Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1.0 INTRODUCTION
more to human animal protein supply than any other domestic or non-domestic animal.
Consumers have high preference for poultry products (because of the taste and cheapness).
Beside preference, poultry products provide protein of high biological value (Epstein, 1990).
In a developing country like Nigeria, poultry production in both urban and rural areas is of
great importance. It serves as a simple means of generating family income and employment
opportunities (Akinokun, 1971). Compared to other domestic animals, poultry can be raised
with relatively low capital investment and readily available household labour.
Characterization, conservation and use of indigenous animal genetic resources are more
appropriate in the tropics where production is usually characterized by low input. The locally
adapted animals are also more readily available to resource-poor farmers and they can be
productive without high disease control input, yet, lack of information about the genetic
resources present in the indigenous farm animal in developing countries has led to their
and conservation of these indigenous animal genetic resources are of paramount importance.
Nigeria is endowed with many poultry species which are local to the country. These have
lived, adapted and produced for several years in Nigerian environment (Momoh, 2005).
FDLPCS (1992) estimated Nigeria's poultry population to be about 33 million. With the ever
growing population and concomitant improvement in the living standard of Nigerians, the
demand for egg and other poultry products will continue to grow, thus outstretching the
supply from chicken. Therefore, there is need to explore other poultry species to supplement
the provision of eggs meat and other poultry products from the chicken. This necessitates the
2
quest for the development of the ducks which are also widely distributed and are prominent
Ducks are an essential part of many human societies around the world. They are
has come to serve a variety of roles in modern society as a source of food supply (meat and
eggs ), in other societies as a species that is selectively bred for show, feather as
ornament and pillow stuffing, and as a pet. Ducks have several advantages over other
poultry species;These include their disease tolerance and hardiness. They are excellent
foragers and easy to herd, particularly in wet lands since they tend to flock together
(Farrell,1995).
Population of ducks
million(11,000,000) and reported to be distributed all over the agro ecological zones of the
country (FLDPCS, 1992). Domestic ducks were ranked third among various poultry species
in Sokoto state of Nigeria (Hassan and Mohammed, 2003). In spite of this positive score,
very little attention has been paid to the genetic improvement as well as improved husbandry
practices to raise the performance of the domestic duck. There is little or no information
available on phenotypic and genetic parameters of the Nigeria indigenous Muscovy duck.
Ecological Zones
In Nigeria different agro-ecological zones exist and for all species of livestock
variations are reported to exist in both phenotypic and genetic characteristics as a result of
adaptation to these different ecological zones. Numerous comparative studies have provided
insight into the ecological mechanism underlying evolutionary diversification across habitat
3
gradients. This is evident in the reports of Akinokun (1971), Oluyemi et al. (1982),
Adedokun and Sonaiya (2001) for poultry, Adebambo et al. (1998) for cattle, Epstein (1990)
and Wilson (1991) for sheep and goats. This diversity constitutes a valuable resource for use
in animal breeding programme for improvement of the health and productivity of the animal
species, particularly domestic poultry and also in designing proper conservation strategy. It
also results in classification of the individual species into strains, breeds and ecotypes.
Several varieties of Nigerian local poultry, particularly chickens have been described on the
basis of location ( FLDPCS, 1992). Variations between populations from different locations
practices (Nwosu et al., 1985). Ecotypes are developed through selection and adaptation and
vary from one agro ecological zone to another due to varied climatic characteristics such as
humidity, temperature and rainfall, although in some cases some ecotypes may be similar in
population of different geographical locations and this may be as a result of genetic drift. The
differences may also have arisen from limited geographical differentiation of the original
population (Girand and Palabort, 1976; Ehiobu and Goddard, 1989; Ehiobu et al., 1990)
Markers
chromosomal, biochemical and molecular are used. Morphological (e.g., pigmentation and
other features) and chromosomal (e.g., structural or numerical variations) makers usually
they are often sex-limited, age-dependent and are significantly influenced by the
4
environment. Phenotypic features are also influenced by dominance effect and provide a
crude estimate of the average of the functional variants of genes carried by a given individual
population. These makers are reported to reflect variability in their coding sequence that
constitutes less than 10% of the total genome (Williams et al., 1990). Molecular makers have
populations (Saitbekova et al., 1999; Barker et al., 2001). Quite a number of techniques are
used in molecular maker analysis. The most common and cost effective is the Random
amplified polymorphic DNA technique. This technique has been used extensively in
populations and establishing genetic relationship among them (Ali et al., 2003).
Some research findings on ducks by Ksiazkiewic (1995) and Farrell (1995) showed
that they are very susceptible to effective inbreeding and genetic drift if kept in a small
population for few generations. This genetic flexibility will suggest that variation can easily
morphological or genetic or both. Nigerian indigenous Muscovy ducks suffer neglect in the
productivity, genetic diversity and phenotypic characterisation .This may not be unconnected
with the fact that ducks are considered as “dirty birds”. The genetic improvement of the
Muscovy ducks in Nigeria will first require investigation into their productivity, genomic
The overall objective of this study was to evaluate the phenotypic and genetic characteristics
of the Nigerian Muscovy ducks from rainforest and guinea savannah zones with a view to
5
highlighting their potential to contribute to egg and meat production in Nigeria. This
information will provide a framework for the development of breeding programmes for
conservation and sustainable use of the Muscovy duck genetic resources in Nigeria.
3. Evaluate performance of the ducks from these zones in basic production traits; of
4. Estimate genetic parameters of growth and egg production traits of the ducks from
molecular techniques.
6
Ducks belong to the order Anseriformes diverged from the chicken Galliformes in about 11
million years ago (Tuinen and Hadley, 2004) According to paleontological data, the main
radiation of the modern duck took place during the Miocene, 5 -23 million years ago
(Olson, 1985). From ancient times domestic ducks have served as a source of food and
income for people in many parts of the world. Ducks are source of meat, eggs and down
feathers. Their meat and eggs are good dietary sources of high quality protein and energy in
addition to several vitamins and minerals. Tuinen and Hadley (2004) classified domestic
Common Ducks: Most ducks are classified as common ducks and are believed to have
originated from the Mallard (Anas platy rhynchos). Some of the better known breeds of
common domestic ducks include the Pekin, Asylesbury, Rouen, Call, and Indian Runner,
Khaki Campbell, Cayugi, Albio, Maya and Tsaiya. They further added that these ducks can
Muscovy duck
ducks. The breed is reported to have originated differently. Several reports on its origin
have been presented by (Clayton, 1984; Hahn et al ., 1995; Farrell, 1995; Hugue and
Sultana, 2002).
These are products of crosses between Muscovy and common ducks. When allowed
to mate naturally their fertility is usually very low. The offspring are often sterile and can not
7
be used for breeding. These hybrids are usually raised for their meat and in some cases for
their liver (foie gas) and usually referred to as mule or hunny (Olson ,1985)
Southern China provided evidence that domestication of duck occurred during the New stone
age between 4000 and 10000 years ago (Wucheng, 1998). Clay models unearthed in
Shanxian country, central Henan province suggested that ducks were domesticated during
the Yangshao culture about 4000 years ago (Jianhua, 1984). Ducks were domesticated in
China at least 3000 years ago. The archaeological evidence along with a favourable
environment and agriculture suggested that ducks were probably domesticated in southern
China at least 1500 years before they were separately domesticated in western Europe.
Watson (1969) indicated the possibility of even an earlier domestication in describing the
finding of pottery models of ducks and geese at Lung Shan site in Hupei about 2500BC in
company with models of sheep , dogs, turtles, and fish. Zeuner (1963) has speculated that
duck domestication may also have occurred in Mesopotamia from Sumerian times beginning
There is also indication that ducks were kept as domestic birds in ancient Egypt
(Zeuner, 1963). According to Harper (1972), translation of Egypt papyri confirms that geese,
chickens, and pigeons were being raised from the fifth century BC to the seventh century AD
, but ducks were seldom mentioned and any reference probably was to wild fowl. According
to the early writers, the Greeks and Romans kept ducks, but indications are that the birds
were wild and had to be confined within netting enclosure (Harper, 1972).
8
The Muscovy duck is one of the greater wood ducks included in the subfamily
Anatinae tribe cairini (Clayton, 1984). The duck is reported to be the predominant water fowl
in Africa, Asia and Latin America. It thrives well under free range condition in tropics and
Neotropical environment (Haln et al., 1995; Farrell, 1995). Evidences indicate that under
natural conditions the Muscovy duck is a tropical bird and lives in marshy forest. Its
robustness and hardiness enable it to adapt to different climates and habitats. They are
sexually dimorphic, the male being almost twice the weight of the female (Leclercq and De
Cerville, 1985;. Larbier and Leclercq, 1994). They noted that aggression and sexual display
Parkhurst and Mountney (1988) described Muscovy duck as a species that produces
less fatty carcass. Larbier and Leclercq (1994) added that Muscovy ducks are characterized
by having large pectoral muscles and are sexual dimorphic in favour of the male. Phuoc et
al. (1994) supported this when they reported that French male Muscovy duck can grow to be
quite large weighing 5-7 kg, while the female can attain 2.5 – 3.5 kg.
Townsend (2002) reported that Muscovy ducks are unique because of their bright rest
crest around their eyes and above the beak. He observed that they do not swim much because
their oil gland is under-developed compared to most ducks. It is on this note that Halns et al.
(1995) reasoned that the duck is not generally a duck or goose but suggested closeness to
goose than ducks on the basis that it eats grasses as geese do and has similar long incubation
period of 36 days compared to that of domestic ducks. Despite these observations Muscovy is
Derrell and Guy (1989) were of the view that despite the variability noted in
Muscovy and its uniqueness, distribution and extensive range it is however the least studied
9
of all new world water fowls. Most informations on Muscovy duck are historical and sparse
Delacour (1959), Wetmore (1965), and even recent literature discuss the species only on
general terms (Bolen, 1983). Jacquert and Sanveur (1995) made similar observations that, not
There are diverse reports on the origin of Muscovy duck; most writers are of the
opinion that South America is the origin of the domesticated Muscovy duck (Johnsguard,
1978; Hahn 1995, ) e.t.c . Mohammed (1996) reported that Muscovy originated from South
America and that it was domesticated by the Columbian and Peruvian Indians and then
introduced to the other world by the Spaniards and the Portuguese in the 16 th century.
Townsend (2002) reported that the Muscovy originated from Brazil and that they are the only
domestic ducks that do not derive from the Mallard stock. He further reported that the
Muscovy duck had probably been domesticated for centuries by South American indigenous
culture at the time of its introduction to European Colonialist. He added that both patrilineal
and matrilineal ancestors of domestic Muscovy are the Wild Muscovy ducks. Encyclopaedia
online explain the origin and domestication of Muscovy as domesticated in Peru and
Columbia by the pre-Columbian Indians and that the Mallard was domesticated in China
Donkin (1989) described the domestication of Muscovy duck in Africa and that it
was introduced into Africa by the Portuguese in sixteen century and had a wild relative, C.
hartlanbi, which is indigenous to the forest zones of West Africa. Townsend (2002) described
early sources relating to the spread of Muscovy duck in West Africa although he was
in literature. Few studies Hahn et al. (1995) and Schaef (1995) described plumage colour
pattern in Muscovy duck. Plumage colour among Muscovy ducks have been reported to be a
combination of black and white ranging from mostly black to white (Hahn et al., 1995) .
Hassan and Aliyu (1996) studied the plumage colour pattern of Muscovy duck in North
Western Nigeria and reported that four strains were observed black, white, mixture and
creamy, and that black/white mixture constituted 80% of the population. Hassan and
Mohammed (2003) in their report on same ecotype gave a contrary result in which the black
strain was more in number, representing 41% of the entire population with the black/white
strain significantly heavier than other strains. Various colour patterns were also reported by
other workers, (Schaefer, 2002 and Hahn et al., 1995), who reported additional plumage
colour pattern as Blue, Blue/white and chocolate types and similarly reported that the
muscovy have more distinctive features such as red face with prominent caruncle at the base
of the bill and a low erectile crest of feathers and that their feet are equipped with strong
Hassan and Mohammed (2003) further described the Nigeria Muscovy as having bill
colours ranging from black to white, bill length of about 7.03 and 6.02cm for males and
females respectively, and added that significant positive correlation exists between body
weight and bill length. Tegnia et al. (2007) summarized the morphological characteristics of
African Muscovy and reported that mean metatarsals diameter, thoracic perimeter, body
length, length of bill, foot length and wing length in male were 1.3 , 29.5, 57.5, 7.0 27.1 and
11
27.8 respectively while the average for female were 1.2, 25.8, 51.0, 6.3, 23.3 and 26.9
respectively.
Age at sexual maturity is the time between the date of hatch and the date of first egg.
Age and weight at sexual maturity are influenced by genetic make up of the individual and it
is influenced by feed intake, light, duration of day length and other environmental factors
Ola (2000) reported that Muscovy duck attained sexual maturity at 28 weeks of age
(about 6.33 months), further adding that though Muscovy can attain maturity earlier. They
have limited breeding capacity especially during the dry season and may delay egg laying to
beginning of rainy or wet season. Duru et al. (2006) in their findings reported a higher value
of 7.70+.044 months as age at first lay of egg by Muscovy duck in a peri urban management
Variability in age at sexual maturity of other duck breeds had also been reported.
Sexual maturity in Khaki Campbell was reported at different ages by different authors, such
as 18 weeks by Klandorf and Harvey (1984), 20 weeks by Hetzel and Gunawan (1984) and
23 weeks by Eswaran et a. (1984). Kalita et al. (2004) in their findings reported age at sexual
maturity in Khaki Campbell, Desi and their crosses as 169.10+9.95, 229+10.06 and 219.89
Age at sexual maturity has been suggested to be an important life history trait (Oli
and Dubson, 1999), with substantial potential for influencing fitness. They noted that within
species a genotype that attains sexual maturity early often has a greater probability of
realizing fitness because its offspring start reproducing earlier than others and thus is
12
expected to have a higher fitness than in late maturing genotype. Stearns (1992) had a
contrary view on early maturity and feels that late maturity allows for additional growth and
experience that will substantially increase future reproductive output. Tanka and Rosenberg
(1952) earlier reported that selection for early sexual maturity increases the number of eggs
per day of life and contributes to an overall feed efficiency. Morris (1966) reported that age
when the hen is able to reproduce (age at sexual maturity) is not the same as age when the
hen is able to produce (age at first egg). It can be expected therefore that age at first egg can
Kalita and Deka (2005) reported that age at sexual maturity for Muscovy duck in a
rural area of Assam in India ranged from 300-365 day. A similar result was also reported
earlier on by Avanzi and Romboli (1979). Mahanta et al. (2001) reported for age at sexual
maturity. However, sexual maturity of both sexes of Muscovy duck was reported to be 20 –
24 weeks (Panda and Kumar, 2004) and 29 -30 weeks (Sauveur and De Carville, 1985).
Egg production is influenced by several factors such as strain, feed, mortality, health
and management practices, age at point of lay, peak lay and persistency of lay (North, 1984;
Petek, 1999). Sauveur and De Carville (1985) reported that Muscovy duck species have less
expressed seasonal character in egg laying compared to other species of Anas genus. Some
authors noted that the magnitude of egg production in ducks is dependent on the extensive
programme (Avens et al., 1980; Hetzel and Gunawan,1984; Hetzel, 1984, Scot and
have been reported (Tikk and Vint, 1988; Romboli et al., 1984; Osman, 1997) . These
13
authors and other researchers conducting studies on Muscovy duck species established that
under intensive breeding conditions, the duck reached laying capacity of 120-150 eggs for
two reproductive seasons. Retailleau (1997) gave higher value of egg production or laying
capacity for Muscovy duck in an intensive breeding, and obtained an average of 210 in two
reproductive cycles. Some Russian authors- Chipchiryuk (1980), Sauveur and De Carville
(1990), Sogomonov and Rahmanov (1988) reported that in a 5- month laying season
Muscovy duck laid about 62-100 eggs. Earlier Romboli et al. (1984) reported that 45 to 100
eggs were laid by Muscovy duck in the first year of reproduction depending on the breeding
cycle.
duck in other regions of the world compared to that obtained in African Muscovy duck.
Mopate et al. (1999) reported that local Muscovy duck in N’djamena, Niger Republic
produced 14 to 15 eggs per clutch with an average of 2.6+1.2 clutches per year. Similar
observation was reported earlier by Mourthe (1989) in Chad. Similarly Banga et al. (2007)
reported that Muscovy duck in rural area of Congo Brazzaville lay an average of 14.6 +3.0
eggs per clutch with a maximum of two clutches per year. Mohammed (1996) also reported
similar trend in Mozambique for Muscovy duck. On the contrary Panda and Kumar (2004)
reported average egg production of Muscovy ducks in Assam district in India to be 45-60
eggs per annum. A similar finding was reported earlier by Mahanta et al. (2001). Kalita and
Deka (2005) however reported lower egg numbers from the same zone in Asia. Though this
variability exists, egg production in Nigerian Muscovy ducks tends to follow same pattern
with those reports obtained from sister African countries. For instance Hassan and Aliyu
(1996) and Duru et al. (2006) reported local Muscovy in Northern Nigeria, Ola (2000) in
western Nigeria, Etuk and Abasiekong (2005) from Eastern Nigeria. Clayton (1984) claims
14
that much of the high egg production of domestic duck is an expression of natural fecundity
Romboli et al. (1987) reported egg weight in three strains of Muscovy ducks, black,
white and sepia as 81.2, 84.3 and 84.8g, respectively. Another report by Harun et al. (2001)
recorded 84.5g as egg weight of Muscovy duck raised in an intensive management system.
Nickolova and Gerzilow (2000), however reported lower value of 70.6g as egg weight in
Muscovy duck.
Egg weight in the Muscovy duck is reported to be higher than other domestic
ducks. For instance, Sanveur and De Carville (1985) reported egg weight that ranged from
77 to 83g in the Muscovy duck while Karaca et al. (1996) reported egg weight of 69.9g in
Pekin duck. Testik and Sarica (1991) also reported 71.5g as egg weight for the same breed
(Pekin). Isguzar and Testik (1999) noted that there is high variability in egg weight of Pekin
and most water fowl species and added that ducks reared under extensive condition produce
lighter eggs averaging 54.8 to 64.2g when compared to those raised intensively whose egg
Several authors related egg weight to other production parameters, Khurshid et al.
(2004) reported that increase in hatchability increases with egg weight, where as increase in
egg shell weight and thickness result in a decrease in hatchability in birds. Similar
Fertility refers to the fertile status of group of eggs laid over a period of time by
single bird, by small group of birds or by commercial flock, and is usually expressed as the
15
percentage of total egg laid (Bodi et al., 1996). It has been widely reported that egg fertility is
affected by age of the breeders, exposure to light, nutrition, management, mating ratio and
semen quality (North,1981: Stahl et al., 1986: Peeble and Brake 1987). Narahari et al. (1988)
added that other factors affecting egg fertility include breeding system, period of lay and
parent live weight. Compared to other domesticated poultry and to the ducks of Anas genus
Muscovy duck species are reported to be distinguished by very high degree of egg fertility
(Nickolova, 2004). Over 92-93% on the average had been reported for the Muscovy duck
(Bagliacca et al., 1989; Bodi et al., 1996; Bogenforst et al., 1996, Bondarenkoa, 1997)
Tikk and Vint (1998) reported very good egg fertility of 96-97% between 3-18
weeks of laying in a year old Muscovy duck in Poland. Meltzer (1988) and Chipchiryuk
(1980) reported that at the beginning of a reproductive season,(April to May), a high egg
fertility of the species 94-98.25% was recorded. Earlier Baglicea et al. (1989) reported that
peak egg fertility for one-year old Muscovy duck was in the second month of the laying
usually highest in March-April, an indication that fertility of egg was highest at that period.
Though he noted that despite that, egg fertility of Muscovy duck was usually high (above
92%) throughout the reproductive period of March to August. This corroborated Szyniunk
et al. (1991) who reported that average egg fertility for between 3 and 8 weeks of the laying
season in one-year old Muscovy duck was 96.77%. Higher value of fertility of Muscovy duck
eggs was recorded for tropical types, particularly in Nigeria, 90.96%, by Ola (2000) an
Few reports recorded lower values of percent fertility in Muscovy duck eggs.
Isguzar (2005) reported that percent fertility among three varieties of Muscovy ducks black,
16
black-white and white strains were 63.4, 33.5 and 34.5%, respectively. Environmental factors
2.2.2.6 Hatchability
Hatchability is one of the prerequisites for the better propagation of breed (Farooq
et al., 2001). It refers to the proportion of fertile eggs that continue development and produce
viable chicks. Hatchability has been reported to be affected by physiology, age of the breeder,
egg size, nutrition, genotype and possession of major genes (Huntan ,1981; Buss, 1982 ; Peter
et al., 2004). To a large extent it is a function of fertility except when there is presence of
major genes that reduce embryonic livability (Peters et al., 2004). The authors added that
lower hatchability can be observed in a flock if embryonic mortality is high and fertility is
low. Variation in embryonic mortality may be due to poor egg holding period, unbalanced
nutrition, stressful condition, the parent flock was exposed to or any other fault in incubation
The size of the eggs is also one factor that influences hatchability in most poultry.
Farooq et al. (2001) and Murad et al.(2001) reported significant influence of egg size and
shell weight on hatching performance of Japanese quails. The authors reported lower
hatchability of small-sized eggs and those with poor shell quality. Shanaway (1994) also
reported better hatchability in large-sized eggs. Similar report of better performance based on
In Muscovy duck the process of hatching is reported to span between 28-35 days for
the eggs to change a microscopic germ into a downy chick capable of walking, eating and
expressing its need by its voice and action (Banerjee, 1991). Several authors have reported
the exceptionality of Muscovy duck eggs in hatching. Serbul (1986), Murae (1988), Bonima
and Velez (1992) reported that hatchability of Muscovy duck eggs under artificial incubation
17
was always found to be lower than under natural incubation, suggesting that heat supply by
conduction normally may result in a better embryo temperature and development than by
convection. This is evident in the report of Isguzar (2005), who recorded 41.1, 35.6 and 4.7%
as hatchability values of fertile eggs of black, black/ white and white strains of Muscovy
ducks .Similar values were earlier reported by Hahn et al. (1995 and Fattouh et al. (2003). In
contrast, higher values were obtained in tropics using natural incubation as reported by
Mopate et al. (1999) who found out that hatchability of Muscovy duck eggs reared in urban
households in Ndjamena Chad was between 80-85% during rainy season (June- November)
and 59-78% during dry season (December to May), with a mean brooding period of 63+25
days. These values were similar to those reported by Romboli (1990) and Gueye et al. (1998),
but lower than those reported by Hassan and Aliyu (1996) for Muscovy duck in Northern
Nigeria. Ola (2000) also recorded high value of 72.57+11.7% for Muscovy duck in South-
western Nigeria. Sanveur and De Carville (1985) reported a hatchability of 80% among rural
Muscovy ducks in Assam, India. These indicate the viability of muscovy in tropical
environment.
behaviour and welfare of many domesticated water fowls, as well as a source of moisture for
their eggs in incubation has been reported by several workers (Rauch et al., 1993; Harun et
al., 1998) . However, Narahari et al. (1991) and Harun et al. (2001) reported that absence of
swimming water did not affect hatchability of Muscovy duck eggs. This may explain why
Muscovy ducks are easily kept either in traditional extensive system or in modern harsh dry
system.
