Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jkksz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:44:22.949Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morphological traits of duck and geese breeds of West Bengal, India

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 May 2013

Sandip Banerjee
Sandip Banerjee*
Affiliation:
B-1/87, KALYANI, Nadia, West Bengal, India, Pin-741235. Presently: School of Animal and Range Sciences, Hawassa University, Ethiopia
*
Correspondence to: S. Banerjee, B-1/87, Kalyani, Dist: Nadia, West Bengal, India. emails: sansoma2003@yahoo.co.in; sansoma2003@gmail.com
Get access

Summary

The study pertains to phenotypic characterization of some breeds of duck (common white duck and Indian runner duck), Muscovy ducks (black and white feathered and sepia feathered) besides two breeds of geese (white and brown feathered and white feathered) reared in the state of West Bengal (India). The study was conducted at five locations of the state and comprised 1395 ducks and 600 geese. The data were analysed statistically using mainly descriptive statistics, the differences in mean were analysed using Duncan's multiple range test. Both qualitative and quantitative traits were considered in the study. The qualitative traits were shank colour, bill colour, colour of the feathers, skin colour, egg shell colour, the presence or absence of beans, body carriage, bill type and colour of the eyes, while the quantitative traits included in the study were weight of the ducks and weight of the eggs. Some production traits such as numbers of eggs laid per year and dressing percentage of the drakes and ganders of each breed too have been studied. The ducks and geese are raised under semi-intensive management system and mostly depend on scavenging for their nutritional needs. This results in poor egg production and at times loss of stock because of diseases. The study regarding average egg production indicated that the Muscovy ducks and the geese have poor egg production, whereas the Indian runner followed by the common white duck are potentially the best. The ducks are important source of earnings for the small holder farmers and are raised both for meat and eggs, while the geese are reared mostly for ornamental purpose. However, the populations of the ducks are fast dwindling because of avian influenza in the region and because restocking is mostly being carried out with less adapted Khaki Campbell ducks. This happens mainly because the government farms that were responsible for providing the ducklings for restocking maintain Khaki Campbell ducks and do not have the parental stock of the native duck breeds, while restocking of the Muscovy ducks and geese are carried out by the rearers themselves. There are also no prevailing breeding programmes to conserve, select, maintain and distribute the native breeds of duck and geese. Hence, it is of earnest importance to conserve the avian genetic resources before the population dwindles further.

Résumé

L'étude se rapporte à la caractérisation phénotypique de quelques espèces de canard (le canard blanc commun et le canard de coureur indien), Muscovy esquive (le noir et le blanc aux plumes et sépia aux plumes) outre deux espèces d'oies (le blanc et le marron aux plumes et blancs aux plumes) a élevé dans l'état de Bengale d'ouest (l'Inde). L'étude a été dirigée à cinq emplacements de l'état et compris de 1395 canards et 600 oies. Les données ont été statistiquement analysées utilisant la statistique descriptive, les différences dans les moyens ont été analysées utiliser Duncan le test de Gamme Multiple. Traits qualitatifs et quantitatifs ont été considérés dans l'étude. Le trait qualitatif était la couleur de jambe, la couleur de facture, la couleur des plumes, la couleur de peau, pousser la couleur de coquille, la présence ou l'absence de haricots, la calèche de corps, facturent le type et la couleur des yeux, pendant que les traits quantitatifs inclus dans l'étude étaient le poids des canards et le poids des oeufs. Quelques traits de production à savoir. les nombres d'oeufs posé par an et habiller le pourcentage des canards et les jars de chaque espèce a été aussi étudié. Les canards et les oies sont élevés le système de direction en dessous à demi intensif et dépendent surtout de récupérer pour leurs besoins nutritifs. Ceci a pour résultat la production pauvre d'oeuf et à la perte de temps de du stock en raison des maladies. L'étude quant à la production d'oeuf de moyenne indique que le canard de Muscovy et les oies ont la production d'oeuf pauvre où comme le coureur indien suivi par le canard blanc commun est potentiellement le meilleur. Les canards sont la source importante de gains pour les petits agriculteurs de support et sont élevés pour la viande et les oeufs pendant que les oies sont surtout élevées pour le but décoratif. Toutefois, les populations des canards diminuent rapidement en raison de la grippe d'avian dans la région et que le regarnir est surtout exécuté avec les canards de Campbell de moins de Kaki adapté. Ceci a été principalement exécuté parce que les fermes de gouvernement qui étaient responsables de fournir les canetons pour regarnir maintiennent les canards de Campbell de Kaki et n'ont pas le stock parental des espèces de canard natales en regarnissant pour les canards de Muscovy et les oies sont exécuté par le rearers se. Il n'y a pas aussi prévaloir élève des programmes pour préserver, choisit, maintient et distribuer les espèces natales de canard et les oies. Donc; c'est d'importance sérieuse pour préserver l'avian les ressources génétiques avant que la population diminue plus ample.

