Page 1
i
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
Page 2
ii
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:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
iii
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.
Page 4
iv
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
Page 5
v
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
Page 6
vi
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.
Page 7
vii
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.
Page 8
viii
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
Page 9
ix
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
Page 10
x
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
Page 11
xi
3.5 Molecular characterization……………………………………………………. 62
4.0. RESULTS…………………………………………………………………….68
4.1 Morphological differentiation between ecotypes....................................
4.1.1. Body weight and body measurement ………………………………….
4.1.2 Result of principal component analysis…………………………………
4.1.3 Discriminant analysis……………………………………………………
4.2 Growth performance traits……………………………………………
4.2.1 Body weight……………………………………………………………
4.2.2 Sexual dimorphism in body weight amongst ecotypes…………………..
4.2.3 Body weight gain and average daily gain (BWG and ADG)……………
4.3 Genetic evaluation of growth traits……………………………………..
4.3.1 Heritability estimate of body weight…………………………………….
4.3.2 Heritability estimate of body weight gain………………………………
4.3.3 Heritability estimate of average daily gain……………………………..
4.3.4 Phenotypic correlation of body weight at specific ages…………………
4.3.5 Genetic and phenotypic correlation between body weight body weight
gain and average daily gain at specific ages……………………………
4.4 Egg production ………………………………………………………….
4.4.1 Body weight and first egg, average age at first egg, number of egg laid
at first cycle and egg mass………………………………………………..
4.4.2 Second laying performance………………………………………………
4.4.3 Percent egg production/laying intensity ………………………………...
4.5 Genetic and phenotypic parameters of egg product traits………………
4.5.1 Heritability estimates of laying characteristics and external egg traits of
68
68 73 79 88 88 94 97 100 100 102 104 104 104 109 109 113 115 117
Page 12
xii
..the first laying cycle………………………………………………
4.5.2 Genetic and phenotypic correlation of external egg quality traits of the
first laying cycle for the genetic group……………………………
4.5.3 Heritability estimate of second laying characteristic and external egg
traits of the two ecotypes……………………………………
4.5.4 Genetic and phenotypic correlations of the second laying traits…..
4.6 Molecular characterization of the muscovy duck ecotypes………
117 117 120 122 125
5.0 DISCUSSION 129
5.1 Morphological differentiation between ecotypes……………………….
5.1.1 Principal component analysis …………………………………………
5.1.2 Discriminate analysis ………………………………………………….
5.2 Growth traits……………………………………………………………..
5.2.1 Body weight
5.2.2 Body weight gain and average daily gain
5.3. Parameter estimate of growth traits…………………………………….
5.3.1 Heritability of growth traits…………………………………………….
5.3.2 Phenotypic correlation of body weight…………………………………
5.3.3. Heritability estimate of body weight………………………………….
5.3.4 Genetic and phenotypic correlation between BWT, BWG and ADG…
5.4. Egg production………………………………………………………. ..
5.4.1 First egg cycle production……………………………………………..
5.4.1.1 Body weight at first egg………………………………………………..
5.4.1.2 Age at first egg………………………………………………………….
5.4.1.3 Egg number and egg mass………………………………………………
129
130
132
133
133
134
135
135
136
137
137
138
138
138
138
139
Page 13
xiii
5.4.2 Performance at second laying cycle……………………………………..
5. 4.3 Laying intensity………………………………………………………..
5.4 .4 Genetic and phenotypic parameters of laying and egg traits……………
5.4.4.1 Heritability of laying performance and external egg traits ………………
5.4.4.2 Parameter estimate of second laying traits………………………………
5.5 Molecular evaluation……………………………………………………
6.0 CONCLUSION……………………………………………………
140
141
141
141
142
143
145
Page 14
xiv
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
Page 15
xv
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO TITLE PAGE
1. The sequence of the primers used and their annualing temperature……..
2. Least squares means of body measurements of Nigerian muscovy duck
ecotypes from two agro-ecological zones………………………………..