18
favourable there is the tendency that better weight will be achieved in the later part of the life
of the individual. Baeza et al. (2001) reported day-old body weight of Muscovy duck as 45g.
They further added that the mean weight of male and female ducklings were similar at hatch,
age, males and females reached 4.57kg and 2.88kg, respectively . Isguzar (2005) reported that
the average weights of day old black, black/white and white ducklings were 41.8 +0.6g ,
Similarly, it was further reported that significant variations occurred in weight of day-old in
first and second hatches such as 41.0g and 42.7g in a white variety of Muscovy duck.
Shahin et al. (2000) studied day old weight among water fowl and concluded that
variations occurred across genotypes, reporting 45 to 59g for Peking ducks as earlier reported
by (Knizetora et al., 1992). Karaman and Testik (1995) also reported a range of 47 to 55.8g
for Pekin ducks. Initial weight in water fowl is not a reflection of an adult weight as noticed
increase in body size per unit time (Schultz et al., 2001; Lawrence and Fowler 2002). Three
processes contribute to growth, which include cell division, assimilation and cell expansion.
Robert (1978) earlier on observed that despite best parameters chosen to estimate growth, it
has been observed that growth showed many irregularities as a result of fluctuation in the
environment or diet in addition to the fact that different parts of the organism would grow at
different rates and stop at different times. Adedeji et al. (2004) reported that Nigerian
19
indigenous birds are characterized by slow growth and low productivity in terms of meat and
Growth performance of African Muscovy ducks has been extensively studied and
reported by many authors (Romboli,1990; Hassan and Aliyu,1990; Mutui and Mbaga ,2001,
Ngapongora, 2004; Etuk et al., 2006). Meulen et al. (1999) stated that Muscovy duck does
not grow very quickly and its final weight depends on the way it is kept and fed. Etuk et al.
(2006) gave 18.34+0.63g, 21.23+2.17g, and 23.75+0.43g as body weight gain for male
15.09±1.2g were reported as body weight gain for female Muscovy duck at 9, 6 and 5 weeks.
There were marked sexual dimorphism between males and females. There was significant
difference (P<0.05) in average daily weight gains for male (16.11g) and female (10.12g) with
Ngapongora et al. (2001) reported for local ducks in Tanzania that at 9 weeks drakes
reached 2868g while ducks attained 1821g. From Taiwan, Hu et al. (2006) reported 3896g
and 2540g as body weights for male and female Muscovy duck at 10 weeks of age.A similar
weight was reported by Leclerg and DeCarville (1986) for duck in France and in Australia
(Mignon-Grasteau et al.,1998).
Growth in Nigerian local Muscovy duck has not been extensively studied. Reports
by Ola (2000) put the body weight at 5 and 12 weeks as 503 and 1506g for males and 393
and 1015g for females, respectively . He reported body weight gain at 5 and 12 weeks also as
13.35 +2.23 and 15.54+1.38g for males while for females were 10.21+1.25 and 10.02 +0.63g
, respectively
20
The trait with the most impact on profitability is feed efficiency. The conversion of
feed into egg is primarily a function of egg number. It is also influenced by egg size and body
weight. Breeders improved feed conversion throughout the 20th century in poultry (Bochno et
al., 1994). Feed intake and feed conversion efficiency are affected by the rate of growth of
birds, metabolisable energy content of the ration, nutrient adequacy of the ration,
environmental temperature and health condition of the bird (Bochno et al.,1994). Wu and
Han (1983) observed that age and sex of the bird and quality of diet significantly affected the
feed efficiency of bird. They further reported that feed intake was positively correlated to
the coarseness of feed in ducks. Bochno et al. (1994) reported that male ducks grew faster
with more efficiency in feed conversion than female. They added that feed conversion was
more efficient in Muscovy duck than Pekin. Perez (1985) reported earlier that Pekin ducks
had a feed conversion at 8 weeks of 2.83kg feed/kg live weight gain. Duong and Nguyen
(1995) and Luong et al. (1995) reported feed conversion ratio of 2.91 and 2.77kg feed/kg
live weight, respectively for commercial ducks reared intensively. Etuk et al. (2006) observed
that improved management system did not affect final body weight, growth rate, feed intake
Establishing and maintaining the optimal sex ratio in agricultural poultry raising affect
the economic result of poultry breeding in two ways, by achieving maximum egg fertility and
by the number of the drakes raised (Nickolova, 2004). The number of drakes or male ducks
that will produce optimum fertility in a flock forms what is referred to as mating ratio.
Mopate et al. (1997) observed that 3.4 duck per drake was best for effective egg fertility in
scavenging system in Chad. Several authors,( Sauveur and De Carville,1985; Sauveur ,1990;
21
Sauveur and De Carville, 1990) suggested a ratio of 1:5 as appropriate breeding ratio for
Muscovy duck. The suggestion was made in view of the differences in live weight between
male and female Muscovy ducks (kalita and Deka, 2005). However, Romboli et al. (1987),
Romboli and Battini (1986) and Savitskoy (1989) suggested a lower ratio of 1:4 for optimum
fertility of Muscovy duck eggs. Wang and Xu (1989) reported that a ratio of between 1:4 to
1:10 as recommended for water fowl species in obtaining egg fertility of between 75.9 to
94%. Ola (2000) recommended a ratio of 1:5 for effective fertility in the Nigerian indigenous
Muscovy duck.
2.2.2.11 Incubation
Incubation of eggs in Muscovy duck is quite unique as in most waterfowls. Panda and
Padhi (2004) reported that both male and female Muscovy ducks take part in incubation and
brooding process. Panda and Kumar (2004) also reported that Muscovy ducks have extra
ordinary brooding capacity and are good mothers to raise their own ducklings. They reported
Caldwell and Cornwell (1975) found out that onset of incubation in Muscovy ducks is not
easy to identify as it begin gradually during laying period, that is, it is common for ducks to
lay one or more eggs after the on-set of incubation. Under natural incubation, Nichelmann
(1993) and Nichelmann and Gilsing (1995) had observed that incubation in Muscovy ducks
One uniqueness of the Muscovy duck is the elongated period of egg incubation. Un-
like other poultry with an average of 28 days of incubation, muscovy duck has a range of 33-
Bahr and Palmer (1989) reported that egg production is based on cyclic process with
clutches of one or more eggs laid on consecutive days and each clutch is followed by one or
more pause days. The size of a clutch varies little within a hen and is assumed to be highly
heritable (Nalbardov and Opel, 1974). There are two competing theories that attempt to
explain both proximately and ultimately clutch size in water fowl. The egg production
hypothesis developed by Lack (1968) proposed that average clutch size of water fowl species
evolved in relation to average amount of food available to laying female. The second
hypothesis is the egg viability hypothesis advanced by Arnold et al. (1987) who argued that
because water fowl eggs lose viability if they fail to sit on the eggs during incubation and
predation risk is cumulative over that time, the upper limit of about 14 eggs to clutch size of
praive nesting duck is set by the combing effect of these egg mortality factor.
Derrell and Guy. (1989) in Mexico reported that average clutch size in a wild
muscovy population was 13.6 +3.2 with a range of 9-21 eggs. Lower average of 8-10 eggs
were however reported by some authors (Leopold, 1959; Wetmore ,1965; Woodyard and
Bolen 1984). Most studies in tropical Muscovy duck reported clutch size of between 13 to 15
eggs per clutch (Mopate et al., 1999: Gueye, 1999: Ola,2000) with an average of 2.6 clutches
Season of the year is reported to have significant effect on clutch size. Mopate et al.
(1999) reported egg 1ay per clutch of between 13.9 to 7.3 in December to February and
Most animal species exhibit phenotypic differences between males and females (
Darwin, 1871). Sexual size dimorphism in particular has retained the attention of numerous
the degree of divergence between sexes varies considerably between species (Jean et al.,
2003). The authors believed that sexual dimorphism evolved under the pressure of natural
and sexual selection. A good requirement for sexual size dimorphism to evolve is that the
traits of interest should be controlled by genes differently expressed in the two sexes, since
the genetic correlations between the sexes are usual high for morphometric traits. Theoretical
and empirical analyses have predicted a slow evolutionary rate of sexual size dimorphism
Observational data (Frith, 1967; Marchant and Higgins, 1990; McCracken, 1999) suggested
that male emancipation for parental care and evolution of a lek mating system led to fixation
of larger body size and other secondary sexual characters in male ducks (Moller, 1990; Zuk et
al., 1990). An alternative hypothesis not related to mating system theory is that niche
divergence perhaps driven by inter sexual competition for food resources is responsible for
Steven and Sauveur (1985) reported that one of the characteristics of the Muscovy
duck is the obviously expressed sexual dimorphism in the live weight. This was earlier
dimorphism starts to express between male and female. Garzilov (1999) however reported
that at 3-4 weeks of age it begins. He added that at 10-12th weeks live weight of the female
duckling was only about 65% of the male. Similar observations were made by Chipchiryuk (
24
1980), Sauveur and De Carville(1985) and Sauveur and De Carville (1990). Sauveur (1990)
reiterated this position that selection for increased body weight reinforced sexual
Bacon et al. (1993) and Beaza et al. (1998) suggested that Muscovy duck could be an
interesting model for studying endocrine regulation of sexual dimorphism on body weight.
The female displays earlier body and muscular development. Beaza et al. (1999) Meulen-
Vander and Dikken (1999) reported that Muscovy duck does not grow very quickly and its
final weight depends on the way it is kept and fed, but noted variability in growth and body
weight between male and female. Similar observation was made earlier on (Knit et al., 1985;
Payne, 1990). Hassan and Mohammed (2003), in a study of weight differences between male
and female Muscovy duck in North Eastern Nigeria reported a significant difference in
matured body weights between male and female which were 2.32+ 0.03kg and 1.54+0.03kg,
respectively.
reported that it favours the male for all traits with the differences being significant (p<0.05)
only after weeks of age. They reported that at 12 weeks the male weighed 1832.0+ 80.4 9g
while the female reached only 68.2% of that weight of the male.
In general male ducks which have completed their growth usually reached 4.5 to 5kg
while the female usually attain 2.2 to 3kg (Salichou, 1991; Nickolova, 2004). Etuk et al. (
2006) reported significant differences (P < 0.05) in average daily weight gain of males (16.1
9) and female (10.17g) which showed about 32% increase in body weight gain for males
Hu et al. (2006) reported that it will be difficult to modify the sexual dimorphism of
body weight by selection. Sexual dimorphism is at least partly caused by some genes carried
Kharel and Arboleda (1986) indicated that the sexual dimorphism in body weight of
Muscovy duck was attributed in part to the effect of sex-linked as well as autosomal genes.
Recently, Tai and Rouvier (1998) in a factorial cross breeding experiment between muscovy
and Pekin ducks suggested that beside the effect of sex-linked genes, assumed coding genes
Pekin W chromosomes appear to depress growth. Body weight of sexual dimorphic Muscovy
duck increases with age (Hu et al., 2006; Leclercq,1990; Leclercq and De Carville,1986).
2.4. Genetic Parameters in Muscovy Duck :Basis for Variation in Morphological and
Reproductive Traits
parameters not only for production and morphological traits but also for fertility and
components such as variance due to additive genetic effects, dominance, epitasis and
2.4.1. Heritability
(VP) that is additive. It is a parameter that indicates the ability of an individual to pass its
management procedure and the method of estimation. It is a property not only of the trait
but also of the population and environmental conditions surrounding the animals (Falconer,
1981) and therefore varies from population to population. Knowledge of the amount of
additive genetic variation and the heritability of traits is essential for understanding how
26
(Falconer and Mackey, 1996). They further observe that heritability is the single most
and mating system. They add that it measures that part of the total variability of the trait
caused by genetic differences among the animals on which the measurement were taken.
and should of course lie between 0 and 1. In some instances the value falls outside this range.
Heritability estimate is a partial description of one trait in one group of animals at some
particular time. It may vary (for each trait) during a time period from herd to herd or it may
vary in the same herd from time to time. This is natural because herds differ in genetic make-
up and because there are many different environmental circumstances from herd to herd or
within a herd from year to year. These genetic and environmental differences influence the
size of the numerical value of the terms (i.e., genetic variance ,VG and total variance VP)
sibling (full sib and half sibs). Parent-offspring relationship involves the regressing of the
mean of offspring performance on mean of parent performance while the other involves
are less reliable than the first moment statistic (average). Many statistics used in animal
genetics are computed from the variance and covariance- heritability, genetic correlation and
27
repeatability. These statistics should be estimated with large samples and with appropriate
There are currently several methods for estimating variance and covariance
components. Some of the common methods of variance component estimation include the
The estimation of variance components in ANOVA is performed with ordinary least squares.
The estimated least squares means from data are set to be equal to derived expression of
ANOVA requires sample data to be balanced, e.g; similar sample size among the
fixed effects. ML and REML estimators do not require the data to be in specific design or
have balanced fixed effects (Harville, 1977). Restricted Maximum Likelihood (REML) and
(DFRML) developed by Thompson( 1962) and expanded by Patterson and Thompson (1971)
has been reported to be marginally sufficient, consistent, efficient and symmetrically normal
(Harville, 1977). Restricted Maximum likelihood do not give negative component of variance
which is usually associated with Maximum likelihood and ANOVA . He further suggested
that when maternal and permanent environmental effect are to be estimated and when
parents are related and selection is going on in a population, animal model procedure of
population to adapt to local environment (Monsseau et al., 2000). Quite a number of studies
on heritability estimates of other parameters have been carried out in Muscovy duck
particularly in France (Mignon-Grasteau et al., 1998; Thompson, 1982), Taiwan (Tai and
Rouvier, 1998; Tai et al., 1989, Merritt, 1966; Hu, 1999; Hu et al., 2004). Studies on
heritability estimates for morphological traits in Muscovy ducks are quite limited in
literature. Several studies however have recorded large heritability estimate of morphological
traits in birds (Merila and Shelden, 2001). Jensen et al. (2003) estimated heritabilities of
three morphological traits in house sparrow as 0.47+0.05, 0.48+0.2 and 0.41+0.06 for tarsus
length, bill and wing length respectively and reported that they ranged from 0.4 to 0.6,
although lower values were reported for body mass and body condition.
Hu et al. (2006) obtained heritability estimates of 0.37 (males) and 0.14 (females) for
feather length in Muscovy ducks . Lindsey (1988) reported that phenotypic traits are highly
variable and often have low heritability, reflecting substantial environmental influences.
age as dam variance component as 0.47(male) and 0.49 (female) and sire variance
component as 0.24 (male) and 0.62 (female). Pingel (1990) quoted values of heritability
from sire+ dam variance component which ranged from 0.47 to 0.53 for body weight at 70
and 74 days in the male Muscovy duck. Poujardien et al. (1994) also compiled values of
heritability estimates of body weight at 53 to 84 days that ranged from 0.17 to 0.55 for male
Muscovy duck which were force-fed. These estimates were obtained by using the variance
component estimation with model sire and dam nested within sire.As similar finding was
29
reported by Chamber ( 990) and Adeyinka et al. (2006 ) for broiler chickens. They further
reported that heritability normally increases with age and seems to be little larger in females
than males as found by Chapuis et al. (1996) for turkey and Mignon-Grasteau et al. (1998)
for muscovy. Mignon-Grasteau et al. (1998) found high values of the heritability for juvenile
body weight in Muscovy duck to be 0.40 and 0.51 for body weight at 6 weeks of age,
respectively for male and females. They also reported for weight gain between 6 weeks of
age and slaughtering age as 0.33 and 0.67 respectively for males and females. Ksiazkiewicz
Hu et al. (2006) reported moderate heritability for body weight at 10 weeks of age
as 0.24 and 0.31 respectively for males and females and for 18 weeks of age, as 0.36 and
0.43 for males and females, respectively. The heritability estimates increased with age.
Similar findings were reported by Adeyinka (2006) for chicken. They seem to be larger in
females than in males as found by Chapuis et al. (1996) for turkey and Mignon-Grasteau et
al. (1998) for muscovy. They interpreted their findings to be as a result of more precocious
growth of males which at a given age is more mature than the female and so differ in their
Cheng et al. (1995) estimated heritabilities of 0.09, 0.11, 0.12, 0,17, 019 and 0.20 for
egg shell strength at 40 and 30 weeks of age, egg number at 52, 30, 40 weeks of age, egg
weight at 30 weeks respectively in a Brown Tsaiya laying duck. Stasko (1966) estimates
ranged from 0.29 to 0.46 for annual egg production and 0.46 to 0.49 for egg weight in Pekin
duck.
30
Beaumont (1992) obtained estimate at 33 and 44 weeks of age from layer hens for
fertile eggs (0.23 and 0.22), hatched eggs (0.23 and 0.22) and maximum of fertility (0.20 and
0.21), respectively. Pingel (1990) reported heritability estimate of egg number based upon
sire and sire + dam variance component ranging from 0.17 to 0.42 in Pekin duck.
Brun and Larzul (2003) estimated heritability for fertility in pure bred Anas platyruynchos
Cross with Muscovy duck to be 0.32 for cross-bred and 0.15 for pure bred, while estimates
of hatchabilities were 0.36 and 0.16 for cross- and pure- breds.
of Taiwan as 0.20+0.03, 0.23+0.0.3, 0.27+0.03, 0.20+0.03 and 0.22+0.03 for age at first lay,
number of eggs laid at 40 weeks, 52 weeks and number laid at 15 and 22 weeks of first lay.
population showing a high h2 value may have h2 eroded to zero very quickly while another
population with a much smaller heritability value may actually have heritability increase
during selection as rare favourable alleles become more frequent. Hence h2 is a completely
unreliable predictor for long term response although it is generally a good to excellent
information on the past history of either populations. Thus high estimated h2 values in two
divergent populations do not imply that the divergence is genetic (it could be strictly
environmental). Likewise low estimate of h2 does not imply that an observed difference
between two populations is environmental; both populations could have exhausted genetic
variation during selection for their divergence. It can be concluded that variances within
population and means between populations are not comparable (Brun and Larzul, 2003).
This is the relationship between two characters and can either be positive or negative
in the individuals of a population. Correlated characters are of interest for several reasons.
Funk et al. (2004) reported that genetic correlation between pairs of traits had an important
effect on the direction and rate of phenotypic evolution. The genetic correlation between two
traits describes the proportion of the phenotypic correlation between the traits that is caused
by genetic variation that affects both traits simultaneously. Genetic correlation between
characters can arise by two mechanisms such as pleitropy or gametic phase disequilibrium
(Lynch and Walsh, 1998). Pleitropy occurs when a single gene affects multiple traits due to
associated in the same individual. Both pleitropy and gametic phase disequilibrium can cause
positive or negative genetic phase disequilibrium (Funk et al., 2004). Genetic correlation can
constrain or enhance phenotypic evolution depending on whether the correlations are positive
or negative. Genetic correlations are notoriously difficult to estimate accurately because they
require accurate estimates of the genetic variance of the trait and the genetic covariance
Grant and Grant (1995) found large and positive genetic correlation between
morphological traits in the medium ground Flinch (Geospiza fortis). Similarly, positive
genetic correlations have been found between various morphological traits in barnacle goose
(Branta leucosis),(Larsson and Fowlard, 1992). However, negative genetic correlations have
also been documented among morphological traits. Johnson and Johnson (1990) found
negative genetic correlation of -0.55 and 0.89 between bill width and body mass in a study of
may either be that genes or environment influences express these traits through different
physiological mechanisms or that the traits have been under directional selection
Alexander (2005) reported that when morphological traits are highly correlated it is
appropriate to describe their variation within generation or their change between generation
Many workers have used correlations among body parameters to assess the mutual
dependence and relationship among the parameters and possibly to implicate the genetic
control of certain part on the same genome region. Such knowledge may be crucial to the
2006).
Braccini-Neto et al. (1997) reported that body weight showed desirable correlations
with sexual maturity, egg weight, laying rate and egg mass, but negatively correlated with
feed efficiency. Negative genetic correlations between some traits prevent fast improvement
of the productive performance of bird flocks, even if the flocks are subjected to constant
selection.
33
Teguia et al. (2007) in their study of live body weight and body characteristics of the
African Muscovy duck reported that body measurements were highly (P<0.01) correlated
with body weight for both male and female and added that the highest correlation coefficients
were obtained between wing length (0.990 and 0.1995) and thoracic perimeter (0.999 and
0.1970) for male and females, respectively. They added that live weight had a linear
relationship with both wing length (R2 = 0.99 and 0.81 ) and thoracic perimeter (R2=0.94 and
Adeogun and Adeoye (2007) reported that phenotypic correlation of body weight and
shank length was mostly positive, indicating that an increase in body weight will lead to an
increase in shank length and vice versa. Ibe (1995) earlier reported that selection on shank
length may not be useful in improving overall body growth of an animal unless selection is
experimental strain of Muscovy duck in Taiwan observed that correlations between laying
traits were high, but that genetic correlation between age at first egg and egg number was
negative (- 0.45).
Poivey et al. (2001) reported in an experiment for a cross between Brown Tsaya
duck artificially inseminated with muscovy drake reported high genetic correlation between
number of fertile egg and maximum duration of fertility as 0.96 0.92 between number of
feather length in growing Muscovy duck, Hu et al. (1999) reported positive and high genetic
correlation between the traits at 10 weeks and 18 weeks of age for male and female.
34
Hu et al. (2006) reported genetic correlation between sexes for body measurements
of Muscovy duck at same age (0.90 at 10 weeks of age and similar 0.89 at 18 weeks of age)
They also reported genetic correlation between sexes for feather length (0.88±0.08). Feather
length in female was also reported to be genetically correlated with body weight of male
(0.8). Mignon-Grasteau et al. (1998) found genetic correlation of 0.88 between sexes in
Muscovy duck body weight at 6 weeks of age. Jenson et al. (2003) reported that there was a
positive genetic correlation between tarsus length and body mass where as tarsus length and
bill length were negatively correlated with body condition index. Chapuis et al. (1996) found
for three strains of turkey average genetic correlation between body weight of both sexes of
0.90 at 12 weeks of age and of 0.88 at 16 weeks of age; only a little inferior to the genetic
correlation between ages (0.95 for females and 0.99 for males). Le Bihan-Dival et al. (1998)
found in chicken very high genetic correlation between traits at the same ages (0.95) for body
brown Tsaiya ducks artificially inseminated with semen from Muscovy duck reported that
phenotypic correlation between number of eggs set, total number of dead embryos and
number of hatched mules were positive but small( 33 , 27, 30%) while high and favorable
genetic correlation was found between number of fertile eggs and maximum duration of
fertility (0.96), number of fertile eggs and number of hatched mule (0.90). Positively and
highly correlated characters reveal common genes acting additively (Beaumont, 1992).