Resumen

El estudio pertenece a la caracterización fenotípica de algunas castas de pato (pato blanco común y pato indio de corredor), Muscovy agacha (blanquinegro emplumado y la sepia emplumó) aparte de dos castas de gansos (blanco y marrón emplumó y blanco emplumó) crió en el estado de Bengala Occidental (India). El estudio fue realizado en cinco posiciones del estado y comprendido de 1395 patos y 600 gansos. Los datos fueron analizados utilizando estadísticamente la estadística descriptiva, las diferencias en el medio fueron analizadas utilizar prueba Múltiples de Gama de Duncan. Ambos rasgos cualitativos y cuantitativos fueron considerados en el estudio. El rasgo cualitativo fue color de zanca, color de cuenta, el color de las plumas, color de piel, incita color de esqueleto, la presencia o la ausencia de alubias, el coche del cuerpo, factura tipo y color de los ojos, mientras los rasgos cuantitativos incluidos en el estudio fueron pesos de los patos y el peso de los huevos. Algún v.gr. de rasgos de producción. números de huevos colocados por año y vestir porcentaje de los patos y gansos de cada casta también ha sido estudiado. Los patos y los gansos son levantados bajo sistema medio intensivo de gestión y dependen en su mayor parte de la barrer para sus necesidades nutricionales. Esto tiene como resultado la producción pobre de huevo y a veces pérdida de acciones debido a enfermedades. El estudio con respecto a la producción de huevo de promedio indica que el pato de Muscovy y los gansos tienen la producción pobre de huevo donde como el corredor indio seguido por el pato blanco común es potencialmente el mejor. Los patos son fuente importante de ganancias para los pequeños granjeros de poseedor y son levantados para carne y huevos mientras los gansos son criados en su mayor parte para propósito decorativo. Sin embargo, las poblaciones de los patos menguan rápidamente debido a la gripe aviar en la región y que la reabastecer es llevada a cabo en su mayor parte con patos menos adaptados de tela de uniforme Campbell. Esto fue llevado a cabo principalmente porque las granjas del gobierno que fueron responsables de proporcionar los patitos para la reabastecer mantienen que patos de tela de uniforme Campbell y no tienen las acciones paternales de las castas nativas de pato al reabastecer para los patos de Muscovy y gansos son llevados a cabo por el rearers sí mismos. No hay también prevalecer que cría programas para conservar, seleccionar, mantener y distribuir las castas nativas de pato y gansos. de ahí; es de la importancia seria de conservar los recursos genéticos aviares antes que la población mengüe adicional.

Keywords

duckgeeseegg productionphenotypic characterizationWest BengalIndiacanardoiesproduction d'œufscaractérisation phénotypiquele Bengale OccidentalIndepatogansosproducción de huevoscaracterización fenotípicaBengala OccidentalIndia
Type
Research Article
Information
Animal Genetic Resources/Resources génétiques animales/Recursos genéticos animales , Volume 52 , June 2013 , pp. 1 - 16
Copyright
Copyright © Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alam, A.B.M.M. & Hossain, M.B. 1989. Hatchability of egg and survivability of Khaki Campbell under farmer's condition. Bangladesh Journal of Animal Science, 18(1–2): 105–108.Google Scholar
Ali, M.A. & Sarker, G.A. 1992. A study on the protein and energy requirements of Muscovy ducklings. AJAS, 5(1): 69–73.Google Scholar
Anonymous. 2011. Annual Administrative Report 2009–10. Kolkata, India, Government of West Bengal, Animal Resource Development Department. p. 13.Google Scholar
Ansary, E., Mahiuddin, M., Howlidar, M.A.R. & Hai, M.A. 2008. Meat production potential of different cross-bred ducklings. Bangladesh Journal of Animal Science, 37(2): 82–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banerjee, S. & Banerjee, S. 2003. A short note on Chinae Hans. Muscovy duck in Bengal, India. Animal Genetic Resources Information, 33: 93–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banga-Mboko, H., Lelou, B., Maes, D. & Leroy, P.L. 2007. Indigenous Muscovy ducks in Congo Brazzaville. 2. Preliminary observations on indigenous Muscovy ducks reared under moderate inputs in Congolese conditions. Tropical Animal Health Production, 39(2): 123–129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Besbes, B. 2009. Genotype evaluation and breeding of poultry for performance under sub-optimal village conditions. World Poultry Science Journal, 65(2): 260–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betül, Ç., & Zehra, B. 2009. Slaughter and carcass traits of native geese reared in Muş province. Lucrări ştiinţifice Zootehnie şi Biotehnologii, 42(2): 423–428.Google Scholar
