GENETIC CHARACTERIZATION OF MUSCOVY DUCK FROM GUINEA

SAVANNAH AND RAINFOREST ZONES OF NIGERIA

BY

OGAH, DANLAMI MOSES

B Sc ( Zoology )
AHMADU BELLO UNIVERSITY, ZARIA
PGD Animal Production and Management
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE, MAKURDI.
M Sc. (Animal Breeding and Genetics)

UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE, MAKURDI, BENUE STATE

Thesis submitted to the Department of Animal Breeding and Physiology, in partial fulfilment

of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Animal Breeding and

Genetics) University of Agriculture, Makurdi.

MARCH 2011

i
 DECLARATION

I declared that the work described in this thesis represents my original work and has not
been previously submitted to any university or similar institution for any degree

Name of candidate :---------------------------------------------------------

Signature of candidate:--------------------------------------------------------

Date:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ii
Name of Candidate:

Matric Number :

Certification

We the under- signed, hereby certify that this Thesis by the above named candidate be
accepted as fulfilling part requirement for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Animal
breeding and Genetics), University of Agriculture, Makurdi.

Title : Genetic Characterization of Muscovy Duck from Guinea

Savannah and Rainforest Zones of Nigeria

……………………………….. ……………………………………
Prof. Dr. N. I. Dim Date

Major Supervisor.

……………………………………. ………………………………………….
Dr. O. M. Momoh Date

Minor Supervisor.

……………………………………. …………………………………………….
Prof. I. I. Bitto Date

Minor Supervisor.

………………………………….. ………………………………………………
Prof. Dr. N. I. Dim Date

Head of Department.

………………………………….. ………………………………………………..

Prof. E. I. Kucha Date

Dean, Postgraduate School.

iii
 ABSTRACT
The indigenous Muscovy duck (Cairina moschata) in Nigeria is yet to be adequately

evaluated and classified into morphotypes. Its performance, morphology and genetic

diversity are yet to be ascertained. Genetic characterization of Muscovy ducks collected from

two agro- ecological zones of Nigeria (guinea savannah and rain forest) were carried out

using two approaches. First was morphological diversity assessment of the two ecotypes

using On-farm data and secondly On-station evaluation of performance, genetic and

molecular assessment of the two populations, which were carried out at the Poultry Unit of

College of Agriculture, Lafia, Nasarawa State and Centre for Biotechnology Research and

Training, ABU, Zaria. The general objective of the study was to evaluate the phenotypic and

genetic characteristics of the Nigerian indigenous Muscovy duck from the two agro-

ecological zones with a view to highlighting its potentials to contribute to egg and meat

production in Nigeria. For the On-farm data, 12 zoometric traits were measured on 680

ducks from the two populations, principal component factor analysis and discriminate

analysis were performed to investigate distinction and patterns of morphological variations

between the two populations and also between sexes. Factors analysis was used to assess

inter-relationship between traits in a pooled data between sexes. Seven morphometric traits

had discriminatory power that distinguished the two populations. Squared Mahalanobis

distance between the two populations was 2.963 and significant (P<0.001). For on-station

experiment, 192 pedigree day-old ducklings of guinea savannah ecotype obtained from 10

sires and 60 dams and 160 ducklings of rainforest ecotype also from 10 sires and 60 dams

hatched in 6 separate batches by natural incubation were used. The ducklings from the two

populations were brooded and reared on deep litter pen from 0-20 weeks. Body weight

(BWT) at 0, 1, 3, 5, 10, and 20 weeks were evaluated. Body weight gain and average daily

gain were measured at 5 weekly internal in the two ecotypes up to 20 weeks. At 20 weeks, 60

iv
ducks of each population were randomly selected for egg laying performance and monitored

for first cycle and second cycle egg production. Body weight was significantly higher

(P<0.05) in the guinea savannah ecotype between 0-10 weeks of age but not significant at

adult age. Sex significantly (P<0.05) affected body weight from 3 to 20 weeks of age in both

populations. There was significant difference between the guinea and rainforest ecotypes with

the rainforest ecotype having heavier body weight at first egg. Heritability estimates for

growth traits of the two populations did not differ significantly, all were low to moderate.