Biologists refer to this variation as heterogeneity and it takes many forms; from obvious
differences between the populations to subtle yet highly important differences in genetic
35
reported that water fowls (ducks ) are a wonderfully-diverse group of species with
morphology, white, black, black/white strains. Hartmeyer (2006) reported that genetically-
similar groups of individuals may be different due to distinct geographic locality and
phenotypic structures, and that high level of this diversity is not an indication of genetic
population seem to be more closely tied to kinship distance than to genetic distance. This may
result from modification of some morphological features by environment rather than genetic
factor.
temperate climate that is evident, particularly in average body weight of male and female in
temperate and subtropical climate (Baeza et al., 1997). Subtropical climate with no controlled
environment could act both to decrease the body weight means and increase the phenotypic
variance(Hu et al., 2006 ). Yahav et al. (1998) found that high relative humidity (RH above
75%) at high ambient temperature deteriorated the growth performance between 10 and 15
weeks of age in turkey, may be due to severe respiratory alkaloses. Random drifts occurring
individuals, which may be changed by introducing new genotypes into the flock. Parents
36
showing high productivity indexes and great genetic diversity may produce a progeny that is
more productive and show great genetic variability (Piassi et al., 1995). Barbosa (2005)
reported that genetic divergence studies may be used to evaluate the behaviour of genotypes
in different environments.
Rafinski and Babik (2000) reported that genetic development may not be
isolation by distance, and that morphological distances were independent of genetic ones.
Gunawan (1989) in a study of native ducks in Indonesia reported that there are some distinct
morphological differences between the native ducks of different regions such as West Java
,Central and East Java, Balil, Lonbok, North Sumatra and Kalimantan.
Genetic distance is that difference between two entities that can be described by
allelic variation (Nei, 1973). This definition was later elaborated by Nei (1987) as the extent
quantity. Hepp et al. (1988) defined genetic distance as a measure of the amount of genetic
level that is calculated between individuals, populations or species (Beaumont et al., 1998).
Studies on the genetic diversity of livestock have increased after the 70' s simultaneously to
the sudden increase in the availability of informatics resources (Sakaguti et al., 1996) .
Genetic divergence studies may be used to evaluate the behaviour of genotypes in different
environments and to evaluate the superiority of some genotypes over others. Similarly, to
identify divergent genotypes that may be used as parents in breeding programs and to relate
Bruchi et al. (2003) reported that the distribution of genetic diversity within and
among populations is a function of the rate of gene flow between populations. The extent of
gene flow in a population depends on the distribution of the habitat it occupies and the size
and degree of isolation. Earlier on , Eding and Laval. (1997) reported that highly inbred
population tends to have an increased genetic distance to other breeds. For poultry,
establishment of measures of genetic distance among breeds and industrial stocks will be
important for identifying unique genetic types not represented (Nother, 1999). Eding and
Laval (1997) reported that genetic distances between breeds or populations are controlled by
mutation, genetic drift, selection and migration. Distance of zero implies no genetic
differences between groups and a maximum value indicates fixation for alternate alleles.
The very first insight into breed diversity can be achieved by examining differences
in phenotypic traits using certain cladistic or phenetic approaches (Moiseyera et al., 1994,
Romanov 1994). In general, phenotypes are divided into discrete traits such as morphological
characters and phenes and continuous traits, e.g. body measurement. These two are used in
assessing genetic variation and phylogenetic relationship between breeds and populations.
Joan et al. (2006) observed that phenotypic traits are highly variable, but often have low
heritability.
using discriminant analysis (Thorpe, 1976; Misra and Cascadden, 1987; Hair et al., 1996).
distance between groups or populations, though several studies (Thorpe, 1982; Hilllis, 1984;
38
Rafinski and Babik, 2000) reported that morphological differentiation is not an indication of
subjected to natural selection. Many birds have evolved divergent morphological structures.
of mutation, since the rate of phenotypic variation brought about by artificial selection in
animal breeding is much greater than the rate of change at the genetic level that is measured
by DNA marker.
Several approaches have been developed in the estimation of genetic distance. The
conventional methods are those developed by Nei (1972) using population allele frequencies
for loci in genome. The problem of developing an index for measuring the distance between
populations using attribute data was first developed by Sanghvi (1953) who proposed an
index analogous to the Chi Square statistics for an evolutionary study. Earlier, Czekanowski
(1909) and Pearson (1926) evolved a concept for measuring population differences similar to
this. The method described by these, although, was primarily for classification of population
using quantitative traits through development of a statistical model widely used today called
species, and will also save cost of experimental material in terms of number of animals which
may be required for evaluation (Salako and Ngere, 2001). Several authors used this approach
39
in estimation of distance between population (Rodero et al., 1996 and Salako and Ngere ,
2001) in goats, Nikiforov et al. (1998) for chicken; Joan et al. (2006) and Pinheiro et al.
(2005) for fish and Murtha (2000) for horses. In livestock population genetic diversity is
(Anderson, 2001). These phenotypic differences are the result of genetic diversity and
Thorpe (1982) reported low genetic distance between frogs from Northern and
Southern Europe. That despite the value the groups are nevertheless unequivocally
genetically-distinct and the clear genetic divergence of the two population was not
Marques et al. (2006) on Lustanian toadfish that morphological distances were independent
of genetic ones.
With increase in the sample size of breeding materials and germplasm used in
animal improvement program methods to clarify and other genetic variabilities are
individuals under investigation are widely used in analysis of genetic diversity irrespective
multidimensional /discriminant analysis are at present most commonly employed and appear
particularly useful (Melchinger, 1993; Brown -Guedira et al., 2000). Barbosa (2005)
40
reported that techniques of multivariate analysis such as clustering analysis have been
successfully employed as a means to identify developing genotypes and better utilize the
advantages provided by heterosis; he added that the use algorithm produces clusters that
constitute a proposition about the basic and unknown organization of the data.
group individuals or objects based on the characteristics they possess, so that individuals with
similar description are mathematically gathered into the same clusters (Hair et al., 1996).
Two types of clustering have been identified- distance -based and model- based method.
Principal component analysis (PCA) can be used as input for clustering rather than directly
applying data from quantitative characters when the correlation among the character are
significant (Goodman, 1972; Everitts, 1980) . Principal component analysis provides variable
morphological traits Van Bueningen and Busch (1997) applied such a procedure for analysis
of genetic diversity among north American spring wheat cultivars. Wiley (1981) defined
principal component analysis (PCA) as a method of data reduction to classify the relationship
between two or more characters and to divide the total variance of the original character into
a limited number of uncorrected new variables. This will allow visualization of the
differences among the individuals and identify possible groups. The reduction is achieved by
linear transformation of the original variable into a new set of uncorrected variables known as
PCs. The first step in PCA is calculating eigen value which defines the amount of total
variation that is displayed on the PC axes. The first PC summaries most of the variability
present in the original data relative to all remaining PCs. The second PC explains most of the
variability not summarized by the first PC and uncorrelated with the first and so on (Wiley,
1981). As PCs are orthogonal and independent of each other, each PC reveals different
41
properties of the original data and may be interpreted independently. In this way the total
variation in the original data set may be broken down into components that are cumulative.
The proportion of variation accounted for by each PC is expressed as the eigen value divided
by the sum of the eigen values. The eigen vector defines the relation of the PC axes to the
There are few reports about the use of principal component analysis in poultry. Ibe
(1989) analysed the body weight of chickens at different ages together with four body linear
measurements- breast and thigh width, shank and keel length. At all ages the first two
principal components explained at least 85% of the total variation. He further reported that
the principal component could be used in the selection index to simplify them because such
an index would have few PCs in the place of the original traits.
Abreu et al. (1999) used the principal component to evaluate the combining
ability of chicken strains for production traits. In line with his type of data, the methodology
was not efficient because it was not possible to explain high percentage of the total variance
with a reduced number of PCs. However, he worked with egg production and reproductive
data and concluded that principal component analysis was efficient, since it was possible to
explain 98% of the total variation with the first two components and also reported that
selection based on component of high discriminatory values may bring satisfactory result.
Debut et al. (2003) used principal component analysis for evaluating and understanding the
relationship among meat quality indicators such as muscle and meat quality traits and
concluded that it can be used to group traits and also develop selection index.
42
A variety of different molecular techniques are being used for the study of inter-
and intra-specific genetic variation at the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) level (Gwakisa et al. ,
1994) . The most widely used techniques are Restricted Fragment Length Polymorphism
.These techniques differ in the way that they resolve genetic variations and in the taxonomic
levels at which they may be most appropriate. As rich selection of molecular techniques is
available, choice of method to use for genetic diversity is quite often dictated by the power
al. , 1994).
RAPD) and microsatellite analysis are being adapted to identify breed-specific genetic
markers and to associate these markers with quantitative traits and disease resistance (Welsh
and McClelland, 1990; Williams et al., 1990). The development of molecular techniques has
created new possibilities for selection and genetic improvement of livestock. The discovery
of the PCR had a major impact on the development and application of various DNA markers
(Marle-Koster and Nei, 2003). Holsinger et al. (2002) earlier reported that molecular
markers derived from polymerase chain reaction (PCR) amplification of genomic DNA are
an important part of the tool kit of evolutionary geneticists . By detecting genetic variation,
genetic markers may provide useful information at different levels of population structure,
levels of gene flow, phylogenetic relationship, pattern of historical biogeography and the
analysis of parentage and relatedness (Feral, 2002). Molecular techniques have also proved
43
useful in the investigation of the origin and domestication of livestock species and their
The advent of molecular techniques has led to an increase in the studies that focus on
the genetic characteristics of domestic breeds using genetic markers (Sharma, 2002),
Genetic markers that provide different estimates of genetic diversity have been described.
The choice of the marker to use for genetic diversity is quite often dictated by the power of
the method used to generate a reproducible polymorphism that can either be tracked in a
manner (Hannotte and Jianlin, 2005) . The choice can also be influenced by the availability of
polymorphism known as allozymes (Queller et al., 1993). Several livestock breeds have
been characterized for variation in different proteins (Di Stasio, 1997). Protein
polymorphism, although still used in population studies are of limited value in the
assessment of genetic variations. This is largely because of the relatively low levels of
polymorphism found in protein loci, resulting in a low taxonomic limit for the resolution
Molecular DNA polymorphism is now the tools of choice for the assessment of
genetic diversity among livestock breeds. They have great potentials for discovery of the
effective population size (Ellegren ,1999; Lynch and Ritland , 1999) and sex specific gene
flow. According to Hannotte and Jianlin (2005) , important assumption needed for the use of
genetic markers include, neutrality of the polymorphism and the use of a relative small
44
number of independent segregating marker loci are a good predictor of the genomic
diversity of a population.
methods to identify animals with higher genetic potentials tend to maximize the genetic gain
for the traits of interest . Wu et al. (2004) Observed genetic diversities arises from the
populations and their applicability in population studies and establishing genetic relation
among chicken populations had been reported (Sharma et al., 2001; Ali and Ahmad,
2001). It was also used to differentiate strains of chicken in many respect (Ahlarwat et al.,
and polymerase chain reaction using arbitrary primers, the RAPD-PCR band sharing value
ranged from 0.66 to 0.99 for all between-line comparisms. The DNA finger printing (DFP)
banding sharing (BS) values among lines from different breeds ranged from 0.10 to 0.20
Smith et al. (1996) reported that 60 random primers were used in an RAPD analysis
to evaluate genetic polymorphism within and among four chicken breeds and two turkey
populations. Seventy percent of primers tested amplified patterns with at least one
polymorphic fragment in one or more of the populations. Genetic variability through RAPD
markers has been detected within and between strains in White leghorn populations (Singh
and Sharma, 2002), using 50 random decamer primers; only 12 primers detected
45
polymorphism between the strains. Between strain genetic similarity estimates based on band
sharing (BS) as well as band frequency (BF) ranged from 0.756 to 0.958 and from 0.830 to
0.996, respectively.
Bednarczyk et al. (2002) studied DNA polymorphism among pooled DNA of eight
goose lines by RAPD-PCR. The number of bands amplified by each primer ranged from 1 to
8 with a mean of 2.86. Some bands appeared specific for the live or genetic background.
Huang et al. (2003) found out that random primers were used for RAPD finger
printing in Chinese White Roman and Landaise geese to detect female specific DNA
sequence. They found that one of the primers used in the study produced a 938 bp sex-
specific fragment in all females and I in males of Chinese geese only. Also data showed that
a simple and effective PCR– based sexing technique could be used, suggesting its potentials
between breeds and to determine interlineal differences had been reported. The use of
molecular markers generated from RAPD s has been applied in poultry studies and their
usefulness had been demonstrated. A PCR-based DNA finger printing method, termed
Randomly Amplified Polymorphic DNA (RAPD) profiles was developed by Welsh and
McClelland , (1990) and Williams et al. (1990) . In this method a single randomly-
generated primers of 10 bases in length or longer was use to prime and differentiate DNA
from various sources. Williams et al. (1990) reported that, RAPD is a useful technique,
which when used in combination with other tools could produce or generate molecular
element of great value for identifying productive characters. Several studies had used
molecular markers in poultry; it has been used as a tool to identify important productive
46
characters in native population even though these birds showed a great production capacity
Ducks are among the birds that are occasionally consumed and are raised intensively
and commercially. Because of the steady increase in duck meat consumption, duck farming
and production is currently receiving some form of attention particularly in riverine areas.
These raise the present interest in research and development of duck production and thus
particularly the genetic variations. Very few reports are available about genetic information
on duck population (Pingel, 1990; Knust et al., 1995; Romboli ,1990). With the recent
available with high accuracy compared to the information obtained by pedigree relationship
and trait phenotypes. These techniques have been successfully employed to address the
genetic variation and in turn, the genetic diversity among different populations, which help in
Few studies have been recently performed to assess the genetic polymorphism in ducks using
DNA fingerprinting technique. Maak et al. (2000) developed microsatellite marker for the
white Pekin and Muscovy ducks. Also, Dolmatova et al. (2000) studied the possibility of
using RAPD marker for the detection of differences among lines of white Pekin ducks. It was
reported that genetic distance precisely reflected even the slight changes that occurred in the
Tiang Fwu et al. (1998), using RAPD procedure showed that nine out of 40 arbitrary
primers amplified clear and reproducible bands. The phylogenetic distance between
muscovy and the domesticated ducks was high. Similarly in their second report the genetic
47
and Muscovy ducks showed pattern of breed clustering adequately reflecting the actual
Siripholvat and Teagoonrung (1998) and Tian- Fwu et al. (1998) reported polymorphic
pattern in DNA bands of different duck breeds belonging to both species cairina and anas.
different breeds. The average heterozygosity estimated was generally less within either
cairina or anas species, revealing the less variation within species compared to that between
species. High levels of band sharing were found between Sudani breeds with an average of
0.74 in Egypt ( El -Gendy et al., 2005 ). They further reported genetic distance indices
between breeds of cairina species (Muscovy and Sudani) showing longer distances to each
other (0.405) compared to the distance between anas species (White Pekin, Damietti and
Nagamine and Higuchi (2001) reported the usefulness of genetic distance to classify and
Xiao et al. (2004) used RAPD technique to evaluate the genetic diversity of Fugian
local duck population in different ecological zones. They showed that the genetic diversity in
East Fugian (67.97%) was higher than that of West Fugian (59.95%). Genetic differentiation
was estimated to be about 32.03% among populations of East Fugian and about 40.95%
3.1 Research approach: Two approaches were adopted in the study; namely, Field
survey ( On-farm) data collection and On-station experiment.
3.1.1 Field survey: A survey on the indigenous local Muscovy duck was carried out at two
agro-ecological zones namely rainforest and guinea savannah of Nigeria to collectinformation
on some morphological characteristics of the ecotypes.
This study was carried out at the duck unit of the Livestock Complex of the College
of Agriculture, Lafia, located along Doma road, Lafia, Nasarawa State. Lafia falls within the
Guinea Savanna zone of North Central Nigeria and is located between latitude 08. 300 N and
longitude 08. 320E with annual rainfall ranging from 952-1988 mm, and a mean monthly
precipitation of 150 mm. Its minimum and maximum daily temperatures average 20-370C.
Lafia has a mean relative humidity at noon varying between 14 and 74%. It has two distinct
seasons; the wet season covering late April to October and dry season covering November to
early April
The duck house consists of an open sided building divided into 20 pens. Each pen
measures 400 x 250cm2. They are arranged on either side of an alley with each pen having an
extended run for the ducks to bask and feed on green vegetation as suggested by (Nickolova,
2004). A separate building was used for brooding and rearing of the ducklings.
The base population used for the experiment was made up of local Muscovy ducks
from two agro-ecological zones of Nigeria, the rainforest and the guinea savannah. The
rainforest population or ecotypes were gathered from rural areas of Ikang, Akamkpa and
Calabar in Cross River State, Ekot Ekpene and I’tu in Akwa Ibom State and its adjoining
village of Uturu in Abia state. The guinea savannah ecotypes were collected from rural areas
of Mbaka'an and Mbagwen of Guma and Makurdi Local Government Areas of Benue state,
Assakio, Shabu and Doma in Nasarawa state and Katcha and Bida in Niger state Fig. 1.
49
The foundation stock consisted of 60 ducks and 10 drakes from each of the agro-
ecological zones (Rainforest and Guinea savannah). They were maintained on the farm as
separate, non pedigreed and unimproved random mating populations. The performance of the
two ecotypes had not been evaluated thus making the study a base study.
For generation multiplication, each ecotype 60 ducks and 10 drakes were placed in a 10
replicate deep litter pen with each containing the ducks in a ratio of 1:6 (i.e., one drake to six
ducks) as foundation stock. The mating arrangement is shown in Appendix 2
Foundation Stock
The ducks and drakes were randomly placed into 10 replicate pens per ecotype in a
drake:duck ratio of 1:6 where they were mated and also to produce fertile eggs. The birds
were fed layers mash containing 18% crude protein at the rate of 170g per bird per day as
recommended by Meulen and Dikken (1999). Six nest boxes were provided in each pen for
laying eggs. Hatching eggs were given sire, dam, batch and ecotype identification.
Incubation of eggs was done naturally by individual laying bird. Six batches of natural
incubation were carried out in all. Ducklings hatched during three consecutive days were
considered as belonging to one batch. A total of 352 ducklings (192 from Guinea savannah
and 160 from Rainforest) was hatched and used for the experiment.
After hatching, the ducklings were transferred from their mother immediately to a
brooding room. Ducklings of each ecotype and their respective batches were wing banded,
weighed and brooded separately on floor pen with wood shavings as litter material. Brooding
for each batch lasted eight weeks. On completion of eight weeks of brooding period the
ducklings were moved to rearing pens. The pens were open-sided, divided into 10 replicate
pens for each ecotype. The ducklings were managed in a biological breeding method in a
semi extensive system as suggested by Nickolova (2004). At 20 weeks of age 60 ducks and
10 drakes from each population were selected for performance testing, until when they
commenced laying. The ducklings were monitored for both first and second egg production /
annual egg production. At 30 weeks of age nest boxes equal to the number of ducks were
50
placed in each pen for egg laying. Eggs laid were recorded twice daily at 10 am and 5.00 pm
and recorded on the egg chart for each replicate pen and ecotype.
The experimental birds were fed on three types of diets according to their growth
phase namely chick mash, grower’s mash and layers mash. The composition and nutrient
analysis of the various diets are shown in Appendix 1. The chick mash was fed to the
ducklings between the ages of 0-8 weeks, grower mash between 9 to 30 weeks and layers
mash from 31 weeks and above. Feed and water were provided ad libitum during brooding,
and rearing, while at laying phase they were fed once daily at 180g per bird per day and
water was supplied ad libitum.
3.2.3.3 Medication:
Incidence of two major viral diseases namely; Newcastle and coccidiosis occur very
often in the area. Therefore, the ducks were vaccinated against Newcastle disease at day old,
28 days and 67 days of age and against infectious bursal disease and fowl pox at the age of 14
days and 56 days, respectively. Coccidiostats and antibiotics were administered occasionally.
Similarly. vitalyte, a vitamin supplement was administered to enhance productivity.
3.3.1. Survey data: Data on the morphological (phenotypic) characteristics of the indigenous
Muscovy ducks from the two agro-ecological zones were collected between 2006 and 2007
from 20 focal areas. The samples were taken from 15 households per focal area. Households
which are distantly located from each other were selected in each area. Overall of 680 ducks
were examined for morphological traits during the survey. Data were collected for a period of
10 months starting from October 2006 to July 2007. These birds were reared in village/rural
settings where they were left to freely roam about scavenging for food crumbs, kitchen waste,
insects, earth worms and leafy vegetation. They however return at dusk to the homestead
where minimum shelter and sometimes grain chaffs and supplements were provided. Only
adult birds that were above one year of age were used for data collection and measurements
were carried out in the morning before they were let out for scavenging. Twelve zoometric
traits (body weight, body length, body width, body height, neck length, bill length, bill width,
bill height, shank length, head length and wing length ) were covered using flexible tape
51
graduated in centimetres for length and a (10) kg capacity kitchen scale for weight as
outlined by (Willin and Erzsebet, 1997).
Body length- measure between the first cervical vertebrae and the pygostye
Bird height – measure from the legs on the ground up to the back of the body.
Body width – distance between the right to the left flank of the body.
Beak width – at the widest part of the beak between the right and the left distance
Shank length – from the knee or knuckle (hock joint)to the region of the tarsus
Wing length – measure as the distance from the caput humeri to the third carpal digit
Head length –as distance between the end of the beak and the end condylus occipitale
Neck length –measure between the first and the last cervical vertebrae
a . Duckling hatch weight:- This was obtained when hatching process was over witnin 12
hours using a digital 250g capacity balance (Metler).
b. Body weight- individual live weights were taken at day old, week one, week 3 and 5
52
weekly interval from hatch to 20 weeks of age using a sensitive 500g digital balance. At 5-
20 weeks the 10 kg capacity kitchen scale was used and at 10 weeks sex
Daily WG = W2 – W1 /28 or 30 or 31
Where
d Body weight gain: Rate of gain was determined at 5-weekly interval. It was calculated
as weight gain in weeks expressed as a ratio of number of birds present during the 5
weeks.
e Mortality: Mortality rate from 0 to 20 weeks of age was recorded in two phases 0-8
Degree of sexual dimorphism between male and female (DSD) in live weight was
calculated by the following formula proposed by Sezer et al. (2006)
MWt
a Age at sexual maturity/first egg. The age ( in days) at which 3 ducks out of the 6 ducks
in a replicate pen laid their first egg
. Thus the average of days in each ecotype was recorded as the average age at first egg
for that ecotype. Alternatively, number of days from hatch to first egg lay in a given
ecotype.
b. Egg production. Egg production was measured in two ways; Percent duck day and
duck-housed production
c. Percent duck day – This is the number of eggs produced expressed as a ratio of
d. Percent duck housed – This is measured as total eggs produced divided by the number
e. Laying intensity- The number of eggs obtained for a week in a month by each ecotype is
Where
1 = laying intensity
Nd = number of ducks
f Body weight at first egg- Average body weight at first egg was recorded for each
ecotype.
g Weight of first egg (WFE)- When the first egg of each duck was laid the weight (g) was
54
immediately taken. The average of all first eggs for each ecotype was computed as mean
h Egg weight – All eggs laid by each ecotype were usually weighed on a Friday, using a
digital electronic weighing balance. The mean of all single weights was computed to
i Egg length and egg width –These were taken on the long side and breadth of each egg
at both first laying cycle and second laying cycle in the two ecotypes.
j Egg mass – This was calculated as the product of egg number and weight. Egg mass of
each ecotype was calculated on the basis of first egg production cycled and second egg
production cycle.
k Pause length/laying interval- This was calculated (in day) between first and second
laying cycles for each ecotype
3.4.1.1 Principal component analysis: Pearson’s coefficients of correlation (r) among the
various morphometric traits obtained from the field data were estimated. From the correlation
matrix, data were generated for the principal component factor analysis. Anti-image
correlations, Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measures of sampling adequacy and Bartlett’s Test of
Sphericity were computed to test the validity of the factor analysis of the data sets. Principal
component analysis according to Everitt et al.( 2001), is a method for transforming the
variables in a multivariate data set, X1, X2, ……., XP, into new variables, y1, y2…, yp, which
are uncorrelated with each other and account for decreasing proportions of the total variance
of the original variables defined as:
55
With the coefficients being closed so that y1, y2 ---, yp account for decreasing
proportions of the total variance of the original variables, x1, x2, ---, xp. The factor programme
of SPSS 14.0 (2004) statistical package was used for the principal component analysis.
