SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.21 issue2Effect of Dietary Curcumin on the Antioxidant Status of Laying Hens under High-Temperature ConditionsEffect of Dietary Inclusion of Sodium Bicarbonate on Digestibility of Nutrients and Immune Response in Caged Layers During the Summer author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand

Journal

Article

Indicators

Related links

Share


Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science

Print version ISSN 1516-635XOn-line version ISSN 1806-9061

Braz. J. Poult. Sci. vol.21 no.2 Campinas  2019  Epub Nov 14, 2019

https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9061-2018-0914 

Original Article

Available Phosphorus Levels in Diets for Muscovy Ducks in Housing*

IGraduate Program in Animal Science, College of Agrarian Sciences, Federal University of Amazonas, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil.

IIDepartment of Animal and Vegetable Production, College of Agrarian Sciences, Federal University of Amazonas, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil.

IIIAnimal Science undergraduate, College of Agrarian Sciences, Federal University of Amazonas, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil.


ABSTRACT

The present study aimed to determine ideal levels of available phosphorus for muscovy ducks in housing. Two hundred and forty muscovy ducks of creole lineage were used, distributed in boxes with water and food ad libitum. The experimental design was completely randomized with treatments consisting of six nutritional plans that included the initial, growth and termination phases and differed in relation to available phosphorus levels, and four replicates of 10 muscovy ducks each. The birds had weekly performance evaluations, and after 90 days, eight birds (four males and four females) in each treatment were slaughtered for evaluation of carcass traits. Data collected were subjected to Tukey test at 5% of significance. Differences were not observed (p>0.05) in performance. Higher available phosphorus levels presented a positive influence (p<0.05) on carcass. Results presented differences (p<0.05) among sexes for carcass development and commercial cuts, with better feed efficiency of males than females in same period. For mineral composition, differences (p<0.05) were observed to calcium (%), phosphorus (%) and Ca:Pratio. The present study indicates that nutritional plan 2 (initial = 0.60%; growth = 0.55% and termination = 0.50%) presented ideal nutritional requirement of available phosphorus for muscovy ducks in housing, with better carcass development and mineral deposition on bones.

Keywords: Bone; Cairinamoschata domesticus; carcass; mineral; waterfowl

INTRODUCTION

Muscovy ducks have the peculiar feature to provide for poultry industry a range of products as meat, eggs, feathers for ornamental purposes, fatty livers and many other products (Rufino et al., 2017).These represent a great market opportunity, but little explored in Latin America (Industrial Poultry, 2005).

There are not many companies that produce muscovy ducks in Brazil, especially due the lack of information’s about adequate nutritional requirements, facilities and ideal management (Santos et al., 2012). Brazilian south region concentrates all national production of ducks, muscovy ducks and their derivatives. Only a little piece of this production is destined for internal consumption (ABPA, 2018).

Santa Catarina State is the largest Brazilian producer and exporter of Muscovy duck meat. This meat is especially consumed by the United States, Japan, Angola, Liberia and countries with Arabic ethnicity (Wawro et al., 2004; ABPA, 2018).

According to Mariante et al. (2011) and Gois et al. (2012), the muscovy ducks are waterfowl with great rusticity, presenting exceptionally resistance to diseases and adverse conditions. Physiologically, like other birds, the muscovy ducks require small amounts of minerals, especially phosphorus, that is the second most abundant mineral in its tissue composition, with 80% present in the bones, presenting vital functions to the organism (Pinheiro et al., 2011).

Dunbar et al. (2005) affirms that calcium and phosphorus are independent minerals, and the lack or excess of one can damage the absorption or use of the other, damaging the better performance of birds. And according to Pinheiro et al. (2011), studies that report ideal requirements of available phosphorus for muscovy ducks in literature are very scarce, being used requirements of broilers for its.

Considering the above, the present study aimed to determine ideal levels of available phosphorus for muscovy ducks in housing.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This study was conducted in the facilities of the Poultry Sector, Department of Animal and Vegetable Production (DPAV), College of Agrarian Sciences (FCA), Federal University of Amazonas (UFAM), south sector of the University Campus, Manaus/AM, Brazil. The experimental procedures were approved by the Committee for Ethical Animal Use (CEUA - protocol number 017/2016) of Federal University of Amazonas.