That of body weight gain and average daily gain increased with age in both populations. In

all heritability estimates for early performance were high in the guinea savannah ecotype,

while higher for the rainforest ecotype at late ages. From this results it can be concluded that

selection for performance can be applied in early stage for the guinea savannah ecotype

while at later age for the rainforest. Sexual dimorphism was clearly exhibited in the two

populations. On molecular assessment high similarity was obtained between the populations

(0.86%), genetic distance was small 0.14, suggesting that they have common ancestor and

evolved little adaptive variation as a result of isolation. In all no wide variation existed

between the ecotypes, which was evident both at phenotypic and molecular levels an

indication of little environmental influence on the duck breed. The ecotypes can be selected

for both meat and egg production. More research is suggested using more sophisticated

molecular approach to ascertain genetic potentials and diversity of the Nigerian indigenous

muscovy duck

v
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I would like to express my sincere thanks to my major supervisor- Prof.

Dr. N.I. Dim. I greatly appreciate the meticulous guidance, patience, encouragement,

leadership, support and the conducive environment that he created for me to complete my

work smoothly and on time. I am extremely thankful to my co-supervisor- Dr. O.M.

Momoh- for his valuable support, encouragement and technical guidance during the course of

this study.

My sincere thanks goes to the former Head of Department of Animal Breeding and

Physiology and my second co- supervisor, Prof. I.I. Bitto, and the Dean, College of Animal

Science- Prof. O.I.A. Oluremi for their advice and encouragement during the course of my

work.

I wish to thank the staff of the Department of Animal Science and Livestock Unit, College of

Agriculture Lafia, Teaching and Research Farm, especially Mathias B. Bello, Gwanto, and

host of others for their help and support during the three-year performance evaluation

studies. I would like to express my thanks to all the farmers who allowed me to use their

ducks for morphological evaluation in Cross River, Akwa Ibom, Benue, Nasarawa and

Niger states. Special thanks goes to Edidion Akpan Charles who was of enormous support to

me during the field data collection, purchase and transportation of ducks from the rain forest

zone to Lafia.

Many thanks to Dr. P.A. Wuyep of the Centre for Biotechnology Research and Training,

ABU, Zaria for performing the molecular analysis and Abdulmojeed Yakubu of the Faculty

of Agric, Nasarawa State University, Lafia Campus who has been so inspirational, he

introduced me to the understanding of multivariate analysis.

Sincere thanks to members of Olam Rice Extension Programme, Makurdi, for their individual

and collective support to me during the course of this work.

vi
It is imperative that I recognise the encouragement of my friends, brother and sisters in the

course of the study, Idris D. Hassan, Daikwo I. Silvesters, Jacob Enogela Okpadobu, Louis

Ogah, Rita and Omogbele, Bala, Yakubu and all others. I say thank you.

Special thanks to Dr. Maikano M. Ari and Dr Chris Iyimogah for their encouragements.

To my parents -Mr. John Ogah (Ogbole gi Doma), Patrick Ogah (Dan Moyin Doma) Hajiya

Tani, all my uncles and aunties I remain grateful.

My wife Gambo Ogah and my children Florence, Phyllis, Peace and Newly born Akawu

Abednego, I remain grateful for your prayers and understanding throughout the period of

my studies

To ALMIGHTY GOD who by His Grace granted me “everything” Honour and adoration

are yours.

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title page…………………………………………………………………………….i