Twelve zoometric traits (body weight, body length, body width, body height, ,neck length,
bill length, bill width, bill height, shank length, head length and wing length ) from the two
ecotypes were used and subjected to step wise discriminatory analysis and canonical
discriminant analysis to assess the discriminatory power of each variable, using the mean
procedure of SAS 1990 package and SPSS 14.0 2004 package. Genetic distance between
ecotypes was obtained using Mahalanobis D2 statistics of SAS (1990) using the mean of
each discriminate variable in each ecotype.
Where
Vij = the element of ith row and jth column of the inverse matrix
Discriminate analysis was used to assess the degree of differences of the ecotypes by
multivariate measurement and to test the impact of individual variable on the discriminant
(Sokal and Rolf, 1995).
3.4.2 Phenotypic evaluation of the morphological and growth traits of the ecotypes:
Morphological traits such as (body weight, body length, body width. body mass,
neck length, beak length, beak width, beak height, shank length and head length ) of the
surveyed data and experimental data at 0, 3, 5, 10, 15, and 20 weeks were subjected to the
56
generalized linear model (GLM) procedure of SPSS 14.0 (2004) to a two factor (ecotype and
sex) for the surveyed data and three factor (ecotype , sex and batch) factorial analysis of
variance in a complete randomized designed in each case for the experimental data with the
following linear models:
Where
µ = Population mean.
µ = Population mean.
External egg traits (egg weight, egg length, egg width, data were analyzed using the
following model
Yij =µ + Ei + eij
Where
Body weights:- Data generated on body weight at hatch 0 week, week1, weeks 3, 5, 10, 15
and 20, were analyzed in two stages. In the first stage body weight from 0-3 weeks were
subjected to a two factor (ecotype and batch) factorial analysis of variance in a completely
randomized design. In the second stage body weight from 5-20 were similarly subjected to a
three factor (ecotype, batch and sex) factorial analysis of variance in a completely
randomized design. The first analysis considered the duckling as mixed sex, since apparent
sexual dimorphism is evident in the 3 weeks of life of the duckling, sex effect was included in
the second model in the analysis of the data (3-20 weeks). The generalized linear model
(GLM) procedure of SPSS version 14. (2004) was used in each with the following models.
Where
µ = Population mean
Sk = Effect of k th sex (k = 1, 2)
58
Using the above models body weight at 0, 1, 3 ,5, 10, 15, 20, weeks of age were analyses
separately.
Body weight gain (BWG) during the periods from 0- 5, 6 -10, 11–15 and 16 -20,
and average daily gain in similar age interval were similarly subjected to the analysis of
variance using GLM procedure of SPSS 14. (2004) The Data were analysed in the following
stage with the appropriate linear models:
Where
Laying intensity; Laying intensity was calculated on monthly basis for each ecotype using
monthly egg production, for the laying season and were compared using analysis of variance
SPSS 14. 0 (2004) fitting the linear model.
Yij = µ + ai + eij
Where
The egg production of the ecotypes was divided into part period first laying cycle and
second laying cycle and was analysed using analysis of variance with fitting the model.
Yij = µ + ai + eij
Where
3.4.3.1 Heritability estimates: Growth traits (body weight, body weight gain, and average
daily gain), egg production traits (age at first egg, body weight at first egg, egg number, egg
weight, egg length, egg width and egg mass and pause length) of each of the ecotypes and at
60
various ages were subjected to genetic analysis using the Mixed Model Least Squares and
Maximum Likelihood Computer Programme, (Harvey, (1990). The reduced Sire Model
(Becker, 1984) was used to fit the data.
Yij = µ + a1 + eij
Where
Sire variance component were used to estimate heritability, genetic and phenotypic
correlations of all traits using Harvey (1990).
The formulae for heritability used in computation by Harvey programme are given below
h2 = 4δs2
δs2+δe2
Where
K (k-1) (s-1)
61
Where
t = δs2
δ 2
s + δw2
s = Number of sires
Genetic correlation between any two traits say X and Y was estimate from
rG = Cov (x, y)
Where
Phenotypic correlation
NRI
NRI NRI
62
Where
a Protocol
-Blood sample of about 10ml was collected from the brachial vein of 25 individual
-Genomic DNA was extracted by the use of phenol chloroform extraction method
The concentration and purity of individual genomic DNA samples were determine by using a
spectrophotometer. The optical density (OD) at 260 and 280 nm were measured. The purity
of DNA was determined by absorbance ratio A260/280. The DNA concentration was
1000
Agarose gel electrophoresis was used to determined the quantity of genomic DNA sample.
Agarose gel (0.8%) was prepared by using 0.8g of agarose powder mixed with 100ml x TBE
63
buffer and boiling until dissolved, then cooled down at room temperature and poured into
electrophoresis chamber set. The genomic DNA was mixed with 6 x loading dye, 25%
glycerol 60 nm EDTA, 0.25% bromophenol blue and loaded into the gel. Gel electrophoresis
Primers used
Synthetic primers used for the RAPD analysis in this study were purchased from TAG
Copenhagen, Fruebjervel DK-2100 Copenhagen.
64
(RAPD- PCR):
-RAPD –PCR were carried out with the pooled and the individual genomic DNA
samples
-Seven random primers were used and amplified by polymerase chain reaction
photographed.
c Recording of data:
The RAPD bands were scored for their presence (1) or absence (0) .The index for
similarity between ecotypes and within ecotype was calculated using the formula
Bab= 2Nab/Na+Nb
The genetic distance between the populations was calculated based on band sharing
between the pooled sample profiles. The genetic distance between ecotypes was
Dab=1/N.1- (Nab/Na+Nb-Nab)
N= number of primers
67
GUINEA SAVANNAH
RAINFOREST
4.0 RESULTS
Mean squares obtained from analysis of variance for the effect of ecotype on body
weight and body measurements (body length, body width, bill length, bill width, bill height,
shank length, body height, head length, neck length, head width and wing length ) from field
data of the indigenous Muscovy duck are presented in Appendix 1. Table 2 presents the least
squares means and standard errors of body weight and body measurements (sexes combined)
for the guinea savannah ecotype and the rainforest ecotype. Ecotype had a very highly
significant (P<0.001) effect on body width, body height, head length, neck length, and wing
length, and also significantly (P<0.05) affected bill height and head width. However,
ecotype had no significant (P>0.05) effect on body weight, body length, bill length, bill
width and shank length. The result showed mean values of body width and head length of
14.58±0.24cm and 5.38±0.07cm, respectively for the rainforest ecotype and corresponding
values of 13.30±0.15cm and 4.80±0.05cm for guinea savannah ecotype. With respect to body
height, neck length and wing length the guinea savannah ecotype significantly had higher
values of 18.59±0.20cm, 14.34± 0.10cm and 25.60± 0.26cm, respectively when compared
with the respective values of 17.22±0.27cm, 13.46±0.14cm and 23.35±0.36cm for the
rainforest ecotype . However for bill height and head width were higher for the rainforest
Appendix 2 presents the mean squares for body measurements of the two Muscovy
duck ecotypes for the effect of sex, ecotype and their interactions. Sex had very highly
significant (P<0.001) effect on all the traits except for bill (P<0.05) and a non
69
significanteffect (P>0.05) on bill height. The least squares means for the effect of sex and
ecotype are shown in Table 3. In the two ecotypes and for all traits, higher values were
recorded for the male except for bill height in the guinea savannah ecotype, where the male
had less value than the female. In the forest ecotype the females showed greater variability in
all the body measurement characteristics except the wing length. Conversely, the males
demonstrated greater variability in body measurements than females (with the exception of
bill length, shank length and wing length ) in the guinea savannah ecotype.
Table 4 shows the coefficients of correlation between the body measurements of the
adult Muscovy ducks for the two ecotypes. In the male traits, only body length, body width
and wing length had positive (P<0.001) (P<0.05) correlation with body or live weight (0.187,
0.173 and 0.661) respectively. The highest correlation in males (0.698) was recorded between
head length and body width . In the females, all the traits had positive correlation with body
weight except for head width, with the wing length having highest correlation (0.535)
Kolmogorov-Smirnov test showed that most traits in the two ecotypes were normally
ab = means in the same column within trait sub-group with different superscript differ significantly
(P<0.05) cv = coefficient of variation. BWT= Body weight, BDL= Body length , BDD= Body width, BLL= Bill
Length, BLD =Bill width, BLH =Bill height , SHL= Shank length, BH= Body height, HL= Head length NL= Neck length,
HD =Head width, WL= Wing length
71
ab= means in the same column within the same sex subgroup with different superscripts are
significantly different(P<0.05)
cv=coefficient of variation
( )= number of observations
72
DIAGONAL)
BWT .353 .074 .070 .141 .118 .114 .402 .019 .152 -.041 .535
BDL .189 .160 .021 .206 055 .094 .290 .092 .192 .030 310
BDD .173 .242 -.079 .157 .120 .017 .086 .462 .140 .156 -.277
BLL -.008 .027 .120 .004 -.017 .004 .000 -.131 -.071 -.015 .080
BLD -.184 .000 .511 .383 .004 .045 .188 .123 .220 .044 .135
BLH -.154 .019 .369 .049 .299 .001 .030 .053 .004 .019 .000
SHL -.050 .073 .635 .077 .623 .291 .189 .034 .254 -.033 .198
BH -.040 .023 .242 .003 .182 -.160 .416 -.084 .575 -.084 .482
HL -.044 .156 .698 .064 .589 .476 .589 -.032 .218 .221 -.079
NL -.119 .242 .466 .055 .450 .199 .429 .275 .444 -.064 .553
HD -.042 .027 .261 .036 .177 .197 .158 -.111 .308 .138 -.111
WL .661 .169 .190 -.027 -.112 -0.49 -.056 -.044 .040 .095 .058
BWT= Body weight, BDL= Body length , BDD= Body width, BLL= Bill Length, BLD
=Bill width, BLH =Bill height , SHL= Shank length, BH= Body height, HL= Head length
Table 5 presents anti image correlation matrix for the body measurements in the male
Muscovy duck. Measures of sampling adequacy ranged from .386 (for bill length) to .835
(for head width). Other images were either negative or positive but not significant.
Anti image correlation computed for male body measurements (Table 5) and female
body measurements (Table 7) show that partial correlations were low, indicating that true
factor existed in both the male and female data. Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure of sampling
adequacy studied from the diagonal of partial correlation reveals the proportion of the
variances in the male body measurements caused by the underlying factor (0.709) and for
female (0.584). The overall significance of the correlation matrices tested with Bartlett’s test
of sphericity shows for males the chi square of 769.370 was significant at P<0.001, while
for female chi square of 597.331 was significant at P<0.001. These two tests provided enough
support for the validity of the factor analysis for the male and female data sets.
After Varimax rotation of the component matrix in the male traits four factors with
ratio of variance of 66.839% were extracted as shown in Table 6 . The factor pattern
coefficients were used to assess the relative contributions of the various body measurements
towards determining the numerical value of the corresponding factor, principal component.
Similarly, the variance of the variable was partitioned into a common portion “Communality”
shared with some or all of the corresponding factors or principal components. This showed
that 25.8- 90.0% of the variation in body measurement traits of the male ducks of the two
ecotypes were brought about by the principal components. The first factor was sufficient to
explain 30.458% of the total variance among the 12 traits. The traits associated with the first
factor included body width, bill width, shank length, neck length, head length and body
height. The second factor was associated with body weight and wing length.
74
Table 7 presents the anti image correlation matrix of body measurements in female
adequacy(MSA). Between image correlation ranged between .417 to .884 with the highest
mirror image correlation found between shank length and the least between body width.
Table 8 shows the result of Varimax rotation of the component matrix of the female
traits. Four factors with ratio variance of 56.402 were extracted. The communality values
showed that 26.4 – 76.8% of the variation in the traits were brought about by the principal
components. The first factor in the female traits was sufficient to explain 23.236% of the total
variance among the body measurements. The traits associated with the first factor included
body height, neck length and shank length. The second factor was associated with body
weight and body length while others were associated with the third and fourth factors.
75
TABLE 5: ANTI IMAGE CORRELATION MATRIX FOR MALE MUSCOVY DUCK BODY
MEASUREMENTS.
BWT .487a -.133 -.241 -.047 .107 .170 -.085 .084 .069 .255 .102 -.637
a
BDL -.113 .641 -.132 -.071 .150 .050 .032 .039 -.053 -.228 .034 .024
BDD -.241 -.132 .803a -.081 -.028 -171 -.214 -.238 -.434 -.113 -.121 -048
a
BLL -.047 -071 -.081 .386 -.463 -.008 .144 .036 .168 .080 -.009 .019
a
BLD .107 .150 -.028 -.463 .762 .022 -343 .018 -.268 -.203 .011 .043
a
BLH .170 .050 -.171 -.008 .022 .815 -.081 .237 -.166 .006 -.008 -.028
a
SHL -.085 .032 -.214 .144 -.343 -.081 .793 -.404 -.217 .000 -.007 .121
a
BH .084 .039 -.238 .036 .018 .237 -.404 .451 .359 -.192 .127 .013
a
Hl .069 -.053 -.434 .168 -.268 -.166 -.217 .359 .769 -.110 -.097 -.014
a
Nl .255 -.228 -.113 080 -.203 .006 .000 -.192 -.110 .784 .000 -.236
a
Hd .102 .034 -.121 -.009 .011 -.008 .007 .127 -.097 .000 .835 .081
Wl -.637 .024 -.048 .019 .043 -.028 .121 .013 -.014 -.236 -.081 523a
a= measure of sampling adequacy (MSA), BWT= Body weight, BDL= Body length , BDD= Body width,
BLL= Bill Length, BLD = Bill width, BLH = Bill height , SHL= Shank length, BH= Body height, HL= Head
length NL= Neck length, HD = Head width, WL= Wing length
76
DUCK
BWT .499a -.110 -.291 -.006 -.045 -.100 -.033 -.272 -.019 .405 .041 -.558
BDL -.110 .797a -.175 .002 -.123 -.010 -.021 -.107 -.007 .082 -.303 -.182
BDD -.291 -.175 .417a -.019 -.071 -.076 .004 -.002 -.328 -.303 -.048 .506
BLL -.006 .002 -.019 .612a -.020 .015 -.011 -.011 .091 .094 -.016 -.085
BLD -.045 -.123 -.071 -.020 .846a .025 .022 -.029 -.021 -.107 -.034 .008
BLH -.100 -.010 -.076 .015 .025 .671a .008 .011 -.001 -.001 -.004 .021
SHL -.033 -.021 .004 -.011 .022 .008 .884a -.035 .005 -.135 .00- -.018
BH -.273 -.103 -.002 -.011 -.029 .011 -.035 .771a .036 -.423 0.42 -.009
HL -.019 -.007 -.328 .091 -.021 -.001 .005 .036 .651a -.173 -.245 .050
NL .405 .082 -.303 .094 *.107 -.001 -.135 -.423 -.173 .509a 089 -.580
HD .041 -.030 -.048 -.016 -.034 -.004 .009 .042 -.245 .089 .619a -.032
WL -.556 -.182 .506 -.085 .006 .021 -.018 -.099 .050 -.580 -.032 .533a
a = measures of sampling adequacy (MSA) BWT= Body weight, BDL= Body length , BDD= Body width, BLL= Bill
Length, BLD = Bill width, BLH =Bill height , SHL= Shank length, BH= Body height, HL= Head length , NL= Neck
length, HD = Head width, WL= Wing length
78
Var = Variance
79
Using the 12 morphological traits from the two ecotypes, test of equality of group
means of the two ecotypes was analysed (Table 9). Using Wilks lambda of the 12 traits,
only seven traits (body width, bill height, body height, head length, neck length, and wing
length ) were significant at (P<0.001) and head width (P<0.05) as shown in Table 11.
Table 10 gives the summary of the canonical discriminant analysis, using the seven
traits that showed significance in test of equality of group means of the two ecotypes
differentiating the two populations with the guinea savannah ecotype centriod as 0.619 while
For the multivariable model a Muscovy duck was classified as guinea savannah if
Disciminant score was greater than zero (D>0) and rainforest ecotype if less than zero (D<0).
The unstandardized canonical discriminant function was used to classidfy individual birds.
Head length, neck length, wing length, body width, body weight, body height, and bill width
The classification function could be directly used to identify the two populations, since
positive scores indicate guinea savannah and negative scores indicate rainforest ecotype.
Table 11 presents summary of stepwise discriminant analysis showing those variables that
can discriminate between the two ecotypes. When the seven morphometric variables had
been entered, Wilks (λ) dropped to 0.583 with a significant difference between the two
ecotypes such that F = 45.095 was highly significant at P<0.001 . The seven variables
described the morphological differences between the studied populations at the specific level
of each variable accepted into the model. These are the only variables used in the population
differentiation. The discriminant variables were body weight, body width, bill width, body
80
height, head length, neck length, and wing length . Detail of Fisher's linear discriminant
functions of all the seven characters used in discriminating and considered in the analysis of
sthe two ecotypes are presented in Table 12. The discriminant functions appear to distinguish
the population correctly cent per cent as evident from the sample data. Neck length had the
highest discriminating function of 1.473, which was followed by body width while bill width
from the rainforest ecotype were most correctly classified as 84.1% while those of the guinea
savannah ecotype was 82.3%. Cross validation and overall success rate (82.9%) of the
The squared Mahalanobis distance between the ecotypes was 2.963 (Table 14). The test of
significance of the squared Mahalanobis distance (F–test) with all the traits and degree of
freedom was presented in Tables15 . The F–ratio was 24.783 at (P<0.001) . Validating the
distance estimation using the variables. A cross validation testing procedure was performed
to assess the ability of the selected variables to predict Muscovy ducks from the two
ecotypes.
81
Constant -3.354
DIFFERENTIATION
Ecotypes
1 1 2 2
Class F P F P
1 24.78275 0.000
2 24.78275 0.000
88
Mean squares from the analysis of variance showing the effect of ecotype on body
weight from day old to 20 weeks of age are presented in Appendix 3. Table 16 and Fig.2
shows the body weight performance (sex combined) of the guinea savannah and rainforest
ecotypes and the graphical presentation of weight increase. Ecotypes had a very highly
significant (P<0.001) effect on body weight only at day-old and highly significant (P<0.01)
effect at week 3, week 10 and week 15. At week one and week 20, ecotype did not show any
At day-old, the body weights were 39.85±0.13 and 36.88±0.15g for the guinea and
rainforest ecotypes, respectively. Higher weight was in favour of the guinea savannah
ecotype. Batch effect on body weight was highly significant (P<0.01) at day-old and very
At week 20, all the effects( ecotype, batch and their interactions) were not significant
(P>0.05) on the body weight of the Muscovy duck, though the body weight of the guinea
savannah ecotype was consistently higher from day-old to 20 weeks of age (Table 16).
Sexual differences in body weight was obvious (P<0.001) from the third week of age
in both ecotypes up to 20 weeks of age. Mean squares from the analysis of variance showed
the effect of ecotype, sex and their interactions on body weight at 3 and 5 weeks of age . At
week 10 to 20, there was no significant effect(P>0.05) of Ecotype x Sex interaction on body
Table 17 and Fig.3 presents the least squares means of the body weight of the two
ecotypes by sex and graphical representation of the weight increase. There was significant
difference (P<0.01) between males and females withnin ecotype, with the males
89
demonstrating heavier weight than the females from the third week up to 20 weeks. Males did
not differ significantly (P>0.05) between ecotypes in body weight as from three weeks to 20
weeks of age. However, significant differences existed in body weight of females among the
ecotypes within these ages with the females of the guinea savannah being heavier than those
of the rainforest.
90
TABLE 16: LEAST SQUARES MEANS FOR BODY WEIGHT (0-20 WEEKS) OF TWO
Guinea CV Rainforest CV
(192) (160)
(181) (146)
(165) (136)
(164) (136)
(156) (131)
(155) (111)
(152) (107)
ab = means in the same row within age subgroup with different superscripts' differ
significantly (P<0.05)
91
2000 Variable
guinea
rainforest
1500
body weight
1000
500
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
weeks
WEEKS OF AGE
92
(63) (43)
(102) (80)
(62) (41)
(102) (95)
(56) (40)
(100) (91)
(56) (35)
(99) (76)
(53) (35)
(99) (72)
( )=number of observations, ab = means in the same row within age subgroup with different
3000 Variable
guinea male
guinea female
2500 rainforest male
rainforest female
2000
body weight
1500
1000
500
0
1 2 3 4 5
weeks
Appendix 4 and Table 17 show significant (P<0.001) effect of sex on body weight
from week 3 to the adult age in the Muscovy duck of the two ecotypes. Measures of degree of
sexual dimorphism are presented in Tables 18 and 19 for the guinea and rainforest ecotypes.
In the guinea savannah ecotype, the degree of sexual dimorphism estimates were 20.85,
22.44, 18.36, 46.06 and 44.39 for week 3, 5, 10, 15, and 20. (Table 18). In the rainforest
ecotype estimates of degree of sexual dimorphism were 27.51, 14.43, 35.97, 47.59, and
44.96 at 3, 5, 10, 15, and 20 weeks of age as shown in Table 19. In the two ecotypes similar
trends were noticed in the degree of sexual dimorphism with the highest at 15 week of age,
Between the two ecotypes sexual dimorphism was exhibited at the earlier stage in the
rainforest ecotype than in the guinea savannah ecotype however at 20 weeks similar degrees
were shown (44.39 and 44.96) for the guinea and rainforest ecotypes respectively.