Two hundred and forty muscovy ducks (Cairinamoschata domesticus) of creole lineage were used distributed in boxes with water and food ad libitum. The experimental design was completely randomized with treatments consisting of six nutritional plans that included the initial, growth and termination phases and differed in relation to available phosphorus levels (Table 1), and four replicates of 10 muscovy ducks each.

Table 1 Experimental levels of available phosphorus. 

Treatments Levels of Available Phosphorus (%)
Initial (1 - 35 days) Growth (36 - 70 days) Termination (71 - 90 days)
Nut. Plan 1 0.65 0.60 0.55
Nut. Plan 2 0.60 0.55 0.50
Nut. Plan 3 0.55 0.50 0.45
Nut. Plan 4 0.50 0.45 0.40
Nut. Plan 5 0.45 0.40 0.35
Nut. Plan 6 0.40 0.35 0.30

Experimental diets (Table 2) were calculated according to the reference values provided by Rostagno et al. (2011), except energy and protein (Rufino et al., 2015) and calcium (Feijó et al., 2016) that used appropriate requirements for muscovy ducks.

Table 2 Ingredients and nutritional composition of experimental diets. 

Diets4 Nutritional plans with different levels of available phosphorus for muscovy ducks
------- Plan 1 ------- ------- Plan 2 ------- ------- Plan 3 ------ ------- Plan 4 ------ ------- Plan 5 ------ ------- Plan 6 ------
Ingredients Ini. Gro. Term. Ini. Gro. Term. Ini. Gro. Term. Ini. Gro. Term. Ini. Gro. Term. Ini. Gro. Term.
Corn 7.88% 56.86 65.62 68.75 57.06 65.81 68.93 57.25 65.97 69.14 57.44 66.20 69.33 57.65 66.40 69.53 57.83 66.59 69.73
Soybean meal 46% 36.44 28.20 24.34 36.40 28.17 24.31 36.37 28.17 24.28 36.34 28.10 24.24 36.30 28.07 24.21 36.27 28.03 24.17
Limestone 1.15 0.93 0.97 1.33 1.11 1.15 1.50 1.28 1.32 1.68 1.46 1.50 1.85 1.63 1.67 2.03 1.81 1.85
Dicalcium phosphate 2.89 2.69 2.46 2.62 2.42 2.19 2,35 2.15 1.91 2.08 1.88 1.64 1.81 1.61 1.37 1.54 1.34 1.10
Salt 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35 0.35
DL-Methionine 99% 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.12 0.12 0.07 0.12 0.12
Vit./Mineral Supplement 0.501 0.502 0.503 0.501 0.502 0.503 0.501 0.502 0.503 0.501 0.502 0.503 0.501 0.502 0.503 0.501 0.502 0.503
Soybean oil 1.74 1.59 2.51 1.67 1.52 2.45 1.61 1.46 2.38 1,54 1.39 2.32 1.47 1,32 2.25 1.41 1.26 2.18
Total 56.86 65.62 68.75 57.06 65.81 68.93 57.25 65.97 69.14 57.44 66.20 69.33 57.65 66.40 69.53 57.83 66.59 69.73
Nutritional Levels5
Met. energy, kcal.kg-1 2,900 3,000 3,100 2,900 3,000 3,100 2,900 3,000 3,100 2,900 3,000 3,100 2,900 3,000 3,100 2,900 3,000 3,100
Crude Protein, % 21.00 18.00 16.50 21.00 18.00 16.50 21.00 18.00 16.50 21.00 18.00 16.50 21.00 18.00 16.50 21.00 18.00 16.50
Calcium, % 1.25 1.15 1.05 1.25 1.15 1.05 1.25 1.15 1.05 1.25 1.15 1.05 1.25 1.15 1.05 1.25 1.15 1.05
Available phosphorus, % 0.65 0.60 0.55 0.60 0.55 0.50 0.55 0.50 0.45 0.50 0.45 0.40 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.40 0.35 0.30
Methionine + Cystine, % 0.72 0.70 0.66 0.72 0.70 0.66 0.72 0.70 0.66 0.72 0.70 0.66 0.72 0.70 0.66 0.72 0.70 0.66
Methionine, % 0.49 0.40 0.38 0.49 0.40 0.38 0.49 0.40 0.38 0.49 0.40 0.38 0.49 0.40 0.38 0.49 0.40 0.38
Sodium, % 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.15