Bhuiyan, M.M., Khan, M.H., Khan, M.A.H., Das, B.C., Lucky, N.S. & 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, Sylhet, Bangladesh. International Journal of Poultry Science, 4(8): 596–599.Google Scholar
Changkang, W., Ang, L. & Guangying, W. 1999. Effects of the quantitative characters of hatching eggs on hatchability in Muscovy duck. In 1st World Waterfowl Conference Proceedings, December 1–4, Taichung, Taiwan, p. 188–192.Google Scholar
Chowdhury, M.M.I., Ashraf, A., Mondal, S.P., Mondol, N.M.A.A.M. & Hasan, M.M. 2004. Effect of season on the hatchability of duck eggs. International Journal of Poultry Science, 3(6): 419–421.Google Scholar
DAHDF. 2006. Basic Animal Husbandry Statistics. Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India. p. 97.Google Scholar
Dang, T.M.T., Nguyen, T.K.D. & Preston, T.R. 2012. Effect on growth, apparent digestibility coefficients and carcass quality of local Muscovy ducks of feeding high or low protein duckweed (Lemna minor) as replacement for soybean meal in a rice bran basal diet. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 24(72). (available at http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd24/4/mytu24072.htm; accesssed 10 May 2012).Google Scholar
DARAH. 2006a. 17th All India Livestock Census, Agriculture Implements and Machinery, Fishery Statistics. Midnapur (East) District Report, Vol. 1. India, Government of West Bengal.Google Scholar
DARAH. 2006b. 17th All India livestock Census, Agriculture Implements and Machinery, Fishery Statistics. Murshidabad, District Report, Vol. 1. India, Government of West Bengal.Google Scholar
DARAH. 2006c. 17th All India Livestock Census, Agriculture Implements and Machinery, Fishery Statistics. South 24 Parganas, District Report, Vol. 1. India, Government of West Bengal.Google Scholar
DARAH. 2006d. 17th All India Livestock Census. Agriculture Implements and Machinery, Fishery Statistics. North 24 Parganas, District Report, Vol. 1. India, Government of West Bengal.Google Scholar
DARAH. 2006e. 17th All India Livestock Census. Agriculture Implements and Machinery, Fishery Statistics. Nadia, District Report, Vol. 1. India, Government of West Bengal.Google Scholar
Das, G.B. & Ali, M.L. 1999. Raising layer chicken over fish ponds in integrated poultry-fish farming system in rural areas. Bangladesh Journal of Animal Science, 28: 121–128.Google Scholar
Das, G.B. & Hoque, M.E. 2000. Performance of Khaki Campbell, Jinding, Khaki Campbell and indigenous ducks in integrated fish-cum-duck farming system. Bangladesh Journal of Animal Sciences, 29: 111–117.Google Scholar
Das, G.B., Haque, M.E., Ali, M.L., Chanda, G.C. & Das, C. 2003. Performance of Indian Runner, Zending and Khaki Campbells in integrated duck-cum–fish farming system. Pakistan Journal of Biological Sciences, 6(3): 198–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Das, S.C., Chowdhury, S.D., Khatun, M.A., Nishibori, M., Isobe, N. & Yoshimura, Y. 2008. Poultry production profile and expected future projection in Bangladesh. World Poultry Science Journal, 64: 99–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dong, N.T.K. & Ogle, R.B. 2003. Effect of brewery waste replacement of concentrate on the performance of local and crossbred growing Muscovy ducks. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences, 16(10): 1510–1517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ergul, I. & Heinz, P. 2003. Growth, carcass composition and nutrient content of meat of different local geese in Isparta region of Turkey. Archiv für Tierzucht, Dummerstorf, 46(1): 71–76.Google Scholar
Etuk, I.F., Abasiekong, S.F., Ojewola, G.S. & Akomas, S.C. 2006. Carcass and organ characteristics of Muscovy ducks reared under three management systems in south eastern Nigeria. International Journal of Poultry Science, 5(6): 534–537.Google Scholar
