham Kim Dang, Vu Thi Thuy 
Hang, Hoang Anh Tuan & Bui Huu Doan (2017). 
Phenotypical Characteristics and Productive 
Performance of Multi-Toes Chicken Raised in The 
National Park of Xuan Son, Tan Son District, Phu Tho 
Province. Journal of Sciences and Development. 14: 9-
20 (in Vietnamese). 
Nguyen Thi Phuong, Hoang Ngoc Mai, Nguyen Van Duy 
& Vu Dinh Ton (2017). Reproductivity and egg quality 
of H'mong chicken. Animal production in Southeast 
Nguyen Van Duy et al. (2020) 
https://vjas.vnua.edu.vn/ 503 
Asia: Current status and Future. July 21-22, 2017. 
Vietnam National University of Agricultural, Hanoi, 
Vietnam: 27-32 (in Vietnamese). 
Nguyen Van Duy, Do Duc Luc, Nguyen Thi Xuan, Nassim 
Moula, Vu Dinh Ton & Frédéric Farnir (2017). Dong 
Tao chicken: characteristics of an indigenous breed 
with big legs in Vietnam. The 4th FARAH-Day, 13 
October 2017. Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, 
University of Liège - Belgium: 58. 
Nguyen Van Duy, Nassim Moula, Pham Kim Dang, Dao 
Thi Hiep, Bui Huu Doan, Vu Dinh Ton & Frédéric 
Farnir (2015). Ho Chicken in Bac Ninh Province 
(Vietnam): From an Indigenous Chicken to Local 
Poultry Breed. International Journal of Poultry 
Science. 14(9): 521-528. 
Özbey O & Esen F. (2007). The effects of different 
breeding systems on egg productivity and egg quality 
characteristics of rock partridges. Poultry Science. 86: 
782-785. 
Pham M. H., Berthouly-Salazar C, Tran X. H, Chang W. H, 
Crooijmans R. P, Lin D. Y, Hoang V. T, Lee Y. P, 
Tixier-Boichard M & Chen C. F. (2013). Genetic 
diversity of Vietnamese domestic chicken populations 
as decision-making support for conservation 
strategies. Animal Genetics. 44: 509-521. 
Lan Phuong T. N, Dong Xuan K. D. T & Szalay I. (2015). 
Traditions and local use of native Vietnamese chicken 
breeds in sustainable rural farming. World's Poultry 
Science Journal. 71: 385-396. 
Tůmová E., Englmaierova M., Ledvinka Z. & 
Charvatova V. (2011). Interaction between housing 
system and genotype in relation to internal and 
external egg quality parameters. Czech Journal of 
Animal Science. 56: 490-498. 
.