1 Vit./mineral supplement - initial - content in 1 kg = Folic Acid 800 mg, Pantothenic Acid 12,500 mg, Antioxidant 0.5 g, Biotin 40 mg, Niacin 33,600 mg, Selenium 300 mg, Vit. A 6,700,000 UI, Vit. B1 1,750 mg, Vit. B12 9,600 mcg, Vit. B2 4,800 mg, Vit. B6 2,500 mg, Vit. D3 1,600,000 UI, Vit. E 14,000 mg, Vit. K3 1,440 mg. Mineral supplement - content in 0.5 kg = Manganese 150,000 mg, Zinc 100,000 mg, Iron 100,000 mg, Copper 16,000 mg, Iodine 1,500 mg.

2 Vit./mineral supplement - growth - content in 1 kg = Folic Acid 650 mg, Pantothenic Acid 10,400 mg, Antioxidant 0.5 g, Niacin 28,000 mg, Selenium 300 mg, Vit. A 5,600,000 UI, Vit. B1 0.550 mg, Vit. B12 8,000 mcg, Vit. B2 4,000 mg; Vit. B6 2,080 mg, Vit. D3 1,200,000 UI, Vit. E 10,000 mg, Vit. K3 1,200 mg. Mineral supplement - content in 0.5 kg = Manganese 150,000 mg, Zinc 100,000 mg, Iron 100,000 mg, Copper 16,000 mg, Iodine 1,500 mg.

3 Vit./mineral supplement - termination - content in 1 kg = Pantothenic Acid 7,070 mg, Antioxidant 0.5 g, Niacin 20,400 mg, Selenium 200 mg, Vit. A 1,960,000 UI, Vit. B12 4,700 mcg, Vit. B2 2,400 mg, Vit. D3 550,000 UI, Vit. E 5,500 mg, Vit. K3 550 mg. Mineral supplement - content in 0.5 kg = Manganese 150,000 mg, Zinc 100,000 mg, Iron 100,000 mg, Copper 16,000 mg, Iodine 1,500 mg.

4Ini. = Initial; Gro. = Growth; Term. = Termination

5Estimated levels in Dry Matter

Birds started the experimental period with one day of age and were evaluated at 90 days. For performance, the feed intake (kg/bird), weight gain (kg/bird) and feed conversion (kg/kg) were analysed. Due to extreme difficulty of performing the sexing of muscovy ducks with one day, and the lack of a technique for this (Rufino et al., 2017), performance was measured in mixed lots (birds with both sex in the same box).

At 90 days of age, already with an evident sexual dimorphism, after 12 hours of fasting, eight birds of each treatment (four males and four females) were randomly selected, identified and weighed. Next, these were electrically stunned (40 V; 50 Hz) and slaughtered by cut of jugular vein. The carcasses were immersed into hot water (60ºC for 62s), plucked and eviscerated according Mendes & Patricio’s (2004) recommendations, and the carcass yield was determined. Edible viscera (heart, gizzard, pro-ventricle and liver) were individually weighed.

Breast and leg (thigh + drumstick) samples were collected to measure pH and physical measurements (length, height and width). The commercial cuts (neck, breast, wing, back, thigh and drumstick) were separated according Gomide et al. (2012) and measured by weighing in analytical balance 0.01 g.

Four tibia samples of males per treatment were collected for bone resistance analysis. These were evaluated in Materials Engineering Laboratory of the State University of Amazonas. The bones were cleaned and analysed in a Universal Machine of Electronic Mechanics (Instron Model 5984, with load capacity of 150 KN) and the data registered for a computer software with results expressed in kgf/mm and N. The load applied was 2000 Newton in the central region of bones and the descent rate of the load was 5 mm/s, with the force applied at the moment before the bone rupture was recorded.

After, the bone’s mineral composition (ashes (%), calcium (%) and phosphorus (%)) was evaluated in the EMBRAPA Western Amazon according the methodology proposed by AOAC (1999).

Statistical analysis was performed using the software Statistical Analysis System (2008) and estimates of the treatments were subjected to Tukey test at 5% of significance.

RESULTS

Results of performance are present in Table 3. Differences were not observed (p>0.05) in all variables analyzed. Most higher levels of available phosphorus in diets presented better results of feed intake and feed conversion.

Table 3 Performance of muscovy ducks in housing fed nutritional plans with different levels of available phosphorus. 