FAO. 2011. Opportunities of poultry breeding programmes for family production in developing countries: the bird for the poor. Background document for an E-conference of the International Network for Family Poultry Development in collaboration with FAO and supported by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) 24 January–18 February 2011.Google Scholar
Farooq, M., Javed, K., Durrani, F.R., Irfanullah, K. & Chand, N. 2003. Hatching performance of backyard hens in Peshawar, Pakistan. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 15(9). (available at http://ww.lrrd.org/lrrd15/9/faro159.htm; accessed 9 May 2012).Google Scholar
Fortin, A., Grunder, A.A., Chambers, J.R. & Hamilton, R.M.G. 1983. Live and carcass characteristics of four strains of male and female geese slaughtered at 173, 180 and 194 days of age. Poultry Science, 62: 1217–1223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fouzdar, S.K., Khaleque, M.A. & Alam, A.B.M.M. 1999. Evaluation of bio- economic performance of duck farming in Haor area. Bangladesh Journal of Training and Development, 12(1&2): 93–98.Google Scholar
Gajendran, K. & Karthickeyan, S.M.K. 2009. Status of indigenous ducks in Tamil Nadu, India: a traditional perspective. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 21(175). (available at http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd21/10/gaje21175.htm; accessed 10 May 2012).Google Scholar
Gajendran, K., Muthusamy, P., Omprakash, A.V., Karthickeyan, S.M.K. & Haribaskar, M. 2005. Production performance of non-descript ducks in semi-intensive type of rearing. TamilNadu Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, 1: 60–62.Google Scholar
Hahn, D.T., Hai, L.T., Hung, D.S. & Tinh, N.H. 1995. Improving the productivity of local Muscovy duck with high yielding exotic Muscovy duck and the initial production experiment of Mullard in Vietnam. In Proceedings of 10th European Symposium on Waterfowl, Halle, Germany, World's Poultry Science Association, pp. 31–39.Google Scholar
Halder, G., Ghoshal, T.K. & Samanta, G. 2007. Socio-Economic background of duck owners and status of duck rearing in West Bengal. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education, 7(2&3): 55–59.Google Scholar
Haque, M.N., Aziz, S.A., Mia, M.M., Chanda, S.S. & Rehman, M.R. 2003. Evaluation of comparative bio-economic performance of duck farming in beel (lowland) area of Pabna. J. of Animal and Veterinary Advances, 2(2): 64–66.Google Scholar
Haque, Q.M.E. & Ukil, M.A. 1994. Existing poultry production and utilization system in the traditional villages in Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Training and Development, 7(1): 35–43.Google Scholar
Haque, Q.M.E., Ukil, M.A. & Hossain, M.J. 1993. Supplementary feeding for laying ducks under scavenging condition. Bangladesh Journal of Livestock Research, 1(1): 57–62.Google Scholar
Hoque, K.S., Sarker, M.S.K., Huque, Q.M.E. & Islam, M.N. 2001. Duck production in the Sylhet basin of Bangladesh-Prospects and problems. Paper presented in the seminar and International Poultry show organized by the World's Poultry Science Association-Bangladesh Branch at IDB Bhaban, February 16–17, pp. 40–51.Google Scholar
Hoque, M.A., Skerratt, L.F., Rahman, M.A., Rabiul Alam Beg, A.B.M. & Debnath, N.C. 2010. Factors limiting traditional household duck production in Bangladesh. Trop. Anim. Health Prod., 42: 1579–1587.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
ILRI. 2004. Study on the status, trends, utilization and performance of Farm Animal Genetic Resources in Bangladesh. Consultancy Report of UNEP-GEF-ILRI FanGR Asia Project titled “Development & Application of Decision-Support Tools to Conserve and Sustainably Use Genetic Diversity in Indigenous Livestock and Wild Relatives”, pp. 51.Google Scholar
Islam, M.N., Huque, Q.M.E., Uddin, M.S. & Sarker, M.S.K. 2003. Potentiality of native genotypes of Ducks. In Proceedings of Third International Poultry Show and Seminar, Bangladesh Branch, Dhaka, Organized by World's Poultry Science Association, pp. 259–270.Google Scholar