Declaration…………………………………………………………………………..ii

Signature page……………………………………………………………………….iii

Abstract…………………………………………………………………………… .. iv

Acknowledgements………………………………………………………………….vi

Table of contents…………………………………………………………………….viii

List of figures…………………………………………………………………………xiv

List of tables……………………………………………………………………… … xv

Symbols and Glossary……………………………………………………………… xix

1.0 INTRODUCTION…..……………………………………………………1

1.1 Objectives of the Study………………………………………………… .. 4

2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………6

2.1 Domestic duck…………………………………………………………… 6

2.1.1 Domestication of duck…….…………………………………………… 7

2.2 Muscovy duck……………………….…………………………………….8

2.2.1 Origin of Muscovy duck………………………………………………… .9

2.2.2 Characteristics and potentials of Muscovy duck………..……………… 10

2.2.2.1 Morphological characteristics…………………………………………….. 10

2.2.2.2 Age at sexual maturity…………………………………………………….. 11

2.2.2.3 Egg production…………………………………………………………… 12

2.2.2.4 Egg weight…………………………………………………………………14.

2.2.2.5 Fertility of muscovy duck egg………………………………………….. ... 15

2.2.2.6 Hatchability……………………………………………………………….. 16

viii
2.2.2.7 Hatching weight of duckling……………………………………………. 18

2.2.2.8 Growth and productivity characteristics………………………………… 19

2.2.2.9 Feeding efficiency……………………………………………………… 20

2.2.2.10 Sex ratio on fertility of muscovy duck…………………………………… 21

2.2.211 Incubation………………………………………………………………….21

2.2.2.12 Clutch size and number…………………………………………………….22

2.3 Sexual dimorphism in muscovy duck..…………………………………… 23

2.4 Genetic parameters in muscovy duck (Basis of variation in morphological and

reproductive traits)………………………………………………….. 25

2.4.1 Heritability………………………………………………………………… 25.

2.4.1.1 Estimation of heritability…………………………………………………… 26

2.4.1.2 Heritability estimates for morphological traits………………………….. 27

2.4.1.3 Heritability estimates for growth traits…………………………………… 28.

2.4.1.4 Heritability estimates for egg traits and laying performance……………… 29

2.4.1.5 Heritability values and population divergence……………………………… 30

2.4.1.2 Relationship between traits………………………………………………… 31

2.4.2 Divergence in populations of muscovy duck……………………………… 34 .

2.4.3 Genetic distance between populations…………………………………… 36

2.4.3.1 Morphological distance…………………………………………………… 37

2.4.3.2 Estimate of genetic distance using morphological traits…………………… 38

2.4.4 Multivariate methods……………………………………………………… 39

2.5 Molecular techniques in the study of animal genetic diversity…………… 41

2.5.1 Molecular characterisation of genetic diversity in poultry using Random

Amplified Polymorphic DNA…………………………………………… 44

ix
2.5.2 Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA-PCR application in ducks…… 46

3.0 MATERIALS AND METHODS…………………………………………… 48

3.1 Research approach…………………………………………………………….48

3.1.1 Field survey……………………………………………………………………48

3.2 On-station…………………………………………………………………… 48

3.2.1 Experimental site………………………………………………………………48

3.2.2 Foundation stock and their management……………………………………… 48

3.2.3 Production and multiplication of experimental birds………………………… 49

3.2.3.1 Management of experimental birds…………………………………………… 49

3.2.3.2 Feeding and watering………………………………………………………….50

3.2.3.3 Medication…………………………………………………………………… 50

3.3 Data collection………………………………………………………………… 50

3.3.1 Survey data…………………………………………………………………… 50

3.3.2 On-station experimental data…………………………………………… …….. 51

3.3.2.1 Growth traits ………………………………………………………… ……. 51

3.3.3.2 Egg production traits ………………………………………………………… 53

3.4 Analytical procedures……………………………………………………………54

3.4.1 Multivariate analysis……………………………………………………………54

3.4.1.1 Principal component analysis……………………………………………………54

3.4.1.2 Discriminant analysis……………………………………………………………55

3.4.2 Phenotypic evaluation of the morphological and growth traits of the ecotypes…55

3.4.3 Genetic parameter estimates…………………………………………………… 59

3.4.3.1 Heritability estimates………………………………………………………… 59

3.4.3.2 Genetic and phenotypic correlation between traits……………………………61

x
3.5 Molecular characterization……………………………………………………. 62

4.0. RESULTS…………………………………………………………………….68

4.1 Morphological differentiation between ecotypes.................................... 68

4.1.1. Body weight and body measurement …………………………………. 68

4.1.2 Result of principal component analysis………………………………… 73

4.1.3 Discriminant analysis…………………………………………………… 79

4.2 Growth performance traits…………………………………………… 88

4.2.1 Body weight…………………………………………………………… 88

4.2.2 Sexual dimorphism in body weight amongst ecotypes………………….. 94

4.2.3 Body weight gain and average daily gain (BWG and ADG)…………… 97

4.3 Genetic evaluation of growth traits……………………………………..

100
100
4.3.1 Heritability estimate of body weight…………………………………….
102
4.3.2 Heritability estimate of body weight gain………………………………

4.3.3 Heritability estimate of average daily gain…………………………….. 104

4.3.4 Phenotypic correlation of body weight at specific ages………………… 104

4.3.5 Genetic and phenotypic correlation between body weight body weight
104
gain and average daily gain at specific ages……………………………