Nutritional Plans Variables
Feed intake
(g)
Weight gain
(g)
Feed conversion
(kg/kg)
Nut. Plan 1 8,596.50 2,357.49 3.64
Nut. Plan 2 8,043.93 2,309.49 3.48
Nut. Plan 3 8,396.25 2,340.63 3.58
Nut. Plan 4 8,538.25 2,409.96 3.55
Nut. Plan 5 9,110.91 2,529.52 3.61
Nut. Plan 6 8,891.83 2,447.87 3.63
p-value 0.58ns 0.72ns 0.86ns
CV (%) 9.95 8.93 9.04

CV = Coefficient of variation; ns = non-significant.

Results of carcass traits are present in table 4. Differences (p<0.05) were observed for slaughter weight, foot and gizzard among nutritional plans, and for all variables among sexes.

Table 4 Slaughter weight (SW), carcass yield (CY), feathers (FE), foot (FT), abdominal fat (AF), liver (LV), heart (HT), gizzard (GZ) and pro-ventricle (PV)of muscovy ducks in housing fed nutritional plans with different levels of available phosphorus. 

Factors Variables
SW
(kg)
CY
(%)
FE
(%)
FT
(%)
AF
(%)
LV
(g)
HT
(g)
GZ
(g)
PV
(g)
Nut. Plans
Nut. Plan 1 2.58a 70.28 11.59 2.58a 0.93 43.37 20.62 66.25ab 9.87
Nut. Plan 2 2.42ab 69.30 9.02 2.42ab 1.11 40.00 17.37 72.12a 10.50
Nut. Plan 3 2.52a 70.75 10.53 2.52a 0.97 39.25 19.25 58.87ab 13.50
Nut. Plan 4 2.36ab 65.52 26.88 2.00b 0.88 39.50 17.00 58.12ab 8.75
Nut. Plan 5 2.31ab 71.84 9.33 2.36ab 0.72 39.00 21.00 53.62bc 11.25
Nut. Plan 6 2.00b 75.25 20.10 2.31ab 0.83 34.50 16.87 48.25c 10.75
Sexes
Male 3.07a 71.90a 17.61a 3.03a 0.77b 47.25a 22.83a 68.66a 12.41a
Female 1.67b 69.07b 11.54b 1.68b 1.05a 31.29b 14.54b 50.41b 9.12b
Effect p Value
Nut. Plans 0.02* 0.80ns 0.58ns 0.01** 0.47ns 0.79ns 0.40ns 0.01** 0.12ns
Sexes 0.01** 0.05* 0.05* 0.01** 0.02* 0.01** 0.01** 0.01** 0.01**
Interation 0.23ns 0.25ns 0.30ns 0.33ns 0.35ns 0.45ns 0.28ns 0.32ns 0.34ns
CV (%) 12.53 18.76 16.27 12.53 4.32 19.71 17.53 17.93 13.80

CV = Coefficient of variation; *Means followed by lowercase letters in column differ in 5% by Tukey test (p<0.05); **Means followed by lowercase letters in column differ in 1% by Tukey test (p<0.01); ns = non-significant.

Birds fed nutritional plans 1 and 3 presented better carcass results. Birds fed nutritional plans with lower levels of available phosphorus presented worse development of carcass. Male muscovy ducks presented better development of carcass, with great difference in the development of carcass among sexes. There was not interaction (p>0.05) between factors.

Results of commercial cuts are present in table 5. Differences (p<0.05) were observed for the % of thigh among nutritional plans, and for all variables among sexes.

Table 5 Commercial cuts of muscovy ducks in housing fed nutritional plans with different levels of available phosphorus. 

Factors Variables
Neck (%) Breast (%) Wing (%) Thigh (%) Drumstick (%) Back (%)
Nut. Plans
Nut. Plan 1 10.61 26.48 17.57 9.95b 11.11 24.68
Nut. Plan 2 10.62 25.55 17.56 11.21ab 10.92 24.14
Nut. Plan 3 10.59 25.19 17.10 12.32a 9.28 25.52
Nut. Plan 4 10.62 25.98 17.42 12.99a 9.26 23.73
Nut. Plan 5 10.04 26.04 17.87 12.09ab 9.50 24.06
Nut. Plan 6 10.26 24.94 16.68 12.19ab 9.56 26.37
Sexes
Male 10.88b 26.60a 16.27b 10.65b 8.86b 26.74a
Female 11.13a 24.39b 17.46a 12.74a 10.12a 24.16b
Effect p Value
Nut. Plans 0.91ns 0.71ns 0.72ns 0.01** 0.11ns 0.47ns
Sexes 0.05* 0.02* 0.05* 0.04* 0.01** 0.01**
Interation 0.25ns 0.26ns 0.59ns 0.65ns 0.35ns 0.46ns
CV (%) 20.35 11.55 8.99 13.90 16.53 15.13