95
(63) (102)
(62) (102)
(56) (100)
(56) (99)
(53) (99)
( )= number of observations
96
(43) (80)
(41) (95)
(40) (95)
(35) (76)
(35) (72)
( )= number of observations
97
4.2.3 Body weight gain and average daily gain (BWG and ADG)
The mean squares from the analysis of variance of the effect of ecotype and least
square means of the body weight gain and average daily gain (0 to 20 weeks of age) are
presented in Appendix 5 and Table 20. Ecotype significantly (P<0.01) affected body weight
gain between 5 to 10 weeks of age with the guinea savannah ecotype gaining faster than the
rainforest ecotype. Between 15 and 20 weeks of age, ecotype also significantly (P<0.001)
affected both body weight gain and average daily gain with higher values in favour of the
rainforest ecotypes. From the results body weight gain and average daily gain showed gradual
increase in the ecotypes from day- old to 10 weeks of age. After 10 weeks of age there was a
decline in both body weight gain and average daily gain with advancing in age.
Appendix 6 and Table 21 outline the mean square and least squares means for the effect of
ecotype and sex on body weight gain and average daily gain.
98
TABLE 20. LEAST SQUARES MEANS± SE FOR BODY WEIGTH GAIN AND AVERAGE
ab
= means in the same row within an age subgroup with different superscripts differ
significantly (P<0.05)
99
TABLE 21. LEAST SQUARES MEANS ± SE OF BODY WEIGHT GAIN AND AVERAGE
DAILY GAIN OF ECOTYPE OF MUSCOVY DUCKS BY SEX
Ecotypes
g= gram
100
Heritability estimates obtained from sire variance component for body weight at
various ages for the genetic groups under consideration (guinea and rainforest) are presented
in Table 22. There are variations in the heritability estimate, (h2) between the genetic groups
in all ages. The heritability estimate for the guinea savannah ecotype ranged from h 2= 0.10 ±
0.17 at 3rd week of age to 1.40 ± 0.50 at day-old which is though outside the normal range of
h2 estimate. In the rainforest ecotype the heritability estimate ranged from h2 = 0.02 ± 0.16 at
3rd week of age to 1.04 ± 0.418 at first week of age. Generally, heritability estimates differ
from one age to another in both ecotypes. Lower heritability estimates were recorded at the
Estimates of heritability from sire variance component for the 5-weekly body
weight gain for the guinea savannah and the rainforest ecotypes are presented in Table 23.
The estimates for the guinea savannah ecotype ranged from h2 = 0.01 ± 0.16 at 5– 10 weeks
to 0.32 ± 0.42 at 15– 20 weeks of age. The estimate of the 1.00 ± - 0.24 is outrageous.
Variation occurred in the heritability estimates in both ecotypes, which tened to increase with
Table 24 shows the heritability estimates for 5-weekly average daily gain from
sire variance components for the two genetic groups. For the guinea savannah ecotype it
ranged from h2 0.01 ± 0.16 at 0– 5 weeks of age to 0.45 ± 0.33 at 16– 20 weeks of age, while
in the rainforest ecotype, heritability estimates ranged from h2 0.01 ± 0.16 at 0 – 5 weeks of
age to 0.35 ± 0.30 at 5– 10 weeks of age. In the guinea savannah ecotype there was an
increasing trend from 0 – 5 to 16 – 20 in the estimates.A similar pattern was noticed in the
rainforest ecotype, except that at the 16 – 20 weeks the estimate of 1.23± 0.43 was outside the
Phenotypic correlation between body weights at specific ages for the guinea
savannah ecotype and the rainforest ecotype of indigenous Muscovy ducks are presented in
Table 25. Phenotypic correlations were generally low to high and positive in the guinea
savannah ecotype. Phenotypic correlations between body weight at day old and body weight
at other ages were generally low. A similar trend was observed for weight in week one to
other ages. Higher, positive and significant (P<0.001) phenotypic correlations were observed
for body weight at week three with weights at older ages. A similar pattern was observed in
the rainforest ecotype, except that the phenotypic correlation of body weight at week one
4.3.5 Genetic and phenotypic correlations between body weight, body weight gains and
Tables 26 present the genetic and phenotypic correlations between body weight,
body weight gains and average daily gains for the guinea savannah and the rainforest
105
ecotypes of Nigerian indigenous Muscovy duck. In the guinea savannah ecotype genetic
correlations between body weight and body weight gain ranged from rG= -0.063 at 5 weeks to
1.743 at the 10 week. Phenotypic correlation ranged between rp = 0.071 to 0.571 for body
weight and body weight gain. Higher correlations (both genetic and phenotypic) were
recorded between body weight, body weight gain and average daily gain at the 15 weeks of
ages in the guinea savannah ecotype. At weeks 5, 10 and 20 both genetic and phenotypic
correlations (rG and rp) were generally low to moderate and all positive except for genetic
correlation of body weight and body weight gin at 5 weeks, some were also significant
(P<0.001).
In the rainforest ecotype genetic correlation (r G) between body weight and body
weight gain ranged from 0.145 at 10 week to - 1.122 at 5 weeks. In this genetic group
genetic correlations (rG) between body weight and body weight gain were generally negative
except at 10 weeks of age. Negative genetic correlation coefficients were also recorded
between body weight and average daily gain at 10 and 15 weeks of age, respectively and the
same trend was observed between body weight gain and average daily gain at 20 weeks of
age.
Phenotypic correlations (rp) between the traits in this genetic group were all positive
while some were significant (P<0.001). Phenotypic correlation between body weight gain and
average daily gain in all ages were high and significant 0.805, 0.869, 0.933 and 0.597 at 5,
rG rP rG rp
BWT= body weight, BWG= body weight gain, ADG= average daily gain
109
4.4.1 Body weight at first egg, average age at first egg, number of eggs laid at first cycle
Appendix 7 shows mean squares for body weight at first egg, average age at first
egg, number of egg laid at first egg, average egg weight, and egg mass of the two ecotypes.
The least squares means and standard errors of all the traits (body weight at first egg, age at
first egg number of egg laid at first egg and egg mass) are presented in Table 27. Ecotype
significantly (P<0.01) affected body weight at first egg and age at first egg, with 1496.88±
16.76 gram and 1579.47±17.57g as body weight of the ducks at first lay for the guinea and
rainforest ecotypes respectively. Ages at first egg (in days) were 314.76±3.33 and
331.70±3.49 days for the guinea and rainforest ecotypes, respectively with the rainforest
Values for egg mass for the two ecotypes were 317.44± 17.92 and 292.14± 18.80g for the
guinea and rainforest ecotypes, respectively with no significant difference between the
ecotypes.
110
TABLE 27. LEAST SQUARES MEANS ± SEM OF BODY WEIGHT AT FIRST EGG, AGE
AT FIRST EGG, AVERAGE NUMBER OF EGG LAID AT FIRST LAYING CYCLE,
AND EGG MASS OF TWO ECOTYPES OF MUSCOVY DUCK
ab
means in the same column having different superscripts are significant different
(P<0.05)
( )= number of observations
111
Appendix 8 and Table 28 show the mean squares and the least squares means and standard
errors of egg characteristics (weight of first egg, length, and width of the first egg) and
ecotype significantly (P<0.05) affected width , (P<0.001) egg length (P<0.01) and egg
weight. The mean egg length of the two ecotypes were 5.307± 0.02 and 5.44± 0.02 cm for
the guinea and rainforest ecotype, with the rainforest having longer egg, while the width
means were 4.116± 0.01 and 4.157± 0.01 cm for guinea and rainforest ecotypes, respectively.
112
ab
means in the same column within the same trait subgroup having different superscripts are
significant different (P<0.05)
( )= number of observations
113
Mean squares of the second laying cycle characteristics of the two ecotypes are
presented in Appendix 9. Ecotype significant (P<0.001) affected number of eggs laid, egg
mass, pause length and average egg weight, while there was no significant (P>0.05) effect of
ecotype on average egg length and egg width. Table 29 presents least squares means of the
second laying characteristics, (number of eggs laid, egg mass, pause length, average egg
weight, average egg length, and average egg width ). The number of eggs laid at the second
laying cycle were 11.05± 0.55 and 8.27±0.57 for the guinea and rainforest ecotypes,
respectively. Higher (P<0.001) egg mass and longer pause length were recorded for the
guinea savannah ecotype compared with the rainforest ecotype such as 691.27± 37.27
compared with 496.14 ± 38.14 for egg mass and 78.18± 4.32 days compared with 62.28±
g= gram, cm =centimetre
( )= number of observations
115
Table 30 presents the duck- day and laying intensity or duck- day percent for the
guinea savannah and rainforest ecotypes for the annual laying season of the Muscovy duck.
The duck- day and laying intensity were calculated on monthly basis. The duck- day ranged
from 0.8 to 4.04 for the guinea savannah ecotype with an overall mean of 2.25, while for the
rainforest ecotype it ranged from 0.45 to 2.86 with an overall mean of 1.90. There was a
significant (P<0.05) difference between the overall mean of the guinea savannah and the
rainforest ecotype in favour of the guinea savannah ecotype. Highest duck day production for
the guinea savannah ecotype was at the month of August (4.04) while April had the least
(0.8) For the rainforest ecotype similar trend was also recorded with highest in August
The duck- day percent production or laying intensity for the two ecotypes
presented in Table 40 showed that for the guinea savannah ecotype laying intensity ranged
from 2.67 to 13.02 with the mean percent production of 7.68. Peak production of this ecotype
was in August with the value of 13.02%. For the rainforest ecotype the percent production
or laying intensity ranged from 3.33% in the month of April to 9.23% in the month of
August, with August recording the peak production for the ecotype, and the mean value for
TABLE 30: LAYING INTENSITY BASED ON LAYING SEASON OF THE GUINEA AND
RAINFOREST ECOTYPES OF MUSCOVY DUCK
DD = duck day
LI = laying intensity
117
4.5.1 Heritability estimate of laying characteristic and external egg traits of first laying
Cycle:
Heritability estimates from sire variance components of body weight at first egg,
age at first egg and the external egg characteristics of first laying cycle of the guinea
savannah and rainforest ecotypes of the indigenous Muscovy duck are presented in Table 31.
The estimates were 0.13 ± 0.41, 1.11 ± 0.05, 0.80 ± 0.32, 0.55 ± 0.30 and 0.65 ± 0.33 for
body weight at first egg, age at first egg, egg weight, length and width, respectively for the
guinea savannah ecotype. The corresponding values for the rainforest ecotype were 0.83 ±
0.62, 1.54 ± 0.74, 1.79 ± 0.74, 1.79 ± 0.51, 1.00 ± 0.43 and 1.05 ± 0.51. The estimates of the
rainforest ecotype were high with some above the normal parametric range.
4.5.2 Genetic and phenotypic correlations of external egg quality traits of the first
Table 32 presents the genetic and phenotypic correlations between the external egg
traits of the two genetic groups in the first laying cycle. The genetic correlations between egg
length and width had the highest value of 0.785 and significant (P<0.001) while the least was
between weight and length (0.131) in the guinea savannah ecotype. Similarly, moderate
estimates were recorded for the phenotypic correlations between all the traits in the same
ecotype.
In the rainforest ecotype, genetic and phenotypic correlations were generally high
and significant (P<0.001). Genetic correlation coefficients were 0.831, 0.802 and 0.886 while
the phenotypic correlation coefficients were 0.675, 0.753 and 0.642 for weight and length,
rG rp rG rp
WFE=weight of first egg, LFE= length of first egg, WDFE= width of first egg
4.5.3 Heritability estimate of second laying characteristics and external egg traits of the
two ecotypes:
Table 33 shows the heritability estimates for the second laying charateristics and
external egg traits of the guinea and rainforest ecotypes. The (h2) estimate for number of eggs
laid, egg mass, pause length, egg weight, egg length and egg width of the guinea savannah
ecotype were 0.30 ± 0.56, 0.45 ± 0.61, 0.32 ± 0.57, 0.09 ± 0.12, 0.19 ± 0.17 and 0.16 ± 0.15,
respectively. While those of the rainforest ecotype were 1.23 ± 0.52, 0.97 ± 0.98, 0.61 ± 0.86,
0.87 ± 0.49, 1.51 ± 0.64 and 0.86 ± 0.48, respectively. The estimate for the rainforest
ecotypes was generally higher, though the values for the number of eggs laid, and egg length
(h2) (h2)
savannah and rainforest ecotypes are presented in Tables 34 and 35, respectively. In the
guinea savannah ecotype genetic correlations were all high between the traits, while the
phenotypic correlations were low between number of eggs laid and pause length. Higher and
significant (P<0.001) phenotypic correlation was recorded between number of eggs laid and
egg mass. For the rainforest ecotype, genetic correlations were low (0.241 and 0.102) and
negative between pause length and number of egg laid (-362). The phenotypic correlation
followed, the same pattern as the guinea savannah ecotype, which was low except for the
relationship between egg mass and number of eggs laid (0.845) which was high and
significant (P<0.001).
123
NEL EGM PL
PL 1.236 0.884***
NEL= number of egg laid, EGM= egg mass, PL= pause length , ***(P<0.001)
124
NEL EGM PL
PL -0.362*** 0.102
NEL= number of egg laid, EGM= egg mass, PL= pause length ***(P<0.001)
125
To ensure that the amplified DNA bands originated from genomic DNA and not primer
artifacts, negative control was carried out for each primer /ecotype combination. No
amplification was detected in the control reaction. All amplification products were
reproducible when reactions were repeated using the same reaction condition. Five of the
primers (71.4%) were successfully amplified, polymorphic bands among the two ecotypes as
shown in Table 36 and Fig 1. The total number of amplified bands were 59 and 54 for the
guinea and rainforest ecotypes, respectively. There were more number of bands (polymorphic
and monomorphic) in the guinea savannah than the rainforest ecotype. The primer oligo 1
gave the highest bands in both ecotypes. Table 37 gave the genetic variability between the
two ecotypes, and the similarity between the two ecotypes was 0.86 while the genetic
TABLE 36. NUMBER OF RAPD BANDS FOR EACH PRIMER USING AGAROSE GEL IN
THE TWO MUSCOVY DUCK ECOTYPES
Oligo 1 15 5 10 14 4 10
Oligo 2 9 3 6 9 3 6
Oligo 4 13 4 9 13 4 9
Oligo 6 10 3 7 8 3 5
Oligo 7 12 4 8 10 2 8
Total 59 19 40 54 16 38
RainForest 0.142 0
1= Genetic similarity
2=Genetic distance
128
5.0 DISCUSSION
Muscovy ducks.
representing suitable model for biogeography and genetic studies. Thus morphological
studies can produce valuable information about phenotypic plasticity of a species and
possible effect of genetic changes on morphological variation (Hauser et al., 1995). The
variation in morphological traits between the two ecotypes of indigenous Muscovy ducks in
body sizes (body width, bill height, body height, head length, neck length, head width and
wing length) is similar to the findings of Scott and Reynolds (1984) in Mexican ducks.
Though scientific reports on indigenous domestic Muscovy duck in Nigeria are lacking to
contrast head to head with this findings. Most investigations were carried out on chickens.
This variation agreed with the submission of Olori (1992) and Horst (1999), who reported
that, in poultry there are marked differences in body morphology between northern and
southern ecotypes. The apparent differences in some morphological traits between the two
ecotypes might be an adaptation. The longer body diameter, shank length, body height, neck
length and wing length in favour of the guinea savannah ecotype might be adaptive features
to the ecosystem.
There was high level of sexual dimorphism when the body measurements of
Muscovy duck for the two ecotypes were analyzed for the effect of sex, ecotype and their
interaction. Sex had significant (P<0. 001) effect on all the traits except for bill height with
male significantly having larger sizes and heavier body weight compared with the female in
the two ecotypes. These findings are in agreement with the report of Tai and Rouvier (1998),
Beaza et al. (2001) and Teguia et al. (2007) on western and African Muscovy duck. One
130
possible explanation for the appearances of extreme sexual size dimorphism in Muscovy
ducks is that of breeding strong female selection for high quality male or competition among
males for quality female, leading to fixation of larger body sizes and the secondary characters
(Mc Crakens et al., 2000). Badyaev et al. (2001) concluded that major causes of dimorphism
in birds are the strength of selection in different morphological traits and vary between sexes
and that selection always acts more on males than females. This sexual dimorphism is
attributable to the usual action between sex differential hormonal action( Baeza et al., 2001)
The adult body weight obtained in the present study is higher than what Hassan
and Mohammed (2003) reported for adult muscovy ducks from northern Nigeria. Salicon
(1991) and Nickolova (2004) however reported higher values of body weight (4.50 - 5kg)
correlation among the traits and reduced the number of traits studied in the ducks, using only
the first four principal components, without loss of information. Pinto et al. (2006) reported
discriminate well between similar populations and with intense sexual dimorphism between
males and females that informed application of the principal component analysis on sexes
separately.
The first four principal components (PC) explained together a high percentage of the total
variance in both male and female traits. Therefore, they are interesting for the purpose of
evaluation and comparism of animals. In the male the first component accounted for
30.458% of the total variance and loaded for body width, bill width, shank length, head
131
length and neck length while in the female the first component accounted for 23.236% of
the total variance and loaded for shank length, body height, neck length and wing length. In
both sexes the first principal component represents the size component of the Muscovy duck.
The results are similar to the findings of Pinto et al. (2006) for chicken , Hammock and
Shrode (1986) for yearling performance in beef cattle and Fumio et al.( 1982) in Japanese
black cattle sire. The four factors (PC) in both males and females could be used to select the
ducks based on a group variable rather than isolated traits. This is accentuated by the findings
of Atiyat(2009), who predicted the effect of the breeding programme using a reduced data set
on morphological traits that are sensitive to correlated response to selection. The principal
components can also be used in development of selection index to simplify them, because
such an index would have few PCs in the place of the original traits ( Ibe, 1989).
The total variance obtained from the four principal components that were greater
than I used in both male and female were 66.839% and 56.404%, respectively as shown in
Table 8 and 10. However, lower than that had been reported by McCraken (2008) for musk
duck. Variation in variance percentage, with higher value for male is in agreement with the
report of McCraken et al.(2000). The reasons for these differences were related to sexual
dimorphism in favour of the male. The major under-lying factor responsible for the observed
cluster in component formation for both sexes may be related to the differences in association
of each measurement with bone, environmental component or time taken to reach maturity,
The use of discriminant analysis in this study showed that the populations were characterized
as not clear distinct clusters. The performance of indigenous Muscovy duck population in
Nigeria is usually low to moderate and often maintained in small populations with no
selection. Though it is very rare to find comparative study stated on basis of morphological or
phenotypic traits as reported here, the results of the multivariate analysis of morphmetric
variables show some levels of differences between the two ecotypes. Similarly, the pair-wise
squared mahalanobis distance and the probability of a significant effect of contrast by the F-
test (P<0.001) between the populations show such diversity between the ecotypes (2.963).
The dissimilarity, according to the squared Mahalanobis distance obtained in this study is
however lower than what Atiyat (2009) reported between layer, broiler and indigenous
chicken populations in Jordan (433.88, 429.87 and 38.31). The low morphological distance
in this study may result from non-selection in the two populations and continuous inbreeding
characteristic of free range management system and possible exchange of genes between the
populations through transportation of the birds from the guinea savannah region to the
Although the univariate analysis revealed differences in body weight and linear type traits of
the two ecotypes of Muscovy duck, the multivariate analysis provided better resolutions as
shown in Table 11, thereby limiting the number of variables contributing to ecological
similar to the finding of Yakubu et al. (2009) on sex differentiation of African Muscovy
duck. The discriminatory power of body weight and wing length is consistent with the report
of Zenatello and Kiss (2005), where wing length was observed as the most discriminating in
133
Rose coloured Starlings (Sturnus reseus). Similarly, Yakubu (2009) reported wing length as
having the highest discriminating function in sex differentiation in African Muscovy duck.
The seven variables therefore are sufficiently robust enough to be used in determining the
5.2.1 Body weight: The performance of body weight of the Muscovy duck ecotypes is
similar to those reported by Banga Mboko et al. (2007), Teguia et al. (2007) in African
Muscovy duck, Ola (2000) and Etuk et al. (2006) for indigenous muscovy duck of Nigeria.
The body performance of the guinea savannah ecotype at the early stage is slightly higher
than the values obtained by Teguia et al. (2007). At day-old, a significant difference
(P<0.05) between ecotypes with respect to body weight was detected, with the guinea
savannah ecotype demonstrating heavier body weight than the rainforest ecotype. No
significant difference was detected between sexes for body weight at day-old as reported by
Teguia et al. (2007) in Cameron, Bhuiyan et al. (2005) in Bangladesh and Leclercq (1990) in
France. However, ducklings from Bangladesh and France were heavier than those from
Nigeria, (44g in Bangladesh and 50 -55g in France). Body weights of duckings at day-old
are similar to that reported by Teguia et al. (2007) in Cameroon, Ola (2000) in southern
Nigeria. These differences are probably related to the fact that the birds used in the advanced
countries are of different genetic background and have undergone selection thus, the higher
genetic potential of Muscovy ducks studied by these authors. At three (3) weeks of age
sexual dimorphism appeared in favour of the male being heavier and accentuated with age.
This agreed with the reports of Sauveur (1985), Sauveur and De Carville (1990), Garzilov
134
(1991), Beaza et al. (2001) and Teguia (2007). However, Holderread (1978) earlier reported
Steven (1990), in his weight improvement study of the Muscovy duck reported
that the body weight of Muscovy duck normally increased at about 60g yearly if one is
selecting for improved body weight. Most reports (Cavalchini et al., 1979; Pilla and Quilici
,1993; Baeza, 1998; Ngapongora et al., 2001) pertaining to growth of Muscovy duck
indicated higher body weight at all ages than the present findings. The reason might be due to
the fact that Muscovy duck of most countries like France, and other advanced countries are
managed under intensive system of rearing with high stocking rate, balanced feeding and
management and also have undergone selection for improved body weight.
Body weight gain and average daily gain of the two ecotypes (guinea and rainforest)
showed similar patterns of increment with increase in age from day-old to the 10th week,
with a decline from then to the 20th week of age as shown in Table 25. Variation occurred in
sexes in both body weight gain and average daily gain as shown in Table 27, and
significantly in favour of the male in the two ecotypes. In males the highest body weight gain
was recorded between 10-15 weeks of age and gradually declined with age while in females
the highest body weight gain was at 0-5 weeks.A similar pattern was recorded for average
daily gain. This pattern is similar to the finding of Banga-Mboko et al. (2007), who recorded
maximum daily weight gain in female Muscovy ducks at 5 weeks whereas in male it was at
four weeks. The values obtained in this study are slightly higher than what Ola (2000) earlier
reported on body weight gain at 5 and 12 weeks which were (13.35±2.3 and 15.54±1.38g for
males and 10.21±1.25 and 10.07±0.63g for the females). The variation in weight gain and
average daily gain between the ecotypes used in this study may have to do with inheritance
135
as the trait can be influenced by both genetic and non-genetic factors. A similar observation
was reported by some authors such as Ola (2000), Yue (2006), Etuk et al .(2006) and
Banga-Mboko et al. (2007) for both European and Africa Muscovy ducks. This supports the
earlier sexual dimorphism displayed by the male by attaining higher body weight gain and
average daily gain than the female to support muscle deposited in the male.
weeks of age the estimate of 0.25±0.22 is similar to what Ricard et al. (1989) and Hu et al.