3. Least squares means of the morphological traits of the two ecotypes by
sex…………………………………………………………………………
4. Correlation coefficients of the body measurements of Muscovy duck
male (below diagonal) traits and female (above diagonal ) traits………
5. Anti image correlation matrix for male Muscovy duck body
measurements ………………………………………………………….
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……………………………………………………
7. Anti image correlation matrix for body measurements of the female
muscovy duck……………………………………………………………
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………………………………………………….
9. Test of equality of group means of the two ecotypes……………………
10. Summary of canonical discriminant function……………………………
11. Summary of stepwise discriminant analysis……………………………...
12. Fisher’s linear discriminant function…………………………………….
64
70
71
72
75
76
77
78
81
82
83
84
Page 16
xvi
13. Original classification matric obtained by the application of non-
standardized canonical discriminant function coefficient ……………..
14. Squared Mahalanobis distance between ecotypes…………………………
15. Test of significance of squared mahalanobis distance…………………….
16. Least squares means for body weight0-20 weeks of the two ecotypes of
Nigerian indigenous Muscovy duck……………………………………
17. Least squares means values of body weight by sex of Muscovy ducks
from two agro-ecological zones of Nigeria ……………………………..
18. Least squares means and coefficient of variation of 5–weekly body
weight along with degree of sexual dimorphism for guinea savannah
ecotype……………………………………………………………………
19. Least squares means and coefficient of variation of 5–weekly body
weight along with degree of sexual dimorphism for the rain forest
ecotype……………………………………………………………………
20. Least squares means for body weight gain and average daily gain by
ecotypes…………………………………………………………………..
21. Least squares means standard errors of body weight gain and average
daily gain of ecotype by sex of the Muscovy ducks …………………
22. Heritability estimates of body weight from sire variance components of
the two genetic groups of indigenous muscovy ducks…………………….
23. Heritability estimates of 5-weekly body weight gain from sire variance
components of the two ecotypes of indigenous muscovy duck…………
24. Heritability estimates of 5 weekly average daily weight gain from sire
variance components of the two ecotypes of muscovy ducks…………...
85
86
87
90
92
95
96
98
99
101
103
106
Page 17
xvii
25. Phenotypic correlation of the body weight of the two indigenous
muscovy duck ecotypes from day- old to 20 weeks of age……………….
26. Genetic and phenotypic correlations between body weight, body wieght
gain and average daily gain of the two ecotypes…………… …………..
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…………………………………………….
28. Least sqaures means ±SE of egg characteristics, weight, length and width
of the first egg laid………………………………………………………
29. Least sqaures means ±SE of second laying characteristics of the ecotype
30. Laying intensity based on laying season of the guinea and rainforest
ecotypes……………………………………………………………………
31. Heritability estimates from sire variance components for the first laying
characteristics of the two muscovy duck ecotypes……………………….
32. Genetic and phenotypic correlations of external egg quality traits for the
first laying cycle for the two ecotypes…………………………………..
33. Heritability estimates of second laying traits and external egg
characteristics of the two ecotypes of muscovy ducks from sire variance
components……………………………………………………………….
34. Genetic (below diagonal) and phenotypic (above digonal) correlations
between second laying traits of the guinea savannah ecotype……………
35. Genetic (below diagonal) and phenotypic (above diagonal) correlations
between second laying traits of the rainforest savannah ecotype………….
36. Number of RAPD bands for each primer using agarose gel in the two
107
108
110
112
114
116
118
119
121
123
124
Page 18
xviii
muscovy duck ecotypes…………………………………………………..
37. Genetic variability between the two ecotypes…………………………….
126
127
Page 19
xix
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
Page 20
xx
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
Page 21
xxi
PROC – SAS procedure
0C – Degree centigrade
PCR – Polymerase chain reaction
PC – Principle component
P – Probability
SHL – Shank length
se – Standard error
SAS – Statistical Analysis System
WL – Wing length