CV = Coefficient of variation; * Means followed by lowercase letters in column differ in 5% by Tukey test (p<0.05); ** Means followed by lowercase letters in column differ in 1% by Tukey test (p<0.01); ns = non-significant.

Even though the level of available phosphorus in the diets influencing the development of carcass, this did not represent influence on the % of distribution of commercial cuts in carcass. However, birds fed nutritional plans 3 presented better results of % of thigh.

Male muscovy ducks presented more of 50% of carcass constituted by breast and back. Even males presented higher carcass, females presented better distribution of commercial cuts than males, with great distribution of cuts in its carcass. There was not interaction (p>0.05) between factors.

Results of pH and physical measurements are present in table 6. Differences (p<0.05) were observed among nutritional plans for length, width and height of breast, and pH of leg. Differences (p<0.05) were observed among sexes for length, width and height of breast and leg.

Table 6 Physical measurements of breast and leg (thigh + drumstick) of muscovy ducks in housing fed nutritional plans with different levels of available phosphorus. 

Factors Variables
Breast Leg (thigh + drumstick)
Length (cm) Width (cm) Height (cm) pH Lenght (cm) Width (cm) Height (cm) pH
Nut. Plans
Nut. Plan 1 22.12a 14.78a 5.50a 6.38 17.00 9.62 2.78 6.35a
Nut. Plan 2 21.81ab 14.75a 5.06ab 6.12 17.31 9.93 3.06 6.37a
Nut. Plan 3 21.75ab 14.68a 4.68ab 6.12 17.12 10.00 2.62 6.29ab
Nut. Plan 4 21.50ab 11.81ab 4.93ab 6.28 17.18 9.31 2.62 6.27ab
Nut. Plan 5 19.62ab 11.16b 4.06ab 6.21 15.68 9.00 3.06 6.10b
Nut. Plan 6 19.00b 11.05b 3.87b 6.16 15.37 8.75 2.68 6.08b
Sexes
Male 23.39a 14.35a 5.02a 6.23 18.29a 10.25a 3.09a 6.25
Female 18.54b 11.70b 4.35b 6.19 14.93b 8.62b 2.52b 6.24
Effect p Value
Nut. Plans 0.01** 0.01** 0.02* 0.06ns 0.02ns 0.72ns 0.50ns 0.01**
Sexes 0.01** 0.01** 0.02* 0.52ns 0.01** 0.01** 0.01** 0.74ns
Interation 0.12ns 0.28ns 0.06ns 0.15ns 0.14ns 0.25ns 0.07ns 0.19ns
CV (%) 9.39 15.87 21.76 2.88 10.49 20.19 22.05 2.80

CV = Coefficient of variation; * Means followed by lowercase letters in column differ in 5% by Tukey test (p<0.05); ** Means followed by lowercase letters in column differ in 1% by Tukey test (p<0.01); ns = non-significant.

Birds fed nutritional plan 3 presented better breast and leg development. Nutritional plans with lower levels of available phosphorus presented worse development and lower pH values. There was not interaction (p>0.05) between factors.

Male muscovy ducks presented more size of breast and leg, with great difference in the development of carcass among sexes. There was not interaction (p>0.05) between factors.

Results of mineral composition and resistance of bones are present in table 7. Differences (p<0.05) were observed in all variables of mineral composition. Birds fed nutritional plans with higher levels of available phosphorus presented larger mineral deposition on bone, without affecting the break resistance. Nutritional plans with lower levels of available phosphorus presented more fragile bones.

Table 7 Mineral composition (ashes, calcium and phosphorus) and resistance of bones of muscovy ducks in housing fed nutritional plans with different levels of available phosphorus. 