(2006) obtained in Muscovy duck, also from sire variance components. Higher values were
however obtained by Pingel (1990) at the same age from sire and dam variance components.
In the two ecotypes heritability tends to increase with age. A similar observation was earlier
reported by Mignon Grasteau et al. (1998) for Muscovy duck, Chapius et al. (1996) reported
There was marked variation in the heritability estimate in the two populations with
the guinea savannah ecotype generally having higher values. Mignon–Grasteau (1998)
interpreted such scenario to be due to the fact that heritability is only a measure of the current
variation in each population thus providing information on part history of either population.
Similarly, Poujardieu et al. (1994) compiled values of heritability of body weight at 53 days
up to 84 days of age ranging from 0.17 to 0.55 for male Muscovy ducks which were forced
fed.
136
The differences in the values obtained from this study with other workers reports could be
because the estimate here was obtained by using the variance component estimation with the
model sire and dam nested within sire. In this case the full relationship matrix between all
individuals was not taken into account and result may be biased, especially in selected
populations (Poujardieu et al., 1994). The lower value of heritability estimate obtained from
this study, compared to others in literature might agree with the proposition by Ricard et al.
(1983) that in subtropical climate due to variability of response to climatic effect a higher
residual variance could be expected and so lower values of the heritability. This lower
heritability implies that mass selection can be the likely options for such trait.
Diversification of heritability estimate of body weight was reported for layers and
broilers of other species of poultry by many authors (Danbaro et al., 1995; Le Bihan Duval et
al., 1997, Mignon Grasteau et al., 1998; Tufvensson et al., 1999). Therefore generalization of
result across population seems difficult. Since genetic variability of a given strain is
determined both by selection pressure and specific gene pools. There are several single genes
that affect the body weight of birds (Merat, 1990). From the economic perspective their
identification in particular population is not always well founded, On the other hand
segregation of genes with relative large effects can lead to biased estimate of genetic
parameter. From the physiological perspective body weight and its changes over time are
affected by many processes and determined by various effects of genes depending on the age
between weights at various ages in both genetic groups. The estimate between weights at
137
each stage and other ages were low and increased as the birds got older. This similar trend
was reported by Hu et al. ( 2006) in Muscovy duck in Taiwan, where they obtained
phenotypic correlation between body weight at 10 weeks and at 18 weeks as (rp) 0.21.
Significant (P<0.001) positive phenotypic correlations were found between body weight at 3
weeks and week 5, 10, and 20 and similar trend at between weeks 5 and 10, 15, and 20. This
shows that selection for body weight at week 3 in both genetic groups will also lead to
5.3.3 Heritability estimates of body weight gain and average daily gain.
The estimates of h2 of body weight gain for the two ecotypes tend to follow same
pattern as they increases with increase in age. The estimate of 0.32±0.4 for body weight
al.(1998) obtained for Muscovy duck in France. Low to moderate values of heritability for
average daily gain were estimated for the two genetic groups. In the rainforest ecotype the
heritability estimate for average daily gain at 6-10 weeks (0.35±0.30) is greater than those for
all other ages. Therefore, the detection of genetic variability for average daily gain at 6-10
weeks in this genetic group seems to be more difficult compared to other ages.
5.3.4. Genetic and phenotypic correlation between body weight, body weight gain and
observed between body weight and average daily gain in the guinea savannah ecotype, and
this is similar to the finding of Mignon-Grasteau et al. (1998). The positive genetic
138
correlation between these traits is an indication that selection for body weight will equally
lead to increase in weight gain. On the other hand, some genetic correlation coefficients were
over-estimated; these unexpected estimates of genetic correlation between the studied traits
may be due to sampling errors and some missing observation (El-Deen et al., 2008).With
5.4.1.1 Body weight at first egg: The mean body weight at first egg of the rainforest ecotype
1579.47±1757g. These values are in line with the report of Ola (2000) and Teguia et al.
(2007) for the African Muscovy duck, but lower than what Mahanta et al. (2001) obtained
for Indian Muscovy duck(2266g) and Nickolova (2004) for European Muscovy ducks
(2588.129). The differences between the African Muscovy duck and other regions of the
world in body weight at first egg might not be unconnected with the fact that African
Muscovy duck population has not been subjected to body weight selection leading to high
The ages at first egg for the two ecotypes were 314.7±3.33 days and
331.70±3.49 days for the guinea and rainforest ecotypes representing 44.9 weeks for the
guinea savannah ecotype and 47.3 weeks for the rainforest ecotype. From the results the
guinea savannah ecotype became matured or laid eggs earlier than the rainforest ecotype. The
values obtained from this study are higher than what Ola (2000) reported for Muscovy duck
in southern Nigeria (28 weeks) Duru et al. (2006)for Muscovy duck in northern Nigeria
139
(7.7±0.04 months). Similarly, lower values had been reported in other parts of the world for
Muscovy duck such as Kalita and Deka (2005), who reported 300-305 days in Asam India,
Panda and Kumar (2004) reported 24-25 weeks. Avanzi and Romboli (1979), Mahanta et al.
(2001) Islam et al . (2009) reported 285.52 days. Variation in age at sexual maturity noticed
in the present study might be due to the limited breeding capacity reported in Muscovy duck.
Ola (2000) reported that though Muscovy duck can attain maturity earlier they have limited
breeding capacity, especially during the dry season and may delay egg laying to the
beginning of rainy or wet season. Though Morris and Fox (1960) earlier reported that age
and weight at sexual maturity are influenced by genetic make-up of the individual and are
further influenced by feed intake, daily light duration of day length and other environmental
5.4.1.3 Egg number and egg mass: The average egg number of the two ecotypes laid at first
laying cycle were 6.30± 0.36 and 5.60±0.38 eggs with the guinea savannah ecotype showing
higher value of egg number. The value obtained from this study is lower than what Mopate
(1999) reported (14-15 eggs) Mouthe (1989) (13.01) in Niger Republic and Chad,
reported 14.6±3.0 eggs for the African duck. Similarly, Ola (2000) reported higher value for
Nigeria Muscovy duck in southern Nigeria. The values reported by these authors are higher
than the one from present study probably due to the fact that their values might be over-
results. Another reason might be poor performance of the bird in confinement in this study as
most of the results obtained on African Muscovy ducks are under free-range management
system.
140
Egg mass reported here for first laying cycle favoured the guinea savannah
ecotype which had 317.44±17.92g compared to the rainforest ecotype which had
292.14±18.80g. The variability in both egg number and egg mass among the ecotypes might
The egg production performance of the two ecotypes at the second laying cycle
with appreciable variation between ecotypes represents mature laying performance of the
Muscovy duck from the two ecotypes. The performance in the second cycle is close to what
Mopate et al. (1999) reported for local ducks in N’djamena in Niger Republic, Mourthe
(1998) in Chad, Banga-Mboko et al. (2007) from Congo Brazzaville, Mohammed (1996)
from Mozambique and Ola (2000), Etuk and Abasiekong (2005) and Duru et al. (2006) in
Nigeria. There is a significant difference in egg production between the African Muscovy
ducks and Muscovy ducks from other parts of the world, though Clayton (1974) claims that
much of the high egg production of domesticated ducks is an expression of natural fecundity,
given appropriate opportunity and owes little to artificial selection, and the interplay between
inheritance and environmental factor might be responsible for the low production of African
Muscovy duck.
According to Sauveur and De Carville (1985) the first and the second
reproductive periods continued from three to five months and, the pause between them is
about six months. The pause length obtained from this study is shorter and similar to that
reported by Sauveur and De Carville (1985). Though there is a difference in pause length
between the two ecotypes (78.18±4.32 days and 62.28±3.16 days for guinea savannah and
The highest peak in egg production of the two ecotypes of 13.02% for the
guinea savannah and 9.33% for the rainforest is similar to what Andrew et al. (1984)
obtained for indigenous ducks in India reared under semi intensive system. The values
obtained from this study are, however lower than what Sauveur and De Carville (1985;1990)
reported for Muscovy ducks in France under intensive management systems, and Tian-Fwu
et al. (1998), Jayart et al. (2009) and Ravi et al. (2009) reported for indigenous ducks of
Kerala, India. The smaller peak percent egg production or laying intensity in the two ecotypes
in this study might be due to the non-selection and inbreeding depression characteristic of
indigenous stocks.
In the present study two peaks of lay were obtained for the guinea and rainforest
ecotype, similar to the report of Sauveur and De Carville (1985) in France. This might be a
breed characteristic of the Muscovy duck. The months of peak lay in the two ecotypes,
though similar (June to September) and coincide with when the sun is at the equator and
Northern hemisphere, differ from what Nickolova (2004) obtained, his peak periods were in
the month of April to July, which coincide with spring and summer in the northern
hemisphere. The differences in the months of peak between the present study and that of
Nickolova (2004) might have to do with the weather difference in the two countries, and the
fact that the ducks are sensitive to light and weather change, and laying is season-dependent.
The low and high heritabilities of body weight at first egg reported here for the
guinea savannah and rainforest ecotypes have been similarly reported by Tai et al. (1989) in
Taiwan. This implies that body weight could easily be improved by predicting breeding
142
values and selecting on a within-line basis in the rainforest ecotype with high results while in
the guinea savannah ecotype with low estimates, selection for body weight at first egg cannot
be carried out using individual selection procedure but mass selection. The estimate for age at
first egg for both genetic groups was both high and though outside the theoretical range of
parameter estimation, was higher than what Hu et al. (2004) 0.20, Cheng et al. (1995). 20
and, Ricard et al. ( 1983) 0.16 obtained from Muscovy duck strain and brown Tsaya duck at
The estimates for egg weight, egg length and width in the first laying cycle in both
genetic groups were moderate though in the rainforest ecotype the values are outside normal
parameter range. The values for egg weight are consistent with the findings of Stasko (1966),
Pingel (1999), and Besbes et al. (1992) for the domestic duck. Estimate for heritability of the
second laying characteristics are lower than the estimates of the first laying cycle, and this is
in agreement with the finding of Sabri et al. (1991), who reported that estimates are always
higher when measured early compared with later in laying year. Hagger and Abplanalp
(1978) and Sabri et al. (1991) found the same trend when they estimated heritability of
residual feed consumption, which is a measure of feed efficiency for egg production. They
suggested that the genetic potentials of egg production, and related traits are well expressed at
peak egg production which minimize effect of environment factors compared to later times
of the laying year. Higher heritabilities at early stage of the laying year are advantageous
Heritabilities of all the traits (number of egg laid, egg mass, pause length, egg weight,
egg length, and egg width) were low to moderate in the guinea savannah ecotype while in the
143
rainforest ecotype all the estimates were high. The low heritability estimates obtained for the
guinea savannah ecotype show that environmental factors have more effect on the second
laying performance of this genetic group than the additive genetic mak-eup. The estimate of
heritability of 0.30± 0.06 for number of egg laid in the second cycle for guinea savannah
ecotype is consistent with those of Tai et al. (1989), indicating that the additive genetic
variation is low for number of eggs laid at that age. Tai et al. (1989) explained that it is a
component of maternal inheritance and higher estimate can only be obtained using dam
variance component. The standard errors of the estimate in both genetic groups were high and
between egg weight, egg length, and egg width in both genetic groups in the second laying
cycle. This similar finding was reported by Zchang et al. (2005). Although the relationships
were low in the guinea savannah and high in the rainforest population, they indicate that in
guinea savannah selection for egg weight may not necessarily translate to longer and wider
egg while in the rainforest the high genetic correlation is an indication that increment in any
of the external traits would translate to improvement in all others. Genotypic correlations
were higher than phenotypic correlations in the rainforest population. These are similar to
the findings of Brah et al. (1992) and Saatci et al. (2003). This shows the degree of genetic
influence in the relationship between the traits compared with environmental influence.
Significant and positive genetic correlations were recorded between number of eggs laid, egg
mass and pause length. Though genetic correlation between pause length number of eggs
was negative and outside parameter estimate range, similar finding was reported by Akbas
(2006).
144
The similarity or band sharing between ecotypes obtained in this study was 0.86 is similar to
the findings of El-Gendy et al. (2005), who reported 0.83 for Muscovy duck populations in
Egypt. These values are however higher than what was obtained for other breeds like White
Pekin, Khaki Campbell and Dametti ducks with 0.68, 0.74 and 0.68. respectively as reported
Genetic distance between the ecotypes was as low as 0.14. This aids in understanding the
genetic relationship and divergence between the ecotypes. The value obtained here is
however lower than what El-Gendy et al.(2005) obtained for cairina species (0.40) when
they used five primers. Similarly, higher values were obtained by Xiao et al. (2005) for
Fugian local duck populations in different ecological zones (67.97%). The higher similarity
obtained in this study for the ecotypes of Nigerian indigenous Muscovy duck supports the
low distance between them, suggesting possibility of little genetic divergence between the
populations, thus indicating that they have common ancestors and have little genetic
Indigenous Muscovy duck (Cairina moschata) accounted for 20% of the total
poutry population in Nigeria and can provide opportunity for increasing protein supply and
income for smallholders, because they require low capital investment, have short generation
interval and a high rate of productivity. They also play a complementary role in relation to
other poultry like chickens particularly in rural settings. Characterization, utilization and
In the guinea savannah and rainforest agro-ecological zones of Nigeria indigenous Muscovy
ducks are managed under village-based extensive system with no cross breeding, because of
the uniqueness of the bird, thus under continuous inbreeding maintaining consistent breeding
value. There is little or no literature available on the breeding performance of these birds in
Nigeria, and this necessitates the bases for this study. Hence the present study was carried
out to identify, characterize and evaluate phenotypic variations of the two ecotypes
under improved management and genetic variation using random molecular technique.
6.1 Conclusion
From the results obtained in this study the following conclusions can be reached
ii The rainforest ecotype was found to be heavier than the guinea savannah though not
significantly
146
iii. There was marked sexual dimorphism between sexes in all the ecotypes.
iv. The principal component analysis of the morphostructural traits of the two sexes tend
between the two ecotypes, providing bases for use of morphological traits in a selection
vi. Mahalanobis D2 statistics clearly distinguish the two ecotype on the basis of
i Body weight was significantly higher in the guinea savannah ecotype between 0 to
ii Sex significantly affected body weight from 3 to 20 weeks of age in both ecotypes,
i There were significant differences between the guinea and the rainforest ecotypes with the
rainforest ecotype having heavier body weight at first egg than the guinea savannah ecotype.
ii. There were significant difference in egg production parameters at the first laying and the
second laying cycles. The first laying favoured the rainforest ecotype while the second
laying cycle favoured the guinea savannah. This was supported by the frequency of lay,
i Heritabilities of growth traits in the two ecotypes did not differ significantly, and were
ii Body weight gain in the two ecotypes had their heritability increasing with age, low to
high, while heritability for average daily gain were low to moderate in both cases.
iii The high estimates of heritability of the body weight at early age in the two ecotypes
indicate that selection for body weight can start as early as first week of life to result in
high body weight at later age; this will allow for early selection as those birds that show
good weight at early part of their life can be selected for increased body weight,
particularly if one needs to select for meat type, while selection for body weight at older
The low heritability of body weight of the two genetic groups at older age indicates that they
The high heritability of body weight gain and average daily gain at weeks 15 to 20 is an
indication that selection for feed conversion efficiently can start at this age.
Heritability estimates of egg weight, length and width at the first laying cycle were all high
Moderate to high estimates of heritability were recorded for number of eggs laid, egg mass,
and pause length in the second laying cycle, suggesting that selection for egg number, egg
mass and pause length may be effective when the birds are at the second laying cycle.
It is obvious that the heritabilities for egg traits are higher for the guinea savannah ecotype at
early stage suggesting selection for the traits in this ecotype is best at first laying cycle while
In both genetic groups phenotypic correlation coefficient were high between weight at 3
weeks and subsequent ages. This high correlation shows that body weight at 3 weeks in both
Positive and significant genetic and phenotypic correlations between body weight and body
weight gain, body weight and average daily gain in the guinea savannah ecotype show that
increase in weight gain and average daily gain will lead to increase in body weight for the
ecotype.
i The high, significant and positive genetic and phenotypic correlations between egg
weight, length and width in both ecotypes suggest that high genetic relationships
exist between the traits in both populations and correlated response will be obtained if
ii Positive relationships (genetic and phenotypic) were found between number of eggs laid,
egg mass and pause length. This is understandable as they are dependent traits, and so
selection for egg number will automatically leads to increase in egg mass
This is the first time the indigenous Muscovy duck has been studied at molecular level. This
study provides important information for future conservation of the Nigerian indigenous
Muscovy duck resources. Therefore, it is a powerful tool for breeding improvement, because
it will help in the preservation of the local breed and control of breeding in future restocking
programme.
The random amplified polymorphic DNA used in this study was found to be useful and
informative for studying genetic diversity in the Nigerian Muscovy duck. The result reveals
149
common origin and lack of genetic flexibility of the indigenous ducks in the study areas.
6.4 Recommendations
1 Because of significant differences in performances of the two ecotypes, the rainforest ecotype
can be selected for increased body weight as meat producing type, while the guinea savannah
2 This study happens to be a base study on characterization of indigenous Muscovy duck, the
sample size used and the population covered might not provide sufficient information on
the diversity that exists in the Nigerian indigenous Muscovy duck, and so further study is
monitor and evaluate performance of birds, particularly those that remain consistently on
free-range since their domestication. This study provided a platform for that and continuous
approach in this direction will provide adequate information on productivity and potentials.
Since there are varied ecological zones in Nigeria and Muscovy ducks have been reported to
have the tendency to evolve adaptive measures to acclimatize with their environment, it is
recommended that Muscovy duck from each of the agro-ecological zone be collected and
studied for both quantitative, qualitative and molecular to further ascertain the diversity that
4 Superior molecular techniques such as RFLP, AFLP and Microsatelitte should be used for
REFERENCES
Abreu, V.M.N., Silver, M. A., Cruz, C.D., Figueiredo, E. A.P. and Abreu, P.
G. (1999). Capacidale de combinacao de caracteristicas productivas de linhagen
dematrizes de frangos de corte. Usando atechnica de components princiais.
Rev.Bras. Zootec. 28:250-25
Adebambo, O., Williams, J.L., Blot, S. and Urquhart, B. (1998). Genetic variation in
Nigeria cattle breeds using 26 micro satellite markers .In: Proceedings of the
Silver Jubilee of Annual conference West Africa Society for Animal
Production. March 24-26pp.
Adeogun, I.O. and Adeoye, A.A. (2004). Heritabilities and phenotypic correlations of growth
performance traits in Japanese quails. Livestock Research for Rural
Dev. 16: 12-16.
Ahlawat, S.P.S., Sunder J., Kundu A., Chatterjee, R.N., Rai, R.B,. Kumar, B., Senani, S.,
Saha, S.K. and. Yadav. S.P. (2004). Use of RAPD-PCR for genetic analysis of
Nicobari fowl of Andamans. Br. Poult. Sci., 45: 1-7.
Ajala, M. K., Nwagu, B. I. and Otchere, E.O. (1988). Socio-economic of free range poultry
production among agro pastoral Fulani women in Kaduna state Nigeria. In:
Proceeding of the Silver Anniversary Conference of the NSAP and the Inaugural
Conference of the WASAP 21 -26 March 1998 Abeokuta, Nigeria.
Akbas, Y., Akiek, A., Onenc, A. and Gungor, M. (2006). Growth curve analysis for body
weight and dry matter intake in Friesian limousine x Friesian pietmontese x
Friesian cattle. Arch. Tiez Dummerstorf 49 (2006) 4; 329-339.
Ali, B.A., Ahmed, M.M.M. and Aly, O. M .(2003). Relationship between genetic
similarity and some Production traits in local chicken strains. Africa J. of Biotech. 2
(2) 46 -47
Ali, B.A. and Ahmed, M.M. (2001).Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA in some chicken strains.
First conf. Of Role of Biochemist in environmental and agriculture Cairo University Egypt
Arnold, T. W. , Rohwer, E .F. and Armstrong, M.(1987). Egg viability, nest prediction
and the adaptive significance of clutch size in praire ducks. Amer. Naturalist
170:1640-1653
Avens, J .S. , Athearn, R.M. , and McNeat, J. H. (1980). Egg production and efficiency
of food conversion of Khaki Campbell duck under different management
system. Br. Poultry Sc. 21(1980) 333-337.
Bacon, W.L., Nestor, K.E., Emmerson, D.A., Vasilatos-Younken, R., Long D.W. (1993).
Circulating IGF-I in plasma of growing male and female turkeys of medium and
heavy weight lines, Domest. Anim. Endocrinol. 10 267–277
Badyaev, A. V., Hill G. E. and Whittingham, L. A. ,(2001). The evolution of sexual size
dimorphism in House finch. In population divergence in ontogeny. Evolution
55.2532-2549.
Baeza, E., De Carville, H., Salichon, M.R., Marche, G., Leclercq, B. (1997). Effects of
selection, over three and four generations, on meat yield and fatness in Muscovy
ducks. British Poult. Sc. 38 (4): 359 - 365.
Baeza, E., Salichon, M.R., Marche, G., Juin, H. (1998). Effect of sex on growth,
152
Baeza, E., Marche, G., Wacrenier, N. (1999). Effect of sex on muscular development
of Muscovy ducks. Reproduction, Nutrition, Dev. 39: 675-682
Baeza, E., Williams, J., Guemene, D. and Duclos, M. J.,(2001). Sexual dimorphism of
growth in Muscovy ducks and changes in insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) growth
hormone (GH) Reprod.Nutri.Dev. 41 :173-179.
Bagliacca, M., Pacci, G., Marzoni, M.and Avanzi, C.F. (1989 ). Technoglia di incubazione
nell anatra muschiata;effetto della posizone e del raffreddamento delleuora durante1
incubazione zoot.Nutri. Anim. 15;23-430.In Nicklova M studies on egg laying
characteristics of Muscovy duck dependeing on the breeding method 2004.
Balogun, O. Y. (2005). Senior secondary atlas .2nd edition. Longman.
Banga- Mboko, H., Lelou, B., Maes, D. and Leroy, P.L. (2007). Indigenous Muscovy duck
in Congo Brazzaville. Preliminary observation on indigenous Muscovy duck reared
under moderate input in Congolese condition .Tropical Anim. Health and Prod. 39
(2):123-129
Barbosa, L. (2005). Genetic divergence among five lines of laying hens .Revista da
sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia. 2005. 56(3) 642-646.
Bahr, J. M. and Palmer, S.S. (1989). The influence of aging on ovarian function CRC Critical
Review in Poultry. 2 (2) 103-110.
Barker, J.S.F., Tan, S. G., Moore, S.S., Mukhere, T.K, Matheron, J. L., Selvaraj, O.S.
(2001). Genetic variation within and Relationship among population of Asian
goats (Capra hircus) J. of Anim. Breed. and Genetics 118 :213 –
233.
Beaumont, C. (1992). Genetic parameters of the duration of fertility in hens. Can. J.
Anim. Sci. 72:193–201.