Islam, R., Mahanta, J.D., Barua, N. & Zaman, G. 2002. Duck farming in North- Eastern India (Assam). World Poultry Science Journal, 58(12): 567–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jalil, M.A., Begum, J. & Nahar, T.N. 1993. Duck rearing in Bangladesh. Poultry Guide, 30(9): 63–69.Google Scholar
Kabir, F., Sultana, M.S., Mustafa, G., Rashid, M.M.O., Khan, M.S.I. & Asgar, M.A. 2007. Study on production system of existing ducks at Potuakhali district of Bangladesh and development of a self- sustainable ducks rearing model under semi-scavenging system at farmer's condition. Journal of Biological Sciences, 7: 327–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kazimierz, W., Elżbieta, W.-W., Katarzyna, K. & Wiesław, B. 2004. Slaughter value and meat quality of Muscovy ducks, Pekin ducks and their crossbreeds, and evaluation of the heterosis effect. Archiv für Tierzucht, Dummerstorf, 47(3): 287–299.Google Scholar
Khalequzzaman, M., Shah Hussain Ahmad Mahdi & Mahbur Rahman, M. 2006. Effect of the traditional parched rice husk incubation techniques on the hatchability of duck eggs. University Journal of Zoology, Rajshahi University, 25: 37–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khanum, J., Chwalibog, A. & Huque, K.S. 2005. Study on rural duck production systems in selected areas of Bangladesh. Livestock Research for Rural Development, 17(113). (available at http://www.lrrd.org/lrrd17/10/khan17113.htm; accessed 15 April 2012).Google Scholar
Kohne, H.J. & Jones, J.E. 1975. Acid-base balance, plasma electrolytes and production performance of adult turkey hens under conditions of increasing ambient temperature. Poultry Science, 54: 2038–2045.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larzul, C., Roger, R., Daniel, R.-P. & Gėrard, G. 2000. Estimation of genetic parameters for growth, carcass and overfeeding traits in white geese strain. Genetics, Selection, Evolution, 32: 415–427.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Larzul, C., Guy, G. & Marie-Dominique, B. 2004. Feed efficiency, growth and carcass traits in female mule ducks. Archiv für Geflügelkunde, 68(6): 265–268.Google Scholar
LIFE. 2010. Supporting Livelihoods and Local Livestock Breeds, Guidelines for Putting Livestock Keepers Rights into Practice. New Delhi, India, LIFE network, p. 21.Google Scholar
Maji, B.B. 1995. Performance of Khaki Campbell and Deshi Ducks under different feeding management practices in Sunderbans. Department of Animal Production, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Mohanpur, West Bengal, India (M.V.Sc. Thesis).Google Scholar
Manuel, L.C. 2008. Pictorial guidance for phenotypic characterization of chickens and ducks. FAO. GCP/RAS/228/GER Working Paper No. 15. Rome.Google Scholar
Murawska, D. & Bochno, R. 2008. Age-related changes in the percentage content of carcass parts in geese. Journal of Central European Agriculture, 9(1): 195–199.Google Scholar
NABCONS. 2010. State Agriculture Plan for West Bengal. Kolkata, India. NABARD Regional office, p. 91.Google Scholar
Nickolova, M. 2004. Effect of the sex ratio on the egg fertility of Muscovy duck (Cairina moshcata). Journal of Central European Agriculture, 5(4): 367–372.Google Scholar
Nickolova, M. 2005. Study on the temperature regime in incubation of Muscovy duck egg1. Study on temperature regime in natural hatched Muscovy duck eggs. Journal of Central European Agriculture, 6(2): 185–190.Google Scholar
Nikolova, M., Gerzilov, V. & Genchev, A. 2000. Study on egg productivity of Muscovy duck (Cairina moschata).1.Laying performance. Zhivotnov'dni Nauki, 37(3): 15–18.Google Scholar
Olver, M.D., Du Preez, J.J., Kuyper, M.A. & Mould, D.J. 1977. The carcass composition and the growth of the ‘mule’ duckling compared to purebred duckling. Agroanimalia, 9: 7–12.Google Scholar