Nutritional plans Variables
Ashes (%) Ca (%) p (%) Ca:P Break resistance (N)
Nut. Plan 1 51.95 15.60ab 9.30ab 1.68ab 430.55
Nut. Plan 2 53.21 15.70a 8.60b 1.83a 413.81
Nut. Plan 3 51.36 14.47b 8.58b 1.69ab 444.69
Nut. Plan 4 49.74 14.36b 9.65a 1.49bc 387.77
Nut. Plan 5 51.85 11.31c 8.34b 1.36c 423.10
Nut. Plan 6 50.01 14.18b 9.18ab 1.54bc 329.51
p Value 0.72ns 0.01* 0.01* 0.01* 0.10ns
CV (%) 4.76 1.03 1.10 1.25 8.23

CV = Coefficient of variation; * Means followed by lowercase letters in column differ in 1% by Tukey test (p<0.01); ns = non-significant.

DISCUSSION

In our study, even without differences on performance results, muscovy ducks presented available phosphorus requirements above recommendations for broilers at all phases. According to Feijó et al. (2016), higher mineral requirements for muscovy ducks are attributed to its greater carcass conformation and bone structure, larger than broilers.

Pinheiro (2009) observed better feed conversion of slow-growing broilers (both sexes) in free-range system fed diets with available phosphorus levels among 0.25 to 0.36% in the initial phase (1 to 28 days). Runho et al. (2001) studying other nutritional plans, observed better feed conversion of broilers in the initial phase (1 to 21 days) fed diets with available phosphorus levels among 0.15 to 0.45%. Our results indicate a requirement near to these recommendations.

According Rostagno et al.(2005), Pinheiro (2009) and Rostagno et al.(2011), birds for meat production (broilers, ducks or muscovy ducks), present higher requirements of available phosphorus due to its larger and faster body development, with ideal levels according to the phase and profile of nutritional plan used.

These results reflected on carcass traits, where higher levels of available phosphorus presented a positive influence on muscovy ducks carcass development, similar results observed by Feijó et al. (2016) studding calcium levels for muscovy ducks, and obeying the 2:1 ratio between Ca and P.

Macari et al. (2002) commented that calcium and phosphorus are associated elements. These are almost always combined (2 molecules of calcium for 1 molecule of phosphorus), and the deficiency of one in the diet limits the birds’ performance (McDowell, 1992).

Nelson & Peeler (1961), report that levels of phosphorus below or above the requirement difficult the birds’ development, especially due to bone mineralization. Thus, Macari et al. (2002) and Feijó et al. (2016) affirm that the better balance among calcium and phosphorus requirements, and their metabolic relationship, provide better performance and development.

Higher available phosphorus levels were sufficient to meet the nutritional requirements, presented better results of breast and leg and with males presented good development of the main commercial cuts. There was also a greater deposition of minerals in the tibia from higher available phosphorus levels.

Runho et al. (2001) observed an increase in bone minerals of broilers (males and females) at 1 to 21 days from available phosphorus levels among 0.15 to 0.45%, below the requirements obtained for muscovy ducks in the same period.

Another important question is the most requirement of available phosphorus in the initial phase for broilers and muscovy ducks, that according to Macari et al. (2002) and Sousa et al. (2015), is due to the faster growth of bone tissue than other tissues, with Ca and P deposition more necessary at this stage than others. However, there was no influence of available phosphorus levels on mineral composition and bone resistance of muscovy ducks.

Our results also presented a great difference between male and female carcass. Males presented larger carcass than females. According Gois et al. (2012), this could be attributed to better feed efficiency of males than females in the same period, presenting a significant difference in weight gain, slaughter weight, % of feathers, % of feet and edible viscera.

Yakubu (2010), Gois et al. (2012), and Almeida (2016) comment that a natural sexual dimorphism for muscovy ducks exists, with mean weight of 3.80 kg for males and 2.22 kg for females. But, Drumond et al. (2013) and Almeida (2016) affirm that females present a precocity growth, reaching the adult weight faster, better distribution of commercial cuts and faster ideal carcass fat deposition (Vieira,1999), even though having a lower final weight.

Stringhini et al. (2003) affirms that females have great carcass fat deposition due its present adipocytes with larger size than the males, which indirectly cause a lower feed efficiency (Mignon-Grasteau et al., 2000).

The sex is one of the factors that most affects the breast yield of birds (Rosa et al., 2006). Studies with broilers presented that males have higher breast than females, mainly due the reduction of meat deposition in breast at 42 days, when it has reached the maturity, which does not occur in females (Mendes et al., 2003). Our results presented that muscovy ducks males had a higher breast yield (26.60%) than females (24.39%), as well other carcass traits.