Bernon, D. E. and Cambers, J .R. (1985) Maternal and sex linked effect in broiler
parent stock. Poult.Sc.64:29-38
Besbes, B., Ducroco, V., Fouley, J. L., Proteins, M., Tavernier, A., Tixier-Boschard, M. and
Beaumont, C. (1992). Estimation of Genetic Parameter of Egg Production Traits of
153
Besbes, B., Ducroco, V., Fouley, J. L., Proteins, M., Tavernier, A., Tixier-Boschard, M. and
Beaumont, C. (1992). Estimation of Genetic Parameter of Egg Production Traits of
Laying Hens by Restricted Livelihood Applied to a Multiple Trait Reduced Animal
Model. Genetic Sel. Evol. 24, 539 – 552.
Bhuiyan, M. M., Khan, M.H., Khan, M.A.H., Das, B.C., Lucky, N.S. and Uddin, M.B.
(2005). A study on the comparative performance of different breeds of broiler ducks,
under farmer’s condition at Farming System Research and Development (FSRD) Site
Syihef Bangladesh. Int. J. of Poult. Sc. 4 (8) 596 – 599.
Bochno, R., lwozuk, A. and.Wawro, E. (1994). A comparative study of the growth and
feed conversion efficiency of muscovy and Pekin duck .Poult. Abstr.20-81.
Bodi, I., Meszavos, E., I.A.C. S., Kozak, J., Karsaine, K. (1996). Prolificacy performance
of Hungarian upgraded and grey landes goose breed.1 st paper.Spring laying
cycle.Allattenyesztes-es Takarmanyozas(Hungary)45(5) 473-480.
Bolen, E.G. (1983). Cairina moschata. Pp 554-556. In Costa Rican natural history (DH
Jensen ed) Uni. Chicago Press Chicago Illinoise.
Bogenfürst, F., Szász, S., Szécsényi, R. (1995). Evaluation of growth rate and carcass
characteristics of mule ducks according to the sex and feeding. Proc. of the 11th European
Symposium on the Quality of Poultry Meat, Tours, France. p. 240-245
Braccini Neto, J., Dunello, N.J.L., Silvera, J.L., Bongalhardo, D.C., Estivalet, J.C.N.
(1997). Estimation de parmetros geneticos e fenotipicos da cuiva de crescimento de
galiritias poedeiras.Revista da sociadade Brasileira de Zootecnia 1997 ;26(5):894-904.
Brah, G. S., Chaudhary, M. L. and Sandhu, J.S. (1992). Heritabilities and correlations for egg
shell crack frequency, body checking, egg number and egg weight in laying hens. Br.
Poult. Sc. 37 : 947 – 951.
Brown , C. J., Brown, J. E. and Butts, W. T. (1973). Evaluating relationship among
Immatured measure of size, shape and performance of beef bulls. 11 .The
relationships between immature measures of size shape and feedlot traits in young
bulls.J. Anim.Sci., 36;1021.
154
Bruchi, P., Vendramin, G.E., Bussoh, F. and Grossoni, P. (2003) Morphological and
molecular diversity among Italian population of Quercus petraea Fagaceae.Ann
Botany 91;707-716.
Brun, J. M. and Larzul, C. (2003). Inheritance of reproductive traits of female common ducks (Anas
platyrynchos) in pur –breeding and in inter-generic crossbreeding with Muscovy
duck(Cairina moschata) Brit. Poult.Sc. 44, 1-6.
Buss, E. G. (1982). Genetic difference in avian egg shell formation . Poultry Sc. 61(3) 2048-2055.
Caldwell, P. J. and Cornwell, G.W. (1975). Incubation behaviour and temperature of the mallard duck
Auk 92: 706-731.
Carpenter, Jr.J A., Fitzhugh, Jr. H. A., Cartwright, T.C., Meltton, A. A.and Thomas, R. C.
(1971). Principal component for size of Herford cows J. Anim.Sci. 33:197
Castellini, C. and Panella, F. (1988). Heritability of pre and post weaning weight in rabbit.
Proceedings of the 4th World Rabbit Congress PP. 112 – 119.
Cavalchini, L., Dell-orto, G. and Roncoroni, C. (1979). Body weght gain, food consumption
and dressing percentage in two different strain of Muscovy duck Rivista- di-
Zootechnica-Veterinaria 5: 329 – 340
Chatterjee, R.N., Sharmer, R.P. ,Reddy, B. L.N, Niranja, M., Shivaprasad, and Mishra,
S. K. (2007). Genetic Analysis of highly inbred chicken using RAPD-PCR and
Immunocompetence. Intern. J. of Poultry Sc. 6(12) 967-972.
Choi, J.H., Kang, W.J., Bark, D.H and Park, H.J. (1983). A study on some characteristics
of fractions and shell quality of the chicken eggs. Korea J. Anim. Sci. 25: 651-655.
Chamber, J.R. (1990). Genetics of growth and meat production in chickens.In Crawford
RD(ed) Poultry Breeding and Genetics Amsterdam,The Netherlands Elsevier 612-
633.
Cheng, Y.S., Rouvier, R., Poivey, J. P., Tai, C. (1995). Genetic parameters of body
weight, egg production and shell quality traits in the Brown Tsaiya laying ducks.
Genet. Sel. Evol., 27, 459-472.
Coltman, D. M., Pillington, J., Krunk, L.E.B., Wilson, K.and Penberton, J. M. (2001)
Positive genetic correlation between parasite resistance and body size in a free living
ungulate population. Evolution 555:2116-2125.
Czekanowski, J. (1909) Zur differential diagnose der nean der tal grupe. Korresponden Zbratt dent
sch. Ges. Antrop. Ethnol. Urgesch 40:40-47.
Dan baro, G.K. , Oyame, P., Mukai, F., Tsuji, S., Tataishi, T.and Mae, M. (1995). Heritability
and genetic correlation from a selection experiment in brooder breeders using
Restricted maximum likelihood Japanese. Poult Sc. 32: 257 – 266.
Darwin, C. (1871) The descent of man and selection in relation to sex. John Murray London.
Debut, M., Berri, C., Baéza, E., Sellier, N.,Arnould, C., Guémené, D., Jehl N., Boutten,B.,
Jego,Y., Beaumont, C., Le Bihan-Duval, B. (2003). Variation of chicken technological
meat quality in relation to genotype and pre-slaughter stress conditions, Poultry Sci.
82
Delacour, J.T. (1959). The waterfowl of the world. vol 3 ,Country life London, England.
Derrel, E.M and Guy, A.B. (1989). Breeding biology of Muscovy duck using net boxes
in Mexico. Wilson Bull 101 (4) : 621-626.
Di Stasio, L. (1997). Biochemical genetics. In Genetics of sheep. Piper, L. & Runvisky, A. (Eds),
Oxon, CAB International, 1997..133-48 pp.
Duong, X. T. and Nguyen, M. (1995). Studies on the performance of CV super M duck breed in the
southern province of Vietnam.Poult. Sc. Vol 23 (5) 140.
Duru, S., Akpa, G. N., Saidu, L., Olugbemi, T. S. and. Jokatan, G. E. (2006). A Preliminary
Study on Duck Management Under Peri-Urban System.
http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd/lrrd1813/duru18036.htm
.
Eding, J. H. and Laval, G. (1997). Measuring genetic uniqueness in livestock. In JK
oldenbroek (ed) Gene bank and the conservation of farm animal genetics Resource.
DLO Institute for Animal Science and health .Lelystad. The Netherlands 33-58
Epstein, H.(1990). The context and prospect for development of smallholder poultry
production in Africa. In small holder rural poultry production .proc CTA seminar G13
Thessalonica Greece 35-50.
Etuk, I.F. and Abasiekong, S.F. (2005). Duck production in South Eastern Nigeria. J. Agric.
Food and Envi. Vol. 2: (1) and 2.
157
Etuk, I. F., Abasiekong ,S.F., Ojewola, G.S. and Akomas, S.C. (2006). Carcass and
organ characteristics of Muscovy ducks reared under three management systems in
South Eastern Nigeria. Intern. J. of Poult. Sc.5 (5): 474–476
Everrit, B. (1980). Cluster Analysis 2nd edition Halstead press New York.
Everitt, B.S.,Landau, S.and Leese, M. (2001). Cluster Analysis. 4th Edition, London, Arnold
Publisher, Breed. Genet. 106 : 461–469.
Falconer, D.S. (1981). Introduction to quantitative genetics 2nd edition London New
York, Longman.34l pp
Falconer, D.S. and. Mackey, T.F.C (1996). Introduction to Quantitative Genetics 4th
ed Longman Essex.
Farrell, D. J. (1995). Table egg laying ducks: Nutritional requirement and current
husbandry System. J. of Avian Biol. Rev.6:55-69
Farooq, M , Mian, M. A , Faisal S , Durani F R , Arshad, M. and Khurshid, A.( 2001). Status of
broiler breeder stock in Abbotabah and Mansahra Sarhad. J. Agric 17(4):489-495
Fattouh, M. H., Tag El Din, T. H.; Gad, H. A. M.and Khalifah, M. M. (2003). Effect of
force moulting method on some post moulting traits in ducks 2- Fertility and
nd
hatchability. 2 World Waterfowl Conference, 7- 9 October, Alexandria/Egypt .
F DLPCS (1991) Federal Department of Livestock and Pest Control services. Federal
Government of Nigeria 287- 288 pp
F L D PCS, (1992). Federal Livestock Department and Pest Control services Annual
report 1992.128pp
Feral, J.P.,( 2002). How useful is the genetic markers in Kulikova,Attempts to understand and
manage marine biodiversity. J. Exp. Mar. Biol. Ecol., 268: 121-145.
Fisher, R. A. (1936). The genetical theory of Natural selection. New York dover
Garcia, F., Baselga, M., Blasco, A.and Deitoro, J. (1982). Genetic analysis of some
productive traits in meat rabbits in numeric traits: In Proceeding of 2 nd World
Congress of Genetic Applied to Livestock Production. 557 – 562 pp.
Gueye, E. F. (1998) .Village egg and fowl meat production in Africa. World Poultry Sci.
54 73-86.
Guéye, E.F., Ndiaye, A. and Branckaert R.D.S., (1998). Prediction of body weight
on the basis of body measurement in mature indigenous chickens in Senegal.
Livestock Research for Rural Development 10(3)
http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd10/3/sene103.htm
Gunawan, B. (1989). Heritability estimate for egg production traits in Indonesian layer
duck.Majalah ilmu dan peternakan 41-48 pp
Gwakisa, P.S., Kemp, S.J. and Teale, A.J. (1994).Characterization of Zebu cattle
breeds in Tanzania using random amplified polymorphic DNA markers. Anim.
Genet., 25: 89- 94. http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=4066798
Hagger, C. and Abplanalph, H. (1978). Food consumption record for the genetic
improvement of income over food cost in laying flock of white leghorn. Br.
Poult. Sc. 19:651-667
Hair, Jr J. F., Anderson, R., Tatham, R. and Black, W. (1996). Multivariate data analysis
with reading prentice incorporated New Jersey.56pp
Hammock, S.P. and Shrode, R.R. (1986). Calf hoodweights,body measurements and
measuresof fatness versus criteria of overall size and shape for predicting yearling
performance in beef cattle. J. Anim. Sci. 63:447-452,.
Hanotte, O. and Jianlin, H. (2005). Genetic characteristic of livestock population and its uses in
conservation decision making. The role of biotech. Villi. Gualino Turin Italy 5-7 march
159
Hahn, D.T.; Hai, L.T.H.; Hung, D.S.; Tinh, N.H. (1995). Improving the Productivity
Of Local Muscovy duck and Initial Production Experiment of Mulard in Vietnam.
th
10 European Symposium on Waterfowl Proceeding, 31pp
Harun , M .A. S., Veenaklass, R.J., Vankampen, M. and Mabasso, M. (1998). Breeding
biology of Muscovy duck (cairina moschata) in natural incubation; The effect of
nesting behaviour on hatchability. Poult.Sc.77:1280-1286.
Hassan, W. A. and Mohammed, W.S., (2003). Ecotype of the Muscovy duck in the north
west of Nigeria: variation in body weight and bill length. In: Proceedings. of 8th
Annual Conf. of Anim. Sc. Association of Nigeria.
Hauser, L., Carvalho, G.R. and Pitcher, T. J., (1995). Morphological and Genetic
differentiation of the Africa clupeid Limnothrisssa miodun 34 years after introduction
to Lake Kivu ,J. of Biogeography 28.831-841.
Harvey, W.R. (1990). Mixed model least squares and maximum likelihood computer
programme .pc- 2 Mimeographs. Ohio State University press Ohio.
Heartmeyer, M. (2006). Super hens (part1) Differential among ducks .Mad duck. org.
The sportsman’s voice for waterfowl conservation 1-7.
Hepp, G.R., Novak, J.M., Seriibner, K.T., Stangel, P.W. (1988). Genetic distance and
hybridization of black duck and mallards. A morph. Of a different colour AUK vol.
105 :804-807
Henderson, C. R. (1984). Application of linear models in Animal breeding .Univ. of
Guelph, Canada.
Hetzel, D. T .S. and Gunawan, B. (1984). Egg production of Indonesian native and
160
crossbred ducks under intensive and extensive conditions. Poult. Abstract. 13;2100.
Hillis, D.M. (1984). Misuse and modification of Nei genetic distance system. Zoo.
33:238-240
Holderread, D. (1978).The home of duck flock. The hen House Corvallis Oregon
97336,USA
Holsinger, K.E.,. Lewis, P.O. and Dey, D.K. ( 2002). A Bayesian approach to inferring
population structure from dominant markers. Mol. Ecol., 11: 1157-1164
Hunton, P. (1981). Genetic factor affecting egg shell quality. World Poult. Sc. J. 38 :
75-82
Huang, M.C., Lin, W.C., Horng, Y.M.,Rouvier, R. and Huang, C.W. (2003). Female-specific
DNA sequence in geese.British Poult. Sc., 44: 359-364
Hugue, K. S. and Sultana, N. (2002). Study on the existing duck production system in
Bangladesh. A report of Bangladesh livestock research institute, Bangladish.
Hu, Y. H., Rouvier R., Poivey, J. P., Lui, H. E. and Tai, C. (2006 ). Selection studies for
15 generation of Muscovy duck (cairina moschata) in duck Research centre 2006
.Symposium COA/INRA scientific corporation in agriculture. Taiwan.132-138.
Hu, Y. H., Poivey, J. P., Rouvier, R., Lui R. S. C. and Tai, C. (2004). Heritabilities
and genetic correlation of laying performance in muscovy selected in Taiwan .British
Poult. Sc. 45:180- 185.
Horst, P. (1999). Evaluation of local poultry resources for creating genetic stock with
improved adaptability, productivity and disease resistance in tropical environment
CTA 1999.78-83.
Ibe, S.N.(1982 ). Repeatability of growth traits of Nigeria local chickens using early
records. Nig. J. Anim. Prod. 22 (1&2)5-8.
Ibe, S.N. (1989). Measurement of size and confirmation in commercial broilers. J. Anim.
Breed.and Ge net. 106:461-469.
Islam, M.A., and Nishibori, M. (2009). Indigenous naked neck chicken, a valuable genetic
resource for Bangladesh. World Poult. Sc. J. 65: 125 – 138.
161
Islam, M., Sanpkota, J.D., Barna, N., Kalita, K.P. and Zaman, G. (2009). Certain
performance traits of Cina Hanh (Cairina moschata) Duck of Assam under range
condition. In. Proc. Of 4th World Waterfowl Conference. Thrissur India 108 – 112.
Isguzar, E. ( 2005). Some egg and hatching traits of local ducks , Turkish Pekin and
Muscovy duckling Isperta Turkey.Arch Tierz Dummerstorf 48 (1) 94-100
Iraqi, M. M. (2003). Estimation and evaluation of genetic parameter for body weight
traits of New Zealand White rabbit in Egypt using different animal models
http://www.cipav.org.co/lrrd/lrrd15/6/iraq156.htm
Jayart, G., Peethambaran, P.A, Jalaludeen, A., Nara Yanan Kutty, K., and Ally, K. (2009).
Utilization of dried cuttlefish (Sepia officialis) waste silage in layer duck ration. In
Proc. Of 4th World Waterfowl Conference kerala, India 167 – 170.
Jean, R. D., Patricia, G., Sandin, M., Helene, L., George, P., Catherine, B. and
Bridgette, M.(2003). Genetic variability of sexual dimorphism in natural
population of drosophila melanogaster. An iso femaleline approach to genetic
Gen. Sel. Evol. 82(3):79-88.
Jensen, H., Seather, B.E., Ringsby, T.H., Tuffo J., Griffin, S. C. and Ellegren, H. (2003).
Sexual variation in heritability and genetic correlation of morphological traits in
house sparrow(passer domesticus) Gen. Sel .Evol 102:234-238.
Jianhua, W. (1984). The tri coloured duck poteries of the Tang Dynasty.China and World
Cultural Exchange.69.1.
Johnsguard, P. A. (1978). Duck geese and swans of the world . Univ. Nebraska press
Lincoln Nebraska.
Johnson ,S.G. and Johnson R.F. (1990). Environmental variation and quantitative
genetic parameter in the feral pigeon, columba livia .Biol. J. Linn. Soc. Land.40;321-
332.
Joan, F., Marques A., Rego A.L., Costa, J. L. ,Costa M. J. and Cabral, H. N.( 2006).
Genetic and morphological differnciation of the Lutianian toad fish
(halobatrachus didactylus) between estuarine and coastal areas. In Portgal Sc. 749-758
Kadarmideen, H.N. (2004). Genetic correlations among body conditionscore, somatic cell
score, milk production, fertility and conformation traits in dairy cows.
Anim. Sci., 2004; 79: 191-201
.
Kalita, N., Serne D., Talikdar, J.K., Barua, N. and Ahmed, N. (2004). Comparative
162
performance of Khaki Campbell duck, dessi duck and their reciprocal crosses for
certain economic traits in rural condition. World Poult. Sc. J . 60:349-556
Kalita, N. and Deka, R. (2005). International Network for family poultry dev. Newletter 15:
3-7.
Kaiser, M.G, Yonash, N., Cananer, A. and Lamont, S.J. (2000). Microsatelite polymorphism
between and within broiler population. Poult. Sc. 79: 626-628
Karaca, O.; Okut, H. and Altin, T. (1996). The estimation on some parameters of Pekin
duck’s egg productions. I. National Congrees of Zootecnical, Antalya/Turkey
Karaman, M. and Testik, A. (1995). The study of effect on hatching and growth
performance of Pekin ducks different egg weight.Intern.Congress of Poult.
Husbandry .Istanbul 1995. 485-492
Khalil, M. H., Owen, J. B. and Affifi, E. A. (1986). A review of phenotype and genetic
parameters associated with meat production traits in rabbits. Animal Breed.
Abst. 54: 726 – 749.
Khalil, M. H., Afifi, E. A. and Emara, M. E. (1987). Doe litter performance at weaning
for two breeds of rabbit with special emphasis on sire and doe effect. J. of Applied
Rabbit Res. 10:12 – 19.
Khurshid, A., Faruoq, M., Durani, F. R., Sarbiland, K. and Mansoor, A. ( 2004).
Hatching performance of Japanese quails LRRD 16(1)2000.
Kharel, M. and Arboleda, C. R. (1986). Some genetic factors responsible for body
growth in Muscovy duck. J. of the Inst of Agric. and Animal Sci. Nepal 7:101-110.
Knit, H. G., Traore, A. and Wilson, R. T. (1985). A profile of small holder poultry
production in central Mali .In proceeding of of 2 nd International DLG-Symposium
,poultry production in hot climate of the middle East and Far East 16-19 June 1985
,Sporthel” Harzstern” Goslar-Hahnenklee,Germany 199-219 .
Knizetova, H., Hyanek, J., and Cerveny, J. (1992).Egg size and post-hatch growth of
Pekin duck. Arch. Geflügelkunde 56 3, 128-131.
Knust, U., Pingel, H., Lengerken, G.V.and Wicke, M. (1995). Effect of stress on
163
Kul, S. and Seker, I. (2004) .Phenotypic correlations between some external and
internal egg quality traits in the Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica) Intern. J. of
Poult. Sci. 3: 400-405.
Lack, D. (1967). The significant of clutch size in waterfowl. Wild fowl Trust 18 th .Ann Rept
(1965-61):125-128.
Lack, D. (1968). Ecological and adaptation for breeding birds , Mthuen and co,
London, UK.56pp.
Larson, K. and Fowlard, P. (1992). Genetics and social inheritance of body and egg
size in Barnacle goose (Branta leucopsi) Evolution 46:235-244.
Lawrence, T.L.J. and Fowler, V. R. (2002). Growth of Farm Animals 2nd ed CAB
inter. Wallingford UK 347.
Leclercq, B. and DeCarville, H. (1985). Growth and body composition of muscovy duck.
Duck production science .Proceedings of workshop 18-22 November 1085 .Indonesia.
Larbier, M. and Leclercq, B. (1994). Żywienie drobiu. In: Pastuszewskiej B., Smulikowskiej
S. (eds.): Tłumaczenie zbiorowe pod red. Wyd. Nauk. PWN, Warszawa.
Le Bihan – Duval, E., Beaumont, C. and Colleau, J.J. (1998). Estimation of the genetic
correlation between twisted leg and growth or conformations traits as brooder. J.
Breed. Genet. 112: - 239 – 259.
Lima Guerra, L.J. (2004).Statistical model and genetic evolution of binomial traits.PhD
Dessertation Luisiana state Univ. USA138pp.
Lukefahr, S. D., Hohenboken, W. D., Cheeke, P. R and Patton, N.M. (1984). Genetic
effect on maternal performance and litter preweaning and post- weaning traits
in rabbits. Animal Sc.J. 34 231-238.
Loung, T.N., Hong, L., Le X.T., Doan, V.X. and Nguyen, D.T. (1995). Growth and meat
performance of Cv supper M. Duck under management system in the red river Delta
Poultry. Abst. 23(5)140.
Lynch, M. (1990). The similarity index and DNA fingerprinting. Mol. Biol 7:478-484
Lynch, M. and Ritland, B. (1999). Estimation of pairwise relatedness with molecular markers
J. Gen. Soc. Of America 4:127-130.
Lynch, M. and Walsh, B. (1998). Genetics and analysis of quantitative traits. Sinauer
Associates. Sunderland. M A. 45-53.
Mahanta, J.D., Sapcota, D., Milli, D.C., and Chakraborty, A. ( 2001). A survey on duck
farming Lakhimpur and Dhemaji district of Assam .India Vet. J. 78(6) 531-532.
Marchant, S. and Higgin, P .J. (1990) . Handbook of Australian , New Zealand and
Antartic birds. Oxford University Press , Oxford.87pp.
Marle-Koster, E.V. and. Nel, L. H. (2003). Genetic markersand their application in livestock
breeding in south Africa: A Rreview. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci., 33: 1-10.
Mcainsh, C.V, Kusina, I., Madsen, J. and Nyoni, O. (2004). Traditional chicken
production in Zimbabwe .World Poult. Sc. 60: 233-244.
McClleland, W.J. (1990). Fingerprinting genomes using PCR with arbitrary primers .Nucl.
Acid Res. 18:7213-7218.