Omojola, A.B. 2007. Carcass and characteristics of duck meat as influenced by breed and sex. International Journal of Poultry Science, 6(5): 329–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patil, R.P. 2010. Avian flu: examining role of ducks in Indian context. Indian Journal of Community Medicine, 35(2): 209–210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Petersen, J., Chima, M.M. & Horst, P. 1976. Importance of body temperature as parameter of acclimatization in the laying chicken. Zeitschrift für Tierzüchtung und Züchtungsbiologie, 93: 237–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rahman, M.M., Khan, M.J., Chowdhury, S.D. & Akbar, M.A. 2009. Duck rearing system in southern coastal districts of Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Animal Sciences, 38(1&2): 132–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rashid, N., Barua, A. & Bulbul, S.M. 1995. A study on the performance of Khaki Campbell, Desi and Khaki Campbell X Desi ducks with and without extra feeding under rural condition of Bangladesh. AJAS, 8(4): 375–378.Google Scholar
Ravindran, T.K., Venugopalan, C.K. & Ramkrishnan, A. 1984. A survey in the status of duck farming in Kerala state. Indian Journal of Poultry Science, 19(2): 77–80.Google Scholar
Rehman, M.M., Khan, M.J., Choudhury, S.D. & Akbar, M.A. 2009. Duck rearing system in southern coastal districts of Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Animal Science, 38(1&2): 132–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reddy, V.R. & Rao, P.V. 1986. A survey study of duck farming and hatcheries in Andhra Pradesh. Indian Journal of Poultry Science, 21(3): 180–185.Google Scholar
Saha, S.K., Chowdhury, S.D. & Hamid, M.A. 1992. A study of indigenous (desi), Khaki Campbell and crossbred (Indian Runner X Khaki Campbell, F1) duck eggs under two pre-incubation holding periods. AJAS, 5(3): 541–544.Google Scholar
Sahin, E.H. & Yardimci, M. 2009. Effects of Kefir as a probiotic on growth performance and carcass characteristics in geese (Anser anser). Journal of Animal Veterinary Advances, 8(3): 562–567.Google Scholar
Salam, M.A. & Bulbul, S.M. 1983. A comparative study of performance of Khaki Campbell and Indian Runner ducks under Bangladesh Agricultural University farm condition. Bangladesh Journal of Animal Science, 12(1–2): 39–48.Google Scholar
SA PPLPP. 2009. Code: SAGP11, Towards Good Livestock Policies: Backyard Poultry Farming Through Self-Help Groups in West Bengal. Delhi, India, Good Practice Note.Google Scholar
Sastry, N.S.R., Thomas, C.K. & Singh, R.A. 1996. Livestock Production Management, 3rd Edtion. New Delhi-Ludhiana, Kalyani Publishers, p. 559.Google Scholar
Seemann, G. 1983. Yield and cutting of Pekin and Muscovy ducks. In 6th European Symposium on Poultry Meat Quality, Ploufragan, pp. 352–360.Google Scholar
Siregar, A.P., Cumming, R.B. & Farrell, D.J. 1982. The nutrition of meat-type ducks. 1. The effects of dietary protein in isoenergetic diets on biological performance (available at http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/AR9820857.htm).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SPSS. 2003. Statistical Package for Social Sciences. SPSS 12.0 for Windows. Chicago, SPSS Inc.Google Scholar
Stevenson, M.H. 1985. Effects of diets of varying energy concentrations on the growth and carcass composition of geese. British Poultry Science, 26: 493–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tai, C., Wang, C.T. & Huang, C.C. 1999. Production systems and economic characters in waterfowl. In 1st Word Waterfowl Conference, 1–4 December 1999, Taichung, Taiwan, pp. 19–31.Google Scholar
Taibel, A.M. 1961. Due nuove varietá di colore nel piumaggio dell'anatra muschiata (Carina moschata domestica L.) sorte per mutazione. In Crawford, R.D., ed. Poultry Bzreeding and Genetics, pp. 392. Amsterdam, Elsevier Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Tixier-Boichard, M., Ayalew, W. & Jianlin, H. 2008. Inventory, characterization and monitoring. Animal Genetic Resources Information Bulletin, 42: 29–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wang, C.M., Chen, L.R., Lee, S.R., Jea, Y.S. & Kao, J.Y. 2009. Supplementary artificial light to increase egg production in geese under natural lighting conditions. Animal Report Science, 113(1–4): 317–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wężyk, S., Rosiński, A., Bielińska, H., Badowski, J. & Cywa-Benko, K. 2003. A note on the meat quality of W11 and W33 White Kołuda geese strains. Animal Science Papers and Reports, 21(3): 191–199.Google Scholar
Yakubu, A., Kaankuka, F.G. & Ugbo, S.B. 2011. Morphometric traits of Muscovy ducks from two agro-ecological zones of Nigeria. Tropicultura, 29(2): 121–124.Google Scholar