All these informations are important to elaborate strategies for Muscovy ducks production in industrial scale, aiming to meet great consumer markets, such as China, Japan, France, Germany and others countries (Cruz et al., 2013; Minas State Journal, 2015).

CONCLUSIONS

The present study indicates that nutritional plan 2 (initial = 0.60%; growth = 0.55% and termination = 0.50%) presented ideal nutritional requirements of available phosphorus for muscovy ducks in housing, with better carcass development and mineral deposition on bones.

REFERENCES

ABPA - Associação Brasileira de Proteína Animal. Relatório Anual 2018. São Paulo: ABPA; 2018. [ Links ]

Almeida ECJ, Santos MRA, Farias Filho SRV, Hora FF, Oliveira EB, Pereira AHR, et al. Variabilidade fenotípica de características de carcaça do pato nativo comparada com linhagem comercial. Anais da 24ª Semana de Zootecnia da UFRPE; 2016; Recife. Pernambuco. Brasil: UFRPE; 2016. [ Links ]

AOAC - Association of Official Analytical Chemists. Official methods of analysis of the Association of Official Analytical Chemists. 16th ed. Washington: AOAC; 1999. [ Links ]

Cruz FGG, Maquiné LC, Chagas EO, Melo JBS, Chaves FAL. Desempenho de patos (Cairinamoschata) em confinamento submetidos a diferentes densidades de alojamento. Revista Acadêmica: Ciências Agrárias e Ambientais 2013;11(3):313-319. [ Links ]

Drumond ESC, Gonçalves FM, Veloso RC, Amaral JM, Balotin LV, Pires AV, et al. Curvas de crescimento para codornas de corte. Ciência Rural 2013;43(10):1872-1877. [ Links ]

Dunbar MR, Gregg MA, Crawford JA, Giordano MR, Tornquist SJ. Normal hematologic and biochemical values for prelaying greater sage grouse (Centrocercus urophasianus) and their influence on chick survival. Journal of Zoo and Wildlife Medicine 2005;36(3):422-429. [ Links ]

Feijó JC, Cruz FGG, Rufino JPF, Melo RD, Melo LD, Costa APGC, et al. Planos nutricionais com diferentes níveis de cálcio sobre o desempenho e rendimentos de carcaça de patos (Cairina moschata) em confinamento. Revista Científica de Avicultura e Suinocultura 2016;2(1):011-020. [ Links ]

Gois FD, Almeida ECJ, Farias Filho RV, Silva Filha OL. Estudo preliminar sobre o dimorfismo sexual do pato cinza do catolé (Cairinamoschata). Actas Ibero Americanas de Conservacion Animal 2012;2:95-98. [ Links ]

Gomide LAM, Alencar N, Macedo IA. Processamento de frango (corte, recorte e desossa). 2nd ed. Brasília: LK Editora; 2012. [ Links ]

Industrial Poultry. Industrialização de patos e marrecos [cited 2017 Out 15]. 2005. Available from: goo.gl/WcQ4jj. [ Links ]

Macari M, Furlan RL, Gonzáles E. Fisiologia aviária aplicada a frangos de corte. Jaboticabal: Ed. Funep; 2002. v.2. [ Links ]

Mariante AS, Albuquerque MSM, Ramos AF. Criopreservação de recursos genéticos animais brasileiros. Revista Brasileira de Reprodução Animal 2011;35(2):64-68. [ Links ]

McDowell LR. Minerals in animal and human nutrition. New York: Academic Press; 1992. [ Links ]

Mendes AA, Moreira J, Garcia RG. Qualidade da carne de peito de frango de corte. Revista Nacional da Qualidade da Carne 2003;28(317). [ Links ]

Mignon-Grasteau S, Piles M, Varona L, de Rochambeau H, Poivey JP, Blasco A, et al. Genetic analysis of growth curve parameters for male and female chickens resulting from selection on shape of growth curve. Journal of Animal Science 2000;78(10):2515-2524. [ Links ]

Minas State Journal. Carne de pato está em plena valorização, mas faltam criadores em Minas [cited 2017 Out 15]. 2015. Available from: https://goo.gl/64i6E1. [ Links ]