4.4 Egg production …………………………………………………………. 109

4.4.1 Body weight and first egg, average age at first egg, number of egg laid

at first cycle and egg mass……………………………………………….. 109

4.4.2 Second laying performance……………………………………………… 113

4.4.3 Percent egg production/laying intensity ………………………………... 115

4.5 Genetic and phenotypic parameters of egg product traits……………… 117

4.5.1 Heritability estimates of laying characteristics and external egg traits of

xi
 ..the first laying cycle……………………………………………… 117

4.5.2 Genetic and phenotypic correlation of external egg quality traits of the

first laying cycle for the genetic group…………………………… 117

4.5.3 Heritability estimate of second laying characteristic and external egg

traits of the two ecotypes…………………………………… 120

4.5.4 Genetic and phenotypic correlations of the second laying traits…..

122
4.6 Molecular characterization of the muscovy duck ecotypes………
125

5.0 DISCUSSION 129

5.1 Morphological differentiation between ecotypes………………………. 129

5.1.1 Principal component analysis ………………………………………… 130

5.1.2 Discriminate analysis …………………………………………………. 132

5.2 Growth traits…………………………………………………………….. 133

5.2.1 Body weight 133

5.2.2 Body weight gain and average daily gain 134

5.3. Parameter estimate of growth traits……………………………………. 135

5.3.1 Heritability of growth traits……………………………………………. 135

5.3.2 Phenotypic correlation of body weight………………………………… 136

5.3.3. Heritability estimate of body weight…………………………………. 137

5.3.4 Genetic and phenotypic correlation between BWT, BWG and ADG… 137

5.4. Egg production………………………………………………………. .. 138

5.4.1 First egg cycle production…………………………………………….. 138

5.4.1.1 Body weight at first egg……………………………………………….. 138

5.4.1.2 Age at first egg…………………………………………………………. 138

5.4.1.3 Egg number and egg mass……………………………………………… 139

xii
5.4.2 Performance at second laying cycle…………………………………….. 140

5. 4.3 Laying intensity……………………………………………………….. 141

5.4 .4 Genetic and phenotypic parameters of laying and egg traits…………… 141

5.4.4.1 Heritability of laying performance and external egg traits ……………… 141

5.4.4.2 Parameter estimate of second laying traits……………………………… 142

5.5 Molecular evaluation…………………………………………………… 143

6.0 CONCLUSION…………………………………………………… 145

xiii
 LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE

1. Map of Nigeria showing locations of Muscovy duck source . 67

2 Growth pattern of the Muscovy duck ecotypes from 0 to 20 weeks. 91

3 Growth pattern of the Muscovy duck ecotypes by sex. 93

4 RAPD profile of individual sample generated by the primers. 128

5.1 Typical Muscovy ducks of the Rainforest zone. 180

5.2 Typical Muscovy ducks of the Guinea savannah zone. 181

xiv
 LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO TITLE PAGE

1. The sequence of the primers used and their annualing temperature…….. 64

2. Least squares means of body measurements of Nigerian muscovy duck

ecotypes from two agro-ecological zones……………………………….. 70

3. Least squares means of the morphological traits of the two ecotypes by

sex………………………………………………………………………… 71

4. Correlation coefficients of the body measurements of Muscovy duck

male (below diagonal) traits and female (above diagonal ) traits……… 72

5. Anti image correlation matrix for male Muscovy duck body

measurements …………………………………………………………. 75

6. Eigen values and share of total variance along with factor loading after

rotation and communalities of the body weight and body measurements

of male muscovy duck…………………………………………………… 76

7. Anti image correlation matrix for body measurements of the female

muscovy duck…………………………………………………………… 77

8. Eigen value and shares of total variance along with factor loading after

rotation and communalities of the body weight and body measurements

of female muscovy duck…………………………………………………. 78

9. Test of equality of group means of the two ecotypes…………………… 81

10. Summary of canonical discriminant function…………………………… 82

11. Summary of stepwise discriminant analysis……………………………... 83

12. Fisher’s linear discriminant function……………………………………. 84

xv
13. Original classification matric obtained by the application of non-

standardized canonical discriminant function coefficient …………….. 85

14. Squared Mahalanobis distance between ecotypes………………………… 86

15. Test of significance of squared mahalanobis distance……………………. 87

16. Least squares means for body weight0-20 weeks of the two ecotypes of