Mc Cracken, K. G. (1999). Systematic ecology and social biology of the musk duck
(Bizuira lobata) of Australia PhD Dessert. Louisiana State Univ. Baton ronge.
165
Mc Cracken, K.G, Paton, D .C. and Afton, A. D., (2000). Sexual size dimorphism of
the musk duck. Wilson Bull.112 (4) 200 457-466.
Merrit, E.S. (1966). Estimate by sex of genetic parameter for body weight and skeletal
dimension in a random bred strain of meat type fowl. Poult. Sci. 45:118-125
Merila, J. and Shelden, B.C. (2001). Avian quantitative genetics .In Nolan V.ed
current ornithology, Kluwer Academic Plenum Publisher.82pp.
Meulen-Vander, S.J. and Dikken, L. G. (1999). Duck keeping in the tropics CTA
Agrodokseries33 ,56-64
Mignon- Grasteau S., Beaumont, C., Le Bilan-Duval, E.,. Poivey, J. P, Rochambeau, H. and
Ricard, F. H. (1999) .Genetic Parameters of Growth Curve. Parameters in male and
female chickens. Poult. Sc. 40:44-51.
Mohammed, A.S. (1996). Hatchability of Muscovy duck (Cairina moschata) eggs and energy
metabolism of duckling in a tropical climate.In Proc. South Africa
Soc.Anim.Prod.234-245
Mohammadi, S.A. and Prasanna, B.M. (2003) ..Analysis of genetic diversity in crop plant,
salient statistical tools and consideration, Crop Sc. 43; 1235-1248.
Morris, I.R. and Fox, S. (1960). Use of light to delay sexual maturity in pullet. Anim.
Breeding Abst. 28:458.
Morrison, D. F. (1976). Multivariate statistical methods. McGraw-Hill Company, New
York.
Morris, T. R. (1966). The effect of light on sexual maturity in the female domestic fowl.PhD
dissertation. Univ. of Readings UK.
Monseau, T.A., Senrro, B., and Endler, J. (2000). Adaptive genetic variation in the
wild .Oxford University Press Oxford.
Mopate, L.Y., Balndoh, G., Zeuh, V.and Gonguet, G. P. (1999). Muscovy duck
(Cairina moschata) rearing in urban households of NDjamena Chad .ANRPD
Newsletter 8 (1):42.48.
Mourthe, M. (1989). Lles oles et canards. Collection la vie en vert dargaud editeur 8 e
Edition55pp
Murad, A., Farouq, M., Mian, M. A. and Muqarrab, A. K. (2001). Hatching performance
of fayoumi egg.Sirhad J.of Agric. 17(1) 1-6
Murtha, A.G. ( 2000). Morphological variation of Horse mackerels (Trachurus trachurus) in the
Iberian and North African Atlantic: implications for stock identification. J. Mar. Sci., 57:
1240-1248.
Nagamine, Y., and Higuchi, M. (2001). Genetic distance and classification of domestic
animals using genetic markers. J. of Anim. Breed. and Genet. 118: 101-
109.
Narahari, D., Mujeer, K.A., Ahmed, M., Rajini, R. A. and Sundararasu, V. (1991). Factors
influencing the hatching performance of duck egg .Br Poult. Sc. 32:313-318.
Nogales, M., Lopez, M., Jimenez Asensio, J., Larruga, J. M., Hernandez, M.and Gonzalez,
P. (1998). Evolution and biogeography of the genus Tarentola(Sauria Gekkonidae) in
the canary Island , inferred from mitochondria DNA sequence. J.Evol.Biol.11:481-
494.
Nei, M. (1973). Analysis of gene diversity in subdivided population. Proc. Natl. Acad.
Sci USA 70:3321- 3323.
Ngapongora, J.M.N., Mbaga, S.H. and. Mutayoba, S.K. (2004). Study on the
performance of growing native Muscovy ducks under semi and fully confined
rearing systems. www.husdyr. kvi.dk&u=w.Retrieved on 4/8/2009.
Nguyen, T.K. D., Ogle, B. and Preston, T.R. (1997). Effect of level of local supplements for
fattening Muscovy duck by poor farmers in remote villages in Mekong Delta of
Vietnam. hHp: //www. Cipav.org.ev/lrrd/cordll/dong 91.htm.Retrieved on 6/11/2009.
Nichelman, M. (1993 ). Early experience and adaptation. 8-18 .In proc. Of the 4th
European symposium on poultry welfare . C J Savory and B O Hughes ed Univ.
Federation for Animal welfare .Edingburg UK. 234-242.
168
Nickolva, M. (2004). Effect of the sex ratio on the fertility of Muscovy duck( Cariana
moschata).Central European J. of Agric. 5 : 4 (367- 372).
Nikiforov, A. A, Moiseyeva, I.G., and Zakharrov, I.A .(1998). Position of Russian chicken breed in
thediversity Eurasian breeds. Genetika. 34:850-851.
Nwosu, C .C., Gowen, F. A.,Obioha, F.C., Akpan, I. A.and Onuora, I.(1985). A biometrical
study of the Conformation of the native chicken .Nig. J. Anim .Prod. 12 (1&2) 141-
146.
Odubote, I. K. and Somade, B. (1992). Genetic analysis of rabbit litter traits at birth
and weaning. Nig. J. of Anim. Prod. 19:64-69.
Ogah, D. M., Musa, I. S., Yakubu, A., Momoh, M.O. and Dim, N.I. (2009). Variation in
morphological traits of geographical separated population of indigenous muscovy
duck (Cairina moschata)in Nigeria. In: Proceeding of 5th Inter. Poult. Conf. Taba
Egypt. 46-52.
Ogundu, U. E. (2001). Repeatability estimates and prediction of milk suckled per kit
for performance trait in Dutch rabbit. J. of Sustainable Agric. and Environ. 3:149 –
154
169
Ola, S.I .(2000). Vital reproduction and production characteristics of the Nigerian
Muscovy duck. In proc. of Nig.Soc.of Animal Production Conf. 19-23 march 2000
Umudike.126-128
Oli, M. K. and Dubson, F. S. (1999). Population cycle in small mammals :The role of
age at sexual maturity. Oikos 86:557-561
Olson ,S. L. (1985). The fossil record of birds.76-238.In avian boil.Acad. Press New York.
Oldenbroeck , J.K. (1999) .Gene bank and the conservation of farm animal genetic
resources DLO Institute for Animal Science and Health. Lelystad
Osman, A. (1997). Effect of diet containing dried poultry manure and nivginamicun in
the reproductive performance of muscovy duck. Egypt Poult. Sc. J. 17 (2) 171-191
Panda, B. K. and Kumar, R. (2004). Muscovy duck and geese are best choice for
backyard farming. Poultry Planner Year 5 issue 12 :11-12.
Panda, B. K. and Padlin, M. K. (2004). The past present and future scope of duck
farming in India. Poultry Planner Year 6 issue 2 :19-22.
Peeble, L. and Brake, J. (1987) Egg shell quality and hatchability in broiler eggs .
Poult. Sc. 66:596-604
Peebles, E.D., and Marks, H.L .(1991). Effect of selection for growth and selection
diet on egg shell quality and embryonic development in Japanese quail. Poult. Sc. 20:
1471-1480.
Piassi, M., Silva, M. A. ,Regazza, A.J. Torres, R.A. Soares, P.R. Torres,and Junior,
A.A. (1995). Estudo da divergencia genetica entre oito grupos de aves de posturn por
melo de teenicas de analise multivariada.Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia
1995 ,24(5)715-727.
Pilla, A.M. and Quilici, R. (1973). .Influence of different diets and some slaughter
characteristics of Muscovy ducks and other annali-dell-instituto-sperimental er-la-
Zootehnica 6 (1) 25 – 95.
Piles, M .O., Rafel, P., Ramon, J. and Varona, L. (2005). Genetic parameters of fertility
in two lines of rabbits with different reproductive potentials J. of Anim. Sc. 83:340
– 343
Pingel, H, (1990). Genetic of Growth and meat production in waterfowl in poultry breeding
and genetic, R-D. Crawford Ed. Elsevier Amsterdam, Netherlands 191 – 704.
Pinheiro, A. C.M., Teixeira, A.L., Rego Marques, J.F. and Cabral, H.N. ( 2005). Genetic and
morphological variation of Solea lascaris (Risso, 1810) along the Portuguese coast. Fish. Res.,
73: 67-78.
171
Pinto, L.F.B., Parker, I.U., Melo, C. M.R., Ledur, M.C. and Coutinho, L.L. (2006). Principal
component analysis applies to performance and carcass trait in chicken. Anim. Res. 55
:
419 – 428.
Philip, J .C. (1922). A natural history of the duck. Vol.1 Houghton Mifflin co.Boston
Messachussets.76pp.
Poivey, J.P., Cheng, Y.S, R., Rouvier, C., Tai, C.T. Wang, Liu H.L (2001). Genetic
parameters of reproductive traits in Brown Tsaiya duck artificially inseminated with
semen from Muscovy ducks. Poult. Sc. 80, 703 – 709.
Poujardieu, B., Guichard, F.and Laventure P. (1994). Parametres genetiques de croissance et
de garage de la cane commune. Genet. Sel. Evol. 26, 467 – 472.
Prado-Gonzales, E.A., Ramirez-Avila, L. and. Segura, J.C. (2003). Genetic
parameters for body weights of Creole chickens from Southeastern mexico
usingan animal model. Livest. Res. Rural Dev., 15.
http://www.cipav.org..co/lrrd/lrrd15/1/prad151.htm
Queller, D.C., Strassmann, J.E. and Hughes, C.R. (1993). Microsatellites and Kinship. Tree,
8: 285-288.
Rafinski, J. and Babik, W. (2000). Genetic differentiation among northern and southern
populations of the moor frog Rana Arvalis Nilsson in central Europe.Hereditary vol.
84. (5) 610-618.
Rauch, H. W., Pingel, H. and Bilsing, A. (1993). Welfare of waterfowl pages 139-147 . In
Proc. Of the 4th European symposium on poultry on poultry welfare C J savory and B
O Hughes ed. Anim. Welfare Edingbough UK. 242-248.
Ravi, S.,. Peethambaran, P.A, Jalaludeen, A., leo J.and Gangadevi, P. (2009). Influence of
dietery calcium and phosphorus level on production performance in indigenous
layers duck in cages. In: Proc. of 4th World Water Fowl Conference, Thrissur, India.
170-172.
Ricard, F. H., Lerclercq, B. and De Carville, H. (1983). Mise au piot sur les caracteristiques
genetiques et les methods delevage du canard de barbarie.Ann. de zootechnic32;189-
200.
Riva, J., Rizzi, R., Marelli, S. and Cavalchini, L.G., (2004). Body measurements in
Bargamasca sheep. Small Rum. Res. 55: 221-227.
Robert, M. B. V.( 1978). Biology, A functional Approach by St Paris Press Ltd Malta.
Rochambeau de, H.( 1988 ). Genetics of rabbit and their crosses. J. of Applied
Rabbit Res. 12 231 – 212.
Rodero, E., deLa Haba, N. R., Rodero, A. Y., Harera, M. (1996) . Genetic and phenotypic
profile of endergered Andulusian Sheep and goat breeds FAO Health paper vol 8.
Romboli, I., Mori, B., Salami, A.,and. Avanzi, K. F. (1984). Storage condition and
hatchability in Muscovy duck egg 17th congress. Mord. Aviculture,Helsinki
(Finland)218-221.
Romboli, I. and Battini, T. (1986). Del guscio eschivsa nelle uova di auatra.Avicoltura3: 65.
Romboli, I., Giulotti, L., Avanzi, C.F. (1987). Reproductive activity of some varieties
of Muscovy duck in successive egg laying cycles. Rivista di Avicoltura, 56 12, 73-
75, Rec. 201 of 408-CAB Abst. (1987-1989).
Ruene, J.(1993). Documenting the world domestic animal resources. Animal Genet.
Resources Information.11:13-22.
Saatci, M., I. Dewi, A .P. and Aksoy, A.R. (2003). Application of REML procedure to
estimate the genetic parameters of weekly live weight in one to one sire and dam
pedigree recorded Japanese quail. J. Anim Breeding and Genet. 120 : 23 – 28.
173
Sabri, H. M., Henry, R.W.,Robert, H.H. and Wilcox, C. J. ( 1990). Genetic parameters for
egg and related characteristic of white leghorn hens in a subtropical environment.
Gen. and Molecular Biol. 22(2) 183-186.
Sakaguti, E., Silva, S., Regazzi, A. J. Torres, R. A., Martin, L.N. (1996). Analise de
divergencia genetica entre nore grupos geneticos de coelhos. Revista da sociedade
Brasileira de zootecnia 1996 25(3)647-660.
Salako, A. E. and Ngere, L.O. (2001). Genetic distance between West African Dwarf
(WAD) and Yankasa Sheep in South West Nigeria. Nig. J. of Genetics 16(2001) 37-
43.
Salem, H. H., Ali, B. A. , Huang, T. H. and Quin, D. N.(2005). Use of Random amplified
polymorphic DNA marker in poultry research. Inter. J. of Poult. Sc.
4(10)804-811.
Sauveur, B. and De Carville, H. (1990). Effect of day length on early puberty on female
Muscovy duck, control of fertility in domestic birds Tours, France 2-4 July Colloques
–de- 1 INFA 1990 5l: 192 – 203.
Sauveur, B. and De Carville, H. (1985). Duck production Science and world practice.
Proceedings of a workshop 18 – 27 Nov. 1985 Indonesia.
Saitbekova, N., Gaillard, C., Obexer-Ruff, G., Dolf, G. (1990). Genetics based on
microsatelite analysis. Anim. Genet. 30:36-41.
SAS, (1990). SAS user guide statistics SAS Inc Cary N C 633.
Scherf, B.D., (1995). World Watchlist for domestic animal diversity.3 rd ed. Part1.9
http://dad.fao.org/en/Home.htm database.Rome Italy FAO/UNDP.
Schearf, B. (2003). World Watch list for domestic animal diversity FAO 2003.423-432.
Schader, A. K. , Ahuja, S. D., Thomas, P .C. and Agrawal, S.K. (1985). Effect of egg
weight and duration storage on the weight loss,fertility and hatchability traits in
Japanese Quail. Indian J..Poult.Sc.20:19-22.
Schultze, V. R. , Rohe, H., Loft, R.and kalm, E.(2001). Genetic analysis of the course of
individual growth and feed intake of group-pened performance tested boar. Arch
Tierz Dummerstorf 44:139-156.
Serbul , V.P. (1986). Improving Muscovy duck egg incubation technique pages 819-
822.In proc. of the 7th European Poult. Conf.D M Lerbier Tour, Paris, France.
Shahin, K.A., Soliman, A.M. and Moukhtar, A.E. (1993).Sources of shared variability
for the Egyptian buffalo body shape (conformation). Livest. Prod. Sci, 36: 323- 334.
Shahin, K. A., Shemes, A. R., Abdallah, O. Y., Saleh, K. (2000) . Effects of genetic
control of subcutaneous fat deposition via using restricted selection indexes on live
performance and carcass characteristics of Pekin ducks. Arch. Tierz., Dummerstorf.
43 1, 69-77.
Sharma, A.K.,. Singh, R.K, Kumar, S.and Sharma, D. (2001.) Genetic relatedness among
175
Simons, L. W. (2001). Sperm competition and its evolutionary consequence in the insects
.Princeton Univ.Press.Princeton.
Singh, R.V. and Sharma, D. (2002). Within and between strain genetic variability in White
Leghorn population detected through RAPD markers. Br. Poult. Sci., 43:33-37.
Smith, E.J., Jones, C.P., Bartlett, J. and Nestor, K.E. (1996).Use of randomly amplified
polymorphic DNAmarkers for the genetic analysis of relatedness
and diversity in chickens and turkeys. Poult. Sci., 75: 579-584.
Snedecor, G.W and Cochran, W.G. (1980). Statistical method seventh edition. The Iowa
State University Press Ames lOWA. USA.
Sokal, R.R. and , Rohlf, F.J. (1981). Biometry. 2nd ed. New York: W.H. Freeman and
Company.
SPSS, Statistical Package for Social Sciences.( 2004)SPSS Inc.,(14.0 )444 Michigan
Avenue, Chicago, IL60611.2004.
Stasko, J. (1966 ).The heritability of the live weight of duck at 28 day of age .Ved.Pr
Vysk ust Chov. Hyd invake pri Dunaji 3 :35-42.
Stahl, J.L., Cook, M. E. and Sunde, M.L. (1986). Zinc supplementation its effect on egg
production feed conversion, fertility and hatchability. Poult. Sc. 65:2104-2109
Stephen, P. (1990). Selection de Canarc de Barbarie. Inshe Canard de Barbarie (B. Sauveur
and H. de Caville eds) Institute National de la Recherche Agronomique, Paris
Swiger, L.A., Harvey, W.A.,Everson, D.O. and Gregory, K. E. (1964). The variance of
intraclass correlation involving groups with one observation.Biometrics 20:818-826
Szyniuk, B., Holszwska, Z. and Palnszak, H.(1991) Zootechinca 22:55-60
Szwaczkowski .T. , O. Wezyk, E.S Barezak .J. Badowski , H. Balinska and A. Wole (2007)
Genetic venerability of body weight in two goose strain under long term selection. J.
Appl. Genet. 48 (3) 2007 . 235 – 260
176
Takahashi, H., Nirasawa, Y., Nagamine, Y., Tsudzuki, M. and Yamamoto, Y. (1998).
Genetic relationships among Japanese Native breeds of Chicken based on
microsatellite DNA polymorphisms. J. Her. 89, 543-546.
Tai, C., Rouvier, R.and Poivey J.P. (1989). Genetic parameters of some growth and egg
production traits in laying Brown Tsaiya (Anas Platyrhynchos).
Gen. Sel. Evol. 21. 377-384.
Testik, A., Sarica, M. (1991). An investigation on the egg quality traits of Pekin
ducks. Intern. Congress of Poultry Husbandry, Istambul proceeding, 85-
91.
Tikk, H. and Viht, I. (1988). Egg laying incubation properties of egg from different
Muscovy duck population means of increasing intensification and development of
energy saving technologies of egg and poultry production. 97-89.
Tinsley, H.E.A. and Brown, S. D. (2000). Hand book of applied multivariate statistics
and mathematical modelling. New York Academic Press 720.
Tian-Fwu C., Yu-Tsai L. and Chin-Moo, P. (1998). Calcium requirements of cage feeding
laying Tsaiya duck. J. Taiwan Livestock Res. Sc. (1) : 27:33.
Townsend, C. W. (2002).The Muscovy duck. Auk 33 9-14
177
Tufvesson, M., Tufvesson, B., Schantz, T., Johansson, K., and Wilhelonson, M. (1999).
Selection for sexual male characters and their effect on other fitness-related traits in
white leghorn chicken. J. Anim Breed. Genet. 116 : 127 – 138.
Tuinen, M. V. and Hadley, E. A. (2004). Error in estimation of rate and time inferred from
the early amniote fossilsrecordand avian molecular clock. J. Mol.Evol.(55)267-276.
Tyler, C. (1961). Shell strength, its measurement and its relationship to other factors.
Br. Poult. Sc. 2: 3-19.
Van Bueningen, L.T.and Busch, R. H.( 1997). Genetic diversity among nort Americanspring
wheatcultivers.1 Analysis of the coefficient of percentage matrix .Crop Sc.
37:570-579.
Wang, G. and Xu, L. (1989). Reproductive performance of white Muscovy duck .J .of
Fujian Agric. College 16(4) 320-324.
Wetmore, A. (1965). The birds of the republic of panama Smithsonian Misc. Coll vol.
150
Wiley, E. O. (1981) phylogenetics.The theory and practice of phylogenetic systematics.
Wiley New York 567pp.
Wilhan, J.G.K., Kubelik, A.R., Livak, K.J., Rafalski, J.A. , Tingey, S.V. (1990). DNA
Polymorphism Amplified by arbitrary primers are used as genetic markers
.Nucleic Acid Res. 18:6531-6535.
Williams, J.G.K., Kubelik, A.R., Livak, K.J., Rafalski, J.A. and. Tingey, S.V, (1990).
DNA polymorphisms amplified by arbitrary primers are useful as genetic markers.
Nucleic Acids Res. 18: 6531-6535. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez.
Williams, J. G.,. Kubelik, A. R, Livak, K. J., Jarafalsk, I. and Tingey, S.V. (1990). DNA
polymorphisms amplified by arbitrary primers are useful as genetic markers. Nucleic
Acids Res. 18: 6,531-6,535.
Willin, S .E.and Erzsebet, M. (1997). Changing of body measurements and the correlation of
these with body weight from 0 to 16 weeks of age in geese. Allattenyesztes es
Takarmanyozas. 1997; 46: 409-414.
178
Wilson, R. T. (1991). Small Ruminant Production and the small ruminant genetic
resource in tropical Africa FAO Animal Production and Health Paper no 88 23pp.
Wimmers, K., Ponsuksili, S., Hardge, T., Walle – Zarate, A., Mathur, P.K. and Horst, P.
(2000). Genetic distinctness of African, Asian and South American Local chickens.
Anim. Genetic. 31: 159 – 165).
Wright, S. (1968). Evolution and the genetics of population.In Genetic and biometric
foundations .Chicago.Univ.of Chicago press.
Wu, C. K. and Han, Y. (1983). Feed efficiency and utilization of energy and protein of
broiler and different diet. Poult. Abst.10(7)165.
Xiao, T.F., Zheng, X.C.and Wu, Q.E. (2004). Genetic diversity of Fujian local duck
populations indifferent ecological type. Chinese J. of Applied Ecology, 15, 879–882.
Yeh, F.C., Yang, R.C, Boyle, T.B.J., Ye, Z.H and Mao, J.X. (1999). POPGENE, the
user- friendly shareware for population genetic analysis. Molecular Biology
and Biotechnology Centre, University of Alberta, Canada.
http://www.ipgri.cgiar.org/Training/Unit101/MolMarkers/PDF/volume2/13_%20App
endix-9.pdf Retrieved on 23/5/2009.
Zaitoun, I. S., Tabbaa, M .J. and Bdour, S. (2005). Differentiation of native goat breeds of
Jordan on the basis of morphostructural characteristics. Small. Rum. Res. 56: 173 –
182.00 .
179
Zenatello, M. and Kiss, J. B. (2005). Biometrics and sex Identification of the Rose-coloured
starlig sturnus roseus. Ringing and Migration 22: 163-166.
Zeuner, F. E. (1963). The dog in a history of domesticated animal. Haper and Row New York
1963 7111.
Zhang, L.C, Wing, Z. H., XU, G.Y., Hou, Z.C. and Yang, N. (2005). Heritabilities and
genetics and phenotypic correlations of egg quality traits in brown egg dwarf layers.
Poult . Sc. 84: 1209 – 1213.
Zuk, K. M., Thornhill, R., Hyon, J.D., Johnson, K., Austad, S., Ligon, S.H., Thornhill,
W. and Costin, C. (1990). The role of male ornament and courtship behaviour in
female mate choice of red jungle fowl.Amer. Nat.136. 459-473.