Nelson TS, Peeler HJ. The availability of phosphorus from single and combined phosphates to chicks. Poultry Science 1961;40:1321-1328. [ Links ]

Pinheiro SRF. Níveis de fósforo, de cálcio e de cloreto de sódio para aves de linhagem de crescimento lento criadas em sistema semiconfinado [tese]. Jaboticabal (SP): Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias,Universidade Estadual Paulistal; 2009. 104p. [ Links ]

Pinheiro SFR, Sakomura NK, Nascimento DCN, Dourado LRB, Fernandes JBK, Thomaz MC. Níveis nutricionais de fósforo disponível para aves de corte ISA Label criadas em semiconfinamento. Brazilian Journal of Animal Science 2011;40(2):361-369. [ Links ]

Rosa FC, Bressan MC, Bertechini AG, Fassani EJ, Oliveira e Vieira J, Faria PB, et al. Efeito de métodos de cocção sobre a composição química e colesterol em peito e coxa de frangos de corte. Ciência e Agrotecnologia 2006;30(4):707-714. [ Links ]

Rostagno HS, Albino LFT,Donzele JL, Gomes PC, Oliveira RF, Lopes DC, et al. Tabelas brasileiras para aves e suínos: composição de alimentos e exigências nutricionais. 2nd ed. Viçosa: UFV; 2005. [ Links ]

Rostagno HS, Albino LFT, Donzele JL, Gomes PC, Oliveira RF, Lopes DC, et al. Tabelas brasileiras para aves e suinos: composição dos alimentos e requerimentos nutricionais. 3rd ed. Viçosa: UFV; 2011. [ Links ]

Rufino JPF, Cruz FGG, Melo LD, Soares VM,Curcio UA, Damasceno JL, et al. Quality and sensory evaluation of meat of ducks (Cairina moschata) in confinement under different nutritional plans and housing densities. International Journal of Poultry Science 2015;14(1):44-48. [ Links ]

Runho RC, Gomes PC, Rostagno HS, Albino LFT, Lopes PS, Pozza PC. Exigência de fósforo disponível para frangos de corte machos e fêmeas de 1 a 21 dias de idade. Brazilian Journal of Animal Science 2001;30(1):187-196. [ Links ]

Santos MSV, Vieira SS, Tavares FB, Andrade PA, Manno MC, Costa HS, et al. Desempenho, carcaça e cortes de frangos caipira francês barré (Gris Barre Cou Plumé). Archivos de Zootecnia 2012;61(234):287-295. [ Links ]

Sousa JPL, Albino LFT, Vaz RGMV, Rodrigues KF, Da Silva GF, Renno LN, et al. The effect of dietary phytase on broiler performance and digestive, bone, and blood biochemistry characteristics. Brazilian Journal of Poultry Science 2015;17(1):69-76. [ Links ]

Stringhini JH, Laboissiére M, Muramatsu K, Leandro NSM, Café MB. Avaliação do desempenho e rendimento de carcaça de quatro linhagens de frangos de corte criadas em Goiás. Brazilian Journal of Animal Science 2003;32(1):183-190. [ Links ]

Vieira SL. Considerações sobre as características de qualidade de carne de frango e fatores que podem afetá-la. Anais da 36ª Reunião Anual da Sociedade Brasileira de Zootecnia; 1999; Porto Alegre(RS): SBZ; 1999. [ Links ]

Wawro K, Wilkiewicz-Wawro E, Kleczek K, Brzozowski W. Slaughter value and meat quality of muscovy ducks, pekin ducks and their crossbreds, and evaluation of the heterosis effect. Archiv Tierzucht 2004;47:287-299. [ Links ]

Yakubu A. Characterization of the local muscovy duck genetic resource of Nigeria and its potential for egg and meat production. World'sPoultry Science Journal 2013;69(4):931-938. [ Links ]

Received: December 01, 2018; Accepted: March 08, 2019

Corresponding author e-mail address Frank George Guimarães Cruz Department of Animal and Plant Production, College of Agrarian Sciences, Federal University of Amazonas, South Sector, Universitary Campus, Av. General Rodrigo Octávio Jordão Ramos, 6200, Coroado I, Manaus, AM, Brazil, CEP 69077-000. Phone: + 55 xx 92 3305-1181 R. 4082 Email: frankgcruz@gmail.com

*

Part of Master’s degree dissertation of the first author.

Creative Commons License This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License