Nigerian indigenous Muscovy duck…………………………………… 90

17. Least squares means values of body weight by sex of Muscovy ducks

from two agro-ecological zones of Nigeria …………………………….. 92

18. Least squares means and coefficient of variation of 5–weekly body

weight along with degree of sexual dimorphism for guinea savannah

ecotype…………………………………………………………………… 95

19. Least squares means and coefficient of variation of 5–weekly body

weight along with degree of sexual dimorphism for the rain forest

ecotype…………………………………………………………………… 96

20. Least squares means for body weight gain and average daily gain by

ecotypes………………………………………………………………….. 98

21. Least squares means standard errors of body weight gain and average

daily gain of ecotype by sex of the Muscovy ducks ………………… 99

22. Heritability estimates of body weight from sire variance components of

the two genetic groups of indigenous muscovy ducks……………………. 101

23. Heritability estimates of 5-weekly body weight gain from sire variance

components of the two ecotypes of indigenous muscovy duck………… 103

24. Heritability estimates of 5 weekly average daily weight gain from sire

variance components of the two ecotypes of muscovy ducks…………... 106

xvi
25. Phenotypic correlation of the body weight of the two indigenous

muscovy duck ecotypes from day- old to 20 weeks of age………………. 107

26. Genetic and phenotypic correlations between body weight, body wieght

gain and average daily gain of the two ecotypes…………… ………….. 108

27. Least square means ±SE of body weight at first egg, age at first egg,

average number of egg laid at first laying cycle, average egg weight and

egg mass of the two ecotypes……………………………………………. 110

28. Least sqaures means ±SE of egg characteristics, weight, length and width

of the first egg laid……………………………………………………… 112

29. Least sqaures means ±SE of second laying characteristics of the ecotype 114

30. Laying intensity based on laying season of the guinea and rainforest

ecotypes…………………………………………………………………… 116

31. Heritability estimates from sire variance components for the first laying

characteristics of the two muscovy duck ecotypes………………………. 118

32. Genetic and phenotypic correlations of external egg quality traits for the

first laying cycle for the two ecotypes………………………………….. 119

33. Heritability estimates of second laying traits and external egg

characteristics of the two ecotypes of muscovy ducks from sire variance

components………………………………………………………………. 121

34. Genetic (below diagonal) and phenotypic (above digonal) correlations

between second laying traits of the guinea savannah ecotype…………… 123

35. Genetic (below diagonal) and phenotypic (above diagonal) correlations

between second laying traits of the rainforest savannah ecotype…………. 124

36. Number of RAPD bands for each primer using agarose gel in the two

xvii
 muscovy duck ecotypes………………………………………………….. 126

37. Genetic variability between the two ecotypes……………………………. 127

xviii
 SYMBOLS AND GLOSSARY

Ecotype – a subdivision of an ecospecies that is a product of adaptation to a particular

ecology.

Clutch size – the number of eggs in a clutch

Pause length – the length of interval (in day) between clutches

Duck day production – the number of eggs laid as a proportion of the number of days a hen

was alive in a period.

Duck housed production – the number of eggs a hen lays after placement in the laying house

RAPD- Random Amplified Polymorphic DNA

h2 – Heritability in the narrow sense

 - Population phenotypic variance

rp – Phenotypic correlation

rG – Genetic correlation

Bp – Base pair

bwt – Body weight

bdl – Body length

bdd – Body width

bll – Bill length

BLD – Bill width

BLH – Bill length

xix
BH – Body height

Cv – Coefficient of variation

DNA – Deoxyribonucleic acid

DNTP – 21 deoxyribonucleotide-5-triphophate

DNTP – 21 deoxyadenosin-5-triphophate

DTTP – 21 deoxyguinine-5-triphophate

DF – Degree of freedom

EDTA – Etylendiamine tetracetic acid

g – gram

h – Hour

HL = Head length

HD – Head width

kb – Kilo base pair

kg – Kilogram

LSM – least squares means

MS – Mean squares

mg - Milligram

NL – Neck length

n – Sample size

xx
PROC – SAS procedure

0
C – Degree centigrade

PCR – Polymerase chain reaction

PC – Principle component

P – Probability

SHL – Shank length

se – Standard error

SAS – Statistical Analysis System

WL – Wing length

xxi
xxii